Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 01/10/2017 - COMPLETE AGENDA
City 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 FCTV Channel 14 Ross Cunniff, District 5 and Channel 881 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 January 10, 2017 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER. 1. Short Term Rental Regulations. (staff; Ginny Sawyer; 15 minute staff presentation; 45 minute discussion) The purpose of this item is to share proposed options for a licensing and regulatory framework to address short term rentals (STR). The proposed frameworks address both Land Use Code changes and new language for Chapter 15 and Chapter 25 of the Municipal Code. The proposed regulations are the result of much study and public engagement over the last two years. 2. Electric Capacity Fees. (staff; Lance Smith, Scott Burnham NewGen Strategies; 15 minute consultant presentation; 30 minute discussion) The purpose of this work session is to provide the Council with an overview of the current Electric Capacity Fee (ECF) and review proposed changes to the current approach. The current method utilizes a planning model that is based on greenfield development. As the City experiences more redevelopment this method fails to appropriately assign capital costs to this new load. Staff proposes a change in the cost allocation methodology that uses actual system value to assign costs to new loads. This change would make the ECF methodology consistent with the water and wastewater utilities and more accurately reflect the cost of redevelopment in the community. Scott Burnham of NewGen Strategies and Solutions will give the presentation. OTHER BUSINESS. ADJOURNMENT. DATE: STAFF: January 10, 2017 Ginny Sawyer, Policy and Project Manager WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Short Term Rental Regulations. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to share proposed options for a licensing and regulatory framework to address short term rentals (STR). The proposed frameworks address both Land Use Code changes and new language for Chapter 15 and Chapter 25 of the Municipal Code. The proposed regulations are the result of much study and public engagement over the last two years. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does Council agree with the proposed licensing and Land Use Code provisions? 2. What, if any, changes would Council like to see? 3. Is this item ready for formal consideration at a Regular Council meeting? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The short term rental phenomenon, like other online/innovative activities, has become widely utilized prior to the creation or adoption of standard regulations. Many communities are now playing catch-up in an effort to protect neighborhoods, maintain the availability of residential housing, and ensure proper tax collection. STRs refer to lodging offered for less than 30 days. The lodging can be a whole house, a private room or space in a house, or shared accommodations. There are numerous online platforms catering to STRs, the most popular being Vacation Rental By Owner (VRBO) and Airbnb. Resort communities were some of the first to take notice and consider action to regulate STRs. In Colorado, the Colorado Association of Ski Towns published a report in June 2015 highlighting trends, challenges, and best practices. The report focused on 10 communities where STRs accounted for 1% to 52% of the housing stock. Using Fort Collins data of 62,832 housing units and an estimated 300 STRs puts the local percent of STRs at .44%. Reporting the number of STRs within the city limits is an estimate. While there are 128 sales and lodging licenses for STRs, the online platforms show many more. These discrepancies are difficult to resolve due to overlap between sites and lack of transparency and information available for the sites. In July 2016, VRBO provided the following historical list of Fort Collins listings: YEAR LISTING COUNT 2008 127 2009 125 2010 124 2011 119 1 Packet Pg. 2 January 10, 2017 Page 2 2012 115 2013 115 2014 119 2015 139 2016 129 In November 2015, Airbnb provided the following information: 200 active hosts with: 41% Whole house rentals (82) 55% Private room rentals (110) 3% Shared space rentals (6) On December 29, 2016, it provided these numbers and explanation: Fort Collins, Colorado 201 3 2014 2015 201 6 Active hosts 40 100 200 360 Active hosts booked 30 70 160 300 Active listings 40 110 260 470 Active listings booked 30 80 200 380 Year Over Year Growth 2014 2015 201 6 Active hosts 150 % 100 % 80% Active hosts booked 133 % 129 % 88% Active listings 175 % 136 % 81% Active listings booked 167 % 150 % 90% Hosts often have more than 1 active "listing" but it is the same "house." For example, a host could list a shared space (a room in their home) and also list an entire home (perhaps when out on vacation) but this shows up in the data as 1 host with 2 active listings. Listings do not necessarily need to be "active" at the same time. Since staff began attempting to track and report activity the following increases have been seen: June 2015: Estimated 171 listings and 54 STRs with sales and lodging tax licenses October 2015: Estimated 278 listings and 71 STRs with sales and lodging tax licenses February 2016: Estimated 275-300 listings and 94 STRs with sales and lodging tax licenses July 2016: Numbers not referenced Current: Estimate 250-300 listings and 128 STRs with sales and lodging tax licenses Staff has found no communities with similar attributes to Fort Collins with a history of STR regulations; therefore, it is hard to point to proven “best practices.” From the first Council work session on this topic in June 2015 through the last in July 2016 staff has engaged the public and other communities and studies to look for ways to best mitigate the stated impacts of STR activity and to discourage underground activity. 1 Packet Pg. 3 January 10, 2017 Page 3 Proposed Ordinance Highlights Land Use Code (LUC) Changes/additions to the LUC include definitions, zoning limitations, and parking minimums. Definitions Primary residence shall mean the dwelling unit in which a person resides for nine or more months of the calendar year. Under this definition, a person has only one primary residence at a time. Short term non-primary rental shall mean a dwelling unit that is not a primary residence and that is leased in its entirety to one party at a time for periods of less than 30 consecutive days. The term party as used in this definition shall mean one or more persons who as a single group rent a short term non-primary rental pursuant to a single reservation and payment. Short term primary rental shall mean a dwelling unit that is a primary residence of which a portion is leased to one party at a time for periods of less than 30 consecutive days. The term party as used in this definition shall mean one or more persons who as a single group rent a short term primary rental pursuant to a single reservation and payment. A carriage house that is not a primary residence is deemed to be a short term primary rental if it is located on a lot containing a primary residence. A dwelling unit of a two-family dwelling that is not a primary residence is deemed to be a short term primary rental if the connected dwelling unit is a primary residence and both dwelling units are located on the same lot. Early in the outreach process it became clear that residents felt a distinct difference between an owner-occupied STR (primary) and a non-owner occupied (non-primary) STR. These have been defined separately. The definitions also state that a primary STR owner must be a resident at least 9 months of the year and allow for a carriage house or duplex to be considered a primary STR. The LUC definition for Bed and Breakfast states that the accommodations are “…occupied by the operator of such establishment.” Zoning The definitions were utilized to determine proposed allowable zoning. Primary STRs are allowed in all zones. By the definition, a primary STR owner would be present a majority of the time to address negative impacts, be a contact for neighbors, and would be invested in attracting high quality guests. Non-primary STRs are limited to zones that currently allow other types of lodging (hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts.) These zones typically see more mixed-use activity. (Attachment 1 and 2) Parking Parking minimums have been set at one off-street parking spot per every two bedrooms rented. Number of Bedrooms Rented Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces 1-2 1 3-4 2 5-6 3 Staff is recommending no minimum required off-street parking for STRs in the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay Zone (Attachment 3) The Planning and Zoning Board did not support this parking exemption. Municipal Code/Licensing The additions to the Municipal Code provide the structure for STR licensing. 1 Packet Pg. 4 January 10, 2017 Page 4 Highlights include: - Every STR is required to have a STR license - All are required to have a sales tax license and a lodging tax license and remit appropriate taxes - License must be posted at property and included in all advertising - All STRs will be inspected to ensure minimum property maintenance standards are met (Attachment 4) - Licenses are $200 - Annual renewal is $100 - Fee waiver for units providing the following accessibility features: No entryway stairs or offer access to a portable ramp. Interior first/main floor with no stairs. Level access to living, eating, bathroom, and sleeping area. All doorways on main level must be at least 36 inches wide. No-step shower or shower bench provided. Grab bars are provided. Raised toilet seat. Bed cane/grab bar available for at least one bed in the unit. Minimal carpeting or rugs throughout unit. - Licenses run from January 1 to December 31 - No person or entity may have more than 3 non-primary STR licenses - Only a property owner may license an STR (no tenants) - Local contact information required The proposed licensing provisions also include grandfathering for those non-primary STRs that may no longer be in an allowed zone. STRs that were operating as STRs, had acquired sales and lodging tax licenses, and remitted all required taxes prior to the adoption of zoning limitations would be allowed to apply for a STR license.