HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 07/11/2017 - COMPLETE AGENDACity of Fort Collins Page 1
Wade Troxell, Mayor Council Information Center (CIC)
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
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 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
City Council Work Session
July 11, 2017
6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER.
1. Broadband Update. (staff: SeonAh Kendall, Mike Beckstead; 15 minute staff presentation; 1 hour
discussion)
The purpose of this item is to provide Council an update on the Broadband Plan work. The
discussion will be focused on the work since the May 2017 work session including: update on the
request for proposal (RFP), learnings from the updated market demand study, retail model business
plan, debt capacity and potential ballot language for the Utilities charter amendment. Additionally,
staff will be seeking business model guidance and next steps.
2. Short Term Rentals. (staff: Ginny Sawyer; 10 minute staff presentation; 45 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to provide an update on the short term rental (STR) licensing
implementation and to provide proposed options to address existing STRs that failed to acquire sales
and lodging tax licenses prior to March 31, 2017 which was the requirement to be grandfathered.
3. Electric Residential Time-of-Use Implementation. (staff: Randy Reuscher, Lance Smith; 10 minute
staff presentation; 30 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to discuss the timeline and customer outreach plan to implement a
residential electric time-of-use (TOU) rate in March 2018 or October 2018. Staff is recommending a
standard TOU rate, rather than the TOU with tier option, be implemented for residential customers,
including residential tiered, demand and solar net metering customers.
City of Fort Collins Page 2
OTHER BUSINESS.
ADJOURNMENT.
DATE:
STAFF:
July 11, 2017
SeonAh Kendall, Economic Policy & Project Manager
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Broadband Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to provide Council an update on the Broadband Plan work. The discussion will be
focused on the work since the May 2017 work session including: update on the request for proposal (RFP),
learnings from the updated market demand study, retail model business plan, debt capacity and potential ballot
language for the Utilities charter amendment. Additionally, staff will be seeking business model guidance and next
steps.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council have desire to further explore a fee/tax to reduce risk?
2. Does Council support bringing a ballot question forward in November?
a. If so, Option 1 or Option 2?
3. Does Council prefer messaging the ballot question as:
b. Focused on Municipal Retail Option Only?
c. Question that allows 3rd Party or Municipal Retail alternatives?
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:
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 timeframe (less than five years).
During the May 9, 2017 work session, City Council provided feedback to complete a high-level retail model
business plan, while also continuing to explore third-party and/or public/private partnerships through the issuance
of a Request for Proposal (RFP).
1
Packet Pg. 3
July 11, 2017 Page 2
Third Party Option (“3rd Party alternative”)
A third-party model is similar to Google Fiber in Kansas City and Allo in Lincoln, NB. The municipality would look
to attract and partner with a third party to come into the community, finance the network, operate the network and
provide services directly or through other retail providers.
Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Third Party
On May 30, 2017, the City issued a Gigabit Speed Internet Request for Proposal (Attachment 2). The RFP sought
to find a public/private partnership (P3) with an interested party to jointly implement and operate a citywide fiber-
to-the-premise (FTTP) internet service business. The City issued the RFP to attract organizations that have
expertise, experience and financing capability willing to partner with the City to leverage each party’s experience,
while sharing the risks and benefits for providing high-speed, symmetrical, fiber-based solutions to the citizens of
Fort Collins. The RFP closed on July 5, 2017. The City received 11 responses and is currently evaluating
responses to create a short list of potential partners. Next steps also include initial interviews with the short listed
partners, potential further discussions, as well as the determination of future direction and discussions.
Municipal-owned Retail (“Retail Model”)
The municipal utility/retail model is similar to the model that Longmont, CO is providing. The municipality would
build and maintain the physical fiber infrastructure network to pass all premises. The municipality acts as the
internet and voice service provider and manages all customer acquisition and services. The current model does
not include video services; however, based on input from other communities, staff is still evaluating video as a
potential option.
High Level Business Plan – Retail Model
City staff completed a high level business plan for the retail model, as a roadmap that lays out business goals,
background information, critical assumptions, organizational structure, and pro forma financials (based on
information and analysis completed by Uptown Services). The business plan is intended as a communication tool
used to show a complete picture of the details, assumptions, risks and opportunities for decision makers to
determine whether or not to enter the business. (Attachment 3)
Previously, the City engaged Uptown Services to perform a statistically-valid citizen survey to determine the
projected take rate (how many households would subscribe to the City service), estimated at 30.2 percent. During
the development of the retail model business plan, staff re-evaluated the pricing model used in the financial
feasibility based on industry standards and long-term sustainability at the old pricing structure. Additionally,
Comcast announced the deployment of DOCSIS 3.1, technology utilizes Comcast’s existing coaxial cables that
can provide 1 Gbps download and 35 Mbps upload speeds, into the Colorado market. Due to the 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.
Source Scenario Comcast Offering City Offering Municipal Retail
Take Rate
2016 Survey
n=400
Pre-DOCSIS3.1 1G Not Offered 50M: $40/mo.
1G: $50/mo.*
38.8%
2016 Survey
n=100
Post-DOCSIS3.1 1G: $70/mo.** 30.2%
1
Packet Pg. 4
July 11, 2017 Page 3
Source Scenario Comcast Offering City Offering Municipal Retail
Take Rate
2017 Survey
(Cell A)
n=200
50M: $50/mo.
1G: $70/mo.*
28.2%
2017 Survey
(Cell B)
n=200
1G: $110/mo.** 50M: $50/mo.
1G: $70/mo.*
30.4%
Based on the survey responses, Uptown Services has estimated that the City’s retail model take rate is at 28.2
percent.
Updated Investment
Updated financial feasibility (due to the updated take rate and pricing structure) estimates a total investment of
$130M - $150M.
Network Construction $80M
Engineering, Equipment, Facility and Install $29M
Bond issuance cost and capitalized interest $13M
Total Bond $122M
Working Capital $9M
Total Investment $131M
Contingencies impact the capital requirement and are estimated to be a range due to such items as the estimates
for cost overrun, advanced technology solution costs (active Ethernet vs Gigabit Passive Optical Network),
product offerings, and potential increases to take rates.
Debt Capacity
Current Fort Collins Light and Power (L&P) Capital Improvement Plan and long term financial planning indicate
adequate debt capacity exists within L&P to support the debt issuance (from revenue backed bonds) for the
broadband plan. However, this assumes that L&P needs can be met with rate adjustments and not debt. If the
City were to fulfill the debt through general obligation bonds, an estimated $75M - $100M debt could be issued
without impacting the City’s AAA bond rating.
Strengths and Risks of the Retail Model
In the 2016 survey, the City’s brand recognition and strong customer service reputation as a competitive
advantage. Other advantages include the strong local support and ability to control construction. However, as with
all new businesses, the retail model is not without risks. Risk is influenced by numerous factors including:
Competition risk – incumbents and new entrants
Start-up risk – standing up a new business
Political risk – an example is potential legislative changes at the state or federal level
Governance risk – ability to act in a competitive market (decision making pace, selling vs. order taking,
etc.)
Technology risk – market is rapidly changing; the unknown
Financial risk – worst case scenario, if the retail model fails, every L&P rate payer would pay an estimated
$16 to $17 per month for the life of the debt
Potential Risk Mitigation Option – Retail Model
Staff is currently exploring other options to mitigate risk for the retail model. Options include a potential utility fee
or sales tax. Currently, the broadband plan has only the consumers interested in receiving internet service paying
for services. However, as identified above in financial risk, if the model does not receive the anticipated take rate
1
Packet Pg. 5
July 11, 2017 Page 4
(subscribers), the debt will still need to be paid. An alternative could be a utility fee (estimated at $16 to $17 per
month) or a .40 percent sales tax. Continued discussions are needed.
Utilities Charter Amendment
The retail model requires modifications to the City Charter to allow the existing Light and Power (L&P) enterprise
to expand into telecommunications. Initial analysis assumes financing the capital cost through revenue bonds
issued and backed by the rate-making strength of the L&P enterprise. Although another option for structuring the
retail model might be the creation of a free-standing new utility enterprise for telecommunications, including
broadband, such a structure would not permit revenue bonds to be secured by L&P electric service revenues and
financing may be an impediment to such a structure. A more detailed analysis of funding options would be a part
of the next step business planning phase. Modification of the governance process for telecommunications would
also be recommended to allow effective operations within a competitive environment, which is not part of the
current L&P business model.
Option 1 Option 2
Allows the City to add telecommunications directly (municipal retail) or
indirectly (3rd Party or public/private partnership) within L&P Enterprise
X X
Telecommunications within new 5th Utility to support direct services
(municipal retail) or indirect services (public/private partnership)
X
Executive sessions and ability to delegate X X
Authorization of L&P revenue bonds up to $150M X X
Authorization of general obligation bonds up to $150M X
Recommendation
Staff is recommending Option 1, which supports municipal retail broadband within the existing L&P enterprise and
allows the authorization to leverage L&P revenue bonds to support telecommunication broadband.
Next Steps
City staff is working to refine work scope with consultants brought on to develop a municipal broadband
implementation plan. Additionally, staff is proposing to continue discussions with RFP respondents while moving
forward on drafting ballot language for a November 2017 Charter Amendment to propose the addition of
telecommunication to the Utilities charter, as well as governance structure.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Request for Proposal (RFP)-8550 Gigabit Speed Internet (PDF)
2. Draft Ballot Question and Charter Amendment Options 1 & 2 (PDF)
3. Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (PDF)
4. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
1
Packet Pg. 6
1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
8550 GIGABIT SPEED INTERNET
I. Introduction
The City of Fort Collins (the “City”) issues this Request for P r oposal (RFP) for the purpose
of exploring the opportunity to form a Public Private Partnership (P3) with an interested party to
jointly implement and operate a Citywide fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) internet service business.
This initiative will enhance the broadband connectivity of the City’s residents, businesses, and
local education institutions by expanding the range and quality of available broadband and data
transport services.
The City has initiated this RFP to attract organizations that have expertise, experience and
financing capability willing to explore the opportunity to form a P3 to leverage each party’s
experience, share in the risks and benefits, and jointly develop a high speed, symmetrical fiber
based internet services business within the Growth Management Area (GMA) of Fort Collins. The
City seeks input from potential partners to assess possibilities, capabilities, and business model
alternatives and the terms and conditions under which a P3 could be assembled to accomplish such a
project. The City has a high degree of trust and brand recognition within the community.
We are interested in potential partners who bring a strong technical and business operating
knowledge of the internet services business to jointly develop a robust infrastructure to provide
ubiquitous Gigabit speed internet access within a reasonable timeframe (3 – 5 years).
Each market and business model represents a unique combination of opportunities and
challenges. The City has identified two business models to explore; a municipal-owned and
operated (“retail”) where the City independently builds and operates a fiber network and offers
internet services across that network or a P3 where the City works in partnership with a private
entity to build and operate a fiber network and offer internet services across that network. The
City is not seeking responses from vendors for the retail model at this time. We seek responses
that focus on the P3 that share technological capabilities, operational responsibilities, and
financial risk between the City and the successful respondent(s). The City will also consider a
range of construction, operation, and ownership models associated with public-private
partnership, non-exclusive franchise, and other appropriate innovative business models.
The City, local education institutions, data oriented businesses, residents and community leaders
recognize the increased importance of Gigabit speed internet serves for everyone in the
community.
Responses to this RFP should state how the respondent’s approach will further the City’s goals to
deploy cost effective FTTP Gigabit speed internet throughout the City.
Financial Services
Purchasing Division
215 N. Mason St. 2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6775
970.221.6707- fax
fcgov.com/purchasing
ATTACHMENT 1
1.1
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: Request for Proposal (RFP)-8550 Gigabit Speed Internet (5730 : Broadband Update)
2
We encourage respondents to share their expertise, which may be used to shape the direction
and formation of the network. Respondents may work together to respond to this RFP. The City is
open to creative solutions that will maximize the efficiency of the investment, share in the
business risk while providing reliable, cost competitive, and high-quality services with outstanding
customer service to meet the needs of its citizens.
We welcome the responses of all respondents, including incumbent service providers, as well as
competitive providers, nonprofit organizations, public cooperatives, nontraditional
providers, and other entities.
II. RFP Objectives and Scope
The City’s 2016 Strategic Plan outlined objective 3.9 – Encourage the development of reliable, high
speed internet services throughout the community. In addition, secondary factors to this objective
include:
x A Network reaching all residents of the Fort Collins GMA
x Timely implementation – 4-5 year build out
x Competitive market pricing
x Outstanding customer service.
The City’s objectives of the RFP process are as follows:
1. Identify entities interested in engaging with the City to make fiber-to-the-premise with
symmetrical Gigabit speed internet available within the GMA of Fort Collins.
2. Identify and evaluate innovative and cost-effective ways to partner and leverage the
strengths and abilities of both parties to deploy Gigabit speed broadband Citywide.
3. At the City’s option, meet with select respondents for in-depth discussions regarding the
entities proposed approach, capability, business model, and terms & conditions and jointly
develop details of a potential P3 partnership, non-exclusive franchise, or other business
arrangement.
Based on the outcome of the RFP and subsequent discussions with select entities, the City will
determine next steps based on the City’s best interest. Next steps may include, but are not
limited to:
- Negotiate with one (1) or more entity(s) a business arrangement to deploy Gigabit speed
internet Citywide; or
- Initiate a new City utility to launch Gigabit speed internet independently without a
private partner.
1.1
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Request for Proposal (RFP)-8550 Gigabit Speed Internet (5730 : Broadband Update)
3
III. Project Background and Preliminary Market Demand
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 167,000 (approximately 66,500 housing
units and 8,000 small and medium business premises), Fort Collins is among the nation’s fastest
growing metropolitan areas. The City includes many assets and amenities that provide a
competitive advantage including: Colorado State University, abundant natural resources and
agricultural land, highly educated and creative workforce, a historic downtown, and many miles of
trails, parks and bike paths. Fort Collins has one of the highest rates of patents per capita in the
world with a major research institution – Colorado State University – a cluster of federal
laboratories and such high-tech companies as Hewlett-Packard, AMD, Intel and Broadcom.
The City of Fort Collins is a full-service municipality that operates under the Council/Manager
form of government. The City’s mission, vision and values provide the foundation for the City of
Fort Collins’ 2015-2016 Strategic Plan’s seven key outcome areas: Community and Neighborhood
Livability, Culture and Recreation, Economic Health, Environmental Health, Safe Community,
Transportation and High Performing Government. The City’s strong commitment to providing
world-class municipal services for an exceptional community underlies every strategic objective.
More information about the City’s Strategic Plan can be found at:
http://www.fcgov.com/citymanager/pdf/strategic-plan-2015.pdf
The City also makes certain GIS data sets available on line that may be helpful to consultant
responding to this RFP. This data is available at http://www.fcgov.com/gis/downloadable-
data.php.
The City of Fort Collins’ Broadband Plan’s overall objective is to bring ultra-high speed internet to
the City of Fort Collins while making an informed decision through evaluation of risks and
opportunities. Additional benefits being sought include competitive pricing, an affordable
Internet tier price for low income residence, universal coverage throughout the Fort Collins
growth management area (GMA), underground infrastructure for improved reliability, and
providing services within a reasonable timeframe.
On November 3, 2015, 83% of Fort Collins voters supported Ballot Issue 2B, which overturned
Colorado Senate Bill 05- 152, removing legal barriers for the City’s involvement, direct or indirect,
in providing telecommunication services. This vote allows the City and citizens to consider and
pursue the best decisions based on the needs and desires of the community.
Fort Collins Market Demand Study
The City, in collaboration with a third party consultant firm, completed an initial market demand
study in March 2016, including three market segment (residential, small business, large
business/institutional) studies to identify unique needs (services) by sector of population and/or
geographical areas, and estimate demand and take-rate (i.e., potential subscribership rate)
assumptions by sector. A summary of the survey findings follows:
1.1
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Request for Proposal (RFP)-8550 Gigabit Speed Internet (5730 : Broadband Update)
4
Residential Market
Fort Collins has approximately 66,500 residences. The residential market demand survey asks
questions around Internet, voice and video services as part of the overall inputs for the financial
feasibility analysis. A high speed Internet service is the primary focus of the broadband study, but
the appeal of bundling services at a minimal cost is being investigated. The study confirmed that
almost all Fort Collins households use the Internet. Governing.com’s “America’s Most Connected
Cities” stated that 91.4% of Fort Collins residents have at least one wired connection. Ninety-nine
percent of Fort Collins households surveyed use Internet at home. Of these connected homes,
cable modem and digital subscriber lines (DSL) have the vast majority of the market share at 94%.
Additionally, the study indicated that Internet usage is prevalent across all income and age
groups.
Questions around customer service satisfaction levels were also surveyed, as this plays a role in
the market demand for alternative broadband services. Respondents were asked to rank
customer satisfaction from a scale of 1 - 10, with 10 being “totally satisfied” and 1 being “not at all
satisfied,” by service categories: cable television, satellite television, non-pay television (i.e.,
antenna, basic channels), DSL, cable modem, telephone and electric utility. The average customer
satisfaction was high for electric utility at a mean rating of 8.7, while the average mean for DSL
was 6.8 and cable modem was 6.6. Sixty-four percent of the respondents rated the City’s Utility
brand a 9 or 10 rating. Other internet services had significantly lower customer service
satisfaction. Lower prices, increased Internet speed and reliability dominate the wish list of
service improvements respondents identified for broadband. Branding and bundling were
secondary in importance. Additionally, 81% of respondents acknowledged the importance of
having low cost, high-speed Internet.
Additional information can be found by entering the following into your internet browser:
http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=72&docid=2697600&dt=&doc_download_date=AP
R-26-2016&ITEM_NUMBER=
Small to Mid-Size Business Survey
The City of Fort Collins has approximately 8,000 small- to mid-size businesses (SMB). A similar
survey was deployed to the small-to-mid-size business segment. The survey found that Comcast
and CenturyLink are the only two Internet Service Providers (ISPs) with SMB market share in Fort
Collins (about 96% of respondents). Two-thirds of SMB respondents in Fort Collins are under
contract for their Internet and voice services. Additionally, SMB respondents had similar
responses to the residential respondents in regard to customer satisfaction by service and
customer needs. One item to note is that SMBs put a larger emphasis on the need for improved
reliability, most likely due to reliance on technology and the Internet for business operations.
