HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 11/13/2018 - COMPLETE AGENDACity of Fort Collins Page 1
Wade Troxell, Mayor City Council Chambers
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Ken Summers, District 3
Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14
Ross Cunniff, District 5 and Channel 881 on the Comcast cable system
Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry 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
November 13, 2018
6:00 PM
• CALL TO ORDER.
1. Regulating Shared Electric Scooters. (staff: Amanda Mansfield, Paul Sizemore; 15 minute staff
presentation; 45 minute discussion)
The purpose of this work session is for Council to provide staff direction on proposed policies and
practices for successful shared electric scooter (e-scooter) management. Shared e-scooters are a
rapidly emerging mobility service. Experience from other cities has shown the need to regulate the
operations of these services. Currently no e-scooter companies operate in Fort Collins, however
companies have been inquiring with the intention of coming to Fort Collins. To be prepared, the City
is investigating the following:
• Updating the Downtown Dismount Zone to exclude e-scooters.
• Existing City policy or City Code regulations that are applicable to e-scooters.
• Whether any changes are needed to existing City policy or City Code regulations related to e-
scooters.
• The right operational model for Fort Collins regarding e-scooters.
• How to best address public safety concerns through enforcement of existing City Code
regulations related to encroachment and accessory use violations.
City of Fort Collins Page 2
2. 2019 Fee Update and Fee Group Findings. (staff: Jennifer Poznanovic, Mike Beckstead; 10
minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to review the Fee Working Group position paper and fee updates
associated with Step II Capital Expansion Fees and Wet Utility Plant Investment Fees. Since the fall
of October 2016, staff has worked to coordinate the process for updating all new development
related fees that require Council approval. The 2017 Capital Expansion Fee (CEF) and
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) full fee proposals showed significant increases from
the previously approved fees. Council asked for these fees to be implemented in three steps. The
2019 update includes Step II for CEFs and TEFs along with Wet Utility Plant Investment Fees (PIFs).
Staff proposes the following fee updates:
• 90% of proposed CEFs (Step II)
• Option A for TCEFs (Step II)
• Wet Utility PIFs as proposed
Due to the concern in the development and building community around impact fee changes, Council
asked for a Fee Working Group to be created to foster a better understanding of impact fees prior to
discussing further fee updates. The Fee Working Group meetings commenced in August of 2017,
comprised of a balanced group of stakeholders - citizens, business-oriented individuals, City staff
and a Council liaison. The group met 14 times, and the background, findings and recommendations
are presented in a position paper. Overall, the Fee Working Group supports the fee coordination
process and proposed fee updates.
3. City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback. (staff: Cameron Gloss, Aaron Iverson; 15
minute staff presentation; 45 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to update Council on community feedback and reaction to the three City
Plan scenarios. Staff will provide an overview of areas of alignment and areas of tension based on
community input, and implications for developing a preferred scenario based on results.
• OTHER BUSINESS.
• ADJOURNMENT.
DATE:
STAFF:
November 13, 2018
Amanda Mansfield, Transportation Planner
Paul Sizemore, FC Moves Senior Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Regulating Shared Electric Scooters.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is for Council to provide staff direction on proposed policies and practices for
successful shared electric scooter (e-scooter) management. Shared e-scooters are a rapidly emerging mobility
service. Experience from other cities has shown the need to regulate the operations of these services. Currently
no e-scooter companies operate in Fort Collins, however companies have been inquiring with the intention of
coming to Fort Collins. To be prepared, the City is investigating the following:
• Updating the Downtown Dismount Zone to exclude e-scooters.
• Existing City policy or City Code regulations that are applicable to e-scooters.
• Whether any changes are needed to existing City policy or City Code regulations related to e-scooters.
• The right operational model for Fort Collins regarding e-scooters.
• How to best address public safety concerns through enforcement of existing City Code regulations related to
encroachment and accessory use violations.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Short-term Action:
1. Does Council support amending dismount zone signage to communicate that e-scooters cannot be ridden in
the downtown dismount zones?
Mid-term Actions:
2. Does Council support including e-scooters into the City’s existing Outdoor Vendor Permit and Encroachment
Permit programs to allow e-scooter operators to utilize City right of way? If so, what operational model does
Council prefer?
3. Does Council support establishing rules for e-scooter parking?
4. Does Council support creating a City e-scooter information web-page with guidance for e-scooter companies
and information for citizens and e-scooter users about how current City Code and policies apply to e-
scooters?
Long-term Action:
5. Does Council support adding this topic to the City’s Legislative Policy Agenda to support local control of e-
scooters, so the City would have more ability to regulate where and how e-scooters operate within the City?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Recommendations
• Updating the downtown sidewalk dismount zone to exclude standing e-scooters (this would in effect not allow
standing e-scooters to operate Downtown, as standing e-scooters are also not allowed by code to operate in
the roadway).
1
Packet Pg. 3
November 13, 2018 Page 2
• Developing a permit/registration system within the existing Outdoor Vendor Permit and Encroachment Permit
programs, with rules for safety education and vendor responsibilities.
• Establishing rules for e-scooter parking to be within close vicinity to bike racks and avoid blocking pedestrian
pathways.
• Supporting efforts at the state level to create legislation around e-scooters that provides for more local control
of e-scooters.
• Creating a City e-scooter information web-page with guidance for e-scooter companies and information for
citizens and e-scooter users.
Background
As e-scooters spread rapidly across the country, the City of Fort Collins must be thoughtful in regulating these
new shared mobility services. Currently these types of vehicles exist in an emerging and evolving regulatory
landscape. Experiences from other cities show there is a need to implement policies and practices to regulate e-
scooters to prevent unapproved and unregulated launches.
Current Technology Status
There are two types of e-scooters for the City to consider: standing scooters and low-power or seated scooters
(see representative images in attached PowerPoint-Attachment 2). E-scooters are accessed through
smartphone apps, allowing the user to see a map of nearby available scooters, from which they select one, scan
a code on the scooter, tap “unlock” in the app, and start the ride, parking the scooters out of the public right-of-
way at their destination. For all e-scooter companies, riders must be at least 18 years of age, have a driver’s
license, wear a helmet as required by law, park in a legal parking spot, and ride only in “metropolitan areas”.
Speed limits are set by each company and range from 15mph to 30 mph. Currently the most prolific type of
systems are the standing e-scooters.
Existing City of Fort Collins Codes and Regulations
City Code considers standing e-scooters by definition “toy vehicles”, which are allowed on sidewalks and in
crosswalks with the same rights and duties as pedestrians. Standing e-scooters (“toy vehicles”) are not allowed
on roadways under current code. Further, City Code states that such vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to any
pedestrian and shall give an audible signal or verbal warning before overtaking and passing such pedestrian.
City Code states low-power seated scooters shall ride as close to the right side of the roadway as practicable,
exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction. Low-power
scooters are prohibited from riding upon and along a sidewalk, or across a highway or street upon or along a
cross-walk, except when the low-power scooter operator has dismounted the low-power scooter and is walking
the low-power scooter under human power. See the table below for a breakdown of the vehicle-type
characteristics and existing code and regulations related to standing and low-power or seated scooters:
Existing City of Fort Collins Codes and Regulations
Standing E-Scooter (“Toy
Vehicle”)
Seated “Low-Power” Scooter
Characteristics Less Power; smaller wheels;
Treated like a pedestrian or like
skateboards
More Power, larger wheels; largely
treated like a motor vehicle
Where Driven Sidewalks only; not allowed in
roadway
Roadway only; Not allowed on
sidewalks
Special Restrictions Must yield ROW to pedestrians;
Must give audible warnings when
passing
Must ride close to right side of
roadway
State traffic code defines where these two vehicle types can operate. If the City determines vehicles should
operate in a different manner, it may be necessary to work with state legislators to provide cities with flexibility in
1
Packet Pg. 4
November 13, 2018 Page 3
making this determination. The City can generally regulate activities in its right-of-way if the regulations further
public health, safety and welfare.
City Code prohibits e-scooter stations from being on City property or right of way without a permit and e-scooters
cannot be placed or parked in a way that obstructs sidewalks or pedestrian paths or roads. If a vendor deploys
without a permit this code allows the City to remove the e-scooters and/or stations.
The City’s current Outdoor Vendor Licensing program includes a specific option for “Outdoor vendor of
transportation services”. Likely any e-scooter vender wishing to operate in Fort Collins would be required to
obtain one of these licenses. The existing rules and requirements of the outdoor license would apply, however
specifics pertaining to e-scooters may need to be added. Specifics pertaining to the City’s Encroachment Permit
process may also need to be adjusted for e-scooter stations or parking.
Operational Models
The City will need to select an operational model to regulate shared e-scooter vendors, the following are potential
approaches:
City Partnership Approach
• The City administers a Request for Proposals (RFP) to select one or more vendors. This would include a
Shared Mobility Agreement and Operational Plan (much like the City’s existing bikeshare system). The plan
could include a description of the systems scale, phasing, funding, and implementation with specific
performance and operational expectations.
• This approach requires dedicated City staff to oversee the contract(s).
• Alternatively, the City could investigate entering into a single-source agreement or contract extension with the
City’s existing bikeshare provider (PACE). PACE has indicated a desire to enter the shared e-scooter market.
Permitting Approach
• The City uses existing permitting programs (outdoor vendor and encroachment) to manage shared e-scooter
vendors. This could include a Shared Mobility Agreement (a reiteration of City code requirements) that must
be signed by companies before receiving a permit.
• Updates to the licensing rules and regulations are likely needed to add specifics for e-scooters.
• This may require additional training and staff time for City departments overseeing these permits.
Other Operational Needs
• Regardless of the operation model the City selects there are basic issues that need to be clarified for e-
scooter operators and users including; where e-scooters can operate (sidewalks or not), parking rules, and
updating the Downtown Dismount Zone to include e-scooters.
Due to the rapidly evolving nature of the shared e-scooter market, there is a need to move quickly in terms of
rules and regulations. An RFP approach is likely to take a significant amount of time; therefore, staff is
recommending utilizing the existing Outdoor Vendor and Encroachment permitting programs, and existing right-
of-way regulations to manage e-scooter vendors. Specific steps recommended include:
• Updating the downtown sidewalk dismount zone to exclude standing e-scooters (this would in effect not allow
standing e-scooters to operate Downtown, as standing e-scooters are also not allowed by code to operate in
the roadway).
• Developing a permit/registration system within the existing Outdoor Vendor Permit and Encroachment Permit
programs, with rules for safety education and vendor responsibilities.
• Establishing rules for e-scooter parking to be within close vicinity to bike racks and avoid blocking pedestrian
pathways.
• Supporting efforts at the state level to create legislation around e-scooters that provides for more local control
of e-scooters.
1
Packet Pg. 5
November 13, 2018 Page 4
• Creating a City e-scooter information web-page with guidance for e-scooter companies and information for
citizens and e-scooter users.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Triple Bottom Line (PDF)
2. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
1
Packet Pg. 6
Regulating Shared Electric Scooters
Shared e-scooters are spreading rapidly across the country, the City of Fort Collins must be thoughtful in
regulating these new shared mobility services. Experiences from other cities show there is a need to implement
policies and practices to regulate e-scooters to prevent unapproved and unregulated launches. The purpose of
this project is to devleop policies and practices for successful shared electric scooter management.
Positive
• Medium positive impact in terms of
e-scooter education and outreach
initiatives that support
environmental stewardship
principles.
• Medium positive impact related to
promoting environmental
sustainability at local, regional,
state, or national levels in terms of
its ability to encourage participation
by local, regional, and state
partners.
• Low positive impact on
community’s efforts to meet CAP
goals in terms of its ability to
replace vehicle trips.
• Low positive impact on air quality in
terms of its ability to replace vehicle
trips
Negative
• Low/Medium negative impact on
the natural environment if permitted
on trails. Currently e-scooters are
not permitted on trails.
Positive
• Medium positive impact in terms of
developing and retaining
businesses and giving the city a
cool cache helping to attract and
retain residents.
• Medium positive impact in terms of
encouraging new and innovative
businesses to supply and support
e-scooters.
• Medium positive impact in terms of
improving the city’s community
brand and sustainable business
identity.
• Low positive impact in terms of its
ability to create a diverse range of
jobs and training opportunities.
• Low positive impact on cost of
living in terms of its ability to reduce
user’s transportation costs.
Negative
• N/A
Positive
• Low positive impact in terms of its
ability to improve the sense of
belonging of underrepresented
populations for whom it could
increase mobility and accessibility.
Negative
• If not regulated and managed well,
Regulating Shared Electric Scooters
As illustrated above, this initiative was determined to have a relatively positive Triple Bottom Line Scan (TBL-S)
impact with a generally medium to high-level of confidence. The indicator area with the greatest positive impact
score is Economic Health. The indicator area with the highest confidence score related to its level of expected
impact is Environmental Health. Social Health is the indicator area with the lowest level of expected positive
impact. The potential negative impacts of this initiative, particularly those related to Social Health, along with
proposed mitigation measures to address these impacts are included above under Tradeoffs and Mitigations.
1.1
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Triple Bottom Line (7305 : Regulating Shared Electric Scooters)
November 13, 2018
Regulating Shared Electric Scooters
City Council Work Session
ATTACHMENT 2
1.2
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7305 : Regulating Shared Electric Scooters)
Direction Sought
Short-term Action
• Amending Downtown Dismount Zone signage to exclude e-scooters
Mid-term Action
• Including e-scooters into the City’s existing permitting programs and selecting a
preferred operational model
• Establishing rules for e-scooter parking
• Creating a City e-scooter information web-page
Long-term Action
• Working with the State on legislation that allows more local control of e-scooters
2
Does Council support the following actions?
1.2
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7305 : Regulating Shared Electric Scooters)
What are Shared Electric Scooters?
3
• Emerging technology and shared mobility
service
• First system launched in the U.S. was in
2017, includes companies such as:
• Systems are similar to bike share with fleets
deployed strategically providing one-way
trips
Image source: Gannett, 2018
B I R D
1.2
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7305 : Regulating Shared Electric Scooters)
“Low-power scooters” (seated e-scooters)
4
“Toy vehicles” (standing e-scooters)
What are Shared Electric Scooters?
Two Types
1.2
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7305 : Regulating Shared Electric Scooters)
How Do They Work?
5
• Access/payment is via an App or by text to unlock
a device
• User must be 18+ and have drivers license
o (required by e-scooter companies)
• Helmet required
o (required by e-scooter companies)
• Speeds are typically capped between 15-30 MPH
15-30
1.2
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7305 : Regulating Shared Electric Scooters)
How Do They Work?
6
• Typically ridden in bike lane or as far to the right of
road
o (depends on local/state laws)
• Should be parked in areas not obstructing
pedestrians and not on City right-of-way (unless
permitted)
• Typically they are not locked
1.2
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7305 : Regulating Shared Electric Scooters)
Issues with E-Scooters
7
Image source: GettyImages, 2018
• Conflicts with Pedestrians
• Parking issues, obstructing sidewalks
• Safety concerns (crashes)
• Where to operate (sidewalk or not?)
• Management of the fleet
o Charging
o Daily Staging
o Maintenance
1.2
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7305 : Regulating Shared Electric Scooters)
Existing Definitions & Regulations
Municipal Code and Traffic Code
“Low-power scooters” (seated e-scooters)
• prohibited from riding on sidewalk or cross-walk
• shall ride as close to the right side of the roadway
as practicable
• Only on streets with speed limits of 35 MPH or less
• Require proof of insurance
8
“Toy vehicles” (standing e-scooters)
• allowed on sidewalks and in crosswalks
• not allowed on roadways
• not allowed if prohibited by signs or markings
1.2
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7305 : Regulating Shared Electric Scooters)
Existing Definitions & Regulations
Permitting and Right-of-Way
9
Outdoor Vendor Licensing
ü “Outdoor vendor of transportation services”
ARTICLE XIV. - OUTDOOR VENDORS
Sec. 15-381. - Definitions.
Outdoor vendor of transportation services shall mean an outdoor
vendor (not regulated by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission)
who offers transportation services to the public. Outdoor vendor of
transportation services shall include, but not be limited to, vendors of
valet parking services; transportation services by pedal power such as
pedi-cab or conference bicycle services; horse-drawn carriage rides;
or other means of transportation service offered for hire.
1.2
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7305 : Regulating Shared Electric Scooters)
Existing Definitions & Regulations
Permitting and Right-of-Way
10
Dismount Zones
ü Downtown Dismount Zone
Obstructing Rights-of-Way
ü City Code 23-46: makes it unlawful to
encroach or obstruct City right-of-way
Encroachment Permits
ü City Code 23-81: requirement for placing
anything within City-owned property
1.2
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7305 : Regulating Shared Electric Scooters)
Regulation & Operation Options
11
Permitting Approach
• Utilize Outdoor Vendor Permits
• Update permit and rules language
specific to e-scooters
• Enforced through permits and
existing regulations
• May need to limit number allowed
City Partnership Approach
• Vendor(s) selected via Request for
Proposal
• Enforced through contract with
vendor(s)
• Similar to Bike Share program
To be determined regardless of regulation approach:
1.Parking Rules 2.Where should they operate (sidewalks or not) 3.Dismount Zones
1.2
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7305 : Regulating Shared Electric Scooters)
Recommendation
12
1) Update downtown dismount zone to include e-scooters (immediate
action)
2) Develop a permit/registration system within the existing Outdoor
Vendor Permit program, with rules for safety education and vendor
responsibilities
3) Establishing rules for e-scooter parking to be within close vicinity to
bike racks, and avoid blocking pedestrian pathways
4) Support efforts at a state level to create legislation around e-scooters
5) Create City e-scooter information web-page with guidance for e-
scooter companies and information for citizens and e-scooter users.
1.2
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7305 : Regulating Shared Electric Scooters)
Direction Sought
Short-term Action
• Amending Downtown Dismount Zone signage to exclude e-scooters
Mid-term Action
• Including e-scooters into the City’s existing permitting programs and selecting a
preferred operational model
• Establishing rules for e-scooter parking
• Creating a City e-scooter information web-page
Long-term Action
• Working with the State on legislation that allows more local control of e-scooters
13
Does Council support the following actions?
1.2
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7305 : Regulating Shared Electric Scooters)
DATE:
STAFF:
November 13, 2018
Jennifer Poznanovic, Project and Revenue Manager
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
2019 Fee Update and Fee Group Findings.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to review the Fee Working Group position paper and fee updates associated with Step
II Capital Expansion Fees and Wet Utility Plant Investment Fees. Since the fall of October 2016, staff has worked
to coordinate the process for updating all new development related fees that require Council approval. The 2017
Capital Expansion Fee (CEF) and Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) full fee proposals showed
significant increases from the previously approved fees. Council asked for these fees to be implemented in three
steps. The 2019 update includes Step II for CEFs and TEFs along with Wet Utility Plant Investment Fees (PIFs).
Staff proposes the following fee updates:
• 90% of proposed CEFs (Step II)
• Option A for TCEFs (Step II)
• Wet Utility PIFs as proposed
Due to the concern in the development and building community around impact fee changes, Council asked for a
Fee Working Group to be created to foster a better understanding of impact fees prior to discussing further fee
updates. The Fee Working Group meetings commenced in August of 2017, comprised of a balanced group of
stakeholders - citizens, business-oriented individuals, City staff and a Council liaison. The group met 14 times,
and the background, findings and recommendations are presented in a position paper. Overall, the Fee Working
Group supports the fee coordination process and proposed fee updates.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council support impact fee updates as proposed?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
As of October 2016, staff has worked to coordinate the process for updating all building related fees that require
Council approval. Below are impact fees that require Council approval:
2
Packet Pg. 22
November 13, 2018 Page 2
Fees in the 2019 update include six Capital Expansion Fees and three Wet Utility PIFs (Sewer, Stormwater and
Water). Development Review Fees were initially planned for Phase II updates but have been decoupled and will
come forward in 2019.
Previously, fee updates were presented to Council on an individual basis but are now on a two and four-year
cadence. Fee coordination includes a detailed fee study analysis for CEFs, TCEFs and Development Review
Fees every four years. This requires an outside consultant through a request for proposal (RFP) process. Data is
provided by City staff and findings are also verified by City staff. For Utility Fees, a detailed fee study is planned
every two years. These are internal updates by City staff with periodic consultant verification. Fee study analysis
should be targeted in the odd year before Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO).
2017 Capital Expansion full fee proposals were significant. Fee changes reflected updated asset values that
reflect higher construction costs, land values that reflect higher last cost and population and dwelling units per the
latest census. These changes caused concern in the community and Council directed a stepped implementation
for CEFs and TCEFs.
In June 2017, Council approved the following fee updates:
*Cash-in-Lieu (CIL)
2
Packet Pg. 23
November 13, 2018 Page 3
Proposed 2019 Impact Fee Updates
Fees in the 2019 update include all six Capital Expansion Fees and three Wet Utility PIFs (Sewer, Stormwater
and Water).
Staff proposes the following fee changes:
• 90% of proposed CEFs (Step II)
• Option A for TCEFs (Step II)
• Wet Utility PIFs as proposed
The chart below shows the stepped implementation for CEFs and TCEFs:
Fees Phasing
Land Use Type Unit
Previous
Total
Current
Total
Step II
Total
Step III
Total
% Change
Full Fees
% Change
Step I
% Change
Step II
% Change
Step III
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $5,059 $5,845 $7,049 $7,587 50% 16% 21% 8%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $6,182 $8,779 $10,593 $11,315 83% 42% 21% 7%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $7,574 $10,283 $12,409 $13,197 74% 36% 21% 6%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $7,762 $11,099 $13,391 $14,188 83% 43% 21% 6%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $8,094 $12,147 $14,658 $15,546 92% 50% 21% 6%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $13,241 $8,430 $10,164 $10,392 -22% -36% 21% 2%
Office and Other Services $9,071 $6,660 $8,028 $8,256 -9% -27% 21% 3%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $1,748 $2,000 $2,411 $2,464 41% 14% 21% 2%
Step I changes (current fee levels), adopted October 1, 2017, are 75% of full fee levels proposed for CEFs and
Option B for TCEFs. Option B does not increase program revenue, it provides approximately 80% of necessary
funding to mitigate proportional impacts of development. Whereas Option A includes the proportionate cost
attributable for mitigation of the impacts of new development on the transportation system, including new streets,
intersection improvements, and multi-modal improvements.
The chart below shows Step II fee changes with inflation:
CEFs & TCEFs Totals with Inflation
Land Use Type Unit
Current
Total
Step II
Total
Step II
Total w
Inflation
%
Increase
%
Increase
w Inflation
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $5,845 $7,049 $7,473 21% 28%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $8,779 $10,593 $11,221 21% 28%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $10,283 $12,409 $13,139 21% 28%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $11,099 $13,391 $14,173 21% 28%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $12,147 $14,658 $15,516 21% 28%
November 13, 2018 Page 4
*Gallons per day (GPD)
Across the three Wet Utility Fees, staff is proposing 7 to 11% increases. Water PIFs are a 7.1% increase from
current fee levels, Wastewater PIFs are a 9.5% increase from current fee levels and Stormwater PIFs are a
11.3% increase from current fee levels.
The drivers for the increases on PIFs are the same for all three funds:
• New capital projects increase the overall system value
• Annual increases in construction costs increases the replacement value of existing system
• One-time adjustment of 2.7% included to account for fee implementation being delayed in 2018
Fee Working Group
Before the 2019 impact fee update, Council asked for commitment to create a working group of citizens, industry
and staff to foster a better understanding of fees.
The Fee Working Group meetings commenced in August 2017, comprised of a balanced group of stakeholders -
citizens, business-oriented individuals, City staff and a Council liaison. The group met 14 times, and the topics
covered included: detailed review of fee methodologies, inputs, calculations, City revenue sources, alternative
revenue sources, academic economic research on impact fees, a third-party impact fee audit review and impact
fee comparisons to other communities.
Below is a summary of the key findings from the Fee Working Group position paper:
• Bringing impact fees together for review and formation of the fee working group has been beneficial to better
understand the full impact of Council approved impact fees for new development.
• The group acknowledges overall sound methodologies, calculations and inputs.
• The third-party fee audit revealed that the City manages impact fee expenditures very well. How the City
spends and collects impact fees is sound. Of the $54M examined, only $130K or 0.24% was charged
incorrectly.
• Regarding economic data, the group agrees that amenities paid for through impact fees add to property
value, but views differ as to what extent they impact demand and supply. Academic research showed that
home price increases in growing areas are mainly demand driven.
• The group agreed that impact fees are complicated and difficult to communicate across the community. They
recommend better messaging to stakeholders and the general public.
• In the 2017 study, park impact fees increased more than other impact fees due to increases in the costs of
land, water and construction. These fees are the only category where impact fees pay for 100 percent of
what is built.
2
Packet Pg. 25
November 13, 2018 Page 5
• The group acknowledges the need to identify new revenue sources for park refresh and maintenance.
• If Council approves lower fees than the staff recommendation, alternative revenue sources will be needed. If
Council goes this direction, it will be for the community to decide what alternatives to pursue.
Below are recommendations from the Fee Working Group Position Paper:
1. Better communication/outreach & notice of fee changes
2. Repayment of the $130k identified in the impact fee audit
3. Progressive fees if/where possible
4. Explore additional revenue sources for parks buildout
5. Investigate revenue alternatives to support parks refresh & maintenance
6. Explore stronger supports for affordable housing fee waivers
Community Outreach
In an effort towards better communication, outreach and notification of impact fee changes, staff met with 14
organizations across the City in the fall 2018.
Overall, there was unanimous support for the approach and cadence. Most groups were not in favor of fee
increases, yet they were not in favor of alternatives.
Staff also heard:
• Support for fee group recommendations
• Not a straight forward topic, takes a couple of conversations to set in
• Concerns about attainable housing - it may be less desirable to live here
• Policy questions on development standards going forward, having alignment on total cost including operations
and maintenance
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
2019 impact fee updates and the Fee Working Group position paper were discussed with Council Finance
Committee in August and September 2018.
2
Packet Pg. 26
November 13, 2018 Page 6
NEXT STEPS
December 4 and 18, 2018 - Council consideration of Ordinances amending the fees
January 1, 2019 - New Fees Effective
ATTACHMENTS
1. Fee Group Position Paper (PDF)
2. Fort Collins Review Report (PDF)
3. Council Finance Committee Minutes, September 17, 2018 (PDF)
4. Council Finance Committee Minutes, August 20, 2018 (PDF)
5. 2018 Impact Fee Outreach Feedback (PDF)
6. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
2
Packet Pg. 27
Finance
Administration
215 N. Mason Street
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Fee Working Group
Position Paper
Presented for Fort Collins City Council
September 2018
ATTACHMENT 1
2.1
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Fee Group Position Paper (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
2
Table of Contents
PART I – BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 3
Overview and Why the Group Formed ....................................................................................... 3
Original Group List: A Blend of Citizens, Industry and Staff ................................................ 4
Group List Through 2018 ....................................................................................................... 5
Fee Group Objective ............................................................................................................... 5
Overview of Meetings and Topics Covered ............................................................................... 6
Impact Fee History .................................................................................................................. 6
Fee Methodologies and Calculations Reviewed ..................................................................... 6
Capital Expansion Fee Background and Discussion .............................................................. 8
Transportation Capital Expansion Background and Discussion ............................................. 9
Utility Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) ....................................................................................... 9
Development Review Fees ................................................................................................... 10
City Revenue Overall ............................................................................................................ 10
Fee Comparison to Other Communities ............................................................................... 11
City Impact Fees and Median New Home Sales .................................................................. 13
Revenue sources considered by Council since 2012 ............................................................ 13
Progressive Fees.................................................................................................................... 14
Affordable Housing Fee Waivers ......................................................................................... 14
Academic Research ............................................................................................................... 14
Capital Expansion Fee Audit ................................................................................................ 16
PART II – FINDINGS .................................................................................................................. 17
Impact Fee Mechanics, Calculations & Methods ..................................................................... 17
Fee Audit: Collection & Spending ............................................................................................ 17
Impact Fee Economics .............................................................................................................. 17
Impact Fee Communication ...................................................................................................... 17
Park Impact Fees ....................................................................................................................... 18
Alternatives to Impact Fees & Fort Collins Total Revenue ...................................................... 18
Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................ 19
PART III - RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 20
Impact Fee List ............................................................................................................................. 21
Glossary of Terms ......................................................................................................................... 22
References ..................................................................................................................................... 22
2.1
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Fee Group Position Paper (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
3
PART I – BACKGROUND
Overview and Why the Group Formed
Since the fall of October 2016, staff has worked to coordinate the process for updating all new
development related fees that require Council approval. Development related fees that are
approved by Council (see a full list at the end of the paper) are six Capital Expansion Fees, five
Utility Fees and 45 Building Development Fees.
Previously, impact fee updates were presented to Council on an individual basis. However, it
was determined that updates should occur on a regular two and four-year cadence and fees
updates should occur together each year to provide a more holistic view of the impact of any fee
increases.
Impact fee coordination includes a detailed fee study analysis for Capital Expansion Fees
(CEFs), Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEFs) and Development Review Fees every
four years. This requires an outside consultant through a request for proposal (RFP) process
where data is provided by City staff. Findings by the consultant are also verified by City staff.
For Utility Fees, a detailed fee study is planned every two years. These are internal updates by
City staff with periodic consultant verification. In the future, impact fee study analysis will be
targeted in the odd year before Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO).
2.1
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Fee Group Position Paper (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
4
Below is the current impact fee timeline:
In June of 2017, Council approved the following Phase I impact fee updates (effective as of
October 2017):
2017 CEFs and TCEFs full fee proposals showed significant increases from the previously
approved fees. These impact fee changes reflected updated asset values. Asset values have
significantly increased since the last fee update due to higher construction costs and land values.
These changes caused consternation in the development and building community, and Council
directed a stepped implementation for CEFs and TCEFs. Bringing impact fees together to City
Council for approval allowed an understanding of the full impact of the fees; however, it was
difficult to explain given the complexity of different methodologies and qualitative aspects.
Due to the consternation in the development and building community around impact fee changes,
Council asked for a fee working group to be created to foster a better understanding of impact
fees prior to discussing further fee updates. In August of 2017, the fee working group
commenced comprised of a balanced group of stakeholders – City staff, business-oriented
individuals, citizens and a Council liaison.
Original Group List: A Blend of Citizens, Industry and Staff
Council Liaison: Ross Cunniff: District 5
Industry: Sean Dougherty: Fort Collins Board of Realtors
Ann Hutchison: Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce
Greg Mediema: Homebuilder’s Association of Northern Colorado
Moira Bright: Spirit Hospitality LLC
2.1
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Fee Group Position Paper (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
5
Chris Banks: Odell Brewing
Citizen: Diane Cohn: Affordable Housing Board
Rebecca Hill: Water Board
Rick Reider: Building Review Board
Linda Stanley: Economic Advisory Commission
Ragan Adams: Parks and Recreation Board
City Staff: Mike Beckstead: Project Sponsor
Tiana Smith: Project Manager/Fee Owner Capital Expansion Fees
Lance Smith: Fee Owner Electric Capacity Fees
Tom Leeson: Fee Owner Development Review Fees
Josh Birks: City Staff/Economic Health
Group List Through 2018
Council Liaison: Ross Cunniff: District 5
Industry: Will Flowers: Fort Collins Board of Realtors
Ann Hutchison: Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce
Doug Braden: Homebuilder’s Association of Northern Colorado
Moira Bright: Spirit Hospitality LLC
Citizen: Diane Cohn: Affordable Housing Board
Rebecca Hill: Water Board
Linda Stanley: Economic Advisory Commission
Ragan Adams: Parks and Recreation Board
City Staff: Mike Beckstead: Project Sponsor
Jennifer Poznanovic: Project Manager/Fee Owner CEFs
Lance Smith: Fee Owner Electric Capacity Fees
Tom Leeson: Fee Owner Development Review Fees
Josh Birks: City Staff/Economic Health
Fee Group Objective
Below is the objective of the Fee Working Group:
What: Improve understanding with stakeholders of the City’s impact fee process.
How: Semi-monthly meetings that present information on the mechanics, alternatives, and
impacts of the City’s impact fees that are approved by City Council.
Why: Foster a common understanding of why and how impact fees are calculated, in addition
to collecting feedback to share with City Council on future fee calculations and processes.
2.1
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Fee Group Position Paper (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
6
Overview of Meetings and Topics Covered
The fee working group meetings commenced in August of 2017. The group met fourteen times,
six meetings in 2017 and eight meetings in 2018. Topics covered included: detailed review of fee
methodologies, inputs, calculations, City revenue sources, alternative revenue sources, academic
economic research on impact fees, a third-party impact fee audit review and impact fee
comparisons to other communities.
Impact Fee History
Capital Expansion Fees provisions were adopted in 1996 to impose certain fees to be collected at
the time of building permit issuance for the purpose of funding the provision of additional capital
improvements as the City’s population increases. Fees are intended to ensure new growth and
development in the City bear a proportionate share of costs of capital expenditures necessary to
provide community park, library, police, fire and general government capital improvements
(currently police, fire, general government, community and neighborhood parks).
Transportation Capital Expansion Fees, formerly the “Street Oversizing Program” was created in
1979 to ensure that new development, in a fair and equitable manner, contribute toward the
construction of arterial and collector roadways so that essential municipal services, in this case
the development of a safe and reliable transportation network, could keep up with the continued
growth of the City.
Utility Plant Investment Fees are industry standard and have been in place for decades. Utility
PIFs have served as a catalyst for economic growth in the Fort Collins community by allowing
each utility to build the infrastructure and capacity ahead of such growth. These fees provide a
mechanism for new development to reimburse existing utility customers for such investments.
Fee Methodologies and Calculations Reviewed
The group discussed the four types of methodologies used in calculating the various fees: level
of service, plan-based, hybrid and cost recovery, along with information needed for these
calculations. The chart below shows methodologies for the impact fees within this group’s scope
along with high-level calculations that the group discussed in detail.
2.1
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Fee Group Position Paper (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
7
Level of Service: This methodology is standards-based, and fees are based on the existing level
of service. As the community grows, capital facilities and equipment have to be expanded
proportional to growth and cannot exceed the cost of maintaining the existing level of service or
pay for deficiencies in current service or future needs.
Capital Expansion Fees, Electric and Stormwater Plant Investment Fees all use the standards-
based or level of service methodology. Fees are set by assessing City’s capitalized assets or level
of service and an estimate of who can use the asset (functional population or equivalent dwelling
unit (EDU)). Calculation inputs include development and construction costs and land cost. The
asset value is divided by who can use the asset. Impact fees can only be used to develop new
infrastructure and cannot be used to correct existing deficiencies or add features to existing
infrastructure.
Plan-based: Fees are set based on a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), and development pays a
portion of their impact on that plan. Impact fees cannot be used to correct existing deficiencies,
for operating costs, or for maintenance. Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEFs) are
plan-based. The calculation used for TCEFs, is Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) multiplied by the
growth cost per VMT.
Hybrid: Fees are calculated using aspects of both plan-based and level of service. Water and
Wastewater Plant Investment Fees and Raw Water/Cash-in-Lieu Fees have a hybrid
methodology. The Water and Wastewater Plant Investment Fees set fees based on a CIP along
with current asset values. Raw Water/Cash-in-Lieu Fees are calculated using the cost of future
water storage plus the value of current assets.
Cost Recovery: Fees are calculated based on recovering all or a portion of the cost of
administering a particular program. Development Review Fees are set at 80% cost recovery per
City code.
2.1
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Fee Group Position Paper (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
8
Capital Expansion Fee Background and Discussion
Capital Expansion Fees include fire, police, general government, community and neighborhood
park impact fees. CEFs at the City are standards-based, meaning these fees are based on the
existing level of service. In the 2017 impact fee study conducted by Duncan Associates,
comparison across the Front Range indicates universal use of the standards-based methodology
for CEFs.
The City began charging CEFs in 1996. CEFs were updated each year for inflation using the
Denver-Aurora-Lakewood CPI and continue to be updated on an annual basis. A consultant was
hired in 2013 to perform a thorough review and update of methodology and inputs to these
impact fees. CEFs were updated as a result, and at that time, staff committed to updating fees
every four to five years. With consultant Duncan Associates, CEFs were again updated in 2017
based on this commitment.
As the community grows, capital facilities and equipment must be expanded proportional to
growth to maintain the same level of service. CEFs cannot pay for deficiencies in the current
level of service in existing assets or facilities. As an example, park impact fees cannot be used to
upgrade or add features to an existing park. John Duval, Deputy City Attorney spoke with group
in detail further on legal aspects.
Community and Neighborhood Park Impact Fees
Within the group there has been much discussion around impact fee increases, particularly the
parks fees. The 2017 impact fee levels for parks increased more than for any other fee. As part of
the 2017 fee update, staff hired Ditesco Engineering to provide current costs to build existing
parks and assets, using the last three parks built for both community (Twin Silo, Spring Canyon,
Fossil Creek) and neighborhood parks (Waters Way, Registry, Radiant). Their calculations show
that the 2017 increases were driven by significant increases in asset values based on increases in
construction costs, land values, water costs, etc.
