Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 10/18/2011 - COMPLETE AGENDAKaren Weitkunat, Mayor Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem Council Chambers Ben Manvel, District 1 City Hall West Lisa Poppaw, District 2 300 LaPorte Avenue 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 Krajicek, 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. Assisted hearing devices are available to the public for Council meetings. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING October 18, 2011 Proclamations and Presentations 5:30 p.m. A. Proclamation Declaring October 2011 as Disability Awareness Month. B. Proclamation Declaring October 18, 2011 as United Way of Larimer County’s Give, Advocate, and Volunteer Day. Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER. 2. ROLL CALL. Page 2 3. AGENDA REVIEW: CITY MANAGER 4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (limited to 30 minutes) 5. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOLLOW-UP This is an opportunity for the Mayor or Councilmembers to follow-up on issues raised during Citizen Participation. CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar consists of Items 6 through 15. This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this Calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately under Item No. 22, Pulled Consent Items. The Consent Calendar consists of: ! Ordinance on First Reading that are routine ! Ordinances on Second Reading that are routine ! Those of no perceived controversy ! Routine administrative actions. NON-BUDGET CONSENT ITEMS 6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the September 20, 2011 Regular Meeting. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the Veterans Plaza Project at Spring Canyon Community Park. The Veterans Plaza at Spring Canyon Community Park creates a public venue, bringing community members together to recognize and commemorate the sacrifices and dedication of service members who have served our country. The plaza is located on approximately three acres of land near the main entrance of the Park at Horsetooth Road. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 4, 2011, will appropriate funding in the amount of $60,000 for the final phase of the Veterans Plaza project. Individuals who wish to make comments regarding items scheduled on the Consent Calendar or wish to address the Council on items not specifically scheduled on the agenda must first be recognized by the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem. Before speaking, please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The timer will buzz once when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. The timer will buzz again at the end of the speaker’s time. Each speaker is allowed 5 minutes. If there are more than 6 individuals who wish to speak, the Mayor may reduce the time allowed for each individual. ! State your name and address for the record. ! Applause, outbursts or other demonstrations by the audience are not allowed ! Keep comments brief; if available, provide a written copy of statement to City Clerk Page 3 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2011, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements Related to the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project (Phase V). Right-of-way acquisition continues for the Mason Express Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 4, 2011, pertains to the final acquisition phase of the BRT Project and is comprised of 15 separate properties ready for the acquisition stage. The City Council authorization specified by this Ordinance begins the first step of the City’s acquisition process for the property interests within this phase. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2011, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code to Expand the Types of Registered Electors Who Automatically Receive Mail Ballots, and to Require the City to Pay the Postage Due for Ballots Returned by Mail. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 4, 2011, amends the City Code to require that ballots in a City mail ballot election be mailed to inactive registered electors who voted in the last presidential election in addition to all active registered electors. In addition, the Code will be amended to require that the City pay postage on all voted ballots returned by mail. Both amendments are anticipated to increase voter participation. This Ordinance has been amended on Second Reading to add language clarifying that ballots will be mailed to inactive registered electors with a status designation of “inactive-failed to vote”, but who voted in the last presidential election. 10. Postponement of Second Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2011, Amending the Appeals Procedure Contained in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code Relating to the Procedures for Hearing Appeals to the City Council to December 20, 2011. This item is being postponed to December 20, 2011 to allow time for public outreach. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement for the Financing by Lease-Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment and Appropriating the Amount Needed for Such Purpose. This Ordinance authorizes the Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease-purchase agreement with Pinnacle Public Finance for the lease-purchase of vehicles and equipment. The cost of the items to be lease-purchased is $1,495,000. Payments at the 2.35% interest rate will not exceed $ 317,787 in 2012. Money for 2012 lease-purchase payments is included in the 2012 budget. The effect of the debt position for the purpose of financial rating of the City will be to raise the total City debt by 0.8%. A competitive process was used to select Pinnacle Public Finance for this lease. Staff believes acceptance of this lease rate is in the City's best interest. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2011, Amending Section 2-338 of the City Code Pertaining to the Duties and Functions of the Parks and Recreation Board. This Ordinance will modify the duties of the Parks and Recreation Board as contained in Section 2-338 of the City Code to broaden the scope of the Parks and Recreation Board’s functions to allow the Board to promote awareness and appreciation of the value of parks and recreation as a resource contributing to the quality of Fort Collins. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2011, Amending Chapter 23, Article V, of the City Code to Add New Provisions Related to the Naming of City Properties and Facilities. This Ordinance establishes a process for the City Council’s responsibilities in the naming of City facilities or properties. The process defines how appropriate names are selected when a facility is to be named for a person (living or dead), or for an organization (e.g., foundations) or corporations. This Page 4 Ordinance establishes Council’s role in such facility naming and establishes the City Manager’s authority to name other facilities. In addition to this Ordinance, an Administrative Policy is outlined which establishes staff’s role in the naming of facilities in other circumstances. 14. Resolution 2011-093 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Grant Award and Agreement with the U.S. Department of Transportation for a Grant Pertaining to the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport. This Resolution authorizes the City Manager to execute a grant agreement with the United States Department of Transportation. The grant is in the amount of $221,500. The grant will be used to fund the Airport’s efforts to address the air service needs of the community through completion of an air service development, communications and marketing plan for the Airport and development of a plan for the wingless flight program. BUDGET CONSENT ITEM 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2011, Authorizing the Appropriation of 2012 Fiscal Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport. The 2012 annual operating budget for the Airport totals $779,550, and will be funded from Airport operating revenues, contributions from the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland ($85,000 from each city), and interest earnings. This Ordinance authorizes the City of Loveland to appropriate the City of Fort Collins contribution, which is a 50% share of the 2012 Airport budget and totals $389,775. This Ordinance also appropriates the City’s 50% share of capital funds, totaling $608,500 for the Airport from federal and state grants; contributions from Fort Collins and Loveland; and the Airport General Fund. Most of the 2012 Airport capital funds, totaling $1,217,000, will be used to continue major Airport improvements such as taxiway and apron rehabilitation and some funds are slated for utility master planning and design engineering to accommodate Airport business development. END CONSENT 16. Consent Calendar Follow-up. This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar. 17. Staff Reports. 18. Councilmember Reports. Page 5 DISCUSSION ITEMS The method of debate for discussion items is as follows: ! Mayor introduces the item number and subject; asks if formal presentation will be made by staff ! Staff presentation (optional) ! Mayor requests citizen comment on the item (five-minute limit for each citizen) ! Council questions of staff on the item ! Council motion on the item ! Council discussion ! Final Council comments ! Council vote on the item Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Mayor, to ensure all citizens have an opportunity to speak. Please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will buzz again at the end of the speaker’s time. BUDGET DISCUSSION ITEMS 19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2011, Making Annual Appropriations for the Downtown Development Authority for the Fiscal Year 2012 and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2012. (staff: Matt Robenalt, Kathy Cardona; 10 minute discussion) The Annual Appropriation Ordinance for the Downtown Development Authority is presented for First Reading. Ordinance No. 137, 2011, sets the Downtown Development Authority 2012 budget amount of $814,380 to be appropriated for fiscal year 2012 for the administrative operations budget; sets the amount of $1,652,346 for debt service payments to be appropriated for fiscal year 2012; and sets the 2012 Mill Levy for the Fort Collins, Downtown Development Authority at five (5) mills, unchanged since 2002. The approved budget becomes the Downtown Development Authority’s financial plan for 2012. This Ordinance does not appropriate funds for projects or programs of the DDA funded with bond proceeds. Examples of projects and programs funded with bond proceeds include annual holiday light display, facade improvements, the enhanced alley annual maintenance costs, ice rink, and participation in the river district improvement projects, etc. 20. Items Relating to Utility Rates, Fees and Charges for 2012. (staff: Brian Janonis, Ellen Switzer; 30 minute discussion) A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Water Rates and Charges. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Water Plant Investment Fees. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Wastewater Rates, Fees and Charges. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Sewer Plant Investment Fees. Page 6 E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Rates, Fees and Charges. F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Development Fees and Charges. G. First Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Stormwater Plant Investment Fees. The following overall monthly rate increases are recommended for 2012. % Increase Water 6.0% Wastewater 8.0% Electric 8.3% The water and wastewater rate increases are across the board to all customer classes. There is no change in the monthly rate for stormwater. City Council has requested additional data and time to study proposed changes to the electric residential energy service rate (hereafter referred to as “RESR”). Staff will return to Council on November 15, 2011, to recommend changes to the RESR. All other electric rates are included in the electric rate increase referenced above. The electric rate increases are proposed to vary by customer class from 3.9% to 15.9%. The proposed changes will impact individual electric customers more or less than the customer class averages. With the water and wastewater rate changes contained in the proposed ordinances, a typical single family customer’s monthly bill will increase $4.44 from $138.66 to $143.10 or 3.2%. If revisions to the RESR are approved by Council at a later date, the typical residential customer will likely see an additional increase in costs. The later change will depend on the rate form option preferred by City Council. Changes to the water and wastewater plant investment fees and electric development fees will also go into effect if the proposed ordinances are approved. A 4.7% increase in water plant investment fees (PIFs) and a 1.2% increase in stormwater PIFs are proposed. A 3% reduction in wastewater PIFs is recommended. On average, electric development fees will increase from 1% - 3.5% for residential and decrease less than 1% for commercial. Several additional Code modifications and clarifications are also contained in the ordinances above. NON-BUDGET DISCUSSION ITEM 21. Resolution 2011-094 Directing Certain Actions Be Taken to Improve Coordination and Consultation Between the City and Platte River Power Authority in Connection with the Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Substation Transmission Line Project and for Future Projects. (staff: John Stokes, Steve Catanach, Ginger Purvis; 30 minute discussion) This Resolution directs the City Manager and City Attorney to take certain follow up actions in light of recent discussions and analysis related to the Platte River Power Authority Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Substation Transmission Line Project. The City Council discussed this issue at its adjourned meeting on October 11, 2011, and the Resolution calls for follow up work to: (1) address impacts from the proposed Project; (2) develop a set of policies and procedures for planning and consultation related to future Platte River projects; and (3) improve the City’s level of involvement in future infrastructure and specific project planning by Platte River. The Resolution also directs the City Manager to provide a copy of the Resolution to Platte River and the other Platte River member cities. Page 7 22. Pulled Consent Items. 23. Other Business. 24. Adjournment. Every Council meeting will end no later than 10:30 p.m., except that: (1) any item of business commenced before 10:30 p.m. may be concluded before the meeting is adjourned and (2) the City Council may, by majority vote, extend a meeting until no later than 12:00 a.m. for the purpose of considering additional items of business. Any matter which has been commenced and is still pending at the conclusion of the Council meeting, and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting which have not yet been considered by Council, will be continued to the next regular Council meeting and will be placed first on the discussion agenda for such meeting. Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Vice-President 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 Gerry Horak, District 6 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 on the Comcast cable system Darin Atteberry, City Manager Steve Roy, City Attorney Wanda Krajicek, 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. SKYVIEW SOUTH GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 15 MEETING October 18, 2011 (after the Regular Council Meeting) 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. First Reading of Ordinance No. 002, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 for the Fiscal Year 2012 and Directing the Secretary of the District to Certify Such Levy to the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County. (staff: Mike Beckstead; 5 minute discussion) The sum of $24,615 is anticipated to be collected from the mill levy of 10.0 mills for fiscal year 2012. The total amount will be used to maintain and repair roads in the Skyview subdivision. 4. Other Business. 5. Adjournment. SKYVIEW SOUTH GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AGENDA WITHDRAWN Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Vice-President 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 Gerry Horak, District 6 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 on the Comcast cable system Darin Atteberry, City Manager Steve Roy, City Attorney Wanda Krajicek, 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. GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 MEETING October 18, 2011 (after the Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 Meeting) 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. First Reading of Ordinance No. 061, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the General Improvement District No. 1 for the Fiscal Year 2012; Directing the Secretary of the District to Certify Such Levy to the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County and Making the Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Appropriation. (staff: Mike Beckstead; 5 minute discussion) The sum of $249,000 is anticipated to be collected from the mill levy of 4.924 mills for fiscal year 2012. Additional revenue for the General Improvement District (GID) No. 1 from sources like automobile specific ownership taxes, ad valorem taxes, and interest earnings are anticipated to total $54,179. The total 2012 revenue for GID No. 1 is expected to be $303,179. 4. Resolution No. 022 Adopting the General Improvement District No. 1 Capital Improvements Plan. (staff: Clark Mapes; 20 minute discussion) City Council serves as the Board of Directors of General Improvement District No. 1 (the GID). The GID is a property tax district formed by property owners in 1976 to fund parking, pedestrian, and street beautification improvements to enhance the Downtown as a business and commercial area. The City’s Advance Planning Department has developed a new Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) to guide the use of the GID’s revenues, from 2012 going forward about 15 years. GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AGENDA October 18, 2011 5. First Reading of Ordinance No. 062, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Improvement District fund for the Downtown Wayfinding Sign System Project. (staff: Clark Mapes; 15 minute discussion) This Ordinance appropriates $500,000 from the General Improvement District No. 1 (GID No. 1) Fund Balance for fabrication and installation of a Downtown Wayfinding Sign System. Schematic design of a sign system was done in 2009, and this appropriation is the next step toward implementation. The appropriation will be used to hire a sign company to develop final design and construction details, and then fabricate and install signs, in collaboration and coordination with the City’s Traffic Operations sign shop. Depending on final design decisions, the City’s sign shop may prove able to fabricate and install some of the signs, with some of the appropriated funds used to cover those costs. Installation will occur in 2012. 6. Other Business. 7. Adjournment. Karen 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 Krajicek, 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 18, 2011 after the General Improvement District No. 1 Meeting 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Presentation of the City Manager's Recommended 2012 Budget Revision Requests. (staff: Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead; 2 hour discussion) The purpose of this work session is to review the 2012 Budget Revision Requests to be considered for inclusion in the 2012 Annual Appropriation Ordinance. The Ordinance will be considered on First Reading on October 18, 2011. This is a continuation of the work session agenda from October 11, 2011. 3. Other Business. 4. Adjournment. PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, the City wants to recognize the valuable contribution citizens with disabilities make to this community; and WHEREAS, the month of October is National Disability Awareness Month and National Disability Employment Awareness Month; and WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins is interested in the welfare of, and improving the quality of life for, citizens with disabilities; and WHEREAS, the City wants to encourage businesses, individual citizens and the community- at-large to promote full inclusion for citizens with disabilities in work and recreation in the community. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby proclaim the month of October 2011 as DISABILITY AWARENESS MONTH in the city of Fort Collins and ask the citizens to recognize and include in all activities, all citizens with disabilities. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins this 18th day of October, A.D. 2011. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, for over 50 years United Way has strived to ensure that our community’s important health and human service needs are met in an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust; and WHEREAS, the historic roles of United Way include providing leadership in identifying and prioritizing health and human service issues in Larimer County, and conducting major fundraising campaigns to support solutions for those needs in our communities; and WHEREAS, the partnership role between the community at large and United Way of Larimer County is broadening to include an emphasis on community solutions, charitable giving and volunteer contributions; and WHEREAS, Fort Collins ranks 5th in volunteering among mid-size cities; and WHEREAS, United Way of Larimer County strives to improve our local community through its nationally recognized Make a Difference Day, as well as through the annual fundraising campaign. NOW THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby proclaim October 18, 2011 as United Way of Larimer County’s Give, Advocate, and Volunteer Day in Fort Collins and I urge all citizens of Larimer County to become actively involved in supporting United Way, through its campaign and volunteer initiatives. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins this 18th day of October, A.D. 2011. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk DATE: October 18, 2011 STAFF: Wanda Krajicek AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6 SUBJECT Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the September 20, 2011 Regular Meeting. September 20, 2011 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, September 20, 2011, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and Weikunat. Councilmembers Absent: Horak Staff Members Present: Williams, Harris, Roy. Agenda Review Assistant City Manager Williams noted a revised version of Resolution 2011-090 for Item No. 24 Documenting and Presenting the City Council’s Comments on the North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement was included in the Read Before the Meeting packet. Citizen Participation Mel Hilgenberg, 172 North College, supported Bas Bleu Theater and the Fort Collins Symphony and urged Council to support the jail sales tax extension on the November ballot. Cheryl Distaso, Center for Justice, Peace, and Environment, gave an update on the Wood Street mobile home park redevelopment and urged community support of the residents. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the financing of the RMI2 building and Mike Freeman’s role in the financing. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the August 23, 2011, Adjourned Meeting and the August 31, 2011, Special Meeting. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 2011, Repealing Section 2-575 of the City Code Relating to the Compensation of Councilmembers. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 6, 2011, repeals the City Code provision relating to Council compensation. This section is unnecessary because 41 September 20, 2011 the method for adjusting compensation is set out in the City Charter, and such adjustment is accomplished through administrative action of the City Manager. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 111, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds. The purpose of this annual “clean-up” Ordinance is to combine dedicated revenues or reserves that need to be appropriated before the end of the year to cover the related expenses that were not anticipated and, therefore, not included in the 2011 budget. The unanticipated revenue is primarily from fees, charges, rents, contributions and grants that have been paid to City departments to offset specific expenses. Prior year reserves are primarily being appropriated for unanticipated operation expenses from reserves that are set aside for that purpose. This Ordinance, adopted on First Reading on September 6, 2011, by a vote of 5-1 (nays: Horak) appropriates prior year reserves and unanticipated revenue in various City funds. 9. Items Relating to Updates, Amendments, Deletions and Additions to Chapter 17 of the City Code. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2011, Amending Article V of Chapter 17 of the City Code Pertaining to Abandoned Refrigerators and Similar Items. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2011, Adding a Section to Article IV of Chapter 17 of the City Code Pertaining to the Violation of Court Orders. C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2011, Amending Articles VII and VIII of Chapter 17 of the City Code Pertaining to Disorderly Conduct, Harassment and Public Indecency. D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2011, Adding a New Section in Article VII of Chapter 17 of the City Code Pertaining to Graffiti Crimes. E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2011, Amending Article VII of Chapter 17 of the City Code Pertaining to Loitering. F. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2011, Adding a New Section to Article VII of Chapter 17 of the City Code Pertaining to Staying on Medians Prohibited. G. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 118, 2011, Amending Article III of Chapter 17 of the City Code Pertaining to Jurisdictional Amount of Various Criminal Offenses. To maintain continuity with federal law, the revised statutes for the State of Colorado, and the needs of citizens of Fort Collins, the Fort Collins City Code must be regularly updated through amendments, deletions, and the creation of new ordinances. These Ordinances, 42 September 20, 2011 unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 6, 2011, will allow law enforcement to more effectively and efficiently protect and serve the citizens of Fort Collins. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 2011 Amending Various Provisions of the Fort Collins Traffic Code. The Colorado General Assembly amended certain statutory provisions this legislative session relating to state traffic laws. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 6, 2011, ensures that the Fort Collins Traffic Code is consistent with state traffic laws. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2011, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 6, 2011, makes various changes, additions and clarifications in the 2011 annual update of the Land Use Code. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of a Tract of Stormwater Utility Property to Kevin P. Caffrey and Julia J. Caffrey. In 1992, the final plat of Clarendon Hills Fifth Filing dedicated Tract E to the City of Fort Collins for the purposes of storm drainage, flood plain management and Department of Parks and Recreation use. The intended purpose of the Parks and Recreation use was for a bike trail. In 1998, the location of the bike trail was changed to be adjacent to Shields Street. To accommodate this change, the City acquired Tracts A, B, and D of Clarendon Hills Fifth Filing for the bike trail that has been constructed and is now in use. Due to the City’s change of use for Tract E, the adjacent property owners, Kevin and Julia Caffrey, have expressed an interest to obtain the portion of Tract E that abuts their property at 5424 Hilldale Court. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 6, 2011, authorizes the conveyance to the Caffreys of two small triangular areas in Tract E, totaling 547 square feet in area, that are outside the erosion buffer limits, the City’s floodway, and therefore are not required for flood plain management or for storm drainage by the City. 13. Items Relating to the Upgrade of the Computer Aided, Dispatch, Records Management and Jail Management System. A. Resolution 2011-085 Approving an Exemption to the Use of a Competitive Process for a Contract with Tiburon, Inc. For System Upgrades to the Computer Aided Dispatch, Records Management and Jail Management System. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for the Building on Basics Police Computer Aided Dispatch, Records Management and Jail Management System Upgrade. 43 September 20, 2011 This Resolution authorizes Fort Collins Police Services to upgrade the current Computer Aided, Dispatch, Records Management and Jail Management System (CAD/RMS/JMS) systems (software, hardware and project manager costs) through Tiburon, Inc. which will allow the CRISP (Combined Regional Information Sharing Project) agencies to bring the current CAD/RMS/JMS system up-to-date. The current version of CAD/RMS/JMS is outdated and does not operate in the latest Windows or Internet Explorer environments. The Ordinance authorizes the appropriation of funds needed to complete this project. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2011, Amending Section 2-637 of the City Code to Expand the Financial Disclosure Requirements for Members of the City Council, the City Manager, and the City Attorney. The Ordinance expands the financial disclosure requirements for City Council candidates, the elected City Council, City Manager, and City Attorney to include any and all interests in real property by the person making disclosure or the person’s spouse, regardless of whether the property is held for the purpose of resale and profit, as currently required. 15. Items Relating to Turfgrass and Updating Related City Code References. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2011, Amending Article IV of Chapter 20 of the City Code Regarding Weeds, Grass and Rubbish. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2011, Amending Article VII of Chapter 12 of the City Code Regarding Resource Conservation. I n an effort to promote water conservation, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and provide options for Fort Collins residents who are interested in using water-wise turfgrass, these Code amendments allow certain grass types to be exempt from the current six inch height limit. The grass types that would be exempt are Blue Grama and Buffalograss, and they would have a height limit of twelve inches. 16. Items Relating to Civil Infraction and Abatement Procedures. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2011, Amending Article V of Chapter 19 of the City Code Pertaining to Rules for Civil Infractions and Making Editorial Corrections to Article V. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2011, Adding a Section in Article IV of Chapter 20 of the City Code to Allow for an Appeal Process to Contest the Assessment of Costs of Weed and Rubbish Abatements and Making Editorial Corrections to Article IV. The amendments to Article V of Chapter 19 of the City Code will allow staff to make payment plan arrangements with defendants for the amount due for civil infractions, and to 44 September 20, 2011 extend a defendant’s timeframe within which to satisfy judgment after a final hearing to a reasonable period of time beyond thirty days. The amendments to Article IV of Chapter 20 of the City Code will provide the option of an appeal process for weed and/or rubbish abatement invoices with the Director of Community Development & Neighborhood Services (CDNS) or with the Municipal Court Referee which is consistent with the appeal process for sidewalk snow removal abatements. 17. Resolution 2011-086 Authorizing the Initiation of Exclusion Proceedings of Annexed Properties Within the Territory of the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District and the Territory of the Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District. This Resolution authorizes the City Attorney to file a petition in Larimer County District Court to exclude properties annexed into the City in 2010 from the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District and the Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District in accordance with state law and to allow for the provision of fire protection services to such properties by the Poudre Fire Authority. 18. Resolution 2011-087 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Leistikow Annexation. The applicants, Wayne B. and Janice E. Leistikow, the property owners, have submitted a written petition requesting annexation of 18.035 acres located on the east side of South Timberline North Road, and on the south side of Trilby Road. The property contains a single family detached home approved in Larimer County under FA-1 zoning as part of the Leistikow Minor Residential Division approved in 1992. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE – Urban Estate. The parcel to the north is the Westchase P.U.D., zoned L-M-N and U-E and annexed into the City of Fort Collins in 2001. The properties to the east, south and west are currently zoned FA-1 and located in Larimer County. 