(Attachment 5) CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The proposed fee structure is based on consideration for an on-site inspection and 2-3 hours of staff time per application in the first year. In renewal years, staff time is expected to drop to 1-2 hours per renewal. For the last two years, sales tax staff has worked to educate and contact residents regarding the need for sales and lodging tax remittance. Staff has also been involved in collaborative efforts with Airbnb and other communities to have Airbnb remit on behalf of their hosts. Through this process and based on information from Airbnb, Fort Collins is currently collecting the majority of reported tax. Rather than relinquish control and the ability to audit, staff has opted to continue as is rather than enter into an agreement with Airbnb. STR sales and lodging tax remittance from 2014 to current: Sales Tax Lodging Tax Total 2014 $25,667 $19,909 $45,576 2015 $59,552 $45,773 $105,325 2016 $74,045 $56,388 $130,433 Total $159,265 $122,069 $281,334 BOARD OR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Board considered the LUC changes at its December 15, 2016 meeting. The Board voted to recommend adoption of the changes, with the exception of the TOD parking exemption from the minimum requirements. (Attachment 6) Staff met with the following boards for outreach purposes: Affordable Housing Board: October 2015, January 2016, November 2016 1 Packet Pg. 5 January 10, 2017 Page 5 Human relations Commission: May 2016 Commission on Disability: February 2016, October 2016 PUBLIC OUTREACH Staff met with individual stakeholder groups, the Visit Fort Collins Board, the Fort Collins Board of Realtors, and hosted three community open houses in 2016. (Attachment 7) Non-statistically valid online surveys were also conducted, including one targeted to neighbors of licensed STRs. The topic of STRs has been very polarized throughout the community. Since the first outreach STR hosts have wanted some level of regulation and neighbors have expressed a high level of concern about neighborhood quality. The focus of neighbor concerns includes the following: A desire to classify STR operation as a commercial use not a residential use General neighborhood impacts such as parking, noise, and lack of understanding of neighborhood norms A loss of “neighborhood fabric” by not having permanent neighbors who are part of the community The proposed regulations provide a balance between protecting neighborhood quality and allowing this unique opportunity within our community. However, recognizing the varying public opinions, the following are potential options/changes to the proposed ordinance listed by more to less restrictive: Prohibit all non-primary STRs Pursue more restrictive zoning by either: o Only allowing non-primary STRs in zones that currently allow hotels/motels (Attachment 2) o Only allowing primary STRs in zones that allow any type of lodging establishment (Attachment 1) Limited number of non-primary licenses to 1 per person/entity Require all licenses to be in a person’s name (not an entity) and require name to match name on the deed of the property Be more restrictive on the grandfathering provisions by only allowing those who had been in operation by a certain date Allow a property that is contiguous to and owned by the operator to be considered a primary STR (i.e., I own adjacent properties and live in one and operate the other as a STR.) If Council opts to move forward with a licensing program, staff has worked collaboratively to create a solution using existing sales tax licensing software that could be ready within 10 days of a second reading. Staff would also propose a limited window for application by those properties seeking to be grandfathered. Staff would also suggest contracting with a private compliance monitoring company for the first two years of STR licensing to assist with tracking STR trends and local compliance. Online research suggests this could cost $380/year for the lowest level of monitoring to $8-12K/year for more in-depth, detailed monitoring. 1 Packet Pg. 6 January 10, 2017 Page 6 ATTACHMENTS 1. Zones Proposed to Allow Non-Primary STRs (PDF) 2. Proposed Non-Primary STR Zone District Matrix (PDF) 3. Transit Oriented Development Overlay Districts (TOD) (PDF) 4. Short Term Rentals Minimum Standards (PDF) 5. Primary and Non-Primary in the Downtown Area (PDF) 6. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes, December 15, 2016 (draft) (PDF) 7. STR Public Engagement Summary (PDF) 8. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 7 L a r i m e r a n d W e l d C a n a l L a ri m e r a n d W e ld C a n a l I E HC LMN I LMN I UE CG T I E E I LMN E E E LMN CSU CS E UE I Proposed Non-Primary STR Zone District Matrix Zone District Lodging Establishments Bed and Breakfast Bed and Breakfast (Less than 6 beds) Non-Primary STR Rural Lands (RUL) Urban Estate (UE) X X Residential Foothills (RF) Low Density Residential (RL) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) X X Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) X X High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (HMN) X X Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density (NCL) Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density (NCM) X X Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer (NCB) X X Public Open Lands (POL) River Conservation (RC) Downtown - Old City Center (DOC) X X X Downtown - Canyon Avenue (DCA) X X X Downtown - Civic Center (DCC) X X X River Downtown Redevelopment (RDR) X X Community Commercial (CC) X X X Community Commercial - North College (CCN) X X X Community Commercial - River (CCR) X X X General Commercial (CG) X X X General Commercial - I-25/SH 392 Corridor Activity Center (CAC CG) X X Service Commercial (CS) X X X Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Limited Commercial (CL) X X X Harmony Corridor (HC) X X X Employment (E) X X X Industrial (I) X X ATTACHMENT 2 1.2 Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: Proposed Non-Primary STR Zone District Matrix (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations) L a r i m e r a n d W e l d C a n a l L a ri m e r a n d W e ld C a n a l Horsetooth Reservoir Cobb Lake Terry Lake Fossil Creek Reservoir ³I ³I ÕZYXW ÉZYXW !"`$ SHIELDS COLLEGE VINE DRAKE TRILBY MULBERRY TAFT HILL TIMBERLINE OVERLAND LEMAY DOUGLAS LAPORTE PROSPECT HARMONY ZIEGLER Short Term Rentals (STR) Minimum Standards The following items are required to be in place and operational at the time of the STR license inspection: Exterior 1. Stairways must not have loose or broken steps and have handrails solidly attached. 2. Decks and porches 30 inches above the ground must have guardrails that are solidly attached. 3. Window wells within 3 feet of driveways or sidewalks must be protected with guard rails or grate covers. 4. Insect screens are required on windows and doors used for ventilation from May to November. 5. Entry doors are required to have locks for security; locks shall operate from inside without a key or special knowledge. 6. Windows located within 6 feet of ground are required to have locks for security. Interior 1. All stairs must have solidly attached handrails and/or guardrails. 2. All walking surfaces must be in generally good repair and free of trip hazards. 3. Every bathroom and toilet room must have an openable window to the exterior or have an exhaust fan, ducted to the exterior. 4. Every clothes dryer must be exhausted to the exterior through metallic ducts. 5. Passage way opening or doorways shall provide an opening at least 24 inches wide by 6 feet tall. 6. Ceilings shall have a clear height of at least 6 feet. Sanitation 1. All plumbing fixtures must be maintained in a safe, sanitary and functional condition, free from obstructions, leaks and defects. 2. All kitchen sinks, lavatories, laundry facilities, bathtubs and showers must have hot and cold running water. 3. The water supply system must have sufficient volume and pressure for proper function of plumbing fixtures. 4. Water shall be heated to a temperature of not less than 110 degrees with a storage capacity of 30 gallons minimum shall be provided. Mechanical 1. Habitable spaces must have heat during the period from September 15 to May 15 and maintain a temperature of not less than 68 degrees F. 2. All mechanical appliances must be properly installed and maintained in a safe working condition. 3. All fuel-burning equipment and appliances except for gas-cooking appliances must be connected to an approved chimney or vent. 4. All mechanical equipment must have an approved automatic safety fuel shutoff and an accessible manual fuel shutoff valve. 5. Every STR unit containing fuel-burning (natural gas) appliances(s) or constructed with an attached garage must have an approved carbon monoxide alarm maintained in sound operational condition. Electrical 1. All electrical equipment, wiring and appliances must be properly installed and maintained in a safe and approved manner. 2. Every habitable space in a dwelling must contain at least (2) separate and remote receptacle outlets. 3. Every laundry area must contain at least (1) grounded receptacle or a receptacle protected with a ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI). 4. Every bathroom must contain at least (1) receptacle protected with a GFCI 5. Receptacle outlets installed in kitchens, garages, unfinished basements and exterior locations must be protected by a GFCI 6. Use of extensions cords are not allowed. Fire Safety 1. All sleeping rooms must be provided with emergency escape and rescue window having a maximum sill height of (48) inches above the floor and a minimum openable area of (720) square inches. 2. Smoke alarms (electric or battery operated) must be installed in each of the following areas: a. On the ceiling or wall outside of each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of bedrooms. b. In each room used for sleeping purposes. c. In each story within a dwelling unit, including basements. ATTACHMENT 4 1.4 Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: Short Term Rentals Minimum Standards (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations) ATTACHMENT 5 1.5 Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: Primary and Non-Primary in the Downtown Area (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations) Planning & Zoning Board December 15, 2016 Page 7 included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Hobbs seconded. Vote: 5:0. Board took a short recess at 8:00pm and returned at 8:10pm. Project: Short-Term Rental Land Use Code Requirements Project Description: Proposed short-term rental (STR) regulations and associated Land Use Code changes. Recommendation: Approval Chair Kirkpatrick recused herself due to a conflict of interest; Member Carpenter will chair in her absence. Secretary Cosmas reported that several items had been received on this item since the work session: • 1 citizen email requesting non-primary STRs be classified as commercial rather than residential; • 1 citizen email in opposition of the proposed ordinance; • 1 copy of the ordinance with proposed changes (from City Attorney); • 1 copy of the ordinance with the changes incorporated (from City Attorney); and • 1 additional citizen email in opposition to STRs. Staff and Applicant Presentations Ginny Sawyer, Program and Project Manager with the City of Fort Collins, gave a detailed presentation of this recommendation. She explained some of the history, including the changes to the Land Use Code: • Definitions of primary residence (lives in a dwelling unit for 9 months or more); • Definitions of short-term rental units (one party at a time for less than 30 days); • “Party” is a reservation paid for a single group; • Owner-Occupied could include a carriage house onsite or a 2-family dwelling, and will also be considered primary; • Parking requirements (1 off-street parking for 2-bedroom except for TOD); and • Zoning limitations – owner-occupied can be allowed anywhere; non owner-occupied will be limited to zones allowing lodging establishments. Ms. Sawyer discussed the public outreach and where STRs would be allowed, noting there is a concentration of STRs in the downtown area due to amenities. She added that this ordinance will also propose a “grandfather” clause for any existing STRs. She is also proposing that each STR be inspected to ensure compliance with minimum housing standards. Some may have to go through the existing APU process to reach compliance. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe clarified that no licensing procedures are being considered at this time, so citizens should focus their comments on LUC topics. ATTACHMENT 6 1.6 Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board Minutes, December 15, 2016 (draft) (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations) Planning & Zoning Board December 15, 2016 Page 8 Public Input Lisa Derbyshire, 709 Garfield, has several concerns with STRs, including definitions on parking, response time to complaints, and if they should be treated as residential or commercial properties. She does not feel that City outreach has been adequate, recognizing that STRs will be difficult to enforce. Maggie Dennis, 315 Whedbee Street, stated that she doesn’t feel that STRs are comparable to “bed and breakfast” establishments. She feels that her neighborhood is less protected than other areas that only allow primary rentals. She asked what some of the STR limits are (in terms in owner rentals, parking requirements, etc.) Terry Usrey, 1940 Larkspur Drive, is familiar with issues concerning Air BnBs, but he now has a concern with the distinction between primary and non-primary enterprises. He also has concerns about occupancy loopholes, so he is requesting that STRs be prohibited, including any potential “grandfathered” STRs. Michelle Haefele, 623 Monte Vista Avenue, is opposed to the proposed ordinance, saying this is fundamentally a zoning issue, and these are lodging businesses that do not belong in residential neighborhoods. She suggested that the definitions in the LUC be revised and simplified. Any STRs should only be allowed in those zones that are already approved for primary STRs. Sue Ballou, 1400 West Lake Street, lives in the Avery Park neighborhood, which was originally all owner- occupied but is now 70% rentals. She would like to see the STR regulations also applied to long-term rentals. She is in favor of the proposal. Lisa Eaton, 320 E. Mulberry Street, is a STR landlord and recognizes this is an on-going issue across the nation. She feels this is more of a residential use, and she is supportive of her own STR. Reed Mitchell, 809 E. Elizabeth Street, suggested that the proposed ordinance isn’t ready for approval yet. He has a concern that neighborhoods are changing over time, and resident expectations are being compromised. He doesn’t feel that STRs belong in neighborhoods. Margit Hentschel, 216 Wood Street, has had a lot of interaction with the City of Fort Collins, and she believes this project is very negative for the community. She has lived close to a STR in the past and had a bad experience overall, adding that there will be an exponential number of people impacted. Diana Clements, 737 Hinsdale Drive, owns an STR and is in support of this proposal because she feels our city should offer a safe place for non-residents to come together. She believes having STRs is a nice compromise for non-residents who want to experience Fort Collins on a personal level. Margaret Mitchell, 809 E. Elizabeth, is not in favor of STRs because the parking requirements do not compare favorably to those governing long-term rentals. She believes this proposal isn’t ready for Council presentation. Whitney Cranshaw, 1400 West Lake Street, lives in the Avery Park neighborhood, and he questions the distinction between long-term and short-term rentals, saying there isn’t enough regard for the needs of the neighborhoods. He also stated that fees shouldn’t be restricted to low-density areas only. Tamela Wahl, 311 Whedbee Street, is not opposed to STRs but is opposed to this two-pronged approach, because she feels it applies different standards to neighborhoods, making it discriminatory. She also thinks there are some issues with the classifications on the map that was provided, saying that ATTACHMENT 6 1.6 Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board Minutes, December 15, 2016 (draft) (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations) Planning & Zoning Board December 15, 2016 Page 9 the neighborhoods surrounding the Old Town areas should also be regulated, and she questioned the STR rates that were presented because her own neighborhood rate seems much higher. Renee Choury, 318 Whedbee Street, believes her neighborhood is suffering due to the number of existing rentals and businesses. She is in favor of limiting the overall number of STR businesses. Applicant and Staff Response Ms. Sawyer responded to some of the citizen concerns by saying that adjustments are being made all the time to the proposal, and City Council will hear this proposal on January 3rd, 2017. Planner Frickey also responded that the map representation is accurate. Ms. Sawyer added that one individual cannot own more than three STRs. Additionally, parking standards are based on the type of housing, so parking requirements will vary, which can be more problematic in the Old Town area. Board Questions Member Schneider asked what the “grandfather” date will be; Ms. Sawyer responded that this licensing date is still being determined. He also asked about the distinction between short-term and long-term rentals; Ms. Sawyer responded that this distinction will require another process and will require public input. Member Hobbs asked whether there is any distinction in the code as to the housing type that can be considered for an STR; Planner Frickey responded that most multi-family homes or apartment complexes do not allow sub-letting, but owners could rent out their apartment under a short-term basis under the current regulations. She added that a 3-license limit per owner/entity is being proposed. Member Schneider asked if the existing owners had been subjected to the inspection process yet; Ms. Sawyer responded that this will occur soon, but the only requirement now is to have sales tax and lodging licenses. Ms. Sawyer acknowledged that this proposal will need more time for continuous improvement. Member Schneider also inquired about the no parking restrictions in the TOD areas only; Ms. Sawyer responded that this could be changed. Board Deliberation Member Schneider doesn’t have any issues with the proposal and agrees that there is a need for regulation. He feels this proposal is a good compromise, but he would like to change the parking requirement for the TOD. He will support sending this proposal to Council. Member Hobbs agrees that this is a policy decision and the P&Z is simply making a recommendation to City Council at this time. He also stated that there is a stark distinction between primary and non-primary owner types and uses, which may result in the distinction between residential and commercial use. He feels we have a responsibility to people who bought homes in Fort Collins not expecting to see commercial uses in their neighborhoods. He also feels that the availability of investments is limited but doesn’t want to encourage investment in short-term rentals due to lack of affordable housing. He will support this proposal for primary owners but not for non-primary owners. Member Hansen feels that this is new territory and is still unsure how it the LUC will be impacted; he supports the proposal and would like to continue to address the parking standard by removing this exemption from the TOD. Member Carpenter thanked the citizens and staff for their work during this process; she feels this proposal is a good start to addressing this topic, but she also questions the parking for STRs in the TOD area. Member Schneider made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend the adoption to the LUC changes for Short-Term Rentals to include parking restrictions in the TOD zone district, based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Hansen seconded. Vote: 3:1, with Member Hobbs dissenting. ATTACHMENT 6 1.6 Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board Minutes, December 15, 2016 (draft) (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations) PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT TITLE: SHORT TERM RENTAL ACTIVITY (STR) WITHIN FORT COLLINS OVERALL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT LEVEL: INVOLVE BOTTOM LINE QUESTION: Should Short Term Rentals (STRs) be regulated by the City of Fort Collins? If so, by what means? KEY STAKEHOLDERS: - STR hosts and operators - Neighbors of STRs - Existing Bed and Breakfast and Hotel Operators - Visit Fort Collins Board CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: - Affordable Housing Board: o October 2015 o January 2016 o November 2016 - Planning and Zoning Board - Commission on Disability o October 2016 o February 2016 - Human Relations Commission o May 2016 OTHER BOARDS AND COMMITTEES: - Visit Fort Collins Board: o September 2015 o March 2016 - Fort Collins Board of Realtors Legislative Committee: o October2015 o February 2016 o November 2016 COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSES - February 2016 - June 2016 - November 2016 TIMELINE: May 2015 – December 2016 PHASE 1: (Scope and Interest) Timeframe: May-September 2015 Council Work Session: June 9, 2015 Key Messages: - The City is exploring perspectives on the operation of VRBOs and Airbnbs within our community to determine if any action is needed. - Share your experience/concerns regarding short term rentals. Tools and Techniques: ATTACHMENT 7 1.7 Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: STR Public Engagement Summary (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations) - Focus groups with operators and those who have had personal experience as neighbors. - Online Questionnaire: promoted through stakeholders, fcgov.com, and social media - Meet with Boards and Committees PHASE 2: (Regulation Development) Timeframe: October 2015 – December 2016 Council Work Sessions: October 27, 2015; February 23, 2016; July 26, 2016 Key Messages: - The City is exploring potential regulation for STR activity in Fort Collins. - What should be considered in developing regulations? Tools and Techniques: - Focus groups with operators and those who have had personal experience as neighbors. - Adjacent property survey - Three community open houses ATTACHMENT 7 1.7 Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: STR Public Engagement Summary (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations) 1 City Council Work Session January 10, 2017 Short Term Rentals (STRs) ATTACHMENT 8 1.8 Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations) Direction Sought 1. Does Council agree with the proposed licensing and Land Use Code provisions? 2. What, if any, changes would Council like to see? 3. Is this item ready for a regular Council meeting? 2 ATTACHMENT 8 1.8 Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations) Short Term Rentals • Short Term Rental (STR) refers to rental agreements for less than 30 days. • Vacation Rentals by Owner (VRBO) and Airbnb are two of the most widely known. • Working to understand potential positive and negative impacts of a growing STR market and to develop potential regulations. 