1.1
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Request for Proposal (RFP)-8550 Gigabit Speed Internet (5730 : Broadband Update)
5
Large Business/Institution Qualitative Survey
The objective of the large business/institution qualitative survey is to qualify the current and
future capacity needs, unmet needs, and interest and level of support for the development and
implementation of a fiber broadband network. Some of those interviewed could be potential
customers as major commercial accounts, or they could be an influencer in the community. In
total 24 interviews were conducted and the responses aggregated for confidentiality. The survey
found that due to multiple incumbent providers competing in the large business/institution
segment, fiber is not only deployed, but activated to many of these business locations. Advance
data needs are being met with dedicated connections for the business/institutions sole usage. As
a result, the City does not see large business/institutional organizations as primary customers of
the City’s broadband efforts.
Estimated Subscribership (“Take”) Rate
The consultants engaged by the City utilized a conservative research technique from the
Packaged Goods sector to estimate potential subscribership rate. This technique has been utilized
for over 30-years and 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. Municipal systems, which are not-for-profit enterprises,
measure a broadband project “success” by the level of their “take rate” - that is, the percentage
of potential subscribers who are offered the service that actually subscribe. The consultants
estimated that the take rate for residential Internet service in Fort Collins at 38.8% and 45% for
small business (i.e., 38.8% of residents are estimated to subscribe to the fiber network, if offered).
With the potential launch of DOCSIS3.1 by Comcast, the residential take rate estimate has been
revised to 30.2% as a result of the additional anticipated competition within the market place.
Online Broadband Survey
Due to interest, staff made the majority of the residential 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. Over 1,800 responses were received and the
results were in line with the statistically valid, residential phone survey. The exception being that
online questionnaire saw a higher response from younger demographics. Major themes include
improvements in:
x Speed (33%)
x Price (26%)
x Reliability (17%)
x Customer Service (10%)
x Miscellaneous (14%)
IV. RFP SUBMITTAL
Qualified entities who may have an interest in engaging with the City to deploy Gigabit speed
internet are encourage to respond to this RFP.
1.1
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Request for Proposal (RFP)-8550 Gigabit Speed Internet (5730 : Broadband Update)
6
Respondents are encourage, but not required to provide the following information in response to
this RFP.
1. Company name, address, and website.
2. Organization Type (Corporation, Subsidiary, Partnership, Individual, Joint Venture, or
Other).
3. The name and contact information (email, phone) of the company representative
responsible for providing further information.
4. A brief overview of the company’s capabilities, experience and role in planning,
engineering, implementing, or operating Gigabit speed internet particularly in
collaboration with a public municipality.
5. Provide evidence your firm is financially strong including recent (last two fiscal years)
audited financial statement including balance sheet and income statement.
6. A brief, high-level description of company’s solution/product(s) including but not
limited to:
a. Address key components of your business model including the elements of the
network implementation your firm supports and proposed ownership
structure.
b. Summarize project cost and cost of service.
c. Identify roles and responsibilities of the partnership.
d. Identify financing and funding elements including the City’s level of
participation.
e. Identify key provisions required to enter into a partnership or non-exclusive
franchise arrangement including important terms & conditions.
f. Highlight the unique features of the solution/product(s), including a general
description of the program and any unique benefits provided by your firm.
7. All respondents must complete and execute the Non-Disclosure Agreement
(Appendix A).
As part of the City’s commitment to Sustainable Purchasing, RFP response submission via email is
preferred. RFP response submittals shall be submitted in a single Microsoft Word or PDF file
under 20MB and e-mailed to: purchasing@fcgov.com. If electing to submit a hard copy RFP
response instead, please mail to the City of Fort Collins' Purchasing Division, 215 North Mason St.,
2nd floor, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524. RFP response submittals must be received by 5:00 p.m.
(our clock), July 5, 2017 and referenced as RFP 8550. If mailed, the address is P.O. Box 580, Fort
Collins, 80522-0580. Please note additional time is required for RFP responses mailed to the PO
Box to be received at the Purchasing Office.
1.1
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Request for Proposal (RFP)-8550 Gigabit Speed Internet (5730 : Broadband Update)
7
V. RFP SCHEDULE
The preliminary RFP schedule follows:
• Issuance of RFP May 30, 2017
• RFP Question Deadline June 23, 2017
• RFP Responses Due July 5, 2017
• Discussion Period Starts July 10, 2017
• Public Engagement On-Going
VI. QUESTIONS
Questions concerning the RFP should be directed to the Project Manager SeonAh Kendall, 970-
416-2164, skendall@fcgov.com. The deadline for questions is June 23, 2017.
Questions regarding the RFP process should be directed to Gerry Paul, Purchasing Director at 970-
221-6779, gspaul@fcgov.com.
VII. MISCELLANEOUS
A copy of the RFP may be obtained at www.rockymountainbidsystem.com. The NIGP Commodity
Code is 915, Communications and Media Related Services which includes 91551 Information
Highway Electronic Services (Internet, World Wide Web, etc.)
The City is not obligated for any cost incurred whatsoever by firms in the preparation of the
Request for Information or potential travel to Fort Collins.
1.1
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Request for Proposal (RFP)-8550 Gigabit Speed Internet (5730 : Broadband Update)
8
Appendix A: Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement
Please provide two signed copies of the following Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement.
MUTUAL NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
THIS MUTUAL NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”), effective as of the day of
2016, is between the City of Fort Collins, a Colorado home rule municipal corporation
(the “City”), and (“Vendor”). The City and Vendor may
hereinafter be referred to individually as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties.”
WHEREAS, Vendor and the City m a y engage in discussions concerning Gigabit speed internet
services and a potential business arrangement (the “Purpose”); and
WHEREAS, in the course of negotiations or communications, each Partymaydisclosetoand/or receive from
the other Party certain information belonging to the disclosing Party or its affiliates (collectively, the
“Discloser”) that includes trade secrets, privileged information, or confidential commercial and
information (“Confidential Information”);
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants and promises set forth
herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Records maintained by the City are subject to public disclosure pursuant to the Colorado Open
Records Act (“CORA”). Certain confidential business records are exempt. If Vendor provides to the City
documents that include trade secrets, privileged information, or confidential commercial or financial
information, Vendor shall segregate any documents including such information from other documents
provided to the City and shall clearly identify such documents with a stamp, watermark or other clear mark
identifying the documents as confidential pursuant to CORA.
2. The Party receiving Confidential Information (the “Recipient”) (i) shall use such Confidential
Information only for the Purpose; (ii) shall reproduce such Confidential Information only to the extent
necessary for the Purpose; (iii) shall restrict disclosure of such Confidential Information to its, and its
affiliates', employees and agents who need to know such Confidential Information to carry out the
Purpose and who are not direct competitors of the Discloser (and require such employees and agents to
undertake confidentiality and use obligations at least as restrictive as those Recipient assumes herein);
(iv) shall not disclose such Confidential Information to any other Party without prior written approval of
Discloser; and (v) shall protect such Confidential Information with at least the same degree of care as it
normally exercises to protect its own proprietary information of a similar nature, which shall be no less
than reasonable care. If Recipient discloses Confidential Information to an employee, affiliate, or other
person in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, any subsequent disclosure or use of such
Confidential Information by such employee, affiliate, or other person shall be deemed a disclosure or use
by Recipient and Recipient shall be responsible for such disclosure or use. The Recipient shall
immediately notify the Discloser upon the discovery of any loss or unauthorized disclosure or use of the
Confidential Information of the Discloser.
3. The restrictions on use and disclosure of Confidential Information shall not apply unless such
Confidential Information, when in tangible, electronic or viewable form is marked confidential or
proprietary by Discloser, or when disclosed only orally is both identified as confidential or proprietary at
the time of disclosure and summarized in a writing so marked and provided to Recipient within thirty (30)
days following the oral disclosure; except that any unmarked material and any verbally disclosed
information that Recipient knows or reasonably should know to contain Confidential Information of the
1.1
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Request for Proposal (RFP)-8550 Gigabit Speed Internet (5730 : Broadband Update)
20
Discloser, including but not limited to business or technical information not generally known to the public,
such as patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets, as well as all written or oral pricing and
contract proposals exchanged between the Parties shall be subject to the use and disclosure restrictions
of this Agreement. Within the 30-day period referenced above, all Confidential Information communicated
only orally shall be subject to the use and disclosure restrictions of this Agreement.
4. The restrictions on the use or disclosure of Confidential Information shall not apply to any information:
a. Which is independently developed by the Recipient as evidenced by documentation in such
Party's possession; or
b. Which is lawfully received from another source free of restriction and without breach of this
Agreement by the Recipient; or
c. After it has become generally available to the public without breach of this Agreement by the
Recipient; or
d. Which at the time of disclosure to the Recipient was known to the Recipient free of restriction as
evidenced by documentation in such Party's possession; or
e. Which the Discloser agrees in writing is free of such restrictions.
5. All Confidential Information shall remain the exclusive property of the Discloser, and no license under
any intellectual property right is either granted or implied by this Agreement or the conveying of
Confidential Information to Recipient hereunder. Discloser makes no representations, warranties,
assurances, guarantees or inducements of any kind, and, in particular, with respect to the non-
infringement of any intellectual property rights, or other rights of third persons or of Discloser.
6. Neither this Agreement nor the disclosure or receipt of Confidential Information hereunder shall
constitute or imply any promise or intention by either Party to enter into any transaction or business
relationship, nor is it an inducement for either Party or its affiliated companies to spend funds or
resources or purchase or provide products or services, nor is it any commitment by either Party or its
affiliated companies with respect to the present or future marketing of any product or service. No such
agreement will be binding unless and until stated in a separate writing signed by authorized
representatives of both Parties.
7. Each Party agrees not to announce or disclose to any other person (other than persons described in
Section 1(iii), above) the Confidential Information or the nature of any discussions concerning the
Purpose without first securing the prior written approval of the other Party. All Confidential Information
furnished hereunder shall be returned or destroyed upon written request or upon Recipient’s
determination that it no longer has a need for such Confidential Information, except that Recipient’s legal
counsel may retain one copy in counsel’s files solely to provide a record of such Confidential Information
for archival purposes.
8. The restrictions on use and disclosure of Confidential Information disclosed hereunder shall survive
for a period of three (3) years from the date of last disclosure of any such Confidential Information (except
in the case of software, for an indefinite period). Either Party may terminate this Agreement upon thirty
(30) days advance written notice to the other.
9. All notices or communications required or permitted as a part of this Agreement shall be in writing
(unless another verifiable medium is expressly authorized) and shall be deemed delivered when:
A. actuallyreceived,
B. upon receipt by sender of a certified mail, return receipt signed by an employee or
agent of the Party,
C. upon receipt by sender of proof of email receipt, or
D. if not actually received, ten (10) days after deposit with the United States Postal
Service authorized mail center with proper postage (certified mail, return receipt
requested) affixed and addressed to the respective other party at the address set forth
in this Agreement or such other address as the Party may have designated by notice or
Agreement amendment to the other Party.
1.1
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Request for Proposal (RFP)-8550 Gigabit Speed Internet (5730 : Broadband Update)
21
The consequences of failure to receive a notice due to improper notification by the intended Recipient of
a new address will be borne by the intended Recipient. The addresses of the Parties to this Agreement
are as follows:
<Vendor Name> City of Fort Collins
<Vendor Address Line 1> 215 N. Mason
<Vendor Address Line 2 PO Box 580
<Vendor Address Line 3> Fort Collins, CO 80521
Attention: Project Manager Attention: Purchasing Director
10. This Agreement shall not be construed to limit either Party's right to independently develop or acquire
products or services without use of the other Party's Confidential Information.
11. The restrictions on disclosure of Confidential Information under this Agreement shall not preclude
Recipient, on the advice of counsel, from complying with applicable law, regulation, other governmental
requirement or other demand under lawful process, including a discovery request in a civil litigation, if
Recipient first gives Discloser notice of the required disclosure and cooperates with Discloser, at
Discloser’s expense, in seeking reasonable protective arrangements. In no event shall Recipient be
required to take any action which, on the advice of Recipient’s counsel, could result in the imposition of
any sanctions or other penalties by a court or government body.
12. Neither Party has any obligation to disclose Confidential Information to the other. Either Party may, at
any time: (i) cease giving Confidential Information to the other Party without any liability, or (ii) request in
writing return of Confidential Information previously disclosed.
13. Recipient acknowledges that Confidential Information provided under this Agreement maybe subject
to U.S. export laws or regulations. Recipient shall not use, distribute, transfer or transmit Confidential
Information (even if incorporated into products, software or other information) except in compliance with
such laws and regulations. If requested, Recipient shall sign written assurances and other export-related
documents as may be required to comply with such laws or regulations.
14. Each Party agrees that all of its obligations undertaken herein as Recipient shall survive and continue
after any termination of this Agreement, subject to Section 8 above.
15. No amendment or modification of this Agreement shall be valid or binding on the Parties unless made
in writing and signed by duly authorized representatives of each Party.
16. Subject to the limitations set forth in this Agreement, this Agreement will inure to the benefit of and be
binding upon the Parties. This Agreement may not be assigned by one Party without the other Party's
prior written consent.
17. If any provision of this Agreement shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal,
invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect to the greatest
extent permitted by law.
18. No forbearance, failure or delay in exercising any right, power or privilege is waiver thereof, nor does
any single or partial exercise thereof preclude any other or future exercise thereof, or the exercise of any
other right, power or privilege. This Agreement is binding upon and inures to the benefit of the Parties
and their heirs, executors, legal and personal representatives, successors and assigns, as the case may
be.
19. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado, U.S.A., without regard to its
conflicts of law principles. Each Party acknowledges and agrees that a breach by it or one of its affiliates,
employees or representatives of any of the covenants set forth in this Agreement will cause irreparable
injury to the other Party and its business for which damages, even if available, will not constitute an
adequate remedy. Accordingly, each Party, for itself and its affiliates, employees and representatives,
agrees that the other Party, in addition to any other remedy available at law or in equity, shall be entitled
1.1
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Request for Proposal (RFP)-8550 Gigabit Speed Internet (5730 : Broadband Update)
to the issuance of injunctive relief (including, without limitation, specific performance) by a court
of competent jurisdiction in order to enforce the covenants and agreements contained herein.
20. Any judicial proceeding brought by or against any of the Parties on any dispute arising out
of this Agreement or any matter related hereto shall be brought exclusively in the state district
court sitting in Larimer County, Colorado, and by execution and delivery of this Agreement,
each of the Parties accepts for itself the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the aforesaid court
as trial courts. Each Party expressly waives any objection (including, without limitation,
objections based on forum non conveniens)whichany Party may have now or hereafter to the
laying of venue or to the jurisdiction of any such suit, action, or proceeding, and irrevocably
submits generally and unconditionally to the jurisdiction of any such court in any such suit,
action, or proceeding. Each Party agrees that its attorneys shall accept service of process.
21. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties as to the
treatment of Confidential Information disclosed for the Purpose and merges all prior discussion
between them relating thereto. Each Party has read this Agreement, understands it and
agrees to be bound by its terms and conditions. This Agreement may be executed in
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall
constitute one single agreement between the Parties. Signatures exchanged by facsimile or
other electronic means are effective for all purposes hereunder to the same extent as original
signatures.
INWITNESSWHEREOF,the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth
above.
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
By: By:
(Typed or printed name) (Typed or printed name)
(Title) (Title)
22
1.1
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Request for Proposal (RFP)-8550 Gigabit Speed Internet (5730 : Broadband Update)
CITY-INITIATED
PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 1
Shall Article XII of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins, pertaining to municipal public
utilities, be amended to add a new section authorizing City Council, by ordinance and without a
vote of the electors, to authorize the City’s 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 RQH RU PRUH third-party
providerV, to include, without limitation, the transmission of Internet data, voice and video,
and to authorize the Council, in exercising this authority, to: (1) issue revenue and refunding
securities and other debt obligations as authorized in the Charter, but in a cumulative total
principal amount not to exceed $150,000,0000; (2) set the rates, fees and charges for these
facilities and services subject to the same limitations in the Charter for setting the rates, fees
and charges for other City utilities; (3) go into executive session to consider matters
pertaining to issues of competition in providing these facilities and services to include,
without limitation, matters subject to negotiation, strategic planning, pricing, sales and
marketing, development phasing and any other matter allowed under Colorado law; (4)
establish a Council-appointed board or commission and delegate to it by ordinance, in
whole or part, the Council’s governing authority and powers granted under this new Charter
section, but not the power to issue securities; and (5) delegate to the City Manager by
ordinance, in whole or part, its authority to set the rates, fees and charges for
telecommunication facilities and services?
______Yes/For
______No/Against
FOR ILLUSTRATION AND DISCUSSION PURPOSES
1.2
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Draft Ballot Question and Charter Amendment Options 1 & 2 (5730 : Broadband Update)
Charter Article XII, Municipal Public Utilities
Section 7. Electric utility and 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 RQH RU PRUH third-party providerV, to include, without
limitation, telecommunication facilities and services providing for the transmission of Internet
data, voice and video.
(b) The Council, acting as itself or the board of the electric 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 to the electric utility 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
FOR ILLUSTRATION AND DISCUSSION PURPOSES
1.2
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Draft Ballot Question and Charter Amendment Options 1 & 2 (5730 : Broadband Update)
Council’s governing authority and powers granted under this Section concerning the furnishing
of telecommunication facilities and services by the City’s electric 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 the board of the electric 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
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.
FOR ILLUSTRATION AND DISCUSSION PURPOSES
1.2
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Draft Ballot Question and Charter Amendment Options 1 & 2 (5730 : Broadband Update)
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 RQH RU PRUH third-party providerV, to include, without
limitation, telecommunication facilities and services providing for the transmission of Internet
data, voice and video. 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 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 asitself,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 Council shall also have the power to issue general
obligation securities as authorized in Section 19.2 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 to the electric utility 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..
FOR ILLUSTRATION AND DISCUSSION PURPOSES
1.2
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Draft Ballot Question and Charter Amendment Options 1 & 2 (5730 : Broadband Update)
(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
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.
