HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 10/23/2018 - 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 Delynn Coldiron
City Attorney City Manager City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and
will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711
for Relay Colorado) for assistance.
City Council Work Session
October 23, 2018
6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER.
1. Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning (staff: Jeff Mihelich, Lucinda Smith, Cassie Archuleta; 15 minute
staff presentation: 45 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to provide the results of public engagement and policy research related to
outdoor recreational wood burning. Periodically, the City and Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) are
contacted regarding nuisance, health and safety concerns from these types of fires. This item was
identified as a Council priority in May 2017, and staff received direction in February 2018 to proceed
with a public engagement plan. Additional direction will be sought regarding next steps; e.g., should
staff pursue enhanced outreach and education and/or a regulatory approach.
2. Homelessness Services Update. (staff: Jeff Mihelich, Beth Sowder; 15 minute staff presentation:
30 minute discussion) Holly LeMasurier, Executive Director of Homeward 2020, will co-present this
item with City staff.
The purpose of this item is to provide an update regarding homelessness services in Fort Collins
including:
Current State of Homelessness Overview
Homeward 2020
Housing First Initiative
Fort Collins Frequent Utilizers System Engagement (FUSE) Initiative
Murphy Center and Homeward Alliance
Give Real Change Campaign
Seasonal Overflow Shelter plans
Outreach Fort Collins
Coordinated Assessment & Housing Placement System
City of Fort Collins Page 2
3. FoCoCreates Arts and Culture Master Plan. (staff: Wendy Williams, Jack Rogers, Michelle
Provaznik, Ellen Martin; 15 minute staff presentation: 45 minute discussion)
The purpose of this work session is to provide an update on the FoCoCreates Arts & Master Plan
process, and goals identified in draft plan.
OTHER BUSINESS.
ADJOURNMENT.
DATE:
STAFF:
October 23, 2018
Cassie Archuleta, Senior Environmental Planner
Lucinda Smith, Environmental Sustainability Director
Lindsay Ex, Environmental Program Manager
Jody Hurst, Legal
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to provide the results of public engagement and policy research related to outdoor
recreational wood burning. Periodically, the City and Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) are contacted regarding
nuisance, health and safety concerns from these types of fires. This item was identified as a Council priority in
May 2017, and staff received direction in February 2018 to proceed with a public engagement plan. Additional
direction will be sought regarding next steps; e.g., should staff pursue enhanced outreach and education and/or a
regulatory approach.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council want staff to further explore a recommendation for any of the options below?
• Option #1: No new regulations, enhanced education and outreach
• Option #2: Regulatory option to address only fires that negatively impact neighbors
• Option #3: Regulatory option to prohibit emissions of wood smoke from recreational fires in residential areas
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 2018, staff facilitated community and stakeholder engagement related to the use of recreational wood fires in
residential neighborhoods. While many consider the ability to have a wood fire at home an important social
activity, smoke and particles from a wood burning fire can impact the health or well-being of a neighbor who is
outdoors, has a window open, and/or a poor ventilation system in their home.
Some key findings include:
• Areas of tension and trade-offs were related to the cultural and social value of recreational wood fires at
home, and the nuisance and/or health impacts of wood smoke crossing property lines - especially for
sensitive individuals.
• In Colorado, there is considerable variation in rules related to regulating outdoor recreational wood fires.
Generally, programs in Colorado focus on safety concerns rather than air quality. Notable exceptions are the
City and County of Denver and the City of Boulder, which have effectively banned outdoor recreational fires
since the early 1990’s in part due to air quality concerns.
PREVIOUS DIRECTION
In May 2017, outdoor burning (specifically “bonfire pits”) was identified as a Council priority. A 2018 budget
revision offer was approved by Council, and staff received direction at a February 2018 Work Session to facilitate
a community and stakeholder engagement effort with the following objective:
1
Packet Pg. 3
October 23, 2018 Page 2
• Develop recommendations regarding options to better protect human health and reduce nuisance from
outdoor wood smoke.
At the February Work Session, staff was also asked to explore community concern regarding other potential
smoke impacts in neighborhoods, such as secondhand smoke and smoke from cooking. The Work Session
follow-up memo (Attachment 1).
At a May 7, 2018 Leadership Planning Team (LPT) meeting, staff received additional direction to focus on results
of outreach and deliberation and seek further Council direction before a recommendation is developed.
This work is aligned with City plans, principles and objectives, including:
• 2011 City Plan
o Principle ENV 8: Continually improve Fort Collins’ air quality
• 2015-16 Strategic Plan
o Neighborhood Livability and Social Health, Objective 1.6, Protect and preserve the quality of life in
neighborhoods
o Environmental Health, Objective 4.4, Implement indoor and outdoor air quality improvement initiatives.
NUISANCE, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The smoke from wood burning is made up of a complex mixture of gases and fine particles. As with other
combustion mixtures, such as secondhand smoke, fresh woodsmoke contains a large number of fine particles.
Both short- and long-term exposures to particle pollution has been linked to a variety of health effects, especially
for sensitive populations, such as children, the elderly and people with respiratory issues. Because of the potential
health impacts, exposure to particle concentrations is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
using national ambient air quality standards. More information
about the health impacts of wood smoke is available at EPA Website https://www.epa.gov/burnwise/wood-smoke-
and-your-health.
On a regional level, the City of Fort Collins does not violate EPA standards for particle pollution, but measured
particulate levels are sometimes reported as “moderately unhealthy” (e.g., levels where people unusually
sensitive to particle pollution may experience respiratory symptoms). Higher levels are generally measured in the
wintertime, when temperature inversions can trap air and pollution near the surface on calm, cold days. During
the winter, chimney smoke from indoor wood burning contributes to regional particle pollution.
During the summer, smoke impacts from outdoor recreational fires would generally be considered localized and
short term (e.g., hours or days), rather than regional and chronic. Short term exposure may contribute to
symptoms such as headaches, burning eyes, a runny nose, or aggravation of respiratory issues such as asthma.
COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Feedback from stakeholders and the broader community regarding impacts and perceptions related to
neighborhood sources of wood smoke was gathered through the following outreach activities:
• Presentations to Air Quality Advisory Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board and Boards and
Commissions Super Issue meetings (Attachment 2).
• A scientifically valid survey, which included invitations to 3,000 households. 522 responses were received
(Attachment 3).
• Discussion at the Spring Community Issues Forum, facilitated by CSU’s Center for Public Deliberation,
attended by 55 community members (Attachment 4).
• Promotion of OurCity public engagement platform through Social media, Coloradoan interviews and the
Nextdoor website. As of September 5, the OurCity outdoor burning page had received approximately 2,500
1
Packet Pg. 4
October 23, 2018 Page 3
visits, with contributions (ideas, votes or other feedback) from about 250 users. Feedback can be viewed at
ourcity.fcgov.com/outdoor-residential-burning/.
• Emails directly to staff and Council (70 emails, 37 in support of new regulations, 32 opposed, 1 neutral).
• Individual phone calls and emails to discuss questions and concerns as necessary.
In addition to broad community outreach, feedback from stakeholders was gathered through the following
outreach activities:
• Quarterly working group meetings, including staff from the Environmental Services Department,
Community Development and Neighborhood Services and Poudre Fire Authority.
• Collaboration with CSU’s Political Science Department (Attachment 5).
• Interview with UCHealth pulmonologist, Dr. Eric Stevens.
• Meeting with a representative from the Health District of Larimer County.
• Correspondence with Larimer County Public Health and Environment staff.
WHAT WE HEARD
The key tensions around this issue are related to the cultural and social value of recreational fires pits at home,
versus neighbors experiencing adverse impacts of their neighbors’ smoke crossing property lines.
The primary arguments of those asking the City to have a regulatory role in managing these impacts included:
• The impacts of avoiding the smoke. Recommended methods to avoid impacts from smoke include
remaining indoors, closing windows and doors, recirculating air with air conditioners, and keeping filters clean.
In some cases, residents reported that their home does not have air conditioning, or they prefer being able to
open windows at night.
• The health and/or nuisance impacts. For some, the odor of the smoke indoors was a concern. Others
described the health impacts of the smoke on sensitive individuals in their home, such as children with
asthma.
• Concerns about safety. Some reported concerns about burning yard waste and trash. While this is currently
illegal within City limits, it highlighted a need for more outreach regarding safe and legal fires.
• Environmental concerns. Some noted broader concerns regarding reducing the regional impact of wood
smoke emissions, including the impact on regional haze or the “brown cloud”.
• Difficulty in engaging neighbors. Some indicated they don’t always know where smoke is coming from, or
that their neighbor is perceived as adversarial.
The primary arguments opposed to any additional City Policies or programs included:
• The social benefit of enjoying the outdoors. Many stories were shared regarding the social benefits of
enjoying outdoor fires together.
• The personal investment made under the current rules. Some expressed that they had made
considerable investments in wood fire pits as a centerpiece of their landscaping.
• There are not enough complaints. Some argued that consideration of a ban would be an overreaction to
address a few problem fires. Some also indicated that they burn wood safely and responsibly and would be
responsive if they heard concerns from their neighbors.
• Not used enough. Some argued that outdoor recreational fires are not used enough in neighborhoods to
warrant significant action.
SURVEY RESULTS
A scientifically valid survey was sent in July 2018, in part to help determine the pervasiveness of use and concern
related to smoke from outdoor wood fires (Attachment 3). Survey results indicated that:
1
Packet Pg. 5
October 23, 2018 Page 4
• 39% of respondents reported having an outdoor wood smoker or appliance. A map of approximate locations
(preserving anonymity) (Attachment 6).
• Most respondents reported using their outdoor wood burning fire 1-10 days per year (58%), and 11% reported
use on 20 days or more in the past year.
• The survey asked how concerned, if at all, respondents were about neighborhood impacts of smoke from
different types of sources, including wood smoke, smoke from outdoor cooking and secondhand smoke. A
map of approximate locations of respondents indicating some level of concern regarding wood smoke
(Attachment 7). Additionally:
o The percent of respondent reporting concern (minor, moderate or major) regarding impacts from wood
smoke was lower than those reporting concern regarding secondhand smoke (39% for wood smoke vs.
72% for smoke from tobacco products).
o Concerns about impacts from wood smoke increased with age (60% of respondents ages 55+ reported
concerns regarding wood smoke).
TYPES OF POLICY OPTIONS
Staff collaborated with Dr. Ryan Scott, with CSU’s Political Science Department to compile information related to
burning programs and regulations within Colorado jurisdictions (Attachment 5). Findings indicate that efforts to
minimize wood smoke in urban and near-urban environments are varied and have been shaped by balancing the
dual goals of allowing valued cultural amenities while protecting resources, property, and health. The range of
policy and program tools used in Colorado (and elsewhere) included permitting requirements, notification
requirements, temporary limitations, and bans. In addition to policy research, ideas around ways to address
neighborhood wood smoke concerns were solicited through the public deliberation process and the interactive
OurCity e-forum.
Policy deliberation centered on three main categories of options, discussed briefly below.
Option #1: No New Regulations; Enhancement Education and Outreach
Currently, in response to wood smoke complaints, Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) responds with corrective actions
for non-emergency situations if there are safety concerns. If there are no safety concerns, the City’s Community
Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) department will provide outreach in the form of a letter directly
to the source, if known, or to an entire neighborhood if the location of the source is not known. The outreach
letter provides information regarding health concerns and safety requirements, and an offer to facilitate mediated
agreements for use of wood fire pits. If the fire meets safety and code requirements, no further action is taken.
During deliberation, one of the most common suggestions was that the City increase its role in non-regulatory
activities such as outreach, education, and promotion of good neighbor relations. Some community members
noted that the City already had a policy on prohibition of air pollution nuisances.
The Citys Current Municipal Code (<https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/codes.php>) states:
Sec. 20-1. - Air pollution nuisances prohibited.
(a) The emission or escape into the open air from any source or sources of smoke, ashes, dust, dirt, grime,
acids, fumes, gases, vapors, odors or any other substances or combination of substances in such
manner or in such amounts as to endanger or tend to endanger the health, comfort, safety or welfare of
the public or to cause unreasonable injury or damage to property or to interfere with the comfortable
enjoyment of property or normal conduct of business is hereby found and declared to be a public
nuisance. It is unlawful for any person to cause, permit or maintain any such public nuisance within the
City.
To date, the air pollution nuisance code has not been used to address community concerns regarding wood
smoke from a neighbor’s recreational fire, and no citations for violations have been issued. Key limitations in use
of this code for this purpose include:
1
Packet Pg. 6
October 23, 2018 Page 5
• A “public” nuisance would require discernable impacts to the public right-of-way, or multiple neighbors.
This would not include impacts to an individual neighbor, even if that individual is particularly sensitive to
wood smoke.
• A violation of this code is a criminal offense, and a citation would require testimony and evidence of
nuisance impacts from the affected party.
Option #2: Middle-Ground
Many asked that the City explore options that, rather than fully prohibit outdoor recreational wood fires, focus only
on the fires that create negative impacts. Fundamentally, this would create complexities in how to implement and
enforce a policy that allowed some fires, but not others. Some of the options identified through policy research
and outreach included:
• Reasonable nuisance fire ban. Prohibiting a fire that created a reasonable nuisance would first require
a definition of a reasonable nuisance. A key consideration would be whether a concern from a single,
potentially sensitive, individual could constitute a reasonable nuisance. Survey results indicated that
respondents would support policies that prohibited a nuisance fire if 3 or more people complained, but
there was less support if only one person expressed concern.
• Apply tolerance limits. Examples might include a limit on the number of fires, number of days, or limit to
specific times. Some argued that these types of rules would not address all of the problems and presume
that everyone has the same schedule.
• Limit in certain locations based on density. Currently, fires are required to be at least 15’ from a
structure or combustible material, which would include a wood fence. Adding a distance requirement to a
property line would effectively limit fires based on neighborhood density.
• Limit based on atmospheric conditions. At times, especially during impacts from large regional
wildfires, particle pollution is high. While this idea was supported in survey results (54% strongly or
somewhat agree), and may be a best practice for environmental reasons, the requirement on its own
would not restrict nuisance fires.
Implementation Example: Permit System
A permit system was identified through policy research and working group discussions as a potential mechanism
that could support middle-ground regulations that were short of a full ban. For a permit system to work, fires
themselves must first be disallowed unless permission (i.e., a permit) is granted. Currently, permits for open
burning (excluding recreational and cooking fires) are issued at the County level and approved by the PFA. Some
jurisdictions, such as Steamboat Springs, also require permits for recreational fires (Attachment 8).
Potentially, a permit system for recreational fires could ensure that targeted proactive outreach is provided
regarding safety requirements and low emission burning practices. Additionally, a permit could include provisions
or restrictions such as:
• Access to inspect fire set-up by Code compliance officers or other authorities
• Limitations on nuisance conditions (which would have to be defined)
• Prohibitions for burning on high pollution advisory days
Implementation could include self-administered permits, with complaint driven response. Key implementation
considerations would include resources to set-up and administer the system, outreach regarding new rules, and
enforcement. Promotion of the City’s nuisance hotline could help focus enforcement on repeat offenders.
Option #3: Ban
While 80% of survey respondents indicated that they somewhat or strongly oppose a ban, arguments in favor of a
ban included the clear requirements (e.g., no process to determine if a recreational fire is legal or not), and the
1
Packet Pg. 7
October 23, 2018 Page 6
availability of alternatives for recreational wood fires in residential neighborhoods, such as propane or natural gas
fire pits. Concerns were that a ban takes away the opportunity for the social benefit of recreational wood fires at
home, and that a ban is a broad, overreaching solution to a limited number of reported smoke complaints. Many
also expressed general concern about the idea of any new regulations, regardless of the specific issue.
PROPOSED NEXT STEPS
Staff is seeking direction regarding potential next steps to develop a policy recommendation for Council
consideration. Depending on scope, an additional Work Session may be requested to review a recommendation
and key implementation and enforcement questions, such as:
• What existing implementation programs and resources can be leveraged (e.g., open burning permits,
party registration, etc.)
• What additional resources are necessary?
• What is the most appropriate way to address concerns of people with sensitivities?
• How would new regulations be enforced?
ATTACHMENTS
1. February 13, 2018 Work Session Summary (PDF)
2. Board Minutes Excerpts (PDF)
3. Survey Report (PDF)
4. CSU Center for Public Deliberation Report (PDF)
5. CSU Policy Report (PDF)
6. Fire Pit Map (PDF)
7. Wood Smoke Concerns Map (PDF)
8. Steamboat Springs Fire Prevention Permit (PDF)
9. Powerpoint (PDF)
1
Packet Pg. 8
ATTACHMENT 1
1.1
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: February 13, 2018 Work Session Summary (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Page 4
Colorado and would branch out to experts elsewhere to obtain more quantifiable information.
Arsineh inquired if the City’s radon brochures are standardized and asked who will be performing the cost-
benefit analysis.
Cassie responded that the brochures are standardized, and Megan stated that a team of professors
and students at CSU will be performing the cost-benefit analysis.
Mark asked if this work plan will be presented to Council and if it aligns with their priorities.
Cassie responded that Council has not requested to see the work plan and that City Staff are hoping for
guidance from the AQAB through this process. Periodic updates will be provided to Council.Board
members expressed concern with the timing of the health risk characterization within the overall work plan,
noting that it may be difficult to accomplish in the amount of time specified. They believe that knowing the
risk level will be a key factor in the overall process, and should be addressed at the outset when designing
the survey. Jim noted that epidemiological studies are very complex and expensive; he suggested using an
example from the EPA or reaching out to the Larimer County Health Department and CSU to see if such
as study has already been performed. He also stressed the need to include commercial buildings in the
characterization.
Megan noted that the time frame specified for health risk characterization represents a period where
the workgroup will be analyzing options. Selina and Cassie followed up by stating that the City has
strong partnerships with both the Larimer County Health Department and CSU and could reach out
to them for assistance with the characterization. With regards to the inclusion of commercial
buildings, Tony responded that the implementation of testing and mitigation codes in privately
owned commercial buildings has been difficult. The City understands that there is a potential for
high exposure rates within the workplace and that the Green Building Program is working closely
with the Air Quality Program on this issue.
Mark noted that the time frame for this project seems ambitious and asked if we would know enough by
the time this year’s budget offers are due to ask for more funding.
Cassie stated that there will not be an opportunity to request more money this year, but a request
could be made for the budget revision next year. The City has $20,000 to spend this year to support
hourly staff and some of the epidemiological review to be performed by CSU. Staff are committed
to providing 2-3 vetted recommendations to the AQAB that will be presented to Council during
this time frame.
Jim suggested requesting more money in anticipation of implementation costs and other unknowns that
may arise next year
Cassie stated that it’s unlikely that a funding request can be made without concrete details, but she
will float the idea to see if she can find support.
AGENDA ITEM 2: Outdoor Residential Burning
Cassie Archuleta, Environmental Program Manager, provided an overview and requested feedback regarding the
objectives, scope and public engagement plan for outdoor residential wood burning.
Presentation
The objective of this study is to develop recommendations regarding options to better protect human health
and reduce nuisance from outdoor wood smoke.
The current scope includes research existing policies and programs, performing a behavior perception
survey, public outreach and deliberation, and the development of recommendations.
The overall goal is to deliver definitive recommendations to City Council.
Smoke as an Air Quality Concern:
Smoke is a mix of particles and gases, and particle pollution that has known health impacts (both
short-term and chronic)
ATTACHMENT 2
1.2
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Board Minutes Excerpts (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Page 5
Sensitive populations such as the elderly, children, and people with respiratory issues or heart
disease are at greatest risk. One quarter of all survey respondents in Fort Collins report a household
member with a respiratory issue.
Fort Collins does not currently violate federal PM2.5 standards; this is a localized air quality issue that poses
health risk, odor nuisance, visibility/brown cloud and safety issues.
The primary focus of this study is on outdoor residential burning, which currently specifies certain
limitations on recreational fires, including size and fuel limitations, the need for above-ground containment,
acceptable distance from combustible structures, and the need to be attended at all times.
Currently, complaints regarding smoke are received through the Neighborhood Services Program as there
is no Code that addresses the issue. Neighborhood Services then performs outreach in the form of a letter
to the party engaging in burning to attempt to remedy the issue. The Poudre Fire Authority may also become
involved, providing on-site outreach, especially if there’s a safety concern. Citations are rarely given.
A spectrum of options has been discussed, including:
Incentives/Outreach (PFA provides safety response, City provides outreach and offers mediation,
additional voluntary programs, incentives)
Permitting Program (educational/initial inspection, neighbor notifications/permissions)
Temporary limits (high pollution advisory days, seasonal/limited days, nuisance
limits/enforcement discretion)
Permanent limits/bans (limited areas, limited fuels, smoke/opacity limits)
Public Engagement may include:
Key stakeholder engagements, including the formation of a working group, boards and
commissions and Neighborhood Connections
Events and surveys, including a behaviors and perceptions survey, expert panel and community
issue forum
Electronic forums and social media, including the utilization of the Our City online platform,
Facebook, Twitter and Nextdoor
General outreach on Fcgov.com, Cable 14, a project email list, press releases and/or a utility bill
mailer
The current timeline is as follows:
January – March 2018
Policies and behaviors research
April – August 2018
Outreach and deliberation
May – June 2018
Super-board meeting
August – October 2018
Obtain a recommendation from the AQAB (October) and draft formal recommendations for
Council
Discussion
Mark noted that if this is to be framed as a health issue, it may be hard to limit the study to addressing only
wood burning smoke sources.
Cassie stated that Council’s focus at this time is outdoor recreational burning. Cooking fires (and
products manufactured specifically for cooking) are not typically restricted by cities; however,
smokers could fall under a nuisance umbrella.
Greg inquired if an analysis has been performed to determine the smoke source from which the majority of
complaints originate.
Cassie stated that most complaints originate from the densest neighborhoods, but she wants to
gather perceptions of this issue from everyone, regardless of their neighborhood. She hopes that
performing a survey will provide more insight.
1.2
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Board Minutes Excerpts (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Page 6
Jim requested quantitative information regarding the amount of particulate matter released by fires with
varying fuel sources and sizes. He suggested localized monitoring to quantify emissions in neighborhoods
and noted that it may be difficult to classify burning as a health risk without providing measureable
statistics.
Cassie stated that CSU may already have some data regarding wood smoke emissions.
Arsineh noted that wood-burning fires also emit VOCs, some of which can cause cancer depending on
concentration and exposure time. What must be determined is how, exactly, emissions are dispersing. She
noted that, as Cassie mentioned, there is data available at CSU for stove fires that burn different kinds of
fuels; they also perform human exposure experiments which check people’s lung capacity and other
variables after being near a wood-burning fire.
Staff Follow Up: Cassie to reach out to CSU to get some messaging regarding other health effects of VOCS, as
most messaging is currently based on particulate matter.
Arsineh asked if there’s any way to enforce burning issue aside from a visit from the PFA.
Cassie stated that there is an ordinance in place for air quality (public) nuisance, but it is difficult
to enforce.
Matt cautioned against using opacity as a parameter for determining emissions, since it’s very difficult to
determine when there’s an exceedance, particularly at night, when most outdoor fires may be burning. He
also enquired about the experiences of other communities that have implemented burning codes, stating
that since this is such a polarizing topic, it may be beneficial to reference these experiences.
Cassie noted that City staff has gained perspective from studies performed by Boulder and Denver,
who tackled the issue by addressing it in the context of regional pollution. Policy research has
identified a number of communities that have dealt with this issue in different ways.
Harry asked if the City has investigated the use of more efficient outdoor burning tools.
Cassie stated that there may be an opportunity to offer rebates or implement an exchange program
to get people to trade appliances in for non-wood burning ones. The City is open to hearing people’s
creative ideas.
Vara noted that a City-wide map, like the one presented by Margrit, may be helpful in understanding the
spatial distribution of this issue. She also noted that Nest has highly sensitive CO/smoke detectors that also
have apps for mobile phones to send alerts. She believes the use of such technology may be beneficial for
collecting smoke emission data by residents in their neighborhoods.
Cassie stated that (through the survey) it will be possible to obtain zip code resolution for the
purposes mapping, but anything more refined would present privacy issues. Most research suggests
that if you can smell smoke, then particle pollution is high, but supporting measurements would be
helpful to back up claims.
Cassie would like feedback from the Board throughout the process and will keep them abreast of new
developments. Ultimately, the City would like a formal recommendation from the Board before going to
Council.
AGENDA ITEM 3: Discussion Items
Issue Index
Cassie compiled Board members’ ratings of items on the issue index. Ratings were submitted by each member as
AQAB priorities.Cassie presented the index, with updated priorities, as a living document to be used as a tool
throughout the year to identify areas of interest to the Board and arrange appropriate presentations. She used
members’ personal high priorities to assign AQAB coordinators to issues. The Board discussed the possibility of
attaching tangible goals to the issues that are of highest priority.
Interaction with Other Boards
1.2
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Board Minutes Excerpts (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
3
NRAB – February 21, 2018
were conservative and the actual result was a 105% effectiveness rate. Another conclusion was that rebates had varying
levels of influence on a customer’s purchasing decision, and rebates have lower impact on the purchase of an appliance
than on other product installations, such as a commercial buildings upgrade of lighting equipment. Also, our cost
effectiveness figures uncovered a positive consequence that for every dollar spent in these programs, there was a $1.81
return in benefit. Based on the evaluation, the City has made updates to the programs with cost-effective changes to our
administration and rebate programs.
In reply to Nancy DuTeau, Brian Tholl said there is roughly a 33% energy use across the board whereby residential,
commercial and industrial each utilizes a third of the energy available. Brian Tholl also offered an example of the
appliance rebate program whereby a resident can receive a “free hauling” incentive for replacing old or outdated
appliances. Danielle Buttke noted that the rebate program was not homogenous with various home contractors and her
inquiry resulted in a variety of concerning responses from contractors. Brian Tholl explained that oftentimes contractors
are unable, for various reasons, to meet the rigorous standards to qualify for our rebate programs.
He concluded by stating that community awareness is the key component to our programs.
Brian Tholl was thanked for his time and completed his presentation at 6:58 PM.
UPDATE ON OUTDOOR RESIDENTIAL BURNING
Cassie Archuleta, Senior Environmental Planner, City of Fort Collins made a presentation. Her presentation centered on
the themes of protection of respiratory health and reduction of nuisance from outdoors-residential fires. Smoke from
these types of fires produces a mix of particles and gases (she noted the particles settled very quickly). While typical
short-term effects may be felt universally, sensitive populations such as children, the elderly and people with respiratory
issues are especially susceptible. Chronic issues might be associated with places that don’t meet Air Quality Standards,
such as California or more polluted regions such as China. The effects range from health issues to odor, visibility and
safety issues. Outdoor residential burning is typified by the use of a backyard fire pit (or chimenea), that is required to be
attended at all times. To have a fire larger than 3 ft by 2 ft requires a permit and no yard waste or trash can be incinerated.
Other types of residential smoke which are not the primary focus of the current effort include indoor wood burning, and
secondhand cigarette and marijuana smoke.
Complaints are usually made to City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Services or Poudre Fire Authority and have been on the
increase in recent years. The typical response by such agency is to send a letter to the offender.
Some options being considered are: Incentives & Outreach, Permitting Programs, increased enforcement, Temporary
Limits, and Permanent Limits and Bans. Public engagement vehicles are being considered through key stakeholders,
events and surveys, electronic forums and social media and general outreach. She presented a 2018 timeline for
analysis of the question and potential solutions with a 2018 feedback period.
NRAB members expressed broad enthusiasm for the program noting that health consequences were paramount
concerns. A petit discussion ensued that this effort was directed at residential activities whereas activities like “ditch
burns” already had oversight within the agricultural realm. Danielle Buttke reiterated that an Economic Study or analysis
might be an appropriate next step in this endeavor. General discussion that perhaps a study could be made in
conjunction with Colorado State University School of Public Health gathering data beginning with, for example, local
hospitals crisis respiratory events and comparing these to peak residential burn periods. Nancy DuTeau added that it’s a
good idea to combine the analysis with neighborhood density impacts. Barry Noon observed that any increase in
population will have a concurrent increase in these activities and there is an obligation to prioritize dominant risks like
“fracking” over modest pollution risks. Cassie Archuleta emphasized that other local communities are already addressing
these problems. There are numerous examples of regulatory bans in diverse communities nationally. Lindsay Ex offered
that policy making requires extensive and continuous public engagement. For example, what was not considered a high
priority ten years ago may have elevated to that level over time and must now be addressed.
Cassie Archuleta was thanked for her time and completed her presentation at 7:25 PM.
NRAB RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSAL FROM TED SETTLE AND SAM SOLT (EAC MEMBERS)
Nancy DuTeau gave an overview of the presentation last month by Ted Settle and Sam Solt, both members of the
Economic Advisory Committee. In summary, she noted that the goal of the presentation was to garner support to
consider a structure change to provide improved multi-faceted advisory recommendations to the City Council. This effort
1.2
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Board Minutes Excerpts (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
DATE: May 10, 2018
TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
Delynn Coldiron, City Clerk
FROM: Christine Macrina, Boards and Commissions Coordinator
RE: Summation of Boards and Commissions Super Issue Meeting
On Monday, May 7, 2018 a Super Issue Meeting was held at the Lincoln Center.
Representatives from 14 different boards and commissions attended.
Staff Members Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director and David Young, Communications Specialist
presented the 2018 Strategic Plan and Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) updates. During the
presentation key dates were provided. Budget offer feedback to Council will be submitted to the
communications office, compiled and included in the Agenda Item Summary, which will be given
to Council for the October 9, 2018 Council Work Session. Our City.fcgov.com, was introduced
highlighting the BFO Online Budgeting Tool and the Mobile Budget Booth.
Staff Members Lucinda Smith, Director of Environmental Sustainability, Victoria Shaw, Senior
Financial Analyst and Ginny Sawyer, Senior Project Manager presented the Triple Bottom Line
reboot. This tool will provide a way for staff to determine the type of public engagement needed
at the beginning of a project and can provide a visual illustration of key impacts to Environmental,
Economical, and Social Health concerns.
Staff Member Cassie Archuleta, Manager of Environmental Sustainability presented Outdoor
Residential Burning. Staff is developing recommendations for Council regarding options to
address health and nuisance concerns from outdoor residential wood smoke.
If more detailed information would be helpful, please let me know.
cc: Lawrence Pollack
David Young
Lucinda Smith
Victoria Shaw
Ginny Sawyer
Cassie Archuleta
1.2
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Board Minutes Excerpts (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Prepared by:
2955 Valmont Road, Suite 300
Boulder, CO 80531
n-r-c.com | 303-444-7863
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey
Report of Results
September 2018
ATTACHMENT 3
1.3
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc.
Contents
Survey Background ........................................................................................................................................ 2
Complete Set of Survey Responses ............................................................................................................ 3
Appendix A: Comparisons of Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics ........................... 11
Appendix B: Survey Methodology ............................................................................................................. 43
Appendix C: Survey Materials .................................................................................................................... 48
1.3
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 2
Survey Background
Survey Methods
The City of Fort Collins contracted with National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) to implement the
2018 Outdoor Residential Wood Burning Survey with a representative sample of households to
determine resident behaviors and perceptions of outdoor wood-burning devices such as fire pits
and chimineas. Opinions about potential local policy changes also were gathered. This was the
first survey of residents solely about outdoor wood burning in Fort Collins.
Three invitations were mailed over a three-week period to 3,000 randomly selected households.
The one and a half-page survey was available online only and could be completed in English or
Spanish. Of the 2,872 households receiving the survey (since some addresses were vacant), 522
completed the web-based survey, providing a response rate of 18% for households.
The survey results were weighted so that the gender, age, housing tenure (rent or own) and
housing unit type (attached or detached) were represented in the proportions reflective of all
adults in households in the City (for more information see Appendix B: Survey Methodology).
How the Results are Reported
The full set of responses for all survey questions is included in Complete Set of Survey Responses.
When a figure for a question that only permitted a single response does not total to exactly 100%,
it is due to the common practice of percentages being rounded to the nearest whole number.
Comparisons of responses by respondent characteristics and zip code are included in Appendix A:
Comparisons of Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics.
Precision of Estimates
It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a “level of confidence”
and accompanying “confidence interval” (or margin of error). The 95 percent confidence interval
for this survey is generally no greater than plus or minus four percentage points around any given
percent reported for all survey respondents (522). For comparisons among subgroups, the margin
of error rises to approximately plus or minus 6% for subgroups of 300 to plus or minus 10% for
subgroups of 100.
1.3
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 3
Complete Set of Survey Responses
The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey. The percent of respondents giving a
particular response is shown followed by the number of respondents. When a question includes a “don’t know” response option, the
first table displays the results excluding the “don’t know” responses and the second table displays the results with the “don’t know.”
Table 1: Question 1
Do you have any of the following outdoor appliances? Number of respondents Percent of respondents
Wood burning fire pit/chiminea only N=194 37%
Gas burning fire pit only N=30 6%
Both a wood and gas burning fire pit N=10 2%
Neither of these N=288 55%
Total N=522 100%
Table 2: Question 2
In the last year, about how many days have you used each of
the following outdoor appliances? None/0 1-10 days 11-20 days
More than 20
days Total
Wood burning fire pit or chiminea N=26 13% N=117 58% N=39 19% N=22 11% N=204 100%
Gas burning fire pit N=7 19% N=22 55% N=3 8% N=7 19% N=40 100%
Asked only of those who said they have a wood burning fire pit/chiminea and/or a gas burning fire pit
Table 3: Question 3 excluding "don't know" responses
How likely, if at all, are you to use your outdoor wood burning fire
pit/chiminea during each of the following times? Very likely
Somewhat
likely
Not at all
likely Total
On a weekday (Monday-Thursday) N=8 4% N=97 53% N=80 43% N=185 100%
At the end of week (Friday, Saturday or Sunday) N=79 40% N=107 54% N=13 6% N=199 100%
During the day (after sunrise to before sunset) N=7 4% N=22 12% N=160 85% N=190 100%
In the evening (sunset to 10pm) N=105 52% N=87 43% N=10 5% N=201 100%
Late evening (after 10pm) N=39 20% N=81 42% N=72 37% N=191 100%
Includes responses only for those who said they have a wood burning fire pit/chiminea
1.3
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 4
Table 4: Question 3 including "don't know" responses
How likely, if at all, are you to use your outdoor wood burning
fire pit/chiminea during each of the following times? Very likely
Somewhat
likely
Not at all
likely
Don't
know Total
On a weekday (Monday-Thursday) N=8 4% N=97 50% N=80 41% N=9 5% N=194 100%
At the end of week (Friday, Saturday or Sunday) N=79 40% N=107 53% N=13 6% N=2 1% N=201 100%
During the day (after sunrise to before sunset) N=7 4% N=22 12% N=160 83% N=3 1% N=192 100%
In the evening (sunset to 10pm) N=105 52% N=87 43% N=10 5% N=1 0% N=202 100%
Late evening (after 10pm) N=39 20% N=81 42% N=72 37% N=3 2% N=195 100%
Includes responses only for those who said they have a wood burning fire pit/chiminea
Table 5: Question 4 - Level of Concern
Please tell us how concerned, if at all, you are about each of
the following coming from a neighbor's property near your
residence and impacting your air quality.