As one example of the discussion within the group, initial perception of some group members
was that Twin Silos was designed with excessively costly features. Kurt Friesen, Director of
Parks Planning, presented a breakdown of the costs of park construction. This showed that land,
water and construction costs are the largest factors in the cost of parks. Shifts in features,
amenities and park elements have had a relatively minor impact on the cost to build new parks.
Kurt Friesen also discussed parks standards for future parks with the group. He noted that some
parks today do have more amenities than other older parks because park system needs have
evolved and changed, but the different features, amenities and park elements do typically balance
out. Kurt also explained the park system development strategy of an even distribution of parks
throughout the City, with a community park within every four-square miles and a neighborhood
park within every mile.
2.1
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Fee Group Position Paper (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
9
The group felt that it was important to note that parks are the only category where impact fees
pay for 100 percent of new park development. There are no other revenue streams for building
new parks. This is not the case for fire, police and general government.
Police, Fire & General Government Impact Fees
The group had detailed discussions around the inputs and calculations on the police, fire and
general government fees. Ann Turnquist, Administrative Services Director of Poudre Fire
Authority, joined the group to discuss the details of the fire fees and how they are used. The
majority of the conversations focused on parks fees, as there was little disagreement on these
impact fees.
Transportation Capital Expansion Background and Discussion
Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEFs), previously “street oversizing” fees, were
created in 1979 and prior to the 2017 study, the last major update was in 2003. TCEF
methodology is plan-based such that new development pays its proportionate share for growth-
related infrastructure needed to maintain current transportation standards. TCEF revenue is used
to expand or provide additional facilities to keep up with development.
The 2017 study with TischlerBise raised residential fees and lowered commercial fees, due to a
shift in the calculation from using trip generation to using vehicle miles travelled (VMT). Not all
trips are the same in length; on average residential trips are longer than commercial. Categories
were simplified in the study, they were reduced from 43 to 8 categories.
In June of 2017, Council approved Option B for TCEFs. Option B provides approximately 80%
of necessary funding to mitigate proportional impacts of development based on the currently
approved Transportation Master Plan. Whereas Option A includes 100% of the proportionate
cost attributable for mitigation of the impacts of new development on the transportation system
including new streets, intersection improvements, and multi-modal improvements that were
added to the most recent Transportation Master Plan. Staff is proposing Option A be adopted in
the next round of fee updates in discussion fall of 2018.
In the fall on 2017 Dean Klinger, Director of Engineering and Kyle Lambrecht, TCEFs Program
Manager joined the group to review TCEFs.
Utility Plant Investment Fees (PIFs)
Lance Smith, Utility Strategic Finance Director, reviewed Utility PIFs with the group. There
was little discussion on Electric PIFs and Raw Water Cash-in-Lieu as these fees have been
consistently coming to Council every two years.
2.1
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Fee Group Position Paper (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
10
Wet Utility PIFs (water, wastewater, stormwater) updates plan to be proposed to Council in the
fall of 2018. These impact fees are largely changing based on the investment that has been made
on asset and infrastructure of these three utility services. Across the three utility fees, staff is
proposing 7 to 11 percent increases. These fees are also on a two-year cadence as with the
Electric PIFs.
Development Review Fees
Development Review Fees are currently being analyzed with an external consultant and were not
ready to be discussed with the fee group. As such, these fees have been decoupled from the fee
updates in 2018 and will come forward at a later date.
City Revenue Overall
Impact fee revenue goes into specific funds for CEFs, Transportation and each Utility Enterprise
Fund. Revenue can only be used for the intended purpose of the fee. For example, police fees
cannot fund parks and parks fees cannot be used to upgrade existing parks.
As seen in the chart below, impact fee revenue from 2005 to 2017 is volatile due to development
volatility.
2.1
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Fee Group Position Paper (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
11
The overall City government revenue was reviewed by the team consistent with the chart below.
The discussion can be summarized as:
• Sales and Use tax account for about 50% of governmental revenues.
• Property tax accounts for about 8% and per the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with
the Poudre Fire Authority (PFA), 68% of property tax revenue is dedicated to PFA.
• Charges for Services are 17% of governmental revenues and these funds are used specific
to the service the fees pay for.
• All revenue coming into the City are utilized for various costs and activities.
The group noted that if CEFs were decreased, one or a combination of the following would be
required: 1) an alternative revenue source to make up the shortfall, requiring de-funding
something that is currently funded; 2) the delay of building the future assets; and/or 3)
decreasing the scope of those assets to match the available fee revenue.
Fee Comparison to Other Communities
Fee comparisons to other communities were also presented to the group. The chart below shows
that Fort Collins impact fees are consistent or lower than other Front Range communities.
2.1
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Fee Group Position Paper (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
12
When comparing median home sales prices with impact fees in neighboring communities, it was
apparent that other factors such as amenities and location are primary drivers of home prices. For
example, the chart below shows that Timnath has the lowest fees and highest home prices,
whereas Wellington has the lowest home prices and the highest fees. In other words, the amount
of impact fees within a community do not correlate strongly with home prices.
Some in the group noted that there is often a higher level of service in Fort Collins compared to
these neighboring communities. When comparing Fort Collins impact fees to those of
neighboring communities, the group had a conversation on what communities get from impact
fees and what the level of service is in Fort Collins compared to other communities. For
example, Timnath recently opened a new small park, whereas the level of service provided at
Spring Creek or Twin Silos parks in Fort Collins is higher. Fort Collins also has amenities such
as undergrounded utilities, public transportation and sign code, arguably adding to the
2.1
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Fee Group Position Paper (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
13
desirability and value of homes. Some in the group suggest social capital plays a role and that
could be weaved into a third dimension on the charts.
City Impact Fees and Median New Home Sales
While impact fees are a sizable portion of the price of new homes, from 2012 through 2017, this
proportion decreased from 13 to 10 percent of the median new home sales price (see chart
below). New median home sales prices have been increasing while the percentage of fees to
median new home sales has been decreasing. The team considers home location, land values and
the cost of construction to be the primary drivers of the increase in new median home prices.
Revenue sources considered by Council since 2012
When discussing alternatives to impact fees, the group reviewed the revenue diversification
options discussed with Council and the Community in 2014 and 2015. Starting in 2012, the City
explored various alternatives with a goal to be revenue neutral and to reduce dependency on
sales tax. Staff looked for replacement revenue sources to broaden the base and to lower the
current tax rate.
An increase in property tax is very unlikely as it would require a structural change at the state
level. Also, income tax is not allowed per current Colorado state constitution. Alternatives
considered include: tax on services, differential sales tax rate, transportation utility fee,
increasing property tax, making quarter cent taxes permanent, occupational privilege tax,
park/trail maintenance fee and an Xcel franchise fee. In 2015, Council suggested three
alternatives to be further researched – tax on services, transportation utility fee and occupational
privilege tax. Staff talked to business-oriented groups, and they were unanimously unsupportive.
2.1
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Fee Group Position Paper (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
14
Progressive Fees
Some in the group suggest that impact fees be more progressive, i.e. lower impact fees for
smaller homes and higher impact fees for larger homes, or potentially add more steps within the
impact fees. Legally, impact fees cannot be artificially adjusted to achieve a more progressive
fee structure. Impact fees must be based on data and the number of people estimated to live
within various size homes.
The CEF fee study consultant used 2013 census data for current CEF fees, but City staff had the
consultant go back and look at 2015 western state census data. The 2015 census data indicated
fewer people in smaller homes and more people in larger homes than the 2013 census data.
Using the 2015 data would reduce CEF fees on smaller homes and increase CEF fees for larger
homes. There is more progression using the 2015 census data, but important to note is that the
formula would stay the same, only the inputs would change to add more progressiveness.
The City currently has six different dwelling unit size categories. The CEF fees could get more
progressive by expanding the number of categories. Currently, around 90 percent of building
permits are 2200 square feet and larger (the current largest dwelling unit category).
Affordable Housing Fee Waivers
Diane Cohn, Fort Collins Affordable Housing Board Chair, presented research on economic
impact of development fees on affordable housing. The group acknowledges that increased fees
may be a barrier for affordable housing production. The current fee waiver policy is limited.
Some in the group suggest the City reconsider the Area Median Income (AMI) level for waivers
to include greater than 30%, especially for affordable home ownership, like those homes built by
Habitat for Humanity, who currently serve families at 35-60% of AMI. In addition, perhaps
longer requirements for affordability (beyond 20 years) could be coupled with greater AMI
limits.
The group also suggested a more nuanced approach to fee waivers for affordable housing be
explored, for example, waiving some fees or portions of fees, such as parks and transportation,
but not others like utilities or police/fire fees. Critical to any new fee waivers is accountability
and compliance of the terms for length of affordability commitment. In addition, some in the
group suggest the City evaluate any negative impacts that changes to fee policies may have on
the City’s affordable housing developments.
Academic Research
Linda Stanley, Senior Research Scientist at Colorado State University (Ph.D., Economics),
presented impact fee academic research to the group. Below is a summary of the findings with
references found at the end of the paper.
2.1
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Fee Group Position Paper (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
15
The effect of impact fees on housing prices: The increase in the price of a home due to the
imposition of an impact fee varies significantly by the value of the home, by the community, and
by the type of fee.
o Value of home. The increase in price resulting from an impact fee is proportional
to the value of a home, with higher priced homes having a greater increase in
price, often with over-shifting (i.e., the increase in price is greater than the
increase in the fee). (Burge and Ihlanfeldt, 2006; Mathur, Waddell, and Blanco,
2004)
o Type of fee. There is less effect of water/sewer fees on housing prices, with some
research finding no effect (Burge and Ihlanfeldt, 2006). Impact fees that fund
highly visible and valued amenities are likely to increase housing prices of both
new and existing homes (Mathur 2013).
Demand-driven increases in willingness to pay are, in large part, responsible for these price
increases (as opposed to a reduction in supply due to cost increases). There are two main demand
side effects.
o Impact fees create infrastructure valued by community residents. This is why
impact fees that fund highly visible and valued amenities are likely to increase
housing prices of both new and existing homes.
o Impact fees offset future tax liabilities that are capitalized into the price of a
home. In other words, consumers are willing to pay more for a home with lower
property taxes than that same home with higher property taxes.
The academic evidence finds that, in growing areas, market demand is the primary determinant
of housing prices, whether growth management programs, including impact fees, are present or
not.
The effect of impact fees on housing stock: Effects on both supply and demand interact to
determine whether impact fees will slow down, speed up, or have no effect on residential
construction rates. Thus, the empirical findings are nuanced. (Burge and Ihlanfeldt, 2006 and
Burge 2016)
• Non-water/sewer impact fees have positive effects on construction rates in suburban
areas and negligible impacts on rates in central city and rural areas.
• Non-water/sewer impact fees increase construction of large homes but not affordable
ones in outer suburban areas.
• Water/sewer impact fees are an insignificant determinant of construction rates for all size
categories of homes and across all parts of a metropolitan area.
• Burge (2016) notes, “It is crucial that state and local government officials become
familiar with the more recent evidence to support the idea that impact fees may not
reduce residential growth at all in the long run.”
The effect of impact fees on employment and the economy: Impact fees do not appear to reduce
employment growth overall, but there may be sector specific effects.
• Nelson and Moody (2003) found a significant positive association between impact fees
collected per building permit in one year and job growth over the next two years.
2.1
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Fee Group Position Paper (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
16
• Jones (2015) found that the use of fees was positively related to service-sector
employment growth and, to a lesser extent, negatively related to manufacturing
employment growth. There was no relationship of impact fees to retail jobs.
Capital Expansion Fee Audit
In April of 2018, the Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce, Northern Colorado Home
Builders Association and the Fort Collins Board of Realtors sponsored a third-party audit by
Development Planning & Financing Group, Inc. (DPFG).
The City reviewed and responded to the findings in the DPFG Review both with the audit
sponsors and later with the fee working group. The City collected and spent approximately $54M
in impact fees from 2012 to 2016. DPFG did not identify any issues with how fees are collected
or with how the City has spent its police, fire, general government and community parks CEFs.
The DPFG Review questioned $3.8M of transportation ($1.4M) and neighborhood “parks”
($2.4M) expenditures.
The City’s analysis of the DPFG review found $3.4M of the $3.8M in question to be allowable
overhead costs based on the City’s current code language. Of the remaining $387k in fee
expenditures, staff determined $257k to be appropriate and $130k to be inconsistent with current
understanding of how park fees should be used.
Of the charges questioned, $257k are related to costs incurred during the two years after the park
was largely completed. The maintenance costs for new parks transfers to the Park Department
two years after parks are established. This is related to general warranty periods from
construction and the need to make sure features and vegetation are sustainable prior to turning
over to the Parks Department for ongoing maintenance. The $257k of costs in question are
related to water costs while vegetation is taking root, equipment replacement associated with
warranty issues, costs related to maintaining property of parks to be constructed, landscaping,
and expenditures for future parks.
The remaining costs in question, approximately $130k, are largely for the installation of new
equipment in existing parks. Staff had previously understood park CEFs could be used for new
features in old parks. This understanding has been corrected and staff is now aware this is not an
allowable expenditure of CEFs and will not occur in the future.
In summary, of approximately $54M in impact fees collected and spent in 2012 to 2016, only
$130k or 0.24% should not have been charged to Parks Planning.
2.1
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Fee Group Position Paper (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
17
PART II – FINDINGS
Impact Fee Mechanics, Calculations & Methods
From the meetings in 2017 that largely focused on impact fee mechanics, calculations and
methodology, the group acknowledged that the City’s impact fee methodologies are sound and
legally defensible. Impact fee calculations align with industry practice and the methodologies,
data requirements and calculations became clearer after detailed review with City staff.
Fee Audit: Collection & Spending
After reviewing the third party DPFG Review, the group agrees that the system is in compliance
and that the City has done an excellent job in managing fee allocations and expenditures. In the
five years, from 2012 to 2016, the City collected and spent approximately $54M in CEFs. Of the
$54M evaluated only $130k was not allowable expenditures. A majority of the group thinks the
$130k used from the neighborhood parkland should be transferred to the general fund. The Fort
Collins Board of Realtors has agreed to share the findings (see references).
Impact Fee Economics
The group agrees that impact fee amenities add to property values, however differ in views as to
what extent. For example, living right next to a park or just being in Fort Collins with
community and neighborhood parks throughout the City.
Some in the group also consider the increased demand from amenities as an undesirable effect as
it pushes growth out of the City – cheap and easy vs. high rise density along with less
homeownership. Regardless of demand, some in the group want to highlight that rising costs of
impact fees do have an impact on housing costs, whether supply or demand driven. However, the
portion of median home sales prices accounted for by impact fees has decreased from 13 percent
in 2012 to 10% in 2017.
Impact Fee Communication
Bringing impact fees together for review and forming of the fee working group has been
beneficial to better understand the full impact of Council approved impact fees for new
development.
The group agreed that impact fees are complicated and difficult to communicate across the
community. The City must better explain the basis, calculation and usage of impact fees to
stakeholders. For example, when the business community was shown that Fort Collins impact
fees are lower than the fees of other Front Range communities, some in the group and business
community initially took the message to be that impact fees are going up because the market will
2.1
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Fee Group Position Paper (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
18
bear it while others thought that the City was increasing its impact fees because they were lower.
While comparisons are important, they should be shown in context. The underlying message on
the need for updates due to changes in the inputs in the calculations may not have been heard.
Going forward the City needs to be mindful in how it messages. Comparisons should have
context, such as level of service, total cost and looking at best practices.
Park Impact Fees
Many of the group conversations on impact fees revolved around CEFs, namely park fees. The
fee levels for parks increased more than for any other impact fee due to large increases in the
inputs to the fee calculations (i.e., land and water prices; construction costs). Although some in
the group noted that parks may have too many amenities, this was a small percentage of the cost
of building a new park.
Parks are the only category where impact fees pay for 100 percent of what is built; there are no
other revenue streams for building new parks. This is not the case for fire, police and general
government. Some in the group want to highlight that the 2008 parks and recreation policy plan
did realize a potential inadequacy of park impact fees to fund new parks. Council supported full
build out but did not identify additional revenue streams to fund parks. The 2008 plan discusses
the need for additional funding streams for development and subsequent maintenance and
emphasizes that the plan for park development should recognize the cost of subsequent
maintenance.
Alternatives to Impact Fees & Fort Collins Total Revenue
If lower impact fees are approved than was recommended in 2017, as an example, the City could
build lower cost parks, which would lower levels of service. Some in the group suggest not to
rule out public involvement such as philanthropy and considerations of regional cooperation. The
group acknowledged that reallocating revenue from the General Fund would require lowering
levels of service across the City. It is also unclear if home prices would drop if impact fees were
decreased or even eliminated.
Other alternatives discussed include: sales tax increase, property tax increase, occupation tax, or
looking into Metro Districts to build parks and streets, most of which staff previously worked on
from 2012 to 2016 regarding revenue diversification. Group consensus is that the general
community would be in favor of impact fees on new development instead of supporting other
revenue sources, such as increasing taxes or reallocating General Fund monies to pay for impacts
of new development. This would need to be further examined as the group does not fully
represent the community.
Given the limitations on total revenue, if full impact fee increases are not implemented, the City
will need to turn to alternatives or reallocate revenue from the General Fund. Limited revenues
and endless needs make for choices. If Council elects to continue to implement less than
recommended, the group suggests exploring alternative revenue sources.
2.1
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Fee Group Position Paper (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
19
Summary of Findings
• Bringing impact fees together for review and formation of the fee working group has
been beneficial to better understand the full impact of Council approved impact fees for
new development.
• The group acknowledges overall sound methodologies, calculations and inputs.
• The third-party fee audit revealed that the City manages impact fee expenditures very
well how the City spends and collects impact fees is sound.
• Regarding economic data, the group agrees that amenities paid for through impact fees
add to property value, but views differ as to what extent they impact demand and supply.
Academic research showed that home price increases in growing areas are mainly
demand driven.
• The group agreed that impact fees are complicated and difficult to communicate across
the community. They recommend better messaging to stakeholders and the general
public.
• In the 2017 study, park impact fees increased more than other impact fees due to
increases in the costs of land, water and construction. These fees are the only category
where impact fees pay for 100 percent of what is built.
• The group acknowledges the need to identify new revenue sources for park refresh and
maintenance.
• If Council approves lower fees than the staff recommendation, alternative revenue
sources will be needed. If Council goes this direction, it will be for the community to
decide what alternatives to pursue.
2.1
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Fee Group Position Paper (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
20
PART III - RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Better Communication, Outreach and Notification of Impact Fee Changes: Predictability
of when impact fees change and communication to the community should be more
transparent. Bringing impact fees together for review on a two and four-year cadence
along with better communication on when specific impact fees are locked in, will aid in
transparency and predictability.
Communication around impact fee updates and comparisons with other communities
needs better clarity and messaging going forward. Comparisons should have context,
such as level of service, total cost and looking at best practices. The group also suggests
finding a better way to communicate level of service vs plan-based methodologies.
2. Repayment from Impact Fee Audit: The full group recommends paying back the $130k
identified in the DPFG audit review.
3. Progressive Fees if/where Possible: Some in the group suggest that impact fees be more
progressive, i.e. lower impact fees for smaller homes and higher impact fees for larger
homes, or potentially add more steps within the impact fees. Staff plans to incorporate
more home size grouping in the next update in 2021.
4. Explore Alternative Revenue Source for Parks Buildout: The group recommends
considering alternative revenue sources for building new parks as it is the only category
that is fully funded by impact fees.
5. Investigate Revenue Alternatives to Support Parks Refresh and Maintenance: When the
City is at buildout, what will be the funding source to refresh parks? Some also
recommend a deeper dive may be useful to better understand if plan based or level of
services is best for the City’s park fees.
6. Explore Stronger Supports for Affordable Housing Fee Waivers: Some in the group
recommended the City reconsider the Area Median Income (AMI) level for waivers to
include greater than 30%. In addition, perhaps longer requirements for affordability
(beyond 20 years) could be coupled with greater AMI limits. The group also suggested a
more nuanced approach to fee waivers for affordable housing be explored, for example,
waiving some fees or portions of fees, such as parks and transportation, but not others
like utilities or police/fire fees.
2.1
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Fee Group Position Paper (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
21
Impact Fee List
Type of
Fee
Fee Category Fee Name
CEF Permit Fees - Building Permits Parkland: Neighborhood
CEF Permit Fees - Building Permits Parkland: Community
CEF Permit Fees - Building Permits Transportation Capital Expansion
CEF Permit Fees - Building Permits Fire Capital Expansion
CEF Permit Fees - Building Permits Police Capital Expansion
CEF Permit Fees - Building Permits General Gov. Capt. Exp.
Utility Development Fees Cash-in-lieu of the Water Raw Water Requirement & Excess Water Use Surcharge
Utility Development Fees Electric Development Fees
Utility Development Fees Sewer Plant Investment Fee
Utility Development Fees Stormwater Plant Investment Fees
Utility Development Fees Water Plant Investment Fee
Dev Development Review - Addition of Permitted Use Additional Rounds of Review
Dev Development Review - Annexation Transportation Development Review
Dev Development Review - Basic Development Review Transportation - Initial - (flat fee)
Dev Development Review - Basic Development Review Transportation if detached single family
Dev Development Review - Basic Development Review Transportation if multi-family/other residential
Dev Development Review - Basic Development Review Transportation if commercial, industrial, retail
Dev Development Review - Basic Development Review Transportation - size of development
Dev Development Review - Basic Development Review Transportation - Final (flat fee)
Dev Development Review - Water Water Development Review
Dev Development Review - Sewer Sewer Development Review
Dev Development Review - Stormwater Stormewater Development Review
Dev Development Review - Easments and Right of Ways - Dedications Transportation Development Review (Easement)
Dev Development Review - Easments and Right of Ways - Dedications Transportation Development Review ( Right-of-Way)
Dev Development Review - Easments and Right of Ways - Vacations Processing Fee (per easement)
Dev Development Review - Easments and Right of Ways - Vacations Processing Fee (per Right-of-Way)
Dev Development Review - Major Amendment Initial Transportation Development Review
Dev Development Review - Major Amendment Final Transportation
Dev Development Review - Minor Amendment Transportation Development Review
Dev Development Review - Modification of Standards Transportation Development Review
Dev Development Review - Overall Development Plan Transportation Development Review
Dev Development Review - Project Development Plan - Initial Transportation (flat fee)
Dev Development Review - Project Development Plan - Initial Transportation if detached single family
Dev Development Review - Project Development Plan - Initial Transportation if multi-family/other residential
Dev Development Review - Project Development Plan - Initial Transportation if commercial, industrial, retail
Dev Development Review - PDP Final Transportation Re-review
Dev Development Review - Rezoning Transportation Development Review
Dev Development Review Road Projects
Dev Development Review - Wireless Telecomm - Initial Transportation
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Building Permits
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Over-the-counter (No Review) Residential Building Permits
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Building Plan Check
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Poudre School District Impact Fee - Single Family Attached
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Poudre School District Impact Fee - 1-4 attached dwelling units
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Poudre School District Impact Fee -5 or more attached dwelling units
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Thompson School District Impact Fee - Single Family Detached
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Thompson School District Impact Fee - 5 or more attached dwelling units
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Larimier County Reg. Road
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Elec. PILOTS
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Elec: Secondary Service (Service A & B)
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Elec: Temp Pedestal
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Water PIF
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Water Right
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Water Meter
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Sewer PIF
22
Glossary of Terms
References
Been, V. (2005). Impact Fees and Housing Affordability, Cityscape, A Journal of Policy development and
Research 8(1), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
https://www.huduser.gov/periodicals/cityscpe/vol8num1/ch4.pdf
Burge and Ihlanfeldt (2006). Impact Fees and Single-Family Home Construction. Journal of Urban
Economics, 60, 284-306. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119006000222
Burge and Ihlanfeldt (2006). The Effects of Impact Fees on Multifamily Housing Construction. Journal of
Regional Science, 46, 5-23. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0022-4146.2006.00431.x
Burge, Gregory (2016). Impact Fees in Relation to Housing Prices and Affordable Housing Supply.
http://www.impactfees.com/publications/burge-Impact_Fees_in_Relation_to_Housing_Prices-2016.pdf
City of Fort Collins (2008). City of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan.
http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=236&docid=2242785&dt=DEPT+REPORTS
Development Planning & Financing Group, Inc. (2018). Capital Expansion Fee Review prepared for the
Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce, Northern Colorado Home Builders Association and the Fort
Collins Board of Realtors. (see attached)
Ditesco (2017). Park Development Fee Analysis prepared for the City of Fort Collins.
https://www.fcgov.com/finance/pdf/parks-fee-analysis.pdf?1488231835
Duncan Associates (2017). Capital Expansion Fee City prepared for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
https://www.fcgov.com/finance/pdf/capital-expansion-fee.pdf?1497285402
Jones, AT (2015). Impact Fees and Employment Growth, Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 29(4)
341 –346. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0891242415589368
AMI Area Median Income
CEFs Capital Expansion Fees
CIP Capital Improvement Plan
Equivalent Dwelling Unit The ratio of the average household size of a dwelling type to the average household size
of the typical single-family detached unit – the service unit used for parks
Functional Population The number of people present at a land use expressed in full time equivalents, the
service unit used for fire, police and general government
Level of Service Ratio of the replacement cost of existing facilities to existing service units
PIFs Plant Investment Fees
TCEFs Transportation Capital Expansion Fees
VMT Vehicle Miles of Travel
Wet Utility PIFs Water, wastewater and stormwater plant investment fees
2.1
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Fee Group Position Paper (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
23
Mathur, S., Waddell, P, & Blanco, H (2004). The Effect of Impact Fees on the Price of New Single-Family
Housing. Urban Studies, 41(7), 1303-1312.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0042098042000214806
Mathur, S. (2013). Do All Impact Fees Affect Housing Prices the Same? Journal of Planning Education and
Research. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0739456X13494241
Nelson, AC, Pendall, R., Dawkins, CJ, Knaap, GJ (2002). The Link Between Growth Management And
Housing Affordability: The Academic Evidence. A discussion paper prepared for the Brookings Institution
Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-link-between-
growth-management-and-housing-affordability-the-academic-evidence/
Nelson, AC & Moody, M. (2003) Paying For Prosperity: Impact Fees and Job Growth. A discussion paper
prepared for the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/paying-for-prosperity-impact-fees-and-job-growth/
Nelson, AC, Bowles, LK, Juergensmeyer, JC, & Nicholas, JC (2008). A Guide to Impact Fees and Housing
Affordability, Washington DC: Island Press. https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-link-between-
growth-management-and-housing-affordability-the-academic-evidence/
TischlerBise (2017). Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study prepared for the City of Fort Collins,
Colorado. https://www.fcgov.com/finance/pdf/transportation-capital-expansion-fee-study-
2017.pdf?1497285409
Yinger, John. 1998). The Incidence of Development Fees and Special Assessments. National Tax Journal.
51(1), 23-41. http://www.impactfees.com/publications%20pdf/v51n1023.pdf
2.1
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Fee Group Position Paper (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
3302 EAST INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD
PHOENIX, AZ 85018
TEL (602) 381-3226
FAX (602) 381-1203
www.dpfg.com
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
April 6, 2018
Ms. Ann Hutchison
Director
Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce
Mr. Greg Miedema
Director
Northern Colorado Home Builders Associations
Ms. Natalie Davis
Chief Executive Officer
Fort Collins Board of Realtors
RE: City of Fort Collins Impact Fee Peer Review
Dear Ms. Hutchinson, Mr. Miedema and Ms. Davis:
At your request, we have performed certain agreed upon procedures (“Agreed Upon Procedures”
and/or “Review”) related to the City of Fort Collin’s, Colorado (“City”), collection and
expenditure of capital expansion fees (“CEF”) as outlined below.
The purpose of the Review was not to examine the City’s accounting records in accordance with
generally accepted financial auditing or attestation standards, but rather to determine whether the
City is properly utilizing funds collected through its CEF program for the funding of public
improvements as outlined in: the City’s Ordinance related to such matters (“Ordinance”); the
supporting CEF studies; as well as Colorado Revised Statute (“CRS”) 29-20-1045 et seq. (the
“Act”).
In accordance with the Agreed Upon Procedures, we have reviewed in varying degree of detail,
the majority of the City’s CEF expenditures in terms of dollar volume for the time period
January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016.
I. Agreed Upon Procedures Scope of Work
The following tasks were performed as part of our Agreed Upon Procedures.
ATTACHMENT 2 2.2
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Fort Collins Review Report (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
2
Reviewed CEF Ordinance and Supporting Documents/Studies
Obtained the City’s Ordinance as well as supporting studies and back-up materials including
but not limited to: CEF Studies; City’s Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”); Annual
Statements of CEF Account Balances for the last five (5) year fiscal period; the City’s
Annual Financial Reports for the last five (5) years; CEF Account General Journals for the
last five (5) fiscal years and other reports as required.
CIP / CEF Review
Reviewed the City’s CIP as well as the funding of the improvements included in the CIP
through a review of the CEF account expenditures for the five (5) year analysis period as
follows:
1. Reviewed the City’s CIP, CEF Account Balance Reports and General Journals by
CEF account for the last five (5) years.
2. For all CEF transactions selected from the general journal, requested supporting
documentation from the City.
3. Determined the appropriateness of each transaction by reviewing the transaction
description accompanying each transaction and on a test basis traced the selected
expenditure to the listing of eligible public facilities as outlined in the CIP and/or the
CEF Study as appropriate.
4. Discussed any discrepancies (if any) with the appropriate City personnel.
CEF Implementation Plan
Evaluated the City’s implementation of the CEF programs as follows:
1. Reviewed the Ordinances adopting the City’s CEF program.
2. Obtained the City’s current CEF charges from the Development Service Department
or its equivalent.
Report of Findings
1. Prepared a written report of findings outlining the results of our Agreed Upon
Procedures.
II. Executive Summary
The following is a summary of our Review findings:
A. CEF Ordinance and Supporting Documentation – Our Review indicated that the City
had enacted Ordinances for the review period.
B. Transaction Support – We noted that all of the City’s CEF revenue and expenditure
transactions reviewed agreed to the general ledger and that the transactions had reasonable
levels of backup and supporting documentation.
2.2
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Fort Collins Review Report (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
3
C. Police – No issues related to the collection or expenditures of Police CEF’s were noted.
D. Fire - No issues were found related to the collection or expenditures of Fire CEF’s.
E. Transportation – It was noted that approximately $1.4 million in Transportation Fees
had been expended for operational expenses which appears to be in conflict with the Act and
industry practices for such matters.
F. Parks – Approximately $586,000 in park fees had been expended for operational
expenses, $218,000 for repairs/replacement of existing park equipment and $1.6 million for
administrative type expenses. All of these expenditures appear to be in conflict with the Act
and industry practices.
G. Financial Recap –The summary table below illustrates the total expenditures that were
identified as part of our Agreed Upon Procedures that in our opinion, do not meet the
requirements of CRS 29-20-1045 (4)(b) of having a useful life of five (5) years or more.
Each questionable expenditure was categorized as either an operational expense, a
repair/replacement, or an administrative expense. Further detailed schedules for each Fee
category can be found in the addendum to this Report.
Capital Expansion Fee
Exhibit
Reference Operational Expense Repair/Replacement
Administration
Expense Total
Transportation
Transportation Cap Expan No 2 B $ 1,374,294.80 $ - $ 1,510.60 $ 1,375,805.40
Transportation Subtotal $ 1,374,294.80 $ - $ 1,510.60 $ 1,375,805.40
Parks
Waters Way Park C $ 114,688.22 $ 202.38 $ - $ 114,890.60
Waters Way Repairs D $ - $ 41,845.53 $ - $ 41,845.53
Registry Park E $ 13,429.20 $ - $ - $ 13,429.20
Radiant Park F $ 13,217.35 $ - $ - $ 13,217.35
New Park Site Development G $ 24,773.98 $ 68,467.21 $ 641.26 $ 93,882.45
Lee Martinez Park Addition H $ 3,822.65 $ - $ - $ 3,822.65
Richards Lake I $ 2,839.91 $ - $ - $ 2,839.91
Avery Park J $ 1,893.72 $ 85,683.96 $ - $ 87,577.68
Maple Hill Park K $ 6,546.39 $ 4,707.00 $ - $ 11,253.39
Trailhead Park L $ 18,363.34 $ - $ - $ 18,363.34
Parkland & Administration Cost M $ 386,539.06 $ - $ 1,562,298.66 $ 1,948,837.72
Parkland Equipment Replacement N $ - $ 17,423.13 $ - $ 17,423.13
Parks Subtotal $ 586,113.82 $ 218,329.21 $ 1,562,939.92 $ 2,367,382.95
Total $ 1,960,408.62 $ 218,329.21 $ 1,564,450.52 $ 3,743,188.35
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Summary of Findings
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Development Impact Fee Review
2.2
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Fort Collins Review Report (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
4
III. Detailed Findings
A. CEF Ordinance - The City enacted ordinances for the collection of CEF’s as illustrated
on the table below.
Fiscal Year Ending Ordinance Number Fees Included Fee Study Present Date Signed Comments
2017 049, 2017
Park, Police, Fire and
General Government,
Street Oversizing
Capital Improvements
Yes. Included Parks,
Police, Fire, General
Government and
Transportation 6/7/2017
Ordinance indicates that funds
shall not be used to remedy
deficiencies but only provide for
new capital improvements
required by new development.
Also indicates that funds shall
not be used for costs associated
with operation, administration,
maintenance or replacement of
capital improvements.
2016 132, 2016
Park, Police, Fire and
General Government,
Street Oversizing
Capital Improvements
No - Increased by
Denver Greeley CPI
and ENR Index. (1) 12/20/2016
2015 148, 2015
Park, Police, Fire and
General Government,
Street Oversizing
Capital Improvements
No - Increased by
Denver Greeley CPI
and ENR Index. (1) 12/1/2015
2014 172, 2014
Park, Police, Fire and
General Government,
Street Oversizing
Capital Improvements
No - Increased by
Denver Greeley CPI
and ENR Index. (1) 12/16/2014
2013 120, 2013
Park, Police, Fire and
General Government,
Street Oversizing
Capital Improvements
No - Increased by
Denver Greeley CPI
and ENR Index. (1) 9/3/2013
2012 121, 2012
Park, Police, Fire and
General Government,
Street Oversizing
5
C. Transportation – It was noted that potentially $1.4 million of Transportation Expansion
Fee expenditures were made for administrative expenses rather than capital facilities that
have an estimated useful life of five (5) years or longer
1
. The questionable items include
salaries and related benefits, land maintenance services, termination pay, cell phone service
bills, vehicle repairs and office supplies. See Exhibit B for more details.
D. Parks - It was noted that approximately $590,000 of Parkland Expansion expenditures
were made for operational expenses such as electric and water utilities, yard maintenance,
grocery store expenditures, restaurant meal expenses, computer hardware and software
expenses, mobile stage rentals, fed-ex shipping expenses, vehicle repair services, and
conference and travel expenses were charged to various parkland expense accounts. See
Exhibits C through M for further information.
There also appeared to be potentially $218,000 spent on repair or replacement type
expenditures involving the Parkland Expansion accounts. Some of the expenses included
repairing existing playground soft surfacing, and demolishing an existing park playground
established in 1962 and constructing a new playground in its place. There was also an
existing shade structure that had been updated using impact fee funds. See Exhibits C
through N for further details.
Lastly, there were approximately $1.5 million of administration related expenses charged to
the Parkland Expansion accounts. Of this amount, $1.1 million appear to be utilized for City
employee salary expenses. A majority of the remaining $400,000 in expenditures consisted
of administration services to the general fund, health insurance premiums and employee
retirement contributions. See Exhibits G through M for further detailed expense findings.
IV. Recommendations
Based on our Agreed Upon Procedures it appears that the City has expended approximately
$3.7 million in Fees for non-capital assets. In our opinion the City should refund the
appropriate Fee accounts $3.7 million as outlined herein. The stakeholder group may wish to
engage legal counsel to obtain their advice as to the legalities of the items noted within the
body of the Report.
While we were not able to observe the processes and procedures that the City utilized to
authorize expenditures from its Fee accounts; given our findings related to the expenditure of
funds for non-capital assets, it is suggested that the City formulate and institute policies and
procedures to ensure that Fees are only being expended for their intended purposes.
V. General Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
DPFG neither expresses nor implies any warranties of its work nor predicts results of the
procedures outlined above. DPFG’s work was performed on a “level-of-effort” basis; that is,
the depth of our analyses and extent of our authentication of the information on which our
Report was predicated, may be limited in some respects due to the extent and sufficiency of
1 Colorado Revised Statute 29-20-1045 (4)(b)
2.2
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Fort Collins Review Report (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
6
available information, and other factors. Moreover, we did not examine any such information
in accordance with generally accepted financial auditing or attestation standards. Our work
was performed in compliance with the Agreed Upon Procedures only.
This Report was based on information that was current as of November 17, 2017 and DPFG
has not undertaken any update of its research effort since such date. Because of the limited
nature of our review, no warranty or representation is made by DPFG that the results
contained in this Report are accurate.
The professionals at DPFG are not trained legal professionals and as such, we are not
providing legal interpretations related to the Act.
This Report is qualified in its entirety by, and should be considered in light of, these
assumptions, limitations, and conditions.
