HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Full - Finance Committee - 03/18/2019 -
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
March 18, 2019
10:00 am - noon
CIC Room - City Hall
Approval of Minutes from the February 25P
th
P Council Finance Committee meeting.
1. 2019 Fee Road Map 15 minutes J. Poznanovic
2. Development Review Fee Update 30 minutes T. Leeson
3. URA Project 30 minutes J. Birks
4. Compensation Report Review 30 minutes J. Heckman
5. Contingency Planning Framework 15 minutes M. Beckstead
Council Finance Committee
Agenda Planning Calendar 2018 - 2019
RVSD 03/11/19 mnb
Mar 18P
th
P
2019 Fee Road Map 15 min J. Poznanovic
Development Review Fee Update 30 min T. Leeson
URA Project 30 min J. Birks
Compensation Report Review 30 min J. Heckman
Contingency Planning Framework 15 min M. Beckstead
April 15P
th
P
Stormwater - NECCO 30 min L. Smith
T. Connor
Vine/Lemay TCEF Funding 30 min C. Crager
CEF & Utility Fee Update 30 min J. Poznanovic
L. Smith
Parks/Median/Parks Refresh Design / Maintenance Plan Framework 30 min M. Calhoon
K. Friesen
May 20P
th
P
GERP Review 30 min T. Storin
2018 Rebate Results 20 min J. Poznanovic
EPIC Program Review (energy efficiency loans) 30 min J. Phalen
S. Carpenter
June 17P
th
P
Future Council Finance Committee Topics:
• Comprehensive 2019 Fee Update Recommendations - Jul
• 2020 Budget Revision – Aug
• 2019 Annual Adjustment Ordinance - Sep
1
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
2/25/19
10 am - noon
CIC Room - City Hall
Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Ross Cunniff, Ken Summers (absent) Gerry Horak
Staff: Darin Atteberry (absent), Kelly DiMartino, Mike Beckstead, Kevin Gertig,
Lisa Rosintoski, Lance Smith, Carol Webb, Travis Storin, Jennifer Poznanovic,
Andres Gavaldon, Abbye Neel, Liesel Hans, Jackie Thiel, Sue Beck-Ferkiss,
Adam Molzer, Josh Birks, Jensen Morgan, Laurie Kadrich, John Duval, Noelle Currell, Tyler
Marr, Joe Wimmer, Jennifer Poznanovic, Lawrence Pollack, John Duval,
Zach Mozer, Jo Cech, Katie Ricketts, Carolyn Koontz
Others: Dale Adamy, R1ST.org, Kevin Jones, Chamber of Commerce
Patrick McMeekin and Landon Hoover from Hartford Homes
_______________________________________________________________________________
Meeting called to order at 10:03 am
Approval of Minutes from the January 28P
th
PCouncil Finance Committee Meeting. Mayor Troxell moved for approval.
Ross Cunniff seconded the motion. Minutes were approved unanimously.
A. Child Care Incentive / Fee Waivers
Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Lead Specialist, Social Sustainability
Adam Molzer, Sr. Specialist, Social Sustainability
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Fort Collins community has more demand for childcare than available slots in childcare centers and in-home
centers. While the City already provides scholarships to low-income parents, provides City facilities when
possible to be used as childcare centers, partners with the school district to fund enrichment programs, and
partners with providers and the Early Childcare Council to advocate and problem solve, there is still a significant
need for more accessible and affordable childcare in Fort Collins. This item is seeking guidance regarding
whether the City should add development incentives to the list of support provided by the City.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Is there interest in providing development incentives for Childcare providers?
2. If so, should these be targeted specifically to the number of affordable tuition slots made available to
income-qualified families?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
2
Recent data collected by the Early Childhood Council of Larimer County shows an unmet demand for childcare in
our community.
• Childcare slots for infants and toddlers provide only 25% of the need for this age children.
• Only 65% of the need is met for preschool age children.
The lack of available childcare is a concern for local work force needs. It means some parents will suffer
distractions at work because their childcare situation is unstable or choose to take time out of the workforce
because childcare needs are unmet. Plus, the cost of childcare is a burden for many working families, especially
lower wage earners. This shortage in availability is caused by a scarcity in both facilities and staff to run them.
The focus of this project is on the facility part of the equation because the City’s Economic Health Office and
community partners such as The Chamber of Commerce, Larimer County and the Early Childhood Council to
name a few, through Talent 2.0 and in other ways are already working on the talent side of the equation. The
demand for childcare has outpaced the supply for some time in the City and this is not the first time the City has
looked at this issue. See attachment 1 – Work Session Summary from October 25, 2011. This remains an issue
both locally and nationally.
The State of Colorado has the most influence over regulations and policy for childcare providers. They work
closely with Larimer County who inspects facilities and monitors compliance with state-wide programs. The
City’s sphere of influence is limited in this arena. Still there are things the City currently does to support this
need and there are additional actions the City could consider doing to incentivize the development of more
childcare centers – both commercial centers and in-home centers.
The City is already investing to support childcare in our city:
• City facilities house childcare programs and are offered are very low nonprofit rents (i.e.- Teaching Tree at
424 Pine Street and previously Waldorf school at 906 Stuart Street).
• Competitive Process funding for scholarships and after school enrichment programs.
• Funding for the Early Childhood Council to address childcare workforce shortage issue.
• Partnering with the Chamber of Commerce and others on the Talent 2.0 Childcare Task Force.
• Providing limited pre-construction funding and classroom expansion funds from the 2017-2018 BFO funds.
This offer was only for the prior budget cycle and the current budget cycle does not provide responsive
funds for childcare activities.
Options to Explore:
The development arena provides another avenue to support this community need. There are substantial City
fees required to build new childcare centers. For example, two recently constructed centers paid $168,000 and
$245,000 respectively in City development fees. A waiver program similar to the affordable housing fee waiver
incentive could be established to waive some or all of these fees. Waivers could be for the entire center because
that would address the scarcity issue or the program could be tailored to the affordable childcare slots provided
to address the affordability issue. Either way, the City would decide which fees to waive similar to the Affordable
Housing Fee Waiver program.
Affordable housing incentives are currently provided through the Land Use Code such as priority processing and
landscape reductions. These could be offered to childcare centers too. Currently, staff is analyzing ways to bring
development standard flexibility to affordable housing development. That project could be expanded to include
other social needs, including childcare. The idea would be to flex standards not related to health and safety.
3
These could be things like off-site infrastructure improvements or low impact design standards. The group that
is working on this for affordable housing could expand the project to include childcare development too.
In-home centers do not have the same development obligations. It is considered a home occupation and is
permitted in most of the City. While grants funds are available for the person offering in-home care to help get
them licensed and trained, funding is not available for limited home modifications that might be needed to offer
in-home childcare. The City has offered cluster funding in the past to support needed commercial activity in the
City. When this program is rebooted, it could include an in-home childcare industry cluster to provide grants for
egress windows, fencing, seconds sinks for example. This gap was identified by the Early Childhood Center.
Next Steps:
Staff is looking for direction from the Council Finance Committee on whether to continue to explore ways to
incentivize childcare in the City.
Discussion / Next Steps:
CCAP = Colorado Childcare Assistance Program
Ross Cunniff; instead of using the terminology ‘fees waived’ we should use ‘rebate’ from General Fund.
Subsidized Fee Rebate not a waiver.
Mayor Troxell; Gerry Horak was here in 2011 - Catholic Charities has expressed interest and they have funding to
do childcare – thinking of a bigger super structure that we are a part of - what is the Homeward Alliance in this
case?
Adam Molzer; That would be the early Childcare Council of Larimer County – they are that hub entity pulling in
different entities and stakeholders to facilitate these conversations. We are a strategic partner in their work.
Fundraising - Early Childhood Council is an independent non-profit that serves Larimer County. I don’t think they
receive state funding.
Sue Beck-Ferkiss; so much of this is done at the state and county level - our area of influence is more limited in
this case - so we are specifically targeting the development aspect because that is in our purview. How the
needs will be met – is the next step in their Talent 2.0 efforts – they have some great programs going on to
mentor people to stay in the industry. We need more – need quality - Low wage access is also an issue.
Mayor Troxell; What is the ecosystem and what is our role? We need to understand the problem we are trying
to solve. What can we effectively do? We are a convener and a catalyst - Legislative policy agenda - reduce
regulatory burdens - that is a place where we could play effectively - Zoom out to understand and know the
moving pieces. To get to a more robust system like we have with the Homeward Alliance - What are the 43
providers? What lanes are they in? What are the wraparound services? Have that mature picture - Since we are
so limited, this information would help in having a dialog addressing - what could we do to help move the dial?
Ross Cunniff; sympathetic to that sentiment - I don’t want us to get in the business of being the primary or
significant funder of operations of daycare as I don’t see that as a central mission of the city. Concerned during
tight budget times we would be forced to consider cutting back. I can see using Fee Waivers in a targeted way
(mixed use type properties) I have some concern about going too far on the development standards - residential
homes turned into daycare facilities do have an impact on the neighbors, safety of children in neighborhood –
4
would be very cautious about reducing the parking minimums – increasing the number of employee who can be
onsite. In a mixed-use project, it may different as people have an expectation of extra traffic etc. Nexxus -
Transfort -to be more usable for youth and young families.
This is a state primary function - regulations for health and safety of the students.
Maybe we could help convene a discussion about barriers - such as the way that you set this up initially is
burdensome. I am supportive of the concept of potentially doing fee waivers. Note of caution on the relaxed
development standards in single family neighborhoods. Not fond of General Fund dedicated spending on
operations at daycare facilities. Criteria in competitive process – people don’t have an expectation that would
continue year and year.
Jackie Thiel; we are almost finishing our 10-year plan in homelessness in the community / Homeward 2020 I am
not sure how long the early childhood council has been around – Talent 2.0 – convergence in the community -
lends itself to exciting and creative partnerships - this is meant to frame here is where the city’s role has been -
The city gave $50K in the last cycle which spoke to the role that the city can play - Leveraged with Talent 2.0
funds from economic health and other external partners. There are some other levers that the city is uniquely
positioned to consider such as exploring fee rebates with caution around development standards. We are going
to be going through a strategic planning process - we have heard through City Plan we have heard that child care
continues to be a priority. Competitive process
Mayor Troxell; would help to have a strong workforce ROI related to it -
Economic Health – as much as out of Social Sustainability. Where is CSU in this?
Adam Molzer; they operate their center on campus, but I am not sure of their exact role with the Council itself.
There may be some opportunity to engage them.
Mayor Troxell; is it a holistic council? for example, Bucking Horse introduced a child care center -
How did that go? Challenges that they had
Adam Molzer; I think the name Council may be a misnomer – it is a nonprofit entity helping to drive and deliver
the conversation - leveraging relationships and partnerships and helping to advance the quality of care – looking
at the systems level / zoom out position you mentioned. We have talked with them frequently as a community
partner – there is an opportunity to better understand who they are working with.
Mayor Troxell; they are the source of the data and they do measurements - just like Homeward 2020 – what is
the outcome we are driving toward? What are the metrics here? They should be global community metrics – we
can all be dialed in on – all of this has to be in place to understand the role of the city.
Jackie Thiel; the council will be going through a leadership change - a new Executive Director in the next few
months so the timing is good - several different entities involved
Mayor Troxell; increasing the awareness - first step - like Homeward 2020 - now what?
Understand the eco system and our role and how to make a difference.
Gerry Horak; What are we trying to do? What are the outcomes we want? Are we trying to increase capacity
and if so, is this the best way to do it? Any fee waivers are subsidized from the General Fund – not zero cost. It is
different from housing - housing is to make the project work - no fund raising -
5
Tremendous fund raising related to sliding scale for child care – It is not clear what we are trying to solve. Does
it make a difference if we do something? Does it impact folks with lower wages?
Jackie Thiel; we will come back with the logic model addressing ‘this is the problem we are trying to solve’
Kelly DiMartino; some context - how will these levers fit into the broader picture -
We know what the problem is at a high level -
Gerry Horak; what is the best way to impact livability for folks who make less money?
Subsidized Fee Rebate not a waiver.
B. Re-appropriation Review
Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director
Review of the 2019 Reappropriation Ordinance to appropriate prior year reserves.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to reappropriate monies in 2019 that were previously authorized by City
Council for various expenditures in 2018 for various purposes. The authorized expenditures were not
spent or could not be encumbered in 2018 because:
• there was not sufficient time to complete bidding in 2018 and therefore, there was no known
vendor or binding contract as required to expend or encumber the monies
• the project for which the dollars were originally appropriated by Council could not be completed
during 2018 and reappropriation of those dollars is necessary for completion of the project in 2019
• to carry on programs, services, and facility improvements in 2019 with unspent dollars previously
appropriated in 2018
In the above circumstances, the unexpended and/or unencumbered monies lapsed into individual fund
balances at the end of 2018 and reflect no change in Council policies.
Monies reappropriated for each City fund by this Ordinance are as follows:
6
7
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance Committee support moving forward with the 2019 Reappropriation Ordinance on
the Consent Agenda at the March 5, 2019 Council meeting?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Executive Team has reviewed the Reappropriation requests to ensure alignment with organization
priorities and the Budget staff reviewed the requests to verify that all met qualification requirements.
FINANCIAL/ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This Ordinance increases 2019 appropriations by $2,110,491. A total of $350,230 is requested for
reappropriation in the General Fund, $48,261 from the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund and $1,712,000 is
requested from various other City funds. Reappropriation requests represent amounts budgeted in
2018 that could not be encumbered at year-end. The appropriations are from 2018 prior year
reserves.
Discussion / Next Steps:
Mike Beckstead; if we have a successful election the line item for KFCG should go away by 2022.
8
Scheduled to go to full Council on March 5P
th
P on the Consent Agenda.
Ross Cunniff; yes, to go forward, I appreciate the continued focus and the significant improvement in last 5 years
or so.
ACTION ITEM:
CFC requested that if the NISP (item #13 on KFCG list) is to go forward that they provide a more detailed reason.
Mayor Troxell; yes to go forward
Gerry Horak; yes to go forward
C. Mulberry Metro District Application
Josh Birks, Director Economic Sustainability
Jensen Morgan, Specialist, Economic Sustainability
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The developer of the proposed Mulberry Metro District has submitted a Metro District Service Plan to support a
proposed development of approximately 226 acres located north of Mulberry Street along both sides of
Greenfields Drive. The development is anticipated to have 1,600 residences, including single-family detached,
single-family attached, and
multi-family living options, of which a minimum of ten percent (10%) will be designated and sold as affordable.
The estimated population at build-out is 4,000. The Preliminary Development Plan expects a neighborhood town
center and grocery store as well as 20-30 acres of retail, commercial, and office uses.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
9
1. What additional information does the committee recommend including for the Council evaluation of
Harford Development’s proposed Metro District Service Plan?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Hartford Development is proposing a mixed-use community as a gateway to the Mulberry Corridor and Fort
Collins just off of I-25. The development is designed to align with the East Mulberry Corridor Plan and a Metro
District is proposed to address road and water infrastructure challenges with the site. The project is committed
to affordable housing, on-site solar and providing additional commercial space for businesses. The overall
community design is meant to employ Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) principles in line with New
Urbanist concepts.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The proposed Metro District will support 226 acres of planned development that will become the gateway to
the Mulberry Corridor off of I-25. The project anticipates constructing:
Approximately 1,600 residential units (a mix of single-family and multi-family);
Minimum of 10% affordable at 80% AMI or less (160 units)
Up to 160,000 SF of retail and commercial uses, including a neighborhood-scaled grocery store up to 50,000
SF
Up to 80,000 SF of office uses integrated into the market
Significant open space, including a range of features from amenitized parks to preservation of high-value
natural areas; and
An extensive trail corridor and pedestrian network, providing both internal community connectivity and
walkability, as well as links to the surrounding Fort Collins community.
The project is generally located north of Mulberry Street along both sides of Greenfields Drive.
METRO DISTRICT
Hartford Development has submitted the Consolidated Service Plan for Mulberry Metropolitan District Nos. 1-6
(the “Service Plan”). The Metro District would be used to construct critical public infrastructure and other site
costs mitigating a portion of the overall development costs.
Service Plan Overview
The Service Plan calls for the creation of six Metro Districts working collaboratively to deliver the proposed
Mulberry development. The phased development is anticipated to occur over the next nine plus years and
support an estimated population of 4,000. A few highlights about the proposed Service Plan, include:
Assessed Value – Estimated to be approximately $66 million in 2029 at full build-out
Aggregate Mill Levy – 50 mills, subject to Gallagher Adjustments
Debt Mill Levy – 40 mills, may not be levied until an approved development plan or intergovernmental
agreement has been executed that delivers the pledged public benefits
Operating Mill Levy – Up to 50 mills to fund several on-going operations, such as but not limited to: (a) a
non-potable irrigation system, and (b) road infrastructure. Once a District imposes a Debt Mill Levy, such
District’s Operating Mill Levy cannot exceed ten (10) mills at any point.
Maximum Debt Authorization – Anticipated to be approximately $65 million to cover a portion of the
estimated $105 million in public improvement costs. If Inclusion Area is added to Districts’ boundaries the
Maximum Debt Authorization would become $75 million.
