HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Full - Finance Committee - 12/14/2023 -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
December 14, 2023
4:00 - 6:30 pm
Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/8140111859
Approval of Minutes from the October 5, 2023, Council Finance Committee meeting.
1.Utility Rate / Debt Forecasts L. Smith
Presentation: 15 mins.
Discussion: 20 mins.
2.TCEF Reimbursement M. Virata
Presentation: 5 mins. M. Martinez
Discussion: 10 mins.
3.Impact Fees Continued Discuss & Options D. Lenz
Presentation: 20 mins.
Discussion: 25 mins.
4.Low-income Sales Tax Rebate J. Poznanovic
N. Bodenhamer
Presentation: 10 mins.
Discussion: 10 mins.
5.Change Management Resources T. Marr
Presentation: 10 mins.
Discussion: 10 mins.
Page 1 of 195
Council Finance Committee
2023 Agenda Planning Calendar
Revised 12/6/23 ck
Dec. 14th 2023
Utility Rate / Debt Forecasts 35 min L. Smith
TCEF Reimbursement 15 min M. Virata
M. Martinez
Impact Fees Continued Discussion & Options 45 min D. Lenz
Low-income Sales Tax Rebate 20 min J. Poznanovic
N. Bodenhamer
Change Management Resources 20 min T. Marr
Council Finance Committee
2024 Agenda Planning Calendar
NOTE: There will not be a Council Finance Committee Meeting in January 2024
Feb. 1st 2024
Utility Rate / Debt Forecasts 45 min L. Smith
Laporte Multimodal Grant Match 30 min T. Sellers
M. Martinez
March 7th 2024
April 4th 2024
2024 Topics
Municipal Court Renovaton
Page 2 of 195
Page 3 of 195
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 Zoom Meeting
October 5, 2023
4:00 - 6:00 pm
Council Attendees: Julie Pignataro, Shirley Peel, Emily Francis
Members Absent: Kelly Ohlson
Staff: Kelly DiMartino, Tyler Marr, Travis Storin, John Duval,
Dave Lenz, Randy Reuscher, Marc Virata, Dean Klingner, Sheena Freve, Brad
Buckman, Monica Martinez, Jill Wuertz
Blaine Dunn, Randy Bailey, Renee Reeves, Meaghan Overton, Jo Cech,
Jen Poznanovic, Kendall Minor, Lance Smith, Victoria Shaw, Jill Wuertz
Zack Mozer, Carolyn Koontz
Others: Kevin Jones, Chamber
Brian Duffany and Christian Carroll from Economic & Planning Systems;
Colin McAweeney from TischlerBise
Meeting called to order at 4:00 pm
Approval of minutes from September 7. 2023, Council Finance Committee Meeting.
Emily Francis moved for approval of the minutes as presented. Shirley Peel seconded the motion.
The minutes were approved unanimously via roll call by; Julie Pignataro, Shirley Peel and Emily Francis.
A. Impact Fee Study Updates;
Utility Development Fees & Capital Expansion Fee Studies
Dave Lenz, Director, FP&A
Randy Reuscher, Utilities
Marc Virata, Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF)
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.
Page 4 of 195
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) 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?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Development-related impact fees that are approved by the City Council are CEFs, TCEFs, and Utility plant
investment fees (Utility PIFs), Electric Capacity Fees and Water Supply Requirements.
Previously, fee updates were presented to the City Council on an individual basis. However, it was determined
that updates should occur on a regular two and four-year cadence and fee updates should occur together each
year to provide a more holistic view of the impact of any fee increases.
Fee coordination includes a detailed fee study analysis for CEFs and the TCEF every four years. This has been
achieved through contracting with an outside consultant with data provided by City staff. Findings by the
consultants are also verified by City staff. These studies were last updated in 2017, with the new fees
implemented over a two-year period for TCEF and three-year period for CEF.
For Utility fees, model updates are planned every two years. These are internal updates by City staff with
periodic consultant verification. Fee study analysis is targeted in the odd year before Budgeting for Outcomes
(BFO). In years without an update, an inflation adjustment occurs.
Additionally, a comprehensive Development Review and Building Permit Fee Study update was also completed
during 2019 and 2020. The implementation of the new fee schedules was effective January 2022. These fees
are evaluated annually but are not required to be adjusted automatically on a pre-determined cadence or index.
In April 2022, after some delays related to COVID-19 and competing workstreams, the Council Finance
Committee endorsed the fee update schedule below, with fees being updated for inflation in 2022 and study
updates to be completed during 2023.
Page 5 of 195
Utilities Development Fees Update:
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.
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
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 6 of 195
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
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
Page 7 of 195
• 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 levels of service. The new fees were adopted in
2017 and implemented over a three-year
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,
Page 8 of 195
• 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 (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.
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 $297 45%
Fee Type 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Capital Expansion Fees 6,038$ 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 9 of 195
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.
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) 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?
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS
Julie Pignataro; can you provide more explanation on Option B regarding what the benefit or detriment might
be?
Dave Lenz; due to water issue, that particular fee will have more work done on it- the other two fees – the other
two fees; the Utility fee and the Capital Expansion Fees – according to code updates are to be brought forward
every 2 years with an inflationary index. On the capital expansion fees, we are to bring those forward at least
every 5 years. We have tried to settle on this 4-year cadence with inflationary updates in between. There is
precedent for making a fee effective at the beginning of the year as well as mid-year.
Julie Pignataro; so, either this little part now or add it to the bigger part later.
Dave Lenz; I can’t speak much to the water requirement, but it is 10 fees now that all have varying degrees of
rate impact to help us recover our costs that we are seeing or to defer them all until there is clarity reached. At
this point in time, we don’t know when that will be or what that answer will be.
Emily Francis; we keep adopting these things that increase the cost of housing and we lose track of what we do
over time. I think it is helpful to look at it more holistically with water conversation.
Shirley Peel; was it a Council adopted ordinance to update every 2-years with the inflationary index or is that a
departmental policy? Are we locked into doing it every 2 years?
Randy Reuscher; from a Utilities perspective, we present it to Council and what Council does with it is their
prerogative. January 1st is a pretty strong preference from a Utilities perspective as we have a year end process
for updating permits, etc.
Shirley Peel; when you do an increase like this, do you engage with stakeholders? Is there messaging as part of
the rollout?
Randy Reuscher; we review it with our Boards and Commissions as well as the Chamber so there is.
outreach involved.
Dave Lenz; we publish rates and actions taken are in the public record and on our website. We will
Page 10 of 195
publish our studies for backup information for folks to get a more fulsome understanding. The timing will
depend on the direction we get here. Both studies are still in draft form but are out there for public
consumption.
Shirley Peel; is there a comparison to other peer communities? I am assuming everyone is in the same boat.
Travis Storin; I don’t know that we have a benchmarking display at our fingertips. It is easy for me to imagine
that those other municipalities have encountered many of the same inflationary forces particularly for
construction costs. EPS is probably more reflective of our own cost structure and our own levels of service.
Dave Lenz; we do have some comparatives. The transportation study has some comparative information in the
appendices. For Capital Expansion Fees, that section is still under development. One challenge for comparative
data is that you don’t necessarily know – for example we have big fees for parks, and some have minimal to
none - tough due to levels of service, we also won’t have anyone’s contemplative updates yet, but we have
information we can pull together and share as a follow-up to this committee to provide additional context. It is
not a nice cut and dried apples to apples comparison. On the utilities side, it is even more complex.
Randy Reuscher; there are a lot of levers to pull there. Thresholds to apply to get closer to an apples-to-apples
comparison.
Dave Lenz; we do have big fees for our parks and that is one of our stellar assets in this community.
We know we need money in that area. This is for the build of future things.
Emily Francis; correct me if I am wrong but we need more funding because we don’t have money to maintain
what we have. So, these capital expansion fees don’t exactly help us in that area.
Dave Lenz; we need money to build new things to accommodate growth and we also need money to fund what
we have, which Sustainable funding is trying to attend to.
Emily Francis; the CEF fees we are seeking is taking into account what we have left to build and what our
estimated costs are for that.
Dave Lenz; we have different things in the hopper, in the plans. The dollars aren’t dependent on specific plans
because some aren’t developed yet. It is taking our existing needs with the understanding that our population is
expected to increase by 50-60K people, so there will be more assets needed. The existing cost structure to serve
the existing base.
Emily Francis; then why for the key data inputs, don’t we include our Master Parks & Recreation Plan and some
of the other plans like we do for the funding of the TCEFs?
Dave Lenz; you can do a plan-based approach – the prior Council and staff have adhered to an incremental
expansion approach where we are taking a look at current levels of service and what it takes to provide that.
We do take plans into account for things like what land might cost but if it not as specific as just dropping the
plans on top of the new build. Some of those facilities are going to benefit existing residents and the population.
Emily Francis; current level of service that we built our parks to or that we say everyone should be within a 10-
minute walk or ride to a park.
Page 11 of 195
Dave Lenz; the metrics, in terms of what should be done to serve those folks. We are not charging folks for
additional benefits on those in the existing level of park assets across the city.
Emily Francis; the current cost of building parks has escalated partly because of the types of parks we are
building. Are we calculating the fees based on the current level of service we are building in those parks or
just a baseline park. Part of the problem I see in representing a district that is mainly built out if that
the parks in this part of town do not have funds to maintain them, but we are seeing a bunch of new parks built
elsewhere (on the south side) that are much nicer and fancier. The disparity between north and south is
growing. What is the dollar amount that it took to build Roland Moore versus Fossil Creek on the southside?
Dave Lenz; so, if something was built in 2010 and now is to apply some type of inflation factor to it.
It is an academic exercise in a way but that is the approach we try to do. If we are using a park that was built in
2013 or 2015, we bring that park forward to today’s dollars. This in combination with other parks we are
building is what it costs to do it now. The inflation on the construction costs and the land cost has gone up.
Emily Francis; what do we consider our level of service now and how that is impacting our fees.
How we are calculating – methodology – what was the theory that Council was using to design those
methodologies?
Shirley Peel; if we raise these in January, I think there is some appetite on Council to revisit the parks we are
building. The kind of parks we are building right now versus what we want to build – that might be a different
total.
Emily Francis; curious about the philosophy that Council was using when these formulas were made.
Does it reflect how Council is trying to direct policy now? If Council values building smaller homes, are fees set
up to facility that or are we still calculating fees based on an old methodology?
And for TCEF – active modes – is that based on how many people are currently using active modes or what our
goal is for active modes?
Marc Virata; active modes part of TCEF is plan (goal) based. We thought it would be more direct to address it
from a plan base methodology since Council just adopted the plan. If you try to use incremental for active
modes – what we are trying to calculate is when is there friction in terms of too many people on a bike lane -
feels a bit like a squishy exercise for active modes.
Emily Francis; that is super helpful to hear, and I am in agreement with where we are trying to go – in terms of
the Capital expansion fee, it is similar?
Dave Lenz; I wasn’t here back when Council adopted the approach – perhaps Brian can add some perspective.
Brian Duffany from Economic & Planning Systems (EPS);
So, looking at a plan-based approach versus the incremental - For a plan-based approach, you would take the
parks master plan and other facility master plans which could be 10 or 20-year plans. You divide the cost of
implementing those plans by growth.
Communities it usually includes their plans and CIPs – a lot of communities aren’t able to consider that long
range of cost planning because they don’t have the money to fully implement the plans, so they tend not to fully
consider those costs in their CIPs. In reality, it can be hard to do a plan-based methodology in all of these asset
classes – it is easier to do for transportation.
Page 12 of 195
Dave Lenz; based on my background in capital planning, both in the private and public sector, we don’t do long
term capital planning that well. We are bumping up against that constraint and as we see the BFO process
layered against the needs we see the limited funds that we have -
That is how things get kicked down the road a bit.
We need to build to a standard that our community expects.
On a unit basis, sometimes building smaller is more expensive on a unitized basis (per acre or per resident
served). The math is tough sometimes to achieve that goal. Capital Plans many times are unfunded plans, so
that might not be the best methodology to rely on those, it might make more sense to rely on incremental –
what does it costs to do the things we have then we use a suite of assets that lean toward the most recent
things because those are more reflective of current costs.
Brian Duffany from Economic & Planning Systems (EPS);
Responding to Emily’s concern regarding disparity of parks on the north and south sides of town - impact fees do
help. The city’s CIP includes both capital expansion projects and capital maintenance projects and you need
money to do both. You are not subsidizing growth as much with other funding sources – potentially have more
resources available to address the deferred maintenance.
Emily Francis; when we have infill in those areas – they already have designated parks, so they are not going to
get a new park.
Dave Lenz; if we do add incremental capabilities, additional capacity for an infill park, that is available to use
these dollars. (for example, 3 swing sets to 4 would be incremental). We can use part of that money for that
piece of expansion in capacity.
Emily Francis; smaller units, percent wise, bear more when the city is trying to move in that direction – it doesn’t
reflect our values.
Brian Duffany from Economic & Planning Systems (EPS); in our capital expansion fees, the smaller units pay less.
Dave Lenz; if we go back and look at the fee schedules, the smallest units are taking the least burden
percentage.
Julie Pignataro; Except in utilities, right?. Utilities are where it doesn’t line up.
Emily Francis; would be helpful to look at the range of square feet. What is the dollar amount increase per
square foot in those ranges. It may just be going up a little but what if it was higher before. For example, it
would be helpful to see - in the range of 0-701, what is the price per square foot for each of those categories?
Dave Lenz; we can build this out to show some different categories.
Emily Francis; do we have homes that are being built that are under 700 square feet? Would be helpful to clarify
if these are apartment units or single-family homes.
Travis Storin; whether we bring the request on a per square foot basis at the First Reading or whether we are
deferring this into 2024, the output of the $ per square foot is going to reflect the fee study, itself.
Page 13 of 195
In the case of parks, the service impact is based on the number of humans who will be living there and thereby
utilizing the park rather than the larger the house, the larger the fee. All of the fee studies are based on the
actual cost of service provision. If we just take the community parks fee and assume a 700 square foot unit
and a 1,200 square foot unit, the larger unit will pay approximately $2.70 per square foot for their community
park, and the smaller unit will pay about $3.00 per square foot. Based more on the number of people we
assume will be living there and utilizing that park asset.
Emily Francis; how do we calculate our anticipated number of people?
Brian Duffany from Economic & Planning Systems (EPS); It is based on the average household size by size ranges.
The data comes from the American Housing Survey, Western Region prepared by the Census Bureau.
Dave Lenz; when we look at how the data changed from the last time, the number of people assumed in those
smaller units has changed which is why they are seeing less of an impact.
Emily Francis; I disagree with the ideology of how many people live in a house -
Brian Duffany from Economic & Planning Systems (EPS); It is all based on averages.
Emily Francis; not reflecting where the city wants to head. We have such limited housing choices here in Fort
Collins, it is not like these people are living in a house that works for them - but now it is directing how our fees
are working. Making it more and more difficult to build smaller and multi-unit homes through things such as
fees. How do these apply to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)?
Brian Duffany from Economic & Planning Systems (EPS); if an ADU falls into one of the categories, they would
pay the applicable fee. The reason the fees are backed into square footage is to help the smaller units pay a
lower impact fee and to encourage a better housing mix.
Dave Lenz; they would pay that applicable fee. The reason they are Lower impact fee.
Intent - adjustment for household size – to encourage ADUs and multi-family.
Emily Francis; it is so expensive to build smaller homes – how do we switch that – I would say it is the same with
Re development – we have people who do not redevelop their properties because of these fees so we have
things that are not being updated because of this. The fees prevent people from updating and coming up to
code. We are seeing a degrade in the services that are provided.
Marc Virata; We do provide credit against existing for the redevelopment. For example, if you scrape and do a
rebuild, you have credit with the structure that was there.
Emily Francis; an example is the businesses on Laporte that are getting run down and are no longer up to city
code, but the owners don’t want to redevelop because it is too expensive. People don’t want to redevelop over
25% of their structure because of these fees. So, now we are seeing the impacts of things not being updated
since the 60’s.
Julie Pignataro; when I think about fees. I think things cost what they cost.
Is this an opportunity to encourage the things we are looking for?
What would a mixed-use development fall under (both commercial and housing)?
Page 14 of 195
Dave Lenz; it gets broken apart into the components - square footage for the residential and square footage for
the non-residential. They are treated differently.
Julie Pignataro; if we wanted to incentivize certain types of building, would those incentives costs need to come
out of a separate fund, or would it rebalance these fees?
Travis Storin; the way we handled that in the past was with fee credits out of the General Fund.
Each of these fees reside in different funds outside of the General Fund. As far as other ways to incentivize - fee
credits which are targeted toward affordable units and there could certainly be programmatic expansions of the
types of development we offer credits toward.
Brian Duffany from Economic & Planning Systems (EPS); You could look at the definition the city uses for
affordable units. Some communities, depending on their needs have raised the income limit to capture a
broader range of housing types and then if there is permanent affordability, you could get some fee credit
offset.
