HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Full - Finance Committee - 06/02/2022 -Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
AGENDA
Council Finance & Audit Committee
June 2, 2022
4:00 - 6:00 pm
Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/8140111859
Approval of Minutes from the May 5, 2022, Council Finance Committee meeting.
1.Capital Projects – Inflationary Impacts (3 projects)
30 mins. B. Buckman
M. Martinez
2. Sustainable Funding Update
60 mins. G. Sawyer
J. Poznanovic
3. Parks Design Standards Review 30 mins. K. Friesen
V. Shaw
M. Calhoon
Other Memo Attached: 401(a) Restated Adoption Agreements
Page 1 of 109
Council Finance Committee
Agenda Planning Calendar 2022
RVSD 05/12/22 ts
June 2nd 2022
Capital Projects – Inflationary Impacts (3 projects) 30 min B. Buckman
M. Martinez
Sustainable Funding Update 60 min J. Poznanovic
G. Sawyer
Parks Design Standards Review 30 min
K. Friesen
V. Shaw
M. Calhoon
July 7th 2022
Rudolph Farms - Metro District 30 min C. Frickey
Capital Projects – Inflationary Impact (All projects) 45 min D. Lenz
S. Freve
Grocery Tax Rebate Program 30 min J. Poznanovic
N. Bodenhamer
August 1st 2022
Annual Financial Audit Results 25 min B. Dunn
2021 Fund Balance Review 30 min B. Dunn
E. Mulberry Planning: Phasing and Funding 60 min
D. Lenz
S. Tatman-
Burruss
Sept. 1st 2022
Oct. 6th 2022
Nov. 3rd 2022
Page 2 of 109
Page 3 of 109
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
May 5, 2022, 4-6 pm
Zoom
Council Attendees: Julie Pignataro, Kelly Ohlson, Emily Francis, Susan Gutowsky
Staff: Kelly DiMartino, Travis Storin, Kyle Stannert, Tyler Marr, Carrie Daggett,
John Duval, Teresa Roche, Chirs Martinez, Kevin Wilkins, Gerry Paul, Blaine
Dunn, Randy Bailey, Trevor Nash, Amanda Newton, Renee Callas, Jo Cech,
Amanda King, Sarah Meline, Jackie Thiel, Javier Echeverria Diaz,
Claudia Menendez, SeonAh Kendall, Rachel Askeland, Kevin Wilkins Beth Yonce,
Beth Rosen, Brittany Depew, Dave Lenz, Sheena Freve, Zack Mozer,
Molly Reeves, Lawrence Pollack, Rachel Springob, Victoria Shaw,
Caryn Champine, Monica Martinez, Marcy Yoder, JC Ward, Lance Smith,
Adam Bromley, Judy Hueser, Tracy Ochsner, Erik Martin, Brian Hergott,
Ingrid Decker, Patty Netherton, Carolyn Koontz
Others: Kevin Jones, Chamber
______________________________________________________________________________
Meeting called to order at 4:00 pm
Approval of minutes from the April 7, 2022, Council Finance Committee Meeting. Kelly Ohlson moved for approval
of the minutes as presented. Emily Frances seconded the motion. Minutes were approved unanimously via roll call
by; Julie Pignataro, Kelly Ohlson and Emily Francis.
A. Recovery Plan - 2022 Mid-Cycle Appropriation
Blaine Dunn, Accounting Director
Jo Cech, Fiscal Recovery Manager
Sarah Meline, Recovery Policy & Engagement Specialist
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Review of 2022 Mid-Cycle ARPA Appropriation for Recovery Efforts
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City staff are seeking a mid-cycle appropriation of $4.1M of the Organization’s remaining $19.9M of American
Rescue Plan (ARPA) Funds to support pandemic recovery efforts. These projects were reviewed and selected by
the Recovery Executive Lead Team because they address immediate needs for both community and enterprise
recovery.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Page 4 of 109
Does Finance Committee support bringing forward the proposed 2022 Mid-Cycle ARPA Appropriation for first
reading on May 17, 2022.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The federal American Rescue Plan Act established $1.9 trillion in COVID-19 relief funding, including $350 billion
State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) to aid state and local fiscal recovery. $28.1M of SLFRF has been
allocated to the City of Fort Collins. These funds are designed to provide flexibility so that each recipient can
meet unique local needs, including support for the communities and businesses hardest hit by the pandemic.
In May of 2021, City Council allocated approximately $4.2M of the $28.1M SLFRF funds to be spent over the
following 12-18 months for short-term response efforts. City Council also approved an additional $4.0M of ARPA
fund allocations in the 2022 Budget. A summary of ARPA projects funded to date can be found in Attachment 1.
The remaining $19.9M of funds are expected to be used to achieve priorities laid out in the City’s Adopted
Recovery Plan through 2022 mid-cycle and 2023-2024 budget appropriations. At the request of Council, staff
have brought forward project proposals to be considered for 2022 mid-cycle ARPA funding to address
immediate recovery needs. Eighteen specific projects were submitted to the Recovery Executive Lead Team to
review. The Team reviewed and ranked all eligible projects (those eligible to be funded with SLFRF funds per
Treasury rules).
Ranking was based on immediate need, rather than the value of the project for achieving recovery. All offers
were deemed appropriate for achieving recovery.
Ten high-ranked projects were selected to move forward for Finance Committee review, and lower ranked
projects encouraged to be submitted as offers for the 23/24 Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process.
The ten high-ranked projects are listed below, and a full breakdown of the projects, including brief descriptions,
can be found in Attachment 2.
Project Name Cost FTE Requested
Crisis Communication Plan
$130,000 0
Heartside Hill $1,100,000 0
Indigenous Community Relations Specialist $313,217 1
Rapid Rehousing $201,000 0
Neighborhood Resilience Projects $40,000 0
Capital Project Business Liaison $275,000 1
Recovery Administration Funding $250,000 3*
HR Staff Support $268,000 3
COVID-Related Workspace and Workload
Adjustments
$1,300,000 0
Cybersecurity Upgrade Planning $275,000 0
*FTEs already approved, not counted in total
FTEs $4,152,217 5
Page 5 of 109
Some of the proposed projects include requests for contractual FTEs. The need for the FTEs is due to:
• Ongoing impacts of the City’s hiring freeze in 2020-2021 and a high turnover rate,
• additional administrative needs for the implementation of recovery programing,
• and increased need for engagement and relationship building with the community to provide support
and build resilience.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Finance Committee support bringing forward the proposed 2022 Mid-Cycle ARPA Appropriation for first
reading on May 17, 2022?
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS:
Kelly Ohlson; regarding slide #9 (see below)
Recovery Administrative Funding – are the 3 FTEs listed contractual and are they permanent or temporary
resources and why do we need 3 FTEs in administration?
Jo Cech; all Recovery Administrative positions are contractual and will end in 2024. This funding requires an
enormous amount of bureaucracy due to the federal requirements including the audit and compliance
reporting, connections of vetting programs, the work that must be done to vet every single person who gets
funding from us and well as sub recipients who are receiving funding and acting in our stead. The 3 positions
Page 6 of 109
include; a Data Analyst to help with the recovery reporting, a Policy Engagement Specialist as well as Jo’s
position.
Kelly Ohlson; are these a continuation of existing positions?
Jo Cech; yes
Kelly Ohlson; are the HR staff support FTEs contractual as well?
Jo Cech; yes
Blaine Dunn; a point of clarification, any positions associated with ARPA funding will be contractual positions
and will end in 2024 when the ARPA spend is finished. If we were to continue any resources after that time,
they would need to be through a different funding source and that would need to go through the full BFO
process.
Kelly Ohlson; I am more concerned about marginalized communities and lower income households
I saw 8 FTEs for the bureaucracy and not much going to the people who need the recovery – but you have
addressed most of my concerns. What is COVID Related Workspace and Workload Adjustments which is a
$1.3M item listed on slide 9?
Tyler Marr; we know that is a large dollar item and the title might be a little wonky and not clear.
This is largely around physical space and our ability to handle our covid work environment.
The first piece is to retrofit several of our conference rooms in City Hall to accommodate hybrid meetings.
We currently have a very limited number of conference rooms that can accommodate hybrid meetings.
The second piece is to retrofit our workplace environment. We have teams deciding that certain people will be
primarily remote, and they need hybrid workspaces to come into. There is a pilot project in there to retrofit part
of the HR office area to accommodate hoteling and hot desking (capital improvement)
There are also a number of WIFI upgrades both at the Lincoln Center and across some recreation locations. We
need some pretty significant upgrades there - public facing spaces. We recognize that this is a high dollar item,
but we are trying to chip away at some real needs as we move into this permanent hybrid environment.
Kelly Ohlson; I am good with what was presented.
Emily Francis; I have some of the same concerns at Kelly about some of the budget offers - I also saw the large
dollar amount going to community support for Covid Recovery - I understand that we need help getting this off
the ground – I don’t like seeing $4M going to Administration not direct support. I understand although I am not
excited about some of these
It would be helpful in the materials to have more information about what the projects are and what they are
getting us to and the different buckets where we are allocating dollars and how they are advancing the items in
our ARPA Strategic Plan and also keeping in mind what is coming down the line.
Blaine Dunn; we have that information and can add it to the full Council packet.
Emily Francis; In Ordinance 79, we funded the ForFortCollins.com website. Is that funded with these dollars or
what is happening with that?
Page 7 of 109
SeonAh Kendall; the ForFortCollins.com site is going through a website re-evaluation – we will be adding items
such as the multi-cultural business and entrepreneurial center resources and scheduling - those are things that
were funded, and we are in the process of utilizing in the 2022 budget. They were funded through 2022 with
the first appropriation and we will be putting in a budget offer for 2023 -2024 to continue that site as well as the
multi-cultural and entrepreneurial center. There were other websites that our partners funded.
Emily Francis; there is a comment about the Parklane Mobile Home Park – we don’t know if the purchase has
gone through yet because the request for support was more for infrastructure updates – so that is not a time
sensitive item right now.
JC Ward; the offer was accepted from the non-profit group, and they still have some significant infrastructure
asks which we knew was going to be a heavy lift especially with some of the asphalt pavement and concrete
curbs that they need installed – so there was some information about that sent through as a memo with those
general buckets and the price ranges they were looking at. In doing a quick review, those items do look like they
would be ARPA eligible and the timeline of this was a little long to try to get them into this process, but Jo did a
great job to keep flagging this as potentially ARPA funding eligible. They were not put into a BFO offer because
this was after the submission deadline, but I would defer to Jo and Blaine to talk about what that might look like
if we wanted to put that into a request.
Blaine Dunn; it will depend on timing of when they would need that money for infrastructure improvements and
what that looks like - so if they need that upstream of the BFO process – we likely would be coming back to this
committee and to Council for an additional supplemental appropriation but if they are able to wait until the
beginning of next year we could work on putting a BFO offer ready to put that into the cycle.
Emily Francis; I just don’t want to lost sight of this or for it to get lost because it doesn’t fit into our regular city
process -please keep an eye on this and bring it back as needed.
Julie Pignataro; how do the FTEs translate into a salary - it showed an equivalent of 2 ½ years.
How did those translate into salaries?
Jo Cech; they come in an offer, and we go back to the offer owner and ask them to break out how much is salary
and benefits – I have a separate spreadsheet that covers all of the FTE expense for salary and benefits. The
Indigenous Community Relations Specialist is the only FTE other than the Recovery Admin FTES that runs
through 2024.
Travis Storin; to summarize, there is a desire for added detail for the 10 projects (Attachment #2 is too brief)
More commentary similar to what we put forth with BFO offers in the fall - We have that detail and will provide
it for the packet for May 17th.