Sincerely,
Carter T. Froelich, CPA
Managing Principal
CTF/kb
Attachments
2.2
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Fort Collins Review Report (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Exhibit A
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Development Impact Fee Review
Summary of Findings
Capital Expansion Fee
Exhibit
Reference Operational Expense Repair/Replacement
Administration
Expense Total
Transportation
Transportation Cap Expan No 2 B $ 1,374,294.80 $ - $ 1,510.60 $ 1,375,805.40
Transportation Subtotal $ 1,374,294.80 $ - $ 1,510.60 $ 1,375,805.40
Parks
Waters Way Park C $ 114,688.22 $ 202.38 $ - $ 114,890.60
Waters Way Repairs D $ - $ 41,845.53 $ - $ 41,845.53
Registry Park E $ 13,429.20 $ - $ - $ 13,429.20
Radiant Park F $ 13,217.35 $ - $ - $ 13,217.35
New Park Site Development G $ 24,773.98 $ 68,467.21 $ 641.26 $ 93,882.45
Lee Martinez Park Addition H $ 3,822.65 $ - $ - $ 3,822.65
Richards Lake I $ 2,839.91 $ - $ - $ 2,839.91
Avery Park J $ 1,893.72 $ 85,683.96 $ - $ 87,577.68
Maple Hill Park K $ 6,546.39 $ 4,707.00 $ - $ 11,253.39
Trailhead Park L $ 18,363.34 $ - $ - $ 18,363.34
Parkland & Administration Cost M $ 386,539.06 $ - $ 1,562,298.66 $ 1,948,837.72
Parkland Equipment Replacement N $ - $ 17,423.13 $ - $ 17,423.13
Parks Subtotal $ 586,113.82 $ 218,329.21 $ 1,562,939.92 $ 2,367,382.95
Total $ 1,960,408.62 $ 218,329.21 $ 1,564,450.52 $ 3,743,188.35
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
2.2
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Fort Collins Review Report (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Exhibit B
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Transportation Capital Expansion Account
Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
Advertising Services $ 55.56 Operational Expense
Cell Phones Services $ 1,650.00 Operational Expense
Clothing Supplies $ 467.30 Operational Expense
Construction Services $ 897.50 Operational Expense
Copy & Reproduction Services $ 51.67 Operational Expense
Dental Insurance $ 3,613.49 Operational Expense
Education & Training Services $ 175.00 Operational Expense
E-Mail & PDA Admin Services $ 718.52 Operational Expense
Employees Group Life Ins $ 1,124.41 Operational Expense
GERP (1) $ 1,599.38 Operational Expense
GERP Supplemental Charges (1) $ 13,440.00 Operational Expense
Health Insurance $ 59,206.05 Operational Expense
Internal Investment Services $ 3,827.96 Operational Expense
Land Maintenance Services $ 400,127.60 Operational Expense
Long-term Disability $ 2,998.65 Operational Expense
Office Supplies $ 591.32 Operational Expense
Other Prof & Tech Services $ 26.00 Operational Expense
Postage & Freight Services $ 26.40 Operational Expense
Retirement Contributions $ 49,336.03 Operational Expense
Salaries-Hourly $ 9,872.24 Operational Expense
Salaries-Regular $ 674,535.17 Operational Expense
Social Security & Medicare $ 50,579.61 Operational Expense
Telephone Services $ 2,637.16 Operational Expense
Termination Pay $ 14,020.71 Operational Expense
Tools & Related Supplies $ 231.84 Operational Expense
Vehicle Repair Services $ 541.29 Operational Expense
Water $ 81,943.94 Operational Expense
Workers Compensation $ 1,510.60 Administration Expense
Total $ 1,375,805.40
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 1,374,294.80
Repair/Replacement $ -
Administration Expense $ 1,510.60
Total $ 1,375,805.40
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Footnote:
(1) "GERP" is the City of Fort Collins General Employee Retirement Plan.
Description of Expenditures
2.2
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Fort Collins Review Report (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Exhibit C
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Waters Way Park
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
Bath Inc $ 5,949.63 Operational Expense
City of Fort Collins Utility B $ 19,604.21 Operational Expense
Fort Collins-Loveland Water Di $ 607.63 Operational Expense
Hedrick, James $ 1,016.11 Operational Expense
Hurr/Vasa Lawn & Landscape $ 202.38 Repairs/Replacement
Korby Landscaping LLC $ 38,323.69 Operational Expense
Raw water bill for 2012 $ 750.00 Operational Expense
Rcls hrly payroll exp to proj $ 26,337.83 Operational Expense
UMB Card Services $ 22,099.12 Operational Expense
Total $ 114,890.60
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 114,688.22
Repairs/Replacement $ 202.38
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 114,890.60
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
2.2
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Fort Collins Review Report (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Exhibit D
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Waters Way Repairs
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
RCL Waters Way Repair Expense $ 41,845.53 Repairs/Replacement
Total $ 41,845.53
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ -
Repairs/Replacement $ 41,845.53
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 41,845.53
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
2.2
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Fort Collins Review Report (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Exhibit E
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Registry Park
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
City of Fort Collins Utility B $ 7,998.17 Operational Expense
Fort Collins-Loveland Water Di $ 5,431.03 Operational Expense
Total $ 13,429.20
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 13,429.20
Repairs/Replacement $ -
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 13,429.20
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
2.2
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Fort Collins Review Report (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Exhibit F
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Radiant Park
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
City of Fort Collins Utility B $ 2,433.59 Operational Expense
2013 Raw Water bill-Parks Dept $ 683.10 Operational Expense
Fedex Corp $ 213.61 Operational Expense
Fort Collins-Loveland Water Di $ 9,220.45 Operational Expense
Raw water bill for 2012 $ 666.60 Operational Expense
Total $ 13,217.35
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 13,217.35
Repairs/Replacement $ -
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 13,217.35
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
2.2
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Fort Collins Review Report (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Exhibit G
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
New Park Site Development
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
Aller-Lingle Massey Architects $ 1,986.00 Repairs/Replacement
Arrow Fencing and Automated Ga $ 7,966.14 Repairs/Replacement
B H A Design INC $ 1,774.00 Operational Expense
Batteries Plus $ 33.95 Operational Expense
Best Rental Inc $ 2,202.82 Operational Expense
Bettin, Cameron $ 582.52 Administration Expense
Dickinson Electric $ 8,836.64 Repairs/Replacement
DLT Solutions AutoCad renewal $ 4,170.66 Operational Expense
ENCK Resources $ 4,000.00 Operational Expense
High Sierra Electronics $ 1,381.00 Repairs/Replacement
Keeton Industries $ 3,065.90 Repairs/Replacement
Korby Landscaping LLC $ 4,772.50 Repairs/Replacement
Korby Sod LLC $ 2,206.00 Repairs/Replacement
Payroll Labor Distribution $ 58.74 Administration Expense
Reclass Lincoln Center Rental $ 1,125.00 Operational Expense
Sam's Club Direct $ 6.87 Operational Expense
SOF Surfaces $ 37,783.03 Repairs/Replacement
Southwestern Painting & Decora $ 470.00 Repairs/Replacement
UMB Card Services $ 8,933.44 Operational Expense
Xerox Corporation $ 754.62 Operational Expense
Xerox Corporation (ACH) $ 1,772.62 Operational Expense
Total $ 93,882.45
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 24,773.98
Repairs/Replacement $ 68,467.21
Administration Expense $ 641.26
Total $ 93,882.45
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
2.2
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Fort Collins Review Report (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Exhibit H
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Lee Martinez Park Addition
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
UMB Card Services $ 3,822.65 Operational Expense
Total $ 3,822.65
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 3,822.65
Repairs/Replacement $ -
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 3,822.65
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
2.2
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Fort Collins Review Report (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Exhibit I
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Richards Lake
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditures
UMB Card Services $ 2,839.91 Operational Expense
Total $ 2,839.91
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 2,839.91
Repairs/Replacement $ -
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 2,839.91
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
2.2
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Fort Collins Review Report (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Exhibit J
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Avery Park
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
Avery Park FPUP $ 50.00 Operational Expense
Banner Concrete $ 54,608.46 Repairs/Replacement
City of Fort Collins Miscellan $ 117.81 Operational Expense
Finishing Touch $ 12,900.00 Repairs/Replacement
King Surveyors Inc $ 3,440.00 Repairs/Replacement
Korby Landscaping LLC $ 10,137.50 Repairs/Replacement
Playpower LT Farmington Inc $ 4,598.00 Repairs/Replacement
UMB Card Services $ 1,713.16 Operational Expense
W/O Jefferson/SH 14 projects $ 12.75 Operational Expense
Total $ 87,577.68
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 1,893.72
Repairs/Replacement $ 85,683.96
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 87,577.68
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
2.2
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Fort Collins Review Report (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Exhibit K
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Maple Hill Park
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
Baker Lateral Company $ 392.70 Operational Expense
Boxelder Sanitation District $ 6,063.69 Operational Expense
Concrete Structures Inc $ 4,707.00 Repairs/Replacement
Poudre School District $ 90.00 Operational Expense
Total $ 11,253.39
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 6,546.39
Repairs/Replacement $ 4,707.00
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 11,253.39
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
2.2
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Fort Collins Review Report (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Exhibit L
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Trailhead Park
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
Hartshorn Waterworks LLC $ 15,373.34 Operational Expense
Ops $ 297.00 Operational Expense
Ops Billing 04-16 $ 165.00 Operational Expense
Ops Billing 05-16 $ 297.00 Operational Expense
Ops Billing Jan 16 $ 714.00 Operational Expense
Ops Services Billing Dec-15 $ 1,517.00 Operational Expense
Total $ 18,363.34
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 18,363.34
Repairs/Replacement $ -
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 18,363.34
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
2.2
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Fort Collins Review Report (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
Salaries-Regular $ 1,183,090.52 Administration Expense
Salaries-Hourly $ 4,685.93 Administration Expense
Health Insurance $ 132,016.65 Administration Expense
Dental Insurance $ 8,119.24 Administration Expense
Retirement Contributions $ 75,946.03 Administration Expense
GERP $ 12,858.64 Administration Expense
Social Security & Medicare $ 86,024.87 Administration Expense
Workers Compensation $ 3,215.81 Administration Expense
Employees Group Life Ins $ 1,942.10 Administration Expense
Long-term Disability $ 5,144.03 Administration Expense
Education & Training Services $ 240.00 Operational Expense
Cell Phones Services $ 12,610.63 Operational Expense
Office Supplies $ 7,424.21 Operational Expense
Meals - Business, Non Travel $ 2,033.44 Operational Expense
Other Supplies $ 17,816.98 Operational Expense
Telephone Services $ 5,046.56 Operational Expense
Internal Investment Services $ 4,652.00 Operational Expense
Admin Services to General Fund $ 151,263.04 Operational Expense
E-Mail & PDA Admin Services $ 1,067.60 Operational Expense
Transfer to Fund 603 $ 48,242.00 Operational Expense
Conference and Travel $ 21,494.55 Operational Expense
Vehicle Repair Services $ 9,223.25 Operational Expense
Motor Fuel, Oil & Grease $ 3,102.70 Operational Expense
Copy & Reproduction Services $ 2,028.60 Operational Expense
Postage & Freight Services $ 10,946.33 Operational Expense
Dues & Subscription Services $ 10,817.00 Operational Expense
Right of Way $ 11,373.97 Operational Expense
Computer Hardware $ 33,406.71 Operational Expense
Other Employee Travel $ 5,649.58 Operational Expense
Mileage $ 155.20 Operational Expense
Meals - Traveling $ 284.14 Operational Expense
Computer Software $ 6,862.82 Operational Expense
Other Personnel Costs $ 205.00 Operational Expense
Food & Related Supplies $ 2,303.50 Operational Expense
GERP Supplemental Charges $ 27,328.00 Administration Expense
Salaries-Overtime $ 825.93 Administration Expense
Termination Pay $ 20,341.35 Administration Expense
Copier Rental Services $ 6,432.97 Operational Expense
Interview Applicant Travel $ 5.09 Operational Expense
Other Prof & Tech Services $ 6,517.73 Operational Expense
Other Office Related Supplies $ 448.03 Operational Expense
Office Equipment $ 989.82 Operational Expense
Software Maint & Support Serv $ 2,087.36 Operational Expense
Salaries-Contractual $ 582.06 Administration Expense
Computer Software - Capital $ 728.01 Operational Expense
Clothing Supplies $ 326.05 Operational Expense
Taxable Employee Recognition $ 177.50 Administration Expense
Contract Pmt to Govt/Other $ 414.00 Operational Expense
Other Land & Bldg Supplies $ 10.71 Operational Expense
Health & Safety Supplies $ 329.48 Operational Expense
Total $ 1,948,837.72
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 386,539.06
Repairs/Replacement $ -
Administration Expense $ 1,562,298.66
Total $ 1,948,837.72
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Exhibit N
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Parkland Equipment Replacement
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
Reclass playground expenses $ 12,233.69 Repairs/Replacement
UMB Card Services $ 5,189.44 Repairs/Replacement
Total $ 17,423.13
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ -
Repairs/Replacement $ 17,423.13
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 17,423.13
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
2.2
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Fort Collins Review Report (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
09/17/2018
10 am - noon
CIC Room - City Hall
Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Ross Cunniff, Ken Summers (via phone)
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Kelly DiMartino, Jeff Mihelich, Mike Beckstead, Wendy Williams, John
Duval, Ginny Sawyer, Laurie Kadrich, Noelle Currell, Tim Kemp, Kyle Lambrecht, Jennifer
Poznanovic, Lawrence Pollack, Tyler Marr, Katie Ricketts, Andres Gavaldon, Zack Mozer,
Lance Smith
Others: Fee Working Group members; Diane Cohn, Will Flowers, Linda Stanley, Ragan Adams,
Rebecca Hill, Doug Braden and Moira Bright.
Dale Adamy, R1ST.org, Kevin Jones, Chamber of Commerce, Rusty McDaniel, Asst.
Larimer County Engineer, Traci Shambo, Larimer County Development Review Manager
____________________________________________________________________________________
Meeting called to order at 10:06 am
Approval of Minutes from the August 20th Council Finance Committee Meeting and the Special Council Finance
Committee Meeting on September 5th. Ross Cunniff move for approval of minutes from both meetings. Mayor
Troxell seconded the motions. Minutes were approved unanimously.
A. Fee Review - Fee Team Report - Total Impact
Jennifer Poznanovic, Revenue & Project Manager
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Impact Fee Working Group Findings & Recommendations
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since the fall of October 2016, staff has worked to coordinate the process for updating all new development
related fees that require Council approval. The 2017 CEFs and TCEFs full fee proposals showed significant
increases from the previously approved fees. Due to the concern in the development and building community
around impact fee changes, Council asked for a fee working group to be created to foster a better understanding
of impact fees prior to discussing further fee updates.
The fee working group meetings commenced in August of 2017, comprised of a balanced group of stakeholders
– City staff, business-oriented individuals, citizens and a Council liaison. The group met 14 times, and the topics
covered included: detailed review of fee methodologies, inputs, calculations, City revenue sources, alternative
ATTACHMENT 3
2.3
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Council Finance Committee Minutes, September 17, 2018 (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
2
revenue sources, academic economic research on impact fees, a third-party impact fee audit review and impact
fee comparisons to other communities.
Below is a summary of the key findings from the Fee Working Group position paper:
• Bringing impact fees together for review and formation of the fee working group has been beneficial to
better understand the full impact of Council approved impact fees for new development.
• The group acknowledges overall sound methodologies, calculations and inputs.
• The third-party fee audit revealed that the City manages impact fee expenditures very well. how the City
spends and collects impact fees is sound.
• Regarding economic data, the group agrees that amenities paid for through impact fees add to property
value, but views differ as to what extent they impact demand and supply. Academic research showed
that home price increases in growing areas are mainly demand driven.
• The group agreed that impact fees are complicated and difficult to communicate across the community.
They recommend better messaging to stakeholders and the general public.
• In the 2017 study, park impact fees increased more than other impact fees due to increases in the costs
of land, water and construction. These fees are the only category where impact fees pay for 100
percent of what is built.
• The group acknowledges the need to identify new revenue sources for park refresh and maintenance.
• If council approves lower fees than the staff recommendation, alternative revenue sources will be
needed. If Council goes this direction, it will be for the community to decide what alternatives to pursue.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Next Steps:
• November 13th: Council Work Session
• December 4th & 18th: Ordinance readings
• 2019: Utility Fees, Development Fees & Step III for CEFs
Feedback & Questions from Council Finance Committee
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
• Impact Fee Working Group Position Paper
• 3rd
Party Impact Fee Audit
Discussion / Next Steps:
Mike Beckstead; team validated that our fees are so complex - hard to convey details in a meaningful way in a
20 minute presentation. Challenge of what we are still faced with is how to communicate this to the
community.
2.3
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Council Finance Committee Minutes, September 17, 2018 (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
3
Question came out of discussion was -how we use the fees and expenditures
Through detail analysis we agreed that $130K was misapplied due to a misunderstanding – they thought park
impact fees could be used to put new things in existing parks.
Ross Cunniff; we talked about that at a Council meeting.
Darin Atteberry; really important - we did discuss it but it requires more context. Mike, can you take a few
minutes and provide some background.
Mike Beckstead; This was a combination of the Building Board and Board of Realtors - they received a grant of
$25K and hired a company out of Phoenix to do the audit review. They asked for 5 years of revenue coming into
capital expansion and funds coming out - peer review / audit of the way we calculate, collect and spend fees -
they looked at 5 years of data which included approximately $54M in total – they spent quite a bit of time with
it and we provided written responses to each of their concerns. Code says it ok to use fees for overhead costs in
parks planning but there was a philosophy that they would prefer that not to be -they did acknowledge that is
the way code is written so that is an acceptable way to use fees. With that summary, we provided the report
back to the Board of Realtors and the Building Board – they reviewed and agreed that it should be shared in this
report and publicly. It was a very appropriate and very meaningful action which very strongly validates the
integrity of our systems.
Ross Cunniff; best practice going forward - fee collections - we did find .25% and now we can take action to
rectify that - keep everything above board
Darin Atteberry; how do we fold in an outside review similar to what was done here? I see this as good news
and it should be shared. Thanks to all of the team members doing this on a daily basis.
As Ross said - we move forward with this lesson learned - to have some sort of review like this every x number of
years
Mike Beckstead; we will figure out how to integrate that into the schedule that Jennifer discussed earlier –
maybe after the next cycle of fee inputs in 2021 -
Mayor Troxell; how specialty is this type of audit? Could this be part of our regular fiscal audit?
Mike Beckstead; we could look into that.
Mike Beckstead; the economic data looks at communities that allow amenities to be built - amenities are part
of what creates the flywheel of desire and value in a community - without these it becomes a less attractive
community so the multiplier esp on higher value homes – the value of fee adds to value of property to a greater
degree - this is the Policy choice of Council in terms how we pay for these – it clearly adds to the price of the
home too - it has a multiplier effect that is positive .
Mike Beckstead; as the team turned over a bit - Will and Doug stepped in and they shared
that they were hearing from their organizations that we were raising fees because we were on the low end of
the scale in the lower quadrant – somehow all of the work we did to show we were competitive was
misinterpreted and somehow got lost in that discussion.
2.3
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Council Finance Committee Minutes, September 17, 2018 (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
4
Ross Cunniff; one nuance – you could look at design of our parks and look at the implications on on-going
maintenance and refresh - change the master design - go back into the fee calculation
Mike Beckstead; we had a conversation a few years ago about a park maintenance fee - $1 per month per
resident which would help fund maintenance - set it aside – we did talk about a park maintenance fee and a
trail maintenance fee – those discussions - we may want to come back and have a conversation- do we want to
have a dedicated funding stream.
Back up slide below illustrates when impact fees are locked in – this addresses Ross Cunniff’s earlier request for
analysis - Permits - October timeframe - fees change - permit applications – active applications – rolling kind of
number
Ross Cunniff; we have to either build $600K less of amenities or have less in General Fund (time = money)
2.3
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Council Finance Committee Minutes, September 17, 2018 (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
5
Data has to back that up - more people in larger homes – 2015 census data would give us a higher slope on that
line - When we update CES again in 20 -21 that is something we would be looking at - expanding those
categories
Ross Cunniff; I read through the report – the duration of time that a house is supposed to be affordable - tie the
waiver to a better outcome – from a 20 - to 40-50 year horizon.
Mike Beckstead; there is a commission working on that - we will share this data with the Affordable Housing
Taskforce.
Mike Beckstead; The period of notification that fees are changing - we have been having this dialog for the last
2 ½ years – Council said let’s do this in steps - our communication with the community – there has been a 2 year
dialog going on so that notification has been occurring from our perspective – one of the feedbacks we are
going to hear from the community - to allow for more time to get ready for fee changes – that will be Council’s
call but that is what we are hearing in our outreach as feedback.
Mayor Troxell; fee stacking - is there some comparative analysis of overall fee stacking against other jurisdictions
Mike Beckstead; we didn’t bring it with us but we have been using that data - we look at how our fees and fee
stacking compare to other Front Range communities; Timnath, Wellington, Loveland and Fort Collins.
Ross Cunniff; using insurance industry standard saves community $$, productivity loss, yes, this adds to the fee
stack but we think impact on health and safety-
Mayor Troxell; it puts us in the lower half of the fee stack – looking at building, utility and capital
2.3
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Council Finance Committee Minutes, September 17, 2018 (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
6
Mike Beckstead; with this update we would be right in the middle – we don’t have cost of code included in this
comparison because we don’t know what their cost of code is. We looked at our cost of code over time –
median home prices – has been right in the 10% range
Ross Cunniff; I would like to add my thanks to the committee members and the staff who participated – I think it
ended up being a much more involved task than we thought it would be
Mayor Troxell; I add my thanks - this is an excellent piece of work with a lot of complexity - illustrates the kinds
of questions that were being asked by many over a long time are now answerable.
B. Partnership Fee Update – Regional Road Fee & School PILOs Update
Ginny Sawyer, Senior Project Manager
Kyle Lambrecht, Civil Engineer III
Tim Kemp, Interim Capital Projects Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to present and discuss updates to the Larimer County Regional Road and School
District fees. These fees are considered “partnership” fees; fees collected by the City of Fort Collins on behalf of
Larimer County and the Poudre and Thompson School Districts, respectively.
The County has made fee adjustments to the Regional Road Fee which will need to be considered by the City
Council. Currently, adoption of the Regional Road Fee is aligned with the City’s Capital Expansion Fees which are
considered annually in December.
The School District agreements are set to expire on December 31, 2018. Staff from the City and each District
have been working on minor revisions to the Intergovernmental Agreements which will come before Council for
consideration, before the end of 2018.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does the Council Finance Committee have any additional questions regarding the fees or the timing of
the updates?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Regional Road Fee
In 2000, the City and Larimer County entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) authorizing the City to
collect a Regional Road Fee on behalf of Larimer County. The fee is collected at the time a building permit is
issued. The Regional Road Fee helps generate revenue for road improvements on regionally significant
roadways that are necessitated by new development. The fees are only used on capacity related improvements
that are of mutual benefit to both the City and Larimer County.
Since 2000, the City and Larimer County have partnered to design and construct several projects along regionally
significant roadways; including improvements to Taft Hill Road, Shields Street, and the Shields Street/Vine Drive
intersection. City and County staff continue to plan for future improvements, recognizing opportunities for
2.3
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Council Finance Committee Minutes, September 17, 2018 (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
26
Ross Cunniff; for Council, It would be helpful to have one chart with all three projects as columns -
matrix / policy considerations so we can compare and understand them
Ken Summers; and a map where we can see all three - seems like a big piece of the northeast part of
the GMA
Josh Birks; there are still some big pieces out there
Ken Summers; the total number of housing units supports significant population growth
B. Fee Review - Utilities Wet PIFs, Step II CEFs
Jennifer Poznanovic, Revenue and Project Manager
Lance Smith, Utility Strategic Finance Director
Randy Reuscher, Utility Rate Analyst
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Fee Review: Wet Utility Plant Investment Fees, Step II Capital Expansion Fees (CEFs) and Transportation
Capital Expansion Fees (TCEFs)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As of October 2016, staff has worked to coordinate the process for updating impact fees that require
Council approval. Brining fees forward for review together provides a more holistic view of the impact.
Phase I included CEFs, TCEFs and Electric Capacity Fees was approved by Council in June of 2017.
Increases were significant, and Council directed a stepped implementation for CEFs and TCEFs. Along
with approval, Council asked for a commitment to create a working group of citizens, industry and staff
to foster a better understanding of fees. Phase II fees are Wet Utility PIFs and Development Review
Fees.
Staff proposes the following fee changes:
• 90% of proposed CEFs (Step II)
• Option A for TCEFs (Step II)
• Wet Utility PIFs as proposed
Development Review Fees were initially planned for Phase II updates but have been decoupled and will
come forward at a later date.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Proposed Next Steps:
• September 17th
: Council Finance Committee
o Working Group Position Paper
o Outreach plan
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AUGUST 20, 2018 ATTACHMENT 4
2.4
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Council Finance Committee Minutes, August 20, 2018 (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
27
• September/October: Public Outreach
• November 13th
: Council Work Session
• December 4th
& 18th
: Ordinance readings
• 2019:
o Development Review Fees
o Electric Capacity Fees
2. Questions from Council Finance Committee?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
As of October 2016, staff has worked to coordinate the process for updating all building related fees
that require Council approval. Bringing fees forward for review together provides a more holistic view
of the impact.
Previously, fee updates were presented to Council on an individual basis but are now on a two and
four-year cadence. Fee coordination includes a detailed fee study analysis for CEFs, TCEFs and
Development Review Fees every four years. This requires an outside consultant through a request for
proposal (RFP) process. Data is provided by City staff and findings are also verified by City staff. For
Utility Fees, a detailed fee study is planned every two years. These are internal updates by City staff
with periodic consultant verification. Fee study analysis should be targeted in the odd year before
Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO).
In June of 2017, Council approved the following Phase I fee updates:
2017 Capital Expansion full fee proposals were significant. Fee changes reflected updated asset values
that reflect higher construction costs, land values that reflect higher last cost and population and
Type of Fee
Approved by
Council
Capital Expansion Fees 6
Utility Fees 5
Bldg. Development Fees 45
2.4
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Council Finance Committee Minutes, August 20, 2018 (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
28
dwelling units per the latest census. These changes caused consternation in the community and
Council directed a stepped implementation for CEFs and TCEFs.
Along with the fee approvals above, Council asked for commitment to create a working group of
citizens, industry and staff to foster a better understanding of fees. The working group commenced in
August of 2017 and has met 12 times to date. The working group’s position paper findings will be
presented next month in the September Council Finance Committee meeting.
Phase II fees are Wet Utility PIFs and Development Review Fees.
Staff proposes the following fee changes:
• 90% of proposed CEFs (Step II)
• Option A for TCEFs (Step II)
• Wet Utility PIFs as proposed
Development Review Fees were initially planned for Phase II updates but have been decoupled and will
come forward at a later date.
The chart below shows the stepped implementation for CEFs and TCEFs:
Step I changes (current fee levels) adopted October 1, 2017 are 75% of full fee levels proposed for CEFs
and Option B for TCEFs. Option B does not increase program revenue, it provides approximately 80% of
necessary funding to mitigate proportional impacts of development. Whereas Option A includes the
proportionate cost attributable for mitigation of the impacts of new development on the
transportation system, including new streets, intersection improvements, and multi-modal
improvements.
The chart below shows Step II fee changes with inflation:
Fees Phasing
Land Use Type Unit
Previous
Total
Current
Total
Step II
Total
Step III
Total
% Change
Full Fees
% Change
Step I
% Change
Step II
% Change
Step III
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $5,059 $5,845 $7,049 $7,587 50% 16% 21% 8%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $6,182 $8,779 $10,593 $11,315 83% 42% 21% 7%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $7,574 $10,283 $12,409 $13,197 74% 36% 21% 6%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $7,762 $11,099 $13,391 $14,188 83% 43% 21% 6%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $8,094 $12,147 $14,658 $15,546 92% 50% 21% 6%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $13,241 $8,430 $10,164 $10,392 -22% -36% 21% 2%
Office and Other Services $9,071 $6,660 $8,028 $8,256 -9% -27% 21% 3%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $1,748 $2,000 $2,411 $2,464 41% 14% 21% 2%
2.4
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Council Finance Committee Minutes, August 20, 2018 (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
29
CEF fee increases are 90% of full fee levels recommended in 2017 and reflects Option A for TCEFs.
Including inflation, total Step II fee increases are a 27 to 28% increase from current fee levels (Step I).
The CPI-U index for Denver-Aurora-Lakewood is used for CEF inflation (3.1% in 2017 and 3.2% in 2018).
The Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index Values for Denver is used for TCEFs (4.0% in
2017 and 1.2% in 2018).
The chart below shows the proposed Wet Utility PIFs changes:
Across the three Wet Utility Fees, staff is proposing 7 to 11% increases. Water PIFs are a 7.1% increase
from current fee levels, Wastewater PIFs are a 9.5% increase from current fee levels and Stormwater
PIFs are a 11.3% increase from current fee levels.
The drivers for the increases on PIFs is the same for all three funds:
• New capital projects increase the overall system value
• Annual increases in construction costs increases the replacement value of existing system
• One-time adjustment of 2.7% included to account for fee implementation being delayed in
2018
CEFs & TCEFs Totals with Inflation
Land Use Type Unit
Current
Total
Step II
Total
Step II
Total w
Inflation
%
Increase
%
Increase
w Inflation
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $5,845 $7,049 $7,473 21% 28%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $8,779 $10,593 $11,221 21% 28%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $10,283 $12,409 $13,139 21% 28%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $11,099 $13,391 $14,173 21% 28%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $12,147 $14,658 $15,516 21% 28%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $8,430 $10,164 $10,720 21% 27%
Office and Other Services $6,660 $8,028 $8,472 21% 27%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $2,000 $2,411 $2,542 21% 27%
2.4
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Council Finance Committee Minutes, August 20, 2018 (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
30
Discussion / Next Steps:
The Fee Working Group started in August 2017 - the group is working on a position paper which will be
brought back to Council Finance on September 17th
.
Mike Beckstead; getting an understanding of the fee structure and the different methodologies and on
what type of fees they are used has been one of the biggest challenges - stressed the complexity for
the community - we had a couple people on the team say that they had heard we were changing fees
because we were the lowest compared to our peer cities and we had headroom to change so they
thought that was why we were changing so the whole conversation about the methodology and cost
got lost someplace - this was a big aha from the Fee Working Group - we are taking that input from
them and from our public outreach this time around to figure out how we can do a better job of clarity
of message around why fees are changing and what is the driver of those fees changing.
Randy Reuscher presented Utility Fees
Mayor Troxell; what are the drivers for the increases?
Randy Reuscher; the increase in the system value - we are looking at today’s cost for construction –
replacement cost if we had to rebuild our system today
2.4
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Council Finance Committee Minutes, August 20, 2018 (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
31
Community outreach planned for September and October prior to the Council work session in
November.
Mayor Troxell; this has been a lot of work over time and a lot of misunderstanding too - a number of
Council Members have been involved with questions - goes back to Gino Campana - a lot has come
together - it doesn’t indicate increases but reflects the infrastructure that has been invested and
replacement cost - rationalization to our fee structure as it related to fees
Mike Beckstead; I agree - our Fee Working Group will be here at Council in September.
I think it will be an interesting dialog - we got into discussions around why fees change, asset value
increasing and methodology changes - then we talked about alternatives - other revenue sources -
2.4
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Council Finance Committee Minutes, August 20, 2018 (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
32
realization that some really difficult choices would have to be made if we don’t keep our fees current
and if we didn’t have these fees we would have to use GF to fund to fund what these fees are intended
to do.
Mayor Troxell; I appreciate the robust list for community outreach. I think you should present to the
Chamber not necessarily to the LLAC as they have a different set of optics.
Ross Cunniff; could we have an overall open house?
Mike Beckstead; I don’t believe we have had open houses in the past as the public is normally not
engaged - we have always gone to the business group
Ross Cunniff; we could have business people come to our open house - If we have trade-offs to be
made or not doing projects or raising sales tax to try to cover the difference - that is important for both
businesses and citizens to understand. We only implemented 75% of fee increase that was
recommended - we should have an understanding of the difference between the full recommendation
and what we actually collected and what does that mean for the projects we are building. That would
be a helpful analysis.
Mike Beckstead; we did it on estimates based on a 10-year permit average
Ross Cunniff; I would like to see actuals
Mike Beckstead; we can come close - a firmer estimate - we will include that in the September work
session packet. We set those on the calendar presuming Council wants to move forward but
our goal is to educate and share the details - we are not being presumptuous with the December
meeting.
Ross Cunniff; metro districts - would like to understand where that infrastructure funding comes from.
Darin Atteberry; John Duval and Carrie Daggett will find out
Mike Beckstead; we will be back to Council Finance on September 17th
and the Work Session on Fees is
scheduled for November 13th
.
C. HR Benefits Discussion
Joaquin ‘Keen’ Garbiso, Sr. Manager, Benefits
Kelly DiMartino, Sr. Assistant City Manager
Jim Lenderts served on the Total Compensation Committee
Jim Sampson from HUB International
2.4
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Council Finance Committee Minutes, August 20, 2018 (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
ATTACHMENT 5
2.5
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: 2018 Impact Fee Outreach Feedback (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
2.5
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: 2018 Impact Fee Outreach Feedback (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
2.5
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: 2018 Impact Fee Outreach Feedback (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Economic Health Office
300 LaPorte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6505
970.224.6107 - fax
fcgov.com
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 31, 2018
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager;
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager;
Jacqueline Kozak-Thiel, Chief Sustainability Officer
Josh Birks, Economic Health and Redevelopment Director
FROM: Sam Solt, Chair – Economic Advisory Commission;
Ted Settle Vice-Chair – Economic Advisory Commission; and
Members, Economic Advisory Commission
RE: CAPITAL EXPANSION FEE
The purpose of this memorandum is to inform City Council of the Economic Advisory Commission’s
(EAC) recommendation regarding the Capital Expansion Fee pending action on November 13th.
Position:
The Fort Collins Economic Advisory Commission members received a presentation on the Capital
Expansion Fee by Jennifer Poznanovic at our October 17, 2018 meeting. We understand that the City of
Fort Collins has taken essential steps to harmonize fee update frequency and review fee rates in 2017 in a
phased implementation. Two EAC members were part of the Fee Working Group and actively
participated in formulating the Position Paper.
The members of the EAC agree with and support the overall proposed recommendation of the Position
Paper. The members specifically expressed agreement on several positions: 1) fees for the parks are
essential in order to maintain uniquely Fort Collins values, 2) parks being funded solely by fees is greatly
concerning for sustainability of the future park construction and operation and 3) there needs to be a
recognition of funding deficit, especially for operating the park system.
Furthermore, additional opinions expressed by the members for the future consideration and the expected
first full review of the fees in 2021 include the concept of “growth paying its own way”, the need for
timely adjustment of fees, the need for changes in the underlying fee categories to keep up with the
changing market conditions, and consideration of taking a total cost of ownership approach to funding
capital projects. In the latter opinion, the Capital Expansion Fee appears to be predicated on the capital
cost of the specific project. This means that operating costs for projects like parks need to come from the
general operating budget which will most likely always be stressed. Under a total cost of ownership
approach the 'capital' cost would include initial cost to buy or build, cost to eliminate at the end of life,
and a discounted cash flow representing a revenue stream to cover operating costs.
We recommend that the city revise the Capital Expansion Fee and continue to incorporate
recommendations in the Position Paper by the Fee Working Group.
