HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 08/30/2016 - CLIMATE ACTION PLAN PROGRESSDATE:
STAFF:
August 30, 2016
Lindsay Ex, Environmental Program Manager
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Climate Action Plan Progress.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is as follows:
Highlight the branding of the implementation of the Climate Action Plan as the City moves from planning into
implementation;
Review the elements of the Road to 2020 draft plan to achieve the 2020 goals of a 20% reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels;
Overview of the vetting process to provide rigorous cost-benefit information for identifying most cost effective
pathway to 2020 and, through this vetting, share examples how the initiatives benefit families, small
businesses, and all community members;
Illustrate how the City has creatively funded residential energy efficiency (evolution of on-bill financing from
City-funded to 3rd party funded) and the scalability of these funding models as other programs mature and
are vetted;
Describe how other communities are funding climate-related work; and
Review the overall next steps, including the process for finalizing the 2020 roadmap, including messaging and
engagement strategies around climate action.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council have feedback on the branding process?
2. Does the outline for the February Work Session meet Council’s expectations?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 2015, City Council unanimously adopted updated community greenhouse gas goals:
20% below 2005 levels by 2020,
80% below 2005 by 2030, and
Carbon neutrality by the year 2050.
Branding the Implementation of the Climate Action Plan
As the City has developed messaging and engagement strategies to help reach our 2020 goals, staff has heard
from the community that more diverse messaging is needed to best engage the community - e.g., one person
might be interested in low-cost measures such as energy efficiency, another is interested in environmental
impacts, and yet another may be focused on health related outcomes such as cleaner air for their family. While
messaging has been focused in the last several years on the development of the Climate Action Plan, the
messaging team is now turning to branding the implementation plan.
Implementation will include more targeted and focused messages on specific actions people can take to help the
community reach its goals for 2020 and beyond. Many of these actions build upon the things residents and
businesses are already doing, such as engaging in City rebate programs, practicing conservation, using energy
August 30, 2016 Page 2
and water efficiently, utilizing our great public transit systems and recycling to minimize waste. It is these types of
actions that reduce operating costs, utility bills, provide increased comfort in homes and where we work, and
these actions also benefit the 2020 goals.
Until a formal branding effort can be developed, the City has developed the slogan “Road to 2020: Forging an
Efficient Future.” This messaging is designed and intended to be more inclusive in an effort reach a broader group
of residents and businesses. The messaging team will also engage the public to get feedback on messaging to
further develop messages that resonate with people and their neighbors and connects them to opportunities to
get involved. This engagement has already begun during the August 24th event at the Lincoln Center with Former
Governor Bill Ritter, Mayor Wade Troxell, and City Manager Darin Atteberry. In addition, staff is meeting with the
project’s Community Advisory Committee whose members bring a triple bottom line perspective to this work, as
well numerous boards, commissions, and stakeholder groups in the coming months to refine this branding.
Beyond the community engagement, when staff was conducting the research associated with how other
communities fund their climate-related work (more information below), staff also asked these communities how
they brand their efforts. Of the fourteen communities, 6 use the phrase “Climate Action Plan.” Other names
include Community Climate Action Plan, Climate Protection Plan, Sustainability Management Plan, and
Environmental Action Plan (see Attachment 2 for a full list of communities and name selected).
The outcome of branding discussions with the community and final branding is anticipated to be shared with
Council and the community during the February 28, 2017 Work Session.
Road to 2020 and Initiative Vetting.
At the March 2016 Work Session related to the Road to 2020 (see Attachment 1), staff presented Council with
31 initiatives in five strategy areas that had been initially modeled to create an initial roadmap to the 2020 goals,
see the table below.
Strategy Area Estimated
2020 Impact
Example Initiatives Benefits to Residents, Families and
Businesses
Energy Efficiency 50% Energy Efficiency in
Businesses and Homes
Increased comfort, lower home and
business utility bills, decreased
environmental impact; green energy jobs
Road to Zero
Waste
25% Community Recycling
Ordinance, Municipal
Biomass Burner
Reduced waste, better utilization of
materials consumed
Clean Energy 19% Community Solar
Gardens, Rooftop Solar
Incentives
Allows all residents to access clean
energy, regardless of ownership status;
lower home and business utility bills;
stable long-term pricing for businesses
and residents; green energy jobs
Multi-modal
Transportation and
Development
13% Bicycle Network and
Ridership
Improvements, Transit
System Expansion
Improved health, increased sense of
safety while choosing cleaner
transportation options; supports all
residents access to healthy and
sustainable lifestyles, including
underserved populations and all ages
August 30, 2016 Page 3
Impact indicated the 31
initiatives could surpass
the 2020 goals
Since this Work Session, all 31 initiatives have undergone or will undergo a thorough modeling and vetting
process by the end of 2016 to inform decision-making, prioritization and financing options for specific projects and
programs. Teams initially complete an analysis of their initiative in a template, and then the Finance Mechanisms
committee meets to review assumptions and calculations for completeness and reasonability. Based on their
assessment, they will come to consensus and provide a confidence grade (High/Medium/Low) based on the
following considerations:
Confidence
Grade
Grade Definition
High Substantial vetting; contains detailed breakdown of all major costs and benefits, with clear
links on what drives benefits. Includes consideration to sensitivity of key variables over
time. Can be validated vs. external benchmarks.
