HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 08/08/2017 - COMPLETE AGENDACity of Fort Collins Page 1
Wade Troxell, Mayor City Council Chambers
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Ken Summers, 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 (V/TDD: Dial
711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance.
Special Meeting
August 8, 2017
6:00 p.m.
(Amended 8/7/17)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
Discussion Items
The method of debate for discussion items is as follows:
● Mayor introduces the item number, and subject; asks if formal presentation will be
made by staff
● Staff presentation (optional)
● Mayor requests citizen comment on the item (three minute limit for each citizen)
● Council questions of staff on the item
● Council motion on the item
● Council discussion
● Final Council comments
● Council vote on the item
Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Mayor, to ensure
all citizens have an opportunity to speak. Please sign in at the table in the back of the room.
The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will buzz again
at the end of the speaker’s time.
City of Fort Collins Page 2
1. Resolution 2017-073 Directing the City Manager to Submit to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Commission and Other Agencies the City's Comments on the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and
Enhancement Plan for the Northern Integrated Supply Project and Directing Testimony Regarding
the Same. (staff: John Stokes; 10 minute staff presentation; 90 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to consider a resolution to adopt a set of draft comments regarding the
State of Colorado Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan (the Plan) for the Northern
Integrated Supply Project (NISP). As early as the turn of the 19th century, the Poudre River was
known as a “hard working” river. Now, well into the 21st century, pressures on the Poudre have
increased dramatically as the region thrives. In the early 1970s Fort Collins realized that the Poudre
had the potential to be more than an industrial zone. Since that time, Fort Collins has invested many
tens of millions of dollars in parks, natural areas, river restoration, flood mitigation, and a riverside
trail. Fort Collins owns about 70% of the floodplain within the city’s growth management area. The
Poudre River trail starts west of the City at the CPW Watson Lake facility and with the exception of a
short section yet to be completed near Timnath, runs to Greeley. Throughout the year visitors
throng the River, including boaters, tubers, hikers, bikers, and anglers. According to a 2012 CPW
report, the highest creel counts on the Poudre are in downtown Fort Collins not, as one might expect,
in the upper reaches of the wild and scenic section.
In short, the 10 miles of the Poudre corridor through Fort Collins have become a defining feature of
the community’s connection to the outdoors, its culture, and its sense of place.
In 2015, Fort Collins City Council adopted a position regarding NISP in Resolution 2015-082. The
resolution states that NISP would be harmful to Fort Collins and states “City Council cannot support
NISP as it is currently described and proposed…”
In 2017, Fort Collins City Council adopted Resolution 2017-024 authorizing the City Manager and his
designees to meet on a regular basis with Northern Water to discuss and explore Fort Collins’
interests in order to ascertain whether those interests can be met pursuant to the terms of the
resolution. To date, while several amicable meetings have occurred, Fort Collins and Northern
Water have not reached any new understandings or agreements.
While staff’s draft comment letter implicitly assumes that NISP will be permitted and constructed by
recommending various changes to NISP and its operations, nothing in draft comment letter should
be interpreted to be a change of Fort Collins’ position regarding NISP.
While the Plan contains new, useful, and encouraging mitigation measures, staff continues to believe
that NISP will have damaging impacts to Fort Collins and is concerned that the Plan does not
sufficiently address a number of key concerns. In addition to describing a number of concerns, the
comment letter also describes numerous recommendations to address the concerns.
The major elements of the proposed comments on the Plan are:
Peak Flows
Water Quality
Mitigation, Restoration, Channel Improvements, and Conveyance
Adaptive Management and Long-term Monitoring
Uncertainties regarding agreements
Mitigation and Enhancement Costs
Big game habitat
City of Fort Collins Page 3
2. Items Relating to a Proposed Charter Amendment to Add a New Section to Charter Article XII
Pertaining to Telecommunication Facilities and Services. (staff: SeonAh Kendall, Mike Beckstead;
15 minute staff presentation; 1 hour discussion)
A. Possible Public Hearing and Motions Regarding Protest(s) of Ballot Language.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2017, Submitting to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the
City of Fort Collins a Proposed Amendment to Article XII of the City Charter to Add a New
Section 7 Pertaining to Telecommunication Facilities and Services.
The purpose of this item is to propose an amendment to Charter Article XII, Municipal Public Utilities.
The amendment would authorize the City Council to provide, by future ordinance,
telecommunications/broadband facilities and services as a public utility, to issue of up to $150 million
in bonds, the ability to go into executive session to discuss matters related to competition in the
telecommunications industry, and the option to establish governance of this public utility through a
board and/or to delegate rate-making authority to the City Manager. This measure does not mandate
that the City provide municipal retail broadband services, or that a third-party be the provider.
Any protest of the proposed ballot language must be received no later than Monday, August 7, 2017,
at noon. The protest(s) shall be heard, considered, and resolved by Council prior to adoption of
Ordinance No. 101, 2017. If protest(s) are received, copies will be included in Council’s “Read-
before” packet.
3. Items Relating to a Proposed Charter Amendment Regarding Municipal Court Functions. (staff:
Carrie Daggett, Judge Kathleen Lane; 10 minute staff presentation; 15 minute discussion)
A. Possible Public Hearing and Motions Regarding Protest(s) of Ballot Language.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2017, Submitting to a Vote of the Electors of the City of Fort
Collins a Proposed Amendment to Section 1 of Article VII of the City Charter Pertaining to the
Jurisdiction of the Municipal Court to Hear Civil Cases.
This item sets a ballot question that would modify the jurisdiction of Municipal Court to eliminate the
Municipal Court’s jurisdiction over civil cases while retaining the Court’s jurisdiction to hear and try all
proceedings initiated by the City alleging violations of the Charter and ordinances of the City. The
Ordinance submits the question to Fort Collins voters at the November 7, 2017, Special Municipal
Election. The Charter Amendment has been proposed in order to prevent future appeals to
Municipal Court of civil actions that are more appropriately heard in Larimer County District Court
and that the Municipal Court is not well situated to hear.
Any protest of the proposed ballot language must be received no later than Monday, August 7, 2017,
at noon. The protest(s) shall be heard, considered, and resolved by Council prior to adoption of
Ordinance No. 102, 2017. If protest(s) are received, copies will be included in Council’s “Read-
before” packet.
4. First Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2017, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund
for the Conduct of a Special Election on November 7, 2017, that was not included in the 2017
Adopted City Budget. (staff: Wanda Winkelmann; no staff presentation; 5 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to appropriate $150,000 from prior year reserves for the conduct of the
November 7, 2017, Special Election. This is an estimated amount based on prior participation in
coordinated elections. Final costs will be determined by the number of eligible Fort Collins voters,
and the number of entities participating/sharing in the cost of the election.
City of Fort Collins Page 4
5. First Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 2017, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital
Projects Fund and Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Transfer to the Capital
Projects Fund for Construction of the Final Five Acres of the Gardens on Spring Creek and
Transferring Appropriations to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Art in Public Places
Program. (staff: Michelle Provaznik; 10 minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion)
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN AND MOVED TO AUGUST 15.
The purpose of this item is to appropriate $2,631,000 for construction of the Gardens on Spring
Creek facility including the Great Lawn, Undaunted Garden, Foothills and Prairie Gardens. This item
also appropriates the funds needed for the Arts in Public Places artwork that is part of the capital
project.
6. First Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2017, Imposing a Moratorium Until December 31, 2017, upon
the Acceptance of Applications for the Installation of and/or the Issuance of Right-of-Way Permits for
New Antennas, Small Cell Facilities, Towers and Wireless Service facilities by any Third Party in City
Rights-of-Way in any Zone District. (staff: Tyler Marr; 10 minute staff presentation; 15 minute
discussion)
The purpose of this item is to consider a moratorium until December 31, 2017, on the installation of
cellular facilities in public rights-of-way. This would allow the City time to draft and implement
appropriate regulations on such installations while still complying with HB 17-1193, which expanded
the right of companies to utilize the right of way for small cell installations.
ADJOURNMENT
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 8, 2017
City Council
STAFF
John Stokes, Natural Resources Director
SUBJECT
Resolution 2017-073 Directing the City Manager to Submit to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission and
Other Agencies the City's Comments on the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan for the
Northern Integrated Supply Project and Directing Testimony Regarding the Same.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to consider a resolution to adopt a set of draft comments regarding the State of
Colorado Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan (the Plan) for the Northern Integrated Supply
Project (NISP). As early as the turn of the 19th century, the Poudre River was known as a “hard working”
river. Now, well into the 21st century, pressures on the Poudre have increased dramatically as the region
thrives. In the early 1970s Fort Collins realized that the Poudre had the potential to be more than an industrial
zone. Since that time, Fort Collins has invested many tens of millions of dollars in parks, natural areas, river
restoration, flood mitigation, and a riverside trail. Fort Collins owns about 70% of the floodplain within the
city’s growth management area. The Poudre River trail starts west of the City at the CPW Watson Lake
facility and with the exception of a short section yet to be completed near Timnath, runs to Greeley.
Throughout the year visitors throng the River, including boaters, tubers, hikers, bikers, and anglers. According
to a 2012 CPW report, the highest creel counts on the Poudre are in downtown Fort Collins not, as one might
expect, in the upper reaches of the wild and scenic section.
In short, the 10 miles of the Poudre corridor through Fort Collins have become a defining feature of the
community’s connection to the outdoors, its culture, and its sense of place.
In 2015, Fort Collins City Council adopted a position regarding NISP in Resolution 2015-082. The resolution
states that NISP would be harmful to Fort Collins and states “City Council cannot support NISP as it is
currently described and proposed…”
In 2017, Fort Collins City Council adopted Resolution 2017-024 authorizing the City Manager and his
designees to meet on a regular basis with Northern Water to discuss and explore Fort Collins’ interests in
order to ascertain whether those interests can be met pursuant to the terms of the resolution. To date, while
several amicable meetings have occurred, Fort Collins and Northern Water have not reached any new
understandings or agreements.
While staff’s draft comment letter implicitly assumes that NISP will be permitted and constructed by
recommending various changes to NISP and its operations, nothing in draft comment letter should be
interpreted to be a change of Fort Collins’ position regarding NISP.
While the Plan contains new, useful, and encouraging mitigation measures, staff continues to believe that
NISP will have damaging impacts to Fort Collins and is concerned that the Plan does not sufficiently address a
number of key concerns. In addition to describing a number of concerns, the comment letter also describes
numerous recommendations to address the concerns.
The major elements of the proposed comments on the Plan are:
1
Packet Pg. 5
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 2
Peak Flows
Water Quality
Mitigation, Restoration, Channel Improvements, and Conveyance
Adaptive Management and Long-term Monitoring
Uncertainties regarding agreements
Mitigation and Enhancement Costs
Big game habitat
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
NISP, a proposed water supply and storage project serving 15 communities and water districts in northern
Colorado (including the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District that serves portions of southeast Fort Collins) has
been in the federal permitting process for 12 years. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) must
issue a (404) permit before the project may proceed to construction. The City has participated in the federal
permitting process as a stakeholder, in particular making comments Draft Environmental Impact Statement in
2008, and again in 2015 with respect to the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Currently,
the Corps is drafting a Final Environmental Impact Statement expected for release in late 2017.
In addition to the Army Corps permit, the project must receive a water quality certification from the Colorado
Department of Health and the Environment (CDPHE) and an approved State Wildlife Mitigation and
Enhancement Plan (the Plan).
The purpose of this agenda item is to review and discuss staff’s proposed comments on the draft Plan that has
been submitted to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission (CPW). CPW is accepting public comments
(<http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/pages/commission.aspx>) on the Plan and the Commission will be having a
public hearing on August 10 or 11, 2017, to accept oral testimony.
The Plan is due for final consideration by the Commission on September 7. If the Commission approves the
Plan, it is submitted to the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) and then to the Governor’s office for
final approval. Once the Plan has been approved by the CPW Commission, it is likely to be accepted by
CWCB and the Governor.
Staff believes it is vitally important for the City to comment on the Plan. The Plan will have a significant long-
term impact to Fort Collins. Furthermore, the Plan is likely to strongly influence the Army Corps of Engineers
and its approach to NISP mitigation
The state statute (CRS 37-60-122.2) that requires the creation of the Plan explains:
“The general assembly hereby declares that such fish and wildlife resources are a matter of statewide
concern and that impacts on such resources should be mitigated by the project applicants in a
reasonable manner. It is the intent of the general assembly that fish and wildlife resources that are
affected by the construction, operation, or maintenance of water diversion, delivery, or storage facilities
should be mitigated to the extent, and in a manner, that is economically reasonable and maintains a
balance between the development of the state's water resources and the protection of the state's fish
and wildlife resources.”
Following are brief descriptions of each of the key concerns and associated recommendations. For the full
versions, please see the draft comment letter. (Exhibit A to Resolution 2017-073) Please note that the draft
comment letter is mostly unchanged from the July 25 work session version. Material was added at the
beginning of the letter to describe the City’s history of investing in the river corridor and describing its value to
the community.
1
Packet Pg. 6
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 3
Peak Flows: Regular high flows are necessary to “clean” the River and protect fish and wildlife habitat and to
protect human health and safety (in particular with respect to maintain adequate capacity for flood flows). To
its credit, the Plan includes a peak flow mitigation strategy. However, the strategy is not likely to achieve the
state’s goal of protecting fish and wildlife, nor will it assure continued channel maintenance and capacity. Staff
recommends an annual 3-day peak flow bypass (i.e., no water will be diverted into Glade Reservoir for 3 days
during the peak flows that occur in May/June).
Water Quality: While the Plan proposes some water quality mitigation measures, the measures were
developed in the absence of a quantitative water quality impacts analysis (the State of Colorado water quality
401 certification currently under development as a part of the final environmental impact statement (“EIS”).
Fort Collins recommends withholding approval of the Plan until the final EIS and final water quality impacts
analysis are made publicly available.
Mitigation, Restoration, Channel Improvements, and Conveyance: The Plan proposes a number of
mitigation and enhancement measures. The mitigation measures are designed to address the unavoidable
impacts of NISP. In general, staff believes that these measures are inadequate to mitigate the system-wide
extent of NISP’s impacts and should be substantially improved. Staff recommends that NISP increase its $7.8
million financial commitment for restoration and enhancements by $14.2 million.
Adaptive Management and Long-term monitoring: The Plan includes a welcome adaptive management
and monitoring component, however the elements are incomplete. Staff recommends that an independent and
collaborative adaptive management and monitoring program be established. In addition, the monitoring
program should be funded for 50 years, not 20 and the annual budget should be increased from $50,000 to
$100,000.
Uncertainties Regarding Agreements: Agreements with various third-party entities and persons need to be
completed for the Plan to operate as contemplated to mitigate NISP’s impacts on fish and wildlife resources.
However, the Plan fails to identify completed and certain agreements, and there are numerous assumptions
throughout the Plan concerning agreements with third parties. Staff appreciates that Northern Water and CPW
have good intentions. CPW, however, should withhold approval of the Plan until crucial agreements are
complete.
Mitigation and Enhancement Costs: Fort Collins recommends increased spending on mitigation,
enhancement, and monitoring provisions by no less than $18.2 million (an additional $9.2 million for mitigation;
$5 million for enhancements; $4 million for monitoring). The original NISP budget is $857 million (page 9 of
the Plan). Though the mitigation and enhancement costs are represented in several different ways in the Plan,
on page 88, the costs are described as $40 million, or 4.6% of the overall NISP budget. An extra $18.2 million
would be a sum total of $58 million and would represent 6.8% of the original NISP budget. The proposal to
increase the budget for these items is reasonable, practicable, and achievable for a project with the scale and
impact of NISP and commensurate with the cost of mitigation on other major Front Range water projects (e.g.,
the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project and the Chatfield Reservoir Reallocation Project). The total cost of
each NISP acre-foot of water at full build out would be negligibly affected and each NISP acre-foot of water
would still only be approximately one-half the current cost of an acre-foot of firm yield from the Colorado Big
Thompson Project.
Big Game Habitat: While these comments generally are restricted to those elements of the Plan that directly
pertain to Fort Collins and its boundaries, staff recommends additional big game habitat protection on the west
side of the proposed Glade Reservoir. An approximately 5,000-acre State Land Board (“SLB”) parcel will
adjoin the west side of Glade; to the west, the SLB parcel is bounded by Gateway Natural Area, owned and
managed by Fort Collins, as well as water and land managed by the City of Greeley, and then United States
Forest Service property. The SLB parcel currently is leased by CPW for hunting and fishing access and it
provides a crucial buffer to federal lands to the west as well as providing high quality big game winter range.
This range will be even more important should Glade Reservoir be constructed and fragment big game habitat,
especially critical winter range. Fort Collins recommends a partnership - that could include Fort Collins - to
conserve the SLB parcel in perpetuity for it wildlife and associated recreation values.
1
Packet Pg. 7
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 4
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
There are no direct financial impacts associated with the resolution or comments letter.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Staff met with the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board, the Natural Resources Advisory Board, and the
Water Board to review and discuss the proposed comments. The boards were not asked to take action and
none chose to do so.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The draft comments were posted online for ten days. A handful of comments were received. (Attachment 1) An
email was distributed to several hundred citizens who attend the last NISP open house with an invitation to utilize
the online comment form.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Community comments (PDF)
2. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
1
Packet Pg. 8
Report for Comments on NISP
Completion Rate: 100%
Complete 9
Total: 9
Response Counts
Count Response
1 NISP agreed to keep flows of the Poudre River at 25 cfs in the summer and 18 cfs in
winter. This is dismal at best! Werner of NISP said "We think this is a great opportunity
to make the river better." Based on article in the Fort Collins Coloradoan July 27, 2017.
Fort Collins is in the top 10 or close to the top 10 cities in the USA to live in before
NISP. It's not broken. So don't try to fix it! The best plan to help fish and wildlife at the
Poudre River is to leave it flowing as before NISP. If a reservoir is built, build it down
stream from Fort Collins. Citizens of Fort Collins should always be given free entry and
use to offset the negative impact of NISP. The city of Fort Collins is not a participant in
the project for a reason. It hurts Fort Collins! More needs to be done to protect the city
of Fort Collins from NISP and this project. Once the project is in place at it's prescribed
location, it will be too late to protect Fort Collins. To me
1. Submit your thoughts on the City’s comments here.
ATTACHMENT 1
1.1
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Community comments (5808 : NISP Comments)
1 1. I think this document makes a valiant attempt to mitigate what cannot be mitigated.
The construction of NISP will write the epitaph of the Poudre River. 2. The decapitation
of peak flows in the spring caused by NISP will lead to greater simplification of the
aquatic invertebrates in the Poudre River. This will lead to greatly diminished health in
both trout and native fish species in the river, especially in areas where minimum flows
will not be maintained. 3. I would like to see some discussion of the effect of diminished
peak flows on our native minnows. The stress on the Poudre River ecology may be fatal
to some of our native fish species that are already struggling to survive. 4. The in-town
fishery in Fort Collins is a minor miracle, adding to the quality of life and the economy of
our city. This will, I believe, be eliminated by the construction of NISP.
1 Comments On The Proposed Northern Integrated Supply Project As you are all aware
the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) has been a contentious project for many.
While it was proposed to benefit some front range communities in supplying water for
their future growth, Fort Collins was not one of those participants and would not
benefit from NISP's implementation. The Poudre River, flowing through the heart of Fort
Collins, provides its primary benefit to the city and its residents through its ecological,
recreational, educational and quality of life attributes. The past history of reduced water
flows in the Poudre from water diversions for municipal and agricultural uses and in
more recent decades, drought related issues, have manifested themselves in a river that
is seen by many as facing a critical stage in its ability to sustain a healthy riparian and
biological environment. Reduced water flows during most of the year have greatly
impacted the ability of aquatic life to
1 I agree with city staff; mitigation will not work. The city should oppose NISP and push
for real conservation by the cities that want it.
1 I am uncomfortable with the City staff offering to discuss damming the Poudre River at
the Glade location. There is only so much water to come through the Fort Collins
channel. I live by the river and off season the water is in pools but not continuous. I saw
a pair of ducks swimming down the Poudre at Martinez Park, then walking on the rocks
for a bit until another pond is available. This is not a River in all seasons. Global warming
is thawing the snow in the mountains sooner and changing the seasons for earlier. Sand
cranes come to find the season is warmer earlier so the habitat they used to depend on
is changed. I believe this planning the dam on the mouth of the river will be a warm,
mosquito breeding place. The Hallogen dam up the river is easier to get a quantity of
water stored in cooler, deeper location, for much less cost and without destroying such
a large area including moving the Highway 287. dolores williams 415 Mason Court 7A,
Fort Collins, CO 80524
1 Last sentence "maintain or improve grade". Be more specific, fail to maintain means will
continue to degrade. Say this explicit and give an estimated time until a D and F would be
hit references data and standards.
Count Response
1.1
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Community comments (5808 : NISP Comments)
1 Thank you for specifying that the City of Fort Collins has not changed its position on
NISP and the negative impact it will have on Fort Collins in the City's introductory
comments. I do not have water or natural resources expertise but my overall concern
with the NISP FWMEP is that the only certainty in the plan is that the 15 participants will
receive 40,000 acre feet of water annually no matter the impact on the Poudre River. I
appreciate City staff members expertise as demonstrated in the City's draft comments.
Building on and using the findings and recommendation in the "State of the Poudre - A
River Health Assessment" is an excellent point and I would hope the CPW and Northern
Water recognize the utility of using this approach. Thank you for your attention to detail
in the technical portion of the City's draft comments. Please continue to advocate for
Fort Collins and the health of the Poudre River.
1 The City should take advantage of the opportunity to work with Northern to improve
the river from its current condition, particularly with respect to guaranteed in-stream
flows, fish passage, etc. They should cooperate towards the best possible outcome,
and realize that compromise is necessary. Expecting perfection and taking too
adversarial of a position will likely result in disappointment. I would hate to see the City
lose a working seat at the table by being unreasonable.
1 testing by Zoe
Count Response
1.1
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Community comments (5808 : NISP Comments)
1
Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan for the
Northern Integrated Supply Project
Consideration of City’s Proposed Response
Council Regular Meeting August 8, 2017
ATTACHMENT 2
1.2
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5808 : NISP Comments)
Process
2
Overview Presentations to boards (mid-July)
Land Conservation and Stewardship Board,
Natural Resources Advisory Board
Water Board
Council
July 25th
Work session review of comments
August 8th
Council consideration of a resolution
Public
Online comment opportunity July 20th
-July 30th
August 10/11
Public testimony opportunity to “Wildlife Commission” (Trinidad)
September 8
Wildlife Commission may adopt the Plan
1.2
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5808 : NISP Comments)
Colorado State Statute
“The general assembly hereby declares that such fish and wildlife
resources are a matter of statewide concern and…
…should be mitigated to the extent, and in a manner, that is
economically reasonable and maintains a balance between the
development of the state's water resources and the protection of
the state's fish and wildlife resources.”
3
1.2
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5808 : NISP Comments)
4
National Environmental Policy Act (Final EIS-late 2017)
404 Clean Water Act permit
State of Colorado Wildlife Mitigation Plan (2017)
State of Colorado 401 Certification (2018)
Record of Decision
Permits and process
1.2
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5808 : NISP Comments)
Fort Collins 2015 position
5
“…City Council cannot support NISP as it currently described and proposed
in the SDEIS with the understanding that the City Council may reach a
different conclusion with respect to a future variant of NISP….if such variant
addresses the City’s fundamental concerns…
1.2
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5808 : NISP Comments)
2017 Council Direction
6
In 2017, Fort Collins City Council adopted Resolution 2017-024 authorizing
the City Manager and his designees to meet on a regular basis with
Northern Water to discuss and explore Fort Collins’ interests in order to
ascertain whether those interests can be met pursuant to the terms of the
resolution.
1.2
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5808 : NISP Comments)
7
1.2
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5808 : NISP Comments)
8
Adds base flow for 12 mile reach
Summer 25 cfs
Winter 18 cfs
1.2
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5808 : NISP Comments)
City’s concerns/comments
9
1. Peak flows
2. Mitigation, restoration, channel improvements, channel
conveyance
3. Water quality
4. Adaptive Management
5. Cost
6. Big Game
1.2
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5808 : NISP Comments)
10
1. Peak flows –
• Definition for flushing flows too narrow, analysis
inappropriate, tiered approach for Peak Flow Program
provides flows too low to maintain “unclogged riverbed.”
• Recommendation: improve peak flow program to allow
a complete 3 day bypass (no diversion for 3 days)
2. Water quality
3. Restoration, channel improvements, channel conveyance
4. Adaptive Management
5. Uncertainties
Key concerns & recommendations
1.2
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5808 : NISP Comments)
11
1. Peak flows
2. Water quality
2. Restoration, channel improvements, channel conveyance:
Limited and piecemeal. Wrong type and scale for impacts
Recommendation: systematic mitigation
1. 3-day flow by-pass
2. Discuss flow based mitigation of ascending and
descending limbs with CPW/Northern
3. Large scale restoration of river-floodplain connectivity
Key concerns & recommendations
1.2
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5808 : NISP Comments)
Key concerns & recommendations
12
1. Peak flows
3. Water quality: no data, analysis
Recommendation: do not adopt mitigation plan/adaptive
management until results for 401 certification are available
1. Restoration, channel improvements, channel conveyance
2. Adaptive Management
3. Uncertainties
4. Cost
1.2
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5808 : NISP Comments)
13
1. Peak flows
2. Water quality
3. Restoration, channel improvements, channel conveyance
4. Adaptive Management: CPW and Northern lead monitoring and
adaptive management program, no defined performance
standards or “action” triggers.
Recommendation: create an independent monitoring group.
Establish clear objectives/triggers. Use all applicable
data/programs, not just EIS and new data.
Key concerns & recommendations
1.2
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5808 : NISP Comments)
14
5. Cost: $$ commitment too low for scope/size cost of project.
Recommendation: increase total mitigation expenditures from
$53M to 71.2M. Cost would still be one-half the cost of CBT.
Key concerns & recommendations
1.2
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5808 : NISP Comments)
15
1. Peak flows
2. Water quality
3. Restoration, channel improvements, channel conveyance
4. Adaptive Management
5. Uncertainties
t:
6. Big Game: important habitat in vicinity of Glade will be
fragmented.
Recommendation: conserve State Land Board property west of
Glade in perpetuity
Key concerns & recommendations
1.2
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5808 : NISP Comments)
Resolution to consider
16
RESOLUTION 2017-073
Directing the City Manager to submit to the Colorado Parks
and Wildlife Commission and other agencies the City’s
comments on the fish and wildlife mitigation and
enhancement plan for the Northern Integrated Supply
Project…
1.2
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5808 : NISP Comments)
-1-
RESOLUTION 2017-073
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT TO THE COLORADO PARKS AND
WILDLIFE COMMISSION AND OTHER AGENCIES THE CITY’S COMMENTS
ON THE FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT PLAN
FOR THE NORTHERN INTEGRATED SUPPLY PROJECT AND
DIRECTING TESTIMONY REGARDING THE SAME
WHEREAS, the City has numerous and varied interests in the Cache la Poudre River,
which flows through Fort Collins, and the City has made and intends to continue to make
substantial investments in and along the river and river corridor through Fort Collins; and
WHEREAS, the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (“Northern Water”) is
pursuing the Northern Integrated Supply Project (“NISP”), a water storage and supply project
that would divert significant amounts of water from the Cache la Poudre River upstream of Fort
Collins and thereby potentially impact Fort Collins, the City, and its interests; and
WHEREAS, to move forward with the necessary federal permitting for NISP, Northern
Water is required by the federal National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) to complete an
environmental impact review process, conducted in this case by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (“Corps”) as the permitting agency under the federal Clean Water Act; and
WHEREAS, as part of the federal review process, on April 30, 2008, the Corps issued a
draft Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”), and the City timely submitted comments on the
DEIS on September 10, 2008 pursuant to Resolution 2008-082; and
WHEREAS, as part of the federal review process, on May 12, 2015, the Corps issued a
supplemental draft Environmental Impact Statement (“SDEIS”), and the City timely submitted
comments on the SDEIS on September 2, 2015 pursuant to Resolution 2015-082; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 2017-024, City Council authorized and directed the
City Manager and his designees to meet on a regular basis with Northern Water regarding NISP
and to discuss and explore the City’s concerns and interests in order to ascertain whether those
interests can be met, including through potential solutions to address the City’s goals and issues
related to NISP; and
WHEREAS, to move forward with the necessary State of Colorado (“State”) permitting
for NISP, Northern Water is required by Section 37-60-122.2 of the Colorado Revised Statutes to
seek and receive State approval of a plan to mitigate NISP’s impacts on fish and wildlife
resources; and
WHEREAS, Northern Water’s proposed Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement
Plan (Applicant Proposal), dated June 9, 2017 (“Plan”), was submitted to the Colorado Parks
and Wildlife Commission; and
Packet Pg. 28
-2-
WHEREAS, City staff, working with the assistance of outside technical experts,
undertook a thorough and detailed technical analysis of the Plan primarily as it pertains to
NISP’s impacts to fish and wildlife resources in Fort Collins and to the City; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to express its support for other communities, including
participants in NISP, in their quest to acquire reliable water supplies without significantly and
adversely affecting other communities and the environment; and
WHEREAS, the City has concluded that the Plan is deficient in various respects,
including in its proposed minimization, mitigation, and enhancement activities concerning
NISP’s impacts to fish and wildlife resources in Fort Collins and to the City, as set forth in the
City’s comments on the Plan, which are attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; and
WHEREAS, some of the City’s comments on the Plan relate to issues that also pertain to
the federal permitting for NISP, and as such, the comments may also be appropriate to submit to
federal agencies such as the Corps; and
WHEREAS, nothing herein shall be construed to affect the City’s position regarding
NISP, as described in Resolution 2015-082 and Resolution 2017-024; and
WHEREAS, in view of the significance of the impacts that NISP would have on the City
and the Fort Collins community, it is in the City’s best interest to comment on the Plan, to
continue to participate in the related federal and State proceedings, and to monitor the responses
to the comments of the City and others.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to submit to the
State, through the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission, the Colorado Water Conservation
Board, and other federal and State agencies, comments to the Plan that are substantially similar
with those attached hereto in accordance with the deadline for such submissions.
Section 3. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to testify and/or
to designate staff persons to testify on behalf of the City before the Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Commission and the Colorado Water Conservation Board at their respective public hearings
regarding the City’s comments on the Plan, as it now exists or may be revised in the future, and
further, that Mayor Pro Tem Gerry Horak is also authorized to provide such testimony in
coordination with the City Manager and his designee(s).
Packet Pg. 29
-3-
Passed and adopted at a special meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 8th
day of August A.D. 2017.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 30
City Manager’s Office
City Hall
300 LaPorte Ave.
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6505
970.224.6107 - fax
fcgov.com
August 10, 2017
Dear Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission,
The City of Fort Collins (”Fort Collins”) respectfully submits the following comments on the
proposed Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan (Applicant Proposal), dated June
9, 2017 (“Plan”) for Northern Water’s proposed Northern Integrated Supply Project (“NISP”).
Fort Collins appreciates the public comment opportunity provided by the Colorado Parks and
Wildlife Commission (“CPW”) and the Colorado Water Conservation Board (“CWCB”). There
are two parts to this comment letter: Concerns and Key Recommendations, and Technical
Comments.
As early as the turn of the 19
th
century, the Poudre River was known as a “hard working” river.
Now, well into the 21
st
century, pressures on the Poudre have increased dramatically as the
region thrives. In the early 1970’s Fort Collins realized that the Poudre had the potential to be
more than an industrial zone. Since that time, Fort Collins has invested many tens of millions of
dollars in parks, natural areas, river restoration, flood mitigation, and a riverside trail. Fort
Collins owns about 70% of the floodplain within the city’s growth management area. The
Poudre River trail starts west of the City at the CPW Watson Lake facility and with the exception
of a short section yet to be completed near Timnath, runs to Greeley. Throughout the year
visitors throng the river including boaters, tubers, hikers, bikers, and anglers. According to a
2012 CPW report, the highest creel counts on the Poudre are in downtown Fort Collins not, as
one might expect, in the upper reaches of the wild and scenic section.