2.5
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: 2018 Impact Fee Outreach Feedback (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
1
Fee Group Findings & Impact Fee Updates
November 13, 2018
Council Work Session
ATTACHMENT 6
2.6
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Agenda
• Background
• Proposed 2018 Fee Updates – Effective in 2019
• Working Group Position Paper
• Community Outreach Feedback
• Council Direction
2
2.6
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Impact Fee Coordination
3
Objective:
• Review fee updates together to provide a holistic
view of the total cost impact
• Bring impact fees forward per a defined cadence…
2 - 4 years
Type of Fee Fee Name
Capital Expansion Neighborhood Park
Capital Expansion Community Park
Capital Expansion Fire
Capital Expansion Police
Capital Expansion General Government
Capital Expansion Transportation
Utility Water Supply Requirement
Utility Electric Capacity
Utility Sewer Plant Investment
Utility Stormwater Plant Investment
Utility Water Plant Investment
Building
Development
45 Development Review &
Building Permit Fees
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Capital Expansion Fees Update Step II Step III Update
Transportation CEFs Update Step II Update
Electric Capacity Fees Update Update Update
Raw Water Update Update Update
Wet Utility Fees Update Update Update
Development Review Fees Update Update
2.6
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
2017 – Drivers of Fee Increases
4
Capital Expansion Fees (2017 proposed increase 71% to 79%):
• Fee based on replacement cost of existing infrastructure
• Cost of construction, land, water up significantly since last fee revision
Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (2017 proposed changes -32% to 114%):
• Cost of construction up since last fee revision
• Current transportation plan & calculation shift
Electric Capacity Fees (2017 changes approximately -50% to 40%):
• Change in methodology from plan-based to “buy-in”
Raw Water Fees (effective 1/1/2018):
• New fee model - value of the existing water rights portfolio & growth related capital expenses
Large Increase Created Significant Business Community Concern
2.6
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
2017 Recap
5
Council directed stepped implementation for CEF & TCEF in 2017
Success Factors:
• Bringing fees together was good for
understanding the full impact of fees
• Formed citizen/staff working group
Lessons Learned:
• Fee increase recommendations were significant,
caused confusion in the community
• Difficult to explain with different methodologies
and qualitative aspect
Fee Status as of October 2017 Next Steps
CEFs • 75% of fees implemented • Phased in approach - three steps
TCEFs • 80% of fees implemented • Phased in approach - two steps
Electric Capacity • 100% of fees implemented • Every two years
Raw Water • 100% of fees implemented • Every two years
2.6
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
CEFs & TCEFs
Step II with Inflation
6
Fire fees updated July 2018 to reflect calculation error
CEFs & TCEFs Totals with Inflation
Land Use Type Unit
Current
Total
Step II
Total
Step II
Total w
Inflation
%
Increase
%
Increase
w Inflation
Residential,up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $5,845 $7,049 $7,473 21% 28%
Residential,701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $8,779 $10,593 $11,221 21% 28%
Residential,1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $10,283 $12,409 $13,139 21% 28%
Residential,1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $11,099 $13,391 $14,173 21% 28%
Residential,over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $12,147 $14,658 $15,516 21% 28%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $8,430 $10,164 $10,720 21% 27%
Office and Other Services $6,660 $8,028 $8,472 21% 27%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $2,000 $2,411 $2,542 21% 27%
• Step II fees are a 27% to 28% increase from current fee levels (Step I)
• CEF fee increases are 90% of full fee levels recommended in 2017
• Reflects Option A for TCEF fees
2.6
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
7
Wet Utility PIFs
Utility Criteria Current
Charge
2019
Charge $ Change
%
Change
Water $ / GPD $ 4.66 $ 4.99 $ 0.33 7.1%
Wastewater $ / GPD $ 13.98 $ 15.31 $ 1.33 9.5%
Stormwater
Per acre
(adjusted for run-off
factor)
$ 8,217 $ 9,142 $ 925 11.3%
The drivers for the increase on Wet PIFs is the same for all three funds:
• New capital projects increase the overall system value
• Annual increases in construction costs increases the replacement value of existing system
• One-time adjustment of 2.7% included to account for fee implementation being delayed in 2018
2.6
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Fee Working Group
2017 Group Composition
8
Industry
Sean Dougherty
Will Flowers
Fort Collins Board of Realtors
Ann Hutchison
Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce
Greg Mediema
Doug Braden
Homebuilder’s Association of Northern
Colorado
Moira Bright
Spirit Hospitality LLC
Chris Banks
Odell Brewing
Citizen
Diane Cohn
Affordable Housing Board
Rebecca Hill
Water Board
Linda Stanley
Economic Advisory Commission
Ragan Adams
Parks and Recreation Board
Rick Reider
Building Review Board
Staff
Mike Beckstead
Project Sponsor
Tiana Smith
Jennifer Poznanovic
Project Manager/Fee Owner CEFs
Lance Smith
Fee Owner Electric Capacity Fees
Tom Leeson
Fee Owner Development Review Fees
Josh Birks
City Staff/Economic Health
Council
Ross Cunniff
District 5
Council
2.6
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Group Objective
What: Improve understanding with stakeholders of the City’s impact fee
process.
How: Semi-monthly meetings that present information on the
mechanics, alternatives, and impacts of the City’s impact fees
that are approved by City Council.
Why: Foster a common understanding of why and how impact fees
are calculated, in addition to collecting feedback to share with
City Council on future fee calculations and processes.
9
Overview:
2.6
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Meetings & Topics
Commenced in August of 2017 with 14 meetings over the past year
10
• Academic economic research on
impact fees
• A third-party impact fee audit review
• Alternative revenue sources
• Progressive Fees
• Affordable Housing Fee Waivers
• Detailed review of fee methodologies,
inputs, calculations for CEFs, TCEFs &
Utility PIFs
• City revenue sources
• Impact fee comparisons to other
communities
Topics covered:
*Development Review Fees decoupled from the 2018 fee update
2.6
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
11
1. Team & select organizations have a more accurate understanding of why we have
impact fees, how impact fees are calculated & why impact fees change over time
2. Value added from deeper dive into fee details and review of fee audit
3. Citizens involved seemed to be less interested – doesn’t impact current residents
4. Team would prefer lower fees, yet understands the challenges with alternative
revenue sources
5. Recommendations from the group will help the process going forward
Observations
Reflections:
Impact Fee Effort
2.6
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
12
• Review of impact fees together is beneficial
for understanding the full impact of fee updates
• Overall, sound methodologies, calculations
and inputs
• The third-party fee audit revealed how the City
spends and collects impact fees is sound
• Impact fee amenities add to property value,
but views differ as to what extent they impact
housing costs
Key Findings*
• Impact fees are complicated and difficult to
communicate across the community
• Park impact fees are the only category where
impact fees pay for 100 percent of what is built
• Need to identify new revenue sources for park
refresh and maintenance in the future
• If less than recommended is approved,
alternative revenue sources will be needed
Fee Group Findings
*September 2018 Fee Group Position Paper
2.6
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
CEF Audit Review Overview
13
• DPFG* examined whether the City properly collected and spent
$54M in impact fees from 2012 to 2016
• Fees reviewed: 6 Capital Expansion Fees
• No issues with Police, Fire, General Government & Community Parks
• Questions on $3,787k concerning Neighborhood Parks & Transportation
- $3,400k in overhead costs – consistent with Code
- $387k in fee expenditures questions
• Of the $54M only $130k or 0.24% was charged incorrectly
• Maintenance of new parks is charged to CEFs for two years
• Refresh of old parks should not be charged to CEFs - $130k
*Development Planning & Financial Group
2.6
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
14
Recommendations
Group Recommendations Staff Recommendations
1. Better Communication/Outreach & Notice of Fee
Changes
Currently underway with community outreach and
the group as ambassadors of the process
2. Repayment of the $130k Identified in the Impact
Fee Audit
Staff agrees
3. Progressive Fees if/where Possible Explore progressive fees in the 2021 updates
4. Explore Additional Revenue Sources for Parks
Buildout
Current policy is 100% of new parks are funded by
impact fees
5. Investigate Revenue Alternatives to Support
Parks Refresh & Maintenance
Staff agrees that in the future we will need to have
this conversation
6. Explore Stronger Supports for Affordable Housing
Fee Waivers
Currently underway with a dedicated internal
Affordable Housing Task Force
2.6
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
2018 Outreach
15
• Process & cadence of
fee updates
• Step II of 2017
proposed fees
• Findings from Fee
Working Team
Organization Date
Super Issues Forum September 6
Northern Colorado Homebuilder's Association September 11
Fort Collins Board of Relators September 11
2018 Building Code Review Committee September 12
Downtown Development Authority September 13
North Fort Collins Business Association September 26
Parks and Recreation Board September 26
Building Review Board September 27
Affordable Housing Board October 11
Human Relations Board October 11
Planning & Zoning Board October 12
Economic Advisory Commission October 17
Local Legislative Affairs Committee October 26
Housing Catalyst November 6
2.6
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
2018 Outreach: What We Heard
16
Key themes across outreach meetings:
• Supportive of the approach and cadence
• Most not in favor of fee increases - yet not in favor of alternatives
We also heard:
• Supportive of fee group recommendations
• Not a straight forward topic, takes a couple of conversations to set in
• Concerns about attainable housing - it may be less desirable to live here
• Policy questions - development standards going forward, alignment on total cost
(including operations and maintenance)
2.6
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Direction Sought
17
Does Council support impact fee updates as proposed?
If yes, proposed next steps:
• December 4th & 18th: Ordinance readings
• New Fees Effective January 1, 2019
2019 Efforts Planned:
• Utility Fees, Development Fees & Step III for CEFs
2.6
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Backup
18
2.6
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Fee Comparison:
For Median New Home Sales Price $483K*
19
Fort Collins Fees in the Lower-Middle of the Pack
*Does not include raw water *Multiple Listing Service (MLS)
2.6
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Neighboring Cities
Median Sales Comparison with Fees
20
Of Median Home Sales Prices, Wellington Has Higher Fee Percentages…
Timnath Has Lower Fee Percentages
*Does not
include raw
water
2.6
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Fort Collins Fee Stack
Median New Home Sales
21
Fort Collins Fees & Code Cost Impact is Leveling %
of Median New Home Sales Price
*Without raw water
2.6
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Why Do We Have Impact Fees
22
Capital Expansion Fees
• New developments pays a proportionate share of
infrastructure costs to “buy-in” to the level of service
• Fee revenue used to build new service capacity
• In place since 1996
Transportation Capital Expansion Fees
• New development contributes toward the construction of
arterial and collector roadways needed per growth
• Fee revenue used to build out additional infrastructure
• In place since 1979
Utility Plant Investment Fees
• Provides a mechanism for new development to reimburse
existing utility customers for existing infrastructure
• Fee revenue used to build additional infrastructure
The concept of growth paying for the impact of growth is a policy
decision that City Council made and continues to support
Fee Revenue Used to Add Infrastructure Needed Because of Growth
2.6
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Example
23
Fees Provides a Revenue Source to Maintain Current Levels of Service
Community Parks:
• Acres of parks per capita is a measure of level of
service
• The goal is to maintain acres of parks per capita
• As growth occurs, new parks must be added, or park
service levels decline
• A Community Parks Impact Fee generates only
designated revenue used to build the next community
park and to maintain the existing level of service
Capital Expansion
Fees:
• Community parks
• Neighborhood parks
• Fire
• Police
• General government
2.6
Packet Pg. 110
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
CEF Audit Review Findings:
Expenditures on Parks
Neighborhood Parks:
• Approximately $387k of expenditures questioned
• Each expenditure analyzed – findings:
• $257k related to 2 year warranty period
• Utilities, Raw water, replaced failed equipment,
landscaping, etc.
• Expenditures for future parks
• $130k related to improvements to existing
park
24
Park
2 Yr Maint /
Start Up
Equip / Work
Existing Parks
Water's Way $ 211,000
Trailhead $ 18,000
Registry $ 4,000
Radiant $ 13,000
Maple Hill $ 11,000
Lee Martinez $ 4,000
Avery $ 88,000
Other Parks $ 38,000
Total $ 257,000 $ 130,000
2.6
Packet Pg. 111
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
CEFs & TCEFs
2017 Recommendation
25
*Prior Fees January 1, 2017 – September 30, 2017 Fire fees updated July 2018 to reflect calculation error
2017 Fee Recommendation:
• Asset values reflect higher construction costs
• Population & dwelling units per latest census
• Land values reflect higher land cost
Full Fees proposed in 2017
Land Use Type Unit N'hood Park
Comm.
Park Fire Police
Gen.
Gov't Transp. Total
Previous
Total*
% Change
Full Fees
Residential,up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,721 $2,430 $421 $236 $574 $2,205 $7,587 $5,059 50%
Residential,701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,304 $3,253 $570 $319 $774 $4,095 $11,315 $6,182 83%
Residential,1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,516 $3,552 $620 $347 $845 $5,317 $13,197 $7,574 74%
Residential,1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,542 $3,589 $630 $352 $858 $6,217 $14,188 $7,762 83%
Residential,over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,833 $4,001 $701 $392 $955 $6,664 $15,546 $8,094 92%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 0 0 $531 $297 $1,451 $8,113 $10,392 $13,241 -22%
Office and Other Services $531 $297 $1,451 $5,977 $8,256 $9,071 -9%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0 0 $124 $69 $342 $1,929 $2,464 $1,439 71%
2.6
Packet Pg. 112
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
CEFs & TCEFs
Fees Phasing
26
Fire fees updated July 2018 to reflect calculation error
• Step I changes adopted Oct. 1, 2017:
• 75% of CEFs
• Option B TCEFs
• Step II changes proposed:
• 90% of CEFs
• Option A TCEFs
Fees Phasing
Land Use Type Unit
Previous
Total
Current
Total
Step II
Total
Step III
Total
% Change
Full Fees
% Change
Step I
% Change
Step II
% Change
Step III
Residential,up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $5,059 $5,845 $7,049 $7,587 50% 16% 21% 8%
Residential,701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $6,182 $8,779 $10,593 $11,315 83% 42% 21% 7%
Residential,1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $7,574 $10,283 $12,409 $13,197 74% 36% 21% 6%
Residential,1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $7,762 $11,099 $13,391 $14,188 83% 43% 21% 6%
Residential,over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $8,094 $12,147 $14,658 $15,546 92% 50% 21% 6%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $13,241 $8,430 $10,164 $10,392 -22% -36% 21% 2%
Office and Other Services $9,071 $6,660 $8,028 $8,256 -9% -27% 21% 3%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $1,439 $2,000 $2,411 $2,464 71% 39% 21% 2%
2.6
Packet Pg. 113
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Capital Expansion Fees
Step II
27
• Approximately 20% increase from current fee levels
• Proposed fee increases (Step II) are 90% of full fee levels recommend in 2017
• Current fees (Step I) are 75% of full fee levels recommended in 2017
Fire fees updated July 2018 to reflect
calculation error
Step II - 90%of full fee levels
Land Use Type Unit N'hood Park
Comm.
Park Fire Police
Gen.
Gov't
Step II
Total
Current
Total
%
Increase
Residential,up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,549 $2,187 $379 $212 $517 $4,844 $4,018 21%
Residential,701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,074 $2,928 $513 $287 $697 $6,498 $5,387 21%
Residential,1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,264 $3,197 $558 $312 $761 $7,092 $5,879 21%
Residential,1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,288 $3,230 $567 $317 $772 $7,174 $5,949 21%
Residential,over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,550 $3,601 $631 $353 $860 $7,994 $6,627 21%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $0 $0 $478 $267 $1,306 $2,051 $1,709 20%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $0 $0 $112 $62 $308 $482 $402 20%
2.6
Packet Pg. 114
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
28
Transportation Capital Expansion Fees
Option A
Based on the City’s current
Capital Improvement Plans:
• Option B does not increase
program revenue, provides
approximately 80% of necessary
funding to mitigate proportional
impacts of development
• Option A includes the
proportionate cost attributable
for mitigation of the impacts of
new development on the
transportation system, including
new streets, intersection
improvements, and multi-modal
improvements
Option A
Land Use Type Unit Option A Option B
%
Increase
Residential,up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,205 $1,827 21%
Residential,701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $4,095 $3,392 21%
Residential,1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $5,317 $4,404 21%
Residential,1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $6,217 $5,150 21%
Residential,over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $6,664 $5,520 21%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $8,113 $6,721 21%
Office and Other Services $5,977 $4,951 21%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $1,929 $1,598 21%
2.6
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
29
Water PIFs
Water
Rate Class Criteria Current
Charge
2019
Charge $ Change % Change
Residential
Single Family 8600 sq ft $3,558 $3,826 $268 7.5%
Duplex & Multi-family 3435 sq ft $1,364 $1,423 $59 4.3%
Commercial
3/4 Inch by tap size $7,180 $7,940 $760 10.6%
1 Inch by tap size $20,040 $20,960 $920 4.6%
1 1/2 Inch by tap size $43,760 $43,520 ($240) -0.5%
2 Inch by tap size $67,760 $72,470 $4,710 7.0%
2.6
Packet Pg. 116
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
30
Wastewater PIFs
Wastewater
2017 2019 Change in
Customer Class Volume Volume Volume Proposed %
GPD GPD GPD Charge Change
Residential 250 231 -7.6% $ 3,537 1.2%
Duplex / Multi-family 180 169 -6.1% $ 2,588 2.8%
Commercial (meter size)
3/4 510 491 -3.7% $ 7,518 5.5%
1 1,230 1,081 -12.1% $ 16,553 -3.7%
1.5 2,390 2,072 -13.3% $ 31,728 -5.0%
2 4,230 4,298 1.6% $ 65,813 11.3%
2.6
Packet Pg. 117
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
31
Stormwater PIFs
Stormwater
Rate Class Current 2019 $ Change % Change
Residential
Gross Area Developed (sq ft) 8,600 8,600
Common Area Allocation (sq ft) 6,156 6,156
Base Rate (per acre*) $8,217 $9,142
Runoff Coefficient 0.5 0.5
Total Fee $1,392 $1,548 $157 11.3%
Commercial
Gross Area Developed (sq ft) 43,560 43,560
Base Rate (per acre*) $8,217 $9,142
Runoff Coefficient 0.8 0.8
Total Fee $6,574 $7,314 $740 11.3%
2.6
Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
When Are Impact Fees Locked In?
32
• All 6 CEFs locked in at time of building permit application
• Utility PIFs (5) fees assessed at time of payment (not locked in)
• Building permit application
• Lock in impact fees - expect 5 utility fees
Conceptual
Design
Pre-Hearing
Review &
Public Hearing
Final Plan
Review
Final Documents
Certified &
Recorded
Full Building
Permit Review
Building
Inspections &
Completion
Development Review Flowchart
• Building permit pulled
• Pay impact fees
• Development review fees paid
prior to building permit application
2.6
Packet Pg. 119
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Building Permit Applications
June 2017 through July 2018
33
• CEFs & TCEFs
determined at time of
completed building
permit application
• Spike in building
permit applications
prior to fee increases
in October 2017
• Estimated lost
revenue Oct 17-Jul
18 - $600k
2.6
Packet Pg. 120
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
DATE:
STAFF:
November 13, 2018
Ryan Mounce, City Planner
Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager
Timothy Wilder, Service Development Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to update Council on community feedback and reaction to the three City Plan
scenarios. Staff will provide an overview of areas of alignment and areas of tension based on community input,
and implications for developing a preferred scenario based on results.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Feedback from the scenarios phase indicates that residents have wide-ranging opinions about adding density
and housing types to established neighborhoods. How would Council like staff to proceed when
preparing a preferred scenario?
2. Feedback from the scenarios phase indicates that residents desire an expanded and more frequent transit
system while supporting only moderate increases in funding. How would Council like staff to proceed
when preparing a preferred scenario?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
City Plan Timeline and Scenarios Phase
City Plan is an update to Fort Collins’ comprehensive plan, transportation master plan, and transit master plan.
Together, these plans articulate high-level, long-term vision and policy direction for the community. City Plan
directly supports future decision-making and alignment with other City plans and policies, the City’s Strategic
Plan, and the Budgeting for Outcomes Process.
The City Plan process is approximately halfway complete, and consideration of plan adoption is anticipated in
spring 2019. Over the past several months, City Plan has focused on the preparation and communication of three
scenarios illustrating potential changes to Fort Collins’ land-use and transportation systems.
The City Plan scenarios are a conversation and engagement tool to collaborate with and gather input from the
community. The goal is not to select a single scenario, but rather to understand:
• What types of land-use and transportation changes, if any, are desired by the community
• The impacts, benefits, and drawbacks of potential changes
• If changes will help the community better achieve our shared vision, goals, and priorities
Council direction, community feedback, and ongoing staff analysis and evaluation will be used to develop a
preferred scenario to assist in refining and updating City Plan policy direction over the coming months.
Overview of Scenario Options
Staff and the City Plan consultant team developed three scenarios tailored towards feedback received during the
City Plan Visioning Phase and Council direction received at the last work session in July. The scenarios illustrate
3
Packet Pg. 121
November 13, 2018 Page 2
potential changes to help achieve existing goals on climate action and community priorities to enhance
multimodal transportation and better align with future housing demand.
Attachment 1 includes a detailed overview of each scenario, graphics illustrating how each scenario could
change the appearance of different areas of the community, and estimates/evaluation of potential scenario
impacts like cost, travel times, energy use, housing and job capacity, etc.
At the highest level, the scenarios present three different choices for land-use and transportation options: a
baseline option (Scenario 1) that continues our existing direction and development patterns, a targeted approach
(Scenario 2) that emphasizes smaller land-use adjustments and a small increase in funding for transportation
enhancements, and a broader set of changes (Scenario 3) that could result in large changes in community
appearance, density, and enhancements to our multimodal transportation network.
Community Outreach
Similar to other City Plan phases, the engagement process for scenarios has focused on detailed interactions and
depth of understanding while reaching a representative cross-section of the community. Over 1,000 responses
have been received through a combination of City-led events, online activities, and meetings held by City Plan
Ambassadors and Community Partner organizations.
The primary method of gathering feedback was through facilitated, small group discussions, rather than
informational open houses or intercept exchanges. City Plan Ambassadors and Community Partner Organizations
have helped the City reach hundreds of additional participants not customarily represented using traditional
outreach efforts. Specific events and meetings over the last two months have focused on youth and seniors,
Spanish-speaking populations, CSU students, and people with disabilities. Collectively, community members and
our partners have spent over 2,000 hours shaping the long-term future of their community by participating in the
City Plan scenarios phase.
Scenarios Feedback
When designing City Plan scenario events and feedback, staff focused on understanding community feedback on:
• What magnitude of change, if any, is appropriate to help achieve community goals and priorities
• Whether change in the built environment is more appropriate in specific parts of the community than it is in
others
• Levels of support for specific land-use, transportation, and funding strategies
• Identification of the key benefits and drawbacks of each scenario
Attachment 2 contains a summary of all data collected as of early November. While conversations and feedback
have covered a wide range of issues, several areas of agreement and tension have emerged from the community
conversation during this phase of City Plan.
General Areas of Agreement
• Overall, people are willing to consider moderate or big changes to help achieve community priorities for
enhancing transportation, housing attainability, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and equitable access.
• Changes in existing development or growth patterns should directly support community priorities for
attainable housing and housing type diversity, not additional growth or density for its own sake.
• Strong support for higher density development in commercial corridors to support transit, and a greater
diversity of housing types in new residential development.
• Support for additional transportation enhancements and funding; prioritize transit and biking
• Provide a balanced transit system with increased levels of high-frequency service and maintain coverage
for equitable access.
3
Packet Pg. 122
November 13, 2018 Page 3
General Areas of Tension or Concern
• There is a wide range of opinions about the appropriate amount of change in established neighborhoods
and overall community appearance.
• The community’s responsibility to meet future housing demand and the impacts on the region.
• Concern about having a larger population in the future than what we’ve been planning for, and how this
would alter the feel of the community and the City’s ability to provide services.
• Displacement impacts if additional redevelopment occurs, especially on mobile home park residents and
businesses along commercial corridors.
• Impacts on the level of service for parks, natural areas, and protecting sensitive lands if higher density
development occurs more consistently.
• Strong community support to achieve CAP goals, yet even most aggressive transit and land use scenarios
(Scenario 3) saw far less reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) than projected in the CAP Framework.
• Strong support for additional transportation funding, but not enough to achieve the desired transit
system.
• The role of alternative transportation services (Transportation Network Companies, microtransit, etc.) in
the City’s transit system
Key themes of discussion in groups and written comments acknowledge that our current land-use and
transportation patterns are unlikely to result in enough efficiency gains to meet our community goals including
climate action goals, proactively addressing ongoing concerns about housing attainability and housing choices
and taking the next steps in multimodal transportation options.
While many residents expressed support for more ambitious changes to address these goals and priorities,
people also expressed several crucial tradeoffs to consider. The most prominent tradeoffs and drawbacks
discussed included concerns about unintended consequences of making big changes in existing neighborhoods,
the financial resources needed to support transportation improvements, and the overall feel and appearance of
the community if there were a larger population and more consistent urban character in the future.
Many participants also qualified that their support for additional density or land-use changes is contingent upon
such changes directly benefiting affordable/attainable housing and other community priorities. Participants did not
want additional growth and density without tangible, concrete community benefit.
Elements of the preferred scenario (based on community feedback)
• Additional incentives or regulatory changes to support density in commercial and transit corridors
• Ensure that parks, plazas, and other public amenities are emphasized alongside increased density/intensity
• Some level of increased funding to support transportation enhancements
• Zoning changes to increase future housing capacity (rezoning Employment to residential/mixed-use)
• Regulatory changes to promote greater housing options
• Additional support for affordable housing development
• Level of transit service should be determined by the density and types of underlying land-uses
Direction sought from Council
• Appropriate level of change in existing neighborhoods
• Appropriate approach to transit system expansion
Next Steps
City Plan will enter the final phases of the update process in late fall and winter. Work in the coming months will
focus on updating and revising City Plan principles and policies based on a preferred scenario direction. As part
of the outreach and community engagement for policy development, a “Future of Transit” Panel Discussion will
take place at the Lincoln Center on November 28 at 6:00 p.m.
3
Packet Pg. 123
November 13, 2018 Page 4
Staff anticipates extensive outreach and recommendations on the draft plan document to take place in February
and March with community stakeholders. Staff, Plan Ambassadors, and Community Partner organizations will
also be hosting events and meetings to solicit feedback on the draft plan.
City Council next work session will be on February 12, 2019 and will focus on updated and revised City Plan
principles and policies.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Plan Scenarios Overview (PDF)
2. Scenario Results Summary (PDF)
3. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
3
Packet Pg. 124
Scenario 1 illustrates our current path forward, as set forth in the current (2011) version of
City Plan and other adopted plans. While this scenario envisions a city that looks and feels
very similar to today, it could limit our ability to meet other community priorities, such as
those around transportation and housing.
SCENARIO 1-BASELINE
What actions are part of this scenario?
How will Fort Collins be different?
Where will we see the most change?
• Higher density redevelopment will
continue to be focused near Downtown,
in Midtown, and along the MAX corridor.
• New development outside of these areas
will look similar to we’ve seen over the
past decade.
• Roads will continue to expand as needed
to serve new development.
• Our transit network will expand, but
with only a limited number of higher
frequency routes.
• Implementation of the Bicycle Plan
low-stress bike network and the
Pedestrian Plan sidewalk enhancements
will continue as funding allows.
• Funding levels remain similar to today.
Higher density
redevelopment
near Downtown
and CSU
Redevelopment
along College and
the Mason corridor
New residential
and employment
development in
NE Fort Collins
CSU
ATTACHMENT 1
3.1
Packet Pg. 125
Attachment: City Plan Scenarios Overview (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
Housing types
(total capacity
for new units:
41,500)
What are the key benefits and tradeoffs?
What will neighborhoods look like?
What will commercial areas look like?
SCENARIO 1-BASELINE
Does not require significant additional
funding
The look and feel of Fort Collins remains
similar to today
Harder to make progress on
community goals (climate action, housing
affordability, Nature in the City, etc.)
Very limited increases in transit service and
- frequency
What are the impacts?
Average residential
density in
commercial areas
(dwelling units/acre)
Greenhouse gas
reductions from
transportation
(% reduction from
existing)
4%
Reduction
Access to...
Enhanced bike lanes
(% of population within 1/4 mile of
high comfort bicycle facilities)
Transit
(% of population)
Nature
(% of population within
a 10 min walk)
Annual relative cost
for transit, bicycle,
and pedestrian
improvements
(2018 dollars, does not
include transit capital
costs or right-of way
acquisition)
-
+
+
Low Density
(Under 5 du/ac) 22,800
Units
Medium Density
(5-20 du/ac) 14,300
Units
High Density
(Over 20 du/ac) 4,400
Units
7.8
du/ac
Scenario 2 makes targeted changes to achieve community priorities for transportation and
housing. Bus rapid transit expands to more areas and the frequency of some existing bus
routes increases. Additional density is encouraged in commercial and transit corridors, and
we achieve a greater diversity of housing types in new residential development. Existing
neighborhoods mostly stay the same except for allowing accessory dwelling units.
SCENARIO 2-TARGETED CHANGES
What actions are part of this scenario?
How will Fort Collins be different?
Where will we see the most change?
• A greater mix of uses and more dense
development will be encouraged along
existing and planned transit lines to
support transportation investments.
• New residential neighborhoods will sup-
port more varied types of housing, and
established neighborhoods will provide
more housing through accessory units.
• Bus rapid transit will expand to new areas
like North College and West Elizabeth,
and buses on existing routes will arrive
more frequently.
• More resources will be dedicated to bicy-
cle and pedestrian connections between
transit stops and nearby destinations,
making transit a more convenient option.
• Requires additional funding to support
transportation changes
Mixed-use
redevelopment
along N College
Higher density
redevelopment
near Downtown
and CSU
Low and medium
density residential
development in
NE Fort Collins
More residential and
mixed-use
development; less
employment
Pockets of higher
intensity redevelop-
ment along College
and Mason/MAX
corridors
CSU
3.1
Packet Pg. 127
Attachment: City Plan Scenarios Overview (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
Housing types
(total capacity
for new units:
49,500)
What are the key benefits and tradeoffs?
What will neighborhoods look like?
What will commercial areas look like?
SCENARIO 2-TARGETED CHANGES
More high-frequency transit options and a
more coordinated transportation system
Greater diversity of housing types and
overall housing capacity that meets future
demand
Denser development near transit and
allowing more accessory dwelling units could
change the look and feel of the community
Requires additional funding, particularly
- for transportation improvements
What are the impacts?
Average residential
density in commer-
cial areas
(dwelling units/acre)
Greenhouse gas
reductions from
transportation
(% reduction from
existing)
12.0
du/ac
Access to...
Enhanced bike lanes
(% of population within 1/4 mile of
high comfort bicycle facilities)
Transit
(% of population)
Nature
(% of population within
a 10 min walk)
Annual relative cost
for transit, bicycle,
and pedestrian
improvements
(2018 dollars, does not
include transit capital
costs or right-of way
acquisition)
-
+
+
6%
Reduction
69%
Low Density
(Under 5 du/ac) 22,200
Units
Medium Density
(5-20 du/ac) 17,100
Units
High Density
Scenario 3 results in changes to more areas of the community than Scenarios 1 and 2.
Transportation investment is increased by expanding our bike and walking infrastructure,
adding bus rapid transit in additional corridors and increasing the frequency and coverage
of bus routes. Over time, more commercial corridors would see redevelopment of 3-5
story buildings. Changes to established neighborhoods would allow additional types of
housing. Scenario 3 requires much higher investment and new funding sources.
SCENARIO 3-BROAD CHANGES
What actions are part of this scenario?
How will Fort Collins be different?
Where will we see the most change?
• A greater mix of uses and the densest
level of development will be encouraged
along existing and planned transit lines.
• Duplexes and accessory units will be
allowed in some areas where only sin-
gle-family houses are allowed now.
• New residential neighborhoods will
include more multifamily buildings,
houses on smaller lots, townhomes, etc.
• Bus rapid transit will expand to Harmony
Road and Mulberry Street
• Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure
will be improved on new and existing
roads, making biking and walking a more
convenient way to move around the city.
• Will require significant capital investment
and funding for ongoing operations and
maintenance.
Mixed-use
redevelopment
along N College
Higher density
redevelopment near
Downtown and CSU
Low and medium
density residential
development in NE
Fort Collins
More residential and
mixed-use develompent;
less employment
CSU
Consistent higher
intensity redevelop-
ment along College
and Mason/MAX
corridors
Infill and
redevelopment
along Harmony
and Mulberry
(long-term)
3.1
Packet Pg. 129
Attachment: City Plan Scenarios Overview (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
Housing types
(total capacity
for new units:
62,000)
What are the key benefits and tradeoffs?
What will neighborhoods look like?
What will commercial areas look like?
SCENARIO 3-BROAD CHANGES
Transit, walking, and biking are all more
convenient options for daily travel; reduces
need for a vehicle
Greater diversity of housing types in new
and existing neighborhoods; overall
housing capacity exceeds future demand
Could increase the city’s population at
buildout beyond 2040
Requires significant funding for infrastruc-
ture - improvements and ongoing operations
What are the impacts?
Average residential
density in
commercial areas
(dwelling units/acre)
Greenhouse gas
reductions from
transportation
(% reduction from
existing)
9%
Reduction
18.9
du/ac
Access to...
Enhanced bike lanes
(% of population within 1/4 mile of
high comfort bicycle facilities)
Transit
(% of population)
Nature
(% of population within
a 10 min walk)
-
+
+
72%
Low Density
(Under 5 du/ac) 16,200
Units
Medium Density
(5-20 du/ac) 22,200
Units
High Density
(Over 20 du/ac) 23,600
Units
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT and regional
routes
within 1/4 mile of all transit
The metrics below illustrate how well each scenario would meet our future needs for
housing, jobs, and transportation. The metrics also show how much the proposed
transportation improvements could cost and how much progress we could make toward
achieving community goals for climate action and access to amenities and services.
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
How do the scenarios compare?
PERFORMANCE METRICS
HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE?
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Overall Mix of Land Uses
The overall mix of land uses is fairly consistent between
the three scenarios. Primary distinctions lie in the
amount of employment and industrial land, and in
the amount of land allocated to suburban mixed-use
districts versus urban mixed-use districts. A more
detailed breakdown and discussion of these differences
is reflected in the metrics below.
City and
Growth
Management
Area
City and
Growth
Management
Area
8%
30%
15%
26%
0.5%
5%
0.5%
0.9%
6.4%
3.9%
2.4%
0.6%
City and
Growth
Management
Area
8%
30%
17%
26%
1.7% 4.3% 0.5%
0.9%
4.5%
4%
2.2%
0.6%
City and
Growth
Management
Area
8%
30%
17%
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
T)
n
m
2
ng
as
ce.
e
se
by
se.
in
in
ce.
/
h)
is
ty
ee
os
an
n.
s
os,
os
cle
ke
ys.
e
s
es
es
st
es.
g
a
s
e
p
all
in
m
rs,
le
se
y).
y
er
ue
ay
a
s 1
2.
Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit
VMT
per person
60.7%
17.4%
12%
23
2,000+
TOTAL
PARTICIPANTS
PARTICIPANT
HOURS
1,022
20.5%
UNDER 35
YEARS OLD
80521
21.5%
80524
22.1%
80525
24.9%
80526
21.7%
80528
5.7%
Geographic Distribution of Participants
By zip code
OTHER
4.1%
CITY PLAN - SCENARIO INPUT SUMMARY
Data and demographic information collected from:
• City Plan Public Workshops
• Plan Ambassador & Community Partner Organization Events
• Online Questionnaire
• Board & Commission Presentations & Discussion
• City Plan Working Group Meetings
ATTACHMENT 2
3.2
Packet Pg. 133
Attachment: Scenario Results Summary (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
LAND USE, HOUSING, DEVELOPMENT Do Not
Support
Some
Support
Moderate
Support
Strongly
Support No Opinion
Incentivize greater density along our commercial corridors to
support existing or planned transit 11.9% 14.1% 22.1% 50.3% 1.6%
Require greater density along our commercial corridors to support
existing or planned transit 15.4% 17.8% 22.3% 43.1% 1.4%
Incentivize a greater diversity of housing types, such as small‐lot
single family homes, townhomes, or accessory units in future
neighborhoods 11.2% 13.7% 24.9% 49.3% 0.9%
Require a greater diversity of housing types, such as small‐lot single
family homes, townhomes, or accessory units in future
neighborhoods 17.2% 15.2% 23.9% 42.3% 1.4%
Allow a limited number of new housing types in established
neighborhoods, such as accessory units or duplexes 19.8% 18.4% 25.0% 33.7% 3.0%
Rezone some areas of existing employment zoning to residential
and mixed‐use 7.6% 18.5% 29.4% 39.0% 5.5%
TRANSPORTATION Do Not
Support Some Support
Moderate
Support Strong Support No Opinion
What is your level of support for additional funding for
transportation (cars, transit, bike, walking)? The most likely source
of additional funding is from higher taxes and fees. 8.2% 12.9% 23.6% 54.3% 0.9%
Decrease No Change Increase Major Increase No Opinion
How much spending should the community dedicate to
transportation infrastructure and operations compared to today? 1.9% 13.4% 53.6% 29.7% 1.6%
Roads / Cars Bikes Sidewalks /
Trails Transit No Opinion
Where would you prioritize any additional transportation funding
for the future? Pick your top two. 14.5% 27.6% 23.7% 33.6% 0.6%
Productivity Balance Coverage No Opinion
Should Fort Collins prioritize transit service where ridership is
highest (productivity), or focus on providing coverage throughout
the community? 19.3% 52.0% 26.6% 2.0%
COMMUNITY GOALS ‐ Appropriate amount of change No
Change Small Changes
Moderate
Changes Big Changes No Opinion
Enhancing transportation & mobility 3.1% 9.4% 27.9% 58.8% 0.8%
Improving housing attainability and providing different types of
housing 6.4% 15.1% 30.1% 47.1% 1.2%
Providing equtiable access to services and community resources 5.6% 14.7% 39.4% 38.9% 1.4%
Reducing our greenhouse gas emissions 7.8% 8.6% 26.3% 56.4% 0.9%
Neighborhoods 8.8% 33.6% 52.0% 4.8% 0.8%
Commercial Corridors 0.0% 5.6% 26.2% 67.5% 0.8%
Downtown 6.3% 34.1% 42.9% 15.1% 1.6%
Undeveloped land (does NOT include protected lands like
floodplains, parks, or natural areas) 6.5% 9.7% 37.1% 45.2% 1.6%
Parts of the community that are already developed 4.0% 23.8% 57.9% 13.5% 0.8%
Overall community appearance 2.4% 32.5% 56.3% 6.3% 2.4%
Community funding/taxes 1.6% 17.5% 54.0% 24.6% 2.4%
ALL DATA ‐ PERCENTAGE
3.2
Packet Pg. 134
1
City Plan Scenarios
ATTACHMENT 3
3.3
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
2
City Plan includes updates to:
Comprehensive
Plan
Transportation
Master Plan
Transit
Master Plan
3.3
Packet Pg. 136
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
Phases
3
1
2
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Trends, issues & opportunities,
community priorities
VISIONING
Update & reconfirm a shared
community vision for the future
3 SCENARIOS
Evaluate different community scenarios
to achieve vision & priorities
4 DRAFT PLAN & POLICIES
Develop policies & plan document
5 ADOPTION
Share, reconfirm & update draft
plan with the community
Adoption anticipated
Spring 2019
3.3
Packet Pg. 137
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
4
Scenarios Overview - Scenario 1
Maintains similar land-use & transportation
policies & resources
Land Use & Development
§ Higher intensity near Downtown, CSU
§ New development in NE Fort Collins
Transportation
§ Focus on low-stress bike network
buildout
§ Congestion management
§ Limited transit enhancements
3.3
Packet Pg. 138
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
5
Scenarios Overview - Scenario 2
Targeted changes to land-use & transit;
requires additional resources
Land Use & Development
§ Higher intensity near Downtown, CSU,
commercial corridors
§ Shift some employment land to residential
§ Neighborhoods: ADUs/duplex
Transportation
§ Transit: reduce coverage to increase
frequencies on some routes
§ Congestion management
§ Greater emphasis on bike/ped
3.3
Packet Pg. 139
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
6
Scenarios Overview - Scenario 3
Broader changes to land-use & transit; major
additional funding required
Land Use & Development
§ More consistent higher intensity near
Downtown, CSU, commercial corridors
§ Shift some employment land to residential
§ Neighborhoods: ADUs + ‘plexes’
Transportation
§ Transit: large expansion in frequency &
coverage
§ Congestion management
§ Greater emphasis on enhanced infrastructure for bike/ped
3.3
Packet Pg. 140
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
Community Feedback
7
§ 1,000+ responses
§ Workshops, ambassador/partner events, online questionnaire
§ Desired feedback
§ Support for different types of land-use and transportation changes
and funding
§ Impacts, benefits, tradeoffs of potential changes
§ Goal is to understand all scenario elements; not to select a single scenario
§ Community feedback and Council direction used to craft preferred scenario
3.3
Packet Pg. 141
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
Community Feedback
8
General Areas of Agreement
§ Support for moderate / big changes to achieve community priorities – GHG
reductions, transportation improvements, housing, equity
§ Strong support for higher density development in commercial corridors to
support transit
§ Strong support for greater diversity of housing types in new residential
development
3.3
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
Community Feedback
9
General Areas of Agreement
§ Support for additional transportation enhancements and funding;
§ Prioritize transit and bicycling if additional funding is available
§ Increase levels of high-frequency service while maintaining coverage
3.3
Packet Pg. 143
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
Community Feedback
10
General Areas of Tension or Concern
§ Appropriate amount of change in established neighborhoods
§ Responsibility and ability to meet future housing demand; regional impacts
§ Displacement impacts in commercial corridors (residents & businesses)
§ Change in community character and resources to serve a larger population
§ Impacts and level of service on parks, natural areas & sensitive lands
if there is higher density / more people
3.3
Packet Pg. 144
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
Community Feedback
11
General Areas of Tension & Concern
§ Role of transportation services (e.g. microtransit) in our transit system
§ Mismatch between desired transportation system and the funding / land-use
changes required to support it
§ Strong support to achieve CAP goals, but the most aggressive scenario does
not meet assumptions for vehicle miles traveled reduction
3.3
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
Community Feedback
12
Other comments & themes
§ Additional density or higher population should be tied to creating
attainable/affordable housing or other community priorities
§ Concern about rapid changes in community appearance and feel; losing the
existing ‘vibe’ of Fort Collins
§ Impact of funding decisions particularly on lower income residents
3.3
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
Preferred Scenario
13
Elements of a preferred scenario (based on community feedback):
§ Land Use Code changes to support density in commercial and transit corridors, and
housing options in new development
§ Ensure parks, plaza, & public amenities are emphasized alongside increased density
§ Some level of increased funding to support transportation enhancements
§ Zoning changes to increase housing capacity & types (shift some employment to
residential/mixed-use)
§ Additional support for attainable & affordable housing development
§ Level of transit service should be determined by the density and types of underlying
land-uses
3.3
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
Change in established neighborhoods
14
Appropriate amount of change in established neighborhoods
Allow a limited number of new housing types in established neighborhood, such
as accessory units or duplexes
19.8% 18.4% 25.0% 33.7% 3.0%
Do not
Support
Some
Support
Moderate
Support
Strong
Support
No
Opinion
§ LIV 7.3 – Encourage Accessory Housing Unit Development (existing policy direction)
§ Commonly requested as a way to add smaller units in existing neighborhoods
§ Concern about change in character/appearance & unintended consequences
3.3
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
Change in established neighborhoods
15
GMA
Vacant Lands
Commercial Corridor
Zoning
§ Majority of the community is already developed
§ Over 2/3rds of our land is dedicated to open space,
established neighborhoods & institutional uses
§ If change in established neighborhoods is not
appropriate, we will need to focus on:
§ Vacant or undeveloped lands
§ Commercial and mixed-use corridors
3.3
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
Community Feedback
16
Desired transportation system & funding support
Support for additional funding for transportation (higher taxes and/or fees)
8.2% 12.9% 23.6% 54.3% 0.9%
Do not
Support
Some
Support
Moderate
Support
Strong
Support
No
Opinion
1.9% 13.4% 53.6% 29.7% 1.6%
Decrease
No
Change Increase
Major
Increase
No
Opinion
How much should the community dedicate to transportation compared to today?
3.3
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
17
Direction Sought
Feedback from the scenarios phase indicates that residents have wide-
ranging opinions about adding density and housing types to established
neighborhoods.
1. How would Council like staff to proceed when preparing a preferred
scenario?
Feedback from the scenarios phase indicates that residents desire an
expanded and more frequent transit system while supporting only moderate
increases in funding.
2. How would Council like staff to proceed when preparing a preferred
scenario?
3.3
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
18
RESOURCE SLIDES
3.3
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
Scenario Indicators
19
Additional Housing & Employment Capacity
3.3
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
Scenario Indicators
20
Avg. Density in Mixed-Use Areas
3.3
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
Scenario Indicators
21
Character of Commercial / Mixed-Use Districts
3.3
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
Scenario Indicators
22
Housing Demand & Supply
3.3
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
Scenario Indicators
23
Vehicle Miles Traveled
3.3
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
Scenario Indicators
24
Per Capita Household Water Consumption
3.3
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
Scenario Indicators
25
Per Capita Household Building Energy
3.3
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
Community Character
26
Neighborhoods
Scenario 1
Scenario 2 Scenario 3
3.3
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
Community Character
27
Employment Areas
Scenario 1
Scenario 2 Scenario 3
3.3
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
Community Character
28
Neighborhood Commercial
Areas
Scenario 1
Scenario 2 Scenario 3
3.3
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
Community Character
29
Neighborhood Commercial
Areas
Scenario 1
Scenario 2 Scenario 3
3.3
Packet Pg. 163
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
Attachment: Scenario Results Summary (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
7.6%
1.8%
3.32 23.4
TOTAL:
19.75
99%
All
Facilities
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
33%
Average Daily Riders Per Hour Average Daily Riders Per Mile
15,000
4,300,000
Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership
2.8
35
26,000
7,900,000
5.4
68
28,000
7,900,000
5.6
70
60,000
17,200,000
6.1
85
57.5%
8%
3.3%
16.3%
14.9%
55.7%
9.3%
3.5%
15.9%
15.6%
51.8%
10.9%
6.2%
14.9%
16.2%
99%
All
Facilities
38%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
72%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
98%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lane
171
VMT
per person
VMT
per person
VMT
per person
1.6 27 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 mile
per
minutes per mile hou
.31
30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
10.66 0 0
19.8
TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
37.26 4.02 0
0
TOTAL:
24.
61
113.4 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
54 75.97
TOT
12% 22% 22% 31%
* A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions
Protected Bike Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
Bike Lane
75%
25%
Existing Missing
80%
20%
90%
10%
100%
PERFORMANCE METRICS
HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE?
LLINS FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
LLINS FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
EXISTING SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
les Traveled (VMT)
per person
would decrease in Scenario 1 from
ecrease even further in Scenarios 2
a result of successively increasing
density in each scenario, as well as
e infrastructure and transit service.
Mode Share
s made by vehicle would decrease
nario, while the percent of trips by
ng, biking, transit) would increase.
t mode share increase the most in
a result of the robust investment in
e infrastructure and transit service.
avel Time (minutes/
e) and Speed (mph)
vehicular travel time and speed is
six key corridors across the City
y slightly, if at all, across all three
little variation between scenarios
ravel time. These numbers are an
indicator of congestion.
of Bicycle Facilities
facilities increases in all scenarios,
onal miles of facilities in Scenarios
Scenario 3. The addition of bicycle
protected bike lanes, buffered bike
nes, and neighborhood greenways.
dents Near Bicycle
Facilities
percent of the population that lives
ow-stress bicycle facility increases
with Scenario 3 providing the best
s to high comfort bicycle facilities.
Population Living
n a Walkable Area
rcent of Sidewalks
Complete
Transit Ridership
would increase from today in all
The ridership increase is similar in
nario 2 (about 80% growth from
ave similar levels of service hours,
fferently across the system, while
ult in the most dramatic increase
out a 300% increase from today).
ransit Productivity
ity, as measured by ridership per
ce mile and ridership per revenue
increase significantly from today
s. Transit productivity would be a
ario 3 as compared to Scenarios 1
and 2.
idents Near Transit
population with access to transit
m the 2012 data in Scenario 1 and
os 2 and 3 with increasing service
d the addition of new BRT routes.
C
NSPORTATION AND MOBILITY OPTIONS
ormance metrics below illustrate how well each scenario accommodates multimodal transportation
Key distinctions for each scenario from a transportation and mobility standpoint include the level of
nt in transit, biking and walking infrastructure and service improvements.
Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit
VMT
per person
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT and regional
routes
within 1/4 mile of all transit
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT and regional
routes
within 1/4 mile of all transit
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT, regional transit
and mobility innovation
services+
within 1/4 mile of all transit
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT, regional transit
and mobility innovation
services+
within 1/4 mile of all transit
60.7%
17.4%
12%
7.6%
1.8%
3.32 23.4
TOTAL:
19.75
99%
All
Facilities
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
33%
32%
Average Daily Riders Per Hour Average Daily Riders Per Mile
15,000
4,300,000
Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership
2.8
35
26,000
7,900,000
5.4
68
28,000
7,900,000
5.6
70
60,000
17,200,000
6.1
85
57.5%
8%
3.3%
16.3%
14.9%
55.7%
9.3%
3.5%
15.9%
15.6%
51.8%
10.9%
6.2%
14.9%
16.2%
99%
All
Facilities
38%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
72%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
98%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
171
VMT
per person
VMT
per person
VMT
per person
1.6 27 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour
.31
30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
10.66 0 0
19.8
TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
37.26 4.02 0
0
TOTAL:
24.72
61.12
113.4 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
54 75.97
TOTAL:
12% 22% 22% 31%
* A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions
Protected Bike Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
Bike Lane
75%
25%
Existing Missing
80%
20%
90%
10%
100%
82% 70%
75%
51%
87%
24% 19%
PERFORMANCE METRICS
HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE?
LINS UTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
LINS UTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
EXISTING SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
es Traveled (VMT)
per person
ould decrease in Scenario 1 from
ease even further in Scenarios 2
result of successively increasing
nsity in each scenario, as well as
nfrastructure and transit service.
Mode Share
made by vehicle would decrease
rio, while the percent of trips by
g, biking, transit) would increase.
mode share increase the most in
esult of the robust investment in
nfrastructure and transit service.
vel Time (minutes/
) and Speed (mph)
hicular travel time and speed is
x key corridors across the City
slightly, if at all, across all three
tle variation between scenarios
vel time. These numbers are an
indicator of congestion.
Bicycle Facilities
cilities increases in all scenarios,
nal miles of facilities in Scenarios
enario 3. The addition of bicycle
otected bike lanes, buffered bike
s, and neighborhood greenways.
ents Near Bicycle
Facilities
cent of the population that lives
w-stress bicycle facility increases
th Scenario 3 providing the best
to high comfort bicycle facilities.
Population Living
a Walkable Area
cent of Sidewalks
Complete
Transit Ridership
would increase from today in all
e ridership increase is similar in
ario 2 (about 80% growth from
e similar levels of service hours,
rently across the system, while
t in the most dramatic increase
t a 300% increase from today).
ansit Productivity
y, as measured by ridership per
mile and ridership per revenue
crease significantly from today
Transit productivity would be a
o 3 as compared to Scenarios 1
C
NSPORTATION AND MOBILITY OPTIONS
mance metrics below illustrate how well each scenario accommodates multimodal transportation
ey distinctions for each scenario from a transportation and mobility standpoint include the level of
t in transit, biking and walking infrastructure and service improvements.
Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit
VMT
per person
60.7%
17.4%
12%
7.6%
1.8%
3.32 23.4
TOTAL:
19.75
99%
All
Facilities
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
33%
15,000
4,300,000
Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership
2.8
35
26,000
7,900,000
5.4
68
28,000
7,900,000
5.6
70
60,000
17,200,000
6.1
85
57.5%
8%
3.3%
16.3%
14.9%
55.7%
9.3%
3.5%
15.9%
15.6%
51.8%
10.9%
6.2%
14.9%
16.2%
99%
All
Facilities
38%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
72%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
98%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
171
VMT
per person
VMT
per person
VMT
per person
1.6 27 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour
.31
30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
10.66 0 0
19.8
TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
37.26 4.02 0
0
TOTAL:
24.72
61.12
113.4 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
54 75.97
TOTAL:
12% 22% 22% 31%
* A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions
Protected Bike Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
Bike Lane
75%
25%
Existing Missing
80%
20%
90%
10%
100%
PERFORMANCE METRICS
HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE?
LINS UTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
LINS UTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
EXISTING SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
es Traveled (VMT)
per person
ould decrease in Scenario 1 from
ease even further in Scenarios 2
result of successively increasing
nsity in each scenario, as well as
nfrastructure and transit service.
Mode Share
made by vehicle would decrease
rio, while the percent of trips by
g, biking, transit) would increase.
mode share increase the most in
esult of the robust investment in
nfrastructure and transit service.
vel Time (minutes/
) and Speed (mph)
hicular travel time and speed is
ix key corridors across the City
slightly, if at all, across all three
tle variation between scenarios
vel time. These numbers are an
indicator of congestion.
Bicycle Facilities
acilities increases in all scenarios,
nal miles of facilities in Scenarios
enario 3. The addition of bicycle
otected bike lanes, buffered bike
s, and neighborhood greenways.
ents Near Bicycle
Facilities
cent of the population that lives
w-stress bicycle facility increases
th Scenario 3 providing the best
to high comfort bicycle facilities.
Population Living
a Walkable Area
cent of Sidewalks
Complete
Transit Ridership
would increase from today in all
e ridership increase is similar in
ario 2 (about 80% growth from
e similar levels of service hours,
rently across the system, while
t in the most dramatic increase
t a 300% increase from today).
ansit Productivity
y, as measured by ridership per
mile and ridership per revenue
crease significantly from today
Transit productivity would be a
o 3 as compared to Scenarios 1
C
NSPORTATION AND MOBILITY OPTIONS
mance metrics below illustrate how well each scenario accommodates multimodal transportation
ey distinctions for each scenario from a transportation and mobility standpoint include the level of
t in transit, biking and walking infrastructure and service improvements.
Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit
VMT
per person
60.7%
17.4%
12%
7.6%
1.8%
3.32 23.4
TOTAL:
19.75
99%
All
Facilities
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
33%
15,000
4,300,000
Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership
2.8
35
26,000
7,900,000
5.4
68
28,000
7,900,000
5.6
70
60,000
17,200,000
6.1
85
57.5%
8%
3.3%
16.3%
14.9%
55.7%
9.3%
3.5%
15.9%
15.6%
51.8%
10.9%
6.2%
14.9%
16.2%
99%
All
Facilities
38%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
72%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
98%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
171
VMT
per person
VMT
per person
VMT
per person
1.6 27 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour
.31
30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
10.66 0 0
19.8
TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
37.26 4.02 0
0
TOTAL:
24.72
61.12
113.4 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
54 75.97
TOTAL:
12% 22% 22% 31%
* A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions
Protected Bike Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
Bike Lane
75%
25%
Existing Missing
80%
20%
90%
10%
100%
he most in
estment in
sit service.
nutes/
(mph)
d speed is
ss the City
s all three
scenarios
ers are an
ongestion.
cilities
scenarios,
Scenarios
of bicycle
ffered bike
greenways.
icycle
cilities
n that lives
y increases
g the best
e facilities.
Living
Area
walks
mplete
ership
oday in all
s similar in
owth from
vice hours,
tem, while
c increase
m today).
ctivity
ership per
er revenue
rom today
would be a
cenarios 1
and 2.
ransit
to transit
nario 1 and
ng service
RT routes.
Cost*
OT include
uire right-
costs and
pedestrian
astructure.
M=millions.
Transit: $25,700,000
Bike: $436,000
Total: $26,100,000
Transit: $30,100,000
Bike: $470,000
Total: $30,600,000
Transit: $33,500,000
Bike: $1,900,000
Total: $35,400,000
Transit: $77,000,000
Bike: $6,000,000
Total: $83,000,000
Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT and regional
routes
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except regional routes
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT and regional
routes
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except regional routes
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT, regional transit
and mobility innovation
services+
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except regional routes
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT, regional transit
and mobility innovation
services+
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except regional routes
3 23.4
TOTAL:
20
99%
All
Facilities
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
33%
32%
82%
Average Daily Riders Per Hour Average Daily Riders Per Mile
15,000
4,300,000
Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership
2.8
35
26,000
7,900,000
5.4
68
28,000
8,000,000
5.6
70
51,000
14,900,000
6.5
87
15.9%
14.9%
99%
All
Facilities
38%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
72%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
98%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
+. Mobility Innovation Services will be developed in the future but are intended to be first-last-mile connections to the
transit system for lower-density areas in Fort Collins. Examples could include pick-up/drop-off services (similar to Lyft
or Urber) to transit stops, microtransit shuttles, or other connections that could be facilitated by new transportation
technologies in the future. In general, these services have lower operating costs than fixed route services in low-density
171
d based
striping, and therefore negligible at this high level of an estimate. The cost per mile of
protected bike lane or buffered bike lane is about $1,000,000.
3. Over 20 years, this equates to $9,273,233 for Scenario 1, $47,779,086 for Scenario 2
1.6 27 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour
.4
20 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
11 0 0
TOTAL: 31 0 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
37 4 0
TOTAL: 41 236
61
45 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
54 76
TOTAL:
12% 22% 22% 31%
* A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions
Protected Bike Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
Bike Lane
75%
25%
Existing Missing
80%
20%
90%
10%
100%
93%
82% 70%
71%
75%
51%
87%
85%
24% 19%
$0.4 M
$15 M
TOTAL: $15.8 M
$0.4 M
Transit Bike Walking Total
$0.5 M
$17 - 20 M
TOTAL: $18 - 21 M
$0.5 M
$2 M
$17 - 20 M
TOTAL: $20.4 - 23.4 M
$1.4 M
$6 M
$25 - 30 M
TOTAL: $33.3 - 38.3 M
$2.3 M
Shared Street
(Existing)
Miles of new bike facilities Miles of new bike facilities Miles of new bike facilities
Miles of new bike facilities
Transportation Energy and
GHG Emissions
Annual Relative Cost
Percent of Population Living
Within a Walkable Area
Residents Near Transit
PERFORMANCE METRICS
HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE?
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Access to Nature
Access to parks, open space, and other natural areas
plays a key role in supporting a good quality of life for
residents , by providing opportunities for recreation,
physical activity, and experiencing nature and the
natural environment. In addition, studies have found a
link between exposure to nature and improved mental
health. By focusing development of housing within close
proximity of our existing greenspaces, we can increase
the number of residents that are able to reach nature
within a 10-minute walking distance.
67% 69% 72%
Access to Mixed-Use Areas
Expanding residents’ access to mixed-use areas in
the city is an important goal for a number of reasons.
Expand access means that less people need to drive to
reach every-day services they use, such as the grocery
store, restaurants, medical services, and retail shops.
While this might not be an issue for those with cars who
are happy to drive across town to reach these areas,
some of our residents do not own cars or cannot drive,
and are not so mobile. Second, mixed-use areas near
residential areas provides opportunities for residents to
live near where they work, and/or work near where they
live. As an added bonus, reducing the need to drive to
these locations, and allowing more residents to walk,
will help us move towards our climate action goals.
Transit Access for Vulnerable
Populations
HEALTH AND EQUITY
Housing units, jobs, vehicle miles traveled, carbon emissions. It is important not to forget that a crucial
component of what makes Fort Collins a great community is its residents. As we look to the future, we’ll want to
consider how each of the scenarios impacts us, particularly those of use who are most vulnerable or in greatest
need of access to transit, parks and open space, medical services, etc. At the same time that we must ensure the
benefits future growth creates are distributed equitably across our community, we must also be sure that one
group is not disproportionately impacted over others by the changes to our city envisioned in the scenarios.
Downtown District Urban Mixed-Use District Suburban Mixed-Use District Neighborhood Mixed-Use District
Access to Nature
Transit: $25,700,000
Bike: $436,000
Total: $26,100,000
Transit: $30,100,000
Bike: $470,000
Total: $30,600,000
Transit: $33,500,000
Bike: $1,900,000
Total: $35,400,000
Transit: $77,000,000
Bike: $6,000,000
Total: $83,000,000
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT and regional
routes
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except regional routes
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT and regional
routes
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except regional routes
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT, regional transit
and mobility innovation
services+
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except regional routes
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of al
except BRT, regiona
and mobility innova
services+
within 1/4 mile of al
except regional rou
99%
33%
32%
$77,000,000
$83,000,000
$6,000,000
Transit Bike Total
$33,500,000
$1,900,000
$30,100,000
$30,600,000
$470,000
$25,700,000
$26,100,000
$436,000
82%
Average Daily Riders Per Hour Average Daily Riders Per Mile
15,000
4,300,000
Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership
2.8
35
26,000
7,900,000
5.4
68
28,000
7,900,000
5.6
70
60,000
17,200,000
6.1
85
99%
38%
99%
72%
99%
98
+. Mobility Innovation Services will be developed in the future but are intended to be first-last-mile connections to the transit system for lower-density
areas in Fort Collins. Examples could include pick-up/drop-off services (similar to Lyft or Urber) to transit stops, microtransit shuttles, or other con-
nections that could be facilitated by new transportation technologies in the future. In general, these services have lower operating costs than fixed route
services in low-density areas.
osts for each scenario were based on the asusmption that the cost for neighborhood greenways
lanes was minimal, consisting only of signing and striping, and therefore negligible at this high
n estimate. The cost per mile of protected bike lane or buffered bike lane is about $1,000,000.
0 years, this equates to $9,273,233 for Scenario 1, $47,779,086 for Scenario 2 and $169,017,055
rio 3.
st includes the cost for construction, excluding right of way.
an Cost:
st includes the cost for construction, excluding right of way.
0 years, this equates to $9,321,100 for Scenario 1, $27,611,550 for Scenario 2 and $46,605,566 for
3.
12% 22% 22% 31%
* A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions
75%
25%
Existing Missing
80%
20%
90%
10%
10
93%
82% 70%
71%
75%
51%
87%
85%
24% 19%
Transit: $25,700,000
Bike: $436,000
Total: $26,100,000
Transit: $30,100,000
Bike: $470,000
Total: $30,600,000
Transit: $33,500,000
Bike: $1,900,000
Total: $35,400,000
Transit: $77,000,000
Bike: $6,000,000
Total: $83,000,000
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT and regional
routes
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except regional routes
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT and regional
routes
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except regional routes
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT, regional transit
and mobility innovation
services+
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except regional routes
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of al
except BRT, regiona
and mobility innova
services+
within 1/4 mile of al
except regional rou
99%
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
33%
32%
$77,000,000
$83,000,000
$6,000,000
Transit Bike Total
$33,500,000
$1,900,000
$30,100,000
$30,600,000
$470,000
$25,700,000
$26,100,000
$436,000
82%
Average Daily Riders Per Hour Average Daily Riders Per Mile
15,000
4,300,000
Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership
2.8
35
26,000
7,900,000
5.4
68
28,000
7,900,000
5.6
70
60,000
17,200,000
6.1
85
99%
Facilities
38%
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
Facilities
72%
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
Facilities
98
(protecte
buffered bi
+. Mobility Innovation Services will be developed in the future but are intended to be first-last-mile connections to the transit system for lower-density
areas in Fort Collins. Examples could include pick-up/drop-off services (similar to Lyft or Urber) to transit stops, microtransit shuttles, or other con-
nections that could be facilitated by new transportation technologies in the future. In general, these services have lower operating costs than fixed route
services in low-density areas.
osts for each scenario were based on the asusmption that the cost for neighborhood greenways
lanes was minimal, consisting only of signing and striping, and therefore negligible at this high
n estimate. The cost per mile of protected bike lane or buffered bike lane is about $1,000,000.
0 years, this equates to $9,273,233 for Scenario 1, $47,779,086 for Scenario 2 and $169,017,055
rio 3.
st includes the cost for construction, excluding right of way.
an Cost:
st includes the cost for construction, excluding right of way.
0 years, this equates to $9,321,100 for Scenario 1, $27,611,550 for Scenario 2 and $46,605,566 for
3.
12% 22% 22% 31%
* A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions
75%
25%
Existing Missing
80%
20%
90%
10%
10
93%
82% 70%
71%
75%
51%
87%
85%
24% 19%
PERFORMANCE METRICS
HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE?
LLINS FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
LLINS FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
EXISTING SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
es Traveled (VMT)
per person
would decrease in Scenario 1 from
crease even further in Scenarios 2
a result of successively increasing
density in each scenario, as well as
infrastructure and transit service.
Mode Share
s made by vehicle would decrease
nario, while the percent of trips by
ng, biking, transit) would increase.
t mode share increase the most in
result of the robust investment in
infrastructure and transit service.
avel Time (minutes/
e) and Speed (mph)
ehicular travel time and speed is
six key corridors across the City
y slightly, if at all, across all three
ittle variation between scenarios
avel time. These numbers are an
indicator of congestion.
f Bicycle Facilities
facilities increases in all scenarios,
onal miles of facilities in Scenarios
Scenario 3. The addition of bicycle
rotected bike lanes, buffered bike
es, and neighborhood greenways.
dents Near Bicycle
Facilities
ercent of the population that lives
ow-stress bicycle facility increases
with Scenario 3 providing the best
s to high comfort bicycle facilities.
Population Living
n a Walkable Area
rcent of Sidewalks
Complete
Transit Ridership
would increase from today in all
he ridership increase is similar in
nario 2 (about 80% growth from
ve similar levels of service hours,
fferently across the system, while
ult in the most dramatic increase
ut a 300% increase from today).
ransit Productivity
ty, as measured by ridership per
e mile and ridership per revenue
ncrease significantly from today
. Transit productivity would be a
rio 3 as compared to Scenarios 1
C
NSPORTATION AND MOBILITY OPTIONS
rmance metrics below illustrate how well each scenario accommodates multimodal transportation
Key distinctions for each scenario from a transportation and mobility standpoint include the level of
nt in transit, biking and walking infrastructure and service improvements.
Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit
VMT
per person
60.7%
17.4%
12%
7.6%
1.8%
3.32 23.4
TOTAL:
19.75
99%
All
Facilities
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
33%
15,000
4,300,000
Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership
2.8
35
26,000
7,900,000
5.4
68
28,000
7,900,000
5.6
70
60,000
17,200,000
6.1
85
57.5%
8%
3.3%
16.3%
14.9%
55.7%
9.3%
3.5%
15.9%
15.6%
51.8%
10.9%
6.2%
14.9%
16.2%
99%
All
Facilities
38%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
72%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
98%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
171
VMT
per person
VMT
per person
VMT
per person
1.6 27 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour
.31
30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
10.66 0 0
19.8
TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
37.26 4.02 0
0
TOTAL:
24.72
61.12
113.4 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
54 75.97
TOTAL:
12% 22% 22% 31%
* A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions
Protected Bike Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
Bike Lane
75%
25%
Existing Missing
80%
20%
90%
10%
100%
PERFORMANCE METRICS
HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE?
LINS UTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
LINS UTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
EXISTING SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
s Traveled (VMT)
per person
ould decrease in Scenario 1 from
ease even further in Scenarios 2
result of successively increasing
nsity in each scenario, as well as
nfrastructure and transit service.
Mode Share
made by vehicle would decrease
rio, while the percent of trips by
, biking, transit) would increase.
mode share increase the most in
esult of the robust investment in
nfrastructure and transit service.
vel Time (minutes/
) and Speed (mph)
hicular travel time and speed is
x key corridors across the City
slightly, if at all, across all three
le variation between scenarios
vel time. These numbers are an
indicator of congestion.
Bicycle Facilities
cilities increases in all scenarios,
al miles of facilities in Scenarios
enario 3. The addition of bicycle
tected bike lanes, buffered bike
, and neighborhood greenways.
ents Near Bicycle
Facilities
cent of the population that lives
w-stress bicycle facility increases
th Scenario 3 providing the best
o high comfort bicycle facilities.
Population Living
a Walkable Area
cent of Sidewalks
Complete
Transit Ridership
ould increase from today in all
e ridership increase is similar in
rio 2 (about 80% growth from
similar levels of service hours,
rently across the system, while
in the most dramatic increase
a 300% increase from today).
ansit Productivity
, as measured by ridership per
mile and ridership per revenue
crease significantly from today
Transit productivity would be a
o 3 as compared to Scenarios 1
C
SPORTATION AND MOBILITY OPTIONS
mance metrics below illustrate how well each scenario accommodates multimodal transportation
ey distinctions for each scenario from a transportation and mobility standpoint include the level of
t in transit, biking and walking infrastructure and service improvements.
Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit
VMT
per person
60.7%
17.4%
12%
7.6%
1.8%
3.32 23.4
TOTAL:
19.75
99%
All
Facilities
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
33%
15,000
4,300,000
Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership
2.8
35
26,000
7,900,000
5.4
68
28,000
7,900,000
5.6
70
60,000
17,200,000
6.1
85
57.5%
8%
3.3%
16.3%
14.9%
55.7%
9.3%
3.5%
15.9%
15.6%
51.8%
10.9%
6.2%
14.9%
16.2%
99%
All
Facilities
38%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
72%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
98%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
171
VMT
per person
VMT
per person
VMT
per person
1.6 27 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour
.31
30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
10.66 0 0
19.8
TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
37.26 4.02 0
0
TOTAL:
24.72
61.12
113.4 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
54 75.97
TOTAL:
12% 22% 22% 31%
* A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions
Protected Bike Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
Bike Lane
75%
25%
Existing Missing
80%
20%
90%
10%
100%
PERFORMANCE METRICS
HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE?
Y OLLINS UR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
Y OLLINS UR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
EXISTING SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Miles Traveled (VMT)
per person
son would decrease in Scenario 1 from
d decrease even further in Scenarios 2
y as a result of successively increasing
on density in each scenario, as well as
ycle infrastructure and transit service.
Mode Share
trips made by vehicle would decrease
scenario, while the percent of trips by
alking, biking, transit) would increase.
ansit mode share increase the most in
as a result of the robust investment in
ycle infrastructure and transit service.
Travel Time (minutes/
mile) and Speed (mph)
al vehicular travel time and speed is
d on six key corridors across the City
only slightly, if at all, across all three
e is little variation between scenarios
ar travel time. These numbers are an
indicator of congestion.
s of Bicycle Facilities
ycle facilities increases in all scenarios,
dditional miles of facilities in Scenarios
t in Scenario 3. The addition of bicycle
es protected bike lanes, buffered bike
e lanes, and neighborhood greenways.
sidents Near Bicycle
Facilities
he percent of the population that lives
f a low-stress bicycle facility increases
os, with Scenario 3 providing the best
cess to high comfort bicycle facilities.
of Population Living
hin a Walkable Area
Percent of Sidewalks
Complete
Transit Ridership
ship would increase from today in all
s. The ridership increase is similar in
Scenario 2 (about 80% growth from
h have similar levels of service hours,
differently across the system, while
result in the most dramatic increase
about a 300% increase from today).
Transit Productivity
ctivity, as measured by ridership per
rvice mile and ridership per revenue
uld increase significantly from today
rios. Transit productivity would be a
enario 3 as compared to Scenarios 1
and 2.
esidents Near Transit
the population with access to transit
from the 2012 data in Scenario 1 and
arios 2 and 3 with increasing service
and the addition of new BRT routes.
C
ANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY OPTIONS
formance metrics below illustrate how well each scenario accommodates multimodal transportation
. Key distinctions for each scenario from a transportation and mobility standpoint include the level of
ment in transit, biking and walking infrastructure and service improvements.
Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit
VMT
per person
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT and regional
routes
within 1/4 mile of all transit
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT and regional
routes
within 1/4 mile of all transit
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT, regional transit
and mobility innovation
services+
within 1/4 mile of all transit
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT, regional transit
and mobility innovation
services+
within 1/4 mile of all transit
60.7%
17.4%
12%
7.6%
1.8%
3.32 23.4
TOTAL:
19.75
99%
All
Facilities
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
33%
32%
Average Daily Riders Per Hour Average Daily Riders Per Mile
15,000
4,300,000
Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership
2.8
35
26,000
7,900,000
5.4
68
28,000
7,900,000
5.6
70
60,000
17,200,000
6.1
85
57.5%
8%
3.3%
16.3%
14.9%
55.7%
9.3%
3.5%
15.9%
15.6%
51.8%
10.9%
6.2%
14.9%
16.2%
99%
All
Facilities
38%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
72%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
98%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
171
VMT
per person
VMT
per person
VMT
per person
1.6 27 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour
.31
30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
10.66 0 0
19.8
TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
37.26 4.02 0
0
TOTAL:
24.72
61.12
113.4 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
54 75.97
TOTAL:
12% 22% 22% 31%
* A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions
Protected Bike Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
Bike Lane
75%
25%
Existing Missing
80%
20%
90%
10%
100%
82% 70%
75%
51%
87%
24% 19%
PERFORMANCE METRICS
HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE?
LINS UTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
LINS UTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
EXISTING SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
s Traveled (VMT)
per person
ould decrease in Scenario 1 from
ease even further in Scenarios 2
result of successively increasing
nsity in each scenario, as well as
nfrastructure and transit service.
Mode Share
made by vehicle would decrease
rio, while the percent of trips by
, biking, transit) would increase.
mode share increase the most in
esult of the robust investment in
nfrastructure and transit service.
vel Time (minutes/
) and Speed (mph)
hicular travel time and speed is
x key corridors across the City
slightly, if at all, across all three
le variation between scenarios
vel time. These numbers are an
indicator of congestion.
Bicycle Facilities
cilities increases in all scenarios,
al miles of facilities in Scenarios
enario 3. The addition of bicycle
otected bike lanes, buffered bike
s, and neighborhood greenways.
ents Near Bicycle
Facilities
cent of the population that lives
w-stress bicycle facility increases
th Scenario 3 providing the best
o high comfort bicycle facilities.
Population Living
a Walkable Area
cent of Sidewalks
Complete
Transit Ridership
ould increase from today in all
e ridership increase is similar in
rio 2 (about 80% growth from
similar levels of service hours,
rently across the system, while
in the most dramatic increase
a 300% increase from today).
ansit Productivity
, as measured by ridership per
mile and ridership per revenue
crease significantly from today
Transit productivity would be a
o 3 as compared to Scenarios 1
and 2.
ents Near Transit
opulation with access to transit
the 2012 data in Scenario 1 and
2 and 3 with increasing service
he addition of new BRT routes.
C
SPORTATION AND MOBILITY OPTIONS
mance metrics below illustrate how well each scenario accommodates multimodal transportation
ey distinctions for each scenario from a transportation and mobility standpoint include the level of
t in transit, biking and walking infrastructure and service improvements.
Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit
VMT
per person
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT and regional
routes
within 1/4 mile of all transit
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT and regional
routes
within 1/4 mile of all transit
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT, regional transit
and mobility innovation
services+
within 1/4 mile of all transit
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT, regional transit
and mobility innovation
services+
within 1/4 mile of all transit
60.7%
17.4%
12%
7.6%
1.8%
3.32 23.4
TOTAL:
19.75
99%
All
Facilities
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
33%
32%
Average Daily Riders Per Hour Average Daily Riders Per Mile
15,000
4,300,000
Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership
2.8
35
26,000
7,900,000
5.4
68
28,000
7,900,000
5.6
70
60,000
17,200,000
6.1
85
57.5%
8%
3.3%
16.3%
14.9%
55.7%
9.3%
3.5%
15.9%
15.6%
51.8%
10.9%
6.2%
14.9%
16.2%
99%
All
Facilities
38%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
72%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
98%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
171
VMT
per person
VMT
per person
VMT
per person
1.6 27 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour
.31
30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
10.66 0 0
19.8
TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
37.26 4.02 0
0
TOTAL:
24.72
61.12
113.4 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
54 75.97
TOTAL:
12% 22% 22% 31%
* A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions
Protected Bike Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
Bike Lane
75%
25%
Existing Missing
80%
20%
90%
10%
100%
82% 70%
75%
51%
87%
24% 19%
PERFORMANCE METRICS
HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE?
