HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Full - Finance Committee - 04/15/2019 -
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
April 15, 2019
10:00 am - noon
CIC Room - City Hall
Approval of Minutes from the March 18, 2019 Council Finance Committee meeting.
1. Stormwater - NECCO 30 minutes L. Smith
T. Connor
2. Vine/Lemay TCEF Funding 30 minutes C. Crager
3. Parks/Median/Parks Refresh Design /Maintenance Plan Framework
30 minutes M. Calhoon
K. Friesen
Council Finance Committee
Agenda Planning Calendar 2018 - 2019
RVSD 04/05/19 mnb
April 15P
th
P
Stormwater - NECCO 30 min L. Smith
T. Connor
Vine/Lemay TCEF Funding 30 min C. Crager
Parks/Median/Parks Refresh Design / Maintenance Plan Framework 30 min M. Calhoon
K. Friesen
May 20P
th
P
GERP Review 30 min T. Storin
EPIC Program Review (energy efficiency loans) 30 min J. Phelan
S. Carpenter
Development Review Fee Update 30 min T. Leeson
N. Curell
CEF & Utility Fee Update 30 min J. Poznanovic
L. Smith
June 17P
th
P
2018 Rebate Results 20 min J. Poznanovic
Mason Place Affordable Housing Fee Waivers 30 min N. Currell
S. Beck-Ferkiss
2020 Utility Rate Adjustments 30 min L. Smith
July 15P
th
P
2018 Audit Results 20 min T. Storin
2018 Fund Balance Review 15 min T. Storin
Future Council Finance Committee Topics:
• New Potential Fees Discussion - TBD
• Comprehensive 2019 Fee Update Recommendations - Aug
• 2020 Budget Revision – Aug
• 2019 Annual Adjustment Ordinance – Sep
• Utility LTFP & CIP - Nov
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
03/18/19
10 am - noon
CIC Room - City Hall
Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Ross Cunniff, Ken Summers, Gerry Horak
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Kelly DiMartino, Jeff Mihelich, Mike Beckstead, Josh Birks,
Rachel Rogers, Travis Storin, Jennifer Poznanovic, Teresa Roche, Jamie
Heckman, Chris Martinez, Laurie Kadrich, Noelle Currell, Tom Leeson, Theresa
Connor, Lance Smith, John Voss, Shar Gerber, Katie Ricketts, John Duval, Ginny
Sawyer, Carolyn Koontz
Others: Dale Adamy, R1ST.org
Kevin Jones, Chamber of Commerce
______________________________________________________________________________
Meeting called to order at 10:09 am
Approval of Minutes from the February 25P
th
P Council Finance Committee Meeting. Ross Cunniff moved for
approval. Mayor Troxell seconded the motion. Minutes were approved unanimously.
A. 2019 Fee Road Map
Jennifer Poznanovic, Revenue Manager
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.
2
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.
3
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:
DISCUSSION /NEXT STEPS;
We will be back to Council Finance in May for deep dive of Development Review and Capital Expansion
fees – goal is the same – effective 1/1/20. Outreach targeted for May / June - that may slip out a month
or so
ACTION ITEM:
Ken Summers; 45 Development Review fees. Is there a list? Cost recovery / cost drivers? Appraisal
updates for all facilities
Mike Beckstead; we will bring a list back in May and be very specific - which is why the outreach may slip
out a month - today is more about cost methodology and during the next agenda topic - we are going to
share how the methodology used to done and propose a new methodology – gets into exactly what you
are asking regarding development fees.
Mike Beckstead; each fee has some uniqueness in the methodology used to manage each fee -
depends on the fee and the nexus of what the fee is for - this is what drives the inputs to calculating the
fee
Mayor Troxell; I think the development review and building permit fees were looked at as part of fee
stack review.
Mike Beckstead; that is correct - we are doing a deep dive – there is a consultant involved - his report
came in last week – we are getting that type of guidance on how we might improve the usability and
ease of the fees plus the integrity of the fee that we are charging in the first place
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
4
Ross Cunniff; I do support the Fee Roadmap for 2019 with the understanding that we will be diving into
development fees then capital expansion fees at the May Council Finance Meeting. Bigger picture was
mentioned earlier in the deck – when we didn’t have a roadmap like this we went 10-15 years without
an update so when the review finally took place there was an incredibly steep rate of change which was
painful for everyone. Trying to avoid that with this more deliberate review schedule.
Ken Summers; Fee Roadmap for 2019 is fine but I also look forward to the on-going discussions on how
we structure fees, etc.
Mayor Troxell; wet utility fees - wet is kind of a jargon - electric capacity fees is descriptive but utility is
not necessarily conveying a lot of information - I’m guessing that includes our water, wastewater and
stormwater together. What are they actually providing for?
Mike Beckstead; they are the plant investment fees a developer would pay for the needed infrastructure-
in those three utilities. The methodology for how those fees are calculated are consistent across all three
so that is where we came up with the name but I understand and agree that we need a better name to
describe what those fees are about.
Mayor Troxell; Is it water capacity?
Lance Smith; water fees - water supply requirement which is the actual raw water and then separate from
that is the plant investment fee which covers the cost of buying into the system
Wet Utility includes a water plant investment from treatment plant to tap
Wastewater plan investment fee covers treatment from your drain to the river
Stormwater covers the infrastructure needed to gather the water to get it to where it needs to go.
Mayor Troxell; electric capacity suggests a lot of things to me - that you are actually providing capacity.
I think we are providing a broad notion of capacity for the water to and from and water from above.
Mike Beckstead; Maybe a Utility Water PIF might work better - we will work on labels and will come back
with definition and clarity on what the fee is actually about. We will list them all out.
Ross Cunniff; one important difference - it might be useful to split these out when we talk about them at
the same time - Stormwater fees apply to the whole city of Fort Collins and others don’t.
B. Development Review Fee Update
Tom Leeson, Community Development & Neighborhood Services, Director
Noelle Currell, Financial Planning and Analysis, Manager
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.
5
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.
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
6
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
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
7
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 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.
8
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):
9
• 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 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-
10
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:
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
11
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
DISCUSSION /NEXT STEPS;
Tom Leeson; Water heater flat fee example - easier to calculate and understand – there was an evaluation done
on how long it takes to complete each type of permit / inspection and the flat fee rate is based on that.
Mayor Troxell; Is there a different type flat fee for each permit type? Is that a long list of things?
Tom Leeson; the list is included as an attachment to the AIS which includes 15-20 different types.
Mayor Troxell; Is there a process flow? Was it looked at via Lean principle perspective? No missed hand off
steps, etc.
Tom Leeson; that is part of the calibration we need to look at - The question is could we be more efficient in our
processes and are we spending too much time because our processes are inefficient? This is more related to the
amount of time an individual employee spends reviewing an application type less pass off time. We are not
recovering 100% as we don’t collect fees associated with time spent by CAO, and indirect cost drivers such as HR
and admin, etc.
Noelle Currell; interesting that a new furnace inspection is valuation based but the time spent by a building
inspector is the same no matter type of furnace. For Broadband every place in city will be touched (potholing or
boring) we made sure we captured and included those updates. We had to hire some additional engineering
inspector staff to handle the additional volume for Broadband - we did hire an additional inspector and we have
tentative plans to hire a second inspector to handle the volume. Engineering fees need to be set so we recover
costs of inspectors.
Mike Beckstead; I look at that chart and see a 15% increase in residential fees and a 50% increase in commercial
fees is - the magnitude of the change is a bit concerning. This is very similar to what we did when we did the
deep dive on capital expansion fees about 3 years ago - we looked at inputs and methodology - we are ending
up with the same kind of results this time 0 if we want to hit 100% cost recovery there will be some fairly
significant increase.
Darin Atteberry; this is not nor is it intended to be a profit center for the City of Fort Collins.
Mayor Troxell; Are any of the peer cities – 4 utility cities?
Darin Atteberry; Front Range and national peer cities – most are full service cities - some with university
presence - they have been scrubbed but they are not perfect - Front Range data set - we have our standard set
of peers that Council has generally accepted - when it comes to fees the local front range peer data is always
relevant.
Ross Cunniff; our cost of living should be factored into that because that will affect the salaries and cost of staff
time.
Ken Summers; what is the value of looking at Fort Collins versus peer cities across the nation?
Doesn’t mean anything to me relative to whether our fees are in alignment or not - more concerned and interest
in the cities around us.
13
Darin Atteberry; Council has been interested in what is happening with our national peer cities - size wise - we
were asked to include national peer cities as well - over the years we have tried to include both because it has
been an ask of Council - never been a mandate or a driver – only for information
Ross Cunniff; educational - if it shows - we are moving from the median to somewhere different so is that really
the right direction?
Noelle Currell; lots of work from staff - Shar was very involved in requesting copies of actual building permits.
Mayor Troxell; Colorado Springs got away from stormwater and called it a rain tax -they got into issues federally
etc – regarding how they handled their stormwater. I think they reinstituted it - sometimes there are large
political factors that can skew things.
Ross Cunniff; big picture driver of all of this is fairness and predictability is part of being fair.
We have a set of services that need to be performed because of life safety, compliance with building code,
in that framework who is paying for the cost of having inspectors - it doesn’t tell me if we are more or less fair.
Ken Summers; Do we have any permits that are issued that do not require a follow up inspection?
Tom Leeson; the bulk majority of our building permits do require an inspection - we have planning fees that
eventually turn into building permits.
Ken Summers; we were erecting a pretty substantial sign at a church in Lakewood which required a
foundational base so we called the city to let them know that we were ready for them to come inspect – they
said we don’t do that – if your sign falls over that is on you - we paid for a permit just to provide income to the
city - we were following the specs from the sign company in preparation - I was shocked by the response.
Tom Leeson; We may have permits that don’t require an inspection but we still have staff time involved to
process applications – in almost every case zoning reviews the request so there would still be staff time involved
in any permit we process. If no inspection is required, it was not factored into the fee.
Mayor Troxell; Is there a purpose (purposeful purpose) for each of the fees and permits? (Improve safety,
community or other intended purpose). Purposes should be clear.
Mike Beckstead; when we come back in May we will bring fee level and clear purpose information. This is not a
revenue generator - it is cost recovery.
Noelle Currell; Historical Revenues / Expenses - several things have happened after 2011 – in 2018 we flipped
and did not generate as much revenue as expense. Tom could speak to the number of conceptuals coming in.
The 2014 spike was the Mall and the 2016 spike was Woodward. Larger projects take a lot of staff time such as
Montava currently. We have been able to upgrade our permitting system and process - new more user friendly
system for customers and staff and has added some great features.
Mike Beckstead; when we talk about percentage of cost recovery - part of the direction we are looking for is - Is
that by year or by building cycle / economic cycle - If we always had to match expenses to revenues – staff issue
14
based on revenues that come in - support staff we need to do these things - revenue might be a bit higher due
to cycle. Much harder to estimate over the cycle.
Gerry Horak; this slide indicates a surplus - anyone would ask ‘why are you going to charge more?’
ACTION ITEM:
Ross Cunniff; two big spikes were specific projects - it would be interesting to try to filter them out -
The concept of one cycle helping to subsidize the next cycle doesn’t sound fair to me.
Someone who adds something to their house or builds a new business they are not ongoing customers in the
way utility customers are. Utility customers - taking some of these rates and fees to build future capacity - there
are future benefits. For a person who pays a one-time fee - they paid 50% more for cost recovery they will not
get more value in the future as opposed to utility example. Fairness - we should try to figure out a way to filter
out the Mall and Woodward - that would make some sense in trying to present this chart -the blue line and red
line should be closer to each other - they would fluctuate due to economic cycle.
Gerry Horak; 2014 Mall - the charges we gave to the mall were over what the cost of doing it. Do we change
according to scale? How are we looking at scale of projects?
Mike Beckstead; in that particular year that is true - this is where the over the cycle metric is key
Tom Leeson; NGT study - we are trying to understand the true cost per application type. In order to process a
project development plan – it will cost the city this amount because it will take this amount of staff hours - might
have more or less revenue because of the number of applications you get but per application type you would
have parity.
ACTION ITEM:
Ross Cunniff; I would like to see this chart - some of this might be related to valuations going up faster than
costs.
Gerry Horak; moving ahead if you collected over $5M more than it doesn’t sound like a valid argument
Mike Beckstead; I agree with the optics - The charge would imply a surplus – that surplus was just part of the
General Fund that was used for normal General Fund activity – this is not isolated revenue - we don’t have a
fund just for development -
Ross Cunniff; we didn’t intentionally use this as a revenue generator
Mayor Troxell; as you begin to change your methodology more based on real costs – this is part of leading and
lagging – when you are capturing revenue vs. when the time expended - there is some delta that way.
Some staff availability time during slow times - the practice has been to contract and let go of contracts based
on needs - providing flexibility within the expense side. Trying to dial it in closer so you are more in line with
operational staff needed - what is needed to cover those costs.
Tom Leeson; we will be coming back to Council Finance in July with more detail. We will be going through a full
Fort Collins outreach process - will go through a very robust outreach process (boards, external stakeholders)
Lined up for Council adoption toward the end of the year.
15
ACTION ITEM:
Gerry Horak; we need to get a stakeholder’s committee together – the Council and community will end up
focusing on dollars versus what the question really is; Is the methodology fair? What is the proper recovery? I
would recommend that we direct the City Manager to form a stakeholder committee before we get too far
down the road.
Ross Cunniff; what are development review fees for? Are they fair / what is the recovery rate?
Mayor Troxell; build that team into the outreach framework
ACTION ITEM:
Ross Cunniff; I would support that on consent - this is more than going to groups to explain it
I have also been hearing that roofing projects over the last few years - their roof never got inspected – I would
like some statistical valid survey of homeowner roofing projects asking are your satisfied with your level of
service? The development industry is part of the stakeholders for this – actual consumers are living on the
properties.
Tom Leeson; we did get behind on the roof inspections because of the numbers of inspections required but we
have caught up and are current but we can get this information.
Mike Beckstead; I am hearing you are positive with the methodology but let’s vet it with team
Ross Cunniff; what are they for? We have city attorney time and overhead time. Those are so indirect for the
development fee that it is probably not fair to roll those in - those are completely in control of Council how we
staff and budget those.
Ken Summers; 100% cost recovery – we need to understand what that means - allocating funds like a cost center
accounting sort of thing with departments that are funded already with General Fund monies,
Gerry Horak; do folks report their time for that? Are we going to do that in the future?
Tom Leeson; various departments have looked at that but we are not moving in that direction.
Mike Beckstead; a project breakdown system doesn’t exist today and we don’t currently have a system in place
Ross Cunniff; wondering with our new electronic review process - some of that could be automated - you are
taking a lot less time or more -
Gerry Horak; for the 21/ 22 budget - it would be nice to know the real numbers and be able to provide real data
to Council. Record how much time people actually spend on projects - example of working on Montava.
Ross Cunniff; one of the things you should discuss with the stakeholder group is your plans for assessing
efficiency - feed that into the equation and the discussion.
16
C. URA Project
Josh Birks, Director, Economic Sustainability
Rachel Rogers, Sr. Specialist Economic Sustainability
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:
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.
17
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;
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
18
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.
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.
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
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
19
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.
DISCUSSION /NEXT STEPS;
Josh Birks; key Dates; Per the email you each received, the April 16P
th
P Council Adoption has been delayed to some
date in the future due to ongoing negotiations. I would like to move forward with the IGAs in the cooperation
agreement in good faith - try to get those agreements done.
College and Drake Project
Increment Limitations
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
20
Policy Implications - city policy is the missing piece for the future
Ross Cunniff; it looks like the sales tax increment is based in part on our revenues. Are they going to be there
during this whole time frame?
Josh Birks; they are not based on Spradley Barr’s current operation as auto dealer - we have been calling it the
Spradley Barr parcel - but we will start referring to it as the project name which is Portico. Those are the
revenues going toward the Portico project. The hotel generates both sales and lodging tax.
Josh Birks; two things that have guided staff in making this proposal;
1) it is clear that the dedicated tax revenue should be left aside
2) we wanted to be mindful of not pledging sales tax that could be shifting from other parts of the community
We took the existing King Soopers out - we used average of all stores to give us a more accurate picture of a
traditional King Soopers in a highly functional location. Because King Soopers is not just a grocery store - we are
including some of that potential new sales from soft goods / general merch - not food
Ross Cunniff; are you taxing food sales to fund capital projects? Answer is no. I wouldn’t ask other entities to
dedicate thing – I don’t want to dedicate on our own. I think we should have a city policy and that would help
normalize this type of discussion. As you negotiate with the URA over our own increment contribution – you are
going off of existing URA policy - it would be useful to have an explicit policy statement.
ACTION ITEM:
Gerry Horak; whatever ends of being done for the 2.25 - it should be codified to a specific date when each tax
was passed – there are three of them. That way it is specific on when each tax changed becuase it could go
21
down also - makes it clear which taxes we are talking about – according to when tax was passed in 19xx and
20xx - says what it is - future council changes things -
Josh Birks; clarifying – we will be more clear on the actual tax
Gerry Horak; I am all for the policy and I don’t think this is very complicated.
Mayor Troxell; does this have anything to do with how we backfill?
Josh Birks; The school district has asked if there would be anyone in negotiations that would be willing to
guarantee their backfill revenues if that should change at some point in the future - I told them I would ask the
question in an open context.
Mike Beckstead; I don’t anticipate any backfill obligations on the city’s part for the city’s TIF that goes into this.
Ross Cunniff; I don’t think we should be guaranteeing another entity’s backfill.
Gerry Horak; I think the URA may be headed to mediation.
Josh Birks; any concerns with continuing to move forward with the cooperation agreement in parallel with the
policy conversation despite the fact that actual plan adoption may be postponed for several months?
Ross Cunniff; whoever we can get agreements with would be good.
D. Compensation Report Review
Jamie Heckman, Sr. Manager, Compensation
Teresa Roche, Chief Human Resources Officer
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.
22
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.
DISCUSSION /NEXT STEPS;
Darin Atteberry; Thank you to Jamie and Teresa and the team that worked on this - our compensation
philosophy and practices continue to improve. SA Directors now manage to their budget and they have
guardrails to be accountable to. This is an important practice and a huge part of our budget. I am confident in
how it is being implemented and how the SA Directors has responded to these changes in the last few years.
Ross Cunniff; very helpful dialog - Do we track off cycle increases from year to year?
Jamie Heckman; we have started to track this historically - we had 30-35 off cycle increases in 2017 and 35 in
2018. We expect this number to remain fairly constant. There is a strong business case for each instance.
Mayor Troxell; this is really good work - consistent framework throughout
E. Revenue Update
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
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?
DISCUSSION /NEXT STEPS;
Ross Cunniff; Do we have an understanding of what fraction of the use tax is construction vs other?
Mike Beckstead; that information is part of the Sales Tax report – it shows business, construction, auto sales.
Mike Beckstead; February is historically a volatile month in fact the whole 1Q is so it hard to react just to
February.
1.7% conservative growth rate is we need to hit our budget numbers
We have a Monthly Financial Management Report – a slide with an example of data from the report.
23
Actions In Motion:
Committee to meet - three meetings are scheduled;
Monitor underspend - identify opportunities - develop a rubric of trigger points
Will watch closely. By mid-April we should have a good read on the entire first quarter revenue across
the city and will be in a much better position to discuss trigger points and actions.
ACTION ITEM:
Ross Cunniff; what is the right size for that contingency over time? sustain level - analysis reserve / flexible -
could be used in event that it is needed. Might be a good idea to include that in future budget cycles.
Mike Beckstead; we never had a contingency in place until the 17/18 budget cycle and we used a big piece of it.
It might be a good idea to have a revenue contingency fund included and to evaluate what is the right amount to
address possible fluctuations.
ACTION ITEM:
Ken Summer: It would be helpful to have a brief summary update economic report - only a few pages
• What is happening in our community / health of local economy - URA
• Total output as a community comparison YOY
• Revenue update - revenue / expense
• Key Developments - 1Q - businesses that close and open / locations / industries
• Building Permits YOY and quarterly comparison
• Innovations / new energy economy / e commerce updates
Mike Beckstead; Josh Birks and I can partner on the requested report. We should have the information for 1Q by
mid-April and we will target the first part of May for a Q1 report.
Darin Atteberry: Josh, Mike and I have discussed this report before - quick snapshot - a lot of the information
exists in the City Manager’s Report
Meeting adjourned at noon
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Theresa Connor, Deputy Director, Utilities
Lance Smith, Utilities FP&A Director
Date: April 15, 2019
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Stormwater - Northeast College Corridor Outfall Cost Sharing
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Stormwater Utility proactively constructed an outfall to serve both existing developed and
undeveloped land near Vine and Lemay. The Northeast College Corridor Outfall (NECCO)
stormwater system (or NECCO system) was designed to provide an adequate outfall for the area
north of Vine Drive and east of College Avenue in order to alleviate existing drainage problems
and to facilitate development and redevelopment in the area. The NECCO system is intended to
provide a less expensive means of satisfying storm drainage for this area through economies of
scale than individual landowners could provide separately. The purpose of this item is for City
Council to consider adopting the cost share concept whereby development and redevelopment
draining into the NECCO system be allowed to pay their proportional cost share of the NECCO
improvements if they choose to use the NECCO system in lieu of constructing separate stormwater
facilities.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Is the Council Finance Committee supportive of staff bringing forth an Ordinance
formalizing the cost sharing opportunity associated with the NECCO system?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
UProject History
The Northeast College Corridor Outfall (NECCO) Project was initiated in response to large
development potential north of Vine Drive and east of College Avenue. In 2010 the North
College Infrastructure Funding Plan (Resolution 2010-023) was adopted by the City Council. At
that time, there was no adequate stormwater outfall for this area of the City, which created a
significant hinderance to development and redevelopment. There were also drainage problems
in this area from existing development, mainly due to a lack of stormwater regulations when this
area of the City originally developed.
In response to the development interest in the area, design was initiated on a stormwater system
that would help mitigate existing drainage issues in the area, as well as provide an adequate
stormwater outfall. The NECCO design was managed by the City’s Stormwater Engineering
group and was completed in 2009. Appropriations were made through the 2015-16 Budgeting
For Outcomes (BFO) process and further appropriations were made in the 2017-2018 BFO cycle.
Construction of the “backbone” storm sewer system occurred in 2016-2017 and the regional
pond was constructed in 2018. Other portions of the NECCO system have been completed by
development, which were funded partially through the Developer Repay program and partially
through the NECCO buy-in paid by the development. Another section of the system is under
design and will be constructed as part of Planning, Development and Transportation’s Suniga
Road capital project.
UCost Share Concept
At the time of development, a Developer can choose whether to tie into the NECCO system in
order to receive the benefits of the system. If the Developer chooses to connect to NECCO, they
pay a proportionate share of the NECCO system cost, as described below. If a Developer
chooses not to connect to the NECCO system, then they are required to meet typical stormwater
requirements without the benefit of NECCO. Since the NECCO proportionate cost for a
development only covers their share of the NECCO stormwater system which serves as a
gateway to the City’s stormwater infrastructure, all properties still pay the standard Stormwater
plant investment fees (PIFs) in addition to their share of the NECCO cost.
In allocating the costs for the NECCO improvements, the impacted area was analyzed to
determine which portion of the area was developed and which portion of the area was
undeveloped. To define proportionate cost shares, the NECCO system was broken down into
individual project components and the cost of each component was divided among the area
benefitting from that component (e.g. only those areas receiving a benefit from the regional pond
pay for the regional pond). Based on the analyses, it was determined that the City’s share of the
NECCO system would be approximately 49% and the appropriate developer share of the Project
would be approximately 51%.
To date, the City has been constructing improvements and is being re-paid for a pro-rata share of
costs for the “developer share” of the Project as development occurs through development and/or
repay agreements. The City will stop collecting allocated costs once development’s appropriate
share of NECCO improvements has been satisfied. Current costs are based on a combination of
estimated future and actual construction costs. The cost for a developer to buy into the NECCO
system will be updated to reflect actual construction costs as improvements are constructed.
Although the NECCO project has a long history and is partially constructed, the purpose of the
proposed ordinance is to formalize the allocation of costs between the City and benefitted
development, and the allocation of the developer share of improvement costs among benefitted
properties as they develop or redevelop.
UProject Costs
Attachment 1 - NECCO Cost Breakdown Analysis shows the total estimated cost of the NECCO
system to be $13.9M of which development’s share is 51.5% or $7.2M and the City’s share is
48.5% or $6.8M. To date, $7.6M of improvements have been completed and $875K has been
received by development buying into the NECCO system. As development and redevelopment
continues in this area it is expected that the full $7.2M of the developer share of these
improvements will be received into the Stormwater Enterprise.
UPublic Outreach
Significant public outreach has been completed over the course of the NECCO planning and
various capital projects, beginning in 2008 through February of 2019. Outreach has been
focused on property owners in the vicinity of the NECCO infrastructure that can be served by the
improvements, the North College Citizen’s Advisory Group, and the Urban Renewal Authority.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – NECCO Cost Allocation Analysis
Attachment 2 – PowerPoint presentation to Council Finance Committee (April 15, 2019)
Attachment 3 – NECCO Area Map
Attachment 4 – NECCO Pipe Schematic
NECCO Cost Breakdown Analysis
Date:1/23/2011 (Updated 4-9-2018 to reflect actual costs for backbone and regional pond)
Contributing
Total Area Contributing Areas
NECCO Improvement Cost (acres)(map color)
Pipe Network Into Regional Pond $5,720,000 237.5 Pink, Orange, Blue
Regional Detention Pond $1,761,051 187.0 Pink, Orange, Blue
Redwood Pond and Outfall $620,000 118.2 Green
Outfall From Regional Pond to Vine Drive $5,819,885 647.3 All
Total Project Cost = $13,920,936
Pipe Network
Into Regional
Pond
Regional
Detention Pond
Redwood Pond
and Outfall
Outfall From
Regional Pond
to Vine Dr
Map Area Cost Cost Cost Cost Developer City Cost
Color (acres)Share Share Share Share Share Share per acre
PINK GROUP 75.7 1,823,175$ 71,817$ -$ 680,620$ 2,575,612$ 34,024$
BLUE GROUP 68.4 1,040,438$ 879,443$ -$ 614,986$ 2,534,867$ 37,059$
YELLOW GROUP 228.6 -$ -$ -$ 2,055,346$ 2,055,346$ 8,991$
ORANGE GROUP 118.6 2,856,387$ 809,791$ -$ 1,066,335$ 4,732,513$ 39,903$
GREEN GROUP 118.2 -$ -$ 620,000$ 1,062,738$ 1,682,738$ 14,236$
GOLD GROUP 37.8 -$ -$ -$ 339,860$ 339,860$ 8,991$
Totals 5,720,000$ 1,761,051$ 620,000$ 5,819,885$ 7,165,825$ 6,755,111$
51.5%48.5%
Note:Developer share based on undeveloped parcels sharing in cost of the stormwater system
City share based on existing development where City is contributing to solve existing infrastructure and flooding problems
Cost Allocations
Council Finance Committee (4/15/2019)
Northeast College Corridor Outfall (NECCO)
Lance Smith and Theresa Connor
General Direction Being Sought
2
1.Is the Council Finance Committee supportive of staff bringing
forth an Ordinance to the full City Council formalizing the cost
sharing opportunity associated with the NECCO system?
Dry Creek Channel
NECCO Project Purpose
3
•Basic purpose is to provide a stormwater outfall for the area north of
Vine Drive and east of College Avenue to solve flooding problems and
allow for efficient development in the area:
•Regional detention and water quality provided for area upstream
of Redwood Street
•Major outfalls provided for developed areas as well as backbone
storm sewer sized to accommodate flows from undeveloped
areas
•Minimize cost of development through economies of scale
•Provides guidance for development criteria in the area Dry Creek Channel
NECCO System Schematic
4
•Design and layout of
backbone storm sewer as
well as major laterals to
serve existing developed
areas
•Preliminary cost estimate
for all system components
NECCO System Schematic
5
•Backbone storm sewer and
regional detention pond
constructed as part of
Stormwater capital project
•Major laterals into detention
pond from College and
Conifer were constructed
as part of development
(Aspen Heights, Crowne At
Old Town North) and PDT
capital project
NECCO Area Designations
6
•Defines areas that are
served by the specific
components of the NECCO
infrastructure
•Defines development
criteria for specific parcels
based on what the
downstream system
provides
•Informs cost allocation for
any given parcel
NECCO Milestones
Milestones:
•Backbone storm sewer and detention pond construction completed
by Stormwater Capital Projects.
•Major lateral to Conifer completed as part of Aspen Heights
Development.
•Major Laterals to College partially completed as part of Aspen
Heights and Crowne at Old Town North Developments. Remainder
will be completed as part of Suniga Road project.
•Cost Spreadsheet updated to reflect actual construction costs.
7
Infrastructure Cost and Allocations
8
Infrastructure Cost and Allocations
9
•Cost share based on proportional costs for areas draining to each section of NECCO system.
•Development / redevelopment pay proportionate share of costs when utilizing the NECCO system.
•City will stop allocating costs once Development Share of system has been collected.
General Direction Being Sought
10
1.Is the Council Finance Committee supportive of staff bringing
forth an Ordinance to the full City Council formalizing the cost
sharing opportunity associated with the NECCO system?
Dry Creek Channel
Questions
11
Lance Smith,
Utilities Strategic Finance Director
Theresa Connor, P.E.
Deputy Director, Water Engineering and
Field Services
Shane Boyle, P.E.
Development Review Manager
Ken Sampley, P.E.
Director, Stormwater Engineering and
Development Review
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
2
E VINE DR
CONIFER ST
N LEMAY AVE
REDWOOD ST
N COLLEGE AVE
LUPINE DR
JEROME ST
BLUE SPRUCE DR FOXTAIL ST
L
I
N
D
E
N
W
O
O
D
D
R
E WILLOX LN
SITKA ST
E SUNIGA RD
CAJETAN ST
OSIANDER ST
9TH ST
CLARK ST
PASCAL ST
E
M
M
AUS LN
RED CEDAR CIR
BAYBERRY CIR
10
T
H
S
T
BRISTLECONE DR
SUGARPINE ST
COULTER ST
MULLEIN DR
G R O U S E C I R
LINDEN ST
BLONDEL ST
11TH ST
NOKOMIS CT
N MASON ST
HICKORY ST
PINON ST
HEMLOCK ST
A S C O T C T
FOREST HILL
S LN
STEAMBOAT LN
QUAIL RUN
BREWER DR
WOODLAWN DR
LOPEZ CT
MONTEREY DR
HIBDON CT
LINDEN CENTER DR
P I C A R U N
TRUJILLO ST
SOL VISTA LN
COPPER MOUNTAIN LN
LA GARITA LN
FIREWEED LN
ALPINE ST
WALLFLOWER LN
YARROW CIRECHO MOUNTAIN LN
SANGRE DE CRISTO LN
RENEGADE CT
MATUKA CT
MUDDLER CT
/ATTACHMENT 1
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Chad Crager, City Engineer
Date: April 15, 2019
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Financing alternatives for the Lemay Avenue realignment project from Lincoln Avenue to
Conifer Street. The project also includes a new intersection of Lemay Avenue and Suniga Road,
the extension of Buckingham Street, and a grade separated crossing of the Burlington Northern
Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to present and discuss potential financing alternatives for this high
priority transportation capital improvement project. Staff has recently completed the plans for
the 50% design, a majority of the right-of-way (ROW) acquisitions, and construction of the
Phase One roadway embankment in collaboration with the Utilities Department. The total
current project (design, right-of-way, and construction) cost is estimated at $23.5M.
Current project funding includes: The Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process, the City’s
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) Reserves, and Developer contributions for Local
Street obligations. To date, $3.7 M has been appropriated to Phase One of the project and all
funds have been expended. Phase Two would be a $9.1 M appropriation from TCEF reserves.
The Phase Three funding needed for the project is $10.5 M (in 2019 dollars).
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Staff is seeking direction regarding an appropriation of the TCEF reserves. Completion of Phase
II will allow staff to further refine the proposed construction schedule and stay on track for a
project opening date in the next budget cycle.
Questions for the Council Finance Committee:
• Does the Council Finance Committee support a Summer 2019 appropriation of the TCEF
reserves in the amount of $9.1M for Phase Two funding?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Realigned Lemay Avenue has been on the City’s Master Street Plan since the 1980’s. This
project, along with the grade separation at the BNSF Railway, have been included in numerous
Planning efforts over the past few decades.
Train switching operations continue to increase in the Vine and Lemay area. The total time that
the intersection is blocked to the travelling public has increased 50% from June 2016 to February
2019 (22 hours of blockage per month v. 33 hours of blockage per month).
The construction of this project will alleviate existing deficiencies and provide a “key”
infrastructure asset for northeast Fort Collins. More specifically, this project will:
• Improve quality of life, access, and neighborhood livability for Andersonville,
Buckingham, and Alta Vista
• Reduce accidents and congestion, and improve emergency services coverage by
separating travel modes from BNSF Railway switching operations
• Improve air quality by reducing the emissions from idling vehicles, whereby aligning
with the goals of the Climate Action Plan
• Provide multi-modal connectivity to the new Beet Street Park at the southwest corner of
Vine and Lemay
• Reduce traffic volumes on Ninth Street (Lindenmeier Road)
Over the past few years, staff has given many formal presentations and provided project
information at City sponsored events; designed to encourage public participation and collect
feedback. Staff is actively addressing community questions and working with nearby residents,
business owners, landowners, and proposed development projects.
USummary of Public Engagement to Date:
• February 2016 - Public Open House (Streets Facility) 122 people signed in for the event
• February 2016 - Presentation to the Transportation Board
• May 2016 - Presentation to the Futures Committee
• May 2016 - Presentation to the Council Finance Committee
• August 2016 - Lincoln Neighborhood Ice Cream Social
• August 2016 – Council Work Session
• November 2016 - Presentation to Alta Vista residents
• September 2017 – Open House event for Alta Vista, Andersonville, and Buckingham
residents at the Legacy Church (Ninth Street and San Cristo Street)
• October 2017 – Presentation at Council Work Session
• December 2017 and March 2018 – Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce
• January 2018 and February 2019 – Transportation Board
• February 2018 – Fort Collins Sertoma Club
• March 2018 and February 2019 – North Fort Collins Business Association
• Project website is available at: 31TUhttp://www.fcgov.com/engineering/vine-lemay.phpU31T
Staff will continue public outreach and engagement efforts with stakeholders in 2019.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment #1 - Power Point Presentation
1
Vine and Lemay –Council Finance Committee
Chad Crager-Engineering
April 15, 2019
Questions
2
•Does the Council Finance Committee support a Summer 2019
appropriation of the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee
(TCEF) Reserves in the amount of $9.1M for Phase Two
funding?
Problems to be Solved
3
•Increasing Congestion and Delay
(Train Switching, Vehicle Traffic,
Emergency Services)
•Historic Neighborhood Livability:
Pedestrian Safety, Air Quality, and
Connectivity Issues
•Reduce Traffic Along Ninth Street
•Improve multi-modal connections
and access to Beet Street Park
Project Status
4
•Roadway embankment on north
side (~80% complete)
•Roadway embankment on south
side (~10% complete)
•Dry Creek box culvert complete
•Plan set at 50% design
•Right of Way (ROW) acquisition
complete north of Vine Drive
Phasing Outcomes
Phase One –Funding of $3.7M (current phase -complete)
•Started embankments, Dry Creek box culvert, ROW acquisition, 50%
design plans, stakeholder outreach
Phase Two –Funding of $9.1M (with TCEF funds)
•Finalize design, complete ROW acquisition, finish embankment, rock
walls and bridge abutments, restore side slopes, Public Utility
Commission application, Railroad crossing agreements
Phase Three –$10.5M Remaining funding (2019 dollars)
•Bridge, intersection work (Lincoln, Buckingham, Suniga, Conifer),
Final paving and concrete work, completion of landscaping
5
Project Funding
6
TABLE A –Project Funding
Total Project Cost $23.3M*
Phase One -Previous Appropriations(All Funding has been Expended)$3.7M
Phase Two -Proposed Appropriation from TCEF Reserves $9.1M
Phase Three Additional Funding
Needed
$10.5M*
* Denotes 2019 Dollars (Will Inflate yearly with
Material Cost Escalation starting in late 2019);
Increase in funding need due solely to inflation
(Inflation of 5.25% from Fall 2016 –Fall 2018)
Why appropriate TCEF money now?
7
1.Completes project one year sooner at lower cost
2.Stakeholders/public continue to see progress
3.Allows for continued coordination with on-going work in the area (A4
Lateral Stormwater Project, Adjacent Landowner’s, Private
Developments, etc.)
4.Having full TCEF amount allows efficient delivery vs. multiple small
appropriations
5.Allows for restoration and planting of side slopes on embankments
6.Predicted lack of dirt resources
Phase Three Timing and Funding
8
Timing of phase 3 TBD (possibly 2021-2023)
Funding $10.5M (2019 dollars) expected to increase with inflation
Options under consideration:
•External financing
•Reserves
Questions
9
•Does the Council Finance Committee support a Summer 2019
appropriation of the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee
(TCEF) reserves in the amount of $9.1M for Phase Two
funding?
Thank You for Your Time!
10
Back Up Slides
11
Upward Trend in Train Blockages
12
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Chad Crager, City Engineer
Mike Calhoon, Director of Parks
Date: Monday April 15, 2019
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Streetscapes Standard Review
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
It has been over five years since the Streetscapes Standards were updated in 2013. Several
projects have been designed and built to these updated standards. While the streetscapes in these
projects have been appreciated aesthetically, they do cost more to construct and maintain. These
additional costs for capital construction and maintenance do not seem to be sustainable with
current funding. Over the last 5 years, it has come to the attention of staff This effort will focus
on ways to reduce costs without sacrificing the quality of the streetscapes. This presentation is
provided to set the stage for a more robust review in the 4P
th
P quarter of this year.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does the Committee have any additional questions regarding the need to revisit the Streetscapes
Standards?
Does the Committee have additional category recommendations the team should consider during
its evaluation of the Streetscapes Standards?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Streetscape Standard was last updated in 2013 to enhance the visual appearance of the
intersections, medians and parkways on the arterial streets throughout town. When roads and/or
intersections are improved by Engineering these new standards are utilized to guide the design.
In addition, when monies are available through the Budgeting for Outcomes process, the
streetscape renovation projects managed by the Parks Department are also upgraded to these
standards.
While these streetscape standards have been appreciated aesthetically, they have increased
landscaping capital costs by as much as 300% and maintenance costs by as much as 500%. As a
result of these increase costs staff is focusing on cost drivers and ways to reduce costs while still
providing aesthetically pleasing streetscapes. The results of this staff review are anticipated to be
complete by the 4P
th
P quarter of this year.
ATTACHMENTS
Power Point
Background
1
•New Standards Adopted in 2012, Implemented in 2013
•Establish higher standards along City’s arterial streets and
intersections
•Establish Gateways
•Anticipated continuous monitoring and adjusting
•Gathered data for five years
•Refinement is needed
•How to refine without sacrificing expectations?
Current Standards
•Median Landscaping is the focus
•Perennials, shrubs, trees,
boulders
•Higher quality maintenance
expectations
•Cost is 5x greater than
previous standards
•Greater initial capital cost
•Landscaping ~2-3x greater
than previous standards
2
North College Avenue Median
3
Median Example
East Harmony Road -Pre 2013 Standards East Harmony Road -2013 Standards
Median Example
4
West Horsetooth Road -Pre 2013 Standards West Horsetooth Road -2013 Standards
Data Driven Refinement of Standards
5
Cost Drivers to be Reviewed
•Design Costs
•Installation Costs
•Maintenance Costs
•Specialized Staff
•Traffic Control & Safety
•Specialized Equipment
•Frequency
•Sustainability
•Types of Plants
•Irrigation
•Economic Impacts
North College Avenue
Implementation Schedule
•Approval of Revisions –End of 2019
•Design updates start in 2020
•Capital Projects Implementation
•‘21/’22 BFO
•Maintenance Savings Realized
•‘23/’24 BFO
6
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Kurt Friesen, Director of Park Planning and Development
Mike Calhoon, Director of Parks
Date: Monday April 15, 2019
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Park Design and Maintenance Review
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The design and level of service expectations for parks is evolving. The community expects a
higher level of service for typical features (i.e. playgrounds, ballfields, water features) along with
new design features that help to tell the story of the site. These expectations come with additional
financial impacts associated with construction and maintenance of these sites. The intent of this
review is to assure high quality designs for parks while minimizing the long-term maintenance
costs of these sites.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does the Committee have any additional questions regarding the need to revisit park design and
maintenance?
Does the Committee have additional category recommendations the team should consider during
its evaluation of park design and maintenance?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Maintenance costs have been increasing about 4% per year over the last several years. The days
of minimal maintenance (i.e. mowing, trash collection, weed whipping) and then heading home
no longer exist. The technical aspects of maintaining a variety of sites throughout the
community require a specialty skill set that ranges from turf management to public health and
safety. Design elements have been introduced that have shifted the requirements of the
maintenance operations to assure safe and accessible sites for the community. The best example
of this has been the addition of interactive water features that require water testing 3X per day.
The employees now must be trained and licensed to perform tests, recognize non-compliance of
standards and perform corrective actions so the system can be returned to service.
The additional design features and level of service evolution are not unexpected. The
requirements have changed over the years for park design (i.e. American with Disabilities Act,
Playground Safety Standards). In addition, tying the history of a site through the design requires
creativity and imagination that at times adds additional elements in a park setting that creates
interesting maintenance challenges.
The goal of this review is to identify cost drivers to the ongoing maintenance costs and attempt
to limit these for the long-term financial health of the organization. This should be done without
sacrificing the creative design aspects that separate the City of Fort Collins’ park system from
the region.
ATTACHMENTS
Power Point
Background
•Fort Collins’ park system
includes 50 parks
•Seven Community Parks.
•43 Neighborhood Parks.
•Build Out adds an additional ~15
parks
•Two Community Parks
•~13 Neighborhood Parks
1
Maintenance Cost Tracking
Resource
Allocation
Measurement
System
2
ESTIMATE
CITY FOSSIL TWIN
PARK CREEK AVERAGE SILO
SPORTS FIELDS/STRUCTURES 90,260$ 50,900$ 70,580$ 53,500$
RESTROOMS 30,000 47,000 38,500 35,000
PLAYGROUNDS 11,500 16,000 13,750 40,000
SHELTERS 7,500 7,000 7,250 7,000
WATER FEATURES - 15,000 15,000 -
DOG PARK - 10,000 10,000 10,000
TURF/IRRIGATION 164,000 206,000 185,000 145,000
BOTANICAL 62,000 29,000 45,500 65,000
TRASH/RECYLCING 75,000 46,000 60,500 60,000
EQUIPMENT REPAIR/LEASE 20,000 25,000 22,500 21,000
INFRASTRUCTURE REP/VANDALISM 50,100 68,000 59,050 70,000
EVENTS/SITE MGMT,TRAINING 31,700 43,500 37,600 33,500
SNOW REMOVAL/ICE RINK 22,000 16,500 19,250 20,000
Total 564,060$ 579,900$ 584,480$ 560,000$
COMMUNITY PARK FEATURES
4 YEAR AVERAGE COSTS
Current Standards
•National standards have
changed
•ADA
•Playground safety standards
•Greater initial capital cost
•Create character and local
identity
•Higher quality maintenance
expectations
3
Fossil Creek Wooly Mammoth
4
Lifecycle Example
Lee Martinez Park
Before
After
Lifecycle and New Design
5
Twin Silo
Playground
Lee Martinez
Playground
Data Driven Refinement of Standards
6
Cost Drivers to be Reviewed
•Design Costs
•Installation Costs
•Maintenance Costs
•Specialized Staff
•Specialized Equipment
•Frequency
•Sustainability
•Types of Plants
•Irrigation
•Economic Impacts
Fossil Creek Shelter
Park System Development Strategy
7
Quantitative and
Qualitative Approach
•Even park distribution
•1 community park approximately
every 4 square miles
•1 neighborhood park approximately
every 1 square mile
•Equal access to park amenities
•Quantity of recreation components
based on population
•Impact fee requires new parks to be
comparable to other fee funded
parks
Primary Cost Components of New Parks
1. Land
2. Raw Water
3. Design/Entitlement/Fees
4. Construction
8
Typical Park Elements
9
Neighborhood
Parks
•Multi-purpose Green/Fields
•1 Small/Specialty
Recreation Facility
•1 Restroom
•1 Shelter
•Playground
•Walks
•Raw Water Irrigation Pond
(if feasible)
•5-10+ Acres
Typical Park Elements
10
Community
Parks
•Large Recreation Facilities
•Small/Specialty Recreation
Facilities
•Dog Park
•Destination Playground
•Multi-Purpose Fields
•Passive Green Space
•Restrooms
•Shelters
•Walks/Trails
•Raw Water Irrigation Pond
•Naturalistic Features
•Unique Elements
•Parking/Drives
•80-100+ Acres
Typical Community Park Elements
11
Twin
Silo
Spring
Canyon
Fossil
Creek
Rolland
Moore Edora
Lee
Martinez City
Large Recreation Facilities 3T, 2B 3T, 2B 5T, 2B 4T,2B 6T,2B 4T,2B 3T,2B
Small/Specialty Recreation
Facilities
BMX,
4 PB
3BB, SP, 2 SV,
VB, MBP, BMX
2BB, 1 SP,
Hockey
5BB, 1PB, 4SV,
2H, 3R
35H, Disc Golf,
SP
3BB BB, 2H
Dog Park 1 acre 2 acre 1 acre None None None None
Destination Playground 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.5
Multi-Purpose Fields 10.4 acres 18.3 acres 6.3 acres 16 acres None None 6 acres
Passive Green Space 6.2 acres 8 acres 8.7 acres 1.8 acres 5.5 acres 18 acres 23.3 acres
Restrooms 2 3 3 2 2 2 1
Shelters 1G 5G, 3P 2G, 1P 4G 1G, 3P 1G 7G, 3P
Walks/Trails 2.7 miles 2.5 miles 1.3 miles 1.5 miles 0.5 miles 1.8 miles 1.5 miles
Raw Water Irrigation Pond 3 acres 1.5 acres 11 acres 2 acres 1.5 acres 9.3 acres 14.5 acres
Naturalistic Features Creek Play, Native
Areas
Native Areas Native Areas Creek Edge Creek Edge Native Areas Lake Edge
Unique Elements Harvest Room,
Orchard, Trellis, CG
Spray Park Water Feature CG CG Fitness Stations Pool, Fitness Stations,
Train
Parking / Drives 232 + 729 (school)439 spaces 453 spaces 418 spaces 427 spaces 73 spaces 756 spaces
Legend: T-Tennis B-Ballfield BB-Basketball SP-Skate Park SV-Sand Volleyball PB-Picklelball R-Racquetball MBP –MtnBike Park H-Horseshoe
BMX –Bike Race CG-Community Garden G-Group Shelter P-Picnic Shelter
12
($000’s)Twin Silo Spring Canyon Fossil Creek
Large Recreation Facilities $1,642 $879 $1,524
Small/Specialty Recreation Fac.476 723 602
Dog Park 176 198 45
Destination Playground 1,326 1,095 564
Multi-Purpose Fields 803 1,630 889
Passive Green Space 775 1,839 867
Restrooms 1,150 894 965
Shelters 325 545 412
Walks/Trails 708 1,482 1,262
Raw Water Irrigation Pond 235 414 195
Naturalistic Features 708 728 195
Unique Elements 820 201 444
Parking/Street Improvements 2,150 2,181 1,298
PARK ELEMENTS TOTAL $11M $13M $9M
Community Park Element
Construction Costs
Spring Canyon and
Fossil Creek Park
values are based
on 2016 estimated
replacement costs
Twin Silo Park
values are actual
construction costs
Recent Park Cost Saving Strategies
13
Strategy Cost Savings Implementation
Utilize high quality
raw water sources
Reduce maintenance & irrigation
costs associated with poor water
quality
Raw water shares purchased for NE Community
Park in lieu of utilizing low water quality available
from local wells
Reduce turf areas Reduces irrigation cost over park life.
Native/natural areas require increase
in initial establishment costs.
25%-40% native areas in recent parks such as
Twin Silo & Crescent parks
Utilize customized
pre-manufactured
park structures
Reduces construction costs Pre-fabricated structures in Sugar Beet Park
Reduce or simplify
water features
Reduces ongoing/daily maintenance Twin Silo Park utilizes natural creek in lieu of
traditional water play features
Distributed parking Reduces large lot construction cost
by maximizing existing streets and
drives for on street or shared parking
with adjacent facilities
Twin Silo Park provides distributed parking
around entire park perimeter. Overflow parking at
Fossil Ridge High School
Review Schedule
•Approval of Revisions –End of 2019
•Design updates start in 2020
•Park Projects Implementation
•‘21/’22 BFO
•Maintenance Savings Realized
•‘23/’24 BFO
14