HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Mail Packet - 1/24/2017 - Council Finance & Audit Committee Agenda - January 23, 2017Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
AGENDA
Council Finance & Audit Committee
January 23, 2017
9:30 - 11:30 am
CIC Room - City Hall
Approval of Minutes from the December 15P
th
P and December 19P
th
P Council Finance meetings
1. Water - Raw Water Fee or CIL 30 minutes C. Webb
2. Utility Time of Use Rate Pilot Results 30 minutes L. Smith
3. City Foundation 20 minutes N. Johnson
UOTHER BUSINESS
1) 2017 Budget Transfers
Council Finance Committee & URA Finance Committee
Agenda Planning Calendar 2016
RVSD 01/19 ck
Jan 23
Water – Raw Water Fee or CIL 30 min C. Webb
Utility Time of Use Rate Pilot Results 30 min L. Smith
City Foundation 20 min N. Johnson
URA
Feb 27
Strategy Map Metrics Review 30 min L. Pollack
Front Range Financial Comparison 15 min T. Storin
Revenue Diversification Outreach Update 25 min T. Smith
2017 Re-appropriation 15 min L. Pollack
URA
Mar 20
BFO Discussion – one-time and on-going funding guardrails 30 min L. Pollack
I25/Prospect Interchange Improvements 30 min R. Richter
URA
Apr 17
URA
Future Council Finance Committee Topics:
Parking Garage Financing – QII 2017
County IGA – URA TIF Evaluation Process
Future URA Committee Topics:
Annual URA District Updates
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Council Audit & Finance Committee Minutes
Special Meeting
12/15/16
1:30 - 3:00 pm
222 Laporte Ave. - Colorado River Community Room
Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Ross Cunniff, Gerry Horak
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Jeff Mihelich, Mike Beckstead, Carrie Daggett, Kevin Gertig, SeonAh
Kendall, Josh Birks, Andres Gavaldon, John Duval, Jackson Brockway, Lance Smith,
Noelle Curell and Carolyn Koontz
Others:
Meeting called to order at 1:35 pm by Mayor Troxell
A. Broadband Review - Financial, Economic & Social
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
SeonAh Kendall, Economic Health Manager
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Broadband Plan Update – Overview Community Outreach and Staff Recommendation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to provide City Council an update on the Broadband Plan and review the community
outreach, Request for Information interviews, executive site visits, and City Manager recommendation.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Staff requests the ability to bring forward language to create a retail municipal broadband service through
amendments to the Fort Collins Utility charter, while continuing to explore a third-party alternative.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
City Broadband Strategic Objectives
The City’s 2016 Strategic Plan includes Strategic Objective 3.9 – “Encourage the development of reliable high
speed internet services throughout the community”. The Broadband Plan overall objective is to bring reliable,
Gig speed internet to the city of Fort Collins, while making an informed decision through evaluation of risk and
opportunities. Broadband is defined by the FCC as internet download speed of 25 megabits per second
(“Mbps”) and upload of 3 Mbps or faster.
Additional benefits sought include:
• Competitive pricing (residential market pricing at $70/month or less for 1 Gig and an affordable internet
tier);
2
• Universal coverage across the Growth Management Area;
• Underground service for improved reliability; and
• Timely implementation to providing services within a reasonable timeframe (less than five years).
A detailed financial model has been developed for the Retail and Wholesale model. A summary of the financials
are provided below. The Capital Expenditures (“CapEx”) for the retail model could increase based on a decision
to provide video services and if the increased take rate went from 30% to 50%.
Municipal Retail Wholesale
Third
Party
CapEx (Years 1 – 5) $110M $85M $0
CapEx (Years 6 – 15) – upgrades/maintenance $15M $3M $0
Total CapEx $125M $88M $0
FTE 33 5 0
Project Break Even 15 Years 12 – 18 Years N/A
Why Fiber-to-the-Premise (“FTTP”)
Questions have arisen as to why the City would enter a market that traditionally only private companies have
been active in. The FCC has noted that the real culprit of slow, expensive internet in the U.S. is the lack of
competition among providers. New broadband entrants into the market have a substantial impact on price
reductions, increased customer service and accelerated infrastructure upgrades. Incumbents typically try to
utilize existing infrastructure such as copper, wireless and hybrid approach. Non-fiber infrastructure can create
dependability concerns due to the life and reliability of copper. Fiber (“FTTP”), which is being explored in the
City’s broadband plan, is not susceptible to weather or electromagnetic interferences and has a lifespan of 25 –
40 years. Currently, wireless is a complement to wired connections, not a substitute.
Comcast’s recent announcement of the rollout of DOCSIS 3.1 includes upgrade requirements of cable modem
replacement and firmware upgrades. DOCSIS – “data over cable service interface specifications” provides
internet access over the existing hybrid fiber-coax cable systems and is not symmetrical (same upload/download
speed). No date has been released for the roll out of DOCSIS 3.1 in Fort Collins.
Again, the FCC noted that the real culprit of a slow, expensive internet in the U.S. is the lack of competition
among providers. New broadband entrants into the market have a substantial impact on price and service. Dr.
Lobo estimated that a new entrant into the market brought pricing down by 20% (equivalent to
$15/month/subscriber) due to competitive pressures.
Next Steps
Staff will continue to develop next steps for the retail municipal broadband services including modifications to
the City Charter for an April or November 2017 election. Modifications would include a request to voters to add
Telecommunications within the Light and Power enterprise and to seek voter support for the debt required
($117M to $140M) to launching broadband.
Concurrently, staff will continue third party due diligence exploration of Axia concerning the business viability of
a potential partnership.
_________________________________________________________________________________
3
Agenda;
• Overall Policy Objectives & Option Review
• Broadband Economic & Social Impacts
• Broadband Site Visits
• Retail Model – Base Case Financial Summary
• 3rd Party Alternative
• Public Outreach
• Recommendation/Next Steps
Why GIG City?
In one of the Future’s Committee meetings we had a conversation with Comcast and Century Link. We learned
that they are focused on the content side of the business and not on delivery - they did not have a blueprint plan
for Fort Collins.
BFO offer in the 2015-16 Budget - $300K to hire consultants (Uptown) and start investigating. This work also ties
to our Strategic Objectives and Plan.
Strategic Objective 3.9
• Encourage the development of reliable, high speed internet services throughout the community
Secondary Factors
• Network reaching all residents of Fort Collins GMA
• Timely implementation requires base network build <5 years
• Competitive market pricing
• Outstanding customer service
Darin Atteberry; we believe the ‘Do Nothing’ and ‘Wholesale’ models are non-starters for Fort Collins at this
point.
Gerry Horak; the ‘Do Nothing’ option could be to do something with a market driven model -
Highest take rate for Gig service is 4% - why put in a system like this to accommodate such a small number of
people? Models to win and models to fail - need to look at variants of that model.
The cities you looked at aren‘t like us - What are the other cities that are peer cities and/or university cities that
are doing this?
Darin Atteberry: We are going to be doing a great deal of due diligence between now and whatever action we
get from Council. Comcast is not going to make a significant investment in fiber. They are going to roll out
DOCSIS 3.1 in Fort Collis and are targeting Q1 or Q2 of 2017. This is not a significant investment and is not a plan
to replace the coax with fiber
After 2 years of work and study, I can honestly tell you that there is no way that I can recommend we stay the
course. I think that is well informed
We have learned if we want Fort Collins to remain competitive in this space and ensure that we come become a
Connected City - we need to make a pretty significant investment.
Mike Beckstead; The concept of ‘future proofing’ - I had some of the similar reactions as Gerry with less than 6%
in Chattanooga buying the higher speed - is there truly a market demand or is it more of a niche market that the
masses really don’t need. There is the concept of what is going to be needed in 5 years - the demand for speed
will grow exponentially over the next 3-5 years thus the term of ‘future proofing’. Comcast has said that DOCSIS
4
3.0 has the capacity to get to 6 Gigs but we think they will respond in a lagging fashion - when the masses need
it as opposed to what it takes to be competitive as part of our brand.
Gerry Horak; who are we wanting to compete with? What cities similar to Fort Collins have done this?
Jeff Mihelich; this is leading edge - not too long ago people were saying that because of the internet people can
work anywhere but that is not the case any longer. Now that there are a handful of Gig cities responding to the
need for more speed and ability to transfer huge files - people in those professions are choosing Gig cities - this
would give us a competitive edge over other cities. 3P
rd
P Party companies have only started getting involved with
this within the last year.
Mayor Troxell; Chattanooga - University of Tennessee is noteworthy - building this as an economic play for their
city.
Jeff Mihelich; we have specifically pointed out Education and Healthcare as two areas where they need more
speed. Schools in particular, we used to have a concern about the digital divide with students who did not have
access to the Internet - actually now it is that they don’t have access to greater speed. If we are going to have
schools using this more and more as a platform, we need to provide higher speed. Every Gig city we have talked
with has said that when they start to lay their own fiber the prices from competitors come down almost
immediately.
Ross Cunniff; the people who live here, the service providers, the manufacturers, the innovators, the university
community, everything that is being done now is attached to the Cloud - this is a way to help insure prosperity
for the people who live here now. Lowering the price and the cost of the infrastructure is the economic
argument. Hard to get data on new jobs but you can clearly see the trends.
Gerry Horak; from a timing perspective, why doesn’t it make sense to wait 1- 2 years if things are changing so
rapidly?
Darin Atteberry; from a competitive standpoint we believe the sooner the better. We are going to get better at
quantifying the value from a city operational standpoint but we do know that there are benefits to our electric
utility.
SeonAh Kendall; the Economic Impact Analysis of the city of Chattanooga that was done by the University of
Tennessee will be included in the Council packets going out.
Darin Atteberry; the incumbents are providing adequate service at best (customer service, pricing)
5
and our citizens are very dissatisfied and they are asking us to pursue this.
Gerry Horak; I hear people complaining about cable prices but not necessarily internet prices.
SeonAh Kendall; the market demand study we did with Uptown stressed that for small - medium businesses
said that the reliability piece is a factor (internet dropping). Impact example is the Estes Park example – not only
did the merchant services piece go down but customers couldn’t even access cash at ATMs
Jeff Mihelich; Enhancement to Merchant Services - example of Black Friday - these businesses have so many
transactions going through at that time - the last thing they want is limited capacity. Larger businesses in our
area already have gig service - Fry is doing a nice job but it is expensive. Small and medium sized businesses
typically don’t have the capital for that type of service.
Gerry Horak; One solution doesn’t necessarily fit all. We need to look at all possibilities as this one of the biggest
decisions the city is going to make and we have the fiduciary responsibility to do it right.
Jeff Mihelich; Site Visits slide;
Jeff Mihelich; availability of Gig speed was very important to them for the future. The communities said that
running a fiber utility is much more complex than L&P, however there is a continuity between the two -
Chattanooga said that they would have installed their fiber network solely to help their electric utility - the
ability to connect the switches within the electrical system to fiber with zero latency. In the past, outages would
take hours and days to get service restored and now they can get the power back on within minutes and this is
invaluable to them.
6
Mike Beckstead; they estimated $300m in savings over 10 years due to improved reliability. In Chattanooga
$110m came from the DOE - 1/3 of their investment went into their grid to make it smart / intelligent /
automated. I view this as an enabler to do something like this if we chose to down the road (future benefit).
There is an added investment necessary to get that type of benefit.
Jeff Mihelich; one of the key takeaways from our site visits was about the governance of the utility itself.
They could not stress to us enough how operating a telecom is so much different from sewer and water.
There has to be a great deal of focus marketing, strategy and pricing. If Council chooses to recommend that we
go forward, we may recommend some changes to City Code and the Charter to allow more flexibility to discuss
strategy, marketing, pricing and technology.
Findings;
The cities we visited did not have the 3P
rd
P Party option when they made their decisions. They suggested we
strongly consider the potential loss of local control as we vet that option.
Mike Beckstead; one of our next steps is to talk with folks who launched this and it didn’t work to get more of
the other perspective. This is one of the most significant decisions the city has put in front of ourselves.
No captive audience. In this we will have to go sell our way into profitability and that is different.
(order taking vs selling in a competitive market). We are going to have to earn our way to customer loyalty.
7
Critical Retail Model Variables;
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Model Driving Variables - Pricing
We are talking in the $60-70 range for Gig service. There appears to be a tremendous amount of price elasticity
in these models - given the price gap in Cedar Falls that may explain why so few folks went with Gig service.
Goes to the question; is it necessary today? Probably not - but in the future, yes and that is the premise - future
proofing the city for tomorrow.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Investment
8
Mike Beckstead; we want Council to focus on this as a range
Base Case Results – CASH FLOW
1 year of design and planning - 4 years of construction and build out -5 year project in total.
There is replacement capital built into the model - electrical equipment to be replaced in year 10
One learning from the communities we talk with is that they got caught short having long asset lives and when
they went to replace things they found out that the assets weren’t fully depreciated and they had to take a $4m
income write-off. It speaks to some of the differences between this business and L&P. Watching asset life is
critical.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Base Case Results – PAYBACK
Two tranches - debt is paid off in year 15
___________________________________________________________________________________________
9
Sensitivity Analysis
If we had a 50% take rate that pulls payback forward out 2 ½ years
If we went to a $70 price and held everything else constant about the same line
If we had a lower take rate or some added construction costs it can easily add 1-2 years to the payback.
30% take rate is our assumption.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Retail Model - Strengths & Risks
Technology - the assumption is that fiber will be around 30-40 years but that is unknown.
Also unknown - Where the technology could be in 10 years and what the impact might be.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
3P
rd
P Party Alternatives;
_________________________________________________________
10
Gerry Horak; the numbers being presented are very precise - make sure they are real numbers
For the passing cost $1,000 be better. What about install?
Mike Beckstead; on the passing analysis we did a very detailed analysis - the numbers are still estimates.
Two components ; one is passing and the other is installation (install from node to wall and connecting the
house). The $600-700 install would apply to about 30%.
Gerry Horak; would be good to add a footnote calling out the potential additional costs (hook up / install)
because that added cost is equal to 12 months of service.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
RFI Response - Axia
Axia is a Canadian company - recently acquired by a Swiss company (investment banker - asset management and
generating annuity revenue streams off of infrastructure investments) for $280m - hence their interest in the
fiber network - seems to have the experience and financial resources
Their proposal; they would do the financing of the build and operate the network with 100% coverage across the
city in 2-3 years. Open access model - other internet service providers could come in and buy transport charges
on those lines and provide services such as security, movies, etc. They would want an exclusive partnership with
the city around our brand. You would see our brand next to their brand and we would be promoting their brand
and their business. In Baldrige terms, key partnership, key supplier, a higher level of intimacy with this company
than we have had in the past.
We would endorse them and do a joint marketing campaign to secure a 40% expression of interest.
We might be actively encouraging our citizens not to sign up 3 year contracts with other suppliers.
Mike Beckstead; pricing - from our analysis the $70-80 seems to be competitive. They are an experienced ISP
and they have partners who have the resources to support such a transaction. We plan to dig deeper through
our due diligence (reliability, customer service, technology, standards, etc.) this would be part of the next step in
exploring a 3P
rd
P Party model.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
11
SeonAh Kendall - Public Outreach
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Two Alternatives
__________________________________________________________________________________________
City Manager’s Recommendation
Darrin Atteberry; These are the two alternatives we feel are worth continuing conversation on.
12
A good amount of due diligence is needed on the 3P
rd
P Party alternative. I feel very strongly that status quo is an
unacceptable option for us. Municipal Broadband is the preferred path with the most likely probability of
achieving the objectives that were set earlier. I think the 3P
rd
P Party alternative should not be ruled out. We went
through an RFI process and narrowed it down to one (Axia) who is very interested.
The co-branding relationship is very important – this is us partnering in a very different way than we have ever
done with a private company. I think the 40% expression of interest is going to be very difficult to accomplish.
This is saying to every household in Fort Collins - if this company and Fort Collins partner together would you be
interested in this model? I think this will be a very challenging task to overcome.
I think it is critical that we do a very high level of due diligence on this issue - viable option - significantly less risk
for the city. We are going to be very careful about that due diligence including their customer service
experience, pricing, timing of their deployment, etc. etc.
We did look at the idea of a 5P
th
P utility but our recommendation is that this become an expansion of the L&P - we
can talk about why that is. There is more work to be done around the solution itself and the governance model
(concerns, limitations and opportunities). We are meeting with Longmont tomorrow afternoon to learn about
how this could work in the Council / Mayor form of government with Council serving as the Broadband Board.
How they have navigated through that - we know they have done some unique business carve outs in their
Charter and Code to accommodate some of the differences between a monopolistic and a competitive
environment.
Next Steps would be a ballot measure in either April or November – from a sound policy standpoint I think the
Council could move forward in April if you are desiring to be in the market more quickly. Frankly, I think some of
our citizens are expecting this (some actually believe we are already moving forward with the passage of Senate
bill 152). I have had a lot of great conversations with Council Members who think there is definitely benefit in
taking slightly more time and moving this out to the November ballot. If we have an April election, Council
would need to set the ballot language in January. If a November election, ballot language would need to be set
in August.
