HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Mail Packet - 1/3/2023 - Memorandum From Jen Dial And Donnie Dustin Re: Water Resources Matters In The Fort Collins Growth Management Area: Study Report
Utilities
electric · stormwater · wastewater · water
222 Laporte Ave
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.212.2900
V/TDD: 711
utilities@fcgov.com
fcgov.com/utilities
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 28, 2022
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Jen Dial, Water Resources Manager
Donnie Dustin, Water Resources Engineer II
THRU: Kelly DiMartino, City Manager
Kendall Minor, Utilities Director
Jason Graham, Director of Water Utilities
RE: Water Resources Matters in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area: Study
Report
______________________________________________________________________________
Attached is a report on Water Resources Matters in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area:
Study Report. This report was created in response to a request from Council for staff to pursue
opportunities for better collaboration with Utilities surrounding water districts.
The challenges, opportunities, and solutions that were identified will be discussed at the January
24th Council work session. Due to the length of the report, we are providing this report early to
ensure Council members have time to review ahead of the work session.
Please let us know if there are any questions.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
2
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3
Overview of Water Service in the Growth Management Area ................................................................. 3
History of Regional Water Collaboration .................................................................................................. 4
Drivers for Regional Water Collaboration ................................................................................................. 5
Study Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 6
Objectives ................................................................................................................................................. 6
Stakeholder Engagement .......................................................................................................................... 7
Approach ................................................................................................................................................... 7
Phase 1: Discovery ................................................................................................................................ 7
Phase 2: Evaluation ............................................................................................................................... 8
Phase 3: Outputs ................................................................................................................................... 9
Study Outcomes ............................................................................................................................................ 9
Current State of Collaboration on Water-Related Matters in the GMA ................................................... 9
City and Utilities Staff Responses .......................................................................................................... 9
District Responses ............................................................................................................................... 13
Matters that Arise from Having Multiple Water Service Providers in the GMA .................................... 13
Solutions to Improve Water-Related Matters in the GMA ..................................................................... 18
High-Benefit Solutions ........................................................................................................................ 19
Low-Resource Solutions ...................................................................................................................... 19
Reflections & Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 19
References .................................................................................................................................................. 21
Appendix A: Stakeholder List
Appendix B: Interview Template
Appendix C: Solutions Evaluation
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
3
Introduction
Overview of Water Service in the Growth Management Area
Fort Collins Utilities (Utilities) is one of six water service providers currently serving the Fort Collins
Growth Management Area (GMA) (Figure 1). This situation arose from decisions made in the 1950s and
1960s, when property owners in unincorporated areas north and south of Fort Collins requested that
the City extend water service into those areas to facilitate development. The City determined that the
expansion was beyond their financial capabilities and denied the service requests. Therefore, Title 32
special utility districts were formed to provide the services. 1 The City has since annexed or included in
the GMA areas that are now served by other water service providers (City of Fort Collins, 2015).
Figure 1. Water Service in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area
Significant differences exist among the water service providers in terms of mission, organizational size,
staffing, and financial resources. Utilities is currently the largest water provider in the GMA (Table 1).
1 The other water providers are commonly referred to as “the Districts,” even though not all are legally defined as
Title 32 special districts.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
4
According to the City Plan Trends and Forces Report (City of Fort Collins, 2018), “most of the vacant land
in the GMA is not served by City sewer and water utilities,” meaning that much of the future growth in
the GMA is expected to be served by the other water providers (i.e., Districts).
Table 1. Current Service Population for Water Service Providers That Serve Within the GMA (CDPHE, 2022)
Water Provider 2022 Service Population*
Fort Collins Utilities (Utilities) 179,901
Fort Collins Loveland Water District (FCLWD) 51,500
East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) 20,503
Northern Colorado Water Association 4,550
West Fort Collins Water District 4,000
Spring Canyon Water and Sanitation District 2,120
Sunset Water District 425
* In 2022, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) changed guidance and service population estimates
now include transient populations e.g., people coming into and out of the service area for the day for work). The service
population provided is for the water provider’s entire service territory, not just the portion within the Fort Collins GMA.
History of Regional Water Collaboration
Utilities has a history of valuing regional water collaboration. The 2012 Water Supply and Demand
Management Policy highlights regional collaboration as one of six policy elements (e.g., water use
efficiency, water supply acquisition, water supply reliability, treated and raw water quality, use of
surplus raw water, and regional collaboration) (City of Fort Collins, 2012). The regional collaboration
policy element emphasizes the importance of good relationships with regional entities and the
coordination of efforts to achieve mutual goals where possible.
Significant milestones in regional water collaboration include the following:
• Various water treatment, supply, conservation, and infrastructure sharing/sales agreements
(over many years) between the City and other water providers.
• Long-standing (but periodic) meetings with staff of the City and Soldier Canyon Water
Treatment Authority entities (ELCO, FCLWD, and NWCWD) on treatment and water resource
issues (informally known as the Regional Water Collaboration Committee).
• In 2015, City Council directed staff to pursue regional collaboration opportunities with ELCO and
FCLWD, including ways to address water supply requirements for affordable housing.
• In 2016-2017, a regional water steering committee was chartered and met, but then dissipated,
seemingly due to lack of progress and staffing transitions.
• In 2018, Utilities, ELCO, FCLWD, and the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization
(NFRMPO) participated in the Growing Water Smart program to work on integrated water and
land use planning issues.
• In 2019-2020, Utilities, ELCO, FCLWD, and NWCWD worked collaboratively on the Horsetooth
Outlet Project. Also, the first Regional StratOp meeting was held to discuss Northern Colorado
water issues.
• In 2021-2022, Utilities initiated this study to evaluate water resource matters in the GMA that
arise from having multiple water service providers. Also, Larimer County initiated a regional
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
5
water existing conditions report. A second Regional StratOp meeting was convened by the
Community Foundation of Northern Colorado with representatives from Larimer and Weld
Counties, municipalities, and water providers.
Drivers for Regional Water Collaboration
The City has adopted a broad suite of climate, sustainability, water, and housing goals that sometimes
lead to competing priorities (e.g., increased costs of new water supplies and affordable housing); that
sometimes require coordination among multiple agencies to achieve (i.e., the City reviews and approves
new development but the Districts set water supply requirements and development fees). Utilities, as a
part of the City organization, is better able to support a broad range of objectives, though staff are
mindful that Utilities’ funds are constrained in how they can be used to be “neutral to the ratepayer” as
required in the City’s charter and municipal code (City of Fort Collins, 2022). Districts are more singularly
focused on providing their customers reliable, high quality water service.
Examples of regional water issues that affect the City and Utilities include the following:
• Water to support new development is increasingly expensive and complex. Water supplies
have gotten significantly more expensive over the past ten years (Error! Reference source not
found.). The Colorado Real Estate Journal reports that “[i]n response to high prices and limited
remaining supply, the volume of CBT trades recently has declined. CBT units will continue to be
desirable assets with transfers to municipal use, but the pricing is likely to continue to diverge
from the costs of alternative water sources and from being affordable for new development. In
short, CBT prices are becoming less relevant as the remaining inventory winds down (Colorado
Real Estate Journal, 2020).”
• The cost of water is driving up the cost of development: Water supply costs can constitute a
significant portion of the cost of new development. Utilities recently analyzed typical water
supply costs for different development types and water service providers as part of the water
supply requirements update and reported the following results (City of Fort Collins, 2021b):
o Water supply costs for a typical single-family home in Northern Colorado: $14,900-
$31,700
o Water supply costs for a multi-family development in Northern Colorado: $250,182-
$961,000
o Water supply costs for a 4,300 sq ft office (or ¾” commercial tap) in Northern Colorado:
$3,600-$44,000
o Water supply costs for a 2,800 sq ft restaurant (or ¾” commercial tap) in Northern
Colorado: $39,400-$85,000
• Housing is becoming increasingly unaffordable: “Fees for infrastructure, water, and
development review continue to rise as resources become scarcer and development challenges
become more complex. In 2015, the average cost to build a unit of housing was about $278,000,
while today it costs close to $330,000. Median income households can only afford a home priced
at about $330,000. Developers build housing for a profit and thus cannot build new homes for
purchase for less than $330,000 without some form of subsidy (Fort Collins, 2021a).”
• Infrastructure maintenance and failures impact multiple water service providers. Though
water service providers are separate legal entities, they increasingly rely on common water
sources and infrastructure. Utilities, ELCO, and FCLWD all rely on a combination of Poudre River
water and Colorado-Big Thompson Project water for their water supplies. When Northern
Water and the US Bureau of Reclamation needed to upgrade the Soldier Canyon Outlet Works
at Horsetooth Reservoir, “several years of coordination were required to make this work
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
6
(Northern Water, 2020).” Potential failures of shared infrastructure (e.g., pipelines) could also
have regional effects.
Figure 2. Water right sales in the Northern Front Range over the past 10 years (Colorado Real Estate Journal, 2020). Green dots
represent Colorado-Big Thompson share transactions; blue dots represent sales of other water rights.
Developers, residents, and businesses are also affected by having multiple water service providers in the
GMA. Developers experience differences in water supply requirements, infrastructure standards, and
costs. Residents and businesses experience differences in water billing rates, customer options, water
restrictions, and more.
Study Overview
Objectives
Fort Collins Utilities’ Water Resources Division staff found they were spending significant time
attempting to address regional water issues as they arose on an ad hoc basis; so, in 2020 Utilities
initiated the Water Resource Matters in the GMA study to:
• Improve understanding of regional water matters and improve alignment across City and
Utilities organizations.
• Better understand the perspectives of District water providers and other stakeholders working
in the GMA about what it is like to work with the City and Utilities organizations on water-
related matters.
• Systematically evaluate the challenges and opportunities that arise from having multiple water
service providers in the Fort Collins GMA.
Note that since Utilities, ELCO, and FCLWD are the largest water services providers in the GMA, they
were a key focus of the study. Sanitation districts were not a focus of this effort.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
7
Stakeholder Engagement
Four stakeholder groups were formed to provide direction and gather the input needed to achieve the
study objectives:
• The Utilities project manager met routinely with the consultant team to provide direction on
the day-to-day study execution.
