HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 08/27/2024City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 2
City Council
Work Session Agenda
August 27, 2024 at 6:00 PM
Jeni Arndt, Mayor
Emily Francis, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem
Susan Gutowsky, District 1
Julie Pignataro, District 2
Tricia Canonico, District 3
Melanie Potyondy, District 4
Kelly Ohlson, District 5
Council Information Center (CIC)
300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins
Cablecast on FCTV
Channel 14 on Connexion
Channel 14 and 881 on Comcast
Carrie Daggett Kelly DiMartino Delynn Coldiron
City Attorney City Manager City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
6:00 PM
A) CALL MEETING TO ORDER
B) ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
1. Quasi-Judicial Appeals Process.
The purpose of this item is to further discuss issues and considerations previously identified in the
current Council appeals process related to quasi-judicial decisions made by administrative staff,
hearing officers, and City boards and commissions and seek specific direction on developing code
language for a future proposed amendment.
2. 2050 Tax – Update and Discussion.
The passage of the 2050 tax by the community in 2023 represents an opportunity f or the City to
advance community goals in the areas of Parks and Recreation, Transit and Climate. The purpose
of this item is to discuss strategies and approaches to each of the funding areas (Parks &
Recreation, Climate and Transit) in the 2050 0.50% sales tax.
3. Advancing Transit Initiatives.
The purpose of this item is to provide Council updates on current transit initiatives, the state of the
Transfort budget, the Funding and Fare Free Study completed in 2023 and the status of Transfort
advertising on buses, benches and shelters.
C) ANNOUNCEMENTS
D) ADJOURNMENT
Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals who have limited
English proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities, to access City services,
programs and activities. Contact 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance.
Page 1
City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 2
Please provide advance notice. Requests for interpretation at a meeting should be made by noon the day
before.
A solicitud, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para personas que no
dominan el idioma inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas con discapacidad, para que
puedan acceder a los servicios, programas y actividades de la Ciudad. Para asistencia, llame al
970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para Relay Colorado). Por favor proporcione aviso previo. Las
solicitudes de interpretación en una reunión deben realizarse antes del mediodía del día anterior.
Page 2
File Attachments for Item:
1. Quasi-Judicial Appeals Process
The purpose of this item is to further discuss issues and considerations previously identified in
the current Council appeals process related to quasi-judicial decisions made by administrative
staff, hearing officers, and City boards and commissions and seek specific direction on
developing code language for a future proposed amendment.
Page 3
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 2
August 27, 2024
WORK SESSION AGENDA
ITEM SUMMARY
City Council
STAFF
Kim Meyer, Interim Community Development & Neighborhood Services Director
Brad Yatabe, Managing Attorney
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Quasi-Judicial Appeals Process
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to further discuss issues and considerations previously identified in the current
Council appeals process related to quasi-judicial decisions made by administrative staff, hearing officers,
and City boards and commissions and seek specific direction on developing code language for a future
proposed amendment.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What specific elements should be incorporated into new code language?
2. Are there additional issues or solutions the Council would direct staff to investigate?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On November 14, 2023, City Council held a work session to discuss the current state of the appeals
process for quasi-judicial decisions, and to review and discuss various elements of that process that might
be updated to create a more fair, consistent, and simple appeals system. Several attachments are included
with this summary memo that provide additional background and summarize prior discussions, including:
the AIS from the November 2023 work session, a summary memo that captured Council feedback, June
2024 Brownstein letter, and a memo outlining estimated costs to the City of processing appeals.
The November 2023 work session resulted in direction to staff to present a range of alternatives and
possible solutions to Council to simplify and streamline the process, provide a better experience for all
parties and community, and investigate some specific elements of the current process that might impact
our current state.
The discussion intended for this work session will be centered on obtaining specific feedback and guidance
to staff such that draft code language can be developed to update the City’s appeals processes. The
attached presentation addresses a variety of topics introduced at the last work session and offers a
summary of the current state and alternative solutions with staff recommendations.
Page 4
Item 1.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 2
Staff is seeking specific direction from the Council on these elements that could impact the process and
any proposed code update. Generally, the elements to be discussed include:
Decision-maker
Standing to Appeal / Participation
Permitted Grounds for Appeal
Multiple Levels of Appeals
Evidence and Arguments
Process Improvements
The feedback gathered will inform any proposed code updates.
NEXT STEPS
Based upon feedback and direction that staff receives at the work session from Council, staff is prepared
to begin drafting proposed code language to update or replace the current code related to quasi-judicial
appeals. Additionally, staff can be directed to research additional alternative solutions to address specific
issues that Councilmembers may want to discuss or explore further. Staff recommends that next steps
include development and review of proposed code language for future Council consideration, likely in the
last quarter of 2024 or early in the first quarter of 2025.
ATTACHMENTS
1. November 14, 2023, Work Session Summary Memo – Quasi Judicial Appeals
2. November 14, 2023 Work Session AIS and Staff Presentation – Quasi Judicial Appeals
3. Brownstein letter, June 18, 2024
4. City Staff Estimated Costs Memo
5. Presentation
Page 5
Item 1.
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.416.2740
970.224.6134- fax
fcgov.com
Planning, Development & Transportation Services
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 21, 2023
To: Mayor and City Councilmembers
Through: Kelly DiMartino, City Manager
Tyler Marr, Deputy City Manager
Caryn Champine, Director, Planning Development, and Transportation
From: Paul Sizemore, Director, Community Development & Neighborhood Services
Brad Yatabe, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Subject: November 14, 2023 Work Session Summary – Process for Council Appeals to Quasi-
Judicial Decisions
The purpose of this memo is to document the summary of discussions during the November 14, 2023,
Work Session. Five of Seven Councilmembers were present with Councilmembers Peel and Gutowski
absent. Staff presenters included Paul Sizemore and Brad Yatabe.
At this work session, staff provided an overview of the Council appeals process for quasi-judicial items,
reviewed historical data on appeals, discussed due process requirements, and noted issues and
considerations as well as potential solutions and improvements. Staff sought feedback from Council on
whether issues had been adequately captured and whether Councilmembers would like to see further
development of any potential process improvements.
Summary of Discussion
Councilmembers expressed interest in making sure there was agreement on the problems we are
attempting to solve.
Councilmembers discussed the cost of appeals and the purpose and history of the appeal fee.
Staff indicated that additional information could be compiled and provided at a later date
information related to the fee itself is below).
Several Councilmembers expressed interest in exploring an option with no new evidence, or at
least clarifying current rules for evidence.
Packet pg. 3
Page 6
Item 1.
Councilmembers indicated support for clarifying rules around notification and applying uniform
rules for testimony.
There was some interest in further exploring the creation of a pre-hearing conference for appeals
participants and allowing staff review for defects such as lack of standing.
There was some interest in refining the process for considering fair hearing issues and potentially
exploring different options for addressing these allegations.
Councilmembers recounted the discussions about neighborhood meetings and administrative
reviews that occurred during the past year’s Land Use Code process and requested a memo
outlining that evolution in greater detail.
Follow-up Information
During the work session, Councilmembers asked about the cost to file an appeal and when those
fees had last been updated.
o The fee for an appeal was last updated from $75 to the current $100 occurred effective
April 13, 1990 via Ordinance No. 023, 1990.
o Additionally, in terms of purpose, 2020 the title of the fee was changed to reflect it is a
filing fee and not an appeal fee.
Next Steps
Staff will continue to research and develop the concepts Council expressed interest in,
anticipating another work session in spring 2024 (dependent upon Council priorities).
Prior to the next work session, staff will research and develop an estimate of City costs
associated with processing appeals.
An additional memo will be provided to outline the evolution of neighborhood meetings in the
current (2023) Land Use Code, the repealed Land Development Code, and the adopted code
slated to go into effect in January 2024.
Packet pg. 4
Page 7
Item 1.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 6
November 14, 2023
WORK SESSION AGENDA
ITEM SUMMARY
City Council
STAFF
Paul Sizemore, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Director
Brad Yatabe, Senior Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Process for Council Appeals to Quasi-Judicial Decisions.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to review issues and considerations that have been identified in the process
for Council appeals to quasi-judicial decisions, and to seek Councilmember feedback on potential
solutions or improvements.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council have feedback on the list of identified issues and considerations in the appeals process?
2. Are there other issues or considerations that have not yet been identified?
3. Are there solutions or improvements that Council would like to see staff further develop and bring
forward for consideration?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
One of Council’s current roles under the Municipal Code is to hear appeals to quasi-judicial decisions made
by Commissions and Administrative Hearing Officers. Council has expressed a desire to discuss issues
and considerations associated with the appeal process and to potentially explore solutions to problems or
improvements that could make the process run more predictably and smoothly.
In the City appeals process, decisions made by a Quasi-judicial Commission or Hearing Officer are subject
to appeal, and these appeals are brought before the Council. Similarly, administrative decisions can be
appealed to a specific Commission, such as the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) or the Historic Preservation
Commission (HPC). It is important to note that the definition of a "party in interest" is broadly defined, and
this designation determines who has the right to appeal a decision. Appeals can be made on two primary
grounds: first, if there is a belief that the decision did not result from a fair hearing, and second, if there is
a claim that the Code was not properly interpreted and applied. To initiate an appeal, it must be submitted
within a strict timeframe of 14 days.
The Council has the option to conduct a pre-hearing site visit to better understand the circumstances
involved. During the actual hearing, the allocated time for presenting arguments is divided among those
Page 8
Item 1.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 6
both in favor and opposed to the appeal, ensuring a fair and balanced discussion. The Council carefully
reviews the record of the case and listens to testimony from involved parties. Following this deliberation,
the Council reaches a decision, and in the subsequent meeting, a resolution is adopted, clearly stating the
findings of fact that support their determination. This process aims to ensure that decisions at the local
level are made fairly, and the appeal process provides a crucial mechanism for citizens to have their
concerns heard and addressed.
Appeals Data
Over the four-year period from 2020 to 2023, the data on appeals heard by the Council provides several
insights. The average number of appeals considered by the Council during this time was just under 3 per
year.
It is worth noting that some appeals were filed towards the end of a calendar year and were subsequently
heard in the following year. In total, the Council heard 11 appeals during this period, with each appeal
accounting for approximately 9% of the total.
Most of these appeals were related to Project Development Plans, comprising 37% of the cases, followed
closely by appeals of Historic Designation Determinations at 27%. These appeals came from various
sources, but the largest number were decisions made by the Historic Preservation Commission, with the
Planning and Zoning Commission following closely behind.
Page 9
Item 1.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 6
In terms of outcomes, the Council upheld the original decision in most of the appeals, with a 55% rate of
affirming the initial rulings.
Interestingly, an equal number of decisions were either overturned or remanded back to the decision
maker, each accounting for 18% of the total cases. One exceptional case involved an appeal where it was
determined that the appellant did not have standing. Additionally, one Council decision, specifically the
decision to uphold, was further appealed to court and subsequently remanded to the original decision
maker. This data underscores the complexity of the appeal process and the various outcomes that can
arise during Council review of such cases.
Due Process Requirements
State and federal law entitle an applicant in a quasi-judicial hearing to procedural and substantive due
process. Because any hearing process implemented by the City must adhere to these principles of due
process, there are certain clear boundaries around potential changes or solutions. Due process rules
require:
The adopted procedures for hearings must be followed.
Affected persons must be afforded a “fair hearing” with reasonable opportunity to speak and for
rebuttal.
The decision maker must be “impartial” and “unbiased.”
The decision must be based “on the record” (only on information that is a part of the hearing).
The decision maker must apply the proper standards and criteria in making its decision.
Issues and Considerations
In preparation for this item, staff compiled several issues and considerations from previous Council appeals
and conversations as well as staff observations. For this work session, staff is seeking feedback from
Page 10
Item 1.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 6
Council on whether we have accurately captured the key issues and whether there are any additional
issues that we have not included in this inventory. The list of issues and considerations includes:
Does the Councilmember appeal process work?
It is difficult to avoid and discourage ex parte communication from members of the public.
Limitations on discussion make it difficult for Councilmembers to prepare for an appeal hearing.
Participants in appeal hearings have difficulty understanding the process.
Unpredictable set of participants leads to unpredictable hearing dynamics (time allocation, etc.).
Evidentiary issues raised during the hearing can be complicated, inefficient, and difficult to resolve
fairly during the hearing.
Are the right decisions being appealed at the right stage of the process and the right level of detail for
review by Council?
Data from Other Jurisdictions
In preparation for this work session, staff evaluated the process for appeals to land use decisions in other
front range communities. The table below summarizes how these jurisdictions handle appeals. Some
important takeaways include:
All jurisdictions except for Denver provide for appeals of land use decisions to Council.
Jurisdictions are about evenly split between those who conduct appeals only on the record (without
admission of new evidence) and those who allow new evidence.
A significant majority do not allow appeals to be brought forward by Council, although a few do allow
this.
There are many unique features and nuances present in the approaches that reflect community
preferences.
Page 11
Item 1.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 5 of 6
Potential Solutions and Improvements-Structure Based
To help inform Council’s discussion about potential solutions and improvements, staff has developed
options that fall into two main categories: structural and process. Structural improvements include
substantial changes to the way appeals are heard, i.e., changing what can be appealed and/or what body
hears appeals. Process-based solutions capture options that are procedural in nature and do not involve
major role changes or the creation of new review bodies.
The potential structure-based solutions and improvements identified by staff include:
1. Provide for no appeal from the decision-making Commissions or Hearing Officers. Under this
approach, an interested party would need to file a lawsuit to challenge the decision.
2. Give Council the role of reviewing underlying decisions based on the record without the addition
of new evidence .
3. Give Council the role of making a new decision on appeals by conducting an entirely new hearing.
This is called “de novo” review. Council becomes the decision maker under this model and must reach
its own independent decision based on the information presented to Council.
4. Give Council the role of initial decision maker on certain applications.
5. Create a separate body, like a “Board of Appeals” or a hearing officer, to consider appeals rather
than Council.
6. Create an option for no presentation of oral arguments, just submittal of written argument.
Potential Solutions and Improvements- Process Based
Process-based solutions can be implemented on their own, or in combination with any of the larger
structural changes identified above. Possible process solutions identified by staff include:
1. Change eligibility to file an appeal to those who participated and/or have a possessory interest in
the property in the process for the appealed decision (not providing standing for everyone who receives
notice).
2. Narrow the grounds for appeal to eliminate appeal based on bias by decision maker or consideration
of false or misleading evidence.
3. Narrow or clarify new evidence rules and procedures.
4. Change participation in the appeal hearing to the applicant and appellant . If the applicant is the
appellant, require opposers to file an entry of appearance by a deadline to participate in the appeal.
5. Eliminate the organized site visit.
6. Allow Councilmembers to make written requests for information from staff in advance of the
hearing so long as the requests and responsive information are available to participants in the appeal.
7. Adopt standard times for presentation by hearing participants (to avoid case-by-case uncertainty)
allowing for Mayor/Council to make exceptions determined appropriate.
8. Consider whether written exchanges by Council with staff may be allowed in advance of the
hearing if they are documented and included in the record.
Page 12
Item 1.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 6 of 6
9. Make a distinction between the appealability of different application types (for example, a PDP
vs an ODP).
10. Create a mandatory pre-hearing conference that overviews the process and rules with all
participants.
11. Allow submittal of written pre-hearing arguments to Council.
12. Allow staff to review notices of appeal for obvious defects (example: standing).
NEXT STEPS
Depending on Council conversation at work session, staff is prepared to research any additional issues or
considerations identified by Councilmembers, and/or further develop solutions or improvements that
Councilmembers would like to explore more thoroughly. Possible next steps could include another work
session with more detailed research and solutions, or the development of code amendments for Council
consideration in 2024.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Presentation
Page 13
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here
Paul Sizemore, CDNS
Director
Brad Yatabe, Senior
Assistant City Attorney
Process for Council
Appeals to Quasi-
Judicial Decisions
11-14-23
Page 14
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes HerePresentation Outline
2
1. Current Appeals
Process
2. Historical Data
3. Due Process
Requirements
4. Issues and
Considerations
5. Potential Solutions and
Improvements
Page 15
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes HereQuestions for Council
•Do Councilmembers have feedback on the list of identified issues and
considerations in the appeals process?
•Are there other issues or considerations that have not yet been
identified?
•Are there solutions or improvements that Councilmembers would like
to see staff further develop and bring forward for consideration?
Page 16
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes HereCurrent Appeal Process- A Broad Overview
4
• Quasi-judicial Commission or Hearing Officer
decisions may be appealed to Council
• Appeals of administrative decisions go to a
Commission (e.g., P&Z or HPC)
• “Party in interest” is broadly defined- this determines
who can appeal a decision
• Appeal can be on the basis of a failure to provide a
fair hearing, or failure to properly interpret and apply
the Code
• Appeal must be submitted within 14 days
• Council has the option of a pre-hearing site visit
• Time to present during a hearing is divided among
those in favor and opposed to the appeal
• Council reviews record and hears testimony
• Following Council’s decision, a resolution stating
findings of fact is adopted at next meeting
Page 17
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes HereHistorical Data: Fours Years of Appeals Heard by Council
5
•Data reflects year the
appeal was heard by
Council
•Average number of
appeals is just under 3
per year
•Some appeals were filed
near the end of the
calendar year and were
heard in the following
year
0
1
2
3
4
5
2020 2021 2022 2023
Appeals
Page 18
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes HereHistorical Data: Types of Appeals
6
•During the past 4 years,
at total of 11 appeals
have been heard by
Council (1 appeal= 9%)
•The greatest number of
appeals were of Project
Development Plans
(37%)
•The second greatest was
appeal of a Historic
Designation
Determination (27%)
9%
9%
37%
9%
27%
9%
TYPE
Modification of Standard Standing Determination
Project Development Plan Major Amendment
Historic Designation Historic Review
Page 19
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes HereDecision Maker Being Appealed
7
•The largest number of
appeals heard by Council
were decisions by the
Historic Preservation
Commission
•This was followed closely
by the Planning and
Zoning Commission
•Only 18% of appeals
were to a Hearing Officer
decision
36%
18%
46%
Decision Maker Being Appealed
Planning and Zoning
Commission
Hearing Officer
Historic
Preservation
Commission
Page 20
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes HereOutcome of Appeals
8
• Council upheld the decision in
a majority of the appeals
(55%)
• An equal number of decisions
were either overturned or
remanded to the decision
maker (18% each)
• One appeal was resolved by
determining the appellant did
not have standing
• One Council decision (to
uphold) was appealed to
court and then remanded to
the original decision maker
55%
18%
18%
9%
RESULT
Upheld Overturned Remanded No Standing
Page 21
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here
9
Due Process Requirements
•State and federal law entitle an applicant in a quasi-judicial hearing to
procedural and substantive due process. This means:
•The adopted procedures for hearings must be followed
•Affected persons must be afforded a “fair hearing” with reasonable
opportunity to speak and for rebuttal
•The decision maker must be “impartial” and “unbiased”
•The decision must be based “on the record” (only on information that
is a part of the hearing)
•The decision maker must apply the proper standards and criteria in
making its decision
Page 22
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes HereIssues and Considerations
10
• Does the Councilmember appeal process work?
• It is difficult to avoid and discourage ex parte communication from
members of the public
• Limitations on discussion make it difficult for Councilmembers to
prepare for an appeal hearing
• Participants in appeals hearings have difficulty understanding the
process
• Unpredictable set of participants leads to unpredictable hearing
dynamics (time allocation, etc.)
• Evidentiary issues raised during the hearing can be complicated,
inefficient, and difficult to resolve fairly during the hearing
• Are the right decisions being appealed at the right stage of the
process and the right level of detail for review by Council?
Page 23
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes HerePractices in Other Jurisdictions
11
Notable Features
Council
Can
Initiate
Appeal
Appeal Only On the
Record, No New
Evidence
Quasi-
Judicial
Land Use
Appeals to
Council
No appeals to Council of items appealed to Planning CommissionNoYesYesArvada
YesNo, may consider new
evidence + record
YesBoulder
Basis for appeal must be specific; Council must affirm unless decision was abuse of
discretion or unsupported by record
NoYesYesCentennial
Council may preliminarily determine if notice of appeal meets application requirements and
dismiss if not; Council may hear appeal de novo or limit to issues raised on appeal
NoNo, may consider new
evidence + record
YesColorado
Springs
Appeals principally heard by Board of AdjustmentNon/aNoDenver
Council appeal decisions subject to appeal to municipal courtNoYesYesGolden
Council gives deference to decision on appeal; appeals may be filed by any department
director or referral agency that provided comments
NoYesYesGreeley
For major development applications, any resident, the Planning Director, and City Manager
have standing to appeal; for minor and administrative applications, City Manager has
standing
NoNo, may consider new
evidence + record
YesLongmont
Staff may dismiss appeal if lacks standing or sufficient detail to put City on notice of the
appeal’s legal basis; no appeals to Council of items appealed to Planning Commission
NoYesYesLoveland
YesNo, de novo hearingsYesThornton
Four Councilmembers must appeal matter, City Manager may also appealYesNo, de novo hearingsYesWestminster
Page 24
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here
12
Potential Solutions- Structure Based
1. Provide for no appeal from the decision-making Commissions or Hearing Officers.
2. Give Council the role of reviewing underlying decisions based on the record
3. Give Council the role of making a new decision on appeals
4. Give Council the role of initial decision maker on certain applications.
5. Create a separate body, like a “Board of Appeals”
6. Create an option for no presentation of oral arguments
Page 25
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here
13
Potential Solutions and Improvements - Process Based
1. Change eligibility to file an appeal
2. Narrow the grounds for appeal
3. Narrow or clarify new evidence rules and procedures.
4. Change participation in the appeal hearing to the applicant and appellant.
5. Eliminate the organized site visit.
6. Allow Councilmembers to make written requests for information
Page 26
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here
14
Potential Solutions and Improvements- Process Based
7. Adopt standard times for presentation by hearing participants
8. Consider whether written exchanges by Council with City staff may be allowed
9. Make a distinction between the appealability of different application types
10. Create a mandatory pre-hearing conference
11. Allow submittal of written pre-hearing arguments to Council.
12. Allow City staff to review notices of appeal for obvious defects
Page 27
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes HereQuestions for Council
•Do Councilmembers have feedback on the list of identified issues and
considerations in the appeals process?
•Are there other issues or considerations that have not yet been
identified?
•Are there solutions or improvements that Councilmembers would like
to see staff further develop and bring forward for consideration?
Page 28
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here
16
Page 29
Item 1.
Claire N. Havelda
Attorney at Law
303.223.1194 direct
chavelda@bhfs.com
www.bhfs.com
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
303.223.1100 main
675 Fifteenth Street, Suite 2900
Denver, Colorado 80202
June 18, 2024
Ms. Carrie Daggett
Fort Collins City Attorney
201 Laporte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
caoadmin@fcgov.com
Ms. Jeni Arndt
Mayor of Fort Collins
201 Laporte Ave
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
jarndt@fcgov.com
RE: Suggestions for Updates to the Fort Collins Appellate Rules & Regulations
Dear Mayor Arndt & Attorney Daggett:
On November 14, 2023, I attended the City’s Work Session where possible improvements to the City’s
appellate process was discussed. Having served as an Assistant City Attorney in Fort Collins, as counsel
for private parties attempting to navigate Fort Collins’ appellate procedures, and as a law clerk for the
Colorado Court of Appeals, I have a unique perspective from which to offer suggestions for
improvement of the City’s appellate process. Fort Collins’ mission of “exceptional service for an
exceptional community” and values of partnership and integrity should be the guiding pole stars for any
code revisions. Unfortunately, because Fort Collins’ current appellate procedures are convoluted,
extraordinarily expensive to the taxpayers and readily susceptible to abuse, the current appellate code
drafting does not support Fort Collins’ mission or values.
As the Work Session demonstrated, the majority of appeals brought before City Council arise from land
use entitlement approvals/denials and Historic Preservation Commission decisions. As such, I will focus
my suggestions for appellate procedure improvement in these two areas. Specifically, I suggest City
Council improve the fundamental fairness of its appellate procedures by reviewing its code drafting
related to: 1) Standing; 2) the Form of the Appellate Review; 3) the Duplicative Avenues of Appeal; 4)
Financial Impacts on Private Land Owners of Involuntary Landmark Designations; and 5) Reframing
Overarching Policy Considerations of Appellate Review.
Page 30
Item 1.
SENT VIA REGULAR MAIL AND EMAIL
Ms. Carrie Daggett
Ms. Jeni Arndt
June 18, 2024
Page 2
1) Standing.
Standing determines who can bring an appeal.
A. Relevant Fort Collins Municipal Code (the “Code”) and the Land Use Code (the “LUC”) provisions.
• Code Section 2-46 and LUC Section 5.1. “Party-in-interest” shall mean a person who or
organization that has standing to appeal the final decision of a board, commission or other
decision maker. Such standing to appeal shall be limited to the following:
o The applicant;
o Any party holding an ownership or possessory interest in the real or personal property
that was the subject of the decision of the board, commission or other decision maker
whose action is to be appealed;
o Any person to whom or organization to which the City mailed notice of the hearing of
the board, commission or other decision maker;
o Any person who or organization that provided written comments to the appropriate
City staff for delivery to the board, commission or other decision maker prior to or at
the hearing on the matter which is to be appealed;
o Any person who or organization that appeared before the board, commission or
other decision maker at the hearing on the action which is to be appealed ;
o The City Council as represented by the request of a single member of the City Council.
• Code Article III: Landmark Designation Procedure:
o Section 14-23(b). Appeal of determination. Any determination made by staff regarding
eligibility may be appealed to the Commission by the applicant, any resident of the City,
or owner of property in the City.
o Section 14-31 – Initiation of designation procedure which is inextricably linked with who
can ultimately appeal these decisions.
• (a) The Fort Collins landmark or Fort Collins landmark district designation process
may be initiated at the written request of any Councilmember, by motion of the
Page 31
Item 1.
SENT VIA REGULAR MAIL AND EMAIL
Ms. Carrie Daggett
Ms. Jeni Arndt
June 18, 2024
Page 3
Commission, upon application of the owner(s) of the resource(s) to be designated, or
of any three (3) or more residents of the City.
B. Policy Considerations. Standing and Fairness. Council should begin this analysis by considering
if it is “fair” for any person to participate in a land use entitlement appellate process or move to
landmark a private property? Current Code drafting would answer this question in the
affirmative, and the policy benefits of this position are described below. But has Council
considered the unintended consequences of the current drafting? These are also discussed
below.
• Benefits of Current Drafting.
o As the Code and the LUC are currently written, any person can be heard on any issue.
o By allowing any resident who provided minimal input on a matter the right to appeal that
decision, City Council has ensured that the minimum effort by a citizen has maximum
impact upon shaping the City’s future.
o This position provides political cover for Councilmembers during election season.
o Allows a vocal contingent (whether representative of the majority or minority opinion)
to shape City policy and decisions without otherwise having to engage in City policy
development.1
o Allows any resident to seek to have any building in Fort Collins landmarked and preserved
according to the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Thereby relieving the City of any
duty to provide funding to proactively survey buildings that could be landmarked.
• Consequences of Current Drafting.
o Chaotic, expensive and unpredictable results. While at first blush it sounds democratic
to state that anyone can have a say in Fort Collins’ appellate process for land use
entitlements and landmarking historic sites, there are consequences to this policy.
Without parameters around standing, Fort Collins essentially allows a person not directly
impacted by an issue (by proximity, financially or legally) to interfere with fundamental
1 Such was the case in the drafting of the previously repealed Land Use Code. Residents who did not contribute or engage
in the City’s extensive outreach process summarily demanded the repeal of the LUC at the eleventh hour costing the City
thousands in Staff time and consultant fees. The City’s current appellate process encourages the same form of resident
engagement.
Page 32
Item 1.
SENT VIA REGULAR MAIL AND EMAIL
Ms. Carrie Daggett
Ms. Jeni Arndt
June 18, 2024
Page 4
property rights and fundamental liberties of another. In other words, it elevates one
person’s opinion to the same level as another’s rights.
o The Colorado Supreme Court has long held that “standing” to bring suit , or to be made
part of a suit, is a threshold issue that must be satisfied before a court may decide a case
on the merits.2 To establish standing under Colorado law, the courts employ a two-part
test requiring that: 1) the person bringing the suit suffered an “injury in fact” and 2) that
the injury was to a legally protected interest as contemplated by statutory (or in this case
Municipal Code) provisions.3
• Injury in fact is established by alleging “physical damage or economic harm, or
intangible harm such as the deprivation of civil liberties.” 4 However, an injury that
is overly indirect and incidental will not convey standing.5
o In the United States courts, a person must show that they have (or will) suffer real and
remediable harm as a result of someone else’s conduct in order to have “standing” to
come before a court and be heard on a matter.