Mike Beckstead; part of the rationale for that is that if we started with the 3P
rd
P Party alternative and something
failed in year 1 or 2, the objective here is to have the authority to step in and take it over and run it in a very
proactive way. A contingency plan - even if we chose not to go forward with retail and go forward with the 3P
rd
P
Party.
Mayor Troxell; I appreciate all of the work that has been done and I think we are midstream as there is still a lot
of work to be done. A lot of the work is sharing beyond that - communicating - capturing the right messages that
are resonating –-I think the value and part of the challenge is in comparison to what we have today and whether
or not the city should be doing it or not - the way it will play out will enable a lot of things we can’t do today.
City was founded 1864 but it wasn’t until a fire that Water Works was formed in 1882 - one event was a big
driver that enabled a lot of decision making. In terms of the Smart City concept layered on top of the physical
layer are not just city services but economic services. I think one of the message concepts need to be in terms of
how the physical layer enables other layers such as applications which is part of a value proposition. Some wow
elements there somewhere. Healthcare - there are other things - you observed in Chattanooga - real time
interaction without latency - what is the value there? it enables things that we can’t imagine today.
Darin Atteberry; our challenge has been how to quantify that
Mayor Troxell; when you only have 15 minute segments - not real time - that is near real time
13
When you get to real time you are able to manage things so they function - real time effect to action – no
latency - there is a whole bundle of things. The value proposition is - all we are doing is beginning to unlock the
door and then when you push the door open there is a lot more there - when we move above the physical layer
(the pipes in the ground) and start talking about things that enable things to happen that wouldn’t have
happened otherwise.
Darin Atteberry; conversations about cities as a platform – we heard this at National League of Cities back
several years ago - changing the way we thing about city infrastructure and how we do things
Example; College Ave. we just maintain the asphalt - but look at College Ave. as a platform for people to bolt on
to and do all kinds of things that benefit our community. Looking at it as a ribbon of asphalt is very limiting. We
have no idea what value is added as a result as the platform of College Ave that people bolt on to….we are
building the platform and if you believe in this co-creator model - that is the difficult part in this model - some of
that is visionary and very hard to quantify - it feels like that is what we are hearing from the community and the
Council and the Futures Committee - that is what is driving the enthusiasm around the Connected City
regardless of who provides it.
Mayor Troxell; part of the resilience has to be built into that - there is a value proposition there that if
something bad happens we are still able to do things that other wouldn’t. Part of the future proofing but also
resilience proofing. Right now we are talking 1 gig - I would like to understand 10 gig - there is an element of
leading not just catching up
Jeff Mihelich; both Wilson and Chattanooga suggested we build to 10 gig not just to 1 gig
Ross Cunniff; the cost would be the switches / physical wiring
Darin Atteberry; we have had in depth conversations with 5 of the 7 Council members and will meet with the
other two this weekend. We wanted to come to Finance Committee because it is such a significant issue.
Ross Cunniff; I would say to continue to move forward but probably targeting the November ballot. Ideally it
would have been April but at this point that would require a time crunch process wise and would not be fair to
spring it on the Council and the public over the holiday break. Also given that we will already have multiple
Charter Amendments on the ballot. Continue to develop both the 3P
rd
P Party and the Retail models with an eye
toward enabling a good process and Council decision in August about putting it on the November ballot.
Gerry Horak; as the Finance Committee, we deal with the hard dollars not projected future benefits.
We haven’t seen the financials of any of the communities you visited.
Mike Beckstead; Cedar Falls gave me their Broadband financials back to 1995.
Gerry Horak; some comments or statements about those real numbers would be helpful as it is some of the only
proof we have. Longmont’s financials are important as well.
Mike Beckstead; they are still in buildout mode through summer of 2017- this is inside of their L&P
Gerry Horak; I know you have done some analysis on the take rate - didn’t also deal with the money - for
example
14
If we charge $50 and the competitors charge $30 then what do we do - we need the Sensitivity Analysis to price
or revenue - one of the things we need to show the public and the Council is the worst case scenario - best and
worst case aren’t just uptick
Mike Beckstead: you are saying that if our competition comes in and offers $30 and we can’t get $50 - what
does it look like?
Gerry Horak; we really don’t care what uptick is or what price is - we do care what revenue is and those two are
the drivers of revenue.
Ross Cunniff; whatever model, I highly recommend that it be one that only subscribers to the broadband service
have to pay the cost - no final cost from the General Fund or the Electric utility.
Mike Beckstead; our assumption is that this would be a self-sustaining enterprise even though it could be
embedded within L&P.
Gerry Horak; we need to be sure we know if Comcast’s price is $70 plus adders or the $70 including the adders
(taxes). Most folks react to what the real price is - without the adders.
Mike Beckstead; we won’t have that for Tuesday but we have this in the queue
Gerry Horak; I am concerned about the comingling of funds (two funds not one) - should have a separate
management and governance model - if separate and fast then ok, but if managed by folks around this table
then it should be governed by folks around this table.
Darin Atteberry; at this point, we are not recommending a separate governance model.
Mike Beckstead; that is what we were thinking with the bullet on Develop Business and Implementation Plan
Gerry Horak; what is our strategy for buildout? What are the cheapest places / fastest to get the benefits of
revenue. Impact of build out could be lower income areas get it last – not what we want.
Mike Beckstead; part of the Business and Implementation Planning would be to lay out a construction schedule
kind of like Longmont did - they broke themselves into 6 areas - economies of scale - construction to be done in
an organized fashion. I am hearing - let’s make sure we don’t put the low income neighborhoods at the end.
Gerry Horak; put together something for Council and the community about what you would be doing for the
3 months between now and April or the10 months between now November. What additional information
would you have? What outreach plans? What is the community going to get with the extra time?
Darin Atteberry; if our deadline wasn’t January for April ballot but was maybe the deadline was later in I think
this would be doable
Gerry Horak; less than one month for April ballot
Darin Atteberry; very difficult - one of the things we have tried to do when we come out with policy
recommendations is to have vetting period where the public gets a chance to give feedback.
15
We want to start and do this right - provide vetting time
What do we do over that 9 month period of time? The municipalization effort in Boulder came to mind - no
comparison here other than to get through the conversation they brought in the expertise and talent at the
executive level to help - with that in mind - I would like to float by you - not advocating -bringing some of the
skillset we need on some sort of interim basis to begin to think about how to operationalize
Gerry Horak; to me that makes sense
Ross Cunniff; as long as it is clear that this is an interim appointment contingent upon what Council directs and
the public decides
Mayor Troxell; that gets to the business focus and strategy
Gerry Horak; part of due diligence - bring someone in to vet whatever business idea you have. You can do it
with existing budgets.
Mike Beckstead; there are two work steams here - my hope and expectation is that everything down to the 40%
expression of interest for the 3P
rd
P Party model – to accomplish and truly vet that out within the next 3-6 month -
we might need some external consultants to help us. I would advocate for that, but the work on the left hand
side excluding the 40% expression of interest we need to do between now and June. August ballot setting
means we are talking to Council in July and will have to be done at the end of June
Gerry Horak; there is a lot to do on the retail model side as well.
Mike Beckstead; on that side we are more resource constrained – consultants and figuring out how to fund
some interim group to begin to develop that Business and Implementation Plan and work through some of the
governance issues. On the financing side, we have already engaged our financial advisor (Jim Manire). We have
some meetings set up in January to really think through how we finance this, working capital, finalize some of
the decisions on video / no video. This is work that needs to happen in the first half of the year.
Ross Cunniff; Needing expertise on the business side of this including marketing, sales, business development
and planning – that is the kind of expertise we would like to either hire or contract in this phase so we have a
good sense that what we are asking of voters would actually work.
Darin Atteberry; we know if Council puts it forward and the voters say yes, we know we are going to have to
stand these positions up and running – it would be nice to have some resource available to do that in the short
term that would both equip a policy decision but also to get a head start (not designing the system).
Ross Cunniff; would help us answer some of the questions that Gerry brought up - what happens if Comcast
undercuts us by 30%?
Darin Atteberry; no relationship - other than getting some resources beyond what we have done with Uptown -
I think Council’s commitment to that BFO offer was huge – the reason we can talk about this the way we are is
due to that budget
16
Mayor Troxell; I agree on the November time frame – begins to focus on getting ready to go to the voters -
over the last 8 months I have been on two panels relating to the next century cities – the message and the point
on why Fort Collins was invited to be on these panels was exactly the deliberative approach we are taking
For various reasons it is very hard to get to apples to apples comparisons with other cities
Look at Longmont – they took so many runs before they finally got over the wall of broadband
What we are doing now is typical Fort Collins fashion using the Climate Action Plan as an example
We are trying to operationalize rubber meeting road, what makes sense for Fort Collins – being very deliberative
It has to be successful and it has to make sense and it is a big deal. As Gerry points out, this will be the biggest
decision that this Council or the next Council will make.
Gerry Horak; some thought needs to go into customers who are lower income and don’t tend to sign up - are we
going to have a rebate program - subsidize
Mike Beckstead; our high level thinking is that there is a $1.2- $ 1.5m of PILOTS that would come off of this that
could be available to the General Fund to then use to do something like that.
Gerry Horak; the connection cost is a killer for someone who doesn’t have the resources for that – this could be
a way to subsidize that for folks who don’t have that type of disposable income.
FINANCE COMMITTEE ACTION:
Gerry Horak; I would like to move that we recommend to the full Council for November because of the
additional vetting that needs to be done as well as timing and the need for more financial information.
Ross Cunniff; I second the motion.
Mayor Troxell; the motion to recommend the November ballot timing to the full Council has been seconded and
was approved unanimously.
Memo summarizing the 2x2 conversations with Council Members has been sent to Darin’s office.
Meeting adjourned by Mayor Troxell
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Finance Committee
Minutes
12/19/16
9:30 - 11:30 am
CIC Room
Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Ross Cunniff, Gerry Horak
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead, Kevin Gertig, Judy Schmidt, Travis Storin, Noelle
Currell, Andres Gavaldon, Lance Smith, Jon Haukaas, Justin Fields, Jackson Brockway,
Tyler Marr, John Voss, Jennifer Selenske and Carolyn Koontz
Others: Kevin Jones, Scott Burnham, Consultant - NewGen Strategies & Solutions
Meeting called to order at 9:40 am
Minutes from the November CFC and URA meetings were unanimously approved.
1. Future Utility Debt Requirements - Water & Stormwater
Kevin Gertig, Utilities Executive Director
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Financial Director
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this agenda item is to continue the discussion with the Council Finance Committee which began
in April with the 2016 Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs). This discussion comes after the 2017 rate ordinances
which were required more for the 10 year financial plan as discussed in June than the 2017-18 budgets. In June
the recommended paths forward for the Water and Stormwater Enterprise Funds involved the issuance of debt
over the coming decade as well as modest rate adjustments. The expected use and timing of the debt financing
is presented here for further direction from the Council Finance Committee.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does the Council Finance Committee support keeping these near term debt issuances in the Utilities Strategic
Financial Planning recommendations and coming back with an updated analysis in 12-18 months?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
At the April 18, 2016 Council Finance Committee the “Utilities Capital Improvement Plan and Strategic Financial
Plan Update” outlined the full planning process for capital projects beginning with the Master Planning efforts,
including the prioritized CIPs and how the process continues with the Strategic Financial Plan being developed.
That discussion showed why none of the utility funds have adequate Available ReservesP0F
1
P to achieve the
proposed capital projects over the coming decade.
2
At the June 20, 2016 Council Finance Committee the “Utilities 2016 Strategic Financial Plan Update” outlined
how each of the utility funds could finance the capital improvements necessary to continue providing the
current operational levels of service in the future through gradual, modest rate adjustments and debt issuances.
Specifically, the Water and Stormwater Enterprise Funds will require issuing debt over the coming decade to
achieve the operational objectives while maintaining the financial health of these Funds.
DISCUSSION
Water Fund
Mike Beckstead; Capital needs have uncertainty – Halligan and Poudre River Pipe timing is uncertain - we don’t
have firm timelines - will wait for things to firm up before we bring them forward with the
Stormwater Enterprise Fund
Jon Haukaas; Drainage work - the work to be done is similar to the Oak Street project - the Magnolia Street
portion is equal to or larger than the Oak Street project . This will bring the Old Town area up to the drainage
and protection levels in our Strategic Plan.
Ross Cunniff; it would be a good idea to have a map showing where projects are including some preliminary
information
Mike Beckstead: there is anticipation for another tranche in 2025 which is not included in this
estimate – we will overlay the longer term so you get an accurate picture and the two charts reconciled
Gerry Horak; why the need for debt if we were depreciating assets? Do other cities do this?
Why don’t we depreciate assets so we have money to do what we know we have to do?
Mike Beckstead; build up fund balance so we can do this without debt – We will bring forward an analysis of
creating a capital asset funding mechanism (similar to a sinking fund) including the impact on rates later in 2017.
ACTIONS
• Capital needs have uncertainty (Halligan and Poudre Pipe)
• Provide map showing where Stormwater projects are
• Reconcile 2 charts - overlay the longer term so you get an accurate picture and the two charts are reconciled
• Provide council details on any Interagency loans - timing - integration
• Return to Council Finance in 6-9 months with a more definitive view
2. Electric Plant Investment Fees (PIF)
Kevin Gertig, Utilities Executive Director
Justin Fields, Utility Rate Analyst
Consultant: Scott Burnham, NewGen Strategies & Solutions
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this agenda item is to provide the Council Finance Committee with an overview of the current
electric plant investment fees (PIFs) and review proposed changes to the current approach. The current method
utilizes a planning model that is based on Greenfield development. As the city experiences more redevelopment
3
this current method fails to adequately assign capital costs to this new load. Staff proposes a change in
methodology that uses actual system value to assign costs to new loads. This change would make the electric
PIFs methodology consistent with the water and wastewater utilities.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does the Council Finance Committee support the change in methodology for the electric PIFs?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
In 2016 Fort Collins Utilities hired NewGen Strategies to survey how PIFs are collected by other electric utilities
and to provide assistance building a revised PIF model to allocate capital costs to new load on the system. This
effort was led by Scott Burnham. Scott’s expertise includes financial feasibility, cost of service and rate design
analysis, asset valuation, and restructuring for electric utilities. Scott leads and manages rate studies, acquisition,
privatization, and competitive assessment engagements for NewGen’s clients.
4
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends changing the electric PIFs as proposed and seeks guidance on bringing the proposed changes
forward to Council. The next step is to present the proposed new model to the Council at the January 10, 2017
Work Session and then to bring this forward with all of the fees at the February 14, 2017 Council Work Session
for direction on when and how to implement the new fees.
DISCUSSION
Scott Burnham; why are we changing? Not a lot of Greenfield development now - most is redevelopment
PIF structure - looks at residential and commercial separately - $5.5m of revenue through November - averages
about $5m per year - directly connected with development - proposing buy in method - valuing assets that are
out there - divided by number of units to get a per unit cost - similar to Provo, UT
Mike Beckstead; same method we use on Cap Exp Fees - proposed - dollars per kw - demand base - this is the
PIF part only
Mayor Troxell; where do you draw the line between demand charge and PIF? How does it relate to a pro sumer?
Scott Burnham; $ per kW basis - if you are on a demand rate - just buying
Two way system - they are still going to put demand on the system - the peak demand is still a charge - the
infrastructure has to be there - if entity was able to generate power back to the system- they would pay a lower
rate
Ross Cunniff; if a consumer goes from 200 to 150 service - do they get a rebate?
Kevin Gertig; envisions a separate study to be done in the near future - the Policy is not sufficient at this time
We need to be visionary and get the rate structure correct
System value - allocate by demand / usage / class (res / comm)
ACTIONS:
• Council Work Session scheduled for 2/14
o Mike Beckstead; we will bring forward all fees related to building that require council adoption for
2017 forward together at the Feb 14P
th
P work session - to include cost stack and impact to
homeowner / phasing vs. doing it all at once.
• Ross Cunniff; how does this change the finances of the utility? cash flow, fund balances ,changes to capital
improvement plans, modeling along those lines - Kevin Gertig will provide information
• Mike Beckstead to provide a memo to Council on future fee coordination - percentage vs amounts.
• Gerry Horak; when we present any fee we should include the total for what we are doing and the amount of
the fee
Mayor Troxell & Darin Atteberry - We need to develop a decision tree (map / timeline) so people can see the
path and have context - Start by zooming out then zooming in - why do we have fees?
What is the policy trigger that led to this recommendation and that can be changed
There is confusion around timing and why are we updating – (timeline -predictable schedule)
5
3. Audit Findings Response Review
Travis Storin, Accounting Director
City response to findings included in:
• Independent Auditors’ Report on 2015 Financial Statements
• Independent Auditors’ Report on Compliance for Major Federal Programs
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In July 2016, RSM presented the Report to the City Council. This report covered the audit of the basic financial
statements and compliance of the City of Fort Collins for year-end December 31, 2015.
The City received unqualified or “clean” opinions for both reports. Incidental to these audits, McGladrey
identified certain control deficiencies that they recommend we rectify prior to the 2016 audit. All deficiencies
identified were of the lowest severity on a scale of one to three.
