Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 10/09/2012 - COMPLETE AGENDAKaren Weitkunat, Mayor Council Information Center Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3 Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Gerry Horak, District 6 on the Comcast cable system Darin Atteberry, City Manager Steve Roy, City Attorney Wanda Nelson, City Clerk The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. WORK SESSION October 9, 2012 6 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Land Use Code Amendments Relating to Multi-Family Housing-Phase 2. (staff: Laurie Kadrich, Ted Shepard, Seth Lorson, Beth Sowder; 90 minute discussion) City Council has directed staff to move forward with a three-phase approach to Land Use Code (LUC) changes for multi-family housing. Phase 1 was adopted by City Council on September 18, 2012. It included: • Adding land use standards from MMN Zone District to Article 3 (General Development Standards) to enhance compatibility between multi-family developments with existing single-family neighborhoods. • Eliminating a loophole in the NC zone district (which is intended to be a mixed- use commercial area) that allowed for developments smaller than 10 acres to be entirely multi-family housing. • The proposed operations, maintenance and security requirement was referred to the Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) process for further evaluation. The Planning and Zoning Board provided input on the Phase II recommendations, as noted in the body of this memo, without making a formal recommendation. The options presented in Phase 2 led to considerable discussion and debate by the Planning and Zoning Board members and citizens. Therefore, staff recommends that additional consideration be given to moving portions of Phase 2 to the Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) process for further evaluation and input by the public and boards. If Council agrees with that recommendation, staff would further recommend delaying the October 23 Work Session scheduled to review SHAP action items until those items referred to the SHAP process are ready for Council review and consideration. This delay would: 1. Allow further evaluation of whether the changes implemented adequately address the cumulative effects of multi-family projects. 2. Address action items from the SHAP process that were not included in Phase 1 or 2. 3. Evaluate proposals from Phase 1 or 2 that require more extensive public engagement. 3. Presentation of the City Manager’s 2013-2014 Recommended Budget. (staff: Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead; 2 hour discussion) The City Manager’s 2013-2014 Recommended Budget was delivered to City Council and the City Clerk on August 30, 2012, pursuant to provisions of Article V, Section 2 of the City Charter. In September and October City Council had a series of work sessions and two Public Hearings on the Budget to gather input from the community. Staff believes City Council will have many challenging decisions ahead with the 2013- 2014 Budget as it is finalized. The community has had more opportunity this year than in the past to provide input on the specific Offers (budget requests) under consideration. That will continue in the next couple months with the aforementioned Public Hearings and an online tool to gather citizen input. For the October 9, 2012 Work Session, staff will present summary information previously requested by Council based on the completed reviews of all seven Result Areas: • Economic Health • Environmental Health • Safe Community • Transportation • Community and Neighborhood Livability • Culture and Recreation • High Performing Government 4. Other Business. 5. Adjournment. DATE: October 9, 2012 STAFF: Laurie Kadrich, Ted Shepard, Seth Lorson, Beth Sowder Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Land Use Code Amendments Relating to Multi-Family Housing-Phase 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Council has directed staff to move forward with a three-phase approach to Land Use Code (LUC) changes for multi-family housing. Phase 1 was adopted by City Council on September 18, 2012. It included: • Adding land use standards from MMN Zone District to Article 3 (General Development Standards) to enhance compatibility between multi-family developments with existing single-family neighborhoods. • Eliminating a loophole in the NC zone district (which is intended to be a mixed-use commercial area) that allowed for developments smaller than 10 acres to be entirely multi- family housing. • The proposed operations, maintenance and security requirement was referred to the Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) process for further evaluation. The Planning and Zoning Board provided input on the Phase II recommendations, as noted in the body of this memo, without making a formal recommendation. The options presented in Phase 2 led to considerable discussion and debate by the Planning and Zoning Board members and citizens. Therefore, staff recommends that additional consideration be given to moving portions of Phase 2 to the Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) process for further evaluation and input by the public and boards. If Council agrees with that recommendation, staff would further recommend delaying the October 23 Work Session scheduled to review SHAP action items until those items referred to the SHAP process are ready for Council review and consideration. This delay would: 1. Allow further evaluation of whether the changes implemented adequately address the cumulative effects of multi-family projects. 