FOR ILLUSTRATION AND DISCUSSION PURPOSES
1.2
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Draft Ballot Question and Charter Amendment Options 1 & 2 (5730 : Broadband Update)
1
ATTACHMENT 3
1.3
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
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 ........................................................................................................... 14
Residential............................................................................................................................................... 14
Commercial ............................................................................................................................................. 14
City of Fort Collins ................................................................................................................................. 15
IV. Fort Collins Customer Profile ...................................................................................................... 17
Market Segmentation .............................................................................................................................. 17
Residential Market .................................................................................................................................. 18
Online Residential Broadband Survey .................................................................................................... 20
Top Attributes Relative to Importance Comparable Results .................................................................. 20
Low Income ............................................................................................................................................ 20
Small- to Mid-Size Business ................................................................................................................... 21
Large Business / Institution .................................................................................................................... 24
Subscribership (“Take Rate”) ................................................................................................................. 25
V. Competitive Environment ................................................................................................................ 28
Incumbents .............................................................................................................................................. 28
Competitive Response ............................................................................................................................ 30
Municipal Retail Implications ................................................................................................................. 31
VI. Operating Plan .............................................................................................................................. 32
Retail Model Summary ........................................................................................................................... 32
Critical Operational Success Factors ...................................................................................................... 32
Capital Requirement ............................................................................................................................... 33
Passing Cost ............................................................................................................................................ 33
Drop Cost ................................................................................................................................................ 35
Pricing Assumptions ............................................................................................................................... 36
1.3
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
3
Marketing Plan ........................................................................................................................................ 38
Objectives – Marketing Plan ................................................................................................................... 38
Budget ..................................................................................................................................................... 39
Promotion & Advertising ........................................................................................................................ 39
Customer Service Plan ............................................................................................................................ 39
Customer Service Strategy ...................................................................................................................... 39
Customer Service Planning ..................................................................................................................... 40
Customer Service Staff ........................................................................................................................... 40
Personnel Requirements .......................................................................................................................... 41
Facilities .................................................................................................................................................. 42
Milestone Timeline ................................................................................................................................. 43
VII. Network Architecture ................................................................................................................... 44
Network Technologies Overview ........................................................................................................... 44
Fiber Technologies .................................................................................................................................. 46
Copper Technologies .............................................................................................................................. 47
Wireless Technologies ............................................................................................................................ 48
Implications............................................................................................................................................. 49
City of Fort Collins Assets ...................................................................................................................... 50
GPON in Model ...................................................................................................................................... 51
GPON and Active Ethernet Summary .................................................................................................... 52
GPON – Low Cost and Flexible ............................................................................................................. 52
Active Ethernet – Futureproof ................................................................................................................ 52
VIII. Financial Model ............................................................................................................................. 53
Base Case Assumptions .......................................................................................................................... 53
Year 0 – 5 Construction Phase ................................................................................................................ 54
Funding ................................................................................................................................................... 54
Year 1: ..................................................................................................................................................... 55
Year 2 - 5: ............................................................................................................................................... 56
Revenue .................................................................................................................................................. 56
Year 5+ Operations Phase ....................................................................................................................... 57
Net Cash .................................................................................................................................................. 58
Financial Statements – Profit and Loss ................................................................................................... 59
1.3
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
4
Sensitivity ............................................................................................................................................... 62
Scenarios ................................................................................................................................................. 63
Mitigation and Risk ................................................................................................................................. 63
IX. Opportunities and Threats ........................................................................................................... 65
Opportunities: ......................................................................................................................................... 65
Threats: ................................................................................................................................................... 65
X. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 67
XI. Appendix ........................................................................................................................................ 68
XI.A. Peer Cities ..................................................................................................................................... 68
1.3
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
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.
1.3
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
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.
1.3
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
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
1.3
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
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:
1.3
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
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.
1.3
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
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
1.3
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
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. Appendix XI.A 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.
1.3
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
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
1.3
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
13
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.
1.3
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
14
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.
1.3
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
15
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
1.3
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
16
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.
1.3
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
17
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:
1.3
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
18
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
1.3
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
19
satisfaction ranged from a high for electric utility at a mean rating of 8.7, to 6.8 for DSL and 6.6
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
1.3
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
20
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.
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
1.3
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
21
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
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.).
1.3
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
22
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
1.3
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
23
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
1.3
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
24
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
1.3
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
25
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. The 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. 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,
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.
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.
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
1.3
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
26
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.
Estimated take rates based on the statistically valid phone surveys conducted March 2016, April
2016 and June 2017:
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
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
1.3
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
27
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.
1.3
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
28
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
1.3
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
29
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
30
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)
1.3
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
31
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
IV.A.3). 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.
1.3
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
32
VI. Operating Plan
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
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,
1.3
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
33
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 contingencies which could include
possible construction cost overruns, higher than anticipated demand, market competition
factors, or other unforeseen cost implications.
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.
Passing Cost
Fort Collins will require a total of more than 800 miles of fiber installed to reach the
approximately 62,000 premises within the GMA. “Passing Cost” is a key variable in modeling
the cost of a network and describes the cost of installing fiber within the City streets to pass
near 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
Capital Requirements Amount
Network Construction $80M
Electronics, Drop & Installation $18M
Facility, Systems, Vehicles, Start up $8M
Bond Issuance Fees, capitalized interest, Miscellaneous $12M
Engineering, Design, Inspection $4M
Subtotal $121M
Working Capital $9M
Contingency $0-$20M
Total $130-150M
1.3
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
34
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 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
Passing
s
Passings
per Mile Weight
Materials
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
1.3
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
35
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
1.3
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
36
Total $591.78
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)
1.3
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
37
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
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.
1.3
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
38
Marketing Plan
Objectives – Marketing Plan
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)
1.3
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
39
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.
1.3
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
40
Additionally, the Utilities website will offer options to review product and service availability,
order services, view billing statements and process bill payments.
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.
1.3
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
41
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
1.3
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
42
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.
1.3
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
43
Milestone Timeline
1.3
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
44
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
b) Leverages copper telephone twisted pair lines using VDSL2 and ,in the future, G.fast
1.3
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
45
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.
1.3
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
46
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.
1.3
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
47
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
1.3
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
48
bonding to more efficiently use of the available spectrum. But in order to maximize bandwidth
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
1.3
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
49
to describe not only the upcoming 5G standard but also for small cell 4G technology being used
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.
1.3
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
50
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
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.
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
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
1.3
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
51
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
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
1.3
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
52
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
1.3
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
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.C.1 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.B 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.D 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.G Personnel Requirements)
Bandwidth requirements assumed – please see following graph
1.3
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
54
Year 0 – 5 Construction Phase
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
1.3
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
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 $9M (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 3.25 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 $9M 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.
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
2) $2.7M Engineering - Network Design, backbone services and GPS mapping
3) $968,000 Fixed Network Equipment – Backbone electronics, core head end
switch/router, test equipment, internet services back office platforms
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 ($61,345) $0
Short Term Loan Principal
Payment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($1,887,537) $0
Bond Principal Payment -
Series 1 ($4,269,322) ($4,440,095) ($5,402,055) ($6,572,426)
Bond Principal Payment -
Series 2 ($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) ($14,860,601) ($12,800,853)
Capital Expenditures Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5
Network Construction $0 $19,857,262 $20,254,819 $20,661,335 $19,211,856
Electronics, Drop & Installation $967,500 $1,918,384 $3,528,487 $4,758,262 $6,325,355
Facility, Systems, Vehicles, Start up $6,390,000 $575,400 $384,908 $119,509 $24,000
Engineering, Design, Inspection $2,713,442 $250,217 $251,233 $252,273 $278,337
1.3
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
56
4) $790,000 Back Office Systems, Other Capital – Broadband billing system, network and
fiber management systems
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 capital and equipment is approximately $10.2M total in years 2-5 and
includes ONTs and fiber drop materials.
3) $800,000 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.
4) Contract installation costs of $7M. 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.
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. 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.
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
Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5 Year6
Active Residential Premises 0 1,982 6,655 12,069 18,014 18,082
Total Revenue $0 $916,653 $4,879,311 $10,888,757 $18,211,765 $22,783,408
Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5 Year6
Residential Internet $0 $609,243 $3,193,006 $6,938,680 $11,176,790 $13,436,728
Commercial Internet $0 $69,093 $426,334 $1,091,238 $2,228,246 $2,982,146
High Capacity Services $0 $78,629 $435,359 $1,094,400 $2,099,183 $3,027,550
1.3
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
57
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 total amount of revenue 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.
Year 5+ Operations Phase
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.
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.
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%
1.3
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
58
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 $5.9M 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 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14
Total Net Cash ($118,476,228) ($107,400,732) ($95,833,624) ($82,659,423) ($68,696,784) ($59,251,335) ($43,811,068) ($27,851,939) ($11,027,557) $5,940,689
1.3
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
59
Financial Statements – Profit and Loss
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%
1.3
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
60
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%
1.3
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
61
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%
1.3
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
62
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.
1.3
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
63
Scenarios
A number of scenarios (adjusted variables, or combination or variables) were tested to
determine impact of possible future states.
Take Rate reduction - Penetration reduced to 22.5 percent
Net Cash – turns positive in year 16
Revenue – on-going operations generate $19M-$20M/year
5 year Capital cost - reduced slightly to $106.5M due to fewer subscriber installs
Bonds - corresponding bond amounts would decrease to $118M
Take Rate increase - Penetration increased to 45 percent
Net Cash – turns positive in year 13 with $16M
Revenue – on-going operations generate $27M-$30M/year
5 year Capital cost – increases slightly over $5M to $115M with high activity levels
Bonds – resulting borrowing would increase to $128M
Capital expenses are 15 percent higher than forecast
Net Cash - turns positive at end of year 16, beginning of year 17
Revenue – remains between $20-24M/year
5 year Capital cost – calculates to $126M
Bonds – adjusts total to $138M
Active E implementation vs GPON
Net Cash – turns positive in late year 17
Revenue - remains between $20-24M/year
5 year Capital cost – approximately $130M
Bonds - $142M
Active E implementation – and- 45 percent take rate
Net Cash – positive in year 14
Revenue - on-going operations generate $27M-$30M/year
Capital cost - approximately $135M
Bonds - $149M
Mitigation and Risk
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:
1.3
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
64
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
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
However, 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. 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.
1.3
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
65
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
1.3
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
66
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
1.3
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
67
X. Conclusion
In conclusion, it has been established that the retail model can be a robust business model. It
can withstand various typical business setbacks such as construction overruns and small
interest rate increases. It can also be financially feasible in the face of impending technological
change such as a post-DOCSIS 3.1 environment.
However, there are significant threats that are harder to foresee and forecast. These types of
threats are out of the City’s control to mitigate, such as: technological change, political will and
competitive response. While the City does enjoy strong citizen support, and a very positive
brand image, the reality is that $130M-$150M will be at risk.
It is not likely that under even the worst of scenarios that the City would lose all of the
investment with proper risk mitigation. Implementation steps and milestones could be
constructed such that unfavorable environmental effects would be minimized. However, even
without adverse conditions, it will take 12-15 years of successful operations to pay back all of
the bond amounts with operational revenue, and more than $110M will be spent constructing an
asset that has the potential to be stranded. Both scenarios are real risks that must be
considered before going forward.
1.3
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
68
XI. Appendix
XI.A. Peer Cities
1.3
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)
BROADBAND
July 11
2017
ATTACHMENT 4
1.4
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5730 : Broadband Update)
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
1.4
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5730 : Broadband Update)
May 9th Work Session
3
Third Party Option Retail Option
• RFP Issued May 30th
• Responses due July 5th
• Resource Discussion
• Finalize high level Business Plan
• Ballot Language in process
1.4
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5730 : Broadband Update)
RFP Update
4
• RFP Issued May 30, 2017
• Scope:
•3rd Party Partner
• Complimentary skills & expertise
• Internet service experience
• Share risk
• Next steps
• Evaluate proposals and develop short list
• Initial interviews with short list
• Determine future direction & discussion
• Responses received July 5th
• 11 responses received.
• Allo Communication
•Axia
• CenturyLink
• Comcast
• Foresite Group
• Fujitsu Network Communications
• Iwire365
•Kiewit
• LightSpeed Connection
• Wyyerd
• Zayo Group
1.4
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5730 : Broadband Update)
Municipal Broadband
Implementation Planning
5
Consulting resources on board June 29th - Work Scope Includes:
• Support RFP response evaluation & discussion
• Support ballot questions and materials
• Support development of Launch Plan
• Open Access vs. Proprietary system, ActiveE vs. GPON, Video or not
• RFP requirements & details for design, construction, QC,
• New billing system business requirements
• Business process requirements, definition & appropriate integration
• Organizational plans – staffing, facilities, equipment
• Marketing & Sales plan
• Refine cash flow plan by quarter
1.4
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5730 : Broadband Update)
High Level Business Plan
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Mission
III. Broadband Market Profile
IV. Fort Collins Customer Profile
V. Competitive Environment
VI. Operating Plan
VII. Network Architecture
VIII. Financial Model
IX. Opportunities and Threats
X. Conclusion
XI. Appendix
6
1.4
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5730 : Broadband Update)
Business Plan
Modified Assumptions
7
Modified Assumptions:
• Pricing Update - $70 for 1 Gbps / $50 for 50 Mbps per month
• New survey to confirm take rates
• Updated take rate - 28.2%
• Financing Update – 1 issue with 2 series vs. 2 issues
• Capital variation
• 10% increase in take rate adds $4M to capital requirements
• ActiveE vs. GPON adds $12M, Video adds $5M-$7M
Impact
• Capital requirements – range $130M to $150M
• Small changes in Cashflow & Payback timeframe
1.4
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5730 : Broadband Update)
Pricing / Take Rate
8
I Would Switch to
Comcast
I Would Switch to Ft
Collins
I Would Retain My
Current Service
Don't Know
3%
73%
19%
6%
17%
47%
23%
14%
“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 $110/City $70 Both $70
Demand for 1G grows
with price advantage
1.4
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5730 : Broadband Update)
Investment
9
$122M Bonds I. $80M = Network Construction
II. $29M = Equipment, Facility, Install,
Engineering
III.$13M = Bond issuance cost,
capitalized interest
$9M Working Capital
$131M Total Investment
+
External borrowing of $130M - $150M.
Total investment increases if take rate exceeds 28.2% or add video
Contingency funds if:
Active E installation, take rate increases, video added, costs increase
1.4
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5730 : Broadband Update)
Base Case Results
– CASH FLOW
10
($40)
($20)
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
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
Earnings Before Taxes and Depreciation Capital Spending Cash Flow
$M
1.4
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5730 : Broadband Update)
Base Case Results
– PAYBACK
11
($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
Cash Reserves Long Term Debt Short Term Debt Total Net Cash
$M
1.4
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5730 : Broadband Update)
Debt Capacity
• Implications to Fort Collins L&P Utilities if Revenue Bonds
Current L&P Capital Improvement Plan and Long Term Financial Plan indicate
adequate debt capacity exists within L&P to support bond
Assumes L&P needs can be met with rate adjustments and not debt
Opportunity Cost – if L&P needed access to capital during the first 5 years
• Implication to City of Fort Collins Bond Rating if GO Bonds
Financial Advisor assessment in 2015 indicated
• Capacity range varies based on the type of debt and multiple factors
• Without new revenue sources – range is $75M to $100M
• With new revenue sources – range if $125M to $150M
Near term debt requirements of $45M -parking garage, police training, I25
12
1.4
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5730 : Broadband Update)
Retail Model
STRENGTHS & RISKS
STRENGTHS
• City Brand & Customer Service
• Control of construction
• Control customer service
• Strong local support
13
RISKS
• Competition - incumbents
• Business – standing up new business
• Political - legislative changes
• Governance – competitive market
• Technology – the Unknown
• Financial – worst case:
- $16 to $17 mo per L&P account
1.4
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5730 : Broadband Update)
Retail Model
Risk Mitigation Option
14
Implement a fee or a tax that generates a guaranteed revenue stream
Fee = $16 mo per account Tax = .40%
Rational:
• Revenue covers debt service
• Reduces competitive & market share risk
• Less dependent on take rate
• Could offer service @ $30 - $35 mo
• Changes the complexion of the ballot ?
• Adds a cost to a somewhat emotional
decision
Implications:
• Treats Broadband as a Utility infrastructure
• Everyone pays a portion for infrastructure
• Similar to stormwater
• Change from “users will pay for system”
• Significant cost per account
• Potential negative impacts on other City
priorities
1.4
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5730 : Broadband Update)
15
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Nov Election
Launch
Planning
Bonds
Issued
Network Design
Internal Systems & Process
Network Construction
First Customer
Municipal Broadband
Macro Timeline
Last Customer
1.4
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5730 : Broadband Update)
Municipal Broadband
Near Term Timeline
16
Potential Ballot Charter Amendment:
July 11
Council
Work
Session
Aug 8
1st
Reading;
Ballot
Language
Aug 15
2nd
Reading
Ballot
Language
Silent Period
Nov 7
Election
May 9
Council
Work
Session
Internet Services Launch
If voter Approval
Detailed Business / Launch Planning
Option 1
• Broadband within existing L&P enterprise
• Authorization for L&P revenue bonds to
support telecommunications
• Modified Governance
Option 2
• Broadband within existing L&P enterprise or
create 5th
utility
• Authorization for L&P revenue bonds to
support OR authorization of general
obligation bonds to support 5th
utility
• Modified Governance
Ballot Question:
1.4
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5730 : Broadband Update)
Ballot Question Development
For Illustration & Discussion Purposes
• Ask voters to change the Charter to expand and include telecom (broadband)
services within L&P Enterprise
• Required in the event the City provides telecom service directly or in partnership.