19. Resolution 2011-088 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Courtney Annexation. The applicants, C. Scott and Nancy E. Courtney, the property owners, have submitted a written petition requesting annexation of 3.13 acres located east of Ziegler Road and south of East Horsetooth Road. The property is Lot 3 of the Strobel M.R.D. and is addressed as 3256 Nite Court, which is at the east end of Charlie Lane. Portions of street right-of-way for Nite Court and Charlie Lane are included in the annexation boundary. The property is developed and is in the FA1 - Farming District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE – Urban Estate. The surrounding properties are currently zoned FA1 – Farming in the Larimer County to the north, east and south; and, UE – Urban Estate in the City to the west. 45 September 20, 2011 20. Resolution 2011-089 Extending the Deadline for the City and Town of Windsor to Take Certain Actions Required by the Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange. On December 21, 2010, the City Council approved an intergovernmental agreement with the Town of Windsor pertaining to the development of the I-25 interchange at the intersection of State Highway 392. The IGA states that the City and Windsor will take certain actions to implement the IGA by March 31, 2011. On March 15, 2011, Council extended the deadline for all actions to be taken under Section 4.2.2, 4.3.1 and 4.3.8 of the IGA to June 7, 2011. On May 17, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution 2011-041, extending the deadline for staff of both municipalities to complete their studies and public outreach until September 20, 2011. The staff of both municipalities recommend that the September 20, 2011, deadline be further extended to December 6, 2011, in order to allow additional time to complete their studies and public outreach and make their recommendations. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Chief Deputy City Clerk Harris. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 2011, Repealing Section 2-575 of the City Code Relating to the Compensation of Councilmembers. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 111, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds. 9. Items Relating to Updates, Amendments, Deletions and Additions to Chapter 17 of the City Code. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2011, Amending Article V of Chapter 17 of the City Code Pertaining to Abandoned Refrigerators and Similar Items. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2011, Adding a Section to Article IV of Chapter 17 of the City Code Pertaining to the Violation of Court Orders. C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2011, Amending Articles VII and VIII of Chapter 17 of the City Code Pertaining to Disorderly Conduct, Harassment and Public Indecency. D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2011, Adding a New Section in Article VII of Chapter 17 of the City Code Pertaining to Graffiti Crimes. E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2011, Amending Article VII of Chapter 17 of the City Code Pertaining to Loitering. 46 September 20, 2011 F. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2011, Adding a New Section to Article VII of Chapter 17 of the City Code Pertaining to Staying on Medians Prohibited. G. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 118, 2011, Amending Article III of Chapter 17 of the City Code Pertaining to Jurisdictional Amount of Various Criminal Offenses. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 2011 Amending Various Provisions of the Fort Collins Traffic Code. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2011, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of a Tract of Stormwater Utility Property to Kevin P. Caffrey and Julia J. Caffrey. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Chief Deputy City Clerk Harris. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for the Building on Basics Police Computer Aided Dispatch, Records Management and Jail Management System Upgrade. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2011, Amending Section 2-637 of the City Code to Expand the Financial Disclosure Requirements for Members of the City Council, the City Manager, and the City Attorney. 15. Items Relating to Turfgrass and Updating Related City Code References. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2011, Amending Article IV of Chapter 20 of the City Code Regarding Weeds, Grass and Rubbish. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2011, Amending Article VII of Chapter 12 of the City Code Regarding Resource Conservation. 16. Items Relating to Civil Infraction and Abatement Procedures. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2011, Amending Article V of Chapter 19 of the City Code Pertaining to Rules for Civil Infractions and Making Editorial Corrections to Article V. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2011, Adding a Section in Article IV of Chapter 20 of the City Code to Allow for an Appeal Process to Contest the Assessment of Costs of Weed and Rubbish Abatements and Making Editorial Corrections to Article IV. 47 September 20, 2011 Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Consent Calendar Follow-up Councilmember Troxell asked if Councilmembers should disclose their primary residences in reference to Item No. 14, First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2011, Amending Section 2-637 of the City Code to Expand the Financial Disclosure Requirements for Members of the City Council, the City Manager, and the City Attorney. City Attorney Roy replied the new language would require disclosure of all property. Councilmember Troxell asked if other species of grass are included in Item No. 15, Items Relating to Turfgrass and Updating Related City Code References. Beth Sowder, Neighborhood Services Manager, replied the item is specific to the two species mentioned. Staff Reports Wendy Williams, Assistant City Manager, updated Council on the Natural Areas Education and Outreach Program. She stated the City of Fort Collins received the runner-up title for the Best of the Web award from the Center for Digital Government. Additionally, the City has received an Award of Excellence from the City-County Communication and Marketing Association for the Keep Fort Collins Great tax initiative. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Manvel discussed the grand opening of the new Crossroads Safehouse facility and commended the community support for the project. Mayor Weitkunat stated the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport runway has recently been completed. Additionally, the airport is enlarging its passenger waiting area, making parking lot improvements, and developing flightless travel to Denver International Airport. Resolution 2011-090 Documenting and Presenting the City Council’s Comments on the North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement, Adopted The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Region 4 staff has been developing the North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for several years. Work on the EIS began in 2001. The purpose of the North I-25 EIS is to plan for long-range transportation needs to connect Northern 48 September 20, 2011 Colorado with the Denver metropolitan area. The study area focuses on highway and transit plans for the Interstate 25 corridor, US287 corridor, and the US85 corridor. CDOT published the Final EIS document on August 19 and is seeking agency and public comments through October 3. Staff has reviewed the Final EIS document and provided technical comments to share with City Council and CDOT as part of this public review period. The September 20 regular session action represents the City’s opportunity to share staff, Council, and other potential community concerns with CDOT as part of the formal comment period on the Final EIS document. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The purpose of the North I-25 EIS is to plan for long-range transportation needs to connect Northern Colorado with the Denver metropolitan area. The study area focuses on highway and transit plans for the Interstate 25 corridor, US287 corridor, and the US85 corridor. (Please see Attachment 1 for a copy of the Final EIS Executive Summary, including a copy of the study area map shown on page ES-2). City Councilmember Ben Manvel and staff from Advance Planning/Transportation Planning have been participants on CDOT’s Regional Coordination Committee (RCC) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) throughout the EIS process. The TAC members are comprised of technical staff from the various local municipalities, plus regional, state, and federal agencies. The RCC includes elected officials from communities throughout the North I-25 EIS project area. The RCC and TAC members have provided comments and feedback to CDOT’s EIS project team throughout the multi- year planning process. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) released the Final North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) document for a public review period on August 19 and is seeking agency and public comments through October 3. CDOT has an electronic version of the FEIS document available for public review via their website: (http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/north-i-25-eis) and hard copies are available at the City’s Transportation Planning office located at 281 North College Avenue and at the main Library on Peterson Street. In addition to reviewing the FEIS document via CDOT’s website, the City has an electronic copy available for review/download. The following are directions for staff and City Council to access the electronic FEIS documents (please note that the FEIS document is very large so we do not recommend printing it): Click on your computer’s “start menu” and select the “run” option • Copy the following text: explorer.exe ftp://gw-download:ven53dor@ns2.fcgov.com/North_I_25_EIS/ • Paste this text into the "Run" window's text box 49 September 20, 2011 • Click the "OK" button • View or copy the files in this folder It is important for the City of Fort Collins staff and City Council to provide formal comments on the FEIS document so that our concerns, questions, and issues are part of the formal record for the Colorado Department of Transportation and Federal Highways Administration to consider when finalizing the document and completing the environmental clearance process for these identified highway and transit improvements. There may be instances where the City’s comments do not directly result in a change to the final EIS document at this time, however this information will be useful input as the local, state, and federal agencies move forward with implementing these important transportation improvements in the future. Some of our concerns may be more applicable at the more detailed design, engineering, and/or construction phases of these transportation projects. OVERVIEW OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE CDOT has provided the following information regarding the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is a combination of previous highway and transit alternatives developed by CDOT during the earlier draft phases of the EIS process. It is based upon technical data analysis as well as upon input from the various local, state, and federal agencies and the general public. The Preferred Alternative includes: •Multimodal improvements on several regional corridors, including highway and transit improvements along I-25, US287, and SH85. Based on the proposed Preferred Alternative, I-25 would be widened with general purpose lanes and Tolled Express Lanes (TELs). Substandard interchanges would be reconstructed or upgraded to accommodate future travel needs and replace aging infrastructure. • Commuter rail transit service using the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail corridor from Fort Collins to the planned FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station in Longmont. The commuter rail service is planned to continue to Downtown Denver’s Union Station via the North Metro route. A connection to Boulder would also be made with a transfer to the Northwest Rail line at the Sugar Mill Station in Longmont. The commuter rail line would consist of a single track with occasional passing tracks. • Express bus service would operate in the TELs along I-25 to connect northern Colorado communities to downtown Denver and Denver International Airport (DIA). The express bus service would utilize existing, expanded and new park & rides along I-25. • Commuter bus service along US85 would connect Greeley with downtown Denver with stops at the communities along the route. 