• A core team was formed to serve as an advisory board and provide direction on key decisions.
Core team members included the Utilities project manager and representatives from Water
Resources, Water Conservation, Economic Health Office, and Utilities leadership.
• A City working group was formed, with more than 60 representatives from the City and Utilities,
to provide input through interviews, polling, and large group meetings.
• An external stakeholder group was consulted for input through interviews, polling, and large
group meetings. Representatives included the Fort Collins Water Commission (previously, the
Water Board), Chamber of Commerce (COC) Local Legislative Affairs Committee (LLAC), and staff
and board members affiliated with ELCO, FCLWD, and Soldier Canyon Water Treatment
Authority.
Appendix A contains a list of stakeholders along with their roles in the study.
Approach
Phase 1: Discovery
In the Discovery phase, Brendle Group gathered input from the City working group and the external
stakeholder group through interviews, polling, and large group meetings. An interview template was
developed to illuminate the challenges and opportunities that arise from having multiple water
providers serving the GMA (Appendix B). Sixty-one (61) City and Utilities staff and seven (7)
representatives from the Districts provided input through a series of 18 facilitated interviews and polling
questions. Additionally, Brendle Group made presentations to and sought input from the Fort Collins
Water Board, ELCO board, FCLWD board, and COC LLAC.
Information collected through the interview, polling, and presentation process was compiled into a
Microsoft Excel-based evaluation framework. The evaluation framework contained:
• Matter Categories: The “matter categories” are topical groupings of the types of water matters
identified in the interviews. The categories are used to group and filter the full register of
matters on the “register of matters” worksheet. Additionally, the “matter categories” worksheet
shows linkages to potential types of solutions.
• Register of Matters: The “register of matters” worksheet contains a compilation from the
interview process, including a unique matter number, a matter category to help filter and sort
distinct types of matters, a matter description, and documentation of the source interviews that
raised the matter. Most matters represent challenges that arise from having multiple water
service providers in the GMA, but occasionally they represent opportunities that arise.
• Solution Categories: Like the matters categories, the “solution categories” represent topical
types of solutions that are used to group and synthesize the full register of solutions.
• Register of Solutions: The “register of solutions” worksheet contains a compilation from the
interview process, including a unique solution number, a solution category, a solution
description, and documentation of the source interviews that raised the solution. Because the
interview content focused more on matters than on solutions, the solution register may be
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
8
incomplete and/or may contain solutions that are infeasible or otherwise undesirable.
Additional research and engagement may be necessary to identify an exhaustive list of solutions
or to further vet the feasibility of identified solutions.
• Case Studies: The “case studies” worksheet compiles examples and case studies that were
mentioned during the interview process as examples from within the City or Utilities
organizations, case studies showing desirable outcomes, or case studies showing adverse
outcomes.
Results from the Discovery phase are discussed in the Study Outcomes section, under Current State of
Collaboration on Water-Related Matters in the GMA and Matters that Arise from Having Multiple
Water Service Providers in the GMA.
Phase 2: Evaluation
In the Evaluation phase, Brendle Group worked with the core team to develop a scoring rubric to help
evaluate the identified solutions. The scoring rubric considers resource needs, benefits to the City and
Utilities organizations, benefits to external organizations, and benefits to the community (Table 2). Low
score values are associated with undesirable conditions (high resource needs and/or low benefits) and
high score values are associated desirable conditions (low resource needs and/or high benefits).
Table 2. Solution Evaluation Scoring Rubric
Resources
Score Value Description
1 High - needs a new funding and/or hiring strategy for additional investment of staffing and
financial resources
2 Medium - can be accomplished with additional staff time, consultant support, or budget
offer that can be allocated through annual budgeting
3 Low - can be accomplished within existing staff time and operating budgets
Benefits to City/Utilities Organization
Score Value Description
1 Low - Benefits a relatively contained portion of the City and Utilities organization
2 Medium - Benefits most of the City and Utilities organization
3 High - Directly supports City and Utilities achieving currently established strategic goal
Benefits to External Organizations
Score Value Description
1 Low - Helps external organizations be better informed about City and Utilities operations
and initiatives
2 Medium - Opens opportunity for external organizations to be consulted and provide
feedback on City and Utilities operations and initiatives
3 High - Directly related to business operations of external organizations
Benefits to Community
Score Value Description
1 Low - Residents and businesses indirectly benefit from better functioning government and
utility services
2 Medium - Residents and businesses directly benefit within a single service area (e.g., the
Fort Collins Utilities service area)
3 High - Residents and businesses directly benefit across multiple service areas
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
9
Each member of the core team independently ranked the solutions, using the scoring rubric. Scores
were synthesized across core team members, using totals and average values. The solutions that rise to
the top depend on the priorities of the City and Utilities organizations. For example, is the City
interested in low-resource quick wins? Or does the City want to make investments to achieve strategic
outcomes?
Results from the Evaluation phase are discussed in the Study Outcomes section, under Solutions to
Improve Water-Related Matters in the GMA. The completed “solution evaluation” is provided as
Appendix C.
Phase 3: Outputs
Study outputs include work products and materials to support City and Utilities staff in understanding
and presenting about water resource matters in the GMA. Key work products and educational materials
are appended to this study report:
• Appendix A: Water Resource Matters Study: Stakeholder List
• Appendix B: Water Resource Matters Study: Interview Template
• Appendix C: Water Resource Matters Study: Solutions Evaluation
Study Outcomes
Current State of Collaboration on Water-Related Matters in the GMA
City and Utilities Staff Responses
Sixty-one (61) City and Utilities staff members provided input via polling. At the time the Water
Resource Matters study was being conducted, significant staffing transitions were occurring in the City
and Utilities, including several long-tenured staff members with a significant amount of institutional
knowledge or history promoting regional water collaboration (Figure 3). As new staff are onboarded, it
will be important to educate them about the issues and opportunities that arise from having multiple
water service providers in the GMA and to transition relationship management with regional partners.
Figure 3. City and Utilities staff polling results: How long have you been with the Fort Collins organization?
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
10
Utilities and City staff reported a moderate impact to their job functions from having multiple water
service providers in the GMA (Figure 4). Multiple departments reported being significantly impacted, all
in the Utilities organization (e.g., Water Resources, Watershed, Water Quality, Water Treatment, Water
Conservation). At least one department in the City organization reported being highly impacted but not
daily (e.g., Social Sustainability).
Figure 4. City and Utilities staff polling results: How much is your job function affected by having multiple water providers in the
GMA?
Almost everyone within the City and Utilities was satisfied with internal collaboration with Utilities
(Figure 5), reporting that Utilities staff serve as excellent resources for answering questions, working
together, and finding creative solutions. It was common for interviewees to comment that being within
the same organization helps collaboration and that continued education on these topics is needed
within and across the organization.
Figure 5. City and Utilities staff polling results: How satisfied are you with your ability to collaborate with Utilities?
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
11
However, City and Utilities staff reported a much lower level of satisfaction in their ability to collaborate
with the Districts (Figure 6). Cited reasons for lower levels of satisfaction include:
• Different organizational structures, mission, values
• Lack of relationships (especially proactive and ongoing, versus as needed or under emergency
conditions)
• Lack of a clear point of contact and/or District responsiveness
• Lack of understanding on District decision-making processes, structures, and timelines
It should be noted that a few departments were satisfied with their interactions with the Districts.
Figure 6. City and Utilities staff polling results: How satisfied are you with your ability to collaborate with the Districts?
City and Utilities staff reported a mix of whether their department has the staffing, budget, and
knowledge needed to effectively address water-related matters now (Figure 7). Most staff expect their
staffing, budget, and knowledge needed to address water-related matters to grow in the future (Figure
8).
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
12
Figure 7.City and Utilities staff polling results: How would you describe your department’s staffing, budget, and knowledge
resources to effectively address water-related matters now?
Figure 8. City and Utilities staff polling results: How would you anticipate your department’s staffing, budget, and knowledge
resource needs to address water-related matters changing in the future?
City and Utilities staff report a mix of whether their department has the influence and support needed
to address water-related matters (Figure 9). Staff report that they commonly receive special requests
that they feel pressured to solve, even if the requests are technically outside of the purview of the City
or Utilities. Also, because these requests lack a standardized response process, they take significant staff
time to review and formulate a response. Staff expressed that they lack a clear understanding of who is
the City’s decisionmaker in regional water matters, what the desired ultimate outcome is, and what
tradeoffs the City and Utilities may be willing to make. Staff worry about potential negative blowback on
the City and Utilities when developers and residents experience “unexpected surprises.” Staff expressed
appreciation for the Water Resource Matters study, liked being included in interviews, and think now is
the time to address regional water matters.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
13
Figure 9. City and Utilities polling results: Do you feel your department has the influence and support needed to address water-
related matters?
District Responses
Seven staff members from the Districts (ELCO (2), FCLWD (3), Soldier Canyon Water Treatment Authority
(2)) provided input via polling questions. A summary of responses received from provider staff are
contrasted with responses received from City and Utilities staff in Figure 10. A few takeaways include:
• On average, polling results show District staff reported being more affected by having multiple
water service providers in the GMA than City and Utilities staff did.
• District staff and City/Utilities staff report similarly neutral feelings about their ability to
collaborate with each other – leaving significant room for improvement.
• District staff, on average, report a lower level of satisfaction with the engagement and support
they receive from the City.
• District staff, on average, report a neutral-to-negative opinion about working in the Fort Collins
GMA compared to other jurisdictions.
Figure 10. Polling results: Comparing District staff input with City/Utilities staff input
Matters that Arise from Having Multiple Water Service Providers in the GMA
Through the Discovery phase, Brendle Group identified and cataloged 167 distinct water-related
matters, grouped into 16 categories (Figure 11). Dark blue boxes in Figure 11 represent the matter
categories that contain the most frequently cited matters (i.e., the most common matters).
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
14
Figure 11. Matter Categories (dark blue boxes denote matter categories with the most cited matters)
Table 3 includes a brief description of each matter category as well as a few examples of matters that
fall within the category.