3 ATTACHMENT 8 1.8 Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations) Background Best Approximation: § ~ 300 listings among multiple sites § ~ 128 existing STR sales and lodging tax licenses § ~ .44% of housing stock § Exact address and owner contact information is not available on Airbnb and limited on other sites § Listings are inconsistent, hard to search, with overlap between sites 4 ATTACHMENT 8 1.8 Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations) Background June 9, 2015 - Council Work Session; direction: • Utilize tools City already has in place • Better define problem and problem severity • STR definition and more outreach October 27, 2015 - Council Work Session; direction: • Create draft regulatory framework • Continue public outreach 5 ATTACHMENT 8 1.8 Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations) Background February 23, 2016 - Council Work Session; direction: • Continue with the definitions including Primary and Non-Primary residence. • Move forward with options that: - Ensure appropriate tax collection - Address concentration and dispersion of STRs - Aren’t overly regulatory but still position Fort Collins to be nimble and address issues as needed now and in the future 6 ATTACHMENT 8 1.8 Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations) Background July 26, 2016 - Council Work Session; direction: • Pursue a licensing program that utilizes defined uses by zone district. • Consider and present what implementation will look like. • Include information on gaining compliance and anticipated enforcement and consequences. 7 ATTACHMENT 8 1.8 Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations) Proposed Regulations Proposed Regulations: • Land Use Code changes • Licensing added to Municipal Code 8 ATTACHMENT 8 1.8 Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations) Definitions Primary residence shall mean the dwelling unit in which a person resides for nine or more months of the calendar year. Under this definition, a person has only one primary residence at a time. 9 ATTACHMENT 8 1.8 Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations) Definitions (Owner Occupied) Short term primary rental shall mean a dwelling unit that is a primary residence of which a portion is leased to one party at a time for periods of less than 30 consecutive days. A carriage house that is not a primary residence is deemed to be a short term primary rental if it is located on a lot containing a primary residence. A dwelling unit of a two-family dwelling that is not a primary residence is deemed to be a short term primary rental if the connected dwelling unit is a primary residence and both dwelling units are located on the same lot. 10 ATTACHMENT 8 1.8 Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations) Definitions (Non-Owner Occupied) Short term non-primary rental shall mean a dwelling unit that is not a primary residence and that is leased in its entirety to one party at a time for periods of less than 30 consecutive days. The term party as used in this definition shall mean one or more persons who as a single group rent a short term non-primary rental pursuant to a single reservation and payment. 11 ATTACHMENT 8 1.8 Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations) Proposed Parking Requirements Minimum off-street parking: No minimum parking within the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay Zone 12 Number of Bedrooms Rented Number of Off-Street Parking 1-2 1 3-4 2 5-6 3 ATTACHMENT 8 1.8 Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations) Proposed Zoning Limitations • Primary short-term rentals allowed in all zones • Non primary short-term rentals limited to zones which allow Bed and Breakfast and other Lodging Establishments 13 ATTACHMENT 8 1.8 Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations) 14 ATTACHMENT 8 1.8 Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations) Proposed Regulatory Concepts STR License: • Licenses- $200 non-refundable and non-transferrable. • Annual renewal $100. • License is for the person not the property. • License is non-transferrable and revocable. • License posted at property and number required to be included on all advertising. 15 ATTACHMENT 8 1.8 Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations) Proposed Regulatory Concepts All STRs would require: § Sales and lodging tax licenses and remittance of all applicable taxes. § A one-time inspection. • Exterior, Interior, Sanitation, Mechanical, Electrical, Fire Safety • Can be waived if proof of recent inspection § A description of the area to be rented (ex. Back bedroom and bath; downstairs portion of house, etc.) 16 ATTACHMENT 8 1.8 Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations) Other Considerations: • Waiving of fee for more handicap accessible STRs • No more than 3 Non-Primary licenses per person/entity • License must include name of local contact • Existing Non-Primary STR • If a Non-Primary STR is in a non-allowable zone and was operating with tax licenses and remitting all required taxes prior to licensing being required, they may apply for a Non- Primary STR license by April 1, 2017. 17 Proposed Regulatory Concepts ATTACHMENT 8 1.8 Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations) 18 ATTACHMENT 8 1.8 Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations) 19 ATTACHMENT 8 1.8 Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations) Direction Sought 1. Does Council agree with the proposed licensing and Land Use Code provisions? 2. What, if any, changes would Council like to see? 3. Is this item ready for a regular Council meeting? 20 ATTACHMENT 8 1.8 Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations) DATE: STAFF: January 10, 2017 Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Electric Capacity Fees. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this work session is to provide the Council with an overview of the current Electric Capacity Fee (ECF) and review proposed changes to the current approach. The current method utilizes a planning model that is based on greenfield development. As the City experiences more redevelopment this method fails to appropriately assign capital costs to this new load. Staff proposes a change in the cost allocation methodology that uses actual system value to assign costs to new loads. This change would make the ECF methodology consistent with the water and wastewater utilities and more accurately reflect the cost of redevelopment in the community. Scott Burnham of NewGen Strategies and Solutions will give the presentation. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does Council support bringing the change in the cost allocation methodology for the Electric Capacity Fees (ECF) forward for consideration? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The ECF is a one-time charge that is designed to recover the initial cost of adding new development to the electric system. The operations and maintenance costs are recovered through monthly charges and not through the ECF. In addition to the ECF there is a Building Site Charge (BSC) which recovers costs associated with building on site electric facilities. The BSC is based on actual time and materials at the specific development. Together these two charges represent the total electric plant investment fee (PIF) for new development. The ECF only recovers costs for the distribution system and not any costs associated with adding new demand to the generation or transmission systems. Platte River Power Authority does not charge any plant investment fee for its system and instead, collects the associated costs through monthly energy and demand charges. The decision tree below outlines the policy path that brought about the current state of the Electric Capacity Fees (ECF). The decision process starts in the upper left corner and ends at the upper right corner. Staff has been working under the assumption that the current state of allocating 100% ECF charges by demand is still preferred by Council as outlined in Section 26-473 of the Municipal Code and as such, staff has been focused on improving this allocation process. 2 Packet Pg. 38 January 10, 2017 Page 2 In 2016 Fort Collins Utilities hired NewGen Strategies to survey how ECFs are collected by other electric utilities and to provide assistance building a revised ECF model to allocate capital costs to new load on the system. This effort was led by Scott Burnham. Mr. Burnham’s expertise includes financial feasibility, cost of service and rate design analysis, asset valuation, and restructuring for electric utilities. He leads and manages rate studies, acquisition, privatization, and competitive assessment engagements for NewGen’s clients. Current Model The current ECF is calculated by utilizing a system planning model that was originally developed in the early 1980s and has been updated several times to reflect inflation and changes in system design standards and policy. This underlying model assumes a certain system design and allocates the costs of this system design based on the square footage, the linear footage that abuts the public right- of-way, and demand (kilowatt or kW) of the new development. These components of the current ECF calculations for residential and commercial/industrial customers are explained as follows: Residential 1. Square footage charge. This applies to the total area of a development, excluding dedicated streets and City-owned park land. This charge pays for base (minimum) main feeder lines and local distribution circuits to general load areas. This includes related electrical equipment such as fuses and switches. The model for this is based on a main feeder circuit encompassing a 4 square-mile area. 2. Front Footage Charge. This fee applies to all footage of property adjacent to dedicated City streets within a development, regardless of which side the primary line etc., is on, including that which is adjacent to open space and detention ponds. This pays for installation of primary lines, vaults, installation of distribution transformers (not the transformer itself), and switchgear on adjacent dedicated streets. Also included in this fee is a charge to pay for installation of streetlights along City streets. 3. Dwelling unit charge. This fee is based on the anticipated electric load (kW) of each dwelling unit. This pays for the proportional share of augmented main feeder lines required over the base main feeder system, and a proportional share of the substation and distribution transformers. Commercial/Industrial 1. Square Footage charge. Same as residential above. 2. Front Footage charge. This fee applies to all footage of property adjacent to dedicated City streets within a development, regardless of which side the primary line etc., is on, including that which is adjacent to open space and detention ponds. This pays for the installation of primary lines and vaults on adjacent dedicated streets. Also included in this fee is a charge to pay for installation of streetlights along City streets. The commercial/industrial front footage charges are higher than residential due to more 3 phase lines, switchgear etc., and a higher lighting level is required for commercial. 