Julie Pignataro; somewhere closer to a paragraph
Emily Francis; and include how it ties into our adopted plan for ARPA dollars and advancing that
Travis Storin; one point of clarification as a follow on to Blaine’s comments around contractual versus classified
positions - there is one notable exception around hiring with ARPA dollars where we did do it on a classified
basis and that is the mental health response team within police. Those are not contractual employees and we
wanted to be very transparent about that last Fall when Council approved that because when ARPA funding runs
Page 8 of 109
out, we would be looking for most likely General Fund ongoing in order to ensure the continuity of that program
within Police Services.
B. Municipal Court Supplemental Appropriation
Judge Jill Hueser
Brian Hergott, Lead Sr. Facilities Project Manager
Ingrid Decker, Sr. Assistant City Attorney
Tracy Ochsner, Interim Ops Services Director
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Municipal Court and the City Attorney’s Office are jointly requesting $700,000.00 in appropriations from General
Fund Reserves to address urgent needs at 215 N Mason.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance support the appropriations of funds to address the urgent needs for Municipal Court and
the City Attorney’s Office?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Municipal Court was moved into its current location at 215 N Mason in 2007 when the Justice Center became
over-crowded and required the court to vacate the space. This location was available at the time, was empty
and could provide a temporary court space with minimal renovations. There have been minimal space changes
since 2007 to address safety and security needs, but little to address growth needs. The City has spent a total of
$637,350 over the last 15 years (including initial move-in costs), but court caseloads have continued to grow and
expand programming, and the Court and the City Attorney’s Office (which is responsible for the prosecution
function and needs office/workspace at Municipal Court) have hired more staff to handle these caseloads.
Municipal Court has put in BFO offers in the past to address these issues, but no funding has been awarded.
Staff again plans to submit two new offers this year requesting funding for a plan that would address projected
needs for a 15- or 30-year time horizon. Both of these options would require more than doubling the current
space and will be multimillion dollar projects. While we work through the long-term plan, we need to address
some urgent needs so that we can provide a higher standard of public access and service, meet current hearing
schedules, and provide appropriate space for the increased staff. As it stands, both the Court and the City
Attorney’s Office have staff funded and ready to onboard who do have a workspace, and we do not have
adequate space for defendants to discuss their cases with prosecutors without their conversations being
overheard. We continue to address the safety and security needs for employees and the public.
In 2021 Clark Enersen completed a thorough study of the Court’s current space and future space needs. They
identified the current space size and its limitations and developed both 15 year and 30-year plans addressing
standard space requirements for courts.
The plan we bring before you today will address our urgent needs and get us by for an interim period while
phasing and final plans are approved and can move forward. The planned renovations to be completed with
these funds are aligned with the plans from Clark Enersen so that they will be incorporated into the final plan.
However, they do not address any renovations to the courtroom.
Staff is requesting the $700,000.00 in appropriation from General Fund Reserves to address these urgent needs
which will allow us to properly serve the community and begin work towards a plan that will fully meet the
Court’s needs in the near future.
Page 9 of 109
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance support the appropriations of funds to address the urgent needs for Municipal Court and
the City Attorney’s Office?
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS:
Emily Francis; I am a yes – Can you share why we were asked to leave the Justice Center?
Jill Heuser; In 2007 we were kicked out of the justice center as they were running out of space. We had a
courtroom there but they decided they needed it for state court.
Emily Francis; have we revisited conversations with them about space recently?
Jill Heuser; we have – they have had bond measures fail a couple of times for expansion - they actually kicked
out their probation department recently and added 2 new judges in the legislative session last year so they are
looking to add another courtroom.
Emily Francis; the AIS mentions a 15 year and a 300-year plan – is the long term intention for you to stay in the
space you are currently using?
Jill Hueser: the 30 year plan requires building an extension on the building – after Ops Services assessment, we
have been told we should plan on staying in our current building long term
Emily Francis; previous BFO offer wasn’t moved forward? We have needed updates to this building for a long
time - wondering what held up the BFO offers
Jill Hueser; The BFO lead team asked up to come back with a detailed plan that would meet our needs for a
longer period of time - I don’t know what the result was prior to me becoming judge.
Kelly Ohlson; I am fine with what is presented
Staff was right to say give us your long-term plan – we are not tearing out in four years what we just put in.
I prefer the 30-year plan – 15 is still a short time frame
Julie Pignataro; I am supportive as well – confirming that the Civic Center Master plan does not include a justice
center?
Brian Hergott; we are still working through the space planning exercise for the new municipal building -
We have come up with a plan where they can stay at 215 Mason
Julie Pignataro; I have heard overwhelming support from Council to do what we can to modernize and
make the justice center more user friendly.
Jill Hueser; I agreed with the BLT Lead Team in let’s do this right the first time. If this is approved, you won’t see
us coming back in a few years - I am very confident that if we go forward with one of the plans it will last for the
amount of time that we are asking for.
Page 10 of 109
C. Light & Power Supplemental Appropriation
Adam Bromley, Interim Deputy Director, Utilities
Lance Smith, Director, FP&A
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on information from vendors of distribution transformers, it is necessary to either scale back the number
of transformers the City will purchase this year or request an additional appropriation to maintain the expected
transformer demand for both growth as well as prudent asset replacements. A reduction in the number of
transformers purchased could negatively impact new development and system reliability. Staff is recommended
a supplemental appropriation of $1,432,000 which would allow for more transformers to be ordered in 2022 to
be delivered as soon as they are available, likely in late 2023 at the earliest.
Looking toward future growth a new substation will be necessary to adequately serve the northeast areas of the
City as those areas are developed. A supplemental appropriation is also being requested to order the two
substation transformers that will be needed to serve this load growth. Again, this supplemental appropriation
rather than waiting for additional funds to become available in early 2023 will allow these transformers to be
delivered within the next 3 years. Staff is proposing to bring forth an appropriation ordinance which also
includes $2,234,000 for two substation transformers.
The total supplemental appropriation being proposed for your consideration is for $3,666,000.00.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle appropriation of L&P reserves to procure enough
distribution transformers so that L&P can support new construction and necessary replacements through 2024?
In addition, does Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle appropriation of L&P reserves to begin the
procurement process for two (2) substation transformers that will be used to complete the construction of a
new substation that serves Northeast Fort Collins?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Distribution Transformers
In the last six weeks or so, L&P staff has engaged with the distribution transformer manufacturer industry to
better understand the significant price increases to the transformers that we typically purchase. The main
drivers of the price increases are related to supply chain issues mainly related to shortages and/or significant
inflationary pressures for almost all raw materials used to construct a distribution transformer including
transformer core steel and aluminum secondary winding supplies. While some manufacturers are better off
than others, simply due to their buying power and existing contracts in these markets, these supply chain issues
have far-reaching impacts to prices, lead times, labor and transportation costs, and production capacity. What
we’re hearing from the industry related to supply chain issues suggests that these price increases and extended
lead times will definitely endure the short term (i.e., through 2023) and will likely continue into a longer term, if
not permanent, scenario.
Page 11 of 109
L&P typically purchases a year’s worth of transformers in advance; L&P uses the economic order quantity
estimating methodology using historical usage data for each stock number along with known future work order
needs to arrive at the quantity for purchase for each year. This methodology works really well when lead times
are reasonable (i.e., 10-20 weeks) or if lead time increases changed very gradually. Depending on the specific
needs of the transformer design, lead times can be 3-5 times longer than what we saw at this time last year,
which does not provide enough time to react adequately. There are quite a few new developments and capital
projects on the horizon so we can assume that new construction needs will not go away in the near future. L&P
projects that current stock levels could last until next summer or fall (2023) if we are very intentional with how
we use units that we have. However, because lead times for the transformers we use the most often are greater
than 1.5 years, we need to order as many as we can now to make sure that they arrive close to when we’re
projecting the existing stock to run out.
Based on historical usage and projected needs, L&P staff has identified three transformer models (specific size
and type) with the highest likelihood of use prior to the end of 2023. Staff intends to utilize existing budget
appropriated for one order of the single most used transformer type and size (single phase submersible). The
requested supplemental appropriation will fund an additional quantity of that same transformer type and size as
well as necessary quantities of the other two transformer models with the highest usage (three phase pad
mounted, 75 kVA and 150 kVA). Because we are relying on existing stock in the other transformer models and
we will need to stay ahead of the long lead times moving into the future, orders for all transformer models will
need to be placed at the beginning of 2023 and 2024 in order to receive those transformers in 2024 and 2025.
This will change the estimated budget for transformers that was originally planned in the Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) and 2023/24 BFO offer. All of these changes are shown in the table below.
2022
2022 Transformer Order Total Cost $2.225 M
2022 Transformer Budget $0.793 M
Supplemental Appropriation Request to fulfill Total Cost $1.432 M
2023 2024
Transformer Budget Planned in CIP $1.132 M $1.260 M
Updated BFO Offer for Transformer Budget $4.123 M $3.749 M
Staff has done enough research to feel confident that these orders along with a supplemental appropriation for
additional orders will supplement existing stock levels so that L&P can continue to serve existing and new
development. Staff also has contingency plans in place to ensure delivery of electric service to new and existing
customers.
Substation Transformers
Anticipated annexations and growth in NE Fort Collins will require a new to supply electric capacity to new
customer loads so as to not overburden existing substations in the surrounding areas. A new substation will
allow for Light & Power to continue to operate the system at our current substation and feeder design standards
which guarantee high reliability and stability. Typically, each substation comprises two substation power
transformers and substation switchgear. This new substation is a planned project in the Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) that was scheduled for the 2023/24 budget cycle.
Due to price increases and lead times for distribution transformers, staff was concerned that power
transformers would have similar supply chain issues. Upon reaching out to the manufacturer that provided
Page 12 of 109
power transformers to L&P in the recent past, we found that there are similar supply chain issues affecting
power transformer manufacturers. Lead times for these power transformers are longer than 3 years at this
point; however, prices didn’t increase in the same manner. In order to avoid even longer delays for these
transformers, a supplemental appropriation to begin the procurement process immediately is prudent.
The lead times of these transformers does change the trajectory of the substation construction schedule and
associated purchases of other high dollar materials (i.e., switchgear). The same amount of capital dollars is
proposed to complete construction of the new substation; however, it will be allocated different than what was
planned for in the CIP. The table below shows what was planned for in the CIP and what changes to that plan are
if supplemental appropriation and BFO offer are approved.
2022 2023 2024
2021 Capital Improvement Plan $6.649 M $3.761 M
Supplemental Appropriation/Updated BFO offer $2.234 M $0.300 M $7.876 M
The following table shows where L&P reserves are and will be after these supplemental appropriations:
DESCRIPTION TOTAL
Year-End 2020 Total Reserves $48.7 M
Minimum Required ($8.0 M)
Appropriated ($17.1 M)
Year-End 2020 Reserves Available $23.4 M
2021 Preliminary Additions ~ $19 M
Year-End 2021 Reserves Available ~$42 M
Connexion Funding ($20 M)
Transformers ($3.6 M)
Remaining Reserves ~$18.4 M
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Page 13 of 109
Does Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle appropriation of L&P reserves to procure enough
distribution transformers so that L&P can support new construction and necessary replacements through 2024?
In addition, does Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle appropriation of L&P reserves to begin the
procurement process for two (2) substation transformers that will be used to complete the construction of a
new substation that serves Northeast Fort Collins?
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS:
Page 14 of 109
On April 14th, we received unanimous support from the Energy Board to move forward with both supplemental
appropriations from reserves.
Julie Pignataro; I am a yes to both – my main concern was the health of the reserves, but I understand why we
need to do this.
Adam Bromley confirmed that the minimum required fund balance is $8M and the remaining available balance
after these appropriations would be $18M
Julie Pignataro; do transformers wear out? Are we replacing them or are these new?
Adam Bromley; they do have useful life and depending on several different factors we do proactively replace
Substation transformers are built, and they have mechanisms in place that help extend their life
They are a high dollar item and are critical
Julie Pignataro; are transformers recyclable?