Table 3. Matters that Arise from Having Multiple Water Service Providers in the GMA
Matter Category Category Description Example Matters
Competition Water rights are scarce,
competitive, expensive.
Water rights are scarce, so the market is
sometimes cooperative but often competitive
and challenging to navigate, especially in water
court. Scarcity affects the Districts’ ability to
acquire new rights, primarily via dedication
from developers. The Districts have expressed
some concern that the City (especially Natural
Areas) will use its resources to outbid the
Districts in water right acquisitions.
Prices are increasing – C-BT Project units are the
most expensive, followed by North Poudre
Irrigation Company shares, and then other
Poudre basin ditch and reservoir shares.
Water court proceedings are inherently full of
conflict and can impact organizational
relationships.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
15
Matter Category Category Description Example Matters
Coordination City relationships with the
Districts vary. The City
cannot control whether
Districts take an active
(collaborate) or passive
(inform) role.
Different departments interface with different
Districts, even beyond the GMA boundary.
Fort Collins can give the impression of deciding
on and delivering the message, and then forcing
alignment with the Districts, rather than
engaging in authentic collaboration.
Customer
Experience
Customers have different
experiences across water
service providers (Utilities
and the other Districts)
It is challenging to align communications and
campaigns with exactly the right audience.
Customers receive the same bill inserts
regardless of which combination of services
they receive from the City.
Residents across the GMA have different water
conservation incentive opportunities based on
their water service provider.
Development The City has land use
authority across the GMA,
yet development review
and approval processes,
standards, and fees vary
across water service
providers.
Because a single provider does not serve the full
GMA, it opens the door to special requests.
Developers pressure City staff to solve problems
that arise from differences across providers.
Differing fees and standards confuse City staff,
developers, and contractors.
District water supply requirements make
innovative and affordable housing approaches
time consuming and unpredictable to get to
approval.
City as a Customer City departments as a
major water user must
navigate the cost and
service differences across
providers.
City properties, especially parks and natural
areas, are situated in District service areas.
The City irrigates newly planted trees (using
trucked water pulled from hydrants) and almost
1,000 acres of parks. The City is a paying
customer of potable water service providers
(~20% of park use) and raw water suppliers
(~80% of park use).
Education &
Advocacy
There is a need to educate
the public on water
resource matters in the
GMA.
Turf conversion incentive programs are
becoming more common beyond Utilities’
service area. For example, Northern Water now
offers a landscape transformation program.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
16
Matter Category Category Description Example Matters
The public and developers are increasingly
accepting of low water using landscapes and
other water conservation measures.
Future Challenges Water related matters will
grow and evolve in the
future.
Staff are not sure how to manage future water
requests from surrounding communities since
Fort Collins has more senior and reliable water
rights than other communities.
Development in northwest Fort Collins has not
been an issue to date, but development may
increase in the future.
Intergovernmental
Agreements (IGAs)
The City/Utilities and
Districts formally work
together through IGAs.
Utilities provides water services (treatment
and/or supplies) under various IGAs (e.g., ELCO,
FCLWD, WFCWD).
Utilities ends up serving as a peaking plant for
FCLWD, especially in summer. This results in
operational complexity for staff and hidden
energy costs for the City.
City labs provide water quality testing for other
Districts under a fee-for-service model.
Infrastructure &
Service Areas
Providing water service
requires infrastructure.
Provider operations impact
each other due to common
water sources,
infrastructure proximity,
etc.
Service boundaries are not always clear. Staff
time is wasted on figuring out which District(s)
can serve customers, especially when on the
boundary.
It is difficult to properly size infrastructure
because of changing water use patterns. Water
service providers do not want to undersize or
oversize infrastructure or leave infrastructure
unused.
Infrastructure from various organizations exists
in proximity, which causes issues during
maintenance and construction. Denser
development plans are exacerbating this issue.
Joint Programs &
Projects
The City/Utilities and
Districts work together on
some program and
projects.
Utilities provides staff time to offer the sprinkler
check-up program across the GMA, and the
Districts reimburse Utilities for the program.
Revenues go back into the water fund.
Utilities and the Districts coordinate on river
operations, as they are diverting at the same
time under different water rights.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
17
Matter Category Category Description Example Matters
Leadership City Council and staff may
have limited understanding
of regional water issues.
City leadership and staffing changes make it
difficult to institutionalize foundational
knowledge of water matters and maintain
strong relationships with the Districts.
Elected Council member positions have minimal
requirements, none of which relate to water,
which means that Councilmembers may have
little knowledge of water matters.
Mission & Values The City/Utilities and
Districts have different
organizational missions
and values.
As water service providers, Utilities and the
Districts are in some cases more aligned than
are the City and Utilities. The providers’ top
priority is to maintain reliable and high-quality
water for current and future customers.
Modeling & Analysis The City can do a better job
of including more detailed
technical analysis and
modeling of water matters
in City plans and
operations.
City plans have not historically included much
water-related technical analysis.
Utilities has a long-term planning model but not
a more real-time operations model to guide
operational decisions. Models cover Utilities
service area rather than city boundaries or
GMA.
Organizational
Structure and
Resources
The City/Utilities and
District organizations vary
in size and resources.
Projects involving the Districts are a complexity
and resource multiplier for the City.
As smaller organizations, Districts have fewer
financial and staffing resources.
Districts have independent, politically elected
boards whose members have different
personalities, leadership styles, and objectives.
Planning & Policy
Alignment
The City/Utilities and
Districts have different
plans and policies at play in
the GMA.
Perception that water supply requirements may
not be keeping up with water use and
development trends.
City staff are responsible for municipal code
enforcement. The water waste ordinance lives
in Chapter 26, which is specific to Utilities’
service area.
Districts deal with more than one land use
authority. Aligning with the City may cause
misalignment with other City and county
authorities.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
18
Matter Category Category Description Example Matters
Resilience Having multiple providers
in the GMA creates
opportunities for water
system redundancy and
resiliency.
Interconnects between water service providers
support operations such as emergency water
exchanges when needed.
Climate change impacts will affect water
availability and service levels, water uses and
levels, and operations for all providers.
Hazards (e.g., wildfires) and damages are
increasing in the Poudre watershed, but there
are decreasing resources to address the
impacts. Joint projects benefit all providers that
use a common water source such as the Poudre.
Solutions to Improve Water-Related Matters in the GMA
Like the identification and cataloging of water-related matters in the GMA, Brendle Group also
documented 106 potential solutions identified during the Discovery phase in the evaluation framework
(Appendix C). The solutions were grouped into categories, some of which are internal to the
City/Utilities and some which require partnership with the Districts.
Solution categories that apply within the City and Utilities:
• Organizational Structures and Resources: Align organizational structures and allocate resources
to effectively address regional water matters.
• City Operations, Plans, and Policies: Address regional water matters in all relevant operations,
models, plans, policies, and standards.
• Education: Educate staff, leadership, elected officials, developers, and utility customers to
elevate awareness and understanding of regional water matters.
• Infrastructure and Service Area Resilience: Manage the service area and infrastructure to
improve regional efficiency and resiliency, where feasible.
Solution categories that apply in partnership between the City/Utilities and the Districts:
• Account/Relationship Management: Foster proactive, frequent, transparent communication
between the City and the Districts, at the staff and Board/Council levels.
• Planning and Policy Alignment: Align policies and standards across the GMA, where feasible.
• IGAs: Use formal agreements (IGAs) to clarify roles and responsibilities on joint projects.
• Joint Programs and Projects: Build up the portfolio of joint projects, where applicable.
• Advocacy: Identify regional water needs and advocate together.
• Central or Regional Authority: Create a regional water authority or work together through
existing regional entities.
• Water Sharing & Banking: Establish new models for water banking or sharing of water
resources.
The following sections present two sets of recommended solutions that represent high-benefit solutions
and low-resource solutions, respectively, based on the scoring evaluation process described in Phase 2:
Evaluation. The full register of solutions is included in the evaluation framework in Appendix C.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
19
High-Benefit Solutions
• Support District strategies to increase raw water storage (where not in contradiction to Council
direction).
• Develop an emergency plan IGA to have in place if/when it is needed.
• Explore establishment of a water bank program to buy raw water rights that can later be dedicated
to help subsidize affordable housing or other community-benefitting projects.
• Exempt some water provider projects from potential 1041 permitting regulations.
• Expand conservation program offerings across the GMA through stacked incentives or shared
program delivery (like the sprinkler checkup program).
Low-Resource Solutions
• Development Review
o Work with Districts to educate and align on development review processes and expectations
for comments and reviews.
o Gather information and develop a handout of District requirements and costs - to provide
during the development review process.
• Planning & Analysis
o Quantify water impacts of long-range plans.
o Across the GMA, conduct better assessments of future water demands as well as water
supply and infrastructure constraints.
o Include Districts in upcoming City/Utilities projects, such as the Water Efficiency Plan Update
and the Water Supply and Demand Management Policy update.
• Boards & Leadership
o Regularly attend District board meetings (City staff and/or Council members).
o Recruit individuals with water expertise to run for boards and commissions.
Reflections & Recommendations
The City has been providing reliable water service since 1882. The City ‘s 2022 Strategic Plan (City of Fort
Collins, 2022) reinforces this commitment through strategic goals to provide and maintain reliable utility
services and infrastructure that directly preserve and improve public health and community safety (SAFE
5.5) and to provide a resilient, reliable, and high-quality water supply (ENV 4.4). Even in the face of
population growth and water stress from a changing climate, these strategies are implemented through
watershed protection, long-term storage, balancing water supplies and demands, meeting evolving
regulatory standards, and recognizing that water is a finite resource. All these strategies benefit from
regional water collaboration between the City/Utilities and the Districts.
In addition to the Water Resource Matters study, Fort Collins has been contributing to other important
regional water collaboration efforts. Fort Collins can leverage existing efforts for building organizational
relationships and identifying water-related matters that are more amenable to regional collaboration:
• The South Platte Basin Roundtable, which focuses on identifying projects and processes to close
the gap between projected water supplies and demands. Fort Collins participates in the
Roundtable.
• The Community Foundation of Northern Colorado convened Regional StratOp conversations
that included Larimer and Weld Counties, communities, and water service providers. Fort Collins
and the Districts participated in the May 16, 2022, meeting.
