HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 03/24/2020 - WORK SESSIONCity of Fort Collins Page 1
Wade Troxell, Mayor Council Information Center (CIC)
Kristin Stephens, District 4, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Susan Gutowsky, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Julie Pignataro, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Ken Summers, District 3
Ross Cunniff, District 5 Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14
Emily Gorgol, District 6 and Channel 881 on the Comcast cable system
Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Delynn Coldiron
City Attorney City Manager City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and
will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711
for Relay Colorado) for assistance.
City Council Work Session
March 24, 2020
6:00 PM
(Amended 3/23/2020)
• CALL TO ORDER.
1. Staff Report: COVID-19 Update (staff: Jim Byrne)
2. Land-Water Nexus-Building a Resilient Community Landscape. (staff: Liesel Hans, Carol Webb;
15 minute staff presentation; 45 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to discuss large-scale landscape transformations in Fort Collins. Large-
scale include areas like business landscapes and multifamily and HOA common landscapes. The
topic will cover drivers of landscape change, community experiences and challenges, local and
regional programs and services, water use of landscapes, role of landscapes in building resiliency
to a warming climate, and how landscapes contribute to a healthy ecosystem and connect people
to nature. This is a trend across Colorado and the arid West; the Colorado Water Plan identifies
improving water and land use planning as critical to meeting the needs of the future.
2. Affordable Housing Priorities. (staff: Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Jeff Mihelich; 20 minute staff presentation;
1 hour discussion)
This item has been rescheduled to April 14, 2020
The purpose of this item is to report on progress of the City's affordable housing goals and discuss
the scope and timing of the next Affordable Housing Strategic Plan. Also, an update on requested
specific policies and programs will also be included. These are: Home Buyers Assistance,
partnership with Elevation Community Land Trust, the Impact Fee nexus study and the feasibility
study for an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
City of Fort Collins Page 2
3. Water Supply Vulnerability Study. (staff: Meagan Smith, Donnie Dustin, Carol Webb; 15 minute
staff presentation; 45 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to provide Council an overview of the recently completed Water Supply
Vulnerability Study (Study) that investigated the impacts of various risks on the reliability of Fort
Collins Utilities’ (Utilities) long-term water supply. Key findings indicate:
• A warmer/drier climate poses the largest risk to the current long-term planning strategy.
• Adequate storage is crucial to meeting current policy criteria.
• Reductions in available supplies from the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) via
Horsetooth Reservoir have significant impacts to system performance.
• ANNOUNCEMENTS.
• ADJOURNMENT.
DATE:
STAFF:
March 24, 2020
Liesel Hans, Water Conservation Manager
Carol Webb, Deputy Director, Utilities
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Land-Water Nexus-Building a Resilient Community Landscape.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to discuss large-scale landscape transformations in Fort Collins. Large-scale include
areas like business landscapes and multifamily and HOA common landscapes. The topic will cover drivers of
landscape change, community experiences and challenges, local and regional programs and services, water use
of landscapes, role of landscapes in building resiliency to a warming climate, and how landscapes contribute to a
healthy ecosystem and connect people to nature. This is a trend across Colorado and the arid West; the Colorado
Water Plan identifies improving water and land use planning as critical to meeting the needs of the future.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
This topic is largely an informational item. Staff is seeking direction on:
1. What supporting projects, services, or resources would City Council like to see prioritized?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Overview
The information is organized into the following sections:
A. Purpose
B. Key Drivers of Landscape Change
C. Programs and Services for the Community
D. Community Perspectives
E. City Opportunities
F. Related Work
G. Potential Next Steps
H. Examples from Other Communities
I. Strategic Alignment
A. Purpose
The purpose of this work session is to discuss large-scale landscape transformations in Fort Collins. Large-scale
include areas like business landscapes and multifamily and HOA common landscapes. The topic will cover
drivers of landscape change, community experiences and challenges, local and regional programs and services,
water use of landscapes, role of landscapes in building resiliency to a warming climate, and how landscapes
contribute to a healthy ecosystem and connect people to nature. This is a trend across Colorado and the arid
West; the Colorado Water Plan identifies improving water and land use planning as critical to meeting the needs
of the future.
The City of Fort Collins has a long history of environmental stewardship and high standards to support a vibrant
community. We are a community that strives to adapt and evolve to the needs of our residents and businesses
1
Packet Pg. 3
March 24, 2020 Page 2
both today while keeping an eye to the future. Based on available research and the recently completed Water
Supply Vulnerability Study (Fort Collins Utilities led study), we know we can expect hotter and drier conditions as
well as more variable precipitation patterns. We can expect drought and other causes of water shortages, like
wildfires. We can expect the cost of water to increasingly reflect the value, variability, and scarcity of water.
Current urban landscapes may impact our ability to thrive through those conditions.
We can support transformations of our urban landscapes into assets for resilience, rather than a source of risk.
Such transformations can also provide an opportunity for older landscapes to better serve the current or projected
use patterns of the surrounding community, business, and/or neighborhoods.
A resilient landscape is:
• Functional and beautiful
• Utilizes the right plants for the site and purpose
• Adapted to current and future climate conditions
• Drought and heat tolerant
• Efficiently irrigated
• Friendly to pollinators and supports biodiversity
• Lowers costs and maintenance long-term
A resilient landscape is not:
• All rocks
• Abandoned or barren
• Contributing to urban heat
• Wasting water
• Containing invasive species or noxious weeds
• A source of greenhouse gas emissions or pollution
B. Key Drivers of Landscape Transformation
The following trends and drivers related to large-scale landscape transformation are not unique to Fort Collins and
can be seen across Colorado and the western United States. The key factors have been consolidated into four
categories including: (1) water use and related costs, (2) purpose of place and aesthetics, (3) pollinators, wildlife,
and return to more naturalized conditions, and (4) recognition of current and future climate conditions. There are
likely other factors that play a role, too.
(1) Water use and related costs
• Water and landscape maintenance costs can be the largest expense category for Homeowner’s
Associations (HOAs) and multifamily housing complexes, which encompass most of the entities currently
motivated to transform their landscape. HOAs are typically tasked with managing large areas of shared
landscaped and amenity areas, and they rely on residents of the HOA to fund and manage the
installation, irrigation and maintenance expenses.
• As new subdivisions, apartment complexes, and commercial developments are approved, the developer
is required to meet the landscaping standards adopted in code. The developer (or future owner/HOA) is
responsible for continuing to maintain landscaping that was previously approved.
• Approximately 40-50% of all treated water in Fort Collins used is for irrigation of landscapes each year. In
hotter, drier years, it can increase to 50-60%.
• Water costs in Fort Collins Utilities service area:
o Since the 1960s, the City has required Fort Collins Water Utility customers to meet Water Supply
Requirements (WSR). The WSR is a dedication of water rights or cash-in-lieu (CIL) of water
rights to the Water Utility to provide reliable water supply service to the customer. Commercial
taps (including taps that serve multi-family, HOA and other neighborhood common spaces) that
have met the WSR since 1984 also have received an equivalent annual allotment, which is the
annual volume of water a meter (tap) can use without being subject to an EWU surcharge (Code
1
Packet Pg. 4
March 24, 2020 Page 3
Section 26-129). If a tap uses more water than the annual allotment, the EWU surcharge is
applied to all water used over the allotment for the remainder of the calendar year. This charge is
in addition to the standard water use rate. The EWU provides revenue to acquire and develop
additional water supplies, such as through the purchase of additional water rights and/or
infrastructure projects to serve the customer beyond what was provided at the time of
development plus any additional allotment volume that has been purchased by the customer.
o The cost for exceeding the annual water allotment dramatically increased in 2018, with another
increase in 2020. It increased from $3.06 per 1,000 gallons in 2017 to the $10.09 per 1,000
gallons, effective 2020. This higher price signal revealed that some properties’ landscapes are
inefficiently and ineffectively managed. Some have taken steps to better track their water use and
work with their contractors to be more efficient. Many have utilized free tools and services
available through Fort Collins Utilities. The price signal also revealed that some properties’
allotments are undersized for their landscape, even when managed with landscape and irrigation
best practices. Staff created programs to help customers navigate these challenges, including the
Allotment Management Program described in Section C below.
o While the above describes what Fort Collins Water Utility customers face, the cost of water is a
driver and affects all Fort Collins residents, regardless of water service provider. The cost of
acquiring new water supplies has increased exponentially over the last decade, and water
providers are reflecting this in the cost to serve new customers. For example, a unit of the
Colorado-Big Thompson project water supply cost about $7,000 in 2010 and rose to $30,000 by
2018.
(2) Purpose of Place and Aesthetics:
• There is a trend toward more “Colorado-friendly” landscapes, including landscapes that utilize native and
adapted grasses and plants, and incorporate other landscape elements like boulders and pervious
hardscaping. One example of this trend in Fort Collins is the City Streetscape Standards (2013) which
ensure the streetscape environment is attractive and positively contributes to the Fort Collins identity.
This set of standards has beautified medians using diverse low-water and native landscaping.
o Well-designed landscapes can turn space into place. Residents and businesses are re-evaluating
how they use their landscapes and recognizing where they could transform the landscape to
reflect that it is a lesser-used area and/or transform to a higher purpose, like an outdoor gathering
spot or walking trail, for example.
(3) Pollinators, wildlife, return to more naturalized conditions:
• Humans and the urban environment have a large, often detrimental, impact on natural ecosystems,
biodiversity, and wildlife habitat. We can choose to live and use land in ways that continue to support or
even enhance our natural systems.
• Landscaping with a diversity of plants, especially native plants, helps pollinators and birds by creating
habitat within the urban environment.
• Access to nature has many proven health and wellbeing benefits. These community benefits are
articulated through several City Plans and Policies.
(4) Recognition of current and future climate conditions:
• “Climate change is also contributing to water-supply issues and experts warn that the regions that are
now experiencing the most growth in the country are likely to suffer the most from a warming climate. Not
only is climate change predicted to lead to more frequent and destructive precipitation-related disasters -
including floods, mudslides, and droughts - but it is also predicted to decrease snowpack, increase winter
rain, and further reduce flows in rivers and streams at low-flow periods due to increased evaporation.” -
excerpt from the Western Resources Advocates guidebook (link provided in Section H).
o Climate action and awareness has been a staple in Fort Collins for more than twenty years, at
least formally, and longer culturally. We are a community that recognizes that inaction is not free;
indeed, it is increasingly expensive.
o The community recognizes how weather impacts their everyday life and the cost of living. Hotter,
drier summers reduce water availability in the region and pose challenges for maintaining high-
1
Packet Pg. 5
March 24, 2020 Page 4
water-use landscapes or landscapes not well-suited to the Fort Collins semi-arid climate. High-
water-use turf requires significant supplemental irrigation, whereas adapted, native and xeric
plants require far less. Some require no supplemental irrigation after establishment.
Businesses and neighborhoods are taking action. The following are two examples of the positive impact
of landscape transformations that stemmed from some combination of the drivers above:
• A recent project at Larimer County building in Fort Collins transformed an outdated landscape and
unused turf areas to xeric shrub and perennial plantings. This reduced their water use by 75% and
eliminates over $3,000 per year on water bills. The project added pollinator-friendly plants and improved
the overall look and feel of the business entrance.
• A project at an entrance of the Poudre Overlook neighborhood transformed nearly an acre of unused turf
to a native/adapted seed mix and created a new neighborhood walking path, which has already reduced
water use by 50% and is expected to save even more once fully established. In 2020 the neighborhood
plans to add bird feeders and benches along the path to further improve their new amenity for residents
and enhance the natural ecosystem.
C. Programs and Services for the Community:
To meet the need and demand we see in the community a variety of programs and services have been developed
by City Staff, based on the drivers described above. The following information is not comprehensive but provides
a mostly complete view of the resources currently available. This information demonstrates that the community
need is greater than what City and regional services can support. A visual of the participation in the landscape
programs can be found as an attachment to this AIS.
This section is organized by first presenting the 1) commercial-scale programs and then 2) the smaller, single-
family residential-scale programs. Within each section, the programs are organized by sponsoring organization
like Fort Collins Utilities or City of Fort Collins Natural Areas.
(1) These programs support commercial customers (business and HOA/neighborhood scale):
Fort Collins Utilities programs:
o Allotment Management Program (AMP) (2020):
▪ This new program helps customers with allotments that are significantly undersized for
their landscape need. Participants receive a waiver from Excess Water Use surcharges
while implementing a landscape transformation project. Staff estimates about 50
customers could benefit from this program.
▪ 15 applications were submitted in 2019. To date, 8 projects have been approved and
accepted into the program. These 8 projects cover over 400,000 square feet and are
estimated to save over 3.5 million gallons per year, once established.
o Xeriscape Incentive Program for HOA and Commercial (2020):
▪ This new program is a grant-style program to support large-scale landscape
transformation projects. The projects estimated to be accepted in the program are
projected to transform over 500,000 square feet and save 4.5 million gallons, once
established.
▪ Funds are only available through 2021 via a state and federal grant. Most of the
participating projects in 2020 have agreed to serve as case studies to support one of the
grant objectives and ultimately help create resources for the community.
XIP for HOA and
Commercial
Applications Total Funds
Requested
Projects estimated to be
Funded
Estimated Funding
2020 season 19 $205,813 8 $72,850
1
Packet Pg. 6
March 24, 2020 Page 5
o Landscape Water Budget program (2018-ongoing):
▪ This service replaced the previous commercial irrigation audit service and is designed to
use data to help commercial customers navigate how much water their landscape actual
needs. It helps bring customers together with their landscape and irrigation contractors to
make informed decisions about a property.
Landscape Water
Budget program
Participating
Customers
(Accounts)
Area covered
(square feet)
Estimated savings
(gallons)
2018 17 (49) 2,626,800 22,002,800
2019 40 (77) 6,535,700 37,208,700
o City of Fort Collins Natural Areas - Nature in the City
▪ Rebooted in 2020, the Nature in the City Grants program funds projects that bring high-
quality natural spaces into a neighborhood and community, with the goal of connecting
people to nature and creating habitat for people and wildlife.
Below is information about Natural Areas’ neighborhood and community-scale categories:
Nature in the City 2020
season
Applications Total Funds
Requested
Projects estimated to
be Funded
Total Funding Available
Neighborhood-scale 12 $215,732 4 $100,000
Commercial-scale 8 $215,000 3 $100,000
City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Services programs:
o Vibrant Neighborhoods Grants (2017-18):
▪ The goal of this program was to help foster, enhance, and renew the characteristics of
Fort Collins Neighborhoods. The City Neighborhood Services department provided funds
over two years to help neighborhoods complete projects that align and support City
objectives. In 2017, three of the ten awarded projects were landscape projects. In 2018,
four of the eight projects were landscape projects.
o Sustainable Neighborhood program (2019-ongoing):
▪ This program is designed to empower residents to make their communities more vibrant
and livable and have five target areas: air, water, land, energy and people. There are
currently four neighborhoods active in the program, all of which have completed one or
more xeriscape or waterwise event or activity in their community.
Northern Water program (2019-ongoing):
o As part of a new focus on water efficiency and recognizing their ability to provide
programming to customer of any of the C-BT allottees, many of which cannot resource or
manage a program on their own, Northern Water started the Collaborative Water-Efficient
Landscape Grant Program. Northern Water also has funding to provide irrigation audits
and consultations for large-scale landscapes.
Northern Water Grant
Program
2019 season 2020 season
Applications 16 19
Funds Requested $182,000 $313,000
Projects Funded 12 15
Total Funding Awarded $132,000 $182,700
(2) These programs primarily support single-family residents:
1
Packet Pg. 7
March 24, 2020 Page 6
Fort Collins Utilities programs:
o Xeriscape Incentive Program (XIP) (2016-ongoing)
▪ This program re-booted in 2016. The previous version was known as Xeriscape
Design Assistance Program (XDAP). XIP is an education-based rebate program that
offers $0.75 per square foot, up to 1,000 square feet, for transforming high water use
residential landscapes to waterwise xeriscapes.
XIP -
Residential
Projects completed Area converted (square
feet)
Estimated water savings
(gallons)
2016 16 16,041 224,600
2017 39 50,397 705,600
2018 47 53,406 747,700
2019 65 81.169 1,136,400
o Garden in a Box (2017-ongoing)
▪ This program is delivered in partnership with Resource Central, based in Boulder,
CO. Customers purchase a box that contains a set of plants, 1-3 easy-to-follow
planting designs, and information about how to care for the new landscape. Starting
in 2019, Utilities partnered with NIC to design and provide a double discount on a
Fort Collins native plant box option. Fort Collins-Loveland Water District joined the
program in 2019 and is offering discounts to their customers.
Utilities - Garden in a
Box program
Number of Boxes
sold
Estimated Area (square
feet)
Estimated water savings
(gallons)
2017 158 11,172 116,170
2018 251 17,749 184,550
2019 297 21,002 218,370
o Sprinkler Audit Program (1999-ongoing)
▪ This flagship program for Fort Collins Utilities started in 1999. 6,475 residents have
participated, covering over 22 thousand square feet and estimated to save over 75
million gallons of water. Customers often pair this program with other landscape
programs as they navigate their irrigation system and how to efficiently water. Utilities
partners with Fort Collins-Loveland and East Larimer County water districts to bring
this free service to any single-family customer of any of the three water districts.
o WaterSmart water data and information customer portal (2018-ongoing)
▪ An online portal is available for customers to view and track their usage, as well as
set notifications and alerts. This service was first offered to commercial customers in
late 2018, then expanded to multi-family customers in 2019. Over 1,000 customers
have voluntarily signed up, included half of all the irrigation-specific accounts in the
Fort Collins Utilities service area have signed up. Some customers have even signed
their landscape contractors up to get water use notifications. This service will be
expanded to all customers in 2020.
City of Fort Collins Natural Areas - Nature in the City
o Rebooted in 2020, the Nature in the City Grants program funds projects that bring high-
quality natural spaces into a neighborhood and community, with the goal of connecting
people to nature and creating habitat for people and wildlife. Below is information about their
single-family residential scale category:
Nature in the City 2020
season
No. Applicants Total Amount
Requested
Projects
March 24, 2020 Page 7
Funded
Residential scale 18 $17,725 10 $10,000
Staff regularly receive requests to provide information and education to the community on a variety of topics.
Water Conservation staff alone delivered over 20 presentations to businesses, community organizations and
HOAs related to landscape and water topics in 2019 and was the most-requested topic for the year.
There are additional services and resources, like website content and classes, available through Gardens on
Spring Creek, Larimer County Office of Colorado State University Extension, Audubon Society, PlantSelect,
Colorado Native Plant Society, Denver Botanic Gardens, Colorado WaterWise, Resource Central, local nurseries,
and more.
D. Community Perspectives
The community often turns to the City organization for assistance and landscape transformation is no different.
Staff from a variety of departments have interacted with residents and business and have heard the following
issues and perspectives as they navigate their unique need to find solutions.
Where to start? Just like any other home or business improvement project, many are lost on where to start, what
to prioritize, what the options are, how to protect trees or other features that will remain, and more.
What about the irrigation system? The irrigation system is often a forgotten system of a property. Most of the
system is underground and it can be a mystery to the property owner. Irrigation systems are exposed to the heat
of the summer, freezing temperatures in the winter, and a series of foes like tree roots, digging, vandalism,
mowers and snowplows. These systems should be designed to effectively and efficiently irrigate the given
landscape. When the landscape changes, the irrigation system should be designed in tandem and be adapted to
meet the needs of the new landscape.
Who can help me? Small-scale projects can be handled by enthusiastic, motivated, do-it-yourself (DIY)
homeowners, but commercial-scale projects largely require professional resources like landscape designers and
irrigation contractors. Not all, but many “green industry” professionals’ businesses are centered around installing
turf in the form of sod, mowing that sod, and basic design and maintenance of overhead spray irrigation systems.
Different types of landscapes will require the green industry to evolve their skills and service offerings to support
high-quality installations and long-term maintenance. Those who can successfully support these types of projects
are booked far in advance and cannot accommodate the overall community demand.
How will I pay for this project? Landscape and irrigation transformation projects can be expensive up front and
HOAs or small businesses may not have the means to fund a project. In a 2018 survey conducted by Water
Conservation staff, financial resources were the number one identified barrier across respondents. Some are
further challenged by paying for high water bills and other costs to maintain their existing landscape while trying to
resource an investment in a new landscape.
Do my fellow residents understand the need? A single person or small group of people may be responsible for
property decisions, yet they would like to get buy-in from their larger community or neighborhood. It can be hard
to get a large group to agree on the issue, the need, and ultimately the solution. Different preferences and values
can further exacerbate decision-making.
It won’t look great right away - how to manage the transition? Some projects are not instant gratification
installations but instead take time for the seeds and plants to establish and mature. Like “Do my fellow residents
understand the need?”, if there are differing opinion about the right solution, a longer installation/establishment
period may fuel negative opinion around the project. A landscape project is highly visible and affects not only the
immediate residents, but any passersby, too. Not everyone may realize what is occurring and confuse an
establishing landscape with a mismanaged landscape.