Regional Mill Levy – The regional Mill Levy shall not be counted against the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum
10
Public Improvements
The Service Plan anticipates using the Debt Mill Levy to support the issuance of bonds in the maximum amount
of $65 million to fund all or a portion of the following $105 million in public improvements (details available in
Exhibit F of the Service Plan):
Earthwork – Approximately $4.2 million in earthwork and site preparation costs associated with the
proposed project.
Sanitary Sewer Improvements – Approximately $7.2 million in costs associated with constructing the
sanitary sewer infrastructure both on- and off-site for the project
Water Improvements – Approximately $8.2 million in costs to construct potable water infrastructure both
on- and off-site supporting the project
Non-potable Water – Approximately $4.6 million to construct a non-potable irrigation system to serve the
entire development – this infrastructure will reduce the project’s need to acquire additional water rights,
reduce the demand on potable water treatment facilities and save energy normally consumed in potable
water treatment processes.
Storm Sewer Improvements – Approximately $6.1 million in costs to construct the main storm sewer
system and infrastructure for the project (costs associated with grading are included in the Earthwork
amount above)
Streets, Trails, and Sidewalks – Approximately $25.3 million in costs to construct concrete infrastructure for
roads, trails and sidewalks on the project
Erosion – Approximately $1.2 million in costs to ensure erosion control and maintenance on the project
Landscaping – Approximately $4.4 million in costs for Cooper Slough improvement, neighborhood park
development, development of a pollinator corridor, and other landscaping
Misc. / Amenity – Approximately $39.0 million in miscellaneous costs associated with the project. This
includes contingency funds (14% of total), commercial promenade, neighborhood pool
The subtotal for basic costs associated with public improvements through the Metro Districts is approximately
$74.0 million; non-basic costs are approximately $30.7 million which brings the project to an approximate total
of $105 million.
Cooper Slough – The Cooper Slough creates several significant stormwater detention, retention, and water
quality issues across the site. These impacts are complicated by the fact that the slough is not consolidated
creating multiple entry points for water during a storm event. The net result is the need to manage the
stormwater on the site in a variety of ways that deal with off-site conditions. The development plans to
invest $500,000 in improvements to the Cooper Slough through the Metro Districts.
Public Benefits
As required by the proposed new policy, the Service Plan will deliver several extraordinary development
outcomes that support several public benefits. A general list of benefits and, where available, their estimated
value is described in the table below (details in Exhibit I of the Service Plan). The table has been supplied by the
applicant to provide an estimate of the relative value of the proposed extraordinary benefits. Those numbers
have been reviewed by staff and the outside consultant. Further refinement has been requested to address
concerns raised by the outside consultant.
11
12
Affordable Housing - The financing and reimbursement options created by the Metropolitan Districts
will enable the Mulberry project to deliver a minimum of 160 units or 10% of the total project at
affordable rates (80% AMI or lower). These units will be delivered under the following guidelines:
o For Sale: A minimum of 40 units (2.5%) will be for sale
o For Rent: Approximately 120 units (7.5%) are anticipated to be for rent
o Integrated / Dispersed Site: Approximately 40 units will be built as dispersed site, integrating
market rate and affordable housing. It is anticipated that affordable units will be same units as
market-rate and integrated along a block or product type
o Enforceability: Prior to or concurrent with Development Agreement, Mulberry will create legally
enforceable guarantees for affordable housing commitments. Potential options include,
contract with City for Land Bank, deed restriction, reservation of acreage
Community Gateway - Per the East Mulberry Corridor Plan, this property is uniquely positioned to
provide a gateway to Fort Collins from I-25. Two small parcels have been created within the boundaries
of the proposed Mulberry community and provides an ideal site for a significantly scaled, iconic City
monument. This would reinforce the role of this property being a significant part of a gateway to the
City of Fort Collins from I-25.
Non-Potable Water System - Mulberry will provide for the construction and maintenance of a non-
potable water system for community-wide landscaping and landscaping on individual lots. The proposed
non-potable water system for Mulberry will lead to a significant reduction in potable water demand
when compared to similar communities, while simultaneously reducing the monthly costs of
homeownership.
Environmental Sustainability - Throughout the community, environmentally friendly design will promote
Fort Collins sustainability goals. Xeric landscaping and use of non-potable irrigation will conserve water,
while landscape architecture designed to support the flight distances and migration patterns of applicable
pollinators will increase the biodiversity of the area. A commitment to 800 kW of solar capacity generated
within and distributed throughout the Districts will further promote resource conservation and renewable
energy use.
The developer estimates a public benefit value of approximately $74 million compared to a metro district debt
cap of $65 million.
Policy Comparison
A comparison of the proposed use of Metro District revenues to the currently adopted policy is provided below
in Table 1 (see below).
13
Table 1
Metro District Policy Comparison
The conceptual use of a Metro District at Mulberry complies with the City’s existing policy.
Triple Bottom Line – Scan
An interdisciplinary staff team prepared a Triple Bottom Line Scan of the proposed Service Plan. The net analysis
is generally neutral to slightly positive. The highlights are provided below:
Economic – The proposed affordable housing is expected to have a positive impact on retaining and
attracting talent to strengthen our local labor force for employers. The additional office and retail space is
expected to have positive effects in the Fort Collins market.
Environmental - Some benefit is expected from the proposed 800 kW of solar, but overall the proposed
environmental public benefits were interpreted as minor by staff under the current proposal. Additional
clarity is needed to assess any improved benefit.
Social – This area is expected to have the most positive impact due to the commitments to affordable
housing. The proposal could be strengthened with a greater focus on affordable housing (e.g. 15%
affordable), clearer expectations around deed restriction over time and pricing.
FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT
Utilizing the District’s Financial Plan, the City reviewed the Financial Plan in partnership with Economic &
Planning Systems. The review concluded the following:
• The proposed mill levies are in line with the City’s policy.
Project Current Policy
Mill Levy Caps 50 Mills 50 Mills
Basic Infrastructure Partially To enable public benefit
Eminent Domain Will Comply Prohibited
Debt Limitation Will Comply 100% of Capacity
Dissolution Limit Ongoing for O&M 40 years (end user
refunding exception)
Citizen Control Will Comply As early as possible
Multiple Districts Yes Projected over an
extended period
Commercial/
Residential Ratio
Residential and
Commercial N/A
14
• The market values used in the public revenue estimates are reasonable.
• EPS expressed concern about residential absorption of Mulberry in the context of other new North College
developments: Waterfield, Water’s Edge, and Montava.
• EPS believed the retail program is oversized for the residential development alone. To succeed the retail will
have to be more regionally-serving and connected to other developments.
• Office absorption rates are reasonable, but some concern was expressed due to the office market in North
Fort Collins being currently immature.
• EPS found it difficult to assess if there would be “extraordinary benefits” with the following: added utility
services, non-potable irrigation system, and affordable housing.
• Additional detail is required to further asses; more detailed information has been requested from the
applicant.
Discussion / Next Steps:
Scheduled to go to Council on March 19P
th
P
Mayor Troxell; this is part of the Mulberry Annexation
Josh Birks; yes, the southern portion is now part of the enclave and the northern portion is already within in the
city. Also, the 5% affordable housing note on the slide below is incorrect - the developer is committed to the full
10% (80% AMI or below).
Mayor Troxell; Their commitment to deliver 800kw of solar power as a part of the project -
power is an ongoing number and energy is total kilowatt hours.
Josh Birks; I will get clarification on solar.
15
Mayor Troxell; solar as an energy source - might be a thermal component - some power elements - might be a
part of the non-potable irrigation system – requires pumping - you could do a district solution - not the way we
would do a development today - actually integrate infrastructure to allow for connectivity - not single lot houses
only
Josh Birks; the developer wanted to give themselves some flexibility – I hear what you are saying that they might
want to preserve even greater flexibility
Mayor Troxell; look at this as a good thing as there are more levers to do things as you look at it as a
development
Josh Birks; the developer will be investing in a non-potable system - energy savings on the treatment side but
that doesn’t translate into water conservation – having conversations about how they integrate xeriscape –
alternative energy loads through pumping - savings - system design
Mayor Troxell; is the project there in terms of water availability?
Josh Birks; under the assumption of how non-potable will change their need - they have wells on site for non-
potable - they will provide water to ELCO for treatment and use as potable
Ross Cunniff; I am assuming the wells came with water rights.
Josh Birks; yes (confirmed with developer in room)
The developer has committed to making the corner facing south and east to be excluded from development and
be an entrance way monument - the developer has set aside funding within the Metro District Plan - creating
gateway or a statement about Welcome to Fort Collins
16
Josh Birks; we will provide more information on affordable housing before presentation to Council on March
19P
th
P - Have not committed to Net Zero ready homes. There is a general estimate of $96 per month estimated
extra cost. We will provide more detail for Council.
Ross Cunniff; general about our Metro District Policy - I think we want metro districts to be extraordinary
somehow - making up for the cost - If all provide 10% affordable housing, we will never meet our goal.
Energy improvements - Solar - would they be qualitied for home solar rebates? I have concerns if they are
because we would be using tax dollars to provide rebates - prefer that they be ineligible in using tax credits to
pay for solar. Extraordinary Climate Action Plan - will make us do something other than natural gas for heating –
if we could find a way to move more toward district type heating solution - heat pump -water source loop. My
preference would be for affordable housing to be more than 10% and for it to be structured as affordable into
perpetuity.
Land Bank vs Land Trust
Josh Birks; we are continuing to have conversations - how do we move forward as partners
If we are able to find a project to get us out of the gate - would help us to deliver more projects in the
community. One of our challenges is the particular land trust we are working with - how do we move to scale
quickly -ROI - operational efficiency.
Josh Birks; we can provide follow-up; Land Trust - buy and hold the land separate and apart from
the improvements – there is a formula - each sale drives a portion of the appreciation of the house and the land
and that formula creates the ongoing affordability. Always keeping the cost of that unit staple.
Ross Cunniff; so, the county assessment would be on the value of the building
Josh Birks; I believe the land is still taxed but not certain
ACTION ITEM:
Ross Cunniff; requested a separate memo on how a land trust actually works and reasons why an organization
might want to be part of a land trust. You are calling various portions of this ‘open space’ - please use ‘green
space’ terminology unless it is dedicated to our open space program.
Mayor Troxell; an important part of this project is the frontage on Mulberry - our first piece that allows for
Mulberry to become integrated into the city - incentive is to get the Mulberry corridor teed up - help that
momentum - that is blight not just greenfield - think about a URA - a public benefit to this is encouragement and
connection to Mulberry - Riverside Bridge was first but this will be key.
Josh Birks; difficult to quantify the value of that so rather than using an arbitrary number, we have tried to
describe it as catalyzing the rest of area and setting the tone and what is that worth?
Josh Birks; The current policy states that we want the development to deliver stretch / extraordinary objectives
in order for Council to consider a service plan. We define examples but we don’t have a minimum standard - the
policy was written to still give Council the discretion.
17
Gerry Horak; I think Council should look at being more precise with housing and energy which we believe are
two of our key things - we should put standards in there - some baseline - 10% is great but it doesn’t make it
better for us - just keeps it at the same level. How are buyers going to be informed about the extra property
tax? Make sure buyers are well informed.
Gerry Horak recommended that staff review the editorial from Sunday’s Denver Post about metro districts; It
can be viewed at:
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/02/22/colorado-taxing-districts-out-of-control/.
Gerry Horak; more concerned about disclosure and transparency when people are first buying.
ACTION ITEM;
Gerry Horak; please include the criteria in our policy in future Metro District presentations including upcoming
date with Council.
Ross Cunniff: would the monument be included?
Josh Birks; they are expecting to partner with city and fund approximately $500K
Ross Cunniff; if we want a monument there the city should fund that - it should not be part of a Metro District (a
tax should not pay for the monument)
Josh Birks; I will get clarification on options for developer.
Mayor Troxell; is it adjacent to the Cooper Slough?
Josh Birks; the property to the north is adjacent to the Cooper Slough - there is a property that is currently not
part of the project that is between Greenfield Court and Cooper Slough (reference map)
Mayor Troxell; Is there any concern about flooding? CLOMR or LOMR?
NOTE: CLOMR = Conditional Letter of Map Revision
LOMR = Letter of Map Revision
These are FEMA processes that deal with floodplains.
Josh Birks; I will get that detail - conversations are on-going regarding the design of project - it has a significant
amount of stormwater it has to solve for itself - impacts Cooper Slough - has also been suggested to enhance the
habitat of the Cooper Slough - also looking at if there anything they are doing that might contribute to resolving
broader basin area issues.
Ross Cunniff; is any of this area in Boxelder?
Developer from Hartford Homes responded; Boxelder Flood Basin - that has to be worked out
18
D. Water Allotment Management Program (AMP)
Abbye Neel, Water Conservation Specialist
Liesel Hans, Water Conservation Manager
Carol Webb, Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to seek input from the Council Finance Committee regarding the proposed
Allotment Management Program to assist customers in reducing their Excess Water Use Surcharges by
reducing their landscape water use. The proposed program targets a specific group of customers impacted by
the changes to the Water Supply Requirements (formally Raw Water Requirements) and the related increase
to the Excess Water Use Fee as outlined in Section 26-129 of City Code.
To support Utility goals and customer needs Utilities staff recommends the following:
• A change in City Code that gives discretion to the Executive Director to provide a temporary
exemption from the Excess Water Use fees while a customer implements a project to permanently
reduce the customer’s landscape water use.
Through the proposed program, customers can apply funds toward implementing water conservation
projects to lower their demands and reduce Excess Water Use fees in the future. Projects will help
customers convert to more resilient landscapes and will also lower the Utilities’ need to develop
additional water supplies to compensate for use beyond what was provided for these customers at the
time of initial development.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What questions or feedback does the Council Finance Committee have regarding the proposed
Allotment Management Program?
2. Does the Council Finance Committee support the proposed program and recommend bringing the
item to City Council for adoption?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Water Supply Requirements
Since the 1960s, The City has required that all Water Utility customers meet Water Supply Requirements
(WSR). The WSR is a dedication of water rights or cash-in-lieu (CIL) of water rights to the Water Utility to
provide reliable water supply service to the customer. From 1965 to mid-1984, WSRs were determined only
by the total acreage developed (e.g. a one-acre development would be required to meet a WSR of 3 acre-feet
of water). In March of 1984, the methodology for determining WSRs changed to including both the acreage
developed Uand Uthe estimated water use for the development type (e.g. brewery vs. an office building). This
methodology was adopted to ensure reliable water use for all customers.
Commercial Water Allotments
Commercial taps that have met the WSR since 1984 have also received an equivalent water allotment, which
is the annual volume of water a meter (tap) can use without being subject to an Excess Water Use (EWU) fee.
If a tap uses more water than the established annual allotment, the (EWU) fee is applied to all water used
over the allotment for the remainder of the calendar year. This charge is in addition to the standard water
rate. The EWU provides revenue to the Water Utility to purchase additional water rights and/or infrastructure
to serve the customer beyond what was provided at the time of development.
19
For customers with a meter (tap) size less than 2”, the WSR and equivalent water allotment are largely
determined by the amount of typical water use within a meter (or tap) size. Table 1 summarizes historical
CIL and corresponding allotments for specific tap sizes.
Tap Size (inches) Minimum WSR
(acre-feet)
Equivalent CIL
Payment at $6,500 per
acre-foot
Minimum Annual
Allotment
(Gallons/Year)
¾ 0.90 $5,980 293,270
1 3.00 $19,500 977,550
1 ½ 6.00 $39,000 1,955,110
2 9.60 $62,000 3,128,170
3 and above Based on use
All water taps installed prior to the change (pre- March 1984) were grandfathered into the system and do not
have an allotment unless the property has applied for a new water permit.
In September 2017, City Council approved various changes to the WSRs, including an increase in the CIL rate
(Code Section 26-129). As a result, the CIL price increased from $6,500 to
$17,300 per acre-foot of water (a 2.66 factor increase). The EWU fee also increased by the same factor: from
$3.06 to $8.14 per 1,000 gallons over the allotment. Methodology for determining this increase can be found
in ATTACMENT 1.
Customer Impact related to EWU Changes
About 34 percent (~1200) commercial water taps have annual water allotments. In a given year, approximately
10 percent of all commercial taps exceed their allotment (~350 accounts with an allotment). Most taps that
exceed their allotment are irrigation taps. Of these irrigation taps, over 70 are associated with HOAs or multi-
family complexes where residents, as opposed to businesses, are responsible for paying the EWU fees.
At the previous rate of $3.06 per 1,000 gallons, customers paid up to $20,000 in EWU fees, with the majority
paying an average of $1,500. Three customers experienced EWU fees over $10,000. With the new rate of
$8.14 per 1,000 gallons, customers paid up to $40,000 in EWU fees, with the majority paying $4,000 and 30
paying over $10,000.
Customers who exceed their allotment currently have four options related to EWU Fees:
1. Make no changes and pay the EWU fees at rate of $8.14 per 1,000 gallons over the allotment.
2. Pay the CIL rate to permanently increase their allotment. With the 1.92 supply factor1
included, the cost is $33,216 per acre-foot2 increase.