• Larimer County completed a foundational project to establish regional water existing conditions
and will likely continue with water planning efforts and collaboration in the future. Fort Collins
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
20
staff reviewed the existing conditions report and participated in a public open house. The
Districts were also invited to review the report and attend the open house.
• The Larimer County Agricultural Advisory Board and Open Lands Advisory Board worked to
bridge agricultural-municipal water use and promote water-sharing pilots. Fort Collins and the
Districts lease surplus water to the agricultural sector. Water sharing between agriculture and
municipal uses is a regional issue.
• The “Poudre Runs Through It” group brings together diverse stakeholders who have a vested
interest in the Poudre River. Fort Collins and District staff participate in this group.
• Northern Water started a regional water efficiency program in 2018 for all allottees. Fort Collins
and the Districts’ residents and businesses are eligible for these programs since they all own C-
BT Project units.
New staff, some of whom may not be familiar with Colorado water issues and/or having multiple service
providers in the GMA, are joining the City and Utilities in leadership roles. City and Utilities leaders need
to be educated about regional water issues, as well as understand Utilities’ and Districts’ water
resources portfolios and needs, so they have the context needed to provide direction to staff about the
scope of engagement, desired outcomes, and willingness to make tradeoffs to support regional water
outcomes. New staff bring fresh perspectives and as the City/Utilities organization rebuilds, there may
be an appetite to engage in new ways to address regional water matters.
The City and Utilities are working on key projects where regional water collaboration would be
beneficial, including water supply adequacy determinations, the Water Supply and Demand
Management Policy update, the Water Efficiency Plan update, the East Mulberry Corridor Plan, and
potential annexation. Each project can be viewed as an opportunity to improve the understanding of
water matters across the GMA and to strengthen relationships with the Water Districts.
Regional water issues are complex. Piloting solutions incrementally may be more effective than trying to
implement all solutions and tackle all water matters (e.g., affordable housing projects, education, and
training efforts) at once. Initial solutions should address a shared purpose and goals between the
City/Utilities and water service providers - to build trust and establish a successful foundation for future
collaboration endeavors.
The Water Resource Matters study focused on regional water issues from the water utility perspective.
Breaking down silos between these utilities within the City/Utilities organization, as well as fostering
regional collaboration with the Districts, support industry best practices around integrated water
resources management (also known as One Water). Utilities recently underwent a One Water
organizational assessment, which may help break down silos, and increase alignment and collaboration
for the benefit of regional water, wastewater, and stormwater issues, along with community resilience.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
21
References
City of Fort Collins. (2012). Resolution 2012-099 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins Adopting a
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy. Fort Collins. Retrieved Nov 19, 2021, from
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/wsdm-policy.pdf?1608579448.
City of Fort Collins. (2015, Jul 14). Water Supply Planning in the Growth Management Area.
https://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=72&docid=2518928&dt=AGENDA+ITEM&doc_download
_date=JUL-14-2015&ITEM_NUMBER=01.
City of Fort Collins (2018). https://ourcity.fcgov.com/560/widgets/4617/documents/2046
City of Fort Collins. (2020). 2022 Strategic Plan. https://www.fcgov.com/citymanager/files/22-24167-
2022-strategic-plan-web.pdf?1657127490.
City of Fort Collins. (2021a). Housing Strategic Plan. https://www.fcgov.com/housing/files/0203-20201-
adoption-draft-housing-strategic-plan.pdf?1612539185.
City of Fort Collins. (2021b, Nov 2). Agenda Item Summary: First Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2021,
Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Revise Miscellaneous Water Fees and
Charges, Including the Water Supply Requirement Fee. Ordinance 10824 - Utility Rates - Water Supply
Requirements ORD (fcgov.com).
City of Fort Collins. (2022). Article XII. Municipal Public Utilities, Section 6. Municipal utility rates &
finances.
https://library.municode.com/co/fort_collins/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=FOCOCH_ARTXIIMUPUUT
_S6MUUTRAFI.
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). (2022). Web Drinking Water Info.
https://datastudio.google.com/u/0/reporting/18DpQAMm-riBo5DfqEUCgDqMspPPhu-
Ul/page/q5Fz?params=%7B%22df12%22:%22include%25EE%2580%25800%25EE%2580%2580IN%25EE
%2580%2580A%22,%22df5%22:%22exclude%25EE%2580%25800%25EE%2580%2580IN%25EE%2580%2
580Non-
Public%22,%22df24%22:%22include%25EE%2580%25800%25EE%2580%2580IN%25EE%2580%2580NIT
RATE%22,%22df27%22:%22include%25EE%2580%25800%25EE%2580%2580IN%25EE%2580%2580No%
22%7D.
Colorado Real Estate Journal. (2020, Aug 31). Northern CO needs new water market benchmarks.
https://crej.com/news/northern-co-needs-new-water-market-benchmarks/.
Northern Water. (2020, Nov 5). Northern Water, Reclamation Complete Soldier Canyon Dam Work.
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/soldier-canyon-complete.pdf?1605024566.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
Appendix A: Stakeholder List
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
Name Title Organization Department/Division Type Role
Meagan Smith Water Resources Engineer Fort Collins Utilities Water Resources Division internal project manager
Liesel Hans Interim Deputy Director Fort Collins Utilities Water Treatment & Operations internal core team
Donnie Dustin Utilities Water Resource Manager Fort Collins Utilities WRTO, Water Resources Division internal City working group
Susan Smolnik Water Resources Engineer Fort Collins Utilities WRTO, Water Resources Division internal City working group
Tony Spencer Water Resources Engineer Fort Collins Utilities WRTO, Water Resources Division internal City working group
Mariel Miller Interim Water Conservation Manager Fort Collins Utilities Water Conservation Team internal project manager (back up)
Abbye Neel Water Conservation Sr Specialist Fort Collins Utilities Water Conservation Team internal core team
Eric Olson Lead Technician Fort Collins Utilities CC, Water Conservation Team internal City working group
Katie Collins Lead Technician Fort Collins Utilities CC, Water Conservation Team internal City working group
Kelly Doyle Water Conservation Assistant Fort Collins Utilities CC, Water Conservation Team internal City working group
Alice Conovitz Water Conservation Analyst Fort Collins Utilities CC, Water Conservation Team internal City working group
Kurt Friesen Director City of Fort Collins CS, Park Planning internal City working group
Suzanne Bassinger Engineer City of Fort Collins CS, Park Planning internal City working group
Matt Day Sr Architect, Landscape City of Fort Collins CS, Park Planning internal City working group
Cameron Gloss Manager City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS, City Planning internal City working group
Ryan Mounce Planner/Sr Planner City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS, City Planning internal City working group
Kelly Smith Planner/Sr Planner City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS, City Planning internal City working group
Sylvia Tatman-Burruss Planner City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS, City Planning internal City working group
John Stokes Interim Director City of Fort Collins CS - Community Services internal City working group
Julia Feder Manager, Environmental Planning City of Fort Collins CS, Natural Areas internal City working group
Jen Shanahan Sr Specialist City of Fort Collins CS, Natural Areas internal City working group
Bernadette Kuhn Planner City of Fort Collins CS, Natural Areas internal City working group
Dave Myers Manager/Sr Manager City of Fort Collins CS, Natural Areas internal City working group
Jill Oropeza Director Fort Collins Utilities Water Quality Services Division internal City working group
Richard Thorp Lead Specialist Fort Collins Utilities Watershed Program internal City working group
Jared Heath Specialist Fort Collins Utilities Watershed Program internal City working group
Mark Kempton Interim Deputy Director Fort Collins Utilities Water Treatment & Operations internal City working group
Ken Morrison Manager, Plant Operations Fort Collins Utilities Water Treatment & Operations / WTF internal City working group
Ross Lamb Supervison, Plant Operations Fort Collins Utilities Water Treatment & Operations / WTF internal City working group
Kelly DiMartino Deputy City Manager City of Fort Collins City Manager's Office internal core team
Darin Atteberry City Manager City of Fort Collins City Manager's Office internal City working group
Tyler Marr Deputy Director City of Fort Collins City Manager's Office internal City working group
Eric Potyondy Asst City Attorney (Water Attorney)City of Fort Collins City Attorney's Office internal City working group
Carrie Daggett City Attorney City of Fort Collins City Attorney's Office internal City working group
Mike Calhoon Director City of Fort Collins CS, Parks internal City working group
Robert Crabb Sr Manager City of Fort Collins CS, Parks internal City working group
Jill Wuertz Sr Specialist City of Fort Collins CS, Parks
Kendra Boot Sr Manager City of Fort Collins CS, Parks, Forestry internal City working group
LeaAnn Haisch Sr Supervisor City of Fort Collins CS, Parks internal City working group
Kevin Williams Sr Supervisor City of Fort Collins CS, Parks internal City working group
Paul Sizemore Interim Deputy Director, PDT, CDNS City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS - Community Development & Neighborhood Services internal City working group
Dean Klinger Deputy Director, PDT City of Fort Collins PDT internal City working group
Meaghan Overton Sr Planner (new Housing Manager)City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS, Building & Development Review internal City working group
Rebecca Everette Sr Manager City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS, Building & Development Review internal City working group
Clark Mapes Planner City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS, Building & Development Review internal City working group
Rich Anderson Sr Manager City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS, Building & Development Review internal City working group
Russ Hovland Supervisor City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS, Building & Development Review
Dave Betley Manager, Civil Engineering City of Fort Collins PDT, Engineering internal City working group
Josh Birks Director City of Fort Collins Sustainability Services, Economic Health internal City working group
Lucinda Smith Director City of Fort Collins Sustainability Services, Environmental Services internal City working group
Michelle Finchum Interim Manager, Env Sustainability City of Fort Collins Sustainability Services, Environmental Services internal City working group
Clay Frickey Redevelopment Program Manager City of Fort Collins Economic Health/Urban Renewal Authority internal core team
Lindsay Ex Interim Housing Manager City of Fort Collins Sustainability Services (Aff Housing Task Force)internal City working group