How do I navigate City requirements? Some residents may not be aware that commercial properties, including
HOA common spaces, have an approved landscape plan that corresponds with the approved development plan.
1
Packet Pg. 9
March 24, 2020 Page 8
Like any other change to the plan, like a parking lot change or a building addition, a landscape project must go
through the applicable City Development Review processes. This ensures that any changes are reviewed by
affected departments and held to current City Code standards. These processes may not be obvious or easy to
navigate for a property manager, HOA board member, or small business owner.
How do I make sure it’s installed correctly? Like the issues described in “Who can help me?”, a different
and/or more diverse landscape requires different installation and establishment methods. The average resident is
likely less familiar with what to expect and how to hold their contractors accountable for a high-quality installation.
Once traditional turf sod is rolled out, it largely looks as it will for years to come, whereas other landscapes have a
longer establishment period and require longer monitoring and potentially interventions like weeding.
How do I take care of my new landscape? Like the issues described in “Who can help me?” and “How do I
make sure it’s installed correctly?”, a different and/or more diverse landscape requires different maintenance
methods. The average resident is likely less familiar with what to expect and how to hold their contractors
accountable for high-quality care and maintenance.
E. City Opportunities
City staff are navigating how to best serve the community, address the growing trend and drivers of landscape
transformation, while maintaining high standards. The following are some identified opportunities to improve as a
public service organization.
Alignment of Land Use Code with current Policies, Plans and Programs: The Land Use Code (LUC) guides
and sets standards for new development and re-development within Fort Collins. The current Land Use Code was
adopted in 1997, with annual amendments and more significant updates adopted periodically over the past 22
years. There are opportunities to update the LUC to align with new or newly updated plans and policies that have
been more recently adopted by City Council.
Gap in community awareness of City processes: As described in “How do I navigate City Requirements?”
above, some may not be aware of the required processes for changing previously approved landscape plans. The
City needs to ensure that code standards are met and that landscapes are well maintained into the future.
Landscape industry capacity and ability: While the City can be a resource of information, these landscape
transformation projects ultimately need to be well-supported by the local landscape industry, too.
Varying preferences, expectations and desires across community: Preferences vary across the community.
Residents within a single neighborhood may have a hard time agreeing on the optimal use of a neighborhood
space or the ideal landscape look and feel.
Understanding of and patience for establishment processes: Establishment of native/adapted seed and xeric
plantings can take longer than simply rolling out a sod-form of turfgrass. Without knowledge, passersby may not
understand what is happening with the landscape or why it looks the way it does. Residents may complain about
the establishment period.
Customer experiences and expectations: Residents may reach out and contact any number of City Staff and
departments. They may get different advice or messages and may feel that they must navigate several contacts
to get their answers addressed. City Staff strive to work collaboratively to meet the needs and expectations of the
community. City staff hear a variety of opinions, preferences and concerns around landscaping choices and
aesthetics.
F. Related Work
There are related projects and efforts that tie to this topic. Here are the key areas of effort currently:
• Water Supply Requirements and Land Use Code provisions for new development: Staff recognized the
need to better align water supply requirements (WSR) with the actual water projected to be needed by the
development, based both on the landscape type and the type of residence or business. Further, the WSR
1
Packet Pg. 10
March 24, 2020 Page 9
needs to be aligned with the allotment and rate structures. The LUC will need to be amended to support any
changes in this area, too.
• Nature in the City-focused Land Use Code Evaluation project: To address a series of land use-related
goals in the Nature in the City strategic Plan, City Planning and Natural Areas staff have partnered on a third-
party evaluation of ways the Land Use Code could be amended to help new and redevelopment achieve
Nature in the City goals, including options to encourage more naturalized landscape that support wildlife
habitat. Some of the strategies and tactics could overlap with water conservation and efficiency goals, too.
• City Vegetation Team collaboration and projects: Staff from several City departments meet regularly to
discuss issues and ideas related to vegetation. One collaboration project is an update to the City Plant List,
which is a public-facing list of acceptable plants for the Fort Collins community. It is old, outdate, and not user-
friendly. The goal is to make this more accessible and useful for the public and developers. It will also
consolidate several plant lists that were each created for a variety of purposes across the City over the years.
G. Potential Next Steps
How can the City organization best support the community moving forward, given the drivers of landscape
transformation and the growing need?
• Expand City support for community landscape projects: Current programs and services cannot keep up
with the demand from the community, and funding for some existing programs are only based on one-time
grants and are not currently resourced long-term. Uncertainty in program availability challenges customers
given that landscape projects require significant planning.
• Reimagine Water in the Land Use Code: There are a variety of ways to integrate water efficiency into a
LUC. The current LUC speaks to waterwise principles but does not contain specific requirements or
standards. The LUC also could be updated to reflect more current knowledge and best practices around
landscape options.
• Training, workshops, and/or certifications for landscape industry: Staff and other across the community
see the need to have a skilled and trained landscape industry who can support high-quality landscapes from
design to installation to long-term maintenance. This area of work could take the form of developing trainings
and workshops, but there is precedence for other industries, like plumbing or electrical, where the City
requires certified contractors to complete the work. A certification program could be developed; this is a
common need across the state of Colorado, so it makes sense to keep in line with trends at the state level,
too.
• Use City sites as case studies and demonstrations: Some newer City facilities, like the Utilities
Administration Building at 222 Laporte, or Parks, like the new Crescent neighborhood park, have utilized
waterwise landscapes and principles into their design. This could be incorporated moving forward as a best
practice for City sites.
• Explore collaboration with neighboring water providers: Depending on the funding source, some
programs are only available to customers within the Fort Collins Utilities service area. This could be re-
evaluated but would require participation and funding from either the partnering districts and/or the City
general fund.
H. Examples from Other Communities
Other communities across the Front Range and the arid West face similar challenges of water costs/scarcity,
population growth and development patterns, maintaining livability and vibrancy, protecting natural habitat, and
climate change. Each community addresses challenges and opportunities uniquely. The following is a sample of
ways communities manage some of these challenges. It is not comprehensive and is intended to provide a variety
of regional examples.
• Water dedication in new development: East Larimer County Water District, City of Fountain, and the City of
Westminster all determine the water supply requirement at time of development based on the actual
landscape type. Landscapes that utilize less water result in a lower tap fee.
• High-water-use turfgrass limits: The City of Aurora limits the amount of high-water-use turf to 40% in new
residential homes, and to 33% in commercial developments. The City of Thornton limits high water use turf to
50% of landscaped area. The Town of Parker sets a cap of 15% in new commercial developments. The Town
1
Packet Pg. 11
March 24, 2020 Page 10
of Castle Rock doesn’t allow any high-water-use turf, but only low or moderate water use turf and seed
varieties.
• Irrigation standards: In the Town of Castle Rock, overhead spray irrigation is not allowed in areas,
parkways, or medians less than 10 feet wide. This helps avoid a typical culprit of overspray, often-damaged
equipment, and ultimately water waste. In Austin, TX landscape irrigation systems may only be installed by a
licensed installer registered with the city.
• Development incentive systems: Boulder utilizes a Green Points system where a developer must earn a
minimum number to develop but can choose from a set of options. Shade trees, xeriscaping, water efficient
fixtures, rainwater harvesting/low impact development are all possible ways to earn points.
• Water neutral development programs: In some communities, like Morro Bay, Santa Barbara and many
others in California, any developer must offset its projected water demand, often at a ratio of at least 2:1.
They typically do this through funding retrofits for existing water utility customers.
Additional References:
Water providers in Colorado are required to have a Water Efficiency Plan that has been approved by the
provider’s leadership as well as the Colorado Water Conservation Board. In 2019, the state added a new
requirement that each entity consider and report on how they are implementing water conservation and demand
management through land use planning efforts.
https://dnrweblink.state.co.us/cwcbsearch/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=208193&dbid=0
Western Resources Advocates and the Pace University Land Use Law Center partnered to develop a
comprehensive guidebook of how to integrate water efficiency into their land use planning efforts, policies, codes,
and incentives. <https://westernresourceadvocates.org/land-use-planning-for-water-efficiency/>
I. Strategic Alignment
This topic aligns with the following City Plans and Policies, as well as statewide efforts:
• City Strategic Plan (2018)
o 1.6 Protect and preserve the quality of life in neighborhoods
o 4.5: Develop strategies to improve the community’s climate resiliency.
o 4.6 Provide a reliable, high-quality water supply
o 4.8 Protect and enhance natural resources on City-own properties and throughout the
community.
• City Plan: (excerpts)
o Water Resources: Policies seek to ensure that water is used wisely and our community is
prepared for a changing climate.
o Promoting sustainable development practices: Policies seek to reduce net energy and water
use in new and existing development.
o Coordinating climate adaptation and resilience planning efforts: City Plan provides a
coordinated and cohesive set of policies to support ongoing climate adaptation and resilience
planning throughout the community.
o Resource Management and Conservation: Managing impacts to the community’s natural
resources will continue to be a major focus of City Plan. Conservation of wildlife habitats,
community separators, urban and exurban forests, the Poudre River corridor and the integration
of nature into the urban fabric ensures enjoyment by future generations. These efforts are
particularly important as the region’s population continues to grow.
o Increasing access to Nature in the City: Policies see to increase the number of residents to
have access to natural areas, parts and/or open spaces with a 10-minute walk of their home,
emphasizing existing gaps and areas planned for intensification.
o Principle ENV 1: Conserve, create and enhance ecosystems and natural spaces within Fort
Collins, the GMA and the region.
o Principle ENV 6: Manage water resources in a manner that enhances and protects water quality,
supply and reliability.
1
Packet Pg. 12
March 24, 2020 Page 11
o Principle LIV 9: Encourage development that reduces impacts on natural ecosystems and
promotes sustainability and resilience.
• Water Efficiency Plan: This plan establishes a goal for water efficiency in our community, and the
strategies and tactics to achieve that goal. This goal is influenced by and referenced in the overarching
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy, which guides water management efforts like water
efficiency and conservation programs, as well as how we conduct water supply planning for the future.
The 2015 Water Efficiency Plan goal is to reduce use through conservation and efficiency to 130 gallons
per person per day by 2030. This effectively means we need to achieve a 10 percent reduction in average
use over the next 10 years. This plan is not only approved an adopted by our local City Council but is also
required and approved by the State of Colorado. We are also required to update at least every seven
years. During the 2015, staff identified five key areas of opportunity and each one connects to this area of
effort.
• Nature in the City: In 2015, City Council adopted the Nature in the City Strategic Plan, which established
a vision, goals and policies to enhance habitat within our urban environment and access to nature for all
community members. The Nature in the City program aims to create and expand pockets of nature
throughout the community, and particularly on private property. There are opportunities for property
owners and managers to support healthy environments for people and wildlife, while also reducing overall
water use. This effort originally came about as a reaction to the trend in development toward infill and
redevelopment. The changes in development and land use patterns have the potential to affect habitat for
plants and animals and human access to nature and less-urban feeling environments. The Plan includes
a variety of strategies around land use and development.
• This topic also connects to overall sustainability efforts like the Municipal Sustainability and Adaptation
Plan, the Climate Action Plan, and the current planning effort known as “Our Climate Future”.
• Colorado Water Plan
o “As Colorado grows, land-use planning and water planning will become more closely connected.
The manner in which Colorado develops into the future will have a strong influence on Colorado’s
future water supply gap, and vice versa. One objective of Colorado’s Water Plan is that by 2025,
75 percent of Coloradans will live in communities that have incorporated water-saving actions into
land-use planning.”
o To this end, the Colorado Water Conservation Board and Department of Local Affairs have
teamed up to help water and land use planners work together. The City of Fort Collins has
participated in some of these efforts including the Growing WaterSmart workshops.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Landscape Projects Location Map (PDF)
2. ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (PPTX)
1
Packet Pg. 13
ATTACHMENT 1
1.1
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Landscape Projects Location Map (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a Resilient Community Landscape)
1
Resilient Landscapes
Liesel Hans, Fort Collins Utilities Water Conservation Manager
3-24-20
1.2
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
What is a resilient landscape?
right plant for the
purpose/place
efficient, low-
water biodiverseusing
functional beautiful
drought/heat
tolerant
1.2
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
What it is not:
3
1.2
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
Overview
• Strategic Alignment
• Question for Council Consideration
• Drivers of Landscape Transformation
• Examples
• City Landscape Programs & Services
• Customer Perspectives
• City Opportunities
• Related Work
• Opportunities to Consider
4
1.2
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
5
Strategic Alignment
City Plan
Colorado Water Plan
Water Efficiency Plan
Water Supply &
Demand Management
Policy
City Strategic Plan
Resilient
Landscapes
1.2
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
Questions for Council
1. What supporting projects,
services, or resources would
Council like to see prioritized?
6
1.2
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
Drivers
Water use and related costs
Purpose of place & aesthetics
Pollinators, wildlife, return to more naturalized conditions
Recognition of current and future climate conditions
7
1.2
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
8
Examples
1.2
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
Poudre Overlook
9
Before
“We wanted to create a natural space for various
plants and creatures and were excited to create a
place for people to enjoy and be inspired.”
– Poudre Overlook Resident
1.2
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
10
Poudre Overlook – Establishment Year 1
June 2018 July 2018 Sept 2018
1.2
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
Poudre Overlook
July 2019 July 2019 11
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
2017 2018 2019
Annual Water Use (Gallons)
2017 2018 2019
Pre-Project
Year 1: Project Start
Year 2:
Establishment
1.2
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
Larimer County
12
Before After
1.2
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
Larimer County
13
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Annual Water Use (Gallons)
Water Use Allotment
Pre-Project
Year 1: Project Start
Year 2: Establishment
Established
Annual savings: ~$3,000
Allotment
1.2
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
Commercial Water Allotments
Allotment
• Water Supply Requirement
equivalent for taps installed after
March 1, 1984
• Annual volume of water a tap can
use before being subject to
Excess Water Use surcharge
14
Excess Water Use Surcharge
• Surcharge for all water used over
the allotment
• Utility to develop additional water
supplies
• Increased from $3.06 in 2017 to
$10.06 per 1,000 gallons currently
Water Supply Requirement
• Dedication or cash-in-lieu of water
rights to ensure reliable water
supply service to the customer
1.2
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
Commercial Water Allotments
15
Excess Water Use
(EWU) Surcharge
+ $10.09 per 1,000 gal
Allotment is
exceeded.
Regular Use Rates
Winter: $2.21 per 1,000 gal
Summer: $2.77 per 1,000 gal
1.2
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
Programs & Services
1.2
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
17
Landscape
Program
Participant
Locations Commercial:
• Allotment Management
Program
• XIP for HOA and
Commercial
• NIC Grants
• Northern Water Grants
• Neighborhood
Services Programs
Residential:
• XIP Residential
• NIC Grants
1.2
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
More Landscape Examples
1.2
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
Native-like Landscapes
City of Fort Collins
19
Utilities Administration
222 Laporte
After
Before
19
1.2
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
Native-like Landscapes
City of Fort Collins
20
During Establishment Crescent Park
After
1.2
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
XIP residential example
21
Before After
1.2
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
XIP residential example
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
2016 2017 2018 2019
Annual water use (gallons)
Year 2: Establishment
22
Year 1: Project Start
Pre-Project
1.2
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
Colorado Springs
Information Courtesy of Eric Becker, Colorado Springs Utilities
1.2
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
Community Perspective
Where to start?
What about the irrigation system?
Who can help me?
How will I pay for this project?
Do my fellow residents understand the need?
It won’t look great right away – how to manage the transition?
How do I navigate City requirements?
How do I make sure it’s installed correctly?
How do I take care of my new landscape?
24
1.2
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
City Opportunities
25
Alignment of Land
Use Code with
current Policies,
Plans and Programs
Gap in community
awareness of City
processes
Landscape industry
capacity and ability
Varying
preferences,
expectations and
desires across
community
Understanding of
establishment
processes
Customer
experience
1.2
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
26
Water Supply
Requirements
Nature in the City:
Focused Land Use Code
evaluation
City Vegetation Team:
Plant list and other
projects
Related Work
1.2
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
Opportunities to Consider
27
Expand City
support for
community
landscape
projects
Reimagine
Water in the
Land Use Code
Trainings,
workshops,
and/or
certifications for
landscape
industry
Use City sites
as case studies
and
demonstrations
Collaborate with
neighboring
water entities
What related and supporting projects, services, or resources would you like to see prioritized?
1.2
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
“Overall, the best place in the world to live. We
strive for excellence in all areas. Fort Collins has
been a community that believes there’s no standing
still—you’re either moving forward or falling behind.
Fort Collins chooses to move forward.”
-Fort Collins resident (quoted in City Plan)
1.2
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
Questions for Council
1. What related and
supporting projects,
services, or resources
would Council like to see
prioritized?
29
1.2
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
Thank You
1.2
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: ResilientLandscapes_Mar24Council_mainslides (8844 : Land-Water Nexus-Building a
DATE:
STAFF:
March 24, 2020
Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Policy and Housing Program
Manager
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
This item has been rescheduled for to April 14, 2020.
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Affordable Housing Priorities.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to report on progress of the City's affordable housing goals and discuss the scope and
timing of the next Affordable Housing Strategic Plan. Also, an update on requested specific policies and programs
will also be included. These are: Home Buyers Assistance, partnership with Elevation Community Land Trust, the
Impact Fee nexus study and the feasibility study for an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Do Councilmembers have guidance on the scope for the update of the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan?
2. Do Councilmembers agree with staff’s recommended approach to Inclusionary Housing?
3. Do Councilmembers want to continue to pursue an Affordable Housing Impact Fee?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
At the October 15, 2019 City Council Work Session on Council Priorities, staff was asked to report out on four items
at this Affordable Housing Priorities Work Session. These are:
• Home Buyer Assistance Program
• Partnership with Elevation Community Land Trust
• Feasibility of Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
• Nexus Study for Affordable Housing Impact Fee
Staff will provide an update on the City’s affordable housing strategic goals and planning options moving forward.
Affordable Housing Strategic Planning
Beginning in 1999, the City began strategically planning for stimulating the production of housing for the City’s
lowest wage earners. Developing housing that is affordable to low wage earners often needs subsidy or incentives.
This has been true for many decades. In the past, the real estate market provided options for middle earners and
above. It is becoming harder for middle income earners to find good housing options that are affordable to them.
The City has used iterative 5-year plans focused on housing for earners making less than 80% of the area median
income (AMI). The most recent Affordable Housing Strategic Plan incorporated many policy recommendations from
the Housing Affordability Policy Study (HAPS) conducted in 2014. Many of those recommendations have been
implemented, such as:
• Remove minimum house size from the Land Use Code
March 24, 2020 Page 2
• Expand waiver eligibility to all developers of qualifying units
• Activate Land Bank by selling one or more parcels
• Support Construction Defect Claim Reform by advocating for State level change
• Use Incentive Policy to negotiate affordable housing when providing a public benefit (i.e., Metro Districts)
• Increase revenue through a dedicated sales tax. Affordable Housing Capital Fund is part of the Community
Capital Improvement Program and was passed by voters to provide $4 million over 10 years.
HAPS also reviewed both Inclusionary Housing Ordinances and affordable housing impact fees. The conclusion at
that time was that the Inclusionary Housing ordinance was not a good fit for the City’s housing needs. Impact fees
and alternative revenue sources were seen as impactful in addressing the City’s need for affordable housing but
was not recommended due to lack of support. The Affordable Housing Strategic Plan calls for periodic reviews of
these tools to determine when and if they are appropriate for the City.
This plan also established an overarching goal of having 10% of the City’s housing inventory be Affordable Housing
by City’s buildout, which is anticipated to be in the next 20-25 years. A goal to increase the ratio from 5% to 6% was
set for the term of the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan, 2015-2019. While the City’s partners added 373 affordable
homes in the past 5 years, and there are 248 currently under construction, the goal of 940 new homes was not met.
Plus, because there was so much market rate housing production during this time period, the ratio did not increase
from 5%.
While the City’s housing partners are planning on bringing many projects forward, without new programs, policies,
and/or incentives, it is not likely the City will achieve its goal.
See figure below:
Staff was preparing to update the City’s Affordable Housing Strategic Plan for another 5-year cadence targeting the
80% AMI and lower demographic. However, this is an opportunity to decide if this scope and cadence is the best
for the City moving forward. There are many approaches to strategic planning for housing. Many places simply plan
for the affordable income range as Fort Collins as traditionally done. Others plan for the entire housing spectrum.