• Allows the L&P to partner with a 3rd
Party and allows L&P the ability to provide
telecom service if a third party option is pursued and fails
• Although bond issuance does not require a vote, including a question on debt
ensures voters are aware of the investment/cost risk to provide telecom
infrastructure
• Allows Council to go into executive session and the ability to delegate some
decision making to a governing board or the City Manager
• Hear matters that if public, would jeopardize financial feasibility
• No decisions can be made in an executive session
17
1.4
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5730 : Broadband Update)
Ballot Question
Recommendation
18
Recommendation:
Option 1
Rational:
• Leverage L&P debt capacity
• Uncertainty on need for a 5th utility
• More community discussion required for GO bonds
1.4
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5730 : Broadband Update)
Draft Ballot Question
For Illustration & Discussion Purposes
19
Shall Article XII of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins, pertaining to municipal public utilities, be amended to
add a new section authorizing City Council, by ordinance and without a vote of the electors, to authorize the
City’s 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, to include, without limitation, the transmission of Internet data, voice and video, and to
authorize the Council, in exercising this authority, to: (1) issue revenue and refunding securities and other debt
obligations as authorized in the Charter, but in a cumulative total principal amount not to exceed
$150,000,0000; (2) set the rates, fees and charges for these facilities and services subject to the same
limitations in the Charter for setting the rates, fees and charges for other City utilities; (3) go into executive
session to consider matters pertaining to issues of competition in providing these facilities and services to
include, without limitation, matters subject to negotiation, strategic planning, pricing, sales and marketing,
development phasing and any other matter allowed under Colorado law; (4) establish a Council-appointed
board or commission and delegate to it by ordinance, in whole or part, the Council’s governing authority and
powers granted under this new Charter section, but not the power to issue securities; and (5) delegate to the
City Manager by ordinance, in whole or part, its authority to set the rates, fees and charges for
telecommunication facilities and services?
______Yes/For ______No/Against
1.4
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5730 : Broadband Update)
20
Council Discussion
1. Does Council have desire to further explore a fee/tax to reduce risk
2. Does Council support bringing a ballot question forward in
November ?
a. If so, Option 1 or Option 2 ?
3. Does Council prefer messaging the ballot question as:
a. Question focused on Municipal Retail Option only ?
b. Question that allows 3rd Party or Municipal Retail alternatives ?
1.4
Packet Pg. 110
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5730 : Broadband Update)
BACKUP
21
1.4
Packet Pg. 111
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5730 : Broadband Update)
Ballot Question
For Illustration & Discussion Purposes
22
Telecommunications within L&P Enterprise – Option 1
The Council may, by ordinance and without a vote of the electors, acquire, construct, provide, fund
and contract for telecommunication facilities and services within and outside the City’s territorial limits
through and as part of the City’s electric utility to include, without limitation, telecommunication
facilities and services providing for the transmission of Internet data, voice and video
Telecommunications within new 5th
Utility – Option 2
Same as above with the addition of:
Alternatively, the Council may create by ordinance and without a vote of the electors a
telecommunication utility to exercise these power for furnishing such telecommunication facilities and
services within and outside the City’s territorial limits. If the Council creates a new
telecommunication utility, it may also establish that utility as an enterprise of the City in the same
manner, with the same powers ad 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.
1.4
Packet Pg. 112
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5730 : Broadband Update)
Ballot Question
For Illustration & Discussion Purposes
23
Authorization of L&P revenue bonds up to $150M – Option 1
The Council, acting as the board of the electric utility enterprise, shall have the power to issue
revenue and refunding securities 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
Authorization of GO bonds up to $150M – Option 2
Same as above with the addition of:
The board of the telecommunications utility enterprise shall also have the power to issue general
obligation securities as authorized in Section 19.2 of Article V of this Charter to fund the provision of
the telecommunication facilities and services authorized in this Section
1.4
Packet Pg. 113
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5730 : Broadband Update)
Ballot Question
For Illustration & Discussion Purposes
24
Executive sessions & delegation – Both Options
….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.
….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….
….the Council may also delegate by ordinance to the City Manager, in whole o part, its authority in
subsection (c) above to set the rates, fees and charges for furnishing telecommunication facilities
and services.
1.4
Packet Pg. 114
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5730 : Broadband Update)
Survey Objective
& Methodology
25
Objective: Evaluate residential pricing changes made by both Comcast and the City since the August 2016
Uptown Feasibility Study on FTTP pro forma
Impact to City residential Internet penetration level
Impact to City 1G dispersion (% of subs taking 1G versus 50M tier)
Sample Design: Total sample size of 400 respondents, separated into two cells (n=200 each) to evaluate
Comcast 1G pricing at either $70 or $110
Cell A: 200 tested at Comcast 1G Internet for $70/month
Cell B: 200 tested at Comcast 1G Internet for $110/month
Pricing Metric 2016 2017 Financial Impact on City Pro Forma
Comcast 1G
3 Year Contract $70/mo. $110/mo.
Increases City FTTP penetration
potential
City Tier 1 (50M) $40/mo. $50/mo. Decreases City FTTP penetration
potential
City Tier 2 (1G)
Charter Member
$50/mo.
($10 Buy-up)
$70/mo.
($20 Buy-up) Decreases City 1G tier dispersion
1
.4
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5730 : Broadband Update)
City Take Rate
by Market Scenario
26
Across three (3) residential surveys, Uptown has identified the expected City take
rates for residential Internet service depending upon both Comcast and City pricing…
Study conducted by Uptown Services, LLC
Source Scenario Comcast Offering City Offering
City Penetration
Outcome
2016 Survey
n=400 Pre-DOCSIS3.1 1G Not Offered
50M: $40/mo.
1G: $50/mo.*
38.8%
2016 Survey
n=100
Post-DOCSIS3.1
1G: $70/mo.**
30.2%
2017 Survey (Cell A)
n=200
50M: $50/mo.
1G: $70/mo.* 28.2%
2017 Survey (Cell B)
n=200 1G: $110/mo.**
50M: $50/mo.
1G: $70/mo.* 30.4%
1
.4
Packet Pg. 116
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5730 : Broadband Update)
3rd Party Model
STRENGTHS & RISKS
STRENGTHS
• Experience - fiber design and build
• Experience as an ISP
• Financial Partner & Resources
• Better Technology
27
Viable Alternative – Experience & Financial Resources
RISKS
• Loss of Control
- Customer service and technology
-Pricing
• Partner Change of Control
• Time – delay if Partner not successful
1.4
Packet Pg. 117
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5730 : Broadband Update)
Sensitivity
28
1.4
Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5730 : Broadband Update)
DATE:
STAFF:
July 11, 2017
Ginny Sawyer, Policy and Project Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Short Term Rentals.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to provide an update on the short term rental (STR) licensing implementation and to
provide proposed options to address existing STRs that failed to acquire sales and lodging tax licenses prior to
March 31, 2017 which was the requirement to be grandfathered.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council support maintaining existing regulations? Or, extending the deadline for existing STRs that
missed the grandfathering requirements to September 30?
2. What, if any, changes would Council like to see?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The City of Fort Collins passed and implemented an STR licensing program in March 2017. These regulations
were put into effect following a 2-year process involving public engagement, six Council work sessions, and two
Council hearings.
Following the adoption of the licensing program, the City contracted with Host Compliance, a vendor capable of
scrubbing and analyzing over 20 on-line websites. Host Compliance is able to capture listing details including
listing location and owner information on approximately 75% of all listings. Through Host Compliance, the City
issued a first notification letter to all identified listings in late April. The mailing went to 299 listings.
The licensing ordinance contains a grandfathering provision that allows STRs that were operational prior to March
31 and that had City sales and lodging tax licenses to apply for a STR license. Soon after the first notification
mailing staff and Council began to hear from numerous STR hosts who were unaware of the regulations and/or
the sales and lodging tax requirement. The most directly involved staff are receiving 10-20 calls, emails, and walk-
ins a week and are currently tracking 17 specific STR situations. A quick review of Council emails shows
approximately 60 emails since April from at least 10 distinct residents seeking a means to be licensed.
The bulk of these contacts fall into the following categories:
Those who have been operating STRs long before the March 31 deadline and were completely unaware of
the regulatory conversation and outcomes until they received the notification letter.
Those who were operating prior to the March 31 deadline and who believed they were collecting City sales
and lodging tax (due to language on the listing sites) but who did not have City licenses and were only paying
state taxes.
Those who had started either purchasing or remodeling homes with the express intent of operating a STR
without becoming aware of the ongoing regulatory conversation or the March 31 deadline and continued
forward without obtaining sales and lodging tax licenses prior to the deadline.
2
Packet Pg. 119
July 11, 2017 Page 2
o Some of these cases involve residents completing separate dwelling units and duplex units in
zones that do not allow this use. This is a separate issue unrelated to the STR license
regulations.
Based on the above circumstances and situations, staff is presenting an option to address some of these cases. It
is also an option to stay the course and not make any changes at this time.
Should Council opt to address those that missed the deadline, staff recommends extending the deadline to a date
in September for those that were operational prior to March 31, 2017 and collecting back taxes on previous stays.
This option serves to allow those that were operating without a license by the deadline to apply for a license
without opening the program to new STRs. This option does not address those with properties in non-allowable
zones who had not begun to operate and had not obtained sales and lodging tax licenses.
Licensing Update
Prior to the adoption of the licensing ordinance the City had issued approximately 170 sales and lodging tax
licenses for STRs. As of early July numbers show:
195 - Applications
89 - Licenses Issued
104 - Licenses Pending
3 - License Denied
96 - Primary STR/ 71 grandfathered
96 - Non-Primary/ 83 grandfathered
The Host Compliance dashboard shows the following:
2
Packet Pg. 120
July 11, 2017 Page 3
ATTACHMENTS
1. Zoning Matrix (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 045, 2017, Amending City Code to Add Short Term Rental Licensing Regulations (PDF)
3. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
2
Packet Pg. 121
ZoneDistrict
Lodging
Establishments
Bedand
Breakfast
BedandBreakfast
(Lessthan6beds) PrimarySTR NonͲPrimarySTR
RuralLands(RUL)
UrbanEstate(UE) XX
ResidentialFoothills(RF)
LowDensityResidential(RL)
LowDensityMixedͲUseNeighborhood(LMN) XX
MediumDensityMixedͲUseNeighborhood(MMN) X X
HighDensityMixedͲUseNeighborhood(HMN) X X
NeighborhoodConservation,LowDensity(NCL)
NeighborhoodConservation,MediumDensity(NCM) XX
NeighborhoodConservation,Buffer(NCB) X X
PublicOpenLands(POL)
RiverConservation(RC)
DowntownͲOldCityCenter(DOC) X X X X
DowntownͲCanyonAvenue(DCA) X X X X
DowntownͲCivicCenter(DCC) X X X X
RiverDowntownRedevelopment(RDR) X X X
CommunityCommercial(CC) X X X X
CommunityCommercialͲNorthCollege(CCN) X X X X
CommunityCommercialͲRiver(CCR) X X X X
GeneralCommercial(CG) X X X X
GeneralCommercialͲIͲ25/SH392CorridorActivityCenter(cacCG) X X X
ServiceCommercial(CS) XX XX
NeighborhoodCommercial(NC)
LimitedCommercial(CL) X X X X
HarmonyCorridor(HC) X X X X
Employment(E) X X X X
Industrial(I) XX
ŽŶŝŶŐDĂƚƌŝdžͲEĞǁ ATTACHMENT 1
2.1
Packet Pg. 122
Attachment: Zoning Matrix (5729 : Short Term Rentals)
ATTACHMENT 2
2.2
Packet Pg. 123
Attachment: Ordinance No. 045, 2017, Amending City Code to Add Short Term Rental Licensing Regulations (5729 : Short Term Rentals)
2.2
Packet Pg. 124
Attachment: Ordinance No. 045, 2017, Amending City Code to Add Short Term Rental Licensing Regulations (5729 : Short Term Rentals)
2.2
Packet Pg. 125
Attachment: Ordinance No. 045, 2017, Amending City Code to Add Short Term Rental Licensing Regulations (5729 : Short Term Rentals)
2.2
Packet Pg. 126
Attachment: Ordinance No. 045, 2017, Amending City Code to Add Short Term Rental Licensing Regulations (5729 : Short Term Rentals)
2.2
Packet Pg. 127
Attachment: Ordinance No. 045, 2017, Amending City Code to Add Short Term Rental Licensing Regulations (5729 : Short Term Rentals)
2.2
Packet Pg. 128
Attachment: Ordinance No. 045, 2017, Amending City Code to Add Short Term Rental Licensing Regulations (5729 : Short Term Rentals)
2.2
Packet Pg. 129
Attachment: Ordinance No. 045, 2017, Amending City Code to Add Short Term Rental Licensing Regulations (5729 : Short Term Rentals)
2.2
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: Ordinance No. 045, 2017, Amending City Code to Add Short Term Rental Licensing Regulations (5729 : Short Term Rentals)
2.2
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: Ordinance No. 045, 2017, Amending City Code to Add Short Term Rental Licensing Regulations (5729 : Short Term Rentals)
2.2
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment: Ordinance No. 045, 2017, Amending City Code to Add Short Term Rental Licensing Regulations (5729 : Short Term Rentals)
1
City Council Work Session
July 11, 2017
Short Term Rentals (STRs)
ATTACHMENT 3
2.3
Packet Pg. 133
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5729 : Short Term Rentals)
Direction Sought
1. Does Council support maintaining existing regulations? Or,
extending the deadline for existing STRs that missed the
grandfathering requirements to September 30?
2. What, if any, changes would Council like to see?
2
2.3
Packet Pg. 134
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5729 : Short Term Rentals)
Licensing Background
§ 6 Council work sessions, 2 hearings, variety of public outreach
§ Licensing ordinance effective March 31, 2017
§ City contract with Host Compliance (HC) mid-April
§ First notification letter sent through HC to 299 identified listings in
early May
3
2.3
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5729 : Short Term Rentals)
§ STRs in a non-allowable zone that have obtained sales and
lodging tax licenses and have collected required taxes prior to
licensing being implemented (3/31) may apply for a STR
license.
§ STRs eligible for grandfathering must submit an application by
June 30, 2017.
§ Letter stating this sent to all sales and lodging tax holders in early April.
4
Grandfathering
2.3
Packet Pg. 136
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5729 : Short Term Rentals)
Current Concern
§ Operating STR prior to deadline & completely unaware of regulatory
conversation and outcomes until notification letter.
§ Operating prior to deadline and believed they were collecting City sales and
lodging tax but who did not have City licenses.
§ Purchasing or remodeling homes with the express intent of operating a STR
without becoming aware of the on-going the regulatory conversation or the
March 31 deadline and continued forward without obtaining sales and lodging
tax licenses prior to the deadline.
5
2.3
Packet Pg. 137
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5729 : Short Term Rentals)
Options
§ Stay the course and not make any changes.
§ Extend the deadline to a date in September for those that were
operational prior to March 31, 2017 and collect back taxes on
previous stays.
6
2.3
Packet Pg. 138
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5729 : Short Term Rentals)
Current Status
Applications 195
Licenses Issued 89
Licenses Pending 104
License Denied 3
Primary STR 96 (71 grandfathered)
Non-Primary 96 (83 grandfathered)
7
2.3
Packet Pg. 139
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5729 : Short Term Rentals)
Direction Sought
1. Does Council support maintaining existing regulations? Or,
extending the deadline for existing STRs that missed the
grandfathering requirements to September 30?
2. What, if any, changes would Council like to see?
8
2.3
Packet Pg. 140
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5729 : Short Term Rentals)
DATE:
STAFF:
July 11, 2017
Randy Reuscher, Utility Rate Analyst
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Electric Residential Time-of-Use Implementation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to discuss the timeline and customer outreach plan to implement a residential electric
time-of-use (TOU) rate in March 2018 or October 2018. Staff is recommending a standard TOU rate, rather than
the TOU with tier option, be implemented for residential customers, including residential tiered, demand and solar
net metering customers.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council wish to consider a time-of-use electric rate in the third or fourth quarter of 2017, with a launch date
of March 1, 2018, or October 1, 2018?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Residential customers are currently billed under tiered electric rate, where tier 1 consumption is lower than the
cost-of-service and a progressively higher step charge per kWh for tier 2 and tier 3 consumption (see first graph
below).
In 2014, staff identified two TOU rate structures to test for possible future implementation (see two TOU graphs
below). During a January 2015 work session, an ad hoc committee was formed (Councilmembers Campana and
Cuniff with Kevin Gertig, Lisa Rosintoski and Lance Smith from Utilities) to review the specific rate details of the
TOU pilot study. Council approved the ordinance in July 2015 to launch the pilot.
Staff conducted a 12-month pilot study on two separate TOU rates structures from November 2015 to October
2016. The results were presented to Council at the February 28 Work Session. On May 3, prior to the Council
Retreat, a follow-up memo, along with a more detailed written report on the pilot study, was provided to Council to
allow for discussion on the topic. The detailed timeline is reflected below:
January 2015 Council Ad Hoc Committee formed to review TOU rate structures
July 2015 Council approved Ordinance 078, 2015 for the TOU pilot study
November 2015 12-month pilot study began
3
Packet Pg. 141
July 11, 2017 Page 2
October 2016 Pilot study ended and survey sent
December 2016 Statistical analysis performed and best-bill credits applied
February 2017 Presented results at February 28 Work Session
March – May 2017 Presented results to boards with unanimous support of TOU
Customer Outreach
The memo submitted in May 2017 (Attachment 3) outlined proposed timelines and the TOU Rates
Communication Plan, that recognized the following needs:
Develop messaging, look and feel of campaign
Design outreach and education materials
Consult community boards and groups prior to City Council action
Provide thorough customer engagement prior to effective date
Ongoing outreach and communications engagement after effective date
During the pilot study, customers were sent postcards with graphics similar to what is shown below to help
educate them around seasonal changes in on-peak hours and costs that included the specific rates. Based on
the TOU pilot study feedback, staff would provide similar outreach upon full rollout. Examples may include
postcards, letters, utility bill inserts, refrigerator magnets, etc.
As it is not recommended that a new rate structure be deployed during the summer peak season to support a
focused customer outreach experience, the suggested deployment is either March or October 2018. These
proposed date options allow for time and resources to best create communication and community engagement
plans and outreach tools that will be needed for overall mass communication, as well as more specific targeted
communication to reach the many smaller customer segments within the broader residential customer class. In
addition, key stakeholder groups have been identified to make formal presentations to as part of their regularly
scheduled meetings.
Strategies for mass communication, targeted communication and stakeholder collaboration have also been
developed.
Staff is considering two timelines for implementation, as shown below.