• Example. In a property dispute between Neighbor A and Neighbor B over a fence
line, either A or B could bring their case before a court.
o However, person C, who lives two miles away and has strong opinions on the
parties’ dispute but is not impacted financially or legally by it, could not bring a
suit.
o Under the current Fort Collins appeals process, persons C-Z could bring a suit
against the Neighbors A or B even if they lived three states over and were only
interested in being part of the suit to harass Neighbor A.
o Such a broad interpretation of “standing” brings into question the fairness and integrity
of the current Fort Collins process. As a consequence of this “free -for-all” approach to
standing, the voices of those directly impacted by the appeal become diluted, the issues
at hand confused, and the impacted parties’ positions’ are not given sufficient time for
consideration or weight. The process also becomes extremely expensive for both the
City and the primary parties which is a fiscally irresponsible use of taxpayer money, and
2 Barber v. Ritter, 196 P.3d 238, 245 (Colo. 2008); citing Ainscough v. Owens, 90 P.3d 851, 855 (Colo. 2004).
3 Barber, 196, P.3d at 245.
4 Id.
5 Id. at 245-46.
Page 33
Item 1.
SENT VIA REGULAR MAIL AND EMAIL
Ms. Carrie Daggett
Ms. Jeni Arndt
June 18, 2024
Page 5
disproportionately fiscally impacts proponents of development projects and property
owners challenging designation or decisions regarding landmarked properties.
C. Suggested Standing Modification. Consider objectively limiting standing.
• For land use matters, this would mean limiting standing to the applicant, anyone holding an
ownership or possessory interest in the land, and those receiving mailed notice from the City
due to proximity to the project.
• For Historic Preservation matters consider limiting landmark designation of private homes
to the owners of the residences. Consider limiting landmark designation of commercial or
non-residential buildings to a motion brought by a two -thirds majority of the Historic
Preservation Commission or the property owners.
D. In further considering standing, Council should consider the weight given to each “party-in-
interests’” position.
• Is it fair for everyone’s position to be considered as equally weighted?
• Should motive be considered?
• Should people’s positions that do not align with the City’s core values (partnership, service,
safety and wellbeing, sustainability, integrity and belonging) be weighted as heavily as those
that are in alignment?
• Proposed Modification.
o Greater weight should be given to the property owners’ wishes and those directly
physically and financially impacted by the decision affecting the property than to people
tangentially impacted by a project.
o Motive or bias should also influence the weight given to a party’s position and credibility.
o Parties whose positions align with the City’s core values should be provided greater
weight.
2) Form of the Appellate Review.
In reviewing the efficiency and efficacy of the Fort Collins’ appellate procedure, Council is urged to
consider the “form” of appeal. Traditionally, in appellate courts, the parties are not afforded an
Page 34
Item 1.
SENT VIA REGULAR MAIL AND EMAIL
Ms. Carrie Daggett
Ms. Jeni Arndt
June 18, 2024
Page 6
entirely new hearing. Rather, the court reviews the underlying record and hears limited argument
from those with standing. The idea being that the trial courts are in the best position to weigh the
evidence and assess the credibility of witnesses (the “facts”), and the appellate courts are present
to ensure the law was correctly applied to the facts. To allow for repeated hearings does not
necessarily get a reviewing court closer to the truth, it just adds to the expense and locks the parties
in extended conflict. It has often been said that to avoid these c onsequences, the appellate court
will not sit as the “thirteenth juror” of a district court case.
A. True Appeal. (Review of the record – no new Hearing).
• A true appeal would mean that a reviewing body would look solely to the record before it
and allow a limited time for each side to make argument regarding the application of the
facts to the law in writing. No new hearing would be held. Instead, a written decision from
the reviewing body would be issued and serve as the final decision in the case. A majority
of the reviewing body would need to agree on the outcome and the minority could still
express their ”dissent” in writing. This approach significantly limits the cost and time spent
on appeals, and ultimately streamlines the review process.
• This would look like a full hearing before the Administrative Hearing Officer for Type 1
Reviews and an appellate review by Planning Commission. Or a full hearing before the
Planning Commission for Type 2 reviews and an appellate review by City Council.
B. Full Rehearing. (Full New Hearing).
• Council could continue to require full hearings on appellate matters. In doing so, Council may
consider the cost to staff and appellants in terms of time and money to see a matter have
full hearings before as many as two reviewing boards.
• From a land use/entitlement perspective and a historic preservation perspective, the cost to
the private parties to prepare multiple hearings, and delay financing projects can be
catastrophic. For those development projects that include affordable housing, such delay
certainly increases the housing cost to the end user and in many circumstances often
becomes the death knell as “time kills all deals.”
• Council was wise to ask Staff to determine the exact cost in Staff time to prepare for multiple
levels of appeal. It would behoove City Council to understand the cost to the private parties
involved also to engage in multiple hearings.
Page 35
Item 1.
SENT VIA REGULAR MAIL AND EMAIL
Ms. Carrie Daggett
Ms. Jeni Arndt
June 18, 2024
Page 7
C. Proposed Modification. Hybrid Approach. (Review of the record and a brief oral/written
presentation from the Parties).
• If Council is not comfortable with a fully paper review of the record, then a “hybrid” approach
may be the solution. In this model, there is no new hearing of the evidence.
• Instead, the parties with standing summarize the relevant parts of the record and file a
written statement with the reviewing body (“Planning Commission (P&Z) or City Council”).
Then, the matter is set on a public meeting agenda and the Parties are allowed to make
limited oral presentations to the reviewing body.
• The reviewing body then discusses and votes publicly on the matter and issues a written
decision with the guidance of the City Attorney’s Office based on the record and the oral
argument.
3) Multiple Avenues for Appeals of Land Use Projects due to Poor Code Drafting.
Another major area of concern is that the City’s Code and LUC provide for multiple avenues of appeal
for the same matter.
A. Policy Considerations. Is it the intent of City Council that the same issue be subject to appeal
multiple times?
• Did Council intend for issues to take years and thousands of dollars to resolve? There are
significant costs in a direct appeal, but also indirect costs (carrying costs of financing the
project) that can become fatal to the project.
• Has Council considered the unintended negative consequences on affordable housing that
its lengthy appellate procedure has for land use approvals? How does this align with the
City’s policy of allowing for expedited review of affordable housing projects?
• Does a lengthy appellate process align with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Housing
Strategic Plan? Appeals related to housing projects risk financially ruining projects (as
mentioned above) and ensure significant delays in access to housing.
• Specifically, how does allowing for multiple rounds of appeal on each phase of a Planned
Unit Development (“PUD”) meet/achieve affordable and attainable housing objectives?
Page 36
Item 1.
SENT VIA REGULAR MAIL AND EMAIL
Ms. Carrie Daggett
Ms. Jeni Arndt
June 18, 2024
Page 8
B. Proposed Modification.
• Consider eliminating the multiple forms of appeal for land use projects, especially those
previously approved through the PUD process. As currently written, those phases that are
approved administratively through the Basic Development Review process can be appealed
to the Planning Commission for a full hearing, appealed to City Council for a full hearing, and
appealed to District court three different times on a Rule 106(a)(4) appeal.
o Thus, for a PUD (which has already gone through Staff, Planning Commission, City Council
and been subject to a Rule 106(a)(4) review) that has five phases, it could be appealed
twenty-five (25) more times under the current LUC and Code drafting.
o See PUD Phasing Flow Chart that demonstrates what each Phase of a PUD under Basic
Development Review is subject to in terms of appeals.
• Consider eliminating duplicative triggering events for Rule 106(a)(4) appeals. Currently, the
LUC allows for a party to appeal the Director’s approval of a BDR three times. (After
exhaustion of administrative remedies, after recording of the PUD documents, and after
publication in the newspaper).
• Consider making P&Z the final administrative body to hear land use appeals that do not
include initial PUD approvals. Thus, phasing approvals under a PUD that has been
previously approved by City Council could only be appealed to P&Z.
o In doing so, these matters could proceed directly to District Court on a Rule 106(a)(4)
after P&Z has rendered a decision and eliminate months of cost and delay.
4) Consideration of the Housing Strategic Plan and Financial Impacts to Private Residents of
Landmark Designation.
Currently, the Historic Preservation portions of the Code do not explicitly require the Historic
Preservation Commission to weigh the costs of compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards
against the City’s Strategic Housing Plan objectives or the imposition of financial burden on private
property owners. This leads to the absurd result of a quasi-judicial body of the City’s government
failing to even consider overarching housing policy or fundamental property rights in the vacuum
of landmark designation decisions.
• Proposed Modification.
Page 37
Item 1.
SENT VIA REGULAR MAIL AND EMAIL
Ms. Carrie Daggett
Ms. Jeni Arndt
June 18, 2024
Page 9
o The Historic Preservation Commission should be charged with considering the
objectives of the City’s Strategic Housing Plan and support for affordable and attainable
housing when deciding if involuntary landmark designations are appropriate.
o At this time, there is no requirement that the Historic Preservation Commission weigh
the cost to the individual property owners of landmarked or landmark eligible
properties into their decision-making procedure. This should be changed. The private
property owners should be allowed to put forth evidence regarding why the cost or the
landmark designation outweighs the benefits in their particular case.
• Failure to consider this critical information leads to the absurd results of private
property being landmarked over the objection of private property owners
regardless of the financial implications to the private property owner and thereby
prioritizing the Secretary of Interior’s Historic Standards over private property rights
and housing affordability considerations.
5) Overarching Policy Considerations: Are all residents being treated equally and fairly in the appellate
process?
Finally, I will end with a request that City Council review and consider the following policy considerations
when considering appropriate appellate code updates.
A. Are all residents being treated fairly in the appellate process or are there inherent biases that
favor one-side over the other?
• Proposed Recommendations for updated Code drafting:
o Motive and bias must be considered when weighing the positions of respective parties.
o Impact of the decision (cost and on fundamental rights) must also be weighed
proportionately. This is especially important for matters involving the involuntary
landmark designation of private residences.
B. Are legitimate concerns being resolved during appellate procedures?
• Could the average citizen read the City Codes and understand what a hearing would entail?
Could the average citizen read the City Codes and understand how many appeals are
involved with a particular issue? (Please refer to flowchart diagram).
o Proposed Recommendations for updated Code Drafting:
Page 38
Item 1.
SENT VIA REGULAR MAIL AND EMAIL
Ms. Carrie Daggett
Ms. Jeni Arndt
June 18, 2024
Page 10
• Consider having one or two clearly defined processes for appeals rather than multiple
cross-references throughout the Code and LUC that piecemeal a process that
ultimately leads to conflicting results.
• Consider having the appellate process diagramed in flow-chart form within the Code
to provide for clearer understanding of the procedural steps.
C. Is the appellate process being used as a platform by a minority of residents to undermine the
Planning & Zoning Commission, City Council and the rights of private property owners?
o Is the manner in which the apportionment of cost for appellants contributing to this
unbalanced system?
• Proposed Recommendations:
o As Council directed Staff in November, collect data on the actual cost, Staff and
City Attorney time spent preparing for appeals.
o Survey private parties who have had to utilize the City’s appellate process in the
last five years to ascertain private citizen costs for appeals.
o Make appropriate comparisons. Take into consideration Council’s duty as
stewards of public funds and weigh the total cost of appeals against the benefit
to the residents who bring appeals but who have tenuous standing.
Conclusion.
Refining and streamlining the appellate process should not be viewed as curtailing public input into local
government proceedings. Instead, a broader review of policy considerations must be undertaken to
ensure that any updated code drafting serves to meet the City’s mission and values. Clarifying the
appellate process provides greater access to those availing themselves of appellate procedures , refining
standing ensures that those most impacted by the appeal have their voice heard and their position
appropriately weighted, and considerations of financial impacts of appeals and landmark designations
are part of Council’s duty as fiduciaries of public funds.
Page 39
Item 1.
SENT VIA REGULAR MAIL AND EMAIL
Ms. Carrie Daggett
Ms. Jeni Arndt
June 18, 2024
Page 11
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter,
Claire N.L. Havelda
Cc (VIA EMAIL):
Kelly DiMartino (kdimartino@fcgov.com)
Emily Francis (efrancis@fcgov.com)
Melanie Potyondy (mpotyondy@fcgov.com)
Julie Pignataro (jpignataro@fcgov.com)
Susan Gutowsky (sgutowsky@fcgov.com)
Tricia Canonico (tcanonico@fcgov.com)
Kelly Ohlson (kohlson@fcgov.com)
Brad Yatabe (byatabe@fcgov.com)
29666985.1
Page 40
Item 1.
29666679.1
PUD BDR PHASING APPROVAL CDNS DIRECTOR
Approval Signature Date
14 Days from Date of CDNS Signature
Above
Planning
Commission
Hearing
City Council
Hearing (Charter
2-56(c)
District/Appellate
Court Review
1st Rule 106
2nd Rule 106
3rd Rule 106
Phasing Decision
Final
Appeal No Appeal
Appeal No Appeal
Appeal
No Appeal
Newspaper
Publication CDNS
Approval:
28 days to Appeal
Green = Administrative Remedies that Must be Exhausted
Blue = Phasing Decision Becomes Final
Recording of
Final Plan Set
(Plat, DA, etc. )
No Appeal
Appeal
Appeal
Page 41
Item 1.
Community Development & Neighborhood
Services Department
281 N. College Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80521
PO Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 27, 2024
To: Mayor and City Councilmembers
From: Kim Meyer, Interim CDNS Director
Subject: Quasi-Judicial Appeals – Cost to Appellants & the City
BOTTOM LINE
At the November 2023 Council work session, Councilmembers inquired as to the cost of quasi-
judicial appeals to the appellant as well as the costs to the City. This memo provides information
that responds to that inquiry.
APPLICATION FEE
The current $100 fee to file an appeal appears to have been established in 1990. There
is no clear description of the intent of the fee. Many such fees are imposed to cover a
portion of the hard cost of publishing and/or mailing notices, which is staff’s “best guess”
as to the intent. In the scheme of other city fees, this seems to be a relatively low cost,
while also requiring some investment by an appellant in the process.
COSTS TO THE CITY
Hard cost - Verbatim transcripts of the hearing to which the appeal is filed are ordered as
soon as a Notice of Appeal is received. These take 10-20 hours of contracted time, at a
cost of $40-50/hour – Range: $400-$1,000
Hard cost – The appropriate staff (Planning or Clerk) send out an updated notification
mailing to all affected property owners, as well as anyone who spoke at or submitted
comments for the hearing. This ranges widely depending on the project location and can
be twenty letters to several hundred letters mailed.
Staff hours – To respond to an appeal requires significant and immediate staff time and
includes assembling a wide range of documents to create the full record of a project,
reviewing transcripts, and writing the summary memos and presentations for hearing,
Page 42
Item 1.
among an array of other tasks. The hours and costs are rough estimates and shown as
a range as the staff involved, variety of project types, and depth of the project record
greatly impacts the time invested in an appeal.
Current estimated range for the cost of staff time $5,850 - $10,740, includes:
o If Historic Preservation decision appeal: $1,920 - $3,200
4-12 hours Admin time @ $40/hr
16-32 hours of Staff time @ $60/hr
8 hrs of CDNS Director time @ $100/hr
o If Land Use / Development decision appeal: $3,520 - $4,840
8-16 hrs Admin time @ $40/hr
40-50 hrs of Staff time @ $60/hr
8-12 hrs of CDNS Director time @ $100/hr
o Clerk – for either type: $1,250 - $1,500
25-30 hrs of Staff time @ $50/hr
o City Attorney – for either type: $2,680 - $4,400
3-6 hours Admin time @ $40/hr
16-24 hours Staff Attorneys time @ $100/hr
8-12 hours City Attorney time @ $150/hr
Page 43
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here
Interim CDNS Director
Kim Meyer
Quasi-Judicial
Appeals to Council
-Process
8-27-2024
Managing City Attorney
Brad Yatabe
Page 44
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes HereTypes & Numbers of Appeals
2
•From 2020 –2024 YTD, a total of 19
appeals were heard by Council.
•2-4 per year 2020-23
•2024 is on track for 6-8 appeals
•The greatest number of appeals were of
Project Development Plans by PZC (#: 6,
32%)
•The second greatest was appeal of a
Historic Designation Determination or
Review by HPC (#: 7, 37%)
•Appeals in 2024 YTD:
•1 HPC appeal
•3 Land Use appeals + 1 pending
Planning
& Zoning
+ Hearing
Officer, 11,
58%
Historic
Preservation
Comm, 7, 37%
Utilities
Director, 1, 5%
TOTAL APPEALS 2020-2024 YTD
Page 45
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here
3
High Level Concerns
•Appeals can be complex and
confusing.
•Certain elements of appeal
hearings can be unpredictable.
•Appeals can create an
unrealistic expectation of
different outcomes.
•Grounds for appeal are
frequently found to lack merit at
hearing.
•Processing and preparing for
appeals is burdensome on
Council and other City
resources –as well as the
Appellant and Respondent.
Page 46
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here
4
Questions for Council
•What feedback do Councilmembers have related to the
individual elements of the process?
•Are there additional issues or solutions that Councilmembers
would like staff to investigate?
Page 47
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here
5
Big Picture Context
•Municipalities in Colorado are not required to offer appeal options or
any specific approach to appeals beyond basic Due Process
considerations.
•Different cities approach appeals in various ways.
•Appeals beyond municipal solutions jump to the Court system.
•The current commissions and boards are comprised of community
members with some level of subject matter expertise and supported
by professional staff.
Page 48
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes HereDiscussion Overview
6
Each discussion point will be presented
individually, starting a summary of the:
1.Current state of appeals process.
2.Alternative solutions.
3.Staff recommendations summarized.
4.“Keep in Mind” notations indicate additional
considerations.
5.Opportunity for Council to discuss and provide
feedback.
Finish with a summary of Council feedback.
Page 49
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here
7
Decision Maker
Current State:
Council is final decision-maker on all
process, fair hearing, and failure-to-
interpret/apply issues.
Alternatives:
1.Executive-level City Staff or
Designee
2.Council Committee (3 or 5
members)
3.Outside Hearing Officer
Recommendation:
Executive-level City Staff or Designee
is decision-maker on prehearing
process and fair hearing issues.
Council decides hearing procedures
and failure to interpret and apply
issues.
Keep in mind:
Different decision makers can decide
procedural, fair hearing, and failure to
interpret and apply issues.
Page 50
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here
8
Standing to Appeal
Current State:
Broad standing, including anyone
with a mailed notice and Council.
Alternatives:
1.Allow appeals by:
a.Project Applicant and Subject
Property Owner; and
b.Parties who participated in the
hearing by providing written or
oral comments.
Recommendation:
Revise code provisions to the
alternatives presented.
Authorize administrative staff to
establish/reject Standing to Appeal,
based on the record, during pre-hearing
review/prep.
Keep in mind:
This would require active participation
by an Appellant at the original decision
hearing.
Page 51
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here
9
Permitted Grounds for Appeal
Current State:
The grounds for an appeal did not
have to be raised at the original
hearing, and may not have factored
into original decision being appealed.
Alternatives:
1.Require that the Issue being
appealed / argument raised,
was identified during original
hearing.
Recommendation:
Revise code to require that the issues
and arguments that are the basis for an
Appeal must have been raised in the
original hearing to be appealable.
Keep in mind:
These requirements would not apply to
the project Applicant or subject property
owner(s), if they become the Appellant.
Page 52
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here
10
Multiple Levels of Appeals
Current State:
Projects may be subject to multiple
levels of appeals –e.g., certain
administrative staff decisions are
appealable to a commission and
then to Council.
Alternative:
1.Allow an appeal of an Admin
staff decision to the appropriate
Commission or Executive-level
staff, as the final decision. -or-
2.All appeals direct to Council.
Recommendation:
Revise the code to allow appeals to the
appropriate commission or Executive-
level staff, as a final City decision.
Allow Director’s decision on Affordable
Housing projects to be appealable
to Executive-level staff only. (Currently
a Basic Development Review decision
is appealed to PZC for full hearing.)
Page 53
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here
11
Evidence & Arguments
Current State:
Specific new evidence & oral
arguments are permitted, site visit, and
responses to Council questions.
Alternatives:
1.Decision based on record
evidence only:
a.No new evidence submitted;
b.Eliminate Council site visit;
c.Limit scope of Council questions
to only clarifications of
appeal record & argument.
2.Change how arguments in favor of
and against an Appeal are
presented:
a.Written arguments in advance of
hearing by the Parties; and/or
b.No oral argument, presentation,
or rebuttal; and/or
c.Oral arguments from those listed
on the Notice of Appeal (pre-
reviewed), or other pre-registered
Parties in Interest.Page 54
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here
12
Evidence & Arguments
Keep in mind:
Eliminating new evidence and limiting
oral argument will help to focus the
discussion on the issue in the appeal,
and set more realistic boundaries and
expectations of the discussion and final
decision.
Recommendation:
•No new evidence permitted –limit
scope of appeal hearing to existing
record and the appeal arguments.
•Require written arguments submitted
in advance of hearing by the Parties.
•Oral argument at hearing to address
only the record evidence and the
issue being appealed, with time for
rebuttal.
Page 55
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here
Improve Ease of Access and Functionality of
our current guides and templates.
Enhance technical assistance options to
support community members for more
impactful participation at all levels of
decisions.
All Parties in Interest that want to participate
in the Appeal must be listed on the Notice of
Appeal or Pre-register as a Respondent –
subject to Staff review for standing in
pre-hearing review.
Process Improvements
13
Authorize Staff to review Notice of Appeal:
•Identify defects in Notice of Appeal & allow
time to cure
•Make final determination on certain pre-
hearing issues, including standing and fair
hearing issues
Schedule Pre-Hearing Conference with
Staff to:
•Provide clarity on process and purpose
•Discuss appropriate materials to submit
Page 56
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here
14
Summary List of Issues
•Decision-maker
•Standing to Appeal
•Permitted Grounds for Appeal
•Multiple Levels of Appeals
•Evidence & Arguments
•Process Improvements
Page 57
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here
15
Page 58
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here
16
Process Comparison to other Municipalities
QJ Land
Use
Appeals to
Council
Appeal Only on
Record, No New
Evidence
Council Can
Initiate Notable Features
FORT
COLLINS
Yes No, may consider new
evidence + record
Yes
Arvada Yes Yes No No appeals to Council of items appealed to Planning Commission
Boulder Yes No, may consider new
evidence + record
Yes
Centennial Yes Yes No Basis for appeal must be specific; Council must affirm unless decision was abuse of
discretion or unsupported by record
Colorado
Springs
Yes No, may consider new
evidence + record
No Council may preliminarily determine appeal meets application requirements and
dismiss, if not; Council may hear appeal de novo or limit to issues raised on appeal
Denver No n/a No Appeals principally heard by Board of Adjustment
Golden Yes Yes No Council appeal decisions subject to appeal to municipal court
Greeley Yes Yes No Council gives deference to decision on appeal; appeals may be filed by any
department director or referral agency that provided comments.
Longmont Yes No, may consider new
evidence + record
No Major development applications: residents, Planning Director, &City Manager have
standing; for minor and administrative application: City Manager has standing.
Loveland Yes Yes No Staff may dismiss appeal if lacks standing or sufficient detail; no appeals to Council
of items appealed to Planning Commission.
Thornton Yes No, de novo hearings Yes
Westminster Yes No, de novo hearings Yes Four Councilmembers must appeal matter, City Manager may also appealPage 59
Item 1.
File Attachments for Item:
2. 2050 Tax – Update and Discussion.
The passage of the 2050 tax by the community in 2023 represents an opportunity for the City to
advance community goals in the areas of Parks and Recreation, Transit and Climate. The
purpose of this item is to discuss strategies and approaches to each of the funding areas (Parks
& Recreation, Climate and Transit) in the 2050 0.50% sales tax.
Page 60
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 6
August 27, 2024
WORK SESSION AGENDA
ITEM SUMMARY
City Council
STAFF
Travis Storin, Chief Financial Officer
Dean Klingner, Community Services Director
Jacob Castillo, Chief Sustainability Officer
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
2050 Tax – Update and Discussion.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The passage of the 2050 tax by the community in 2023 represents an opportunity for the City to advance
community goals in the areas of Parks and Recreation, Transit and Climate. The purpose of this item is
to discuss strategies and approaches to each of the funding areas (Parks & Recreation, Climate and
Transit) in the 2050 0.50% sales tax.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What thoughts or questions do Councilmembers have regarding the uses of 2050 Tax revenue to date?
2. Do Councilmembers have additional thoughts or questions on the 2050 Tax Parks & Recreation,
Climate, or Transit uses?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 2022 and 2023 City staff worked with the Council Finance Committee and the full Council to strategically
address a funding deficit in Parks and Recreation and implementation needs to address goals outlined in
the Transit Master Plan, the Housing Strategic Plan, and Our Climate Future initiative.
The results of this work were two ballot measures on the November 2023 ballot. One of these measures,
a combined 0.50% sales tax increase for Parks & Recreation, Transit and Climate passed and went into
effect January 1st, 2024.
The ballot language is as follows:
SHALL CITY OF FORT COLLINS TAXES BE INCREASED BY $23,800,000 IN THE FIRST FULL FISCAL
YEAR (2024), AND BY SUCH AMOUNTS COLLECTED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER, FROM A .50%
SALES AND USE TAX BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2024, AND ENDING AT MIDNIGHT ON DECEMBER
31, 2050, WITH THE TAX REVENUES SPENT ONLY FOR THE FOLLOWING:
Page 61
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 6
50% FOR THE REPLACEMENT, UPGRADE, MAINTENANCE, AND ACCESSIBILITY OF
PARKS FACILITIES AND FOR THE REPLACEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF INDOOR AND
OUTDOOR RECREATION AND POOL FACILITIES,
25% FOR PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS ADVANCING GREENHOUSE GAS AND AIR
POLLUTION REDUCTION, THE CITY’S 2030 GOAL OF 100% RENEWABLE ENERGY, AND THE
CITY’S 2050 GOAL OF COMMUNITYWIDE CARBON NEUTRALITY, AND
25% FOR THE CITY’S TRANSIT SYSTEM, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION,
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT, AND UPGRADED AND
EXPANDED SERVICES;
AND WHILE CITY COUNCIL MAY EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION IN DECIDING THE TIMING OF
SPENDING FOR EACH CATEGORY, THAT SPENDING SHALL BE RECONCILED TO THE
STATED PERCENTAGES BY THE END OF 2030, 2040, AND WHEN THE LAST OF THE
REVENUES COLLECTED FROM THE TAX ARE SPENT, BUT THIS TAX SHALL NOT APPLY
TO:
ITEMS EXEMPT UNDER THE CITY CODE FROM CITY SALES AND USE TAX; FOOD
FOR HOME CONSUMPTION; AND
MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT, BUT FOR THE USE TAX ONLY; AND WITH ALL THE
TAX REVENUES, AND INVESTMENT EARNINGS THEREON, TO BE COLLECTED,
RETAINED, AND SPENT AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE
NOTWITHSTANDING THE SPENDING AND REVENUE LIMITATIONS OF ARTICLE X,
SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION?
City Council has approved budgets for each of the ballot areas for 2024 and will be reviewing budgets for
2025-26 in the upcoming months.
Parks and Recreation, Climate, and Transit share funding from this ballot initiative. However, the types of
programs, projects, initiatives, and staffing vary between and within each of the areas and staff anticipates
funding needs will change and evolve over the 27 years of the tax.
Strategies for each of the ballot areas are summarized in the following sections.
Parks and Recreation
The funding needs in Parks and Recreation are based on the 2021 Parks and Recreation Master Plan
(ReCreate) and on-going asset management plans for Park and Recreation assets.
Broadly the ballot language allows the Parks and Recreation funding to be using for two purposes: (1)
replacement, upgrade, maintenance and accessibility of Parks Facilities and (2) replacement and
construction of indoor and outdoor Recreation and pool facilities.
From an operational perspective, Parks and Recreation will be implementing the funding in two distinct
ways. The first is building out asset management programs in Parks and for Recreation facilities. This work
is well underway and includes on-going evaluation, prioritization, and optimizing replacement of all Parks
and Recreation facilities. The second is for stand-alone large capital projects that are one-time in nature
and could include replacement of an existing recreation facility (i.e. Mulberry Pool) and new facilities (i.e.
Southeast Community Center (SECC)). Based on the demands for on-going asset replacement it is
unlikely that the tax could support additional new Recreation centers beyond these two. However, the life
of the tax is long enough that circumstances may change in the future to make this possible.
Page 62
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 6
The ballot language is silent on the distribution of the tax funds between replacement of park and recreation
facilities and large capital projects. However, based on an approach that maintenance of existing facilities
should be prioritized above new facilities, staff is recommending a “guideline” policy to roughly allocate
80% of the resources (balanced over time) to the asset replacement category and 20% of the life-of-the-
tax funding to major capital. Proposing a split of this nature allows decision makers to move forward with
near term capital needs while preserving the long-term impact of asset management.
80% equates to about $227M (all amounts in 2024 dollars) for asset management over the life of the tax
or about $8.4M/year. This amount will result in a substantial improvement over time in the condition of our
Parks and Recreation facilities and we project that within the life of the tax we will eliminate the
accumulated deferred maintenance.
20% equates to about $57M for large capital projects (Mulberry Pool replacement and additional funds for
the Southeast Community Center).
Southeast Community Center Overview
The 2015-2025 Community Capital Improvement Program (CCIP) ¼-cent sales tax mandates the
construction of a Community Center with Outdoor Pool in Southeast Fort Collins. $17M is currently
allocated for this purpose. $10M in CCIP reserves could be available based on a Council decision.