Greeley has this type of plan. Boulder has a separate Middle-Income Housing Strategy that complements their
affordable housing plan. Wilsonville Oregon is drafting an Equitable Housing Strategic Plan that combines the equity
lens with strategic planning for housing. Some plans use a master planning approach looking out 20 years and
building in regular updates. The new Housing Manager and the ad hoc City Council committee may want to help
guide the conversation on the scope and cadence of the next Housing Strategic Plan document. See example chart
attached. (Attachment 1)
Home Buyer Assistance (HBA) Program
History
March 24, 2020 Page 3
The Home Buyer Assistance Program (HBA) was initially established in 1995 to help low- to moderate-income
renter households (earning below 80% Area Median Income) stabilize their housing costs through affordable
ownership. The target population for Home Buyer Assistance is a household which is:
• financially ready to purchase their first home
• qualifies for a mortgage with affordable monthly payments
• but lacks the additional out-of-pocket funding necessary to cover the down payment and closing costs required
to close the purchase.
Initial funding for the program came from the City’s annual grant fund allocation from the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD). The HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) and the Community Block
Grant Program (CDBG) both identify down payment assistance as a strategy to help low-income households
stabilize housing costs and achieve home ownership. The funding sources also prescribe the income limits,
maximum purchase price and additional eligibility requirements associated with the use of federal funds. Since
inception, City staff has applied for program funds in the annual Competitive Grant process. The program has
competed for funding against other housing applications for both HUD funding and City’s Affordable Housing Funds.
From 1995–2000, funding was issued as a grant that was forgiven after five years of owner occupancy. In 2000,
the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Commission recommended that the program change to a “due
on sale” loan where the buyers repaid the funding to the City upon sale or transfer of the property, or if they
refinanced to cash out their equity. In 2014, the maximum amount of assistance was increased from $10,000 to
$15,000 to address the higher purchase prices and required increases in down-payment and closing costs.
Performance:
Since the inception of the program, over 1,100 households have moved from rental housing to affordable
homeownership with assistance from the HBA program. Currently, there are 188 households with active loans
totaling $1.8 million that will be repaid to the City upon sale or transfer. The repaid funding will be returned to the
HUD line of credit and allocated to future affordable housing projects in the City’s Competitive Funding Process.
Program performance has been steadily declining since 2012, with only one loan issued in 2019. This was for a
condominium purchased by a 1-person household for $175,000. See figure below for history of loans provided
since 2012.
March 24, 2020 Page 4
Current trends
The HBA Program worked well when there were homes for sale at affordable prices to low-income buyers. As prices
have outpaced earnings, the program is no longer able to achieve the same results since low-income buyers are
no longer qualifying for mortgages or finding affordable properties to purchase.
Example of effect of market change: In 2012, a 2-person household could receive HBA assistance to purchase
a modest, entry-level house for $185,000. From 2012 to 2019, incomes increased 12.5% while the median
purchase prices increased 85%. If the household that used HBA to purchase in 2012 had earnings growth at the
reported average, they would’ve needed $18,000 in additional subsidy to purchase the same home at an affordable
purchase price in 2013, $95,000 of additional subsidy in 2016 and $132,000 of additional subsidy in 2019. The
home has essentially appreciated out of the affordable inventory and would only be affordable to a household of 6
today. The following chart illustrates this:
March 24, 2020 Page 5
A recent questionnaire sent to the lenders who are registered to participate in the HBA program yielded the following
responses: (Attachment 2)
1. The program no longer works for two primary reasons: A) The HUD income limits are too low and B) income
eligible households aren’t finding affordable inventory.
2. For buyers who are finding properties they can afford, there are other market products available that are less
restrictive.
3. Only 33% of the responding lenders believed the program still fills a gap in the market.
Other HUD funded down payment programs in Colorado have suspended their programs as a result of the changes
in the housing market, such as Larimer Home Ownership Program and Arapahoe County. A non-profit partner,
Impact Development Fund (IDF), formerly known as Funding Partners for Housing Solutions, was recently awarded
a $1.8 million grant from the Colorado Division of Housing to develop a down payment assistance program that can
serve all of Larimer and Weld Counties. The amount available through this program will be up to $25,000 per
household. They expect to be ready to implement in July.
Given the changes in the housing market and the emergence of other down-payment programs, the City’s HBA
program no longer meets its intended purpose. There isn’t a programmatic change that can be made to the existing
program that can overcome the purchase price affordability gap. A new program with different funding would be
necessary to serve households with higher incomes who can qualify for mortgages for current sales prices.
Currently, the HBA program has an unspent funding allocation of approximately $70,000. This can be returned to
the Spring Competitive Process.
IDF is establishing a down payment program that can serve all of Larimer/Weld counties with down payment
assistance. If they can successfully deploy their funding and create demand, they would be eligible to apply to the
City for subsequent program funds to serve Fort Collins. It will be much simpler for income eligible buyers to apply
with one local provider which serve the entire region, so staff recommends supporting this as the regional down-
payment assistance program.
HUD and Affordable Housing Funds can still support homeownership through partnerships that help with
development and/or acquisition of housing restricted to low-income ownership such as Habitat for Humanity, and
$150,000
$185,000 $185,000 $185,000
$200,000
$40,000
$18,000
$95,000
$132,000
$190,000
$185,000
$203,000
$280,000
$332,000
$-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
$-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
$100,000
2005 2012 2013 2016 2019
March 24, 2020 Page 6
Elevation Community Land Trust. The City’s funding and partnership is best used to help partners achieve
affordable purchase prices, since income-eligible buyers can utilize other market programs for down-payment.
Partnership with Elevation Community Land Trust
Community Land Trusts (CLT) separate ownership of land from a home creating affordable homeownership and
maintain the units as affordable permanently. They sell the home to qualified low income buyers and keep the
ownership of the land A land lease with the homeowner establishes a formula for sharing appreciation in the house
so some is left as subsidy to keep the price low for subsequent buyers. The CLT qualifies buyers, certifies resale
prices, and stewards the communities and the homeowners in perpetuity.
Elevation Community Land Trust (Elevation) was established in 2017 to be a statewide CLT. Its mission is
permanent affordable homeownership. It is capitalized by philanthropic funders and expects to be self-sustaining
when it manages 1,068 properties, which it believes will take 7 years. Fort Collins is one of nine local jurisdictions
currently working with Elevation. The City formalized the partnership with Elevation in 2019.
Elevation is currently working on two projects in Fort Collins:
• Public Housing Repositioning: Elevation and Housing Catalyst have come together in a unique way that is a
win-win-win. Through this partnership, 44 aging, underfunded public housing units will be renovated by
Elevation to become permanently affordable homeownership opportunities for families earning 70% of area
median income; Housing Catalyst will receive 44 new vouchers to serve the existing families in ways that
support family stability and mobility; and Housing Catalyst will then be able to leverage the sales proceeds to
build or preserve approximately 130 affordable rental apartments.
• Kechter Land Bank Parcel: After the City issued two Requests for Proposals for the development of a
homeownership 60-unit townhome community on the 5-acre land bank parcel on Kechter Road, an Exclusive
Negotiating Agreement was entered into with TWG, Inc as developer. Feasibility analysis for such a community
is under way and moved forward with formation of partnership between TWG, Inc. as developer, Elevation
Community Land Trust as acquirer, and with Housing Catalyst providing construction tax abatement and local
development entitlement process technical assistance. This partnership structure allows Elevation to apply for
Division of Housing funding which is the needed subsidy to make this home ownership project feasible. This
application will be heard by the State Housing Board on April 14, 2020.
Feasibility of Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
What is Inclusionary Housing?
Inclusionary Housing is a land use regulation, adopted through ordinance, that requires new residential
development to build a portion (also called a set-aside) of housing units as affordable to a specified income
affordability level (e.g., requiring a residential development to provide 10 percent of its housing units as affordable
to households earning 80 percent of the area’s median income, or 20 percent of units at 100 percent of median
income). Policies lay out a variety of provisions, such as:
• Type and amount of incentives (e.g., density bonus, fee reductions or waivers, subsidies)
• Length of the affordability term
• Local residency requirement
• Price appreciation limits
• Applicability threshold (i.e., the policy applies only to project with 30 units or more)
• Alternative satisfaction options (e.g., building units off-site, dedicating land, or making a cash contribution to a
housing fund – a fee in-lieu).
While most policies in practice make set-asides mandatory, a substantial portion are voluntary, meaning that if a
development chooses to meet the specified affordability requirement, it can access identified incentives.
March 24, 2020 Page 7
Fort Collins has periodically evaluated the use of this policy, as well as the imposition of an affordable housing
impact fee several times since 2001. This year, City Council approved an interim budget request to hire a consultant
to consider these tools again under current conditions. The City hired Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
who authored the 2014 HAPS report to conduct a feasibility study for a potential Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
and a nexus study for a potential affordable housing impact fee.
Where are Inclusionary Housing Policies Active?
Nationwide, there are approximately 900 jurisdictions with inclusionary zoning policies, 45 percent of which are in
New Jersey, 27 percent in Massachusetts, 17 percent in California, and 11 percent scattered throughout the rest of
the U.S. There are 12 IHO policies in Colorado (1 percent of programs nationwide).
How Many Units do Inclusionary Housing Policies Create?
One of the more recent comprehensive reviews of IHO policies in the U.S. was completed in 2017 by the Lincoln
Institute of Land Policy, which identified a total production yield of 173,700 units nationwide among these 900
jurisdictions since the inception of all policies – an average of 190 units per program since adoption. Considering
that 70 percent of programs were created between 2000 and 2010, it could be estimated that, that the average
policy adopted in 2005 has generated 12 units per year nationwide.
• Denver (CO): in for-sale projects of 30 units or more (but not more than 1,000), the program requires a 10
percent set-aside of units priced at 80 percent AMI or at 95 percent AMI (in high cost structures, e.g., multifamily
steel and concrete construction); in for-sale projects of more than 1,000 units, affordability is negotiated with
developers; incentives include a cash subsidy up to $25,000 per unit; alternative satisfaction options exist; since
2002, the program has produced approximately 100 units in projects (not including more than 1,000 created
through negotiations with developers).
• Chapel Hill (NC): in for-sale projects, the program requires a 15 percent set-aside (10 percent in the Town
Center) of units priced between 65 and 80 percent AMI; a state rent control prohibition also exists in North
Carolina; since 1995, the program has produced approximately 300 units.
• Cambridge (MA): in for-sale and rental projects, the program requires a 15 percent set-aside of units at 65
percent AMI; incentives include a 30 percent density bonus; since adoption, the program has created
approximately 12 units per year.
• Boulder (CO): in for-sale projects (and for rental projects through voluntary compliance), the program requires
a 25 percent set-aside of units at as an incentive, affordable units may be smaller than market-rate units, but
must meet the City’s livability standards–i.e., that the units must be “functionally equivalent”; since adoption,
the program has created (through onsite construction, offsite construction or financing) approximately 80 units
per year.
• Montgomery County (MD): in for-sale and rental projects, this program requires a 15 percent set-aside of units
priced at 80 to 120 percent AMI (for-sale projects) or 65 percent AMI (garden-style apartments) and 70 percent
AMI (high-rise apartments); incentives available include the waiver of certain impact fees; between its adoption
and 2004, the program had created more than 400 units per year (nearly 12,000 total); because the affordability
term was only 10 years, however, all 12,000 affordable units are no longer affordable.
To What Type of Developments do Inclusionary Housing Programs Apply?
Throughout the U.S., many inclusionary housing programs cannot apply to new rental developments. Many states,
like Colorado, have statutory prohibitions against “rent control”, meaning communities are prohibited from enacting
IHOs applied to rental developments. Nearly two decades ago, the State Supreme Court’s “Telluride Decision”
made such a determination. Since then, the Colorado State Legislature, has made limited provisions for housing
authorities or similar entities to own and manage deed-restricted affordable housing under HB10-1017, which has
left room for rental housing to be provided through voluntary agreements. Aspen and Boulder, two of the more
prominent examples of communities with such policies, continue to apply their inclusionary housing policies to rental
housing projects, although the processes by which these agreements are accomplished require complex legal
ownership and operational agreements and are not easily replicable. It also requires substantial administrative
support. As such, inclusionary housing policies in Colorado generally apply to for-sale residential developments.
March 24, 2020 Page 8
Study Methodology
EPS conducted its economic feasibility study and nexus analysis grounded in local market data and based on best
practices. The feasibility study evaluated the impact that a variety of inclusionary housing provisions would have on
the financial feasibility of “prototypical” developments in Fort Collins. The feasibility evaluation calculated financial
performance metrics for developments under four scenarios:
• no requirements
• with incentives
• with onsite affordable housing
• and the payment of a fee in-lieu of onsite affordable housing.
EPS also performed sensitivity analyses on different aspects of the policy (i.e., incentive amounts, density bonus,
set-aside, affordability level, etc.) to understand whether and at what point an optimal policy could be structured to
retain baseline financial performance (i.e., with no inclusionary housing). They engaged stakeholders by convening
four meetings and conducted interviews with developers and City Councilmembers. These Stakeholder meetings
and interviews informed both the inclusionary housing feasibility study and the nexus study for the affordable
housing impact fee.
Stakeholders from the following organizations were invited to participate:
Banner Health
Bohemian
Brinkman
CARE Housing
CBRE (Commercial Real Estate)
Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce
Community Foundation
Colorado State University
Downtown Development Authority
Neighbor to Neighbor
Colorado Division of Housing
Elevations Community Land Trust
Fort Collins Board of Realtors
Hartford Homes
Home Builders Association
Housing Catalyst
Impact Development Fund
Larimer County (Economic Development, Health Department and Housing Work Group representatives)
MAVD – Harmony Technology Park
Montava Developer
Neenan Archistruction
Poudre School District
Ripley Design
Feasibility Study results
Draft feasibility modeling results demonstrate that an inclusionary housing policy could be established with the
following elements:
• Onsite Set-Aside and Affordability
o Single-family: 4 percent at 60 percent AMI or 7 percent at 80 percent AMI
o Townhome: 8 percent at 60 percent AMI or 23 percent at 80 percent AMI
o Multifamily structures (3+ floors): n/a (market-rate price points don’t exist to support this product in
the Fort Collins market yet)
March 24, 2020 Page 9
o The recommended set asides would range between 5-15% depending on prototype because
conventional practice is to generalize these numbers in increments of 2.5 or 5%.
• Density Bonus
o Single-family: 20 percent
o Townhome: 20 percent
o Multifamily: modeled at 20 percent
• Fee In-Lieu of Onsite Affordable Housing Construction
o Single-family: $8 per square-foot of gross building area
o Townhome: $10 per square-foot of gross building area
o Multifamily: $10 to $15 per square-foot of gross building area
• An applicability threshold was not discussed
In EPS’s presentation of draft feasibility findings, they identified the following conditions would be necessary for this
policy, as structured, to be successful. The City has control over some, but not all of these conditions, making the
likelihood of success a greater challenge.
• Density bonus must be (a) perceived as valuable to the development (City does not have control over this); (b)
possible under the Land Use Code (City does have control); and (c) any additional density must be achieved
through an increase of density on the same acreage of land (City does have control over the land use aspect,
but not over whether the market (i.e., buyers) will respond positively to such a change).
o Many, if not all, of these conditions are not viable under the current market and regulations
• Market would need to accept an inclusionary housing policy that applied only to single-family and townhome
development. (City does not have control over this). It was noted that this would not mirror most policies in
practice. Active policies typically apply to multifamily scale developments (e.g., 3+ floors), in part because the
marginal financial gains of additional density can be achieved without the purchase of additional land.
o The Fort Collins market does not currently exist to support 3+ story for-sale product.
• The end-user (i.e., homebuyer) would need to be indifferent to deed restrictions. (City does not have control
over this). That is, in high-priced markets (like Aspen or San Francisco) with a wide gap between market rate
price points and affordable housing, buyers have no affordable options in the existing housing market. There is
still an overlap of pricing for some market rate homes and restricted homes.
• In Fort Collins, a new market-rate townhome, for example, is likely to be priced at $300,000, whereas an
affordable townhome for a household earning 80 percent AMI is $225,800.
• Furthermore, when this policy was evaluated in 2013, 22% of existing home sales were affordable to
households earning 100 percent of area median income. Today, 21% of all market rate sales were priced
affordably to households earning 100% AMI.
Possible consequences
• Could negatively impact land values,
• Could limit developer profit,
• Could cause cost shifting to market-rate unit buyers/renters,
• Comes with a heavy administrative burden
Conclusion: Based on lack of required conditions for success, current suitability for Inclusionary Housing for Fort
Collins is questionable. Staff will continue to monitor conditions and periodically evaluate policy appropriateness.
Nexus Study for Affordable Housing Impact Fee
What is an affordable housing impact fee?
March 24, 2020 Page 10
Linkage fees are sometimes referred to as “affordable housing impact fees”, and they can be applied to new
residential and/or commercial development. While inclusionary housing policies are typically structured to prioritize
onsite affordable housing construction with an alternative option to pay a fee in-lieu, linkage programs are structured
to prioritizing the generation of revenues for a variety of affordable housing purposes with an alternative option to
build onsite or offsite affordable housing. Linkage fees are implemented under a legal framework similar to
traditional capital impact fees. Therefore, linkage fees must be:
• Legislatively adopted
• Generally applicable to a broad class of property
• Intended to defray impacts of proposed development, and
• Must not be greater than necessary to mitigate impacts of proposed development.
Nexus study methodology
Because there must be a legal “nexus” or relationship between the linkage fee and the impact that a development
places on community needs for affordable housing, a nexus study is legally required to establish a maximum
supportable fee. As such, EPS performed the following tasks in conformance with national practices in conducting
a nexus study:
1. Calculate jobs by industry and wage level generated by both residential and commercial development.
a. This utilizes an economic impact model that quantifies jobs generated by new household spending
(i.e. residential development).
b. The model also quantifies the layers of direct, indirect and induced jobs generated by new
commercial development: jobs related to the space itself (direct); those that result from business-
to-business relationships (indirect), and jobs generated by spending of households related to direct
and indirect jobs (induced).
2. Estimate the number of households representing new jobs generated by either new residential or new
commercial development.
a. This calculation involved adjusting for multiple job-holdings and adjusting for multiple earners per
household (also using local data). These steps are necessary to avoid overestimating the impact
of development on affordable housing as there are often people with more than one job, and
multiple workers in a household.
b. Households were categorized by income level (e.g. 30, 60, 80 percent AMI), excluding any
households generated with incomes higher than 80 percent AMI.
3. Estimate the cost to build housing for these households, assumed to be a multifamily (apartment) prototype.
4. Establish a maximum supportable fee amount based on the difference (i.e. gap) between the cost of
construction and a target household’s ability to pay for housing (at the 30, 60, and 80 percent AMI
categories).
a. The maximum supportable fee is calculated as the aggregate gap divided by the total square feet
in the new residential or commercial development.
b. This establishes a per-square foot fee for each residential and commercial development prototype
identified.
5. Adopted fees cannot exceed these maximum supportable fees, but fees are often adopted as a lesser
amount.
a. Double-counting need for affordable housing mitigation must also be avoided when contemplating
the adoption of a residential and commercial fee, particularly as it relates to retail expenditures and
their impacts.
b. These fees are commonly set at 10% or less of the maximum supportable fee.
Linkage fees can apply to residential development, nonresidential development, or both. If linkages fees are applied
to both major land use types, it is strongly advised that the fees adopted are at a considerable discount from the
maximum fee calculated by the nexus Study to ensure that there is no double counting of impacts from residential
and nonresidential development. In other words, a person living in a new home may also be working in a new
business subject to fees.
March 24, 2020 Page 11
Results of nexus study: In EPS’s presentation of draft findings of the nexus study, the maximum supportable fees
were presented as based on the mitigation of affordable housing demand generated only up to 80 percent AMI from
new residential and commercial development. The following are maximum supportable fees:
• Residential
• Single-family: maximum supportable fee is $16.38 per square-foot.
• Townhome: maximum supportable fee is $17.14 per square-foot.
• Multifamily: maximum supportable fee ranges between $22.24 and $26.21 per square-foot depending
on project scale (i.e. 3- and 5-story projects, respectively).
• Weighted average of $21.15 per square foot.
• Commercial
• Office: maximum supportable fee is $7.86 per square-foot.
• Industrial: maximum supportable fee is $7.62 per square-foot.
• Restaurant: maximum supportable fee is $16.37 per square-foot.
• Retail: maximum supportable fee is $7.60 per square-foot.
• Hotel: maximum supportable fee is $3.27 per square-foot.
Revenue Yield
EPS prepared planning level revenue estimates for linkage fees as follows.
• Residential
o Growth Assumptions: 400 new single-family homes and 450 new multifamily units annually.
o Maximum fee: $27.2 million/year.
o 5% of maximum fee: $1.4 million/year
o 10% of maximum: $2.7 million/year
o 15% of maximum: $4.1 million/year
o Additional feasibility testing is needed to determine the impact of linkage fees at different levels on
the market.
• Nonresidential
o Growth Assumptions: 15,000 sq. ft./year retail; 25,000 sq. ft./year office; 25,000 sq. ft./year
industrial and flex.
o Maximum fee: $500,000/year
o 5% of maximum fee: $25,000/year
o 10% of maximum: $50,000/year
o 15% of maximum: $75,000/year
o Additional feasibility testing is needed to determine the impact of linkage fees at different levels on
the market.
