HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Full - Finance Committee - 01/02/2025 -Agenda
Council Finance Committee
January 2, 2025 - 4:00 - 6:00 pm
City Hall - CIC Conf. Room
In person with Remote Participation Available via Teams Join the meeting now
Meeting ID: 247 116 340 034
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. Please provide advance notice.
Requests for interpretation at a meeting should be made by noon the day before.
A)Call Meeting to Order
B)Roll Call
C)Approval of Minutes from December 5, 2024
D)Bloom TCEF Reimbursement Marc Virata
20 minutes (10 mins. presentation / 10 mins. discussion)Monica Martinez
Josh Birks
The Bloom TCEF Reimbursement pertains to seeking CFC/Council approval on an appropriation from TCEF
Reserves. These funds would then reimburse Bloom’s metro district for the metro district’s construction of
collector and arterial streets in the Bloom development. TCEF (Transportation Capital Expansion Fee) is
collected on development and redevelopment for transportation infrastructure and under municipal code, is
used to reimburse for the “oversizing” of streets from local to collector and/or arterial standards."
E)West Elizabeth Matching Funds
15 minutes (10 mins. presentation / 5 mins. discussion)Spencer Smith
Monica Martinez
Supplemental Appropriation of Capital Investment Grant Funds to complete design on the W. Elizabeth
Corridor and 2050 Tax Funds for local match and additional design and ROW acquisition on the Foothills
Project "
F)Other Business
G)Adjournment
Next Scheduled Committee Meeting: February 6, 2025
Page 1 of 65
Page 2 of 65
Council Finance Committee
2025 Agenda Planning Calendar
Revised 12/12/24 ck
January 2nd 2025
Bloom TCEF Reimbursement
The Bloom TCEF Reimbursement pertains to seeking
CFC/Council approval on an appropriation from TCEF
Reserves. These funds would then reimburse Bloom’s
metro district for the metro district’s construction of
collector and arterial streets in the Bloom
development. TCEF (Transportation Capital
Expansion Fee) is collected on development and
redevelopment for transportation infrastructure and
under municipal code, is used to reimburse for the
“oversizing” of streets from local to collector and/or
West Elizabeth Matching Funds
Supplemental Appropriation of Capital Investment
Grant Funds to complete design on the W. Elizabeth
Corridor and 2050 Tax Funds for local match and
additional design and ROW acquisition on the
15 min Spencer Smith
February 6th 2025
College & Trilby
A request for a supplemental appropriation for the
final construction package for the College and Trilby
Intersection Improvements project. The request
comes after a supplemental appropriation last year
(Ordinance No. 113, 2024) that was thought to be the
Martinez
Foothills Mall Metro District Amendment –
Amendments to the Foothills Mall metro district would
allow bond refunding, leveraging outside revenue,
and extending borrowing capacity to support the
proposed project without altering the redevelopment
agreement.
SE Community Center 45 min Dean Klingner
Page 3 of 65
March 6th 2025
CCIP: Affordable Housing Revolving Loan Fund 30 mins Sylvia Tatman-
CCIP Updates 40 mins
2025 Reappropriation Ordnance Pollack
2023 Audit Report – Staff Correction Plan Randy Bailey
DDA IGA Matt Robenalt
April 3rd 2025
Evaluation of Alternative Budget Methodologies Rupa /
Future Topics
E. Mulberry Threshold Analysis
Fleet Management Policies and Practices
2025 Annual Adjustment Ordinance (September)
2026 Budget Revisions (September)
Budget Revision Process for 2026 Budget Lawrence (spring / summer)
Page 4 of 65
Page 5 of 65
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
nd Floor
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Council Finance Committee Hybrid Meeting
CIC Room / Zoom
December 5, 2024
4:00 - 6:00 pm
Council Attendees: Emily Francis, Kelly Ohlson, Tricia Canonico
Staff: Kelly DiMartino, Tyler Marr, Travis Storin, Gretchen Stanford, Teresa Roche,
Dianne Criswell, Ginny Sawyer, Terri Runyan, Max Valadez, Joe Wimmer, Randy
Bailey, Trevor Nash, Renee Reeves, Dean Klingner, Monica Martinez, Victoria
Shaw, Adam Harris, Jo Cech, Carolyn Koontz
Other: Kevin Jones, Chamber of Commerce
Diane Lapierre and Ken Draves from the Poudre Library District
Meeting called to order at 4:00 pm
Approval of minutes from the November 6, 2024, Council Finance Committee meeting.
Motion made to approve by Kelly Ohlson and seconded by Emily Francis. Approved via roll call.
A. Southeast Community Center Status Update & Next Steps
Dean Klingner, Community Services Director
LeAnn Williams, Recreation Director
Victoria Shaw, Finance Senior Manager, Community Services
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Southeast Community Center, a City of Fort Collins and Poudre River Public Library District (PRPLD)
partnership, is in the early stages of design. The project has a scope and funding history that dates back to the
2015 voter approval of the Community Capital Improvement Tax which included a Community Center with an
Outdoor Pool.
In the intervening years, additional developments have made expanded opportunities possible. These include
completion of multiple studies and plans, a partnership with PRPLD, and a potential funding partnership with
Poudre School District.
Over the next several months, the design team will be developing funding and scoping options to inform City
Council, the PSD School Board, and the Library District Board decisions.
Page 6 of 65
This conversation is intended to summarize the background, update project status and developments, and to
propose a framework for future decision making by the full Council.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
What questions do Committee members have regarding partnerships with PRPLD and PSD?
What questions do Committee members have about potential project inclusions and funding options?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
This project includes over 11 years of project development from the completion of a 2013 Feasibility study
through today. Due to the volume of background information, this Agenda Item Summary presents the
background in summary, not complete detail.
• In October of 2013 the City completed the “Fort Collins Southeast Community Recreation & Arts Center
– Summary of Needs and Development Plan.” This study provides valuable information about the
origination of the idea of a facility in SE Fort Collins, but is now old enough that it does not reflect
current community needs.
• In January of 2021 City Council adopted “ReCreate, Parks and Recreation Master Plan.” This document is
the “north star” for guiding parks and recreation policy and investment and highlights the need and plan
for a Southeast Community Center at a high level.
• In 2022, at Council request, the City completed a more detailed aquatics study to understand the
demand, options and opportunities for public aquatics facilities in Fort Collins.
• In 2022, City Council held two Work Sessions and a Council Finance Committee discussing this project.
No decisions were made, and as a result of these meetings, City staff continued to work with the Library
and PSD as potential partners and began to consider a larger facility than required in the ballot language
that could be phased or funded through a future funding source.