Option 1 Option 2
Resolution / Ordinance to Council 3rd Quarter 2017 4th Quarter 2017
Customer Communications 6 months 11 months
TOU Effective Date March 1, 2018 October 1, 2018
TOU and Low-income Customer Considerations
Over the past two years, staff worked on developing an income-qualified rate. Having this in place would allow
customers that qualified through the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program (LEAP) to receive a discount on
their utility services. It would also allow this group to receive key messaging on ways to conserve and further
3
Packet Pg. 142
July 11, 2017 Page 3
lower their bills through education and available utility programs that provide customer rebates on energy efficient
appliances, bulbs, shower heads, etc.
The pilot income-qualified rate was presented to City Council in 2016, with Council deciding to table the
discussion indefinitely. Staff continues to support a separate low-income (income-qualified) rate pilot to collect
data on reaching this segment and property owners more effectively, as has been demonstrated in other cities
across the nation.
Based on census block data, there is some correlation between income and consumption. For every three low-
income customers that may benefit by adding a tiered component to the TOU rate structure, one will be negatively
impacted. These are low-income customers with higher than average consumption that may not have the means
to invest in energy efficient measures.
Therefore, any inclusion of a tiered component in a rate structure solely to address low-income concerns does not
appear to be the most effective way to support these households and the cost of utility challenges they may face
based on their needed lifestyle. Alternatively, an income-qualified rate would provide a benefit to all qualified
customers, and still provide a time-based, energy conservation signal, thus sending the message of two options in
managing utility costs, both time-based and consumption-based.
There are low-income customers that have above average consumption needs for reasons mostly out of their
control. They may:
live in an inefficient home with poor quality insulation or windows, which they may not own or be able to
afford upgrades
have inefficient appliances and may not be able to benefit from upgrades even though utility rebates may
be available
having a large family in one dwelling unit, that may still be more efficient on a per person basis, but not on
a per dwelling basis
The graph below compares the average cost between the two TOU rates. The crossover between the average
costs is ~950 kWh. The cumulative density function (CDF) represents the monthly kWh consumption, as a
percentage on the secondary axis, and relates cost differences between the TOU and TOU w/tier customers in
the pilot study.
From the CDF, we can see that about 90 percent of bills are for 950 kWh or less, which shows about 90 percent
of customers pay more on the plain TOU rate, as compared to the TOU w/tier. Based on this data, TOU sends a
larger price conservation signal than TOU w/tier for the majority of our customers.
3
Packet Pg. 143
July 11, 2017 Page 4
The graph below shows bill distributions for customers on the TOU rate during the pilot study in the lower-third,
middle-third, and upper-third income groups. Low-income customers would be impacted roughly the same as
other higher income customers.
The graph below shows bill distributions for customers on the TOU w/tier rate during the pilot study in the lower-
third, middle-third, and upper-third income groups. Low-income customers would be impacted slightly less, on
average, than other middle- and upper-income customers.
3
Packet Pg. 144
July 11, 2017 Page 5
Under the current tiered rate structure, approximately 70 percent of residential customers pay less than the full
cost of serving them. The 30 percent of the residential customers who use the most energy each month, for any
variety of reasons, are subsidizing the rest of the rate class. The TOU rate structure removes this subsidy. The
TOU w/tier keeps part of this subsidy in place. Any subsidy undermines the effectiveness of providing a
conservation price signal.
TOU and Climate Action Goal Impacts
Due to the fact there is not an organized energy market in our region we cannot calculate the marginal generation
emissions at any given time, which means calculating the exact Greenhouse Gas (GHG) impacts from the piloted
rate study is not possible. If Fort Collins customers use less energy, Platte River Power Authority does not
reduce electricity production. Instead, any reduction in energy consumption increases the excess electricity
available to sell on the market. These additional sales from Platte River replace sales from another (the marginal)
generation source on the regional electric system, and the reduction in emissions from the marginal generator is
the emission savings from the reduction in use in Fort Collins. Thus, reduced energy use within Fort Collins
requires less energy to be generated regionally, but the emission savings is from a peaking facility owned by
another utility.
We can, however, put bounds on the GHG savings by calculating a worst-case scenario. Given the measured
shift in the portion of energy consumed on-peak to off-peak of 0.4 percent, and the overall reduction in
consumption for TOU customers of 2.5 percent, we can calculate the worst-case scenario for GHG savings. If all
of the marginal resources on-peak are zero emissions (an overly conservative assumption), and all of the off-peak
emissions come from coal generators, then the GHG savings amounts to 2 percent at minimum. Note, this worst
case scenario is unrealistic, but it gives a lower bound for savings. Using a more likely on-peak emissions factor
from the EPA’s eGRID resource suggests that the GHG savings are likely to be at least 2.3 percent for the TOU
rates. The takeaway is that the overall reduction in energy consumption outweighs a shift in when energy is
consumed, and therefore, does provide a reduction in GHG emissions of at least 2 – 2.3 percent.
TOU also incentivizes electric vehicle (EV) owners to charge during off-peak hours at lower rates, allowing them
to avoid higher costs from any form of tiered charges, therefore supporting the City’s climate action goals.
Implementing a TOU w/tier would result in a higher cost for EV ownership.
TOU and On-Peak Hour Considerations
The on-peak hours were established based on historical analysis of Platte River’s hourly system peaks.
Generally, system peaks occur during early afternoon to early evening hours in the summer months, and in the
evening hours during the non-summer months. The higher demands during peak hours require use of more
3
Packet Pg. 145
July 11, 2017 Page 6
expensive generation resources, including peaking units; therefore form the cost-based reason for implementing a
TOU rate.
Finding a balance in the size of the on-peak window is the goal, taking into consideration that a window that is too
broad doesn’t allow customers to shift their usage patterns and a window too narrow may not adequately capture
the system peaks and require future changes to the on-peak hours. Staff determined that the hours established
in the table below, with a 4-hour window during the non-summer months and a 5-hour window during the summer
months, are the shortest peak windows that still capture the majority of the system peaks, based on 10 years of
historical data. These windows are also consistent with industry guidance around the proper number of peak-
period hours to encourage conservation and demand reduction.
Since there is a noticeable difference between the seasonal coincident peak times, staff set different on-peak
hours for each season. Expanding the on-peak hours to be from 2-9 p.m., so customers could become accustom
to one on-peak window was considered, but staff felt it was too broad for customers to be able to react to in terms
of conservation and demand shifts. It also doesn’t seem reasonable because summer peaks never occur at 9
p.m. and non-summer peaks never occur at 2 p.m. If these hours were to be excluded and a shorter peak
window was adopted year-round, the rate would not correctly capture the costs driven by the peak hour demands
and charged at the wholesale level by Platte River.
\
Impacts of Tiered Rates and Adding a Tiered Component to TOU
Utilities rolled out the residential tiered rate in February 2012 to residential customers. One of the main drivers of
moving to the tiered rate from the flat rate is that such a structure was believed to promote energy conservation.
To understand the impacts, analysis was done to compare 2013 residential consumption data (on tiered rates) to
2011 data. The data was weather-normalized and adjusted for increases in customer counts, etc. The results
showed essentially no reduction in energy consumption.
Under a tiered rate, roughly 65 percent of the energy sales are in tier 1, which is at a rate lower than the average
cost-of-service. Studies have shown that the discount given to tier 1 customers may actually increase overall
consumption in total, the opposite effect of the intended results. This is only partially offset by higher tier 2 and
tier 3 charges. Due to the nature of a not-for-profit utility, the tier 1 charge must be set below cost-of-service
levels to ensure the utility does not over collect in total due to the higher tier charges.
3
Packet Pg. 146
July 11, 2017 Page 7
In the TOU pilot study, both of the rates showed a 2.5 percent reduction in energy consumed over the current
tiered rate. Adding a tier to the TOU rate did not result in additional consumption reductions beyond the 2.5%
seen with the standard TOU rate.
Tiered rates also create more volatility for both the customer and the utility due to fluctuations in consumption
driven by high temperatures (increased air conditioning load), cold temperatures (increased electric heating), the
addition of an electric vehicle, larger families, etc., which could push their total usage into a higher cost per kWh
tier.
For reference, see https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2015/06/29/winners-and-losers-from-flattening-tiered-
electricity-prices/
This link describes the “Winners and Losers from Flattening Tiered Electricity Rates”
Paraphrasing from the link above on arguments for tiered pricing -
Increasing-block pricing yields conservation.
o While in theory this could happen, the best empirical work on this subject, by Professor
Koichiro Ito, shows that it is likely to have about zero effect on overall consumption. It does
encourage high-consumers to consume less, but it also encourages lower-using households
to consume more. Professor Ito shows that the net effect is no reduction in overall
consumption.
Supplying electricity to high-use households is more expensive per kWh on average, because they
consume more at peak times.
o Research has shown the difference is so small that it would justify less than a one-cent
differential in price between high-use and low-use customers.
Higher-use customers are on average higher-income customers.
o That’s true, as shown in research, however, most states have a separate tariff for the lowest-
income customers. Is tiered pricing built into the standard residential rate an effective way to
help low-income households?
TOU and Solar Customer Impacts
Following the staff presentation of TOU pilot results to the Energy Board in March 2017, questions arose about
impacts to net-metered customers relative to PUC and statutory standards for calculating net-metering credits.
While the City is generally exempt from PUC regulations and rate-setting statutes, moving to a TOU rate structure
will more closely align the City’s net-metering compensation formula with benchmark PUC requirements for non-
municipal public utilities. The proposed TOU rate will allow the Utility to better offset a net-metered customer’s
consumption by its generation than is possible with a tiered rate structure. Net-metered customers will experience
a more uniform and transparent credit/compensation process under a TOU rate.
Moving solar net metering customers to a TOU rate sends the same time and price signal to those with rooftop
solar as the rest of the residential customers. Since the current tiered rate does not have a time-based
component built in, there is a slight negative impact to solar customers on a TOU rate of $2.82 per customer per
month, which takes into account solar production occurring earlier in the afternoon than when the system peaks
occur. These customers do receive the retail rate credit at the associated on-peak and off-peak times and rates.
The graphs below show the average production curves of solar during a summer and non-summer month. The
solid gray blocks represent the on-peak hours during the season, based on Platte River’s system peaks. Solar
production, on a clear day, always peaks between noon and 2 p.m. Most of the negative financial impact to these
customers occurs during the non-summer months, as essentially no solar production is occurring during the on-
peak hours, so all excess production is credited at the off-peak rate. This is mostly offset during the summer
months, where there is a better alignment of solar production and on-peak hours, so the customer receives the
higher on-peak credit during those hours.
Alternatively, while the impacts to solar customers on the TOU w/tier rate are essentially zero on average, as
compared to the current tiered rate, staff does not recommend putting these customers on the TOU w/tier rate
structure because costs for energy efficiency programs are being recovered through this additional tier
3
Packet Pg. 147
July 11, 2017 Page 8
component, instead of the on-peak and off-peak charges. Due to the offset of their solar production, these
customers would not be contributing funds to support energy efficiency programs at the same level as another
residential customer with the same household consumption, and yet may have received benefit of solar rebates,
etc, that are funded by such programs. As more and more residences adopt solar within our community, those
residences that can’t afford to adopt solar or are rental properties will bear more and more of the cost of the solar
programs.
TOU and Residential Demand (Electric Heat) Customers
Staff recommends moving residential demand customers (homes that are all-electric) to the TOU rate structure.
This sends the same time-based price signal to these customers as the rest of the residential class during on-
peak hours. These customers do not currently have an incentive to reduce on-peak consumption. Due to their
higher electric consumption overall (no natural gas consumption offset), adding a tier component to the TOU rate
would negatively impact these customers more than the standard TOU rate, in particular during the non-summer
months. Moving them to the TOU w/tier rate would create an intra-class subsidy, so staff does not recommend
the tiered option for this customer group.
BOARD OUTREACH
Results of the pilot study were presented to the Energy Board on March 9, 2017, and to the Air Quality Board on
May 15, 2017, with both boards voting unanimously in support of implementing a residential TOU rate structure as
recommended by staff.
3
Packet Pg. 148
July 11, 2017 Page 9
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff proposes implementing a standard TOU rate as a default rate to all residential customers, including those on
the current tiered rate, demand rate and net metering rate, effective either March 1, 2018, or Oct 1, 2018, based
on the following:
• Considered by staff and the industry to be a more “fair and equitable” rate structure than a tiered rate (i.e.
less intra-class subsidy than either tiered rate)
• Creates a 2.5 percent reduction in energy consumption, as compared to the tiered rate
• Allows customers to shift demands during the day, providing an additional way to save on their bill
• Better aligns benefits of solar production with costs than a tiered rate
• Encourages use of electric vehicles, consistent with community climate goals
• Reduces GHG emissions by 2 percent or more, as compared to the tiered rate
Staff does not recommend a mid-year implementation, when higher summer season rates are in effect.
Why staff does not recommend a TOU w/tier rate?
It does not provide an additional energy conservation signal over the standard TOU rate
Customers on the TOU rate had a larger behavioral response and shifted their usage away from the peak
period more often than customer on TOU w/tier rate, and it appears customers on the TOU w/tier rate
were less likely to shift when they used energy on a daily basis.
It impacts residential demand customers more financially by adding a tier, due to their higher
consumption needs for electric heat
May help some low-income customers with lower bills, but it will also create higher bills for some low-
income customers (more than the standard TOU rate)
o Staff believes low-income should be addressed through a separate rate such as the income-
qualified rate that staff presented as a pilot to Council in 2016, which will help support specific,
qualified households.
Provides an additional subsidy to solar net metering customers
Discourages electric vehicle charging, as higher consumption will force them into a higher per kWh
charge
Creates additional challenges with messaging to customers and their understanding of a rate structure
Option 2 (low data resolution) and Option 3 (non-radio) Customers
Those customers concerned with privacy, and therefore provided with a low data resolution option (a single
number reflecting total energy consumption for the month), are referred to as “Option 2” customers and those who
opted for a non-radio meter, and require a manual meter reading each month, are referred to as “Option 3”
customers. There are approximately 426 customers combined in these two groups.
Staff recommends eliminating Option 2 due to special meter configuration challenges and additional expenses.
Customers would be able to select between the default setup or move to Option 3, which require an additional
monthly fee for manually collecting meter readings, that will need to be modified going forward. Under either TOU
rate, two monthly consumption numbers will be manually collected for Option 3.
NEXT STEPS
If Council supports implementing a TOU rate, staff will return with a resolution or ordinance for Council
consideration prior to beginning the public outreach process. This provides staff time for proper outreach and
education to inform all residential customers of TOU rates ahead of deployment.
3
Packet Pg. 149
July 11, 2017 Page 10
ATTACHMENTS
1. Review of Time-of-Use Electric Rate Pilot Study (PDF)
2. Work Session Agenda Item Summary, February 28, 2017 (PDF)
3. Council memo, May 3, 2017 (PDF)
4. Energy Board minutes, March 9, 2017 (PDF)
5. Air Quality Advisory Board minutes, May 15, 2017 (PDF)
6. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
3
Packet Pg. 150
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Review of the Time-of-Use
Electricity Rate Pilot Study
Justin Fields | Randy Reuscher
4/25/2017
This document provides an overview of the Time-of-Use Pilot Study, summarizes the results pertaining
to the four objectives identified prior to the study, and addresses additional concerns related to low
income customers and greenhouse gas emissions.
ATTACHMENT 1
3.1
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: Review of Time-of-Use Electric Rate Pilot Study (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
1
Table of Contents
Review of the Time-of-Use Pilot Study ......................................................................................................... 2
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2
Overview of Pilot ........................................................................................................................................... 3
Study Design ............................................................................................................................................. 4
Regression Model ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 6
Consumption ............................................................................................................................................. 6
Demand ..................................................................................................................................................... 7
Survey Results ........................................................................................................................................... 9
Question 1: Rate Understanding........................................................................................................... 9
Question 2: Customer Engagement .................................................................................................... 10
Question 3: Objective of Rate Structure ............................................................................................. 10
Question 4: Behavioral Energy Use ..................................................................................................... 11
Revenue Impacts ..................................................................................................................................... 12
Tiered Rate Customers ........................................................................................................................ 12
Electric Heat Customers ...................................................................................................................... 13
Net Metering – Rooftop Solar Customers........................................................................................... 14
Low-Income Customers ...................................................................................................................... 16
Other Considerations .............................................................................................................................. 20
Greenhouse Gas Impacts .................................................................................................................... 20
Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 21
3.1
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: Review of Time-of-Use Electric Rate Pilot Study (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
2
Review of the Time-of-Use Pilot Study
Introduction
Residential demand for electricity varies during the course of a day. The graph below illustrates this
variance for an average residential customer in the month of July.
In this example, the minimum demand occurs at 4 a.m. and the maximum demand is around 6-7 p.m.
It’s important to note that the maximum demand is approximately three times higher than the
minimum demand. This is notable because if the demand were flat at the average level of demand
throughout the day the cost to provide electric service would be less than the current state where the
peak demand is substantially more than the minimum demand.
The increased cost is attributable to two factors –
The infrastructure required to meet peak demand is greater, requiring more investment in
infrastructure.
The generation sources are economically deployed, which means those used to produce
electricity during peak periods cost more to operate than the generation sources that provide
the base load, or minimum demand.
For Fort Collins Utilities, this means that if we are able to flatten our load curve to better align with the
average demand, we should see a reduction in costs of infrastructure required to serve each residential
customer and a lower wholesale invoice from our power supplier, Platte River Power Authority.
3.1
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: Review of Time-of-Use Electric Rate Pilot Study (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
3
Our current tiered rates do not reflect the difference in cost to provide electricity throughout the day,
nor do they reflect the fact that higher peak demands also require additional infrastructure. With tiered
rates, customers do not receive a price signal that corresponds to these higher costs, and as a result,
there is not an incentive to conserve energy during periods of peak demand.
Time-of-use rates (TOU) are designed to send a price signal that better aligns retail charges with the cost
to generate and deliver electricity and also encourages conservation during peak periods. The result is
that customers who use more energy during peak periods and consequently cost more to serve, will pay
more, and customers who cost less to serve will pay less. In this regard a TOU rate is more equitable
than a tiered rate structure. In addition, if customers respond to the TOU rates by using less energy on-
peak, then there are tangible cost and energy savings that can be passed along.
