HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 08/22/2017 - COMPLETE AGENDACity of Fort Collins Page 1
Wade Troxell, Mayor City Council Chambers
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Ken Summers, District 3
Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14
Ross Cunniff, District 5 and Channel 881 on the Comcast cable system
Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Delynn Coldiron
City Attorney City Manager Interim 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.
Adjourned Meeting
August 22, 2017
6:00 p.m.
(Amended 8/21/17)
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. Items Relating to the Submission of a City-Initiated Ordinance Relating to Medical Marijuana
Businesses to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City at the November 7, 2017, Special
Municipal Election. (staff: Ginny Sawyer; 3 minute staff presentation; 15 minute discussion)
A. Possible Public Hearing and Motions Regarding Protest(s) of Ballot Language.
B. Resolution 2017-079 Submitting a City-Initiated Ordinance Dealing with Medical Marijuana
Businesses to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City at the Special Municipal Election to
be Held on November 7, 2017, in Conjunction with the Larimer County Coordinated Election.
The purpose of this item is to submit a City-Initiated Ordinance to the registered electors of the City
at the November 7, 2017 special election. The proposed Ordinance amends Section 15-491 (a) and
(b) of Article XVI of the City Code to allow Council to change or add any provisions in Chapter 15,
Article XVI in order to stay current with state laws, rules and regulations relating to medical
marijuana.
Any protest of the proposed ballot language must be received no later than Monday, August 21,
2017, at noon. The protest(s) shall be heard, considered, and resolved by Council prior to adoption
of Resolution 2017-079. If protest(s) are received, copies will be included in Council’s “Read-before”
packet.
City of Fort Collins Page 2
2. First Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2017, Imposing a Moratorium Until December 31, 2017, upon
the Acceptance of Applications for the Installation of and/or the Issuance of Right-of-Way Permits for
New Antennas, Small Cell Facilities, Towers and Wireless Service facilities by any Third Party in City
Rights-of-Way in any Zone District. (staff: Tyler Marr; 10 minute staff presentation; 15 minute
discussion)
The purpose of this item is to consider a moratorium until December 31, 2017, on the installation of
cellular facilities in public rights-of-way. This would allow the City time to draft and implement
appropriate regulations on such installations while still complying with HB 17-1193, which expanded
the right of companies to utilize the right of way for small cell installations.
3. First Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2017, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins to Make Various Changes Related to the Raw Water Requirements, to Hereinafter Be Known
as the “Water Supply Requirements.” (staff: Donnie Dustin, Carol Webb, Lance Smith; 10 minute
staff presentation; 30 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to consider adoption of various changes to the Utilities Raw Water
Requirements (RWR). The RWR are a dedication of water rights or cash-in-lieu (CIL) of water rights
to ensure that adequate water supply and associated infrastructure are available to serve the water
needs of development. The three main changes are decreasing the amount of RWR, increasing the
CIL rate and moving to a cash-focused system. These changes will increase development costs in
the Utilities water service area, but are necessary for meeting the water needs of that development.
Following direction given at the February 14, 2017 City Council work session, staff has conducted
additional outreach and addressed City Council questions. This item was presented on July 11, 2017
to the Council Finance Committee, which recommended the item be considered for adoption by the
entire City Council.
OTHER BUSINESS
A. Discussion relating to possible licensing of tobacco retailers.
B. Discussion relating to a new tax structure effort as a Council policy item.
C. Discussion regarding increased City/County coordination related to annexations.
ADJOURNMENT
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 22, 2017
City Council
STAFF
Ginny Sawyer, Policy and Project Manager
Bronwyn Scurlock, Legal
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Submission of a City-Initiated Ordinance Relating to Medical Marijuana Businesses to a
Vote of the Registered Electors of the City at the November 7, 2017, Special Municipal Election.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Possible Public Hearing and Motions Regarding Protest(s) of Ballot Language.
B. Resolution 2017-079 Submitting a City-Initiated Ordinance Dealing with Medical Marijuana Businesses to a
Vote of the Registered Electors of the City at the Special Municipal Election to be Held on November 7,
2017, in Conjunction with the Larimer County Coordinated Election.
The purpose of this item is to submit a City-Initiated Ordinance to the registered electors of the City at the
November 7, 2017 special election. The proposed Ordinance amends Section 15-491 (a) and (b) of Article XVI
of the City Code to allow Council to change or add any provisions in Chapter 15, Article XVI in order to stay
current with state laws, rules and regulations relating to medical marijuana.
Any protest of the proposed ballot language must be received no later than Monday, August 21, 2017, at noon.
The protest(s) shall be heard, considered, and resolved by Council prior to adoption of Resolution 2017-079. If
protest(s) are received, copies will be included in Council’s “Read-before” packet.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Chapter 15, Article XVI of the City Code regulating medical marijuana businesses is the result of a citizen-
initiated ordinance approved by the voters in November 2012. As such, the provisions contained therein can
only be amended by the voters. However, since that time, state laws concerning medical marijuana
businesses have changed considerably, and will continue to do so for some time. In order to address changes
in the state law and to make new types of licenses available in Fort Collins, the voters would have to vote
frequently on issues relating to medical marijuana. To facilitate updates to the City Code to reflect the most
current laws, staff is proposing submitting a question to the voters that would allow Council to change or add
provisions in Chapter 15, Article XVI of the City Code in order to stay current with applicable state laws, rules
and regulations without going to the voters each time.
Some of the changes in state law that should be or are desirable to be added to the City Code include, by way
of example, changes in types of ownership structures, medical marijuana testing facilities, and research
licenses.
1
Packet Pg. 3
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 2
Should the measure pass, Council is not obligated to make changes or add additional licenses. The measure
is also written to clearly state that Council could only make changes in order to stay current with applicable
state laws, rules and regulations, and not changes that would be contrary to or eliminate any of the original
citizen language.
According to the Colorado Municipal League. Fort Collins is the only municipality in Colorado that is operating
under voter-approved licensing provisions.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff met with representatives of the local marijuana business industry to discuss the limitation of a voter
approved initiative, and to discuss staff’s desire to make it easier to amend the Code for consistency with State
law.
Original drafters of the citizen-initiated ordinance support updating the Code in order to stay current with
applicable state laws, rules and regulations, and wanted to ensure that the referred ballot would not allow
Code changes beyond the scope of staying current with state law. The proposed amendment to be put to the
voters addresses both the needs of the City while protecting the original intent of the citizen-initiated ordinance.
Staff does not anticipate any impact to the general public and staff informed TEAM Fort Collins of the initiative.
A news release regarding the ballot measure was distributed to the news media on August 3, and
subsequently posted on fcgov.com.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
1
Packet Pg. 4
August 22, 2017
Marijuana Related Ballot Initiative
ATTACHMENT 1
1.1
Packet Pg. 5
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5873 : Marijuana Ballot)
Medical Marijuana Background
§ November 2010 - March 2011- temporary ban
§ March 2012 - licensing mechanism in place
§ October 2011 - 20 licensed medical marijuana centers
§ November 2011 - citizen initiated measure banning all marijuana
businesses passes
§ February 14, 2012 - all businesses shut down
§ November 2012 - citizen initiated measure (#301) allowing medical
marijuana businesses passes
2
1.1
Packet Pg. 6
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5873 : Marijuana Ballot)
Rationale
§ #301 was citizen initiated, no changes may be made without a vote
of the people
§ State continues to update medical marijuana regulations and the City
is unable to reflect these changes in our code without a vote
§ Measure would only allow changes to reflect state changes
§ If passed, Council still has the option to not add additional license
types
3
1.1
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5873 : Marijuana Ballot)
Examples
Examples of updates include additions of:
§ Types of ownership structures
§ Medical marijuana and research and testing facilities
§ Transporter licenses
§ Off-premise storage facilities
4
1.1
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5873 : Marijuana Ballot)
Amended Section
Sec. 15-491. - Administrative regulations; action by City Council.
(a) The City Manager is authorized to promulgate such rules and regulations as are
necessary to effectuate the implementation, administration and enforcement of this
Article.
(b) The City Council shall be permitted to lessen any restriction contained in this Article.
(c) The City Council shall be permitted to adopt additional provisions in this
Article or change any provision in this Article in order to conform this Article
to applicable state laws, rules and regulations.
5
1.1
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5873 : Marijuana Ballot)
Ballot Question
Shall the proposed Ordinance amending Section 15-491 of the Code of
the City of Fort Collins be adopted, so as to allow the City Council to
adopt additional provisions in or change any provision in Chapter 15,
Article XVI of the City Code pertaining to Medical Marijuana Businesses
in order to stay current with applicable state laws, rules and regulations?
6
1.1
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5873 : Marijuana Ballot)
-1-
RESOLUTION 2017-079
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
SUBMITTING A CITY-INITIATED ORDINANCE DEALING WITH MEDICAL
MARIJUANA BUSINESSES TO A VOTE OF THE REGISTERED ELECTORS OF THE
CITY AT THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 7, 2017,
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE LARIMER COUNTY COORDINATED ELECTION
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2012, the registered electors of the City approved a citizen-
initiated measure that became Chapter 15, Article XVI, of the City Code which strictly regulates,
controls and permits a limited number of State-authorized medical marijuana businesses within
the City of Fort Collins; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Charter, Article X, Section 4, a citizen-initiated measure
submitted to the registered electors of the City by the City Council, and adopted by electoral
vote, cannot be repealed or amended except by a subsequent electoral vote; and
WHEREAS, Section 15-491 (b) of the City Code authorizes the City Council to lessen
any restriction in the provisions related to medical marijuana, but does not specifically allow for
modifications to the provisions in order to stay current with new or additional state law
provisions; and
WHEREAS, the state marijuana laws, rules and regulations are ever-evolving; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council submit an initiated ordinance to the
registered electors to add a new subsection to Chapter 15, Article XVI, Section 15-491 to permit
the City Council to make amendments or additions to the City Code that are not contrary to and
do not eliminate any of the 2012 citizen-initiated provisions except as provided in Sec. 15-
491(b), and that are current with the state laws, rules and regulations; and
WHEREAS, Article X, Section 6 of the City Charter requires that the City Council
conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution in order to set a ballot title and submission clause
for an initiative or referendum measure; and
WHEREAS, the ballot title for the measure must identify the measure as either a city-
initiated or citizen-initiated measure; and
WHEREAS, the submission clause must be brief, must not conflict with those selected
for any petition previously filed for the same election and must unambiguously state the principle
of the provision sought to be added.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Packet Pg. 11
-2-
Section 2. That there is hereby submitted to the registered electors of the City at the
special municipal election to be held on Tuesday, November 7, 2017, the following proposed
City-initiated ordinance:
ORDINANCE NO. 117, 2017
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADOPTING A NEW SUBSECTION TO CHAPTER 15, ARTICLE XVI, SECTION 15-
491, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PERMITTING THE CITY
COUNCIL TO MAKE AMENDMENTS OR ADDITIONS TO ARTICLE XVI OF
CHAPTER 15 OF THE CITY CODE IN ORDER TO STAY CURRENT WITH THE
COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE, RULES AND REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, the State of Colorado’s medical marijuana laws, rules and
regulations are ever-evolving; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent and desire of the citizens of the City of Fort Collins,
in an effort to keep up with the ever-evolving state medical marijuana laws, rules and
regulations, that a new Subsection (c) be added to Chapter 15, Article XVI, Section 15-
491 of the City Code that would permit the City Council of the City of Fort Collins to
make amendments or additions to Article XVI in order to stay current with the state laws,
rules and regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, that a new Subsection (c) is added to Section
15-491 of Article XVI of the Code of the City of Fort Collins which reads in its entirety
as follows:
(a) The City Manager is authorized to promulgate such rules and regulations as are
necessary to effectuate the implementation, administration and enforcement of this
Article.
(b) The City Council shall be permitted to lessen any restriction contained in this
Article.
(c) The City Council, if it desires, shall be permitted to make amendments or additions
to this Article in order to stay current with applicable state laws, rules and
regulations, so long as such amendments or additions are not contrary to and do not
eliminate any of the 2012 citizen-initiated provisions, except as provided in Sec. 15-
491(b).
Section 3. That the foregoing proposed City-initiated ordinance is hereby submitted
to the registered electors of the City at said special municipal election to be held on November 7,
2017, in substantially the following form:
CITY-INITIATED PROPOSED ORDINANCE
Shall the proposed Ordinance amending Section 15-491 of the Code of the City of
Fort Collins be adopted, so as to allow the City Council, if it desires, to adopt
amendments to or add provisions in Chapter 15, Article XVI of the City Code
pertaining to Medical Marijuana Businesses in order to stay current with
Packet Pg. 12
-3-
applicable state laws, rules and regulations, so long as such amendments or
additions are not contrary to and do not eliminate any of the 2012 citizen-initiated
provisions, except as provided in Sec. 15-491(b)?
________ YES/FOR
_______ NO/AGAINST
Passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins
this 22nd day of August, A.D. 2017.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
Packet Pg. 13
Agenda Item 2
Item # 2 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 22, 2017
City Council
STAFF
Tyler Marr, Policy and Project Analyst
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2017, Imposing a Moratorium Until December 31, 2017, upon the
Acceptance of Applications for the Installation of and/or the Issuance of Right-of-Way Permits for New
Antennas, Small Cell Facilities, Towers and Wireless Service facilities by any Third Party in City Rights-of-Way
in any Zone District.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to consider a moratorium until December 31, 2017, on the installation of cellular
facilities in public rights-of-way. This would allow the City time to draft and implement appropriate regulations
on such installations while still complying with HB 17-1193, which expanded the right of companies to utilize
the right of way for small cell installations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On July 1, 2017 HB 17-1193, went into effect. This legislation expands the right of cellular infrastructure
companies to locate “small cell” facilities in the City’s right-of-way, through either the construction of
standalone poles or via attachment of facilities on existing City-owned infrastructure within the right-of-way,
such as street light poles or traffic signal poles. Examples of these types of facilities will be included in staff’s
presentation to Council on this item.
Staff has been working to determine the scope of the impact this legislation could have on the right-of-way in
Fort Collins, while also beginning conversations with carriers and infrastructure companies around Master
Lease or License Agreements (MLAs). These MLAs would lease space on City-owned infrastructure within
rights-of-way to companies to install small cell radios and antennae within certain aesthetic and structural
parameters agreed to in each document.
While staff believes that the MLA route will address most of the concerns likely generated from the installation
of these facilities, there is no guarantee or requirement that companies will agree to pursue this route. This
means that companies could choose to erect standalone poles and small cell facilities in the right-of-way. The
City does not currently have a process for accepting applications for these types of facilities within rights-of-
way and it is unclear that existing regulations would adequately address potential safety and aesthetic
concerns, including height of stand-alone poles, of such facilitates.
Because of these concerns and at the direction of the Leadership Planning Team (LPT), staff has brought forth
a moratorium applying to installation by third parties of any cellular infrastructure in the right-of-way, which, if
approved, would expire on January 1, 2018, or the effective date of new regulations if earlier. Staff believes
this time will be sufficient to develop and bring forth for Council consideration regulations that will be consistent
with HB17-1193, other City ordinances and Community expectations. This moratorium excludes the following
things:
2
Packet Pg. 14
Agenda Item 2
Item # 2 Page 2
Small cell facilities and other wireless telecommunications equipment which are outside of the City’s
rights-of-way. These facilities are already regulated under the City Code and Land Use Code.
Facilities installed in the public rights-of-way by or on behalf of the City. This would include equipment
such as smart meter antennas installed by Light and Power or its contractor.
Facilities installed pursuant to an MLA that protects public safety as approved by Council. Staff will
continue working on terms of an MLA with interested parties whether or not this moratorium is
approved. This exclusion leaves the door open that should an agreement be reached, those
companies would be able to proceed with their plans as a sign of good faith from the City.
Staff will plan to bring City Code changes or Land Use Code changes, or both back to Council in November or
early December to address safety and aesthetic concerns of third-party wireless communication facilities in
public right-of-way and to establish a process for reviewing applications.
The Legislative Review Committee discussed HB17-1193 at its July 11th meeting and two of the three
members present did not believe a moratorium was necessary at this time. The committee instructed staff to
continue to build relationships with the involved companies and begin work on developing appropriate
regulations. Staff has active contacts with the three companies who have thus far expressed interest and will
continue to focus on maintaining and strengthening relationships with them.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
This item is not expected to incur costs.
ATTACHMENTS
1. PowerPoint Presentation (PDF)
2
Packet Pg. 15
Small Cell Moratorium
Tyler Marr
August 22, 2017
ATTACHMENT 1
2.1
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5856 : Small Cell Moratorium)
HB 17-1193
• Expanded rights of telecom
companies
• Ability to install standalone
poles or attach to existing
equipment
• City retains police powers to
regulate
• Went into effect on July 1st
2
Background
2.1
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5856 : Small Cell Moratorium)
Examples of Small Cells
3
Image sources: Ken Fellman and
San Francisco Gate
2.1
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5856 : Small Cell Moratorium)
What Staff is Working On
Code Changes
• Preparing City Code and Land Use Code changes to address
aesthetic concerns and establish a process for review
• Aiming for November meetings for Council consideration
Master Lease Agreements
• Would allow attachment on City-owned poles within certain aesthetic
and engineering considerations
• Will come to Council as staff and third parties reach tentative
agreement
4
2.1
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5856 : Small Cell Moratorium)
Moratorium
Staff is recommending a short-term moratorium
• Expiring at the end of 2017
• Focused only on installations in the right of way by third parties
• Excludes those installations agreed to in a Master Lease Agreement
This does not impact macro cell applications or installations, or
small cell facilities outside of the right of way.
5
2.1
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5856 : Small Cell Moratorium)
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 105, 2017
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
IMPOSING A MORATORIUM UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2017 UPON THE
ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATIONS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF,
AND/OR THE ISSUANCE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMITS FOR NEW
ANTENNAS, SMALL CELL FACILITIES, TOWERS AND WIRELESS SERVICE
FACILITIES BY THIRD PARTIES IN CITY RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN ANY ZONE DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City has comprehensive regulations regarding the placement of towers,
monopoles, antennae, and “macro” wireless communication equipment and facilities in Divisions
3.8.13, 3.9.9 and Article 4 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code; and
WHEREAS, during the 2017 legislative session, the Colorado General Assembly passed
and the Governor signed into law HB17-1193, which expands access to public rights-of-way and
City-owned infrastructure in the rights-of-way (such as street light poles or traffic signals) for
placement of small cell wireless communication facilities, makes such facilities a use by right in
all zone districts, and limits local government regulation of such placements; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the expanded access to municipal rights-of-way and City-
owned infrastructure in such rights-of-way for small cell wireless communication facilities,
HB17-1193 also preserves the local government's right to exercise police powers to regulate the
placement of such facilities, subject to certain limitations; and
WHEREAS, HB17-1193 became effective on July 1, 2017; and
WHEREAS, City departments and property owners have raised concerns that placement
of new wireless communication facilities in public rights-of-way presents a risk to public safety
due to: potential conflicts with existing or planned infrastructure; technical interference with
traffic and public safety systems; incompatibility with existing adjacent uses; unpredictable
impacts to city electric utility system and traffic control system reliability and equipment; and
decreased property values; and
WHEREAS, the City does not currently have a clearly defined process for considering
requests from third parties to install small cell facilities in public rights-of-way under existing
provisions of the City Code and Land Use Code (“LUC”) and existing LUC provisions do not
adequately comply with HB17-1193 and, therefore, require review and updating to adequately
address the potential impact of small cell facilities on the orderly and safe design and operation
of public rights-of-way; and
WHEREAS, prior to passage of HB17-1193, City staff entered into negotiations with
service providers to agree upon and enter into a voluntary license or similar agreement to permit
the installation of small cell facilities within the public rights-of-way and/or on public
infrastructure located therein in a manner that protects the orderly and safe design and operation
of public rights-of-way and infrastructure, known as “master lease or license agreements”
(“MLAs”); and
Packet Pg. 21
-2-
WHEREAS, Council desires to facilitate voluntary negotiations and cooperation with
third-party providers through the mechanism of one or more MLAs approved by Council while it
considers and adopts a clearly defined process for accepting applications from third parties to
install small cell facilities in the City's public rights-of-way and/or on the City's public
infrastructure, including appropriate modifications to the City Code and LUC; and
WHEREAS, Council desires, in good faith, to exclude from the moratorium under this
Ordinance any MLA with a third party provider approved by Council; and
WHEREAS, to promote the orderly and safe design and operation of public rights-of-way
and wireless communication infrastructure to serve the community effectively, the City Council
also finds it necessary and reasonable to impose a moratorium upon the acceptance of
applications for and installation of new wireless facilities in public rights-of-way by any third
party and on the issuance of any associated right-of-way permits for the placement of third-party
wireless communication equipment or related structures in public rights-of-way during the
pendency of which moratorium, except for small cell and wireless communications equipment or
related equipment and structures installed under an MLA approved by Council; and
WHEREAS, City staff shall develop and present to the Council for consideration
legislative changes which may include, but need not be limited to: (a) “design standards” for
small cell wireless equipment, attachments, and associated structures in all zone districts; and (b)
appropriate regulations to limit the size, density, and maintenance of small cell and micro
wireless facilities and associated structures by third parties in City rights-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the City’s power to impose this limited moratorium is among its home rule
powers granted to it in Article XX of the Colorado Constitution; and
WHEREAS the Council has determined that said moratorium shall continue in effect
through the 31
st
day of December, 2017, or until said design standards and additional regulations
are adopted by the City Council and become effective, whichever shall first occur.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That a moratorium is hereby imposed upon the City’s acceptance of
applications for and installation of new wireless communication facilities in public rights-of-way
by any third party and on the issuance of any associated right-of-way permits for the placement
of third-party wireless communication equipment or related structures in public rights-of-way,
unless such installation is accomplished under an MLA approved by Council.
Section 3. That the placement of new antennas, wireless service facilities, small cell
facilities, micro wireless facilities or poles or towers in public rights-of-way in the City of Fort
Packet Pg. 22
-3-
Collins by any third party is prohibited unless such installation is accomplished under an MLA
approved by Council.
Section 4. That the terms “antenna,” “small cell facility,” “micro wireless facility”,
“tower” and “wireless service facility” shall have the same meaning as set forth in HB17-1193,
Section 2.
Section 5. That the City Manager is hereby directed to analyze, during the term of the
moratorium enacted in this Ordinance, the following issues and, in consultation with the City
Attorney, develop for Council consideration such additional design standards and regulations for
wireless communication facilities within public rights-of-way as may be necessary and
appropriate to address said issues:
a. Protection of the City's public infrastructure, including but not limited to public
rights-of-way and publicly-owned structures located therein, to preserve orderly
and safe design and operation of such facilities and structures and the public
health, safety, and welfare;
b. Compatibility of wireless communication architecture with the orderly and safe
design and operation of public rights-of-way and adjacent neighborhoods, in
terms of mass, bulk, scale, height, and character;
c. Size, dimension, weight, spacing, and placement height for wireless
communication equipment;
d. Visual and access impact for the traveling public and property owners along City
rights-of-way;
e. Prioritization of attachment to structures and available methods and locations for
new wireless communication equipment in public rights-of-way;
f. Impact on privacy of new wireless communications equipment along residential
rights-of-way; and
g. Other impacts on the orderly and safe design and operation of public righst-of-
way and publicly-owned structures located therein.
Section 6. That this moratorium shall not apply to the issuance of permits for or
installation of improvements and equipment for small cell facilities and other wireless
telecommunication equipment:
a. to be located outside of the City's public rights-of-way, which shall continue to be
subject to the existing provisions of the City Code and LUC;
b. authorized by approved development plans (and associated permits) that
constitute a vested property right under Colorado law;
c. installed in the public rights-of-way by or on behalf of the City for its own use; or
d. that is accomplished under an MLA approved by Council.
Section 7. That this Ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare of the residents of the City, and covers matters of local and municipal concern.
Packet Pg. 23
-4-
Section 8. That the moratorium established in Sections 2 and 3 of this Ordinance
shall be effective as of the effective date of this Ordinance and remain in effect through
December 31, 2017, or until said design standards are adopted by the City Council and become
effective, whichever shall first occur; and
Section 9. That any violation of the prohibitions in Section 3 of this Ordinance
during the term set forth in Section 8 shall constitute a misdemeanor criminal offense punishable
as provided in Section 1-15 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 22nd day of
August, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 5th day of September, A.D.
2017.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Interim City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 5th day of September, A.D. 2017.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Packet Pg. 24
Agenda Item 3
Item # 3 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 22, 2017
City Council
STAFF
Donnie Dustin, Water Resources Manager
Carol Webb, Water Resources/Treatmnt Opns Mgr
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director
Eric Potyondy, Legal
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2017, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to
Make Various Changes Related to the Raw Water Requirements, to Hereinafter Be Known as the “Water
Supply Requirements.”
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to consider adoption of various changes to the Utilities Raw Water Requirements
(RWR). The RWR are a dedication of water rights or cash-in-lieu (CIL) of water rights to ensure that adequate
water supply and associated infrastructure are available to serve the water needs of development. The three
main changes are decreasing the amount of RWR, increasing the CIL rate and moving to a cash-focused
system. These changes will increase development costs in the Utilities water service area, but are necessary
for meeting the water needs of that development. Following direction given at the February 14, 2017 City
Council work session, staff has conducted additional outreach and addressed City Council questions. This item
was presented on July 11, 2017 to the Council Finance Committee, which recommended the item be
considered for adoption by the entire City Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. The following is a summary of the proposed
changes:
Adjust the RWR schedules to reflect recent (lower) water use
o Use number of bedrooms for indoor component of residential schedule
Increase the Cash-in-Lieu (“CIL”) rate to $16,700 per acre-foot of RWR
Accept cash, existing City-issued water certificates and credits, North Poudre Irrigation Company
(“NPIC”) shares, and Colorado-Big Thompson Project (“CBT”) units for RWR satisfaction
o No longer allow dedication of other water rights
Review and adjust (if necessary) the CIL rate biennially
Review and adjust (if necessary) the RWR schedules every 5 to 7 years
Implement RWR and CIL rate changes on April 1, 2018
Rename the RWR as the “Water Supply Requirements”
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Raw Water Requirements (“RWR”) are a dedication of water rights or cash-in-lieu of water rights (“CIL”) to
ensure that adequate water supply and associated infrastructure are available to serve the water needs of
development (including re-development needing increased water service). Changes to the RWR and CIL rate
have not been made for many years.
3
Packet Pg. 25
Agenda Item 3
Item # 3 Page 2
Staff presented the proposed changes to the RWR and CIL rate at the February 14, 2017 City Council work
session. The material provided for that work session, which contains more detailed information on the
background and proposed changes, is included as Attachment 1. Council direction was to consider delayed
implementation of the changes, provide information about the impact on rates to delaying or not implementing
the changes, conduct additional public outreach (including to the general public), orient new Councilmembers
on the related issues, and provide justification for contingencies embedded in the CIL rate.
Water Service Areas in Fort Collins
The City of Fort Collins Utilities (“Utilities”) water service area covers the central portion of Fort Collins. As the
City continues to grow into the Growth Management Area, much of this growth will be outside the Utilities
water service area, and will instead be in the service areas of the surrounding water districts (mostly the East
Larimer County Water District and the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District (“Districts”)). Water service for
much of this growth will thus be provided by the Districts. The attached map shows these service areas
(Attachment 2).
Although regional water collaboration discussions are ongoing with the Districts and direction or potential
outcomes of those discussions have yet to be determined, any proposed changes to the RWR and CIL rate will
only apply to water service from Utilities and within the Utilities water service area. This does not preclude
future changes to the RWR and CIL rate for water service from Utilities based on potential outcomes of the
regional discussions or from the Districts modifying their respective water dedication requirements.
Current Raw Water Requirements (RWR)
The RWR starts with determining the amount of RWR that must be provided to Utilities, which are generally
based on water use and development type. Once the amount of RWR is determined, it can currently be met
by:
Dedication of acceptable water rights (mostly local ditch company shares);
A payment of cash-in-lieu of water rights (currently $6,500 per acre-foot of RWR);
Turning over City-issued water certificates or credits.
Future Development and Water Use Changes
The amount of RWR needed to meet Utilities’ future water supply needs includes calculating the projected
amount of future water use from new and redevelopment and then determining the water rights and/or facilities
needed to meet that projected use, and adjusting the RWR to acquire the necessary supplies and/or facilities.
The Utilities’ water service area population is projected to grow by about 45,000 people by the year 2065 (from
the current service area population of about 133,000 to about 178,000). Based on the current RWR schedules,
this projected growth is estimated to provide about 11,900 acre-feet of additional RWR that will be turned in to
Utilities. However, water use has significantly changed since the current RWR schedules were developed.
The current RWR schedules are based on a 1983 study. Utilities staff analyzed 10 years (2006-2015) of
monthly water billing data. Due in great part to successful conservation efforts, water consumption for almost
every customer category has decreased from the amount required under the current RWR calculations. In
addition, the analyses suggest that the best models for predicting water consumption for both single-family and
multi-family residential developments are those based on lot size and number of bedrooms.
Suggested RWR Adjustments
Given the changes in water use from the expected amount per the current RWR calculations, staff
recommends that the RWR calculations be adjusted to reflect the information provided above. Making these
changes will reduce the overall projected amount of expected RWR the Utilities will receive in the next 50
years from about 11,900 acre-feet to about 7,700 acre-feet.
More specifically, it is recommended the RWR calculations be changed to the following:
3
Packet Pg. 26
Agenda Item 3
Item # 3 Page 3
Single Family/Duplex RWR (acre-feet)
= 1.92 x [ 7.048 x Lot size (sq. ft.) ] + [ 12,216.9 x Bedrooms (#) ]
[ 325,851 (gallons/acre-foot) ]
Multi-Family (> 2 units) RWR (acre-feet)
= 1.92 x [ 9.636 x Lot size (sq. ft.) ] + [ 13,592.8 x Bedrooms (#) ]
[325,851 (gallons/acre-foot) ]
Commercial RWR (acre-feet) =
¾-inch tap: 0.90
1-inch tap: 2.26
1 ½-inch tap: 4.72
2-inch tap: 7.91
> 2-inch tap: case-by-case
Water Supply Needs and Other Costs for Increasing Firm Yield
Utilities projects the need for new infrastructure and some additional water rights to increase the Utilities firm
yield by about 7,800 acre-feet in order to meet projected future growth in the water service area by 2065.
Alone, acquiring the new infrastructure and water rights would not provide adequate water supplies needed for
those future customers without use of the existing water supply system. As explained in the previous material
(Attachment 1), a “buy-in” component was added to consider the total value of the water supply system that
new development will need. The following briefly lists these components and their projected costs/value in
2017 dollars:
$63.9M: Infrastructure (mostly additional storage, e.g., Halligan Water Supply Project)
$25.5M: Future water rights (requires storage to be effective)
$40.5M: Value of existing portfolio to be utilized by new development
Combining these costs provides the total current cost to increase the firm yield for new development (or
redevelopment) of approximately $129.9 million.
Cash-in-Lieu (CIL) Rate Changes
As explained in the previous material (Attachment 1), staff developed a hybrid CIL rate approach that uses the
total costs to increase the firm yield and divides this amount by the additional provided.
CIL Rate (Hybrid Approach):
$129.9M (cost to increase firm yield) / 7,800 acre-feet (increased firm yield)
= $16,700 per acre-foot of RWR
Cash Focus Considerations
It is imperative that the RWR become a “cash focused” system. This would mean no longer accepting water
rights to meet the RWR, except for CBT units and NPIC shares that come with storage that provide year-round
use and firm yield. Existing City-issued water certificates, as well as credits from previously-satisfied RWR, will
still be accepted. Cash will allow focus on acquiring additional storage capacity, agility to acquire specific water
rights, and flexibility to pursue other (potentially regionally collaborative) water supply options.
It should be noted that the conversion factor for water rights accepted by the City are currently set by the
Water Board. Under the proposed changes, the Water Board would no longer have this function because the
conversion factors would be set forth in the City Code. For NPIC shares, the current Water Board-approved
3
Packet Pg. 27
Agenda Item 3
Item # 3 Page 4
conversion factor was revised from 5 acre-feet per share to 4-acre feet per share. This recognizes that each
NPIC share includes 4 CBT units, which is the main value of these shares to the Utilities.
Commercial Surcharges
Commercial taps that have met the RWR since the mid-1980s have also received an equivalent water
allotment. After a customer’s total annual water use goes over that allotment in a given calendar year, their
water bill includes a surcharge rate applied to all water use over the allotment (along with the standard water
rate). The current surcharge rate is $3.06 per 1,000 gallons (for use over the annual allotment). Funds
collected via this surcharge are used to acquire additional water supplies that compensate for the use over
what was initially provided. The proposed increases to the CIL rate will increase the surcharge rate to $7.86
per 1,000 gallons. Allotments can be increased closer to actual use by meeting additional RWR.
Since the change to the surcharge rate is significant, Utilities staff is conducting focused outreach to existing
customers who consistently exceed their annual allotment. In particular, Utilities water conservation staff is
contacting these customers about ways to reduce their use. Also, upon final adoption of the RWR/CIL rate
changes by City Council and assuming a delayed implementation of those changes, these customers will be
alerted to the opportunity to increase their allotments before the proposed CIL rate increases take effect.
Future RWR/CIL Adjustments
It is recommended that the CIL rate be reviewed every two years, as a part of the other City biennial fee review
process, and adjusted as needed to reflect changes such as construction or water rights costs. It is also
recommended that the RWR schedules should be reviewed every 5 to 7 years and changed if necessary,
since changes to average water use are usually the result of long-term water conservation.
Previous Council Requests
Council had the following requests for additional information at the February 14, 2017 work session, which are
followed by staff responses:
Please provide justification for the contingencies used in the proposed changes.
o A 25 percent contingency was added to the infrastructure and water right components of the
projected costs that were part of the proposed CIL rate. The main cost in the infrastructure
component is based on the estimated cost of the Halligan Water Supply Project. However, the
City may get a permit for an alternative project that could be up to 2.5 times the cost of
enlarging Halligan Reservoir. The cost of the future water rights component are based on
current market values and the contingency considers potential inflation of these rights. CBT
units cost about four times their cost 6 years ago. Given these examples, Utilities staff
believes the 25 percent contingency is justified (if not conservatively low).
Please orient new Councilmembers on these issues if Council action is delayed until after the April
(2017) municipal elections.
o Councilmember Summers was briefed on these changes (along with many other Utilities
items) by the Utilities Executive Director in late June 2017. In addition, as a member of the
Council Finance Committee, Mr. Summers was oriented at the July 11, 2017 meeting when
this topic was discussed.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Although the amount of RWR is being decreased, the significant increase in the CIL rate will result in overall
cost increases for all types of development in the Utilities water service area. However, these cost increases
are necessary to ensure an adequate water supply to serve new development. Even with these increases,
however, Utilities’ RWR costs will remain one of the lowest when compared with other local water providers.
3
Packet Pg. 28
Agenda Item 3
Item # 3 Page 5
Council had the following requests related to City financial impacts at the February 14, 2017 work session,
which are followed by staff responses:
Staff should consider delayed implementation of the changes on the order of 6 to 12 months, and
should define the impacts of this schedule.
o Delaying the implementation of the RWR and CIL rate changes can be done, but doing so
would result in less RWR fees being collected over the delay period. In the last 3 years, the
amount of RWR met has averaged about 800 AF. Assuming this average will continue for the
next year or two, then the reduction in RWR fees collected could be significant. If all RWR
(under both the current and proposed systems) was met with cash only (no credits or water
rights), the reduction in fees collected would be approximately $1.7 million every 6 months or
about $3.5 million per year. Any shortfalls would fall upon the ratepayers through future rate
increases. A $3.5 million annual shortfall would represent 12% of the 2016 annual water fund
operating revenues of $29.7 million.
Staff should provide information about the impact on ratepayers from not making these changes and
how rates have changed over time.
o There are two main changes to the RWR/CIL rate system that effect the revenues generated.
First, the proposed decreases in overall RWR to be satisfied are to recognize lower water use
as a result of long-term water conservation. Not making the RWR changes would create a
disconnect between current data regarding the amount of water that is actually being used and
the amount of water being required by the RWR. Therefore, if the RWR is decreased, but the
CIL rate remains at $6,500 per acre-foot of RWR, the reduction in RWR fees collected over
the next 50 years would be about $49 million. This shortfall would fall upon the ratepayers
through future rate increases, which could be significant.
o Utilities water rate increases have varied over past years. More recently, Utilities has
advocated for gradual, but consistent rate increases to avoid large, unexpected ones (which
might be needed if the proposed changes to the RWR/CIL rate are not made).
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its July 20, 2017 meeting, the Water Board recommended adoption of the proposed changes in a six by a
vote of 6-2. The two opposing votes believed that the $40.5 million “buy-in” component of the proposed CIL
rate was too low and that it should be higher to more accurately reflect the value of the Utilities existing water
supply portfolio that new development will have access to use. (Attachment 3)
The proposed changes were also presented to the Affordable Housing Board (AHB). The AHB provided a
letter to Utilities asking for exceptions to these changes (Attachment 4) which briefly entailed either (1)
freezing the current CIL rates for qualified affordable housing developments (QAHD), (2) phase in changes
and apply to QAHD last, and (3) lock CIL rates for QAHD at the beginning of the development process. Making
these types of changes would result in lost Utilities impact fees that would need to be made up through
increases to Utilities water rates, which is counter to the Utilities enterprise fund operations by using enterprise
funds to subsidize affordable housing. For this reason, Utilities does not have the authority to implement this
request. Utilities staff is committed to being part of an internal City task force organized by the Social
Sustainability Department to consider affordable housing issues. The task forces will discuss the issues
presented in the AHB letter, along with similar changes for other Utilities impact fees. Potential changes can
then be presented to the AHB and City Council once they are more thoroughly developed.
Staff also presented to the following boards/commissions:
Economic Advisory Commission – the Commission was generally supportive of the proposed changes
Natural Resources Advisory Board – the Board was generally supportive of the proposed changes, with
some members advocating for a higher CIL rate.
3
Packet Pg. 29
Agenda Item 3
Item # 3 Page 6
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Utilities staff has presented the proposed RWR and CIL rate changes to key stakeholders including local ditch
companies (from which Utilities has historically accepted shares), the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce, the
Northern Colorado Home Builders Association, Utilities key accounts, several individual affected developers
and water right holders, and various discussions with the Districts.
As requested by City Council at the February 14, 2017 work session, Utilities staff attempted to conduct
general public outreach via focus groups on how Utilities assess water impact fees for new development and
how it might affect water rates. Out of 100 randomly-selected customers that were contacted (from a larger
pool of customers that had previously agreed to be contacted for surveys and focus groups), only one agreed
to attend. Therefore, the focus groups were cancelled. The City’s Financial Services staff has convened a Fee
Working Group, which includes members of the public via City Board and Commission members (including a
Water Board member), that will meet over the next several months to discuss all development fees (including
the RWR and CIL rate).