3. Implement a conservation project to reduce use to or below allotment.
4. Stop using water to reduce use to or below allotment (e.g. abandon or stress the landscape to avoid
excess water use fees).
Customer Outreach for EWU Changes
Staff conducted outreach to impacted customers throughout 2017, prior to adoption of changes to the WSR.
20
Early stakeholder outreach focused on the development community, as this was the primary focus of the WSR
changes. Outreach to current commercial customers impacted by the increase in the EWU Fees was initiated
in mid-2017 and to date has included postcards and letters, targeted outreach via phone calls, emails, and in-
person meetings, informational sessions, workshops, and free education-based services (e.g. the Landscape
Budget Program). However, even with the significant outreach, staff recognizes that impacted customers
need additional time to understand the financial impacts of the EWU increase and reduce their excess water
use to avoid the additional costs noted above.
Customer Feedback on EWU Changes
Feedback received from customers impacted by the increase in EWU fees are summarized as follows:
• Dramatic cost increase (166%).
• Not enough time to prepare or factor in a solution into their annual budgeting before prices were
raised (no customer was notified more than six months prior to implementation in January 2018).
• Significant concern in cases where the allotment is not sized correctly for the use type as depicted in
Figure 1 (e.g. tap’s allotment is not large enough given the property’s efficient water need). Customers
in this situation often express frustration with the City for allowing the developer to satisfy a WSR with
an allotment that was not large enough for the property at the time of initial development.
Rationale for Proposed Allotment Management Program (AMP)
Staff have identified three primary reasons customers exceed their annual water allotments:
1. Inefficient water use (e.g. overwatering)
2. Change in use type (e.g. a building that was originally a gas station changes to a restaurant)
3. Allotment is not sized correctly for the use type as depicted in Figure 1 (e.g. tap’s allotment is not
large enough given the property’s efficient water need).
Staff have tools available (e.g. Water Conservation programs) to assist customers with inefficient water use
and changes in use type (#1 and #2 above). Resources are not available, however, to assist customers with an
allotment that is not sized correctly (#3 above), which are typically HOAs with irrigation taps. To avoid paying
fees, these customers must either pay the EWU fees, the current CIL rates to increase their allotment, or
implement water conservation projects to reduce their water use.
Management Program targets these customers by providing a temporary exemption from EWU fees while
customers implement water savings projects to reduce their water use.
Proposed Allotment Management Program (AMP)
Staff proposes a change to City Code that would give the Utilities Executive Director the ability to provide a
customer a temporary exemption from the Excess Water Use fees if they meet specific requirements. During
the exemption period customers will be able to redirect funds that would have been used to pay EWU fees
into a water conservation project.
Customer enrollment in the Allotment Management Program (AMP) is proposed as follows:
• Eligible customers submit an application with a plan for long-term permanent reduction in outdoor
water use.
• Staff determines if customer and project qualify.
• If project qualifies, customer receives a temporary exemption from excess water use fees for a
predetermined period of time.
21
• Customers who do not complete a project will be billed for any applicable water use fees.
If approved, the customers would be eligible for an exemption starting in 2020. The program will be available
through Dec 31, 2022. Additional program details include:
Eligibility
• All customers with commercial rate codes (includes commercial customers and all irrigation taps).
Qualifications
• Customer demonstrates need (e.g. customers water tap is undersized) and is quantified with
support from Water Conservation Staff.
• Project is reasonable and demonstrates long-term reduction in outdoor water use.
Program Details
• Up to 3-year exemption depending on project type and scope.
• If granted a multi-year project status, amount of exemption will be tiered (e.g. Year 1 – 100%
waived, Year 2 – 50% waived).
• Customer must meet project milestones outlined in a customer agreement to stay enrolled in the
program. If deadlines are not met customer will be back billed any EWU fees and asked to leave the
program.
Customers will be able to redirect money that would have been used to pay EWU fees into a project that
will reduce the customer’s water use to better align with their allotment.
Staff believes this is the best solution for customers and the Utility because:
1. As the cost of water supplies and infrastructure rise, the cost of WSRs and the associated EWU fee will
continue to increase, which may result in customers abandoning landscapes, as we’ve seen in other
Front Range communities, or have other impacts on residents. AMP provides a proactive solution that
ensure customers can adapt to increasing costs while increasing community resiliency to drought and a
changing climate.
AMP is a cost-effective way to reduce the volume of water the Utility must provide to compensate for use
over what was initially provided at the time of development by avoiding additional water storage projects
beyond the Halligan Water Supply Project.
The proposed AMP also aligns with key City Strategic Objectives related to Environmental Health and High
Performing Government and with Council-adopted Plans, including the Water Supply and Demand
Management Policy and the Water Efficiency Plan.
Potential Risks associated with AMP
The primary risk associated with AMP is the unrealized revenue associated with waiving EWU Fees. Based
on the average number of customers that exceed their allotment (~350) the maximum revenue implication
if every customer were to apply, qualify, and Unot Ucomplete a project with a long-term water reduction
would be $1.2 Million. However, based on analysis of water use and the number of customers who have
expressed interest, staff expects around 50 customers to participate. The expected revenue implication is
$370,000.
Staff is mitigating risks associated with AMP in the following ways:
22
• Requiring customers sign agreements to meet milestones and have regular progress check-ins to
ensure projects are completed.
• Staff has a successful record in supporting customers through programs like the Xeriscape
Incentive Program.
• Back-billing customers who do not complete projects.
• Implementing a decreasing tiered exemption for multi-year projects to lower the risk of providing a
multi-year exemption (e.g. 100% then 50%).
AMP Outreach
Utilities Staff have presented AMP to key stakeholders including property managers, HOA community
members, Utilities key accounts, businesses affected by the change, the landscape contractor community, and
other affected City departments (Forestry, Parks, Development Planning, Natural Areas, and Zoning). In
addition, staff completed a work session with the Water Board and will present AMP to the Natural Resource
Advisory Board, Economic Health Advisory Board – see dates below.
Input received has been very supportive of the proposed program. Concerns are primarily related to the
following:
• Ensuring that the assigned annual water allotment matches the expected water use at the time of
development in the future (note Utilities staff is developing improvements to the process in partnership
with Development Review staff).
• How customers who have already implemented solutions will respond if AMP is approved.
• The proposed program’s adoption timeline and if they will have enough time to respond in 2019.
• Other City Departments (e.g. Forestry, Natural Areas, and Parks) regarding impacts to vegetation and
tree loss if customers stop watering landscape
Next Steps
Staff is proposing to present the program for consideration by City Council on April 16P
th
P. Staff will consider
CFC input and conduct any additional outreach or analysis before presenting to City Council.
Upcoming schedule:
• 3/20/2019: Natural Resources Advisory Board
• 3/20/209: Economic Health Advisory Board
• 3/21/2019: Water Board – action item
• 4/16/2019: 1P
st
P reading City Council
Discussion / Next Steps:
• Anheuser Busch’s arrival was the driver for this change in water allotment – a brewery uses water much
differently than residential development
23
It would be helpful if we go to Council on March 19P
th
P instead of in April as this is a complicated issue and we
would be able provide an answer to our customers earlier. They are looking for solutions for this year. Going to
Council in March would mean we would not have an opportunity to reach out to the Advisory Boards prior to 1P
st
P
Reading at Council.
Mayor Troxell; what was response from the Boards and Commissions?
Abbye Neel; We have only spoken with Water Board and they were supportive - we did a work session with
them and took some of their ideas to shape what we are proposing to you today. We have also done
stakeholder outreach - Community members also very supportive of the program - we think this is a good
balance. Different funding mechanism than landscape (not a traditional rebate program) and bigger scale
Mayor Troxell; Investments in the projects tend to be a lot larger than the city participation component.
24
Most of the 48 Engaged Customers (see above) are HOAs - there are a few other large properties that are key
accounts that are included in that group as well
Ross Cunniff; AMP Risks (slide above) I understand the cost side - the idea is that we are imposing these fees
because of potential costs of future water supply. If this succeeds, we wouldn’t have to spend any money but if
for some reason we failed, this is the worst-case scenario (if every single customer failed – zero improvement)
Mayor Troxell; landscape program is a good analogy based on the improvements and going back to actual
measurement of usage - What is the success rate there? by taking out the grass, etc.
Liesel Hans; we provide a rebate up to 1000 square feet - we are seeing in terms of water use that it takes a
couple of years to show up in landscape development - we are showing savings of approximately 14 gallons per
square foot when folks go from high water use landscape to a lower water use landscape (like xeriscape)
Impacts - we are feeling very confident that we can support these customers well. Customers who face
challenges with their allotments we provide educational support and can help them understand where they are
at – work really well with their landscape contractors so everyone is on the same page and there are there are
no bad guys at the table.
Mayor Troxell; thoughts regarding dealing with a household that might be totally dialed in versus a household
that may not be.
Liesel Hans; In that case we have realized that having some of these other tools in place – we have
different requirements for the residential scale program. Landscape changes - we help them with some
education - we are also putting some requirements in place regarding long term maintenance needs - so they
have thought through initial change and impact and the long term maintenance - than they have typically done
as an HOA – having a point person the HOA board -
25
Abbye Neel; in 2018, when a lot of these customers first felt the impact - communities reacted viscerally - we
went into problem solving mode - have to figure something out – one benefit for us – some things already in
motion
Mayor Troxell; different from what water utilities have been doing – Are we engaged with Neighborhood
Services?
Abbye Neel; We have reached out to HOAs and property managers - they see the bills and are the major conduit
to the HOA Board - tapping into Neighborhood Services would be a good idea.
Ross Cunniff; Some HOA owners in my district have contacted me
Ross Cunniff; So, If we bring this forward to Council on March 19P
th
P there would be 3 boards we would not have
time to reach out to.
Action Item: Ross Cunniff; send a specific targeted communication to the boards telling them you will be taking
this to Council and ask them if they have specific concerns to please let us know - I agree this is a complicated
thing to bring in if someone is not familiar with water utility and fee structure. I support moving forward on
March 19P
th
P with those caveats. This is a great idea - this program was never about penalizing people for using
water – it was always about protecting the financial interest of shareholders and rate payers and I think this
does that.
Ross Cunniff; question in area of general sustainability - what are we doing with respect to similar concerns with
the other water utilities? Is there a role that the city plays in providing ideas / feedback or convene a discussion.
We haven’t had a meeting in a long time - they are also facing escalating costs in water supply.
Carol Webb; ELCO has residential allotments on every account - they have a process up front which is what we
are doing - at the time of development to ensure that the developer turns in adequate supply to the customer -
we are learning from ELCO’s best practices. Loveland doesn’t use an allotment approach - they have a different
way of recovering their costs. That is how they mitigate those issues – for us the biggest process improvement
was catching that at time of the development and reaching out to development staff.
26
Gerry Horak; I sit on the Land Conservation Stewardship Board - How are you coordinating with the County land
and small grants program and the Nature in the City program? How are we working with those?
Liesel Hans; with Nature in the City – because of the nature of the scale as well as the type of landscaping they
would probably switch to – working with environmental planners who have expertise in this area to help these
customers understand what the options are and make the right choice - we are working with other departments
to ensure their expertise is incorporated into program development.
Action Item: Gerry Horak; I would suggest that you reach out to the County for the Open Lands Program
Was on a sub-committee - met with one of the HOAs having these issues and I think that is a good way for the
County getting involved.
Gerry Horak; I agree with Ross that this is an elegant solution to a difficult problem. Maybe when this comes to
Council there will be some information about how the particulars work – the detail - would ease concerns some
people have.
Mike Beckstead; is there any budgetary revenue implications in 19 and 20 given the assumption we used in
developing the revenue forecast?
Lance Smith; we budgeted at $400K for excess water use surcharges and have collected over $1M
Meeting adjourned at 11:38 AM
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Jennifer Poznanovic
Date: March 18, 2019
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
2019 Fee Roadmap
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Coordination of Council approved fees began in 2016 to provide a more holistic view of the total
cost impact. Previously, fee updates were presented to Council on an individual basis. After the
2019 fee update, fee phasing will be complete with regular two and four-year cadence updates
beginning in 2021.
2019 fee updates include: Development Review fees, Electric Capacity fees, Water Supply
Requirement fees, Wet Utility Plan Investment Fees and Step III of the 2017 Capital Expansion
Fees.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council Finance Committee support the proposed 2019 roadmap for fee updates?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Since the fall of October 2016, staff has worked to coordinate the process for updating all new
development related fees that require Council approval. Development related fees that are
approved by Council are six Capital Expansion Fees, five Utility Fees and 45 Building
Development Fees.
Previously, fee updates were presented to Council on an individual basis. However, it was
determined that updates should occur on a regular two and four-year cadence and fees updates
should occur together each year to provide a more holistic view of the impact of any fee
increases.
Impact fee coordination includes a detailed fee study analysis for Capital Expansion Fees
(CEFs), Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEFs) and Development Review Fees every
four years. This requires an outside consultant through a request for proposal (RFP) process
where data is provided by City staff. Findings by the consultant are also verified by City staff.
For Utility Fees, a detailed fee study is planned every two years. These are internal updates by
City staff with periodic consultant verification. In the future, impact fee study analysis will be
targeted in the odd year before Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO).
Below is the current fee timeline:
Phase I of the fee updates included CEFs, TCEFs, Electric Capacity Fees, and Raw Water/CIL
and were adopted in 2017. Phase II included Wet Utility PIFs and step II of CEFs and TCEFs,
which were approved in 2018. Development review and building permit fees were originally
included in Phase II but were de-coupled from the 2018 update.
Due to the concern in the development and building community around fee changes, Council
asked for a fee working group to be created to foster a better understanding of fees prior to
discussing further fee updates. In August of 2017, the Fee Working Group commenced
comprised of a balanced group of stakeholders – citizens, business-oriented individuals, City
staff and a Council liaison. The Fee Working Group met 14 times and was overall supportive of
the fee coordination process and proposed fee updates.
The 2019 phase III update includes Development Review fees, Electric Capacity fees, Water
Supply Requirement fees, Wet Utility Plan Investment Fees and Step III of the 2017 Capital
Expansion Fees. After the 2019 fee update, fee phasing will be complete with regular two and
four-year cadence updates beginning in 2021.
Below is the proposed 2019 fee roadmap:
ATTACHMENTS
1. PowerPoint Presentation – 2019 Fee Roadmap
March April May/June July August 1/1/2020
Capital Expansion Fees CFC Outrech CFC Council Effective
Transportation CEFs
Electric Capacity Fees CFC Outrech CFC Council Effective
Water Supply Requirement CFC Outrech CFC Council Effective
Wet Utility Fees CFC Outrech CFC Council Effective
Development Review Fees CFC Outrech CFC Council Effective
1
Fee Roadmap
March 18, 2019
Council Finance Committee
Fees
2
•To support the cost of providing
public services and additional
infrastructure to support new
development
Why We Have
Them
•Can only be used for the stated
purpose of each fee
•Revenue source to build new and
maintain assets and infrastructure
How We Use
Them
Fee Coordination
3
Objective:
•Review fee updates together to
provide a holistic view of the total
cost impact
•Bring impact fees forward per a
defined cadence….. 2 -4 years
Type of Fee Fee Name
Capital Expansion Neighborhood Park
Capital Expansion Community Park
Capital Expansion Fire
Capital Expansion Police
Capital Expansion General Government
Capital Expansion Transportation
Utility Water Supply Requirement
Utility Electric Capacity
Utility Sewer Plant Investment
Utility Stormwater Plant Investment
Utility Water Plant Investment
Building
Development
45 Development Review &
Building Permit Fees
Fee Timeline
4
•Detailed fee study analysis every 4 years for CEF, TCEFs & Development fees
•Detailed fee study analysis every 2 years for Utility fees
•Conduct fee study analysis in the odd year before BFO
•In years without updates, an annual inflation adjustment occurs
•Significant fee increases proposed in 2017 -fee working group formed prior to further updates
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Capital Expansion Fees Update Step II Step III Update
Transportation CEFs Update Step II Update
Electric Capacity Fees Update Update Update
Water Supply Requirement Update Update Update
Wet Utility Fees Update Update Update
Development Review Fees Update Update
Fee Working Group Active Active
2019 Roadmap
5
March April May/June July August 1/1/2020
Capital Expansion Fees CFC Outrech CFC Council Effective
Transportation CEFs
Electric Capacity Fees CFC Outrech CFC Council Effective
Water Supply Requirement CFC Outrech CFC Council Effective
Wet Utility Fees CFC Outrech CFC Council Effective
Development Review Fees CFC Outrech CFC Council Effective
•All fee categories update in 2019 except for Transportation CEFs
•Phasing complete after 2019 with regular two and four-year cadence beginning in 2021
Next Steps
6
Does Council Finance Committee support the proposed 2019
roadmap for fee updates?
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Tom Leeson, Community Development & Neighborhood Services, Director
Noelle Currell, Financial Planning and Analysis, Manager
Date: March 18, 2019
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Development and Building Permit Review Fees Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City contracted with MGT Consulting Group (MGT) to conduct an in-depth analysis of the
City’s development review and building permit fees and to evaluate whether these fees are set at
appropriate levels, inclusive for all costs, and consistent with the City’s goals for percent of cost
to recover, and how fees compare to other communities regionally. This update to the City’s
Development Review Fees is part of the City’s coordinated fee update process that began in
2017.