Major
concern
Moderate
concern
Minor
concern
Not a
concern Total
Wood smoke from outdoor fires N=46 9% N=57 11% N=97 19% N=316 61% N=517 100%
Wood smoke from indoor fireplaces or stoves N=20 4% N=36 7% N=79 15% N=382 74% N=517 100%
Smoke from outdoor cooking (e.g., BBQs or smokers) N=15 3% N=20 4% N=73 14% N=401 79% N=509 100%
Secondhand smoke from tobacco products N=149 29% N=119 23% N=101 20% N=147 28% N=517 100%
Secondhand smoke from marijuana products N=106 21% N=86 17% N=96 19% N=225 44% N=513 100%
Table 6: Question 4 - Have Experienced
Please tell us if you have or anyone in your household has experienced each type of impact (whether
of concern or not) from a neighbor's residence in the last year.
Number of
respondents
Percent of
respondents
Wood smoke from outdoor fires N=231 69%
Wood smoke from indoor fireplaces or stoves N=185 55%
Smoke from outdoor cooking (e.g., BBQs or smokers) N=260 77%
Secondhand smoke from tobacco products N=237 71%
Secondhand smoke from marijuana products N=204 61%
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one response
1.3
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 5
Table 7: Question 5
Do you or anyone in your household experience any of the following respiratory issues or conditions
that may be aggravated by wood smoke? (Select all that apply.)
Number of
respondents
Percent of
respondents
Asthma N=101 44%
Emphysema N=3 1%
COPD N=11 5%
Allergies N=182 79%
On oxygen N=4 2%
Other N=5 2%
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one response
Table 8: Question 6 excluding "don't know" responses
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the City
should do each of the following as they relate to fire
pits/chimineas?
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree Total
No changes. Continue current efforts, including responding
to safety concerns, providing outreach materials regarding
health impacts, and offering use of the City's free neighbor
mediation program
N=267 57% N=128 27% N=34 7% N=37 8% N=467 100%
Provide residents more information regarding health
impacts from smoke from outdoor wood fires N=126 27% N=192 41% N=74 16% N=77 16% N=468 100%
Provide rebates for propane or natural gas outdoor
recreational fire devices N=94 21% N=165 37% N=75 17% N=115 26% N=449 100%
Require neighbor notification prior to wood burning N=40 8% N=41 8% N=76 16% N=326 68% N=482 100%
Require permits for wood burning appliances and/or
inspections before use N=56 12% N=51 11% N=65 14% N=307 64% N=480 100%
Put rules in place that require wood fires to be
extinguished when a reasonable nuisance concern is
reported from a single neighbor
N=63 13% N=107 22% N=120 25% N=194 40% N=484 100%
Put rules in place that require wood fires to be
extinguished when nuisance concerns are received from
multiple neighbors (e.g., three or more)
N=153 31% N=229 46% N=49 10% N=69 14% N=499 100%
1.3
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 6
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the City
should do each of the following as they relate to fire
pits/chimineas?
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree Total
Increase the required distance of fire pits or chimineas
from fences or property lines (currently 15 ft) N=66 14% N=65 14% N=120 26% N=207 45% N=457 100%
Put rules in place that don't allow wood burning on days
when regional air pollution is high (generally during the
winter)
N=133 27% N=140 29% N=76 16% N=135 28% N=483 100%
Limit outdoor wood burning during certain hours of the day N=63 13% N=97 21% N=100 21% N=210 45% N=469 100%
Put rules in place that don't allow or ban use of wood as a
fuel for outdoor recreational fires N=55 12% N=41 8% N=63 13% N=321 67% N=480 100%
Table 9: Question 6 including "don't know" responses
To what extent do you agree or disagree that
the City should do each of the following as
they relate to fire pits/chimineas?
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree Don't know Total
No changes. Continue current efforts,
including responding to safety concerns,
providing outreach materials regarding
health impacts, and offering use of the City's
free neighbor mediation program
N=267 53% N=128 25% N=34 7% N=37 7% N=36 7% N=503 100%
Provide residents more information
regarding health impacts from smoke from
outdoor wood fires
N=126 25% N=192 38% N=74 15% N=77 15% N=35 7% N=504 100%
Provide rebates for propane or natural gas
outdoor recreational fire devices N=94 19% N=165 33% N=75 15% N=115 23% N=55 11% N=503 100%
Require neighbor notification prior to wood
burning N=40 8% N=41 8% N=76 15% N=326 65% N=20 4% N=502 100%
Require permits for wood burning appliances
and/or inspections before use N=56 11% N=51 10% N=65 13% N=307 61% N=26 5% N=506 100%
Put rules in place that require wood fires to
be extinguished when a reasonable nuisance
concern is reported from a single neighbor
N=63 12% N=107 21% N=120 24% N=194 38% N=23 4% N=507 100%
1.3
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 7
To what extent do you agree or disagree that
the City should do each of the following as
they relate to fire pits/chimineas?
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree Don't know Total
Put rules in place that require wood fires to
be extinguished when nuisance concerns are
received from multiple neighbors (e.g., three
or more)
N=153 30% N=229 45% N=49 10% N=69 14% N=8 1% N=507 100%
Increase the required distance of fire pits or
chimineas from fences or property lines
(currently 15 ft)
N=66 13% N=65 13% N=120 24% N=207 41% N=48 10% N=506 100%
Put rules in place that don't allow wood
burning on days when regional air pollution
is high (generally during the winter)
N=133 26% N=140 28% N=76 15% N=135 27% N=23 5% N=506 100%
Limit outdoor wood burning during certain
hours of the day N=63 13% N=97 19% N=100 20% N=210 42% N=35 7% N=505 100%
Put rules in place that don't allow or ban use
of wood as a fuel for outdoor recreational
fires
N=55 11% N=41 8% N=63 13% N=321 63% N=26 5% N=506 100%
Table 10: Question 8
How long have you lived in the City of Fort Collins? Number of respondents Percent of respondents
Less than 1 year N=35 7%
1-5 years N=155 31%
6-10 years N=80 16%
11-15 years N=55 11%
16-20 years N=38 8%
More than 20 years N=146 29%
Total N=509 100%
1.3
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 8
Table 11: Question 9
Which best describes the building you live in? Number of respondents Percent of respondents
One family house detached from any other houses N=307 60%
Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment complex or condominium) N=195 38%
Mobile home N=2 0%
Other N=4 1%
Total N=508 100%
Table 12: Question 10
Do you own or rent your residence? Number of respondents Percent of respondents
Own N=284 56%
Rent N=224 44%
Total N=508 100%
Table 13: Question 11
What is the highest level of school or degree you've completed? Number of respondents Percent of respondents
Less than high school graduate N=1 0%
High school graduate (or equivalency) N=28 6%
Some college or associate's degree N=95 19%
Bachelor's degree or higher N=381 76%
Total N=505 100%
1.3
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 9
Table 14: Question 12
What is your age? Number of respondents Percent of respondents
18-24 years N=30 6%
25-34 years N=197 39%
35-44 years N=76 15%
45-54 years N=79 16%
55-64 years N=57 11%
65-74 years N=51 10%
75 years or older N=15 3%
Total N=506 100%
Table 15: Question 13
What is your gender/gender identity? Number of respondents Percent of respondents
Female N=251 50%
Male N=247 49%
Transgender N=0 0%
Prefer to self-identify N=8 2%
Total N=506 100%
Table 16: Question 14
What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race you consider yourself to
be).
Number of
respondents
Percent of
respondents
American Indian or Alaskan Native N=7 1%
Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander N=31 6%
Black or African American N=1 0%
White N=444 90%
Other N=24 5%
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one response
1.3
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 10
Table 17: Question 15
Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latinx? Number of respondents Percent of respondents
No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latinx N=472 96%
Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latinx N=20 4%
Total N=492 100%
1.3
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 11
Appendix A: Comparisons of Survey Questions by Respondent
Characteristics
For ease of comparison between subgroups, for most of the questions the summarized responses
show only the proportion of respondents giving a positive answer; for example, the percent of
respondents who used their wood burning fire pit or chiminea in the last year or the percent of
respondents who strongly or somewhat agreed with various potential polices related to fire
pits/chimineas.
The subgroup comparison tables contain the cross tabulations of survey questions by selected
respondent characteristics. Chi-square or ANOVA tests of significance were applied to these
breakdowns of survey questions. A “p-value” of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5%
probability that differences observed between groups are due to chance; or in other words, a
greater than 95% probability that the differences observed in the selected categories of the
sample represent “real” differences among those populations.
For each pair of subgroups that has a statistically significant difference, an upper case letter
denoting significance is shown in the category with the larger column proportion. The letter
denotes the category with the smaller column proportion from which it is statistically different.
Differences were marked as statistically significant if the probability that the differences were due
to chance alone were less than 5%. Categories were not used in comparisons when a column
proportion was equal to zero or one.
Items that have no upper case letter denotation in their column and that are also not referred to in
any other column were not statistically different.
For example, in Table 20 on page 13, 83% of respondents who lived in the zip code 80525 (C)
were likely to use their outdoor wood burning fire pit or chiminea at the end of the week. This
proportion of respondents (C) was statistically significantly lower than those who lived in the
other zip codes (A, B, D, E). In another example, in Table 24 on page 15, those who lived in zip code
80526 (D) agreed significantly more with wanting no changes to the City’s current efforts around
fire pits and chimineas (90%) compared to those living in zip code 80521 (A).
1.3
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 12
Zip Code
Table 18: Question 1 by Respondent Characteristics
Do you have any of the following outdoor appliances? (Percent of respondents)
Zip code
80521 80524 80525 80526 80528 Overall
Wood burning fire pit/chiminea only 50% 40% 27% 37% 41% 37%
Gas burning fire pit only 1% 8% 8% 3% 11% 6%
Both a wood and gas burning fire pit 1% 0% 4% 1% 3% 2%
Neither of these 47% 52% 61% 60% 45% 55%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
No statistical testing was performed.
Table 19: Question 2 by Respondent Characteristics
In the last year, about how many days have you used each of the following outdoor appliances?
(Percent who had used at least once in the last year)
Zip code Overall
80521 80524 80525 80526 80528
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (A)
Wood burning fire pit or chiminea 94% 78% 87% 88% 82% 87%
Gas burning fire pit 100% 65% 75% 90% 100% 81%
Asked only of those who said they have a wood burning fire pit/chiminea and/or a gas burning fire pit
1.3
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 13
Table 20: Question 3 by Respondent Characteristics
How likely, if at all, are you to use your outdoor wood burning fire pit/chiminea during each of the
following times? (Percent very or somewhat likely)
Zip code Overall
80521 80524 80525 80526 80528
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (A)
On a weekday (Monday-Thursday) 44% 59% 64% 56% 69% 57%
At the end of week (Friday, Saturday or Sunday) 96%
C
100%
C
83% 96%
C
98%
C
94%
During the day (after sunrise to before sunset) 6% 15% 24%
A
17% 14% 15%
In the evening (sunset to 10pm) 95% 96% 92% 96% 96% 95%
Late evening (after 10pm) 67% 68% 62% 57% 59% 63%
Includes responses only for those who said they have a wood burning fire pit/chiminea
Table 21: Question 4 - Level of Concern by Respondent Characteristics
Please tell us how concerned, if at all, you are about each of the following coming from a
neighbor's property near your residence and impacting your air quality. (Percent rating as at least a
minor concern)
Zip code Overall
80521 80524 80525 80526 80528
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (A)
Wood smoke from outdoor fires 45%
B
26% 43%
B
37% 34% 39%
Wood smoke from indoor fireplaces or stoves 34%
B
13% 31%
B
23% 21% 26%
Smoke from outdoor cooking (e.g., BBQs or smokers) 19% 12% 27%
B
20% 22% 21%
Secondhand smoke from tobacco products 66% 70% 78%
A
69% 68% 72%
Secondhand smoke from marijuana products 41% 44% 65%
A B
63%
A B
57%
A
56%
1.3
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 14
Table 22: Question 4 - Have Experienced by Respondent Characteristics
Please tell us if you have or anyone in your household has experienced each type of impact
(whether of concern or not) from a neighbor's residence in the last year. (Percent of respondents)
Zip code
80521 80524 80525 80526 80528 Overall
Wood smoke from outdoor fires 86% 55% 70% 64% 53% 69%
Wood smoke from indoor fireplaces or stoves 66% 48% 58% 49% 43% 55%
Smoke from outdoor cooking (e.g., BBQs or smokers) 84% 77% 87% 68% 56% 77%
Secondhand smoke from tobacco products 77% 69% 76% 65% 57% 71%
Secondhand smoke from marijuana products 68% 50% 59% 68% 44% 61%
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one response
No statistical testing was performed.
Table 23: Question 5 by Respondent Characteristics
Do you or anyone in your household experience any of the following respiratory issues or
conditions that may be aggravated by wood smoke? (Select all that apply.) (Percent of
respondents)
Zip code
80521 80524 80525 80526 80528 Overall
Asthma 59% 17% 36% 51% 58% 44%
Emphysema 2% 2% 1% 2% 0% 1%
COPD 2% 2% 8% 5% 0% 5%
Allergies 75% 87% 85% 78% 63% 79%
On oxygen 2% 0% 3% 1% 0% 2%
Other 1% 8% 2% 2% 0% 2%
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one response
No statistical testing was performed.
1.3
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 15
Table 24: Question 6 by Respondent Characteristics
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the City should do each of the following as they relate
to fire pits/chimineas? (Percent strongly or somewhat agree)
Zip code Overall
80521 80524 80525 80526 80528
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (A)
No changes. Continue current efforts, including responding to safety concerns, providing outreach
materials regarding health impacts, and offering use of the City's free neighbor mediation program
80% 88% 83% 90%
A
79% 85%
Provide residents more information regarding health impacts from smoke from outdoor wood fires 69% 67% 66% 73% 59% 68%
Provide rebates for propane or natural gas outdoor recreational fire devices 50% 61% 60% 59% 58% 58%
Require neighbor notification prior to wood burning 12% 12% 19% 20% 15% 17%
Require permits for wood burning appliances and/or inspections before use 21% 21% 23% 25% 21% 22%
Put rules in place that require wood fires to be extinguished when a reasonable nuisance concern
is reported from a single neighbor
30% 36% 32% 46%
A C E
25% 35%
Put rules in place that require wood fires to be extinguished when nuisance concerns are received
from multiple neighbors (e.g., three or more)
85% 74% 74% 75% 75% 76%
Increase the required distance of fire pits or chimineas from fences or property lines (currently 15
ft)
22% 30% 30% 32% 26% 28%
Put rules in place that don't allow wood burning on days when regional air pollution is high
(generally during the winter)
57% 49% 56% 62% 53% 56%
Limit outdoor wood burning during certain hours of the day 44%
B C
20% 30% 39%
B
35% 34%
Put rules in place that don't allow or ban use of wood as a fuel for outdoor recreational fires 17% 12% 21% 26%
B
16% 20%
1.3
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 16
Length of Residency
Table 25: Question 1 by Respondent Characteristics
Do you have any of the following outdoor appliances? (Percent of respondents)
Length of residency
5 years or less 6-15 years More than 15 years Overall
Wood burning fire pit/chiminea only 36% 40% 37% 37%
Gas burning fire pit only 7% 5% 4% 6%
Both a wood and gas burning fire pit 3% 1% 2% 2%
Neither of these 53% 54% 57% 55%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
No statistical testing was performed.
Table 26: Question 2 by Respondent Characteristics
In the last year, about how many days have you used each of the following outdoor appliances?
(Percent who had used at least once in the last year)
Length of residency Overall
5 years or
less
6-15
years
More than 15
years
(A) (B) (C) (A)
Wood burning fire pit or chiminea 92%
C
91%
C
78% 87%
Gas burning fire pit 69% 100% 88% 81%
Asked only of those who said they have a wood burning fire pit/chiminea and/or a gas burning fire pit
1.3
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 17
Table 27: Question 3 by Respondent Characteristics
How likely, if at all, are you to use your outdoor wood burning fire pit/chiminea during each of the
following times? (Percent very or somewhat likely)
Length of residency Overall
5 years or
less
6-15
years
More than 15
years
(A) (B) (C) (A)
On a weekday (Monday-Thursday) 49% 68%
A
58% 57%
At the end of week (Friday, Saturday or Sunday) 97% 90% 92% 94%
During the day (after sunrise to before sunset) 14% 14% 19% 15%
In the evening (sunset to 10pm) 98%
C
96% 91% 95%
Late evening (after 10pm) 79%
C
71%
C
39% 63%
Includes responses only for those who said they have a wood burning fire pit/chiminea
Table 28: Question 4 - Level of Concern by Respondent Characteristics
Please tell us how concerned, if at all, you are about each of the following coming from a neighbor's
property near your residence and impacting your air quality. (Percent rating as at least a minor concern)
Length of residency Overall
5 years or
less
6-15
years
More than
15 years
(A) (B) (C) (A)
Wood smoke from outdoor fires 40% 34% 40% 39%
Wood smoke from indoor fireplaces or stoves 25% 22% 30% 26%
Smoke from outdoor cooking (e.g., BBQs or smokers) 20% 19% 24% 21%
Secondhand smoke from tobacco products 69% 78% 71% 72%
Secondhand smoke from marijuana products 52% 60% 58% 56%
1.3
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 18
Table 29: Question 4 - Have Experienced by Respondent Characteristics
Please tell us if you have or anyone in your household has experienced each type of impact (whether of
concern or not) from a neighbor's residence in the last year. (Percent of respondents)
Length of residency
Overall
5 years or
less
6-15
years
More than
15 years
Wood smoke from outdoor fires 59% 74% 73% 69%
Wood smoke from indoor fireplaces or stoves 37% 72% 58% 55%
Smoke from outdoor cooking (e.g., BBQs or smokers) 70% 80% 82% 77%
Secondhand smoke from tobacco products 65% 79% 69% 71%
Secondhand smoke from marijuana products 62% 67% 56% 61%
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one response
No statistical testing was performed.
Table 30: Question 5 by Respondent Characteristics
Do you or anyone in your household experience any of the following respiratory issues or conditions that
may be aggravated by wood smoke? (Select all that apply.) (Percent of respondents)
Length of residency
Overall
5 years or
less
6-15
years
More than
15 years
Asthma 42% 46% 44% 44%
Emphysema 0% 1% 3% 1%
COPD 0% 2% 11% 5%
Allergies 76% 84% 79% 79%
On oxygen 1% 0% 4% 2%
Other 3% 1% 3% 2%
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one response
No statistical testing was performed.
1.3
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 19
Table 31: Question 6 by Respondent Characteristics
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the City should do each of the following as they relate to fire
pits/chimineas? (Percent strongly or somewhat agree)
Length of residency Overall
5 years or
less
6-15
years
More than
15 years
(A) (B) (C) (A)
No changes. Continue current efforts, including responding to safety concerns, providing outreach
materials regarding health impacts, and offering use of the City's free neighbor mediation program
89%
C
83% 81% 85%
Provide residents more information regarding health impacts from smoke from outdoor wood fires 70% 69% 65% 68%
Provide rebates for propane or natural gas outdoor recreational fire devices 48% 70%
A C
58% 58%
Require neighbor notification prior to wood burning 13% 16% 21%
A
17%
Require permits for wood burning appliances and/or inspections before use 16% 22% 29%
A
22%
Put rules in place that require wood fires to be extinguished when a reasonable nuisance concern is
reported from a single neighbor
35% 30% 39% 35%
Put rules in place that require wood fires to be extinguished when nuisance concerns are received from
multiple neighbors (e.g., three or more)
81% 73% 74% 76%
Increase the required distance of fire pits or chimineas from fences or property lines (currently 15 ft) 25% 25% 35%
A
28%
Put rules in place that don't allow wood burning on days when regional air pollution is high (generally
during the winter)
56% 50% 62%
B
56%
Limit outdoor wood burning during certain hours of the day 35% 26% 39%
B
34%
Put rules in place that don't allow or ban use of wood as a fuel for outdoor recreational fires 16% 17% 26%
A B
20%
1.3
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 20
Tenure (Rent vs Own)
Table 32: Question 1 by Respondent Characteristics
Do you have any of the following outdoor appliances? (Percent of respondents)
Housing tenure
Own Rent Overall
Wood burning fire pit/chiminea only 44% 29% 37%
Gas burning fire pit only 4% 7% 6%
Both a wood and gas burning fire pit 3% 0% 2%
Neither of these 48% 64% 55%
Total 100% 100% 100%
No statistical testing was performed.
Table 33: Question 2 by Respondent Characteristics
In the last year, about how many days have you used each of the following outdoor appliances? (Percent who had used at
least once in the last year)
Housing
tenure Overall
Own Rent
(A) (B) (A)
Wood burning fire pit or chiminea 85% 93% 87%
Gas burning fire pit 89% 69% 81%
Asked only of those who said they have a wood burning fire pit/chiminea and/or a gas burning fire pit
1.3
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 21
Table 34: Question 3 by Respondent Characteristics
How likely, if at all, are you to use your outdoor wood burning fire pit/chiminea during each of the following times? (Percent
very or somewhat likely)
Housing
tenure Overall
Own Rent
(A) (B) (A)
On a weekday (Monday-Thursday) 54% 63% 57%
At the end of week (Friday, Saturday or Sunday) 93% 95% 94%
During the day (after sunrise to before sunset) 20%
B
7% 15%
In the evening (sunset to 10pm) 93% 100%
A
95%
Late evening (after 10pm) 51% 88%
A
63%
Includes responses only for those who said they have a wood burning fire pit/chiminea
Table 35: Question 4 - Level of Concern by Respondent Characteristics
Please tell us how concerned, if at all, you are about each of the following coming from a neighbor's property near your
residence and impacting your air quality. (Percent rating as at least a minor concern)
Housing
tenure Overall
Own Rent
(A) (B) (A)
Wood smoke from outdoor fires 42% 34% 39%
Wood smoke from indoor fireplaces or stoves 27% 25% 26%
Smoke from outdoor cooking (e.g., BBQs or smokers) 24% 18% 21%
Secondhand smoke from tobacco products 71% 72% 72%
Secondhand smoke from marijuana products 58% 55% 56%
1.3
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 22
Table 36: Question 4 - Have Experienced by Respondent Characteristics
Please tell us if you have or anyone in your household has experienced each type of impact (whether of concern or not) from a
neighbor's residence in the last year. (Percent of respondents)
Housing
tenure
Own Rent Overall
Wood smoke from outdoor fires 76% 60% 69%
Wood smoke from indoor fireplaces or stoves 58% 51% 55%
Smoke from outdoor cooking (e.g., BBQs or smokers) 81% 73% 77%
Secondhand smoke from tobacco products 71% 70% 71%
Secondhand smoke from marijuana products 59% 65% 61%
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one response
No statistical testing was performed.
Table 37: Question 5 by Respondent Characteristics
Do you or anyone in your household experience any of the following respiratory issues or conditions that may be aggravated by
wood smoke? (Select all that apply.) (Percent of respondents)
Housing
tenure
Own Rent Overall
Asthma 46% 41% 44%
Emphysema 3% 0% 1%
COPD 6% 3% 5%
Allergies 77% 82% 79%
On oxygen 3% 0% 2%
Other 3% 2% 2%
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one response
No statistical testing was performed.
1.3
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 23
Table 38: Question 6 by Respondent Characteristics
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the City should do each of the following as they relate to fire pits/chimineas?
(Percent strongly or somewhat agree)
Housing
tenure Overall
Own Rent
(A) (B) (A)
No changes. Continue current efforts, including responding to safety concerns, providing outreach materials regarding health
impacts, and offering use of the City's free neighbor mediation program
83% 87% 85%
Provide residents more information regarding health impacts from smoke from outdoor wood fires 67% 70% 68%
Provide rebates for propane or natural gas outdoor recreational fire devices 57% 58% 58%
Require neighbor notification prior to wood burning 17% 16% 17%
Require permits for wood burning appliances and/or inspections before use 26%
B
18% 22%
Put rules in place that require wood fires to be extinguished when a reasonable nuisance concern is reported from a single
neighbor
38% 31% 35%
Put rules in place that require wood fires to be extinguished when nuisance concerns are received from multiple neighbors (e.g.,
three or more)
76% 77% 76%
Increase the required distance of fire pits or chimineas from fences or property lines (currently 15 ft) 31% 25% 28%
Put rules in place that don't allow wood burning on days when regional air pollution is high (generally during the winter) 64%
B
47% 56%
Limit outdoor wood burning during certain hours of the day 38% 29% 34%
Put rules in place that don't allow or ban use of wood as a fuel for outdoor recreational fires 22% 18% 20%
1.3
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 24
Housing Unit Type (Attached vs Detached)
Table 39: Question 1 by Respondent Characteristics
Do you have any of the following outdoor appliances? (Percent of respondents)
Housing unit type
Detached Attached Overall
Wood burning fire pit/chiminea only 52% 14% 37%
Gas burning fire pit only 4% 7% 6%
Both a wood and gas burning fire pit 3% 1% 2%
Neither of these 40% 78% 55%
Total 100% 100% 100%
No statistical testing was performed.
Table 40: Question 2 by Respondent Characteristics
In the last year, about how many days have you used each of the following outdoor appliances? (Percent who had used
at least once in the last year)
Housing unit type Overall
Detached Attached
(A) (B) (A)
Wood burning fire pit or chiminea 86% 90% 87%
Gas burning fire pit 89% 68% 81%
Asked only of those who said they have a wood burning fire pit/chiminea and/or a gas burning fire pit
1.3
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 25
Table 41: Question 3 by Respondent Characteristics
How likely, if at all, are you to use your outdoor wood burning fire pit/chiminea during each of the following times?
(Percent very or somewhat likely)
Housing unit type Overall
Detached Attached
(A) (B) (A)
On a weekday (Monday-Thursday) 54% 75%
A
57%
At the end of week (Friday, Saturday or Sunday) 94% 89% 94%
During the day (after sunrise to before sunset) 16% 11% 15%
In the evening (sunset to 10pm) 95% 97% 95%
Late evening (after 10pm) 60% 84%
A
63%
Includes responses only for those who said they have a wood burning fire pit/chiminea
Table 42: Question 4 - Level of Concern by Respondent Characteristics
Please tell us how concerned, if at all, you are about each of the following coming from a neighbor's property near your
residence and impacting your air quality. (Percent rating as at least a minor concern)
Housing unit type Overall
Detached Attached
(A) (B) (A)
Wood smoke from outdoor fires 39% 37% 39%
Wood smoke from indoor fireplaces or stoves 27% 25% 26%
Smoke from outdoor cooking (e.g., BBQs or smokers) 18% 27%
A
21%
Secondhand smoke from tobacco products 68% 77%
A
72%
Secondhand smoke from marijuana products 51% 65%
A
56%
1.3
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 26
Table 43: Question 4 - Have Experienced by Respondent Characteristics
Please tell us if you have or anyone in your household has experienced each type of impact (whether of concern or not)
from a neighbor's residence in the last year. (Percent of respondents)
Housing unit type
Detached Attached Overall
Wood smoke from outdoor fires 74% 62% 69%
Wood smoke from indoor fireplaces or stoves 54% 57% 55%
Smoke from outdoor cooking (e.g., BBQs or smokers) 77% 78% 77%
Secondhand smoke from tobacco products 71% 70% 71%
Secondhand smoke from marijuana products 59% 64% 61%
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one response
No statistical testing was performed.
Table 44: Question 5 by Respondent Characteristics
Do you or anyone in your household experience any of the following respiratory issues or conditions that may be
aggravated by wood smoke? (Select all that apply.) (Percent of respondents)
Housing unit type
Detached Attached Overall
Asthma 45% 42% 44%
Emphysema 2% 1% 1%
COPD 7% 2% 5%
Allergies 77% 83% 79%
On oxygen 3% 1% 2%
Other 2% 3% 2%
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one response
No statistical testing was performed.
1.3
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 27
Table 45: Question 6 by Respondent Characteristics
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the City should do each of the following as they relate to fire
pits/chimineas? (Percent strongly or somewhat agree)
Housing unit type Overall
Detached Attached
(A) (B) (A)
No changes. Continue current efforts, including responding to safety concerns, providing outreach materials regarding
health impacts, and offering use of the City's free neighbor mediation program
84% 85% 85%
Provide residents more information regarding health impacts from smoke from outdoor wood fires 64% 73%
A
68%
Provide rebates for propane or natural gas outdoor recreational fire devices 58% 58% 58%
Require neighbor notification prior to wood burning 13% 22%
A
17%
Require permits for wood burning appliances and/or inspections before use 20% 26% 22%
Put rules in place that require wood fires to be extinguished when a reasonable nuisance concern is reported from a
single neighbor
35% 36% 35%
Put rules in place that require wood fires to be extinguished when nuisance concerns are received from multiple
neighbors (e.g., three or more)
79% 73% 76%
Increase the required distance of fire pits or chimineas from fences or property lines (currently 15 ft) 29% 28% 28%
Put rules in place that don't allow wood burning on days when regional air pollution is high (generally during the winter) 61%
B
50% 56%
Limit outdoor wood burning during certain hours of the day 36% 32% 34%
Put rules in place that don't allow or ban use of wood as a fuel for outdoor recreational fires 18% 23% 20%
1.3
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 28
Respondent Age
Table 46: Question 1 by Respondent Characteristics
Do you have any of the following outdoor appliances? (Percent of respondents)
Respondent age
18-34 35-54 55+ Overall
Wood burning fire pit/chiminea only 39% 49% 21% 37%
Gas burning fire pit only 5% 8% 4% 6%
Both a wood and gas burning fire pit 2% 2% 1% 2%
Neither of these 54% 41% 74% 55%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
No statistical testing was performed.
Table 47: Question 2 by Respondent Characteristics
In the last year, about how many days have you used each of the following outdoor appliances? (Percent
who had used at least once in the last year)
Respondent age Overall
18-34 35-54 55+
(A) (B) (C) (A)
Wood burning fire pit or chiminea 94%
C
84%
C
69% 87%
Gas burning fire pit 80% 78% 87% 81%
Asked only of those who said they have a wood burning fire pit/chiminea and/or a gas burning fire pit
1.3
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 29
Table 48: Question 3 by Respondent Characteristics
How likely, if at all, are you to use your outdoor wood burning fire pit/chiminea during each of the following
times? (Percent very or somewhat likely)
Respondent age Overall
18-34 35-54 55+
(A) (B) (C) (A)
On a weekday (Monday-Thursday) 61% 51% 60% 57%
At the end of week (Friday, Saturday or Sunday) 97%
C
93% 84% 94%
During the day (after sunrise to before sunset) 12% 21% 12% 15%
In the evening (sunset to 10pm) 100%
C
94%
C
82% 95%
Late evening (after 10pm) 84%
B C
48%
C
28% 63%
Includes responses only for those who said they have a wood burning fire pit/chiminea
Table 49: Question 4 - Level of Concern by Respondent Characteristics
Please tell us how concerned, if at all, you are about each of the following coming from a neighbor's property near your
residence and impacting your air quality. (Percent rating as at least a minor concern)
Respondent age Overall
18-
34
35-
54 55+
(A) (B) (C) (A)
Wood smoke from outdoor fires 29% 39%
A
57%
A B
39%
Wood smoke from indoor fireplaces or stoves 16% 25% 46%
A B
26%
Smoke from outdoor cooking (e.g., BBQs or smokers) 13% 20% 38%
A B
21%
Secondhand smoke from tobacco products 75% 69% 69% 72%
Secondhand smoke from marijuana products 53% 60% 58% 56%
1.3
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 30
Table 50: Question 4 - Have Experienced by Respondent Characteristics
Please tell us if you have or anyone in your household has experienced each type of impact (whether of concern or not)
from a neighbor's residence in the last year. (Percent of respondents)
Respondent age
Overall
18-
34
35-
54 55+
Wood smoke from outdoor fires 69% 71% 65% 69%
Wood smoke from indoor fireplaces or stoves 55% 56% 54% 55%
Smoke from outdoor cooking (e.g., BBQs or smokers) 77% 77% 77% 77%
Secondhand smoke from tobacco products 76% 67% 63% 71%
Secondhand smoke from marijuana products 70% 59% 44% 61%
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one response
No statistical testing was performed.
Table 51: Question 5 by Respondent Characteristics
Do you or anyone in your household experience any of the following respiratory issues or conditions that may be
aggravated by wood smoke? (Select all that apply.) (Percent of respondents)
Respondent age
18-34 35-54 55+ Overall
Asthma 45% 47% 39% 44%
Emphysema 0% 1% 4% 1%
COPD 3% 2% 11% 5%
Allergies 79% 81% 79% 79%
On oxygen 0% 0% 7% 2%
Other 0% 4% 4% 2%
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one response
No statistical testing was performed.
1.3
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 31
Table 52: Question 6 by Respondent Characteristics
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the City should do each of the following as they relate to fire
pits/chimineas? (Percent strongly or somewhat agree)
Respondent age Overall
18-34 35-54 55+
(A) (B) (C) (A)
No changes. Continue current efforts, including responding to safety concerns, providing outreach materials
regarding health impacts, and offering use of the City's free neighbor mediation program
88%
C
86% 77% 85%
Provide residents more information regarding health impacts from smoke from outdoor wood fires 67% 62% 77%
B
68%
Provide rebates for propane or natural gas outdoor recreational fire devices 55% 60% 60% 58%
Require neighbor notification prior to wood burning 9% 13% 38%
A B
17%
Require permits for wood burning appliances and/or inspections before use 12% 21%
A
45%
A B
22%
Put rules in place that require wood fires to be extinguished when a reasonable nuisance concern is reported from
a single neighbor
27% 31% 56%
A B
35%
Put rules in place that require wood fires to be extinguished when nuisance concerns are received from multiple
neighbors (e.g., three or more)
78% 71% 81% 76%
Increase the required distance of fire pits or chimineas from fences or property lines (currently 15 ft) 14% 32%
A
54%
A B
28%
Put rules in place that don't allow wood burning on days when regional air pollution is high (generally during the
winter)
44% 57%
A
79%
A B
56%
Limit outdoor wood burning during certain hours of the day 24% 35%
A
52%
A B
34%
Put rules in place that don't allow or ban use of wood as a fuel for outdoor recreational fires 11% 17% 41%
A B
20%
1.3
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 32
Households with Fire Pits
Table 53: Question 2 by Respondent Characteristics
In the last year, about how many days have you used each of the following outdoor appliances? (Percent who
had used at least once in the last year)
Has wood burning fire
pit/chiminea Overall
Yes No
(A) (B) (A)
Wood burning fire pit or chiminea 87% NA 87%
Gas burning fire pit 94% 77% 81%
Asked only of those who said they have a wood burning fire pit/chiminea and/or a gas burning fire pit
Table 54: Question 4 - Level of Concern by Respondent Characteristics
Please tell us how concerned, if at all, you are about each of the following coming from a neighbor's property near
your residence and impacting your air quality. (Percent rating as at least a minor concern)
Has wood burning fire
pit/chiminea Overall
Yes No
(A) (B) (A)
Wood smoke from outdoor fires 28% 45%
A
39%
Wood smoke from indoor fireplaces or stoves 14% 34%
A
26%
Smoke from outdoor cooking (e.g., BBQs or smokers) 9% 29%
A
21%
Secondhand smoke from tobacco products 69% 73% 72%
Secondhand smoke from marijuana products 51% 59% 56%
1.3
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 33
Table 55: Question 4 - Have Experienced by Respondent Characteristics
Please tell us if you have or anyone in your household has experienced each type of impact (whether of concern or
not) from a neighbor's residence in the last year. (Percent of respondents)
Has wood burning fire
pit/chiminea
Yes No Overall
Wood smoke from outdoor fires 76% 64% 69%
Wood smoke from indoor fireplaces or stoves 56% 54% 55%
Smoke from outdoor cooking (e.g., BBQs or smokers) 71% 82% 77%
Secondhand smoke from tobacco products 68% 72% 71%
Secondhand smoke from marijuana products 63% 59% 61%
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one response
No statistical testing was performed.