• In November of 2023, the 2050 1/2-cent sales tax passed with the following ballot language: “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.” (Bolding added for clarity for this
discussion)
• The 2023-24 City Budget included funds for project development and design. City staff has been actively
working on this phase of the project since the 1st quarter of 2024. Progress to date has included hiring of
an Owners Representative, a Design Firm / Architect, and a General Contractor.
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
What questions do Committee members have regarding partnerships with PRPLD and PSD?
What questions do Committee members have about potential project inclusions and funding options?
Page 7 of 65
Kelly Ohlson; (slide #4 - see above) land purchase closes November 30th and the last bullet says that the land
value counts toward PSD’s share. I thought the value of the land was PSD’s contribution to this project.
Dean Klingner; numerous parameters determine what the fair share of the pool is. The value of the land
(appraised at $3.1M) is part of their contribution to the project. We assume the final number will be higher than
the $3.1M. The closing mentioned on the slide is for the title transfer of the land only.
Page 8 of 65
Kelly Ohlson; (slide #8 - see above) Will options and costs be coming at the Work Session?
Dean Klingner; yes
Kelly Ohlson; we can’t do everything that everyone wants. It will be helpful to see options and what our best
estimate is around cost.
Dean Klingner; when we talked with the full Council about the 2050 tax - we know the Northside Aztlan
Community Center cost $35M in current dollars (approximately 50K square feet). We know that if we built City
Park Pool today to current standards that would be approximately $15M. The floor could be as much at $50M.
We aren’t ready to come forward with that number yet as it depends heavily on how things play out with the
partnerships, what the exact design of the library looks like and what constructions costs look like projected out
to 2027.
Kelly Ohlson; I like common spaces for the whole community. The price seems high.
Also, we might name this something different as Southeast Community Center doesn’t imply that all are
welcome
Dean Klingner; we have moved away from Southeast Recreation Center to Southeast Community Center.
We have made that step. We also have the Library there too, so would really like to have a single name.
A community center name speaks more to the many things that can be done there beyond recreation.
Kelly Ohlson; Things are different from when it was named 40 years ago. Communities are getting away from
directional naming conventions of north side or south side, etc. Uniting names.
Page 9 of 65
Indoor lap lanes…we talked about minor maintenance in additional to major maintenance. When it is a $200K
repair, we aren’t going to pick up all of that. I think this is covered somewhere in the details –
LeAnn Williams; their contribution per year is defined in the IGA. We worked on this formula with PSD.
They have a set fee that thy are paying for everyday maintenance. They will also put $75K into a fund annually
for capital replacement.
Kelly Ohlson; I was thinking differently based on experience with EPIC, things that go wrong post warranty, not
routine maintenance and operations.
Dean Klingner; the IGA articulates full life cycle fair share. Day to day, month to month, year to year costs.
Kelly Ohlson; combining an indoor and outdoor pool sounds good but what is that cost?
Dean Klingner; what we have teed up for today is the framework. As we bring forward these alternatives – yes,
there is cost – number and size of pools, etc. There are also quite a few other details such as aligning to council
priorities, bigger objectives and the actual standards that we build to. We wanted to check this framework with
you in a dialog space so that when we come back we can be more specific about topics including; the funding
plan, the combination of funding sources. What is in the CCIP dedicated / CCIP reserves, 2050 reserves versus
what might be bonded. A lot of complexity around the numbers.
Kelly Ohlson; I want to get the physical structure rightsized to begin with. I am worried about mission / scope
creep – that it will become bigger than what was envisioned. My hope is that this is much more than a pool
center. We could be spending $80-90M on pools – for most residents, that sounds like a very big number.
We do want to talk about the amount of money proposed to be spent on pools at the next Work Session.
Page 10 of 65
(Slide #9 – see above)
LeAnn Williams; an inventory of what we have. Foothills is considered a Neighborhood Center due to its size and
amenities. Typical amenities for a 45-75K square foot community center include; meeting rooms, performance
spaces, maker type spaces, gymnasiums, weight and cardio rooms, indoor walking track and a pool (not at
Northside due to land it was built on).
Dean Klingner; Key Decision Criteria slide (slide #10 - see above)
Kelly Ohlson; we are committed as a Council to 1-3 pools per the ballot mandate and if we reach agreement with
PSD on the lap lanes. We have committee to the first one – ballot measure. Bring them all to us – decision
making – additional of indoor pool or indoor / outdoor pool. We are committed to the number of lanes per
agreement. The outdoor pool we have to do, so this is about the other one.
Dean Klingner; the power of this dialogue is that it is nice to hear you share that understanding with us.
This helps our team move forward in preparation for February. Something interesting around the ballot
language is that it has quite a bit of language focused on the creative process and other things not necessarily
associated with a community center. This center is informed by our community plans and policies adopted by
Council and feedback as we move forward. The library has been a great partner in thinking about how to make
these creative shared spaces happen. There will be flexible gym spaces, core recreation spaces.
Outcomes we can achieve which are cost drivers include, meeting our city policy of Gold LEED which is our
starting point. If we want to have conversations around additional environmental sustainability, that could
Page 11 of 65
include water conservation or site information. This aligns with our city values. If we are going to exceed it, that
becomes a key scope consideration. How does this center feel welcoming to all?
Regarding a 15-minute city - we need the connections and the destinations. Are we hitting the mark here on the
key components you want to see?
Emily Francis; are we just talking about community needs around the Southeast Community Center or is it
community needs in general across Fort Collins? It would be great to build three pools, but what about Mulberry
Pool?
Dean Klingner; one way to think about this is that we are adding resources for the entire community with this.
It is focused in a certain part of town. At some point, a trade off in building a funding plan will help inform those
specifics
Emily Francis; I think pools are a part of it, but because it involves so many other community spaces.
What I would expect isn’t just pools but also, what is the plan for recreation spaces across the city? How will the
funding or expansion of this center impact our plans for the others?
Dean Klingner; like our entire Community Center Master Plans.
Emily Francis; I would also be curious about how we are collecting the different needs in this area of town.
How are we deciding?
Dean Klingner; great question - we just had a four-hour meeting earlier this week building our public
communication plan. In all of our spaces, we are thinking differently about a traditional older outreach process,
where we hold a few public meetings and decide versus truly understanding the users and their needs and
meeting them where they are. We have to build that plan out and involve people who would not traditionally
engage in our process.
Emily Francis; how are we better focusing the engagement? How do we better refine what we are asking about
-there is a lot of data about the inequities within the population that lives in a certain area of town which could
inform - one area may have a lower percentage of high school graduates, etc.
Dean Klingner; how do we understand people and meet them where they are, instead of asking them to come
to us.
Kelly Ohlson; this is a dress rehearsal for the Council Work Session. Community priorities are so important –
maybe put them earlier in your Work Session presentation.