Staff and MGT Consultants also evaluated the methodology for calculating the fees and are
requesting feedback on changing the methodology for calculating building permit and plan check
fees from using the valuation of a project to using the square footage of a project. The
methodology for calculating the development review fees is remaining the same.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Is Council Finance supportive of methodology changes for building permit fee calculations?
What cost recovery percentage should fees be based upon?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
City Fee Review Schedule
Phase I of the City’s coordinated fee update process included Capital Expansion Fees (CEF),
Transportation CEF, Electric Capacity Fees, and Raw Water/CIL and were adopted in 2017.
Phase II included Wet Utility PIFs, which were approved in 2018. Development review and
building permit fees were originally included in Phase II but were de-coupled from that effort
and will move forward with the Electric Capacity Fees this year and will then be evaluated again
in 2021.
2
The last comprehensive analysis of development review and building permit fees was conducted
in 2008. For many years the City had a policy to recover 80% of fee-related services (with
exceptions, i.e., over-the-counter permits), in 2011, staff conducted an internal study of the costs
associated with building permit and plan review fees based on City Council direction to change
the cost recovery model of collecting 80% of the costs to 100% of the costs (See Attachment 1
for 2011 Study). No changes to the fees, with the exception of annual CPI increases, have been
made to the fee schedule since 2011.
Purpose of Development and Building Permit Fee Study
The City contracted with MGT Consulting Group (MGT) to conduct an in-depth analysis of the
City’s development review and building permit fees and to evaluate whether these fees are set at
appropriate levels, inclusive for all costs, consistent with the City’s goals for percent of cost to
recover, and how fees compare to other communities regionally. Additionally, the consultants
were tasked with evaluating if the method of calculating the fee is up-to-date and if there was a
different, more efficient methodology. One of the issues raised by applicants during the City’s
review of the development review process was the complexity of the current fee schedule and the
difficulty of estimating fees. An additional goal of the study was to evaluate the methodology
and fee schedule to look for ways to simplify and streamline.
Development and Building Permit Fee Approval
The City Manager is authorized to set fees based on the costs of providing development and
building permit review services, pursuant to City Code Sec. 7.5-2. The Land Use Code (Sec.
2.2.3.D) establishes the cost recovery model for development and building permit fees:
(1) Recovery of Costs. Development review fees are hereby established for the purpose of
recovering the costs incurred by the City in processing, reviewing and recording applications
pertaining to development applications or activity within the municipal boundaries of the City,
and issuing permits related thereto. The development review fees imposed pursuant to this
Section shall be paid at the time of submittal of any development application, or at the time of
issuance of the permit, as determined by the City Manager and established in the development
review fee schedule.
(2) Development Review Fee Schedule. The amount of the City's various development review
fees shall be established by the City Manager, and shall be based on the actual expenses incurred
by or on behalf of the City. The schedule of fees shall be reviewed annually and shall be
adjusted, if necessary, by the City Manager on the basis of actual expenses incurred by the City
to reflect the effects of inflation and other changes in costs. At the discretion of the City
Manager, the schedule may be referred to the City Council for adoption by resolution or
ordinance.
Development Review Fees and Calculation Methodology
3
The fees imposed on development review applications are intended to recover the costs
associated with staff time to review and process development proposals, such as (For a complete
list of current fees refer to Attachment 2):
• Project Development Plans (PDP)
• Major Amendments
• Overall Development Plans (ODP)
• Planned Unit Development (PUD)
• Rezoning
• Sign Permit
• Variances
Development review fees were last updated in 2008 and were not included in the 2011 internal
fee study, which only updated the building permit and plan check fees.
Development review fees are calculated by determining the time spent by each staff member on
each development application type (this includes staff members involved with processing the
application including City Planners, administrative staff, Building and Development Review
Technicians, Engineers, etc.) to determine the costs to the City to process and review. The
methodology for calculating these fees is remaining the same; however, the fee schedule is being
simplified. Currently the fee schedule includes the application fee as well as the cost of sending
out the public notice, which will now be rolled into the application fee.
Building Permit and Plan Check Fees and Calculation Methodology
The fees imposed on building permit applications are intended to recover the costs associated
with staff time to review and process building permit applications. Building permit applications
are categorized by building type, such as (For a complete list of current building permit types
and fees refer to Attachment 3):
• A (Assembly)
• B (Business)
• E (Educational)
• R-1
• R-2
In addition to the building type categories mentioned above, there are also “over-the-counter”
(OTC) building permit applications for small projects that can be issued quickly with very
limited review, such as:
• Furnace replacement
• Air Conditioner
• Pool/spa
• Commercial roof replacement
Building permit fees are currently calculated based on the valuation, or construction costs, of the
proposed project. The building permit fees are calculated from the 2008 IBC Building Safety
Journal for commercial/industrial valuation minimums. The residential valuation minimums are
4
also based on the 2008 IBC table, but have been slightly modified to accommodate for local
conditions.
The valuation method can be difficult to estimate in the early stages of a project because in many
cases neither the applicant nor the staff has enough information to provide a valuation, which can
lead to big differences in the estimate provided and the actual fee. Furthermore, staff feels there
is only a loose correlation between the valuation of a project and the amount of time it takes to
review, process the application, and inspect the property.
While the valuation methodology is relatively common throughout the country, it is problematic
for staff to administer and is difficult for the applicants to understand and estimate. It can be
difficult to administer because staff must rely on the information provided by the applicant with
respect to the valuation and in most cases the valuation provided is at the very minimum or
slightly above, even though staff is aware that the valuation is most likely higher. This can lead
to disagreements with respect to the building permit fee and frustration by the applicants.
In researching best practices as part of this fee study, staff and the consultants found
communities that are changing from using the valuation of a project to calculate the fees to
utilizing the square footage of the project. The square footage of a project is not subject to
disagreements as it is a definite quantity provided within the application; it is a known quantity
in the early phases of a project, so it provides a stronger basis for calculating accurate fee
estimates; and has a strong correlation to the amount of time it takes to review and process an
application.
For those reasons, staff is proposing to change the methodology for calculating building permit
fees from the valuation method to utilizing square footage and has asked MGT consultants to
calculate the updated fees utilizing this new methodology.
It should be noted that the “over-the-counter” permits such as furnace replacement and new air
conditioning units, are also currently calculated utilizing the valuation methodology. Since these
permit types do not have a square footage associated with them, staff is proposing to charge a flat
rate fee based on the average time to process these permit types. The review process for these
permit types is relatively simple and there is very little deviation from one permit to the next, so
a flat rate fee would be an accurate and efficient method.
Engineering Inspection Fees
MGT Consultants were also asked to evaluate the City’s Engineering Inspection fees as part of
this fee study. The Engineering Inspection fees are intended to recover the costs associated with
staff time to field inspect the public infrastructure improvements associated with new
developments. The Engineering Inspection fees include such fees as (For complete list of
Engineering Inspection Fees, refer to Attachment 4):
5
• Sanitary Sewer Main
• Water Main
• Pedestrian Ramps
• Concrete or asphalt
• Sewer manhole
Engineering inspection fees are calculated by determining the time spent for each inspection type
and are based on the size or length of the infrastructure being inspected to determine the costs to
the City. The methodology for calculating these fees is remaining the same.
What the Fees are Intended to Cover
Development Review and Building Permit fees are intended to cover staffing resources and all
associated costs for providing the following services, including:
Plan review for development and building plan submittals
Plan review for minor amendments
Inspections – building, construction/engineering, zoning
Related customer/administrative services
o Permit issuance
o Fee collection
o Licensing
o Board Support – Building Review, Planning & Zoning, Zoning Board of Appeals
o Records Management
Staffing resources and associated costs for providing ancillary, but critical services, from
Management Information Systems for the development, configuration and maintenance of our
computer systems and technologies are also included.
In 2008, it was determined to eliminate administrative costs and those associated with
management staff above the level of the direct managers of those providing development-related
functions/activities.
The fees cover the follow costs/funds:
• General Fund – All of Current Planning, Customer & Admin Services, Building Inspection,
Plan Check and a portion of Advance Planning and Zoning.
• Transportation Fund– All of Engineering Development Review and portions of Customer &
Admin Services, Engineering Admin Support, Engineering Construction Inspection,
Engineering Survey, and Traffic Engineering.
• Data & Communications Fund - All of the Development Tracking System, direct support and
portions of GIS
Cost Recovery Policy
As was indicated above, the City had a policy to recover 80% of the costs of development
through the collection of fees for many years, and in 2011, staff conducted an internal study of
the costs based on City Council direction to change the cost recovery model of collecting 80% of
6
the costs to 100% of the costs. The 2011 internal fee study only evaluated building permit and
plan check fees and did not include development review fees. Additionally, the 2011 study
appears to have compared overall expenses to provide the review services and revenues
generated by fees but did not conduct an in-depth analysis of the actual cost per permit type. As a
result, it did not provide a completely accurate analysis of the cost to provide the development
review services.
The MGT fee study evaluated every permit type offered and interviewed each staff member
involved in the development and permitting review process. The costs are calculated using the
hourly rate and time spent of staff providing the review, thus providing an accurate analysis of
actual costs.
It should be noted that neither the development review fees nor the building permit fee
calculations include City wide overhead such as Financial Services, Human Resources or the
City Attorney’s (CAO) staff. For example, the CAO staff spend a considerable amount of time
on development review projects such as the drafting of all development agreements, public
hearing support, land use code interpretations, and review of staff reports.
Historic Development Review Expenses and Revenues
The following table shows the City’s historic expenses and revenues:
This graph demonstrates that during times when the economy is good, revenue outweighs
expenses; when the economy is in poor health, expense outweighs revenue (this is the
expected trend).
• Notes on spikes/changes:
o 2012:
7
Fees changed from 80% Cost Recovery to 100% Cost Recovery
Updated tables that are used for project valuation purposes (from 1982
UBC tables to 2008 BSJ tables)
Recession Recovery
o 2014:
Major permits pulled – Mall & Woodward
Comparison of Peer Cities
As part of the fee study, MGT provided a comparative survey of Building Permit and Plan Check
fees as a baseline. The fees presented in the comparative study are for the existing City fees. The
new fees will be added to the comparative survey once the data and direction on methodology
has been finalized. The MGT project staff worked with City staff to create a list of example
project fees to be compared with similar fees in select peer cities. The City of Fort Collins
provided MGT with twenty receipts from actual work done by the City. The information
contained in each receipt was then used to provide example projects to the comparative
jurisdictions and to calculate fees where applicable. See Attachment 5 for the complete
comparative survey.
Next Steps and Public Outreach
Based on the direction from Council Finance regarding the methodology of the building permit
fees and the cost recovery, staff will refine and calibrate the data from MGT Consultants and
propose a final fee schedule.
The timeline for this project will parallel the timeline for the Electric Capacity Fees update
process, with a Council work session in mid-summer and City Council adoption in the fall. A
second Council Finance meeting could be scheduled for early summer as well if necessary.
Staff will also engage in a robust public outreach process during the next six months, engaging
with such groups as:
• South Fort Collins Business Association
• Super Issues Forum
• Northern Colorado Homebuilder’s
Association
• Downtown Development Authority
• North Fort Collins Business Association
• Local Legislative Affairs Committee
• Affordable Housing Board
• Human Relations Board
• Economic Advisory Commission
• Board of Realtors
• Building Review Board
• Housing Catalyst
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: 2011 Fee Study
Attachment 2: Current Development Review Fees
8
Attachment 3: Current Building and Plan Check Fees
Attachment 4: Current Engineering Inspection Fees
Attachment 5: Comparative Survey of Building Permit and Plan Check fees
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW:
FEE SCHEDULE
Community Development & Neighborhood Services – 281 N College Ave – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Effective January 1, 2000
**Please note: The Transportation Development Review Fee is a separate fee. See separate fee
worksheet. Please contact 221-6605 regarding this fee.
Development review fees must be paid at the time of submittal of any development review application
according to the following schedule:
Annexation Petition and Map $1,188.00
(plus .75 for each APO label)
Rezoning Petition $977.00
(plus .75 for each APO label)
Overall Development Plan (ODP) $1,599.00
(plus .75 for each APO label)
Project Development Plan (PDP)
Without a Subdivision Plat $3,887.00
(plus .75 for each APO label)
Project Development Plan (PDP)
With a Subdivision Plat $5,879.00
(plus .75 for each APO label)
Final Plan
Without a Subdivision Plat $1,000.00
Final Plan
With a Subdivision Plat $1,000.00
Modification of Standards/Text and Map Amendment $200.00
(plus .75 for each APO label)
Basic Development Review $200.00
Minor Amendment $192.00
Major Amendment $3,206.00
(plus .75 for each APO label)
Non-conforming Use Review $1,389.00
Vacation of ROW or Easement $5.00
Street Name Change $5.00
Extension of Final Approval $566.00
Sign Posting Fee $50.00
Addition of Permitted Use $500.00
(plus .75 for each APO label)
*Small Project fees are in effect according to the attached fee schedule.
Revised March 3, 2010 2 PDP Submittal Requirements
SMALL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
FEE SCHEDULE
(All applications mush include .75 cents for each APO label in addition to the review fee)
TYPE OF PROJECT REVIEW FEE COMMENTS
Structural additions or alterations or
change of use to single family, two
family, multi-family (up to 4 units)
dwellings.
Conversions from one use to another
use if the proposed conversion will not
add more than 25% of new habitable
floor area to the existing building or
eliminate more than 10% of existing
habitable floor area.
Family-care home, group home.
$200.00 per project. Fee collected at project submittal.
Expansion of existing building of less
than $500,000.00 building permit
valuation.
1% of building permit valuation.
(1/2% of building permit valuation if
submitted as combined PDP/Final).
Minimum fee = $200.00
½ of estimated building permit valuation
collected at project submittal.
Remaining ½% collected at time building permit
is issued. Adjustments made at time building
permit is issued. Applications submitted as
combined PDP and Final shall be charged ½%
of building permit valuation as total fee. This
½% will be collected when application is
submitted with final adjustments made at time
building permit is issued.
New residential development of 15 or
less dwelling units.
PDP, or preliminary subdivision,
$100.00 per dwelling unit.
Final or final subdivision; $100.00
per dwelling unit.
Applications submitted as combined
PDP/Final; $100.00 per dwelling
unit.
Minimum fee at PDP or Final = $200.00.
New commercial development of less
than $500,000.00 of building permit
valuation.
1% of building permit valuation.
(½% of building permit valuation if
submitted as combined PDP/Final).
Minimum fee = $200.00
½ of the estimated building permit valuation
collected at project submittal.
Remaining ½% collected at time building permit
is issued. Applications submitted as combined
PDP/Final shall be charged ½% of building
permit valuation as total fee. This ½% will be
collected when application is submitted with
final adjustments made at time building permit is
issued.
Annexation or Rezoning petition of five
(5) acres or less.
½ of regular fee
These fees are subject to change.
Building and Plan Check Fees – 2019
Building Permit 2016 See Building Permits & Plan
Review fee below
Building Plan Check 2016 Base x .65
Building Plan Check - Additional due to large
number of changes or revisions
2016 hour $50.00
Inspections -
Additional inspections/reinspection 2016 $50.00
After hours 2016 hour $100.00
Building permit transfer fee (regular plan review
fee required as well)
2016 $50.00
Building permit reprint 2016 $25.00
Over-the-Counter (No Review) Residential
Building Permits
2016 $25.00
Permit Building Fees
Total
Valuation Plan Review Building Permit Fee
$1 to $500 None $25.00
$501 to
$2,000
None $25 for the first $500 plus $2.75 for
each additional $100 or fraction
thereof to and including $2,000
$2,001 to
$25,000
No plan review fee for valuations $3,000 and
under. Over $3,000 -- $66.25 for the first $2,000
plus $10.25 for each additional $1,000 fraction
thereof to and including $25,000. Take this total
times .65
Use the formula in the column to
the left, but take this total times
1.35
$25,001 to
$50,000
$302.00 for the first $25,000 plus $8.50 for each
additional $1,000 or fraction thereof to and
including $50,000. Take this total times .65
Use the formula in the column to
the left, but take this total times
1.35
$50,001 to
$100,000
$514.50 for the first $50,000 plus $6 for each
additional $1,000 or fraction thereof to and
including $100,000. Take this total times .65
Use the formula in the column to
the left, but take this total times
1.35
$100,001 to
$500,000
$814.50 for the first $100,000 plus $4.00 for each
additional $1,000 or fraction thereof. Take this
total times .65
Use the formula in the column to
the left, but take this total times
1.35
$500,001 to
$1,000,000
$2414.50 for the first $500,000 plus $3.50 for
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof. Take
this total times .65
Use the formula in the column to
the left, but take this total times
1.35
$1,000,001 to
$10,000,000
$4,164.50 for the first $1,000,000 plus $2.50 for
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof. Take
this total times .65
Use the formula in the column to
the left, but take this total times
1.35
10000001 and
up
$26,664.50 for the first $10,000,000 plus $1.00
for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof.