Overview of Pilot
The TOU pilot studied two different rate structures over a full year. The first TOU rate, referred to as
standard TOU, charged a higher price for electricity during on-peak periods and a lower price during off-
peak periods. The second TOU rate, referred to as TOU w/tier, also had on-peak and off-peak pricing
but added a tier for consumption over 700 kilowatt hours (kWh). The on-peak and off-peak times
occurred during the same hours for each of these rates, however, the prices changed slightly.
The following table shows the 2015 standard TOU prices.
Season Months On-Peak Rate Off-Peak Rate
Non-Summer Oct - Apr 19.08 cents/kWh 6.53 cents/kWh
Summer May - Sep 22.49 cents/kWh 6.70 cents/kWh
The next table shows the 2015 pricing for the TOU w/tier.
Season Months On-Peak Rate Off-Peak Rate
Non-Summer Oct - Apr 18.61 cents / kWh 6.07 cents / kWh
Summer May - Sep 22.02 cents / kWh 6.24 cents / kWh
*Energy consumption over 700 kWh per billing cycle will be billed an additional 1.63 cent /kWh.
The pilot was intended to compare these two TOU rates with the current tiered rate for residential
customers.
3.1
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: Review of Time-of-Use Electric Rate Pilot Study (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
4
The following table provides the 2015 pricing for the tiered rate.
Season Months
Tier 1
(0-500 kWh)
Tier 2
(500-1,000 kWh)
Tier 3
(over 1,000 kWh)
Non-Summer Sep - May 8.30 cents / kWh 8.72 cents / kWh 9.66 cents / kWh
Summer June - Aug 8.94 cents / kWh 10.67 cents / kWh 14.15 cents / kWh
Prior to the start of the pilot, four objectives, or areas of comparison were outlined, including:
1. Determine energy conservation impacts of the TOU rates.
2. Measure potential demand reductions from the TOU rates.
3. Acquire customer feedback though a post pilot study survey.
4. Ensure revenue requirements were met.
This review will focus on the statistical methodology for analyzing the first and second objectives, energy
conservation and demand reduction impacts.
Study Design
Six groups of 1,200 customers each were randomly sampled to be in the opt-out study. After opt outs
and customer attrition from those who moved out during the study period, approximately 850 customer
remained in each group at the end of the study. Utilities had over a year of data available for these
customers prior to the start of the study that allowed for a comparison of their energy consumption and
demand before and during the study.
Each of the six groups sampled had a different combination of rate treatments. These treatments
included information about the study, peak period information, best-bill guarantee, peak period pricing,
and a tier component.
Breakdown per group:
The study control group was notified that they were a part of the study only.
The peak information control group was notified that they were a part of the study and were
given information about the peak period.
3.1
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: Review of Time-of-Use Electric Rate Pilot Study (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
5
Two groups remained on tiered rates but were given a best-bill guarantee when being
compared to each of the respective TOU rates (these customers also received the study and
peak information treatments).
The TOU group was switched from tiered rates to standard TOU and received all of the previous
mentioned treatments.
The TOU with a tier group received all of the treatments with the addition of a tiered
component to their TOU rate.
Additionally, there was a group of customers who were sampled at random that had no
information about the study at all.
The table below summarizes the components of the study faced by each group.
This design allowed for the isolation of each component, or treatment, of the study that might influence
consumer behavior. As an example, the difference between the study and peak information control
groups is due to the peak information since these customers were sampled at random (and other
control variables were included as discussed later). Also, the difference between the TOU and TOU with
Tier groups is due to the tier component. These differences are analyzed by using a linear regression
model to determine the effect of each treatment on consumption and demand.
Regression Model
The regression is designed to determine the effects of the components on electricity consumption. In
order to identify the effects associated with these rate components, the regression also controls for the
effects of the weather, heating and cooling demands, as well as the amount of daylight, which accounts
for lighting loads. The particular regression specification used also controls for differences between
customers that typically do not vary over the short time frame of the study, such as the size of a home,
the efficiency of the home, or a customer’s individual preferences about heating or cooling. Loosely
speaking, this is accomplished by subtracting out these time invariant components either by subtracting
the mean of the data or by subtracting the data from the previous time period. These approaches are
commonly employed in policy analysis since they yield unbiased estimates of the effects of a policy
change under fairly general assumptions.
3.1
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: Review of Time-of-Use Electric Rate Pilot Study (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
6
Results
Consumption
The following graph shows the point estimates as well as the 95% and 99% confidence intervals for the
impacts of the study treatments on consumption. The 95% confidence intervals are the shorter thicker
bars, and the 99% intervals are the thinner longer bars.
The graph conveys the same information as a statistical hypothesis test. If a confidence interval
contains zero, we can conclude that the result is not statistically different from zero at that level of
significance, however, if the confidence interval does not contain zero then the result is significant at
that level of significance1.
From the graph, we can see that the TOU rate structure, labeled as “tou treatment”, reduced
consumption by 2.5% on average and is significant at the 1% level, while adding a tier to the TOU
structure, labeled as “tou tier treatment,” does not have a statistically significant impact on
consumption. To summarize, if TOU was implemented, we would expect to see a 2.5% reduction in
consumption over the tiered rates. Adding a tier to the TOU rate did not result in additional
consumption beyond the 2.5% seen with the standard TOU rate.
1 The level of significance is calculated as 100% - percentage of confidence interval. If we are working with a 95%
confidence interval then the level of significance is 100% - 95% = 5%. A smaller level of significance is a higher
threshold for proof that a treatment had an effect, thus a result that is significant at a 1% level is more convincing
than a result at a 5% level of significance.
3.1
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: Review of Time-of-Use Electric Rate Pilot Study (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
7
Demand
Demand was analyzed using two different frameworks. First the demands during the coincident peak
hour were analyzed, and secondly, the probability that a customer’s daily peak occurred during the peak
period was analyzed. The first analysis provides a measure of the system impact since the system has to
be sized to meet these peak coincident demands and rates are intended to recover costs associated with
each rate class. The second is a measure of the change in customer behavior.
The graph below shows the impacts on demand during the summer coincident peak hour.
Like the previous graph with the consumption results, this graph shows the point estimates and the 99%
and 95% confidence intervals. The TOU structure reduced peak demand by 8% and this result is
significant at the 5% level. The other treatments had no statistically significant impact on demand
during the coincident peak hour.
Furthermore, none of the treatments had a significant impact on coincident peak demands during the
non-summer months. It is worth noting, however, that non-summer system demands are much less
frequent than summer demands. This means that a demand savings in the winter does not reduce the
amount of infrastructure needed to serve customers since adequate infrastructure must already be
installed to meet the higher summer demands. In other words, even though TOU doesn’t reduce peak
demands in the non-summer months, there still is the potential for infrastructure savings from the
reduction in the summer peak demands.
3.1
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: Review of Time-of-Use Electric Rate Pilot Study (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
8
The graph below illustrates savings during the summer by showing the load curves for customers on the
TOU rate versus customers not on a TOU rate during a peak summer day. The peak period is framed by
the vertical bars at 2 and 7pm. This period was designed to capture when coincident peaks occur, based
on 10 years of historical data, thus a reduction in usage during this period will typically result in a
reduction of the coincident peak. We can see from the chart that TOU customers did reduce their
consumption during this period and in turn provided a benefit to the system by reducing their peak
demand.
The second analysis, measuring the change in probability that a customer’s daily peak occurred during
the peak period, showed significant results for both piloted rate structures. The TOU customers reduced
the probability that their peak occurred during the peak period by 8% while the customers on the TOU
w/tier rate only reduced their probability by 3%. Both of these results are significant at the 1% level.
These results suggest that standard TOU is more effective at promoting customers to reduce their
electricity consumption during peak periods and/or shift their electricity consumption away from peak
periods.
3.1
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: Review of Time-of-Use Electric Rate Pilot Study (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
9
Survey Results
Question 1: Rate Understanding
This question was stated as, “Select the description which you think best explains the price you pay for
electricity,” and was designed to gauge the customers’ general understanding of their electricity rate.
These responses were compared to the customer’s actual rate and we observed that only 25% of
customers correctly identified their rate structure. This could have been due to a poorly worded
question or general lack of understanding of the specifics of electricity rates. It also suggests there is an
opportunity to educate our customers on rate drivers and structures.
3.1
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: Review of Time-of-Use Electric Rate Pilot Study (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
10
Question 2: Customer Engagement
This question was stated as, “Select the description which best describes how frequently you seek out
information about your energy consumption.” The purpose of this question was to see how often
customers retrieve information about their consumption. From the point of view of rate analysis, this is
important if we want to know what prices customers consider when making electricity consumption
decisions. Do customers respond to marginal prices based on how much energy they have consumed
during the month, or do they respond to the price they see on their bill every month? Given the survey
responses from this question, it seems unlikely that customers respond to tiered marginal prices based
on consumption during their billing cycle, since most customers seek out their consumption information
on a monthly basis or less infrequently.
Question 3: Objective of Rate Structure
This question was stated as, “In your view, what should be the primary objective of electricity rates
(please choose one).” We asked this question to better understand what objectives are important to
our customers when designing a rate structure. Most customers, about 42%, want electricity rates to
balance fair cost recovery with environmental concerns. This was followed by simply recovering costs in
an equitable manner at 33%. Lastly, 21% of customers said environmental concerns, answers A and B,
should be the primary drivers of electric rate design. Taken in total, 67% of customers want a rate
design to, at least in part, take into account environmental concerns.
3.1
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: Review of Time-of-Use Electric Rate Pilot Study (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
11
Question 4: Behavioral Energy Use
This question was stated as, “During the last 18 months, did you respond to your electricity bill by
(choose all that apply).” This question shows that a vast majority of customers, 67%, took deliberate
actions to conserve energy. While only 22% of respondents were conscious of when they used energy,
half of the respondents that said they were conscious of when they used electricity were on one of the
TOU rates, suggesting the pilot TOU rates did make customers more conscious about when they used
energy2.
2 Customers on one of the TOU pilot rates made up about 20% of the total number of survey respondents. If the
rate structure had no influence on when customers used energy we would expect about 20% of the customers
who said they were conscious of when they used energy to be on one of the pilot rates. Since we actually saw 50%
of these respondents on one of the pilot rates that suggests the pilot rates did influence customers’ choices about
when to use electricity.
3.1
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: Review of Time-of-Use Electric Rate Pilot Study (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
12
Revenue Impacts
Customers on three different rate structures, including the tiered rate, the residential demand rate, and
the solar net metering rate, were included in the pilot study. Customers from each of these rate classes
were randomly selected and after the opportunity to opt-out of the study, were moved to one of the
TOU rates being tested (either the standard TOU rate or the TOU w/tier rate).
Both TOU rate structures, like the tiered rate structure, were designed to pass through the full
wholesale generation and transmission charges and to collect adequate revenue to maintain the
distribution system. One of the objectives of the pilot study was to verify that adequate revenues were
collected under each TOU rate structure.
Tiered Rate Customers
As shown in the table below, the tiered rate customers who moved to the TOU rate paid 1.6% less on
average, or $1.14 less per month. The tiered rate customers who moved to the TOU w/tier rate paid
1.9% less on average, or $1.38 less per month.
Original Rate Pilot Study Rate Count
%
Difference
on TOU Rate
Avg $ Change
per Month
Tiered Rate TOU 880 1.6% less ($1.14)
TOU w/tier 851 1.9% less ($1.38)
3.1
Packet Pg. 163
Attachment: Review of Time-of-Use Electric Rate Pilot Study (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
13
In total, these customers paid $26,000 less than they would have under the tiered rate. This reduction
in revenue is mostly offset by a reduction in the coincident peak charge and energy charge paid to Platte
River on a monthly basis.
Electric Heat Customers
A sample of electric heat customers (residential demand) were included in the pilot study. While the
monthly impacts vary due to the higher electric usage during the winter months, the overall impact was
a higher bill for these customers, even though they saved during the summer months. These customers
are not being compared to the tiered rate, but rather the RD rate.
As shown in the graphs below, customers on the TOU rate paid 1.8% more on average throughout the
year, or $2.44 more per month. Customers on the TOU w/tier rate paid 7.9% more, or $10.27 per
month. Electric heat customers consume more electricity than the average residential customer (who
typically have a natural gas offset) and therefore implementing any tier overlay on top of the TOU rate
would impact them greater.
Because of this impact, staff recommends implementing the standard TOU rate rather than the TOU
w/tier, which helps align the customer’s consumption patterns with higher on-peak costs. This is the
same reason those customers are not currently on a tiered rate. The current demand rate does not
distinguish when that increased demand occurs. A TOU rate structure could encourage energy
efficiency improvements by providing a price signal that recognizes when heating is primarily done.
This increase in revenue is appropriate for this rate class and suggests there may be some interclass rate
subsidy with the standard tiered residential rate that hasn’t been identified previously. The increased
revenue in this rate class also offsets some of the reduced revenue for the tiered rate customers.
3.1
Packet Pg. 164
Attachment: Review of Time-of-Use Electric Rate Pilot Study (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
14
Original Rate Pilot Study Rate Count
%
Difference
on TOU Rate
Avg $ Change
per Month
Residential Demand
(all-electric homes)
TOU 18 1.8% more $2.44
TOU w/tier 16 7.9% more $10.27
Net Metering – Rooftop Solar Customers
A small sampling of solar net metering customers was included in the pilot study. The overall impacts to
the customers moved to the TOU rate was they paid 12.4% more on an annual basis, or $2.82 per
month, on average. The customers who were on the TOU w/tier rate paid essentially the same on an
annual basis as they would have paid on a tiered rate, with the difference being only $0.07 per month.
The difference stems from these customers benefitting from the lower per kilowatt-hour charge and not
being impacted by the tier.
3.1
Packet Pg. 165
Attachment: Review of Time-of-Use Electric Rate Pilot Study (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
15
Both TOU rates better align with the marginal cost of electricity than the current tiered rate structure.
Either TOU rate would reduce the compensation to net-metering customers for energy pushed back
onto the distribution system in the off-peak hours of the early afternoon. A TOU rate would encourage
configuring solar arrays to generate more energy when the community needs it the most.
Original Rate Pilot Study Rate Count
%
Difference
on TOU Rate
Avg $ Change
per Month
Solar Net Metering TOU 5 12.4% more $2.82
TOU w/tier 9 0% $0.07
As shown in the graphs below, the financial impacts during the winter and shoulder season months were
greater for customers on a TOU rate. This is mainly due to there being little or no solar production
occurring during the on peak hours from 5 - 9 p.m. during the winter months. In the summer months,
solar production better aligns with the on-peak hours, and these customers paid less on the TOU rate.
3.1
Packet Pg. 166
Attachment: Review of Time-of-Use Electric Rate Pilot Study (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
16
Staff compared hourly data of all 360 net metering customers to help understand impacts of every net
metering customer on the system, because of the small sample size in the study. While the effects of
being in the study itself could not be measured, the financial comparison shows that most customers
would pay more on a TOU rate, without any behavior change, than on the tiered rate. On average, they
would pay $4.39 more per month per customer. The maximum amount that a customer in this sample
would pay is $27.66 more per month, while a few customers could save as much as $81.26 per month.
See table below for summary.
TOU Rate Tiered Rate $ Difference % Difference
Avg Annual Bill $ 425.36 $ 372.73 $ 52.63 14%
Avg Monthly Bill $ 35.45 $ 31.06 $ 4.39 14%
Low-Income Customers
Distribution of Impacts on Low-Income Customers
Low income customers were identified as the lower third of incomes based on income data from the
Census. Data from the best bill guarantees was used to show the differences in costs to low income
customers between what they paid on the piloted TOU rates and what they would have paid under the
tiered rate.
The following histogram shows the average difference in monthly bills when comparing the piloted rates
to the tiered rate. A negative difference indicates that customers paid less on the piloted rate than they
would have on the tiered rate, assuming they would have had the same consumption with the tiered
rate. As shown by the histogram, customers tended to save more on the TOU w/tier rate than the
standard TOU rate, though the differences are typically around a few dollars a month or less.
3.1
Packet Pg. 167
Attachment: Review of Time-of-Use Electric Rate Pilot Study (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
17
The table below shows summary statistics for the average monthly cost differences. The maximum
savings on the TOU rate is about $60 a month, while the maximum savings on the TOU w/tier rate is
about $90 a month. The maximum increase was about $8 a month for the TOU rate and $6 a month for
the TOU w/tier rate among low-income customers. The median customer on the TOU rate paid an
additional $0.77 per month, while the median TOU w/tier saved $0.80 per month.
Monthly Cost moving to TOU from Tiered rate
Low-Income Customers
Rate Min Cost Max Cost Average Cost Median Cost
TOU -$59.37 $8.07 -$0.56 $0.77
TOU w/tier -$90.47 $5.73 -$1.79 -$0.80
3.1
Packet Pg. 168
Attachment: Review of Time-of-Use Electric Rate Pilot Study (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
18
Impacts by Income Groups
The following graphs show the distributions of the differences realized under the TOU rate compared to
the tiered rate for the three income groups. Once again, a negative difference indicates that customers
paid less on the piloted rate than they would have on the tiered rate.
This plot shows the empirical probability density (pdf) for the standard TOU rate. We can see that most
customers, regardless of income, paid slightly more on the standard TOU rate as opposed to the tiered
rate. This was expected as most customers pay slightly less than their full cost of service under the
tiered rate and the TOU rate was designed to cover the full cost of service.
The next graph is the empirical cumulative density function (cdf). This graph tells us the percentage of
customers who had an average difference less than or equal to a certain amount. In particular, we can
see the percentage of customers who had an average difference less than or equal to zero (percentage
of customers who paid less on TOU compared to the tiered rate). About 34% of the low-income group,
40% of the middle-income group, and 37% of the upper-income group saved on the electricity bills
under TOU. It is important to note, however, that the percentage of customers better off in each
income group are not statistically different from one another, i.e., the differences we have observed
could be attributed to randomness in the data rather that a systematic difference in monthly electricity
bills.
