Over the last several years, Fort Collins has been wrestling with a core tension: How do we hit our ambitious climate goals without breaking the people, businesses, and property owners who make up the backbone of our community? When it comes to buildings — which account for over two-thirds of all local greenhouse gas emissions— the City has been working toward a policy that moves our built environment forward while recognizing the very real cost of doing so.
The latest version of this work, the Building Performance Standards (BPS) ordinance, came to City Council on December 2, 2025. And despite years of development, multiple revisions, and a shift toward a more incentive-heavy approach, the vote came down 3-3 — a tie — which effectively killed the ordinance.
This was a shock to many watching the process closely… but it wasn’t unpredictable. The story of how we got here explains why.
How We Got Here: Years of Work, Multiple Iterations, and Bending Toward Balance
Fort Collins has long been a national leader in sustainability planning. The Our Climate Future (OCF) plan set clear goals for emissions reduction, energy optimization, and long-term resiliency. Buildings were always going to be a central player in this transition.
Starting as far back as 2015 climate initiatives and later reinforced through updated policies, the City began laying the groundwork to require and support better building efficiency.
By 2024–2025, City staff had already held four major work sessions with Council — April 2024, June 2024, January 2025, and October 2025 — each one refining the proposal.
And Council’s direction was consistent:
1. Use a hybrid approach — incentives + some regulatory requirements
Council made it clear they did not want a purely regulatory program. They instead requested a “hybrid method that includes a regulatory approach along with an enhanced incentive-based framework”.
2. Protect affordability
Council asked staff to remove or rethink requirements that could place too much strain on:
- Multifamily housing providers
- Small commercial buildings
This led to a major policy shift:
→ Multi-family buildings were removed entirely from the draft BPS due to affordability and ownership-investment concerns.
→ Small commercial buildings (5,000–10,000 sq. ft.) were removed, as they represent only ~5% of total energy savings but face disproportionate cost burdens.
3. Make the timeline realistic
The original proposal phased requirements in by 2030 for larger buildings, but after owner feedback and economic concerns, staff extended compliance to 2035 for nearly all building types — emphasizing an “incentive-first” approach.
This shift was massive. City staff acknowledged that delaying deadlines would increase the risk of missing interim climate goals but would provide more flexibility and reduce financial pressure on owners.
What the BPS Would Have Required
Covered Buildings
After the revisions, the proposed BPS applied to:
- Commercial buildings ≥10,000 sq. ft.
- State-covered buildings ≥50,000 sq. ft.
This left approximately 730 buildings, but about one-third were already meeting the targets today.
What Owners Needed to Achieve
Owners had two compliance pathways:
- Meet a Site EUI (Energy Use Intensity) target, or
- Achieve a percentage reduction in energy use from a selected baseline year.
Estimated Costs for Building Owners
This was one of the biggest pressure points in the entire process.
According to the City’s analysis:
- Buildings ≥10,000 sq. ft. would face estimated upgrade costs of $5.80–$6.30 per sq. ft. on average.
- Buildings ≥50,000 sq. ft. were slightly lower, around $4.40–$4.70 per sq. ft.
For a 50,000-sq-ft building, that could mean $250,000–$315,000 in upgrades.
Even with incentives — which the City doubled for early adopters using 2050 Climate Tax funds — that’s a big lift, especially for buildings with thin margins or deferred maintenance.
What Changed in the Final Version Before Council
Heading into the Dec. 2 first reading, staff implemented several major adjustments based on Council feedback:
1. Extended compliance to 2035 for all buildings
This gave owners more time, reduced near-term financial obligation, and aligned incentives to stretch farther into the decade.
2. Removed multifamily buildings from coverage
A Council-requested change due to concerns about rental affordability and unintended consequences.
3. Removed small commercial buildings (5,000–10,000 sq. ft.)
This targeted regulatory pressure toward the largest emitters, capturing roughly 75% of the original policy impact while significantly reducing cost burdens on smaller operators.
4. Increased incentives using the 2050 Climate Tax allocation
Projected early-period funding included:
- $2 million in 2027
- $1.5 million in 2028
- $1 million in 2029
…then tapering down through 2032
This was essentially the City trying to sweeten the pot — more carrots, fewer sticks.
The Vote That Stopped It — For Now
After all the adjustments, the ordinance came to Council. And despite staff recommending approval on first reading, the Council split 3-3.
A tie vote kills the ordinance without moving it forward.
For a policy that’s been years in the making, that’s a big stall. But it’s also a reflection of where Fort Collins is right now:
- We want to lead on climate.
- We want healthy, efficient buildings.
- We also understand that if the economy weakens, if tenants can’t afford rent, if commercial vacancies rise — the community suffers.
Council members expressed concern that even with incentives, the costs were too high and the timing too tight for building owners already navigating high interest rates, inflation, labor shortages, and rising insurance premiums.
The inconsistent vote signals not a rejection of the goals but a rejection of the current balance of incentives vs. requirements.
So… Is BPS Dead? Not Likely.
Even though the ordinance failed on first reading, it is extremely unlikely this conversation simply disappears.
Why?
- The City is committed to OCF emissions targets.
- Buildings remain the largest single emissions source in Fort Collins.
- Council feedback repeatedly emphasized wanting a BPS — but a more incentive-weighted one.
Given this, the most probable next step is:
A return to staff for further revisions, focused on:
- More incentives
- Fewer mandates
- A compliance structure that minimizes cost shocks
- Greater alignment with market cycles
- Continued exclusion (or rethinking) of multifamily
- Even simpler compliance pathways
Staff hinted that the extended timeline and incentive backing were designed exactly for this kind of iterative refinement.
What This Means for Fort Collins Going Forward
This moment represents a major shift in how Fort Collins is approaching climate and building policy.
A strong economy must come first. Climate resilience depends on a healthy, thriving community — not the other way around.
That doesn’t mean we abandon climate action. It means we pursue policy that supports — not burdens — the economic ecosystem that keeps Fort Collins vibrant.
And as someone who works daily with business owners, building owners, and residents, I can tell you:
People aren’t against energy efficiency or sustainability. They just need the porridge to be “just right.” Not too hot, not too cold.
This version wasn’t quite there.
But the next one might be.