Katy McLaren Lead Climate Specialist City of Fort Collins Sustainability Services, Environmental Services internal City working group
Sue Beck-Ferkiss Lead Specialist City of Fort Collins Sustainability Services (Aff Housing Task Force)internal City working group
Beth Sowder Director City of Fort Collins Sustainability Services, Social Sustainability internal City working group
Theresa Connor Interim Executive Director Fort Collins Utilities Utilities internal City working group
Matt Fater Interim Deputy Director Fort Collins Utilities Water Engineering & Field Services (Engineering)internal City working group
Andrew Gingerich Interim Deputy Director Fort Collins Utilities Water Engineering & Field Services (Field Services)internal City working group
Wes Lamarque Engineer Fort Collins Utilities Water Engineering Development Review internal City working group
Wes Watkins Manager, Water Field Operations Fort Collins Utilities Water Engineering & Field Services (Field Services)internal City working group
James Carder Manager, Water Field Operations Fort Collins Utilities Water Engineering & Field Services (Field Services)internal City working group
Mark Cassalia Manager Fort Collins Utilities Customer Connections, Customer Accounts internal City working group
Gretchen Stanford Manager (Soon to be Interim Deputy Director)Fort Collins Utilities Customer Connections, Public Engagment internal City working group
Lori Clements Sr Manager Fort Collins Utilities Customer Connections, Customer Care & Technology (CCT)internal City working group
Diana Royval Manager Fort Collins Utilities Customer Connections, Communications and Marketing internal City working group
Jason Graham Director Fort Collins Utilities Water Reclamation & Biosolids internal City working group
Ken Sampley Director Fort Collins Utilities Water Utility Engineering (Stormwater/Floodplain/Dev Review)internal City working group
Lance Smith Director Fort Collins Utilities Utility Finance internal City working group
Joni Crist Utilities Rate Analyst Fort Collins Utilities Utility Finance internal City working group
Jill White Utilities Rate Analyst Fort Collins Utilities Utility Finance internal City working group
Mike Schied General Manager ELCO staff East Larimer County Water District external external stakeholders
Randy Siddens District Engineer ELCO Staff East Larimer County Water District external external stakeholders
Melissa Tremlling Adminsitrative Manager ELCO Staff East Larimer County Water District external external stakeholders
Chris Matkins General Manager FCLWD staff Fort Collins-Loveland Water District external external stakeholders
Brittany Lamb FCLWD staff Fort Collins-Loveland Water District external external stakeholders
Richard Raines Water Resources Manager Tri-Districts Tri-Districts external external stakeholders
Chris Harris Treatment Manager Soldier Canyon Water Treatment AuthorityTri-Districts external external stakeholders
Fort Collins Executive Lead Team internal internal stakeholders
Fort Collins Water Commission external external stakeholders
Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce Legislative Affairs Commitee external external stakeholders
ELCO Board external external stakeholders
FCLWD Board external external stakeholders
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
Appendix B: Interview Template
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
Water Resource Matters in the Growth Management Area
XXX Interview, MMM DD, HH-HH
Interview Partici pants
List here
Pr oject Background
This study aims to illuminate the challenges , opportunitie s, and barriers that arise from
having multiple water providers serving the Gr owth Management Area (GMA). As you
participate in t his interview , please consider the interactions and dynamics that arise
internally between the City organization and Fort Collins Utilities, as well as externally
between your department and other water providers.
Interview Prepar ation
Ahead of your inter view, please think about the follow ing questions:
• What challenges and opportunities have you seen or experie nced from having
multiple water providers in the GMA ?
• How do water matters relate to your department’s goals an d objectives?
Interv iew Ground Rules
• This interview is our major opportunity to speak in detail so please give us as much
information as you can.
• We intend to record the interview for notetaking purposes only – the recordings will
not be shared outside of the advisory team.
• While y our input will inform the study findings, we don’t intend to attribute input or
findings to specific individuals. Findings may be summarized by department.
• We’ll ask you to answer a few polling questions in ad dition to open -ended questions.
• We ask for honesty and transp arency, even about sensitive and challengin g topics.
• You’ll be given the opportunity to engage in the study again through 2 large group
meetings at project milestones and by review ing substantive study deliverables.
• You can contact Meagan S mith or Amy Volckens at any time to provide additional
input or ask questions.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
Interview Questions
Part 1: Team & Project Introductions (10 min)
Part 2: Scope Identification (15 min)
• What functions of your department involve water-related matters? Please consider
both day-to-day and lon g-term planning functions.
• What situations has your department faced from having multiple water providers in
the GMA?
• Which water prov iders does your department interact with ? How would you
characterize the in teractions (frequenc y, importance, tone, etc .)?
• In your department’s work on the city’s strategic objectives (e.g., affordable housing,
climate action, sustainability goal s), what water -related matters emerge?
• Do water matters present opportunities or barriers in achieving your department ’s
goals and objectives ?
Part 3: Opportunity and Barrier I dentifi cation (25 min)
• When your department is w orking on water -related matters:
• What would you like to preserve?
• What would you like to achieve?
• What would you like to avoid?
• What do you see changing in the future?
• What solutions should the City and Utilities organizations consider?
Part 4: Interview Closing and Project Lookahead (10 min)
• Please share any writte n responses you’ve prepared.
• How can this project help you r department?
• What would yo u want to know from other project participants?
• Are you aware of leading cities o r best practices that w e should consi der?
• Are there any questions you would like to go back to, or any final comments?
Part 5: Po lling Questions (10 min)
• We'll ask you to navigate to menti.com, enter a code, and answer 7 short questions.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
Appendix C: Solutions Evaluation
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm
Resources Resources
Solution #Solution Category Solution Description
AVERAGE Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
AVERAGE
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Average
TOTAL Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
TOTAL
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Total
5-n City Plans and Policies
Exempt FCU and other water providers from potential 1041 permitting
regulations. The City has been working on 1041 regulations as a more
comprehensive review process to the more routinely used site plan advisory
review (SPAR) process.2.50 2.81 2.79 2.01 2.53 2.53 2.57 2.71 2.69 40.00
11-a Modeling and Analysis Apply metrics to long-range planning to analyze and characterize water impacts.2.25 2.78 2.50 2.19 2.43 2.43 2.28 2.64 2.50 38.00
14-a
Resilience / Water Sharing &
Banking
City supports District strategies to increase available storage for dry-years (e.g.,
CBT carryover program, store water in gravel pits, NISP, etc.) where not in
contradiction to Council direction.2.38 2.30 2.71 2.30 2.42 2.42 2.39 2.28 2.62 38.00
5-h City Plans and Policies
Consider Districts in Water Supply and Demand Management Policy update to
clarify review and approval processes, clarify how FCU should support the
Districts, and allocate adequate staff and financial resources to handle requests
outside of FCU service area. 2.25 2.41 2.21 2.23 2.27 2.27 2.29 2.41 2.29 37.00
6-k Coordination and Communication
Require City council members (especially members whose wards overlap District
service areas) or other senior city staff to regularly attend District board meetings. 2.50 2.31 2.10 2.11 2.26 2.26 2.40 2.28 2.15 37.00
5-g City Plans and Policies
Consider Districts in Water Efficiency Plan update to emphasize regional delivery
of conservation programs and goals, to support allocating adequate staff and
financial resources to handle requests outside of FCU service area.2.13 2.02 2.27 2.55 2.24 2.24 2.26 2.16 2.30 37.00
7-c Education
Develop a "decision tree" handout for development review with important District
info, to include the right info in development review letters, and help avoid
developers being surprised. Get District info about what info is provided for their
service area. Could include water supply requirements, impact fees, conservation
programs. Assess FCU and District websites and how accessible this info currently
is. 2.38 2.55 2.49 2.55 2.49 2.49 2.23 2.53 2.53 36.00
11-b Modeling and Analysis
Conduct better analysis and estimation of water demands of new development
across the GMA to inform long-range land use changes and proactively identify
water supply and infrastructure constraints. For example, further investigate
ELCO's water supply needs as the District service area that has the potential for
the most greenfield development. The ongoing CWCB/CSU project is developing a
tool to estimate raw water needs for different development types for ELCO and
FCLWD. FCU also has a demand modeling tool that could be integrated with the
Districts' tools (once available). 2.13 2.52 2.46 2.26 2.34 2.34 2.12 2.45 2.44 36.00
Synthesis & Averages
Benefits
Synthesis & Totals
Benefits
Page 1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm
Resources Resources
Solution #Solution Category Solution Description
AVERAGE Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
AVERAGE
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Average
TOTAL Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
TOTAL
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Total
Synthesis & Averages
Benefits
Synthesis & Totals
Benefits
13-a Planning and Policy Alignment
City to work with Districts in developing strategic & master plans to ease demands
and special requests on City staff. City needs to stay aware of how master plans
they create impact the cost of development in other utilty service areas. This will
allow anticipation of impacts to the development community across the GMA.2.13 2.14 2.16 2.18 2.15 2.15 2.20 2.21 2.22 36.00
15-a Water Sharing and Banking
Establish a water bank to buy raw water rights that can later be dedicated to
subsidize affordable housing or other equitable development projects. There are
legal considerations to a program like this.2.25 2.03 1.91 2.40 2.15 2.15 2.31 2.10 2.09 35.00
5-p City Plans and Policies
Increase trust and collaboration through inclusive and authentic engagement of
Districts in City planning efforts. Where plans affect District service areas, Districts
should be invited to the planning process as a key stakeholder. City's outreach
approach should be more proactive and collaborative and accommodate District
specific water focus (versus general public engagement) and preferences for
participation (staff vs Board level). 2.00 2.25 2.41 1.83 2.12 2.12 2.07 2.31 2.33 35.00
8-e
IGAs / Coordination and
Communication
Develop an emergency plan IGA to have in place when it is needed (water supply
disruptions, fire flows, etc). At times, emergency situations provided opportunities