Adam Bromley; we send them to the company we contract with, and they do all of the necessary recycling and
scraping.
Julie Pignataro; and the cost is fixed when you buy them no matter how long it takes to get here?
Adam Bromley; this is unprecedented in the industry – this specific scenario - once we make that purchase and
we are under contract with the manufacturer the cost is fixed however we could see that shift a bit – they may
come back with some T&Cs saying they might need to change the prices because of the long lead times but we
haven’t seen that play out yet.
Page 15 of 109
Lead times were still relatively short at the end of 2021.
Lead times went from 10-20 weeks turnaround to 80-90 weeks (3-4 times longer lead time)
Trying to buy more upfront to make sure we have what we need going forward.
Emily Francis; I am a yes to both - this makes sense due to lead times etc.
Have you talked about projecting the use of transformers – our projected use for electrification of homes and
businesses and EV charging
Adam Bromley; we are just starting to understand how that is going to affect our planning and design processes
The transformers will be adequate and we do have the ability to upsize a transformer if we need to - if there is
too much load on a certain area – with electrification we are also looking at trying to shift some of the loads to
different times to even things out so you are not always hitting that transformer with tons of load all at the
same time – spread out throughout the day which will take some planning and technology to do that well.
The transformers we are putting out there are going to be able to handle the electrification, but we are going to
need to update some of our processes.
Emily Francis; what is the life span of a transformer?
Adam Bromley; it can be 40 years, but some are shorter, and some are longer – a lot depends on what happens
in the vault environment – water, loading and other factors impact life span as well. In general, 40 years is
where we are seeing that cut off.
We are trying to integrate what we are seeing with electrification into our planning processes There are some
unknowns as part of that – load factor involved with the new heat pumps – what will EVs look like on the system
–there is some work to do in order to understand what the future looks like and trying to incorporate that into
our planning and designing processes.
Kelly Ohlson; yes and yes – a very thorough presentation
OTHER BUSINESS:
Travis Storin; I did want to highlight following up on the discussion at Council Tuesday evening that the Grocery
Tax Rebate Program is scheduled to come back to this committee in July.
Meeting Adjourned at 5:25 pm
Page 16 of 109
Page 17 of 109
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Brad Buckman, Monica Martinez, Dana Hornkohl
Date: June 2, 2022
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Capital Projects – Inflationary Impacts (3 projects)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Three active transportation capital improvement projects are experiencing budget impacts due to
inflationary pressures: Linden Street Renovation (Linden), South Timberline Corridor (Timberline),
and Vine/Lemay/BNSF Intersection Improvements (Vine and Lemay). The cost to complete these
projects now exceeds the appropriated budget. It is necessary to 1) reduce scope, 2) delay final
delivery, and/or 3) secure additional funds to complete these projects. Reduction of scope will result in
projects that do not meet established City standards for urban design and landscaping. Delaying final
delivery until funding becomes available will negatively impact other transportation capital projects in
the delivery pipeline. Staff is recommending supplemental appropriations totaling $4,028,000 which
would allow for completion of the three projects as intended when construction commenced. This
request is coming before Council Finance Committee now to avoid additional cost impacts due to
potentially pausing and restarting active construction projects.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
• Does Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle appropriation of Community Capital
Improvement Project (CCIP) fund reserves to complete the Linden Street Renovation project?
• Does Council Finance Committee support off-cycle appropriations of the Transportation,
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF), and General fund reserves as well as CCIP –
Arterial Intersection fund to complete the South Timberline Corridor project?
• Does Council Finance Committee support off-cycle appropriations of the TCEF, General, and
CCIP fund reserves as well as Conservation Trust fund to complete the Vine/Lemay BNSF
Intersection Improvements project?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Beginning in the Summer of 2021, the nation, Colorado, and the Denver region began to experience
significant inflation in construction costs (Attachments 1, 2, and 3). The two most recent Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT) Colorado Construction Cost Index (CCI) reports indicated
annual percentage changes of 17.45% (Q4 2021) and 31.79% (Q1 2022). These inflationary pressures
are impacting three transportation capital improvement projects that are in active construction.
Linden Street Renovation
The Linden project will transform Linden Street between Jefferson and Walnut Streets into a
“convertible street,” a roadway that can be closed to vehicular and bicycle traffic and transformed into
a pedestrian gathering space during specialty events. Construction was originally planned for 2020,
with the entire project built at once. Due to the onset of the pandemic, construction was postponed and
broken into two phases to minimize impacts to the businesses within the footprint of the project. Phase
1 construction was completed in 2021. Phase 2 began in February of this year and completion is
Page 18 of 109
anticipated in July. Staff anticipated that splitting the project into two phases would result in increased
mobilization and oversight costs. An additional $400,000 was appropriated to address this cost
increase. Inflation began to rise as pricing was being finalized for Phase 2 construction in the Fall of
2021. Price increases for many unit price work items led to an increase of approximately $500,000 to
deliver the identified scope of work.
Staff has identified two alternatives to reach project completion:
• Option 1: Delay non-essential scope of work items until additional funding can be secured.
Specifically, the temporary scope reduction could include seat wall caps and outdoor
furniture. This option would result in the project not meeting the identified project goals
within the promised timeframe, expose the remaining work to further inflation, and would
impact the schedule and budget for other transportation capital projects in the design,
acquisition, and construction pipeline.
• Option 2: Secure a supplemental appropriation to complete the identified scope of work on
schedule.
Figure 1 - Linden Project Budget
South Timberline Corridor
The Timberline project is identified in the City’s Master Street Plan. It will reduce congestion,
improve safety, as well as enhance bicycle and pedestrian facilities along the corridor between Stetson
Creek Road and Zephyr Road. Construction was set for two phases. Phase 1 included the structural
road elements, box culverts for the Mail Creek Ditch and the Mail Creek Trail underpass. Ditch
company requirements for water conveyance limited Phase 1 work to be substantially completed prior
to April 15, 2022. Phase 1 work began in December 2021 and is anticipated to reach final completion
in June 2022. Phase 2 included all remaining corridor improvements. This phase was partially funded
by a Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) requiring concurrence from CDOT to advertise for
construction that was not granted until February of 2022. This delay led to significant increases for
most unit price work items totaling approximately $2,148,000.
Staff has identified three alternatives to reach project completion:
• Option 1: Delay some scope of work items until additional funding can be secured.
Specifically, the temporary scope reduction could include traffic signals, irrigation,
landscaping, and/or reducing the length of corridor improvements. This option would result in
the project not meeting the identified project goals within the promised timeframe, expose the
remaining work to further inflation, and would impact the schedule and budget for other
transportation capital projects in the design, acquisition, and construction pipeline. This option
has several iterations where one or more elements could be funded by a supplement
appropriation. It should be noted that some supplemental appropriation is required to move
forward with construction, and the traffic signals are required for the corridor to function.
• Option 2: Delay all Phase 2 work until additional funding can be secured. This option would
have similar impacts to Option 1 with increasing affects to pipeline projects’ schedules and
budgets.
Project Funding TCEF CCIP - Project
Specific TOTAL Increase
Existing 400,000$ 3,461,000$ 3,861,000$
Proposed -$ 500,000$ 500,000$
Total 400,000$ 3,961,000$ 4,361,000$
Linden Street
Renovation 13%
Page 19 of 109
• Option 3: Secure a supplemental appropriation to complete the identified scope of work on
schedule. Please note that $400,000 in CCIP – Arterial Intersection Improvements funds are
proposed as part of Option 3. These funds have already been appropriated but were originally
intended for the College and Trilby Intersection Improvements project.
Figure 2 - Timberline Project Budget
Vine/Lemay/BNSF Intersection Improvements
The Vine and Lemay project is the City's top transportation capital improvement project. The work
includes construction of a new road and intersection slightly east of the original Vine Drive and Lemay
Avenue intersection with a new bridge over the BNSF railway and existing Vine Drive. Primary
construction began in April of 2021 with an accelerated schedule. Construction of most infrastructure
elements was completed in December 2021 with the roadway opening several weeks ahead of
schedule. Staff provided a memorandum updating City Council of the project budget in November
2021 (Attachment 4).
As of January 2022, the primary remaining work for this project included urban design elements, Art
in Public Places, irrigation, landscaping, and work needed to complete the pedestrian underpass (future
northeast trail system) at the north end of the project. Pricing for irrigation and landscape elements had
not been set at this time. Surging inflation greatly affected the unit prices for this work. The delivery
team conducted a significant review of the irrigation and landscaping work to lower cost and increase
value. Even after this effort, the estimated cost for this work exceeded the identified budget by
$570,000. The underpass completion also experienced significant cost overruns. These increases were
due to its late inclusion in the design effort coupled with the accelerated schedule. All the underpass
design criteria and elements had not been accounted for in the original estimate leading to costs that
exceeded the budget by roughly $790,000. The total amount needed to complete the project is
approximately $1,380,000.
Staff has identified two alternatives to reach project completion:
• Option 1: Delay non-essential scope of work items until additional funding can be secured.
Specifically, the temporary scope reduction could include irrigation and landscaping. This
option would result in the project not meeting the identified project goals within the promised
timeframe, expose the remaining work to further inflation, and would impact the schedule and
budget for other transportation capital projects in the design, acquisition, and construction
pipeline.
• Option 2: Secure a supplemental appropriation to complete the identified scope of work on
schedule.
The Conservation Trust Fund is shown as contributing towards the supplemental appropriation
proposed in Option 2. These funds would be used to cover a portion of the cost overrun associated
with the pedestrian underpass. Park Planning and Development has identified $242,000 that could be
allocated for this effort. These funds were originally identified for the Power Trail at Harmony Grade
Separated Crossing project. This reallocation impacts the overall funding for the Power Trail project,
but the current budget shortfall exceeds this amount.
Project Funding STBG (Grant)Trans. Fund TCEF Gen. Fund Bridge
Program
CCIP - Art. Int.
Imp.
CCIP -
Ped/Bike Gr.
Sep. Cr.
CCIP - Ped.
Sid.Dev.TOTAL Increase
Existing 2,694,602$ 10,325$ 4,701,111$ -$ 265,000$ -$ 700,000$ 35,000$ 317,190$ 8,723,228$
Proposed -$ 200,000$ 774,000$ 774,000$ -$ 400,000$ -$ -$ -$ 2,148,000$
Total 2,694,602$ 210,325$ 5,475,111$ 774,000$ 265,000$ 400,000$ 700,000$ 35,000$ 317,190$ 10,871,228$
South Timberline
Corridor 25%
Page 20 of 109
Please note that the memorandum to City Council dated November 3, 2021 (Attachment 4) covers
estimated construction costs. The table below includes all projects costs including design and
acquisition.
Figure 3 - Vine and Lemay Project Budget
Summary
If inflationary impacts continue, delaying the identified work will result in additional cost increases to
these projects and future transportation capital projects. Supplemental appropriations granted to
complete all work now will ensure that fully realized projects are completed as promised for the
community.
If it is decided that portions of the work on these projects should be delayed until additional funding
can be identified, the result would likely impact the delivery schedule for the following projects that
are currently working towards final design and construction. It should be noted the projects below are
already suffering from inflationary pressures outside the potential impacts from the proposed
supplemental appropriations.
• College and Trilby Intersection Improvements
• Power Trail at Harmony Grade Separated Crossing
• Siphon and Union Pacific Overpass
• Laporte Corridor Improvements – Fishback to Sunset
• College and Drake Intersection Improvements
Transportation capital improvement projects managed by the Engineering Department are just one area
within the City facing inflationary pressure. Materials and services are experiencing significant price
escalations across the entire organization. By way of examples:
• The Streets Department is managing asphalt cost increases between 12% to 40%.
• Transfort anticipates fuel costs to increase approximately 30% this fiscal year.