Page 12 of 65
Dean Klingner; map slide (see above) graphics are taken directly out of our 2021 Parks & Recreation Master Plan
looking at equity indicators across our community. This Plan is four years old but still holds up. Big gaps in this
area and northeast area of town around what we currently have. Helps us justify focusing on this part of town.
Kelly Ohlson; are there two more community centers planned (solid circles on the map above)?
Dean Klingner; At the time we did this plan, yes, but that is not what we are thinking now. The dashed circle is
centered on Fossil Creek Park. This is what has been published and adopted by Council. We will update this map
for the Work Session. We don’t currently have a timetable for the Northeast Community Center. The current
plans shows three total, which means two additional. One of the advantages of the new site is that we can
make a recommendation of one additional center. What we put in these matters - if it is bigger, it will serve a
larger area. Define the trade-offs involved in serving a larger area with one center we can afford.
Emily Francis; I would have the two maps – this map and your suggested map – put the Southeast Community
Center on the map. This was 2016 and we have had an updated census since then – so when are we updating
this?
Dean Klingner; do you mean the health equity index?
Emily Francis; yes
Dean Klingner; we may have an updated one already. We will check on that.
Page 13 of 65
Kelly Ohlson; what does the health equity index mean / measure?
Emily Francis; The Larimer County Health Department worked with the City on several indicators that go into
creating health equity. How equitable the census track is.
Kelly Ohlson; that context will be helpful to have in the Work Session packet.
LeAnn Williams; the map above was pulled from GIS. Who are we serving?
Who is underserved and lives in the radius and will be served by this community center?
Fee structure to insure access for all.
Kelly Ohlson; we like the concept – this is a valuable slide.
Page 14 of 65
Slide #14 (see above)
Kelly Ohlson; word Maintenance – you mean refresh parks - we want people to understand what we mean by
maintenance. The players change and we want to make sure we are clear, so future players understand what
we mean by maintenance.
Dean Klingner; we will unpack what that means
Emily Francis; I think of things like the bathrooms at City Parks – may not replace but upgrade instead.
Page 15 of 65
Slide #16 - Funding Options for SECC (see above)
Kelly Ohlson; I am open to the Council option of reserves because of inflation over a 10-year period if we don’t
go the fancy and high-end route but build a responsible and reasonable facility.
Dean Klingner; it started at $14M and grew to $17M with inflation. We purposely did not update this slide after
the Work Session, we left it in for your reference. This will change as we get into more details of the bonding,
etc.
Kelly Ohlson; when this is open, I am guessing close to 30 FTEs in a facility this size which equates to $3M salary
& benefits per year ($100K per FTE)
LeAnn Williams; we will have that detail when we come to the Work Session.
Kelly Ohlson; we are on the same page – that is important.
Dean Klingner; we have a little bit of a runway with the CCIP dedicating some operating dollars early on.
Emily Francis; what is coming to the Work Session?
Dean Klingner; if we picture an ideal Work Session - here is a range of alternatives; starting with the floor and
then how you can add on in different ways or maybe 3 different concepts of a building including total cost,
operating costs, what we are delivering to the community and how we are meeting Council priorities resulting in
a framework for evaluating multiple alternatives. One Work Session to vet all that information and receive
feedback and then a second Work Session for fine tuning.
Page 16 of 65
Dean Klingner; framework would be a concept that says; this pool, these amenities, these standards for the
environmental piece and here are the costs.
Emily Francis; usually the number part comes to Finance Committee and the framework piece moves on to the
full Council.
Kelly Ohlson; what I need to know first if we are going to do two community centers. I need that decision first as
that will affect how I think about the size of the facility and the money.
Dean Klinger; we are utilizing this dialog going without a lot of numbers. I think it is very feasible for us to come
back to Council Finance and bring more specifics and numbers.
Kelly Ohlson; we have the benefit of more information. We aren’t the deciding body, but we will help flesh it all
out.
Do we need another Council Finance Committee meeting discussion before the February Work Session?
Kelly Ohlson; This is the biggest question before us.
Dean Klingner; those two questions come together - We think this would meet the need here – alternatives –
Emily Francis; I would agree this is interlinked – It would be a Council policy decision if we go from 3-2 Community
Centers.
Dean Klingner; plan starts to get out of date as far as the Mulberry Pool - that is not a project we are working on
in terms of design or funding underway.
Kelly DiMartino; the scale of this facility is different than things we normal do. Decision points align with the
right time.
Travis Storin; we have the flexibility in January or February.
Dean Klingner; we will discuss and follow up.
B. 2024 Financial Policy Review
Randy Bailey, Director of Accounting
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Once a year a portion of Financial Policies are reviewed and updated as needed. Staff is
committed to reviewing each policy no less than every 3 years. Policies up for review this year are:
Financial Management Policy 1 – Budget
Financial Management Policy 2 – Revenue
Financial Management Policy 3 – General
Financial Management Policy 5 – Fund Balance
Financial Management Policy 7 – Debt
Financial Management Policy 8 – Investments
Page 17 of 65
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council Finance Committee support the changes as recommended?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Financial Management Policy 1 – Budget: This policy has several recommended minor terminology changes for
clarity and simplification.
Financial Management Policy 2 – Revenue: This policy has five recommended changes:
• Section 2.B.5.C Maintain Health Reserves
o Update General Fund liquidity rule to reflect decisions made during 2025/2026 budget cycle
reducing the 60-day liquidity rule to 45 days.
• Section 4 Sales and Use Tax Distribution
o Update Sales and Use Tax tables to reflect effective dates and changes since last policy update.
Note sunset of Keep Fort Collins Great at end of 2020
Added 2020 General City Uses Tax of $0.60
Added 2020 General Fund Renewable Tax of $0.25
Added 2024 2050 Tax of $0.50
• Section 5 Philanthropic Contributions
o Removed from Policy 2 – Revenue. Revised and covered in two administrative policies; City Give
and Philanthropic Governance
Financial Management Policy 3 – General: This policy has three recommended changes
• Section 2.B 401(a) and 457 Money Purchas Plans
o Updated “Direct Reports of City Council” to “Council Appointed Positions”
o Updated “Service Area Directors” to “Executive and Senior Leaders”
o Updated Employer contribution percentage for Police & Dispatch from 10.5% to 11%.
• Section 3 Fund Organization
o Added fund 256 – 2050 Tax to the Governmental fund list.
• Section 4.D Cost Recovery and Fee Setting
o Removed reference to “Keep Fort Collins Great” tax and referenced “…voter approved tax
revenue”
Financial Management Policy 5 – Fund Balance Minimums: This policy has one recommended change.
• Section 3.A Minimum Balances
o Update General Fund liquidity rule to reflect decisions made during 2025/2026 budget cycle
reducing the 60-day liquidity rule to 45-days.
Financial Management Policy 7 – Debt: This policy was reviewed, and no changes are recommended at this time.