to innovate. Success in coordinating well on emergency situations may lead to
better collaboration on longer-range items. Include terms for testing
interconnects and other preventative maintenance activities. 1.63 2.20 2.23 2.26 2.08 2.08 1.81 2.19 2.19 35.00
12-m
Organizational Structures and
Resources
Fund a joint fellow or staff member to design a community-wide water
coordination program (possibly funded by COVID recovery and/or foundations).2.25 2.53 2.47 2.41 2.42 2.42 2.17 2.39 2.38 34.00
12-e Joint Programs and Projects
Can City model of Natural Areas supplementing Utility conservation programs be
applied to other District service areas (ideally within the GMA only), such as a
piggyback rebates?2.38 1.92 2.16 2.43 2.22 2.22 2.27 2.02 2.15 34.00
10-b Joint Programs and Projects
FCU could administer a XIP program like the sprinkler checkups which are offered
outside the GMA as long as all hard (rebates) and soft (staff time) costs are
reimbursed. Not sure if this idea has been discussed with the Districts before. 2.25 2.16 2.05 2.43 2.22 2.22 2.26 2.15 2.14 34.00
4-d City Operations
Limit turf to recreational fields and limit supplemental irrigation to greatest extent
possible in parks. Application rate is 2 ac-ft/ac-yr through waterwise design
principles. 2.38 2.42 1.97 1.97 2.19 2.19 2.25 2.34 2.09 34.00
10-a Joint Programs and Projects
Actively engage the Districts to align their conservation programs with FCU and
expand across their full service areas. PRPA's Efficiency Works could serve as a
good model. 2.25 2.28 1.94 2.18 2.16 2.16 2.22 2.22 2.08 34.00
Page 2
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm
Resources Resources
Solution #Solution Category Solution Description
AVERAGE Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
AVERAGE
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Average
TOTAL Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
TOTAL
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Total
Synthesis & Averages
Benefits
Synthesis & Totals
Benefits
6-b Coordination and Communication
City meet with District staff to educate about development review processes and
timelines and better communicate rounds of review and deadlines. City to also
develop a better understanding of District development review processes, to
better advise developers 2.63 2.08 2.09 1.85 2.16 2.16 2.46 2.09 2.09 34.00
5-q City Plans and Policies
Invest in regional and integrated approaches for all water-related matters (i.e.,
One Water) that consider a broad range of co-benefits and trade-offs (e.g., mutual
parks/recreation, land use and other co-benefits). Begin with internal alignment,
then eventually work to expand across the GMA. Alternatively, work first towards
regional collaboration with all surrounding municipal providers who face similar
challenges, then move to working with the Districts as single-purpose
organizations.1.63 2.45 2.13 2.15 2.09 2.09 1.72 2.41 2.17 34.00
6-g Coordination and Communication
Develop a more formalized/regular process to improve alignment between
City/FCU and Districts on long-range water planning issues (two-way
communication) and build relationships.2.13 2.14 2.16 1.93 2.09 2.09 2.07 2.16 2.16 34.00
12-d
Organizational Structures and
Resources
Increase outreach and recruitment to encourage knowledgeable representatives
to run for and serve on District boards and the FC Water Commission (ex. Nick
Armstrong on Box Elder board)2.38 2.55 2.37 2.16 2.36 2.36 2.25 2.36 2.22 33.00
5-b City Plans and Policies
Include District Boards as direct stakeholders in discussions about Land Use Code
amendments. All development projects must conform to Land Use Code,
irrespective of the water provider. The forthcoming Land Use Code updates affect
water resource matters in the GMA, for example: promote conservation, redefine 2.13 2.02 2.39 2.32 2.21 2.21 2.14 2.03 2.27 33.00
13-d Planning and Policy Alignment
Develop a common definition of waterwise landscaping and irrigation for common
areas and front yards across providers. Use conservation as an opportunity to
build bridges across providers.1.88 2.36 2.28 2.19 2.18 2.18 1.89 2.24 2.22 33.00
1-a Account Management
Centralize water provider relationship management (to Districts, irrigation
companies) to allow for building long-term beneficial relationships.2.25 2.28 2.19 1.72 2.11 2.11 2.09 2.18 2.16 33.00
11-d Modeling and Analysis
Develop a joint long-term planning model for use by FCU and water districts that
covers the GMA.1.75 2.34 2.14 2.03 2.06 2.06 1.81 2.28 2.15 33.00
11-c Modeling and Analysis
Develop a joint long-term operations model for use by FCU and water districts that
covers the GMA. This is especially helpful where the City is adjusting operations
based on the operations of other Districts (which seems to happen ever summer
as FCU serves as peaking plant)1.88 2.36 2.28 1.69 2.05 2.05 1.92 2.27 2.25 33.00
12-g
Organizational Structures and
Resources
Change the City Charter to allow City council representatives to sit on District
boards. It currently violates a Charter provision precluding Councilmembers from
holding elected office other than on Council. It would be helpful to keep City
informed through board representation by council, staff, or water commission
reps, while being aware that Board decisions must be made in the best interest of
Districts.2.13 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.04 2.04 2.14 2.03 2.03 33.00
11-e Modeling and Analysis
Incorporate more analytical impacts of water issues in future planning efforts
(e.g., E. Mulberry Plan, Natural Areas Master Plan) to address issues like volume of
water, price of water, location of water, how conservation fits in, etc. and
determine whether/how we can meet demands of a growing population with
current (finite) supply.1.63 2.45 2.26 1.79 2.03 2.03 1.78 2.28 2.24 33.00
Page 3
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm
Resources Resources
Solution #Solution Category Solution Description
AVERAGE Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
AVERAGE
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Average
TOTAL Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
TOTAL
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Total
Synthesis & Averages
Benefits
Synthesis & Totals
Benefits
5-u City Plans and Policies
Use the General Fund to subsidize affordable housing developments in District
service areas, i.e., through raw water dedication, reimbursement to offset water
rights and tap fee costs, or other non-water related subsidies or benefits.1.63 2.08 1.84 2.44 2.00 2.00 1.86 2.13 2.01 33.00
5-s City Plans and Policies
Update and standardize policies and processes for City to use when reviewing
special requests. Develop higher-level policies for water issues that are District
and developer neutral (rather than incremental through individual development
projects). EG, water affordability, asking for FCU service outside of FCU service
boundaries, integrated water and land use 2.00 2.13 1.89 1.88 1.97 1.97 1.98 2.09 1.97 33.00
13-c Planning and Policy Alignment
Coordinate an affordable housing water policy or agreement across water
providers to standardize review processes, fees, and/or raw water options for
affordable housing developments.2.00 1.63 1.70 2.54 1.97 1.97 2.08 1.75 1.77 33.00
13-f Planning and Policy Alignment
Encourage ELCO and FCLWD to develop water shortage action plans. Parks
operates in all water provider districts and is interested in planning for how to
alter operations during restrictions scenarios. Without action plans in place, Parks
does not know how to plan. 2.38 1.80 1.90 1.76 1.96 1.96 2.31 1.85 1.96 33.00
9-c
Infrastructure and Service Area
Management
Work with Districts to firm up service boundaries at an address/parcel level and
trade service areas where it makes sense. Be mindful of difference between
jurisdictional boundaries (potentially flexible) and infrastructure boundaries (once
something is in the ground, less flexible). Some infrastructure mapping, including
irrigation, has been done by Parks and between FCU and ELCO. 1.75 2.47 2.40 1.95 2.14 2.14 1.86 2.34 2.32 32.00
5-v City Plans and Policies
Explore the implications to demands and revenues of and consider buying back
water from customers that do large scale turf conversions (HP, Woodward, CSU,
HOAs).2.00 2.25 1.78 2.38 2.10 2.10 1.96 2.18 1.83 32.00
3-d Central or Regional Authority
Form a regional water authority by separating FCU from the City and merging with
the Districts. 1.50 2.19 1.96 2.58 2.06 2.06 1.68 2.17 1.95 32.00
3-e Central or Regional Authority
Leverage Northern Water as a common wholesaler to Utilities and the Districts for
leadership in program delivery (indoor CII audits, outdoor audits) and other
appropriate regional collaboration topics 1.88 1.98 1.98 2.11 1.99 1.99 1.88 1.99 1.99 32.00
Page 4
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm
Resources Resources
Solution #Solution Category Solution Description
AVERAGE Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
AVERAGE
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Average
TOTAL Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
TOTAL
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Total
Synthesis & Averages
Benefits
Synthesis & Totals
Benefits
5-f City Plans and Policies
City to move towards integrated water management planning (aka One Water) as
wastewater has a similar issue with fragmented service areas, water conservation
strategies naturally tie in to green stormwater solutions and watershed
health/water quality 1.88 2.36 1.53 1.97 1.93 1.93 1.95 2.30 1.71 32.00
12-n
Organizational Structures and
Resources
Have formal assigned job responsibilities for City staff that include: relationship
management with the Districts, attending District board meetings, and
highlighting when water resource matters in the GMA arise, akin to Legal's role in
highlighting legal issues to staff and city leadership with direct line to CMO.1.88 1.86 1.72 1.56 1.75 1.75 1.94 1.94 1.84 32.00
4-b City Operations
Create more explicit guidelines around Utilities "neutral to the ratepayer"
standard that address economic, social, environmental, resilience, etc. tradeoffs.
Legal advises staff of this and other legal standards and whether projects will
withstand scrutiny. Staff must provide the factual basis for why a project meets
this standard. 2.13 2.39 1.94 2.18 2.16 2.16 2.11 2.23 1.97 31.00
12-o
Organizational Structures and
Resources
Hire a community services water resource engineer to manage the parks & natural
areas water portfolio (all city-side water resources).2.25 2.41 2.08 1.59 2.08 2.08 2.07 2.27 2.13 31.00
5-r City Plans and Policies
Move water waste ordinance to Ch 20 of the municipal code as a nuisance/safety
issue that applies across the GMA.2.13 1.89 1.88 2.24 2.03 2.03 2.13 1.91 1.91 31.00
12-b
Organizational Structures and
Resources
Add staff to (1) centralize management of all city-owned water resources across
the City/FCU, (2) manage relationships with Districts and serve on or attend board
meetings.2.00 2.13 2.02 1.77 1.98 1.98 1.99 2.10 1.98 31.00
12-i
Organizational Structures and
Resources
Continue cost-sharing and collaborative relationships on water rights and
infrastructure between the City and institutional partners (e.g., parks and schools).2.13 2.02 1.77 1.99 1.97 1.97 2.00 1.97 1.84 31.00
5-o City Plans and Policies
Explore the suitability of low-income water usage rates that are offered through
the Income-Qualified Assistance Program to promote water affordability and
whether that assistance tool is in conflict with the "neutral to ratepayers"
standard. This is a special residential rate code that is offered for water,
wastewater , and electricity service, but is not applied to stormwater. The rate is
generally a 23% discount on Tier 1 usage. This rate is available to residents that
are on the County's LEAP list and residents must opt-in to the program.