• Traffic Operations has noted an increase of approximately 31% for traffic poles and associated
materials.
• Light & Power transformer costs as discussed at the May Finance Committee meeting
The Finance Department will come before the committee next month with additional information on
inflationary impacts to capital projects from across the City’s portfolio. There is time sensitivity to the
three projects requesting additional appropriations above as they are currently under construction,
whereas there is more flexibility to discuss systemwide pressures at the July Finance Committee
meeting.
Project Funding Trans. Fund TCEF Gen. Fund CCIP - Project
Specific
PPD (Cons.
Trust)KFCG Utilities BOB
CCIP -
Ped/Bike Gr.
Sep. Cr.
TOTAL Increase
Existing 1,220,020$ 11,930,369$ 7,247,965$ -$ 1,000,000$ 1,373,240$ 850,000$ 4,602,036$ 500,000$ 28,723,630$
Proposed -$ 427,500$ 427,500$ 283,000$ 242,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,380,000$
Total 1,220,020$ 12,357,869$ 7,675,465$ 283,000$ 1,242,000$ 1,373,240$ 850,000$ 4,602,036$ 500,000$ 30,103,630$
Vine/Lemay/BNSF
Intersection
Improvements
5%
Page 21 of 109
Summary of requested supplemental appropriations for all three projects.
• Transportation Fund Reserves: $200,000
• TCEF Reserves: $1,201,500
• General Fund Reserves: $1,201,500
• CCIP Reserves: $783,000
• Conservation Trust Fund: $242,000
• CCIP – Arterial Intersection Improvements: $400,000
• Total: $4,028,000
Summary of Existing Funding and Proposed Supplemental Appropriations
Project Funding STBG (Grant)Trans. Fund TCEF Gen. Fund CCIP - Project
Specific
PPD (Cons.
Trust)
Bridge
Program KFCG Utilities BOB CCIP - Art. Int.
Imp.
CCIP -
Ped/Bike Gr.
Sep. Cr.
CCIP - Ped.
Sid.Dev.TOTAL Increase
Existing -$ -$ 400,000$ -$ 3,461,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,861,000$
Proposed -$ -$ -$ -$ 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 500,000$
Total -$ -$ 400,000$ -$ 3,961,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,361,000$
Existing 2,694,602$ 10,325$ 4,701,111$ -$ -$ -$ 265,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 700,000$ 35,000$ 317,190$ 8,723,228$
Proposed -$ 200,000$ 774,000$ 774,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 400,000$ -$ -$ -$ 2,148,000$
Total 2,694,602$ 210,325$ 5,475,111$ 774,000$ -$ -$ 265,000$ -$ -$ -$ 400,000$ 700,000$ 35,000$ 317,190$ 10,871,228$
Existing -$ 1,220,020$ 11,930,369$ 7,247,965$ -$ 1,000,000$ -$ 1,373,240$ 850,000$ 4,602,036$ -$ 500,000$ -$ -$ 28,723,630$
Proposed -$ -$ 427,500$ 427,500$ 283,000$ 242,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,380,000$
Total -$ 1,220,020$ 12,357,869$ 7,675,465$ 283,000$ 1,242,000$ -$ 1,373,240$ 850,000$ 4,602,036$ -$ 500,000$ -$ -$ 30,103,630$
Existing 2,694,602$ 1,230,345$ 17,031,480$ 7,247,965$ 3,461,000$ 1,000,000$ 265,000$ 1,373,240$ 850,000$ 4,602,036$ -$ 1,200,000$ 35,000$ 317,190$ 41,307,858$
Proposed -$ 200,000$ 1,201,500$ 1,201,500$ 783,000$ 242,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 400,000$ -$ -$ -$ 4,028,000$
Total 2,694,602$ 1,430,345$ 18,232,980$ 8,449,465$ 4,244,000$ 1,242,000$ 265,000$ 1,373,240$ 850,000$ 4,602,036$ 400,000$ 1,200,000$ 35,000$ 317,190$ 45,335,858$
Linden Street
Renovation
South Timberline
Corridor
TOTAL
Vine/Lemay/BNSF
Intersection
Improvements
13%
25%
5%
10%
Page 22 of 109
ATTACHMENTS
1. Engineering News Record, Construction Cost Index History – As of May 2022
2. Engineering News Record, City Cost Index – Denver – As of May 2022
3. Colorado Department of Transportation, Colorado Construction Cost Index Report,
Calendar Year 2022, First Quarter
4. Memorandum to City Council, Question Regarding the Lemay Avenue Realignment
Project Financial Forecast, dated November 3, 2021.
Page 23 of 109
Presented by:
Capital Projects
Inflationary Pressures
06-02-2022
Brad Buckman
City Engineer
Dana Hornkohl
Capital Projects Manager
Monica Martinez
Financial Planning & Analysis
Manager
Page 24 of 109
2Questions for the Council Finance Committee
1.Does Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle
appropriation of Community Capital Improvement Project (CCIP)
fund reserves to complete the Linden Street Renovation project?
2.Does Council Finance Committee support off-cycle appropriations
of the Transportation, Transportation Capital Expansion Fee
(TCEF), and General fund reserves as well as CCIP –Arterial
Intersection fund to complete the South Timberline Corridor
project?
3.Does Council Finance Committee support off-cycle appropriations
of the TCEF, General, and CCIP fund reserves as well as
Conservation Trust fund to complete the Vine/Lemay BNSF
Intersection Improvements project?
Page 25 of 109
1.Colorado Department of Transportation, Colorado Construction Cost Index Report, Calendar
Year 2022, First Quarter
2.Engineering News Record, Construction Cost Index History –As of May 2022
3.Engineering News Record, City Cost Index –Denver –As of May 2022
3Construction Inflation Background
National, State, and Regional Construction Cost Indices
Page 26 of 109
Linden Street Renovation (background)
•Transform Linden Street to
“convertible street”
•Construction originally planned
for 2020
•Construction postponed and
broken into two phases to
minimize impacts
•Phase 1 2021
•Phase 2 began in February,
completion is anticipated in July
•Inflation impacted Phase 2
pricing
•Additional ~$500,000 needed to
deliver identified scope of work
4
Page 27 of 109
South Timberline Corridor (background)
•Project identified on Master Street
Plan
•Reduce congestion, improve
safety, enhance bicycle/pedestrian
facilities
•Stetson Creek Road and Zephyr
Road
•Phase 1 Mail Creek Ditch box and
Mail Creek Trail underpass, began
December 2021
•Phase 2 remaining corridor
improvements, CDOT approval
February of 2022
•Inflation impacted Phase 2 pricing
•Additional ~$2,148,000 needed to
deliver identified scope of work
5
Page 28 of 109
Vine/Lemay/BNSF Intersection Improvements (background)
•Primary construction began April
2021, most infrastructure
completed December 2021, road
opened ahead of schedule
•January 2022 remaining work
included urban design elements,
Art in Public Places, irrigation,
landscaping, and pedestrian
underpass work
•Inflation impacted pricing for
irrigation/landscape
•Underpass experienced cost
overruns, late inclusion into
project, needed elements not
included in budget
•Additional ~$1,380,000 needed to
deliver intended scope of work
6
Page 29 of 109
Linden Street Renovation (options)
•Option 1
•Delay non-essential scope of work
items until additional funding can be
secured
•Temporary scope reduction could
include seat wall caps and outdoor
furniture
•Option 2
•Secure a supplemental appropriation to
complete the identified scope of work
on schedule
7
Project Funding TCEF CCIP - Project
Specific TOTAL Increase
Existing 400,000$ 3,461,000$ 3,861,000$
Proposed -$ 500,000$ 500,000$
Total 400,000$ 3,961,000$ 4,361,000$
Linden Street
Renovation 13%
Page 30 of 109
South Timberline Corridor (options)
•Option 1
•Delay some scope of work items until
additional funding can be secured
•Temporary scope reduction could
include traffic signals, irrigation,
landscaping, and/or reducing the length
of corridor improvements
•Several iterations, one or more
elements funded
•Some supplemental appropriation is
required to move forward with
construction
•Traffic signals are required
•Option 2
•Delay all Phase 2 work until additional
funding can be secured
•Option 3
•Secure a supplemental appropriation to
complete the identified scope of work
on schedule
8
Project Funding STBG (Grant) Trans. Fund TCEF Gen. Fund Bridge
Program
CCIP - Art. Int.
Imp.
CCIP -
Ped/Bike Gr.
Sep. Cr.
CCIP - Ped.
Sid.Dev.TOTAL Increase
Existing 2,694,602$ 10,325$ 4,701,111$ -$ 265,000$ -$ 700,000$ 35,000$ 317,190$ 8,723,228$
Proposed -$ 200,000$ 774,000$ 774,000$ -$ 400,000$ -$ -$ -$ 2,148,000$
Total 2,694,602$ 210,325$ 5,475,111$ 774,000$ 265,000$ 400,000$ 700,000$ 35,000$ 317,190$ 10,871,228$
South Timberline
Corridor 25%
Page 31 of 109
Vine/Lemay/BNSF Intersection Improvements (options)
•Option 1
•Delay non-essential scope of work
items until additional funding can be
secured
•Temporary scope reduction could
include irrigation and landscaping
•Option 2
•Secure a supplemental appropriation to
complete the identified scope of work
on schedule
9
Project Funding Trans. Fund TCEF Gen. Fund CCIP - Project
Specific
PPD (Cons.
Trust)KFCG Utilities BOB
CCIP -
Ped/Bike Gr.
Sep. Cr.
TOTAL Increase
Existing 1,220,020$ 11,930,369$ 7,247,965$ -$ 1,000,000$ 1,373,240$ 850,000$ 4,602,036$ 500,000$ 28,723,630$
Proposed -$ 427,500$ 427,500$ 283,000$ 242,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,380,000$
Total 1,220,020$ 12,357,869$ 7,675,465$ 283,000$ 1,242,000$ 1,373,240$ 850,000$ 4,602,036$ 500,000$ 30,103,630$
Vine/Lemay/BNSF
Intersection
Improvements
5%
Page 32 of 109
•Proposing supplemental appropriations from a mix of funding sources that reflect the original
funding sources, funding sources intended for transportation capital improvement projects, as
well as the general fund.
•Supplemental appropriations granted to complete all work now will ensure that fully realized
projects are completed as promised for the community.
•Addressing these project needs with a supplement appropriation will minimize any potential
impact to additional transportation capital projects in the delivery pipeline.
Proposed Supplemental Appropriations
10
Project Funding STBG (Grant) Trans. Fund TCEF Gen. Fund CCIP - Project
Specific
PPD (Cons.
Trust)
Bridge
Program KFCG Utilities BOB CCIP - Art. Int.
Imp.
CCIP -
Ped/Bike Gr.
Sep. Cr.
CCIP - Ped.