In short, the 10 miles of the Poudre corridor through Fort Collins have become a defining
feature of the community’s connection to the outdoors, its culture, and its sense of place
1
.
Fort Collins’ Concerns and Key Recommendations
It is Fort Collins’ understanding that CPW collaborated with Northern Water to help create
certain elements of the Plan. CPW and Northern are to be commended for the many positive
elements contained in the Plan. They include the refined conveyance operations that provide
base flows, fish passage on multiple structures, ramping of Hansen Canal deliveries, and the
1 In 2015, Fort Collins City Council adopted a position regarding NISP in Resolution No. 2015-
082. The resolution states that NISP would be harmful to Fort Collins and states “City Council
cannot support NISP as it is currently described and proposed…” While this comment letter
implicitly assumes that NISP will be permitted and constructed by recommending various
changes to NISP and its operations, nothing in this letter should be interpreted to be a change
of Fort Collins’ position regarding NISP.
1
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Exhibit A (5795 : NISP Comments RESO)
EXHIBIT A
2
inclusion of monitoring, adaptive management, and – very importantly - peak flow concepts
and strategies.
Despite these positive elements, Fort Collins remains highly concerned about the negative
impacts on fish and wildlife resources that will result from the system-wide changes that NISP
will cause to the Cache la Poudre River (“Poudre River”). Fort Collins expects various negative
impacts to occur even with implementation of the Plan. Thus, if NISP is permitted and
constructed, Fort Collins urges CPW and the CWCB to revise the Plan as set forth in this
comment letter. The comments are designed to help better mitigate NISP impacts in a manner
that remains economically reasonable and maintains a balance between the development of
the state’s water resources and the protection of the state’s fish and wildlife resources.
In 2015, Fort Collins City Council adopted a position regarding NISP in Resolution No. 2015-
082. The resolution states that NISP would be harmful to Fort Collins and states “City Council
cannot support NISP as it is currently described and proposed…” While this comment letter
implicitly assumes that NISP will be permitted and constructed by recommending various
changes to NISP and its operations, nothing in this letter should be interpreted to be a change of
Fort Collins’ position regarding NISP.
Fort Collins’ key concerns and suggestions for improvement of the Plan center on seven
themes. They are summarized below along with a brief description of Fort Collins’ key
recommendations. Fort Collins looks forward to continuing its dialogue with CPW, the CWCB,
Northern Water, and others interested in bettering the Poudre River and its fish and wildlife
resources.
1. Peak Flows. The Plan proposes a peak flow operations program; however, the program
will not accomplish the goals described by the statute (C.R.S. §37-60-122.2) for three
fundamental reasons. First, while the Plan aspires to support habitat needs for
spawning fish, it does not consider other basic needs for fish and wildlife resources.
Without a peak flow strategy adequate to support the food base of aquatic insects a
diversity of in-channel habitats and shading from a functional riparian zone, the Plan will
fail to mitigate impacts to fish and wildlife. Second, the definition presented for
“flushing flows,” to provide for surface cleaning of the riffles, is not applicable to the
Poudre River where gravels are settled within the riverbed matrix, not above it (see
peak flow technical comment #1, below). The proposed flushing flows prescribed in the
Plan to “clean the surface” will be insufficient to flush gravels. Third, the technical
report (Anderson, 2017) uses an unconventional approach for determining an adequate
flushing flow regime (see technical comments, below). Based on these observations,
the peak flow operations program proposed by the Plan will not accomplish the Plan’s
stated objective of providing spawning habitat for fish.
A proposed solution to the shortcomings of the Plan’s peak flow strategy is to adopt and
implement a modified peak flow strategy to ensure at a minimum an annual 3-day peak
flow bypass. That is, the Peak Flow Operations Program would be modified as an annual Tier 1
1
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Exhibit A (5795 : NISP Comments RESO)
3
event, which would more closely approximate the current peak flow regime than the proposed
tiered approach. Furthermore, the modified approach would be easier to manage and provide
more predictability than the tiered approach. Associated curtailment and increases of
NISP’s diversions should change the flows no more than 500 cubic feet per second
(”cfs”) over a 24-hour period. This will help ensure public safety and mitigate
desiccation of riparian habitat. Even with this strategy in place, NISP will diminish the
ascending and descending limbs of the hydrograph and negatively affect riverine and
riparian habitat. This approach has several advantages. It more closely approximates
the current flushing flow regime than the tiered approach proposed in the Plan, and it is
relatively easy to manage. While the annual 3-day bypass could affect NISP’s yield, Fort
Collins calculates the impact would be less than 5%, and that could be lowered through
various management actions.
Please note that under separate cover letter, Fort Collins will be providing technical
comments on the Anderson report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CPW, and the
Environmental Protection Agency (all three agencies apparently were consulted in the
process of developing the Plan’s peak flow mitigation strategy).
2. Water Quality. NISP is likely to have impacts to water quality and thus to fish and
wildlife resources. While the Plan proposes some water quality mitigation measures,
the measures were developed in the absence of a quantitative water quality impacts
analysis (the State of Colorado water quality 401 certification currently under
development as a part of the final environmental impact statement (“EIS”). Fort Collins
recommends withholding approval of the Plan until the final EIS and final water quality
impacts analysis are made publicly available so that the Commission can ascertain
whether mitigation measures will adequately prevent water quality impacts to fish and
wildlife.
3. Mitigation, Restoration, Channel Improvements, and Conveyance. The Plan proposes a
number of mitigation and enhancement measures. The mitigation measures are
designed to address the unavoidable impacts of NISP. In general, Fort Collins believes
that these measures are inadequate to mitigate the system-wide extent of NISP’s
impacts and should be substantially improved (such as impacts to the ascending and
descending limbs of the hodograph). While the impacts of NISP will occur throughout
the river corridor from the canyon mouth to the confluence with the South Platte River,
the restoration and proposed channel improvements are limited to short sections of
river. Fort Collins believes that this portion of the Plan could be greatly enhanced by
developing more mitigation projects throughout the river corridor, including specific
locations in and upstream of Fort Collins.
The primary focus for restoration should be on improving river-floodplain connectivity,
which has ecological and flood attenuation benefits (see technical comments below on
channel conveyance). The Plan is confusing in that it proposes restoration elements to
1
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Exhibit A (5795 : NISP Comments RESO)
4
mitigate for additional sedimentation and channel contraction, while at the same time
asserting that there will be no additional aggradation upstream of I-25. See Plan at A12.
Upstream mitigation could include reconnection of the river to its floodplain that might
mitigate potential flood conditions in Fort Collins (see comments below on channel
conveyance). The Plan’s proposed budget for mitigation is $2.8 million (page 87). In the
experience of Fort Collins, this will not be enough to achieve the Plan’s objectives or
enhancements to those objectives. Based on Poudre restoration projects the City has
undertaking or is contemplating, a more reasonable number would be in the
neighborhood of $12 million.
Fort Collins also recommends that the enhancement budget increase from $5 million to
$10 million. Again, this is based on the Poudre River restoration experience of Fort
Collins; in short, to work at scale, a more robust budget will be needed.
The ability of the Poudre River to convey flood flows from its watershed is not a topic
directly considered by the Plan. Nevertheless, a river that is able to convey flood flows
and minimize risk to human health and safety is a river that also protects the integrity of
fish and wildlife habitat. The devastating human and wildlife impacts of the 2013 floods
on Front Range rivers are instructive examples. Fort Collins has numerous foundational
concerns about the definitions and analytical approach under which flushing flows were
developed.
The Plan notes that channel maintenance flows – which are relevant to flood mitigation
– are not an objective. Fort Collins is concerned that long-term channel capacity, and
thus flood flow conveyance capacity, will be reduced through aggradation of sediment
within the channel and vegetation encroachment into the existing channel. The
alternative 3-day annual bypass flow proposed by Fort Collins would address some of
these concerns. The adaptive management and monitoring program could then analyze
long-term channel conveyance impacts with the 3-day annual bypass in place.
4. Adaptive Management and Long-Term Monitoring. Fort Collins welcomes the adaptive
management concept included in the Enhancement portion of the Plan, as it will provide
opportunities to monitor various fish and wildlife mitigation actions and to adjust them
over time. Even though NISP is designed to provide water in perpetuity, the Plan
proposes that CPW and Northern lead the adaptive management committee and fund
its activities for a mere 20 years. Fort Collins recommends that an independent and
collaborative monitoring program be established that includes local stakeholders and
further recommends that funding for adaptive management be extended from 20 years
to at least a 50-year period (which aligns with the water planning and supply framework
of NISP).
1
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Exhibit A (5795 : NISP Comments RESO)
5
Furthermore, Fort Collins recommends that the adaptive management plan include
specific performance standards and associated “triggers” for action to ensure river
health. The State of the Poudre (Fort Collins, 2017) provides both a framework and
underlying details for developing performance thresholds and triggers that are based on
a comprehensive and functional approach to sustaining river health. Fort Collins would
welcome the opportunity to discuss and develop this approach with Northern Water.
Lastly, Fort Collins recommends that the adaptive management and monitoring program
be funded at $100,000 a year instead of $50,000. In the experience of Fort Collins,
$50,000 will not be adequate to the broad set of monitoring tasks.
5. Uncertainties Regarding Agreements. Agreements with various third-party entities and
persons need to be completed for the Plan to operate as contemplated to mitigate
NISP’s impacts on fish and wildlife resources. However, the Plan fails to identify
completed and certain agreements, and there are numerous assumptions throughout
the Plan concerning agreements with third parties. It is unclear whether these
agreements can realistically be completed due to various uncertainties, such as whether
third parties are willing, whether the costs for such needed agreements can be met by
Northern Water, and whether the legal and regulatory challenges can be adequately
addressed for Northern Water and the third parties. Fort Collins appreciates that
Northern Water and CPW have good intentions. CPW should withhold approval of the
Plan until crucial agreements are completed (for example bypass agreements with ditch
companies for the conveyance refinement).
6. Mitigation and Enhancement Costs. Fort Collins recommends increased spending on
mitigation, enhancement, and monitoring provisions by no less than $18.2 million (an
additional $9.2 million for mitigation; $5 million for enhancements; $4 million for
monitoring). The original NISP budget is $857 million (page 9 of the Plan). Though the
mitigation and enhancement costs are represented in several different ways in the Plan,
the overall mitigation and enhancement costs are described as $53 million (please note
that Fort Collins would not describe some of the items in the Plan as mitigation or
enhancement, for example the multiple outlet release structure at Glade Reservoir). An
extra $18.2 million would be sum of $77.2 million and would represent ~8.3% of the
original NISP budget.
The proposal to increase the budget for these items is reasonable, practicable, and
achievable for a project with the scale and impact of NISP and commensurate with the
cost of mitigation on other major Front Range water projects (e.g., the Gross Reservoir
Expansion Project and the Chatfield Reservoir Reallocation Project). The total cost of
each NISP acre-foot of water at full build out would be negligibly affected and each NISP
acre-foot of water would still only be approximately one-half the current cost of an
acre-foot of firm yield from the Colorado Big Thompson Project.
1
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Exhibit A (5795 : NISP Comments RESO)
6
7. Big Game Habitat. While these comments generally are restricted to those elements of
the Plan that directly pertain to Fort Collins and its boundaries, Fort Collins wishes to
express its support for additional big game habitat protection on the west side of the
proposed Glade Reservoir. An approximately 5,000-acre State Land Board (“SLB”) parcel
will adjoin the west side of Glade; to the west, the SLB parcel is bounded by Gateway
Natural Area, owned and managed by Fort Collins, as well as water and land managed
by the City of Greeley, and then United States Forest Service property. The SLB parcel
currently is leased by CPW for hunting and fishing access and it provides a crucial buffer
to federal lands to the west as well as providing high quality big game winter range. This
range will be even more important should Glade Reservoir be constructed and fragment
big game habitat, especially critical winter range. Fort Collins recommends a
partnership – that could include Fort Collins – to conserve the SLB parcel in perpetuity
for it wildlife and associated recreation values.
The essence of the concerns and recommendations Fort Collins’ presents in this comment letter
can be distilled to the observation that the Poudre River post-NISP, even with the Plan, will not
have adequate flows to ensure the long-term health of fish and wildlife resources nor channel
maintenance and flood conveyance.
The State of the River Report (SOPR, Fort Collins, 2017), a recently completed integrated river
health assessment found that the Poudre warranted an overall grade of “C” for the study reach
from approximately Gateway Natural Area to I-25 (http://www.fcgov.com/poudrereportcard/).
Fort Collins’ goal, which supports the fish and wildlife goals of the State, is to improve the
current grade; however, without implementing at a minimum the provisions recommended in
this letter, it is not likely the Poudre River will be able to maintain or improve the grade.
Sincerely,
Darin Atteberry
City Manager
City of Fort Collins
1
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Exhibit A (5795 : NISP Comments RESO)
7
Technical Comments of the City of Fort Collins on the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and
Enhancement Plan (Applicant Proposal), dated June 9, 2017 for Northern Water’s proposed
Northern Integrated Supply Project
FORT COLLINS’ TECHNICAL COMMENTS REGARDING PEAK FLOWS
Peak Flows Technical Comment 1:
Anderson Report Statement: Flushing Flows: Flows that flush or move sediments (sands and
gravels) resting on top of the coarse bed material matrix (or armor layer) in riffles. Flushing
flows allow for surface cleaning of riffles necessary to support ecological function of the river
channel. The objective of the flushing flows is to maintain spawning habitat for fish. (Anderson
2017 page 1)
Note that flushing flows defined above and evaluated in this report are different from threshold
flows identified and discussed in the NISP Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(SDEIS) Stream Morphology and Sediment Transport Baseline Report (Baseline Report) (ACE
2013). The Baseline Report includes an assessment of two threshold flows that involve
movement of the coarse bed material matrix (or armor layer) comprised of very coarse gravels
and cobbles. The first threshold flow indicates when there is slight movement or vibration of the
coarse armor layer material allowing for finer sediments to be released from the interstices of
matrix. These flows are referred to as ‘Flushing Flows’ in the Baseline Report … but have
subsequently been re-labeled and are now referred to as ‘Channel Maintenance Flows’ for all
future work. (Anderson 2017 page 1)
Spawning gravels for brown trout range in size from 3 mm to 100 mm…”Class A” spawning
gravels, which are most optimal, range in size from 10mm to 70mm… (Anderson 2017 page 8)
Comment: The new definition for flushing flows is not applicable to the Poudre River. A flow
prescription based on this definition and its supporting analyses will be ineffective at achieving
the objective of maintaining spawning habitat for fish.
In the vast majority of riffles along the Poudre River, gravels up to 64mm do not sit on top of a
coarse armor layer. Rather, the smaller gravels sit among and within the larger bed material
and help make-up the bed material matrix. The newly-proposed definition of “flushing flows” is
thus incompatible with the Poudre River bed.
The following photos show the riverbed above, in, and downstream of downtown Fort Collins.
The river bottom is a matrix of grain sizes and gravels sitting within the armor layer matrix, not
above it.
1
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Exhibit A (5795 : NISP Comments RESO)
8
Figure 1 - Riffle downstream of the Greeley Filter Plant.
Figure 2 - Riffle just upstream of Mulberry Wastewater Treatment Plant
Figure 3 - Riffle Downstream of Timberline Road
To be effective in meeting the agencies’ objective, the bed material matrix must be mobilized to
flush the finer sediments that have settled in and behind the larger materials, as defined above.
The standard approach within the discipline of geomorphology is to calculate and work to
1
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Exhibit A (5795 : NISP Comments RESO)
9
mobilize the median-sized riverbed material, referred to as the “d50” (ASCE, 1992; Milhous,
2000, 2003). Mobilization of the d50 accomplishes numerous functions including: algae
scour/disturbance, sand/fine sediment flushing, limiting encroaching vegetation and armor
breakup/full transport of bedload” (Shanahan et al., 2014).
To summarize, the newly-assigned term “channel maintenance flows” – and not the newly-
defined “flushing flows” – defines the flows necessary to move the bed material matrix and
release finer material from the matrix. This is the function needed to maintain spawning
habitat on the Poudre River and should be calculated with the d50.
Recommendation: To meet CPW’s goal of flushing gravels for spawning habitat on the Poudre
River, Fort Collins recommends that the agencies use the original definition of “flushing flows” –
not the new definition in Anderson 2017 – and then develop mitigation strategies to achieve
this objective (such as the flow bypass proposal outlined in comment 1d).
Peak Flows Technical Comment 2:
Anderson Report Statement: Flushing Flows: Flows that flush or move sediments (sands and
gravels) resting on top of the coarse bed material matrix (or armor layer) in riffles. Flushing
flows allow for surface cleaning of riffles necessary to support ecological function of the river
channel. The objective of the flushing flows is to maintain spawning habitat for fish. (Anderson
2017 page 1)
Comment: The objective of supporting ecological function of the river channel is a broad goal
and Fort Collins agrees that it is within the scope of C.R.S. §37-60-122.2 and the mandate to
protect fish and wildlife resources. However, the statement that flushing flows is limited to the
needs for spawning fish instead suggests that the Plan’s proposed scope is much narrower.
Fort Collins does not understand why this Plan, which is intended to support fish and wildlife
resources, has presented an overly narrow objective. To meet the Plan’s goal of sustaining a
healthy fishery, three other objectives must be included:
1. The food base for fishes (aquatic insects) requires clean interstitial spaces.
2. A diversity of in-channel habitats (pools, riffles, runs) requires full mobility of the
riverbed.
3. A self-sustaining and functional riparian zone provides shading critical additions to the
food base form terrestrial inputs and requires hydrology appropriate to support riparian
process.
In addition, to meet the objective to protect fish and wildlife resources set forth in C.R.S. §37-
60-122.2, a mosaic of healthy riparian habitats is needed which is met through management of
both the volume and duration of peak flows. Other mitigation measures proposed in the Plan,
such as the proposal to retrofit diversion dams with fish passage, have little value if these
baseline ecological objectives are not achieved.
1
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Exhibit A (5795 : NISP Comments RESO)
10
Recommendation: Set objectives around the full suite of needs for fish and the habitat needs
for obligate riparian wildlife. Develop mitigation strategies that support an ecologically
functional riverbed and functional self-sustaining riparian zone (such as the flow by pass
proposal outlined in comment 1d).
Peak Flows Technical Comment 3:
Anderson Report Statement: Very coarse gravels (64mm) show a flushing flow range of 1,667
cfs to 2,873 cfs in the Laporte reaches and 3,729 cfs to 6,817 cfs within the Fort Collins and
Timnath reaches. It should be noted that the d16 of the coarse armor layer in the Fort Collins
and Timnath reaches, from the Larimer and Weld Canal to I-25, includes both coarse gravel and
very coarse gravel. (Anderson report page 8)
Based on the results of the initiation of motion analysis, the agency representatives agreed that
the flows to flush coarse and very coarse gravels, having a maximum flow magnitude of 2,800
cfs, would optimize benefit to aquatic species in the study area….. (Anderson report page 45)
Comment: The conclusion of the agency representatives appears to not be supported by the
Anderson report or independent analysis. According to the Anderson report, flushing of coarse
gravel (32mm) and very coarse gravel (64mm) through Fort Collins occurs at flows between
3,729 cfs - 6,817 cfs. However, these higher flow values are disregarded though the adoption
of the recommended 2,800 cfs flow rate, even though the report clearly defines Class A
spawning gravels as 10-70mm.
It also appears that the Anderson report relies on unestablished assumptions regarding gravel
size. It appears that the “coarse armor layer” (which is not part of the flushing analysis) is
defined in the Anderson report as anything equal to or greater than the d16 grain size at each
riffle. The term “d16” refers to the particle size that is larger than 16 percent of the total
distribution of grain sizes. It does not indicate a specific grain size and could range widely
depending on the type of river and specific location. Fort Collins is unaware of any basis for
defining the coarse armor layer based on this threshold of d16. Further explanation with
references from peer-reviewed journal articles is needed to back up this approach whereby all
grain sizes greater than the d16 are dismissed.
The peak flow strategy at the mouth of the canyon calls for 2800 cfs at Tier 2 (20% of the time)
and no bypass for Tier 3 (38% of the time). Neither Tier would flush gravels through Fort Collins
because flows downstream in Fort Collins are equal at best and lower most days for
downstream reaches and Tier 3 occurs at lower flows in any case. Tiers 2 and 3 occur 58% of
the time and would not achieve flushing flows to flush gravels to maintain spawning habitat
through Fort Collins according to the initiation of motion analysis presented in the Anderson
report.
1
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Exhibit A (5795 : NISP Comments RESO)
11
Fort Collins independently studied the flows needed to mobilize the riverbed near College
Avenue (City of Fort Collins, 2014). This effort concluded that a flow of 3,300 cfs is needed for a
duration of three days and optimally would need to occur on average every three years to
support life cycle needs for spawning fish. Under today’s pre-NISP conditions (based on the full
record of Lincoln gage data), this flow is occurring every 4.6 years. While this value is based on
a single study reach (between Shields and College Avenue), it was developed to mobilize the
d50.
Recommendation: To meet CPW’s goal of flushing gravels for spawning habitat on the Poudre
River, Fort Collins recommends mitigation strategies that achieve flows that the incipient
motion analyses indicates are necessary (such as the flow bypass proposal outlined in the
following Peak Flows Technical Comment 4).
Peak Flows Technical Comment 4:
Plan Statement: Simulated peak flow operations show that the program would substantially
improve peak flow characteristics at the Canyon Gage (Colorado Division of Water Resources ID
CLAFTCCO) from unmitigated NISP operations. (Page 47)
Comment: Fort Collins applauds the Plan’s efforts to reduce NISP’s significant adverse impacts
to peak flows on the Poudre River. Although the peak flow operations program represents an
improvement over past NISP proposals, as noted in the previous three technical comments, it
does not achieve CPW’s stated goal of supporting ecological function of the river channel and
maintaining fish spawning habitat.
Recommendation: Fort Collins recommends that the Plan be revised and eliminate the tier-
based system for peak flows and be restructured to curtail all diversions for a minimum period
of 3 days (72 hours) every year coinciding with the peak flow period.
Full curtailment is the only method that increases the likelihood of achieving the volumetric
range of flows with optimal frequency that is needed to support spawning fish populations. It
reduces the burden on Northern Water to provide and administer channel maintenance flows
on a specific frequency at specific locations. It also eliminates the expectation that Northern
Water could control other factors (such as interannual climate variability). Essentially, for a
minimum of three days, current peak flow conditions would persist regardless of NISP’s
operations or Glade Reservoir’s storage level.
Fort Collins acknowledges that a full, annual bypass may reduce the NISP’s yield. However, Fort
Collins predicts this yield reduction will be small (less than 5%), and could be further reduced
through various water sharing operations or cooperative agreements. Fort Collins encourages
further conversations on these options.
1
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Exhibit A (5795 : NISP Comments RESO)
12
Peak Flows Technical Comment 5:
Plan Statement: The operations described for this program would apply once Glade Reservoir
has been filled and is no longer under any type of initial fill conditions (which limit the rate at
which the reservoir can be initially filled). For the interim period, it is likely that NISP effects on
peak flows will be minimal as the rate of fill will be substantially reduced from maximum project
operations. (Page 50)
Comment: Fort Collins is concerned about changes and impacts during the filling period yet
there is no flow analysis for this period in the Plan. The impacts of a filling period as described
could potentially follow or be followed by a multi-year drought. This flow pattern could
permanently alter the trajectory and functionality of the system due to an extensive (decadal)
period during which flushing flow needs are not met which in turn will increase the armoring
(by increasing the D50) and raise future flow values required to move the bed.
Recommendation: The Plan should specify the maximum diversion and duration rate during the
initial fill period so that impacts during this interim period can be ascertained. Flushing flow
commitment, such as a peak flow by-pass should be implemented during the filling period.
FORT COLLINS’ TECHNICAL COMMENTS REGARDING WATER QUALITY
Water Quality Technical Comment 1:
Comment: NISP is likely to have impacts to water quality and thus to fish and wildlife resources.
While the Plan proposes some water quality mitigation measures, the measures were
developed in the absence of a quantitative water quality impacts analysis (the State of Colorado
water quality 401 certification currently under development as a part of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement).
Recommendation: Fort Collins’ recommends not finalizing the Plan until the Final EIS and final
water quantitative water quality model and impacts analysis are available.
Water Quality Technical Comment 2:
Comment: The Plan describes monitoring and adaptive management as the tools/strategies to
address water quality impacts. Fort Collins finds this overly general approach troubling given
that no quantitative information about the water quality impacts has been made available for
evaluation.
Fort Collins believes that in order to evaluate the efficacy of an adaptive management program
to protect against the many potential water quality impacts, three concepts are critical:
1) Ability to identify expected impacts
2) Establishment of clearly defined triggers for actionable items
1
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Exhibit A (5795 : NISP Comments RESO)
13
3) Adequate program funding
The first two criteria are not met by this proposed Plan based on the lack of the analysis
associated with the 401-water quality certification, and the third should be determined based
on the likelihood of the impacts that qualify for action.
Recommendation: Fort Collins recommends, that this mitigation plan not be approved until the
401 analysis is released and the information can be used to better define expected impacts and
defined related thresholds for action.
Water Quality Technical Comment 3:
FWMEP Statement: The [Munroe] exchange …..has been replaced with a new pipeline directly
from Glade to PV Pipeline (for FCLWD) and new pipeline from Glade to SCFP (for Eaton,
Severance and Windsor). This avoids streamflow depletions in Poudre River streamflow between
Munroe Canal diversion and the Glade Reservoir release point. (Page 36)
Comment: The proposed operation of Glade Reservoir to the Pleasant Valley Pipeline (“PVP”)
for the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District deliveries presents the possibility of degraded water
quality being delivered to the Fort Collins Water Treatment Facility. Such degraded water
quality require additional expenditures for treatment that may be unacceptable to Fort Collins.
This concern was addressed in the Fort Collins’ comments submitted for the SDEIS.
Fort Collins maintains the right to exercise the terms of Paragraph 3.a of the Allotment Contract
for Capacity in the Pleasant Valley Pipeline, dated February 28, 2003, which provides that Fort
Collins (and others) must each give their specific approval allow the PVP to be used to deliver
water from Glade Reservoir in the PVP. Therefore, the proposed pipeline and mitigation of low
flows in the river is not a certain avoidance measure, but rather represents a proposed
avoidance strategy for streamflow depletion impacts, and should be identified and addressed
as such.
FORT COLLINS’ TECHNICAL COMMENTS REGARDING MITIGATION, RESTORATION, CHANNEL
IMPROVEMENTS, AND CONVEYANCE (“CORRIDOR”)
Corridor Technical Comment 1:
Comment: Concerns and goals for riparian dependent wildlife and increased flood risk to the
Fort Collins are closely related and addressed together in this section of the technical
comments. Fort Collins’ primary observation on these sections of the Plan (5.3.1.1 -5.3.1.3) is
that the piecemeal and spatially limited proposals for restoration and in-channel improvements
are inadequate for the type and scale of impacts from NISP.
1
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Exhibit A (5795 : NISP Comments RESO)
14
Fort Collins owns more than two-thirds of the floodplain within the city limits. Fort Collins’
landscape level goal for riparian wildlife is to support a continuous mosaic of self-sustaining
habitats along the Poudre River.
The interplay between flows and geomorphology (topography specifically) drives the potential
for this desired habitat complexity. Flows that spill beyond the bank (i.e. above “bankfull”) are
the primary driver for riparian habitats. Bankfull flows will be reduced with NISP. The Plan, and
in particular the Peak Flow Bypass Program, does not mitigate this loss.
Attenuating and safely conveying floodwaters is a high priority for Fort Collins. Regardless of
whether NISP is built, the Poudre River will continue to see extreme flood events. Flushing and
channel maintenance flows (as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the SDEIS, not
the recent Anderson report) influence conveyance capacity by mobilizing and scouring the
riverbed and undercutting encroaching vegetation. The failure to mitigate the loss of these
channel maintenance flows in the Plan will lead over time to a natural adjustment (downsizing)
by the river. This will displace flows normally in the channel to the floodplain and increase
flood risk.
The Plan does not mitigate the NISP-associated reduction in the 5-year flows. Without peak
flow mitigation there will be a 20 to 30% reduction in the width of the 5-year floodplain (Fort
Collins’ comments on the 2015 SDEIS). A site-specific example would occur just downstream of
Lemay Avenue where the 5-year floodplain currently extends far into the riparian zone. With
NISP, the 5-year flow will not overbank at all in this location. Discrete and far-flung site-based
restoration is not sufficient to mitigate system-wide loss of riparian habitats.
Two flow-based strategies can help mitigate both impacts to riparian habitats and channel
conveyance. First, a complete 3-day bypass, as previously described, would provide the system
with a range of peak flows. The frequency and magnitude of channel maintenance, flushing,
and 5-year flows would all remain the same as today. Second, consideration must be given to
mitigating the ascending and descending limbs. The magnitude and duration of the limbs, or
“the area under the curve” directly influences the probability the river will receive flows that
are effective at sustaining flushing and channel maintenance functions and sustain a mosaic of
riparian and wetlands habitats for wildlife.
If NISP is to be built without mitigation for channel maintenance flows and without longer
duration flows (without mitigation of the ascending and descending limbs), the proper type of
and necessary mitigation would be large-scale improvements to floodplain connectivity. This
would enable future higher and extreme flow events to spill onto the floodplain to drop
sediment and slow and attenuate (absorb) floodwaters. This would mitigate the increased
flood risk NISP poses to Fort Collins. Large-scale restoration of river- floodplain connectivity
also would provide underlying processes necessary for riparian habitats to sustain and
regenerate wildlife habitat.
1
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Exhibit A (5795 : NISP Comments RESO)
15
Recommendation: To mitigate for the narrowing of riparian habitats and increased flood-risk
risk Fort Collins recommends the following:
1. A 3-day peak bypass that provides the current range of channel maintenance and
flushing flows;
2. Initiate a discussion with Fort Collins, Northern Water; and CPW to discuss mitigation
solutions/strategies with Northern Water and CPW to address the flow reductions
associated with the ascending and descending limbs; and
3. Implement projects to reconnect the river to its floodplain on a large scale.
Like the Plan, the State of the Poudre (SOPR, Fort Collins, 2017) identifies river reaches and
identifies those reaches with the greatest need for increased for restoration of floodplain
connectivity. Fort Collins recommends that the Plan focus its floodplain restoration efforts in
these areas.
The following Poudre River reaches were identified in the SOPR as receiving grades of D or F:
5. County Road 54 to Rist Canyon Road
7. Just below Overland Trail to Larimer Weld Canal
8. Larimer Weld Canal to Shields Street
15. Prospect Road to Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Diversion
The following Poudre River reaches were identified in the SOPR as receiving grades of C-:
4. Greeley Diversion to County Road 54
13. Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal to Timberline Road
18. Rail Road Bridge to Interstate-25
Corridor Technical Comment 2:
Plan Statement: As part of compensatory mitigation for resource effects throughout the Poudre
River, Northern Water would implement improvements in the stream channel at two locations
of slightly more than one mile each in affected reaches of the Poudre River. Initially, Northern
Water has identified the following reaches for these improvements
Approximately 1.2 miles within a 2.1-mile reach of the Poudre between PVC and the
Hansen Supply Canal inflows (Figure 20)
Approximately 1.2 miles of stream in the Watson Lake area (Figure 21)
Zone
Reach 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Floodplain Extent 78 82 85 74 65 85 62 61 87 50 67 73 70 77 50 98 82 71
Canyon Rural Urban Plains
1
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Exhibit A (5795 : NISP Comments RESO)
16
Key components of a stream habitat improvement project would likely include constructing in-
channel structures made of natural materials to create riffles and pools with a defined low-flow
channel which would increase channel depth, especially during low-flows; reconnecting the
channel to the floodplain and old oxbows; encouraging regeneration of native vegetation; and,
removing areas of non-native vegetation. (Page 57)
Improvements in existing riparian vegetation would be incorporated as part of the stream
channel habitat and improvement reaches that are described above. Additionally, Northern
Water has identified additional areas in which to improve existing riparian vegetation. Riparian
vegetation improvements would directly mitigate impacts on riparian vegetation resources,
impacts of reduced peak flows, and would also mitigate effects on water temperature in certain
reaches. Areas under consideration include the following:
• City of Fort Collins (10 acres)
• Frank State Wildlife Area (34 acres)
• Eastman Park Area (14 acres)
• Adjacent to all channel improvement reaches (54 acres)
Riparian vegetation mitigation through Fort Collins will be coordinated with current planning
efforts by the City, including its Poudre River Downtown Master Plan. The Poudre River
Downtown Master Plan includes much of the nearly 5-mile reach of Segment B, in which
approximately 10 acres of riparian vegetation may be affected by NISP. (Page 60)
Comment: In addition to the overview comment presented above, Fort Collins has four specific
and separate comments on these statements from the Plan:
1. The Plan does not provide any quantitative foundation for the proposal to conduct 2.4 miles
of stream channel improvements as the appropriate scale for the magnitude of impacts
from NISP flow reductions. A possible approach is to mitigate at a minimum of a 1/10 ratio.
Since the impacts occur on approximately 50 river miles, 5 miles of stream would need to
be improved.
2. It is unclear if “areas under consideration” implies a firm commitment. The relationship
between 54 acres adjacent to all channel improvement reaches and the 2.4 miles of
proposed channel improvements is not clear.
3. The Plan states there will be 10 acres of riparian vegetation affected by NISP. The NISP
SDEIS states there will be 10 acres of wetlands affected in reach B. There is a major
difference between wetlands and riparian areas and the scale of impacts to riparian areas
will be much greater.
4. Fort Collins agrees with many of the objectives listed for these projects, however many may
not be possible or needed in the two identified. For example reconnecting the channel to
the floodplain and old oxbows is not possible in the Watson lake reach, and is not needed
for the sub-reach from Pleasant Valley Canal to the Greeley diversion. According to the
State of the Poudre results, the floodplain extent score for the sub-reach from the Pleasant
Valley Canal to the Greeley diversion is an 85 (B). Similarly, within the proposed upstream
reach there are many areas (polygons) where the “Vegetation Structure” score is already a
1
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Exhibit A (5795 : NISP Comments RESO)
17
B or A grade. From the Greeley diversion downstream for a half mile the “River Form” score
also is a “B.” The bottom line is that more rigorous site selection would help ensure that
the Plan’s restoration objectives are met.
Corridor Technical Comment 3:
Plan Statement: With additional depletions from NISP within this reach, it is possible that there
would be increased temperature standard excursions. Downstream of the Hansen Supply Canal
inflows, temperature standard excursions are less problematic because Hansen Supply Canal
inflows cool downstream river water. Channel improvements in this reach would seek to narrow
and deepen the current channel to be more consistent with current and future low-flow
conditions and increase riparian vegetation, including larger plains cottonwoods that would
shade the river channel. The effectiveness of these proposed improvements to cool water
temperature would be assessed during the detailed water quality modeling. (Pages 59-60)
Comment: Changes to stream temperature from NISP will be immediate. While cottonwoods
can provide shading, an immediate strategy will be necessary since large cottonwoods take a
minimum of 30 years to develop into “large cottonwoods for shading.”
FORT COLLINS’ TECHNICAL COMMENTS REGARDING ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT, CHANNEL
IMPROVEMENT PLAN, ASSOCIATED ROLES, AND DECISION SPACE (“MANAGEMENT”)
Management Technical Comment 1:
FWMEP Statement: Northern Water and CPW will jointly lead the Poudre River Adaptive
Management Program committee. It is envisioned that Northern Water and CPW will develop
an MOU… As the lead agencies, Northern Water and CPW would provide final concurrence on
any actions to be implemented under the program. (Page 90)
Comment: As a natural resource, the health of the Poudre River primarily affects local
communities and agencies. Thus, the adaptive management and monitoring programs
described in the Plan should be co-led by local government agencies, coalitions, and academic
institutions, not just CPW and Northern Water. In addition, concurrence must not be under the
sole control of Northern Water and CPW. The monitoring process should entail at least some
level of independence from Northern Water. Otherwise, Northern Water will be in the
untenable position of policing itself with respect to potential long-term impacts that affect local
communities.
Management Technical Comment 2:
Plan Statement: Development and implementation of the plan would require data collection,
which has already begun through the EIS process, and would continue by Northern Water
through the duration of the program. (Page 91)
1
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Exhibit A (5795 : NISP Comments RESO)
18
Goals of the stream channel and habitat improvement plan would include:
• Collect additional data, perform a river corridor inventory, and document current conditions.
• Develop baseline geomorphic conditions for use in the Adaptive Management Plan.
• Develop a river-wide master plan and prioritization for maintaining and improving the
following river functions:
o Irrigation and municipal water supply diversions;
o Channel and overbank capacity and connectivity;
o Aquatic habitat and species;
o Riparian habitat and wildlife species;
o Flood risk to land and infrastructure;
o Recreation.
• Develop a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan. (Channel Improvement Plan, page
96)
Comment: Fort Collins recommends that the Channel Improvement Plan and the Adaptive
Management Plan be developed within existing monitoring and assessment frameworks.
Projects such as The State of the Poudre Assessment (2017), the Coalition for the Poudre River
Watershed’s Watershed Resilience Plan (2016), the Lower Poudre Monitoring Alliance, and the
forthcoming Lower Poudre Sediment & Master Plan all take an integrated and functions-based
approach to Poudre River health.
Management Technical Comment 3:
Comment: According to guidance produced by the Department of the Interior Monitoring
adaptive management program
(https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/ppa/upload/Chapter1.pdf):
Management of problems … increasingly involves a systems approach with explicit and
agreed upon objectives, management alternatives, and analytical approaches that can
identify the most appropriate management strategies (page 3). Adaptive management is
a structured approach to decision making that emphasizes accountability and
explicitness in decision making (chapter 1, page 4).
The Plan has postponed the development of well-defined, measureable project objectives,
accountability and adaptive management triggers. The simple action of including a proposal for
adaptive management does not assure the generic goals set forth in the Plan will be met.
When initial objectives are not established, an adaptive management plan cannot provide
direction on how best to re-direct efforts to meet the objective in question. Both monitoring
and adaptive management should be grounded in best available science appropriate to meet
monitoring objectives and define objectives through thresholds and measureable outcomes.
Thus, prior to acceptance of this Plan (and the Record of Decision for the 404 permit) explicit
flood conveyance, water quality and ecosystem based objectives and a structure for decision-
making should be determined.
1
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Exhibit A (5795 : NISP Comments RESO)
19
Management Technical Comment 4:
Plan Statement: The Poudre River Adaptive Management Program will run for a period of 20
years following the initiation of filling Glade Reservoir, 10 years following full buildout
operations (defined as the consistent delivery of full or nearly full NISP yield to a majority of the
NISP participants for a period of 5 years), or until the funds set aside for the program are
exhausted, whichever comes first. (Page 92)
Comment: NISP impacts will occur in perpetuity yet the adaptive management program as
proposed will stop in 20 years following the initial fill period. This is a very short time frame
from the perspective of various geomorphic and ecological cycles. Fort Collins recommends
that a collaborative, independent monitoring program be established that includes local
stakeholders and further recommends that funding for adaptive management be extended to
at least a 50-year period.
Management Technical Comment 5:
Plan Statement: Mitigation and enhancement measures enacted through this program may
include, but are not limited to, the following:
- Accelerate establishment of channel forming by managing in-channel or riparian
vegetation;
- Place structures to direct sediment to selected aggradation zones;
- Install check structures or weirs to control the inundation of riparian vegetation;
- Dredge or otherwise remove sediment from the channel mechanically; (page 91)
Comment: Some adaptive management strategies and actions outlined in Plan are unclear
and/or would potentially have negative impacts on river health, function, and resiliency. As
noted above, there is no description provided as to how the proposed actions will have a
positive impact on watershed-scale disturbance.
- Accelerate establishment of channel forming by managing in-channel or riparian vegetation;
Further clarification is needed to be able to understand this proposal.
- Place structures to direct sediment to selected aggradation zones;
This concept is unclear and as Fort Collins interprets it, it is not a common practice. It is unclear
how the location of these zones will be selected since depositional zones are not static. Also,
according to the Plan deposition will not increase under NISP, so theoretically, managing
sediment is not necessary.
-Install check structures or weirs to control the inundation of riparian vegetation;
It is unclear if the objective here is to create backwater areas to drown out encroaching
vegetation or to inundate and therefore maintain necessary wetted pattern to support the
1
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Exhibit A (5795 : NISP Comments RESO)
20
existing riparian zone. The use of weirs or check structures creates hard-points in the river
which reduces the river’s ability to adjust and recover from larger flood events. The costly
vulnerability of these types of structures to large floods was evident after the floods of 2013.
The State of the Poudre revealed the lowest (failing) scores for geomorphology metrics for
reaches immediately upstream of diversion structures, indicating there are very poor habitat
conditions for aquatic insects and spawning fish because the riverbed is clogged with fine
sediment. So this proposal is undesirable as it would create in uniform glide habitat, decreased
habitat complexity for fish, and continuous sediment deposition for the affected local area
upstream.
- Dredge or otherwise remove sediment from the channel mechanically;
Dredging sediment mechanically from the river is not a preferred mitigation approach, as it will
result in considerable harm to fish and wildlife resources. The SDEIS asserts there will be no
additional aggradation upstream of I-25 despite the underlying data showing there will be (see
Fort Collins’s 2015 comments to the SDEIS). To propose dredging sediment is necessary implies
a significant departure from the representation of impacts between the SDEIS and the Plan.
This particular issue is very important to Fort Collins and it would be helpful to see greater
consistency between underlying data and conclusions on impacts in both this Plan and the final
EIS.
FORT COLLINS’ TECHNICAL COMMENTS REGARDING UNCERTAINTIES REGARDING
AGREEMENTS (“AGREEMENTS”)
Agreements Technical Comment 1:
Plan Statement: If during actual operations, administration of water rights on the river results in
the flow commitments not reaching the targeted flows or reaches (i.e. operations by others
result in the bypassed or released flows not remaining in the river through the intended reach),
Northern Water would cease operation of the flow commitment and seek administrative and
legal solutions to ensure that these operations would result in the intended flows being met.
(Page 35).
Bypassed flow will not be diverted by another upstream or downstream water right…Bypassed
flow will not count against Glade fill. (Table 6, Page 46)
Comment: The Plan acknowledges that flows that are intended to be bypassed or released to
achieve low flow enhancements or peaking flows may not be able to achieve their intended
goals.
Recommendation: The Plan should describe how bypassed flows will be protected from
subsequent diversion by other water right holders and how bypassed flows will be accounted.
Without this information, the future viability and operation of the program is uncertain and
there is no guarantee that bypassed flows will be maintained in the river.
1
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Exhibit A (5795 : NISP Comments RESO)
21
REFERENCES FOR FORT COLLINS’ TECHNICAL COMMENTS
American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE) (1992). Sediment and aquatic habitat in river
systems. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 118(5):669–687.
Shanahan J.O., D.W. Baker, B.P. Bledsoe, N.L. Poff, D.M. Merritt, K.R. Bestgen, G.T. Auble, B.C.
Kondratieff, J.G. Stokes, M. Lorie and J.S. Sanderson (2014). An Ecological Response Model for
the Cache la Poudre River through Fort Collins. City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department,
Fort Collins, CO. 93 pp + appendices.
Milhous, R. T. (2000). Numerical modeling of flushing flows in gravel-bed rivers. In: P. C.
Klingeman, R. L. Beschta, P. D. Komar, and J. B. Bradley (Eds.), Gravel-bed Rivers in the
Environment, Water Resources Publications, Littleton, CO, pp. 579–608.
Milhous, R.T. (2003). Reconnaissance-level application of physical habitat simulation in the
evaluation of physical habitat limits in the Animas Basin, Colorado. U. S. Geological Survey
Open-File Report 03222, Fort Collins Science Center, Fort Collins, CO, 16 pp.
City of Fort Collins (2017). State of the Poudre: A River Health Assessment. Retrieved from:
http://www.fcgov.com/poudrereportcard/pdf/reportcard.pdf
City of Fort Collins (2015). City of Fort Collins Comments on the NISP Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (2015). Retrieved from:
http://www.fcgov.com/nispreview/pdf/2015nisp-comments.pdf?1442010471
1
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Exhibit A (5795 : NISP Comments RESO)
Agenda Item 2
Item # 2 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 8, 2017
City Council
STAFF
SeonAh Kendall, Economic Health Manager
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT
Items Relating to a Proposed Charter Amendment to Add a New Section to Charter Article XII Pertaining to
Telecommunication Facilities and Services.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Possible Public Hearing and Motions Regarding Protest(s) of Ballot Language.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2017, Submitting to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City of
Fort Collins a Proposed Amendment to Article XII of the City Charter to Add a New Section 7 Pertaining to
Telecommunication Facilities and Services.
The purpose of this item is to propose an amendment to Charter Article XII, Municipal Public Utilities. The
amendment would authorize the City Council to provide, by future ordinance, telecommunications/broadband
facilities and services as a public utility, to issue of up to $150 million in bonds, the ability to go into executive
session to discuss matters related to competition in the telecommunications industry, and the option to
establish governance of this public utility through a board and/or to delegate rate-making authority to the City
Manager. This measure does not mandate that the City provide municipal retail broadband services, or that a
third-party be the provider.
Any protest of the proposed ballot language must be received no later than Monday, August 7, 2017, at noon.
The protest(s) shall be heard, considered, and resolved by Council prior to adoption of Ordinance No. 101,
2017. If protest(s) are received, copies will be included in Council’s “Read-before” packet.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
City Broadband Strategic Objectives
The FCC noted that the real culprit of slow, expensive internet in the U.S. is the lack of competition among
providers. New broadband entrants into the market have a substantial impact on price and service.
The City’s 2016 Strategic Plan includes Strategic Objective 3.9 - “Encourage the development of reliable high
speed internet services throughout the community”. The Broadband Plan overall objective is to bring reliable,
Gig speed internet to the City of Fort Collins, while making an informed decision through evaluation of risk and
opportunities. Broadband is defined by the FCC as internet download speed of 25 megabits per second
(“Mbps”) and upload of 3 Mbps or faster.
Additional benefits sought include:
2
Packet Pg. 52
Agenda Item 2
Item # 2 Page 2
Competitive pricing (residential market pricing at $70/month or less for 1 Gbps and an affordable internet
tier);
Universal coverage across the Growth Management Area;
Underground service for improved reliability; and
Timely implementation to providing services within a reasonable time frame (less than five years).
At the July 2017 work session, City Council directed staff to continue work on developing the ballot language
and refining the message. The City Attorney’s office, in collaboration with City staff, has prepared the
proposed Charter amendment and ballot question.
Timeline of activity to refer the ballot:
Timeframe Key Activities
August 8, 2017 First Reading of ballot language
August 15, 2017 Second Reading of ballot language; Final date for City Council to adopt the ballot
language
August 29, 2017 Intergovernmental agreement with the County calling the special election
September 8, 2017 City Clerk certification of ballot language
November 7, 2017 Election
November 8, 2017
(If Voter
Disapproval)
Status Quo-No further action
November 8, 2017
(If Voter Approved)
See projected timeline (Attachment 3)
The ballot measure would allow:
Council the ability to add Telecommunication/Broadband services to the City’s electric utility or create a
new utility to provide these services;
Issue securities or debt not to exceed $150M to fund the project;
Establish a governance structure including the ability to: (1) go into executive session for matters relating
to competition;( 2) establish and delegate Council’s authority and power to a board and/or commission,
except the power to issue debt; and (3) delegate the ability to set and/or change rates or fees to the City
Manager.
The ballot measure does not mandate the City to provide municipal retail broadband services, or that a third-
party internet service provider would offer the service. The ballot measure would allow City Council to pursue
broadband services through either option.
Informational materials such as the projected timeline, FAQ, business plan and website were created to inform
the community about the broadband project.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The broadband financial feasibility model estimates that the project will cost between $130,000,000 to
$150,000,000. The price range is attributed to the technology selected to implement a municipal broadband
(ActiveE vs. GPON), potential increases to subscribership/take rate, and the product mix (video, voice,
internet). The issuance of securities or other debt would be in an amount not to exceed $150M.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
None
2
Packet Pg. 53
Agenda Item 2
Item # 2 Page 3
PUBLIC OUTREACH
- Broadband Town Hall - November 14, 2016
- Broadband Technical Group - Oct 20, 2016; Nov 1, 8, and 14, 2016; Dec 14, 2016; Mar 30, 2017; July 17,
2017
- Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs - Dec 16, 2016; March 31, 2017
- Broadband Open House - Oct 12, 2016; Nov 29, 2016
- Leadership Northern Colorado - March 28, 2017
- North Fort Collins Business Association - May 24, 2017
- Broadband Citizen Group - Nov 16, 2016; March 29, 2017; June 21, 2017
- Community Issues Forum - November 17, 2016
- Super Issues Meeting - November 30, 2016
- Economic Advisory Commission (Informational only) - May 17, 2017
ATTACHMENTS
1. Broadband Flyer (PDF)
2. Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (PDF)
3. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
2
Packet Pg. 54
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
BROADBAND
City Council Considering
17-14833
Ballot Measure
Fort Collins City Council is considering a ballot
measure for the November election that would
provide voters a say in what the future of high-
speed next generation broadband may look like for
the community.
The ballot measure would include asking
voters for permission to:
• Modify the existing Utility Charter to
include Telecom Services
• Issue an estimated $120 - $150 Million in
bonds to fund the project
• Establish governance structure including
exectuve session permissions and options to
create a board and/or City Manager authority
This does not mandate that the City will provide
municipal retail broadband, or that a third-party
internet service provider would offer the service.
It would give City Council options moving forward.
Council will discuss adding this ballot measure on
Aug. 8 at its regular meeting.
Auxiliary aids and services are available for persons with disabilities.
Q: Didn’t we already vote to get broadband?
A: Citizens voted in support of SB152 in
2015. This ballot measure was the first
step in allowing the City to pursue
ensuring broadband access
community-wide.
Q: What does this ballot measure do?
A: This measure adds telecommunication
services to the City’s Utility Charter.
Anytime there is a change to a City
charter it is legally required to go to the
voters. Although not required, Council
would also like voter’s “OK” before
borrowing this amount of money.
Q: What happens if this ballot measure
passes?
A: If the ballot measure were to pass
Council would be able to pursue the
Retail option. They would also have the
option of a public private partnership.
Adding this language to the Charter
would also provide the City the ability to
acquire telecom infrastructure if needed
in the future.
Q: Who would pay if the City chooses a retail
broadband option?
A: The City would issue bonds, which would
be repaid by the network’s users. Voters
would not pay for this unless they
subscribe to the service. There is no
tax or fee associated with this ballot
measure.
Q: When will service be available?
A: Service depends on a variety of factors.
2014 2015 2016 2017
Community
outreach
prioritizes
broadband in
the City
Budget for
Outcome
process
Magellan hired to
benchmark
communities case
studies
NOVEMBER
SB152 overturned;
passed at 83%
Uptown Services LLC hired to
complete feasibility analysis
MARCH
Statistically-valid survey conducted
for market demand
APRIL – JUNE
Uptown Services and City create
financial feasibility, begin modeling
JUNE – NOVEMBER
Community Outreach conducted
AUGUST
Request for Information issued to
seek 3rd Party alternatives; Axia
selected in October 2016
NOVEMBER
1st ever Telephone Town Hall with
City Manager, Mayor and CFO
DECEMBER
Narrowed to two options – 3rd Party
alternative and retail
Uptown Services LLC hired to
complete feasibility analysis
MARCH
Statistically-valid survey conducted
for market demand
APRIL – JUNE
Uptown Services and City create
financial feasibility, begin modeling
JUNE – NOVEMBER
Community Outreach conducted
AUGUST
Request for Information issued to
seek 3rd Party alternatives; Axia
selected in October 2016
NOVEMBER
1st ever Telephone Town Hall with
City Manager, Mayor and CFO
DECEMBER
Narrowed to two options – 3rd Party
alternative and retail
JANUARY – APRIL
3rd Party alternative
Due Diligence
APRIL
1
Version II; July 31, 2017
ATTACHMENT 2
2.2
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
2
Contents
I. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 5
II. Mission .................................................................................................................................................. 6
Status Quo ................................................................................................................................................. 6
Why Fiber-to-the-Premise (“FTTP”)? Why Now? ............................................................................... 6
City of Fort Collins Retail Broadband Solution ........................................................................................ 7
History of Investigation ............................................................................................................................ 8
Platte River Power Authority .................................................................................................................. 12
III. Broadband Market Profile ............................................................................................................... 13
Residential............................................................................................................................................... 13
Commercial ............................................................................................................................................. 13
City of Fort Collins ................................................................................................................................. 14
IV. Fort Collins Customer Profile ......................................................................................................... 16
Market Segmentation .............................................................................................................................. 16
Residential Market .............................................................................................................................. 17
Low Income ........................................................................................................................................ 19
Small- to Mid-Size Business ............................................................................................................... 19
Large Business / Institution................................................................................................................. 22
Subscribership (“Take Rate”) ................................................................................................................. 23
V. Competitive Environment ................................................................................................................... 26
Incumbents .............................................................................................................................................. 26
Competitive Response ............................................................................................................................ 28
Municipal Retail Implications ................................................................................................................. 29
VI. Operating Plan ................................................................................................................................ 30
Retail Model Summary ........................................................................................................................... 30
Critical Operational Success Factors ...................................................................................................... 30
Capital Requirement ............................................................................................................................... 31
Passing Cost ............................................................................................................................................ 32
Drop Cost ................................................................................................................................................ 33
Pricing Assumptions ............................................................................................................................... 34
Marketing Plan ........................................................................................................................................ 36
Objectives ........................................................................................................................................... 36
2.2
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
3
Budget ................................................................................................................................................. 37
Promotion & Advertising .................................................................................................................... 37
Customer Service Plan ............................................................................................................................ 37
Customer Service Strategy .................................................................................................................. 37
Customer Service Planning ................................................................................................................. 38
Customer Service Staff ....................................................................................................................... 38
Personnel Requirements .......................................................................................................................... 39
Facilities .................................................................................................................................................. 40
Milestone Timeline ................................................................................................................................. 41
VII. Network Architecture ...................................................................................................................... 42
Network Technologies Overview ........................................................................................................... 42
Fiber Technologies .................................................................................................................................. 44
Copper Technologies .............................................................................................................................. 45
Wireless Technologies ............................................................................................................................ 46
Implications............................................................................................................................................. 47
Net Neutrality.......................................................................................................................................... 48
Privacy .................................................................................................................................................... 48
Security ................................................................................................................................................... 49
City of Fort Collins Assets ...................................................................................................................... 50
GPON in Model ...................................................................................................................................... 52
GPON and Active Ethernet Summary .................................................................................................... 52
GPON – Low Cost and Flexible ......................................................................................................... 52
Active Ethernet – Futureproof ............................................................................................................ 52
VIII. Financial Model .............................................................................................................................. 53
Base Case Assumptions .......................................................................................................................... 53
Construction Phase Years 1-5 ................................................................................................................. 54
Funding ............................................................................................................................................... 54
Expenses Year 1 .................................................................................................................................. 55
Expenses Year 2 - 5 ............................................................................................................................ 56
Revenue............................................................................................................................................... 56
Operations Phase Years 6+ ..................................................................................................................... 57
Net Cash .................................................................................................................................................. 58
2.2
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
4
Financial Statements ............................................................................................................................... 60
Sensitivity ............................................................................................................................................... 63
Scenarios ................................................................................................................................................. 64
Mitigation ................................................................................................................................................ 65
Risk and Worst Case ............................................................................................................................... 66
IX. Opportunities and Threats ............................................................................................................... 67
Opportunities: ......................................................................................................................................... 67
Threats: ................................................................................................................................................... 67
X. Appendix ............................................................................................................................................. 69
Peer Cities ............................................................................................................................................... 69
2.2
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
5
I. Executive Summary
This document offers a high-level business plan for initiating and operating the City of Fort
Collins’ Retail fiber-to-the-premise (FTTP) broadband network. After extensive research and
due diligence, municipal deployment of a FTTP network is a viable alternative to produce
meaningful sustainable benefits for the City of Fort Collins. Fiber’s a proven technology with a
stable history, capable of meeting current performance standards. It is the most promising
alternative to meet future needs.
The business plan (Plan) addresses the broadband status quo in the City of Fort Collins, market
profile and opportunity, operating plan, proposed network architecture and financial
requirements of the retail model. In addition, the competitive environment will be investigated,
possible operating scenarios examined, and frequently asked questions answered.
The Plan was written with data provided by Uptown Services in the 2016 Financial Feasibility
Analysis and with data available to staff at the date of publication and may not reflect current
conditions. The Plan will be updated as new information becomes available.
2.2
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
6
II. Mission
Status Quo
The City of Fort Collins began exploring the benefits and need for a high speed fiber network in
2010 when Google announced the launch of the “Think big with a gig: Our experimental fiber
network” competition. The City was among the estimated 1,100 communities that applied. After
Google announced Kansas City as their first Google Fiber community, the City, along with
Colorado State University (CSU) joined an effort called GigU. Thirteen communities and their
land-grant universities partnered to explore the benefits to the University and City of Fort Collins
by creating a future-proof “Connected City.”
Why Fiber-to-the-Premise (“FTTP”)? Why Now?
The term “future proofing” is used to describe a city that is connected to the internet for
commerce and quality of life services. Fort Collins is home to CSU and an outstanding public
school system that uses the internet for world-class research and business. Fort Collins has a
tech-savvy culture and a strong economic base with diverse employment opportunities that
could benefit from enhanced broadband services. High speed broadband is the nervous system
of innovation, entrepreneurship, education and quality of life. The ability to connect quickly and
reliably (both upload and download) has proven to be a differentiator.
For the next 30-50 years, fiber is the anticipated required infrastructure. With upgrades to the
electronics, a fiber network can handle significantly greater speeds in the future. In contrast,
existing coax and copper cable systems are at the end of their technological life and will not
support speeds that will be needed throughout the next 20 years. Conversation with the two
major incumbents providing internet service in the community indicated both believed their
existing speeds were adequate to meet existing consumer needs and their business plan was to
upgrade the system speed as the consumer needed it. Neither would commit to when a full fiber
network system to all premises may be implemented.
Questions frequently arise as to why the City would enter a market that traditionally has been
dominated by private companies. According to the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) the real underlying cause of slow, expensive internet in the U.S. is the lack of competition
among providers. New broadband entrants into the market have a substantial impact on price
reductions, increased customer service and accelerated infrastructure upgrades. Incumbents
typically try to maximize use of the existing infrastructure, such as copper, wireless or a hybrid
approach. Non-fiber infrastructure can create dependability concerns due to the life and
reliability of copper. Fiber, which the City’s exploring in its broadband plan, is not susceptible to
weather or electromagnetic interferences and can have a lifespan of 25–40 years or beyond.
Currently, wireless technology is a complement to wired connections, not a substitute.
2.2
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
7
The City realized a fiber-connected city created advantages over a disconnected city. With the
growing importance of high speed internet within the economy and citizen’s daily lives, a plan
for securing gigabit-speed internet across the City’s growth management area (GMA) is crucial.
It was also apparent that the existing networks within the City’s GMA would require significant
technology upgrades before they were able to offer reliable gigabit speeds to the general public
at a reasonable price. It would seem a municipal network was the obvious option. However,
Senate Bill 05-152 (SB152) prohibited the City from being engaged in providing internet
services; that is until 2015. In November 2015, 83 percent of Fort Collins voters chose to
overturn SB152, thus removing the legal barriers to the City of Fort Collins from providing high
speed internet.
Staff created this high-level business plan to document the assumptions, data, estimates,
challenges and details associated with creating a municipal retail fiber-to-the-premise (FTTP)
network that would offer broadband service to the Fort Collins GMA.
City of Fort Collins Retail Broadband Solution
During the Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) community outreach in 2014, the community
prioritized and identified a need to address the lack of reliable, universal and affordable
broadband services. The City of Fort Collins addressed the broadband situation by identifying
the following strategic objective in the 2015/2016 Strategic Plan.
“Strategic Objective 3.9 – Encourage the development of reliable high speed internet services
throughout the community.”
The overall objective is to bring reliable, high speed internet to the city of Fort Collins, while
making an informed decision through evaluation of risk and opportunities. The FCC formally
defines broadband as internet download speed of 25 megabits per second (Mbps) and upload
of 3Mbps or faster. However, a popular benchmark of high-speed broadband is commonly
known as gigabit speed (Gbps), and is seen in many cities across the country including
Longmont, CO.
One possible option for accomplishing Strategic Objective 3.9 is the City of Fort Collins
Municipal Retail FTTP Broadband Network in which the City will design, build, own, operate and
market internet services to all premises within the City’s GMA. Initial build-out of the network
would be within existing city limits and service would be added to the GMA as those areas were
annexed into the City. In summary, the City would:
• Design a fiber grid network to ensure infrastructure is available on a community-wide
basis
• Borrow between $130M and $150M to fund the network construction and systems
implementation to all businesses and residences
2.2
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
8
• Design a fiber grid system to ensure infrastructure is available on a community wide
basis
• Manage construction of the fiber network build, provide quality assurance and
comprehensive testing to ensure a high quality network
• Design and install fiber drops to each premise when a customer orders internet service
from the City
• Provide internet services to all premises requesting service
• Lease Dark Fiber as requested by businesses
• Develop sales and marketing programs to effectively compete in this competitive market
• Develop appropriate back-office systems required to support customer service and
maintain and monitor the network
• Target Residential Pricing of $50/month for 50Mbps service, and $70/month for 1Gbps
while also offering an “Affordable Internet” tier program
Fort Collins plans symmetrical (same speed for both downloads and uploads) speed offerings of
both 50Mbps and 1Gbps residential offerings. Symmetrical service would also be an option for
commercial subscribers.
Additional benefits sought by the City include:
• Competitive pricing
• Universal coverage across the GMA
• Underground service for improved reliability
• Timely implementation to providing services within a reasonable timeframe
History of Investigation
The City held discussions with each of the Fort Collins major incumbents. Each described their
strategic commitments and timing to upgrade their existing systems to a high speed fiber-based
system. While the incumbents have plans to upgrade their systems over time, no specifics or
promises were provided, such as:
1) What percentage of customers will have FTTP connectivity by year-end 2017/2018?
2) When they will have a network that is fully fiber-based across the entire growth
management area?
3) How they will help the City ensure that all neighborhoods benefit from connectivity?
Staff explored a number of solutions in addition to the retail model to achieve the City’s Strategic
Objective 3.9 and developed the following four alternatives:
2.2
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
9
A. Do Nothing – Rely on the current incumbents to upgrade their systems and provide
improved speed and reliability per their capital improvement plans
B. 3rd Party or Partnership – Develop a partnership with an existing internet service
provider that leverages their expertise and experience combined with the City’s brand
and reputation to develop and deliver high speed internet within the community
C. Wholesale Model – where the City builds out a fiber network and attracts other service
providers to market and operate the system
D. Retail Model – where the City enters the business of building out, operating and
providing internet and other services across a City-owned fiber infrastructure
Extensive community engagement was conducted in 2016 to determine citizen preference
among the four options. The graphs below summarize the citizen “in-person” results, Local
Legislative Affairs Committee preference and input from the online survey.
2.2
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
10
NOTE: At the time of the outreach, the third-party alternative was called “franchise.” Colorado statute does not allow telecommunication franchises and therefore is
now referred to as third-party.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Absolutely Not Supportive Not Supportive Cautiously Supportive Somewhat Supportive Very, Very Supportive
Face-to-Face Results
(without Local Legislative Affairs Committee)
Do Nothing Franchise Wholesale Retail
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Absolutely Not Supportive Not Supportive Cautiously Supportive Somewhat Supportive Very, Very Supportive
Local Legislative Affairs Committee Results
Do Nothing Franchise Wholesale Retail
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Absolutely Not Supportive Not Supportive Cautiously Supportive Somewhat Supportive Very, Very Supportive
Online Results
Do Nothing Franchise Wholesale Retail
2.2
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
11
As part of the investigation, staff has had phone discussions and visited with several
communities that have launched a broadband effort. In addition, a consultant, Magellan, was
engaged in late 2015 to provide case study analysis of the various business models
communities have used. Attachment 1 provides the detail of Magellan’s analysis. The City of
Fort Collins also evaluated how 25 peer communities are working to stay connected. Twenty out
of 25 peer cities have state legislation that restricts municipalities’ ability to operate in the
telecommunications industry. The appendix summarizes how Fort Collins peer cities are
approaching broadband.
In summary, the “Do Nothing” alternative did not achieve Strategic Objective 3.9. The
Wholesale model requires the City to make a significant investment in building out the fiber
network (approximately $90M) and the success of that network and the City’s ability to repay the
debt for the build-out is dependent on the success of these external service providers. The risks
identified with the Wholesale model are similar to what has occurred in Utah and Tacoma
Washington. Staff determined neither of these alternatives met the objectives of the project.
From 2016 through early 2017, staff explored both the 3rd Party/Partnership model and the
Retail model. This business plan is specific to the exploration of a City owned and operated
FTTP internet service business.
The City hired Uptown Services, consultants who have evaluated broadband service offerings in
more than 40 different communities, to support a feasibility evaluation of both retail and
wholesale models. Working with staff, Uptown conducted market surveys, evaluated and
estimated construction costs, estimated market take rates (the market share the City would
have after five years) and developed a financial model for a full build-out of a fiber network in
Fort Collins. The resulting business plan relies heavily on the work of Uptown Services.
2.2
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
12
Platte River Power Authority
Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) maintains the local fiber loops for the Cities of Fort Collins,
Loveland and the Town of Estes Park. The backbone fiber ring began in 1998 as an electric
substation communication upgrade. It replaced unreliable radio and telephone line connectivity
for an important supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) network. A quality SCADA
system provides utilities (both power and water) with valuable knowledge and capabilities that
are key to running a reliable and safe business. PRPA and the City of Fort Collins partnered to
connect all of the substations in the community with a 144-fiber backbone cable (12 buffer
tubes). PRPA, needing only one buffer tube (12 fibers), offered buffer tubes to City Traffic,
Utilities and IT departments. The remaining fibers were presented as leasable to public and
private local institutions.
PRPA’s role continues to include:
Managing all fiber splices on the substation backbone
Providing location services for the substation backbone
Actively leasing dark fiber not used by the host municipality to public and private lessees
(potential additional revenue for the new system)
Provide solution design services to lessees
Performing ongoing maintenance, troubleshooting, and customer support for lessees
Maintaining fiber documentation and fiber management database
Implementing capital improvement
Administering billing and collections of fiber lease revenue and returning the collected
revenue to the municipalities
The current agreement between the City of Fort Collins and PRPA expires on Dec. 15, 2018.
Currently, the City utilizes 36 of the 144 fiber strands for existing City use (fire, police, IT, Utility,
Traffic, etc.). Of the 144 strands, only 25 are not being utilized. It is also estimated that the City
receives $270k in revenue annually from PRPA due to dark fiber leasing agreements.
Given the limited number of unused strands and the expected future need to utilize the existing
PRPA fiber infrastructure to support municipal operations, very limited excess capacity has
been identified that could be used for the retail model. As a result, the infrastructure needed to
support the retail model will require new fiber installation, and will not be able to leverage the
existing PRPA fiber ring.
2.2
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
13
III. Broadband Market Profile
Residential
Currently, the majority of computers and applications do not require gig speed to operate
effectively. Studies indicate speeds of 75Mbps will largely handle the average consumers’
requirement. However, the City’s goal is to “future-proof” with fiber infrastructure for three
reasons:
1) As more and more devices are used within a single household, the simultaneous use will
begin to exceed the current speed offerings.
2) As speed becomes more readily available, new applications will be developed that
require a higher speed.
3) With the growing use of cloud services, a more symmetrical service will be required.
Residential broadband subscribers are utilizing more online applications that require more
bandwidth, quality and reliability out of internet connections. The impact of simultaneous
applications and devices accessing a single home broadband connection creates a situation
where most residential broadband connections are unable to handle the amount of bandwidth
needed to support all applications simultaneously. In addition, the myriad of cloud services is
driving the need for more symmetrical broadband services, as real-time applications require
additional bandwidth, in terms of both download and upload speed. Many times, these
applications synchronize in real time, meaning that they are always consuming bandwidth at a
constant rate rather than only when the user is actively engaged through their computers,
tablets and smartphones. As more of these applications are deployed, broadband connections
will need to accommodate the increased bandwidth load.
The proliferation of devices, commonly referred to as the Internet of Things (IOT), is also driving
the need for more bandwidth. As more devices in homes, businesses and public places all
access existing broadband connections, these demands also extend to many devices inside the
home that are now connecting to the internet using residential broadband connections. Many
video/audio systems, thermostats, irrigation and security systems are now connected to the
internet, consuming more home broadband bandwidth. The increase in the number of devices
using internet-based applications continues to drive additional broadband demand in the home.
Commercial
Accessible, affordable and reliable broadband services are a key productivity and efficiency
driver for businesses of varying sizes. In many cases, bandwidth consumption outpaces the
broadband speeds local businesses are able to purchase. Upgrading is often times not an
option due to the prices businesses are able to afford and service availability, as well as other
IT-related factors. When local broadband services cannot “keep up” with business needs,
businesses lose productivity and efficiency, which affects their bottom line and makes them less
competitive with regions that have more affordable broadband services.
2.2
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
14
Taken in aggregate, this lack of online access will eventually result in a less competitive
business market, from an economic perspective, as growth from the digital economy will be
realized by other communities. Solid economic studies have not been completed that support
this presumption; however, more and more businesses acknowledge that reliable, high speed
internet is a requirement as they look at relocation opportunities. Communities also risk
retention issues as businesses that are not able to gain efficiencies with their existing
broadband services will, in many cases, move operations to communities that have more
availability of these services.
Broadband is a fundamental utility asset that businesses require, as they rely on broadband to
maintain connectedness to the electronic world. The majority of these types of
businesses rely on online services to maintain their daily operations. Through promotion of a
community’s leading-edge broadband services, current businesses can be assured that they
can remain in the region and have robust access to the rest of the digital world. Accessible and
affordable high speed broadband has also gone beyond being a differentiator to being a key
part of the “minimum ante” for attracting and retaining desirable businesses and facilities. Cities
that realize this take steps to ensure their environments are favorable and the “cost of doing
business” is not increased due to expensive broadband services.
City of Fort Collins
Fort Collins is nestled against the foothills of the Rocky Mountains and alongside the banks of
the Cache La Poudre River. With an estimated population of 167,500, Fort Collins is among the
nation’s fastest growing metropolitan areas. The City includes many assets and amenities that
provide a competitive advantage including: CSU, abundant natural resources and agricultural
land, a highly educated and creative workforce, a historic downtown, and many miles of trails,
parks and bike paths. Fort Collins is known as an innovative community and has one of the
highest rates of patents per capita in the world with a major research institution – CSU – a
cluster of federal laboratories and such high-tech companies as Hewlett-Packard, AMD, Intel
and Broadcom.
DEMOGRAPHIC FACTS FORT COLLINS COLORADO UNITED STATES
Est. Population, 2017 167,500 5,540,500 323,127,513*
Persons under 5 years old* 5.7% 6.2% 6.2%
Persons under 18 years old* 19.9% 23% 22.9%
Persons 65 years and over* 8.8% 13% 14.9%
Female persons* 50.1% 49.7% 50.8%
Employmentꜛ 74,498 2,181,455 121,079,879
Median Household Income* $55,647 $60,629 $53,889
Median Age* 29.3 34.3 37.7
Approx. % of Pop. w/ completion of 4+ years of college
education*
52.5% 38.1% 29.8%
White person* 89% 87.5% 77.1%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin 10.1% 21.3% 17.6%
*Data provided by ACS 2011-2015 ꜛSource: Colorado State Demography Office
2.2
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
15
Factors that influence local internet adoption include cost, availability and a city’s demographics,
including income levels. Brookings Institute noted in 2015 that 92.1percent of households
earning $75,000 or more annually had a broadband subscription. Using this benchmark to
evaluate the Fort Collins market indicates that roughly 36.3 percent of Fort Collins residents
earn $75,000 or more per year.
Surveys and market studies performed by Uptown Services LLC, consultants engaged by the
City of Fort Collins, found the following issues prevalent:
The two incumbents have the vast majority of market share for both Internet and voice
services in Fort Collins.
Satisfaction for Internet and voice service benchmarks low; video is average.
Top residential market needs are: lower prices, increased Internet speed, and improved
reliability.
Top small- to medium-size business market needs are: lower prices and carrier-grade
reliability.
Residential market purchase intent is very high and exceeds Longmont survey metrics.
Small- to medium-size business market needs are being met, but price levels are high
up to 200Mbps.
Strong provider preference for the City within the residential market.
Small- to medium-size business market is open to considering the City FTTP network as
a provider option.
The project appeal and purchase intent is strongest among younger households.
2.2
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
16
IV. Fort Collins Customer Profile
Market Segmentation
Uptown Services LLC were engaged to investigate the Fort Collins market and produce a
market demand study based on survey results and expertise.
Uptown segments and methodologies:
2.2
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
17
Residential Market
According to Governing.com’s “America’s Most Connected Cities,” 91.4% of Fort Collins
residents have at least one wired connection.
Top 20 cities with the Highest Internet Subscribership Rates per Governing.com 2013:
A statistically valid phone residential market demand survey conducted by Uptown Services in
March 2016 asked questions around the internet, voice and video services as part of the overall
inputs for the financial feasibility analysis. The study focused on high speed internet service, but
the appeal of bundling services at a minimal cost was also investigated. The study confirmed
that almost all Fort Collins households use the internet. Of Fort Collins households surveyed, 99
percent use the internet at home. Of these connected homes, cable modem and digital
subscriber lines (DSL) represent the vast majority of the market share at 94 percent.
Additionally, the study indicated that internet usage is prevalent across all income and age
groups.
The survey also touched on customer service satisfaction levels, which plays a role in the
market demand for alternative broadband services. Respondents were asked to rank customer
satisfaction of various services (cable television, satellite television, non-pay television –
antenna and basic channels, DSL, cable modem, telephone and electric utility) on a scale of 1-
10 (with 10 being “totally satisfied” and 1 being “not at all satisfied”). The average customer
satisfaction ranged from a high for electric utility at a mean rating of 8.7, to 6.8 for DSL and 6.6
2.2
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
18
for cable modem. Sixty-four percent of the respondents rated the City’s Utility brand a 9 or 10
rating while other incumbent internet services had significantly lower ratings. Lower prices,
increased internet speed, and reliability dominate the wish list of service improvements
respondents identified for broadband. Branding and bundling were of secondary importance.
Additionally, 81 percent of respondents acknowledged the importance of having low cost, high
speed internet.
In addition to questions about current broadband services, market share and customer service
satisfaction, the broadband market demand survey asked respondents about their interest and
purchase intent (willingness to switch) for broadband services if offered by an alternative fiber
network provider. Assuming the competition at a $70 per month price and a City-owned network
at $50 per month price, seventy percent of respondents would definitely or probably switch to a
City-owned fiber network for internet services. Furthermore, if respondents answered they
would ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ switch to the fiber network for internet services, they were asked
the reason for the switch. The top three reasons given by respondents for a switch were: need
for higher capacity, lower prices and the City as a preferred provider. If both the City and
competitive offering were priced at $70 per month, only 45 percent of respondents indicated
they would definitely or probably switch to the City-owned network.
81%
14%
2% 2% 1%
Very Important Somewhat Important Neither Somewhat
Unimportant
Very Unimportant
Importance of Having Low Cost High-Speed Internet
Fort Collins
1%
79%
18%
10% 2%
43% 44%
3%
I Would Switch to Comcast I Would Switch to Ft Collins I Would Retain My Current
Service
Don't Know
“If these services were available to your home, and offer the same speed, which
of the following statements best describes your likelihood to switch?”
Comcast $70/City $50
Both $70
2.2
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
19
Online Residential Broadband Survey
Due to wide-spread community interest, staff made an edited version of the residential market
demand phone survey available online to anyone who wanted to participate. This was not
intended to be statistically valid, but rather to allow more residents to engage in the
conversation. More than 1,800 responses were received and the results were consistent with
the original, statistically valid, residential phone survey; the exception being that the online
questionnaire saw a higher response from younger demographics.
Top Attributes Relative to Importance Comparable Results
Online Questionnaire Participants Statistically Valid Phone Survey Participants
Speed Reliability
Price Price
Reliability Speed
Customer Service Customer Service
Low Income
In October 2015, 33 percent (or ~8,744) of Poudre School District (PSD) students participated in
the free or reduced lunch program. This program provides subsidized meals for those
households that meet the 185 percent of poverty level qualification. The data provided by PSD
was then compared to the census data for Fort Collins to verify that 5.4 percent of all
households are eligible for the free meals participation program. The low income, affordable tier
program will be available to those households at the 1.3 income: poverty ratio to match the free
meal participation requirements, and calculates to be approximately 3,332 households.
The “Affordable Internet” tier program is not been fully defined. Staff anticipates this will occur
during the initial operational planning stage if the retail model is pursued.
Small- to Mid-Size Business
As of 2016, the City of Fort Collins has approximately 8,000 small- to mid-size businesses
(SMB). Eighty-eight percent of all Fort Collins businesses are defined as small businesses (less
than 50 employees), which is similar to the national average. Nationally, SMBs are responsible
for 64 percent of new jobs and 50 percent of non-farm gross domestic product (GDP).
Uptown prepared a separate quantitative, statistically valid phone survey that was deployed to
the small- to mid-size business segment in March 2016. The survey found that Comcast and
CenturyLink are the only two Internet Service Providers (ISPs) with significant SMB market
share in Fort Collins (about 96 percent of respondents). Two-thirds of SMB respondents in Fort
Collins are under contract for internet and voice services. Additionally, SMB respondents had
2.2
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
20
similar responses to the residential respondents in regard to customer satisfaction by service
and customer needs. Reliability, increased speed and lower internet prices dominated the wish
list for service improvements for SMBs. One item to note is that SMBs put a larger emphasis on
the need for improved reliability (48 percent of SMBs identified this on their wish list), due to
reliance on technology and the internet for business operations (merchant service transactions,
ecommerce, cloud-based storage, etc.).
54%
42%
1% 0%
2%
Comcast CenturyLink Rise Broadband FRII Other
Internet Access Provider for SMB Market Share
14%
26%
6%
2%
8% 8%
2%
34%
10M 20M 30M 40M 50M 100M >100M Don't Know
SMB Subscribed Download Speed
2.2
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
21
66%
6%
2%
26%
SMB Incidence of Provider Contracts
Both Internet and Voice Internet Only Voice Only No Contract
10%
10%
48%
34%
32%
Customer Service
Nothing
Reliability
Increased Internet Speed
Lower Prices
SMB Wish List for Improved Broadband Services
2.2
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
22
Large Business / Institution
The objective of the large business / institution qualitative survey was to identify the current
capacity needs, future capacity needs, unmet needs and level of support for a fiber broadband
network. Those interviewed could be major commercial account customers, and/or influencers
in the community. A total of 24 interviews were conducted and the responses aggregated for
confidentiality.
Findings from large business/institution qualitative surveys:
• Fiber is widely available and there is high incidence of dedicated access via fiber
• The survey found that due to multiple incumbent providers competing in the large
business/institution segment
• Advance data needs are being met with dedicated connections for the
business/institutions sole usage
• Most firms currently have sufficient bandwidth, but the City FTTP network would be
considered as an option for redundancy and potential cost savings
6%
24%
36%
2%
4%
0%
2% 2%
24%
11%
15%
45%
4%
0% 0% 0%
3%
23%
CenturyLink Comcast The City FRII PRPA TDS Telecom Rise
Broadband
A new
provider
Don't Know
High Speed Internet Provider Preference
SMB Residential
2.2
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
23
Subscribership (“Take Rate”)
Uptown consultants utilized a conservative research technique from the Packaged Goods sector
to estimate potential subscribership rate, or take rate. This technique has been utilized for more
than 30 years. It was developed as firms realized research respondents, for various reasons,
overstate purchase intentions during research as compared to the eventual penetration of a
product that was commercially launched. One measure of success for municipal broadband
projects is by its “take rate,” defined as the number actual number of subscribers divided by the
total potential subscribers.
In March of 2016 the Uptown consultants estimated the take rate for City-provided internet
service in Fort Collins at 38.8 percent for residential and 45 percent for small business. This
assumed no other gig speed internet offering in the City of Fort Collins at the time.
In April 2016 with the potential launch of DOCSIS3.1 by Comcast, a competing internet service
that provides 1Gbps down and 30Mbps up, Uptown revised the City’s residential take rate to
30.2 percent.
During the recent development of the retail model business plan, staff re-evaluated the pricing
model based on industry standards and long-term sustainability. Additionally, during this time of
approximately June 2017, Comcast announced the deployment of DOCSIS 3.1 to the Colorado
market. This technology utilizes Comcast’s existing coaxial cables and can provide 1 Gbps
download and 35 Mbps upload speeds.
19
17
1
15
24
17
19
1
3
19
5
8
3
1
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Will Consider the City?
Under Contract?
Have Unmet Needs?
Have Redundancy?
Dedicated Connection?
Have Fiber?
Fiber Available?
Large Institutional Partner Needs
Yes
No
2.2
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
24
Due to these changes (listed below), Uptown Services recommended re-surveying the
community to confirm the take rate:
1. City of Fort Collins revised the Tier 1 (50 Mbps) internet price from $40 to $50 per
month
2. City of Fort Collins revised the Tier 2 (1 Gbps) internet price from $50 to $70 per
month
3. Comcast’s DOCSIS 3.1 pricing is $159.95 per month without a contract, and $110
per month with a one-year contract.
4. Comcast is testing a $70 per month promotional offer in Longmont, where NextLight
1 Gbps is offered.
Based on the survey responses, Uptown Services has estimated the City’s retail model take
rate to be 28.2 percent.
The following data shows that the estimated take rate is comparable to similar municipal
benchmarks at the 5-year milestone. Five years signifies the completion of the construction
period.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90 96 102 108
Month
Internet Penetration
(By Month Since Launch)
Sallisaw, OK Morristown, TN Pulaski, TN
Wilson, NC Tullahoma, TN Murray, KY
2.2
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
25
Estimated take rates based on the statistically valid phone surveys conducted March 2016, April
2016 and June 2017. The following graph depicts take rates in the 3 distinctly different
environments in which the surveys were conducted.
Pre-DOCSIS 3.1
Post-DOCSIS 3.1
Estimates
Post-DOCSIS 3.1
Announcement*
Residential Internet 38.8% 30.2% 28.2%
SMB Internet 45%
Residential Voice 28.6% 8.4%
SMB Voice 41%
*assuming $70 gig pricing for incumbents and City retail
Residential subscribed premises would reach approximately 18,000 in year 5 and grow with the
population at 0.4 percent thereafter. Commercial subscribed premises would reach 3700
premises in year 5 and grow at 1.5 percent while staying at a constant take rate of 45 percent.
Voice services take rate would erode throughout time from a high of 8.4 percent in year 4, to 4.7
percent in year 15, as this technology reaches end-of-life and citizens transition from land lines
to cellular service.
2.2
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
26
V. Competitive Environment
Incumbents
The Fort Collins market is dominated by two major incumbents, Comcast and Century Link.
Each of these incumbents operated within the City for several decades and provides all three
services generally included in a bundled offering – internet, phone and video content.
Century LinkTM (CL) has a significant fiber presence within the community to support their
existing network with plans to extend further into new construction neighborhoods at some time
in the future. The majority of new residential construction supported by CL is FTTP. CL stated
the current average consumer does not need 1 Gbps service. CL shared data with City staff
that indicates the maximum consumer need, accounting for multiple devices, is estimated at 75
Mbps with today’s applications. CL’s not committed to when, or if, they will serve all Fort Collins
premises with a fiber connection. CL also shared they face a challenge of meeting their ROI
requirements if they were to build out to the entire City with a fiber network.
Comcast also has an extensive fiber presence within the community that primarily extends to
the node within a neighborhood. Newly constructed neighborhoods are served by a combination
of fiber and/or coax. Comcast also has not committed to a timeline for servicing all Fort Collins
households with fiber.
57%
37%
4%
2%
Current Internet Market Share
(Households)
Comcast CenturyLink Satellite Other
2.2
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
27
During the community engagement visits, many communities communicated significant
challenges from their local incumbents, which illustrate the highly competitive market the City
would enter with a retail model offering. The City’s anticipated 28.2 percent take rate would
largely come from the market share of the two incumbents.
INCUMBENT RESIDENTIAL INTERNET PRICING
Download Upload Price Technology
Comcast
10M
25M
75M
150M*
250M*
2M
5M
5M
10M
25M
$49.95
$59.95
$74.95
$89.95
$149.95
Cable
Modem
(DOCSIS
3.0)
2G*
(limited availability within 1/3
mile of fiber network)
2G
MRC: $299.95
NRC: $1,000
(2 Year Term
Contract w/ Penalty)
Fiber
1G 1G
Monthly: $140
3 Year Term: $70
Cable
Modem
(DOCSIS
3.1)
CenturyLink
1.5M
7M
12M
20M
40M*
896k
896k
896k
896k
5M
$44.00
$49.00
$54.00
$64.00
$74.00
DSL
28
Competitive Response
Both incumbents have extensive resources, marketing teams and advertising budgets that can
create a significant competitive issue for a retail model offering by the City. Comcast is a
corporation that had $8B of after-tax profits in 2016, and CL is in the process of acquiring Level3
for approximately $34B. In addition, each incumbent also has legislative lobbyists that can
influence future legislation and could impair the City’s ability to fund and launch a retail model.
Wilson, NC spent approximately two years with legal and legislative hurdles before being able to
launch their internet service. UTOPIA, a consortium of sixteen towns in Utah, started out as a
retail model before legislation changed, which prevented municipalities from providing retail
service. The network was in construction and had to switch to a wholesale or open access
model. Various factors influenced the lack of success of UTOPIA, but they were ultimately
unable to attract sufficient service providers to make the network economically viable. iProvo,
Provo, UT’s municipal network also faced the same challenge as UTOPIA sold a $40M network
to Google for $1, and UTOPIA is in conversation with a third party who is asking each premise
within the service area pay an $18 per month utility fee to support the debt service and network
operations. This scenario is intended to illustrate the potential risks and influence large
incumbents can have within a local market.
Comcast recently announced the DOCSIS 3.1 technology roll out that utilizes their existing
coaxial network infrastructure. DOCSIS 3.1 offers 1 Gbps download speeds and 35 Mbps
upload speeds. The retail price of Comcast’s 1Gbps service with no contract would be $159.95
per month. A promotional price of $109.99 per month with a one-year agreement will be offered
in Fort Collins and Larimer County. The technology upgrade does require customers to perform
a cable modem and router replacement, and a firmware upgrade. Comcast believes this new
technology will meet the near-term needs of the community, and with future upgrades the
existing copper cable is capable of multi-gigabit speeds.
5
6
7
8
9
Cable Satellite TV DSL Cable Modem Telephone Utility
Satisfaction Rating by Service/Service Provider
(Mean Rating on a 1 to 10 Scale)
2.2
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
29
Municipal Retail Implications
Recently, the City Manager, Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer visited several
municipal-run broadband providers. The communities visited included: Wilson, NC;
Chattanooga, TN; Cedar Falls, IA and Longmont, CO. The site visits allowed the attendees to
openly discuss the challenges and opportunities that a municipal-owned retail ISP can have on
the local community. Particular emphasis was placed on the governance of their municipal-
owned broadband.
Cedar Falls, IA Wilson, NC Chattanooga,
TN
Start Date 1995/2013 2008 2013
Market Share 85% 40% 55%
Price – 50/100 Mbps $58/mth $35/mth $60/mth
Price – 1G $117/mth $100/mth $70/Mth
Households Served 12,000 8,300 84,000
1G Customers 36 100 5,000
Governance Board of
Trustees
Council
Self-Executing
Memo
Board of
Trustees
L&P CEO
decision
Additional lessons learned from the site visits include:
• Broadband is complex and very different from Light & Power – business mindset,
market, etc.
• Broadband is a part of the community brand and sense of place
• Broadband creates economic advantage over those without connectivity
• Each of the communities would do it again
The recent market demand study conducted by Uptown Services indicates that given a choice,
the majority of respondents prefer to receive high-speed internet from the City (see graph in
section IV). In addition, 78 percent of those surveyed ranked Fort Collins Utilities a 9 or 10 out of
10 in terms of satisfaction. The citizens of Fort Collins have trust and brand recognition in the
City organization. There’s a strong preference for the City within the mass market, both
residential and SMBs.
2.2
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
30
VI. Operating Plan
The following sections highlight the basic operating components needed to successfully conduct
the retail model. However, it should be noted these same components would need to be
addressed regardless of the operating model.
Retail Model Summary
The retail model assumes the City builds out a fiber network across the entire city limits and
ultimately across the entire GMA. The City also operates the network, provides internet and
possibly offers other services to subscribers. Marketing, customer acquisition, repair and
maintenance to the network, customer service representatives inside of call centers, and
administrative and management oversight functions will also need to be created and managed
by the City.
The City needs to issue bonds in the range of $130M to $150M to support the construction and
infrastructure needed to provide these services. Critical success factors within the financial
model include: 1) cost of network build, 2) take rate of the services from Fort Collins premises
and 3) the price for the service. Critical operational success factors include: 1) successfully
operating within a competitive environment vs. a traditional monopolistic utility environment, 2)
gaining expertise and experience within a fast-changing technology business and 3)
establishing appropriate governance and oversight structures that allow the broadband business
to operate in a competitive market.
Critical Operational Success Factors
The City is focused on service. That will be a strong asset within a broadband launch. Staff’s
commitment to serving the community and reputation for providing outstanding customer
service will be a considerable asset. A shift from an order-taking mindset, current utility
operations don’t require marketing and selling as they are the only source for citizens to acquire
these services, to customer acquisition through marketing and selling will be required. Agility,
nimbleness, market analysis, and closing-the-sale are essential attributes.
While the City has experience installing fiber in the ground and utilizing that fiber to monitor and
maintain various systems around the city, operating and marketing a network providing retail
service in competition with large corporations will require a different expertise and focus from
management and staff. Technology will shift, consumer preferences will change, and the
organization will need to be adaptable and responsive to these changes.
A governance structure different from the current Utility Enterprise governance will need to be
established; one that provides the ability to have private discussion with City Council on matters
of strategy, pricing, implementation, service plan changes, etc. All communities visited stressed
2.2
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
31
the need for a governance model that is different from the traditional municipal utility given the
competitive nature of the broadband market.
Operations management will be required to make timely business decisions. In order for a retail
business to succeed, operational decisions must be made as needed to compete in a time-
sensitive, competitive environment. These decisions may have significant material, financial,
operational, or personnel impact. Higher level discussions that are less time-sensitive and more
focused on overall strategy, vision, or mission can be driven by a council or a board of directors.
Capital Requirement
Capital requirements will be in the range of $130M-$150M depending on the final architecture
and subscriber adoption. Capital expenses include: network construction, network start-up
costs, issuance fees, capitalized bond interest, debt service, working capital, early installations,
etc. The estimated range of investment accommodates some possible contingencies which
could include construction cost overruns, higher than anticipated demand, and market
competition factors. Other currently unplanned cost implications such as Active Ethernet
installation or additional annexations thus increasing Fort Collins GMA, are not included.
The largest cost component of the capital requirement will be the network construction, currently
estimated at more than $80M. Network construction amount estimates rest largely on the
“passing cost” (explained below). The final passing cost used in the retail model includes a
contingency to assist in managing total required capital.
Other significant network start-up related expenses of approximately $30M include: facility
equipment and systems, vehicles, engineering design, working capital, and electronic
equipment within the network. Bond issuance fees, capitalized interest and working capital
also account for an estimated $22-$23M.
Capital Requirements Amount
Network Construction $80M
Bond Issuance Fees, Capitalized interest, Financing Misc $13M
Contract Installation $7M
Facility & Vehicles $6M
Fiber Drop, Powering, ONTs $6M
Fixed Equipment $5M
Engineering, Design, Inspection $4M
Back Office Systems and Capital $1M
Subtotal $122M
Working Capital $10M
Contingency $18M
Total $150M
2.2
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
32
Passing Cost
Fort Collins will require more than 800 miles of fiber to reach the 62,000 premises and 8,000
commercial meters within the GMA. “Passing Cost” is a key variable in modeling the
construction cost of the network and conveys the cost of installing fiber to pass each premise.
A key characteristic of Fort Collins that increases the passing cost is the fact that all fiber will
need to be installed underground. Ninety-nine percent of all Fort Collins utilities are
underground and, per City Code, all new installations are required to be underground as well.
Compared to aerial network installations, this dramatically increases the cost of installation but
would also increase reliability and reduce maintenance costs overall.
To estimate the cost of installing fiber throughout the Fort Collins network, sample
neighborhoods were analyzed. Density, described as number of premises passed per mile, is a
key driving variable determining the cost of network installation. Initially, seven sample design
representative neighborhoods were analyzed (listed below). The “passing per mile” metric was
calculated along with material and labor costs to arrive at a “Total per Passing” cost for each
neighborhood. The neighborhood was then given a weight that describes the percentage of
Fort Collins GMA that particular neighborhood represented. Multi-Development Units (MDU),
such as apartment complexes, were analyzed separately due to their unique characteristics.
MDUs were estimated at 50 percent of the average cost of a single-family home installation.
The final weighted average cost per passing for Fort Collins was estimated at $855. Due to the
varying nature of Fort Collins neighborhoods, the uncertainty of conduit availability, and
potential issues with underground installation, a 15 percent contingency factor was added. The
final modeled passing cost equated to $984/premise.
NEIGHBORHOOD SAMPLE DESIGN
Sample
Design Area
UG
Miles Passings
Passings
per Mile Weight
Matl per
Passing
Labor per
Passing
Total per
Passing
Quail Hollow 3.2 243 75 30.1% $140 $980 $1,120
English Ranch 2.5 243 96 22.6% $132 $781 $913
Alta Vista 0.7 63 95 6.4% $128 $792 $920
Old Town 2.2 235 98 5.7% $126 $699 $825
Hearthfire 2.6 174 66 2.1% $165 $1,097 $1,262
Taft Canyon 3.8 235 62 1.8% $170 $1,187 $1,356
Willow Brook 0.6 81 143 0.0% $98 $530 $628
MDUs* 0.0 0 0 31.3% $73 $424 $497
Weighted
Average / Total
15.6 1,274 82 100% $116 $739 $855
15%
Contingency
$984
2.2
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
33
Outside Plant
Costs
Weighted
Average
Per
Passing
Materials $116
Labor $739
Total $855
Contingency
@ 15%*
$128
Total $984
Drop Cost
Included in the total capital requirement is the “drop cost.” Passing a premise does not connect
the premise to the network or enable internet access; it simply means the fiber is in close
proximity to the premise. The fiber connection must still go through the “drop” phase before a
premise is actually connected to the network. The “drop cost” is the expense incurred to connect
the fiber in the street to the premise.
There are two components to the drop cost: pre-install and premise installation. Pre-install
includes trenching and installing the fiber underground on the premise property. Premise
installation costs primarily consists of the equipment (ONT, power cable, connectors, etc.)
needed at the premise to connect the fiber.
Total cost of a drop to a premise will average approximately $591 per premise with the highest
cost variable being the contract labor component. During the five years of construction, contract
labor is used to avoid the need to hire full-time employees on a long-term basis. Contract labor
is needed temporarily during construction to subsidize employee labor capacity to complete pre-
installs in a timely manner, and occasionally needed for premise installs during high activity
periods.
Drop Components Average Cost
Contract Labor $295.79
ONT Expenditures $172.57
Fiber cable, UPS, Power $123.42
Total $591.78
2.2
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
34
Pricing Assumptions
City retail residential pricing has been determined to be $70/month for gig service, $50/month
for 50Mbps service, and $25/mo for voice (phone) service.
City Retail Model Residential Pricing
Affordable Internet TBD
50 Mbps Symmetrical $50/month
1 Gbps Symmetrical $70/month
Voice $25/month
This pricing compares favorably to other municipal offerings around the country, as well as
incumbent offerings, and accomplishes the additional benefit sought by the City, namely
competitive pricing.
Comparative Municipal Offerings around the Country
Area 30 Mbps 50 Mbps 60 Mbps 100 Mbps 1 Gbps
RS Fiber - Minnesota
$50
$70 $130
Arrowhead Electric - MN $60 $70
$100
Reedsburg, WI
$45 $75
Sandy, Oregon
$60
Sebewaing, MI $35 $55
$105 $160
Chatanooga, TN
$58 $70
Lafayette, LA
$53 $63 $110
Longmont, CO $40
$50
Cedar Rapids, IA
$46 $105
Co-Mo Connect - MO
$100
Ozarks Electric - AR
$50 $80
Average $45 $58 $53 $67 $94
Commercial service will have a full range of possibilities that includes various speeds and
symmetrical options. Residential service is symmetrical by default. The range of the
commercial data offering would be:
Standard Internet Access
o Shared capacity connection over GPON
o No contract requirement and no Service Level Agreement (SLA) guarantees
o Can upgrade to symmetrical bandwidth and add premium BGP Routing (some
tiers)
Dedicated Internet Access
o Dedicated capacity via Active E connection (same ONT)
o Requires dedicated fiber strand; practical option for pure commercial service
areas
o Contract agreement with SLA and term requirement
High Capacity Direct Fiber Access
2.2
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
35
o Multiple connection options:
Direct routed connection
Customer CPE connection (either non-protected media converter or
protected)
o Protected connection is optional
o Contract agreement with SLA and term requirement
o Resale rights may be included
Point-to-Point (Transport Circuit): Dedicated pathway of defined capacity without access
MAN: Customized access and transport solution for multi-site business or institution
City Commercial
Download/Upload
City Commercial Price
25 Mbps/5 Mbps
Add Symmetrical
$59.95/month
+ $10
50 Mbps/10 Mbps
Add Symmetrical
$69.95/month
+ $30
100 Mbps/20 Mbps
Add Symmetrical
$89.95/month
+ $50
1 Gbps/500 Mbps
Add Symmetrical
$599.95/month
$200
Given the wide range of commercial possibilities, the practicality of modeling each option is not
feasible and produces diminishing returns with false precision. The retail model therefore
focuses on the three lowest material revenue streams shown above and accounts for the
majority of commercial revenue streams.
City Commercial
Retail Model
City Commercial Price
25Mbps / 5Mbps $59.95/month
50Mbps / 10Mbps $69.95/month
100Mbps / 20Mbps $89.95/month
High capacity options refer to dedicated bandwidth. This type of installation requires a custom
quote for both the recurring and non-recurring fees ($4,500/month for transport and access on
average) and term contract (typically 3 years). Commercial custom install fee to cover unique
costs per individual installation. Unlike the standard internet service offerings, the high capacity
installs should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to establish pricing.
2.2
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
36
Marketing Plan
Objectives
The objectives of the marketing and customer service strategy are to secure and maintain a
minimum of 30 percent market share of all premises passed by installing one or more services
per premise. The long-term goal will be to secure and maintain a 45 percent to 50 percent
market share. Three distinct principles guide the product design, promotion, delivery and
support:
Provide excellent service with high quality technology
Educate customers on how an FTTP product improves their quality of life
Capitalize on the strengths and stability of City of Fort Collins brand and high quality
customer service
The survey completed by Uptown highlighted that Fort Collins Utilities has the highest customer
service satisfaction ratings among service providers. A cornerstone to the marketing and
customer service strategy is positioning the image of Fort Collins Utilities as stable, reliable and
efficient.
An equally important point to be communicated in the marketing message and reinforced by
customer service is the strength of the fiber technology platform. It offers customers increased
bandwidth, content and speed, along with more options for interactive services. Fiber has no
bandwidth limitation. The fiber network architecture will provide symmetric bandwidth or equal
speed for information uploads and downloads. That message will be translated by educating
customers about the ways this technology will improve their daily lives. Additionally, fiber can be
a platform to other technologies that could create additional opportunities for the City to provide
additional services such as wireless, Smart Cities capabilities, etc.
6.7
7.7
5.6
6.8 6.6
7.5
8.7
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
Cable TV Satellite TV Non-Pay TV DSL Cable Modem Telephone Utility
Satisfaction Rating by Service/Service Provider
(Mean Rating on a 1-10 Scale)
2.2
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
37
Budget
Marketing budget (not including Marketing Coordinator) in year 1 is $150,000 or one half of a full
year’s budget due to operations still being in startup mode without a full-year of activity. The
budget in year 2-5 budget is $300,000/annually. Year 6+ with on-going operations has a budget
of 1 percent of revenue, which equates to an average of approximately $250,000 per year.
Promotion & Advertising
Brand Positioning: Fort Collins Utilities has built a solid reputation for customer service.
Additionally, creating excitement as one of the first FTTP communities reinforces that the City of
Fort Collins is an innovative and progressive community. For the FTTP project, it will be key to
capitalize on this image and reinforce favorable brand reputation by extending its performance
in offering broadband services.
Awareness Advertising: The City will implement local ads and promotions. These include print
advertising, social media, sponsorships and event marketing (booths at local events).
Direct Marketing and Promotion: The direct marketing program will benefit from a community-
level scale of the Utilities brand. These tactics involve targeted marketing as the network is
rolled out within specific areas with specific messages and promotional offers. The objective is
to get the recipient to respond with information or purchase inquiry (either online or over the
phone). The most important direct marketing tactic is direct mail and door hangers, as well as
other viable tactics such as bill inserts and marketing events.
Customer Service Plan
Customer Service Strategy
A key component to gaining customers, and more importantly, retaining customers is the
service and support they receive. The overriding goals of customer service are to resolve
customer issues with the initial call and remain accessible to customers at all times. An
important marketing message can focus on the legacy of excellent customer service already
provided by the City of Fort Collins.
In an effort to achieve those goals, customers will enjoy multiple points of entry to the customer
service department. Representatives will be available to handle both call-in and walk-in inquires.
Additionally, the Utilities website will offer options to review product and service availability,
order services, view billing statements and process bill payments.
2.2
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
38
Option 1: Customer service associates will be managed and integrated as part of the existing
Utilities Customer Connection Department (“Customer Connections”).
Option 2: Outsource first tier customer call center to a third party provider that runs 24-hours a
day. A local presence will be a priority.
Customer Service Planning
The customer service teams’ primary focus is customer satisfaction, to maintain customer trust
and loyalty, to sell the customer products based on their needs and interests, and to ensure
each customer values our products and services. Important performance metrics and indicators
include:
Availability – monthly availability of 99.925 percent
Mean Time to Repair – monthly average not to exceed two hours Monday - Friday
Customer Call Wait Time –will not exceed a monthly average of two minutes
Customer Service Staff
Customer Connections success relies on the ability to recruit, hire, train, motivate and retain a
team of talented and knowledgeable professionals. Commitment to provide superior customer
service is implicit in all job descriptions and it is important that all customer service
representatives (CSR) share our commitment to make each customer experience value added
and build a lasting customer relationship.
The team of training CSRs will respond to incoming customer calls, handle customer contact in
retail locations, up-sell customers (when additional products are available), and make outbound
calls to customers for follow-up. They will consider every call taken as a sales opportunity to
respond to customer orders to:
Process new sales and up-sell orders (when additional products are available)
Process transfer service and move orders
Process downgrade and disconnect order
Process equipment-related orders
Categorize and process order types
Ask open-ended questions to determine which product offerings best suit the customer’s
household needs
Uptown estimated that Fort Collins Utilities would need to add four CSRs in year two of the
network development and an additional two full-time equivalents (FTE) by year five.
2.2
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
39
Additionally, Customer Connections will need to hire two FTEs dedicated to Commercial
Accounts.
Personnel Requirements
Position Title
Base
Salary Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
General Manager (GM) $135,000 1 1 1 1 1
Data Technician $105,000 1 2 2 2 2
Commercial Account
Representative $80,000 1 2 2 2 2
Sales Engineer $80,000 1 1 1 1 1
Field Operations Supervisor $80,000
1 1 1
Marketing Coordinator $75,000 0.5 1 1 1 1
MDU Account Manager $75,000 1 2 2 2 2
Contingency $70,000 5 5 5 5 5
Maintenance Technicians $65,000
1 1 2 2
Technical Service Representatives
(TSR) $60,000
4 4 5 6
Service Technicians $60,000
1 3 4 4
Installation Technicians $55,000
3 7 6 5
Customer Service Representatives
(CSR) $50,000
4 4 5 6
Total
10.5 27 34 37 38
The model assumes the base salary and headcount reported above plus 30 percent for benefits
and 2.5 percent annual increase. Management including the General Manager, Data
Technician, Commercial Account Representative, Sales Engineer, Marketing Coordinator and
Multi-dwelling Unit (MDU) Account Manager will be hired in year one with growths through year
three to reach steady state. Front-line hiring will start in year two. Headcount will vary during
the five year build out to align with start-up activity with the following numbers representing
steady state. Five contingency headcount have been added to the model to account for
unforeseen issues or productivity concerns.
6 Customer Service Representatives - inbound/office sales, order entry and first tier
support
6 Technical Service Representatives - second tier customer support, dispatch and
service provisioning
CSR/TSR staffed at 1 FTE per 2,000 accounts growing to 4,000 by Year 5, but with a
minimum of 3 FTE for CSR/TSR to ensure phone coverage.
5 Install Technicians
2.2
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
40
o Installs are two-phases, with a pre-install followed by a separate premise install.
All pre-installs are completed by a contractor at a fixed rate ($200) for Years 1-5,
and then insourced. Premise installs are completed by internal FTE, except in
Year 4 (25%) and Year 5 (50%) by a contractor at a fixed rate ($250) to maintain
Install Tech headcount at long-term levels. Each Install Tech can complete three
installs per day, growing to four per day by Year 5.
2 Maintenance Technicians – maintain fiber system from backbone to network access
point, 1 per 1,000 plant miles of fiber
4 Service Technicians – fix subscriber problems
o Service call volume equals 50 percent of all subscribers/year dropping to 25
percent by Year 5. Each Service Tech can complete four per day growing to 6
per day by Year 5
Compensation is based on the City’s wage scale with 30% benefits assumed and 2.5 percent
annual salary increases. Annual salary increases may need to be evaluated due to industry
standards.
Facilities
A Broadband Office and Shop Facility will be required with approximately 17,000 square feet of
both office and shop space. Financial assumptions assume a facility would be built on existing
City-owned land and 2017 cost estimates are $5.6M. Leased space will be evaluated during
detailed business planning. From the start of design, the time to build appropriate facilities is
estimated to take 19 months, and will require interim facilities for operations during the first 1.5
years.
2.2
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
41
Milestone Timeline
2.2
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
42
VII. Network Architecture
Network Technologies Overview
Cisco's latest Virtual Networking Index shows the average North American home has seven
Internet-capable devices and by the year 2020, that number will swell more than 12 devices per
person in a household. This has significant implications for our broadband networks. While our
appetite for bandwidth is increasing, new and evolving applications will stimulate this demand
even more. A few examples are:
4K and 8K High Definition televisions
Automated homes, where consumers control appliances through phones or tablets
Fully-integrated security systems, where consumers can protect their homes through
sensors and video
Smart thermostats to reduce energy usage
eHealth applications and other video or data intensive services
Smart City and other Internet of Things (IOT) applications
The demand for widespread deployments of high speed broadband is accelerating. Existing
service providers are at a crossroad on how to best meet this demand while leveraging existing
investments and maximizing limited capital resources.
Existing service providers face different situations based on the type network they manage
today and on whether they serve urban areas or more rural communities. Given fiber optic cable
has virtually unlimited capacity, it forms the backbone of the Internet, cable TV networks,
telephone (including cellular) networks, private business networks and even data center
networks. As customers, we expect wireless access be available for convenience. Wireless
access is primarily available via Wi-Fi and supplemented with cellular data plans.
The communications community generally agrees that fiber will meet the world’s needs today
and into the foreseeable future. The only debates involve the speed of the transition. The
reason for this is simple: FTTP offers far more bandwidth, reliability, flexibility and security and a
longer economic life than alternative technologies, even though its deployment price is
comparable. It’s less expensive to operate and maintain than copper.
Networks are composed of two parts – the transport medium and the technology that provides
services or bandwidth. Copper, fiber and wireless are examples of transport mediums. Various
technologies are used to provide services over these medium. Networks today are composed of
at least two transport mediums and many use all three. The technology employed for services is
discussed later.
Transport medium configurations:
1) Fiber to the Node/Curb (FTTN) – used by Telephone Companies (telcos)
a) Fiber is deployed to the neighborhood outdoor telco cabinets housing VDSL2 Terminals
2.2
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
43
b) Leverages copper telephone twisted pair lines using VDSL2 and ,in the future, G.fast
2) Hybrid Fiber Coax (HFC) – Used by cable companies
a) Fiber is deployed to a node in a neighborhood
b) Coax (copper) cable is used from the node to the home or business.
c) The number of amplifiers and other devices required is dependent on distance and
condition of the copper
d) Uses Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification, or DOCSIS
e) Bandwidth is shared at the node
3) Fiber to the Premise (FTTP) – Used by all types of service providers, mostly in greenfield
applications. Fiber is deployed all the way to the premise
4) Wireless - almost a customer expectation
a) Uses radio frequencies to carry data
b) Limited by distance, electrical and radio interference
c) There is an inverse relationship between the radio frequency used and the ability to
penetrate physical objects (including leaves and moisture in the air) and the amount of
data-carrying capacity
Fiber optic cable is made up of strands of hair-thin glass that carry information by transmitting
pulses of light. The pulses are turned on and off very quickly. A single fiber can carry multiple
streams of information at the same time over different wavelengths, or colors of light. Fiber has
many advantages over copper wire or coaxial cable. It can transmit high bandwidth over long
distances, it is rugged and weather proof, resistant to electrical and radio interference, and
requires lower operating expenditures.
Copper cable, by contrast, carries low voltage electrical signals. Distance and state of the
physical plant greatly impact copper’s ability to transmit data. It can support high bandwidth for
short distances. The longer a signal travels on copper, the lower the bandwidth. Distance isn’t
the only constraint for copper. Copper plants are subject to interference from electrical and
radio sources. This interference can quickly degrade the Signal to Noise ratio. These
limitations as well as the active nature require a very skilled technical staff and power to run the
devices through the power distribution. These are just a few of the factors that drive a higher
operating expense as compared to fiber.
The above is also true for wireless networks. Tweaking more bandwidth from either wireless or
copper plants becomes increasingly difficult and expensive as time goes on. This isn’t true of
optical fiber, whose capacity is effectively unlimited.
As mentioned above, there are different technologies used to deliver services to bandwidth over
the communications networks.
2.2
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
44
Fiber Technologies
Fiber technologies used for a Fiber-to-the-Premise (FTTP) deployment are lumped into one of
two categories: Active or Passive. The primary differences are whether active devices are used
in the distribution network and effective distance to a customer. Active systems have powered
devices in the field and can drive a signal for longer distances. The power requirements and
operating expense is less for an active system than a copper plant. Active systems are used
primarily in more dense applications such as corporate networks, campus environments or data
centers.
Most operators are deploying passive systems known as Passive Optical Networks (PON). A
PON system has an Optical Line Terminal (OLT) as an originating point, usually in a central
office. The terminating point is an Optical Network Terminal (ONT), which is located at the
customers premise. Passive splitters, based on customer density, are placed in the network
between the OTL and ONT. The passive splitter is usually a 1:32 split and reduces fiber
required in the networks.
Most of us have heard of the Verizon FIOS and Google Fiber networks, but all of the large
telcos and cable operators have deployed PON networks for some of their footprint. Cable
operators are leaning toward an Ethernet PON (EPON) system as it is has a migration path that
uses the existing DOCSIS element management systems. Gigabit PON (GPON) is being
deployed by most other providers. Currently GPON provides higher bandwidth options but
EPON is moving quickly toward higher bandwidth options.
GPON is an ITU standard (G.984) that delivers 2.5 gigabits downstream and 1.25 gigabits
upstream using multiple Layer 2 networks giving the ability to separately transport services.
Standard distance is 20 km with an option to use long range optics extending the reach to 40 or
60 km, and can use a split ratio of up to 128 customers. Most deployments use a 1:32
customer split. Lower splits can increase range.
NG-PON2 is ITU standard and the next evolutionary phase of GPON. It provides for 10 gigabits
symmetrical with fixed optics and allows for 40 gigabits using tunable optics. It is currently
being deployed primarily with fixed optics. Most equipment sold today is available with an option
to upgrade to the new standard.
EPON is an IEEE standard (IEEE802.ah) that delivers 1 gigabit symmetrical bandwidth using a
single Layer 2 network to transport all services. An amendment, IEEE 802.3av, provides for 10
gigabits down and 1 gigabit up. Most deployments use a 1:32 split. No upper range is defined.
2.2
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
45
Copper Technologies
As mentioned earlier, copper and wireless transport medium are subject to many of the same
limitations: distance, electric and radio interface, signal cross talk, etc. As such, the technical
solutions leverage many of the same features including vectoring, Forward Error Correction,
Signal to Noise improvements, etc. They are pulling out every trick in the book to wring out as
much bandwidth as possible from these networks. This requires the physical plants be well
maintained and continually swept, and requires a very accomplished technical staff to run, thus
driving higher operating cost.
Cable plants or HFC plants use DOCSIS for providing bandwidth or services. The most widely
deployed generation of DOCSIS technology, known as 3.0, is capable of providing a gigabit per
second (Gbps) of broadband capacity downstream and 100 Megabit per second (Mbps)
upstream. The newest generation of DOCSIS broadband, known as 3.1, provides a near-term
path toward continued improvement of cable broadband performance, with network capacity up
to 10 gigabits per second downstream and 1 Gbps upstream. These are asymmetrical products
and share this bandwidth across a node. Bandwidth available is determined by number of free
channels available for bonding. Each channel can provide roughly 38 Mbps of throughput for
DOCSIS 3.0 and between 50 Mbps and 63 Mbps for DOCSIS 3.1.
CableLabs is working on a technology that will enable fully symmetrical speeds, bringing
upstream capacity on par with the 10 gigabit per second downstream capacity of DOCSIS 3.1
broadband. This is known as Full Duplex DOCSIS 3.1.
One of the main changes to DOCSIS 3.1 is orthogonal frequency domain multiplexing (OFDM).
OFDM makes quantum leaps in the amount of data capacity and speed available – sometimes
as much as 50 percent more capacity over the same spectrum. Where DOCSIS 3.0 was able to
achieve 6.3 max bits/Hz, DOCSIS 3.1 is able to achieve 10.5 max bit/Hz at 4096 QAM. In a
more typical situation where multiple QAMs are being used at the same time, DOCSIS 3.1 is still
able to achieve 8.5 bits/Hz, making it 35 percent more efficient.
Most cable plants run over 870 MHz of available spectrum. This is broken down into 6 MHz
channels. Several of these are reserved leaving about 132 useable channels. These channels
provide both video and data. Different channels must be dedicated for upstream and
downstream bandwidth. This is one reason for the asymmetrical nature of DOCSIS. Due to new
video compression technologies, you can get about three High Definition video channels per 6
MHz channel. Given cable companies are deploying hundreds of channels, you can see why
they are struggling to provide the high speeds customer are expecting. With DOCSIS 3.0, 1 gig
of bandwidth uses roughly 27 channels of capacity for the downstream path alone. That is why
most systems provide speeds significantly less than 1 Gbps. DOCSIS 3.1 provides for 35 to 50
percent higher data throughput per channel, but even this isn’t enough to meet future needs.
Therefore, DOCSIS 3.1 also does away with the 6 MHz channel size and allows for sub-carrier
bonding to more efficiently use of the available spectrum. But in order to maximize bandwidth
2.2
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
46
throughput, the coax loops must be shortened, with amplifiers and other devices removed. This
helps mitigate two of the limitations of a copper plant: distance and interference.
For fiber-to-the-node (FTTN) deployments, the most prevalent technology is a version of DSL –
VDSL2. This is ITU standard G.933.2. As this is a copper technology, it is subject to the same
issues as coax and wireless. The bandwidth provided is very limited to between 50 and 100
Mbps. To maximize the bandwidth available, the distance sweet spot is between 500 and 1000
feet.
A new standard, G.fast, under ideal conditions and with vectoring (crosstalk cancellation) and
bonding (simultaneous use of more than one pair of copper wires), can provide 500 Mbps
symmetrical bandwidth up to 300 feet from a fiber node. G.fast may prove to be an excellent
solution for retrofitting apartment buildings with fiber to the basement (as long as those buildings
already have good internal copper wiring), but it requires bringing fiber very close to customer
premises and is still limited in comparison with true fiber to the home. Using the 2.4 spectrum
provides lower bandwidth but a greater distance. Conversely the 5GHz spectrum provides
higher data throughput with limited distances.
Wireless Technologies
The two most widely deployed wireless technologies are Wi-Fi and 4G cellular. Wi-Fi is an IEEE
standard- 802.11. The most current version is 802.11a wave 2. It uses both the 2.4 and 5 GHz
unlicensed spectrum. This is the technology that most of us have in our home and are very
familiar with the user experience obstacles such as: distances are very limited, cross talk is
rampant and internal walls and other obstructions are a real problem. The primary methodology
to drive higher bandwidth is through the utilization of more antennas and bonding the antennas.
Unfortunately, while routers are making good progress on this front, very few end devices (PCs,
laptops, tablets, etc.) are leveraging the multiple antenna bond feature.
The cellular industry has deployed its fourth generation network known as 4G or LTE. The
original specification was for 100 Mbps, with the latest versions supporting up to 1Gbps shared
across the entire cell site which is the potential bandwidth shared by all users connected to a
cellular antenna. Therefore, a wireless user might get high speeds for a moment or two, if no
one else is around. Cell sites vary in size generally covering around five or six miles.
Unfortunately, bandwidth drops off very quickly. To illustrate, if you move a quarter of the way
from the cell tower to the edge of the cell service area, you can see a 50 percent drop off in
bandwidth. Most cell sites utilize fiber backhaul with a target of 300 Mbps of backhaul capacity.
Large companies and the media are already hyping “5G,” despite the fact that we are years
away from a 5G standard and nobody actually knows how fast 5G will be. Today, 5G is primarily
a marketing term, and often a misleading one. When the average person hears “5G,” they most
likely assume it means that gigabit cell phones are around the corner. “5G” today is being used
to describe not only the upcoming 5G standard but also for small cell 4G technology being used
2.2
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
47
to fill gaps or relieve congestion, in existing 4G cell sites. It also often confused with wireless
connections using millimeter wave spectrum for point-to-point connections.
5G technology will utilize spectrum bands that are higher in frequency than has been typical for
mobile services to date. Higher-range frequencies offer the potential of greater bandwidth for
improved network capacity, but they do so while limiting effective distance. These
characteristics lead to a fiber deep, small cell approach, as the most likely deployment for 5G.
These 5G sites will cover hundreds of feet, instead of miles, as in today’s 4G deployments. This
makes for an excellent urban deployment, but in rural areas where customer concentration is
less, this can be an issue. Thus it is highly unlikely 5G will replace 4G for coverage “out of
town,” and thus will not be a solution for the “digital divide” affecting those areas.
To be clear, in the short run, there may be situations in which the use of 5G connections with
fixed wireless backhaul may enable service to certain locations. These locations may be so
remote that they are unlikely to ever receive wireline service, and therefore 5G may make
sense.
When compared to a 5G network that can deliver significant bandwidth using very high, very
short-haul frequencies, FTTP is often less expensive and will have lower operational costs. This
is particularly true when one considers how much fiber deployment will be needed to enable 5G.
Implications
All broadband providers today, wired and wireless alike, realize the way to increase broadband
capability is to increase the amount of fiber in their network. Landline providers are replacing
their copper cable with fiber, cable operators are replacing their coax cable with fiber, and even
wireless providers are actually replacing their wireless networks with fiber by placing their
towers, or small cells, closer to the customer.
On the other hand, point-to-point wireless links, typically using so-called “millimeter wave”
antennas, can be very useful to extend a fiber network to serve a specific neighborhood or
building. This type of wireless is not cellular as each user gets much of the total bandwidth
potential of the transmission link. Once bandwidth needs require an upgrade to fiber, the
wireless link can often remain in place as a backup.
Wireless services are important public amenities, but they are not substitutes or replacements
for FTTP. Rather, they complement and extend existing fixed-fiber networks. Many wireless
access points and cell sites are already fiber-connected, and the majority of them will be soon.
Wireless service can thus be considered an application on a fiber network rather than a
separate type of network.
For a cost comparison consider a standard city block. A rule of thumb for the cost of a fiber drop
is typically $5 per foot (for buried or aerial). If you use an average fiber drop length in a town
2.2
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
48
environment of 160 feet, the cost is typically $800 per customer. Therefore, the cost to install
fiber drops to all 8-12 customers on a city block would range from $6,000 to $10,000. A small
tower and 5G cell site would cost $30,000-$50,000. The cell site would also require commercial
power and batteries if the wireless network were expected to work during a power outage. For
5G wireless, it appears that the customer premise electronics are at least as much as the FTTP
electronics, and likely more expensive. The drop cost for the FTTP network is likely 25 percent
of the cost of the 5G wireless drop. Also, considering that the FTTP network can deliver more
than 100 times the speed and capacity of the 5G wireless network, it appears that the FTTP is a
considerably better value if fixed broadband is the goal with the assumptions above.
As mentioned earlier, the communications community generally agrees that fiber will meet the
world’s needs today and into the foreseeable future with the only debate involving the speed of
the transition.
Net Neutrality
Net Neutrality or Open Internet means there are no restrictions of any kind on access to content
on the Web, no limit on downloads and uploads, or no restrictions on delivery methods or
providers(email, Video, Skype, Netflix, Chat, etc.). The key principle is access to the internet is
not blocked, slowed down, or sped up depending on who or where that access occurs. In
essence, Net Neutrality means the internet is open to everyone. Internet providers should not
be allowed to charge different companies more or less for their data or to slow down, or block,
access to Web sites and services they do not like.
Advocates for an Open Internet believe neutrality has been a core democratizing principle of the
Internet since the day it was born. They also believe the Internet is similar to subways, buses,
telephone companies, etc., which cannot discriminate, restrict, or differentiate access. Many
Fiber providers are embracing Net Neutrality as a market differentiator. Their premise is the
fiber networks are not bandwidth constrained as many competitors’ networks are so why limit
usage. This is a potential market differentiator for the City.
Privacy
The City is fully committed to protecting Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and Customer
Privacy (CP) in accordance with applicable law. PII is information about a person that is readily
identifiable to that specific individual. Personal information includes such things as an
individual's name, address, phone number or email address. Some activities related to CP are
website browsing, specific Internet usage history, email, phone records, video viewing habits or
other electronic data generated using broadband and other communication services.
As a provider of utility services, the City is sensitive to customers concern for the protection of
PII and Customer Privacy. As such, there are policies and procedures are in place that restrict
2.2
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
49
the access and use of utility customers’ information. The City will review existing policies and
laws related to broadband services to find the appropriate balance between customer’s
expectation for privacy and applicable state and federal laws. Protecting customer’s privacy can
be a market differentiator for the City.
A few of the laws or regulation related to PII and CP communications companies are required to
include:
1. Colorado Open Records Act (CORA)
2. Electronic Communications Privacy Act
3. The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA)
4. Cable Act 1984
5. Consumer Protection Act 1992
6. Telecommunications Act 1996
The City will provide the protection of PII and CP while complying with lawful request, warrants
or subpoenas routed to the appropriate, designated city office.
The level of Fort Collin’s access and control of Personally Identifiable Information and Customer
Privacy will be determined by the business model deployed. The city will work with potential
third party vendors to preserve customer’s privacy.
Security
Establishing and maintaining a secure computing environment is challenging as networks are
increasingly interconnected and data flows ever more freely. Therefore, it is critical the design,
implementation and day-to-day practices of the entire operating environment integrate
appropriate security measures. Detailed security measures are dependent on the business
model, core network equipment, access network equipment, operating systems and services
provided.
Developing security strategies that can protect all parts of a complicated network while having a
limited effect on ease of use and performance is one of the most important and difficult tasks
related to network design. The City will work with third parties and vendors to achieve a reliable
and secure network. For each part of the network, the security mechanisms required will focus
on but not be limited to the following:
1. Access control
2. Authentication
3. Network Flows/Firewalls
4. Service Design
5. Denial of service controls (Anti-Spoofing Filters)
6. Privacy for users (Split Horizon)
2.2
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
50
7. Physical security
8. Auditing and monitoring
The design philosophy is to block everything and then allow access as warranted. Firewalls will
protect security zones/regions. Up to date, documented network flows and Access Control List
(ACL) are required. Service design will segment and restrict the potential for cross talk. Services
will be removed when no longer needed. Required during implementation is network validation
and testing against the network design.
The system will be monitored to ensure proper operation and to verify the functioning of
applicable security features. This includes monitoring access, insuring all security patches are
applied, verifying required services are configured securely and no passwords are left set to the
factory defaults. All failed login attempts and ACL violations will be alerted. The monitoring and
removal of inactive services is required. Denial of Service (DDOS) attacks are increasing. The
design will address this risk and at a minimum provide monitoring and the ability to black hole
the offending traffic
While the network architecture is a key component of a secure network, physical security of the
network equipment maybe the biggest risk. To mitigate this risk, facility security and access to
the equipment will be addressed. Best practices for secured, hardened sites include monitored
access controls, monitored environmental controls, diverse, redundant power and internet
access. Equipment in the field must be also be secured and monitored.
Assessing the risk to the network is ongoing effort and not just limited to deployment. Building a
team that can identify common vulnerabilities and threats, and develop mitigation strategies in a
responsive manner is a key success factor.
Other security related topics such as anti-virus, parental controls, privacy, encryption and data
integrity are not discussed here, as these are primarily associated with applications and end
users or customer systems. These security risks are a market opportunity to provide additional
services to customers.
City of Fort Collins Assets
Fiber Inventory Assessment
Fiber Network Characteristics
o 144 fiber cable routed throughout the City in conduit
o 112 fibers in use; 32 fibers “available”
Network Users
o City Departments – Traffic, IT, Utilities (electric and water)
o Third-party governmental entities – CSU, Larimer County, Schools
o Private sector dark fiber leases – Level 3, FRII, i-cubed, “Yipes”
Fiber capacity
2.2
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
51
o 32 fibers are likely not available throughout the network
o City should reserve at least one spare buffer tube for maintenance
o Capacity could be characterized as “scarce”
Applicability to Future Broadband Efforts
o Backbone – could be used to connect network hub sites
o Feeder – not sufficient capacity to provide capacity beyond hub sites
Underground Infrastructure
Significant Fiber Conduit in place
o Available maps show pervasive deployment of two-inch conduit
o Feeder – not sufficient capacity to provide capacity beyond hub sites
Applicability to broadband effort
o Additional microducts can be blown in with existing fiber cable
o Spare conduit could support multiple fiber and/or microducts
o Reduces feeder network construction requirements
o Limits costly hard surface construction and new railroad crossings
o Not appropriate for distribution network
Implications of joint use with Electric Utility
o Electric staff desires to route around structures with energized facilities
o Would require creating path around manholes
o Would avoid safety issues with non-qualified personnel
o Would limit fiber damage in case of fire or explosion in manhole
o Budget affected with creation of alternate paths
Other Assets
Substations
o Substation not equipped to handle telecom equipment
o Most substations do have space for new telecom hut (~8’ x 12’)
o Fiber conduit would need to be routed to new hut
Existing Fiber Network Equipment
o Existing City network does not appear useful for FTTP
o IT Department would prefer to be a customer of network
o CSU Manages the Fort Collins network
o No overlap beyond the use of 12-24 fibers for backbone systems
Tropos Wireless Network
o System currently used for meter reading only – not wi-fi
o Sized for collection of meter reading data – 10 routers per square mile
o Consumer broadband would require 5x – 7x number of routers (>$5M)
o Tropos 7320 routers do not support 802.11ac (limited to 802.11n)
o Expanding Tropos system for broadband = expensive distraction that cannot
perform at the same level as FTTP
2.2
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
52
GPON in Model
Gigabit Passive Optical Network (GPON)
2 backbone providers
2.4G downstream, 1.2G upstream
Single fiber delivery to subscriber optical network terminal (ONT)
Majority of FTTP deployments have been GPON
In GPON 1:32 @ 50%, utilization is 10-15% of 2.4Gbps available
Consumption tied to subscriber behavior not their provisioned bandwidth on fiber (high
breakage on 1Gig service)
Network Electronics
GPON cards and ports = $50 per subscriber
Outside Plant Materials
GPON splitters = $15 more per passing
Technical Services
GPON splitters require four splices / eight passings = $20 per passing
Outside World – Content
Two physically diverse Internet backbone connections desired
GPON and Active Ethernet Summary
GPON – Low Cost and Flexible
2.5G of shared downstream bandwidth
Flexible splitter placement and less demand for fiber strands
High port density – 5210 subs in one chassis (10 rank units)
Consumes less space in rack and 33 percent as much power required
Supports path to 10G GPON
Active Ethernet – Futureproof
Dedicated GigE from serving switch to each subscriber
One strand from subscriber to serving switch location
Better suited for high capacity transport services
Longer reach – 60 km
Extreme fiber strand counts required without active field cabinets
Requires more fiber, space, power, cabinets, electronics and capital
2.2
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
53
VIII. Financial Model
Base Case Assumptions
Majority of network will be GPON deployment
Costs based on similar municipal FTTP deployments
o Headcount
o Contractor costs
o Equipment
o Construction labor bids
o Software proposals
o CLEC partner terms
Assumes Comcast deployment of DOCSIS3.1 at $70 price point for gig services and
resulting impact on take rate
Capital budget is based on sample design calculated “passing cost” plus 15 percent
contingency $984/premise (see section VI Passing Cost)
Debt interest rates 4 percent Series A and 5 percent Series B include 75 basis point
contingency
Total Premises Assumed:
o Residential: 62,000
o Commercial: 8,000
o High Capacity: 400
Take Rate: (see section IV Subscribership)
o Residential Internet: 28.2 percent
o Commercial Internet: 45 percent
o Voice: 8.4% high point in year 4 (0.3 percent erosion assumed yearly post year
4)
Pricing (see section VI Pricing Assumptions)
o Residential $70/month for 1Gbps, $50/month for 50Mbps
o Affordable Internet tier to be determined
o Commercial & High Capacity various options starting at $59.95/month for
25Mbps/5Mbps asymmetrical, up to custom dedicated symmetrical gig speed
bandwidth
Personnel at 38 headcount in year 5 with 30% benefits and 2.5 percent annual increase
(see section VI Personnel Requirements)
Total bandwidth requirements are a function of take rate and data demand. Total
demand grows with subscribership and bandwidth usage per subscriber. – please see
following graph
2.2
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
54
Construction Phase Years 1-5
Funding
Base case modeling shows $130-150M will be needed (exact amount depends on contingency)
to fund the operations, construction costs of the new network, capitalized interest, issuance
costs, and other expenses associated with the new start up. A substantial portion of the funding
will be in the form of bonds. The bonds will be issued in the form of an A Series and B Series at
the beginning of the project. Series A is anticipated to be tax exempt at 4 percent and Series B
non-tax exempt at 5 percent.
Due to interest rate risk and possible delay in timing, the Series A is estimated at 4 percent (per
guidance from finance council which includes 75 basis pts contingency) with Series B estimated
at 1 percent more than the Series A to account for the taxability of the bond. Series A will be
primarily used in the first 3 years to fund construction costs. Due to taxability of Series B, it can
be used to fund working capital and operational needs, and additional construction beyond the 3
Amount Interest Rate Issuance Tax
Series A $64M 4% Year 1 Tax Exempt
Series B $58M 5% Year 1 Taxable
2.2
Packet Pg. 110
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
55
year time window. Total bond amount also includes issuance fees of 2 percent and 2 years of
capitalized interest.
Short term debt of approximately $10M (without contingency) is also assumed to be needed for
non-capital expenditures and working capital provided that the City does not fund via other
sources. The assumed short term interest rate is 5.0 percent and withdrawals are estimated to
be taken as needed in the first 5 years. Short term debt will be paid back by fiber utility cash
flows starting in year 6.
Total debt amounts in excess of the $122M in bonds and $10M in short term debt have been
discussed to account for unforeseen risk, possible construction overruns, higher than
anticipated demand, and general uncertainty. The contingency amount is estimated at
approximately 10%-15% for a total of $130M-$150M.
Expenses Year 1
Construction expense will focus on priority start-up costs such as:
1) $5.6M Facility – 17,300 square-feet (sf) building with 8,800 sf office space and 9,500 sf
shop
Debt Service Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5 Year10 Year15
Bond Issuance Cost ($2,439,533) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Bond Series 1 Interest ($2,566,000) ($2,566,000) ($2,566,000) ($2,395,227) ($2,217,624) ($1,217,186) $0
Bond Series 2 Interest ($2,891,332) ($2,891,332) ($2,891,332) ($2,891,332) ($2,709,683) ($1,655,770) ($310,682)
Short Term Interest $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($107,650) ($2,557)
Short Term Loan Principal
Payment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($2,012,310) $0
Bond Principal Payment -
Series 1 $0 $0 $0 ($4,269,322) ($4,440,095) ($5,402,055) ($6,572,426)
Bond Principal Payment -
Series 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($3,632,982) ($4,636,708) ($5,917,745)
Total ($7,896,865) ($5,457,332) ($5,457,332) ($9,555,882) ($13,000,384) ($15,031,679) ($12,803,410)
Capital Expenditures Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5
Network Construction $0 $19,857,262 $20,254,819 $20,661,335 $19,211,856
Contract Installation $0 $438,171 $1,137,085 $1,971,454 $3,085,613
Facility & Vehicles $5,600,000 $335,400 $360,908 $95,509 $0
Fiber Drop, Powering, ONTs $0 $601,550 $1,495,156 $1,872,583 $2,307,130
Fixed Equipment $967,500 $878,663 $896,246 $914,225 $932,612
Engineering, Design, Inspection $2,713,442 $250,217 $251,233 $252,273 $278,337
Back Office Systems and Capital $790,000 $240,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000
Total $10,070,942 $22,601,263 $24,419,448 $25,791,379 $25,839,547
Cumulative Total $108,722,580
2.2
Packet Pg. 111
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
56
2) $2.7M Engineering - Network Design, backbone services and GPS mapping
3) $968K Fixed Network Equipment – Backbone electronics, core head end switch/router,
test equipment, internet services back office platforms
4) $790K Back Office Systems, Other Capital – Broadband billing system, network and
fiber management systems
Expenses Year 2 - 5
1) Construction begins on the network in year two and finishes in year five with a total cost
of $80M. Cost is a combination of plant miles installed (200 miles per year x $4000 per
mile) and passing cost of $984 per meter and passing approximately 18,000 meters per
year.
2) Network related fixed equipment and capital of approximately $9.9M total in years 2-5
includes ONTs and fiber drop materials.
3) Contract installation costs of $6.6M. Third party installers are hired on a temporary basis
to assist with the surge of installs in years 2-5. Estimated at a flat rate of $200 per pre-
install, and $250 per premise install.
4) $800K installation and service vehicles purchased include; service vans, bucket trucks
and heavy service install rigs. Vehicles are replaced on a 6 year cycle and purchases
begin in year two with ramp up costs continuing in years three and four.
Revenue
Year two is the first year of subscriber revenue. Although by the end of year 2 roughly 25
percent of the network has been installed, not all of those initial subscribers have received
service for the full year, and therefore cannot account for a full year of revenue. Network
installation will continue at 25 percent per year through year 5, and estimated number of
subscribers will increase by approximately 5000 per year through year 4 and another 6000 in
year five.
Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5
Active Residential Premises 0 1,982 6,655 12,069 18,014
Total Revenue $0 $916,653 $4,879,311 $10,888,757 $18,211,765
2.2
Packet Pg. 112
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
57
Approximately 55 percent of revenue will be generated by active residential internet premises.
The number of homes passed per year increases by approximately 15,000/year from years 2-5.
Subscriber take rate is estimated at 28.2 percent with the number of eligible premise passings
growing conservatively at 0.8 percent in years 2-5 and then 0.4 percent in years 6-15. It is
estimated 56 percent of residential subscribers will choose the 50Mbps option at $50 per month
and roughly 44 percent the 1Gbps option at $70 per month.
Approximately 30 percent of revenue will come from commercial and high-capacity internet
services split evenly between the two groups. Ramp up will be delayed in comparison to the
residential segment per survey data and Uptown experience. It is generally known that
commercial business tends to adopt slower, but ultimately the take rate will be higher.
Commercial revenue derived from 45 percent take rate of approximately 8,000 premises
assumed. Uptown experience has shown that the bulk of commercial subscribers take
advantage of the lowest two tiers of service. The high-capacity market is highly varied and
conservatively modeled at five percent of commercial premises.
The remaining 15 percent of revenue is provided by residential and commercial phone service
penetration of 8.4 percent. Phone revenue decreases both in amount and in proportion to the
internet services revenue over time. Residential phone pricing is $25 per month. Commercial
phone pricing is $14 per line per month.
Operations Phase Years 6+
Total revenue past year five will range between $23M to $26M per year with conservative
growth estimated to level out at 0.6 percent for total revenue. All revenue streams are expected
to experience moderate population growth impacts except voice service which will erode over
the same time period.
Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5
Residential Internet $0 $609,243 $3,193,006 $6,938,680 $11,176,790
Commercial Internet $0 $69,093 $426,334 $1,091,238 $2,228,246
High Capacity Services $0 $78,629 $435,359 $1,094,400 $2,099,183
Total $0 $756,966 $4,054,699 $9,124,318 $15,504,219
Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15
Revenue
Total $22,783,408 $23,777,179 $24,703,513 $25,202,613 $25,383,653 $25,548,804 $25,697,621 $25,848,046 $26,000,098 $26,153,798
Operating Expenses
Total Operating Expense $4,826,271 $4,874,048 $5,217,769 $5,431,482 $5,305,943 $5,617,558 $5,817,263 $5,695,110 $5,977,152 $6,165,445
SG&A
Total SG&A $1,055,856 $1,084,269 $1,112,355 $1,136,518 $1,157,853 $1,177,155 $1,196,501 $1,216,064 $1,235,838 $1,255,816
Total Expense $5,882,128 $5,958,318 $6,330,124 $6,567,999 $6,463,795 $6,794,714 $7,013,765 $6,911,174 $7,212,990 $7,421,261
Operating Income $16,901,280 $17,818,862 $18,373,390 $18,634,613 $18,919,857 $18,754,090 $18,683,857 $18,936,872 $18,787,108 $18,732,537
Operating Margin 74% 75% 74% 74% 75% 73% 73% 73% 72% 72%
2.2
Packet Pg. 113
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
58
Expenses during operations will range from $6M in year 5 to $7.4M in year 15. Three main
drivers of the operational expense are; overhead staffing at approximately 50 percent of
expenses, internet backbone expenses at 22 percent of expense, and marketing/customer
service at 18 percent of expenses.
Operating margin fluctuates between 70 to 75 percent in years 5-15, but remains healthy.
Operating income is therefore between $17 to 19M per year and is capable of servicing the debt
payments that are expected to reach a maximum of $15M.
Capital expenditures will continue past the construction phase. Subscriber churn will force
continued investment in drop fiber, power and install equipment. Gradual growth and changes
in GMA will also require marginal continued construction cost in the operational phase years.
While most revenue and expense items are conservatively forecasted with moderate growth
assumptions and fairly steady estimates in years 6-15, capital refresh is the exception with
periodic vehicle replacement needed, a $1M ONT technology upgrade anticipated in year 7, and
an electronics refresh of $6M expected in year 10.
Net Cash
Net Cash is the metric by which Uptown evaluates success of broadband initiatives. It is a form
of payback metric that expresses the year that operations of the network has generated enough
funds to pay off all the debt (although the network may choose not to pay off the debt at that
time for any number of reasons). The general rule to follow is a network is successful if it is able
to pay off all debt incurred by year 15, with the earlier payoff the better. The City retail model
currently is expected to hit this milestone in year 14 with $3.9M net positive cash flow. This is
not to be confused with operational cash flow as the network generates positive operational
cash flow (operations revenue exceeds expenses) as early as year 3, however, that excess
cash is mostly consumed by debt service until the bond balance has been paid.
Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15
Total Capital $644,553 $1,521,603 $941,828 $937,307 $6,294,844 $611,662 $608,719 $605,751 $952,031 $955,997
Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15
Total Net Cash ($109,078,481) ($97,606,777) ($84,492,360) ($70,550,920) ($61,084,938) ($45,684,709) ($29,766,588) ($12,984,210) $3,941,006 $21,463,362
2.2
Packet Pg. 114
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
59
2.2
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
60
Financial Statements
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Revenue
Residential Phone $0 $109,504 $517,542 $986,360 $1,346,796
Commercial Phone $0 $50,183 $307,070 $778,079 $1,360,749
Residential Internet $0 $609,243 $3,193,006 $6,938,680 $11,176,790
Commercial Internet $0 $69,093 $426,334 $1,091,238 $2,228,246
High Capacity Services $0 $78,629 $435,359 $1,094,400 $2,099,183
Other Retail Revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total $0 $916,653 $4,879,311 $10,888,757 $18,211,765
Operating Expenses
Internet Backbone/IPAddresses $0 $203,238 $400,342 $611,490 $914,321
Professional Services $30,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Locates & Right of Way Fees $482,619 $266,269 $266,269 $266,269 $266,269
Staffing Expenses $968,500 $1,938,788 $2,560,898 $2,638,920 $2,884,263
Vehicle maintenance $0 $57,656 $130,015 $145,380 $149,015
Vendor Maintenance $0 $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 $55,000
Rents and Utilities $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000
Total Operating Expense $1,501,119 $2,550,951 $3,442,524 $3,747,059 $4,298,867
SG&A
Marketing Expenses $198,750 $399,938 $402,436 $404,997 $407,622
Customer Service Expenses $104,000 $479,700 $491,693 $503,985 $660,080
Billing Expenses $0 $4,365 $14,823 $27,078 $42,188
Total SG&A $302,750 $884,003 $908,951 $936,060 $1,109,890
Total Expense $1,803,869 $3,434,953 $4,351,475 $4,683,120 $5,408,758
Operating Income -$1,803,869 -$2,518,301 $527,836 $6,205,637 $12,803,007
Operating Margin NM -275% 11% 57% 70%
2.2
Packet Pg. 116
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
61
Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
Revenue
Residential Phone $1,465,971 $1,411,407 $1,356,412 $1,300,985 $1,245,123
Commercial Phone $1,771,873 $1,999,637 $2,124,870 $2,145,539 $2,166,350
Residential Internet $13,436,728 $13,510,268 $13,584,171 $13,658,437 $13,733,070
Commercial Internet $2,982,146 $3,047,076 $3,113,284 $3,180,792 $3,249,625
High Capacity Services $3,027,550 $3,709,280 $4,410,780 $4,802,276 $4,874,310
Other Retail Revenue $99,139 $99,511 $113,997 $114,584 $115,174
Total $22,783,408 $23,777,179 $24,703,513 $25,202,613 $25,383,653
Operating Expenses
Internet Backbone/IPAddresses $1,365,893 $1,335,942 $1,599,992 $1,732,042 $1,612,092
Professional Services $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Locates & Right of Way Fees $266,269 $266,269 $266,269 $266,269 $266,269
Staffing Expenses $2,956,370 $3,030,279 $3,106,036 $3,183,687 $3,173,985
Vehicle maintenance $152,740 $156,559 $160,473 $164,484 $168,597
Vendor Maintenance $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 $55,000
Rents and Utilities $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000
Total Operating Expense $4,826,271 $4,874,048 $5,217,769 $5,431,482 $5,305,943
SG&A
Marketing Expenses $338,146 $350,842 $362,932 $370,820 $375,601
Customer Service Expenses $676,582 $693,497 $710,834 $728,605 $746,820
Billing Expenses $41,128 $39,931 $38,589 $37,092 $35,432
Total SG&A $1,055,856 $1,084,269 $1,112,355 $1,136,518 $1,157,853
Total Expense $5,882,128 $5,958,318 $6,330,124 $6,567,999 $6,463,795
Operating Income $16,901,280 $17,818,862 $18,373,390 $18,634,613 $18,919,857
Operating Margin 74% 75% 74% 74% 75%
2.2
Packet Pg. 117
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
62
Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15
Revenue
Residential Phone $1,188,824 $1,132,085 $1,074,904 $1,017,278 $959,205
Commercial Phone $2,181,488 $2,190,778 $2,199,857 $2,208,715 $2,217,344
Residential Internet $13,805,086 $13,874,464 $13,944,168 $14,014,200 $14,084,562
Commercial Internet $3,310,211 $3,362,287 $3,415,181 $3,468,905 $3,523,472
High Capacity Services $4,947,425 $5,021,636 $5,096,961 $5,173,415 $5,251,016
Other Retail Revenue $115,770 $116,370 $116,975 $117,585 $118,199
Total $25,548,804 $25,697,621 $25,848,046 $26,000,098 $26,153,798
Operating Expenses
Internet Backbone/IPAddresses $1,840,143 $1,954,195 $1,744,247 $1,936,299 $2,032,352
Professional Services $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Locates & Right of Way Fees $266,269 $266,269 $266,269 $266,269 $266,269
Staffing Expenses $3,253,335 $3,334,668 $3,418,035 $3,503,486 $3,591,073
Vehicle maintenance $172,811 $177,132 $181,560 $186,099 $190,751
Vendor Maintenance $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 $55,000
Rents and Utilities $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000
Total Operating Expense $5,617,558 $5,817,263 $5,695,110 $5,977,152 $6,165,445
SG&A
Marketing Expenses $380,296 $384,905 $389,607 $394,406 $399,303
Customer Service Expenses $765,491 $784,628 $804,244 $824,350 $844,958
Billing Expenses $31,369 $26,969 $22,213 $17,082 $11,555
Total SG&A $1,177,155 $1,196,501 $1,216,064 $1,235,838 $1,255,816
Total Expense $6,794,714 $7,013,765 $6,911,174 $7,212,990 $7,421,261
Operating Income $18,754,090 $18,683,857 $18,936,872 $18,787,108 $18,732,537
Operating Margin 73% 73% 73% 72% 72%
2.2
Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
63
Sensitivity
The Uptown model utilizes over 450 variables to mimic the City fiber network and generate 15
years of proforma financial activity. While all variables are important and can affect the City
broadband simulation, not all variables are within the City’s control, some variables are dictated
by market factors, or still other variables may have very little significant impact on total results.
In the end, only a few material variables drive the model results, and even fewer may be within
the City management’s control. The example tornado graph above indicates that three core
variables in particular heavily influence the model’s results:
1) Passing cost
2) Residential internet pricing
3) Take rate
While other factors will influence the end result, it would take a combination of other issues to
affect the model as much as any one of these 3 core variables.
2.2
Packet Pg. 119
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
64
Scenarios
A number of scenarios (adjusted variables, or combination or variables) were tested to
determine impact of possible future states.
Base Case scenario:
Penetration take rate 28.2 percent
Passing cost $984
Revenue during operations phase $23M - $26M/yr
Construction phase capital cost $109M
Estimated bond and short term debt total $132M
Net Cash turns positive in year 14
Active Ethernet installation scenario:
Penetration take rate 28.2 percent
Passing cost $1135
Revenue during operations phase $23M - $26M/yr
Construction phase capital cost $129M
Estimated bond need of $145M, short term not available
Net Cash estimated to turn positive in year 17
Take Rate reduction scenario:
Penetration take rate 22.5 percent
Passing cost $984
Revenue during operations phase $20M - $23M/yr
Construction phase capital cost $106M
Estimated bond and short term debt total $134M
Net Cash estimated to turn positive in year 16
Take Rate increase scenario:
Penetration take rate 45 percent
Passing cost $984
Revenue during operations phase $31M - $35M/yr
Construction phase capital cost $115M
Estimated bond and short term debt total $135M
Net Cash estimated to turn positive in year 12
Combination 1 Scenario:
22.5 percent take rate, Active Ethernet installation, 5 percent cost overrun
Penetration take rate 22.5 percent
Passing cost $1192
Revenue during operations phase $20M - $23M/yr
Construction phase capital cost $131M
2.2
Packet Pg. 120
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
65
Estimated bond need $147M, short term not available
Net Cash does not turn positive in first 20 years
Combination 2 Scenario:
45 percent take rate, Active Ethernet installation, 5 percent cost overrun
Penetration take rate 45 percent
Passing cost $1192
Revenue during operations phase $31M - $35M/yr
Construction phase capital cost $131M
Estimated bond and short term debt total $162M
Net Cash estimated to turn positive in year 13
Mitigation
Scenario planning is useful to give management insight into potential outcomes; however, risk
mitigation should be built into the business operations of the network to properly mitigate the
potential for heavy losses. It must be acknowledged that these strategies have varying levels of
success, and some may not be feasible in a network situation:
1) Pilot testing and sequential spending – move forward with large expenses only after
smaller tests have proved successful
2) Timing – extension of construction timing may help financials as the network generates
sufficient cash to fund growth, if given enough time
($200)
($150)
($100)
($50)
$0
$50
$100
$150
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10
Year 11
Year 12
Year 13
Year 14
Year 15
Year 16
Year 17
Base Case Base Case + Active Ethernet
Base Case with 22.5% Take Rate Base Case with 45% Take Rate
Combo 1: 22.5% Take Rate + Active E + 5% Cost Overage Combo 2: 45% Take Rate + Active E + 5% Cost Overage
2.2
Packet Pg. 121
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
66
3) Variable vs. Fixed cost structure – variable cost structure can be a safer business model
in which expenses are only incurred after revenue is assured, but it usually employs
outsourced activities, longer lead time for customers, and potential loss of margin
4) Construction roll-out only after securing tenant anchors and stable revenue stream in
strategic locations
Risk and Worst Case
All business startups incur risk and not all risks can be mitigated. Risks associated with the
municipal retail business plan include, but are not limited to: competition, startup, governance,
technology and financial risk. If the City Retail FTTP network is successful, only households that
subscribe for the service will pay for the network. However, if the City Retail FTTP network were
to fail, other revenue sources would need to absorb the debt originally secured by the network,
effectively forcing all citizens to incur the cost. To cover the full $130 - $150M debt to build the
City Retail FTTP network, a monthly fee estimated at $17 per month would need to be charged
to each household. The $17 per month is equivalent to $2,420 per household over the life of the
debt.
2.2
Packet Pg. 122
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
67
IX. Opportunities and Threats
A number of potential opportunities and threats exist within this type of venture. The following
highlight some of the possibilities.
Opportunities:
1) Possible additional revenue streams
a. Lease of dark fiber
b. Over the top internet service provider if open access
2) Market share greater than assumed
a. Additional capital costs required but additional cash flow could payback debt
faster
b. Higher satisfaction, confidence in City brand and citizen confidence
Threats:
1) Marketing reaction of large incumbents
a. Aggressive pricing
b. Signing up multiple dwelling units with multi-year revenue sharing agreements
with property owners
c. Locking up customers during planning year with multi-year contracts at
discounted prices
2) Possible legislative/political changes sponsored by large incumbents
a. Restrict municipality’s ability to add telecom into L&P Utility forcing need to
create 5th utility
b. Impact on financing could force General Obligation debt vs. lower interest
revenue bonds
c. Change in municipality’s ability to provide retail internet service as occurred in
Utah this forced a Wholesale model alternative that ultimately failed to generate
enough revenue to support debt service
3) Governance
a. City’s ability to modify governance and run a municipal broadband utility as a
private enterprise would be run.
i. Private executive sessions to discuss strategy, pricing, marketing
competitive reactions
ii. Maintain a level playing field with competition by not adding social costs
to the cost structure – i.e. low income rate subsidies should be borne by
the municipality and not by the broadband utility
2.2
Packet Pg. 123
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
68
4) Business Risk
a. Take rate of less than assumed by year five will impact ability of the broadband
utility to support debt requirements (see Scenarios section VIII.G)
b. Construction cost greater than expected (see Scenarios section VIII.G)
c. Price reductions if needed to meet competition given price elasticity identified in
survey results
d. Rate risk in financing
e. Municipal organization needs to develop expertise and experience in staff and
culture to successfully compete with incumbents – business plan and execution
management
2.2
Packet Pg. 124
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
69
X. Appendix
Peer Cities
2.2
Packet Pg. 125
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
BROADBAND
August 8
2017
ATTACHMENT 3
Overall Policy Objectives
Strategic Objective 3.9
• Encourage the development
of reliable, high-speed internet
services throughout the
community
Secondary Factors
• Network reaching all residents
of Fort Collins GMA
• Timely implementation requires
base network build <5 years
• Competitive market pricing
• Outstanding customer service
2
Ballot Language Timeline
4
August September October November
Aug 8
1st
reading
Aug 15
2nd
reading
Aug 29
Intergovernmental
agreement with County
calling for special election
Sept 8
Last day for
City Clerk
certification
Nov 7
Election
Ballot Measure
The ballot measure would allow:
• Council to add Telecommunication Services to the City’s electric utility or create a
new telecommunication utility
• Issue securities and other debt not to exceed $150M
• Establish governance structure including the ability to:
• Go into executive session for matters relating to competition
• Establish and delegate Council’s authority and power to a board and/or commission,
except the power to issue debt
• Delegate the ability to set and/or change rates or fees to the City Manager.
This measure does not mandate the City to provide municipal retail broadband,
or that a third-party internet service provider would offer the service.
5
Ballot Messaging
City’s website includes available materials that outline assumptions, timeline,
cost, and address questions citizens may have about municipal broadband.
fcgov.com/broadband
• Development of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
• One-pager that includes FAQs and Timeline
• Broadband Business Plan, v.II, July 31, 2017
• “City at a Glance” March 22, 2017
• City Manager’s “In the City” column on August 1, 2017
6
Role After
Ballot Language Adoption
City and Consultant(s)
• Staff and consultants may continue development/work on Municipal Retail
Business Plan and Third-Party exploration
•Staff will not advocate for or against this ballot issue with City property, time
or resources, but can provide factual information related to the pros and
cons of the City providing broadband facilities and services
•Staff may also respond to questions
Two Independent Citizen Groups
• Forming, but not by City staff
• Pro and against
7
Recommendation
City staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 101, 2017
Submitting to the voters of the City of Fort Collins a proposed
Charter Amendment to authorize, but not require, the City’s provision
of telecommunication facilities and services as a public utility,
including broadband internet services.
8
Draft Ballot Question
For Illustration & Discussion Purposes
9
Shall Article XII of the City of Fort Collins Charter be amended to allow, but not require, City Council to
authorize, by ordinance and without a vote of the electors, the City’s electric utility or a separate
telecommunications utility to provide telecommunication facilities and services, including the transmission of
voice, data, graphics and video using broadband Internet facilities, to customers within and outside Fort Collins,
whether directly or in whole or part through one or more third-party providers, and in exercising this authority,
to: (1) issue securities and other debt, but in a total amount not to exceed $150,000,000; (2) set the customer
charges for these facilities and services subject to the limitations in the Charter required for setting the
customer charges of other City utilities; (3) go into executive session to consider matters pertaining to issues of
competition in providing these facilities and services; (4) establish and delegate to a Council-appointed board or
commission some or all of the Council’s governing authority and powers granted in this Charter amendment,
but not the power to issue securities and other debt; and (5) delegate to the City Manager some or all of
Council’s authority to set customer charges for telecommunication facilities and services?
______Yes/For ______No/Against
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 101, 2017
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
SUBMITTING TO A VOTE OF THE REGISTERED ELECTORS OF
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
ARTICLE XII OF THE CITY CHARTER TO ADD A NEW SECTION 7
PERTAINING TO TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES AND SERVICES
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article IV, Section 8 of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins
(“Charter”), the Charter may be amended as provided by the laws of the State of Colorado; and
WHEREAS, as provided in Article XX, Section 9 of the Colorado Constitution and in
Section 31-2-210(1)(b) of the Colorado Revised Statutes, the City Council may initiate a
proposed Charter amendment by adopting an ordinance to submit the amendment to the City’s
electorate and must adopt in that ordinance a ballot title for the amendment; and
WHEREAS, Charter Article XII, titled “Municipal Public Utilities,” contains various
provisions authorizing and regulating the City’s public utilities, like its water and electric
utilities, including the requirement in Section 1 of Article XII that the City’s electors must give
their approval before the Council can construct, condemn, purchase, acquire or lease any new
public utility; and
WHEREAS, on November 3, 2015, a majority of the City’s electorate voted “yes” in
answer to a ballot question submitted to them asking if the City, in the exercise of its home rule
power, should have the right to provide, either directly or indirectly through private and/or public
partnerships, to its residents, businesses, educational institutions and other organizations in the
City, various kind of telecommunication facilities and services, including broadband Internet
facilities and services; and
WHEREAS, as a result of this response from the electorate, City Council and staff have
conducted significant research, public outreach and investigation to determine whether the City
should provide high-speed broadband Internet service as a public utility; and
WHEREAS, after completing that research, public outreach and investigation, the
Council has determined that the City’s electorate should be asked to amend the Charter to allow,
but not require, the Council to authorize, by future ordinance and without a vote of the electorate,
the City’s electric utility or a new telecommunications utility to acquire and provide directly or
indirectly telecommunication facilities and services, including high-speed broadband Internet
facilities and services; and
WHEREAS, on July 18, 2017, the Council adopted on first reading Ordinance No. 096,
2017 (“Election Ordinance”) calling a special municipal election to be held on November 7,
2017, as a coordinated election with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder (“November
Election”) and the Election Ordinance will be considered by Council on second reading at its
August 15, 2017, regular meeting; and
Packet Pg. 135
-2-
WHEREAS, the Council’s intent in adopting this Ordinance No. 101, 2017, is to present
to the City’s electorate at the November Election, through the ballot title set in Section 3 of this
Ordinance, a proposed amendment to Charter Article XII that would add a new Section 7 to
Article XII, which, if adopted, would allow the Council, by ordinance and without a vote of the
electorate, to authorize the City’s electric utility or a new telecommunications utility to acquire,
construct, provide, fund and contract for telecommunication facilities and services within and
outside the City’s territorial limits, whether directly or in whole or part through one or more
third-party providers; and
WHEREAS, this new Section 7 also grants to the Council certain powers relating to
providing telecommunication facilities and services, and these include: (a) issuing securities and
other debt; (b) setting the customer charges for these facilities and services; (c) convening in
executive session to consider matters pertaining to competition in providing these facilities and
services; (d) delegating to a Council-appointed board or commission some or all of the Council’s
governing authority and powers granted in this Charter amendment, but not the power to issue
securities and other debt; and (5) delegating to the City Manager some or all of Council’s
authority to set customer charges for these facilities and services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the following proposed new Section 7 to Charter Article XII shall be
submitted to the registered electors of the City as “Proposed Charter Amendment No. 1” at the
November Election, provide that the Election Ordinance is adopted on second reading on August
15, 2017, and becomes law ten (10) days thereafter as provided in the Charter:
Charter Article XII, Municipal Public Utilities
Section 7. Telecommunication facilities and services.
(a) In addition to all the powers granted by this Charter to the Council to acquire,
condemn, establish, construct, own, lease, operate and maintain an electric utility to
provide light, power and other electrical facilities and services, the Council may, by
ordinance and without a vote of the electors, authorize the electric utility to acquire,
construct, provide, fund and contract for telecommunication facilities and services within
and outside the City’s territorial limits, whether directly or in whole or part through one
or more third-party providers. Alternatively, the Council may create by ordinance, and
without a vote of the electors. a telecommunications utility to exercise these same powers
to furnish telecommunication facilities and services within and outside the City’s
territorial limits. If the Council creates a telecommunications utility, it may also establish
that utility as an enterprise of the City in the same manner, with the same powers and
subject to the same requirements and limitations established under Section 19.3(b) of
Article V of this Charter for the City’s other enterprises. The Council may also exercise
Packet Pg. 136
-3-
with respect to the telecommunications utility the same general authority and powers
granted to Council in this Charter with respect to the City’s other utilities.
(b) The Council, acting as itself, the board of the electric utility enterprise or as the
board of the telecommunications utility enterprise, shall have the power to issue revenue
and refunding securities and other debt obligations as authorized in Sections 19.3 and
19.4 of Article V of this Charter to fund the provision of the telecommunication facilities
and services authorized in this Section. The cumulative total principal amount of any
such securities and other debt obligations issued shall not exceed one hundred and fifty
million dollars ($150,000,000), except that any refunding of such securities or other debt
obligations shall not be included in that cumulative total. The City’s payment of and
performance of covenants under the securities and other debt obligations issued under
this subsection (b) and any other contract obligations of the City relating to the provision
of telecommunication facilities and services under this Section, shall not be subject to
annual appropriation so long as annual appropriation is not required under Article X,
Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution.
(c) The Council shall set by ordinance the rates, fees and charges for furnishing the
telecommunication facilities and services authorized in this Section subject to the same
limitations in Section 6 of Article XII of this Charter for setting the rates, fees and
charges for other City utilities, except to the extent this authority is delegated by Council
pursuant to subsection (e) below. In setting such rates, fees and charges, the Council may
also include amounts payable to the City’s general fund for a franchise fee, a reasonable
rate of return on any contributions from the general fund to acquire or construct
telecommunication facilities, and the repayment of any loans from the general fund used
to support the provision of telecommunication facilities and services under this Section,
to include the payment of a reasonable rate of interest on any such loans.
(d) In addition to the authority to go into executive session as provided in Section 11
of Article II of this Charter, the Council, and any board or commission established under
subsection (e) below, may go into executive session to consider matters pertaining to
issues of competition in providing the telecommunication facilities and services
authorized in this Section, which shall include, without limitation, matters subject to
negotiation, strategic planning, pricing, sales and marketing, development phasing and
any other matter allowed under Colorado law.
(e) As authorized in Section 1 of Article IV of this Charter, the Council may, by
ordinance, establish a Council-appointed board or commission and delegate to it, in
whole or part, the Council’s governing authority and powers granted under this Section
concerning the furnishing of telecommunication facilities and services by the City’s
electric utility or telecommunications utility, but not the power to issue securities as
provided in subsection (b) above which shall only be exercised by the Council acting as
itself or as the board of the electric utility enterprise or as the board of the
telecommunications utility enterprise. The Council may also delegate by ordinance to the
City Manager, in whole or part, its authority in subsection (c) above to set the rates, fees
and charges for furnishing telecommunication facilities and services. Any Council
Packet Pg. 137
-4-
ordinance delegating this authority shall set forth the process to be used by the delegate
for the setting of these rates, fees and charges. In addition, the amount of the rates, fees
and charges so set by the delegate shall be determined under the same criteria the Council
is authorized and required to follow in subsection (c) above.
(f) For purposes of this Section, telecommunication facilities and services shall mean
those facilities used and services provided for the transmission, between or among points
specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or
content of the information as sent and received, to include, without limitation, any
broadband Internet facilities and services using any technology having the capacity to
transmit data to enable a subscriber to the service to originate and receive high-quality
voice, data, graphics and video. Telecommunication facilities and services and
“broadband Internet facilities and services” are to be interpreted under this Section in the
broadest possible way to cover the widest range of technologies and technology
infrastructure, regardless of how these terms may be defined by federal or state law.
Section 3. That the following ballot title, with its title and submission clause, is
hereby adopted for submitting the proposed new Section 7 in Charter Article XII to the City’s
electorate at the November Election, provide that the Election Ordinance is adopted on second
reading on August 15, 2017, and becomes law ten (10) days thereafter as provided in the Charter:
CITY-INITIATED
PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 1
ADDING A NEW SECTION 7 TO CHARTER ARTICLE XII TO
AUTHORIZE, BUT NOT REQUIRE, THE CITY’S PROVISION OF
TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES AND SERVICES AS A
PUBLIC UTILITY, INCLUDING BROADBAND INTERNET SERVICES
Shall Article XII of the City of Fort Collins Charter be amended to allow, but not require,
City Council to authorize, by ordinance and without a vote of the electors, the City’s
electric utility or a separate telecommunications utility to provide telecommunication
facilities and services, including the transmission of voice, data, graphics and video using
broadband Internet facilities, to customers within and outside Fort Collins, whether
directly or in whole or part through one or more third-party providers, and in exercising
this authority, to: (1) issue securities and other debt, but in a total amount not to exceed
$150,000,000; (2) set the customer charges for these facilities and services subject to the
limitations in the Charter required for setting the customer charges of other City utilities;
(3) go into executive session to consider matters pertaining to issues of competition in
providing these facilities and services; (4) establish and delegate to a Council-appointed
board or commission some or all of the Council’s governing authority and powers
granted in this Charter amendment, but not the power to issue securities and other debt;
and (5) delegate to the City Manager some or all of Council’s authority to set customer
charges for telecommunication facilities and services?
______Yes/For
______No/Against
Packet Pg. 138
-5-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 8th day of
August, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of August, A.D. 2017.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of August, A.D. 2017.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Interim City Clerk
Packet Pg. 139
Agenda Item 3
Item # 3 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 8, 2017
City Council
STAFF
Carrie Daggett, City Attorney
Judge Kathleen M. Lane, Municipal Judge
SUBJECT
Items Relating to a Proposed Charter Amendment Regarding Municipal Court Functions.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Possible Public Hearing and Motions Regarding Protest(s) of Ballot Language.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2017, Submitting to a Vote of the Electors of the City of Fort Collins a
Proposed Amendment to Section 1 of Article VII of the City Charter Pertaining to the Jurisdiction of the
Municipal Court to Hear Civil Cases.
This item sets a ballot question that would modify the jurisdiction of Municipal Court to eliminate the Municipal
Court’s jurisdiction over civil cases while retaining the Court’s jurisdiction to hear and try all proceedings
initiated by the City alleging violations of the Charter and ordinances of the City. The Ordinance submits the
question to Fort Collins voters at the November 7, 2017, Special Municipal Election. The Charter Amendment
has been proposed in order to prevent future appeals to Municipal Court of civil actions that are more
appropriately heard in Larimer County District Court and that the Municipal Court is not well situated to hear.
Any protest of the proposed ballot language must be received no later than Monday, August 7, 2017, at noon.
The protest(s) shall be heard, considered, and resolved by Council prior to adoption of Ordinance No. 102,
2017. If protest(s) are received, copies will be included in Council’s “Read-before” packet.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge recommend adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Article VII, Section 1 of the City Charter provides that there shall be a Municipal Court vested with original
jurisdiction of all causes arising under the City's Charter and ordinances. This means that the Municipal Court
has jurisdiction to hear cases other than criminal offenses, traffic or civil infractions or other enforcement of
Code violations. Prior to 1989, the City Charter gave the Municipal Court “exclusive jurisdiction” over these
matters, meaning that other courts, such as the Larimer County District Court, were arguably precluded from
hearing those cases. This provision of the City Charter was changed in 1989 to eliminate the reference to
Municipal Court’s jurisdiction over matters arising under the City Charter and Code as “exclusive,” “thereby
clarifying that City Ordinances can create civil remedies in other courts of competent jurisdiction” (Ordinance
No. 5, 1989).
The Fort Collins Municipal Court’s caseload has traditionally included violations of the City Code, including
codes adopted therein such as the City’s Traffic Code and uniform codes. Most of the caseload is traffic-
related and the majority of those cases are decriminalized traffic infractions. The balance of the caseload is
non-traffic misdemeanors and civil infractions. Though there are some differences in rights and options based
3
Packet Pg. 140
Agenda Item 3
Item # 3 Page 2
on the nature of the charge, the process relating to all defendants is governed by the Colorado Municipal Court
Rules of Procedures and state statutes applicable to Municipal Courts, as well as City Code and Charter
provisions.
In April, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 052, 2017, adopting Rules of Civil Procedure for the Municipal
Court. The need for these rules was precipitated by the first-ever filing in Municipal Court of a civil case, which
case seeks review of a City Council land use decision. In the past, plaintiffs have sought judicial review of
these types of decisions in Larimer County District Court under Rule 106 of the Colorado Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Civil cases, such as the civil case now pending in Municipal Court, involve an entirely different process
governed by an extensive set of procedural rules relating to civil cases. The Fort Collins Municipal Court is not
staffed, in terms of judicial or administrative positions, to handle complex civil cases such as this. Instead, such
cases have in the past been filed by plaintiffs in Larimer County District Court as actions under Rule 106 of the
Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. In that way, such cases are handled by judges who regularly hear these
kinds of cases. The District Court has been the path chosen for review of City decisions in all cases other than
the one pending currently, and the review of this case would continue in Municipal Court even if the almost
never-used option of Municipal Court review for these civil cases is eliminated.
Municipal Court does not have the capacity to handle civil cases in addition to its existing caseload. Budgeting
for additional staff for such cases would be difficult since they are rare but very time-intensive when filed. Also
hearing these civil cases in Municipal Court places Municipal Judges hired, evaluated, and reappointed by City
Council in the position of reviewing City Council decisions which may give the appearance of a conflict of
interest for the Judge. Referring such cases to Municipal Judges from other jurisdictions under an
intergovernmental agreement for judicial services imposes an unfair burden on the other city’s resources and
is not a realistic, long-term option. Revising the City’s Charter to clearly remove this jurisdiction from the
Municipal Court - so that such cases would instead be filed in Larimer County District Court - is the preferred
option.
The use of Municipal Court for review of City land use and other types of decisions and actions is proving
problematic. There are challenges in having the City’s own court review the City’s decisions, and there is a
risk of abuse by plaintiffs that could result in substantial delays and expense in these civil cases for little gain.
Review in District Court would continue to be available and this has been the course of review in all cases
other than the currently pending civil case in Municipal Court. Although there has been only one case filed to
date seeking review of a civil claim by Municipal Court, there is potential for abuse of the Municipal Court
process that creates a significant potential burden for little gain in light of the fully adequate and appropriate
review already available in Larimer County District Court.
While a few jurisdictions have adopted civil court rules for use in these kinds of civil cases (as the City did in
April), others have modified their charters to eliminate their municipal court’s jurisdiction over civil matters and
to limit their court’s jurisdiction to just hearing the prosecution of violations of the municipality’s charter and
ordinances.
Based on the information available from other municipalities, including Denver, Aurora and Broomfield, many
of these cities’ charters grant their municipal courts broad jurisdiction similar to that granted to Fort Collins’
Municipal Court. However, their recent experience has been that few, if any, civil actions have been filed by
citizen plaintiffs in their courts, so they have not had to address this problem.
3
Packet Pg. 141
Agenda Item 3
Item # 3 Page 3
The proposed Charter amendment language is as follows:
Article VII.
Municipal Court
Section 1. Municipal court.
There shall be a Municipal Court vested with original jurisdiction of all causes arising under the City's
Charter and ordinances. There shall be a Municipal Court with the jurisdiction to hear and try all
proceedings initiated by the City alleging violations of the Charter and ordinances of the City. The
Council shall appoint the judge or judges of Municipal Court for two (2) year terms. Council shall
designate a Chief Judge to carry out related duties as adopted by the Council by ordinance, and shall
fix the compensation of the Municipal Judges. Such compensation shall in no manner be contingent
upon the amount of fees, fines or costs imposed or collected. Each Municipal Judge shall be licensed
to practice law in the State of Colorado during his or her tenure in office, but need not be so licensed
prior to appointment. As Council determines necessary, the Council may designate one (1) or more
reputable and qualified attorneys to serve as temporary judge. The Council may remove a Municipal
Judge for cause.
Rules of procedure, costs and fees shall be enacted by the Council upon recommendation of the Chief
Municipal Judge.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff distributed and posted a news release and an FAQ document regarding the proposed Charter change.
This information was also provided to the Home Builders Associations and was posted at the Development
Review counter.
3
Packet Pg. 142
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 102, 2017
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
SUBMITTING TO A VOTE OF THE REGISTERED ELECTORS OF
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
SECTION 1 OF ARTICLE VII OF THE CITY CHARTER PERTAINING
TO THE JURISDICTION OF MUNICIPAL COURT TO HEAR CIVIL CASES
WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 8 of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins (“Charter”)
provides that the Charter may be amended as provided by the laws of the State of Colorado; and
WHEREAS, as provided in Article XX, Section 9 of the Colorado Constitution and
Section 31-2-210(1)(b), Colorado Revised Statutes, Charter amendments may be initiated by the
City Council’s adoption of an ordinance submitting a proposed amendment to a vote of the
City’s registered electors and Council must adopt in that ordinance a ballot title for the
amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the Municipal Court is not well situated to
hear civil cases in addition to the City Charter and City ordinance violations that have
traditionally been heard there; and
WHEREAS, historically such civil cases have been filed not in Municipal Court but in
Larimer County District Court, with one recent exception, and the District Court is an
appropriate and practical forum for review of these cases; and
WHEREAS, the right of persons to seek redress and review in Larimer County District
Court will continue unimpeded with the amendment of the Charter as proposed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the following proposed changes to Section 1 of Article VII of the
City Charter shall be submitted to the registered electors of the City as “Proposed Charter
Amendment No. 2” at the special municipal election to be held on November 7, 2017:
ARTICLE VII.
MUNICIPAL COURT
Section 1. Municipal court.
There shall be a Municipal Court vested with original jurisdiction of all causes arising
under the City's Charter and ordinances. There shall be a Municipal Court with the
jurisdiction to hear and try all proceedings initiated by the City alleging violations of the
Packet Pg. 143
-2-
Charter and ordinances of the City. The Council shall appoint the judge or judges of
Municipal Court for two (2) year terms. Council shall designate a Chief Judge to carry
out related duties as adopted by the Council by ordinance, and shall fix the compensation
of the Municipal Judges. Such compensation shall in no manner be contingent upon the
amount of fees, fines or costs imposed or collected. Each Municipal Judge shall be
licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado during his or her tenure in office, but
need not be so licensed prior to appointment. As Council determines necessary, the
Council may designate one (1) or more reputable and qualified attorneys to serve as
temporary judge. The Council may remove a Municipal Judge for cause.
Rules of procedure, costs and fees shall be enacted by the Council upon recommendation
of the Chief Municipal Judge.
Section 3. That the following ballot title, with its title and submission clause, is
hereby adopted for submitting Proposed Charter Amendment No. 2 to the voters at said election:
CITY-INITIATED
PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 2
AMENDING SECTION 1 OF CHARTER ARTICLE VII TO
MODIFY THE MUNICIPAL COURT’S JURISDICTION
Shall Section 1 of Article VII of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins, pertaining
to Municipal Court, be amended to eliminate the Municipal Court’s jurisdiction
over civil cases while retaining the Court’s jurisdiction to hear and try all
proceedings initiated by the City alleging violations of the Charter and ordinances
of the City?
______Yes/For
______No/Against
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 8th day of
August, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of August, A.D. 2017.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 144
-3-
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of August, A.D. 2017.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Interim City Clerk
Packet Pg. 145
Agenda Item 4
Item # 4 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 8, 2017
City Council
STAFF
Wanda Winkelmann, City Clerk
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2017, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for the
Conduct of a Special Election on November 7, 2017, that was not included in the 2017 Adopted City Budget.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to appropriate $150,000 from prior year reserves for the conduct of the November
7, 2017, Special Election. This is an estimated amount based on prior participation in coordinated elections.
Final costs will be determined by the number of eligible Fort Collins voters, and the number of entities
participating/sharing in the cost of the election.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On July 18, 2017, Council passed on First Reading Ordinance No. 096, 2017, calling a Special Municipal
Election on November 7, 2017, to be held in conjunction with the Larimer County Coordinated Election to
preserve the opportunity for Council to place initiated or referred issues on the November ballot. City staff will
present to the City Council for consideration at this same meeting, proposed Charter amendments that would
authorize the City to add communication services as a component of the Electric Utilities services and adding
related provisions. City staff will also present a Charter amendment concerning the Municipal Court. Council
may also place additional measures on the ballot, if desired.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
This Ordinance appropriates $150,000 from prior year reserves in the General Fund. Participation in the
November election was not budgeted.
4
Packet Pg. 146
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 103, 2017
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE GENERAL FUND
FOR THE CONDUCT OF A SPECIAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 7, 2017,
THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE 2017 ADOPTED CITY BUDGET
WHEREAS, on July 18, 2017, the City Council passed on First Reading Ordinance No.
096, 2017, calling for a Special Municipal Election to be held in conjunction with the
November 7, 2017, Larimer County Coordinated Election; and
WHEREAS, it is expected that the City Council will adopt Ordinance No. 096, 2017,
on Second Reading on August 15, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this special election is to preserve the opportunity for
Council to place initiated or referred issues on the November ballot; and
WHEREAS, while the actual cost of this special election will not be known until after
it is held, City staff estimates the cost to be $150,000; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to
appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be
available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not
previously appropriated; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriations as described herein are
available and previously unappropriated in the General Fund; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations
and findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated from reserves in the General Fund the
sum of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($150,000) for the participation
in the coordinated election to be held on November 7, 2017.
Packet Pg. 147
-2-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 8th day of
August, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of August, A.D. 2017.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of August, A.D. 2017.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Interim City Clerk
Packet Pg. 148
Agenda Item 5
Item # 5 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 8, 2017
City Council
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN AND MOVED TO AUGUST 15.
STAFF
Michelle Provaznik, Manager-Gardens on Spring Creek
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 2017, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund
and Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund for
Construction of the Final Five Acres of the Gardens on Spring Creek and Transferring Appropriations to the
Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Art in Public Places Program.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to appropriate $2,631,000 for construction of the Gardens on Spring Creek facility
including the Great Lawn, Undaunted Garden, Foothills and Prairie Gardens. This item also appropriates the
funds needed for the Arts in Public Places artwork that is part of the capital project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On June 7, 2016, Council adopted Ordinance No. 074, 2016, approving a major amendment for the City
property informally known as the Gardens on Spring Creek (the “Project”). The total Project budget is
$3,031,000. The current Project breakdown is as follows:
Project Design Budget (already spent) $202,000
Project Construction Budget: $2,829,000
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET: $3,031,000
Throughout the design and development review process, the Friends of the Gardens Board of Directors and
Gardens Staff have been raising money for the construction of the Project. $1,712,000 has been raised from
local foundations, businesses and individuals who support the Project. Adding these donations to what was
previously appropriated by the City, the current Project funding sources are as follows:
City Contribution $400,000
Community Leadership Donors $1,000,000
Other Private Donations $712,000
Ongoing Additional Private Fundraising $519,000
Staff is asking for an additional $400,000 from prior year reserves in the General Fund to bridge the gap
between the $2,631,000 of Project funding sources already identified and the total Project budget of
$3,031,000. This item was discussed at the Council Finance Committee meeting on July 11, 2017. Draft
minutes from the meeting are attached.
Agenda Item 5
Item # 5 Page 2
Construction will not begin on the project until a permit is issued. A permit will not be issued until the project, as
previously approved, is ready to be built or City Council amends its previous approval. Staff currently plans to
come back before Council with a recommendation to eliminate the western-most sound wall and sound
monitoring system, which will ultimately reduce the overall cost.
City Council’s previous approval of the Project, including the sound wall and sound monitoring system
requirement, is attached to this AIS.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
This Ordinance will appropriate $2,631,000 to complete the remaining gardens at the Gardens on Spring
Creek. These funds include $2,231,000 raised by the Friends and donations in process. This ordinance also
includes an additional $400,000 from the City of Fort Collins prior year reserves in the General Fund. The
funds will become part of The Gardens capital budget.
From this appropriation, one percent (1%) of the base bid for the project is to be used for Art in Public Places.
Of the total Project amount, $2,500 has been previously transferred to the Cultural Services and Facilities
Fund for APP. This ordinance will transfer 1% of the remaining Project amount of $2,781,000, in the amount of
$27,810 to the Art in Public Places (APP) program. Of the $27,810 APP contribution, $21,692 will be reserved
for the APP artwork and $5,562 reserved for operations of the APP program and $556 for maintenance of the
artwork.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
No board or commission recommendations.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public outreach was completed during the development review process for the project including three public
meetings, two Planning and Zoning Board Meetings and two City Council Meetings.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Overall Site Plan (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 074, 2016 (PDF)
3. Council Finance Committee minutes, July 11, 2017 (draft) (PDF)
4. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
russell+mills
studios
Gardens on Spring 0 15 30 60’ Creek
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
GREAT
LAWN
UNDAUNTED
GARDEN
COMMUNITY
GARDEN
Overall Site Plan
PARKING
C E N T R E A V E
SPRING CREEK
STORM WATER
DETENTION/
WETLANDS
ROCK
GARDEN
CAFE
GROVE
Backdrop Planting
Proposed Fence, typ.
Future Trail Connection to PERC
Existing Tree, typ.
Stage Tents
Stage
35’x40’
Terraced
Shade
Seating
Moon
Garden
Sound
Mitigation
Walls
Fragrance
Garden
Rose
Garden
Hummingbird
Garden
Chaparral
Planting
Cactus Planting
5.2
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: Ordinance No. 074, 2016 (5604 : Gardens on Spring Creek Appropriation)
5.2
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: Ordinance No. 074, 2016 (5604 : Gardens on Spring Creek Appropriation)
5.2
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: Ordinance No. 074, 2016 (5604 : Gardens on Spring Creek Appropriation)
1
EXHIBIT A
Notes included with the Gardens on Spring Creek Amended
Plan (See sheet LS003 of the Site Plan)
DRAFT 3-23-2016
THE FOLLOWING GENERAL OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT STANDARDS SHALL
REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR ALL FUTURE GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK EVENTS.
GENERAL EVENT STANDARDS:
1. ALL EVENTS, INCLUDING MUSIC CONCERT EVENTS OR GENERAL EVENTS
SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE FORT COLLINS MUNICIPAL CODE NOISE
STANDARDS OF CHAPTER 20, ARTICLE II: SOUND SHALL BE LIMITED TO 55
dB(A) FROM 7 A.M. TO 8:00 P.M. AND 50 dB(A) FROM 8:00 P.M. TO 7:00 A.M. AT
THE GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT TO THE LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-L) ZONE DISTRICT, AND SHALL BE LIMITED TO 70
dB(A) FROM 7 A.M. TO 8:00 P.M. AND 65 dB(A) FROM 8:00 P.M. TO 7:00 A.M. AT
THE GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT TO THE
EMPLOYMENT (E) ZONE DISTRICT.
2. THERE SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF (8) MUSIC CONCERT EVENTS PER YEAR WITH
AN ATTENDANCE CAP OF 1,500 PERSONS. THE MAXIMUM ATTENDANCE SHALL
BE MANAGED AND REGULATED THROUGH TICKET SALES. ALL MUSIC CONCERT
EVENTS SHALL BE TICKETED.
3. THERE SHALL BE NO MULTI-DAY MUSIC CONCERT EVENTS SUCH AS MUSIC
FESTIVALS.
4. A GENERAL EVENT SHALL BE DEFINED AS ANY EVENT WHICH USES ALL OR A
PORTION OF THE GARDENS, OTHER THAN DAY-TO-DAY ATTENDANCE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF VIEWING THE GARDENS, IN WHICH ATTENDANCE IS ANTICIPATED
TO BE MORE THAN 100 PERSONS FOR THE EVENT. GENERAL EVENTS INCLUDE:
GARDEN OF LIGHTS TOUR, SCHOOL FIELD TRIPS, EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND
TOURS, ARTICULTURE/SCULPTURE IN THE GARDEN, SPRING PLANT SALE,
YOGA IN THE GARDENS, GARDEN A’FARE, NATURE’S HARVEST FEST,
HALLOWEEN ENCHANTED GARDEN. ADDITIONAL EVENTS MAY BE
CONSIDERED. THERE SHALL BE NO ATTENDANCE CAP FOR GENERAL EVENTS.
SUCH EVENTS MAY PROVIDE AMPLIFIED MUSIC IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE
MUNICIPAL CODE.
5.2
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: Ordinance No. 074, 2016 (5604 : Gardens on Spring Creek Appropriation)
2
5. PRIVATE EVENTS SHALL BE ADDRESSED IN THE GARDEN’S OPERATIONS AND
MANAGEMENT PLAN. PRIVATE EVENTS INCLUDE ALL PRIVATE RENTALS SUCH
AS WEDDINGS, BIRTHDAYS, ETC. PRIVATE EVENTS SHALL NOT HAVE DJ’S AND
ANY PROPOSED MUSIC MUST BE APPROVED BY GARDENS STAFF.
ALL EVENTS SHALL FOLLOW STANDARDS AS DESCRIBED BELOW.
TIME LIMITATION STANDARDS:
1. ALL MUSIC AND ANY ASSOCIATED SOUNDS GENERATED FROM ANY EVENT
SHALL CONCLUDE NO LATER THAN 8PM.
2. EGRESS FOR ALL VISITORS DURING MUSIC CONCERT EVENTS SHALL BEGIN AT
8 P.M. AND CONCLUDE NO LATER THAN 9 P.M. NO PERFORMANCE RELATED
SOUNDS SHALL BE GENERATED DURING THIS TIMEFRAME.
3. ALL EVENT OPERATIONS PERSONNEL SHALL EXIT THE GARDENS ON SPRING
CREEK PREMISES NO LATER THAN 10 P.M.
4. ALL GENERAL EVENTS SHALL CONCLUDE BY 9 P.M. AND ALL PERSONNEL
SHALL EXIT THE GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK PREMISES NO LATER THAN 10
P.M.
5. ALL PRIVATE EVENTS SHALL CONCLUDE BY 8 P.M. WITH EVERYONE OFF-SITE
BY 9 P.M.
SOUND MONITORING STANDARDS:
1. DURING ALL AMPLIFIED MUSIC CONCERT EVENTS, A PROFESSIONAL SOUND
ENGINEER SHALL BE PRESENT ON SITE AND ACTIVELY MONITOR AND
REGULATE SOUND LEVELS TO MEET THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MUNICIPAL
CODE NOISE STANDARDS. SOUND MONITORING LOCATIONS WILL BE TIED TO
CENTRAL OVERRIDE SYSTEM AT THE MIXING STATION.
2. FOR ALL OTHER EVENTS, GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK STAFF SHALL BE
PRESENT ON SITE AND ACTIVELY MONITOR AND REGULATE SOUND LEVELS TO
MEET THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MUNICIPAL CODE NOISE STANDARDS.
3. MORE SPECIFIC MONITORING OPERATIONS, MANAGEMENT AND
ENFORCEMENT THAT MAY BE REQUIRED SHALL BE OUTLINED IN THE GSC
OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN.
5.2
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: Ordinance No. 074, 2016 (5604 : Gardens on Spring Creek Appropriation)
3
SECURITY AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS:
1. DESIGNATED SECURITY STAFF SHALL BE PRESENT AT THE GARDENS ON
SPRING CREEK ENTRY POINTS AND PERIMETER OF THE PREMISES DURING
ALL MUSIC CONCERT EVENTS. DESIGNATED SECURITY STAFF SHALL CONSIST
OF EITHER GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK STAFF OR A PRIVATE SECURITY
COMPANY CONTRACTED THROUGH THE GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK.
2. EGRESS LIGHTING CONSISTING OF LOW LIGHT LEVEL, FULL CUT-OFF
PEDESTRIAN LEVEL LIGHTS SHALL BE USED TO FACILITATE EGRESS FROM ALL
MUSIC CONCERT EVENTS. ALL EGRESS AND EVENT-RELATED LIGHTING SHALL
BE TURNED OFF NO LATER THAN 10 P.M.
3. CROSSING ASSISTANTS SHALL BE PRESENT AT CENTRE AVENUE TO
FACILITATE CROSSING FROM THE N.R.C.S. PARKING LOT DURING ALL MUSIC
CONCERT EVENTS, UNLESS A SIGNALIZED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IS
CONSTRUCTED AT THIS LOCATION IN THE FUTURE.
ADDITIONAL GENERAL STANDARDS:
1. ANY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES SOLD DURING EVENTS SHALL REQUIRE A
PROFESSIONAL CONCESSIONAIRE TO SERVE AND FOLLOW ALL ASSOCIATED
REGULATIONS AND MONITORING AS REQUIRED WITH ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
SALES AT OTHER COMMUNITY FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS.
MORE SPECIFIC ALCOHOL OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE
DEVELOPED WITH THE GSC OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN.
2. “NO PUBLIC ON-STREET PARKING” SHALL BE STRICTLY ENFORCED FOR GSC
EVENTS AND DAY-TO-DAY GSC OPERATIONS ON CENTRE AVENUE AND ON
STREETS IN THE WINDTRAIL AND SHEELY NEIGHBORHOODS. MORE SPECIFIC
PARKING MANAGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES SHALL BE OUTLINED
IN THE GSC OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN.
3. OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS: ANTICIPATED MINIMUM OFF-STREET
PARKING QUANTITIES FOR GARDENS USES ARE SHOWN ON THE LAND USE
TABLE ON SHEET LS100. THE PARKING QUANTITIES SHOWN ON LS100
REPRESENT ANTICIPATED MINIMUMS, AND SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THE
PARKING DEMANDS FOR EVENTS IF NEEDED. PARKING LOCATIONS ARE
SHOWN ON SHEET LS002. AGREEMENTS FOR OFF-SITE PARKING LOCATIONS
SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND SHALL BE ADJUSTED, IF NEEDED, TO MEET
PARKING DEMANDS FOR ALL GARDENS EVENTS.
5.2
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: Ordinance No. 074, 2016 (5604 : Gardens on Spring Creek Appropriation)
4
4. THE PROJECT IS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE ALL IMPROVEMENTS AND
CONDUCT ALL OPERATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINAL PLANS. ANY
MODIFICATIONS TO THESE PLANS SHALL REQUIRE A PLAN AMENDMENT TO BE
REVIEWED AND APPROVED.
5. THE OPERATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT STANDARDS NOTED WITH THESE
PLANS REPRESENT THE GENERAL STANDARDS FOR THE PROJECT. IN
ADDITION TO THE GENERAL STANDARDS OUTLINED HERE, GSC SHALL
DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT
SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES POLICIES AND ACTIONS THAT WILL BE
ADMINISTERED FOR ALL EVENTS AND COMMUNITY FACILITY ACTIVITIES.
NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE
DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE OPERATIONS
AND MANAGEMENT PLAN. THE OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN MAY BE
PERIODICALLY AMENDED WITHOUT AMENDING THESE PLANS, PROVIDED THAT
SUCH AMENDMENTS REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL STANDARDS
OUTLINED WITH THIS FINAL PLAN. THE GSC OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT
SHALL AT A MINIMUM ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING:
a) CREATION AND ON-GOING ENGAGEMENT OF A NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMITTEE.
b) PARKING MANAGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT.
c) SOUND/NOISE MANAGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT.
d) MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR ALL OUTDOOR
PRIVATE EVENTS, INCLUDING LIMITATIONS FOR MUSIC AND INSTRUMENT
AMPLIFICATION AND VOCAL PERFORMANCES.
e) ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDURES FOR EVENT IMPACTS THAT MAY OCCUR
INCLUDING: LOITERING, DAY-CAMPING AND LITTERING.
f) MANAGEMENT OF ALCOHOL SALES AT ALL EVENTS.
g) THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEIGHBORHOOD HOTLINE FOR THE
COORDINATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF GSC IMPACTS THAT MAY OCCUR.
h) COORDINATION OF GSC EVENTS WITH NEIGHBORHOOD EVENTS.
REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIC TO THIS PLAN APPROVAL:
1. USE AND OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENTS: THE DESIGNATED USE PER THE CITY
LAND USE CODE FOR THE GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK IS A COMMUNITY
FACILITY, WHICH IS DEFINED AS A PUBLICLY OWNED OR PUBLICLY LEASED
FACILITY OR OFFICE BUILDING WHICH IS PRIMARILY INTENDED TO SERVE THE
5.2
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: Ordinance No. 074, 2016 (5604 : Gardens on Spring Creek Appropriation)
5
RECREATIONAL, EDUCATIONAL, CULTURAL, ADMINISTRATIVE OR
ENTERTAINMENT NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. SPECIFIC TO THE
APPROVAL OF THIS COMMUNITY FACILITY, ALL PROPERTY ASSOCIATED WITH
THIS PLAN SHALL REMAIN IN OWNERSHIP AND BE OPERATED DIRECTLY BY
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. ANY REQUEST TO TRANSFER OWNERSHIP OR
MANAGEMENT OF THE FACILITY TO AN ENTITY OTHER THAN THE CITY SHALL
BE CONSIDERED A CHANGE OF USE REQUIRING A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO
THESE PLANS WHICH MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO ANY
SUCH TRANSFER.
2. LILAC PARK: PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF THE SPRING
CREEK TRAIL SHALL BE RESERVED FOR THE EXPANSION OF LILAC PARK AND
SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS A SEPARATE AMENDMENT TO THESE
PLANS.
FLOODPLAIN NOTES:
1. PORTIONS OF THIS PROPERTY ARE LOCATED IN THE FEMA REGULATORY 100-
YEAR FLOODPLAIN AND FLOODWAY FOR SPRING CREEK.
2. ALL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN MUST COMPLY WITH THE
FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS OF CHAPTER 10 OF CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MUNICIPAL CODE.
3. NON-STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT (FENCES, DETENTION PONDS, HARD
SURFACE PATHS, FILL, DRIVEWAYS, PARKING AREAS, VEGETATION, ETC.) IS
ALLOWED WITHIN THE 100 YEAR FLOODWAY, PROVIDED THE DEVELOPMENT
WILL NOT CAUSE A RISE IN THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION OR A CHANGE TO
THE FLOODWAY OR FLOOD FRINGE BOUNDARIES. NON-STRUCTURAL
DEVELOPMENT IS NOT RESTRICTED IN THE FLOOD FRINGE. REFER TO THE
PROJECT’S FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT AND FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND RESTRICTIONS.
4. ALL STRUCTURES PROPOSED IN THE FLOODPLAIN SHALL BE PERMANENLTY
ANCHORED AND SHALL MEET ALL CITY STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS. REFER
TO THE PROJECT’S FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT AND FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT
PLAN FOR STRUCTURE DETAILS, RESTRICTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS.
NATURAL AREA BUFFER REQUIREMENTS:
1. STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION - THE DIRECTOR
SHALL ESTABLISH A "LIMITS OF DEVELOPMENT" ("LOD") LINE(S) TO ESTABLISH
5.2
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: Ordinance No. 074, 2016 (5604 : Gardens on Spring Creek Appropriation)
6
THE BOUNDARY OF THE PROJECT OUTSIDE OF WHICH NO LAND DISTURBANCE
ACTIVITIES WILL OCCUR DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT.
2. ALL AREAS WITHIN THE SPRING CREEK, SHERWOOD LATERAL AND WETLAND
AREA BUFFER ZONES SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A NATIVE LANDSCAPE. SEE
SECTION 3.4.1 OF THE LAND USE CODE FOR ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE
BUFFER ZONES.
3. CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE ORGANIZED AND TIMED TO MINIMIZE THE
DISTURBANCE OF SENSITIVE SPECIES OCCUPYING OR USING ON-SITE AND
ADJACENT NATURAL HABITATS OR FEATURES, INCLUDING THE SPRING CREEK
CORRIDOR, SHERWOOD LATERAL DITCH AND WETLAND AREAS.
4. CONSTRUCTION OF BARRIER FENCING SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE LIMITS OF
THE DEVELOPMENT DURING CONSTRUCTION.
STANDARD PLAN NOTES AND REQUIREMENTS:
1. REFER TO FINAL UTILITY PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION
INFORMATION FOR STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, UTILITY MAINS AND
SERVICES, PROPOSED TOPOGRAPHY, STREET IMPROVEMENTS.
2. REFER TO THE SUBDIVISION PLAT AND UTILITY PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS,
AREAS AND DIMENSIONS OF ALL EASEMENTS, LOTS, TRACTS, STREETS,
WALKS AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION.
3. ALL CONSTRUCTION WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN MUST BE COMPLETED IN
ONE PHASE UNLESS A PHASING PLAN IS SHOWN WITH THESE PLANS.
4. ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING PROVIDED SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOOT-CANDLE
REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 3.2.4 OF THE LAND USE CODE AND SHALL USE A
CONCEALED, FULLY SHIELDED LIGHT SOURCE WITH SHARP CUT-OFF
CAPABILITY SO AS TO MINIMIZE UP-LIGHT, SPILL LIGHT, GLARE AND
UNNECESSARY DIFFUSION.
5. FIRE HYDRANTS MUST MEET OR EXCEED POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY
STANDARDS. ALL BUILDINGS MUST PROVIDE AN APPROVED FIRE
EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM.
6. ALL BIKE RACKS PROVIDED MUST BE PERMANENTLY ANCHORED.
5.2
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: Ordinance No. 074, 2016 (5604 : Gardens on Spring Creek Appropriation)
7
7. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS MUST CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS.
ACCESSIBLE RAMPS MUST BE PROVIDED AT ALL STREET AND DRIVE
INTERSECTIONS AND AT ALL DESIGNATED ACCESSABLE PARKING SPACES.
ACCESSABLE PARKING SPACES MUST SLOPE NO MORE THAN 1:48 IN ANY
DIRECTION. ALL ACCESSIBLE ROUTES MUST SLOPE NO MORE THAN 1:20 IN
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL AND WITH NO MORE THAN 1:48 CROSS SLOPE.
8. ANY DAMAGED CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK EXISTING PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION, AS WELL AS STREETS, SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS,
DESTROYED, DAMAGED OR REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF THIS
PROJECT, SHALL BE REPLACED OR RESTORED TO CITY OF FORT COLLINS
STANDARDS AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE PRIOR TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF
COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES:
1. MAINTENANCE: TREES AND VEGETATION, IRRIGATION SYSTEMS, FENCES,
WALLS AND OTHER LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS WITH THESE FINAL PLANS SHALL
BE CONSIDERED AS ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT IN THE SAME MANNER AS
PARKING, BUILDING MATERIALS AND OTHER SITE DETAILS. THE APPLICANT,
LANDOWNER OR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST SHALL BE JOINTLY AND
SEVERALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REGULAR MAINTENANCE OF ALL
LANDSCAPING ELEMENTS IN GOOD CONDITION. ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE
MAINTAINED FREE FROM DISEASE, PESTS, WEEDS AND LITTER, AND ALL
LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES SUCH AS FENCES AND WALLS SHALL BE REPAIRED
AND REPLACED PERIODICALLY TO MAINTAIN A STRUCTURALLY SOUND
CONDITION.
2. THE FOLLOWING SEPARATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED BETWEEN
TREES/SHRUBS AND UTILITIES:
40 FEET BETWEEN CANOPY TREES AND STREET LIGHTS
15 FEET BETWEEN ORNAMENTAL TREES AND STREETLIGHTS
10 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY AND STORM SEWER MAIN
LINES
6 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY AND STORM SEWER SERVICE
LINES.
4 FEET BETWEEN SHRUBS AND PUBLIC WATER AND SANITARY AND STORM SEWER
LINES
4 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND GAS LINES
5.2
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: Ordinance No. 074, 2016 (5604 : Gardens on Spring Creek Appropriation)
8
3. THE FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH ALL OTHER FINAL
PLAN ELEMENTS SO THAT THE PROPOSED GRADING, STORM DRAINAGE, AND
OTHER DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS DO NOT CONFLICT WITH NOR
PRECLUDE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS ON
THIS PLAN.
5.2
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: Ordinance No. 074, 2016 (5604 : Gardens on Spring Creek Appropriation)
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Finance Committee Minutes
07/11/17
1:30 - 4:00 pm
Colorado River Community Room – 222 Laporte
Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Ross Cunniff, Ken Summers
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead, Jeff Mihelich, John Duval, Travis Storin, John Voss,
Tiana Smith, Lawrence Pollack, Andres Gavaldon, Joanne Cech, Lance Smith, Josh Birks,
Carrie Daggett, Laurie Kadrich, Helen Matson, Kerri Allison, Sue Beck-Ferkiss,
Rachel, Springob, Tyler Marr, Teresa Roche, Joaquin ‘Keen’ Garbisot, Mark Jackson, Kurt
Ravenschlag, Michelle Provaznik
Others: Kevin Jones (Chamber of Commerce), James Manire (First Southwest), Jim Burke,
(Assurance Senior Manager, RSM US LLP) T
Meeting called to order at 1:35 pm
Ken Summer moved to approve Minutes for the May 15th Council Finance Meeting. Ross Cunniff seconded the
motion. Minutes were amended to correct the following sentence which incorrectly stated that Ross Cunniff
moved to approve the minutes and seconded. The motion was seconded by Gerry Horak.
Ross Cunniff moved to approve Minutes for the April 28th Council Finance Meeting. Gerry Horak seconded the
motion.
Minutes for the May 15th Council Finance meeting were approved unanimously as amended.
A. 2016 Financial Audit Review
Travis Storin, Accounting Director
Jim Burke, Assurance Senior Manager, RSM US LLP
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Independent Auditors’ Report on 2016 Financial Statements
Independent Auditors’ Report on Compliance for Major Federal Programs
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RSM will be presenting the Report to the City Council. This report covers the audit of the basic financial
statements and compliance of the City of Fort Collins for year-end December 31, 2016.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Staff seeks input on areas of priority or concern, other than those established in this Report to the City Council,
for matters of recordkeeping and/or the City’s internal control environment.
ATTACHMENT 3
5.3
Packet Pg. 163
Attachment: Council Finance Committee minutes, July 11, 2017 (draft) (5604 : Gardens on Spring Creek Appropriation)
2
……………………………………………………….
Other Business
Gardens at Spring Creek Funding
Michelle Provaznik, Director
Darin Atteberry; $2.8M project - contract with contractor - we expected $3M it came in at $2.8M
There is an expiration date on the bid - extended out 90 days to September 7, 2017. The City requires that all of
money for the project be appropriated before they can move forward with construction. We anticipate coming
back to Council to remove the western sound wall which is approximately $200K. If built - we would operate
within existing noise code requirements (ordinance) and see how that goes for a season or a year - we are
optimistic.
Recommend to Council Finance and Council that $400K be backfilled from reserves - There will be an
appropriation coming forward for the $400K
$800K backfill with donations - $400K be private fund raising
Mike Beckstead; comes out of $5.3 unassigned at bottom - we appropriate
We won’t sign the contract until we have the commitment from donors - potential modify and deal with sound
wall
Portion of Capital Tax which was approved by voters -Gardens - $2M was approved and went toward completion
of the Visitor’s Center
We are seeing some donor fatigue - we need to move forward - risk is that donors go away and we go back to
zero
Randy Morgan who has spearheaded fund raising
$2.8M for all of the Gardens
Ross Cunniff; $2M from the Capital Tax - relevant for Council to remember the role
$2M we have for this project - $250K - largely donor funds to be used for stage, etc. (I’m not sure what this
about exactly – sorry!)
Scheduled for Council on July 18th
Mayor Troxell; I am ok bringing it forward to Council - I appreciate all of the work that has been done with the
bid and the donors.
Friends of the Garden may want to do their own fundraising
Ross Cunniff; the change we made on the 2nd Reading exempted the City from the noise ordinance.
Fixed so that the city is not exempted from the requirements.
Carrie Daggett; I thought that was a proposal and was not decided
5.3
Packet Pg. 164
Attachment: Council Finance Committee minutes, July 11, 2017 (draft) (5604 : Gardens on Spring Creek Appropriation)
3
Darin Atteberry; we will operate within the requirements – within the noise ordinance and go from there.
Come back after a year of operations- that was put in on 2nd Reading to re-evaluate
Ross Cunniff; condition of approval - not an ordinance change
Carrie Daggett; will confirm that = Change of conditions would be a Council action – would need to go back to
Council
Darin Atteberry; It is important for Council to hear the zoom out vision next Tuesday.
5.3
Packet Pg. 165
Attachment: Council Finance Committee minutes, July 11, 2017 (draft) (5604 : Gardens on Spring Creek Appropriation)
1
Appropriation to Complete 5 Acres of Gardens
Michelle Provaznik
8/8/2017
ATTACHMENT 4
5.4
Packet Pg. 166
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5604 : Gardens on Spring Creek Appropriation)
Phase 1: Garden Completion
2
5.4
Packet Pg. 167
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5604 : Gardens on Spring Creek Appropriation)
The Great Lawn
3
5.4
Packet Pg. 168
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5604 : Gardens on Spring Creek Appropriation)
The Undaunted Garden
4
5.4
Packet Pg. 169
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5604 : Gardens on Spring Creek Appropriation)
Foothills and Prairie Gardens
5
5.4
Packet Pg. 170
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5604 : Gardens on Spring Creek Appropriation)
Phase 2: Visitor’s Center Completion
6
5.4
Packet Pg. 171
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5604 : Gardens on Spring Creek Appropriation)
Butterfly Partnership
7
The 1,700 square foot conservatory will house up to 400 free-
flying North American butterflies with thousands of blooming
flowers. The butterfly house plans to open to the public in 2019.
5.4
Packet Pg. 172
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5604 : Gardens on Spring Creek Appropriation)
Phase 1: Project Budget
Project Design: $ 202,000
(already spent)
Project Construction: $2,829,000
Total Project Budget: $3,031,000
8
5.4
Packet Pg. 173
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5604 : Gardens on Spring Creek Appropriation)
Phase 1: Project Revenues
9
City Contribution: $ 400,000
Community Leadership Donors: $1,000,000
Other Private Donations: $ 712,000
Ongoing additional private fundraising: $ 519,000
Asking for additional $400,000 from the City of Fort Collins
5.4
Packet Pg. 174
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5604 : Gardens on Spring Creek Appropriation)
Other Considerations
10
• Contractor has extended bid
deadline until September 7, 2017.
• The plan is to come back to
Council with a recommendation to
eliminate western sound wall and
sound monitoring system which
will ultimately reduce the overall
cost approximately $200,000.
5.4
Packet Pg. 175
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5604 : Gardens on Spring Creek Appropriation)
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 104, 2017
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
AND APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR
TRANSFER TO THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE FINAL
FIVE ACRES OF THE GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK PROJECT AND TRANSFERRING
APPROPRIATIONS TO THE CULTURAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUND
FOR THE ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2016 Council adopted Ordinance No. 074, 2016 approving a
major amendment for the City property informally known as the Gardens on Spring Creek. This
amendment includes construction of five acres of gardens including the Great Lawn, Undaunted
Garden, Foothills and Prairie Gardens; and
WHEREAS, throughout the design and development review process, the Friends of the
Gardens Board of Directors and Gardens Staff have been raising money for the construction of
these new gardens; and
WHEREAS, the total budget for the entire Project is $3,031,000; and
WHEREAS, $1,712,000 has been raised from local foundations, businesses and
individuals who support the Project, with an additional $519,000 of donations in process for a
total of $2,231,000 in donations; and
WHEREAS, $250,000 was appropriated in the 2013 Budget for the Great Lawn; and
WHEREAS, $150,000 was appropriated in the 2013 Budget Adjustment Ordinance for
the Undaunted Garden; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance also appropriates an additional $400,000 from the General
Fund for this project; and
WHEREAS, this appropriation of $2,631,000 in addition to the existing funding of
$400,000 to provide a total of $3,031,000 towards the Project; and
WHEREAS, construction will not begin on the project until a permit is issued and a
permit will not be issued until the Project, as previously approved, is ready to be built or City
Council amends its previous approval; and
WHEREAS, this project involves construction estimated to cost more than $250,000, as
such, Section 23-304 of the City Code requires one percent of these qualified appropriations to
be transferred to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for a contribution to the Art in Public
Places (APP) program; and
WHEREAS, $2,500 for APP was previously appropriated and transferred to the APP
program on the $250,000 portion of the funds, therefore, APP of $27,810 will be appropriated
Packet Pg. 176
-2-
and transferred to the APP program from the remaining project funds of $2,781,000 ($2,231,000
in donations, $150,000 of prior appropriation and $400,000 in new City appropriation); and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the
total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous
appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated
revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the revenue as described
herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Capital Projects Fund to exceed the
current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal
year; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to
transfer by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered appropriated amount or portion thereof
from one fund or capital project to another fund or capital project, provided that the purpose for
which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged; the purpose for which the
funds were initially appropriated no longer exists; or the proposed transfer is from a fund or
capital project in which the amount appropriated exceeds the amount needed to accomplish the
purpose specified in the appropriation ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated from prior year reserves in the General
Fund the sum of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($400,000) for transfer to
the Capital Projects Fund for the final five acres of The Gardens on Spring Creek Project.
Section 3. That there is hereby appropriated, upon receipt, from unanticipated
revenue in the Capital Projects Fund the sum of TWO MILLION TWO HUNDRED AND
THIRTY ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,231,000) for the final five acres of The Gardens
on Spring Creek Project.
Section 4. That the unexpended appropriated amount of TWENTY ONE
THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED AND NINETY TWO DOLLARS ($21,692) in the Capital
Projects Fund is authorized for transfer to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund and
appropriated therein for the Art in Public Places Art Project.
Section 5. That the unexpended appropriated amount of FIVE THOUSAND FIVE
HUNDRED SIXTY TWO DOLLARS ($5,562) in the Capital Projects Fund is authorized for
transfer to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund and appropriated therein for the Art in Public
Places Program Operations.
Packet Pg. 177
-3-
Section 6. That the unexpended appropriated amount of FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY
SIX DOLLARS ($556) in the Capital Projects Fund is authorized for transfer to the Cultural
Services and Facilities Fund and appropriated therein for the Art in Public Places Program
Maintenance.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 8th day of
August, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of August, A.D. 2017.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of August, A.D. 2017.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Interim City Clerk
Packet Pg. 178
Agenda Item 6
Item # 6 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 8, 2017
City Council
STAFF
Tyler Marr, Policy and Project Analyst
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2017, Imposing a Moratorium Until December 31, 2017, upon the
Acceptance of Applications for the Installation of and/or the Issuance of Right-of-Way Permits for New
Antennas, Small Cell Facilities, Towers and Wireless Service facilities by any Third Party in City Rights-of-Way
in any Zone District.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to consider a moratorium until December 31, 2017, on the installation of cellular
facilities in public rights-of-way. This would allow the City time to draft and implement appropriate regulations
on such installations while still complying with HB 17-1193, which expanded the right of companies to utilize
the right of way for small cell installations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On July 1, 2017 HB 17-1193, went into effect. This legislation expands the right of cellular infrastructure
companies to locate “small cell” facilities in the City’s right-of-way, through either the construction of
standalone poles or via attachment of facilities on existing City-owned infrastructure within the right-of-way,
such as street light poles or traffic signal poles. Examples of these types of facilities will be included in staff’s
presentation to Council on this item.
Staff has been working to determine the scope of the impact this legislation could have on the right-of-way in
Fort Collins, while also beginning conversations with carriers and infrastructure companies around Master
Lease or License Agreements (MLAs). These MLAs would lease space on City-owned infrastructure within
rights-of-way to companies to install small cell radios and antennae within certain aesthetic and structural
parameters agreed to in each document.
While staff believes that the MLA route will address most of the concerns likely generated from the installation
of these facilities, there is no guarantee or requirement that companies will agree to pursue this route. This
means that companies could choose to erect standalone poles and small cell facilities in the right-of-way. The
City does not currently have a process for accepting applications for these types of facilities within rights-of-
way and it is unclear that existing regulations would adequately address potential safety and aesthetic
concerns, including height of stand-alone poles, of such facilitates.
Because of these concerns and at the direction of the Leadership Planning Team (LPT), staff has brought forth
a moratorium applying to installation by third parties of any cellular infrastructure in the right-of-way, which, if
approved, would expire on January 1, 2018, or the effective date of new regulations if earlier. Staff believes
this time will be sufficient to develop and bring forth for Council consideration regulations that will be consistent
with HB17-1193, other City ordinances and Community expectations. This moratorium excludes the following
things:
6
Packet Pg. 179
Agenda Item 6
Item # 6 Page 2
Small cell facilities and other wireless telecommunications equipment which are outside of the City’s
rights-of-way. These facilities are already regulated under the City Code and Land Use Code.
Facilities installed in the public rights-of-way by or on behalf of the City. This would include equipment
such as smart meter antennas installed by Light and Power or its contractor.
Facilities installed pursuant to an MLA that protects public safety as approved by Council. Staff will
continue working on terms of an MLA with interested parties whether or not this moratorium is
approved. This exclusion leaves the door open that should an agreement be reached, those
companies would be able to proceed with their plans as a sign of good faith from the City.
Staff will plan to bring City Code changes or Land Use Code changes, or both back to Council in November or
early December to address safety and aesthetic concerns of third-party wireless communication facilities in
public right-of-way and to establish a process for reviewing applications.
The Legislative Review Committee discussed HB17-1193 at its July 11th meeting and two of the three
members present did not believe a moratorium was necessary at this time. The committee instructed staff to
continue to build relationships with the involved companies and begin work on developing appropriate
regulations. Staff has active contacts with the three companies who have thus far expressed interest and will
continue to focus on maintaining and strengthening relationships with them.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
This item is not expected to incur costs.
ATTACHMENTS
1. PowerPoint Presentation (PDF)
6
Packet Pg. 180
Small Cell Moratorium
Tyler Marr
August 8, 2017
ATTACHMENT 1
6.1
Packet Pg. 181
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5807 : Small Cell Moratorium)
HB 17-1193
• Expanded rights of telecom
companies
• Ability to install standalone
poles or attach to existing
equipment
• City retains police powers to
regulate
• Went into effect on July 1st
2
Background
6.1
Packet Pg. 182
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5807 : Small Cell Moratorium)
Examples of Small Cells
3
Image sources: Ken Fellman and
San Francisco Gate
6.1
Packet Pg. 183
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5807 : Small Cell Moratorium)
What Staff is Working On
Code Changes
• Preparing City Code and Land Use Code changes to address
aesthetic concerns and establish a process for review
• Aiming for November meetings for Council consideration
Master Lease Agreements
• Would allow attachment on City-owned poles within certain aesthetic
and engineering considerations
• Will come to Council as staff and third parties reach tentative
agreement
4
6.1
Packet Pg. 184
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5807 : Small Cell Moratorium)
Moratorium
Staff is recommending a short-term moratorium
• Expiring at the end of 2017
• Focused only on installations in the right of way by third parties
• Excludes those installations agreed to in a Master Lease Agreement
This does not impact macro cell applications or installations, or
small cell facilities outside of the right of way.
5
6.1
Packet Pg. 185
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5807 : Small Cell Moratorium)
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 105, 2017
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
IMPOSING A MORATORIUM UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2017 UPON THE
ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATIONS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF,
AND/OR THE ISSUANCE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMITS FOR NEW
ANTENNAS, SMALL CELL FACILITIES, TOWERS AND WIRELESS SERVICE
FACILITIES BY THIRD PARTIES IN CITY RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN ANY ZONE DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City has comprehensive regulations regarding the placement of towers,
monopoles, antennae, and “macro” wireless communication equipment and facilities in Divisions
3.8.13, 3.9.9 and Article 4 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code; and
WHEREAS, during the 2017 legislative session, the Colorado General Assembly passed
and the Governor signed into law HB17-1193, which expands access to public rights-of-way and
City-owned infrastructure in the rights-of-way (such as street light poles or traffic signals) for
placement of small cell wireless communication facilities, makes such facilities a use by right in
all zone districts, and limits local government regulation of such placements; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the expanded access to municipal rights-of-way and City-
owned infrastructure in such rights-of-way for small cell wireless communication facilities,
HB17-1193 also preserves the local government's right to exercise police powers to regulate the
placement of such facilities, subject to certain limitations; and
WHEREAS, HB17-1193 became effective on July 1, 2017; and
WHEREAS, City departments and property owners have raised concerns that placement
of new wireless communication facilities in public rights-of-way presents a risk to public safety
due to: potential conflicts with existing or planned infrastructure; technical interference with
traffic and public safety systems; incompatibility with existing adjacent uses; unpredictable
impacts to city electric utility system and traffic control system reliability and equipment; and
decreased property values; and
WHEREAS, the City does not currently have a clearly defined process for considering
requests from third parties to install small cell facilities in public rights-of-way under existing
provisions of the City Code and Land Use Code (“LUC”) and existing LUC provisions do not
adequately comply with HB17-1193 and, therefore, require review and updating to adequately
address the potential impact of small cell facilities on the orderly and safe design and operation
of public rights-of-way; and
WHEREAS, prior to passage of HB17-1193, City staff entered into negotiations with
service providers to agree upon and enter into a voluntary license or similar agreement to permit
the installation of small cell facilities within the public rights-of-way and/or on public
infrastructure located therein in a manner that protects the orderly and safe design and operation
of public rights-of-way and infrastructure, known as “master lease or license agreements”
(“MLAs”); and
Packet Pg. 186
-2-
WHEREAS, Council desires to facilitate voluntary negotiations and cooperation with
third-party providers through the mechanism of one or more MLAs approved by Council while it
considers and adopts a clearly defined process for accepting applications from third parties to
install small cell facilities in the City's public rights-of-way and/or on the City's public
infrastructure, including appropriate modifications to the City Code and LUC; and
WHEREAS, Council desires, in good faith, to exclude from the moratorium under this
Ordinance any MLA with a third party provider approved by Council; and
WHEREAS, to promote the orderly and safe design and operation of public rights-of-way
and wireless communication infrastructure to serve the community effectively, the City Council
also finds it necessary and reasonable to impose a moratorium upon the acceptance of
applications for and installation of new wireless facilities in public rights-of-way by any third
party and on the issuance of any associated right-of-way permits for the placement of third-party
wireless communication equipment or related structures in public rights-of-way during the
pendency of which moratorium, except for small cell and wireless communications equipment or
related equipment and structures installed under an MLA approved by Council; and
WHEREAS, City staff shall develop and present to the Council for consideration
legislative changes which may include, but need not be limited to: (a) “design standards” for
small cell wireless equipment, attachments, and associated structures in all zone districts; and (b)
appropriate regulations to limit the size, density, and maintenance of small cell and micro
wireless facilities and associated structures by third parties in City rights-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the City’s power to impose this limited moratorium is among its home rule
powers granted to it in Article XX of the Colorado Constitution; and
WHEREAS the Council has determined that said moratorium shall continue in effect
through the 31
st
day of December, 2017, or until said design standards and additional regulations
are adopted by the City Council and become effective, whichever shall first occur.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That a moratorium is hereby imposed upon the City’s acceptance of
applications for and installation of new wireless communication facilities in public rights-of-way
by any third party and on the issuance of any associated right-of-way permits for the placement
of third-party wireless communication equipment or related structures in public rights-of-way,
unless such installation is accomplished under an MLA approved by Council.
Section 3. That the placement of new antennas, wireless service facilities, small cell
facilities, micro wireless facilities or poles or towers in public rights-of-way in the City of Fort
Packet Pg. 187
-3-
Collins by any third party is prohibited unless such installation is accomplished under an MLA
approved by Council.
Section 4. That the terms “antenna,” “small cell facility,” “micro wireless facility”,
“tower” and “wireless service facility” shall have the same meaning as set forth in HB17-1193,
Section 2.
Section 5. That the City Manager is hereby directed to analyze, during the term of the
moratorium enacted in this Ordinance, the following issues and, in consultation with the City
Attorney, develop for Council consideration such additional design standards and regulations for
wireless communication facilities within public rights-of-way as may be necessary and
appropriate to address said issues:
a. Protection of the City's public infrastructure, including but not limited to public
rights-of-way and publicly-owned structures located therein, to preserve orderly
and safe design and operation of such facilities and structures and the public
health, safety, and welfare;
b. Compatibility of wireless communication architecture with the orderly and safe
design and operation of public rights-of-way and adjacent neighborhoods, in
terms of mass, bulk, scale, height, and character;
c. Size, dimension, weight, spacing, and placement height for wireless
communication equipment;
d. Visual and access impact for the traveling public and property owners along City
rights-of-way;
e. Prioritization of attachment to structures and available methods and locations for
new wireless communication equipment in public rights-of-way;
f. Impact on privacy of new wireless communications equipment along residential
rights-of-way; and
g. Other impacts on the orderly and safe design and operation of public righst-of-
way and publicly-owned structures located therein.
Section 6. That this moratorium shall not apply to the issuance of permits for or
installation of improvements and equipment for small cell facilities and other wireless
telecommunication equipment:
a. to be located outside of the City's public rights-of-way, which shall continue to be
subject to the existing provisions of the City Code and LUC;
b. authorized by approved development plans (and associated permits) that
constitute a vested property right under Colorado law;
c. installed in the public rights-of-way by or on behalf of the City for its own use; or
d. that is accomplished under an MLA approved by Council.
Section 7. That this Ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare of the residents of the City, and covers matters of local and municipal concern.
Packet Pg. 188
-4-
Section 8. That the moratorium established in Sections 2 and 3 of this Ordinance
shall be effective as of the effective date of this Ordinance and remain in effect through
December 31, 2017, or until said design standards are adopted by the City Council and become
effective, whichever shall first occur; and
Section 9. That any violation of the prohibitions in Section 3 of this Ordinance
during the term set forth in Section 8 shall constitute a misdemeanor criminal offense punishable
as provided in Section 1-15 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 8th day of
August, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of August, A.D. 2017.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of August, A.D. 2017.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Interim City Clerk
Packet Pg. 189
Outdoor
Classroom
Cottage
Planting
Plant Select
Garden
Historic
Grove
Vehicle
Access
Food Trucks
Gatehouse
Existing Fence
Portable
Restrooms
Bike Parking-
150 Bikes
Single Track
Adventure Trail
Rock
Outcrops/
Hogbacks
Dry
Stream
Prairie
Maze
Overlook
Weather
station
Gathering
Area
Potential
Boardwalk
Deck
FOOTHILLS
GARDEN
PRAIRIE
GARDEN
S
H
E
R
W
O
O
D
L
A
T
E
R
A
L
ATTACHMENT 1
5.1
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: Overall Site Plan (5604 : Gardens on Spring Creek Appropriation)
Prices reflect subscription to Internet service at non-promotional rate as of March 2016.
*Not available in all areas of Fort Collins
The pricing above reflects published prices as of March 2016. Pricing is very dynamic within the
market and can change frequently. Bundled services that include video and phone and
additional charges are also utilized, making it difficult to develop price-to-price comparisons.
Furthermore, citizen satisfaction with their DSL and cable modem broadband service is among
the lowest of the 24 markets surveyed by the broadband consultant group Uptown Services.
2.2
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
Axia unable to move forward
with the City
MAY
Council direction to move
forward with business plan
for municipal broadband and
issue Request for Proposals
for 3rd Party alternative
AUGUST
Council to review/adopt
ballot language for
November charter change
BROADBAND TIMELINE
LOOKING AHEAD¨¨¨
NOV 2017
NOTE:
If fails, no further action
Design, planning and permitting
Continued system buildout and
increased customer availability
Construction
begins
First customer
service
Upgrades as needed
following years 7 and
10 after build out
DECEMBER
2017 2019 2023
NOVEMBER
Ballot measure put to voters to add
telecommunication services to the Utility
Charter and to gauge citizen support to
bond up to $150M should Council support a
municipal retail model. Ballot measure does
not require the City to provide broadband.
DECEMBER
2018 2020 2022
If approved by voters
2.1
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Broadband Flyer (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)
Once construction begins on a network,
whether by the City or a private partner,
full buildout is expected to take three to
five years.
Q: What else would fiber provide us?
A: Next generation high-speed broadband is
about more than downloading movies
faster. A fiber network provides a
competitive advantage to businesses and
entrepreneurs and ensures capacity for
future needs and uses that have yet to
For more information on this project visit be invented.
fcgov.com/broadband
ATTACHMENT 1 2.1
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Broadband Flyer (5801 : Broadband Charter Amendment)