LINS UTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
LINS UTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
EXISTING SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
es Traveled (VMT)
per person
would decrease in Scenario 1 from
rease even further in Scenarios 2
result of successively increasing
ensity in each scenario, as well as
nfrastructure and transit service.
Mode Share
made by vehicle would decrease
ario, while the percent of trips by
g, biking, transit) would increase.
mode share increase the most in
result of the robust investment in
nfrastructure and transit service.
avel Time (minutes/
) and Speed (mph)
hicular travel time and speed is
six key corridors across the City
slightly, if at all, across all three
tle variation between scenarios
vel time. These numbers are an
indicator of congestion.
f Bicycle Facilities
acilities increases in all scenarios,
nal miles of facilities in Scenarios
cenario 3. The addition of bicycle
otected bike lanes, buffered bike
es, and neighborhood greenways.
dents Near Bicycle
Facilities
rcent of the population that lives
w-stress bicycle facility increases
ith Scenario 3 providing the best
to high comfort bicycle facilities.
Population Living
n a Walkable Area
cent of Sidewalks
Complete
Transit Ridership
would increase from today in all
e ridership increase is similar in
ario 2 (about 80% growth from
e similar levels of service hours,
erently across the system, while
t in the most dramatic increase
t a 300% increase from today).
ansit Productivity
y, as measured by ridership per
mile and ridership per revenue
ncrease significantly from today
Transit productivity would be a
o 3 as compared to Scenarios 1
C
NSPORTATION AND MOBILITY OPTIONS
rmance metrics below illustrate how well each scenario accommodates multimodal transportation
ey distinctions for each scenario from a transportation and mobility standpoint include the level of
t in transit, biking and walking infrastructure and service improvements.
Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit
VMT
per person
60.7%
17.4%
12%
7.6%
1.8%
3.32 23.4
TOTAL:
19.75
99%
All
Facilities
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
33%
15,000
4,300,000
Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership
2.8
35
26,000
7,900,000
5.4
68
28,000
7,900,000
5.6
70
60,000
17,200,000
6.1
85
57.5%
8%
3.3%
16.3%
14.9%
55.7%
9.3%
3.5%
15.9%
15.6%
51.8%
10.9%
6.2%
14.9%
16.2%
99%
All
Facilities
38%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
72%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
98%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
171
VMT
per person
VMT
per person
VMT
per person
1.6 27 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour
.31
30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
10.66 0 0
19.8
TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
37.26 4.02 0
0
TOTAL:
24.72
61.12
113.4 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
54 75.97
TOTAL:
12% 22% 22% 31%
* A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions
Protected Bike Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
Bike Lane
75%
25%
Existing Missing
80%
20%
90%
10%
100%
PERFORMANCE METRICS
HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE?
PLAN TURE. INS TOGETHER.
PLAN TURE. INS TOGETHER.
EXISTING SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
s Traveled (VMT)
per person
uld decrease in Scenario 1 from
ase even further in Scenarios 2
esult of successively increasing
sity in each scenario, as well as
rastructure and transit service.
Mode Share
ade by vehicle would decrease
o, while the percent of trips by
biking, transit) would increase.
ode share increase the most in
ult of the robust investment in
rastructure and transit service.
el Time (minutes/
and Speed (mph)
cular travel time and speed is
key corridors across the City
ightly, if at all, across all three
e variation between scenarios
el time. These numbers are an
indicator of congestion.
Bicycle Facilities
ilities increases in all scenarios,
l miles of facilities in Scenarios
nario 3. The addition of bicycle
ected bike lanes, buffered bike
and neighborhood greenways.
ents Near Bicycle
Facilities
ent of the population that lives
stress bicycle facility increases
h Scenario 3 providing the best
high comfort bicycle facilities.
opulation Living
a Walkable Area
ent of Sidewalks
Complete
Transit Ridership
uld increase from today in all
ridership increase is similar in
io 2 (about 80% growth from
similar levels of service hours,
ently across the system, while
n the most dramatic increase
a 300% increase from today).
nsit Productivity
as measured by ridership per
mile and ridership per revenue
ease significantly from today
ansit productivity would be a
3 as compared to Scenarios 1
C
SPORTATION AND MOBILITY OPTIONS
mance metrics below illustrate how well each scenario accommodates multimodal transportation
y distinctions for each scenario from a transportation and mobility standpoint include the level of
in transit, biking and walking infrastructure and service improvements.
Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit
VMT
per person
60.7%
17.4%
12%
7.6%
1.8%
3.32 23.4
TOTAL:
19.75
99%
All
Facilities
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
33%
15,000
4,300,000
Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership
2.8
35
26,000
7,900,000
5.4
68
28,000
7,900,000
5.6
70
60,000
17,200,000
6.1
85
57.5%
8%
3.3%
16.3%
14.9%
55.7%
9.3%
3.5%
15.9%
15.6%
51.8%
10.9%
6.2%
14.9%
16.2%
99%
All
Facilities
38%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
72%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
98%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
171
VMT
per person
VMT
per person
VMT
per person
1.6 27 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour
.31
30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
10.66 0 0
19.8
TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
37.26 4.02 0
0
TOTAL:
24.72
61.12
113.4 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
54 75.97
TOTAL:
12% 22% 22% 31%
* A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions
Protected Bike Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
Bike Lane
75%
25%
Existing Missing
80%
20%
90%
10%
100%
PERFORMANCE METRICS
HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE?
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Access to Nature
Access to parks, open space, and other natural areas
plays a key role in supporting a good quality of life for
residents , by providing opportunities for recreation,
physical activity, and experiencing nature and the
natural environment. In addition, studies have found a
link between exposure to nature and improved mental
health. By focusing development of housing within close
proximity of our existing greenspaces, we can increase
the number of residents that are able to reach nature
within a 10-minute walking distance.
67% 69% 72%
Access to Mixed-Use Areas
Expanding residents’ access to mixed-use areas in
the city is an important goal for a number of reasons.
Expand access means that less people need to drive to
reach every-day services they use, such as the grocery
store, restaurants, medical services, and retail shops.
While this might not be an issue for those with cars who
are happy to drive across town to reach these areas,
some of our residents do not own cars or cannot drive,
and are not so mobile. Second, mixed-use areas near
residential areas provides opportunities for residents to
live near where they work, and/or work near where they
live. As an added bonus, reducing the need to drive to
these locations, and allowing more residents to walk,
will help us move towards our climate action goals.
Transit Access for Vulnerable
Populations
HEALTH AND EQUITY
Housing units, jobs, vehicle miles traveled, carbon emissions. It is important not to forget that a crucial
component of what makes Fort Collins a great community is its residents. As we look to the future, we’ll want to
consider how each of the scenarios impacts us, particularly those of use who are most vulnerable or in greatest
need of access to transit, parks and open space, medical services, etc. At the same time that we must ensure the
benefits future growth creates are distributed equitably across our community, we must also be sure that one
group is not disproportionately impacted over others by the changes to our city envisioned in the scenarios.
Downtown District Urban Mixed-Use District Suburban Mixed-Use District Neighborhood Mixed-Use District
PERFORMANCE METRICS
HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE?
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Access to Nature
Access to parks, open space, and other natural areas
plays a key role in supporting a good quality of life for
residents , by providing opportunities for recreation,
physical activity, and experiencing nature and the
natural environment. In addition, studies have found a
link between exposure to nature and improved mental
health. By focusing development of housing within close
proximity of our existing greenspaces, we can increase
the number of residents that are able to reach nature
within a 10-minute walking distance.
67% 69% 72%
Access to Mixed-Use Areas
Expanding residents’ access to mixed-use areas in
the city is an important goal for a number of reasons.
Expand access means that less people need to drive to
reach every-day services they use, such as the grocery
store, restaurants, medical services, and retail shops.
While this might not be an issue for those with cars who
are happy to drive across town to reach these areas,
some of our residents do not own cars or cannot drive,
and are not so mobile. Second, mixed-use areas near
residential areas provides opportunities for residents to
live near where they work, and/or work near where they
live. As an added bonus, reducing the need to drive to
these locations, and allowing more residents to walk,
will help us move towards our climate action goals.
Transit Access for Vulnerable
Populations
HEALTH AND EQUITY
Housing units, jobs, vehicle miles traveled, carbon emissions. It is important not to forget that a crucial
component of what makes Fort Collins a great community is its residents. As we look to the future, we’ll want to
consider how each of the scenarios impacts us, particularly those of use who are most vulnerable or in greatest
need of access to transit, parks and open space, medical services, etc. At the same time that we must ensure the
benefits future growth creates are distributed equitably across our community, we must also be sure that one
group is not disproportionately impacted over others by the changes to our city envisioned in the scenarios.
Downtown District Urban Mixed-Use District Suburban Mixed-Use District Neighborhood Mixed-Use District
urce: Fort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit
VMT
per person
60.7%
17.4%
12%
7.6%
1.8%
3.32 23.4
TOTAL:
19.75
99%
All
Facilities
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
33%
Average Daily Riders Per Hour Average Daily Riders Per Mile
15,000
4,300,000
Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership
2.8
35
26,000
7,900,000
5.4
68
28,000
7,900,000
5.6
70
60,000
17,200,000
6.1
85
57.5%
8%
3.3%
16.3%
14.9%
55.7%
9.3%
3.5%
15.9%
15.6%
51.8%
10.9%
6.2%
14.9%
16.2%
99%
All
Facilities
38%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
72%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
98%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
171
VMT
per person
VMT
per person
VMT
per person
1.6 27 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour
.31
30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
10.66 0 0
19.8
TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
37.26 4.02 0
0
TOTAL:
24.72
61.12
113.4 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
54 75.97
TOTAL:
12% 22% 22% 31%
hreshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions
Buffered Bike Lane
Bike Lane
75%
25%
Existing Missing
80%
20%
90%
10%
100%
llins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit
VMT
per person
60.7%
7.4%
12%
7.6%
1.8%
32 23.4
TOTAL:
19.75
9%
ll
ities
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
33%
Average Daily Riders Per Hour Average Daily Riders Per Mile
15,000
4,300,000
Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership
2.8
35
26,000
7,900,000
5.4
68
28,000
7,900,000
5.6
70
60,000
17,200,000
6.1
85
57.5%
8%
3.3%
16.3%
14.9%
55.7%
9.3%
3.5%
15.9%
15.6%
51.8%
10.9%
6.2%
14.9%
16.2%
99%
All
Facilities
38%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
72%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
98%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
171
VMT
per person
VMT
per person
VMT
per person
6 27 miles
per
per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour
1
30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
10.66 0 0
19.8
TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
37.26 4.02 0
0
TOTAL:
24.72
61.12
113.4 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
54 75.97
TOTAL:
12% 22% 22% 31%
1,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions
Buffered Bike Lane
Bike Lane
75%
5%
Existing Missing
80%
20%
90%
10%
100%
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
per person
Vehicular Travel Time
(minutes/mile)
and Speed (mph)
Residents Near Bicycle
Facilities
Scenarios 2 and 3 reduce personal vehicle trips, create
additional transportation choices through transit,
bikeability, and walkability, and reduce overall vehicle miles
traveled and emissions.
VMT per person would decrease in Scenario 1 from today
and would decrease even further in Scenarios 2 and3 as a
result of successively increasing population density in each
scenario, as well as investments in bicycle infrastructure and
transit service.
The typical vehicular travel time and speed is measured
based on six key corridors across the City would change
only slightly, if at all, across all three scenarios.
The percent of the population that lives within 1/4 mile
of a low-stress bicycle facility increases in all scenarios,
with Scenario 3 providing the best access to high comfort
bicycle facilities.
The percent of the population with access to transit
decreases from the 2012 data in Scenario 1 and increases in
Scenarios 2 and 3 with increasing service and the addition
of new BRT routes.
A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square
mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on
existing conditions.
By focusing development of housing within close proximity
of our existing greenspaces, we can increase the number of
residents that are able to reach nature within a 10-minute
walking distance.
The cost estimates in each scenario do NOT include capital
costs for transit or costs to acquire right-of-way. They DO
include operation costs and construction estimates for bike
and pedestrian infrastructure.
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Transportation Energy
and GHG Emissions
All three scenarios continue to rely on the personal
vehicle for a significant portion of trips. However,
scenarios 2 and 3 significantly reduce those trips,
create additional transportation choices through
transit, bikeability, and walkability, and reduce overall
vehicle miles traveled and emissions by XX and YY.
And because transportation represents such a sizable
portion of the community’s overall greenhouse gas
emissions, and because mode shifting can only address
a relatively small share of those emissions, supporting
the transition to electric vehicles—shared or owned—will
be an important supplement to all scenarios.
7%
Reduction
15%
Reduction
29%
Reduction
Building Energy
and GHG Emissions
Scenarios 2 and 3 increase urban density and create a
housing mix with a greater share of multifamily housing
units relative to single family. This is an important
shift with regard to energy use and GHG emissions as
multifamily units in buildings with five or more units
use about 64% of the energy of detached single family
units. Multifamily buildings with 2-4 units use about 50%
less than detached single family units. All Scenarios will
reduce energy use per housing unit relative to current
conditions, and Scenarios 2 and 3 will reduce energy
use per unit even further due to the additional units in
each scenario.
X%
Reduction per
Housing Unit
4%
Reduction per
Housing Unit
12%
Reduction per
Housing Unit
Household Water Consumption
Since the largest source of water consumption in single-
family housing is irrigation, any scenario that promotes
increased density and a higher overall proportion
of multifamily housing will reduce the community’s
irrigation and overall water consumption relative to the
base scenario. Ft. Collins data suggests that multifamily
units use 17% less water than single family units, largely
due to reduced irrigation. Further, with increasing
density, total household water use will approach indoor
water use (i.e., irrigation will trend towards zero gallons
per multifamily household). As a result Scenario 2
is anticipated to result in a modest 4% reduction in
household water use relative to Scenario 1, and Scenario
3 is anticipated to reduce water use by 12%.
Reduction per
2% Housing Unit Reduction per
6% Housing Unit Reduction per
14% Housing Unit
Human Health
City Plan impacts health in a number of ways. Shifting
the number of trips from cars to walking, biking, or
transit increases physical activity and reduces air
pollutants. It also creates more opportunity for the
community to have access to green space in the form
of parks or nature. As density increases and parks are
the city continues to develop parks, greenways, and
open space, an increasing number of residents will have
access to these amenities.
162,000
Residents
168,000
Residents
175,000
Residents
C
LTH
City Plan will have a significant impact on the community’s ability to meet its broader environmental and human
health goals. Increased density and transportation choices result in a smaller land use footprint, reduced vehicle
miles traveled, increased walkability and bikeability, and smaller housing units sizes. This in turn translates to
reduced energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and water demand, and improved health outcomes. If done in
concern with public greenspace and greenways, it can also yield greater opportunities for habitat, recreation, and
connection to the outdoors.
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Transportation Energy
and GHG Emissions
All three scenarios continue to rely on the personal
vehicle for a significant portion of trips. However,
scenarios 2 and 3 significantly reduce those trips,
create additional transportation choices through
transit, bikeability, and walkability, and reduce overall
vehicle miles traveled and emissions by XX and YY.
And because transportation represents such a sizable
portion of the community’s overall greenhouse gas
emissions, and because mode shifting can only address
a relatively small share of those emissions, supporting
the transition to electric vehicles—shared or owned—will
be an important supplement to all scenarios.
7%
Reduction
15%
Reduction
29%
Reduction
Building Energy
and GHG Emissions
Scenarios 2 and 3 increase urban density and create a
housing mix with a greater share of multifamily housing
units relative to single family. This is an important
shift with regard to energy use and GHG emissions as
multifamily units in buildings with five or more units
use about 64% of the energy of detached single family
units. Multifamily buildings with 2-4 units use about 50%
less than detached single family units. All Scenarios will
reduce energy use per housing unit relative to current
conditions, and Scenarios 2 and 3 will reduce energy
use per unit even further due to the additional units in
each scenario.
X%
Reduction per
Housing Unit
4%
Reduction per
Housing Unit
12%
Reduction per
Housing Unit
Household Water Consumption
Since the largest source of water consumption in single-
family housing is irrigation, any scenario that promotes
increased density and a higher overall proportion
of multifamily housing will reduce the community’s
irrigation and overall water consumption relative to the
base scenario. Ft. Collins data suggests that multifamily
units use 17% less water than single family units, largely
due to reduced irrigation. Further, with increasing
density, total household water use will approach indoor
water use (i.e., irrigation will trend towards zero gallons
per multifamily household). As a result Scenario 2
is anticipated to result in a modest 4% reduction in
household water use relative to Scenario 1, and Scenario
3 is anticipated to reduce water use by 12%.
Reduction per
2% Housing Unit Reduction per
6% Housing Unit Reduction per
14% Housing Unit
Human Health
City Plan impacts health in a number of ways. Shifting
the number of trips from cars to walking, biking, or
transit increases physical activity and reduces air
pollutants. It also creates more opportunity for the
community to have access to green space in the form
of parks or nature. As density increases and parks are
the city continues to develop parks, greenways, and
open space, an increasing number of residents will have
access to these amenities.
162,000
Residents
168,000
Residents
175,000
Residents
C
LTH
City Plan will have a significant impact on the community’s ability to meet its broader environmental and human
health goals. Increased density and transportation choices result in a smaller land use footprint, reduced vehicle
miles traveled, increased walkability and bikeability, and smaller housing units sizes. This in turn translates to
reduced energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and water demand, and improved health outcomes. If done in
concern with public greenspace and greenways, it can also yield greater opportunities for habitat, recreation, and
connection to the outdoors.
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Transportation Energy
and GHG Emissions
All three scenarios continue to rely on the personal
vehicle for a significant portion of trips. However,
scenarios 2 and 3 significantly reduce those trips,
create additional transportation choices through
transit, bikeability, and walkability, and reduce overall
vehicle miles traveled and emissions by XX and YY.
And because transportation represents such a sizable
portion of the community’s overall greenhouse gas
emissions, and because mode shifting can only address
a relatively small share of those emissions, supporting
the transition to electric vehicles—shared or owned—will
be an important supplement to all scenarios.
7%
Reduction
15%
Reduction
29%
Reduction
Building Energy
and GHG Emissions
Scenarios 2 and 3 increase urban density and create a
housing mix with a greater share of multifamily housing
units relative to single family. This is an important
shift with regard to energy use and GHG emissions as
multifamily units in buildings with five or more units
use about 64% of the energy of detached single family
units. Multifamily buildings with 2-4 units use about 50%
less than detached single family units. All Scenarios will
reduce energy use per housing unit relative to current
conditions, and Scenarios 2 and 3 will reduce energy
use per unit even further due to the additional units in
each scenario.
X%
Reduction per
Housing Unit
4%
Reduction per
Housing Unit
12%
Reduction per
Housing Unit
Household Water Consumption
Since the largest source of water consumption in single-
family housing is irrigation, any scenario that promotes
increased density and a higher overall proportion
of multifamily housing will reduce the community’s
irrigation and overall water consumption relative to the
base scenario. Ft. Collins data suggests that multifamily
units use 17% less water than single family units, largely
due to reduced irrigation. Further, with increasing
density, total household water use will approach indoor
water use (i.e., irrigation will trend towards zero gallons
per multifamily household). As a result Scenario 2
is anticipated to result in a modest 4% reduction in
household water use relative to Scenario 1, and Scenario
3 is anticipated to reduce water use by 12%.
Reduction per
2% Housing Unit Reduction per
6% Housing Unit Reduction per
14% Housing Unit
Human Health
City Plan impacts health in a number of ways. Shifting
the number of trips from cars to walking, biking, or
transit increases physical activity and reduces air
pollutants. It also creates more opportunity for the
community to have access to green space in the form
of parks or nature. As density increases and parks are
the city continues to develop parks, greenways, and
open space, an increasing number of residents will have
access to these amenities.
162,000
Residents
168,000
Residents
175,000
Residents
C
LTH
City Plan will have a significant impact on the community’s ability to meet its broader environmental and human
health goals. Increased density and transportation choices result in a smaller land use footprint, reduced vehicle
miles traveled, increased walkability and bikeability, and smaller housing units sizes. This in turn translates to
reduced energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and water demand, and improved health outcomes. If done in
concern with public greenspace and greenways, it can also yield greater opportunities for habitat, recreation, and
connection to the outdoors.
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all
transit except regional
routes
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all
transit except regional
routes
within 1/4 mile of all
transit except regional
routes
ost in
ent in
rvice.
es/
ph)
ed is
City
three
arios
re an
stion.
ies
arios,
arios
cycle
bike
ways.
cle
ies
lives
eases
best
lities.
ng
ea
lks
ete
hip
in all
lar in
from
ours,
while
ease
day).
ity
p per
enue
oday
be a
rios 1
nd 2.
nsit
ansit
1 and
rvice
utes.
st*
clude
ight-
s and
trian
cture.
ions.
Transit: $25,700,000
Bike: $436,000
Total: $26,100,000
Transit: $30,100,000
Bike: $470,000
Total: $30,600,000
Transit: $33,500,000
Bike: $1,900,000
Total: $35,400,000
Transit: $77,000,000
Bike: $6,000,000
Total: $83,000,000
Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT and regional
routes
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except regional routes
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT and regional
routes
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except regional routes
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT, regional transit
and mobility innovation
services+
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except regional routes
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT, regional transit
and mobility innovation
services+
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except regional routes
3 23.4
TOTAL:
20
99%
All
Facilities
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
33%
32%
82%
Average Daily Riders Per Hour Average Daily Riders Per Mile
15,000
4,300,000
Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership
2.8
35
26,000
7,900,000
5.4
68
28,000
8,000,000
5.6
70
51,000
14,900,000
6.5
87
15.9%
14.9%
99%
All
Facilities
38%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
72%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
98%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
+. Mobility Innovation Services will be developed in the future but are intended to be first-last-mile connections to the
transit system for lower-density areas in Fort Collins. Examples could include pick-up/drop-off services (similar to Lyft
or Urber) to transit stops, microtransit shuttles, or other connections that could be facilitated by new transportation
technologies in the future. In general, these services have lower operating costs than fixed route services in low-density
171
striping, and therefore negligible at this high level of an estimate. The cost per mile of
protected bike lane or buffered bike lane is about $1,000,000.
3. Over 20 years, this equates to $9,273,233 for Scenario 1, $47,779,086 for Scenario 2
1.6 27 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour
.4
20 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
11 0 0
TOTAL: 31 0 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
37 4 0
TOTAL: 41 236
61
45 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
54 76
TOTAL:
12% 22% 22% 31%
* A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions
Protected Bike Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
Bike Lane
75%
25%
Existing Missing
80%
20%
90%
10%
100%
93%
82% 70%
71%
75%
51%
87%
85%
24% 19%
$0.4 M
$15 M
TOTAL: $15.8 M
$0.4 M
Transit Bike Walking Total
$0.5 M
$17 - 20 M
TOTAL: $18 - 21 M
$0.5 M
$2 M
$17 - 20 M
TOTAL: $20.4 - 23.4 M
$1.4 M
$6 M
$25 - 30 M
TOTAL: $33.3 - 38.3 M
$2.3 M
Shared Street
(Existing)
Miles of new bike facilities Miles of new bike facilities Miles of new bike facilities
Miles of new bike facilities
ease the most in
st investment in
d transit service.
(minutes/
ed (mph)
me and speed is
across the City
across all three
ween scenarios
numbers are an
r of congestion.
Facilities
s in all scenarios,
ties in Scenarios
dition of bicycle
es, buffered bike
hood greenways.
r Bicycle
Facilities
ulation that lives
acility increases
oviding the best
bicycle facilities.
on Living
ble Area
idewalks
Complete
Ridership
rom today in all
ease is similar in
0% growth from
f service hours,
e system, while
amatic increase
se from today).
ductivity
by ridership per
hip per revenue
ntly from today
vity would be a
d to Scenarios 1
and 2.
ar Transit
ccess to transit
n Scenario 1 and
creasing service
ew BRT routes.
ive Cost*
do NOT include
o acquire right-
ation costs and
and pedestrian
infrastructure.
ars, M=millions.
Transit: $25,700,000
Bike: $436,000
Total: $26,100,000
Transit: $30,100,000
Bike: $470,000
Total: $30,600,000
Transit: $33,500,000
Bike: $1,900,000
Total: $35,400,000
Transit: $77,000,000
Bike: $6,000,000
Total: $83,000,000
Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT and regional
routes
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except regional routes
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT and regional
routes
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except regional routes
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT, regional transit
and mobility innovation
services+
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except regional routes
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT, regional transit
and mobility innovation
services+
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except regional routes
3 23.4
TOTAL:
20
99%
All
Facilities
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
33%
32%
82%
Average Daily Riders Per Hour Average Daily Riders Per Mile
15,000
4,300,000
Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership
2.8
35
26,000
7,900,000
5.4
68
28,000
8,000,000
5.6
70
51,000
14,900,000
6.5
87
15.9%
14.9%
99%
All
Facilities
38%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
72%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
98%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
+. Mobility Innovation Services will be developed in the future but are intended to be first-last-mile connections to the
transit system for lower-density areas in Fort Collins. Examples could include pick-up/drop-off services (similar to Lyft
or Urber) to transit stops, microtransit shuttles, or other connections that could be facilitated by new transportation
technologies in the future. In general, these services have lower operating costs than fixed route services in low-density
171
capital or
s estimated based
striping, and therefore negligible at this high level of an estimate. The cost per mile of
protected bike lane or buffered bike lane is about $1,000,000.
3. Over 20 years, this equates to $9,273,233 for Scenario 1, $47,779,086 for Scenario 2
1.6 27 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour
.4
20 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
11 0 0
TOTAL: 31 0 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
37 4 0
TOTAL: 41 236
61
45 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
54 76
TOTAL:
12% 22% 22% 31%
* A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions
Protected Bike Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
Bike Lane
75%
25%
Existing Missing
80%
20%
90%
10%
100%
93%
82% 70%
71%
75%
51%
87%
85%
24% 19%
$0.4 M
$15 M
TOTAL: $15.8 M
$0.4 M
Transit Bike Walking Total
$0.5 M
$17 - 20 M
TOTAL: $18 - 21 M
$0.5 M
$2 M
$17 - 20 M
TOTAL: $20.4 - 23.4 M
$1.4 M
$6 M
$25 - 30 M
TOTAL: $33.3 - 38.3 M
$2.3 M
Shared Street
(Existing)
Miles of new bike facilities Miles of new bike facilities Miles of new bike facilities
Miles of new bike fac
ese numbers are an
ator of congestion.
e Facilities
ases in all scenarios,
acilities in Scenarios
e addition of bicycle
lanes, buffered bike
borhood greenways.
ear Bicycle
Facilities
population that lives
cle facility increases
3 providing the best
ort bicycle facilities.
tion Living
kable Area
Sidewalks
Complete
t Ridership
se from today in all
ncrease is similar in
t 80% growth from
els of service hours,
s the system, while
t dramatic increase
crease from today).
roductivity
ed by ridership per
ership per revenue
ficantly from today
uctivity would be a
ared to Scenarios 1
and 2.
ear Transit
th access to transit
ta in Scenario 1 and
h increasing service
of new BRT routes.
ative Cost*
rio do NOT include
ts to acquire right-
operation costs and
bike and pedestrian
infrastructure.
dollars, M=millions.
Transit: $25,700,000
Bike: $436,000
Total: $26,100,000
Transit: $30,100,000
Bike: $470,000
Total: $30,600,000
Transit: $33,500,000
Bike: $1,900,000
Total: $35,400,000
Transit: $77,000,000
Bike: $6,000,000
Total: $83,000,000
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT and regional
routes
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except regional routes
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT and regional
routes
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except regional routes
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT, regional transit
and mobility innovation
services+
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except regional routes
wit
BR
wit
exc
and
ser
wit
exc
3 23.4
TOTAL:
20
99%
All
Facilities
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
33%
32%
82%
Average Daily Riders Per Hour Average Daily Riders Per Mile
15,000
4,300,000
Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership
2.8
35
26,000
7,900,000
5.4
68
28,000
8,000,000
5.6
70
14
99%
All
Facilities
38%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
72%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
Al
Facili
+. Mobility Innovation Services will be developed in the future but are intended to be first-last-mile connections to the
transit system for lower-density areas in Fort Collins. Examples could include pick-up/drop-off services (similar to Lyft
or Urber) to transit stops, microtransit shuttles, or other connections that could be facilitated by new transportation
171
nclude capital or
rio was estimated based
striping, and therefore negligible at this high level of an estimate. The cost per mile of
protected bike lane or buffered bike lane is about $1,000,000.
3. Over 20 years, this equates to $9,273,233 for Scenario 1, $47,779,086 for Scenario 2
27
minutes per mile hour 25
minutes per mile hour 25
minutes per mile hour
minutes
.4
20 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
11 0 0
TOTAL: 31 0 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
37 4 0
TOTAL: 41
45
54
12% 22% 22%
* A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions
Protected Bike Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
Bike Lane
75%
25%
Existing Missing
80%
20%
90%
10%
93%
82% 70%
71%
75%
51%
87%
85%
24% 19%
$0.4 M
$15 M
TOTAL: $15.8 M
$0.4 M
Transit Bike Walking Total
$0.5 M
$17 - 20 M
TOTAL: $18 - 21 M
$0.5 M
$2 M
$17 - 20 M
TOTAL: $20.4 - 23.4 M
$1.4 M
TO
Shared Street
(Existing)
Miles of new bike facilities Miles of new bike facilities Miles of new bike facilities
All numbers are in 2018 dollars, M=millions.
SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit
Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership
26,000
7,900,000
28,000
7,900,000
60,000
17,200,000
57.5%
8%
3.3%
16.3%
14.9%
55.7%
9.3%
3.5%
15.9%
15.6%
51.8%
10.9%
6.2%
14.9%
16.2%
99%
All
Facilities
38%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
72%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
98%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour
30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
10.66 0 0
19.8
TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
37.26 4.02 0
0
TOTAL:
24.72
61.12
113.4 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
54 75.97
TOTAL:
22% 22% 31%
quare mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions
Existing Missing
80%
20%
90%
10%
100%
y Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit
60.7%
23.4
TOTAL:
75
Enhanced
Facilities
protected and
ffered bike lanes)
33%
00
000
Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership
26,000
7,900,000
28,000
7,900,000
60,000
17,200,000
57.5%
8%
3.3%
16.3%
14.9%
55.7%
9.3%
3.5%
15.9%
15.6%
51.8%
10.9%
6.2%
14.9%
16.2%
99%
All
Facilities
38%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
72%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
98%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lane
171
27 miles
per
hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 mil
per
minutes per mile hou
30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
10.66 0 0
19.8
TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
37.26 4.02 0
0
TOTAL:
24
61
113.4 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
54 75.97
TOT
12% 22% 22% 31%
and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions
Bike Lane
75%
Existing Missing
80%
20%
90%
10%
100%
ort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit
60.7%
17.4%
12%
7.6%
1.8%
3.32 23.4
TOTAL:
19.75
99%
All
Facilities
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
33%
15,000
4,300,000
Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership
26,000
7,900,000
28,000
7,900,000
60
17,20
57.5%
8%
3.3%
16.3%
14.9%
55.7%
9.3%
3.5%
15.9%
15.6%
10.9%
6.2%
14.9
16.2%
99%
All
Facilities
38%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
72%
Enhanced
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
All
Facilities
171
1.6 27 miles
per
nutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles
per
minutes per mile hour 1.7
minutes per m
.31
30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
10.66 0 0
19.8
TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY
37.26 4.02 0
0
TOTAL:
113.4 N
54 7
12% 22% 22%
old of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions
Buffered Bike Lane
Bike Lane
75%
25%
Existing Missing
80%
20%
90%
10%
93%
51%
n that lives
increases
g the best
e facilities.
Living
Area
walks
mplete
ership
oday in all
similar in
owth from
ice hours,
em, while
c increase
m today).
ctivity
ership per
r revenue
om today
would be a
cenarios 1
and 2.
ransit
to transit
ario 1 and
ng service
RT routes.
Cost*
Transit: $25,700,000
Bike: $436,000
Total: $26,100,000
Transit: $30,100,000
Bike: $470,000
Total: $30,600,000
Transit: $33,500,000
Bike: $1,900,000
Total: $35,400,000
Transit: $77,000,000
Bike: $6,000,000
Total: $83,000,000
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT and regional
routes
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except regional routes
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT and regional
routes
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except regional routes
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT, regional transit
and mobility innovation
services+
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except regional routes
within 1
BRT
within 1
except
and mo
services
within 1
except
99%
33%
32%
$77,0
$83,0
$6,0
Transit Bike Total
$33,500,000
$1,900,000
$30,100,000
$30,600,000
$470,000
$25,700,000
$26,100,000
$436,000
82%
Average Daily Riders Per Hour Average Daily Riders Per Mile
15,000
4,300,000
Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership
2.8
35
26,000
7,900,000
5.4
68
28,000
7,900,000
5.6
70
60
17,20
99%
38%
99%
72%
99%
+. Mobility Innovation Services will be developed in the future but are intended to be first-last-mile connections to the transit system for lower-density
areas in Fort Collins. Examples could include pick-up/drop-off services (similar to Lyft or Urber) to transit stops, microtransit shuttles, or other con-
nections that could be facilitated by new transportation technologies in the future. In general, these services have lower operating costs than fixed route
services in low-density areas.
Tran-
eekday
3-2016
imated
ates do
and
2. Bike costs for each scenario were based on the asusmption that the cost for neighborhood greenways
and bike lanes was minimal, consisting only of signing and striping, and therefore negligible at this high
level of an estimate. The cost per mile of protected bike lane or buffered bike lane is about $1,000,000.
3. Over 20 years, this equates to $9,273,233 for Scenario 1, $47,779,086 for Scenario 2 and $169,017,055
for Scenario 3.
4. This just includes the cost for construction, excluding right of way.
Pedestrian Cost:
1. This just includes the cost for construction, excluding right of way.
2. Over 20 years, this equates to $9,321,100 for Scenario 1, $27,611,550 for Scenario 2 and $46,605,566 for
Scenario 3.
12% 22% 22%
* A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions
75%
25%
Existing Missing
80%
20%
90%
10%
93%
82% 70%
71%
75%
51%
87%
85%
24% 19%
ilities
n that lives
increases
g the best
e facilities.
Living
Area
walks
mplete
ership
oday in all
similar in
owth from
ice hours,
em, while
c increase
m today).
ctivity
ership per
r revenue
om today
would be a
cenarios 1
and 2.
ransit
to transit
ario 1 and
ng service
RT routes.
Cost*
Transit: $25,700,000
Bike: $436,000
Total: $26,100,000
Transit: $30,100,000
Bike: $470,000
Total: $30,600,000
Transit: $33,500,000
Bike: $1,900,000
Total: $35,400,000
Transit: $77,000,000
Bike: $6,000,000
Total: $83,000,000
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT and regional
routes
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except regional routes
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT and regional
routes
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except regional routes
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT, regional transit
and mobility innovation
services+
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except regional routes
within 1
BRT
within 1
except
and mo
services
within 1
except
99%
Facilities
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
33%
32%
$77,0
$83,0
$6,0
Transit Bike Total
$33,500,000
$1,900,000
$30,100,000
$30,600,000
$470,000
$25,700,000
$26,100,000
$436,000
82%
Average Daily Riders Per Hour Average Daily Riders Per Mile
15,000
4,300,000
Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership
2.8
35
26,000
7,900,000
5.4
68
28,000
7,900,000
5.6
70
60
17,20
99%
Facilities
38%
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
Facilities
72%
(protected and
buffered bike lanes)
99%
Facilities
+. Mobility Innovation Services will be developed in the future but are intended to be first-last-mile connections to the transit system for lower-density
areas in Fort Collins. Examples could include pick-up/drop-off services (similar to Lyft or Urber) to transit stops, microtransit shuttles, or other con-
nections that could be facilitated by new transportation technologies in the future. In general, these services have lower operating costs than fixed route
services in low-density areas.
Tran-
eekday
3-2016
imated
ates do
and
2. Bike costs for each scenario were based on the asusmption that the cost for neighborhood greenways
and bike lanes was minimal, consisting only of signing and striping, and therefore negligible at this high
level of an estimate. The cost per mile of protected bike lane or buffered bike lane is about $1,000,000.
3. Over 20 years, this equates to $9,273,233 for Scenario 1, $47,779,086 for Scenario 2 and $169,017,055
for Scenario 3.
4. This just includes the cost for construction, excluding right of way.
Pedestrian Cost:
1. This just includes the cost for construction, excluding right of way.
2. Over 20 years, this equates to $9,321,100 for Scenario 1, $27,611,550 for Scenario 2 and $46,605,566 for
Scenario 3.