Sid.Dev.TOTAL Increase
Existing -$ -$ 400,000$ -$ 3,461,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,861,000$
Proposed -$ -$ -$ -$ 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 500,000$
Total -$ -$ 400,000$ -$ 3,961,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,361,000$
Existing 2,694,602$ 10,325$ 4,701,111$ -$ -$ -$ 265,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 700,000$ 35,000$ 317,190$ 8,723,228$
Proposed -$ 200,000$ 774,000$ 774,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 400,000$ -$ -$ -$ 2,148,000$
Total 2,694,602$ 210,325$ 5,475,111$ 774,000$ -$ -$ 265,000$ -$ -$ -$ 400,000$ 700,000$ 35,000$ 317,190$ 10,871,228$
Existing -$ 1,220,020$ 11,930,369$ 7,247,965$ -$ 1,000,000$ -$ 1,373,240$ 850,000$ 4,602,036$ -$ 500,000$ -$ -$ 28,723,630$
Proposed -$ -$ 427,500$ 427,500$ 283,000$ 242,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,380,000$
Total -$ 1,220,020$ 12,357,869$ 7,675,465$ 283,000$ 1,242,000$ -$ 1,373,240$ 850,000$ 4,602,036$ -$ 500,000$ -$ -$ 30,103,630$
Existing 2,694,602$ 1,230,345$ 17,031,480$ 7,247,965$ 3,461,000$ 1,000,000$ 265,000$ 1,373,240$ 850,000$ 4,602,036$ -$ 1,200,000$ 35,000$ 317,190$ 41,307,858$
Proposed -$ 200,000$ 1,201,500$ 1,201,500$ 783,000$ 242,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 400,000$ -$ -$ -$ 4,028,000$
Total 2,694,602$ 1,430,345$ 18,232,980$ 8,449,465$ 4,244,000$ 1,242,000$ 265,000$ 1,373,240$ 850,000$ 4,602,036$ 400,000$ 1,200,000$ 35,000$ 317,190$ 45,335,858$
Linden Street
Renovation
South Timberline
Corridor
TOTAL
Vine/Lemay/BNSF
Intersection
Improvements
13%
25%
5%
10%
Page 33 of 109
Impacts of Delaying or Eliminating Portions of the Work 11
•Projects will not meet the
identified project goals
within the promised
timeframes
•Delaying portions of the
identified work may result
in additional cost, such as
remobilization, in addition
to greater inflation costs
•Diverting funds from
future projects to address
all or part of these
immediate needs would
impact the schedule and
budget for projects in the
design, acquisition, and
construction pipeline
Scope and Schedule Additional Inflation Future Project Impacts
Page 34 of 109
QUESTIONS?
Page 35 of 109
For Questions or Comments, Please Contact:
THANK YOU!
Brad Buckman, Monica Martinez, Dana Hornkohl
bbuckman@fcgov.com, mmartinz@fcgov.com, dhornkohl@fcgov.com
Page 36 of 109
Backup Slides
Page 37 of 109
Potential Future Project Impacts 15
•College and Trilby
Intersection Improvements
•College and Drake
Intersection Improvements
•Power Trail at Harmony
Grade Separated Crossing
•Siphon and Union Pacific
Overpass
•Laporte Corridor
Improvements –Fishback
to Sunset
Page 38 of 109
Page 39 of 109
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Ginny Sawyer, Sr. Project Manager
Jennifer Poznanovic, Sr. Revenue Manager
Date: June 2, 2022
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: Sustainable Funding Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to continue the discussion on identifying practical and viable
mechanisms to fund desired service outcomes for specific identified funding needs by
highlighting specific mechanisms and the direct annual impacts to residents.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What questions does Council Finance Committee have on revenue mechanisms?
2. What funding level does Council Finance Committee want to target?
3. Does Council Finance Committee agree with proposed next steps?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Over the past several years, masterplan developments and updates have identified clear
funding needs in the areas of parks and recreation, transit, and housing. Along with these needs
and knowing the criticality of the City climate action goals, Council Finance Committee has
asked for climate funding needs to be included in funding conversations. Annual shortfalls range
from six to twelve million per area.
Funding needs identified and discussed previously:
• Parks & Recreation - $8 to $12M annual shortfall (Parks & Recreation Master Plan)
• Transit - $8M to $10M annual shortfall (Transit Master Plan)
• Housing - $8M to $9.5M annual shortfall (Housing Strategic Plan)
• Climate - $6M+ annual shortfall (not all OCFs Big Moves have funding identified)
Staff continues to work with Council Finance Committee to further refine both the needs and the
potential funding mechanisms to close the gaps. This work includes on-going Council Finance
meetings, Work Sessions with the full Council, developing an engagement plan, and ultimate
implementation.
The following bullets highlight workplan considerations:
• Clearly define and articulate revenue needs and level of service considerations
• Thoroughly research funding options including impacts and the context of existing and
potential new tax measures (local and regionally)
• Recognize and work within the desire to keep overall tax burden as low as possible
• Consideration of existing dedicated tax renewals and associated election timelines
Page 40 of 109
Timeline:
To date:
• December 2021: Begin discussions on identified funding gaps
• January 2022: Deeper dive with CFC on the projected gaps in each area
• March 2022: Meet with CFC to review all possible revenue mechanisms
• April 2022: Full Council work session to review work to date
• June 2022: CFC to discuss most feasible funding mechanisms and targeted funding
amounts
Future:
• Refine acceptable funding mechanisms
• Consider any voter approved mechanisms along election options
• Engagement efforts
Potential Funding Mechanisms
Numerous potential funding mechanisms have been discussed with Council Finance
Committee. Of those discussed previously, sales tax, property tax, user fees and excise taxes
have emerged as the most feasible. The table below demonstrates the potential revenue gain
along with any annual impact to residents.
The mechanisms above include both taxes and fees. Taxes require voter approval and can be
used for any public purpose authorized by City Council. Fees do not require voter approval and
they can only be imposed on those likely to benefit from the service funded with the fee.
Targeted Funding Options
Page 41 of 109
The identified funding gaps will likely be addressed utilizing multiple funding mechanisms.
For demonstration, staff has drafted five scenarios within the PowerPoint which target a
diversity of funding sources totaling amounts between $10M and $40M. These scenarios are
not intended to be final or recommended options. They are intended to demonstrate the
flexibility and variable means and ways to add additional revenue to cover the identified gaps.
These scenarios do not tie a mechanism to a specific funding gap but instead focus solely on
the funding mechanisms and targeted funding amounts. Future meetings will focus on the
distribution of funds and service levels desired.
Proposed Next Steps
The staff project team will continue to meet and work with direction from Council Finance
Committee to refine options. Council touchpoints will include regular updates at Council Finance
Committee and an upcoming Work Session in the fall.
ATTACHMENTS (numbered Attachment 1, 2, 3,…)
1. Sustainable Funding Update (PPT)
Page 42 of 109
06-02-2022
Council Finance Committee
SUSTAINABLE FUNDING UPDATE
Page 43 of 109
2WORK TO DATE
December CFC January
CFC
March
CFC
April Council
Work
Session
•Introduction
of Topic:
Sustainable
Revenue
•Deep-dive on
Identified
Needs: Parks
& Rec, Transit
& Housing
•Full Council:
Work
Session
•Funding
Mechanisms &
Early Scenario
Planning
Sustainable Funding Work-to-Date
June CFC
•Funding
Mechanisms
and Potential
Funding
Levels
Page 44 of 109
3COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE DIRECTION
1.What questions does Council Finance Committee have on revenue
mechanisms?
2.What funding level does Council Finance Committee want to target?
3.Does Council Finance Committee agree with proposed next steps?
Page 45 of 109
IDENTIFIED FUNDING NEEDS 4
Masterplan Projects
$8-12M Annual Gap
Masterplan to Build Out
Projects
$8-10M Annual Gap
To Achieve 10%
Affordable Housing Stock
$8-9.5M Annual Gap
PARKS TRANSIT HOUSING CLIMATE
To Accelerate Community
Transition From Fossil
Fuels
$6M+ Annual Gap
Annual Revenue Gap
$30M to $38M+
Page 46 of 109
5POTENTIAL FUNDING OPTIONS
Mechanism Annual Revenue
Projection
Impact to
Residents
1 Special districts (Library District Mill Levy 3.0)$11M+Business, Resident
2 Property tax (Library District Mill Levy 3.0)$11M+Business, Resident
3 Large emitters fee $11M+Business
4 ¼ cent sales tax base rate increase $9M+Resident, Visitor
5 ¼ cent additional dedicated sales tax $9M+Resident, Visitor
6 Repurpose ¼ cent dedicated tax $9M+Resident, Visitor
7 Excise tax on specific goods $5M Resident, Visitor
8 Business occupational privilege tax ($4 monthly/$48 annually)$4M+Business
9 Tax on services (i.e., haircuts, vet service, financial services, etc.)$4M+Business, Visitor
10 User Fees (parks, transit) ($5 monthly fee/ $60 annually)$4M Resident
11 Reconfigure capital expansion fees (Affordable housing)$2M Business
12 Establish new capital expansion fees (Affordable housing)$2M Business
13 Carbon Tax $2M BusinessPage 47 of 109
6MECHANICS & CONSIDERATIONS
Funding Option Mechanics Considerations
Property Tax
•A mill is 1/10th of a penny
•$1.00 revenue for each $1,000 of assessed value
•Residential assessment rate = 7.15%
•Commercial assessment rate = 29.0%
•Voter approval required
•Less Volatile than Sales Tax
•Current City mill levy of 9.797 not increased since 1992
•Property values have increased; not the City’s mill levy
Sales Tax
•Increase sales tax by ¼ cent
•Captures revenue from residents & visitors
•Voter approval required
•Funded by both residents & visitors
•Volatile during a recession
Excise Tax
•An excise tax is a legislated tax on specific goods or
services at purchase such as fuel, tobacco, and alcohol
•City of Boulder implemented a sugar sweetened beverage
tax of $0.02 per fluid ounce in 2016; Fort Collins estimate
of $4M+
•Other potential products: Beverages in plastic containers,
marijuana
•Voter approval required
•Revenue impacted by sales/recession
User Fee
•Monthly fee applied to residential & commercial utility bill
•Fees must be reasonably related to the actual cost of the
program or service funded by the fee
•Voter approval NOT required
•Flat fee would have disparate impact on residents with lower
income levels
Capital
Expansion Fee
•Fees are collected for the purpose of funding additional
improvements required to address the impact of growth
within the city as population increases
•Voter approval NOT required
•Reconfigured fees do not fall within the current standard
models for capital expansion fees Page 48 of 109
7MECHANICS & RESIDENTIAL IMPACT
Category Funding Mechanism Annual Revenue
Estimate Resident Impact
Sales Tax ¼ Cent Sales Tax
(dedicated, ongoing or repurpose)$9M+
•$30.67 average per/year for a resident
•Sales tax on food would remain at 2.25%
•Visitors also impacted
Property Tax 1 Mill Property Tax $3.5M •Residential annual increase of $21.45
•Commercial annual increase of $87.00
2 Mill Property Tax $7M •Residential annual increase of $42.90
•Commercial annual increase of $174.00
3 Mill Property Tax $11M+•Residential annual increase of $64.35
•Commercial annual increase of $261.00
Excise Tax 5% Tax on Specific Goods $5M •$5 per $100 purchase in Fort Collins
•Visitors also impacted
User Fee $5 Monthly User Fee $4M •$60 annually/resident
$10 Monthly User Fee $8M •$120 annually/resident
Commercial User Fee TBD •TBD for commercial properties in Fort Collins
Capital
Expansion Fee Reconfigure or Establish New Fee $2M •TBD for residential and commercial permit fees Page 49 of 109
8POTENTIAL REVENUE RANGES
$30M to $40M
Additional Revenue
$10M to $20M
Additional Revenue
$20M to $30M
Additional Revenue
$18M to $28M
Remaining Gap vs.
Master Plans
$8M to $18M
Remaining Gap vs.
Master Plans
$0M to $8M
Remaining Gap vs.
Master Plans
Page 50 of 109
9POTENTIAL REVENUE RANGES
$30M to $40M
Additional Revenue
$10M to $20M
Additional Revenue
$20M to $30M
Additional Revenue
$18M to $28M
Remaining Gap vs.
Master Plans
$8M to $18M
Remaining Gap vs.
Master Plans
$0M to $8M
Remaining Gap vs.
