Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Full - Finance Committee - 10/05/2023 -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 Zoom Meeting October 5, 2023 4:00 - 6:00 pm Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/8140111859 Approval of Minutes from the September 7, 2023 Council Finance Committee meeting. 1. Impact Fee Study Updates: Utility Development Fees & Capital Expansion Fee Studies 90 mins. Utilities R. Reuscher Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) M. Virata Capital Expansion Fees (CEFs) D. Lenz Page 1 of 125 Council Finance Committee 2023 Agenda Planning Calendar Revised 9/28/23 ck Oct. 5th 2023 Impact Fee Study Updates: Utility Development Fees & Capital Expansion Fee Studies 90 min - Utilities R. Reuscher - Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) M. Virata - Capital Expansion Fees (CEFs) D. Lenz Nov. 2nd 2023 Utility Rate / Debt Forecasts 45 min L. Smith Low-income Sales Tax Rebate 30 min J. Poznanovic N. Bodenhamer Mulberry Frontage Metro District Voluntary Annexation 20 min J. Birks S. Beck-Ferkiss Laporte Multimodal Grant Match 20 min M. Martinez Dec. 7th 2023 Utility Rate / Debt Forecasts (continued) 45 min L. Smith TCEF Reimbursement 15 min M. Virata M. Martinez January 4th 2024 Rate Forecasts for the 2025-26 BFO Cycle, Associated Capital Improvement Plans & Rental Registration – Property Remediation Financing (C. Champine, M. Yoder) Page 2 of 125 Page 3 of 125 Finance Administration 215 N. Mason 2nd Floor PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6788 970.221.6782 - fax fcgov.com Council Finance Committee Hybrid Meeting September 7, 2023 CIC Room – City Hall / Via Zoom Council Attendees: Shirley Peel, Emily Francis, Kelly Ohlson Members Absent: Julie Pignataro Staff: Kelly DiMartino, Tyler Marr, Rupa Venkatesh, Denzel Maxwell, Travis Storin, John Duval, Ginny Sawyer, Nina Bodenhamer, Josh Birks, Dean Klingner, Blaine Dunn, Jo Cech, Randy Bailey, Adam Halvorson, Trevor Nash, Lawrence Pollack, Dave Lenz, Sheena Freve, Gerry Paul, Drew Brooks, Brad Buckman, Mallory Gallegos, Peggy Streeter, Paul Sizemore. Jacob Castillo, SeonAh Kendall, Jancie Saeger, Mike Calhoon, Scott Phelps, Kendra Boot, Kristin Flower, Monica Martinez, Rachel Rogers, James Reed, Judge Hueser, Patty Netherton, Kendall Minor, Lance Smith, Teresa Roche, Kelley Vodden, Erik Martin, Carolyn Koontz Others: Kevin Jones, Chamber Meeting called to order at 4:00 pm Approval of minutes from August 3, 2023, Council Finance Committee Meeting and the Special Council Finance Committee Meeting held on August 16, 2023. Kelly Ohlson _ moved for approval of the minutes as presented. Emily Francis seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously via roll call by; Shirley Peel, Emily Francis, and Kelly Ohlson A. Annual Adjustment Ordinance Lawrence Pollack, Accounting Director SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION First Reading of Ordinance No., 2023, Making Supplemental Appropriations in Various City Funds. First Reading of Ordinance No., 2023, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in Various City Funds. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of these Annual Adjustment Ordinances is to combine dedicated and unanticipated revenues or reserves that need to be appropriated before the end of the year to cover the related expenses that were not anticipated and therefore, not included in the 2023 annual budget appropriation. The unanticipated revenue is primarily from fees, charges, rents, contributions and grants that have been paid to City departments to offset specific expenses. Page 4 of 125 GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED • What questions or feedback does the Council Finance Committee have on the 2023 Annual Adjustment Ordinance? • Does the Council Finance Committee support moving forward with bringing the 2023 Annual Adjustment Ordinance to the full City Council on the Consent Agenda? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION These Ordinances appropriate unanticipated revenue and prior year reserves in various City funds and authorizes the transfer of appropriated amounts between funds and/or projects. The City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate unanticipated revenue received as a result of rate or fee increases or new revenue sources, such as grants and reimbursements. The City Charter also permits the City Council to provide, by ordinance, for payment of any expense from prior year reserves. Additionally, it authorizes the City Council to transfer any unexpended appropriated amounts from one fund to another upon recommendation of the City Manager, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged; the purpose for which they were initially appropriated no longer exists; or the proposed transfer is from a fund or capital project account in which the amount appropriated exceeds the amount needed to accomplish the purpose specified in the appropriation ordinance. If these appropriations are not approved, the City will have to reduce expenditures even though revenue and reimbursements have been received to cover those expenditures. The table below is a summary of the expenses in each fund that make up the increase in requested appropriations. Also included are transfers between funds and/or projects which do not increase net appropriations, but per the City Charter, require City Council approval to make the transfer. A table with the specific use of prior year reserves appears at the end of the AIS. Funding Additional Revenue Prior Year Reserves Transfers TOTAL General Fund $750,530 $625,017 $0 $1,375,547 Transportation Services Fund 1,164,250 0 0 1,164,250 Capital Projects Fund 988,168 0 0 988,168 Transportation CEF Fund 0 200,000 0 200,000 Recreation Fund 0 112,183 0 112,183 Golf Fund 14,600 138,915 0 153,515 Perpetual Care Fund 0 39,064 0 39,064 GRAND TOTAL $2,917,548 $1,115,179 $0 $4,032,727 A. GENERAL FUND 1. Fort Collins Police Services (FCPS) has received revenue from various sources. A listing of these items follows: a. $18,000 – 2023/2024 BATTLE Grant (Beat Auto Theft Through Law Enforcement): Police Services was awarded a grant from the Colorado State Patrol to help prevent auto theft in Colorado. b. $34,000 – 2022/2023 BATTLE Grant Supplemental (Beat Auto Theft Through Law Enforcement): 'The Property Crimes division of Police Services has been awarded an additional $34,000 on top of the original $36,516 grant to fund additional overtime to help investigate auto theft in Northern Colorado. Page 5 of 125 c. $12,000 - 2023 Click it or Ticket Grant: Police Services was awarded a Click it or Ticket Grant from the Colorado Department of Transportation to pay for officers to work overtime to conduct enforcement activities. d. $201,363 - Police Information Services encountered an issue with the 9-11 dispatch servers that ran the system. Because of this, it was discovered that the server licenses needed to be upgraded. This appropriation is equal to Larimer County and Loveland's contribution for the upgrade. e. $16,000 - 2023/2024 High Visibility Enforcement (HVE) Grant: Police Services was awarded a grant from the Law Enforcement Assistance Fund to pay for overtime for DUI enforcement. f. $11,445 – 2022-23 ICAC Grant (Internet Crimes Against Children): Police Services was awarded the ICAC grant to help fund training and equipment to investigate internet crimes targeted at children. g. $31,291 – 2019 JAG Grant: Police Services was awarded $31,291 for a grant to help fund overtime to investigate illegal drug use and sales. This grant has been spent and the grant period is now closed, however after an extensive audit it was determined that the appropriations were never completed. This is to retroactively appropriate the funds and then close the account. h. $110,484 - Police Miscellaneous Revenue: Police Services receives revenue from the sale of Police reports along with other miscellaneous revenue, like restitution payments, evidence revenue and SWAT training. i. $202,799 - Police Reimbursable Overtime: Police Services help schedule security and traffic control for large events. Since these events are staffed by officers outside of their normal duties, officers are paid overtime. The organization who requested officer presence is then billed for the costs of the officers' overtime. Fort Collins Police Services (FCPS) partners with Larimer County to staff events at The Ranch. Police receives reimbursement from Larimer County for officers’ hours worked at Ranch events. j. $40,591 - School Resource Officers: Police Services have a contract with Poudre School District to provide officers on location at a majority of the schools for safety and support. The school district pays Police Services based on a predetermined contract amount and also partially reimbursing for overtime incurred. This request is for the previously billed overtime and anticipated overtime for the remaining year. k. $8,732 - DUI Enforcement: Proceeds that have been received for DUI enforcement from Larimer County. l. $32,339 – 2023/2024 Black Market Marijuana Grant: Police Services was awarded the Marijuana grant to support the investigation and prosecution of black market or illegal marijuana cultivation and distribution in the city. TOTAL APPROPRIATION FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2023/2024 BATTLE Grant) $18,000 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2022/2023 BATTLE Grant supplemental) $34,000 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2023 Click it or Ticket Grant) $12,000 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Partner Agency Contributions for SQL Server upgrades) $201,363 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2023/2024 HVE Grant) $16,000 Page 6 of 125 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2022/2023 ICAC Grant) $11,445 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2019 JAG Grant) $31,291 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Police Miscellaneous Revenue) $100,484 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Police Reimbursable Overtime) $202,799 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (School Resource Officers) $40,591 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (DUI Enforcement) $8,732 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2023/2024 Black Market Marijuana Grant) $32,339 Total: $719,044 FOR: Help prevent auto theft $52,000 FOR: Overtime for Seat Belt enforcement $12,000 FOR: 911 Dispatch server licenses upgrade $201,363 FOR: Overtime for DUI enforcement $16,000 FOR: Help prevent Internet Crimes Against Children $11,445 FOR: Investigate illegal drug use and sales $31,291 FOR: Police Miscellaneous Revenue $100,484 FOR: Police Reimbursable Overtime for events $202,799 FOR: Overtime for School Resource Officers $40,591 FOR: DUI enforcement $8,732 FOR: Support the investigation of illegal marijuana cultivation $32,339 Total: $719,044 2. Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Finance requests the appropriation of $61,000 to cover the amount due for the 2022 Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate program as established in Chapter 25, Article II, Division 5, of the Municipal Code. The rebate program was established to encourage investment in new manufacturing equipment by local firms. Vendors have until December 31st of the following year to file for the rebate. This item appropriates the use tax funds to cover the payment of the rebates. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Manufacturing Use Tax Rebate Assign) $61,000 FOR: Manufacturing Use Tax Rebates $61,000 3. Mobile Home Park Backflow Preventer Project Larimer County Additional Grant Funds The Neighborhood Services Department received an American Rescue Plan Act Immediate Needs Grant from Larimer County in the amount of $132,500 for the purpose of funding backflow preventer projects in mobile home parks. The City contracted with Top Notch Plumbing, who conducted this work in May and June of 2023 at Nueva Vida and Hickory Village Mobile Home Parks. The total project cost was $147,880, which exceeds our grant by $15,380. On July 19, 2023, the Board of County Commissioners unanimously agreed to fund the full project cost. All agreements have been approved and signed, and payment from the County to the City via check is in process. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (ARPA Grant through Larimer County) $15,380 Page 7 of 125 FOR: Mobile Home Park Backflow Preventer Project $15,380 4. Land Bank Operational Expenses This request is intended to cover expenses related to the land bank property maintenance needs for 2023. Since expenses vary from year to year, funding is requested annually mid-year to cover these costs. Expenses in 2023 include general maintenance of properties, raw water and sewer expenses, electricity, repairs, and other as applicable. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Land Bank reserve) $3,600 FOR: Land Bank Expenses $3,600 5. Radon Kits Environmental Services sells radon test kits at cost as part of its program to reduce lung-cancer risk from in- home radon exposure. This appropriation would recover kit sales for the purpose of restocking radon test kits. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (radon kit sales) $1,986 FOR: Radon test kit purchase $1,986 6. Transfer of remaining Gardens Reserve from General Fund to Cultural Services Fund (refer to item B1) Gardens on Spring Creek was moved from the General Fund to the Cultural Services Fund. This transfers the residual assigned balance in the General Fund to Cultural Services FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Gardens on Spring Creek Reserve within the General Fund) $560,417 FOR: Transfer to the Cultural Services Fund $560,417 7. Forestry Additional Revenue Forestry had unanticipated revenue earned in 2023 and is requesting an adjustment to the budget to utilize revenues related to Payments in Lieu and Work for Others. From 1/1/23 to 8/18/23, forestry has performed $6,905 worth of work for others and has received $7,215 for payments in lieu. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Payments in Lieu and Work for Others) $14,120 FOR: Forestry operations $14,120 B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FUND 1. Streets Work for Others The Planning, Development and Transportation Work for Others program is a self-supported program for all “Work for Others” activities within Streets. Expenses are tracked and billed out to other City departments, Poudre School District, CSU, CDOT, Larimer County, developers and other public agencies. The original budget of $3.1M was an estimate based on prior years budget. Due to unanticipated projects and equipment/parts needs, and higher cost of materials, additional funding of $1.2M is requested to cover projects through the end Page 8 of 125 of 2023. Revenue for performing the work will offset the expense (expense will not be incurred if revenue is not received). FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (reimbursement for work done) $1,150,000 FOR: Work for Others program $1,150,000 2. FC Moves: Open Streets Vendor Fees Open Streets is a bi-annual FC Moves event that promotes active modes of transportation and invites folks to experience a street without cars. At Open Streets, participants can expect 1-2 miles of car-free, family-friendly streets. Participants are encouraged to Ride the Route and explore areas called “Activity Hubs”- temporary clusters of activity provided by local businesses and organizations. Vendors for Open Streets are charged $50 if they are a non-profit, $100 if they are a private business. For spring 2023 we had 33 private businesses, and 19 non-profits join as vendors. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $4,250 FOR: Open Streets Program $4,250 3. FC Moves: SPIN Annual Payment Per the contract between the City and Spin, Spin pays an annual fee in addition to permitting fees. These funds can be used at the City's discretion, and typically are used for projects related to the Spin program, such as E- Bikes and the Shift Your Ride TDM program. The funds have already been received. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Vendor payment (SPIN)) $10,000 FOR Shift Your Ride TDM Program $10,000 C. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 1. Country Club Reserve Payment-In-Lieu (Highway 1 Douglas Rd) The City received a payment from Developer (Country Club Reserve) for payment in lieu of construction of required intersection improvements of the HWY1 and Douglas Road intersection per their development agreement. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Payment in lieu) $28,000 FOR: Intersection improvements $28,000 2. Waterfield 4th Payment-In-Lieu (Timberline and Vine) Outfall Channel Improvements The City received a payment in lieu of construction from the Developer (Waterfield) for outfall channel required for drainage in the amount of $25,389. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Payment in lieu) $25,389 FOR: Construction of outfall channel $25,389 3. Vine & Timberline Payment-In-Lieu (Waterfield 4th) The City received a payment in lieu of construction from the Waterfield Developer for Timberline/Vine intersection improvements. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Payment in lieu) $254,545 Page 9 of 125 FOR: Intersection improvements $254,545 4. Waters Edge 2nd Payment-In-Lieu (Timberline and Vine Intersection) The City received a payment in lieu of construction from Developer (Waters Edge 2nd filing) for the intersection of Vine and Timberline for $250,000 in November 2020. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Payment in lieu) $250,000 FOR: Intersection improvements $250,000 5. Vine & Timberline Overpass Payment-in-Lieu The City received a payment-in-lieu of construction from the Developer (Waterfield - Filing 4) in July 2023 for $58,466 specifically to be used for the Timberline Road Realignment and Overpass Project. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Payment in lieu) $58,466 FOR: Timberline Road Realignment and Overpass Project $58,466 6. Laporte Bridges - Salud Local Portion Payment The Laporte Bridges capital project completed the frontage for the Salud development. The "local portion payment" from the Salud development for 215.03’ of frontage at $264/LF came to a total of $56,768. Engineering received this payment and completed the work using prior project funding. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Payment in lieu) $56,768 FOR: Laporte Bridges project $56,768 7. Bloom 1st Payment-In-Lieu (Timberline and Vine Intersection) The City received a payment in lieu of $250,000 from the developer (Bloom, Filing 1) for construction at the intersection of Vine and Timberline. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Payment in lieu) $250,000 FOR: Intersection improvements $250,000 8. College and Cherry Railroad Crossing Replacement The Union Pacific Railroad was mandated by the Federal Railroad Administration to complete the College and Cherry crossing replacement project in 2023 or face fines/penalties, due to a short in the wiring system between the rail and City's traffic signal interconnect. The railroad offered to cover the cost of the crossing itself ($542k) if the City could provide traffic control and roadway paving/patching work. The total cost of the traffic control and paving was $86k. Several unscheduled railroad crossing repair projects during 2022 and 2023 had reduced the overall railroad crossing replacement budget, leading to the need for additional funds to complete the College Ave. and Cherry St. replacement project. The difference between the project cost and remaining crossing replacement funds is approximately $65k. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Payment in lieu) $65,000 FOR: Railroad crossing replacement $65,000 Page 10 of 125 D. TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL EXPANSION FUND 1. Transportation Capital Expansion Fund (TCEF) - Minor Reimbursements The purpose of this offer is to allocate additional Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) funds for the purpose of reimbursing development for the construction of eligible transportation related improvements under the category of Minor Reimbursements (individual reimbursements under $500,000). The TCEF Program will frequently partner with development to construct arterial and collector level roadways adjacent to the development's frontage. After eligible improvements are accepted by the City, the TCEF program will reimburse the developer for these improvements. The TCEF Program has received an initial request for a minor reimbursement for Country Club Reserve with an initial estimate of $438,443 for the oversizing of improvements on Turnberry Road and Douglas Road. This appropriation will ensure the TCEF Program's ability to reimburse development for eligible improvements constructed in 2023. FROM: Prior Year Reserves $200,000 FOR: Reimbursement for construction of arterial and collector level roadways $200,000 E. RECREATION FUND 1. Recreation Facilities Asset Management Multiple facility maintenance and asset replacement needs have come up that impact operations and customer satisfaction with City facilities. The most urgent items include: Blinds/shades at the Senior Center that have failed; Umbrella replacement at City Park Pool; Timing system & pads at EPIC Pool for competition practice & events; Structural engineer assessment of City Park Pool slide structure; new office space at EPIC needed due to displacement of staff from elevator project; and re- configuration of front desk/customer area at Northside Aztlan Community Center to address safety and efficiency needs. FROM: Prior Year Reserves $112,183 FOR: Facilities Asset Management $112,183 F. GOLF FUND 1. Golf Facilities Maintenance Golf has faced multiple challenges outside of normal operations this season. Please see our annual adjustment requests below. Total request is $138,915. • Collindale has recently experienced an increase in rogue range balls that have crossed our boundaries into other public spaces. They have hired a Range Attendant to monitor the driving range, remind golfers of the rules and prevent accidents. The range would have an attendant for an average of 12 hours per day from May through October. It will be staffed from 8:00 am until sunset. 