2. Address action items from the SHAP process that were not included in Phase 1 or 2. 3. Evaluate proposals from Phase 1 or 2 that require more extensive public engagement. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does the City Council support the proposed LUC changes as presented by staff? 2. Should some or all of the recommendations be further evaluated using the SHAP? 3. Is there any other feedback from Council that staff should consider? October 9, 2012 Page 2 BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION At City Council’s direction, the Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) department analyzed what immediate measures Council could consider to help mitigate adverse impacts of current and future multi-family housing in areas adjacent to single family neighborhoods. At the August 14, 2012 City Council Work Session, staff was directed to move forward with a three- phase approach to address impacts of multi-family housing. LUC Changes - Phase 2 The principal purpose for Phase 2 is to address intensity concerns as voiced by concerned citizens and recommended in the West Central Neighborhoods Plan. The following recommendations are a result of direction provided at the August 14 Council Work Session and follow-up discussions with the City’s Land Use Code Team, staff and community members. 1. In certain zone districts, create a threshold size for multi-family developments that can be reviewed administratively (Type I hearing). Multi-family developments that are larger than a certain size must be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board (Type II hearing). In order to implement this change, new uses in the MMN, HMN, CC and CCN zone districts will have to be created: “Multi-Family, Small”; “Multi-Family, Large”. Staff proposes the threshold at 50 dwelling units. The rationale behind this number is that developments with greater than 50 units will typically have multiple buildings and create an apartment complex versus those with 50 units or less which are usually a single building on a single parcel. Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board Input The Planning and Zoning Board was in favor of the creation of a threshold size for multi- family developments, based on number of units (50 DUs) and number of bedrooms (75), for requiring either a P&Z hearing (Type II hearing) or a neighborhood meeting. The benefit to the Type II hearing is that the Board is able to weigh in with a collective effort that adds a different dimension to the decision. The benefit to the neighborhood meeting is that the public is given an opportunity to provide input on a project while it is still in the early stages of development. A neighborhood meeting is required for all projects that are subject to a Type II hearing, but a provision could be created that a neighborhood meeting is required without a Type II hearing. Additionally, some concern was expressed as to how these changes will affect affordable housing and the potential of exempting it or allowing an expedited process. 2. Citizens expressed concern that the intensity of developments incorporating 4 or 5 bedroom units create an adverse impact to the adjoining residential neighborhoods. Staff recommends that in multi-family developments limit the number of 4-bedroom units to 30% of the overall units. The proposal is based on code requirements in Iowa City (University of Iowa) where, in commercial zone districts, 3-bedroom units are limited to 30% of the development. Of the October 9, 2012 Page 3 13 multi-family projects that have recently been approved or are being constructed in Fort Collins, the only two projects with more than 30% 4+ bedroom units are The District at Campus West (63.7%) and Choice Center/The Commons (46.1%). Both these developments are dense (58 and 21 DU/Ac respectively), vertically oriented, and located in the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone. Planning and Zoning Board Input P&Z was uncertain about how 4-bedroom units relates to the problems. It would like to see more data to support the objective of reducing the number of 4-bedroom units. 