Master Plans
Page 51 of 109
10OPTION A: $10M to $20M
Category Funding Mechanism Annual Revenue
Estimate Stakeholder Impact
Sales Tax ¼ Cent Sales Tax
(dedicated, ongoing or repurpose)$9M+
•$30.67 average per/year for a resident
•Sales tax on food would remain at 2.25%
•Visitors also impacted
Property Tax 1 Mill Property Tax $3.5M •Residential annual increase of $21.45
•Commercial annual increase of $87.00
2 Mill Property Tax $7M •Residential annual increase of $42.90
•Commercial annual increase of $174.00
3 Mill Property Tax $11M+•Residential annual increase of $64.35
•Commercial annual increase of $261.00
Excise Tax 5% Tax on Specific Goods $5M •$5 per $100 purchase in Fort Collins
•Visitors also impacted
User Fee $5 Monthly User Fee $4M •$60 annually/resident
$10 Monthly User Fee $8M •$120 annually/resident
Commercial User Fee TBD •TBD for commercial properties in Fort Collins
Total Sales Tax 3.85%$15M •$162.90 net annual increase per residentPage 52 of 109
11OPTION B: $10M to $20M
Category Funding Mechanism Annual Revenue
Estimate Stakeholder Impact
Sales Tax ¼ Cent Dedicated Sales Tax $9M+•$30.67 average per/year for a resident
•Sales tax on food would remain at 2.25%
¼ Cent Ongoing Sales Tax $9M+•$30.67 average per/year for a resident
•Sales tax on food would remain at 2.25%
¼ Cent Repurposed Sales Tax $9M+•Net neutral
Property Tax 1 Mill Property Tax $3.5M •Residential annual increase of $21.45
•Commercial annual increase of $87.00
2 Mill Property Tax $7M •Residential annual increase of $42.90
•Commercial annual increase of $174.00
3 Mill Property Tax $11M+•Residential annual increase of $64.35
•Commercial annual increase of $261.00
Excise Tax 5% Tax on Specific Goods $5M •$3 to $5 per $100 purchase in Fort Collins
•Visitors also impacted
User Fee $5 Monthly User Fee $4M •$60 annually/resident
$10 Monthly User Fee $8M •$120 annually/resident
Commercial User Fee TBD*•TBD for commercial properties in Fort Collins
Total Sales Tax 3.85%$14M**•$120 net annual increase per resident
*TBD targeting full replacement of existing ¼ cent tax
**”New” funding toward four priorities
Page 53 of 109
12POTENTIAL REVENUE RANGES
$30M to $40M
Additional Revenue
$10M to $20M
Additional Revenue
$20M to $30M
Additional Revenue
$18M to $28M
Remaining Gap vs.
Master Plans
$8M to $18M
Remaining Gap vs.
Master Plans
$0M to $8M
Remaining Gap vs.
Master Plans
Page 54 of 109
13OPTION A: $20M to $30M
Category Funding Mechanism Annual Revenue
Estimate Stakeholder Impact
Sales Tax ¼ Cent Dedicated Sales Tax $9M+•$30.67 average per/year for a resident
•Sales tax on food would remain at 2.25%
¼ Cent Ongoing Sales Tax $9M+•$30.67 average per/year for a resident
•Sales tax on food would remain at 2.25%
¼ Cent Repurposed Sales Tax $9M+•Net neutral
Property Tax 1 Mill Property Tax $3.5M •Residential annual increase of $21.45
•Commercial annual increase of $87.00
2 Mill Property Tax $7M •Residential annual increase of $42.90
•Commercial annual increase of $174.00
3 Mill Property Tax $11M+•Residential annual increase of $64.35
•Commercial annual increase of $261.00
Excise Tax 5% Tax on Specific Goods $5M •$5 per $100 purchase in Fort Collins
•Visitors also impacted
User Fee $5 Monthly User Fee $4M •$60 annually/resident
$10 Monthly User Fee $8M •$120 annually/resident
Commercial User Fee TBD*•TBD for commercial properties in Fort Collins
Total Sales Tax 3.85%$25M**•$184.35 net annual increase per resident
*TBD targeting full replacement of existing ¼ cent tax
**”New” funding toward four priorities
Page 55 of 109
14OPTION B: $20M to $30M
Category Funding Mechanism Annual Revenue
Estimate Stakeholder Impact
Sales Tax ¼ Cent Dedicated Sales Tax $9M+•$30.67 average per/year for a resident
•Sales tax on food would remain at 2.25%
¼ Cent Ongoing Sales Tax $9M+•$30.67 average per/year for a resident
•Sales tax on food would remain at 2.25%
¼ Cent Repurposed Sales Tax $9M+•Net neutral
Property Tax 1 Mill Property Tax $3.5M •Residential annual increase of $21.45
•Commercial annual increase of $87.00
2 Mill Property Tax $7M •Residential annual increase of $42.90
•Commercial annual increase of $174.00
3 Mill Property Tax $11M+•Residential annual increase of $64.35
•Commercial annual increase of $261.00
Excise Tax 5% Tax on Specific Goods $5M •$5 per $100 purchase in Fort Collins
•Visitors also impacted
User Fee $5 Monthly User Fee $4M •$60 annually/resident
$10 Monthly User Fee $8M •$120 annually/resident
Commercial User Fee TBD •TBD for commercial properties in Fort Collins
Total Sales Tax 4.1%$25M •$95 net annual increase per resident +
impact of excise taxPage 56 of 109
15POTENTIAL REVENUE RANGES
$30M to $40M
Additional Revenue
$10M to $20M
Additional Revenue
$20M to $30M
Additional Revenue
$18M to $28M
Remaining Gap vs.
Master Plans
$8M to $18M
Remaining Gap vs.
Master Plans
$0M to $8M
Remaining Gap vs.
Master Plans
Page 57 of 109
16OPTION A: $30M to $40M
Category Funding Mechanism Annual Revenue
Estimate Stakeholder Impact
Sales Tax ¼ Cent Dedicated Sales Tax $9M+•$30.67 average per/year for a resident
•Sales tax on food would remain at 2.25%
¼ Cent Ongoing Sales Tax $9M+•$30.67 average per/year for a resident
•Sales tax on food would remain at 2.25%
¼ Cent Repurposed Sales Tax $9M+•Net neutral
Property Tax 1 Mill Property Tax $3.5M •Residential annual increase of $21.45
•Commercial annual increase of $87.00
2 Mill Property Tax $7M •Residential annual increase of $42.90
•Commercial annual increase of $174.00
3 Mill Property Tax $11M+•Residential annual increase of $64.35
•Commercial annual increase of $261.00
Excise Tax 5% Tax on Specific Goods $5M •$5 per $100 purchase in Fort Collins
•Visitors also impacted
User Fee $5 Monthly User Fee $4M •$60 annually/resident
$10 Monthly User Fee $8M •$120 annually/resident
Commercial User Fee TBD*•TBD for commercial properties in Fort Collins
Total Sales Tax 4.1%$34M**•$215 net annual increase per resident
*TBD targeting full replacement of existing ¼ cent tax
**”New” funding toward four priorities
Page 58 of 109
17TIMELINE
2023 2024 2025 2026
•Potential April
Election
•November
Election
•Existing
Dedicated Tax
Renewals
•November
Election
•November
Election
Timeline Considerations
•Potential April
Election
•November
Election
Page 59 of 109
NEXT STEPS
Continue City Project Team Meetings
•Regular Meetings
•Develop Project & Engagement Plan
•Further Research: Impacts, Timing, and
Questions
Standing Item on Council Finance Agenda
•Bi-monthly Agenda Item
•August/September Next Meeting
•Review Project Work and Findings
Upcoming Council Work Session
•December 2022
18
Page 60 of 109
19COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE DIRECTION
1.What questions does Council Finance Committee have on revenue
mechanisms?
2.What funding level does Council Finance Committee want to target?
3.Does Council Finance Committee agree with proposed next steps?
Page 61 of 109
20
Backup
Page 62 of 109
21Tax Rate History
Expiring 12/31/2025:
•¼ cent Street Maintenance
•¼ cent CCIP
3.85%
Current City
Sales Tax rate
2.85%
Page 63 of 109
22
Colorado City & County Tax Rates
by Population
*All counties except Douglas and Larimer have other taxes that include transportation, culture and public safety
County Population Total County
Mill Levy
State
Rate
County
Rate
Other Sales
Taxes
City
Rate Seat *Total Seat
Rate
El Paso County 730,395 7.692 2.90 1.23 1.00 3.07 Colorado Springs 8.20
Denver County 715,522 --2.90 0.00 1.10 4.81 Denver 8.81
Arapahoe County 655,070 13.013 2.90 0.25 1.10 3.00 Littleton 7.25
Jefferson County 582,910 24.578 2.90 0.50 1.10 3.00 Golden 7.50
Adams County 519,572 26.897 2.90 0.75 1.10 3.75 Brighton 8.50
Larimer County 359,066 22.458 2.90 0.80 0.00 3.85 Fort Collins 7.55
Douglas County 357,978 19.274 2.90 1.00 0.00 4.00 Castle Rock 7.90
Boulder County 330,758 24.771 2.90 0.99 1.10 3.86 Boulder 8.85
Weld County 328,981 15.038 2.90 0.00 0.00 4.11 Greeley 7.01
Mesa County 155,703 11.703 2.90 2.00 0.37 3.25 Grand Junction 8.52
Page 64 of 109
23
Colorado City Full Stack
Sales Tax Rates
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Boulder Denver Grand
Junction
Brighton Colorado
Springs
Castle Rock Fort Collins Golden Littleton Greeley
Total Tax Rates
State County Rate Other Taxes City RatePage 65 of 109
24Fort Collins Net Taxable Sales
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021Millions
City Net Taxble City % of County Sales
Page 66 of 109
Page 67 of 109
Page 68 of 109
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Kurt Friesen, Park Planning & Development Director
Mike Calhoon, Parks Director
Victoria Shaw, Community Services Finance Manager
Date: June 2, 2022
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: Park Design Guidelines and Standards
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Parks operation & maintenance costs have increased over time due to several factors including
price escalation/inflation, increased park usage, new amenities, and more inclusive design. The
Parks & Recreation Plan adopted in 2021 provides the framework for development of the city
parks system and recommendations both for existing and new parks. The plan includes key
recommendations, park classification typologies, park design guidelines, typical amenities and
level of service standards that guide the development of new parks, as well as inform
improvements to existing parks. Recently constructed parks have incorporated many cost saving
strategies to reduce long-term maintenance costs, however net maintenance costs have still
increased.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
What additional information is Council Finance committee seeking regarding current park design
guidelines and standards?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
A memo to Council members was provided in the council packet in support of the Sustainable
Funding work session on April 12, 2022 (Attachment 2). The memo provided an overview of
current park maintenance and design practices, along with corresponding cost trends. This item
provides additional detail on park design methodology, including standards and guidelines for
parks.
Maintenance Cost Trends and Cost Reduction Strategies in New Parks
Parks maintenance costs are influenced by multiple variables, including the size of the park,
number of amenities, level of usage, and complexity of design. The Parks department tracks
costs for staff time and direct costs by park amenity, and breaks out maintenance costs for
neighborhood parks into the following categories:
Page 69 of 109
Overall, the ownership costs of neighborhood parks are categorized as follows:
• Size/Acreage of park: about 75% of park maintenance costs are tracked by the
size/acreage of the park, such as water management, turf care, and trash & recycling, and
snow/ice removal costs.
• Major features: 15% of average costs are attributed to whether the park has a playground
and/or bathroom. These amenities require ongoing maintenance, but the costs will not
scale with the size of the park.
• Volume of other amenities: 10% of average costs are driven by the quantity of fields,
courts, or shelters.
In addition to inflation and price escalation pressures, newer features have also contributed to
increased costs. For example, the inclusion of a loop walk has become standard among newer
parks. The loop walk is one of the most used features by park visitors and provides improved
access for Parks maintenance vehicles. However, these wider walks also require additional
snow/ice removal which adds to ongoing maintenance costs.
In newer parks, numerous strategies to reduce maintenance costs have been incorporated, which
include:
• More advanced, higher efficiency irrigation systems, resulting in decreased water usage
and more efficient operations
• Post-tensioned concrete slabs for courts, significantly reducing ongoing court
maintenance, increasing court life span and reducing subsequent life cycle replacement
costs.