2 Packet Pg. 39 January 10, 2017 Page 3 3. Capacity. This charge is based on total amps of service capacity (NOT fuse size), and pays for: a. Augmented main feeder lines required over the base main feeder system (see Square Footage above). b. The distribution transformer(s) and the development’s proportionate share of the substation transformer. The current method has several challenges. The costs for these components (square footage, front footage, and dwelling units/capacity) are calculated through the use of visual basic code (VBA) to access databases that contain assembly information and cost data. As a result, it is cumbersome to update these calculations if changes need to be made to the underlying planning model. For example, it is difficult to modify the calculations so that the model includes mixed use developments or higher density developments. Additionally, the planning model has difficulty assigning costs for capital work required for redevelopment, such as adding a circuit for additional load. As the City has evolved since the 1980s and development has been more often redevelopment, it is appropriate that the ECF model evolves as well. The proposed model addresses these challenges and simplifies the charge calculation. Proposed Model As a result of the trend toward higher density developments and redevelopments, and the dynamic nature of the electric system in general, staff recommends changing the methodology of the ECF model to address the concerns raised above. The proposed methodology is based on the “buy-in” method for plant investment fees outlined by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and is conceptually similar with the Plan Investment Fees (PIF) models for the water and wastewater utilities. This method takes the value of the utilized electric system, i.e., the amount of the system that is needed to serve the current load and no more, and divides this dollar value by the current kilowatt (kW) demand. This calculation results in the $/kW rate that was used to build the current system to meet the current demand. New load on the system would buy into the electric system at this $/kW rate. Where excess capacity exists within the current system, new development is buying into that excess capacity and the ratepayers recover some of their system investment. This simplifies the calculation and administration of the ECFs. In addition to these simplifications, the proposed methodology also uses actual data to allocate costs instead of a planning model. Demands, non-coincident peaks (NCP), for the residential and commercial/industrial customer classes are calculated from Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) data and are used to allocate the system costs proportionally to each class based on the class NCP. This allocation method provides a different $/kW buy in rate for each of these classes and is consistent with standard cost allocation practices in utility rate making. Due to the large variation in demands from the commercial class a sliding scale was implemented for the $/kW rate for commercial customers, as the load from a commercial customer increases the buy-in rate increases as well to allocate the additional system costs required to serve large loads. Lastly, this proposed method is flexible and adapts to changes in development by using actual system values and actual demands as opposed to the current method. Comparison of the Model Results As with any change in methodology, it is necessary to compare the charges under the new model with those under the previous model. This is challenging because the cost of adding a new development to the system depends on the nature of the development. The table below compares the existing ECF to the proposed ECF for several different sizes of development. Most of the comparisons show a decrease in the ECF but it is project specific so a higher charge is possible. The Building Site Charge (BSC) will also be updated for inflation and this adjustment may offset some of the savings seen in the table below. 2 Packet Pg. 40 January 10, 2017 Page 4 Customer Type Example Load kW Existing ECF ($) Proposed ECF ($) Difference ($) Percent Change Residential 34 single family 150 Amp units 9 $86,310 $52,273 -$34,037 -39% Multi-Family 195 Units 200 units 7.9 $544,988 $269,907 -$275,081 -50% Multi-Family 320 Units 325 units 7.9 $432,151 $438,599 $6,448 1% Large Commercial Building 600 Amp, 480Volt, 3 phase, 40,000 sq. ft., 175 linear ft. 185 $43,830 $79,421 $35,591 81% Commercial - Three Phase Office 200 Amp, 208Volt, 3 phase, 40,000 sq. ft., 175 linear ft. 27 $13,824 $10,388 -$3.436 -25% Commercial - Single Phase Office 200 Amp, 240 Volt, 1 phase, 40,000 sq. ft., 175 linear ft. 18 $12,133 $6,769 -$5,364 -44% Conclusion Staff recommends changing the ECFs as proposed and seeks guidance on bringing the proposed changes forward. ATTACHMENTS 1. NewGen Strategies Memo Re: Revised PIF Model and Review (PDF) 2. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 41 Memorandum Economics | Strategy | Stakeholders | Sustainability www.newgenstrategies.net 225 Union Boulevard Suite 305 Lakewood, CO 80228 Phone: (720) 633-9514 To: Justin Fields and Randy Reuscher From: Scott Burnham Date: December 29, 2016 Re: Revised PIF Model and Review The City of Fort Collins (the City), and Fort Collins Utilities (referred to herein as the Utility or Utilities) retained NewGen Strategies and Solutions, LLC (NewGen) to assist with the review, development, and implementation of a revised electric Plant Investment Fee (PIF) model. The existing PIF model collects funds from developers for the costs associated with the necessary improvements to serve new electric load. The existing model and process to determine the PIF is cumbersome to update and is based on a historic approach that does not necessarily reflect changes that have occurred within the City in recent years. NewGen and Utilities have developed an updated PIF model that addresses these issues. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a detailed description of the issues facing Utilities with respect to recovering its system investments and the methodology proposed for the revised PIF model. Background Like most utilities in the country, the Utility currently charges fees to developers to extend or expand existing electric service to new customers and/or new load. The Utility charges developers for the materials and the associated installation labor costs required to provide electricity to the new load. Some of the materials required are considered “on-site” (this is equipment unique to the customer, such as service drops to the customer’s premise). “Off-site” equipment is that which is located further from the customer premise and includes items such as switch gear, conductor, and other distribution system equipment. The Utility currently bills the customer directly for the costs of the on-site equipment and labor. The off-site equipment and labor form the basis for the existing PIF charge. Fees similar to the PIF are common in the water and wastewater utility industry. Given the large fixed costs associated with the installation of conveyance structures and associated pumping stations, these costs have been quantified and charged to new development by most water and wastewater utilities in the country. In fact, the Utility has existing water and wastewater PIF charges that are based on the value of the investments it has made to provide these services. Such fees have historically been less common for electric utilities, as costs of expanding and maintaining the electric system have typically been recovered through the sale of electricity to the end users (via an energy or $/kilowatt hour (kWh) charge.) This approach results in all customers paying for the costs of new development. However, many electric utilities do have some type of investment fee recovery mechanism, which may be referred to as a line extension policy, electric service connection fees, customer / electrical connection charge, electrical connection fee, account initiation charge, system development charge, or impact fee. By charging the developer an upfront fee, the utility is able to ensure that new development is paying all, or at least a portion, of the costs of being added to the system. ATTACHMENT 1 2.1 Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: NewGen Strategies Memo Re: Revised PIF Model and Review (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) Memorandum Justin Fields and Randy Reuscher December 29, 2016 Page 2 NewGen PIF Model Memo_12292016 Existing Model / Load Growth The existing Utility electric PIF model was designed for a period of infrastructure growth primarily driven by “greenfield” or newly developed areas. As the City has grown, the potential locations for greenfield development have decreased and more development is occurring in areas of existing infrastructure (such as buildings, roads, City-services, etc.). These “brownfield” or “redevelopment” areas may or may not require updated or additional electric infrastructure on behalf of the Utility to serve the new load. When a redevelopment requires no additional infrastructure to be served, there is no PIF charge. This change in development patterns within the City has resulted in increased density, including multi-story commercial / residential developments, as well as other high-load applications. The result is that the existing electric system as a whole requires a variety of investment in capital improvements to maintain reliability and serve the increased load. However, the existing PIF methodology does not adequately recover the Utility’s costs or reflect the value associated with these system-wide capital improvements. Because of the method in which the existing PIF is calculated, the result is that the PIF charge is not consistent with the City’s stated policy objective of having “growth pay for growth”. Proposed Model NewGen and the Utility have jointly developed a proposed PIF model designed to recover system costs associated with the existing system. The proposed model is consistent with the Utility’s approach for its water and wastewater impact fees, and is based, in part, on guidance provided by the American Water Works Association (AWWA). The proposed PIF model utilizes a system value approach that recognizes the use of the system by existing customers as the basis for the PIF for new load. This approach suggests that the costs associated with load growth for future customers is similar to the average, or embedded, costs of the system. New customers are “buying-in” to the existing system via the PIF charge. The model determines a PIF based on a $/kilowatt ($/kW) charge for residential and combined “general service” applications (the Utility’s three general service customer classes will have the same $/kW PIF charges). The system value was determined by the Utility utilizing a replacement cost approach. This system value was reduced by the outstanding debt, which is included in the retail rates and is intended to recover a certain portion of the fixed costs of the system. As the Utility invests in the system via its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), as well as other non-capital (equipment that is expensed) programs, the system value will be updated on an annual basis. The load (kW) is the existing peak load (or demand) of the respective class (residential or combined general service). Additional detail on the methodology utilized to develop the proposed PIF is provided in the attached Appendix A-1. The system value and class loads are then used to arrive at a $/kW charge for each customer class. ATTACHMENT 1 2.1 Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: NewGen Strategies Memo Re: Revised PIF Model and Review (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) Memorandum Justin Fields and Randy Reuscher December 29, 2016 Page 3 NewGen PIF Model Memo_12292016 Study Results The results of the proposed model PIF charges compared to the existing PIF charges by example loads for each customer class is provided is provided in Table 1 below: Table 1 Example PIF Charges Customer Class Group Example Load Existing PIF Proposed PIF Difference Residential 150 amp, 6,000 sq. ft., 60 linear ft., 9 kW $2,342 $1,537 ($805) General Service 