Financial Management Policy 8 – Investments: This policy has one recommended change.
• Section 2 Scope
o Updates term “Trust and Agency Funds” to “Fiduciary Funds” to be inclusive of pension, trust
and agency funds.
Page 18 of 65
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council Finance Committee support the changes as recommended?
Policy 3 – General - Financial Management (see above)
Emily Francis; changing the language - technically Boards and Commissions aren’t Council appointed positions.
Randy Bailey; we will change the terminology – maybe to employee.
Page 19 of 65
Policy 1 - Budget (see above)
Kelly Ohlson; instead of limited resources - there might a better word
Randy Bailey; trying to get away from scarce as that means limited - we will update
Page 20 of 65
Policy 2.4 - Revenue (see above)
Kelly Ohlson; Natural Areas started in 1993, and the most recent renewal was in 2002.
First county one passed in 1995, and the most recent renewal was in 2014.
Travis Storin; I think the intent was the most recent renewal
OTHER BUSINESS:
The committee acknowledged Travis Storin’s tenure and contribution and welcomed Gretchen Stanford as the
Interim Financial Services Sr. Manager.
Adjourned at 5:33 pm
Page 21 of 65
Page 22 of 65
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Marc Virata, Monica Martinez, Josh Birks
Date: January 2, 2025
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Bloom Filing One Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Major Reimbursement
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Bloom Filing One development (“Bloom”) is located on the north side of Mulberry Street,
west of Greenfields Drive. Bloom’s metro district has funded street improvements to Greenfields
Drive, International Boulevard, Sykes Drive, Donella Drive, and Delozier Road to City standards
as part of Bloom’s development plans and development agreement for and permitted for
construction under Bloom’s Development Construction Permit. Per Section 24-112 of the City
Code, these improvements are eligible for reimbursement from Transportation Capital Expansion
Fee (TCEF) funds for the oversized, non-local portion for construction and right-of-way
dedication. Staff is recommending appropriations totaling $2,069,417 from TCEF funds.
This total appropriation of $2,069,417 includes the cost of parkway (landscaping and irrigation)
of Greenfields Drive and International Boulevard, which has not been fully constructed and is
planned to be completed in summer of 2025. This cost was agreed to by Staff to be $44,249 and
this amount would not be reimbursed to the metro district until the construction is completed and
Staff has provided acceptance of the same.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
• Do Finance Committee members support an off-cycle appropriation of Transportation
Capital Expansion Fee fund reserves to reimburse the Bloom’s metro district for its
construction of Greenfields Drive, International Boulevard, Sykes Drive, Donella Drive,
and Delozier Road?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
TCEF Program
The TCEF Program (formerly Street Oversizing), instituted by ordinance in 1979, was
established to manage the construction of new arterial and collector streets, and is an “Impact
Fee” funded program. The TCEF Program determines and collects impact fees from
development and redevelopment projects. The collection of these impact fees contributes funding
for growth’s related share towards City Capital Projects, including the City’s Active Modes Plan,
and reimburses development for constructing roadway improvements above the local street
access standards. Section 24-112 of the City Code allows for reimbursement for the construction
of collector and arterial streets.
Page 23 of 65
Bloom Filing One is a development on the north side of Mulberry Street and west of Greenfields
Drive, directly east of the East Ridge/Mosaic development. This reimbursement is for the
construction above the local street access standards of Greenfields Drive (2-lane arterial),
International Boulevard (2-lane arterial), Sykes Drive (collector), Donella Drive (collector), and
Delozier Road (collector) as part of Bloom Filing One. As part of Bloom’s Filing One
development agreement, the developer or its metro district (whichever party pays for the work) is
eligible for reimbursement. Both the Bloom developer and Bloom’s Metro District agree that the
Bloom Metro District as the entity that funded the improvements is entitled to this
reimbursement.
Portions of roadway, landscaping, and sidewalk for Greenfields Drive and International
Boulevard, and portions of roadway for Sykes Drive, Donella Drive, and Delozier Road are
eligible for reimbursement depicted in Attachment 1 “Location of Improvements Constructed”
and itemized between City (TCEF) and local responsibility in Attachment 2 “Final Bid Tab of
Quantities and Total Cost for Improvements”. Also included as part of the eligible
reimbursement is the land value for right-of-way dedication beyond the local street access
standards.
Staff has reviewed the documentation and agrees that the requested reimbursement meets the
requirements under City Code Section 24-112 for appropriation from TCEF funds. There are
presently adequate funds in TCEF to reimburse the metro district and Staff recommends
reimbursement in the amount of $2,069,417.
While this reimbursement is considered routine as part of the Code obligations under the TCEF
Program, this request is coming before Council Finance Committee because of the large dollar
amount outside of the typical 2-year budgeting process. TCEF reimbursements were formerly
anticipated and appropriated through the 2-year budgeting process. As part of the process
improvements identified first in the 2021 budget, the TCEF Program now categorizes TCEF
reimbursements as “Major” and “Minor” reimbursements, with “Major” developer
reimbursements brought to Council individually rather than predicting what reimbursements are
needed on a 2-year basis.
This proposed reimbursement is the fourth request under this process with Council Finance
Committee having reviewed Northfield in 2022, Waterfield in 2023, and Water’s Edge in 2024.
As part of Council Finance Committee’s input for both Northfield and Water’s Edge, Council
Finance Committee supported TCEF reimbursing these developers instead of their respective
metro districts reimbursing them. Both the Northfield and Water’s Edge developers provided
affidavits from their respective metro districts committing that their metro districts would not
reimburse them, meaning that both Northfield and Water’s Edge would not “double dip” and be
reimbursed twice for its costs. (Waterfield does not have a metro district.)
Similarly to Northfield and Water’s Edge, Bloom has metro districts that were established with
City Council approving the consolidated service plan for Mulberry Metropolitan Districts Nos.
1-6 by adoption of Resolution 2019-050 on April 16, 2019. Unlike Northfield and Water’s Edge,
it is not the developer of Bloom that is seeking reimbursement, it is the metro district seeking
reimbursement as the entity that funded the improvements. By reimbursing the metro district
directly, there is not a similar concern that existed with both the Northfield and Water’s Edge
developers being potentially reimbursed from both their metro districts and TCEF.
Page 24 of 65
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 “Location of Improvements Constructed”
Attachment 2 “Final Bid Tab of Quantities and Total Cost for Improvements”
Page 25 of 65
Headline Copy Goes Here
Marc Virata, Civil Engineer
Monica Martinez, Manager, Financial Planning & Analysis
Josh Birks, Deputy Director, Sustainability Services
Bloom Filing One TCEF
Major Reimbursement
Page 26 of 65
Headline Copy Goes Here
2
Question for Council Finance Committee
Do Finance Committee members support an off-cycle appropriation of
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee fund reserves to reimburse the
Bloom’s metro district for its construction of Greenfields Drive,
International Boulevard, Sykes Drive, Donella Drive, and Delozier Road?