3. Consider whether defining student housing by some method is needed. For example, should a student dwelling unit be defined, an overlay district formed, or a University District established? Other than on-campus dormitories and university-owned housing, there are currently no student-only housing developments in the City of Fort Collins. Staff researched over twenty communities with prominent universities and found only one that defines student housing. The City of St. Paul, Minnesota has a definition of student housing, but it is limited to single or two-family dwellings that require a “Fire Certificate of Occupancy”. Staff believes that the targeted changes to the Land Use Code, in Phase I of this effort, are sufficient to address concerns regarding compatibility. Therefore, staff is uncertain how defining student housing would benefit the community or further improve the development review process. Planning and Zoning Board Input P&Z was interested in exploring the idea of a university district, but recognized that very clear objectives and extensive outreach would be required. Some elements of a potential university district that were recognized are: compatibility, transparency regarding neighborhood character, parking, historic properties, character, and function. The outreach efforts would need to coincide with the rewriting of the Eastside/Westside Plan and the West Central Neighborhoods Plan. The Board was divided on whether defining “student housing” was appropriate; some felt strongly it was not necessary nor did it address the “problem”. Others felt that, in their experience, student housing was the “problem” and suggested a definition of “student-oriented housing”. The Board did not agree on a recommendation to this option. Based on the discussion and input from the community during the hearing, staff recommends that Council consider moving this to the SHAP. 4. Consider whether any adjustments to the TOD boundary or requirements should be made. Staff recommends that the TOD Overlay boundary remain the same. In 2006, the TOD Overlay map was authorized, and in 2007, the TOD Overlay development standards were authorized after much public debate. The TOD Overlay Zone is aimed at reducing sprawl by incentivizing infill development in central areas of town near transit, particularly Mason Corridor, and frequent destinations. Since the creation of the TOD Overlay Zone, only two multi-family projects have been approved within its boundary: The Commons and The District at Campus West. Neither of these projects has completed construction; therefore October 9, 2012 Page 4 staff thinks it is too early to determine what the impacts of the developments may on existing neighborhoods. Planning and Zoning Board Input While P&Z did not make a formal recommendation, dialog suggests that the Board does not believe an adjustment to the TOD Overlay boundary is warranted. PUBLIC OUTREACH The Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) has done extensive outreach to stakeholders since summer 2011. Six meetings in September were specifically held in order to hear feedback regarding Phase 2 LUC proposals: 9/6/12 – Affordable Housing Board 9/11/12 – Fort Collins Board of Realtors Governmental Affairs committee 9/14/12 – P&Z 9/18/12 – Northern Colorado Rental Housing Association 9/26/12 – Landmark Preservation Commission 9/27/12 – Building Review Board Prior to the September 20, 2012 P&Z meeting, the material specific to the Phase 2 proposals was emailed out to the SHAP stakeholder group of 50-60 people. At the P&Z meeting, seven members of the public provided comments (see attachment). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council consider moving forward with Phase 2 of the proposed LUC changes with the exception of Item #3. Staff further recommends that the October 23 Work Session for SHAP be delayed until January 22, 2013 in order for further evaluation of those items referred to SHAP during Phase 1 or 2. If Council agrees to move the work session to January 22, 2013, staff would suggest any further LUC proposals be ready for adoption by Council during the February 19, 2013 Hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning and Zoning Board Memo and Attachments, September 20, 2012 2. Planning and Zoning Board Notes, September 20, 2012 3. Powerpoint presentation 1 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 14, 2012 WORK SESSION – Follow-up and continuation at 9/20/12 hearing (in blue). STAFF Laurie M. Kadrich, Community Development & Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director Ted Shepard, Senior Planner Seth Lorson, City Planner SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Phase II Land Use Code changes for multi-family housing EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At City Council’s direction, the CDNS department analyzed what immediate measures Council could consider enacting to help mitigate adverse impacts of current and future multi-family housing (primarily intended as student housing) in areas adjacent to single- family neighborhoods. Staff also examined what measures need more study and a timeline when Council could expect those measures to be ready for consideration. At the August 14th City Council Work Session (report is attached), staff was directed to move forward with a three-phase approach to address impacts of multi-family housing. The section below provides direction for phase II of these Land Use Code (LUC) changes. PHASE II LUC CHANGES The principal purpose for phase II is to address intensity concerns as voiced by concerned citizens and recommended in the West Central Neighborhoods Plan. The following recommendations are a result of follow-up discussions with the City’s Land Use Code Team based on the phase II proposals presented to City Council. 