Julie Pignataro; I am struggling with the same thing I hear others are struggling with as well - we are still
rewarding the kind of single-family development that has got us in to the crisis we are in. I don’t know what the
answer is.
Emily Francis; I had heard that Boulder is charging an additional fee on houses over a certain square footage -
If the three of us are concerned about this, what are the other options?
Travis Storin; I am not familiar with the Boulder program -
This is an instance where price doesn’t equal cost. This is an instance where we are trying to make price equal
costs and make it as close to net neutral to impacts to our systems.
I am hearing a desire to think about ways to incentives certain types of development.
What is right now a cost of service-based model – we are starting to reach some of our limits as a staff on what
we are justified in breaking out. For instance, two cycles ago, the Parks fee went from a per unit fee to a
graduated square footage schedule that it is on right now. We have utilized some of those techniques, and still
have to constantly test for legal defensibility - is it based on cost of service still?
I am anticipating a written response will be needed here. I would suggest we do a follow-up memo to address a
call to action – What other options do we have? What can we learn from Boulder or other community-based
models?
Shirley Peel; I think it is more that we are trying to switch direction and is our process still applicable?
Emily Francis; do our fees match our values?
Dave Lenz; also, within the constraints of what statue allows us to do.
Julie Pignataro; what we need a fee to do - we can’t just give away the farm.
Emily Francis; we still want development to pay for the impacts. How do we reflect better where we are trying
to go with the fees? The redevelopment issue is significant within my district – a real hindrance.
Page 15 of 195
Randy Reuscher; I understand the concern. Square footage is not strongly correlated with our utility fees.
Water is based on the outside area not square footage of the house. Electric capacity fees are based on your
panel and your amp usage. You could have a situation where it is a small house – two bedrooms and have two
electric vehicles and the air conditioning is driving a higher demand.
Julie Pignataro; where do we go from here? You had asked about bringing this forward January 1st? Do you just
want to bring it forward?
Dave Lenz; It was to bring it forward for a January 1, 2024, implementation which would mean adoption in
December.
Travis Storin; I think we have heard the Council’s intent which is summarized by; Do our fees align with our
values? As a staff we are going to have some research and legal review and need to come back to you at the
December meeting at the earliest.
I think this may drive us (your direction) toward fees coming later in 2024 for a TBD implementation date to
allow for the work and for the Council Finance Committee to ensure we are advancing the community objectives
in the right ways through our fees. Also, questions around whether or not this merits a work session.
Julie Pignataro; I am sorry you have to do more work but then you Emily for that question, do our fees align with
our values? I think that is what we are going round and round with and struggling with.
Emily Francis; if we are changing the way we approach this, it probably does need to go a work session.
Meeting adjourned at 5:18 pm
Page 16 of 195
Page 17 of 195
WORK SESSION
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY TEMPLATE
Staff: Lance Smith, Utilities Senior Director of Finance
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION – 2023 Strategic Financial Plan for the Light & Power Utility
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this agenda item is to provide the Council Finance Committee with an overview of the
planning processes underway within Fort Collins Utilities. This agenda item will focus on the electric utility
within the Light & Power and Telecommunications Enterprise Fund. The Water, Wastewater and
Stormwater Enterprise Funds will be presented for discussion in February 2024. The resulting investment
projections set the basis for beginning the 2025-26 Budgeting For Outcomes (BFO) cycle. The 2023 Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) and the 2023 Strategic Financial Plan is outlined here along with the overall 10-
year rate projection for Light & Power and associated debt issuances. Through active management of O&M
expenses, gradual, moderate rate adjustments and the issuance of some debt, the Light & Power Enterprise
Fund is expected to be able to meet its operational objectives through targeted capital investments over
the coming decade.
The electric utility portion of the Light & Power and Telecommunications Enterprise Fund has an increased
level of capital investment primarily driven by the beneficial electrification which may require distribution
asset renewals before the end of those asset’s useful life as well as anticipated new growth and annexations
which will require a new substation and associated equipment. Tightly managing the operating expenses
will be necessary going forward to ensure adequate operating income is being generated to meet system
renewal needs through moderate rate adjustments. The climate action goals set by both the City and Platte
River Power Authority will require rate increases as well during this same period. Two additional significant
debt issuances are anticipated as being necessary between now and 2030 to support.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does the Council Finance Committee support the Utilities Strategic Financial Plan assumptions
ahead of the 2025-26 BFO cycle? In particular, the projected rate increases necessary to meet
anticipated revenue requirements?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The financial health of each utility Enterprise Fund depends on active management of ongoing operating
and maintenance expenses as well as planning for large capital expenditures. The capital investment
required to maintain the current levels of service provided by each of the four utility services to the
community requires a long planning horizon and consistent reevaluation and prioritization. Ahead of the
biennial budget process beginning both the 10-year Strategic Financial Plan and the associated 10-year
Capital Improvement Plan are updated and presented to the Council Finance Committee for discussion to
ensure that adequate operating revenues are expected to support the City Manager’s Recommended
Budget.
Strategic Financial Planning Process
The strategic financial planning process is intended to provide a long-term plan for the efficient and
effective financial management of each utility in a manner that is consistent with the City’s values and
Year 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Rate Increase 5.0% 6.0% 5.0% 5-8% 7-8% 7-8% 7-8% 3-5% 3-5% 3-5%
Debt Issued ($M)$61.0 $76.0
Page 18 of 195
mission and aligned with the City’s biennial Budget Process and Strategic Planning Process. Much of the
long-term strategic direction for each utility requires significant capital investment spanning more than one
budget cycle making a long-term capital improvement plan necessary to support the strategic plan.
Whereas strategic planning sets the operational direction of where the utilities are going in the future,
strategic financial planning provides a financial context for this movement. The strategic financial plans
ensure the long-term operational and fiscal objectives and level of service targets for each of the utilities
are met in a financially sustainable and resilient manner. The three main financial metrics from a long-
term financial planning perspective are:
1. Operating Margin > 3.0%
2. Debt Coverage Ratio > 2.0
3. Annual Rate Adjustments < 5.0%
Strategic planning consists of Master Planning and Capital Improvement Planning. These plans assess
current infrastructure for future needs and risks and review expected growth in customers and services
delivered along with any new regulatory requirements. The Master Plans generate a list of recommended
capital projects over the planning horizon which are then included in the Capital Improvement Plans
(CIP). The respective engineering groups for each utility are developing a standardized process to
prioritize the necessary capital investments. This prioritized list provides the associated annual capital
investment which becomes an input into the long term Strategic Financial Plan. This list is updated
ahead of the two-year BFO process and is prioritized using metrics intended to measure the levels of
service that each utility is targeting to provide to the community. The financial position of each utility is
also reviewed in this step with the output being a recommended path forward which involve rate
adjustments and future debt issuances to achieve the operational objectives and needs of each utility.
Assess Operational
Needs / Risks
Determine Optimal
Solutions & Mitigations
Identify Anticipated
Capital Projects Over Planning Horizon
Establish Capital
Project Prioritization Criteria
Determine Relative
Weighting of Criteria
Prioritize Projects with
Criteria
Review Financial
Position of Each Utility
Determine Capital
Investment Capacities
Recommend
Financial Strategy to Achieve Operational
Objectives
Master
Planning
Capital
Improvement
Planning
Strategic
Financial
Planning
Page 19 of 195
2023 Strategic Financial Planning
The 2023 strategic financial planning process began with an assessment of what has changed since the
previous plan. On a macro-economic scale these changes include:
• In 2022 inflation returned to levels not seen in 40 years which has adversely affected operating
costs as well as the costs of materials and labor for capital projects.
• After the COVID-19 pandemic supply chain constraints created scarcity in some electric
equipment, particularly transformers which has caused a 150-300% cost increase.
• The Federal Reserve has responded to the growth in inflation by raising interest rates in a short
time, which in turn is increasing the cost of capital.
More specific to the Light & Power and Telecommunications Enterprise Fund changes that have an
impact on the financial modeling for this plan are:
• Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) is finalizing a new Integrated Resource Plan which is
expected to be filed with the State of Colorado sometime in 2024 leading to some uncertainty in
the wholesale rate projections utilized in this effort.
• Development has slowed considerably in 2023 resulting in significantly less Electric Capacity
Fees (ECF) being received in 2023 than 2022 creating more uncertainty of future ECF revenue
projections utilized in this effort.
• Consistent with the 2021 Strategic Financial Plan, in October of 2023 a new debt issuance at a
coupon rate of 5.000% for $59,400,000 providing the electric utility with $40,818,986 of new
capital.
2023 Capital Improvement Planning
Operational goals for the Light & Power utility are focused on maintaining the current level of reliability
while moving forward with achieving the carbon-reduction objectives of the City’s Our Climate Future
(OCF) plan through energy efficiencies and renewable generation through both utility-scale and
distributed generation resources. Investment in distribution infrastructure is necessary to maintain the
current level of reliability expected by our customers and to enable beneficial electrification throughout our
community. The capital investments necessary to achieve the OCF objectives include supporting
distributed energy generation and energy storage as well as beneficial electrification efforts such as
electric vehicles and electric heating. In addition to supporting distributed energy generation and energy
storage the 10-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the Light & Power Fund consists of projects
needed to provide adequate substation and distribution capacity to developing areas of the City,
anticipated annexations, operational technology improvements and system renewal of existing
substations and underground distribution assets. The chart below shows the 2023 10-year Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) for Light & Power.
Page 20 of 195
The graph below shows the evolution of the Light & Power CIP over the last 3 budget cycles compared to
the 2023 CIP reflecting the impacts of some of the macro-economic challenges outlined above as well as
updated planning and analysis. The growth of the number of projects in the CIP will require further
consideration around how to fully resource these projects which could result in a more even distribution of
capital required than what is shown in the chart above.
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
$70,000,000
$80,000,000
$90,000,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Light & Power Capital Improvements 2023-2033
System Additions
Substations
Transformers, Cables & Duct Banks
Annexations
Technology and Other
Ave Annual Capital 2013-2022
Ave Annual Capital 2024-2033
$0
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
$300,000,000
$350,000,000
2017 CIP 2019 CIP 2021 CIP 2023 CIP
Light & Power 10 Year Capital Improvement Plan Trend
CIP
CIP Inflated to 2023
Page 21 of 195
Light & Power Operations
The financial modeling involved in updating the strategic financial plan analyzes operating revenues and
expenses to determine the amount of operating income that can fund capital investment before issuing
any new debt. Operating revenues have grown significantly over the past decade through rate increases
while total energy sales have remained flat. The need for continued rate increases between now and
2030 is being driven primarily by expected increases in the wholesale purchased power costs and the
need to issue a significant amount of new debt to support the CIP. Based on the projected revenue
requirements for operations and maintenance (O&M) and capital investment, operating revenues are
projected to grow at close to an annual rate of 5.0% over the next decade.
The colored area represents the 95% confidence band around the expected operating expense.
Strong revenue growth in residential sales has increased operating revenues and thereby operating
income over the past decade. This revenue growth has been driven entirely by rate increases as
increased customer growth has been offset by increased efficiency.
$0
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
$300,000,000
2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033
Operating Revenues (2013 -2033)
FUND:
501 - Light & Power Enterprise Fund
Budget
Year 2023
10 Yr
Annualized
Trend
5 Yr
Annualized
Trend
3 Yr
Annualized
Trend
1 Yr
Annualized
Trend
Customers 79,994 1.56%1.58% 1.22% 0.99%
Annual Rate Adjustment 5.00% 3.17%3.36% 3.33% 2.00%
Residential Elec Services 61,510,000$ 3.75%5.01% 6.03% 1.59%
Commercial Elec Services 46,920,000$ 2.87%2.66% 2.87% 4.52%
Industrial Charges for Services 35,920,000$ 3.15%0.70% 0.45% 1.69%
Green Energy Program 150,000$ -9.94%-16.03% -22.90% 10.34%
PILOTs 8,390,000$ 3.27%3.08% 3.50% 2.47%
Operating Revenue 152,890,000$ 3.27%3.09% 3.52% 2.57%
Total Revenues 158,040,390$ 3.11%3.25% 4.42% 3.68%
Page 22 of 195
Light & Power O&M expenses have increased at a rate exceeding inflation over the past decade. This
has begun to be addressed through active management (a flattening of the curve can be seen in 2018-
20). Unfortunately, inflation and delays in capital work since the COVID-19 pandemic due to resource
constraints has resulted in some growth since 2020. The rate and debt issuance forecasts in the plan are
based on a statistical analysis which shows that O&M will increase at a rate close to the 5.0% rate of
revenue growth.
The colored area represents the 95% confidence band around the expected operating expense.
The table below shows the recent trends in expenses along with the relative size of each line through the
2023 budgeted expenses. Significant growth in Purchased Power costs and L&P Operations, the two
largest expense categories, are driving the overall trend. Fort Collins electric customers have benefited
from lower wholesale purchased power increases since 2018 due to some flattening of the overall load
curve through load shifting under time-of-day rates as our contribution to the coincident peak has
diminished. However, this benefit has not offset the wholesale rate increases that have been realized
over that same period.
Between now and 2030 PRPA will be shifting more and more generation to renewable sources. An
updated Integrated Resource Plan is expected in 2024 which will likely lead to an updated wholesale rate
forecast to reflect the higher demand for renewable resources.
$0
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
$300,000,000
2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033
Operating Expenses (2013 -2033)
Page 23 of 195
Positive operating income needs to be generated over the coming decade to increase the Net Pledged
Revenues necessary to support higher debt service costs after considering the increased O&M expenses.
This will likely require rate increases in excess of the strategic financial target of less than 5.0% annually.
In the strategic financial model, it was necessary to consider rate increases as high as 8.0% in some
years to meet the strategic financial targets.
Light & Power Rate and Debt Forecasts
In some years rate increases will need to exceed the strategic financial targeted ceiling of 5.0% to cover
wholesale purchased power increases and significant capital investments in the distribution system over
the coming decade to ensure adequate operating revenue is generated to meet increased debt service
Budget
Year 2023
10 Yr
Annualized
Trend
5 Yr
Annualized
Trend
3 Yr
Annualized
Trend
1 Yr
Annualized
Trend
Annual Demand (KWH)1,515,316 0.0%-0.3% -0.1% 0.6%
Purchase Power -Tariff 1 PRPA 102,000,000$ 2.5% 1.2% 1.2% 5.8%
Purchase Pwr - Community Renewables 2,390,291$ 24.2% 19.2% 13.4%
L&P Operations 11,248,353$ 3.7% 1.5% 3.1% 5.7%
Energy Services 7,561,590$ 3.8% -1.1% 5.8% 16.0%
PILOTs 8,390,000$ 3.3% 3.1% 3.5% 2.5%
Admin Services - CS&A 8,710,000$ 5.3% 4.1% 4.1% 3.8%
Admin Services - General Fund 1,215,482$ 0.6% -6.2% -2.9% -3.9%
Other Payments & Transfers 3,369,262$ 3.5% 6.8% 18.4% 29.1%
Depreciation 11,500,000$ 2.7% -0.4% -4.3% -5.8%
Total Operating Expenses 156,384,977$ 3.0% 1.5% 1.7% 5.3%
Total Expenses 160,535,716$ 2.1% -0.5% 1.8% 7.2%
($50,000,000)
$0
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
$300,000,000
20
1
3
20
1
4
20
1
5
20
1
6
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
20
2
0
20
2
1
20
2
2
20
2
3
20
2
4
20
2
5
20
2
6
20
2
7
20
2
8
20
2
9
20
3
0
20
3
1
20
3
2
20
3
3
Operating Income 2013 -2033
Operating Income Operating Revenue Operating Expense
Page 24 of 195
costs. The table below also shows the anticipated debt issuances needed for capital investments over the
next decade.
Conclusions and Next Steps
Updating the ten year Capital Improvement Plans ahead of the budget cycle allows for an assessment of
potential rate adjustments and debt issuances that may be necessary in the near future. This allows the
associated Strategic Financial Plan to be updated with a new financial path forward to meet the operational
needs of each utility, the electric utility in this case.
Through active management of O&M expenses, moderate rate adjustments and the issuance of $130M of
new debt, the Light & Power and Telecommunications Enterprise Fund is expected to have the capital
available to address the investments outlined in the CIP necessary to be able to meet its operational
objectives over the coming decade.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - PowerPoint presentation
Attachment 2 – Light & Power Capital Improvement Plan
Year 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Rate Increase 5.0% 6.0% 5.0% 5-8% 7-8% 7-8% 7-8% 3-5% 3-5% 3-5%
Debt Issued ($M)$61.0 $76.0
Page 25 of 195
Page 26 of 195
2Purpose and Direction Sought
Objective:
•Provide an update on the Capital Improvement Plans and Strategic Financial Plan for
the electric utility side of the Light & Power and Telecommunications Fund
•Recommend strategic path forward to meet 10 year operational and financial
objectives ahead of the 2025-26 Budget cycle
Direction Sought:
•Does the Council Finance Committee support the Utilities Strategic Financial Plan
assumptions ahead of the 2025-26 BFO cycle? In particular, the rate increases
associated with the anticipated revenue required?