Take this total times .65
Use the formula in the column to
the left, but take this total times
1.35
Current Engineering Inspection Fees - 2019
Inspection Fees:
Trench (1-100 linear feet) 2004 linear ft. $70.00
Trench (per foot over 100 linear feet) 2004 linear ft. $0.70
Pipeline (1-100 linear feet) 2004 linear ft. $70.00
Pipeline (per foot over 100 linear feet) 2004 linear ft. $0.70
Sidewalk, trails, curb/gutter, curb/gutter w
sidewalk (1-50 linear feet)
2004 linear ft. $70.00
Sidewalk, trails, curb/gutter, curb/gutter w
sidewalk (per foot over 50 linear feet)
2004 linear ft. $1.00
Concrete or asphalt pavement (1-300 sq yards) 2004 linear ft. $103.00
Concrete or asphalt (per sq yard over 50 lin feet) 2004 linear ft. $0.45
Structural concrete, masonry or stone work for
retaining walls, box culverts, wing walls, drop
structurs or other (per cubic yard - minimum
charge of $86)
2004 cu. ft. $3.50
Appurtenances:
Manhole 2004 $103.00
Fire Hydrant 2004 $70.00
Valve and Valve Box 2004 $70.00
Fittings 2004 $35.00
Inlet 2004 $103.00
Service Line Stub 2004 $70.00
Driveway Permit:
City Streets
For driveway up to 15' wide 2006 $25.00
Amount for each foot wider than 15' 2006 linear ft. $0.30
State Highways 2006 $40.00
Encroachment Permits
Outdoor eating 2000 $50.00
Dumpsters, moving containers, landscape
material, etc.
2000 $10
minimum
Newsracks (per location) 2008 $10
each/year
Parking Spaces
Unrestricted space 2006 restricted
space
$5.00
Single space 2006 single space $1.00
Portable Signs - limited to a defined boundary 2009 sign $10.00
All other encroachments 2006 pothole
locate
$10.00
Excavation Permits
Application Fee 2005 $30.00
Inspection Fee 2005 $50/1,000
sq. ft.
Utility Locate Pothole Fee 2005 $10/pothole
locate
Pavement Impact Fee
1-100 sq feet of excavation 2009 sq. ft. $3.85
101-500 sq feet of excavation 2009 sq. ft. $2.75
501-3,000 sq feet of excavation 2009 sq. ft. $2.20
Over 3,000 sq feet of excavation 2009 sq. ft. $1.65
House Number Permits
Issued when groups want to paint house
numbers on curbs in neighborhoods.
2016 No fee
Mobile Homes Permits
Replacement of Existing Mobile Home 2016 $25.00
New Mobile Home Site w/in Park 2016 Same as
building
permit fees
for a new
single
family
residence
Moving Permits
Issued when moving buildings, houses, mobile
homes, sheds or other structures
2016 structure $25 per
structure
Over Length/Over Sized Permits:
Issued when an over-length, over-sized, over-
weight vehicle will be using city streets, i.e.,
trucks hauling large loads (yachts, machinery,
etc.)
1998 No fee
Stockpiling Permits:
Stockpiling Permits 2000 $65.00
Comparative Survey Analysis
PRELIMINARY RESULTS & COMPARISON
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
CITY OF FORT COLLINS • COMPARATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
City of Fort Collins Comparative Survey Analysis
March 2019 Draft Report Page | 1
1 . INTRODUCTION
MGT Consulting Group (MGT) is pleased to present the City of Fort Collins (City) with this summary of
findings for the comparative survey of Development Services User Fees. The MGT project staff worked
with City staff to create a list of example project fees to be compared with similar fees in select peer cities.
The City of Fort Collins provided MGT with twenty receipts from actual work done by the City. The
information contained in each receipt was then used to provide example projects to the comparative
jurisdictions and to calculate fees where applicable.
Subsequently, the MGT project team worked with City staff to identify peer cities for comparison
purposes. The cities contacted for the analysis were:
City of Anaheim, CA
City of Arvada, CO
City of Asheville, NC
City of Boise, ID
City of Boulder, CO
City of Eugene, OR
City of Greeley, CO
City of Lakewood, CO
City of Longmont, CO
City of Loveland, CO
City of Olathe, KS
City of Portland, ME
City of Provo, UT
City of Thornton, CO
City of Westminster, CO
Each city, except the cities of Boise, ID and Eugene, OR, were included at the request of the City of Fort
Collins. Boise and Eugene were added to the list by MGT. The City of Provo did not respond to multiple
attempts by MGT to obtain fee comparison information. Each of the remaining twelve cities responded
to MGT’s request for information. Despite MGT’s request, only Loveland and Westminster provided
receipts of similar projects in their jurisdiction. The other twelve cities provided current fee schedules
and, in some cases, guidance in calculating their fee amounts for each project type.
It should also be noted that each comparison should not always be considered an exact apples-to-apples
comparison. The methodology used by each jurisdiction in charging for similar-sized project can differ.
However, MGT used the valuations or square footages given in the example projects when requesting
data from peer cities and when calculating fee amounts by project type.
The following sections of the report detail MGT’s findings from the peer cities. Cities that did not
respond to questions were excluded from charts and graphs. All data received from respondents will be
provided to the City of Fort Collins.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS • COMPARATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
City of Fort Collins Comparative Survey Analysis
March 2019 Draft Report Page | 2
2 . RESULTS & COMPARISON
Section 2 provides the amount charged by jurisdiction for each of the example projects used in the
comparative analysis. Each fee amount has been rounded to the nearest dollar and an average amount
has been given for both jurisdictions located only in the state of Colorado and an average of all cities used
in the comparison. It should also be noted that the fee averages contain only the cities surveyed by MGT;
Fort Collins has been excluded from the average but is included each graph.
NEW RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX
The graphs below show the fee charged by each jurisdiction for a New Residential Duplex permit. The
three graphs show comparisons for the total fee including the plan review and building permit fees, plan
review fee only, and building permit fee only. The fees were determined by either a flat fee, valuation
table, or square feet calculation charged by each jurisdiction. The example valuation and square footage
used for the New Residential Duplex project is: $74,114 Valuation; 1,760 Square Feet.
Graph 1: Fee Comparison:
NEW RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX – PLAN REVIEW
AVERAGE PLAN REVIEW FEE – ALL CITIES: $515; COLORADO CITIES: $469
MEDIAN PLAN REVIEW FEE – ALL CITIES: $452
$111 $150 $200 $216
$419 $432 $447 $452 $467 $514 $532 $536 $584
$2,067
$-
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
Plan Review Fee
CITY OF FORT COLLINS • COMPARATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
City of Fort Collins Comparative Survey Analysis
March 2019 Draft Report Page | 3
Graph 2: Fee Comparison:
NEW RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX – BUILDING PERMIT
AVERAGE PERMIT FEE – ALL CITIES: $849; COLORADO CITIES: $830
MEDIAN PERMIT FEE – ALL CITIES: $819
Graph 3: Fee Comparison:
NEW RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX – PLAN REVIEW + BUILDING PERMIT
*indicates Proposed Fee based on March 12PthP draft cost analysis
AVERAGE COMBINED FEE – ALL CITIES: $1,347; COLORADO CITIES: $1,299
MEDIAN COMBINED FEE – ALL CITIES: $1,230
$645 $695 $739 $748 $792 $813 $819 $824 $866 $897 $899 $934 $1,000
$1,267
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
Permit Fee
CITY OF FORT COLLINS • COMPARATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
City of Fort Collins Comparative Survey Analysis
March 2019 Draft Report Page | 4
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION WITH MINOR ELECTRICAL & PLUMBING
The graphs below present the fee charged by each jurisdiction for a Residential Addition with minor
electrical and plumbing permit. The three graphs show comparisons for the total fee including the plan
review and building permit fees, plan review fee only, and building permit fee only. The fees were
determined by either a flat fee, valuation table, or square feet calculation charged by each jurisdiction.
The example valuation and square footage used for the Residential Addition is: $10,000 Valuation; 60
Square Feet.
Graph 4: Fee Comparison:
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION – PLAN REVIEW
AVERAGE PLAN REVIEW FEE – ALL CITIES: $84; COLORADO CITIES: $90
MEDIAN PLAN REVIEW FEE – ALL CITIES: $100
$0
$34 $40 $48
$96 $100 $100 $100 $104 $111 $118 $122 $130
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
Plan Review Fee
CITY OF FORT COLLINS • COMPARATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
City of Fort Collins Comparative Survey Analysis
March 2019 Draft Report Page | 5
Graph 5: Fee Comparison:
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION – BUILDING PERMIT
AVERAGE PERMIT FEE – ALL CITIES: $167; COLORADO CITIES: $187
MEDIAN PERMIT FEE – ALL CITIES: $181
Graph 6: Fee Comparison:
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION – PLAN REVIEW + BUILDING PERMIT
*indicates Proposed Fee based on March 12PthP draft cost analysis
AVERAGE COMBINED FEE – ALL CITIES: $291; COLORADO CITIES: $278
MEDIAN COMBINED FEE – ALL CITIES: $268
$40
$125
$154 $171 $172 $181 $181 $188 $191 $194 $200 $200 $208
$-
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
Permit Fee
$80
$160 $191 $207 $225 $242 $255 $281 $282 $297 $299 $310 $312 $331
$554
$894
$-
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
Plan Review + Building Permit
CITY OF FORT COLLINS • COMPARATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
City of Fort Collins Comparative Survey Analysis
March 2019 Draft Report Page | 6
RESIDENTIAL BASEMENT FINISH
The graphs below show the fee charged by each jurisdiction for a Residential Basement Finish permit. The
three graphs show comparisons for the total fee including the plan review and building permit fees, plan
review fee only, and building permit fee only. The fees were determined by either a flat fee, valuation
table, or square feet calculation charged by each jurisdiction. The example valuation used for the
Basement Finish is: $4,848 Valuation.
Graph 7: Fee Comparison:
RESIDENTIAL BASEMENT FINISH – PLAN REVIEW
AVERAGE PLAN REVIEW FEE – ALL CITIES: $57; COLORADO CITIES: $55
MEDIAN PLAN REVIEW FEE – ALL CITIES: $62
$0
$21 $25 $29
$40
$60 $62 $63 $72 $76 $78 $79
$100
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
Plan Review Fee
CITY OF FORT COLLINS • COMPARATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
City of Fort Collins Comparative Survey Analysis
March 2019 Draft Report Page | 7
Graph 8: Fee Comparison:
RESIDENTIAL BASEMENT FINISH – BUILDING PERMIT
AVERAGE PERMIT FEE – ALL CITIES: $109; COLORADO CITIES: $114
MEDIAN PERMIT FEE – ALL CITIES: $117
Graph 9: Fee Comparison:
RESIDENTIAL BASEMENT FINISH – PLAN REVIEW + BUILDING PERMIT
*indicates Proposed Fee based on March 12PthP draft cost analysis
AVERAGE COMBINED FEE – ALL CITIES: $180; COLORADO CITIES: $169
MEDIAN COMBINED FEE – ALL CITIES: $176
$40
$95 $107 $109 $111 $117 $117 $117 $121 $121 $125 $125 $131
$-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
Permit Fee
$80 $83 $116 $117 $128 $146 $156 $157 $169 $184 $188 $193 $199 $200 $225
$448
$-
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
$500
Plan Review + Building Permit
CITY OF FORT COLLINS • COMPARATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
City of Fort Collins Comparative Survey Analysis
March 2019 Draft Report Page | 8
NEW SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
The graphs below illustrate the fee charged by each jurisdiction for a New Single-Family Attached permit.
The three graphs show comparisons for the total fee including the plan review and building permit fees,
plan review fee only, and building permit fee only. The fees were determined by either a flat fee, valuation
table, or square feet calculation charged by each jurisdiction. The example valuation and square footage
used for the New Single-Family Attached project is: $184,814.50 Valuation; 1,305 Square Feet.
Graph 10: Fee Comparison:
NEW SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED – PLAN REVIEW
AVERAGE PLAN REVIEW FEE – ALL CITIES: $671; COLORADO CITIES: $726
MEDIAN PLAN REVIEW FEE – ALL CITIES: $803
$0 $82 $125 $185 $270 $391
$701 $803 $808 $844 $948 $955 $1,056
$1,739
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000
Plan Review Fee
CITY OF FORT COLLINS • COMPARATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
City of Fort Collins Comparative Survey Analysis
March 2019 Draft Report Page | 9
Graph 11: Fee Comparison:
NEW SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED – BUILDING PERMIT
AVERAGE PERMIT FEE – ALL CITIES: $1,270; COLORADO CITIES: $1,500
MEDIAN PERMIT FEE – ALL CITIES: $1,458
Graph 12: Fee Comparison:
NEW SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED – PLAN REVIEW + BUILDING PERMIT
*indicates Proposed Fee based on March 12PthP draft cost analysis
AVERAGE COMBINED FEE – ALL CITIES: $2,001; COLORADO CITIES: $2,225
MEDIAN COMBINED FEE – ALL CITIES: $2,157
$475 $548
$1,066 $1,078
$1,235 $1,352 $1,458 $1,469 $1,470 $1,488 $1,559 $1,564 $1,625 $1,689
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
Permit Fee
$600 $630
$1,488 $1,622
$1,744 $1,778 $1,799 $1,955 $2,038
$2,277
$2,405 $2,425 $2,533 $2,681 $2,782 $2,805
$-
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
Plan Review + Building Permit
CITY OF FORT COLLINS • COMPARATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
City of Fort Collins Comparative Survey Analysis
March 2019 Draft Report Page | 10
NEW MULTI-FAMILY 12 OR MORE UNIT BUILDING
The graphs below show the fee charged by each jurisdiction for a New Multi-Family 12 or More Unit
Building permit. The three graphs show comparisons for the total fee including the plan review and
building permit fees, plan review fee only, and building permit fee only. The fees were determined by
either a flat fee, valuation table, or square feet calculation charged by each jurisdiction. The example
valuation and square footage used for the New Multi-Family project is: $3,489,473 Valuation; 25,639
Square Feet.
Graph 13: Fee Comparison:
NEW MULTI-FAMILY – PLAN REVIEW
AVERAGE PLAN REVIEW FEE – ALL CITIES: $7,769; COLORADO CITIES: $9,127
MEDIAN PLAN REVIEW FEE – ALL CITIES: $8,452
$1,731
$3,687 $4,489
$6,753 $7,318 $8,082 $8,305 $8,452 $9,203 $9,553 $9,718 $9,773 $10,116 $10,570
$-
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
Plan Review Fee
CITY OF FORT COLLINS • COMPARATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
City of Fort Collins Comparative Survey Analysis
March 2019 Draft Report Page | 11
Graph 14: Fee Comparison:
NEW MULTI-FAMILY – BUILDING PERMIT
AVERAGE PERMIT FEE – ALL CITIES: $13,920; COLORADO CITIES: $14,811
MEDIAN PERMIT FEE – ALL CITIES: $14,695
Graph 15: Fee Comparison:
NEW MULTI-FAMILY – PLAN REVIEW + BUILDING PERMIT
*indicates Proposed Fee based on March 12PthP draft cost analysis
AVERAGE COMBINED FEE – ALL CITIES: $23,880; COLORADO CITIES: $23,938
MEDIAN COMBINED FEE – ALL CITIES: $23,070
$5,990
$11,258 $11,538 $12,778 $13,734 $14,026 $14,159 $14,695
$14,697
$14,951 $15,563
$16,262 $16,904 $18,437
$-
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
$18,000
$20,000
Permit Fee
$13,268
$15,763 $16,004
$18,224
$18,575 $20,779
$21,083
$22,124
$22,778
$23,362
$24,250 $24,669
$25,357
$25,680
$26,832
$52,352
$-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
Plan Review + Building Permit
CITY OF FORT COLLINS • COMPARATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
City of Fort Collins Comparative Survey Analysis
March 2019 Draft Report Page | 12
NEW COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE BUILDING
The graphs below present the fee charged by each jurisdiction for a New Commercial Mixed-Use Building
permit. The three graphs show comparisons for the total fee including the plan review and building permit
fees, plan review fee only, and building permit fee only. The fees were determined by either a flat fee,
valuation table, or square feet calculation charged by each jurisdiction. The example valuation and square
footage used for the New Commercial Mixed-Use project is: $850,000 Valuation; 4,680 Square Feet.