1. Language from City Council Work Session AIS: Propose a maximum number of units within a development that can be heard in a Type 1 Hearing. For example, any multi-family project greater than 100 units must have a Type 2 Hearing. Staff Recommendation: In certain zone districts, create a threshold size for multi-family developments that can be reviewed administratively (Type I). Multi-family developments that are larger than a certain size must be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board (Type II). In order to implement this change, new uses in the MMN, HMN, CC and CCN zone districts will have to be created: “Multi-Family, Small”; “Multi- Family, Large”. ATTACHMENT 1 2 Staff proposes the threshold at 50 dwelling units. The rationale behind this number is that developments with greater than 50 units will typically have multiple buildings and create an apartment complex; versus those with 50 units or less which are usually a single building on a single parcel. Question: Does Planning and Zoning Board agree with this direction and does the 50 unit threshold seem reasonable? Follow up: At the September 14 work session Planning and Zoning Board agreed with the approach noted above and proposed to add a second threshold based on number of bedrooms: 50 dwelling units or 75 bedrooms. 2. Language from City Council Work Session AIS: Propose additional requirements for projects that have a certain percentage of units that are 4+ bedrooms. For example, projects that exceed 100 units and have 25% of units with 4+ bedrooms must comply with added mitigation measures. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that in multi-family developments limit the number of 4- bedroom units to 30% of the overall units. The 30% of units came from Iowa City (University of Iowa) where in commercial zone districts 3-bedroom units are limited to 30% of the development. Of the 13 multi-family projects that have recently been approved or are being constructed, the only two projects with more than 30% 4+ bedroom units are The District at Campus West (63.7%) and Choice Center/The Commons (46.1%). Both these developments are dense (58 & 21 DU/Ac respectively) and vertically oriented and located in the TOD Overlay Zone. Questions: Does Planning and Zoning Board agree with this direction and does the 30% number seem reasonable? Should the TOD Overlay be exempted from this regulation? Follow up: At the September 14 work session Planning and Zoning Board agreed with the approach noted above but proposed to reduce 30% to 25% and to exempt the TOD Overlay Zone. 3 3. Language from City Council Work Session AIS: Consider whether defining student housing by some method is needed. For example, should a student dwelling unit be defined, an overlay district formed or a University District established. Staff Recommendation: Staff is uncertain how defining student housing would benefit the community or improve the development review process. Other than on-campus dormitories and university-owned housing, there are currently no student-only housing developments in the City of Fort Collins. Staff researched over twenty communities with prominent universities and found only one that defines student housing. The city of St. Paul, Minnesota has a definition of student housing but it is limited to single or two-family dwellings that require a “Fire Certificate of Occupancy”. Staff believes that the targeted changes to the Land Use Code, in Phase I of this effort, are sufficient to address concerns regarding compatibility. Question: Does Planning and Zoning Board agree with this direction? Follow up: At the September 14, work session Planning and Zoning Board agreed on this direction for the time being but is open to possible future proposals along this line. Below is some additional information from peer communities regarding the creation of a university district (the only community we found that has created a definition of student housing is St. Paul, MN, mentioned above.): Bloomington, IN Bloomington has created a university overlay district in which there is a 33 DU/Ac maximum density. Intensity is addressed by the creation of “dwelling unit equivalents”. For example, a 3 bedroom unit is considered one dwelling unit, but a 5 bedroom unit is considered two dwelling units for purposes