• Large native seeded areas in parks, resulting in reduced irrigation demand after
establishment
• Wider walks for convenient parks maintenance vehicle access and snow removal.
• 2-year maintenance and establishment conducted by contractor, ensuring park is in good
working order when Parks maintenance staff takes over.
• Raw water usage significantly reduces irrigation costs over the life of the park
• Crime Prevention through environmental design (CPTED) principles to allow for
seamless access and safety
In some cases, short term maintenance costs may increase. For example, native vegetation buffer
areas require additional care and attention during the establishment period, typically in the first
Page 70 of 109
5-8 years. After that, maintenance efforts for native areas subside and additional savings is
incurred through reduced irrigation demand and required maintenance for these areas.
Parks & Recreation Plan Overview
An update to the Parks & Recreation Plan was completed in 2021, providing a robust vision and
framework for development of parks and recreation facilities, programs, and amenities city wide.
The plan is available here: https://www.fcgov.com/parksandrecplan/ There are three primary
parts to the plan that inform park design standards:
1. Park Classifications, Guidelines and Typical Amenities. This section provides
guidelines for development of parks, including 7 distinct park classifications,
guidelines for developing each of these 7 park types, and typical amenities found in
each park type. Design Guidelines are found on p.105 of the Parks & Recreation Plan.
2. Level of Service Standards. A city-wide level of service analysis identifies where key
park amenities are needed today or will be needed as the city continues to grow. Both
population and access standards are provided for major park amenities. Level of
Service Standards are provided on p. 161 of the Parks & Recreation Plan.
3. Policy Framework. This section identifies a path forward for parks and recreation in
Fort Collins, including 10 goals, with specific actions and methods for each goal. The
policy framework can be found on p. 211 of the Parks & Recreation Plan.
Park Classifications, Guidelines and Typical Amenities
In the past, only 2 primary classifications of parks were identified: neighborhood and community
parks. The 2021 updated Parks & Recreation plan provides 7 total park classification types, both
to clarify how existing parks function and to provide guidelines for future park typologies to
meet the needs of current and future residents. For each park classification type, the Parks &
Recreation plan provides a description, approximate size, anticipated length of visit, means of
access, typical amenities, and a design guideline diagram outlining approximate use zones within
the park. These zones of use include intensive use areas, programmable gathering spaces,
recreation areas, casual use spaces, and natural system areas. Although not prescriptive, these
guidelines provide a framework for new park development, as well as a tool for evaluating
updates or improvements to existing parks. The 7 park classification types include:
o Community Park
o Schoolside Park
o Neighborhood Park
o Urban Park
o Plaza
o Mini Park
Level of Service Standards
Level of service standards help guide decisions about how many recreational amenities are
needed and where. Population-based standards address how many amenities are needed and
access-based standards address where amenities are needed, both now and in the future.
Page 71 of 109
• Population Based Standards. Level of service expressed as a ratio of number of amenities
to population. The current ratio is compared to a recommended ratio, which indicates
whether additional amenities are needed
Several data points were considered in setting the recommended level of service
standards, including the current level of service, the level of service of 5 peer
cities (Aurora, Boise, Boulder, Madison, Minneapolis), national participation
trends and community priorities.
Depending on the park amenity, some data supports raising the current level of
service, while other data supports maintaining or lowering the current level of
service.
• Access Standards. Level of service standards expressed as a travel time within which
residents should be able to get to a particular park amenity by a particular mode of
transportation. Access standards indicate where new amenities, or better ways of
accessing existing amenities, are needed.
Resident expectations of how close park amenities should be to their homes – and
the City’s ability to provide these amenities, vary by type of amenity. Two tiers of
access standards have been identified:
o 10-Minute Walk Standard – for amenities that have broad drop-in use,
and are well used by children, including rectangular fields,
playgrounds, and basketball courts
o 5-Minute Drive Standard – for amenities that are used by a subset of
residents, including pickleball courts, dog parks, community gardens,
and diamond fields
Used in combination, the population-based standards provide a snapshot of the level of service
provided by current park amenities and a road map for addressing the number and location of
amenities in the future. The level of service standards can be used to help prioritize which
actions will increase equitable access to recreational amenities for the most residents.
Level of service standards can and should change over time as industry trends change and
demographic trends of the community change. Beginning on p. 168 of the Parks & Recreation
Plan, a series of illustrative maps are provided identifying where new park amenities are needed
city wide based on the level of service criteria.
Policy Framework
Key recommendations from the Policy Framework regarding park design standards include:
• Provide equitable access to parks through expanding the usability of existing parks, serve
growing and under-served communities in established parts of the city by securing new
parkland, and build new parks to serve newly developing parts of the city. Park spaces
should be intentionally designed to support casual, impromptu use. Ensure that every park
has a framework plan to identify the intended use and in what areas of the park those
intended uses are meant to occur (Goal 1, Method 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, Action 1.1.1).
• Protect and enhance natural, historic, and cultural resources in parks. This is
accomplished through integrating native plants with high pollinator value to increase the
Page 72 of 109
ecological value and biodiversity of parks and by prioritizing the use of raw water or
other irrigation systems that conserve water resources and build resiliency (Goal 4,
Actions 4.1.3, 4.1.4)
• Elevate the design of parks by developing a unified design language that is flexible
enough to allow for individual park identities. (Goal 10, Method 10.1)
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Park Design Guidelines and Standards Presentation
Attachment 2 – Park Operation & Maintenance Costs and Design Guidelines Memo
Page 73 of 109
Park Design Guidelines & Standards
06-02-2022
Victoria Shaw, Community Services Finance Manager
Kurt Friesen, Park Planning & Development Director
Mike Calhoon, Parks Director Page 74 of 109
What additional information is Council Finance Committee seeking regarding current park design
guidelines and standards?
2Question for Council Finance Committee
Page 75 of 109
•City of Fort Collins parks system includes over 50 parks and 45 miles of paved trails
•94% of respondents to city survey rate the quality of parks as very good or good
•97% responded that they should be supported at the same or more effort as a budget
priority
•Park benefits are various and difficult to measure
•Parks and recreation contribute to all 7 outcome areas
•Parks foster a more resilient community
•Improved physical and mental well-being
•User needs and preferences continue to evolve
•Ownership costs include initial construction, ongoing O&M, and infrastructure replacement
•All costs have increased over time due to several factors
•Drivers for O&M costs by park include size, amenities, usage, and design
•Park standards are established in master plan
3Background
Park Costs and Benefits
Page 76 of 109
Costs are driven by
•Size of park
•Amenities & Park Complexity
•Usage & Programming
•Proximity to Maintenance Facility
•Weather
•Vandalism
Park costs are be measured by various components:
•Acreage
•Major Amenities
•Quantity of Minor Amenities
4Park Design and Maintenance Costs
Operations & Maintenance Cost Drivers
Page 77 of 109
5Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Page 78 of 109
6Holistic Network of Public Space
Page 79 of 109
7Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Page 80 of 109
8Park Classifications
Page 81 of 109
9Park Design Guidelines
Page 82 of 109
10Park Design Guidelines
Page 83 of 109
11Typical Park Amenities
Community ParksNeighborhood Parks
Page 84 of 109
12Level of Service Analysis –Benchmarking with Peer Cities
Page 85 of 109
13Population Based Standards
Page 86 of 109
14Access Based Standards -10 Minute Walk
Page 87 of 109
15Population & Access Based Standards –5 Minute Drive
Page 88 of 109
16Level of Service Analysis Heat Map
Page 89 of 109
17Proposed Park Locations Based on Level of Service Analysis
Page 90 of 109
18Policy Framework
Page 91 of 109
19Policy Framework
Expand the usability of
existing parks
Goals
Actions
Methods Seek opportunities to enlarge
or add space for community
gardens and urban
agriculture in parks
Integrate natural resources
and natural resource
interpretation into the design
of parks
Integrate native plants and
plants with high pollinator
value to increase the
ecological value and
biodiversity of parks
Develop a unified design
language for parks that is flexible
enough to allow for individualized
park identities
Identify elements such as
signage, lighting and plantings
that can be standardized across
all parks to increase efficiency
and create a cohesive identity. Page 92 of 109
20Maintenance Cost Reduction Strategies
Wide concrete walks for efficient access & snow removal
Natural water feature
Post tensioned concrete courts
Concrete parking/ shared & reduced parking footprint
Raw water irrigation source
MAINTENANCE
COST INCREASE
Pea gravel in dog park
40% park non-irrigated
Agrarian plantings/horticulture
Native seed establishment
Custom playground inspection costs
MAINTENANCE
COST
MITIGATION
Twin Silo Park
Page 93 of 109
21Maintenance Cost Reduction Strategies
Crescent Park
Native seed & plant establishment
Raw water irrigation source
Post tensioned concrete courts
Wide concrete walks for efficient access & snow
removalConcrete edger
Maintenance shed on site
High efficiency irrigation system
40% park native seed/reduced irrigation
MAINTENANCE
COST
MITIGATION
MAINTENANCE
COST INCREASE In ground restroom
Page 94 of 109
22Maintenance Cost Reduction Strategies
Poudre River Whitewater Park
River edge maintenance
Native seed establishment
Wide concrete walks for efficient access & snow removal
90% park native/reduced irrigation
High efficiency irrigation system
2-year maintenance and establishment by contractor
MAINTENANCE
COST
MIGITAION
MAINTENANCE
COST INCREASE
Page 95 of 109
23Maintenance Cost Reduction Strategies
Sugar Beet Park
Native seed & plant establishment
Wide concrete walks for efficient access & snow removal
Concrete edger
High efficiency irrigation system
40% park native seed/reduced irrigation
MAINTENANCE
COST
MITIGATION
MAINTENANCE
COST INCREASE Wood play structure feature
Page 96 of 109
24Maintenance Cost Reduction Strategies
Eastside Park Improvements
Native/xeric plant establishment
Wide concrete walks for efficient access & snow removal
Concrete edger
15% turfgrass reductions
2-year maintenance and establishment by contractor
Additional lighting reduces unsafe conditions &
associated maintenance
MAINTENANCE
COST
MITIGATION
MAINTENANCE
COST INCREASE
Page 97 of 109
25Maintenance Cost Reduction Strategies
Traverse Park
Wide concrete walks for efficient access & snow removal
Native seed & plant establishment
Concrete edger
High efficiency irrigation system
25% park native seed/reduced irrigation
Post tensioned concrete court
Crusher fine walks
HDPE irrigation mainline
2-year maintenance and establishment by contractor
Pump track maintenance
Full Year of
Maintenance Cost
Data not yet Available
MAINTENANCE
COST
MITIGATION
MAINTENANCE
COST INCREASE
Page 98 of 109
What additional information is Council Finance Committee seeking regarding current park design
guidelines and standards?
26Question for Council Finance Committee
Page 99 of 109
Page 100 of 109
Parks Department
413 South Bryan Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6660
970.221.6849 - fax
fcgov.com/parks
Date: March 30, 2022
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Mike Calhoon, Director of Parks
Kurt Friesen, Director of Park Planning and Development
Thru: Kelly DiMartino, Interim City Manager
Kyle Stannert, Deputy City Manager
Seve Ghose, Community Services Director
Re: Park Operation & Maintenance Costs and Design Guidelines
Bottom Line
Park operation & maintenance costs have increased over time due to several factors including
price escalation/inflation, increased park usage, added amenities, and more inclusive design.
Background
The park system in Fort Collins is highly valued and heavily utilized as shown in results of the
annual city survey- with 94% of respondents rating the quality of parks as very good or good and
97% indicating that they should be supported at the same or more effort as a budget priority. The
system is comprised of over 50 parks and 45 miles of paved trails. Guided by the Parks &
Recreation Plan, a distributed and interconnected system of parks has been realized throughout
the city. In 2021, the Parks & Recreation Master Plan was updated with additional park
classifications, design guidelines, level of service recommendations and goals, providing a road
map for completion of the park system. The requests for amenities in parks are ever evolving and
presents great opportunities as well as challenges.
