The council adopted a data‑driven, high‑frequency core transit plan while advancing a hybrid incentive–regulatory building energy‑efficiency program, both underpinned by the 2050 Transit Sales Tax and new state SB 230 funding.
Council members reviewed staff presentations on the Transfort Optimization Plan, a layered high‑frequency core network that will be implemented in 2027, and the Building Performance Standards (BPS) pilot, which proposes a hybrid incentive‑plus‑regulatory framework for city buildings. The transit plan was endorsed in principle, with council members requesting detailed equity analyses, Dial‑A‑Ride mitigation plans, and clarification on 2050 tax usage; the BPS discussion concluded with a consensus to pursue further data before formalizing policy. Both initiatives rely on the 2050 Transit Sales Tax, with $2–3 M earmarked for transit operations and an additional $500k local match, while SB 230 will provide $2–3 M annually for transit enhancements. The council also set timelines for drafting ordinance language on the BPS program, aiming for a first reading in December 2025.
Key debates centered on equity impacts—particularly service cuts in southwest Fort Collins and the exclusion of multifamily buildings from the BPS program—alongside fiscal concerns about inflation adjustments to the 2050 tax and the cost of integrating Police HOPE teams with Transit Service Officers. Public comments highlighted support for Sunday service restoration, the need for advance reservation on Dial‑A‑Taxi vouchers, and questions about the 24‑hour booking window.
Overall, the meeting advanced two major policy areas: a transit network redesign and a building energy‑efficiency program, both framed by the city’s climate emergency resolution and 2050 tax revenues. The council agreed to produce follow‑up memos, equity impact analyses, and draft ordinance language before the next session.
Just please note that Julie Pignotero is with us tonight and available online. So Julie. Recording in progress. If we miss you, please just give a little hey. Okay. Okay. Thanks for joining. Will the city manager please provide a view of tonight's work agenda?
Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Good evening. We have four items tonight. So a full night ahead of us. We're going to start with a staff report on our climate future goals and the renewable electricity progress. And then we'll move into three discussion items this evening. The first is phase one of our climate future strategic funding plan. We'll then move into transport optimization plan. And our final agenda item this evening is on building performance standards. So no changes to the published agenda. And, Mayor, if you're ready, we'll go ahead and get started. And I will introduce Brian Thal, who is our Energy Services Director, to kick off our staff report.
Hi, good evening, Mayor and Council. Happy to be here. I was given a pretty unique opportunity to present on some of the progress of the Our Climate Future goals and also speak a little more specifically to the 100% renewable electricity progress that we've made as a community. And this is coming on kind of the heels of several community conversations, including Platte River's IRP process last year, 1041 application process through the county, and several other local campaigns related to local solar adoption. So I'm happy to talk a little more about that, provide a little clarity on a lot of percentages that we hear related to different goals. And I'm also going to take the opportunity to kind of cue up the remaining three topics in the lens of our climate future and really using the levers that we have as local government to make progress. So thanks again for the opportunity. So diving in a little bit, providing a little context on what I want to say are some of the primary goals in our climate future plan. And for tonight's purposes, I'm going to intentionally exclude waste just to keep it a little more focused on energy and emissions. So I like to call the top goal in this table essentially the umbrella emissions goal. And many community members actually don't realize what's actually included in that umbrella goal, right? Not only is it emissions from electricity and natural gas in buildings, but it's also emissions associated with petroleum, industrial process emissions, and also emissions from waste. So this is kind of a bigger umbrella-type goal. And I have the status, as you see on the right, of the two interim goals in 2026 and 2030, as well as 2050 being 100% carbon neutral by 2050 and their associated statuses. Moving into the renewable electricity space, we could dive into a little more on the definition itself of what 100 percent renewable electricity actually means. There's a few definitions that we use. Since we don't track actual electrons going from one house to another, we manage volts and amps. But essentially, we have accounting best practices to determine where we are in our progress toward 100% renewable electricity. Finally, the two remaining goals are what I kind of like to call operational focus goals or two supporting goals that help enable us to get to 100% renewable electricity. so diving in a little bit there's what i like to call two key renewable electricity goals for our community and if there's one takeaway from this lead-in staff report tonight it's this it's the consumption-based goal was adopted by council in 2018 and reinforced in our climate future plan and that is different and unique to the resource diversification policy goal adopted by platte rivers board so i like to say that we have these two unique and complementary goals when it comes to 100 renewable electricity moving down on the left side and how we measure our consumption based goal. It's essentially the renewables generated both at the utility scale and locally divided by our community consumption. So we essentially reach 100% when we produce as much as we consume. And given the past year and a half of discussions on dispatchable thermal resources and the IRP and new natural gas turbines, I want to state clearly tonight that we are still on progress in forecasting to achieve the 100% renewable consumption-based goal by 2030. And I want to pause because I often get an eyebrow raise or a question there. Not to be dramatic, but that is kind of a key point that I want to make sure that we all take away tonight. This, essentially, when cities adopt renewable electricity goals, often they aren't a municipal utility and they don't have a lot of the data that the utility brings, right? So a benchmark that is relatable are several other communities across the country and even across the world that are pursuing 100% renewable electricity. And there's a very clear role for our community to participate through energy efficiency, conservation, and even installation of local solar, if you're interested. And again, that differs from and is independent from the renewable generation-based goal from Platte River, where they're measuring the renewable generation over their total generation across all of their resources, again, on an annual basis. progress made through 2024 was about 37 percent and you know I think we've all heard this 88 percent forecast by the end of 2030 is where Platte River is currently forecasted to be. Now again a couple observations is that they are independent. One can't simply say well to get to you know Platte River's goal, let's simply install more local solar. The math doesn't work on the right side of this table to say, well, if we install local solar, we'll just make up the rest. That's two different essentially goals and two independent calculations. Regardless of how much local solar we generate, So local solar being solar electricity tied into our distribution grid. We're still going to be getting 88% in renewable electricity from Platte River across the course of a year.
Brian, can I say something? Yeah. So I'm just having a bit of an aha moment, although I've been thinking about this for several years alongside Fort Collins on PRPA. So when the comparison is made between a purchase power agreement entity, somebody, some entity that provides power but just does purchase power agreements, which means they're not generators, they're buying power and they're selling it, right? That's more akin to what our Fort Collins is as a distribution utility. because I think when those comparisons are made between purchase power agreement entities, say like Holy Cross, they're not comparing, they're comparing Holy Cross to PRPA, but PRPA is a generator. And so when you take a purchase power agreement entity, right, and comparing it to a generator, because we don't know where all the generation has come from, right? So, I mean, is it more analogous to say that Fort Collins is a distribution entity nearing 100% or at 100% is much more analogous to a Holy Cross
because we purchase from and we don't generate very much. Is that wrong?
I think I would say that Holy Cross actually has both goals as well. It does, okay. I think there are similarities and differences there in the model with ownership as well as how they purchase electricity that might be a little more nuanced. Oh, okay. It's a little more complicated than that.
Okay. I was just trying to wonder if, you know, when we're mainly, well, we are concerned about where we buy our power and power generation, of course. But in the context of Fort Collins and our climate future, we're going to focus on Fort Collins. Correct. Exactly.
I think I'll add on as we go in this presentation, we could also come back if I don't hit any of those points.
One key element to focus in on in order to make progress toward our, again, council adopted resolution in 2018 in our Fort Collins goal. We could do one of two things, right? We talk about the numerator and the denominator and how it's measured. We could add a number of renewable resources.
We could really put the throttle down when it comes to supply-side resources. We can do as much utility-scale solar out east. We could do a number of things.
It gets a lot of, for lack of a better term, airtime related to making progress toward our goal. It's just add solar, add wind, add resources, right? I think one key element that I want to make sure is understood as well is the denominator in this equation, right? And something that we have a lot of control over with the various levers in local government is conservation and efficiency through and lowering our community consumption. So I often, too, get the question of, Brian, why don't we just continue to add renewable resources? And if we provide clean power to our community members, doesn't that, you know, reduce their likelihood to need to conserve or change habits?
Or can't we just all focus on those supply side options?
And I say, yes, we can, but we'd be doing a disservice to our community because it costs far more to produce more renewable electricity than it does to conserve through energy efficiency, conservation, and other methods. So it's a both and, right? And I'd like to say that often it's more cost effective to work on conservation and reducing that denominator than adding more renewables.
So, again, I'm going to take a look at both supply side initiatives as well as demand side initiatives to really underscore that point I just made.
And in this four-year snapshot, we're looking at utility-scale supply-side actions that Platte River is partnering with owner communities on. And you can see a number of themes, like I just mentioned, related to increasing solar production, retiring thermal generation in the form of coal, entering a regional market. at all of these things which enable increased renewable generation that numerator. Not mentioned on this slide are all the technology and evolution of staffing resources that are required to enter a market or to integrate new technologies in this energy transition. So not only is it there the actual resources, but all the underlying infrastructure that's required.
On top of the kind of utility scale renewables, there's also what I mentioned, the local solar and or renewables
that are interconnected into our grid locally here. I mentioned this 5% local solar by 2030.
It's kind of more of an operational goal. If you were to Google, where is Excel Energy at?
where are others at? It's really hard to find. So I'm providing on the right side a little more of a comparison through an industry white paper that was produced a few years ago. Again, it's
not replicated every year, but in 2022, for example, Fort Collins had about on a solar per capita
basis, the same amount of solar production as they see in Sacramento or Los Angeles, slightly below Denver and Salt Lake City. But anytime we're listed in a progressive way next to Sacramento and SMUD, which is the local utility there, you know you're in good shape and making progress toward a pretty substantial goal. I also provide a little bit of a context in the watch per capita basis with one of our peer cities from just last year, where we have about three times the scale of renewables on a per capita basis as one of our peer cities like Longmont. And that's not to say Longmont is... And so, the government isn't doing a great job. They just recently installed a community solar project that is tremendous for that community. But again, just wanting to provide a little bit of the context and to why we might not over invest in local solar as well.
So, those are the supply side resources, kind of that numerator, what's happening in that space. I also wanted to just quickly lean into this graphic that I shared with council, I think a couple years ago now, related to demand side strategies and what are the levers that we have as local government to make progress on conservation. That includes economic, behavioral, regulatory, and infrastructure-based approaches. Again, we try to pursue a balanced approach such that we're maximizing communities' dollars, both in the general fund, 2050 tax, and enterprise funds through utilities. So I'm going to take a moment to kind of cue up the next few presentations in the context of this graphic to really underscore the opportunities that we have as local government. And first is, you know, right after me, you'll be hearing about the strategic funding plan effort, where essentially I categorize this as our climate future driven.
So we want to be having this strategic funding plan with the 2050 tax in absence of a climate plan, right?
So that's why I'm saying our climate future driven. We're doing this because we have goals and each of the strategic funding plan criteria and next steps that we're identifying will be funding, again, outcomes associated with our umbrella goal, our renewable electricity goal, as well as our zero waste goals. So kind of across all of these categories versus the middle topic that you'll hear about tonight is more focused on our transport optimization plan, right? I actually call this OCF beneficial or our climate future beneficial in that, you know, as a city, as a municipality, we'd be providing transportation infrastructure and we'd be doing this regardless of having an OCF plan right and we'd be optimizing that plan for for operations right however we get the benefit of reduced vehicle miles traveled which contributes to our
emissions goals which which is why I call it our climate future beneficial and then finally I'll be coming back up to talk a little more about our building performance standard proposed policy where again i'm categorizing this as a regulatory policy that is really our climate future driven so in the absence of a policy we we may not be pursuing
a building performance standards so again this not only reduces or helps us achieve 100 renewable electricity but also reduces our electricity and natural gas emissions in our bigger umbrella OCF goals kind of flew through the tail end of that I'm happy to talk about any goals related to our climate future and or any of the context into the framing of the next three topics
that was just the staff report i mean you know we can make comments now or we can do it in turn with each of the following presentations whatever you like thanks um was it my eyebrow
no seriously i didn't know my eyebrow moved to do was it my eyebrow and i hope i didn't look your way What? You what? I hope I didn't look your way when I said that.
Oh, I thought it was because I got an eyebrow problem. You do? Well, I was accused of it like a meeting or two ago in here from someone that my eyebrow thing. Okay, so my question was, is at-risk or off-track worse? I'm assuming off-track is worse than at-risk.
Yeah, in the context of that first slide, yes. Okay. Okay.
And then I guess that's it.
Julie, did you have anything? Go ahead.
Yes, there we go. Thanks. I do just have one question. I mean, I know we're talking
about, well, all the things we're talking about tonight will affect the carbon neutral
goal, the one that is off track that Kelly referred to, off track and at risk. I guess
I have a question of if you threw money at it, resources at it, I mean, is it solvable in an ideal world to make that goal? Or are we just not there yet with technology? Or, I mean, specifically, I think with influence, right? Because we can't influence petroleum operations to the east of us as much as we may like.
yeah thanks for that question i think i'd respond by saying two things um first the 2026 goal um i mark that as at risk and not off track because it's dependent on two things uh the timing of the black hollow uh phase two solar project so if that comes on early next year and we happen to have a you know, a year of weather that is, you know, beneficial in terms of emissions, meaning a mild summer, again, a mild winter, and perhaps a lot of water for hydropower that comes from WAPA through Platte River, then there's a possibility that we could achieve that 2026 goal. So again, it depends on timing of a big utility scale solar and the weather next year and that weather could fluctuate at three or four percent so i think there's nothing left to do operationally or with council at this time that i think would have substantial impact on the 26th goal i think there's still, and we've had some conversations around the gap of about 12% related to the 2030 goal. So there's a theoretical pathway to achieve about 68% reduction by 2030. That window's closing, Right. And I mark that as at risk because at this time, there's no feasible methods to make up that 12 percent gap.
OK, thank you for that. And then just a small part of that, just to remind me, how long did it take the black hollow solar to come online from conception to the actual ribbon cutting, which I think was a few weeks ago?
That might be a follow-up item. I believe it's probably about two years, maybe a little more. Some of these RFPs are released very early. I think from an RFP to operational power, it could be four years.
Yeah, I feel like it was way more than that, because I remember talking about coming out of COVID when I was briefly on the PRPA board that the provider of those solar panels was trying to get out of it because prices had increased so much for the resources. So that's just, I'm asking the question to make the point, you can't just buy solar tomorrow and have it ready to go in six months. Like that it does take time. So I appreciate the answers to the question, Brian. Thanks.
Great. Are we ready to move on? Okay. Thank you.
I love those scheme schemata that you present. I think they're very clear.
I liked them the first time I liked it. But I mean like when you brought them like a year or two ago, I just thought they were very impressive.
All right, wonderful. We'll go ahead and switch out our staff teams.
Bring up Jacob Castillo for the first of his appearances tonight.
We'll give them just a second to get set up.
All right. I think we are ready to go. So again, I will turn it over to our Chief Sustainability Officer Jacob Castillo to introduce his co-presenters and get us started.
Thank you, Kelly. Good evening, Mayor, members of Council. Jacob Castillo, Chief Sustainability officer. I'm joined tonight by Honoré Depew and Grant Stump, colleagues from Environmental Services Department. And we're here to talk about the OCF, Our Climate Future, strategic funding plan. So if you can think back to May, that was the last time we were in front of council talking about OCF we were specifically here talking about some tactical work we were doing to advance council priorities tonight we're gonna fly at a slightly different altitude we're gonna be at that 30 50,000 foot altitude talking about our strategic approach to prioritizing sequencing and ultimately funding work that will be that will create meaningful value for the community and a positive impact especially as we coming off the heels of what Brian just shared I think we're gonna dig into some of the details there but stay at more of a strategic altitude
this this work will or this conversation will set us up for subsequent conversations that we'll
have about council priorities this will influence or be instructive to how we approach strategic
planning and will certainly be helpful as we go into 2026 looking at building
out the 27 28 budget so this lays the groundwork for many of the the city's
strategic initiatives around climate action so next line
All right. So here's the run of show tonight.