of calculating density. East Lansing, MI East Lansing has created a “residential rental restriction overlay district” in which single-family dwellings are required to register and adhere to requirements for six different classes of rental license. This is indicative of much of the results of the peer community research. Most universities are in the older parts of town that are surrounded by historic single- family neighborhoods and the development issues are based on single-family compatibility and rentals. Fort Collins and CSU have a bit of a different situation in that there are still opportunities for green-field development in close proximity 4 to the university campus and hence the pressure to develop large multi-family complexes. Gainesville, FL Gainesville has created two special plan areas around campus in which parking is addressed. However, there are no green-field opportunities remaining in either of these areas therefore the efforts have been to ensure that the current rental products provide adequate facilities. Greeley, CO Greeley/UNC University District is envisioned to “promote a renaissance, reinvestment and renewal of this important community area.” It seems to be the start of a sub-area plan that is based on vision and identity, not based on a tension between student housing and existing neighborhoods. Iowa City, IA Iowa City has created a “university impact area” in which one parking space per bedroom is required for multi-family housing. Manhattan, KS Manhattan has created a university overlay district but it does not address multi- family housing. It is focused on other uses that are complimentary to the campus such as commercial and retail. However, they have created a Multi-Family Redevelopment Overlay District to ensure compatibility with the older neighborhoods. 4. Language from City Council Work Session AIS: Consider whether any adjustments to the TOD boundary or requirements should be made. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the TOD Overlay boundary remain the same. In 2006, the TOD Overlay map was authorized, and in 2007, the TOD Overlay development standards were authorized, after much public debate, and is aimed at reducing sprawl by incentivizing infill development in central areas of town near transit, particularly Mason Corridor, and frequent destinations. Since the creation of the TOD Overlay Zone, only two multi-family projects have been approved within its boundary: The Commons and The District at Campus West. Neither of these projects has completed construction and thus staff thinks it is too early to determine what the impacts of the developments may on existing neighborhoods. Question: Does Planning and Zoning Board agree with this direction? 5 Follow up: At the September 14, work session Planning and Zoning Board did not have enough time to discuss possible changes to the TOD Overlay Zone boundary. Attached is a map of the TOD Overlay Zone. ATTACHMENTS 1. Map – TOD Overlay Zone and Zone Districts 2. Map – Laurel School Historic District RL RL I I CG E RL HC POL E CSU RL NCL RL E UE E D NCM MMN POL UE LMN NCM D HC LMN D POL UE NCL UE E E RL POL POL CC CCR MMN POL CSU E CC CG MMN LMN NCB LMN MMN I LMN E LMN UE CL MMN MMN RC LMN RIVERSIDE AVE WHEDBEE ST REMINGTON ST SMITH ST PETERSON ST E PITKIN ST E ELIZABETH ST LOCUST ST E PLUM ST S HOWES ST E OLIVE ST E OAK ST EDWARDS ST GARFIELD ST CIRCLE DR E MOUNTAIN AVE SMITH PL APEX DR PETERSON PL TAMASAG DR E LAUREL ST E MAGNOLIA ST GARFIELD ST W MYRTLE ST E LAKE ST MATHEWS ST S MASON ST MATHEWS ST LAUREL SCHOOL NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT O COLLEGE AV MULBERRY ST ATTACHMENT 2 1 1 Phase 2 Multi-Family Housing Land Use Code Proposals • Laurie Kadrich Director, Community Development & Neighborhood Services • Ted Shepard Senior Planner • Seth Lorson City Planner • Beth Sowder Neighborhood Services Manager City Council Work Session October 9, 2012 2 Feedback Sought From City Council: • Does the City Council support the proposed LUC changes? • Should some or all of the recommendation be further evaluated using the Student Housing Action Plan? • Is there any other feedback from Council that staff should consider? ATTACHMENT 3 2 3 Overview – Three-Phase Approach • Phase 1 MMN Standards enacted NC Zone strengthened Operations Plan referred 4 Phase 2 • Phase 2 Type 2 Hearing proposed Limit % of 4+ bdrm. Units University District TOD Boundary 3 5 Type 1 versus Type 2 Hearing • Should the Council adopt a threshold size for multi-family developments to be approved by Planning and Zoning Board rather than an Administrative Hearing Officer?  If so, is 50 Units or 75 bdrms., the “right” threshold? 6 4-Bedroom Limit • Should the number of 4+ bedroom units be limited to 30% of the total?  