Approximately 190 residents have opted-in to the program. The Districts do not
have equivalent programs. 1.88 1.86 1.72 2.43 1.97 1.97 1.87 1.87 1.75 31.00
1-c Account Management
Propagate the key account customer management structure for all Districts, akin
to the recent setup for FCLWD. Ensure job descriptions and resource allocations
formally identify responsibilities in managing District relationships.2.25 2.03 2.04 1.54 1.96 1.96 2.10 1.97 1.96 31.00
6-m Coordination and Communication
Form a water team as part of the City's emergency planning and operations to
improve regional coordination for informing the public about emergency
situations and response activities.2.00 1.88 1.86 2.09 1.96 1.96 1.87 1.95 1.95 31.00
13-e Planning and Policy Alignment
Develop consistent field standards to accommodate new types of development
(usually denser development). For example, utility setbacks and separations would
be nice to align across the GMA. 1.88 1.98 1.98 1.98 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.98 1.98 31.00
4-e City Operations
Complete planned sale of 10 CBT shares from Land Bank to Utilities. Proceeds will
support the Land Bank program in buying more land. CBT shares will increase
Utilities' firm yield.2.50 2.19 1.34 1.50 1.88 1.88 2.28 2.13 1.53 31.00
Page 5
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm
Resources Resources
Solution #Solution Category Solution Description
AVERAGE Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
AVERAGE
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Average
TOTAL Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
TOTAL
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Total
Synthesis & Averages
Benefits
Synthesis & Totals
Benefits
3-a Central or Regional Authority City to execute a tiered acquisition of districts (WFCWD, then ELCO, then FCLWD)1.38 2.17 1.69 2.28 1.88 1.88 1.57 2.06 1.71 31.00
5-i City Plans and Policies
Create a citywide water master plan that identifies supplies, demands, water
types, future needs, system limitations, etc. 1.50 2.31 1.73 1.94 1.87 1.87 1.67 2.17 1.80 31.00
5-e City Plans and Policies
Develop an integrated utility master plan to foster coordination across individual
department-level plans and policies.1.75 2.34 1.64 1.72 1.86 1.86 1.89 2.27 1.79 31.00
3-c Central or Regional Authority
Form a regional water authority akin to how the SCWTA was formed to resolve
cost-sharing uncertainty among three districts. Board includes representatives
from each participating district. Poudre Fire Authority as another model.1.75 2.22 2.25 2.28 2.12 2.12 1.85 2.11 2.10 30.00
5-a City Plans and Policies All City- and FCU-led plans should consider and address relevant water matters. 2.00 2.25 1.91 2.27 2.11 2.11 1.96 2.09 1.93 30.00
5-d City Plans and Policies
Better scale water supply requirements to the development type and anticipated
water demands, with the intent of requiring less water for new developments.1.75 2.09 1.86 2.34 2.01 2.01 1.78 2.02 1.89 30.00
10-c Joint Programs and Projects Hold a competition to identify and evaluate creative water supply solutions 2.00 1.88 1.73 2.08 1.92 1.92 1.95 1.84 1.82 30.00
Page 6
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm
Resources Resources
Solution #Solution Category Solution Description
AVERAGE Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
AVERAGE
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Average
TOTAL Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
TOTAL
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Total
Synthesis & Averages
Benefits
Synthesis & Totals
Benefits
5-t City Plans and Policies
Use plumbing, building, and housing codes as tools to address water matters in
the GMA where appropriate, for example authorizing onsite reuse if feasible. 2.00 1.88 1.73 2.08 1.92 1.92 1.85 1.93 1.82 30.00
2-a Advocacy
Increase legislative advocacy, where the City has a policy objective that is the
subject of pending legislation. For example, flexibility in sharing water rights with
neighboring water providers. Where mutually beneficial, advocacy would ideally
be done jointly with Districts. 1.75 1.97 1.96 1.84 1.88 1.88 1.80 1.93 1.93 30.00
8-a IGAs
Clean up and/or renegotiate water sharing agreements with Districts. Adjust
financial terms to better reflects financial, resource, and staff burdens on the City.
Adjust financial terms to settle in more real-time to avoid impacts to the City (e.g.
carrying costs)1.88 2.23 1.89 1.50 1.87 1.87 1.81 2.14 1.90 30.00
8-b IGAs Complete IGAs in progress (pre-sed basin, PVP, cross-tie, communications)1.75 2.22 1.87 1.60 1.86 1.86 1.69 2.13 1.89 30.00
1-b Account Management
Ensure that the City (or Parks, as largest user) is set up as a key account by
Districts to foster higher-frequency, more proactive communication.2.25 2.03 1.66 1.37 1.83 1.83 2.12 1.99 1.75 30.00
12-a
Organizational Structures and
Resources
Acquire more financial support to achieve larger visions. For example, leverage
CWCB/State of Colorado as a provider of grant funds, technical assistance, and
training on common topics (e.g. M36 water loss audit training, Water Plan grants
for joint integrated water and land use projects)2.00 1.88 1.61 1.69 1.79 1.79 1.98 1.86 1.73 30.00
13-h Planning and Policy Alignment
Upgrade metering technology of all Districts to AMI and align or centralize high-
resolution data management for all City meters 1.88 1.86 1.59 1.67 1.75 1.75 1.84 1.83 1.70 30.00
6-d Coordination and Communication
City/Utilities staff to work with Districts based on their preferences. For example,
ELCO expressed interest in more board-level interactions, whereas FCLWD
expressed interest in more "inform staff for staff recommendation to board" type
interactions. FCLWD would like to "sign off" on all developments, like they have
seen happen on ditch company boards.2.00 1.63 1.83 1.43 1.72 1.72 1.93 1.69 1.82 30.00
4-g
City Operations / City Plans and
Policies
Fully integrate Utilities into City land use planning to ensure land use form can be
supported by utility function and infrastructure.1.88 2.48 2.04 1.80 2.05 2.05 1.92 2.28 1.92 29.00
6-o Coordination and Communication
Invite and/or require water providers to attend all development review meetings
(virtually or in-person). They are currently invited but often decline the invitation,
and not sure what else the City can do. Perhaps the City can categorize
development review requests into categories (simple vs. critical). Districts may not
be on development review list for pre-application and conceptual plan reviews.
There are no fees associated with review at this stage, so cannot recoup cost of
staff time. City could route developments earlier in the process, working with the
Districts to establish criteria of which projects they are interested to see. 2.25 1.78 1.88 1.74 1.91 1.91 2.07 1.81 1.92 29.00
6-a Coordination and Communication
Align communications between providers and municipalities where feasible and
services and policies aligned. While regional info is exchanged, there are no good
examples of regional coordination (Metro drought coordination seems to go
better than Front Range coordination in this regard). What about the basin
roundtables?2.13 1.89 1.88 1.74 1.91 1.91 2.06 1.93 1.93 29.00
8-d IGAs Develop an IGA that defines equitable cost sharing among City and Districts 1.88 1.98 1.98 1.73 1.89 1.89 1.82 1.93 1.92 29.00
Page 7
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm
Resources Resources
Solution #Solution Category Solution Description
AVERAGE Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
AVERAGE
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Average
TOTAL Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
TOTAL
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Total
Synthesis & Averages
Benefits
Synthesis & Totals
Benefits
9-b
Infrastructure and Service Area
Management
Install FCU-owned meters on all master meters and interconnects so that FCU has
better control of water use and billing data and can better maintain meter
infrastructure. Alternatively, require audits or regular calibrations of all meters
owned by other organizations.1.88 2.23 1.64 1.72 1.87 1.87 1.81 2.14 1.77 29.00
6-l Coordination and Communication
Continue conversations between FCU and Districts for shared water sourcing and
water supply issues and opportunities.2.13 1.64 1.85 1.58 1.80 1.80 1.89 1.72 1.95 29.00
7-e Education
Educate City leadership and Council re: water matters, including history of water
matters, legal limitations, and opportunities. Resurrect or continue promotion of
Water Literate Leaders program. FCLWD articulated extensive training for their
board members. Could include an "exchange program" or rotation between
City/Utilities and District boards to cross-pollinate. 1.88 1.86 1.84 1.45 1.76 1.76 1.74 1.83 1.82 29.00
4-h
City Operations / Water Banking
and Sharing
Develop clear criteria on the use and sale of water resources (in a water bank
scenario).1.63 1.95 1.57 1.77 1.73 1.73 1.70 1.94 1.70 29.00
6-e Coordination and Communication
Continue leveraging the SCWTA RWCC informal operational meeting for
information sharing and coordination. Munroe/PVP operating agreement, HOP,
North Poudre Irrig. Co. issues addressed in this group to date.2.13 1.52 1.58 1.28 1.62 1.62 1.99 1.61 1.63 29.00
6-c Coordination and Communication
City to include District Boards as stakeholders for code changes, plan updates, etc.