We're going to show you the questions that we'd like you to contemplate as we go through the slide deck.
We're going to give a little bit of background, spend a lot of time on the strategic funding plan itself, and move into next steps.
So this is what we would like you to consider as we go through the presentation. Of course, always willing and interested in hearing your feedback and any additional considerations you'd like us to think about as we move this work forward. So with no further ado, I'm going to hand it off to Honoré de Pugh to get into the beginning of the presentation.
Thank you, Jacob. Good evening, Mayor, City Council. My name is Honore Depew. I'm a manager in environmental services and I have the privilege of setting the stage for this item. I get to remind everyone watching about how and why the city of Fort Collins is working to make our climate future a reality. Climate change threatens our environment, local economy, the cost of living and public health. But the solutions needed to slow and reverse the dangerously warming climate are known to us. We need to rapidly phase out the burning of fossil fuels. We need more solar and wind power. We need our buildings to be significantly more efficient. We need low-carbon transportation options to be easy and convenient and reliable, and on and on. The task of our time is to accelerate towards those solutions and to the transition of the climate future our community wants, and to do that in a just and effective manner.
Excuse me. So how are we doing that? As you all know, Fort Collins City Council has declared a city emergency, sorry, a climate emergency. You've adopted the Our Climate Future plan about four years ago now, and that includes these ambitious targets that Brian detailed earlier, and they're on this slide as well, as well as those transformational outcomes explained in the big moves to help us become a sustainable carbon neutral city. So the OCF, or Our Climate Future, framework is really a guide to help us reduce climate and pollution waste, to help us adapt to climate change, and to help meet people's everyday needs by prioritizing equity and belonging. But it's about more than just climate, right? There's many big moves around housing and the economy and waste and more. So OCF takes a systems approach to coordinate, guide, and report on sustainability efforts, and those are based on the council-adopted goals that are data-driven and time-specific. So the work of achieving our OCF goals and these transformational outcomes, it's not owned by any one single department. And of course, we know the city can't do it alone. So sustainability actions that you all wrestle with every week are organized within the OCF framework and then accelerated across the organization and the community. And that includes being accelerated by new investments like the 2050 tax. So let me just briefly review a couple of key terms that we use in OCF for familiarity. These solutions or actions that we know are needed are organized into the largest scale of big moves. Those are the transformational outcomes as described by the community. And then the smallest are the next moves, those individual actions, think programs and projects that help achieve the bigger outcomes. And then we have pathways. That's sort of in the middle of those groups of next moves that help drive towards specific outcomes. All right. So that's some background on OCF. I just wanted to make sure everyone was grounded in that before we turn to what we're really here to discuss tonight, the strategic funding plan moving forward. So we know that you, Council, and our community want to see action and results to move the needle on sustainability. The good news is that work is happening. Staff are not waiting on more planning efforts to take action. Just look at the rest of your agenda tonight. We know that a viable transit system and increased building efficiency are key outcomes to deliver on our climate future. So OCF and the strategic funding plan are all about giving that strategic guidance around the known solutions. The question really is how do we organize prioritize and sequence the existing and emerging actions So that city leadership can resource the work effectively. That's always been at the heart of OCF So the strategic funding plan will do just that by helping to guide investment of the 2050 tax
That was the climate revenue portion as well as some other funding sources And it'll be a tool for aligning vision with resources
providing prioritized strategies, funding options, and potential impacts to inform investment decisions. And we know that the 2050 tax is really a catalyst to help create the opportunity for thinking about long-term solutions and how it connects our goals to implementation across a longer timescale than we typically think. All right. Before I hand it off, I'm just going to review a couple of phases of this project. And I want to emphasize that tonight staff are really looking for feedback from council members on the process and the approach that we're proposing Not really on the specific examples used those are intended to really just illustrate how this can be a useful tool We'll take the input that you all give us and the discussion We hear tonight and refine this work in phase two in the first quarter of next year in time to inform the council budget process for 2027 28 and of course provide future updates at a regular cadence. This is just the project timeline in a visual format to show how it aligns with council priority setting and with next year's budget process. So with that, I'm going to hand it off to my colleague Grant to talk about the strategic funding plan in more detail.
Thanks, honoree. My name is Grant Stumpf. I get the opportunity to work with the Environmental Services Department as a lead specialist And I'll be talking more in detail about some of the key pieces of the plan that Honore just mentioned, that being the revenue projections, the allocation process and outcomes, and then the next moves plan. And so I'll start by talking about revenue projections. So this is really looking at the dollar value that we have available to us to devote towards our climate future. And when we're talking about projections, we need to put a time bound on that. And so for this specific uses of this project, we are looking at projecting funding sources out 15 years, which we feel like really walks a balance between knowing what reasonable funding sources and reasonable solutions we might have, as well as giving ourselves enough of a strategic runway to be able to use funds strategically to be able to achieve our goals. And so for the purposes of this council presentation, we have projected three key funding sources for our climate future. And these are both sort of to harken back to what Brian just talked about. These are both climate OCF driven and OCF beneficial funding sources. And so we have the 2050 tax, the climate portion specifically of that. We also have the remittance fees from disposable bags, as well as utilities electric ratepayer funding. Specifically, those funds devoted towards energy efficiency and renewable energy. As we move towards the full deliverable of the plan, we can include more funding sources in this. Some ones that staff have identified as potential inclusions are the transit portion of the 2050 tax, the community capital improvement plan, if that is passed in November, and other future income sources as identified. So bring this down to a practical level of what this could look like on paper. Here we have the 2050 tax in blue on the bottom. And then you can see the utilities electric ratepayer funding in orange in the middle and the disposable bag revenue on top in green. And really what this graph goes to show is some of the general trend lines within this funding source, as well as some of the general orders of magnitude as well.
So once we have an idea of the potential funding sources that we have available to us, then it's up to us to figure out how would we as staff propose allocating those potential or how would we propose allocating those dollars to make the biggest impact possible on our climate future so that we can inform council on that process. And so really the purpose of the allocation approach is to strategically align investments with our climate future goals, big moves, and council priorities. And this would really take place across a two-stage process. The first being a process of prioritizing big moves and pathways, and the second then being allocating dollars towards those and providing those recommendations to council for your budgeting process. And so when we talk about prioritization, we have several areas that we're looking at prioritizing along. And the first is strategic impact. Really, what is our likelihood of a given area to maximize, sorry, maximizing our likelihood of hitting our goals and outcomes of our climate future? And what is the strategic value of a given piece of work? The next is being people-centered. So our climate future was fundamentally a community-driven plan, and we heard very clearly that we needed to focus on mitigation as well as resilience and equity within that plan. And so how are we addressing that within our priorities? We also want to ensure that we're using local tax dollars to make a local impact for local people. And the final area of prioritization is interconnection. How are we interconnected with council priorities and guidance? How are we connected to other city planning efforts? And then how are we identifying and really making sure to identify and support partnerships where our community might be best positioned to lead? And so that prioritization process will take a look at the potential work available to us and prioritize what might make the biggest impact in these areas. The next stage of the process is then allocating funding, recommending funding allocations to those big moves and pathways. And there's some key considerations to be made when we're making these recommendations. The first is that we're aligning allocations with our revenue forecast. So we're not allocating more dollars than we are projected to bring in. The next piece is making sure that we're aligning allocations with allowable uses. So each of these individual funds has allowable uses by ballot language or by municipal code, and we need to make sure to respect that. Really where we can bring strategy in, though, is the funding category and the time horizons, and that's where we're able to bring in classified funds as capital funding or be able to bring in other sources of funding to be able to look strategically at how are we putting dollars to use for our climate future. And that final piece is the through line of mitigation, resilience, and equity. And so making sure that we're allocating and communicating to council and to our community how these funds will make an impact on these areas. And really when we're talking about that, we're talking about trade-offs. So a goal of this process will be to communicate where an effort in one area may negatively or positively impact another area. And so that will be one of the outcomes that we're looking to provide to council to better inform the process. So that was all at a very high conceptual level, and I got a couple eyebrows. So I want to provide an example here to bring us down to earth a little bit and talking literally earth here with compost. So this is an example from zero waste neighborhoods, which is big move two, looking specifically at the organics diversion pathway or strategy. And so looking specifically at reducing greenhouse gas emissions by diverting organic matter from the landfill into products such as compost, specifically looking at a potential composting facility. So this is an example looking specifically at strategic timing of levers. So Brian just talked about the levers of government. We're going to revisit those here in a second and then incorporating capital funding and some other portions. On the left of this graph or on the left of this slide you can see those four levers of government that Brian just mentioned and then those are translated on to the table in the right in the rows. So we have the behavioral, economic, infrastructure, and regulatory levers there. And then in the columns, we have the short, medium and long term timeframes. So you can see across the top, we're using a behavioral lever and we likely will continue using this behavioral lever of outreach and education in this space throughout the next 15 years. However, we're currently working on a composting pilot right now where we're working to learn more about how organics diversion works in our community. One of the things that we could start strategically targeting at this time is an infrastructure investment into building a composting facility. And so that's something that's in the medium term that's a lever that we could pull that would then unlock several other levers such as regulatory levers of policies and partnerships as well as some behavioral levers of a community-wide collection program. So by learning and then creating an infrastructure project, we can then unlock some additional levers to truly make an impact on our goal. So that's looking at it from the levers standpoint. We can also look at this from a funding standpoint, and this is really where the lens of the strategic funding plan can come in. So on the bottom, you can see that this is the same story. We have the education and outreach in the blue bars all across the bottom continually being funded. We also have the composting pilot which is being funded right now. You can then see on the blue line graph accumulated funding building up over time. This is a potential savings for a capital project which would then be spent down to build a compost facility. Once that is built, we can then begin directing funding into a community-wide collection program or another different type of program to truly make an impact on this goal. So I have another example that's a little bit more broad than that. And so this is big move six efficient emissions free buildings. And specifically what we're going to be looking at here is strategy across pathways. So strategy. Yep. Sorry, I'm going to just leave that there. The pathways within build big move six are building performance, building electrification and building construction. And what we can see here, so this is the funding outlay for those pathways across the next 15 years. And what we can see here is building construction in green on the bottom. The colors here are slightly different than what's in your packet. We realized that there were some similarities with the previous graphics, so we just changed them. No numbers have changed. We have building performance in purple, and that is slowly decreasing over time and we have building electrification in blue which is slowly increasing in time. So what we're showing here is that through efforts to make an impact on building performance such as building performance standards and performance incentives we will eventually hopefully work ourselves out of a job and so that that funding is decreasing. At that same time we can then begin as our building stock is becoming more efficient begin incentivizing building electrification, which is where you see building electrification start increasing. And so in this way, we're making sure we're not losing a step when we're completing one goal. We're moving right on to the next one at the same time. And so hopefully through these two examples, you can see how adding this funding layer really allows us to strategically approach this big problem of our climate future and how we can work towards those goals. So the final piece of the plan, if I can get the slides to advance, there we go, is the next moves plan. And so this term might sound somewhat familiar to you all. The next moves plan is really the tactical level or the action level of our climate future. It's the work that's going to be done on each big move and pathway in the next two to five years. It was originally created with OCF when it was published as a plan, has been updated once since then, and we'll be providing an update to this plan as part of the strategic funding plan. So really the purpose is to provide a work plan for staff and communication and accountability towards our community. We have provided updates for you all in your AIS, some examples from three specific big moves, those being zero waste neighborhoods, efficient emissions-free buildings and 100% renewable electricity. The end goal of this plan is to update across all 13 big moves. So this is an example of what a fully fleshed out or a fleshed out pathway could look like. So this is the building performance pathway under efficient emissions free buildings. And here you can see the next move specifically that you'll hear about later today being established building performance standards as a next move under this pathway. And then you can also see some of the incentive programs being continued as next moves within this pathway as well. And so this is not fully comprehensive of all of those within that move. So like I mentioned, we'll be updating all 13 big moves, associated pathways, and next moves for the eventual plan delivered in Q1 of 2026. We'll also be updating the revenue projections with any additionally identified revenue sources as well as allocation criteria and running through that process once to feed into the budget process. So that brings us back to our questions and our guidance sought. I'm looking to turn it over to you all and looking forward to
discussion. Great thank you very much and turn it over to Council. Whosever eyebrows were going up goes first. Just kidding. No questions. So, Kelly, go ahead.
Thank you. Thank you. Just a very few brief ones. If we don't have the answers tonight, we can get them. And this is not a facetious question. Did the council, does anyone know if we declared, some council declared a climate emergency or a climate crisis? You used the word emergency. I remembered crisis, but I'll go with your emergency. Does anybody know what we did? it's one of those things could we get information we did a resolution in 2000
yeah sorry we did a resolution back in 2024 three one i don't know somewhere around there
okay can we get a date and what we did yeah we know thank you julie i appreciate that um and then uh very briefly these are very quick um can we go to slide 13 on the revenue forecast I'm probably misunderstanding it and for the hope I'm reading the right one I was not that answers it just answered my question I misread the utilities ratepayer funding and going up at 1% a year with the tax only going up at 1% a year and I was gonna say good luck with that upcoming budget that you're gonna be doing if all the projections are 1% for the next 15 years I misread it, so I just answered my own question there. That would have been uncomfortable.
And did we tax that when the tax passed in 2023, does anybody remember if that was April or November for sure?
That was November.
I was hoping that was the answer because we're just getting to this now, and maybe you could flesh it out for just, you know, help me understand because that's November. But then we had all of 24 and 25, and we're just kind of get to lay in this 15-year plan out now. And I think it's a fair question that it took two years to get us to this point. I need to understand that a little better.
Yes, that is a fair question. We hadn't started working on the strategic funding plan until after the passage of the initiative. So we didn't want to put the cart before the horse. So that's why we started after the fact. And I'll look to my team to correct me if I'm wrong. But immediately after we moved in, after the passage in November, we moved into the budget cycle and we put in place, we stood up an immediate kind of framework for making decisions on how we'd allocate that first year, that 2024 spend. I think we've also provided a memo to council on what was invested in, but you see work across the big moves from, you know, housing, zero waste economy, supporting our vulnerable neighbors. I'd be happy to provide additional highlights, but that was the bulk of the work in 24, springboarding us into 25, where we said we want to have a very intentional approach. This is something that's relatively new for how we make some of our climate investments. So we wanted to get it right, and we've spent the last several months working on and developing
this framework. Okay. Could we go to slide 21, please? And continuing my theme of, and I know
things take longer than I would like, and longer than a lot of people would like, not just me. am I reading that right now I got my colors right the composting pilot as we go across that's the
15 years so the composting pilot is one two three four six so I seven years I usually
please tell me I'm reading that wrong I usually have in mind a year or two maybe a year and a half I'll call it a year and a half might be reasonable and then move to some action I mean I'm hoping I'm wrong. That's the way I read it. But if a council member came on council for the first time in January, they might be cutting the ribbon near the end of their two four-year terms. So that seems like a long time for a pilot project. So I'm reading that wrong.
No, no, you're exactly right. The contract services agreement that we currently have for the compost pilot is through the end of 2026. So this is just intended to be an example of sort of showing how different investments can support outcomes over time. And I think in that exact one, we just have the dates off by a little bit.
Okay. So it is just like a year pilot program. So if it works and I don't, you know, and if it's a little more than a year, that's not it. But I was looking at seven years of orange on there. And that seemed like a little long and keeping the things take longer than I would like. And I think that's it. Thank you.