6 months x 4.3 weeks x 7 days a week x 12 hours a day x $17.47 per hour (includes overhead)=$37,861 this year • Last fall Collindale was having false alarms related to its hydrogen sensors and fire panels. Op services advised to get a new fire panel asap and was going to hold off invoicing until after the first of the year. Approximate cost to replace the panel was $18k. However, the fire panel was back ordered and has still not arrived. In the interim, the hydrogen sensors which are tied to the fire panel have been alarming and the fire department has come and taken readings showing the whole ventilation system for the carts may be deficient. The fire department has required us to have a new alarm design done and to assess if the ventilation is working properly, adding approximately another $21,000. In addition, since the fire Page 11 of 125 department assessment, we have been paying almost $1400 per week to have someone watch Collindale every night on a fire watch. Requesting cleanup funding to pay for alarm design, new panels and contract labor for 12 weeks $55,800 ($18,000+$21,000+(12*1400)) • In late June 2023 Southridge Golf Course experienced significant flooding in the clubhouse basement. While these repairs will eventually be reimbursed through the SRM department, it will take a significant amount of time and funding will likely not be available to spend in time for year end. Total repairs costs are $45,254; PO 9231334 - $15,108 and PO 9231165 - $30,146 FROM: Prior Year Reserves $138,915 FOR: Golf Facilities Management $138,915 2. Golf Nature in the City Award Nature in the City Grant was awarded in early 2023 to Southridge Golf Course for their Turf Conversion project. We've received $11,680 to date and will receive the remaining reimbursement after the project is complete. Total grant is up to $14,600. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $14,600 FOR: Turf Conversion project $14,600 G. PERPETUAL CARE FUND 1. Transfer from Perpetual Care Fund to Cemeteries Fund Each year there is a budgeted amount for perpetual care to transfer to cemeteries which is entered by accounting on a monthly basis. The last two years the amount received by the perpetual care fund has been higher than budgeted, so not all money was transferred to cemeteries. This clears out the residual balance and accounting will be changing the process in these two funds moving forward. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Perpetual Care Fund) $39,064 FOR: Transfer to the Cemeteries Fund $39,064 FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS This Ordinance increases total City 2023 appropriations by $4,032,727. Of that amount, this Ordinance increases General Fund 2023 appropriations by $1,375,547, including use of $625,017 in prior year reserves. Funding for the total increase to City appropriations is $2,917,548 from unanticipated revenue and $1,115,179 from prior year reserves. The following is a summary of the items requesting prior year reserves: Item # Fund Use Amount A2 General Fund Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate $61,000 A4 General Fund Land Bank Operational Expenses 3,600 A6 General Fund Transfer of Remaining Gardens Reserve 560,417 E1 Transportation CEF Fund Transportation Capital Expansion Fund (TCEF) - Minor Reimbursements 200,000 F1 Recreation Fund Recreation Facilities Asset Management 112,183 G1 Golf Fund Golf Facilities Maintenance 138,915 H1 Perpetual Care Fund Transfer from Perpetual Care to Cemeteries 39,064 Total Use of Prior Year Reserves: $1,115,179 Page 12 of 125 GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED • What questions or feedback does the Council Finance Committee have on the 2023 Annual Adjustment Ordinance? • Does the Council Finance Committee support moving forward with bringing the 2023 Annual Adjustment Ordinance to the full City Council on the Consent Agenda? DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS Note: We were having audio / visual issues in the CIC Room during this presentation topic. Here are the questions from the discussion and the requested follow up; Polic Overtime Police overtime reimbursable or otherwise is not part of their base pay. Their retirement package is entirely based on base pay. Railroad Crossing Brad Buckman; The Union Pacific railroad wanted to do this project this year and they wanted us to pay half. This is typical of a railroad crossing replacement. Because of the urgency and the short and wiring between the traffic signal and the railroad signal interconnect, they offered to pay for the entire crossing and in return we would pay for the paving and the traffic control which is $86K. Kelly Ohlson; I would still like to request a follow-up to the work session. It said they were mandated by their own governing body. I believe in being a good partner, but we didn’t do anything wrong, so I am still trying to figure out why we are paying the $86K. Tyler Marr; some of it relates to railroad right of way and what they are responsible for - often times, I am not sure it is the road, which can be a loophole in federal law. Kelly Ohlson; traffic control is a whole different thing. Travis Storin; we will include that for First Reading. We will include language in the AIS regarding rights and obligations for the crossing. B. 2024 Budget Revisions Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this agenda item is to familiarize and seek feedback from the Council Finance Committee on the City Manager’s recommended revisions to the 2024 Budget before the recommendations are reviewed and discussed at the Council Work Session scheduled for September 26. Based on direction from Council, the 2024 Budget Revisions will be combined with the previously adopted 2023-24 Biennial Budget. The 2024 Annual Budget Appropriation Ordinance is scheduled for 1st Reading on October 17, follow by 2nd Reading on November 21. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED Page 13 of 125 - What questions or feedback does the Council Finance Committee have on the City Manager’s recommended revisions to the 2024 Budget? - Does the Council Finance Committee support moving forward with bringing the 2024 Budget Revisions to the full City Council for the September 26th work session? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION OVERVIEW: The mid-cycle Revision Process is different from the biennial Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process in that: 1) There is no broad request for new and innovative Offers. This is because we are operating within the approved 2023-24 Biennial Budget and these revisions should be exceptions based on information not known at the time the budget was adopted in 2022. 2) Likewise, there is no review by BFO Teams or request for public engagement. However, the Executive Leadership Team and City Manager conducted a comprehensive review to determine which requests should be forwarded on for Council's consideration. Revised revenue projections and available fund reserves were carefully considered when making these recommendations. The 2024 Budget Revisions include offers for Council’s consideration based on information that wasn’t available at the time the 2023-24 Budget was adopted. The following are key objectives which the Budget Revision process is intended to address: • Matching appropriations for ongoing expenditures to current ongoing revenue estimates, if declining • Council priorities • High-priority projects and other needs not known at the time of the adoption of the 2023-24 Budget. • Fiduciary responsibilities & fund balance requirements The recommended 2024 Budget Revisions meet these goals, as applicable. Recommended revisions to the 2024 Budget must also meet one of the following criteria: • The request is specifically directed by the City Manager or City Council • The request is related to a previously approved offer where either revenue shortfalls or unforeseen expenses are significantly impacting the delivery of that program or service. REVENUE: Overall, most significant City revenue sources are coming in at, or above, the 2023 budget. Based on year-to-date actual collections and other information, both Sales Tax and Property Tax forecasts are recommended to be increased for 2024. Sales Tax collection through July are about $1.0M over budget. It is estimated that the total 2023 collections will be about $1.5M over budget, which raises the base of ongoing Sales Tax in 2024 by that same amount. Staff recommends keeping Sales Tax growth on that higher base at the 2.5% growth already included in the adopted 2023-24 Budget. This equates to about $1.5M of new ongoing revenue for City operations in 2024. Of that amount, about $1.1M would be available in the General Fund. Property Tax assessments this year are seeing 25% to 35% growth, or more. This will be realized as increased Property Tax collections in 2024 over the budgeted increase of 13% already included in the 2023-24 Budget. This equates to about $2.1M of new ongoing revenue for City operations in 2024. Page 14 of 125 2022 Year-end reserve balances have been finalized and previously shared with the Council Finance Committee. Unassigned fund balances (i.e., reserves) are available in excess of the requested amounts for the 2024 Budget Revisions. Summary of 2024 Revenue Changes and Available Reserves The revenue and reserves above are available to fund the recommended additions to the 2024 Budget. The table below summarizes those proposed additions and Attachment #1 contains the details of those recommended offers. Summary of 2024 Recommended Additions: Description General Fund - Ongoing General Fund - 1-Time Cultural Services Light & Power Water Stormwater Broadband TOTAL Summary of Revenue Changes & Reserves -Increased 2024 Sales Tax forecast for General Fund ( i) $1,110,390 $1,110,390 -Increased 2024 Property Tax forecast for General Fund ( i) 2,100,000 $2,100,000 -Increased 2024 Carnegie Center revenue forecast (ongoing)25,000 $25,000 -Available Ongoing Revenue from the 2023-24 Budget 3,200,000 360,000 1,200,000 1,159,674 $5,919,674 -Available Reserves (1-Time, if requested)8,100,000 $8,100,000 -Less: 2023 Reappropriation (1-Time)(602,754)(52,500)($655,254) -Less: 2023 Supplemental Approps (ongoing)(582,000)($582,000) -Less: 2023 Supplemental Approps (1-Time)(1,125,100)($1,125,100) Subtotal of Funding Changes 2,628,390 6,372,146 25,000 3,200,000 307,500 1,200,000 1,159,674 14,892,710 Page 15 of 125 After netting out the proposed additions, fund balances are still strong and well above minimum fund balance requirements. Summary of Available Reserves and Revenue after Recommended Additions The 2024 Budget Revisions allow the City to include a small number of additional budget requests to the 2024 Budget, which address Council priorities that benefit our community. Fund / Revision Requested FTE Ongoing $One-Time $ Total General Fund Rental Housing Program with 4.0 FTE 4.00 410,950 78,750 489,700 1.0 FTE Carnegie Center for Creativity Programming 1.00 114,899 114,899 Municipal Court Services - 1.0 FTE Deputy Court Clerk II 1.00 73,000 18,000 91,000 Municipal Court Services - Technology - 189,201 146,410 335,611 Additional Prosecution Staff 1.00 195,197 19,472 214,669 Waste Contracting Operating Budget plus 2 FTE 2.00 309,014 - 309,014 Bringing the operations of the TRC in-house plus 3 FTE 3.00 299,564 311,476 611,040 Encampment cleaning and prevention additional funds - 111,000 - 111,000 Expansion of the Enterprise Service Management (ESM) System - 68,500 87,500 156,000 Household Hazardous Waste - - 114,240 114,240 Total General Fund 12.00 $1,771,325 $775,848 $2,547,173 Cultural Services & Facilities 1.0 FTE Carnegie Center for Creativity Programming - 25,000 - 25,000 Total Cultural Services & Facilities Fund 0.00 $25,000 $0 $25,000 Light and Power Fund Debt service for 2023 Bond Issuance - 2,954,708 - 2,954,708 Total Light and Power Fund 0.00 2,954,708 0 2,954,708 Water Fund Poudre Instream Flows Plan: Early Design and Cost Estimating Phase - - 60,000 60,000 Total Water Fund 0.00 0 60,000 60,000 Stormwater Fund Encampment cleaning and prevention additional funds - 64,000 - 64,000 Household Hazardous Waste - - 89,760 89,760 Total Stormwater Fund 0.00 $64,000 $89,760 $153,760 Broadband Fund Debt service for 2023 Bond Issuance - 1,159,674 - 1,159,674 Total Broadband Fund 0.00 $1,159,674 $0 $1,159,674 TOTAL ALL FUNDS 12.00 5,974,707 925,608 6,900,315 Description General Fund - Ongoing General Fund - 1-Time Cultural Services Light & Power Water Stormwater Broadband TOTAL Available Revenue and Reserves 2,628,390 6,372,146 25,000 3,200,000 307,500 1,200,000 1,159,674 14,892,710 2024 Budget Revision Requests -Ongoing Requests (1,771,325)(25,000) (2,954,708)(64,000) (1,159,674)(5,974,707) -One-Time Requests (775,848)(60,000) (89,760)(925,608) Total of 2024 Revisions (1,771,325) (775,848) (25,000) (2,954,708) (60,000) (153,760) (1,159,674) (6,900,315) Net Impact (positive = available)$857,065 $5,596,298 $0 $245,292 $247,500 $1,046,240 $0 N/A Page 16 of 125 In addition to the recommended budget revisions, there are a few other administrative changes for the 2024 Budget, as follows: 1) Modification to 2023-24 Offers 14.4 and 17.1: After the budget was completed, an organizational staffing decision was made to move the Network Engineers from Broadband back to central Information Technology (IT). This removes the need for the transfer of money from IT to Broadband. Instead of being transferred, those funds will now be used to pay the personnel expenses within IT. a. There is no change in expenses for IT b. The removal of the transfer of funds impacts Broadband by reducing the associated transfer revenue and the previously budgeted expenses in the same amount of $835 for no net financial impact. 2) Modification to 2023-24 Offer 15.6: Police District One is located on the first floor of the Civic Center Parking Structure. In April 2022 when the budget offer was submitted, the building was owned by Post Modern Development, with a rent of $84k for 2024. In December of 2022, the Civic Center Parking Structure was purchased by the City. Now that the City owns the building, there is no longer any rent to be paid for this facility. a. The removal of the transfer of funds impacts Operations Services by reducing the associated transfer revenue and the previously budgeted expenses in the same amount of $84k for no net financial impact. 3) Modification to 2023-24 Offer 1.42: This offer to update the Water Efficiency Plan was approved for $100k in 2023 and $150k in 2024. A Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) grant for this effort was awarded and appropriated with Ordinance No. 34, 2023, thus the $150K in 2024 no longer needs to be appropriated. a. That budgeted amount of $150k will remain in Water Fund reserves for future use, as approve by City Council GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED • What questions or feedback does the Council Finance Committee have on the City Manager’s recommended revisions to the 2024 Budget? • Does the Council Finance Committee support moving forward with bringing the 2024 Budget Revisions to the full City Council for the September 26th work session? DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS Kelly Ohlson; extra property tax going to the city – is that after the Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) share is taken out? They get 2/3 of our property tax, correct? Lawrence Pollack; the second year of the budget does not have an impact on PFA direct. Yes, they do get 2/3 of our property tax revenue. In the past two revision cycles, where we saw revenues declining, there was no impact to PFA in any way because it was the second year of the budget. The 2nd year changes you are seeing in property tax do not have an impact. Page 17 of 125 Kelly Ohlson; is the $2.1M for the city? Does that change in the next two-year cycle? Travis Storin; they get 2/3 of what was in the original budget for property tax. Any amount over budget in 2024 becomes a one-time windfall for the city. It will reset for the 2025 – 2026 budget to be 2/23 of that newly higher budget. We are well into a project for all internal services provided to PFA by the city. We will be having conversations in the Spring, prior to the next budget cycle around a revised IGA with PFA as a result of the work that is in play. Kelly Ohlson; so, the $2.1M is not on-going. Lawrence Pollack; the total increase we anticipate in property tax in 2024 is $6M. $4M is one time and will end up going to PFA in the future. The ongoing for the city is $2.1M. Kelly Ohlson; is the $2.1M guaranteed regardless of the ballot measure outcome? Travis Storin; we expect that the ongoing portion we would have even if Proposition HH passes. Even with the haircut from 40% to 15% increases – it would still be a 15% increase for us. Proposition HH represents an upside if it doesn’t pass. Kelly Ohlson; So, the $2.1M isn’t going to be impacted by a yes or no vote? Slide #8 Page 18 of 125 Travis Storin; the $2.1M is not guaranteed as on-going. Kelly Ohlson; Do we know what it might drop to? Travis Storin; our partners at the county and at PFA are planning contingencies in their budgets so that if HH passes, their property tax increases will be limited to the 12-15% range rather than 35%. The $2.1M could drop to $600K - $1M. Kelly Ohlson; that will probably come up at the Work Session Tyler Marr; some clarity re: Proposition HH. The city’s downside in HH results in the reduction in valuation and the relief given from the state in the proposal, the County is not a Home Rule County, so they are actually held to a growth cap on property tax, so they have a double-edged sword on HH. As a Home Rule Municipality, the growth cap on property tax doesn’t apply to us but the reduction in valuation would have marginal impact. Travis Storin; you mean the $40K exemption? Tyler Marr; yes Emily Francis; I had a question on the encampment clean up. Didn’t we just pass an appropriation? Travis Storin; that was a 2023 appropriation, so this essentially would augment the 2024 budget allotment, kind of in kind and parallel to what we just did for 2023. Kelly DiMartino; we are anticipating that the level of dollars we are using this year is going to need to be close to what we will need next year. Most likely, we will have a new amount we can calibrate to in the 25-26 budget. Bridging the cap with 23, build it into 24 and then we will right size for 25. Lawrence Pollack; alternatively, we could wait and see what the 2024 expenses are and then bring a supplemental. Emily Francis; it would have been good to have that information when we did the last appropriation. Travis Storin; we will proceed to the September 26th Work Session, and we will make sure we are really clear. Meeting Adjourned at 5:30 pm Page 19 of 125 Page 20 of 125 COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Staff: David Lenz, Director, FP&A - Financial Services Marc Virata, Engineering - Planning, Development & Transportation Randy Reuscher, Lead Rate Analyst - Utilities Finance Date: October 5, 2023 SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: Impact Fee Study Updates: Utility Development Fees & Capital Expansion Fee Studies REVISION (October 3, 2023): Subsequent to submission of materials for the October 5, 2023 Council Finance Committee meeting, a calculation error in one of the modules of the Capital Expansion Fee model was identified. This error impacted the calculations for residential rates for police, fire and general government fees and is related to the residential service demand factor. This change increases the rates for these three fees by 6% each (from $99 for smallest size to $206 for largest size residence) versus the rates included in the original materials. There is no impact on either of the park fees or non-residential fees. The balance of this memorandum and the included attachments reflect the updates for this error. Attachment 4 also provides a reconciliation of the revised fee schedule. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff have been working to update the Utility Development Fees, Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEFs) and Capital Expansion Fees (CEFs). Independent consultants have been engaged to update the prior CEF and TCEF studies completed in 2017. Utilities Finance has updated their fees through in-house efforts. The output of these updates is the basis for establishing the updated fee schedules that will be brought forward to the City Council for adoption consideration. This update focuses on an overview of these fee updates. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED: • What questions does the committee have related to the study updates or draft fee schedules? • Does the committee prefer: Option A) o Bringing the fee updates forward to City Council for adoption for a 1/1/2024 implementation? o or Page 21 of 125 Page 22 of 125 Development fees are the mechanism for Utilities to recover the impact of adding new demand to the services Utilities provides, including electric, water, wastewater, and stormwater. Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) and Electric Capacity Fees (ECFs) are one-time charges for new development or re-development. These fees recover costs for excess capacity of infrastructure already in place to serve new customers based on the “buy-in” approach, where customers pay according to new demands they will put on the system and considers incremental costs of future infrastructure to serve them. Staff updates development fee models every two years. In alternating years, when models are not updated, an inflationary adjustment is applied to utility development fees. Staff use the Engineering News Record (ENR) construction cost index to apply inflationary adjustments. In 2022, for 2023, staff increased development fees, including the Electric Capacity Fees, Water Plant Investment Fees, Wastewater Plant Investment Fees, and Stormwater Plant Investment Fees, by 9% as an inflationary adjustment. Each model was updated this year to capture current inputs, including current escalation factors and each of the various drivers such costs, consumption, and future system needs. Utilities have experienced extreme cost pressures, especially on the electric side. Some items such as electric transformers have increased dramatically in price due to supply chain issues and higher material costs. The table below shows the proposed increase for 2024 for each of the development fees by fund. There are many variables in calculating the impact of a development, particularly between residential and commercial. Shown in the table below is an example of a single-family residential house receiving all four services from Fort Collins Utilities. The 2023 amount is expected to increase by approximately $790 in 2024, from $11,120 to $11,911. This equates to an overall increase of 7.1% for these one-time fees. Utility Fee Unit of Measure 2024 Proposed Increase Electric Capacity Fee (ECF) $ / kW 14.8% Water Plant Investment Fee (PIF) $ / GPD 5.7% Wastewater Plant Investment Fee (PIF) $ / GPD 4.1% Stormwater Plant Investment Fee (PIF) $ / acre of development 7.0% Page 23 of 125 The Water Supply Requirements and Excess Water Use, which was discussed with City Council at the August 8, 2023, work session, is not part of the proposed utility development fee updates for 2024. Staff recently established a project team to focus on messaging and clarifying the purpose of these fees, hold various internal and external stakeholder meetings, and gather input through the end of 2023 and into early 2024. The timeline for continuing discussions with Council is currently unknown. TCEF Study Update The Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) is a one-time fee collected from development and redevelopment to mitigate impacts to the transportation network. It is used to support growth share related infrastructure improvements which add capacity to the system from both a roadway and multi-modal perspective. Fees cannot be used for improvements which solely benefit adjacent development, existing deficiencies, and/or for maintenance. TCEF is used for reimbursements to developers for constructing improvements beyond the "local street", such as Northfield's reimbursement for Suniga Road. TCEF is also used as a contribution for growth related share of Capital Projects. This includes roadway/intersection projects as well as bicycle/pedestrian projects as part of Active Modes and our Active Modes Plan. TCEF's last program update was in 2017 by TischlerBise. The methodology TischlerBise utilized is an incremental expansion approach for roadways and ActiveModes, and analyzed data from the following: • 2012 Transportation CIP (10 year) • Multimodal Projects (2014 Bicycle Master Plan) • Intersections (2010/2016 Arterial Intersection Prioritization Study) • The 2017 anticipated 10-year buildout of additional lane miles through development • The 2017 City's Arterial Cost per Lane Mile ($1.4M), along with baseline data and projections from the North Front Range MPO Page 24 of 125 The City again contracted with TischlerBise for the current study update. The 2023 TCEF study uses a combination of incremental expansion for roadways and plan-based methodologies to provide improvements for Active Modes. The methodology also utilized data from more updated sources: • 2023 Transportation Capital Projects Prioritization Study • 2022 Active Modes Plan • 2022 Fort Collins Travel Diary Report • The current anticipated 10-year buildout of additional lane miles through development • The current City's Arterial Cost per Lane Mile ($2.0M), along with baseline data and projections from the North Front Range MPO For residential development, updated amounts are based on square feet of finished living space. Garages, porches and patios are excluded from the TCEF assessment. For nonresidential development, TCEFs are stated per thousand square feet of floor area, using three categories. The TCEF schedule for nonresidential development is designed to provide a reasonable fee amount for general types of development. There has been further emphasis on active modes and to provide further clarity the maximum supportable fee schedule is broken down by roadway capacity and active modes. Summary fees are highlighted below and the TCEF Draft Report with full detail is included as attachment 2. CEF Study Update: The City has five separate Capital Expansion Fees (CEFs), related to neighborhood and community parks, and fire, police and general government services. These capital expansion fees are assessed by the city on new development to recoup the proportionate share of the costs of bringing on new capital equipment and facilities to provide a similar level of service as existing developments receive. Repair and maintenance costs are not included in these fees. These fees were initially adopted in 1996 based on an internal study by City staff. External study updates were completed in 2013 and 2017 by Duncan Associates. The studies relied on the standards-based (or incremental expansion) methodology, which bases the fees on the existing Page 25 of 125 levels of service. The new fees were adopted in 2017 and implemented over a three-year time period. In the spring of 2023, the City solicited bids and contracted with Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) to update the Capital Expansion Fee Study. The EPS Study Update adheres to the existing standard-based approach to fee calculation, continuing to use construction cost replacement valuations. Key data input updates include: • Updated 2023 asset inventories for City of Fort Collins and Poudre Fire Authority, • Neighborhood and Community Park development costs and current land valuation estimates, • Current market cost of construction estimates and Larimer County valuations, • Updated residential household size and non-residential occupancy factors, • Alignment of existing conditions with the concurrent TCEF Study Update. Highlighted below are the updated draft fee calculations for residential and non-residential properties compared to the current fee rates. More detailed information is included in the CEF Summary Draft in Attachment 3. Almost all fee categories have increased from current 2023 fee levels. The biggest overall impact contributing to higher rates is the significantly higher asset valuations for police and fire services (and to a lesser extent, general governmental) outpacing the service population growth rates. These inflationary impacts have been realized locally in the higher cost of the City’s purchases of goods and services, especially in the post-COVID environment. The study update had differing results for the neighborhood and community parks. The most recent neighborhood park builds (Bucking Horse, Cresent, Traverse) were all significantly more expensive to buildout on $/acre basis than prior facilities, leading to much higher fee calculations than for the community parks. A new maintenance facility also contributed to higher overall costs. Overall, the residential fee amounts increase by 1% to 28% (approximately $100 - $3,000) based on size of property. This variable difference is attributed primarily to the relative changes in occupancy factors based on updated U.S. Census Bureau housing survey data. On the non- residential developments, increases to commercial and industrial types are driven by the underlying employees per square foot calculations based on Institute of Transportation Engineers Residential Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Update Total Current Total Change % Change up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,813 $2,140 $604 $382 $745 $6,684 $6,593 $91 1% 701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $4,260 $3,241 $914 $578 $1,129 $10,122 $8,844 $1,278 14% 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling $4,783 $3,638 $1,026 $649 $1,267 $11,363 $9,652 $1,711 18% 1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $5,145 $3,913 $1,104 $698 $1,363 $12,223 $9,764 $2,459 25% over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $5,848 $4,448 $1,254 $794 $1,549 $13,894 $10,880 $3,014 28% Development Type Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Update Total Current Total Change % Change Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.$1,281 $811 $1,582 $3,674 $2,791 $883 32% Office and Other Services 1,000 sq. ft.$701 $444 $866 $2,010 $2,791 ($781) -28% Industrial 1,000 sq. ft.$332 $210 $410 $953 $656 $297 45% Page 26 of 125 (ITE) trip generation rates. The Office and Other Services type has been broken out from Commercial and is aligned with TCEF categories based on differing demand impacts. Summary: In March of 2022, staff provided the City Council with an analysis of the total costs of development activity as part of the total cost of building new housing stock. The table below updates the total fees component of that analysis, with current 2023 fees and the proposed 2024 study updates included for an 1,890 square foot residential property. The total overall increase would be approximately $3,600 or 6.3%. As noted in the utility section above, no increase in the water supply requirement is included. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: PowerPoint Presentation Attachment 2: TCEF Draft Report Attachment 3: CEF Draft Summary Attachment 4: CEF Revision Reconciliation Fee Type 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Capital Expansion Fees 6,038$ 7,630$ 8,591$ 8,824$ 8,992$ 9,764$ 12,223$ Transportation Capital Expansion Fees 5,150$ 6,543$ 6,586$ 6,623$ 7,115$ 7,621$ 8,106$ Development Review, Permits, Infrastructure Fees 2,532$ 2,532$ 2,532$ 3,314$ 2,792$ 2,792$ 2,792$ Utility Fees 21,907$ 22,321$ 25,517$ 26,353$ 35,992$ 37,142$ 37,838$ Combined Fees 35,627$ 39,026$ 43,226$ 45,114$ 54,891$ 57,319$ 60,958$ Percentage Change Baseline 9.5% 10.8% 4.4% 21.7% 4.4% 6.3% City Charged Fees: Impact on One or Two-Family Residence - 1890 sq. ft Page 27 of 125 Headline Copy Goes Here Engineering Marc Virata David Lenz October 5, 2023 Impact Fee Study Updates: Utility Development Fees & Capital Expansion Fee Studies Financial Planning & Analysis Randy Reuscher Lead Rate Analyst - Utilities Page 28 of 125 Headline Copy Goes Here 2 Agenda •Fee Framework •Fee Updates: •Utility Development Fees •Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF): TischlerBise •Capital Expansion Fee (CEF): Economic & Planning Systems, Inc •Summary Findings •Questions Page 29 of 125 Headline Copy Goes Here 3 Questions for Council Finance Committee •What questions does the committee have related to the study updates or draft fee schedules? •Does the committee prefer: •Option A) Bringing the fee updates forward to City Council for adoption for a 1/1/2024 implementation? or •Option B) Deferring the fee updates until mid-2024, upon such time that:⎻Clarity is reached on policy timing of Water Supply Requirement, and/or⎻The Committee or full City Council desire more agenda time on any or all impact fees? Page 30 of 125 Headline Copy Goes Here 4 Fee Framework •In April 2022, Council Finance Committee endorsed the schedule below, with the fees being updated for inflation in 2022 and study updates to be completed in 2023. •Implementation of the capital expansion fee updates from the 2017 studies were phased in over a two-year period for TCEF and 3-year period for CEF. •Staff have committed to bringing forward fee updates on a coordinated two- and four-year schedule to allow for more holistic view of the impact of fee increases •Fee study analysis are targeted in the odd year before Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO). •Building Permits and Development Review Fee coordination are part of the overall process. Both underwent a comprehensive review in 2019 and 2020, with new fee schedules established effective in January 2022. 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Capital Expansion Fees (CEF)Update Step II Step III Inflation Inflation Inflation Update Inflation Inflation Inflation Update Transportation Expansion Fee (TCEF)Update Step II Inflation Inflation Inflation Update Inflation Inflation Inflation Update Electric Capacity Fee Update Update Inflation Update Inflation Update Inflation Update Inflation Update Water Supply Requirement Update Update Inflation Update Inflation Update Inflation Update Inflation Update Water, Wastewater, Stormwater PIFs Update Update Inflation Update Inflation Update Inflation Update Inflation Update Page 31 of 125 Headline Copy Goes Here 6 Utility Fees Overview Page 32 of 125 Headline Copy Goes Here 7 Utility Fees – Proposed Changes Utility Fee 2024 Proposed Increase Electric Capacity Fee (ECF)14.8% Water Plant Investment Fee (PIF)5.7% Wastewater Plant Investment Fee (PIF)4.1% Stormwater Plant Investment Fee (PIF)7.0% Page 33 of 125 Headline Copy Goes Here 8 Utility Fees – Residential Example Page 34 of 125 Headline Copy Goes Here Previous UpdatesUse of FeesPremise of Fees TCEF: Overview 11 •One-time fee from development and redevelopment •Used to support growth share related infrastructure improvements •Cannot be used for maintenance “Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study” (2017), TischlerBise •2012 Transportation CIP •2014 Bicycle Master Plan •2010/2016 Arterial Intersection Prioritization Study •10 year build out through development •2016 Arterial Cost/Lane Mile ($1.4M) •Reimbursement to developers •Northfield reimbursement •Contribution to Capital Projects •Roadway projects (TCPPS) •Active Modes (Active Modes Plan) Page 35 of 125 Headline Copy Goes Here 12 TCEF: 2023 Study Update – TischlerBise TCEF 2023 Study Update Methodology •Roadway Capacity: Incremental Expansion Methodology (same as previous TCEF study) •Active Modes Component: Plan Based Methodology Data inputs •North Front Range MPO and census data to update demand from development •Growth Share of Plans •2023 Transportation Capital Projects Prioritization Study (TCPPS) •2022 Active Modes Plan •10-year buildout of additional lane miles through development •Arterial Cost per Lane Mile ($2.0M) •Travel Diary Study Report Page 36 of 125 Headline Copy Goes Here 13 TCEF: 2023 Study Update – TischlerBise •Roadway Capacity: Incremental Expansion Methodology •Projected 10 year needs of transportation infrastructure (in terms of lane miles) •TCPPS projects that are growth related •Development construction of additional lane miles •Evaluates the growth share of infrastructure that's attributable to development impact •Impact is based on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) •Vehicle trip length from Travel Diary Survey (4.9 miles) •Roadway Capacity Analysis •13% increase in VMT •61.9 new lane mile needs over 10 years to maintain current LOS •7% (4.3 lane miles) of trips on roadway network is external-external trips •$8.6M out $124M of our roadway capacity needs not attributable to growth/TCEF •57.6 miles attributed to growth Page 37 of 125 Headline Copy Goes Here 14 TCEF: 2023 Study Update – TischlerBise •Active Modes Component: Plan Based Methodology •10-year growth related cost compared to 10-year growth projection •High and Medium priority Active Modes Projects ($87M) •Active Modes Plan Analysis •From $87M of High & Medium priority Active Modes Plan projects 13% ($11M) attributed to 10-year growth •Based on demand from residential and nonresidential development and allocated based on the percent of commuters who walk or bike to work (22% active modes Travel Study Log) •Active Modes Plan share increase from 2017 (4%) to 2023 (9%) Page 38 of 125 Headline Copy Goes Here 15 TCEF: Study Updated Draft Fees •Generally, in range when compared to an inflation adjustment approach •(7.45% based on August 2022-August 2023 Engineering News-Record Denver City Cost Index) •Estimate $115M over the next 10 years to keep with anticipated growth needs and level of service Residential Unit Roadway Fee % of Total Active Modes % of Total Update Total Current Total Change % Change up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,863 91% $272 9% $3,135 $2,703 $432 16% 701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $4,988 91% $487 9% $5,475 $5,020 $455 9% 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling $6,363 91% $625 9% $6,988 $6,518 $470 7% 1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $7,380 91% $726 9% $8,106 $7,621 $485 6% over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $8,191 91% $809 9% $9,000 $8,169 $831 10% Development Type Unit Roadway Fee % of Total Active Modes % of Total Update Total Current Total Change % Change Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.$11,045 95% $585 5% $11,630 $9,946 $1,684 17% Office & Other Services 1,000 sq. ft.$6,450 88% $896 12% $7,346 $7,327 $19 0% Industrial 1,000 sq. ft.$2,897 79% $786 21% $3,683 $2,365 $1,318 56% Page 39 of 125 Headline Copy Goes Here Previous UpdatesUse of FeesPremise of Fees CEF: Overview 18 •New developments pay a proportionate share of costs to “buy-in” to the current level of services the City provides. •Paid upon application of a building permit and assessed by land use type. •The concept of growth paying for the impact of growth is a policy decision that past City Councils have made. •Duncan and Associates (2013 and 2017) •Adhered to the incremental expansion methodology •Updated asset values based on the cost of construction per sq. ft. •Additional capital added to General Government Fees •For approved capital expenditures identified in capital improvement plans. •Includes planning, design, surveying, permitting and engineering costs; the cost of purchasing or leasing real property and construction costs. •Does not include repair or maintenance costs. Page 40 of 125 Headline Copy Goes Here 19 CEF: 2023 Study Update – Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. •Standards Based or “Incremental Expansion” Approach •Maintains the current level of service or investment per unit of development •Replacement/Construction cost valuations •Offsets for debt funding •Adjustments by land use type and occupancy factors •Key Data inputs •Updated 2023 asset inventories for City of Fort Collins and Poudre Fire Authority •Neighborhood and Community Park development costs and current land valuation estimates •Current market cost of construction estimates and Larimer County valuations •Updated residential household size and non-residential occupancy factors •Alignment of existing conditions with concurrent TCEF Study Update Page 41 of 125 Headline Copy Goes Here 20 CEF: 2023 Study Update – Economic & Planning Systems, Inc •Overall •Residential Occupancy Factor decreases •Non-Residential Employee per sq. ft. adjustments •Additional Non-Residential category justified by different demand impact – Office and Other Services (consistency with TCEF) •Higher functional population •Parks •Higher land valuations •Inclusion of East District Maintenance Facility •Neighborhood Parks – higher development costs reflective of newest park buildouts •Police and Fire •Significant Asset Value increases – Additional Equipment and Facilities and Higher unit replacement costs •General Government •Increased Asset Values but lower increases relative to Police and Fire Page 42 of 125 Headline Copy Goes Here 21 CEF: Study Updated Draft Fees Residential Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Ge n. Gov't Update Total Current Total Change % Change up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,813 $2,140 $604 $382 $745 $6,684 $6,593 $91 1% 701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $4,260 $3,241 $914 $578 $1,129 $10,122 $8,844 $1,278 14% 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling $4,783 $3,638 $1,026 $649 $1,267 $11,363 $9,652 $1,711 18% 1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $5,145 $3,913 $1,104 $698 $1,363 $12,223 $9,764 $2,459 25% over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $5,848 $4,448 $1,254 $794 $1,549 $13,894 $10,880 $3,014 28% Development Type Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Ge n. Gov't Update Total Current Total Change % Change Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.$1,281 $811 $1,582 $3,674 $2,791 $883 32% Office and Other Services 1,000 sq. ft.$701 $444 $866 $2,010 $2,791 ($781) -28% Industrial 1,000 sq. ft.$332 $210 $410 $953 $656 $297 45% Page 43 of 125 Headline Copy Goes Here 22 CEF: Study Detailed Updated Draft Fees CEF - Current Fees Residential Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Current Total up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,108 $2,977 $516 $289 $703 $6,593 701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,822 $3,985 $698 $391 $948 $8,844 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling $3,082 $4,351 $759 $425 $1,035 $9,652 1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $3,114 $4,396 $772 $431 $1,051 $9,764 over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $3,470 $4,901 $859 $480 $1,170 $10,880 Development Type Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Current Total Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.$650 $364 $1,777 $2,791 Office and Other Services 1,000 sq. ft.$650 $364 $1,777 $2,791 Industrial 1,000 sq. ft.