Page 27 of 195
3Utilities Planning Process
Assess Operational
Needs / Risks
Determine Optimal
Solutions &
Mitigations
Identify Anticipated
Capital Projects Over
Planning Horizon
Establish Capital
Project Prioritization
Criteria
Determine Relative
Weighting of Criteria
Prioritize Projects with
Criteria
Review Financial
Position of Each Utility
Determine Capital
Investment
Capacities
Recommend
Financial Strategy to
Achieve Operational
Objectives
Master
Planning
Capital
Improvement
Planning (CIP)
Strategic
Financial
Planning
5-
7
y
e
a
r
s
2
y
e
a
r
s
2
y
e
a
r
s
Page 28 of 195
4Utilities Strategic Financial Plan
Objectives
•Maintain adequate reserve balances such that:
•Meet Minimum Reserves Policy
•Reserves and revenues adequate to cover near term capital
requirements
•Maintain current credit ratings for each Enterprise Fund and the City
•Avoid rate spikes through moderate, gradual rate increases
Page 29 of 195
5Changes in Modeling Assumptions
Macro-economic changes:
•In 2022 inflation returned to levels not seen in 40 years which has adversely affected operating costs as
well as the costs of materials and labor for capital projects.
•After the COVID-19 pandemic supply chain constraints created scarcity in some electric equipment,
particularly transformers which has caused a 150-300% cost increase.
•The Federal Reserve has responded to the growth in inflation by raising interest rates in a short time,
which in turn is increasing the cost of capital.
Page 30 of 195
6Changes in Modeling Assumptions
Local economic changes:
•Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) is finalizing a new Integrated Resource Plan which is expected to
be filed with the State of Colorado sometime in 2024 leading to some uncertainty in the wholesale rate
projections utilized in this effort.
•Development has slowed considerably in 2023 resulting in significantly less Electric Capacity Fees
(ECF) being received in 2023 than 2022 creating more uncertainty of future ECF revenue projections
utilized in this effort.
•Consistent with the 2021 Strategic Financial Plan, in October of 2023 a new debt issuance at a coupon
rate of 5.000% for $59,400,000 providing the electric utility with $40,818,986 of new capital.
Page 31 of 195
7
Light & Power
Page 32 of 195
8Light & Power CIP
2022 Operating Revenue not used for Purchased Power expense was $53M
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
$70,000,000
$80,000,000
$90,000,000
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Light & Power Capital Improvements 2023-2033
System Additions
Substations
Transformers, Cables & Duct Banks
Annexations
Technology and Other
Ave Annual Capital 2013-2022
Ave Annual Capital 2024-2033
Page 33 of 195
9Light & Power Operating Income
($50,000,000)
$0
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
$300,000,000
20
1
3
20
1
4
20
1
5
20
1
6
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
20
2
0
20
2
1
20
2
2
20
2
3
20
2
4
20
2
5
20
2
6
20
2
7
20
2
8
20
2
9
20
3
0
20
3
1
20
3
2
20
3
3
Operating Income 2013 -2033
Operating Income Operating Revenue Operating Expense
Page 34 of 195
10Light & Power Financial Forecast
Page 35 of 195
11Light & Power Rate and Debt Forecasts
•Two debt issuances are necessary for electric infrastructure in 2026 and 2029
•Rate increases between 5% and 8% are expected to be necessary to meet
operational objectives in this new economic environment
Year 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Rate Increase 5.0% 6.0% 5.0% 5-8% 7-8% 7-8% 7-8% 3-5% 3-5% 3-5%
Debt Issued ($M)$61.0 $76.0
Page 36 of 195
12Purpose and Direction Sought
Objective:
•Provide an update on the Capital Improvement Plans and Strategic Financial Plan for
the electric utility side of the Light & Power and Telecommunications Fund
•Recommend strategic path forward to meet 10 year operational and financial
objectives ahead of the 2025-26 Budget cycle
Direction Sought:
•Does the Council Finance Committee support the Utilities Strategic Financial Plan
assumptions ahead of the 2025-26 BFO cycle? In particular, the rate increases
associated with the anticipated revenue required?
Page 37 of 195
Page 38 of 195
Capital Category 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 TOTALS
System Additions $5,725,243 $5,700,000 $5,700,000 $5,700,000 $5,700,000 $5,700,000 $5,700,000 $5,700,000 $5,700,000 $5,700,000 $5,700,000 $62,725,243
Substations $3,523,000 $23,222,900 $6,637,841 $1,747,254 $1,815,572 $1,659,639 $1,870,013 $1,057,052 $1,081,414 $1,136,056 $1,060,988 $43,750,743
Transformers, Cables & Duct Banks $17,192,509 $38,907,935 $17,621,816 $12,698,215 $12,671,368 $12,824,445 $11,833,821 $9,974,287 $10,941,906 $9,693,906 $10,148,602 $129,805,406
Annexations $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Technology and Other $9,227,441 $12,057,113 $10,508,139 $5,028,947 $5,900,262 $4,703,693 $5,806,246 $3,158,926 $4,161,740 $3,164,695 $2,167,798 $52,395,000
ASSET RENEWAL (2023 Debt Issuance)$3,308,754 $23,670,129 $6,049,522
Totals $35,668,193 $79,887,948 $40,467,796 $25,174,417 $26,087,202 $24,887,777 $25,210,081 $19,890,265 $21,885,060 $19,694,658 $19,077,388 $288,676,392
FY2223
Row Labels 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
1680 Subdivision Construction Total (System Additions)
16800000 System Addition (Subdivisions and Others)$5,725,243 $5,700,000 $5,700,000 $5,700,000 $5,700,000 $5,700,000 $5,700,000 $5,700,000 $5,700,000 $5,700,000 $5,700,000 $62,725,243
1680 System Additions (Subdivision Construction) Total (System Additions)5,725,243.00$ 5,700,000.00$ 5,700,000.00$ 5,700,000.00$ 5,700,000.00$ 5,700,000.00$ 5,700,000.00$ 5,700,000.00$ 5,700,000.00$ 5,700,000.00$ 5,700,000.00$ 62,725,243.00$
501001 Substations Total (Substations)
501001A001 Battery Banks Repair/Replacement $20,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $200,000
501001A002 Battery Chargers Repair/Repalcement $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $200,000
501001A003 LTC (Load Tap Changer) Repair/Maintainence $105,000 $105,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $360,000
501001A005 HVAC Units Repair/Replacement $44,000 $44,000 $44,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $232,000
501001A006 Transformer Radiator Repair/Replacements $78,000 $103,000 $103,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $584,000
501001A011 Transformer Repair/Refurbishing $250,000 $257,500 $265,225 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $1,172,725
501001A017 Substation Misc Capital $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $1,100,000
501001A018 Substation Basalite Walls - NEW $500,000 $550,000 $605,000 $665,500 $732,050 $3,052,550
501001A020 Equipment For CVR (Conservation Voltage Reduction)$75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $825,000
501001A013 Transformer Oil Filtration $140,000 $144,200 $148,526 $152,982 $157,571 $162,298 $167,167 $172,182 $177,348 $182,668 $188,148 $1,793,091
501001A014 Substation Security & Surveillance $250,000 $250,000 $300,000 $15,000 $15,450 $15,914 $16,391 $16,883 $17,389 $17,911 $18,448 $933,385
501001A010 Wildlife Mitigation $100,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $600,000
501001A012 Preventative Maintenance $100,000 $103,000 $106,090 $109,273 $112,551 $115,927 $119,405 $122,987 $126,677 $130,477 $134,392 $1,280,780
501001A009 Substation Modernization $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $2,750,000
501001A009 Relay Upgrades/Replacements $189,000 $350,000 $350,000 $100,000 $100,000 $1,089,000
501001A013 Substation Maintence Equipment $250,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $200,000 $1,350,000
501001A016 Power Quality Systems $15,000 $30,000 $30,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $135,000
501001A019 Substation Basalite Walls - Harmony Repair $1,407,000 $1,407,000 $2,814,000
501001A012 Capacitor Banks - New/Replacements $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $160,000
501001A004 Oil Containment Walls (12 transformers)$70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $770,000
501001A022 New Northeast Substation $6,649,200 $3,761,000 $10,410,200
501001A023 New Northeast Substation Land Acquisition $1,500,000 $1,500,000
501001A024 PRPA Drake Upgrade/Move Request $11,500,000 $11,500,000
501001 Substations Total (Substations)3,523,000$ 23,222,900$ 6,637,841$ 1,747,254$ 1,815,572$ 1,659,639$ 1,870,013$ 1,057,052$ 1,081,414$ 1,136,056$ 1,060,988$ 43,750,743$
ASSET RENEWAL (2023 Debt Issuance)$1,407,000 $21,056,200 $3,761,000
501005 Feeders Total (Transformers, Cables & Duct Banks)
501005D004 Install circuit 936 to unload circuits 804, 834, and 906 $0
501005D011 Install circuit 324 to unload circuit 308 (Active in 2023)$1,040,000 $1,040,000
501005D012 Install circuit 302 to serve Mulberry Annexation $2,160,000 $2,160,000
501005D055 Circuit 602 to serve NE Developments - Ph3 Mt Vista $1,300,000 $1,300,000
501005D060 Install circuit 624 to serve Developments in NE Ft. Collins $1,080,000 $1,080,000
501005D076 Install circuit 706 to unload circuits 704 and 738 (see also 501005D079) (Transfort chargers)$500,000 $500,000
501005D078 Circuit 628 to serve NE developments - Ph1 Mt Vista (Montava)$1,300,000 $1,300,000
501005D079 Upgrade and Extend 722 to unload circuits 704 and 738 (See 501005D076) (Transfort chargers)$1,292,000 $1,292,000
501005D080 Extend East Vine Circuit 622 - Railroad to I25 $395,000 $395,000
501005D081 Circuit 324 Carriage pky ph1 - Prospect to fox grove $220,000 $220,000
501005D082 New Circuit 338 to serve Mulberry developments $1,080,000 $1,080,000
501005D083 Circuit - NE Sub Ckt 1 $528,000 $528,000
501005D084 Circuit - NE Sub Ckt 2 $648,000 $648,000
501005D085 Circuit - NE Sub Ckt 3 $628,800 $628,800
501005D086 Circuit - NE Sub Ckt 4 $744,000 $744,000
501005D087 Circuit - NE Sub Ckt 5 $744,000 $744,000
501005D088 Circuit - NE Sub Ckt 6 $1,044,000 $1,044,000
501005D089 Circuit - NE Sub Ckt 7 $888,000 $888,000
501005D090 Circuit - NE Sub Ckt 8 $1,044,000 $1,044,000
501005D091 Circuit - Timberline 338 extension $612,000 $612,000
501005D092 Balance Ckt 822 $528,000 $528,000
501005D093 Extend Circuit 638 to unload circuit 608 $696,000 $696,000
501005D094 Circuit Tie Harmony 536 to 526 $3,370,000 $3,370,000
501005D095 New Ckt 314 from Timberline to unload Ckt 332 -$226,000
501005D096 New Ckt 538 from Harmony to unload 548 $300,000
501005D097 New Circuit 566 from Harmony to unload Harmony 534 $328,000 $328,000
501005D098Extend Linden circuit 722 to 700 Wood St for second ATO circuit $270,000
501005D099 New Circuit 806 to unload 822 (New Development)$879,000
501005 Feeders Total (Transformers, Cables & Duct Banks)$2,226,000 $3,346,000 $1,080,000 $4,644,000 $1,504,000 $4,204,000 $1,128,800 $1,356,000 $2,424,000 $888,000 $1,044,000 $22,169,800
ASSET RENEWAL (2023 Debt Issuance)$528,000
FY2526 FY2728 FY2930 FY3132 FY3334
Page 39 of 195
Capital Category 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 TOTALS
501008 Duct Banks Total (Transformers, Cables & Duct Banks)
501008D081 Duct Bank to serve NE FC Devel Ph 1 (Montava)$1,102,200 $1,102,200
501008D090 Duct Bank on Carriage Pkwy Phase 2 - Fox Grove to Forelock Dr (1X2 w/ 20% Contingency) (501004D005 Clydesdale Park Annexation)$0
501008D091 Duct Bank on Carriage Pkwy Ph 3- Forelock Dr to Mulberry (1X2 w/ 20% Contingency)$140,000 $140,000
501008D093 Duct Bank on Mulberry -Timberline to Carriage Pkwy (2X4 w/ 20% Contingency)$2,239,200 $2,239,200
501008D094 Overland Trail Duct Bank Drake to Prospect (1X2 w/ 20% Contingency)$570,000 $570,000
501008D095 Duct Bank Extend East Vine Circuit 622 - Railroad to I25 $825,000 $825,000
501008D096 Duct Bank on Carriage Pkwy Phase 1 - Prospect to Fox Grove (501004D005 Clydesdale Park Annexation)$0
501008D097 Duct Bank - NE circuit 1 & 2 $352,800 $352,800
501008D098 Duct Bank - NE circuit 3 $2,376,000 $2,376,000
501008D099 Duct - Timberline 338 Extension (Bloom Ciruit)$1,368,000 $1,368,000
501008 Duct Banks Total (Transformers, Cables & Duct Banks)$0 $1,368,000 $1,102,200 $825,000 $2,732,000 $570,000 $2,376,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,973,200
ASSET RENEWAL (2023 Debt Issuance)
501012 System Cable Replacements & Repairs Total (Transformers, Cables & Duct Banks)8 1/0 projects 8 1/0 projects 8 1/0 projects 4 1/0 projects 4 1/0 projects 4 1/0 projects 2 1/0 projects 2 1/0 projects 2 1/0 projects
501012C009 CAPITAL - Replacement Area 11 - Scotch Pines $125,162 $125,162
501012C012 CAPITAL - Replacement Area 12 - Woodlands PUD $106,874 $106,874
501012C014 CAPITAL - Replacement Area 14 - Village West 9th - Rossborough $120,238 $120,238
501012C016 CAPITAL - Replacement Area 16 - Parkwood East $164,118 $164,118
501012C017 CAPITAL - Replacement Area 17 - Trail West PUD $242,485 $242,485
501012C018 CAPITAL - Replacement Area 18 - Edora Acres $136,152 $136,152
501012C019 CAPITAL - Replacement Area 19 - Evergreen Park 0 $90,106 $90,106
501012C020 CAPITAL - Replacement Area 20 - The Ridge PUD $140,972 $0 $140,972
501012C021 CAPITAL - Replacement Area 21 - West Azalea $42,158 $42,158
501012C023 CAPITAL - Replacement Area 23 - Village West 3rd $111,397 $111,397
501012C024 CAPITAL - Replacement Area 24 - Wagon Wheel $88,936 $88,936
501012C025 CAPITAL - Replacement Area 25 - Brown Farm 4th $75,780 $75,780
501012F020 Cable Replacements - Ongoing $700,000 $1,131,071 $1,198,935 $1,270,871 $654,678 $693,959 $735,596 $378,936 $401,672 $425,772 $7,591,490
501012F021 Feeder Cable Replacements - Ongoing $400,000 $412,000 $538,000 $570,280 $604,497 $640,767 $679,213 $719,965 $763,163 $808,953 $857,490 $6,994,328
Cable Repairs (Splices)$67,500 $67,500 $135,000
501012 System Cable Replacements Total (Transformers, Cables & Duct Banks)$1,436,001 $1,587,876 $1,736,571 $1,769,215 $1,875,368 $1,295,445 $1,373,171 $1,455,562 $1,142,099 $1,210,625 $1,283,263 $16,165,196
ASSET RENEWAL (2023 Debt Issuance)
501014 Transformers
501014F022 Distribution Transformer Purchases (Ongoing)$8,320,000 $6,850,000 $5,365,000 $5,400,000 $6,500,000 $6,695,000 $6,895,850 $7,102,726 $7,315,807 $7,535,281 $7,761,340 $75,741,004
501014F023 Distribution Transformer Replacements (307 1Ph)$1,505,532 $1,656,085 $1,821,694 $4,983,311
501014F024 Distribution Transformer Replacements (34 3Ph)$336,222 $369,844 $406,829 $1,112,895
501014F024 Distribution Voltage Regultaors $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 60000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $660,000
501014 Transformers Total (Transformers, Cables & Duct Banks)$10,221,754 $8,935,929 $7,653,522 $5,460,000 $6,560,000 $6,755,000 $6,955,850 $7,162,726 $7,375,807 $7,595,281 $7,821,340 $82,497,210
ASSET RENEWAL (2023 Debt Issuance)$1,901,754 $2,085,929 $2,288,522
501004 Annexations Total (Annexations)
501004C001 Mail Creek Crossing 2nd Filing (2029)$380,937 $380,937
501004C002 Strauss Cabin Enclave (2028)$144,387 $144,387
501004C003 Fox Hills Annexation (2030)$131,654 $131,654
501004C004 Blehm_(REA) Annexation (2027)$386,804 $386,804
501004C004 Blehm_(Xcel) Annexation (2027)$39,150 $39,150
501004D005 Clydesdale Park First & Second Annexations (2031)$2,148,251 $2,148,251
501004D007 Riverwalk (2032)$579,694 $579,694
501004D008 Arapahoe (2032)$347,021 $347,021
501004D006 Southwest Annexation - Phase 4 (2027)$3,690,000 $3,690,000
501004D001 Miller Enclave (2028)$370,688 $370,688
501004D002 Mulberry Enclave (2028, 2030-2037)$433,585 $8,737,275 $5,784,480 $5,784,480 $5,784,480 $10,105,878 $36,630,178
501004 Annexations Total (Annexations)$0 $3,690,000 $0 $425,953 $948,661 $380,937 $8,868,929 $7,932,731 $6,711,195 $5,784,480 $10,105,878 $44,848,764
ASSET RENEWAL (2023 Debt Issuance)
1940 Minor Capital - Vehicles & Equipment Total (Technology and Other)
19400000A04 Vehicles and Equipment- Clear backlog from supply chain issues $1,000,000 $1,000,000
19400000 Minor Capital - Vehicles & Equipment $400,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $3,900,000
19400000A05 Technician & Crew Vehicles $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $4,950,000
19400000A03 Existing Vehciles Upgrades $25,000 $25,000 25000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $275,000
19400000A05 Tools and Equipment Uupgrades/Replacements $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $550,000