Well, do you want to go ahead? Sure. Am I remembering correctly, and thank you for the presentation. This might be a question for Grant, I think.
Am I remembering correctly that we no longer have an avenue for folks who want to contribute extra monthly to their utility bill for renewables or climate action, that that avenue went away? Correct. Correct?
That's correct.
Okay. And that was because of low utilization or like a low take rate?
I'd have to invite Brian up for that. That's actually
Okay, a follow-up would be great. I just and I've brought this up before but we have residents who are encouraging us to move more quickly and I know that we've got a variety of funding mechanisms that we're leaning into and I do think it's a missed opportunity unless there really was not a good take rate, but
for people to kick in more if that is their passion. I know that's like a drop in the bucket, but I would love to give those folks a place
to put their energy and their dollars.
Yeah, Council Member Patiani, I can speak just a little bit to that. It actually, I think, was more from our overall approach with our city give strategy and looking at some alternative mechanisms. So I do think a follow-up would be helpful to talk more specifically to that. It wasn't necessarily utilization. It was, I would say, a change in approach.
The way that we, okay, change in approach. Okay, perfect, thank you. And then, okay, I'll pause and I'll come back if I get my thoughts collected. Thank you. Oh, Julie, do you want to go? Thanks, Kelly.
I can or I can go later. You want me to go ahead? Oh, no, please go ahead. Okay. Well, thank you. So you're going to hear a theme here, I think so far. I'm glad you have that. Do you still have this slide up for you guys to 121? Okay, so I mean, first of all, thank you. This is great work. I like how you've planned this all out what you've put into it. the way you're doing your priorities, I like. I think my concern is that we're going to spend too much time analyzing, planning, allocating, that we're going to miss a lot of opportunities. So as an example, looking at this slide, knowing that we want to build a compost facility eventually. I mean, unless you think in those seven years we'll realize, oh, we shouldn't, isn't the cost going up tremendously each year that we wait? And so I have some concerns there about landscape changing by the time we actually get to the implementation point.
So can you speak to that at all? Thank you for the question, Julie. You'll remember perhaps back to April around one of your council priorities we brought forth some pretty detailed analysis of a compost feasibility study and the timeline that was suggested there was in the neighborhood of five or six years depending on a lot of different factors but a strong emphasis on the potential for regional collaboration to try to get to a scale that can maximize diversion and increased efficiency and lower costs for all residents. The fact of the matter is that infrastructure takes a long time to develop, and I know you all advocated for and put a measure in front of voters that will be on the ballot, and we'll find out if the capital improvement, the CCIP measure passes, which includes $7 million towards that future facility. But the feasibility study we shared with you says the full cost will be something between $15 and $25, you know depending on a lot of factors so I think it takes time to get
infrastructure up. Yeah thank you on array and if I may I think we also owe it to ourselves to take some time to learn before moving to investment in a significant facility you know that be in the magnitude you know 15 to 20 million dollars so we want to understand how the community is going to act and operate and invest accordingly and the time period between investment and infrastructure facility gives us a chance to really sense with the community what's going to be most effective most utilized and most impactful I think a facility is going to be an important part of the infrastructure going forward and what I would be really sure that we understand that well before we make any recommendations on a 20 million dollar compost facility and put that in front of council so we want to do some learn learning, acting, learning, and acting while we make some informed recommendations to council.
Okay. Can you go to the slide previous to this one, please?
So we'll stick to just the compost facility for one second, and then I want to take it back to
the broader question. But so then you've got policies and partnerships put together in long
term. Shouldn't those partnerships come a lot earlier?
Yes, I think probably if you're looking at, you know, an exact timeline for a full project development to get a compost facility online, those dates would probably shift around.
Again, this is intended to be an illustrative example, not a detailed breakdown of the exact sequencing.
But that is something council could take on sooner is exploring policies that could support a circular economy for, you know, recycled food waste and compost as an example.
Okay. Well, then let's take it back to the bigger picture. So you come up with your priorities. How often are you visiting this list in the 15 years and like looking at it? Yeah. So this would actually be a rolling plan that would be developed in line with the budget process.
So every two years?
Every two years.
Okay. Great. And that's the rhythm we've been in with the next moves plan update. Two years. Okay.
so then back to my original question with a concern that we're taking so much time planning that the landscape may have changed by the time it comes to allocation
what do you think that two-year cadence will help with that or do you have another answer
these things are always sequential and you know in my experience of helping to support council and And when staff are trying to bring viable actions forward, you all have so much that you have to consider and weigh against one another. And so this, what we're describing here, is a way for you all to think about impacts and costs and how different outcomes might actually complement or be in conflict with one another.
And so it is a way of trying to organize a lot of complexity in a way that helps inform your decision making, especially related to key investments in the budget process.
That budget process is typically on a two-year cycle.
And so, as Jacob said, we've aligned our strategic influence and helping support your decision making in that two-year cycle.
julie i'd also like that this this really is moving us into a more proactive space so rather than being um budget responsive we're being more proactive in mapping out some of the milestones that we believe are ahead of us in terms of significant expenditures that's why i think that compost example is helpful to say we think we may be spending a significant amount of capital in five-ish years. That's a milestone for us where we need to know we need to be saving money. We need to vet that strategy against others and make sure that we have the resource bank to do that if that remains the most impactful approach. So once we have all these mapped out, I think this will give us a pretty strong visual for the next 10 to 15 years on where we're going to have massive capital outlay on impactful strategies. And that allows us to kind of back into some of those two-year tactical plans or the next move plans, because that should be informed by some
of the larger scale investments. Okay. And so then is the plan that once you have, sorry, if this was in the end and I missed it, once you have that list that will more than likely shift a little bit every two years, that it's going to be posted somewhere on the Our Climate Future page or readily accessible to the community? Yeah, absolutely. And informing the very
transparent budget process that the city uses to try and prioritize and fund needed investments. You know, I think we said this, but it really is worth underscoring that because there's a critical need to deliver results on a two-year timeframe in alignment with our budget that sometimes can be At the expense of long-range strategic planning And so at the heart of this work is the intention to help our community and our city leadership Look out across multiple time horizons so that those short-term investments and strategies are rolling up into longer-term outcomes
Okay, thank you
Anybody else?
Go ahead, Emily Ventures.
Okay. Yeah, Julie covered a lot of my questions and concerns, so thank you, Julie. I think. I think in theory I like where we're going, but then I think about what this is going to look like in practice. So in your phase two you kind of have an outline of revenue projections, allocation criterion process, and next moves update, which I feel like is what we're talking about. So what will be brought to council next? If you could just help me understand that.
So the idea for this is to be an input into the budget process. And so really through the budget process is how this will be brought, sorry, brought to council in the future. And of course, there'll be input back and forth. But I think that's really the primary goal of this is to serve as an input to inform the budget process.
And you might think of what we're showing you all tonight as a minimum viable product, right? Sort of the outline of the approach with some illustrative examples. What will be available in the spring will be a much more fleshed out version of this that will include clear description of those gathered strategies, the pathways inside each big move. So that will allow you all to see where some dedicated funding and resourcing in alignment with the the council priorities that come out of your January which retreat will help align with the budget process okay so that will come before
the budget process so cats will have another touch point before okay I think that's a good idea because it during the budget process just too complicated to weigh in on priorities and where we think we should be focusing so Jacob Did you have I just wanted to
Make sure that it was said that the council priority setting will inform this process We bring it back to council and you will see the detailed List of strategies and tactics that we'll be working on for a two-year time frame that are that map to longer time horizons
Okay, that sounds great. Thank you
yeah and kind of looking at that council priority setting like looking through all of this it's kind of wondering like a scoring rubric you know how much does it align with council priorities where
are we going to get the biggest bang for the buck you know something a little bit more concrete and I hope like next time that you come forward with all this information we've got something sketched out closer to that as well if that's possible and then i'm talking about the um waste diversion and the pilot for composting that we have right now i last i heard there's 480 of the 600 slots have been taken which leaves 120 open for community members so if they are interested in being part of this pilot project? Could you tell them how they can do that?
Yeah, thank you for that little promotion there. We're really excited to have a large number of people across our community testing out food scrap composting at their home or business. This is, again, a 12-, 14-month pilot project funded through 2050 tax revenue, and the intention is to get, you know, to bring forward subsidies to allow folks, both residents and businesses, to be able to try out composting. We're working with a local business called Compost Queen, and you can go to their website, which you can find by Googling. I don't have the exact website. I think it's Compost Queen FC, and sign up for service there at a deeply discounted rate. Thank you. yes i heard from the other day mayor you haven't signed up yet out in the public kelly i'm taping
my eyebrows for the next work session just for the record um i have to follow up on julie and
emily's thing i think i'm following up on it and i apologize if i'm not but the um kind of the the time frame and get a little personal here but so uh um my wife always reminds me that she never knew I was so cautious when she met me. I'm a cautious person, actually, to a fault. I wish I wasn't, and so I get the cautiousness, but you folks, and it's not personal. I'm talking organizationally. You're just the people at the table tonight. Take it to new levels, because we, on our first retreat for some of us, six of us, actually, we had
improved composting and food waste on it. That's four years and six months ago now, and so then we're looking on another seven years so that's 11 11 years and four months before we might be operational on a composting facility rawhide took less time than that so when i think of the rawhide power plant from conceptual to firing up being less time than us getting organizationally to a composting facility my head explodes so I and I'm using it one because it's important so again get personal my wife runs my campaigns best I've ever known then she goes good now I don't have to pay attention for anything and she doesn't pay attention to other than reading the paper and stuff what's going on but she said hey I only got one request this is four years eight months ago I really think we need to up our game on food composting and composting and and again I can still go home after this meeting, but it's not by the way It's going to be 11 years and eight months and we might have a composting facility. Um I truly don't get it because I'm cautious. It's public money Council wisely put it on to finally get the organization's attention that we meant it to get to prime the pump with some money I flat out don't get it so any help now or later that a composting facility from the first time we brought this up at our retreat first retreat for six of us i think i didn't go around the table but um to 11 years 12 years to maybe having a compost facility i i frankly don't get it when rawhide was built
quicker thank you for the question uh and totally fair um we've said it takes long and 11 years may seem unreasonable for a facility but i want to i do think it's worth pointing out we've not done nothing around composting in the past few years moving to single hauler and including the organic materials capture we've rolled out the largest organics capture program in the city's history so we have scaled significantly beyond where we were prior to single hauler we've seen greater adoption of food scraps both at a residential and commercial level level we're trying to facilitate that with the pilot with compost queen and then we have not built a facility we've not built a facility because we've been trying to understand is that something we do alone 15 to 20 million dollars to meet our needs is that something we do with the region and councilmember Olson you know very well how our conversations have gone with Larimer County about regional solid waste infrastructure and there are some reasons why we don't have a facility But I just want to say we've not done nothing. We have made the largest strides around organic material capture and reuse in just recent years.
And I'll also comment, you're free to compost at home. It's not like we're all free to build our own coal plant, right? But if you want to compost and you believe in it, go ahead. I mean, my mom's done it for years. I mean, years and years and years. um so i think that we have made big strides and it is complicated we were transferring the landfill we had the two year was it two years that whole discussion at least seemed like six um anyway um i i would just like to say that um in addition to um that composting is also personal responsibility it doesn't have to be done by the city um in addition to that i really like your approach. I love your people centered on prioritization on 16. And I think that you're going in the right direction. I think that you'll come back in Q1 and 26 with a lot more details in. And this is just asking us, we like the framework. So my answer to that is yes. And the reason why I specifically call it people centered, because increasingly, as we move into the future with our these goals in mind we are having tension between affordability and um people businesses and and some of our climate goals and and and those are what it um there's a really good thing that bill gates wrote and i can send it to you the bait gates comment or something gates notes and it's about that tension it's also a very optimistic article that just says you know if you look globally at the strides we have made are quite remarkable we love to beat ourselves up right but we we are moving right um ev cars are being sold in colorado i forget the percentage i read the other day you know we're electrifying we're we're you know we're going to be 88 our generation is going to be 88 clean by 2030 um it it's quite remarkable the strides we've made and is challenging and the challenge moving forward will be the balance between affordability and he calls it the green premium. So I appreciate your approach and I think you're on the right track. That's my comments.
Mayor, one quick thing just circling back on the climate emergency resolution. on august 20th 2019 council adopted resolution 2019-091 which acknowledged the global climate emergency and also reaffirmed the city's commitment both to local action and to
cooperation with regional state and federal governments oh it's 2019 yes oh okay that
predates a lot of us yeah go ahead trisha and i had to look it up we're number one in the country for the third straight year, I think it is, and we were at 32.4% of sales from July 1st to September 30th were EV sales in the state.
Yeah, I mean, it's remarkable. It's really, and then when we're closing down the coal plants, then it's really going to mean something, right? So we can't forget to not sit back, but also to acknowledge the work that we've done and the accomplishments we've made and that we're not going to stop, of course. But I think we get so distraught that we can't say, hey, look, we really are moving. Yeah. I've got to go home and start composting.
Any other comments?
Go ahead, Melanie.
I'll be quick. I'm just going to echo the mayor's thoughts because I think when I needed to collect my thoughts,
I was getting wrapped around the axle thinking about future phases and future discussions.
But I do like the approach for a lot of the same reasons that the mayor brought up.
And I really do like that you highlighted, even though it's common sense, that we're going to need to talk about tradeoffs in this journey.
And I think that's going to be really important. And I appreciate that.
Anyone else? Great. Thanks so much.
Thank you.
Do people want a little 10-minute break? Five-minute break? Ten? Okay.
If we say five, it's ten. If we say ten, it's ten.
Great. We're back and ready to go. What's next? All right. Thank you. Our next topic is transport optimization. This is one that we have had a couple conversations with council leading up to this. And as we get started, I will just acknowledge I think this is going to be a continuation of some of the conversation we had in our last item about really how are we going to prioritize. So this is at least for many of us, I think, when we started with the 2050 tax, we were really thinking about how do we expand the system and build it out to be all the wonderful things that we want it to be. and as we are facing our current fiscal constrained reality and growing expenses in a transit system we really are having to look at how do we prioritize to still achieve our goals in the best way possible so I'm happy to turn it over to Kaylee Zizel who is our transit director who will lead us through this and I will let her introduce the individuals who are here with us tonight. Thanks Kaylee.
Thank you Kelly. Good evening Mayor and Council. I'm Kaylee Zaysell, Transport Director. Here with me this evening is Drew Brooks, Deputy Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation. Steve Zapparo, he's our Senior Operations Manager for Transport. And Jason Miller, he's the Project Manager with Farron Peers, the consulting firm that's been helping us through this project.
So our agenda this evening will include an overview of the project, our transit scenario development process,
recommended transit scenario that's really based on that process will cover
paratransit impacts safety and security improvements as well as next steps for
the project yeah so our question for council this evening is what questions
or feedback do council members have about the service planning principles
and priorities that have really guided the development of the future transit system.
So we'll begin with the project overview.
In this section, we'll cover the purpose and goals, financial overview, and alignment with city priorities.
So our transit master plan continues to be the long-term vision for the future of transit in Fort Collins.
The purpose of this project, however, was to develop a shorter range between five to 10 year fiscally constrained service plan. One that really reflects our current financial realities while staying focused on community needs and growing ridership.
So in this plan, we prioritize maintaining a fare-free system, engaging the community inclusively, aligning with industry best practices, adapting service to really reflect post-pandemic travel patterns.
Adapting a system that's intuitive and easier for folks to navigate.
And most importantly, really ensuring that this plan is financially feasible within our available budget.
So across the transit industry, expenses have grown drastically between 50 and 70 percent nationwide. Here in Fort Collins, we're anticipating approximately 50% growth since 2019, between 2019 and 2026. So consistent with national trends, our largest cost drivers have been personnel, vehicle repair services, and our contracted transportation services.