Based on similar facilities in Fort Collins, the cost to build the ballot project today is in the range of
$35M-$60M
The SECC presents opportunities for partnership with Poudre School District to add indoor lap lanes.
The SECC will include a partnership with Poudre River Public Library District for a new SE branch
replacing and expanding the facility currently in Front Range Village. This creates exciting new public
service opportunities and economies of scale.
The project is currently under design. Staff will be working with Council on a range of scope and budget
options in the first half of 2025.
Mulberry Pool Overview
Mulberry Pool is near the end of useful life. Any additional capital investments will be made on a case-by-
case basis.
City staff is underway with an analysis to evaluate the potential of a partnership with Colorado State
University and to evaluate potential new sites.
Costs to replace Mulberry Pool are highly dependent on the outcome of partnership opportunities, site
selection, and scoping of the new facility. For planning purposes, we are using a cost range of $35M-$45M
(2024 dollars).
2025-2035 Community Capital Improvement Program (CCIP renewal) and 2050 Tax
The CCIP and earlier versions have played a large role in funding large capital Parks and Recreation
facilities. The 2050 tax provides a new revenue source but is intended to supplement existing funding
mechanisms, not replace them.
Staff recommends consideration of strategies to utilize both of these funding sources for large one-time
capital project eligible under the appropriate ballot language to broaden the flexibility available to decision
makers and to reduce the burden on any singular funding source.
As an example, Mulberry Pool Replacement and Southeast Community Center funding strategies could
look something like this:
Page 63
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 6
SECC: 2015-2025 CCIP $17M
2015-2025 CCIP Reserves $10M
2050 $31-36M
Various grants/partnerships $2+
--------------
Total $60-$65M
Mulberry Pool Replacement: 2025-2035 CCIP Renewal $10-15M
2050 $20-25M
---------------------------
Total $30-$40M
Climate and Air Quality
The ballot language for use of the 25% of funds related to climate and air quality identifies four outcomes:
Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Air Pollution Reduction
2030 Goal: 100% Renewable Electricity
2050 Goal: Carbon Neutrality
For the 2024 “mini-BFO” and 2025-26 BFO, the process for determining a portfolio of offers for use of the
climate portion of the 2050 Tax has been bottom-up, relying on the expertise of staff across the
organization to know what is needed to advance the Big Moves their work supports. However, OCF staff
will work to complete a Strategic Funding Plan for the climate and air quality portion for the 2050 Tax,
which will pair the expertise of City staff with a higher-level strategy. Staff expect this to be complete by
early 2025. It will include consideration of some key elements, such as:
Our Climate Future Goals & Commitments
The Role of the City and Other Partners
Balancing Mitigation, Resilience, and Equity
Community Impacts and Return on Investment
Service Area Roles and Collaboration
Leveraging State and Federal Resources
Regional Alignment & Collaboration
Phasing/sequencing of Investments for Greatest Impact
One Time vs Ongoing Costs
Page 64
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 5 of 6
The 2050 Tax alone will not solve the climate crisis and the City cannot do it alone. Therefore, a strategic,
inclusive, and collaborative approach is needed. Strategic planning for climate funding is different than a
capital plan for parks and recreation or transit planning, since the causes and impacts of climate change
are embedded in almost every part of people’s day-to-day lives. Therefore, a strategic funding plan for the
climate and air quality portion of this new revenue source takes a slightly different approach but will provide
City Council, the community, and City staff with a guidebook for impactful investments . The City is in a
unique position to lead in climate action in our community but is not the only entity taking action. Part of
the City role is to bring others to the table (and bring the table to them) so we can support organizations
and individuals that are contributing to this effort.
To inform the City Manager’s Recommended Budget for 2025-26 staff conducted a methodical offer review
process for how to invest 2050 Tax revenue that built on the 2024 “mini-BFO” process. The result is a
series for “Optimized Offers” that align with the intention of the ballot language and advance multiple OCF
outcomes.
Overall Strategy for 2050 Tax Funding Recommendations:
Maximize potential to become a carbon neutral city by 2050
Complement existing (significant) climate investments across City budget
Scale & accelerate rather than replace existing funding
Support projects that advance multiple outcomes
o including resilience and equity
Maintain reserves for upcoming developments in progress
Specific Criteria Used for Offer Assessment and 2050 Tax Funding Recommendations:
Ballot alignment
Advance at least one OCF Big Move/strategy
Direct community benefit
Advance equitable outcomes for most impacted groups
Advance trusting partnerships
Inclusion of considerations of climate change implications
Supports communities’ well-being in disruptive events
Next Steps
Share potential impacts on climate goals for the City Manager’s Recommended 2025-26 Budget
Develop Strategic Funding Plan for 2050 Tax revenue by end of Q1 2025
Allocate reserved funds through the 2026 budget revision process in Q2 2025
Transit
Ballot language for use of the 25% funds is related to transit infrastructure improvements, purchase of
Page 65
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 6 of 6
equipment, and upgraded and expanded services. The primary objective of the 2050 Transit Tax strategy
is to enhance ridership and advance the goals outlined in the Transit Master Plan that was adopted by
Council in 2019.
Short term strategy and critical to the success of the Transit Master Plan is the stabilization of the workforce
and the improvement of safety and security across the transit system. In 2024, revenue generated from
the 2050 Transit Sales Tax was allocated to several key initiatives, including increased wages for Bus
Operators, Dispatchers, and Transit Service Officers, and an increase in the number of benefited Bus
Operator positions. Additionally, two new Safety and Security roles were created. These positions include
an additional Transit Service Officer and a Lead Transit Service Officer who is responsible for overseeing
the field operations of Transit Service Officers and contracted security personnel. After funding these
initiatives, approximately $3.5 million was reserved for future needs.
Long-term strategy includes support for system optimization and implementation, including optimizing
existing service levels and prioritizing elements in the Transit Master Plan that enhance the transit system
to maximize ridership and access based on the available funding. Additional strategy includes improved
financial resiliency through building reserve funds to support future buildout and local match needs that
support the buildout of the Transit Master Plan, such as West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor, and
the implementation of the system optimization.
Specific criteria used for 2050 tax fund recommendations include offers that support:
Ballot alignment
Local match for capital grants that support transit infrastructure
System optimization support
Transit Master Plan buildout
Service and workforce stabilization
Reserve funds for system optimization and Transit Master Plan buildout
Next Steps
Complete system optimization and implementation
Continue design work on West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor
Continue seeking federal grant funding to further Transit Master Plan initiatives
ATTACHMENTS
1. Presentation
Page 66
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
2050 Tax:
Update and
Discussion
August 27, 2024
Page 67
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes HereCouncil Direction Requested
2
What thoughts or questions do Councilmembers
have regarding the uses of 2050 Tax revenue
to-date?
2
Do Councilmembers have additional thoughts or
questions on the 2050 Tax Parks & Recreation,
Climate, or Transit uses?
1
Page 68
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
08.27.2024 Council Work Session
2050 Tax:
Parks & Recreation
3
Page 69
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
4
2050 Tax Parks and Recreation
2050 Tax Overview:
•½-cent sales tax
•Passed in November 2023
•Expires in 2050
•Allocations: 25% Transit, 25% Climate, and
50% FOR THE REPLACEMENT, UPGRADE,
MAINTENANCE, AND ACCESSIBILITY OF PARKS
FACILITIES AND FOR THE REPLACEMENT AND
CONSTRUCTION OF INDOOR AND OUTDOOR
RECREATION AND POOL FACILITIES
Page 70
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
5
How should 2050 P&R tax be split between eligible elements?
Illustration:
Life of 2050 tax =
27 years x $10.5M (2024 dollars) =
$283 M
~80% = ~227 M replacement/refresh
~=$8.4M/year
~20% = ~$57 M replacement and
construction of indoor and outdoor
recreation and pool facilities
80%
20%
Potential Split of 2050 Parks and Rec Funds
Replacement, Upgrade, Maintenance, etc. -- PARKS & RECREATION
Replacement & Construction of Indoor and Oudoor Recreation and Pool Facilities
Page 71
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
6
Restricted Taxes –Differences and Commonalities
¼-Capital
2050
Parks &
Rec
•Capital Projects
from all outcome
areas
•Historically
•Mobility
•Recreation
•Culture
•Parks
•Sunsets/renewe
d every 10 years
•10-year total
revenue =
~$105M
•Park Facilities
replacement, upgrade,
maintenance and
accessibility
•Replacement &
Construction of indoor
and outdoor
Recreation Facilities
and pool facilities
•Sunsets/renews in
2050
•27-year total revenue
= ~$283M
•New and major remodels of
recreation and pool facilities
have historically been funded by
the ¼-cent *and* are eligible
under the 2050 ballot language
Page 72
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
7
Southeast Community Center (SECC) Timeline
Community
Planning,
Project Initiation
Project Scope &
Budget
Development
(Conceptual
Design)
Project Design Construction
Opening &
Ongoing
Operations
•2013
Feasibility
Study
•2015 ¼-cent
Ballot
•ReCreate
(2021)
•Aquatics
Study (2021)
We are here •Council
finalizes,
scope,
budget,
timeline.
•Q1/Q2 2025
Page 73
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
8
Mulberry Pool Replacement Timeline
Community
Planning,
Project Initiation
Project Scope &
Budget
Development
(Conceptual
Design)
Project Design Construction
Opening &
Ongoing
Operations
•ReCreate (2021)
•Aquatics Study
(2021)
•Mulberry Options
Study (underway)
•We are here
Page 74
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes HereCosts for Similar Facilities
9
City Park Pool:
•Pool amenities
•Bath House
•Site
•Mechanical room
Est. Cost to Build in 2024: $14.5M
Page 75
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
10
Costs for Similar Facilities
Northside Aztlan
Community Center:
•50,000 sq ft
•3 Full Size Gyms
•Running Track
•Flex spaces
•Childcare
•Weight room
•Fitness Rooms
Est. Cost to Build in 2024: $36M
Page 76
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
11
Potential Cost Range for SECC
Community Center (2015 Ballot Requirement)
$25M-$40M (NACC is $36M comparison)
Outdoor Pool (2015 Ballot requirement)
•
$10M-$20M (City Park is $14.5M comparison)
2015 Ballot Project with amenities like NACC + City Park Pool
$35M-$60M
For Illustration:
*for all options Library partnership would be in additionPage 77
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
12
Funding Options for SECC
FUNDING SOURCE TOTAL
2015-25 CCIP (existing)$17M
DOLA Resilience Grant (existing)$2M
CCIP Reserves (Council option)$10M
2050 (Council option –combination of 2050
reserves + bonding)$31M -$36M
COMBINED $60M -$65M
Page 78
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
13
Mulberry Pool Potential Costs
Unknowns:
•Partnerships
•Site/Location
•Replace or
•Replace and Enhance
Cost Range (2024)
•$30-$45M
$36M
(2024)
Mulberry Feasibility Study 2024
Conceptual Rendering
Page 79
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
14
Example Funding Scenarios for SECC & Mulberry Pool
SECC*Mulberry
2015-25 CCIP + 2050 +
partnership/grants =
$60M-$65M
2025-35 CCIP + 2050 +
partnership/grants =
$30M-$40M
2015 ¼-cent 2025 ¼-cent
2050
P&R
*Southeast Community CenterPage 80
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes HereCouncil Direction Requested
15
What thoughts or questions do Councilmembers
have regarding the uses of 2050 Tax revenue to-
date?
What thoughts or questions do Councilmembers
have regarding the uses of 2050 Tax revenue
going forward?
2
1
3
Page 81
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
08.27.2024 Council Work Session
2050 Tax:
Climate & Air Quality
16
Page 82
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
17
2050 Tax Ballot Language –Climate and Air Quality
Revenue may be allocated to advance four
elements included in voter-approved ballot
language:
•Greenhouse Gas Reduction
•Air Pollution Reduction
•2030 Goal: 100% Renewable Electricity
•2050 Goal: Carbon Neutrality
Page 83
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
18
Our Climate Future Funding Strategy in Development
Our Climate Future (OCF) Goals & Commitments
Role of the City and Other Partners
Phasing/Sequencing of Investments for Greatest Impact
One Time vs Ongoing Costs
Regional Alignment & Collaboration
Community Impacts and Return on Investment (ROI)
Balancing Mitigation, Resilience, and Equity
Considerations for Maximizing Ability to Achieve 2050 Goal
Page 84
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
19
2025-26 Budget Offer Review Process
•Evaluate enhancement offers related to Environmental Health Outcome Area
•Eligible Offers –Alignment with ballot language
•Optimized Offers –Alignment + advance OCF across multiple outcomes
•Recommended strategy for 2050 tax investment:
•Maximize ability to achieve 2050 goals
•Complement existing (significant) climate investments across City budget
•Scale & accelerate rather than replace existing funding
•Support projects that advance multiple outcomes
•including resilience and equity
•Maintain reserves for upcoming developments in progress
Page 85
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
20
Criteria for 2050 Tax Funding Recommendations
Ballot alignment
Advance at least one OCF Big Move/strategy
Direct community benefit
Advance equitable outcomes for most impacted groups
Advance trusting partnerships
Inclusion of considerations of climate change implications
Supports communities’ well-being in disruptive events
Page 86
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes HereSummary of 2025-26 Offers
Optimized Offers’ Potential Impacts:
•Building and vehicle electrification
•Residential building efficiency loan
program
•Active Modes infrastructure and
transportation programming
•Outdoor and indoor air quality
•Small business support
•Urban forestry
•Staff and community innovation
funding
•OCF / 2050 Tax strategic
management
21
Page 87
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes HereNext Steps
22
•Share potential impacts on climate goals for the
City Manager’s Recommended 2025-26 Budget
•September 2024
•Develop Strategic Funding Plan for 2050 Tax:
Climate & Air Quality
•By end of Q1 2025
•Allocate reserved funds through the 2026 budget
revision process
•Q2 2025
Page 88
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes HereCouncil Direction Requested
23
What thoughts or questions do Councilmembers
have regarding the uses of 2050 Tax revenue to-
date?
What thoughts or questions do Councilmembers
have regarding the uses of 2050 Tax revenue
going forward?
2
1
3
Page 89
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
08.27.2024 Council Work Session
2050 Tax:
Transit
24
Page 90
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
25
2050 Tax Strategy: Transit Fund Criteria
Increase
Ridership
& Advance
TMP
Stabilize
Workforce
Improve
safety &
security
Financial
resiliency
Optimize
service
levels
Challenge: $8.0m-$14.7m annual shortfall to implement Transit Master
Plan
Goal: Increase ridership & advance Transit Master Plan
Ballot language: 25% FOR THE CITY’S TRANSIT SYSTEM,
INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, INFRASTRUCTURE
IMPROVEMENTS, PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT, AND UPGRADED
AND EXPANDED SERVICES
Fund Criteria:
1.Stabilize workforce: Improve recruitment & retention levels of front-
line staff through compensation improvements
2.Improve safety & security: Support Transit Security Officers,
contracted services and infrastructure investments
3.Financial resiliency: Build reserve funds to support transit system
optimization and build out
4.Optimize service levels: Financial resilience to adapt service and
routes to meet greatest ridership demandsPage 91
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
26
2050 Tax Strategy: Transit Fund Criteria
Increase
Ridership
Stabilize
Workforce
Improve
safety &
security
Financial
resiliency
Optimize
service
levels
Summary of Offers Funded in 2024 Mini-BFO Process by Fund
Criteria
Stabilize Workforce:
•Increase existing and starting wage for Bus Operators, Dispatchers and
Transit Service officers
•Increase the number of benefited operator positions
Improve Safety & Security:
•Add an additional Transit Service Officer
•Add a Lead Transit Service Officer
Financial resiliency:
•Approx $3.5M set aside in 2024 for reserve
Page 92
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes HereCouncil Direction Requested
27
What thoughts or questions do Councilmembers
have regarding the uses of 2050 Tax revenue to-
date?
What thoughts or questions do Councilmembers
have regarding the uses of 2050 Tax revenue
going forward?
2
1
3
Page 93
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
08.27.2024 Council Work Session
Back up Slides
28
Page 94
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
29
Colorado Facility Cost Comparisons
•Example facilities
•Eaton –62,329 SF 2016; Construction cost $24,208,537; 2024 Construction $45,270,657
•$584 SF Building Costs
•$368,100 per acre sitework costs
•TOTAL: $726 SF
•Berthoud –49,500 SF; 2020 Construction cost $29,903,688; 2024 Construction $40,292,799
•$596 SF Building Costs
•$718,623 per acre sitework costs
•TOTAL: $814 SF
•Grand Junction –109,331 SF; 2024 Construction cost $72,606,406
•$601 SF Building cost
•$432,842 per acre sitework cost
•TOTAL: $664 SF
Page 95
Item 2.
File Attachments for Item:
3. Advancing Transit Initiatives.
The purpose of this item is to provide Council updates on current transit initiatives, the state of
the Transfort budget, the Funding and Fare Free Study completed in 2023 and the status of
Transfort advertising on buses, benches and shelters.
Page 96
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 6
August 27, 2024
WORK SESSION AGENDA
ITEM SUMMARY
City Council
STAFF
Caryn Champine, Director, PDT
Kaley Zeisel, Director, Transfort
Annabelle Phillips, Assistant Director, Transfort
Monica Martinez, Manager, FP&A
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Advancing Transit Initiatives.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to provide Council updates on current transit initiatives, the state of the
Transfort budget, the Funding and Fare Free Study completed in 2023 and the status of Transfort
advertising on buses, benches and shelters.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What additional information do councilmembers need to determine if Transfort should remain fare free?
2. Do Councilmembers support a permanent fare free system?
3. Do Councilmembers have any questions or feedback about returning to commercial advertising?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Staffing & Service Levels
Transfort has operated partial service levels since the pandemic due to staffing shortages. Fully staf fed,
Transfort has 112 bus operator positions. At the end of 2022, Transfort bus operator staffing had declined
significantly and Transfort employed only 78 bus operators.
Transfort has analyzed national data as well as data from Transfort’s annual retention survey to determine
primary causes of recruitment and retention challenges. Staff found that there are four primary areas to
focus improvements to assist with recruitment and retention. These include training and onboarding, safety
and wellbeing, pay and benefits, and work schedules. As a result, Transfort has made adjustments to
provide more consistent schedules, hired an onboarding and training specialist, developed and
implemented an annual continuing education program for bus operators, added an additional Transit
Supervisor position, increased contracted security staff, added mid-shift breaks for longer, more rigorous
routes, increased bus operator wages, added additional classified positions, implemented hiring and
Page 97
Item 3.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 6
referral incentives, and offers free on-site counseling to staff. These adjustments have yielded positive
results, and today, Transfort is maintaining a count of approximately 100 bus operators.
The increase in staffing levels have allowed Transfort to return the following previously suspended routes
and/or frequencies: Route 19, MAX evenings, Holiday service, route 6, 7, and HORN Saturday service,
route 2 and 8 evening service, and 10-minute frequency on HORN.
The following services are still suspended or reduced: frequency on routes 7, 16, 19, and MAX, evening
service on routes 6, 7, 16, late night (post 10:00 pm) service on MAX, and Sunday Service.
System Optimization
The City of Fort Collins is developing a comprehensive plan to optimize transit services, aiming to increase
ridership and implement new services outlined in the Transit Master Plan. The plan will support the concept
of 15-minute cities, where essential services are accessible within a short walk or bike ride. City staff, in
collaboration with community members, will focus on transit service development, funding, operations,
scheduling, micro-transit, fleet electrification, and equity. The project will assess available resources and
identify the most effective strategies for delivering high-quality transit services to the community.
Operational Budget Update
Due to the pandemic, the last year of full-service operations for Transfort was 2019. In order to build the
2025 and 2026 budget, staff used 2019 as a baseline for expectations around the budget’s composition,
revenue projections, and expense projections.
In 2019, Transfort’s yearly operational expenses totaled just under $17.6M. This total expense can be
explained by four main categories: personnel, vehicle repair services and fuel, transportation services, and
other expenses. Personnel and vehicle repair services are the two largest components of actual expenses
and represent approximately 55% and 22% of 2019’s costs. Transportation Services, which includes Dial-
A-Ride, Dial-A-Taxi, and fixed route contracted services, represents 11% of expenses with Other Expenses
representing almost 13%. While the category Other Expenses represents a larger percentage of the budget
in comparison to Transportation Services, it is a more varied category that includes all other operational
expenses such as technology, land and building maintenance, insurance, and wireless services. The
composition of Transfort’s budget, which relies on three to four main levers for almost 90% of the budget
makes it highly susceptible to increases in cost in these areas.
As demonstrated by the table below, external Transfort revenue sources are projected to increase in
comparison to 2019’s revenue budget. This projected increase of just under $1M is driven by an increased
estimate for revenue from Transfort‘s intergovernmental agreements such as FLEX partnerships. The 2025
projected revenue budget currently assumes a loss of revenue due to fare suspension. Advertising revenue
amounts are represented in 2025 budget projections at an estimated number from prior years. Both
fares/fees & advertising revenue amounts may be updated pending council discussion. Notably, while
operational grant amounts did increase during the pandemic, the projection for 2025 is comparable to the
amount projected for the 2019 budget. As Transfort looks to return to full-service levels, it does so with
minimal projected revenue growth from 2019 to 2025.
Page 98
Item 3.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 6
*Current collection is partial or suspended
In comparison to its projected revenue growth, Transfort’s projected expense growth for 2025 is spread
across multiple areas. The items outlined below represent the most significant and impactful areas of these
projected cost increases. These areas of growth are key operational pieces with costs that are largely
driven by factors outside of Transfort’s direct control. Known cost pressures include increases in labor and
supply costs which are then reflected in fee charges or in contract increases. The increases in cost are
largely being experienced in Transfort’s main expense categories. Snow & Security Services fall within
Other Expenses and in 2019 were not budgeted as individual line items or, for security, are new expenses.
*Does not include increases to personnel costs approved during the mini-BFO process for the 2050 Tax.
As is evidenced by the above, Transfort’s projected operational budget has experienced slow revenue
growth and significant expense increase since 2019. This has led Transfort to include an analysis of
Transfort’s current operational system in the Optimization Study.
Fort Collins Transit Funding Study
In 2019, Council adopted the Transit Master Plan (TMP). The TMP recommended exploring a conversion
to a fare free system. In 2021, Council prioritized Advancing Transit Initiatives that Remove Barriers to
Page 99
Item 3.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 6
Transit. In 2021, Transfort launched a Funding Study which evaluated the cost to build out the TMP, as
well as environmental, financial, and social impacts of a fare free system. The study concluded in 2023.
Fare Free Analysis: Environmental Impact
The study found that agencies that moved to a permanent fare free system saw an increase in ridership
of between 10% and 30%. Of the increased riders, approximately 20% would have otherwise driven a
vehicle. Assuming each trip in a vehicle is about 5 miles, this increase in transit ridership would reduce
vehicle miles traveled by 900,000. This equates to an emissions reduction of 338.22 metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent (CO2e), or 80 gasoline passenger vehicles driven for one year. The study concluded
that a conversion to fare free will reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions.
The study also found that transit speed and reliability increase with a fare free system, as less time is spent
boarding and through the transactional process of collecting a fare. This increase in speed and reliability
further supports goals to improve the quality of service identified in the transit master plan.
Fare Free Analysis: Financial Impact
The study investigated the annual revenue from fare collection as well as the cost to collect fares. In 2019,
the collection of passes and tickets produced annual gross revenue of $508,000. Based on current
ridership, that amount is estimated to be $304,800 in today’s dollars. The study evaluated multiple fare
collection options and found that the most cost-effective method is to sell passes through a point-of-sale
system and collect cash fares through fareboxes on buses. This method requires both one-time and annual
technology expenses, as well as staff time to count and deposit fares. The one-time, up-front cost to
implement the fareboxes and point-of-sale technology is estimated at $929,000, as a new point-of-sale
system is needed, and the existing fareboxes are past their useful life. The annual cost for vendor fees is
$113,000, and the annual fare collection labor is estimated at $82,000. If the one-time, up-front cost is
annualized over the useful life of 10 years, the accumulated revenue after the cost of fare collection over
a 10-year period is $185,900. This calculation does assume that fares remain consistent. An American
Public Transit Association (APTA) study shows that for every 10% increase in fares, transit agencies can
expect a 4% decrease in ridership, so as fares increase, ridership decreases.
The study assessed partner contributions and how a potential loss of revenue from partner contributions
may impact revenue. In addition to fares and passes, annual revenue from Colorado State University for
system access accounts for ~$650,000 in revenue. Bohemian Foundation previously contributed $75,000
annually for youth to ride free. Colorado State University (CSU) has agreed to continue their contribution
regardless of a shift to a fare free system, as these fees go directly toward operation of routes that support
CSU. Bohemian Foundation has not contributed any revenue since 2022 because the system is currently
fare free. Bohemian has asked to revisit a contribution after a decision has been made on whether to
permanently remain fare free.
Another financial consideration is the potential increase in paratransit ridership. Paratransit service is a
door-to-door service for individuals with a disability that prevents them from using the fixed route bus
system. Federal regulations require that a paratransit fare be no more than 2x that of the fixed route fare.
Therefore, if there is no fare on fixed route, there cannot be a fare on paratransit. Transfort/Dial-A-Ride is
also prohibited from limiting the number paratransit trips available. Currently, each paratransit trip averages
$40. Transfort/Dial-A-Ride provided 28,611 trips in 2023. Trips in 2024 are projected to increase to 34,322,
up by 11% compared to trips in 2019, and up 7% from 2023. The fare free and funding study recommends
a few mitigation strategies to assist with potential increases in paratransit expenses, including additional
travel training to ensure that individuals who can use fixed route have the tools and training to do so, and
enforcing stricter eligibility for the service. Transfort offers a robust travel training program that is available
to residents, visitors, individuals, groups, seniors, and individuals with a disability. Staff is not
Page 100
Item 3.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 5 of 6
recommending any adjustments to eligibility at this time, but it is an option to consider if ridership increases
dramatically.
Fare Free Analysis: Social Impact
Transfort’s annual on-board survey is used to collect demographic and rider data. 47% of Transfort riders
have an annual income of less than $25,000 and 36% do not have access to a car. This data has been
consistent with on-board survey results from 2021, 2022, and 2023. For riders on routes that are
considered to be non-CSU prevalent routes (often ones accessing critical services), this percentage
increases to 59%.
The fare free and funding study conducted a separate community survey from December 2022 to February
2023 to understand perceptions of transit and use of transit in Fort Collins following the COVID-19
pandemic and to solicit input on a permanent transition to fare-free transit in Fort Collins. The survey was
open to the public and sent to specific organizations in Fort Collins with a st ake in transit service. Over
1,600 respondents completed the survey, including 70 representatives of organizations. Organizations
included social services agencies, Poudre School District, non-profit and for-profit organizations, City
boards and commissions, North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization, Colorado State
University, Chamber of Commerce, and medical providers.
Most respondents (nearly 80%) felt that keeping Transfort fare-free would increase their mobility or that of
their clients/constituents, employees, or colleagues. Over 60% of survey respondents said they would ride
Transfort more often if it is kept fare-free permanently. Only one percent of respondents said they would
ride less often. When asked how often respondents would ride Transfort in the future if they had to pay a
fare, 56% of respondents said they would ride less often or not at all, and only 3% said they would ride
more often. Survey respondents overwhelmingly support Transfort remaining fare-free. Seventy five
percent of respondents strongly support continuing fare-free service, and 85% overall support fare-free
transit service.
As a result of the findings from the Transit Funding Study, staff recommends establishing a permanent
fare free transit system.
Advertising
Prior to 2021 Transfort maintained two contracts with a third-party contractor to manage an advertising
program. One contract was for interior and exterior advertising on Transfort buses. The other contract was
for advertising on shelters and benches at Transfort bus stops. That vendor also supplied some bus stop
amenities such as benches and shelters, emptied trash, provided snow removal, and performed general
maintenance such as cleaning and graffiti abatement at stops. Under this advertising model, Transfort
received approximately $300,000 in advertising revenue annually.
The contract permitted only commercial advertising to be purchased from the contractor. A small portion
(10%) of non-site-specific advertising space was reserved for Transfort-related notices.
As the contract was approaching its end Transfort advertised a Request for Proposal (RFP) for similar
advertising and maintenance services; however, vendors were unwilling to provide the level of
maintenance at bus stops that Transfort required, and therefore a contract agreement could not be
reached. Moreover, vendors were unwilling to provide and install amenities at bus stops as part of the
contracted price.
Commercial advertising was removed in 2022, and City-related ads were installed by Transfort. At that
point Transfort was directed to explore alternatives to a commercial advertising program. Transfort
assumed the cost and responsibility for the ongoing maintaining of bus stops, including snow removal, at
Page 101
Item 3.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 6 of 6
approximately $350,000 annually. Transfort also assumed responsibility for purchasing and installing
amenities, which has been primarily funded through federal and state grants.