City staff has implemented process improvements throughout 2016 to respond to these seven control
deficiencies. Corrective action is already either in motion or complete in all cases.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Staff seeks input on areas of priority or concern, other than those established in this Report to the City Council,
for matters of recordkeeping and/or the City’s internal control environment.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Every year the City is required to be audited in compliance with Government Auditing Standards. McGladrey
finalized its financial statement audit on June 14, 2016 and compliance report on June 14, 2016 and the firm
reported the results of the audit to those charged with governance.
Subsequent to the auditor’s communication, City Staff responds at CFC with its proposed plan for addressing any
findings.
UDISCUSSION:U Two controlled deficiencies were identified (lowest level of deficiencies) - both are Carry overs
from prior year
Deficiency #1 - Cash Reconciliations
• One account - primary account - every receipt funnels through this account
• Significant turnover and a complicated 3 week process. in the Spring of 2014
• Process now back on track
• Reconcile was previously a 2 ½ to 3 week manual intensive effort and now takes 2-3 days - up, working and
documented - we have 2 people who know what it is and how it works
Ross Cunniff; do we do independent reviews within staff (peer review)? Another set of eyes – might find
something or discover questions by having the person who does it explain it to someone else
Mike Beckstead; we don’t currently have a peer review process in place
Travis Storin; there were some transactions that didn’t get entered and some were duplicated
6
Many to many - One to one ratios - Lots of education for folks making the cash receipts - how that work happens
- safe guarding of assets - no holes - physical accommodations - controls are pretty tight
Deficiency #2 0 FTA Grants
Travis Storin; we had a timing issue - also a carryover from prior year - reporting was being done as expenses
were being reimbursed instead of when they were incurred
Mayor Troxell; does the Community Foundation add another entity where oversight is needed?
Mike Beckstead; I have meeting on Thursday regarding this topic - this is scheduled to come to CFC in January
and Council in February.
UOther Business;
Excel Franchise
Mike Beckstead; We had hoped to have this ready to discuss at this meeting but red lines are still being
exchanged and the other day they gave us an example of what they did with Loan Tree and they wanted us to
start over and use that as an example
Position - nexus creating a revenue stream to support Road to 2020 ($800k - $1m of added revenue)
Mayor Troxell; does it align to opportunities as they come up as related to natural gas?
Mike Beckstead; only transactional not a partnership at this time - dedicated revenue stream which we could
use for energy efficiencies
Andres Gavaldon; annually we coordinate our activities on streets -we certified that anything in the agreement
that we reviewed was equivalent or better to previous
Ross Cunniff; there are other things you could use this for such as Rebates to low income folks
Gerry Horak; what would be some rational nexus uses as opposed to this? We were looking at diversification -
should not be exclusive - putting a narrow target on it - energy efficiency or other uses should be outlined for
council discussion
URA Board
Darin Atteberry; I received a letter form Linda Hoffman (Larimer County) to let us know that Steve Johnson is our
URA designee - when we have a triggering event for URA it would be good if they were invited to URA meetings -
I don’t’ have clarity on our approach - this is something we have been talking about for 3 years as a part of the
URA - better communication up front
Ross Cunniff; I would like for them to be at the table - although we are not triggering - we do spend some time
allocating funds and it would be good to have transparency on that.
Meeting was adjourned by Mayor Troxell at 11:15
1
CITY OF FORT COLLINS COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 23, 2017 Work Session
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Donnie Dustin, P.E., Water Resources Manager
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director
Carol Webb, Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager
Subject for discussion – Changes to the Utilities Raw Water Requirements
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to provide the Council Finance Committee with an
overview of the current Raw Water Requirement system and associated cash-in-lieu rate,
and review proposed changes to the current approach.
Utilities staff recommends the following changes:
• Adjust Raw Water Requirement (RWR) schedules to reflect recent (lower) water use
o Use number of bedrooms for indoor component of residential schedule
• Adjust the Cash-in-Lieu (CIL) rate per a hybrid cost approach
o Increase CIL rate to ~$16,700 per acre-foot of requirement
• Accept cash only (and existing City-issued water certificates and credits) for RWR
satisfaction
• Review and adjust (if necessary) the CIL rate biennially
• Review and adjust (if necessary) the RWR schedules every 5 to 7 years
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council support changing the amount of raw water requirements to reflect recent
(lower) water use?
2. Does Council support adopting the proposed Cash-in-lieu rate?
3. Does Council support accepting cash only rather than cash and/or water rights?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Utilities’ Raw Water Requirements (“RWR”) are a dedication of water rights or cash-in-lieu
of water rights to ensure that adequate water supply and associated infrastructure are available
to serve the water needs of development. In preparation for an update to City Council at their
February 14, 2017 work session, staff will present background information including the existing
RWR system and cash-in-lieu (“CIL”) rate, future development and water supply needs, water
use changes, and potential changes to the RWR system and CIL rates.
UWater Service Areas in Fort Collins
2
The City of Fort Collins Utilities (“Utilities”) water service area covers the central portion of Fort
Collins. As the City continues to grow into the Growth Management Area, much of this growth
will be outside the Utilities water service area, and will instead be in the service areas of the
surrounding water districts (mostly the East Larimer County Water District and the Fort Collins-
Loveland Water District (“Districts””)). Water service for much of this growth will thus be
provided by the Districts. The attached map shows these service areas (ATTACHMENT 1).
Although regional water collaboration discussions are ongoing with the Districts and direction or
potential outcomes of those discussions have yet to be determined, any proposed changes to
the RWR will only apply to water service from Utilities and within the Utilities water service area.
This does not preclude future changes to the RWR for water service from Utilities based on
potential outcomes of the regional discussions or from the Districts modifying their RWR.
URaw Water Requirements
The RWR are a requirement for providing adequate water supply service by Utilities. It currently
requires a dedication of water rights, a payment of cash-in-lieu of water rights, or City-issued
water certificates to ensure that an adequate supply of raw (untreated) water and associated
infrastructure (e.g., storage reservoirs) are available to serve the needs of development
(including redevelopment).
Generally, the RWR are based on water use and development type. The current RWR
schedules are attached (ATTACHMENTS 2 and 3). The goal of the RWR is to acquire adequate
water rights and funds to provide a reliable raw water supply for a development. Although not
the focus of this discussion, other water-related development fees include water and wastewater
plant investment fees (“PIFs”) that are assessed to cover the treatment and distribution
infrastructure required to process and transport treated water and resulting wastewater into and
out of a development. These water-related development fees are one-time impact fees (or
requirements) and are separate from water rates, which recover the operational costs of running
and maintaining this infrastructure. For the purposes of this discussion, RWR refers to the
volume of raw water needed to meet the projected water use of a development (in acre-feet of
water) and the CIL fee refers to the cash equivalent of that water supply needed.
The current amount of RWR assessed for residential development is based on a calculation that
incorporates indoor and outdoor use components and a water supply factor multiplier. The
current amount of RWR assessed for non-residential (or commercial) development is based on
the average use for particular meter (or tap) sizes and also includes a water supply factor
multiplier. The water supply factor used in both the residential and commercial RWR schedules
is currently 1.92, which means that Utilities requires 1.92 times the amount of the projected (or
average) water use of a development. Reasons for this factor include the need to account for
treatment and distribution losses in the supply system, variable demands of customers (e.g.,
higher use during hot, dry years), variable yields of supplies (e.g., less yield in droughts) and
variable yield from the Utilities different water supply sources (since some yield better than
others). Given these and other uncertainties in providing reliable water supplies (e.g., climate
change), the 1.92 water supply factor continues to be reasonable.
Once the amount of RWR for a development is determined (in acre-feet), the RWR currently
can be satisfied with acceptable water rights, a payment of cash in-lieu-of water rights, City-
issued water certificates or credits, or a combination. The water rights currently accepted by
Utilities for satisfaction of the RWR are attached (ATTACHMENT 4). The Utilities CIL rate is
currently $6,500 per acre-foot of RWR. Previous adjustments to the CIL rate have considered
the raw water supply situation of Utilities at the time, including factors such as the market price
3
of Colorado-Big Thompson Project (“CBT”) units, the potential value of local water rights (e.g.,
Southside DitchesP0F
1
P), and the goal to receive an appropriate mix of water rights and cash
needed to develop additional firm yield for development.
Among other things, changes to the CIL rate should consider the cost to acquire additional
storage capacity (e.g., Halligan Water Supply Project) and other facilities required to fully utilize
the Utilities water rights portfolio, the value of the existing water supply system, and developing
a methodology for easily updating the CIL rate.
UFuture Development
The amount of RWR needed to meet our future water supply needs includes calculating the
projected amount of future water use, determining the water rights and/or facilities needed to
meet that projected use, and adjusting the RWR to acquire the necessary supplies and/or
facilities.
Calculating the projected amount of future water use and expected RWR that will be turned in
depends on projected growth (both population and commercial/industrial). The Utilities’ water
service area population is projected to grow about 45,000 by the year 2065 (from the current
population of about 133,000 to about 178,000). Based on the current RWR schedules, this
projected growth is estimated to provide about 11,900 acre-feet of additional RWR that will be
turned in to Utilities. However, water use has significantly changed since the current RWR
schedules were developed.
UWater Use Changes
The current RWR schedules are based on a 1983 study focused on relating actual water use
with the raw water requirements. The study analyzed annual water consumption data broken
into categories based on number of dwelling units, type of living structure, and equivalent lot
size (net total area of development divided by number of dwelling units). A linear formula was
then derived which could be used to project consumption on the basis of residential density
(number of units and size of lot), utilizing the same formula for both single-family and multi-
family developments. This projected consumption is the “expected use” for a particular type of
development.
Acknowledging the impacts of conservation on the City’s water consumption, Utilities staff
studied recent water use patterns for single-family, multi-family, and commercial developments.
The results of the study showed significantly lower water consumption for single-family and
multi-family developments over recent years, as compared to the expected use from the current
RWR calculations. Differences in water consumption for commercial developments were not as
significant, though changes were also present.
The differences in expected use versus recent actual use prompted staff to investigate possible
methods for updating the water use formulas in the RWR in order to better project expected use
for future developments.
1 The Southside Ditches include the Arthur Ditch, New Mercer Ditch, Larimer County Canal No. 2 and
Warren Lake Reservoir. The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal is another canal that runs through Fort
Collins and is sometimes considered a Southside Ditch.
4
Methods
To investigate recent trends in water consumption, the past 10 years (2006-2015) of monthly
water billing data was analyzed, broken out by single-family residential, multi-family residential,
and commercial developments. Utilizing 10 years of consumption data helps to capture climatic
variations, which can greatly affect water consumption across all development types. From the
outset, the data for different types of residential developments were analyzed separately, with
the anticipation that average consumption trends would differ between development types.
Further investigation into the use data and types of developments led to combining data for
duplexes with single-family developments.
Single-family/Duplex
Due in great part to successful conservation efforts, water consumption for single-family
residential customers has decreased. The current analysis shows a significant difference
between the average annual use per single-family home and the calculated expected use from
the current RWR equations. These differences are outlined in Table 1.
Multi-family
Due to the complexity of compiling and verifying water consumption data for multi-family
developments, which often include multiple buildings and irrigation taps, a representative
sample of developments were analyzed for this study.
Multi-family residential water use, which includes both indoor and outdoor use, has seen an
overall downward trend and the average annual use per unit is significantly lower than the
calculated expected use from the current RWR equations. Table 1 shows the average use per
unit, as well as the change from the expected use predicted from the current RWR equations.
Table 1. Summary of annual residential water use from 2006-2015.
Residential
Development
Type
Expected Use
per Unit
(gal/year)
Average Use
per Unit
(gal/year)
Fraction of
Expected Use
Single-
family/Duplex 130,840 96,640 74%
Multi-family 79,720 48,380 61%
In an effort to realign the RWR equations to more closely reflect current use patterns, multi-
variate regression models were utilized to investigate multiple variables (e.g., lot size, number of
units, building square footage, number of bathrooms, and number of bedrooms) and their ability
to predict water use. The results of the analyses suggest that the best models for predicting
water consumption for both single-family and multi-family residential developments are those
which include lot size and number of bedrooms. The correlation between number of bedrooms
and indoor water use was much greater than the current method based on number of units.
This analysis indicates that altering the current RWR schedules would more accurately reflect
current residential water use patterns, as well as more equitably distribute those requirements
across the range of development types and sizes by better reflecting actual water use.
Proposed alterations to the residential RWR schedule include separate equations for single-
family (and duplex) and multi-family residential developments, as well as modifying the equation
to reflect expected use as a function of number of bedrooms and lot size. These changes would
reduce the volume of water required under the RWR for the average residential development.
5
Commercial
Finally, the analysis considered non-residential (or commercial) water use. An analysis of non-
residential water use from 1981-2015 showed that non-residential water use increased by
roughly 35% shortly after the 1980s water use study, but has trended back downward since
then.
Non-residential water use can vary widely by the type of business (even for the same tap size).
For instance, a restaurant would be expected to use more water than a hardware store, even
though they may occupy otherwise similar commercial spaces of equal size and are connected
to Utilities with the same tap size. It would be administratively difficult for Utilities or developers
to accurately estimate each non-residential development type’s water use, especially as that
use can change over time as businesses evolve and come and go on a particular property.
Each of the most common tap sizes from 0.75-inch to 2-inch thus have a set RWR volumeP1F
2
P.
The current method of a set RWR volume for the smaller tap sizes maintains equity across
different types of water users for a single tap size by setting an allotment for a maximum
allowed amount of water use, and then applying a surcharge rate for use beyond the allotment.
The allotment is based on 80% of the average use for a tap size. This method provides a
baseline that encourages water conservation, while still allowing customers to pay for additional
RWR for greater amounts of water use. This method also recognizes that a small number of
high water-use businesses pull up the overall average use of all customers in that tap size.
Consequently, by using 80% of the average, the numerous businesses that use much less than
the average are not penalized. Funds acquired from the surcharge rate applied to use over the
allotment are used to acquire more water supplies. This methodology is still applicable to
current commercial development and is recommended to be continued.
Table 2 shows the average annual water use by tap size, the expected use predicted by the
1980s study and used in the current calculation of RWR, as well as the fraction of expected use.
The table shows that non-residential water use was less than expected for the 1-inch, 1.5-inch,
and 2-inch taps, but the 0.75-inch, was near expected. Since RWR for non-residential
development is determined by tap size, the RWR could be adjusted by the fraction of expected
use to reflect the change in water use over time.
Table 2. Summary of annual, non-residential water use from 2006-2015.
Tap Size
(inches)
Expected Use
(gallons/year)
Average Use
(gallons/year)
Fraction of
Expected Use (%)
0.75 191,000 190,000 100%
1.0 636,000 479,000 75%
1.5 1,273,000 1,002,000 79%
2.0 2,037,000 1,678,000 82%
Suggested RWR Adjustments
Given the changes in water use from the expected amount per the current RWR calculations, it
is recommended that the RWR calculations be adjusted to reflect the information provided
above. Making these changes will reduce the overall projected amount of expected RWR the
Utilities will receive in the next 50 years from about 11,900 acre-feet to about 7,700 acre-feet.
2 The RWR for a customer needing a tap larger than 2-inch or multiple taps is established by the
customer’s estimate of peak annual use. These customers are not common and tend to be large,
established business. It is thus far less difficult for Utilities and the customer to accurately estimate the
peak annual use for these customers.
6
Single Family/Duplex RWR (acre-feet)
= 1.92 ×
7.048 × 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 (𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠.𝑓𝑓𝐿𝐿.) + 12,216.9 × 𝐵𝐵𝑠𝑠𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐵𝐵𝑠𝑠 (#)
325,851(
𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑔𝑔𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎−𝑓𝑓𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑓𝑓
)
Multi-Family (>2 units) RWR (acre-feet)
= 1.92 ×
9.636 × 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 (𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠.𝑓𝑓𝐿𝐿.) + 13,592.8 × 𝐵𝐵𝑠𝑠𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐵𝐵𝑠𝑠 (#)
325,851(
𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑔𝑔𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎−𝑓𝑓𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑓𝑓
)
More specifically, it is recommended the RWR calculations be changed to the following:
Commercial RWR (acre-feet) =
¾-inch tap: 0.90 AF
1-inch tap: 2.26 AF
1 ½-inch tap: 4.72 AF
2-inch tap: 7.91 AF
‘> 2-inch tap: case-by-case
UWater Supply Needs
In order to meet the projected water supply needs of future growth, Utilities projects the need for
new infrastructure and some additional water rights. The largest part of the new infrastructure
would be acquisition of additional storage capacity through the Halligan Water Supply Project.
This additional storage at an enlarged Halligan Reservoir would meet a large portion of the
projected future demands by storing existing water rights (and water rights to be acquired in the
future) during wet times for use during dry timesP2F
3
P.
Other infrastructure that is projected to be needed by 2065 includes being part of facilities
required to fully utilize the Utilities’ recently changed Water Supply and Storage Company
shares and potential future measuring devices and by-pass facilities on the Poudre River as part
of requirements for utilizing some of the Utilities water rights. Utilities also projects a longer term
need (by 2065) for some additional water rights to complement the additional storage capacity.