On the revenue side, while we have seen growth that has been primarily at the city level, overall funding just has not kept pace with the rising expenses.
We've also experienced reductions in key revenue sources, including a decrease in the flex partnership funding and the decrease in the faster operational grant. So the positive news is that beginning in 2026, we anticipate receiving between two and three million dollars annually in a new state funding through Senate Bill 230.
So this bill establishes a new funding stream generated by fees on oil and gas production to help expand and improve public transit statewide. So you'll see that represented in the chart for 2027.
That's the portion in green. And it's already been incorporated into our financial assumptions for the final recommendation.
So transit remains a key city priority and strategy for achieving council and community
goals.
The optimization plan supports our long-term vision by focusing on efficiency, reliability,
equitable access, and laying a strong foundation for future growth within a fiscally constrained environment.
So in this section, we'll walk through the process of how we arrived at the recommended transit scenario.
There were three key elements that shaped our principles and network design priorities, which we'll explore a little bit deeper in the next few slides. But this includes feedback from the public, staff, and stakeholders,
evaluation data such as ridership of the existing system, highly traveled corridors and areas with the greatest potential for transit use as well as best practice research from agencies that have successfully
recovered ridership post pandemic so together these inputs form the foundation for our design priorities over the past month we have been operationally testing the draft network really just to make sure that it's
efficient it's realistic we're able to run the timings the way that we anticipate and feasible within our existing resources. So, the result is a scenario granted in data, best practices, and community feedback.
So, we began with three different transit scenarios, each designed with the most fiscally constrained network, framework of about 130,000 service hours. The final scenario that you'll see later is based on a more realistic range of about 110 to 115,000 service hours. So as the city and transports budget picture has evolved, we needed to adjust our expectations for how much service we could sustainably operate. So as a result, the final plan reflects a reduced level of service hours to align with the current financial realities. So scenario one was travel patterns, and that was really focused on high-frequency direct routes with the most existing travel activity in the city regardless of mode number two was rider demand it really prioritized trying transit reliant communities equity and access and then the third scenario is condensed with micro transit
so it combines a high frequency core network with flexible micro transit in lower density areas so these three scenarios were shared for public engagement with the understanding that that final scenario would likely be a hybrid really reflecting community feedback further analysis and operational feasibility.
So we gathered input from a broad cross-section of the community including the public boards and commissions technical and community advisory committee members and targeted stakeholder
groups through surveys including specific surveys excuse me for CSU and PSD open house
focus groups and community events so here's what we heard community feedback
strongly favored frequency over coverage people prefer buses that come more often even if that means fewer routes so there was clear support for transit reliant
riders and simple linear routes on major corridors that are easy to navigate riders also emphasize the importance of reliability safety on-time performance along with a desire for more evening and weekend service. Residents also identified gaps along Timberline and South of Harmony on Trilby. There was curiosity about microtransit, but most were skeptical due to the cost and the inconvenience of having to transfer potentially between microtransit onto fixed route. So overall scenario one travel patterns was the most popular followed by a scenario two which was rider demand. So this final recommendation really tries to blend the two focusing on high frequency linear routes that best serve key corridors and higher populations of transit reliant individuals.
So each of the three scenarios was evaluated using a broad range of data inputs to ensure
that we were really designing a system grounded in evidence. This included ridership by route down to even the stop level, route productivity,
rider demographics, and travel patterns across the city.
We also analyzed transit propensity data.
So these included factors like age, income, car ownership, language access, and digital connectivity to understand where people are most likely to rely on transit.
In addition, we looked at proximity to key destinations.
So affordable housing, schools, grocery stores, health care, social services to try and ensure equitable access. So together, these inputs gave us a comprehensive picture of where transit is needed most and where it can have the greatest impact.
So to better understand what's driving ridership recovery across the country, we examined six peer transit agencies that have rebounded faster than the national average since 2019. A few key themes emerged. The first, most transit agencies reduced their service area or simplified their network and really focused resources on their highest performing routes. operating costs despite this reduction operating costs increased even with smaller the smaller networks so that's just really reflecting the higher labor maintenance and fuel expenses that transit agencies are seeing and so maintaining or expanding expanding service would have driven costs up even more as a result the cost per passenger increased significantly across nearly all agencies. So despite these challenges, agencies that saw the strongest recovery invested strategically, prioritizing frequency, reliability, and equity. So these insights did really help us shape our own approach to building a more focused, sustainable transit system.
So this slide brings everything together. The feedback that we heard from the community, the data and evaluation of our existing system, and best practices from peer agencies all came together to really form the foundation for this plan. From those inputs, we developed our core principles, frequency, productivity, equity, simplicity, and efficiency, which guided our
network design priorities around building a data-driven grid-based network that prioritizes
transit-reliant populations and focuses resources where they'll have the greatest impact. Given the available resources, we've had to make some really tough trade-offs because we are not able to provide all of the service that we want to provide. So through those difficult decisions, we've really allowed the principles to guide how those trade-offs are made. In response to the letter submitted this morning by Colorado State University Alternative Transportation Fee Board at FAB to City Council, we would like to take an opportunity to address some of the concerns that they raised. In terms of engagement, we sent out a CSU specific survey to CSU students. It was published in the source and it did also go out in their newsletter. We attended Earth Day on campus and had surveys available and had an opportunity to talk to students. We did have CSU representation on our community advisory committee as well. And all that said, we greatly value the partnership that we have with CSU, and we do plan to engage further with CSU, ATFAB, and ASCSU to discuss the proposed system, as well as their concerns and questions. And while we're here tonight, you know, seeking feedback on the principles from council to make sure that we're on the right track, there is flexibility for us to continue evaluating the service that CSU receives. This upcoming year, we will be renegotiating a new intergovernmental agreement. Our current agreement is expiring. So we believe there's really space and definitely a willingness to continue hearing feedback from CSU and partnering together to, you know, really provide the best possible service. So I'm going to pass it over to Steve Zapparo, Transport Senior Operations Manager, to walk us through some of the operational elements of the recommended scenario. Thank you, Kelly. so this slide shows the recommended transit scenario and how it connects our pre to our previously stated purpose and principles the proposed network creates a lean grid-based system
that maintains direct efficient routing while strengthening our highest performing routes the streamlined design focuses resources on productive corridors with increases both the total ridership and passengers per service hour shaped by community feedback including requests for new service along Timberline.
The plan prioritizes areas with the greatest transit reliance
and improved connections to schools, health care, shopping, even services and affordable housing.
Built within existing financial and staffing realities,
it right-sizes lower-performing routes to ensure long-term sustainability. For example, Route 9 servicing West LaPorte currently averages about half the riders per service hours and 20% of the daily ridership of a Route 8 on North College. Concentrating service in higher performing areas allows us to provide reliable, efficient service for the greatest number of riders.
We do recognize that CSU-affiliated riders represent a significant share of both current and future ridership.
For that reason, the recommended network increases services on routes heavily used by CSU riders,
both in percentage of total network service hours as well as total number of service hours provided.
Finally, microtransit was evaluated but not recommended.
Its $25 to $35 cost per passenger is far higher than the $6 to $7 projected cost in the recommended network. Now the network's broken out into three different types of routes, and it's a layered approach. Frequent routes operate every 10 to 20 minutes throughout the day and include key corridors such as Max, North College, West Elizabeth, and the on-campus Horn route. These routes have historically been the most productive in the network and have the highest ridership overall. While we do not have funding identified for the overall project, principals from the West Elizabeth design plan were incorporated into new Route 3 with a direct one-seat connection between CSU's main and Foothills campuses. Consistent with the operational plan established in the West Elizabeth BRT design, it has also been identified that this route could connect to MAX, and that would be a possibility when future funding becomes available. Core routes have a 30-minute peak daily service and are focused on high-demand corridors such as Prospect, Shields, and Drake, ensuring reliable connectivity to MACs and major destinations such as the Fort Collins Senior Center, Social Services, Front Range Community College, and Medical Service by the Poudre Valley Hospital. Local routes serve corridors with steady travel demand but a more moderate ridership potential compared to frequent and core routes. Examples include routes on harmony and timberline the regional flex service along with the foothill shuttle and gold routes are not shown on the maps but they will be included as part of the final recommendation we reckon we reckon we we answer we recognize under the current recommended transit network some areas were received less service than in the past as additional revenue becomes available the network can be expanded to add service increase frequency or restore coverage in areas that no longer have it if we want to prioritize any of these routes or service expansion options within the existing budget the principles can be adjusted to focus more on coverage it will result though in reducing frequency and productivity elsewhere in the network examples of these enhancements would be increased frequency on max establishing a direct connection between Max, West Elizabeth and Max, extending Timberline to service Trilby, creating a new route to service West Harmony, reinstating service along Laporte Ave, fixed route and dial-a-ride Sunday service, or by adding micro transit zones.
In this section we'll talk Talk to the impacts to dial-a-ride paratransit service as well as a mitigation strategy to offset the negative impacts. As we adjust the fixed route network, the dial-a-ride service area will also change since by federal ADA standards, paratransit service must extend three-quarter mile from any fixed route. That means our fixed route area, as our fixed route area becomes more focused, the dial-a-ride area will also decrease in size. We estimate about 39 existing dollar ride clients may be impacted these individuals We legacy in meaning that they'll continue to read service receive service even though they fall outside the new area Because dial a ride in years fixed route service hours. It also means no Sunday paratransit service Currently we average 19 trips per Sunday and dial a ride To help bridge some of these gaps. We've been updating the dial a taxi program With a restructuring of the program it would allow eligible riders So anyone who qualifies for dial-a-ride within the growth management area to take taxi trips beyond the dial-a-ride service area
Any time of day any day of the week including Sundays using a $15 voucher towards the fare of a taxi Based on the current available budget. We anticipate about 30 vouchers being available per day
this map shows the updated dial ride service area based on the new fixed route network green shows the new service area light blue shows areas no longer included and yellow highlights new areas added while the overall footprint is more condensed the 39 clients that live outside the new boundary will continue receiving service to ensure continuity and for anyone outside the service area, the Dial-a-Taxi program will offer flexible trips anywhere within the growth management area. As part of our broader efforts to evaluate and strengthen the system, we've also focused on improving safety security across transport. We've already seen encouraging progress. Community survey data shows that perception of safety, particularly along MAX, are improving, but we know there's still work to do. We faced ongoing challenging filling our our transit service officer positions. While we're still planning and filling our vacancies, it has become clear that we can't rely on this model alone. As a result, we're recommending a hybrid approach repurposing four future TSO positions to support a partnership with police services through the Homeless Outreach and Proactive Engagement Hope Team and the Mental Health Response Team, MHART. This approach ensures consistent coverage and brings specialized training and experience to support our passengers and operators. The framework police services will use includes scanning, identifying specific issues, analysis, determining root causes, response, implement a coordinated plan involving HOPE, M-HART, and District 1 officers, and assessment to monitor outcomes and adjust as needed. This is a collaborative approach designed to address challenges more holistically, ensuring that our riders, operators, and community feel safer across the entire system.
All right, so for next steps for the project, right now we're at the step of confirming
our principles and priorities with council.
From here, we'll share that direction back with the community and begin preparing for
implementation likely in 2027.
So that brings us to our question. What questions or feedback do council members have about the service planning principles
and priorities that are really guiding the future transit system?
Great. Melanie, go ahead. Thank you for the presentation.
Really appreciate this and I appreciate Kaylee having sent those maps bigger.
thank you that was super helpful because i was like i don't know what i'm looking at
um i want to recognize before i give this feedback that i know we are not in any of y'all's dream
scenario budget-wise and i know it doesn't feel good to be talking about cutting services or
you know reducing services i do have some concerns about the significant changes in the southwest part of town i had been given a heads up that that was likely to be the area that was hit the hardest
Can you speak a little bit to why we are adding service on Timberline and taking it away on Taft based on the, what was the map? There was an acronym like AT something or other. I wrote it down. The one that's just about the overall traffic. It looked like Timberline and Taft were in the same classification area. So I was wondering if you could provide more context about removing service down Taftail Road.
Yes.
So I think as we talk through some of these tradeoffs, we're going to see that there are areas in town that definitely check the boxes that are important to us. But because of our resource situation, we're really looking at the areas that really hit the most.
And when we look at Taft and the southwest area, one other element that we looked at was existing ridership within some of the current routes. And so some of the routes that have been identified to possibly be removed or put back in once we have additional funding were really some of the lowest performing routes in our system from a productivity standpoint.
So I'll let Steve may have more to add to that if you want to talk about any of the specifics with some of those routes.
certainly so taft is serviced by currently by route six and in the last few years and particularly in 2025 it is like a fourth lowest ridership route and falling into the same principles of like we're trying to focus on productivity its efficiency in passengers per hour is significantly lower than some areas okay and that's a consistent like factor we use the passengers per hour because it really shows to the productivity and efficiency of her route.
Okay. So even though I look, I finally found the acronym, the AADT is the overall amount of traffic that's in that area, even though that's similar, it's more folks driving and fewer folks taking the bus compared to the Timberland corridor. Okay. I think my, my ask, I guess, would be potentially to revisit frequency at least on the, which the one that services front range community college route 19 down shields i'm just really concerned about we're eliminating taft we're bumping down the frequency for shields the west side of town is i mean my entire council district is basically busless other than the one that goes down shields and even if folks can find a way to the bus line if they're bumped down to a 30 minute route. I just feel like that's not an equitable solution and especially looking at the number of affordable housing communities that are in that geographic area. I just want to make sure that I'm advocating for folks in southwest Fort Collins because it's going to be a significant impact based on just especially geographically. And I know that Front Range Community College was part of the outreach, but they also have expressed some concerns about the frequency dip. Absolutely. And currently, Route 19 is operating at 60-minute frequency. Oh, okay. It's 60. It's reduced because we have reduced levels of service. So this would bring it back up to 30.
What was their, were they ever at a 15-minute or was 30 the most frequent? 19 was never. Oh, so that's not, okay. I apologize. I got the impression from them they were going down. They are advocating for the 15-minute route. Okay. Do we have the ridership down that corridor to increase frequency? My guess is no, or you would have probably added frequency.
Well, Route 19, which currently serves as a corridor, is one step above Route 6 when it comes to current ridership for 2025 and passengers per hour. So it's still on the lower half of our current network.
Okay. Is there any argument for more frequent routes on S.H.I.E.L.D. since we're eliminating TAFT?
I definitely think there's an argument for it and frequency in other areas as well. I think the challenging piece will be to look at the map and determine where we would potentially remove service or remove some frequency to be able to add it there. Right. But yes, we can absolutely look at that.
I just would be curious to see again those trade-offs. I know that you guys really vetted all these options and I appreciate that. I just I'm concerned about that part of town. My only other question is on the the outreach document that you provided in the AIS it has that there was some capacity of outreach made to our disability advisory board can anybody flesh out what that looked like because I think that's a community that's going to be
impacted significantly. Yes, so we had we presented to the disability advisory board on the scenarios. I mean, we plan to go back to the Disability Advisory Board with the findings as well.
Okay, I think that would be helpful because I know they worked really hard with you all on Dial-A-Ride and, you know, trying to get that up to a level that was serving the community well. And I would like to advocate for us taking fewer steps back if we can figure that out for that community because they really are dependent on our public transit. Yes. Okay, thank you.
Great. Anybody else?
Oh, Julie. Thank you.
Yeah, thank you. And thanks for your questions, Melanie. I also just want you to know, because you probably haven't seen it yet, around 3.30 this afternoon, we did get another email, but it was from someone from Front Range Community College. So I appreciate the effort to continue talks with CSU, but I think we should also include Front Range if you can.