As park infrastructure has aged, there is an urgent need to address deficiencies throughout the
park system. As part of this effort, it is important to realize the differences between Infrastructure
Replacement and Operations & Maintenance.
Operations & Maintenance
Operations & Maintenance (O&M) includes year-round activities associated with keeping a site
or amenity clean, safe, and functional for day-to-day use.
• Parks annual O&M costs are currently funded at ~$12M annually, this funding is largely
sufficient to meet O&M needs, with an annual gap of $1.0M identified in the recent
master plan. This gap could grow as new parks are built or if there is further price
escalation/inflation.
• Examples of activities associated with O&M include:
o Water Management/Repair such as activating/winterizing systems, program
controllers, manage water, repair pipes/heads/valves
Page 101 of 109
o Turf Care including mowing, prepping lines for play,
dragging fields for even playability, inspect lighting, aeration, fertilization,
equipment maintenance
o General upkeep, such as graffiti removal, vandalism repair, litter removal,
inspecting sites for damage, maintain signs, equipment maintenance, training staff
o Snow removal from paved walkways and trails
Park maintenance is conducted via a system of satellite maintenance shops in defined park
districts. Efficiencies gained by this approach include reduced carbon footprint, faster delivery of
services, staff empowerment and growth, and higher level of O&M services. O&M is currently
funded through the general fund as part of ongoing park maintenance offers submitted through
the Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process.
Infrastructure Replacement
Infrastructure Replacement is the removal and replacement of amenities in the parks system and
bringing them up to today’s standards, i.e. playgrounds, irrigation systems, tennis courts, etc.
when regular maintenance can no longer keep them in a state of good repair..
• Currently there are over 1,200 items valued at over $200 million in the inventory. Each
item has a life span and when the time comes, it must be replaced.
• Potential new funding mechanisms for the Infrastructure Replacement Program are
currently being considered alongside other City funding needs. A sustainable funding
source is required to address the equity issues that are seen throughout the system
pertaining to old vs. new parks.
• Examples of recent and ongoing Infrastructure Replacement projects include:
o Playground replacement at Golden Meadows Park
o Fossil Creek tennis court replacement
o Addition of pickleball lines to Sugar Beet basketball court and Warren and Edora
practice courts
o Replacement of Library Park irrigation system
Page 102 of 109
The below table shows differences between O&M vs. Infrastructure Replacement activities:
IRP Components
(1,000+ assets)
Operations & Maintenance Examples Infrastructure Repair & Replacement
Examples (generally over $5k)
Hardscapes Snow removal, power washing plazas,
sweeping debris
Repair sections of cracked walkways, bringing
walkway slopes up to ADA standards,
repaving parking lots
Playgrounds Raking wood mulch (EWF) so that its even,
picking up trash, safety inspections and
minor repairs for normal wear and tear
Replacing equipment, changing surfacing
from sand to ADA compliant material (EWF
or PIP)
Fields Mowing, prepping lines for play, dragging
fields for even playability, inspect lighting,
aeration, fertilization, equipment
maintenance
Replacing fencing, lighting, scoreboards, full
field renovations
Courts Hanging wind screens, sweeping/power
washing courts to remove debris, replacing
nets
Conversion of courts from asphalt to post-
tension concrete, new striping on courts,
surfacing repairs, new posts, new LED
lighting
Buildings Clean and stock buildings/restrooms, trash
removal, picnic table maintenance, power
washing shelters, activating/winterizing
drinking fountains
Minor renovations like roofing repairs and
painting, major renovations like conversion of
concession areas to satellite maintenance
facility, full building replacements
Structures Cleaning and stocking dog parks,
activate/winterize/test interactive water
features, weeding bike parks, replacing
boards on pedestrian bridges,
Pedestrian bridge replacements, fencing
repairs, water feature renovations, bike park
renovations, pedestrian lighting replacement
Irrigation Activate/winterize systems, program
controllers, manage water, repair
pipes/heads/valves
Full irrigation system renovation, replacement
of water management equipment such as flow
sensors, replacement of irrigation controllers
Water Monitoring water deliveries, clearing ditches,
weed and algae management, minor piping
repairs, aeration equipment management
Dredging, headgate replacements, large piping
replacements,
Trails Snow removal, sweeping/cleaning trails,
repairs to fencing
Replace sections of trails, replacement of
fencing
General Graffiti removal, vandalism repair, litter
removal, inspecting sites for damage,
maintain signs, equipment maintenance,
training staff
Inspect asset inventory, prioritize repairs and
replacements, project management work,
training and compliance with current
standards, coordination preventative
maintenance activities with Operations &
Maintenance staff, handoff for long term
maintenance
Typically, park maintenance costs are characterized in cost/per acre. The size of a park has a
direct impact on the cost per acre. The larger the park, the less it costs per acre to maintain, as
most parks contain equitable amenities regardless of size. On average a community park costs
approximately $9,000/acre to maintain annually, and a neighborhood park approximately
$7,500/acre to maintain. The major drivers of the cost are:
• Acreage- which drives costs of water management & repairs, turf care, and trash &
recycling. Over ¾ of O&M costs scale with the size of a park.
• Major Amenities- including whether or not the park has a playground or a bathroom.
Maintenance of these features drives 15% of costs in a neighborhood park.
Page 103 of 109
• Quantity of Minor Amenities- such as sports fields, shelters, and
botanical features. Maintenance of these features drives the remaining 10% of O&M
costs.
A summary of per acre Neighborhood Park O&M costs by year of park construction:
Although the two most recent parks are significantly higher than most parks, their per acre cost is
also influenced by their smaller acreage. A summary of per acre Neighborhood Park O&M costs
by size of park highlights these two most recent parks as the two smallest:
While direct comparisons of park maintenance costs are challenging due to varying definitions,
overall when compared to other regional municipalities, the maintenance costs for the Fort
Collins system appear to be in line with other park systems in the region.
Page 104 of 109
Design Guidelines
Approved in 2021, the Parks and Recreation Plan provides a comprehensive vision for Fort
Collins parks and is the primary guiding tool for determining new park locations and amenities.
Key elements of the plan include:
• 7 park classifications- formerly there were only 2 (p.115)
• Design guidelines and typical amenities for each park classification (p.105)
• Population and access-based standards (10-minute walk and 5-minute drive) for major
park amenities (p.161)
• 10 overarching goals that prioritize equity and inclusion, access to nature, and financial
sustainability. (p.213) Linkage to Council priorities are highlighted in bold:
1. Provide equitable access to parks.
2. Provide equitable access to recreational experiences.
3. Expand the active transportation network to support access to parks and
recreation.
4. Protect and enhance natural, historic and cultural resources in parks and
increase related activities.
5. Enhance the financial sustainability of parks and recreation.
6. Strengthen partnerships to leverage resources for mutual benefit.
7. Ensure parks, paved trails and recreation facilities are operated and maintained
efficiently and to defined standards.
8. Promote synergy between parks, recreation and economic health.
9. Improve marketing and communication to enhance operations and user
satisfaction.
10. Elevate the design and connection to nature in parks and recreation facilities.
Both the executive summary and the full master plan can be accessed online at:
https://www.fcgov.com/parksandrecplan/
Design Strategies to Reduce Maintenance Costs
New parks constructed over the last few years have incorporated many strategies to help reduce
maintenance costs. These strategies include:
• More advanced, higher efficiency irrigation systems, resulting in decreased water usage
• Post-tensioned concrete slabs for courts, significantly increasing court lifespan
• Large native seeded areas in parks, resulting in reduced irrigation demand after
establishment
• Wider walks for convenient parks maintenance vehicle access and snow removal
• 2-year maintenance and establishment conducted by contractor, ensuring park is in good
working order when Parks maintenance staff takes over.
• Raw water usage significantly reduces irrigation costs over the life of the park
• Crime Prevention through environmental design (CPTED) principles to allow for
seamless access and safety
• The following chart illustrates the composition of costs associated with Neighborhood
Park maintenance over the last 4 years:
Page 105 of 109
The addition of native seeded areas in parks significantly reduces irrigation demand but does
require more maintenance than turf grass during the establishment period (approximately 5
years), then maintenance efforts subside after the seed is established. A key recommendation of
the Parks and Recreation Plan is to revisit many of the older parks and increase the native
vegetation is those parks, resulting in increased biodiversity, wildlife habitat, pollinator value
and an improved natural experience for park users.
Park Benefits
The benefits of parks are varied and difficult to measure but were obvious during the recent
pandemic, as visitor usage increased significantly. Parks play an integral role in the health and
well-being of the entire community offering a dose of “Vitamin N”- nature, as part of a holistic
system of public spaces. Parks provide essential benefits, not just to residents, but also to the
city’s environmental and economic well-being. Parks and Recreation contribute significantly to
all of Fort Collins community priorities and all 7 outcome areas.
Traditionally, parks have focused on children and sports users primarily, as evidenced by the
design of many of the older parks in the city. Today, parks are designed to provide benefit to all,
including those who regularly walk a loop trail, sit and quietly reflect, enjoy a family gathering,
or connect with nature. In addition, parks must evolve to meet the changing needs of users.
Hammocking, slacklining, pump tracks and pickleball are all examples of new and emerging
uses in parks that were uncommon only a few years ago, but now are mainstream activities.
Multiple studies reveal the importance of play in children’s lives, particularly in our media
saturated society. Parks and playgrounds provide opportunities for children to safely take risks,
expand their abilities and interact with other children from different backgrounds and cultures.
Providing playgrounds that are challenging, unique and engaging is key to driving up park and
playground participation and help keep children outside. The addition of natural play features
also provides a wide variety of benefits.
Page 106 of 109
Fort Collins’ heritage is rich with many traditions. Parks provide a unique
platform to celebrate and remember this legacy, such as the sugar beet workers (Sugar Beet Park)
and the apple farmers (Twin Silo Park). Parks should be respites for escape and rejuvenation, but
also respectfully acknowledge and remember those who have come before us to shape and build
our community.
In summary, parks contribute significantly to create a more resilient Fort Collins in many ways,
including:
• Reducing resource demands though decreased irrigation use
• Improving safety through stormwater detention and flood mitigation strategies
• Advancing environmental stewardship through enhanced wildlife habitat and improved
water quality
• Contributing to economic health by promoting a high quality of life for residents
• Improving social equity by providing equal access to parks city wide
Next Steps
City staff will bring a conversation about ongoing funding needs for various priorities, including
parks and recreation funding, for Council consideration at the April 12 work session.
Page 107 of 109
Page 108 of 109
Human Resources Department
215 N. Mason, 2nd Floor
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.653
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 24, 2022
TO: Council Finance Committee
THRU: Kelly DiMartino, Interim City Manager
Teresa Roche, HRE
Travis Storin, CFO
FROM: Kelley Vodden, Compensation, Benefits, Wellness Director
RE: 401(a) Restated Adoption Agreements
_____________________________________________________________________
A resolution will be presented to Council for adoption on consent at the June 21 Council
meeting regarding the IRS regulations requiring the 401(a) retirement plans to be
restated every six years. This restatement cycle is referred to as the “Third Cycle
Restatement,” and it is being done to incorporate all legislative and regulatory changes
in the law since the last restatement, known as the Pension Protection Act Restatement.
This IRS requirement applies to all 401(a) plans using preapproved plan documents.
The City uses 401(a) plan documents preapproved by the IRS. Restating the plans is an
administrative action and will have no financial impact on the City. The draft documents
will be included in the June 21 Council packet for your review.
CC: Blaine Dunn, Accounting Director
Page 109 of 109