Table 56: Question 5 by Respondent Characteristics
Do you or anyone in your household experience any of the following respiratory issues or conditions that may be
aggravated by wood smoke? (Select all that apply.) (Percent of respondents)
Has wood burning fire
pit/chiminea
Yes No Overall
Asthma 48% 42% 44%
Emphysema 0% 2% 1%
COPD 2% 6% 5%
Allergies 80% 79% 79%
On oxygen 0% 3% 2%
Other 2% 3% 2%
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one response
No statistical testing was performed.
1.3
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 34
Table 57: Question 6 by Respondent Characteristics
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the City should do each of the following as they relate to fire
pits/chimineas? (Percent strongly or somewhat agree)
Has wood burning fire
pit/chiminea Overall
Yes No
(A) (B) (A)
No changes. Continue current efforts, including responding to safety concerns, providing outreach materials
regarding health impacts, and offering use of the City's free neighbor mediation program
92%
B
80% 85%
Provide residents more information regarding health impacts from smoke from outdoor wood fires 57% 75%
A
68%
Provide rebates for propane or natural gas outdoor recreational fire devices 55% 60% 58%
Require neighbor notification prior to wood burning 5% 25%
A
17%
Require permits for wood burning appliances and/or inspections before use 8% 32%
A
22%
Put rules in place that require wood fires to be extinguished when a reasonable nuisance concern is reported from a
single neighbor
25% 42%
A
35%
Put rules in place that require wood fires to be extinguished when nuisance concerns are received from multiple
neighbors (e.g., three or more)
73% 79% 76%
Increase the required distance of fire pits or chimineas from fences or property lines (currently 15 ft) 15% 37%
A
28%
Put rules in place that don't allow wood burning on days when regional air pollution is high (generally during the
winter)
50% 60%
A
56%
Limit outdoor wood burning during certain hours of the day 29% 38% 34%
Put rules in place that don't allow or ban use of wood as a fuel for outdoor recreational fires 10% 27%
A
20%
1.3
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 35
Households that Have Experienced Wood Smoke
Table 58: Question 1 by Respondent Characteristics
Do you have any of the following outdoor appliances? (Percent of respondents)
Has wood smoke concerns
Yes No Overall
Wood burning fire pit/chiminea only 28% 43% 37%
Gas burning fire pit only 6% 6% 6%
Both a wood and gas burning fire pit 1% 3% 2%
Neither of these 66% 49% 55%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Table 59: Question 2 by Respondent Characteristics
In the last year, about how many days have you used each of the following outdoor appliances? (Percent who had
used at least once in the last year)
Has wood smoke
concerns Overall
Yes No
(A) (B) (A)
Wood burning fire pit or chiminea 78% 90%
A
87%
Gas burning fire pit 69% 87% 81%
1.3
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 36
Table 60: Question 3 by Respondent Characteristics
How likely, if at all, are you to use your outdoor wood burning fire pit/chiminea during each of the following times?
(Percent very or somewhat likely)
Has wood smoke
concerns Overall
Yes No
(A) (B) (A)
On a weekday (Monday-Thursday) 28% 69%
A
57%
At the end of week (Friday, Saturday or Sunday) 88% 96%
A
94%
During the day (after sunrise to before sunset) 7% 19%
A
15%
In the evening (sunset to 10pm) 89% 98%
A
95%
Late evening (after 10pm) 45% 70%
A
63%
Table 61: Question 4 - Level of Concern by Respondent Characteristics
Please tell us how concerned, if at all, you are about each of the following coming from a neighbor's property near your
residence and impacting your air quality. (Percent rating as at least a minor concern)
Has wood smoke
concerns Overall
Yes No
(A) (B) (A)
Has wood smoke concerns 1% 2% 2%
Wood smoke from indoor fireplaces or stoves 59%
B
5% 26%
Smoke from outdoor cooking (e.g., BBQs or smokers) 51%
B
2% 21%
Secondhand smoke from tobacco products 81%
B
66% 72%
Secondhand smoke from marijuana products 69%
B
48% 56%
1.3
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 37
Table 62: Question 4 - Have Experienced by Respondent Characteristics
Please tell us if you have or anyone in your household has experienced each type of impact (whether of concern or not)
from a neighbor's residence in the last year. (Percent of respondents)
Has wood smoke
concerns
Yes No Overall
Wood smoke from outdoor fires 74% 65% 69%
Wood smoke from indoor fireplaces or stoves 50% 59% 55%
Smoke from outdoor cooking (e.g., BBQs or smokers) 77% 78% 77%
Secondhand smoke from tobacco products 65% 75% 71%
Secondhand smoke from marijuana products 54% 66% 61%
Table 63: Question 5 by Respondent Characteristics
Do you or anyone in your household experience any of the following respiratory issues or conditions that may be
aggravated by wood smoke? (Select all that apply.) (Percent of respondents)
Has wood smoke
concerns
Yes No Overall
Asthma 49% 40% 44%
Emphysema 2% 1% 1%
COPD 7% 3% 5%
Allergies 81% 78% 79%
On oxygen 3% 1% 2%
Other 3% 2% 2%
1.3
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 38
Table 64: Question 6 by Respondent Characteristics
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the City should do each of the following as they relate to fire
pits/chimineas? (Percent strongly or somewhat agree)
Has wood smoke
concerns Overall
Yes No
(A) (B) (A)
No changes. Continue current efforts, including responding to safety concerns, providing outreach materials regarding
health impacts, and offering use of the City's free neighbor mediation program
67% 96%
A
85%
Provide residents more information regarding health impacts from smoke from outdoor wood fires 83%
B
57% 68%
Provide rebates for propane or natural gas outdoor recreational fire devices 69%
B
51% 58%
Require neighbor notification prior to wood burning 35%
B
6% 17%
Require permits for wood burning appliances and/or inspections before use 45%
B
9% 22%
Put rules in place that require wood fires to be extinguished when a reasonable nuisance concern is reported from a
single neighbor
61%
B
19% 35%
Put rules in place that require wood fires to be extinguished when nuisance concerns are received from multiple
neighbors (e.g., three or more)
90%
B
68% 76%
Increase the required distance of fire pits or chimineas from fences or property lines (currently 15 ft) 50%
B
16% 28%
Put rules in place that don't allow wood burning on days when regional air pollution is high (generally during the winter) 85%
B
38% 56%
Limit outdoor wood burning during certain hours of the day 61%
B
18% 34%
Put rules in place that don't allow or ban use of wood as a fuel for outdoor recreational fires 36%
B
10% 20%
1.3
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 39
Households with Respiratory Issues (Excluding Allergies)
Table 65: Question 1 by Respondent Characteristics
Do you have any of the following outdoor appliances? (Percent of
respondents)
Has respiratory issues aggravated by wood smoke (excluding
allergies)
Yes No Overall
Wood burning fire pit/chiminea only 32% 38% 37%
Gas burning fire pit only 5% 6% 6%
Both a wood and gas burning fire pit 2% 2% 2%
Neither of these 62% 53% 55%
Total 100% 100% 100%
No statistical testing was performed.
Table 66: Question 2 by Respondent Characteristics
In the last year, about how many days have you used each of the following outdoor
appliances? (Percent who had used at least once in the last year)
Has respiratory issues aggravated by wood
smoke (excluding allergies) Overall
Yes No
(A) (B) (A)
Wood burning fire pit or chiminea 91% 86% 87%
Gas burning fire pit 87% 80% 81%
Asked only of those who said they have a wood burning fire pit/chiminea and/or a gas burning fire pit
1.3
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 40
Table 67: Question 3 by Respondent Characteristics
How likely, if at all, are you to use your outdoor wood burning fire pit/chiminea during each of
the following times? (Percent very or somewhat likely)
Has respiratory issues aggravated by wood
smoke (excluding allergies) Overall
Yes No
(A) (B) (A)
On a weekday (Monday-Thursday) 54% 58% 57%
At the end of week (Friday, Saturday or Sunday) 97% 93% 94%
During the day (after sunrise to before sunset) 7% 17% 15%
In the evening (sunset to 10pm) 98% 94% 95%
Late evening (after 10pm) 61% 63% 63%
Includes responses only for those who said they have a wood burning fire pit/chiminea
Table 68: Question 4 - Level of Concern by Respondent Characteristics
Please tell us how concerned, if at all, you are about each of the following coming from a neighbor's
property near your residence and impacting your air quality. (Percent rating as at least a minor
concern)
Has respiratory issues aggravated by
wood smoke (excluding allergies) Overall
Yes No
(A) (B) (A)
Wood smoke from outdoor fires 51%
B
36% 39%
Wood smoke from indoor fireplaces or stoves 34%
B
24% 26%
Smoke from outdoor cooking (e.g., BBQs or smokers) 27% 20% 21%
Secondhand smoke from tobacco products 73% 71% 72%
Secondhand smoke from marijuana products 63% 54% 56%
1.3
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 41
Table 69: Question 4 - Have Experienced by Respondent Characteristics
Please tell us if you have or anyone in your household has experienced each type of impact (whether
of concern or not) from a neighbor's residence in the last year. (Percent of respondents)
Has respiratory issues aggravated by
wood smoke (excluding allergies)
Yes No Overall
Wood smoke from outdoor fires 79% 65% 69%
Wood smoke from indoor fireplaces or stoves 75% 48% 55%
Smoke from outdoor cooking (e.g., BBQs or smokers) 83% 76% 77%
Secondhand smoke from tobacco products 76% 69% 71%
Secondhand smoke from marijuana products 66% 59% 61%
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one response
No statistical testing was performed.
1.3
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 42
Table 70: Question 6 by Respondent Characteristics
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the City should do each of the following as they relate to
fire pits/chimineas? (Percent strongly or somewhat agree)
Has respiratory issues aggravated by
wood smoke (excluding allergies) Overall
Yes No
(A) (B) (A)
No changes. Continue current efforts, including responding to safety concerns, providing outreach
materials regarding health impacts, and offering use of the City's free neighbor mediation program
75% 87%
A
85%
Provide residents more information regarding health impacts from smoke from outdoor wood fires 74% 66% 68%
Provide rebates for propane or natural gas outdoor recreational fire devices 64% 56% 58%
Require neighbor notification prior to wood burning 23% 15% 17%
Require permits for wood burning appliances and/or inspections before use 35%
B
19% 22%
Put rules in place that require wood fires to be extinguished when a reasonable nuisance concern is
reported from a single neighbor
47%
B
32% 35%
Put rules in place that require wood fires to be extinguished when nuisance concerns are received
from multiple neighbors (e.g., three or more)
82% 75% 76%
Increase the required distance of fire pits or chimineas from fences or property lines (currently 15 ft) 36% 26% 28%
Put rules in place that don't allow wood burning on days when regional air pollution is high (generally
during the winter)
57% 56% 56%
Limit outdoor wood burning during certain hours of the day 44%
B
32% 34%
Put rules in place that don't allow or ban use of wood as a fuel for outdoor recreational fires 28%
B
18% 20%
1.3
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 43
Appendix B: Survey Methodology
The 2018 Fort Collins Outdoor Residential Wood Burning Survey, conducted by National Research
Center, Inc., was developed to provide the City with resident opinion about potential impacts and
policies related to outdoor wood burning. Resident demographic characteristics permit
comparison to the Census as well as comparison of results for different subgroups of residents.
The City of Fort Collins funded this research. Please contact Annie Bierbower of the City of Fort
Collins at abierbower@fcgov.com address if you have any questions about the survey.
Developing the Questionnaire
The Residential Wood Burning Survey was the first of its kind in Fort Collins, although other
surveys the City has conducted previously have included questions about outdoor wood burning.
The web-based survey was developed in conjunction with City staff and measured resident
behaviors and perceptions of outdoor wood burning devices such as fire pits and chimineas. Some
questions were pulled from previous broader surveys conducted by the City while new topics
were generated and modified to find those that were the best fit for the 2018 questionnaire. In an
iterative process between City staff and NRC staff, a final one and a half-page paper-equivalent
questionnaire was created.
Selecting Survey Recipients
“Sampling” refers to the method by which households were chosen to receive the survey. All
households within the City of Fort Collins were eligible to participate in the survey. A list of all
households within the zip codes serving Fort Collins was purchased from Go-Dog Direct based on
updated listings from the United States Postal Service. Since some of the zip codes that serve the
City of Fort Collins households may also serve addresses that lie outside of the community, the
exact geographic location of each housing unit was compared to community boundaries using the
most current municipal boundary file (updated on a quarterly basis) and addresses located
outside of the City of Fort Collins boundaries were removed from consideration. The zip code, City
Council District and geographic area of the City (designated using College Avenue as the east/west
split and Prospect Road and Harmony Road as additional north/south divisions) also was
identified for each address.
To choose the 3,000 households to receive a survey, a systematic sampling method was applied to
the list of households previously screened for geographic location. Systematic sampling is a
procedure whereby a complete list of all possible households is culled, selecting every Nth one,
giving each eligible household a known probability of selection, until the appropriate number of
households is selected. Multi-family housing units were selected at a higher rate as residents of
this type of housing typically respond at lower rates to surveys than do those in single-family
housing units.
An individual within each household was selected using the birthday method. The birthday
method selects a person within the household by asking the “person whose birthday has most
recently passed” to complete the questionnaire. The underlying assumption in this method is that
day of birth has no relationship to the way people respond to surveys. This instruction was
contained in the letter mailed to selected households as well as the instructions in the online
survey.
1.3
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 44
In addition to the scientific, random selection of households, a link to an online “opt-in” survey
was publicized and posted to the City of Fort Collins website and distributed via the City’s other
communication channels. This opt-in survey was identical to the scientific survey and open to all
City residents. (The data presented in this report exclude the opt-in survey data. These data will
be provided under separate cover.)
Survey Administration and Response
Selected households received three mailings, one week apart, beginning on July 2, 2017. The first
mailing was a prenotification postcard announcing the survey and contained a URL for
respondents to go to complete the survey online. The second mailing contained a letter from the
Lucinda Smith, Director of the Environmental Services Department, inviting the household to
participate along with the survey URL. The letter asked those who had not completed the survey
to do so and those who had already done so to refrain from turning in another survey. The final
mailing was a reminder postcard with the web address residents could type in to complete the
online survey. The survey was available in English and Spanish. The mailed invitations contained
paragraphs in Spanish telling respondents how to complete the survey online and the second
mailing (the letter) instructed participants to contact the City if they needed a questionnaire in
Spanish. Respondents who called and reported difficulty accessing the online survey or said they
did not have a computer or access to the Internet were mailed a paper copy of the survey along
with a postage-paid reply envelope. In an effort to prevent residents from responding more than
once, each survey recipient was provided an access code on all mailed invitations to enter into the
online survey form to be able to complete the survey. Completed surveys were collected over the
following five weeks. The online “opt-in” survey became available to all residents on August 7,
2018 and is open to all residents through at least mid-September.
About 4% of the 3,000 surveys mailed were returned because the housing unit was vacant or the
postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the remaining 2,872 households
that received the survey, 522 completed the survey (518 online and four by mail), providing an
overall response rate of 18% for the survey. This is a good response rate; response rates for
surveys of this type typically range from 5% to 20%. No surveys were completed in Spanish.
All response rates were calculated using AAPOR’s response rate #21 for mailed surveys of
unnamed persons and can be found in the table on the following page.
1 See AAPOR’s Standard Definitions here: http://www.aapor.org/Standards-Ethics/Standard-Definitions-(1).aspx for
more information
1.3
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 45
Table 71: Survey Response Rates by Area
Overall
Total sample used 3,000
I=Complete Interviews 389
P=Partial Interviews 133
R=Refusal and break off 8
NC=Non Contact 0
O=Other 0
UH=Unknown household 0
UO=Unknown other 2,317
NE=Not eligible 153
Response rate: (I+P)/(I+P) + (R+NC+O) + (UH+UO) 18%
95% Confidence Intervals
The 95% confidence interval (or “margin of error”) quantifies the “sampling error” or precision of
the estimates made from the survey results. A 95% confidence interval can be calculated for any
sample size, and indicates that in 95 of 100 surveys conducted like this one, for a particular item, a
result would be found that is within three percentage points of the result that would be found if
everyone in the population of interest was surveyed. The practical difficulties of conducting any
resident survey may introduce other sources of error in addition to sampling error. Despite best
efforts to boost participation and ensure potential inclusion of all households, some selected
households will decline participation in the survey (referred to as non-response error) and some
eligible households may be unintentionally excluded from the listed sources for the sample
(referred to as coverage error).
While the margin of error for the survey is generally no greater than plus or minus four
percentage points around any given percent reported for all respondents (522); results for
subgroups will have wider confidence intervals. Where estimates are given for subgroups, they
are less precise.
Survey Processing (Data Entry)
NRC used SurveyGizmo, a web-based survey and analytics platform, to collect the online survey
data. Use of an online system means all collected data are entered into the dataset when the
respondents submit the surveys. Skip patterns are programmed into system so respondents are
automatically “skipped” to the appropriate question based on the individual responses being
given. Online programming also allows for more rigid control of the data format, making extensive
data cleaning unnecessary.
A series of quality control checks were performed in order to ensure the integrity of the web data,
including removing any duplicate access code submissions. Other steps may include and not be
limited to reviewing the data for clusters of repeat IP addresses and time stamps (indicating
duplicate responses) and removing empty submissions (questionnaires submitted with no
questions answered).
1.3
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 46
Survey Data Weighting
The demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were compared to those found in the
2010 United States Census. Survey results were weighted using the population norms to reflect
the appropriate percent of those residents in the city. Other discrepancies between the whole
population and the survey respondents were also aided by the weighting due to the
intercorrelation of many socioeconomic characteristics.
The variables used for weighting the household respondent data were gender, age, housing unit
type and housing tenure (rent or own). No adjustments were made for design effects. This
decision was based on:
The disparity between the survey respondent characteristics and the population norms for
these variables
The saliency of these variables in differences of opinion among subgroups
The historical profile created and the desirability of consistently representing different groups
over the years
The primary objective of weighting survey data is to make the survey sample reflective of the
larger population of the community. This is done by: 1) reviewing the sample demographics and
comparing them to the population norms from the most recent Census or other sources and 2)
comparing the responses to different questions for demographic subgroups. The demographic
characteristics that are least similar to the Census and yield the most different results are the best
candidates for data weighting. A third criterion sometimes used is the importance that the
community places on a specific variable. For example, if a jurisdiction feels that accurate race
representation is key to staff and public acceptance of the study results, additional consideration
will be given in the weighting process to adjusting the race variable.
Several different weighting “schemes” are tested to ensure the best fit for the data. The results of
the weighting scheme are presented in the table on the following page.
1.3
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 47
Table 72: 2018 Fort Collins, CO Weighting Table
Characteristic Census 2010 Unweighted Data Weighted Data
Housing**
Own home 55% 81% 56%
Rent home 45% 19% 44%
Detached unit* 60% 75% 61%
Attached unit* 40% 25% 39%
Race and Ethnicity**
White 90% 92% 88%
Not white 10% 8% 12%
Not Hispanic 92% 97% 96%
Hispanic 8% 3% 4%
Sex and Age**
Female 50% 47% 50%
Male 50% 53% 50%
18-34 years of age 45% 18% 45%
35-54 years of age 31% 37% 31%
55+ years of age 23% 45% 24%
Females 18-34 22% 7% 22%
Females 35-54 16% 15% 16%
Females 55+ 13% 25% 13%
Males 18-34 24% 11% 24%
Males 35-54 15% 22% 15%
Males 55+ 11% 20% 11%
* ACS 2011 5-year estimates
** Only of the population in housing units
Analyzing the Data
The electronic dataset was analyzed by NRC staff using the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS). A complete set of frequencies for each survey question is presented in the section
titled Complete Set of Survey Responses. When a table for a question that only permitted a single
response does not total to exactly 100%, it is due to the common practice of percentages being
rounded to the nearest whole number.
1.3
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins 2018 Outdoor Wood Burning Survey Report
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Page 48
Appendix C: Survey Materials
The 2018 survey materials appear on the following pages.
1.3
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Dear Fort Collins Resident,
Your voice matters to the City of Fort Collins.
You are one of a few households randomly
selected to participate in a confidential
survey about outdoor residential wood
burning in Fort Collins.
Please complete the survey online using the
following URL and access code:
www.bit.ly/fcwoodburning
Access Code:
If you have questions or need assistance,
please call 970-416-2648. Thank you for
helping us with this important study!
Sincerely,
Estimado Residente de Fort Collins,
Su opinión es importante para la Ciudad de
Fort Collins. Usted es uno de los pocos
hogares seleccionados al azar para participar
en una encuesta confidencial acerca de la
quema residencial de leña en exteriores en la
ciudad de Fort Collins.
Puede contestar la encuesta en línea usando
la dirección URL y el código de acceso que se
indican a continuación:
www.bit.ly/fcwoodburning
Código de acceso:
Si tiene alguna pregunta sobre la encuesta,
llame al 970-416-2648. Gracias por
ayudarnos con este importante estudio!
Atentamente,
Lucinda Smith, Director
Environmental Services Department/Departamento de Servicios Ambientales
Dear Fort Collins Resident,
Your voice matters to the City of Fort Collins.
You are one of a few households randomly
selected to participate in a confidential
survey about outdoor residential wood
burning in Fort Collins.
Please complete the survey online using the
following URL and access code:
www.bit.ly/fcwoodburning
Access Code:
If you have questions or need assistance,
please call 970-416-2648. Thank you for
helping us with this important study!
Sincerely,
Estimado Residente de Fort Collins,
Su opinión es importante para la Ciudad de
Fort Collins. Usted es uno de los pocos
hogares seleccionados al azar para participar
en una encuesta confidencial acerca de la
quema residencial de leña en exteriores en la
ciudad de Fort Collins.
Puede contestar la encuesta en línea usando
la dirección URL y el código de acceso que se
indican a continuación:
www.bit.ly/fcwoodburning
Código de acceso:
Si tiene alguna pregunta sobre la encuesta,
llame al 970-416-2648. Gracias por
Presorted
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Environmental Services Department Permit NO. 94
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Presorted
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Environmental Services Department Permit NO. 94
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Presorted
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Environmental Services Department Permit NO. 94
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Presorted
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Environmental Services Department Permit NO. 94
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
1.3
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Environmental Services Department
222 LaPorte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
fcgov.com
June 2018
Dear Fort Collins Resident:
Here’s a second chance if you haven’t already responded
to the 2018 Fort Collins Residential Wood Burning
Survey! (If you already completed it online, we thank
you for your time and ask you to recycle this letter.
Please do not respond twice.)
The City is currently reviewing policies around outdoor
residential wood burning, such as backyard use of fire
pits, chimineas or campfires. Your feedback will play an
important role in shaping the City’s policies and
programs related to these outdoor appliances.
A few things to remember:
Your responses are completely confidential.
In order to hear from a diverse group of residents,
the adult 18 years or older in your household who
most recently had a birthday should complete this
survey.
You may complete the survey online using the
following URL and access code:
www.bit.ly/fcwoodburning
Access Code:
If you have any questions about the survey please
call 970-416-2648.
Thank you for your time and participation!
Sincerely,
Junio 2018
Estimado Residente de Fort Collins:
¡Aquí tiene una segunda oportunidad si no ha contestado
aún la Encuesta 2018 sobre la quema residencial de leña
en Fort Collins! (Si la contestó en línea, le agradecemos
su tiempo y le pedimos que recicle esta carta. No
conteste dos veces.)
La Ciudad está evaluando actualmente las políticas sobre
la quema residencial de leña en exteriores, como el uso
de hogueras o fogones, chimeneas o fogatas de
campamento. Su opinión tendrá un papel importante
para dar forma a las políticas y los programas municipales
relacionados con estos aparatos que se usan en
exteriores.
Algunas cosas que recordar:
Sus respuestas son totalmente confidenciales.
A fin de conocer la opinión de un grupo diverso de
residentes, debe contestar esta encuesta el adulto de
18 años o mayor en su casa que más recientemente
haya tenido un cumpleaños.
Puede contestar la encuesta en línea usando la
dirección URL y el código de acceso que se indican a
continuación:
www.bit.ly/fcwoodburning
Código de acceso:
Si tiene alguna pregunta sobre la encuesta, llame al 970-
416-2648.
¡Agradecemos su tiempo y participación!
Atentamente,
Dear Fort Collins Resident,
If you haven’t already responded to the
Residential Wood Burning Survey, here’s
another chance! Your participation is
important and your answers will help the
City Council make decisions that affect our
community.
Please complete the survey online using the
following URL and access code:
www.bit.ly/fcwoodburning
Access Code:
If you have questions or need assistance,
please call 970-416-2648. Thank you for
helping us with this important study!
Sincerely,
Estimado Residente de Fort Collins,
Si no ha contestado aún la encuesta sobre la
quema residencial de leña, ¡aquí tiene otra
oportunidad de hacerlo! Su participación es
importante y sus respuestas ayudarán al
concejo municipal a tomar decisiones que
afectan a nuestra comunidad.
Puede contestar la encuesta en línea usando
la dirección URL y el código de acceso que se
indican a continuación:
www.bit.ly/fcwoodburning
Código de acceso:
Si tiene alguna pregunta sobre la encuesta,
llame al 970-416-2648. Gracias por
ayudarnos con este importante estudio!
Atentamente,
Lucinda Smith, Director
Environmental Services Department/Departamento de Servicios Ambientales
Dear Fort Collins Resident,
If you haven’t already responded to the
Residential Wood Burning Survey, here’s
another chance! Your participation is
important and your answers will help the
City Council make decisions that affect our
community.
Please complete the survey online using the
following URL and access code:
www.bit.ly/fcwoodburning
Access Code:
If you have questions or need assistance,
please call 970-416-2648. Thank you for
helping us with this important study!
Sincerely,
Estimado Residente de Fort Collins,
Si no ha contestado aún la encuesta sobre la
quema residencial de leña, ¡aquí tiene otra
oportunidad de hacerlo! Su participación es
importante y sus respuestas ayudarán al
concejo municipal a tomar decisiones que
afectan a nuestra comunidad.
Puede contestar la encuesta en línea usando
la dirección URL y el código de acceso que se
indican a continuación:
www.bit.ly/fcwoodburning
Código de acceso:
Presorted
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Environmental Services Department Permit NO. 94
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Presorted
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Environmental Services Department Permit NO. 94
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Presorted
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Environmental Services Department Permit NO. 94
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Presorted
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Environmental Services Department Permit NO. 94
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
1.3
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins Outdoor Residential Wood Burning Survey 2018
Page 1
Dear Fort Collins Resident:
The City is currently reviewing policies around outdoor residential wood burning, such as backyard use of fire pits,
chimineas or campfires. Your feedback will play an important role in shaping the City’s policies and programs related
to these outdoor appliances.
A few things to remember:
Your responses are completely confidential.
In order to hear from a diverse group of residents, the adult 18 years or older in your household who most
recently had a birthday should complete this survey.
You may return the survey by mail in the enclosed postage-paid envelope.
If you have any questions about the survey please call 970-416-2648. Thank you for your time and participation!
Sincerely,
Lucinda Smith, Environmental Services Department Director
Your responses are confidential and will be reported in group form only. Thank you.
1. Do you have any of the following outdoor appliances? (Please select all that apply.)
Wood burning fire pit/chiminea Continue on to question 2
Gas burning fire pit Continue on to question 2
No, I don’t have either of these SKIP to question 4
2. In the last year, about how many days have you used each of the following outdoor appliances?
None/0 1-10 days 11-20 days More than 20 days Not applicable
Wood burning fire pit or chiminea ....................... 1 2 3 4 5
Gas burning fire pit ............................................... 1 2 3 4 5
3. How likely, if at all, are you to use your outdoor wood burning fire pit/chiminea during each of the following times?
Very likely Somewhat likely Not at all likely Don’t know
On a weekday (Monday-Thursday) ...................................... 1 2 3 4
At the end of week (Friday, Saturday or Sunday)................. 1 2 3 4
During the day (after sunrise to before sunset) ................... 1 2 3 4
In the evening (sunset to 10pm) .......................................... 1 2 3 4
Late evening (after 10pm) .................................................... 1 2 3 4
4. First, please tell us how concerned, if at all, you are about each of the following coming from a neighbor’s property
near your residence and impacting your air quality. Then, tell us if you have or anyone in your household has
experienced each type of impact (whether of concern or not) from a neighbor’s residence in the last year.
Major Moderate Minor Not a Yes, have
concern concern concern concern experienced
Wood smoke from outdoor fires .............................................. 1 2 3 4
Wood smoke from indoor fireplaces or stoves ........................ 1 2 3 4
Smoke from outdoor cooking (e.g., BBQs or smokers) ............ 1 2 3 4
Secondhand smoke from tobacco products ............................. 1 2 3 4
Secondhand smoke from marijuana products ......................... 1 2 3 4
5. Do you or anyone in your household experience any of the following respiratory issues or conditions that may be
aggravated by wood smoke? (Select all that apply.)
Asthma Emphysema COPD Allergies On oxygen Other _____________
1.3
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
City of Fort Collins Outdoor Residential Wood Burning Survey 2018
Page 2
6. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the City should do each of the following as they relate to fire
pits/chimineas? Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Don’t
agree agree disagree disagree know
No changes. Continue current efforts, including responding to safety concerns,
providing outreach materials regarding health impacts, and offering use of
the City’s free neighbor mediation program ......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Provide residents more information regarding health impacts from
smoke from outdoor wood fires ............................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Provide rebates for propane or natural gas outdoor recreational fire devices ........ 1 2 3 4 5
Require neighbor notification prior to wood burning ............................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Require permits for wood burning appliances and/or inspections before use ........... 1 2 3 4 5
Put rules in place that require wood fires to be extinguished when a reasonable
nuisance concern is reported from a single neighbor ........................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Put rules in place that require wood fires to be extinguished when nuisance
concerns are received from multiple neighbors (e.g., three or more) .................. 1 2 3 4 5
Increase the required distance of fire pits or chimineas from fences or
property lines (currently 15 ft) ............................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Put rules in place that don’t allow wood burning on days when regional air
pollution is high (generally during the winter) ...................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Limit outdoor wood burning during certain hours of the day ................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Put rules in place that don’t allow or ban use of wood as a fuel for outdoor
recreational fires .................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
7. Thinking about outdoor wood burning in residential neighborhoods, is there anything else you would like City
staff to consider?
Our last questions are about you and your household.
Again, all of your responses to this survey are confidential and will be reported in group form only.
8. How long have you lived in the City of Fort Collins?
Less than 1 year 11-15 years
1-5 years 16-20 years
6-10 years More than 20 years
9. Which best describes the building you live in?
One family house detached from any other houses
Building with two or more homes (duplex,
townhome, apartment complex or condominium)
Mobile home
Other
10. Do you own or rent your residence?
Own Rent
11. What is the highest level of school or degree you’ve
completed?
Less than high school graduate
High school graduate (or equivalency)
Some college or associate’s degree
Bachelor’s degree or higher
12. What is your age?
18-24 years 55-64 years
25-34 years 65-74 years
35-44 years 75 years or older
45-54 years
13. What is your gender/gender identity?
Female
Male
Transgender
Prefer to self-identify: _______________________
Please respond to both questions 14 and 15.
14. What is your race? (Mark one or more races to
indicate what race you consider yourself to be).
American Indian or Alaskan Native
SPRING 2018 COMMUNITY
ISSUES FORUM
Preliminary Report on Residential Wood Burning
Topic
August 28, 2018
Key Summary of Findings
By Martin Carcasson, Ph.D
Director, CSU Center for Public Deliberation
ATTACHMENT 4
1.4
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: CSU Center for Public Deliberation Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Residential Backyard Wood Burning Report 2
About the Center
The Colorado State University Center for Public Deliberation (CPD) serves as an impartial resource to the
northern Colorado community. Working with students trained in small group facilitation, the CPD assists
local government, school boards, and community organizations by researching issues and developing
useful background material, and then designs, facilitates, and reports on innovative public events. The
interpretations and conclusions contained in this publication have been produced by CPD associates
without the input of partner organizations to maintain impartiality.
1.4
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: CSU Center for Public Deliberation Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Residential Backyard Wood Burning Report 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary 4
Background 5
Methods 6
What were the goals of the event? 6
Who was in the room? 6
What did the event look like? 8
How was information collected? 8
Key Findings 9
Part 1 – Current Policy 9
Part 2 – Potential Compromises 12
Part 3 – Considering the Total Ban 13
Next Steps 14
Appendices
Participant worksheet
Answers to “what do you most want city council to know about your
opinion on this issue?”
15
17
1.4
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: CSU Center for Public Deliberation Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Residential Backyard Wood Burning Report 4
Executive Summary
On May 5, 2018, fifty-five residents gathered at the Spring 2018 Community Issues Forum – a
cosponsored event between the City of Fort Collins and the CSU Center for Public Deliberation—to
discuss residential wood burning and housing affordability. This report focuses on the first topic.
Residents were provided a quick background on the issue, and then in small facilitated groups talked
through the issue, relying on a worksheet developed by the CPD that outlines various arguments
related to the issue (that worksheet is included at the end of this report). As this was a newly
emerging issue and the first significant public engagement, the purpose of the event was primarily to
clarify the various arguments and better understand key aspects of the issue.
This report summarizes how the residents engaged the various arguments and potential actions that
had been identified from the public discourse leading up to the event, and works to identify useful
next steps to clarify the issue and support the city council in their decision-making process. The
analysis and table discussions revealed numerous aspects to the issue. The key question at heart the
issue is the tension between the right of residents to use their backyard as they see fit and the
rights of neighbors to not have to experience the negative consequences of their neighbor’s
actions. For some, the former is paramount and government intervention should be limited. For
others, the tension is framed as a pitting one’s choice of entertainment or recreation against another’s
health, and therefore seems clearly unbalanced toward a ban. Participants added a number of factors
as they discussed that tension. Some of the key factors to consider moving forward inclue:
The frequency of problems arising from the activity – The most common reaction focused on
the low number of complaints to question the importance of the issue and dismiss the need for an
overall ban, while others questioned the numbers or highlighted the severity of the issue for some
specific residents.
The severity of the health impacts of wood smoke – This was clearly a contested issue, and
one that should lend itself to additional factual analysis. For some, smoke that traveled from a
nearby campfire into windows seemed to simply be a nuisance, and for others it was understood
as clear health hazard.
The most appropriate way to address residents with particular sensitivities – The most
personal and emotional arguments for the ban involved residents with specific sensitivities to
smoke. This becomes both a factual question (how many people have these sensitivities and how
much of harm is smoke to them?) as well as a value question (when is curtailing the rights of the
majority justified based on the needs of a smaller minority?).
Questions also arose about the basic neighbor to neighbor interactions and how this issue may be
more of a symptom of broader concerns and the growing inability for neighbors to address conflicts
productively on their own. Some felt better neighbor relations solves this issue, and others are wary
of such interactions.
Lastly, it is clear that additional public education is warranted on this issue, particularly regarding the
current regulations. A brief activity at the beginning of the event revealed that many were not aware
of the current regulations, and a pre-meeting survey showed that the most supported action was
increased education efforts about the current regulations and the impacts of wood smoke.
1.4
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: CSU Center for Public Deliberation Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Residential Backyard Wood Burning Report 5
Background
Just so you know how this all got started
The issue of residential wood burning was identified as a key issue to engage at a Fort Collins
City Council work retreat in the spring of 2017. That inclusion sparked a Coloradoan article on
the issue, which attracted numerous responses as well as emails to council members. Early in the
spring of 2018, the city asked the Center for Public Deliberation to include the topic in its
Community Issues Forum (CIF) for the spring as part of their ongoing public engagement efforts
on the issue. The CIF is a collaborative event between the CPD and the City of Fort Collins held
each semester/twice a year. The city manager’s office often picks the topics focusing on issues
the council is seeking additional public engagement.