19400000A06 Underground Boring System $500,000 $500,000
19400000A07 Underground Pulling System $450,000 $450,000
19400000A09 Computer Hardware/Software- Ipads for all crew members, AVL software needs, PCs, OT EE needs $50,000 $50,000 $100,000
1940 Minor Capital - Vehicles & Equipment Total (Technology and Other)$1,925,000 $925,000 $875,000 $875,000 $875,000 $875,000 $875,000 $875,000 $875,000 $875,000 $875,000 $1,875,000
ASSET RENEWAL (2023 Debt Issuance)
Page 40 of 195
Capital Category 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 TOTALS
501002 Service Center Total (Technology and Other)
501002B003 Cable Handling Facility for Cut-To-Length Program $1,575,000 $1,575,000
501002B004 700 Wood Street Backup Power and Dual Feed ATO $519,000 $519,000
501002B005 Disaster Recovery Site for SCO $400,000 $0
501002B006 Warehouse Storage Yard Covered Structure $199,000 $199,000
501002B008 Minor Renovations, Space Planning $40,000 $42,000 $44,100 $46,305 $48,620 $51,051 $53,604 $56,284 $59,098 $62,053 $65,156 $568,271
501002B008 USC Asphalt Maintenance $80,000 $80,000 $80,000
501002 Service Center Total (Technology and Other)$440,000 $641,000 $1,699,100 $126,305 $247,620 $51,051 $53,604 $56,284 $59,098 $62,053 $65,156 $2,861,271
ASSET RENEWAL (2023 Debt Issuance)
501009 CMMS–Maintenance Management Total (Technology and Other)
501009G002 Operational Technology - Maximo $380,000 $380,000
501009 CMMS–Maintenance Management Total (Technology and Other)$380,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $380,000
ASSET RENEWAL (2023 Debt Issuance)
501013 Operational Technology Total (Technology and Other)
501013G001 ADMS / OMS $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $5,500,000
501013G003 eSCADA Hardware/Software - Conversion/Maintenance $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $225,000
501013G011 Radio System Upgrades $628,970 $42,642 $42,642 $42,642 $42,642 $42,642 $42,642 $42,642 $42,642 $42,642 $42,642 $1,055,390
501013G012 GPS & Underground Facilities Visualization $127,926 $127,926
501013G014 L&P/Energy Services Systems Alignment $106,605 $106,605 $106,605 $319,815
501013G016 OT, Meter Shop and Substation Commissioning Lab $400,000 $300,000 $300,000 $1,000,000
501013G015 Utility Scale Energy Storage $150,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $8,150,000
501013G015 Utility Scale DER & EV Programs (Study/Pilot/Adopt/Support)$500,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $6,000,000
501013 Operational Technology Total (Technology and Other)$2,860,575 $2,524,247 $4,652,173 $1,292,642 $2,292,642 $1,292,642 $2,292,642 $1,292,642 $2,292,642 $1,292,642 $292,642 $22,378,131
ASSET RENEWAL (2023 Debt Issuance)
501015 Streetlights Total (Technology and Other)
501015F023 Streetlight System Replacement $986,866 $986,866 $986,866 $250,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $3,910,598
501015G009 LED Streetlight Control and Automation $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $1,320,000
501015 Streetlights Total (Technology and Other)$1,106,866 $1,106,866 $1,106,866 $370,000 $220,000 $220,000 $220,000 $220,000 $220,000 $220,000 $220,000 $5,230,598
ASSET RENEWAL (2023 Debt Issuance)
501016 Distribution Automation Total (Technology and Other)
501016G010 Distribution Automation/Monitoring/Sensing/FLISR/Efficiency $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $3,850,000
501016G011 Dbl Ckt Feeder Monitoring $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $180,000
501016 Distribution Automation Total (Technology and Other)$410,000 $410,000 $410,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $4,030,000
ASSET RENEWAL (2023 Debt Issuance)
501017 System Relocations Total (Technology and Other)
501017J001 System Relocations - Road & Intersection Projects $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $2,750,000
501017 System Relocations Total (Technology and Other)$250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $2,750,000
ASSET RENEWAL (2023 Debt Issuance)
501025 Advanced Metering Infrastructure Total (Technology and Other)
501025G004 AMI Equipment and Tech Upgrade $650,000 $650,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $1,435,000
501025G005 AMI Wide Area Network (WAN/Connexion)$100,000 $100,000 $200,000
501025G006 AMI Backhaul Network Hardware Tech Refresh $250,000 $50,000 $100,000 $400,000
501025G007 AMI Test Network Expansion $200,000 $200,000
501025G008 AMI New Technology Testing and Miscellaneous Capital $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $1,100,000
501025 Advanced Metering Infrastructure Total (Technology and Other)$1,300,000 $850,000 $165,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $215,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $3,335,000
ASSET RENEWAL (2023 Debt Issuance)
501026 Demand Respond Technology Upgrade Total (Technology and Other)
501026G013 Energy Services Peak Partners - DCU3 Refresh $0 $0
501026G014 Energy Services Peak Partners - GIWH $355,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $6,355,000
501026G015 Energy Services Peak Partners - EVSE $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $1,500,000
501026G016 Energy Services Peak Partners - PRO1 Thermostat Sunset $200,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $150,000 $150,000 $900,000
501026G017 Energy Services Peak Partners - Inverter Supervision & Control $300,000 $200,000 $150,000 $150,000 $800,000
501026 Demand Respond Technology Upgrade Total (Technology and Other)$555,000 $1,350,000 $1,350,000 $1,650,000 $1,550,000 $1,550,000 $1,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,555,000
ASSET RENEWAL (2023 Debt Issuance)
Grand Total $35,668,193 $79,887,948 $40,467,796 $25,174,417 $26,087,202 $24,887,777 $25,210,081 $19,890,265 $21,885,060 $19,694,658 $19,077,388 $288,676,392
Page 41 of 195
Page 42 of 195
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Marc Virata, Monica Martinez
Date: December 14, 2023
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Waterfield Fourth Filing Major Reimbursement No. 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Waterfield Fourth Filing (“Waterfield”) developer has constructed street improvements to
Suniga Road, Vine Drive, and Merganser Street to City standards as part of its development
requirements and identified as Phases 1-4 in Waterfield’s approved development plans. The
Waterfield developer has also dedicated right-of-way to Suniga Road to City standards as part of
its development requirements. Per Section 24-112 of the City Code, the developer is eligible for
reimbursement from Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) funds for the oversized, non-
local portion for both construction and right-of-way dedication. Staff is recommending
appropriations totaling $1,495,605 from TCEF funds. As Waterfield has additional phases to
construct, future major reimbursements are anticipated.
While this reimbursement is considered routine as part of the Code obligations under the TCEF
Program, this request is coming before Council Finance Committee because of the large dollar
amount outside of the typical 2-year budgeting process. TCEF reimbursements to development
were formerly anticipated and appropriated through the 2-year budgeting process. As part of the
process improvements identified first in the 2021 budget, the TCEF Program is now categorizing
developer reimbursements as “Major” and “Minor” reimbursements, with “Major” developer
reimbursements brought to Council individually rather than predicting what reimbursements are
needed on a 2-year basis.
This proposed reimbursement is the second request under this new process with Council Finance
Committee having reviewed the Northfield Development Suniga Road Major Reimbursement on
December 1, 2022. As part of Council Finance Committee’s input for Northfield, Council
Finance Committee supported the major reimbursement for Northfield, supported major
reimbursements to continue to appear before Council Finance Committee, and supported TCEF
reimbursing Northfield for requested instead of Northfield’s metro districts. Part of that
reimbursement request included Northfield and its metro districts committing that the metro
districts would not reimburse Northfield, meaning that Northfield would not “double dip” and be
reimbursed twice for its costs. Unlike the Northfield Development Suniga Road Major
Reimbursement, there is no metro district for Waterfield in which the developer may also seek
reimbursement. City Council consented to the dissolution of Waterfield Metropolitan Districts
Nos. 1-3 by adopting Resolution 2021-086 on September 21, 2021. The Larimer County District
Court approved the dissolution of the Waterfield Metropolitan Districts Nos. 1-3 on November 8,
2021.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Page 43 of 195
• Does Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle appropriation of Transportation
Capital Expansion Fee fund reserves to reimburse the Waterfield developer for its
construction of Suniga Road, Vine Drive, and Merganser Drive; and dedication of Suniga
Road right-of-way?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
TCEF Program
The TCEF Program (formerly Street Oversizing), instituted by ordinance in 1979, was
established to manage the construction of new arterial and collector streets, and is an “Impact
Fee” funded program. The TCEF Program determines and collects impact fees from
development and redevelopment projects. The collection of these impact fees contributes funding
for growth’s related share towards City Capital Projects, including the City’s Active Modes Plan,
and reimburses development for constructing roadway improvements above the local street
access standards. Section 24-112 of the City Code allows for reimbursement to developers for
the construction of collector and arterial streets.
This reimbursement is for the Waterfield developer’s construction above the local street access
standards as part of Phases 1-4 of the development, and for the dedication of Suniga Road right-
of-way beyond the local access standard width for the overall development. Waterfield Phases 1-
4 comprise of reimbursement for beyond the local access standards of Suniga Road, Merganser
Drive, and Vine Drive as depicted in the “Waterfield Fourth Filing ROW Reimbursement
Exhibit” by Northern Engineering, itemized between City (TCEF) and Post Modern (Developer)
responsibility in the “City Reimbursement” spreadsheet by Crow Creek Construction, and
summarized in the “Waterfield 4th Phases 1-4 TCEF Reimbursement Summary of Costs
Exhibit”. Roadway costs Reimbursement beyond the local access standards for Suniga Road
includes landscape and irrigation, comprising of the full median landscape and irrigation costs,
and a portion of the parkway on the south side of Suniga Road (the same eligible portion of
parkway reimbursement on the north side of Suniga Road will be tied to a future reimbursement
request.)
Reimbursement for Suniga Road right-of-way accounts for a 56%/44% split between the City
(TCEF) and Developer for a total 295,000 square footage of dedicated Suniga Road right-of-way
on the plat for Waterfield, with a land cost of $2.32/square foot, resulting in a City share of
$381,276. This reimbursement for right-of-way includes the remaining portion of Suniga to be
built to Timberline Road in a future phase.
Staff has reviewed the documentation provided by the Waterfield developer and agrees that the
requested reimbursement meets the requirements under City Code Section 24-112 for
appropriation from TCEF funds. There are presently adequate funds in TCEF to reimburse the
developer and Staff recommends reimbursement in the amount of $1,495.605.
ATTACHMENTS
1. “Waterfield Fourth Filing ROW Reimbursement Exhibit”
2. “City Reimbursement”
3. “Waterfield 4th Phases 1-4 TCEF Reimbursement Summary of Costs Exhibit”
Page 44 of 195
Presented by:
Waterfield Fourth Filing
Major Reimbursement
No. 1
12-14-2023
Marc Virata
Civil Engineer
Monica Martinez
Financial Planning & Analysis
Manager
Page 45 of 195
2Questions for the Council Finance Committee
1.Does Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle
appropriation of Transportation Capital Expansion Fee fund
reserves to reimburse the Waterfield developer for its construction
of Suniga Road, Vine Drive, and Merganser Drive; and dedication
of Suniga Road right-of-way?
Page 46 of 195
3TCEF Program
•One time impact fee collected from development and redevelopment to
mitigate impacts to the existing transportation network
•Fee is proportional to anticipated impact
•Used to support growth related infrastructure improvements which add
capacity to the system
•Reimbursement to Developers
•Contributions to transportation capital improvement projects
•Fees cannot be used for improvements which solely benefit an adjacent
development, existing deficiencies, and for maintenance
Page 47 of 195
How are TCEF Fees used?4
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3 Site 4
•Reimbursement to Developers
for constructing improvements
beyond “local street”
•Contributions to Capital Projects
•Complete Streets
•Multimodal Improvements
•Transit
•Intersections/Signals
Arterial St.
Local St.
Collector St.
Page 48 of 195
TCEF Process Change
TCEF Reimbursement Appropriation Process
Since Program Inception through 2020
•Appropriation for reimbursement through standard budgeting process
•Forecast when development projects are entitled and constructed
Waterfield and Northfield appropriations
•Appropriated under the 2019-2020 Budget
•Construction more recently completed
•Appearance of large underspend
2021 Budget TCEF Program Update
•“Minor” reimbursements appropriated through 2-year budget process
•“Major” reimbursements instead individually appropriated
5
Page 49 of 195
6Waterfield’s Reimbursement
6
Suniga
Road
Vine
Drive
Merganser
Drive
Partial
Reimbursement
Roadway,
Sidewalk,
Landscape Parkway
(south side)
Roadway,
Sidewalk
Roadway
Full
Reimbursement
Median Landscape
& Irrigation,
Elevated Bikelane
Vine Dr.
Suniga Road
Me
r
g
a
n
s
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
Ti
m
b
e
r
l
i
n
e
R
o
a
d
WATERFIELD FOURTH FILING
Waterfield First Filing
(Bull Run Townhomes)
Page 50 of 195
7Waterfield’s Reimbursement
7
Suniga
Road
Vine
Drive
Partial
Reimbursement
Roadway,
Sidewalk,
Landscape Parkway
(south side)
Vine
Drive
Merganser
Drive
Roadway,
Sidewalk
Roadway
Merganser Drive
Me
r
g
a
n
s
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
Vine Dr.
Vine Dr.Page 51 of 195
8Waterfield’s Reimbursement
8
Suniga
Road
Vine
Drive
Partial
Reimbursement
Roadway,
Sidewalk,
Landscape Parkway
(south side)
Full
Reimbursement
Median Landscape
& Irrigation,
Elevated Bikelane
Suniga Road
Suniga Road
Page 52 of 195
9Waterfield’s Reimbursement
9
Vine Dr.
Suniga Road
Me
r
g
a
n
s
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
Ti
m
b
e
r
l
i
n
e
R
o
a
d
WATERFIELD FOURTH FILING
Waterfield First Filing
(Bull Run Townhomes)
Page 53 of 195
10Waterfield’s Reimbursement
10
Vine Dr.
Me
r
g
a
n
s
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
Ti
m
b
e
r
l
i
n
e
R
o
a
d
Suniga Road
WATERFIELD FOURTH FILING
TCEF reimburses right-of-way land value
Suniga Road dedication: 115 feet in
width, 2,500 feet in length
•51 feet width developer responsibility
•64 feet width TCEF reimbursable
•(44% developer / 56% TCEF)
Land value determination
•Coordinated with City Real Estate
•Appraisal determination $2.32/sq.ft.
$381,276 reimbursement from TCEF to
developer for Suniga Road dedication
Page 54 of 195
11Waterfield’s Suniga Road Improvements
11
2019 Suniga Road Capital Project
2015 Aspen Heights Development
2022 Northfield Development
2022 Vine and Lemay Overpass Capital Project
Future Suniga Road Capital Project (TCPPS)
2023 Waterfield Fourth (reimbursement request)
Waterfield Fourth (future reimbursement request)
Suniga Road Segments Constructed and Planned
Le
m
a
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ti
m
b
e
r
l
i
n
e
R
o
a
d
Co
l
l
e
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Vine Dr.
Suniga Road
Page 55 of 195
12Waterfield’s Reimbursement
12
Vine Dr.