Page 27 of 65
Headline Copy Goes Here
3
TCEF Program
•One time impact fee collected from development and redevelopment to
mitigate impacts to the existing transportation network
•Fee is proportional to anticipated impact
•Used to support growth related infrastructure improvements which add
capacity to the system
•Reimbursement to Developers
•Contributions to transportation capital improvement projects
•Fees cannot be used for improvements which solely benefit an adjacent
development, existing deficiencies, and for maintenance
Page 28 of 65
Headline Copy Goes Here
4
How are TCEF Fees Used?
•Reimbursement to Developers
for constructing improvements
beyond “local street”
•Contributions to Capital Projects
•Complete Streets
•Transportation Capital
Projects Prioritization Study
•Multimodal Improvements
•Active Modes Plan
•Intersections/Signals
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3 Site 4
Arterial St.
Local St.
Collector St.
Page 29 of 65
Headline Copy Goes Here
5
TCEF Process Change
TCEF Reimbursement Appropriation Process
Since Program Inception through 2020
•Appropriation for reimbursement through standard budgeting process
•Forecast when development projects are entitled and constructed
2021 Budget TCEF Program Update
•“Minor” reimbursements appropriated through 2-year budget process
•“Major” reimbursements instead individually appropriated
Previous Major Reimbursements to Council Finance Committee
•Northfield ($2.1M) – December 2022
•Waterfield ($1.4M) – December 2023
•Water’s Edge ($600K) – May 2024
Page 30 of 65
Headline Copy Goes HereBloom Vicinity Map
Vine Drive
I-
25
Mulberry St.
Bloom P.U.D.Mosaic/
East Ridge
Ti
m
b
e
r
l
i
n
e
R
o
a
d
Peakview
(future development)
Sykes Drive
International Blvd
Donella Drive
De
l
o
z
i
e
r
Ro
a
d
Gr
e
e
n
f
i
e
l
d
s
D
r
i
v
e
Page 31 of 65
Headline Copy Goes HereBloom Vicinity Map
Sykes Drive
International Blvd.
Gr
e
e
n
f
i
e
l
d
s
D
r
i
v
e
Bloom
Filing One
Sykes Drive
International Blvd.
Gr
e
e
n
f
i
e
l
d
s
D
r
i
v
e
Donella Drive
De
l
o
z
i
e
r
Ro
a
d
Pe
a
k
v
i
e
w
(f
u
t
u
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
)
Page 32 of 65
Headline Copy Goes Here
Gr
e
e
n
f
i
e
l
d
s
D
r
i
v
e
De
l
o
z
i
e
r
Ro
a
d
Donella Drive
Bloom Vicinity Map
Bloom
Filing One
Sykes Drive
International Blvd.
Gr
e
e
n
f
i
e
l
d
s
D
r
i
v
e
Donella Drive
De
l
o
z
i
e
r
Ro
a
d
Pe
a
k
v
i
e
w
(f
u
t
u
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
)
Page 33 of 65
Headline Copy Goes HereBloom Filing One Improvements
Sykes Drive – Collector with Parking
24’ roadway
TCEF reimbursablePage 34 of 65
Headline Copy Goes HereBloom Filing One Improvements
Greenfields Drive – 2 Lane Arterial
22’ roadway
TCEF reimbursable1’ sidewalk & 2’ parkway
TCEF reimbursable
2’ parkway & 1’ sidewalk
TCEF reimbursablePage 35 of 65
Headline Copy Goes HereBloom Filing One Improvements
International Blvd. – 2 Lane Arterial
22’ roadway
TCEF reimbursable 2’ parkway & 1’ sidewalk
TCEF reimbursable
Page 36 of 65
Headline Copy Goes HereBloom Filing One Improvements
Donella Drive – Collector with Parking
24’ roadway
TCEF reimbursablePage 37 of 65
Headline Copy Goes HereBloom Filing One Improvements
Delozier Road– Collector with Parking
13’ roadway
TCEF reimbursablePage 38 of 65
Headline Copy Goes HereBloom Filing One TCEF right-of-way reimbursement
Bloom
Filing One
Sykes Drive
International Blvd.
Gr
e
e
n
f
i
e
l
d
s
D
r
i
v
e
Donella Drive
De
l
o
z
i
e
r
Ro
a
d
Pe
a
k
v
i
e
w
(f
u
t
u
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
)
Sykes Drive
International Blvd.
Gr
e
e
n
f
i
e
l
d
s
D
r
i
v
e
Gr
e
e
n
f
i
e
l
d
s
D
r
i
v
e
De
l
o
z
i
e
r
Ro
a
d
Donella Drive
Page 39 of 65
Headline Copy Goes Here
15
Bloom Filing One TCEF right-of-way reimbursement
Page 40 of 65
Headline Copy Goes HereBloom Vicinity Map
District No. 1 is the coordinating district which receives money and
makes payments on behalf of District Nos. 2-6.
Page 41 of 65
Headline Copy Goes Here
17
TCEF APPROPRIATION REQUEST: $2,069,417
Page 42 of 65
Headline Copy Goes Here
18
Question for Council Finance Committee
Do Finance Committee members support an off-cycle appropriation of
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee fund reserves to reimburse the
Bloom’s metro district for its construction of Greenfields Drive,
International Boulevard, Sykes Drive, Donella Drive, and Delozier Road?