So then I had a couple questions about, so a few times in the presentation you mentioned connection to the MAX.
So the routes that intersect the MAX line on the map, do they have stops that are at least close to the MAX so that you can catch that more frequent north-south connection if you need it?
yes and in fact some of the routes that you're seeing go east and west didn't connect all the way with max and that was one of the pieces of feedback that we really heard was like we
folks really need that connection to be able to get north and south and so we have not identified specific stops but it will like if you take drake for example max has that drake stop right behind the King Soopers, the stop that would be for Route 7 would be the pull-in that's just adjacent to the max stop. So trying to make not only the stop locations, but the timing of when those buses are getting to those stops really intentional to be able to help support that connection.
Okay, great. So when you say connect to the max, it's not like, it's just having a stop that is
close and then are times coordinated? Yes. Yep. So it's, I think the biggest factors here are going to be stop location and then the timing, especially for, for routes where we maybe don't have the
frequency quite where we want it. We want to make sure to the best extent possible that folks aren't having to wait too long to be able to make their connections. Okay, great. Thank you. Um, and then,
so you did have the frequency scenarios. What are the actual time? What's the times that the
bus service will be running? We're going to be looking at for say the core network, for example, it's going to be about a 7am to around a 9pm general service hour, service day with peak frequency in that 11 to 7 corridor, which our data has been pretty consistently shown to be our higher ridership. Frequent service, which is going to be max and the BRT like routes are going to be slightly longer, a little later into the evening, a little earlier in the day for that as
well. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, sorry, I should have said this last part at the beginning. So thank you for all your work on this. I support the core principles. I like that you kind of boiled it down to those five and appreciate the effort you have put in to um weigh all the very hard options that we have to weigh in this situation um for me i mean so district two which i represent is fairly centralized so we're pretty lucky the new map i think serves us quite well in my opinion and seems like it would be much more usable for folks in District 2. I just wanted to plug that I feel like our next priority should be getting Sunday service back up and running. I know we haven't had it since COVID, I think, right? It's been a long time. Oh, go ahead.
Yeah, that's correct.
Okay. Okay. So for me, that's something we need to, you know, just keep looking at when we can get that back in the system. And I really appreciated your next steps as well. So thank you so much for all the hard work. Great. Anybody else? Kelly?
Thanks, Mayor. Yeah, I'll jump around a little bit on my questions. I'll start with the transit service officer position. 68 applicants and we hired one person. I like it that we have good standards that's a pretty tough but my question is how many transit service officers do we currently have and what what's i know we're switching to a different model but historically what would that how many do we have and what would we have had if we weren't changing the model
Currently, we have two officers on staff with another four vacancies that we're looking to fill. That's our current service level, one supervisor and then four officers.
Okay. So we've been accumulating monies, though, when those weren't filled. So how does that contribute to our financial backfilling with 2050 tax for, say, 2025?
Well, with the loss of those officers.
Soar point with me, but it's not once again about any of the players at the table.
So currently we've used contract security officers to fill a lot of those gaps. So much of that money has gone to the security officers that we have at the South Transit Center, the downtown transit center, and like patrolling our general routes.
And now with the new model, we're reducing how many FTEs we'll have in the contracted. We put up a new model of way of doing things that also is about a quarter of a million or something. So are we, I don't care if we do, that level of detail is up to you folks. I'm just saying are we reducing the number of FTEs we'll have in contracted and transit service officers?
Yes. So kind of looking at these two pools of transit service officers, we have the existing vacancies and we have the future positions.
The future positions are the one that we want to repurpose to be able to have this partnership with the HOPE and M-HART teams.
the vacant the the vacancies that that exist today we still want to fill those so the contracted
security is what is helping support those vacancies so as we fill the transit service
officer positions we'll be dialing down our contracted security to make sure that there isn't that we're able to do that in a budget neutral way that's what i was hoping the answer was so i
I know there's some overlap in time, sorry, overlap in time, but when we've got the new program for a quarter mil, we'll have, long-term, we'll have less of those contracted positions.
Yes, we could get to a place where there's very minimal or no contracted security.
Okay. And then I'm just being thick on slide six.
Under, when we go to slide six on the transport expense and revenue in 2027,
estimated. I'm under the on the last line there. And I understand because I had one one of my questions was what you answered is two to three million coming in starting 2026 from Senate Bill 24 to 30. But why is there green on the on the expense? I'm being thick, but I don't know. I I get it on the income coming from the state. So why is there green on the?
I think it's really intended to represent that we plan to spend that money.
We plan to put it toward the system optimization and expense that revenue within this new system.
Okay.
And then we get back to the thing that 2023, the tax passed, I think we said tonight in November, and we're still in 2025 and yeah i voted for it too i think on october 21st that we're taking two to three million dollars out of the uh 2050 transit tax to support um 2025 expenses do those carry over to 2026 is that going to be another for basic services i I don't know who can answer that question. So the point being that when we passed the tax, it wasn't fungible, that these things were going to be supplements both to climate and to transit. They weren't going to take the monies from those existing pools of money that go to transit and to climate and then reduce those because we have 2050 because that would be gaming the system. We made it real clear that wasn't going to be the case. and to staff's credit in the October 21st 2025 they say well the base dollars for 2023 are 11.5 and so we kind of or 11.9 and the base was 11.5 so we're kind of okay it's a close call but they said we're honoring that 11.5 because we're at 11.9 now for a base but when we go into 2026 Are we using $2050 for these things? That wasn't quite clear to me.
So for 2026, because this plan will not be operationalized yet, in 2026 there's a lot of changes we need to do internally to prepare for implementation.
Right, I get it, 2027.
We will be using 2050 tax to help account for the overspend or the excess expense that we're experiencing.
And the follow-up, and if you don't have it tonight, I'd like to know what that number is. Because the point, this is a very important issue, and I've only got one work session left after tonight. So I've got to take all the time I can get on this one. there's no institutional very little institutional memory around here anymore so the council was very clear that those two taxes were for in addition to existing and i just want to point out to the transportation people that did a great job pointing that out in the memo in the first reading of october 21st what they left out is some kind of basic it should also be a basic um inflation factor You're built into what that's going over from that base number because over a 27-year period, because I'm told the tax ends in 2050. The mayor enlightened me on that since it's a tax called 2050. So it's a 27-year tax, and inflation over that time period, one could easily mess with the fungibility. So I'd like to see more of that in the future because already we're a year and a half into the tax or two years into the tax, and we're already robbing the bank, both in climate and in transit, and that disturbs me greatly. I understand these are weird, difficult, challenging financial times. It still kind of flies in the face of what we all said. So you're dying to respond. Two people are.
No, I was just going to confirm that I'm getting from Caleb, our chief financial officer, confirming that, yes, in 2026 we will absolutely be compliant with that again, and we can get you the specific dollar amount.
Okay, and then I'd like to follow up on how we're going to, over a 27-year period, factor in some kind of normal.
It doesn't have to be perfect. It doesn't have to be high, but some kind of inflation factor as well to those bases because that was the intent. And it's important that people know that over time because some of us were worried about that.
Just a couple other things.
and nobody's doing, I mean, it's been open and notorious and honest. So that's why I voted for it, by the way. That usually works every time. Just like I wanted to comment on the climate people, thank you for saying, probably not going to make it whatever the terms were and the gradual thing. Honesty gets you a long way with me in full disclosure.
What were the things, and I know it's probably minor, but I don't know all the vernacular of the things that we said, and if I don't find it, I'll just move on, but there are some things that we don't all memorize, but all of the, well, I'll get to important one. Writership projected to increase to 3.35 million.
We're currently at 2.62 million in 2024. Was when? There wasn't a date on the slide part.
it said that the ridership was projected
increased to 3.35 million
so typically in the transit agency it takes two years for a route to see its full potential and I will just check in with Jason to see if he has anything to add his team helped us with those ridership projections yeah
that would be correct about 18 months to 24 months after implementation yeah Okay. And then I remember sometime between 2005 and 2013, we eliminated expanded service to growth management area because of funding problems.
It's not the first time.
And it saved between $300,000 and $400,000 or something. And I saw it's a very small expansion in the growth management area. But why are we doing that?
I didn't. So let me kind of break this down in a couple ways, because I it does the naming conventions get a little bit confusing so we have dial a ride that is our core paratransit service that's ADA required that service area is three-quarters of a mile from fixed route bus service we have added a supplementary program called dial a taxi it's not a federally mandated program it's designed a hundred percent to try and bridge the gaps of what our core dial-a-ride service doesn't meet. In this scenario, we, and I will also say the dial-a-taxi approach allows us to control our budget because with dial-a-ride, we cannot cap the number of trips. So we really have very little ability to control budget. The dial-a-taxi program will allow us to set a budget and a certain number of vouchers per day where an individual that is a dialeride client can be picked up anywhere in the growth management area they do not have to be within the dialeride service area so currently they do have to be with the trip has to originate within the dialeride service area so acknowledging that the that the service area is decreasing we wanted to provide some type of some type of option first for individuals that are outside of the dialeride service area to be able to access service there will be a limited number of trips But similar to the fixed route, as more funding becomes available, we can funnel it toward that program and increase the number of trips that are available each day.
Okay. And then the $15, do the people have some skin in the game that doesn't cover the entire cost, right?
So $15, we've done a lot of different analysis to see about how far that will go with a taxi trip. For the most part it can get you from the growth management area into the dialer and service area So while it may not be ideal to transfer They would at least be able to get into the system to be able to access dialer ride
Just so you know it would have been okay to me if it didn't cover the entire cost because what we learned in more detail And I ever wanted to know 10 15
18 years ago was some some people do take advantage of the system not the majority but some people did, and that's one of the reasons it got a 7-0.
I don't think I fully answered your question. I apologize. Anything over $15 on the taxi meter, the passenger would be responsible for covering.
Okay. And then I did find that other question.
What contracted routes are included in the system? Sometimes the page numbers cut out some of the words, but Flex, Horn, Gold, and FHS,
are most of those CSU routes?
Horn, Gold, and Foothills Shuttle are all CSU.
What's FHS?
Foothills Shuttle. It's a shuttle that we contract out to a third party that runs over by the Foothills campus.
And what one was Flex, did you say?
Flex is our regional route to Boulder. That one's not a CSU specific route.
Now, we cut a couple routes, though, right? We cut a couple things went away.
Correct. In the final scenario, yeah.
Yeah. So my summary is you did exactly what we asked you to do at a work session. I don't know how long ago to serve those that need it the most and to make it as clean and efficient as possible, and I think that's what I see here. That's the deliverables, and maybe we get a system that's sadly somewhat shrunken maybe but gets us real healthy, and then we can go from there and learn from these new changes so we can even do better in the future. But I think we're doing the best we can. with the money that we have even if you're robbing the piggy bank. Thanks.
We'll do Tricia then, though. Or Susan. Tricia, Susan, then Mel.
Thank you for all the great work here. It's not the uplifting happy things that we like, but thank you for doing the most you can with what we have to work with. I just would say advocating for the South as a whole, moving forward, we are seeing a lot of affordable housing on trilby so moving forward if she'll be can be considered and then I had a question on the dial a taxi how does that work can they reserve in advance so you know if they call and they can know that all the vouchers are taken so they're not expecting that they have that ability to get a voucher and then find out they're gone when they
need a ride so we're still kind of finalizing the structure of the new one but I believe they can call they could call up to 24 hours in advance okay we don't do as much of you know with Tyler right you can call up to two weeks in advance but this just allows for kind of when we're talking about bridging gaps There's no same day trips on Dyloride, so it kind of allows us a potential solution for something pops up and someone needs to get somewhere. Okay.
And then can you remind me what the cuts are to Flex, and is it Loveland that's also cutting back their funding there for Flex, or which organization was it?
So, Loveland is the one in particular. They removed all funding from the Flex partnership. Okay. And with that, there's some reductions to flex that we're implementing in the beginning of 26.
Stephen, sorry, can you pull your microphone a little closer?
Thank you. Yeah, so Loveland removed their funding from 2026 forward from the flex partnership. We have made some realignments to reduce the overall cost of flex starting in 26 as well. That'll allow us to be a little more, you know, lean and efficient with that route. So we'll see some, even with the Loveland reduction in service, the bottom line. To the City of Fort Collins is I think it's pretty much a budget neutral change for it.
Okay. Can I add one more thing to that? While we are, so we had three different patterns of flex. One went directly to Loveland and then to Longmont and then to Boulder. So we're really simplifying that to be a Fort Collins. It'll hit all the communities but going to Boulder. even though loveland isn't contributing financially they are starting to run a shuttle between fort collins and loveland to pick up some of that that demand that existed with the fort collins
loveland pattern okay that's good to know and then just kind of getting into the weeds a little i was just really curious about the um pure cities um and under fayette fell there was a flex stop for new route um could you explain a little bit more what that is under the main recovery drivers
on slide 13. yeah let's see i'll have to jog my memory here a little bit um
Oh, yeah. So in that case, that was a change instituted to allow more flexibility for, I think, a specific demand, whether that was a school or a hospital off route, just high demand, and serving it in a more flexible way so it wasn't serving it on every trip pattern.
Okay.
Yeah.
And then I just had some curiosity how these were chosen because Fayetteville seems like a very different, having lived there, a very different city from some of these others.
Yeah, it was a blend. You know, the first and foremost was the performance within recent years post-COVID in terms of their ridership recovery. But we did look at other characteristics like presence of a university and rough population size. But we did have to look nationally.
there weren't you know regional examples that match up exactly to Fort Collins in terms of other characteristics okay thank you
hopefully pretty easy question but I was just wondering how the ridership is is going are we are we up are we getting better there's always been the mystery about how is it that we could have a free bus service and the ridership is
down. So I was just curious. I can speak for 25. We're anticipating about 2.8 to 2.9 million riders up from 2.6 the last year. So we are still trending in the right direction for the ridership.
And what do you think it depends on? Like if it is improving, is it that people, I don't know, what do you think? How do you anticipate it? I know there was a time when people didn't want to ride because they didn't feel safe, but we took care of that. What are we going to do to make sure that more people are taking advantage of a route that now has more frequency?
Yeah, so it's been interesting. You know, coming out of the pandemic, we had pretty significantly reduced service. And so it's been interesting to see as we turn things on and as frequency improves, just how responsive riders are to that improved frequency. Um, and so, you know, I think it's going to be a combination of making sure there's plenty of awareness, you know, doing play marketing for areas where we're increasing service. Um, and I, and I think really the focus on frequency is going to make a positive impact.
Great. Um, oh, sorry, really?
No, you're good. I could have done this all in one go and I didn't. First off, I am the queen of not actually answering your question, but I do, even though this is not ideal,
I do think that you guys have done a really nice job of making some database decisions and I appreciate that and I do think you're on the right track.
So just to answer your question. And then the only other questions I have relate to the Dial-a-Ride, Dial-a-Taxi.
So are there options for folks who do not have a documented disability for that connection to routes or is that are both options only for folks where it falls under the ADA umbrella?
Both of those options are for individuals who have gone through the dial-a-write application process, which requires some type of health care provider verification. And then they go through an application approval process.
Are we thinking about options that might be accessible? I think those options are wonderful. Are we thinking about options that might be accessible to folks who have other barriers to making it to the bus route that are related to a documented disability? You know, I know we've tried to locate like our scooters and our bikes, but is that something that we could strengthen as we eliminate, you know, routes in certain geographic areas?