$152 $85 $419 $656 CEF - Update Residential Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Update Total up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,813 $2,140 $604 $382 $745 $6,684 701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $4,260 $3,241 $914 $578 $1,129 $10,122 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling $4,783 $3,638 $1,026 $649 $1,267 $11,363 1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $5,145 $3,913 $1,104 $698 $1,363 $12,223 over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $5,848 $4,448 $1,254 $794 $1,549 $13,894 Development Type Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Update Total Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.$1,281 $811 $1,582 $3,674 Office and Other Services 1,000 sq. ft.$701 $444 $866 $2,010 Industrial 1,000 sq. ft.$332 $210 $410 $953 CEF - Change $ Residential Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Change Total up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling $705 ($837)$88 $93 $42 $91 701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $1,438 ($744)$216 $187 $181 $1,278 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling $1,701 ($713)$267 $224 $232 $1,711 1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,031 ($483)$332 $267 $312 $2,459 over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,378 ($453)$395 $314 $379 $3,014 Development Type Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Change Total Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.$631 $447 ($195)$883 Office and Other Services 1,000 sq. ft.$51 $80 ($911) ($781) Industrial 1,000 sq. ft.$180 $125 ($9)$297 CEF - Change % Residential Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Change % up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling 33%-28%17% 32% 6% 1% 701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling 51%-19%31% 48% 19% 14% 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling 55%-16%35% 53% 22% 18% 1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling 65%-11%43% 62% 30% 25% over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling 69%-9%46% 65% 32% 28% Development Type Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Change % Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.97% 123%-11%32% Office and Other Services 1,000 sq. ft.8% 22%-51% -28% Industrial 1,000 sq. ft.119% 147%-2%45% Page 44 of 125 Headline Copy Goes Here 23 CEF and TCEF: Combined Updated Draft Fees Residential Unit CEF Total TCEF Total Update Total Current Total Change Change % up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling $6,684 $3,135 $9,819 $9,296 $523 6% 701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $10,122 $5,475 $15,597 $13,864 $1,733 12% 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling $11,363 $6,988 $18,351 $16,170 $2,181 13% 1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $12,223 $8,106 $20,329 $17,385 $2,944 17% over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $13,894 $9,000 $22,894 $19,049 $3,845 20% Development Type Unit CEF Total TCEF Total Update Total Current Total Change Change % Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $3,674 $11,630 $15,304 $12,737 $2,567 20% Office and Other Services 1,000 sq. ft. $2,010 $7,346 $9,356 $10,118 ($762) -8% Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. $953 $3,683 $4,636 $3,021 $1,615 53% Page 45 of 125 Headline Copy Goes Here 24 Fees Summary •Building on the examples shared with City Council from Spring 2022 to highlight total fee impacts for development activity: •Update below includes current 2023 fee levels. •Building Permit and Development Review fees were adjusted with the new fee structure adopted in January 2022. •2024 includes TCEF and CEF study updates and proposed utility updates. Does not include changes to water supply requirements. Fee Type 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Capital Expansion Fees 6,038$ 7,630$ 8,591$ 8,824$ 8,992$ 9,764$ 12,223$ Transportation Capital Expansion Fees 5,150$ 6,543$ 6,586$ 6,623$ 7,115$ 7,621$ 8,106$ Development Review, Permits, Infrastructure Fees 2,532$ 2,532$ 2,532$ 3,314$ 2,792$ 2,792$ 2,792$ Utility Fees 21,907$ 22,321$ 25,517$ 26,353$ 35,992$ 37,142$ 37,838$ Combined Fees 35,627$ 39,026$ 43,226$ 45,114$ 54,891$ 57,319$ 60,958$ Percentage Change Baseline 9.5% 10.8% 4.4% 21.7% 4.4% 6.3% City Charged Fees: Impact on One or Two-Family Residence - 1890 sq. ft Page 46 of 125 Headline Copy Goes Here 25 Questions for Council Finance Committee •What questions does the committee have related to the study updates or draft fee schedules? •Does the committee prefer: •Option A) Bringing the fee updates forward to City Council for adoption for a 1/1/2024 implementation? or •Option B) Deferring the fee updates until mid-2024, upon such time that:⎻Clarity is reached on policy timing of Water Supply Requirement, and/or⎻The Committee or full City Council desire more agenda time on any or all impact fees? Page 47 of 125 Headline Copy Goes Here 27 Capital Expansion Fee Revenues Neighborhood Park Community Park Fire Police General Government Transportation Total 2018 2,246,386$ 2,334,469$ 611,475$ 301,224$ 830,551$ 3,408,383$ 9,732,488$ 2019 1,689,236$ 2,184,132$ 455,819$ 254,242$ 684,940$ 4,222,239$ 9,490,608$ 2020 1,676,231$ 2,366,471$ 479,513$ 268,246$ 742,648$ 3,900,225$ 9,433,334$ 2021 2,054,596$ 2,901,241$ 626,675$ 349,923$ 1,024,608$ 4,130,376$ 11,087,419$ 2022 1,838,872$ 2,596,272$ 621,370$ 347,546$ 1,084,708$ 4,530,263$ 11,019,031$ Total 9,505,321$ 12,382,585$ 2,794,852$ 1,521,181$ 4,367,455$ 20,191,486$ 50,762,880$ 2018 - 2022 Annual Avg.1,901,064$ 2,476,517$ 558,970$ 304,236$ 873,491$ 4,038,297$ 10,152,576$ Page 48 of 125 Page 49 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study Submitted to: City of Fort Collins, Colorado September 20, 2023 Prepared by: 4701 Sangamore Road Suite S240 Bethesda, Maryland 20816 800.424.4318 www.tischlerbise.com Page 50 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado [Page Intentionally left blank] Page 51 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado i Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Transportation Capital Expansion Fees by Type of Land Use ................................................................... 2 General Impact Fee Requirements ............................................................................................................... 4 Colorado Impact Fee Enabling Legislation ................................................................................................ 4 Additional Legal Guidelines ....................................................................................................................... 4 Impact Fee Methodologies ....................................................................................................................... 6 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee – Roadway Capacity Component ..................................................... 8 Existing Levels of Service for Transportation ............................................................................................ 8 Development Prototypes and Projected Vehicle Miles of Travel ........................................................... 10 Capital Cost per Vehicle Miles of Travel ................................................................................................. 12 Revenue Credit Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 12 Input Variables for TCEF – Roadway Capacity Component .................................................................... 13 Revenue Projection from Maximum Supportable Fee Amounts ............................................................ 14 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee – Active Modes Component .......................................................... 15 Active Modes Capital Plan ...................................................................................................................... 15 Active Modes Capital Plan Cost Analysis ................................................................................................ 15 Revenue Credit Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 16 Input Variables for TCEF – Active Modes Component ............................................................................ 17 Revenue Projection from Maximum Supportable Fee Amounts ............................................................ 18 Implementation and Administration .......................................................................................................... 19 Credits and Reimbursements .................................................................................................................. 19 Citywide Service Area.............................................................................................................................. 19 Expenditure Guidelines ........................................................................................................................... 19 Development Categories......................................................................................................................... 20 Appendix A – Land Use Assumptions .......................................................................................................... 21 Base Year Population and Housing Units ................................................................................................ 21 Population and Housing Unit Projections ............................................................................................... 23 Current Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area ............................................................................. 24 Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Projections ....................................................................... 26 Vehicle Trip Generation .......................................................................................................................... 27 Residential Trip Generation by Housing Unit Size (sq. ft.) ...................................................................... 30 Appendix B – Active Modes Project Lists .................................................................................................... 33 Page 52 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 1 [Page Intentionally left blank] Page 53 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Fort Collins currently collects Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) based on a 2017 study completed by TischlerBise. The City has retained TischlerBise to update its TCEF program. The 2023 TCEF study uses a combination of incremental expansion and plan-based methodologies to provide improvements for all modes of travel. Figure 1 provides an overview of the methodology and cost components used in the Fort Collins study. Figure 1. TCEF Methods and Cost Components Transportation Capital Expansion Fees by Type of Land Use As documented in this report, the City of Fort Collins has complied with applicable legal precedents and Colorado’s Impact Fee enabling legislation (discussed below). The TCEF schedule is proportionate and reasonably related to the cost of capital improvements needed to accommodate new development. Specific costs have been identified using local data and current dollars. With input from City staff, TischlerBise determined demand indicators for transportation capacity and calculated proportionate share factors to allocate costs by type of development. The TCEF methodology also identifies the extent to which new development is entitled to various types of credits to avoid potential double payment of growth-related capital costs. Figure 2 shows the maximum supportable TCEF schedules. For residential development, updated amounts are based on square feet of finished living space. Garages, porches and patios are excluded from the TCEF assessment. Fees by dwelling size rather than type simplifies administration, improves proportionality, and is consistent with the way other Capital Expansion Fees are collected in Fort Collins. For nonresidential development, TCEFs are stated per thousand square feet of floor area, using three broad categories. The TCEF schedule for nonresidential development is designed to provide a reasonable fee amount for general types of development. For unique developments, the City may allow or require an independent assessment. Active modes improvements and expansions were included in the 2017 analysis. There has been further emphasis on active modes and to provide further clarity the maximum supportable fee schedule is broken down by roadway capacity and active modes. Types of Improvement Cost Allocation Service Area Cost Recovery Incremental Expansion Plan-Based Capacity Roadway Expansion Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)Citywide -Roadway Capacity - Active Modes Person and Jobs Citywide -- Bike Lanes, Ped/Bike Intersections, Signals Page 54 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 3 Figure 2. Maximum Supportable TCEF up to 700 11.79 $2,863 0.99 $272 $3,135 $2,703 $432 16% 701 to 1,200 20.54 $4,988 1.77 $487 $5,475 $5,020 $455 9% 1,201 to 1,700 26.20 $6,363 2.27 $625 $6,988 $6,518 $470 7% 1,701 to 2,200 30.39 $7,380 2.64 $726 $8,106 $7,621 $485 6% over 2,200 33.73 $8,191 2.94 $809 $9,000 $8,169 $831 10% Commercial 45.48 $11,045 2.12 $585 $11,630 $9,946 $1,684 17% Office & Other Services 26.56 $6,450 3.26 $896 $7,346 $7,327 $19 0% Industrial 11.93 $2,897 2.86 $786 $3,683 $2,365 $1,318 56% Increase/ Decrease Persons per Unit Jobs per KSF Active Modes Fee Residential (per dwelling unit) Nonresidential (per 1,000 square feet) Maximum Supportable Fee VMT per KSF Roadway Capacity Fee Roadway Capacity Fee Current Fees VMT per Unit Percent Change Maximum Supportable Fee Square Feet of Finished Living Space Percent Change Development Type Active Modes Fee Current Fees Increase/ Decrease Page 55 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 4 GENERAL IMPACT FEE REQUIREMENTS Colorado Impact Fee Enabling Legislation For local governments, the first step in evaluating funding options for transportation improvements is to determine basic options and requirements established by state law. Some states have more conservative legal parameters that basically restrict local government to specifically authorized actions. In contrast, “home-rule” states grant local governments broader powers that may or may not be precluded or preempted by state statutes depending on the circumstances and on the state’s particular laws. Home rule municipalities in Colorado, like Fort Collins, have the authority to impose impact fees based on both their home rule power granted in the Colorado Constitution and the impact fee enabling legislation enacted in 2001 by the Colorado General Assembly. Impact fees (also known as capital expansion fees) are one-time payments imposed on new development that must be used solely to fund growth-related capital projects, typically called “system improvements”. An impact fee represents new growth’s proportionate share of capital facility needs. In contrast to project-level improvements, impact fees fund infrastructure that will benefit multiple development projects, or even the entire service area, as long as there is a reasonable relationship between the new development and the need for the growth-related infrastructure. Project-level improvements, typically specified in a development agreement, are usually limited to transportation improvements near a proposed development, such as ingress/egress lanes. According to Colorado Revised Statute Section 29-20-104.5, impact fees must be legislatively adopted at a level no greater than necessary to defray impacts generally applicable to a broad class of property. The purpose of impact fees is to defray capital costs directly related to proposed development. The statutes of other states allow impact fee schedules to include administrative costs related to impact fees and the preparation of capital improvement plans, but this is not specifically authorized in Colorado’s statute. Impact fees do have limitations, and should not be regarded as the total solution for infrastructure funding. Rather, they are one component of a comprehensive portfolio to ensure adequate provision of public facilities. Because system improvements are larger and more costly, they may require bond financing and/or funding from other revenue sources. To be funded by impact fees, Section 29-20-104.5 requires that the capital improvements must have a useful life of at least five years. By law, impact fees can only be used for capital improvements, not operating or maintenance costs. Also, development impact fees cannot be used to repair or correct existing deficiencies in existing infrastructure. Additional Legal Guidelines Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against regulatory takings. Land use regulations, development exactions, and impact fees are subject to the Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public use without just compensation. To comply with the Fifth Amendment, development regulations must be shown to substantially advance a legitimate governmental interest. In the case of impact fees, that interest is the protection of public Page 56 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 5 health, safety, and welfare by ensuring development is not detrimental to the quality of essential public services. The means to this end are also important, requiring both procedural and substantive due process. The process followed to receive community input (i.e. stakeholder meetings, work sessions, and public hearings) provides opportunities for comments and refinements to the impact fees. There is little federal case law specifically dealing with impact fees, although other rulings on other types of exactions (e.g., land dedication requirements) are relevant. In one of the most important exaction cases, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a government agency imposing exactions on development must demonstrate an “essential nexus” between the exaction and the interest being protected (see Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987). In a more recent case (Dolan v. City of Tigard, OR, 1994), the Court ruled that an exaction also must be “roughly proportional” to the burden created by development. There are three reasonable relationship requirements for development impact fees that are closely related to “rational nexus” or “reasonable relationship” requirements enunciated by a number of state courts. Although the term “dual rational nexus” is often used to characterize the standard by which courts evaluate the validity of development impact fees under the U.S. Constitution, TischlerBise prefers a more rigorous formulation that recognizes three elements: “need,” “benefit,” and “proportionality.” The dual rational nexus test explicitly addresses only the first two, although proportionality is reasonably implied, and was specifically mentioned by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case. Individual elements of the nexus standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs. All new development in a community creates additional demands on some, or all, public facilities provided by local government. If the capacity of facilities is not increased to satisfy that additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate. Development impact fees may be used to cover the cost of development-related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is a consequence of development that is subject to the fees. The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate conditions created by the developments upon which they are imposed. That principle likely applies to impact fees. In this study, the impact of development on infrastructure needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships between various types of development and the demand for specific facilities, based on applicable level-of-service standards. The requirement that exactions be proportional to the impacts of development was clearly stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case and is logically necessary to establish a proper nexus. Proportionality is established through the procedures used to identify development-related facility costs, and in the methods used to calculate impact fees for various types of facilities and categories of development. The demand for facilities is measured in terms of relevant and measurable attributes of development (e.g., a typical housing unit’s average weekday vehicle trips). A sufficient benefit relationship requires that impact fee revenues be segregated from other funds and expended only on the facilities for which the fees were charged. The calculation of impact fees should also assume that they will be expended in a timely manner and the facilities funded by the fees must serve the development paying the fees. However, nothing in the U.S. Constitution or the state enabling Page 57 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 6 legislation requires that facilities funded with fee revenues be available exclusively to development paying the fees. In other words, benefit may extend to a general area including multiple real estate developments. Procedures for the earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are discussed near the end of this study. All of these procedural as well as substantive issues are intended to ensure that new development benefits from the impact fees they are required to pay. The authority and procedures to implement impact fees is separate from and complementary to the authority to require improvements as part of subdivision or zoning review. Impact fees must increase the carrying capacity of the transportation system. Capacity projects include, but are not limited to the addition of travel lanes, intersection improvements (i.e., turning lanes, signalization or roundabouts) and widening roads (e.g., adding travel lanes, paved shoulders, and bike lanes). Whenever improvements are made to existing roads, non-impact fee funding is typically required to help pay a portion of the cost. Impact Fee Methodologies In contrast to project-level improvements, impact fees fund growth-related infrastructure that will benefit multiple development projects, or the entire jurisdiction (referred to as system improvements). There are three general methods for calculating one-time charges for public facilities needed to accommodate new development. The choice of a particular method depends primarily on the timing of infrastructure construction (past, concurrent, or future) and service characteristics of the facility type being addressed. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation, and can be used simultaneously for different cost components. Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating infrastructure costs for new development involves two main steps: (1) determining the cost of development-related capital improvements and (2) allocating those costs equitably to various types of development. In practice, TCEF calculations can become quite complicated because of many variables involved in defining the relationship between development and the need for facilities within the designated service area. The following sections discuss three basic methods. COST RECOVERY (PAST IMPROVEMENTS) The rationale for recoupment, often called cost recovery, is that new development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of facilities already built, or land already purchased, from which new growth will benefit. This methodology is often used for utility systems that must provide adequate capacity before new development can take place. INCREMENTAL EXPANSION (CONCURRENT IMPROVEMENTS) The incremental expansion method documents current level-of-service (LOS) standards for each type of public facility, using both quantitative and qualitative measures. New development is only paying its proportionate share for growth-related infrastructure needed to maintain current standards. Revenue will be used to expand or provide additional facilities, as needed to keep pace with new development. Page 58 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 7 PLAN-BASED (FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS) The plan-based method allocates costs for a specified set of improvements to a specified amount of development. Improvements are typically identified in a capital improvements plan and development potential is identified by land use assumptions. There are two options for determining the cost per service unit: 1) total cost of a public facility can be divided by total service units (average cost), or 2) the growth-share of the capital facility cost can be divided by the net increase in service units over the planning timeframe (marginal cost). CREDITS Regardless of the methodology, a consideration of “credits” is integral to a legally defensible impact fee study. There are two types of “credits” with specific characteristics, both of which should be addressed in studies and ordinances. • First, a revenue credit might be necessary if there is a double payment situation and other revenues are contributing to the capital costs of infrastructure to be funded by TCEF revenue. This type of credit is integrated into the TCEF calculation, thus reducing the gross amount. In contrast to some studies that only provide general costs, with credits at the back-end of the analysis, Fort Collins’s 2023 transportation TCEF update uses growth shares to provide an up- front reduction in total costs. Also, the 2023 update provides TCEF revenue projections to verify that new development will fully fund the growth cost of future infrastructure (i.e., only TCEF revenue will pay for growth costs). • Second, a site-specific credit or developer reimbursement might be necessary for dedication of land or construction of system improvements to be funded by TCEF revenue. This type of credit is addressed in the administration and implementation of the TCEF program. Page 59 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 8 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL EXPANSION FEE – ROADWAY CAPACITY COMPONENT The City of Fort Collins Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEF) are calculated using an incremental approach for roadway capacity improvements. Transportation improvements that provide additional vehicular capacity, account for approximately 91 percent of the growth-related cost in the analysis while active modes represent 9. The roadway capacity component of the TCEF is derived from custom trip generation rates (see Appendix A), trip rate adjustment factors, and the capital cost per vehicle miles of travel (VMT). The latter is a function of average trip length, trip-length weighting factor by type of development, and the growth cost of transportation improvements. Existing Levels of Service for Transportation There are currently 497 lane miles of arterial streets in the City of Fort Collins. The steps to calculate a current level of service for the City’s arterial street network involve calibrating existing development to the system network. To do so, development units by type are multiplied by adjusted vehicle trip ends per development unit. The factors used to calculate the current level of service expressed in vehicle miles of travel (VMT) are discussed below, and shown in Figure 5 after the discussion. VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL VMT is a measurement unit equal to one vehicle traveling one mile1. In the aggregate, VMT is the product of vehicle trips multiplied by the average trip length. For the 2023 TCEF update, the average trip length is calibrated to lane miles of existing City arterials within Fort Collins. TRIP GENERATION RATES The 2023 TCEF update is based on average weekday vehicle trip ends (AWVTE). For residential development, trip rates are customized using demographic data for Fort Collins, as documented in Appendix A. For nonresidential development, trip generation rates are from the reference book Trip Generation published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 11th Edition, 2021). A vehicle trip end represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway). To calculate transportation fees, trip generation rates require an adjustment factor to avoid double counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. Therefore, the basic trip adjustment factor is 50 percent for industrial, institutional, and office development. As discussed further below, the TCEF methodology includes additional adjustments to make the fees proportionate to the infrastructure demand for particular types of development. 1 Typical VMT calculations for development-specific traffic studies, along with most transportation models of an entire urban area, are derived from traffic counts on particular road segments multiplied by the length of that road segment. For the purpose of the TCEF study, VMT calculations are based on attraction (inbound) trips to development located in the service area, with trip length limited to the road network considered to be system improvements (arterials and collectors). This refinement eliminates pass-through or external- external trips, and travel on roads that are not system improvements (e.g., state highways). Page 60 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 9 ADJUSTMENT FOR PASS-BY TRIPS For retail development, the trip adjustment factor is less than 50 percent because such development attract vehicles as they pass by on arterial roads. For example, when someone stops at a convenience store on the way home from work, the convenience store is not the primary destination. For the average shopping center, ITE indicates that 25 percent of the vehicles that enter are passing by on their way to some other primary destination. The remaining 75 percent of attraction trips have the commercial site as their primary destination. Because attraction trips are half of all trips, the trip adjustment factor is 75 percent multiplied by 50 percent, or approximately 38 percent of the trip ends. TRIP LENGTH WEIGHTING FACTOR BY TYPE OF LAND USE The transportation fee methodology includes a percentage adjustment, or weighting factor, to account for trip length variation by type of land use. TischlerBise derived the weighting factors using household survey results provided by North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NRFMPO, 2010). As shown in Figure 3, trips associated with residential development are approximately 110 percent of the average trip length. Conversely, trips associated with commercial development (i.e., retail and restaurants) are approximately 66 percent of the average trip length while other nonresidential development typically accounts for trips that are 100 percent of the average for all trips. Figure 3. Average Trip Length by Trip Purpose in North Front Range Type of Development Trip Purpose Trips Average Miles Per Trip Weighting Factor 1-Residential All other at home activities 4,920 5.30 3.469 1-Residential Dropped off passenger 566 4.36 0.328 1-Residential Picked up passenger 557 3.47 0.257 1-Residential Indoor recreation/entertainment 516 4.80 0.330 1-Residential Change transportation mode 354 9.37 0.441 1-Residential Outdoor recreation/entertainment 254 6.60 0.223 1-Residential Service private vehicle 160 5.44 0.116 1-Residential Working at home 127 4.06 0.069 1-Residential Loop Trip and Other travel related 55 2.71 0.020 1-Residential School at home 7 2.03 0.002 1-Residential Total 7,516 5.255 1.10 2-Retail/Restaurant Routine shopping 1,236 2.76 1.571 2-Retail/Restaurant Eat meal outside home 577 3.10 0.824 2-Retail/Restaurant Other 180 5.37 0.445 2-Retail/Restaurant Major purchase / specialty item 91 6.15 0.258 2-Retail/Restaurant Drive through 88 1.80 0.073 2-Retail/Restaurant Total 2,172 3.170 0.66 3-Other Nonresidential Attend a class 790 2.59 0.756 3-Other Nonresidential Work/business related 618 8.48 1.937 3-Other Nonresidential Errands (bank, dry cleaning, etc.)475 2.34 0.411 3-Other Nonresidential Personal business (attorney, accountant)241 5.50 0.490 3-Other Nonresidential Health care 224 6.39 0.529 3-Other Nonresidential Civic/religious 196 5.13 0.372 3-Other Nonresidential Other activities at school 92 3.72 0.126 3-Other Nonresidential All other activities at work 70 5.82 0.151 3-Other Nonresidential Total 2,706 4.771 1.00 TOTAL 12,394 4.784 Data Source: Table R-27, NFRMPO Household Survey, 2010. Analysis excludes "Visit friends/relatives" because the average distance of 22.43 miles traveled is an outlier, approximately four times the overall average. "Work/job" travel was also excluded because trip origns and destinations can not be allocated between residential and type of nonresidential development. Page 61 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 10 LANE CAPACITY The TCEF roadway capacity component is based on established daily per lane capacities for arterial roads. According to City staff, arterial roads were established to have a daily per lane capacity of 7,700, assuming 12 feet travel lanes, with no additional shoulder width, in an urban area. AVERAGE VEHICLE TRIP LENGTH The City of Fort Collins recently completed a travel diary study which surveyed residents on their daily travel including modes, distance, and purpose. Based on the results of the study, the average vehicle trip length in Fort Collins is 4.90 miles. ORIGIN & DESTINATION TRIP ANALYSIS Lastly, there is a demand on Fort Collins transportation network that is not associated with any development within city limits. Specifically, there are vehicle trips that originate and end outside of Fort Collins. The nature of these trips means there is a demand that is not Fort Collins growth-related thus not eligible for TCEF funding. Therefore, TischlerBise partnered with transportation engineers at Felsburg Holt & Ullevig to identify the thru-trips (external – external) in Fort Collins. Based on analysis of the Fort Collins travel demand model, seven percent of trips were identified as external – external. As a result, a seven percent reduction is included in the demand calculation. Figure 4. Origin & Destination Trip Analysis Development Prototypes and Projected Vehicle Miles of Travel The relationship between the amount of development within Fort Collins and vehicle miles of travel (VMT) is documented in Figure 5. In the table below DU means dwelling unit; KSF means 1,000 square feet of nonresidential development; Institute of Transportation Engineers is abbreviated ITE; VTE means vehicle trip ends. Trip generation rates by bedroom range are documented in Appendix A – Land Use Assumptions. Projected development over the next ten years and the corresponding need for additional lane miles is shown in the lower section of Figure 5. Fort Collins has a current infrastructure standard of 1.62 arterial lane miles per 10,000 VMT. Based on the detailed demand factors and projected growth, VMT is projected to increase from 3.07 million to 3.55 million over the next ten years (or 13 percent). To accommodate projected development over the next ten years, Fort Collins will need 61.9 additional lane miles of complete streets to maintain current levels of service. Origin/Destination Internal External Internal 50% 15% External 28% 7% Source: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig analysis of Fort Collins travel demand model Page 62 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 11 Figure 5. Projected VMT Increase to Development within Fort Collins Development Weekday Development Primary Trip Trip Length Type VTE Unit Adjustment Wtg Factor Residential 0-1 Bedroom 4.26 DU 58%1.10 R1 Residential 2 Bedrooms 6.34 DU 58%1.10 R2 Residential 3 Bedrooms 8.80 DU 58%1.10 R3 Residential 4+ Bedrooms 10.56 DU 58%1.10 R4 Commercial 37.01 KSF 38%0.66 NR1 Office & Other Services 10.84 KSF 50%1.00 NR2 Industrial 4.87 KSF 50%1.00 NR3 Avg Trip Length (miles) [1]4.90 Vehicle Capacity Per Lane 7,700 Base Year 1 2 3 4 5 10 10-Year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2033 Increase Residential 0-1 Bedroom 6,212 6,320 6,429 6,550 6,671 6,792 7,524 1,312 Residential 2 Bedrooms 17,883 18,195 18,507 18,856 19,205 19,554 21,660 3,777 Residential 3 Bedrooms 24,688 25,118 25,549 26,030 26,512 26,993 29,901 5,213 Residential 4+ Bedrooms 23,807 24,222 24,637 25,102 25,566 26,031 28,835 5,028 Commercial KSF 10,024 10,060 10,097 10,135 10,173 10,211 10,393 370 Office & Other Services KSF 21,999 22,215 22,430 22,627 22,823 23,019 23,950 1,951 Industrial KSF 10,944 10,979 11,014 11,049 11,083 11,117 11,378 434 0-1 Bedroom Trips 15,349 15,615 15,885 16,184 16,483 16,782 18,590 3,242 2 Bedroom Trips 65,759 66,907 68,054 69,337 70,621 71,904 79,648 13,889 3 Bedroom Trips 126,008 128,202 130,402 132,857 135,317 137,772 152,615 26,607 4+ Bedroom Trips 145,813 148,355 150,897 153,745 156,587 159,435 176,609 30,795 Commercial Trips 140,970 141,485 142,000 142,535 143,071 143,607 146,169 5,199 Office & Other Services Trips 119,232 120,403 121,573 122,637 123,700 124,764 129,808 10,576 Industrial Trips 26,650 26,735 26,820 26,904 26,987 27,071 27,706 1,057 Total Inbound Vehicle Trips 639,780 647,702 655,631 664,199 672,766 681,334 731,145 91,365 Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) 3,073,002 3,113,973 3,154,985 3,199,451 3,243,911 3,288,376 3,548,550 475,548 Arterial Lane Miles 497 502.3 507.6 513.4 519.2 525.0 558.9 61.9 Ten-Year VMT Increase =>13% [1] Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Study (2022) Fort Collins Travel Model 5-Year Increment Page 63 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 12 Capital Cost per Vehicle Miles of Travel As indicated by the travel demand model above, there is a need for 61.9 new lane miles to continue providing the current level of service to projected future demand. Furthermore, seven percent of the demand on the Fort Collins transportation network is from external – external trips. As a result, 57.6 miles is attributed to future growth in Fort Collins (61.9 lane miles x [1 - 0.07] = 57.6 lane miles). Additionally, Fort Collins staff estimates the construction cost of a new lane mile being $2,000,500. By combining the projected need in lane miles and cost per lane mile results in a growth-related capital cost per $115.5 million. Over the next ten years, there is a projected increase of 475,548 VMT. Comparing the growth-related capital cost and growth in VMT, the study finds a capital cost of $242.85 per VMT ($115,488,00 / 475,548 VMT = $242.85 per VMT, rounded). Figure 6. Capital Cost per VMT Revenue Credit Evaluation A credit for other revenues is only necessary if there is potential double payment for system improvements. In Fort Collins, Road & Bridge Fund property taxes and gas tax revenue will be used for maintenance of existing facilities, correcting existing deficiencies, and for capital projects that are not TCEF system improvements. As shown later in Figure 8, TCEF revenue over the next ten years mitigates the growth-related share of the roadway capacity needs. Thus, there is no potential double payment from other revenues to fund the growth cost of roadway capacity projects. Importantly, seven percent of the future need is attributed to external – external trips which represents $8.6 million. This is not attributed to Fort Collins development, thus, not eligible for TCEF funding. Fort Collins will have to identify other revenues (i.e., grants) to support this external cost. 10-Year Need in Roadway Lane Miles 61.9 Lane Miles Attributed to External - External Trips (7%)4.3 Fort Collins Growth-Related Lane Miles 57.6 Construction Cost per Lane Mile $2,005,000 Fort Collins Growth-Related Construction Cost $115,488,000 10-Year Increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)475,548 Capital Cost per VMT $242.85 Page 64 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 13 Input Variables for TCEF – Roadway Capacity Component A summary of inputs for the roadway capacity component of the TCEF program are detailed in Figure 7. Residential fees are based on the square footage of the dwelling unit while there are three nonresidential development types in the fee schedule (consistent with the current Fort Collins TCEF schedule). The roadway capacity TCEF is found by multiply the VMT demand factor and the growth cost per VMT. For example, the fee for a housing unit over 2,200 square feet is $8,191 (33.73 VMT per unit x $242.85 per VMT = $8,191 per unit). The fees represent the highest supportable amount for each type of applicable land use and represents new growth’s fair share of the cost for capital facilities. The City may adopt fees that are less than the amounts shown. However, a reduction in TCEF revenue will necessitate an increase in other revenues, a decrease in planned capital expenditures, and/or a decrease in levels of service. Figure 7. Maximum Supportable TCEF – Roadway Capacity Component Roadway Expansion $242.85 Gross Total $242.85 Net Total $242.85 up to 700 11.79 $2,863 701 to 1,200 20.54 $4,988 1,201 to 1,700 26.20 $6,363 1,701 to 2,200 30.39 $7,380 over 2,200 33.73 $8,191 Commercial 45.48 $11,045 Office & Other Services 26.56 $6,450 Industrial 11.93 $2,897 Development Type VMT per KSF Roadway Capacity Fee Nonresidential (per 1,000 square feet) Square Feet of Finished Living Space VMT per Unit Roadway Capacity Fee Fee Component Cost per VMT Residential (per dwelling unit) Page 65 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 14 Revenue Projection from Maximum Supportable Fee Amounts This section summarizes the potential cash flow to the City of Fort Collin if the TCEF is implemented at the maximum supportable amounts. The cash flow projections are based on the assumptions detailed in this chapter and the development projections discussed in Appendix A – Land Use Assumptions. At the top of Figure 8, the cost of growth over the next ten years is listed. The summary provides an indication of the TCEF revenue generated by new development. The fee for the average sized single family and multifamily units are used in the calculations. Shown at the bottom of the figure, the maximum supportable TCEF is estimated to generate $111.3 million in revenue while there is a growth- related cost of $115.5 million, offsetting about 97 percent of the growth-related costs. The remaining funding gap represents the external – external share of future demand on the transportation network. Figure 8. Projected Revenue from Maximum Supportable TCEF – Roadway Capacity Component Infrastructure Costs for Transportation Facilities Total Cost Growth Cost Roadway Capacity $124,109,500 $115,488,000 Total Expenditures $124,109,500 $115,488,000 Projected Development Impact Fee Revenue Single Family Multifamily Commercial Office Industrial $7,380 $4,988 $11,045 $6,450 $2,897 per unit per unit per KSF per KSF per KSF Year Housing Units Housing Units KSF KSF KSF Base 2023 47,183 25,406 10,024 21,999 10,944 1 2024 47,769 26,087 10,060 22,215 10,979 2 2025 48,354 26,768 10,097 22,430 11,014 3 2026 49,009 27,529 10,135 22,627 11,049 4 2027 49,663 28,291 10,173 22,823 11,083 5 2028 50,318 29,052 10,211 23,019 11,117 6 2029 50,972 29,813 10,249 23,215 11,152 7 2030 51,627 30,575 10,287 23,412 11,186 8 2031 52,508 31,599 10,323 23,591 11,250 9 2032 53,389 32,624 10,358 23,770 11,314 10 2033 54,271 33,649 10,393 23,950 11,378 Ten-Year Increase 7,087 8,243 370 1,951 434 Projected Revenue $52,304,559 $41,115,500 $4,083,218 $12,585,770 $1,257,186 Projected Revenue => $111,346,000 Total Expenditures => $124,109,000 Non-Impact Fee Funding => $12,763,000 Page 66 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 15 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL EXPANSION FEE – ACTIVE MODES COMPONENT The City of Fort Collins TCEF are calculated using a plan-based approach for active mode expansions. Transportation improvements that provide additional vehicular capacity, account for approximately 91 percent of the growth-related cost in the analysis while active modes represent 9. The active modes component of the TCEF is based on the demand from residential and nonresidential development and allocated based on the percent of commuters who walk or bike to work. Person per housing unit and employee density factors are then applied to find the proportionate demand from the development types. Active Modes Capital Plan The 2022 Active Modes Plan is the guiding document for the capital expansion plans for bike and pedestrian infrastructure in Fort Collins. The Plan identified High, Medium, and Low priority/readiness projects needed in the coming future to address existing demand and future demand from development. Since the TCEF study examines infrastructure need over the next ten years, City staff has advised that the high and medium project lists are a realistic plan over that planning horizon. Between the two lists there are 200 projects ranging from small spot treatments addressing signage and side paths to extensive separated bike lane expansion projects. Pages from the Plan listing the projects are provided in the appendix of this report.2 Overall, the capital plans for active mode expansion totals $87,554,000 over the next ten years. Active Modes Capital Plan Cost Analysis Based on the projected growth in demand on the Fort Collins transportation network, 13 percent ($11.4 million) of the total capital cost of the Active Modes Plan is attributed to development over the next ten years. As shown in Figure 9, the cost is allocated to residential and nonresidential demand based on the data from the Travel Diary Study Report (2022). From the survey, 22 percent of commuters in Fort Collins use active modes to travel to work. This factor is used to allocate the active modes capital cost to nonresidential demand while the remaining 78 percent is allocated to residential demand. The allocated costs are compared to the 10-year projected increase in population and jobs to find capital cost per unit factors. For example, the capital cost per person is $275.18 ($11,382,000 x 78 percent / 32,262 population increase = $275.18 per person). 