Me
r
g
a
n
s
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
Ti
m
b
e
r
l
i
n
e
R
o
a
d
WATERFIELD FOURTH FILING
Waterfield First Filing
(Bull Run Townhomes)
Suniga Road
Page 56 of 195
Major Reimbursement Process 13
Previous Major Reimbursement
•Northfield’s Suniga Road
Current Major Reimbursement
•Waterfield Fourth Filing No. 1
Future Major Reimbursements
•Waterfield
•Waters Edge
•Bloom
•Montava
Page 57 of 195
For Questions or Comments, Please Contact:
THANK YOU!
Marc Virata, Monica Martinez
mvirata@fcgov.com, momartinez@fcgov.com
Page 58 of 195
Page 59 of 195
17Waterfield’s Reimbursement
17
Vine Dr.
Me
r
g
a
n
s
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
Ti
m
b
e
r
l
i
n
e
R
o
a
d
Suniga Road
WATERFIELD FOURTH FILING
Page 60 of 195
18Waterfield’s Reimbursement
18
Vine Dr.
Suniga Road
Me
r
g
a
n
s
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
Ti
m
b
e
r
l
i
n
e
R
o
a
d
WATERFIELD FOURTH FILING
Waterfield First Filing
(Bull Run Townhomes)
Page 61 of 195
19Waterfield’s Reimbursement
19
Vine Dr.
Suniga Road
Me
r
g
a
n
s
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
Ti
m
b
e
r
l
i
n
e
R
o
a
d
WATERFIELD FOURTH FILING
Waterfield First Filing
(Bull Run Townhomes)
Page 62 of 195
TH
TH
TH
TH
ME
R
G
A
N
S
E
R
D
R
.
VINE DRIVE
SUNIGA RO
A
D
START OF INTERIM
TIE IN LOCATION
FOR VINE DRIVE
FUTURE CURB AND GUTTER,
SIDEWALK, AND PARKWAY
(REFER TO APPROVED UTILITY
PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION)
EXISTING ROW
EXISTING ROW
EXISTING ROW
START OF REALIGNMENT OF MERGANSER DR.
30'
(ROADWAY WIDTH
OF LOCAL RES.)
CITY PORTION
OF STORM PIPE
44 LF
CITY PORTION
OF STORM PIPE
42 LF
CITY PORTION
OF STORM PIPE
45 LF
CITY PORTION
OF STORM PIPE
17 LF
115' R.O.W
16'
7'
PARK
TRAVEL
7'
PARK
7'(MIN.)
PKWY
30' ROADWAY
53' ROW
(MIN)
WALK
4.5'
6'.5 Min. Fence Setback
UTIL.
ESMT.
9'
9'UTIL.
ESMT.
(MIN.)
PKWY7'
WALK
(MIN)
4.5'
RESIDENTIAL LOCAL STREET
Travel
Walk
6'Pkwy
9.5'
BikeLane
115' ROW
12'
11'
Travel
19'
Median
15'
Esmt.Util.
Center
6'3.5'Buffer
Travel
Walk
6'Pkwy
9.5'
12'
11'
Travel
15'
Esmt.Util.
6'3.5'Buffer
Sidewalk Sidewalk
65' -
FOUR-LANE ARTERIAL STREET
(SUNIGA ROAD)
BikeLane
TRAVEL
42.5' ROADWAY
66' ROW
11'
TRAVEL
WALK 5'
7'
SWALE
9'
UTIL.
ESMT
3'
BIKE
LN.
7'
BU
F
F
E
R
11'
11.5'
3'
BIKE
LN.
7.5'
BU
F
F
E
R
PKWY
BNSF RAIL
MAJOR COLLECTOR STREET
(E. VINE DR.)
TRAVEL
11'
50' ROADWAY
TRAVEL
76' ROW
11'
12'7'
TRAVEL
LN.
TRAVEL
BIKE
12'
WALK 4.5'
6.5'
PKWY
7'
LN.
BIKE
12'
7' MIN. FENCE SETBACK9'
UTIL.
ESMT 9'UTIL.
ESMT
50' ROADWAY
6'
BIKE
LN.8'
6'
BIKE
LN.8'
PARK
INTERSECTIONS
(WHERE NEEDED)
MINOR COLLECTOR STREET
(MERGANSER DR.)
WALK4.5'
6.5'
PKWY
LEFT
TURN
PARK
1
RO
W
R
E
I
M
B
U
R
S
E
M
E
N
T
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
NORTH
( IN FEET )
0
1 INCH = 60 FEET
60 60 120 180
LEGEND:
Sheet
WA
T
E
R
F
I
E
L
D
F
O
U
R
T
H
F
I
L
I
N
G
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
N
G
I
E
H
T
R
O
N
R
N
FO
R
T
C
O
L
L
I
N
S
:
3
0
1
N
o
r
t
h
H
o
w
e
s
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
S
u
i
t
e
1
0
0
,
8
0
5
2
1
GR
E
E
L
E
Y
:
8
2
0
8
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
8
0
6
3
1
97
0
.
2
2
1
.
4
1
5
8
no
r
t
h
e
r
n
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
.
c
o
m
of 167
STREET AREAS
Suniga Road Merganser Dr.E. Vine Dr.
Description City (sf.) Developer (sf.) City (sf.) Developer (sf.) City (sf.) Developer (sf.)
Walk 3,009 9,025 N/A 1,877 454 4,040
Parkway 5,035 14,105 N/A 3,119 N/A 6,537
Roadway 25,690 41,949 3,019 7,552 12,827 16,035
Median 23,250 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Bike Lane 11,628 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Buffer 6,833 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
NOTE: REFER TO APPROVED UTILITY PLANS AND REVISION 1 (VINE DRIVE) FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
RESIDENTIAL LOCAL STREET THAT WAS
APPROVED WITH WATERFIELD 4TH
FILING WAS USED FOR COMPARISON
Page 63 of 195
Page 64 of 195
Page 65 of 195
November 9, 2023
Crow Creek Construction, LLC
c/o Blake Bell
7251 West 20th Street, L-101B
Greeley, CO
The following is a breakdown of Landscape and Irrigation costs for Suniga Dr., separating City vs. Developer.
o Developer cost is attributable to all the trees in the south parkways between the Suniga Road and Suniga sidewalk,
and 6.5 feet of width of the south parkway sod landscaping between the Suniga Road and Suniga sidewalks
o City cost is attributable to the remaining 3 feet of width of the south parkway landscaping between the Suniga
Road and Suniga sidewalks (not of the parkway trees), and the City cost is attributable to all of the landscaping and
irrigation in the Suniga Road median
Suniga Dr - Southside and Median Island
City Portion $217,524.00
Developer Portion $65,198.00
Work included is only that which is completed in Sept 2023.
Regards,
Russell A Hoff, GM
Southern Exposure Landscape Management, Inc.
Page 66 of 195
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 1 | 1
November 15, 2023
JD Padilla
Post Modern Development
144 N. Mason St Unit 4
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: WATERFIELD 4TH FILING – TCEF ENGINEERING FEES
Dear JD,
Based on the overall original contract between Thrive and Northern Engineering, Post Modern Development is
eligible for soft costs repayment through the TCEFF program. Soft costs include preliminary design, final design,
and construction assistance. Therefore, Post Modern should be eligible for $8,603 reimbursement from the City
of Fort Collins for the soft costs associated with a portion of the design of Suniga Road, Vine Dive, and Merganser
Drive.
Sincerely,
NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.
Blaine Mathisen, PE
Project Manager
Attachment 1: Waterfield 4th Filing Soft Cost Breakdown
Attachment 2: ROW Reimbursement Exhibit
cc: Jeff Jensen, Jensen Laplante Development
Page 67 of 195
$319,407.00
$99,016.17
Total LF of All Roads 27,310
Street LF % of Overall Road Design Total Cost Total Cost Paid By Developer Total Cost Paid By City
Suniga 2,605 9.54%$9,445 $4,439 $5,384
Merganser 465 1.70%$1,686 $1,366 $320
Vine 2,050 7.51%$7,433 $4,534 $2,899
$18,563 $10,339 $8,603
Notes:
1. Percentages in Total Cost By Developer Vs City comes from TCEF exhibit.
2. 57% cost paid by City for Suniga
3. 19% cost paid by City for Merganser
4. 33% cost paid by City for Vine
Total Budget (Preliminary, Final, Construction Admin)
Budget for All Road Designs (Roughly 31% of Total Budget)
Attachement 1: Waterfield 4th Filing Soft Cost Breakdown
Page 68 of 195
Page 69 of 195
Waterfield 4th Phases 1-4 TCEF Reimbursement Summary of Costs
Suniga - Merganser - Vine
11/17/2023
Line Item Description Total Costs Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Comments
1 Hard Costs $1,880,509 53%$1,006,071 47%$874,438 Crow Creek
2 Design Costs & CA $19,089 46%$8,750 54%$10,339 Northern Engineering
3 Construction Manage/Development Fee $187,751 53%$99,508 47%$88,243 Post Modern
4
ROW Land Cost @ $2.32/sf (295.3K total sq.
ft., 56% TCEF/44% Developer)$685,105 56%$381,276 44%$303,829 Developer and City Engineering/
City Real Estate confirmed $
Total:$2,772,454 $1,495,605 $1,276,849
TCEF Developer
Page 70 of 195
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: December 14, 2023
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION:
Impact Fee Study Updates - Continued: Utility Development Fees & Capital Expansion Fee
Studies
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Staff have been working to update the Utility Development Fees, Transportation Capital
Expansion Fees (TCEFs) and Capital Expansion Fees (CEFs). On October 5, 2023 Council
Finance Committee meeting, staff presented the current status of the TCEF and CEF Study
updates as well as the Utilities’ Finance model updates of their plant investment fees (PIFs) and
electric capacity fees. No action was taken in regard to adoption of fees for 2024 with a request
to get further clarity to the proposed work program regarding the utilities Water Supply Fees,
Excess Water Use and Water Allotments. Currently, no rate adjustments are set to occur
effective January 1, 2024.
This update provides a review of the updated fee studies and schedules presented in October, an
overview of the tentative Utilities water supply timelines and a recommended path for adoption
of the fees presented at the October CFC meeting.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED:
• What questions does the committee have related to the study updates, draft fee schedules
or proposed timelines?
• Does the committee support the staff recommendation of bringing forward the TCEFs,
CEFs, Utility PIFs and Electric Capacity Charge Fees for Council adoption during Q2
2024?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
During 2023, staff engaged consultant TischlerBise (TB) to update the Transportation Capital
Expansion Fee study. Additionally, consultant Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) was
contracted to update the Capital Expansion Fee study, while utilities’ staff completed their
biennial internal Fee Study model updates. The current schedule of updates and rate adjustments
is highlighted below.
Page 71 of 195
These study and model updates are summarized in the sections that follow below (with the full
draft study reports included as Attachments 2 and 3). The Water Supply Requirement will be
undergoing further updates during 2024.
Water Supply Requirements:
In the August 8, 2023 Council Work Session on Water Supply Fees, Excess Water Use and
Water Allotments, a number of questions arose concerning the updated analysis of proposed fee
levels. In response to these questions, staff prepared a memorandum to Council dated October
25, 2023, which is included as Attachment 4. The primary outputs were the convening of an
internal team to review and develop options balancing community and utility needs, the
development of separate workstreams to address appropriate considerations, and project plan
development utilizing a community-wide lens in providing options to Council.
The proposed timeline for 2024 meetings and outreach is highlighted below:
April 9 Council Work Session
June 6 Water Commission Work Session
July 16 Council Work Session
August 1 Water Commission Work Session
August 15 P&Z Work Session
Sept 10 Council Work Session
Sept 19 P&Z Hearing/Water Commission Hearing
Oct 15 1st Reading
Nov 5 2nd Reading
Utilities Development Fees Update:
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.
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 72 of 195
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.
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study Update
TCEF's last program update was in 2017 by TischlerBise. 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
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 73 of 195
• 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.
Capital Expansion Fee 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 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 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.
Highlighted below are the updated draft fee calculations for residential and non-residential
properties compared to the current fee. More detailed information is included in the CEF Draft
Report in Attachment 3.
Page 74 of 195
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. In this update, the
Office and Other Services type has been broken out from Commercial and is aligned with TCEF
categories based on differing demand impacts.
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
(ITE) trip generation rates.
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
sections above, no increase in the water supply requirement is included in this comparison
pending the outcome of that update.
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 $297 45%
Fee Type 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Capital Expansion Fees 6,038$ 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 75 of 195
NEXT STEPS AND RECOMMENDATION
Utilities’ staff has provided their tentative 2024 work program and timeline as outlined earlier.
Contemplation of the options for addressing the fee updates provided by the two consultant
updates and the internal utilities’ model updates consists of the following:
Option A:
Defer Decision on adoption of New Fee Structure until Water Supply Requirements are
determined (for a January 1, 2025 implementation).
Option B:
Adopt New Proposed Fee Structure as presented for implementation in early Q2 2024
after the proposed Council Work Session in April 2024.
Option C:
Defer Decision on adoption of New Fee Structure until Water Supply Requirements are
determined (for a January 1, 2025 implementation) and adjust current rates by the annual
inflation index only in early Q2 2024.
Staff Recommendation is to proceed with Option B – adoption of the proposed fee updates as
presented for implementation in early Q2 2024.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: PowerPoint Presentation
Attachment 2: Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Draft Report
Attachment 3: Capital Expansion Fee Draft Report
Attachment 4: Memorandum to Council dated October 25, 2023
Page 76 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
Engineering
Marc Virata
David Lenz
December 14, 2023
Impact Fee Study
Updates - Continued:
Utility Development
Fees & Capital
Expansion Fee Studies
Financial Planning & Analysis
Randy Reuscher
Lead Rate Analyst - Utilities
Page 77 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
2
Agenda
•Fee Framework
•Fee Updates:
•Utilities - Water Supply Requirements Timeline & Development Fee Update
•Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF): TischlerBise
•Capital Expansion Fee (CEF): Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
•Summary and Recommendation
•Questions
Page 78 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
3
Questions for Council Finance Committee
•What questions does the committee have related to the study updates, draft fee schedules or
proposed timelines?
•Does the committee support the staff recommendation of bringing forward the TCEFs, CEFs, Utility
PIFs and Electric Capacity Charge Fees for Council adoption during Q2 2024?
Page 79 of 195
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.
•The CEF and TCEF studies have been updated and new proposed fees are detailed in the sections that follow.
•Utilities model updates for the Electric Capacity Fee and three PIFs have been updated.
•Water Supply Requirement workstreams and timelines have been firmed up with a proposed 2024 program.
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 80 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
Page 81 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
6
Water Supply Requirements Update and Timeline
•Memorandum to City Council dated October 26:
•Follow-up from August 8 work Session
•Convening an internal team to review and develop options balancing community and utility needs
•Development of separate workstreams to address appropriate considerations
•Project Plans developed utilizing a community-wide lens in providing options to Council
•Proposed Timeline (Tentative)
•April 9 Council Work Session
•June 6 Water Commission Work Session
•July 16 Council Work Session
•August 1 Water Commission Work Session
•August 15 P&Z Work Session
•Sept 10 Council Work Session
•Sept 19 P&Z Hearing/Water Commission Hearing
•Oct 15 1st Reading
•Nov 5 2nd Reading
Page 82 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
7
Utility Fees Overview
Page 83 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
8
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 84 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
Page 85 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
Previous UpdatesUse of FeesPremise of Fees
TCEF: Overview
10
•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 86 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
11
TCEF: Study Updated Draft Fees (TischlerBise)
•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 94% $702 6% $11,747 $9,946 $1,801 18%
Office & Other Services 1,000 sq. ft.$6,450 86% $1,075 14% $7,525 $7,327 $198 3%
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft.$2,897 75% $944 25% $3,841 $2,365 $1,476 62%
Page 87 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
Page 88 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
Previous UpdatesUse of FeesPremise of Fees
CEF: Overview
13
•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 89 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
14
CEF: Study Updated Draft Fees (Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.)
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 $297 45%
Overall
•Residential Occupancy Factor decreases
•Non-Residential Employee per sq. ft. adjustments
•Additional Non-Residential category justified by different demand impact – Office and Other Services
•Higher functional population
Page 90 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
15
Combined Fees Summary
•Building on the examples shared with City Council from Spring 2022 to highlight total fee
impacts for development activity:
•Update below includes current 2023 fee levels.
•Building Permit and Development Review fees were adjusted with the new fee
structure adopted in January 2022.
•2024 includes TCEF and CEF study updates and proposed utility updates. Does not
include changes to water supply requirements.
Fee Type 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Capital Expansion Fees 6,038$ 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 91 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
16
Options and Recommendation
•Option A – Defer Decision on adoption of New Fee Structure until Water Supply Requirements are determined
(for a January 1, 2025 implementation).
•Option B – Adopt New Proposed Fee Structure as presented for implementation in early Q2 2024 after the
proposed Council Work Session in April 2024.
•Option C – Defer Decision on adoption of New Fee Structure until Water Supply Requirements are determined
(for a January 1, 2025 implementation) and adjust current rates by the annual inflation index only in early Q2
2024.