Over the last three years, Transfort has researched and vetted several advertising options, including
maintaining a ‘government speech’ only advertising program in-house with City staff. Staff determined
annual revenue from an internally managed government speech program would likely be very low, and
that this model was not feasible based on the cost to administer the program. Transfort also explored
returning to a commercial advertising model, and a hybrid model that allowed for both commercial
advertising and government speech.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) generally encourages transit agencies to produce revenue that
can be used to offset operational costs. Advertising on buses and at bus stops is a common way that
transit agencies across the country take advantage of producing additional revenue. The Transit
Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) has found that the majority of surveyed transit agencies sold or
leased advertising space in some capacity. According to the Out of Home Advertising Association of
America (OHAAA), transit is the fastest growing ‘out of home’ advertising medium, growing by 7.3% in
2023. In addition to providing additional revenue streams, advertising is a popular method for transit
agencies to promote its transit services to a diverse population.
A pause in advertising on buses and at bus stops has led to a decrease in Transfort revenue streams by
approximately $300,000 annually. Staff recommends a return to a commercial advertising model, with
allowances for more government speech advertising under a new contracted scope of work. Transfort is
working with the City Attorney’s Office to develop guidelines for a potential new contract. This would be a
key change from the previous commercial advertising model, which required ads to primarily convey a
commercial message. Another key change to a future contract would include limiting the size of ads at
benches to a standard 2FT x 6FT ad panel.
Revenue under a new advertising program is estimated at $265,000 to $420,000, depending on how much
advertising space is made available under a commercial rate. Revenue collected under an advertising
contract would be used toward operational expenses, as required by FTA. Bus stop maintenance will
continue to be provided by Transfort, including regular cleaning of stops, trash and snow removal, and
graffiti abatement. Additionally, the purchase of new and replacement bus stop benches, shelters, and
other amenities will continue to be the responsibility of Transfort.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Fort Collins Transit Funding Study
2. Presentation
Page 102
Item 3.
U
02
Stakeholder Outreach
01
Introduction
Fort Collins Transit
Funding Study
Updated March 2024
Page 103
Item 3.
1
01 Introduction ..............................................................4
02 Stakeholder Outreach ..............................................5
03 Current Funding Analysis and Future Funding
Needs ........................................................................... 10
04 Local Funding Need Estimates and Phasing for
Operations and Capital Projects ................................ 31
05 Fare-Free Analysis .................................................. 43
06 Fare-Free Survey Findings .................................... 70
07 Future Funding ...................................................... 80
Page 104
Item 3.
2
List of Figures
Figure 1. Primary Stakeholders .............................................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 2. Transfort Capital Expenditures, 2010-2020 .................................................................................................. 14
Figure 3. Transfort Capital Outlays by Category, 2010-2020 ................................................................................... 15
Figure 4. Estimated 2022 Adjusted Operating Expenses to Support 2019 Service Levels (in millions of
dollars) .................................................................................................................................................................. 21
Figure 5. Forecast Transfort O&M Expenses with 3% Inflation ............................................................................... 26
Figure 6. Forecast Transfort O&M Expenses with 1.5% Inflation ........................................................................... 27
Figure 7. Transfort Forecast Annual Operating Expenses by Time Period .......................................................... 35
Figure 8. New Local Annual Operating Funds Needed for Future Transit Service Expansion .................... 35
Figure 9. Forecast Transfort Capital Needs (2022 Dollars) ........................................................................................ 38
Figure 10: Forecast Transfort Capital Needs with 3% Inflation ............................................................................... 39
Figure 11. Transfort Local Revenue Possibilities ........................................................................................................... 42
Figure 12. Transfort Local Funding Needs ....................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 13: Summary Of Mitigation Strategies For Fare-Free ................................................................................... 69
Figure 14. What Organization Do You Represent? ...................................................................................................... 71
Figure 15. Age Distribution of Survey Respondents ................................................................................................... 72
Figure 16. Average Household Income of Survey Respondents ............................................................................ 73
Figure 17. Is Charging a Fare to Ride Transfort a Financial Burden/Barrier for You, Your Clients, or
Employees? ......................................................................................................................................................... 74
Figure 18. If Transfort Were to Remain Fare-Free Permanently, Would it Increase Your Mobility or that
of Your Clients, Employees, or Colleagues? ........................................................................................... 74
Figure 19. How Often Would You Ride Transfort in the Future if it is Permanently Free to Ride? ........... 75
Figure 20. How Often Would You Ride Transfort in the Future if You Had to Pay a Fare? ......................... 75
Figure 21. How Respondents Ranked the Benefits of Fare-Free Transit (by Score) ....................................... 76
Figure 22. Additional Benefits of Fare-Free Transit Cited by Survey Respondents ......................................... 77
Figure 23. Respondents Rank of the Most Concerning Barrier of Fare-Free Transit (by Score) ................ 77
Figure 24. Additional Barriers to Fare-Free Transit Cited by Survey Respondents ......................................... 78
Figure 25. How Much Do You Support or Oppose Transfort Remaining Fare-Free? ..................................... 78
Page 105
Item 3.
3
List of Tables
Table 1. Transfort Annual Operating Budget 2015-2021 .......................................................................................... 12
Table 2. Transfort Annual Capital Budget 2015-2021 ................................................................................................. 13
Table 3. Transfort Annual Performance and Operating Costs 2015 -2021 .......................................................... 16
Table 4. 2019 Ridership and Productivity by Route ..................................................................................................... 17
Table 5. Unmet Transfort Staffing Needs ........................................................................................................................ 20
Table 6. Cost Allocation Model ............................................................................................................................................ 22
Table 7. 2022-2040 Growth Rates for 2027 and 2040 Horizon Years ................................................................... 24
Table 8. 2022-2040 Growth Rates Assuming 1.5% and 3% Inflation .................................................................... 25
Table 9. Updated Project List & Costs............................................................................................................................... 28
Table 10. Capital Funding Needs, Local Match, and Phasing .................................................................................. 38
Table 11. Existing Large Transit Agencies that Operate Citywide Fare-Free Transit....................................... 46
Table 12. Transfort Fare, Pass, and Partner Contribution Revenue 2016 -2021 ................................................ 48
Table 13. Transfort Annual Estimated Cost (O&M) of Collecting Fares Pre-Pandemic ................................. 49
Table 14. Transfort Alternative Annual Estimated Cost (O&M) of Collecting Fares with Proposed New
Point of Sale (POS) System ........................................................................................................................... 50
Table 15. Estimated One-Time Capital Cost to Restart Ticket Vending Machines .......................................... 51
Table 16. Estimated One-Time Capital Cost to Convert to Proposed New POS System .............................. 51
Table 17. Estimated Annual Transfort Capital + O&M Cost of Collecting Fares .............................................. 52
Table 18. 2019 Transfort Farebox Revenue by Source ............................................................................................... 52
Table 19. Estimated Net Farebox Recovery ..................................................................................................................... 53
Table 20. Ridership Decline in University Dominated Fare-free Transit Communities from Pandemic .. 56
Table 21. Transfort Funding Needs .................................................................................................................................... 82
Table 22. Revenue Potential .................................................................................................................................................. 84
Table 23. Final Revenue Tools – Evaluation Matrix ...................................................................................................... 85
Table 24. Scenario 1 – Special Purpose Sales Tax......................................................................................................... 85
Table 25. Scenario 2 – Property Tax ................................................................................................................................... 86
Table 26. Scenario 3 - Operations Only ............................................................................................................................ 87
Table 27. Scenario 4 – Capital Only .................................................................................................................................... 88
Table 28. Potential Bond Proceeds ..................................................................................................................................... 89
Page 106
Item 3.
4
Introduction
Transfort’s ridership was growing rapidly prior to the pandemic, and the agency has an ambitious
list of projects and plans to expand transit service following the 2019 Transit Master Plan.
However, Transfort’s current funding sources are limited and obligated to existing service levels.
This project considers how to establish new sources of funding to support Transfort and
investigates new fare structures, new revenue sources and the implications of a fare-free system.
According to the Transit Master Plan, the long-term vision for transit is expanding service,
improving frequency, and investing in regional transit enhancements. These transit
improvements would be supported by implementation of new capital projects. To fulfil this vision,
Transfort must expand staffing, invest in capital facility improvements, build new bus rapid transit
(BRT) corridors, and add to the vehicle fleet, which requires new funding streams.
This report includes the following chapters:
Chapter 2: Stakeholder Outreach
•Summary of stakeholder outreach, including input from business, social services, city, and non -profit
organizations carried out in the beginning of the project.
Chapter 3: Current Funding Analysis and Future Funding Needs
•Analysis of existing and forecasted funding needs. Funding needs include expenses for both existing and future
operations and maintenance (O&M) as well as capital expenses. Forecasts are based on achievement of the
2040 vision established in the 2019 Fort Collins Transit Master Plan.
Chapter 4: Local Funding Need Estimates and Phasing for Operations and Capital
Projects
•Presentation of the estimated local portion only and associated phasing to support implementation of service
improvements and capital projects through 2040.
Chapter 5: Fare-Free Analysis
•Analysis of the potential benefits and tradeoffs of converting Transfort to fare -free to inform a strategic decision
regarding transit fares in Fort Collins.
Chapter 6: Fare-Free Survey Findings
•Summary of the findings from stakeholder and community outreach conversations about implementing fare -free
system-wide and long-term.
Chapter 7: Future Funding
•Presentation of potential new funding sources to support expanded operations and capital projects, as well as
evaluation of the suitability and practicality for implementation
Page 107
Item 3.
5
02 Stakeholder
Outreach
This chapter summarizes
initial and ongoing
stakeholder outreach
activities and input received
from the business
community, educational
institutions, non-profits, and
governmental and
municipal stakeholders.
Page 108
Item 3.
6
Key Stakeholder
Input
Presentation to Stakeholders
The project team informed a variety of
stakeholders, as shown in Figure 1, via a
presentation describing the purpose and
anticipated outcomes of this Transit Funding
and Fare Free Study. It presented the
current ridership and funding context,
followed by an understanding of the needs
and benefits of the funding and fare-free
study. Between the vision already set forth
by the 2019 Transit Master Plan and the
identified operating, maintenance, and
capital project needs, it is evident that
increased funding will be required to
achieve the goals of the Transit Master Plan
and meet the expectations of the
community.
Stakeholder Interviews
Stakeholders were interviewed for their
input related to their specific points of view.
The interview questions sought to
understand stakeholder’s perception of
current Transfort services and potential
social and economic opportunities.
Specifically, project staff asked which routes
need most improvement and how people
feel about different funding efforts such as
the creation of new taxes or the transition to
a fare-free system. Staff also asked how
interviewees prioritize transit needs
compared to other community needs to
determine importance of transit to members
of the Fort Collins community.
Stakeholder Responses
Stakeholders gave a variety of useful input
that helped guide the planning process. The
following sections summarize key themes
and input from stakeholder groups:
To solicit input on the challenges,
needs, and opportunities for
developing the Fort Collins Transit
Funding and Fare Free Study, the
project team interviewed key
stakeholders from throughout the
Fort Collins community. The process
included a presentation to
stakeholders, the creation of key
questions, and conversations with
stakeholders.
Fort Collins Business
Improvement District
(BID)
Fort Collins Area
Chamber of
Commerce
Colorado State
University (CSU)
Downtown
Development
Authority (DDA)
Fort Collins
Community Action
Network (FCCAN)
North Front Range
Metropolitan Planning
Organization
(NFRMPO)
Poudre School
District
Fort Collins Finance,
Project, and Policy
Staff
Figure 1. Primary Stakeholders
Page 109
Item 3.
7
Input from Business
Stakeholders
Midtown Business Improvement
District (BID)
Members of the Midtown BID believe that
Transfort needs to serve all demographics,
especially those predominately found in Fort
Collins like students of all ages (grade
school to college students). They also
believe that there needs to be more
frequent bus service and buses serving
more places. Finally, a concern that the BID
has with transit service, free or not, is use of
the system by people with addiction issues
or mental health instability and the impacts
of safety of other riders (perceived or
otherwise).
Downtown Development Authority
(DDA)
Members of the DDA gave input on the
need for transit development to coincide
with development of walkable and transit-
oriented development (TOD) environments.
They see value in increasing access to
transit services and would like ridership to
return to pre-pandemic levels.
Fort Collins Area Chamber of
Commerce
Members of the Chamber were very
interested in the study and gave input on
service quality, funding mechanisms, and
community support. Many agreed that
transit should be a priority for Fort Collins,
but many chamber members feel that
current service quality and availability do not
meet the needs of the community, especially
for employees of chamber members. They
want Transfort to invest in better transit for
local employees, as opposed to what they
see as a current transit system set up to
serve students. Several chamber members
feel that the current system needs to be
retooled to better serve
commuters/business patrons before
considering fare-free or a new tax. Most
understand the ridership and convenience
benefits of fare-free. Many members feel
new taxation mechanisms should only be
considered after the service demonstrates a
stronger value for the entire community.
Input from Social Services and
Education Institute
Stakeholders
Colorado State University (CSU)
CSU staff see the value in expanding access
through extending regional routes to the
broader community and through the fare-
free initiative. Transit services already
connect many CSU students, staff, and
facilities, and extending these services could
benefit the communities that currently do
not have direct access to the campus
services. In fact, CSU is willing to partner
with Transfort by providing transit
infrastructure or facilities on campus
Page 110
Item 3.
8
property. CSU also indicates a willingness to
work with Transfort on continued
partnership under a fare-free model,
pending continued data sharing with CSU
staff on student/staff ridership, as these data
are valuable to CSU transportation planning.
Poudre School District
School district staff are in favor of free fares
and see the benefit of expanding transit
services and passes to their constituents.
They indicate that the current fare-free
program for students has benefited student
mobility and access. Some of the main
concerns they would like to see addressed
include expanding services into all school
areas to serve staff, school-of-choice
students, and extracurricular activities.
Fort Collins Community Action
Network (FCCAN)
Members of the FCCAN, a network of
community organizations involved in justice,
poverty, and equity, are strong proponents
of keeping the Transfort system fare-free. In
addition to the economic benefits that their
community members receive from free fares
and improved mobility and access, they
believe that free fares also provide wider
opportunities for the public to use transit
services. FCCAN also offered to review
plans that emerge from this study to ensure
that they adequately address social equity
and to distribute further surveys to their
constituents.
Input from Municipal
Stakeholders
Fort Collins Finance, Capital
Projects, and Policy Staff
Project staff interviewed several key staff
members of the City of Fort Collins Financial
Services Department to understand possible
funding opportunities for Transfort projects.
From a municipal perspective, there are
several options for additional Transfort
funding including bonding, fees, sales tax,
and excise taxes.
Interviewees are interested in how to
incorporate the Transfort funding needs
identified in this study into the current and
evolving citywide conversation about
funding needs for parks, housing, climate,
and other pressing areas. Staff members are
excited about the outcomes of this transit
funding study, especially the updated
funding needs for operating and capital
projects. There may be opportunities for a
dedicated funding source or to incorporate
transit into new broad-based funding
mechanisms that advance multiple city
objectives. Whatever the mechanisms
ultimately included in the outcomes of this
study, staff believe it is important to involve
the public in the decision-making process as
early as possible.
North Front Range Metropolitan
Planning Organization (NFRMPO)
NFRMPO staff advocate extending Transfort
service regionally to accommodate
commuters and visitors. To do so, they
believe Transfort should increase frequency
and reliability of services. Staff also noted
that these initiatives can be extremely
successful when they are brought to the
public early, locally, and include efforts to
combat greenhouse gas emissions.
Other City Officials, Boards, and
Committees
Throughout the study, project staff informed
members of various City of Fort Collins
boards and committees about the study
process and offered opportunities to provide
input. These included the Transportation
Page 111
Item 3.
9
Board, Finance Committee, Dial-a-Ride and
Transit Advisory Committee (DARTAC), and
Core Revenue Team. Project staff also
presented to City Council twice during the
study process.
•The business stakeholders support expanding services and eventually making them fare-free, pending
walkable, affordable urban development. They believe Transfort should improve transit system
services/access to support mobility for local employees before considering new revenue sources like taxes.
•The social service and education stakeholders favor a fare-free system, especially to serve students and
under-represented populations. They believe that beyond addressing fares for students and low-income
communities, transit services should also support access for staff, school-of-choice students, and to
extracurricular activities and events.
•The municipal stakeholders see the benefit of a blended approach to funding, such as a fare-free for certain
users coupled with a broad-based tax to support multiple city initiatives. These stakeholders wish to involve
the public early and often during the process and incorporate the outcomes of this study into broader city
efforts to diversify funding.
STAKEHOLDER TAKEAWAYS
Page 112
Item 3.
10
03 Current Funding
Analysis and Future
Funding Needs
This chapter summarizes
Transfort’s existing and
forecasted funding needs.
Funding needs include
expenses for both existing
and future operations and
maintenance (O&M) as well
as capital expenses.
Forecasts are based on
achievement of the 2040
vision established in the 2019
Fort Collins Transit Master
Plan.
Page 113
Item 3.
11
Transfort Current Funding
Operating Budget
The lower half of Table 1 summarizes
Transfort’s annual operating expense by
category. The operating budget includes
revenue and expenses for all fixed-route
(including MAX) and dial-a-ride services.
Table 1 shows Transfort’s annual operating
budget for the past seven years (2015 through
2021). The upper half of the table organizes
annual operating revenue by source. The largest
funding sources over the last several years
include the City of Fort Collins, the federal
government, and contributions from Colorado
State University (CSU). The city funding is largely
from the general fund, which partly explains the
variance from year to year. Federal funding
accounts for most of the remaining year-to-year
variance and varies annually due to grants and
other federal assistance programs.
Page 114
Item 3.
Table 1. Transfort Annual Operating Budget 2015-2021
Source: City of Fort Collins
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Operating Revenues
City of Fort Collins $7,310,000 $7,206,000 $9,045,000 $8,289,000 $9,963,000 $2,700,000 $7,628,000
Federal $3,357,000 $4,061,000 $7,842,000 $4,746,000 $5,525,000 $11,341,000 $1,730,000
Partnership Contributions (such as CSU, Private) $832,000 $422,000 $2,381,000 $2,199,000 $2,287,000 $2,356,000 $2,153,000
Intergovernmental (COLT, FLEX, other) $1,002,000 $1,100,000 $479,000 $696,000 $1,248,000 $972,000 $1,050,000
State Funding (CDOT) $0 $37,000 $0 $365,000 $800,000 $200,000 $190,000
Fares and Passes $566,000 $742,000 $707,000 $494,000 $508,000 $164,000 $10,000
Ads, Interest, Misc. $302,000 $96,000 $330,000 $405,000 $492,000 $476,000 $618,000
Total Revenues $13,369,000 $13,664,000 $20,784,000 $17,194,000 $20,823,000 $18,209,000 $13,379,000
Operating Expenses
Compensation & Benefits $7,756,000 $8,759,000 $9,281,000 $9,722,000 $9,666,000 $9,714,000 $8,857,000
Vehicle & Property Maintenance, Repair, Services $2,596,000 $2,967,000 $3,141,000 $3,697,000 $3,650,000 $3,248,000 $3,002,000
Professional & Contract Services $2,246,000 $2,399,000 $2,435,000 $2,710,000 $2,687,000 $1,876,000 $2,486,000
Fuel $991,000 $1,042,000 $1,119,000 $1,162,000 $1,172,000 $928,000 $879,000
Office & Other Supplies $116,000 $121,000 $127,000 $191,000 $172,000 $188,000 $114,000
Funding Transfers & Misc. Expenses $733,000 $13,000 $244,000 $83,000 $401,000 $1,298,000 $1,245,000
Total Expenses $14,438,000 $15,301,000 $16,347,000 $17,565,000 $17,748,000 $17,252,000 $16,583,000
Net -$1,069,000 -$1,637,000 $4,437,000 -$371,000 $3,075,000 $957,000 -$3,204,000
Farebox Recovery 3.9% 4.8% 4.3% 2.8% 2.9% 1.0% 0.1%
Page 115
Item 3.
13
Table 2 illustrates Transfort’s annual capital budget for the past seven years (2015 through 2021). The upper half of the table organizes
annual revenue by source and the lower half summarizes annual expenses by category. The Community Capital Improvement Program
(CCIP) allocates a portion of the quarter-cent sales tax passed by voters in 2015 to bus stop improvements and will expire in 2025.
Capital expenses include buses, bus stop improvements, and other transit facility improvements.
Table 2. Transfort Annual Capital Budget 2015-2021
Source: City of Fort Collins.
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Capital Revenues
Federal $4,143,000 $82,000 $631,000 $910,000 $4,067,000 $2,208,000 $1,171,000
CCIP $0 $1,000 $172,000 $2,000 $217,000 $1,123,000 $548,000
Other Miscellaneous $183,000 $11,000 $5,000 $42,000 $968,000 $16,000 $13,000
Total Revenue $4,326,000 $94,000 $808,000 $954,000 $5,252,000 $3,347,000 $1,732,000
Capital Expenses
Vehicles & Accessories $4,843,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,510,000 $39,000 $1,764,000
CCIP $0 $0 $172,000 $2,000 $149,000 $533,000 $454,000
Other Capital Outlay $567,000 $896,000 $658,000 $1,183,000 $781,000 $877,000 $556,000
Total Expenses $5,410,000 $896,000 $830,000 $1,185,000 $6,440,000 $1,449,000 $2,774,000
Net -$1,084,000 -$802,000 -$22,000 -$231,000 -$1,188,000 $1,898,000 -$1,042,000
Page 116
Item 3.
14
Annual Transfort capital expenditures over the past decade varied considerably each year with no discernable pattern, as shown in
Figure 2. In 2012, Transfort spent less than $200,000 on capital expenditures, while the agency spent nearly $10 million in 2017. This is
not uncommon in the transit industry, as there may be a year with many rolling stock replacements or a large capital construction
project. The largest total annual capital expenditure over the analysis period was $8.3 million in 2017 to build infrastructure. However,
on average, Transport spent $3.4 million annually on capital expenditures during the 2010-2020 period.
Figure 2. Transfort Capital Expenditures, 2010-2020
Source: City of Fort Collins.
As shown in Figure 3 Transfort assigns all of its capital expenditures to one of seven different categories, including an “Other” category
(parking, capital maintenance, etc.). Over half of the agency’s capital expenditures during the 10-year period were for motor vehicles
and accessories, with the remainder largely for construction contracts and other items (parking, capital maintenance, etc.).
$0.00
$2,000,000.00
$4,000,000.00
$6,000,000.00
$8,000,000.00
$10,000,000.00
$12,000,000.00
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Page 117
Item 3.
15
Figure 3. Transfort Capital Outlays by Category, 2010-2020
$278,770.00
$742,399.71
$19,829,822.10
$9,560,130.14
$8,350,000.00
$4,848.60
$4,800.00
Construction Contracts Computer Hardware Motor Vehicles & Accessories
Other Buildings Building Improvements
Easements
Page 118
Item 3.
16
Transfort Performance Metrics
Ridership Metrics & Trends
Table 3 shows annual ridership, expenses, revenue hours, revenue miles, and associated ridership metrics for the entire Transfort system
from 2015 to 2020, including both fixed-route and dial-a-ride services. This data stems from data reported to the federal National Transit
Database (2021). Data was provided by Transfort and only includes ridership metrics for fixed-route service, not dial-a-ride.
Table 3. Transfort Annual Performance and Operating Costs 2015-2021
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Ridership 3,297,091 4,112,808 4,378,724 4,444,532 4,503,616 1,796,952
Operating Expenses
(reported to NTD) $13,710,996 $15,217,405 $15,872,345 $17,025,121 $17,086,490 $14,075,860
Revenue Hours 137,071 143,942 147,605 150,065 150,555 126,023
Revenue Miles 1,706,151 1,810,797 1,815,737 1,870,828 1,876,398 11,516,609
Trips per Hour 24.1 28.6 29.7 29.6 29.9 14.3 #DIV/0!
Trips per Mile 1.9 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 0.2 #DIV/0!
Cost per Hour $100 $106 $108 $113 $113 $112 #DIV/0!
Cost per Mile $8.04 $8.40 $8.74 $9.10 $9.11 $1.22 #DIV/0!
Cost per Passenger $4.16 $3.70 $3.62 $3.83 $3.79 $7.83 #DIV/0!
Source: National Transit Database.
*2021 numbers provided by Transfort and ridership, revenue hours, and revenue miles does not include Dial-a-Ride. However, expenses are for the entire system. No data are available for 2021
cost per hour, cost per mile, or cost per passenger.
Page 119
Item 3.
17
Table 4 summarizes the ridership and productivity measures (such as cost per hour and cost per passenger) for each route Transfort
operated in 2019, the last full year of service before the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted service and ridership patterns.
Table 4. 2019 Ridership and Productivity by Route
Route Ridership
(one-way passenger trips) Revenue Hours Revenue
Miles
Trips per
Hour
Trips per
Mile Cost per Mile Cost per
Passenger
2 219,974 5,805 75,279 37.9 2.9 $8.75 $3.00
3 403,615 6,042 53,227 66.8 7.6 $12.88 $1.70
5 91,119 5,368 49,162 17.0 1.9 $12.39 $6.69
6 98,896 6,000 89,703 16.5 1.1 $7.59 $6.89
7 160,556 7,721 94,721 20.8 1.7 $9.25 $5.46
8 213,058 5,610 57,134 38.0 3.7 $11.14 $2.99
9 42,281 1,993 28,019 21.2 1.5 $8.07 $5.35
10 34,426 1,957 23,264 17.6 1.5 $9.55 $6.45
11 13,746 739 14,785 18.6 0.9 $5.67 $6.10
12 51,211 4,592 67,239 11.2 0.8 $7.75 $10.18
14 91,158 3,271 49,789 27.9 1.8 $7.46 $4.07
16 123,010 7,668 97,321 16.0 1.3 $8.94 $7.07
18 106,617 3,871 38,046 27.5 2.8 $11.55 $4.12
19 88,765 4,302 54,867 20.6 1.6 $8.90 $5.50
31 383,573 4,396 29,659 87.3 12.9 $16.82 $1.30
32 153,126 2,903 34,343 52.7 4.5 $9.59 $2.15
33 11,036 1,827 22,025 6.0 0.5 $9.41 $18.78
81 88,436 3,124 31,916 28.3 2.8 $11.11 $4.01
Page 120
Item 3.
18
Route Ridership
(one-way passenger trips) Revenue Hours Revenue
Miles
Trips per
Hour
Trips per
Mile Cost per Mile Cost per
Passenger
92 3,983 69 907 57.9 4.4 $8.60 $1.96
Flex 205,315 12,874 300,304 15.9 0.7 $4.87 $7.12
Gold 7,710 834 15,139 9.2 0.5 $6.25 $12.27
Horn 417,512 10,717 106,327 39.0 3.9 $11.44 $2.91
MAX 1,448,495 30,576 314,203 47.4 4.6 $11.04 $2.40
Total 4,457,618 132,260 1,647,378 33.7 2.7 $9.11 $3.37
Specials* 10,288 202 1,287 50.9 8.0 $17.83 $2.23
Total w/ Specials 4,467,906 132,462 1,648,666 33.7 2.7 $9.12 $3.36
Source: City of Fort Collins.
* Specials are non-reoccurring routes for special events, extra service needs, and overload buses.
Page 121
Item 3.
19
Future Conditions &
Needs
This section describes the methodology and
findings of Transfort’s annual capital and
operating cost forecast through the year 2040.
This includes costs to operate the current
system, fill unmet staffing needs, complete
major capital projects, and expand the system
to achieve the service levels envisioned for
2040 in the 2019 Transit Master Plan.
Operations & Maintenance
The methodology to forecast annual
operations and maintenance costs includes
four basic elements:
1. Baseline cost to operate pre-pandemic
services.
2. Cost of the current unmet staffing need
identified by Transfort.
3. Cost of gradually growing service levels
to meet the 2040 vision of the Transit
Master Plan.
4. Forecasted annual inflation.
The following sections detail specific steps in
the forecast.
2022 Baseline Operations Cost
Estimates
Transfort reduced service on its transit system
in 2020 due to the disruptions in travel
behavior caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Current 2022 service levels are still below pre-
pandemic levels largely due to a persistent
driver shortage. Transfort seeks to reestablish
service but lacks sufficient drivers and staff.
This staffing shortage is prevalent across most
transit agencies (and many industries) across
the country.
For long-range planning purposes, this
analysis assumes a temporary reduction in
service and, eventually, resumption of pre-
pandemic service levels. Since 2019 was the
last full year of operations pre-pandemic, 2019
service levels will represent the baseline
operations for forecasting purposes. To
estimate 2022 cost of operating service at
2019 levels, the analysis factors in inflation,
which has increased by approximately 10%
since 2019 (according to the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics inflation calculator), as shown
in the formula below.
(2019 𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑠)
× (10% 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛)
=2022 𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑠
$17,748,000 ∗1.1 =$19,523,000
Using this methodology, the estimated cost of
operating 2019 Transfort service levels in
2022 dollars is $19.52 million. This does not
factor in Transfort's existing unmet staffing
need, described below.
Unmet Staffing Needs
Transfort identified an existing unmet staffing
need of 23 additional positions to support
existing operations, planning, and a host of
administrative-related needs.
Table 5 lists those positions, including the
estimated cost of salary and benefits. The total
estimated cost to fill existing unmet staffing
needs is $2 million.