Yes. I mean, you know, we're hearing about partnerships with scooter companies. And so I know our FC Moves team, our Active Modes team, they're keeping an eye on those programs, trying to see how they're structured, working to see if maybe that's something that would work for Fort Collins. So we are keeping an eye out and trying to consider other options.
other options. Okay. Yeah, I think it'd just be great to be thinking critically, because the west side of town actually has some awesome bike connectivity. So hopefully we can leverage that. And then my other question was just for folks. I know something that I've been impressed with
previously with transport is that we do have some services available to help folks figure out how to get where they're needing to go. I love checking that out. For people who are going to experience it's a change in their ability to access our public transit. Will we have something similar to help them problem solve around maybe lost routes or reroutes or needing to use micro transit or things like that?
Absolutely. So we still have a free travel training program. And I think that'll be one of the elements of the implementation. You know, like I said, there's a number of things we need to do to prepare for this, but just really making sure that our team is able to train specific to what's changing in our community and in specific areas and frequent destinations those are all things that we can make sure that our training team is prepared and ready
to to work with folks that need it that's wonderful i mean i i know that you guys are carrying a heavy load and doing more with less and i think the more we can front load with
we'll support you through this change the the more smoothly it'll go so thank you
All right. I just had a question. So just in terms of numbers, mostly for council and public and me, obviously, how much did we lose with the flex when Loveland pulled out? And then how much did we lose with FASTER?
About $750,000 from Loveland and about $200,000 from FASTER.
Okay. And have we lost federal grants or federal subsidies? I mean, there's not.
At this time, we're still receiving our federal formula funding.
Oh, okay. That's interesting. Okay. So almost a million dollars. Yeah. So it is tough, though, when we have the 2050 taxes. People say we want transportation, and then in 2023 we didn't foresee this financial situation. Then I guess you don't backfill a million dollars from the general fund and then pull in. it's a tough thing. So what you're trying to do is maintain, you're coming up with these creative solutions to serve the public in their transit. So I'm very appreciative. I think that the principles you identified are spot on. I know whenever I ride the bus, these are honestly the things I think about too. Do I know where the route is? How fast is it? How frequently? Those sorts of things. And then I think you're very intentional and you've spoken a lot about your program, which is I'm very very appreciative of and I have a lot of concerns the same way Melanie does And I but I know for Collins is a kind and thoughtful city, and I'm sure that will continue to pay attention there so Those that's my feedback
Yeah, thank you. I just had a few additional questions The hope team are we hiring additional hope officers or we reallocating them to transit or how is that working?
So as part of the partnership, they are going to promote one of their officers up and then backfill the positions. So there's one FTE added for it. And then the rest of the funding is more just their general oversight and like incorporating our network into their service plan.
Yeah, I'm happy to give council more detail on that again, probably in follow up. But essentially, they're going to use some corporal positions in those teams. which is kind of a mid-level additional management step in there to free up some capacity. But there will be one additional position using the funding that had previously been allocated for the transit security officers. My understanding is that the entire team, though, will then be adding this into sort of their overall capacity of what they're doing. And existing officers will be much more present on the routes as well.
yeah I think a fall would be helpful then also if we're adding this to their scope are they doing less of other things I guess just getting I assume that they're very busy all the time so now we're adding this to their service
so a follow-up I think would be helpful yeah we're happy to do that they've have put a lot of thought into the sort of scoping paper already of how this would fit very well with in their existing resource with that bit of additional
capacity okay i think i think to do that yeah i think it's a good idea and they're well trained and suited for it so i like i just want to make sure that we're not losing folks on the street um and then there was a brief mention about the elizabeth brt can we just can you just talk a little bit more about that so we're not i know we're not doing the whole infrastructure project but how are we i know that um stephen you briefly talked about some can you just talk more about
what we're envisioning for that? Certainly one of the key components of that was the one-seat ride from the Foothills campus to CSU Transit Center and recommended network it does that network it's a bi-directional route that goes from you know basically the Foothills campus to STC and that's like a major passenger moving component of the of that plan and then it's route two also which is the prospect route is also identified and that is a bi-directional Kind of no longer going to see issue direct and in the plans also doing the same thing where it's a bi-directional a prospect Up to the foothills transit center and then back down and around
So is it really just a change of the route and we're not changing anything else or?
Much of it is a change of routes, but it's also a change of capacity and a focus on capacity on that West Elizabeth corridor Without necessarily infrastructure improvement, but we can bring the capacity and the you know the service hours to that route
So we've been kind of viewing this as almost a phased approach, understanding that we don't have the funding right now to do the full capital project. So one of the first phases is trying to, we can operationalize a lot of the BRT without the infrastructure and without the infrastructure expense. So that's really the goal of this first step.
Let's make the routing be what it would be with the BRT. let's take advantage of the foothills transit station that we're in the process of building that's where those route two and route three will turn around there's one piece that i know we really want to try and figure out how to make a connection and that's for route three to connect not only on the west side but on the east side connect with max the problem is that little piece of the CSU Transit Center to max requires a lot more resources about $600,000 annually to be able to make that connection. So that's a priority for us and one that we're looking at as we're able to secure funding and that is an element that's in the in the
BRT operational design as well. Okay, that's great to hear. Yeah, because I think it's great to move forward even though we're not doing the infrastructure and making that operationalized. Steven, I appreciate your response. I just don't know the logistics of what 3 does now to what it would go through. So I appreciate it. And then CSUNF, the Front Range, wrote in about specifically routes 2, 7, and 19. Can you just talk about how those are changing?
I'm going to talk about 19. 19 actually isn't changing at all. It's the recommended network. It's the same as our current network. It is going to be at a 30-minute frequency. We had to do a temporary reduction to a 60-minute frequency. We did that in that. September so they may be a questioning that as well that was purely just an operator count Situation we're running through but in the recommended proposal it'll be at a 30-minute frequency during the peak part of the day
Okay, I think you mentioned around seven. I think they're love the letter from CSU said two and seven
Okay, the letter so route seven Currently connects directly to CTC In the recommended scenario in order to keep a good frequency it stops on Drake. So it connects to Max as opposed to connecting to CSU. Okay. And then two? Two, kind of the same situation where currently it does connect to CTC, but in the recommended scenario, it does extend east of college to kind of create that east-west corridor connection. However, much of that ridership will be picked up because much of the ridership on Route 2 is from West Elizabeth as well. So the frequency increases to Route 3 on West Elizabeth should
pick up a good chunk of that ridership that was impressive recall I'm wondering if we can just get a response to CSU just about how we're trying to not reduce service and maybe some just exactly what you said I think that would be helpful for them to to know and then I would just say overall I mean I think it's a great plan to align with highest ridership I know no one wants to lose service in their districts but we also have budget constraints and the realities is the people who are taking it are the ones who are going to take it in the And while we want to build a system for everyone I think we really need to focus on where the highest ridership is and making it the best service we can And I think like the data you use the the mapping everything was so helpful. So thank you for this work And I just request In the follow-up, on the maps where we're going to the core and the frequent, I don't know what they were before. So can we just get how it changed in the follow-up? That would be great. Okay, thank you.
Great. Anybody else? Final comments? Kelly.
Thanks, Mayor. Yeah, people raised some other questions. So I missed what the other quarter of a million approximately cut was. We had the 750 from Loveland. What was the other? faster state funding okay from the state okay and then um are we gonna i understand by the way this wasn't what anyone intended with the 2050 tax and everybody wishes it wasn't so because we'd be adding things so i get that i'm going along for the ride no pun intended but are in 2027 because we're getting that two to three million back from the state are we back to then not subsidizing the ongoing basics with the 2050 tax and that's back kind of in 2027 to the status quo and then we're adding back things things back in with the 2050 tax they might be things we had to cut this time but they're still adding things back in addition are we back to that in 2027 and if we need it in a memo but i kind of like an answer in general tonight are we back to square one in 2027 let
Let me try and answer the best I can, and I may need to add some additional information in a follow-up. But about $2 to $2.5 million of the 2050 tax, so we're anticipating approximately $5 million annually.
About half of that is being used for changes that we made to stabilize the bus operator workforce when our staffing levels were really, really low. We did the pay increases to make the bus operator wages more competitive.
We added additional benefited positions because we had a lot of hourly positions.
we made some improvements to schedules for bus operators that required us to do some different things with routes to be able to support full-time bus operators so some of that money we you know
we will continue with that rate of pay and with those benefited positions so so that piece of it won't go back in to be available for something else okay a half or more than half right
Right. Okay. And then like the climate thing that we got the 15 year plan, do we have any kind of plan like five and 10 and 15 years? What we'll do with the hopefully two and a half million left in the transit tax. Do we have any kind of equivalent little thing? And I don't need it laid out tonight. I'm just asking, do we kind of have that? What are the first things when the money comes in that we may do next?
I might have missed that. Yeah, that would be great for us to provide a follow up memo.
Okay. And thank you. And then if we could have a separate memo on the police issue just so it doesn't get lost, because sometimes, my bad, we get a summary of a work session, and then I miss the follow-ups that are in it so we could call it out, because I thought transit police were different than sworn officers, are they not?
They are different, yes. Yeah.
So I didn't even know police were involved on the transit system. So if we could have a separate memo on how those pieces come together, we've got the existing transit officers, then there's police services, and now we're going to the new kind of quarter of a million dollar thing that we put up there. Would that be okay to have a separate memo there?
Yes, absolutely. And I do just want to confirm, so our current transit security officers do go through some level of commissioning through police right now and a lesser level of the academy. But they do have to go through that component. The engagement of police services will be the new approach with the HOPE team. So our current system has relied primarily on TSOs and contractual. and I'm happy to we have a full memo we can do.
Okay, that's what I thought. When I heard you mention the corporals and stuff, I thought maybe they were already involved. And I know I didn't assume no training in the transit officers, just not as same as a sworn beginning patrol officer. It's somewhat different training. Similar but not as intense.
They do, though, go through the same background check and through some of the initial, again, those initial weeks of training are the same, but they again don't go through the full program.
And just one quick follow-up. It kind of catches your attention that only one out of 46 or 48 made the cut but I think it speaks highly good for all of you that we weren't just going to lower the criteria in order to fill positions. So I think it's unfortunate but it's a good thing.
anybody else final comments do you have what you need the feedback you have we
do thank you thank you very much that's great presentation again council do you
want a 10-minute break you want to just go to the next one five minutes yeah let's take five
We're ready for the third item tonight. Go ahead.
All right. Our third and final item is building performance standards.
And I'm back for a repeat appearance, both of our presenters.
I'll turn it over to Jacob to get us started. Thank you, Kelly.
Yeah, we're back by popular demand, I guess. We're going to keep this party going. We will be talking about building performance standards. Council may remember we were in front of you guys a couple times in 2024. We were in front of council talking about some of our proposals earlier this year. I believe it was January. And you asked us to sharpen our pencils. You asked us to come back after doing a pilot, after doing some more community engagement. And now is the time to continue that conversation. So we've gone out. We've met with a number of different members of the community. We've met with some boards and commissions. You have some of their feedback in your AIS. We've met with the business community, the environmental community.
And I should say those aren't mutually exclusive groups. We have a number of business owners who are environmentalists and vice versa.
And we're here to share with you what we've learned and how that's informed our approach to some of the optionality you'll see in what the building performance standard program could look like if you wanted to move forward with that. So I will hand it off to Brian to get into the details. Yeah, thanks,
Jacob. And before I get started, I just wanted to give a shout out to a project manager on this project, Catherine Bailey, who's led and really become a true subject matter expert when it comes to BPS, not only locally, but nationally. She's been involved in several conversations and bringing best practices here so a lot of background and foundation that she's brought and again i'm happy to try to take this home with council here and and get to a decision related to you know again taking action with a potential regulatory framework through building performance standards so for those of you at home that are new to the conversation without prolonging it because we don't have any candy or caffeine or anything else. Building performance standards are a regulatory policy that requires existing commercial and multifamily buildings to meet certain energy targets. And that's backed with a municipal citation if those targets aren't achieved or a certain percent reduction isn't achieved. Again, the comment here is that this isn't doing climate work for climate sake. This is an investment in our community building stock that has real outcomes related to health, safety, and comfort associated with the building occupants. Building efficiency is a key strategy that utilities has pursued through incentive-based frameworks in the past, and again, we're proposing a new regulatory framework, similar to what you saw in kind of the composting framework in Grant and Honoré's presentation, where, again, you start with economic and behavioral-type frameworks. You move into infrastructure and regulatory as the market matures. So a couple other comments. On the right side in this image, you see building energy use as the primary target that's been recommended by staff and community contributors along the way. First and foremost, building performance standards is efficiency-based. It's reducing waste in buildings. And we really see that as a prerequisite, a requirement ahead of electrification. So that's why we've made the recommendation to pursue an energy-based target. Still a little more background here. This is the scope of the covered buildings within Fort Collins, 5,000 square feet and above, and each having a maximum reduction of 15% to 25% based on building size. I will get a little more into that as we provide the results to the pilot. About a third of the buildings are already meeting the targets that we've established. And the maximum reduction that we propose is slightly less than what the state has proposed in their existing BPS. So, again, long journey. Development began in November 22. And honestly, I'm glad that we've taken the time to have an intentional approach. It's given us time to hear community contributor feedback and appreciative of all that.
So in January, when we were last here, Council expressed the desire to have this pilot approach for six or eight months. And we're here to present some of the results from that. Overall, the goals of the pilot were to test a number of our assumptions in the framework that we put together.
We did that through two primary methods. One, we did a customer journey map activity, which is like Uber, city wonk terminology. It's really putting ourselves in the shoes of building owners that need to comply and really looking at steps to comply. and also sentiment along the way and secondly we conducted a technical assessment of six buildings to evaluate kind of the feasibility for compliance with our targets and the percent reduction that we're looking for so
giving a high-level overview of those two methods you know we found that Creating this visual representation of a customer journey through this process not only kind of creates a common understanding for city council, but also provides a foundation for potential implementation of this policy.
This is the number of steps that we'll need to go through sometimes with building owners to seek compliance.
And we've identified some of these pain points in advance and are planning for resources to mitigate those pain points.
At a high level, I'll provide some pilot findings and then dig into some of the more nitty-gritty details on the economics of the technical support pilot.
But overall, we saw quite the variance when it came to cost for compliance, anywhere from buildings needing to invest 15 cents per square foot to comply all the way up to about $13 per square foot, right?
The weighted average of those could have gone either way, but we got lucky and it happened to match the initial analysis that we did in the policy development.
It could have gone either way, to tell you the truth. You know, the compliance pathways we found were technically achievable as well. We found some buildings could exceed, you know, those 25% maximums, and many could, again, see those investments pay back in short time.
These are a high level set of data related to the buildings that participated in our pilot.
You can see six buildings were listed and we conducted on-site technical assessments with these building owners. And they were all of various use types.
However, they may not represent the total community, but kind of gives you a snapshot of the types of participants that might have to comply with the BPS requirements.
And I'll take a minute to look at both the municipal buildings identified as well as one of the mixed-use buildings in the next couple slides.
There's an error on this slide, and it's the title of the municipal building. This should be Spring Canyon Shop, as correctly known in the AIS.
During the assessment and planning process, there was, you know, essentially a 50,
based on the size of the building being between 5,000 and 10,000 square feet, this building was only required to reduce energy use by 15%. The city's...