600 amp, 480 v, 3 phase, 40,000 sq. ft., 175 linear ft., 166 kW $43,800 $79,421 $35,591 *Note: Rounded The differences in the existing and proposed PIF charges reflect the differences between the investment costs to be collected. The proposed approach is based on allocating the utilized capacity within the existing system on a $/kW basis by class to future load. The existing PIF model is based on an outdated concept relative to costs for infrastructure required to serve four square miles based on a planning model (which is why the example load in Table 1 includes the square feet and linear feet of the new development). The existing PIF methodology does not recognize the changes in development, such as increased density, mixed use projects, and changes in customer demands, or the changes in capital required to serve these projects. The proposed PIF methodology recognizes these changes and is based on a methodology whereby “growth pays for growth.” This approach is consistent with industry best practices in the water / wastewater utilities and is becoming increasingly adopted in the electric utility industry (see Appendix A-2 for a review of other electric utility approaches to similar fees, and Appendix A-3 for details on the Utility’s existing PIF structure). Summary The existing PIF model and charges have served the City and Utilities well during a period of expanding its services and greenfield growth. However, in recent years the growth in the City has turned inward, resulting in redevelopment and higher load density projects and applications. The result is that the Utility’s PIF model needs to be updated to reflect these realities and to recover infrastructure costs associated with the entire system, not just the costs defined by the City over 20 years ago. This proposed change in the PIF model methodology will serve the City by collecting the portion of historic costs invested to build the excess capacity of the existing system. Further, the proposed changes will allow the City to better align its PIF methodology with its policy objectives of having growth pay for growth. Appendix A-1 The City imposes an impact fee on developer’s requesting water and wastewater utility services. The structure for these fees has been in place since approximately 2006. These impact fees are designed to recover costs associated with the capacity of their entire utility system, as well as selected improvements ATTACHMENT 1 2.1 Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: NewGen Strategies Memo Re: Revised PIF Model and Review (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) Memorandum Justin Fields and Randy Reuscher December 29, 2016 Page 4 NewGen PIF Model Memo_12292016 associated with their capital improvement plans. This approach follows the guidance provided by AWWA, as described in detail below. Utilities indicated that the existing water/wastewater impact fee structure is preferred to the existing electric impact fee structure as it is easier to update, does not require detailed modeling results from other Utilities departments, and is defensible. AWWA Approach As indicated above, the Utility’s water/wastewater fees follow the guidance provided in the AWWA M1 manual. The M1 manual is recognized as the industry best practices and provides details on the modeling methodologies. The M1 manual describes several mechanisms for the development of System Development Charges (SDC) for one-time charges paid by a new water system customer for system capacity. The following is a summary of the AWWA approaches, as well as how they may apply to the Utility’s electric PIF development. The calculation of the SDC is, in very basic terms, the total value of each utility function divided by the appropriate units (in the AWWA manual, the units are typically gallons) to develop a per unit charge. The AWWA methods include the Buy-In Method, the Incremental Cost Method, and the Combined Cost Approach. The Buy-In Method is typically used where there is sufficient capacity in the existing system to meet both near-term and long-term needs. Utilizing this approach allows a developer to “buy” a proportional share of capacity at the value of the existing facilities. This approach is based on the principle of achieving capital equity between existing and new customers. The value of the existing system can either be at a depreciated original cost or a replacement cost. Using replacement costs reflects the cost of providing new expansion capacity to customers as if the capacity was added at the time the new customer connected to the system. Proposed PIF Approach for Fort Collins Working with Utility staff, NewGen has developed a revised approach to the electric PIF model. Looking ahead toward build-out of the City, the Utility expects to see more growth in areas of redevelopment as the City’s “greenfield” areas disappear. Additionally, the Utility believes that the capacity of the existing systems (with some CIP and other non-capital investments) can meet the load of these redevelopment areas. Thus a Buy-In approach was developed for the Utility’s new PIF model. This approach has been incorporated into a revised electric PIF fee model, iterations of which have been provided to Utilities for review. The following provides a summary of the methodology employed to develop and the mechanisms used within the revised PIF model. Existing System Valuation – the model relies on an estimate of the valuation of the existing electric system, based on input from Utilities. This valuation represents a replacement cost approach, which was provided by Utilities and was not independently validated. As Utilities implements its Asset Management System, it will be important to update the Existing System Valuation in the revised PIF model accordingly. Credit for Outstanding Debt Principal – the model includes a line item for the outstanding debt principal associated with financing for the existing system value. This line serves as a credit to the total system value for PIF. This line item follows the guidance provided by the AWWA M1 manual and ensures that the debt issued for the existing system is recovered fully from retail rates (and not the PIF). ATTACHMENT 1 2.1 Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: NewGen Strategies Memo Re: Revised PIF Model and Review (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) Memorandum Justin Fields and Randy Reuscher December 29, 2016 Page 5 NewGen PIF Model Memo_12292016 System Usage Data – the model utilizes the Non-Coincident Peak (NCP) of the system (and customer classes) by which the total system investment is divided. The NCP is the sum of each customer class’ NCP, which represents the peak demand (in kW) for that class whenever it occurs. System / Customer Class – the revised PIF develops a unit fee ($/kW) based on the entire system as determined by customer classes (residential and commercial). Appendix A-2 NewGen has developed a detailed comparison of how other utilities recover fixed costs through PIF charges and/or other comparable mechanisms. For this comparison we have reviewed the practices of the other Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) members (Loveland, Longmont, and Estes Park). Additionally, we have reviewed the practices of selected municipal, investor-owned and cooperative utilities in Colorado and other states. Platte River Power Authority Members The three other PRPA members vary in their approach to comparable PIF charges. Both Loveland and Longmont have fee structures in place; however, Estes Park does not. The Longmont fee structure is based on the amperage rating of the customer’s panel, as well as type of service (Residential, Commercial) to determine the Electric Community Investment fee. Proceeds from this fee are dedicated to growth related electric utility capital improvement projects. The Longmont fee ranges from $310 to $1,858 for residential applications and $619 to $128,546 for commercial applications. The City of Loveland has a Plant Investment Fee that varies by customer class. Their PIF provides for the “additional electric transmission, substation and distribution facilities made necessary by the extension of electric service to new connections”. For residential applications, the fee is $1,450 for service size of 150 amps or less and $1,860 for service size of greater than 150 amps. For commercial applications, the Loveland PIF varies by each class, but is based on the energy utilized on a monthly basis (monthly bill) and ranges from $0.00587 to $0.00570 per kWh. Rather than collecting all of the costs of new development upfront, Loveland collects it through monthly charges. For a commercial (general service) customer with a peak demand of 166 kW and usage of 60,000 kWh/month, the fee would be approximately $4,200/year. The City of Loveland has recently proposed a new rate schedule, which includes an increase to its PIF by approximately 4%. Other Industry Approaches NewGen conducted a review of selected utility development charges for this assignment. There does not appear to be an “industry standard” for service fees for development. However, most utilities have some type of line extension policy that provides customers with a detailed assessment of the costs to be incurred for additional service. Some of the utilities provide a credit either in the form of a Construction Allowance or a revenue credit over a certain period of time, based on future sales. Additionally, most utilities offer some form of rebate to original applicants who install facilities that are subsequently utilized by new customers (within a specific period of time). ATTACHMENT 1 2.1 Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: NewGen Strategies Memo Re: Revised PIF Model and Review (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) Memorandum Justin Fields and Randy Reuscher December 29, 2016 Page 6 NewGen PIF Model Memo_12292016 This review included an assessment of these types of charges within the State of Colorado (for municipal, cooperative, and investor owned electric utilities), as well as selected utilities in Utah and California. Table A-2 provides a summary of the findings from our review: Table A-2 Summary of Findings Name Utility Type Fee Type PIF Year Refund Period Comments United Power (Coop) Co-op $/Extension by Class $/amp, per phase 2004 5-year Overhead standard Public Service Company of Colorado (Xcel Energy) IOU $/Customer or $/kW N/A 2014 10-year Construction Allowance; Fee’s based on COS; Overhead standard. Colorado Springs Municipal Revenue Guarantee N/A 2016 5-Year Overhead standard. Fees for Underground in tariff by length, type, customer Poudre Valley REA (Coop) Co-op $/kVA System Capacity 2016 5-Year Contribution In Aid required; fee for larger service Provo City Municipal $/kVa Impact Fee 2008 N/A Fee by Amp (Service Size) and service phase / voltage Individual Results United Power (Cooperative) United Power (United) is a cooperative that is served wholesale power by Tri-State Generation and Transmission (Tri-State). United has several fees for Residential and Non-Residential (Commercial and Industrial) customer types that are based on its costs for designing line extensions for future service. In addition to the design fees, United charges a “Subdivision Line Extension” fee based on per extension plus a per lot charge. United also charges a Plant Investment Fee that is $150 per 100 amps, which is intended to recover current or future increases in United’s