Page 122
Item 3.
20
Table 5. Unmet Transfort Staffing Needs
New Position FTE Appx. Salary & Benefits
Supervisor 2 $100,000
Project Manager 1 $100,000
DAR Coordinator 1 $70,000
Analyst II, Data 1 $110,000
IT/Data Technician 2 $70,000
Planner, Transit 1 $90,000
TSO Supervisor 1 $90,000
TSO Trainer 2 $90,000
Officer II, Enforcement 4 $70,000
Coordinator 2 $70,000
Specialist, Customer Support 1 $80,000
Administration Senior Supervisor 1 $100,000
Senior Supervisor, Technology 1 $120,000
Database Administrator 1 $110,000
Assistant City Attorney I 0.5 $120,000
Buyer II 0.5 $90,000
Accountant II 1 $90,000
Total 23
Source: Transfort.
Once factoring in both inflation and the cost of filling the unmet staffing needs, the estimated annual
operating expense to provide 2019 transit service levels is $21.52 million (in 2022 dollars), as shown
in Figure 4.
Page 123
Item 3.
21
Figure 4. Estimated 2022 Adjusted Operating Expenses to Support 2019 Service Levels (in millions
of dollars)
Operating Cost Allocation Model
To provide the baseline service that was in
operation pre-pandemic, Transfort will have an
estimated annual operating expense of $21.52
million. Building upon this figure, Fehr & Peers
developed a cost allocation model to forecast
the additional annual cost of gradually
expanding the service through year 2040 to
achieve the goals in the Transit Master Plan.
This cost allocation model separates out
variable operating costs that are needed
whenever the agency increases service (such
as drivers, mechanics, dispatchers, and fuel)
from fixed costs, that grow at a much smaller
rate in response to service expansion (such as
planning, administration, overhead, etc.).
Identifying costs in this manner provides a
more accurate forecast that considers the
efficiencies of growth within an already
established transit system (e.g., some costs
do not grow at the same rate as service
expands).
2019 Actual
Operating
Expenses, $17.75
2019 Actual
Operating
Expenses, $17.75
Unmet staffing needs, $2.00
Inflation, $1.77
$17.75
$21.52
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
2019 2022
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Page 124
Item 3.
22
Table 6 summarizes the inputs and outputs of the cost allocation model.
Table 6. Cost Allocation Model
Cost Allocation Model
2019 Cost Per Revenue Hour $117.88
Total 2019 Operating Expenses $17,748,000
2019-2022 Inflation 10%
2022 Operating Expenses (2019 service levels) $19,522,800
Funding Gap (2022 dollars) $2,005,000
2022 Operating Expenses Target $21,527,800
Percent Variable Cost 2022 Budget 69%
2022 Fixed Cost $8,140,743
Total 2022 Variable Cost (2019 service) $13,387,057
Total 2019 Fixed Route Revenue Hours 132,462
Total 2019 Demand Response Revenue Hours 18,093
Total 2019 Revenue Hours 150,555
2022 Variable Cost per Hour (2019 service) $88.92
Fixed Cost Factor 1.33
Inflation Rate 3%
For this exercise, the City of Fort Collins
estimated that approximately 69% of existing
operating expenses relate to the variable cost
of providing service, while 31% are for fixed
costs. Therefore, this analysis multiplied the
2022 total operating expenses of $19.52
million, excluding the unmet need, by 0.69 to
arrive at $13.39 million, which represents the
variable cost in 2022 dollars of providing
service at the 2019 service levels.
2022 𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 ($13.39 𝑚𝑖𝑙.)
=𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑠 ($19.52 𝑚𝑖𝑙.)
× 𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 (69%)
The 2022 variable cost was then divided by
the total 150,555 revenue hours in 2019 to
arrive at a variable operating cost per hour of
$88.92, which was one figure used to forecast
the cost of expanding service.
𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟 ($88.92)
=2022 𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 ($13.39 𝑚𝑖𝑙.)
÷ 2019 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 (150,555)
Page 125
Item 3.
23
The 2022 estimated fixed cost was calculated
by taking the portion of operating expenses
($19.52 million) that are fixed costs (31%) and
adding that to the estimated cost of the unmet
staffing need ($2 million) as shown below:
𝐹𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 ($8.70 𝑚𝑖𝑙.)
=[ 𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑠 ($19.52 𝑚𝑖𝑙.)
× 𝐹𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 (69%)]
+𝑈𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑡 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑁𝑒𝑒𝑑 ($2 𝑚𝑖𝑙.)
While the fixed cost is not greatly sensitive to
small increases in additional service, over
time, even those costs must grow to support
expanded service. However, the rate of
growth of fixed costs, called the fixed cost
factor, is smaller than the rate of growth of
variable costs. Based on research of Transfort
and other transit agencies, the analysis
estimated a fixed cost factor of 1.33. For
forecasting purposes, this means that fixed
costs grow at a rate of 33% of variable costs.
The last input used to forecast operating
expenses is inflation, which is estimated to be
1.5% - 3% annually.1
Forecast Operations Cost
This analysis estimated Transfort annual
operating costs through 2040 by summing the
cost of the following three elements: existing
operations (2019 service levels), new service,
and inflation.
1 While 2021/2022 inflation is at historic highs, most
surveys by the Federal government (Congressional
Budget Office, Federal Reserve), forecast inflation to
return to pre-pandemic levels (~2-3%) by 2024.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-07/56442-
CBO-update-economic-outlook.pdf,
https://www.philadelphiafed.org/surveys-and-
data/real-time-data-research/inflation-forecasts
Existing Operations
Existing operations were calculated as
described above and include the cost to
operate 2019 service levels in 2022 dollars
along with the estimated cost to fill the existing
unmet staffing need. This is estimated at $21.5
million.
Cost of New Service
The annual cost of providing new service
represents the growth in both variable costs
and fixed costs of adding new service. The
growth in variable cost was calculated by
multiplying the forecast growth in revenue
service hours from the 2040 vision of the
Transit Master Plan by the 2022 variable cost
per hour of $88.92. The growth in fixed cost
was calculated by growing the 2022 fixed cost
at a rate of 33% of the rate of growth of the
variable cost.
The Transit Master Plan provides both a five-
year plan and a 2040 plan. To achieve the
five-year plan, revenue service hours would
need to grow by 34% from 2019 levels
(excluding dial-a-ride service but including
new micro-transit service). To achieve the
2040 Plan, revenue service hours would need
to grow by 96% from 2019 levels (excluding
dial-a-ride service but including new micro-
transit service). It is assumed that given
pandemic disruptions, Transfort would
achieve the five-year plan by 2027.
Page 126
Item 3.
24
Forecasted costs in this report were therefore
developed for two planning years: 2027 and
2040. To estimate the total cost of new service
in intermittent years, it was assumed that
costs would grow at the same annual rate as
the two respective horizon years, which
results in linear average annual growth to
each horizon year.
Chapter 4 provides a more detailed look at
near-, mid-, and long-range funding needs,
along with estimations of local funding only, in
contrast to the analysis of averaged total
revenue needs below.
Table 7 shows the growth in revenue hours,
variable costs, fixed costs, and total costs for
the two horizon years. Note that these growth
percentages assume 2022 dollars and do not
account for inflation.
Table 7. 2022-2040 Growth Rates for 2027 and 2040 Horizon Years
2022 – 2027 Growth 2022-2040 Growth
Revenue Hours Growth 34% 96%
Variable Cost Growth 30% 84%
Fixed Cost Growth 9% 23%
Total Cost Growth 22% 61%
Inflation
Two forecast models were developed to show
the variation in cost, depending on the
average inflation rate through year 2040. The
lower bound assumes an annual inflation rate
of 1.5% and the upper bound assumes an
annual inflation rate of 3%. The actual inflation
rate is likely to fall somewhere in this range.
Summary
Based on these inputs, the annual operating
cost to provide new Transfort service to
achieve the vision in the 2040 Transit Master
Plan is expected to be $4.8 million by 2027
and $13.1 million by 2040 in 2022 dollars.
When factoring in inflation the 2040 annual
operating cost of providing existing (2019)
service levels plus new service, is anticipated
to be $43 million (if inflation is assumed to
grow at 1.5% annually) to $54 million (if
inflation grows by 3% annually) in 2040
dollars.
Table 8 summarizes the percent increase by
2040 in revenue hours and cost under the two
inflation scenarios. Figure 5 and Figure 6
illustrate the annual operating cost estimate
through 2040 to achieve the service levels in
the 2040 master plan under the two inflation
scenarios.
Page 127
Item 3.
25
Table 8. 2022-2040 Growth Rates Assuming 1.5% and 3% Inflation
2022-2040
Growth
2022-2040 Growth
with 1.5% Inflation
2022-2040 Growth
with 3% Inflation
Revenue Hours Growth 96%
Variable Cost Growth 84% 141% 214%
Fixed Cost Growth 23% 34% 47%
Total Cost Growth 61% 99% 151%
Page 128
Item 3.
26
Figure 5. Forecast Transfort O&M Expenses with 3% Inflation
$21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5
$1.0 $1.9 $2.9 $3.9 $4.8 $5.5 $6.1 $6.8 $7.4 $8.0 $8.7 $9.3 $10.0 $10.6 $11.2 $11.9 $12.5 $13.1
$0.5 $1.1 $1.7 $2.5 $3.2 $4.1 $4.9 $5.9 $6.9 $8.0 $9.1 $10.3 $11.6 $13.0 $14.4 $16.0 $17.6 $19.3
$21.5 $23.0 $24.6 $26.2
$27.8
$29.6 $31.1 $32.6 $34.2
$35.8
$37.5
$39.3
$41.2
$43.1
$45.1
$47.2
$49.4
$51.6
$54.0
$0.0
$10.0
$20.0
$30.0
$40.0
$50.0
$60.0
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Existing Operations (2019 Service Levels)New Service Inflation (3%)
Page 129
Item 3.
27
Figure 6. Forecast Transfort O&M Expenses with 1.5% Inflation
$21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5
$1.0 $1.9 $2.9 $3.9 $4.8 $5.5 $6.1 $6.8 $7.4 $8.0 $8.7 $9.3 $10.0 $10.6 $11.2 $11.9 $12.5 $13.1
$0.3 $0.5 $0.9 $1.2 $1.6 $2.0 $2.4 $2.8 $3.3 $3.7 $4.2 $4.8 $5.3 $5.9 $6.5 $7.2 $7.8 $8.5
$21.5 $22.8 $24.0 $25.3 $26.6
$27.9 $29.0 $30.0 $31.1 $32.2 $33.3 $34.5 $35.6 $36.8 $38.1 $39.3 $40.6 $41.9
$43.2
$0.0
$5.0
$10.0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
$30.0
$35.0
$40.0
$45.0
$50.0
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Existing Operations (2019 service levels)New Service Inflation (1.5%)
Page 130
Item 3.
28
Capital Costs
A key component of the Transit Funding Study was completion of a comprehensive assessment of
Transfort’s capital needs through 2040. As the agency considers potential changes to its revenue
sources, it is essential to understand the financial resources necessary for Fort Collins to reach the
vision laid out in the 2019 Transit Master Plan.
Updates to Capital Project List and Costs
The 2019 plan provided high-level implementation cost estimates for eleven major capital projects.
This study assessed each of those projects in more detail to provide more refined cost estimates
shown in
Table 9. The updated cost estimates also account for capital-related progress and decisions made
by Transfort since adoption of the Transit Master Plan. The updated cost range for Transfort’s major
capital projects through 2040 is $333 million to $373 million, compared to the earlier estimate from
the 2019 Transit Master Plan of $261 million to $298 million.
Table 9. Updated Project List & Costs
Project Description
Implementation Cost
(2019 Master Plan
Estimate)
Implementation
Cost
(2023 Funding
Study Update)
Assumed Local Match
Percentage
Implementation
Timeframe
Transit Fleet Expansion &
Renewal $85 million - $95 million $115 million 20% Near/Mid/Long
Information Technology/Fare
Integration Technology $10 million - $20 million $10 million - $20
million 20% Near/Mid/Long
Operations & Maintenance
Facility Expansion $20 million - $30 million Eliminated2 - -
North Transit Center - $35 million - $65
million 50% Near
Downtown Transit Center
Upgrades $3 million - $10 million Eliminated - -
Mobility Hubs $33 million $2.5 million 50% Near to Mid
2 As of 2023, a Needs Assessment is underway to determine the need for expansion of the Operations & Maintenance
Facility and to identify ways to improve safety procedures. Once the findings of the Needs Assessment are made,
funding can be shifted from the North Transit Center to the Operations & Maintenance Facility as needed.
Page 131
Item 3.
29
Bus Stop Enhancements $5 million $11 million 50% Near/Mid/Long
North College BRT Corridor $10 million $21 million 50% Mid to Long
West Elizabeth BRT Corridor $28 million $99 million 50% Near
Harmony Road BRT Corridor $53 million $79 million 50% Long
Speed & Reliability
Improvements $10 million $5 million 50% Near/Mid/Long
Total Costs of Items
Above
$261 million - $298
million
$333 million -
$373 million
Source: Transfort, FHU.
On an annualized basis, a total average capital need of $353 million between 2023 and 2040 equates
to $19.5 million in total capital costs per year. Chapter 4 presents a detailed analysis of capital
funding needs and associated phasing.
Page 132
Item 3.
30
Conclusion
This chapter analyzes Transfort's current operating and capital budgets to forecast future operating
and capital funding requirements to maintain pre-pandemic service levels and gradually grow service
to achieve the levels identified in the Transit Master Plan by 2040. It considers the costs to address
unmet staffing needs and gradually add new/expanded service, as well as the impact of inflation. This
forecast of funding needs to cover operations and capital expenses in the future informs the strategy
to identify dedicated funding streams. Based on the data and analysis presented in this section, the
major takeaways include:
It would cost Transfort $21.58 million to operate 2019 Transfort service levels
in 2022 dollars, including $2 million to fill unmet staffing needs.
Transfort annual operating costs through 2040 were estimated by adding the
cost of following three elements: existing operations (2019 service levels), new
service, and inflation. To achieve the vision in the 2040 Transit Master Plan,
Transfort is expected to spend approximately $4.8 million by 2027 and $13.1
million by 2040 in 2022 dollars. When factoring in inflation, the cost of
providing existing (2019) service levels, and the cost of new service, the
annual operating cost in 2040 is anticipated to be $43 million (if inflation is
assumed to grow at 1.5% annually) to $54 million (if inflation grows by 3%
annually) in 2040 dollars. Much of the cost increase derives from inflation,
which represents $8.5 to $19.3 million of the total forecasted operating
expenditures in 2040.
Due to new project details, this report updates the estimate of Transfort's
capital costs through 2040 from the 2019 Transit Master Plan's estimated $271
million to $308 million to a higher range of $333 million to $373 million. A
total capital need of $353 million between 2023 and 2040 equates to $19.5
million in average total capital costs per year.
Baseline Operating Cost
Future Operating Cost
Future Capital Cost
Page 133
Item 3.
31
This chapter summarizes of
the estimated local portion
only and associated
phasing to support
implementation of service
improvements and capital
projects identified in the
2019 Transit Master Plan
through 2040.
04 Local Funding
Need Estimates
and Phasing for
Operations and
Capital Projects
Page 134
Item 3.
32
Methodology for Local
Funding Needs and
Phasing of Operational
Service Expansion
Several assumptions were made to estimate
future operational costs, which build upon
those detailed in the Current Funding Analysis
and Future Needs Chapter 3.
Service Expansion Assumptions
To estimate costs by time frame, project staff
made assumptions about specific
improvements to the transit system that would
be implemented over time based on guidance
in the Transit Master Plan. Near-term
expansion of service is based on the 5-Year
Plan in the Transit Master Plan. Project staff
divided the remaining service improvements
identified in the Transit Master Plan into mid-
term and long-term, with the overarching
assumption that the North College Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) will be implemented mid-term
(2028–2033) and the Harmony Road BRT will
be implemented long-term (2034-2040).
Near-Term Service Expansion (2022 –
2027)
• West Elizabeth BRT replaces Route 3 &
32
• Add vehicle on Route 6 for reliability
• Increase frequency on Drake from 30 to
15 mins
• Increase frequency on North College
from 30 to 15 mins
• Increase off-peak frequency on Shields
from 60 to 30 mins
• Add new route with 30 min frequency on
Lemay/Trilby
• New southeast microtransit service
• Add additional trips to City of Boulder on
the FLEX
• Add regional service to the town of
Wellington
Mid-Term Service Expansion (2028 –
2033)
• North College BRT replaces Route 8
• Increase frequency on Route 5 from 60
to 30 mins, realign
• Increase frequency on Taft/Laporte from
60 to 30 mins, combine to new route
• Increase frequency for CSU-DT-Lincoln
Route from 30/60 to 15 mins
• Increase frequency on Horsetooth
(Route 12) from 60 to 30 mins, realign
• Increase frequency on Route 14 from 60
to 30 mins, realign
• New southwest microtransit service
Long-Term Service Expansion (2034 –
2040):
• Harmony BRT replaces Route 16
• Increase frequency on
Timberline/Prospect from 60 to 15/30
mins, restructure route 18
• Add new route to Mountain Vista at
15/30 min frequency
• Increase frequency on Shields from 30
to 15/30 mins
• New northwest microtransit service
• Add Saturday FLEX Trips to Boulder
• Increase frequency on the Poudre
Express
• Add regional service to the town of
Laporte
Page 135
Item 3.
33
Operational Local
Funding Needs
Assumptions
Three basic funding assumptions were made
to estimate future local funding needed to
implement the service expansion outlined
below:
Base Year Funding: Transfort’s estimated
operating budget for 2023 is $20.63 million,
which will provide funding for pre-pandemic
service levels (and includes Dial-a-Ride). Note:
This is $1.11 million more than the $19.52
million that was assumed for 2022 (which was
the baseline year used in the Current Funding
Analysis and Future Needs Chapter) and will
be used as the adjusted number for estimating
local needs in this chapter. It is assumed that
funding for this 2023 service budget will
continue to be provided in the future using
existing funding sources (i.e., existing annual
contributions from Local, State, Federal,
partnerships, etc.).
Funding Gap: As outlined in the Current
Funding Analysis and Future Needs Chapter,
Transfort identified a funding gap of $2 million
to fund 20 unfilled positions to support current
operations.
Federal Funding: Based on the recent federal
funding packages, it was assumed that near-
term, the federal government could fund
about 50% of the operations cost of service
expansion. This funding includes increases in
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 5307
small urban operating funding due to effects
of population increases on the funding formula
and increased funding in the recently passed
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Mid-term and
long-term (beyond 2027), it was assumed that
the federal government could fund about 30%
of the operations cost of service expansion
based on historic precedent, meaning 70% of
funds for the operating portion of service
expansion would need to be provided from
local sources.
Cost Estimates
Page 136
Item 3.
34
Figure 7 summarizes the total annual funding
to support future transit operations by the four
future time periods (near-, mid-, long-, and
beyond 2040) to complete the Transit Master
Plan. The average annual cost to fund
operations of expanded transit service will
increase from $22.6 million in 2023 to $35.8
million by 2040 (not including inflation). This
increase in costs would cover gradual
introduction of additional transit service
through 2040. The cost estimates are
organized into four categories.
Page 137
Item 3.
35
Figure 7. Transfort Forecast Annual Operating Expenses by Time Period
Given that Fort Collins is most interested in understanding the additional local funding amount
needed to implement the Transit Master Plan, Figure 8 shows just the portion of new local operating
funding that would be needed annually in each time period. This includes the existing funding gap of
$2.0 million plus the local funding match to support expanded service which will increase over time
as new service is added between now and 2040.
Figure 8. New Local Annual Operating Funds Needed for Future Transit Service Expansion
$20.6 $20.6 $20.6 $20.6 $20.6
$2.0 $2.0 $2.0 $2.0 $2.0
$1.4
$5.0 $7.9 $9.2
$1.4
$2.1
$3.4 $3.9
$22.6
$25.5
$29.7
$33.9
$35.8
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
2023 2023 - 2027 2028 - 2033 2034 - 2040 Past 2040
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Expanded Service
(Federal/State Portion)
Expanded Service
(Local Portion)
Funding Gap
2023 Operating Expenses
$2.0 $2.0 $2.0 $2.0
$1.4
$5.0
$7.9 $9.2
$3.5
$7.0
$9.9
$11.2
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
2023 - 2027 2028 - 2033 2034 - 2040 Past 2040
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Funding Gap Expanded Service (Local Portion)
Page 138
Item 3.
36
Near-term, it is estimated that Fort Collins will
need an additional $3.5 million annually in
local funding to support transit operations. By
2040, it is estimated that the city will need an
additional $11.2 million annually in local
funding to support operations of the transit
system.
Methodology for Local
Funding Needs and
Phasing for Future
Capital Projects
The methodology for forecasting local capital
costs includes three basic elements:
1. Estimate required local match and
federal participation shares.
2. Assign projects to near-, mid-, and long-
term.
3. Project local share of capital needs
between now and 2040.
Local Match Needs
To support an assessment of how much local
match funding Transfort may be required to
provide for the agency’s planned capital
investments through 2040, recent match
percentages for various federal capital grant
programs were reviewed to provide
recommended match ratios to apply to
Transfort’s capital phasing plan. Federal
capital grant program match ratio research
focused on:
• Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA)
Small Starts Program – which provides
federal funding for rail and bus rapid
transit projects.
• FTA 5339(c) Low or No Emissions
Vehicle Program - which provides
funding for low or no emission bus
equipment and supporting facilities and
infrastructure.
FTA Small Starts Program
FTA recommended nine Small Starts projects
for funding for Fiscal Years 2022 and 2023.
These projects, which are all BRT corridors,
range in total cost from $48 million to $290
million. Three of the nine projects were under
$75 million and the other six projects were
over $110 million.
• Average requested federal funding share
across all the recommended projects
was 54%, ranging from 45% to 65%.
• The three agencies proposing projects
with total costs below $75 million each
requested a federal funding share of
over 60%.
• A total of 25 Small Starts projects
(including the nine recommended for
funding) are currently in the Project
Development stage, which have
identified a total cost and a federal
funding request – the average request
was 46%, with a range from 26% to 73%.
Recommended Federal/Local Funding
Ratio for Transfort’s Capital Phasing
Plan
Based on the match ratios identified through
our research, an assumed local match
requirement of 50% should be applied to
Transfort’s three planned BRT corridors and
other planned transit infrastructure projects in
the capital phasing plan.
FTA 5339(c) Low or No
Emissions Vehicle Program
Per FTA, the federal share for the cost of
acquiring low- or no-emission bus equipment
Page 139
Item 3.
37
and facilities through the 5339(c) Low or No
Emissions Vehicle Program can be up to 90%.
Recent 5339(c) grants awarded to Colorado
transit agencies included a 25% local match.
Transfort’s 2021 FTA Low-No award was 91%
federal and 9% local; however, the grant also
leveraged other funding including CMAQ and
CDOT Faster Funds with additional local
match for each grant source. The resulting
match for the total project was 14% (total
project - $9,377,660, total local match -
$1,287,797).
Recommended Federal/Local Funding
Ratio for Transfort’s Capital Phasing
Plan
Based on the match ratios identified through
our research, an assumed local match
requirement of 20% should be applied to the
rolling stock portion of the capital phasing
plan.
Capital Project
Phasing and Local
Share
Based on the assumed local match
percentages of 50% for infrastructure-focused
projects and 20% for fleet expansion/renewal
and technology upgrades, the near-, mid-, and
long-term total and local share of capital
funding needs are shown in Table 10.
The significant unevenness of capital funding
needs between the three timeframes (over
$180 million is required by 2027, with less
than $40 million between 2028 and 2033) is
largely driven by the West Elizabeth project,
which is now anticipated in the near-term (by
2027), This unevenness creates a budgeting
challenge in building enough local capital
reserves to begin implementation of these two
large capital projects in the near-term.
Page 140
Item 3.
38
Table 10. Capital Funding Needs, Local Match, and Phasing
Total Capital Need Local Match
(Current Dollars)
Local Match
(w/ 3% Inflation)
Near-term (2023-2027) $188.3 million $85.4 million $92.1 million
Mid-term (2028-2033) $34.8 million $9.6 million $12.3 million
Long-term (2034-2040) $130.5 million $56 million $87.3 million
Total $353.6 million $151 million $191.7 million
Figure 9 and Figure 10 show just the portion of new local operating funding that would be needed annually in each time period, in both
2022 dollars and adjusted for inflation.
Figure 9. Forecast Transfort Capital Needs (2022 Dollars)
$14.24 $14.24 $14.24 $14.24 $14.24 $14.24
$1.60 $1.60 $1.60 $1.60 $1.60 $1.60
$7.99 $7.99 $7.99 $7.99 $7.99 $7.99 $7.99
$.0
$2.0
$4.0
$6.0
$8.0
$10.0
$12.0
$14.0
$16.0
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
Page 141
Item 3.
39
Figure 10: Forecast Transfort Capital Needs with 3% Inflation
$14.24 $14.24 $14.24 $14.24 $14.24 $14.24
$1.60 $1.60 $1.60 $1.60 $1.60 $1.60
$7.99 $7.99 $7.99 $7.99 $7.99 $7.99 $7.99
$.0 $.43 $.87 $1.32 $1.79 $2.27
$.31 $.37 $.43 $.49 $.55 $.61
$3.40 $3.74 $4.10 $4.46 $4.83 $5.22 $5.61
$.0
$2.0
$4.0
$6.0
$8.0
$10.0
$12.0
$14.0
$16.0
$18.0
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
Page 142
Item 3.
40
Conclusion
Summary of Operating Needs
To cover the cost of operations for the expansion of the transit system in Fort Collins as identified in the Transit Master Plan, it is estimated
that the additional local funds needed for operations of service improvements and expansions include:
These cost estimates are in addition to the existing funding sources that currently fund the transit system operations (estimated at $20.6
million total in 2023). They also assume a 50% match in federal operating funds for new service near-term and 30% match long-term (70%
from local service).
Ne
a
r
-Te
r
m
(
2
0
2
3
–
20
2
7
)
An
additional
$3.5
million
annually Mi
d
-Te
r
m
(
2
0
2
8
–
20
3
3
)
An
additional
$7.0
million
annually Lo
n
g
-Te
r
m
(
2
0
3
3
–
20
4
0
)
An
additional
$9.9
million
annually
Be
y
o
n
d
2
0
4
0
An
additional
$11.2
million
annually
Page 143
Item 3.
41
Summary of Capital Needs
To cover the cost of implementing the necessary capital projects as identified in the Transit Master Plan and updated in this report, it is
estimated that the additional local funds needed for these projects include:
These estimates are based on assumed local match percentages of 50% for infrastructure-focused projects and 20% for fleet
expansion/renewal and technology upgrades.
Ne
a
r
-Te
r
m
(
2
0
2
3
–
20
2
7
)
An
additional
$14.2
million
annually Mi
d
-Te
r
m
(
2
0
2
8
–
20
3
3
)
An
additional
$1.6 million
annually
Lo
n
g
-Te
r
m
(
2
0
3
3
–
20
4
0
)
An
additional
$8 million
annually
Page 144
Item 3.
42
Combined Needs
As shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12 the combined operating and capital needs are presented along with revenue assumptions and
needs. For revenue, it is assumed that existing Transfort funding of $8.6 million from the general fund would continue. The city is currently
exploring an additional sustainable revenue source to support a variety of city needs, including transportation, parks, climate, and housing.
Early discussions have indicated that $8 million may be possible for Transfort. That leaves a gap of $6.7 million that will n eed to be filled in
order to meet the goals and priorities of the TMP. Possible revenue sources are explored in Chapter 7.
Existing
General
Fund, $8.6
Sustainable
Revenue
Placeholder,
$8.0
Other New
Local Source,
$6.7
$-
$5.0
$10.0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
ANNUAL AVERAGE LOCAL NEED = $23.3
MILLION
IN
M
I
L
L
I
O
N
S
$
Figure 12. Transfort Local Funding Needs Figure 11. Transfort Local Revenue Possibilities
Existing
General
Fund, $8.6
Future Gap
in Capital,
$7.6
Future Gap
in
Operating,
$7.1
$-
$5.0
$10.0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
ANNUAL AVERAGE LOCAL NEED = $23.3
MILLION
IN
M
I
L
L
I
O
N
S
$
Page 145
Item 3.
1
05 Fare-Free
Analysis
The purpose of this chapter is to
provide city staff and decision
makers with enough information
about the potential benefits and
tradeoffs of converting Transfort to
fare-free to inform a strategic
decision regarding transit fares in
Fort Collins.
Page 146
Item 3.
44
Introduction
The City of Fort Collins initiated an analysis to
evaluate the feasibility of converting the local
transit system, Transfort, to fare-free. This
chapter summarizes the analysis, including
the potential benefits and barriers the city
faces in converting to fare-free, cost
implications, and potential strategies the city
could use to mitigate those barriers. This
chapter also summarizes other fare structure
considerations, such as alternative fare policy
strategies and coordination with regional
transit service.