Adding the new infrastructure and water rights to the water supply portfolio will increase the
Utilities’ firm yield about 7,800 acre-feet, from the existing firm yield of 30,800 acre-feet to about
38,600 acre-feet. This boost in firm yield will meet the expected future growth for the Utilities
water service area mentioned above. The new infrastructure is estimated to cost approximately
$63.9 million and the additional water rights about $25.5 million, both of which include a 25
percent contingency and total about $89.4 million.
3 It should be noted that an alternative to the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir that meets the Utilities
future needs could be selected by the Army Corps of Engineers as part of the permitting process.
7
UOther Costs for Increasing Firm Yield
In addition to the new infrastructure and water rights mentioned above, future Utilities customers
will benefit from the existing water supply portfolio. Alone, acquiring the new infrastructure and
water rights mentioned above would not provide adequate water supplies needed for those
future customers. In order to fairly charge the new customers, a value for a portion of the
existing water rights portfolio needed to be determined. Adding the new infrastructure and water
rights will increase the Utilities’ water supply firm yield from 30,800 to 38,600 acre-feet. This
7,800 acre-foot increase equals 20.2 percent of the future firm yield. It can be assumed that
20.2 percent of the existing firm yield (or 6,224 acre-feet) will be needed by the future customers
to achieve the needed 7,800 acre-foot increase in firm yield. Applying the long-standing CIL rate
of $6,500 per acre-foot to the 6,224 acre-feet, results in a value of the portion of the existing
portfolio that can be utilized by new development of about $40.5 million.
Combining the costs of the new infrastructure and water rights needed with the value of the
existing water supply portfolio gives the total cost to increase the firm yield for new development
(or redevelopment) of approximately $129.9 million.
UCash Only Considerations
It is imperative that the RWR become a “cash only” system. This would mean no longer
accepting water rights to meet the RWR. However, the existing City-issued water certificates, as
well as credits from previously satisfied RWR, will still be accepted.
This cash only system would recognize the importance of acquiring additional storage capacity
(which cannot be turned in to meet the RWR), since such storage capacity increases our
supplies by making existing (and future) water rights available during dry times. Utilities will
need to focus on specific water rights in the future to avoid inefficient rights that are ineffective in
our water supply system. In a cash only system, water rights could still be purchased by Utilities
and focus would be given to the best water rights for our water supply system. It should be
noted that Utilities plans to focus use of the cash received on infrastructure first (particularly
additional storage), since it efficiently and economically provides for reliable water supplies. In
addition, accepting cash only would provide flexibility to pursue other water supply options in the
future, which could include regionally collaborative projects.
UCash-in-Lieu (CIL) Rate Changes
BBC Research and Consulting (“BBC”), which has expertise in fee and rate analyses, was hired
to review the RWR system and the CIL rate. Utilities took the information provided by BBC to
consider options for changes to the RWR system and CIL rate.
As part of their study, BBC was asked to evaluate the value of the Utilities’ water supply
portfolio. BBC did this by considered an equity buy-in approach for a CIL rate adjustment, where
they valued the Utilities existing and future water supply system to be worth between $1.3 and
$1.5 billion. Dividing that total system value by the future firm yield of the water supply system of
approximately 38,600 acre-feet determines the equity buy-in value of the water supply system.
Using the low end of the total system value ($1.3 billion) results in an equity buy-in amount of
about $36,800 per acre-feet of RWR. This would be an amount to “plug into” the Utilities water
supply system and approximates what it would cost to acquire those supplies today.
BBC also helped Utilities consider other approaches for a CIL rate adjustment. The other main
option was an incremental cost approach, which considers only the costs of future water supply
8
needs. Because the existing water rights portfolio includes water rights which will be more
effectively utilized through the development of water storage and thereby will provide some
water to future growth, this approach does not accurately reflect the total costs for development
and would under collect the anticipated cost of developing the required water supply system.
Ultimately, BBC helped Utilities identify a hybrid approach that combined elements of the equity
buy-in approach and an incremental cost approach. This hybrid approach involves looking at the
value of existing water supply portfolio (as discussed above), the costs of future water supply
needs and dividing this cost by the firm yield those future water supplies provide. Using the total
costs of approximately $129.9 million, divided by the additional 7,800 acre-feet of firm yield
provided, results in a hybrid approach value of about $16,700 per acre-foot of RWR.
UPrinciples of Impact Fees
As staff investigated potential options for changes to the RWR system and the CIL rate, the
following principles of impact fees for new development or redevelopment were followed
• Growth should pay its own way. This means the impacts of the development should be
paid for by the development and not by existing ratepayers via increased rates.
• The impact fee should charge only the cost of mitigating the impact. For example, setting
the CIL to the market value of local water rights could result in charging more than is
needed.
• Adding the development should be done while maintaining the current level of service,
with little to no impact to existing rate-paying customers.
URWR and CIL Rate Changes: Options Explored
Several options for changing the RWR system and the CIL rate were explored. The criteria used
in considering these options included whether the option met the principles of impact fees (as
explained above), was financially sustainable, and was defensible. Financial sustainability
means that it will generate adequate funds to acquire the future water supply needs of the
development, as well as having a reasonable and easily reproducible methodology for acquiring
the funds. Lastly, defensibility is important to avoid potential risks associated with the
methodologies used in any option.
The following is a brief description of the different options or approaches that were investigated
for changing the RWR system and CIL rate, including whether the option met the criteria
mentioned above. With the exception of the first option (Status Quo), all options include going to
a cash only RWR/CIL system.
Status Quo: This option would involve not changing anything, including the RWR calculations,
the current $6,500 CIL rate or going to a cash only system. This option does not meet any of the
criteria since it does not generate adequate funds, it burdens existing customers to pay for
future needs, and it asks for more water (RWR) than development needs.
Existing RWR, Adjust CIL: This option would involve leaving the RWR calculations the same
and adjusting the CIL rate by dividing the costs of our total future needs by the projected RWR
we expect. Although this option meets the financially sustainable criteria by generating the
necessary funds for acquiring the future water supply needs mentioned above, it does not meet
the other criteria since it asks for more water (RWR) than development needs.
Equity buy-in approach: This option would involve adjusting the RWR calculations as
recommended above and adjusting the CIL rate to the equity buy-in amount of $36,800 as
explained above. Although this option partially meets the financially sustainable criteria by
9
generating the necessary funds for acquiring the future water supply needs mentioned above, it
is based on a replacement cost of the entire water supply system. As such, it is not defensible
as it would acquire more funds than needed.
Modified equity buy-in approach: This option would involve adjusting the RWR calculations as
recommended above and adjusting the CIL rate to an amount that would only generate the
necessary funds for acquiring the future water supply needs mentioned above, thus meeting the
principles of impact fees and defensibility criteria. However, it does not require growth to fully
cover the cost of its impact on the water supply system.
Split fee approach: This option would also involve adjusting the RWR calculations as
recommended above. This option would involve creating a new, additional impact fee for the
necessary infrastructure needed for future water supplies, along with the current RWR fee for
the water rights needed (or available to developers through existing City water certificates or
credits). A variation of this option (termed a Water Right Utilization Fee) was presented to City
Council during a September 24, 2013 work session. Although this option would meet most of
the criteria, it potentially would create disputed issues with the use of some of the City’s water
certificates and was thus not considered further.
Incremental cost approach: This option involves adjusting the RWR calculations as
recommended above and adjusting the CIL rate based on only the incremental costs to acquire
the future water supply needs. However, because of the City’s outstanding water certificates
and credits, this approach does not recognize the value of these credits to the new development
and also would not generate adequate funds.
Hybrid approach: This option involves adjusting the RWR calculations as recommended above
and adjusting the CIL rate based on the incremental costs to meet the future water supply
needs, along with a charge to future customers for the value of a portion of the Utilities’ existing
water supply portfolio. This option meets all the criteria used, thus it is the recommended option.
Rate increases to maintain lower CIL: This option would actually involve using one of the other
options (e.g., hybrid approach), but lowering or phasing in the CIL rate to avoid high
development costs. However, this option does not meet the principles of impact fees criteria
since it doesn’t have growth pay its own way and burdens existing customers with the cost of
the future water needs.
UProposed Changes to the RWR and CIL Rate
Given the information provided above, and consulting with BBC on various aspects of the RWR
system and CIL rate, the best option is to use a hybrid approach. This approach would include
changing the RWR calculations as suggested above. The CIL rate for this hybrid approach
would be $16,700 per acre-foot of RWR. This CIL rate can be compared with about $50,000 per
acre-foot of firm yield from the CBT project, which uses an average cost of $25,000 per CBT
unit and a firm yield of 0.5 acre-feet per unit (under drought conditions).
RWR/CIL Comparisons
Table 4 shows information for the status quo (no changes) and the proposed hybrid approach,
including the assumed RWR amounts, CIL rates and cost for typical developments. Although
the proposed changes to the RWR schedules and CIL rates are related to impact fees specific
to the Utilities water service area, a comparison with other northern Colorado water providers for
single family homes and 1-inch taps are provided in Figures 1 and 2 (for illustrative purposes
only).
10
Table 4 – Fort Collins Utilities Raw Water Requirements (RWR) for Typical Developments
Development Type Status Quo
(CIL=$6,500/AF)
Hybrid Approach
(CIL=$16,700/AF)
Single family, 4br, 6,000 sq ft lot
Raw Water Requirement, AF: 0.66 0.54
Total Cost, $: $4,309 $8,970
Multi-family, 100 units
Raw Water Requirement, AF: 42.49 23.33
Total Cost, $: $276,210 $389,674
Unit Cost, $/unit: $2,762 $3,896.74
Commercial Tap: 0.75"
Raw Water Requirement, AF: 0.90 0.90
Total Cost, $: $5,850 $15,070
Commercial Tap: 1.0"
Raw Water Requirement, AF: 3.00 2.27
Total Cost, $: $19,500 $37,836
Commercial Tap: 1.5"
Raw Water Requirement, AF: 6.00 4.72
Total Cost, $: $39,000 $78,877
Commercial Tap: 2.0"
Raw Water Requirement, AF: 9.60 7.91
Total Cost, $: $62,400 $132,104
11
Figure 1
Figure 2
$4,300
$9,000
$11,800
$13,000
$13,200
$14,200
$25,000
$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000
Status Quo
Hybrid Approach
Loveland
NWCWD
Greeley
ELCO
FCLWD
Cost, rounded to nearest $100 ($)
Water Supply Costs for Typical Single Family Home in Northern
Colorado
$19,500
$30,600
$37,800
$62,500
$64,000
$101,100
$105,000
$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000
Status Quo
NWCWD
Hybrid Approach
FCLWD
Greeley
ELCO
Loveland
Cost, rounded to nearest $100 ($)
Water Supply Costs for 1" Commercial Taps in Northern Colorado
12
UFuture RWR/CIL Adjustments
It is recommended that the CIL rate be reviewed biennially, along with the other City biennial fee
review process, and adjusted as needed to reflect changes to construction costsP3F
4
P, water rights
and projected RWR (related to growth projections).
It is recommended that the RWR schedules should be reviewed every 5 to 7 years and changed
if necessary, since changes to average water use are usually the result of long-term water
conservation and thus less volatile than the factors underlying the CIL rate. This review would
assess any potential changes in consumption, investigate the appropriateness of predictor
variables, and if necessary, reflect any changes in updated equations. It is also recommended
to utilize the previous 10 years of data when performing these updates.
UOutreach
Utilities staff presented this issue to the Water Board on October 6, 2016. Based on input from
their meeting, Utilities staff postponed an October 25, 2016 City Council work session until after
presenting to the Council Finance Committee. Staff is currently working on scheduling
presentations for gathering input from stakeholder groups like the Fort Collins Chamber of
Commerce, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, and Northern Colorado Homebuilders Association.
Also, similar outreach to City boards and commissions such as the Water Board, Economic
Advisory Commission, and the Affordable Housing Board will be conducted based on the
direction given at the City Council work session on February 14. The input gathered from the
outreach efforts will be provided as part of the final City Council actions that will be required for
adoption of changes.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Utilities staff recommends the following changes:
• Adjust Raw Water Requirement (RWR) schedules to reflect recent (lower) water use
o Use number of bedrooms for indoor component of residential schedule
• Adjust the Cash-in-Lieu (CIL) rate per a hybrid cost approach
o Increase CIL rate to ~$16,700 per acre-foot of requirement
• Accept cash only (and existing City-issued water certificates and credits) for RWR
satisfaction
• Review and adjust (if necessary) the CIL rate biennially
• Review and adjust (if necessary) the RWR schedules every 5 to 7 years
In addition, it is recommended the name of this Utilities development fee be change in City
Code from Raw Water Requirements to “Water Supply Requirements”, since developing
adequate and reliable water supplies requires more than just acquiring “raw water”.
4 It should be noted that the current estimate of future infrastructure needs includes the projected costs for
the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir, but that alternatives to the Halligan Reservoir enlargement that
might be selected through the Halligan Water Supply Project permitting process could cost substantially
more – and thus, there could be a need to increase the CIL rate accordingly.
13
NEXT STEPS
Staff will present this issue to the City Council at the February 14 work session. Staff will
consider City Council input and conduct additional public outreach prior to returning to City
Council for final approval of the changes to the RWR and CIL, which is likely to occur in the next
several months.
ATTACHMENTS
1) Fort Collins Area Water Districts Map
2) Residential Raw Water Requirements (RWR) Schedule
3) Non-Residential Raw Water Requirements (RWR) Schedule
4) Water Rights and Conversion Factors Accepted by the City for Satisfaction of RWR
5) Glossary of Water Resources Terms
6) Presentation
1
Changes to the Utilities Raw Water Requirements
Donnie Dustin, P.E., Water Resources Manager
Council Finance Committee
January 23, 2017
2
This work session
focuses on Utilities
water service area;
continued discussions
with other districts.
Overview
3
3 Major Changes Recommended:
Amount of Raw Water Requirement
Cash-in-Lieu Rate
Accepting Cash Only
4
Amount of Raw Water Required
Amount of Raw Water Requirement
(RWR)
Water Use Changes
How has water use changed?
• Analyzed 10 years water use (2006-2015)
• Water use less than expected (current RWR)
• Single-family: 26% less
• Multi-family: 39% less
• 3/4-inch tap: little change
• Larger taps: 18-25% less
• Suggest RWR adjustments to reflect changes
• Revised expected RWR = ~7,700 AF
(~11,900 AF under current calculations)
5
Residential indoor use
better correlated to
number of bedrooms
Back-up slides
6
Amount Cash-in-of Raw Lieu Water (CIL) Required Rate
Future Water Supply Needs
How much will it cost to increase firm yield
for new development?
$63.9M: Infrastructure (e.g., storage)
+ $25.5M: Future water rights (requires storage)
+ $40.5M: Value from existing portfolio
$129.9M: Total cost to increase firm yield
7
Future supplies would not provide adequate yield
without existing portfolio
Cash-in-lieu Rate
Hybrid Cost Approach
• Proposed Cash-in-lieu rate:
= $16,700 / AF
• Compares to $50,000/AF for C-BT firm yield
8
𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐹𝐹𝑉𝑉𝐹𝐹𝑉𝑉𝐹𝐹𝑉𝑉 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑉𝑉𝐼𝐼𝐹𝐹𝐼𝐼𝑉𝑉𝐼𝐼𝐹𝐹
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑉𝑉𝐸𝐸𝐹𝐹𝑉𝑉𝐸𝐸 𝐹𝐹𝑉𝑉𝐹𝐹𝑉𝑉𝐹𝐹𝑉𝑉 𝐷𝐷𝑉𝑉𝐼𝐼𝑉𝑉𝐼𝐼𝐸𝐸
=
$129.9𝑀𝑀
7,800 𝐴𝐴𝐹𝐹
Back-up Slides
9 9
$4,300
$2,800
$9,000
$3,900
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
$10,000
Single family, 4br, 6,000 sq ft lot Multi-family, 100 units
Cost per Unit or Tap ($)
Fort Collins Utilities: Raw Water Requirement Costs for
Typical Residential Developments
Status Quo Hybrid Approach
Cash-in-lieu (CIL) Rates:
Status Quo CIL = $6,500/AF
Proposed CIL = $16,700/AF
10 10
$5,900
$19,500
$15,100
$37,800
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
Commercial Tap: 0.75" Commercial Tap: 1.0"
Cost per Unit or Tap ($)
Fort Collins Utilities: Raw Water Requirement Costs for
Typical Commercial Developments
Status Quo Hybrid Approach
Cash-in-Lieu (CIL) Rates:
Status Quo CIL = $6,500/AF
Proposed Cost CIL = $16,700/AF
$4,300
$9,000
$11,800
$13,000
$13,200
$14,200
$25,000
$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000
Status Quo
Hybrid Approach
Loveland
NWCWD
Greeley
ELCO
FCLWD
Cost, rounded to nearest $100 ($)
Water Supply Costs for Typical Single Family Home in Northern
Colorado
11 11
$19,500
$30,600
$37,800
$62,500
$64,000
$101,100
$105,000
$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000
Status Quo
NWCWD
Hybrid Approach
FCLWD
Greeley
ELCO
Loveland
Cost, rounded to nearest $100 ($)
Water Supply Costs for 1" Commercial Taps in Northern Colorado
12 12
13
Amount Accepting of Raw Cash Water Only Required
Accepting Cash vs. Water Rights
Imperative to switch to cash-only system:
14
Focus on infrastructure first Need specific water rights in future
Flexibility to pursue other options Can still acquire water rights
Incorrect rights are inefficient; ineffective
without infrastructure (storage)
Storage increases supply with existing
(and future) water rights
Could include regional aspects Focus on best rights
Staff Recommendations
1. Adjust RWR schedules based on recent use
• Residential based on # of bedrooms
2. Use “Hybrid” approach cash-in-lieu rate
• CIL = $16,700/AF of RWR
3. Accept cash only (and credits)
4. Periodically adjust CIL, RWR
5. “Water Supply Requirements”
15
Next Steps
• 2/14/2017 - City Council Work Session
• Feb. – Mar. - Conduct public outreach (given Council direction)
• Mar. – May - City Council action/adoption
• July – Sept. – Changes become effective
16
Direction Sought
17
Does Council support changing the amount of raw
water required to reflect recent (lower) water use?