Medium Moderate vetting; contains reasonable detail on breakdown of major costs and benefits.
Justifies linkage and scale of benefits. Substantiated with internal data.
Low First pass vetting; includes required data, but can be issued a low rating due to insufficient
detail on the breakdown of one or more major costs or benefits, poor linkage between cost
and benefit, or oversimplified assumptions (such as flat costs in perpetuity).
The vetting process is iterative. After the first review and grading, each initiative template will be returned to the
working group with specific feedback. Once this feedback is addressed, the initiative can be revised and reviewed
again to increase the assessed confidence level.
For each initiative, the template will include details on project information, costs, and benefits:
Project Information
o Definition
o Objectives
o Deliverables
o Value Proposition
o Alternatives Analysis
o Keys to Success
o Pilot/Proof of Concept
o Market and Policy Analysis
Annual Costs (to the Administrator, e.g., the City, and the Participants, e.g., the Private Sector)
o Overhead Costs
o Incentive Costs
o Installation Costs
o Maintenance Costs
Annual Benefits (to the Administrator, e.g., the City, and the Participants, e.g., the Private Sector)
o Reduction in Carbon Emissions by Resource Type
o Resource Cost Savings
o Savings in Carbon Emission Costs
For common assumptions that are used across many initiatives (i.e., forecasted electric rates, population growth),
a list of core variables is included and will automatically populate. This ensures consistency in individual initiative
estimates and projections.
August 30, 2016 Page 4
Based on above inputs, the template then automatically aggregates costs and benefits, discounts to present
values, and calculates the cost/benefit ratio and cost per GHG. Once initiative vetting is complete, all of the
initiatives will be combined into the model and scenarios will be run to assess the most cost effective pathway to
2020. These pathways will be presented to City Council at the February 28, 2017 Work Session.
Specific examples, and the associated benefits that these initiatives provide to families and small businesses, will
be highlighted during the Work Session presentation.
Alignment with the Budget Process
The Road to 2020 strategic plan identifies strategies to reach the 2020 goals, and, in many cases, the identified
programs and services have been in place for decades. As the City has a long history of ensuring its core
community services are sustainable, many of those programs and services are aligned with the climate action
goals originally established in 1999.
Through the 2017-2018 biennial budget process, 60 budget offers in the City Manager’s Recommended Budget
(equaling $161.3 million) are tied to the City’s Strategic Plan objective of reducing emissions. A majority of the
offers ($157.7 million, or 97.8 percent of the total costs) are existing core services or enhancements associated
with those services. Only $3 million of offers in the recommended budget are new requests or are scaling up
existing services to meet the community goals.
Here is the full breakdown of the budget offers that impact the 2020 goals, which will be considered by City
Council this fall:
$157.7 million (97.8 percent) to provide existing core City services that also benefit the goals. Examples
include the power the City purchases from Platte River Power Authority and the City’s FC Moves and
Transfort Bus Services that advance multi-modal transportation options, such as bicycle commuting and
mass transportation.
$2.2 million (1.3 percent) to scale up existing programs toward goals, such as energy efficiency and
community solar programs.
$800,000 (0.5 percent) to fund new programs to directly impact the goals, such as a pilot program to
leverage private sector investment in innovative approaches, or support services such as community
engagement and improved technology.
$600,000 (0.4 percent) to help the City organization to lead by example and achieve its own carbon
reduction goals, which mirror the community goals.
See Attachment 3 for specific offers and how they align with the 2017-2018 Recommended Budget. Staff is
currently analyzing how the recommended budget does (or does not) put the City on track to reach the 2020
goals. For more information on the City’s budget process, go to fcgov.com/budget. The City Manager’s
Recommended Budget will be available for public review beginning September 5.