Linkage Fees in other Communities
The linkage fees in a selection of other communities are summarized below. Denver adopted its fees at 6.6 to 8.1
percent of the maximum for residential, and 1.5 to 2.1 percent of the maximum for nonresidential. Boulder’s
maximum fees from its 2016 nexus study have been adopted at 22 to 23 percent of the maximum and are among
the highest in Colorado and represent a significant increase to construction costs. In Seattle, nonresidential linkage
fees were adopted at roughly 18 to 20 percent of the maximum.
City Residential Non-Residential
Denver
Max $9.60-$19.44 $28.51-$83.02
Adopted $0.63-$1.57 $0.42-$1.78
March 24, 2020 Page 12
% of Max 6.6%-8.1% 1.5%-2.1%
Boulder
Max N/A (IZ) $44.79-$129.49
Adopted N/A (IZ) $10.00-$30.00
% of Max 22%-23%
Lafayette
Max No nexus study completed
Adopted $0.60/SF Under consideration
Summit County $2.00 (excise tax) N/A
Seattle, WA
Max N/A (IZ) $45.30-$80.00
Adopted N/A (IZ) $8.00-$17.50
% of Max 17.7%-21.9%
Conclusion: The nexus analysis establishes the relationship between new development and the need for
affordable housing below 80 percent of AMI. If the maximum fee levels are adopted however, they could be
expected to have a negative impact on development in the City as it may be less costly to develop in neighboring
communities. In addition, the total impact fee “stack” in northeast Fort Collins is considerably higher than in
established areas of the City. However, staff does recommend continuing to evaluate the imposition of an
affordable housing impact fee in conjunction with the 2021 scheduled update of development impact fees. The
total impact fee levels would need to be considered with the potential affordable housing linkage fees. EPS
recommends conducting additional feasibility testing on linkage fees in conjunction with all other impact fees
imposed on either residential or commercial development for final calibration. Also, phasing in the fee can mitigate
negative affect on projects currently being developed.
Initial Stakeholder Feedback: In addition to the 4 Stakeholder meetings, EPS sent out a survey to stakeholders
and conducted multiple interviews with developers. The Stakeholders contributed to the following list, in no
particular order at their final meeting. Also attached are survey result and polling results as well as specific
feedback from multiple stakeholders individually and in groups. (Attachment 3 – Engagement packet).
• Affordable and attainable housing is a critical issue
• Stakeholders are committed to working with City to help find workable solutions and a broad range of
tools
• Frustrated with unrealistic timeline and focus on only two potential tools
• These two tools and associated data are complex; stakeholders cannot support at this time
• Cannot support impact fees:
o incomplete financial analysis which fails to account for all costs & externalities
o would result in unintended consequences
o lack of success stories from similar cities
• Punitive approach of shifting cost burden to developers would:
o result in less development (Economics 101)
o shift costs to market-units
o consequently, force more people to live outside city limits
o defeat the purpose
• City should also consider how to incentivize development of affordable housing
March 24, 2020 Page 13
• Policy discussion should begin with agreement about city goals (what would success look like for Fort
Collins?) and consider wider context (current policy, design standards, fees and payment schedule, land
use & planning regulations - density, parking, height - and transportation impacts)
• Question how policy change would impact projects already committed to affordable housing and/or prior
agreements with developers?
• Particular concern about NE Fort Collins (fees already higher)
• Commercial impact fee does not appear worthwhile
Health Impact Assessment of Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Impact Fee policies:
Larimer County Department of Health and Environment (LCDHE), in partnership with the City of Fort Collins
Home2Health grant, conducted a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) on two policies: Impact fees and Inclusionary
Housing. This was done as a parallel process to the Inclusionary Housing and Impact Fee study done by EPS.
Housing and Health
Research shows that housing is a key factor of good health; health is influenced by housing affordability, safety
and quality, stability, and by neighborhood quality.
HIA Recommendations
As a result of the HIA process, below are recommendations for Inclusionary Housing and Impact Fees:
· To increase affordable housing options, implement variation of inclusionary housing and impact fees as
recommended by EPS, City Staff, City Council, and stakeholders
· Utilize Impact Fees and/or inclusionary housing as a way to leverage and/or establish funding sources to
increase development of future affordable housing, including the Land Bank Program, community land trusts,
and/or funding of supportive housing services and programs
· If implemented, combine the use of Impact Fee and/or Inclusionary Housing with other developer
incentives (like upzoning or density bonuses) to locate affordable housing close to community amenities and
within a quarter mile of transit.
· In order to grow the range of policy options available for affordable housing development, align the review
of Impact Fees and Inclusionary Housing with other strategic planning efforts, including the Affordable Housing
Strategic Plan.
Process and Summary:
To create the recommendations, LCDHE conducted a Health Impact Assessment (HIA). A Health Impact
Assessment (HIA) is a standardized practice that aims to protect and promote health and reduce inequities in
health during a decision-making process. The HIA provides recommendations to mitigate the health effects of a
policy, program, or process. HIA is a combination of procedures, methods, and tools that systematically judges
the intentional and unintentional effects that a program, plan, or policy has on the health of a population and the
distribution of those effects. LCDHE followed a standardized 6 step HIA process, which included reviewing
research and published literature on the topic, creating a community engagement plan, disseminating
a community questionnaire, reviewing health and housing data, and receiving input from a highly
qualified Advisory Committee.
It was identified through LCDHE's HIA process:
1. Research shows that housing influences health outcomes and that affordable housing
positively impacts health.
2. The research is unclear about the direct link of Impact Fees and Inclusionary Housing on health.
These policies are implemented differently across the nation, so there is limited research and evidence
showing these policies are successful at mitigating negative health impacts that are associated with
housing that is too expensive, low quality, unstable, or in poorer quality neighborhoods.
3. Based on our questionnaire, it is difficult for low-income individuals in Fort Collins to find housing
that is within their budget (rent or purchase).
Goals of HIA
A key process of the HIA is to appropriately scope the HIA through the creation of goals. The goal of this HIA was
to:
March 24, 2020 Page 14
· Identify health impacts (unintended and intended) of inclusionary housing and impact fees
· Provide recommendations on how to best implement the two policies, based on health impacts
Literature Review
LCDHE staff reviewed 50 best practices and peer reviewed articles which identified that health is impacted by
housing; however, there is inconclusive evidence to define the relationship between health and the explored
policies, inclusionary housing and impact fees.
Questionnaire
LCDHE staff created a questionnaire hosted on the Our City website that received 115 responses; 60% were
completed in Spanish. From the questionnaire it was determined that many residents feel like their health is
impacted by their inability to find affordable rental or ownership opportunities.
Advisory Committee
LCDHE facilitated an HIA advisory committee to provide feedback, review of community engagement plan,
reviewed questionnaire, and to provide feedback on the recommendations included above.
Report
Final HIA report will be made available in May.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Housing Plan Examples (PDF)
2. 2020 HBA Participating Lender Questionnaire Results (PDF)
3. Engagement Feedback Packet (PDF)
4. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
Where? Plan Name Scope of Plan How often
updated
Populations covered
Fort Collins,
CO
Affordable Housing
Strategic Plan (2015)
Targets affordable housing only Every 5 years 80% AMI and below
Atlanta, GA Housing Affordability
Action Plan (2020)
Creation/Preservation of 20,000
affordable homes by 2026
6 year goal
(2026)
Up to 120%, focus
on 60% and below
Greeley,CO Strategic Housing Plan
(2018-2019)
Diversify housing types and
increase housing affordability
5 year housing
target (2024)
Households
between 80% and
120% of AMI
Boulder
County, CO
Regional Housing
Strategy (2017)
Housing Boulder Action Plan
(2019/2020) follows Regional
Housing Implementation
Strategy. Focuses on acquisition,
redevelopment and new
construction of affordable
housing.
15 year goal
(2035)
12% of housing
achieve affordable
housing standards.
Boulder, CO Middle Income
Housing Strategy
(2016)
Create/Preserve 3,500 middle
income homes (15% Affordable
Housing goal)
14 year goal
(2030)
Residents making
between 80% to
150% of Boulders
AMI
Denver, CO Housing an Inclusive
Denver (2018)
Targets affordable housing only 5 year housing
target (2023)
40-50% for
Populations 30%
below AMI, 20-25%
& ! "
)/#0+!+#*#+# 1'23444* ,#!#-"#, # .' $'$''%$%%&&'
'( (
%5*8!!*#!###,7.67. . #!#*# # ## . 3#!*###+,## .,$9 '%' +##:
''
;<=>?@A
B=C?@D
I H E# FG%2%&
J
K@ L; ' '
G%M #3 *##*** *N
O##
(4 4 P8Q R#!ST*#.# + Q# + +* R#N
G4 $4
'44 4
R# P8Q !ST*#.# + '44% %F 4
' &
2.2
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: 2020 HBA Participating Lender Questionnaire Results (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
"#$%&'() ** *
! +
, 0123"456 7 -. / * * +
6 89'#:;<=;:#&> ??@?ABC
K 3 G DD@EABF II J HH H
L
. BMN *+ I
+ Q
OP "R<R#
#'T99S8 #:
=;# ::;98 <#9' =#8#0 U0 + ==S8 ; =8#8;; :=$%
*** H Q 18;(R#7#'T8=HW ;:67R8:'#'' :#8&:; ==(# 8=8##9#9'
(8;V=:&#'=:;X8X R9'(9 =#98##:
**J ! Y#R#=(#(98 #8=#TZT' 88 R0"#:; :#4[69' #]:8(8#(8=:8:#;#98 =#8;#\
:8#V:'
I ^1=_=:` 9$
2.2
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: 2020 HBA Participating Lender Questionnaire Results (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
Public Engagement Packet
Table of Contents:
1. Economics & Planning Systems Stakeholder Survey Results
2. Results from Polling at 3rd Stakeholder meeting
3. Compilation of messages from 4th Stakeholder meeting
4. Comments from Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce
5. Comments from the Home Builders Association
6. Comments from Bill Swalling
Materials based on targeted Stakeholder engagement largely consisting of 4 Stakeholder meetings
conducted between January and March 2020.
Stakeholders from the following organizations were invited to participate:
Banner Health
Bohemian
Brinkman
CARE Housing
CBRE (Commercial Real Estate)
Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce
Community Foundation
Colorado State University
Downtown Development Authority
Neighbor to Neighbor
Colorado Division of Housing
Elevations Community Land Trust
Fort Collins Board of Realtors
Hartford Homes
Home Builders Association
Housing Catalyst
Impact Development Fund
Larimer County (Economic Development, Health Department and Housing Work Group representatives)
MAVD – Harmony Technology Park
Montava Developer
Neenan Archistruction
Poudre School District
Ripley Design
2.3
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Engagement Feedback Packet (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
#1 Economics & Planning Systems Stakeholder Survey Results
2.3
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Engagement Feedback Packet (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
2.3
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Engagement Feedback Packet (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
2.3
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Engagement Feedback Packet (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
#2 Results from Polling at 3rd Stakeholder meeting
A total of 13 questions was asked of participants and they responded using smart devices. Following is a
transcript of the responses submitted to the questions asked.
1. Which category best describes your perspective? 14 people responded as follows.
Response options Count Percentage
Builder/developer 2 14%
Affordable housing developer/provider 1 7%
Real estate 2 14%
Business/economic development 1 7%
State or local government 3 21%
Philanthropy/non-profit 3 21%
None of the above 3 14%
2. EPS shared their research into Affordable Housing Linkage Fees and how they would work in Fort
Collins. What is your reaction? 15 people responded as follows.
Response options Count Percentage
I understand and agree with their research 3 2%
I don’t understand their research well
enough to agree or disagree
12 80%
I understand and disagree with their
research
0 0%
3. What additional information about Affordable Housing Linkage Fees do you need to help you
understand EPS's conclusions and/or recommendations? The following responses were submitted:
• Research data which shows that the implementation of increasing fees actually provides
significant housing ownership in the AMI categories
• More time is needed to better understand and interpret the information to make an informed
decision.
• The potential negative impacts does not indicate a viable solution with IZ and LF
• What has been done in other communities that would be considered "successful"?
• Broaden the scope
• I would like to understand the impact on other segments of the economy. How many people will
be negatively impacted by this. Who will be negatively impacted?
• Case studies
• Add more information about decision thresholds from other communities to presentations
• How it relates to additional housing affordability tools relative to overall housing system, not
just a specific project
• Would like more real examples from our local economic conditions.
• More case studies. Understand the other impacts as a result of the fee.
2.3
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Engagement Feedback Packet (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
• Greater understanding of methodology. Impacts across housing spectrum. Impacts to
commercial development
• More details. Digging in. How are people living outside community contributing?
• Examples from other municipalities
4. Looking at the potential configuration of a linkage fee, what is your initial reaction? 15 people
responded as follows.
Response options Count Percentage
Support 1 7%
Oppose 13 87%
Don’t understand 1 7%
5. If Fort Collins moves forward with a Linkage Fee, which option is most appropriate in your
opinion? 15 people responded as follows.
Response options Count Percentage
Residential only 2 13%
Commercial only 1 7%
Both 1 7%
Neither 11 73%
6. If Fort Collins moves forward with a Linkage Fee, which of the phasing options are most important
from your perspective? 5 people responded as follows.
Response options Count Percentage
Adopt a lower fee than maximum
supportable
2 13%
Phase in fee over time 3 7%
Adopt maximum supportable 0 7%
7. EPS shared their research into Inclusionary Zoning and how it would work in Fort Collins. What is
your reaction? 15 people responded as follows.
Response options Count Percentage
I understand and agree with their research 3 20%
I don’t understand their research well
enough to agree or disagree
12 80%
I understand and disagree with their
research
0 0%
8. What additional information about Inclusionary Zoning do you need to help you understand EPS's
conclusions and/or recommendation? The following responses were submitted:
• Research data which shows the implementation of IZ would provide significant benefits of
increasing home ownership in the AMI categories
2.3
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Engagement Feedback Packet (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
• More data from peer cities to the negative impact caused by IZ. Also, a true unit achieved goal
with data to support.
• What is the Council's expected outcome/impact for this vs what's realistically achievable given
the current market and what can be developed?
• More context. More comp case studies
• I don't need any additional information. I strongly disagree with inclusionary zoning
• Examples where it has worked with great success.
• How it relates to additional housing affordability tools relative to overall housing system, not
just a specific project
• Need to see acknowledgement that existing zoning already allows generous densities, i.e. LMN
& MMN & Downtown.
• The unintended consequences. How many units get built in successful cities
• Methodologies and assumptions. Impacts across housing spectrum. What, if any beneficial
impacts have been demonstrated in other markets
• What zoning within the City would need to change?
• Everywhere it has worked, and define "worked".
• Other municipal examples in detail. What have been the results in market rate home prices and
affordability increase
9. Looking at the potential configuration of an Inclusionary Zoning policy for single family and
townhomes, what is your initial reaction? 14 people responded as follows.
Response options Count Percentage
Support 1 7%
Oppose 12 79%
Don’t understand 2 14%
10. If Fort Collins moves forward with inclusionary zoning, which of the phasing options are most
important from your perspective? 9 people responded as follows.
Response options Count Percentage
Policy applies to projects over a certain size
initially
2 22%
Grandfathering projects in the pipeline for a
period of time
2 22%
Exempt the first SS units from the policy for a
period of time
0 0%
Establish the sale (mandatory) policy first 0 0%
Establish the rental (voluntary) policy first 3 33%
Start with a smaller fee in lieu and phase in
over time
2 22%
11. In your opinion how much support or interest is there on the part of buyers/renters for additional
density (plus 10-20%) in Fort Collins? 8 people responded as follows.
Response options Count Percentage
2.3
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Engagement Feedback Packet (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
Response options Count Percentage
Complete support 2 25%
Moderate support 4 50%
Neutral 1 13%
Moderate opposition 0 0%
Complete opposition 1 13%
12. What other policy options should the City of Fort Collins explore to add affordable housing
options? The following responses were submitted:
• Expanding funding sources, opening up the possibility to expand opportunity zones, density
consideration
• Occupancy limit elimination. Adjust fee stack allocation. Tiered water tap fees
• Prioritize empty nester housing, update city plan to relax regulations for townhouse and condos.
Look at reducing fees and other costs including water
• Unit size reduction
• ¼ cent sales tax
• Annex more land within GMA (northwest fc, for example). Expand land bank program. Raise
sales tax. Raise mill levy.
• Increased fee reductions. Expand funding sources
• Cost drivers, including all zoning, design standards, impact fees, certainty of policy allowances,
etc. Voluntary participation
• Land use code audit
• Sales tax. Property tax. Accessory dwelling units
• Significant fee reduction for affordable. Relaxing of land use codes for affordable projects.
Expectations for the Fourth Meeting
A final question in the polling asked participants about their expectations for the 4th meeting, scheduled
for March 16, 2020.
13. What should the 4th (final) meeting be designed to accomplish? The following responses were
submitted:
• Fully understand council presentation
• Big effing ordeal
• Development of other tools for council to consider at work sessions
• For example, if EPS was presenting at a professional conference and giving advice to participants
what would they advise as the ideal scope of services.
2.3
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Engagement Feedback Packet (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
#3 Compilation of messages from 4th Stakeholder meeting
Other Policy Options the Stakeholder Group would like the City to
Consider in Moving Forward with its Affordable Housing Strategic
Plan
The following ideas were submitted by individual members of the Affordable Housing Policy
Stakeholder Group during and following the March 16, 2020 meeting. They were not approved
by the group as a whole and each submission reflects the views of the individual who submitted
them.
Contents
Other Policy Options the Stakeholder Group would like the City to Consider in Moving Forward with its
Affordable Housing Strategic Plan ................................................................................................................ 9
Submitted by Sam Coutts at the meeting ................................................................................................. 9
Submitted by Kelly Evans, Executive Director, Neighbor to Neighbor via email ...................................... 9
Submitted by Jennifer Fairman via email ............................................................................................... 10
Submitted by Ann Hutchison, Executive Vice President, Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce via email
................................................................................................................................................................ 11
Submitted by Max Moss, Montava Development via email ................................................................... 12
Submitted by Matt Roebenalt via email ................................................................................................. 12
Submitted by Bill Swalling (at the meeting) ............................................................................................ 12
Submitted by Sam Counts at the meeting
• Provide real incentives for building height and parking
Submitted by Kelly Evans, Executive Director, Neighbor to Neighbor via email
• It’s important to gather recommendations on all possible solutions to positively impact
our affordable housing crisis, as singling out two policies for review will not suffice.
• Additional suggestions like addressing density limits and building incentives have been
recommended by the developers in our community for years.
• Our occupancy limit of 2+you is overly conservative. It would be encouraging to be able
to move to a more typical 4-person occupancy standard for communities our size.
• While Inclusionary Housing does increase costs, it would seem there are variables in
how it’s implemented that could make some level of implementation a success without
being really extreme and increasing the missing middle gap.
• The slides Sue showed to the stakeholders showed limited impact of 25-50 units per
year from implementation of this policy, so I agree with the staff’s recommendation to
2.3
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Engagement Feedback Packet (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
pass. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/06/what-we-know-about-inclusionary-
zoning-thus-far/485072/
• Not ensuring balanced housing access across income levels is truly exclusionary housing,
demonstrated by our current market with 5% affordability and 17% poverty. It would
seem this could also be addressed by approving/prioritizing/incentivizing affordable
development proposals to keep affordable inventory in balance with market and luxury
development. We need to implement multiple solutions in order to really be
successful.
• We should consider policies that incentivize affordable development to achieve balance
for all income levels. Reducing fees and expediting the approval process for affordable
developments are strategies sure to receive support.
• Giving priority to proposals form local developers will keep the investment in affordable
housing local. I recommend setting a priority to keep the developer fee of affordable
developments with local organizations to preserve the longterm investment and
support future development.
• Linkage fees – $25-$50,000/yr from commercial linkage fees is not worth it but $1.4-
$1.7million in annual revenue from residential linkage fees may very well be worth it if
the fees were limited and paired with many other solutions.
• Water - Tiered tap fees would allow for tap and impact fees to be tiered based on unit
type – single family, ADU, duplex, multi-family, etc - Currently the tap fee per unit does
not differentiate between all of the different unit types. ADU should not have to pay
the same tap fee as a single-family home, for example.
-Recalculate water usage assumption for housing types based upon actual usage, plus a
more reasonable slip factor. Tap fees would then be based upon a more realistic
projection of impact.
• Higher density allowances – especially in LMN parcels, changes to energy requirements,
and zoning standards/neighborhood requirements are all needed along with other
policies.
• Increase LMI zoning and increase the density bonus from 12-20. Housing Catalyst is the
Submitted by Jennifer Fairman via email
Can you please be sure to note that my comments are NOT the official position of Larimer
County, but rather as a workgroup participant?