Graph 16: Fee Comparison:
NEW COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE – PLAN REVIEW
AVERAGE PLAN REVIEW FEE – ALL CITIES: $2,826; COLORADO CITIES: $3,218
MEDIAN PLAN REVIEW FEE – ALL CITIES: $3,114
$632
$1,700 $1,976 $2,231 $2,366 $2,643 $2,693
$3,114 $3,183 $3,245 $3,312 $3,389 $3,659
$4,955
$-
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
Plan Review Fee
CITY OF FORT COLLINS • COMPARATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
City of Fort Collins Comparative Survey Analysis
March 2019 Draft Report Page | 13
Graph 17: Fee Comparison:
NEW COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE – BUILDING PERMIT
AVERAGE PERMIT FEE – ALL CITIES: $4,294; COLORADO CITIES: $4,495
MEDIAN PERMIT FEE – ALL CITIES: $4,791
Graph 18: Fee Comparison:
NEW COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE – PLAN REVIEW + BUILDING PERMIT
*indicates Proposed Fee based on March 12PthP draft cost analysis
AVERAGE COMBINED FEE – ALL CITIES: $7,522; COLORADO CITIES: $7,713
MEDIAN COMBINED FEE – ALL CITIES: $7,992
$2,030 $2,106
$3,040 $3,221 $3,432
$4,067 $4,791 $4,896 $4,896
$4,913 $4,993 $5,215 $5,630
$7,500
$-
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
Permit Fee
$2,738
$5,016
$5,342
$5,663
$6,710 $7,279 $7,589 $7,904 $8,079 $8,176
$8,239 $8,604 $9,200 $9,289
$11,421
$12,760
$-
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
Plan Review + Building Permit
CITY OF FORT COLLINS • COMPARATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
City of Fort Collins Comparative Survey Analysis
March 2019 Draft Report Page | 14
NEW COMMERCIAL RETAIL BUILDING
The graphs below illustrate the fee charged by each jurisdiction for a New Commercial Retail Building
permit. The three graphs show comparisons for the total fee including the plan review and building permit
fees, plan review fee only, and building permit fee only. The fees were determined by either a flat fee,
valuation table, or square feet calculation charged by each jurisdiction. The example valuation and square
footage used for the New Commercial Retail Building project is: $1,000,000 Valuation; 8,280 Square Feet.
Graph 19: Fee Comparison:
NEW COMMERCIAL RETAIL – PLAN REVIEW
AVERAGE PLAN REVIEW FEE – ALL CITIES: $3,396; COLORADO CITIES: $3,888
MEDIAN PLAN REVIEW FEE – ALL CITIES: $3,621
$1,118
$2,000
$2,576 $2,707 $3,028 $3,085
$3,618 $3,621 $3,646 $3,731 $3,886 $4,033 $4,192
$5,615
$-
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
Plan Review Fee
CITY OF FORT COLLINS • COMPARATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
City of Fort Collins Comparative Survey Analysis
March 2019 Draft Report Page | 15
Graph 20: Fee Comparison:
NEW COMMERCIAL RETAIL – BUILDING PERMIT
AVERAGE PERMIT FEE – ALL CITIES: $5,328; COLORADO CITIES: $5,466
MEDIAN PERMIT FEE – ALL CITIES: $5,570
Graph 21: Fee Comparison:
NEW COMMERCIAL RETAIL – PLAN REVIEW + BUILDING PERMIT
*indicates Proposed Fee based on March 12PthP draft cost analysis
AVERAGE COMBINED FEE – ALL CITIES: $9,173; COLORADO CITIES: $9,354
MEDIAN COMBINED FEE – ALL CITIES: $9,223
$2,287
$3,650 $3,726 $3,963 $4,659 $5,566 $5,570 $5,609 $5,609 $5,622
$5,979 $6,204 $6,449
$10,000
$-
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
Permit Fee
$4,844 $6,018 $6,539 $7,688 $8,329 $8,694 $9,184 $9,191
$9,254 $9,265
$9,865
$10,237
$10,640
$12,000
$15,010
$18,580
$-
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
$18,000
$20,000
Plan Review + Building Permit
CITY OF FORT COLLINS • COMPARATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
City of Fort Collins Comparative Survey Analysis
March 2019 Draft Report Page | 16
ROOFING PERMIT - RESIDENTIAL
The graph below shows the fee charged by each jurisdiction for a residential roofing permit. The fees
were determined by either a flat fee, valuation table, or square feet calculation charged by each
jurisdiction. The example valuation used for the residential roofing permit is: $1,300 Valuation.
Graph 22: Fee Comparison:
ROOFING PERMIT – RESIDENTIAL
*indicates Proposed Fee based on March 12PthP draft cost analysis
AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL ROOFING PERMIT – ALL CITIES: $50; COLORADO: $46
MEDIAN RESIDENTIAL ROOFING PERMIT – ALL CITIES: $48
$20
$30 $30 $35 $40
$47 $48 $48 $50 $50 $55 $58
$75
$85 $92
$-
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
$90
$100
Roofing Permit -Residential
CITY OF FORT COLLINS • COMPARATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
City of Fort Collins Comparative Survey Analysis
March 2019 Draft Report Page | 17
ROOFING PERMIT - COMMERCIAL
The graph below shows the fee charged by each jurisdiction for a commercial roofing permit. The fees
were determined by either a flat fee, valuation table, or square feet calculation charged by each
jurisdiction. The example valuation used for the commercial roofing permit is: $59,770 Valuation.
Graph 23: Fee Comparison:
ROOFING PERMIT – COMMERCIAL
*indicates Proposed Fee based on March 12PthP draft cost analysis
AVERAGE COMMERCIAL ROOFING PERMIT – ALL CITIES: $694; COLORADO: $743
MEDIAN COMMERCIAL ROOFING PERMIT – ALL CITIES: $714
$58
$299
$563 $575
$657 $693 $712 $714 $721 $759 $788 $819
$907
$-
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
Roofing Permit -Commercial
CITY OF FORT COLLINS • COMPARATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
City of Fort Collins Comparative Survey Analysis
March 2019 Draft Report Page | 18
DEMOLITION PERMIT
The graph below presents the fee charged by each jurisdiction for a Demolition permit. The fees were
determined by either a flat fee, valuation table, or square feet calculation charged by each jurisdiction.
The example valuation and project used for the Demolition permit is: $800 Valuation; interior demo on
non-load bearing walls.
Graph 24: Fee Comparison:
DEMOLITION PERMIT
*indicates Proposed Fee based on March 12PthP draft cost analysis
AVERAGE DEMOLITION PERMIT – ALL CITIES: $114; COLORADO: $49
MEDIAN DEMOLITION PERMIT – ALL CITIES: $57
$25 $30 $50 $50 $50 $54 $57 $60 $100 $100
$205
$358
$529
$-
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
Demolition Permit
CITY OF FORT COLLINS • COMPARATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
City of Fort Collins Comparative Survey Analysis
March 2019 Draft Report Page | 19
ELECTRIC SERVICE CHANGE FEE
The graph below shows the fee charged by each jurisdiction for an Electric Service Change fee. The fees
were determined by either a flat fee, valuation table, or square feet calculation charged by each
jurisdiction. The example valuation used for an Electric Service Change fee is: $1,000 Valuation.
Graph 25: Fee Comparison:
ELECTRIC SERVICE CHANGE FEE
*indicates Proposed Fee based on March 12PthP draft cost analysis
AVERAGE ELECTRIC SERVICE CHANGE FEE – ALL CITIES: $40; COLORADO: $41
MEDIAN ELECTRIC SERVICE CHANGE FEE – ALL CITIES: $39
$25
$35 $37 $39 $40 $42
$46 $46
$-
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
$50
City of Fort
Collins, CO
City of Olathe,
KS
City of
Boulder, CO
City of
Loveland, CO
City of
Longmont, CO
City of Fort
Collins, CO*
City of
Thornton, CO
City of
Arvada, CO
Electric Service Change Fee
CITY OF FORT COLLINS • COMPARATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
City of Fort Collins Comparative Survey Analysis
March 2019 Draft Report Page | 20
RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICAL PERMIT
The graph below shows the fee charged by each jurisdiction for a Residential Electrical permit. The fees
were determined by either a flat fee, valuation table, or square feet calculation charged by each
jurisdiction. The example valuation used for the Residential Electrical permit is: $985 Valuation.
Graph 26: Fee Comparison:
RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICAL PERMIT
AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICAL PERMIT – ALL CITIES: $84; COLORADO: $53
MEDIAN RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICAL PERMIT – ALL CITIES: $45
$35 $39 $39 $44 $45
$77
$130
$217
$-
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
City of
Olathe, KS
City of Fort
Collins, CO
City of
Loveland, CO
City of
Longmont, CO
City of
Portland, ME
City of
Thornton, CO
City of Boise,
ID
City of
Eugene, OR
Residential Electrical Permit
CITY OF FORT COLLINS • COMPARATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
City of Fort Collins Comparative Survey Analysis
March 2019 Draft Report Page | 21
RESIDENTIAL MECHANICAL PERMIT
The graph below illustrates the fee charged by each jurisdiction for a Residential Mechanical permit. The
fees were determined by either a flat fee, valuation table, or square feet calculation charged by each
jurisdiction. The example valuation used for the Residential Mechanical permit is: $5,234 Valuation.
Graph 27: Fee Comparison:
RESIDENTIAL MECHANICAL PERMIT
AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL MECHANICAL PERMIT – ALL CITIES: $121; COLORADO: $117
MEDIAN RESIDENTIAL MECHANICAL PERMIT – ALL CITIES: $125
$25 $35
$119 $120 $125 $130 $132
$186
$-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
$180
$200
City of Fort
Collins, CO
City of
Olathe, KS
City of
Thornton, CO
City of
Eugene, OR
City of
Loveland, CO
City of Boise,
ID
City of
Longmont, CO
City of
Boulder, CO
Residential Mechanical Permit
CITY OF FORT COLLINS • COMPARATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
City of Fort Collins Comparative Survey Analysis
March 2019 Draft Report Page | 22
RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING PERMIT
The graph below shows the fee charged by each jurisdiction for a Residential Plumbing permit. The fees
were determined by either a flat fee, valuation table, or square feet calculation charged by each
jurisdiction. The example valuation used for the Residential Plumbing permit is: $725 Valuation.
Graph 28: Fee Comparison:
RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING PERMIT
AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING PERMIT – ALL CITIES: $65; COLORADO: $35
MEDIAN RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING PERMIT – ALL CITIES: $37
$33 $33 $35 $37
$89
$130
$-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
City of Loveland,
CO
City of Fort
Collins, CO
City of Olathe, KS City of Thornton,
CO
City of Eugene, OR City of Boise, ID
Residential Plumbing Permit
CITY OF FORT COLLINS • COMPARATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
City of Fort Collins Comparative Survey Analysis
March 2019 Draft Report Page | 23
RESIDENTIAL GAS LOG PERMIT
The graph below shows the fee charged by each jurisdiction for a Residential Gas Log permit. The fees
were determined by either a flat fee, valuation table, or square feet calculation charged by each
jurisdiction. The example valuation used for the Gas Log permit is: $3,097 Valuation.
Graph 29: Fee Comparison:
RESIDENTIAL GAS LOG PERMIT
*indicates Proposed Fee based on March 12PthP draft cost analysis
AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL GAS LOG PERMIT – ALL CITIES: $58; COLORADO: $58
MEDIAN RESIDENTIAL GAS LOG PERMIT – ALL CITIES: $49
$20 $25
$40 $42 $42
$55
$92 $97
$-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
City of
Westminster,
CO
City of Fort
Collins, CO
City of
Longmont, CO
City of
Arvada, CO
City of Fort
Collins, CO*
City of Boise,
ID
City of
Thornton, CO
City of
Loveland, CO
Residential Gas Log Permit
CITY OF FORT COLLINS • COMPARATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
City of Fort Collins Comparative Survey Analysis
March 2019 Draft Report Page | 24
WATER HEATER PERMIT
The graph below shows the fee charged by each jurisdiction for a Water Heater permit. The fees were
determined by either a flat fee, valuation table, or square feet calculation charged by each jurisdiction.
The example valuation used for the Water Heater permit is: $1,300 Valuation.
Graph 30: Fee Comparison:
WATER HEATER PERMIT
*indicates Proposed Fee based on March 12PthP draft cost analysis
AVERAGE WATER HEATER PERMIT – ALL CITIES: $48; COLORADO: $44
MEDIAN WATER HEATER PERMIT – ALL CITIES: $49
$20 $25
$40 $42 $42 $48 $50 $55 $60
$70
$-
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
Water Heater Permit
CITY OF FORT COLLINS • COMPARATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
City of Fort Collins Comparative Survey Analysis
March 2019 Draft Report Page | 25
COMMERCIAL ELECTRICAL PERMIT
The graph below shows the fee charged by each jurisdiction for a Commercial Electrical permit. The fees
were determined by either a flat fee, valuation table, or square feet calculation charged by each
jurisdiction. The example valuation used for the Commercial Electrical permit is: $12,500 Valuation.
Graph 31: Fee Comparison:
COMMERCIAL ELECTRICAL PERMIT
AVERAGE COMMERCIAL ELECTRICAL PERMIT – ALL CITIES: $169; COLORADO: $233
MEDIAN COMMERCIAL ELECTRICAL PERMIT – ALL CITIES: $217
$50 $55
$179
$211 $223 $227
$249
$-
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
City of Olathe,
KS
City of
Portland, ME
City of Fort
Collins, CO
City of Boise, ID City of
Loveland, CO
City of
Thornton, CO
City of
Longmont, CO
Commercial Electrical Permit
CITY OF FORT COLLINS • COMPARATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
City of Fort Collins Comparative Survey Analysis
March 2019 Draft Report Page | 26
COMMERCIAL MECHANICAL PERMIT
The graph below shows the fee charged by each jurisdiction for a Commercial Mechanical permit. The
fees were determined by either a flat fee, valuation table, or square feet calculation charged by each
jurisdiction. The example valuation used for the Commercial Mechanical permit is: $3,750 Valuation.
Graph 32: Fee Comparison:
COMMERCIAL MECHANICAL PERMIT
AVERAGE COMMERCIAL MECHANICAL PERMIT – ALL CITIES: $96; COLORADO: $102
MEDIAN COMMERCIAL MECHANICAL PERMIT – ALL CITIES: $103
$50
$87
$97 $101 $106 $108 $116
$-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
City of Olathe,
KS
City of Fort
Collins, CO
City of
Loveland, CO
City of
Thornton, CO
City of Eugene,
OR
City of
Longmont, CO
City of Boise, ID
Commercial Mechanical Permit
CITY OF FORT COLLINS • COMPARATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
City of Fort Collins Comparative Survey Analysis
March 2019 Draft Report Page | 27
3. SUMMARY ANALYSIS
The tables below list the amount of each fee charged by the City of Fort Collins side by side with the
average or median fee amount charged by the comparative jurisdictions. The fee for each project type
by jurisdiction is detailed in the previous section (Section 2). The percentage difference showing how
much more, or less, the City of Fort Collins is charging than the average or median, is also listed in the
table.