12% 22% 22%
* A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions
75%
25%
Existing Missing
80%
20%
90%
10%
93%
82% 70%
71%
75%
51%
87%
85%
24% 19%
3.1
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment: City Plan Scenarios Overview (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
26%
3.1% 3.1% 0.5%
0.9%
5.4%
2.7%
2.2%
0.6%
Rural Neighborhood Single-Family Neighborhood Mixed Neighborhood Neighborhood Mixed-Use District Suburban Mixed-Use District Urban Mixed-Use District
Downtown District Employment District Industrial District Campus District Community Separator Natural and Protected Lands
Character of Mixed-Use
Development
All three scenarios promote a broader mix of uses
along major corridors and in activity centers, such
as Downtown. However, the type of mixed-use
development that is encouraged in different locations
varies. Scenario 1 largely maintains the suburban
character of existing centers and corridors in Fort
Collins, but seeks to promote retrofits or redevelopment
that introduces a wider range of uses. Under Scenarios
2 and 3, more of these areas would redevelop with
a more urban character, supporting a greater mix of
uses, taller buildings, and less space devoted to surface
parking lots.
Downtown
Urban Mixed-Use
Suburban Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Mixed-Use
13%
7%
73%
7%
12%
22%
59%
7%
Downtown
Urban Mixed-Use
Suburban Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Mixed-Use
12%
40%
41%
7%
Downtown
Urban Mixed-Use
Suburban Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Mixed-Use
Average Density in
Mixed-Use Areas
All three scenarios assume that infill and redevelopment
will largely be focused in the four mixed-use districts:
downtown, urban mixed-use, suburban mixed-use,
and neighborhood mixed-use. However, the density of
this development varies by scenario. Average densities
assumed to occur in mixed-use districts increases
from Scenario 1 to Scenario 3 to help support the
community’s desire for more robust transit system.
7.8
du/ac
12.0
du/ac 18.9
du/ac
Overall Capacity for
Non-Residential Development
The city’s current supply of non-residential land is more
than adequate to meet future demand. However, the
scenarios vary in the amount of surplus commercial/
mixed-use, industrial, and employment land capacity
created. The scenarios also vary in terms of the location
of non-residential lands. (See Economic Health metrics
for more detailed information.)
DEMAND SURPLUS
580 ac
Industrial
930 ac
Employment
360 ac
Commercial/Mixed-Use
DEMAND SURPLUS
610 ac
Industrial
210 ac
Employment
290 ac
Commercial/Mixed-Use
DEMAND SURPLUS
230 ac
Industrial
580 ac
Employment
230 ac
Commercial/Mixed-Use
Overall Capacity
for Residential Development
The city’s current supply of residential lands is not
sufficient to meet expected demand by 2040. While
each scenario expands our supply enough to account
for future demand, the amount of surplus capacity
created—and the mix of housing options that could
be accommodated— varies by scenario. (See Housing
Access metrics for a breakdown of residential capacity
by housing type.)
DEMAND SURPLUS
11,000
Dwelling Units
30,480
Dwelling Units
DEMAND SURPLUS
17,600
Dwelling Units
30,480
Dwelling Units
DEMAND SURPLUS
30,000
Dwelling Units
30,480
EC C Dwelling Units
HEALTH
BUILDOUT AND LAND SUPPLY
The performance metrics below illustrate how well each scenario would meet our needs for different types
of residential and non-residential development in the future, as well as what the City’s ultimate capacity
for future growth would be under each scenario. Key distinctions in the scenarios from a buildout and land
supply standpoint include the overall mix and distribution of certain land uses—such as mixed-use areas
and employment/industrial areas, and the overall density/intensity of development in these areas.
PERFORMANCE METRICS
HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE?
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Diversity of Housing Types
Each scenario represents potential shifts to better meet
the city’s increasing demand for more diverse housing
options. Scenario 1 maintains the historic trend with a
large majority of the residential land continuing a low
density development pattern. Scenario 2 and 3 reflect
the recent construction trends with Scenario 3 shifting
towards higher density multifamily development.
Low Density
(Under 5 du/ac) 22,800
Units
Medium Density
(5-20 du/ac) 14,300
Units
High Density
(Over 20 du/ac) 4,400
Units
Low Density
(Under 5 du/ac) 22,200
Units
Medium Density
(5-20 du/ac) 17,100
Units
High Density
(Over 20 du/ac) 10,200
Units
Low Density
(Under 5 du/ac) 16,200
Units
Medium Density
(5-20 du/ac) 22,200
Units
High Density
(Over 20 du/ac) 23,600
Units
Housing Capacity versus
Housing Demand
Each scenario provides a mix of housing types (low,
medium, and high density). Scenario 1 provides an
excess supply of low and medium-density residential,
but lacks the capacity to accommodate demand for
high-density residential. Scenario 2 exceeds the demand
for low and medium-density residential, but is closely
aligned with demand for high-density residential.
Scenario 3 generally balances supply and demand for
low-density residential while resulting in excess capacity
for medium and high-density residential.
22,800
14,300
4,400
CAPACITY
DEMAND
10,700
6,200
13,700
22,200
17,100
10,700
CAPACITY
DEMAND
10,200
6,200
13,700
16,200
22,200
10,700
CAPACITY
DEMAND
23,600
6,200
13,700
Low Density Demand
(Under 5 du/ac)
Medium Density Demand
(5 to 20 du/ac)
High Density Demand
(Over 20 du/ac)
Low Density Capacity
(Under 5 du/ac)
Medium Density Capacity
(5 to 20 du/ac)
High Density Capacity
(Over 20 du/ac)
Proximity and Connectivity of
Housing and Jobs
Another major component of housing access is the
ability of residents to live close to where they work.
Ensuring that diverse housing housing options are
located near existing and planned employment areas
and the city’s BRT and high frequency bus lines will
increase housing access. While each scenario supports
these objectives, the number of housing units that
are available in more accessible locations, and the
diversity of housing options in those locations increases
progressively.
Housing Costs/Affordability
While not a direct proxy for housing cost and
affordability, the degree to which each scenario has
capacity for a mix of housing types will influence the
range of housing options that are available in terms
of unit size, cost, and location. All three scenarios are
aligned with future housing demand; however, they
vary in the degree to which they increase capacity
for medium and high density housing and overall land
supply for housing.
Aligns with future housing demand?
Somewhat Somewhat Somewhat
Increases capacity for medium and high density housing?
Somewhat Somewhat Fully/Mostly
Increases land supply for housing?
Does Not Fully/Mostly Fully/Mostly
Housing Programs and Policies
The City of Fort Collins has a number of programs
and policies aimed at expanding and maintaining the
city’s supply of affordable and workforce housing. In
conjunction with any of the scenarios, the City could
choose to either maintain current programs and
policies, or to pursue more agressive approaches to
further augment this supply.
KEY POLICY QUESTIONS
Should the City define specific locations where more affordable housing is needed?
Should the City dedicate more funding from existing revenue streams, or establish a dedicated revenue stream to help build affordable housing?
Should the City incentivize and/or require the inclusion of affordable housing units in certain types of developments?
EC C
HEALTH
HOUSING ACCESS
Fort Collins continues to be a desirable place to live and work. At the same time, the demographics of the city
are changing, creating demand for more diverse housing options. High rates of employment growth coupled
with a lack of residential land, low-density development patterns, and stagnant household incomes have
all contributed to the city’s affordability challenges. More accessible housing options are needed to reduce
commuting impacts on the transportation system and allow residents of all income levels to live in the city. The
scenarios explore ways in which the city’s land use patterns can help increase housing access - through variations
in the mix of housing types and densities and by shifting some land currently designated for employment uses to
residential uses. Potential programs to encourage and preserve affordable or workforce housing could be used to
supplement any of the land use scenarios.
PERFORMANCE METRICS
HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE?
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Jobs/Housing Balance
Fort Collins currently has a job-to-housing unit ratio of
1.27, meaning the number of jobs available in the city
is larger than the number of housing units. Fort Collins
is a regional job center in northern Colorado and a
portion of people employed in Fort Collins commute
in from outside the City. Going forward, reducing the
number of people employed in Fort Collins having to
commute into the community can help with the City’s
climate action and transportation goals. However,
maintaining current economic growth and providing
additional opportunities for employees at all wage levels
to live in Fort Collins will be challenging as surrounding
communities increasingly offer affordable housing
options. At buildout, the city’s job-to-housing unit ratio
would vary significantly by scenario.
1.43
162,500
Jobs
113,900
Housing Units
1.26
147,900
Jobs
117,000
Housing Units
1.07
154,300
Jobs
144,584
Housing Units
New Job and New
Housing Unit Capacity
Fort Collins’ ability to achieve a more balanced job-to-
housing unit ratio will require a focus on expanding
capacity for both new jobs and new housing. While
Scenarios 1 and 2 both add signficant new job capacity,
they provide significantly less new housing capacity
than Scenario 3. As a result of this housing focus,
Scenario 3 translates to a job-to-housing ratio that is
much lower than the current ratio.
New Job
Capacity 77,300
47,200
New Housing
Unit Capacity
New Job
Capacity 62,800
50,300
New Housing
Unit Capacity
New Job
Capacity 78,000
69,100
New Housing
Unit Capacity
Competitiveness of
Employment, Commercial, and
Industrial lands
While competitiveness is not something that can
Short Term
Opportunities
Long Term
Opportunities
Low
High
Short Term
Opportunities
Long Term
Opportunities
Low
Investment
High
Investment
Short Term
Opportunities
Long Term
Opportunities
Low
Investment
High
Investment
ECONOMIC HEALTH
Employment growth is outpacing housing growth both in the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. This trend,
if it continues, could result in more people living outside of the city and commuting in for work. Fort Collins is
capturing a smaller share of county employment growth and development growth has shifted from the US 287
corridor and towards the I-25 corridor. Additionally, employment demand is shifting within the city and areas
currently planned for employment growth may not meet future demand. While the city has an adequate supply
of employment and industrial lands, not all planned employment areas are located in areas that are attractive to
businesses. A significant amount of the employment land is located in areas that lack infrastructure and services
needed to support development. The scenarios explore a range of ways to accomodate future employment
demand and help better position the city to capture future employers and employees.
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Overall Mix of Land Uses
The overall mix of land uses is fairly consistent between
the three scenarios. Primary distinctions lie in the
amount of employment and industrial land, and in
the amount of land allocated to suburban mixed-use
districts versus urban mixed-use districts. A more
detailed breakdown and discussion of these differences
is reflected in the metrics below.
City and
Growth
Management
Area
City and
Growth
Management
Area
8%
30%
15%
26%
0.5%
5%
0.5%
0.9%
6.4%
3.9%
2.4%
0.6%
City and
Growth
Management
Area
8%
30%
17%
26%
1.7% 4.3% 0.5%
0.9%
4.5%
4%
2.2%
0.6%
City and
Growth
Management
Area
8%
30%
17%
26%
3.1% 3.1% 0.5%
0.9%
5.4%
2.7%
2.2%
0.6%
Rural Neighborhood Single-Family Neighborhood Mixed Neighborhood Neighborhood Mixed-Use District Suburban Mixed-Use District Urban Mixed-Use District
Downtown District Employment District Industrial District Campus District Community Separator Natural and Protected Lands
Character of Mixed-Use
Development
All three scenarios promote a broader mix of uses
along major corridors and in activity centers, such
as Downtown. However, the type of mixed-use
development that is encouraged in different locations
varies. Scenario 1 largely maintains the suburban
character of existing centers and corridors in Fort
Collins, but seeks to promote retrofits or redevelopment
that introduces a wider range of uses. Under Scenarios
2 and 3, more of these areas would redevelop with
a more urban character, supporting a greater mix of
uses, taller buildings, and less space devoted to surface
parking lots.
Downtown
Urban Mixed-Use
Suburban Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Mixed-Use
13%
7%
73%
7%
12%
22%
59%
7%
Downtown
Urban Mixed-Use
Suburban Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Mixed-Use
12%
40%
41%
7%
Downtown
Urban Mixed-Use
Suburban Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Mixed-Use
Average Density in
Mixed-Use Areas
All three scenarios assume that infill and redevelopment
will largely be focused in the four mixed-use districts:
downtown, urban mixed-use, suburban mixed-use,
and neighborhood mixed-use. However, the density of
this development varies by scenario. Average densities
assumed to occur in mixed-use districts increases
from Scenario 1 to Scenario 3 to help support the
community’s desire for more robust transit system.
7.8
du/ac
12.0
du/ac 18.9
du/ac
Overall Capacity for
Non-Residential Development
The city’s current supply of non-residential land is more
than adequate to meet future demand. However, the
scenarios vary in the amount of surplus commercial/
mixed-use, industrial, and employment land capacity
created. The scenarios also vary in terms of the location
of non-residential lands. (See Economic Health metrics
for more detailed information.)
DEMAND SURPLUS
580 ac
Industrial
930 ac
Employment
360 ac
Commercial/Mixed-Use
DEMAND SURPLUS
610 ac
Industrial
210 ac
Employment
290 ac
Commercial/Mixed-Use
DEMAND SURPLUS
230 ac
Industrial
580 ac
Employment
230 ac
Commercial/Mixed-Use
Overall Capacity
for Residential Development
The city’s current supply of residential lands is not
sufficient to meet expected demand by 2040. While
each scenario expands our supply enough to account
for future demand, the amount of surplus capacity
created—and the mix of housing options that could
be accommodated— varies by scenario. (See Housing
Access metrics for a breakdown of residential capacity
by housing type.)
DEMAND SURPLUS
11,000
Dwelling Units
30,480
Dwelling Units
DEMAND SURPLUS
17,600
Dwelling Units
30,480
Dwelling Units
DEMAND SURPLUS
30,000
Dwelling Units
30,480
EC C Dwelling Units
HEALTH
and employment/industrial areas, and the overall density/intensity of development in these areas.
New Job and New Housing
Unit Capacity
Jobs/Housing Balance
Character of Mixed-Use
Development
Average Density
in Mixed-Use Areas
Diversity of Housing Types
PERFORMANCE METRICS
HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE?
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Transportation Energy
and GHG Emissions
All three scenarios continue to rely on the personal
vehicle for a significant portion of trips. However,
scenarios 2 and 3 significantly reduce those trips,
create additional transportation choices through
transit, bikeability, and walkability, and reduce overall
vehicle miles traveled and emissions by XX and YY.
And because transportation represents such a sizable
portion of the community’s overall greenhouse gas
emissions, and because mode shifting can only address
a relatively small share of those emissions, supporting
the transition to electric vehicles—shared or owned—will
be an important supplement to all scenarios.
7%
Reduction
15%
Reduction
29%
Reduction
Building Energy
and GHG Emissions
Scenarios 2 and 3 increase urban density and create a
housing mix with a greater share of multifamily housing
units relative to single family. This is an important
shift with regard to energy use and GHG emissions as
multifamily units in buildings with five or more units
use about 64% of the energy of detached single family
units. Multifamily buildings with 2-4 units use about 50%
less than detached single family units. All Scenarios will
reduce energy use per housing unit relative to current
conditions, and Scenarios 2 and 3 will reduce energy
use per unit even further due to the additional units in
each scenario.
X%
Reduction per
Housing Unit
4%
Reduction per
Housing Unit
12%
Reduction per
Housing Unit
Household Water Consumption
Since the largest source of water consumption in single-
family housing is irrigation, any scenario that promotes
increased density and a higher overall proportion
of multifamily housing will reduce the community’s
irrigation and overall water consumption relative to the
base scenario. Ft. Collins data suggests that multifamily
units use 17% less water than single family units, largely
due to reduced irrigation. Further, with increasing
density, total household water use will approach indoor
water use (i.e., irrigation will trend towards zero gallons
per multifamily household). As a result Scenario 2
is anticipated to result in a modest 4% reduction in
household water use relative to Scenario 1, and Scenario
3 is anticipated to reduce water use by 12%.
Reduction per
2% Housing Unit Reduction per
6% Housing Unit Reduction per
14% Housing Unit
Human Health
CLIMATE ACTION
City Plan will have a significant impact on the community’s ability to meet its broader environmental and human
health goals. Increased density and transportation choices result in a smaller land use footprint, reduced vehicle
miles traveled, increased walkability and bikeability, and smaller housing units sizes. This in turn translates to
reduced energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and water demand, and improved health outcomes. If done in
concern with public greenspace and greenways, it can also yield greater opportunities for habitat, recreation, and
connection to the outdoors.
Household Water
Consumption
PERFORMANCE METRICS
HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE?
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Transportation Energy
and GHG Emissions
All three scenarios continue to rely on the personal
vehicle for a significant portion of trips. However,
scenarios 2 and 3 significantly reduce those trips,
create additional transportation choices through
transit, bikeability, and walkability, and reduce overall
vehicle miles traveled and emissions by XX and YY.
And because transportation represents such a sizable
portion of the community’s overall greenhouse gas
emissions, and because mode shifting can only address
a relatively small share of those emissions, supporting
the transition to electric vehicles—shared or owned—will
be an important supplement to all scenarios.
7%
Reduction
15%
Reduction
29%
Reducti
Building Energy
and GHG Emissions
Scenarios 2 and 3 increase urban density and create a
housing mix with a greater share of multifamily housing
units relative to single family. This is an important
shift with regard to energy use and GHG emissions as
multifamily units in buildings with five or more units
use about 64% of the energy of detached single family
units. Multifamily buildings with 2-4 units use about 50%
less than detached single family units. All Scenarios will
reduce energy use per housing unit relative to current
conditions, and Scenarios 2 and 3 will reduce energy
use per unit even further due to the additional units in
each scenario.
X%
Reduction per
Housing Unit
4%
Reduction per
Housing Unit
12%
Reduction
Housing Un
Household Water Consumption
Since the largest source of water consumption in single-
family housing is irrigation, any scenario that promotes
increased density and a higher overall proportion
of multifamily housing will reduce the community’s
irrigation and overall water consumption relative to the
base scenario. Ft. Collins data suggests that multifamily
units use 17% less water than single family units, largely
due to reduced irrigation. Further, with increasing
density, total household water use will approach indoor
water use (i.e., irrigation will trend towards zero gallons
per multifamily household). As a result Scenario 2
is anticipated to result in a modest 4% reduction in
household water use relative to Scenario 1, and Scenario
3 is anticipated to reduce water use by 12%.
Reduction per
2% Housing Unit Reduction per
6% Housing Unit Reduction per
14% Housing Unit
Human Health
CLIMATE ACTION
City Plan will have a significant impact on the community’s ability to meet its broader environmental and human
health goals. Increased density and transportation choices result in a smaller land use footprint, reduced vehicle
miles traveled, increased walkability and bikeability, and smaller housing units sizes. This in turn translates to
reduced energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and water demand, and improved health outcomes. If done in
concern with public greenspace and greenways, it can also yield greater opportunities for habitat, recreation, and
connection to the outdoors.
PERFORMANCE METRICS
HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE?
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Transportation Energy
and GHG Emissions
All three scenarios continue to rely on the personal
vehicle for a significant portion of trips. However,
scenarios 2 and 3 significantly reduce those trips,
create additional transportation choices through
transit, bikeability, and walkability, and reduce overall
vehicle miles traveled and emissions by XX and YY.
And because transportation represents such a sizable
portion of the community’s overall greenhouse gas
emissions, and because mode shifting can only address
a relatively small share of those emissions, supporting
the transition to electric vehicles—shared or owned—will
be an important supplement to all scenarios.
7%
Reduction
15%
Reduction
29%
Reduction
Building Energy
and GHG Emissions
Scenarios 2 and 3 increase urban density and create a
housing mix with a greater share of multifamily housing
units relative to single family. This is an important
shift with regard to energy use and GHG emissions as
multifamily units in buildings with five or more units
use about 64% of the energy of detached single family
units. Multifamily buildings with 2-4 units use about 50%
less than detached single family units. All Scenarios will
reduce energy use per housing unit relative to current
conditions, and Scenarios 2 and 3 will reduce energy
use per unit even further due to the additional units in
each scenario.
X%
Reduction per
Housing Unit
4%
Reduction per
Housing Unit
12%
Reduction per
Housing Unit
Household Water Consumption
Since the largest source of water consumption in single-
family housing is irrigation, any scenario that promotes
increased density and a higher overall proportion
of multifamily housing will reduce the community’s
irrigation and overall water consumption relative to the
base scenario. Ft. Collins data suggests that multifamily
units use 17% less water than single family units, largely
due to reduced irrigation. Further, with increasing
density, total household water use will approach indoor
water use (i.e., irrigation will trend towards zero gallons
per multifamily household). As a result Scenario 2
is anticipated to result in a modest 4% reduction in
household water use relative to Scenario 1, and Scenario
3 is anticipated to reduce water use by 12%.
Reduction per
2% Housing Unit Reduction per
6% Housing Unit Reduction per
14% Housing Unit
Human Health
CLIMATE ACTION
City Plan will have a significant impact on the community’s ability to meet its broader environmental and human
health goals. Increased density and transportation choices result in a smaller land use footprint, reduced vehicle
miles traveled, increased walkability and bikeability, and smaller housing units sizes. This in turn translates to
reduced energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and water demand, and improved health outcomes. If done in
concern with public greenspace and greenways, it can also yield greater opportunities for habitat, recreation, and
connection to the outdoors.
PERFORMANCE METRICS
HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE?
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Jobs/Housing Balance
Fort Collins currently has a job-to-housing unit ratio of
1.27, meaning the number of jobs available in the city
is larger than the number of housing units. Fort Collins
is a regional job center in northern Colorado and a
portion of people employed in Fort Collins commute
in from outside the City. Going forward, reducing the
number of people employed in Fort Collins having to
commute into the community can help with the City’s
climate action and transportation goals. However,
maintaining current economic growth and providing
additional opportunities for employees at all wage levels
to live in Fort Collins will be challenging as surrounding
communities increasingly offer affordable housing
options. At buildout, the city’s job-to-housing unit ratio
would vary significantly by scenario.
1.43
162,500
Jobs
113,900
Housing Units
1.26
147,900
Jobs
117,000
Housing Units
1.07
154,300
Jobs
144,584
Housing Units
New Job and New
Housing Unit Capacity
Fort Collins’ ability to achieve a more balanced job-to-
housing unit ratio will require a focus on expanding
capacity for both new jobs and new housing. While
Scenarios 1 and 2 both add signficant new job capacity,
they provide significantly less new housing capacity
than Scenario 3. As a result of this housing focus,
Scenario 3 translates to a job-to-housing ratio that is
much lower than the current ratio.
New Job
Capacity 77,300
47,200
New Housing
Unit Capacity
New Job
Capacity 62,800
50,300
New Housing
Unit Capacity
New Job
Capacity 78,000
69,100
New Housing
Unit Capacity
Competitiveness of
Employment, Commercial, and
Industrial lands
While competitiveness is not something that can
be measured quantitatively, there are a number of
factors that contribute to the competitiveness of the
city’s employment lands, including: the attractiveness
of existing buildings and land for companies, access
and connectivity to labor, presence of adequate utility
service and infrastructure, and surrounding uses and
businesses. Having a competitive supply of employment
land will better position Fort Collins to compete with
other locations in the region in terms of its ability
to capture future employers. Fort Collins has made
concerted efforts in the past to plan for and preserve
employment lands. As Fort Collins approaches build-
out, the viability of remaining employment land will be
critical factor in the health of the city’s economy.
Short Term
Opportunities
Long Term
Opportunities
Low
Investment
High
Investment
Short Term
Opportunities
Long Term
Opportunities
Low
Investment
High
Investment
Short Term
Opportunities
Long Term
Opportunities
Low
Investment
High
Investment
• Maintains current areas designated for
employment, providing ample supply
• Large portions of land designated for
employment may not be desirable or viable
within the planning horizon due to access
and infrastructure limitations
• Provides opportunities for more urban
employment nodes and shifts the locations
of opportunities for employment uses,
although not necessarily aligned with
the City’s strategy and desired land use
objectives in some areas, that most likely
viable in the near term and require less
investment to attract opportunities.
• Shifts some employment land to create more
residential land.
• Plans for a future that aims to realign the
types and distribution of employment lands
to match with future trends and support the
City’s economic health strategy
• May require significant investment and a
longer time period to capture opportunities.
• Similar to Sceanario2, this scenario also
shifts some employment land to create more
residential land.
Fiscal Impact /Cost to the City
to provide services
Not all vacant lands in the City’s Growth Management
Area (GMA) are development ready. Some lack the
infrastructure and services, such as water, necessary
to support new development. The costs to the city
for serving these areas will vary depending on the
location, the service provider, the use, and the intensity
of development, all of which vary by scenario. An
order of magnitude comparison of the fiscal impacts
(revenues and costs) to the City for providing services/
infrastructure was developed based on the acres of
employment/industrial land that would be contingent
upon major infrastructure investments and a citywide
$1,073,000 per acre
(Above Citywide average of $1M per acre)
$968,000 per acre
(Below Citywide average of $1M per acre)
$1,154,000 per acre
(Above Citywide average of $1M per acre)
• Maintains significant amount of land
capacity within Employment and Industrial
designations, especially on the eastern edge
of the city
• Promotes a continuation of more suburban
mixed use that has occurred along major
corridors in the past 10 to 20 years
• Limited additional areas for urban mixed-
use
• Results in a slight increase value generated
• Shifts employment lands to plan for uses
that are more likely to develop in the near
term and would require less investment in
order to attract development/employers.
• Limited opportunities for higher-intensity
employment uses (i.e. office) and more land
for industrial, flex-industrial, and suburban
retail uses.
• Converts land currently designated for
employment and industrial in areas least
• Shifts a significant amount of employment-
oriented land towards industrial uses
• Reduces capacity for employment uses
overall to provide more capacity for housing
development.
• Expands urban mixed use areas
• Focuses new employment near existing
employment areas and high-frequency
transit
ECONOMIC HEALTH
Employment growth is outpacing housing growth both in the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. This trend,
if it continues, could result in more people living outside of the city and commuting in for work. Fort Collins is
capturing a smaller share of county employment growth and development growth has shifted from the US 287
corridor and towards the I-25 corridor. Additionally, employment demand is shifting within the city and areas
currently planned for employment growth may not meet future demand. While the city has an adequate supply
of employment and industrial lands, not all planned employment areas are located in areas that are attractive to
businesses. A significant amount of the employment land is located in areas that lack infrastructure and services
needed to support development. The scenarios explore a range of ways to accomodate future employment
demand and help better position the city to capture future employers and employees.
PERFORMANCE METRICS
HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE?
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Diversity of Housing Types
Each scenario represents potential shifts to better meet
the city’s increasing demand for more diverse housing
options. Scenario 1 maintains the historic trend with a
large majority of the residential land continuing a low
density development pattern. Scenario 2 and 3 reflect
the recent construction trends with Scenario 3 shifting
towards higher density multifamily development.
Low Density
(Under 5 du/ac) 22,800
Units
Medium Density
(5-20 du/ac) 14,300
Units
High Density
(Over 20 du/ac) 4,400
Units
Low Density
(Under 5 du/ac) 22,200
Units
Medium Density
(5-20 du/ac) 17,100
Units
High Density
(Over 20 du/ac) 10,200
Units
Low Density
(Under 5 du/ac) 16,200
Units
Medium Density
(5-20 du/ac) 22,200
Units
High Density
(Over 20 du/ac) 23,600
Units
Housing Capacity versus
Housing Demand
Each scenario provides a mix of housing types (low,
medium, and high density). Scenario 1 provides an
excess supply of low and medium-density residential,
but lacks the capacity to accommodate demand for
high-density residential. Scenario 2 exceeds the demand
for low and medium-density residential, but is closely
aligned with demand for high-density residential.
Scenario 3 generally balances supply and demand for
low-density residential while resulting in excess capacity
for medium and high-density residential.
22,800
14,300
4,400
CAPACITY
DEMAND
10,700
6,200
13,700
22,200
17,100
10,700
CAPACITY
DEMAND
10,200
6,200
13,700
16,200
22,200
10,700
CAPACITY
DEMAND
23,600
6,200
13,700
Low Density Demand
(Under 5 du/ac)
Medium Density Demand
(5 to 20 du/ac)
High Density Demand
(Over 20 du/ac)
Low Density Capacity
(Under 5 du/ac)
Medium Density Capacity
(5 to 20 du/ac)
High Density Capacity
(Over 20 du/ac)
Proximity and Connectivity of
Housing and Jobs
Another major component of housing access is the
ability of residents to live close to where they work.
Ensuring that diverse housing housing options are
located near existing and planned employment areas
and the city’s BRT and high frequency bus lines will
increase housing access. While each scenario supports
these objectives, the number of housing units that
are available in more accessible locations, and the
diversity of housing options in those locations increases
progressively.
Housing Costs/Affordability
While not a direct proxy for housing cost and
affordability, the degree to which each scenario has
capacity for a mix of housing types will influence the
range of housing options that are available in terms
of unit size, cost, and location. All three scenarios are
aligned with future housing demand; however, they
vary in the degree to which they increase capacity
for medium and high density housing and overall land
supply for housing.
Aligns with future housing demand?
Somewhat Somewhat Somewhat
Increases capacity for medium and high density housing?
Somewhat Somewhat Fully/Mostly
Increases land supply for housing?
Does Not Fully/Mostly Fully/Mostly
Housing Programs and Policies
The City of Fort Collins has a number of programs
and policies aimed at expanding and maintaining the
city’s supply of affordable and workforce housing. In
conjunction with any of the scenarios, the City could
choose to either maintain current programs and
policies, or to pursue more agressive approaches to
further augment this supply.
KEY POLICY QUESTIONS
Should the City define specific locations where more affordable housing is needed?
Should the City dedicate more funding from existing revenue streams, or establish a dedicated revenue stream to help build affordable housing?
Should the City incentivize and/or require the inclusion of affordable housing units in certain types of developments?
EC C
HEALTH
HOUSING ACCESS
Fort Collins continues to be a desirable place to live and work. At the same time, the demographics of the city
are changing, creating demand for more diverse housing options. High rates of employment growth coupled
with a lack of residential land, low-density development patterns, and stagnant household incomes have
all contributed to the city’s affordability challenges. More accessible housing options are needed to reduce
commuting impacts on the transportation system and allow residents of all income levels to live in the city. The
scenarios explore ways in which the city’s land use patterns can help increase housing access - through variations
in the mix of housing types and densities and by shifting some land currently designated for employment uses to
residential uses. Potential programs to encourage and preserve affordable or workforce housing could be used to
supplement any of the land use scenarios.
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Overall Mix of Land Uses
The overall mix of land uses is fairly consistent between
the three scenarios. Primary distinctions lie in the
amount of employment and industrial land, and in
the amount of land allocated to suburban mixed-use
districts versus urban mixed-use districts. A more
detailed breakdown and discussion of these differences
is reflected in the metrics below.
City and
Growth
Management
Area
City and
Growth
Management
Area
8%
30%
15%
26%
0.5%
5%
0.5%
0.9%
6.4%
3.9%
2.4%
0.6%
City and
Growth
Management
Area
8%
30%
17%
26%
1.7% 4.3% 0.5%
0.9%
4.5%
4%
2.2%
0.6%
City and
Growth
Management
Area
8%
30%
17%
26%
3.1% 3.1% 0.5%
0.9%
5.4%
2.7%
2.2%
0.6%
Rural Neighborhood Single-Family Neighborhood Mixed Neighborhood Neighborhood Mixed-Use District Suburban Mixed-Use District Urban Mixed-Use District
Downtown District Employment District Industrial District Campus District Community Separator Natural and Protected Lands
Character of Mixed-Use
Development
All three scenarios promote a broader mix of uses
along major corridors and in activity centers, such
as Downtown. However, the type of mixed-use
development that is encouraged in different locations
varies. Scenario 1 largely maintains the suburban
character of existing centers and corridors in Fort
Collins, but seeks to promote retrofits or redevelopment
that introduces a wider range of uses. Under Scenarios
2 and 3, more of these areas would redevelop with
a more urban character, supporting a greater mix of
uses, taller buildings, and less space devoted to surface
parking lots.
Downtown
Urban Mixed-Use
Suburban Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Mixed-Use
13%
7%
73%
7%
12%
22%
59%
7%
Downtown
Urban Mixed-Use
Suburban Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Mixed-Use
12%
40%
41%
7%
Downtown
Urban Mixed-Use
Suburban Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Mixed-Use
Average Density in
Mixed-Use Areas
All three scenarios assume that infill and redevelopment
will largely be focused in the four mixed-use districts:
downtown, urban mixed-use, suburban mixed-use,
and neighborhood mixed-use. However, the density of
this development varies by scenario. Average densities
assumed to occur in mixed-use districts increases
from Scenario 1 to Scenario 3 to help support the
community’s desire for more robust transit system.
7.8
du/ac
12.0
du/ac 18.9
du/ac
Overall Capacity for
Non-Residential Development
The city’s current supply of non-residential land is more
than adequate to meet future demand. However, the
scenarios vary in the amount of surplus commercial/
mixed-use, industrial, and employment land capacity
created. The scenarios also vary in terms of the location
of non-residential lands. (See Economic Health metrics
for more detailed information.)
DEMAND SURPLUS
580 ac
Industrial
930 ac
Employment
360 ac
Commercial/Mixed-Use
DEMAND SURPLUS
610 ac
Industrial
210 ac
Employment
290 ac
Commercial/Mixed-Use
DEMAND SURPLUS
230 ac
Industrial
580 ac
Employment
230 ac
Commercial/Mixed-Use
Overall Capacity
for Residential Development
The city’s current supply of residential lands is not
sufficient to meet expected demand by 2040. While
each scenario expands our supply enough to account
for future demand, the amount of surplus capacity
created—and the mix of housing options that could
be accommodated— varies by scenario. (See Housing
Access metrics for a breakdown of residential capacity
by housing type.)
DEMAND SURPLUS
11,000
Dwelling Units
30,480
Dwelling Units
DEMAND SURPLUS
17,600
Dwelling Units
30,480
Dwelling Units
DEMAND SURPLUS
30,000
Dwelling Units
30,480
EC C Dwelling Units
HEALTH
and employment/industrial areas, and the overall density/intensity of development in these areas.
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Overall Mix of Land Uses
The overall mix of land uses is fairly consistent between
the three scenarios. Primary distinctions lie in the
amount of employment and industrial land, and in
the amount of land allocated to suburban mixed-use
districts versus urban mixed-use districts. A more
detailed breakdown and discussion of these differences
is reflected in the metrics below.
City and
Growth
Management
Area
City and
Growth
Management
Area
8%
30%
15%
26%
0.5%
5%
0.5%
0.9%
6.4%
3.9%
2.4%
0.6%
City and
Growth
Management
Area
8%
30%
17%
26%
1.7% 4.3% 0.5%
0.9%
4.5%
4%
2.2%
0.6%
City and
Growth
Management
Area
8%
30%
17%
26%
3.1% 3.1% 0.5%
0.9%
5.4%
2.7%
2.2%
0.6%
Rural Neighborhood Single-Family Neighborhood Mixed Neighborhood Neighborhood Mixed-Use District Suburban Mixed-Use District Urban Mixed-Use District
Downtown District Employment District Industrial District Campus District Community Separator Natural and Protected Lands
Character of Mixed-Use
Development
All three scenarios promote a broader mix of uses
along major corridors and in activity centers, such
as Downtown. However, the type of mixed-use
development that is encouraged in different locations
varies. Scenario 1 largely maintains the suburban
character of existing centers and corridors in Fort
Collins, but seeks to promote retrofits or redevelopment
that introduces a wider range of uses. Under Scenarios
2 and 3, more of these areas would redevelop with
a more urban character, supporting a greater mix of
uses, taller buildings, and less space devoted to surface
parking lots.
Downtown
Urban Mixed-Use
Suburban Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Mixed-Use
13%
7%
73%
7%
12%
22%
59%
7%
Downtown
Urban Mixed-Use
Suburban Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Mixed-Use
12%
40%
41%
7%
Downtown
Urban Mixed-Use
Suburban Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Mixed-Use
Average Density in
Mixed-Use Areas
All three scenarios assume that infill and redevelopment
will largely be focused in the four mixed-use districts:
downtown, urban mixed-use, suburban mixed-use,
and neighborhood mixed-use. However, the density of
this development varies by scenario. Average densities
assumed to occur in mixed-use districts increases
from Scenario 1 to Scenario 3 to help support the
community’s desire for more robust transit system.
7.8
du/ac
12.0
du/ac 18.9
du/ac
Overall Capacity for
Non-Residential Development
The city’s current supply of non-residential land is more
than adequate to meet future demand. However, the
scenarios vary in the amount of surplus commercial/
mixed-use, industrial, and employment land capacity
created. The scenarios also vary in terms of the location
of non-residential lands. (See Economic Health metrics
for more detailed information.)
DEMAND SURPLUS
580 ac
Industrial
930 ac
Employment
360 ac
Commercial/Mixed-Use
DEMAND SURPLUS
610 ac
Industrial
210 ac
Employment
290 ac
Commercial/Mixed-Use
DEMAND SURPLUS
230 ac
Industrial
580 ac
Employment
230 ac
Commercial/Mixed-Use
Overall Capacity
for Residential Development
The city’s current supply of residential lands is not
sufficient to meet expected demand by 2040. While
each scenario expands our supply enough to account
for future demand, the amount of surplus capacity
created—and the mix of housing options that could
be accommodated— varies by scenario. (See Housing
Access metrics for a breakdown of residential capacity
by housing type.)