That being said, a few other policies the City could evaluate include:
• Eliminating the "you plus two" policy
(https://www.fcgov.com/neighborhoodservices/occupancy)
• Restructuring rules for ADU's to something less restrictive such as what the City of
Windsor has done
• Enforcing stricter rules for water-friendly landscaping for new developments, both
commercial and residential
2.3
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Engagement Feedback Packet (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
• I anticipate that the City will be doing a complete review of all land use codes and
building regulations as part of their comprehensive housing strategy to identify what
could be modified to incent development of smaller homes. The City of Berthoud and
the Mission Homes project is a good case for them to review as an example.
Submitted by Ann Hutchison, Executive Vice President, Fort Collins Chamber of
Commerce via email
Areas of Opportunity Toward A More Balanced Fort Collins Housing Inventory
• Increase base density and provide density bonus. Increase density allowance under all
zoning designations.
o Reconsider U+2
o Education on density
o Review Actual Zones
o City should look at self-insuring to reduce condo development risk.
• Provide relief from certain development standards
o Height
o Setbacks
o Parking
o number of units per building
o Low Impact Development (LID)
o Poudre Fire Authority Requirements
o others that the City would be willing to offer
• Expand fee waivers and reconsider the city policy that backfills fee waivers.
• Delay fee payments – Don’t pay sales tax at the front end.
• Water
o Tiered tap fees based on unit type
Tiered tap fees would allow for tap and impact fees to be tiered based on unit type –
single family, ADU, duplex, multi-family, etc - Currently the tap fee per unit does not
differentiate between all of the different unit types. ADU should not have to pay the
same tap fee as a single-family home, for example.
o Recalculate water usage assumption for housing types based upon actual usage, plus
a more reasonable slip factor. Tap fees would then be based upon a more realistic
projection of impact.
o Alignment with districts in the growth management area.
• Impact fees based on unit type
• Increase priority of general fund allocations to housing through BFO process.
• Acquiring more data through broader analysis:
o Initiate cost-benefit analysis of zoning and code requirements
o Initiate analysis of impact fees through the lens of affordability and inclusiveness
o Moratorium on any new fees or escalations until completion of the impact analysis
o Create and rely on a broader housing strategic plan.
o Do a GAPS analysis to determine what dials are best to turn.
2.3
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Engagement Feedback Packet (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
o Do an analysis on the remaining land mass in the growth management area and
opportunities created.
o Do analysis of rent versus sale permits over the last 5 years.
Submitted by Max Moss, Montava Development via email
o Balanced funding source that reflects the same community wide impact of Natural
Areas.
o This balanced funding source would reflect the impact of everyone impacting the
community, residents and non-residents alike.
Submitted by Matt Roebenalt via email
• The September 14, 2014 EPS Report: Fort Collins Housing Affordability Policy
Study highlighted an array of Recommendations in Chapter 5.0 that represent
policy solutions that were deemed feasible and could meet local objectives if tailored to
local and regional conditions, the regulatory and political environment, and achieve
balance with the requirements of a policy tool with the positive impacts to address
housing issues.
• The 2014 Report also identified policy tools that were not recommended as they lacked
sufficient support at that time. Among those were IHO.
• The City should strongly consider next steps to include a more comprehensively scoped
discussion that takes into account the variety of tools presented in the 2014 report
again (less IHO) for compatibility and balance with the Fort Collins community's needs
and ability to positively influence an outcome, and any new tools that were not
available in 2014.
• The City should report on what has been implemented from the 2014 list of report
recommendations, the status and effectiveness of the program tools to date.
Submitted by Bill Swalling (at the meeting)
• Prioritize appropriate housing for 55+ by charging fees for water and sewer
• Expedite the updating of City Plan focusing on affordable housing forms as well as
condos
• Lobby harder for construction defect regulation relief
• Form public-private partnership to tackle this issue
2.3
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Engagement Feedback Packet (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
#4 Comments from Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce
2.3
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Engagement Feedback Packet (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
2.3
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Engagement Feedback Packet (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
2.3
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Engagement Feedback Packet (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
2.3
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Engagement Feedback Packet (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
#5 Comments from the Home Builders Association
2.3
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Engagement Feedback Packet (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
2.3
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Engagement Feedback Packet (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
2.3
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Engagement Feedback Packet (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
#6 Comments from Bill Swalling
Bill Swalling 3/17/2020
TOPIC: HOW TO IMPROVE FORT COLLINS HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Develop a simple model to prepare a triple bottom line [sustainability (environmental, social)
economic and connections] assessment. Two common models are Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need
for sustainability (social, environmental) and connections and Macroeconomics 101, pure
competition, for this recommendation. This suggestion is used for two alternative policy
proposals below (2&3).
2. a) Inclusionary Zoning
b) Affordable Housing Linkage Fees
Macro Economics 101: The supply curve shifts up and to the left and will result in less
housing at a higher price.
Inclusionary Zoning
Increase Fees
Sustainability Economic Connections
Model Maslow’s Hierarchy of
Need
Pure Competition
Econ 101
Maslow’s Hierarchy of
Need
Social: see connections FoCo Businesses Loneliness
Environmental Home Builders Family
Water Citizens Friends
Air Nature
Food Parks
Shelter Schools
Price
Quantity
S 2020 + fee + inclusionary zoning
S 2020
D 2020
2.3
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Engagement Feedback Packet (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
55+ Business
GenX Community
Millennial CSU
Challenged
Lottery winners
Others will move into
challenged.
Challenged who do not
get selected.
3. Increase supply of housing
a. Increase the supply of used housing by giving 55+ housing a priority
i. Fees, etc.
b. Regulation
c. Interest costs
Macro Economics 101: The supply curve shifts down and to the right and will result in
more housing at a lower price.
Sustainability Economic Connections
(Social Sustainability)
Model Maslow’s Hierarchy of
Need
Pure Competition
Econ 101
Maslow’s Hierarchy of
Need
Social: see connections FoCo Businesses Loneliness
Environmental Home Builders Family
Water Citizens Friends
Air Nature
Food Parks
Shelter Schools
55+ Business
Stop Go Caution
Price
D 2020
S 2020
S 2020 + empty nester
house free up
2.3
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Engagement Feedback Packet (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
GenX Community
Millennial CSU
Challenged
4. Expedite the updating of City Plan and focus on:
a. Affordable housing forms for
i. Seniors
b. Affordable housing forms:
i. Condos
ii. Apartments
iii. Townhomes
c. Improving:
i. Affordability
ii. Processing time
iii. Appeals
d. Waters’ Edge example
5. Lobby harder? for construction defect regulation
6. Private Public Partnership to address Affordable Housing
https://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/Successful-Public-Private-Partnerships.pdf
Stop Go Caution
2.3
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Engagement Feedback Packet (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
March 24, 2020
Affordable Housing Priorities
Sue Beck-Ferkiss and Tom Leeson
ATTACHMENT 4
2.4
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
Questions for Consideration
2
1. Do Councilmembers have guidance on the scope for the
update of the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan?
2. Do Councilmembers agree with staff’s recommended
approach to Inclusionary Housing?
3. Do Councilmembers want to continue to pursue an
Affordable Housing Impact Fee?
2.4
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
Strategic Alignment
3
Affordable Housing
Council Priority
City Plan, SSD
Strategic Plan,
City Strategic Plan
Affordable Housing
Strategic Plan
Neighborhood Livability &
Social Health 1.1 and 1.3
Budget
$75,000 Interim BFO
$60,000 Home2Health
2.4
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
Affordable Housing Goals
4
2.4
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
Housing Attainability Fundamentals
5
Median Home Price
Median Income of a Family of 4
Median Income of All Households
2.4
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
6
Housing Affordability Along
the Income Spectrum
AMI 0%
Below 80% AMI is City’s
Definition of Affordable Housing
80%
$69.7K/yr
100% 200%
$87.2K/yr
120%
$105K/yr
$415K
Market Housing
Purchase Price $320K
Goal is defined by AHSP
(188-228 units/year)
Fewer attainable options are
available to the “Missing Middle”
Goal is harder to define & City influence
may be outweighed by market forces
2.4
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
City Actions
Housing Affordability Policy Study
2014 - 2019
Minimum house size
Waiver eligibility
Land Bank
Incentive Policy
Affordable Housing
Capital Fund (CCIP)
Council Priorities
2019
Manufactured Housing
Impact Fee/ Inclusionary
Housing Study
Appropriation for Land Bank
purchase
Home2Health
Mason Place
Affordable Home Ownership
Committee
Next Steps
2020+
AHSP update
Buy and Sell Land Bank
parcels
Housing Manager
Fee Waiver Process
Improvements
Ad Hoc Council
Committee
7
2.4
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
Council Direction from October 15, 2019 Work Session
Council requested information on 4 items:
1. Homebuyer’s Assistance Program
2. Update on Elevation Community Land Trust partnership
3. Inclusionary Housing Feasibility Study
4. Impact Fee Nexus Study
8
These opportunities can also be explored further in next Housing
Strategic plan
2.4
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
City Administered HBA Program
9
• Established in 1995 to use
HUD funds
• 1,175 households assisted
• Deployments slowing due to
increase in market prices
• Other assistance programs for
qualified buyers are available
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
HBA Deployed per Year
Recommendation: Reposition current funding into competitive process
2.4
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
Supporting Affordable Home Ownership
• Non-City Down Payment Assistance
City Mechanisms:
• Land Bank Program
• Competitive Process Funding
• Metropolitan Districts – special taxing districts
• Community Land Trusts
10
2.4
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
Elevation Community Land Trust
• Formalized partnership in 2019
• Separates ownership of land from home creating affordable
homeownership
• Steward the houses and relationships in perpetuity
• Current Fort Collins projects
• 44 Housing Catalyst homes
• 60 homes on Kechter Land Bank parcel
11
2.4
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
Inclusionary Housing
All new communities include some affordable housing
• Land use regulation
• Alternative satisfaction: fee in-lieu, land dedication
• Only applies to homeownership
12
2.4
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
Inclusionary Housing Considerations
Conditions required for success:
• High Density for sale development (3-5+ story condos)
• Market must exist for many housing types
• Significant differentiation between market rate and restricted housing
prices
• Constrained market
Possible consequences:
• Negative impact to land values
• Limited developer profit
• Cost shifting to market-rate units
• Heavy administrative burden
2.4
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
Inclusionary Housing Feasibility in Fort Collins
Inclusionary Housing Feasible for:
• Single family and townhomes only
• Set aside range from 5-15%
• Requires 20% more density than status-quo
Estimate yield:
• 25-50 units per year
Questionable viability for Inclusionary Housing in Fort Collins 14
2.4
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
Impact Fee
Generates revenues for Affordable Housing to mitigate impact of new
development
• Can be commercial or residential linkage fee
• Fees must have established nexus
• Can apply to rental or ownership
15
2.4
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
Impact Fees Considerations
Conditions required for success:
• Established nexus for residential
or commercial
• Amount calibrated to avoid
disrupting new development
• Pipeline of new development
Possible Consequences:
• Adds cost to development
16
City Residential Non-Residential
Denver
Boulder
Lafayette
Summit County
Seattle (WA)
2.4
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
Impact Fee Feasibility in Fort Collins
Impact Fee Feasibility:
• Nexus established for new commercial and residential development
• Ability to calibrate fees specific to commercial and residential
• Legal to charge up to 100%
Estimate yield dependent on level:
• 5-10% yields $1.4M to $2.7M for residential annually
• 5-10% yields $25K to $50K for commercial annually
17
Meets initial requirements for success. Recommend exploring in context of
all development fees
2.4
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
Stakeholders - Organizations invited to participate
• Banner Health
• Bohemian
• Brinkman
• CARE Housing
• CBRE (Commercial Real Estate)
• Chamber of Commerce
• Community Foundation
• Colorado State University
• Downtown Development Authority
• Neighbor to Neighbor
• Colorado Division of Housing
• Elevations Community Land Trust
• Fort Collins Board of Realtors
• Hartford Homes
• Home Builders Association
• Housing Catalyst
• Impact Development Fund
• Larimer County (3 Departments)
• MAVD – Harmony Technology Park
• Montava Developer
• Neenan Archistruction
• Poudre School District
• Ripley Design
18
2.4
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
Stakeholder Feedback
Affordable and attainable housing is a critical
issue
Stakeholders are committed to working with City
to help find workable solutions and a broad
range of tools
Frustrated with unrealistic timeline and focus
on only two potential tools
City should also consider how to incentivize
development of affordable housing
Policy discussion should begin with
agreement about city goals and consider
wider context
Question how policy change would impact
projects already committed to affordable housing
and/or prior agreements with developers?
These two tools and associated data are
complex; stakeholders cannot support at this
time
Cannot support impact fees:
• incomplete financial analysis which fails to
account for all costs & externalities
• would result in unintended consequences
• lack of success stories from similar cities
Punitive approach of shifting cost burden:
• result in less development (Economics 101)
• shift costs to market-units
• force more people to live outside city limits
Particular concern about NE Fort Collins (fees
already higher)
19
2.4
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
Planning Journey
March/April
2020
• Two Council
Priority Work
Sessions
• Housing Manger
• Ad Hoc
committee
• Home2Health
August
2020
• Work Session for
AHSP
• Deadline for
Moratorium
December
2020
• Status Report
and/or Draft Plan
20
2.4
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
Housing Plan Options
Historically, City used Affordable Housing Strategic Plans
• Targeting Lowest Wage Earners – market could not provide options
• 5-year planning cadence
Examples:
• Plan for Low Income segment
• Separate plan for middle earners (Boulder)
• Entire housing spectrum (Greeley)
• Innovative new approach (Wilsonville, Ore.)
Opportunity to open scope and timing of plan 21
2.4
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
Summary of Policy Considerations
Ø Inclusionary Housing
Ø Impact Fee
Ø Scope of Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
22
2.4
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
Questions for Consideration
23
1. Do Councilmembers have guidance on the scope for the
update of the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan?
2. Do Councilmembers agree with staff’s recommended
approach to Inclusionary Housing?
3. Do Councilmembers want to continue to pursue an
Affordable Housing Impact Fee?
2.4
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
24
2.4
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
DATE:
STAFF:
March 24, 2020
Meagan Smith, Water Resources Engineer
Donnie Dustin, Water Resources Manager
Carol Webb, Deputy Director, Utilities
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Water Supply Vulnerability Study.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to provide Council an overview of the recently completed Water Supply Vulnerability
Study (Study) that investigated the impacts of various risks on the reliability of Fort Collins Utilities’ (Utilities) long-
term water supply. Key findings indicate:
• A warmer/drier climate poses the largest risk to the current long-term planning strategy.
• Adequate storage is crucial to meeting current policy criteria.
• Reductions in available supplies from the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) via Horsetooth Reservoir
have significant impacts to system performance.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
This item is for informational purposes. Direction is not sought on the Study at this time. However, any questions
Council may have regarding the Study are welcomed.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Utilities operates its water supplies and does long-term water supply planning under the Water Supply & Demand
Management Policy (Policy), last updated in 2012. The Policy provides the framework for water supply and
demand management planning for Utilities’ water supply service area. Related Council-approved plans include:
• Water Supply Shortage Response Plan (to be renamed as Water Shortage Action Plan) - (adopted 2014,
update to be considered on First Reading on April 7, 2020) that establishes conditions and restrictions to
manage Utilities’ water supply in the event of a projected water shortage.
• Water Efficiency Plan - (adopted 2016, update by 2022) that addresses long-term water conservation and
efficiency planning.
The Study was a 2017/18 Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) Enhancement Offer to investigate the relative impacts
on Utilities’ ability to meet expected future water demands from:
• Changing hydrology due to a warming climate.
• Water supply disruptions, such as infrastructure failures or wildfire impacts.
• Changing demands due to population shifts, land-use changes or altered demand patterns.
The Study will serve as the foundation for a Policy update. Policy revisions are likely to include updated level of
service goals framed by customer experience and adoption of risk-based water supply planning objectives that
embed demand management targets and are based on selected planning futures.
LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY PLANNING
The current Policy plans for Utilities to develop enough water supplies to meet expected future demands for
Utilities’ water service area through a single, assumed “planning drought,” while keeping 20% of annual demand
in storage as an emergency reserve. This “yield-based planning” calls for the acquisition of supplies that will yield
3
Packet Pg. 110
March 24, 2020 Page 2
an amount of water equal to expected demands through the planning drought. The Policy articulates this through
current level of service goals:
• Meet 100% of demands through the planning drought
• Maintain the emergency reserve 100% of the time through the planning drought
For worse droughts, Utilities’ will use restrictions to close any gap between expected supplies and demands (via
the Water Shortage Action Plan).
Consistent with industry best practice, Utilities intends to move away from yield-based planning toward more
flexible planning that considers, and more accurately analyzes, climate change impacts and other water supply
risks. Other regional water providers (e.g., Denver Water, Colorado Springs Utilities) have already moved in this
direction. The Study provides a basis for a similar evolution of Utilities’ planning.
WATER SUPPLY VULNERABILITY STUDY
The Study had three main components:
• Develop new tools and datasets.
• Identify vulnerabilities (by developing and modeling plausible scenarios).
• Process results and assess key findings.
New Tools and Datasets
All of Utilities’ water supplies are influenced by seasonal and annual weather patterns and highly dependent on
annual snowpack. To test the reliability of Utilities’ supplies in meeting expected future demands under a broad
range of natural climate variability, staff and a consultant team generated new weather combinations based on
the historical observed record (1950-2005) combined with tree-ring studies (1615-1999) for the Cache la Poudre
River. Warming temperatures and changes in precipitation were then layered onto the new weather data to better
understand the potential impacts of climate change. This new weather data was utilized to generate water supply
forecasts.
Staff and the consultant team developed a new water demand forecasting tool that allows estimation of future
demands as a function of historical use, land-use zoning, development densities, economic conditions, and most
importantly, weather. This allowed staff to generate demand forecasts that match the weather-generated supply
forecasts. Water demand forecasts were created across the range of generated weather for two distinct
development trajectories based on the 2019 City Plan.
Vulnerability Scenarios
The overarching purpose of the Study was to identify vulnerabilities that may impact Utilities’ ability to provide a
reliable water supply. Staff held two half-day brainstorming workshops with cross-departmental and multi-
organizational teams. These workshops included subject matter experts from Water Board and Colorado State
University, water resources staff from other water providers in the growth management area (GMA), a large team
from Northern Water, and staff from departments across the City and Utilities.
In total, the workshops identified more than 90 vulnerabilities across five categories:
• Demands
• Operations and Infrastructure
• Climate and Hydrology
• Watershed and Environmental
• Legal and Administrative
Utilities staff developed 11 vulnerability scenarios based on the most likely and impactful individual vulnerabilities
and modeled the scenarios with all combinations of new supply and demand forecasts. More than 45,000 model
3
Packet Pg. 111
March 24, 2020 Page 3
runs were made to assess Utilities’ “system performance,” which is the ability to meet the current Policy’s level of
service goals.
Key assumptions modeled across these scenarios include:
• Forecasted water demands for expected development trajectories in 2070.
• Expected water supply portfolio and built infrastructure in 2070.
o Halligan Reservoir enlargement is built and operational (unless otherwise noted).
Key Findings
Key findings include:
• Warmer/drier climate poses the largest risk to the current long-term planning strategy. A warmer/drier
climate really reduces system performance by both decreasing supplies and increasing demands.
• Adequate storage is crucial to meeting current policy criteria. Without enough storage capacity, Utilities
will not be able to maintain the current policy target of 20% of annual demand in emergency storage based on
expected future demands.
• Reductions in available supplies from C-BT via Horsetooth Reservoir have significant impacts to
system performance. C-BT water meets approximately half of the annual water use by Utilities’ customers.
The Study helps quantify how a long-term reduction in available C-BT water would impact Utilities ability to
meet demands.
This Study was the first of its kind for Utilities, highlighting some of the risks Utilities must plan for in providing
reliable service in the face of an uncertain future.
NEXT STEPS
One of the main drivers of the Study was to lay the groundwork for an update to the Policy. Expected outcomes of
an updated Policy include new level of service goals framed by the customer experience and adoption of risk-
based water supply planning objectives grounded in a range of planning futures.
Staff expects this Policy development to be an iterative process:
1. Determining planning futures will define expected demands and available supplies.
2. Setting service levels will define system performance, describing success or failure of the system.
3. Exploring solutions will quantify options for closing any gap between expected supplies and demands.
4. If solution options do not meet specified triple-bottom line criteria, the process can repeat by revisiting defined
planning futures and/or altering level of service goals.
These Policy level discussions will be discussed in greater detail in a future Work Session.