50 September 20, 2011 Please see Attachment 1 (Final EIS Executive Summary, page ES-8) for a map illustrating the recommended transportation improvements included in the Preferred Alternative. PHASING To accommodate current funding limitations, the Preferred Alternative has been separated into phases. The first phase is estimated to cost approximately $670 million (in 2009 dollars) and would be constructed with funding projected to be available in the amended 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Total cost for all of the improvements shown in the Preferred Alternative is approximately $2.178 billion. Future phases would be constructed over time as funding is available. Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative is shown in Attachment 1 (Final EIS Executive Summary, page ES-18) and includes the following elements within the Fort Collins area: • Widening I-25 between SH392/Carpenter Road and SH14/Mulberry Street - would initially be used as continuous acceleration/deceleration lanes but would ultimately become part of the general purpose lanes. The widening of I-25 between SH392 and SH14 would eventually accommodate TELs. Widening would include water quality ponds, and median barrier features necessary to accommodate this improvement. Right-of-way purchase associated with the ultimate Preferred Alternative cross section is also included. • Interchange replacement and upgrades – SH14/Mulberry and Prospect interchanges would be constructed to their ultimate configurations. The interchange improvements at I-25 and SH392 will be completed as part of the separate joint agency project already underway. • Park & ride improvements at I-25 interchanges. • Commuter Rail Right-of-Way (ROW) preservation – All ROW necessary to construct the ultimate commuter rail configuration would be purchased as part of Phase 1. • Initial I-25 Bus – Regional bus service connecting from Fort Collins to downtown Denver and DIA would be initiated. Transit stations would be constructed as part of Phase 1 and buses would be purchased. The culmination of the EIS process is for CDOT to seek a Record of Decision (ROD) from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The ROD will signify federal agency approval for the highway and transit improvements identified in Phase I of the Final EIS (FEIS) document. The ROD will identify funding for Phase 1 consistent with regional transportation plans included in the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s planning documents. The ROD will be prepared only for Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative. 51 September 20, 2011 For the remaining phases, the rest of the project elements would then be implemented to complete the ultimate Preferred Alternative over time, depending upon safety factors, transportation needs, and available resources/funding. Phase 2 is anticipated to include constructing the commuter rail from Loveland to Longmont, constructing TELs and associated interchange upgrades between SH14/Mulberry and SH56 and between E-470 and 120th Avenue. Phase 3 is anticipated to include the completion of the commuter rail from Loveland to Fort Collins, constructing the general purpose lanes from SH14/Mulberry to SH66, and constructing TELs from SH66 to E-470. Subsequent RODs will be prepared for these future phases, as funding becomes available. CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMENTS ON THE EIS City Council and staff have previously commented on the EIS process and draft documents over the years, with the most recent being two City Council work sessions in 2009 (February and October) as well as formal comments provided by the City on the Draft EIS document in 2008. Prior Fort Collins City Council and staff comments/concerns expressed to CDOT to-date include phasing and details of proposed commuter rail and highway improvements; impacts to wildlife habitat areas, air quality, water quality, and stormwater contaminants; as well as the need for bigger picture cost/benefit analysis considering long-term sustainability objectives. Exhibit A to the Resolution contains the City of Fort Collins comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that were submitted to CDOT in 2008 and comments from the 2009 City Council Work sessions. This information includes CDOT responses to prior City comments as well as new/additional City staff comments that have been added based upon review of the Final EIS document. Staff comments on the 2011 FEIS document are consistent with the same themes of concerns shared with CDOT as part of the City’s comments on the prior draft EIS document and proposed alternatives in 2008-2009. Staff is pleased that many of our prior comments, concerns, and suggestions shared with CDOT over the years have been incorporated in to the FEIS document such as the inclusion and importance of the multimodal options to provide express bus and commuter rail service in the core activity centers and corridors of our community as well as the highway and interchange improvements needed to improve safety and capacity for automobile and freight traffic. CDOT has recognized Fort Collins’ land use and transportation planning visions as documented in Plan Fort Collins (City Plan and Transportation Master Plan), and also integrated the multimodal improvements included in the City’s Mason Corridor master plan into their commuter rail corridor planning and station locations. For example, the three future commuter rails stations shown in the FEIS Preferred Alternative are co-located with the City’s MAX Bus Rapid Transit 52 September 20, 2011 (BRT) stations at the South Transit Center, University station, and Downtown Transit Center to integrate regional passenger rail service with our local transit plans. Similarly, CDOT’s regional express bus service shown along Harmony Road will integrate regional and local transit service along this corridor from the City’s South Transit Center to the transfer center currently located at Harmony/I-25. This interface with the Mason/MAX and Harmony corridors will support local transit passengers wishing to connect with regional service to downtown Denver and Boulder. While many of the prior City comments/questions/concerns have been addressed by CDOT in the FEIS, City staff continues to have concerns regarding several areas of the FEIS document. Highlights of these continuing concerns include the following points: • Implementation phasing for the various transportation improvements, specifically the phasing plan shown for the future commuter rail service extending from Loveland to Fort Collins is not shown until Phase 3 (CDOT expected timeframe of 2075+). Staff recommends that CDOT revise the FEIS to only show two phases – Phase 1 as shown now, as the “fiscally constrained plan” based on anticipated funding levels through 2035. Then, the new “Phase 2” would include all of the remaining elements of the Preferred Alternative and be considered the “unfunded” items and not be tied to an artificial, 50-60+ year time horizon. These transportation improvements – highway and transit – shown in Phase 2 and 3 need to be implemented sooner rather than later to serve the regional travel demand forecast for 2035. Dividing them into two artificial phases does not solve the issue that the future regional transportation needs significantly outpace our current funding sources. The EIS Preferred Alternative should be a catalyst for convening regional discussions and partnerships to work together toward accomplishing these needs within the 2035 timeframe. • The transportation and air quality analysis included in the FEIS results in travel demand projections that do not reflect changing fuel costs, use of alternative fuel vehicles, changing lifestyle choices and long-term sustainability values, as well as other potentially significant factors that would influence the demand for interstate and transit travel in the future. Our cities, our region, and our country are facing a very different paradigm in the future. It seems that traditional analysis tools based on the past 50 year trends may not be accurate for predicting future demand and travel behavior. Staff recommends that CDOT perform a Triple Bottom Line method of analysis that factors in traditional transportation analysis methods along with including Environmental, Economic, and Human factors. While staff recognizes the need for addressing pressing safety, capacity and ageing infrastructure concerns along I-25, we also hope that roadway investments made in the near future will not become stranded assets as mode shift occurs. Fortunately the transit system in the Preferred Alternative can accommodate increases in transit mode share over time by adding additional transit vehicles. • Every effort to implement non-barrier methods of noise mitigation along I-25 (for example, where it passes Arapaho Bend Natural Area) should be implemented. Staff does not support construction of a barrier to mitigate noise in this area. In addition, potential fencing/barriers/sound walls within other areas of Fort Collins, either along the highway and/or commuter rail corridor, are not permitted in Fort Collins from a community planning 53 September 20, 2011 and environmental perspective. Staff requests that CDOT delete these elements and/or include other options to maintain view sheds and wildlife movement corridors. • Wetlands impacted in the Fort Collins regional area should be mitigated within the same Fort Collins regional area. Local mitigation requirements per City of Fort Collins Land Use Code should be considered for locally (Fort Collins) impacted wetlands. Staff supports the mitigation of both federally jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands throughout the project area. • Regarding floodplains, the mitigation in the FEIS document for each creek, river, or other drainage is vague, not site specific, and makes it impossible to evaluation for direct and indirect impacts to wetlands and floodplains. The same four mitigation measures are identified for separate