Input Received
The following summarizes various input received during the outreach process, followed by staff reactions or
adjustments made to the proposed changes to address the input:
Concern about the increased costs to housing in Fort Collins.
o Although these changes will increase the cost of new housing in Fort Collins, the proposed
changes are needed to provide an adequate water supply to this new development. Even with
the overall increase in water costs for new development in the Utilities service area, these
costs will still be lower than most in the region.
The “buy-in” component of the CIL rate is like paying for something twice; where does that revenue get
used?
o The $40.5 million “buy-in” component of the CIL rate considers the future customer’s use of a
portion of the existing water supply system. Only acquiring the projected infrastructure and
water rights needs explained above would not provide enough water supplies to support the
projected growth. They need to use portions of the existing water supply system. The revenue
generated from this portion will reduce future costs associated with upkeep of the water supply
system and ensures that a portion of the Utilities Water Fund reserves are replenished for
water system improvements that help to reduce future rate increases for all customers by
offsetting the impacts from development.
No longer accepting local ditch company shares will devalue those shares.
o The ditch shares historically accepted by Utilities have always been and will continue to be
available for purchase by others (including the City), which should help to maintain their value.
Recently, the East Larimer County Water District (or “ELCO”, which serves the northeast
potion of the City’s GMA) began accepting several of the ditch company shares that were
historically accepted by Utilities. This concern of devaluation was focused on shares of the
Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Company (PVLC), which is not accepted by ELCO or other
known water providers. Utilities staff projects the need for some additional PVLC shares and
shareholders can contact staff if they wish to sell their shares. Utilities would intend to
purchase them at a fair market value.
o While staff recognizes that this change may impact the market value of these water rights
(local ditch shares) in the near term, the use of such rights to meet the RWR for development
has only been minimal in recent years. Moreover, as the Utilities approaches build out of its
water service area, it is imperative that the final additions to the water rights portfolio are
strategically made through targeted purchases of certain water rights.
The proposed changes will increase costs for projects that are already in the development process.
o Developers typically consider the total cost of a development with the water (and other) fees
that are in place before they acquire permits and start construction, particularly for commercial
and multi-family developments which are typically built in a short time period and sold as one
3
Packet Pg. 30
Agenda Item 3
Item # 3 Page 7
project (versus single family homes, which an entire development can take years to build and
the home prices can adjust with the fees). Some developers requested a delayed
implementation to avoid these types of cost impacts. According to the Planning Department, it
takes approximately 9 to 12 months from a first submittal to a final development plan - at
which point the RWR can be assessed and met (or paid). Given that these changes were
initially presented to City Council on February 14, 2017 (and thus made public) and staff’s
recommendation is to delay implementation until April 1, 2018, this should provide adequate
time for developments that started in early 2017 to meet the RWR under the current system
and CIL rate.
No longer accepting water rights will injure developers that have collected them for planned
developments that are early in the City’s process.
o Some developers have submitted a large overall development plan (“ODP”) to the City that
has multiple phases of development that might takes several years to build out. Also, some
developers have started development that take longer than the typical 9-12 months to get
through the City approval process. These developers may have collected water rights (local
ditch shares) for these projects, but are not yet at the stage of development to turn them in to
meet the RWR. Discontinuing acceptance of water rights would burden the developers that
have planned accordingly. In order to prevent this type of burden, staff has included provisions
to allow dedication of these water rights under the following set of conditions:
Developer shows proof of starting the development and ownership of shares for the
development to be dedicated prior to February 14, 2017;
Transfer of water rights to the City occurs prior to January 1, 2019; and
The dedicated water rights shall not be transferred to another property (in case of
changes to the development).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (PDF)
2. Fort Collins Area Water Districts Map (PDF)
3. Water Board minutes, July 20, 2017 (draft) (PDF)
4. Affordable Housing Board, April 19, 2017 (PDF)
5. Council Finance Committee minutes, July 11, 2017 (draft) (PDF)
6. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
3
Packet Pg. 31
DATE:
STAFF:
February 14, 2017
Donnie Dustin, Water Resources Manager
Carol Webb, Water Resources/Treatmnt Opns Mgr
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Changes to the Utilities Raw Water Requirements.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to seek City Council input on staff’s proposed changes to the current Raw
Water Requirement (RWR) system and associated Cash-in-Lieu (CIL) rate. The review of the RWR and CIL has
been prompted by various recent events (e.g., change in water use and water right prices) and has resulted in
staff proposing several changes to the RWR and CIL that are needed to ensure that the impacts of new
development will be offset and that the City will have adequate water supplies and infrastructure.
Staff will provide City Council with an overview of the current RWR system and associated CIL rate, which allows
for generating adequate funds and water rights to provide a reliable water supply for new development (and
redevelopment needing increased water service) within the Utilities water service area.
Utilities staff recommends the following changes:
x Adjust RWR schedules to reflect recent (lower) water use
o Use number of bedrooms for indoor component of residential schedule
x Adjust CIL rate per a hybrid cost approach
o Increase CIL rate to $16,700 per acre-foot of RWR
x Accept cash only (and existing City-issued water certificates and credits)
o Discontinue the dedication of water rights
x Require periodic adjustment of the RWR and CIL.
o Review and adjust (if necessary) the CIL rate biennially
o Review and adjust (if necessary) the RWR schedules every 5 to 7 years
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
What feedback does Council have on the proposal to:
1. Change the amount of raw water required?
2. Change the CIL rate and methodology?
3. Accept cash only?
4. Require periodic updates to the RWR and CIL rate?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Raw Water Requirements (RWR) are a dedication of water rights or cash-in-lieu of water rights (CIL) to
ensure that adequate water supply and associated infrastructure are available to serve the water needs of
development (including redevelopment needing increased water service). Staff will present background
information including the existing RWR system and CIL rate, future development and water supply needs, water
use changes, and potential changes to the RWR system and CIL rates.
ATTACHMENT 1
3.1
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
February 14, 2017 Page 2
Water Service Areas in Fort Collins
The City of Fort Collins Utilities (Utilities) water service area covers the central portion of Fort Collins. As the City
continues to grow into the Growth Management Area, much of this growth will be outside the Utilities water
service area, and will instead be in the service areas of the surrounding water districts (mostly the East Larimer
County Water District and the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District (Districts). Water service for much of this
growth will thus be provided by the Districts. The attached map shows these service areas (Attachment 1).
Although regional water collaboration discussions are ongoing with the Districts and direction or potential
outcomes of those discussions have yet to be determined, any proposed changes to the RWR will only apply to
water service from Utilities and within the Utilities water service area. This does not preclude future changes to
the RWR for water service from Utilities based on potential outcomes of the regional discussions or from the
Districts modifying their respective water dedication requirements.
Raw Water Requirements
The RWR is a requirement for providing adequate water supply service by Utilities. It currently requires a
dedication of water rights, a payment of cash-in-lieu of water rights, or turning over City-issued water certificates
to ensure that an adequate supply of raw (untreated) water and associated infrastructure (e.g., storage reservoirs)
are available to serve the needs of development (including re-development needing increased water service).
Generally, the RWR are based on water use and development type. The current RWR schedules are attached
(Attachments 2 and 3). The goal of the RWR is to acquire adequate water rights and funds to provide a reliable
raw water supply for a development. Although not the focus of this discussion, other water-related development
fees include water and wastewater plant investment fees (PIFs) that are assessed to cover the treatment and
distribution infrastructure required to process and transport treated water and resulting wastewater into and out of
a development. These water-related development fees are one-time impact fees (or requirements) and are
separate from water rates, which recover the operational costs of running and maintaining this infrastructure.
For the purposes of this discussion, RWR refers to the volume of raw water needed to meet the projected water
use of a development (in acre-feet of water) and the CIL fee refers to the cash equivalent of that water supply
needed.
The current amount of RWR assessed for residential development is based on a calculation that incorporates
indoor and outdoor use components and a water supply factor multiplier. The current amount of RWR assessed
for non-residential (or commercial) development is based on the average use for particular meter (or tap) sizes
and also includes a water supply factor multiplier. The water supply factor used in both the residential and
commercial RWR schedules is currently 1.92, which means that Utilities requires 1.92 times the amount of the
projected (or average) water use of a development. Reasons for this factor include the need to account for
treatment and distribution losses in the supply system, variable demands of customers (e.g., higher use during
hot, dry years), variable yields of supplies (e.g., less yield in droughts) and variable yield from the Utilities different
water supply sources (since some yield better than others). Given these and other uncertainties in providing
reliable water supplies (e.g., climate change), the 1.92 water supply factor continues to be necessary.
Once the amount of RWR for a development is determined (in acre-feet), the RWR currently can be satisfied with
acceptable water rights, a payment of cash in-lieu-of water rights, City-issued water certificates or credits, or a
combination. The water rights currently accepted by Utilities for satisfaction of the RWR are attached
(Attachment 4). The CIL rate is currently $6,500 per acre-foot of RWR. Previous adjustments to the CIL rate
have considered the raw water supply situation of Utilities at the time, including factors such as the market price
of Colorado-Big Thompson Project (CBT) units, the potential value of local water rights (e.g., Southside Ditches),
and the goal to receive an appropriate mix of water rights and cash needed to develop additional firm yield for
development.
Among other things, changes to the CIL rate should consider the cost to acquire additional storage capacity (e.g.,
Halligan Water Supply Project) and other facilities required to fully utilize the Utilities water rights portfolio, the
value of the existing water supply system, and developing a methodology for easily updating the CIL rate.
3.1
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
February 14, 2017 Page 3
Future Development
The amount of RWR needed to meet Utilities’ future water supply needs includes calculating the projected
amount of future water use, determining the water rights and/or facilities needed to meet that projected use, and
adjusting the RWR to acquire the necessary supplies and/or facilities.
Calculating the projected amount of future water use and expected RWR that will be turned in depends on
projected growth (both population and commercial/industrial). The Utilities’ water service area population is
projected to grow about 45,000 by the year 2065 (from the current population of about 133,000 to about 178,000).
Based on the current RWR schedules, this projected growth is estimated to provide about 11,900 acre-feet of
additional RWR that will be turned in to Utilities. However, water use has significantly changed since the current
RWR schedules were developed.
Water Use Changes
The current RWR schedules are based on a 1983 study focused on relating actual water use with the raw water
requirements. The study analyzed annual water consumption data broken into categories based on number of
dwelling units, type of living structure, and equivalent lot size (net total area of development divided by number of
dwelling units). A linear formula was then derived which could be used to project consumption on the basis of
residential density (number of units and size of lot), utilizing the same formula for both single-family and multi-
family developments. This projected consumption is the “expected use” for a particular type of development.
Acknowledging the impacts of conservation on the City’s water consumption, Utilities staff studied recent water
use patterns for single-family, multi-family, and commercial developments. The results of the study showed
significantly lower water consumption for single-family and multi-family developments over recent years, as
compared to the expected use from the current RWR calculations. Differences in water consumption for
commercial developments were not as significant, though changes were also present.
The differences in expected use versus recent actual use prompted staff to investigate possible methods for
updating the water use formulas in the RWR in order to better project expected use for future developments.
Methods
To investigate recent trends in water consumption, the past 10 years (2006-2015) of monthly water billing data
was analyzed, broken out by single-family residential, multi-family residential, and commercial developments.
Utilizing 10 years of consumption data helps to capture climatic variations, which can greatly affect water
consumption across all development types. From the outset, the data for different types of residential
developments were analyzed separately, with the anticipation that average consumption trends would differ
between development types. Further investigation into the use data and types of developments led to combining
data for duplexes with single-family developments.
Single-family/Duplex
Due in great part to successful conservation efforts, water consumption for single-family residential customers has
decreased. The current analysis shows a significant difference between the average annual use per single-family
home and the calculated expected use from the current RWR equations. These differences are outlined in Table
1.
Multi-family
Due to the complexity of compiling and verifying water consumption data for multi-family developments, which
often include multiple buildings and irrigation taps, a representative sample of developments were analyzed for
this study.
Multi-family residential water use, which includes both indoor and outdoor use, has seen an overall downward
trend and the average annual use per unit is significantly lower than the calculated expected use from the current
3.1
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
February 14, 2017 Page 4
RWR equations. Table 1 shows the average use per unit, as well as the change from the expected use predicted
from the current RWR equations.
Table 1. Summary of annual residential water use from 2006-2015
Residential
Development Type
Expected Use
per Unit
(gal/year)
Average Use
per Unit
(gal/year)
Fraction of
Expected Use
Single-family/Duplex 130,840 96,640 74%
Multi-family 79,720 48,380 61%
In an effort to realign the RWR equations to more closely reflect current use patterns, multi-variate regression
models were utilized to investigate multiple variables (e.g., lot size, number of units, building square footage,
number of bathrooms, and number of bedrooms) and their ability to predict water use. The results of the analyses
suggest that the best models for predicting water consumption for both single-family and multi-family residential
developments are those which include lot size and number of bedrooms. The correlation between number of
bedrooms and indoor water use was much greater than the current method based on number of units.
This analysis indicates that altering the current RWR schedules would more accurately reflect current residential
water use patterns, as well as more equitably distribute those requirements across the range of development
types and sizes by better reflecting actual water use. Proposed alterations to the residential RWR schedule
include separate equations for single-family (and duplex) and multi-family residential developments, as well as
modifying the equation to reflect expected use as a function of number of bedrooms and lot size. These changes
would reduce the volume of water required under the RWR for the average residential development.
Commercial
Finally, the analysis considered non-residential (or commercial) water use. An analysis of non-residential water
use from 1981-2015 showed that non-residential water use increased by roughly 35% shortly after the 1980s
water use study, but has trended back downward since then.
Non-residential water use can vary widely by the type of business (even for the same tap size). For instance, a
restaurant would be expected to use more water than a hardware store, even though they may occupy otherwise
similar commercial spaces of equal size and are connected to Utilities with the same tap size. It would be
administratively difficult and costly for Utilities or developers to accurately estimate each non-residential
development type’s water use, especially as that use can change over time as businesses evolve and come and
go on a particular property. Each of the most common tap sizes from 0.75-inch to 2-inch thus have a set RWR
volume.
The current method of a set RWR volume for the smaller tap sizes maintains equity across different types of
water users for a single tap size by setting an allotment for a maximum allowed amount of water use, and then
applying a surcharge rate for use beyond the allotment. The allotment is based on 80% of the average use for a
tap size. This method provides a baseline that encourages water conservation, while still allowing customers to
pay for additional RWR for greater amounts of water use. This method also recognizes that a small number of
high water-use businesses pull up the overall average use of all customers in that tap size. Consequently, by
using 80% of the average, the numerous businesses that use much less than the average are not penalized.
Funds acquired from the surcharge rate applied to use over the allotment are used to acquire more water
supplies. This methodology is still applicable to current commercial development and is recommended to be
continued.
Table 2 shows the average annual water use by tap size, the expected use predicted by the 1980s study and
used in the current calculation of RWR, as well as the fraction of expected use. The table shows that non-
residential water use was less than expected for the 1-inch, 1.5-inch, and 2-inch taps, but the 0.75-inch, was near
expected. Since RWR for non-residential development is determined by tap size, the RWR could be adjusted by
the fraction of expected use to reflect the change in water use over time.
3.1
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
February 14, 2017 Page 5
Table 2. Summary of annual, non-residential water use from 2006-2015
Tap Size (inches) Expected Use
(gallons/year)
Average Use
(gallons/year)
Fraction of
Expected Use (%)
0.75 191,000 190,000 100%
1.0 636,000 479,000 75%
1.5 1,273,000 1,002,000 79%
2.0 2,037,000 1,678,000 82%
Suggested RWR Adjustments
Given the changes in water use from the expected amount per the current RWR calculations, staff recommends
that the RWR calculations be adjusted to reflect the information provided above. Making these changes will
reduce the overall projected amount of expected RWR the Utilities will receive in the next 50 years from about
11,900 acre-feet to about 7,700 acre-feet.
More specifically, it is recommended the RWR calculations be changed to the following:
Water Supply Needs
In order to meet future growth, Utilities projects the need for new infrastructure and some additional water rights.
The largest part of the new infrastructure would be acquisition of additional storage capacity through the Halligan
Water Supply Project. The additional storage at an enlarged Halligan Reservoir would meet a large portion of the
projected future demands by storing existing water rights (and water rights to be acquired in the future) during wet
times for use during dry times.
Other infrastructure that is projected to be needed by 2065 includes being part of facilities required to fully utilize
the Utilities’ recently changed Water Supply and Storage Company shares and potential future measuring devices
and by-pass facilities on the Poudre River as part of requirements for utilizing some of the Utilities water rights.
Utilities also projects a longer term need (by 2065) for some additional water rights to complement the additional
storage capacity.
Adding the new infrastructure and water rights to the water supply portfolio will increase the Utilities’ firm yield
about 7,800 acre-feet, from the existing firm yield of 30,800 acre-feet to about 38,600 acre-feet. This boost in firm
yield will meet the expected future growth for the Utilities water service area mentioned above. The new
3.1
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
February 14, 2017 Page 6
infrastructure is estimated to cost approximately $63.9 million and the additional water rights about $25.5 million,
both of which include a 25 percent contingency and total about $89.4 million.
Other Costs for Increasing Firm Yield
In addition to the new infrastructure and water rights mentioned above, future Utilities customers will benefit from
the existing water supply portfolio. Alone, acquiring the new infrastructure and water rights mentioned above
would not provide adequate water supplies needed for those future customers without use of the existing water
supply system. Also, the future water supply needs for new development are being reduced by leveraging the
capacity in the existing water rights system that is largely the result of effective water conservation from existing
customers. In addition, new customers will have an impact on the existing water supply system through its
increased use. These factors justify a partial “buy-in” to the existing system. Adding a “buy-in” charge for the
future customer’s use of a portion of the water supply system will reduce future costs associated with upkeep of
the water supply system, part of which results from development. Funds raised by this “buy-in” portion of the
impact fee also ensures that a portion of the Utilities Water Fund reserves are replenished for water system
improvements that help to reduce future rate increases for all customers by offsetting the impacts from
development (e.g., helping to recover costs for the recent $8 million Michigan Ditch tunnel project).
Adding the new infrastructure and water rights will increase the Utilities’ water supply firm yield from 30,800 to
38,600 acre-feet. This 7,800 acre-foot increase is about 20 percent of the future firm yield. A reasonable method
of determining the portion of the existing portfolio used by future development would be to assume they use the
same proportion (about 20 percent) of the existing firm yield of 30,800 acre-feet (or about 6,200 acre-feet).
Applying the long-standing CIL rate of $6,500 per acre-foot to the approximate 6,200 acre-feet, results in a value
of the portion of the existing portfolio that can be utilized by new development of about $40.5 million. This method
minimizes the buy-in cost by only considering a certain portion of the water supply system (the most recently
acquired ditch company shares) and does not factor in the higher value of other portions of the system (such as
CBT units or senior water rights - all of which will be used by new development).
Combining the costs of the new infrastructure and water rights needed with the value of the existing water supply
portfolio gives the total cost to increase the firm yield for new development (or redevelopment) of approximately
$129.9 million.
Cash Only Considerations
It is imperative that the RWR become a “cash only” system. This would mean no longer accepting water rights to
meet the RWR. However, the existing City-issued water certificates, as well as credits from previously satisfied
RWR, will still be accepted.
This cash only system would recognize the importance of acquiring additional storage capacity (which cannot be
turned in to meet the RWR), since such storage capacity increases our supplies by making existing (and future)
water rights available during dry times. Utilities will need to focus on specific water rights in the future to avoid
inefficient rights that are ineffective in our water supply system. In a cash only system, water rights could still be
purchased by Utilities and focus would be given to the best water rights for our water supply system. It should be
noted that Utilities plans to focus use of the cash received on infrastructure first (particularly additional storage),
since it efficiently and economically provides for reliable water supplies. In addition, accepting cash only would
provide flexibility to pursue other water supply options in the future, which could include regionally collaborative
projects.
Cash-in-Lieu (CIL) Rate Changes
BBC Research and Consulting (“BBC”), which has expertise in fee and rate analyses, was hired to review the
RWR system and the CIL rate. Utilities took the information provided by BBC to consider options for changes to
the RWR system and CIL rate. Their attached report (Attachment 5) shows the results of their findings.
As part of their study, BBC was asked to evaluate the value of the Utilities’ water supply portfolio. BBC did this by
considered an equity buy-in approach for a CIL rate adjustment, where they valued the Utilities existing and future
water supply system to be worth between $1.3 and $1.5 billion. Dividing that total system value by the future firm
3.1
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
February 14, 2017 Page 7
yield of the water supply system of approximately 38,600 acre-feet determines the equity buy-in value of the water
supply system. Using the low end of the total system value ($1.3 billion) results in an equity buy-in amount of
about $33,800 per acre-feet of RWR. This would be an amount to “plug into” the Utilities water supply system and
approximates what it would cost to acquire those supplies today.
BBC also helped Utilities consider other approaches for a CIL rate adjustment. The other main option was an
incremental cost approach, which considers only the costs of future water supply needs. Because the existing
water rights portfolio includes water rights which will be more effectively utilized through the development of water
storage and thereby will provide some water to future growth, this approach does not accurately reflect the total
costs for development and would under collect the anticipated cost of developing the required water supply
system.
Ultimately, BBC helped Utilities identify a modified buy-in or hybrid approach that combined elements of the equity
buy-in approach and an incremental cost approach. This hybrid approach involves looking at the value of existing
water supply portfolio (as discussed above), the costs of future water supply needs and dividing this cost by the
firm yield those future water supplies provide. Using the total costs of approximately $129.9 million, divided by the
additional 7,800 acre-feet of firm yield provided, results in a hybrid approach value of about $16,700 per acre-foot
of RWR.
Principles of Impact Fees
As staff investigated potential options for changes to the RWR system and the CIL rate, the following principles of
impact fees for new development or redevelopment were followed
x Growth should pay its own way. This means the impacts of the development should be paid for by the
development and not by existing ratepayers via increased rates.
x The impact fee should charge only the cost of mitigating the impact of the development on current customers.
For example, setting the CIL to the market value of local water rights could result in charging more than is
needed.
x Adding the development should be done while maintaining the current level of service, with little to no impact
to existing rate-paying customers. For example, reducing the drought tolerance level for existing customers by
utilizing water made available through water conservation to new development could impact the level of
service for existing customers.
RWR and CIL Rate Changes: Options Explored
Several options for changing the RWR system and the CIL rate were explored. The criteria used in considering
these options included whether the option met the principles of impact fees (as explained above), was financially
sustainable, and was defensible. Financial sustainability means that it will generate adequate funds to acquire the
future water supply needs of the development, as well as having a reasonable and easily reproducible
methodology for acquiring the funds. Lastly, defensibility is important to avoid potential risks associated with the
methodologies used in any option.
The following is a brief description of the different options or approaches that were investigated for changing the
RWR system and CIL rate, including whether the option met the criteria mentioned above. With the exception of
the first option (Status Quo), all options include going to a cash only RWR/CIL system.
Status Quo: This option would involve not changing anything, including the RWR calculations, the current $6,500
CIL rate or going to a cash only system. This option does not meet any of the criteria since it does not generate
adequate funds, it burdens existing customers to pay for future needs, and it asks for more water (RWR) than
development needs.
Existing RWR, Adjust CIL: This option would involve leaving the RWR calculations the same and adjusting the
CIL rate by dividing the costs of our total future needs by the projected RWR we expect. Although this option
meets the financially sustainable criteria by generating the necessary funds for acquiring the future water supply
3.1
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
February 14, 2017 Page 8
needs mentioned above, it does not meet the other criteria since it asks for more water (RWR) than development
needs.
Equity buy-in approach: This option would involve adjusting the RWR calculations as recommended above and
adjusting the CIL rate to the equity buy-in amount of $33,800 as explained above. Although this option partially
meets the financially sustainable criteria by generating the necessary funds for acquiring the future water supply
needs mentioned above, it is based on a replacement cost of the entire water supply system.
Split fee approach: This option would also involve adjusting the RWR calculations as recommended above. This
option would involve creating a new, additional impact fee for the necessary infrastructure needed for future water
supplies, along with the current RWR fee for the water rights needed (or available to developers through existing
City water certificates or credits). A variation of this option (termed a Water Right Utilization Fee) was presented
to City Council during a September 24, 2013 work session. Although this option would meet most of the criteria, it
potentially would create disputed issues with the use of some of the City’s water certificates and was thus not
considered further.
Incremental cost approach: This option involves adjusting the RWR calculations as recommended above and
adjusting the CIL rate based on only the incremental costs to acquire the future water supply needs. However,
because of the City’s outstanding water certificates and credits, this approach does not recognize the value of
these credits to the new development and also would not generate adequate funds.
Hybrid approach: This option involves adjusting the RWR calculations as recommended above and adjusting the
CIL rate based as a hybrid of the incremental costs to meet the future water supply needs, along with a “buy-in”
charge to future customers for the value of a portion of the Utilities’ existing water supply portfolio. By collecting
sufficient revenue to meet future water supply needs associated with this growth and buying into the existing
water supply system for the use of water being made available through water conservation that helps pay for the
additional impacts to the existing system from new customers, this option meets all the criteria used. Thus it is the
recommended option.
Proposed Changes to the RWR and CIL Rate
Given the information provided above, and consulting with BBC on various aspects of the RWR system and CIL
rate, the best option is to use a hybrid approach. This approach would include changing the RWR calculations as
suggested above. The CIL rate for this hybrid approach would be $16,700 per acre-foot of RWR. This CIL rate
can be compared with about $50,000 per acre-foot of firm yield from the CBT project or with the full equity buy-in
amount of $33,800 discussed above.
It should be noted that the changes in the CIL rate are a significant shift from the past CIL methodology, which
just looked at the incremental cost of acquiring water rights. In the future, when there may be no need for
acquiring additional water supplies or infrastructure, we would likely switch to an equity buy-in approach for the
CIL rate similar to the current Utilities Plant Investment Fee (PIF) structure. The recommended hybrid approach is
an interim transition from an incremental to an equity buy-in approach.
RWR/CIL Comparisons
Table 3 shows information for the status quo (no changes) and the proposed hybrid approach, including the
assumed RWR amounts, CIL rates and cost for typical developments. Although the proposed changes to the
RWR schedules and CIL rates are related to impact fees specific to the Utilities water service area, a comparison
with other northern Colorado water providers for single family homes and 1-inch taps are provided in Figures 1
and 2 (for illustrative purposes only).
3.1
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
February 14, 2017 Page 9
Table 3 - Fort Collins Utilities Raw Water Requirements (RWR) for Typical Developments
Development Type Status Quo
(CIL=$6,500/AF)
Hybrid Approach
(CIL=$16,700/AF)
Change from
Status Quo (%)
Single family, 4br, 6,000 sq ft lot
Raw Water Requirement, AF: 0.66 0.54 -19.0%
Total Cost, $: $4,309 $8,970 108.2%
Multi-family, 100 units, 3.4 acres
Raw Water Requirement, AF: 42.49 23.33 -45.1%
Total Cost, $: $276,210 $389,674 41.1%
Unit Cost, $/unit: $2,762 $3,897 41.1%
Commercial Tap: 0.75"
Raw Water Requirement, AF: 0.90 0.90 0.3%
Total Cost, $: $5,850 $15,070 157.6%
Commercial Tap: 1.0"
Raw Water Requirement, AF: 3.00 2.27 -24.5%
Total Cost, $: $19,500 $37,836 94.0%
Commercial Tap: 1.5"
Raw Water Requirement, AF: 6.00 4.72 -21.3%
Total Cost, $: $39,000 $78,877 102.2%
Commercial Tap: 2.0"
Raw Water Requirement, AF: 9.60 7.91 -17.6%
Total Cost, $: $62,400 $132,104 111.7%
3.1
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
February 14, 2017 Page 10
Figure 1
Figure 2
Future RWR/CIL Adjustments
It is recommended that the CIL rate be reviewed every two years, along with the other City biennial fee review
process, and adjusted as needed to reflect changes to construction costs, water rights and projected RWR
(related to growth projections).
$4,300
$9,000
$11,800
$13,000
$13,200
$14,200
$25,000
$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000
Status Quo
Hybrid Approach
Loveland
NWCWD
Greeley
ELCO
FCLWD
Cost, rounded to nearest $100 ($)
Water Supply Costs for Typical Single Family Home in Northern
Colorado
$19,500
$30,600
$37,800
$62,500
$64,000
$101,100
$105,000
$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000
Status Quo
NWCWD
Hybrid Approach
FCLWD
Greeley
ELCO
Loveland
Cost, rounded to nearest $100 ($)
Water Supply Costs for 1" Commercial Taps in Northern Colorado
3.1
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
February 14, 2017 Page 11
It is recommended that the RWR schedules should be reviewed every 5 to 7 years and changed if necessary,
since changes to average water use are usually the result of long-term water conservation and thus less volatile
than the factors underlying the CIL rate. This review would assess any potential changes in consumption,
investigate the appropriateness of predictor variables, and if necessary, reflect any changes in updated equations.
It is also recommended to utilize the previous 10 years of data when performing these updates.
Affordable Housing Impacts
Although Utilities needs the proposed changes to the RWR and CIL rate to develop adequate water supply for
future development, it is recognized that these changes will increase the overall cost of housing within the Utilities
water service area. These cost increases affect both Affordable Housing projects (as defined in City Code) and
the affordability of housing in Fort Collins. According to the Social Sustainability Department, about 95 percent of
future Affordable Housing projects will be multi-family. Although the costs for all housing (including Affordable
Housing projects) in the Utilities water service area will increase with the proposed changes, the cost increases
for these projects are diminished by the 39 percent reduction in the RWR calculation (for volume of water
required). Utilities staff will be part of an internal task force being created by the Social Sustainability Department
to analyze and address fees and housing affordability.
Outreach
Utilities staff presented the proposed changes to the RWR and CIL rate to the Water Board on October 6, 2016.
Based on input from their meeting, Utilities staff made some changes to the proposal and postponed an October
25, 2016 City Council work session until after presenting to the Council Finance Committee and to consider timing
with multiple rate changes occurring at the City (which will also be discussed during the February 14 work
session).
Besides the Water Board meeting in October, more recent outreach has included presenting the proposed
changes to:
x Week of January 23: Many of the ditch companies (during their annual stockholder meetings) from which
Utilities has historically accepted shares for dedication toward meeting the RWR;
x January 27: Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce
x February 8: Northern Colorado Home Builders Association (did not occur before this AIS)
x Various: contact with several local developers and water right holders
The input gathered so far has mainly included concerns about the increased costs to housing in Fort Collins, not
understanding the existing water system portion of the CIL rate, and the effect a cash only system will have on
local water right values. Staff is currently working on scheduling other presentations for gathering additional input
from stakeholder groups like the Fort Collins Board of Realtors and Downtown Development Authority. Also,
similar outreach to City boards and commissions such as the Water Board, Economic Advisory Commission, and
the Affordable Housing Board will be conducted based on the direction given by Council. The input gathered from
the outreach efforts will be provided as part of the final City Council actions that will be required for adoption of
changes.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Utilities staff recommends the following changes:
x Adjust Raw Water Requirement (RWR) schedules to reflect recent (lower) water use
o Use number of bedrooms for indoor component of residential schedule
x Adjust the Cash-in-Lieu (CIL) rate per a hybrid cost approach
o Increase CIL rate to $16,700 per acre-foot of requirement
x Accept cash only (and existing City-issued water certificates and credits) for RWR satisfaction
x Review and adjust (if necessary) the CIL rate biennially
x Review and adjust (if necessary) the RWR schedules every 5 to 7 years
3.1
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
February 14, 2017 Page 12
In addition, it is recommended the name of this Utilities development fee be change in City Code from Raw Water
Requirements to “Water Supply Requirements”, since developing adequate and reliable water supplies requires
more than just acquiring “raw water”.
Implementation Alternatives
The following are three potential alternatives to implementing the recommended changes:
x Adopt changes to RWR and CIL rate and implement immediately
x Adopt changes to RWR and CIL rate, but delay implementation by a few months
x Adopt changes to RWR and CIL rate, but delay implementation by several months
NEXT STEPS
Staff will consider City Council input and conduct additional public outreach prior to returning to City Council for
final approval of the changes to the RWR and CIL, which is likely to occur in the next few months. The ongoing
discussions with the surround Districts will continue and Utilities will be part of the Affordable Housing task force
mentioned above.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Fort Collins Area Water Districts Map (PDF)
2. Residential RWR Schedule (PDF)
3. Non-Residential RWR Schedule (PDF)
4. Water Rights and Conversion Factors (PDF)
5. BBC Research Memo re: Cash-in-Lieu charges, February 7, 2017 (PDF)
6. Glossary of Water Resources Terms (PDF)
7. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
3.1
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Utilities
electric – stormwater – wastewater - water
700 Wood St.
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6700
970.221.6619 – fax 970.224.6003 TDD
utilities@fcgov.com fcgov.com/utilities
RESIDENTIAL RAW WATER REQUIREMENTS (RWR) SCHEDULE
1
Single Family, Duplex, & Multi-Family
Effective January 1, 2016
Raw water is required for the increase in water use created by new development and to ensure a reliable source
of supply in dry years. The Raw Water Requirement (RWR) formulas listed below include all residential
categories: single family, duplex and multi-family dwelling units. Irrigation taps needed for common area
greenbelts that are part of Single-Family developments are assessed water rights on a Non-Residential basis by
tap size (see Non-Residential RWR Schedule). Irrigation taps for common area greenbelts of Multi-Family
developments are not assessed additional water rights since water rights collected for the buildings include the
overall net acreage of the development which contain all lots, spaces, private streets, parking and common
areas.
When calculating the number of acre-feet of water needed to satisfy the Raw Water Requirement (RWR), select
the appropriate formula listed below. If the net acres are unknown, add the square footage of all lots together
and divide by 43,560, the number of square feet in an acre of land.
STANDARD RESIDENTIAL RWR FORMULA
RWR = Raw Water Requirement in acre-feet
Net Acres = Area of development in acres, excluding public street rights-of-way, city maintained tracts
and rights-of-way, ditches, railways or other areas typically maintained by persons other than the owner
of the premises or an agent of the owner.
RWR = 1.92 x [(.18 x Number of Dwelling Units) + (1.2 x Net Acres)]
When used for the following categories, the formula above can be simplified as shown:
Single Family: RWR = .3456 + (2.304 x Net Acres)
max. lot area 1/2 acre or 21,780 sq.ft.
Duplex: RWR = .6912 + (2.304 x Net Acres)
Multi-Family (3 units or more): RWR = (.3456 x No. of Units) + (2.304 x Net Acres)
RWR MAY BE SATISFIED BY ANY ONE, OR COMBINATION OF THE FOLLOWING:
x Water rights (stock) acceptable to the City based on current conversion factors
x City of Fort Collins water certificates
x Cash at the rate of $6,500 per acre-foot of RWR
If the Raw Water Requirement (RWR) is satisfied with water stock or city water certificates, transactions are completed at the Utilities
before a water service permit is issued. If satisfied with cash, payment is made at Neighborhood and Building Services upon issuance
of a building permit.
1 Summarized from Sections 26-129, 26-148 and 26-150 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
ATTACHMENT 2
3.1
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
Utilities
electric – stormwater – wastewater - water
700 Wood St.
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6700
970.221.6619 – fax 970.224.6003 TDD
utilities@fcgov.com fcgov.com/utilities
NON-RESIDENTIAL RAW WATER REQUIREMENT (RWR) SCHEDULE
1
For Water Services Not Included in the Residential Category
Effective January 1, 2016
Raw water is required for the increase in water use created by new development and to ensure a reliable source of supply in dry years.
Non-residential service shall include without limitation all commercial, industrial, public entity, group housing, nursing homes,
fraternities, hotels, motels, commonly owned areas, club houses, and pools.
The minimum Raw Water Requirement (RWR) for water services up to 2-inches in diameter is shown below.
The RWR for services 3-inch and larger are based on the applicant’s estimate of actual use, provided that such
estimate is first approved and accepted by the General Manager. Options for satisfying the RWR include
turning over water rights to the City in the form of water stock or city water certificates, OR paying the
equivalent cash-in-lieu-of amount.
Equivalent Cash Minimum
Meter Size Minimum RWR Payment at Annual Allotment
(inches) (acre-feet) * $6,500/acre-foot (Gallons/Year)
3/4 0.90 or $ 5,850 293,270
1 3.00 or $ 19,500 977,550
1-1/2 6.00 or $ 39,000 1,955,110
2 9.60 or $ 62,400 3,128,170
3 and above Based on use
* acre-foot = 325,851 gallons of water
RWR MAY BE SATISFIED BY ANY ONE, OR COMBINATION OF THE FOLLOWING:
x Water rights (stock) acceptable to the City based on current conversion factors
x City of Fort Collins water certificates
x Cash at the rate of $6,500 per acre-foot of RWR
If the RWR is satisfied with water stock or city water certificates, transactions are completed at the Utilities before a water service
permit is issued (refer to schedule of water rights and conversion factors acceptable to the City). If the RWR is to be satisfied with
cash, payment is made at Neighborhood and Building Services upon issuance of a building permit.
ANNUAL ALLOTMENT/SURCHARGE (related to Monthly Billing)
The RWR establishes an annual gallon allotment for each tap and subsequent monthly water account. A surcharge of $3.06 per 1,000
gallons will be assessed on a customer’s monthly water bill when an account uses more water in a given calendar year than the gallons
allotted for a particular tap size. The surcharge rate is billed in addition to the customer’s regular monthly tiered water rate. Once the
annual allotment has been exceeded and the water surcharge appears on an account, the surcharge will continue to be billed each
month through the end of that calendar year. Additional water stock, city certificates, or cash may be turned in to increase the annual
allotment.
1 Summarized from Sections 26-129, 26-149, and 26-150 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
ATTACHMENT 3
3.1
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
Utilities
electric – stormwater – wastewater - water
700 Wood St.
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6700
970.221.6619 – fax 970.224.6003 TDD
utilities@fcgov.com fcgov.com/utilities
WATER RIGHTS AND CONVERSION FACTORS ACCEPTED BY THE CITY
FOR SATISFACTION OF RAW WATER REQUIREMENTS (RWR)
Effective January 1, 2016
Arthur Irrigation Company (see Note) 3.442 Acre-Feet / Share
Larimer County Canal No. 2 (see Note) 42.687 Acre-Feet / Share
New Mercer Ditch Company (see Note) 30.236 Acre-Feet / Share
North Poudre Irrigation Company 5.00 Acre-Feet / Share
NCWCD Units (CBT – Colo. Big Thompson) 1.00 Acre-Feet / Unit (share)
Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Company 39.74 Acre-Feet / Share
Warren Lake Reservoir Company 10.00 Acre-Feet / Share
City of Fort Collins Water Certificates Face Value of Cert. (in acre-feet)
City of Fort Collins Josh Ames Certificates 0.5625 Acre-Feet per certificate or
each certificate can satisfy 1/8 acre
of land
Note:
The City does not accept treasury shares (inactive shares held by these companies) as of December 18, 1992. A provision in the final
decree of Water Court Case No. 92CW129 prohibits the City from acquiring such treasury shares and using them for municipal
purposes.