To develop the process for the event, the CPD staff utilized information from the existing public
discourse, primarily the emails sent to council, the responses to two Coloradoan stories, and
answers to some pre-meeting questions on the event RSVP. They also worked closely Cassie
Archeleta, Air Quality Program Manager in the city’s Environmental Services, and Ryan Scott,
an assistant professor in the Political Science Department at CSU who was doing research on
policy options from other communities.
From the beginning of the analysis, it was clear the issue was polarized in a particular way.
Almost all those that either sent emails to council or responded to the Coloradoan stories were
either strongly in favor or strongly against a ban of backyard fire pits. Very few of these voices
seemed to consider the other side to have valid arguments. Some strongly held voices argued for
the ban, and most of the others pushed back, particularly from the perspective that the problem
did not rise to the level of warranting significant attention. Many pointed specifically to statistics
in the Coloradoan noting low levels of complaints (the slide below was shown during the
introduction of the forum with those numbers). The emails to council supporting a ban primarily
provided personal examples of the problems caused by nearby fires.
1.4
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: CSU Center for Public Deliberation Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Residential Backyard Wood Burning Report 6
From those initial sources, the CPD developed a list of arguments for and against considering
additional regulations, as well as potential mechanisms to address the concerns. At the event,
those arguments were provided to the facilitated small groups to respond to. The overall goal was
the refine our understanding of the issue by having the groups engage the arguments from the
different sides and consider the tradeoffs. In a way, the topic was ideal for the CIF, which often
includes more than one topic and therefore engages people who may not already have a settled
opinion on every issue at the event.
METHODS.
What were the goals of the event?
This was a relatively new topic without much prior engagement, therefore the primary purpose of
the CPD event was to clarify the various perspectives on the issue and to explore some potential
options to address the concerns that have been raised about the current policy. Calls had been made
to simply ban wood fires, and while that was one of the options considered, numerous partial bans
and measures were also considered. The information gathered was provided to Cassie Archuleta
with the city to be combined with other engagement efforts and eventually to be used to update
city council at a work session in the fall of 2018.
Who was in the room?
Fifty-five residents participated in the event.
1.4
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: CSU Center for Public Deliberation Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Residential Backyard Wood Burning Report 7
1.4
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: CSU Center for Public Deliberation Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Residential Backyard Wood Burning Report 8
What did the event look like?
The participants were all seated at separate tables, typically with 4-6 participants per table with a
CPD student facilitator and a CPD student notetaker. Cassie Archuleta started the session off with
a quick review of the topic, which was followed by a short session with the wireless keypads to
identify who was in the room and to ask a few questions to test the knowledge of the current
policies regarding fire pits. Full results of those questions are available in the Raw Data Report
(https://col.st/Y5YUz). The process did show gaps in the public knowledge about the current
regulations.
CPD Director Martin Carcasson then provided a quick overview of the process and an explanation
of the worksheet the participants were provided to help structure the conversation. The worksheet,
developed from the CPD analysis, outlined many of the current arguments connected to the issue,
organized around three discussion topics:
DISCUSSION PURPOSE ACTIVITY
Part 1 Thinking through the
status quo (12
minutes)
Responding to the arguments supporting or
expressing concern about the current policies, as
well as potentially adding to them.
Part 2 Potential
compromises (15
minutes)
Responding to a list of seven potential partial bans,
as well as four mechanisms that could be used to
enforce them.
Part 3 Considering a full ban
(5 min)
Responding to the arguments supporting or
expressing concern about the current policies, as
well as potentially adding to them.
What information was collected?
Four forms of information were collected at the event focused on this topic. The initial clicker session
captured demographic information and answers to some initial trivia questions about the current policy to
gauge the level of knowledge. At each table, notetakers captured key arguments made during the small
group discussions. Participants also had a worksheet were they could provide individual statements. They
were not asked to complete the survey fully, it was primarily an opportunity for them to add specific
comments if they preferred to write and/or if they didn’t have a chance to express them verbally. We did
ask all participants to complete on final question on the worksheet at the end of the discussion that asked
them what they most wanted city council to know about their opinion on the issue. At the end of the event,
participants also completed surveys focused on the process and their experience at the table (no issue
focused questions were on the final survey).
1.4
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: CSU Center for Public Deliberation Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Residential Backyard Wood Burning Report 9
KEY FINDINGS.
Part 1 – Current Policy
Part 1 asked participants to consider the current policy by reviewing its basics and reacting to
some common arguments made in favor and in opposition to the current policy. The key
features highlighted on the worksheet included:
• Focus on fire safety concern (see cards for additional information)
• Rely on neighbors to address additional concerns
• Could increase educational efforts regarding health impacts and resources for improved
neighbor communication
Exploring arguments in support for current policy
The worksheets provided four common arguments that supported the current policy identified in the
analysis completed prior to the meeting. They are listed below with a brief summary of how participants
engaged them during the forum:
• Social benefit of enjoying the outdoors
This argument was not explored as much as others in the discussion. In the emails to
council and in the Coloradoan comments, several people made arguments for the value
of backyard fires, particularly as a mechanism to bring people together and enjoy the
Colorado outdoors. A few participants in the event did so as well. Some participants also
pushed back on this argument, seeing the practice as unnecessary and out of place in a
city.
• Personal investment made under current rules
Engagement with this argument was rather limited as well. A few examples of residents
concerned that a recent investment would be rendered unusable, but others saw the
possibility of the city providing incentives for people to switch to gas fire pits as
mitigating this issue.
• Concerns about government overreach
This was one of the most commonly engaged and discussed issues, with significant
argument supporting or refuting it. Many participants connected the issue to broader
concerns about the city council overreaching and regulating behavior unnecessarily.
Indeed, it is likely that many of those that engaged the issue were primarily focused on
these broader concerns rather than the specific issue of defending backyard fire pits.
Some in particular expressed concerns of a slippery slope that will lead to additional city
regulations on behavior (such as grilling or smoking outside).
1.4
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: CSU Center for Public Deliberation Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Residential Backyard Wood Burning Report 10
The pushback on this argument tended to rephrase it not as overreach, but as a
legitimate government function, particularly as a city grows. Participants defending the
need for government to step in either based on the failure of neighbor to neighbor
communication, or simply the need for more consistently and authority to address the
issue. Additional arguments here highlighted the basic fact that smoke does not stay
within property lines, so it cannot be seen simply as government regulating “what I do
on my own property.”
• Concerns that the limited number of complaints do not justify significant
action
This was by far the most common argument both in the pre-meeting data and during the
discussions. Many expressed surprise that the issue was even being discussed, again pointing to
the small number of complaints. Many explicitly stated that there is no “mandate” for a ban, and
that the city should be focused on other more important issues. Due to the low number of
complaints, participants felt an overall ban would be a significant overreaction, essentially
stopping everyone’s opportunity to have a wood fire based on a few residents that were evidently
abusing the right and not being considerate of their neighbors, or residents seen as hyper-
sensitive.
The pushback here came in two forms. First, there was a questioning of the numbers themselves.
Some particpants mentioned that since by current regulation only fires that were unsafe could be
stopped, there was no reason to call to complain based on the smoke. Others pointed to an increase
in the number of complaints but also a general feeling of an increase in the number of people using
fire pits as justification to explore the issue. Second, there was a sense, particularly from those
with sensitivities, that the overall numbers were not critical since it was a clear health hazard in
their eyes.
There was space for participants to add additional arguments supporting the current policy. No new
significant themes arose, other than an argument that the current policy was sufficient because when the
regulations were followed (clean, dry wood; proper spacing; etc.) the problems would remain minimal. As
a result, they believed the best remedy was simply improved education and outreach and for the city to
address the rare problematic cases individually.
Concerns about current policy
The worksheets also provided four common arguments that captured concerns about the current policy.
They are listed below with a brief summary of how participants engaged them.
• Nuisance to neighbors (particularly those without AC or that prefer to have
windows open at night)
This was a primary argument made by those concerned with the current policy and
likely a key issue for council to consider. Stories were shared about the impact of nearby
fires either driving people inside, forcing the closing of windows, or even the odors
impacting the interior of their homes even after the fires were out. This issue is
somewhat an issue of taste and preference, as some enjoy the smell of campfire and
others do not. Many explained how during the summer they rely on having windows
open in the evening to cool the home, but are forced to close them more and more
often due to nearby fires.
1.4
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: CSU Center for Public Deliberation Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Residential Backyard Wood Burning Report 11
• Health concerns (particularly for those with respiratory issues)
This was perhaps the most strongly stated concern, but also one that was contested by others.
Residents that had someone with a respitory issue n the household in particular were concerned
about the impact of smoke, and Cassie Archuleta relayed data from earlier Fort Collins surveys
that estimates that ¼ of homes have someone with some sort of respiratory issues. The science on
this issue warrants closer examination. It is clear that breathing campfire smoke is bad for you, as
supported by an EPA link highlighted on the city website (https://www.epa.gov/burnwise/wood-
smoke-and-your-health). What is less established, however, is the degree of those negative
impacts when the smoke has traveled to a neighboring property. In sum, for certain participants,
this was the most important argument, one that trumped any concerns about low numbers or
property rights. Put simply, one’s right to burning a backyard fire surely doesn’t trump one’s right
to avoid harmful air. To others, this claim was overblown. Since the heart of this question is more
of a factual question, additional information would be useful.
• Environmental concerns
Several participants cited environmental concerns, though these typically were
secondary arguments to either the nuisance or health concerns. The environmental
concerns were threefold: concerns about air quality, concerns about contributing to
greenhouse gases, and concerns about having to run AC more often after closing
windows to avoid the smoke. The pushback here often made comparisons to the impact
of backyard fires to automobiles and the production of electricity, and seeing a minor
overall impact. The other relevant argument made here was concern that if we ban
wood fires and then encourage gas fire pits, we were incentivizing and increasing the
use of fossil fuels.
• Difficulty of relying on neighbor to neighbor communication (not always
clear where smoke is coming from, neighbor relationship could be strained,
and problems could begin late at night)
This issue was clearly one of the most contested arguments and sparked significant conversations
throughout. The range of opinions here were broad:
Some argued that the issue was inappropriate for government because it should
simply be an issue neighbors should be able to address on their own. “Just talk to
your neighbor” was a common refrain.
Some argued that Fort Collins has lost a sense of neighborliness and
connectedness, and the fire pit issue was more of a symptom of that broader issue
rather than fire pits. As a result, they expressed a need for reconnection.
Some argued that at the city grows larger and denser, issues like these naturally
arise and require more government involvement to address.
Some expressed significant concern regarding addressing the issue directly with
their neighbors, at times based on bad experiences and concern about backlash or
increasing hostility. And if the fire is part of a larger social event, interrupting
such an event made people uncomfortable.
Some argued that it is not always clear where the smoke is coming from,
especially late at night, so the prospect of simply talking to whoever is having the
fire was more difficult that assumed.
1.4
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: CSU Center for Public Deliberation Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Residential Backyard Wood Burning Report 12
Part 2 – Potential Compromises
During part 2, participants reacted to a list of potential compromises situated between the current policy
and a total ban of residential wood fires, as well as some potential mechanisms to implement the options.
Some of these are options other cities have explored or utilized, and others were drawn from mechanisms
used for similar issues (i.e. noise, party registration, etc.). Overall, none of the options garnered significant
support or opposition. Tables engaged them and saw some potential to some of the ideas, but opposition
came both from people dismissing the need at all (“these are ridiculous”) as well as supporters of a ban
arguing that none of these would be sufficient. The list they reacted to included:
1. Reasonable nuisance fire ban (complaints can lead to extinguishing the fire or limiting
future fires) Several tables discussed this option, and it garnered moderate support in the pre-
meeting survey. While many expressed some support for the general idea, they struggled with
how to define the threshold of “nuisance,” and were unsure how it would be regulated. Some
suggested that complaints would need to come from multiple sources, not just one neighbor for it
not to be subject to abuse.
2. Limit in certain locations based on density There was some agreement that as neighbors grow
more dense, rules likely have to change and the impact of fires becomes clearer. There was some
concern, however, that regulations here would be discriminatory, allowing the activity for
residents with larger homes and backyards but limiting it for others.
3. Limit which days someone can have a fire (e.g. Friday and Saturday only) Overall, there was
very little support for this potential mechanism. It was seen as arbitrary, could potentially
concentrate impact, and didn’t address key concerns about the fire. As one resident explained,
“Breathing issues don’t take days off.”
4. Limit burning to certain hours of day (e.g. fires out by 11 pm) There was some support for
this option, as it would in particular lessen the impact of having to close windows overnight.
Concerns were expressed about how this would be monitored, and that it assumed everyone was
on a typical schedule.
5. Seasonal ban (warm or cold seasons) This issue wasn’t significantly engaged.
6. Limit based on atmospheric conditions (e.g. high pollution advisory days) This mechanism
had the strongest support in the pre-meeting survey, and some believed this was already city
policy.
7. Require longer distance from property line Similar to the option of banning based on density,
there was some general support here, along with some pushback on even the current distance as
discriminatory.
After discussing the various rules, participants were also given a chance to consider various mechanisms
for enforcing the new rules (notification or permitting). Overall, there was more concern than support for
most of these mechanisms. Many – particularly those that felt that the issue was minor – saw all the
mechanisms as unnecessary and overreaching. Some tables did attempt to work through how the
mechanisms could work, and saw, if a reasonable system could be established, the value of having easily
1.4
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: CSU Center for Public Deliberation Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Residential Backyard Wood Burning Report 13
available information about who is having a nearby fire. Such a system was assumed to be particularly
valuable to residents with sensitivities. There was support for those residents to have a way to request or
require their neighbors notify them if they are going to have a fire so they could take steps to minimize the
impact. Whether that system should be voluntary or required, and applied broadly or only as needed
garnered different responses.
Additional concerns that arose with the discussions of potential regulations and mechanism focused on the
difficulty of implementing them.
Part 3 – Considering the Total Ban
The final discussion was shorter, primarily because most of the issues were already explored earlier in the
discussion. We wanted to close with a discussion of the total ban, in particular once people had a chance to
consider the various partial bans and compromises. Overall, the primary arguments for each side stayed
steady. The most common argument was that the issue simply didn’t rise to a necessary level of concern
and importance to warrant an overall ban. Many felt that with the low number of complaints and wide
variety of options to address the issue, the city should address the situations more specifically rather than
with an overall ban. Other participants, particularly those with negative personal experiences with neighors
on this issue and/or health sensitivies to smoke, continued to maintain the need for an overall city policy to
address their concerns.
1.4
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: CSU Center for Public Deliberation Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Residential Backyard Wood Burning Report 14
NEXT STEPS
Based on the analysis in this report, some potential next steps focus on establishing more
clarity around a few contested issues that seem to lend themselves to research. In
particular, since the most common argument against the ban – or even further discussing
the issue – focused on the low number of official complaints, getting a better sense of
the scope of the issue is warranted. There are already plans for a statistically
representative survey to be completed on this issue, which will provide insights into both
how often residents have wood fires in their backyards as well as how many people have
had some negative experiences with their neighbors having fires. The survey will help
identify if people are having more fires than before, and to what degree are those fires
causing problems. The survey will also provide useful feedback on the potential
mechanisms to address the issue, as well as a better sense of the number of residents
with sensitivities to smoke.
Additional information on the health impacts would also provide clarity, as some
residents clearly saw significant health impacts while others tended to see the issue
primarily as a nuisance issue rather than a public health issue.
A better understanding of some of the specific problematic examples that have
been shared is justified as well. Some of the strongest voices on both sides of this issue
stem from personal experiences, but our knowledge of those examples are limited as we
have primarily heard just one side of the story. Exploring some of these situations in
greater detail may provide useful guidance for broader actions. Since many residents saw
the issue as more about neighbor to neighbor relationships rather than wood
burning specifically, a better understanding of the dynamics of some of these situations
would be useful.
During the writing of this report, likely due to frequent internet searches regarding
backyard wood burning and fire pits, advertisements about “smokeless” wood burning
fire grills have begun to appear in the author’s social media stream. If truly viable, this
new technology may provide an interesting alternative to address the issue.
Lastly, we should continue to explore potential mechanisms and regulations, particularly
in terms of what has been done or being considered in other municipalities. As the
discussion on potential rules and mechanisms here attested, numerous questions remain
regarding the overall pros and cons of the various potential regulations and how they
would actually be implemented.
1.4
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: CSU Center for Public Deliberation Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Residential Backyard Wood Burning Report 15
APPENDICES
Spring 2018 Community Issues Forum
Outdoor Residential Burning Worksheet
This worksheet is designed to help you walk through the facilitated process, as well provide space for you
to write additional comments that will be collected and compiled. Feel free to add comments in response
to the text as well as add new comments and questions throughout.
Part 1: Current Policy
Key features
Focus on fire safety concern (see cards for additional information)
Rely on neighbors to address additional concerns
Could increase educational efforts regarding health impacts and resources for improved neighbor
communication
Support for current policy
Social benefit of enjoying the outdoors
Personal investment made under current rules
Concerns about government overreach
Concerns that the limited number of complaints do not justify significant action
Concerns about current policy
Nuisance to neighbors (particularly those without AC or that prefer to have windows open at night)
Health concerns (particularly those with respiratory issues)
Environmental concerns
Difficulty of relying on neighbor to neighbor communication (not always clear where smoke is
coming from, neighbor relationship could be strained, and problems could begin late at night)
1.4
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: CSU Center for Public Deliberation Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Residential Backyard Wood Burning Report 16
Part 2: Potential compromises
Options for partial bans
1. Reasonable nuisance fire ban (complaints can lead to extinguishing the fire or limiting future
fires)
2. Limit in certain locations based on density
3. Limit which days someone can have a fire (e.g. Friday and Saturday only)
4. Limit burning to certain hours of day (e.g. fires out by 11 pm)
5. Seasonal ban (warm or cold seasons)
6. Limit based on atmospheric conditions (e.g. high pollution advisory days)
7. Require longer distance from property line
Additional options?
Potential Mechanisms (may be required or voluntary)
A. Notification to neighbors (potentially just to those that have sensitivities)
B. Notification to city
C. Permitting of set up
D. Permitting of individual events
Part 3: Considering a total ban
Supporting arguments:
Fully addresses concerns about current policy
Easier to enforce and monitor
Could be supplemented by an incentive program to purchase gas fire pits
Concerns:
Takes away an individual right and social benefit that is currently enjoyed
Impacts personal prior investments
Government overreach
Based on today’s discussion, what do you most want city council to know about your opinion on this
issue?
1.4
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: CSU Center for Public Deliberation Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Residential Backyard Wood Burning Report 17
The final question on the worksheet, which we asked all participants to complete at the end of the
discussion, asked them “what do you most want city council to know about your opinion on this
issue? Here are those written answers in full.
The scope of this investigation is too limited to be of any value. Without including
woodburning stoves, fireplaces, and the like, this discussion/investigation is not a good
use of resources. There is not an issue. The city should not be spending resources on this.
Disagree with any changes; support the education of mediation.
Sounds like the city has the problem under control
I don't believe there is a problem that needs compromise or resolution. The current wood
burning guidelines are sufficient.
Ban wood burning. Okay gas only
I support a total ban on outdoor wood burning. My right to breath clean air supercedes
another's right to burn and pollute the air I breathe.
Ban woodburning. Gas fire pits ok.
Health issues requires action. If 1 in 4 residents have air quality issues, maybe gas only is
the answer.
Please all gas outdoor. Suggest only allow open wood fires by specific permit per
incident, with strong enforcement and fines for violation.
We live in a community and we need rules and framework that helps us account for each
other's health considerations and preferences. At the very least, I hope there is some
reasonable rules around outdoor burning.
I think a total ban of wood fires would have alot of resistance from residents. Compliance
with 15-foot setback would be helpful. A partial ban based on density may be helpful.
Those with respiratory problems should have the option of no fires nearby.
The information presented (and my lack of deep understanding of this as an issue) do not
allow me to further contribute.
Focus on the real issue behind this. Is it about air health concerns? That means other
policy must be attended to first. Is it about the environment? other more pending policy
must be attended to first (i.e. recycling and landfill filling up). If the real issue is
government overreach, then we must offer incentives. if its about people not talking to
neighbors, we must help change that culture first.
If smoke is a major issue. Banning fires. In general health issues, how do we control
other environmental issues that effect air, cars, construction, road work, etc. all will and
do have potential health issues.
To ban outdoor residential burning would be a complete overreach by government.
Banning should only be considered in the case of atmospheric conditions. So, for that
matter, more considerations should be taken for those with respiratory issue (i.e. fracking
and large cattle feeding operations & large-scale agriculture!!!)
I think some elements of this worksheet (nuisance complaints, limits based on density,
limits based on environmental conditions) are -- or could be -- covered by existing
regulations/processes (nuisance reporting, fire distance regulations, burn bans, etc.). If
possible, we should use regulations that already exist instead of making new ones.
Do nothing.
1.4
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: CSU Center for Public Deliberation Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Residential Backyard Wood Burning Report 18
Use common sense, too small of percentage to address issue.
I'm fine with the current policy. I would oppose a complete ban. Improve the mediation
and education around specific concerns between neighbors.
No issue has been identified. 50 people objecting to whatever_ does not constitute an
issue that 150,000 people should be spending resources to consider.
Stay out. Leave it alone. Current rules are good.
it seems that having a registration system wherein people notify the city of wanting to be
notified if a fire will be nearby (maybe 2-mile radius) of a specific address. Fire users
could call in/email/use website to notify the city that they wanted to have a fire. Using a
mapping system, the city could tell a potential user that it is ok. At the same time, the
system would notify, those that wanted to be notified, that a fire has been approved to
occur within 2 miles of their address.
A total ban wouldn't eliminate wood burning fires - it's better to give folks choices and
parameters to work in. Use a combo of partial ban ideas to create most effective policy
that address concerns about health and smoke and allows people to enjoy the social
aspect of fires.
I don't have strong opinions about this but based on other's thoughts and compromise a
yearly permit with electronic notification of concerned citizens when there will be a
backyard fire might work.
Total ban unlikely, but a centralized notification system that informs those sensitive to
smoke before folks in their "neighborhood" start burning would be useful so windows
can be closed.
The smell of the smoke in the air.
This is an important issue.
No change to current policy is warranted.
Unnecessary overreach given the limited scope of the problem city-wide.
Based upon the few number of recorded complaints or this issue, I think concerns should
be on hold unless the existing problems escalate over time.
That a Vibrant Neighborhood Grants program is great. Let's keep fostering vibrant
neighborhoods, focus on face to face problem solving among neighbors and fostering
good will, and refrain from enforcing bans of wood burning.
If the number of complaints were to increase by 100%, then this issue may need to create
some restrictions.
This seems like a minor issue compare to other more pressing community issues.
Small issue - more important issues for city to deal with.
More info needed. Appreciate the city's interest in planning ahead.
Not for a ban.
Identify the most vulnerable populations based on health concerns (asthma, COPD, etc.).
Allow those people to register, once medical issue is verified, allow those
families/households to create a "no-fire" zone in their neighborhood. The city would then
inform the surrounding residents that fires are not allowed.
Where are the most vulnerable populations. Create no fire zones near them - or petition
neighbors on this.
1.4
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: CSU Center for Public Deliberation Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Residential Backyard Wood Burning Report 19
Need to monitor and periodically reconsider safety and health risks.
Concerned about equity. Is recreational burning accessible across all income and housing
options? One's needs to be ?? in "for" or "against" debate
Gather data about the impacts of outdoor recreational fire pit use on air quality and health
before making any decisions. As far as I can tell from what was presented to us at the
start of the meeting, the voices of a very small # of people is the only impetus and
support for regulating/banning fires.
Arbitrary. Too oriented.
Total fire ban is overkill. City should not be able to implement a ban based on so few
complaints. Restrictions are not the answer either. Education on nuisance people is great,
similar to noise nuisances.
I'm not in favor of a ban but more education would help. I'm in favor of limiting burning
hours, as well as banning burning on high wind/fire danger days, and days with unhealthy
air.
What about education opportunities with respect to current regulations? Perhaps more
live enforcement of current regulations?
Based on data presented @ our table, this should not be an issue. Do nothing except:
enforcement for repeat offenders notify complaining neighbors in advance?
Please do not ban backyard fire pits for recreational fires. The current regulations are
sufficient for the needs to address issues and concerns. Please do not require gas for fires
unless the city is willing to pay for installation of gas fire pits for the residents.
This is not a problem worthy of the city council's time. 57 complaints in 6 years. Major
public opposition to effort (2017 Air quality survey). No scientific basis (studies about
fire pits v. "smoke is bad"). And mischaracterizing the issue as a social problem when in
fact it is a social hub. Councilmembers who vote for this will face serious opposition in
elections.
This is a property rights issue. A ban ensures that a property owner can enjoy their
property and the right to breathe in their own backyard. Complaints as a number doesn't
equal consensus.
Where can we find more information? Where is this being communicated? What are the
metrics on effects on wood burning on air quality, and health? Personal safety? How do
these metrics compare to gas products? What was the process and results in peer cities?
Public safety outweighs social/recreational enjoyment lean toward citywide ban or
regulations to facilitate ease of enforcement.
I support a total ban. This isn't anyone's "right." My right to breathe is more valid than
someone's fire pit parties.
Don't raise taxes to supplement or add a policy that takes away my civil rights as a
property owner. Do not make Fort Collins into Boulder!
I do not believe that outdoor firepits is something that government needs or should be
involved in.
Ban backyard recreational woodburning entirely within Fort Collins city limits.
1.4
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: CSU Center for Public Deliberation Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Institutional Variation in Municipal Burning Rules
Ryan P. Scott, PhD
Political Science-Colorado State University
rpscott@colostate.edu
1782 Campus Delivery
Fort Collins, CO: 80524
Submitted: 09.22.2018
ATTACHMENT 5
1.5
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
1
Executive Summary-Institutional Variation in Municipal
Burning Rules
The CSU Political Science Department, in collaboration with the City of Fort Collins, reviewed the
municipal codes from all Colorado home rule municipalities, as well as statutory towns and cities with
populations greater than 2000 residents. This work is intended to support policy discussion regarding
municipal burning rules related to outdoor recreational burning for the City of Fort Collins while mutually
producing academic research.
Recreational burning creates air pollution including particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and benzene.
Because recreational fires not only create pollution but also present risks in terms of potential property
damage and burn safety, some cities have decided to address recreational burning via statute. This report
details codes adopted throughout Colorado.
For each of municipality reviewed, we identified regulations placed on outdoor and recreational burning
that went beyond requirements of the International Fire Code (IFC). Under IFC 2015, open burning is
defined as:
“The burning of materials wherein products of combustion are emitted directly into the ambient
air without passing through a stack or chimney from an enclosed chamber. Open burning does
not include road flares, smudgepots and similar devices associated with safety or occupational
uses typically considered open flames, recreational fires or use of portable outdoor fireplaces.”
Recreational fires are not included in this definition. IFC 2015 defines recreational fire as,
“An outdoor fire burning materials other than rubbish where the fuel being burned is not
contained in an incinerator, outdoor fireplace, portable outdoor fireplace, barbeque grill or
barbeque pit and has a total fuel area of 3 feet (914 mm) or less in diameter and 2 feet (610 mm)
or less in height for pleasure, religious, ceremonial, cooking, warmth or similar purposes.”
(International Code Council 2014, 41)
Most municipalities in Colorado utilize IFC regulations which allow recreational burning. Some cities in
Colorado also adopt additional rules in one or more of five main regulatory categories for managing
recreational burning. These include 1) permanent recreational fire bans, 2) temporary/conditional fire
bans, 3) recreational permit systems, 4 ) nuisance rules, and 5) notification programs.
Types of Burning Rules Adopted in Colorado
Options beyond IFC requirements vary largely on their coerciveness, or ability to drive behavior,
automaticity or requirements for additional administrative designs, and potential effectiveness at
mitigating wood smoke air quality impacts. Coerciveness is directly tied to effectiveness of the program
at reducing wood smoke; however, this may come with trade-offs in terms of democratic norms, political
acceptability, and efficiency of implementation.
1.5
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
2
The most coercive of option we identified other cities using is a permanent recreational fire ban. Boulder,
CO has completely banned recreational fires for any purpose or an any kind of burning device since at
least the 1990s. Boulder makes exceptions for special events or applications with Boulder explicitly
limiting their exemptions to ceremonial uses of fire for religious purposes.
Boulder’s complete ban is more stringent and mandates more behavior change than the partial or
conditional bans adopted by cities. These include seasonal limitations (New Castle), purpose based limits
such as only allowing burning for cooking of food (New Castle), and device limitations such as only
allowing burning in manufactured or approved devices (Windsor). Notably, temporary, partial or
conditional bans operate by making recreational burning illegal but allowing it during certain periods or
when certain conditions are met, such as owning and maintaining a manufactured fire pit.
Cities also rely on permit programs. Most notably, Steamboat Springs requires permits for all recreational
fires within city limits. This permit system creates an approval process for the burning device rather than
an individual burning action. The permit exists as part of the city’s larger open burning permit system.
Meanwhile, Denver officially maintains a permit program, but operationalization of the program has
resulted in a de-facto recreational burning ban. Unlike Steamboat Springs, Denver has no rules about
devices but instead mandates that each individual fire be permitted. It even requires permits from two
different agencies creating and administrative burden for applicants.
Notification rules and nuisance rules exist throughout Colorado but there is very limited evidence of their
actual implementation. In essence, these rules are frequently codified but there is infrequent evidence of
their use.
An example is codified in Ouray, CO, which states that an individual conducting a burn must notify their
neighbors. In this case, the law stipulates that neighbors be notified. Much more common is an informal
recommendation for individuals inform the fire district when they are conducting a recreational burn.
One of the best examples in the State of a nuisance regulation of wood smoke is in Fort Collins. However,
the challenges in administering Fort Collins’ own nuisance ordinance provides evidence at the limitations
on using such codes for managing recreational fire impacts. Both notification programs and nuisance
programs fail to demonstrate widespread usage or enforcement despite their relative frequency of
adoption (in the case of nuisance rules) and recommendation (in the case of notification).
Motivations and Adoption
After cataloguing rules by type we measured correlations between characteristics of cities and rule
adoption. The coerciveness of city residential burning regulations is statistically related to the value of
properties in the wildland urban interface and intermix zone, the per capita revenue of the adopting
municipality, and the population size of the municipality. In each case, cities with higher wildfire risk,
stronger revenue streams, and larger populations are more likely to adopt regulations that go beyond IFC
recreational burning rules. This follows scholarly expectation concerning the kinds of cities that are most
likely to adopt such rules. Also of note is cities that were under EPA nonattainment for particulate matter
1.5
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
3
or carbon monoxide were not more likely to adopt advanced rules. This indicates state and federal
pressure on environmental problems are not driving forces behind recreational burning rules.
As a final portion of this project, we characterized the variation across different rule types. We note
principally that the middle ground between narrowly defined burning bans and the IFC recreational fire
rules brings with it added complexity in terms of exemptions and conditions placed on fires. This brings a
major question of administration. In most all jurisdictions we evaluated, burning rules were the purview
of the local fire district as far as enforcement. This suggests that partnering with the fire district early in
rule development may be critical to ensuring straightforward administration and successful
implementation.
Three critical conclusions from this report, in addition to the kinds of rules adopted are as follows. First of
all, codified rules are frequently not enforced as written. Some cities have rules-in-statute that are
potentially more coercive than the rules enforced by the fire district. Second, rules are driven by fire
safety primarily, not by air quality. Denver and Boulder provide exceptions to this norm. Third, strict
rules can be used to address air quality, but use of them for this purpose comes with administrative and
cultural tradeoffs. Great attention should be paid to who the enforcement agency will be and thus the
potential implementation challenges of a rule change. Across cities, fire departments are generally
responsible for enforcement. This might provide challenges for a multijurisdictional department such as
Poudre Fire Authority.
1.5
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
4
Table of Contents
Executive Table Project Rule Rule Types Motivations Introduction Rationale Methodology Introduction Classifying Complete Partial Permits Nuisance Notification, Conclusions, The Definitions
Types of Description Contents of dual and Summary-...Burning and Rules ..Fire ....Conditional ..problem Rule ...and to ...Incentives, County ....Classifications ....and ....Bans Burning
...................Adoption Types ..............Rules Institutional .......Types .......................of ........Wide ........................air .........Bans Rules .........Adopted
and .............................quality ......................Fire ......................Other By ....................................Throughout ............Variation ............Bans,
............City ........................in ............and ............Voluntary ........................Colorado ......................................and fire .................................................................in
..........................safety Trends Colorado ..........................Municipal .......................................Programs .....................................................................................................Municipal
.............................................................................................................Burning ........................................................................................................................................................................Rules
....................................................................Rules ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................11
12 12 14 18 18 19 21 23 23 24 ........1 1 2 4 7 7 7 8
1.5
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
5
Conclusion Codes Works Alamosa Boulder Denver Delta Fort Mead New Ouray Steamboat Westminster Windsor I) II) III. Limitations Cited Cited Codified Collins Castle Rules Code, Strict Code,
Code, Code, Code, Code, .Code, .(..Springs ..Full) ..are Code, rules ..Ch. Code, Section ..Code, Sec. ..rules ..Sec. of ..Sec generally ..Sec. 7-...8-...this ...address 2 ...10-.Chapter
..08 Section 4-....10-Code, are Sec ....10-....10-....24 3 study ..........8-......not ......4-8-12-.......2 .......driven .......can Sec. 200 6 ................necessarily 9.9-..........40
....................72 ..........23.air .......................5-.......................................by 15 ..............quality .........................................................fire
...........................................................................enforced ...............safety ..............................but ..........................................................................................come
.............................................rather .............................................as ............................................................with written .............................................than
...........................................................................tradeoffs. .............................................air ................................................................................quality
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................26
26 26 27 27 29 29 29 30 31 32 32 32 35 36 37 37 38
1.5
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
6
1.5
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
7
Project Description
Introduction
Across cultures, fire plays a dual role as both a unifying comfort and a threat to human and environmental
health (Pyne 1997; Hine et al. 2007). Efforts to minimize wood smoke from use of fire in urban and near-
urban environments have thus been shaped by balancing the dual goals of allowing valued cultural
amenities while protecting resources, property, and health. Wood burning can have positive affective
characteristics (Hine et al. 2007)— images of socializing around fires, eating wood smoked foods, and
enjoying the comfort of fire are nearly synonymous across human cultures. Such affective associations
exist for both indoor burning of wood as well as for outdoor burning of wood (Hine et al. 2007). Where
use of fire encourages individuals to engage with friends and family outside, there could be notable
wellbeing benefits to burning (Biedenweg, Scott, and Scott 2017/6). In national parks and wilderness
areas, there is some evidence visitations decrease when fire bans are in place (Thomas et al. 2013).
While campfires and cook fires are generally socially accepted and even encouraged, environmental
health advocates have targeted indoor wood burning for its negative impacts health on health, citing the
contribution of wood burning to particulate matter, carbon monoxide, benzene, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon, and formaldehyde emissions (EPA, OAR, and OAQPS 2013a; Simoneit et al. 2000; Herich
and Hueglin 2013; Larson and Koenig 1994a). Resultantly, the Environmental Protection Agency and
state environmental agencies have placed restrictions on what kinds of indoor burning are allowed in
nonattainment or maintenance areas. These restrictions commonly require residences to only burn wood
using an approved stove if it is not a high pollution advisory day, or, if the household has a sole-source or
need-based exemption (Blanken, Dillon, and Wismann 2001; Government 2011).