Example of Innovative Finance Mechanism to Support Energy Efficiency and Scalability Potential
In addition to investments made through the City’s budget, the City recognizes that private sector investment,
partnerships and innovative finance mechanisms will all play a role in helping to achieve the goals. The City is
currently planning for the transition of the on-bill financing (known as HELP or Home Energy Loan Program) to
private sector funding. Initiated in 2013, over 75 loans have been completed to date, used primarily for home
efficiency upgrades and with a few solar and water projects. The energy loans, taken as a group, are estimated to
be saving 10% of the carbon emissions of these homes. This equates to 1.2 tons avoided per household and 72
annual tons per year. The improvements are also providing utility bill savings, comfort improvements and health
and safety benefits. The approved outstanding loan balance of $1.6M is expected to be met in the 4th quarter of
2016.
As discussed with Council Finance Committee on August 15, staff is proposing to transition to a 3rd party loan
model in partnership with Elevations Credit Union as quickly as possible. The logic for this transition is that
meeting Energy Policy and carbon reduction goals is going to require unprecedented scale for the efficiency
August 30, 2016 Page 5
upgrades of Fort Collins building stock. This, in turn, will facilitate needed investment. Over the course of the next
15-25 years, there could be thousands of home efficiency upgrades and renewable energy systems. Assuming
three to four thousand homes invested $10,000 (the average loan amount) over the next five years, this equates
to $30-45M in investment.
The current model of using Utilities reserve funds has reached the limits of its ability to seed fund the on-bill
financing loan program. While the Utilities may be able to borrow additional funds and re-loan to customers under
the current model, this approach would in turn put limits on potential borrowing for other Utilities capital needs.
What the City has accomplished is the demonstration of interest and demand for home efficiency financing. This
transition of the program to utilize 3rd party capital will allow for the scaling of the efficiency programs in alignment
with the Energy Policy and Road to 2020 goals.
This model can be utilized for the other climate-related initiatives as well, where the City can provide initial funding
capital, develop and pilot a successful program, and then transition to 3rd party capital to achieve the scale
necessary to meet the overall goals.
Peer Cities Research
During the public hearings regarding the funding of the various Road to 2020 initiatives, e.g., business energy
efficiency incentives, Councilmembers requested additional information on how other communities are
approaching the implementation of their carbon reduction goals. More specifically, the following questions were
researched by staff:
Did other communities put their climate goals to a vote? If yes, what were the outcomes and how was it
worded on the ballot?
How have other cities funded their climate work? Were new revenue sources created, e.g., taxes or fees,
and if so, what was the source and scale of these funds?
To answer these questions, staff interviewed and researched fourteen cities across the country. The cities were
chosen for having plans that associated with their carbon reduction goals and possessing one or more of the
following characteristics:
Listed as a national or statewide peer to the City to Fort Collins
Relative population size to Fort Collins
Presence of a university
Geographic dispersion with a focus on representing each geographic area of the country.
Public Voting on Goals or Funding
In general, very few cities have put either their goals or creation of funding sources to a public vote. While no
Colorado communities put their goals to a vote, two communities have put funding of the implementation to a vote
- Boulder and Carbondale. Boulder’s vote included a tax on light and power consumption assessed by kWh
usage, which passed in 2005 and renewed in 2010 and 2015 for five year increments. The most recent renewal
was passed with 82% of voters approving the continuation of the tax. This tax generates approximately $1.8M
annually. Carbondale’s vote, using a similar structure, did not pass in April 2015. 61% of voters voted “no” on the
tax. Nationally, Berkeley, California put their goals to a vote and the vote passed with an 81% approval.
While staff is only aware of Boulder and Carbondale putting the funding of their climate work to a vote, two other
places have votes on their ballots this cycle, e.g., San Diego has a 0.5% tax for 40 years focused on
transportation funding specifically (not climate work as a whole) that will generate up to $18B over the lifecycle of
the tax if approved. In addition to San Diego, the State of Washington will be voting on a revenue-neutral carbon
tax in the November election; revenue neutral means that it is a tax assessed on energy producers and collected
at the state level for energy produced above specific emission levels, with the potential to receive a corporate tax
credit on emission reductions initiatives.
August 30, 2016 Page 6
During this research, staff became increasingly aware of this notion of funding climate work, either via a carbon
tax or another revenue source, as an emerging trend. Notably, most of the carbon costing discussions are
occurring at a statewide level and are focused on finding revenue-neutral solutions, similar to Washington’s ballot
initiative.
Attachment 4 includes a full report out of the 14 cities used in the study, as well as 3 additional cities and one
state (Carbondale, CO; San Diego, CA; Seattle, WA; and the State of Washington) that have held a vote on either
climate action goal approval or are in the process of creating a funding source or tax.