transmission or distribution system plan investment necessitated by Line Extensions and/or new loads. United does not include any cost sharing for joint trenching, whereby an underground trench designed for an electric line or facility may be shared with another utility (communications, water, wastewater, etc.). However, United does include a provision in its policy that allows for a proportional refund to original applicants if future applicants connect to an existing line extension within a five-year period. Xcel Energy (IOU) Public Service Company of Colorado (aka Xcel Energy), an investor-owned utility (IOU), provides a construction allowance to customers requiring a line extension that is based in part on the allocated costs per customer for various components derived from its most recent cost of service (COS) filing with the Memorandum Justin Fields and Randy Reuscher December 29, 2016 Page 7 NewGen PIF Model Memo_12292016 applicants can obtain a partial refund for new applicants utilizing the line extensions paid by the original applicants. Xcel defines two types of line extension: A Service Lateral portion and a Distribution portion. The Service Lateral is for facilities installed by Xcel between its distribution line and the point of delivery for the customer, which provides service exclusively for the individual customer’s use. The Service Lateral investment charge is similar to the “on-site” Building Site Fee charged by Utilities (See Appendix A-3), subject to the construction allowance. The construction allowance is derived from the gross, embedded, lateral plant investment per customer, as indicated in the Company’s most recent rate filing. Distribution line extension facilities include primary and secondary distribution lines, transformer costs, and all appurtenant facilities, excepting service laterals necessary to supply service to the applicant. The construction allowance is derived from the gross, embedded distribution plant investment per customer (or per kilowatt demand, for demand customers). Xcel identifies some extensions as “uneconomic”, to which a construction allowance is not applicable, and applicants are required to pay all construction costs. Uneconomic extensions are those greater than 0.5 miles from existing facilities or those for which a construction allowance would be less than 8% of the total construction costs. Xcel provides tariff pricing for its construction allowance that differentiates by Service Lateral and Distribution portion by class type: Residential, Commercial and Industrial, and Lighting. Such pricing is then differentiated by rate schedules within retail classes. The Service Lateral portion is a fixed allowance and the Distribution portion is based on future load ($/kW, depending on rate schedule). Colorado Springs Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU), a municipally-owned utility, defines their line extension policy in terms of utility and customer provisions and service limitations as applied to primary and main distribution lines. CSU installs, owns, and maintains the equipment for line extensions, based on an overhead service drop (service line) to a customer’s premises. No PIF is charged upfront, instead the associated costs are socialized across the rate class through on-going monthly charges. Customers are required to pay in the form of a contribution in aid-of-construction if they wish to underground these facilities, which varies by linear foot depending on length and type of line and customer class (single phase primary, three-phase main line for residential and non-residential) per CSU’s tariff schedule. Customers pay a design fee to CSU for the proposed facilities, as well as for inspection and connection services. CSU requires a revenue guarantee or deposit for three-phase main line extensions greater than 0.5 miles long. If the revenues anticipated in each year, over a five-year period, are less than 30% of the total cost, CSU may bill the customer for the revenue shortfall. CSU uses the five-year period to determine if additional customers to an existing extension would result in a reduction in deposits to existing customers. If additional customers result in a greater deposit, it will result in a separate new extension. Poudre Valley REA (Cooperative) Poudre Valley REA (PVREA) is a cooperative served by Tri-State in areas adjacent to the City of Fort Collins. PVREA has a line extension policy that provides for service to new customers in its service territory. Costs are paid by the applicant based on the costs of constructing, installing, or upgrading the line extension ATTACHMENT 1 2.1 Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: NewGen Strategies Memo Re: Revised PIF Model and Review (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) Memorandum Justin Fields and Randy Reuscher December 29, 2016 Page 8 NewGen PIF Model Memo_12292016 and facilities necessary to serve the new load. The costs paid are considered “Contribution-in-Aid-of- Construction” (CAIC), and including all costs to PVREA and its power supplier (Tri-State). The CAIC does not include additional capacity, size or strength in excess of what is actually necessary to meet the requirements of the applicant. However, if the applicant’s requested level of service exceeds 50 kVA (1 phase), 100 kVA (2 phase), or 150 kVA (3 phase), PVREA imposes an additional charge of $5.00 / kVA. Additionally, PVREA may impose a fixed charge per month per customer for new service in sparsely populated areas. Residential customers are eligible for rebates for a period of five years depending on the number of additional customers utilizing the previous investments made. Provo City (Municipal) Provo City, Utah, is a municipal electric provider that charges an impact fee in a fashion similar to the PIF fee Utility employs for its water utility. Provo’s impact fee is based on the current value of selected assets (transmission and substation facilities), as well as the projected value of the improvements (from their capital plan) for these assets. Provo does not provide a credit for past contributions and the value is not adjusted for existing debt (as its debt is related to generation and non-impact fee facilities). Provo determines the average fee on a dollar per kW (estimated demand) and then applies a diversity factor and a utilization factor. The diversity factor applied reflects the ratio of the systems actual peak demand to the sum of the individual customer peak demands. The utilization factor is applied to the customer’s panel size (where they take service) as it relates to actual usage (rated capacity of the customer’s panel compared to demand utilized by the customer). Both the diversity factor and the utilization factor serve to reduce the value of the impact fee. Provo publishes its fee schedule as a range by service (voltage and phase) and the requested rating of a customers’ panel (in amperage). California Utilities The big three investor owned utilities in California (Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric) all have similar line extension policies. The applicant is typically responsible for excavation, substructures and conduits and protective structures, or the utility may charge the applicant for such work. The utility will furnish and install cables, switches, transformers, and other distribution facilities. The utilities will complete a line extension without charge, provided the total cost is not greater than the construction allowance. The allowance is based on the ratio of the net revenues from the customer to a cost of service factor, which is defined in their rate filings. The current allowance for residential line extensions ranges from approximately $2,400 to $3,400, depending on the utility. Municipal utilities in California vary in their approach to line extension fees. Most municipal utilities have some cost sharing between the applicant and the utility, either through a construction allowance (Los Angeles Department of Water and Power), a flat fee for certain types and lengths of distribution equipment investment (Glendale Water and Power), or charges for specific construction related costs, such as trenching, conduits or backfilling (Sacramento Municipal Utility District). Appendix A-3 - Existing PIF and Related Charges for Fort Collins The Utility charges fees to developers of electric load that reflect the actual costs associated with development. There are currently two types of fees specific for residential and commercial electric customers. These fees are referred to as an Electric Capacity Fee and a Building Site Charge. ATTACHMENT 1 2.1 Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: NewGen Strategies Memo Re: Revised PIF Model and Review (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) Memorandum Justin Fields and Randy Reuscher December 29, 2016 Page 9 NewGen PIF Model Memo_12292016 The Electric Capacity Fee for Residential applications includes a Square Footage Charge, a Front Footage Charge, a Dwelling Unit Charge and a Primary Service Charge (typically, Residential customers do not apply for primary service, so this charge is not always applicable). These charges all recover costs associated with new service as well as a proportional share of existing investments associated with the new load. The commercial application of the Electric Capacity Fee has a similar Square Footage Charge, Front Footage Charge, and a Capacity charge (based on transformer costs). The residential Building Site Charge is based on an “average” length of service from the transformer to the electric meter. The commercial Building Site Charge includes a Primary Service Charge, and a Transformer installation charge (in a commercial application, the customer is responsible for installing secondary service equipment). These are referred to as “on-site charges” and are not considered part of the PIF. Only the Square Footage Charge, the Front Footage Charge and the Capacity Charge (for commercial customers) are considered in the Utility’s calculation of its PIF. Collectively, these “off-site” charges are referred to as Electric Capacity Fees. The “on-site” charges (collectively the Building Site Charges) are unique to each property and include specific equipment requested in the application, and as such are not included in the commercial PIF. For ease of understanding, Table A-3 provides a summary of the applicable charges and fees for the Utilities. The Electric Capacity Fees are considered in the calculation of the PIF fee, as indicated in bold below. Table A-3 Fort Collins Light and Power Development Charges Customer Type Fee Type Fee Residential Electric Capacity Fee Square Footage Charge Electric Capacity Fee Front Footage Charge Electric Capacity Fee Dwelling Unit Charge Building Site Charge Primary Service Charge* Building Site Charge Secondary Service Charge Commercial Electric Capacity Fee Square Footage Charge Electric Capacity Fee Front Footage Charge Electric Capacity Fee Capacity Building Site Charge Primary Service Charge Building Site Charge Transformer Note: Additional charges may apply for unusual circumstances, as determined by Utilities. Only the Electric Capacity Fees are included in the Utilities Plant Investment Fee. * Primary Service Charge is typically not applicable to Residential (see text). ATTACHMENT 1 2.1 Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: NewGen Strategies Memo Re: Revised PIF Model and Review (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) January 10, 2017 PROPOSED ELECTRIC CAPACITY FEE MODEL REVISIONS Fort Collins Utilities – City Council 1 ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC Agenda • What is a Electric Capacity Fee (ECF)? • Existing ECF structure – Platte River four City comparison – Other utilities • Proposed ECF changes – American Water Works Association (AWWA) Manual • Impacts to development community • Recommendations 2 RR1 ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) Slide 2 RR1 PRPA (Platte River) 4-City comparison Randy Reuscher, 12/20/2016 ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC Electric Capacity Fee (ECF)? • What is a ECF? – One time charge that recovers costs of off-site assets needed to provide service • Only for distribution system • Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) recovers costs through wholesale rates • On-site assets unique to each project are billed separately • Is not monthly charges, which recover operations and maintenance – Electric capacity fee, development fee, impact fee – Common in water / wastewater industry – Some type of fee typical for electric utilities 3 ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC Electric Capacity Fee (ECF)? • Why does Fort Collins have a ECF? – “Greenfield” development necessitated this in the past – Supports “Growth pays for Growth” • Chapter 26 section 473(b) of Code – Able to assign specific costs to serve new load 4 ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC Electric Capacity Fee (ECF) • Why are we changing the ECF? – Fort Collins ECF based on older growth assumptions – Model is complex, challenging to update – Cumbersome to administer – Need to reflect new realities of the system and development in the community 5 ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC Existing ECF Structure • Residential Fee Structure – Square Foot Charge ($/sq. ft.) – Front Foot Charge (Linear - $/ft.) – Dwelling Unit Charge ($/dwelling) • Commercial Fee Structure – Square Foot Charge ($/sq. ft.) – Front Foot Charge ($/ft.) – Capacity Fee (estimated usage $/kW) 6 ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC Existing ECF Structure 7 $- $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Off Site Electric Development Fee Revenue Off Site Electric Development Fees ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC Existing ECF Structure • Existing fee – Assumes “greenfield” development – Based on outdated planning model • New development / re-development – Occurs in areas of “re-development” – City close to “build-out” – Recognizes capacity paid through previous ECF for re-development 8 ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC Existing ECF Structure – Other Utilities • PRPA utilities – Longmont – Loveland – Estes Park • Colorado Utilities – Colorado Springs – Xcel Energy (IOU) – United Power (Coop) – Poudre Valley REA (PVREA) • Provo, Utah – Similar to proposed “system value” fee 9 ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC Proposed ECF • “Buy-In Method” • Results in similar charges by other PRPA members • Methodology for electric utilities – Similar to approach by Provo, UT • Equivalent to existing capacity “value” – $/kW basis – Different for Residential / Commercial 10 ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC Current vs Proposed ECF Structure 11 • Proposed Method – Simplifies Calculation – Relatively easy to explain compared to the current method – Simplifies administration of the charge Class Method Formula Residential Current ECF = [($/ft 2 ) x ft 2 ] + [($/LF) x LF] + [($/du) x #du] Proposed ECF = [$/kW]res x kW Commercial Current ECF = [($/ft 2 ) x ft 2 ] + [($/LF) x LF] + [($/kW) x kW] Proposed ECF = [$/kW]com x kW ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC Proposed ECF + System replacement cost (investment) - Adjusted for portion “utilized” - Adjusted for debt service (recovered in rates) = System Value for ECF • Allocated by demand to residential and commercial customers • ECF Rate ($/kW) based on total demand by class – Residential ECF fee by anticipated demand (kW) – Commercial ECF by amperage and voltage 12 System Value $ 181,103,000 (1) ECF Rate ($/kW) Residential Share $88,255,000 $170.83 Commercial Share $92,848,000 $427.64 (2) (1) System Value subject to further review (2) Average rate, see sliding scale ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC Proposed ECF • Multifamily will be charged the residential $/kW ECF fee – Distinctions will be made within the residential class • Single family • Multifamily • Electric heat • Panel size 13 Residential Unit Type Peak Demand (kW) Per Unit ECF Charge ($) Single Family 150 amp or less 9.0 $1,537 Single Family 200 amp 11.0 $1,879 Single Family Electric Heat 14.7 $2,511 Multi Family 7.9 $1,349 Multi Family Electric Heat 12.1 $2,067 ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC Impacts to Electric Development Charges Example ECF Charges (1) 14 (1) Note: Rounded and does not include Building Site Charges Customer Type Example Load kW Existing ECF ($) Proposed ECF ($) Difference ($) Percent Change Residential 34 single family 150 Amp units 9 $86,310 $52,273 -$34,037 -39% Multi-Family 200 Units 200 units 7.9 $544,988 $269,907 -$275,081 -50% Multi-Family 325 Units 325 units 7.9 $432,151 $438,599 $6,448 1% Large Commercial Building 600 Amp, 480Volt, 3 phase, 40,000 sq. ft., 175 linear ft. 185 $43,830 $79,421 $35,591 81% Commercial - Three Phase Office 200 Amp, 208Volt, 3 phase, 40,000 sq. ft., 175 linear ft. 27 $13,824 $10,388 -$3,436 -25% Commercial - Single Phase Office 200 Amp, 240 Volt, 1 phase, 40,000 sq. ft., 175 linear ft. 18 $12,133 $6,769 -$5,364 -44% ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC Recommendations/Direction 15 • Recommendation – Adopt updated modeling approach for ECF based on “buy-in” method • Direction sought – What options would Council like staff to consider for implementation? ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC Questions? Scott Burnham | NewGen Strategies & Solutions, LLC Executive Consultant Office: (720) 259-1762 | Mobile: (303) 902-9174 sburnham@newgenstrategies.net 16 ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC Commercial ECF – Implementation Options 17 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 12 AM 02 AM 04 AM 06 AM 08 AM 10 AM 00 PM 02 PM 04 PM 06 PM 08 PM 10 PM Hourly Average Class KW July Peak Day Class Demand Peak Hour Commercial GS Commercial GS25 Commercial GS50 Commercial GS750 Residential ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC Commercial ECF – Implementation Options 18 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 12 AM 02 AM 04 AM 06 AM 08 AM 10 AM 00 PM 02 PM 04 PM 06 PM 08 PM 10 PM Average Hourly KW per Customer July Peak Day per Customer Demand Peak Hour Commercial GS Commercial GS25 Commercial GS50 Commercial GS750 Residential ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC Commercial ECF – Implementation Options 19 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 12 AM 02 AM 04 AM 06 AM 08 AM 10 AM 00 PM 02 PM 04 PM 06 PM 08 PM 10 PM Average KW July Peak Day Peak Hour Residential Residential w/Solar ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC Commercial ECF – Implementation Options Charges by Demand 20 Commercial by kW Secondary ($/kW) Secondary Total ($) Primary ($/kW) Primary Total ($) Installation Size 10 $368.66 $3,687 $230.94 $2,309 30 $391.72 $11,752 $239.60 $7,188 50 $402.45 $20,122 $243.63 $12,182 70 $409.51 $28,666 $246.29 $17,240 90 $414.79 $37,331 $248.27 $22,344 200 $431.56 $86,311 $254.57 $50,913 400 $446.11 $178,444 $260.03 $104,013 600 $454.62 $272,773 $263.23 $157,938 800 $460.66 $368,530 $265.50 $212,399 1,000 $465.35 $465,347 $267.26 $267,259 2,000 $479.90 $959,802 $272.73 $545,452 3,000 $488.41 $1,465,242 $275.92 $827,772 4,000 $494.45 $1,977,816 $278.19 $1,112,771 5,000 $499.14 $2,495,696 $279.95 $1,399,764 ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC Commercial ECF – Implementation Options Charges by Amperage 21 Voltage 208 240 208 240 480 Amps Single Phase Single Phase Three Phase Three Phase Three Phase 10 $173 $202 $311 $362 $757 30 $558 $650 $1,000 $1,164 $2,427 50 $960 $1,118 $1,719 $2,001 $4,165 70 $1,372 $1,597 $2,455 $2,857 $5,942 90 $1,791 $2,084 $3,203 $3,726 $7,746 200 $4,168 $4,848 $7,444 $8,656 $17,966 400 $8,663 $10,074 $15,454 $17,966 $37,239 600 $13,282 $15,442 $23,678 $27,523 $57,006 800 $17,980 $20,902 $32,040 $37,239 $77,092 1,000 $22,739 $26,431 $40,506 $47,075 $97,417 2,000 N/A N/A $83,844 $97,417 $201,368 3,000 N/A N/A $128,250 $148,992 $307,785 ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) Colorado Public Utilities Commission. The company allows for a 10-year period in which original ATTACHMENT 1 2.1 Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: NewGen Strategies Memo Re: Revised PIF Model and Review (5157 : Electric Capacity Fees) WILLOX COUNTY ROAD 54G CARPENTER COU N TY R O AD 3 8 E MOUNTAIN VISTA HORSETOOTH VINE LEMAY TIMBERLINE DRAKE LEMAY VINE TAFT HILL HORSETOOTH Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone Printed: November 28, 2016 Railroad Lines Growth Management Area Water Features Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone 00.511.52 Miles These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members © of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts same AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. ATTACHMENT 3 1.3 Attachment: Transit Oriented Development Overlay Districts (TOD) (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations) I D NCM UE LMN LMN T LMN LMN UE MMN UE E UE NCM D CG CG HC UE LMN D UE LMN CSU E CCN UE LMN E E UE UE UE E MMN LMN CC CCR MMN CSU UE LMN CG LMN UE CG CC CG MMN CS MMN T LMN MMN LMN LMN I UE LMN E LMN UE LMN MMN MMN LMN UE E UE UE CSU CC MMN MMN NCB MMN NCB LMN UE CL LMN MMN MMN RDR T MMN MMN LMN NCM HMN LMN UE UE UE MMN LMN MMN MMN UE CCN UE MMN MMN MMN MMN MMN MMN UE CG MMN LMN MMN MMN LMN MMN E CCR T LMN CCR LMN LMN LMN CL LMN MMN CL T LMN MMN LMN LMN MMN MMN UE UE MMN LMN NCB CSU LMN CCR T LMN LMN MMN CSU MMN NCB LMN NCB CL UE T LMN LMN LMN LMN LMN LMN LMN LMN T RDR LMN UE LMN UE T CCR LMN LMN CSU CCR UE HMN T LMN T LMN NCB NCB T NCB T LMN LMN UE LMN NCB LMN LMN CG CG E Terry Lake Horsetooth Reservoir Fossil Creek Reservoir Warren Lake ³I ³I ÕZYXW ÕZYXW ÉZYXW !"`$ SHIELDS COLLEGE TAFT HILL VINE DRAKE TRILBY OVERLAND LEMAY DOUGLAS TIMBERLINE PROSPECT LAPORTE MULBERRY HARMONY WILLOX CARPENTER COUNTY ROAD 54G COUN T Y R O A D 3 8 E ZIEGLER MOUNTAIN VISTA HORSETOOTH TAFT HILL LEMAY LEMAY VINE TIMBERLINE VINE DRAKE HORSETOOTH UE LMN Short Term Rentals Zones Proposed to Allow Non-Primary STRs Printed: January 03, 2017 Growth Management Area City Limits Water Features City Zoning Community Commercial (CC) Community Commercial North College (CCN) Community Commercial Poudre River (CCR) General Commercial (CG) Limited Commercial (CL) Service Commercial (CS) CSU Downtown (D) Employment (E) Harmony Corridor (HC) Industrial (I) High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (HMN) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) River Downtown Redevelopment (RDR) Transition (T) Urban Estate (UE) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles Scale 1:60,000 © Amended: January 20, 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 1.1 Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: Zones Proposed to Allow Non-Primary STRs (5149 : Short Term Rental Regulations)