3.1
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
ǡʹͲͳ
Ǥ Ǥ
Re: Fort Collins Utilities Cash-in-Lieu Charges for Water to Serve New Development
ǤǤǣ
ȋ Ȍ ƬȋȌ ǦǦ
Ǥ
ǡ ǯ ǡ
Ǥ Ǥ
ǯǤ
ǯ ǣ
ǯ ǦǦǫ
ǯ ȋǤǤ Ȍǫ
ǯ ǦǦǫ
ǦǦ ǫ
ǯ ǡ
Method for establishing the cash-in-lieu requirement.ǯʹͲͳͷ
ǡ ǡǡ ǦǦ
ȋȌǤ
ǡ ǯ ǡ
Ȅ ǦǦ Ȅ Ǥ
ǡDzdzǡ Ǥ
PAGE 2
ǦǦ
Ȅequity buy-in incremental cost Ǥ
Equity buy-in approach.
Ǥ
PAGE 3
Ǥ
Estimated value of FCU’s water resource system.
ǡ ǯ
ǣ ǯ ǡ
Ǥ
Estimated minimum value of FCU’s existing water resource portfolio.
ͳǡǯ
̈́ͳǤʹǤ
Dz̈́ͳdz ʹͲͳʹ
Ǥʹ
ǯȂǦȋǦȌǡ
PAGE 4
PAGE 5
Figure 1. Estimated Minimum Value of FCU’s Water Resource System
Notes:
a/ Current market price -- high by historic standards.
b/ Latest data from FCU. Generally trades at value of embedded C-BT (3 units, after shrink).
c/ Approximate 2015 value, may be higher now.
d/ Min. estimate of value. These types of WR don't trade, but are very firm.
e/ Firm/reusable supply. Value est. based on WGFP.
f/ Value includes storage and firming.
g/ No known market for most of these. This is an estimated minimum value. Includes PV&LCC and Chaffee Ditch.
h/ Latest estimate from FCU, excludes contingencies.
Volume Average
Supply Source (Shares) Yield per Share per AF Total Value
Current System in 2016
Known Market Values
C-BT 18,855 14,330 $25,000 $32,894 $471,375,000 a/
NPIC 3,564 19,850 $88,000 $15,799 $313,610,000 b/
WSSC 27 2,240 $600,000 $7,144 $16,002,000 c/
Subtotal 36,420 $21,993 $800,987,000
Estimated Minimum Market Values
Poudre River Direct Flow 11,300 $20,000 $226,000,000 d/
PRPA Reuse Water 2,310 $25,000 $57,750,000 e/
Joe Wright/Michigan Ditch 5,500 $10,000 $55,000,000 f/
Other Sources Available for
Treatment 18,970 $5,000 $94,850,000 g/
Total Minimum Estimated Value
for Current System 74,500 $16,572 $1,234,587,000
Future System Additions
Future Water Rights Acquisitions $20,400,000 h/
Infrastructure Projects
Proposed Firming Project (Halligan) $46,200,000 h/
WSSC Management Project $2,600,000 h/
River By-pass Facilities $2,300,000 h/
Minimum Value for Future System
Additions $71,500,000
Minimum Estimated Value for
Completed System $1,306,087,000
Estimated Value
3.1
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
PAGE 6
Potential maximum value of FCU’s water resource portfolio. ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ ǡ
̈́͵ͲǡͲͲͲ Ǧǡ Ǧ
Ǥʹͷ
Ȁ Ǥ
ȋ Ǧǡ
PAGE 7
Figure 2. Estimate Range of Potential Values for FCU’s Water Resource System
Value per acre-foot of firm yield. ͵
ǡ ǦǤ
Ȅ ͵ͲǡͺͲͲ ͵ͺǡͲͲ Ȅ
Ǥ
̈́͵͵ǡͺͲͲ̈́͵ͻǡʹͲͲ ǦǤ
Supply Source Minimum Maximum Difference
Current System in 2016
Known Market Values
C-BT $471,375,000 $471,375,000 $0
NPIC $313,610,000 $313,610,000 $0
WSSC $16,002,000 $16,002,000 $0
Subtotal $800,987,000 $800,987,000 $0
Other Water Resources
Poudre River Direct Flow $226,000,000 $339,000,000 $113,000,000
PRPA Reuse Water $57,750,000 $72,187,500 $14,437,500
Joe Wright/Michigan Ditch $55,000,000 $68,750,000 $13,750,000
Other Sources Available for $94,850,000 $142,275,000 $47,425,000
Treatment
Total for Current System $1,234,587,000 $1,423,199,500 $188,612,500
Future System Additions
Proposed Firming Project (Halligan) $46,200,000 $57,750,000 $11,550,000
WSSC Management Project $2,600,000 $3,250,000 $650,000
River By-pass Facilities $2,300,000 $2,875,000 $575,000
Future Water Rights Acquisitions $20,400,000 $25,500,000 $5,100,000
Totals for Completed System $1,306,087,000 $1,512,574,500 $206,487,500
Estimated Range of Values
3.1
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
PAGE 8
Figure 3. Range of Value and Estimated Value per Acre-foot of Firm Yield
Potential Cash-in-Lieu Charges for New Development. ǯ
ǦǦ
Ǥ
FCU’s current approach. ȋȌ
ͳͻͺͲǤǡ
ǡ
ǡǣ
αͳǤͻʹȏȋǤͳͺȌΪȋͳǤʹ ȌȐ
ǡǣ
αǤ͵ͶͷΪȋʹǤ͵ͲͶ Ȍ͵
ǡ ȋ
ǦǦ Ȍ Χ ʹ
Ǥ ʹ ǦǦ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡǡǤ
Conceptual approach to establishing RWR.
ʹͲͳͷǡ ǦǦ
ʹʹ
͵ Φ Ǥ
Current System Anticipated Additions Completed System
Estimated Value
Minimum $1,234,587,000 $71,500,000 $1,306,087,000
Maximum $1,423,199,500 $89,375,000 $1,512,574,500
Firm Yield (AFY) 30,800 7,800 38,600
Value per AFY
Minimum $40,084 $9,167 $33,836
Maximum $46,208 $11,458 $39,186
3.1
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
PAGE 9
Ǥǡ ǡͳͻʹʹ
Ȁ ǦǦ
ǤͶ
ǯǡ
ȋȀ ǦǦ
ȌǤ
Requirement based on overall gross or net acreage of new development.
ȋ Ǧ
Ǧ ȌǤ
ǡ Ǥ
Requirement based on number of dwelling units or taps.ǡ
ͷǡ
Ȁ
PAGE 10
Findings and recommendations. ǦǦ
ǡ Ǥ
ȋʹͲȌ
Ǥ ǦǦ
ǤDz dzȋͳǤͻʹ
Ȍ
ǡ Ǥ
Note: FCU has undertaken this analysis and determined more recent water use requirements for
different types of uses. For example, single family residential requirements appear to have declined
by at least 25 percent, relative to the assumptions built into the current RWR equations.
Ǥ
ǡ
ȋ ʹȌǤ
ǡ
Ǥ ǡǡ
ȋǤǤ Ȍ
Ǥ
ǦǦǤ
Ǧ ȋǤǤ̈́͵͵ǡͺͲͲ
̈́͵ͻǡʹͲͲ ǦȌǤ ǡ
ǦǦ
Ǥ
ǡʹǡ
ǦǦǤ ǦǦ
Ǥ ǡ
ǡǦ ȋǤǤ
ȌǤ
ȋ̈́ʹ̈́ͺͻ ͵Ȍ
Ǥ
Ǥ ǡ
Ǥ
3.1
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
PAGE 11
ǡ
DzǦdz Ǥ ǡ ǦǦ
ȋ ȌȂ
ǯ Ǥ ǡ
ǡʹͲͲ Ǧȋ
ȌǤ Ǧ
ǯȋǤǤǡ̈́͵͵ǡͺͲͲ̈́͵ͻǡʹͲͲ ǦȌ
ǡ ȋǤǤǡ ǯ
PAGE 12
Ǧ ǡ ǯ ǡ
Ǧ ǦǦ Ǥ
Ǧ ȋ̈́͵͵ǡͺͲͲ̈́͵ͻǡʹͲͲ Ǧ
ǡ Ȍ
ǡ
Ǥ Ǧ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ ǦǦ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ Ǧ
ǦǤ
ǡ Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
ǦǦ Ǥ
ǦǦ ǯ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǦǦ ǦǤ
Ǧǡ
Ǥ ǡǦ
Ǧ ǡǦ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
3.1
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
PAGE 13
Ȃ
ȋǯʹͲͳͷ
Ȍ
3.1
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
City of Fort Collins Utilities
Changes to the Utilities Raw Water Requirements
City Council Work Session
February 14, 2017
Glossary of Water Resources Terms
1-in-50 Year Drought Criterion - criterion adopted in the current Water Supply and
Demand Management Policy that defines the level of risk for the City’s water supply
system; a drought is a period of below average runoff that can last one or more years and
is often measured by its duration, average annual shortage and cumulative deficit below
the average; a 1-in-50 drought corresponds to a dry period that is likely to occur, on
average, once every 50 years; although the Poudre River Basin has several drought
periods in its recorded history, it is difficult to assess whether any of these droughts were
equal in magnitude to a 1-in-50 drought; the 1985 Drought Study developed the 1-in-50
drought used in assessing the Utilities water supply system; this drought period is six
years long and has a cumulative deficit of 550,000 acre-feet, which represents annual
river volumes that are about 70% of the long-term average for the Poudre River; see also
“Statistically Based Drought Analysis”
Acre-Foot or Acre-Feet (AF) - volume of water equal to about 326,000 gallons; one acre-
foot can supply around three to four single family homes in Fort Collins per year; for
storage comparison the maximum volume of Horsetooth Reservoir is about 157,000 acre-
feet
Active Capacity - the usable capacity of a reservoir for storage and regulation of inflows
and releases that does not include any capacity below the reservoir’s lowest outlet (which
is known as dead capacity)
Cash-in-lieu rate (CIL) - the cash equivalent of the water supply required to meet the
needs of development; see also Raw Water Requirements
Carryover - used in reference to storage; it is the ability to save water in storage for use at
a later time, most notably in following years
Change in Water Right - used to refer to changing water rights under Colorado water law
from agricultural to municipal water use; see also “Legal Return Flows or Return Flow
Obligations”
CIP - Capital Improvement Project, which typically refers to a project to improve
Utilities facilities (e.g., treatment plant capacity expansion)
Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) Project - a Bureau of Reclamation project that brings
water from the Colorado River basin to the east side of the continental divide via a tunnel
and the Big Thompson River to several locations including Horsetooth Reservoir;
1
ATTACHMENT 6
3.1
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
operated by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (or Northern Water); Fort
Collins Utilities currently owns 18,855 units of the 310,000 total units in the CBT project
Cubic Feet per Second (cfs) - volumetric flow rate equal to one cubic foot flowing every
second; for comparison, an average peak flow rate on the Poudre River at the Lincoln
Street gage (downtown) is around 1,900 cfs and a median winter-time low flow rate in
December at the same location is around 7 cfs
Direct Flow Rights - water rights that can be taken for direct use, as opposed to storage
rights that can be taken for later use; see also “Senior Water Rights”
DEIS or EIS - Draft Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Impact
Statement; a report detailing the findings of the NEPA permitting process; report can be
reviewed by public for their comments which are typically addressed in a Final
Environment Impact Statement; see also “NEPA”
ELCO - East Larimer County Water District; see also “Tri-Districts”
FCLWD - Fort Collins-Loveland Water District; see also “Tri-Districts”
Firm Yield - a measure of the ability of a water supply system to meet water demands
through a series of drought years; for the Fort Collins Utilities, this means being able to
meet the planning demand level and storage reserve factor through the 1-in-50 year
drought criterion; see also “1-in-50 Year Drought Criterion”, “planning demand level”
and “storage reserve factor”
GMA - short for Growth Management Area, which is the planned boundary of the City of
Fort Collins’ future City limits
gpcd - gallons per capita per day; a measurement of municipal water use; for the Fort
Collins Utilities, gpcd is calculated based on the total annual treated water produced at
the Water Treatment Facility for use by all Water Utility customers (minus large
contractual customers and other sales or exchange agreements) divided by the estimated
population of the Water Utility’s service area and 365 days
LEDPA - Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative, which is what is
allowed to be permitted through the NEPA permitting process; see also “NEPA”
Legal Return Flows or Return Flow Obligations - refers to legal requirements when
changing water rights from agricultural to municipal use; this process requires obtaining a
decree from Colorado Water Court that involves detailed analysis of the historic
agricultural water use, including the water diversions, amount used by the crops, and the
return flow patterns of the water not used by the crops; terms in the decree to prevent
municipalities from taking more water than was historically taken and replacing return
flows in the right amount, location and time to prevent injury to other water rights
2
3.1
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act; federal legislation that established
environmental policy for the nation; it provides interdisciplinary framework for federal
agencies to prevent environmental damage and contains “action-forcing” procedures to
ensure that federal agency decision-makers take environmental factors into account
NISP - Northern Integrated Supply Project
Northern Water or NCWCD - short for Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
(NCWCD); Northern Water operates the Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) Project and is
involved in several other regional water projects on behalf of their participants; see also
“Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) Project”
NPIC - North Poudre Irrigation Company; an irrigation company that supplies water to
farmers north of Fort Collins and is the owner of all water currently stored in Halligan
Reservoir; the City currently owns about 36% of the shares in the company
NWCWD - North Weld County Water District; see also “Tri-Districts”
Planning Demand Level - level of water use (demand) in gpcd used for water supply
planning purposes that is a factor in determining the amount of water supplies and/or
facilities needed; see also “gpcd”
PIF (or PIFs) - Plant Investment Fee(s), which are one-time fees assessed on
developments for the cost of the utility infrastructure needed to serve that development
Raw Water Requirement (RWR) - requires new development to turn in water rights, a
payment of cash-in-lieu of water rights, or use of City-issued water certificates or credits
to support the water needs of that development; cash is used to increase the firm yield and
long-term reliability of the City’s supply system (e.g., purchase additional storage
capacity)
Storage Reserve Factor - refers to a commonly used engineering principle in designing
water supply systems to address short-term supply interruptions; as defined in the Water
Supply and Demand Management Policy, the storage reserve factor incorporates having
20 percent of annual demands in storage through the 1-in-50 drought which equates to
about 3.5 months of winter (indoor) demands or 1.5 month of summer demands
Senior Water Rights - refers to Colorado water law’s use of the “prior appropriation” or
priority system, which dictates that in times of short supply, earlier water rights decrees
(senior rights) will get their water before others (junior rights) can begin to use water,
often described as “first in time, first in right”
Southside Ditches - refers to the irrigation ditches that run through the City of Fort
Collins, including the Arthur Ditch, New Mercer Ditch, Larimer County Canal No. 2 and
Warren Lake Reservoir; the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal is another ditch that runs
through Fort Collins and is sometimes considered a Southside Ditch
3
3.1
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
Tri-Districts - the combination of the three regional water districts East Larimer County
(ELCO), Fort Collins-Loveland (FCLWD) and North Weld County (NWCWD) Water
Districts; these districts share the same water treatment plant called Soldier Canyon Filter
Plant, which is located adjacent to Fort Collins Utilities’ Water Treatment Facility
Water Rights Portfolio - the mix of water rights owned by a water supplier; typically
includes water for direct use, as well as for storage for later use; for the Fort Collins
Utilities, includes City owned water rights, owned and/or converted shares in agricultural
rights, storage rights at Joe Wright Reservoir, and ownership in the CBT project
Water Supply Factor - refers to a multiplying factor used in the assessment of raw water
required by developers to reflect issues that tend to reduce the average yield of the water
supplies provided to a water supplier (e.g., system losses, variable demands, etc.)
WSDMP - short for Water Supply & Demand Management Policy, which provides Fort
Collins Utilities guidance in balancing water supplies and demands
Yield or Water Rights Yield - refers to the amount of water that is produced from a water
right; the yield of water rights vary from year to year depending on the amount of water
available (i.e., low or high river runoff) and the priority of the water right; see also “Firm
Yield” and “Senior Water Rights”
4
3.1
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
DRAFT Unapproved Minutes Excerpt
Water Board July 20, 2017
Changes to the Utilities Raw Water Requirements
(Attachments available upon request)
Water Resources Manager Donnie Dustin summarized changes to the Utilities Raw Water
Requirements (RWR) and the timeline of public outreach. RWR are the water rights or fee paid
by new development to ensure that adequate water supply and associated infrastructure are
available to serve the water needs of development; the amount paid is based on use and type of
development. Currently RWR can be satisfied with acceptable water rights, cash-in-lieu (CIL) of
water rights, city certificates (credits), or a combination. Changes to RWR and CIL have not
been made in many years.
Staff requests Water Board’s recommendation for approval of proposed changes before seeking
adoption by City Council on August 15 and September 5. Staff previously presented this topic to
Water Board on October 5, 2016 and to City Council Work Session on February 14, 2017, and
has since presented to other City boards and commissions, and to several key stakeholders (e.g.
local ditch company boards).
Discussion Highlights
Board members commented on or inquired about various related topics including: future water
supply needs and the cost to increase firm yield for new development; Halligan Reservoir costs
and how they relate to future water supply needs; adjustments staff made to the proposal as a
result of public outreach, such as delayed implementation and related financial impact;
assessments paid to ditch companies; the types of water rights/shares accepted; water supply
costs for a typical single family home in Northern Colorado; and methodology for proposed
changes. Mr. Dustin, Utilities Strategic Finance Director Lance Smith, Water Resources and
Treatment Operations Manager Carol Webb, and Assistant City Attorney Eric Potyondy
responded to Water Board members’ questions.
Board Member Michael Brown moved that Water Board recommend that City Council
adopt the proposed changes to the Utilities Raw Water Requirements, which includes
changes to the cash-in-lieu rate.
Board Member Kent Bruxvoort seconded the motion.
Discussion on the Motion: Board members discussed the staff recommendation to delay
implementation to April 1, 2018 and the benefits of a long time frame to address developer
concerns. Staff stated that if the proposed changes and April implementation date are adopted by
City Council, it should provide adequate time for developers to complete current projects under
the current RWR and CIL rate system. For developers that have acquired water rights in
anticipation of completing longer-term projects (e.g., Overall Development Plan process or more
complex developments), they can dedicate water rights until January 1, 2019 as long as the
developers show they were in the City’s development process and that they owned the water
rights prior to February 14, 2017 (date of City Council work session on proposed changes).
Board members stated concerns about a possible unintended consequence of higher workload on
ATTACHMENT 3
3.3
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Water Board minutes, July 20, 2017 (draft) (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
City engineers to process a potential rush of permits in a short amount of time, and whether staff
is equipped to handle larger amounts of cash and water rights certificates coming in to fulfill
RWR. Staff stated that it is well equipped for this eventuality.
Vote on the motion: It passed 6-2, with Board Members Jim Kuiken and Phyllis Ortman
opposed. Reasons for dissenting votes: Board Members Kuiken and Ortman believe the $40.5
million number is too low of an estimate for the “buy-in” value of the City’s existing water
portfolio (used in the calculation for future water supply needs, which is used to determine the
CIL rate) and don’t want to set the precedent of not charging the full buy-in cost now. They
stated concern about being vulnerable to legal action by developers who might take the stance
that previous developers were not charged the full buy-in costs in the past and that the City must
stick with its past methodology. Staff responded that BBC Research and Consulting (a consultant
hired to review the proposed changes) determined the full buy-in cost to be $33,800 (which was
calculated with the current market value of the Utilities existing and future water supply
portfolio). Staff further explained that the buy-in component estimated the value of the water that
the new development would use and applied the long-term CIL rate of $6,500, which continues
to be the current market value of the types of water rights that would be used in the additional
storage Utilities is working to acquire. Staff also explained that it has a legal responsibility to
only charge for the impact of the new development (as opposed to the full current market value).
3.3
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Water Board minutes, July 20, 2017 (draft) (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
Social Sustainability
321 Maple Street
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6758
TO: Carol Webb, Donnie Dustin and Lance Smith, City Water Utilities
FROM: Affordable Housing Board
DATE: April 19, 2017
RE: Proposed Changes to Raw Water Requirements
The Affordable Housing Board very much appreciates your April 6
th
, 2017 presentation to the
board on the proposed changes to raw water requirements.
As you are aware, housing affordability is a major issue in Fort Collins. The costs of utilities is
one factor that can affect affordability. The proposed changes to the raw water requirements are a
factor that will affect the financial feasibility of qualified affordable housing developments
targeted for low-wage earners. The goals of the City’s 2015-2019 Affordable Housing Strategic
Plan will be jeopardized if our developer partners cannot produce these units.
Currently, most new affordable housing in the City is multi-family construction, which requires
less water per unit than single-family homes. In recognition of this utility benefit, as well as the
community need for affordable housing, water costs for these developments should not be
charged at the same rate as other market-rate developments.
The Affordable Housing Board recommends that the City’s water utilities staff present the
following options to City Council related to the proposed raw water requirements rate increases:
1. The proposed water rate increase not be applied to any qualified affordable housing
development, and that current rates be frozen for this housing type. Since affordable housing
production is a small fraction of overall development in the City, we do not feel the City’s
overall financial health would be jeopardized by implementing this rate freeze. Perhaps an
analysis of a current project such as the Village on Redwood could best illustrate the financial
impact of this policy.
Or alternatively,
2. That any rate increase phasing be applied to qualified affordable housing last, and not be less than
24 months from the time when rate increases go into effect.
3. In addition, given the increased complexity of funding sources and the increased time needed
to acquire them, affordable housing projects take longer to complete than market-rate projects.
The Board recommends water rates for new affordable housing developments be locked at the
time of the development proposal submission. Investors require developers of affordable
housing to lock in their funding sources and budget amounts early in the process, so certainty of
actual costs is crucial. It is extremely difficult for these development deals to manage a rate
increase mid-process.
We appreciate your consideration of these recommendations. The Board would appreciate being
kept informed about this issue.
ATTACHMENT 4
3.4
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Affordable Housing Board, April 19, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Finance Committee Minutes
(EXCERPT FOR RAW WATER REQUIREMENTS)
07/11/17
1:30 - 4:00 pm
Colorado River Community Room – 222 Laporte
Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Ross Cunniff, Ken Summers
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead, Jeff Mihelich, John Duval, Travis Storin, John Voss,
Tiana Smith, Lawrence Pollack, Andres Gavaldon, Joanne Cech, Lance Smith, Josh Birks,
Carrie Daggett, Laurie Kadrich, Helen Matson, Kerri Allison, Sue Beck-Ferkiss,
Rachel, Springob, Tyler Marr, Teresa Roche, Joaquin ‘Keen’ Garbiso, Mark Jackson, Kurt
Ravenschlag, Michelle Provaznik
Others: Kevin Jones (Chamber of Commerce), James Manire (First Southwest), Jim Burke,
(Assurance Senior Manager, RSM US LLP) T
C. Raw Water / Cash in Lieu
Donnie Dustin, P.E., Water Resources Manager
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director
Carol Webb, Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: Changes to the Utilities Raw Water Requirements
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to provide the Council Finance Committee with an overview of the
proposed changes to the Utilities Raw Water Requirement system and associated cash-in-lieu rate, and
actions taken by Utilities staff following direction given at the February 14, 2017 City Council work
session. Staff will be seeking adoption of these changes at the August 15 and September 5 City Council
regular meetings.
Utilities staff recommends the following changes:
Adjust Raw Water Requirement (RWR) schedules to reflect recent (lower) water use
o Use number of bedrooms for indoor component of residential schedule
Adjust the Cash-in-Lieu (CIL) rate per a hybrid cost approach
o Increase CIL rate to $16,700 per acre-foot of requirement
Accept cash, existing City-issued water certificates and credits, North Poudre Irrigation Company
shares, and CBT units for RWR satisfaction
o No longer allow dedication of other water rights
ATTACHMENT 5
3.5
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Council Finance Committee minutes, July 11, 2017 (draft) (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
2
Review and adjust (if necessary) the CIL rate biennially
Review and adjust (if necessary) the RWR schedules every 5 to 7 years
Implement RWR and CIL rate changes on April 1, 2018
Change Code from “Raw Water Requirements” to “Water Supply Requirements”
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What questions or feedback does the Council Finance Committee have regarding the proposed
changes?
2. Does the Council Finance Committee support these changes and recommend bringing them to the
full City Council for adoption?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Raw Water Requirements (“RWR”) are a dedication of water rights or cash-in-lieu of water rights
(“CIL”) to ensure that adequate water supply and associated infrastructure are available to serve the
water needs of development (including re-development needing increased water service). Changes to
the RWR and CIL rate have not been made for many years.
Staff presented the proposed changes to the RWR and CIL rate at the February 14, 2017 City Council
work session. The material provided for that work session, which contains more detailed information
on the background and proposed changes, are included as ATTACHMENT 1. Council direction was to
consider delayed implementation of the changes, provide information about the impact on rates to
delaying or not implementing the changes, conduct additional public outreach (including to the general
public), orient new Councilmembers on the related issues, and provide justification for contingencies
embedded in the CIL rate. This report will briefly recap the proposed changes and address the direction
given by City Council, as well as highlight the public input received on the proposed changes.
Implementation Options
Implement all RWR and CIL rate changes on:
October 1, 2017 (8 months after the Feb. 14 City Council Work Session)
April 1, 2018 (a further 6-month delay)
o Staff Recommendation: allows time to address developer concerns with minor impact to rate payers
October 1, 2018 (a further 1-year delay)
These proposed changes have been incorporated into the pertinent sections of the City’s Municipal
Code, which is provided in the attached draft Ordinance (ATTACHMENT 4).
Next Steps
Present changes at the July 20 Water Board meeting for their recommendation
Bring changes for adoption at August 15 and September 5 City Council meetings
Presented proposed changes at the Council February 14 work session
Three main proposed changes:
1) Decrease the RWR to reflect lower water use
3.5
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Council Finance Committee minutes, July 11, 2017 (draft) (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
3
2) Increase cash-in-lieu rate to $16,700 AF of RWR (current rate is $6,500 AF)
3) Cash Focus - Accepting Cash vs. Water Rights except Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) water
CFC Discussion
Ross Cunniff regarding the attempted general public outreach; this is not likely to be applicable to a
rate payer
Mayor Troxell; heard from a developer - potential projection limited to 40% as it relates to its water
requirements
Donnie Dustin; that was related to the East Larimer County Water District RWR process in which if
developers turn in water rights, they only get a certain percentage of the RWR value until they go
through the water court process
Mayor Troxell; Outreach - could be applicable to Fort Collins-Loveland and East Larimer County Water
Districts, which is part of Carol’s Regional Water Collaboration (RWC) discussions
Carol Webb; working on RWC strategies and tactics with water requirements a potential focus to
better serve growth areas in the GMA
Ross Cunniff; we need some legal reading to benefit non rate payers. What is driving reduced
consumption?
Donnie Dustin; tiered rate structures - people have reduced their use; based on past 3 years – if we
don’t make changes these changes the impact will be up to $3.5M in a year in reduced impact fees
collected
Ross Cunniff; if we lose revenue because we didn’t size tap fees appropriately we could potentially ask
all rate payers to make that up which would be highly undesirable. Is an even smaller tap size option
being investigated? (tiny houses)
Lance Smith; ¾ is the smallest for residential but we could look at smaller - depends on lot size and
number of bedrooms - inherit if you are going to achieve savings
Donnie Dustin; the current and proposed RWR schedules are based on lot size and size of home such
that the RWR is less for a smaller house on a smaller lot
Ross Cunniff; this is ready to go - big step forward
3.5
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Council Finance Committee minutes, July 11, 2017 (draft) (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
1
Changes to the Utilities Raw Water Requirements
Donnie Dustin, P.E., Water Resources Manager
City Council
August 22, 2017
ATTACHMENT 6
3.6
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
HORSETOOTH
RESERVOIR
2
Water Impact Fees
PLANT INVESTMENT
FEES (PIF)
DISTRIBUTION
WATER TREATMENT
TAP FEES (Water Meters)
WATER METERS
RAW WATER
REQUIREMENTS (RWR)
Source of Supply
(water rights), which includes
Storage and Transmission
CACHE LA
POUDRE RIVER
WATER
SUPPLY
HORSETOOTH
RESERVOIR
3.6
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
3
This discussion
focuses on Utilities
water service area;
continued discussions
with other districts.
3.6
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
Raw Water Requirements
What are they?
• Water rights or fee paid by new development
• Amount based on use, type of development
• GOAL: generate adequate funds and water rights to
provide reliable water supply
4
3.6
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
5
Amount of Raw Water Required
Amount of Raw Water Requirement
(RWR)
3.6
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
RWR Changes
• Service area population +45,000 by 2065
• Water use less than expected (current RWR)
• Single-family: 26% less
• Multi-family: 39% less
• 3/4-inch tap: little change
• Larger taps: 18-25% less
• Suggest RWR adjustments to reflect changes
• Expected RWR ~7,700 acre-feet
6
Residential indoor use
better correlated to
number of bedrooms
3.6
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
7
Amount Cash-in-of Raw Lieu Water (CIL) Required Rate
3.6
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
Future Water Supply Needs
How much will it cost to increase firm yield
for new development?
$63.9M: Infrastructure (e.g., storage)
+ $25.5M: Future water rights (requires storage)
+ $40.5M: Value from existing portfolio
$129.9M: Total cost to increase firm yield
8
Future supplies would not provide adequate yield
without existing portfolio
3.6
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
Hybrid Cost Approach
• Proposed Cash-in-lieu rate:
= $16,700 / AF
Current CIL rate = $6,500 / AF
••••• •• •••••• •••• ••••• =
7,$129.800 9• ••
Cash-in-lieu Rate
9
3.6
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
10 10
$4,300
$2,800
$9,000
$3,900
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
$10,000
Single family, 4br, 6,000 sq ft lot Multi-family, 100 units, 3.4 acres
Cost per Unit or Tap ($)
Fort Collins Utilities: Raw Water Requirement Costs for
Typical Residential Developments
Status Quo Hybrid Approach
Cash-in-lieu (CIL) Rates:
Status Quo CIL = $6,500/AF
Proposed CIL = $16,700/AF
3.6
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
11 11
$5,900
$19,500
$15,100
$37,800
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
Commercial Tap: 0.75" Commercial Tap: 1.0"
Cost per Unit or Tap ($)
Fort Collins Utilities: Raw Water Requirement Costs for
Typical Commercial Developments
Status Quo Hybrid Approach
Cash-in-Lieu (CIL) Rates:
Status Quo CIL = $6,500/AF
Proposed Cost CIL = $16,700/AF
3.6
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
$4,300
$9,000
$12,600
$13,500
$14,000
$14,180
$25,000
$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000
Status Quo
Hybrid Approach
Loveland
NWCWD
Greeley
ELCO
FCLWD
Cost, rounded to nearest $100 ($)
Water Supply Costs for A Typical Single Family Home in Northern
Colorado
12 12
3.6
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
$19,500
$31,700
$37,800
$62,500
$68,000
$103,100
$111,500
$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000
Status Quo
NWCWD
Hybrid Approach
FCLWD
Greeley
ELCO
Loveland
Cost, rounded to nearest $100 ($)
Water Supply Costs for 1" Commercial Taps in Northern Colorado
13 13
3.6
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
14
Amount Cash of Focused Raw Water System Required
3.6
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
Accepting Cash vs. Water Rights
No longer allow dedication of water rights,
except Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) water
15
Focus on infrastructure first
Can still acquire water rights
Flexibility to pursue other options
Storage increases supply with existing
(and future) water rights
Could include regional aspects
Focus on best rights
3.6
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
Feb. 14 Council Direction
• Consider delayed implementation
• Explain rate payer impacts from:
• Delayed implementation
• Not making these changes
• Conduct additional public outreach
• Include general public
• Provide justification for contingencies
• Orient new Councilmembers
16
3.6
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
Outreach
• Presentations made to:
• Stakeholders: Chamber, Home Builders, ditch companies, key
accounts, individual shareholders and developers
• Boards/Commissions: Water, Affordable Housing, Economic,
Natural Resources
• Water Board: recommend adoption of changes
• Council Finance Committee: ready for Council consideration
• Attempted general public outreach via focus groups
• Cancelled due to lack of interest
• Fee Working Group on all development fees
17
3.6
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
Outreach summary
• Concern with increased housing costs
• Explain “buy-in” component of CIL rate
• Increased costs to current developments
• No longer accepting water rights will
• Devalue local shares
• Penalize good planning
• Affordable Housing Board exceptions
• General support from other boards
18
3.6
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
Adjustments Due to Outreach
• Recommend delayed implementation
• Allow developers to finish projects at current costs
• Allow planned water rights dedication (under certain conditions)
• Development started and rights acquired before Feb. 14, 2017
19
3.6
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
Potential Revenue Loss
• Loss from delayed implementation
• 6-months: ~$1.7M loss
• 1-year: ~$3.5M loss
• $3.5M = 12% of 2016 operating revenues
• Revenue loss made up by future rate increases
20
3.6
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
Implementation Options
• Implement all RWR and CIL changes on:
• October 1, 2017 (immediate)
• April 1, 2018 (6-month delay)
• October 1, 2018 (1 year delay)
• Staff recommends April 1, 2018
• Allows time to address developer concerns
21
3.6
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
Staff Recommendations
1. Adjust RWR schedules based on recent use
• Residential based on # of bedrooms
2. Increase CIL rate to $16,700/AF of RWR
3. Cash focused system (and credits)
4. Periodically adjust CIL, RWR
5. Implement all changes April 1, 2018
22
3.6
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
23
3.6
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
-1-
ORDINANCE NO.116, 2017
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO MAKE VARIOUS CHANGES RELATED TO THE RAW WATER REQUIREMENTS,
TO HEREINAFTER BE KNOWN AS THE “WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS”
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the
City Charter to fix, establish, maintain, and provide for the collection of such rates, fees, or
charges for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the
costs, expenses, and other obligations of the water utility, as set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, the City owns and operates a water utility that provides treated water service
to customers with its service area; and
WHEREAS, through various water supply furnishing or development programs, the City
has historically required that persons desiring new or increased water service from the water
utility, among other things, furnish or otherwise provide to the City certain rights to use water or
payments of cash-in-lieu thereof in order to offset the impacts of the requested water service,
which requirements are currently set forth in Sections 26-129, 26-147, 26-148, 26-149, and 26-
150 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins as the raw water requirements (“RWR”), and
referenced in Sections 2-436, 26-74, 26-94, 26-207, 26-632, 26-651 and 26-653; and
WHEREAS, City staff has historically reviewed the water supply furnishing or
development requirements periodically to ensure that the rights to use water and cash payments
received by the City are sufficient; and
WHEREAS, City staff has completed a comprehensive and thorough review of the RWR
and has determined that various changes thereto are necessary to ensure that, among other things,
the impacts of new and increased water service are offset and that the water utility has sufficient
water supplies and infrastructure to serve customers of the water utility with an adequate level of
service; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager and City staff have recommended to the City Council that
the following changes be made, which include, but are not limited to, renaming the RWR as the
“Water Supply Requirements” and changing the functions of the Water Board to no longer
include determination of raw water conservation factors.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS, as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That Section 2-436 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Packet Pg. 95
-2-
Sec. 2-436. - Creation and purposes.
. . .
(b) The purposes of the Board shall be to advise the City Council in matters
pertaining to water, wastewater and stormwater utility policy issues and to act as a quasi-
judicial body relating to certain matters. These matters shall include, without limitation,
the following:
(2) To act as a quasi-judicial body relating to floodplain regulation variances,
stormwater fee disputes, determining raw water conversion factors and storm
drainage design criteria variances;
. . .
Section 3. That Section 26-74 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-74. - Conditions for granting permits.
A permit will be granted if all of the following conditions are met:
. . .
(3) The new or additional use of water will not adversely impact water users within
the City limits and the applicant has satisfied all raw water supply requirements imposed
by this Article;
. . .
Section 4. That Section 26-94 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-94. - Individual service lines for each building required.
. . .
(4) Plant investment fees, raw water supply requirements and any other
applicable charges required in connection with the additional building to which
service is to be provided shall be remitted as provided in this Article. For a
carriage house, additional plant investment fees and raw water supply
requirements, as well as monthly meter rates and any other water-related charges,
shall be determined based on the addition of a new dwelling unit on the property;
and
. . .
Packet Pg. 96
-3-
Section 5. That Section 26-129 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-129. - Schedule D, miscellaneous fees and charges.
The following fees and service charges shall be paid by water users, whether inside or
outside the City limits:
(a) Connection fees and service charges shall be as set forth in Subsection 26-712(b).
(b) The fire hydrant fees and charges shall be as follows:
(1) For installation of meter Per meter $43.00
(2) For removal of meter Per meter $43.00
(3) For daily rental for meter and fittings Per meter $8.60
(4) For water service
Per 1,000
gallons
$6.00$10.349
A deposit may be required in the amount of the
charges for the anticipated water usage and rental.
(c) The fees and requirements for raw water supply shall be as follows
(1) To satisfy raw water requirements (RWR)
Water Supply Requirement (WSR) with in-lieu
cash payments
Per
acre-foot
of RWR
WSR $6,500.0016,700.00
(2) Excess water use surcharge assessed on
commercial and irrigation taps when water use is
in excess of the applicable annual allotment
Per 1,000
gallons $3.067.86
(3) The annual water allotment, based on the minimum RWR
WSR shall be as follows:
Meter Size (inches)
Annual
Allotment
(gallons/
year)
Packet Pg. 97
-4-
¾ 293,270294,050
1 977,550738,250
1½ 1,955,1101,539,060
2 3,128,1702,577,610
Above 2
325,851
gallons per
acre foot RWR of
WSR
. . .
Section 6. That Section 26-147 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-147. - Grant of water rights; required.
All owners of premises requesting original water service from the City shall, before being
granted a water service permit, satisfy the assessed raw water requirement (RWR) Water
Supply Requirements (WSR) as determined in this Division without cost to the City. The
raw water requirements are WSR is as provided in this Division.
Section 7. That Section 26-148 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-148. - Raw water requirement (RWR)Water Supply Requirement (WSR);
residential service.
(a) Residential service for RWR WSR shall include single-family, duplex, multi-
family and mobile home, and multi-family dwelling units.
(1) For residential service to single family, duplex, and mobile home dwelling
units, Tthe formula to calculate the WSR shall be:
RWR
WSR =
1.92 × [(.18 × Number of Dwelling Units) + (1.2 × Net Acres)]
1.92 x [(7.048 x Lot Size) + (12,216.9 x Bedrooms)] / 325,851
Where:
RWR
WSR = Raw water requirement Water Supply Requirement in acre-feet.