Table 1: Building Construction Projects
CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMPARED TO COLORADO CITIES AVERAGE
Table 2: Building Construction Projects
CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMPARED TO ALL-CITIES AVERAGE
Table 3: Building Construction Projects
CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMPARED TO ALL-CITIES MEDIAN
CITY OF
FORT COLLINS
COMPARATIVE
AVERAGE % DIFF
CITY OF
FORT COLLINS
COMPARATIVE
AVERAGE % DIFF
CITY OF
FORT COLLINS
COMPARATIVE
AVERAGE % DIFF
New Residential Duplex 1,329$ 1,299$ 1.14%432$ 469$ -4.06%897$ 830$ 3.87%
Residential Addition 297$ 278$ 3.30%96$ 90$ 3.02%200$ 187$ 3.28%
Basement Finish 156$ 169$ -4.00%25$ 55$ -37.54%131$ 114$ 7.12%
New Single Family Attached 1,744$ 2,225$ -12.12%185$ 726$ -59.39%1,559$ 1,500$ 1.93%
New Multi-Family Building 20,779$ 23,938$ -7.06%6,753$ 9,127$ -14.95%14,026$ 14,811$ -2.72%
New Commercial Mixed Use Bldg 7,279$ 7,713$ -2.89%2,366$ 3,218$ -15.26%4,913$ 4,495$ 4.44%
New Commercial Retail Bldg 8,329$ 9,354$ -5.80%2,707$ 3,888$ -17.91%5,622$ 5,466$ 1.41%
PLAN REVIEW + PERMIT TOTAL PLAN REVIEW FEE BUILDING PERMIT FEE
CITY OF
FORT COLLINS
COMPARATIVE
AVERAGE % DIFF
CITY OF
FORT COLLINS
COMPARATIVE
AVERAGE % DIFF
CITY OF
FORT COLLINS
COMPARATIVE
AVERAGE % DIFF
New Residential Duplex 1,329$ 1,347$ -0.67%432$ 515$ -8.76%897$ 849$ 2.75%
Residential Addition 297$ 291$ 1.02%96$ 84$ 6.67%200$ 167$ 8.99%
Basement Finish 156$ 180$ -7.14%25$ 57$ -38.81%131$ 109$ 9.28%
New Single Family Attached 1,744$ 2,001$ -6.86%185$ 671$ -56.78%1,559$ 1,270$ 10.22%
New Multi-Family Building 20,779$ 23,880$ -6.94%6,753$ 7,769$ -7.00%14,026$ 13,920$ 0.38%
New Commercial Mixed Use Bldg 7,279$ 7,522$ -1.64%2,366$ 2,826$ -8.86%4,913$ 4,294$ 6.72%
New Commercial Retail Bldg 8,329$ 9,173$ -4.82%2,707$ 3,396$ -11.29%5,622$ 5,328$ 2.68%
PLAN REVIEW + PERMIT TOTAL PLAN REVIEW FEE BUILDING PERMIT FEE
CITY OF
FORT COLLINS
COMPARATIVE
MEDIAN % DIFF
CITY OF
FORT COLLINS
COMPARATIVE
MEDIAN % DIFF
CITY OF
FORT COLLINS
COMPARATIVE
MEDIAN % DIFF
New Residential Duplex 1,329$ 1,230$ 3.87%432$ 452$ -2.26%897$ 819$ 4.55%
Residential Addition 297$ 268$ 5.13%96$ 100$ -2.04%200$ 181$ 4.99%
Basement Finish 156$ 176$ -6.02%25$ 62$ -42.53%131$ 117$ 5.65%
New Single Family Attached 1,744$ 2,157$ -10.59%185$ 803$ -62.55%1,559$ 1,458$ 3.35%
New Multi-Family Building 20,779$ 23,070$ -5.22%6,753$ 8,452$ -11.17%14,026$ 14,695$ -2.33%
New Commercial Mixed Use Bldg 7,279$ 7,992$ -4.67%2,366$ 3,114$ -13.65%4,913$ 4,791$ 1.26%
New Commercial Retail Bldg 8,329$ 9,223$ -5.09%2,707$ 3,621$ -14.44%5,622$ 5,570$ 0.46%
PLAN REVIEW + PERMIT TOTAL PLAN REVIEW FEE BUILDING PERMIT FEE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS • COMPARATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
City of Fort Collins Comparative Survey Analysis
March 2019 Draft Report Page | 28
Table 4: Miscellaneous Projects
CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMPARED TO COLORADO CITIES & ALL-CITIES AVERAGE
CITY OF
FORT COLLINS
COMPARATIVE
AVERAGE % DIFF
COMPARATIVE
AVERAGE % DIFF
COMPARATIVE
MEDIAN % DIFF
Residential Roofing Permit 47$ 46$ 1.08%50$ -3.09%48$ -1.05%
Commercial Roofing Permit 575$ 743$ -12.79%694$ -9.42%714$ -10.83%
Demolition Permit 50$ 49$ 1.01%114$ -39.02%57$ -6.54%
Electric Service Change 25$ 41$ -24.24%40$ -23.08%39$ -21.88%
Residential Electrical Permit 39$ 53$ -15.22%84$ -36.59%45$ -7.14%
Residential Mechanical Permit 25$ 117$ -64.79%121$ -65.75%125$ -66.67%
Residential Plumbing Permit 33$ 35$ -2.94%65$ -32.65%37$ -5.71%
Residential Gas Log Permit 25$ 58$ -39.76%58$ -39.76%49$ -32.43%
Water Heater Permit 25$ 44$ -27.54%48$ -31.51%49$ -32.43%
Commercial Electrical Permit 179$ 233$ -13.11%169$ 2.87%217$ -9.60%
Commercial Mechanical Permit 87$ 102$ -7.94%96$ -4.92%103$ -8.42%
ALL CITIESCOLORADO CITIES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS • COMPARATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
City of Fort Collins Comparative Survey Analysis
March 2019 Draft Report Page | 29
4 . APPENDIX
DEMOGRAPHIC COMPARISON
**Data obtained from census.gov.
Peer Jurisdiction Population Median Household Income Median Housing Value
Fort Collins, CO 165,080 57,831$ 285,400$
Anaheim, CA 352,497 61,826$ 457,600$
Arvada, CO 118,807 72,010$ 278,100$
Asheville, NC 91,902 44,946$ 212,000$
Boulder, CO 107,125 60,569$ 554,500$
Greeley, CO 105,448 50,483$ 183,300$
Lakewood, CO 154,958 58,227$ 273,200$
Longmont, CO 94,341 62,847$ 272,100$
Loveland, CO 76,701 59,353$ 237,200$
Olathe, KS 137,472 79,691$ 201,200$
Portland, ME 66,882 48,259$ 248,000$
Provo, UT 117,335 42,600$ 214,800$
Thornton, CO 136,978 69,417$ 236,100$
Westminster, CO 112,812 69,805$ 249,900$
Boise, ID*226,570 54,547$ 206,800$
Eugene, OR*168,916 47,489$ 257,200$
*consultant's choice
1
Development Review Fee Updates –Council Finance
Tom Leeson & Noelle Currell –March 2019
Council Direction Sought
•Is Council supportive of methodology changes?
•What cost recovery percentage should fees be based upon?
2
History of Development Review Fees
History of Fees
•Fees were first established in the 1920s.
•The last major external fee study occurred in 2008 but any changes were deferred due
to the recession.
•The topic came back to Council in 2011 with updates for amounts from an internal
study which were ultimately adopted. No updates have occurred since 2011 other
than increases for CPI annually.
•Prior to 2011 cost recovery was set at 80%; the 2011 study modified cost recovery to
100%*
Current Study
•City of Fort Collins contracted with MGT consultants to do a full bottoms up analysis
on fees
3
Methodology Changes
•No methodology changes for pre-building permit activity (examples: Preliminary
Development Plan, Minor Amendment, Final Development Plan)
•Consolidation of fees so customer sees one fee (e.g. APO labels removed)
•Currently –114 individual fees; new structure has 76* fees
•Methodology shift for building permit fees will be based on square
footage/type of building, not valuation of building
•Square footage/building type are what drives staff time
•No judgment in square footage
•Over the Counter permits will go to flat fee versus valuation based (examples:
residential roof, water heater, furnace)
•Type of work is what drives staff time, not value
•More customer friendly
4
Fee Study
•Focused on true cost drivers of fees
•Consultants met with staff from all parts of development review
(planners, Building Development Review Techs, Inspectors)
•Looked at each type of fee that we assessed
•Employees estimated how much time each item we charge for takes to get done
•Full cost is built out based upon % of time and employee “cost” to accomplish a
given task/fee item
•Preliminary data received back from consultants on 3/12 –still needs
to be validated
5
Examples of Impacts (Not final)
6
Peer Cities –Single Family
Single Family Attached –1300 sq ft, $184k valuation
7
Peer Cities –Commercial
New Commercial –4,680 square feet, $850k valuation
8
Peer Cities –Over the Counter Permits
New Residential Water Heater -$1,300 valuation
9
Historical Revenues/Expenses
Projections into the future will depend on cost recovery percentage
pursued
10
Planned Public Outreach
To be scheduled pending feedback from Council
•South Fort Collins Business Association
•Super Issues Forum
•Norther Colorado Homebuilder’s Association
•Downtown Development Authority
•North Fort Collins Business Association
•Local Legislative Affairs Committee
•Affordable Housing Board
•Human Relations Board
•Economic Advisory Commission
•Board of Realtors
•Building Review Board
•Parks and Recreation Board?
•Housing Catalyst
11
Next Steps
•Finalization of data with consultants and final recommended fees
•Public Outreach
•Council Finance
•Council Worksesison
•Council Adoption
12
Questions?
13
1
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Josh Birks, Rachel Rodgers
Date: March 18, 2019
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
City’s Tax Increment Contribution to the Proposed College and Drake Urban Renewal
Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to review the proposed City property and sales tax increment
contribution to the proposed College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does the Committee have any questions about the proposed tax increment contribution
by the City in support of the College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan?
2. What additional information does the Committee feel Council will need in order to
review this proposal?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The City of Fort Collins (the “City”) is considering the adoption of a new Urban Renewal Plan,
at the intersection of College Avenue and Drake Road, (the “Plan”) to direct the activities of the
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the “Authority”), pursuant to the Colorado Urban
Renewal Law, C.R.S. §31-25-101 et seq.
The Plan enables the use of Tax Increment Financing (“TIF”) as a tool to stimulate and leverage
both public and private sector development, including redevelopment, to help remedy adverse
conditions and prevent the spread of further deterioration. The Plan effort originated in response
to two proposals for private development in the area. While these two projects are anticipated to
occur in the near term, additional development and redevelopment may occur incrementally over
the life of the Plan.
In 2014, the Larimer County Tax Increment Financing Study Group (the “TIF Study Group”)
was formed of representatives from Larimer County, municipalities in the county currently using
urban renewal (Fort Collins, Loveland, and Timnath), five other municipalities, and selected
taxing districts and special districts. The TIF Study group:
2
Acknowledged the positive impact of TIF in providing needed financial support for
redevelopment and economic development investments in the County; and
Convened because of concerns about requirements to provide services to the new
development created by urban renewal supported by TIF.
The TIF Study Group had three primary objectives:
1. Develop a method to qualify and quantify the fiscal and economic impacts and financial
risks of TIF proposals;
2. Develop a way to evaluate the indirect impacts of TIF projects and corresponding
financial effects on taxing entities; and
3. Establish a framework for formal agreements that balance the benefits and risks among
participating entities in Larimer County.
To achieve objective three (3) above. The Plan Area Review Committee (the “PRC”)
recommends that the Plan include a specific set of improvements to be funded in part or fully by
TIF. This list of improvements would then be attached to any intergovernmental agreement
(“IGA”) between the Authority and an impacted tax entity. The intent is to provide a clear list of
the uses of TIF prior to adopting the plan. Once all improvements on the list are fully funded and
constructed the collection of TIF would terminate with revenue reverting back to the appropriate
entity. This would apply to all incremental property tax revenue and sales tax revenue.
UCity Sales Tax Increment & ContributionU:
In 2015, the State Legislature significantly revised the Urban Renewal Law. Aside from
adjusting the composition and size of the Board, the changes also required that the Authority
negotiation an allocation of property and/or sales tax increment with each impacted entity.
Authority staff have held several discussions with the various entities. However, little discussion
has occurred with the City directly, which is technically a separate and impacted entity as well.
Historically, the City has pledged 100 percent of the property tax increment into all projects. In
addition, the City dedicated 100 percent of the sales tax increment associated with the 2.25
percent general fund rate.
During discussions between the Authority and the impacted taxing entities a key concept
continues to rise to the top of the discussions. That concept is one of equity between the
impacted taxing entities. This is central to the County’s desire to include language about the
City’s sales tax dedicated in the Intergovernmental Agreement between it and the Authority. As
such, staff recognizes that the new landscape of Urban Renewal will require greater City
participation than in the past. This participation will need to include sales tax increment as well.
The current proposal includes:
50 percent of the sales tax increment from the 2.25 percent general fund rate net of the
existing King Soopers sales will be allocated to the Authority;
The agreement would exclude any future increases to the general fund rate, explicitly
referring to the current 2.25 percent general fund rate;
3
Furthermore, the total revenue generated from sales tax increment will be capped at
$10,144,496 based on a 2 percent inflation factor, see Table 1 below.
Finally, the agreement between the City and the Authority will several provisions
consistent with the other taxing entities:
o TIF use will be limited to a list of public improvements within an attached exhibit
with the ability to escalate the costs based on the Engineering News Record
inflation rate;
o The agreement will specify that it does not set precedent for future agreements;
and
o The agreement will require an annual report be generated updating the City on the
progress of the plan.
Table 1
Estimated City Sales Tax Increment
Total City sales tax increment is estimated to be $677,000 annually or $23.3 million over the
plan area period. This represent approximately $13.3 million in time value adjusted dollars
(assuming a 4.5 percent discount rate). The current proposal from the Authority pledges 50
percent of the net new increment or approximately $317,000 annually for a total of $10.1
million. This represents approximately $5.8 million in time value adjusted dollars to support the
College and Drake Plan.
The City will also receive Lodging Tax revenue, which is split between Visit Fort Collins and
Fort Fund grant dollars. It is estimated that approximately $110,000 annually will be generated
from the proposed hotel for a total of $3.9 million in total or $2.2 million in present value, as
shown in Table 2.
City of Fort Collins General Fund (2.25%)
Annual Growth Rate 2.00%
2021 TOTAL
TOTAL General Fund $13,252,906 $676,654 $23,334,585
TOTAL City Pledged to Project
(50% of King Soopers and Spradley
Barr)
$5,753,078 $316,716 $10,144,496
City of Fort Collins Dedicated Sales Taxes
Annual Growth Rate 2.00%
Present Value 2021 TOTAL
Natural Areas Tax (0.25%)$980,052 $52,874 $1,729,113
Street Maintenance Tax (0.25%)$980,052 $52,874 $1,729,113
Capital - CCIP (0.25%)$980,052 $52,874 $1,729,113
KFCG (0.85%)$3,332,176 $179,771 $5,878,983
Total Other City Sales Tax $6,272,331 $338,393 $11,066,321
TOTAL CITY SALES TAXES $19,525,237 $1,015,047 $34,400,906
Present
4
Table 2
Estimated City Lodging Tax Increment
UOther Entity Sales Tax Increment:
In addition, other taxing entities including the State of Colorado and Larimer County will receive
additional sales tax revenue from the project. Using the same assumptions regarding net new
revenue the State will received approximately $560,000 annually for a total of $18.3 million over
the 25-year period, as shown in Table 3. The County will receive approximately $155,000
annually split across the Base Tax and Mental Health Tax.
Table 3
Estimated Sales Tax Increment, Other Entities
UPolicy Implications:
On September 30, 2014, the Authority adopted Revised Policies Relating to Financial
Management for the Urban Renewal Authority, that defined the way the Authority will reimburse
developers using Tax Increment Financing (“TIF”). The current policy stipulates that the
Authority should (see Attachment 3 for the full policy):
Reimburse developers over time rather than upfront;
Encourage limiting the contribution to a developer at no more than 50 percent of
the anticipated TIF generated by that developer; and
Limit the TIF contribution to no more than 25 percent of a specific development’s
cost.
While this policy governs the use of TIF by the Authority, and thus has been adopted by that
body. No policy exists guiding the City’s contribution of property or sales tax increment to a
specific Urban Renewal Plan. This may be a policy that City Council should consider evaluating
and adopting.
City of Fort Collins Lodging Tax (3%)
Annual Growth Rate 2.00%
Present Value 2021 TOTAL
Hotel Site $2,226,648 $110,192 $3,939,769
All Other Sales Taxes Generated
Annual Growth Rate 2.00%
Present Value 2021 TOTAL
All Parcels
State of CO (2.9%)$10,408,544 $560,485 $18,364,826
Larimer County (0.80% total)$9,977,701 $154,616 $5,066,159
Base Tax (0.55%)$1,974,034 $106,299 $3,482,984
Mental Health Tax (0.25%)$897,288 $48,318 $1,583,175
5
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Presentation
2. Estimated Sales Tax Revenue Exhibit
3. Resolution No. 071 Of the Board of Commissioners of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal
Authority Adopting Revised Policies Relating to Financial Management for the Urban
Renewal Authority
1Josh Birks, Economic Health and Redevelopment Director
March 18, 2019
College & Drake Urban Renewal Plan Update:
City Tax Increment Contribution
Questions for the Committee
1.Does the Committee have any questions about the proposed
contribution by the City in support of the College and Drake Urban
Renewal Plan?
2.What additional information does the Committee feel Council will
need in order to review this proposal?