Staff Recommendation is Option B
Page 92 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
17
Questions for Council Finance Committee
•What questions does the committee have related to the study updates, draft fee schedules or
proposed timelines?
•Does the committee support the staff recommendation of bringing forward the TCEFs, CEFs, Utility
PIFs and Electric Capacity Charge Fees for Council adoption during Q2 2024?
Page 93 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
Page 94 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
19
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 95 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
20
Utility Fees – Residential Example
Page 96 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
21
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 97 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
22
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 98 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
23
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 99 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
24
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 100 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
25
CEF: 2023 Study Update (Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.)
•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 101 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
26
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 102 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
27
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 $11,747 $15,421 $12,737 $2,684 21%
Office and Other Services 1,000 sq. ft. $2,010 $7,525 $9,535 $10,118 ($583) -6%
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. $953 $3,841 $4,794 $3,021 $1,773 59%
Page 103 of 195
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
Submitted to:
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
October 20, 2023
Prepared by:
4701 Sangamore Road
Suite S240
Bethesda, Maryland 20816
800.424.4318
www.tischlerbise.com
Page 104 of 195
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
[Page Intentionally left blank]
Page 105 of 195
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 106 of 195
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
1
[Page Intentionally left blank]
Page 107 of 195
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 108 of 195
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 $702 $11,747 $9,946 $1,801 18%
Office & Other Services 26.56 $6,450 3.26 $1,075 $7,525 $7,327 $198 3%
Industrial 11.93 $2,897 2.86 $944 $3,841 $2,365 $1,476 62%
Residential (per dwelling unit)
Percent
Change
Maximum
Supportable Fee
Square Feet of
Finished Living Space
Percent
Change
Development Type
Nonresidential (per 1,000 square feet)
Maximum
Supportable Fee
Increase/
Decrease
Roadway
Capacity Fee
Roadway
Capacity Fee
Current
Fees
VMT
per Unit
Active
Modes Fee
Current
Fees
Increase/
Decrease
Persons
per Unit
Jobs
per KSF
Active
Modes Fee
VMT
per KSF
Page 109 of 195
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 110 of 195
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 111 of 195
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 112 of 195
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 113 of 195
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 114 of 195
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 115 of 195
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 116 of 195
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 117 of 195
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 118 of 195
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 119 of 195
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 120 of 195
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 121 of 195
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 122 of 195
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 $702
Office & Other Services 3.26 $1,075
Industrial 2.86 $944
Residential (per dwelling unit)
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
Page 123 of 195
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 Collins 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 $11.9 million in revenue while there is a growth-
related cost of $11.4 million, offsetting all 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
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 $702 $1,075 $944
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 $259,522 $2,097,628 $409,660
Projected Revenue => $11,927,000
Total Expenditures => $87,554,000
Non-Impact Fee Funding => $75,627,000
Page 124 of 195
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 125 of 195
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
20
recommends limiting transportation fee expenditures to arterials and collectors, and should be
consistent with Fort Collins City Code. System improvements that are eligible for transportation fee
funding could include:
• Constructing an arterial or collector street.
• A carrying-capacity enhancement to existing arterials or collectors, such reconstruction to add
greater street 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 126 of 195
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 127 of 195
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 128 of 195
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 deve lopment 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 129 of 195
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 130 of 195
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 131 of 195
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 factors 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 132 of 195
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 f actor. 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 133 of 195
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 134 of 195
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 135 of 195
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 136 of 195
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 137 of 195
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 138 of 195
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 139 of 195
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
34
Figure 29. High Priority/Readiness Projects
Page 140 of 195
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
35
Figure 30. High Priority/Readiness Projects cont.
Page 141 of 195
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
36
Figure 31. High Priority/Readiness Projects cont.
Page 142 of 195
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
37
Figure 32. Medium Priority/Readiness Projects
Page 143 of 195
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
38
Figure 33. Medium Priority/Readiness Projects cont.
Page 144 of 195
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
39
Figure 34. Medium Priority/Readiness Projects cont.
Page 145 of 195
Draft Report
2023 Capital Expansion Fee Study
Prepared for:
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Prepared by:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
November 21, 2023
EPS #233062
Page 146 of 195
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary ................................................................................ 1
Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
Current Capital Expansion Fee Program ............................................................ 1
Proposed Updated Capital Expansion Fee Program ............................................. 2
Updated Capital Expansion Fees ...................................................................... 3
Legal Standards for Impact Fees ..................................................................... 5
2. Methodology .......................................................................................... 7
Impact Fee Methodologies .............................................................................. 7
Level of Service Definition .............................................................................. 8
Cost Allocations by Land Use Type ................................................................... 8
Service Population ......................................................................................... 9
Residential Occupancy Factors ...................................................................... 10
Nonresidential Occupancy Factors .................................................................. 12
3. Neighborhood and Community Parks Capital Expansion Fees ........................ 13
Level of Service Definition ............................................................................ 13
Residential Capital Expansion Fee Calculation .................................................. 15
4. Police Capital Expansion Fee .................................................................... 16
Level of Service Definition ............................................................................ 16
Residential Capital Expansion Fee Calculation .................................................. 17
Nonresidential Capital Expansion Fee ............................................................. 17
5. Fire Protection Capital Expansion Fee........................................................ 18
Level of Service Definition ............................................................................ 18
Residential Capital Expansion Fee Calculation .................................................. 19
Nonresidential Capital Expansion Fee ............................................................. 20
6. General Government Capital Expansion Fee ............................................... 21
Level of Service Definition ............................................................................ 21
Residential Capital Expansion Fee Calculation .................................................. 22
Nonresidential Impact Fee ............................................................................ 22
Page 147 of 195
List of Tables
Table 1. Current Capital Expansion Fees ............................................................... 2
Table 2. Updated Residential and Nonresidential Capital Expansion Fees, 2023 .......... 4
Table 3. Fort Collins Service Population Calculation, 2023 ....................................... 9
Table 4. Fort Collins Residential Service Demand Factor Calculation, 2023 ............... 10
Table 5. Fort Collins Residential Occupancy Factors .............................................. 11
Table 6. Fort Collins Nonresidential Occupancy Factors ......................................... 12
Table 7. Parks Cost per Service Unit, 2023 ......................................................... 13
Table 8. Parks Maintenance Facility per Capita Cost, 2023 ..................................... 14
Table 9. Neighborhood Parks Residential Capital Expansion Fee, 2023 .................... 15
Table 10. Community Parks Residential Capital Expansion Fee, 2023 ........................ 15
Table 11. Police Inventory and Replacement Cost per Capita, 2023 .......................... 16
Table 12. Police Residential Capital Expansion Fee, 2023 ........................................ 17
Table 13. Police Nonresidential Capital Expansion Fee, 2023 ................................... 17
Table 14. Fire Protection Inventory and Replacement Cost per Capita, 2023 .............. 18
Table 15. Fire Protection Asset Cost by Service Area, 2023 ..................................... 19
Table 16. Fire Residential Capital Expansion Fee, 2023 ........................................... 19
Table 17. Fire Protection Nonresidential Capital Expansion Fee, 2023 ....................... 20
Table 18. General Government Inventory and Replacement Cost, 2023 .................... 21
Table 19. General Government Residential Capital Expansion Fee, 2023 ................... 22
Table 20. General Government Nonresidential Capital Expansion Fee, 2023 ............... 22
List of Appendix Tables
Table A-1. Comparison of Major Inputs: 2017 vs. 2023 Study ................................... 24
Table A-2. Current Residential Impact Fee Comparisons .......................................... 25
Table A-3. Current Nonresidential Impact Fee Comparisons ...................................... 26
Page 148 of 195
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
233062 - Draft Impact Fee Report 11-21-23.docx 1
1. Executive Summary
Introduction
This Report was prepared by Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) for the City of
Fort Collins to update its Capital Expansion Fee (CEF) program. CEFs are the
City’s term for what are defined as impact fees under State of Colorado law. The
Report documents costs and other supporting data to provide the nexus and
proportionality requirements needed to adopt impact fees to comply with State of
Colorado law and other case law regarding development charges. Capital
Expansion fee calculations are provided for the following fee categories currently
levied by the City on new development:
• Neighborhood Parks
• Community Parks
• Police
• Fire Protection
• General Government
Current Capital Expansion Fee Program
The City collects impact fees or CEFs for neighborhood parks, community parks,
fire protection, police, general government, and transportation (Table 1). The
transportation impact fee is known as the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee or
TCEF. The TCEF is currently undergoing an update contained in a separate study.
Residential capital expansion fees are charged per dwelling unit with the fees
varying by the size of the dwelling unit, as large units have larger average
household sizes than smaller units. The current residential CEFs (including the
TCEF) range from a total of $9,296 for dwelling units up to 700 square feet to
$19,049 for units over 2,200 square feet. These fees apply to all dwelling unit
types (e.g., single family and multifamily) and are applied based on the gross
square feet in the building permit application.
In total, nonresidential CEFs are $12,737 per 1,000 sq. ft. ($12.74 per sq. ft.) for
commercial buildings, $10,118 per 1,000 sq. ft. ($10.12 per sq ft.) for
office/other service buildings, and $3,021 per 1,000 sq. ft. ($3.02 per sq. ft.) for
industrial buildings. Capital expansion fees are collected typically at the time of
building permit for building construction.
Page 149 of 195
2023 Capital Expansion Fee Study
2
Table 1. Current Capital Expansion Fees
Proposed Updated Capital Expansion Fee
Program
This Report documents the calculations for a new capital expansion fee program
with the following proposed changes.
New Fee Land Use Types
A new fee for land use comprised of offices and other services is proposed.
Traditionally, office and other services impact fees have been charged at the same
rate as retail/commercial developments. However, the TCEF fees have been
charging office and other service impact fees at a different rate than
retail/commercial developments. To create consistency between the CEF and TCEF
fees, EPS is proposing that office and other services impact fees be added to the
fee schedule to create more consistency with the TCEF fees.
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 10-12-23.xlsx]1-Current Fees
Page 150 of 195
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
3
Updated Capital Expansion Fees
This report provides calculations of the maximum capital expansion fees that the
City may charge, supported by this nexus and proportionality analysis. The law
allows City Council to adopt the full fees determined in this report, or to adopt
lower fees for a variety of policy reasons determined to be in the interest of the
City. The proposed maximum residential and nonresidential capital expansion fees
are shown below in Table 2.
Updated residential fees range from $6,684 to $13,893 (Table 2). The range in
residential fees is based on the average household size in each size category and
dwelling unit type. Larger homes tend to have larger household sizes, creating
more impact on public facilities. Increases in the residential fees range from 1.4
percent to 27.7 percent. For smaller residences, the fee percent increase is lower
due to the proportionally larger decrease in average household size for smaller
units. For example, the household size in housing units smaller than 700 square
feet decreased from 1.78 in 2017 to 1.40 in 2023. Meanwhile, units over 2,200
square feet only decreased by 0.04 persons per dwelling unit from 2.95 in 2017 to
2.91 in 2023.
Fees vary according to the employment and customer/visitor generation factors
for each land use type explained further in Chapter 2. Nonresidential fees range
from $953.13 to $3,673.89 per 1,000 square feet. Changes in the nonresidential
fees range from a decrease of 28.0 percent for office and other services to an
increase of 45.3 percent for industrial land uses. The decrease in office and other
services land uses is a result of updating the fee category to align with the TCEF
fees as described in the previous section.
Page 151 of 195
2023 Capital Expansion Fee Study
4
Table 2. Updated Residential and Nonresidential Capital Expansion Fees, 2023
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 10-12-23.xlsx]2a-Impact Fee Summary
General
GovernmentParks
Page 152 of 195
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
5
Legal Standards for Impact Fees
Impact fees can be charged by local governments on new development to pay for
capital facilities needed to serve growth. The State of Colorado has adopted a
standard with the adoption of Senate Bill 15, codified as Section 29-20-104 and
104.5 of the Colorado Revised Statutes following a Colorado Supreme Court decision.
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in Krupp v. Breckenridge Sanitation District
(1999) that the District could assess an impact fee based on a set of development
characteristics that reflect the general performance of a proposed use, rather than
the specific conditions of an individual proposal. While traditional exactions are
determined on an individual basis and applied on a case-by-case basis, an “impact
fee” is calculated based on the impact of all new development and the same fee is
shared to all new development in a particular class.”1 The finding of the Court
distinguishes impact fees, as a legislatively adopted program applicable to a broad
class of property owners, from traditional exactions, which are discretionary
actions applicable to a single project or property owner.
In 2001, the State Legislature provided specific authority in adopting Senate Bill
15 that “provides that a local government may impose an impact fee or other
similar development charge to fund expenditures by such local government on
capital facilities needed to serve new development.” The bill amended Title 29 of
the Colorado statutes that govern both municipalities and counties and defines
“local government” to include a county, home rule, or statutory city, city, or
territorial charter city.
The law requires local governments to “quantify the reasonable impacts of
proposed development on existing capital facilities and establish the impact fee or
development charge at a level no greater than necessary to defray such impacts
directly related to proposed development.” The standard that must be met within
the State of Colorado requires mitigation to be "directly related" to impacts.
1 Colorado Municipal League, Paying for Growth, Carolynne C. White, 2002.
Page 153 of 195
2023 Capital Expansion Fee Study
6
Impact Fee Requirements
• Capital Facilities – Fees may not be used for operations or maintenance.
Fees must be spent on new or expanded capital facilities, which have been
further defined as directly related to a government service, with an estimated
useful life of at least five years and that are required based on the charter or a
general policy.
• Existing Deficiencies – Fees are formally collected to mitigate impacts from
growth and cannot be used to address existing deficiencies. In the analysis
used to establish an impact fee program, the evaluation must distinguish
between the impacts of growth and the needs of existing development.
• Capital Maintenance – Major “capital maintenance” projects are not typically
eligible to be funded with impact fees unless it can be shown that the project
increases the capacity of the community to accommodate growth. In that
case, only the growth-serving element of the project is eligible to be funded
with impact fees.
• Credits – In the event a developer must construct off-site infrastructure in
conjunction with their project, the local government must provide credits
against impact fees for the same infrastructure, provided that the necessary
infrastructure serves the larger community. Credits may not apply if a
developer is required to construct such a project as a condition of approval
due to the direct impact on the capital facility created by the project. Credits
are handled on a case-by-case basis.
• Timing – The City must hold revenues in accounts dedicated to the specific
use. Funds must be expended within a reasonable period or returned to the
developer. The State enabling legislation does not specify the maximum
length of time to be used as a “reasonable period.” This has been generally
accepted or interpreted to be a 10-year period.
• Accounting Practices – The City must adopt stringent accounting practices
as specified in the State enabling legislation. Funds generated by impact fees
may not be commingled with any other funds.
• Affordable Housing – The law allows impact fees on affordable housing “as
defined by the community” to be waived.
Page 154 of 195
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
7
2. Methodology
This chapter describes common impact fee calculation techniques, the
methodology used to calculate new impact fees, and important estimates and
factors used in the calculations.
Impact Fee Methodologies
There are several methods that can be used to calculate impact fees. The two
most common techniques are the Plan-Based Method and the Incremental
Expansion Method. The method chosen needs to be appropriate for the local
circumstances as described below. Colorado law does not specify the methodology
to be used; these methods are commonly used in Colorado and in other states.
Plan-Based Method
This method uses a community’s long-range comprehensive plan, capital
improvement plan, or other adopted plan identifying capital facilities and
infrastructure needed to serve growth. Projects identified in these plans are
costed out and included in the fee program. A growth projection is made over the
time period for which the defined projects are needed or planned to be built. The
fee calculation is essentially the cost of the planned project(s) divided by the
forecasted amount of growth. This method is best used when detailed capital
project planning has been done.
The plan-based method has limitations. First, many communities are not able to
conduct capital planning with the level of detail needed in an impact fee study. It
can be difficult to tie future facility needs with expected growth, and growth can
be unpredictable. The fee calculations are highly sensitive to the amount of
forecasted growth, as growth is the denominator in the fee calculation.
Incremental Expansion Method
The Incremental Expansion Method is a more frequently used method for
calculating impact fees. This method is also called the “level of service” method.
This technique answers the question:
What should each new unit (increment) of development pay to maintain
the city’s current level of service?
Page 155 of 195
2023 Capital Expansion Fee Study
8
This approach takes a snapshot of the current level of service in the city and
converts it typically to a value per unit of service demand (e.g. per capita or per
service population). The current level of service is defined as the inventory of the
city’s existing facilities and capital assets, and the cost to replicate that level of
service (replacement cost) as the city grows. The asset inventory or value is then
converted to a cost per capita, per dwelling unit, or per nonresidential square foot
that is the basis for the fee.
The Incremental Expansion Method was used in this study to calculate impact fees
for Parks, Police, Fire, and General Government.