Request to make presentations similar to how we present to internal Boards and
Commissions.2.13 1.39 1.56 1.39 1.62 1.62 1.98 1.59 1.63 29.00
5-m City Plans and Policies
Require multifamily units (owner and renter occupied) with common areas,
shared landscaping, etc. to increase conservation and reduce overall water
demand.1.88 2.11 1.50 1.81 1.82 1.82 1.78 2.00 1.62 28.00
4-c City Operations
Fields Services documents infrastructure upgrades needed before assuming
ownership of customers and infrastructure from other Districts. Districts shoul
rectify any issues and/or upgrade costs should be reflected in asset transfer costs 1.88 2.11 1.25 1.53 1.69 1.69 1.80 2.02 1.42 28.00
Page 8
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm
Resources Resources
Solution #Solution Category Solution Description
AVERAGE Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
AVERAGE
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Average
TOTAL Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
TOTAL
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Total
Synthesis & Averages
Benefits
Synthesis & Totals
Benefits
5-j
City Plans and Policies/City
Operations
Create a comprehensive irrigation and raw water master plan for a more holistic
systems view of parks water use and engagement of ditch companies and water
providers. Convert park irrigation from potable to non-potable when raw water
source is nearby. Develop redundant drip systems for tree zones in park design in
case water use restrictions are implemented.1.50 1.94 1.43 1.86 1.68 1.68 1.56 1.91 1.55 28.00
5-k City Plans and Policies
Develop a citywide irrigation master plan. Where potable irrigation is used, do a
billing analysis to check the potential to reduce wastewater charges.1.50 1.94 1.43 1.86 1.68 1.68 1.56 1.91 1.55 28.00
13-g Planning and Policy Alignment
Engage with districts about their raw water requirement policies (e.g., changes to
lot sizes, cash-in-lieu, tap policies, development types). At a minimum, clarify and
educate; at best, align. This may not be feasible unless under a regional authority,
and may not benefit each organization depending on their individual costs.1.38 1.42 1.47 1.66 1.48 1.48 1.53 1.55 1.56 28.00
3-b Central or Regional Authority
Research statuatory tools and judicial proceedings that determine city's level of
control over whether the Districts provide water service within city limits. Based
on current understanding and status quo, Districts need to consent to
relinquishing service area. 2.25 2.03 1.54 1.98 1.95 1.95 2.09 1.96 1.60 27.00
6-i Coordination and Communication
Request all Districts to share board meeting agendas, meeting minutes, and
standards and regulations publicly, to help City stay informed. FCLWD does this
already. ELCO shares meeting dates and times, but not agendas or minutes. Title
32 covers meeting notice and information sharing but is not comprehensive. 2.00 1.88 1.86 1.59 1.83 1.83 1.80 1.87 1.86 27.00
7-h Education
Water staff need to communicate better (translating from technical to public
communications) and more often to educate the public about water matters.
Examples include better use the annual report to demonstrate the tangible
benefits of water conservation; promoting drinking water quality over bottled
water. Train City water specialists in communicating technical water resource
matters to non-technical audiences, through training, participation in
Toastmaster's or other mechanisms.1.75 1.84 1.70 1.79 1.77 1.77 1.64 1.84 1.72 27.00
Page 9
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm
Resources Resources
Solution #Solution Category Solution Description
AVERAGE Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
AVERAGE
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Average
TOTAL Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
TOTAL
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Total
Synthesis & Averages
Benefits
Synthesis & Totals
Benefits
6-h Education
Develop a policy or process (education platform) for communicating previous
work and key decisions on water matters, rather than revisiting or starting from
scratch in response to Council, Water Commission, or public requests.2.00 2.00 1.63 1.45 1.77 1.77 1.76 1.94 1.69 27.00
12-k
Organizational Structures and
Resources
Ensure that City staff and leaders are aligned and trained on significant water
decisions (e.g., outcomes of RWCC meetings, Regional Strat Op discussion).1.88 2.11 1.62 1.45 1.76 1.76 1.75 1.96 1.69 27.00
15-b Water Sharing and Banking
Evaluate the potential to be creative in using southside ditch water for northside
water needs (for parks purposes).1.63 2.08 1.59 1.66 1.74 1.74 1.61 1.95 1.69 27.00
5-l City Plans and Policies
Enact water demand offset policies so that new developments do not increase
overall water demands. See: Water Offset Policies for Water-Neutral Community
Growth, Alliance for Water Efficiency, Jan 2015.1.50 2.06 1.45 1.88 1.72 1.72 1.48 1.94 1.56 27.00
6-f Coordination and Communication
Re-engage use of the right-of-way coordination standing staff team meetings as a
forum for regional coordination of water matters.2.25 1.66 1.61 1.31 1.71 1.71 2.05 1.67 1.67 27.00
4-a City Operations
Conduct a comprehensive review of water rate structures and financial planning
tools that better promote affordable housing, water conservation. 1.88 1.73 1.33 1.87 1.70 1.70 1.81 1.69 1.44 27.00
6-n Coordination and Communication
Hold Monthly Regional Water Cooperation Committee meetings (formerly
convened by Carol and Gerry, focusing on policy/strategy).1.88 1.73 1.70 1.41 1.68 1.68 1.70 1.76 1.76 27.00
7-b Education
Create a 1-page fact sheet or resource guide about this issue with top 10 things
people should know, FAQs, high level info about FCU and Districts.2.13 1.39 1.31 1.35 1.55 1.55 2.04 1.46 1.46 27.00
Page 10
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm
Resources Resources
Solution #Solution Category Solution Description
AVERAGE Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
AVERAGE
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Average
TOTAL Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
TOTAL
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Total
Synthesis & Averages
Benefits
Synthesis & Totals
Benefits
9-a
Infrastructure and Service Area
Management
Consider "translating" the service area map into other useful maps (e.g.,
constrained water supplies, water costs, where pipes and infrastructure are
actually located)1.50 1.44 1.49 1.43 1.46 1.46 1.53 1.53 1.54 27.00
4-f City Operations
Explore creative ways to utilize NAD tap credits elsewhere or by another dept.
There are some cases when the City acquires land with old homes and existing
water taps, where the structure is demolished and the tap is not intended to be
use. NAD currently has 7 such taps (1 with ELCO, 6 with FCLWD, 0 with FCU). These
water taps may be a monetizable asset where they can be sold (ELCO allows,
FCLWD allows but it's hard, FCU doesn't allow the sale of taps). NAD pays a $20
monthly account fee for each FCLWD tap regardless of use. NAD pays for tap
removal & plugging the water main, gets a credit in the billing system that gets
applied to a new tap. This part of the transaction represents a net cost.1.88 1.98 1.36 1.78 1.75 1.75 1.74 1.83 1.46 26.00
12-j
Organizational Structures and
Resources Develop shared service principles for the City, FCU and Districts.1.88 1.61 1.56 1.38 1.61 1.61 1.75 1.61 1.61 26.00
12-h
Organizational Structures and
Resources
Change the FC Water Commission structure to require fundamental expertise
(water rights, stormwater, etc), similar to how Art in Public Places requires 3
artists sit on the board, with intent to strengthen advisory role or even move into
more of a decisionmaking role.1.88 1.73 1.20 1.35 1.54 1.54 1.71 1.68 1.32 26.00
6-j Coordination and Communication
Identify City staff representative to encourage and engage with Larimer County to
move regional water supply conversations and collaboration forward.2.00 1.75 1.72 1.56 1.76 1.76 1.75 1.70 1.70 25.00
12-q
Organizational Structures and
Resources
Review the "Budgeting for Outcomes" process to figure out more flexibility and
support for addressing water matters in the GMA 1.88 1.86 1.59 1.67 1.75 1.75 1.74 1.72 1.58 25.00
8-c IGAs Create a financial map of connections between the City/FCU and Districts 1.75 1.59 1.42 1.22 1.50 1.50 1.67 1.65 1.54 25.00
7-a Education
All staff presentations on water matters in the GMA should include a basic
orientation to multiple service providers 1.88 1.36 1.40 1.20 1.46 1.46 1.66 1.49 1.51 25.00
13-b Planning and Policy Alignment
Conduct regional planning on foundational topics, for example to look at impacts
of City plan on future demands across the GMA and by provider 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 24.00
7-d Education
There is a need and opportunity to emphasize that interdependence through joint
education between City and the Districts staff on common topics such as land use
planning, drought (could include emergency response exercises), landscape
transformation, etc. Districts as single-purpose water providers is a narrow view –
they wouldn’t have customers and growing businesses without having a growing
and thriving city and community. 1.75 1.34 1.39 1.56 1.51 1.51 1.58 1.42 1.44 24.00
12-p
Organizational Structures and
Resources
Quantify the magnitude of the issue via staff time addressing customers or issues
in District services areas, costs of multiple providers (e.g., water treatment
operation variability and energy costs, water cost impacts on development)1.50 1.56 1.26 1.17 1.37 1.37 1.47 1.58 1.35 24.00
Page 11
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139
App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm
Resources Resources
Solution #Solution Category Solution Description
AVERAGE Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
AVERAGE
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Average
TOTAL Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
TOTAL
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Total
Synthesis & Averages
Benefits
Synthesis & Totals
Benefits
7-g Education
Develop public education strategies in conjunction with the Districts to address
topics such as: who is your provider and what are the implications re: programs,
policies, rates)1.63 1.20 1.23 1.38 1.36 1.36 1.48 1.32 1.34 24.00
5-c City Plans and Policies
As part of the WSDMP update, clarify if city's water goals cover FCU only or all City
including raw/potable and establish whether FCU should plan for how to provide
water to surrounding systems in the GMA that rely on single water sources such as
CBT or Montava GW. Be proactive in acknowledging that FCU will need to support
surrounding systems and residents in case of a system failure (and vice versa if
something catastrophic happens to the Poudre).1.50 1.69 1.52 1.46 1.54 1.54 1.48 1.59 1.57 23.00
12-f
Organizational Structures and
Resources
Change the City Charter for Utilities to align with City strategic goals and broaden
the project standard to include affordable housing and other strategic objectives. 1.38 1.30 1.08 1.47 1.31 1.31 1.42 1.32 1.20 23.00
7-f Education
Educate general city staff (non-water specialists) about water matters (e.g., lunch
and learns, City training programs, Water Literate Leaders)1.75 1.47 1.15 1.17 1.39 1.39 1.51 1.45 1.22 22.00
12-c
Organizational Structures and
Resources Advocate for term limits on District Boards.2.67 1.92 1.72 1.72 2.00 2.00 2.19 1.83 1.69 21.00
10-d Joint Programs and Projects
Land use authorities (e.g., PDT at FC) hold a competition among FCU and Districts
for affordable housing design and price. Updating water supply requirements are
the mechanism for adjusting water costs for new housing types.2.00 1.75 1.55 1.72 1.75 1.75 1.84 1.68 1.65 20.00
Page 12
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DA26F88-4B68-4063-BFD8-4E715999D139