Sources and Scale of Funding
From speaking with the fourteen communities, staff found a variety of ways in which communities are funding
their carbon reduction goals. In general, communities utilized general funds, enterprise funds, grants,
public/private partnerships, and other taxes and fees to support their work. Three of these cities’ funding sources
are highlighted below, and Attachment 5 lists the full breakdown of these cities and what the primary and
secondary revenue sources are and what projects are funded from each source.
Kansas City, MO - this city leans heavily on grants, bonds, and partnerships with the private sector to
fund a variety of sustainability-focused projects with co-benefits to core services such as stormwater,
multi-modal transit, and bike infrastructure.
Boulder, CO - This is the only city that staff identified where voters approved a carbon tax assessed on
light and power utility bills. This tax provides $1.8 million a year for climate action-related projects such as
a city-administered grant program to businesses, a system-wide decarbonization strategy, and an
expanded energy efficiency program for rental housing (around 50% of Boulder’s total housing stock).
Asheville, NC - Many of Asheville’s ongoing municipal climate action-related projects are funded through
their “Green Revolving Fund” which generates approximately $400,000 annually from the cost savings
associated with citywide LED streetlight replacement (similar to the City of Fort Collins’ Waste Innovation
Fund). In addition, Asheville also dedicates a portion of their Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to a
separate “Green CIP” which focuses on municipal energy efficiency, equipment replacement, and fuel
switching for the municipal fleet.
Next Steps
In preparation for the February 27, 2017 Work Session, staff’s next steps are as follows:
Complete the vetting of the 31 initiatives, as indicated above, and compile these initiatives into scenarios
to achieve the 2020 goals.
Develop and publish online a Road to 2020 Dashboard that tracks the City’s progress toward the goals.
Engage the community in the development of the branding discussion to identify which messages and
phrases resonate most with the community and inspire action.
The City is also evaluating how it can achieve its own greenhouse gas reduction goals, with a similar
focus on the 2020 goal to reduce municipal emissions 20% below 2005 by 2020.
ATTACHMENTS
1. March 10, 2016 Work Session Summary (PDF)
2. Peer Cities Research - Branding of Climate-Related Work by Cities (PDF)
3. Road to 2020 - Budget Alignment (PDF)
4. Peer Cities Research - Voting Associated with Climate-Related Efforts (PDF)
5. Peer Cities Research - Funding Associated with Climate-Related Efforts (PDF)
6. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
ATTACHMENT 1
Climate Action Branding by City
City Program Name Change in Name? Rationale for name?
Ann Arbor, MI CAP N Desire to combat climate action "head on"
Asheville, NC Sustainability Management Plan N More focus on the local level, not too much focus on the broader climate
Aspen, CO Canary Initiative N Be the "Canary in the Coal Mine" for climate action
Austin, TX Community Climate Action Plan N Highlight everyday actions that citizens can do to make Austin sustainable.
Highlights a partnership between the City and its residents
Berkeley, CA Climate Action Plan and Resiliency
Plan
N Name of old plan and plan name for the "100 Resilient Cities Initiative"
Boulder, CO Boulder's Climate Commitment Y Name change allows for a broader focus on energy production, natural
resources, and preserving urban, agricultural, and natural ecosystems
Burlington, VT CAP N Most used name from US Compact of Mayors
Denver, CO CAP N Plan named in conjunction with a locally-focused climate adaption plan.
CAP is a broader document for the City
Eugene, OR Climate Recovery Plan Y Pressure from environmental groups to focus more on the environmental
aspects of climate action
Kansas City, MO Climate Protection Plan Y Pressure from environmental groups to focus more on the environmental
aspects of climate action
Palo Alto, CA CAP N Currently in process of updating new Climate Action, have not discussed
any changes
Portland, OR CAP N 4th Climate related plan. Has moved from “Carbon Dioxide Reduction plan”
to “Global Warming Action Plan” to “Climate Action Plan”. Desire to focus
on the elements of action, adaption, and preparation.
Santa Barbara, CA CAP N Most common name for plans used among member cities of the U.S.
Compact of Mayors
Tacoma, WA Environmental Action Plan N Focus locally on what Tacoma can do locally in terms of action
ATTACHMENT 2
Overview:
Where the money goes:
Budget Offers:
How do offers
impact the goals?
Existing Services - $157.7m
The Road to 2020 is a series of
goals and actions set in place to
keep our City healthy, vibrant, and
resilient now and far into the future.
The goals will guide the community
toward a future that promotes
economic, social and environmental
health. We want to grow an efficient
economy that creates jobs and
sparks innovation!