DEMAND SURPLUS
11,000
Dwelling Units
30,480
Dwelling Units
DEMAND SURPLUS
17,600
Dwelling Units
30,480
Dwelling Units
DEMAND SURPLUS
30,000
Dwelling Units
30,480
EC C Dwelling Units
HEALTH
and employment/industrial areas, and the overall density/intensity of development in these areas.
PERFORMANCE METRICS
HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE?
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Overall Mix of Land Uses
The overall mix of land uses is fairly consistent between
the three scenarios. Primary distinctions lie in the
amount of employment and industrial land, and in
the amount of land allocated to suburban mixed-use
districts versus urban mixed-use districts. A more
detailed breakdown and discussion of these differences
is reflected in the metrics below.
City and
Growth
Management
Area
City and
Growth
Management
Area
8%
30%
15%
26%
0.5%
5%
0.5%
0.9%
6.4%
3.9%
2.4%
0.6%
City and
Growth
Management
Area
8%
30%
17%
26%
1.7% 4.3% 0.5%
0.9%
4.5%
4%
2.2%
0.6%
City and
Growth
Management
Area
8%
30%
17%
26%
3.1% 3.1% 0.5%
0.9%
5.4%
2.7%
2.2%
0.6%
Rural Neighborhood Single-Family Neighborhood Mixed Neighborhood Neighborhood Mixed-Use District Suburban Mixed-Use District Urban Mixed-Use District
Downtown District Employment District Industrial District Campus District Community Separator Natural and Protected Lands
Character of Mixed-Use
Development
All three scenarios promote a broader mix of uses
along major corridors and in activity centers, such
as Downtown. However, the type of mixed-use
development that is encouraged in different locations
varies. Scenario 1 largely maintains the suburban
character of existing centers and corridors in Fort
Collins, but seeks to promote retrofits or redevelopment
that introduces a wider range of uses. Under Scenarios
2 and 3, more of these areas would redevelop with
a more urban character, supporting a greater mix of
uses, taller buildings, and less space devoted to surface
parking lots.
Downtown
Urban Mixed-Use
Suburban Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Mixed-Use
13%
7%
73%
7%
12%
22%
59%
7%
Downtown
Urban Mixed-Use
Suburban Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Mixed-Use
12%
40%
41%
7%
Downtown
Urban Mixed-Use
Suburban Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Mixed-Use
Average Density in
Mixed-Use Areas
All three scenarios assume that infill and redevelopment
will largely be focused in the four mixed-use districts:
downtown, urban mixed-use, suburban mixed-use,
and neighborhood mixed-use. However, the density of
this development varies by scenario. Average densities
assumed to occur in mixed-use districts increases
from Scenario 1 to Scenario 3 to help support the
community’s desire for more robust transit system.
7.8
du/ac
12.0
du/ac 18.9
du/ac
Overall Capacity for
Non-Residential Development
The city’s current supply of non-residential land is more
than adequate to meet future demand. However, the
scenarios vary in the amount of surplus commercial/
mixed-use, industrial, and employment land capacity
created. The scenarios also vary in terms of the location
of non-residential lands. (See Economic Health metrics
for more detailed information.)
DEMAND SURPLUS
580 ac
Industrial
930 ac
Employment
360 ac
Commercial/Mixed-Use
DEMAND SURPLUS
610 ac
Industrial
210 ac
Employment
290 ac
Commercial/Mixed-Use
DEMAND SURPLUS
230 ac
Industrial
580 ac
Employment
230 ac
Commercial/Mixed-Use
Overall Capacity
for Residential Development
The city’s current supply of residential lands is not
sufficient to meet expected demand by 2040. While
each scenario expands our supply enough to account
for future demand, the amount of surplus capacity
created—and the mix of housing options that could
be accommodated— varies by scenario. (See Housing
Access metrics for a breakdown of residential capacity
by housing type.)
DEMAND SURPLUS
11,000
Dwelling Units
30,480
Dwelling Units
DEMAND SURPLUS
17,600
Dwelling Units
30,480
Dwelling Units
DEMAND SURPLUS
30,000
Dwelling Units
30,480
EC C Dwelling Units
HEALTH
BUILDOUT AND LAND SUPPLY
The performance metrics below illustrate how well each scenario would meet our needs for different types
of residential and non-residential development in the future, as well as what the City’s ultimate capacity
for future growth would be under each scenario. Key distinctions in the scenarios from a buildout and land
supply standpoint include the overall mix and distribution of certain land uses—such as mixed-use areas
and employment/industrial areas, and the overall density/intensity of development in these areas.
PERFORMANCE METRICS
HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE?
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Overall Mix of Land Uses
The overall mix of land uses is fairly consistent between
the three scenarios. Primary distinctions lie in the
amount of employment and industrial land, and in
the amount of land allocated to suburban mixed-use
districts versus urban mixed-use districts. A more
detailed breakdown and discussion of these differences
is reflected in the metrics below.
City and
Growth
Management
Area
City and
Growth
Management
Area
8%
30%
15%
26%
0.5%
5%
0.5%
0.9%
6.4%
3.9%
2.4%
0.6%
City and
Growth
Management
Area
8%
30%
17%
26%
1.7% 4.3% 0.5%
0.9%
4.5%
4%
2.2%
0.6%
City and
Growth
Management
Area
8%
30%
17%
26%
3.1% 3.1% 0.5%
0.9%
5.4%
2.7%
2.2%
0.6%
Rural Neighborhood Single-Family Neighborhood Mixed Neighborhood Neighborhood Mixed-Use District Suburban Mixed-Use District Urban Mixed-Use District
Downtown District Employment District Industrial District Campus District Community Separator Natural and Protected Lands
Character of Mixed-Use
Development
All three scenarios promote a broader mix of uses
along major corridors and in activity centers, such
as Downtown. However, the type of mixed-use
development that is encouraged in different locations
varies. Scenario 1 largely maintains the suburban
character of existing centers and corridors in Fort
Collins, but seeks to promote retrofits or redevelopment
that introduces a wider range of uses. Under Scenarios
2 and 3, more of these areas would redevelop with
a more urban character, supporting a greater mix of
uses, taller buildings, and less space devoted to surface
parking lots.
Downtown
Urban Mixed-Use
Suburban Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Mixed-Use
13%
7%
73%
7%
12%
22%
59%
7%
Downtown
Urban Mixed-Use
Suburban Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Mixed-Use
12%
40%
41%
7%
Downtown
Urban Mixed-Use
Suburban Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Mixed-Use
Average Density in
Mixed-Use Areas
All three scenarios assume that infill and redevelopment
will largely be focused in the four mixed-use districts:
downtown, urban mixed-use, suburban mixed-use,
and neighborhood mixed-use. However, the density of
this development varies by scenario. Average densities
assumed to occur in mixed-use districts increases
from Scenario 1 to Scenario 3 to help support the
community’s desire for more robust transit system.
7.8
du/ac
12.0
du/ac 18.9
du/ac
Overall Capacity for
Non-Residential Development
The city’s current supply of non-residential land is more
than adequate to meet future demand. However, the
scenarios vary in the amount of surplus commercial/
mixed-use, industrial, and employment land capacity
created. The scenarios also vary in terms of the location
of non-residential lands. (See Economic Health metrics
for more detailed information.)
DEMAND SURPLUS
580 ac
Industrial
930 ac
Employment
360 ac
Commercial/Mixed-Use
DEMAND SURPLUS
610 ac
Industrial
210 ac
Employment
290 ac
Commercial/Mixed-Use
DEMAND SURPLUS
230 ac
Industrial
580 ac
Employment
230 ac
Commercial/Mixed-Use
Overall Capacity
for Residential Development
The city’s current supply of residential lands is not
sufficient to meet expected demand by 2040. While
each scenario expands our supply enough to account
for future demand, the amount of surplus capacity
created—and the mix of housing options that could
be accommodated— varies by scenario. (See Housing
Access metrics for a breakdown of residential capacity
by housing type.)
DEMAND SURPLUS
11,000
Dwelling Units
30,480
Dwelling Units
DEMAND SURPLUS
17,600
Dwelling Units
30,480
Dwelling Units
DEMAND SURPLUS
30,000
Dwelling Units
30,480
EC C Dwelling Units
HEALTH
BUILDOUT AND LAND SUPPLY
The performance metrics below illustrate how well each scenario would meet our needs for different types
of residential and non-residential development in the future, as well as what the City’s ultimate capacity
for future growth would be under each scenario. Key distinctions in the scenarios from a buildout and land
supply standpoint include the overall mix and distribution of certain land uses—such as mixed-use areas
and employment/industrial areas, and the overall density/intensity of development in these areas.
PERFORMANCE METRICS
HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE?
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Jobs/Housing Balance
Fort Collins currently has a job-to-housing unit ratio of
1.27, meaning the number of jobs available in the city
is larger than the number of housing units. Fort Collins
is a regional job center in northern Colorado and a
portion of people employed in Fort Collins commute
in from outside the City. Going forward, reducing the
number of people employed in Fort Collins having to
commute into the community can help with the City’s
climate action and transportation goals. However,
maintaining current economic growth and providing
additional opportunities for employees at all wage levels
to live in Fort Collins will be challenging as surrounding
communities increasingly offer affordable housing
options. At buildout, the city’s job-to-housing unit ratio
would vary significantly by scenario.
1.43
162,500
Jobs
113,900
Housing Units
1.26
147,900
Jobs
117,000
Housing Units
1.07
154,300
Jobs
144,584
Housing Units
New Job and New
Housing Unit Capacity
Fort Collins’ ability to achieve a more balanced job-to-
housing unit ratio will require a focus on expanding
capacity for both new jobs and new housing. While
Scenarios 1 and 2 both add signficant new job capacity,
they provide significantly less new housing capacity
than Scenario 3. As a result of this housing focus,
Scenario 3 translates to a job-to-housing ratio that is
much lower than the current ratio.
New Job
Capacity 77,300
47,200
New Housing
Unit Capacity
New Job
Capacity 62,800
50,300
New Housing
Unit Capacity
New Job
Capacity 78,000
69,100
New Housing
Unit Capacity
Competitiveness of
Employment, Commercial, and
Industrial lands
While competitiveness is not something that can
be measured quantitatively, there are a number of
factors that contribute to the competitiveness of the
city’s employment lands, including: the attractiveness
of existing buildings and land for companies, access
and connectivity to labor, presence of adequate utility
service and infrastructure, and surrounding uses and
businesses. Having a competitive supply of employment
land will better position Fort Collins to compete with
other locations in the region in terms of its ability
to capture future employers. Fort Collins has made
concerted efforts in the past to plan for and preserve
employment lands. As Fort Collins approaches build-
out, the viability of remaining employment land will be
critical factor in the health of the city’s economy.
Short Term
Opportunities
Long Term
Opportunities
Low
Investment
High
Investment
Short Term
Opportunities
Long Term
Opportunities
Low
Investment
High
Investment
Short Term
Opportunities
Long Term
Opportunities
Low
Investment
High
Investment
• Maintains current areas designated for
employment, providing ample supply
• Large portions of land designated for
employment may not be desirable or viable
within the planning horizon due to access
and infrastructure limitations
• Provides opportunities for more urban
employment nodes and shifts the locations
of opportunities for employment uses,
although not necessarily aligned with
the City’s strategy and desired land use
objectives in some areas, that most likely
viable in the near term and require less
investment to attract opportunities.
• Shifts some employment land to create more
residential land.
• Plans for a future that aims to realign the
types and distribution of employment lands
to match with future trends and support the
City’s economic health strategy
• May require significant investment and a
longer time period to capture opportunities.
• Similar to Sceanario2, this scenario also
shifts some employment land to create more
residential land.
Fiscal Impact /Cost to the City
to provide services
Not all vacant lands in the City’s Growth Management
Area (GMA) are development ready. Some lack the
infrastructure and services, such as water, necessary
to support new development. The costs to the city
for serving these areas will vary depending on the
location, the service provider, the use, and the intensity
of development, all of which vary by scenario. An
order of magnitude comparison of the fiscal impacts
(revenues and costs) to the City for providing services/
infrastructure was developed based on the acres of
employment/industrial land that would be contingent
upon major infrastructure investments and a citywide
$1,073,000 per acre
(Above Citywide average of $1M per acre)
$968,000 per acre
(Below Citywide average of $1M per acre)
$1,154,000 per acre
(Above Citywide average of $1M per acre)
• Maintains significant amount of land
capacity within Employment and Industrial
designations, especially on the eastern edge
of the city
• Promotes a continuation of more suburban
mixed use that has occurred along major
corridors in the past 10 to 20 years
• Limited additional areas for urban mixed-
use
• Results in a slight increase value generated
• Shifts employment lands to plan for uses
that are more likely to develop in the near
term and would require less investment in
order to attract development/employers.
• Limited opportunities for higher-intensity
employment uses (i.e. office) and more land
for industrial, flex-industrial, and suburban
retail uses.
• Converts land currently designated for
employment and industrial in areas least
• Shifts a significant amount of employment-
oriented land towards industrial uses
• Reduces capacity for employment uses
overall to provide more capacity for housing
development.
• Expands urban mixed use areas
• Focuses new employment near existing
employment areas and high-frequency
transit
ECONOMIC HEALTH
Employment growth is outpacing housing growth both in the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. This trend,
if it continues, could result in more people living outside of the city and commuting in for work. Fort Collins is
capturing a smaller share of county employment growth and development growth has shifted from the US 287
corridor and towards the I-25 corridor. Additionally, employment demand is shifting within the city and areas
currently planned for employment growth may not meet future demand. While the city has an adequate supply
of employment and industrial lands, not all planned employment areas are located in areas that are attractive to
businesses. A significant amount of the employment land is located in areas that lack infrastructure and services
needed to support development. The scenarios explore a range of ways to accomodate future employment
demand and help better position the city to capture future employers and employees.
PERFORMANCE METRICS
HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE?
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Jobs/Housing Balance
Fort Collins currently has a job-to-housing unit ratio of
1.27, meaning the number of jobs available in the city
is larger than the number of housing units. Fort Collins
is a regional job center in northern Colorado and a
portion of people employed in Fort Collins commute
in from outside the City. Going forward, reducing the
number of people employed in Fort Collins having to
commute into the community can help with the City’s
climate action and transportation goals. However,
maintaining current economic growth and providing
additional opportunities for employees at all wage levels
to live in Fort Collins will be challenging as surrounding
communities increasingly offer affordable housing
options. At buildout, the city’s job-to-housing unit ratio
would vary significantly by scenario.
1.43
162,500
Jobs
113,900
Housing Units
1.26
147,900
Jobs
117,000
Housing Units
1.07
154,300
Jobs
144,584
Housing Units
New Job and New
Housing Unit Capacity
Fort Collins’ ability to achieve a more balanced job-to-
housing unit ratio will require a focus on expanding
capacity for both new jobs and new housing. While
Scenarios 1 and 2 both add signficant new job capacity,
they provide significantly less new housing capacity
than Scenario 3. As a result of this housing focus,
Scenario 3 translates to a job-to-housing ratio that is
much lower than the current ratio.
New Job
Capacity 77,300
47,200
New Housing
Unit Capacity
New Job
Capacity 62,800
50,300
New Housing
Unit Capacity
New Job
Capacity 78,000
69,100
New Housing
Unit Capacity
Competitiveness of
Employment, Commercial, and
Industrial lands
While competitiveness is not something that can
be measured quantitatively, there are a number of
factors that contribute to the competitiveness of the
city’s employment lands, including: the attractiveness
of existing buildings and land for companies, access
and connectivity to labor, presence of adequate utility
service and infrastructure, and surrounding uses and
businesses. Having a competitive supply of employment
land will better position Fort Collins to compete with
other locations in the region in terms of its ability
to capture future employers. Fort Collins has made
concerted efforts in the past to plan for and preserve
employment lands. As Fort Collins approaches build-
out, the viability of remaining employment land will be
critical factor in the health of the city’s economy.
Short Term
Opportunities
Long Term
Opportunities
Low
Investment
High
Investment
Short Term
Opportunities
Long Term
Opportunities
Low
Investment
High
Investment
Short Term
Opportunities
Long Term
Opportunities
Low
Investment
High
Investment
• Maintains current areas designated for
employment, providing ample supply
• Large portions of land designated for
employment may not be desirable or viable
within the planning horizon due to access
and infrastructure limitations
• Provides opportunities for more urban
employment nodes and shifts the locations
of opportunities for employment uses,
although not necessarily aligned with
the City’s strategy and desired land use
objectives in some areas, that most likely
viable in the near term and require less
investment to attract opportunities.
• Shifts some employment land to create more
residential land.
• Plans for a future that aims to realign the
types and distribution of employment lands
to match with future trends and support the
City’s economic health strategy
• May require significant investment and a
longer time period to capture opportunities.
• Similar to Sceanario2, this scenario also
shifts some employment land to create more
residential land.
Fiscal Impact /Cost to the City
to provide services
Not all vacant lands in the City’s Growth Management
Area (GMA) are development ready. Some lack the
infrastructure and services, such as water, necessary
to support new development. The costs to the city
for serving these areas will vary depending on the
location, the service provider, the use, and the intensity
of development, all of which vary by scenario. An
order of magnitude comparison of the fiscal impacts
(revenues and costs) to the City for providing services/
infrastructure was developed based on the acres of
employment/industrial land that would be contingent
upon major infrastructure investments and a citywide
$1,073,000 per acre
(Above Citywide average of $1M per acre)
$968,000 per acre
(Below Citywide average of $1M per acre)
$1,154,000 per acre
(Above Citywide average of $1M per acre)
• Maintains significant amount of land
capacity within Employment and Industrial
designations, especially on the eastern edge
of the city
• Promotes a continuation of more suburban
mixed use that has occurred along major
corridors in the past 10 to 20 years
• Limited additional areas for urban mixed-
use
• Results in a slight increase value generated
• Shifts employment lands to plan for uses
that are more likely to develop in the near
term and would require less investment in
order to attract development/employers.
• Limited opportunities for higher-intensity
employment uses (i.e. office) and more land
for industrial, flex-industrial, and suburban
retail uses.
• Converts land currently designated for
employment and industrial in areas least
• Shifts a significant amount of employment-
oriented land towards industrial uses
• Reduces capacity for employment uses
overall to provide more capacity for housing
development.
• Expands urban mixed use areas
• Focuses new employment near existing
employment areas and high-frequency
transit
ECONOMIC HEALTH
Employment growth is outpacing housing growth both in the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. This trend,
if it continues, could result in more people living outside of the city and commuting in for work. Fort Collins is
capturing a smaller share of county employment growth and development growth has shifted from the US 287
corridor and towards the I-25 corridor. Additionally, employment demand is shifting within the city and areas
currently planned for employment growth may not meet future demand. While the city has an adequate supply
of employment and industrial lands, not all planned employment areas are located in areas that are attractive to
businesses. A significant amount of the employment land is located in areas that lack infrastructure and services
needed to support development. The scenarios explore a range of ways to accomodate future employment
demand and help better position the city to capture future employers and employees.
PERFORMANCE METRICS
HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE?
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Jobs/Housing Balance
Fort Collins currently has a job-to-housing unit ratio of
1.27, meaning the number of jobs available in the city
is larger than the number of housing units. Fort Collins
is a regional job center in northern Colorado and a
portion of people employed in Fort Collins commute
in from outside the City. Going forward, reducing the
number of people employed in Fort Collins having to
commute into the community can help with the City’s
climate action and transportation goals. However,
maintaining current economic growth and providing
additional opportunities for employees at all wage levels
to live in Fort Collins will be challenging as surrounding
communities increasingly offer affordable housing
options. At buildout, the city’s job-to-housing unit ratio
would vary significantly by scenario.
1.43
162,500
Jobs
113,900
Housing Units
1.26
147,900
Jobs
117,000
Housing Units
1.07
154,300
Jobs
144,584
Housing Units
New Job and New
Housing Unit Capacity
Fort Collins’ ability to achieve a more balanced job-to-
housing unit ratio will require a focus on expanding
capacity for both new jobs and new housing. While
Scenarios 1 and 2 both add signficant new job capacity,
they provide significantly less new housing capacity
than Scenario 3. As a result of this housing focus,
Scenario 3 translates to a job-to-housing ratio that is
much lower than the current ratio.
New Job
Capacity 77,300
47,200
New Housing
Unit Capacity
New Job
Capacity 62,800
50,300
New Housing
Unit Capacity
New Job
Capacity 78,000
69,100
New Housing
Unit Capacity
Competitiveness of
Employment, Commercial, and
Industrial lands
While competitiveness is not something that can
Short Term
Opportunities
Long Term
Opportunities
Low
High
Short Term
Opportunities
Long Term
Opportunities
Low
Investment
High
Investment
Short Term
Opportunities
Long Term
Opportunities
Low
Investment
High
Investment
ECONOMIC HEALTH
Employment growth is outpacing housing growth both in the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. This trend,
if it continues, could result in more people living outside of the city and commuting in for work. Fort Collins is
capturing a smaller share of county employment growth and development growth has shifted from the US 287
corridor and towards the I-25 corridor. Additionally, employment demand is shifting within the city and areas
currently planned for employment growth may not meet future demand. While the city has an adequate supply
of employment and industrial lands, not all planned employment areas are located in areas that are attractive to
businesses. A significant amount of the employment land is located in areas that lack infrastructure and services
needed to support development. The scenarios explore a range of ways to accomodate future employment
demand and help better position the city to capture future employers and employees.
PERFORMANCE METRICS
HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE?
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Jobs/Housing Balance
Fort Collins currently has a job-to-housing unit ratio of
1.27, meaning the number of jobs available in the city
is larger than the number of housing units. Fort Collins
is a regional job center in northern Colorado and a
portion of people employed in Fort Collins commute
in from outside the City. Going forward, reducing the
number of people employed in Fort Collins having to
commute into the community can help with the City’s
climate action and transportation goals. However,
maintaining current economic growth and providing
additional opportunities for employees at all wage levels
to live in Fort Collins will be challenging as surrounding
communities increasingly offer affordable housing
options. At buildout, the city’s job-to-housing unit ratio
would vary significantly by scenario.
1.43
162,500
Jobs
113,900
Housing Units
1.26
147,900
Jobs
117,000
Housing Units
1.07
154,300
Jobs
144,584
Housing Units
New Job and New
Housing Unit Capacity
Fort Collins’ ability to achieve a more balanced job-to-
housing unit ratio will require a focus on expanding
capacity for both new jobs and new housing. While
Scenarios 1 and 2 both add signficant new job capacity,
they provide significantly less new housing capacity
than Scenario 3. As a result of this housing focus,
Scenario 3 translates to a job-to-housing ratio that is
much lower than the current ratio.
New Job
Capacity 77,300
47,200
New Housing
Unit Capacity
New Job
Capacity 62,800
50,300
New Housing
Unit Capacity
New Job
Capacity 78,000
69,100
New Housing
Unit Capacity
Competitiveness of
Employment, Commercial, and
Industrial lands
While competitiveness is not something that can
Short Term
Opportunities
Long Term
Opportunities
Low
High
Short Term
Opportunities
Long Term
Opportunities
Low
Investment
High
Investment
Short Term
Opportunities
Long Term
Opportunities
Low
Investment
High
Investment
ECONOMIC HEALTH
Employment growth is outpacing housing growth both in the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. This trend,
if it continues, could result in more people living outside of the city and commuting in for work. Fort Collins is
capturing a smaller share of county employment growth and development growth has shifted from the US 287
corridor and towards the I-25 corridor. Additionally, employment demand is shifting within the city and areas
currently planned for employment growth may not meet future demand. While the city has an adequate supply
of employment and industrial lands, not all planned employment areas are located in areas that are attractive to
businesses. A significant amount of the employment land is located in areas that lack infrastructure and services
needed to support development. The scenarios explore a range of ways to accomodate future employment
demand and help better position the city to capture future employers and employees.
PERFORMANCE METRICS
HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE?
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Transportation Energy
and GHG Emissions
All three scenarios continue to rely on the personal
vehicle for a significant portion of trips. However,
scenarios 2 and 3 significantly reduce those trips,
create additional transportation choices through
transit, bikeability, and walkability, and reduce overall
vehicle miles traveled and emissions by XX and YY.
And because transportation represents such a sizable
portion of the community’s overall greenhouse gas
emissions, and because mode shifting can only address
a relatively small share of those emissions, supporting
the transition to electric vehicles—shared or owned—will
be an important supplement to all scenarios.
7%
Reduction
15%
Reduction
29%
Reduction
Building Energy
and GHG Emissions
Scenarios 2 and 3 increase urban density and create a
housing mix with a greater share of multifamily housing
units relative to single family. This is an important
shift with regard to energy use and GHG emissions as
multifamily units in buildings with five or more units
use about 64% of the energy of detached single family
units. Multifamily buildings with 2-4 units use about 50%
less than detached single family units. All Scenarios will
reduce energy use per housing unit relative to current
conditions, and Scenarios 2 and 3 will reduce energy
use per unit even further due to the additional units in
each scenario.
X%
Reduction per
Housing Unit
4%
Reduction per
Housing Unit
12%
Reduction per
Housing Unit
Household Water Consumption
Since the largest source of water consumption in single-
family housing is irrigation, any scenario that promotes
increased density and a higher overall proportion
of multifamily housing will reduce the community’s
irrigation and overall water consumption relative to the
base scenario. Ft. Collins data suggests that multifamily
units use 17% less water than single family units, largely
due to reduced irrigation. Further, with increasing
density, total household water use will approach indoor
water use (i.e., irrigation will trend towards zero gallons
per multifamily household). As a result Scenario 2
is anticipated to result in a modest 4% reduction in
household water use relative to Scenario 1, and Scenario
3 is anticipated to reduce water use by 12%.
Reduction per
2% Housing Unit Reduction per
6% Housing Unit Reduction per
14% Housing Unit
Human Health
City Plan impacts health in a number of ways. Shifting
the number of trips from cars to walking, biking, or
transit increases physical activity and reduces air
pollutants. It also creates more opportunity for the
community to have access to green space in the form
of parks or nature. As density increases and parks are
the city continues to develop parks, greenways, and
open space, an increasing number of residents will have
access to these amenities.
162,000
Residents
168,000
Residents
175,000
Residents
C
LTH
CLIMATE ACTION
City Plan will have a significant impact on the community’s ability to meet its broader environmental and human
health goals. Increased density and transportation choices result in a smaller land use footprint, reduced vehicle
miles traveled, increased walkability and bikeability, and smaller housing units sizes. This in turn translates to
reduced energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and water demand, and improved health outcomes. If done in
concern with public greenspace and greenways, it can also yield greater opportunities for habitat, recreation, and
connection to the outdoors.
PERFORMANCE METRICS
HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE?
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Transportation Energy
and GHG Emissions
All three scenarios continue to rely on the personal
vehicle for a significant portion of trips. However,
scenarios 2 and 3 significantly reduce those trips,
create additional transportation choices through
transit, bikeability, and walkability, and reduce overall
vehicle miles traveled and emissions by XX and YY.
And because transportation represents such a sizable
portion of the community’s overall greenhouse gas
emissions, and because mode shifting can only address
a relatively small share of those emissions, supporting
the transition to electric vehicles—shared or owned—will
be an important supplement to all scenarios.
7%
Reduction
15%
Reduction
29%
Reduction
Building Energy
and GHG Emissions
Scenarios 2 and 3 increase urban density and create a
housing mix with a greater share of multifamily housing
units relative to single family. This is an important
shift with regard to energy use and GHG emissions as
multifamily units in buildings with five or more units
use about 64% of the energy of detached single family
units. Multifamily buildings with 2-4 units use about 50%
less than detached single family units. All Scenarios will
reduce energy use per housing unit relative to current
conditions, and Scenarios 2 and 3 will reduce energy
use per unit even further due to the additional units in
each scenario.
X%
Reduction per
Housing Unit
4%
Reduction per
Housing Unit
12%
Reduction per
Housing Unit
Household Water Consumption
Since the largest source of water consumption in single-
family housing is irrigation, any scenario that promotes
increased density and a higher overall proportion
of multifamily housing will reduce the community’s
irrigation and overall water consumption relative to the
base scenario. Ft. Collins data suggests that multifamily
units use 17% less water than single family units, largely
due to reduced irrigation. Further, with increasing
density, total household water use will approach indoor
water use (i.e., irrigation will trend towards zero gallons
per multifamily household). As a result Scenario 2
is anticipated to result in a modest 4% reduction in
household water use relative to Scenario 1, and Scenario
3 is anticipated to reduce water use by 12%.
Reduction per
2% Housing Unit Reduction per
6% Housing Unit Reduction per
14% Housing Unit
Human Health
City Plan impacts health in a number of ways. Shifting
the number of trips from cars to walking, biking, or
transit increases physical activity and reduces air
pollutants. It also creates more opportunity for the
community to have access to green space in the form
of parks or nature. As density increases and parks are
the city continues to develop parks, greenways, and
open space, an increasing number of residents will have
access to these amenities.
162,000
Residents
168,000
Residents
175,000
Residents
C
LTH
CLIMATE ACTION
City Plan will have a significant impact on the community’s ability to meet its broader environmental and human
health goals. Increased density and transportation choices result in a smaller land use footprint, reduced vehicle
miles traveled, increased walkability and bikeability, and smaller housing units sizes. This in turn translates to
reduced energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and water demand, and improved health outcomes. If done in
concern with public greenspace and greenways, it can also yield greater opportunities for habitat, recreation, and
connection to the outdoors.
PERFORMANCE METRICS
HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE?
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER.
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Transportation Energy
and GHG Emissions
All three scenarios continue to rely on the personal
vehicle for a significant portion of trips. However,
scenarios 2 and 3 significantly reduce those trips,
create additional transportation choices through
transit, bikeability, and walkability, and reduce overall
vehicle miles traveled and emissions by XX and YY.
And because transportation represents such a sizable
portion of the community’s overall greenhouse gas
emissions, and because mode shifting can only address
a relatively small share of those emissions, supporting
the transition to electric vehicles—shared or owned—will
be an important supplement to all scenarios.
7%
Reduction
15%
Reduction
29%
Reduction
Building Energy
and GHG Emissions
Scenarios 2 and 3 increase urban density and create a
housing mix with a greater share of multifamily housing
units relative to single family. This is an important
shift with regard to energy use and GHG emissions as
multifamily units in buildings with five or more units
use about 64% of the energy of detached single family
units. Multifamily buildings with 2-4 units use about 50%
less than detached single family units. All Scenarios will
reduce energy use per housing unit relative to current
conditions, and Scenarios 2 and 3 will reduce energy
use per unit even further due to the additional units in
each scenario.
X%
Reduction per
Housing Unit
4%
Reduction per
Housing Unit
12%
Reduction per
Housing Unit
Household Water Consumption
Since the largest source of water consumption in single-
family housing is irrigation, any scenario that promotes
increased density and a higher overall proportion
of multifamily housing will reduce the community’s
irrigation and overall water consumption relative to the
base scenario. Ft. Collins data suggests that multifamily
units use 17% less water than single family units, largely
due to reduced irrigation. Further, with increasing
density, total household water use will approach indoor
water use (i.e., irrigation will trend towards zero gallons
per multifamily household). As a result Scenario 2
is anticipated to result in a modest 4% reduction in
household water use relative to Scenario 1, and Scenario
3 is anticipated to reduce water use by 12%.
Reduction per
2% Housing Unit Reduction per
6% Housing Unit Reduction per
14% Housing Unit
Human Health
City Plan impacts health in a number of ways. Shifting
the number of trips from cars to walking, biking, or
transit increases physical activity and reduces air
pollutants. It also creates more opportunity for the
community to have access to green space in the form
of parks or nature. As density increases and parks are
the city continues to develop parks, greenways, and
open space, an increasing number of residents will have
access to these amenities.
162,000
Residents
168,000
Residents
175,000
Residents
C
LTH
CLIMATE ACTION
City Plan will have a significant impact on the community’s ability to meet its broader environmental and human
health goals. Increased density and transportation choices result in a smaller land use footprint, reduced vehicle
miles traveled, increased walkability and bikeability, and smaller housing units sizes. This in turn translates to
reduced energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and water demand, and improved health outcomes. If done in
concern with public greenspace and greenways, it can also yield greater opportunities for habitat, recreation, and
connection to the outdoors.
Scenario 1 maintains the historic trend with a large
majority of the residential land continuing a low density
development pattern. Scenario 2 and 3 reflect the recent
construction trends with Scenario 3 shifting towards higher
density multifamily development.
The scenarios assume that the greatest amount of infill and
redevelopment will occur in the four mixed-use districts.
Average densities assumed to occur in mixed-use districts
increases from Scenario 1 to Scenario 3, to help support the
community’s desire for more robust transit system.
Scenario 1 largely maintains the suburban character of
existing centers and corridors while scenarios 2 and 3
show redevelop with a more urban character, supporting a
greater mix of uses and less surface for parking lots.
While Scenarios 1 and 2 both add signficant new job
capacity, they provide significantly less new housing
capacity than Scenario 3. As a result of this housing focus,
Scenario 3 translates to a job-to-housing ratio that is much
lower than the current ratio.
Fort Collins currently has a job-to-housing unit ratio of 1.27,
meaning the number of jobs available in the city
is larger than the number of housing units. At buildout, the
city’s job-to-housing unit ratio would vary significantly by
scenario.
Since the largest source of water consumption in single-
family housing is irrigation, any scenario that promotes
increased density and a higher overall proportion
of multifamily housing will reduce the community’s
irrigation and overall water consumption.
3.1
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: City Plan Scenarios Overview (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
except regional routes
51%
87%
$6 M
$25 - 30 M
TOTAL: $33.3 - 38.3 M
$2.3 M
93%
* current annual cost is
around $15.8 million total
Annual relative cost
for transit, bicycle,
and pedestrian
improvements
(2018 dollars, does not
include transit capital
costs or right-of way
acquisition)
98%
3.1
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: City Plan Scenarios Overview (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
(Over 20 du/ac) 10,200
Units
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT and regional
routes
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except regional routes
75%
32%
85%
* current annual cost is
around $15.8 million total
$2 M
$17 - 20 M
TOTAL: $20.4 - 23.4 M
$1.4 M
72%
3.1
Packet Pg. 128
Attachment: City Plan Scenarios Overview (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
67%
within 1/2 mile of
BRT
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except BRT and regional
routes
within 1/4 mile of all transit
except regional routes
19%
70%
71%
38%
* current annual cost is
around $15.8 million total
$0.5 M
$17 - 20 M
TOTAL: $18 - 21 M
$0.5 M
3.1
Packet Pg. 126
Attachment: City Plan Scenarios Overview (7309 : City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback)
Parkland & Administration Costs
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Exhibit M
2.2
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Fort Collins Review Report (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Capital Improvements
No - Increased by
Denver Greeley CPI
and ENR Index. (1) 11/6/2012
2011 125, 2010
Park, Police, Fire and
General Government,
Street Oversizing
Capital Improvements
No - Increased by
Denver Greeley CPI
and ENR Index. (1) 1/7/2011
Footnotes
(1) The absence of a Fee Study in this instance does not represent non-compliance w/ Colorado statutes or industry standards for such matters.
Ordinance Review
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
B. Transaction Support - Based upon our Review of the revenue and expenditure
transactions randomly selected from the City’s General Ledger along with appropriate
supporting documentation, we did not note any discrepancies which would lead us to believe
that City staff is not properly documenting its CEF transactions.
2.2
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Fort Collins Review Report (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Stormwater PIF
2.1
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Fee Group Position Paper (7308 : 2019 Fee Update & Fee Group Findings)
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $8,430 $10,164 $10,720 21% 27%
Office and Other Services $6,660 $8,028 $8,472 21% 27%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $2,000 $2,411 $2,542 21% 27%
CEF fee increases are 90% of full fee levels recommended in 2017 and reflects Option A for TCEFs. Including
inflation, total Step II fee increases are a 27 to 28% increase from current fee levels (Step I). The CPI-U index for
Denver-Aurora-Lakewood is used for CEF inflation (3.1% in 2017 and 3.2% in 2018). The Engineering News
Record's Construction Cost Index Values for Denver is used for TCEFs (4.0% in 2017 and 1.2% in 2018).
The chart below shows the proposed Wet Utility PIFs changes:
2
Packet Pg. 24
could create a Medium/High
negative impact on all users on
sidewalks, in bike lanes, and on
road.
Tradeoffs
• E-scooters improve mobility and accessibility but are accessed through apps and require a credit card for membership.
• E-scooters can help solve first/last mile challenge for transit but may replace shorter transit trips as well as bicycle trips.
• E-scooters can add vitality and enjoyment but can also create user conflicts.
Mitigations
• Workforce screening and training opportunities to ensure a professional charging staff and safe charging practices.
• Best practice policies and practices to successfully manage use, parking, coordination with other modes.
• Equitable pricing structures and outreach to traditionally underserved communities.
Key Alignment:
This initiative aligns with environmental sustainability and multi-modal transportation planning goals in the 2015 Climate
Action Plan: Framework, Pedestrian Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, and the City Plan and Transportation Master Plan.
ATTACHMENT 1 1.1
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: Triple Bottom Line (7305 : Regulating Shared Electric Scooters)