Net acres
Lot Size
=
Area of development the parcel for which water service is requested,
in acres square feet, excluding public street rights-of-way, City-
maintained tracts and rights-of-way, ditches, railways or other areas
Packet Pg. 98
-5-
typically maintained by persons other than the owner of the premises
or an agent of the owner. For a single-family residential lot greater
than one-half acre in size, the lot size shall be deemed to be one-half
acre for the purpose of this raw water requirement calculation.
Bedrooms
Number of bedrooms on the parcel for which water service is
requested, as determined by the City.
(2) For residential service to multi-family dwelling units (greater than 2
dwelling units), the formula to calculate the WSR shall be:
WSR =
1.92 x [(9.636 x Lot Size) + (13,592.8 x Bedrooms)] / 325,851
Where:
WSR = Water Supply Requirement in acre-feet.
Lot Size
=
Area of the parcel for which water service is requested, in square feet,
excluding public street rights-of-way, City-maintained tracts and
rights-of-way, ditches, railways or other areas typically maintained by
persons other than the owner of the premises or an agent of the owner.
Bedrooms
Number of bedrooms on the parcel for which water service is
requested.
(b) In the event an applicant applying for a residential water service permit has, prior
to March 1, 1984, surrendered water rights or otherwise satisfied the requirements of the
City under an earlier water supply furnishing or development program, then the RWR
WSR for that property will be considered satisfied under this Section.
Section 8. That Section 26-149 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-149. - Raw water requirement Water Supply Requirement (WSR);
nonresidential service.
(a) Nonresidential service for WSR shall apply to all services not included in the
residential category and shall include, without limitation, all service to customers for:
commercial,; industrial,; public entity,; group housing, such as nursing homes,
fraternities,; hotels and motels,; and mixed-use customers purposes.
(b) The minimum RWR WSR for water meters up to two and zero tenths (2.0) inches
in diameter are as follows:
Meter Size (inches) RWR (acre-feet)
¾ .90
1.0 3.002.27
1.5 6.004.72
2.0 9.607.91
Packet Pg. 99
-6-
(c) The RWR WSR for customers requiring a meter larger than two and zero tenths
(2.0) inches, and for customers requiring two (2) or more meters, shall be determined by
multiplying the applicant's estimate of peak annual use, or the total annual allotment for
the meter or meters, whichever is greater, by one and ninety-two one-hundredths (1.92),
provided that such estimate is first approved and accepted by the Utilities Executive
Director.
(d) Upon application for a water service permit after March 1, 1984, each applicant
who is a nonresidential user shall be assigned an annual allotment of water equal to the
greater of: the RWR WSR as determined pursuant to this Section;and any RWR WSR
that was satisfied at the time of application for nonresidential water service; any
increased annual allotment pursuant to Subsection (g) below; and the volume of the water
furnishing requirement of the City under an earlier water supply furnishing or
development program, as determined by the City. Further, in the event that, pursuant to
Subsection (f) below, a nonresidential user submits more raw water than required under
the provisions of this Subsection, then the annual allotment shall be determined pursuant
to said Subsection (f). When a user uses more water than the annual allotment, as
determined by monthly billing records in a given calendar year, an Excess Water Use
Surcharge in the amount prescribed in § 26-129 will be assessed on the volume of water
used in excess of the annual allotment.
(e) In the case where existing water service to a property is being changed or a new
water service permit is being issued, the utility shall assign an annual allotment and credit
the nonresidential user towards the new water service permit as follows. If an annual
allotment has been assigned, the credit towards the new water service shall be for the
amount of the annual allotment for the property. If the existing credit towards the new
water service is greater than the annual allotment to be assigned for the new water service
permit, no cash refund or water certificates issued by the City shall be provided to the
applicant. If no annual allotment has been assigned, the credit towards the new water
service shall be the amount prescribed in § 26-129 for the existing meters serving the
property. The credit authorized under this subsection is not transferrable.
(ef) In the event an applicant applying for a nonresidential water service permit has,
prior to March 1, 1984, surrendered water rights or otherwise satisfied the requirements
of the City under an earlier water supply furnishing or development program, then the
minimum RWR WSR for that property shall be considered satisfied under this Section.
However, such nonresidential user shall be subject to the Excess Water Use Surcharge
when the annual allotment is exceeded.
(fg) A nonresidential user may increase said user's annual allotment by submitting,
water rights, City certificates or cash in addition to the minimum required, water rights,
water certificates issued by the City, or cash in the amount prescribed in § 26-129 for
each acre-foot of WSR. Such submission, if made on or before December 31, 2007, shall
be deemed to raise the user's annual allotment by an equivalent amount. Such submission,
if made after December 31, 2007, shall raise the user's annual allotment by the amount of
equivalent water rights submitted in acre-feet divided by one and ninety-two one-
Packet Pg. 100
-7-
hundredths (1.92). Any increase of a user’s annual allotment will be applied to
subsequent billing and other matters and shall not be applied retroactively.
(gh) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Division, water certificates issued by
the City under the Agreement, dated May 10, 1971, between the City and the Josh Ames
Ditch Company, shall be subject to the following:
(1) If such certificates are used to meet the RWR WSR upon the annexation
of land into the City, each certificate shall be accepted by the City as fulfilling the
RWR WSR in the ratio of one certificate for each one-eighth (1/8) acre of land
annexed, and if nonresidential service to the annexed land is requested, an annual
allotment shall be imposed that is equal to the applicant’s estimate of peak annual
use on the annexed land, provided that such estimate does not exceed the amount
of water, as determined by the Utilities Executive Director, that can reasonably be
delivered through the number and size of taps in the water service permit issued
for the annexed land, that such estimate is based on the applicant’s documented
intended use(s) of the annexed land, and that such estimate is first approved and
accepted by the Utilities Executive Director. For the purposes of this subsection,
“upon the annexation of land into the City” refers to the one hundred (100) day
period beginning on the day the ordinance of annexation is approved by Council
on second reading.
. . .
(hi) Applicants seeking a temporary water connection under Subsection 26-120(e)(1)
shall meet the RWR modified WSR as set forth in this Subsection and Subsection 26-
150(a)(4) and shall be assigned an annual allotment as set forth in this Subsection. The
RWR modified WSR for such applicants shall be three times the maximum estimated
amount of water that would be applied to the subject native vegetation during one
irrigation season, as determined by the Utilities Executive Director. The annual allotment
shall for such applicants shall be the maximum estimated amount of water that would be
applied to the subject native vegetation during one irrigation season, as determined by the
Utilities Executive Director.
Section 9. That Section 26-150 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-150. - Raw water requirementsWater Supply Requirement (WSR);
satisfaction.
(a) The RWR WSR imposed pursuant to this Division may be satisfied by one (1) or
more of the following methods:
(1) Transfer to the City the following rights to be accepted at the following
rates:
Packet Pg. 101
-8-
Colorado-Big Thompson units 1.0 acre foot per unit
North Poudre Irrigation Company shares 4.0 acre feet per share
Water rights acceptable to the City may be transferred to the City. The Water
Board determines which water rights are acceptable to the City and determines the
appropriate conversion factors to be used in determining the yield from each of
the acceptable sources. The determinations of the board are final and conclusive.
(2) Water certificates issued by the City may be submitted in satisfaction of
the RWR. Submittal to the City water certificates issued by the City. The value of
each certificate shall be as stated on the face of the certificate and pursuant to §
26-149(gh), if and to the extent applicable.
(3) A cash payment in the amount prescribed in § 26-129 for each acre-foot of
RWR may be made to the City.Payment of cash in the amount prescribed in §26-
129 for each acre-foot of WSR.
(4) Applicants seeking a temporary water connection under Subsection 26-
120(e)(1) shall meet the RWR by a payment to Utilities in the amount of six
dollars and zero cents ($6.00) per one thousand (1,000) gallons.For applicants
seeking a temporary water connection under Subsection 26-120(e)(1), payment of
cash to Utilities in the amount stated for water service in §26-129(b)(4).
(5) Transfer to the City of the rights identified in this Subsection (5), provided
that the applicant meets the requirements of this Subsection (5). On or before
January 1, 2019, the applicant must submit an application for a water service
permit together with a request to submit rights to meet the WSR pursuant to this
Subsection (5), which shall include proof, to the satisfaction of the Utilities
Executive Director, that the applicant: has owned the rights intended to be
transferred to the City since February 14, 2017; has been pursuing plans to
develop property in the Utilities water service area as evidenced a complete
application for an overall development plan, project development plan, change of
use, or major amendment submitted to the City on or before February 14, 2017;
and acquired said rights for the purpose of meeting the City’s water furnishing
requirements for said property as set forth in an affidavit. If such a request is
approved, the rights approved to satisfy the WSR for said property shall not be
transferred to another property. The water rights that may be transferred to the
City pursuant to Subsection (5) and the conversion factors are as follows:
Arthur Irrigation Company shares 3.442 acre feet per share
Colorado-Big Thompson units 1.0 acre foot per unit
Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigating
Company shares
42.687 acre feet per shares
New Mercer Ditch Company shares 30.326 acre feet per share
North Poudre Irrigation Company shares 4.0 acre feet per share
Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Company 39.74 acre feet per share
Packet Pg. 102
-9-
shares
Warren Lake Reservoir Company shares 10 acre feet per share
(b) The satisfaction of the minimum RWR WSR shall be made no later than the time
of issuance of the water service permit. An owner of water rights or City-issued water
certificates issued by the City may submit acceptable water rights and/or City-issued
water certificates them to the City, together with an application for a water service
permit, and will be credited accordingly for raw water value to satisfy, in whole or in
part, on the assessed RWR WSR on such application for a water service permit. Once the
water rights or City-issued water certificate issued by the City and water right have been
designated to satisfy the RWR WSR, or the requirements of the City under an earlier
water supply furnishing or development program for water service, for a particular
premises, they shall not be transferred to another property.
(c) In no case shall the fact that a portion of a property was previously served with
City water excuse the furnishing of water rights WSR when new water service is
requested for other portions of the same property. In the event that a water user is
required to apply for an additional water service permit under the provisions of this
Article for premises already connected to the water utility, the user shall also be required
to satisfy any increase in the assessment of RWR WSR that results from the change in
use or status, prior to the issuance of the new permit.
Section 10. That Section 26-207 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-207. - Terms and abbreviations.
The following terms and abbreviations when used in this Article shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in this Section:
. . .
(2) Abbreviations :
. . .
nm. SIC shall mean standard industrial classification;
on. SPIF shall mean sewer plant investment fee;
po. SWDA shall mean Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.;
qp. TOC shall mean total organic carbon;
rq. TSS shall mean total suspended solids;
sr. TTO shall mean total toxic organics; and
ts. U.S.C. shall mean United States Code.
mt. RWR WSR shall mean raw water supply requirements;
Packet Pg. 103
-10-
Section 11. That Section 26-632 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-632. - Deferral of fees.
With respect to any dwelling unit which is contained within or which constitutes an
affordable housing project as defined in § 26-631, the Water Plant Investment Fee
("WPIF"), Sewer Plant Investment Fee ("SPIF"), Stormwater Plant Investment Fee, the
Raw Water Supply Requirement In-lieu Cash Payment, and the Electric Development
Fees and Charges, as established in this Chapter, shall, upon the request of the applicant,
be deferred until the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy (whether temporary or
permanent) for such unit(s) or until the first day of December of the year in which the
deferral was obtained, whichever first occurs. Notwithstanding any provision in this
Chapter to the contrary, in the event that, during the period of deferral, the amount of the
deferred fee is increased by ordinance of the City Council, the fee rate in effect at the
time of the issuance of the building permit shall apply. At the time of application for any
such deferral, the applicant shall pay to the City a fee in the amount of fifty dollars
($50.00) to partially defray the cost of administration. No person shall knowingly make
any false or misleading statement of fact in order to obtain any deferral of fees under this
Section.
Section 12. That Section 26-651 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read follows:
Sec. 26-651. - Conditions for furnishing service within growth management area.
. . .
(b) New utility service may be furnished to property which is outside of the City
limits and within the Growth Management Area if the Utilities Executive Director
determines that the provision of such service is consistent with the relevant utility master
plan documents and is in the best interests of the City, the City's utilities and the relevant
utility, and if the following conditions are met:
(1) The utility concerned has surplus capacity over the immediate
requirements for service within the City and the applicant has satisfied any raw
water supply requirement assessed against property to be served with City water;
. . .
Section 13. That Section 26-653 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-653. - Permit is revocable; agreement of user.
(a) So long as a property served is outside the City, any permit for utility services
issued under this Article is revocable and the utility concerned will supply service only to
Packet Pg. 104
-11-
the extent that it has surplus capacity over the requirements for service within the City
and only so long as the permittee is in compliance with and abides by the conditions of
the permit, including but not limited to all requirements of this Code applicable to utility
service. The use of City water under this Article does not constitute a relinquishment of
any water or water rights by the City. The City reserves and retains full dominion and
control over its water and water rights and their use. Upon revocation of a water service
permit for water use outside the City and the permanent disconnection of water service,
the City shall remit such raw water supply as has been previously surrendered to the City
by the outside-City user.
. . .
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 22nd day of
August, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 5th day of September, A.D.
2017.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Interim City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 5th day of September, A.D. 2017.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Packet Pg. 105
City of Fort Collins Page 1
Wade Troxell, Mayor Council Information Center (CIC)
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Ken Summers, District 3
Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14
Ross Cunniff, District 5 and Channel 881 on the Comcast cable system
Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Delynn Coldiron
City Attorney City Manager Interim City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
City Council Work Session
August 22, 2017
After the Adjourned Council meeting, which begins at 6:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER.
1. Staff Report: Campus West Connections. (staff: Jeremy Yonce, Emily Allen)
2. Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3). (staff: Seth Lorson, Laurie Kadrich; 15 minute staff
presentation; 45 minute discussion)
The purpose of this agenda item is to garner direction for the RP3 program in terms of its geographic
extent, the establishment of new zones, and the balance between resident and non-resident parking.
3. Smoking Ordinance Review and Update. (staff: Delynn Coldiron, Tom Leeson; 15 minute staff
presentation; 45 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to review and provide background on the latest changes to the existing
Smoking Ordinance in the City of Fort Collins, to provide an update on related enforcement efforts,
and to get guidance from Council on whether any changes are desired.
OTHER BUSINESS.
ADJOURNMENT.
DATE:
STAFF:
August 22, 2017
Seth Lorson, Transit Planner
Laurie Kadrich, Director of PDT
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this agenda item is to garner direction for the RP3 program in terms of its geographic extent, the
establishment of new zones, and the balance between resident and non-resident parking.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Clarify the purpose of the Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3).
2. Should the program boundaries be strategically managed?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
June 13, 2017 Work Session
At the June 13 Work Session, Council discussed the current status of the RP3 program. Generally, the program
does not need a radical overhaul but a few items were asked to be addressed:
1. What is CSU’s parking and transportation strategy?
The purpose of the Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3) needs to be clarified. Is the program intended to
eliminate all non-resident parking in RP3 zones or should the program allow for a balanced occupancy in
residential neighborhoods?
Options:
a. *Status quo. The program is currently designed for resident parking as evidenced by the low parking
occupancy and few commuter permits issued.
b. Increase parking occupancy. Make commuter permits more affordable, evident, and available (up to 70%
occupancy).
The program boundaries need to be strategically managed. Should the program be limited in geographic scope
and employ a strategy to avoid spillover from RP3 zones?
Options:
a. Status quo. Allow the program to be implemented anywhere and add zones per resident petition and
confirmation of 70% parking occupancy.
b. *Create an RP3 management area where the program growth would be limited and employ a strategy to
avoid spill over from RP3 zones as they are created.
c. Initiate, without petitions, expansion of the RP3 zones to the furthest extent of the RP3 management
area.
*Staff recommendation.
2
Packet Pg. 2
August 22, 2017 Page 2
Colorado State University (CSU)
CSU staff provided the following overview of their parking and transportation strategy (Attachment 1):
Plan
The City and University share mobility values. CSU has planned growth with investment in making campus safe,
walkable, and multi-modal, while protecting open space and embracing sustainability.
Substantial investment in alternative transportation, including a strong CSU-Transfort partnership
providing high ridership services such as “Around the Horn” campus shuttle and other routes directly
serving the campus.
Preserving open space in the midst of a building boom on campus and planning parking around the
edges of campus. This also enhances campus safety by reducing opportunities for vehicle vs. car or
pedestrian collisions.
Constraints
Due to state statute, parking must pay for itself at CSU. This means that all parking infrastructure and operations
costs must be paid for by parking revenue.
Parking cannot be free and is of limited supply due to the university’s footprint.
Management
CSU Parking Services recently completed a process that was more than a year spent engaging students and
employees about parking and transportation options that fit their needs, as well as discussing the parking budget,
permit prices, and lower-cost options piloted last year and expanded this year that price parking permits for
demand.
The University provides a 50 percent subsidy for its lowest paid employees to offset the cost of a permit.
CSU Parking Services has developed additional creative permit options, such as Monday-Wednesday-
Friday permits and Tuesday-Thursday permits, which flex with professor and student class schedules.
In addition to adding lower cost parking areas for permit holders, CSU Parking Services is adding short-
term pay-to-park spaces in high-demand areas, providing visitors as well as students and employees with
more options for parking for the few hours they may be on campus a day.
Status
CSU parking and transportation strategy effectiveness.
About 15 percent of the University’s parking inventory is open during day-to-day business. This allows
those driving to campus to find parking near their destination (a lack of parking may spur them to park in
non-university parking areas) as well as provides for normal changes in parking demand due to time of
day and University activities. High school visit, professional meetings, and special events all have an
impact on parking on any given day.
Parking space inventory for permit holders and visitors are balanced. While turnover is not measured in
all lots, studies show that parking in some areas on campus turn over 2.5 times per day.
The highest-demand parking lots are 85-90 percent occupied.
CSU’s Parking Services has also invested in alternative transportation, bike and pedestrian infrastructure.
Students, employees, and guests pedestrian and bike counts at key points on campus and entering
campus logged 2.556 million trips from Aug 1, 2016, to May 31, 2017.
2
Packet Pg. 3
August 22, 2017 Page 3
RP3 Program Purpose
The Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3) was a recommendation of the 2013 Parking Plan and added to
the City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 24, Article V). The program was formed in response to the difficulty of
residents finding on-street parking near their homes, primarily in the neighborhoods around Downtown and CSU.
In the ordinance, the stated purpose of the program is to reduce “unnecessary personal motor vehicle travel,
noise, pollution, litter, crime and other adverse environmental impacts; promote improvements in air quality;
reduce congestion and/or hazardous traffic conditions in the neighborhood; increase the use of public mass
transit; protect residents from unreasonable burdens in gaining access to their property; preserve neighborhood
living within an urban environment; maintain the convenience and attractiveness of urban residential living;
preserve the residential character of the neighborhood and the property values therein; and safeguard the
peace and tranquility of the neighborhood.”
The program standards require a permit to park except for the first two hours in most zones. Residents and
their guests can obtain permits with the first permit free and an escalating fee scale for additional permits.
Non-resident commuter permits are also available for $40 per month (only 17 are currently issued, and highest
amount issued at any given time was 31 in Spring 2017).
In RP3 zones, average parking occupancy has dropped to 36% after implementation, down from an average of
85% before the formation of the zone.
With so few commuter permits issued and such low occupancy, the program has effectively made the streets in
RP3 zones resident parking only.
Options:
a. *Status quo. The program is currently designed for resident parking as evidenced by the low parking
occupancy and few commuter permits issued.
b. Increase parking occupancy. Make commuter permits more affordable, evident, and available (up to 70%
occupancy). The Parking Advisory Board recommends this option (Attachment 2).
Manage Program Boundaries
City Council asked staff to review the program and influences on the program and evaluate how to strategically
manage its boundaries and growth. Staff identified two major factors in spillover parking: (1) The parking demand
is generated in activity centers with limited or paid parking; and (2) The time/distance convenience of parking in
neighborhoods adjacent to the destination outweighs the alternative of paying for parking.
(1) Parking demand generating spillover comes from three primary land uses: institutional (CSU), commercial
(Downtown), and multi-family residential (student housing). Staff mapped these land uses and “activity
centers” - as identified in City Plan - to verify where current and future parking spillover will likely occur.
(2) Motorists parking in neighborhoods are then walking or biking to their destination to avoid paying for
parking. The walk and bike time from the perimeters of the current RP3 zones was compared against the
park-n-ride times from various MAX stations.
1 mile radius from the core of CSU = 30 minute walk and 10 minute bike ride.
MAX Park-n-rides to University Station:
o Drake Station = 5 minute MAX ride
o Downtown (Civic Center Parking Structure) = 5 minute MAX ride
o Swallow Station = 7:15 minute MAX ride
o South Transit Center = 15 minute MAX ride
Using this information, a boundary was drawn that represents the reasonably expected extent of spillover parking
impact. Outside this boundary is far less convenient for a motorist to park and walk/bike than it is to park at one of
the City’s park-n-ride facilities.
2
Packet Pg. 4
August 22, 2017 Page 4
Staff recommends using the boundary, called the RP3 management area, as a tool for anticipating and managing
the impacts of spillover parking. The boundary is useful in a two ways:
(1) It will create predictability for neighborhoods and commuters to be able to expect where parking
restrictions will occur.
(2) Measures can be put in place to prevent spillover from newly created RP3 zones that result in disparate
parking occupancies between adjacent blocks. As witnessed from a resident’s images of an empty street
(RP3 zone) and a fully parked street one block over (not an RP3 zone). By allowing blocks adjacent to
those petitioning to “fast track” into the zone, they will have the option to join an RP3 zone before the
expected spillover parking gets to their street. Although the adjacent block may not have the minimum
required parking occupancy (70%) and their residents had not petitioned to be included in an RP3 zone,
staff will offer them the opportunity to vote into the new zone being created because they can reasonably
predict that their block will be the next spillover parking area.
Options:
a. Status quo. Allow the program to be implemented anywhere and add zones per resident petition and
confirmation of 70% parking occupancy.
b. *Create an RP3 management area where the program growth would be limited and employ a strategy to
avoid spill over from RP3 zones as they are created.
c. Initiate, without petitions, expansion of the RP3 zones to the furthest extent of the RP3 management
area.
The Big Picture
According to the Parking Plan, the City’s overall parking philosophy is to “develop and manage parking as a
critical component of public infrastructure, and as a tool to promote and sustain economic health.” During the
Parking Dialogue of the Downtown Plan, the principal question posed was, “how do we encourage people to park
in appropriate locations based on the type of trip they are making?” For instance, two-hour on-street parking is
appropriate for shopping in Downtown, while the parking structures are most appropriate for employees working
an eight-hour-day. Or, parking on residential streets is appropriate for residents and their guests, while parking on
CSU campus or at a MAX park-n-ride is most appropriate for students attending a day of classes.
The RP3 program represents one tool in a larger toolbox of mobility management strategies. Other important
tools that help alleviate spillover parking and provide parking predictability include offering alternatives such as
park-n-rides, bicycle facilities, and new parking options in Downtown.
Park-n-rides - Staff is working to provide viable and inexpensive alternatives to driving the entire distance to
one’s destination. There are currently four parking areas along the MAX that can be used as park-n-rides: South
Transit Center (171 spaces), Swallow Station (16 spaces), Drake Station (75 spaces), and Downtown Civic
Center Parking Structure (910 spaces). The park-n-rides south of downtown are free and usually exceeding
capacity. Staff is exploring more opportunities to expand and create more park-n-rides. The City received a grant
from CDOT to evaluate park-n-ride opportunities along the MAX corridor and partners such as the Downtown
Development Authority (DDA) have expressed interest in this effort. Additionally, as development is proposed
along the corridor more opportunities for public-private partnerships arise.
Downtown - In the near future, downtown will be offering new options to make it easier to find parking in
appropriate locations. The new Firehouse Alley Parking Structure will be offering over 200 public parking spaces
this fall. In 2018, staff will be launching a parking app that allows motorist to locate available parking and to pay to
extend the on-street parking time limit.
Follow-up - Staff is preparing a response to questions asked at the Leadership Planning Team (LPT) meeting. A
read-before memo will be provided with RP3 policies and procedures and an outline of peer communities’
residential parking programs.
2
Packet Pg. 5
August 22, 2017 Page 5
ATTACHMENTS
1. CSU Parking Options Brochure (PDF)
2. Parking Advisory Board Memo - RP3 Program Recommendations (PDF)
3. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
2
Packet Pg. 6
Parking Options at CSU
ATTACHMENT 1
2.1
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: CSU Parking Options Brochure (5860 : Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3))
Since the 1970s, the university’s master plan has called for parking to
move to the perimeter of campus. Shifting parking from the campus
core increases safety in areas dense with pedestrians, bikes and
longboarders. It also helps to organize the university’s physical layout
by making internal space available for the university’s academic and
research focus.
The university is experiencing a new level of growth, both physically
and in our student, faculty and staff population. We’re also expanding
the ways we engage the public, alumni and fans, by bringing them onto
campus and sharing our collective university experience.
These factors create an environment with a mismatch of growth and
parking supply, as well as spark the creation of new options for how
people come to and get across campus.
Why does the university charge for
parking on campus?
State statute dictates that parking must pay for itself
on campus. This means that no tuition or student
fee, university or state funds support any aspect of
parking (operations, maintenance, parking lot or garage
construction). Students, employees and visitors who park
on campus have to pay to park by purchasing parking
permits or paying for short-term, metered parking.
Parking permit, meter and citation revenue are the primary
sources of income to support parking needs on campus.
This revenue goes back into building and maintaining
parking spaces, parking garages, enforcing parking
regulations, and parking and transportation infrastructure.
Why are permit rates increasing?
Costs are going up. The costs of building and maintaining
parking spaces – in a garage or on a surface lot – is ex-
pensive, and the university has to keep pace. The majority
of permits are increasing by 3 percent, an increase that
keeps pace with inflation. But not all permits are increas-
ing: This year we’re also introducing some new, low-cost
permit options to give commuters a selection.
2.1
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: CSU Parking Options Brochure (5860 : Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3))
What options are available to me, other
than driving to campus and parking?
All students and employees receive a free Transfort pass
through student fees and Parking and Transportation
Services support. You may ride any city bus route or MAX
for free with your CSU ID, which acts as your pass. Parking
and Transportation also supports multiple alternative
transportation options. They’ll match you with a car- or van-
pool, help you lay out a plan to commute by bike, on foot
or longboard, and even offer flexible permits and programs
if you only want to drive to campus occasionally. They’ve
invested in miles of bike trail, dozens of transit options and
creative solutions to help give any commuter options.
How are decisions about parking permit
rates made?
Parking and Transportation Services has spent about nine
months engaging campus to determine how parking will look
in the future. The current proposal moving forward to the
Board of Governors in May is the result of a shared commu-
nity effort to find options and solutions.
2016
REVENUE
Student Permits 33%
Visitor Permits 3%
Other Revenue 4%
Citation Revenue 15%
Faculty/Staff Permits 23%
Short Term/Hourly
Revenue
22%
2016
EXPENSES
Salaries/Benefits 21%
Debt Service 20%
Deferred Capital
Construction
Capital Expenses 15%
Transfer to Reserves 3%
Operating/Misc 10%
Lot Maintenance 5%
Overhead 5%
Technology 2%
19%
Permit and citation fees pay for all parking costs.
Those include day-to-day operations, garage and surface lot
construction and maintenance, enforcement and equipment.
It also funds alternative transportation options and
support on campus, such as the Around the Horn shuttle,
and transit passes for all employees that can be used
on MAX and Transfort. This helps provide options for
campus commuters who no longer drive across campus to
meetings, or who choose to take alternative transportation
to campus, providing parking options for others because
the university has only a limited amount of space for
parking on campus.
Where do my permit and parking citation dollars go?
2.1
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: CSU Parking Options Brochure (5860 : Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3))
Campus was engaged through four open forums, discussions
with employee councils and ASCSU, significant work from
the Parking Services Committee (which also is represented
by all employee councils, ASCSU, and units from across cam-
pus), and feedback from a parking consultant. In partnership
with the Center for Public Deliberation, campus members
had the chance to vote and comment on options. We worked
within our current reality of the impacts of campus growth,
congestion, diminishing parking inventory, increasing cost of
living, and restrictions on parking in neighborhoods sur-
rounding campus.
From this feedback, we created a proposal that aims for the
greatest good, while also providing options to accommodate
the diverse needs of individuals on campus. We worked
to match campus growth and diminishing parking spaces
with commuting and alternative transportation options, and
continue our focus on providing safe and efficient access to
parking on campus, all while maintaining financial viability
for Parking and Transportation Services.
Through this process, we learned that, with a few changes,
much of our current permit model best serves the greatest
need. We also identified some changes, based on campus
voices, such as creating some lower-cost permit options.
No one plan will meet all needs, accommodate demand, and
keep Parking and Transportation Services fiscally viable.
THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE THE WORK OF AN
INCLUSIVE PROCESS TO STRIKE A BALANCE OF MEETING
NEEDS FOR OUR CAMPUS COMMUNITY.
COSTS UNCHANGED
$250 Research Blvd lot permit
$12 daily permits
$1.75 per hour at short-term
pay stations
50% SUBSIDY for employees
earning less than $35,000
COSTS INCREASING
Faculty and staff annual permits
Students who commute
Reserved parking
Includes current A section at Moby
Residence Hall permits
(did not increase to proposed rate in 2016)
COSTS DECLINING
New low-cost section of Moby lot:
$400 faculty, staff and off-campus
student permit (reduced from $582 or
$536)
New low-cost Ingersoll lot:
$400 residence hall students
(reduced from $628)
$8 daily permits in Moby lot
$6 daily permits in Research lot
$1.25 short-term Moby lot
Check with Parking and Transportation Services for more
information about parking changes on campus, including new
weekday permit and expanded reserve space permit options,
and changes to permits for government vehicles, employees
with more than 30 years of service and retirees.
2.1
Packet Pg. 10
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 13, 2016
TO: Mayor Troxell and City Councilmembers
FROM: Parking Advisory Board
RE: Feedback on Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3) and Large Stadium
Event Residential Parking
During the February 13, Parking Advisory Board (PAB) meeting, City staff presented updates on
Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3) and Stadium Event Residential Parking Program. In
response, board members discussed options for improving the RP3 program, including revisions to
commuter permit rules and issues regarding parking in residential neighborhoods during large stadium
events.
The Board offers the following comments and recommendations to Council on these programs:
RP3 Commuter Permits
Recommendation:
Provide additional opportunities for non-residential parking in RP3 zones by making commuter permits
more available.
Observations and comments:
• Commuter permits currently cost $40 per month.
• Staff presented evidence to the board that occupancy in RP3 zones is well below the 70%
threshold used to determine eligibility for formation of a zone. Occupied spaces vary from 25% -
50% of the total number available (except for Spring Court, a one-block zone).
• The intent of the RP3 zone was not to create “parking deserts” but to allow residents the
opportunity for a parking space in their neighborhood.
• PAB suggests evaluating the price of commuter permits and lowering the cost depending on the
demand for parking.
• To reduce the impact on residents, it is suggested to lower the maximum occupancy rate (from
70% to 60%) above which no commuter permits can be sold and to assign commuter permits to
block faces.
• City staff should do more to promote the availability of commuter permits through signage,
education and online access to permits.
Large Stadium Event Residential Parking
Recommendation:
Do not form an RP3 program for CSU Game Days.
Attachment C
ATTACHMENT 2
2.2
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Parking Advisory Board Memo - RP3 Program Recommendations (5860 : Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3))
PARKING ADVISORY BOARD
Chair, Holly Wright
Vice Chair, Bob Criswell
Observations and comments:
• The concept of permit parking with fines for non-permitted vehicles is unwelcoming to visitors
to the community.
• Parking in neighborhoods that border CSU is a parking resource that will be needed for the
potential volume of cars that need to be accommodated for large events. It also may help with
traffic congestion after events if cars are spread around the campus.
• A permit parking program for large events will prevent gatherings of students and Fort Collins
residences at homes in the RP3 zones that wish to assemble and celebrate before and after the
games.
• If RP3 is offered, large event parking permits must be offered to nonresidents.
2.2
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Parking Advisory Board Memo - RP3 Program Recommendations (5860 : Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3))
1
Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3)
Seth Lorson
August 22, 2017
ATTACHMENT 3
2.3
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5860 : Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3))
June 13, 2017 - What we heard
1. What is CSU’s parking and transportation strategy?
2. Clarify the purpose of the program.
3. Strategically manage the program boundaries.
2
2.3
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5860 : Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3))
CSU Parking and Transportation Strategy
PLAN: A safe, walkable, bikeable, multi-modal, sustainable campus.
CONSTRAINTS: As an enterprise fund, parking must pay for itself.
MANAGEMENT: Manage parking resources based on pricing for demand, time
of day/week/year, turn-over, and efficiency.
STATUS: High transit ridership, high bike mode split.
3
2.3
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5860 : Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3))
Clarify the Purpose of the Program
Is the program intended to eliminate all non-resident parking in RP3
zones or should the program allow for a balanced occupancy in
residential neighborhoods?
4
2.3
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5860 : Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3))
70% Occupancy: RP3 Eligible
5
2.3
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5860 : Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3))
85% Occupancy: Before RP3
6
2.3
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5860 : Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3))
36% Occupancy: After RP3
7
2.3
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5860 : Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3))
50% Occupancy
8
100%
Occupancy
0%
Occupancy 36% ?70% 85%
2.3
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5860 : Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3))
9
Strategically Manage RP3 Boundaries
Should the program be limited in
geographic scope and employ a strategy
to avoid spillover from RP3 zones?
9
2.3
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5860 : Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3))
10
Analysis
Parking Demand Generators:
• CSU
• Commercial
• Multi-family
• Activity Centers
10
2.3
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5860 : Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3))
11
Analysis
Parking Demand Generators:
• CSU
• Commercial
• Multi-family
• Activity Centers
11
2.3
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5860 : Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3))
12
Analysis
Travel time:
• Time to walk/bike from
neighborhoods:
• 30 minute walk
• 10 minute bike
• Time to ride transit from park-
n-rides
• 5 minute MAX ride
12
2.3
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5860 : Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3))
13
Strategically Manage RP3 Boundaries
RP3 Management Area
• Extent of program growth
• “Fast track” adjacent areas into
RP3 zone
• Creates predictability
13
2.3
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5860 : Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3))
14
Strategically Manage RP3 Boundaries
RP3 Management Area
• “Fast track” adjacent areas into
RP3 zone
14
Proposed Zone Expansion with
>70% occupancy (VOTE)
Directly adjacent block with
<70% occupancy (VOTE TOO)
Outside block with <70%
occupancy (MONITOR)
EXISTING
RP3
ZONE
2.3
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5860 : Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3))
Big Picture
15
Overall Parking Philosophy
• Parking Plan and Downtown Plan
Ongoing Work
• Park-n-rides: CDOT - Station Area Plan
• Coordination with CSU
• City Plan
2.3
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5860 : Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3))
QUESTIONS
1. Is the program intended to eliminate all non-resident parking in RP3 zones or should the
program allow for a balanced occupancy in residential neighborhoods? Options:
• *Status quo. The program is currently designed for resident parking as evidenced by the
low parking occupancy and few commuter permits issued.
• Increase parking occupancy. Make commuter permits more affordable, evident, and
available (up to 70% occupancy).
2. Should the program be limited in geographic scope and employ a strategy to avoid spillover
from RP3 zones? Options:
• Status quo. Allow the program to be implemented anywhere and add zones per resident
petition and confirmation of 70% parking occupancy.
• *Create an RP3 management area where the program growth would be limited and
employ a strategy to avoid spill over from RP3 zones as they are created.
• Initiate, without petitions, expansion of the RP3 zones to the furthest extent of the RP3
management area.
16
2.3
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5860 : Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3))
17
THANK YOU
2.3
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5860 : Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3))
DATE:
STAFF:
August 22, 2017
Delynn Coldiron, Interim City Clerk
Tom Leeson, Director, Comm Dev & Neighborhood Svrs
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Smoking Ordinance Review and Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to review and provide background on the latest changes to the existing Smoking
Ordinance in the City of Fort Collins, to provide an update on related enforcement efforts, and to get guidance
from Council on whether any changes are desired.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council want to continue the smoking restriction for City-owned or operated public property?
2. Does Council want to see any changes specifically related to the Downtown Smoke-Free Zone?
3. Does Council desire to make any additional changes to the existing smoking regulations?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The latest smoking restrictions approved by Council have been in effect for more than a year now; nearly two
years in some cases. These include:
1. No smoking in City natural areas, parks and trails, implemented September 1, 2015;
2. No smoking on City-owned or operated public property, including recreational and cultural facilities,
implemented on September 1, 2015;
3. No smoking at any City-approved special events, implemented on January 1, 2016; and
4. No smoking within the designated Downtown Smoke-Free Zone, implemented on January 1, 2016
An exception for retail tobacco establishments within the Downtown Smoke-Free Zone was approved in
September, 2015. Background Agenda Item Summary information presented to Council on these items is
included as Attachments 1 and 2. Additional information can be found at:
http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=72&docid=2410252&dt=AGENDA+ITEM&doc_download_date=FEB
-03-2015&ITEM_NUMBER=12 (February 3, 2015 Meeting) and
http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=72&docid=2541663&dt=AGENDA+ITEM&doc_download_date=AUG
-18-2015&ITEM_NUMBER=14 (August 18, 2015 Meeting).
Efforts related to the new smoking restriction during the first year were dedicated to education and outreach. This
included:
the creation and installation of signs
public meetings
distribution of information packets to Downtown business owners
numerous newspaper articles and social media posts
outreach at various City events
visits with the school district to talk about restrictions in City parks adjacent to their properties, and
personal contacts by Code Compliance, Police, and Park staff with smokers within restricted areas to
inform them of the smoke-free regulations
3
Packet Pg. 30
August 22, 2017 Page 2
More detailed information on initial efforts can be found in the update memos that are included as Attachments
3 and 4.
Very limited enforcement through tickets was done during the first year. However, enforcement efforts were
increased based on direction from City leaders. Our efforts in this regard have been two-fold. First, we created
and installed additional signage that was more regulatory in look and content. This replaced many of the
Downtown “Smoke Free in FC” signs that were initially placed that had a much less regulatory feel but we hoped
would still relay the message. Both signs are attached (Attachments 5 and 6). Second, staff from Code
Compliance and Police Services teamed up to increase enforcement in the Downtown Smoke-Free Zone,
including issuing tickets. To date, 264 tickets have been written. Additional detail around enforcement efforts can
be found in the attached memo (Attachment 7).
The increased enforcement has resulted in concerns from Downtown business owners, Downtown residents, and
community members who do not support these restrictions. We have also heard from others who have received
violations. The concerns staff has heard include that:
1. The Downtown Smoke-Free Zone is too big
2. Designated smoking areas for residents, customers, or employees are needed
3. There is no way to educate everyone; over 1,000,000 visitors come to Downtown
4. Smoking is acceptable and a large part of other cultures; Fort Collins gets a lot of international visitors
5. The restrictions create a competitive disadvantage for Old Town compared to other Fort Collins’ shopping
areas
6. The penalty should not be criminal and require a court appearance; and
7. Enforcement has damaged relationships with Police
Alternatively, staff also hears from customers and residents who appreciate the restrictions and the added
enforcement; especially for those who have health conditions that make them more susceptible to smoke. We
have attached the feedback we have been able to find from a variety of online sources, including: Access Fort
Collins, Facebook, the Coloradoan and Collegian, and Reddit (Attachments 8, 9, 10 and 11).