Working actually to exceed that and implement all of the recommendations found during the assessment and go to more of a 25% projected reduction. Some of those upgrades include typical kind of low-hanging fruit and a little more advanced type work, but really just lighting, programmable thermostats, commissioning of those thermostats and scheduling.
and the city is moving forward with both using internal staff to implement those measures as well as working with a contractor to install and move forward with these recommendations the historic building that was a participant you know
was was slightly more complex than the smaller municipal building that participated in that they had several pathways to compliance and one of the best pathways included really just a significant investment in two pieces of equipment that were key to energy use, essentially the HVAC in the facility. So throughout the process, we essentially identified that this building had essentially three steps to comply, right? Or three options to comply. They could invest and implement all the upgrades as noted in the assessment report. And that cost would be about $236,000. And that's an estimated cost based on the engineering vendor that we used. They could also, if they didn't apply for some kind of waiver, they also have an option to apply for what we call a reduced target or a target adjustment. Since the savings technically could be achieved through the upgrades, it's not likely that we'd actually go through an approval of a target adjustment. However, we would consider potentially revisiting a timeline for example if this facility said brian we'd like to upgrade these rooftop units and this boiler on a five and ten year cadence that goes beyond the timeline identified we'd work with that building owner to essentially create a plan to compliance provide an extension on the date proposed. So it goes to show, however, the importance of really partnering with building owners, but ensuring consistency across building owners that make these requests, right? So consistency is key in the administration of any BPS policy.
I wanted to put a little bit of a bow for now on the pilot results and really kind of talk about an alternative approach and what we might think of as you know a more traditional incentive-based approach and how that might achieve similar results versus the right the proposed regulatory approach so again don't want to belabor the regulatory requirement of BPS but I wanted to show and and again seek counsel's feedback related to the incentive based approach versus regulatory and there's a couple key things that I wanted to highlight on the regulatory side of things in that it provides a little more certainty in achievement of the outcomes that we're after, right? It's not voluntary. There's a citation-based penalty behind it, right? It doesn't require as much existing administrative funding. However, that doesn't speak to the community investment needs, right? community building owners will still need to invest the same amount, but it would cost the city less to administer as a regulatory policy, and you'll see that in a minute. Finally, utilities, we like to use incentives to stimulate innovation and really start to drive a new market rather than a regulatory approach,
which kind of takes a more widespread adoption approach where, again, we've eliminated the low-hanging fruit, and it's really just making progress toward upgrading a little more challenging efficiency upgrades in buildings.
There it is. I included in the AIS, for purposes of order of magnitude of impacts, the difference between an incentive-based approach and a regulatory approach.
So on the left here, you can see actual results of energy savings based on our over 20-year history of providing utilities incentives for commercial upgrades. Right. We'd forecast again in this slide in the kind of the reddish pink, a regulatory approach for BPS, really increasing that achievement to 2018 levels where we saw some of the most improvements happening in our building community. The other dark green component of this is a hypothetical. If we were to take all $5 million of the 2050 tax dedicated to climate, and I'm not going to arm wrestle Jacob yet for that, not in the strategic funding planning yet,
but that that's essentially the achievement that we would expect if we were to again take all five
million dollars and and put that toward an incentive-based approach and again it's the intent is to provide you an order of magnitude there are a number of assumptions in here and we all we know we likely want to get all five million dollars right so again providing that context to you i think is important when talking about the difference between the regulatory and
incentive-based approach finally come to kind of this you know uh policy framework discussion where
we had previously identified some of these different levers that council has to to shape this regulatory policy in that there's essentially three primary levers timeline adjusting the maximum reduction or covered buildings for example a way to use this and and we also include the trade-offs on on the right side here so we understand uh that there's uh you know we're in a time of economic uncertainty. We've talked a number of times tonight about budget. You know, businesses are also feeling this in our communities. So if council's hesitance or
preference for adopting BPS kind of rides on the economic uncertainty, we'd encourage you to
consider a timeline extension for this policy, for example. It could be three years. It could be five years extension it could be 10 or 15 based on based on your willingness to consider
some of those trade-offs and finally this this is kind of seeding some of the trade-offs into
different options that we can maybe use as a starting point for the discussion the top two options moving forward represent two different regulatory approaches right option one is the previous BPS proposed policy, we'd actually recommend an extension of a couple of years just based on the continued discussion lasting a couple more years versus option two, which is proposed to have a couple of different levers adjusted, for example, extending the timeline,
potentially reducing a cap, and excluding a certain type of buildings. Option three might be just what I said, you know, previously, complementing utility incentives with 2050 tax incentives. And of course, there's also an option
to continue to business as usual with utilities enterprise funds using or investing in energy efficiency for businesses, which is core to our growth strategy at utilities. So with that, I'd go back to questions and I'd turn it over to Council. Thanks a lot, Brian. Jacob, that was a very impressive presentation. Council comments, questions?
I think we're all waiting to see who goes first.
we all have some. I'm sure, Melanie, do you want to go? I try not to always go first, but here I am.
Yeah, thank you. Thank you for the presentation. I just have a couple of questions. First, can you remind me, is BPS kind of the most effective strategy for a big climate impact? I feel like that's what we shared previously, is that is the most impactful strategy for
municipalities. With buildings in our inventory, with buildings accounting for two-thirds of our emissions. It represents essentially the biggest lever that we have as a local government.
Okay. That's what I thought I remembered. My second question, I know that you proposed a scenario where we're applying 2050 climate dollars to the incentives. Is there a possibility of
using the 2050 tax money to mitigate if we were to do the regulatory approach?
Yeah, there is an option to certainly combine or enhance incentives with the 2050 tax that would support either a modified or the option one approach.
Okay. I just know, I think, oh, Julia is here. She had brought that up previously as a potential strategy if we're really feeling like BPS is the way we want to go and we want to be all in, that we do have those tax dollars to use flexibly and we could perhaps curtail some of the costs for businesses who are upgrading.
And then my last question was we had community members reach out about a couple different approaches to BPS. And I was lucky enough, I got to speak with Catherine about the GHGI strategy as another avenue. And she did a great job of explaining to me why the city has selected a different methodology.
But I'm wondering if you could explain that for the benefit of the public.
Yeah. So the comment is really related to taking an emissions-based target rather than an energy reduction-based target. And there's kind of the technical response as well as the administrative response there. From a technical side, yeah, we could consider that. A lot of the assumptions and the framework that we built is based on energy reduction. From a technical standpoint, if we were to move in the direction of providing greenhouse gas targets, that might provide what I'm going to call an easy out for all electric buildings to comply. And some of these all electric buildings built in the late 70s, early 80s are some of the most inefficient buildings in our community. So, again, with BPS founded in energy efficiency as kind of that prerequisite, that's where a lot of the community contributors essentially helped inform that recommendation to keep it energy-based and not emissions-based. And the practical element of it is potentially it's already a complex policy. And adding that could create additional conversations and confusion with the public. So we wanted to try to keep it as simple as possible. But again, if there is a council concern or recommendations one way or the other, we can consider that. Finally, I think we could also consider this as being a first step into BPS. We could also consider adoption of a GHG target as we were to get our feet wet a little more in implementation right so there could be a staged approach based on council recommendations or feedback with the caveat that we'd want to be as transparent and predictable with our business community as possible so those those are the key things that we'll need to maintain with our with our business
partners yeah and that's something that stuck with me when I talked with Catherine is you know just anything that's more complicated I know this council has really pushed back on because the feedback we've received from our business community is we are an onerous organization to work with as far as procedures. I think this is going to be a tough change in general for our business community. And so I think if we can make it intuitive, clear, transparent, that makes a lot of sense. And then I was not aware of folks who were electrified in previous eras that they were incredibly inefficient. So that was a good learning for me. So those might be compliant, it sounds like, under a greenhouse gas emissions framework, even though they're not meeting our goals really at all. Correct. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that.
It seems a while back when we first heard about the standards that...
Susan, can you lean into your mic a little bit more? Sure.
Thank you. that when we first heard about the standards when it was first presented,
I know the business... Community in particular seem to be very, very resistant to it, not knowing what the cost would be.
So I'm wondering, after you've done your pilot, have you found that it's actually less cost prohibitive than you anticipated that it would be?
That's a good question. And, you know, our analysis was complete over two years, and we take a lot of pride of the analytics that went into it and the foundational information that we have as utilities and we're able to quantify.
So I think that analysis kind of stands alone from the pilot buildings.
That being said, it's still an unanticipated cost associated with upgrades, right? So we weren't able to convince anybody that it was better or different than our original analysis. However, the six buildings that we're working with in the pilot, nobody shut the door on us yet. They're pursuing bids. They recognize the value of the recommendations made. And we continue to make progress in pursuing some of these upgrades, regardless of whether or not there's an actual regulatory policy adopted. Could you remind me what the mandate is on this? So there's two paths to compliance. One, you could either hit the target. and that's again an energy it's a geeky kbtu per square foot targets and normalized target or you could hit the maximum cap that we have of either 15 or 25 percent energy use reduction and again we did see not only in Fort Collins but also in Denver they are seeing buildings achieve those reductions in energy use through investments. So some of it's behavioral, some of it's equipment-based, some of it's again there's various ways to be conserving and resulting in energy efficiency.
Yeah thank you. I just had a few additional questions. The building that
we looked at for the city, the 3156 Overland. How old is that building?
I don't know off-hand, but maybe I'll get one of my partners to message me that.
Okay. Maybe they'll phone a friend. I was just curious. I run by that building all the time. It doesn't seem very old, but I could be incorrect. And then with the incentive space, would we just be able to use 2050 tax? We wouldn't be able to use the utility electric rate payer funding? Because doesn't that pay for energy efficiency upgrades?
So we already do have and will maintain kind of the business as usual incentives using enterprise funding. So we'll continue that. I think it's just in order to make that incremental impact, we're either going to need to have additional funds through another source or
a regulatory based policy or both okay but we wouldn't have to take all of the climate fund
i'm seeing jacob say no correct we wouldn't have to uh nor would i recommend that at this juncture
right okay i just want to make sure i was understanding that utility rate payer fund um okay and then actually those are all my questions i think i just have a few comments i my personal opinion is that we should not include multi-family buildings in any of the proposals I just I just that that increase is going to go to the renters and I just don't think we should those should be included I think if we do move forward with this I think we need to simplify the BPS journey looking at that roadmap. I was like, oh my god. I can't imagine Navigating that I mean even though it's helpful to have the city resources. I mean it's just complicated just overwhelming even looking at the roadmap And then I would really like in a follow-up the impact the fiscal impact to the city for bringing all of our buildings into compliance And what that would look like
So a couple comments and I was able to phone a friend that building was built in 2007. Okay The cost for compliance for municipal buildings is estimated about five point three million dollars Now that may not be an incremental
amount a la you know with operational you know the o m fund and and the work that we do a lot of those dollars can be leveraged and prioritized for you know building upgrades right similar to what we're doing in the the building that participated in the pilot so 5.3 million not necessarily Incremental, likely some grants, funding, and priorities to be vetted through future BFO processes.
Okay. I love it.
I'm sorry. For all the city buildings? Correct. Pottery Studio itself is not fine. Mulberry Pool?
I mean, how could that be? Just curious. Sorry. No, no.
Yeah. I could clarify that.
The gap in that door, I'm not kidding, is negative four. and there's I can fit my finger through to the outside. I know that's just weather stripping, but, I mean, I'm like, all the city buildings combined would cost 5.3 to upgrade to this standard. I trust you.
In the example that you cite on the Mulberry Pool, and, again, I'd have to lean into whether or not the Mulberry Pool building is a good example to use based on the lifetime of that building and other plans for it. But there are, as you identify, easy upgrades when it comes to weather stripping and or efficiency type upgrades that way. But yeah, some buildings will cost more than others as seen in the pilot.
Well, no, it sounds like you have the information. So maybe just in the follow up, a breakdown of that and the facilities we're including would be helpful. I appreciate having the options. I just think that we could, I would like to see a little more options. the stage approach you talk about the kind of a hybrid of incentives and regulatory and what that would look like also i'm just curious about if we went with the incentives how does that work with the ocf funding plan that we just talked about and the timing of that and the alignment of that so i know i don't think we have questions tonight but i mean that would be my question if i think we're going to need to do some sort of incentive base but i don't know how that then impacts ocf funding so I would like to see a few more options built into this about how how can we make it predictable for the business community how can we make it cost-effective because I mean the building emissions I think in your a I said two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions so it's one of the single largest things we can do so I think it is a good use of our funding and incentives and also it's a huge cost burden especially in this financial uncertain time that you talked about so how can we make it predictable how can we bring folks along with us instead of more of just this regulatory you have to come into
compliance approach. Yeah I suppose I'll I have a few points and first of all this is great I really appreciate like that coming out of that last work session this is so interesting I hope everybody I hope it was a enjoyable pilot project and it was interesting I was a little surprised to see 5,000 square feet because I think at the first work session we were just saying 10 and above and that's okay if that's a if that's also an efficiency thing that's fine um i just wanted
to comment on that um so the certainty for reaching our goals is certainly there but i'm just could
someone could you address the lawsuit i mean i think you know that puts in um uncertainty into i mean if we're looking very narrowly right and i noticed that our boards and commissions that focus on energy were like yes and our economic advisory board was like no or not no but you know more cautious so again i can understand where we think it's more certain but how do we address
that legal question or are we in limbo there i i'd love for uh carry to contribute or i i could give the high level response of what we know at least from the denver go ahead and i'll add as needed our understanding is that last April the the suit base in Denver and the state was dismissed okay and at this point I'm not sure if there's any
additional thing yeah there is more so let me just add it was dismissed the plaintiffs were allowed to refile so the case is back on there are pending motions that are in the process of being briefed. So there's a potential that the court could dismiss the case again, but we won't know for a little while about that. If the court does not dismiss that case, then it will be pending and then we will still have a question about whether the legal issues being raised there are ones that we would need to be concerned about. Thank you. I just
think going forward there's something to consider that's all um and just i know you're most people are aware of this but the property assessment for commercial was anywhere between i don't know what the lowest one was but the over 100 and that goes straight to the renter right so um just trying to broaden the context for the discussion that's all um i think your timeline extension is very reasonable. I just think you did a great job on this. There's tons of really good information.
You were spot on on the price. Congratulations. I mean, really, I think that's so neat that you could project that. And then it came what you found from the pilot was, you know, I think you said a nice thing, Brian, you said, you know, working with these five buildings, no one's quit on you yet. And there've been big strides made, right? So I think it sounds very satisfying.
I personally like an incentive-based approach. That's just my personality. That's how I parent. That's how I sort of lead my life.
That's a personal preference, but that's, you know, I understand that sometimes things have to be a little more, you know,
I just think of the levers of government and power and when you use it, when you don't, when you go from collaborative to coercive. And government does that out of power. We just have to use it extremely judiciously and wisely. So I feel like we would get the biggest overall reduction by partnering with the business community. And then I also think that with the recapitalization of our generation facility to move to our clean energy future, the rates aren't going to go down certainly so I think there's additional
incentive there and I love your point about it's not just the electrification that's the that is one issue but it's also just the overall performance of the building which does make it safer cleaner and healthier so I'm appreciative of your work and those are those are just sort of general comments
Kelly?
I didn't want to cut Elaine there.
Yeah, can I, first I've just got a question. We had a memo dated yesterday from Kevin Cross of the Fort Collins Sustainability Group, and they had proposed a couple things be implemented, a couple different pathways to comply. I've got the memo in front of me. I won't go into the details. There's some reason that those two were never as part of the plan, and is that possible in the future? But the first question is most important.
Yeah, I think I addressed part of that answer with Melanie's comments and that the energy targets are focused on energy efficiency and not necessarily electrification. Based on the intentional sequencing we want to take, the fact that we're not sure if most commercial buildings are ready to electrify. right so it's it's reducing a little bit of risk that way and ensuring you know customer protection in a way where we're not recommending that you immediately electrify so kind of a balance of customer service and technical response
so I'm sorry I missed that discussion I think I was looking at my notes so could we get through a service area quest since it came in Monday so can we get a so it goes to the sustainability group and a council can we get a response in writing to that please okay thank you and then um we have from our boards and commissions and they came in
at different periods of time i won't go into the detail deep much detail but natural resources advisory board the energy board the air quality advisory board and the economic board also all urge adoption in different ways of the mostly the way it's presented with the bps policy and
And it talks about that that's where we're only going to get the most bang for the buck. I think it was two-thirds toward our climate action goals through buildings. I think that's where the savings is.