Level of Service Definition
Using the Incremental Expansion Method, this study defines the level of service
(LOS) as the replacement cost of the existing facilities and capital equipment in
the City in 2023. The fee calculations document the current inventories of parks
facilities and land, police facilities and fleet/equipment, fire facilities and
fleet/equipment, and general government facilities and fleet/equipment. The LOS
is converted to a cost or value per service population that is used to calculate the
impact fees for each major land use type.
Cost Allocations by Land Use Type
Many City services and related capital facilities are provided for residential and
commercial (nonresidential) development. To ensure that impact fees are
proportional to the impact by type of land use, it is necessary to allocate the level
of service or facility costs to residential and nonresidential development. For all
categories, the City’s service population combined with person-occupancy factors
are used to allocate costs as described in the next section.
Page 156 of 195
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
9
Service Population
Under the incremental expansion method, the impact fee is based on the cost to
maintain the current infrastructure standard expressed as the replacement cost
per service population. Under this method, each new increment of development
pays a fee that is designed to maintain the current level of service per unit of
service population (replacement cost per service population). Service population
is a metric that combines the resident population plus in-commuting workers for a
total “daily” or “functional” population.
Capital expansion fee calculations use service population and person-occupancy
factors by land use type as the basis for allocating costs to residential and
nonresidential development (except for parks, which uses residential population).
The calculation of service population is shown in Table 3.
The City of Fort Collins estimated its population to be 174,445 people in 2023.
There are an estimated 107,677 jobs in Fort Collins and an estimated 102,037
employees (workers) after adjusting for people who hold multiple jobs. In-
commuters account for 57.8 percent of the job holders and because they are
present in the City for only part of a day, they are weighted at 50 percent of the
impact of a full-time resident. These adjustments add 29,507 of equivalent
population to the population resulting in a service population of 203,952.
Table 3. Fort Collins Service Population Calculation, 2023
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
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 10-12-23.xlsx]20-Service Population
Page 157 of 195
2023 Capital Expansion Fee Study
10
Residential Occupancy Factors
Occupancy factors are developed in this section to convert new development into
increments of new service population. The occupancy factors also allocate service
demand between residential and nonresidential land uses.
As shown in Table 4, people are estimated to spend approximately 71.3 percent
of their day at home, which is equivalent to the residential service demand factor.
The other 29.7 percent of the time spent away from home is accounted for in the
nonresidential occupancy factors.
Table 4. Fort Collins Residential Service Demand Factor Calculation, 2023
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 1,814,228person-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 2,986,498person-hours per day
Total Person-Hours per Day B 24 4,186,680population 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 10-12-23.xlsx]23-Residential Service Demand
Page 158 of 195
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
11
Next, the service population per dwelling unit is estimated using average
household sizes and the time spent away from the home. The average household
size for single family and multiple dwelling units was obtained from the U.S.
Census Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS), and the averages by household size
ranges were calibrated from the American Housing Survey. The previously
calculated residential service demand factor was then applied to generate the
residential occupancy factors, as shown in Table 5. For example, a home with
1,890 square feet has an average household size of 2.56 persons and a 1.83-
person occupancy factor. As highlighted in an analysis and memorandum sent to
the City Council on March 30, 2023, an 1,890 square foot household in Fort
Collins was used as a basis for residential comparative analysis. This report will
also use the 1,890 square foot household as an example for each of the fee
categories to help provide specific context to this study update.
Table 5. Fort Collins Residential Occupancy Factors
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 10-12-23.xlsx]24-Occupancy_Factor
Source: 2019 U.S. Census Bureau American Housing Survey, Division 8 (Mountain);
Economic & Planning Systems
Page 159 of 195
2023 Capital Expansion Fee Study
12
Nonresidential Occupancy Factors
Nonresidential occupancy factors were derived from trip rate factors, vehicle
occupancy data, and employment generation factors, as shown in Table 6. Daily
trip rates are one-half the average daily trip ends during a weekday and are
sourced from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation
Manual. Employee density figures were from the TCEF study being prepared by
TischlerBise. Using these factors, service population figures were derived for three
general land use categories, ranging from 0.55 for industrial uses, to 2.12 for
retail and commercial uses. This method accounts for on-site employment and
customers or visitors that are comprised of the resident population as well as
people coming into the city for shopping, leisure, or business activities.
Table 6. Fort Collins Nonresidential Occupancy Factors
Land Use Unit Daily Trips[1]Persons per
1,000 sq. ft.
Employees
per 1,000 sq. ft.
Sq. Ft.(Trip ends / 2)(8 hours/day)(8 hours/day)
A B C = A * B D E
Retail/Commercial 1,000 820 37.75 18.88 1.91 36.11 2.12 8 16.98
Office and Other Services 1,000 710 9.74 4.87 1.18 5.75 3.15 8 25.17
Industrial 1,000 110 4.87 2.44 1.18 2.87 1.57 8 12.56
Land Use
Vistors per 1,000
sq. ft.
Service
Population
(8 hours/day)per day
F = C - D G H = F * G I = E + H J = I / J
Retail/Commercial 33.99 1.00 33.99 50.97 24 2.12
Office and Other Services 2.60 1.00 2.60 27.77 24 1.16
Industrial 1.30 0.50 0.65 13.21 24 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 10-12-23.xlsx]28-NR_Occupancy Factors
Total Hours
Total
Hours in
Day
Visitor
Hour
Factor
Vistor
Hours
ITE Code
Daily Trip
Ends
Persons/
Trip
Employee
Hours in
Day
Employee
Hours
Page 160 of 195
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
13
3. Neighborhood and Community Parks
Capital Expansion Fees
This chapter documents the level of service, replacement cost estimates, cost
allocations, and other calculations used to determine the Parks CEF for
neighborhood parks and community parks. Capital expansion fees are collected to
fund facility construction, equipment purchases, and land acquisition. As the City
grows, the space needed for these support functions also grows. Capital
expansion fees will be used to maintain the current level of service, expressed as
the replacement cost of its maintenance facilities, developed parkland, and land
cost to replace such parkland. The City currently manages 573 acres of
community parks and 384 acres of neighborhood parks.
Level of Service Definition
The total estimated replacement cost of parks facilities is $350,566,728 for
neighborhood parks and $266,667,038 for community parks, as shown in Table 7.
The replacement cost, which is split into two fee categories, is $2,009.61 per
residential population for neighborhood parks and $1,528.66 per residential
population for community parks. This value includes the replacement cost
estimates for all maintenance facilities, all parkland, and the land cost estimates
for all parklands.
Table 7. Parks Cost per Service Unit, 2023
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 10-12-23.xlsx]7-Parks Cost per Service Unit
Page 161 of 195
2023 Capital Expansion Fee Study
14
To determine the development cost of the maintenance facilities, East District,
Spring Canyon, and Fossil Creek maintenance facility development costs were
used to estimate a replacement cost per acre based on community and
neighborhood park acres served by each facility, as shown in Table 8. As
previously determined by the City, the cost allocation of maintenance facilities is
80 percent for community parks and 20 percent for neighborhood parks.
Table 8. Parks Maintenance Facility per Capita Cost, 2023
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
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 10-12-23.xlsx]6-Maintenance Fac. Cost
Page 162 of 195
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
15
Residential Capital Expansion Fee Calculation
The replacement cost per service population is multiplied by the household sizes
for each housing unit size range. Park fees are charged only on residential
development and full household size factors are used. For a single-family home or
multifamily unit that is 1,890 square feet, the fee per unit is $5,144.61 for
neighborhood parks (Table 9) and $3,913.37 for community parks (Table 10),
which equates to $9,057.88 per unit. This is based on an average household size
of 2.56 people. The capital expansion fee was calculated for a range of unit sizes
as currently permitted in the City of Fort Collins fee schedule.
Table 9. Neighborhood Parks Residential Capital Expansion Fee, 2023
Table 10. Community Parks Residential Capital Expansion Fee, 2023
Updated Fee Current Fee
Description 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 10-12-23.xlsx]8-NParks-Res. Impact Fee
Avg. HH
Size
Updated Fee Current Fee
Description 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 10-12-23.xlsx]9-CParks-Res. Impact Fee
Avg. HH
Size
Page 163 of 195
2023 Capital Expansion Fee Study
16
4. Police Capital Expansion Fee
This chapter documents the level of service, replacement cost estimates, cost
allocations, and other calculations used to determine the Police Capital Expansion
Fee. Fees are collected to fund facility expansions, fleet replacement, and
equipment replacement. These fees will be used to maintain the current level of
service, expressed as the replacement cost of police facilities, fleet, and capital
equipment. The police department currently has 3 primary facilities and 430 fleet
vehicles.
Level of Service Definition
The total replacement cost of police facilities, fleet, and equipment is
$77,990,689, as shown in Table 11. The replacement cost is $382.40 per service
population. This value accounts for debt owed and an estimated 90 percent
capacity factor based on current utilization.
Table 11. Police Inventory and Replacement Cost per Capita, 2023
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 Capital 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 10-12-23.xlsx]10-Police_Inv. RC
Page 164 of 195
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
17
Residential Capital Expansion Fee Calculation
For a single-family home or multi-family unit that is 1,890 square feet, the fee per
unit is $698.31. This is based on an occupancy factor of 1.83 people adjusted for
time spent at home, as shown in Table 12. The capital expansion fee was
calculated for a range of unit sizes as currently permitted in the City of Fort
Collins fee schedule.
Table 12. Police Residential Capital Expansion Fee, 2023
Nonresidential Capital Expansion Fee
Using the previously derived service population and occupancy factors, the
proposed nonresidential impact fee was calculated for three major land uses as
shown in Table 13. Proposed capital expansion fees range from $0.21 per square
foot for industrial uses to $0.81 per square foot for retail/commercial uses.
Table 13. Police Nonresidential Capital Expansion Fee, 2023
Description Factor Updated 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 10-12-23.xlsx]11-Police-Res. Impact Fee
Description Service Pop.Updated Fee Updated Fee Updated 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 10-12-23.xlsx]12-Police-Non Res. Fee
Page 165 of 195
2023 Capital Expansion Fee Study
18
5. Fire Protection Capital Expansion Fee
This chapter documents the current Fire Protection Capital Expansion fee
structure, replacement cost estimates, cost allocations, and other factors used to
calculate the proposed Fire Protection Capital Expansion Fees. The Poudre Fire
Authority (PFA) consists of eleven staffed fire stations, two volunteer fire stations,
one headquarters, and one training facility, which serve a variety of emergency
response needs. These include fire suppression, emergency medical response,
hazardous materials response, technical rescue, fire prevention, public outreach
and education, and wildland preparedness planning and response. PFA is the
overarching authority that serves a large portion of Larimer County including Fort
Collins. The Poudre Valley Fire Protection District (PVFPD) collects separate impact
fees for its service area outside of the City of Fort Collins.
Level of Service Definition
The total replacement cost of Fire Protection facilities, fleet, and equipment is
$145,020,455, as shown in Table 14. The total replacement cost is for the entire
PFA district including areas outside of Fort Collins. The asset inventory needs to
be allocated to Fort Collins for its CEF calculation, which is shown in Table 15.
Table 14. Fire Protection Inventory and Replacement Cost per Capita, 2023
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 10-12-23.xlsx]13-Fire_Inv. RC
Page 166 of 195
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
19
The City of Fort Collins generates 84.99 percent of PFA calls. The replacement
cost attributable to the City is therefore $123,252,885, or $604.32 per service
population, as shown in Table 15.
Table 15. Fire Protection Asset Cost by Service Area, 2023
Residential Capital Expansion Fee Calculation
For a single-family home or multifamily unit that is 1,890 square feet, the fee per
unit with the City of Fort Collins is $1,103.58. This is based on an occupancy
factor of 1.83 people adjusted for time spent at home. The capital expansion fee
was calculated for a range of unit sizes as currently permitted in the City of Fort
Collins fee schedule (as shown in Table 16).
Table 16. Fire Residential Capital Expansion Fee, 2023
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 10-12-23.xlsx]14-FoCoFireAssets
Description Factor Updated 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 10-12-23.xlsx]15-FC Fire-Res. Impact Fee
Page 167 of 195
2023 Capital Expansion Fee Study
20
Nonresidential Capital Expansion Fee
Using the previously derived service population and occupancy factors, the
proposed nonresidential capital expansion fee was calculated for three major land
uses as shown in Table 17. Proposed fees range from $0.33 per square foot for
industrial uses to $1.28 per square foot for retail/commercial uses.
Table 17. Fire Protection Nonresidential Capital Expansion Fee, 2023
Description Service Pop.Updated Fee Updated Fee Updated 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 10-12-23.xlsx]16-FC Fire-Non Res. Fee
Page 168 of 195
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
21
6. General Government Capital Expansion Fee
This chapter documents the level of service, replacement cost estimates, cost
allocations, and other calculations used to determine the General Government
Capital Expansion Fee. These fees are collected to fund facility expansions for
general government purposes such as office space for city staff, facilities
maintenance buildings, city fleet, equipment, and courts and justice functions. As
the city grows, the space needs for these support functions also grows. Capital
Expansion fees will be used to maintain the current level of service, expressed as
the replacement cost of its major facilities and fleet.
Level of Service Definition
The total replacement cost of general government is estimated at $152,198,009,
as shown in Table 18. The replacement cost for general government is $746.25
per service population. This value includes all facilities owned by the City of Fort
Collins including City Hall and other administrative buildings, streets and traffic
operations, IT equipment, general governmental vehicles, and heavy equipment.
Table 18. General Government Inventory and Replacement Cost, 2023
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 10-12-23.xlsx]17-Gen Gov_Inv. RC
Page 169 of 195
2023 Capital Expansion Fee Study
22
Residential Capital Expansion Fee Calculation
For a single-family home or multifamily unit that is 1,890 square feet, the fee per
unit is $1,362.74. This is based on an occupancy factor of 1.83 people adjusted
for time spent at home, as shown in Table 19. The capital expansion fee was
calculated for a range of unit sizes as currently permitted in the City of Fort
Collins fee schedule.
Table 19. General Government Residential Capital Expansion Fee, 2023
Nonresidential Impact Fee
Using the previously derived service population and occupancy factors, the
proposed nonresidential impact fee was calculated for three major land uses as
shown in Table 20. Proposed capital expansion fees range from $0.41 per square
foot for industrial uses to $1.58 per square foot for retail/commercial uses.
Table 20. General Government Nonresidential Capital Expansion Fee, 2023
Description Factor Updated 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 10-12-23.xlsx]18-Gen Gov-Res. Impact Fee
Description Service Pop.Updated Fee Updated Fee Updated 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 10-12-23.xlsx]19-Gen Gov-Non Res. Fee
Page 170 of 195
APPENDIX:
Peer Communities Impact Fee Comparisons
Page 171 of 195
Appendix: 2023 Capital Expansion Fee Study
24
Table A-1. Comparison of Major Inputs: 2017 vs. 2023 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 10-12-23.xlsx]3-Comp to 2017
Page 172 of 195
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
25
Table A-2. Current Residential Impact Fee Comparisons
Fort Collins
Land Use Type Current Boulder Cheyenne Greeley Loveland Longmont
Residential (per dwelling)
Single Family - 1,890 sq. ft $7,510.00 $5,918.00 $400.00 $6,213.00 $8,299.00 $8,325.17
Multi Family - 1,890 sq. ft.$7,510.00 $5,918.00 $400.00 $6,213.00 $5,721.00 $4,792.93
Residential (per dwelling)
Single Family - 1,890 sq. ft $431.00 $482.00 $949.37 $280.00 $1,104.00 --
Multi Family - 1,890 sq. ft.$431.00 $482.00 $949.37 $280.00 $769.00 --
Residential (per dwelling)
Single Family - 1,890 sq. ft $772.00 $430.00 --$728.00 ----
Multi Family - 1,890 sq. ft.$772.00 $430.00 --$728.00 ----
Residential (per dwelling)
Single Family - 1,890 sq. ft $1,051.00 $759.00 ----$1,370.00 --
Multi Family - 1,890 sq. ft.$1,051.00 $759.00 ----$953.00 --
Residential (per dwelling)
Single Family - 1,890 sq. ft $7,621.00 $228.00 $1,514.25 $7,213.00 --$2,060.56
Multi Family - 1,890 sq. ft.$7,621.00 $228.00 $1,211.40 $7,213.00 --$2,060.56
Residential (per dwelling)
Single Family - 1,890 sq. ft $17,385.00 $7,817.00 $2,863.62 $14,434.00 $10,773.00 $10,385.73
Multi Family - 1,890 sq. ft.$17,385.00 $7,817.00 $2,560.77 $14,434.00 $7,443.00 $6,853.49
Source: City of Boulder; City of Cheyenne; City of Greeley; City of Loveland; City of Longmont; City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 10-12-23.xlsx]4-Res Example
Parks
Fire
General Government
Police
Total
Transportation
Page 173 of 195
Appendix: 2023 Capital Expansion Fee Study
26
Table A-3. Current Nonresidential Impact Fee Comparisons
Fort Collins
Land Use Type Current Boulder Cheyenne Greeley Loveland Longmont
Nonresidential (per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Commercial $364.00 $790.00 $603.42 $841.00 $489.10 --
Office and Other Services $364.00 $320.00 $295.00 $452.00 ----
Industrial $85.00 $190.00 $518.63 $230.00 $62.70 --
Nonresidential (per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Commercial $650.00 $680.00 --$1,872.00 ----
Office and Other Services $650.00 $980.00 --$1,006.00 ----
Industrial $152.00 $630.00 --$513.00 ----
Nonresidential (per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Commercial $9,946.00 $600.00 $2,422.81 $8,347.00 --$3,340.00
Office and Other Services $7,327.00 $240.00 $1,817.11 $5,383.00 --$1,450.00
Industrial $2,365.00 $150.00 $1,817.11 $2,742.00 --$450.00
Nonresidential (per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Commercial $1,777.00 $430.00 ----$526.70 --
Office and Other Services $1,777.00 $620.00 --------
Industrial $419.00 $400.00 ----$75.20 --
Nonresidential (per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Commercial $12,737.00 $2,500.00 $3,026.23 $11,060.00 $1,015.80 $3,340.00
Office and Other Services $10,118.00 $2,160.00 $2,112.11 $6,841.00 $0.00 $1,450.00
Industrial $3,021.00 $1,370.00 $2,335.74 $3,485.00 $137.90 $450.00
Source: City of Boulder; City of Cheyenne; City of Greeley; City of Loveland; City of Longmont; City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 10-12-23.xlsx]5-Non-Res Comps
Police
Fire
Transportation
General Government
Total
Page 174 of 195
DocuSign Envelope ID: 19A13E05-276C-4215-A503-9F197C31D3AF
Utilities
electric · stormwater · wastewater · water
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.212.2900
V/TDD: 711
utilities@fcgov.com
fcgov.com/utilities
MEMORANDUM
Date: Oct. 25, 2023
To: Mayor and City Councilmembers
Through: Tyler Marr, Deputy City Manager
Kendall Minor, Utilities Executive Director
Jason Graham, Director of Water Utilities
From: Jen Dial, Water Resources Manager
Subject: August 8 City Council Work Session Update – Water Supply Fees, Excess Water
Use, and Water Allotments
Bottom Line
In August 2023, staff presented updated consultant work regarding Water Supply Requirement
(WSR) and Excess Water Use (EWU) fees. Based on the conversation and feedback, staff is
convening an internal team to review and develop options that balance the values and goals of
the community along with the needs of the water utility. Staff anticipates this work occurring
throughout 2024 and targeting 2025 implementation.
