Fort Collins Climate Spending
Way back in 1999, Fort Collins was one of the first communities in the U.S. to decide that the City should participate in the global effort to mitigate climate change impacts. Since then, the City has adopted at least four iterations of a climate action plan, branding the latest update “Our Climate Future.” Funding for City climate action has come from utility funds and from the general City budget. In 2023 voters approved a 0.125% sales tax increase specifically for “climate programs.”
Defining “climate programs” has always been a challenge for the City. Everything the City does can be construed as having a climate impact. For example, at the first meeting of the Climate Action Plan Citizen Advisory Committee in 2015, City staff presented a budget of climate spending. Included in that budget was the Lemay St railroad overpass, $24 million. The overpass reduces vehicle idling, thus reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG). Of course, reducing GHG was not the reason to build the overpass. The City climate team didn’t know how to account just for the cost of the climate benefit, but they wanted to claim the climate credit, so they counted the entire $24 million as a climate program. That was one item in a long list of climate-related (or justified) projects, adding up to hundreds of millions of dollars of spending that the City climate team was counting as the climate budget.
Now, nine years later, voters have approved a tax specifically for climate programs, but the City still has not defined what constitutes a climate program. They have no dividing lines and very few rules to guide. The tax initiative broadly defines climate programs as any project that supports renewable energy, reduces GHG emissions, and/or reduces air pollution. It is up to City staff and city council to fill in the details, and they do not have a strategy.
Despite the lack of a spending strategy, city council was considering increasing fees on natural gas (your heating bill) to raise even more money for “climate programs.” CforSE and Fort Collins Sustainability Group teamed up to defeat that effort. The public pressure and number of emails from CforSE supporters convinced council to postpone increasing fees until they figure out how to spend the money that they have already collected. It is reasonable to think that a basic responsibility of city council is to determine how to spend our money before they take it. Better late than never? FYI, the next Fort Collins election is in 2025.
Hopefully, nobody would approve spending $24 million just to reduce idling at one intersection. An actual climate proposal from City staff is retrofitting exterior lighting on recreation centers. This project has a cost of $1340 per ton GHG. On the other hand, the City Manager says that solar has a 10% annual return on investment for the City. Therefore, investing in solar results in a savings of (conservatively) $378/ton of reduced GHG. This makes solar the most cost-effective climate program that we know of. Solar is over $1500/ton GHG more cost-effective, and results in a net savings for the City budget!
Please write a short, personalized email to:
Mayor Jeni Arndt and Chief Financial Officer Travis Storin:
To: tstorin@fcgov.com, jarndt@fcgov.com
Cc: cforse.fred@gmail.com
Subject: Climate Spending
· Thank them for deciding to develop a spending strategy before taking more money for climate programs.
· Ask them to prioritize climate spending based on cost-effectiveness, beginning with programs that have a positive return on investment.
· Tell them that you get CforSE updates and their actions on this topic will influence your vote.
Say whatever else you like. Feel free to use the above talking points. Please CC us and ask for a reply.