And then a bunch of them mentioned what's going to be my main point. And I guess these are just philosophical differences.
And they point out in their memos to us that we're very well done.
And I know all, I know three of the four boards quite well, and I think they did a great job.
But regulation, I'm for incentives as well as part of this plan, but incentives alone have never worked. It worked 99% of the time in the history of the planet to get to the goals that people wanted to go to on voluntary or incentives. It didn't work with all things relating to children's safety from the sleepwear to you name it, to airline safety, to car safety, to air quality, to water quality, to all of the things that the industries that are regulated and all of them to a certain extent are.
they almost always tried voluntary it never worked they could try incentives what you do is
you get the good players trying to do it and the bad players ignoring it all and then the good
players are the ones that are punished so it doesn't mean you don't have some voluntary
you don't have some compliant some um incentives in that in fact i i do the incentive package that the earlier in the more incentive you're going to get and if you get in later near the end of it at
deadline incentives are probably no longer existent that's the way i would design the program to get people in so they're less scared and that they get in the in the door but the voluntary just simply
doesn't work it's never worked and it mentioned that even in one of the memos that we've had a almost a quarter of a century of voluntary incentives in the in the city programs and
it's made very very little difference it's made some difference but it's not going to get us to
the promised land like we we need to get to and then i'd agree with what emily said about there's a lot more options here man you see the kitchen sink an option too let's lee let's extend the timeline before it's already at seven years and by the way is it and when it says 2032 2032 is that january december
it's actually we have a june there's a june yeah a june there's more detail there
Okay, well, I want to know if we've already got six or seven years to comply, is why I asked that question, so people to comply. But you threw in a timeline already of 25, 2035 or later, reduced cap by 5%, removed small buildings, and plus or minus new construction. There's a lot of other options in there that one could do. I agree with the multifamily thing. That, to me, should be the incentives thing for the reasons Emily mentioned. We're not going to win all of this. I certainly, if I was around, wouldn't win all that I wanted. But the multifamily is a thing that we could say, no, let's focus on the voluntary and incentive programs on for the reasons given and focus on the other ones. I think that's something. I'd like to get it all done, and I'd like to do it all in a combination of incentive and regulatory, because I believe that's the only thing that's going to work, emphasis on responsible and right-timed regulations.
my frustration is large here because there's a lot of members around the table that are members of organizations they go to conferences they speak climate climate climate climate a lot of virtue signaling and this is our chance to actually do something and if we don't do anything i think it's beyond embarrassing and we should change the wording for climate emergency because we're not serious about it if we don't take the next council doesn't take serious steps in a timely manner some combination of regulatory and incentives and and helping people get there but regulatory has got to be part of it or we just simply need to stop with the climate thing we just need to because this is the bang for the buck this is where it's at it's in the buildings you know instead of talk talk talk talk we need some some action that's really frustrating to me on this is our chance to do it. And again, you could have a lot of finesse in what's 2032 mean versus 2035. And if you get in by 2032, I don't think it's time to kick it back three more years when we haven't even started. I find that absurd as one of the options. I mean, let's kick it back already three years
before we know it works. So this is one I'm really going to miss not being here for because it's one of the most serious things we have to deal with. I wasn't the council that declared an emergency, and I think it is a climate crisis, an emergency.
And even though some things mentioned earlier, some progress has been made locally, all indications are the planet has just almost turned the corner to irreparable as far as the temperature rise in the last 20 years. It's almost unfixable, but you've got to keep trying. Those are the facts. So some people have made a little progress at cities or states, but by and large, the outlook is extremely bleak, and that's 99% of the scientists. It's really bleak. So this is our time to actually do something in the next year versus just kicking the can down the road. And if we do kick the can down the road, then I suggest that people not go to conferences and they not speak and they not travel and they don't serve on committees if they're not willing to take any action. I think it's time for that to be done.
next
Trisha
thanks for the great work it was really informative
a lot to dig into here I was kind of looking
agreeing with the pain points there
and going through that process and the 17 steps of it
but
like looking digging into all of that I really am curious about some of the things there like
the early adopter
incentive? What could that look like or what would you suggest there?
Right. Thanks for that question. So as part of our implementation plan that we talked about at some point last year and was included in previous packets, we did have essentially what we'll refer to as an early adopter incentive where we could provide, for example, a bonus incentive which is something that we do in utilities regularly to kind of spur action right double the incentive for a limited amount of time it gets people's attention anytime you talk about a limited amount of time kind of a marketing strategy right it also helps from an administrative standpoint to get people's attention early right and to cast forward that hey this isn't you know a one month long journey and there's in fact up to 17 steps if you go through every one of them so I think we have included it often some of that some of those incentives can be justified through utilities efficiency funding again we'd have to explore and Catherine's done a great job exploring grants from the state from DOE and in other resources and or 2050 tax dollars
okay and so that leads me to my next question what do we see is still existing maybe I missed that for DOE and state level incentives and was that impact that big 50 million dollars part of something that could potentially be used here and I don't know if we're going after any of that money or what
that looks like so we're currently pursuing a two million dollar grant for implementation of BPS an original grant that we were going after earlier this year yeah that was still January it was four and a half million dollars over the implementation period we haven't gotten a call back on that one so that's to say that we will continue to seek these resources and do our best to bring those dollars locally in order for our community to capitalize on.
At the state level is there anything that still exists? We're currently
seeking one and a half two million dollars based on policy adoption and
implementation okay and you know another thing I was I was working on the lead and copper pipe rule with the EPA local government Advisory Committee one issue they were really running
into with that was you're trying to do all this work at once and not having sufficient contractors so would that be a concern here at all I think there's some contractors in the
room that we try to partner with regularly right so that's part of actually our ongoing work to build capacity with a local trade partners be it consultants be it lighting installers or or a number of other trades right we to work with solar installers to train and to familiarize with our incentive process. So that will continue, that is and will continue to be a key component of our success for both incentive and regulatory based approaches.
Okay, thank you. So like hearing from others in the room, eyebrows there, Kelly.
I agree we should remove multifamily housing from this for now and I'd like to see us look at how we can complement with the 2050 tax for incentives.
And then you know I agree with we need to extend the timeline out to 2032 and give that little extra time at least.
But yeah, I think I'm there on those two pieces.
And then how do we make this a simplified process as we can?
Okay. Julie? Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I want to echo a lot of what's been said. thank you for the really hard work on this and um that is pretty cool that you found that your
projections worked out so um that's good job on that i do want to ask um because i too am have deep concerns about multi-family and i'm wondering are we able to estimate the ghg emissions savings
by people not having to drive in and out like our service workers that might live in these
multifamily buildings, if they have to drive in and out of our community, then that's also creating issues. So I know this, I think this is more of a hypothetical question, but do you know
of any data that we can get showing what displacement of people from the community
where they live and work, what kind of emissions they contribute? I think we could follow up with an estimate or at least a methodology or framework. The existing policy outcomes were largely based on emissions as a result of natural gas and electricity.
Yeah, and that's what I think.
I mean, I appreciate the comments that have come so far that are looking at this more in a systems way. And I do appreciate all the levers that you've provided as well.
I, too, prefer incentives. So I'm very distracted because of the way the camera just did something.
But sorry, I was looking at like hundreds of myself going off into infinity because of whatever they just did.
It was a little wacky. Anyway, so yes on incentives. Yes.
Or so I would say take the multifamily out.
um do keep an eye on lawsuits but know that you know i want us to continue to move forward um
do we have an estimate like have we estimated if and tell me if this was in there and i just was reading it wrong if every building was compliant where would our ghg emissions be
yeah so from a community inventory perspective this policy has between a three and five percent overall impact so if we're talking about the 2030 80 percent emissions goal this proposed policy would impact that overall goal between three and five percent making it you know, one of the most substantial, the most substantial lever that we could use as a local
government. And is that an assumption of 100% compliance or something a little more realistic?
Yeah, I think it's 95, something similar to what we have with our benchmarking ordinance
and participation. So. Okay. Okay. Well, yeah, I think my final comment, I would also like to add that I think someone mentioned that if there was like a phased incentive, like the earlier you get in, the more better incentive you're going to get, that I would think that that might help change some behaviors. I'm really hoping through the education piece that you find a lot more of those people that are going to be at 15 cents per square foot, as opposed to $13 or whatever it got up to and agree with the simplicity. If there's any steps in there, I mean, I do appreciate your showing the line of emotions and that's intuitive. And I appreciate that you're being empathetic and thinking about that. But I do, that is still a very long roadmap for, if you think about a small company and how many museums with restaurants in them do we have in town? I I believe we just have one, right?
Is that correct?
The pilot participants wish to remain anonymous.
Okay, got it. I just wasn't sure. All right. Well, thank you again for all the hard work.
Thank you.
That's funny, Julie. We're all wondering. What's the...
Yeah, and this is a little bit of a follow-up to Julie. I'm not sure. It sounds like Julie was expressing support for kind of a combination of some regulatory strategies and incentives or incentive only? Julie?
Are you asking me? I'm asking you. Yeah. Yes, but I'm not. I I the menu that was provided. I'm not like quite sure what I want to order yet.
OK, does that make sense? Yeah, I was just clarifying because I wanted to respond to you and I didn't quite understand. I guess to state my preference, because we've had a lot of talk, I do like the idea, especially if we can get some data about how much it would impact our greenhouse gas emissions goals to exclude multifamily. I'm in support of that. I do think we need a regulatory component. I think the climate emergency is an emergency. I think we're all in agreement. I do know there will be pain points. We do have dollars available to us to, you know, help soften the blow. But you guys have tried incentives, it looks like, for quite a long time, and it has not gotten as where we need to go. So I am open to some gentle adjustments, especially around housing impacts, I am in support of a regulatory approach.
Great. Susan, did you want to say anything? No? Okay. I have one for the question. Aren't buildings of 50,000 square feet or more, it's indicated that they're covered by the state. We would cover them additionally? I'm just curious about that.
Any buildings covered by the state would be excluded from local coverage.
That's what I thought. Okay. Sorry. I thought that, okay. Great. Do you, do you have what you need? And I guess I had one more question on the roadmap. It says obtain a contractor. But what if you came in and you had a building and they, there was an analysis done? I mean, you don't, I can imagine if you can meet the cap sometimes without a contract. Like you don't have to do all those steps. Correct.
right if there's in-house staff that can do the upgrades and complete them absolutely yeah okay
okay that was just a question i was like okay okay that's all that was just a minor thing
do you have all the feedback you need i want to do a bit of a summary please do got a lot of feedback thank you for being engaged in the conversation i heard a plurality a majority if not unanimity around some incentive-based approach. It gets a little squishier with who also supported a regulatory regime associated with that. But I did hear that there was at least some interest in incentive and incentive plus regulatory. I think there was also plurality of council members saying remove multifamily. and it was loud and clear that there was some expectation that we find a way to simplify the journey. So that's what I heard. I want to check and give an opportunity for any additional feedback.
I feel like that's very accurate. Does anyone want to add in a clarification? I would say incentive plus some sliding scale of regulatory is what I heard. I heard everything from a phased incentive well but i heard everything from light regulatory to me no regulatory to incentive plus regulatory but like a sliding scale to like right kelly you'd say more regulatory than
it was having more options on the regulatory side yeah okay we can thank that makes that's helpful
okay yeah and i just want to clarify i didn't mean 100 regulatory i just mean a really appropriately robust regulatory framework combined with incentives and all that kind of thing and different ways to do the incentives just like regulatory early in those kinds of things yeah
great that clarification helps so process wise next steps I think one of the questions we had is do you want us to prepare something for a first reading would you like us to come back with a work session I think we could turn around a something by the end of the year for this council to consider tight but doable right Brian so feedback on
next steps it's not like well it's not like it's distant from my thinking I'm stronger on the regulatory than than some so it's not like i'm trying to game it because i got all these people that agree with me here because i don't the council's invested this and i think if we could do the turnaround at least for first reading that would be a good thing it's not like i'm exactly in charge here but we've done the work and i think it would be appropriate in fact it saves me the problem of saying something this important didn't get to us with this council when we've talked about that kind of thing for two years and four years of closing out things. I just think it'd be good because I think we can get there on what we talked about tonight, a combination of regulatory and incentives and timing.
Trish? Yeah, and I would agree. Like if we could have this council get through that stage as well because we specifically asked you to bring the pilot in time for this council. So it feels like we should finish it out all the way.
Just one process check. So we'll have to have that language done in about three weeks. So what that means is that there really would not be any time for circulating, processing the actual code provisions that would be getting presented, and maybe that's fine, but I just wanted to make sure people understood the timeline for December is sort of fast upon us, I'll say.
Right. Yeah, the December 2nd meeting would require, I think it's November 21st timeline for my team to collaborate with the attorney's office on that draft language, and that gives us about three and a half weeks, And we have the foundation and framework for that ordinance language. So I think it's doable based on other priorities in the attorney's office.
Would that be time for two readings?
I'm sorry, I didn't catch that. Two readings? Yes, it'll be a code change, so it'll take an ordinance. We have time, she said.
January 2nd?
I I think we can prioritize it it will have to look at what what has to be moved aside in order to make it happen
But I'm just gonna bring up my discomfort with the legal Situation and I'm not saying that we should if the majority of council wants it to come forward I will remain uneasy about it while there's um cities are getting sued for doing this so i i i see i see a high a high risk there unless we have a resolution through the courts but that doesn't mean we can't proceed if the
majority of council wants to i know it's not ideal but there is a scenario we could do first reading on january 6th but second reading would be with the new council
Or we can take it to LPT Yeah, I think let us we have been working again. We knew it was a tight timeline but working Under the assumption that we would want to try and get this Council in front of this council, so
I think let us go back and we'll come to LPT, but yeah, I there's a path forward So we'll figure out if that's a December January combo maybe or a split council, but we'll try and get it done with this council.
Okay. Now do you have what you need?
I think we do.
Okay, as everybody said. Okay, this is announcement time, so I do have two announcements. I'm so excited to have an announcement. Next Monday is our council meeting, not Tuesday. Tuesday is an election, so please make sure to vote. Everybody's voice counts the same. Tricia.
Would someone from the city staff like to talk about the white book that's available as well?
Clerk's office.
Cecilia, would you like to do just a quick update on where people can find that very helpful information? Of course. So the voter information guide available at fcgov.com forward slash elections has all of the information on everything on the ballot.
Oh, my apologies. So the voter information guide available at fcgov.com forward slash elections has information on all the Fort Collins ballot items and extremely helpful for the long ballot that we have this year.
So great. Thank you very much, Jacob. Can I make a protocol for an announcement?
Come on. It is germane to election season. We've had a number of inquiries about what can be done with the Coroplast yard signs. So I'm happy to announce that those can be accepted at the Timberline Recycling Center. So they're in the hard to recycle area. So there's a five dollar charge at this point. We are exploring if there's something that we can do with that. But we're doing that in partnership with Loveland Recycle. So those can be taken, your yard signs can be taken to the Timberline Recycling Center right now to the hard recycle yard for a $5 charge.
$5 each?
No. One load. We have to start fundraising.
$5 what, entry?
Entry. That's my understanding. And I can also provide clips.
That's a great announcement. Tricia.
And can you talk about the stands? Can those be recycled as well? yes the metal the metal stands can go into the metal recycling
thank you those are great announcements at this point does anybody else have any anyone in the crowd no we're good okay good night Fort Collins
https://fortcollins-co.municodemeetings.com/bc-citycouncil/page/city-council-work-session-61
Counciloris