Working toward our goals is about
more than greenhouse gases; it’s
also about saving money, reducing
air pollution and creating/maintaining
a safer and livable community
long-term. These are just some of the
programs that are being considered
16-2058
Auxiliary aids and services are available for
persons with disabilities.
1 offers - $380k
Example: Pilot Projects and
Innovation Fund ($380K)
6 offers - $450K
Examples: City Energy Project
Matching Funds ($50k) or Travel
Behavior Survey ($100K)
5 offers - $2.1M
Examples: Energy Services ($950K)
or Community Solar ($250K)
14 offers related to
these goals
2 offers - $150K
Examples: 0.5 FTE Road to Zero Waste
Support ($47K) or 1.0 FTE Energy
Services Energy ($100K)
DRIVEN
Brand new or something we
would not have done without the goals
ACCELERATED
Scaling up existing programs and/or doing
something differently because of the goals
MOTIVATION
IMPACT
97.8% 0.5%
1.3%
0.4%
Scaling Up Existing Programs - $2.2m City Internal Improvements Toward Goals - $600k
New Programs Toward Goals - $800k
DIRECT
Offer directly
and quantifiably
reduces GHG
ENABLING
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Some strategies with key budget offers that are under consideration:
MISSION: Advance mechanisms of energy efficiency retrofits to the entire existing building
stock that are effective, safe & affordable.
26.17 City Energy Project-Matching
Funds for Fort Collins Participation
• Leverage City investments with matching philantropic dollars to
expand & build upon existing Energy Efficiency programs
6.76 Light and Power Energy Services • Accelerate existing programs to improve comfort & decrease cost
• Leverage City investments by 3-5 times & support local economy
KEY OFFERS BENEFITS/EXPECTED OUTCOMES
TRANSPORTATION MISSION: Optimize transportation by planning, designing, & developing to reduce dependency
on single occupancy, fossil-fuel vehicles while improving traffic flow & reducing polution.
ROAD TO ZERO WASTE MISSION: Develop viable solutions to reduce, divert, recycle, & compost the community’s
waste & the beneficial use of its byproducts.
26.11 Road to Zero Waste
Program Support
• Leadership in regional “wasteshed” planning
• Exploration of waste-to-energy technology of it
KEY OFFERS BENEFITS/EXPECTED OUTCOMES
INNOVATION MISSION: Engaging our community & demonstrate the effectiveness of specific innovations in order
to achieve the 2020 goals, create economic opportunities & build new partnerships.
26.8 Pilot Projects and
Innovation Fund
• Engages private, academic & public sector to innovate around
technical, social, policy & financial solutions to achieve the 2020 goals
KEY OFFERS BENEFITS/EXPECTED OUTCOMES
3.7 Low Stress Bike Route
Design Construction
• Increase bike commuting, safety and confidence of cyclists
• Reduce the vehicle miles traveled & air pollution
3.23 Travel Behavior Survey • Optimize tracking of vehicle miles traveled to best understand which
transportation investments have the most impact
KEY OFFERS BENEFITS/EXPECTED OUTCOMES
CLEAN ENERGY MISSION: Foster rapid adoption of alternative & clean sources of energy including solar projects &
promotion of other alternative energy sources such as geothermal, combined heat & power, etc.
5.26 Electric Distributed Battery
Pilot Program
• Explore utility-scale energy storage & logistics of adding storage
• Balance reliability with transition to cleaner energy sources
6.79 Renewable Non-residential
Solar Rebates
• Increases upfront rebates for midsize non- residential solar systems,
thus increasing customer choices
6.80 Renewable Community
Solar Rebates
• Encourage participation in community solar projects
• Provide an economical alternative to rooftop solar
KEY OFFERS BENEFITS/EXPECTED OUTCOMES
Communities and Voting for Climate-related Work
City Public Vote
Explored
Public Vote
Taken?
Funding Attached to Vote? Vote Passed?