Such wood burning restrictions are sometimes extended to outdoor recreational fires in major
metropolitan areas. But in most places, outdoor burning, including cooking fires and recreational fires are
not included in these provisions. Recreational fires specifically are defined by the International Fire Code
(IFC) as,
“an outdoor fire burning materials other than rubbish where the fuel being burned is not
contained in an incinerator, outdoor fireplace, portable outdoor fireplace, barbecue grill or
barbecue pit and has a total fuel area of 3 feet or less in diameter and 2 feet or less in height for
pleasure, religious, ceremonial, cooking, warmth or similar purpose.” (IFC 2015, Chapter 2).
In different jurisdictions, cities adopt different rules about the permissibility of these fires, in doing so,
adopting different sets of rules and programs governing the conditions under which burning is allowed or
disallowed.
Rationale
1.5
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
8
The dual problem of air quality and fire safety
The negative health impacts of wood smoke are increasingly clear. Wood smoke from residential sources
is a contributor to ambient particulate matter (Weinhold 2012). In Larimer County, wood smoke is the
third largest contributor to carbon monoxide emissions and the 5th largest emitter of particulate matter
(PM). It is also a significant contributor to Benzene and Volatile Organic Carbon (VOCs) emissions in the
county. While wildfire and residential heating are the main sources of this wood smoke, wood smoke, at
any level, can have potentially negative health consequences (EPA, OAR, and OAQPS 2013b; Larson
and Koenig 1994b; Barregard et al. 2008). While the largest sources of residential wood smoke are for
heating, recreational burning emits more PM2.5 and dioxins per-fire than most heating sources (Maykut
et al. 2003). However, given the small fuel mass of a recreational fire and low per-capita recreational
burning rates, recreational burning alone is likely not a significant contributor to regional PM2.5 or CO
levels--other outdoor burning types including agriculture and refuse disposal make up a significantly
larger portion anthropomorphic footprint (Arhami et al. 2010). An important caveat here is that
distinguishing between recreational burning and wood smoke from indoor heating is scientifically
problematic. In short, the markers of proper indoor wood burning are largely the same as recreational
wood burning.
Efforts to reduce wood smoke pollution have been associated with decreases in acute respiratory events
(Yap and Garcia 2015), and, even low-level ambient wood smoke increases are associated with changes
in acute respiratory events (Schreuder et al. 2006).
Despite the potential for negative health impacts of recreational wood smoke, regulation of recreational
burning on a health basis is largely limited by cultural values of fire and the potential for positive affect
related to wood smoke (Hine et al. 2007). Fires can provide an avenue for time spent outdoors with family
and serve as a cultural gathering point, both of which can contribute to wellbeing (Biedenweg, Scott, and
Scott 2017/6). Yet, they also can contribute to safety risks--reduced rates of recreational fires are
associated with reduced burn incidence (Fraga et al. 2010; Hoang, Reid, and Lentz 2013). Accordingly,
the problem of recreational burning is two-fold-- air pollution and fire safety.
In the Global South reducing greenhouse gases been classified as a potential benefit of replacing open-
fires with stove (Bailis et al. 2015; Smith 1994). In terms of greenhouse gases, a biomass wood stove
produces less CO2eq per unit of energy. While growth of wood does capture carbon--creating a
theoretically carbon-neutral form of energy-- the reality is that wood stands and replanting must
adequately replace what is burnt for carbon neutrality to hold. In the US alone, tree-cover decreased 13%
between 2000 and 2017, providing evidence that in practice wood burning is not carbon neutral as cut
trees are not replaced in the near term (World Resources Institute n.d.; Bailis et al. 2015). However, in the
North, the carbon neutral argument has prevailed. The argument for restrictions on wood burning in the
Global North have been made on almost purely health basis rather than a climate change basis (Smith
1994). The estimated PM10 contribution of heating in a residential fireplace is greater when using wood
compared to gas, resulting in programmatic options targeting wood smoke (Guidance for Quantifying and
Using Emission Reductions from Voluntary Woodstove Changeout Programs in State Implementation
Plans 2006). However, these programs largely address indoor wood burning.
1.5
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
9
What little work exists on outdoor recreational fires also suggests health returns to limiting recreational
burning as well. Based on studies of air quality impacts of cooking with different fuels, there is an
unarguable link between any combustion and air quality impacts (Kim et al. 2011; Wu et al. 2015; Smith
1994). Local campfires create measurable pollution at the local level, though these impacts are short-term
and episodic (Schurman et al. 2015; Davies n.d.). Moreover, where individuals are burning non-wood
products in campfires, the pollution profile of fires can change dramatically, contributing to increases in
styrene, benzene, and other carcinogens (Davies n.d.). Accordingly, despite the fact we have found no
evaluations of the impact of recreational burning on respiratory events, the potential for recreational
burning to impact health is real despite a lack of empirical research. Thus, efforts to reduce or otherwise
eliminate recreational burning have a theoretical impact on human health even if they would make little to
no difference in overall background pollutant levels. However, local level emissions changes can have a
meaningful impact on health even if ambient air quality goes largely unchanged.
Most urban regulations of outdoor burning with an environmental or health rationale recognize smoke as
a nuisance (Haines and Cleaves 1999; Ellickson 1973). Regulation of smoke as a nuisance is one of the
oldest existing forms of air quality regulations (Bausinger 2008; Porter 1968-1969). Cities utilized
nuisance rules to regulate air quality long before the federal Clean Air Act promulgated federal and state
actions. Statutes such as Fort Collins’ Section 20-1 can be, and have been applied to justify municipal
actions on burning. Moreover, there is some case law to suggest that private nuisance and public nuisance
both are applicable to wood burning fires (Porter 1968-1969), though application of nuisance rules can be
a challenge (Bausinger 2008). Nuisance rules surrounding smoke are not based on environmental harm or
health outcomes so much as local, acute disruptions to wellbeing. Some cities, such as Longbeach CA,
Boulder CO, have recognized these local, acute impacts beyond creating a nuisance, though these cities
are the minority.
In most cities recreational burning is controlled in regards to safety. In urban areas, regulating of burning
is part of the general provision of fire safety for communities, promulgated through the adoption and
modification of the fire code (Talge 2010). Especially in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), or in cities
in hotter and drier climates, regulation of burning is a potentially acceptable method of protecting private
property and community assets (Greg Winter 2000). Most fires in the US are human caused-- humans
start 84% of all wildland fires (Balch et al. 2017).
While there are many human causes of fires, it is notable that human activities are estimated to extend the
fire season by approximately three months (Balch et al. 2017). Recreational fires as an attributable part of
wildland fire calls are most likely on weekends compared to other fire types (Plucinski 2014). The
uncontrolled or unattended campfire— the scourge of Smokey the bear— has long been the target of
forest service agents (Hogans, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station (Portland, Or.),
and United States. Forest Service 1979).
Because of the safety risk posed by recreational burning, but, recognizing the legitimate purpose of
recreational fires, the International Fire Code (IFC) explicitly defines allowable recreational fire types.
1.5
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
10
Importantly, recreational fires are not, as defined by the IFC, a type of open burning. According to IFC
20151, open burning is,
“The burning of materials wherein products of combustion are emitted directly into the ambient
air without passing through a stack or chimney from an enclosed chamber. Open burning does
not include road flares, smudgepots and similar devices associated with safety or occupational
uses typically considered open flames, recreational fires or use of portable outdoor fireplaces.”
(International Code Council 2014, 38)
This distinction regarding outdoor fire pits and recreational fires is further explicated in Section 307,
whereby, recreational fires are defined as,
“An outdoor fire burning materials other than rubbish where the fuel being burned is not
contained in an incinerator, outdoor fireplace, portable outdoor fireplace, barbeque grill or
barbeque pit and has a total fuel area of 3 feet (914 mm) or less in diameter and 2 feet (610 mm)
or less in height for pleasure, religious, ceremonial, cooking, warmth or similar purposes.”
(International Code Council 2014, 41)
The IFC does put safety limitations on recreation burning. Additional rules, for example recognize the
required distance to combustible materials, Recreational fires,
“shall not be conducted within 25 feet (7620 mm) of a structure or combustible material.”
Rules such as this tend to limit the actual legality of recreational fires in tight urban environments or
unkempt spaces even where recreational fires are legally allowable. These limitations are relaxed for
manufactured portable outdoor fires, which,
“shall be used in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and shall not be operated
within 15 feet (3048 mm) of a structure or combustible material.”
No matter the purpose of the fire, the fire must be attended at all times and there must be an immediately
available method of extinguishment such as a fire extinguisher, dirt, or a hose.
Within the IFC the explicit difference between open burning and recreational burning is based on a fuel
area of 3 feet in diameter and 2 feet in height, the method of containment of the fire, and purpose of the
fire. Where a fire pit is used, the fire can be closer to a residence but there is no requirement that a
recreational fire must be contained.
Most cities adopt the IFC as written, but some cities modify it based on the principles of nuisance, safety,
health, or environment. Despite the fact that the International Code Council, the publisher of the IFC,
maintains the recreational fire code in a manner that mitigates risk when it is properly followed, there is
nonetheless tremendous institutional variation in the official rules cities adopt around recreational fires.
1 While different cities rely on different versions of the IFC, we detail the 2015 code because it is the one adopted by
the City of Fort Collins.
1.5
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
11
Notably, municipalities modify everything from the definition of open burning to the allowable
characteristics of a recreational fire--sometimes eliminating them altogether.
Widespread institutional variation for recreational burning creates a valuable situation for understanding
the roles and motivations of local governments in addressing air quality and safety concerns (Yi, Krause,
and Feiock 2017; Bulkeley and Betsill 2005; Betsill and Bulkeley 2007). But, variation also creates a
challenge when approaching the adoption of a recreational policy change given the potential for multiple
policy goals and multiple policy options all involving recreational burning.
In this report, we focus on the State of Colorado and characterize the different kinds of burning rules that
are used by municipalities across the State of Colorado. We first begin by discussing definitional
differences in what constitutes outdoor burning, recreational burning, and cook fires. We utilize the
institutional grammar toolkit to detail We then characterize the major classes of burning rules and provide
case-examples of each. In conclusion, we provide some potential tradeoffs between burning rules of each
kind.
Methodology
To catalogue municipal rules about regulatory burning, the authors performed a search of the Municode
municipal code archive for any case of a municipal code chapter that used the word “burn*”. Because the
database is not inclusive of all cities in Colorado, we additionally searched Municipal codes from all
home rule municipalities in the State of Colorado listed by the Department of Local Affairs. Our initial
search netted over 1280 code entries, which we then sorted into categories of relevant for burning. Our
analysis of codes follows both a summary and in-depth coding method. For each municipality we had one
researcher read the codes for a municipality and write up a brief summary of the burning rules. Identified
rules were then secondarily coded into categories of types of rules and regulations which were then
utilized to create a typology of strict versus more-lenient burning rules. For rules, the authors coded the
type of rule, allowed activities, conditions placed on burning, and where available the purpose of the
statute.
Secondly, we applied the Institutional Grammar Toolkit (IGT) to municipal codes in order to capture
variation in rules across jurisdiction in a fine-grained and consistent manner (Siddiki et al. 2011;
Crawford and Ostrom 1995). The advantage of IGT coding is it allows consistent coding of the actors,
actions, and levels-of-requirement associated with burning regulations, and typologizing the codes into
norms and strategies (Basurto et al. 2010).
We present our results in two main sections. The first section details rule definitions and types, providing
examples of the different rule types and briefly discussing tradeoffs. The final section provides
conclusions.
1.5
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
12
Rule Definitions and Types
Introduction to Burning Rules Throughout Colorado
The State of Colorado establishes burning rules in regards to air quality for the state, largely relying on
counties to permit and/or disallow burning as environmental conditions allow— county health
departments for large counties operate permit programs while smaller counties may rely on the state to
issue permits in their stead2. However, recreational and food fires are specifically exempted from
regulations.3 While recreational fires may be curtailed for fire safety reasons by the sheriff or the Forest
Service recreational fires and cooking fires exist outside of the state managed fire permitting system
which is primarily designed to protect air quality. To go along with state and county air quality
recommendation, many cities maintain high pollution advisory day advisory rules following State
direction. However, these pollution day advisories are generally applicable to wood-burning devices used
for indoor heating and not to open burning or outdoor burning. The result is that air quality is not
currently a limiting factor for recreational burning at the state or county levels, at least as required by the
state of Colorado. Moreover, we could find no evidence of specific counties limiting recreational burning
with air quality as a motive. Instead, regulation of recreational burning beyond wildfire safety is largely
the purview of municipalities and fire authorities. For these bodies, burning provisions are largely
established through adoption of the International Fire Code, resulting in a standard baseline of rules
across most all municipalities in the state of Colorado.
Based on coding and overview within the State of Colorado, we find that the majority of home rule cities
do not have specific regulatory programs designed to permit or limit recreational and/or food preparatory
burning. Instead, most municipalities rely on the international fire code and its established standards for a
permissible recreational fire (described below). While in this report we detail many alterations to the fire
code, most home rule municipalities adopt one of the IFC without modification. This includes the city of
Fort Collins. Accordingly, we utilize the International Fire Code 2015 (IFC 2015) as a baseline for fire
regulation. The rules promulgated by IFC 2015 are discussed in the previous section: here we focus on
underlying variation
In most municipalities, the local fire code adopts and supersedes the IFC. Thus, while the basics of each
code are relatively similar, cities can modify definitions and rules as fit to their own needs. This creates
variation in what constitutes open burning, an outdoor fire, or a recreational fire as well as the legality of
such actions.
An initial challenge in understanding rules is varying definitions of basic terminology across municipal
codes. Despite widespread adoption of the IFC, municipalities utilize differing definitions of burning,
open burning, recreational fires, and agricultural burning. These definitions supersede definitions in the
IFC changing the interpretation of certain statutes.
2 (“Open Burn Smoke Permits | Department of Public Health and Environment” n.d.)
3 https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/AP_OB_OpenBurningFAQ.pdf
1.5
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
13
For example, according to the regulations within Fort Collins, open burning is classified as,
“any outdoor fire, including, but not limited to, campfires, warming fires, the lighting of any
fused explosives and fireworks of any kind or brand, the lighting of model rockets, and the
burning of fence lines or rows, grasslands, fields, farm lands, rangelands, wildlands, trash and
debris.” (Ord. No. 064, 2013, 5-7-13).
Meanwhile, Denver, classifies open burning as,
“Fire or smoldering where any material is burned in the outdoor air or in an open container,
receptacle, pit, vessel, chimenea, or other device designed or used for outdoor fires.” (Denver
Code, 4.2-Definitions)
Denver does not exclude recreational fires from this definition. However, critically, the definitions
utilized in Fort Collins and Denver differ from those adopted by the IFC! Recall that under the IFC
(2015), “Open burning does not include... recreational fires or use of portable outdoor fireplaces”. Thus,
when comparing city codes, it is important to clarify the definition of common terms. Banning of open
burning in one jurisdiction may make recreational fire illegal while in another, the banning of open
burning may not apply to recreational uses.
Another challenge is modifications to the open burning provisions of the IFC are relatively common
across states. Most commonly, burning rules are made via modifications to the outdoor burning rules
under Section 307 of the IFC in their Fire Code adoptions. However, occasionally recreational burning is
regulated outside of the fire code as part of environmental health statutes.
Another area of difficulty stems from the state, county, and city level definition of burning devices. While
many cities maintain high pollution advisory day rules when recommendations are passed down from the
State of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, pollution day advisories are generally
applicable to wood-burning devices used for indoor heating and to open burning, which is regulated by
county health departments. As recreational fires (defined by IFC 2015) do not require a permit from the
county or state AND they are not for the purpose of heating a home, they are not limited by many air
quality burning limitations and instead are largely subject to fire danger burn bans rather than air quality
burn bans. Accordingly, even in cities such as Fort Collins that have existent air quality programs,
outdoor recreational fires may be exempted. In terms of safety burn bans, fires on private property in
designed pits/containers are usually only banned under Stage II bans. Thus, the regulation of recreational
fires largely rests on cities rather than being promoted by air quality or safety considerations at the state
level. This contributes to institutional diversity across cities. The potential variability is tempered by the
general adoption of IFC provisions, but, understanding the remaining differences across jurisdictions
remains challenging.
While we collected, recorded, and coded any rule changes related to open burning in the State of
Colorado accomplished by municipalities, the differences in open burning definitions makes this a
relatively poor measure of possibilities for addressing recreational fires in general. As a result, to provide
clarity in this report, we only discuss rule changes that manifest in cities having rules around 3*3*2
1.5
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
14
recreational, ceremonial or food preparatory fires that differ from what would be allowable under a
regular adoption of the International Fire Code. We do not discuss variations in burning rules related to
non-recreational type purposes including changes related to fireworks, agriculture, silviculture, or yard
waste.
Classifying Rule Types
Generally governments design policies to achieve a set of criteria, which can be binned into effectiveness,
efficiency, equity, and manageability (Salamon 2002). Effectiveness of a tool is “the extent to which a
tool achieves its policy objectives” (Salamon 2002). Thus effectiveness is in some ways the ultimate
criteria for tool selection as governments should tend to choose tools that will best achieve an intended
goal. However, governance is rarely so easy and is far from free-- efficiency thus refers to the cost to
achieve a given level of effectiveness. Equity captures that rules might be both fair and also redistributive
reflecting both distribution and access. Finally, tools must be manageable. These criteria, and the ability
of a policy to accomplish them, can be understood via four dimensions of policy tools--coerciveness,
directness, automaticity, and visibility.
Coerciveness of a tool is the “extent to which a tool restricts individual or group behavior as opposed to
merely encouraging or discouraging it.” (1650). Highly coercive rules that demand certain actions might
be very effective at achieving their goal, but they may create economic inefficiencies by distorting
markets or they might disrupt democratic norms by demanding undesired actions of citizens. Regulation,
such as permanent bans, are an example of a highly coercive rule in that a city stipulates certain actions
are not allowed.
Directness of a tool is the extent to which entity enacting a tool carries it out (Salamon 2002). Some types
of policies rely on the actions on non-governmental actors for the policy to achieve a desired outcome--a
rule requiring citizens to inform their neighbors of their plan for a fire, for example, might be highly
coercive (requiring neighbors to notify) but also might be indirect, given that it would require citizens to
discuss fire with their neighbors rather than placing the action in the hands of the adopting government.
Automaticity of a tool is the extent to which an action can rely on existing structures or requires its own
administrative programs and designs. A fire permit program could be linked onto a general burning
permit program, but, such a program might not exist in all jurisdictions, meaning it would require a new
program design. Even direct regulations may be challenges to automaticity if there is not a predesignated
and well trained enforcement apparatus.
Finally, visibility of rules is the extent to which the costs and impacts of the program are evident,
primarily in budget and review documents. The full cost of direct regulations enforced by the fire
department or code enforcement officers might be difficult to distinguish amidst the many indirect costs
of enforcement activities. Similarly, a program that encourages neighbor to neighbor notification might
only evidence effectiveness in areas where the program does not work.
1.5
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
15
While all dimensions are possible methods of understanding governance possibilities, the official fire
rules we identified were largely based in regulation or in assignment of permits. Accordingly
coerciveness stood out as a key distinguishing factor between rule types, followed by the automaticity of
the rule. As rules became less coercive, they tended to become less automatic and less direct, requiring
additional efforts towards compliance on the part of government and residential actors alike. Since in this
review we focused on municipal code changes and not other types of programs cities might adopt beyond
governance statutes such as public education campaigns or voluntary requests for notifications of fires,
the rules as described here are largely the most coercive of potential options. Less coercive options, such
as educating the public on the potential hazards of constant wood burning, may not require a code change
and thus may not be evidenced in our dataset. Nevertheless, amongst the identified options, coercive
remained the strongest distinguishing factor.
More coercive rules generally disallow or mandate more behaviors. Accordingly, we developed a series
of questions based our coding of the institutional grammar or the rules. Almost all recreational fire rules,
and their coerciveness can be understood based on the following questions:
First, are recreational fires disallowed? Under the IFC, recreational fires are legal, so, municipalities that
have specific rules about recreational fires often ban such fires and then make exemptions.
Second, are there certain uses of a recreational fire that are expressly allowed? While IFC establishes that
recreational purposes, broadly construed, are legal, in cities that redefine recreational fires or place tighter
restrictions on materials that can be burned the allowable uses of fire might differ. For example, some
cities might disallow recreational fires generally but make an exception if food is being cooked.
Third, does the use of a certain kind of device make a fire permissible? In some jurisdictions, device, such
as use of a manufactured firepit or enclosed metal ring make having a recreational fire legal-- fires not
contained in such devices may be illegal.
Fourth, if fires are not allowed, can they be allowed with permission/permits obtained from the local
government, or, are devices themselves required to be permitted? Here, an important point comes to bear
in that to make a permit system work, recreational fires themselves must first be disallowed unless
permission is granted.
Fifth, when do the rules apply? Are there temporary limits, including seasonal, health, or safety based
restrictions to fires that can be temporarily instituted? In some cities elements such as time of day
restrictions, seasonal restrictions, or weather based restrictions serve as additional guidelines for when
and where burning can take place.
Sixth, are there additional actions placed on residents, such as notifying neighbors, alerting the fire
department, providing a garden hose or other safety materials? While there are numerous conditions
placed on recreational fires within the IFC, many of these do not involve smoke or neighborly action.
Rule elements such as requiring notification demand actions of citizens beyond the basic rules established
by the IFC.
1.5
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
16
And finally, what are the consequences of individuals not adhering to the rules? In most cities, violation
of recreational burning rules has the same fine structure as violations of the fire code, however, some
cities might have additional levies placed on improper actions especially if the rule is designed as a
replacement to a section of the IFC. In applying these questions to the rules adopted by Colorado
municipalities, one can organize the rules from more to less coercive based on how each question is
answered.
Temporary fire safety bans and/or banning of non-recreational type fires do not dramatically change city
rules from the IFC fire code. They instead add additional agency towards changing burning rules, these
thus constitute limited coercion options. Meanwhile temporary limits, banning of any fire at the direction
of the manager, and banning of all non-recreation/food fires are somewhat less coercive, allowing more
possible actions but still going beyond the IFC baselines. Complete recreational burning bans, non-food
burning bans, and recreational burning permit systems are the most coercive policies used by cities in
Colorado. Three municipalities adopted permanently more-stringent burning rules banning fires that were
not for the explicit purpose of food preparation, two cities banned burning altogether, and six cities
banned recreational burning without a permit. We classify each of these as a most coercive policy. While
the next section explains the rationale for classifying permits as highly coercive, in short here, the
experience of Denver demonstrates that permits can potentially be utilized to enact a de-facto permanent
ban because operation of the permit system.
1.5
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
17
Table 1: Determining types of rules
Recreational
fires
disallowed?
Certain
uses of a
recreational
fire that are
expressly
exempted?
Certain
kind of
device make
a fire
permissible?
Permission
can be
given
(permit)?
When
(time/season)
do the rules
apply?
Are there
additional
actions
placed on
residents?
Frequency (in Colorado
Municipal Codes)
- coerciveness +
Complete Fire Ban4
X 2
No Burning With Food Exemption
X X 3
No Burning Except in Device
X X 2
Temporal/Seasonal Limits
X X 2
Recreational Burn Permit
X X 6
City Manager Discretion/ Safety Bans
X X X X X 40
Notification
X 3
Nuisance (smoke/burning is a nuisance)
X X 125
4 This does not include barbeque grills but refers to recreational fires regardless of purpose.
5 Includes Fort Collins
1.5
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
18
Rule Types and Classifications By City
Complete Fire Bans
Complete limits and temporary/partial limits are both examples of command-and-control type “social
regulations”, or, “correcting failures of the legal system… to prevent harms or to promote positive end”
(Salamon 2002). Social regulations, or “rules” generally take four key elements being the rule itself, the
standard to measure if the rule is being followed, an administrative apparatus to enforce or operationalize
the rule, and, a penalty for rule noncompliance. The key difference between permanent and temporary
limits lies in the breadth of the rules. While permanent limits apply to burning any time of the year,
temporary limits, rather than being codified in administrative code, tend to be adopted via administrative
procedures or as a result of managerial discretion. In some cases, consistent needs for administrative
action may result in codified temporary limits on burning action such as a summer burn ban or a
nighttime burn ban. Permanent limits of any kind were among the strictest burning rules we observe
though they also vary in regards to their restrictions on actions of residents.
Where cities already have police, fire and code enforcement officers who could enforce an outdoor fire
ban, a complete ban could be the simplest to implement in terms of code changes, and does not require
additional administration other than the creation of the ban. Of course, the effort to enforce the ban would
largely fall to the fire code enforcement body, meaning that it may place an additional burden on this
group.
Because a complete ban makes no exception for special uses, such a ban could be highly automatic and
effective at eliminating air pollution from outdoor burning. However, the tradeoff here is that first, the
cost of implementing the ban would be difficult to evaluate as it would be swept up amongst other code
enforcement activities. Second and most critically, a complete ban is highly coercive. A complete ban is
likely to be disliked by many constituents and may be deemed inequitable by individuals who have
invested money or resources in establishing a backyard fire pit of some kind. Within the State of
Colorado, the only city we identified as both completely maintaining and enforcing and outright
recreational fire ban was the city of Boulder.
Boulder Fire Ban
Boulder’s fire ban is enacted via repeal of Section 307 of the International Fire Code which is replaced
with the following statement,
“No person shall kindle or maintain outside of a habitable building or outside of an exterior
fireplace built in accordance with the City of Boulder Building Code any bonfire or burn or
permit to be burned any trash, paper, rubbish, wastepaper, wood, weeds, brush, plants, or other
combustible or flammable material anywhere within the city limits or anywhere on city property
outside of the city limits...” (BMC 10-307-1)
An additional statute states,
1.5
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
19
“Mobile or portable type outdoor fire places are prohibited within the city limits or anywhere on city
property outside of the city limits (BMC 10-307-2).
Notably, while indoor burning restrictions are the subject of police code enforcement, outdoor burning is
regulated under the fire code and thus is the responsibility of the Division of Fire Safety under the City of
Boulder Fire Department. The recreational burning ban in Boulder is accompanied by strict rules
regulating use of barbecues and grills as well. Boulder’s ban is rather unique among actions by cities in
that it is not based in fire safety but exists as part of the city’s air quality efforts.
Even Boulder’s ban, which is among the most stringent city-level bans in the state, allows burning for
certain purposes. The ban makes exceptions for agriculture, safety flares, fire training, and “ceremonial
fires”. Ceremonial fires are narrowly defined as “a fire that is used as an indispensable part of a religious
ceremony or ritual.” The ceremonial provision was added in March of 2018 to allow for sweat lodges and
Native American traditions that predate the city and county. By defining ceremonial uses differently from
recreational uses, the Boulder code still technically disallows recreational fires. When a citizen must make
a ceremonial fire, the citizen is required to apply for a permit from the city providing documentation of
the religious nature of the fire. The Community Risk Reduction Office issues permits for ceremonial fires,
placing the program almost wholly under the jurisdiction of the Fire Department.
The March 2018 sweat lodge adjustment to the Boulder Fire ban makes clear that when enacting an
outright ban, existing uses of fires ought to be considered— the legality of sweat lodges and religious
burning in Boulder have been discussed for over twenty years.
Smaller Municipalities with Complete Bans
The City of Alamosa adopts the IFC, but, has an overriding statute which states,
"No material shall be set on fire or burned within the city limits without permission of the fire
chief or his designee (Code 1964, § 11-4).”
Given a population of under ten-thousand residents, the fire department can be contacted via phone for
permission or with questions or concerns; however, unlike in the case of Boulder there is no evidence the
ban is actively enforced, and the language of the rule implies it is generally utilized to limit burning of
garbage as needed rather than recreational fires.
Partial and Conditional Bans
Seasonal
Seasonal fire bans are only rarely codified though they are commonly adopted via managerial discretion
by city council, manager, or the Fire Marshall (depending on the jurisdiction). New Castle, CO has a
codified seasonal ban on open burning that lasts from April 1 to November 1 of each year, allowing only
gas or charcoal grills. New Castle defines open burning more broadly than the state to be,
1.5
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
20
“setting fire to or the burning of any grass, wood, or other combustible material outside of a
completely enclosed structure (i.e., a house or other building) and including, but not limited to,
the following activities and objects commonly known as open burning fires: (1) campfires; (2)
fires in fire rings, fire pits, or grates; and (3) the use of stoves, broilers, or barbecues whether
using either coal, wood, or any other combustible material except charcoal, propane or gas as a
fuel.”
Violation of the New Castle rule comes with a $300 fine, and exemptions from the ban are allowable
through permit from the town administrator for special events.
Allowance for Food
Outdoor burning bans with narrow allowance for food production are used in Delta, Denver, and
Steamboat Springs. Denver and Steamboat Springs have a permit systems that may allow burning for
other purposes (and will be discussed under permit based systems), whereas, in Delta “It shall be unlawful
to conduct any form of outdoor or open burning activity anywhere in the City of Delta....”, “...except
food materials being used for, and in the process of, cooking meals for human consumption…”. “This
general prohibition shall apply whether or not burning is conducted within a receptacle or facility
designed for the containment of outdoor fires” (DMC 8.08.020).
One of the caveats for food-based burning is it provides a relatively easy loophole to bypass burning
rules. An example from Denver illustrates that the cooking device and food exemption allowed a
backyard fire in a “chiminea barbeque” for the purpose of food cooking even though chimineas
themselves are disallowed (Patricia Calhoun 2012). Here, what constitutes compliance largely falls to the
individual responsible for enforcing the fire code. While one reddit post claims that s’mores do not count
as food production, there is no official rule coded by the city firmly establishing that such a rule
(“r/Denver - Fire Pits in Denver” n.d.).
Allowance for Devices:
Some jurisdictions limit burning to manufactured or permanent fire pits. Examples from the State of
Colorado include Mead, CO and Windsor, CO. In Windsor, fires must be permitted if the user is not
using a “properly designed furnaces or other equipment connected to a stack or chimney, inside fireplaces
and stoves, permanent outdoor fireplaces, charcoal-activated grills, propane grills, natural gas grills and
outdoor electric cooking devices” (WMC 10-4-200). To enable this statute, the following was adopted by
ordinance, “It shall be unlawful for any person to have an open fire in the Town without first obtaining an
appropriate permit to burn from the Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District.” (WMC 10-4-200).
Accordingly, the Fire district maintains a permit system in which applicants apply to the fire district for
permission to burn if they do not have a manufactured device, though any manufactured device is
exempted from the permitting program regardless of purpose.67 Mead, less restrictively, requires a
portable device, a containment ring, or a permanent pit.
6 http://www.wsfr.us/wp-content/uploads/Rec-Burning-Regulations-2016.pdf
1.5
Packet Pg. 110
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
21
Permits
As a tool of government, permits can either serve as a methodology of ensuring public information or of
disincentivizing behavior. Where a permit system is created that requires a fee for recreational burning, a
permit can essentially “price” the conduct of a fire, thereby requiring a stronger preference for burning in
order to undertake such behavior (Salamon 2002). Where permits are not priced, permits can be used as
part of public information-- requiring education in order to receive a permit, or, as a methods of means
testing--only individuals with proper areas or devices. for burning can conduct recreational fires and or
information gathering.
The nature of permits means they are almost never automatic, they must be administered and enforced
(Salamon 2002). Depending on the characteristics of a specific permit program, permits might either be
highly coercive or not-at-all coercive. For example, a permit program designed purely to require some
public education for the conduct of burning does very little to coerce specific behavior. Alternatively, a
very expensive permit program designed to negatively incentivize recreational burning is highly coercive.
Moreover, price might not be the only element of a permit program that can be used to coerce.
Administrative complexity or barriers to accessing a permit, such as requiring in-person attainment of the
permit, on site visits during normal working hours, or approval of multiple agencies may make the burden
of gaining a permit sufficient to effectively ban burning.
In practice in Colorado, we note the existence for two notable permit systems. The first, operated by
Steamboat Springs provides a means testing of the burning apparatus combined with education. While it
increases the cost of a fire both monetarily and in terms of time the permit fee or process is not intended
to completely dissuade fires. The other, by Denver, almost completely eliminates the potential for
burning, being that any person attempting to burn must gain a permit from the fire department and the
Environmental department, and, individuals must provide a strong rationale for the need for the fire
beyond aesthetics. Each type of program also has a different target: one is directed at devices, the other
operates in regards to a specific burn.
Device Based Permitting
In Steamboat Springs, recreational burning of any kind requires a permit from the Fire Prevention
Services, with the only exception being fires for the production of food. Rather than permitting individual
burns, the city permits the device in which burning occurs. The permit costs $25 and is valid for 6 months
from the visual inspection by the city. The city places the following requirements on the device.
7 Greeley, CO has a rather ambiguous rule surrounding burning which states recreational fires do not need permits,
with the language, “to include controlled fires in commercially manufactured 'fire pits' and 'chimineas' located at
least 15 feet from a structure, constantly attended, and an adequate method of extinguishment readily available.
Must also comply with Clean Air Laws.” According to the Greeley Fire Department website and FAQ, this inclusion
statute does not limit fires to commercially manufactured fire pits but instead just limits open fires for non-
recreational purposes. In impact, it instead broadens allowable fires to those that occur in manufactured pits.
1.5
Packet Pg. 111
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
22
“-Pit must be buried at least 8 inches deep in the ground.
-Pit must be at least 25 feet of any structure or combustible materials.
-Diameter of the pit shall be no more than 3 feet.
-Must be constructed of brick, concrete or steel. Rock is accepted as long as there is not an air
gap between the rocks. The gaps must be filled with concrete.
-A lip of 6 inches must be above ground using any of the construction materials listed above.”8
Approved commercial rings are also allowable in Steamboat Springs, and, the city utilizes the same
permit for recreational fires as it does for open burning. Residents can schedule an inspection via email or
phone. Finally, when using the pit or device, residents are required to notify fire dispatch that a
recreational burn is occurring.
Purpose Based Permitting
In Denver, any open burning requires a permit. With the exception “that permits will not be required for
fires in devices designed and used exclusively for outdoor noncommercial cooking of food for human
consumption” or for safety flares. When determining whether to grant a permit, the fire department
considers location, meteorological conditions, code compliance, potential alternatives, and purpose.
While anyone can technically apply for a permit by paying the $75 fee for the fire safety permit. Denver
rarely, if ever, grants recreational fire permits, and the city website states, “Open burning permits are
rarely issued to individuals, and permits are never issued for chimineas.”9 Moreover, to be granted a
permit one must not only receive a fire safety permit but an air quality permit; however, there are not
clear directions via the city about how to gain the environmental permit. Thus, while there is a permit
system in-practice, the permits are intended for community or religious type events, not individual
activities, and not aesthetic purposes. Denver’s permit system illustrates the challenge that a permit
system can be used to construct a de-facto fire ban if the permit issuance policy is subject to managerial
discretion. A permit may appear less coercive than a ban, but, in practice they can be equally as coercive
and serve as an exemption program for special cases.
In Westminster CO, the municipal code requires that permits be issued for recreational fires (WMC 8-6-
1); however, city policy dictates otherwise, with the city’s website encouraging following IFC 2015
guidelines for recreational burning, explicitly stating a permit is not required for recreational burns that
8 http://co-steamboatsprings.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/367/Fire-Pit-Requirements_Information?bidId=
9 https://www.denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/fire-department-home/safety-information/home-fire-safety.html
1.5
Packet Pg. 112
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
23
adhere to IFC 2015 guidelines.10 Likewise, La Junta’s code indicates that they require permits for all
burning, but the city relies on the State permit program which exempts recreational fires.