Page 43 of 65
Headline Copy Goes Here
Page 44 of 65
%ORRP)LOLQJ
)RUW&ROOLQV&2
Attachment 1
0DSRI/RFDWLRQRI,PSURYHPHQWV&RQVWUXFWHG
Page 45 of 65
Page 46 of 65
Exhibit B: Final Bid Tab of Quantities and Total Cost for Improvements
Mulberry Metropolitan District Nos. 1-6: Bloom Filing 1 Development
Public Street Oversizing Cost Estimate
Description Unit Contracted Unit
Price
Local Acess Quantity
(Developer Share)
Constructed Minor
Arterial Quantity
Oversizing Quantity
(City Share)
Oversizing Cost (City
Share)
Greenfields Drive Station 27+00 to Station 34+50 and from Station 37+00 to Station 58+33.57: Local Access to Minor Arterial
Earthwork
Fine Grade Detached Concrete Sidewalks SF $0.80 25,645.00 30,774.00 5,129.00 $4,103.20
Embankment CY $10.15 4,326.00 7,850.89 3,524.89 $35,777.62
Concrete Flatwork
05' Sidewalk (06" Thick)LF $34.40 5,129.00 0.00 -5,129.00 -$176,437.60
06' Sidewalk (06" Thick)LF $39.90 0.00 5,129.00 5,129.00 $204,647.10
Aspahlt Paving
Subgrade Preparation SY $4.15 8,652.00 15,701.78 7,049.78 $29,256.58
Cement Treated Subgrade 12" @ 4%SY $11.20 8,652.00 15,701.78 7,049.78 $78,957.51
2 Lane Arterial - 7.5" HMA / 11.5" ABC SY $63.71 8,652.00 15,701.78 7,049.78 $449,141.34
Signage and Striping SY $1.05 8,652.00 15,701.78 7,049.78 $7,420.82
Parkway Width Landscaping
Irrigation SF 3.71$ 40,192.00 47,728.00 7,536.00 $27,958.56
Soil Prep (Class 2 Compost)SF 0.17$ 40,192.00 47,728.00 7,536.00 $1,281.12
Sod SF 0.85$ 40,192.00 47,728.00 7,536.00 $6,405.60
Storm Sewer
Storm C2 - 14" X 23" HE-RCP LF $180.00 24.00 46.00 22.00 $3,960.00
Storm C2 - 18" RCP LF $79.66 6.00 6.00 0.00 $0.00
Storm C3 - 36" RCP LF $183.65 30.00 52.00 22.00 $4,040.30
Storm D - 18" RCP LF $79.66 24.00 46.00 22.00 $1,752.52
Storm D - 24" RCP LF $113.50 6.00 6.00 0.00 $0.00
Storm M4 - 18" RCP LF $79.66 30.00 52.00 22.00 $1,752.52
Storm O - 18" RCP LF $79.66 24.00 46.00 22.00 $1,752.52
Storm O - 24" RCP LF $113.50 6.00 6.00 0.00 $0.00
Subtotal Greenfields Drive Station 27+00 to Station 34+50 and from Station 37+00 to Station 58+33.57: Local Access to Minor Arterial $681,769.71
Greenfields Drive for 158 feet south of the roundabout to Mulberry Right of Way: Local Access to Minor Arterial
Earthwork
Fine Grade Detached Concrete Sidewalks SF $0.80 2,200.00 2,640.00 440.00 $352.00
Embankment CY $10.15 330.00 598.89 268.89 $2,729.22
Concrete Flatwork
05' Sidewalk (06" Thick)LF $34.40 440.00 0.00 -440.00 -$15,136.00
06' Sidewalk (06" Thick)LF $39.90 0.00 440.00 440.00 $17,556.00
Aspahlt Paving
Subgrade Preparation SY $4.15 660.00 1,197.78 537.78 $2,231.78
Cement Treated Subgrade 12" @ 4%SY $11.20 660.00 1,197.78 537.78 $6,023.11
2 Lane Arterial: 7.5" HMA / 6" ABC (Greenfield South of Roundabout)SY $71.04 660.00 1,197.78 537.78 $38,203.73
Signage and Striping SY $1.05 660.00 1,197.78 537.78 $566.08
Parkway Width Landscaping
Irrigation SF 3.71$ 3,520.00 4,180.00 660.00 $2,448.60
Soil Prep (Class 2 Compost)SF 0.17$ 3,520.00 4,180.00 660.00 $112.20
Sod SF 0.85$ 3,520.00 4,180.00 660.00 $561.00
Storm Sewer
18" RCP LF $79.60 30.00 52.00 22.00 $1,751.20
Subtotal Greenfields Drive for 158 feet south of the roundabout to Mulberry Right of Way: Local Access to Minor Arterial $57,398.93
Greenfields Drive Station 34+50 to Station 37+00: Local Access to Minor Arterial
Earthwork
Page 47 of 65
Fine Grade Detached Concrete Sidewalks SF $0.80 2,500.00 3,000.00 500.00 $400.00
Embankment CY $10.15 375.00 680.56 305.56 $3,101.39
Concrete Flatwork
05' Sidewalk (06" Thick)LF $34.40 500.00 0.00 -500.00 -$17,200.00
06' Sidewalk (06" Thick)LF $39.90 0.00 500.00 500.00 $19,950.00
Aspahlt Paving
Subgrade Preparation SY $4.15 750.00 1,361.11 611.11 $2,536.11
Cement Treated Subgrade 12" @ 4%SY $11.20 750.00 1,361.11 611.11 $6,844.44
2 Lane Arterial - 7.5" HMA / 11.5" ABC SY $63.71 750.00 1,361.11 611.11 $38,933.89
Signage and Striping SY $1.05 750.00 1,361.11 611.11 $643.27
Parkway Width Landscaping
Irrigation SF 3.71$ 2,000.00 2,375.00 375.00 $1,391.25
Soil Prep (Class 2 Compost)SF 0.17$ 2,000.00 2,375.00 375.00 $63.75
Sod SF 0.85$ 2,000.00 2,375.00 375.00 $318.75
Subtotal Greenfields Drive Station 34+50 to Station 37+00: Local Access to Minor Arterial $56,982.86
International Boulevard Station 44+00 to Station 57+23.45: Local Access to Minor Arterial
Earthwork
Fine Grade Detached Concrete Sidewalks SF $0.80 6,365.00 7,098.00 733.00 $586.40
Embankment CY $10.15 1,987.50 3,606.94 1,619.44 $16,437.36
Concrete Flatwork
05' Sidewalk (06" Thick)LF $34.40 1,273.00 0.00 -1,273.00 -$43,791.20
06' Sidewalk (06" Thick)LF $39.90 0.00 1,183.00 1,183.00 $47,201.70
Aspahlt Paving
Subgrade Preparation SY $4.15 3,975.00 7,213.89 3,238.89 $13,441.39
Cement Treated Subgrade 12" @ 4%SY $11.20 3,975.00 7,213.89 3,238.89 $36,275.56
2 Lane Arterial - 7.5" HMA / 11.5" ABC SY $63.71 3,975.00 7,213.89 3,238.89 $206,349.61
Signage and Striping SY $1.05 3,975.00 7,213.89 3,238.89 $3,409.36
Parkway Width Landscaping
Irrigation SF 3.71$ 9,968.00 10,752.00 784.00 $2,908.64
Soil Prep (Class 2 Compost)SF 0.17$ 9,968.00 10,752.00 784.00 $133.28
Sod SF 0.85$ 9,968.00 10,752.00 784.00 $666.40
Storm Sewer
Storm J - 34" x 53" HERCP LF $337.00 12.00 23.00 11.00 $3,707.00
Storm J2 - 29 x 45 HERCP LF $265.00 18.00 29.00 11.00 $2,915.00
Storm J5 - 18" RCP LF $79.66 41.00 52.00 11.00 $876.26
Subtotal International Boulevard Station 44+00 to Station 57+23.45: Local Access to Minor Arterial $291,116.75
Sykes Drive Station 37+44.03 to Station 50+25.88 & Donella Drive Station 52+26.50 to Station 65+52.35: Local Access to Collector
Earthwork
Embankment CY $10.15 3,915.00 7,395.00 3,480.00 $35,322.00
Aspahlt Paving
Subgrade Preparation SY $4.15 7,830.00 14,790.00 6,960.00 $28,884.00
Cement Treated Subgrade 12" @ 4%SY $11.20 7,830.00 14,790.00 6,960.00 $77,952.00
Minor Collector - 5.5" HMA / 7" ABC SY $44.68 7,830.00 14,790.00 6,960.00 $310,972.80