Background
A directive that emerged from the 2019 Fort
Collins Transit Master Plan (TMP) was for the
City of Fort Collins to explore converting the
transit system to fare-free. The plan made this
recommendation in part due to Transfort’s low
farebox recovery. That plan noted that in
2017, excluding the partnerships with
Colorado State University (CSU) and others,
fares only accounted for 3% of Transfort’s
operating budget. Thus, the cost of converting
to fare-free could be minimal with numerous
benefits including increased ridership,
increased speed and reliability of service,
administrative cost savings, and increased
equity and access to transit. Potential barriers
noted in the plan include lost fare-revenue,
potential for lost partnership revenue, regional
reciprocity, cost of fully funding dial-a-ride
(paratransit), and political sensitivities about
transit riders getting an outsized subsidy from
the public. That plan also noted other potential
models, such as Chapel Hill, North Carolina,
that have successfully converted their transit
to fare-free. The cost implications of
converting to fare-free as well as potential
benefits, barriers, and mitigation strategies are
explored in more detail as part of this analysis,
including additional barriers that have
emerged since the 2019 TMP.
Existing Transfort Fare Policies
Prior to the fare and service changes that
occurred due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
Transfort charged a standard fare of $1.25 per
bus trip within Fort Collins, including transfers,
with discounted fares for seniors over 60,
people with disabilities, or Medicare
recipients. Transfort also offered daily, weekly,
monthly, and annual passes as well as a bulk-
rate discount pass, called Passfort, that
businesses could purchase for their
employees. Additionally, riders under the age
of 18 could ride free with a Poudre School
District student ID, as well as CSU students,
faculty, and staff by tapping their RamCard
when boarding. The same fare structure also
applied to the regional FLEX bus to Loveland,
Longmont, and Boulder. Transfort charged
double the fixed-route fare for paratransit
service, $2.50 per ride.
Riders could purchase their fare on the bus
using cash, via a mobile application (that was
initiated in 2019), at MAX ticket vending
machines, or at one of the three major transit
centers. Riders of the MAX bus rapid transit
(BRT) service purchased a fare at the station
before boarding and were subject to random
fare checks while onboard.
Beginning in April 2020, Transfort suspended
all fare collection of local transit service within
Fort Collins as a social distancing measure
due to COVID and has been operating transit
service fare-free ever since. While not a
perfect case study due to the many
extraneous factors that also occurred because
Page 147
Item 3.
45
of the COVID-19 pandemic, including
dramatic changes to travel behaviors and
society at large, the change to fare-free
service since 2020 does provide some
insights to the challenges and benefits of
permanently switching to fare-free and
lessons from the last two years are included in
this analysis.
National Context
There are dozens of examples from around
the country of transit agencies operating fare-
free transit in some format. Examples include
system-wide fare-free models, specific routes
that are fare-free (such as the Free MallRide in
Denver), zones of a network that are fare-free
(such as downtown or on a university
campus), or models where certain riders are
eligible to ride fare-free (often youth or low-
income populations). Examples of fare-free
transit in Colorado include local transit in
many mountain resort communities (including
Winter Park, Summit County, Vail, Aspen,
Steamboat Springs, Telluride, Estes Park, and
Crested Butte), specific routes that are fare-
free (including the Free Mallride in Denver and
Hop in Boulder), and free local transit service
in Longmont (funded by Boulder County).
Historically, agencies that operate fare-free
systems typically fell into one of three
categories3:
1. Small transit systems with relatively low
ridership (often in rural areas)
3 National Academics of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine 2012. Implementation and Outcomes of
Fare-Free Transit Systems. Washington, DC: The
National Academic Press.
http//doi.org/10.17226/22753.
2. Systems within resort communities, or
3. Systems in university dominated
communities.
However, this has begun to change as larger
transit agencies increasingly began
experimenting with fare-free service. Fare-free
transit has been a topic of conversation
among cities and transit agencies for decades.
As far back as the 1970s, Denver used a grant
to commission a one-year fare-free transit
pilot. In recent years, an increasing number of
larger transit agencies around the U.S. have
initiated fare-free pilot programs (among the
largest are LA Metro for certain riders, Kansas
City, and Albuquerque). Agencies cite
anticipated environmental and equity benefits
and the fact that revenue barely exceeds the
cost of charging fares, especially for smaller
agencies. The momentum for converting to
fare-free began before the COVID-19
pandemic but increased as many agencies
temporarily switched to fare-free during the
pandemic (like Transfort) and the community
and political leaders saw the benefits of fare-
free transit. Namely, the pandemic brought to
the forefront the equity benefits of fare-free
transit and transit’s role as an essential service
for low-income workers became more widely
recognized and valued.
Table 11 lists the larger transit agencies in the
U.S. that operate fare-free transit service,
either as part of a pilot program or
permanently, and their key metrics compared
Page 148
Item 3.
46
to Transfort. All of the agencies that operate
permanent fare-free transit service are in
cities with large state universities similar to
Fort Collins. The agency currently offering
fare-free transit service most similar to the
service area and pre-pandemic ridership of
Transfort is Intercity Transit in Olympia, WA.
Intercity Transit initiated a five-year fare-free
transit pilot program in 2020 that they have
since extended three additional years given
the disruption to service and ridership levels
caused by the pandemic.
Table 11. Existing Large Transit Agencies that Operate Citywide Fare-Free Transit
City Transit Agency Fare-free Program Year Became
Fare-free
2019 Service Area
Population
2019
Ridership
Fort Collins, CO Transfort Temporary (COVID) April, 2020 164,000 4.5 million
Chapel Hill, NC Chapel Hill Transit Permanent 2002 80,000 6.6 million
Corvallis, OR Corvallis Transit System Permanent 2011 54,000 1.1 million
Missoula, MT Mountain Line Permanent 2015 73,000 1.6 million
Olympia, WA Intercity Transit Pilot through 2028 January, 2020 186,000 4.7 million
Kansas City, MO KC Regional Transit Pilot through 2023 February, 2020 789,000 12.4 million
Albuquerque, NM ABQ Ride One-year pilot January, 2022 662,000 9.4 million
Table 11 does not include the many transit
agencies that temporarily switched to fare-free
during the pandemic and are still operating
fare-free but have not made a longer-term
commitment, like Transfort. Examples include
Tucson, AZ, Athens, GA and Alexandria, VA,
among others. Montgomery County, MD and
LA Metro had also been running fare-free
since the pandemic but recently decided to
resume charging fares. LA Metro resumed
charging fares in January 2022 and
Montgomery County resumed fare collection
in August 2022.
Current Farebox
Recovery
This section summarizes the cost and revenue
of collecting fares over a four-year period
between 2016 and 2019 (year 2020 and 2021
are also shown for comparison). In addition,
since Transfort has not collected transit fares
in over two years, the technology cost of
restarting fare collection is predicted to be
substantial, and those costs are also included
in the analysis. Combined, this data estimates
the financial implications to the City of Fort
Collins if Transfort were to permanently
convert to a fare-free system. Later sections of
the report explore other considerations of
converting to fare-free that may impact cost
(such as meeting increased demand for
service, addressing security concerns, and
continuing partner support).
2016 to 2019 Fare Revenue
Analysis
Table 12 summarizes all fare, pass, and
partner contribution annual revenue Transfort
collected since 2016. Revenue is divided into
Page 149
Item 3.
47
that which came from fares and passes and
that which came from private contributions,
including CSU. In 2019, total fare revenue
from fares and passes (excluding partner
contributions) was just shy of $508,000. Thus,
fare and pass revenue alone accounted for
2.9% of total operating budget. This is a
decline from 4.3% in 2016.
Partner contributions were divided into three
distinct sources:
1. Contributions from CSU, through the
Associated Students of CSU (ASCSU), for
students, faculty, and staff to ride
Transfort for free
2. Contributions from CSU (ASCSU) to
operate the Horn and Gold service, the
Foothills Shuttle, and to provide
increased service levels along West
Elizabeth Street (routes 2, 3, 31, and 32).
3. Contributions from Bohemian for
students (under age 18) to ride Transfort
for free
Total partner contributions revenue totaled
about $2.286 million in 2019. Combined with
fare and pass revenue, 2019 revenue totaled
about $2.795 million, which represents about
16% of Transfort 2019 operating expenses.
Excluding the portion that CSU pays Transfort
to operate specific services from the fare
revenue total (as it is assumed this revenue
source is not contingent on whether service is
free), the total fare and pass revenue
(including CSU and Bohemian contributions
for free service to select groups) would be
about $1,201,000, which represents about
6.8% of operating expenses. This amount and
percentage are closest to the “true” farebox
recovery that Transfort collected pre-
pandemic.
Page 150
Item 3.
48
Table 12. Transfort Fare, Pass, and Partner Contribution Revenue 2016-2021
Revenue Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Fares & Pass Revenue
Transfort Fees $291,517 $354,121 $221,216 $179,203 $77,728 $23
Transfort Passes $74,502 $72,377 $86,179 $116,059 $30,900 -
10-Ride Passes $10,215 $8,078 $6,143 $14,342 $3,434 -
Senior Citizen Annual Passes $23,383 $24,653 $25,275 $25,600 $5,025 -
Disabled Annual Passes $17,057 $16,900 $17,613 $19,545 $4,300 -
Employers Annual Passes $14,549 $2,232 $6,040 - - -
Dial-A-Ride Fees $9,838 $77,365 $31,753 $37,970 - -
Monthly Fares (DAR) $41,158 $73,625 $42,630 $85,603 $33,668 $9,595
CFC-Annual Passfort - - $150 - - -
General Annual Passfort $46,783 $35,090 $39,508 $12,295 $4,500 -
Transfort Day Pass Sales $9,341 $9,537 $8,634 $7,545 $1,554 -
CSU Semester Passes - - $160 - - -
Transfort 7 Day Pass $7,040 $8,361 $8,678 $9,580 $2,760 $20
Other Charges for Service $13,451 $24,883 $1,567 - - -
Total Fare & Pass Revenue $558,832 $707,221 $495,544 $507,741 $163,868 $9,638
Partner Contribution Revenue
Contributions – ASCSU (student/staff access)
$414,217
$591,870 $600,748 $617,951 $632,300 $638,325
Contributions – ASCSU (operate service) $1,779,136 $1,523,615 $1,593,975 $1,648,452 $1,439,316
Contrb/Donation Private Source $8,171 $10,211 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000
Total Partner Contribution Revenue $422,388 $2,381,216 $2,199,363 $2,286,925 $2,355,752 $2,152,641
Total Farebox & Partner Contribution Revenue $981,219 $3,088,437 $2,694,907 $2,794,665 $2,519,619 $2,162,278
Total Operating Expenses $15,301,000 $16,347,000 $17,565,000 $17,748,000 $17,252,000 $16,583,000
Farebox Recovery Ex. Partner Contributions 3.7% 4.3% 2.8% 2.9% 0.9% 0.1%
Farebox Recovery with Contributions for Free Access N/A 8.0% 6.7% 6.8% 5.0% 4.4%
Page 151
Item 3.
49
Cost of Collecting Fares
The previous section described the revenue
generated by fares and passes, including
contributions for free access for CSU students
and staff and youth under 18. The total 2019
revenue was $1.2 million. However, this does
not represent the total revenue that Transfort
would “lose” if they converted to fare-free,
because Transfort would have savings from
not having to incur the cost of collecting fares.
This includes the cost to purchase and
maintain fare collection equipment, vendor
contracts to maintain equipment and transport
cash, staff to enforce the fares, staff to collect
and handle fares, and staff to administer fare
policies among others. This section
summarizes the estimated costs of collecting
fares.
Operating Cost of Fare Collection
Table 13 shows the estimated annual cost
associated with fare collection under pre-
pandemic conditions. The costs encompass
staff time and vendor costs. Staff time
estimates time to handle fares, maintain
equipment, administer fare policy, and enforce
fare compliance (mostly on the MAX). The
vendor costs include the annual contract costs
to maintain fare collection equipment, vendor
fees, and transporting cash. The total annual
operations cost of collecting fares using the
fare equipment in place in 2019 is estimated
at $296,000.
Table 13. Transfort Annual Estimated Cost (O&M) of Collecting Fares Pre-Pandemic
Category Expense Estimated
Cost Assumptions/ Description
Staff
Time
Collect & Administer Fares $9,000 3 hrs/week for two staff to handle, count, and secure fare
revenue, plus 16 hrs/quarter to collect fares from ticket
vending machines at a rate of $25/hr.
Maintenance of Fare Collection Equipment $10,000 Estimated at 10% of one full time IT staff.
Develop Fare Policy $5,000 Estimated at 5% of one full time planning staff.
Fare Enforcement $59,000 Estimated at 10% of nine full time transit security officers. 4
Total Labor Cost $83,000
Vendor
Fees
Ticket Stock $5,000 Cost of printing tickets, passes, and receipts.
Farebox Equipment Maintenance $13,000 Genfare contract to maintain farebox equipment.
Transfort etickets App and CSU Tap Card $36,000 Masabi contract based on scans of JustRide App and CSU
RamCard
Ticket Vending Machines & Bill Collectors $129,000 Sheidt & Bachman contract for maintenance of the ticket
vending machines for MAX.
Armored Vehicle Transport Services $30,000 Contract with Dunbar to transport cash fare.
Total Vendor Cost $213,000
Total Total Annual Cost $296,000
4 Transfort currently employs four full-time transit security officers (TSOs) but has identified a need for six more. For
purposes of analyzing long-term financial savings, ten TSOs were assumed.
Page 152
Item 3.
50
Alternative Point of Sale (POS) Fare
Collection Option
Transfort is considering converting to a new
fare payment system that would replace the
ticket vending machines currently at MAX
stations with a new cloud-based point of sale
(POS) system that would rely on smart cards
and the Transfort etickets app. Cash
customers would retain the current option to
pay on buses or reload their Transfort etickets
app using a mobile device. Users could
purchase Smartcards at any transit center or
local 7-11 and Walgreens stores. The new
system would eliminate one of the most
expensive costs of collecting fares, which is
the maintenance of the ticket vending
machines at MAX stations. The estimated
annual costs of operations and maintenance
to collect fares under the proposed new POS
system is $193,000 as shown in Table 14,
which could save Transfort about $100,000
annually compared to the previous system.
One yet-to-be-determined element of the new
system is the payment method for current
cash customers on the MAX who do not pre-
pay via the Transfort etickets app and are not
boarding at one of the end stations with a
transit center given there is no onboard fare
payment option.
Table 14. Transfort Alternative Annual Estimated Cost (O&M) of Collecting Fares with
Proposed New Point of Sale (POS) System
Category Expense Estimated
Cost Assumptions/ Description
Staff Time
Collect & Administer Fares $8,000 3 hrs/day for two staff to handle, count, and secure
fare revenue.
Maintenance of Fare Collection
Equipment
$10,000 Estimated at 10% of one full time IT staff.
Develop Fare Policy $5,000 Estimated at 5% of one full time planning staff.
Fare Enforcement $59,000 Estimated at 10% of nine full time transit security
officers. 5
Total Labor Cost $82,000
Vendor Fees
Smart Cards $4,000 Cost of blank smart cards and printing.
Farebox Equipment Maintenance $13,000 Genfare contract to maintain farebox equipment.
Transfort etickets App, CSU Tap
Card, and Smart Card Taps.
$57,000 Masabi contract based on estimated scans of
Transfort etickets App, CSU RamCard, and smart
cards, plus annual support.
POS System Support & Fees $9,000 Annual support to maintain new POS system.
Armored Vehicle Transport Services $30,000 Contract with Dunbar to transport cash from cash fare
purchases.
Total Vendor Cost $113,000
Total Total Annual Cost $195,000
5 Transfort currently employs four full-time transit security officers (TSOs), but has identified a need for six more. For
purposes of analyzing long-term financial savings, ten TSOs were assumed.
Page 153
Item 3.
51
Capital Cost of Fare Collection
In addition to annual operating and
maintenance costs of collecting fares, there is
also periodic capital cost of purchasing new
equipment and making upgrades. Given that
Transfort has not collected fares since March
2020, there are costs associated with
restarting the old system, which includes
repairing and upgrading their ticket vending
machine equipment at MAX stations and
replacing fareboxes on the entire bus fleet (as
shown in Table 15). The one-time capital
costs for repairing the ticket vending
machines and replacing onboard fareboxes
are approximately $1,855,000.
Table 15. Estimated One-Time Capital Cost to Restart Ticket Vending Machines
Expense Estimated Cost
Upgrade Software on Ticket Vending Machines $220,000
Repair 21 Ticket Vending Machines to Functional Status $935,000
Replace onboard fareboxes on 50 buses @ $14K each $700,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $1,855,000
As mentioned, Transfort is also considering
replacing the ticket vending machines with a
new point of sale (POS) system. Conversion to
this new payment system would also incur a
one-time startup capital cost of approximately
$229,000 as shown in Table 16. Transfort
would also need to replace onboard fareboxes
in this scenario, resulting in a total estimated
capital cost of $929,000. It is possible that
CSU might cover part the cost of adding
validators to dial-a-ride buses and that
Homeward Alliance would cover part of the
cost of smart card integration. If these
partners were able to cover some of these
costs, the one-time capital cost of converting
to the new POS system would be reduced
from $229,000 to $85,000.
Table 16. Estimated One-Time Capital Cost to Convert to Proposed New POS System
Expense Estimated Cost
Implementation of new POS system $60,000
Account Based Ticketing $21,000
Add Validators to Dial-a-Ride and Foothills Shuttle Vehicles $123,000
Smart Card Integration with Homeward Alliance $25,000
Total Cost of New POS System Start Up $229,000
Replace onboard fareboxes on 50 buses @ $14K each $700,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $929,000
Page 154
Item 3.
52
Annual Capital Plus Operating Costs
For planning purposes, it was assumed that
the capital expenses of replacing and
upgrading equipment would need to occur
every 10 years.6 Thus, the analysis divided the
capital costs by 10 to estimate annual cost of
collecting fares. Table 17 summarizes the
estimated annual capital and operating cost of
collecting fares under both the old system
(with ticket vending machines at MAX
stations) – estimated at $482,000 – and the
new proposed point of sale (POS) system,
estimated at $288,000.
Table 17. Estimated Annual Transfort Capital + O&M Cost of Collecting Fares
Expense Category Current System (with TVMs) Proposed New POS System
Annual Operating and Maintenance $296,000 $195,000
Capital ([total cost] / [10 years]) $186,000 $93,000
TOTAL Annual $482,000 $288,000
Net Farebox Recovery
The net farebox recovery equals the net of the
revenue received from fare collection minus
the cost of collecting fares and represents the
estimated net revenue lost by Transfort if they
opt to convert to fare-free.
The farebox revenue includes revenue from
fares and passes as well as ASCSU
contributions for free access for CSU students
and staff and Bohemian contributions for free
access for youth under 18. The 2019 total
revenue from these three sources was
$1,201,000 as shown in Table 18.
Table 18. 2019 Transfort Farebox Revenue by Source
Farebox Revenue Source 2019 Revenue
Fares & Passes $508,000
CSU for Free Access for Students & Staff $618,000
Bohemian for Free Access for Youth Under 18 $75,000
TOTAL Farebox Revenue $1,201,000
6 The average manufacturer/industry standard useful
life of a fare box when applying FTA minimal asset
calculations is 10 years:
https://www.drpt.virginia.gov/media/burc3vmc/merit_life-
standards-for-fta-grants.pdf
Page 155
Item 3.
53
The net farebox revenue was estimated
by subtracting the costs of collecting
fares (see
Table 17) from the 2019 farebox revenue
(see Table 18).
Table 19 shows net farebox revenue for both
fare payment scenarios Transfort has
considered. The total net annual farebox
revenue using the old system is approximately
$720,000 and the total net annual farebox
revenue with the proposed new POS system
is approximately $913,000. If Transfort were
able to maintain the existing partnership
contributions under a fare-free model, the net
farebox recovery would be $27,000 annually
under the current fare payment system and
$220,000 annually with the proposed new
POS system. The net farebox recovery would
be about 1.2% of overall annual operating
expenses in 2019 with the new POS system
when excluding partner contributions (and
would be 0.1% with the old fare payment
system).
Table 19. Estimated Net Farebox Recovery
Revenue & Expenses Option 1: Maintain Old
System with TVMs
Option 2: Convert to New
POS System
2019 Farebox Revenue $1,201,000 $1,201,000
Annual Cost of Fare Collection $482,000 $288,000
Net Farebox Recovery (Average Annual) $720,000 $913,000
Net Farebox Recovery Percent 4.1% 5.1%
Net Farebox Recovery Excluding Contributions $27,000 $220,000
Net Farebox Recovery Percent Excluding Contributions 0.1% 1.2%
Page 156
Item 3.
54
Potential Benefits of
Fare-Free
This section describes several potential
benefits to Transfort if the agency converted
to a fare-free transit, including those related to
larger citywide mobility and climate action
goals. It is assumed as part of this analysis
that all transit within the boundaries of the city
of Fort Collins would become free, including
future micro-transit service.
Cost Savings
Converting to fare-free would eliminate the
costs associated with collecting fares. This
includes staff time (to collect and secure fares,
maintain fare collection equipment, administer
fare policies, and enforce fare payment) that
can be repurposed to other essential duties,
annual contract costs to vendors (to maintain
fare collection equipment and software, and
transport cash), the periodic capital cost to
replace and upgrade fare collection
equipment, as well as printing and equipment
cost savings (which would also positively
impact the environment). The analysis in the
previous section of this report showed that
converting to fare-free would save Transfort
annual average fare collection costs of
approximately $480,000 under the current
fare collection system and $290,000 under the
proposed new point of sale system.
The net savings would still result in a loss due
to elimination of fares, of either $720,000
annually under the current system or
$910,000 annually under the new system,
assuming ridership at 2019 levels. However, if
Transfort were able to maintain the
contributions from CSU and Bohemian that
currently provide free access for CSU
students/staff and youth under 18 with a fare-
free model, there would be net loss in revenue
of $27,000 annually under the current fare
payment system or a net loss of $220,000
annually with the proposed new POS system.
Potential mitigation strategies to maintain the
contract with CSU are discussed later in this
section. The cost savings estimates also do
not include potential savings from speed and
reliability improvements. A separate effort is
exploring additional revenue generating
strategies to offset lost revenue and
implement TMP improvements, such as
leveraging new taxes or fees or using revenue
from paid parking.
Equity & Increased
Access to Transit
Perhaps the leading case for making Transfort
fare-free is the benefit to social equity. Transit
is disproportionally used by those without
convenient access to a vehicle. This includes
the most vulnerable population groups such
as low-income residents, youth, seniors, and
people with disabilities. The cost of fares is
most burdensome to these groups.
Free transit would remove that barrier and
improve community access to jobs, services,
stores, restaurants, and social interaction with
others in the community. Surveys of transit
riders in areas with fare-free transit find that
ridership increases are dominated by people
most sensitive to transit prices, including
seniors and students, and many of the new
Page 157
Item 3.
55
trips would otherwise not have occurred. 7
These examples show that fare-free transit
would allow more people to participate in the
economy and increase quality of life
particularly for vulnerable populations
(although the entire community would
experience these benefits). Better access to
jobs for more people makes it easier for
employers in Fort Collins to hire employees
and for businesses to connect with customers.
In Fort Collins, because youth (under 18) and
university students and staff already ride free,
fare-free transit would likely most benefit low-
income individuals, seniors, and people with
disabilities. In this way, providing free transit
service would also align with one of the city’s
core goals of increasing equitable access to
city services. It should be noted that equity
benefits could be less substantial if Fort
Collins replaced lost fare revenue through a
regressive tax, such as sales tax.
Ridership Growth
Following conversion to a fare-free system,
there is almost always a noticeable increase in
transit ridership, typically between 20% and
60%, and sometimes higher.2 The increase in
ridership is not just from more people riding
because transit is more affordable (as
explained above), but also because of the
convenience. For some, the barrier of fares is
7 National Academics of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine 2012. Implementation and Outcomes of
Fare-Free Transit Systems. Washington, DC: The
National Academic Press.
http//doi.org/10.17226/22753.
not just the cost, but the process of paying,
including having exact change, knowing how
much it costs, and knowing how to pay.
In Fort Collins, given that a relatively high
percentage of the ridership already effectively
rides fare-free, there may be a less significant
ridership increase from transitioning to fare-
free compared to other communities. In 2019,
CSU students, staff, and faculty accounted for
about 51% of Transfort ridership, not including
youth under 18 who rode free and PassFort
holders. However, even if ridership increased
by just 20% (as opposed to 60%) that would
result in nearly one million additional transit
trips on Transfort in 2019.
Growing transit ridership would align with
several of the city’s goals identified in the City
Plan and Transit Master Plan, including
increasing transit ridership, reducing vehicle
miles traveled (VMT), and reducing
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Additionally, growing ridership helps Transfort
better compete for state and federal funding.
Page 158
Item 3.
56
City 2020 Transit Ridership as a Percent of
2019 Ridership
2020 Service Hours as a Percent of 2019
Service Hours
Fort Collins, CO 26% 84%
Chapel Hill, NC 31% 81%
Logan, UT 51% 113%
Missoula, MT 53% 91%
Corvallis, OR 87% 123%
Operating Fare-Free During Pandemic
Transfort has operated fare-free since March 2020, and despite this change,
transit ridership during the pandemic declined in Fort Collins as it did across
nearly every other transit system in the United States due to the disruption
in commuting and other travel patterns. In fact, ridership in Fort Collins fell
significantly during the pandemic. In 2021, ridership on Transfort was just
31% of pre-pandemic conditions. Because CSU so heavily influences
ridership, the disruption to normal university activities may have been
amplified in Fort Collins compared to other non-university-dominated
communities. The decline in ridership in Fort Collins was steeper than most
other bus transit systems in the U.S., but more similar to (although still
steeper than) other fare-free transit systems in university dominated
communities as shown in Table 20.
The decline in transit ridership almost certainly would have been greater if
service was not free. Transfort should expect a drop in ridership if the city
resumes charging fares. Based on past fare elasticity examples from other
transit agencies and the ridership profile of Transfort users (e.g. the high
percentage of people who already can ride free), Transfort could experience
a 10% to 30% decrease in ridership with resumption of fare collection.
Table 20. Ridership Decline in University Dominated Fare-free
Transit Communities from Pandemic
Page 159
Item 3.
57
Transit Speed &
Reliability Improvements
Operating fare-free can reduce the time for
passengers to board, which for certain types
of routes can significantly increase transit
speed and reliability. Speed and reliability
improvements are most beneficial on high
ridership routes, particularly where there are
stops with a high number of boardings.
Off-board fare payment, used on the MAX, is a
key feature of BRT specifically because of
associated speed and reliability benefits. Fare-
free would eliminate the wasted time of
passengers fumbling for change or
negotiating with the driver. It would also give
Transfort the option to board buses using all
doors, which would further reduce dwell times
at high ridership stops by allowing more
passengers to board at once. LA Metro
converted to fare-free service for nearly two
years during the pandemic and dwell times at
bus stops fell 10%.8
Faster transit service could also reduce
operating costs by allowing shorter run times
on buses and therefore requiring fewer buses
to serve the same route. A more detailed
analysis of operations by route would be
needed to determine if and by how much
Transfort could save in operating cost by
reducing dwell time with fare-free service.
Since Transfort implemented fare-free service
during the pandemic, anecdotally, staff have
8 https://www.curbed.com/2022/01/los-angeles-metro-
free-transit-buses.html
not noticed a significant change in transit
speed and reliability, but there were also many
other factors at play during the same time that
could also have impacted speed and
reliability, including changes in traffic volumes,
ridership, and service levels.
Variation by Route Characteristics
Notably, depending on the route, some
agencies that instituted fare-free pilots also
experienced a reduction in speed and
reliability primarily due to increased ridership.
These instances appeared to be on historically
lower ridership routes with closely spaced
stops. These routes experienced an increase
in ridership, particularly an increase in shorter
distance trips that cause buses to stop more
frequently than before, minimizing the time
savings gained from faster boarding.9
Thus, low ridership routes that often skip stops
(because nobody is boarding or alighting at
the time the bus goes by) may see no
improvement or a decline in speed and
reliability. However, routes with higher
ridership are likely to benefit since the delay
from more frequent stops and more riders
would be outweighed by faster per person
boarding. The same study also noted that
operators of existing fare-free transit agencies
in college towns with high ridership stops said
they would not be able to offer the same
speed and reliability if fares were required.
9 National Academics of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine 2012. Implementation and Outcomes of
Fare-Free Transit Systems. Washington, DC: The
National Academic Press.
http//doi.org/10.17226/22753.
Page 160
Item 3.
58
Thus, the characteristics of individual routes
impact the scale of speed and reliability
improvements from fare-free. Low ridership
routes with closely spaced stops are less likely
to experience a speed and reliability benefit
from converting to fare-free (and may see a
decline) as compared to higher ridership
routes with fewer stops, which would likely
see a more significant improvement. Transfort
could address this challenge on routes with
more frequent stops by eliminating stops,
running more service, and boarding using all
doors.