The full version of Water Supply Vulnerability Study Final Report is available for download at:
fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/wsvs-final-report.pdf
<https://fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/wsvs-final-report.pdf>
ATTACHMENTS
1. Water Supply Vulnerability Study Final Report - Executive Summary (PDF)
2. Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (2012) (PDF)
3. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
3
Packet Pg. 112
Fort Collins Utilities Water Supply
Vulnerability Study DraIt Report
Prepared for: Fort Collins Utilities LQFRRUGLQDWLRQZLWKNorthern Water
Prepared by: Stantec in Association with RTI International
-XQH 2019
ATTACHMENT 1 3.1
Packet Pg. 113
Attachment: Water Supply Vulnerability Study Final Report - Executive Summary (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
Fort Collins Water Supply Vulnerability Study
Final Report
June 27, 2019
Prepared for:
Fort Collins Utilities
In coordination with Northern Water
Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
In association with RTI International
3.1
Packet Pg. 114
Attachment: Water Supply Vulnerability Study Final Report - Executive Summary (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
3.1
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: Water Supply Vulnerability Study Final Report - Executive Summary (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
FORT COLLINS WATER SUPPLY VULNERABILITY STUDY
This document entitled Fort Collins Water Supply Vulnerability Study was prepared by Stantec Consulting
Services Inc. (“Stantec”) for the account of Fort Collins Utilities (the “Client”). Any reliance on this document
by any third party is strictly prohibited. The material in it reflects Stantec’s professional judgment in light of the
scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the document and in the contract between Stantec and the
Client. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the
document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. In preparing the document,
Stantec did not verify information supplied to it by others. Any use which a third party makes of this document
is the responsibility of such third party. Such third party agrees that Stantec shall not be responsible for costs
or damages of any kind, if any, suffered by it or any other third party as a result of decisions made or actions
taken based on this document.
Prepared by
Lisa Fardal, PE, Samantha Dyche, EIT, Neil Stewart, PE, Enrique Triana, PE
Reviewed by
Chip Paulson, PE, Terry McEnany, PE
Approved by
Chip Paulson, PE
3.1
Packet Pg. 116
Attachment: Water Supply Vulnerability Study Final Report - Executive Summary (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
ES-1
Executive Summary
Introduction
The City of Fort Collins is located 65 miles north of Denver in Larimer County, between the Rocky
Mountains foothills and the Eastern Plains of Colorado. Fort Collins Utilities (FCU) currently serves about
75% of Fort Collins’ residents and businesses. The FCU service area boundary for water, which does not
coincide with Fort Collins city limits, is landlocked by neighboring water districts. Current estimates for the
FCU service area show an increase in population to about 178,000 by 2065. Fort Collins is home to
Colorado State University and a few large commercial enterprises.
The Fort Collins Water Supply Vulnerability Study (WSVS) was performed to investigate the ability of the
FCU water supply system to meet future demands under current policy criteria and level of service goals
when subjected to alternative hydrologies and various risks and uncertainties. The WSVS compiled
alternative hydrologies, demands, and infrastructure risks and uncertainties into risk scenarios, resulting
in a broad range of potential future conditions. The performance of the Fort Collins system under these
risk scenarios was evaluated to inform under what future conditions the FCU water rights portfolio, raw
water infrastructure and water supply policy and planning efforts are most vulnerable.
This project was performed by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. under a contract with the City of Fort
Collins. RTI International was a subconsultant to Stantec for hydrologic analyses and demand tool
development.
Water Resources System Model
The WSVS involved risk-based water resources planning analyses that required a robust modeling
platform to simulate the performance of FCU’s raw water system under a wide range of possible future
conditions. The modeling system used for the WSVS consists of three separate models: the Colorado-Big
Thompson Quota Model (CBTQ), the Poudre Basin Network Model (PBN) and the Fort Collins System
Model (FCSys).
x The CBTQ Model was developed by Northern Water to estimate annual quotas of C-BT and
Windy Gap water for its allottees based on hydrology and current operations.
x The PBN Model is a MODSIM model that simulates water supply infrastructure and operations by
municipal, industrial, and agricultural entities in the Poudre River basin and the lower South Platte
River basin below the Poudre River confluence near Greeley. It was originally developed by
Resource Consultants in 1985 for the Fort Collins Drought Study, but has been enhanced by Fort
Collins, Northern Water and Greeley over the years to serve a number of purposes.
x The FCSys is a MODSIM model developed by FCU that simulates the FCU water supply system
under various water demand, water rights, infrastructure and operational scenarios. The FCSys
simulates city water deliveries, deliveries to large contractual users (LCU), return flow obligations
3.1
Packet Pg. 117
Attachment: Water Supply Vulnerability Study Final Report - Executive Summary (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
ES-2
from the use of converted agricultural water rights and various other operations of the FCU water
supply system.
These models were run in sequence through a Data Management System as shown in Figure ES-1. The
system is semi-automated and includes the ability to export FCSys output as PBN inputs and vice versa.
Figure ES-1 FCU Modeling System Overview
Fort Collins and other agencies have used previous versions of the PBN and FCSys models for past
water resources planning and decision-making. The WSVS modeling system was not developed to re-
evaluate any previous planning studies and it does not simulate flows in streams that could be affected by
water development projects in the Poudre River basin. This modeling system was developed to identify
and prioritize future risks for which FCU should be planning.
The WSVS used the FCU modeling system to evaluate FCU water supply system performance. “System
performance” is defined as the ability to meet customer demands and satisfy adopted water supply
planning policy criteria. For FCU, the Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (WSDMP)
establishes an objective of:
x meeting demands calculated using a per capita use factor of 150 gallons per capita per day,
x through the 1-in-50-year drought,
x with no shortages or water restrictions,
x while maintaining a minimum of 20 percent of annual demand in reservoir storage at all times
(storage reserve factor).
As part of the WSVS, the performance of the FCU water supply system was quantified using measurable
parameters (metrics) with target values based on the criteria defined in the WSDMP (level of service
goals). The performance metrics and level of service goals were identified and calculated as part of the
modeling system outputs. Risk-based water supply planning commonly considers three categories of
performance metrics: reliability metrics (i.e., measures of how often certain conditions occur), resilience
metrics (i.e., how long certain conditions occur) and vulnerability metrics (i.e., how severe certain
conditions area). Many specific reliability, resilience and vulnerability performance metrics were identified
3.1
Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: Water Supply Vulnerability Study Final Report - Executive Summary (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
ES-3
to help quantify the impacts of risks and uncertainties to the FCU water supply system. As the WSVS
progressed, FCU staff found that the following four performance metrics were most useful for identifying
the impactful risks.
x Average annual total demand shortage in years when shortages occur
x Reliability (i.e., frequency) of maintaining 20% of annual demand in storage (storage reserve
factor)
x Percentage of time in any level of water use restrictions based on the current planning policy
criteria
x Reliability of meeting indoor demand
Hydrology
Synthetic sets of potential future hydrologic model inputs that include natural variability and large-scale
shifts in precipitation and temperature trends due to potential climate change were generated for use in
the Fort Collins Modeling System.
Figure ES-2 provides an overview of the process used to generate hydrologic datasets for the WSVS.
Application of this process resulted in 20 sets of 100 sequences of natural hydrologic variability (referred
to as a “trace”), with each set representing a particular future climate condition. Future climates were
described by the offset of temperature and precipitation from historical conditions. Based on review of
previous climate change studies for the Front Range region, the temperature offset ranged from 0 to plus
8 degrees F compared to average annual 1981 to 2010 observed temperature, and the precipitation
offset ranged from -10% to +15% of average annual 1981 to 2010 observed precipitation.
Figure ES-2 Overview of Hydrologic Analysis Process
Note: JVRCCVS = Joint Front Range Climate Change Vulnerability Study
3.1
Packet Pg. 119
Attachment: Water Supply Vulnerability Study Final Report - Executive Summary (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
ES-4
Temperature and precipitation changes in the range adopted for the WSVS were found to have significant
effects on streamflow contributing to FCU water supply. The hottest/driest climate condition (T=+8,
P=-10%) reduced the Poudre River at the Canyon Mouth mean annual streamflow by an average of 30%
for the 100 hydrologic traces, compared to the non-climate adjusted traces. The coolest/wettest climate
condition (T=0, P=+15%) increased the Poudre River mean annual streamflow by an average of 39% for
the 100 hydrologic traces, compared to the non-climate adjusted traces. This is shown in Figure ES-3.
In the past, FCU has used a 6-year critical period within the 86-year model simulation period to determine
the 1-in-50-year drought for water supply planning. Hydrologic inflows were based on synthetic runoff
data. This 6-year critical period for the Poudre River at the Canyon Mouth has an average annual runoff
of 196,090 acre-feet per year (AFY). The 100 hydrologic traces in the WSVS hydrologic dataset for the
unaltered historical climate conditions (T=0, P=0%) have an average 6-year critical period flow at this
location of 191,343 AFY, which is a 2% reduction. The hottest/driest climate condition (T=+8, P=-10%)
produces an average 6-year critical period annual streamflow that is 31% less than the critical period
streamflow currently used for planning. The coolest/wettest climate condition (T=0, P=+15%) produces an
average 6-year critical period annual streamflow that is 38% more than the critical period streamflow
currently used for planning. This is important when interpreting the vulnerability study results relative to
current water supply policy criteria that are based on the 6 year long, 1-in-50-year drought in the synthetic
runoff data. When considering the full set of 100 hydrologies times 20 climate scenarios generated for
the WSVS, there are traces which capture more severe and more frequent critical periods than the
historical 6-year critical period used in previous water supply planning to represent the 1-in-50 year
drought. Additionally, there are traces in the WSVS that do not see critical periods as severe as the
historical.
Figure ES-3 Average Annual Flow Volume for Hydrologic Traces for All Climate
Conditions
Note: Each cell shows the mean of the average annual flows for the 100 traces with the corresponding T/P
combination expressed in AFY and as a percentage of the average annual flow for the T=0, P=0 combination.
3.1
Packet Pg. 120
Attachment: Water Supply Vulnerability Study Final Report - Executive Summary (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
ES-5
Water Demands
Future water demands for general residential and commercial customers in the FCU service area were
estimated using a new Demand Estimation Tool developed for this project. The Demand Estimation Tool
consists of individual linear regression models, each developed for the following groups of water
customers: single family and duplex, multifamily, commercial small, commercial medium, and commercial
large customers. It was developed using processed historical customer-level water use data from 2001-
2016.
Three demand scenarios were developed
by FCU for use in the WSVS: City Plan 2,
City Plan 3 and City Plan 3 plus 20%.
The first two demand scenarios are
based on the most likely proposed future
development scenarios for 2070
developed as part of the Fort Collins City
Plan update. The median average annual
water demand in 2070 under City Plan 2
assumptions, including the effects of
climate change, is 37,700 AFY. The more
aggressive growth assumptions in the
City Plan 3 scenario result in a median
total water demand of 39,200 AFY, for an
increase of 4% compared to City Plan 2.
The City Plan 3 Plus 20% scenario
increased both the general residential
and commercial portion of the total
demand and a portion of the Large Contractual User demand by 20%. This resulted in a median total
water demand of about 45,200 AFY. Figure ES-4 compares the total annual demands for these three
scenarios. The average annual demand for 2065 developed from previous FCU planning studies is
40,629 AFY; this is referred to as the “baseline demand” in this study.
Risks and Uncertainties
The purpose of the WSVS is to identify the vulnerability of the FCU water supply system to a range of
risks or threats that could occur in the future and factors that cannot be accurately forecasted. Risks and
uncertainties that could affect the future performance of the FCU water supply system were brainstormed
in workshops held at Fort Collins Utilities and Northern Water. Identified risks and uncertainties were
organized in the following categories that span the various aspects of the FCU water supply system.
x Climate and Hydrology risks relate to weather variability and other hydrologic factors, both
short- and long-term, that can impact the potential yields from a watershed.
x Watershed risks relate to physical watershed conditions that can impact the yields available to
FCU.
Figure ES- 4 Total Annual Demand in 2070 Including
Climate Change (Median of All 2,000
Traces for Each Development
Scenario)
Note: Average Baseline demand = 40,629 AFY
3.1
Packet Pg. 121
Attachment: Water Supply Vulnerability Study Final Report - Executive Summary (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
ES-6
x Operational and Infrastructure risks relate to how FCU delivers physically and legally available
water to its treatment facilities.
x Administrative and Legal risks relate to conditions, regulations, or policies that could impact the
legal allocation or availability of water supplies.
x Demand risks relate to changes in required volume, timing, and quality of water that will need to
be delivered to water treatment facilities to meet customer needs.
Some risks are long-term, or chronic, and would persist indefinitely and affect all future years. Other risks
are short-term, or acute, and would only occur for a short period of time (e.g., several months or a few
years). Although long-term and short-term risks could have very different impacts on the FCU raw water
system performance, both types of risks were assessed together in the WSVS.
The identified risks were rated as part of the prioritization process. Individual risks were rated by
assigning a 1 to 5 score for both likelihood (possibility of the risk or uncertainty occurring) and impact
(consequences to the FCU/C-BT water supply system if the risk or uncertainty were to occur). The
composite score was calculated by multiplying the likelihood score by the impact score and was then
used to prioritize risks. The prioritized risks and uncertainties were organized into five major threat groups
that span the various risk categories. These threat groups are: climate change, demands, critical outages,
enhanced environmental stressors and shared infrastructure (i.e. risks or uncertainties due to lack of
infrastructure ownership by FCU). The risks and uncertainties selected for analysis in the WSVS are
shown in Table ES-1.
Table ES-1. List of Key Risks and Uncertainties Prioritized for Simulation
ID Risk or Uncertainty Name Threat
Group
Description
O1 Outage - 24 Pipeline CO Short term outage due to flooding, landslides, wildfire, etc.
O2 Outage - 27 Pipeline CO Short term outage due to flooding, landslides, wildfire, etc.
O3 Algal Blooms EES Algal blooms in storage reservoirs and rivers increases
water quality issues and potential treatment problems.
C1 Longer duration droughts CC Multi-year and/or more severe droughts occur in the future
that are not captured in the observed record.
A1 New Regulations EES New regulations (either federal or state) impact availability
of yields from existing water rights.
W1 Wildfires EES Wildfires occur, causing a variety of impacts on water
quality, runoff and threats to infrastructure.
C3 Change in precipitation type -
Hydrology
CC More precipitation falls as rain instead of snow during the
Fall and Spring.
C4 Changes in frequency/ magnitude
of precip events - Hydrology
CC Precipitation events, particularly summer rainstorms,
become less frequent and more intense.
C2 Changes in runoff timing CC Early higher runoff and lower late-season baseflow
reduces yield from volumetric decrees that list specific
diversion dates.
W2 Forest Health Degradation EES Forested area health decreases due to beetle kill,
pollution, warming climate, etc.
3.1
Packet Pg. 122
Attachment: Water Supply Vulnerability Study Final Report - Executive Summary (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
ES-7
ID Risk or Uncertainty Name Threat
Group
Description
A4 Changing state administration CC Policies around state water administration change,
impacting yields from water rights
D3 Development Uncertainty D The composition of development in service area (e.g.
density, type, outdoor area) is different that past.
A2 Increased Basin Demands D Higher demands across the entire Poudre River basin
(due to climate change/population growth) impact use of
water rights.
O5 Outage - Horsetooth Reservoir
Intake
CO Short term outage of reservoir outlet and intake to WTP;
higher risk due to lack of redundancy.
O4 Outage - Michigan Ditch CO Short term outage due to flooding, landslides, wildfire, etc.
D2 Water Use Changes D Decrease in per capita use continues and how water is
used (e.g. indoor vs. outdoor) changes.
D1 Service area growth and
Regionalization
D Ft. Collins expands its service area or enters into
agreements to provide water to regional entities.
A9 Elimination or Interruption of
Reuse Plan
SI Platte River Power Authority decommissions Rawhide
Energy Station, effectively eliminating the need for the
Reuse Plan. In multi-year droughts, water from the Reuse
Plan is reduced or unavailable.
D8 Change in precipitation type -
Demands
CC More precipitation falls as rain instead of snow during the
Fall and Spring.
D9 Changes in frequency/ magnitude
of precip events - Demands
CC Precipitation events become less frequent and more
intense.
A3 Changes to Northern Water C-BT
Operations
SI Allocation of C-BT water through setting of the quota and
ways in which C-BT water can be managed, changes in
the future.
W3 Development in Watersheds EES Land development in watersheds (recreation, residential,
O&G, mining) increases risk of water quality
contamination.
D6 Hotter summer changes irrigation D A warmer climate increases the length of the irrigation
season and hotter days increase demand during the
summer.
O6 Outage - Chambers Reservoir CO Short term outage due to flooding, landslides, wildfire, etc.
O8 Outage - Joe Wright Reservoir CO Short term outage due to flooding, landslides, wildfire, etc
O11 Outage - Pleasant Valley Pipeline CO Short term outage due to flooding, landslides, wildfire, etc.
Note: Threat Group ID definitions: CC = Climate Change, D = Demands, CO = Critical Outages, EES = Enhanced
Environmental Stressors, SI = Shared Infrastructure
Risk Scenarios
Risk scenarios were developed by FCU to represent combinations of future conditions for which a
vulnerability analysis was desired. Scenarios are comprised of single or multiple risks and are designed to
allow FCU to understand how its water resources system would behave under a range of future stressful
conditions.
3.1
Packet Pg. 123
Attachment: Water Supply Vulnerability Study Final Report - Executive Summary (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
ES-8
In general, a WSVS scenario consists of three parts:
x A climate condition, defined as one of the 20 temperature and precipitation combinations, which
determines 100 hydrologic traces representing climate variability around that climate condition.
x A demand condition, defined as one of the two City Plan demand scenarios or the baseline
planning demand.
x A system risk condition, defined as a combination of one or more of the risks and uncertainties.
The process for creating WSVS scenarios is shown in Figure ES-5.
Figure ES-5. Process of Creating WSVS Scenarios
FCU Staff, in coordination with Northern Water, identified 13 scenarios for simulation, including baseline
conditions. The 12 non-baseline scenarios were selected to represent a range of future conditions
believed to be possible and potentially impactful to the FCU water resources system. They represent both
long-term or chronic conditions (i.e., those that occur over the entire simulation period) and short-term or
acute conditions (i.e., those that occur for only a short period of time). These risk scenarios are described
briefly below.
x Baseline – Future conditions, including current water rights and anticipated acquisitions, current
water supply infrastructure, Halligan Reservoir enlargement and a demand of 40,629 AFY.
x Climate Change Impacts – 20 future climate conditions with constant demand and no other risks.
x Loss of Storage – No Halligan Reservoir enlargement and no C-BT carryover storage in
Horsetooth Reservoir.
x Increased Demands – Two City Plan based demand scenarios and one increased demand
scenario beyond the City Plan development assumptions.
3.1
Packet Pg. 124
Attachment: Water Supply Vulnerability Study Final Report - Executive Summary (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
ES-9
x No Halligan Enlargement – No enlargement of Halligan Reservoir as currently proposed.
x Poudre River System Acute Outage – Short-term outage of 24-inch and 27-inch delivery pipelines
and Pleasant Valley Pipeline.
x C-BT System Environmental Impacts – Impacts on C-BT quota allocations due to environmental
issues resulting from wildfires in the receiving East Slope watershed or restricted use of
Horsetooth as a water source because of algal blooms.
x Poudre River System Environmental Impacts – Impacts due to algal blooms or environmental
issues resulting from wildfires in source watersheds (e.g. increased sediment deposition) that
would limit FCU’s diversions from the Poudre River.
x C-BT System Acute Outage – Short-term loss of C-BT deliveries due to delivery infrastructure
failures.
x C-BT System Long-Term Reduction - Captures possible effects of a wide range of conditions that
could reduce C-BT deliveries and quotas over a period of 10 years.
x Horsetooth Reservoir Outage – Short-term outage of deliveries from Horsetooth Reservoir due to
infrastructure failures.
x Reuse Plan Changes – Two options: Reuse Plan Change 1 represents 100% elimination of the
Reuse Plan; Reuse Plan Change 2 represents 50% reduction in the Reuse Plan.
Vulnerability Assessment
The impacts of these various risk scenarios on the FCU water supply system were quantified using the
system performance metrics tied to the current water supply planning policy criteria. Vulnerabilities were
investigated in a systematic methodology based on the following steps.
1. Determine the current system’s performance for the baseline demand with no climate or
infrastructure risks.
2. Investigate how potential short-term climate variability and broader climate change could affect
the performance of the baseline system.
3. Assess the impacts of increased demands, generated by the new Demand Estimation Tool in
combination with the climate-adjusted hydrologies.
4. Evaluate the superposition of the risk scenarios with the climate-adjusted hydrologies and each
City Plan based demand scenario.
5. Identify the risk scenarios with the greatest potential to adversely affect the FCU system
performance.
The process for evaluating risks in the WSVS is shown in Figure ES- 6 below.
3.1
Packet Pg. 125
Attachment: Water Supply Vulnerability Study Final Report - Executive Summary (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
ES-10
Figure ES- 6 Method for Risk Evaluation
Results showed that FCU’s water system and water rights portfolio is well adapted to current climate
conditions. The existing system, which includes the Halligan Reservoir enlargement, meets all demands,
including Reuse Plan demands, with 99.1% reliability. Indoor demands are met 99.8% of the time. The
results also showed that the system maintained the policy guideline of a 20% storage reserve factor in
97.1% of the total simulated months. Note that none of the WSVS simulations include the effects of water
use restrictions.
However, system performance
declines as the climate gets
hotter and drier. The effect of
climate on the reliability of
meeting an annual demand of
40,629 AFY is shown in Figure
ES-7. This figure shows the
average percent of months in
which the target baseline
demand was met across the
100, 86-year traces for each of
the 20 climate conditions.
Comparing these reliability
results to the current water
supply policy of 100% reliability,
under almost all climate futures,
including no change in climate, the FCU system is unable to meet this level of service goal. Uncertain
future hydrology is the biggest threat to FCU’s future water supply, as it is heavily influenced by changing
climate. Even the risk scenarios with the worst performance under current climate conditions were shown
to perform better than a scenario with no system risks and an increase in temperature and decrease in
precipitation.
Figure ES-7. Average Monthly Reliability of Meeting Total
Demands for All Climate Conditions
3.1
Packet Pg. 126
Attachment: Water Supply Vulnerability Study Final Report - Executive Summary (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
ES-11
Simulations of increased demands showed the FCU baseline system is only moderately vulnerable to the
City Plan 2 and City Plan 3 scenarios and only for hotter/drier climates. However, the City Plan 3 + 20%
condition has more significant effects and represents a greater threat to FCU system performance.
Figure ES-8 shows the effects of the demand scenarios on the average annual shortage metric. This
metric calculates the average annual shortage across the years when shortages occur. The figure also
shows the number of years when shortages occur for each scenario. The current water supply policy
establishes a level of service goal of no shortages during the 1-in-50-year drought. With the exception of
significantly wetter climates, all demand scenarios have a shortage, showing the FCU system is unable
satisfy this level of service goal, even for traces where the critical drought period is less than the historic
1-in-50-year drought used in previous water supply planning.
Figure ES-8 Average Annual Total Demand Shortage for Increasing Demand Scenarios
and All Climate Conditions
Notes:
a) Poorer performance is indicated by greater shortage volume towards the top of the graph.
b) Current water supply planning policy goal is no shortages for the 1-in-50-year drought.
3.1
Packet Pg. 127
Attachment: Water Supply Vulnerability Study Final Report - Executive Summary (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
ES-12
Besides climate change and increased demands, the risks found to have the largest impact on the Fort
Collins system performance relative to the current water supply planning policy criteria are:
x loss of storage, including no Halligan Reservoir enlargement;
x Reuse Plan changes, including elimination or 50% reduction;
x increase in demands above the expected City Plan 3 levels;
x and a long-term reduction in C-BT quota due to constrained C-BT supply or other factors.
Over the four metrics analyzed in this report, those risks and risk scenarios show the poorest
performance for current climate conditions and their performance is significantly reduced for the warmer
and drier climates.
3.1
Packet Pg. 128
Attachment: Water Supply Vulnerability Study Final Report - Executive Summary (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
ES-13
Figure ES-9 shows the storage reserve metric for all risk scenarios as a function of climate. The storage
reserve metric measures the ability to maintain a minimum of 20% of total annual demand in reservoir
storage. The water supply policy establishes a level of service of 100% for the storage reserve factor.
Under any risk, the FCU system cannot satisfy this LOS goal at most climate futures however the Loss of
Storage and No Halligan Enlargement risks have the most significant cumulative impact on maintaining
20% of total annual demand in storage.
Figure ES-9 Storage Reserve Metric for All Risk Scenarios and All Climate Conditions
Notes:
a) Poorer performance is indicated by lower reliability towards the bottom of the graph.
b) Current FCU policy establishes a goal of 100% for the storage reserve factor during the 1-in-50-year
drought.
3.1
Packet Pg. 129
Attachment: Water Supply Vulnerability Study Final Report - Executive Summary (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
ES-14
The risk scenario simulations demonstrated the fundamental difference between long-term or chronic
risks and short-term or acute risks. All the most impactful risks based on the metrics used in the WSVS
are long-term risks. This is biased by the metrics themselves which, with the exception of the annual
demand storage metric, are always calculated over the entire 86-year simulation period. Thus, long-term
risks that adversely affect system performance over the entire simulation period or for many years within
the simulation period affect metric values more than short-term risks that occur for only a few months or
years. Short-term risks such as an outage of the Poudre River pipelines or C-BT facilities can have
extreme impacts on system performance for a short period but are masked by climate shifts that cause
significant long-term impacts to performance. The effects of long-term risks are not as easily masked by
the shifts in climate, as their impacts are also significant over several years or the entire simulation.
3.1
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: Water Supply Vulnerability Study Final Report - Executive Summary (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
ES-15
Figure ES- 10 highlights the storage reserve metric for the five short-term risks simulated for the WSVS.
This figure shows that most of the short-term risk scenarios have very similar performance when
measured by the WSVS metrics. Additional investigation may be warranted to develop different metrics
that are useful in comparing performance of short-term risks to each other. Many of these short-term risks
received relatively high composite scores (likelihood multiplied by impact) at the risk identification
workshops, meaning they are of high concern to FCU staff and should be further assessed.
Figure ES- 10 Reliability of Retaining 20% Storage Reserve for Short Term Risks
Compared to Long Term Risks
3.1
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: Water Supply Vulnerability Study Final Report - Executive Summary (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
ES-16
Conclusions
FCU plans to use the results and conclusions of the WSVS as the foundation for updating its Water
Supply and Demand Management Policy and its long-range water resources strategy. The following
findings from the WSVS may be important as FCU contemplates the coming planning process.
x Climate change is the most important vulnerability faced by the FCU system. Future climate
conditions may be more impactful to FCU’s ability to meet its water supply planning policy criteria
than the occurrence of any particular infrastructure outage or environmental condition simulated
by the WSVS risk scenarios. However, climate change is the most difficult risk to track. Long-term
trends are difficult to measure and are obscured by the natural variability in wet and dry years.
Participating in or keeping informed of state and federal climate change studies will help FCU
understand the trajectory of climate change in the region.
x Water demands higher than those forecast in the City Plan 3 scenario represent a significant
vulnerability to the current FCU system. This points out the importance of FCU maintaining its
water conservation program, and working with City Planning Department to closely monitor
population and development density trends to see how they are tracking with City Plan
assumptions. An increase in 2070 demands by 20% significantly increases shortages and
incidence of failures to meet current water supply policy requiring 20% of average annual demand
in storage through a 1-in-50-year drought.
x The risk scenarios found to have the largest impact on the FCU system performance across the
range of performance metrics are listed below.
o Loss of storage, including no Halligan Reservoir enlargement; the FCU system is
storage-limited, therefore loss of any existing or proposed storage capacity has
significant adverse effects.
o Reuse Plan changes, including elimination or 50% reduction in the amount of water
incorporated in the Plan; the Reuse Plan is a water supply agreement with other Northern
Colorado entities that results in additional water supplies for FCU in most years. Losing
all or part of the supplies generated from this agreement has compounding effects on
FCU water supply.
o A long-term reduction in C-BT quotas due to C-BT supply or delivery infrastructure
issues; C-BT supply is a critical part of FCU’s water supply portfolio and reduction in that
source over several years significantly impacts FCU’s ability to meet its water supply
planning policies.
x For most risk scenarios, shortages for climate conditions that are wetter than the current climate
would occur most often in late summer and early fall. For warmer and drier climate conditions,
shortages would occur throughout the year except in the peak runoff months of May and June.
This shows the challenge of maintaining a resilient water resources system in the face of a
warmer and drier climate with the limited amount of storage in the FCU raw water system.
3.1
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment: Water Supply Vulnerability Study Final Report - Executive Summary (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
ES-17
x Without the proposed Halligan Reservoir enlargement of 8,125 AF, FCU system performance
would be significantly impacted and current water supply planning policy criteria could not be met
under most future climate and demand conditions.
x The WSVS highlights the importance of storage in the FCU system and the significant
vulnerability posed by the inability to implement the proposed Halligan Reservoir enlargement or
a similar storage project as a strategy to mitigate effects of climate change and other risks.
x The WSVS validates that FCU is highly reliant on the C-BT system and is particularly susceptible
to extended periods of low quotas and loss of the carryover storage program. FCU should
monitor conditions that could trigger either of those risks.
x Results of the WSVS are biased toward long-term risks, but a number of short-term risks were
identified that could severely impact FCU operations for a few weeks or months. These conditions
will require further study and may involve a different management strategy in the future water
supply plan.
x The WSVS analysis was performed without simulating the effects of demand management
measures that FCU could adopt under the City’s current Water Supply Shortage Response Plan.
Investigating benefits of the current shortage response policy should be a key aspect of the water
supply plan update.
x FCU now has a water supply modeling tool that can be used to conduct more detailed analyses
of the WSVS risk scenarios or explore a broader range of uncertainties or operating conditions if
desired. It can also be used to measure and compare the effectiveness of alternative water
supply system improvements.
3.1
Packet Pg. 133
Attachment: Water Supply Vulnerability Study Final Report - Executive Summary (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
ATTACHMENT 2
3.2
Packet Pg. 134
Attachment: Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (2012) (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
3.2
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (2012) (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
1
City of Fort Collins
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy
The City of Fort Collins’ Water Supply and Demand Management Policy provides a
foundational framework for water supply and demand management decisions concerning the
City’s water supply system. Operational and management actions and decisions by the Water
Utility will be consistent with the provisions of this policy.
Objective
To provide a sustainable and integrated approach to 1) ensuring an adequate, safe and reliable
supply of water for the beneficial use by customers and the community and 2) managing the level
of demand and the efficient use of a scarce and valuable resource consistent with the preferences
of Water Utility customers and in recognition of the region’s semi-arid climate.
This objective aligns with the 2010 Plan Fort Collins that provides a comprehensive 25-year
vision for the future development of Fort Collins. Policy ENV 21.2 of Plan Fort Collins states,
“Abide by Water Supply and Demand Management Policy: Provide for an integrated approach to
providing a reliable water supply to meet the beneficial needs of customers and the community
while promoting the efficient and wise use of water.”
This Water Supply and Demand Management Policy calls for a “sustainable and integrated
approach” to water demand and water resources management. Sustainability is defined within
the context of the triple-bottom-line decision making in Plan Fort Collins as, “To systematically,
creatively, and thoughtfully utilize environmental, human, and economic resources to meet our
present needs and those of future generations without compromising the ecosystems upon which
we depend.” Aligning with Plan Fort Collins, the Water Utility will take a leadership role by
incorporating the triple-bottom-line in its management of water supply and demand. When this
core value is applied to the use and development of our valuable water resources, the Utility will
strive to:
Avoid, minimize or offset impacts to our environment
Consider the social benefits and impacts of having a reliable and high quality water supply
Analyze the economic cost to provide such supplies, while also considering the effects it has
to our local and regional economies
The Utility will continue to provide a culture of innovation that finds proactive and creative
solutions in managing its water supplies and demands, which is a dynamic process that evolves
along with changes in data management and technology, legal and political environments,
economic development and water innovation, and as the State’s population continues to increase.
Given these factors, it is important to maintain an up-to-date effective policy that is based on
current data. The policy’s terms and conditions should be reviewed and updated by 2020, or
sooner if desired by the City Council or the Utilities Executive Director.
3.2
Packet Pg. 136
Attachment: Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (2012) (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
2
1.0 WATER USE EFFICIENCY AND DEMAND MANAGEMENT
The City views its water use efficiency program as an important proactive response to supply
variability and climate change. Elements of the City’s conservation program include reducing
indoor demand through improved technology, leak reduction and behavior change and reducing
outdoor demand through improved irrigation efficiency and reasonable changes in landscaping.
The City believes water use efficiency is of vital importance for many reasons, including to:
Foster a conservation ethic and eliminate waste
Demonstrate a commitment to sustainability
Provide water for multiple beneficial purposes
Reduce the need for capital expansion projects and certain operational costs
Encourage and promote innovation in water demand management
Prepare for potential impacts of climate change
1.1 Water Use Efficiency Goals for Treated Water Use
The City’s 2009 Water Conservation Plan1 established a goal of reducing the City’s treated water
use to 140 gallons per capita per day (gpcd)2 by the year 20203. The City will utilize water use
efficiency measures and programs with the aim of reducing its water use to an average of 140
gpcd, subject to 1) continuing study of the water requirements of the City’s urban landscaping, 2)
impacts on water demand due to changes in land use policies, building codes and housing trends,
3) additional studies on climate change, and 4) changes in the water use goal as may be adjusted
by any subsequent water conservation plans. This water use goal is subject to change as
discussed above and is intended as a goal that can be met while sustaining reasonable indoor and
outdoor values of the City.
The per capita peak daily demand4 will be reduced or maintained to be no more than 350 gpcd by
the year 2020, but may be adjusted by any subsequent water conservation plans.
1.2 Water Use Efficiency Program
Policy ENV 21.2 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Conservation measures should be implemented in
accordance with the Water Conservation Plan and periodically adjusted to reflect new and
effective conservation measures.” The City will optimize water use efficiency through the
programs and measures specified in its Water Conservation Plan. These programs and measures
include educational programs, incentive programs, regulatory measures and operational
1 State guidelines are changing the terminology of Water Conservation Plans to Water Use Efficiency Plans, and
likewise conservation is being changed to water use efficiency. For purposes of this policy, water use efficiency is
referred to as water conservation; however, the terminology may be used interchangeably.
2 Gallon per capita per day (gpcd) calculations are based on the total treated water produced at the Water Treatment
Facility for use by Water Utility customers (minus large contractual customers and other sales or exchange
arrangements) divided by the estimated population of the Water Utility’s service area.
3 This goal represents an 8.5% reduction in water use compared to Fort Collins’ 2006-2010 average daily water use
of 153 gpcd. It represents a 29% reduction in water use compared to Fort Collins’ pre-drought (1992-2001) average
daily water use of 197 gpcd.
4 The peak daily demand is 2.5 times the average daily use water conservation goal and is based on historic ratios of
average to peak daily use.
3.2
Packet Pg. 137
Attachment: Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (2012) (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
3
measures. Specific measures and programs are outlined in the Water Conservation Plan.
The overall effectiveness of these measures and programs will be evaluated on a regular basis
and if necessary, modifications will be made to increase effectiveness or to modify the City’s
water use goal. An annual water conservation report will be prepared to describe the status and
results of the various measures and programs. The Water Conservation Plan will be updated at a
minimum of every seven years, as currently required by the State of Colorado.
1.3 Water Rate Structures
The City will have stable water rate structures with transparent accountability for all classes of
customers. The water rate structures will provide an economic incentive to use water efficiently
while also providing sufficient revenue for operational and maintenance purposes. Examples of
structures that may be utilized include 1) tiered rates with increasing prices as water use
increases, 2) seasonal blocks with higher rates during the irrigation season, and 3) water budget
approaches based on appropriate targets for individual customers.
The City will annually review the effectiveness of its water rate structures as part of its financial
analyses regarding Water Utility revenue, expenses and rates. Specific studies or changes to the
rate structure may be made upon identification of the need to revise it. Any changes to the rate
structure will require City Council approval.
1.4 Population Growth
Population growth is an important factor in determining the City’s water supply needs, since
increases in population generally increase the need for additional supplies. Population growth
projections and associated water demand are mostly a function of land use planning,
development densities, annexation and other growth related issues that can be affected by City
Council decisions. The Water Utility will continue to work closely with the Current Planning
Department, which provides population projections that may be effected by changes in City
policies related to growth.
2.0 WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY
The City needs to meet future water demands in an efficient and reliable manner. Policy ENV
21.2 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Water supply reliability criteria will take into consideration
potential effects of climate change and other vulnerabilities. Water supplies and related facilities
shall be acquired or developed after careful consideration of social, economic and environmental
factors.” One of the Water Utility’s primary objectives is to provide an adequate and reliable
supply of water to its customers and other water users. Key principles that need to be considered
when addressing water supply for municipal use include:
Providing water supply system reliability and flexibility
Considering a broad portfolio of resources that do not overly depend on any one source
Maintaining a water storage reserve for unforeseen circumstances
Maintaining water supply infrastructure and system security
Being a steward of the City’s water resources, which includes watershed management
Collaboration with the City’s regional water providers and users
3.2
Packet Pg. 138
Attachment: Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (2012) (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
4
Maintaining awareness of state, national and worldwide trends and adapting as needed to
meet our customer needs
Promoting education, awareness and a culture of innovation among the Water Utility and
others to enable creative responses to future water supply uncertainties
2.1 Water Supply Planning Criteria
An integral component of the City’s water supply planning efforts is to maintain computer
models that estimate the yield of its existing and future water supplies. The following water
supply planning criteria are key parameters used in these models that provide a foundation for
planning future supplies.
2.1.1 Planning Demand Level
The reliability of the City’s water supply should be maintained to meet an average per capita
demand level of 150 gpcd5,6. This planning level provides a value that is higher than the water
use goal to address uncertainties inherent in water supply planning.
It is important to have a planning number that can be used for development of long-range water
supply facilities. Because water supply system infrastructure may take many years to permit and
construct, it is desirable to use conservative assumptions to size facilities that may be needed for
the long-term. A planning demand level should be larger than the water use goal, primarily
because of the uncertainties related to projected water demands, yields from specific water
rights, climate change and other unanticipated effects.
2.1.2 Drought Criterion
The reliability and capacity of the City’s water supply system should be maintained to meet the
planning level demand during at least a l-in-50 year drought event in the Cache la Poudre River
Basin. Water rights should be acquired and facilities (including storage capacity) should be
planned and constructed sufficiently ahead of the time to maintain the 1-in-50 year drought
criterion, considering the time required to obtain water court decrees and permit and construct
diversion, conveyance and/or storage facilities. In using this criterion, the City seeks to provide a
balance among water supply reliability, the financial investment necessary to secure such
reliability and the environmental impacts associated with water storage and diversions.
2.1.3 Storage Reserve Factor
The City’s water supply planning criteria will include a storage reserve factor that equates to
20% of annual demand in storage through a 1-in-50 year drought7,8. This factor provides an
5 The 150 gpcd value is based upon the normalized 2006-2011 average daily use.
6 The average per capita demand planning level is used for facility planning purposes. Gallons per capita per day
(gpcd) calculations are based on the total treated water produced at the Water Treatment Facility for use by Water
Utility customers (minus large contractual customers and other sales or exchange arrangements) divided by the
estimated population of the Water Utility’s service area. This number is multiplied by population projections
developed by the City’s Planning Department to calculate future water demands.
7 For the Water Utility, 20% of annual demand is equivalent to around 3.7 months of average winter demand and
about 1.5 months of average July demand.
3.2
Packet Pg. 139
Attachment: Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (2012) (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
5
additional layer of protection intended to address dimensions of risk outside of the other
reliability criteria, including emergency situations (i.e. pipeline failure) and droughts that exceed
a 1-in-50 year drought.
2.2 Climate Change
Climate change could significantly impact the reliability of the City’s supplies and/or the amount
of water required to maintain existing landscapes9; however, there is a great deal of uncertainty
related to current climate change projections along the Colorado Front Range and its impact on
municipal demands and water supply systems. The City’s planning criteria and assumptions are
conservative in part to account for climate change based on the information to date. The City will
continue to monitor climate change information and, if necessary, will revise its water supply
planning criteria and assumptions to ensure future water supply reliability.
2.3 Water Supply Shortage Response Plan
The City will maintain a plan for responding to situations where there are projected water supply
shortages, either because of severe drought conditions (i.e., greater than a 1-in-50 year drought)
or because of disruptions in the raw water delivery system. When needed, the Water Supply
Shortage Response Plan will be activated based on the projected water supply shortage.
This plan will include measures to temporarily reduce water use through media campaigns,
regulations, restrictions, rate adjustments and other measures. The plan may also include
provisions to temporarily supplement the supply through interruptible water supply contracts,
leases, exchanges and operational measures. Reducing the City’s water use during supply short
situations may lessen adverse impacts to irrigated agriculture and flows in the Poudre River. The
plan will be reviewed periodically and, if necessary, updated to reflect changes in the City’s
water use and its water supply system.
2.4 Additional Supplies and Facilities
In order to meet projected growth within the Water Utility’s service area, as well as maintain
system reliability and operational flexibility, the City will need to increase the firm yield of its
current water supply system. The following policy elements address ways of meeting these
needs.
8 In meeting this factor, it is assumed that the City cannot rely on the existing Colorado-Big Thompson Project
(CBT) carryover program. This program currently allows each CBT unit holder to carry over up to 20% of its CBT
unit ownership in CBT reservoirs for use in the following year. However, this program has varied over the years and
there is no guarantee that it will be continued in the future.
9 Current research indicates that changes in precipitation in this area are uncertain but that temperatures will increase
and therefore it is likely that runoff will come earlier and in a shorter amount of time, precipitation may more often
come as rain, and higher temperatures will increase outdoor demands and change growing seasons for existing
landscapes.