Options for Consideration:
1. No changes
a. Ordinance would stay the same
b. Enforcement would stay the same with the exception that:
i. additional receptacles and signage would be added along the perimeter of the Downtown
Smoke-Free Zone; and
ii. signage would be added to the dome-shaped ashtrays on top of the trash receptacles
that exist within the Downtown Smoke-Free Zone to further alert people that they are in a
restricted area and would request that they extinguish all cigarettes or other smoking
devices
Pros:
a. Meets the initial intent of having a smoke-free Downtown
b. Supports health and wellness of the community
i. Creating smoke-free areas generally results in a reduction of tobacco use and improved
community health
ii. Tobacco rates are considered when overall health ratings of a community are determined
1. Healthy community designations provide economic appeal and community
attractiveness
iii. Secondhand smoke exposure is proven to be harmful at any level, including outdoor
areas that are next to buildings or have a high density of tobacco users
1. Especially hazardous for children, those with chronic diseases and pregnant
women
iv. Cigarette butts are toxic and can be harmful to pets and children
3
Packet Pg. 31
August 22, 2017 Page 3
v. Smoke-free areas often reduce the amount of litter that is present and related clean-up
times and costs
c. Majority of community members were supportive of this change based on surveys and outreach
that was done
i. Continue to hear appreciation from community members
1. Through emails, phone calls, social media posts and when out enforcing
d. Brings people to Downtown who might not have come without it being smoke-free
Cons:
a. Hard, if not impossible, to do enough education so that everyone knows about the restrictions
(especially guests)
b. Downtown employees who smoke are concerned about losing their jobs since they cannot take
quick smoke breaks; they have limited time and cannot travel outside of Smoke-Free zone
c. Concerns from community members and guests
i. Includes some non-smokers
1. Through emails, phone calls and social media posts
ii. Feel the City has overstepped in this regard since smoking is legal
d. Business owners have growing concerns:
i. Fear they will lose customers
ii. Have other areas in the community that are unrestricted and could attract Downtown
patrons – Foothills Mall, Campus West, Raintree Village
iii. Fear that Downtown is not as strong as people think and that this will irreparably hurt
them
e. Police Services staff have growing concerns:
i. Limited resources available to continue active, consistent enforcement due to other high
priority public safety crimes
ii. Not always enforceable during the late evening hours again due to other high priority
public safety issues/crimes
iii. Enforcement has damaged their relationship with business owners
iv. Enforcement has damaged their relationship with some citizens
v. Designated enforcement time reduces officers’ ability to pro-actively police and work on
other community policing projects
f. Some concern expressed by property owners just outside of Smoke-Free Zone:
i. People are congregating outside of their properties to smoke
1. Residential and commercial properties have been impacted
2. Small number of complaints received; but, important to those having issues
ii. Finding increased litter and trash in the area
iii. Business owners are worried that this will impact their customers and properties
2. Add designated smoking areas within current Downtown Smoke-Free Zone:
a. Would result in a number of areas identified throughout the Downtown Smoke-Free Zone that
would allow smoking
b. Approximately 12 locations have been identified as possible locations (Attachment 12)
i. Public participation is needed before locations are finalized
Pros:
a. Provides some outlet for smokers; and, attempts to keep the activity localized to specific areas
that non-smokers or others can choose to avoid
b. Supports survey results indicating more than 60% of respondents were in favor of this
c. Helps address business owner concerns who support providing smoking options for patrons and
employees
d. Helps reduce violations and related enforcement
e. Helps reduce pressures on properties just outside of the Smoke-Free Zone
f. Helps the relationship between business owners who support providing smoking options, some
citizens, and Police
3
Packet Pg. 32
August 22, 2017 Page 4
Cons:
a. Reduces health benefits of having a smoke-free zone for those who frequent Downtown and end
up impacted by those who are smoking
b. Increases health risks for people with chronic health conditions, young children, and pregnant
women
c. Complicates enforcement and education efforts
i. Important to clearly identify areas where smoking would be allowed
ii. Important to find areas that are not within twenty feet (20’) of operable doors, windows,
air vents and patios
iii. Important to find areas that business/property owners agree with
1. Would be available to all smokers (not limited to employees/ patrons of a specific
business)
2. Could result in “hang out” areas with potential increase in mischief or other
negative behaviors
Sends conflicting messages about smoking Downtown since it would be allowed in some
areas
3. Change Downtown Smoke-Free Zone to align with Dismount Zone
a. Would result in smoking being allowed in many alley-ways and along some portions of sidewalks
currently included in the Downtown Smoke-Free Zone
b. Map is shown on Attachment 13
Pros:
a. Same as listed in Item 2 above, with more freedoms
b. Would continue smoking restrictions
i. In Old Town Square
ii. Along business frontages and sidewalks within the designated area
iii. In alley-ways within the designated area
Cons:
a. Same as listed in Item 2 above, with more impacts
b. Dismount Zone needs to be formally clarified in code – may change somewhat from what is
currently on map to have it make sense (not cutting through properties, etc.)
c. Creates confusion with regard to City properties that will still be smoke-free
i. Oak Street Plaza
ii. Oak/Remington Street Parking Lot
iii. Remington Parking Garage
iv. Laporte Parking Garage
v. 281 City Building
vi. Transfort facility
vii. Library Park
d. In areas where smoking is allowed, would still have to comply with twenty foot rule from any
operable door, window, air vent or patio (including alley-ways); complicates enforcement
4. Repeal restrictions and rely on City’s twenty foot requirements
a. Would roll smoking restrictions back to no smoking within twenty feet of any operable door,
window, air vent or patio
b. Map is shown on Attachment 14
Pros:
a. Same as listed in Items 2 and 3 above with even more freedoms
Cons:
a. Same as listed in Items 2 and 3 above with even more impacts
b. Smoking would be allowed on portions of many Downtown sidewalks
3
Packet Pg. 33
August 22, 2017 Page 5
c. Continues to create confusion with regard to City properties that will still be smoke-free
d. Complicates enforcement
Additional Items for Consideration:
1. Lifting Smoking Ban in the Downtown Smoke-Free Zone after 10:00 p.m.
Lifting the smoking ban within the Downtown Smoke Free Zone from 10:00 p.m. until 5:00 a.m., would
allow people to smoke twenty feet away from doors, patios, windows and air vents during the late night
when fewer families and children are present. Staff recommends this option in an effort to help ensure
that enforcement of smoking regulations does not create unnecessary conflict with the late night crowds
and so that Police staff can focus on other policing issues.
2. Changing Penalty to a Lesser Offense
The existing penalty for a smoking violation is a criminal misdemeanor subject to a fine or imprisonment.
This is consistent with similar City ordinances that Police enforce such as open container violations. For
a first time offense on a smoking violation, a conviction is entered with a corresponding $100 fine. $75 of
the fine is suspended on the condition of no similar violations within twelve months from the date the
defendant accepts the plea offer. Additionally, there are court fees of $35, for a total cost to the
defendant for a first time offense of $60. There are some additional options that could be looked at in this
regarding, including:
a. Eliminating any provisions for imprisonment
b. Focusing on compliance as a condition for reduced fines and possible deferred judgments
c. Pursuing changes to the City Charter that would allow for a lesser petty offense category. This
would be more in line with what State law looks like for similar violations.
Staff’s Recommendation:
1. Keep the ban on all City-owned or operated properties and related grounds
2. Keep the existing Downtown Smoke-Free Zone boundaries as they currently exist
3. Add designated smoking areas to the Downtown Smoke-Free Zone
4. Lift the smoking ban in the Downtown Smoke-Free Zone from 10:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m.
5. Eliminate provisions for imprisonment
6. Pursue a petty offense category in City Code that is more in line with State law
ATTACHMENTS
1. February 3 2015 AIS and November 25, 2014 AIS (PDF)
2. August 18 2015 AIS (PDF)
3. Smoking Update-Downtown Ban, February 29, 2016 (PDF)
4. Downtown Smoke Free Zone Update, November 21, 2016 (PDF)
5. No Smoking Regulatory Sign (PDF)
6. Smoke Free in FC Sign (PDF)
7. Increased Enforcement of No Smoking Zone in Downtown, February 20, 2017 (PDF)
8. FC Access Cases (PDF)
9. Smoking Ban Online Feedback (Facebook) (PDF)
10. Smoking Ban Online Feedback (Coloradoan and Collegian) (PDF)
11. Smoking Ban Online Feedback (Reddit Comments) (PDF)
12. Possible Designated Smoking Areas (PDF)
13. Possible Reduced Downtown Smoke Free Zone (PDF)
14. No Downtown Smoke Free Zone - 20-foot Rule Only (PDF)
15. Power Point Presentation (PDF)
3
Packet Pg. 34
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 3, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Delynn Coldiron, Interim Neighborhood Services Manager
Laurie Kadrich, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Dir
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 015, 2015, Amending Article III of Chapter 12 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins Pertaining to Smoking in Public Areas.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to request expansions to the City's Smoking Ordinance to include a complete
smoking ban within the proposed Downtown Smoke-Free Zone, for all City-owned and operated facilities and
related grounds, for all Natural Areas, Parks, and Trails, and at all City-approved special events.
This item provides background information, community feedback and survey results, and information about
actions taken in other communities. Outreach conducted included the Downtown Development Authority,
downtown businesses, and various City boards and commissions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Fort Collins is known as a healthy community. Creating smoke-free areas generally results in a reduction of
tobacco use and improved community health. The City of Fort Collins has received many honors and awards,
including awards related to being a healthy community. In 2013, Fort Collins was named the 4th Healthiest
Mid-Size City in the U.S. by the Gallup-Healthways Survey. Tobacco rates are considered when overall health
ratings of a community are determined, and healthy community designations provide economic appeal and
community attractiveness. Larimer County research indicates that 245 municipalities have some sort of
outdoor/sidewalk type restriction on smoking.
Secondhand smoke exposure is proven to be harmful at any level, including in outdoor areas that are next to
buildings or have a high density of tobacco users. As a result, many cities have taken steps to protect their
residents, especially children or those with chronic diseases, from the dangers of secondhand smoke exposure
by creating smoke-free zones, especially in high-use outdoor areas such as playgrounds, parks, trails,
downtowns, or at public events.
In areas where people gather for recreation or a healthy activity, breathing tobacco smoke can be an
unexpected nuisance. A 2013 Colorado Tobacco Attitudes and Behavior survey found that more than half
(56%) of persons surveyed reported “putting up with someone smoking around them”, with the biggest
annoyance experienced in public parks. Tobacco butts are toxic and can be poisonous to small children or
animals if consumed. Smoke-free areas often reduce the amount of litter that is present, improving the
appearance of local parks and reducing clean up time and costs.
$77$&+0(17 3.1
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: February 3 2015 AIS and November 25, 2014 AIS (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 2
Outreach activities since the November 25, 2014 council work session have included additional research of 35
other communities to determine the extent of issues created by completely banning smoking within certain
areas such as a downtown, to explore mitigation methods implemented to resolve issues, and to capture
information on whether there were periods of time, such as in the late evenings, when the ban was lifted or
whether designated smoking areas were provided. The information varied significantly across the
communities that we researched depending on the types of smoking bans, if any, they had implemented. The
following is a summary of what staff learned:
x 6 communities had indoor restrictions only
x 10 additional communities had indoor restrictions plus a designated distance from doors ranging from
10 feet to 25 feet. One had a 50-foot restriction from restaurants and parks. Another had a 1,000-foot
restriction from schools and parks
x 19 communities had restrictions that included downtown areas, parks, city facilities, or a combination
of these
o 2 communities had a portion of public streets banned full-time, similar to what is done at Pearl
Street mall in Boulder. There were also a couple of examples where a portion of the public
street was banned when there were special events
o No communities had time periods where they lifted restrictions
o Many communities did not regulate smoking on patios but a few had some restrictions
o 6 communities restrict smoking on public golf courses
o 5 communities allow designated smoking areas for special events
o 7 communities either did not restrict or allowed designated areas of smoking at city facilities
and grounds; 3 others did not restrict smoking after a certain distance (20’, 25’, and 80’)
o Most of the communities relied on self-regulation/voluntary compliance
More detailed information on the 19 communities referenced above is attached (Attachment 2).
Additionally, City employees were surveyed to collect feedback on how a smoking ban on all City-owned or
operated facilities and grounds would impact them. There were 450 responses received. The information
showed that 62% of employees were in favor of such a ban. It also showed that 67% of employees were in
favor of designated smoking areas (Attachment 3).
Lastly, a second informal on-line survey was launched to collect additional community feedback specifically
related to the four expansion areas discussed at the November 25, 2014 work session and to gauge the
community’s level of interest in providing designated smoking areas for each option. There were
approximately 2,300 responses received (Attachment 4). Specifics on the results for each area follow:
1. Old Town/Downtown
The recent citizen survey (Attachment 4) indicates that 60% of the participants are in favor of applying smoking
restrictions to an expanded Downtown area. The survey also indicates that 63% of the participants are
supportive of having designated smoking areas provided.
After reviewing this and previous survey results, considering the information gained from the additional public
outreach, and learning from other communities, staff recommends a complete smoking ban within the
expanded Downtown Smoke-Free Zone (Attachment 5). Staff recommends implementing the smoking
expansion on January 1, 2016 in conjunction with the completion of the Old Town renovations. The
renovations are anticipated to be completed by the end of 2015. This will give us time to incorporate
appropriate signage and to provide education on the new requirements.
Voluntary compliance is the primary tool recommended for compliance rather than an enforcement strategy.
Data from other jurisdictions show that people generally voluntarily comply when informed of the regulation.
Staff believes resources and effort should be put into additional educational outreach so that people are aware
3.1
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: February 3 2015 AIS and November 25, 2014 AIS (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 3
of the smoke-free area. Just like in other communities, there will be times when this is a lower priority and may
not be enforced.
Prior to the scheduled Council meeting on February 3, 2015, staff plans to personally survey the downtown
businesses on both sides of the perimeter streets that designate the Downtown Smoke-Free Zone. We will
provide the collected data as soon as it is available.
2. Natural Areas, Parks, and Trails
The recent citizen survey (Attachment 4) indicates that 59% of the participants support new regulations that
would prohibit smoking in Natural Areas. It also showed that a majority of participants did not want any
designated smoking areas provided.
After reviewing this and previous survey results and learning from other communities, staff recommends a
complete smoking ban for all City parks, trails, and Natural Areas, including golf courses. Staff recommends
implementing this on September 1, 2015, giving ample time for installation of signage and providing education
on the new requirements.
Enforcement would be conducted primarily by the Natural Area Rangers and Park Rangers with the primary
tool for compliance expected to be voluntary.
3. City-owned or Operated Public Property Including Recreational and Cultural Facilities
The recent employee survey (Attachment 3) indicates that 62% of employees support a smoking ban on all
City-owned or operated facilities and related grounds. It also showed that 67% of employees were in favor of
having designated smoking areas.
The recent citizen survey (Attachment 4) indicates that 61% of respondents support new regulations that
would prohibit smoking at City-owned or operated facilities and related grounds. Just as in the employee
survey, it also showed that there was strong support for designated smoking areas with 60% of participants
responding in favor of this.
Based on Council’s feedback at the work session, community feedback regarding parks, feedback received at
recreational facilities, and input received from the employee and informal on-line surveys, staff recommends a
complete smoking ban for City-owned or operated public facilities including recreational and cultural facilities
and grounds (e.g., EPIC, Northside, Senior Center, City Hall, Lincoln Center, Museum of Discovery, etc.) and
golf courses. Staff recommends implementing this by September 1, 2015, again giving ample time for
installation of signage, additional outreach, and education on the new requirements.
Enforcement would be conducted by City staff with the primary tool for compliance expected to be voluntary.
4. Special Events
The recent citizen survey (Attachment 4) indicates that 61% of participants support new regulations that
would prohibit smoking at City-approved special events. It also showed that 61% of participants were in
support of having designated smoking areas.
After review of this and previous survey results, input from event promoters, and learning from other
communities, staff recommends a complete smoking ban for all City-approved special events. Staff
recommends implementing this on January 1, 2016 since all events for 2015 are already approved. Staff will
educate event promoters as part of the 2016 event application process.
Even promoters will encourage voluntary compliance, and the City will provide incentives for compliance.
3.1
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: February 3 2015 AIS and November 25, 2014 AIS (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 4
Ordinance Recap
This ordinance includes the following additional smoking restrictions:
x Complete smoking ban within the Downtown Smoke-Free Zone
x Complete smoking ban at all City Natural Areas, Parks, and Trails
x Complete smoking ban at all City-owned and operated facilities and their related grounds, including
golf courses
x Complete smoking ban at all City-approved special events
Based on our research, it is evident that communities vary greatly in both the areas covered within their
smoking restrictions and on the related specifics such as whether designated smoking areas are provided.
Staff could not find any emergent best practices with regard to creating smoke-free areas. Based on this, as
well as the City’s strategic goal of promoting the health and wellness of our community, staff is proposing a
complete smoking ban in all areas covered by this item.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
There will be an economic impact associated with this item. Expenses will be incurred to create and install
signs and banners, as well as for all activities associated with a comprehensive and ongoing education and
outreach campaign. The Larimer County Health Department has offered to assist in this effort. They
anticipate providing approximately $2,500 towards the cost of signage and between $3,000 and $5,000 for
advertising and similar media expenses to help defray costs. Staff is currently working with other City
departments to determine sign locations and quantities, as well as getting estimates for various items related
to outreach and education efforts such as advertising, printing, merchandise, etc. Staff will provide this
information as soon as it is available if needed.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Air Quality Board - recommended approval of expansion options
Golf Board - provided a letter requesting no ban for City golf courses
Land Conservation and Stewardship Board - recommended expanding the Smoking Ordinance to include
Natural Areas and Trails.
Additionally, all boards had opportunity to provide feedback as part of the most recent general survey. There
were 20 respondents representing seven of the City’s boards
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public outreach for this item has included:
x FC Smoking Survey - March 2014
x City Council Work Session - April 8, 2014
x Smoke-Free Public Events Surveys - May, June, and August 2014
x Outreach to larger event sponsors - Summer 2014
x City Council Meeting - July 1, 2014
x Business Smoking Ordinance Survey - September 2014
x Presentation to Downtown Development Association - September 2014
x Downtown Patrons Survey - October 2014
x Council Work Session - November 25, 2014
x Employee Survey - December 14, 2014
x Public Survey #2 - January 2015
x Social Media - Facebook, Nextdoor, and Twitter
3.1
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: February 3 2015 AIS and November 25, 2014 AIS (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 5
ATTACHMENTS
1. Agenda Item Summary, November 25, 2014 Work Session (with attachments) (PDF)
2. Community Research (PDF)
3. City Employee Survey (PDF)
4. Citizen Survey #2 (PDF)
5. Proposed Downtown Smoke-Free Area Map (PDF)
6. Air Quality Board Recommendation, September 16, 2013 (PDF)
7. Citizen Comments received through Facebook (PDF)
8. Citizen Comments received through Nextdoor, January 2015 (PDF)
9. Citizen Comments received through Twitter (PDF)
10. Land Conservation and Stewardship Board minutes, September 10, 2014 (PDF)
11. Work Session Summary, November 25, 2014 (PDF)
12. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
3.1
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: February 3 2015 AIS and November 25, 2014 AIS (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
DATE:
STAFF:
1RYHPEHU
/DXULH.DGULFK&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW
1HLJKERUKRRG6HUYLFHV'LU
'HO\QQ&ROGLURQ,QWHULP1HLJKERUKRRG6HUYLFHV
0DQDJHU
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
6PRNLQJ2UGLQDQFH([SDQVLRQ2SWLRQV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
7KHSXUSRVHRIWKLVLWHPLVWRGLVFXVVSRWHQWLDORSWLRQVWRH[SDQGUHVWULFWLRQVRQVPRNLQJLQ)RUW&ROOLQV&LW\
&RXQFLO LQGLFDWHG D GHVLUH WR ORRN LQWR IXUWKHU H[SDQGLQJ WKH &LW\¶V VPRNLQJ UHJXODWLRQV DW WKH &RXQFLO :RUN
6HVVLRQRQ$SULO7KLVLWHPSURYLGHVEDFNJURXQGLQIRUPDWLRQFRPPXQLW\IHHGEDFNDQGVXUYH\UHVXOWV
LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW DFWLRQV WDNHQ LQ RWKHU FRPPXQLWLHV DQG SRWHQWLDORSWLRQVWRGLVFXVVDQGFRQVLGHU7KH
DGGLWLRQDOVPRNLQJUHJXODWLRQVWREHGLVFXVVHGLQFOXGHUHVWULFWLRQVUHODWHGWR
2OG7RZQ6TXDUHRU'RZQWRZQ$UHD
1DWXUDO$UHDV3DUNV 7UDLOV
3XEOLF(YHQWV.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
RI2OG7RZQLVVPRNHIUHHGRHVWKH&RXQFLOZDQWWR
a. /HDYHLWWKDWZD\"
E2OG7RZQ6TXDUH"
F([SDQGWKHERXQGDU\VOLJKWO\ WRDGMDFHQWVWUHHWV
1RYHPEHU 3DJH
ZDVRQHRIWKHILUVWFRPPXQLWLHVLQ&RORUDGRWRGHVLJQDWHEDUVUHVWDXUDQWVDQGZRUNSODFHVDVVPRNHIUHH7KH
)RUW&ROOLQV¶6PRNLQJ2UGLQDQFHZDVDPHQGHGLQWRFRQIRUPWRWKH&RORUDGR,QGRRU&OHDQ$LU$FWZKLFK
KHOSHGWKHFRPPXQLW\UHJXODWHVPRNLQJLQDOOLQGRRUSXEOLFSODFHV,Q)RUW&ROOLQVH[SDQGHGWKHVPRNLQJ
RUGLQDQFH WRSURKLELWVPRNLQJLQRXWGRRUGLQLQJDUHDVEDUSDWLRVDQG7UDQVIRUW¶VSXEOLFWUDQVLWIDFLOLWLHV0RVW
UHFHQWO\LQ-XO\&RXQFLOH[SDQGHGWKHVPRNLQJRUGLQDQFHWRSURKLELWWKHXVHRIHOHFWURQLFVPRNLQJGHYLFHVLQDOO
DUHDVZKHUHFRQYHQWLRQDOVPRNLQJLVQRWDOORZHGDQG&RXQFLODGGHGWKHUHTXLUHPHQWWKDWRIKRWHOPRWHO
JXHVWURRPVPXVWEHVPRNHIUHH,ZKLFKZLOOEHFRPHHIIHFWLYHLQ-DQXDU\6WDIIKDVUHFHLYHGIHHGEDFNWKDW,
E\H[SDQGLQJVPRNLQJUHVWULFWLRQIXUWKHUIURPGRRUZD\VDQGE\QRWDOORZLQJVPRNLQJRQSDWLRVVPRNHUVKDYH
EHHQGLVSODFHGWRRWKHUDUHDVWKDWFDXVHFRQFHUQ)RUH[DPSOHURDGZD\VRUEXV\SHGHVWULDQDUHDV
'XULQJ WKH&LW\&RXQFLO$SULO:RUN6HVVLRQUHJDUGLQJWKHH[SDQGHG UHJXODWLRQV&RXQFLODOVRGLUHFWHG
VWDIIWRH[SORUHDGGLWLRQDOVPRNLQJUHVWULFWLRQVLQFOXGLQJ
2OG7RZQ6TXDUHRU'RZQWRZQ$UHD
1DWXUDO$UHDV3DUNV 7UDLOV
3XEOLF(YHQWV
6HFRQGKDQGVPRNHH[SRVXUH LV SURYHQ WREHKDUPIXODWDQ\ OHYHOLQFOXGLQJLQRXWGRRUDUHDVWKDWDUHQH[W WR
EXLOGLQJV RU KDYH D KLJK GHQVLW\ RI WREDFFR XVHUV $V D UHVXOWPDQ\ FLWLHVKDYH WDNHQ VWHSV WR SURWHFW WKHLU
UHVLGHQWVHVSHFLDOO\FKLOGUHQRUWKRVHZLWKFKURQLFGLVHDVHVIURPWKHGDQJHUVRIVHFRQGKDQGVPRNHH[SRVXUHE\
FUHDWLQJVPRNHIUHH]RQHVHVSHFLDOO\LQKLJKXVHRXWGRRUDUHDVVXFKDVSOD\JURXQGVSDUNVWUDLOVGRZQWRZQV
RUDWSXEOLFHYHQWV
,QDUHDVZKHUHSHRSOHJDWKHUIRUUHFUHDWLRQRUDKHDOWK\DFWLYLW\EUHDWKLQJWREDFFRVPRNHFDQEHDQXQH[SHFWHG
QXLVDQFH$&RORUDGR7REDFFR$WWLWXGHVDQG%HKDYLRUVXUYH\IRXQGWKDWPRUHWKDQKDOI
1RYHPEHU 3DJH
WKRVHUHVSRQGHQWV
x LQGLFDWHGVXSSRUW
x ZHUHXQVXUH
x LQGLFDWHGRSSRVLWLRQ
$GGLWLRQDOO\VWDIIGLGDVXUYH\VSHFLILFDOO\IRUGRZQWRZQEXVLQHVVHVLQRUGHUWRJHWVRPHVSHFLILFIHHGEDFNDQG
JDLQDQXQGHUVWDQGLQJIURPWKHLUSHUVSHFWLYHUHJDUGLQJDSRWHQWLDOVPRNHIUHH2OG7RZQRU'RZQWRZQDUHD6WDII
ZRUNHG ZLWK WKH 'RZQWRZQ %XVLQHVV $VVRFLDWLRQ WR JHW D OLVW RI DSSUR[LPDWHO\ EXVLQHVVHV WKDW RSHUDWH
GRZQWRZQ6WDIIVHQWSRVWFDUGVDQGIROORZHGXSZLWKDOHWWHUWRHDFKEXVLQHVVRZQHUPDQDJHUGLUHFWLQJWKHPWR
WKHVXUYH\$UWLFOHVZHUHDOVRSXWLQWRWKHLUQHZVOHWWHUGLUHFWLQJWKHPWRWKHVXUYH\:KLOHVWDIIZDVKRSLQJIRU
EHWWHUWKHUHZDVDUHVSRQVHUDWH Attachment 6
1RYHPEHU 3DJH
E 7KH FXUUHQW VPRNLQJ UHTXLUHPHQWV ZRXOG UHPDLQ DV WKH\ DUH QRZ VPRNLQJ ZRXOG QRW EH DOORZHG LQVLGH
EXVLQHVVHVRQSDWLRVRUZLWKLQWZHQW\IHHWRIGRRUVDQGSDWLRV
1RYHPEHU 3DJH
7KHVPRNLQJVXUYH\LQGLFDWHGWKDWRIUHVSRQGHQWVVWURQJO\RUVRPHZKDWVXSSRUWQHZUHJXODWLRQVSURKLELWLQJ
VPRNLQJ LQ 1DWXUDO $UHDV $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH /DQG &RQVHUYDWLRQ DQG 6WHZDUGVKLS %RDUG XQDQLPRXVO\
UHFRPPHQGHGDSSURYDORIWKHVPRNLQJRUGLQDQFHH[SDQVLRQWR1DWXUDO$UHDV3DUNVDQG7UDLOV
(QIRUFHPHQWZRXOGEHFRQGXFWHGE\WKH1DWXUDO$UHD5DQJHUVZLWKWKHSULPDU\WRROIRUFRPSOLDQFHH[SHFWHGWR
EHYROXQWDU\
Parks and Trails
:KHQ FRQVLGHULQJ H[SDQGLQJ VPRNLQJUHJXODWLRQVWRSDUNVDQGWUDLOVPRVWUHVSRQGHQWVVWURQJO\ RU VRPHZKDW
VXSSRUW QHZ UHJXODWLRQV SURKLELWLQJ VPRNLQJ ZLWKLQ VSHFLILF DUHD RI SDUNV ,I &RXQFLO FKRRVHV WR H[SDQG WKH
VPRNLQJRUGLQDQFHWRSDUNV3DUNVDQG5HFUHDWLRQVWDIIUHFRPPHQGVH[HPSWLQJJROIFRXUVHV7KH*ROI%RDUG
XQDQLPRXVO\VXSSRUWWKHSURSRVHGVPRNLQJRUGLQDQFHH[SDQVLRQSURKLELWLQJVPRNLQJLQSDUNVDQGDORQJWKHWUDLO
V\VWHP DQG LQ RU QHDU WKH JROI FOXEKRXVHV EXW GRHV QRW VXSSRUW H[WHQGLQJ WKH VPRNLQJ UHVWULFWLRQV RQ &LW\
RSHUDWHGJROIFRXUVHV 6HH$WWDFKPHQW
1RYHPEHU 3DJH
3. Public Events
&XUUHQWO\ WKH VPRNLQJRUGLQDQFHGRHVQRWDSSO\ WR SXEOLFHYHQWV7KHVPRNLQJVXUYH\ LQGLFDWHV WKDW RI
UHVSRQGHQWVVWURQJO\RUVRPHZKDWVXSSRUWQHZUHJXODWLRQVSURKLELWLQJVPRNLQJDWSXEOLFHYHQWVIHVWLYDOV
6XUYH\V RI HYHQWV SDWURQV ZHUH FRQGXFWHG WKLV VXPPHU DW IRXU RI WKH ODUJHU HYHQWV 7DVWH RI )RUW &ROOLQV
5HDOLWLHVIRU&KLOGUHQ%UHZIHVWDQG1HZ:HVW)HVW
1RYHPEHU 3DJH
x 3ODFHDGGLWLRQDOWREDFFRDVKXUQVLQDUHDVZKHUHVPRNLQJLVFXUUHQWO\DOORZHGEXWDZD\RIFRQJHVWHGDUHDV
%DURZQHUVPDQDJHUVKDYHLQGLFDWHGWKDWWKH\ZRXOGGLUHFWFXVWRPHUVWRWKHDVKXUQVLQDQHIIRUWWRKHOS
NHHSVPRNHUVIURPFUHDWLQJFRQJHVWLRQLQIURQWRIWKHLUEXVLQHVVHV
x 1HLJKERUKRRG 6HUYLFHV LV ZRUNLQJ ZLWK WKH &RPPXQLFDWLRQV DQG 3XEOLF ,QYROYHPHQW 2IILFH WR FUHDWH D
FDPSDLJQWREHWWHUJHWWKHZRUGRXWDERXWWKHVPRNLQJRUGLQDQFH
ATTACHMENTS
2XWGRRU6LGHZDON&LW\6XUYH\'DWD 3')
Agenda Item 14
Item # 14 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 18, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Delynn Coldiron, Interim Neighborhood Services Manager
Laurie Kadrich, Director of PDT
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 098, 2015, Amending Article III of Chapter 12 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins Pertaining to Smoking in Public Areas.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to revise the current Smoking in Public Places Ordinance to include exemptions for
retail tobacco establishments within the Downtown Smoke-Free Zone and for City facility users who smoke on
City premises in a fully enclosed, privately-owned vehicle, as well as clarification on the City-owned or
maintained sidewalks that are intended to be covered by the provisions in the Ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
As part of implementation efforts related to the smoking ordinance expansions approved in February, 2015,
staff has identified some areas where additional clarification is needed. Staff proposes the following clean-up
items:
1. Addition of an exemption for retail tobacco establishments within the Downtown Smoke-Free Zone.
Factors to consider include:
a. Retail tobacco establishments are generally allowed to permit smoking in limited lounge areas
in all areas except the Downtown Smoke-Free Zone.
b. There are numerous criteria that must be met for an establishment to be considered a retail
tobacco establishment that significantly reduce the concern of second-hand smoke affecting
others not frequenting the business.
c. An existing retail tobacco business has been inadvertently impacted by the new requirements
when the boundaries for the Downtown Smoke-Free Zone were expanded. The business
checked the location prior to moving and went through all applicable processes to become
designated as a retail tobacco establishment. Under the current ordinance, customers would
be required to cease all smoking on premises on January 1, 2016.
2. Addition of an exemption for City facilities and related premises that would enable facility users to
smoke on City premises provided they are in a fully enclosed, privately-owned vehicle. Factors to
consider include:
a. A similar exception exists in the Downtown Smoke-Free Zone.
ATTACHMENT 2 3.2
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: August 18 2015 AIS (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Agenda Item 14
Item # 14 Page 2
b. This minimizes potential impacts to businesses and neighborhoods bordering no-smoking
areas by providing another option for smokers to enable them to comply with the
requirements.
c. This reduces the chance of facility users moving into the street to smoke in an effort to comply
with requirements, which is a safety concern.
d. The exception should have limited, if any, impact on others with regard to second-hand
smoke.
3. Clarification that the smoking expansions apply only to City-owned or maintained sidewalks within the
Downtown Smoke-Free Zone or that are adjacent to City facilities and related premises. The existing
language applies to other sidewalks throughout the community that staff is recommending be excluded
from the Ordinance at this time.
Reduction of secondhand smoke exposure for citizens who choose not to smoke and promoting the health and
wellness of the community continue to be the primary reasons for the smoking expansions that were approved.
These revisions continue to support these goals while providing consistency in regulating retail tobacco shops
across the community, and providing options for citizens who do choose to smoke that will minimize impacts to
businesses and neighborhoods that border smoke-free areas, and will help increase the effectiveness of our
enforcement efforts by giving smokers a way to more reasonably comply with ordinance requirements.
For information purposes, the smoking expansions approved in February 2015 included a complete ban for the
following:
City Natural Areas, Parks, and Trails - implementation September 1, 2015
City-owned and operated facilities and their related grounds, including golf courses - implementation
September 1, 2015
Downtown Smoke-Free Zone - implementation January 1, 2016
City-approved special events - implementation January 1, 2016
There were no designated smoking areas approved in any of the areas listed.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
No additional costs are expected from these revisions.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
This work was done as part of the earlier efforts.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
This work was done as part of the earlier efforts.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance No. 015, 2015 (PDF)
2. Comcate Case 28952 from Aria Khosravi regarding Retail Tobacco Establishments (PDF)
3.2
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: August 18 2015 AIS (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
ATTACHMENT 3 3.3
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Smoking Update-Downtown Ban, February 29, 2016 (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
ATTACHMENT 4 3.4
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Downtown Smoke Free Zone Update, November 21, 2016 (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
3.4
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Downtown Smoke Free Zone Update, November 21, 2016 (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
3.4
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Downtown Smoke Free Zone Update, November 21, 2016 (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
3.4
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Downtown Smoke Free Zone Update, November 21, 2016 (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
NO SMOKING
ANYWHERE
DOWNTOWN
Maple
Laporte
Pine
Mountain
Mason
College
Remington
Mathews
Oak
Olive
Jefferson/Riverside
Maple
Linden
Chestnut
Auxiliary aids and services are available for persons with disabilities. V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado. 16-1935
$77$&+0(17
Packet Pg
$77$&+0(17
3.6
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Smoke Free in FC Sign (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
ATTACHMENT 7 3.7
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Increased Enforcement of No Smoking Zone in Downtown, February 20, 2017 (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
3.7
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Increased Enforcement of No Smoking Zone in Downtown, February 20, 2017 (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
ATTACHMENT 8
FC Access Cases – Smoking
Case # Date Description
39560 07/15/2017 Person smoking in a natural area, fishing possibly without license. I
told him smoking was not permitted in natural areas but the person
refused to put it out and mocked the saying. White male, tall, with
white facial hair, no head hair, with another white male.
39407 07/06/2017 Loud music and smoking in natural area.
39186 06/23/2017 The “no smoking ordinance” in old town is absolutely ludicrous. It is an
area with almost record setting bars in a small area, so smoking is
inevitable. I urge you to reconsider this ridiculous ordinance as it is
doing nothing but causing late night controversy and conflicts where
there needs to be none.
38776 06/03/2017 People smoking outside trailhead tavern
38310 05/06/2017 Reporting smoking at Canyon Park
38305 05/05/2017 A person is sitting at the DTC bus station smoking. There is a sign
stating it is prohibited there.
38172 04/26/2017 A person was smoking near the Flex sign at Transfort South Transit
Center
38141 04/24/2017 A person was smoking next to a no smoking sign. Either he can’t read
or he doesn’t care.
37509 02/27/2017 Also, how are we communicating the smoke free zones to out of town
guests? I’d like to give people a heads up before they get to Old
Town, since this could be a real surprise to international guests or
those from certain parts of the country.
37143 02/02/2017 I’m just curious why the white lights cannot stay on year round? It
looks more appealing. I rarely go to down after dark for 2 reasons.
One because of the college kids. I’ve NEVER had an issue with the
homeless/transients. The second reason is we have a “no smoking”
ordinance that’s difficult to enforce. I have asthma. Smoke & pot
bothers my lungs & makes me sick. Last Mon. evening night while I
was waiting on Dial-A-Ride in Old Town Square. I saw 2 people at the
same time light up a cigarette. I noticed a sign nearby that said “No
Smoking Area”. I completely understand that cops cannot ALWAYS
be in downtown. I blame the downtown businesses not the police for
this ordinance not being enforced. They could be informing them that
they cannot smoke in downtown.
37023 01/24/2017 Just a quick note regarding the ongoing sightings of smoking of both
cigarettes and smelling marijuana cigarettes in the Downtown “smoke
free” zone. Is it possible to create signage to further educate those to
that are visiting our community, as well as to remind those locals not to
partake in public?
3.8
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: FC Access Cases (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
FC Access Cases – Smoking
Page 2
36994
01/20/2017
The “no smoking” in the park sign is gone from Stewart Case Park.
Today, 6 teens were smoking at the picnic tables while 3 snack
children played on the playground.
36980
01/19/2017
Report of “no smoking within 20’…” signs in Old Town
36876
01/10/2017
SE corner of Mtn and Mason No smoking sign within 20 ft of doors or
patios – is this valid in these blocks of Mtn and Mason?
36870
01/10/2017
MacKenzie Place employees (4750 Pleasant Oak Dr, Fort Collins, CO
80525) stand in the driveway of KinderCare (4703 McMurry Ave, Fort
Collins, CO 80525) and smoke cigarettes. They are in MacKenzie
Place uniforms. This happens Daily. They also stand on the sidewalk
and on the private property of HighPointe (1544 Oakridge Dr, Fort
Collins, CO 80525) and smoke as well. This is all while children in the
day care are playing outside, breathing in their second hand smoke.
36648
12/21/2016
While driving down College Ave. today, through the downtown area, I
saw what I frequently see – people smoking cigarettes outside of, and
near, the Ace Hardware at 215 S. College. This seems to be a regular
occurrence, both by people sitting nearby, and by people walking by.
In fact, there does not seem to be any enforcement of the no-smoking
regulations downtown, at least during the daytime, when I am down
there.