Signage and Striping SY $1.05 7,830.00 14,790.00 6,960.00 $7,326.32
Storm Sewer
Storm F - 42" RCP LF $235.00 24.00 46.00 22.00 $5,170.00
Storm F2 - 24" RCP LF $113.50 8.00 8.00 0.00 $0.00
Storm L1.1 - 42" RCP LF $235.00 32.00 54.00 22.00 $5,170.00
Storm L1.2 - 42" RCP LF $235.00 32.00 54.00 22.00 $5,170.00
Subtotal Sykes Drive Station 37+44.03 to Station 50+25.88 & Donella Drive Station 52+26.50 to Station 65+52.35: Local Access to Collector $475,967.12
Delozier Road Station 110+44.59 to Station 124+01.56: Local Access to Collector Standards
Earthwork
Embankment CY $10.15 980.06 1,733.94 753.89 $7,651.97
Page 48 of 65
Aspahlt Paving
Subgrade Preparation SY $4.15 1,960.11 3,467.89 1,507.78 $6,257.28
Cement Treated Subgrade 12" @ 4%SY $11.20 1,960.11 3,467.89 1,507.78 $16,887.11
Minor Collector - 5.5" HMA / 7" ABC SY $44.68 1,960.11 3,467.89 1,507.78 $67,367.51
Signage and Striping SY $1.05 1,960.11 3,467.89 1,507.78 $1,587.13
Subtotal Delozier Road Station 110+44.59 to Station 124+01.56: Local Access to Collector Standards $99,751.01
Soft Costs Developer Share Hard
Costs
Town Share Hard
Costs
Developer Share Soft
Costs Town Share Soft Costs
Mobilization / General Conditions % of total Cost 0.26%$6,363.62 $4,323.76
Construction Surveying % of total Cost 1.72%$42,097.78 $28,603.37
Payment and Performance Bond % of total Cost 0.58%$14,195.76 $9,645.32
Project / Onsite Management % of total Cost 1.00%$24,475.45 $16,629.86
Materials Testing % of total Cost 1.00%$24,475.45 $16,629.86
Design Engineering % of total Cost 1.00%$24,475.45 $16,629.86
Erosion Control % of total Cost 1.75%$42,832.04 $29,102.26
Subtotal Soft Costs $178,915.56 $121,564.30
Dedicated Right-Of-Way Unit Land Value Total Length Oversizing Area
Greenfields Drive Station 27+00 to Station 34+50 and from Station 37+00 to Station 37+50: Local Access to Minor Arterial SF $1.80 800.00 27.00 21,600.00 $38,880.00
Greenfields Drive Station 37+50 to Station 53+30: Local Access to Minor Arterial SF $1.80 1,580.00 13.50 21,330.00 $38,394.00
Greenfields Drive Station 53+30 to Station 58+33.57: Local Access to Minor Arterial SF $1.80 503.57 0.00 0.00 $0.00
Greenfields Drive for 158 feet south of the roundabout to Mulberry Right of Way: Local Access to Minor Arterial SF $1.80 220.00 0.00 0.00 $0.00
Greenfields Drive Station 34+50 to Station 37+00: Local Access to Minor Arterial SF $1.80 250.00 27.00 6,750.00 $12,150.00
International Boulevard Station 44+00 to Station 57+23.45: Local Access to Minor Arterial SF $1.80 1,323.45 24.50 32,424.53 $58,364.15
Sykes Drive Station 37+44.03 to Station 50+25.88 & Donella Drive Station 52+26.50 to Station 65+52.35: Local Access to Collector SF $1.80 2,607.70 24.00 62,584.80 $112,652.64
Delozier Road Station 110+44.59 to Station 124+01.56: Local Access to Collector Standards SF $1.80 1,357.00 10.00 13,570.00 $24,426.00
Subtotal Dedicated Right-Of-Way 158,259.33 $284,866.79
$2,447,545.35 $1,662,986.37
Page 49 of 65
Page 50 of 65
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Spencer M. Smith, P.E., Engineering - Special Projects Engineer
Monica Martinez, Planning Development & Transportation Finance Manager
Date: January 2, 2025
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
West Elizabeth Corridor Final Design – Capital Investment Grant (CIG) Project Development
Funds and Local Match Appropriation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The West Elizabeth travel corridor is currently the highest priority pedestrian/alternative mode
corridor for improvement in the City and was highlighted in City Plan and the Transit Master
Plan.
Additional design/project development funds in the amount of $5.52M are being requested for
advancing design to 100% for the entire corridor, necessary scope additions and design changes
such as protected bike/ped infrastructure, BRT routing revisions and Right-of-Way services. The
appropriation would follow the same minimum grant/local match ratio of 80/20 that would apply
to the Small Starts grant. The local funding source identified for the local match is the “2050
tax”. Details of the amounts requested for grant fund and local match fund appropriation are
included in the Background/Discussion section of this AIS.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Is Council Finance Committee supportive of an out of cycle supplemental appropriation of
Capital Investment Grant (CIG) Project Development funds and the required local match for
completion of 100% design for the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor & Right of Way
Services?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Grant Funding Background
The City has been awarded the following grants for design and construction:
• $1.5M - MMOF (Multi-Modal Options Funding)
o 30% design (COMPLETED)
• $2.5M - MMOF (Multi-Modal Options Funding)
o Final design (ONGOING)
• $10.7M RAISE (Rebuilding American Infrastructure w/ Sustainability and Equity)
o Construction of Foothills Transit Station and Roundabout (Overland/Elizabeth)
Page 51 of 65
West Elizabeth Corridor Project Status
With the Foothills Transit Station and Overland/West Elizabeth roundabout construction funded
by the RAISE grant, those elements were removed from the City’s most recent Small Starts grant
project rating submittal. Removing those elements of the corridor from the Small Starts project
scope should improve the project rating scores and the City’s chances of being recommended for
Small Starts funding. Those scope items that were removed from the Small Starts application are
no longer eligible for CIG funding, which applies only to the Small Starts scope. Several of the
items discussed in the following paragraphs are related to the RAISE scope and the funding for
those items is being requested as local funds and not CIG grant funds.