Does Council support adopting the proposed Cash-in-
lieu rate?
Does Council support accepting cash only rather than
cash and/or water rights?
18
19
Raw Water Requirement Calculations
Raw Water Requirements
What are they?
• Water rights or fee paid by new development
• Amount based on use, type of development
• GOAL: generate adequate funds and water rights to
provide reliable water supply
20
NOTE: Not associated with rates; does not include water or wastewater
Plant Investment Fees (PIFs)
Current Satisfaction of RWR
RWR can be satisfied with:
• Acceptable water rights
• Cash-in-lieu of water rights
• City certificates (credits)
• Combination
21
Current Volume
of Water Required
• Residential Calculation
• Indoor component based on dwelling units
• Outdoor component based on lot size
• Non-Residential Calculation
• Based on average use of tap size (projected use
for larger taps)
• Water Supply Factor
• Accounts for system losses, average vs. peak
water use, and supply/demand variability
22
Residential RWR
Current Schedule
RWR (AF) = 1.92 * [(0.18 * # of units) + (1.2 * net acres)]
23
Water Supply
Factor
Indoor Use
Component
Outdoor Use
Component
• Based on average use of meter size; includes Water Supply Factor
Minimum
Meter Size Minimum RWR Annual Allotment
(inches) (acre-feet) (gallons/year)
3/4 0.90 293,270
1 3.00 977,550
1-1/2 6.00 1,955,110
2 9.60 3,128,170
3 and above based on projected used
24
Non-residential RWR
Current Schedule
Proposed RWR Schedules
Single Family/Duplex RWR
= 1.92 ×
7.048 × 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 (𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠.𝑓𝑓𝐿𝐿.) + 12,216.9 × 𝐵𝐵𝑠𝑠𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐵𝐵𝑠𝑠 (#)
325,851(
𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑔𝑔𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎−𝑓𝑓𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑓𝑓
)
Multi-Family (>2 units) RWR
= 1.92 ×
9.636 × 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 (𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠.𝑓𝑓𝐿𝐿.) + 13,592.8 × 𝐵𝐵𝑠𝑠𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐵𝐵𝑠𝑠 (#)
325,851(
𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑔𝑔𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎−𝑓𝑓𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑓𝑓
)
25
Commercial RWR
¾” Tap: 0.90 AF
1” Tap: 2.26 AF
1½” Tap: 4.72 AF
2” Tap: 7.91 AF
>2” Tap: Case-by-case
All RWR schedules are calculated to an amount in acre-feet (AF).
26
Cash-in-lieu of Water Rights
Cash in Lieu (CIL) Rate
How is Cash-In-Lieu Calculated?
• Current CIL: $6,500/AF of RWR
• Previous adjustments considered:
• Market value of CBT, local water rights
• Appropriate mix of rights and cash
• Future CIL “Hybrid Approach” considerations:
• Incremental cost of storage and other needs
• Value of buying into existing system
• Easily updated methodology
27
30,800 AF
38,600 AF
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
Current Supplies Future Supplies
Firm Yield (AF)
30,800 AF 30,800 AF
7,800 AF
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
Current Supplies Future Supplies
Firm Yield (AF)
Future Development
Current Customers
New infrastructure
and water rights
increase firm yield
to meet future
growth
38,600 AF Total
Value from Existing Portfolio
28
New firm yield is
about 20.2% of future
firm yield
30,800 AF 30,800 AF
7,800 AF
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
Current Supplies Future Supplies
Firm Yield (AF)
Future Development
Current Customers
Firming projects
Increase current
supplies firm yield
by 25%
24,576 AF
30,800 AF
6,224 AF
7,800 AF
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
Current Supplies Future Supplies
Firm Yield (AF)
Future Development
Current Customers
Assume 20.2% of existing firm
yield (6,224 AF) will be needed
to boost yield to 7,800 AF (for
future customers) 38,600 AF Total
Value from Existing Portfolio
29
Value from Existing Portfolio
30
Total Value of Rights Used by New Development
6,224 AF: Water rights from existing portfolio used in firming projects
x $6,500/AF: Historic price paid for those rights (current CIL)
$40.5M: Total value of rights used by new development
Revenue Needed
How much additional revenue is
needed?
• Must generate enough revenue to complete water
supply projects needed by future development
$129.9M: Total cost of increasing firm yield
- $40.5M: Value of water rights in existing portfolio
- $37.4M: Appropriations to date
$52.0M: Total remaining costs
31
32
Other Slides
Future Development/RWR
How much firm yield is needed for
future development?
• Growth in service area
• Population increase ~45,000 by 2065
• Residential and commercial water use
• Expected RWR from growth:
• ~11,900 AF of RWR (current calculation)
• But, water use has changed over time
33
Principles of Impact Fees
for New Development/Redevelopment
• Growth pays its own way
• Impact is not paid for through rates
• Charge only the cost of mitigating impact
• Not market value of water rights
• Maintain current level of service
• Little to no impact to existing
customers
34
RWR/CIL Change
Options Explored
• Several options were investigated
• Criteria considered:
• Does it meet principles of impact fees?
• Is it financially sustainable?
• Is it defensible?
35
Future CIL/RWR Adjustments
36
CIL Rate:
Review biennially*
(more volatile)
Consider changes to
construction costs, water
rights, expected RWR
RWR Schedules:
Review every 5-7 years
(less volatile)
Consider changes to water
use patterns; use preceding
10 years of data
* - CIL rates integrated with biennial fee review process
Accepting Cash vs. Water Rights
37
RWR and Cost Comparisons
38
RWR Costs for Typical Developments Status Quo
Hybrid
Approach
ELCO FCLWD
Single Family, 4br, 6000 sqft lot:
Raw Water Requirement, $: 0.66 0.54 0.28 0.50
Cost, $: $4,309 $8,970 $14,200 $25,000
Multi-Family, 100 units, 6 acres:
Raw Water Requirement, $: 46.02 29.58 20.72 20.00
Cost, $: $299,130 $493,975 $1,035,800 $1,000,000
1" Commercial Tap:
Raw Water Requirement, $: 3.00 2.27 1.40 1.25
Cost, $: $19,500 $37,836 $101,100 $62,500
Utilities
electric – stormwater – wastewater - water
700 Wood St.
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6700
970.221.6619 – fax 970.224.6003 TDD
utilities@fcgov.com fcgov.com/utilities
RESIDENTIAL RAW WATER REQUIREMENTS (RWR) SCHEDULE
1
Single Family, Duplex, & Multi-Family
Effective January 1, 2016
Raw water is required for the increase in water use created by new development and to ensure a reliable source
of supply in dry years. The Raw Water Requirement (RWR) formulas listed below include all residential
categories: single family, duplex and multi-family dwelling units. Irrigation taps needed for common area
greenbelts that are part of Single-Family developments are assessed water rights on a Non-Residential basis by
tap size (see Non-Residential RWR Schedule). Irrigation taps for common area greenbelts of Multi-Family
developments are not assessed additional water rights since water rights collected for the buildings include the
overall net acreage of the development which contain all lots, spaces, private streets, parking and common
areas.
When calculating the number of acre-feet of water needed to satisfy the Raw Water Requirement (RWR), select
the appropriate formula listed below. If the net acres are unknown, add the square footage of all lots together
and divide by 43,560, the number of square feet in an acre of land.
STANDARD RESIDENTIAL RWR FORMULA
RWR = Raw Water Requirement in acre-feet
Net Acres = Area of development in acres, excluding public street rights-of-way, city maintained tracts
and rights-of-way, ditches, railways or other areas typically maintained by persons other than the owner
of the premises or an agent of the owner.
RWR = 1.92 x [(.18 x Number of Dwelling Units) + (1.2 x Net Acres)]
When used for the following categories, the formula above can be simplified as shown:
Single Family: RWR = .3456 + (2.304 x Net Acres)
max. lot area 1/2 acre or 21,780 sq.ft.
Duplex: RWR = .6912 + (2.304 x Net Acres)
Multi-Family (3 units or more): RWR = (.3456 x No. of Units) + (2.304 x Net Acres)
RWR MAY BE SATISFIED BY ANY ONE, OR COMBINATION OF THE FOLLOWING:
Water rights (stock) acceptable to the City based on current conversion factors
City of Fort Collins water certificates
Cash at the rate of $6,500 per acre-foot of RWR
If the Raw Water Requirement (RWR) is satisfied with water stock or city water certificates, transactions are completed at the Utilities
before a water service permit is issued. If satisfied with cash, payment is made at Neighborhood and Building Services upon issuance
of a building permit.
1 Summarized from Sections 26-129, 26-148 and 26-150 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
Utilities
electric – stormwater – wastewater - water
700 Wood St.
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6700
970.221.6619 – fax 970.224.6003 TDD
utilities@fcgov.com fcgov.com/utilities
NON-RESIDENTIAL RAW WATER REQUIREMENT (RWR) SCHEDULE
1
For Water Services Not Included in the Residential Category
Effective January 1, 2016
Raw water is required for the increase in water use created by new development and to ensure a reliable source of supply in dry years.
Non-residential service shall include without limitation all commercial, industrial, public entity, group housing, nursing homes,
fraternities, hotels, motels, commonly owned areas, club houses, and pools.
The minimum Raw Water Requirement (RWR) for water services up to 2-inches in diameter is shown below.
The RWR for services 3-inch and larger are based on the applicant’s estimate of actual use, provided that such
estimate is first approved and accepted by the General Manager. Options for satisfying the RWR include
turning over water rights to the City in the form of water stock or city water certificates, OR paying the
equivalent cash-in-lieu-of amount.
Equivalent Cash Minimum
Meter Size Minimum RWR Payment at Annual Allotment
(inches) (acre-feet) * $6,500/acre-foot (Gallons/Year)
3/4 0.90 or $ 5,850 293,270
1 3.00 or $ 19,500 977,550
1-1/2 6.00 or $ 39,000 1,955,110
2 9.60 or $ 62,400 3,128,170
3 and above Based on use
* acre-foot = 325,851 gallons of water
RWR MAY BE SATISFIED BY ANY ONE, OR COMBINATION OF THE FOLLOWING:
Water rights (stock) acceptable to the City based on current conversion factors
City of Fort Collins water certificates
Cash at the rate of $6,500 per acre-foot of RWR
If the RWR is satisfied with water stock or city water certificates, transactions are completed at the Utilities before a water service
permit is issued (refer to schedule of water rights and conversion factors acceptable to the City). If the RWR is to be satisfied with
cash, payment is made at Neighborhood and Building Services upon issuance of a building permit.
ANNUAL ALLOTMENT/SURCHARGE (related to Monthly Billing)
The RWR establishes an annual gallon allotment for each tap and subsequent monthly water account. A surcharge of $3.06 per 1,000
gallons will be assessed on a customer’s monthly water bill when an account uses more water in a given calendar year than the gallons
allotted for a particular tap size. The surcharge rate is billed in addition to the customer’s regular monthly tiered water rate. Once the
annual allotment has been exceeded and the water surcharge appears on an account, the surcharge will continue to be billed each
month through the end of that calendar year. Additional water stock, city certificates, or cash may be turned in to increase the annual
allotment.
1 Summarized from Sections 26-129, 26-149, and 26-150 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
Utilities
electric – stormwater – wastewater - water
700 Wood St.
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6700
970.221.6619 – fax 970.224.6003 TDD
utilities@fcgov.com fcgov.com/utilities
WATER RIGHTS AND CONVERSION FACTORS ACCEPTED BY THE CITY
FOR SATISFACTION OF RAW WATER REQUIREMENTS (RWR)
Effective January 1, 2016
Arthur Irrigation Company (see Note) 3.442 Acre-Feet / Share
Larimer County Canal No. 2 (see Note) 42.687 Acre-Feet / Share
New Mercer Ditch Company (see Note) 30.236 Acre-Feet / Share
North Poudre Irrigation Company 5.00 Acre-Feet / Share
NCWCD Units (CBT – Colo. Big Thompson) 1.00 Acre-Feet / Unit (share)
Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Company 39.74 Acre-Feet / Share
Warren Lake Reservoir Company 10.00 Acre-Feet / Share
City of Fort Collins Water Certificates Face Value of Cert. (in acre-feet)
City of Fort Collins Josh Ames Certificates 0.5625 Acre-Feet per certificate or
each certificate can satisfy 1/8 acre
of land
Note:
The City does not accept treasury shares (inactive shares held by these companies) as of December 18, 1992. A provision in the final
decree of Water Court Case No. 92CW129 prohibits the City from acquiring such treasury shares and using them for municipal
purposes.
City of Fort Collins Utilities
Council Finance Committee
Changes to the Utilities Raw Water Requirements
January 23, 2017
Glossary of Water Resources Terms
1-in-50 Year Drought Criterion - criterion adopted in the current Water Supply and
Demand Management Policy that defines the level of risk for the City’s water supply
system; a drought is a period of below average runoff that can last one or more years and
is often measured by its duration, average annual shortage and cumulative deficit below
the average; a 1-in-50 drought corresponds to a dry period that is likely to occur, on
average, once every 50 years; although the Poudre River Basin has several drought
periods in its recorded history, it is difficult to assess whether any of these droughts were
equal in magnitude to a 1-in-50 drought; the 1985 Drought Study developed the 1-in-50
drought used in assessing the Utilities water supply system; this drought period is six
years long and has a cumulative deficit of 550,000 acre-feet, which represents annual
river volumes that are about 70% of the long-term average for the Poudre River; see also
“Statistically Based Drought Analysis”
Acre-Foot or Acre-Feet (AF) - volume of water equal to about 326,000 gallons; one acre-
foot can supply around three to four single family homes in Fort Collins per year; for
storage comparison the maximum volume of Horsetooth Reservoir is about 157,000 acre-
feet
Active Capacity - the usable capacity of a reservoir for storage and regulation of inflows
and releases that does not include any capacity below the reservoir’s lowest outlet (which
is known as dead capacity)
Cash-in-lieu rate (CIL) - the cash equivalent of the water supply required to meet the
needs of development; see also Raw Water Requirements
Carryover - used in reference to storage; it is the ability to save water in storage for use at
a later time, most notably in following years
Change in Water Right - used to refer to changing water rights under Colorado water law
from agricultural to municipal water use; see also “Legal Return Flows or Return Flow
Obligations”
CIP - Capital Improvement Project, which typically refers to a project to improve
Utilities facilities (e.g., treatment plant capacity expansion)
Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) Project - a Bureau of Reclamation project that brings
water from the Colorado River basin to the east side of the continental divide via a tunnel
and the Big Thompson River to several locations including Horsetooth Reservoir;
1
operated by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (or Northern Water); Fort
Collins Utilities currently owns 18,855 units of the 310,000 total units in the CBT project
Cubic Feet per Second (cfs) - volumetric flow rate equal to one cubic foot flowing every
second; for comparison, an average peak flow rate on the Poudre River at the Lincoln
Street gage (downtown) is around 1,900 cfs and a median winter-time low flow rate in
December at the same location is around 7 cfs
Direct Flow Rights - water rights that can be taken for direct use, as opposed to storage
rights that can be taken for later use; see also “Senior Water Rights”
DEIS or EIS - Draft Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Impact
Statement; a report detailing the findings of the NEPA permitting process; report can be
reviewed by public for their comments which are typically addressed in a Final
Environment Impact Statement; see also “NEPA”
ELCO - East Larimer County Water District; see also “Tri-Districts”
FCLWD - Fort Collins-Loveland Water District; see also “Tri-Districts”
Firm Yield - a measure of the ability of a water supply system to meet water demands
through a series of drought years; for the Fort Collins Utilities, this means being able to
meet the planning demand level and storage reserve factor through the 1-in-50 year
drought criterion; see also “1-in-50 Year Drought Criterion”, “planning demand level”
and “storage reserve factor”
GMA - short for Growth Management Area, which is the planned boundary of the City of
Fort Collins’ future City limits
gpcd - gallons per capita per day; a measurement of municipal water use; for the Fort
Collins Utilities, gpcd is calculated based on the total annual treated water produced at
the Water Treatment Facility for use by all Water Utility customers (minus large
contractual customers and other sales or exchange agreements) divided by the estimated
population of the Water Utility’s service area and 365 days
LEDPA - Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative, which is what is
allowed to be permitted through the NEPA permitting process; see also “NEPA”
Legal Return Flows or Return Flow Obligations - refers to legal requirements when
changing water rights from agricultural to municipal use; this process requires obtaining a
decree from Colorado Water Court that involves detailed analysis of the historic
agricultural water use, including the water diversions, amount used by the crops, and the
return flow patterns of the water not used by the crops; terms in the decree to prevent
municipalities from taking more water than was historically taken and replacing return
flows in the right amount, location and time to prevent injury to other water rights
2
NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act; federal legislation that established
environmental policy for the nation; it provides interdisciplinary framework for federal
agencies to prevent environmental damage and contains “action-forcing” procedures to
ensure that federal agency decision-makers take environmental factors into account
NISP - Northern Integrated Supply Project
Northern Water or NCWCD - short for Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
(NCWCD); Northern Water operates the Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) Project and is
involved in several other regional water projects on behalf of their participants; see also
“Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) Project”
NPIC - North Poudre Irrigation Company; an irrigation company that supplies water to
farmers north of Fort Collins and is the owner of all water currently stored in Halligan
Reservoir; the City currently owns about 36% of the shares in the company
NWCWD - North Weld County Water District; see also “Tri-Districts”
Planning Demand Level - level of water use (demand) in gpcd used for water supply
planning purposes that is a factor in determining the amount of water supplies and/or
facilities needed; see also “gpcd”
PIF (or PIFs) - Plant Investment Fee(s), which are one-time fees assessed on
developments for the cost of the utility infrastructure needed to serve that development
Raw Water Requirement (RWR) - requires new development to turn in water rights, a
payment of cash-in-lieu of water rights, or use of City-issued water certificates or credits
to support the water needs of that development; cash is used to increase the firm yield and
long-term reliability of the City’s supply system (e.g., purchase additional storage
capacity)
Storage Reserve Factor - refers to a commonly used engineering principle in designing
water supply systems to address short-term supply interruptions; as defined in the Water
Supply and Demand Management Policy, the storage reserve factor incorporates having
20 percent of annual demands in storage through the 1-in-50 drought which equates to
about 3.5 months of winter (indoor) demands or 1.5 month of summer demands
Senior Water Rights - refers to Colorado water law’s use of the “prior appropriation” or
priority system, which dictates that in times of short supply, earlier water rights decrees
(senior rights) will get their water before others (junior rights) can begin to use water,
often described as “first in time, first in right”
Southside Ditches - refers to the irrigation ditches that run through the City of Fort
Collins, including the Arthur Ditch, New Mercer Ditch, Larimer County Canal No. 2 and
Warren Lake Reservoir; the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal is another ditch that runs
through Fort Collins and is sometimes considered a Southside Ditch
3
Tri-Districts - the combination of the three regional water districts East Larimer County
(ELCO), Fort Collins-Loveland (FCLWD) and North Weld County (NWCWD) Water
Districts; these districts share the same water treatment plant called Soldier Canyon Filter
Plant, which is located adjacent to Fort Collins Utilities’ Water Treatment Facility
Water Rights Portfolio - the mix of water rights owned by a water supplier; typically
includes water for direct use, as well as for storage for later use; for the Fort Collins
Utilities, includes City owned water rights, owned and/or converted shares in agricultural
rights, storage rights at Joe Wright Reservoir, and ownership in the CBT project
Water Supply Factor - refers to a multiplying factor used in the assessment of raw water
required by developers to reflect issues that tend to reduce the average yield of the water
supplies provided to a water supplier (e.g., system losses, variable demands, etc.)