36105
10/30/2016
Why have a no smoking rule if it isn’t enforced- last night we tried to
enjoy Old town again-ate outside at Blue Agave and smokers
everywhere, walked down to Nuance Chocolate and passed at least
12 smokers, walked back to Toy Store and again, a lot of smokers,
back to car, passed another handful. Why no presence to enforce the
law/rule?
35883
10/07/2016
A guy in old town square is smoking a very stinky cigar during the
concert. Please come ask him to smoke it elsewhere.
35839
10/04/2016
The City has recently undertaken a serious effort to reduce suspended
dust and stop ambient tobacco smoke in the downtown area. And yet
the City continues to use leaf blowers. These machines besides being
annoyingly loud just move a few leaves and re-suspend dust. They
are a nuisance and a hazard and their use should be stopped.
Brooms and dust-pans are cheaper and can better target areas
needing clean-up.
34982
07/28/2016
I really hate that this is a complaint, but it does fit that category. We
enjoy our time spent in Old Town and are down there quite a bit. I
know the topic of transients and homeless people is a hot topic for Fort
Collins and have read all of the articles relating to the issue. The last
several times we have been downtown enjoying shopping, eating, etc.
FC Access Cases – Smoking
Page 3
34727
07/12/2016
As a regular cyclist on the Mason Trail, almost every time ride past the
South Transit Center, I see people smoking at the bench along the
bike path. Even with the SmokeFreeFC sign on the fence in front of
them. Good luck with this effort….
34721
07/11/2016
Smoking in old town. Eating dinner, people at nearby business come
to street to smoke.
34718
07/11/2016
Man smoking near Edora Park playground.
34674
07/09/2016
There is a heavy stench of cigarette and marijuana smoke coming
from the address of 2226 Brightwater Drive in Fort Collins. Three
people just rented the house last week and they smoke everywhere
constantly – day and night. All the houses in the neighborhood are
only a few feet apart, so the smoke from this house permeates every
home around it.
34606
07/05/2016
Miscellaneous: people smoking on top the building and sitting on the
edge seems to be not only a safety issue but a violation of smoking
ordinance? Mason on Mason Street between Mountain and Oak
Street Ease Side
34301
06/16/2016
I have two children below the age of 2 ½ who have mild autoimmune
disease. We live in a multi-unit building next to a couple who smokes
frequently. When I noticed the smell of smoke in my home, I
approached them amicably, expressed my concerns, and proposed a
compromise wherein I would keep my front window closed so that they
may smoke on the patio without compromising my family’s health and
quality of life. They offered no objections or alternative proposals, but I
have noticed repeatedly that the arrangement has been violated. The
attached letter provides further details….
My feelings on this conflict are even stronger than they would be had
my neighbors refused my request outright. If that had been the case I
would have known what to expect and taken measures to protect my
family by keeping the windows closed and appealing to the HOA.
Because of my personal experience and the redundancy of scientific
evidence on the dangers of secondhand smoke, I advocate that the
City impose more restrictive measures on smoking in the vicinity of
private residents along the lines of the public restrictions. This will
confer similar benefits to public anti-smoking legislation and provide
residents with greater backing when objecting to negligent and/or
malicious behavior. Thank you for your consideration.
33904
05/23/2016
I was under the impression that the non-smoking in downtown Fort
Collins included College and Mountain area. Are there any signs
alerting newcomers to town? Driving by this location at 10AM in the
morning I saw young people sitting and smoking. Maybe they don’t
get city newsletters?
33761
06/16/2016
FC Access Cases – Smoking
Page 4
I discovered that the Police Department has chosen NOT to enforce
the smoking law. I spoke to three different officers who said that they
were making NO EFFORTS whatsoever to enforce the ban. When
walking on Mountain Avenue I actually needed to step into the gutter to
avoid the smokers thronging outside Steak Out Saloon and blocking
the sidewalk. I actually stepped in to this saloon to complain and
asked for the Manager. I was told that he was outside smoking. He
was pointed out to me and was standing on the sidewalk smoking,
blocking it…
33658
05/10/2016
There are dozens of people smoking outside of Trailhead, and others,
every night. It’s supposed to be smoke free.
33587
05/05/2016
Just curious if you are actually enforcing the no smoking ban. The
parking lot behind The Rio Grande always has smokers in it, as does
the bike parking area in front of Steakout and Trailhead. I’ve seen
police walk right by the smokers without saying a word. Is this going to
be enforced or not?
33542
05/03/2016
We were thrilled when Fort Collins decided to abolish all smoking in
the Old Town area as well as public spaces. What a great decision!
However, the last several times that we have been downtown we have
seen many people openly puffing in the Old Town area. Some may be
tourists that are unaware of the restrictions, some may be locals
deciding to disobey, and others are part of the homeless group that
frequents the area.
On our recent visit to Golden, Co we saw many signs that “advertised”
their ordinance, thereby making it easier to enforce. I will attach a
picture of what they posted. Perhaps it would be easier to enforce this
same ordinance in Fort Collins if there were more reminders posted for
all to see.
33146
03/31/2016
I don’t appreciate being hassled for smoking when I am clearly 20 feet
from a bus stop by a bus driver who is walking by. Enforce the rule as
posted or mind your own freaking business. I don’t impose my
personal beliefs or preferences on bus drivers, so bus driver: leave
me alone!!!
33115
03/28/2016
I just observed this MAX driver smoking – in uniform, at the downtown
transit center, which I believe is smoke-free property now, and then get
back on to drive the bus.
32876
03/07/2016
I observed numerous people smoking in downtown areas posted as
Smoke Free during a walk last night about 7:00 PM. How are the new
laws being enforced?
32787
02/26/2016
Please address the people smoking in the non smoking areas.
Specifically the entrance of the admin building at 250 N Mason.
People wait for our security to leave and then gather by the bike racks
and smoke tobacco and marijuana. Thank you.
32760
FC Access Cases – Smoking
Page 5
but didn’t care. They were also smoking close right beside the patio of
a bar, within 20 feet. Further south on College just before Olive I saw
a group of 4 smokers on the sidewalk, within 20 feet of a patio they
seemed to be hanging out at. I asked the bouncer about this, and he
mentioned he only has to enforce the 20 foot rule (which he wasn’t).
There were many more people I noticed walking down sidewalks, but it
makes me believe a more concerted effort is required in the evenings
(especially weekends when people tend to be partying more) to
educate visitors and locals about the new rules. The few signs I saw
are not easily visible and not being observed by smokers in my
opinion. I realize the balance between scaring away customers to
downtown businesses and enforcement but it is time to make a more
serious effort if you want to educate the population early before too
many people see it as an empty threat.
32721
02/18/2016
I was in Smokin Money on Elizabeth and had a complaint about some
service I received. I was refused to be given a managers name and a
chubby, multi-colored hair lady came out of a back room, with a pot
pipe in her hand and exhaling, she stepped back and set it down and
said she was the manager. I asker her name and she refused, so I left
and went outside and saw the “no smoking” sign. I decided since I had
horrible service and they were rude, I would turn them in for a clear
violation.
32683
02/16/2016
No smoking signs on the patio railings at both Steakout and Trailhead
saying smoking needs to be 20 feet away????
32661
02/12/2016
While walking through about 3 blocks of Old Town (E. Mountain and
College area) early on Thursday morning, I saw at least 6 people
smoking on the sidewalks. I believe they were all within the area
designated “smoke-free” but they were smoking anyway. Then I
looked around and found it very difficult to see any signage that would
indicate that smoking isn’t allowed. I did see a few small signs that say
something like “Breathe Easy – Smoke Free Fort Collins” …. But those
signs are SO small, that you have to look hard to read them. They
don’t stand out in any way – size, color, or wording. I would suggest
that the city post larger signs (lots of them!), perhaps with the image of
a cigarette with a red circle and slash that indicate ‘NO SMOKING” …
OR, SIMPLY POST LARGE “no smoking” signs. I really wanted to say
something to all the smokers I saw, but without obvious signs to point
to, I can’t really blame them for smoking.
32628
02/11/2016
Smoking non-compliance at FCHA projects – how do we encourage
management to enforce?
31980
01/06/2016
I wholeheartedly support the smoking ban. It needs to be enforced.
Homeless hanging out in Oak Street Plaza blowing cigarette smoke all
over. Would like to see it stopped.
31607
12/03/2015
A map that the website says to see the smoke-free areas, but no way
to read it. It is very small.
30904
FC Access Cases – Smoking
Page 6
30902
09/08/2015
Miscellaneous: With the recent implementation of a smoking ban in
City parks and natural areas, I still observe numerous individuals
smoking in Jefferson Park and do not see the new no smoking signage
posted. Does this park fall under the same regulations as others in the
City?
30880
09/04/2015
I called today about enforcement of the new non-smoking ordinance
for natural areas in Fort Collins and was told that the drainage areas
were not included in the new ordinance. I believe this was a major
oversight and I am requesting that you propose the inclusion of the
drainage areas as they are used by neighborhood residents for many
recreational purposes, i.e.. dog walking, children playing ball, etc.
30769
08/26/2015
The American Best Value Inn was a terrible place to stay, there are
numerous complaints on Trip Advisor…the “non-smoking” room
reeked of smoke and alcohol and the carpet looked and felt disgusting.
This place needs a health inspector like nobody’s business!!! I left a
long list of things wrong with room #101…the parking lot did not feel
safe. I canceled my second night and will never be back. Just thought
you would want to fix this since Fort Collins is such a fun place
otherwise.
30751
08/25/2015
I wrote to the Fort Collins City Council last year about this issue and,
although I was assured that this problem would be dealt with, it is still
ongoing.
30676
08/19/2015
I have recently been informed of the new smoking policy recently
passed, and set to be effective January 2016. With its expansive
restricted areas for smoking, I wanted to know what the reason was for
this, politically and not just for health reasons? This seems to be an
outrageous attempt to deprive citizens of a privilege they’ve held for
quite some time. Also, with the new policy, people caught smoking will
be in such violation of the ordinance that they can receive a
MISDEMEANOR for the act. Do you realize the implications of this
new law? If a person were to be on probation, trying to live a lawful,
peaceful life in Fort Collins, but smokes a cigarette within the defined
area, it’s back to jail for them! Why would the city want to create such
a disproportionate consequence for the act? This is more money for
the city, yes, but at what cost to the citizens who are trying to not go to
jail, or simply have a cigarette (or vape-pen) in peace without being
hassled by an already overextending police department?
I would love to know what forethought has gone into this new policy set
to be effective January next year. Any feedback would be greatly
appreciated. Thank you for your time.
30509
08/06/2015
Neighbors upstairs are smoking cigarettes on their deck. There is also
a strong smell of pot coming from upstairs that is now filling our
hallway!!!!!!
30468
08/03/2015
Is smoking in a HOA park prohibited under the Ft. Collins Smoking
FC Access Cases – Smoking
Page 7
29405
04/28/2015
Smoking on the sidewalk in front of Illegal Pete’s within 5’ of the entry
and roll up doors. Can’t walk out without having to walk through a
cloud of smoke.
29190
03/31/2015
A citizen has an issue with next neighbors continually smoking that
effects her enjoyment of her townhouse across from the housing
authority. Are there any codes that address smoking in backyards and
effect on adjoining properties and their occupants?
28958
03/05/2015
Apparently folks are smoking at the North Transit Center bus stop. Is it
legal to do so?
28952
03/05/2015
Case from owner of Narghile Nights Hookah Lounge seeking remedies
from the smoking restrictions to enable his business to continue. This
prompted the code revisions done in September, 2015.
28749
02/10/2015
I am writing to express a serious concern about your proposed
smoking prohibition.
Can you explain the rationale for a smoking prohibition in certain areas
but not others? It is clear to me that the result will be to drive smoking,
disorderly behavior, and cigarette butts to the areas bordering the
prohibition area.
I live at the DMA Plaza, 300 Remington Street. We are in one of those
areas bordering the prohibition area. We already have problems with
noise and trash from people going to and existing the nearby bars on
Friday, Saturday, and holiday nights. The police will not respond to
our complaints. Your proposed smoking prohibition will exacerbate
this problem and cause it to spread through the residential areas
south, east and even west of your prohibition area….
3.8
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: FC Access Cases (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
ATTACHMENT 9
Facebook Conversations Regarding
Smoking Ban
Facebook has thousands of comments on this topic from hundreds of articles being posted and shared.
These are the top comments from the most prevalent postings
Search terms: Fort Collins Smoking; Smoking ban Fort Collins; Fort Collins Smoking Ban; Smoking
Enforcement Fort Collins
The Coloradoan clip: “Fort Collins smoking ban could extend outdoors” – August 19, 2013
34 total comments, 0 shares, 47 likes. Top comments below:
• “If people would use common sense and common courtesy (like not smoking at playgrounds, for
example), these kinds of bans would be unnecessary. Unfortunately, common sense and courtesy are not
so common these days.”
• “ Just make it illegal. It's bs. Cigarettes are legal but God forbid you smoke one. Smoke all the weed you
want in colorado but someone will tell you off if you have a cigarette lol”
• “We allow cigarettes to be sold, yet marginalize the people we sell them too. not a smoker, but support
the right to do so.#freedomslippingaway”
• “If your going to ban smoking under the pretext that it is bad for human health, then you must also ban
pesticides, herbicides, combustion engines, burning trash, Chem trails, burning coal, mining for uranium,
and many more commonly accepted things that are all worse for our health and the health of our Eco
system (which is essentially our health) than cigarettes. This country is making a bad habit of making
hypocrisy official with its laws and policies.”
• “Lets ban restaurants and spoons at the same time cause they make people fat”
• “No, this is ridiculous. And I don't even smoke but... seriously??”
• “Here's a question: why do public places have to be expected to have "designated areas" for an activity
that has long been proven to be unhealthful (I'm unaware of even ONE positive that comes from cigarette
smoking), and that is offensive to more people than not? I'm not suggesting that smoking be against the
law (although I'd personally have no real issue with that), but I am asking, WHY should the public have to
accommodate for it? Makes no sense to me. And by the way, you can't exactly compare smoking to
pollution (not "pollination") from automobiles. First of all, cars are a necessary mode of transport for most
people (and even those emissions are regulated by law!). We also can't just blithely compare smoking to
pesticides, burning coal, etc. All of those things--while there may well be some level of negative
effect/sacrifice involved--are intended for the purpose of benefiting the greater public good. While
cigarette smoking on the other hand, has nothing "necessary" nor "positive" to offer, in terms of its
impact on society as a whole. (In fact, it even hurts the people who actually support/partake in it...it's just
that for whatever reason, they don't seem to care.) Look, as destructive a habit as smoking may be, if a
person could enjoy a cigarette in a public place with NO chance of polluting or disturbing (OR setting fire
to) someone else's personal space, that would be one thing. And like one other commenter said here, if
more smokers would just be inclined to practice common courtesy on their own, maybe we'd have no
need for a "big bad ban." But the reality is, too many smokers DON'T. My feeling is, if someone insists on
smoking, I think he/she can "designate" enough of their own private/personal spaces in which to do it.
3.9
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Smoking Ban Online Feedback (Facebook) (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Facebook Comments Continued
Page 2
What's so terrible or unreasonable about that? I've always thought it was incredibly arrogant for smokers
to expect everyone ELSE to just "deal with it." Really? A personal hobby/addiction that's so unhealthful
and offensive to so many others? Come on. NO. That's your deal. Not mine. Now, as much as I hate
smoking, I'm NOT saying I hate PEOPLE who smoke. Obviously. I'm not saying it makes you a bad person.
We all have our vices. I'm simply saying, if you insist on doing it, please keep it in your OWN space, that's
all. It's the insistence on blowing smoke on someone ELSE'S right to breathe CLEAN air...that I have a
problem with. It's time our society stops approaching this issue the other way around. Smokers' rights?
What about NON-smokers' rights? This attitude some smokers have, where they say, "hey, if you don't
want to smell my cigarette smoke, you can just stay home"...is beyond backwards. Smokers are the ones
with the dangerous, offensive habit, so all this type of a ban would do, is make it so THEY would now be
the ones who can choose to "stay home." Nobody would be telling them they can't smoke at all. Just that
it's no longer permitted in places where it may possibly disturb and/or negatively impact others. (Believe
it or not, most non-smokers actually DON'T enjoy coming home from a night out, only to find their clothes
and hair still reek...from someone ELSE's dirty habit.)”
• “1000% in favor. First of all, it just seems anyone who would actually choose to smoke anymore in this day
and age--with all that we know about its negative health effects--must have a screw loose somewhere.
But insisting on smoking in public places? That's not just simply a "liberties" or a "freedom" issue...I think
a lot of people would tell you it's the epitome of rudeness. If you insist on polluting your own lungs and
willfully threatening your own lifespan, fine...but why should everyone else in public places be expected
to share in your vile habit? Isn't part of the reason so many of us love Colorado because we love the
outdoors and our fresh, clear air? Cigarette smoking doesn't seem to jive with that, in my opinion. (Not to
mention the extreme fire hazard it also presents in a dry climate like ours.) I remember living in L.A. back
when California was the first to finally impose a statewide public smoking ban (btw, many other cities and
states have already followed suit--if anything, FoCo is surprisingly very late to the party on this). And when
CA did it, it was--and still is--AWESOME. Definitely made it a much more pleasurable experience to go out
somewhere. Sure, some nicotine addicts grumbled about it, but most people seemed to embrace the idea
very quickly...especially those business owners whose patrons appreciated it as a giant improvement.
Hurrah, I say! As loopy as California can be at times, this is one thing they got
right: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/09/news/la-ol-beach-smoking-bans-and-science-20130709”
• “It should be left up to the business owners.”
• “I don't smoke, and I don't like to be in a smokey restaurant or bar, but other than within the immediate
vicinity of non-smoking establishments I don't see the need to have a broader ban.”
• “SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR SMOKERS??? Why are the SMOKERS entitled to smoke...but WE can't breathe
unpolluted air???”
• “I wouldn't mind a ban if there were certain locations that smoking was permitted. Also, there was a
comment in the article that electronic cigarettes could be made illegal. That is bunk. It is vapor and only
offends people who can't stand if something looks like cigarette smoke.”
• “Fort Collins... (The next people republic of Boulder) can KMA!!”
• “This isn't about the individual, it's about society as a whole. I'm all for civil liberties, but govt isn't trying
to tell people they can or can't smoke. Govt is rather trying to create a society that allows people who
choose not to smoke to not be around it if they don't want to be. To say these people just shouldn't go
downtown is absurd. Why should I have to breathe in cancer-causing chemicals whenever I go
downtown? People aren't respectful enough to smoke away from crowds, so the govt is trying to find a
way to protect people who decide to live a healthier lifestyle. I get it and support it. It really wasn't all that
long ago (2003) when you could smoke in bars and restaurants in Fort Collins. Can you imagine that now?
3.9
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Smoking Ban Online Feedback (Facebook) (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Facebook Comments Continued
Page 3
In the end everyone (except for a few disgruntled nicotine addicts) will realize this is for the better for Fort
Collins as a whole.”
• “This is something else that should go to the voters. Not sure why the city council feels the need to pass
through bills and laws that the people should have a say on. I never had a problem when it was kicked out
of the bars and restaurants. I'm not sure I uderstand the need to go to extremes, or what good this would
really do. At events and such most have designated areas for smoking. People I think need to get a reaility
check. Your car causes more pollination then anything, but that inconveniences you. So facts are little
when it causes a problem to you, but you have no problem attacking anyone else and blaming everyone
else, when you should first look at what your doing before judging others. Even if this is passes and
smoking is no longer aloud at bars or anywere in and around town I would very much like to know how it
will be inforced?”
• “ A lifetime of smoking killed my mom. If smokers want to pollute their lungs and kill their bodies, let
them do it in their own homes and keep their second-hand smoke to themselves. I personally don't want
to breathe their smoke, and I shouldn't have to limit where I go because someone else is too selfish to
care about anybody else.”
• “yes... would go to Fort Collins more”
• “If I need a nanny, I'll hire one.”
• “I am also "a huge fan" of personal liberties. But to me, that just doesn't include activities that infringe
upon (most) other people's ability to enjoy themselves in public...or even to be able to breathe clean air.
Come on, people. Yet another good reason for a public smoking ban would be this: how about the fact
that it also sets an irrefutably negative example for children and teens? Is someone going to snap back
and try to argue that, too, citing some sort of "it's a free country" nonsense? The mind reels. Or perhaps
say something like, "well, then we should also say people can't ever drink alcohol or eat fatty foods in
public, either"...? Please spare me. What separates smoking is that it actually has the potential to
negatively impact someone ELSE's health AND personal space...in fact, literally down to the very AIR
they're trying to breathe. Why all the bellyaching about a ban? What is so unreasonable? If you're going
to take up a dangerous, widely offensive habit, what is so wrong with society requesting that you simply
do it in a personal/private space? Whether or not it's "a legal activity" is irrelevant. THE POINT IS, it's
offensive and disruptive. To illustrate it another way: if someone is blasting loud music in such a way that
it's clearly disturbing his neighbors, he/she can be legally charged with the crime of "disturbing the
peace." It's not that playing the music itself is illegal...its HOW and WHERE the person is choosing to do it
that determines whether it is a crime. Tell me, how is public smoking any different? "Disturbing the
peace" is generally defined as "the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions."
Blaring inappropriately loud music...smoking cigarettes (or whatever it is you smoke) around other non-
smokers...it's all the same to me. It has potential to bother or harm a lot of other people...and since
smokers all know this, that makes it not only inappropriate...but also INCONSIDERATE. And I don't see
that point as being even remotely debatable. A public smoking ban would go a long way toward
preserving the "peace" for MOST of the general public, and I happen to see that as a good thing. One last
point I'll make (as some of the posts here are getting increasingly nutty) is this: I often wonder how an
otherwise intelligent person could even choose to smoke in this day and age anyway. I mean, with all we
now know about the negative health effects of cigarette smoke, don't these people care about what they
put into their bodies (or at the very least, how their secondhand smoke in public might affect others)? But
then, I also happened to notice that many of those posting here actually in SUPPORT of public
smoking...also don't appear to know or care all that much about proper spelling/punctuation, either. Just
an observation.”
3.9
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Smoking Ban Online Feedback (Facebook) (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Facebook Comments Continued
Page 4
• “i believe in freedom I dont get to tell you what to eat or drink what gives you the right to limit my
freedom to engage in a legal activity? Joe Average's SUV emissions hurts your lungs way more than my
2nd smoke but oops that isnt politically correct”
• “ "Don't drive your car in my city I don't like your dirty habit of being too lazy to walk or ride a bike" same
exact thinking, just as ridiculous”
• “When one eats or drinks something...they keep it to themselves...BUT SMOKERS ALWAYS LOVE TO
SHARE THEIR SMOKE...THEY CAN'T EVER KEEP IT TO THEMSELVES”
• “No.... Not in favor....”
• “I think this town is getting ridicules. I have lived in Fort Collins all my life and I am pretty sure there is
plenty of room here for smokers and non-smokers. Stop trying to be Boulder, City of Fort Collins! Try
being the town people liked and wanted to call this place home”
• “You're right only people that do smome should not be allowed to go downtown and enjoy a few good
beers with friends..... I still say give it to the voters and not just the ones that live inside the city but all of
Larimer county.”
• “Lol how about this, we leave it up to the business owners, and those who smoke can patron a business
that allows such activities and this who do not go somewhere else! It's so simple! Why all the fuss?”
Coloradoan – “Fort Collins weighs stricter rule son outdoor smoking” – February 3, 2015
*171 comments, 36 shares, 796 likes. Top comments below:
• “Jesus the solution to you having a problem is not to ban everything! Here's a solution if you see
someone smoking and you don't like it DON'T WALK NEAR IT! You people are so dumb lets legalize people
smoking weed and ban people smoking cigarettes!”
o “Smoker take smoke breaks right outside the entrance door, rather nasty. When I see this, I don't
return. Smokers need a break spot and it shouldn't be at the entrance where NON-smokers have
to walk thru.”
o “What if they are in the path where you need to walk? Right in front of doorways? There
wouldn't need to be a ban if smokers had more courtesy and respect for those who do not
smoke, and can't be around smoke.”
o “What about those who have asthma or other respiratory issues that are around you? Did you
ever think of them? Just that little but of smoke can cause them to have a serious reaction.”
• “So... where, in the Hell, could one smoke if they wanted to? I'm not a smoker but isn't this America?..
Land of the free? Anybody ever heard of that?? I don't care if you like it or not! Live and let live for Christ's
sake! It's time to STOP trying to push an idea, or an ideology, onto others just because their way isn't
yours!! GET OVER IT!!! end of rant.”
• “I see FoCo and Boulder ban smoking because other people don't like it, why not ban cell phones! No,
really! It sucks when people talk out loud, text and walk, text and drive, take selfies, and the give off
radiation! Women that say "don't smoke around me because I'm pregnant" and yet they put a cell phone
next to the baby? Let's ban people over 5' tall because other people can't see over them! This is BS folks,
grow up and deal with it! If people spent the same energy on doing productive things the world would be
a better place!”
• “Well, this is one cities I will never go visit anymore. People trying to tell others what to do. That's just
wrong.”
• “They are outside for crying out loud! I understand inside bans but outside...being ridiculous. Bigger issues
to deal with such as crimes, drugs (heroine, meth), etc.”
3.9
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Smoking Ban Online Feedback (Facebook) (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Facebook Comments Continued
Page 5
• “Next on their agenda, cars and truck will also be banned since the pollute far more than cigarettes”
9News (KUSA) – “Fort Collins smoking ban starts Tuesday” – September 1, 2015
*629 total comments, 346 shares, 2.3K likes. Top comments below:
• “Current smoker, who is having a very hard time quitting, think it's a great idea I'm not gonna go outta my
way and get yelled at for smoking it will help me and a lot of people like me quit.”
• “I recently quit smoking and I don't agree with this at all!! Most smokers are curtious with non smokers, I
can understand no smoking in restaurants but outside really?? Smokers already have to bow down and
submit because it offends someone... well try this, if you don't like smokers, go around them or of your
walking near one just say "can you wait to take a drag til I pass" yes eventually there won't be any more
smokers or it will be rare but until then, this is a free country where people can smoke drink and do as
they please, so get off your high horse and remeber no one is perfect”
o “Most smokers are not considerate. Far too many smoke near children (most times upwind,
even), next to business doors and leave a huge mess of cigarette butts all over the ground.
Smoke outdoors will travel with the wind farther than you think. If you want to smoke, I don't
care, but as soon as your bad habit starts affecting my health, it's no longer okay.”
o “You all think it's about being offensive but what about when I'm just going to the grocery store
and I have to try and get through the doors to do so without breathing in someone's smoke that
will trigger an asthma attack for me. Smokers do not think of how much it really does effect
others and in what way. Sometimes I've had to even close my windows to my own home as to
stop a neighbors smoke from getting in. Really? I'm not even allowed to have fresh air so that a
smoker can have their way. I understand smokers want their rights but what of the rights of
someone who simply wants to keep breathing? There really is a lot to think about when it comes
to this issue.”
• “Taking away people's rights while trying to justify it. If you're out side and complaining about smoke
you're standing too close. I think we should ban alcohol from public events because I'm tired of seeing
hearing and getting bumped into by drunk men.”
o “You can't get drunk standing next to a drinker.”
o “I agree!! I'm a ex smoker, and don't like the smell anymore, but going to this extreme with the
ban is ridiculous!! I think Colorado is becoming more and more like California!!!”
o “Tell that to my mother with emphysema”
o “Although I feel very deeply for your mother we all live here and it should be a majority rules
vote not forced on people by the county.”
o “if I'm out side & i smell smoke as well as my 5 year old....you are to close to us! :) go slowly
kill yo self somewhere else”
o “Oh I don't smoke in front of kids I have the common sense not to. But if I'm at the park minding
my own business not hurting anyone (far away from any playground) and I decide to smoke a
cigarette I shouldn't have to accommodate to someone who showed up after me and is offended
by the smell. Move away from me it's that simple.”
o “Non-smokers don't get it. They think it is okay to force their beliefs on you "because they're
right" and "they're just trying to help you" which is BS.”
o “Soo if I'm trying walk into,a store with my asthmatic 4 year old and some inconsiderate smoker
is standing right by the door (OUTSIDE!) holding their lit cigarette at my son's level... Whose
rights are being affected? The smokers or my son's?!”
3.9
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Smoking Ban Online Feedback (Facebook) (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Facebook Comments Continued
Page 6
“Neither it's called life in America the land of the free”
o “I don't want people putting fat exhaust pipes on their Diesel trucks but they do it even ways.
That's life. We are surrounded by pollution we live in a city.”
o “too many do not understand rights and freedom..my right ends where your begins..we all have
the right to clean (as possible) air..when my clean air takes over your smoke then I have infringed
on your rights,,,when your smoke takes over my clean air then you have infringed on my rights,
Pretty simple..”
“Your smoking on me doesn't bother me, if my vomiting on you doesn't bother you. Me
and my baby bump don't need your chemicals.”
• “It's funny how we now are a country that frowns on smokers but we pass a law to legalize pot.”
o “And no one banned smoking. Banning public smoking and banning smoking are not the same.
Pot is still more strictly regulated by miles and miles.”
• “Alcohol consumption is banned in public, so how is banning smoking any different? Everyone is crying
about their rights going away, but there are a lot of things you are banned from doing in public, smoking
isn't really any different in my opinion. I used to smoke and as a smoker I was so happy when they banned
smoking bars and restaurants. Maybe banning in public places is going a little far, but I get why people
would want it. Smokers are selfish and don't think about how their smoke affects other people. My
boyfriend is a smoker and we fight about it all the time.”
o “Alcohol consumption is not banned in bars, nor is there anyway to stop those who have over
consumed in restaurants and bars from getting in their cars and threatening the lives of many
others.”
o “Its not about selfish, right or wrong. More like voters should be allowed to make those decisions
not government. Starts with the small stuff and when you are banned from anything that is
pertaining to you, then I guess you will get it. I take it you are many of those who never realized
that our vehicle registrations were increased without voter approval and they increased to
whatever they felt like.. Starts with banning the small stuff...”
• “I quit smoking2 years ago, but as long as tobacco is legal, I oppose smoking bans for public spaces. I will
no longer drive to Fort Collins to shop, eat, or play so long as this ban is in effect. There are so many other
options available that I may never return to FC”
o “I quit smoking2 years ago, but as long as tobacco is legal, I oppose smoking bans for public
spaces. I will no longer drive to Fort Collins to shop, eat, or play so long as this ban is in effect.
There are so many other options available that I may never return to FC”
o “I was going to say that I believe Boulder has smoking bans as well. At least on Pearl Street I
know they do. You're not allowed to smoke in the malls and some have changed the designated
areas. I know I've only scratched the surface.”
• “Since 3/4 of people don't smoke and care enough about their own health to avoid it, I'm guessing that
smoking bans will attract more people to places with them than will be chased off.”
• “Fort Collins is hell on earth. Who cares about smoking. Kick out anyone who moved here within the past
5 years this town sucks now.”
• “I think it's a violation of my rights. Not smoking in a bar or restaurant is totally acceptable. Even as a
smoker, I like it better that way. Concentrations of second hand smoke can be harmful. Smelling smoke is
NOT harmful. There is no way to get enough second hand smoke in the open air to be harmful to you! I'm
hating that we're letting this bunch of uneducated libtards run our lives. It's about time to stand up !!!!!!”
• “Yay for smoking bans. Dublin, Ireland calling. It's 2015...get with the programme people.”
3.9
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Smoking Ban Online Feedback (Facebook) (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Facebook Comments Continued
Page 7
• “Nothing is more disgusting than enjoying lunch on a patio downtown and getting a nice big smell of
someone's cigarette....I appreciate the courteous people that smoke and try to keep it away especially
when children are around, but unfortunately I have witnessed a very small amount of people that do that.
If you can't just pull out a joint in public and smoke it, you shouldn't be able to pull out a cigarette either.”
• “I quit smoking 4 years ago. These bans still piss me off. Let the owners decide if they want a smoking
section. They then can deal with the concequence of losing business of non-smokers.”
Coloradoan – “Fort Collins redies for smoke-free downtown” – December 17, 2015
*122 comments, 141 shares, 686 likes
• “Thanks fort collins residents, for voting to make people who smoke (which is a personal right and choice)
potential law breakers. Its one thing to make them smoke outside, but to take their right away is so
stupid. I hope the bars/establishments survive. So dumb.” (46 replies total)
o “Cigarettes are the least of our clean air issues. How is this ban fair to the businesses in old
town? There is alot more serious risks in old town than someone smoking a cigarette. How many
drunks walk up and down those streets every day and night? Fights? The list goes on. Someone
smoking on the street has never bothered me as much as a homeless drunk guy being
belligerent. Or the douchey a-holes in the square after bar close. Or the guys who drive diesel
trucks that blow stinky black smoke.”
o “Poor health choices are not the business of the city. Period. If i wanna smoke, thats my right.
Just like bars and their patrons have their right to drink and stumble around like idiots. Its
absurd.”
o “Just an FYI, residents were never given a choice to vote on the matter. This entire decision was
handled by the 7 members of Fort Collins City Council. I would be very interested to see what the
results would be had this issue been a public vote”
o “Sure, you have a right to damage your own health. However, you do not have a right to damage
someone else's health.
For instance, if you want to drink alcohol in excess and destroy your liver, that is your right. If you
want to drink alcohol in excess and then drive your car, potentially injuring others, that is not
your right.”
• “I'm not a smoker but this is overboard and an example of liberalism run amok. They are trying to create a
utopian Ft. Collins by means of ordinance after ordinance banning this and that. Including vaping in this
rule is ludicrous. In the future they will probably ban cars in downtown Ft. Collins.”
• “I'm all for everyone to have the right to do as they please, but there are health issues with inhaling
second hand smoke and though you have the right to smoke you choose to poop on the nonsmokers right
to "clean" air. It's a fine line of whose right should be taken and whose right should be honored. In this
case majority won.
On another note, I never noticed how much of a difference an ordinance like this makes until I went to a
city that allows smoking in town and let me tell you, it makes a huge difference not having to breathe that
crap in all the time. The downtown area of the city I recently visited was unpleasant to be in because of all
the smokers on the street. Bleh!”
• “So the city kicked smokers out of bars and restaurants because non smokers didn't like them smoking
inside. Then the non smoker's realized while walking around outside in old town that by getting smoker's
kicked out of the bar's and restaurants that they didn't get rid of the smoker's they had to walk right
through the groups of people smoking. I did at one time smoke. Quit several years ago. But for the city to
3.9
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Smoking Ban Online Feedback (Facebook) (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Facebook Comments Continued
Page 8
say that people can't smoke in or even outside of anywhere in Ft Collins is ridiculous. Maybe the city
should FOCUS more on the violence and crimes of drive by shootings, robberies, rapes, ect...”
• “ I just read all the comments. wow! Strong feelings on this issue. My thought is, if smokers hadn't made
themselves into annoyances, the rule would never have been proposed. I don't care if you smoke, but I
don't and I don't want to have to inhale your second-hand smoke, which, because some of you are very
inconsiderate and make it impossible for others to escape, I have to do any time I go to Old Town. I'm not
sure a LAW was the answer, but what else you gonna do?”
• “I don't think it should be banned completely, however, I think there should be specific areas for smokers.
A smoker sitting right outside of a store doorway in old town blew smoke directly into my kids faces while
we were exiting the building. The woman with him apologized for him when my 3 year old began
coughing. The man smoking retorted with "don't apologize. They can suck it up." If I wanted my children
to "suck it up" I'd start smoking around them on my own. If you're going to do something hazardous to
your health, whatever, but do it away from my children and I.”
• “ I think this is one of the most stupidest law ban on a town..I mean really ..here's a difference when
someone smokes inside a bar ..the smoke stays inside the bar..but when a person smokes outside it goes
into the air..it don't blow over across the street for someone to breath it..yes I am a smoker..and thought
that bars ban was stupid on smoking but I would of been ok if they ban it on restaurants like red lobsters
and Texas Roadhouse that sort of the kind where there's kids..but u don't see kids in the bar after late
hours and I feel like the bars should put in those smoke screens that sucks up the smoke that I hav seen
on bar rescue tv show...but good luck on people wasting there tax money on that ban law cuz that's what
u paying for that to be become a law...so once a again a waste of money and time..someone should used
there head to do something different for the town but not about smoking”
• “How does vaping hurt anyone? There's no scientific proof that it does and smells way better than a
cigarette. So stupid! That's why I don't bother going downtown. Businesses are going to struggle from
such a petty law. I don't like the smell of cigarettes but I also don't like the smell of diesel trucks either.
Foco is so pretentious that it's disgusting. They need to focus more on the homeless people. Perhaps
relocate the shelter. I've had some of those people threaten me physically in front of my children because
I didn't have any money to give them.”
Coloradoan “Why Old Town isn’t exactly smoke-free even though there’s an ordinance
requiring it”– January 23, 2017
*16 comments, 1 share, 17 reactions
• “This is why they don't take it seriously. They know the risks so there is no need to waste time to
"educate" them. Give them a fine. If the do it again give them a fine. Keep enforcing it. Then they will stop
doing it. It's that simple.”
o “Enforcement is absolutely impossible! That's why these adjustments to rules are being
considered. Do you as a taxpayer actually want to foot the bill for proper enforcement. I'm fairly
certain that most folks would say no.”
o “I shouldn't have to foot the bill for proper enforcement. They should do their jobs and enforce
it. Just because too many people are doing it doesn't mean they stop enforcing something. That's
insane logic! I would be happy if I atleast saw cops trying to do something. They just walk by
don't say a word. It ridiculous!”
3.9
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Smoking Ban Online Feedback (Facebook) (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Facebook Comments Continued
Page 9
• “I highly doubt there is confusion. I actually would believe that people are making the free cigarettes
statement to be sarcastic. People don't want their smoking to be controlled by the city and are therefore
ignoring the law. Personally I think going with the no smoking during the day is an okay idea. Health wise
it is for the health and safety of families, particularly children, who aren't there after ten or eleven at
night.”
• “I think lifting the band at night is a pretty solid idea. Im guilty of smoking smoking on College (in old
town) in the middle of the day. I always catch myself tho and toss it or take it off the main drag. Lifting the
band at night, like round 10 or so when be a good move. Late enough that kids arent out. Anyway way
you look at it tho... its all about respecting who and what you are around.”
• “How about educating them by fining them?!? I've never seen this waste of time and money enforced.”
• “On numerous occasions, I have mentioned the ban to smokers in Old Town. Only one time did someone
say they were unaware of it since they were from out of town.”
• “I'm a "they" and I don't patronage any businesses in Old Town because I'm a disgusting and vile smoker.”
• “Let em have their smoke. They're not hurting anyone”
• “I think offering specific places for smoking, like a smoking hut on each block, could help this. Something
easy to find and use.”
• “It's ridiculous and big brother. Why do they still have butt receptacles on top of the garbage cans?
Confusing message.”
• “Welcome to Fort Boulder!”