Transit Master Plan &
Climate Action Goals
Many of the benefits of permanently
converting Transfort to fare-free would align
with the City of Fort Collins mobility and
climate action goals identified in Fort Collins
City Plan and the Fort Collins Transit Master
Plan. This includes:
Increased Equity – Fare-free service would
improve equitable access to goods and
services, particularly for the low-income
population. This is a core goal of the City Plan.
Reducing VMT and GHG Emissions – In
every example of a community that has
converted to fare-free, ridership has grown.
And studies show that 10% to 30% of these
riders are people who would otherwise drive.5
This would reduce VMT and GHG emissions, a
core climate action goal in City Plan. For
example, if transit ridership grew by 20%
when converting to fare-free, that would equal
about 900,000 additional annual riders (based
on 2019 ridership). If 20% of these new trips
are by people who otherwise would drive, and
assuming an average of five miles per trip10,
that equates to an annual reduction of
900,000 VMT.11
Improving Transit Speed and Reliability
– Faster boarding from fare-free would
improve speed and reliability of service, at
least on heavily used routes, and would
support goals to improve the quality of service
identified in the Transit Master Plan.
Barriers & Mitigation
Strategies
Conversations with Transfort staff, analysis of
the existing Transfort revenue structure, and
10 An average of five miles per trip is based on an
average daily VMT per capita of 20 from the
Transportation Master Plan, and an average of four
trips per person per day as reported in the 2017
National Household Travel Survey.
review of other communities’ experience
converting to fare-free revealed the three
11 Note: The estimated reduction of 900,000 VMT per
year from converting transit to fare-free is a high-
level estimate based on the assumptions stated, and
more detailed analysis would be needed to
corroborate this estimate.
Page 161
Item 3.
59
most significant potential barriers/concerns for
Transfort to consider when permanently
converting to fare-free:
1. How to retain partnerships
2. Onboard safety and security concerns
3. Increased demand for paratransit
This section discusses these and a few
additional potential considerations that other
agencies experienced when converting to
fare-free (such as political pushback from
riders “not paying their fair share” or
challenges meeting increased ridership
demand). Potential mitigation strategies to
counter these barriers are identified for each
potential barrier.
Barrier 1: Maintaining
Partnerships
Transfort partnerships built around free
access to transit, such as from CSU and
Bohemian Foundation, help support Transfort.
In 2021, CSU made an investment in Transfort
of approximately $2,427,00012 to operate
specific services and for free access to the
transit system citywide for all CSU students
and employees. This represented about 15%
of the total operating cost of $16.6 million for
Transfort in 2021.
However, most of this revenue from CSU
covers the cost for Transfort to operate
specific services, including: the Horn Shuttle,
Gold Route, Foothills Campus Shuttle,
expanded service on West Elizabeth, 365
12 The CSU contract runs from July 1 of each year to
June 30 of the following year. The 2021 cost was
calculated by adding half of the 2020 – 2021
contract (which was for $2,349,611) plus half of the
2021 – 2022 contract (which was $2,503,485).
(daily) service, and a portion of the Flex and
Poudre Express services. In total, the cost
assessed to CSU for operating these services
was approximately $1,794,000 in 2021. It is
assumed that if Transfort converted to fare-
free, CSU would continue to pay to operate
these specific routes or enhanced service.
The revenue that Transfort has historically
received from CSU to provide free access to
the bus system citywide for all students and
employees would need to be restructured
under a fare-free model. In 2021 this was
approximately $638,000, which represented
about 4% of Transfort’s total operating cost in
2021. Under fare-free, the partnership for
CSU student and employee access would
have to change from being based on covering
fares to another model. There are examples of
transit systems in university communities that
converted to fare-free that were able to
maintain funding from the local university to
support transit services include Mountain Line
in Missoula, MT and Chapel Hill Transit in
Chapel Hill, NC. In each, the transit agency
and university worked together to establish an
agreed-upon funding partnership based on
the mutual benefit they provide to each other.
Potential Mitigation Strategies
Two potential mitigation strategies for
Transfort to explore to preserve the portion of
revenue they receive from CSU for free transit
Page 162
Item 3.
60
access for students and employees are
detailed below.
Negotiate a Partnership Agreement
Transfort and CSU mutually benefit from the
partnership they have established and
developed over the years. Transfort benefits
from a reliable revenue source that partially
funds the transit system in Fort Collins and
provides over half the systemwide ridership.
CSU benefits from a citywide transit system
that connects students and employees to its
multiple campuses and to services and
opportunities across Fort Collins and
neighboring communities. Additionally, the
City of Fort Collins benefits by supporting their
mobility goals of providing alternative options
to driving a private vehicle. With this
understanding of mutual benefit, it is possible
that Transfort and CSU could come to an
agreement to preserve partnerships funding
even if Transfort went completely fare-free.
Two examples are provided below of how this
has worked in other university communities.
Model from Mountain Line Transit
Prior to going fare-free in 2015, the University
of Montana contracted with Mountain Line
Transit in Missoula for students and staff to
ride transit for free, similar to the existing
partnership between CSU and Transfort. As
part of Mountain Line’s conversion to fare-
free, the transit agency established a Zero
Fare Partnership whereby they solicit
contributions from local organizations to offset
13 Iowa City Transit Study – Fare Study.
https://transportation.uiowa.edu/sites/transportation.uiowa.
edu/files/2021-
06/Appendix%20D%20Fare%20Study_20210422.pdf
the lost fare revenue (approximately $470,000
in 201413). They currently acknowledge 26
organizations that contribute to free rides14,
including from their largest contributor, the
University of Montana. This model has the
advantage of not singling out the university as
the sole private contributor (while everyone
else gets a “free ride”) but makes the
partnership more equitable by allowing
funding contributions from many partners
across the community that benefit from fare-
free transit. The partner agencies receive
name recognition by supporting a popular
community amenity and help to maintain free
transit that benefits the agency. Mountain Line
requires a three-year partner commitment
from each contributor, which provides funding
continuity.
Transfort could adopt this model (soliciting
contributions every three years from a variety
of organizations) to maintain at least some
portion of CSU funding, while potentially
expanding funding from other organizations.
Soliciting and managing contributions would
require some staff time but would likely be
similar to staff time needed today to facilitate
existing partner contributions. Partner
organizations may include large employers,
human services providers, and other
government agencies such as Larimer County
or the North Front Range Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO).
14 https://mountainline.com/sustainability/zero-fare/
Page 163
Item 3.
61
Model from Chapel Hill Transit
Chapel Hill Transit pioneered converting to
fare-free, making the leap in 2002, and until
the pandemic was the largest transit agency
(in terms of ridership) nationwide to be
completely fare-free. Chapel Hill Transit’s
model relied on a partnership with the
University of North Carolina (UNC) as part of
going fare-free. Simply, Chapel Hill Transit
would not have gone fare-free without the
university’s financial support.
To address the issue of equity, Chapel Hill
Transit often refers to their service as “pre-
paid transit” as opposed to “fare-free,” given
their funding model. In a recent news article
on the subject, the transit director stated, “The
university is paying for all their employees and
students to ride, including hospital and
healthcare staff. The town of Chapel Hill and
Carrboro are pre-paying their fares via
property tax and vehicle registration fee.”15
In practice, UNC covers about 38% of
operating cost, the Town of Chapel Hill and
Carrboro cover 25%, and the remainder
comes mainly from state and federal
assistance. Prior to converting to fare-free
UNC provided financial contributions to
Chapel Hill Transit to pay for students and
staff to ride free. When UNC converted to
fare-free in 2002, they agreed to increase their
annual funding to help support a 20% increase
15 Paolicelli, Laurie. " How Free Transit Works in
Chapel Hill and Carrboro." The Local Reporter, April
6, 2021, https://thelocalreporter.press/how-free-
transit-works-in-chapel-hill-and-
carrboro/#:~:text=The%20town%20of%20Chapel%2
0Hill,definitely%20not%20a%20free%20system.%E2
%80%9D Accessed 21 June 2022.
in service and aid in the conversion to fare-
free.16
Transfort could adopt a similar strategy to
acknowledge CSU’s financial contribution,
whereby CSU would continue to “pre-pay” for
student and employee access to transit, while
the City of Fort Collins uses other tax or
funding models to “pre-pay” for its resident
and employer access to free transit.
Present Investment Scenario to CSU
An alternative strategy would be for Transfort
to develop an investment scenario for CSU’s
consideration that could show how continued
and perhaps increasing investments in
Transfort could help the development and
evolution of better transit services connecting
CSU with all of Fort Collins and beyond.
Transfort could use this investment model for
other community partnerships for investments
from businesses, employers, non-profit
organizations, or social service organizations.
For example, the historical CSU fare-free
access partnership with Transfort has
supported about 5,000 revenue hours of bus
service per year, or about 4% of Transfort’s
system-wide operating cost. If Transfort could
present a compelling case for increased
investment in Transfort services, CSU would
see the benefits of further investments
through improved service. As an example, a
doubling of CSU’s current investment would
16 Jaffe, Eric. “How Free Transit Works in the United
States.” Bloomberg, March 6, 2013.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-03-
06/how-free-transit-works-in-the-united-states. Accessed
26 September 2022.
Page 164
Item 3.
62
increase Transfort system-wide service levels
by 4%, which is equivalent to doubling
frequency on one to two 30-minute routes or
two to three 60-minute routes.
Barrier 2: Onboard Safety &
Security Concerns
One perceived concern of the community
over the conversion to fare-free may be an
increase in people using the bus for shelter
and an increase in disruptive behavior from
people under the influence of drugs or alcohol
or people with mental illness.
Experience of Other Agencies Pre-
Pandemic
Studies and surveys of other agencies with
fare-free systems or that have conducted fare-
free pilots reveal mixed results related to an
increase in disruptive behavior/decrease in
personal safety associated with fare-free
transit systems.17 A few systems, mostly in
major cities that piloted fare-free decades ago,
reported an increase in disruptive behavior.
However, most smaller systems in the same
study did not report that this was a major issue
and stated that their experience is no worse
than systems that charge fares. Several
agencies reported that teenagers cause the
most disruption, which would not be any
different if Transfort went fare-free given that
17 National Academics of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine 2012. Implementation and Outcomes of
Fare-Free Transit Systems. Washington, DC: The
National Academic Press.
http//doi.org/10.17226/22753.
youth under 18 already can ride free. Many
agencies have “zero tolerance” policies or
other policies that they use to enforce and
mitigate disruptive behavior.
Some agencies also reported a decrease in
passenger-driver conflict, given that most
conflicts arise over fares, and in many
agencies that provide fare-free service drivers
were happy not to have to enforce fares.
Since Kansas City went fare-free in 2020 they
have reported a 35% decrease in safety
incident rates on their transit system, primarily
because 85% of prior incidents had been over
fare disputes.18
Pre-pandemic, transit agencies in several
other university communities in Corvallis,
Missoula, and Chapel Hill reported no notable
increase in disruptive behavior or personal
safety concerns after converting to fare-free.19
Each of these agencies adopted policies to
manage potential issues, which may have
helped and are discussed in the mitigation
section.
Transfort Experience During the
Pandemic
Since Transfort went fare-free with the onset
of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020,
staff have anecdotally reported a change in
18 Bergal, Jenni. " Tackling Social Inequity, Some Cities May
Ditch Bus, Subway Fares." Stateline, June 10, 2021,
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-
analysis/blogs/stateline/2021/06/10/tackling-social-
inequity-some-cities-may-ditch-bus-subway-fares
Accessed 21 June 2022.
19 Iowa City Transit Study – Fare Study.
https://transportation.uiowa.edu/sites/transportation.uiowa.
edu/files/2021-
06/Appendix%20D%20Fare%20Study_20210422.pdf
Page 165
Item 3.
63
the rider profile, with a higher percentage of
unhoused people and people with mental
illness using the bus which increased safety
concerns among passengers.
While the conversion to fare-free may have
contributed to this change, many other
variables also changed during this time,
including a dramatic reduction in ridership,
primarily among office-based commuters and
college students, as well as an increase in
homelessness and addictive illegal drug use
across the country.
Some, but not all, other transit agencies that
converted to fare-free during the pandemic
also reported an increase in riders exhibiting
unsafe behavior during the pandemic, but it is
unclear the degree to which that was caused
by the pandemic (as opposed to the drop in
fare-paying riders making those with
disruptive behaviors more visible). The City of
Tucson reported an increase in assaults on
drivers from 21 in 2019 to 64 in 2021 after
going fare-free and a doubling of vandalism
incidents, although there is disagreement as
to how much that has been caused by the
conversion to fare-free versus other
pandemic-related factors.20
In both the case of Transfort and the City of
Tucson, it is difficult to separate how much an
increase in safety issues on transit is related to
fare-free versus larger societal issues.
Evidence from other large transit agencies
20 Ramon, Diana. “Fare-free transit will continue until the
end of the year.” The Arizona Daily Star. June 22, 2022.
https://www.masstransitmag.com/technology/fare-
collection/news/21271867/az-farefree-transit-will-continue-
until-the-end-of-the-year Accessed 23 June 2022.
around the country that kept their fare policy
in place also saw a spike in crime rates and
other safety issues, including in Chicago,
Philadelphia, New York, and San Francisco.
This suggests that at least some and
potentially much of the increase disturbances
on transit in places like Tucson and Fort
Collins may have been more heavily
influenced by other factors, including a
skyrocketing opioid epidemic, increase in drug
and alcohol abuse during the pandemic, a
national overhaul on policing practices, a
housing crisis, and a mask policy on transit
during much of the pandemic that also led to
increased conflicts.
Potential Mitigation Strategies
Considering many of Transfort’s security
issues likely relate to larger societal issues,
such as homelessness, drug abuse, mental
health, and poverty, effective mitigation will
also need to come from other entities and
larger societal changes as these issues are
beyond a transit agency’s purview. However,
there are some strategies Transfort could
consider to mitigate onboard safety concerns.
These strategies have been employed by
agencies with and without fare collection.
Only allow boarding at front door.
Both Corvallis Transit and Mountain Line (in
Missoula) limit boarding to the front door in
part because it allows drivers to manage
passenger boarding. The tradeoff to this policy
would be negating the speed and reliability
Page 166
Item 3.
64
benefits of all-door boarding allowed by a fare-
free model, which would be beneficial at high
ridership stops.
Adopt policy of destination-based use.
Chapel Hill Transit, Corvalis Transit, and
Mountain all adopted similar policies that
dictated “one-trip” per rider to discourage
people riding the bus for shelter. This allows
the driver discretion to enforce when needed,
although it has rarely been an issue in these
communities.21
Work with human service providers.
Many of the disturbances on transit are
related to people experiencing homelessness,
with mental illness, or struggling with drug
addiction. Transfort could work with local
human services providers to increase the
presence of uniformed resource officers at
major transit stations and bus routes to
connect people to services and reduce the
number of people relying on the bus system
for shelter. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit
Authority (MARTA) initiated such a program in
2020 called the MARTA HOPE Program22 to
connect people to resources, mitigate the
need for police involvement, combat
homelessness, and improve the transit
experience for customers.
Increase transit security presence.
Transfort could also increase the presence of
transit security officers (TSOs) to mitigate
conflicts before they happen and respond to
21 Iowa City Transit Study – Fare Study.
https://transportation.uiowa.edu/sites/transportation.uiowa.
edu/files/2021-
06/Appendix%20D%20Fare%20Study_20210422.pdf
situations faster. However, Transfort has
struggled to hire and retain transit security
due to the nature of the position, the current
job market, and the long training process.
Transfort currently has four TSOs, short by six
from their current goal of ten TSOs. One
option is to hire community service officers
(CSO) similar to Metro Transit in
Minneapolis.23 CSOs are not fully trained
officers, but could increase security presence,
connect people experiencing homelessness,
drug addiction, or mental illness to resources,
issue tickets, and contact the police when
needed. Focusing TSOs on routes like the
MAX could also preserve the benefits of all-
door boarding.
Barrier 3: Increased Demand for
Paratransit
A primary concern for Transfort with respect
to fare-free is the potential cost to meet
increased demand for its Dial-A-Ride
paratransit service. All transit agencies that
are federally funded must provide door-to-
door paratransit service within three quarters
of a mile of its fixed-route service for people
with special mobility needs that cannot use
traditional fixed-route transit service.
By law, transit agencies must meet 100% of
demand for paratransit service. The mandate
also sets the maximum fare for paratransit at
twice the fare of the equivalent fixed-route
service. Thus, under a fare-free model,
22 https://www.itsmarta.com/marta-hope-
program.aspx
23
https://www.metrotransit.org/Data/Sites/1/media/poli
ce/mtpdsheets_cso.pdf
Page 167
Item 3.
65
paratransit must also be fare-free. Because of
the nature of the service, paratransit has a
high cost per rider to operate. For example, in
2019 the cost to operate paratransit in Fort
Collins was $40 per rider compared to $4 per
rider for fixed-route bus.24 Therefore, even a
small increase in demand for paratransit
service could have an outsize impact on
operating cost.
While overall ridership on Transfort remains
well below pre-pandemic levels, demand for
paratransit in the first half of 2022 rebounded
to near 2019 levels. Other transit agencies in
university communities that went fare-free also
experienced an increase in paratransit use
when they converted to fare-free.25 After going
fare-free, paratransit ridership in Chapel Hill
increased by 20%, in Corvallis it increased by
30%, and in Missoula it gradually increased
close to 100% over four years. Some of these
agencies undertook initiatives to both mitigate
demand and increase services, as explained
more in the mitigation strategies section
below. It is possible that Transfort could also
see a similar increase in demand for
paratransit service under a fare-free model,
some of which could be mitigated using the
strategies below.
Potential Mitigation Strategies
There are several strategies Transfort could
apply to mitigate the impacts of increasing
24 National Transit Database City of Fort Collins
Agency Profile
25 Iowa City Transit Study – Fare Study.
https://transportation.uiowa.edu/sites/transportation.uiowa.
edu/files/2021-
06/Appendix%20D%20Fare%20Study_20210422.pdf
demand for paratransit with fare-free, several
of which have been used by other agencies:
Stricter enforcement of paratransit eligibility.
One way to minimize demand for paratransit is
to more strictly enforce eligibility for people
and for trip destinations. Both Chapel Hill
Transit and Mountain Line Transit (in
Missoula) applied this strategy when it
converted to fare-free. Chapel Hill Transit
more strictly enforced the rule that paratransit
will only serve locations within three quarters
of a mile of fixed route transit.26 However, this
policy could further limit mobility among a
vulnerable population that is already severely
mobility limited.
Increase funding/service levels.
Transfort may need to increase the budget
and fleet for paratransit service. Transit
agencies in both Chapel Hill and Missoula
increased their staff and revenue hours of
paratransit after converting to fare-free to
meet increased demand.18
Provide additional training to potential users.
In tandem with applying stricter enforcement,
Transfort could provide additional training to
population groups that could use fixed-route
buses, but are hesitant to do so, including
seniors and people with a disability. Mountain
Line increased its marketing budget when it
converted to fare-free to educate users on use
26 Iowa City Transit Study – Fare Study.
https://transportation.uiowa.edu/sites/transportation.uiowa.
edu/files/2021-
06/Appendix%20D%20Fare%20Study_20210422.pdf
Page 168
Item 3.
66
of the fixed-route system to limit demand to
paratransit.
Collaboration with human services
transportation providers.
A strategy used by transit agencies to
minimize paratransit demand is collaboration
with local human services transportation
providers that can meet the demand for some
existing paratransit trips. Potential agencies
may include Senior Access Points of Larimer
County, Heart & Soul Paratransit, and Ride
NoCo. Routt County applied this strategy and
Grand Valley Transit in Mesa County is also
exploring a rider brokering program to meet
increasing paratransit demand.27
Many paratransit trips are for medical
purposes or to grocery stores. There are non-
profit agencies and human service
transportation providers that also provide
transportation for people with special needs to
these services. Working collaboratively with
these agencies to determine what trips they
can serve and connecting potential paratransit
users to these services could mitigate
paratransit demand. Potential partner
agencies in Fort Collins may include Senior
Access Points of Larimer County, Heart &
Soul Paratransit, and Ride NoCo.
27 Mesa County Coordinated Transit and Human Services
Transportation Plan. Fehr & Peers. February 24, 2020.
https://rtpo.mesacounty.us/globalassets/rtpo/plans-reports-
-studies/transit/2045-coordinated-transit--human-services-
transportation-plan.pdf. Accessed July 29, 2022.
Other Potential Barriers to Fare-
Free Transit
Two additional barriers to converting Transfort
to fare-free that are less likely to be an issue in
Fort Collins, but that other agencies have
experienced include: political pushback that
transit users do not pay their fair share and
challenges meeting demand from increased
ridership.
Potential Political Pushback
Other concerns aside, political pushback to
converting to fare-free based on the idea that
the users should pay for the service could
derail an effort to convert to fare-free. This is
more likely to be an obstacle for larger
agencies where a more substantial portion of
the revenue comes from fares and where the
community may be asked to bear a larger
share of the cost of operating transit. In the
case of Fort Collins, only a small percentage
of Transfort’s operating cost is from fares (just
3%, or 7% if CSU contributions are included)
and even less when the cost of collecting
fares is factored (potentially near 0%).
If this figure along with the benefits mentioned
in this report are clearly articulated to political
leaders and community members that may be
concerned about users paying their fair share
(including the equity, environmental, and
economic benefits of a high-functioning transit
system), then the political pushback in of itself
Page 169
Item 3.
67
is not likely to be a significant barrier in Fort
Collins.
Meeting Demand of Increased
Ridership
Some agencies that have converted to fare-
free or experimented with fare-free service
reported a significant increase in ridership that
led to capacity challenges and a degradation
of service. While the potential for this to occur
on certain routes is possible in Fort Collins, its
less likely to be an issue for several reasons:
First, over 50% of Transfort riders pre-
pandemic already ride for free, including CSU
staff and students, youth under 18, and
PassFort holders. Thus, Transfort is not likely
to experience the dramatic increase in
ridership that some other agencies
experienced that led to capacity issues.
Second, studies consistently show that the
highest increases in ridership from fare-free
service typically occur during off-peak times
when there is more capacity on buses. This is
because ridership during peak times is often
dominated by commuters that are less
sensitive to price changes. The Utah Transit
Authority (UTA) piloted a fare-free service in
February 2022, and found that ridership
increased by 16% on weekdays, 58% on
Saturdays, and 33% on Sundays.28 Thus, it’s
likely that Transfort will be able to absorb an
increase in ridership on much of its system
with existing capacity.
28 Free Fare February Final Report. Utah Transit
Authority. April 2022. https://www.rideuta.com/Rider-
Info/Free-Fare-February. Accessed July 7, 2022.
Third, the routes that are most likely to see a
higher increase in ridership are those where
most passengers pay for the bus (i.e., routes
with a low percentage of CSU student and
staff riders). A review of CSU ridership by
route in 2019 revealed that most of the routes
with a high percent of fare paying customers
(over 60%) are also some of the least
productive in Transfort’s system, meaning
they exhibit a lower ridership per service hour
than other routes. Thus, these routes are more
likely to have extra capacity to handle an
increase in ridership, including Routes 5, 6, 9,
10, 11, 12, 16, 19, and 92. Routes with
moderate productivity (between 25 and 35
passengers per service hour) as reported by
the Fort Collins Transit Master Plan include
Routes 8, 14, 18, and 81, which could be at
risk to experience long-term capacity
challenges with conversion to fare-free.
Fourth, increasing ridership is a stated goal of
the Fort Collins Transit Master Plan and the
city is planning to increase transit service
levels through 2040 as part of growing
ridership. Growth in ridership would be a
welcomed “problem” given the City’s goals.
Additionally, the increase in transit service
would be aligned to provide sufficient capacity
to meet increased ridership demand, including
increased demand from converting to fare-
free service.
Lastly, Transfort has been operating fare-free
since March 2020 and is still operating
reduced service. Ridership levels are still well
Page 170
Item 3.
68
below pre-pandemic conditions. Thus, the risk
that there would be a significant enough
increase in ridership to generate capacity
challenges that Transfort could not meet, even
long-term, from converting to fare-free is likely
small.
Other Considerations
of Fare-Free Transit
Regional Coordination
If the City of Fort Collins decides to move
forward with converting the local transit
system to fare-free, staff should also consider
the fare structure of regional transit service.
This includes the FLEX to Loveland,
Longmont, and Boulder, and the Poudre
Express to Windsor and Greeley. It is possible
and common in many communities that
provide fare-free service, for the local service
to be fare-free while the regional service is
not. Thus, staff can independently make the
decision about whether to convert regional
transit to fare-free independently of the local
Fort Collins transit system. Any decision
regarding the regional service should also be
made in conjunction with the communities that
support funding for that service. As part of
early discussions on the matter,
representatives of Longmont, the City of
Boulder, and Boulder County expressed
support to continue free access to the FLEX
that began during COVID-19 onset long-term.
If regional service were to become fare-free,
the partner communities may be asked to
cover their portion of the lost fare revenue.
Early discussions with the partner agencies
suggest that those agencies would also be
interested in understanding the cost savings
from not having to collect fares and having
that factored into the partner funding request.
Page 171
Item 3.
69
Figure 13: Summary Of Mitigation Strategies For Fare-Free
Page 172
Item 3.
70
This chapter summarizes
findings from stakeholder
and community outreach
conversations about
implementing fare-free
system-wide and long-
term.
06 Fare-Free
Survey Findings
Page 173
Item 3.
71
Survey Findings
The city conducted a survey from December
2022 to February 2023 to understand
perceptions of transit and use of transit in Fort
Collins following the COVID-19 pandemic and
to solicit input on a permanent transition to
fare-free transit in Fort Collins. The survey was
open to the public and sent to specific
organizations in Fort Collins with a stake in
transit service. Over 1,600 respondents
completed the survey, including 70
representatives of organizations.
This section summarizes the key findings of
the portion of the survey that asked
respondents to weigh in on fare-free transit in
Fort Collins. Figure 13 outlines responses by
organization type.
Figure 14. What Organization Do You Represent?
1%
1%
3%
4%
5%
8%
9%
13%
16%
18%
21%
Medical Services
Chamber of Commerce
CSU
NFRMPO
City Board/Advisory Committee
Local For-Profit Business
Other Business
Other Non-Profit
City Staff
Poudre School District
Social Services
Page 174
Item 3.
72
Demographics of Survey Respondents
Age
People from a wide range of age groups responded to the survey, as shown in Figure 15. Compared
to the citywide age distribution, people in their 30s and 60s were slightly overrepresented and
people in their teens and 20s were slightly underrepresented.
Figure 15. Age Distribution of Survey Respondents
Household Income
Over 80% of respondents provided their range of average household income. Household incomes of
survey respondents were fairly well distributed (as shown in Error! Reference source not found.); t
hus responses represent individuals with a broad range of incomes. Compared to the citywide
median household income distribution, people with an annual household income of less than
$25,000 were slightly overrepresented and people with an annual household income of over
$150,000 were slightly underrepresented.
2%
26%
23%
13%
10%
14%
11%10%
31%
17%
13%12%
9%9%
15-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+
Age (Years)
Fort Collins Transit Survey Respondents American Community Survey Census Data
Page 175
Item 3.
73
Figure 16. Average Household Income of Survey Respondents
32% of Survey Respondents Represent K-12 or College Students & Staff
Nearly two thirds of survey respondents identified themselves as a student or staff at Colorado State
University, Poudre Valley School District, or Front Range Community College.
Fare-Free Survey Findings
Just over half of survey respondents from the public said that charging a fare for Transfort would be
a financial burden or barrier to themselves, their clients/constituents, or to their employees (see
Figure 17). A greater percentage (64%) of the 70 organizations that responded to the survey said
charging a fare would be a barrier to their clients/constituents or employees.
8%
13%
19%18%
14%
17%
7%
5%6%
8%
18%19%
12%
18%
10%10%
Under $10K $10K-$25K $25K-$50K $50K-$75K $75K-$100K $100K-$150K $150K-$200K $200K+
Fort Collins Transit Survey Respondents American Community Survey Census Data
Page 176
Item 3.
74
Figure 17. Is Charging a Fare to Ride Transfort a Financial Burden/Barrier for You, Your Clients, or
Employees?
The vast majority of respondents (nearly 80%) felt that keeping Transfort fare-free would increase
their mobility or that of their clients/constituents, employees, or colleagues (see Figure 18). The
responses were similar from individuals and organizations.
Figure 18. If Transfort Were to Remain Fare-Free Permanently, Would it Increase Your Mobility or
that of Your Clients, Employees, or Colleagues?
Figure 19 shows that over 60% of survey respondents would ride Transfort more often if it is kept
fare-free permanently. Only one percent of respondents said they would ride less often.
54%
35%
11%
64%
28%
9%
Yes No Unsure
Individuals Organizations
Yes, 79%
No, 13%
Unsure,
7%
Page 177
Item 3.
75
Figure 19. How Often Would You Ride Transfort in the Future if it is Permanently Free to Ride?
When asked how often respondents would ride Transfort in the future if they had to pay a fare, over
50% of respondents said they would ride less often or not at all, and only 3% said they would ride
more often (Figure 20).
Figure 20. How Often Would You Ride Transfort in the Future if You Had to Pay a Fare?