University of Iowa model for 3-bedroom 4 7 Definitions • University District  Add to SHAP process • Student Housing  No definition suggested 8 TOD Boundary • Staff is recommending no changes to the TOD (Transit Oriented District) boundary at this time. 5 9 Phase 3 • Phase 3 SHAP Parking Plan WCNP Prospect traffic 10 Timeline for Completion Phase 1 Completed and Referred to SHAP Phase 2 Council Hearing November 6 Referred to SHAP Phase 3 SHAP Work Session January 22, 2013 Council Hearing February 19, 2013 DATE: October 9, 2012 STAFF: Darin Atteberry Mike Beckstead Pre-taped staff presentation: none WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Presentation of the City Manager’s 2013-2014 Recommended Budget. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City Manager’s 2013-2014 Recommended Budget was delivered to City Council and the City Clerk on August 30, 2012, pursuant to provisions of Article V, Section 2 of the City Charter. In September and October City Council had a series of work sessions and two Public Hearings on the Budget to gather input from the community. Staff believes City Council will have many challenging decisions ahead with the 2013-2014 Budget as it is finalized. The community has had more opportunity this year than in the past to provide input on the specific Offers (budget requests) under consideration. That will continue in the next couple months with the aforementioned Public Hearings and an online tool to gather citizen input. For the October 9, 2012 Work Session, staff will present summary information previously requested by Council based on the completed reviews of all seven Result Areas: • Economic Health • Environmental Health • Safe Community • Transportation • Community and Neighborhood Livability • Culture and Recreation • High Performing Government BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION 1. What changes to funded and unfunded Offers might Council want? 2. Are there specific funding sources Council prefers to fund some of those Offers? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The 2013 and 2014 Budget process began following the City Council Workshop in February 2012. Since then, significant progress has been made by staff, which has led to the City Manager’s Recommended Budget. This was the fifth budget cycle where the City used process called Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) which included the following major steps: October 9, 2012 Page 2 • City Council reviewed process improvements to be implemented as part of the upcoming budget cycle and defined the key Result Areas (Outcomes) • Result Teams comprised of City staff and citizens reviewed these definitions and then developed Result Maps and Request for Results documents which were reviewed with City Council during the April 10, 2012 Council Work Session • Over 500 Offers (budget requests) were submitted and categorized in seven key Result Areas • Solicited community feedback included input in two public forums from citizens, and boards and commissions on the submitted Offers and an online budget funding tool • Results Teams reviewed offers and performance indicators, negotiated with Sellers and submitted their prioritized list of funding recommendations to the City Manager and Budget Lead Team (Executive Team) • City Manager and the Budget Lead Team reviewed Result Team recommendations and made adjustments based on the overall budget situation • The City Manager finalized the Recommended Budget and submitted it to City Council on August 30, 2012 City Council Budget Meetings The City Council has completed a series of work sessions in September that discussed the proposed 2013-2014 Budget. Each work session included staff presentations regarding specific Result Areas, followed by an opportunity for questions and discussion. This final work session has been reserved for City Council discussion regarding overall priorities, policy issues and funding allocations between Result Areas. Key dates for City Council discussions and public hearings are as follows: Meeting Date Topic COMPLETED - September 11, 2012 Work Session Presentations, Questions and Discussion: 1. Economic Health 2. Environmental Health 3. Safe Community COMPLETED - September 18, 2012 Regular Meeting Budget Public Hearing COMPLETED - September 18, 2012 Work Session Presentations, Questions and Discussion: 1. Transportation COMPLETED: September 25, 2012 Work Session Presentations, Questions and Discussion: 1. Community & Neighborhood Livability 2. Culture and Recreation 3. High Performing Government COMPLETED - October 2, 2012 Regular Meeting Budget Public Hearing October 9, 2012 Page 3 Meeting Date Topic October 9, 2012 Work Session General Discussion – Final Direction October 16, 2012 City Council Meeting First Reading of Appropriations Ordinance November 20, 2012 City Council Meeting Second Reading of Appropriations Ordinance ATTACHMENTS 1. Powerpoint presentation ATTACHMENT 1 1 1 Agenda Item #3 City Manager’s 2013-2014 Recommended Budget October 9, 2012 Work Session 2 This budget moves the City from a mindset of austerity to investment ATTACHMENT 1 2 3 Keep Fort Collins Great has allowed us to strengthen our