WSDMP - short for Water Supply & Demand Management Policy, which provides Fort
Collins Utilities guidance in balancing water supplies and demands
Yield or Water Rights Yield - refers to the amount of water that is produced from a water
right; the yield of water rights vary from year to year depending on the amount of water
available (i.e., low or high river runoff) and the priority of the water right; see also “Firm
Yield” and “Senior Water Rights”
4
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Financial Director
Randy Reuscher, Utilities Rate Analyst
Justin Fields, Utilities Rate Analyst
Date: January 23, 2017
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION – Residential Electric Time of Use (TOU) Pilot Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this agenda item is to provide the Council Finance Committee with the results of
the residential electric time of use pilot study. The study showed that when compared to the
current tiered rate structure both TOU rate structures reduced energy use by 2.5% and load was
shifted from the on peak periods to the off peak periods, thereby reducing our community’s
contribution to the Platte River Power Authority’s (PRPA) coincident peak. The additional
complexity of the tiered TOU rate over the basic TOU rate did not provide any statistically
significant difference from the basic TOU.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1) Does the Council Finance Committee support moving to a default residential time of use
rate in the future?
2) What data or background information would be useful for including in the presentation at
the Council work session on February 28th?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
City Council passed Ordinance No. 078, 2015 in July 2015 to pursue a12 month residential time
of use pilot study. Customer outreach began and an open house was held in August and
September of 2015. The official pilot study kicked off in November of 2015 and concluded in
October of 2016. At that time a survey was sent to all participants and the best bill guarantee
analysis and customer notification was completed ahead of any credits being applied to the
customer’s bill in December 2016.
Two time-of-use rate structures were considered during the pilot study. The first TOU was a
basic time of use rate structure with an on-peak window when electricity costs more and a much
wider off-peak window when electricity costs substantially less. In this TOU rate structure all of
the expenses associated with energy efficiency programs were included in the on-peak window.
The second rate structure, labeled below as TOU_EE, was very similar, with the same on-peak
and off-peak hours, but rather than including the costs associated with the energy efficiency
programs in the on-peak charge these costs were collected through an additional tiered
component.
For the pilot 1,200 customers randomly selected to be on each rate. Roughly 10% of the
customers opted out upfront. After removing all additional customers that moved households
during the 12 month study period, approximately 850 customers remained throughout in each
study group.
The purpose of the pilot study as outlined in Ordinance No. 078, 2015 was to assess if a TOU
rate structure could better achieve each of the following objectives than the current tiered rate
structure:
• Objective 1 - Determine energy conservation impacts
• Objective 2 - Measure potential demand reductions
• Objective 3 - Gauge customer preference for different rate structures
• Objective 4 - Ensure revenue requirements are met
Objective 1 - Energy Conservation
Both TOU rate structures effectively encouraged energy conservation better than the current
tiered rate structure. The TOU rate realized a 2.5% reduction in energy consumption. The
addition of a tier in the TOU_EE rate structure did not provide any additional energy
conservation over the TOU rate without a tier.
Objective 2 - Potential Demand Reductions
Both TOU rate structures reduced the probability that a residential customer’s daily peak
occurred in the “on peak” window. The TOU rate structure without a tier showed an 8.5%
reduction in the probability that a customer’s daily peak occurred in the “on peak” window. The
TOU_EE rate structure showed a 2.8% reduction in the probability that a customer’s daily peak
occurred in the “on peak” window. This shift of the customer’s daily peak reduces the
contribution from the residential rate class as a whole to the system coincident peak hour used in
the assessment of the wholesale demand charge each month. Specifically, looking at the single
coincident peak hour during the summer months, the TOU rate showed a 7.5% reduction in the
contribution to the system coincident peak.
Objective 3 - Gauge Customer Preference
A survey was sent to all participants at the end of the pilot study. In total, 1,450 customer
surveys were received (roughly 20% returned). Below is a summary of the responses from each
of the four survey questions. Attached is another document which captures the additional
comments provided by customers.
Question 1 - Select the description which you think best explains the price you
pay for electricity.
From the results of Question 1, where customers were asked to identify
their rate structure:
Question 2 - Select the description which best describes how frequently you seek
out information about your energy consumption
Question 3 - In your view, what should be the primary objective of electricity
rates (please choose one)
Question 4 - During the last 18 months, did you respond to your electricity bill by
(choose all that apply)
Objective 4 – Revenue Adequacy
The TOU rate structures, like the tiered rate structure, were designed to pass through the full
wholesale generation and transmission charges and to collect adequate revenue to maintain the
distribution system. Both TOU rate structures resulted in less revenue than the current tiered rate
structure. However, because 30% of wholesale energy charges are determined by Fort Collins
Utility’s contribution to the system coincident peak and that contribution was reduced, adequate
revenues were still generated to meet the cost of service for the residential rate class. Below is a
table summarizing the revenue impacts separating out the impact to those residential customers
who either have all electric heat and are on the Residential Demand (RD) rate or have rooftop
solar installed (Net Metering customers):
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff proposes implementing the standard TOU rate as a default rate to all residential customers,
including current tiered rates customers, demand rate customers, and net metering customers,
with an effective date of January 1, 2018.
There are many considerations in proposing the standard TOU rate, which is ultimately
considered a fair and equitable rate structure. The pilot study shows this rate provides a
reduction in the probability that a customer’s peak happens during the on peak hours, and also
realized energy conservation over the current tiered rate structure. In general, a TOU rate
structure is easy for customers to understand, as well as react to. A TOU rate also encourages
the use of electric vehicles and provides an incentive to charge during off peak hours, which is in
line with the City’s climate goals.
A TOU rate structure would negatively impact those customers who are on the Residential
Demand rate. This rate structure is available only to customers in all electric housing and is
intended to recognize the increased electric demand of such housing. It does not distinguish
when that increased demand occurs. A TOU rate structure could encourage energy efficiency
improvements by providing a price signal that recognizes when heating is primarily done.
Both TOU rates better align with the marginal cost of electricity than the current tiered rate
structure. Either TOU rate would reduce the compensation to net-metering customers for energy
pushed back onto the distribution system in the off peak hours of the early afternoon. A TOU
rate would encourage configuring solar arrays to generate more energy when the community
needs it the most.
The study shows that adding the energy efficiency tier to the standard TOU rate structure does
not statistically improve the energy conservation and load shifting objectives. Thus, staff is
recommending the standard TOU rate structure without the additional tiered component.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will be presenting the results of the study at the Council Work Session on February 28P
th
P.
Discussion from that meeting will determine future rate implementations. If Council supports
implementing a TOU rate, staff would return to Council in March or April to ask for Council
direction and approval (possibly in the form of a Resolution) in order to begin the public
outreach process. The actual rate ordinance would be brought to Council in the fall, along with
all other general rates and fees changes, normally in October or November. Again, staff would
propose that the TOU rates take effect in January 2018 to allow for the proper outreach and
education process to bring all residential customers up to speed on TOU rates ahead of
deployment.
ATTACHMENTS
PowerPoint Presentation
Backup slides - Powerpoint
Council Finance Committee
1.23.2017
Timeline to Date
• July 2015 – 2nd Reading Ordinance No. 078, 2015
• August 2015 – customer notification & outreach
• September 2015 – open house
• November 2015 – pilot study started
• April 2016 – reminder of new summer season & rates
• October 2016 - pilot study ended – sent customer survey
• Nov/Dec 2016 – comparison of rates calculated and
communicated to customers
• Dec 2016 – best bill guarantee credits on bills; statistical
analysis performed
2
PILOT Study Objectives
• Determine energy conservation impacts.
• Measure potential demand reductions.
• Gauge customer preference for different rate structures.
• Ensure revenue requirements are met.
3
TOU Study Design
Nov/2015 – Oct/2016
4
Treatments
Groups Study Peak Information Best Bill TOU Peak Period TOU Tier
Study Control X
Peak Information Control X X
TOU Best Bill Control X X X
TOU w/Tier Best Bill Control X X X
TOU X X X X
TOU w/Tier X X X X X
• Opt-out study, 1200 customers randomly assigned to each group
• ~ 850 customers in each group after opt-outs and customer turnover
• Study design allows us to measures components of study and rates separately
Objective 1 :
Energy Conservation
5
• Standard TOU rate showed a 2.5% reduction in energy consumption
• Adding a tier to TOU rate had no statistical impact on energy consumption
• Previous analysis did not show any effective conservation signal from the
current tiered rate, likely because ~65% of energy sales are below cost of
service (to offset higher tier charges)
Objective 2 :
Demand Reductions
6
• Standard TOU rate showed an 8.5% reduction in the probability that
a customer’s daily peak occurs “on peak”
• TOU w/EE tier showed a 2.8% reduction in the probability that a
customer’s daily peak occurs “on peak”
• In the summer months, the TOU rate showed an 7.5% reduction in
the coincident peak hour kW (adding the tier to TOU did not have a
statistically significant impact to the coincident peak hour kW)
Objective 3:
Customer Survey
7
October 2016 - Survey sent to all 7,000 participants, with roughly 1,450
responding (~20%)
Outcomes
• Only 25% of customers correctly identified their rate structure
• 51% of customers say they only seek out information about their consumption once
per month when they receive their bill, while 47% of customers infrequently or never
seek out information about their energy consumption
• 42% (highest response) of customers agree rates should balance equitable cost
recovery with environmental concerns
• 38% of customers are conscious of their energy use, while another 31% had energy
efficient bulbs and / or appliances, and another 8% of customers use electricity for the
convenience, without concern for the cost.
Objective 4:
Revenue Requirements
8
• Standard TOU
• 37% of customers saved an average of $77 for the year, or ~$6 per month
• Average credit was $24 for the year
• TOU w/EE tier
• 62% of customers saved an average of $38 for the year, or ~$3 per month
• Average credit was $20 for the year
• RD (demand) customers were impacted more due to the tiered component
and higher consumption (electric heat)
Final Count of
Customers
Enrolled
Revenue on
TOU Rate
Revenue on
Tiered or RD
$
Difference
%
Difference
TOU to Tiered 880 $ 745,878 $ 757,974 ($12,096) -1.6%
TOU EE to Tiered 851 $ 728,914 $ 742,996 ($14,082) -1.9%
TOU to RD 18 $ 29,323 $ 28,797 $526 1.8%
TOU EE to RD 16 $ 26,901 $ 24,929 $1,971 7.9%
Net - TOU to Tiered 5 $ 2,094 $ 1,368 $726 53.1%
Net - TOU EE to Tiered 9 $ 2,718 $ 2,052 $666 32.5%
Staff Recommendation
9
Transition to a standard TOU rate for all residential customers, including
residential demand and net metering customers, in January 2018
• Study shows the standard TOU rate realized a 2.5% reduction in energy consumption, as
compared to the tiered rate
• Study shows the standard TOU rate provides an 8% reduction in the probability that a
customer’s peak happens during the on peak hours
• TOU rate helps to better align benefits of solar production with wholesale costs
• Easier rate structure for customers to understand and react to
• Encourages use of electric vehicles and charging during off-peak hours, which is in line
with community climate goals
• TOU rate is considered a more “fair and equitable” rate structure
Staff Recommendation
10
Summary of Rate Structure Impacts
Rate Structure
Tiered TOU TOU w/tier
Revenue Requirements Met
Promotes Energy Conservation No 2.5% 2.5%
Promotes Load Shifting No 8% 3%
Considered Equitable (cost-basis) No
Benefits Low Income Households
Net Metering No
Electric Heat No No
Addresses Electric Vehicle Charging No
Future Timeline
11
• February 28 - Council work session
• March / April 2017 - Council action (possibly a resolution)
• Summer 2017– begin outreach if direction is to implement TOU
• Fall 2017 – include TOU rates in 2018 rate ordinance updates
• January 2018 – potential TOU implementation
Council Direction
12
Direction Sought:
• Does Council support moving to a Time of Use rate structure?
• Does Council support doing so in January 2018?
13
1. The first option assumes the only way to reduce use is to raise rates. Education to impact would be just as important to raise awareness of environmental
impact. 2. Our energy needs must be met by all sources available and solar is getting cheaper. 3. I personally feel it is fair for those who consume more to pay
more. That is an incentive to use less. 4. The best way to decrease the need for electrical usage is to not increase the temperature of the planet.
Actually I use electric when I need it and don’t when I don’t. I don’t worry about costs but am aware of unnecessary use, everywhere I go, not just at home.
As a consumer whose only logical choice is an all-electric home I hope to see some financial allowances for those of us who try to use electricity reasonably.
As a world citizen and believer that global warming is happening and has been cause by people, I am continuously concerned of hydrocarbon use. I don’t need
my utilities company to do anything about that.
As I am on oxygen 24 hours a day something should be done to help the people with their high electric bills. Thank you.
As requested The following comment could be considered: The price I pay should be based on a multiple of the commercial user rate. This would be adjusted to
allow for loses from the commercial rate as well as any salary or stipend needed to maintain viability in the service. Doing this would simplify the billing and
would cost based on usage not whim or time of day.
Award the ones that use the most as a good customer. Maybe give them 2 meal tickets at Sonny Lubick’s Steakhouse for being such good customers.
Because my husband’s vision is poor, he needs to have lights on any time of day in order to read. Because we are old we are home most of the time and perhaps
use more electricity than folks who are away from home working.
Because of health problems we have a need to keep the house cool. I really do not need the comparison report from the office as it does not reflect anything for
us. I pay the bill, when I stop paying then send me the report that states I used too much.
Before the pilot we took care NOT to run car charging (two electric cars), air conditioner, and clothes dryer at the same time.
Being a senior citizen on a fixed income as long as my utilities remain within my budgeted amount I am okay with my billing. Thank you.
Being an apartment resident the only conservation method I actually use is the hot water heater turned off during peak energy. Its great. Other than small
appliances and LED bulbs I have purchased and used there is nothing available. Thank you.
Bills need to be easier to read as to why the charges are being made. Some elderly people don’t understand until family member breaks things down.