Figure 21 shows how respondents ranked the impact of each of the seven benefits of fare-free
service identified in this study against each other. Respondents feel the most impactful benefit will be
equity and access to transportation. The cost savings to riders, fulfilling key community goals related
More Often, 63%
About the Same, 31%
Less Often, 1%Wont Ride, 5%
41%
38%
18%
3%
About the Same Less Often I Would Not Ride More Often
Page 178
Item 3.
76
to transit, equity, and climate, and the convenience were also ranked as more impactful than the
others.
Figure 21. How Respondents Ranked the Benefits of Fare-Free Transit (by Score)
Respondents were asked if there were other benefits to Transfort going permanently fare-free than
those that were identified in the study. Over 400 people responded, and the responses were
grouped into common themes, with the top themes shown in Figure 22.
The top theme by far was the equity benefit, especially that fare-free transit provides mobility to
people for whom the cost of the fare is a significant barrier. The second highest theme was also one
identified by the project team – the ease of use due to removal of the barrier of knowing what the
fare is, how to pay, or making sure one has exact change. The top two of the most listed benefits
outside of those identified by the project team include reduced traffic and improved safety due to
less drunk driving. Other benefits that survey respondents commonly identified include quality of
life/connectedness to the community/city pride, a boost to the local economy and businesses,
increased tourism and visitor mobility, and environmental benefits.
3,664
4,810
4,994
6,172
6,646
6,922
7,643
Less Conflicts with Drivers over Fares
Faster Bus Operations
Ridership Growth
Convienence for Riders
Fulfilling Community Transit, Equity, and Climate Goals
Cost Savings for Riders
Increased Equity
Page 179
Item 3.
77
Figure 22. Additional Benefits of Fare-Free Transit Cited by Survey Respondents
Figure 23 shows how respondents ranked the four barriers to implementing fare-free service
identified in this study against each other in order of the most concerning. The findings show that
respondents feel that safety/security are the most concerning of the four barriers identified in this
report, followed by potential loss of revenue.
Figure 23. Respondents Rank of the Most Concerning Barrier of Fare-Free Transit (by Score)
Respondents were asked if there were other barriers to Transfort going permanently fare-free than
those that were identified in the study. Over 300 people responded and the responses were grouped
into common themes, with the top themes shown in Figure 24. The two greatest concerns for going
to fare-free were: 1) The impact to safety/cleanliness due to a concern of increased use by the
unhoused population or those with substance abuse issues as well as from reduced perceived value
of transit if people don’t directly pay a fare; and 2) Loss of funding with other ramifications. The
concerns over loss of funding varied from inability to expand transit service/additional service cuts,
inability to pay/attract/retain drivers, loss of CSU funding, and increased taxes. Lastly, a significant
8
23
25
29
41
45
53
117
Environmental/less pollution
Increase tourism/visitor mobility
Boost local economy/businesses
Quality of life/values/sense of community
Traffic safety/less drunk driving/crashes
Reduce traffic
Ease of use/removes "exact change" barrier
Equity/mobility for low-income/homeless
3,380
4,182
4,329
4,675
Political Concerns
Possible Overcrowding
Potential Loss of Revenue
Safety/Security Concerns
Page 180
Item 3.
78
number of respondents also felt that none of the barriers listed were real barriers to going fare-free,
and many also had political concerns or were worried about the barrier from political concerns over
how transit is funded, etc.
Figure 24. Additional Barriers to Fare-Free Transit Cited by Survey Respondents
Figure 25 shows that survey respondents overwhelmingly support Transfort remaining fare-free.
Seventy five percent of respondents strongly support continuing fare-free service, and 85% overall
support fare-free transit service. The responses among representatives of the 70 organizations that
responded to the survey were similar.
Figure 25. How Much Do You Support or Oppose Transfort Remaining Fare-Free?
3
3
7
19
21
21
42
45
66
111
Misinformation About Funding
Ability to Meet Demand
Need to Market Fare Free
Tax Increase
Driver Pay/Driver Shortage
Funding Gap/Loss of CSU Revenue
Impact to Transit Service/Ability to Grow
Political
No Real Barriers
Safety/Use by Unhoused/Drug Addicts/Cleanliness
75%
10%6%2%5%
0%
69%
7%
13%
3%
7%
0%
Strongly Support Somewhat
Support
Neutral Somewhat
Oppose
Strongly Oppose Unsure
Individuals
Organizations
Page 181
Item 3.
79
Conclusion
An analysis of the cost, benefits, and barriers
of converting local transit service in Fort
Collins to fare-free long-term suggests that
there is a strong case to be made so long as
Transfort can largely retain the existing
partnership and funding arrangement with
CSU. In 2021, CSU contributed close to
$640,000 as part of their annual contract to
provide free service to CSU students and
staff, which represented about 4% of total
Transfort operating revenue.
This study shows that when factoring in staff
time associated with collecting, enforcing, and
managing fare payment, as well as annual
vendor fees to maintain and operate the
equipment, and periodic upgrades and
replacement of the fare collection
infrastructure, Transfort operated at a
marginal net gain from fare collection of about
$30,000 in 2019 (the last full year fares were
charged), excluding CSU contributions.
Transfort is considering converting to a new
cloud-based fare payment system that would
have a lower estimated annual operating cost
and capital cost. However, even with this new
system, the estimated net fare revenue
(assuming 2019 ridership) would be about
$220,000 or about 1% of operating expenses.
This study examined peer examples of
agencies that converted to fare-free and found
several benefits to the community from
converting to fare-free transit, including
increased equity, particularly for low-income
users, increased ridership, potential transit
speed, reliability, and operational
improvements, and reduced citywide vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions. All of these benefits would
advance goals identified in adopted city plans,
including increased equity, improved transit
performance, and climate action.
The study identified several potential barriers
to converting to fare-free, including potential
loss of CSU funding, onboard safety and
security concerns, and increased demand for
paratransit services. For each of these
potential barriers, several mitigation strategies
were identified based, in part, on tools other
transit agencies have used that could be
implemented in Fort Collins. If Transfort uses
these strategies to overcome these barriers,
then the benefits of a fare-free system,
including little to no change in net revenue,
would make a strong case for converting
Transfort to fare-free long-term.
A survey of over 1,600 community members
and community organizations revealed
overwhelming support by the community for
Transfort to continue to provide fare-free
transit service into the future. The survey also
underscored the pronounced impact of
increasing mobility and equity in the
community via fare-free transit service.
Page 182
Item 3.
80
07 Future Funding
07 Future Funding
07 Future Funding
This chapter presents
potential new funding
sources to support
expanded operations and
capital projects, as well as
suitability and practicality
for implementation.
Page 183
Item 3.
81
Future Funding Options
This chapter evaluates funding sources and
financing strategies for existing funding gaps
as well as capital expansion projects and
associated annual operating and maintenance
(O&M) costs to achieve the vision of the TMP.
This analysis assumes continuation of existing
funding from the city’s general fund and
considered new funding sources to meet
current funding gaps as well as future funding
needs associated with service expansion.
Alongside this effort, the City of Fort Collins
has been pursuing new citywide funding
sources for various community priorities,
including transit. This analysis recognizes that
effort and incorporates it within the scenario
evaluation of various funding sources.
Depending on citywide funding tools that may
be passed, the most relevant funding sources
for transit needs may change (for example, if
an additional citywide sales tax is passed by
voters and adopted, it would not be an
appropriate near-term strategy for Transfort).
Funding Needs
Future funding needs for Transfort are
considered on an O&M, capital, and overall
(combined) basis. While needs vary from year
to year, for the purposes of this analysis the
average annual need is used.
As shown in Table 21, for O&M, needs range
from $3.9 million to $10.3 million annually, and
average $7.6 million over the plan horizon. For
capital expenditures, needs range from $2.1
million to $11.6 million annually, averaging
$6.5 million per year. Overall, the lowest
annual need is $9.5 million (recognizing that
the low-end capital and operations do not
occur in the same year), and the highest
annual need is $16.9 million, with an overall
average annual need of $14 million.
These three averages - $7.6 million annually
for O&M, $6.5 million annually for capital, and
$14 million annually overall – form the basis of
the funding analysis.
As noted, the City of Fort Collins has
considered citywide funding tools that may
include ongoing annual funding for Transfort.
To capture that within this analysis, funding
needs are considered both with this additional
City funding (estimated at $8 million annually,
for a net need of $6 million per year) and
without (the full need of $14 million per year).
Page 184
Item 3.
82
Table 21. Transfort Funding Needs
Initial Analysis
Forty-seven tools were initially considered,
including Federal grants, Federal and State
sources (formula & pass-through funds), State
sources, and various local funding sources
(including those providing ongoing revenue
generation, districts, and other creative local
options). Some of these tools are currently
used by the City for transit, and if also used for
future funding needs would represent an
expansion of use. Other tools are currently
used by the City for non-transit purposes and
could be expanded to include transit funding.
Funding options were considered for capital
and O&M both separately and together, to
determine how revenue tools can best be
utilized. Particularly for O&M, the stability of
revenue on an annual basis was a key
consideration.
Prioritized Analysis
The 47 tools were evaluated through six
criteria: revenue yield, stability/reliability, legal
parameters, ease of administration, equity
impacts, and overall viability. Based on this
evaluation, 29 funding sources were analyzed
in further detail.
Revenue tools were grouped by three
categories – grants and formula funding,
existing revenue tools, and new revenue tools.
Grants and Formula Funding
Unless determined to be not applicable to
Transfort needs, all grants and formula funds,
as external sources of funding, were further
considered. While these are typically one-time
allocations for capital expenditures,
administering these funding sources is
generally within the administrative and
regulatory capacity of the City and they
provide funding that does not place a burden
on local employees or residents (outside of
Description Low End Annual Need High End Annual Need Average Annual Need
Additional Funding Required
Operating $3,900,000 $10,300,000 $7,600,000
Capital $2,100,000 $11,600,000 $6,500,000
Overall Need 1 $9,500,000 $16,900,000 $14,000,000
Average Annual Need (no citywide funding)$14,000,000
LESS - Potential Citywide Funding -$8,000,000
Average Annual Need (with citywide funding)$6,000,000
Source: Fehr & Peers; FHU; Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\213140-Fort Collins Transit Funding Study\Models\[213140- Funding Scenarios.xlsx]Funding Need Summary
1 Note: this represents the low and high years of combined capital and O&M, not the sum of operating and capital low and
high (w hich may occur in different years)
Page 185
Item 3.
83
local match requirements). While these
sources generally do not provide regular,
ongoing revenue, they should always be
considered for one-time capital expenditures
as project eligibility allows.
Existing Revenue Tools
Six funding sources currently used by the City
– whether for Transfort or for other purposes –
were identified as potential funding tools for
future Transfort needs. Of these six, three
were included in the final analysis: special
purpose sales tax, property tax, and
agreements and partner contributions.
New Revenue Tools
New revenue tools were a focus of this
analysis, and 11 potential new sources of
funding were evaluated as part of the
prioritized analysis. Of these, four were
determined to have the greatest potential to
meet Transfort’s needs and were included in
the final analysis.
Final Revenue Tools for
Consideration
Based on the findings of the prioritized
analysis, seven revenue tools were included in
29 Existing programs in the state were implemented
prior to the passage of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights
(TABOR) Amendment in 1992; this program may be
able to function as a tax or a fee
the final analysis. All of these funding sources
are already within the City’s authority to use
(i.e., do not require state legislative changes in
order to implement). The focus of the analysis
was on those tools either not currently used or
with capacity to be expanded.
1. Property tax
2. Special purpose sales tax
3. Excise tax/fee
4. Occupational privilege tax/fee29
5. Marijuana tax30
6. Scooter/bikeshare fees
7. Agreements and partner contributions
Table 22 summarizes revenue potential of
these tools for a range of levies/levels that
were deemed to be reasonable for
implementation. As shown, a property tax or a
special purpose sales tax can generate the
greatest amount of revenue.
30 The City of Fort Collins is currently interested in a
regional approach to a marijuana tax; it is included
here for reference as a potential longer-term
strategy, but not included in scenarios
Page 186
Item 3.
84
Table 22. Revenue Potential
Each
of
these tools was evaluated based on the six
criteria (revenue yield, stability/reliability, legal
parameters, ease of administration, equity
impacts, and overall viability) described
previously. Table 23. Final Revenue Tools –
Evaluation Matrix summarizes this
evaluation. As shown, property tax and sales
tax have the highest revenue potential, while
scooter/bikeshare fees and agreements &
partner contributions have the least. Taxes
provide the greatest stability; however, as they
would require an election to be implemented,
they all score lower on legal parameters. Ease
of administration is ranked the highest for
tools the City already uses, while those that
would require setting up new systems to
administer score lower. Whether a tool is
currently used or not, need for voter approval,
political environment, and other qualitative
factors impact overall viability ratings.
Page 187
Item 3.
85
Table 23. Final Revenue Tools – Evaluation Matrix
Funding Scenarios
The seven tools outlined above were used as
inputs into four funding scenarios. These are
intended to be utilized as possible scenarios
for meeting Tranfort’s funding needs – due to
several uncertain factors at the time of this
study (most importantly the status of a
citywide funding source), this document does
not include specific recommendations.
However, the revenue potential and other
analysis of these revenue tools can be used
hereafter to inform needed funding decisions.
The four scenarios considered include: two
examining a single funding source to cover
revenue needs (a special purpose sales tax or
a property tax), one considering how the
various funding sources can cover O&M
needs only, and one considering how the
various funding sources can cover capital
needs only.
Scenario 1: Sales Tax
The first scenario considers a special purpose
sales tax to fund Transfort’s needs. As shown
in Table 24, a 0.20% sales tax levy would
generate enough revenue to cover needs (if a
citywide tool contributes $8 million per year);
with no funding from a citywide tool, a 0.40%
sales tax will generate the required $14 million
in annual revenue.
Table 24. Scenario 1 – Special Purpose
Sales Tax
With Citywide
Funding
No Citywide
Funding
Funding Need $6,000,000 $14,000,000
Levy 0.20%0.40%
Annual Revenue $7,200,000 $14,400,000
Net Position $1,200,000 $400,000
Special Purpose Sales Tax
1. Property Tax 2. Special Purpose
Sales Tax 3. Excise Tax/Fee 4. Occupational
Privilege Tax 5. Marijuana Tax 6. Scooter/
Bikeshare Fees
7. Agreements and
Partner
Contributions
Revenue Potential High High Medium Medium Medium Low Low
Stability High High High High High Medium Medium
Legal Parameters Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium High High
Ease of
Administration High High Medium Low Medium Medium High
Equity Medium Medium High Low Low Medium High
Viability Low Low High Low Medium Medium High
Page 188
Item 3.
86
Sales tax revenue potential is high and
typically stable over long time periods;
however, an election would be required to
adopt a new tax and voter approval is likely to
be challenging. Additionally, if a special
purpose sales tax is pursued as part of the
citywide funding initiative, a separate transit
sales tax levy would not be a viable option for
Transfort, at least in the immediate future.
Scenario 2: Property Tax
The second scenario considers a property tax
as a standalone funding mechanism. As
shown in Table 25, a 2.0 mill property tax levy
can generate enough revenue to cover needs
if a citywide tool contributes $8 million per
year; with no funding from a citywide tool, a
4.0 mill property tax will generate sufficient
revenue.
Similar to a sales tax, revenue potential is high
and property tax revenue is typically stable
over long time periods. However, as a new
tax, a Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR)
election would be required to implement this
tool, and it may be challenging to pass a
transit specific property tax in a general city-
wide election. The same considerations of
citywide funding tools apply – if a property tax
is utilized as part of a citywide strategy it
would become a longer-term consideration for
Transfort. An additional consideration is that
property taxes often significantly impact low-
income homeowners when property values
rise.
Table 25. Scenario 2 – Property Tax
With Citywide
Funding
No Citywide
Funding
Funding Need $6,000,000 $14,000,000
Levy 2.0 mills 4.0 mills
Annual Revenue $7,000,000 $14,500,000
Net Position $1,000,000 $500,000
Property Tax
Page 189
Item 3.
87
Scenario 3: Operations Only
The third scenario considers a dedicated
source of funding for O&M expenditures only,
with revenue for capital needs coming from
other city or external sources (e.g., federal
and state grants). A dedicated source of
operating revenues can provide stability and
predictability to the transit system, compared
to competing for a general fund allocation on
an annual basis. As noted previously, annual
O&M needs range from $3.9 million to $10.3
million annually, averaging $7.6 million per
year. As shown in Error! Reference source not f
ound., this funding goal can be achieved in
several ways, using either a single revenue
source or a combination of sources. If this
strategy is pursued, key considerations in
determining a funding approach will include
the time to implement, likelihood of passage,
and ease of implementation of the single or
multiple tools used. To meet operating needs,
an ongoing revenue source (or multiple
ongoing sources) will be most relevant to
ensure stability and predictability of funding.
Scenario 4: Capital Only
The fourth scenario considers a dedicated
source of funding for capital expenditures,
which would most likely be used to finance
bonds for a package of capital improvements.
Capital needs range from $2.1 million to $11.6
million annually, averaging $6.5 million per
year. A dedicated capital funding source can
make it easier to compete for external funding,
such as grant opportunities, as local match or
other needed funding does not have to found
for each individual project. As shown in ,
similar to operating needs this funding goal
can be achieved in a number of ways, using
either a single revenue source or a
combination of sources.
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Funding Need $7,600,000 $7,600,000 $7,600,000 $7,600,000
Tool and Levy 1 - Excise tax @ 5.0%1- Occupational
Privilege Tax/Fee @
1 - Special Purpose
Sales Tax @ 0.25%
1 - Property Tax @ 2.5
mills
2 - Occupational Privilege
Tax/Fee @ $4/month
2 - Scooter/Bikeshare
Fees @ $1.50/day
3 - Partner Contributions
@ $1 million/year
Annual Revenue $9,000,000 $7,380,000 $9,000,000 $9,000,000
Net Position $1,400,000 -$220,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000
Operating Needs
Table 26. Scenario 3 - Operations Only
Page 190
Item 3.
88
Key considerations in this funding approach
are similar to the O&M-only approach. The
time to implement, likelihood of passage, and
ease of administration will be key factors in
the success of a strategy and determining
which funding tools to pursue. For those that
require elections, project-specific funding
needs may have a stronger case with voters
and so taxes may be better suited to a capital
funding strategy. Additionally, ongoing
revenue tools such as sales tax or property tax
can allow the City to issue bonds backed by
the tax revenue, which can create a more
predictable source of funding for capital
projects. As noted, a capital-specific funding
source would be most relevant in relation to a
bond issuance. Likelihood of passage would
be highest for specified package of high
priority capital projects that have strong
community-wide support.
Future Funding Considerations
As noted, future funding decisions will be
made in the context of any citywide revenue
tools that are implemented, as well as
determining priority needs (e.g. an operating-
only or capital-only approach). In addition to
the considerations outlined within the
scenarios, future considerations may include
regional solutions and financing approaches.
Regional Transportation Authority
While this effort focused on specific funding
needs and opportunities for Transfort, there
are also considerations of broader regional
transportation improvements. A Regional
Transportation Authority (RTA) can be formed
by cities, counties, and MPOs to fund and
build transportation infrastructure
improvements and provide transportation
services within a multijurisdictional area
boundary. While an RTA is not an applicable
tool for Transfort on its own, it could be a
powerful tool to address regional needs, with
the power to build, finance, operate, and
maintain a regional transportation system.
RTAs can generate revenue through multiple
revenue sources including sales/use taxes,
vehicle registration fees, lodging taxes, mill
levies, bonds, and/or loans with other private
or public entities.
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Funding Need $6,500,000 $6,500,000 $6,500,000 $6,500,000
Tool and Levy 1 - Excise tax @ 5.0%1- Occupational Privilege
Tax/Fee @ $6/month
1 - Special Purpose
Sales Tax @ 0.20%
1 - Property Tax @ 2.0
mills
2 - Occupational Privilege
Tax/Fee @ $2/month
2 - Scooter/Bikeshare Fees
@ $1.50/day
Annual Revenue $7,000,000 $6,380,000 $7,200,000 $7,000,000
Net Position $500,000 -$120,000 $700,000 $500,000
Capital Needs
Table 27. Scenario 4 – Capital Only
Page 191
Item 3.
89
RTAs are being used throughout Colorado to
provide steady and reliable funding for transit
and/or general transportation. Establishing an
RTA can be administratively complex and
requires voter support, however this is a
significant mechanism to consider for
implementing regional transit and
transportation improvements in the future.
Financing Strategies
The use of revenue bonds is a strategy for
leveraging a funding stream for an individual
or package of high priority capital projects. As
shown in Table 28, annual revenue of $3
million (approximately a 1 mill property tax or
0.10% sales tax) could generate nearly $15.2
million in bond proceeds over 10 years, while
annual revenue of $18 million (a 5 mill
property tax or 0.50% sales tax) can generate
nearly $91.2 million. While this is
approximately half of the revenue that would
be available if these tools were used on a pay-
as-you-go basis, issuing bonds enables
Transfort/the city to access the funds when
they are needed, without potentially having to
wait multiple years to accrue enough funding
to cover needs. This is particularly relevant for
capital expenditures, where funding needs are
much more irregular than ongoing operations
and maintenance.
Table 28. Potential Bond Proceeds
Description Factors Low End High End
Revenue Stream to be Bonded $3,000,000 $7,000,000 $10,000,000 $14,000,000 $18,000,000
Estimated Net Revenue Available for Debt Service
Total Annual Revenue $3,000,000 $7,000,000 $10,000,000 $14,000,000 $18,000,000
Estimated Annual Administrative Costs 1 1.00%$30,000 $70,000 $100,000 $140,000 $180,000
Debt Coverage 1.20 $495,000 $1,155,000 $1,650,000 $2,310,000 $2,970,000
Net Revenue Available for Debt Service $2,475,000 $5,775,000 $8,250,000 $11,550,000 $14,850,000
Estimated Total Bonds2 $18,220,000 $42,500,000 $60,720,000 $85,010,000 $109,300,000
Capitalized Interest 0 months $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Bond Reserve Fund 1 yr D/S $2,480,000 $5,780,000 $8,250,000 $11,550,000 $14,850,000
Formation & Issuance Costs 3.00%$550,000 $1,280,000 $1,820,000 $2,550,000 $3,280,000
Estimated Total Bond Proceeds (Net of Issuance Costs) 2 $15,190,000 $35,440,000 $50,650,000 $70,910,000 $91,170,000
Note: Assumes the follow ing bond assumptions:10 year term and a 6% interest rate
1Assumed an administrative fee of 1 percent of the annual revenues available for debt service.
2Rounded to the nearest ten thousand.
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Page 192
Item 3.
90
Page 193
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
Transfort Director
Monica Martinez
August 27, 2024
Advancing Transit
Initiatives
Director, PDT
Caryn Champine
Kaley Zeisel
Annabelle Phillips
Sr. Finance Manager, PDT
Assistant Director, Transfort
Page 194
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes HereAgenda & Questions for Council
1.Staffing & Service Level Update
2.Budget Overview
3.Fare Free
•What additional information do Councilmembers need to determine if
Transfort should remain fare free?
•Do Councilmembers support a permanent fare free system?
4.Advertising
•Do Councilmembers have any questions or feedback about returning
to a scaled back commercial advertising program?
2
Page 195
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
3
Today’s Staffing & Service Levels
•Route 19
•MAX Evenings
•Holiday Service
•Route 6, 7, HORN
Saturday Service
•Route 2, 8 Evening
Service
•HORN 10-Minute
Frequency
Date
#
B
u
s
O
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
Page 196
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
4
Recruitment & Retention Efforts
Work
Schedule
Pay &
Benefits
Training &
Onboarding
Safety &
Wellbeing
Increased
wages
Free on-site
counseling for staff
Onboarding & training
specialist
18 reclassified
positions & 4 new
FTEs
Hiring & referral
incentives
Added mid-shift
breaks
New continuing
education program
Increased
contracted security
Added Transit
Supervisor position
More consistent
schedules
Page 197
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
5
Transfort’s 2019 Operational Actual Expenses
Transfort’s 2019 $17.6M budget can be explained by these four categories. “Other
Expenses” includes operational critical items such as technology, insurance, land and
building maintenance, and wireless service. Page 198
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
6
2019 vs. 2025 Revenue Growth
Year 2019 Projected
Revenue
2025 Projected
Revenue
Fares & Fees $271,000 $0
Advertising $284,878 $300,000*
CSU Contract $2,054,335 $2,593,659*
Intergovernmental
Agreements (FLEX)
$684,921 $1,300,000
Grants $4,502,314 $4,514,534
Total $7,761,448 $8,708,193
*Current collection is partial or suspended
Since 2019,
Transfort has
experienced revenue
loss & restricted
growth.
Page 199
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
7
2019 vs. 2025 Expense Growth
Year 2019 Budget 2025 Projected
Budget
Personnel $10,027,873 $12,971,522*
Transportation Svcs $2,243,000 $2,588,172
Vehicle Repair Svcs $2,928,146 $3,053,094
Snow & Security
Services
$100,000 $400,000
Total $15,299,019 $19,012,788
*Does not include increases to personnel costs approved during the mini -BFO process for
the 2050 Tax.
Since 2019,
Transfort has
experienced
significant expense
growth. This growth
is driven by
increases in costs
that are necessary
for operations and
that are not
controlled by
Transfort.
Page 200
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
8
Current State of Operational Budget
The challenge…
•At full collection levels, projected revenue from external sources has increased by just under $1M
for 2025 as compared to 2019 projected external revenue amounts.
•Estimated expenses for the 2025 budget have increased by almost $3.7M in comparison to the
2019 projected budget.
Proposed solutions:
•For the 2025 projected budget, Transfort has reduced other areas of budget as able to offset
increases.
•Additional funding from governmental sources can be leveraged.
•Explore options for long-term realignment of Transfort expense and revenue budgets.
Page 201
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
9
Transit Master Plan
Page 202
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
10
Gap to Fund Transit Master Plan
Annual Gap for
TMP Buildout:
$9.7 Million
Average Annual Local Need = $23.3 MillionPage 203
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
11
System Optimization & Microtransit
Given our resources, what is the most optimal way to deliver service to
the community?
•Assess our service development methodology, our existing service, and a
prioritized buildout of the Transit Master Plan elements.
Page 204
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
12
Fare Free Analysis
Environmental
Financial
Social
2019: Transit Master Plan
recommends exploring fare free
conversion
2021: Council Priority:
Advancing Transit Initiatives
that Remove Barriers
2021: Launched Fare Free &
Funding Study: Evaluated
environmental, financial, and
social impacts of a fare free
system
2023: Fare Free & Funding
Study Concluded
Page 205
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
0
2
4
6
8
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
30%
20%
10%
2019 Ridership
13
Environmental Impact
4.45M
5-MILE AVE TRIP
900,000 VMT
338.22 REDUCTION
IN MTCO2e EMISSIONS
Page 206
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
14
Financial Impact
Fare Collection
Revenue & Expense
Fare Revenue $304,800
Fare Collection Expense ($195,000)
Annual Net Revenue $109,800
One-Time Technology
Expense ($929,000)
$-
$1
$2
$3
$4
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
10-Year Accumulated
Revenue and Expense
Total Accumulated Revenue
Total Accumulated Expense
2025 2035
Page 207
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
15
Social Impact
56%
47%
36%
85%
Would ride less if a fare is charged
Annual income less than $25,000
Do not have access to a car/driver's
license
Support for fare free
60% of individuals said that they would ride more if there is no fare
Page 208
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
16
Questions & Discussion
As a result of these findings, staff recommends establishing a permanent fare free
transit system.
1.What additional information do Councilmembers need to determine if Transfort
should remain fare free?
2.Do Councilmembers support a permanent fare free system?
Page 209
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
17
Advertising Program –Background and Context
2001-2021
Advertising
Contract (Lamar)
Included
Maintenance,
Amenities &
Advertising
Approx. $300k
revenue
annually
2021 RFP –
Declined to
Award
Respondents
unwilling to
provide
maintenance
Maintenance
in-house
($350k
expense)
$650k budget
gap (revenue
+ expense)
2022-2024
Explored internal
Government-only
Speech Model
Estimated up
to $60k ad
revenue
annually
Proposal for
other models
Page 210
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
18
Advertising Recommendation –Return to Commercial Program
Staff recommends return to a scaled back commercial advertising
program.
•Advertising on Buses and at Bus Stops
•Revenue estimated from $265k -$420k annually, depending on
approach
•Some key changes identified from previous program
•More allowances for government speech
•Standardized advertising size on benches
Page 211
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
19
Recommendations to Meet Deficit with No Advertising Program
Without advertising, Transfort will need to address revenue deficit
through:
•Service Reductions
•Sales Tax Replacement
o General Fund
o 2050 Transit Sales Tax
Page 212
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
20
Potential Service Cuts to Cover Ad Revenue Deficit
Potential Service Cuts
Annual Cost
Savings
Eliminate Routes 11 & 12 $260,000
Eliminate Saturday service on Routes 6 & 7 $72,000
Total $332,000
Page 213
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
21
Questions & Discussion
Do Councilmembers have any questions or feedback about returning to a scaled
back commercial advertising program?
Page 214
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
Questions?
22
Page 215
Item 3.