core services and improve customer service 4 With increased stability, we can now focus on our community’s future, new possibilities, and our obligation to the next generation ATTACHMENT 1 3 5 Even with these smart investments, we still have long-term needs and challenges, namely the expiration of major funding sources 6 Summary of Available Reserves 2011 Total Comments General Fund $40.2 $0.0 Sales & Use Tax Fund 7.4 6.5 Proposed to move to General Fund in Clean‐up Keep Fort Collins Great Fund 6.3 0.5 3.1 ‐ Used in Budget, 0.5 ‐ Police KFCG Reserve Transportation 13.2 8.0 Harmony Road Capital Proj & Other Govt Funds 61.3 0.0 Utilities Funds * 154.2 0.0 All assiged to capital per policy but available Internal Services/Other Funds 11.9 0.0 In the budget: 0.5 of IT, 3.3 of Benefits, 1.2 of Self Insurance $294.5 $15.0 * Excludes Non‐Liquid Capital Available (after uses in the budget) $6.5 Available for One-Time Use…. City Manager Recommends $5.7M for North College & $.7 for the Integrated Recycling Facility ATTACHMENT 1 4 7 Building Community Choices (BCC) Community Enhancements • All projects committed to have been completed • Excess revenues of $4.2M may be used for capital projects approved by City Council • North College Improvements – Phase III: $1.9M • Natural Resources Resource Center Overpass: 1.2 • Integrated Recycling Facility: • Downtown Poudre River recreation & habitat 0.3 • Community Gateways: 0.1 Total Used within Recommended Budget $3.5M BCC Funds Available $0.7M Residual BCC Funds Support Additional Community Initiatives 8 Building On Basics (BOB) Final projects included in the Building on Basics tax initiative are included in the 2013-2014 Recommended Budget. • Senior Center Expansion: $4.7M • Timberline Road Improvements (Drake to Prospect): 3.5 • Intersection Improvements and Traffic Signals: 0.8 • Pedestrian Plan & Disability Access Improvements: 0.6 • Bicycle Plan Implementation: 0.3 Total Building on Basics Expenditures $ 9.9M • Recreation Fund Contribution to the Senior Center 0.5 Total $10.4M On Track to Deliver All Projects Defined in the Ballot Initiative ATTACHMENT 1 5 9 Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG) Summary* • Street Maintenance and Repair – About $7.0M per year • Included in the budget for arterial, collector and residential streets • Other Transportation Needs - $3.6M per year • Includes funding for the City Bridge Program, Fort Collins Bicycling Program, median & alley maintenance, Safe Routes to School, and capital equipment • Police Services - $3.6M per year • Funds all previous police staffing hired with KFCG money, as well as additional staffing for a crime analyst, property & evidence tech, investigative services specialist, and Campus West District 6 staffing • Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) - $2.3M per year • Provides funding for PFA Emergency Operations & electronic data management • Parks Maintenance and Recreation Services - $2.3M per year • Funds a wide array of community services including Memorial Parks, Mulberry Pool, recreation scholarships, neighborhood parks, & Senior Center to name a few • Other Community Priorities - $2.3M per year • Includes funding for number of environmental initiatives like the Poudre River, climate adaptation planning, Road to Zero waste and green purchasing, as well as various investments in economic health * Dollar values represent ongoing revenues; excludes use of KFCG reserves 10 Outcome Offer # and Title 2013 2014 Funding Source Econ 6.8 KFCG Support Art Incubator of the Rockies $50 $60 KFCG Other Community Enviro 9.7 Environmental Services Operational Enhancements 48 48 General Fund Enviro 104.3 KFCG ENHANCEMENT: ClimateWise 81 87 KFCG Other Community Safe 116.1 Replace Electric Design Software 750 0 L&P Reserves Safe 173.2 KFCG: Park Rangers for City Parks and Trails 180 142 KFCG Parks & Rec Trans 106.5 KFCG: FC Walks, City Walking Program 40 91 KFCG Other Trans Trans 107.4 KFCG: Great Green Street / Reshaping Streets Implementation 450 0 KFCG Other Trans CNL 80.9 Increased Multicultural Support 15 15 General Fund CNL 236.1 Community Garden Outreach Program 113 54 General Fund Culture 49.5 ENHANCEMENT: Senior Center Expansion 1,000 0 BCC Culture 50.5 Poudre School District After-hours Program 67 67 General Fund Culture 103.1 The Great Lawn 830 0 BCC HPG 33.4 KFCG: Enterprise Call Distribution Center 50 7 KFCG Other Community ($ in thousands) Unfunded Offers with Council Interest • 4 Large one-time offers $3,030 • 4 GF offers $ 243 $ 184 • 3 KFCG Other Community offers $ 181 $ 154 • 1 KFCG Other Transp offers $ 40 $ 91 • 1KFCG Parks & Rec offer $ 180 $ 142 ATTACHMENT 1 6 11 • Mulberry Bridge $550k - $750k • I25 / 392 Signage $100k • Airport $ TBD • COP General Fund Payments $403k & $391k • Water & Air Quality Mulberry Pool $450k • 2012 Election Costs $300k • New Utilities Building $ TBD Future Funding Issues Not Included Risks & Unanticipated Expenditures may Require the Use of Revenue Opportunities & Reserves 12 • Unfund Offers Recommended for Funding • Scalability of Offers - modify funding • CDOT Bike Grant - $30k 2013, $75K 2014 • KFCG Other Community Priorities - $200k 2014 • Additional Sales & Use Revenue 2012 - $300K ongoing GF • Increase Sales Tax Revenue Forecast – ongoing – $136K to General Fund for each .25% • Reserves – one time Additional Funding Opportunities ATTACHMENT 1 7 13 Questions? 