Ann Arbor, MI N N N Approved by City Council
Asheville, NC N N N Approved by City Council
Aspen, CO N N N Approved by City Council
Austin, TX N N N Approved by City Council
Berkeley, CA Y Y N
Y, 82% approval
(Measure M)
Boulder, CO Y Y
Y, assessed on light and power utility usage
$0.0049/kWh for residential accounts
$0.0009/kWh for commercial accounts
$0.0003/kWh for industrial accounts
Y, 81% approval (Initiative 202)
Average cost per capita is $8-$11/
year
Generates ~$1.8M/year
Burlington, VT N N N Approved by City Council
Carbondale, CO Y Y
Y, assessed on light and power utility usage
$0.008 per kWh for residential light and power
$0.035 per therm for residential of natural gas
$0.0029 for commercial accounts light and
power
$$0.02 per therm for commercial natural gas
N, concerns that the tax would put
additional burden on low income
households and was an extra burden on
all ratepayers
Average cost per capita ~$60-
84/year residential and ~$120-
360/year commercial
Estimated to generate $350K/year
Denver, CO N N N Approved by the mayor’s office
Eugene, OR* Y* N N Approved by City Council
Kansas City, MO N N N Approved by City Council
Palo Alto, CA N N N Approved by City Council
Portland, OR* Y* N N Approved by City Council
San Diego, CA Y Pending
Y, 0.5% sales tax increase for 40 years for $18
Billion in transportation projects
Will vote November, 2016
Santa Barbara, CA N N N Approved by City Council
Seattle, WA* Y Pending
Y, both public transit funding and statewide carbon
tax on the November ballot
Will vote November, 2016
State of Washington Y Pending N, Revenue neutral tax Will vote November, 2016
Tacoma, WA* Y Pending N, Revenue neutral tax (Statewide)
Will vote November, 2016
(Initiative-732)
*Vote explored is a state-wide carbon neutral tax
ATTACHMENT 4
Communities and Funding for Climate-related Work (Dollar amount listed when available. Self-reported data)
City Primary Revenue
Source(s)
Major Programs Funded
Secondary Revenue Source(s)
Other Programs Funded
Ann Arbor,
MI
General Fund
Revenue, grants, and
PACE financing
Energy efficiency rebates
Increasing availability of renewable power
Asheville,
NC
Green Revolving Fund
($400K/year)
Energy efficiency rebates
Fleet conversion to CNG and more
efficient fuel sources
Residential solid waste program
Support for low-income populations
through expanded local agriculture
Community solar program
Grants
Green Capital Improvement
Program or CIP (~$1M/year)
Commercial energy efficiency
rebates
Green Infrastructure projects
LED Replacement
Improved composting equipment
Aspen, CO Mix between general
fund, enterprise fund
and the Renewable
Energy Management
Program
(~$13M/year split
between Aspen and
Pitkin County)
Electric vehicle program expansion
REC purchases
Expanded transit networks
Commercial green building program
Grants
Landfill enterprise fund revenues
(follow-up)
City composting and recycling
program
Commercial energy efficiency
programs
Energy efficiency rebates
Austin, TX Grants and Enterprise
Fund revenues
(one DOE grant
provides $2.5M/year)
Energy efficiency rebates
Public outreach
REC purchases
Expanded bike infrastructure
City Primary Revenue
Source(s)
Major Programs Funded
Secondary Revenue Source(s)
Other Programs Funded
Burlington,
VT
Light and Power
Enterprise Fund
Energy efficiency rebates On-bill financing
Grants
Renewable Energy creation
(biomass burning)
Regional transportation networks
Denver,
CO
Environmental Health
Enterprise Fund
(~$7-9M/year)
Energy efficiency rebates
Urban agriculture
EV fleet conversions
TIF District creation (~$380K/year)
Private sector partnerships
PACE financing
Grants (ARRA)
Green infrastructure
Eugene,
OR
Grants Expansion of multi-modal transit
Energy efficiency rebates
REC purchases
Complete streets pilot programs
Transportation and multi-modal transit
(including low-stress bike lanes)
Private sector partnerships
Partnership with the Oregon energy
trust
Green building incentives
Energy efficient affordable housing
projects
Kansas
City, MO
Grants and city capital
operating funds
($14.3M/year, $30.6
per capita)
Energy efficiency rebates
Municipal facility energy efficiency
upgrades
Green infrastructure
Community gardens
Outreach to low-income populations
through bus expansion, infrastructure and
urban agriculture
GO Bonds ($200M/year for projects
with co-benefits to climate action)
TDD District creation ($20M+)
PACE Financing
Private sector partnerships ($30-
1
Road to 2020: Forging our Efficient Future
Jeff Mihelich, Mike Beckstead, Lindsay Ex
August 30, 2016
ATTACHMENT 6
Questions for City Council
1. Does Council have feedback on the
branding process?
2. Does the outline for the February
Work Session meet Council’s
expectations?
2
Outline
• Branding – Road to 2020
• Road to 2020
• Budget Alignment
• Initiative Vetting
• Funding Energy Efficiency and Scaling Up
• Research on Funding Climate-related Work
• Next Steps
3
Transitioning CAP
4
Bridging Language
ROAD paints the picture that this is a
journey we are on together, while 2020
keeps our next goal in sight.
FORGING is an actionable word that
depicts building something and feels like
unchartered territory.
OUR reminds us that this is for our
community here in Fort Collins.
EFFICIENT covers all things from
energy consumption to waste
management and economic spending.