3.2
Packet Pg. 140
Attachment: Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (2012) (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
6
2.4.1 Raw Water Requirements for New Development
The City shall require developers to turn over water rights as approved by the City, or cash in-
lieu-of water rights, such that supplies can be made available to meet or exceed the demands of
the Water Utility’s treated water customers during a l-in-50 year drought.
Cash collected shall be used to increase the firm yield and long-term reliability of the City’s
supply system. Potential uses of cash include acquiring additional water rights, entering into
water sharing arrangements with agricultural entities, purchasing or developing storage facilities
and pursuing other actions toward developing a reliable water supply system. Consideration will
be given to providing a diversified system that can withstand the annual variability inherent in
both water demands and supplies. The balance between water rights being turned over and cash
received by developers should be monitored and adjusted as needed to develop a reliable and
effective system.
2.4.2 Acquisition and/or Sharing of Agricultural Water Supplies
The City currently owns and will acquire additional water rights that are decreed only for
agricultural use. The City will periodically need to change these water rights from agricultural
use to municipal use to meet its water supply needs. The City will change those rights that come
from areas upon which the City is growing, or from areas where the irrigation has ceased, when
needed. For water rights that were derived from irrigated agricultural lands that remain in viable
agricultural areas, the City will refrain from converting agricultural decrees to municipal use as
long as other water supply options are available or other factors make it prudent to do so. The
City will also work towards water sharing arrangements that provide water for municipal uses
when critically needed and that allow for continued agricultural use of water at other times, in a
manner that preserves irrigated agricultural lands over the long-term.
2.4.3 Facilities
The City will pursue the acquisition or development of facilities that are needed to manage the
City’s water rights in an efficient and effective manner and enhance the City’s ability to meet
demands through at least a 1-in-50 year drought. These facilities may include storage capacity,
diversion structures, pipelines or other conveyances, pumping equipment, or other facilities that
increase the firm yield of the City’s supply system.
Additional storage will be acquired or constructed considering 1) the City’s return flow
obligations incurred from changes of water rights, 2) the City’s need to carryover water from wet
years to dry years in order to meet its drought criteria, 3) operational flexibility, redundancy and
reliability of the City’s water supply system, and 4) potential multiple-use benefits (i.e.,
environmental flows, recreational uses, etc.). The City will analyze the potential environmental
impacts of developing storage along with other associated costs and benefits, and will develop
that storage in a manner that avoids, minimizes or offsets the effects to the environment. Storage
capacity options include the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir, the development of local gravel
pits into storage ponds, the acquisition of storage capacity in new or existing reservoirs, the
development of aquifer storage, or some combination of the above.
3.2
Packet Pg. 141
Attachment: Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (2012) (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
7
3.0 TREATED AND RAW WATER QUALITY
Policy ENV 21.1 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Develop and adhere to drinking water quality
standards, treatment practices, and procedures that provide the highest level of health protection
that can be realistically achieved.” In addition, the City will take an active role in protecting the
quality of water in the various watersheds from which the City’s raw water is derived and
maintaining the taste and quality of the City’s treated water. This may include mixing of the
City’s source waters to maintain high water quality and require collaboration with private,
county, state and federal land owners and managers. The acquisition, development, and
management of the City’s raw and treated water will be consistent with the City’s Drinking
Water Quality Policy and other applicable policies related to watershed protection and water
treatment.
4.0 USE OF SURPLUS RAW WATER
The City will use its existing supplies to meet municipal obligations with the following priorities:
1) to meet water demands by the City’s treated water customers, and 2) to meet the City’s raw
water needs as well as other City raw water obligations. Raw water needs include use for such
purposes as irrigation of City parks, golf courses, cemeteries and other greenbelt areas.
Additional raw water obligations include primarily water transfers to other entities because of
agreements or exchanges made to manage the water supply system more effectively.
Water not needed for the above purposes is referred to as surplus water and may be made
available to others in accordance with decrees and other applicable policies. Since the City plans
its water supply system using a 1-in-50 year drought criterion, it typically has significant
quantities of surplus raw water in many years. This surplus water may be available on a year-to-
year basis or through multi-year arrangements that do not significantly impair the City’s ability
to meet municipal demands. The City will continue to rent its surplus supplies at a fair market
price that helps offset the cost of owning such supplies and benefits the Water Utility ratepayers.
4.1 Commitment to Other Beneficial Purposes
Acknowledging that the City’s use of its valuable water resources has impacts to the
environment and the region, the City will commit to using its surplus supplies for other
beneficial purposes such as supporting irrigated agriculture, supplementing flows in the Poudre
River or providing other regional benefits. The City’s surplus supplies come from a variety of
sources, each of which has unique characteristics. These sources include CBT water and shares
in several irrigation companies. Some sources are more suitable and available than others to meet
beneficial purposes. Whether the surplus raw water can be used for these other purposes is
dependent upon a number of factors, including the type of water, place of use and other decree
limitations. Any potential use of these supplies should consider, and will likely require
coordination with, other water users, state agencies and other groups. Some uses of the surplus
supplies, such as maintaining an instream flow according to the State’s Instream Flow Program,
may require a change of water rights through the water court process. The City will engage in a
thorough evaluation of these issues as part of assessing the use of its surplus supplies for these
beneficial purposes.
3.2
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment: Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (2012) (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
8
Utilities will evaluate implementing a program to allow voluntary contributions from its
ratepayers (i.e., Utility bill “check-off box”) for programs that are designed to support the
following purposes: preserving local agriculture, supplementing flows in the Poudre River, or
meeting other beneficial purposes that our community may desire.
4.1.1 Agriculture and Open Space
Policy SW 3.2 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Participate in and follow the Northern Colorado
Regional Food System Assessment project and other Larimer County agricultural efforts, and
implement their recommendations at a local level, if appropriate.” In addition, Policy LIV 44.1
of Plan Fort Collins states, “Maintain a system of publicly-owned open lands to protect the
integrity of wildlife habitat and conservation sites, protect corridors between natural areas,
conserve outstanding examples of Fort Collins' diverse natural heritage, and provide a broad
range of opportunities for educational, interpretive, and recreational programs to meet
community needs.” To the extent that surplus water is available, the City will continue to support
the local agricultural economy and help preserve the associated open spaces by renting surplus
agricultural water back to irrigators under the respective irrigation companies.
The City will explore long-term rental and sharing arrangements with irrigators10 in order to
support the regional food system, encourage agricultural open space and other benefits provided
by irrigated agriculture, as well as benefit the Water Utility ratepayers.
4.1.2 Instream Flows
Policy ENV 24.5 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Work to quantify and provide adequate instream
flows to maintain the ecological functionality, and recreational and scenic values of the Cache la
Poudre River through Fort Collins.” Recognizing that its water use depletes natural streamflows,
the City will seek innovative opportunities to improve, beyond any associated minimum
regulatory requirements, the ecological function of the streams and rivers affected by its
diversions. The Water Utility will take a leadership role in working with other City departments,
local and regional groups and agencies towards the following objectives in accordance with
Colorado water law and the administration of water rights in Colorado: 1) encourage flows in
local streams to protect the ecosystem, 2) pursue the operation of its water supplies and facilities
in a manner that avoids, minimizes or offsets the effects to the environment while meeting
customer demands, and 3) explore projects or measures that would provide flows in streams and
water in reservoirs for recreational and aesthetic purposes.
4.1.3 Other Arrangements
The City will consider and participate in other surplus water supply arrangements with other
entities that provide mutual benefits and support the region. These may include other rental
agreements, augmentation plans and other cooperative arrangements with regional partners.
These types of arrangements should be limited to unique opportunities that are mutually
10 The City’s largest irrigation company ownership interest is in the North Poudre Irrigation Company, which still
has substantial lands in irrigated agricultural production and has a unique mix of native water and CBT water that
lends itself to these types of partnership arrangements.
3.2
Packet Pg. 143
Attachment: Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (2012) (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
9
beneficial to the parties and provide significant social, economic or environmental benefits to the
region.
5.0 REGIONAL COOPERATION
The City recognizes the importance in maintaining good relationships with regional entities and
coordinating efforts to achieve mutual goals. The City also recognizes that growing Colorado
municipalities are currently struggling to define a way to meet future water supply needs in a
manner that minimizes negative impacts to agricultural economies and river ecosystems. The
Water Utility will endeavor to be a leader in demonstrating how water supply can be provided in
a manner that respects other interests and provides a culture of innovation.
5.1 Working with Other Municipal Providers
The City will continue to work with the water suppliers throughout the northern Colorado Front
Range to assure that adequate supplies are maintained in the region. When benefits are identified,
the City will cooperate with area entities in studying, building, sharing capacity and operating
water transmission lines, distribution systems and storage reservoirs for greater mutual benefit.
The City has common interests and the potential to cooperate with regional entities including the
water districts around Fort Collins, the City of Greeley and the Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District, as well as other Colorado water providers. In particular, the City should
work closely with water districts that serve Fort Collins residents to encourage similar policies
regarding drought protection, conservation and to provide mutual assistance during emergencies.
5.2 Working with Local Irrigation Companies
The City will continue to cooperate with local irrigation companies regarding the use, exchange
and transfer of water in the Cache la Poudre River Basin. As a major shareholder in many of the
local irrigation companies, it is necessary and desirable that the City work closely with these
companies. Much of the water supply available to the City is through the ownership of shares in
local irrigation companies.
5.3 Working with Others
City Departments will work together and also cooperate with local, state and federal agencies,
civic organizations, environmental groups and other non-governmental organizations when
common goals would benefit City residents and the surrounding community. Examples of goals
that may involve City water supplies and be worthy of collaborative efforts include support for
existing and development of new local food sources, promoting open space, improving river
flows and supporting the local economy. Such efforts should identify appropriate entities and
sources of revenue for specific goals or projects.
3.2
Packet Pg. 144
Attachment: Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (2012) (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
1
Water Supply Vulnerability Study
Meagan Smith, Donnie Dustin, Carol Webb
March 24, 2020
ATTACHMENT 3
3.3
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
2
WHY ARE WE HERE TODAY?
Water Supply
Vulnerability
Study
Increasing
Uncertainties
Regional
Resource
3.3
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
City Council Update
This presentation is for informational purposes. Direction is not sought
on the Water Supply Vulnerability Study at this time.
However, any questions Council may have regarding the Study
are welcomed.
3
3.3
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
Strategic Alignment
4
ENV 4.6
Provide a reliable, high-quality
water supply
ENV 4.5
Develop strategies to improve
community climate resilience
Source: Resource Central
3.3
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
5
Water Supply &
Demand Management
Policy
Water
Efficiency
Plan Water Shortage
Action Plan
Water
Supply
Vulnerability
Study
3.3
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
Water Resources Division
6
MANAGE
raw water supplies
PROTECT & DEVELOP
water rights
PLAN
for future water supply needs
3.3
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
Current Long-Term Planning
7
Present Future
• Yield-based
• Single-future
• Future demand
• Single planning drought
• Emergency reserve
Cylinder of Certainty
3.3
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
8
Why
Change?
01
02
03
Changing Climate
Assess Other Vulnerabilities
Industry Best Practice
3.3
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
Future Direction of Long-Term Planning
9
• Risk-based planning
• Scenario planning
• Embrace uncertainty
Graphic source: Denver Water
3.3
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
New Tools and Data
10
Water Supply Forecasts
• Observed historical record
• Tree-ring data
• Climate change
Water Demand Forecasts
• Zoning and development density, weather,
economic conditions and historical use
• Two future development scenarios
Snowpack on Cameron Pass, 2011
3.3
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
11
Water
Board
City
Depts.
Identifying
Vulnerabilities
Northern
CSU Water
Water
Districts
3.3
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
Vulnerabilities and Scenarios
12
Climate and Hydrology
Operations and Infrastructure
Demands
Watershed and Environmental
Legal and Administrative
11 Vulnerability
Scenarios
3.3
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
Performance Metrics
• Reliability:
HOW OFTEN
conditions occur
• Resilience:
HOW LONG
conditions persist
• Vulnerability:
HOW SEVERE
conditions are
13
Chart source: Colorado Springs Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
Percent of Years on Restrictions
14
0% 100%
Current Planning
• Expected future demands
• Halligan expansion in place
0% 100% 0% 100%
No Halligan Expansion
• Expected future
demands
Colorado-Big Thompson
Long-Term Reduction
• Expected future demands
• Halligan expansion in place
+5 °F +5 °F +5 °F
10%
30%
99%
19%
36%
3.3
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
Some Key Findings – Most Impactful
Warmer / drier climate poses largest risk
to long-term planning
Adequate storage is crucial to meet current
policy criteria
Long-term reduction in Colorado-Big Thompson
supplies impacts ability to meet demands
15
3.3
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
Next Steps – Policy Update
16
22
44
Planning Futures
Explore Solutions
11 Needs/Impacts Identification
33 Service Levels
3.3
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
17
Next Steps – Policy Update
Iterative
Process
Solutions
Service Levels
Planning Futures
3.3
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
City Council Update
18
This presentation is for informational purposes. Direction is not sought
on the Water Supply Vulnerability Study at this time.
However, any questions Council may have regarding the Study
are welcomed.
3.3
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
19
Meagan Smith
mesmith@fcgov.com
970.221.6336
3.3
Packet Pg. 163
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
20
Temperature and Precipitation Offsets used to develop
climate impacted hydrology compared to range of
selected GCMs
-12% -8% -4% 0% 4% 8% 12% 16% 20% 24% 28% 32%
Precipitation Change
+10
+8
+6
+4
+2
0
Temperature Change (deg F)
• RCP4.5
• RCP8.5
• Climate Offsets
3.3
Packet Pg. 164
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
Reliability of Meeting Total Demands
21
100% 80%
Current Planning
• Expected future demands
• Halligan expansion in place
100% 80% 100% 80%
No Halligan Expansion
• Expected future
demands
CBT Long-Term Reduction
• Expected future demands
• Halligan expansion in place
+5°F +5°F +5°F
98%
91%
95%
93%
84%
85%
3.3
Packet Pg. 165
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
Percent of Years on Restrictions
22
0% 100%
Current Planning
• Expected future demands
• Halligan expansion in place
0% 100% 0% 100%
No Halligan Expansion
• Expected future
demands
CBT Long-Term Reduction
• Expected future demands
• Halligan expansion in place
+8°F +8°F +8°F
10%
46%
99%
19%
50%
3.3
Packet Pg. 166
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
Percent of Years on Restrictions
23
0% 100%
Current Planning
• Expected future demands
• Halligan expansion in place
0% 100% 0% 100%
No Halligan Expansion
• Expected future
demands
CBT Long-Term Reduction
• Expected future demands
• Halligan expansion in place
+5°F & 5%
reduction
+5°F & 5%
reduction
+5°F & 5%
reduction
10%
60%
99%
19%
63%
3.3
Packet Pg. 167
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
Reliability of Meeting Total Demands
24
• Climate impacts only
Deg F
• Climate impacts, Without Halligan
Deg F
With / Without Halligan
3.3
Packet Pg. 168
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
Deg F
• Climate impacts, Without Halligan
Reliability of Maintaining 20% SRF
25
• Climate impacts only
Deg F
With / Without Halligan
3.3
Packet Pg. 169
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
Restrictions – Percent of Years Simulated
26
• With Halligan, Higher Demands
Deg F
With / Without Halligan
• Without Halligan, Higher Demands
Deg F
3.3
Packet Pg. 170
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
Reliability of Meeting Total Demands
27
• Climate impacts only
Deg F
• Climate impacts, C-BT System Long-
Term Reduction
Deg F
C-BT System Long-Term Reduction
3.3
Packet Pg. 171
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
Deg F
Reliability of Maintaining 20% SRF
28
• Climate impacts only • Climate impacts, C-BT System Long-
term Reduction
Deg F
C-BT System Long-Term Reduction
3.3
Packet Pg. 172
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
Current Planning
Meet All Water Demands – 100% Reliability
• Expected future population X 150 gpcd
Through One Planning Drought
• 1-in-50 year drought
Storage Reserve Factor – 100% Reliability
• 20% of Annual Demand
Restrictions
29
3.3
Packet Pg. 173
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
Vulnerability Scenarios
• Increased Demands – Additional demand scenario, 20% increase
• No Halligan Expansion – No Halligan expansion
• Loss of Storage – No Halligan expansion, No C-BT Carryover
• Poudre River System Acute Outage – 12-month outage, all 3 pipelines
• Poudre River System Env Impacts – HT algal bloom, Poudre wildfire
• CBT System Acute Outage – Adams Tunnel outage
• CBT System Env Impacts – HT algal bloom, East Slope wildfire
• CBT System Long-Term Reduction – Compact call
• Horsetooth Reservoir Outage – HT outage for nine months
• Reuse Plan Change 1 – Elimination of Reuse Plan operation
• Reuse Plan Change 2 – 50% reduction in existing Reuse Plan operations
30
3.3
Packet Pg. 174
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
All Vulnerability Scenarios
31
3.3
Packet Pg. 175
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
Historical C-BT Quotas
32
Total Annual Quota
~30% of Quotas less than 70%
No Quotas less than 50%
3.3
Packet Pg. 176
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
-12% -8% -4% 0% 4% 8% 12% 16% 20% 24% 28% 32%
Precipitation Change
+10
+8
+6
+4
+2
0
Temperature Change (deg F)
• RCP4.5
• RCP8.5
• Climate Offsets
33
~30% of Quotas less than 70%
~10% of Quotas less than 50%
~40% of Quotas less than 70%
~15% of Quotas less than 50%
~60% of Quotas less than 70%
~30% of Quotas less than 50%
Climate Impacts – C-BT Quotas
Temp and Precip offset: 0 deg F, 0% P
Temp and Precip offset: +5 deg F, -5% P
Temp and Precip offset: +5 deg F, 0% P
3.3
Packet Pg. 177
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
34
3.3
Packet Pg. 178
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
Demand Forecasting
35
3.3
Packet Pg. 179
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
Percent of Years on Restrictions
36
0% 100%
Current Planning
• Expected future demands
• Halligan expansion in place
0% 100% 0% 100%
No Halligan Expansion
• Expected future
demands
Colorado-Big Thompson
Long-Term Reduction
• Expected future demands
• Halligan expansion in place
10%
99%
19%
3.3
Packet Pg. 180
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
Percent of Years on Restrictions
37
0% 100%
Current Planning
• Expected future demands
• Halligan expansion in place
0% 100% 0% 100%
No Halligan Expansion
• Expected future
demands
Colorado-Big Thompson
Long-Term Reduction
• Expected future demands
• Halligan expansion in place
+5 °F +5 °F +5 °F
10%
30%
99%
19%
36%
3.3
Packet Pg. 181
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (8843 : Water Supply Vulnerability Study)
!"#
$ , %&'()&%*+ - $%
.&'(
)& %
/0
1 2 -3
4
8! 8 $ %&'()&%*+ 9 9 $5
:
:%&'(
0
)&
6 %
/
1 / 5
.1
. 7./
.
/11 11
01 0
; 1 /;<
/1
9 =
>;
"
B ;1 C
//
?
0 @1
1A
/ /0
A
/;
2 -3
4
2.2
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: 2020 HBA Participating Lender Questionnaire Results (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
#'($$% )
, !-" .*$ +
'
/0
1)123
2
45124
2
426
1(57
)
14'
1
(8&
9$:$% ;-
#$:$% <
G F =B !> ?@/C+A +0+0+D D -, ! --" .- /$ E *
*0H1I)
434
4
)1J&
+ 1
(4 )
(
4
(
( '
14
KED4
5
L 1
5)(2
447
/D M
N
((
O/PI+++
)2 Q)
5)51
RS
*T+ +
U+ E+
/++
=1 !>
(4
4
(
()
(
?@EE0CD A - -- /U
ATTACHMENT 2
2.2
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: 2020 HBA Participating Lender Questionnaire Results (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
serve residents
experiencing
homelessness, 20-
30% for resident
earning 31-80%
AMI, 20-30%
residents seeking to
be homeowners.
Minneapolis,
MN
Unified Housing Policy
(2020)
Diversification and creation of
affordable housing only
20 year housing
target (2040)
Below 30% and 60%
of AMI
Tacoma, WA Affordable Housing
Action Strategy
Creation and retention of
affordable housing only
10 year project
(2028)
below 30% AMI for
1 person household,
50% for 2 person,
80% for three, 100%
for 4 person
household.
Boise, ID Grow Our Housing Targets affordable housing units
only
20 year project
(2040)
Residents at or
below 80% AMI
dLJƉĞƐKĨĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐWůĂŶƐ ATTACHMENT 1
2.1
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Housing Plan Examples (8845 : Affordable Housing Priorities)
Home Values
Incomes
Affordable Purchase Price (80% AMI) Affordability Gap Median Income (2 person household) Income Required to Qualify Home Value
estimated to be
Total Funding
available/awarded
1
Packet Pg. 8