14 Back up Slides ATTACHMENT 1 8 15 Total 2013 – 2014 Budget ($ millions) Adopted Amended Budget Budget 2012 2012 2013 2014 Total City Appropriations $455.6 $500.3 $483.1 $490.4 % Changed (from adopted 2012 / prior year) 6.0% 1.5% Net City Budget $360.9 $398.8 $385.7 $392.4 % Changed (from adopted 2012 / prior year) 6.9% 1.7% Explanation of Change - 2013 from adopted 2012: • Capital Projects 7.3 • Purchased Power from PRPA 5.1 • Use of KFCG Reserves 1.8 • Economic Partnerships 2.1 • Compensation 2.2 • FTE Increase 2.8 • Other Enhancements Purchased 3.5 Increase in Budget Driven Primarily by Capital Projects and Purchased Power 16 Fund Balance Summary Healthy Fund Balances….All Exceed Policy Minimums Fund Balance Fund Balance Fund Balance FUND 12/31/12 12/31/13 12/31/14 General Fund $40.5 $41.2 $41.2 Keep Fort Collins Great Fund 6.3 4.5 4.1 Transportation Fund 10.1 9.5 9.2 Capital Projects Fund 4.7 2.0 0.5 Other Governmental Funds 41.8 38.4 38.2 Light & Power Fund * 172.6 177.4 181.5 Water Fund * 255.6 258.5 261.3 Wastewater Fund * 141.1 143.1 144.5 Stormwater Fund * 97.3 104.4 111.4 Internal Service Funds 23.6 20.5 17.7 Other Funds 34.5 34.1 32.6 TOTAL $828.1 $833.6 $842.2 Note: 1) Dollars are shown in Millions. 2) Fund balance is composed of unrestricted, restricted, and non-liquid assets. The fund balance of funds with an asterisk include non-liquid capital assets such as land and buildings. ATTACHMENT 1 9 17 Average Return Unfunded Liability Supplemental Cash • 4.8% $27.8M $68.7M • 5.8% $20.2M $57.6M • 6.8% (Baseline) $13.8M $33.6M - $1.1M yr 2013-42 • 7.8% $ 8.5M $16.6M • 8.8% $ 3.9M $ 9.4M The City owns the Investment Return Risk for the Plan GERP Unfunded Liability & Investment Yield Sensitivity 18 FTE Enhancement Summary • Development Review – 4.5 FTE • This FTE is funded by revenue associated with increased development review activity and is needed to ensure a high level of customer service • Police Services funded via KFCG – 7.0 FTE • Per the commitment to voters, the KFCG Police funding is hiring staff to contribute to a safe community. This includes staffing for Campus West District 6. • Information Technology (IT) Support – 6.0 FTE • Significant projects with critical IT infrastructure are underway (AMI and MAX/BRT), as well as needed investment in security and data warehousing for initiatives like performance measurement reporting • Other Self Funded Positions – 2.0 FTE • A Sales Tax Auditor and Risk Management Technician is recommended and will be funded through additional sales tax revenue & worker’s compensation claims reduction • Other Staffing – 11.4 FTE • Includes increases for Historic Preservation, Adaptive Recreation, Green Purchasing, Grant Compliance, Sustainability Services, Legal Services and HR ATTACHMENT 1 10 19 Overtime Tracking 20 Historical Overtime by Service Area RDR MMN RL MMN LMN MMN NCM HMN E POL E RC NC CSU LMN UE NC NC NCL NCB UE RL LMN CCN MMN POL NC NC POL POL NC MMN MMN MMN MMN NC NC MMN LMN MMN RL MMN CCR POL RL LMN CCR E NC POL MMN NC CL T MMN LMN MMN LMN LMN POL LMN LMN MMN CSU MMN POL LMN NC LMN LMN MMN RL NCB CCR NCB LMN POL NCB POL RL LMN LMN LMN LMN UE LMN RDR LMN LMN UE T CCR LMN LMN POL HMN CS LMN NCB RL NCB T NCB T LMN LMN LMN NCB LMN POL CG LMN POL CG S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD S COLLEGE AVE S LEMAY AVE E VINE DR W DRAKE RD LAPORTE AVE E DRAKE RD W MULBERRY ST W PROSPECT RD RIVERSIDE AVE W HARMONY RD W VINE DR E MULBERRY ST E PROSPECT RD W HORSETOOTH RD E LINCOLN AVE E HORSETOOTH RD E HARMONY RD N SHIELDS ST 9TH ST N COLLEGE AVE N TAFT HILL RD S LEMAY AVE S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD S COLLEGE AVE W DRAKE RD E DRAKE RD S LEMAY AVE W MULBERRY ST RIVERSIDE AVE E PROSPECT RD E LINCOLN AVE REMINGTON ST S MASON ST W LAUREL ST W MOUNTAIN AVE S LEMAY AVE MMN Transit-Oriented and Development Zone Districts (TOD) Overlay Zone © Legend TOD Overlay Zone Parcels with Account City Zoning ZONE Community Commercial (CC) Community Commercial North College (CCN) Community Commercial Poudre River (CCR) General Commercial (CG) Limited Commercial (CL) Service Commercial (CS) CSU Downtown (D) Employment (E) Harmony Corridor (HC) Industrial (I) High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (HMN) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (NCL) Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) Public Open Lands (POL) River Conservation (RC) River Downtown Redevelopment (RDR) Residential Foothills (RF) Low Density Residential (RL) Transition (T) Urban Estate (UE) 0 0.225 0.45 0.9 Miles