FUTURE reinforces that this is long-term
planning, that Fort Collins is forward-
thinking and that the efforts made will
impact us today and tomorrow.
5
Community Engagement
6
• August 4 (& Sept 29) – Community Advisory Committee
• August 5 – Planning and Zoning Board
• August 24 – Lincoln Center Event with Former Gov. Ritter
• August 25 – Energy Board Work Session
• August 30 – City Council Work Session
• Additional Boards, Stakeholder Groups TBD
Actions to Outcomes
7
8
Road to 2020: Budget Alignment
• 90 Offers – $161M (2017)
§ Most are core services (98%)
§ Remaining 2% or $3.6M
§ $2.2M – Scaling Up Existing
Programs (5 offers)
§ $800K – New Programs
(7 offers)
§ $600K – Internal City
Improvements to Lead by
Example (3 offers)
Iterative Process
9
Initiative Vetting
10
Template
Submission
Finance
Feedback
Revisions
Finance
Mechanisms
Grading
Model
Aggregates
Data
• One model houses all initiative
data
• Costs
• Benefits
• Cost Effectiveness
• Project Information
• In Process – co-benefits, e.g., ozone
• Iterative vetting process
refines assumptions
• Core variables
• Teams enter assumptions
• Finance mechanisms team
assesses confidence level
Initiative: Bicycle Network
11
Improve bicycling conditions &
increase bike ridership to 10%
• Low stress network
• Reduction in Vehicle Miles
Travelled (VMT) drives GHG
reduction
• Aligned with community culture
• Requires consistent
participation for GHG benefit
$6M
infrastructure
costs
No
required
3rd
party
investment
Modest ROI
Improves
health and air
quality
Moderate
carbon
reductions
Participants save $15/Month
on their fuel costs
Initiative: Community Solar
12
Provides incentive for
community solar projects
• Clean power option for
residents beyond rooftop solar
• Significant community interest
• Leverages municipal
investment
• Clear and automatic GHG
benefit
$1M
incentive
costs
$2.6M 3rd
party
investment
Balanced ROI
Benefits
families
Moderate
carbon
reductions
Participants save $28/Month
on their utility bills
Long-Term Funding Strategies
13
Funding Options:
• City Debt/Cash
• Utility Rates/Debt
• Taxes/Fees
• Public Private Partnerships
• Private Debt & Grants
City Bonds
City Green Bonds
Establish Green Bank
Considerations:
• Funding follows the Project
• Projects need positive cash
flow to support investment
• Project Maturity & Vetting
• City Debt & Rate Capacity
• Peer Cities Research
• Examples:
• On-Bill Financing
On-Bill Financing: How It Works
Loans for residential efficiency upgrades:
1. Audit identifies opportunities
2. Homeowner/contractors define scope
3. Utilities qualifies project
4. 3rd party qualifies customer for loan
5. Project complete, loan closed
6. Paid thru utilities bill
7. Utilities maintains loan/absorbs loan losses
14
On-Bill Financing: Results
15
• Currently $1.6M funding approved
• Energy Efficiency is an important
initiative within overall energy goals
• Will require significant capital to
achieve goals
• 3,000 homes @ $12k per loan = $36M
• Beyond the capacity of the City
• Staff issued RFP to solicit 3rd
party
capital to allow program to scale up as
needed
On-Bill Financing: Elevations Example
Elevations Credit Union Provides 3rd Party Capital and:
• Provides loan/closing support
• Sets interest rate (2.75% to 9.125%)
• Reduces fees
• Loan service TBD - Utility bill or Elevations
• No loan default risk to the City
• Project eligibility process remains the same
16
Example - City Provides Initial Funding Capital, Develops a Successful
Program and then Transitions to 3rd
Party Capital to Achieve Scale
Peer Cities Research
17
Palo Alto
80% by 2030
Asheville
2% annual
reduction
80% by 2050
Boulder
20% by 2020
43.5% by 2030
81% by 2050
Fort Collins:
20% by 2020
80% by 2030
Carbon neutral by 2050
Kansas City
30% by 2020
80% by 2050
Austin
40% by 2030
Carbon neutral by
2050
Smaller Similar Population Larger
Denver
80% by 2050
Aspen
30% by 2020
80% by 2050
Peer Research: Public Voting
18
Public Votes Already Occurred
• Goals:
• Berkeley (passed, 81%)
• Funding:
• Boulder (passed, 82%)
- Tax on light and power
consumption, ~$1.8M annually
• Carbondale (failed, 61%)
- Electricity and gas surcharge,
about $350K would have been
generated annually
Public Votes Pending (Nov. Ballot)
• Goals: N/A
• Funding:
• San Diego
- 0.5% tax for 40 years, up to $18B
generated for transportation
projects
• State of Washington
- Revenue neutral tax assessed at
the state level (credits for emission
reduction initiatives)
Peer Research: Financing Mechanisms
Funding Source
City
Taxes, Fees,
and Credits
(i.e. carbon
tax)
Enterprise
Fund
Revenue
Pooled
Entity
Resources
(i.e. PACE
financing)
Special
District
Funding
(i.e. TIF
Districts)
Grant
Funds
Bonds
Asheville, NC
Aspen, CO
Austin, TX
Boulder, CO
Denver, CO
Kansas City, MO
Palo Alto, CA
= Primary revenue source (if applicable) = Other revenue sources 19
Peer Cities Research –
Considerations for Fort Collins
• Kansas City, MO
• Boulder, CO
• Asheville, NC
20
Next Steps
• Innovate FC Competition – Sept 28
• February 2016 Work Session:
• Full vetting of all 31 initiatives and
scenarios to 2020 developed
• Road to 2020 Dashboard
• Outcome of branding process
21
Questions for City Council
22
1. Does Council have feedback on the
branding process?