Background
The WSR is a development fee collected to pay for the water necessary to serve either a new
development or redeveloped commercial properties that require a larger tap. These fees
generate revenue to provide reliable water resources, including water rights and storage, to
ensure future growth is not paid for by existing rate payers. The WSR pays for a defined
amount of water, which is translated into an annual water allotment.
Utilities also charge EWU fees to customers who exceed their water allotment. Customers
may increase their water allotment at any time by paying WSR fees or by providing City water
certificates and credits. However, most customers who exceed their water allotment choose to
pay EWU fees as opposed to a much larger, one-time WSR fee.
Both fees are typically reviewed and updated every 2-3 years. Unlike other water utility fees and
rates (plant investment fees, water rates, and wastewater rates), which are based on planned
capital improvement projects, the WSR and EWU fees are based on the cost of water and
infrastructure which has been, and continues to be, very dynamic.
Next Steps
Because of the complexity and potential scale of proposed increases, staff will be developing
separate work streams to work in parallel to develop options for assigning new water allotments
as well as determining appropriate WSR and EWU fees for Utilities customers.
DocuSign Envelope ID: AD483C41-AE70-4051-9A17-D400FC7BC967
Page 175 of 195
DocuSign Envelope ID: 19A13E05-276C-4215-A503-9F197C31D3AF
A staff core team with expertise in water resources, conservation, finance, utility fees, customer
community relations, communications, marketing, development review, and water law will spend
the next several months exploring various methods to determine the appropriate fee structures
that align with City and community needs. This work will include looking at internal process
improvements, developing alternatives, and outreach.
A project plan has been developed to ensure the core team applies a community-wide lens to
the process and options to be provided to Council. The project plan focuses on a balanced
approach to ensure the water utility can provide the water needs of our customers without
putting an unnecessary burden on development, especially affordable housing and small
businesses.
Staff anticipates scheduling Council work sessions in Q2 and Q3 of 2024 leading up to potential
code adoption in Nov. 2024. Any fee increases would go into effect Jan. 1, 2025.
Engagement efforts will include outreach to:
• Existing allotment customers
• Relevant Boards and Commissions
• Developments far along in the review process that would be affected by a WSR
increase.
• Other impacted groups such as developers, commercial real estate brokers, and
Homeowner’s Associations
• The public through engagement opportunities such as listening sessions and open
houses
• The public through information on the City’s website, including an OurCity page to better
drive and track engagement.
Allotment Changes
While most Utilities water customers already have an assigned allotment that is subject to EWU
fees, about 1,720 Utilities commercial customers do not have an allotment because they
received a water tap before the allotment program began in 1984. This disparity leads to less
equitable administration of EWU fees and is related to a potential EWU fee increase. Beginning
in the 4th quarter of 2023, staff will develop a timeline for seeking input from impacted
customers, calculating allotments, assigning allotments, and implementing a communications
plan, which would include work sessions with Council.
Summary
The cost of delivering safe and reliable water to our community continues to rise. Fort Collins’
population is expected to keep growing, and Utilities must find a way to pay for future water
demands and infrastructure, including storage, while supporting our community values as a
municipal-owned Utility. Challenging factors include managing higher costs for construction,
permitting, and infrastructure, much of which is outside the City’s control. The City is committed to
working with the community, staff and Council to develop options that balance the values and
goals of the community along with the needs of the water utility.
DocuSign Envelope ID: AD483C41-AE70-4051-9A17-D400FC7BC967
Page 176 of 195
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff:
Jennifer Poznanovic, Sr. Revenue Manager
Nina Bodenhamer, City Give Director
Date:
December 14, 2023
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Sales Tax Rebate on Groceries
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In October 2022, City Council amended City Code to align income eligibility from 50 percent
area median income (AMI) for the applicable household size to 60 percent AMI. In collaboration
with the City-wide consolidation of income-qualified programs and the Get FoCo application,
staff committed to returning to Council Finance Committee to discuss the effectiveness of the
updates on program participation after approximately a year.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council Finance Committee support offering a benefited position for the Grocery
Tax Rebate Coordinator position starting in 2024?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Established in 1972, the Grocery Tax Rebate is intended to provide financially insecure residents
relief from City sales tax charged on purchased food.
Over the past years, revisions to the Code language which govern the Grocery Tax Rebate have
been made to demonstrate responsiveness to resident input and program design:
• Expanded to include residents within the City’s Growth Management Area in 2017
• Property tax and utilities rebates sunset in 2021
• Expanded window of service: from seasonal to annual (2023 first full year)
• Online applications available via Get FoCo in 2022
• Adjusted definition of “households”
• Removed Federal Income Tax as the sole income verification source
• Updated to the payment to allow future alternatives
• Increased eligibility from 50% AMI to 60% AMI
Outreach & promotion:
• Leverage all City outreach platforms
• Spanish-language translation of outreach materials and application
• Direct mail, community promotion and marketing
o Community-wide poster distribution
o Two (2) ads per year, Coloradoan
• 50+ community partners: applications & promotion
Page 177 of 195
Ongoing program design goals:
• Increase participation
• Reduced barriers to enrollment
• Improve the resident experience
• Leverage best-practices in program design for financially insecure residents
• Realize the potential of the city’s investment in Get FoCo
Recent program results:
• Second year partnering with Get FoCo
o Nearly 80% of applications now online
• Record number of qualified applications - over 1600
• Greater reach to participants under 65 and household sizes greater than one
• Record high grocery rebate $304k (with one month to go)
o 2023 budget $150k
o Appropriation for additional expense will require Council approval
ATTACHMENTS (numbered Attachment 1, 2, 3,…)
1. 2023-11-01 CFC Sales Tax on Food (PDF)
Year Applications Household
Members
Grocery
Rebate Repeat %65+%Single
HH %GetFoco %
2020 1006 1890 123,435 886 88%509 51%641 64%N/A N/A
2021 948 1758 117,987 844 89%446 47%588 62%N/A N/A
2022 1281 2626 181,186 857 67%486 38%686 54%614 48%
2023 YTD Nov 1664 3986 303,353 773 46%405 24%765 46%1296 78%
Page 178 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
Jennifer Poznanovic
Nina Bodenhamer
Sales Tax Rebate
on Groceries
12-14-2023
Page 179 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
2
Grocery Tax Rebate
Recap
City Council October 2022
•Council Finance Committee and City staff
amended City Code to align income eligibility
from 50 percent annual median income (AMI)
to 60 percent AMI
•In collaboration with the City-wide consolidation of income-qualified programs
and the Get FoCo application, staff committed to returning to Council Finance
Committee to discuss the effectiveness of the updates on program
participation after approximately a year
Page 180 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
3
Get FoCo: An Overview
Get FoCo is a simple online and mobile first platform
serving residents of Fort Collins with a
demonstrated financial need in 6 simple steps.
•Discounted Connexion internet at $20.00 per month
•An Annual Grocery Tax Rebate
•Reduced Fees for Recreation Programs and Access to City Facilities
•Discounted SPIN bikes & scooters
•Coming Soon: Hazard Tree Removal Program, Forestry
Page 181 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
Recent Program Results:
•Second year partnering with Get FoCo
‒ Nearly 80% of applications now online
•Record number of qualified applications – over 1600
•Greater reach to participants under 65 and household sizes greater than one
•Record high grocery rebate $304k (with one month to go)
‒ 2023 budget $150k
‒ Appropriation for additional expense will require Council approval
Year Applications Household
Members
Grocery
Rebate Repeat %65+%Single
HH %GetFoco %
2020 1006 1890 123,435 886 88%509 51%641 64%N/A N/A
2021 948 1758 117,987 844 89%446 47%588 62%N/A N/A
2022 1281 2626 181,186 857 67%486 38%686 54%614 48%
2023 YTD Nov 1664 3986 303,353 773 46%405 24%765 46%1296 78%
4
Grocery Rebate Program
Recent Results
Page 182 of 195
Headline Copy Goes HereGrocery Rebate Program
Recommended Improvements
5
•First full year offering an
extended window of service
•From a seasonal to an
annual program
•Recommendation:
• Benefited position
starting in 2024⎻Retention of the
program coordinator ⎻Increased workload
Page 183 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
6
Backup
Page 184 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
7
Grocery Tax Rebate
Application History
•Flat growth over the past 10 years
•2023 surpassing10-year application high
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Nov
YTD
Qualified Grocery Tax Rebates by Year
Page 185 of 195
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Tyler Marr, Deputy City Manager
Date: December 14, 2023
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION (a short title)
Appropriation request regarding change management resources for two digital
transformation projects.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff is recommending a one-time appropriation totaling $500,000 from General Fund Reserves to
support dedicated change management resources for two digital transformation projects - Legislative
Management Software and Recreation Registration Software replacements. The split is $375,000 for
Legislative Management and $125,000 for The Recreation Registration project. These resources will go
directly to contracted change management resources with PROSCI, whose methodology the City is using
for a broader Enterprise Change Management effort.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance Committee recommend moving the appropriation to the full Council in
January?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The City organization is actively pursuing at various stages a number of projects that seek to modernize
our digital footprint for the community and the internal operations of the organization. These projects
span many city services, including:
• Customer information system for utility billing
• Licensing, permitting, and inspection software
• Recreation registration system
• Legislative management software - including council agenda packets
• Enterprise Resource Planning
Taken individually, each of these projects represent different degrees of resourcing, both in terms of
dollars and staff time, complexities and process or operational changes that will be required to be
successful. A critical component staff believes applies to each project is our ability to effectively manage
the change from current state operations to the future state under new tools and systems. Previous
examples where we have not invested in adequate change management support and a holistic project
management approach have resulted in suboptimal outcomes. While the City has invested in staff
capacity and in creating positions for change practitioners to some degree, it is leadership’s opinion that
Page 186 of 195
each of the projects above will require dedicated change management support which simply does not
exist in the organization today.
Both the Recreation registration and legislative management systems are near term projects reaching
critical milestones that have significant change requirements not currently able to be absorbed in the
project costs that were originally budgeted primarily for software costs alone. Both projects are detailed
below in addition to what the appropriation would provide for.
Recreation Registration (Daysmart)
The City’s current recreation registration software – known as RecTrac – is a pain point in resident
experience when it comes to accessing the City’s class and program offerings across facilities and
offering type. Council appropriated $89k in funds to replace the software in the 2023/2024 budget and
staff has completed a Request for Proposals (RFP) and selected Daysmart as the new vendor who will
provide that software.
Given the change a new system represents to the community and staff, and the vast amount of public
interaction that our residents have with this particular system, executive staff selected the project as
one that should receive dedicated change management support, especially to meet the timeline of
working to launch for the April registration process. The appropriation request amount of $125,00
would cover dedicated support for a change practitioner provided through Prosci to assist in project
execution alongside the City’s project manager.
Legislative Management Software (LMS)
Legislative management software is a tool to improve efficiencies and transparency of the legislative
process which includes Council agendas and minutes, in addition to materials for boards and
commissions and Council subcommittees. Council approved a 2023-2024 Budget Offer for $300k ($150k
in each ’23 and ‘24) to fund implementation of a new LMS. This proposal was included in the larger
Digital Transformation RFP to include a new citywide website. Staff wanted to consolidate multiple
applications into a single, streamlined resident and community experience. Staff are currently in the
final stages of selecting a vendor.
Executive leadership felt that this project was a critical one to provide dedicated change management
support to; given the scale of the project, the number of staff that interact with the LMS, the critical
functions pertaining to agenda management, record keeping, and the associated risks to public trust if
the project does not go successfully.
The requested appropriation of $375,000 includes dedicated support for project execution, training in
change management to upskill impacted groups across the organization, and building capability in
change management execution for the organization more broadly.
For both projects, staff is planning on exercising an existing contract option with Prosci to provide these
services. Prosci is a locally based global thought leader in the practice of organizational change
management. With over twenty years of research backing its industry leading methodology, their
advisors have extensive experience both leading change initiatives and developing organizational
capabilities related to organizational change management to successfully deliver results for
organizations. The proposals Prosci has provided the City offers project execution support to
successfully implement solutions that will assist staff and the community in engaging with City
organization. In addition, the experienced Prosci Change Advisors will develop staff’s ability to manage
Page 187 of 195
change on an ongoing basis through coaching and training. This additional service supports the City’s
enterprise wide capability in organizational change management.
ATTACHMENTS (numbered Attachment 1, 2, 3,…)
1. PowerPoint presentation
Page 188 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
12-14-2023Tyler Marr, Deputy City Manager
Appropriation for Change Management
Resources
Page 189 of 195
Headline Copy Goes HereDirection Sought
•Does Council Finance Committee recommend moving forward with the $500k
appropriation for supplemental change management resources for both the
recreation registration and legislative management software projects?
Page 190 of 195
Headline Copy Goes HereProject Overviews
3
Legislative Management Software
•System for Council agenda/packets
•Also used for Board & Commissions and Council
subcommittees
•$300k appropriation (split evenly between ‘23/’24)
•Combined with website RFP for single vendor.
•Staff working on selecting vendor
Recreation Registration
•System used for class, programming and sport
registration
•Replaces an inefficient, difficult to use system
(RecTrac)
•$89k appropriation for 2023
• Daysmart selected as new vendor
•Aiming for launch in April of 2024
Page 191 of 195
Headline Copy Goes HereWhy Change Management
4
•Organization-wide need
•Concerted effort across ELT and key digital transformation efforts
•Assign dedicated change management resources to projects that:
•Primarily change the way people work
•Breadth of impact across the community or organization
•Project failure risks breach of public trust
•Are ready as a project in terms of project management and executive leadership
•Chosen by senior leadership
•Using existing relationship with Prosci for this particular ask
Page 192 of 195
Headline Copy Goes HereChange Management Resources
5
Legislative Management
•$375k appropriation
•Dedicated support for project execution throughout
2024
•Principal change advisor and supplemental support
when needed
•Training for change management across sponsor
group, impacted teams, and organization
Recreation Registration
•$125k appropriation
•Dedicated change advisor through May – including
launch in April
•No additional training for this particular project
Bottom Line: This approach represents a change in philosophy for the City organization related to
resourcing digital projects holistically
Page 193 of 195
Headline Copy Goes HereDirection Sought
•Does Council Finance Committee recommend moving forward with the $500k
appropriation for supplemental change management resources for both the
recreation registration and legislative management software projects?
Page 194 of 195
Headline Copy Goes Here
Page 195 of 195