Permit systems that operate on a per-fire basis, versus a per-device basis, present differing administrative
challenges. If the desire is to maintain adherence to safety rules, permitting a device can ensure the
location is safe. Alternatively, per-fire permit systems provide individual oversight and information about
specific burns. Yet, requiring inspections for each and every burn would likely prove administratively
challenging.
Nuisance Rules
Nuisance rules about smoke, similar to that currently used by Fort Collins, are fairly common across the
common across Colorado; however, as in the case of Fort Collins there is very little evidence of their
enforcement or any outsize impact in addressing recreational burning. While twelve cities in Colorado
have nuisance rules in regards to smoke, these rules existed alongside the fire code or other burning rules
and had little impact on the cities approach to regulating burning.
There is little evidence throughout the state of nuisance rules surrounding burning being utilized in
regulatory efforts or even in educational materials provided to citizens. In our review, we identified no
publicized cases of smoke nuisances being actively enforced in Colorado. Being that Fort Collins already
has a smoke nuisance ordinance we do not further detail these rule types.
Notification, Incentives, and Other Voluntary Programs
Ouray CO, while not requiring a permit for recreational or food fires, has a statute that states, “Prior to
commencing any burn, the individual or individuals conducting the burning must notify all adjacent
property owners and the Fire Department” (Ouray Code 10-3). However, the Ouray Fire Department is a
volunteer fire department and does not maintain an non-emergency call number, indicating the provision
is difficult to comply with. Such a rule, even if difficult to enforce could potentially aid fire departments
in knowing whether a specific burn is compliant or whether a neighbors complaint is legitimate.
A notification program is relatively indirect and not coercive-- it requires actions of residents, but, it could
be somewhat automatic in that a fire department non-emergency hotline already exists, and the city would
not need to create an apparatus concerning neighbor notification.
Enforcing the fire-department aspect of notification programs is not overly challenging--most
jurisdictions require notification around open burning already. However, ensuring neighbors are actually
informed is likely difficult to enforce: whose word would stand up if a neighbor said they were not
informed and the recreational burner said they were informed? Notably within Ouray’s code, neighbors
do not need to give permission for a burn to be conducted-- they only must be informed of the action.
10https://www.cityofwestminster.us/Portals/1/Documents/Public%20Safety%20-
%20Documents/Fire%20Department/Permits%20Fire%20Code%20and%20Policies/2018%20Open%20Burning.pdf
1.5
Packet Pg. 113
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
24
Conclusions, County Wide Fire Bans, and Trends Municipal Rules
Overall, the preponderance of cities do not have rules in regards to recreational fires that surpass the IFC
2009, 2012, or 2015 rules. However, some of this may be attributable to the widespread use of Stage I and
Stage II fire restrictions at the county level during summer months when outdoor recreational fires are
likely to be most common.
Most counties, for example, adopt a standard Stage I and Stage II fire bans, but some counties allow
complete fire bans at the discretion of the Fire Marshall. For example, in May of 2018, Boulder County
adopted a provision allowing complete “open fire” bans via ordinance. These fire safety burn bans can
cover private recreational fires that are exempted under Stage I and Stage II open burning rules. But, this
is not the case in all counties and because recreational fires on private lands are not open burns, they are
frequently not covered by Stage I or Stage II restrictions but only by complete burn bans.11
Managerial discretion over banning fires is incredibly common throughout the state of Colorado at the
county level, and, depending on the year, recreational fires may be illegal at a county level for much of
the summer if the local Fire Marshall determines there is a fire safety motivation for the ban. This implies
that fire safety bans are widely accepted when managers determine they are needed but also may
contribute to reduced incidences of specific recreational rules overall at the municipal level. In essence, if
Fort Collins were located in a county that banned recreational burning in June, July, and August due to
fire safety concerns on a temporary basis almost every year, there may be little reason for the city to adopt
an ordinance.
The classifications of table 1, while useful for distilling broader themes, mask much of the variation in
burning rules across jurisdiction that require consideration if a city is adopting new burning rules.
Accordingly, the next section provides detailed case examples of each class of burning rule. While table 1
presents options by general classes of rules, coerciveness provides a potentially better avenue to
understanding variation in rule type. The rationale for this is based on the tradeoffs presented in table 2.
11 https://www.jeffco.us/517/Fire-Restriction-Details
1.5
Packet Pg. 114
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
25
Table 2: Major Burning rules Used in Colorado
Type Cases Coerciveness Directness Automaticity Visibility
Air Quality
Improvement
Effectiveness Primary Example
Complete
Ban
3 High High High Low Highest
Boulder
Partial/Con
ditional
Bans
4 Varies High High Low Higher New Castle
Permits 4 Medium High Low High Varies Steamboat Springs
Windsor
Denver
Notification
Program
2 Low Low Low Varies Low Ouray
Managerial
Discretion
13 High High Low High Varies See note12
Depending on the goals set by a city, a complete ban may be most effective--especially if the primary
goal is curtailing air quality problems. Complete bans are also highly direct and operate relatively
automatically as they can be enforced by the fire department or code enforcement officer without added
grey areas requiring training. However, they are not necessarily politically expedient as they may run
afoul of democratic norms. Additionally they may be economically inefficient as some individuals who
place a high value on recreational fires would not be able to have such fires even if they were willing to
repay the air quality costs of their actions.
Accordingly, a city might adopt a partial or conditional ban that is less restrictive, such as only allowing
fires for the purpose of food cooking. Such rules, while less coercive, might have a lower effectiveness at
improving local air quality as they can easily be circumvented--a challenge facing social regulation in
general. Permits can be either highly coercive or not coercive at all depending on how the program is
structured. In Colorado they tend to be highly coercive requiring multiple actions on the part of
applicants, or, banning uses not explicitly desired by the city. However, they generally would improve the
efficiency of a policy over a complete ban by creating a case by case exemption program. This gain
12 Managerial discretion over fires is quite common in Colorado; however, the kinds of burns which managers are
allowed to ban vary greatly and most do not apply to recreational fires on private property, though they could. In
Fort Collins, the city manager can enact a Stage II fire ban which bans most forms of recreational fires except those
in devices, though, to our knowledge that order has not been utilized. Notably, what is allowable by such Stage II
bans differs widely across jurisdictions.
1.5
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
26
comes at a cost to automaticity. A permit program would require setting up additional apparatus to
operate the program.
If the city does not hope to curtail burning, a notification program could be used to provide information
about where fires are, but, it is not clear how such a program would provide an air quality benefit unless it
were to create an indirect apparatus whereby neighboring citizens give permission to conduct a fire,
making assessment of the program a challenge.
A final option from the State of Colorado is to rely on managerial discretion on a case by case or
temporary bases based on adding a provision to the municipal code whereby the city manager or fire chief
must give permission for all fires. Such programs, while codified in Colorado, do not demonstrate any
evidence of effectiveness or implementation perhaps due to the added administrative burden of
implementing them.
Conclusion
Based on our review and the examples above, we highlight four key themes that emerged from across
burning rules.
I. Codified rules are not necessarily enforced as written
While there is a long literature of rules-in-use and rules-in-practice, it is critical to note that numerous
cities have codified language that would imply a policy exists though there is no evidence of that policy
being enforced or enacted upon (Meyer and Rowan 1977). While we highlighted the examples of
municipal codes for Ouray and Westminster, we note that in our review of codes we attempted to focus
on not only codified rules but rules as actually used. Therefore, if we identified a city with language that
might imply a ban (such as banning burning materials), but the city also had explicit rules for what was
allowable as a recreational fire, we chose to code this ambiguity as recreational fires being allowed under
IFC. More troubling here for coding were the highlighted cases such as Ouray and Westminster, where
the IFC sections on recreational burning where replaced with other provisions which in practice and in
official policy went unenforced.
II. Rules are generally driven by fire safety rather than air quality
While rules about burning are almost always included in the fire code or environmental sections of
municipal codes, almost all of the programs we identified were motivated by fire safety rather than by air
quality concerns. Boulder and Denver stood out as cases because they explicitly described their policies
as motivated by concerns over air quality and pollution. This does not necessarily mean that air quality
was not a component of ordinances adopted to address recreational fires, but, means that in municipal
codes, most rules around fires are aimed at safety not air quality.
When air quality is the motivation behind regulations, those regulations were almost always phrased in
terms of the nuisance impacts of burning, whereby burning of materials or smoke are defined as
1.5
Packet Pg. 116
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
27
nuisances. This is intriguing given that indoor burning provisions are almost always established with an
air quality basis in statute, with goals of providing cleaner air, not safety, generally being stated as the
motivation for the ordinance.
Air quality nuisance rules, as discussed earlier, largely pre-date the Clean Air Act and they provide a
method of cities addressing problem areas. One element about nuisance rules that is important to
remember is they are distinct from the rules around recreational burning. Most cities at once allow
recreational burning and maintain nuisance rules that provide a means of addressing problematic behavior
even if there are few examples of nuisance rules being used to stop legal recreational fires throughout the
state.
A key aspect here is that recreational fires are codified in a manner that is already intended to limit their
adverse impacts--burning only clean dry wood, a relatively small fuel area, and rules about
extinguishment all should help to mitigate smoke problems. However, that does not mean that
recreational fire rules are exactly followed which likely contributes to smoke problems.
III. Strict rules address can air quality but come with tradeoffs.
In many ways, Boulder and Denver’s statutes provide a much clearer way of addressing air quality
concerns than nuisance rules. Even if Steamboat Springs’ system was designed to address wildfire risk, it,
too, provides a clear and verifiable method of eliminating some of the adverse health challenges
associated with recreational burning. Of course, a program such as Steamboat Spring’ could be modified
to include in the permitting of devices qualifications such as neighborhood approval. However, as
exceptions are added to rules, the complexity of administering and implementing rules becomes greater.
In coding rules, we repeatedly found that the most complex rules to understand were the ones that had the
greatest number of definitions, potential exceptions, and steps of implementation. Steamboat Spring’
permit system creates a clear system because it lacks exceptions. Replicating policies of places like
Windsor that allow devices but not burning outside of a device not only provide coding challenges but
might prove difficult for the local fire department to effectively enforce. Especially given that Poudre Fire
Authority must enforce different rules within Fort Collins compared to outside the city limits, elements
such as how easily a complex rule could actually be enforced bares consideration.
Based on our review of regulations in Colorado, adoption of municipal recreational burning rules would
not substantially depart from actions of other Colorado municipalities, and, depending on the definition of
the rulemaking, Fort Collins could adopt actions that are less coercive than both Boulder and Denver’s
policies, or, it could match the de-facto bans utilized in both of these cities.
Limitations of this study
One element to consider in implementing the decision about what kind of program to adopt is that actions
need not be limited to those used by other cities in Colorado, but, the city could look to a wider range of
possible outcomes in designing and implementing these programs. While it fell outside the scope of this
1.5
Packet Pg. 117
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
28
review, the cases of the Sacramento Air Quality Control District13, St. Cloud, Minnesota14, and Des
Moines, IA15 provide useful examples of policies in other areas. Sacramento notably provides education
on when burning is allowable based on atmospheric conditions through check before you burn. St Cloud,
MN maintains an annual permit program for recreational burning. Des Moines, IA utilizes a complete ban
of any burning in the city.
When conducting our review, we did not note any emerging bans or policy changes throughout the State.
However, we also note that there is widespread lack of clarity concerning what kinds of fire activity are
permissible, given the fact that most fire departments have FAQs about recreational burning and legal
actions therein. Following on this, we note that the long fire season of 2018 resulted in widespread county
level burn bans via managerial discretion--again evidence that high fire danger in some counties might
contribute to a lack of need for recreational fire enforcement. Finally, we did not evaluate the rules of
homeowners associations. We noted in discussions with the city that some local homeowners groups
adopt rules about recreational fires. In addition to Red Feather Lakes, HOAs such as Bucking Horse
require approval of fire pit designs by committee. These sub-governments and nongovernmental groups
might provide an additional level of variation at the sub-municipality level that is not captured in this
report.
13 http://www.airquality.org/Communications/Documents/FINAL_AQMD_CBYB_brochure_10-17.pdf
14 https://ci.stcloud.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/5711/Recreational-Burning-Ordinance?bidId=
15
https://www.dmgov.org/Departments/Fire/PDF/FAQ%20Recreation%20and%20Cooking%20Fires%20in%20Des%
20Moines.pdf
1.5
Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
29
Codes Cited (Full)
Municipal codes cited in this study are all managed by Municipal Code Corporation and Code Publishing
(Ouray). For citation please see specific section numbers. Additionally, Codes cited in this document have
full citations here
Alamosa Code, 7-2
Link:
https://library.municode.com/co/alamosa/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH7FIPRPR_
ARTIINGE_S7-2BUMAPERE
Sec. 7-2. - Burning material in city, permission required.
No material shall be set on fire or burned within the city limits without permission of the
fire chief or his designee.
Boulder Code, Sec 10-8-2
Link:
https://library.municode.com/co/boulder/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT10ST_CH8FICO_1
0-8-2ADINFICOMO
Section 307, "Open burning, recreational fires, and portable outdoor fireplaces," is repealed and
reenacted to read:
307 Open burning and recreational fires.
(1) No person shall kindle or maintain outside of a habitable building or outside of an
exterior fireplace built in accordance with the City of Boulder Building Code any bonfire
or burn or permit to be burned any trash, paper, rubbish, wastepaper, wood, weeds,
brush, plants, or other combustible or flammable material anywhere within the city limits
or anywhere on city property outside of the city limits, except when:
(a) The burning is in the course of an agricultural operation in the growing of
crops as a gainful occupation and presents no fire hazard to other property in the
vicinity;
1.5
Packet Pg. 119
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
30
(b) The burning is a smokeless flare or a safety flare used to indicate some
danger to the public;
(c) The burning is a training fire conducted by the fire department, or is a
training fire conducted by another fire department, or privately for industrial or
commercial fire training purposes; or
(d) The burning is solely for the purpose of fuel mitigation to alleviate wildland
fire potential, or weed abatement to assist restoration of native plants.
(e) The burning is part of a "ceremonial fire" where all the following are met:
1. A permit must be obtained from Boulder Fire Rescue Department;
2. Fire must be contained in a ceremonial fire pit or a ceremonial
chantico;
3. A water source with a garden hose attached and charged must be
readily available and can reach all parts of the ceremonial fire;
4. Ceremonial fire must be extinguished if winds exceed 15 mph; and
5. Ceremonial fire must adhere to all state and county requirements for
air quality and burn restrictions. (2) Mobile or portable type outdoor fire
places are prohibited within the city limits or anywhere on city property
outside of the city limits.
Denver Code, Sec. 4-24
Link:
https://library.municode.com/co/denver/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITIIREMUCO_CH4AIPOC
O_ARTIIISTSO_S4-24CO
(a) Open burning.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in or allow open burning within
the city except when a written permit has been issued by the department;
provided, however, that permits will not be required for fires in devices designed
and used exclusively for outdoor noncommercial cooking of food for human
consumption nor for smokeless or safety flares used for the combustion of gases
or used to indicate some danger to the public.
(2) In determining whether and upon what conditions to issue an open burning
permit, the department may consider:
1.5
Packet Pg. 120
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
31
a. Location and proximity of the proposed burning to any building or other
structure;
b. Meteorological conditions on the day or days of the proposed burning;
c. Compliance by the applicant for the permit with applicable fire protection and
safety requirements of the Denver Fire Department;
d. Existence of any practical alternative to achieve the purpose of the proposed
burn; and
e. Whether the proposed burn has a purpose other than aesthetic.
Delta Code, Ch. 8-08
Link: https://www.deltafire.org/s/City-Regs.pdf
Chapter 8.08
BURNING RESTRICTIONS
8.08.010 Definitions. The definitions of words and phrases used in this Chapter which pertain to
the concept of “open burning” shall reasonably conform with any which may be provided in
C.R.S. 25-7-103 and in Colorado Air Quality Control Commission Regulation No. 9.
8.08.020 Open Burning of Materials Generally Prohibited. It shall be unlawful to conduct any
form of outdoor or open burning activity anywhere in the City of Delta except as specifically
allowed by Section 8.08.030. This general prohibition shall apply whether or not burning is
conducted within a receptacle or facility designed for the containment of outdoor fires. It is
specifically intended to prohibit the burning of all forms of trash, garbage, refuse and other waste
materials including without limitation, all forms of vegetation such as leaves, tree limbs, grass,
shrub and garden trimmings, and all forms of manufactured products and materials except food
materials being used for, and in the process of, cooking meals for human consumption in the
manner specifically allowed under Section 8.08.030A.
8.08.030. Burning Activities Allowed Subject to Restrictions. Notwithstanding any express or
implied provision of Section 8.08.020 to the contrary, the following outdoor or open burning
activities shall be deemed lawful subject to all specified restrictions and conditions:
A. The outdoor cooking of food in grills, barbeque pits and other containment devices
specifically designed for cooking activity, and the use of matches, torches, welding and
ignition devices, tobacco products, flares, fireworks, explosives and other products and
devices commonly used for domestic, commercial, training and industrial purposes,
provided that the pertinent activity otherwise complies with all applicable State laws and
regulations.”
1.5
Packet Pg. 121
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
32
Fort Collins Code, Section 9-25
Link:
https://library.municode.com/co/fort_collins/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=CH9FIPRPR_ARTIIOPFIBURE_
S9-23DEST1FIRE
Sec. 9-25. - Declaration of Stage 2 fire restrictions.
(a) The City Manager may declare Stage 2 fire restrictions in the City, after consultation with the Fire
Code Official, if he or she determines that the totality of circumstances, including, but not limited to,
current weather conditions, long- and short-term weather forecasts, lack of precipitation, fire
restrictions in neighboring communities, regional fires and/or fires in close proximity to the City, live
and dead fuel moisture levels, energy release components, atmospheric conditions, degraded air
quality, and limited availability of suppression resources have created an imminent threat of fire
hazards within the City. (b) The Stage 2 restrictions imposed by this Article shall take effect
immediately upon the issuance of an administrative order executed by the City Manager, and shall
remain in effect until rescinded by a similar order. The City Manager shall notify the City Council
within twenty-four (24) hours after the issuance of such administrative order. The authority granted
under this Article is ongoing, and administrative orders may be issued from time to time as conditions
warrant.
Mead Code, Section 10-12-40
Link:
https://library.municode.com/co/mead/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=CD_CH10GEOF_ARTXIIMIOF_
S10-12-40OPBUPR
Recreational burning , defined as a small outdoor fire which is conducted as an ancillary aspect
of socializing or entertaining, such as a picnic, is permitted subject to the following regulations:
(1) Only wood may be used in burning, which is generally seasoned or dry. No grass
clippings, leaves, greenwood or similar plant materials shall be burned, and a minimal
amount of paper may be used only for kindling purposes.
(2) Burning shall be conducted in a permanent or portable fireplace grill designed for
outdoor use or upon an incombustible surface, such as concrete or stone.
(3) The fire circle of an open bonfire shall not exceed three (3) feet in diameter.
(4) A responsible person shall be in attendance at all times and an adequate method of fire
extinguishment shall be readily available.
(5) All burning shall be conducted on private property only.
(6) There shall be a limit of one (1) recreational burn per property at any one (1) time.
New Castle Code, Chapter 9.72
1.5
Packet Pg. 122
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
33
Link:
https://library.municode.com/co/new_castle/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT9PUPEMOWE_CH9.
72OPBUFIFI
9.72.030 - Definitions.
"Fireworks" means any article, device or substance prepared for the primary purpose of
producing a visual or auditory sensation by combustion, explosion, deflagration, or
detonation which meets the description of fireworks as set forth in the United States
Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations, Title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations, Parts 173.88 and 173.100, and including, but not limited to, the
following articles and devices commonly known and used as fireworks: (1) toy cannons
or toy canes in which explosives are used; (2) blank cartridges; (3) firecrackers; (4)
torpedoes; (5) skyrockets; (6) rockets; (7) Roman candles; (8) cylindrical fountains; (9)
cone fountains; (10) wheels; (11) ground spinners; (12) illuminating torches and colored
fire in any form; (13) dayglo bombs and torches; (14) sparklers; (15) snakes; and (16)
any other fireworks of like construction and any fireworks containing any explosive or
flammable compound, or any tablets or devices containing any explosive substance.
"Fireworks" does not include: (1) toy caps which contain less than twenty-six hundredths
of a grain of explosive compound per cap; (2) highway flares, railroad fuses, ship
distress signals, smoke candles, and other emergency signal devices; and (3) educational
rockets and toy propellant device type engines used in such rockets when such rockets
are of nonmetallic construction and utilize replaceable engines or model cartridges
containing less than two ounces of propellant and when such engines or model cartridges
are designed to be ignited by electrical means.
"Open burning fires" means setting fire to or the burning of any grass, wood, or other
combustible material outside of a completely enclosed structure (i.e., a house or other
building) and including, but not limited to, the following activities and objects commonly
known as open burning fires: (1) campfires; (2) fires in fire rings, fire pits, or grates; and
(3) the use of stoves, broilers, or barbecues whether using either coal, wood, or any other
combustible material except charcoal, propane or gas as a fuel.
"Open burning fires" does not include: (1) smoking when in an enclosed vehicle or
building or while stopped in an area at least three feet in diameter that is barren or
cleared of all flammable material; and (2) stoves, broilers, or barbecues using charcoal,
propane or gas as a fuel.
(Ord. 2008-6 § 2 (part))
9.72.040 - Open burning fires and the sale, use and possession of fireworks prohibited.
1.5
Packet Pg. 123
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
34
As defined in Section 9.72.030 of this chapter, open burning fires and the sale, use, and
possession of fireworks within the corporate limits of the town are prohibited between
and including the dates of April 1st through November 1st of each year, unless such open
burning fire or sale, use, or possession of fireworks is authorized by exemption permit
issued pursuant to Section 9.72.050 of this chapter.
(Ord. 2008-6 § 2 (part))
9.72.050 - Exemption permit.
Upon written application to the town administrator, the town administrator is authorized
to issue a permit for exemption from the prohibitions of this chapter for special events if
the town administrator determines in his or her reasonable discretion that issuance of an
exemption permit is in the best interests of the town. The town administrator may impose
such terms or conditions on the exemption permit as he or she deems necessary or
appropriate to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the town. Any exemption permit
issued pursuant to this section shall be subject to the applicable rules and regulations of
the burning mountain fire protection district. An application fee may be charged for an
exemption permit as provided by town resolution.
(Ord. 2008-6 § 2 (part))
9.72.060 - Violations.
Any violation of this chapter shall be, upon conviction, punishable by up to three hundred
dollars ($300.00) in fines, and/or up to ninety (90) days in jail. In addition to civil
penalties outlined in this section, the town of New Castle police department, or its
designee, may seize any fireworks or extinguish any open burning fires prohibited by this
chapter.
(Ord. 2008-6 § 2 (part))
9.72.070 - Severability.
If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstance
is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this
chapter that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this
end the provisions of this chapter are declared to be severable.
(Ord. 2008-6 § 2 (part))
1.5
Packet Pg. 124
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
35
Ouray Code, Sec. 10-3
Link: http://www.codepublishing.com/CO/Ouray/#!/Ouray10/Ouray103.html
B. Open Burning
1. It shall be unlawful for any person to burn or allow the burning of any material on
any open premises, or any public street, alley, or other land adjacent to such premises,
subject to the following exemptions:
a. Open burning may be allowed, subject to the issuance of permit by the Fire
Chief, for the following uses:
Burning of clean, dry wood and paper or product thereof, weeds, ground
cover, leaves and other dry vegetation. No construction debris shall be burned
except for wood, cardboard and other clean burning paper products. All fires in
this subsection must be in a contained enclosure with a spark arrestor.
b. Open burning may be allowed, without a permit approved by the Fire Chief,
for the following uses:
Fire used exclusively for the noncommercial cooking of food for human
consumption, or recreational purposes provided that the fire is contained in a
drum, barrel, contained fire pit, or barbeque structure.
2. Permits Issued by City
a. Permits may only be issued for burning from October to June, between 7:00
a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
b. Permits shall contain such terms and conditions as appropriate to insure
compliance with this section, and to require that all burning comply with the
Colorado Air Quality Control Commission’s Regulations.
c. All burning must take place a minimum of twenty (20) feet from any building
and other flammables. The fire must be observed by a responsible person at all
times. Firefighting equipment, such as a hose connected to a water supply and a
shovel, must be readily available at the burn site.
1.5
Packet Pg. 125
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
36
d. All permits require approval by the City’s Fire Chief.
e. All permits shall be approved only if the fire can be safely contained and
controlled and no nuisance or fire hazard will be created.
f. The Fire Chief may place any conditions on the permit as necessary to ensure
the above criteria are met.
g. The Fire Chief has the authority to grant or refuse to issue a permit. The
Fire Chief has the authority to revoke or suspend any permits in accordance with
the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission’s Regulations or under this Code.
Upon the notice of the suspension or revocation of any permit, all burning
activity subject to the permit shall be terminated immediately.
3. Prior to commencing any burn, the individual or individuals conducting the burning
must notify all adjacent property owners and the Fire Department.
Steamboat Springs Code, Sec. 5-15
Link:
https://library.municode.com/co/steamboat_springs/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIISTSPREMU
CO_CH5BUBURE_ARTIINGE_S5-15AMMAINFICO
Sec. 5-15. - Amendments made in the International Fire Code.
Modified
The 2015 Edition of the International Fire Code is subject to the following amendments
and deletions:
Section 105 Permits shall be amended to add the following sections:
105.1.7 Permit Fees. The fee for each permit shall be as set forth in the fee schedule as
determined by the City Manager.
Section 105.6.32 Open burning, is amended to delete the Exception.
Section 307.2 Permit required, is amended to read as follows:
A permit shall be obtained from the fire code official in accordance with Section 105.6
prior to kindling a fire.
1.5
Packet Pg. 126
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
37
Westminster Code, Sec 8-6
Link:
https://library.municode.com/co/westminster/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CD_ORD_TITVIIIHES
A_CH6AIPOCO_8-6-1OPBU
8-6-1. - Open Burning.
(A) It shall be unlawful for any person to burn or permit to be burned on any open
premises owned or controlled by him, or on any public street, alley or other land
adjacent to such premises, any rubbish, waste paper, wood, or other flammable material,
unless a permit therefor shall first have been obtained from the Westminster Fire
Department. (B) The granting of any such permit shall be in accordance with the
standards established in Article 11 of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City.
Permits shall be required for all open or outdoor fires, including, but not limited to,
burning in the course of any agricultural operation in the growing of crops as a gainful
occupation, and fires used for instructional or recreational purposes. (C) The provisions
of this section shall not apply to: (1) Fires used for noncommercial cooking of food for
human beings, such as barbecues. (2) Smokeless flares, or safety flares for the
combustion of waste gases. (3) Flares used to indicate some danger to the public.
Windsor Code, Sec. 10-4-200
Link
https://library.municode.com/co/windsor/codes/charter_and_municipal_code?nodeId=WI_CH10GEOF_
ARTIVOFAGPUPEORSA_S10-4-200OPFI
Sec. 10-4-200. - Open fires.
(a)
It shall be unlawful for any person to have an open fire in the Town without first
obtaining an appropriate permit to burn from the Windsor-Severance Fire Protection
District.
(b)
For purposes of this Article, an open fire shall include all open burning with the specific
exception of properly designed furnaces or other equipment connected to a stack or
chimney, inside fireplaces and stoves, permanent outdoor fireplaces, charcoal-activated
grills, propane grills, natural gas grills and outdoor electric cooking devices.
(Prior code 10-59; Ord. 2006-1236 §1)
1.5
Packet Pg. 127
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
38
Works Cited
Arhami, Mohammad, María Cruz Minguillón, Andrea Polidori, James J. Schauer, Ralph J. Delfino, and
Constantinos Sioutas. 2010. “Organic Compound Characterization and Source Apportionment of
Indoor and Outdoor Quasi-Ultrafine Particulate Matter in Retirement Homes of the Los Angeles
Basin.” Indoor Air 20 (1): 17–30.
Bailis, Robert, Rudi Drigo, Adrian Ghilardi, and Omar Masera. 2015. “The Carbon Footprint of
Traditional Woodfuels.” Nature Climate Change 5 (January): 266.
Balch, Jennifer K., Bethany A. Bradley, John T. Abatzoglou, R. Chelsea Nagy, Emily J. Fusco, and Adam
L. Mahood. 2017. “Human-Started Wildfires Expand the Fire Niche across the United States.”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114 (11): 2946–
51.
Barregard, L., G. Sällsten, L. Andersson, A-C Almstrand, P. Gustafson, M. Andersson, and A-C Olin.
2008. “Experimental Exposure to Wood Smoke: Effects on Airway Inflammation and Oxidative
Stress.” Occupational and Environmental Medicine 65 (5): 319–24.
Bassett, Ellen, and Vivek Shandas. 2010. “Innovation and Climate Action Planning: Perspectives from
Municipal Plans.” Journal of the American Planning Association. American Planning Association 76
(4): 435–50.
Basurto, Xavier, Gordon Kingsley, Kelly McQueen, Mshadoni Smith, and Christopher M. Weible. 2010.
“A Systematic Approach to Institutional Analysis: Applying Crawford and Ostrom’s Grammar.”
Political Research Quarterly 63 (3): 523–37.
Baumgartner, Frank R., Bryan D. Jones, and Peter B. Mortensen. 2014. “Punctuated Equilibrium Theory:
Explaining Stability and Change in Public Policymaking.” Theories of the Policy Process, 59–103.
Bausinger, P. Leigh. 2008. “Welcome to the (Impenetrable) Jungle: Massachusetts v. EPA, The Clean Air
Act and the Common Law of Public Nuisance.” Villanova Law Review 53: 527.
Berry, Frances Stokes, and William D. Berry. 1999. “Innovation and Diffusion Models in Policy
Research.” Theories of the Policy Process 169.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=MzkGAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA307&dq=inno
vation+and+diffusion+network+climate&ots=wQLTThfs-k&sig=4V89mTqCqOhJAb-
ADKjJnOZjBH4.
Betsill, Michele, and Harriet Bulkeley. 2007. “Looking Back and Thinking Ahead: A Decade of Cities
and Climate Change Research.” Local Environment 12 (5): 447–56.
Biedenweg, Kelly, Ryan P. Scott, and Tyler A. Scott. 2017/6. “How Does Engaging with Nature Relate to
Life Satisfaction? Demonstrating the Link between Environment-Specific Social Experiences and
Life Satisfaction.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 50: 112–24.
Blanken, Peter D., Jennifer Dillon, and Genevieve Wismann. 2001. “The Impact of an Air Quality
Advisory Program on Voluntary Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction.” Atmospheric Environment
35 (13): 2417–21.
Bulkeley, Harriet, and Michele Betsill. 2005. “Rethinking Sustainable Cities: Multilevel Governance and
The’urban'politics of Climate Change.” Environmental Politics 14 (1): 42–63.
Crawford, Sue E. S., and Elinor Ostrom. 1995. “A Grammar of Institutions.” The American Political
Science Review 89 (3): 582–600.
1.5
Packet Pg. 128
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
39
Davies, Mary Anne. n.d. “What’s Burning in Your Campfire? Garbage In, Toxics Out.” 0423-2327-
MTDC. Accessed August 18, 2018. https://www.fs.fed.us/t-
d/pubs/htmlpubs/htm04232327/index.htm.
Ellickson, Robert C. 1973. “Alternatives to Zoning: Covenants, Nuisance Rules, and Fines as Land Use
Controls.” The University of Chicago Law Review. University of Chicago. Law School 40 (4): 681–
781.
Epa, U. S., OAR, and OAQPS. 2013a. “Wood Smoke and Your Health,” May.
https://www.epa.gov/burnwise/wood-smoke-and-your-health.
———. 2013b. “Wood Smoke and Your Health,” May. https://www.epa.gov/burnwise/wood-smoke-and-
your-health.
Fraga, Andrea M. A., Gustavo P. Fraga, John Noordenbos, Mayer Tenenhaus, Shanon Castle, Dhaval
Bhavsar, Jeanne G. Lee, Raul Coimbra, and Bruce M. Potenza. 2010. “Beach and Campfire Burns: A
Site of Pleasure and Tragedy.” Journal of Burn Care & Research: Official Publication of the
American Burn Association 31 (1): 184–89.
George N. Wallace Jeffrey J. Brooks Matthew L. Bates. n.d. “A Survey of Day and Overnight
Backcountry Wilderness Visitors.” Colorado State University. Accessed February 2, 2018.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey_Brooks4/publication/273002215_A_Survey_of_Day_a
nd_Overnight_BackcountryWilderness_Visitors_in_Rocky_Mountain_National_Park/links/54f4c86
90cf2eed5d7357f42.pdf.
Government, U. S. 2011. List of Epa Certified Wood Stoves. General Books.
Greg Winter, Jeremy S. Fried. 2000. “Homeowner Perspectives on Fire Hazard, Responsibility, and
Management Strategies at the Wildland-Urban Interface.” Society & Natural Resources 13 (1): 33–
49.
Guidance for Quantifying and Using Emission Reductions from Voluntary Woodstove Changeout
Programs in State Implementation Plans. 2006. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Information Transfer and Program Implementation
Division.
Haines, Terry K., and David A. Cleaves. 1999. “The Legal Environment for Forestry Prescribed Burning
in the South: Regulatory Programs and Voluntary Guidelines.” Southern Journal of Applied Forestry
23 (3): 170–74.
Herich, Hanna, and Christoph Hueglin. 2013. “Residential Wood Burning: A Major Source of Fine
Particulate Matter in Alpine Valleys in Central Europe.” In Urban Air Quality in Europe, 123–40.
The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Hine, Donald W., Anthony D. G. Marks, Malte Nachreiner, Robert Gifford, and Yuko Heath. 2007.
“Keeping the Home Fires Burning: The Affect Heuristic and Wood Smoke Pollution.” Journal of
Environmental Psychology 27 (1): 26–32.
Hoang, David Manh, Dixie Reid, and Christopher William Lentz. 2013. “Statewide Ban on Recreational
Fires Resulted in a Significant Decrease in Campfire-Related Summer Burn Center Admissions.”
Journal of Burn Care & Research: Official Publication of the American Burn Association 34 (1):
74–77.
Hogans, Mack L., Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station (Portland, Or.), and United
States. Forest Service. 1979. A 3-Year Pattern of Dispersed Recreation and Forest Fires in Pacific
Northwest Forests. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
1.5
Packet Pg. 129
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
40
Experiment Station.
International Code Council. 2014. International Fire Code 2015. International Code Council.
Jeon, Yongjoo, and Donald P. Haider-Markel. 2001. “Tracing Issue Definition and Policy Change: An
Analysis of Disability Issue Images and Policy Response.” Policy Studies Journal: The Journal of
the Policy Studies Organization 29 (2): 215–31.
Jochim, Ashley E., and Peter J. May. 2010. “Beyond Subsystems: Policy Regimes and Governance.”
Policy Studies Journal: The Journal of the Policy Studies Organization 38 (2): 303–27.
Jones, Bryan D. 2017. “Behavioral Rationality as a Foundation for Public Policy Studies.” Cognitive
Systems Research 43 (June): 63–75.
Jones, Bryan D., and Frank R. Baumgartner. 2012. “From There to Here: Punctuated Equilibrium to the
General Punctuation Thesis to a Theory of Government Information Processing.” Policy Studies
Journal: The Journal of the Policy Studies Organization 40 (1): 1–20.