3.9
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Smoking Ban Online Feedback (Facebook) (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
ATTACHMENT 10
Downtown Fort Collins Smoking Ban Comments
(Coloradoan/Collegian)
Coloradoan – “Council Backs Expanded No-Smoking Regulations” (Feb 3rd, 2015)
• Is this really what we are paying these people to do? Stop wasting out money and do
something that actually makes a difference.....
• I was sitting at a bus bench today in Fort C. and it had a no smoking sign?? We legalize
weed, but can't smoke a cigarette at a bus stop?? SMH
• While we are discriminating people let's make it so fat people can't order fast food that
should save the government on insurance... just saying you can't put a ban on one group of
people that's discrimination.
• They will continue to take people's freedoms away until they are voted out and people will
stop tolerating it.
• Isn't communism wonderful? Just think, Big Brother takes care of you in every way.
• This is how it should have been handled ten years ago... instead of banning smoking in
private businesses like bars and restaurants, they should have banned it in public places,
while allowing private businesses to choose whether they wanted to allow it or not. IMO they
have done it completely backwards.
• Yes, because creating a larger smoking ban is a massive priority in Fort Collins. What kind of
idiots are elected to the city council?
• We need LESS Government on our lives!!!!
• It is so sad how many people think this is governments roll. I don’t smoke in fact I hate the
smell. However I understand that freedom means tolerating things I don’t like. When I was a
kid I thought Democrats stood or freedom FROM government, now they stand for nothing but
bigger government and less liberty.
• I don't really smoke, but this bothers me. I keep doing less and less business in Fort Collins,
and I even moved just outside of it. If this passes, I'll shop there even less than I do now
(though, once the bag tax starts, I likely won't shop at all in FoCo anyway)
• I like an occasional cigar while golfing. I can't believe they would consider banning smoking
on a golf course.
• Smokers and the like should just find another place to go. Vote with your dollars. The city
won't like less income from less taxes. Businesses should be complaining more.
• Finally! Someone figured out a way to keep Obama from playing golf five times a week.
Outlaw smoking on the course. He'll have to put down his sticks so he won't have to put
down his sticks.
• This is the second time the mayor has voted to keep smoking closer and more visible to our
children. I'm really not sure I could sleep well at night if I took that position.What is the mayor
thinking? We have known for decades smoking is one of the biggest health problems. We all
know people who have died from smoking.We know kids are more likely to smoke if they see
it happening. We know second hand smoke is harmful to everyone. Smoking sucks financial
resources away from those who need it most and causes a drain on society (think higher
taxes and more expensive health care).Those who call it encroachment on freedom: your
3.10
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Smoking Ban Online Feedback (Coloradoan and Collegian) (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Online Comments - Coloradoan and Collegian
Page 2
"freedom" ends at the point where you send carcinogens into my kid's lungs. Waste your
money killing yourself if you like, but you don't get to harm other people while doing it. This is
a common-sense issue and I think the complaints about the ban are coming from smokers.
• Maybe this should be a community vote. I bet I could get 4,000 sigs in 20 days for this.
Howabout allowing smoking after 10pm (when the current law isn't enforced anyway)?
Howabout allowing smoking on bar patios that are away from non-smokers? My smoking
friends are very considerate not to bother. I guess not all smokers are like that. And I guess
some non-smokers are fascist dictators
• Yet another half measure. Plastic bags were horrible for the environment, why not ban them?
So smoking is bad and hazardous, but only for the people in old town and parks.
• Whats next cant lit up in my own back yard?. Someone needs to tell the city council that this
is still a free country as much as they want it not be. why do non smokers have more
freedom and rights then other hard working tax paying americans? why do non smokers
have the right to make other americans 2nd class citizens?
Coloradoan - “In The City: Where you Can’t Smoke Starting Sept 1” (Aug. 22, 2015)
• This law is unconstitutional and I will continue to smoke anywhere I want to and if a cop
wants to give me a ticket I will take it in front of the Supreme Court and prove that this is a
law that is completely and totally unconstitutional and a violation of my pursuit of happiness I
can understand not smoking in an enclosed area or in the 10th or something but on a bike
trail or on the golf course the City Council of Fort Collins can kiss my butt I'm going to smoke
anywhere I want to and I dare the cops to give me a ticket I dare them to
o I'm with you. Give me a ticket. I'll demand the case go to trial. Make the city spend
thousands of dollars to enforce it
• Just another reason I don't go to Ft Collins...just like Boulder...My business goes elsewhere.
• Watch the council meeting where they approved this. This is not about health and safety but
getting those people ceratin council members considered undesirable out of the downtown
area.
• As a non smoker and former smoker. This goes way too far. I get inside but outside? Grow
up if you don't like smoking move. Have you looked outside the last few days? How much
smoke is in the air already? Someone smoking does not hurt you ore your rights.
o "Someone smoking does not hurt you ore your rights." You're kidding, right?
Your logic is completely ridiculous. There's already wildfire smoke in the air, so why
not let others light up?! "...if you don't like smoking move"? Right, and that's what
smokers are being told: move.
• If people would recall, Fort Collins passed the original no smoking ordinance without putting
it to a public vote and were threatened with impeachment for doing so. At least that's what I
recall.
o Please tell me more about this impeachment conversation. I don't recall it.
• I am not a smoker (except for a rare NY Sherman Natural in the very perfect moment on a
summer afternoon with a beer or glass of wine), but this is way too extreme. Anyone who
gets a ticket for the new open space regs has my support to fight this rediculous over reach.
o If I'm ever ticketed for it, I'm taking out to trial
• I will be boycotting fort Collins I will not spend one red cent in that town!
3.10
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Smoking Ban Online Feedback (Coloradoan and Collegian) (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Online Comments - Coloradoan and Collegian
Page 3
o Then I guess you can't dare the cops to ticket you, huh?
o I just said I will not spend any money in that nanny city! I do plan on smoking
wherever I please though! I'm a grown a** man if I want to smoke I'm going to
wherever I'm at outside. I hope I get a ticket I hope I get multiple tickets cause a
harrasment lawsuit and a rights violation lawsuit will follow once the charges are
dropped because the law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Believe me I'm not the only one
who will not spend money in that Communist city because of this crap! I'm sick of
being told what to do the city council can kiss my butt the mayor can kiss my butt and
the police can kiss my butt! This is the land of the free we are turning into a
Communist country because recent generations are filled with whimps and weak
minded people!
• Perhaps a PEACEFULL smoke in somewhere is in order!
• As a non smoker and a parent of a child with a heart transplant, I'm glad to see this. Yes, we
take precautions on smoke filled days because of fires. But when we can't walk down the
streets in old town and get away from it standing in front of buildings it is too much. Between
the pot smell and cig smell, it can be overpowering.
• I have multiple chemical sensitivity so why doesn't the city write laws that block wearing of
fregances in same areas
• Next we'll be forced to drive electric cars. Not sure how far the government will go to have
total control.
• Including electronic cigarettes only proves that they know nothing about them. It's not smoke.
You cannot get "second hand smoke" from electronic cigarettes. This is a bit extreme. I
understand not smoking e-cigs in a bar or restaurant, where you wouldn't typically smoke a
cigarette. Fine. But issuing tickets? For being outside or god forbid waiting for public transit?
Give me a break.
• Then stop selling them all together! The price of cigarettes keep going up, but smokers see
no benefit from it. I think ALL money collected from cigarette sales and taxes should be put
towards creating well ventilated, smoker friendly, areas. Non smokers can have their places
and smokers aren't treated unfairly. Sorry, but non smokers are NOT the only ones who pay
taxes and contribute to the financial gains and benefits of a town. So therefore, they don't
OWN it. Oh, all fine money collected from this asinine law should be put towards smoking
areas too. Welcome to America, land of the free.
Coloradoan - “Fort Collins Readies for Smoke-Free Downtown” (Dec.17, 2015)
• Another good reason to skip old town and stay south of Prospect. Thank you city council
for micro managing our lives so we can be more like the losers in Boulder.
• You people are nuts. Sounds like a bunch of control freaks to me. I've never smoked, but
I could care less if people smoke outside, with a "real" cigarette or a e-cigs. I agree with
one of the other comments...you just want to control people....it has nothing to do with
health issues. Boulder can't control it on campus....I hope you find out the same. The
"holier than thous" are getting a little old to listen to. Go find something else to control,
you idiots!
• Legislating morality... and becoming Boulder....
3.10
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Smoking Ban Online Feedback (Coloradoan and Collegian) (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Online Comments - Coloradoan and Collegian
Page 4
• I'll be shocked if this is enforced after dark. The "no smoking within 20 feet of an
entrance" rule hasn't been enforced, and that's been on the books for god only knows
how long.
• 1st: I have mixed feeling about this law. I don't smoke or want to be around smoke.
However I have issues over the law.
2nd: The river district isn't included anyway, and that is the new hot spot of future activity.
3rd: Im not expecting anything to change, this is the equivalent to skateboards on the
sidewalks of old town, and we all know how that is enforced.
• This is so stupid, I dont even know what to say.
• This is just the beginning of many more stupid controlling type regulations coming our
way.
• Hey city council, why don't you put controversial topics such as this to a vote by citizens
of Fort Collins?
• Not one comment here is in support of this ban.Mine included, of course. I'm not a
smoker, and I think this is dumb.
• I personally will no longer spend any money at any of the businesses inside of this zone.
This has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard of.
o What makes you think that the businesses inside this zone had any sort of say or
in any way supports this?
o Old Town has been going in this direction for a long time. The Sunset Jazz Club
was non-smoking back in the early 90's when there were no smoking bans.
o I see, so your proof that all or even some of the businesses inside this zone
support and/or voted for this ban is because some club, which I've never even
heard of, 26 years ago self elected to be non-smoking, at a time when not
required? Therefore, this group of businesses banded together and begged for
additional regulations from the city that micromanage the public spaces around
them? Well, I personally know a few of the managers and small business owners
in this area and, like every other Fort Collins citizen, they were not given the
choice to vote on nor a choice to opt out of this ban. I will not speak for whether
or not they support this ban as it is not my place to be the mouthpiece for these
particular establishments, however, I would encourage you to seek facts from the
small business owners prior to making threats about boycotting those who had
nothing to do with the decision, support and enforcement of this particular new
rule. One step further: Find one business that is in favor of this and I'll join you in
skipping that storefront. For the rest, they are unfortunantely mere victims of
circumstance and location.
o I don't see any businesses stepping up against it either. If they are against it, they
should petition against it. At least then I might consider visiting one of those
establishments. As an alumni with 2 kids at CSU I still spend a lot of time in Ft.
Collins. As I originally stated, I personally will not be making an effort to frequent
Old Town after this passes. There are plenty of other great places in the city
which I would gladly spend my time at instead of Little Boulder(old town).
• This should be a lot of fun to watch with ALL THE IDIOT TRANSIENTS DOWN TOWN!!!!!!
Now we can change the name of Fort Collins t The People's Republic of Boulder, North
Branch!!!!
3.10
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Smoking Ban Online Feedback (Coloradoan and Collegian) (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Online Comments - Coloradoan and Collegian
Page 5
• Fort Colins is becoming the Republic of Boulder. Liberals get elected to city council and then
force their socialist rules on the community. Wake up Fort Collins voters.
• I like the idea of this law. I HATE cigarette smoke and I don't my family to walk through
clouds of it when we're in Old Town for dinner. However, I think this law goes a bit too far.
Let smoking take place in certain alleys behind buildings. Let the bar crowd smoke after 8pm
(they're going to anyway). Hell, if nothing else, enforce the 30 foot from doors rule.
• What happens if you don't pay the ticket? Do you go to jail? Could someone get a criminal
record and serve time for smoking a cigarette in an alley?
• As a smoker I've always been hyper sensitive to non-smokers. I'll stand in the middle of the
damn street in order to minimize my impact on other people. I completely agree that other
people shouldn't have to smell or breath my smoke...to a degree. I can only retreat so far into
the middle of the street before accidents start to occur. The most dangerous element in
second hand smoke, I think, is the carbon monoxide. By the logic of this city council I expect
to see all cars banned in old town, immediately. Lets compare total carbon monoxide output
of cars to that of smokers and see how little sense this makes. I wish I wasn't a smoker, but I
am. Most smokers feel this way. I'm sorry we don't fit in your picture perfect world view. But
here's the thing; legislation by prohibition has never worked, and will never work. You're
morons for thinking it will. I will continue to smoke in old town, as respectfully as I am able,
as will many others. Ticket me all you want. Pricks.
• Crazy, stupid law -- it's all about CONTROLLING the public. Time for a new City Council.
Remember this next election time. P.S. I do not smoke, but this law is objectionable in so
many ways.
Coloradoan - “Smoking in Old Town? Slim Chance of a Ticket” (Aug. 2, 2016)
• It is a stupid law. Nanny police on steroids.
Coloradoan - “Increased Enforcement of Smoking Ban Coming Soon” (Feb. 21, 2017)
• As someone who's had a child hospitalized by a sudden asthma attack, I won't miss the
cigarette smoke in Old Town.
• My husband and I walked a few blocks in the heart of Old Town recently and passed three
smokers in the supposed "smoke free zone." Good luck enforcing this.
o And they'll there tomorrow too. It's called being outside in a public place. When you
live in an urbanish environment, there are certain things you have to accept.
• Remember when you went into a Ftc resturant and were asked 'Smoking or non-smoking"?
Hopefully not. That was then. And we heard from everyone including Jake of Mulligan's that
it would drive the resturant trade out of business in Ftc. Yeah... When was the last time you
saw an empty resturant. Well now we have it in spades. The new director of the EPA wants
to back off on clean air and clean water requirements because "it will be too great of a
negative impact on the economy". At no time in the history of this country has the economy
been as strong. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. I think we can figure out
how to make this happen. Colorado has been leading that fight also and the attraction to this
state has never been stronger.
o Not sure of your exact point but Jay’s is desolate any more and a fabulous place - a
Cut Above recently closed down. Many more can cite their favorites that are "empty"
3.10
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Smoking Ban Online Feedback (Coloradoan and Collegian) (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Online Comments - Coloradoan and Collegian
Page 6
or closed. Of course, that has nothing to do with the premise of the article - the ban
on smoking.
o This is in no way comparable to opposing the clean air act. That's a really idiotic
comparison in my opinion. Smoking bans aren't going to drive bars out of business,
but they sure make life difficult for certain patrons. I can understand why
coopersmiths would want to have a smoke free establishment, but there are certain
places where the majority of customers smoke. Swing by the West End Pub
sometime. In the winter you'll see the entire bar file outside and huddle together in
the frigid cold just to burn a grit. It's ridiculous that places like the West End have to
suffer because of a group of people who never even go there. I support an individual
business owner's right to make decisions about their own establishment, but a
blanket ban is a bridge too far imho. By the way I wholeheartedly oppose any effort
to weaken the clean air act.
• This ordinance is outside the proper scope of government: public safety. Rather than
enforcing it more, we should end this overreaching ordinance. You can't force an individual
to make healthy decisions, but you can make people's lives miserable trying. Smoking
outdoors is an extremely minor source of pollution compared to other sources, and vaping is
even less hazardous. I find smoke as annoying as the next person, but we drew the right line
when we pushed it outside. –A non-smoker
• I view the issuance of warnings as a joke, these ordinances work about as well as no
skakeboards and bicycles on old town sidewalks. I know police won't issue a ticket, everyone
knows they won't. If I were police, I'd feel pretty silly asking those to put out their smokes, we
all know smokers get a pat on the back, just like the bicycles and skakeboards.
• Thank you! Smokers inconsiderate is only topped by bicyclists. Regretably manners are a
forgotten dream.
• I'll eat my hat if anyone gets a ticket downtown late night. Drinkers like to smoke and people
who fuss at smokers don't go out drinking.
• This is a waste of our taxpayer dollars.
Coloradoan – “Duggan: Smokers Ignore Downtown Smoke-Free Zone” (Jan. 20, 2017)
• Imagine that! People disobeying signs, kind of the same way criminals ignore signs that say
"Gun free zone" The difference however is I doubt smokers are intentionally targeting the
smoke free zone........ unlike criminals that intentionally target victim rich gun free zones.
• No Smoking Ordinances are like no bicycles & skakeboard Ordinances. To go a step further,
it's like stop sign Ordinances for bicycles.
✔ If it's not enforced! ✔ It's not a law!
Go ahead, continue city outreach/education efforts.
Those outreach & education efforts for smokers will work about as well as outreach &
education efforts work with drug addicts & homeless.
People Just Don't Care.
• Sure "people" care, LOL, that's why there is outreach and education. If they didn't care there
wouldn't be homeless shelters, the Murphy Center, and people wouldn't be trying to treat the
"drug addicts". So just to be the devil's advocate, who's educating the "drug addicts" that
frequent the plethora of downtown pushers of bacteria excreta? Does nobody care, or are
they just "acceptable drug addicts"?
3.10
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Smoking Ban Online Feedback (Coloradoan and Collegian) (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Online Comments - Coloradoan and Collegian
Page 7
o I don't think the drug addicts care.
o Drug addicts don't care smokers only care about repeals and get back to normal
again smoking indoors
• I don't think the signs are the problem, people are smart enough to know what the message
is. They just choose to ignore it. ESPECIALLY if everyone knows there is little enforcement.
• Here's an idea. How about using signs that say, "No smoking" or "Smoking prohibited",
followed by, "Violators may be ticketed and fined."
o They won't be ticketed or fined. There is No Enforcement! Just pep-talk.
o How about if it says "Violators will be shot"?
o Like those No Panhandling signs ? ;)
Ft Collins is more concerned about it's appearance than actually doing something.
Unless it's to eminent domain someone's property for what ever the cause de jour is.
• Rather than trying to make all Downtown Fort Collins a smoke free zone, how about making
designated smoking areas just like there are designated drinking areas. How about letting
establishments decide if they are going to be smoke free or not rather than craming an
ordinance up their kazoo? Alcohol and tobacco kind of go together in case y'all haven't
noticed and have since tobacco has been in use...
o Justvrepeal all the stupid bans shs is a joke
• Lmao you thought people would obey lmao I hope they make your smokefree utopia a
smoking hell for all of you nazis
• I guess the signs just don't go far enough. Put picatures of handcuffs on them and tell [name
omitted] to make room at the jail. I mean after all people can't make the decsion for
themselves whether they want to be unhealthy or not. We need government intervention.
Seriously, government has gone too far. I don't blame the smokers.
Coloradoan - “Letter: Smoke-Free Zones Help Reduce Asthma Symptoms” (March 16, 2017)
• "Smoke-free zones help reduce asthma symptoms"--- As would banning those that splash on
stinking toilet water from public places
• Is there data on second hand marijuana smoke on asthmatics? Is it similar to tobacco
smoke?
o Funny you bring this up [name omitted].
I've been wondering now for months why most cigarettes have filters, yet Joints do
not?
o Most of the combustion products are similar, no nicotine. And most people don't somke as
many joints as cigarettes. Still not good. I think vaping isn't as bad since it's below
combustion temp.
Collegian – "New Ordinance Bans Smoking and E-Cig Use in Old Town” (Feb. 4, 2015)
• They do realize it's water vapor....right?
Collegian – "Voters Should Decide Downtown Smoking Ban” (Feb. 9, 2015)
3.10
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Smoking Ban Online Feedback (Coloradoan and Collegian) (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Online Comments - Coloradoan and Collegian
Page 8
• Reject this smoking ban. There is no health risk from passive smoke outdoors (actually there
is none in well ventilated indoors spaces either). This is about social control not health.
Collegian – "Opinion: City Council Ignored Better Smoking Ban Options” (Feb. 16, 2015)
• Quote: [The council, apart from lone objector Mayor Karen Weitkunat, decided that roughly
one-fifth of the local population is unfit for public image.] This is part of the new campaign
against smokers (not Big Tobacco, but rather it's customers). I recently saw the new
television ad that showed a bunch of young people summarily dismissing anyone who
smokes as a person they want to date (the Left Swipe commercial). The message that this is
putting forth is that someone who smokes (a legal activity) is less of a person and not worth
your consideration. If this were any group of people other than smokers, the American public
would be outraged by the discrimination of a minority. This is government sponsored
discrimination, and it's mostly those who care about discrimination issues that are promoting
this social engineering campaign. When did consideration and tolerance stop being a liberal
ideal? My guess is it happened when the "health as a religion" crowd of the "me" generation
started writing the liberal agendas.
• The smoking ban should be repealed for all the reasons suggested in this article and more.
There is no evidence that second hand smoke outdoors poses a health risk. Beyond that
there is essentially no evidence, or weak evidence at best, that it does indoors either. This is
not about health; it's about social control. The ban should be repealed.
Collegian –“Phase 1 of Smoking, Vaping Ban Takes Effect Sept 1” (September 1, 2015)
• Repeal draconian smoking bans! Restricting smoking outdoors is extreme overreach.
Restricting smoking (cigarettes, hookah, and cigars) indoors is also unnecessary. The heath
effects from second hand smoke--indoors and out are near-zero. The antismoking hysteria is
manufactured by a small group of extremists that have stimulated a "bandwagon" mentality.
It's time to reassert freedom.
o Also, I wonder is this ban really aimed at smokers or is it a veiled attempt to
harass the homeless since the loitering efforts are clearly unconstitutional and
won't stand up to challenges in the courts.
Collegian –“Regulation Without Representation: Tobacco and E-Cigarette Stores Frustrated with
Smoking Ban” (Oct. 7, 2015)
• Banning the cure for smoking is retarded. Cigarettes were PROVEN killers before all the
restrictions came down. And cigarettes aren't flavored, still aren't child resistant, and are still
everywhere. Every smoker scared from switching due to this deliberate, financially motivated
misinformation campaign, should be suing these folks with a vengeance for ruining their
health by so limiting their adult choices.
Tobacco Control should be after tobacco, not nicotine. Thanks.
o It's about encouraging people to be sick and give money to the healthcare and drug
industry. You are to be sick and receiving treatment, that's why they make sure
cigarettes are still sold at eye level behind the register of EVERYWHERE YOU
SHOP on a daily basis, despite being lethal.
3.10
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Smoking Ban Online Feedback (Coloradoan and Collegian) (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Online Comments - Coloradoan and Collegian
Page 9
Yup, and we are constantly bombarded by those Big Pusher commercials
telling us there MUST be something wrong with us, if not physically, mentally,
encouraging everyone to think there's something wrong with them that only
the Big Pusher Man can cure.
Government sanctioned drug dealers is what I consider them.
• And anything that cannot be patented, such as natural plants, will
never be 'officially' found to be effective in curing any disease, much
like vaporizers will never be 'officially' sanctioned as an effective
method of quitting.Any accounts of success or efficacy will remain
'anecdotal' and 'unproven' if drug companies do not stand to profit
from them. That's why industry made gums, patches, inhalers,
lozenges, and medications are the only 'recommended' methods of
quitting, and vaporizers are 'dangerous' or 'unproven', even though
Chantix has horrible side effects and has contributed to 600 plus
deaths, and vaporizers have essentially no side effects and have
killed no one. Also why chemo and radiation are still the only
'recommended' cancer treatments, despite being carcinogenic
themselves, and cancer treatments are the only technology that has
not advanced in the last 80 years. Cures already exist, but they're
nutritionally based, and everyone that has ever found one has been
demonized as a quack and exiled to Mexico, like Caisse, Hoxsey,
Edward Griffin, or Gerson, whos treatments (foods / diets) continue to
cure cancer but are unheard of, unresearched, and vilified, like
vaporizers, or anything else that effectively cures profitable illnesses.
They use fear and uncertainty to sell their poisons, and call anything
that threatens their bottom line into question. They control the
medical schools, the regulatory bodies, the studies, the data, and the
researchers. In fact, researchers don't even have access to their own
data. If the drug companies don't like the results, they don't release
them.They rationalize such atrocities not only by the profits they
make, but with the rationale that they create jobs, maintain the
economy, and keep the population from reaching unsustainable
levels, to justify their actions which lead to preventable deaths of
millions of men, women, and children.
• Yup, if they can't horn in, they don't want it existing
• Reject smoking bans and the "tyranny of the majority."
• Fortunately, the city will still be administering fluoridated water to its residents. You might get
cancer, but your teeth will be less likely to have cavities. Maybe. Actually if you don't brush
you will still get cavities. Really, you're just going to get cancer. But at least you won't have to
worry about unknown hypothetical toxins in vape emissions.
• I used to spend $3000 a year on cigarettes. Now I mix e liquid at home for $45 a year. That
is a 98.6% declne in cost, almost 2 orders of magnitude. This is why governments hate
vaping.
• E-cigarettes were originally sold almost exclusively online and were not covered by existing
tobacco regulations. At first, their popularity grew slowly, as small numbers of smokers
turned to them to replace or supplement their tobacco smoking habit.
3.10
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Smoking Ban Online Feedback (Coloradoan and Collegian) (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Online Comments - Coloradoan and Collegian
Page 10
Collegian – "Opinion: Fort Collins Smoking Policy Too Broad, Needs to be Changed” (Oct. 13, 2015)
• Fairly reasonable, especially given cigarettes were PROVEN killers BEFORE all the bans
came down. No such thing is proven about vaping, but virtually every vaper, me included,
would absolutely otherwise be smoking.
3.10
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Smoking Ban Online Feedback (Coloradoan and Collegian) (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
ATTACHMENT 11
Reddit Comments on Downtown
Smoking Enforcement
https://www.reddit.com/r/FortCollins/comments/5xgxy4/psa_strict_code_enforcement_of_the_downto
wnarea/#bottom-comments
Original post (March 2017): “PSA: Strict Code Enforcement of the Downtown-area Smoking Ban Started
This Week.
“The no-smoking signs have been posted all over downtown for months, and police officers
have been taking an educational approach to the smoking ban (warnings only), up until this week. City
council has directed that police and code compliance officers are now to cite whenever appropriate.
Several employees of businesses downtown have been cited while on their smoke break. Regardless of
your personal feelings about the ban, just know that smoking anywhere downtown will likely get ou a
ticket if an officer spots you.”
Comments:
• “And a map: http://www.fcgov.com/smokefree/smoking-images/smoke-free-map.jpg”
• “FYI my co-worker just got a $100 ticket and has a mandatory court appearance for this. Be
careful!”
• “I work at coopersmith’s and on all of my breaks last night I saw at least one person getting
ticketed. They’re really not f***ing around with it.”
• “This law is a real kick in the teeth to conscientious smokers. Saw one warned by a cop last week
for smoking an empty parking lot, at 7am, against a wall with no windows. Not sure exactly who
he was hurting.”
• “Regardless of what I think of the smoking ban, I think this is a waste of police resources.
Couldn’t their time be better served elsewhere? And the court summons? Why not just write a
ticket with a fine on the spot?”
o “Cops in this town aren’t trained to do much more than this.”
o “Good. The signs are everywhere but people are ignorant and don’t even have a
modicum of decency or the common sense not to smoke when the sidewalks are
crowded.”
• “Compared to the handful of places you can’t smoke there are infinitely more places where you
can still smoke. I see this as a case of smokers being less accommodating.”
• “This s***’s gotta be overturned. Old town is mostly bars and restaurants, and I don’t know a
single bar tender, or cook that doesn’t smoke.
o “I’m a bartender and I don’t smoke. But I’m the only person at my bar that doesn’t.”
o “I get wanting to make it safe for kids with the second hand smoke and stuff, but I don’t
think any kids are in old tow at 2am”
3.11
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Smoking Ban Online Feedback (Reddit Comments) (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Reddit Comments Continued
Page 2
• “So where are you allowed to smoke then? Can you smoke on a patio or whatever owned by a
bar?”
o “You can’t smoke downtown anywhere.”
“Well that’s stupid. I’m guessing you can’t use a vape either?”
• “Unfortunately yes, the uneducated people making the laws consider
vaping to be smoking. Awareness needs to be raised about this.”
• “You can always move to Wyoming”
o “And you can always move to Boulder.”
• “Non smoker here, but I find this law to go against everything the country was founder for.
Freedom shouldn’t be defined by what people think is gross. This law won’t last.”
o “I imagine it’s less that ‘people think it’s gross’ than it is that second hand smoke is a
carcinogen, and most people tend, as best they can, to try and avoid things that will give
them cancer. It’s that whole ‘your freedom ends where my freedom begins’ thing that
this country was founded on.”
“An interesting take but I sincerely doubt this is the reasoning behind the ban.
Its about the beautification of old town. We are becoming a destination and old
town needs to look like it does in Disneyland, clean, healthy and homeless free.
Its an advertisement for the new progressive front range. While I am for light
and reasonably restrictions on smoking, like away children, large groups or
people eating, the ban is just bulls***. If we want to actually curb smoking we
should have passed the new tax on cigs…”
• “What’s so wrong from banning people from smoking in a high
pedestrian area? It’s very easy to walk for 2 minutes and find a place to
smoke that isn’t banned. It’s your right to smoke; it is, however, not
your right to do it everywhere or anywhere. You can’t drive a car on the
sidewalk or drink downtown with an open container, what’s the
difference?”
o “Looks like most people who visit/ work in the downtown area
would have to walk more than 2 minutes to find a smoke free
zone.”
“If it’s that inconvenient then I’d quit or go to places
that have no smoking restriction, like downtown
Greeley.”
• “Ah yes. The old, “if you don’t like it, leave it”
response. I don’t even smoke and I think this is
an inconvenience to the thousands of Fort
Collins citizens who do. I really don’t get the
complaint for smoking outdoors and it seems
like this is just another BS effort to “beautify”
FOCO… Just like the sit-lie rule. I guess the
homeless should move to Greeley too, huh?”
3.11
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Smoking Ban Online Feedback (Reddit Comments) (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Reddit Comments Continued
Page 3
“I agree with you to a degree, but this also includes
alleys and other low traffic areas. It’s not just the main
sidewalks and the like.”
“Because its actually just ticketing poor and homeless
people. But I guess they aren’t people so f**em.”
• “It’s definitely not just homeless or poor
people… walking by places like Tony’s or Hodi’s
and you’d have a bunch pf college kids blowing
smoke as you walk by. In fact, I can’t recall ever
having problems with the homeless people
causing problems with smoke… other things,
certainly, but not smoke. We stopped taking
our son to old town after about 6 because it
was becoming such a disgusting scene.”
o “I especially hate those kids who vape
and think they are so cook for blowing a
cloud of smoke.”
“I agree with you on both of those fronts also – the
appearance and the tax. The health issue will just be
what gets the ban to stick.”
o “So is car exhaust, people don’t make laws requiring cars to stay
15 feet from walkways”
o “It’s definitely not that. And I’ll take all the second hand smoke
in the world to mask the smell of Greeley.”
“Smoking is not a freedom. The ability to choose to smoke is. That is your
personal choice, but you don’t have the right to expose people to cigarette
smoke if they do not want to be exposed to it. Smoking is a privilege. Just like
alcohol and just like recreational marijuana. I’m not suggesting banning smoking
in public all together, but a balance needs to be in place.”
“This country was foundered on the freedom to smoke downtown and pee on
the sidewalk in the middle of everyone!”
“For me, it’s not just gross, it’s a health hazard. I can hardly go downtown
because cigarette smoke triggers my asthma, if I am downtown it’s only during
the day. I can’t be there at night. When I’m on campus I have to always be on
the look out to avoid smokers. It sucks. It really does.”
“I wish cancer was only “gross”. This is not just a nuisance it’s a potential health
issue.”
o “’City council has directed that police and code officers are now to cite whenever
appropriate” So police will be citing the following people: punk kids, poor service
industry workers, and last but always least: homeless people. Good job Fort Collins,
MFCGA! Right?”
3.11
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Smoking Ban Online Feedback (Reddit Comments) (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Reddit Comments Continued
Page 4
I’ve seen all kinds of people smoking. Usually it’s older men and women and
tourists who are the biggest offenders.”
“There are signs stating that downtown Fort Collins is a smoke free zone.
Ultimately, it is the traveler’s duty to be aware of local ordinances, not the city’s
duty to inform all tourists.”
• “There’s at least one every block at eye level”
“I didn’t even think about that, how this could possibly affect tourism, summer
festivals, etc… Also, how many places around the country have bans like this? To
me it’s not very common (and I could be wrong), so it’s something people who
don’t live here would not be aware of by a few small signs posted around old
town.”
• “Boulder, I believe has a ban, at least on pearl st for sure.”
o “and you still see idiots lighting up.”
• “They’ve jumped the Shark. This is not cool. I hate smoking. But at the same time, people ought
to be able to do as they wish where they wish if they are not affecting anybody else. Liberty
doesn’t come in degrees.”
• “What I can’t stand about this incredible infringement of citizen’s rights to smoke is that it was
voted on by the council and not the community. I hope it gets overturned.”
o “I can’t go to old town at night because cigarette smoke triggers my asthma. What
about my right to health? I didn’t chose to be allergic to cigarette smoke.”
“So smoking in public should be banned across the board then?”
• “I never said smoking should be banned across the board. If someone
wants to smoke that is their personal choice. I would say smoking is
more of a privilege than a right though.”
o “I’m not even a smoker, but I rarely see people smoking in old
town as it is, and a lot of the people working in old town would
usually be off the main side walks/ trafficked areas. I’m sorry I
disagree, but I think the local government has really
overstepped with this, and at a minimum this should have been
voted on by the community and not the council. It’s a simple
revenue generator, and a way to criminalize the homeless,
which they’ve been trying to figure out how to do more and
more.”
o “You can enjoy Old Town without smoking but (name) can’t
enjoy Old Town with smoke. And to that it’s an irritant, smells
bad, it’s messy and a fire and public health hazard. There aren’t
many reasons to support smoking in this public area, were a
large and increasing number of people gather, except those
smokers who don’t seem to have control over their addiction.”
o “Community elected that council”
3.11
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Smoking Ban Online Feedback (Reddit Comments) (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Reddit Comments Continued
Page 5
o “I’m asthmatic too. I vote with my pocketbook and patronize smoke free businesses. I
don’t need the government to protect me from every little thing.”
“If it’s illegal for me to punch someone in the face for blowing smoke in my face
then it should be illegal for that person to blow smoke in my face. Note: I am a
pretty big wimp and likely won’t punch anyone in the face.”
• “Bout time, I see all these tourists smoking and walking around the sidewalks like they own the
place.”
3.11
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Smoking Ban Online Feedback (Reddit Comments) (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
III³I
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWÕZYXW
Oak St
Plaza Park
Library Park
Old Fort
Collins
Heritage Park
Old Fort
Collins
Heritage Park
E Oak St
Cherry St
Mathews St
W Oak St
Walnut St
Peterson St
Chestnut St
Linden St
W Olive St
Maple St
Willow St
281 Office
Building
Civic Center
Parking
Structure
Old Town
Parking
Structure
DTC
Hotel Parking
Garage
Oak St/Remington
St Parking Lot
Laporte Ave
S Mason St
S College Ave
Remington St
N Mason St
N College Ave
E Mountain Ave
W Mounta
i
nAve
Jefferson St
/
Date Created: Thursday, August 10, 2017
Path K:\ArcMapProjects\Neighborhood_Services\Downtown Smoke-Free Areas\SmokingRegulations\SmokingRegulations.aprx
Potential Designated Smoking Zones
Potential Smoking Area
Current Downtown Smoke-Free Zone
Downtown Sidewalk/Median
Patio
City-Owned Property
$77$&+0(17
3.12
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Possible Designated Smoking Areas (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
IIII³I
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWÕZYXW
Oak St
Plaza Park
Library Park
Old Fort
Collins
Heritage Park
Old Fort
Collins
Heritage Park
E Oak St
Cherry St
Mathews St
W Oak St
Walnut St
Peterson St
Chestnut St
Linden St
W Olive St
Maple St
Willow St
281 Office
Building
Civic Center
Parking
Structure
Old Town
Parking
Structure
DTC
Hotel Parking
Garage
Oak St/Remington
St Parking Lot
Laporte Ave
S Mason St
S College Ave
Remington St
N Mason St
N College Ave
E Mountain Ave
W Mounta
i
nAve
Jefferson St
/ Smoking Regulation Update
20-Foot Door/Window Zone
Dismount Zone
City-Owned Property
Downtown Sidewalk/Median
Patio
Door
Window (Operable)
Date Created: Thursday, August 10, 2017
Path K:\ArcMapProjects\Neighborhood_Services\Downtown Smoke-Free Areas\SmokingRegulations\SmokingRegulations.aprx
$77$&+0(17 3.13
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Possible Reduced Downtown Smoke Free Zone (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
IIII³I
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWÕZYXW
Oak St
Plaza Park
Library Park
Old Fort
Collins
Heritage Park
Old Fort
Collins
Heritage Park
E Oak St
Cherry St
Mathews St
W Oak St
Walnut St
Peterson St
Chestnut St
Linden St
W Olive St
Maple St
Willow St
281 Office
Building
Civic Center
Parking
Structure
Old Town
Parking
Structure
DTC
Hotel Parking
Garage
Oak St/Remington
St Parking Lot
Laporte Ave
S Mason St
S College Ave
Remington St
N Mason St
N College Ave
E Mountain Ave
W Mounta
i
nAve
Jefferson St
/ Smoking Regulation Update
20-Foot Door/Window Zone
Current Downtown Smoke-Free Zone
City-Owned Property
Downtown Sidewalk/Median
Patio
Door
Window (Operable)
Date Created: Thursday, August 10, 2017
Path K:\ArcMapProjects\Neighborhood_Services\Downtown Smoke-Free Areas\SmokingRegulations\SmokingRegulations.aprx
$77$&+0(17 3.14
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: No Downtown Smoke Free Zone - 20-foot Rule Only (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
August 22, 2017
Smoking Ordinance Update
Delynn Coldiron, Interim City Clerk and Jeremy Yonce, Police Lieutenant
ATTACHMENT 15
3.15
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Questions for Council
• Does Council want to continue the smoking restriction for City-owned
or operated public property?
• Does Council want to see any changes to the Downtown Smoke-
Free Zone?
• Does Council desire to make any additional changes to the existing
smoking regulations?
2
3.15
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Parks, Trails, and Natural Areas
82% 80%
80%
81%
75%
85%
74%
3
3.15
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
City Facilities and Grounds
62% - Employee Survey
61% - General Survey #2 4
3.15
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Special Events and Downtown
5
3.15
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Exception Granted
6
Pictures – from yelp.com
3.15
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
First Year
7
3.15
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
First Year
8
3.15
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Enforcement
9
3.15
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Concerns We Are Hearing
• Downtown Smoke-Free Zone is too big
• Designated smoking areas are needed
• No way to educate everyone – especially visitors
• Restrictions create a competitive disadvantage for Old Town compared to
other Fort Collins’ shopping areas
• Penalty should not be criminal
• Enforcement has damaged relationships with Police
10
3.15
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Options to Consider
• No Changes
• Add designated smoking areas to current Downtown Smoke Free Zone
• Reduce area of Downtown Smoke Free Zone
• Repeal restrictions and move back to the 20’ rule
• Combination of items
11
3.15
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
12
Potential
Designated
Smoking Zones
3.15
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
13
Potential Reduced
Downtown
Smoke-Free Zone
3.15
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
14
No Downtown
Smoke-Free Zone
20’ Rule Only
3.15
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Additional Items to Consider
• Lifting smoking restrictions in the Downtown Smoke-Free Zone
• 10:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m.