2. Does the outline for the February
Work Session meet Council’s
expectations?
23
Road to 2020: Forging our Efficient Future
Jeff Mihelich, Mike Beckstead, Lindsay Ex
August 30, 2016
$50M)
Utility pass-throughs ($100K/year)
Stormwater system overhaul
Bike infrastructure
Bike share program
Multi-modal transit (KC Streetcar)
ROI buy-down program
Transit-oriented development
Palo Alto,
CA
Mix between general
fund, enterprise fund
and secondary sources
Community solar program
Natural gas offset purchases
Water system infrastructure, education,
and incentives
Anaerobic digester facility
EV and CNG fleet conversion
Multi-modal transportation
Urban food systems
Green energy tariffs ($100K/year)
PACE financing
Grants
On-bill financing
Feed-in-energy tariffs
REC purchases
Energy efficiency rebates
Portland,
OR
Enterprise Fund
Revenues, general
fund dollars, and
grants
Green Infrastructure
LED light installation
Solar programs
Creating non-profit spin-off groups
REC Purchases
Local Improvement Districts
Grants
Partnership with the Oregon
energy trust
Home weatherization programs
Energy efficiency rebate programs
Santa
Barbara,
CA
Grants Climate Action Planning
Scientific research consultations
Energy efficiency rebates
Municipal facility upgrades
Tacoma,
WA
Enterprise Fund
Revenue
REC purchases
Outreach to low-income populations
Energy efficiency rebates
General fund dollars
Grants
Increased availability of renewable
power
Green Infrastructure
PACE financing
Private sector partnerships
GO Bonds
Green building certification fees
Energy efficiency rebates
Warehouse to Energy Efficiency
Loans
Green building program and design
workshops
Berkeley,
CA
Mix between general
fund, enterprise fund,
CIP funds and
secondary sources
Energy efficiency rebates
Buy local programming
Commercial recycling program
Commercial electric vehicle program
Zero waste initiatives
Fuel switching program for municipal fleet
Green infrastructure projects
Greywater incentives
Community engagement
Composting programs
Bike share program
GO bonds
PACE financing
Grants (Among others, the 100
resilient cities initiative provides
around $1M for resiliency planning,
staff, and resource support.)
Green Energy Building fees
Green business certification
program
Resiliency planning
Green infrastructure/building
Support for low income energy
efficiency programs
Community solar program
LED streetlights
EV infrastructure
Boulder,
CO
Carbon Tax
($1.8M a year)
Energy efficiency rebates
System-wide decarbonization strategy
Natural gas replacement
Public engagement
Boulder Energy Challenge grants
Energy smart advisor program
SmartRegs program for rental housing
Local carbon offset fund
GO bonds
Grants (one grant provides
~$1M/year for resiliency work)
Resiliency planning
Municipal energy efficiency
upgrades
ATTACHMENT 5
Offer does not directly
reduce emissions, but
supports that effort
2020
Road to 2020
BUDGET ALIGNMENT Forging Our Efficient Future
through the Budgeting for Outcome
process; a majority of the programs
that are being considered in the
budget process are existing
programs that are being scaled up
or are offers that are not driven or
accelerated by these goals, yet
benefit them.
ATTACHMENT 3
Water and Land
Use
2% Carbon Sequestration
(storage of carbon) in
open lands and in
urban forests
Open lands and forested urban
environment improves air quality and
sense of place
Estimated 2020 109% Initial Modeling