Kern, Kristine, and Harriet Bulkeley. 2009. “Cities, Europeanization and Multi-Level Governance:
Governing Climate Change through Transnational Municipal Networks.” JCMS: Journal of
Common Market Studies 47 (2): 309–32.
Kim, Ki-Hyun, Sudhir Kumar Pandey, Ehsanul Kabir, Janice Susaya, and Richard J. C. Brown. 2011.
“The Modern Paradox of Unregulated Cooking Activities and Indoor Air Quality.” Journal of
Hazardous Materials 195 (November): 1–10.
Kingdon, John. n.d. “W.(1995) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies.” New York: Harper Collins.
Kingdon, John W. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Vol. 45. Little, Brown Boston.
Krause, Rachel M. 2011. “POLICY INNOVATION, INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, AND
THE ADOPTION OF CLIMATE PROTECTION INITIATIVES BY U.S. CITIES.” Journal of
Urban Affairs 33 (1): 45–60.
Larson, T. V., and J. Q. Koenig. 1994a. “Wood Smoke: Emissions and Noncancer Respiratory Effects.”
Annual Review of Public Health 15: 133–56.
———. 1994b. “Wood Smoke: Emissions and Noncancer Respiratory Effects.” Annual Review of Public
Health 15: 133–56.
Maykut, Naydene N., Joellen Lewtas, Eugene Kim, and Timothy V. Larson. 2003. “Source
Apportionment of PM2.5 at an Urban IMPROVE Site in Seattle, Washington.” Environmental
Science & Technology 37 (22): 5135–42.
McCombs, Maxwell, and Jian-Hua Zhu. 1995. “Capacity, Diversity, and Volatility of the Public Agenda:
Trends from 1954 to 1994.” Public Opinion Quarterly 59 (4): 495–525.
Meyer, John W., and Brian Rowan. 1977. “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and
Ceremony.” The American Journal of Sociology 83 (2): 340–63.
“Open Burn Smoke Permits | Department of Public Health and Environment.” n.d. Accessed July 23,
2018. https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/openburn.
Patricia Calhoun. 2012. “Chimeneas Can’t Be Lit in Denver -- Unless They're Being Used as a
Barbecue.” Westword (Denver, CO), December 13, 2012.
Plucinski, M. P. 2014. “The Timing of Vegetation Fire Occurrence in a Human Landscape.” Fire Safety
Journal 67 (July): 42–52.
1.5
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
41
Porter, William C. 1968-1969. “The Role of Private Nuisance Law in the Control of Air Pollution
Comment.” Arizona Law Review 10: 107–19.
Pralle, Sarah B. 2009. “Agenda-Setting and Climate Change.” Environmental Politics 18 (5): 781–99.
Pyne, Stephen J. 1997. World Fire: The Culture of Fire on Earth. University of Washington Press.
“r/Denver - Fire Pits in Denver.” n.d. Reddit. Accessed August 24, 2018.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Denver/comments/2dro71/fire_pits_in_denver/.
Salamon, Lester M. 2002. The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance. Oxford University
Press.
Schreuder, Astrid B., Timothy V. Larson, Lianne Sheppard, and Candis S. Claiborn. 2006. “Ambient
Wood smoke and Associated Respiratory Emergency Department Visits in Spokane, Washington.”
International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 12 (2): 147–53.
Schurman, M. I., T. Lee, Y. Sun, B. A. Schichtel, S. M. Kreidenweis, and J. L. Collett Jr. 2015.
“Investigating Types and Sources of Organic Aerosol in Rocky Mountain National Park Using
Aerosol Mass Spectrometry.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 15 (2): 737–52.
Sharp, Elaine B., Dorothy M. Daley, and Michael S. Lynch. 2010. “Understanding Local Adoption and
Implementation of Climate Change Mitigation Policy.” Urban Affairs Review 47 (3): 433–57.
Siddiki, Saba, Christopher M. Weible, Xavier Basurto, and John Calanni. 2011. “Dissecting Policy
Designs: An Application of the Institutional Grammar Tool.” Policy Studies Journal; Washington 39
(1): 79–103.
Simoneit, B. R. T., W. F. Rogge, Q. Lang, and R. Ja . 2000. “Molecular Characterization of Smoke from
campÆre Burning of Pine Wood (Pinus Elliottii).” Chemosphere: Global Change Science 2: 107–
22.
Smith, Kirk R. 1994. “Health, Energy, and Greenhouse-Gas Impacts of Biomass Combustion in
Household Stoves.” Energy for Sustainable Development 1 (4): 23–29.
Talge, Jordan. 2010. “No Direction Home: Constitutional Limitations on Washington’s Homeless
Encampment Ordinances.” Washington Law Review 85: 781.
Thomas, Deborah S. K., Olga V. Wilhelmi, Taryn N. Finnessey, and Veva Deheza. 2013. “A
Comprehensive Framework for Tourism and Recreation Drought Vulnerability Reduction.”
Environmental Research Letters: ERL [Web Site] 8 (4): 044004.
Weinhold, Bob. 2012. “EPA Proposes Tighter Particulate Air Pollution Standards.” Environmental
Health Perspectives 120 (9): A348–49.
World Resources Institute. n.d. “United States | Global Forest Watch.” Accessed August 23, 2018.
https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/country/USA.
Wu, Chen-Chou, Lian-Jun Bao, Ying Guo, Shao-Meng Li, and Eddy Y. Zeng. 2015. “Barbecue Fumes:
An Overlooked Source of Health Hazards in Outdoor Settings?” Environmental Science &
Technology 49 (17): 10607–15.
Yap, Poh-Sin, and Cynthia Garcia. 2015. “Effectiveness of Residential Wood-Burning Regulation on
Decreasing Particulate Matter Levels and Hospitalizations in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin.”
American Journal of Public Health 105 (4): 772–78.
Yi, Hongtao, Rachel M. Krause, and Richard C. Feiock. 2017. “Back-Pedaling or Continuing Quietly?
Assessing the Impact of ICLEI Membership Termination on Cities’ Sustainability Actions.”
1.5
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
42
Environmental Politics 26 (1): 138–60.
1.5
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment: CSU Policy Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
ATTACHMENT 6
1.6
Packet Pg. 133
Attachment: Fire Pit Map (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
ATTACHMENT 7
1.7
Packet Pg. 134
Attachment: Wood Smoke Concerns Map (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
X:\Internal\Administrative Documents\FORMS\PERMITS\Open Burn Permit.doc
Steamboat Springs
Cityof
Fire Prevention Services
P.O. Box 775088 / 2600 Pine Grove Road, Steamboat Springs, CO 80477 Phone: (970) 871-8216 Fax: (970) 870-8030
Proudly serving the City of Steamboat Springs and the Steamboat Springs Rural Fire Protection District
OPEN BURNING
RECREATIONAL FIRE
PERMIT / INSPECTION FORM
NAME: PERMIT #:
ADDRESS: PHONE #:
DATE/TIME OF INSPECTION:
1. Completed Routt County Environmental Health Department Open Burning Permit?
2.Completed Routt County courtesy Open Burning Notification form?
3.Open burning of rubbish containing paper products is prohibited. (Rubbish - is waste material including but not
limited to, garbage, waste paper and debris from construction or demolition.)
4.Open burning and recreational fires shall only be performed when time and atmospheric conditions comply with
the limits set forth below.
5.Open burning and recreational fires shall not be conducted within 50 feet of any structure or other combustible
materials. Conditions which could cause the fire to spread to within 50 feet of a structure shall be eliminated prior
to ignition. EXCEPTION: Clearances from structures and other combustible materials is allowed to be reduced
as follows: 1. Not less than 15 feet when burning is conducted in an approved burning appliance. 2. Not less
than 25 feet when the pile size is 3 feet or less in diameter and 2 feet or less in height and contained in a
barbecue pit. Conditions which could cause a fire to spread within 25 feet of a structure shall be eliminated prior
to ignition.
6.Buckets, shovels, garden hoses and/or a fire extinguisher with a minimum 4-A rating shall be readily available
for use at open burning and recreational fire sites.
7.Open burning and recreational fires shall be constantly attended by a person knowledgeable in the use of the
fire extinguishing equipment required and familiar with the permit limitations as stated below. An attendant shall
supervise the burning until the fire has been extinguished.
8.The authorities are authorized to require that any open burn or recreational fire be immediately discontinued if
they determine that the smoke emissions are offensive to occupants of surrounding property or if the open burn
or recreational fire is determined to constitute a hazardous condition.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: CALL DISPATCH BEFORE & AFTER EACH BURN / USE @ 879-1110.
RECREATION BURNS ARE ONLY ALLOWED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 6:00 AM AND 12:00 AM (MIDNIGHT).
PERMANENT PERMIT
6 MONTH PERMIT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
I hereby confirm that the above items and conditions have been explained to me and I will comply with them.
APPLICANT: DATE:
APPROVED
DENIED REINSPECTION REQUIRED
DATE: TIME: INSPECTOR:
ATTACHMENT 8
1.8
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: Steamboat Springs Fire Prevention Permit (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Public Engagement Results – Outdoor Residential Burning 1
Cassie Archuleta
10-23-2018
ATTACHMENT 9
1.9
Packet Pg. 136
Attachment: Powerpoint (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Direction Sought
Does Council want staff to further explore a
recommendation for any of the options
below?
• Option #1: No new regulations, enhanced education and outreach
• Option #2: Regulatory option to address only fires that negatively
impact neighbors
• Option #3: Prohibit emissions of wood smoke from recreational fires
in residential areas
2
1.9
Packet Pg. 137
Attachment: Powerpoint (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
STRATEGIC
ALIGNMENT
Neighborhood Livability
• 1.6 Quality of Life
Environmental Health
• 4.4 Air Quality
BUDGET
• ESD 2017-18 Ongoing
Offer
• 2018 revision: $20K
Why We Are Here
3
COUNCIL
PRIORITY
Air Quality
• Residential Wood
Fires
1.9
Packet Pg. 138
Attachment: Powerpoint (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Project Goal
4
• Develop recommendations regarding options to better protect
human health and reduce nuisance from outdoor wood smoke
Project Goal
• Increase safety awareness
• Increase health impact awareness
• Reduce regional environmental impact of wood smoke
• Address health/nuisance impacts from other forms of smoke
• Preserve cultural value of recreational fires in residential areas
Additional Identified Opportunities
1.9
Packet Pg. 139
Attachment: Powerpoint (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Stakeholder Outreach
5
May 2017
• Identified as Council Priority
February 2018
• Council direction on engagement plan
• Natural Resources Advisory Board
• Air Quality Advisory Board
May 2018
• Community Issues Forum (55 attendees)
• Superboard meeting
June 2018
• Statistically valid survey (3000 sent, 522 responses)
• Launch OurCity e-Forum (~2,500 visits)
October 2018
• Natural Resources Advisory Board
• Air Quality Advisory Board
Other Stakeholder Engagement
• Working group (Environmental
Services, Community and
Neighborhood Services, Poudre Fire
Authority)
• CSU Center for Public Deliberation
• CSU Political Science Department
• Health Care Professional interview
(pulmonologist)
• Larimer County Department of
Health and Environment
• Health District of Larimer County
• Community Outreach (NextDoor,
utility mailer, fcgov.com)
• Council/Staff emails (72)
• Coloradoan articles (4)
1.9
Packet Pg. 140
Attachment: Powerpoint (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Residential Smoke
6
• Outdoor Wood Burning
• Fort Collins: Safety specifications (fire code),
public nuisance prohibited, no permit required
• Regionally: Regulated at local level,
considerable institutional variation
• Indoor Wood Burning
• Fort Collins: EPA specifications for new
appliances, opacity (visible smoke) limits
• Regionally: Wintertime high pollution advisory
bans
• BBQs, smokers, secondhand smoke
• Fort Collins : Public nuisance prohibited
• Regionally: Less precedent for municipal role
1.9
Packet Pg. 141
Attachment: Powerpoint (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Smoke is a Health Concern
7
• Complex mix of pollutants
(particles and gases)
• Impacts depend on
concentration, duration of
exposure and sensitivity
• UCHealth Pulmonologist
• A lot is bad for everyone
• A little is bad for some
• Sensitive Groups
• Elderly, children, people with
respiratory or heart issues
1.9
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment: Powerpoint (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Health Impact Perception
Percent of survey respondents indicating at least minor concern
regarding impacts of smoke from…
8
Survey Results
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Outdoor
wood
burning
Indoor
wood
burning
BBQs and
smokers
Tobacco
products
Marijuana
products
18-34
35-54
55+
Age
1.9
Packet Pg. 143
Attachment: Powerpoint (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Number of Fire Pits
Do you own a wood burning
fire pit or chiminea?
• 2017 Survey
• Yes: 17%
• 2018 Survey
• Yes: 40%
9
Survey Results
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
0 days 1-10 11-20 >20
2018
In the last year, about how many days did you
use your wood burning fire pit or chiminea?
1.9
Packet Pg. 144
Attachment: Powerpoint (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Competing Tensions
10
Public Engagement Themes
-Smoke in home/can’t open
windows/use of A/C
-Respiratory/health/
odor concerns
-Illegal burning
-Important recreational/social
activity
-Not used enough to cause
concern/too few complaints
-Personal choice/property right
1.9
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment: Powerpoint (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Range of Policy Options
Status Quo
• Safety response,
education, outreach,
neighborhood mediation
services
Middle Ground
• Regulatory option to
address only fires that
impact neighbors
Ban
• Prohibit recreational wood
fires
11
Policy Research
Less regulatory More regulatory
1.9
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: Powerpoint (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Status Quo
No new regulations; focus on education, outreach, neighborhood
relations
12
Policy Option #1
Arguments in Support
• 84% survey
respondents strongly
or somewhat agree
• Encourages
constructive
neighbor relations
• Use current AQ
nuisance code
Arguments Against
• Voluntary, does not
require that a safe
fire is extinguished
• Current AQ nuisance
code not right tool
(“public” nuisance,
criminal offense,
court proceedings)
Potential
Enhancements
• Increase health
impact awareness
• Targeted
neighborhood
outreach/role-
playing
• Incentive programs
1.9
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: Powerpoint (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Middle-Ground
Regulatory option to address only fires that negatively impact neighbors
13
Policy Option #2
Arguments in Support
• Promote
neighborhood
dialogue as first
solution
• Focus on problem
fires
• Flexibility in
conditions
Arguments Against
• Enforcement requires
discretion
• Impacted party would
have to initiate
response
• Limit on some fires
perceived as
inequitable
Key Implementation
Questions
• Regulatory
mechanism
• Definition of a
“reasonable” nuisance
• Resources to
implement and
enforce
1.9
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: Powerpoint (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Defining a “Reasonable” Nuisance
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the City should require a
fire be extinguished when nuisance concerns are reported from…
14
Survey Results
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
…a single neighbor …multiple neighbors
Somewhat
Agree
Stongly
Agree
1.9
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: Powerpoint (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Permit/Notification System
• Prohibit fires that do not have a permit
• Permit for set-up/location (similar to open burning)
• Self administered (on-line)
• Targeted proactive safety and nuisance outreach
• Potential to add provisions such as:
• No wood burning during fire restrictions
• No wood burning on high pollution days
• Extinguish if offensive to others
• Registration per burn (similar to party registration)
• Notification of burn restrictions
• Complaint Based Enforcement
15
Example Implementation Scenario
1.9
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment: Powerpoint (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Ban
Prohibit emissions from outdoor recreational wood fires in residential
areas
16
Policy Option #3
Arguments in Support
• Provides certainty
• Addresses health
and nuisance
concerns
Arguments Against
• 80% survey
respondents strongly
or somewhat
disagree
• Does not preserve
cultural value
• Fire pit investments
Key Implementation
Questions
• Regulatory
mechanism
• Exclusions (e.g.,
cooking, ceremonial)
• Resources to
implement and
enforce
1.9
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: Powerpoint (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Direction Sought
Does City Council have direction on the type
of option, if any, that should be further
developed as a policy recommendation?
• Option #1: Status quo, no new regulations
• Option #2: Middle-ground, regulatory option to address only fires that
impact neighbors
• Option #3: Prohibit emissions of wood smoke from recreational fires
in residential areas
17
1.9
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: Powerpoint (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
DATE:
STAFF:
October 23, 2018
Beth Sowder, Director of Social Sustainability
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Homelessness Services Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to provide an update regarding homelessness services in Fort Collins including:
• Current State of Homelessness Overview
• Homeward 2020
• Housing First Initiative
• Fort Collins Frequent Utilizers System Engagement (FUSE) Initiative
• Murphy Center and Homeward Alliance
• Give Real Change Campaign
• Seasonal Overflow Shelter plans
• Outreach Fort Collins
• Coordinated Assessment & Housing Placement System
Holly LeMasurier, Executive Director of Homeward 2020, will co-present this item with City staff.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
This is an update, so there are no questions of Council at this time.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
General Overview - Current State of Homelessness
Homelessness continues to be an issue across the country, and many mid-sized cities continue to struggle with
identifying and providing a balanced approach to affordable housing, homelessness prevention, homelessness
services, long-term solutions, and emergency care. Looking nationally, the following chart illustrates the current
state of homelessness based on 2017 Point in Time Count:
Location Total Population Point in Time Count
of Homeless Individuals
Ratio of Homeless
Individuals of Total
United States 325.7 million 553,742 17 per 10,000
Colorado 5.6 million 10,940 19.7 per 10,000
The Denver-metro area Point in Time count = 5,116 (includes 7 counties: Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield,
Denver, Douglas, and Jefferson).
Zooming in to Fort Collins, the past six years has shown a consistent number of homeless individuals
experiencing homelessness based on the Point in Time Count, and a more accurate local number once the
Housing First Initiative began in 2017.
2
Packet Pg. 153
October 23, 2018 Page 2
Year Fort Collins
Total Population
Point in Time Count
of Homeless
Individuals
Percentage of
Homeless Individuals of
Total
Housing First Initiative
Number of People
Homeless for 6 months
or longer in Fort Collins
(started 2017)
2013 152,205 298 0.20%
(1.96 people per 1,000)
n/a
2014 154,570 330 0.21%
(2.13 people per 1,000)
n/a
2015 158,300 351 0.22%
(2.22 people per 1,000)
n/a
2016 161,000 328 0.20%
(2.04 people per 1,000)
n/a
2017 165,080 331 0.20%
(2.01 people per 1,000)
312 Sept. 2017
2018 165,080
(not updated)
263
(sheltered only)
0.16%
(1.6 people per 1,000)
378 Sept. 2018
Homeward 2020
Homeward 2020 facilitates implementation of Fort Collins’ Ten-Year Plan (Oct 2009 - Oct 2019) to make
homelessness rare, short-lived, and non-recurring by serving distinct roles in the community - catalyst, convener,
advocate, and data-driver. The ongoing work of Homeward 2020 strives to create a sustainable model of
solutions to homelessness that are effective, efficient, and responsive to our community, now and into the future.
Homeward 2020 maintains a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Fort Collins, affirming Homeward
2020’s roles and service to the community guiding implementation of the community’s Ten-Year Plan.
Homeward 2020 is currently guiding our shared, community work through three priority alignment areas:
• Improved data development and reporting;
• Identification of housing and support solutions for our 350+ persons experiencing long-term homelessness in
Fort Collins;
• Building capacity for a sustainable, responsive system to realize the vision to make homelessness rare, short-
lived, and non-recurring in Fort Collins.
Housing First Initiative
Homeward 2020 and Homeward Alliance strategically partnered in mid-2017 to create the Housing First Initiative
(HFI): a two-year pilot project based at the Murphy Center for Hope. The project develops and produces
actionable, community-level data on the issue of chronic homelessness and, equipped with that data, identifies
and promotes solutions to increase supportive housing options, housing placements, and housing retention for
people experiencing long-term and chronic homelessness. HFI also pilots new housing solutions through local
partnerships and provides intensive case management to transition participants from homelessness to housing.
The recent HFI Annual Report (Attachment 1) summarized four primary recommendations to the City and
broader community:
1. Develop and fund diverse affordable housing options, through multiple prongs of conventional and
innovative approaches;
October 23, 2018 Page 3
An accessible, public data dashboard is monitoring the population and trends of people experiencing long-term
homelessness in Fort Collins, as well as our efforts in housing our most vulnerable people. HFI produces more
detailed, real-time data than we have ever had, informing system improvements and individual case work, as well
as investments with impact. The Housing First Initiative Annual Report provides the most comprehensive
information on the project to date since its inception in June 2017. The project produces quarterly reports
provided to the public and City Council, with updated data, successes, stories, strengths, gaps, and
recommendations. As of September 30, 2018, there are 382 people experiencing long-term homelessness in Fort
Collins, and 85 people transitioned to housing.
Fort Collins FUSE Initiative - October 2018 - October 2019
The Frequent Utilizers System Engagement (FUSE) model is a nationally-recognized best practice used to help
communities break the cycle of incarceration and homelessness among individuals with complex behavioral
health challenges who are the highest utilizers of jails, homeless shelters, outreach, 911, emergency rooms, and
other temporary crisis interventions. In ‘reactive’ crisis systems, essential healthcare, housing, and legal aid
interventions are uncoordinated, resulting in these patients’ clear impact on publicly funded systems never
intended to provide ongoing comprehensive health, housing, and recovery. FUSE develops formal case
management, coordination and collaboration across systems to provide comprehensive supportive services,
aiming to increase housing stability, reduce recidivism, and break the cycle of multiple crisis service use, resulting
in public cost offsets.
Homeward 2020, working closely with the Health District of Northern Larimer County, is catalyzing and convening
a FUSE ‘demonstration’ project, bringing together many community partners to identify frequent utilizers
experiencing homelessness and find systemic ways to provide improved interventions. The project will facilitate
housing and coordinated supportive services for 10-12 frequent utilizers and document community and individual
impacts over approximately one year, with the intention to ‘scale up and systematize’ the collaborative
approaches. The project includes extensive pre and post data collection, including achievement of targeted
outcomes. Fort Collins is participating in this project as part of a national CSH FUSE Learning Community Project
with nineteen other US cities. The CSH FUSE Learning Community program will provide guidance to implement
Data Driven Problem Solving; Policy and Systems Reform, and Targeted Housing and Services.
Murphy Center
The Sister Mary Alice Murphy Center for Hope continues to serve as a day shelter and provider of core services.
In the first nine months of 2018, about 124 individuals accessed the Murphy Center day shelter each day. In
addition, the Murphy Center recorded 1,268 loads of laundry, 6,107 showers, 611 individuals serviced through
locker access and 1,029 individuals through mail access.
Important updates for this year also include:
• More individuals reporting positive employment and housing outcomes than ever - at least 135 Murphy Center
guests escaped homelessness in the first nine months of 2018, representing an approximately 175% increase
from the first nine months of 2017.
• Consistent amount of daily traffic - approximately 170 individuals per day.
• Consistent number of unduplicated guests served per month - 785 per month.
• Average guest visits increased to 14 times per year - up from about 10 times per year in 2015.
The Murphy Center has not seen a significant uptick in individuals served during the first nine months of 2018
(relative to the same period in 2017), but the data indicates that guests are accessing services at the Murphy
Center more frequently. The improved outcomes (housing and employment) are at least partly due to this
increased service access.
Approximately 20 nonprofits provide about 40 unique services at the Murphy Center; among them, Neighbor to
Neighbor distributed more than $65,000 in rent assistance during the first half of 2018.
2
Packet Pg. 155
October 23, 2018 Page 4
Homeward Alliance
Homeward Alliance (formerly Homeless Gear) has several programs to assist people experiencing
homelessness:
One Village One Family
• Helped secure housing for nine families (including 24 children) in the first nine months of 2018;
maintained 100% one-year housing-retention rate since program inception.
• One Village One Family has helped 41 families, including 95 children, escape homelessness since 2015.
Hand Up
• Helped secure 150 jobs for program participants during first nine months of 2018, bringing the total since
program inception to over 1,000 jobs.
• Average hourly wage of $12.22 in 2018, up from $11.76 in 2017.
Re-Entry
• Through first nine months of 2018, provided intensive case management to 93 individuals who are on
parole and identified by the Department of Corrections as medium to high risk of recidivism.
• Helped secure 36 jobs for program participants and maintained recidivism rate of 1%.
Dedicated Navigator
• Helped individuals and families secure over $585,000 in potential annual benefits (food assistance,
Medicaid, etc.) during first nine months of 2018.
• Helped 73 households secure food assistance, 69 obtain Medicaid and six obtain Old Age Pension, Aid
for Needy or Disabled or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
Volunteer Street Outreach
• Recorded approximately 2,000 interactions with roughly 750 individuals on the streets in Fort Collins,
mostly during the evening hours.
Children in Need
• Served over 300 families at resource fairs for children and families; resource fairs include health
screenings, haircuts, clothing distribution and more.
Bike Repair
• Performed 322 bike repairs through first nine months of 2018.
Distribution
• Served approximately 500 individuals per quarter (no significant change in any quarter) at Murphy Center
Gear Room, distributing life-sustaining supplies and helping people meet basic needs.
To help illustrate the impact of these services on people, here are a couple guest testimonials:
“Life changing. Support emotionally, physically, for both me and my dog. Murphy Center has brought
me through so much including helping me say goodbye to my 12-year-old best friend, Bandit. Murphy
Center has been there for me when I have been so physically ill, has helped me with a safe place to be
when I was too sick to sleep in the shelter. Helped me with clothes and food for my doggies and most of
all treated me with compassion and respect despite my social status. I have been welcomed here and
truly found the hope to carry me along this journey. The staff and volunteers genuinely care about
people and I am blessed to have formed a relationship with staff and other guests here. Thank you so
much for all your support and for being the catalyst to my having a home. Without all the hard work of
many, I would not be moving in!”
“I’ve had a long journey, through having addiction and being on parole and to have gone through having
a mental breakdown to having a bad relationship… but I’m moving forward to better myself. I’m off
parole now, thanks to Amanda working with me and helping me get there. She has seen me and been
there at my worst to where I am today. I am so grateful for Catholic Charities for helping me out when I
had my mental breakdown and letting me know that they care for people and if you put use the
resources that they have, they can help you. For being where I am at today and being clean of meth for
over one year and a half and doing good for myself and being able to move to Montana with my mom
and dad is a wonderful feeling. Having support from the Murphy Center, Homeless Gear, SummitStone,
they have been there to help me when I needed it, so please, if you want to change, use the Murphy
Center and Homeless Gear. You just got to ask.”
2
Packet Pg. 156
October 23, 2018 Page 5
Give Real Change Campaign
Give Real Change is a partnership between the Downtown Business Association (DBA) and the Murphy Center
designed to be an alternative for people to give donations to service providers while shopping downtown
(Attachment 2). It ran as a pilot program from Memorial Day through Labor Day 2018 and included more than 20
downtown businesses who hosted donation boxes. Marketing collateral and informational materials about the
issue of homelessness educated and invited customers to donate to local services. Proceeds benefited the
Murphy Center, the local hub of services for people experiencing or at-risk of homelessness.
Successes included:
• $2,299.30 donated.
• 28 businesses hosted collection jars and marketing information.
• Murphy Center attended DBA board meetings and forged new partnerships.
• Yielded numerous high-level marketing and educational materials.
Challenges included:
• Change collection was less than expected.
• Some businesses were unable to prominently display donation boxes.
• The process of collecting change was labor-intensive.
Suggestions for improvement:
• Offer electronic giving options.
• Additional human and marketing resources.
• Increase/expand business engagement.
The Downtown Development Authority has determined that they will not undertake this campaign again.
Seasonal Overflow Shelter Plan
For this winter season, 2018-19, the City continues to work with and rely upon the primary shelter providers
(Catholic Charities and Fort Collins Rescue Mission) to provide increased shelter during the cold winter months
(November thru April). The City will continue to provide funding for an additional Seasonal Overflow Shelter (SOS)
that will be operated by Catholic Charities. This year’s plan includes:
• SOS site at Community of Christ Church, 220 E. Oak Street
• Women only
• 10pm - 6am
• 7 nights per week
• Increased capacity for men at Catholic Charities facility
• Fort Collins Rescue Mission will increase capacity for men
Emergency weather activations will continue to rely upon community partners to expand capacity and provide
warming center locations. The City will assist in coordination during activations and provide transportation and
security assistance using the same plan as last year.
Outreach Fort Collins
Outreach Fort Collins (OFC) continues to gain momentum in their approach to provide street-based triage for a
vibrant downtown. Their primary goals are to address street conflicts, streamline referrals, and maintain
downtown as a vibrant, thriving, and welcoming place for all. They are not solely about homelessness and
enforcement. They continue to have hundreds of contacts with merchants, people experiencing homelessness,
neighbors, and other people in the downtown area. They work closely with the District 1 Police team, businesses
and service providers to quickly and effectively resolve daily issues while also building trusting relationships to
assist people in accessing appropriate services to ultimately help them move out of homelessness and receive
needed treatment/services.
2
Packet Pg. 157
October 23, 2018 Page 6
In 2017-2018, OFC identified 24 chronically homeless, high vulnerability clients based on the vulnerability index
tool (VI-SPDAT). Each of these individuals are known by OFC to have some, often frequent involvement with Fort
Collins Police Services and UCHealth Poudre Valley Hospital. OFC obtains data from Police Services and
UCHealth to track long-term outcomes resulting from interaction and service coordination provided by OFC. OFC
staff have worked intentionally in 2017 and 2018 with these individuals to reduce their impact on emergency
services in the community while also connecting them to long-term solutions and positive life outcomes. As of
August 2018:
• 11 of these individuals are now housed within Larimer and Weld Counties
• 1 is housed in Denver County
• 2 currently reside at Ft. Lyon Residential Treatment Facility
• 3 have been housed with family
• 6 are still homeless in Fort Collins
• 1 cannot be located
Coordinated Assessment & Housing Placement System (Attachment 3)
HUD requires that each Continuum of Care have a Coordinated Assessment and Housing Placement System
(CAHPS), also known as “Coordinated Entry”. Our local/regional CAHPS program of Coordinated Entry is a
process that coordinates the assessment, case conferencing, prioritization, and service coordination for the most
vulnerable individuals and families with the end goal of getting them housed as soon as possible with appropriate
supportive services. CAHPS creates a prioritization list and then seeks housing placements and supportive
services in communities.
The Northern Colorado Continuum of Care started CAHPS in February 2016 focusing on homeless veterans
catalyzed by the Mayor signing on to the Mayors Challenge to End Veteran Homelessness. CAHPS is the
process by which those identified as “highly vulnerable” experiencing homelessness in Larimer and Weld
Counties are recommended for housing options to support their needs. CAHPS consists of a set of common
procedures and tools used by partnering organizations and agencies within the region to perform intake, assess,
prioritize, and match individuals and families experiencing homelessness with available housing and services
(vouchers, affordable and supportive housing openings, residential programs, etc.).
CAHPS data since it began:
Veteran CAHP System-started February 2016
(As of September 2018)
Individuals Assessed
Larimer 240
Weld 113
Other 10
Total Assessed 363
Individuals Housed
Larimer 133
Weld 61
Other 61
Total Housed 255
2
Packet Pg. 158
October 23, 2018 Page 7
Adult CAHP System-started April 2017
(As of September 2018)
Individuals Assessed
Larimer 359
Weld 68
Other 0
Total Assessed 427
Individuals Housed
Larimer 44
Weld 11
Other 17
Total Housed 72
Family CAHP System-started March 2018
(As of October 2018)
Individuals Assessed
Larimer 44
Weld 47
Other 0
Total Assessed 91
Individuals Housed
Larimer 8
Weld 23
Other 9
Total Housed 40
Next Steps
Over the next year, the City and Homeward 2020 will focus on the following:
1. Reporting actionable data and recommendations.
2. Systemic solutions to homelessness and the growing shortfall of accessible, affordable housing.
3. Defining specific and strategic interventions and investment options to achieve the vision to make
homelessness rare, short-lived, and non-recurring.
4. Set system performance targets.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Housing First Initiative Year 1 Report (PDF)
2. Give Real Change Final Report October 2018 (PDF)
3. Coordinated Assessment & Housing Placement System Data Sheet (PDF)
4. PowerPoint Presentation (PDF)
2
Packet Pg. 159
Housing First Initiative Annual Report
2018
Who We Are
Definitions
• This report does not represent
everyone who is homeless in Fort
Collins. The Murphy Center alone
serves about 3,000 people each
year, many of whom have been
homeless for less than six months.
• Unless otherwise noted, the
data in this report pertains only
to individuals who have been
homeless in Fort Collins for six
months or longer. Sample sizes
vary between data points.
• HFI’s definition of chronic
homelessness (six months or longer
in Fort Collins) is more inclusive
than the federal government’s
definition of chronic homelessness.
• Reports include data from
Homeward Alliance, Catholic
Charities, Fort Collins Rescue
Mission, Outreach Fort Collins,
the Coordinated Assessment
and Housing Placement system
group and other agencies in
the community and at the
Murphy Center.
Homeward 2020, now in the final
phase of its ten-year plan to make
homelessness rare, short-lived and
non-recurring in Fort Collins, seeks to
produce actionable, community-level
data on the issue of homelessness
and—equipped with that data—
identify and promote solutions that
increase housing options, housing
placements and housing retention for
people experiencing homelessness.
As part of that effort, Homeward 2020
and Homeward Alliance partnered in
mid-2017 to create the Housing First
Initiative (HFI): a two-year pilot project
based at the Murphy Center. HFI
collects City-level data on the issue of
homelessness, pilots “housing-first”
solutions and provides intensive case
management to people who are
chronically homeless.
HFI reports share local data and
learning experiences, highlight new
partnerships and identify
trends and gaps.
Over a 45-day stretch in mid-2018, two people who were homeless—
both among the top 15 most-vulnerable members of our community, as
measured by a standard assessment tool—died on the streets of Fort Collins.
These were not aberrations, but rather reflections of a known concern.
People experiencing homelessness, and particularly those who sleep
HFI Timeline
June 2017
HFI launches
• There are 378 people experiencing long-term homelessness
(six months or longer) in Fort Collins.
• During the month of June, 15 individuals entered long-term homelessness,
meaning that they hit the six-month mark of experiencing homelessness. The
primary reasons reported include: asked to leave/evicted, bad credit, lost job/
couldn’t find work and mental illness.
• Among 64 HFI participants who secured housing, 61 remain housed today.
• On average, HFI participants experience homelessness for four years with
over 72 participants experiencing homelessness ten years or longer.
For more data and information: homeward2020.org/data-dashboard
July 2017
HFI pilots volunteer
Advocates*
September 2017
Governor Hickenlooper visits
the Murphy Center** to learn
more about local efforts
October 2017
In partnership with Housing
Catalyst, HFI is granted
five project-based housing
vouchers from Colorado
Department of Local Affairs
January 2018
HFI develops and receives
funding for “Contingency
Fund” to meet unexpected,
housing-related needs
March 2018
HFI and Homeward 2020
launch online data dashboard:
Addressing Long-Term
Homelessness in Fort Collins
August 2017
HFI celebrates first
participant to obtain
housing
May 2018
Homeward Alliance
commits to use of BitFocus,
a robust database and case
management software
July 2018
HFI joins regional Continuum
of Care Governing Board
September 2018
HFI releases first annual
report and hosts panel
discussion on state of
homelessness in Fort Collins
*HFI trained volunteers as “Housing Advocates”
to offer long-term, supportive services to HFI
participants. After piloting this approach, HFI
shifted its volunteer focus to meet short-term
housing search and move-in needs.
**The Murphy Center is the hub of services
for individuals and families experiencing
(970) 658-9878 • www.HomewardAlliance.org • Info@HomewardAlliance.org
Program and System Analysis
HFI Strengths
HFI Participation in System-Level Work
Community Gaps HFI Recommendations
Data Collection: HFI manages a robust data system that empowers the program to identify system trends and housing
solutions, target service delivery and lead or participate in community data initiatives.