3.1
Packet Pg. 169
Attachment: Review of Time-of-Use Electric Rate Pilot Study (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
19
The next set of graphs show the distribution of best bill data for the customers in the TOU w/tier pilot
group. Here we see that most customers save on the TOU w/tier rate when compared to what they
would have paid on the current tiered rate.
The empirical cdf below confirms that most customers are better off on the TOU w/tier as well. The
middle- and upper-income groups had 56% and 59% percent of customers saving on their electricity
3.1
Packet Pg. 170
Attachment: Review of Time-of-Use Electric Rate Pilot Study (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
20
bills. The low income group had 74% of customers saving on the TOU w/tier rate, and this difference in
percentages is statistically significant.
It should be noted that while low-income customers save on the TOU w/tier, electric heat customers,
who are predominantly middle- and low-income customers, face significantly higher bills under a TOU
w/tier rate, as discussed later. In addition, a TOU w/tier is not an optimal rate for electric vehicle
customers, as charging is necessary throughout the month and has the potential to create higher
electricity bills as a result of the tier. Thus, staff does not recommend implementing a TOU w/tier as the
default rate for residential customers.
Other Considerations
Greenhouse Gas Impacts
Since there is not an organized energy market in our region we cannot calculate the marginal generation
emissions at any given time. Thus, calculating the exact Greenhouse Gas (GHG) impacts from the
piloted rate study is not possible. If Fort Collins customers use less energy, Platte River Power Authority
does not reduce electricity production. Instead, any reduction in energy consumption increases the
excess electricity available to sell on the market. These additional sales from Platte River replace sales
from another (the marginal) generation source on the regional electric system and the reduction in
emissions from the marginal generator is the emission savings from the reduction in use in Fort
Collins. Thus, reduced energy use within Fort Collins requires less energy to be generated regionally, but
the emission savings is from a peaking facility owned by another utility.
We can, however, put bounds on the GHG savings by calculating a worst-case scenario. Given the
measured shift in the portion of energy consumed on-peak to off-peak of 0.4%, and the overall
3.1
Packet Pg. 171
Attachment: Review of Time-of-Use Electric Rate Pilot Study (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
21
reduction in consumption for TOU customers of 2.5%, we can calculate the worst-case scenario for GHG
savings. If all of the marginal resources on-peak are zero emissions (an overly conservative assumption),
and all of the off-peak emissions come from coal generators, then the GHG savings amounts to 2.0% at
minimum. Note that this worst case scenario is unrealistic, but it gives a lower bound for savings. Using
a more likely on-peak emissions factor from the EPA’s eGRID resource suggests that the GHG savings are
likely to be at least 2.3% for the TOU rates. The takeaway is that the overall reduction in energy
consumption outweighs a shift in when energy is consumed, and therefore, does provide a reduction in
GHG emissions.
Summary
Staff recommends making the TOU rate the default rate for the residential customer class. It is relatively
simple compared to the tiered and TOU w/tier rates, making it easier to educate customers about the
structure of the rate.
It provides two ways for customers to control their electricity bill, through total electricity consumption
and when electricity is consumed, as compared to the tired rate where customers can only control their
bill through total consumption.
The TOU rate can be used for electric heat and electric vehicle customers, simplifying the rate offerings
by Fort Collins Utilities. The TOU rate also helps align incentives to net metering customers by offering
larger incentives when electricity is in higher demand.
Lastly, the TOU rate is more equitable than the current tiered rate and reflects the differences in the
cost of providing electricity throughout the day.
3.1
Packet Pg. 172
Attachment: Review of Time-of-Use Electric Rate Pilot Study (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
DATE:
STAFF:
February 28, 2017
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director
Randy Reuscher, Utility Rate Analyst
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Residential Electric Time of Use Pilot Study.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to present the results of the 12-month residential electric time of use (TOU) pilot study.
The study showed that when compared to the current tiered rate structure both TOU rate structures reduced
energy use by 2.5% and load was shifted from the on peak periods to the off peak periods, thereby reducing our
community’s contribution to the Platte River Power Authority’s (PRPA) coincident peak. The additional complexity
of the tiered TOU rate over the basic TOU rate did not provide any statistically significant difference from the basic
TOU. Based on the pilot staff is recommending that Council consider adopting a TOU rate without the tier for all
residential customers.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council support a time of use rate structure implementation plan?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
City Council passed Ordinance No. 078, 2015 in July 2015 to pursue a 12 month residential time of use pilot
study. Customer outreach began and an open house was held in August and September of 2015. The official
pilot study kicked off in November of 2015 and concluded in October of 2016. At that time a survey was sent to
all participants and the best bill guarantee analysis and customer notification was completed ahead of any credits
being applied to the customer’s bill in December 2016. Results from the pilot study were presented to the Council
Finance Committee on January 23, 2017 (attached).
The purpose of the pilot study as outlined in Ordinance No. 078, 2015 was to assess if a TOU rate structure could
better achieve each of the following objectives than the current tiered rate structure:
Objective 1 - Determine energy conservation impacts
Objective 2 - Measure potential demand reductions
Objective 3 - Gauge customer preference for different rate structures
Objective 4 - Ensure revenue requirements are met
Two time-of-use rate structures were considered during the pilot study. The first TOU was a time of use rate
structure with an on-peak window when electricity costs more and a much wider off-peak window when electricity
costs substantially less than the current tiered rate. In this TOU rate structure all of the expenses associated with
energy efficiency programs and PRPA’s demand charges were included in the on-peak window. The second rate
structure, labeled below as TOU w/Energy Efficiency (TOU_EE), was very similar, with the same on-peak and off-
peak hours, but rather than including the costs associated with the energy efficiency programs in the on-peak
charge, these costs were collected through an additional tiered component.
ATTACHMENT 2
3.2
Packet Pg. 173
Attachment: Work Session Agenda Item Summary, February 28, 2017 (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
February 28, 2017 Page 2
For the pilot study, 1,200 customers were randomly selected to be on each rate. Roughly 10% of the customers
opted out at the beginning of the pilot study. After removing any customers that moved households during the 12
month study period, approximately 850 customers remained throughout in each study group.
Objective 1 - Energy Conservation
Based on the rigorous statistical analysis, both TOU rate structures effectively encouraged energy conservation
better than the current tiered rate structure.
The TOU rate realized a 2.5% reduction in energy consumption.
The TOU_EE rate structure did not provide any additional energy conservation over the TOU rate without a
tier.
Objective 2 - Potential Demand Reductions
The statistical analysis also showed both TOU rate structures reduced the probability that a residential customer’s
daily peak occurred in the “on peak” window.
The TOU rate structure without a tier showed an 8.5% reduction in the probability that a customer’s daily peak
occurred in the “on peak” window.
The TOU_EE rate structure showed a 2.8% reduction in the probability that a customer’s daily peak occurred
in the “on peak” window.
This shift of the customer’s daily peak reduced the contribution from the residential rate class as a whole to the
system coincident peak hour used in the assessment of PRPA’s wholesale demand charges each month.
Specifically, looking at the single coincident peak hour during the summer months,
The TOU rate showed a 7.5% reduction in the contribution to the system coincident peak.
The TOU_EE did not show any additional reduction.
Objective 3 - Gauge Customer Preference
A survey was sent to all participants at the end of the pilot study. In total, 1,450 customer surveys were received
out of 7,000 sent (20% return rate). Below is a summary of the responses from each of the four survey questions.
Attached is another document which captures the additional comments provided by customers.
3.2
Packet Pg. 174
Attachment: Work Session Agenda Item Summary, February 28, 2017 (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
February 28, 2017 Page 3
Question 1 - Select the description which you think best explains the price you pay for electricity.
From the results of Question 1, where customers were asked to identify their rate structure, it is clear that most
customers do not understand how they are being charged for electric use. As such, an extensive public outreach
effort is recommended before any rate structure changes are made.
Question 2 - Select the description which best describes how frequently you seek out information about your
energy consumption
3.2
Packet Pg. 175
Attachment: Work Session Agenda Item Summary, February 28, 2017 (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
February 28, 2017 Page 4
Question 3 - In your view, what should be the primary objective of electricity rates (please choose one)
Question 4 - During the last 18 months, did you respond to your electricity bill by (choose all that apply)
Objective 4 - Revenue Adequacy
Both TOU rate structures, like the tiered rate structure, were designed to pass through the full wholesale
generation and transmission charges and to collect adequate revenue to maintain the distribution system. Both
TOU rate structures resulted in less revenue than the current tiered rate structure. However, because 30% of
wholesale energy charges are determined by Fort Collins Utility’s contribution to the system coincident peak and
that contribution was reduced, adequate revenues were still generated to meet the cost of service for the
residential rate class. Below is a table summarizing the revenue impacts separating out the impact to those
residential customers who either have all electric heat and are on the Residential Demand (RD) rate or have
rooftop solar installed (Net Metering customers):
Original Rate Pilot Study Rate Count % Difference on TOU
Rate
Avg $ Change per
Month
Tiered Rate TOU 880 1.6% less ($1.14)
TOU w/ EE 851 1.9% less ($1.38)
All Electric Homes TOU 18 1.8% more $2.44
TOU w/ EE 16 7.9% more $10.27
Net Metering TOU 5 12.4% more $2.82
TOU w/ EE 9 0% $0.07
3.2
Packet Pg. 176
Attachment: Work Session Agenda Item Summary, February 28, 2017 (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
February 28, 2017 Page 5
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Rate Structure Impacts (utility perspective) (check mark shows more favorable option)
Rate Structure
Tiered TOU TOU w/tier
Revenue Requirements Met
Promotes Energy Conservation No 2.5% 2.5%
Promotes Load Shifting No 8% 3%
Considered Equitable (cost-basis) No
Benefits Low Income Households
Net Metering None
Electric Heat No No
Addresses Electric Vehicle Charging No
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff proposes implementing the standard TOU rate as a default rate to all residential customers, including current
tiered rates customers, demand rate customers, and net metering customers.
There are many considerations in proposing the standard TOU rate, which is ultimately considered a fairer and
equitable rate structure. The pilot study shows this rate provides a reduction in the probability that a customer’s
peak happens during the on peak hours, and also realized energy conservation over the current tiered rate
structure. In general, a TOU rate structure is easy for customers to understand, as well as react to. A TOU rate
also encourages the use of electric vehicles and provides an incentive to charge during off peak hours, which is in
line with the City’s climate goals.
A TOU rate structure would negatively impact those customers who are on the Residential Demand rate
financially ($2.44 / customer / month on average), but it better aligns the costs of generation and this customer
group’s demands for electricity. This rate structure is available only to customers in all electric housing and is
intended to recognize the increased electric demand of such housing. The current demand rate does not
distinguish when that increased demand occurs. A TOU rate structure could encourage energy efficiency
improvements by providing a price signal that recognizes when heating is primarily done.
Both TOU rates better align with the marginal cost of electricity than the current tiered rate structure. Either TOU
rate would reduce the compensation to net-metering customers for energy pushed back onto the distribution
system in the off peak hours of the early afternoon. A TOU rate would encourage configuring solar arrays to
generate more energy when the community needs it the most.
The study shows that adding the energy efficiency tier to the standard TOU rate structure does not statistically
improve the energy conservation and load shifting objectives. Thus, staff is recommending the standard TOU
rate structure without the additional tiered component.
NEXT STEPS
If Council supports implementing a TOU rate, staff would begin developing an implementation plan and a
communication outreach plan for all residential customers. Staff would then return to Council in the fall to discuss
these efforts and to seek further direction on when the rate structure change would be brought forward for Council
consideration. The 2018 rate Ordinances will be considered by Council in November or December of 2017,
allowing this rate structure change to a residential TOU rate to be implemented in early 2018.
Further consideration will be needed to implement TOU to a small group of customers that opted out of the AMI
implementation, referred to as “option 2” customers (those that don’t want the utility to see 15-minute data) and
“option 3” customers (those that don’t want a meter which transmits monthly reads via radio frequency). There
are approximately 426 customers combined in these two groups.
3.2
Packet Pg. 177
Attachment: Work Session Agenda Item Summary, February 28, 2017 (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
February 28, 2017 Page 6
ATTACHMENTS
1. Finance Committee Agenda Item Summary, January 23, 2017 (PDF)
2. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
3.2
Packet Pg. 178
Attachment: Work Session Agenda Item Summary, February 28, 2017 (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
Utilities
electric · stormwater · wastewater · water
700 Wood Street
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6700
970.221.6619 – fax
970.224.6003 – TDD
utilities@fcgov.com
fcgov.com/utilities
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: May 3, 2017
TO: Mayor Troxell and Councilmembers
FROM: Randy Reuscher, Utilities Rate Analyst
Justin Fields, Utilities Rate Analyst
Lance Smith, Utility Strategic Finance Director
THROUGH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Kevin R. Gertig, Utilities Executive Director
RE: Time-of-Use Pilot Study Analysis – Deliverables from Feb 28, 2017 Work
Session
Staff presented the results of the residential time-of-use pilot study to the Mayor and Council at
the work session on February 28th. Mayor Troxell, Mayor Pro Tem Horak and Councilmembers
Campana, Cunniff, Martinez, Overbeck and Stephens were present.
Staff was directed to provide more in-depth feedback to Council on the following topics ahead of
the Council strategic planning session in May:
x A written statistical analysis of the TOU pilot study
x A written report on GHG emissions under a TOU rate compared to the current tiered rate
x A written analysis on the realized billing impacts of TOU on all participants in the pilot
x A written analysis on the impact a TOU rate would have on rooftop solar customers
x A timeline for the customer outreach plan
Attached to this memo is a written report that helps explain the first four topics above pertaining
to the pilot study results. Below, as part of this memo, is a summary of the timeline for the
customer outreach plan.
Staff believes the time-of-use rate is a more fair and equitable rate structure for the residential
class than the current tiered rate. The time-of-use rate structure provides two ways a customer
can reduce their electric bill; by using less energy or by using it at different times of the day.
Additionally, the results of the pilot study showed a 2.5% reduction in energy consumption over
the existing tiered rate, along with a 7.5% reduction in demand during the coincident peak hour,
both of which support the City’s climate goals.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CA88A3E-8265-47C5-8498-C5FD2B954E72
ATTACHMENT 3
3.3
Packet Pg. 179
Attachment: Council memo, May 3, 2017 (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
Based on Council support, staff is seeking direction from Council to implement a time-of-use
rate as the default residential rate structure in 2018. Ahead of rollout, staff recommends a 6-
month lead time to fully inform and educate the community on the new rate structure.
Proposed Timeline - Time-of-Use Rates Customer Outreach
Staff will be presenting City Council with options for the effective date of Time-of-Use (TOU)
rates at the June 13 work session, as well as the pros and cons of each date. The options will
include an effective date of March 1 or October 1, 2018, in order to efficiently educate and
engage customers on this rate change structure. The proposed timeline includes the following
key outcomes:
x Develop messaging, look and feel of campaign
x Design outreach and education materials
x Consult community boards and groups prior to City Council action
x Provide thorough customer engagement prior to effective date
x Continue engagement after effective date
These two effective date options allow time and resources to create communications for a broad
audience, mass communications, as well as target specific residential segments. In addition, key
stakeholder groups have been identified to make formal presentations as part of their regularly
scheduled meetings.
Mass Communication
To reach all residential customers with TOU information, staff will utilize these general
methods, as well as other tactics and tools:
x Utility bill inserts
x Brochures
x Social media, including Nextdoor
x Website
Targeted Communication
Staff will engage specific sectors of the residential customer class, including:
x Electric heat low-income/medical assistance
x Multi-family
x Utilities program participants
x Solar/electric vehicles
x Stay-at-home/work-at-home
Stakeholder Staff will consult Collaboration with these community groups on how to best deliver the message to the
audience:
x Boards and commissions
x Nonprofits that support low income
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CA88A3E-8265-47C5-8498-C5FD2B954E72
3.3
Packet Pg. 180
Attachment: Council memo, May 3, 2017 (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
x Homeowner associations
x Larimer County Conservation Corps
x Poudre School District
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have further questions or need additional information.
Attachment: Review of the Time-of-Use Electric Rate Study Pilot
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CA88A3E-8265-47C5-8498-C5FD2B954E72
3.3
Packet Pg. 181
Attachment: Council memo, May 3, 2017 (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
Energy Board Minutes
March 9, 2017
4
Energy Board Minutes
March 9, 2017
pattern survey; the first year focuses on residents’ travel patterns, and the second year will focus on
employee travel patterns, which should capture the commuting patterns of Fort Collins’ surrounding
communities.
Board members also commented that it is difficult to access or use the transit system effectively, or get
around safely as a pedestrian or a bicylist, in Southeast Fort Collins. Mr. Sizemore said a lot of the
infrastructure in that area was put in place at a time when the City wasn’t really thinking about complete
streets, or how residents would get around those areas without getting in their cars. He agreed Southeast
Fort Collins has been, and will continue to be, one of the challenge areas in the City.
Board member Baumgarn asked about the timeline of the plan updates. Mr. Mounce explained that they
haven’t started yet, but hope to select a team of consultants very soon and then begin public kickoff and
engagement events later this spring. Overall, they expect it to be an 18-24 month process once kickoff
begins.
Time of Use Pilot Study
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director
Randy Reuscher, Utility Rate Analyst
Justin Fields, Utility Rate Analyst
(attachments available upon request)
Mr. Reuscher compared the City’s current tiered rates to the Time of Use (TOU) tiered rates used in the
pilot study. The off-peak hours on TOU came out less than the current Tier 1 rate.
Board members commented that the public might view the on-peak hour charges as a way to upcharge
rate-payers in the middle of summer when rates are highest. Mr. Reuscher explained on-peak hours are
framed around historical peaks, and they didn’t want to make the window too wide in order to allow
customers to have the opportunity to adjust their energy usage behavior, or to shift outside of the peak
window. Board member Braslau mentioned the City should be creating any rate structure that incents
people to conserve, and one that will help the City meet its goals, whatever those goals are, as long as the
overall revenue corresponds to the costs. Mr. Smith also explained the proposed rates for residential
customer rate class’ portion of the Platte River demand charge is in the on-peak charge, the energy
efficiency cost is also put into the on-peak charge, and the rest of the distribution facilities and energy
cost are within both the on-peak and the off-peak.