• 60% Design – Completed June 2024
• 100% Design of RAISE scope – Fall 2025
• 100% Design of CIG corridor –Fall 2026
Additional Funding Request Details
The amount budgeted for the final design of the W. Elizabeth BRT Corridor was $2,500,000,
which was estimated during 30% design.
During the 60% design phase, several scope additions were identified that were not include in the
final design budget initially. Those additional scope items include the Transit Maintenance
Facility Expansion, EV charging infrastructure, driver restroom facility and cathodic protection
relocation designs at the Foothills Transit Station, street lighting design on CSU’s main campus,
transit technology CDOT approval process, CLOMR (Conditional Letter of Map Revision),
Laurel and Meldrum intersection improvements and BRT routing optimization. The total
estimated cost of these new scope additions is $1,750,000. There were also requested scope
additions focused on protected infrastructure that were not anticipated during the 30% design,
such as a protected roundabout at Overland Trail and W. Elizabeth, protected intersections and
raised protected bike lanes. The prioritization of the protected infrastructure came from City and
CSU leadership and staff who had attended the ThinkBike Workshop presented by the Dutch
Cycling Assembly. As the design progresses to completion, funding will be needed to prepare
for Right-of-Way acquisition for the corridor. Right-of-Way services has been estimated at
$2,020,000.
Page 52 of 65
Additional design funding in the amount of $3,500,000 is being requested to finalize plans and
bid documents to 100% for the entire corridor, BRT corridor routing revision (to maximize
ridership for Small Starts grant project rating). Right-of-Way services fees are also being
requested as part of this appropriation. The following table provides a summary of the scope
items and estimated costs.
Item Amount
The requested funding breakdown is as follows:
Funding Amount
Supplemental Appropriation $5,520,000
Staff is recommending appropriation of the City’s final design local match for several reasons:
• The project funds are highly leveraged in that CSU has contributed significant funding to
the project and the City has been awarded a RAISE grant ($10.7M) for construction of
the Foothills Transit Station and Overland/W. Elizabeth roundabout.
• Having a completed final design and this project at a “shovel ready” status could help
secure construction funding.
• In line with guiding themes and principles of the City Strategic Plan:
o Multimodal Transportation & Public Transit
o Equity, Inclusion and Diversity
o Environmental Sustainability
ATTACHMENTS
1. Council Finance PowerPoint Presentation
Page 53 of 65
Headline Copy Goes Here
01-02-2025Spencer Smith, Monica Martinez
West Elizabeth 100% Design
Council Finance Committee
Page 54 of 65
Headline Copy Goes Here
2
Council Direction Sought
Is Council Finance Committee:
Supportive of an out of cycle supplemental appropriation of Capital
Investment Grant (CIG) Project Development funds
and
The required local match for completion of 100% design for the West
Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor & Right of Way Services?
Page 55 of 65
Headline Copy Goes Here
3
Project Overview
Project Features
•3 miles connecting CSU campuses and MAX
•Increased frequency along the corridor
(AM peak: 7.5 minutes)
•Raised, protected bike lanes
•ADA compliant sidewalks
Roundabout
•Floating bus stops (bike lanes separated
from vehicular traffic)
•Protected intersection
•Protected roundabout
•Electric buses
Roundabout
Page 56 of 65
Headline Copy Goes Here
4
Project Updates and Status
Design Split Into Two Components:
•Foothills Transit Station and
Overland/Elizabeth Roundabout
(RAISE Scope)
•Construction Funded w/ RAISE
Grant
•100% Design – Fall 2025
•Remaining Corridor (CIG Corridor)
•Seeking Small Starts Grant for
Construction Funding
•Separated from RAISE
Scope to Improve Project
Rating
•100% Design – Fall 2026
60% Design Completed (June 2024)
Page 57 of 65
Headline Copy Goes Here
5
Remaining Design Schedule
2025 2026 2027 2028
Task Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
90% Design
Bid Documents
ROW Acquisition
Environmental Clearances
Bidding
Construction
RAISE Grant Portion (Foothills Transit Station and Overland Trail Protected Roundabout)
Page 58 of 65
Headline Copy Goes Here
6
Remaining Design Schedule (cont.)
2025 2026 2027 2028
Task Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Rerouting BRT 30% Design
(Constitution Ave to Shields St)
90% Design
Bid Documents
ROW Acquisition
Environmental Clearances
Bidding
Construction
Remaining Corridor Portion (Overland Trail to Mason Street)
Page 59 of 65
Headline Copy Goes Here
7
Reason for Additional Design Costs
Previously Appropriated Funds
•$2.5M Original Final Design Budget
•Estimated during 30% Design
Supplemental Appropriation Request – using a portion of $8M CIG Funds
•$3.5M Additional Ask for Final Design Fee
•Includes the final design items for the RAISE project
•$2.02M Ask for Right of Way Services
•$5.52M Total Supplemental Appropriation Request
Page 60 of 65
Headline Copy Goes Here
8
Breakdown of Additional Design Costs
New Scope Additions - $1.75M
Not included in initial final design scope/fee
•Foothills Transit Station ($211k) – part of RAISE scope (Local Funding Only)
•EV Charging Design
•Restroom Facility
•Cathodic Protection Relocation Design
•Transit Maintenance Facility (TMF) Expansion ($525k)
•Expansion of existing TMF on Portner Rd. to accommodate electric BRT buses
•Street Lighting (Plum St., Myrtle St. and CSU Transit Center) ($15k)
•Transit Technology CDOT Approval Process ($73k)
•Systems Engineering Analysis and Transit Signal Priority Communication Specification
•Rerouting to Constitution/Plum/City Park ($926k)
•Requires additional design, data collection and environmental clearance efforts
Page 61 of 65
Headline Copy Goes Here
9
Breakdown of Additional Design Costs (cont.)
Advance Corridor Design to 100% - $1.75M
•Includes some tasks removed or reduced from initial final design scope
•Consultant rates were increased between 30% and final design phase (approx. 20%)
•Additional Survey ($15k)
•Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) ($53k)
•Laurel and Meldrum Intersection ($141k)
•Final Design/Bid Documents ($1.5M)
•Project management/meetings/coordination ($45k)
Right-of-Way - $2.02M
•Professional Services (appraisals, consulting, City RES oversight, etc.)
•RAISE Scope (Local Funding Only) - $230k
Page 62 of 65
Headline Copy Goes Here
10
Funding Summary
Funding Amount
Capital Investment Grant $4,046,000
2050 Transit Tax $1,460,000
Supplemental Appropriation $5,520,000
Page 63 of 65
Headline Copy Goes Here
11
Council Direction Sought
Is Council Finance Committee:
Supportive of an out of cycle supplemental appropriation of Capital
Investment Grant (CIG) Project Development funds
and
The required local match for completion of 100% design for the West
Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor & Right of Way Services?
Page 64 of 65
Page 65 of 65