Supportive Housing: HFI helps individuals cut through the red tape and access existing housing in Fort Collins. The
program maintains a flexible fund for housing expenses, develops relationships with private landlords and forms
partnerships with nonprofit housing providers. Housing Catalyst plans to open 60 new units of permanent supportive
housing in 2020; up to 20 of those units are designated for HFI participants.
Collaboration: Collaboration is shared communication and coordination with a purpose. HFI collaborates with diverse
stakeholders at the system and individual levels, working to create community change and provide participants with
customized support.
Agency Alignment: Homeward Alliance operates the Murphy Center and nine programs, including HFI. The agency
has added new programs and adjusted existing programs to align more-closely with HFI and respond to community
opportunities and gaps.
FUSE Project: FUSE is a nationally-renowned, supportive housing model through which communities identify and
provide intensive, housing-focused support to individuals (a) with complex medical and behavioral health challenges
and (b) who are the highest users of emergency rooms, jails, shelters, clinics and other costly crisis services. Homeward
2020 is convening stakeholders to initiate a FUSE project in Fall 2018.
Housing Placement: HFI continues to contribute to the development of a robust, regional Coordinated Assessment
and Housing Placement System, identifying individuals experiencing homelessness and streamlining housing access
across Larimer and Weld Counties.
Data Collection: HFI participates in numerous local collaboratives that seek to improve data collection and sharing,
enhance service coordination and more-clearly identify system strengths and gaps. Homeward Alliance (including
HFI) expects to soon launch a customized agency database that will integrate with the statewide, Housing and Urban
Development (HUD)-mandated Homeless Management Information System (HMIS).
Lack of Affordable Housing Options: Despite recent gains,
the demand for subsidized and affordable housing—housing
vouchers, permanent supportive housing units, affordable
housing—continues to exceed the supply in northern Colorado.
The inventory is especially low for people who earn between
30% and 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI).
Shortage of Supportive Services: Housing is the first and
most critical step toward stability. Many HFI participants,
however, also require ongoing supportive services: intensive
case management, counseling, medically-assisted treatments,
in-home healthcare, legal assistance and more. Numerous
agencies provide housing-retention services to people who
escape homelessness, but those services are extremely limited.
Barriers to Housing Access: Many individuals who are
homeless face numerous barriers to housing: credit issues,
poor tenant record, criminal histories and more. HFI engages
regularly with landlords to reduce or eliminate these barriers,
but significant gaps remain.
Develop new affordable units, invest in permanent
supportive housing projects and provide funds to
programs that make housing affordable for people
with zero or extremely-limited incomes.
Develop or fund programs that provide flexible,
client-centered services to people who are homeless
or formerly-homeless, with an emphasis on programs
that provide long-term or permanent support.
Promote landlord engagement and education and
invest in programs that reduce or eliminate barriers
to housing access.
Invest time and funding in initiatives that produce
actionable, system-level data on the issue of
homelessness.
GIVE REAL CHANGE: FINAL REPORT, OCTOBER 2018
CAMPAIGN OVERVIEW
Give Real Change is a partnership between the Downtown
Business Association (DBA) and the Murphy Center. It is
underwritten by First National Bank, and the City of Fort
Collins provided financial support.
From Memorial Day through Labor Day 2018, more than 20
downtown businesses hosted Give Real Change donation
boxes, marketing collateral and informational materials
about the issue of homelessness—educating and inviting
customers to donate to local solutions. Proceeds benefited
the Murphy Center, the local hub of services for people ex-
periencing or at-risk of homelessness.
2,299.30
Raised from 28 local
businesses
SUCCESSES
BUSINESS BUY-IN 28 businesses hosted collec-
tion jars and marketing/informational materials
NETWORKING Murphy Center staff attended
DBA board meetings, forged new partnerships
with business owners and laid the groundwork
for future collaborations
EXPOSURE The campaign yielded numerous
high-level marketing and educational materials.
It had a launch party and kickoff booth in Old
Town Square and was featured in social media
and in the DBA newsletter
CHALLENGES
CASH DONATIONS Change collection was less-
than-expected; downtown merchants attribute
that to the infrequency with which customers
use cash and change
VISIBILITY Some businesses were unable to
prominently display donation boxes and materi-
als due to limited counter and wall space; some
stopped hosting the jars, citing lack of space
COLLECTION The process of collecting change
was labor-intensive, but a team of volunteers
managed most of the workload
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE IMPLEMENTATIONS
ELECTRONIC GIVING This campaign included
a largely-unsuccessful text-to-donate compo-
nent. Future campaigns should leverage this
and other electronic giving options
WORK TEAM Murphy Center staff and volun-
teers spent dozens of hours developing and co-
ordinating this campaign, but the campaign
would be more successful with additional hu-
man and marketing resources
EXPAND BUSINESS ENGAGEMENT The cam-
paign was most successful at businesses where
buy-in was the greatest (where materials were
most-prominently displayed, staff members
were well-versed, etc.).
The campaign—in any future iterations—would
benefit if it included stronger day-to-day part-
nerships between participating businesses and
the nonprofit beneficiaries
The Murphy Center is an initiative of Homeward Alliance. Homeward Alliance is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit.
Data for the Northern Colorado Coordinated Assessment Housing Placement System
Northern Colorado Continuum of Care
Addressing Homelessness Across Larimer & Weld Counties
Veteran CAHP System
Started February 2016
As of 9/11/2018
# Assessed – Larimer 240
# Assessed – Weld 113
# Assessed – Other 10
# Housed – Larimer 133
# Housed – Weld 61
# Housed – Other 61
Total Assessed 363
Total Housed 255
% assessed that are housed:70.25%
% active that are housed:73.49%
# inactive: 16
# archived: NA
Data for the month of September
# Assessed – Larimer 2
# Assessed – Weld 2
# Assessed – Other 0
# Housed – Larimer 0
# Housed – Weld 0
# Housed – Other 0
Total Assessed 4
Total Housed 0
% assessed that are housed: 0
# inactive: 0
# archived: NA
Adult CAHP System
Started April 2017
As of 9/25/2018
# Assessed – Larimer 359
# Assessed – Weld 68
# Assessed – Other 0
# Housed – Larimer 44
# Housed – Weld 11
# Housed – Other 17
Total Assessed 427
Total Housed 72
% assessed that are housed: 16.86%
% active that are housed: 18.70%
# inactive: 42
# archived: 108
Data for the month of September
# Assessed – Larimer 4
# Assessed – Weld 0
# Assessed – Other 0
# Housed – Larimer 1
# Housed – Weld 0
# Housed – Other 0
Total Assessed 4
Total Housed 1
% assessed that are housed: .25%
# inactive: 0
# archived: 0
Family CAHP System
Started March 2018
10/1/2018
Data for the Northern Colorado Coordinated Assessment Housing Placement System
Northern Colorado Continuum of Care
Addressing Homelessness Across Larimer & Weld Counties
Definitions:
• Assessed: Those household who have completed the VI-SPDAT
• Housed: Those household who have been housed
• Inactive: Those household that have not been able to be contacted or seen in the last 90 days
• Archived: Those households that have been on the inactive list and have not been able to be contacted or seen in the last 6+ months
This month CAHPS has assessed 20 new households and housed four new households. The Department of Housing gave CAHPS five vouchers to disseminate for
those who were most vulnerable. Reviewing the by name list, looking at the VI-SPDAT scores, it appeared that the families in Larimer and Weld Counties were
the most vulnerable according to their scores and chronicity status. We were able to assign all five voucher to five families, four of those families in Larimer
County (all assessed in Fort Collins) and one in Weld County.
2.3
Packet Pg. 165
Attachment: Coordinated Assessment & Housing Placement System Data Sheet (7245 : Homelessness
1
Homelessness Services Update 2018
Jeff Mihelich, Holly LeMasurier, Beth Sowder
OcOctober 23, 2018
ATTACHMENT 4
2.4
Packet Pg. 166
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7245 : Homelessness Services Update)
Overview
2
• Current state of homelessness
• Homeward 2020
• Housing First Initiative & FUSE Project
• Homeward Alliance & Murphy Center
• Give Real Change Campaign
• Seasonal Overflow Shelter plans
• Outreach Fort Collins
• Coordinated Assessment & Housing
Placement System
2.4
Packet Pg. 167
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7245 : Homelessness Services Update)
Current State of Homelessness
3
1. Total Population
Point in Time
Count of
Homeless
Individuals
Individuals as
proportion of
population
United
States 325.7 million 553,742
17 per 10,000
Colorado 5.6 million 10,940 19.7 per 10,000
Denver-metro = 5,116
7 counties – Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver,
Douglas, Jefferson
2.4
Packet Pg. 168
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7245 : Homelessness Services Update)
Fort Collins Homeless Population
4
0.00%
0.05%
0.10%
0.15%
0.20%
0.25%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Homeless as % of Total population
Count of Homeless Individuals
Point in Time Count
Housing First Initiative Count of Homeless for 6 months or longer in Fort Collins (started 2017)
Percentage of Homeless Individuals of Total Population
2.4
Packet Pg. 169
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7245 : Homelessness Services Update)
Homeward 2020
5
Guiding the 10-Year Plan to make homelessness rare, short-lived and
Non-recurring in Fort Collins.
2018-2020 community action areas:
• Data development to drive solutions
• Identify housing and supportive services solutions for 350+
experiencing long-term homelessness.
• Plan for long-term system sustainability to continue the
mission.
• MOU with City
2.4
Packet Pg. 170
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7245 : Homelessness Services Update)
6
2.4
Packet Pg. 171
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7245 : Homelessness Services Update)
Housing First Initiative
7
• Two-year pilot
• Data collection and analysis
• Pilot housing/services
2.4
Packet Pg. 172
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7245 : Homelessness Services Update)
HFI Dashboard
8
2.4
Packet Pg. 173
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7245 : Homelessness Services Update)
Recommendations
9
1. More housing pathways
2. Increase housing retention services
3. Engage community
4. Support housing development for 0-30% AMI
2.4
Packet Pg. 174
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7245 : Homelessness Services Update)
FUSE Model
10
Frequent Users Systems Engagement (FUSE)
• Corporation for Supportive Housing
• 19 other communities
• Interventions for “frequent utilizers of costly public crisis systems”
• Improved system, community, individual outcomes
• Partners: healthcare, justice, police, mental health, housing, outreach
and shelters
• Data collected
• November 2018 launch
2.4
Packet Pg. 175
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7245 : Homelessness Services Update)
Murphy Center & Homeward Alliance
11
• Increased individuals reporting positive employment and housing outcomes
• 135 escaped homelessness in first 9 months of 2018 – 175% increase over 2017
• Average guest visits 14 times per year
• Approx. 20 nonprofits provide about 40 unique services at the MC
2.4
Packet Pg. 176
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7245 : Homelessness Services Update)
Homeward Alliance 2018 Updates
12
One Village One Family: Helped 9 families secure housing
Hand Up: Helped secure 150 jobs for participants
Re-Entry: Intensive case management for 93 individuals
Dedicated Navigator: Helped people secure over $585,000 in potential
annual benefits; 73 secure food assistance; 69 Medicaid
Street Outreach: ~2,000 interactions with 750 individuals
Children In Need: Served over 300 families
Bike Repair: Performed 322 repairs
2.4
Packet Pg. 177
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7245 : Homelessness Services Update)
Give Real Change
13
• Pilot – Memorial Day thru Labor Day 2018
• Raised $2,299
• Successes and challenges
• Suggestions for future implementations
• DBA will not undertake this campaign again
2.4
Packet Pg. 178
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7245 : Homelessness Services Update)
Seasonal Overflow Shelter Plan
14
November 1 thru April 30
• SOS site at Community of Christ Church
• Staffed and operated by Catholic Charities
• Women only
• 10pm – 6am
• 7 nights per week
• Increased capacity for men
• Catholic Charities
• Fort Collins Rescue Mission
• Emergency weather activation stays same
2.4
Packet Pg. 179
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7245 : Homelessness Services Update)
15
Outreach Fort Collins
2.4
Packet Pg. 180
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7245 : Homelessness Services Update)
• Address street conflicts
• Streamline referrals
• Maintain downtown as vibrant, thriving, and
welcoming to all
•OFC is NOT:
– Solely about homelessness
– Enforcement
– A silver bullet
16
Outreach Fort Collins – Goals
2.4
Packet Pg. 181
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7245 : Homelessness Services Update)
• Downtown Fort Collins focus
• Proactive engagement with all clients
• Focused effort & engagement with high utilizers of
emergency services and police interaction
17
Outreach Fort Collins – Approach
2.4
Packet Pg. 182
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7245 : Homelessness Services Update)
Outreach Fort Collins Results
18
24 high users of public services & chronically homeless with high vulnerability
Through contact and a lot of work:
• 11 are now housed in Larimer and Weld Counties
• 1 housed in Denver County
• 2 currently at Ft. Lyon Residential Treatment Facility
• 3 have been housed with family
• 6 are still homeless in Fort Collins
• 1 individual cannot be located
2.4
Packet Pg. 183
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7245 : Homelessness Services Update)
Coordinated System
19
• HUD requires Coordinated Entry
• Coordinates assessment, case
conferencing, prioritization, most
vulnerable
• Regional – Larimer and Weld
• Veterans – 255 housed
• Adults – 72 housed
• Families – 40 housed
• Youth – planned in 2019
2.4
Packet Pg. 184
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7245 : Homelessness Services Update)
Next Steps
20
City and HW2020 focus:
1. Actionable data & recommendations
2. Systemic solutions to homelessness, housing
3. Strategic interventions and investment
4. System performance targets
2.4
Packet Pg. 185
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7245 : Homelessness Services Update)
DATE:
STAFF:
October 23, 2018
Wendy Williams, Assistant City Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
FoCoCreates Arts and Culture Master Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to provide an update on the FoCoCreates Arts & Master Plan process, and
goals identified in draft plan.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
• Does Council support the overall plan vision?
• What feedback does Council have on the goals?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The FoCocreates Arts & Master Plan update was launched in September 2017, to coincide with the City Plan
update process. Fort Collins has experienced numerous changes since the City’s first cultural plan. This plan is
designed to create a framework and vision for arts and cultural development over the next 10 years. It goes
beyond the previous plan components to address how the City and its partners will continue to further creative
enterprises that make Fort Collins unique. This plan addresses the breadth of culture in Fort Collins-from science
and horticulture to the community’s diverse history, heritage and traditions.
Louise Stevens, ArtsMarket, was selected as the consultant to lead the process. A Leadership Council consisting
of a broad spectrum of community leaders was formed to help guide the process. A series of focus groups,
interviews, meetings, and surveys were used to inform the research phase and then elicit feedback on the draft
plan.
The plan responds to public input, which has been extensive. The Cultural Resource Board, the Art in Public
Places Board, a Music Task Force, Equity and Access Task Force, Creative District Task Force and hundreds of
residents provided valuable input.
Five major themes, or goals, emerged. Each goal ties back to the City’s Strategic Plan, addresses relevant
current conditions and challenges, and identifies the City’s role and responsibilities.
1. Through the arts, foster an inclusive, accessible and affordable cultural and creative community that
welcomes audiences and builds equity within the civic and nonprofit arts; makes it possible for residents
to afford participation and for artists to create art for them; and distributes arts and cultural resources
throughout all geographic areas of Fort Collins.
2. Fill gaps in the accessibility and delivery of arts, culture, and creative learning opportunities for all
residents.
3. Further a public-private infrastructure of investments in arts, culture, and creativity that keeps pace with
Fort Collins growth and population needs while building strong and sustainable arts and cultural
resources.
4. Define the built aesthetic of Fort Collins through diverse creative districts, major public art, placemaking
and design.
3
Packet Pg. 186
October 23, 2018 Page 2
5. Build Fort Collins’ creative, arts, culture and heritage brand identity and communicate it effectively to
residents and beyond.
Implementation of the plan should result in six key outcomes:
1. Fort Collins residents experience and enjoy the arts around them every day in their neighborhoods, in
multiple cultural districts that are lively and arts-rich, in schools, parks and gardens, gathering places,
gateways, and civic buildings.
2. Arts and culture in Fort Collins is inclusive, diverse, and equitable for all.
3. The City of fort Collins provides an outstanding portfolio of arts, culture, and science discovery for its
residents and visitors, through venues, information, funding support for non-profit arts and entrepreneurial
creative enterprises, and education services, making the City a true creative hub for residents and
visitors.
4. Fort Collins residents do not need to leave town to enjoy the best of the arts and entertainment: it is right
here, accessible and affordable.
5. Fort Collins is known for the depth and breadth of its creative industries that grow and thrive in synergy
with the City’s tech industries.
6. The Fort Collins creative community is robust and growing thanks to affordable and accessible venues,
live-work space, and economic investment.
Next Steps
Council feedback will be incorporated into the draft plan and the plan will then be shared with Council and the
public. The new Cultural Services Director and staff team will review with stakeholders, update and finalize the
plan through April. Another work session will be scheduled in March 2019. Council adoption and launch of plan by
end of Q2, 2019 is anticipated
ATTACHMENTS
1. PowerPoint Presentation (PDF)
3
Packet Pg. 187
1
FoCoCreates Briefing: Draft of Fort Collins 10-Year Master Plan
Arts, Culture and the Creative Sector
October 23, 2018
Cultural Services Department
Louise K. Stevens, Consultant
ATTACHMENT 1
3.1
Packet Pg. 188
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7263 : FoCoCreates Arts and Culture Master Plan)
2
Co-Created Vision, Goals and Strategies
Responding to Fort Collins Residents
Building on Excellence
Exceptional Services
Aspirations Balanced with Pragmatism
3.1
Packet Pg. 189
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7263 : FoCoCreates Arts and Culture Master Plan)
Does Council support the
overall plan vision?
What feedback does the
Council have on the goals?
3
Briefing Purpose
3.1
Packet Pg. 190
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7263 : FoCoCreates Arts and Culture Master Plan)
FOCO-creates Timeline to Completion
Oct. 23
2018 Council
work session
Nov. 2018
– Feb. 2019
Additional
community
input
Mar.–Apr. 2019
New staff
director and
team finalize
Q2 2019
Adopt
& Launch Plan
4
3.1
Packet Pg. 191
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7263 : FoCoCreates Arts and Culture Master Plan)
Responsive, Values-Based
5
Culture, the arts,
and creativity
are long-standing,
valued elements
of Fort Collins.
This plan builds on exceptional
community assets and our
commitment to a culture of creativity.
• City Assets
• Partner Nonprofit Assets
• Music & Creative Economy
& Workforce Assets
3.1
Packet Pg. 192
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7263 : FoCoCreates Arts and Culture Master Plan)
6
1. “Improve the Community’s sense of place with a high value on culture…place
priority on maintaining and repairing our cultural facilities…enhance and expand
infrastructure to support a growing population and demand for services.”
City Strategic Plan 2.1
2. “Develop a clear strategic description of the City’s role in culture and the arts while
leveraging partnerships with other community organizations.”
City Strategic Plan 2.6
3. “Support arts, culture, and creative enterprises with facilities, promotion, expanded
program opportunities, and funding.”
Downtown Plan
4. “Encourage programs that promote social engagement…promote and maintain a
welcoming, inclusive community where people feel connected.”
Social Sustainability Plan
City Plans Reference
Importance of the Sector
3.1
Packet Pg. 193
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7263 : FoCoCreates Arts and Culture Master Plan)
FOCOcreates Outcomes
1. Through their unique ability to include and gather, the FOCO’s arts, culture & creativity
has created a community where residents feel connected and welcomed.
2. Fort Collins has enhanced and expanded its arts, culture, and creative infrastructure to
support a growing population and demand for services.
3. The City has a freshly defined role in culture and the arts and has successfully
leveraged partnerships with other community organizations.
4. The community of Fort Collins solidly supports arts, culture, and creative enterprises
with facilities, promotion, expanded program opportunities, and funding.
5. There is a strong, unique sense of place through the community’s arts, culture, and
creativity.
7
3.1
Packet Pg. 194
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7263 : FoCoCreates Arts and Culture Master Plan)
8
“The arts knits a community closer
together. The arts and the
humanities are some of the most
important contributors to our
understanding of community. To our
understanding of identity.”
– Daniel Pink
3.1
Packet Pg. 195
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7263 : FoCoCreates Arts and Culture Master Plan)
FOCOcreates Process To Date
• Leadership Council
• City Council and City staff
interviews
• Topics and Issues roundtables
• City Plan public Input
• Input and surveying of the arts
& culture nonprofit community
• On-line survey to residents:
707 completed surveys
• Creative community
involvement: artists,
entrepreneurs, makers
• Three task forces: Music,
Equity & Access, Creative
District(s)
• PSD and CSU
• Alignment with other City
plans: City Strategic Plan,
Downtown, Social
Sustainability, Parks &
Recreation
• Input from Economic Health,
Historic Preservation,
Recreation, Parks,
Neighborhood Services
• CRB, APP, Museum Board,
Friends
• Library District
• Community forums and
creative café
• Best practices analysis
• Comparisons to cities of
150,000 – 200,000 population
• Trends analysis
9
3.1
Packet Pg. 196
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7263 : FoCoCreates Arts and Culture Master Plan)
Community Involvement
in FOCO Arts = Proven, Tremendous
10
FoCo & Beyond
Households who
have attended the
Lincoln Center
3.1
Packet Pg. 197
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7263 : FoCoCreates Arts and Culture Master Plan)
But There are Challenges
• Splintered sector not positioned to meet increased demand
• Fragmented image, awareness, knowledge limits community access
• Shortage of sector-wide leadership hinders important new ventures
• Facility-centric, siloed cultural services operational model, uneven
service delivery
• Programming gaps not keeping up with community interests
• Uneven “arts in my neighborhood” community identity
11
3.1
Packet Pg. 198
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7263 : FoCoCreates Arts and Culture Master Plan)
The Creative Economy Ecosystem
ARTS
CULTURE CREATIVITY
12
Ecosystem-wide
leadership and
coalition has been
missing.
Acknowledgement
and coalescing of
all three are vital
to Fort Collins
identity, way of
life, economy.
3.1
Packet Pg. 199
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7263 : FoCoCreates Arts and Culture Master Plan)
Co-Expansion Areas
13
• Neighborhoods
• Arts & Creative learning
• Affordability live and work space
• Home for FOCO Perf. Arts
• Creative districts
•Music
• Creative business/tech development
• New diverse arts nonprofits
• Nighttime Economy
• Public art
• Visual & literary
• Museums Strategy
• New Venues
3.1
Packet Pg. 200
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7263 : FoCoCreates Arts and Culture Master Plan)
Five Goals Support the Five Outcomes
Access,
Equity,
Affordable
Fill the Gaps
Invest in the
Sector
Art & the
Built
Environment
Image
Communicate
Engage
Brand
14
CO-
3.1
Packet Pg. 201
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7263 : FoCoCreates Arts and Culture Master Plan)
Goal 1: Access, Equity, Affordable
15
• Affordable Arts and Creatives Live
and Work Space
• Additional (different) creative districts:
zoned industrial
• Creative entrepreneurial development
support system: “Creatosphere”
• Changes to Fort Fund Grants: Equity,
Inclusion + Access for New Applicants
• Arts in neighborhoods
3.1
Packet Pg. 202
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7263 : FoCoCreates Arts and Culture Master Plan)
Goal 2: Fill Gaps
16
• Broaden Department & Advisory Scope Beyond
Facility Silos: Arts, Culture and Creative Sector
Services
• Strengthen Partnerships and Co-Plan to Advance
Ecosystem: PreK-12 Arts Education; Business
Development
• Fort Fund Grants:
Incentivize Expanded Services to the Community,
Sustainability
• Home for Resident Arts Groups to Serve Community:
Additional Larger and Smaller Venues and Spaces
• Festivals Grounds; Convention Capacity
3.1
Packet Pg. 203
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7263 : FoCoCreates Arts and Culture Master Plan)
Goal 3: Co-Invest
17
• I.D. sources for Co-Granting to Further Sector Capacity
• Expanded University and PSD, Library District Joint
Ventures
• Wise use of Resources: Remove Department Silos,
Expand Inter-department Joint Ventures
• Wise use of Resources: Music Strategy, Museums
Strategy
• Cultivate sources, build resources for major capital
investment
• Public & Private (Commercial Development): Increase
to 2% Percent for Art
3.1
Packet Pg. 204
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7263 : FoCoCreates Arts and Culture Master Plan)
Goal 4: Art and the Built Environment
18
• Major and Iconic Public Art,
Temporary and Permanent
• Neighborhood-Based Placemaking
• Arts Role in Design Review:
Excellence in Architecture
• Signage and Wayfinding
• Historic Districts Preservation
3.1
Packet Pg. 205
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7263 : FoCoCreates Arts and Culture Master Plan)
19
• Brand Identity
• Destination-Driver
• Diversify Engagement
• Unified Portal
Goal 4: Art and the Built Environment
3.1
Packet Pg. 206
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7263 : FoCoCreates Arts and Culture Master Plan)
Early Outcomes without New Expenditures
• Increased community access, inclusion, welcome at community arts and culture: new
policies, partnerships, dialogue.
• New support services to the creative, cultural and arts community: Cultural Services
reorganized to fill gaps and respond to community needs.
• Easy access: New image and info portal planned and designed.
• Organic creativity: New support structure for current and additional creative districts,
including zoning, opportunities for artist work and live spaces.
• Healthier nonprofits and opportunities for emerging new nonprofits: New funding
partnerships for diversified Fort Fund grants identified.
• Arts “in my neighborhood:” joint venture Cultural Services and Neighborhood Services.
• More entrepreneurial businesses: Support for creative entrepreneurial development
through joint venture Cultural Services and Economic Health.
• More placemaking, community arts experiences: APP private sector funds.
20
3.1
Packet Pg. 207
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7263 : FoCoCreates Arts and Culture Master Plan)
Does Council support the
overall plan vision?
What feedback does the
Council have on the goals?
21
3.1
Packet Pg. 208
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7263 : FoCoCreates Arts and Culture Master Plan)
# Assessed – Larimer 44
# Assessed – Weld 47
# Assessed – Other 0
# Housed – Larimer 8
# Housed – Weld 23
# Housed – Other 9
Total Assessed 91
Total Housed 40
% assessed that are housed: 43.96%
% active that are housed: 46.51%
# inactive: 5
# archived: 0
Data for the month of September
# Assessed – Larimer 8
# Assessed – Weld 4
# Assessed – Other 0
# Housed – Larimer 1
# Housed – Weld 2
# Housed – Other 0
Total Assessed 12
Total Housed 3
% assessed that are housed: .25%
# inactive: 0
# archived: 0
ATTACHMENT 3
2.3
Packet Pg. 164
Attachment: Coordinated Assessment & Housing Placement System Data Sheet (7245 : Homelessness
ATTACHMENT 2
2.2
Packet Pg. 163
Attachment: Give Real Change Final Report October 2018 (7245 : Homelessness Services Update)
2.1
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: Housing First Initiative Year 1 Report (7245 : Homelessness Services Update)
homelessness or housing instability in our
community.
Top Five Self-Reported
Contributing Factors to
Homelessness*
Unable to pay rent/mortgage
Lost job, couldn’t find work
Relationship problems or
family break-up
Asked to leave
Mental illness
0
30
60
90
120
150
133
126
108
103
100
Housing Secured by Type (n = 48)
64 HFI participants
secured housing
Number of People Housed
from June 2017 to June 2018
Project based voucher
Tenant based voucher
Rapid rehousing
Affordable housing
Outside of city limits
Moved out of state
Market
Assisted living/nursing
home
Long term treatment
program
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
31%
25%
8%
6%
10%
6%
6%
4%
2%
HFI Data Analysis
Housing First Principles HFI Data Snapshot
*Participants can select multiple reasons.
Seniors Experiencing
Homelessness
Fort Collins currently has 38 seniors (61+)
experiencing long-term homelessness
60% of these seniors have a
self-reported disability
9% of these seniors are veterans
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines cost-burdened families
as those “who pay more than 30% of their income for housing” and “may have difficulty
affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation and medical care.” Severe
rent burden is defined as paying more than 50% of one’s income on rent.
The Cost Burden of Rent
Average rent for a one-bedroom
in Fort Collins/Loveland in 2017:
$1,179.01
Income required for this not
to be cost-burdened:
$3,930/month
12% $1 - $499
16.5% $500 - $999
2.8% $1,500 - $1,999
6.3% $1,000 - $1,400
1.1% $2,000+
61.3% $0/No income
Monthly
Income
Among HFI
Participants
Housing First
Evidence-based theory with a simple, but transformative, underlying
assumption: housing is a prerequisite to everything. People who are
homeless are far more likely to overcome or effectively manage personal
obstacles—mental-health issues, substance-use disorders, physical
disabilities, unemployment—when they have roofs over their heads.
Proven principle of service provision through which practitioners
identify—and help participants manage—the consequences of trauma,
past and present. HFI meets people where they are, understanding that
many are recovering from or actively experiencing trauma.
Trauma Informed Care
Harm Reduction
Best-practice strategy that seeks to lessen, but not necessarily eliminate,
the negative impacts of drug and alcohol use. HFI does not require
program participants to be sober, but rather helps individuals avoid
risky behaviors and reduce the harms associated with substance use.
2.1
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: Housing First Initiative Year 1 Report (7245 : Homelessness Services Update)
outside, have mortality rates far higher than people with homes.
One recent report, published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association, found that people who were homeless and unsheltered were
nearly 10 times more likely to die (over a 10-year period) than people with
housing. The average age at death was 53.
What’s more, we know how to prevent these deaths. When we focus on
securing housing for people who are homeless, we literally save lives.
Housing First Initiative represents our best attempt to get to the heart
of the issue: to define the scope of the problem, identify what works and
what is missing and implement the interventions today that get results.
Every person deserves the right to live (and die) in a home. We cannot
accept homelessness. We must act now and invest more in what we know
can make homelessness rare, short-lived and non-recurring.
Marla Cleary, HFI Director
Why This Matters
ATTACHMENT 2.1 1
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: Housing First Initiative Year 1 Report (7245 : Homelessness Services Update)
2. Develop and fund programs that provide very flexible, client-centered housing placement and
retention services;
3. Promote landlord education and engagement to more deeply involve and support access to the
private market;
4. Invest in developing actionable data and utilize it to identify appropriate interventions and monitor
outcomes.
2
Packet Pg. 154
Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander
Black or African American
White
Other
15. Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latinx?
No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latinx
Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or
Latinx
Thank you! Please return the completed survey in the
postage-paid envelope provided to:
National Research Center, Inc.,
2955 Valmont Rd., Suite 300, Boulder, CO 80301
1.3
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Si tiene alguna pregunta sobre la encuesta,
llame al 970-416-2648. Gracias por
ayudarnos con este importante estudio!
Atentamente,
Lucinda Smith, Director
Environmental Services Department/Departamento de Servicios Ambientales
Dear Fort Collins Resident,
If you haven’t already responded to the
Residential Wood Burning Survey, here’s
another chance! Your participation is
important and your answers will help the
City Council make decisions that affect our
community.
Please complete the survey online using the
following URL and access code:
www.bit.ly/fcwoodburning
Access Code:
If you have questions or need assistance,
please call 970-416-2648. Thank you for
helping us with this important study!
Sincerely,
Estimado Residente de Fort Collins,
Si no ha contestado aún la encuesta sobre la
quema residencial de leña, ¡aquí tiene otra
oportunidad de hacerlo! Su participación es
importante y sus respuestas ayudarán al
concejo municipal a tomar decisiones que
afectan a nuestra comunidad.
Puede contestar la encuesta en línea usando
la dirección URL y el código de acceso que se
indican a continuación:
www.bit.ly/fcwoodburning
Código de acceso:
Si tiene alguna pregunta sobre la encuesta,
llame al 970-416-2648. Gracias por
ayudarnos con este importante estudio!
Atentamente,
Lucinda Smith, Director
Environmental Services Department/Departamento de Servicios Ambientales
Dear Fort Collins Resident,
If you haven’t already responded to the
Residential Wood Burning Survey, here’s
another chance! Your participation is
important and your answers will help the
City Council make decisions that affect our
community.
Please complete the survey online using the
following URL and access code:
www.bit.ly/fcwoodburning
Access Code:
If you have questions or need assistance,
please call 970-416-2648. Thank you for
helping us with this important study!
Sincerely,
Estimado Residente de Fort Collins,
Si no ha contestado aún la encuesta sobre la
quema residencial de leña, ¡aquí tiene otra
oportunidad de hacerlo! Su participación es
importante y sus respuestas ayudarán al
concejo municipal a tomar decisiones que
afectan a nuestra comunidad.
Puede contestar la encuesta en línea usando
la dirección URL y el código de acceso que se
indican a continuación:
www.bit.ly/fcwoodburning
Código de acceso:
Si tiene alguna pregunta sobre la encuesta,
llame al 970-416-2648. Gracias por
ayudarnos con este importante estudio!
Atentamente,
Lucinda Smith, Director
Environmental Services Department/Departamento de Servicios Ambientales
1.3
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
Lucinda Smith, Director
Environmental Services Department/Departamento de Servicios Ambientales
1.3
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)
ayudarnos con este importante estudio!
Atentamente,
Lucinda Smith, Director
Environmental Services Department/Departamento de Servicios Ambientales
Dear Fort Collins Resident,
Your voice matters to the City of Fort Collins.
You are one of a few households randomly
selected to participate in a confidential
survey about outdoor residential wood
burning in Fort Collins.
Please complete the survey online using the
following URL and access code:
www.bit.ly/fcwoodburning
Access Code:
If you have questions or need assistance,
please call 970-416-2648. Thank you for
helping us with this important study!
Sincerely,
Estimado Residente de Fort Collins,
Su opinión es importante para la Ciudad de
Fort Collins. Usted es uno de los pocos
hogares seleccionados al azar para participar
en una encuesta confidencial acerca de la
quema residencial de leña en exteriores en la
ciudad de Fort Collins.
Puede contestar la encuesta en línea usando
la dirección URL y el código de acceso que se
indican a continuación:
www.bit.ly/fcwoodburning
Código de acceso:
Si tiene alguna pregunta sobre la encuesta,
llame al 970-416-2648. Gracias por
ayudarnos con este importante estudio!
Atentamente,
Lucinda Smith, Director
Environmental Services Department/Departamento de Servicios Ambientales
Dear Fort Collins Resident,
Your voice matters to the City of Fort Collins.
You are one of a few households randomly
selected to participate in a confidential
survey about outdoor residential wood
burning in Fort Collins.
Please complete the survey online using the
following URL and access code:
www.bit.ly/fcwoodburning
Access Code:
If you have questions or need assistance,
please call 970-416-2648. Thank you for
helping us with this important study!
Sincerely,
Estimado Residente de Fort Collins,
Su opinión es importante para la Ciudad de
Fort Collins. Usted es uno de los pocos
hogares seleccionados al azar para participar
en una encuesta confidencial acerca de la
quema residencial de leña en exteriores en la
ciudad de Fort Collins.
Puede contestar la encuesta en línea usando
la dirección URL y el código de acceso que se
indican a continuación:
www.bit.ly/fcwoodburning
Código de acceso:
Si tiene alguna pregunta sobre la encuesta,
llame al 970-416-2648. Gracias por
ayudarnos con este importante estudio!
Atentamente,
Lucinda Smith, Director
Environmental Services Department/Departamento de Servicios Ambientales
1.3
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Survey Report (7253 : Outdoor Recreational Wood Burning)