Bought solar panels.
Care housing owns and operates 324 units of affordable housing for families, elderly, and disabled. Is there a plan that our office as well as our residents could
benefit from?
Charging more for electricity during summer in the hottest part of the day will certainly cure usage but it sure seems unfair.
Charging more/kWh for higher use can be very unfair to larger families with more children, and also the elderly, who need to keep the temperature higher cold
months. How would YOU like to pay more per gallon of gasoline purchased when you buy more than 10 gallons, for example? People who wish to have their
electricity come from wind and/or solar should pay the full higher costs of production associated with these methods of production.
Cost of electricity should be one low rate/kilowatt hour. Everyone would pay that same rate. Should not change with season or time. Low income service should
be provided by appropriate agency. Environmental options should be offered, not mandated. How about some competition.
Costs/Bills are way too high. We are two working adults who are never home and rarely use lights, computers, tv, dishwasher, electric stove, ac/heat. Bills are
higher than when family of 4 lived here than larger households in north Loveland. Absurd. Bring us solar! Off-grid services options ASAP. Hate your services.
D is not my preferred response, but I could choose only one. I would have chosen A and B. C does not seem like an appropriate goal for a government service
monopoly. D has the weasel word 'balance' in it which always deserves increased scrutiny: What are the multipliers on each side of the equation? Whose values
are more important?
Daughter and 5 children moved in. They are of much greater concern and certainly run up the bill
Disabled veteran, finding it hard to keep up with costs.
Doing things like running the dishwasher and washing machine and dryer during low-use times was not a hardship and I support incentives for doing that if it
benefits the environment and the community.
Don’t believe in subsidizing solar and wind with our utility rates. Nuclear energy is the answer, not popular, but the truth.
Electric rates should also consider folks on a fixed income. I was unware I was part of a study.
Electricity charges should be for amount use not an incentive, not a punishment.
Electricity is a basic need. As such, the objective in setting rates should be lowest possible cost, trying to set rates to encourage conservation has negative
economic impacts on the customers.
Electricity is the smaller portion of our utility cost. Water and sewer usually is the larger portion. Even though we are a small 2 person household and try to
conserve as much as possible. We are amazed at how much water and sewer has increased over the last few years.
For some reason our bill always seemed to be higher than our neighbors. We are retired so use utilities 24/7. Many neighbors have employment and their bills
may be less as a result although they keep AC unites running 24/7.
Fort Collins doesn’t need the competitive report. It is kind of fun to see how we are doing but it surely seems like you could save money by eliminating this.
I already was conscious of my electrical usage so my habits and usage did not change much.
I also check my energy consumption when I receive my mailing that shows how I rate with my neighbors.
I also think rates should encourage clean energy production. I applaud the city for its initiative with the community solar garden.
I am a senior. My house was built in 1994. Going without AC on hot afternoons is something of a hardship for me, as I would paying peak rates for afternoon AC
use.
I am all for conservation.
I am all for environmental concern. However, I think Fort Collins pushes an over the top agenda onto Poudre valley REA, making our electricity more expensive
than it needs to be. Solar and wind are very inefficient and can’t be stored. Therefore, Rawhide is much less efficient and hours to purs the higher costs on to us.
I am careful about use because of the cost. I did not change my habits because of this pilot.
I am concerned that a consumer is charged a minimum monthly charge from 0 KW to number of KW as set by Fort Collins Utilities. There should be incentive to
be as energy efficient as possible.
I am disappointed in the large base charges and minimums. Especially the waste water charge minimum. I use less than 2,000 gallons monthly that goes into
wastewater treatment but still must pay almost $29.00 per month for it. I don’t think that is fair.
I am head of household, family of six; my usage is obviously higher because of the amount of people living at one address. I am penalized by paying a higher rate
due to the large amount of energy used. You need to figure in how many reside at the address before raising the rate because of my excess vs. efficient
neighbors.
I am interested in seeing the results of this study. How did you decide on a base amount of 500 kWh?
I am low income. I have no choice but to lower all of my bills.
I am not clear what each other answers means for question 3.
I am SO concerned about the rising cost of utilities, including water. I have always been a conservationist and whole heartedly endorse the use of solar and wind
energy. I am especially concerned about the cost and quality of water.
I am very sorry that the pilot study will end in October. It has made the bill less than before it started. Please keep it going to save the people money. Two years
ago my bill was over $300 a month. The house was locked while we were at our second home in Nevada.
I appeal to you to please the electrical rates within economical means so people can live their lives. I believe in conserving electricity. Conservation should be
incentive based not forced by higher rates.
I appreciate the consumption newsletter that compares usage to neighbors.
I appreciate the opportunity to know when peak consumption times are and will try to follow the guidelines, using electronics during lower usage times, even
without financial incentive. Hopefully this effort will be a small contribution to reduce emissions!
I believe that tiered electricity rates are discriminatory toward families that use more electricity inherently due to their larger size. Rather than penalizing usage,
would prefer to see an enhanced rebate program on large energy use items such as air conditioners.
I check home energy report. Like LED light bulbs
I could see a big difference in the rate. It will be interesting to see the final analysis. The only problem I see with the changing hours of use is that I could adjust
easily because I am retired. Otherwise it would not have worked. I was confused about what the weekend rate was?
I did not participate in this study because my property chose for it is a rental where I pay the utilities thus I have little control over utility usage except to cap.
Personally I grew up in a home where utilities were conserved mainly to save money. The richer people are, the more they spend/use without thought. As for
education, infiltrate messages throughout outreach efforts piece by piece over time in marketing.
I do not off air conditioner, use dishwasher once every two weeks, live by myself. I do use an oxygen concentrate 24/7.
I don’t buy into your politically driven agenda.
I don’t think the off-peak/on-peak plan works for us. We are retired and home much of the day and heat is not good for our health.
I enjoyed being part of the study. My son and I made a conscious effort to reduce our electrical usage during peak hours. It was easier than I thought it would
be.
I find it unbelievable that such a progressive city still uses coal to generate electricity! There are many more sustainable cleaner sources. Add higher rates for
high use Tier. I live in Old Town in an old house next door was torn down and a huge new house replacing it totally destroying my options for solar panels as well
as my tv service. Any recourse?
I find the home energy report sent separately to be very useful.
I find those neighbor comparison mailings simplistic & not useful. We often have higher rating than our neighbors but we live on a block of mainly empty nesters
who have 1-2 people in a house the same size as us, which supports 4 sometimes 5 when home from college. Most importantly our family includes a disabled
person whose medical needs impact on utility usage.
I forgot we signed up for this. I attempted to be cognizant of our usage and using AC limited amount by opening windows at night and closing shades during the
day.
I had an average use of $60/month overall and appreciated that by itself to help on our budget.
I HATED the rate structure in the pilot study. The penalty vs. reward was way out of proportion. The inconvenience of trying to schedule off-peak usage was
incredible even for me who had considerable flexibility in my availability.
I have 3KW of solar panels for less than 4 years. With the last rate change I now get paid less for the power I deliver than what I get charged. This is despite the
fact I deliver the most power on sunny summer afternoons. Precisely when power consumption is at its peak. Thus I claim that i am helping avoid needing
additional generating and distribution capacity.
I have a family of 6, so we necessarily use things like the laundry machine and dishwasher more than smaller families. I wish this could be taken into account
when comparing with other households.
I have a HEPA filter fan that I use constantly. My furnace/AC carrier assures me that this fan uses very little electricity but if telling me the contrary happens I will
try to modify this use. In all other respects I am frugal with electricity.
I have a hot tub so I could not control that aspect of consumption. I want to keep it clean.
I have been conscious of environmental issues since the 1970's
I have replaced my refrigerator and dishwasher and was able to document substantial reduction in energy. I did not care for flourescent lights bulbs.
I install low energy items in the house but use energy based on convenience. We have mechanical timers on all bathroom lights and fans. Biggest ongoing power
consumer is likely our PC that runs as the file server for the family 27/7. I don’t mind it running in winter where it adds to house heating. It uses more electricity
than sleep mode because I donate the CPU time to cancer research.
I keep my house cold in the winter, 65 or below. I keep my house warmer than most in the summer, 76 during peak hours, but I have a whole house fan and my
house is a ranch. I sleep with windows open. Actually make the temp in the house in the AM 70 or below when I close the windows. I don’t know why usage is
considered higher than my neighbors. You don’t have to respond just making a comment.
I like the little flier I get comparing my energy usage to that of my neighbors. I don’t pay much attention to my bill but I do work to conserve energy.
I like the time of use pricing and hope that is an option in the future!
I liked the new trial system we were on the past year. I would like that to be an option for all electric homes. I feel I conserved and saw a drop in my electric bill.
I live alone and I am conservative on all utilities.
I live in sky view south and am forced to pay the tiered rate now. Most residents here are low or fixed income with electric heat only to heat their homes. This
cost is often hundreds of dollars a month to keep their houses livable. I don’t like the burden forced up on us by the #1 City of Fort Collins.
I NEVER AGREED TO THIS
I pay my electricity every month. My husband is on oxygen 24/7 we need cooler environment for him. So my question is: are you punishing customers who use
more electricity? Our life style is we do not go out to eat hardly at all so we need electric to fix 3 meals a day.
I really don’t feel the tier rates are fair. Everyone should pay the same rates. Those who use more will still pay our fair share. We have medical equipment
machines running around the clock.
I receive $528 as social security a month and this is my only income. Due to my low income LEAP practically pays off all my gas bills for the whole year. I hope
Fort Collins utilities give the same break to people with low income and are over 65 years old. My skate is such that I cannot afford to have a green lawn and
only depend upon the rain. I am 82 years old and I need Fort Collins to come to my rescue.
I strongly believe that more consumption of water and electricity for residential customers should be discounted to a lower price per unit. My family doesn’t
waste electricity or water yet a family of 5 versus 2 gets an unhappy face in your consumption letter. The tier systems should be reverse of what it is now.
I support rates by usage and by time of day as this will promote conservation and reduction in peak demands.
I think A B and C on question 3 are all valid answers.
I think a tiered rate is effective. It is unfortunate that we rent and cannot change appliances and are limited to an electric range. Unfortunately this means
preparing dinner often occurred during peak times.
I think a water conservation program is important. Encouraging customers to only use an allotted amount and during certain hours to increase absorption.
I think it is a great tool to get the efficiency letter each month, but not very efficient to have it waster paper and postage. Is there an online or email version?
That would make more sense to me.
I think renewable is fine and support such goals. That said, we have inexpensive power available to use through rawhide and I would not want to see coal
eliminated if research and technology permit us to mitigate the emissions issues. Coal, natural gas, and renewables (solar & wind) all have their place. Over time,
I expect more in renewables as their cost per KW declines.
I think the programs that would promote off peak use at lower rates could be successful and may go a long way to benefitting climate action goals that the city is
striving to achieve.
I think this program made a lot of sense. Very forward-thinking! Well done!
I try to constantly be cognizant of my usage; I’m willing to pay for comfort but am not extreme.
I try to waste nothing, especially electricity. I had new, good windows installed, air sealing, and insulation done and I could not recoup that expense in my
lifetime in electric saving, but it was the right thing to do to to waste any utility.
I use supplemental oxygen full time and a CPAP during the night.
I was employed as an engineer at an electric generating plant. Our goal was to provide reliable service at the lowest possible cost to the customer. Fort Collins
utilities should aspire to the same not engage in social change initiative.
I will soon reach 91 years of age. The first 18 years we survived without electricity. I have been extremely grateful for having electricity ever since and would pay
almost any cost for electricity.
I work in the power industry and many of the claims about solar and wind power being more environmentally conscience are false. There is a byproduct for
generating any type of energy. Encouraging power plants to upgrade to current technology at existing plants would also help.
I work the night shift when I am home I am up all night. Lights are on. Laundry is in and I am cooking.
I would like there to be an option or exemption for home office people so that we don’t get penalized for extra electricity during the day, which I believe the
tiered rates do.
I would like to hear more about community solar power and wind power purchased by Fort Collins Utilities.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the utilities department for providing electricity that is both affordable and extremely reliable. If I could afford solar
panels I would install them right away. I also appreciate that Fort Collins is working towards use of solar and wind power to help keep our energy costs so
reasonable.
In case you are interested or if it matters, I office at home so my usage is likely somewhat high, especially during summer as I often keep the AC on during the
day since I am here all day.
In home business office and 5 family members, almost always someone in the home using utilities. Not excessive, just life.
It always feels unfair when I see my bill and see how I am compared to my neighbors. I have 4 children. Of course we use more energy than our neighbors. There
are more of us in our household! We never keep light on. We try to conserve energy but we are a big family
It is water, not electricity that bothers me.
It is way too much, It doesn’t matter it is too much always. Rates should be as low as possible for everyone. This plan punishes big families… See attached letter
"this rate plan punishes large families"
It would be nice if it were crystal clear what the rates are during a 24 hours day and different days of the year on the hill as well as easily found on your website.
Many of us are unable to utilize off-peak hours of use and thus are penalized by higher prices. What about us older citizens who are on strict budgets. Can we
get a break on the post of use?
Large families who use more energy shouldn’t be penalized, just as a grocery store wouldn’t charge extra for each additional gallon of milk.
Liked the plan of reduced rates on/off periods.
My concern right now is with budget billing. Years ago when I did it. The credit was deducted from my bill. Then my budget billing was re-calculated for the new
amount or rate. Now I am not clear on what is being done.
My daughter uses computer, air conditioning, heat, tv, lights. My granddaughter uses computer, tv, and other electric devises. I am on oxygen 24/7. Because our
household is busy 24/7 we don’t have time for utility usage. Electricity bill is always too high.
My electric usage is quite low being empty nesters and in summer I only use AC 2 weeks. Don’t have electric heat or electric HW heater. I strongly support
reducing GMG emissions and support any utilities prompting conservation measures and offering distributed energy options to homeowners and innovative
measures to reduce energy consumption.
My husband has a debilitating disease, because of it we use more electricity than we should, lift chair, hospital bed, tv and lights on longer much more washing
and drying. I try to conserve on lights but caregivers don’t care about conservation, etc.
My only comment is that I completely forgot about this study. I felt like my utility bill was abnormally high, but I think that was due to water and the hot/dry
summer. I tend to blame high utility bills on water more than electricity.
My rates always seem reasonable and whatever it takes to make us more conservation minded is important. I have been switching to LED as I need to replace
bulbs.
Not sure the mailing I receive comparing my use with similar households is worthwhile. I am always curious to see how I compare but never lose sleep over my
score. Wondering if the money spent on postage and the effort to complete that data could be better put to use in some other fashion?
On oxygen 24/7 can’t shut it off.
On the last question I do those things out of a general concern to reduce electricity usage and save money not in response to my bill. How my rates are set up
has absolutely no effect on my energy usage. I would minimize usage no matter what. The notices you send outlining electric and water usage and comparing to
neighbors is useful and affects how I use the utilities.
One of our biggest uses of electricity is an oxygen concentrator that runs 24/7.
One of the reasons my bill is high is my wife is on oxygen and has problems keeping warm in the winter so she has an electric heater running also.
Our problem is that we have a one acre farm in a residential neighborhood consistent of mostly College S. Our water bill is low because we have ditch water.
Our energy usage goes up with growing season.
Our woodworking hobbies require a little more electricity than household things.
Overall, I look at the basic bill and since water swer is included on same bill I look at the total of the two not electric alone.
Paid a higher price to install a 97% efficient gas furnace with forced air heat system. We don’t have AC system.
Participation in community solar should be reflected in stepped rates, as that does affect cost of coal-fired production/facilities.
Please keep rates low for senior citizens and those on a fixed income. Also the working poor of our community. Thank you for all your hard work making Fort
Collins a great place to live for all.
Please provide rate relief for low income households
Please stop wasting energy, paper, ink, and taxpayer dollars by sending out your periodic letters, with color bar charts comparing our energy usage to our
neighbors. We have 4 adults in our house and more square footage than most of our neighbors, who are primarily retired couples. You are comparing usage
without comparing other factors that determine their usage.
Please stop wasting money on the "green" agenda.
Question 1: but I think that is unfair, my next door neighbor drinks 2 more gallons of milk each week than we do, but they don’t have to pay higher prices on
those 2 gallons. By using more electricity you are already paying more and shouldn’t be punished? Question 3: Electricity is a commodity and should not be used
as a tool to influence behavior you could pay for what you use, period.
Question 3 answers are all too general.
Question 3: Based on amount used to cover production cost.
Question 3: other, customers to pay as little as possible
Quit wasting time and money on stuff like this.
Replaced 13 year old furnace with higher efficiency unit.
Research cleaner ways of burning fossil fuels. Since there is such an abundance of these fuels.
Running appliances during off peak periods was what we considered more during this pilot study.
See attached letter; "Additional comments regarding City of Fort Collins Utility Pilot Survey"
See attached letter; "Additional feedback on your electricity pricing experiments and survey"
See attached letter; "Always try to save electricity but I wonder at times the thought process of the surveys"
See attached letter; "As a Colorado native, I am very unhappy with what has happened to Fort Collins".