• 20’ rule would apply
• Allows Police to focus on other policing issues
• Changing penalty to Lesser Offense
• Eliminating provisions for imprisonment
• Initial violations – reduced fine and possible deferred judgment
• Pursuing a petty offense category
15
3.15
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Questions for Council
• Does Council want to continue the smoking restriction for City-owned or
operated public property?
• Yes
• Does Council want to see any changes to the Downtown Smoke-Free Zone?
• Keep existing boundaries as they currently exist
• Add Designated Smoking areas to Downtown
• Lift smoking ban in the Downtown Smoke-Free Zone from 10 p.m. to 5:00 a.m.
• Does Council desire to make any additional changes to the existing smoking
regulations?
• Eliminate provisions for imprisonment
• Pursue a petty offense category
Staff Recommendations 16
3.15
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
ban. We have a number of chain smoking teenagers that stand on the
sidewalk and lay in the grass smoking. If it is prohibited how do I
address the situation?
3.8
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: FC Access Cases (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
09/08/2015
With the recent implementation of a smoking ban in City parks and
natural areas, I still observe numerous individuals smoking in Jefferson
Park and do not see the new no smoking signage posted. Does this
park fall under the same regulations as others in the City?
3.8
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: FC Access Cases (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
02/22/2016
On the evening of February 20th my wife and I were walking around
Old Town and I noticed many violations of the non-smoking bylaw.
Since it is a new law I took it upon myself to mention this to 4 separate
smokers in just a few blocks around Old Town Square as I feel
educating people is important, two of whom seemed to know the rule
3.8
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: FC Access Cases (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
I was VERY pleased to read, BEFORE I came to town that the
downtown area was smoke free. I also checked that animals other
than service animals were not allowed on the buses. I have
respiratory issues and these are major issues to me.
3.8
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: FC Access Cases (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
these groups of people are ALL smoking. It is quite dismaying and
does alter our experience downtown. How are they allowed to
blatantly get away with breaking this law? It is becoming more and
more of a problem and I realize there is no easy answer, but I feel like
if I were caught smoking downtown, I would probably receive a
summons. Thanks for listening!
34763
07/13/2016
Smoking at Edora Park playground.
3.8
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: FC Access Cases (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
)&6PRNLQJ6XUYH\ 3')
,VVXH%ULHI6PRNH)UHH=RQHV 3')
'RZQWRZQ3DWURQV6XUYH\ 3')
%XVLQHVV6PRNLQJ2UGLQDQFH6XUYH\ 3')
'RZQWRZQ'LVPRXQW=RQH 3')
3RWHQWLDO6PRNH)UHH$UHDV 3')
*ROI%RDUGOHWWHU 3')
3DUN8VHUV6XUYH\ 3')
/LVWRI0XQLFLSDOLWLHVZLWK6PRNHIUHH3DUNV/DZV 3')
6PRNHIUHH3XEOLF(YHQWVVXUYH\V 3')
3XEOLF(QJDJHPHQW3ODQ 3')
0DS6PRNH)UHH$UHDV 3')
2FWREHU&RXQFLO8SGDWH 3')
$SULO:RUN6HVVLRQ6XPPDU\ 3')
3RZHUSRLQWSUHVHQWDWLRQ 3')
3.1
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: February 3 2015 AIS and November 25, 2014 AIS (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
$WWDFKPHQW
7KUHHRIWKHIRXUHYHQWVVXUYH\HGVKRZHG
PDMRULW\VXSSRUWIRUVPRNHIUHHHYHQWV
$GGLWLRQDOO\VWDIIPHWZLWKHYHQWSURPRWHUVWKDWKRVWVRPHRIWKHODUJHUSXEOLFHYHQWV 1HZ:HVW)HVW7DVWHRI
)RUW&ROOLQV DQG7RXUGH)DW
WR GLVFXVV WKHLU QHHGV FRQFHUQVDQGTXHVWLRQVUHJDUGLQJSRWHQWLDOVPRNHIUHH
SXEOLFHYHQWV6RPHRIWKHLUFRQFHUQVLQFOXGH
x 3DWURQVZRXOGKDYHWRH[LWWKHHYHQWDUHDXQOHVVWKHUHZDVDGHVLJQDWHGVPRNLQJDUHDZLWKLQWKHHYHQW
x 3RVVLEOHORVVRISDWURQVLIWKH\FDQ¶WVPRNHDWWKHHYHQW
x (QIRUFHPHQW SXEOLFUHODWLRQV
x 3RWHQWLDOLVVXHVZLWKWKHFUHZVDQGWDOHQW VHWXSDQGWHDUGRZQ
.
,IQRQVPRNLQJHYHQWVZHUHUHTXLUHGWKHHYHQWRUJDQL]HUVDJUHHGWKDWLWZRXOGEHKHOSIXOIRUWKHPWRSURPRWHDQG
UHJXODWHLI
x 7KHUHZDVVLJQDJHLQWKHSDUNLQGLFDWLQJQRVPRNLQJ
x ,QIRUPDWLRQZDVSURYLGHGE\WKH&LW\WKDWWKH\FRXOGJLYHWRWKHLUSDWURQVSRVWRQWKHLUZHEVLWHDQGVRFLDO
PHGLD
x 7KH\FRXOGVKRZWKDWLWLVD&LW\UHTXLUHPHQW QRWWKHHYHQWRUJDQL]HUUHTXLUHPHQW
x 'HVLJQDWHGVPRNLQJDUHDVZHUHDOORZHGVRWKHVPRNHUVKDGDUHDVRQDEOHSODFHWRJR.
$IWHUUHYLHZVXUYH\UHVXOWVLQSXWIURPHYHQWSURPRWHUVDQGOHDUQLQJIURPRWKHUFRPPXQLWLHVVWDIIKDVGHYHORSHG
VRPHSRWHQWLDORSWLRQVIRU&RXQFLOGLVFXVVLRQ
Option A ,PSRVHDFRPSOHWHVPRNLQJEDQIRUDOOFLW\DSSURYHGSXEOLFHYHQWV WKHVHDUHHYHQWVWKDWJRWKURXJK
WKHSXEOLFHYHQWSHUPLWSURFHVV
Option B ,PSRVH D FRPSOHWH VPRNLQJ EDQ IRU DOO FLW\DSSURYHG SXEOLF HYHQWV ZLWK WKH RSWLRQ IRU WKH HYHQW
RUJDQL]HUWRSURYLGHDGHVLJQDWHGVPRNLQJDUHDZLWKLQWKHHYHQWIRRWSULQW,IWKH\FKRRVHWRSURYLGHDGHVLJQDWHG
VPRNLQJDUHDWKH\ZRXOGEHUHTXLUHGWRPRQLWRULWDQGHQVXUHWKDWWKHUHPDLQLQJSRUWLRQRIWKHHYHQWLVVPRNH
IUHH
(QIRUFHPHQWIRUHYHQWVZRXOGEHGRQHE\WKHHYHQWSURPRWHUZLWKLQFHQWLYHVSURYLGHGIRUFRPSOLDQFH
Other Considerations
8QGHU WKH FXUUHQW RUGLQDQFH VWDII KDV IRXQG VRPH SUREOHP DUHDV LQ WKH GRZQWRZQ DUHD 2QH LVVXH LV WKH
VLGHZDONDUHDVWKDWDUHFRQJHVWHGEHFDXVHPXFKRIWKHULJKWRIZD\LVEHLQJXVHGE\SDWLRVOHDYLQJDUHODWLYHO\
VPDOOVSDFHIRUSHGHVWULDQWUDIILF7KHUHDOVRDSSHDUVWREHDQHHGWRSXWVRPHDVKXUQVLQVWUDWHJLFORFDWLRQV
ZKHUHVPRNLQJLVDOORZHGEXWDZD\IURPSHGHVWULDQVDVPXFKDVSRVVLEOH)RUWKHVHUHDVRQVVWDIILVZRUNLQJRQ
WKHIROORZLQJSRVVLEOHRSWLRQVWRLQFUHDVHYROXQWDU\FRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKHFXUUHQWVPRNLQJRUGLQDQFH
x (QJLQHHULQJDQG&RGH&RPSOLDQFHKDYHPHWZLWKVRPHEDURZQHUVWRGLVFXVVWKHLUSDWLRVSDFHDQGZD\VWR
JDLQFRPSOLDQFHDQGUHPRYHVRPHRIWKHFRQJHVWLRQLQIURQWRIWKHLUEXVLQHVVHV&XUUHQWO\VWDIILVZRUNLQJ
RQGHVLJQDWLQJDSDUNLQJVSDFHQHDUWKH7UDLOKHDG6WHDNRXWUHVWDXUDQWDQGDVELNHSDUNLQJ2QFHGHVLJQDWHG
DGG D VHFRQG ELNH UDFN DQG VLJQDJH WR SUHYHQW F\FOLVWV IURP ORFNLQJ WKHLU ELNHV WR WKH WUHHV DORQJ WKH
VLGHZDON,QVWDOODWREDFFRDVKXUQRQWKHFRUQHUWREHWWHUGLUHFWVPRNHUVZKHUHWRJR
3.1
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: February 3 2015 AIS and November 25, 2014 AIS (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
2QHRIWKHVXUYH\TXHVWLRQVDVNHG +RZVWURQJO\ZRXOG\RXVXSSRUWQHZUHJXODWLRQVSURKLELWLQJVPRNLQJLQWKH
IROORZLQJRXWGRRUDUHDV SHUFHQWUHVSRQGLQJVRPHZKDWRUVWURQJO\VXSSRUW
"
x 3OD\JURXQGV
x %OHDFKHUV6SRUWLQJ(YHQW6HDWLQJ
x 3DUN6KHOWHUV
x $WKOHWLF)LHOGV&RXUW
x 7UDLOV
x 6NDWH3DUNV
x 'RJ3DUNV
x 3DUNV3DUNLQJ/RWV
x *ROI&RXUVHV
6WDIIFRQGXFWHGDWDUJHWHGVXUYH\WRSDUNVXVHUVZKRUHVHUYHGDVKHOWHUWKLV\HDUDQGVWURQJO\RUVRPHZKDW
VXSSRUWQHZUHJXODWLRQVFUHDWLQJVPRNHIUHHFLW\SDUNV Attachment 10
.
$VRI2FWREHUWKHUHDUHDSSUR[LPDWHO\ PXQLFLSDOLWLHVWKDWKDYHSROLFLHVWKDWUHTXLUHFLW\SDUNVWREH
VPRNHIUHHLQFOXGLQJ&RORUDGRFRPPXQLWLHV Attachment 11
.
$IWHUUHYLHZLQJVXUYH\UHVXOWVDQGOHDUQLQJIURPRWKHUFRPPXQLWLHVVWDIIUHFRPPHQGVDFRPSOHWHVPRNLQJEDQ
IRUDOOFLW\SDUNVWUDLOVDQG1DWXUDO$UHDVZLWKWKHH[FHSWLRQRIJROIFRXUVHV
(QIRUFHPHQWZRXOGEHFRQGXFWHGSULPDULO\E\WKH3DUN5DQJHUVZLWKWKHSULPDU\WRROIRUFRPSOLDQFHH[SHFWHGWR
EHYROXQWDU\
City-owned Public Property Including Recreational and Cultural Facilities
6LQFH&RXQFLOLVGLVFXVVLQJZKHWKHUSDUNVVKRXOGEHVPRNHIUHHVWDIIWKRXJKWLWZDVLPSRUWDQWWRDOVRGLVFXVV
&LW\ IDFLOLWLHV HVSHFLDOO\ UHFUHDWLRQ IDFLOLWLHV 7KLV GLVFXVVLRQLVUHODWLYHO\QHZDQGKDVQRWEHHQGLVFXVVHGDW
SUHYLRXV &RXQFLO ZRUN VHVVLRQV KRZHYHU ZDV LQFOXGHG LQ D VWDIIXSGDWHUHSRUW Attachment 15
%DVHG RQ
FRPPXQLW\IHHGEDFNUHJDUGLQJSDUNVDVZHOODVIHHGEDFNUHFHLYHGDWUHFUHDWLRQDOIDFLOLWLHVVWDIIUHFRPPHQGVD
FRPSOHWHVPRNLQJEDQ IRU FLW\RZQHGSXEOLF IDFLOLWLHV, LQFOXGLQJ UHFUHDWLRQDODQGFXOWXUDO IDFLOLWLHV DQG JURXQGV
HJ, (3,& 1RUWKVLGH 6HQLRU &HQWHU &LW\ +DOO /LQFROQ &HQWHU 0XVHXP RI 'LVFRYHU\ HWF
$Q RSWLRQ IRU
&RXQFLOWRFRQVLGHULVWRSKDVHWKLVLQE\VWDUWLQJZLWKUHFUHDWLRQDOIDFLOLWLHVWKHQDGGLQJFXOWXUDODQGDOOFLW\RZQHG
IDFLOLWLHVODWHU
(QIRUFHPHQWZRXOGEHFRQGXFWHGE\VWDIIZLWKWKHSULPDU\WRROIRUFRPSOLDQFHH[SHFWHGWREHYROXQWDU\
3.1
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: February 3 2015 AIS and November 25, 2014 AIS (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
HYHQGXULQJWKHKRXUVRISPDQGDP
Option C &RQWLQXH ZLWK WKH FXUUHQW UHVWULFWLRQV DQG DGG VWURQJHU HGXFDWLRQDO RXWUHDFK DQG LQFUHDVHG
HQIRUFHPHQWLQSUREOHPDUHDV
Option D&KDQJHFXUUHQWRUGLQDQFHWRDOORZVPRNLQJZLWKLQSDWLRVORFDWHGDZD\IURPSXEOLFVLGHZDONV)RU
H[DPSOHWKRVHQRWRQPDLQSHGHVWULDQZDONZD\VLQDEDFNDOOH\HOHYDWHGDZD\IURPSHGHVWULDQDUHDVDQGIRU
WKRVHHVWDEOLVKPHQWVWKDWSURYLGHDQRQVPRNLQJSDWLRDVZHOO7KLVZDVUHFRPPHQGHGE\VRPHEDURZQHUVDV
DZD\WRDOORZWKHPWRKDYHVPRNLQJFXVWRPHUVWKDWGRQRWKDYHWRFRQJUHJDWHDURXQGWKHIURQWRIWKHLUEXVLQHVV
DQGSRWHQWLDOO\EHDQXLVDQFHWRSHGHVWULDQVXVLQJWKHVLGHZDON,WDOVRKHOSVUHVROYHWKHVDIHW\FRQFHUQWKH\
H[SUHVVHGZLWKSHRSOHOHDYLQJWKHLUGULQNVXQDWWHQGHGZKLOHWKH\JRRXWWRVPRNH6WLOOUHTXLUHVPRNLQJRQWKHVH
SDWLRVWREHDWOHDVWIHHWIURPWKHGRRUVHQWUDQFHVLQWRWKHEXLOGLQJ6HH$WWDFKPHQWZLWKEXVLQHVV
RZQHUVVLJQLQJOHWWHUVUHFRPPHQGLQJWKHFKDQJHDQGRYHUVLJQDWXUHVRIVXSSRUW
Old Town/Downtown Geographic Area Options
,I &RXQFLO FKRRVHV WR IXUWKHU H[SDQG WKH VPRNLQJ RUGLQDQFH LQ WKH 2OG 7RZQ RU 'RZQWRZQ DUHD WKH\ PD\
FRQVLGHUWKHIROORZLQJRSWLRQV
Option A2OG7RZQ6TXDUHRQO\ SLQNDUHDRQPDS
6HHAttachment 8
Option B -2OG7RZQ6TXDUHSOXVDVOLJKWO\H[SDQGHGDUHD EOXHDUHDRQPDS
Option C $ ODUJHUGRZQWRZQIRRWSULQW7KLVODUJHUDUHDFRXOGEHWKHVDPHDVWKH³GLVPRXQW]RQH´RUVRPH
RWKHUDUHDGHWHUPLQHGE\&RXQFLO
&RXQFLOPD\FKRRVHRQHRIWKHVHRSWLRQVRUWRLPSOHPHQWDSKDVLQJLQRIWKHDUHDV
(QIRUFHPHQW LQ WKH 2OG 7RZQ'RZQWRZQ DUHDZRXOGEHFRQGXFWHGE\ 3ROLFH 6HUYLFHV DQG &RGH &RPSOLDQFH
ZRXOG FRQWLQXH WR FRQGXFW HQIRUFHPHQW ZLWK WKH EXVLQHVVHV (QIRUFHPHQW LQ WKH GRZQWRZQ DUHD KDV EHHQ
FKDOOHQJLQJ7KHUHDUHDODUJHUQXPEHURISHRSOHLQWKHGRZQWRZQDUHDODWHUDWQLJKWZLWKVHYHUDORWKHUVDIHW\
LVVXHVWKDW3ROLFHPXVWZDWFKIRUZKLFKFDQSXWVPRNLQJDVDORZSULRULW\9ROXQWDU\FRPSOLDQFHLVWKHSULPDU\
WRROUHFRPPHQGHGIRUFRPSOLDQFHUDWKHUWKDQDQHQIRUFHPHQWVWUDWHJ\'DWDIURPRWKHUMXULVGLFWLRQVVKRZWKDW
SHRSOHJHQHUDOO\YROXQWDULO\FRPSO\ZKHQLQIRUPHGRIWKHUHJXODWLRQ6WDIIEHOLHYHVUHVRXUFHVDQGHIIRUWVKRXOG
EHSXWLQWRDGGLWLRQDOHGXFDWLRQDORXWUHDFKVRWKDWSHRSOHDUHDZDUHRIWKHVPRNHIUHHDUHD $GGLWLRQDOO\MXVWOLNH
ZLWKRWKHURUGLQDQFHVVWDIIZLOOQHHGWRXVHGLVFUHWLRQWRGHWHUPLQHZKHQDQGKRZWRHQIRUFH7KHUHZLOOEHWLPHV
ZKHQWKLVLVDORZHUSULRULW\DQGPD\QRWEHHQIRUFHG
2. Natural Areas, Parks, and Trails
&XUUHQWO\WKHVPRNLQJRUGLQDQFHGRHVQRWDSSO\WR1DWXUDO$UHDVSDUNVWUDLOV
Natural Areas
7KH&LW\RI)RUW&ROOLQV1DWXUDO$UHDV'HSDUWPHQWDQGVWDIIVXSSRUWWKHDGRSWLRQRIDFLW\ZLGHSROLF\RUH[SDQGHG
VPRNLQJRUGLQDQFHWRSURKLELWVPRNLQJVSHFLILFWRQDWXUDODUHDSURSHUWLHVIRUWKHIROORZLQJUHDVRQV
3XEOLF VDIHW\VWUXFWXUH SURWHFWLRQ LQ WKH HYHQW RI D ZLOGILUH UHVXOWLQJ IURP WKH XVH RI OLJKWHG VPRNLQJ
SDUDSKHUQDOLDLQQDWXUDODUHDV
1DWXUDO 5HVRXUFH SURWHFWLRQ ZKLFK UHTXLUHV D KHLJKWHQHG DWWHQWLRQ WR QRQLUULJDWHGPLQLPDOO\ ODQGVFDSHG
DUHDVZKLFKDUHVHQVLWLYHWRKDELWDWFKDQJLQJILUHV
3XEOLFVXSSRUWIRUQDWXUDODUHDVEHLQJSODFHVRIUHIXJHIURPWR[LFVXEVWDQFHV
5HGXFWLRQRIOLWWHUZKLFKUHPDLQVLQDQRQELRGHJUDGDEOHVWDWH
1DWXUDO $UHDV FRXOG HDVLO\ EH ]RQHG DQG SRVWHG DV QRQVPRNLQJ DUHDV ZLWK D KLJK UDWH RI YROXQWDU\
FRPSOLDQFH
3.1
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: February 3 2015 AIS and November 25, 2014 AIS (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
:KHQDVNHGZKHWKHUWKH\ZRXOGVXSSRUWDVPRNHIUHH
2OG7RZQWKHUHVSRQVHVZHUH
x VXSSRUW
x RSSRVH
x GRQ¶WNQRZ
,Q&RORUDGR%RXOGHU¶V3HDUO6WUHHW0DOOLVDQH[DPSOHRIDVLPLODUSHGHVWULDQDUHDWKDWLVVPRNHIUHH%RXOGHU
DOVR UHFHQWO\ GHFLGHG WR H[SDQG WKLV DUHD 6WDII YLVLWHG WKH 3HDUO 6WUHHW 0DOO DQG KDV KDG GLVFXVVLRQV ZLWK
%RXOGHUVWDIIDQGSROLFHZKRHQIRUFHWKHRUGLQDQFHWROHDUQIURPWKHLUH[SHULHQFH%RXOGHUSURYLGHGWKHIROORZLQJ
DGYLFHWREHHIIHFWLYHZLWKDGRZQWRZQVPRNHIUHHSROLF\
x &OHDUXQGHUVWDQGDEOHERXQGDULHVDUHHVVHQWLDO
x &RQGXFWVLJQLILFDQWRXWUHDFKDQGHGXFDWLRQOHDGLQJXSWRLPSOHPHQWDWLRQ
x 6LJQDJHLVH[WUHPHO\LPSRUWDQW
x :RUNZLWKEXVLQHVVHV
x 8VH DV DQ DGGLWLRQDO WRRO IRU HQIRUFHPHQW SULPDULO\ XVH YROXQWDU\ FRPSOLDQFH VWDUW ZLWK ZDUQLQJV WKHQ
FLWDWLRQV
$GGLWLRQDOO\WKH&LW\RI*ROGHQUHFHQWO\DSSURYHGDVPRNHIUHHGRZQWRZQRUGLQDQFHZKLFKZLOOEHFRPHHIIHFWLYH
LQ,Q*ROGHQSULYDWHSDWLRVORFDWHGDZD\IURPSHGHVWULDQDUHDVZLOOEHDOORZHGWRKDYHVPRNLQJDVORQJDV
LW LV DZD\ IURP WKH GRRUVHQWUDQFHV 7KH\ DUH KRSHIXO WKDW WKLV ZLOO KHOS NHHSVPRNHUV IURPFRQJUHJDWLQJ LQ
ORFDWLRQVDWWKHERXQGDU\RIWKHLUVPRNHIUHHDUHD
$IWHU UHYLHZLQJ VXUYH\ UHVXOWV REVHUYLQJ ODWH QLJKW EHKDYLRUV LQ 2OG 7RZQGRZQWRZQ OHDUQLQJ IURP RWKHU
FRPPXQLWLHV DQG FRQVLGHULQJ HQIRUFHPHQW FRQFHUQV VWDII KDV GHYHORSHG VRPH SRWHQWLDO RSWLRQV IRU &RXQFLO
GLVFXVVLRQ
Old Town/Downtown Options
Option A,PSRVHDFRPSOHWHVPRNLQJEDQIRUWKHGHWHUPLQHG2OG7RZQRU'RZQWRZQDUHD7KLVZRXOGEH
VLPLODUWRWKH3HDUO6WUHHW0DOOLQ%RXOGHUZKHUHWKHUHLVDVSHFLILFERXQGDU\ZKHUHVPRNLQJLVSURKLELWHG7KLV
EDQZRXOGLQFOXGHSHRSOHZDONLQJWKURXJK
Option B,PSRVHDVPRNLQJEDQIRUWKHGHWHUPLQHG2OG7RZQRU'RZQWRZQDUHDGXULQJWKHKRXUVRIDPXQWLO
SPIRUDOOSHGHVWULDQDUHDV7KHEDQIRUSHGHVWULDQDUHDVZRXOGQRWH[LVWIURPSPXQWLODPVRSHRSOH
FRXOGVPRNHWZHQW\IHHWDZD\IURPGRRUVDQGSDWLRVGXULQJWKHODWHQLJKWZKHQIHZHUIDPLOLHVDQGFKLOGUHQDUH
SUHVHQW
D 3HGHVWULDQDUHDVZRXOGEHGHILQHGDVDUHDVSULPDULO\XVHGE\SHGHVWULDQVLQWKHGRZQWRZQDUHDLQFOXGLQJ
VLGHZDONVLPSURYHGDOOH\ZD\V DQGSHUKDSVXQLPSURYHGDOOH\ZD\V
2OG7RZQ6TXDUHHWF7KH\ZRXOGQRW
LQFOXGHWKHVWUHHW7KLVFRXOGEHWKHVDPHDUHDDVWKH³GLVPRXQW]RQH´ Attachment 7
3.1
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: February 3 2015 AIS and November 25, 2014 AIS (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
RISHUVRQV
VXUYH\HGUHSRUWHG³SXWWLQJXSZLWKVRPHRQHVPRNLQJDURXQGWKHP´ZLWKWKHELJJHVWDQQR\DQFHH[SHULHQFHGLQ
SXEOLFSDUNV7REDFFREXWWVDUHWR[LFDQGFDQEHSRLVRQRXVWRVPDOOFKLOGUHQRUDQLPDOVLIFRQVXPHG6PRNH
IUHHDUHDVRIWHQUHGXFHWKHDPRXQWRIOLWWHUWKDWLVSUHVHQWLPSURYLQJWKHDSSHDUDQFHRIORFDOSDUNVDQGUHGXFLQJ
FOHDQXSWLPHDQGFRVWV
)RUW &ROOLQV LV NQRZQ DV D KHDOWK\ FRPPXQLW\ &UHDWLQJ VPRNHIUHH DUHDV JHQHUDOO\ UHVXOW LQ D UHGXFWLRQ RI
WREDFFRXVHDQGLPSURYHGFRPPXQLW\KHDOWK7KH&LW\RI)RUW&ROOLQVKDVUHFHLYHGPDQ\KRQRUVDQGDZDUGV
LQFOXGLQJDZDUGVUHODWHGWREHLQJDKHDOWK\FRPPXQLW\,Q)RUW&ROOLQVZDVQDPHGWKH4th Healthiest Mid-
Size CityLQWKH86E\WKH*DOOXS+HDOWKZD\V6XUYH\7REDFFRUDWHVDUHFRQVLGHUHGZKHQRYHUDOOKHDOWKUDWLQJV
RIDFRPPXQLW\DUHGHWHUPLQHGDQGKHDOWK\FRPPXQLW\GHVLJQDWLRQVSURYLGHHFRQRPLFDSSHDODQGFRPPXQLW\
DWWUDFWLYHQHVV /DULPHU&RXQW\ UHVHDUFK LQGLFDWHV WKDW PXQLFLSDOLWLHVKDYHVRPHVRUWRIRXWGRRUVLGHZDON
W\SHUHVWULFWLRQRQVPRNLQJ Attachment 1
7KH&LW\VWDIIWHDP LQFOXGLQJ3DUNV5HFUHDWLRQ1DWXUDO$UHDV3ROLFH1HLJKERUKRRG6HUYLFHV&LW\$WWRUQH\¶V
2IILFH DQG (QYLURQPHQWDO 6HUYLFHV
GLVFXVVHG WKH VPRNLQJ RUGLQDQFH H[SDQVLRQ RSWLRQV UHVHDUFKHG RWKHU
FRPPXQLWLHV¶VPRNLQJUHJXODWLRQVDQGGLVFXVVHGKRZHQIRUFHPHQWZRXOGZRUN
$GGLWLRQDOO\WKH&LW\RI)RUW&ROOLQVODXQFKHGDQLQIRUPDORQOLQHVXUYH\HDUO\WKLV\HDUWRJDXJHWKHFRPPXQLWLHV¶
FXUUHQW H[SHULHQFHV DQG OHYHO RI LQWHUHVW LQ H[SDQGLQJ VPRNLQJ UHJXODWLRQV LQ VSHFLILFDUHDV0RUHWKDQ
UHVSRQVHVZHUHUHFHLYHG Attachment 2
.6WDIIDOVRLQIRUPDOO\VXUYH\HGWDUJHWHGJURXSVWKLVVXPPHULQFOXGLQJ
GRZQWRZQEXVLQHVVHVSXEOLFHYHQWVSDWURQVSDUNVXVHUVDQGGRZQWRZQSDWURQV Attachment 3
.$OOVXUYH\V
LQGLFDWHVRPHOHYHORIVXSSRUWIRUVPRNLQJRUGLQDQFHH[SDQVLRQV
1. Old Town/Downtown
&XUUHQWO\ WKH VPRNLQJRUGLQDQFHDSSOLHV WR RXWGRRUDUHDVZLWKLQWKH2OG7RZQGRZQWRZQDUHDZLWKLQRXWGRRU
GLQLQJDUHDVEDUSDWLRVDQGIHHWIURPSDWLRVDQGHQWUDQFHV%\ORRNLQJDWDVDPSOLQJRIWKHGRZQWRZQDUHD
LQFOXGLQJ2OG7RZQ6TXDUHDSSUR[LPDWHO\RIWKHSHGHVWULDQDUHDVDUHFXUUHQWO\ZLWKLQWKHVPRNHIUHHDUHDV
DQGZKHUHVPRNLQJLVDOORZHG Attachment 4
7KHJHQHUDOVPRNLQJVXUYH\ LQGLFDWHV WKDW RIUHVSRQGHQWVVWURQJO\RUVRPHZKDWVXSSRUWQHZUHJXODWLRQV
SURKLELWLQJVPRNLQJLQWKH2OG7RZQGRZQWRZQDUHD'XULQJDUHFHQWLQIRUPDOVXUYH\RIGRZQWRZQSDWURQV
SHRSOHZHUHDVNHGZKHWKHUWKH\ZRXOGVXSSRUWDVPRNHIUHH2OG7RZQRUGRZQWRZQDUHD Attachment 5
2I
3.1
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: February 3 2015 AIS and November 25, 2014 AIS (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
"
G([SDQGWRDODUJHUDUHD LH,'LVPRXQW=RQH
"
&XUUHQWO\,UHVWULFWLRQVDSSO\DOOGD\DQGHYHU\GD\'RHVWKH&RXQFLOZDQWWR
a. /HDYHWKHWLPLQJWKHVDPH"
E&KDQJHWRDOORZVPRNLQJIURPSPWRDPLQFHUWDLQDUHDV"
F$OORZVPRNLQJRQEDFNDOOH\RUHOHYDWHGSDWLRVDZD\IURPSHGHVWULDQZDONZD\V"
'RHVWKH&RXQFLODJUHHZLWKVWDIIUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVIRU
a. 1DWXUDO$UHDV"
D3DUNVDQGWUDLOV"
6KRXOGVPRNLQJUHVWULFWLRQVDSSO\WR&LW\RZQHGSXEOLFSURSHUW\DQGJURXQGV"
a. ,IVRVKRXOGWKHUHVWULFWLRQVEHSKDVHGLQ"
6KRXOGVPRNLQJUHVWULFWLRQVDSSO\WR&LW\DSSURYHGSXEOLFHYHQWV"
a. ,IVRVKRXOGGHVLJQDWHGVPRNLQJDUHDVEHDOORZHG"
,I&RXQFLOZRXOGOLNHWRIRUPDOO\FRQVLGHUDQ\RIWKHRSWLRQVZKDWWLPHIUDPHZRXOGEHDSSURSULDWH"
:KDWDGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQLVQHHGHG"
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
,Q )RUW&ROOLQVZDVWKHILUVWFLW\LQ&RORUDGRWRSDVVDFRPSUHKHQVLYHVPRNLQJRUGLQDQFH7KHRUGLQDQFH
OLPLWHGVPRNLQJLQSXEOLFEXLOGLQJVDQGUHTXLUHGUHVWDXUDQWVWRKDYHQRVPRNLQJVHFWLRQV,Q)RUW&ROOLQV
Attachment 1 3.1
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: February 3 2015 AIS and November 25, 2014 AIS (5861 : Smoking Ordinance Review and Update)
Attachment: CSU Parking Options Brochure (5860 : Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3))
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
INTERSTATE 25
S SHIELDS ST
S COLLEGE AVE
S TAFT HILL RD
E VINE DR
S TIMBERLINE RD
LAPORTE AVE
E PROSPECT RD
S LEMAY AVE
E DOUGLAS RD
W DRAKE RD
STATE HIGHWAY 392
N OVERLAND TRL
E MULBERRY ST
E DRAKE RD
S COUNTY ROAD 5
COUNTY ROAD 54G
N US HIGHWAY 287
N SHIELDS ST
W MULBERRY ST
W PROSPECT RD
S OVERLAND TRL
E COUNTY ROAD 30
ZIEGLER RD
W TRILBY RD
E HORSETOOTH RD
N COUNTY ROAD 23
W COUNTY ROAD 38E
CARPENTER RD
S COUNTY ROAD 23
E LINCOLN AVE
N TAFT HILL RD
E COUNTY ROAD 38
W HORSETOOTH RD
TURNBERRY RD
W ELIZABETH ST
N LEMAY AVE
TERRY LAKE RD
S COUNTY ROAD 19
N COUNTY ROAD 5
S CENTENNIAL DR
GREGORY RD
GIDDINGS RD
W LAUREL ST
KECHTER RD
S US HIGHWAY 287
E COUNTY ROAD 54
E COUNTY ROAD 52
/
Fort Collins Area Water Districts
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 Miles
Water Districts
East Larimer County Water District
Fort Collins Loveland Water District
Fort Collins Utilities (Water)
Sunset Water District
West Fort Collins Water District
! ! City Limits
GMA
Major Streets
Railroads
Figure Updated: 9/23/2015
ATTACHMENT 2
3.2
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Fort Collins Area Water Districts Map (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
̈́ǡͷͲͲ ǦȌǡ
̈́ͶͲǤͷǤ
ǡ
̈́ͳͳʹǤͲ̈́ͳʹͻǤͻǤ
ǯȋǡͺͲͲ Ȍǡ
̈́ͳͶǡͶͲͲ
̈́ͳǡͲͲ ǦǤ
Figure 4. Potential Cash-in-Lieu Charges based on Alternative Approaches
Notes:
* Based on projected average RWR of 0.54 acre-feet per new home.
Updating FCU’s cash-in-lieu charges in the future.
DzǦdz ǡ ǡ
Ǥ
Ȅȋ
Ȍ Ǥ
Ǥ ǡ
Ǥ
"Buy-In" Incremental Modified "Buy-in"
Approach Approach or "Hybrid" Approach
Value per Acre-foot
Minimum $33,800 $9,200 $14,400
Maximum $39,200 $11,500 $16,700
Average Value per
New Home*
Minimum $18,300 $5,000 $7,800
Maximum $21,200 $6,200 $9,000
3.1
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
Ǥ
ǡ ǡǡǡǡ Ǧ ǡ
ǡ ǡ
ǡǡ Ǥ
Requirement based on number of units and lot size. ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ ǡ
ǡ Ǥ
ȋ Ȍ
Ǥ
ǡ ͳͷǡͲͲͲ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡ ȋ
Ȍ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
Ͷ Ȁ ǦǦǡ
Ǥ ǡ ȋ Ȍ
Ȃ Ǧ Ǥ
ͷͷȀͺdzΧdzǡ Ǥ
3.1
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
Ȍ̈́ǡͷͲͲ
ȋ̈́ͷǡͲͲͲ
ȌǤ
ǡ ʹͷ
ȋǤǤ
ǡ ǡǦ
ȌǤ
ǡ
̈́ͳǤͷͳǡʹǤ
3.1
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
ǡǤʹǡ
ǡǤ
ǡ
ǡ̈́ʹͷǡͲͲͲ Ǥ
Ǧ ǡ
̈́ͳͲǡͲͲͲ Ǥ ǡ
̈́ͷǡͲͲͲ Ǥ
ǡ ǡ
ǯ ̈́ͳǤʹ͵Ǥ
Estimated minimum value of anticipated additions to water resource portfolio.
ǡ
Ǥ
̈́ͶǤʹǡ ǯ
̈́ʹǤǡ Ǧ
̈́ʹǤ͵
̈́ʹͲǤͶǤ
̈́ͳǤͷǤ ǡ
Ǥ
ǡǯ
̈́ͳǤ͵ͳǤ
3.1
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
ȋ
ȌǡȋȌǤ
ǡ
ǯ̈́ͺͲͲǤ
ǯ
ǡ Ǥ
ǯǡ
ǯ Ǥ
ǯ ȋ
Ǧ Ȍ Ǥ
Dzdz Ǥ ǡ
ǡȂ
Ǥ ǯǡ
̈́ʹͲǡͲͲͲ Ȃ
̈́ʹʹǤ
ǯ
ǡ
Ǧ
ǡƬ ǡ
Dz Ǥdz
ʹʹͺʹͲͳʹǤ
3.1
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
ǡǦ
ǡ
Ǧ Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ ǡ ǡ
Dzdz ǡ
Ǥͳ
ǯ ǡ ǦǦ
Ǧ
ȋǤǤǡafter
ȌǤ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ Ǥ
ǡ ǡ
Ǥ
Incremental cost approach. Ǧ ǡ
ǯǡ
Ǥ ǡ
ȋ Ȍ
Ǥ
ǡ ǦǦ
ǡ Ǧ
ǦǤ
ȋȌ
ͳ
ȋȌǡ
ǡ
Ǧ ǡǤ
3.1
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
ǡ
ǯ Ǥ
ATTACHMENT 5
3.1
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
INTERSTATE 25
S SHIELDS ST
S COLLEGE AVE
S TAFT HILL RD
E VINE DR
S TIMBERLINE RD
LAPORTE AVE
E PROSPECT RD
S LEMAY AVE
E DOUGLAS RD
W DRAKE RD
STATE HIGHWAY 392
N OVERLAND TRL
E MULBERRY ST
E DRAKE RD
S COUNTY ROAD 5
COUNTY ROAD 54G
N US HIGHWAY 287
N SHIELDS ST
W MULBERRY ST
W PROSPECT RD
S OVERLAND TRL
E COUNTY ROAD 30
ZIEGLER RD
W TRILBY RD
E HORSETOOTH RD
N COUNTY ROAD 23
W COUNTY ROAD 38E
CARPENTER RD
S COUNTY ROAD 23
E LINCOLN AVE
N TAFT HILL RD
E COUNTY ROAD 38
W HORSETOOTH RD
TURNBERRY RD
W ELIZABETH ST
N LEMAY AVE
TERRY LAKE RD
S COUNTY ROAD 19
N COUNTY ROAD 5
S CENTENNIAL DR
GREGORY RD
GIDDINGS RD
W LAUREL ST
KECHTER RD
S US HIGHWAY 287
E COUNTY ROAD 54
E COUNTY ROAD 52
/
Fort Collins Area Water Districts
012345 0.5
Miles
Water Districts
East Larimer County Water District
Fort Collins Loveland Water District
Fort Collins Utilities (Water)
Sunset Water District
West Fort Collins Water District
!!City Limits
GMA
Major Streets
Railroads
Figure Updated: 9/23/2015
ATTACHMENT 1
3.1
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Work Session Agenda materials, February 14, 2017 (5786 : Raw Water Requirements)