2 The Active Modes Plan can also be found on the City’s website at https://www.fcgov.com/fcmoves/active- modes-plan. Page 67 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 16 Figure 9. Active Modes Cost Analysis Revenue Credit Evaluation A credit for other revenues is only necessary if there is potential double payment for system improvements. In Fort Collins, there are general revenues and grants for maintenance of existing facilities and addressing existing demand. However, there are no other revenues available to address future demand on active mode infrastructure. As shown later in Figure 11, TCEF revenue over the next ten years mitigates the growth-related share of the active modes plan. Thus, there is no potential double payment from other revenues to fund the growth cost of active modes projects. High and Medium Priority Projects $87,554,000 Growth-Share of Project List 13% Growth-Related Cost of Active Modes Plan $11,382,020 Residential Nonresidential Proportionate Share [1] 78.0% 22.0% Attributed Capital Cost $8,877,976 $2,504,044 10-Year Population/Jobs Increase 32,262 7,580 Capital Cost per Person/Job $275.18 $330.37 [1] Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Study Report (2022) Page 68 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 17 Input Variables for TCEF – Active Modes Component A summary of inputs for the active modes component of the TCEF program are detailed in Figure 10. Residential fees are based on the square footage of the dwelling unit while there are three nonresidential development types in the fee schedule (consistent with the current Fort Collins TCEF schedule). The active modes TCEF is found by multiply the person/job demand factor and the growth cost per person/job. For example, the fee for a housing unit over 2,200 square feet is $809 (2.94 persons per unit x $275.18 per person = $809 per unit). The fees represent the highest supportable amount for each type of applicable land use and represents new growth’s fair share of the cost for capital facilities. The City may adopt fees that are less than the amounts shown. However, a reduction in TCEF revenue will necessitate an increase in other revenues, a decrease in planned capital expenditures, and/or a decrease in levels of service. Figure 10. Maximum Supportable TCEF – Active Modes Component Fee Component Cost per Person Cost per Job Active Modes $275.18 $330.37 Gross Total $275.18 $330.37 Net Total $275.18 $330.37 up to 700 0.99 $272 701 to 1,200 1.77 $487 1,201 to 1,700 2.27 $625 1,701 to 2,200 2.64 $726 over 2,200 2.94 $809 Commercial 2.12 $585 Office & Other Services 3.26 $896 Industrial 2.86 $786 Development Type Jobs per KSF Active Modes Fee Nonresidential (per 1,000 square feet) Square Feet of Finished Living Space Persons per Unit Active Modes Fee Residential (per dwelling unit) Page 69 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 18 Revenue Projection from Maximum Supportable Fee Amounts This section summarizes the potential cash flow to the City of Fort Collin if the TCEF is implemented at the maximum supportable amounts. The cash flow projections are based on the assumptions detailed in this chapter and the development projections discussed in Appendix A – Land Use Assumptions. At the top of Figure 11, the cost of growth over the next ten years is listed. The summary provides an indication of the TCEF revenue generated by new development. The fee for the average sized single family and multifamily units are used in the calculations. Shown at the bottom of the figure, the maximum supportable TCEF is estimated to generate $11.5 million in revenue while there is a growth- related cost of $11.4 million, offsetting about 100 percent of the growth-related costs. The remaining funding gap represents the existing demand in Fort Collins and will be funded through other revenues. Figure 11. Projected Revenue from Maximum Supportable TCEF – Active Modes Component Infrastructure Costs for Transportation Facilities Total Cost Growth Cost Active Modes $87,554,000 $11,382,020 Total Expenditures $87,554,000 $11,382,020 Projected Development Impact Fee Revenue Single Family Multifamily Commercial Office Industrial $726 $487 $585 $896 $786 per unit per unit per KSF per KSF per KSF Year Housing Units Housing Units KSF KSF KSF Base 2023 47,183 25,406 10,024 21,999 10,944 1 2024 47,769 26,087 10,060 22,215 10,979 2 2025 48,354 26,768 10,097 22,430 11,014 3 2026 49,009 27,529 10,135 22,627 11,049 4 2027 49,663 28,291 10,173 22,823 11,083 5 2028 50,318 29,052 10,211 23,019 11,117 6 2029 50,972 29,813 10,249 23,215 11,152 7 2030 51,627 30,575 10,287 23,412 11,186 8 2031 52,508 31,599 10,323 23,591 11,250 9 2032 53,389 32,624 10,358 23,770 11,314 10 2033 54,271 33,649 10,393 23,950 11,378 Ten-Year Increase 7,087 8,243 370 1,951 434 Projected Revenue $5,145,408 $4,014,284 $216,268 $1,748,349 $341,094 Projected Revenue => $11,465,000 Total Expenditures => $87,554,000 Non-Impact Fee Funding => $76,089,000 Page 70 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 19 IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION Development impact fees (in this case TCEF) should be periodically evaluated and updated to reflect recent data. Fort Collins has consistently annually updated the TCEF schedule based on local inflation data. If cost estimates or demand indicators change significantly, the City should redo the fee calculations. Colorado’s enabling legislation allows local governments to “waive an impact fee or other similar development charge on the development of low or moderate income housing, or affordable employee housing, as defined by the local government.” Credits and Reimbursements A general requirement that is common to impact fee methodologies is the evaluation of credits. A revenue credit may be necessary to avoid potential double payment situations arising from one-time impact fees plus on-going payment of other revenues that may also fund growth-related capital improvements. The determination of revenue credits is dependent upon the impact fee methodology used in the cost analysis and local government policies. Policies and procedures related to site-specific credits should be addressed in the resolution or ordinance that establishes the impact fees. Project-level improvements, required as part of the development approval process, are not eligible for credits against impact fees. If a developer constructs a system improvement included in the fee calculations, it will be necessary to either reimburse the developer or provide a credit against the fees due from that particular development. The latter option is more difficult to administer because it creates unique fees for specific geographic areas. Based on national experience, TischlerBise typically recommends reimbursement agreements with developers that construct system improvements. The reimbursement agreement should be limited to a payback period of no more than ten years and the City should not pay interest on the outstanding balance. The developer must provide sufficient documentation of the actual cost incurred for the system improvement. The City should only agree to pay the lesser of the actual construction cost or the estimated cost used in the impact fee analysis. If the City pays more than the cost used in the fee analysis, there will be insufficient fee revenue for other capital improvements. Reimbursement agreements should only obligate the City to reimburse developers annually according to actual fee collections from the applicable Benefit District. Citywide Service Area The TCEF service area is defined as the entire incorporated area within Fort Collins. The infrastructure funded through the TCEF is citywide benefiting and can be attributed to demand throughout the city. Expenditure Guidelines Fort Collins will distinguish system improvements (funded by transportation capital expansion fees) from project-level improvements, such as local streets within a residential subdivision. TischlerBise Page 71 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 20 recommends limiting transportation fee expenditures to arterials and collectors. System improvements that are eligible for transportation fee funding include: • Constructing an arterial or collector street. • A carrying-capacity enhancement to existing arterials or collectors, such reconstruction to add greater street depth and width, including additional vehicular travel lanes, bike lanes, and/or shoulders. • Adding turn lanes, traffic signals, or roundabouts at the intersection of a State Highway with a City arterial or collector, or a City arterial with another City arterial or collector. Development Categories Proposed transportation fees for residential development are by square feet of finished living space, excluding unfinished basement, attic, and garage floor area. Appendix A provides further documentation of demographic data by size threshold. The three general nonresidential development categories in the proposed TCEF schedule can be used for all new construction within the Service Area. Nonresidential development categories represent general groups of land uses that share similar average weekday vehicle trip generation rates, as documented in Appendix A. • “Industrial” includes the processing or production of goods, along with warehousing, transportation, communications, and utilities. • “Commercial” includes retail development and eating/drinking places, along with entertainment uses often located in a shopping center (i.e., movie theater). • “Office & Other Services” includes offices, health care and personal services, business services (i.e., banks) and lodging. Public and quasi-public buildings that provide educational, social assistance, or religious services are also included in this category. An applicant may submit an independent study to document unique demand indicators for a particular development. The independent study must be prepared by a professional engineer or certified planner and use the same type of input variables as those in this transportation capital expansion fee update. For residential development, the fees are based on average weekday vehicle trip ends per housing unit. For nonresidential development, the fees are based on average weekday vehicle trips ends per 1,000 square feet of floor area. The independent fee study will be reviewed by City staff and can be accepted as the basis for a unique fee calculation. If staff determines the independent fee study is not reasonable, the applicant may appeal the administrative decision to City elected officials for their consideration. Page 72 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 21 APPENDIX A – LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS Development-related capital expansion fees often use per capita standards and persons per housing unit or persons per household to derive proportionate share fee amounts. Housing types have varying household sizes and, consequently, a varying demand on City infrastructure and services. Thus, it is important to differentiate between housing types and size. When persons per housing unit (PPHU) is used in the development impact fee calculations, infrastructure standards are derived using year-round population. In contrast, when persons per household (PPHH) is used in the development impact fee calculations, the fee methodology assumes all housing units will be occupied, thus requiring seasonal or peak population to be used when deriving infrastructure standards. Thus, TischlerBise recommends that fees for residential development in Fort Collins be imposed according to persons per housing unit. Based on housing characteristics, TischlerBise recommends using two housing unit categories for the TCEF study: (1) Single Family and (2) Multifamily. Each housing type has different characteristics which results in a different demand on City facilities and services. Figure 12 shows the US Census American Community Survey 2021 5-Year Estimates data for the City of Fort Collins. Single family units have a household size of 2.54 persons and multifamily units have a household size of 1.73 persons Figure 12. Fort Collins Persons per Housing Unit Base Year Population and Housing Units The City of Fort Collins has provided its own 2023 base year household population estimate which is what will be used to calculate base year housing units. Figure 13. Base Year Household Population In 2023, there are an estimated 72,590 housing units in Fort Collins. The housing mix and PPHU factors in Figure 12 are applied to the household population to estimate single family and multifamily units. Overall, single family housing is 65 percent of the total, while multifamily is 35 percent. House-Persons per Housing Persons per Housing Vacancy holds Household Units Housing Unit Mix Rate Single Family 115,988 44,342 2.62 45,625 2.54 65%3% Multifamily 42,457 22,862 1.86 24,496 1.73 35%7% Subtotal 158,445 67,204 2.36 70,121 2.26 4% Group Quarters 8,197 TOTAL 166,642 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 5-Year Estimate American Community Survey Single unit includes detached and attached (i.e. townhouse) and mobile homes Units in Structure Persons Base Year Fort Collins, CO 2023 Household Population [1]164,053 [1] Source: City of Fort Collins Population Estimate Page 73 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 22 Figure 14. Base Year Housing Units However, recent trends over the last three years show multifamily housing growing at a greater rate than single family at 54 percent vs 46 percent of total housing growth respectively as shown in Figure 15. This is the trend that will be used for housing and population growth projections. Figure 15. Building Permit History In 2023, the household population in Fort Collins is estimated to be 164,053. To estimate the total residents, the group quarters population of 10,392 is applied to the household population. As a result, the 2023 population is estimated at 174,445 residents and will be used for housing and population projections. Figure 16. Base Year Population 2023 Fort Collins, CO Housing Units [1] Single Family 47,183 Multifamily 25,406 Total 72,590 [1] Source: City of Fort Collins Population Estimate; PPHU Factors 2020-2023 Fort Collins, CO Building Permits Single Family 1,104 46% Multifamily 1,284 54% Total 2,388 Source: City of Fort Collins Percent of Total 2023 2023 2023 Fort Collins, CO Household Population Group Quarters Population Total Population Population 164,053 10,392 174,445 Source: City of Fort Collins Population Estimate Page 74 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 23 Population and Housing Unit Projections From the 2023 base year housing unit totals, there is a projected increase of 21 percent in housing stock over the next ten years. Following the trend that there is more multifamily development (54 percent) than single family development (46 percent), there is an estima ted 8,243 multifamily units and 7,087 single family units projected. Population growth is assumed to continue with housing development based on the PPHU factors by housing type. As a result, there is a projected increase of 32,262 residents over the next ten years. This is an 18.5 percent increase from the base year, slightly lower than housing development at 21 percent since there is a shift in multifamily development and smaller household sizes. Figure 17. Residential Development Projections Base Year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Population [1] 174,445 177,109 179,774 182,753 185,733 188,713 191,693 194,673 198,684 202,696 206,707 32,262 1.5% 1.5% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 2.1% 2.0% 2.0% 18.5% Housing Units [2] Single Family 47,183 47,769 48,354 49,009 49,663 50,318 50,972 51,627 52,508 53,389 54,271 7,087 Multifamily 25,406 26,087 26,768 27,529 28,291 29,052 29,813 30,575 31,599 32,624 33,649 8,243 Total 72,590 73,856 75,122 76,538 77,954 79,370 80,786 82,202 84,108 86,014 87,920 15,330 [2] Source: Housing growth is projected based on housing development and PPHU factors [1] Source: City of Fort Collins Population Estimate; Population growth is projected based on housing development and PPHU factors by type of home Total Increase Percent Increase City of Fort Collins, CO Page 75 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 24 Current Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area The impact fee study will include nonresidential development as well. Job estimates are from North Front Range MPO Traffic TAZ database. The model forecasts employment growth for the entire city from 2020 to 2045 in five-year increments. To find the total employment in the base year, 2023, a straight- line approach from 2020 to 2025 was used. Listed in Figure 18, 107,677 jobs are estimated in the City of Fort Collins. Nearly half the employment is in the office industry. However, retail, industrial, and institutional industries have a significant presence as well. Figure 18. Base Year Employment by Industry The base year nonresidential floor area for the industry sectors is calculated with the Institution of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) square feet per employee averages, Figure 19. For industrial the Light Industrial factors are used; for institutional the Hospital factors are used; for retail the Shopping Center factors are used; for office the General Office factors are used. Figure 19. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Employment Density Factors By combining the base year job totals and the ITE square feet per employee factors, the nonresidential floor area is calculated in Figure 20. There is an estimated total of 43 million square feet of nonresidential floor area in Fort Collins. The office and industrial industries account for almost two- thirds of the total floor area at 37 percent and 25 percent respectively, while retail accounts for 23 percent and institutional accounts for 14 percent of the total. Base Year 2023 Industrial 17,181 16% Institutional 17,433 16% Retail 21,282 20% Office 51,782 48% Total Jobs 107,677 100% Employment Industries Source: North Front Range MPO TAZ employment database Percent of Total Employment ITE Demand Emp Per Sq Ft Industry Code Land Use Unit Dmd Unit Per Emp Industrial 110 Light Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 1.57 637 Institutional 610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 2.86 350 Retail 820 Shopping Center 1,000 Sq Ft 2.12 471 Office 710 General Office 1,000 Sq Ft 3.26 307 Source: Trip Generation , Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition (2021) Page 76 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 25 Figure 20. Base Year Nonresidential Floor Area Base Year Sq. Ft.Base Year Jobs [1]per Job [2]Floor Area (Sq. Ft.) Industrial 17,181 637 10,944,355 Institutional 17,433 350 6,101,592 Retail 21,282 471 10,023,588 Office 51,782 307 15,896,963 Total 107,677 42,966,498 [1] Source: North Front Range MPO TAZ employment database Employment Industries [2] Source: Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition (2021) Page 77 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 26 Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Projections Based on the TAZ employment database, over the ten-year projection period, it is estimated that there will be an increase of 7,580 jobs. The majority of the increase comes from the office sector (58 percent); however, the institutional sector (23 percent) has a significant impact as well. The nonresidential floor area projections are calculated by applying the ITE square feet per employee facto rs to the job growth. In the next ten years, the nonresidential floor area is projected to increase by 2.8 million square feet, a 6 percent increase from the base year. The office and institutional sectors have the greatest increase. Figure 21. Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Projections Base Year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Jobs [1] Industrial 17,181 17,236 17,291 17,345 17,399 17,453 17,507 17,560 17,661 17,762 17,862 681 Institutional 17,433 17,621 17,809 17,980 18,152 18,323 18,495 18,666 18,832 18,999 19,165 1,732 Retail 21,282 21,359 21,437 21,518 21,599 21,680 21,760 21,841 21,916 21,991 22,066 785 Office 51,782 52,271 52,760 53,204 53,648 54,091 54,535 54,979 55,374 55,768 56,163 4,381 Total Jobs 107,677 108,487 109,297 110,047 110,797 111,547 112,297 113,047 113,784 114,520 115,257 7,580 Industrial 10,944 10,979 11,014 11,049 11,083 11,117 11,152 11,186 11,250 11,314 11,378 434 Institutional 6,102 6,167 6,233 6,293 6,353 6,413 6,473 6,533 6,591 6,650 6,708 606 Retail 10,024 10,060 10,097 10,135 10,173 10,211 10,249 10,287 10,323 10,358 10,393 370 Office 15,897 16,047 16,197 16,334 16,470 16,606 16,742 16,879 17,000 17,121 17,242 1,345 Total Floor Area 42,966 43,254 43,542 43,810 44,079 44,348 44,616 44,885 45,164 45,443 45,721 2,755 City of Fort Collins, CO Total Increase [2] Source: Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition (2021) [1] Source: North Front Range MPO TAZ employment database Nonresidential Floor Area (1,000 square feet) [2] Page 78 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 27 Vehicle Trip Generation RESIDENTIAL VEHICLE TRIPS BY HOUSING TYPE A customized trip rate is calculated for the single family and multifamily units in Fort Collins. In Figure 22, the most recent data from the US Census American Community Survey is inputted into equations provided by the ITE to calculate the trip ends per housing unit factor. A single family unit is estimated to generate 12.70 trip ends and a multifamily unit is estimated to generate 6.00 trip ends on an ave rage weekday. Figure 22. Customized Residential Trip End Rates by Housing Type Owner-occupied 74,579 33,116 2,493 35,609 2.09 Renter-occupied 55,237 11,226 20,369 31,595 1.75 Total 129,816 44,342 22,862 67,204 1.93 Housing Units (3) => 45,625 24,496 70,121 Persons per Housing Unit => 2.54 1.73 2.26 Persons in Trip Vehicles by Trip Average National Trip Difference Households (4) Ends (5) Type of Unit Ends (6) Trip Ends Ends per Unit (7) from ITE Single Family 115,988 323,073 88,984 832,918 577,996 12.70 9.43 35% Multifamily 42,457 97,146 40,832 194,723 145,934 6.00 4.54 32% Total 158,445 420,219 129,816 1,027,640 723,930 10.80 4. Total population in households from Table B25033, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 7. Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition (2021). 2. Households by tenure and units in structure from Table B25032, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 5. Vehicle trips ends based on persons using formulas from Trip Generation (ITE 2021). For single-family housing (ITE 210), the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.89*LN(persons)+1.72). To approximate the average population of the ITE studies, persons were divided by 12 and the equation result multiplied by 558. For multi-family housing (ITE 221), the fitted curve equation is (2.29*persons)-64.48 (ITE 2017). 6. Vehicle trip ends based on vehicles available using formulas from Trip Generation (ITE 2021). For single-family housing (ITE 210), the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.92*LN(vehicles)+2.68). To approximate the average number of vehicles in the ITE studies, vehicles available were divided by 21 and the equation result multiplied by 256. For multi-family housing (ITE 221), the fitted curve equation is (4.77*vehicles)-46.46 (ITE 2021). Households by Structure Type (2) Single Family 1. Vehicles available by tenure from Table B25046, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 3. Housing units from Table B25024, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Tenure by Units in Structure Vehicles Available (2)Multifamily Total Vehicles per HH by Housing Type Local Trip Ends per Unit Page 79 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 28 RESIDENTIAL VEHICLE TRIPS ADJUSTMENT FACTORS A vehicle trip end is the out-bound or in-bound leg of a vehicle trip. As a result, so to not double count trips, a standard 50 percent adjustment is applied to trip ends to calculate a vehicle trip. For example, the out-bound trip from a person’s home to work is attributed to the housing unit and the trip from work back home is attributed to the employer. However, an additional adjustment is necessary to capture City residents’ work bound trips that are outside of the city. The trip adjustment factor includes two components. According to the National Household Travel Survey (2009), home-based work trips are typically 31 percent of out-bound trips (which are 50 percent of all trip ends). Also, utilizing the most recent data from the Census Bureau's web application "OnTheMap”, 51 percent of Fort Collins workers travel outside the city for work. In combination, these factors account for 8 percent of additional production trips (0.31 x 0.50 x 0.51 = 0.08). Shown in Figure 23, the total adjustment factor for residential housing units includes attraction trips (50 percent of trip ends) plus the journey-to-work commuting adjustment (8 percent of production trips) for a total of 58 percent. Figure 23. Residential Trip Adjustment Factor for Commuters NONRESIDENTIAL VEHICLE TRIPS Vehicle trip generation for nonresidential land uses are calculated by using ITE’s average daily trip end rates and adjustment factors found in their recently published 11th edition of Trip Generation. To estimate the trip generation in Fort Colins, the weekday trip end per 1,000 square feet factors highlighted in Figure 24 are used. Figure 24. Institute of Transportation Engineers Nonresidential Factors For nonresidential land uses, the standard 50 percent adjustment is applied to office, industrial, and institutional. A lower vehicle trip adjustment factor is used for retail because this type of development attracts vehicles as they pass-by on arterial and collector roads. For example, when someone stops at a convenience store on their way home from work, the convenience store is not their primary destination. Employed Fort Collins Residents (2019) 73,469 Residents Working in the City (2019) 36,223 Residents Commuting Outside of the City for Work 37,246 Percent Commuting Out of the City 51% Additional Production Trips 8% Standard Trip Adjustment Factor 50% Residential Trip Adjustment Factor 58% Source: U.S. Census, OnTheMap Application, 2019 Employment ITE Demand Wkdy Trip Ends Wkdy Trip Ends Industry Code Land Use Unit Per Dmd Unit Per Employee Industrial 110 Light Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 4.87 3.10 Institutional 610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 10.77 3.77 Retail 820 Shopping Center 1,000 Sq Ft 37.01 17.42 Office 710 General Office 1,000 Sq Ft 10.84 3.33 Source: Trip Generation , Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition (2021) Page 80 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 29 In Figure 25, the Institute for Transportation Engineers’ land use code, daily vehicle trip end rate, and trip adjustment factor is listed for each land use. Figure 25. Daily Vehicle Trip Factors Residential (per housing unit) Single Family 210 12.70 58% Multifamily 220 6.00 58% Nonresidential (per 1,000 square feet) Industrial 110 4.87 50% Institutional 610 10.77 50% Retail 820 37.01 38% Office 710 10.84 50% Land Use ITE Codes Daily Vehicle Trip Ends Trip Adj. Factor Source: Trip Generation , Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition (2021); National Household Travel Survey, 2009 Page 81 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 30 Residential Trip Generation by Housing Unit Size (sq. ft.) As an alternative to simply using average trip generation rates for residential development by housing type, TischlerBise has derived custom trip rates using demographic data for Fort Collins. Key inputs needed for the analysis (i.e., average number of persons and vehicles available per housing unit) are available from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS). FORT COLLINS CONTROL TOTALS As previously shown in Figure 12, Fort Collins averages 2.26 residents per housing unit. Single family includes detached and attached dwellings and manufactured housing. Duplexes and apartments are combined as multifamily. The average number of persons per housing unit in Fort Collins will be compared to national averages derived from traffic studies tabulated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Trip generation rates are also dependent upon the average number of vehicles available per dwelling. Figure 26 indicates vehicles available by housing type within Fort Collins. As expected, single family housing has more vehicles available per dwelling (1.95) than multifamily housing (1.67). Figure 26. Vehicles Available per Housing Unit DEMAND INDICATORS BY DWELLING SIZE Custom tabulations of demographic data by bedroom range can be created from individual survey responses provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, in files known as Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS). Because PUMS files are available for areas of roughly 100,000 persons, Fort Collins is included in Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) 103 that covers the northern portion of Larimer County. At the top of Figure 27, cells with yellow shading indicate the survey results, which yield the unadjusted number of persons and vehicles available per dwelling. These multipliers are adjusted to match the control totals for Fort Collins, as documented in Figure 12 and Figure 26. Tenure Vehicles Available [1]Single Family Multifamily Total Vehicles per Household by Tenure Owner-occupied 74,579 33,116 2,493 35,609 2.09 Renter-occupied 55,237 11,226 20,369 31,595 1.75 Total 129,816 44,342 22,862 67,204 1.93 Housing Type Vehicles Available Housing Units [3] Vehicles per Housing Unit Single Family 88,984 45,625 1.95 Multifamily 40,832 24,496 1.67 Total 129,816 70,121 1.85 Households [2] [1] Vehicles available by tenure from Table B25046, American Community Survey, 2017- [3] Housing units from Table B25024, American Community Survey, 2021 [2] Households by tenure and units in structure from Table B25032, American Community Survey, 2021 Page 82 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 31 In comparison to the national averages based on ITE traffic studies, Fort Collins has fewer persons per dwelling, but a greater number of vehicles available per dwelling. Rather than rely on one methodology, the recommended multipliers shown below with grey shading and bold numbers are an average of trip rates based on persons and vehicles available (all types of housing units combined). In Fort Collins, the average housing unit is estimated to yield an 8.40 Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends (AWVTE). Figure 27. Average Weekday Vehicle Trips Ends by Bedroom Range To derive average weekday vehicle trip ends by dwelling size, TischlerBise matched trip generation rates and average floor area, by bedroom range, as shown in Figure 28. Floor area averages were calculated with certificate of occupancies issued from 2020 through 2022. The logarithmic trend line formula is derived from the four actual averages in Fort Collins. The trend line is then used to derive estimated trip ends by dwelling size thresholds. In 2017, TischlerBise completed the previous TCEF for Fort Collins. At that time, the average size home (1,701 to 2,200 square feet) was estimate to generate 8.92 daily vehicle trip ends. Compared to the updated average rate of 9.72 vehicle trip ends, the average size home has increased by 8 percent. Bedroom Vehicles Housing Housing Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted Range Available 1 Units1 Mix Persons/HU Persons/HU2 VehAvl/HU VehAvl/HU2 0-1 457 386 388 8.6%1.18 1.17 0.99 0.97 2 1,885 1,678 1,117 24.6%1.69 1.68 1.50 1.47 3 3,585 3,217 1,542 34.0%2.32 2.30 2.09 2.05 4+4,410 3,630 1,487 32.8%2.97 2.94 2.44 2.39 Total 10,337 8,911 4,534 2.28 2.26 1.97 1.93 National Averages According to ITE (Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021) ITE AWVTE per AWVTE per AWVTE per Housing Persons per Veh Avl per Code Person Vehicle Available Household Mix Household Household 221 Apt 1.84 5.10 4.54 35%2.47 0.89 210 SFD 2.65 6.36 9.43 65%3.56 1.48 Wgtd Avg 2.37 5.92 7.72 3.18 1.27 Recommended AWVTE per Dwelling Unit by Bedroom Range AWVTE per AWVTE per HU Based HU Based on on Persons3 Vehicles Available 4 0-1 2.77 5.74 4.26 2 3.98 8.70 6.34 3 5.45 12.14 8.80 4+6.97 14.15 10.56 Total 5.36 11.43 8.40 AWVTE per Dwelling by House Type AWVTE per AWVTE per HU Based HU Based on on Persons3 Vehicles Available 4 221 Apt 4.10 9.89 7.00 1.73 1.67 210 SFD 6.02 11.54 8.78 2.54 1.95 All Types 5.36 11.44 8.40 2.26 1.93 Fort Collins VehAvl/HU Persons1 Bedroom Range AWVTE per Housing Unit5 ITE Code AWVTE per Housing Unit5 Fort Collins Persons/HU Unadjusted VehAvl/HU 1. American Community Survey, Public Use Microdata Sample for CO PUMA 00103 (2017 -2021 5-Year). 2. Adjusted multipliers are scaled to make the average PUMS values match control total s for Fort Collins, based on American Community Survey (2017 -2021 5-Year). 3. Adjusted persons per housing unit multiplied by national weighted average trip rate per person. 4. Adjusted vehicles available per housing unit multiplied by national weighted average trip rate per vehicle available. 5. Average of trip rates based on persons and vehicles available per housing unit. Page 83 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 32 Figure 28. Residential Vehicle Trip Ends by Dwelling Size Bedrooms Square Feet Trip Ends Sq Ft Range Trip Ends 0-1 781 4.26 up to 700 3.77 2 1,162 6.34 701 to 1,200 6.57 3 1,729 8.80 1,201 to 1,700 8.38 4+2,684 10.56 1,701 to 2,200 9.72 over 2,200 10.79 Actual Averages per Hsg Unit Fitted-Curve Values y = 5.1986ln(x) -30.289 R² = 0.9931 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 Tr i p E n d s p e r H o u s i n g U n i t Square Feet of Living Area Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends by Dwelling Square Footage Unit size ranges are based on current fee schedule and consistent with residential certificates of occupancy issued from 2020 -2022. Average weekday vehicle trip ends per housing unit are derived from 2021 ACS PUMS data for the area that includes Fort Collins. Page 84 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 33 APPENDIX B – ACTIVE MODES PROJECT LISTS Below are pages from the Fort Collins Active Modes Plan (2022) listing the high and medium priority/readiness projects. Page 85 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 34 Figure 29. High Priority/Readiness Projects Page 86 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 35 Figure 30. High Priority/Readiness Projects cont. Page 87 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 36 Figure 31. High Priority/Readiness Projects cont. Page 88 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 37 Figure 32. Medium Priority/Readiness Projects Page 89 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 38 Figure 33. Medium Priority/Readiness Projects cont. Page 90 of 125 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado 39 Figure 34. Medium Priority/Readiness Projects cont. Page 91 of 125 Page 92 of 125 Prepared for: City of Fort Collins Prepared by: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Date: 9/28/2023 EPS #233062 Working Draft Impact Fee Nexus Study Page 93 of 125 Impact Fee Summary I. Parks Impact Fee II. Police Impact Fee III. Fire Impact Fee IV. General Government Impact Fee V. Demographic Calculations Table of Contents Page 94 of 125 Table 1 Fort Collins Existing Capital Expansion Fees (CEF), 2023 Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study Land Use Type Neighborhood Park Community Park Fire Police General Government TCEF (Transportation)Total Residential (per dwelling) Up to 700 sq. ft. $2,108.00 $2,977.00 $516.00 $289.00 $703.00 $2,703.00 $9,296.00 700 - 1,200 sq. ft. $2,822.00 $3,985.00 $698.00 $391.00 $948.00 $5,020.00 $13,864.00 1,201 - 1,700 sq. ft. $3,082.00 $4,351.00 $759.00 $425.00 $1,035.00 $6,518.00 $16,170.00 1,701 - 2,200 sq. ft. $3,114.00 $4,396.00 $772.00 $431.00 $1,051.00 $7,621.00 $17,385.00 Over 2,200 sq. ft. $3,470.00 $4,901.00 $859.00 $480.00 $1,170.00 $8,169.00 $19,049.00 Nonresidential (per 1,000 sq. ft.) Commercial $0.00 $0.00 $650.00 $364.00 $1,777.00 $9,946.00 $12,737.00 Office and Other Services $0.00 $0.00 $650.00 $364.00 $1,777.00 $7,327.00 $10,118.00 Industrial $0.00 $0.00 $152.00 $85.00 $419.00 $2,365.00 $3,021.00 Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-28-23.xlsx]1-Current Fees Page 95 of 125 Table 2 Summary of Draft Impact Fees Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study Fire Police Total Land Use Type Neighborhood Park Community Park Update Residential (per dwelling) Up to 700 sq. ft. $2,813.46 $2,140.12 $603.52 $381.89 $745.25 $6,684.24 700 - 1,200 sq. ft. $4,260.38 $3,240.76 $913.90 $578.29 $1,128.52 $10,121.85 1,201 - 1,700 sq. ft. $4,782.88 $3,638.21 $1,025.98 $649.21 $1,266.93 $11,363.21 1,701 - 2,200 sq. ft. $5,144.61 $3,913.37 $1,103.58 $698.31 $1,362.74 $12,222.61 Over 2,200 sq. ft. $5,847.97 $4,448.40 $1,254.46 $793.78 $1,549.06 $13,893.67 Nonresidential (per 1,000 sq. ft.) Retail/Commercial $0.00 $0.00 $1,281.17 $810.68 $1,582.04 $3,673.89 Office and Other Services $0.00 $0.00 $701.02 $443.58 $865.64 $2,010.24 Industrial $0.00 $0.00 $332.38 $210.32 $410.43 $953.13 Current Residential (per dwelling) Up to 700 sq. ft. $2,108.00 $2,977.00 $516.00 $289.00 $703.00 $6,593.00 700 - 1,200 sq. ft. $2,822.00 $3,985.00 $698.00 $391.00 $948.00 $8,844.00 1,201 - 1,700 sq. ft. $3,082.00 $4,351.00 $759.00 $425.00 $1,035.00 $9,652.00 1,701 - 2,200 sq. ft. $3,114.00 $4,396.00 $772.00 $431.00 $1,051.00 $9,764.00 Over 2,200 sq. ft. $3,470.00 $4,901.00 $859.00 $480.00 $1,170.00 $10,880.00 Nonresidential (per 1,000 sq. ft.) Retail/Commercial $0.00 $0.00 $650.00 $364.00 $1,777.00 $2,791.00 Office and Other Services $0.00 $0.00 $650.00 $364.00 $1,777.00 $2,791.00 Industrial $0.00 $0.00 $152.00 $85.00 $419.00 $656.00 Percent Change Residential (per dwelling) Up to 700 sq. ft.33.5%-28.1%17.0% 32.1% 6.0% 1.4% 700 - 1,200 sq. ft.51.0%-18.7%30.9% 47.9% 19.0% 14.4% 1,201 - 1,700 sq. ft.55.2%-16.4%35.2% 52.8% 22.4% 17.7% 1,701 - 2,200 sq. ft.65.2%-11.0%43.0% 62.0% 29.7% 25.2% Over 2,200 sq. ft.68.5%-9.2%46.0% 65.4% 32.4% 27.7% Nonresidential (per 1,000 sq. ft.) Retail/Commercial -- --97.1% 122.7%-11.0%31.6% Office and Other Services -- --7.8% 21.9%-51.3% -28.0% Industrial -- --118.7% 147.4%-2.0%45.3% Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-28-23.xlsx]2a-Impact Fee Summary General GovernmentParks Page 96 of 125 Table 2 Summary of Draft Impact Fees Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study Land Use Type Neighborhood Park Update Neighborhood Park Current Community Park Update Community Park Current Update Current Update Current Update Current Update Current % Change from Current Residential (per dwelling) Up to 700 sq. ft. $2,813.46 $2,108.00 $2,140.12 $2,977.00 $603.52 $516.00 $381.89 $289.00 $745.25 $703.00 $6,684.24 $6,593.00 1.4% 700 - 1,200 sq. ft. $4,260.38 $2,822.00 $3,240.76 $3,985.00 $913.90 $698.00 $578.29 $391.00 $1,128.52 $948.00 $10,121.85 $8,844.00 14.4% 1,201 - 1,700 sq. ft. $4,782.88 $3,082.00 $3,638.21 $4,351.00 $1,025.98 $759.00 $649.21 $425.00 $1,266.93 $1,035.00 $11,363.21 $9,652.00 17.7% 1,701 - 2,200 sq. ft. $5,144.61 $3,114.00 $3,913.37 $4,396.00 $1,103.58 $772.00 $698.31 $431.00 $1,362.74 $1,051.00 $12,222.61 $9,764.00 25.2% Over 2,200 sq. ft. $5,847.97 $3,470.00 $4,448.40 $4,901.00 $1,254.46 $859.00 $793.78 $480.00 $1,549.06 $1,170.00 $13,893.67 $10,880.00 27.7% Nonresidential (per 1,000 sq. ft.) Retail/Commercial $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,281.17 $650.00 $810.68 $364.00 $1,582.04 $1,777.00 $3,673.89 $2,791.00 31.6% Office and Other Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $701.02 $650.00 $443.58 $364.00 $865.64 $1,777.00 $2,010.24 $2,791.00 -28.0% Industrial $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $332.38 $152.00 $210.32 $85.00 $410.43 $419.00 $953.13 $656.00 45.3% Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-28-23.xlsx]2b-Impact Fee Summary Fire Police General Government TotalParks Page 97 of 125 Table 3 Comparison to 2017 Study Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study Description 2017 2023 Update Difference % Change Household Size Up to 700 sq. ft. 1.78 1.40 -0.38 -21.3% 700 - 1,200 sq. ft. 2.40 2.12 -0.28 -11.7% 1,201 - 1,700 sq. ft. 2.61 2.38 -0.23 -8.8% 1,701 - 2,200 sq. ft. 2.65 2.56 -0.09 -3.4% Over 2,200 sq. ft. 2.95 2.91 -0.04 -1.4% Non-Residential Occupancy Factors (Employees per 1,000 sq. ft. + Visitors) Retail/Commercial 2.25 2.12 -0.13 -5.8% Office and Other Services -- 1.16 -- -- Industrial 0.53 0.55 0.02 3.8% Service Population Population -- 174,445 -- -- Functional Population 157,626 203,952 46,326 29.4% Asset Value Neighborhood Parks $153,272,704 $350,566,728 $197,294,024 128.7% Community Parks $216,422,189 $266,667,038 $50,244,849 23.2% PFA Fort Collins $55,846,482 $123,252,885 $67,406,403 120.7% Police $31,264,546 $77,990,689 $46,726,143 149.5% General Government $100,991,253 $152,198,009 $51,206,756 50.7% Total $557,797,174 $970,675,349 $412,878,175 74.0% Source: Duncan Associates; Economic & Planning Systems Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-28-23.xlsx]3-Comp to 2017 Page 98 of 125 I. Parks Impact Fee Page 99 of 125 Table 4 Parks Maintenance Facility Per Capita Cost Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study Description Replacement Cost Maintenance Facilites East District $7,325,000 Community Park Share (80%) $5,860,000 Community Park Acres Served 118 Community Park Cost/Acre $49,493 Neighborhood Park Share (20%) $1,465,000 Neighborhood Park Acres Served 84 Neighborhood Park Cost/Acre $17,399 Spring Canyon $1,815,147 Community Park Share (80%) $1,452,117 Maintenance Facility Need 103 Community Park Cost/Acre $14,098 Total Park Replacement Cost $363,029 Neighborhood Park Acres Served 132 Neighborhood Park Cost/Acre $2,750 Fossil Creek $2,623,710 Community Park Share (80%) $2,098,968 Community Park Acres Served 142 Community Park Cost/Acre $14,781 Neighborhood Park Share (20%) $524,742 Neighborhood Park Acres Served 167 Neighborhood Park Cost/Acre $3,152 Total Replacement Cost $11,763,856 Maintenance Facility Need w Community Park Average Cost/Acre $26,124 Neighborhood Park Average Cost/Acre $7,767 Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-28-23.xlsx]6-Maintenance Fac. Cost Page 100 of 125 Table 5 Parks Cost per Service Unit Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study Description Neighborhood Parks Community Parks Development Cost per Acre A $580,708 $215,342 Developed Acres B 422 573 Existing Park Replacement Cost = A x B $245,058,961 $123,390,913 Land Cost per Acre A $250,000 $250,000 Developed Acres B 422 573 Existing Land Cost = A x B $105,500,000 $143,250,000 Maintenance Facility Cost per Acre A $7,767 $26,124 Developed Acres B 422 573 Maintenance Facility Need = A x B $3,277,656 $14,969,230 Total Park Replacement Cost $350,566,728 $266,667,038 Cost per Residential Population 174,445 $2,009.61 $1,528.66 Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-28-23.xlsx]7-Parks Cost per Service Unit Page 101 of 125 Table 6 Neighborhoood Parks Residential Impact Fee Calculation Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study Description Impact Fee Current Fee per unit per unit Cost per Service Population $2,009.61 Residential Up to 700 sq. ft.1.40 $2,813.46 $2,108.00 700 - 1,200 sq. ft.2.12 $4,260.38 $2,822.00 1,201 - 1,700 sq. ft.2.38 $4,782.88 $3,082.00 1,701 - 2,200 sq. ft.2.56 $5,144.61 $3,114.00 Over 2,200 sq. ft.2.91 $5,847.97 $3,470.00 Source: Economic & Planning Systems Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-28-23.xlsx]8-NParks-Res. Impact Fee Avg. HH Size Page 102 of 125 Table 7 Community Parks Residential Impact Fee Calculation Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study Description Impact Fee Current Fee per unit per unit Cost per Service Population $1,528.66 Residential Up to 700 sq. ft.1.40 $2,140.12 $2,977.00 700 - 1,200 sq. ft.2.12 $3,240.76 $3,985.00 1,201 - 1,700 sq. ft.2.38 $3,638.21 $4,351.00 1,701 - 2,200 sq. ft.2.56 $3,913.37 $4,396.00 Over 2,200 sq. ft.2.91 $4,448.40 $4,901.00 Source: Economic & Planning Systems Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-28-23.xlsx]9-CParks-Res. Impact Fee Avg. HH Size Page 103 of 125 II. Police Impact Fee Page 104 of 125 Table 8 Fort Collins Police Department Inventory and Replacement Cost per Capita, 2023 Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study Description Quantity Cost Factor Capacity Factor Bldg. Cost Land Cost Replacement Cost Police Facilities Per SF Police Facilities 3 $517 90% $60,753,240 $3,421,110 $58,099,026 IT Equipment -- -- -- -- 18,414,943 Subtotal $517 $60,753,240 $3,421,110 $76,513,969 Police Fleet Inventory Per Unit Admin Vehicle 29 $33,916 $983,559 Drug Task Force 11 31,842 350,258 Equipment 4 209,137 836,549 Investigation 83 37,400 3,104,223 Mobile Command Vehicle 1 440,929 440,929 Patrol 296 41,644 12,326,696 Public Safety 6 97,887 587,323 Subtotal 430 $43,325 $18,629,537 Debt Principal 2012 COPS -$7,430,000 2019 COPS -6,604,740 Vehicle Equipment -3,118,078 Subtotal -$17,152,818 Total $77,990,689 Cost per Service Population Functional Population: 203,952 $382.40 Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-28-23.xlsx]10-Police_Inv. RC Page 105 of 125 Table 9 Police Residential Impact Fee Calculation Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study Description Factor Impact Fee Current Fee per unit per unit Cost per Service Population $382.40 Residential Up to 700 sq. ft.1.00 $381.89 $289.00 700 - 1,200 sq. ft.1.51 $578.29 $391.00 1,201 - 1,700 sq. ft.1.70 $649.21 $425.00 1,701 - 2,200 sq. ft.1.83 $698.31 $431.00 Over 2,200 sq. ft.2.08 $793.78 $480.00 Source: Economic & Planning Systems Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-28-23.xlsx]11-Police-Res. Impact Fee Page 106 of 125 Table 10 Police Non-Residential Impact Fee Calculation Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study Description Service Pop. Impact Fee Impact Fee Impact Fee Current Fee per 1,000 sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. per sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. Cost per Service Population $382.40 Nonresidential Retail/Commercial 2.12 $810.68 $0.81 $810.68 $364.00 Office 1.16 $443.58 $0.44 $443.58 $364.00 Industrial 0.55 $210.32 $0.21 $210.32 $85.00 Source: Economic & Planning Systems Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-28-23.xlsx]12-Police-Non Res. Fee Page 107 of 125 III. Fire Impact Fee Page 108 of 125 Table 11 Fire Inventory and Replacement Cost per Capita, 2023 Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study Description Location Factor Cost Factor Bldg. Cost Land Cost Replacement Cost Fire Facilities SF Cost per SF Burn Building (Training) 3400 W. Vine Drive 1,560 $650 $1,014,000 $0 $1,014,000 Fire Stations -- 111,630 650 72,559,500 4,987,466 77,546,966 Vacant Land (Future Station #18) 4500 E. Mulberry -- -- 0 675,000 675,000 Fit Tower Training 3400 W. Vine 3,764 650 2,446,600 0 2,446,600 Offices -- 25,974 650 16,883,100 831,307 17,714,407 Training Center A 3400 W. Vine Drive 13,970 650 9,080,500 698,298 9,778,798 Subtotal 156,898 $650 $101,983,700 $7,192,071 $109,175,771 Fire Fleet Inventory Units Cost per Unit Fleet 22 $44,214 $972,713 Battalion Chiefs 8 41,552 332,413 Frontline Apparatus 45 465,978 20,968,995 Reserves 5 760,000 3,800,000 Training 13 196,521 2,554,774 Support 6 28,570 171,420 Antiques 3 38,499 115,496 Lawn Mowers 25 5,960 149,000 Equipment 92 48,541 4,465,734 Misc.15 154,276 2,314,139 Subtotal 189 $189,654 $35,844,684 Total $145,020,455 Source: City of Fort Collins; Poudre Fire Authority; Economic & Planning Systems Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-28-23.xlsx]13-Fire_Inv. RC Page 109 of 125 Table 12 Fire Asset Cost by Service Area Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study Description Call Volume Total Replacement Cost Functional Population Cost per Service Population A B = A / B Total 100.00% $145,020,455 PFA Fort Collins 84.99% $123,252,885 203,952 $604.32 Source: City of Fort Collins; Poudre Valley Fire Authority; Economic & Planning Systems Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-28-23.xlsx]14-FoCoFireAssets Page 110 of 125 Table 13 Fort Collins Fire Residential Impact Fee Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study Description Factor Impact Fee Current Fee per unit per unit Cost per Service Population $604.32 Residential Up to 700 sq. ft.1.00 $603.52 $516.00 700 - 1,200 sq. ft.1.51 $913.90 $698.00 1,201 - 1,700 sq. ft.1.70 $1,025.98 $759.00 1,701 - 2,200 sq. ft.1.83 $1,103.58 $772.00 Over 2,200 sq. ft.2.08 $1,254.46 $859.00 Source: Economic & Planning Systems Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-28-23.xlsx]15-FC Fire-Res. Impact Fee Page 111 of 125 Table 14 Fort Collins Fire Non-Residential Impact Fee Calculation Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study Description Service Pop. Impact Fee Impact Fee Impact Fee Current Fee per 1,000 sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. per sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. Cost per Service Population $604.32 Nonresidential Retail/Commercial 2.12 $1,281.17 $1.28 $1,281.17 $650.00 Office 1.16 $701.02 $0.70 $701.02 $650.00 Industrial 0.55 $332.38 $0.33 $332.38 $152.00 Source: Economic & Planning Systems Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-28-23.xlsx]16-FC Fire-Non Res. Fee Page 112 of 125 IV. General Government Impact Fee Page 113 of 125 Table 15 General Government Inventory and Replacement Cost per Capita, 2023 Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study Description Location Factor Cost Factor Bldg. Cost Land Cost Replacement Cost Facilities SF Cost per SF 281 North College 281 N College Ave 37,603 $513 $19,290,339 $855,000 $20,145,339 City Hall 300 LaPorte Ave 31,553 583 18,401,710 1,306,358 19,708,068 215 N Mason Office 215 N Mason St 72,000 518 37,324,800 1,238,000 38,562,800 300 LaPorte (OPS Services) 300 LaPorte Ave 26,564 540 14,344,560 0 14,344,560 Streets Building 625 9th St 51,314 513 26,324,082 1,817,640 28,141,722 Traffic Operations Building 626 Linden St 9,500 540 5,130,000 424,440 5,554,440 Fleet / FACs Warehouse - Loomis 518 N Loomis Ave 10,122 432 4,372,704 22,050 4,394,754 IT Equipment -- -- -- -- -- 9,706,551 Subtotal 238,656 $525 $125,188,195 $5,663,488 $140,558,234 Fleet Quantity Cost per Unit Heavy Equipment 180 $112,554 $20,259,649 Misc. Maintenance Equipment 67 43,531 2,916,571 Vehicles, Trucks, and Trailers 96 52,782 5,067,109 Subtotal 343 $82,342 $28,243,329 Debt Principal 2012 COPS -$280,000 2019 COPS -13,780,260 Vehicle Equipment -2,543,294 Subtotal -$16,603,554 Total $152,198,009 Cost per Service Population Functional Population: 203,952 $746.25 Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-28-23.xlsx]17-Gen Gov_Inv. RC Page 114 of 125 Table 16 General Government Residential Impact Fee Calculation Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study Description Factor Impact Fee Current Fee per unit per unit Cost per Service Population $746.25 Residential -- Up to 700 sq. ft.1.00 $745.25 $703.00 700 - 1,200 sq. ft.1.51 $1,128.52 $948.00 1,201 - 1,700 sq. ft.1.70 $1,266.93 $1,035.00 1,701 - 2,200 sq. ft.1.83 $1,362.74 $1,051.00 Over 2,200 sq. ft.2.08 $1,549.06 $1,170.00 Source: Economic & Planning Systems Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-28-23.xlsx]18-Gen Gov-Res. Impact Fee Page 115 of 125 Table 17 General Government Non-Residential Impact Fee Calculation Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study Description Service Pop. Impact Fee Impact Fee Impact Fee Current Fee per 1,000 sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. per sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. Cost per Service Population $746.25 Nonresidential Retail/Commercial 2.12 $1,582.04 $1.58 $1,582.04 $1,777.00 Office 1.16 $865.64 $0.87 $865.64 $1,777.00 Industrial 0.55 $410.43 $0.41 $410.43 $419.00 Source: Economic & Planning Systems Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-28-23.xlsx]19-Gen Gov-Non Res. Fee Page 116 of 125 V. Demographic Factors Page 117 of 125 Table 18 Demographic Factors Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study Description 2023 Source Service Population Population A 174,445 City of Fort Collins, 2023 Jobs 107,677 North Front Range MPO TAZ, 2023 Jobs Per Employed Person 1.06 LEHD, 2020 Employees 102,037 Calculation In-Commuters 57.8%LEHD, 2020 Commuting Employee Weight 50.0%EPS Estimate In-Commuting Employee Impact B 29,507 Calculation Total Service Population = A + B 203,952 Residential 85.5% Nonresidential 14.5% Source: TischlerBise; North Front Range MPO TAZ, 2023; U.S. Census LEHD; Economic & Planning Systems Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-28-23.xlsx]20-Service Population Page 118 of 125 Table 19 Residential Service Demand Allocation Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study Description Factor 2023 Source Residential Conditions Population 174,445 City of Fort Collins, 2023 Nonworking Residents 52.0%90,711 LEHD, 2020 Working Residents 48.0%83,734 LEHD, 2020 Out Commuter Residents 50.6%42,369 LEHD, 2020 Work/Live Residents 49.4%41,364 LEHD, 2020 Residential Service Demand Nonworking Residents 20 hours per day 1,814,228 person-hours per day Out Commuter Residents 14 hours per day 593,169 person-hours per day Work/Live Residents 14 hours per day 579,102 person-hours per day Residential Total A 2,986,498 person-hours per day Total Person-Hours per Day B 24 4,186,680 population X 24 hours Residential Service Demand Factor =A/B 71.3%percent of day spent at home (population's allocation to residential land uses) Source: U.S. Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD); U.S. Census; Economic & Planning Systems Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-28-23.xlsx]23-Residential Service Demand Page 119 of 125 Table 20 Residential Occupancy Factors Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study Description Index Average HH Size % of Time in Unit Impact Fee Factor Fort Collins Average 100.0% 2.36 71.3%1.68 By Square Feet Up to 700 sq. ft.59.2% 1.40 71.3%1.00 700 - 1,200 sq. ft.90.0% 2.12 71.3%1.51 1,201 - 1,700 sq. ft.100.7% 2.38 71.3%1.70 1,701 - 2,200 sq. ft.108.4% 2.56 71.3%1.83 Over 2,200 sq. ft.123.3% 2.91 71.3%2.08 Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-28-23.xlsx]24-Occupancy_Factor Source: 2019 U.S. Census Bureau American Housing Survey, Division 8 (Mountain); Economic & Planning Systems Page 120 of 125 Table 21 Employees Per 1,000 Square Feet Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study Description Floorspace Workers Workers SF per Emp. per 1,000 sq. ft. By Unit Type Retail/Commercial 10,024,000 21,282 2.12 471 Office and Other Services 21,999,000 69,215 3.15 318 Industrial 10,944,000 17,181 1.57 637 Source: TischlerBise; North Front Range MPO TAZ, 2023; Economic & Planning Systems Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-28-23.xlsx]27-Employ_per_unit Page 121 of 125 Table 22 Occupancy Factors Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study Land Use Unit ITE Code Daily Trip Ends Daily Trips [1] Persons/ Trip Employees per 1,000 sq. ft.Vistor Hours Service Population Sq. Ft.(Trip ends / 2)(8 hours/day)per day A B C D = (A * B) - C E Retail/Commercial 1,000 820 37.75 18.88 1.91 2.12 8 16.98 33.99 50.97 24 1.00 2.12 Office and Other Services 1,000 710 9.74 4.87 1.18 3.15 8 25.17 2.60 27.77 24 1.00 1.16 Industrial 1,000 110 4.87 2.44 1.18 1.57 8 12.56 1.30 13.86 24 0.50 0.55 Source: Economic & Planning Systems [1]The daily trips are the daily trip ends divided by 2 so that non-residential land uses are not charged for both ends of a trip (origin and destination) Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-28-23.xlsx]28-NR_Occupancy Factors Visitor Hour Factor =[(C * 8) + (D * E)]/24 Employee Hours in Day Employee Hours Total Hours in Day Total Hours Page 122 of 125 As included in Original Council Finance Commitee Materials CEF - Update Residential Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Update Total up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,813 $2,140 $569 $360 $703 $6,585 701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $4,260 $3,241 $862 $545 $1,064 $9,972 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling $4,783 $3,638 $967 $612 $1,194 $11,195 1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $5,145 $3,913 $1,040 $658 $1,285 $12,041 over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $5,848 $4,448 $1,183 $748 $1,460 $13,687 Development Type Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Update Total Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.$1,281 $811 $1,582 $3,674 Office and Other Services 1,000 sq. ft.$701 $444 $866 $2,010 Industrial 1,000 sq. ft.$332 $210 $410 $953 CEF - Current Fees Residential Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Current Total up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,108 $2,977 $516 $289 $703 $6,593 701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,822 $3,985 $698 $391 $948 $8,844 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling $3,082 $4,351 $759 $425 $1,035 $9,652 1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $3,114 $4,396 $772 $431 $1,051 $9,764 over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $3,470 $4,901 $859 $480 $1,170 $10,880 Development Type Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Current Total Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.$650 $364 $1,777 $2,791 Office and Other Services 1,000 sq. ft.$650 $364 $1,777 $2,791 Industrial 1,000 sq. ft.$152 $85 $419 $656 CEF - Change $ Residential Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Change Total up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling $705 ($837)$53 $71 ($0) ($8) 701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $1,438 ($744)$164 $154 $116 $1,128 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling $1,701 ($713)$208 $187 $159 $1,543 1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,031 ($483)$268 $227 $234 $2,277 over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,378 ($453)$324 $268 $290 $2,807 Development Type Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Change Total Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.$631 $447 ($195)$883 Office and Other Services 1,000 sq. ft.$51 $80 ($911) ($781) Industrial 1,000 sq. ft.$180 $125 ($9)$297 CEF - Change % Residential Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Change % up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling 33%-28%10% 25% 0% 0% 701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling 51%-19%23% 39% 12% 13% 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling 55%-16%27% 44% 15% 16% 1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling 65%-11%35% 53% 22% 23% over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling 69%-9%38% 56% 25% 26% Development Type Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Change % Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.97% 123%-11%32% Office and Other Services 1,000 sq. ft.8% 22%-51% -28% Industrial 1,000 sq. ft.119% 147%-2%45% Page 123 of 125 With Revision for Adjustment for Residen�al Service Demand Factor (Police/Fire/Gen Govt) CEF - adjusted Update Residential Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Update Total up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,813 $2,140 $604 $382 $745 $6,684 701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $4,260 $3,241 $914 $578 $1,129 $10,122 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling $4,783 $3,638 $1,026 $649 $1,267 $11,363 1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $5,145 $3,913 $1,104 $698 $1,363 $12,223 over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $5,848 $4,448 $1,254 $794 $1,549 $13,894 Development Type Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Update Total Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.$1,281 $811 $1,582 $3,674 Office and Other Services 1,000 sq. ft.$701 $444 $866 $2,010 Industrial 1,000 sq. ft.$332 $210 $410 $953 CEF - Adjusted Uppdate Change $ vs. Current Residential Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Change Total up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling $705 ($837)$88 $93 $42 $91 701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $1,438 ($744)$216 $187 $181 $1,278 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling $1,701 ($713)$267 $224 $232 $1,711 1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,031 ($483)$332 $267 $312 $2,459 over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,378 ($453)$395 $314 $379 $3,014 Development Type Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Change Total Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.$631 $447 ($195)$883 Office and Other Services 1,000 sq. ft.$51 $80 ($911) ($781) Industrial 1,000 sq. ft.$180 $125 ($9)$297 CEF - Adjusted Update Change % vs. Current Residential Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Change Total up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling 33% -28% 17% 32% 6% 1% 701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling 51% -19% 31% 48% 19% 14% 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling 55% -16% 35% 53% 22% 18% 1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling 65% -11% 43% 62% 30% 25% over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling 69% -9% 46% 65% 32% 28% Development Type Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Change Total Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.97% 123%-11%32% Office and Other Services 1,000 sq. ft.8% 22%-51% -28% Industrial 1,000 sq. ft.119% 147%-2%45% Page 124 of 125 Change – Revision for Adjustment vs. Original Council Finance Commitee Materials CEF - Adjusted Update Change $ vs. Prior Update Value Residential Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Change Total up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling $0 $0 $35 $22 $43 $99 701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $0 $0 $52 $33 $65 $150 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling $0 $0 $59 $37 $73 $169 1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $0 $0 $63 $40 $78 $181 over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $0 $0 $72 $45 $89 $206 Development Type Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Change Total Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.$0 $0 $0 $0 Office and Other Services 1,000 sq. ft.$0 $0 $0 $0 Industrial 1,000 sq. ft.$0 $0 $0 $0 CEF - Adjusted Update Change % vs. Prior Update Value Residential Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Change Total up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling 0.0% 0.0% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 1.5% 701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling 0.0% 0.0% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 1.5% 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling 0.0% 0.0% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 1.5% 1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling 0.0% 0.0% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 1.5% over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling 0.0% 0.0% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 1.5% Development Type Unit N'hood Park Comm. Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Change Total Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Office and Other Services 1,000 sq. ft.0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Industrial 1,000 sq. ft.0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Page 125 of 125