See attached letter; "I am probably one the most energy efficient people in my neighborhood"
See attached letter; "We have been very dissatisfied with this study"
See attached letter; 1. Husband has low vision and no vision in the dark, so require more lights.
See attached letter; 1. I get a notice every month, saying that I use more electricity than my neighbors.
See attached letter; the primary objective of rates should be to equitably recover costs.
See attached letter; You are wasting your time and my money and time, sending me notices about how I compare to neighbors power and water use…
See letter on back… "During hot summer days"
See letter written on back of survey - "Greenhouse gas is b.s."
Seems as though rates increase every year so one must conserve on electricity.
Since Fort Collins owns electric utility the city should consider the hydro generation idea that Professor Rod Shoegerbee presented in the Coloradoan.
Since I am retired it was a bit easier to use electricity during the off peak hours. Summer was easier because it was light out and I didn't eat before 7:00 pm.
Winter was harder since I didn’t like waiting to cook until after 9:00 pm.
Since I use as little electricity as possible I assume my rates pretty much stay consistent in Tier 1.
Social engineering should not be a part of utilities service. It is an abuse of the limited monopoly powers the city exercises in providing the utility. Further, this
always results in perverse incentives with unintended side effects.
Solar Panels may not be put on condos if two stories.
Stop pressuring conservation when the alternatives you are offering are just as bad for the environment. Do you honestly think that the manufacturing of solar
power panels is good for the environment? Also rates should be even regardless of what you use.
Summertime peak hours should end earlier so working families can get the laundry done and dishes washed before bedtime.
Thank you for letting me be part of this test. I think it would be a fair way to bill if it were communicated well.
Thank you for allowing us to participate in this survey.
Thank you for focusing on customer needs and priorities.
Thank you for this program, do we get to continue it?
Thank you for your work!
Thank you!
Thanks for all you do and your friendly staff.
Thanks for running this test and survey.
The cost of electricity is criminal. An industrial concern in Cheyenne has an electric power bill only 2-3x what I pay here for a small family house. Paying a higher
rate ate a higher consumption is wrong. In every other industry that has a free market the more you buy the lower the rate.
The cost of electricity to the consumer should be a flat rate per KW hour. There are too many variables to have a tiered system. Example 3 people living in a 3
bedroom home will use more electricity than one person living in the same house. People working graveyard shifts will use different amounts than day shift
workers. People with special medical needs use more electricity.
The idea that some customers cost more (or less) than others to serve is news to me. I would be interested in finding out more. It seems like that could/would
be true in terms of geographic location but I can’t see how it relates to usage levels.
The increased costs to people who use more energy is unfair. With most commodities prices go down with increases in quantity. I don’t mind paying more as I
use more, but it should not be a different rate per kilowatt hour. This is a tax on people with larger homes, bigger families, or older homes/equipment.
The insert you sent with the dates and times of peak energy use/cost was helpful. I kept it on my refrigerator as a reminder to use the dryer, dishwasher, etc
during off-peak hours. Thank you for your efforts to make our city more energy efficient while controlling costs for customers!
The peak times being more while off times less. I believe this would assist in less energy used city wide. Dollars saved should be an incentive for consciencous
customers.
The pricing per KW is socialistic. If you use more you pay more and we conserve. I don’t agree with all paying by tiers. Hope you consider my comment.
The time of day utility rates hurt families with satay at home parents who must run appliances during the day (laundry, oven, dishwasher, etc.)
The times of use for rate changes during the trial period were inconvenient enough to provide zero incentive.
The way that all of the questions are asked, no reduction of rates for retirees is mentioned, whose income is significantly reduced as they retire, where electric
usage increases during the summer months. People of working age are gone most of the day, thus using less air conditioning.
There is no current rate discount for electrical use in off-peak hours. If there is an incentive to do so, I would do laundry (timer) and dishwasher (timer) to run
on off peak hours. Also, the report you send on how my home compares to efficient/not efficient homes paints a false picture, your comparison group is NOT
similar. 1) # of people in household 2) square footage of home #) working away from home or work at home or retired (home is unoccupied for 40+ hours /
week = less energy consumption)
These households that use in the upper 75-90 percentage of energy compared to similar sized households should be charged a higher rate to discourage
wastefulness. These similar households who are most efficient should be rewarded.
This household contains two members who are physically disabled and use computers and television for entertainment. The usage of additional kilowatt hours is
monitored but can’t be monitored all the time. Thank you for your concerns as to the environment and energy consumption usage of solar and wind power
should be further investigated.
This is a college rental. Kids don’t care about demand usage. Utilities should strive to give the best service at the best price.
This is a property I rent to other people. It has not had anyone living in it since about June 30, 2016. This is due to some repairs and other conditions.
Time of day billing is a rip off and impacts most those who can least adjust like elderly and moms with young children. Seems like designing a rate plan to impact
these two groups is a poor plan.
Too much emphasis on greenhouse gases. Only makes you feel good but doesn’t change our climate.
Too much government control and snooping into our personal life!
Unfortunately my home is all electric with baseboard heating. There are no gas lines in my home so I have no choice. Baseboard heat is inefficient but not much
I can do. Even when all room thermostats are set at 65 during the winter. Last January my electric bill was $400. During summer months I do not have air
conditioning so my electric bill is under $100.
Water is more of an issue. Wouldn’t it be great if all businesses were required to install solar panels for the city to use as one of their contributions back to Fort
Collins? Apartments are businesses too. Thank you.
We always pay a lot even though we have cut back on a lot of use.
We appreciate the four question survey. We like to give feedback but don’t if it’s too long. For example, a multipage 50 question survey. This was perfect
though.
We are on the wind power program. The tiered rates cost us money but do not improve the environment. Wind power should not be a tiered rate. We try to
reduce our carbon footprint by driving an electric car, using an electric hot water heater and some electric heat. The tiered rates punish us for being green.
We are retired and consequently at home 24/7 resulting in more energy use than someone who works. We do not believe we should be penalized because we
use more energy than someone who does not use as much because they have to be away from home. Anyone over 65 should not be required to pay more
because they use more energy.
We could use a reduced rate for rural property now in town. The costs for electric pumps, water heater and other rural needs are high. Our comparisons to none
rural customers were not helpful. Of course our energy use was higher R.T. livestock and irrigation.
We delayed some energy activities to off peak and cut back on light usage and some air conditioning. There was some inconvenience for my 98 year old mother
in law due to some less than optimal temperatures in the home but we survived.
We don’t have air conditioning. We have a gas water heater and gas heat. I turn off lights when we are not using them. We just don’t use very much electricity.
We had solar panels installed in February 2015.
We have a pool.
We have been on a peak demand rate since the 1980's. Limiting our peak consumption saved us a lot of money back then but now it is of little advantage. Please
give peak demand rate customers a lower per KW rate and increase the per peak KW rate. It must be cheaper for the utility for us to only use a peak of 8 KW in
an all-electric house.
We have electrical baseboard heating. So that is a lot of our electric costs in the winter months. Thank you.
We have no air, in summer we use few lights. The bill was as high in summer as in winter. You compare me to my neighbors who use are all summer and cook
inside. This makes no sense. We are on fixed income and the increases hurt.
We have solar panels. Extra energy that we do not use goes to the grid. You should encourage this with all customers.
We haven’t previously installed florescent lights. We run the dishwasher late at night and turn off lights in rooms we are not occupying. In our house we make
an effort to reduce the amount of energy we conserve.
We need to do all we can to address climate change. Reduce greenhouse gases and develop renewable energy.
We primarily monitor usage based on two things - 1) compared to previous year's billing 2) the quarterly statement that compares our usage to neighbors
We really appreciate the city's efforts to reduce demand for electricity and thereby lessen greenhouse gas emissions. Thank you!
We really appreciated being a part of this study. About a month after it began, we welcomed twin boys into our home which changed our electric use patterns
quite a bit. We really began to think about the tiered billing structure (which we think is great) and how we could reduce our usage at peak times, even with two
new babies in our home.
We really changed our habits to not run as much during peak hours. I hope that reflects in the cost difference or it will be frustrating if we ended up paying
more.
We think this pilot study is brilliant and think it should be offered to all customers on a permanent basis. We are now very conscious of our usage throughout
the day. Thanks for including us.
We try to be aware of our electricity usage always not prompted by the bill.
We try to conserve energy but my husband is on oxygen 24/7.
We try to conserve energy just as a matter of principal but we don’t think we should be penalized for using more than our allotment at times.
We were careful for one month, bill was $20 less! Was not worth the suffering, we like our AC. You people are all part of Agenda 21. Please stop, all you are
doing is making the rich richer and we are paying for it.
When did I agree to this program?
While I knew I was in a pilot study, I knew little about it or what it was trying to accomplish. I just continued what I was already doing, buying a high efficiency air
conditioner and LED lights.
Why answer questions when you will do what you want anyway?
With all due respect, in the effort of you doing your job to the best of your ability and circumstances, the answers provided are not any I would choose. I would
be willing to lean towards answers if it had said: Rates should balance equitable cost recovery with minimal environmental concerns. Thank you for allowing
view points and comments & have a nice day.
You seem to be focusing on summer use of AC. I think all reasons should be treated the same as far as rates. I use more in the summer and less in the winter so
that should balance out. I should get credit for using less than the average energy in the winter if you intend to punish me in summer.
Your questions are skewed towards a cause! If folks can pay their electric bill what concern do you have? Having studied the environment for more than 60
years as an engineer and physics I am concerned that a cause can harm the environment more than reality because of the scientific uneducated and a lack of
understanding of the natural environment that we live in.
Your rate structure is all about penalizing more use with the 3 tiers and since I use more I have to pay extremely high rates which are not fair. There are other
reasons for more usage but charging more per unit is your way to try to reduce my use which is not fair in my mind.
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Nalo Johnson
Date: 1/23/17
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
City Foundation Creation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Presentation provides recommendations to operationalize the creation of the City of Fort Collins
Foundation (City Fund) as a fund at the Community Foundation of Northern Colorado. Along
with the City Fund discussion, we will discuss maintaining current ways in which to give to the
City including: a) giving directly to the City; and b) giving to City-related non-profits such as the
Friends of the Gardens on Spring Creek and the Lincoln Center Support League.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
The City Fund operational recommendations are presented to the Council Finance Committee for
their consideration and input.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
• Outcomes of the City Foundation investigation were presented to the Council Finance
Committee in October 2016.
• Feedback from the committee determined to: a) move forward with operational
recommendations to establish a City of Fort Collins Foundation as a fund at the
Community Foundation of Northern Colorado; and b) examine any barriers to our current
processes of donating directly to the City.
• As a result, staff will discuss major components concerning three ways to donate to the
City:
1) Establishing a City Fund at the Community Foundation of Northern Colorado
which can be utilized for fundraising purposes.
2) Supporting the donor experience when giving directly to the City by naming a
staff “point of contact” to lead them through the process.
3) Engaging our City-related non-profit partners so they see the City Fund as a way
in which to enhance, not replace, their current fundraising strategies.
ATTACHMENTS
Power Point – City Foundation Presentation 1.23.17 FINAL
1
Establishing the City Foundation: Operational Update
Dr. Nalo Johnson – January 23, 2017
Areas of Focus
• Establish a City Fund in partnership with the Community Foundation
of Northern Colorado (CFNC)
• Maintain three ways to give to the City
2
Three Ways to Give to the City
1) Establish a City Fund in connection with CFNC
• City Fund will be structured as a portfolio of funds to encompass both organic
and strategic funding needs
2) Give directly to the City
• Section 4.7 of City Administrative Policies allows donations to be accepted by
Council or the City Manager
3) Donate to non-profits related to City entities
• Friends of the Gardens on Spring Creek; Fort Collins Museum of Discovery;
Lincoln Center Support League
3
City Fund: Goals
Purpose Statement:
Allow residents an opportunity to support initiatives for the City of Fort
Collins to provide world-class services through operational excellence and
a culture of innovation.
• Way in which to enhance City projects
• Access to a non-profit arm to receive and administer grant funds
• Option for those who do not want to give directly to the City
4
City Fund: Framework
CFNC:
- Advisory Support
- Fiscal Agent
Establish
City Fund
Council:
- Advisory Cmte Selection
- Project Recommendation
- Support Fundraising
City Fund
Advisory Cmte:
- Project Selection
- Fundraising
- Governance
Govern
City Fund
Support
City Fund
City Staff:
- Staff Liaison
- Project Recommendation
- Support Fundraising
- CAO Fund Agreement Review
- Financial Acceptance
5
Support
City Fund
City Fund: Roles and Responsibilities
6
City Council / Staff
• Select Advisory Committee
• Project recommendation
• Support fundraising activity
• CAO review of fund agreement
• Establish initial agreement
• Consult on additional project-
specific agreements as needed
• Staff involvement:
• Primary liaison to Advisory
Committee
• Additional staff may be utilized
for project-specific fundraising
• Finance to receive funds and
incorporate to City budget
City Fund Advisory Committee
• Has no legal status
• Primary role as fundraiser
• Responsible for project selection
• Advisory Committee similarly
structured to other CFNC fund
advisory committees
CFNC
• City Fund operates under CFNC
tax-exempt status (IRS financial
reporting consolidated under
CFNC 501(c)3)
• CFNC acts as the City Fund’s
fiscal agent:
• Collects 1% annual fee for
long-term funds
• Collects 1% of all other
incoming gifts
• Handles accounting and
investments, receipting,
thanking and donor recognition
• Assists Advisory Committee with
marketing and fund development
City Fund: Recommendations
to Establish the Advisory Committee
• Step 1: Nominating Team
• Alternative 1 – Consists of Council Members and CFNC staff
• Alternative 2 – Consists of Council Members, City Staff and CFNC staff
• Identify well-connected individuals or people with personal wealth
• Identify individuals that reflect the breadth of the community
• Be clear that committee/fund is more project-focused at this time
• Step 2: Advisory Committee Structure
• 6-8 members
• Serve two terms of three years
• Committee is independent of the City organization
• CFNC staff member may advise committee initially
• City staff liaison to be point of contact for committee
7
City Fund:
Project Specific or General Donations
City Fund (umbrella)
Designated fund in support of the stated fund purpose:
Allow residents an opportunity to support initiatives for the City of Fort Collins to provide world-class services through
operational excellence and a culture of innovation.
Project Specific Funds
- Project-specific designated funds
- Funding distributed specifically to the
project (no application)
- Under the umbrella City Fund agreement,
separate fund agreements may be created
for each project-specific fund
General Donations
- Advisory Committee would award grants to
applying departments
8
City Fund: Policy Guidelines
• Recommendations for Project-Specific fund selection
• Need identified by City Leadership/Council, Advisory Committee or Community members
• Identified area of enhancement to a current budget item or city asset
• Recommendations for awarding projects under the general donation fund
• Application process established with help of CFNC
• Utilize staff liaison to communicate department interests to the Advisory Committee
9
City Fund: Fund Agreement
• Create a Fund Agreement between CFNC & the City to establish a City Fund
• Designated fund in support of the stated fund purpose
• Anticipate a portfolio of funds will fall under the City fund
• CAO can customize the standard fund agreement language
• Portfolio of project-specific funds
• As projects are selected, specific funds are set up for that project
• Utilize the standard City Fund agreement inserting project-specific language
• Customize the fund agreement for a non-standard situation
10
City Fund: Key Caveats
• Councilmembers and/or City staff may fundraise on behalf of the fund,
but cannot be on the Advisory Committee
• IRS deems a conflict of interest
• Project-specific funds may be identified by Advisory Committee
• City may independently approach Advisory Committee
• Community members may approach City with specific requests to approach
Advisory Committee
• City Fund is not a replacement for City Budget but a way in which to
enhance what is funded through the budget and tax initiatives process
11
Donating directly to the City
• Flexibility is key
• Not all donation situations are alike
• Donors need a “point of contact” to help them through the process
• Relational factor important
• Coordinated internal effort makes a smoother donor experience
• Consider “point” staff member to lead donors through the process
• Staff member responsible for thanking, receipting, recognition
12
Donating to City-related non-profits
• Communicating City Fund intention/goals
• City Fund is not competition to other fundraising entities
• Friends of the Gardens on Spring Creek; Fort Collins Museum of Discovery; Lincoln
Center Support League
• City Fund may enhance, not replace, current fundraising entities
• Stakeholder awareness
• Engage our non-profit collaborators prior to City Fund kick-off
• Allow them the space to inform how the City Fund may enhance their efforts
13
Next Steps
1) Council/Staff Action
• Resolution to establish umbrella fund agreement
• Identify whom to participate on the Advisory Committee Nominating Team
• Potentially establish an account balance for City Fund and identify a specific project to
initially fundraise for once Committee is in place
• CAO work with CFNC to finalize fund agreement
2) Summary Action and Timeline
• Q1 – City Fund Agreement established
• Q2 – Advisory Committee in place
• CFNC and staff liaison establish onboarding process
3) Messaging and Promotion
• Work with CPIO, CFNC, staff liaison and Advisory Committee to develop and implement
branding and marketing plan
14
Upcoming Resolution
• Anticipate the City Fund Resolution will include:
• Language identifying the intent and goals for the City Fund
• Council endorsement of the fund agreement
• Direction approving the City Manager to sign the fund agreement
• Language suggesting Council’s interest in supporting City Fund efforts
15