2
Increment Limitations
3
Duration
Allocation
Revenue
Cap
Specific
Improvements
General Provisions
Increment Limitations:
Duration –Max 25 years
Allocation –Varies
Cap –Based on 2%
growth
Expenses –Specific list;
escalated annually by ENR
Additional Provisions:
No Precedent
Annual Report to Entities
4
Proposed City TIF Contribution:
City’s Contribution includes two parts:
1.100% of the City’s Property Tax Increment
2.50% of the net new sales tax revenue generated by 2.25% tax rate
Excludes all future increases to the general fund rate
Nets out average sales from King Soopers store
A specific base amount will be stated in the agreement
5
Total Estimated City Contribution
6
Includes 2% growth/appreciation –basis of $ cap
Taxing Entity / Revenue Source Mills /
Rate Assumptions Annual
Increment Total Increment
City of Fort Collins / Property Tax 9.797 100% of Increment Committed 88,501$ 2,835,000$
City of Fort Collins / Share of Road & Bridge Property Tax 0.500 0% of Increment Committed -$ -$
City of Fort Collins / Sales Tax 2.25%50% of Net New Increment Committed 316,713$ 10,144,000$
Total 405,214$ 12,979,000$
Public Improvements
7
UPDATE: Cost allowed to escalation by defined factor -ENR
Item
Development
Related
(Financial Gap)
Plan Area
Improvements
(Blight Remediation)
Plan Related
Expenditures
(Subtotal)
Additional
Opportunities
(Community Benefit)
Total
Intersection Improvements & Safety 125,000$ 3,900,000$ 4,025,000$ -$ 4,025,000$
Bicycle & Multi-Use Improvements & Safety 150,000$ 1,490,000$ 1,640,000$ -$ 1,640,000$
Traffic Safety Improvements 325,000$ 1,300,000$ 1,625,000$ -$ 1,625,000$
Parking Management -$ -$ -$ 200,000$ 200,000$
Pedestrian & Sidewalk Improvements
(ADA Compliance)530,000$ 115,000$ 645,000$ -$ 645,000$
Landscaping & Streetscape -$ 500,000$ 500,000$ -$ 500,000$
Transit Access & Improvements 85,000$ 85,000$ 170,000$ -$ 170,000$
Other Expenses 4,660,000$ -$ 4,660,000$ -$ 4,660,000$
Total 5,875,000$ 7,390,000$ 13,265,000$ 200,000$ 13,465,000$
Estimated Total Sales Tax Revenue: City
8
City of Fort Collins General Fund (2.25%)
Annual Growth Rate 2.00%
2021 TOTAL
TOTAL General Fund $13,252,906 $676,654 $23,334,585
TOTAL City Pledged to Project
(50% of King Soopers and Spradley
Barr)
$5,753,078 $316,716 $10,144,496
City of Fort Collins Dedicated Sales Taxes
Annual Growth Rate 2.00%
Present Value 2021 TOTAL
Natural Areas Tax (0.25%)$980,052 $52,874 $1,729,113
Street Maintenance Tax (0.25%)$980,052 $52,874 $1,729,113
Capital - CCIP (0.25%)$980,052 $52,874 $1,729,113
KFCG (0.85%)$3,332,176 $179,771 $5,878,983
Total Other City Sales Tax $6,272,331 $338,393 $11,066,321
TOTAL CITY SALES TAXES $19,525,237 $1,015,047 $34,400,906
Present
Estimated Sales Tax Revenues: Others
9
City of Fort Collins Lodging Tax (3%)
Annual Growth Rate 2.00%
Present Value 2021 TOTAL
Hotel Site $2,226,648 $110,192 $3,939,769
All Other Sales Taxes Generated
Annual Growth Rate 2.00%
Present Value 2021 TOTAL
All Parcels
State of CO (2.9%)$10,408,544 $560,485 $18,364,826
Larimer County (0.80% total)$9,977,701 $154,616 $5,066,159
Base Tax (0.55%)$1,974,034 $106,299 $3,482,984
Mental Health Tax (0.25%)$897,288 $48,318 $1,583,175
Key Dates
10
PRC REVIEW
Council
Adoption
April 16,
2019
Public
Open House
Oct. 10,
2018
P&Z
Review
Nov. 15,
2018
TAX ALLOCATIONS
Authority
Approves
Allocations
Mar. 28,
2019
Negotiations
Entities
Approve
Allocations
March
2019
Key Takeaway: continued delay; 120 days ends April 11, 2019
Policy Implications
Existing Policy
Adopted by URA Board –September 30, 2014
Defines the manner in which the URA will reimburse a developer
using Tax Increment Financing
Prefers pay over time
Encourages limiting contribution to developer at 50% of
anticipated TIF
Limits TIF contribution to no more than 25% of project cost
11
Policy Implications
City URA Developer
12
Policy Exists
Policy Missing
Key Takeaway: City Policy regarding TIF Contribution Needed
Questions for the Committee
1.Does the Committee have any questions about the proposed
contribution by the City in support of the College and Drake Urban
Renewal Plan?
2.What additional information does the Committee feel Council will
need in order to review this proposal?
13
City of Fort Collins General Fund (2.25%)
Annual Growth Rate 2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%
@4.5%Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Years 11-25
Present Value 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031-2045 TOTAL
K-Mart parcel
King Soopers $9,179,585 $505,350 $515,457 $525,766 $536,281 $547,007 $557,947 $569,106 $580,488 $592,098 $603,940 $10,653,070 $16,186,512
Net Ancillary Retail $744,871 $41,006 $41,826 $42,663 $43,516 $44,386 $45,274 $46,180 $47,103 $48,045 $49,006 $864,435 $1,313,442
Sub-total $9,924,456 $546,356 $557,283 $568,429 $579,798 $591,394 $603,221 $615,286 $627,592 $640,143 $652,946 $11,517,506 $17,499,954
Spradley Barr Retail $1,581,701 $87,075 $88,817 $90,593 $92,405 $94,253 $96,138 $98,061 $100,022 $102,022 $104,063 $1,835,591 $2,789,038
Hotel Site
Rooms $1,669,986 $82,644 $89,405 $96,405 $98,602 $100,299 $102,305 $104,352 $106,730 $108,567 $110,739 $1,954,778 $2,954,827
Other Taxable Hotel Revenue $76,763 $3,803 $4,047 $4,451 $4,612 $4,776 $4,920 $5,042 $5,164 $5,332 $5,456 $86,385 $133,989
Sub-total $1,746,749 $86,446 $93,452 $100,856 $103,214 $105,076 $107,225 $109,393 $111,894 $113,900 $116,195 $2,041,163 $3,088,815
Pledged to Developer $873,374 $43,223 $46,726 $50,428 $51,607 $52,538 $53,613 $54,697 $55,947 $56,950 $58,097 $1,020,581 $1,544,408
City Tax $873,374 $43,223 $46,726 $50,428 $51,607 $52,538 $53,613 $54,697 $55,947 $56,950 $58,097 $1,020,581 $1,544,408
TOTAL General Fund $13,252,906 $676,654 $739,552 $759,878 $775,417 $790,722 $806,585 $822,740 $839,508 $856,065 $873,204 $15,394,260 $23,334,585
TOTAL City Pledged to Project (50% of
King Soopers and Spradley Barr)
$5,753,078 $316,716 $323,050 $329,511 $336,101 $342,823 $349,680 $356,673 $363,807 $371,083 $378,504 $6,676,549 $10,144,496
City of Fort Collins Dedicated Sales Taxes
Annual Growth Rate 2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%
@4.5%Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Years 11-25
Present Value 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031-2045 TOTAL
All Parcels
Natural Areas Tax (0.25%)$980,052 $52,874 $54,518 $56,223 $57,385 $58,511 $59,686 $60,882 $62,135 $63,352 $64,621 $1,138,926 $1,729,113
Street Maintenance Tax (0.25%)$980,052 $52,874 $54,518 $56,223 $57,385 $58,511 $59,686 $60,882 $62,135 $63,352 $64,621 $1,138,926 $1,729,113
Capital - CCIP (0.25%)$980,052 $52,874 $54,518 $56,223 $57,385 $58,511 $59,686 $60,882 $62,135 $63,352 $64,621 $1,138,926 $1,729,113
KFCG (0.85%)$3,332,176 $179,771 $185,360 $191,158 $195,110 $198,936 $202,933 $207,000 $211,259 $215,396 $219,710 $3,872,349 $5,878,983
Total Other City Sales Tax $6,272,331 $338,393 $348,913 $359,827 $367,267 $374,468 $381,991 $389,648 $397,663 $405,451 $413,572 $7,289,127 $11,066,321
Hotel Site
City of Fort Collins Lodging Tax (3%)$2,226,648 $110,192 $119,207 $128,540 $131,470 $133,733 $136,407 $139,135 $142,307 $144,756 $147,652 $2,606,371 $3,939,769
TOTAL CITY SALES TAXES $21,751,885 $1,125,239 $1,207,673 $1,248,245 $1,274,153 $1,298,922 $1,324,983 $1,351,523 $1,379,478 $1,406,273 $1,434,428 $25,289,759 $38,340,675
All Other Sales Taxes Generated
Annual Growth Rate 2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%
@4.5%Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Years 11-25
Present Value 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031-2045 TOTAL
All Parcels
State of CO (2.9%)$10,408,544 $560,485 $578,496 $597,200 $609,583 $621,513 $634,006 $646,716 $660,054 $672,955 $686,436 $12,097,382 $18,364,826
Larimer County (0.80% total)$9,977,701 $154,616 $159,585 $164,745 $168,161 $171,452 $174,898 $178,404 $182,084 $185,643 $189,362 $3,337,209 $5,066,159
Base Tax (0.55%)$1,974,034 $106,299 $109,715 $113,262 $115,611 $117,873 $120,242 $122,653 $125,183 $127,629 $130,186 $2,294,331 $3,482,984
Mental Health Tax (0.25%)$897,288 $48,318 $49,870 $51,483 $52,550 $53,579 $54,656 $55,751 $56,901 $58,013 $59,176 $1,042,878 $1,583,175
Assumptions
75% of new King Soopers Marketplace sales are grocery ($34.8M), subject to 2.25% sales tax, 25% of sales are prepared foods and non-food items ($11.6M), subject to 3.85% sales tax.
All of existing King Soopers sales ($24M) are food subject to 2.25% sales tax.
The City dedicated sales tax rates are not charged on grocieries.
Hotel sales tax back to the developer is 50% of the 2.25% base rate on sales.
Assume conservative 2% annual growth rate for all sales.
Analysis starts at first full year of operations.
Assumes KFCG renewal will not be subject to grocery sales tax.
Assumes capital tax renewal in some form at 0.25% after the sunset of CCIP in 2025.
Assumptions for hotel occupancy and sales come from our consultant.
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Teresa Roche, Jamie Heckman
Date: March 18, 2019
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: Compensation Overview
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to present an overview of the City’s compensation philosophy and
practices, and a summary of 2019 pay increases.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
No specific direction is sought. This item is informational only.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Total compensation (salary + benefits) comprises approximately 25% of the City’s operating
budget. Council approved a 3% budget pool for pay increases for the 2019-2020 budget.
With Council approval of Offer 6.10 in the 2016 Budget Revisions and Offer 42.6 in the 2017-
2018 Budget, the City launched a multi-year project to improve foundational classification and
compensation systems to ensure the City is well positioned to attract, retain, engage, develop and
reward a diverse and competitive workforce to meet the needs of the community now and in the
future.
The information presented in this item includes compensation philosophy, an overview of the job
architecture framework, market pricing and analysis methodology, establishment of the Pay Plan,
and 2019 compensation increases.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Compensation Overview PowerPoint
1
2019 Compensation Overview
Teresa Roche, Jamie Heckman
March 18, 2019
Agenda
2
•Strategic Objective 7.4: Total Rewards
•Compensation Philosophy
•Job Architecture Overview
•Market Pricing & Pay Plan
•Compensation Increases
•2019 Minimum Wage
•2019 Pay Increases
•2018 Off-cycle Increases
Strategic Objective 7.4
3
Attract, retain, engage, develop
and reward a diverse and
competitive workforce to meet the
needs of the community now and
in the future
Compensation Philosophy
4
The City’s compensation philosophy is to
provide pay that is externally competitive in both
the public and private sectors, and delivered
within a sustainable financial model.
Job Architecture
5
Develop a job framework that more closely aligns to
the external market
Create consistency and simplify the job evaluation
process
Create visibility into career paths to enable
horizontal / vertical development
A framework of
career levels that
increase in
complexity and
responsibility,
representing career
path opportunities.
6
CAREER GROUPING:OPERATIONS & SKILLED TRADE
LEVELS
JOB
FUNCTION JOB FAMILY JOB SUB-FAMILY OT1 OT2 OT3 OT4 OT5 OT6
Operations Transportation •Transportation
Operations
•Transit
Operations Facilities & Fleet •Facilities
•Fleet
•Real Estate Worker I Worker II Technician I Technician II Senior
Technician
Lead
Technician
Operations Plant Operations •Plant Operations
•Maintenance
Operations Water Utilities •Field Operations
Operations Electric Utilities •High Voltage
•Low Voltage
•Field Operations
Job Architecture Example
7
Pay Structures
# of Jobs # of Employees
Open Pay Ranges 395 1069
Step Plan 22 139
Collective Bargaining Unit 9 247
Total 426 1455
Distinct Pay Structures With Varying Characteristics And Market Pricing Approaches
Market Pricing Strategy
Market Pricing is a term used for determining the value of a job based
on the current compensation rate for a comparable job in the labor
market.
•Market pricing strategy based on where we recruit talent
•Incorporates both private sector and public entity salary data
•Aligns to Job Architecture
8
Market Data Representation
Willis Towers Watson (WTW)
•4,028 organizations
•1,076,755 incumbents
9
Employers Council (formerly MSEC)
•491 organizations
•43,954 incumbents
Increased job matches from 35% to 73%
Salary Data Sources
Pay Plan Overview
Job functions are grouped together based on a recruiting analysis, alignment to salary
surveys, and skill sets required within the Function, Family and Sub-family:
1.Sustainability, Planning, Culture, Parks & Recreation, Development & Compliance
2.Operations
3.Sciences & Engineering, Technology
4.Human Resources, Finance & Accounting, Customer Service, Administration, Marketing &
Creative Services, Legal (non-attorney)
5.Protective Services
6.Legal Services
7.Executive
10
Pay Ranges Are Established By Career Group And Level For Each Job Function
Pay Ranges
Utilize market matches to aggregate data and determine ranges with considerations for
compression and range spread.
•Mid-point: Aggregate market data (median) for a position or group of positions
•Pay Range: Aggregate market data (median) for a position to determine the average and
create a range by +/-20 to 25%
•Average Median: Removes the high and low data outliers
11
Pay Ranges Are Established By Career Group And Level For Each Job Function
Individual placement within the pay range is based on qualifications, proficiency level,
skills/competencies, performance and internal equity.
12
Compensation Increases
2019 Minimum Wage
Amendment 70
•Colorado $12 Minimum Wage Amendment
•Approved by Colorado voters November 8, 2016
•2019 Minimum Wage = $11.10
•431 hourly employees impacted
•Primarily Cultural Services and Recreation
•All City employees are at or above Colorado Minimum Wage
13
2019 Pay Increases
Budget Allocation
•Determined through Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) Process
•Budget for 2019 = 3% of projected base salaries
•Budget is established based on merit budget surveys and forecasted economic indicators
Annual Pay Increase Process
•Service Areas determine employee awards within established budget pool
•Factors include performance (results, behaviors), position in pay range, internal equity
14
Open Pay Ranges
2019 Pay Increases
Annual Pay Increases
•Pay increases ranged from 0% to >10%
•Average pay increase: 3.06%
15
Open Pay Ranges
2019 Pay Increases
•Pay is set based on employee’s step level within the pay range
•Employee pay may be adjusted annually based on market movement
•Step plan jobs were adjusted between 0% –5%
16
Step Plan
Collective Bargaining Unit
•Pay is set based on employee’s step level within the pay range
•Employee pay is adjusted annually based on terms and conditions of Agreement
•Collective Bargaining unit jobs were adjusted between 3% –6.08%
2018 Off-Cycle Increases
A substantive change in the duties and responsibilities of a job may occur due to
changes in the organizational structure, business need, type of work, or staffing
requirements, resulting in an off-cycle salary increase.
17
Service Areas address financial impacts created by off-cycle personnel increases within their existing
operating budget
18
Questions
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Mike Beckstead
Date: March 18, 2019
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION (a short title)
Year to date Sales and Use Tax revenue and planned actions
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Year to date (YTD) sales tax revenue is slightly behind budget through February and use tax is
above budget for a combined sales and use tax above budget. Sales tax is historically volatile in
the first quarter. If sales tax growth were to remain at the YTD rate, the revenue shortfall would
be about $1.3M with a $750K shortfall to the General Fund.
Staff is monitoring revenue to budget and is working to develop a rubric/trigger for when action
should be taken and a list of potential actions that could be taken depending on the magnitude of
the shortfall.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Is CFC in agreement with the proposed monitoring of actual revenue to budget and the
development actions referenced above.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
ATTACHMENTS
1. Revenue Update Presentation
Revenue Update
March 18, 2019
February S&U Tax YTD Results
2
$ 000's YTD
Budget
YTD
Actual
Over /
(Under)
Impact to
GF
Sales Tax 20,943$ 20,799$ (144)$ (86)$
Use Tax 3,500 4,324 824 494
Total 24,443$ 25,123$ 680$ 408$
Total Sales & Use Revenue Sales Tax YTD Feb:
•0.6% over 2018
•(0.7%) under Budget
Use Tax YTD Feb:
•18.7% over 2018
•23.5% over Budget
Sales Tax Under Budget, Use Tax Over Budget….
Total Sales & Use Tax over Budget
Q1 Sales Tax Volatility
3
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
2015 2016 2017*2018*2019*
Month over Prior Year Month % Change
•Significant historical volatility in Q1
•Historical Sales Tax year end growth
Feb YTD Full Yr
•2015 -9.4%4.9%
•2016 -5.5%4.4%
•2017 -(1.2%)2.4%
•2018 -5.5%3.6%
Q1 Volatility Makes it Difficult to Predict Full Year
2019 Sales & Use Tax Budget
4
Sales Tax:
•2018 Forecasted Revenue -$114.5
•2018 Actual Revenue -116.0
•2019 Budget Growth Rate -3.0%
•2019 Budget Revenue -$117.9
•Growth Needed to Budget -1.7%
Use Tax:
•2018 Forecasted Revenue -$22.0
•2018 Actual Revenue -22.5
•2019 Budget Revenue -$21.0
($ millions)
Strong Year End 2018 Lowers Growth Needed to Achieve 2019 Budget
YTD General Fund Revenue
5
In Process
6
General Fund Revenue -2018
Tracking Example:
Actions in Motion
7
1.Monitor underspend and identify opportunities
•i.e. -Debt service savings vs. budget -$350K
2.Monitor Total Revenue and Total General Fund Revenue
•Use Financial Management Report
3.Develop rubric and trigger points to initiate actions
•By the end of April
4.Develop list of potential actions
•Meeting schedule in place –completed by the end of April
5.Develop recommendation on the use of $2.2M contingency
8
Back-Up
9
Governmental Revenue -2018
Tracking Example: