Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Finance Committee - 07/03/2024 - Finance Administration 215 N. Mason nd Floor Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6788 970.221.6782 - fax fcgov.com Council Finance Committee Hybrid Meeting CIC Room / Zoom July 3, 2024 4:00 - 6:00 pm Council Attendees: Mayor Arndt, Emily Francis, Kelly Ohlson Staff: Kelly DiMartino, Tyler Marr, Travis Storin, Jenny Lopez Filkins, Teresa Roche, Ginny Sawyer, Nina Bodenhamer, Lawrence Pollack, Meaghan Overton, Dean Klingner, Victoria Shaw, Drew Brooks, Cortney Geary, Monica Martinez, LeeAnn Williams, Chief Bergsten, Kirsten Howard, Teresa Roche, Nina Bodenhamer, Randy Bailey, Adam Halvorson, Jo Cech, Trevor Nash, Renee Reeves, Kevin Wilkins, Dave Lenz, Joe Wimmer, Carolyn Koontz Meeting called to order at 4:02 pm Approval of minutes from June 6, 2024, Council Finance Committee Meeting. Emily Francis moved for approval of the minutes as presented. Kelly Ohlson seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously via roll call by; Mayor Arndt, Emily Francis, Kelly Ohlson. A. CCIP Project List Update Ginny Sawyer, Lead Policy & Project Manager Joe Wimmer, Senior Financial Analyst SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Community Capital Improvement Tax Renewal EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to begin consideration of a community capital tax program for voter consideration in November 2025. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. What questions does Council Finance Committee have on the initial projects listed? 2. What additional considerations does Council Finance Committee want included in the process? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The City of Fort Collins has a 40+ year history of utilizing voter approved sales tax initiatives to fund major capital projects. While many communities rely on bonding for capital projects, Fort Collins has committed to a “pay as we go” model that has benefited the community through project engagement and utilizing tax collection from both residents and non-residents. Past tax packages have demonstrated that core elements of success include: - Benefiting the community as a whole both geographically and by interest; and - Including projects that can leverage other funding and partnerships. The current Community Capital Improvement Program (CCIP) tax will expire December 31, 2025. A renewal package will be offered to voters in November 2025. Staff has begun the initial work of identifying projects either identified in masterplans or flagged as needed capital. This is not a staff recommended list but a first collection of potential projects. The project list will continue to be refined over the next 12 months through Council interaction and public engagement. Some details of note: • Staff is researching other communities that use a revolving loan fund for affordable housing and looking at the possibility of bonding against CCIP housing fund money to create a similar program. • The Laporte Avenue redesign is not in any masterplan. This project came from a resident a few years ago and staff offered adding it to potential projects for consideration. • Projects will be further vetted to ensure they are more capital implementation than feasibility/planning outcomes. Projects will also be vetted for scalability. • While geographic disbursement of projects is a priority, the bulk of City-owned property and Poudre River reaches with associated plans are located in the downtown area. NEXT STEPS Staff will continue to vet and refine offers as mentioned above. An outreach plan will be developed and this item will come to a full council work session on August 27, 2024. The timeline anticipates Council referring a ballot measure in July/August 2025 for the November 2025 ballot. Proposed Projects: Vision Zero Plan – Arterial Intersection Improvements: $10M This project provides an annual fund for improvements to arterial intersections with safety improvements for all travel modes. This funding has allowed City staff to provide needed design, local match for grants, and construction funding, for previous major arterial intersection improvements. From the 10-year Transportation Capital Improvement Program (TCIP), notable planned projects include: - Shields and Prospect Intersection Improvements - Shields and Horsetooth Intersection Improvements - Drake and Lemay Intersection Improvements - College and Drake Intersection Improvements Active Modes Plan – Bike and Grade Separated Crossings: $20M This project provides an annual fund to construct bicycle infrastructure as recommended in the Active Modes Plan (AMP). This includes linear facility improvements such as buffered and separated bike lanes as well as spot treatments or crossing improvements such as bike/ped signals and protected intersections. Projects have been prioritized using the outcomes-based evaluation measures of network connectivity, access to transit, safety and comfort, and health and equity, with an emphasis on Safe Routes to Schools. This fund will combine the previous CCIP Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements and CCIP Bike/Ped Grade Separated Crossing Funds so will also fund pedestrian underpass projects that align with the AMP and the Strategic Trails Master Plan, as well as aligns with our Vision Zero action plan. Active Modes – Pedestrian Plan: $16M This project provides an annual fund for construction of missing and ADA deficient sidewalks to complete the build out of the City network as well as pedestrian crossing improvements recommended in the Active Modes Plan. This funding provides approximately 1.5 to 2 miles of new sidewalk per year. Priority is given to areas near schools to advance the Safe Routes to School Program, as well as along arterial roads. Fund can also provide for local grant match. Willow Street Streetscape: $5.3M This project would create a better urban design corridor along Willow Street from Linden to Lincoln extending the previous work done on Willow Street west of Linden. The project assumes two travel lanes, two parking lanes, two bike lanes with 3-foot buffers and two 8-foot wide sidewalks. Jefferson Street (College to Linden): $6.8M Creating a corridor similar to the recently completed Linden Street project on Jefferson from College Ave to Linden Street. Two drive lanes with a two-way center left turn lane through the corridor. The sidewalks would be improved to be 22' wide similar to Linden Street. Jefferson Street (Linden to Mountain): $7.4M Creating a corridor similar to the recently completed Linden Street project on Jefferson from College Ave to Linden Street. Two drive lanes with a two-way center left turn lane through the corridor. The sidewalks would be improved to be 22' wide similar to Linden Street. Laporte and College Plaza: $7.6M The purpose of this project is to create an improved urban design and bike/ped space on Laporte from College to Mason. The project would include 3 travel lanes and 2 8-foot buffered bike lanes west of College and 2 travel lanes with 2-8 foot buffered bike lanes East of College. The project would create a pedestrian plaza in the area surrounding College and Laporte. Transfort Bus Stop Enhancements: $1M Transfort was allotted $1M in the current CCIP. The first three years of CCIP funding (2016 through 2018) funded ADA improvements at 86 stops. The next 4 years of CCIP funding ($400,000) was leveraged as the local match for $1.5M in federal funds to complete ADA improvements at 134 stops, and purchase needed amenities throughout the service area, including 25 shelters, approximately 90 other amenities such as benches and trash cans. To date, 220 stops have seen ADA upgrades as a result of CCIP funding. There are approximately 40 bus stops remaining that require ADA upgrades and additional funding will be needed for additional amenities, and to maintain existing bus stops in a state of good repair for future riders. Transfort Bus Replacement: $5M Transfort leveraged $1M as local match to receive an additional $10.5M in other funding sources, mainly federal, to purchase 14 buses. In the next 10 years, 30 buses reach the end of their useful life including eight (8) 60FT articulated MAX buses. Replacing buses at the end of their useful life is pivotal to maintaining the fleet in a state of good repair, minimizing mechanical breakdowns and maximizing on time route performance, while also leading to lower lifetime maintenance costs. Transfort Maintenance Facility: $16M The vision for an expanded or new facility includes sufficient office space, training facilities, maintenance bays, and bus parking facilities to house the additional buses needed for expanded service. A new facility includes the potential for mixed use commercial space, and a new publicly accessible transit station. Current estimate for a new facility is approximately $77M, not including design costs. This CCIP funding request would be leveraged with federal grant dollars at a match rate of 80% federal funds and 20% local match and would be used toward the design and expansion of the existing facility, and/or design and construction of a new facility. Nature in the City (NIC): $1.5M NIC projects provide opportunities for people to interact with and become stewards of their surrounding environment. These projects increase wildlife values by creating stronger connectivity between larger patches of urban habitat, such as natural areas and City parks. By funding both internal City efforts and public/private partnerships, the community integrates diverse, native landscapes from the center of Fort Collins to the edges of the Growth Management Area. Housing Fund: $10M Staff is researching potential new use of housing fund dollars including bonding against the amount to create a revolving loan fund. We have also confirmed with local housing providers that any amount of gap funding is a value. Lee Martinez Farm Plan and Refresh: $2.6M Preserving and expanding inclusive outdoor recreation opportunities reflects the values that make Fort Collins a truly special place to live, work, and play. This project funds a plan and vision for the future of the Farm at Lee Martinez Park along with capital funding to make enhancements and expansion to the Farm. Mulberry Pool Replacement and Expansion: $26.8M Mulberry Pool is the only pool in Fort Collins that provides a small year-round leisure pool that serves families. Mulberry also provides lap lanes for both the community, Poudre School District swim teams and club teams along with swim lessons for swimmers of all abilities. A new modern facility would better serve the growing needs of Fort Collins. The facility could include a full warm water leisure pool with zero entry, slide(s) and other play features. The facility will also include at least 6 lap lanes to maintain the current level of service for the Fort Collins swim community. Pickleball Complex: $4M A pickleball complex feasibility study is underway to determine if a community park site can close the gap in the short-term while waiting for future community parks to be built. Building a 12-court complex would cost approximately $4M. Strategic Trails Implementation: $10M The Strategic Trail Plan will be completed in 2024 and early 2025. Additional annual funding will support the current Conservation Trust funding and expedite project delivery as developed by the plan. Dog Parks: $2.5M Funding would implement two new dog parks and bring existing dog parks up to the same standard. Bike Park: $5M Implement first phase of a bike park based on feedback gathered in a future bike park feasibility study. Children’s Garden and Infrastructure Upgrades: $4.9M The Children's Garden was the first to open to the public 20 years ago. The field of informal learning in nature has matured greatly and the garden is showing its age. A comprehensive renovation will rejuvenate the space, better align with current learning theory, and address drainage and maintenance issues. The full scope of the Children's Garden construction project includes the garden itself, along with reconsiderations of the entry and access sequence for families as well as school groups, along with including art elements and interpretive signage. Historic Trolley Building Restoration: $15.4M The historic Car Barn/Trolley Building at 330 N Howes St, which has been stabilized for use as interim storage for the Museum of Discovery, provides an opportunity for an iconic structure to be rehabilitated and adapted for a community-centered use. The 2017 Downtown Master Plan identifies the building for restoration and repurposing into a local attraction. Police Detention Remodel: $400K This project is a remodel of the detention area at the Police Station to make the total area in the building more useable. Since the original construction of the Police Station, the detention area has not been used because of regulatory restrictions and currently acts as a storage facility. Catering Kitchen at the Lincoln Center: $2.6M The Lincoln Center’s event catering kitchen is in need of a full remodel. The kitchen has not been updated since its time serving as the kitchen for Lincoln Junior High prior to that property becoming The Lincoln Center in 1977. The kitchen is crucial to reputation and operations as an event center. Numerous operational aspects need to be updated. Museum of Discovery Artifact Storage and Care: $2.9M This project creates clean, safe, climate controlled, publicly accessibility, housing for historic Museum artifacts. New storage will replace the current off-site storage located in the historic Trolley/Car Barn building. Relocating the Museum's storage will allow for public use for the historic Car Barn building. Downtown River Projects: $2-$32M The Downtown reaches of The Cache la Poudre River – the sections from Shields Street to Mulberry -were planned in the Downtown River Plan. Whitewater Park, considered Reach 3, was completed in the last CCIP. Both Reach 2 (including Lee Martinez and Legacy Parks) and Reach 4 (including Old Fort Collins Heritage Park) are potential next phase projects. Options for implementation would be full funding at $32M for Reach 2 or $22M for Reach 4 or looking to progress public outreach and conceptual design in both areas for $2M. Construction Waste Diversion Equipment Replacement: $2.2M Five pieces of heavy machinery are included in this offer. The Crushing and Recycling Facility is a significant contributor to waste diversion and provides recycled materials to the public. In 2023, this facility processed approximately 138,000 tons of concrete and asphalt for reuse and diverting this material from the landfill. Shared Commercial Kitchen: $1M This project will create a (feasibility study) shared commercial kitchen and co-working space to help fill a gap in the food business and entrepreneurial eco-system. With the increase in entrepreneurial food businesses, particularly in our underserved and underrepresented communities, Fort Collins has some infrastructure challenges to best support these endeavors. Downtown Parks Shop: $11.2M The Parks Department has been built on a district model for maintenance activities. The current downtown site is located in a refurbished commercial warehouse which is near the end of its useful life and will be displaced as part of the Civic Center Master Plan. A new facility in the downtown area will house not only the local support staff but also the crews which support the horticultural areas around our facilities and throughout the public areas and trail systems. Two districts will work out of this facility providing efficient operations in a timely manner to the public. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. What questions does Council Finance Committee have on the initial projects listed? 2. What additional considerations does Council Finance Committee want included in the process? DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS Back to full Council on the 27th – In December we would like to come back with recommended package Engage the public – August 2025 deadline for ballot in November Mayor Arndt; for the estimated $110M, what period of time does that cover? That is hard to estimate given that prices keep going up. Travis Storin; our approach is to use today’s dollars. It is not layering inflation on the funding or the costs. Kelly Ohlson; this is one of my top 5 priorities. We need more time. I am not sure that using today’s dollars is still the best method – construction costs went up way more than inflation. I would like to avoid $14M for a Community Center - better finesse there I don’t want to be flexible with the language – if we decide that the train is a bad idea – If that costs 10x more That is some of the high value stuff - Why do we give such credence to one person’s idea? I remember when a certain group of people got the attention and everyone else was left in the dust. Why did one person’s idea get the attention that it did? Ginny Sawyer; it wasn’t solicited. They came to us, and this is their area of expertise. They said this kind of fits in with some of your plans. Always open to ideas Kelly Ohlson; I am open to more on affordable housing. I want to be ready to do the Mulberry Pool, but I thought we were using dollars from the new tax for that. Travis Storin; during the referral process that ultimately led up to Council referral. The intent is that it would be for the indoor aquatic facility Southeast Community Center. The door is open, if Council wishes to do that for the Mulberry Pool. There is built in flexibility for either / or a ballot measure. I will continue to hold until we see the September materials. Kelly Ohlson; at some point within the next year, we need to make a decision on whether Mulberry is on this or not. Tyler Marr; fully funding both the indoor components of the Southeast Community Center and Mulberry Pool would probably present some pretty substantial opportunity costs out of the 2050 tax compared to some of the maintenance goals the Council was trying to set. I don’t think we have looked at it being all one or the other. If we were going to take the whole cap to build two pools from now until 2050. Emily Francis; I have the same kind of question about Mulberry Pool and Lee Martinez Park. They are both what I would consider refresh or maintenance which should be part of the tax we just passed. It seems to me that the added components at the Southeast Community Center lap lanes should be under this CCIP. The lap lanes as the original was just the outdoor pool. If the community wants lap lanes, they should be under CCIP, but the refresh should fall under the tax we just passed. Travis Storin; I believe those decisions will rest with the Council. The IGA with the school district (land swap) was contingent on passage of 2050 but not necessarily funding from 2025. That was the dependency that was built in. Kelly Ohlson; I saw in the paper that you were talking about the Pickleball complex. Spring Creek Park was designed to be a new kind of park and because of sensitivity around veterans’ issues, that was allowed to be an addition later. It was extremely controversial but ended up being extremely loved. Located next to Natural Areas, it wasn’t a park that was going to be filled with other things. That was promised. You may want to find a different place for the Pickleball complex. The Downtown River projects – I would like everyone to take a look at the Natural Areas map for the city of Fort Collins. You will see tiny green spots. I would prefer that those areas are focused on habitat and restoration. That is my drop dead one. If habitat restoration is done well and folks have better access to the river – I am all for it. If it’s Disneyland on the Poudre – count me out because we have just little slivers of wildlife habitat. Ginny Sawyer; there are a lot of different opportunities which is they the dollar amounts are so different. There are divergent structures which we know you want taken out. There is an opportunity at Lee Martinez Park that includes Parks, Utilities and Natural Areas. Restoring some of that area and would benefit all three entities. Kelly Ohlson; Can you include in the next document – maybe two pages and include the history from 1997 which included Fossil Creek Park and Gardens on Spring Creek I also like the circle chart (see slide #8 below). Not necessarily the outcomes but the concept of showing that. It says - Natural Areas but should say Nature in the City. important for ballot Of all of the things you cut- Nature in the City was cut in half while -very few other things were cut in half. What am I missing? Ginny Sawyer; I called them to ask why they are asking for less money. Their answer was that they are working toward going deeper as opposed to wider. It was a conscious decision on their part based on their direction and what they are trying to achieve. Kelly Ohlson; I would like to have more context. For that amount of money, the goodwill that builds throughout the city with neighborhood projects, etc. is very significant. Working with schools, neighborhoods and HOAs is a win for the entire organization. Emily Francis; what do we count as capital improvement? It seems like a catch all. Ginny Sawyer; it is a catch all for what we want funded – previously it was called Building on Basics, Community Choices and Designing Tomorrow Today. We worked on a new name, and we ended up with Community Capital Improvement Program. Looking for something that we can point to – we said we would build this or do this and here is what we created. Emily Francis; maybe we can do some thinking around changing the name. The conversation with the Museum of Discovery artifacts (see below) – if the non-profit side talking about sharing that expense with us? Artifacts are city owned so we looked at it as a city expense. Museum of Discovery Artifact Storage and Care: $2.9M This project creates clean, safe, climate controlled, publicly accessibility, housing for historic Museum artifacts. New storage will replace the current off-site storage located in the historic Trolley/Car Barn building. Relocating the Museum's storage will allow for public use for the historic Car Barn building. Kelly DiMartino; that was based on the agreement between the city and the nonprofit in terms of what the city and the non-profit will contribute. It would probably be good to have an update on this. The nonprofit contributions have outpaced the city contributions. It is raising questions on the non-profit side as well on the path going forward. Kelly Ohlson; I suggested the partnership be put on the ballot but there was no money. To be fair, the city paid significantly more in the beginning, which included the land, buildings, etc. Pursuant to a discussion about things being out of sync, people said it would be an equal partnership. I was there from day 1 and you look the other way on things. We did more than our share in the beginning. Kelly DiMartino; from the agreement perspective, the city’s role around capital and facilities and the nonprofit around operations. It would be a good thing to get us all regrounded. Partners want to look at how it looks moving forward. Travis Storin; around the artifacts in the trolley barn. Within this process, this is a good time to identify strategies around fund raising outside of the tax. Whether that is philanthropic fund raising or P3 or working with other governmental agencies. It is helpful to receive some direction and guidance around which you think are good candidates for that, in both directions (staff and Council). Because what is a bad look is when we get late in the process and say we want to haircut this – can you go raise this amount of money? It becomes filling a hole rather than something that is co-created. Nina Bodenhamer; when we go back to the IGA with the Museum of Discovery, it also included the land for the facility. That is the ideal way to structure a philanthropic partnership. 5 years later, it is time to revamp who is contributing what. When we look at this menu that staff is suggesting you will bill, there are opportunities for philanthropic contributions and how do we do that not as a budget strategy but as a community investment strategy. When we are talking about ballot language, we will also want to be very careful about the language around what the philanthropic role is and what the partnership role is and what is our strategy if it is not met. Emily Francis; I think that is fair and this would be a good one for that partnership. Ginny Sawyer; the artifacts are also prime for grants. Nina Bodenhamer; the artifacts are owned and insured by the city. PFA has artifacts that could be added to that. Thinking about what that looks like as a partnership for community curation. Emily Francis; I do like the affordable housing strategy. The Lee Martinez and Mulberry Pool, some of the Transfort bus stop enhancements are a blurry line between the tax we just passed and then asking again. I know there is discussion around the ballot language intent and what it says but voters read maintain and enhance and it feels like these 4 items …the voters feel like they just gave you money to do this. It feels like a very blurry area. Tyler Marr; staff is coming at this as trying to preserve maximum flexibility in some of these areas. Lee Martinez may be a perfect example, what we are talking about is an expansion of the usable space in one form or another. When we talk about refresh – it is right on that cusp. Emily Francis; I am concerned about the appetite to pass more taxes. Ginny Sawyer; always say renewal - this is not a tax increase. Emily Francis; a question – I know the URA is working on the Albertsons location. They have been talking about a community hub going in somewhere to provide support services. I wondered if that had been considered. Ginny Sawyer; we have had discussions on that. I think it is a readiness conversation. In the next six months, depending on what happens, it may come back onto the mix. Emily Francis; is that because it is based on the assumption that it would only work at Albertsons or? Ginny Sawyer; I had a conversation with Josh around not wanting to predetermine anything with some of the things with these other projects - if it is an actual feasibility study that needs to happen then that might not be appropriate. We can keep it in the mix though. Emily Francis; I would like to keep it in the mix. It is in the URA plan. I feel that the Community Hub, especially with our equity office, try to meet some of these things that we have been talking about for a very long time. Mayor Arndt; Regarding the Arterial Intersection Improvements (see below). This also seems to be borderline between is that a capital improvement or is that something that is in our plans that is a priority for Council the streets tax, right? How do you decide? Vision Zero Plan – Arterial Intersection Improvements: $10M This project provides an annual fund for improvements to arterial intersections with safety improvements for all travel modes. This funding has allowed City staff to provide needed design, local match for grants, and construction funding, for previous major arterial intersection improvements. From the 10-year Transportation Capital Improvement Program (TCIP), notable planned projects include: - Shields and Prospect Intersection Improvements - Shields and Horsetooth Intersection Improvements - Drake and Lemay Intersection Improvements - College and Drake Intersection Improvements Travis Storin; The Streets Maintenance Program (SMP) is around maintenance of existing signals, pavement quality and bridges. The arterial intersections, some of the expansions that you see, additions of medians and safety features. Mayor Arndt; The Mulberry Pool would be a perfect one for partner maybe with CSU. Kelly DiMartino; we have a study underway, but I haven’t seen the results. Tyler Marr; I don’t think it is finished. There is active work with CSU as they should think about replacing the Moby pool, which is older. Mayor Arndt; Transfort Bus Replacement $5M (see below). When we replace buses do we buy another style? We keep buying these enormous buses that are not very full. When other cities buy smaller buses which run fuller and are more nimble, might not need a CDL. Transfort Bus Replacement: $5M Transfort leveraged $1M as local match to receive an additional $10.5M in other funding sources, mainly federal, to purchase 14 buses. In the next 10 years, 30 buses reach the end of their useful life including eight (8) 60FT articulated MAX buses. Replacing buses at the end of their useful life is pivotal to maintaining the fleet in a state of good repair, minimizing mechanical breakdowns and maximizing on time route performance, while also leading to lower lifetime maintenance costs. Tyler Marr; when you hear us talking about optimizing the Transit Master Plan – those are exactly the kind of questions that are being asked in that work. Where do fixed routes make sense? In some cases, the standard buses will still be what we are after. In a number of these other areas, it is micro transit, a smaller way to achieve the same goals Emily Francis; Taft & Elizabeth- why do we focus this on downtown, when we are talking about 15-minute communities, streetscapes and walkability. Why do we focus it just on downtown? Travis Storin; Jefferson to start, I think you are observing the sequential adherence to a Transportation Master Plan. The combination of the Vine/Lemay overpass, the Linden work we have done, and the River District improvements are all part of a way to give the trucks a route around downtown rather than through it. That is not to suggest that it is somehow better than streetscapes in other parts of town. That is where we would look to Council for guidance – we see your plan that was adopted x years ago and here are this Council’s priorities. Tyler Marr; when you look at the Jefferson and Willow block, it is one of the last remaining pieces of that right sizing. To put it candidly, DDA has often times brought magic funding to some of these projects through their increment. The first half of Willow (from College to Linden), the DDA funded a significant portion of that project. Emily Francis; it is important to think about 15-minute cities and building that out. We focus so much on downtown, rightfully so but if we are trying to build out community hubs. We need to start looking at how we make those improvements in other parts of the city. Kelly Ohlson; blurred lines between the two taxes. I think we can get close to not ordering those too much – you may run into some blowback from Council on things – we don’t control what else is on the ballot – there could be 3 other things on the ballot that we don’t control, so we want to make this attractive and not redundant. Kelly Ohlson; Regarding the $26.8M for Mulberry Pool (see below) - is that our share or would the city be splitting that? Mulberry Pool Replacement and Expansion: $26.8M Mulberry Pool is the only pool in Fort Collins that provides a small year-round leisure pool that serves families. Mulberry also provides lap lanes for both the community, Poudre School District swim teams and club teams along with swim lessons for swimmers of all abilities. A new modern facility would better serve the growing needs of Fort Collins. The facility could include a full warm water leisure pool with zero entry, slide(s) and other play features. The facility will also include at least 6 lap lanes to maintain the current level of service for the Fort Collins swim community. Joe Wimmer: that is our share - $51M would be the total. We will make sure that is clear, Kelly Ohlson; is there room available at the museum artifact storage site or does it require another building? Ginny Sawyer; this is why we want to have a more holistic conversation. The city owns that entire half block from the Trolley Barn to Eco-Thrift which is part of the Civic Center Master Plan. We do need to have conversations around if it is part of the Trolley Barn, how does that work? How do we repurpose the Trolley Barn to be accessible and nice storage? If it is not the right place, can it be on that property or is there a nearby property where that could occur. The current section storing artifacts is 5400 square feet and it is packed. Kelly Ohlson; the Trolley Barn is not the right building for museum storage. Wouldn’t this be the time to ask for more solid waste diversion capital? Construction Waste Diversion Equipment Replacement: $2.2M Five pieces of heavy machinery are included in this offer. The Crushing and Recycling Facility is a significant contributor to waste diversion and provides recycled materials to the public. In 2023, this facility processed approximately 138,000 tons of concrete and asphalt for reuse and diverting this material from the landfill. Ginny Sawyer; it has come up and similar to community hub – we aren’t sure where this is going yet, so let’s keep this in the mix. Tyler Marr; as we are working through these grants that look specifically at construction demolition and the organics, that will give us a better sense for what those options are and if this might be a logical place to ask. Kelly Ohlson; is this going to be more refined when it comes to the work session? Ginny Sawyer; we will get the materials out earlier for your review. Kelly Ohlson; the timetable isn’t long enough. Voting is mid-October and that is not enough time for people to organize for or against. Historically we did it later, so that staff could interact, but actually they can anyway as long as they don’t advocate for it. Staff can answer questions and give presentations, they just can’t promote. It used to be backed up close to the election so staff could be out in a semi advocacy role, educating the public – cutoff date earlier so folks know what is on the ballot. Ginny Sawyer; The August date is the latest possible date that it can be referred to the ballot. Mayor Arndt; Bike Parks; could we be more creative? Many other cities do different things. Dog Parks; some cities have small dog pocket parks in neighborhoods which are gathering places. Some have lease free times. Maybe a few dog parks could offer lease free times. Central Park does it in New York City. There are huge fines if you pass the time for lease free. I feel like we could be more creative than a chain link fence around gravel. Looking around at what other cities do - an example is Cherry Creek Park in Denver Dog Parks: $2.5M Funding would implement two new dog parks and bring existing dog parks up to the same standard. Bike Park: $5M Implement first phase of a bike park based on feedback gathered in a future bike park feasibility study. B. General Fund Admin Charge to Other Funds Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Overview of the General Fund Administrative Charge to Other Funds EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The General Fund Administrative Charge is intended for partial cost recovery for Citywide support services. This includes the services provided by the City Attorney’s Office, City Manager’s Office, Human Resources and Finance, as well as a few others. These various shared services are necessary for day-to-day running of the City organization and to support the breadth of programs and services City departments provide externally to the community. The goal of the model is to have a methodology that is fair to all contributing funds. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED What questions does the Council Finance Committee have about the General Fund Administrative Charge Model and how it is deployed within the City’s budgeting process? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION There are a wide variety of services necessary to run the City organization and support the wide breadth of programs and service to the community provided by City departments and their staff. These shared administrative services are generally centralized so that each department need not replicate those activities with their own staff. Centralization also allows for standardization, efficiency and economies of scale that would not occur if each of those activities was decentralized. The many services provided by Human Resources are an example. The employee life cycle begins with recruitment and continues through the phases of hiring, onboarding, training and development, etc. All of these services require talented staff to ensure process standardization and consistency across the organization. It is much more cost effective to have those staff working together as a team to help facilitate the employee experience, rather than if each department had to hire their own resources to complete those functions. Lastly, many of these services have state and federal compliance requirements, requiring specialized knowledge of those. These types of services are typically housed within the General Fund because they are not owned by any individual department. Similar to a PILOT, a payment in lieu of tax, the intent of the General Fund Administrative Charge is to provide a methodology for the departments focused on external service delivery to the community to pay for the use of those shared administrative services. The value proposition is that it is overall less expensive to utilize administrative staff rather than incremental departmental hiring or paying a third party. The use of the General Fund Administration Charge model has been in place for well over 20 years. It is used during the budget process for departments to include their ratio of the charges within their ongoing budget requests. The General Fund departments included in the model are as follows: - City Attorney’s Office - City Manager’s Office - City Clerk’s Office - City Council - City Hall Facility Charges - Emergency Preparedness and Security - Finance - Human Resources Step #1: The model for the 2025-26 Budget starts with the originally adopted operating budgets from 2024 for each City fund. A number of modifications are then made so as to not double count expenses. For example, transfers between funds are backed out as those don’t reflect budgeted activity that would utilize administrative services. Other budgeted expenses, like PILOTs and Purchased Power, are also backed out for similar reasons. This then determines the modified budget for each fund, applicable for use in the model. From there, each fund’s % of the total City modified budget is calculated. This % is what the total cost of the shared services in the General Fund will be multiplied by to determine the ratioed share of those expenses, by fund. Step #2: The budgets for each of the 8 departments listed above are then entered into the model with additional adjustments to again avoid any double counting, like in Step #1. Here is an example, City Charter requires certain funds to pay a specified portion of the City Manager’s compensation. In this case, the Light & Power fund pays 40% and the Water fund pays 20%. Those amounts are backed out of the model so as to not double count them. A similar thing happens within the City Attorney’s Office based on agreements with departments like Natural Areas. In that case, the 0.50 FTE of dedicated attorneys to supporting the Natural Areas is backed out so those costs are also not double counted. Step #3: The ratioed modified costs of those 8 departments are then summed up by fund for the total GF Admin Charge to be budgeted in Year 1 of the biennial budget. Year 2 is calculated by taking the Year 1 cost for each fund and increasing it by the inflationary assumption included in the budget; which is 2.5% for 2026. Step #4: The City Funds are split into what is referred to as ‘charged funds’ and ‘non-charged funds’ where the only difference is the ‘non-charged funds’ are not charged the amount calculated in the model. The reason for this is the ‘non-charged funds’ all receive a subsidy from the General Fund to cover a portion of that fund’s budgeted expenses. If there was an additional General Fund Admin Charge given to those funds, the only way they would be able to pay for it would be to then increase the subsidy from the General Fund. Such transactions would not add any value, so those funds are not charged. Step #5: These amounts for the ‘charged funds’ are then discussed with the various fund managers to go through the calculations and answer their questions so we can align on the amount specified in the model, which is to be included in that department’s Ongoing Offers. For the 2025-26 Budget, there was a conversation about the applicability of debt service (principal and interest payments) in the model. It was determined that, similar to PILOTS, debt service obligations don’t have ongoing operational impacts and so those costs have been backed out of the modified budgets. The result of this change benefited funds with greater debt than funds without much debt. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED What questions does the Council Finance Committee have about the General Fund Administrative Charge Model and how it is deployed within the City’s budgeting process? DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS CSA = Customer Service & Admin Mayor Arndt; do you give them a budget? Lawrence Pollack; the calculated amount is based off of their budget - the last two columns (purple) on slide 7 (see below) are the totals that would be included in on-going offers in the departments associated with those funds. Kelly DiMartino; think about us charging them a percentage of the big picture allocations – it is how we allocate across the organization. Mayor Arndt: one fund hit legal really hard one year - Lawrence Pollack; we say that comes out in the wash over time Mayor Arndt; I was wondering if it changes behavior over the year Travis Storin; it is usually not a time and effort kind of thing – most of these expenses with personnel being the largest line item – your headcount is usually what is driving consumption of HR resources - - it is a dollar magnitude Lawrence Pollack; one of the things we test with each department who is receiving this administrative charge is conceptually the cost of these would be less than if they have hired their own staff or paid for third party expertise. The other side benefit is consistency especially in HR and Legal. Consistency on our hiring practices as opposed to everyone having their own mini-HR department. This is another conceptual reason for a shared services model. Kelly DiMartino; I would say the bigger challenge that we experience is people wanting a greater amount of access to their central shared services. There is never enough capacity to meet all of our needs. Kelly Ohlson; not what I asked for - Step #4 (see below) I wanted to get this fixed as I think it has been wrong for 30 years – Natural Areas Fund - $460K. Parkland Fund and the Conservation Trust Fund and Capital Projects Fund are all zero. All enterprise funds but Natural Areas is not an enterprise fund. It is the only place of any significance in the city that gets charged for these services and is not an Enterprise Fund. People go to the ballot and bring that in, and the city penalized them. Step #4: The City Funds are split into what is referred to as ‘charged funds’ and ‘non-charged funds’ where the only difference is the ‘non-charged funds’ are not charged the amount calculated in the model. The reason for this is the ‘non-charged funds’ all receive a subsidy from the General Fund to cover a portion of that fund’s budgeted expenses. If there was an additional General Fund Admin Charge given to those funds, the only way they would be able to pay for it would be to then increase the subsidy from the General Fund. Such transactions would not add any value, so those funds are not charged. Lawrence Pollack; slide 7 (see above) Natural Areas is the only governmental fund that does not receive a General Fund subsidy. The cost to Natural Areas to provide these services to them is $460K for 2025. Kelly Ohlson; use Parks - it is just built into their budget Lawrence Pollack; that is because Parks is in the General Fund so there is no money moving. Kelly Ohlson; I don’t think that is fair – citizens bring the money to the table and the city runs the show. I don’t get it. Lawrence Pollack; it is very common across other cities Emily Francis; it is funded differently. They are paying it but then we reimburse it from the General Fund. If the tax went away and we wanted to fund Natural Areas it would move down. Mayor Arndt; because it is ballot initiated Kelly Ohlson; I just don’t get it – Natural Areas is being punished – some of these things aren’t bringing in the money Mayor Arndt; but if the voters are voting on the tax – it should be self-sustaining – it goes back to the General Fund. Voters are saying, we want to pay this much money and it goes to Natural Areas. Then Natural Areas wants to hire someone – they are going to hire city of Fort Collins HR because it is cheaper, and it is better for us to do it that way. So, they have to pay for it since it wasn’t in the General Fund. That is a substantial difference – then you are double funding it through the General Fund and the tax the voters approved. It goes back to the voters. Kelly Ohlson; How do we determine that $472K is the correct amount? Is the formula the same for everyone? Lawrence Pollack; every fund is treated the same - the only exception is that you are not charged if you received a General Fund contribution. It is meant to be a consistent methodology and we go through extensive rigor to ensure we are not double counting. C. Intergovernmental Agreement with Poudre Fire Authority Dave Lenz, Director, Financial Planning & Analysis SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Update to the Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District (dated July 15, 2014) that established the Poudre Fire Authority. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Fort Collins (“City”) and the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District (“District”) established the Poudre Fire Authority (“PFA”) with an Intergovernmental Agreement (“IGA”) in 1981. This agreement was further adjusted in 1983 and 1987 to include a revenue allocation formula (“RAF”). This agreement was further amended and restated in 2014 to include an update to the RAF and Support Services provided to PFA by the City. The full 2014 amended and restated IGA including the RAF (Exhibit A) and Support Services provided (Exhibit B) is included as Attachment 1. During 2024, City and PFA staff continued discussions to update the IGA, completing an analysis of the support services (and associated costs) provided by each party and beginning the evaluation of the RAF. These preliminary findings have previously been shared with the Council Finance Committee in March, City Council/District Board in a joint Work Session in April, and ongoing PFA and District Board meetings. This update focuses on the proposed adjustments to the RAF, including the changes to administrative oversight of the joint agreement, as well as a recap of the shared services analysis and updated timeline to finalize adoption of the amended agreement. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED What questions does the committee have related to the update of the Intergovernmental Agreement, the proposed Revenue Allocation Formula Adjustments or the Support Services and costs provided? Does the committee support the proposed changes to the Intergovernmental Agreement and supporting Exhibits A and B? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Support Services Provided: During the second half of 2023, City and PFA staff reviewed the Support Services provided in the existing Exhibit B. This effort involved over 30 collaborative meetings with both City and PFA personnel. The interviews and analysis involved investigation on the scope of services being provided by City personnel, including support areas that were not specifically outlined in Exhibit B as services to be provided. Additionally, certain services had transitioned to PFA over the ensuing time since the agreement update in 2014. In all instances, efforts were made to identify the time and costs involved in each City department or PFA program providing the support. During 2024, City and PFA staff jointly reviewed all findings of the 2023 costing of the services provided which indicated the City provides PFA with approximately $728,000 annually of in-kind costs and an additional $3.5 million in direct charges ($3.0 million is for Benefits and Wellness). PFA’s cost of services provided is estimated at approximately $292,000 annually ($248,400 is for two added positions – 50% for an IT Analyst III role and 85% of the Battalion Chief - Emergency Management role). The net amount of the in-kind costs results in a total of approximately $436,000 provided by the City to PFA. This amount captures the new estimated baseline of service provided that will be incorporated into the updated IGA and RAF discussed in the sections below. It is intended that these services will be regularly reviewed by City and PFA staff for any material annual additions or subtractions to provided services. Additionally, the new agreement will incorporate an annual inflation adjustment to this net calculated amount based upon an agreed CPI Index. Revenue Allocation Formula - Current: The RAF specifies how both the City and the District make contributions to the PFA. The District’s contribution is annually through the adopted mill levy (minimum of 10.595 mills) and the City’s contribution is through a combination of a portion of the City’s base sales and use tax revenue (undedicated for specific other projects or legally restricted or committed for other uses) and 67.5% of the operating mill levy of the City’s property tax revenue. The City’s contributions are based on the biennial budgeted amounts for sales/use and property taxes. These amounts are not adjusted for actual collections (please refer to Exhibit A of the IGA for the RAF calculation details). In the 2023 Budget, the City’s contributed approximately $35.9 million in revenue sharing to PFA ($19.2 million in property tax and $16.9 million in sales/use tax, less $0.2 million for PFA contribution agreements). For the 2024 budget, the revenue contribution increases to approximately $38.7 million ($21.7 million in property tax and $17.3 million in sales/use tax, less $0.3 million in PFA contribution adjustments). The District contributed $8.8 million in 2023 and $12.4 million in 2024. The City’s 2024 contribution amounts are detailed below: Service Area Annual In-Kind Costs Annual Charged Total Cost of Services Provided Total $727,626 $3,456,986 $4,184,611 Cost of City Services provided to PFA Service Annual In-Kind Costs Total $291,738 Cost of Services provided - Absorbed by PFA The total sales and use tax amount subject to the RAF calculations above is $128,243,683 ($101,245,013 of Existing Base plus $26,998,670 of New Base), with the total sales and use tax contribution amount totaling $17,261,150. Revenue Allocation Formula - Proposed: City and PFA staff have been evaluating the current RAF over the past few months. Goals of this evaluation have been to: • Simplify the sales and use tax calculations to incorporate the Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG) 0.6% base rate increase • Adjust the calculations to incorporate the new baseline of cost of services provided. • Adjust the amount in the use tax calculation to include currently “excluded” one-time amounts. • Change contributions to PFA to be based on actual results versus the current budgeted amounts. This will also incorporate a “risk corridor” band to share a portion of revenue upside and limit the revenue downside related to actual results vs. budgeted estimates. • Provide an annual true-up for the risk corridor above. • Add further definition around adjustments for future growth and annexations. • Move to an annual budget amount for sales, use, and property taxes aligned with the annual appropriated budget for these amounts. Calculation Adjustments Actual 2024 Contribution (As of 4/22/22) Existing Base Sales Tax 92,770,987$ Existing Base Use Tax 8,474,026$ Total Existing Base Sales & Use Tax 101,245,013$ First 1% of Existing Base Sales & Use Tax 44,997,784$ Existing Base Sales & Use Tax RAF - 29%29.0% Existing Base Sales & Use Tax Contribution 13,049,357$ Property Tax 32,174,388$ Property Tax RAF - 67.5%67.5% Property Tax Contribution 21,717,712$ New Base Sales Tax 24,738,930$ New Base Use Tax 2,259,740$ Total New Base Sales & Use Tax 26,998,670$ New Base Sales & Use Tax RAF - 15.6%15.6% New Base Sales & Use Tax Contribution 4,211,793$ Total City Contribution 38,978,862$ Emergency Dispatch ($231,849) Homelessness Support ($20,000) Net City Contribution 38,727,013$ Adjustments for PFA Funded Position Support The first adjustment step is to simplify the sales and use tax calculated contribution amount. If we take the 2024 tax amounts and contribution amounts from the current RAF calculation shown above, we are able to determine a single new calculation percentage as shown below (B divided by A equals C): The next step in our adjustment is to account for the new baseline cost of services provided under Exhibit B. To accomplish this, we take the calculation from the above section and add the net cost of services provided to get the new contribution amount (A plus B equals C). The final step of the RAF calculation adjustment is to include the full available use tax amounts (currently “excluded” one-time amounts) in the use tax base (D) to calculate the total sales and use tax base (E). To calculate the new updated percentage amount, we the use previously calculated contribution by the total base sales and use tax (F divided by E equals G). For simplification and some slight rounding difference, we will use a blended rate of the 2025 and 2026 years (H) as the calculation rate to determine the final Sales and Use Tax Contribution (I). 2024 Combined Sales and Use Tax Total Sales Tax Base 117,509,917$ Total Use Tax Base 10,733,766$ Total Sales and Use Tax Base 128,243,683$ (A) Total Sales and Use Tax Contribution 17,261,150$ (B) Calculated Contribution Rate 13.460%(C) 2024 2025 2026 Total Tax Contribution 17,261,150$ 18,383,050$ 18,891,202$ (A) Additional Contribution to Cover Cost Allocation -$ (B) Total Contribution after Cost Allocation 17,261,150$ 18,818,938$ 19,327,089$ (C) 2024 2025 2026 Combined Sales and Use Tax - New Calculated % Total Sales Tax Base 117,509,917$ 125,845,203$ 129,620,574$ Total Use Tax Base 10,733,766$ (D) Total Sales and Use Tax Base 128,243,683$ 142,224,514$ 145,999,885$ (E) Total Sales and Use Tax Contribution 17,261,150$ 18,818,938$ 19,327,089$ (F) Calculated Contribution Rate 13.460% 13.232% 13.238%(G) Average of 2025 and 2026 N/A 13.235% 13.235%(H) Total Sales and Use Tax Contribution with Avg Rate 18,823,414$ 19,323,085$ (I) The Property Tax RAF calculation amount remains unchanged at 67.5% of the eligible City Property tax mill levy amount. Additionally, the amount of net shared services costs will be deducted from (or added to) the contribution amount to PFA from the City. This will allow for expansion or contraction of the net contribution amount based on material additions to (or reduction in) services provided by either the City or PFA under Exhibit B. (Note that the adjustments previously made to the PFA contribution amount for Dispatch and Homelessness position support are excluded above and will be handled as an annual charged service.) Actuals versus Budgeted Contribution Amounts and Risk Sharing Currently, the contribution amounts that are provided by the City to PFA are set every two years based on City’s biennial budgeting process. There is no adjustment in the contribution to PFA for the amounts that actually are collected for sales, use, and property tax. The proposed adjustment will be to contribute actual tax receipts to PFA on a monthly basis, with a true-up at year-end based upon the agreed upon cap and floor bands. The City’s budgeting process has a conservative bias, as it should, based on the need to “protect for the downside”. If we look at the average variance of budget vs. actual for the three tax categories since 2003, we see the following variation patterns: To allow for sharing upside potential revenue with PFA and to share some downside risk of potential revenue shortfall (without putting at risk the need to provide PFA’s core fire and emergency services), this proposed RAF adjustment puts in place a cap and floor on the percentage variation from budget that PFA receives from the City. The following are the proposed risk sharing bands for each tax. 2024 2025 2026 Total - Proposed RAF Sales Tax Contribution 15,816,423$ 16,655,613$ 17,155,283$ Use Tax Contribution 1,444,727$ 2,167,802$ 2,167,802$ Property Tax Contribution 21,717,712$ 22,571,998$ 23,023,438$ Total Contribution 38,978,862$ 41,395,412$ 42,346,523$ Less: Net Shared Services Costs -$ (435,888)$ (435,888)$ Net Contribution 38,978,862$ 40,959,525$ 41,910,635$ Total - Current RAF Sales Tax Contribution 15,816,423$ 16,938,323$ 17,446,474$ Use Tax Contribution 1,444,727$ 1,444,727$ 1,444,727$ Property Tax Contribution 21,717,712$ 22,571,998$ 23,023,438$ Total Contribution 38,978,862$ 40,955,048$ 41,914,640$ Actual vs. Budget Annual Average Variance (%) Number of years Average Variance Number of years Average Variance Sales Tax 2.4%11 5.4% 10 -2.0% Use Tax 14.1%16 18.5%5 -5.4% Property Tax 0.4%11 2.3% 10 -1.7% Actual Exceeds Budget Budget Exceeds Actual 2003 - 2023 If any of the individual actual tax amounts collected are within the band range, no adjustment is necessary. If a tax amount is above or below the annual cap or floor, an adjustment will be made at year end to adjust for the excess (or shortage) to bring the annual contribution back to the band percentage amount. Annexation and Growth Provisions The current RAF allows for adjustments to the contribution amounts paid to PFA in the event the City annexes property currently within District boundaries. These provisions will be maintained in the proposed RAF through adjustments to the sales and use tax and/or property tax contribution percentages. Mechanics of this process are still under evaluation. Annual Setting of the Budgeted tax amounts The proposed RAF changes include the budgeted sales, use, and property tax amounts to be set at time of annual appropriation of the individual year budgets (as opposed to the biennial cadence currently in the RAF). This will allow for a timelier update to these key budget assumptions, especially in the aftermath of severe shocks to the economy (positive or negative). The two-year estimate will still be provided in the biennial budget approval. Other items still under consideration/finalization • District, PFA and City ongoing legal reviews • Movement of dispatch services to a charge for service as opposed to a deduction from the RAF • Full detail of City and PFA roles and responsibilities including joint calendarization of timelines NEXT STEPS/PATH FORWARD The goal is to complete the update of the IGA for inclusion in the 2025/26 City BFO Cycle. City and PFA staff are working jointly to reach agreement on terms and conditions to include in an update to bring to both the City Council and District Board for approval. Tentative schedule for moving forward: Work Streams: July: Finalize Combined Agreement Terms and City/District/PFA Legal Evaluations Communications/Actions: July: Council Finance Committee - proposal July: District Board - proposal August: City Council Adoption consideration - 1st August: District Board Adoption consideration Sept: City Council Adoption consideration - 2nd Upper Band (% above Budget) Lower Band (% below Budget) Sales Tax 3.0% -2.0% Use Tax 6.0% -2.0% Property Tax 2.0% -2.0% GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED What questions does the committee have related to the update of the Intergovernmental Agreement, the proposed Revenue Allocation Formula Adjustments or the Support Services and costs provided? Does the committee support the proposed changes to the Intergovernmental Agreement and supporting Exhibits A and B? DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS A brief introduction was given to the Council Finance Committee in March. Shared Services – slide #6 (see below) Kelly Ohlson; is the basic purpose of this to get as close to fairness as possible? Dave Lenz; the goal is to get an updated understanding of what is going on now and what has changed over the last 10 years and the fairness of this. There is one area where we still need to do more work and that is dispatch’s share – in terms of how much the district funds and how much the city shares, and it also involves UC Health and the City of Wellington. We can move closer and closer over time, and it can be done in the context of the agreement. The sense of fairness – we want to formalize the agreement and be able to track and have an agreement that can react Kelly Ohlson; what isn’t Emergency Management a core assignment? Dave Lenz; initially, we had been providing that service to them. They have taken on some additional responsibilities over the last 10 years. They have funded a position to handle some of the things we have been doing. Travis Storin; in 2019, PFA ran all local emergency preparedness and management. In 2019, the city took that over upon the retirement of a longstanding Battalion Chief who handled that function. This function is now called Emergency Preparedness Services (EPS) and is within the city organization. PFA retained the fire protection side of emergency management. Chief Bergsten; Emergency Management did not cover any of the district side, so all of the wildland urban interface outside the city of Fort Collins. That is a big risk area for us to address and that is why we are doing the emergency management on our side is to address the entire district side. Some of the flooding / water issues we have outside the city of Fort Collins. Kelly Ohlson; would this pass the test for fairness? Mayor Arndt; this is great. We have to build systems for the future. The system is changing to be more resilient in the future and to anticipate changes. Chief Bergsten; it also allows us to be more nimble. The current agreement does not allow us to make any changes or edits. Having the true up in year 2. If there were dramatic changes, they could be identified and addressed in a true-up. We budget conservatively but if it is a good year, we would be able to share in the same benefits on both sides. Kelly Ohlson; I would like to request a meeting to understand for comparable suburban type cities that we are not the richest funded fire authority. I would like to understand comparable geography /population – especially with the property tax increase. Mayor Arndt; I went down to Conifer which is a high fire district. They have five fire districts and chiefs, and the administrative costs are crazy. I hope they get what they need, and their service is excellent. PFA was founded in 1981. It was absolutely brilliant to come together and reduce redundancies and increase efficiency for the public. Will you do the sit down with Council member Olson? Kelly Ohlson; have there been discussions about becoming one entity a municipal department within the city? Chief Bergsten; it was considered during these discussions and that is what we are building into - We are currently at an 80/20 split – 80% of calls from the city and 20% from the district and that continues to shift more toward the city side. It could be a city department and then you contract with the district. Travis Storin; I would say an auxiliary goal with this update is to prepare for a landing. There will be a future Council in District 4 that will be confronted with that very question. As we get deeper into the East Mulberry annexation plan, that call volume that the Chief was mentioning will start to become overwhelming. You look at a model, maybe a municipal department that contracted services for the rural areas. This could happen in 10 or 25 years. This being the structural update to prepare for that dialog. Chief Bergsten; I am happy to meet with Councilmember Ohlson. The goal is to provide the best level of service for the best price equally across the district and the city. Meeting Adjourned at 5:53 PM