Board member Becker noted there should be some educational technology available to rate payers, and he
thinks he would enjoy being on this structure because he’d like to make an impact on his bill.
Chairperson O’Neill said it would also be appropriate to roll out a new demand response program in
conjunction with the roll out of TOU rates to enable customers to change their usage patterns accordingly.
The pilot study ran for 12 months, beginning in November 2015. At the conclusion of the study, a survey
was sent to participants, and at the end of 2016 the City began a statistical analysis. The study had four
objectives: determine energy conservation impact, measure potential demand reductions, gauge customer
preference for different rate structures, and ensure revenue requirements are met. There were 1,200
customers on two different TOU rate structures: the first model was a standard on-peak and off-peak
charge, and in the second model the energy efficiency dollars were removed from the on-peak and off-
peak charges and rolled that into a tiered overlay. The study also included four control groups, awareness
of study, peak pricing info, weather normalize, and best bill guarantee. There were 7,200 customers in
the control groups and 1200 opted out right away, which left about 850 customers per each control group.
ATTACHMENT 4
3.4
Packet Pg. 182
Attachment: Energy Board minutes, March 9, 2017 (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
Energy Board Minutes
March 9, 2017
5
Energy Board Minutes
March 9, 2017
Since institution in 2012, the current tiered rate structure showed no reduction in energy consumption. In
the TOU pilot study, customers on the TOU rate structure reduced their energy consumption by an
average of 2.5% annually; however, adding a tier to TOU rate had no statistical impact on energy
consumption. During an on-peak window on a summer day, customers on a TOU rate averaged a 7.5%
energy usage reduction; however, the TOU group also used slight more energy during off-peak hours.
The Customer Survey was sent to all 7,200 participants (including everyone who opted out) and they had
roughly 1,450 responses (20%). The survey showed that 47% of customers infrequently or never seek out
energy consumption information, but 51% seek information when they receive their monthly bill. 42% of
customers agree rates should balance equitable cost recovery with environmental concerns. 25% of
customers can accurately identify their rate structure. 38% of customers are conscious of their energy
usage, 8% of customers had no concern for cost, and 31% use energy efficient bulbs and/or appliances.
Vice Chairperson Michell asked if the Utility could distribute mailers to show ratepayers how much
energy they used during peak and off peak hours. Mr. Reuscher agreed that the Utility could utilize the
Opower reporting to circulate key messages like that.
On the TOU and TOU tiered rates, most residential customers reduced their energy consumption, so they
saw a slight savings each month. Both all-Electric and Solar Net Metering customers saw increases on
their monthly bills on the TOU and TOU tiered rate structures.
Staff recommends transitioning to a standard TOU rate structure for all residential customers, including
residential demand and solar net metering customers. The standard TOU rate saw an overall reduction in
energy consumption (2.5%), and better aligns benefits of solar production with costs. TOU also
encourages the use of electric vehicles and charging during off-peak hours, which is consistent with the
community’s climate goals. Staff also considers this to be a more fair and equitable rate structure.
Council would like to reconvene with Staff in May, and Staff is hoping for their approval to kick off a
six-month rollout and public outreach campaign.
Board member Becker commented that it’s natural for people to not understand, but with the right
education it will be easy to coach ratepayers to make decisions about their usage. Mr. Becker encouraged
Staff to give the Utility the flexibility to evolve with peak-time energy usage, especially as solar becomes
more prevalent. Mr. Smith advised they looked at 10 years of historical data to determine the peak and
off-peak windows, and reiterated they wanted a window that was narrow enough to shift behaviors and
flatten the load curve. Mr. Becker inquired if there will be an opt-out plan, and Mr. McCollough advised
there is no recommendation for an opt-out program. Board members commented that this is the
beginning of a more intelligent metering system.
Chairperson O’Neill moved the Chairperson write a letter to Council in support of a residential
Time-of-Use rate structure and would like Staff to develop a detailed education and implementation
plan to bring to the Board at a future meeting.
Board member Baumgarn seconded the motion.
Discussion of the Motion:
Board member Moore asked if single-metered customers in multifamily dwellings are also on TOU rates.
Staff advised that they are on a different structure based on demand, but that is not considered normal and
is a very small service group.
3.4
Packet Pg. 183
Attachment: Energy Board minutes, March 9, 2017 (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
Energy Board Minutes
March 9, 2017
6
Energy Board Minutes
March 9, 2017
Vote on the Motion: It passed unanimously, 6-0, with 2 absent
Board Member Reports
The Energy Board Expanded Roles memo was received by Ross Cunniff. Chairperson O’Neill is on the
interview panel for the Strategic Asset Manager.
Board member Braslau mentioned that the City’s current projections show we will come up short on the
Climate Action Plan goals.
Future Agenda Review
Mr. McCollough reminded the Board that the April Board meeting will be held at 117 N Mason in the
Board Room. He also advised Reliability and Asset Management discussion should be delayed until the
new Strategic Asset manager has been on boarded.
Board member Braslau asked about Broadband; Mr. McCollough explained that until Council decides
what is happening with a third-party option, it will not actively be discussed at the Board. If Broadband
goes underneath the City as a Utility, it may or may not be under the purview of the energy board.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:41 p.m.
Approved by the Energy Board on April 13, 2017
________________________________ ______________
Board Secretary, Christie Fredrickson Date
3.4
Packet Pg. 184
Attachment: Energy Board minutes, March 9, 2017 (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
Page2
AGENDA ITEM 1: Board Administration Updates
Christine Macrina, Boards and Commissions Coordinator, presented a brief overview regarding the new
volunteer time tracking database and a summary of the results of the Boards and Commissions Participation
Questionnaire.
Christine introduced Engage, a new volunteer management system being implemented by the City. After
each AQAB meeting, 2.5 hours will be logged for Board members and an email notification will be sent.
Engage will allow users to see time changes in meetings and events, accrued hours, anniversaries, and more.
Christine also showed the results from the Boards and Commissions Participation Questionnaire. The
purpose of the survey was to assess the diversity of members on the City’s boards and commissions
(B&C’s). The questionnaire was completed by 48% of B&C members. Results of the questionnaire show
nearly equal representation of men and women in B&C’s. Members are 92.5% white, and most members
have an income over $100k/yr. Over half of B&C members have been residents of Fort Collins for 20 years
or longer. 88% of members have a bachelor’s degree or higher. The City would like to create a mentorship
program for incoming or potential members to encourage more diversity.
Discussion
x The survey asks how long you have been a resident – what if you move away and move back? What
is the intent of that question?
o Intended to figure out if long-term residents have more community involvement. Mirrored
the demographic questions in the census, so results can be readily compared to other places.
x What are your diversity improvement methods? Collaboration with schools, HOAs?
o Have not targeted HOAs. In-person visits. Knocked on doors in underrepresented areas.
Figuring out the challenges, such as commute distance. Looking at future generations as well.
AGENDA ITEM 2: Time of Use Electric Rates
Randy Reusher, Utility Rate Analyst, provided an update regarding the 12-month residential electric time-of-
use (TOU) pilot study. The Board considered a recommendation to Council regarding next steps.
Randy presented the results of a Time-of-Use (TOU) electric rate pilot study conducted last Fall. Objectives
of pilot study:
1) Determine energy conservation impacts. The TOU rate showed a 2.5% reduction in energy consumption.
2) Measure potential demand reductions. There was a 7.5% reduction in coincident peak-hour demand during
summer, and a 0.4% shift in demand.
3) Gauge customer preference for different rate structures. Utilities surveyed 7,200 people, with four
questions about energy consumption, rate structure and knowledge, and energy conservation.
4) Ensure revenue requirements are met. There were three different customer groups with measured revenue
impacts, including all-electric homes and solar net-metering groups. Randy showed a graph listing the cost
savings for customer groups with TOU versus tiered rate systems.
Staff recommendations: Transition to a standard TOU rate for residential customers, including residential
demand rate and solar-net metering customers. Upcoming timeline includes a June 13th (this has now been
moved to July 11th) work session followed by a 6-month outreach/communication plan. Aiming for TOU
deployment to all residential customers in 2018.
Discussion
x Do the impacts describe Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) reduction, and not Fort Collins
usage/consumption?
ATTACHMENT 5
3.5
Packet Pg. 185
Attachment: Air Quality Advisory Board minutes, May 15, 2017 (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
Page3
o Yes. Looking at regional production because it is difficult to track which power plant is
reducing its emissions.
x What other cities in Colorado use a TOU rate structure?
o Nearly a third of cities in Colorado offer a TOU rate. Nationwide, over 4 million households.
Colorado Springs offers it, maybe Gunnison. Xcel and Poudre Valley REA offer it.
x How do the reported reductions line up with Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2020 goals?
o Reducing GHG emissions, promoting electric vehicle use. Expecting a 2.5% reduction in
residential energy consumption, which accounts for 40% of total load in Ft. Collins. This
equates to about a 1% reduction in total energy use overall city-wide.
o CAP 2020 projections did not consider TOU. This could be an addition.
x Are the peak hours fixed?
o Yes. Summer hours (May-September) are 2-7pm. Winter hours (October-April) are 5-9pm.
x Is there a way to increase savings?
o For tiered rates, reduce energy use. For TOU, reduce overall energy consumption AND avoid
use during peak hours.
x Is there a base, fixed energy use, even when a customer isn’t home?
o Yes, refrigerators, and similar appliances contribute to base use. The average Fort Collins
citizen uses 700 kWh/month.
x Do people know how much they consume and how they can conserve?
o Higher energy users can be incentivized through rebates and other programs. Online
customer tips are available to educate customers.
x Would the tiered system be more fair and equitable than TOU? If you have a large home or if you
choose to have more kids, you should pay a higher rate.
o Conversely, the more people in a household, the more efficient on a per-person basis. People
in an inefficient house may not be able to afford more kWh.
x Once implemented, will there be further study about a different pricing structure?
o Could adjust prices later, and peak hours may shift.
Chris moved and Greg seconded a motion stating that:
The AQAB supports the TOU rate structure and would encourage additional outreach so that customers are
well-informed about their opportunities to reduce their energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-0.
Board Updates
x Mark attended the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
o June 28th Pitch Night Innovate Fort Collins
x Mark attended The Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) meeting
o State of Colorado redefined electric bicycles and the BAC may explore how will this affect
the City’s policies
x Mark attended the Energy Board meeting
x Vara attended the organics recycling town hall. She said she was expecting them to announce action,
but it was just more research. She wondered what barriers are preventing them from moving forward.
o Council directed them to come up with options, not a decision or program.
o Vara argued that the City isn’t involved enough.
Staff Updates
x Staff updated the AQAB on the Issues Index topics, and Board priorities were discussed in relation to
updating the 5-year Air Quality Plan.
o It was determined that the issue index was not a good measure of Board priorities, but rather
a place to track topic updates and involvement.
o Mark indicated that he is not comfortable making too many topics high priority for the Board.
3.5
Packet Pg. 186
Attachment: Air Quality Advisory Board minutes, May 15, 2017 (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
1
Residential Time-of-Use Rate Implementation
Randy Reuscher, Utilities Rate Analyst
Lisa Rosintoski, Utilities Customer Connections Manager
July 11, 2017
ATTACHMENT 5
3.6
Packet Pg. 187
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
Council Direction
2
Time-of-Use Ordinance / Resolution
• 3rd
Quarter OR
• 4th
Quarter 2017
Time-of-Use Effective Date
• March 1, 2018 OR
• October 1, 2018
3.6
Packet Pg. 188
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
Timeline to Date
3
JUL
2015 Ordinance 078, 2015
NOV
2015 12-month pilot study began
OCT
2016
DEC
2016
Statistical analysis performed
and best-bill credits applied
Pilot study ended and
survey sent
FEB
2017
Presented results at
Council Work Session
MAR
2017
Presented results
to boards
JAN
2015
Council Ad Hoc Rate Committee
3.6
Packet Pg. 189
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
Deliverables
February Work Session
4
Pilot study
statistical
analysis
GHG
emissions
report
Billing
impacts
Rooftop
solar
customer
impacts
Customer
outreach
timeline
3.6
Packet Pg. 190
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
Staff Recommendation
5
• Considered to be more “fair and equitable”
(less intra-class subsidy)
• 2.5% reduction in energy consumption
• Creates demand shifts during the day, providing additional
savings
• Better aligns solar production with costs than a tiered rate
• Encourages use of electric vehicles
• 2% (or more) reduction in GHG emissions
Implement a standard TOU rate for residential customers,
including demand and solar net metering customers
3.6
Packet Pg. 191
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
Metering Options
Staff recommends eliminating Option 2, allowing those customers to
select between the Option 1 (standard) and Option 3 (manual-read)
• Privacy Option (Low data resolution, or Option 2) ~130 customers
• Not feasible under TOU
• Manual-Read Option (non-radio, or Option 3) ~230 customers
• Requires replacement of existing meters to accommodate TOU
6
3.6
Packet Pg. 192
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
TOU Rate Overview
7
Weekend and holiday hours are off-peak
3.6
Packet Pg. 193
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
8
TOU Rate Comparison
TOU TOU w/ Tier
Electric Heat
Provides a time-based signal
to shift demand
Electric heat forces a higher
per kWh charge w/ tier
Low-income
Staff recommends addressing low-income through a separate rate
to reach all that qualify for assistance
Rooftop Solar
Better aligns solar production credits with
system peak costs
Provides additional intra-class subsidy
Electric Vehicles Encourages off-peak charging
EV charging forces a higher
per kWh charge w/ tier
Conservation Signal
2.5% reduction as compared
to current tiered rate
2.5% - no additional reduction
than standard TOU
Peak Demand Impacts 8% reduction 3% reduction
Customer Messaging
Easier to understand messaging
of on-peak / off-peak hours
Creates complexity in
customer understanding
Rate Class Equity
More equitable than
current tiered rate
Slightly more equitable (tier includes ~5%
energy efficiency expenses)
3.6
Packet Pg. 194
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
9
Solar & Peak Hours
3.6
Packet Pg. 195
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
Customer Groups
10
3.6
Packet Pg. 196
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
Community Outreach
Mass Communication
• Utility bill inserts
• Brochures
• Social media
(Nextdoor)
• Website
Targeted Communication
• Electric heat
• Low-income
• Multi-family
• Net metering – Solar
• Electric vehicle charging
• Stay-at-home/
work-at-home
Stakeholder Collaboration
• Boards/commissions
• Low-income nonprofits
• HOAs
• Larimer County
Conservation Corps
• Poudre School District
11
3.6
Packet Pg. 197
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
12
January
• Annual
Rate
Increases
Effective
April
• Winter
Quarter
Average
Effective
June
• Seasonal
Rates
Effective
October
• Non-
Seasonal
Rates
Effective
November
• Rate
Ordinance
Rates Communication
Bulk of Rates Communications
3.6
Packet Pg. 198
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
13
Timeline Options
Option 1 Option 2
Ordinance to Council 3rd
Quarter 2017 4th
Quarter 2017
Customer Communications 6 months 11 months
TOU Effective Date March 1, 2018 October 1, 2018
3.6
Packet Pg. 199
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
Council Direction
14
Time-of-Use Ordinance / Resolution
• 3rd
Quarter 2017 OR
• 4th
Quarter 2017
Time-of-Use Effective Date
• March 1, 2018 OR
• October 1, 2018
Staff Recommendation
Implement a standard TOU rate for
residential customers in 2018.
3.6
Packet Pg. 200
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
15
3.6
Packet Pg. 201
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
20
hours
/day
19
hours
/day
4
hours/
day
5
hours/
day
TOU Rates
3.6
Packet Pg. 202
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
17
Low-Income Affordability
3.6
Packet Pg. 203
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
18
12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A.M. P.M.
January
Non-
Summer
Off-Peak
On-Peak
(4-hour
window)
Off-Peak
February
March
April
May
Summer Off-Peak
On-Peak
(5-hour window)
Off-Peak
June
July
August
September
October
Non-
Summer
Off-Peak
On-Peak
(4-hour
window)
November Off-Peak
December
On-Peak and Off-Peak Hours
3.6
Packet Pg. 204
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
Study Design
19
Opt-out study with 1,200 customers
randomly assigned to each group
~ 850 customers in each group after
opt-outs and customer turnover
Study design allows us to measures
components of study and rates
separately
Controlled
factors in
pilot study
Awareness
of study
Peak
pricing
information
Best bill
guarantee
Weather
Normalize
3.6
Packet Pg. 205
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
Objective 2
Demand Reductions
20
Air
conditioning
Heating
Lighting Appliances
Higher
demands
• 7.5% reduction in
coincident peak hour
during summer
• 0.4% shift in demand
• 2 – 2.4% GHG
emissions reduction
3.6
Packet Pg. 206
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
Objective 4
Revenue Requirements
21
Original Rate Pilot Study Rate Count
%
Difference
on TOU Rate
Avg $ Change
per Month
Tiered Rate
TOU 880 1.6% less ($1.14)
TOU w/ EE tier 851 1.9% less ($1.38)
All-Electric Homes
TOU 18 1.8% more $2.44
TOU w/ EE tier 16 7.9% more $10.27
Solar
Net Metering
TOU 5 12.4% more $2.82
TOU w/ EE tier 9 0% $0.07
3.6
Packet Pg. 207
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
Low-income Groups
22
3.6
Packet Pg. 208
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
Low-income Groups
23
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
$12,323
$17,885
$21,667
$21,888
$23,563
$26,923
$27,639
$29,559
$30,500
$31,905
$34,167
$35,147
$36,625
$37,372
$39,107
$39,924
$40,694
$42,159
$42,535
$42,712
$43,661
$49,554
$51,250
$52,560
$54,964
$56,118
$57,411
$57,500
$59,173
$60,313
$62,596
$63,365
$66,000
$68,056
$70,365
$71,125
$74,263
$74,712
$75,405
$76,300
$78,326
$81,346
$81,836
$85,571
$86,563
$88,929
$93,113
$99,179
$100,486
$115,313
$129,922
kWh per Month
Income (based on Income Block Group)
Usage by Income Block Group
Min of kWh Max of kWh Average of kWh Linear (Average of kWh)
3.6
Packet Pg. 209
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5715 : Residential Electric Time-of-use Implementation)
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.
1.3
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Draft Broadband Retail Business Plan (5730 : Broadband Update)