drainages. Staff requests that revised, site specific mitigation plans for each drainage should be conducted for the public and appropriate stakeholders to comment on either as part of the EIS process and/or as part of the design process that moves forward for implementation. In addition, CDOT should state that all regulations will be followed including federal, state, and local requirements (not just the FEMA regulations as noted in the FEIS). • Regarding the Floodplain Report, Cache La Poudre River section, the information should be corrected to reflect that the City of Fort Collins staff highly supports removing the split flow on the west side of I-25 if regulatory issues can be resolved through mitigation. The split flow current heads south and crosses Harmony Road. Eliminating this split flow would be an important life-safety issue since Harmony Road, a major arterial into Fort Collins, is overtopped in less than a 100-year flood. Exhibit A to Resolution 2011-090 is a summary of more detailed comments/concerns from City staff on the 2011 FEIS document. The City comments are organized by topic area and include analysis of CDOT’s responsiveness to the City’s prior comments as well as new staff comments/questions/concerns based on the FEIS. Comments that are submitted to CDOT as part of the public review period will be noted for CDOT response and included for review by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as part of their formal review process of the EIS. As part of the Record of Decision (ROD) approval process, FHWA will consider whether or not CDOT has adequately addressed the comments received during the public review period. The EIS Phase 2 and 3 improvements will need to go through a subsequent formal review process by FHWA before they can be implemented. CDOT will be confirming the future process for Phase 2 and 3 improvements for the public and local agencies as part of the upcoming public outreach process. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NEXT STEPS CDOT is hosting a series of public meetings regarding the FEIS document from 4:30 – 7:30 p.m. on the following dates: 54 September 20, 2011 • September 12– Southwest Weld County Building,4209 Weld County Road 24 ½ (I-25 exit #240) • September 13 - Longmont Public Library, 409 4th Avenue, Longmont • September 15 – The Ranch (Budweiser Events Center), 5290 Arena Circle (I-25 exit #259) The format for each of the public hearings will include an open house from 4:30 pm to 7:00 pm with a brief presentation beginning at 5:30 pm followed with an opportunity to comment. City staff will be attending the public meeting on September 15th to share comments with CDOT’s EIS project team as well as to listen to community comments. Once CDOT and FHWA have an approved ROD for the North I-25 EIS, they are planning to move forward with the design phase of the I-25 highway improvements from SH14 south to SH392. City staff will continue to work with CDOT throughout this design process to carry forward the issues, comments, and suggestions discussed during the EIS process. In addition, CDOT and the Army Corps of Engineers are currently working on the 404 permitting requirements for wetland mitigation and have submitted a separate permit application to the City’s Natural Resources department for review. City staff is reviewing this information concurrently with the EIS review and will be providing consistent comments on both the FEIS and the 404 permit application regarding the desire for wetland mitigation to be done locally if possible. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS There are no direct financial impacts to the City of Fort Collins at this time based on the review of the FEIS document. In the future, the City of Fort Collins will need to address potential opportunities for partnering with CDOT and other local/regional agencies to fulfill the implementation of the various transportation projects included in the FEIS Preferred Alternative.” Kathleen Bracke, Director of Transportation Planning and Special Projects, stated staff has reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for its consistency with the City’s adopted plans. CDOT is in the process of seeking a record of decision, which will involve comments from appropriate municipalities and the public, for the Federal Highway Administration. The preferred FEIS alternative includes highway improvements along I-25, interchange improvements, and transit improvements. The total cost of the preferred alternative is $2.178 billion. The implementation of the preferred alternative has been phased into three sections and CDOT is currently seeking input on the record of decision for Phase One, which will be implemented through 2035. Staff is concerned about the Fort Collins area improvements not being implemented until Phase Three, which will not begin until 2055, and with the potential underestimated transportation demand projections. Staff is also concerned about potential physical barriers created along I-25 that may restrict viewsheds or wildlife movement corridors, and about wetland mitigation. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson thanked CDOT for its work in the Fort Collins area and asked about the possibility of the concerns being addressed in the final report. Johnny Olson, CDOT Regional 55 September 20, 2011 Director, thanked City staff for its work on the report. He stated many of the concerns are project development issues and all of the concerns will be documented in a mitigation plan. Floodplain issues and the Poudre River split will be addressed on a project planning basis. Myron Hora, CDOT Planning and Environmental Division, stated funding challenges necessitated phasing. The final record of decision will indicate that items can be moved forward and implemented in earlier phases, should funding become available. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about wetland mitigation. Mr. Hora replied the plan is to mitigate prior to making the impact. All of the disturbed wetlands will be replaced in one, high-quality location. The wetlands disturbed in the Fort Collins area total less than an acre. Councilmember Manvel stated he has been involved in this process for about five years and commended the process. He questioned the use of the assumption that the price of fuel will remain constant. Mayor Weitkunat supported the plan and noted it will be in place when funding becomes available. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution 2011-090 as amended. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked why no attempt was made to include possible fuel price fluctuations in the modeling. Mr. Hora replied other assumptions, such as inflation, may have been included. Mr. Olson thanked Council for its support of the Resolution and agreed the formation of the plan is an important step in garnering funding for specific aspects of the plan. He thanked staff for their work on the plan. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 2011-091 Amending the Rules of Procedure Governing the Conduct of City Council Meetings, Adopted The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Resolution amends the rules of procedure that govern the conduct of City Council meetings with regard to citizen comment during the Citizen Participation segment of the meetings. The 30- minute time limit that currently exists for the Citizen Participation segment of the meetings would 56 September 20, 2011 be eliminated and certain topics would be specified as not being appropriate for comment during that portion of the meeting: matters on the discussion agenda for the meeting and quasi-judicial matters. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Since 2003, the Council has conducted its meetings under rules of procedure that govern the length of meetings, citizen comment, Council questions and debate, and basic rules of order. The rules relating to citizen comment during the Citizen Participation segment of the meetings state that such comment will be limited to a total of 30 minutes. Over recent years, the practice has been to allow all citizens who wish to comment to do so, subject to limits on the amount of time that each citizen may speak. That time limit depends on the number of speakers. In order to conform this portion of the rules to the current practice, the Resolution would eliminate the 30-minute overall time limit and instead allow the Mayor to set the individual time limit in order to allow as much citizen input as reasonably practicable given the scheduled agenda for the meeting. The Resolution also changes the Order of Business to clarify that Agenda Review will take place before Citizen Participation, so that citizens are not prevented from speaking during Citizen Participation regarding items that were originally scheduled for Council consideration but removed from the agenda after publication of the agenda materials. In addition, the Resolution would clarify the topics that are appropriate for comment by citizens under this segment of the meeting. The first clarification is that comment is not permitted on matters that will be addressed later in the meeting as part of the discussion agenda for the meeting. The second is that comment is not permitted on quasi-judicial matters that may in the future be considered by the Council during an appeal. The reason for this second clarification is twofold. First, quasi-judicial matters must be decided solely on the basis of the information that is provided to the original decision maker at a public hearing held for that purpose. To respect that requirement, comments made to the Council by citizens at a regular Council meeting would have to be transcribed and submitted to the decision maker for consideration at the quasi-judicial hearing so that all parties directly affected by the decision could be made aware of the comments and have an opportunity at the hearing to respond to them. In addition, the Council must remain impartial if it is to hear an appeal of the original decision makers’ decision. Comments made during Citizen Participation may compromise the Council’s impartiality if the matter addressed by the citizens later comes to the Council on appeal.” City Attorney Roy stated this Resolution would make three changes to Council’s rules of procedures for conducting City Council meetings. It would change the order of the meeting by moving the City Manager’s Agenda Review prior to Citizen Participation, eliminate the 30-minute citizen participation time limit, and would specify two types of topics as not appropriate for citizen participation comment: items already on the discussion agenda and comments relating to quasi- judicial matters. City Attorney Roy detailed the definition of quasi-judicial. 57 September 20, 2011 Ross Cunniff, 2267 Clydesdale Drive, expressed concern this change could create the impression that Council is unapproachable. He questioned the language relating to items which “may” be subject to litigation. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, disagreed with City Attorney Roy’s legal interpretation and suggested Council table the issue until potential changes to the appeal process have been made. Devin Hirning, 2214 Fossil Creek Parkway, discussed Federalist governments and encouraged leniency in citizen participation. Cheryl Distaso, Center for Justice, Peace, and the Environment, opposed the Resolution and supported an examination of best processes in other communities. Councilmember Manvel stated the item may need additional work. City Attorney Roy noted it would be possible to document and transcribePlanning and Zoning Board comments made to Council as part of the appeal record, although it would require some resources. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated his support for the Resolution is questionable because he did not support limiting citizen comment on quasi-judicial matters that may be the subject of future consideration by Council. Councilmember Poppaw asked if Councilmembers can recuse themselves based on the fact that they may no longer feel impartial. City Attorney Roy stated Councilmembers may recuse themselves at any point; however, a judge has the right to determine whether a reasonable person in that situation would still be impartial. Councilmember Kottwitz made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Resolution 2011-091. Councilmember Kottwitz stated Councilmembers appreciate citizen opinions; however, quasi- judicial matters are part of Council and these changes are in the best interest of transparency. Mayor Weitkunat stated these changes are a result of an increasing City size and additional land use and development issues. Councilmember Manvel noted the quasi-judicial items are not limited to solely Planning and Zoning Board items. City Attorney Roy replied the Building Review Board is responsible for licensing decisions, outside the land use context, which could also be quasi-judicial. However, the vast majority of quasi-judicial matters are related to specific development proposals. Councilmember Poppaw expressed concern regarding the quasi-judicial aspect of the Resolution. 58 September 20, 2011 Councilmember Troxell stated the Resolution is designed to maintain fairness. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson supported the aspect of the process involving citizen participation at each agenda item, regardless of where it falls on the agenda. He suggested the planning process may need review and improvement prior to making a decision regarding the quasi-judicial issues. City Attorney Roy asked for Council direction as to how the Resolution should be reworked, should it opt to not take action on the quasi-judicial aspect of the Resolution. Councilmember Manvel opposed pulling out the quasi-judicial aspect of the Resolution as the Resolution essentially codifies the existing practice. Mayor Weitkunat suggested eliminating the word “precisely” in reference to the meeting start time, and changing the phrase relating to Council’s breaks to reference “short” rather than a specific time. Councilmembers Kottwitz and Troxell accepted the friendly amendment to make the changes. Mayor Weitkunat suggested language changes relating to the quasi-judicial aspect. City Attorney Roy suggested the following language: “particular land use proposals that, if approved by the Planning and Zoning Board or hearing officer, would be subject to appeal to the City Council.” Councilmember Poppaw offered a friendly amendment to add City Attorney Roy’s suggested language. Councilmembers Kottwitz and Troxell accepted the amendment. City Attorney Roy stated the word “pending” could be applied to land use proposals. Councilmember Poppaw suggested a friendly amendment to replace the word “particular” with “pending” in the aforementioned language. Councilmembers Kottwitz and Troxell accepted the amendment. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked for a definition of “pending.” City Attorney Roy replied he would interpret the word to mean that an application has been filed with the City for an Overall Development Plan or Project Development Plan. The vote on the motion to adopt Resolution 2011-091, as amended, was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 59 September 20, 2011 Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Chief Deputy City Clerk 60 DATE: October 18, 2011 STAFF: Kathleen Benedict AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 7 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the Veterans Plaza Project at Spring Canyon Community Park. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Veterans Plaza at Spring Canyon Community Park creates a public venue, bringing community members together to recognize and commemorate the sacrifices and dedication of service members who have served our country. The plaza is located on approximately three acres of land near the main entrance of the Park at Horsetooth Road. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 4, 2011, will appropriate funding in the amount of $60,000 for the final phase of the Veterans Plaza project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 4, 2011 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: October 4, 2011 STAFF: Kathleen Benedict AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 11 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the Veterans Plaza Project at Spring Canyon Community Park. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Veterans Plaza at Spring Canyon Community Park creates a public venue, bringing community members together to recognize and commemorate the sacrifices and dedication of service members who have served our country. The plaza is located on approximately three acres of land near the main entrance of the Park at Horsetooth Road. This Ordinance will appropriate funding in the amount of $60,000 for the final phase of the Veterans Plaza project. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The concept to honor veterans from northern Colorado with a memorial originated in 2008. Spring Canyon Community Park was identified as a suitable location for the Plaza. A minor amendment to the park site plan was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on September 2, 2008 to designate the proposed area of Spring Canyon Community Park as the future Veterans Plaza location. The first phase of the project incorporated concrete walks, a grass and stone seating amphitheatre, shade trees, a soil garden with poppies, and a platform stage for celebrating the liberties and freedoms that have been protected by our service members. The final phase of the project will include a bronze statue, conveying the story of generations of sacrifice and two stone memorial walls which will be embedded with touch screen/interactive monitors, allowing visitors to search for and view the names, photos, and biographies of veterans who have ties to northern Colorado. This phase will also include flagpoles, a stone wall behind the stage with military insignia, as well as stone monument pillars at the entryway to the Plaza. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The first phase of the project is complete and cost $177,187. The final phase of the project is estimated at $182,813. The estimated cost for the total project is now $360,000 and includes the monitors and software. $300,000 was previously appropriated for the project. This Ordinance will appropriate revenue in the amount of $60,000, to finish the Veterans Plaza. The Veterans Plaza Committee has solicited donations from the community and raised funds for the final phase of the project. Honoring veterans from across the northern Colorado, the Veterans Plaza draws visitors from throughout the region. Excitement for the project has produced strong partnerships with area veterans’ organizations, the City, and various interested donors. The final annual operation and maintenance cost for landscaping, trees, sidewalks, and the plaza is estimated at $5,000. Funding is available in the Parks Maintenance budget in 2011 and in future years. The Veterans Plaza Committee is also raising funds to create an annuity fund for ongoing maintenance of the software and hardware utilized in the touch screen/interactive video monitors of the Veterans Plaza. The $100,000 annuity fund is estimated to generate an additional $5,000 per year. COPY COPY COPY COPY October 4, 2011 -2- ITEM 11 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The landscape around the Plaza will be irrigated utilizing the raw water system that is already in place at Spring Canyon Community Park. The Plaza site has been previously accounted for in the park’s stormwater and water quality management system. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Parks and Recreation Board was briefed on the project throughout 2009 thru 2011, and the Board will be updated as the project progresses. PUBLIC OUTREACH Veterans Plaza Board members and other supporters have promoted the project through meetings with groups such as the Lions Club, Rotary clubs, Northern Colorado Honor Flight groups, and local veterans’ groups as well as the media. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map ORDINANCE NO. 128, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND FOR THE VETERANS PLAZA PROJECT AT SPRING CANYON COMMUNITY PARK WHEREAS, in 2008, a group of Fort Collins citizens initiated a project that will honor veterans in the community through the construction of a memorial to be constructed on City property (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, Spring Creek Canyon Park was identified as a suitable location for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Project was designed by an independent landscape architect retained by a group of citizens known as the Veterans Plaza Committee (the “Committee”), with oversight by City staff; and WHEREAS, the first phase of the Project has been constructed at a cost of $177,187 and incorporates concrete walks, a grass and stone seating amphitheatre, shade trees, a garden with poppies, and a platform stage; and WHEREAS, the final phase of the Project, the cost of which is estimated at $182,813, will add a bronze statue, flagpoles, and other amenities, including two stone memorial walls embedded with touch screen/ interactive monitors that will allow visitors to search for and view the names, photos, and biographies of veterans who have ties to northern Colorado; and WHEREAS, the Committee has raised sufficient funds to cover the final phase of the Project; and WHEREAS, all funds received by the Committee are being donated to the City to be expended on the Project; and WHEREAS, $25,000 of the total Project cost of $360,000 was appropriated by the City Council in the form of Keep Fort Collins Great tax revenues through adoption of the 2011 Annual Appropriation Ordinance, and $275,000 of donated revenues has also been appropriated by the adoption of Ordinance No. 4, 2011; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance appropriates the remaining $60,000 of revenues from existing and future donations; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the revenue as described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Capital Projects Fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated revenue in the Capital Projects Fund the sum of SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($60,000) for the Veterans Plaza Project at Spring Creek Community Park. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of October, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Chief Deputy City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of October, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: October 18, 2011 STAFF: Patrick Rowe, Terry Tyrell Helen Matson AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 8 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2011, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements Related to the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project (Phase V). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Right-of-way acquisition continues for the Mason Express Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 4, 2011, pertains to the final acquisition phase of the BRT Project and is comprised of 15 separate properties ready for the acquisition stage. The City Council authorization specified by this Ordinance begins the first step of the City’s acquisition process for the property interests within this phase. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 4, 2011 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: October 4, 2011 STAFF: Patrick Rowe, Terry Tyrell Helen Matson AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 12 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2011, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements Related to the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project (Phase V). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The final acquisition phase for the Mason Express Bus Rapid Transit Project (MAX) is set to begin with Phase V. City Council has previously authorized the first five phases of acquisition work, which included Phases I through IV, as well as a Phase III-A. Phase V is comprised of 15 separate properties prepared for the acquisition stage. The City Council authorization specified by this Ordinance begins the first step of the City’s acquisition process for the property interests within this phase. As a federally-funded transportation project, acquisitions will conform to the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as amended (Public Law 91-646). In accordance with this Act, property owners must be informed about the possible use of eminent domain and their rights pursuant to Colorado State Statute in the official Notice-of-Interest Letter. Authorization from City Council is needed prior to sending this information to property owners. This letter is the first official step in the acquisition process, which must occur prior to the appraisals. Given the recommended construction schedule for the Project and the fact that acquisitions must be conducted under procedures for federally funded projects, timely acquisition of the required property interests is necessary. Therefore, City staff requests authorization to utilize eminent domain for the MAX Project, if necessary, and only if good faith negotiations break down. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project, branded Mason Express or “MAX”, is a five-mile, north-south byway which extends from the Downtown Transit Center on the north to the planned South Transit Center, south of Harmony Road. MAX will link major destinations and activity centers along the City’s primary transportation and commercial corridor including “Old Town”, Colorado State University, Foothills Mall, and South College retail areas. In addition to greatly enhancing the City’s north-south transportation movement, MAX will be a significant catalyst for economic growth, both as a short-term stimulus and as a long-term development/redevelopment driver. The City is presently targeting a 2014 operation date for the corridor. The project is predominately located within the outside twenty-five feet of the east half of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (the BSNF) property; however, overall project right-of-way will consist of a combination of property owned by the BNSF, Colorado State University, private land owners, and the City. At present, in addition to the BNSF, Colorado State University, the Colorado State University Research Foundation, and several ditch companies, the project includes property acquisition from approximately forty-six (46) distinct property owners. Each acquisition is unique, but the typical acquisition need for the Project can be characterized as a five-foot permanent easement and a twenty-foot temporary construction easement along the rear of properties adjacent to the Project. Additionally, fee simple ownership is also needed in a number of locations to accommodate stations, and other ancillary project improvements. Different from earlier phases, Phase V also includes shared parking interests which are necessary to accommodate MAX patron parking at various locations along the corridor. To accommodate workflow and timing, property acquisitions have been broken into what has become six phases, with the potential for additional phases, should a design change necessitate additional acquisitions. Phase V, the last planned phase and the subject of this Agenda Item, consists of 15 distinct property ownerships which include fee acquisitions for station improvements, shared parking easements to accommodate corridor parking needs, permanent COPY COPY COPY COPY October 4, 2011 -2- ITEM 12 easements for slope and utility purposes, and temporary interests necessary for construction purposes. Significant public outreach has occurred on this longstanding project in many forms and includes recent communications to all 15 ownerships in Phase V. These recent communications included notification by certified mail of staff’s intent to request authorization to use eminent domain, if necessary, to acquire the project property interests. (In all communications staff strongly emphasizes the City’s desire to work cooperatively towards achieving a voluntary agreement.) To ensure the integrity of the project schedule, maintain certain project efficiencies, and to remain a viable Federal Transit Administration funded project, it’s critical that the City have the ability to acquire the property interests in a timely manner. In addition, since this is a federally-funded project, City Council must have eminent domain authorization (only to be used if necessary) before staff is able to send out the required Notice-of-Interest Letter. Staff has a high degree of respect and understanding for the sensitivity of the acquisition process and commits to utilizing eminent domain only if absolutely necessary, and only if good faith negotiations are not successful. It is important to note that City staff has taken great effort to minimize impacts to property owners, and will continue to do so as the project progresses. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Property acquisition costs will be covered by available project funds, whether or not eminent domain is required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. PUBLIC OUTREACH Individual property owner correspondence has occurred for all fifteen property owners for this acquisition phase. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map ORDINANCE NO. 129, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS OF CERTAIN LANDS NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO THE MASON CORRIDOR BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT WHEREAS, the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project (the “Project”) is scheduled for construction in 2012; and WHEREAS, the Project involves the construction of a five-mile, north-south byway which extends from Cherry Street on the north to a point south of Harmony Road (the site of the new South Transit Center); and WHEREAS, the Project will include a 24-foot wide traffic lane for buses with concrete paving, retaining walls, curb and gutter, and drainage and utility improvements; and WHEREAS, the Project will greatly enhance north-south transportation through the City and is expected to serve as a catalyst for economic growth and long-term development; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City to acquire certain property rights (the “Properties”) hereinafter described on Exhibits “A” through “N”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Exhibits”), for the purpose of constructing the Project; and WHEREAS, the City will continue to negotiate in good faith for the acquisition of the Properties from the owners of the Properties; and WHEREAS, the acquisition of the Properties is desirable and necessary for the construction of the Project, is in the City’s best interest and enhances public health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS, the acquisition of the Properties may, by law, be accomplished through eminent domain. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds and determines that is necessary in the public interest to acquire the Properties described on the Exhibits for the purpose of the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project. Section 2. That the City Council hereby authorizes the City Attorney and other appropriate officials of the City to acquire the Properties for the City by eminent domain. Section 3. The City Council hereby finds that, if acquisition by eminent domain is commenced, immediate possession of the Properties will be necessary for the public health, safety and welfare. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of July, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Deputy City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of October, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Exhibit "A" Page 1 of 5 Exhibit "A" Page 2 of 5 Exhibit "A" Page 3 of 5 Exhibit "A" Page 4 of 5 Exhibit "A" Page 5 of 5 Exhibit "B" Page 1 of 2 Exhibit "B" Page 2 of 2 Exhibit "C" Page 1 of 2 Exhibit "C" Page 2 of 2 Exhibit "D" Page 1 of 2 Exhibit "D" Page 2 of 2 Exhibit "E" Page 1 of 2 Exhibit "E" Page 2 of 2 Exhibit "F" Page 1 of 2 Exhibit "F" Page 2 of 2 Exhibit "G" Page 1 of 6 Exhibit "G" Page 2 of 6 Exhibit "G" Page 3 of 6 Exhibit "G" Page 4 of 6 Exhibit "G" Page 5 of 6 Exhibit "G" Page 6 of 6 Exhibit "H" Page 1 of 3 Exhibit "H" Page 2 of 3 Exhibit "H" Page 3 of 3 Exhibit "I" Page 1 of 3 Exhibit "I" Page 2 of 3 Exhibit "I" Page 3 of 3 Exhibit "J" Page 1 of 3 Exhibit "J" Page 2 of 3 Exhibit "J" Page 3 of 3 Exhibit "K" Page 1 of 3 Exhibit "K" Page 2 of 3 Exhibit "K" Page 3 of 3 Exhibit "L" Page 1 of 4 Exhibit "L" Page 2 of 4 Exhibit "L" Page 3 of 4 Exhibit "L" Page 4 of 4 Exhibit "M" Page 1 of 2 Exhibit "M" Page 2 of 2 Exhibit "N" Page 1 of 6 Exhibit "N" Page 2 of 6 Exhibit "N" Page 3 of 6 Exhibit "N" Page 4 of 6 Exhibit "N" Page 5 of 6 Exhibit "N" Page 6 of 6 DATE: October 18, 2011 STAFF: Rita Harris AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 9 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2011, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code to Expand the Types of Registered Electors Who Automatically Receive Mail Ballots, and to Require the City to Pay the Postage Due for Ballots Returned by Mail. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 4, 2011, amends the City Code to require that ballots in a City mail ballot election be mailed to inactive registered electors who voted in the last presidential election in addition to all active registered electors. In addition, the Code will be amended to require that the City pay postage on all voted ballots returned by mail. Both amendments are anticipated to increase voter participation. This Ordinance has been amended on Second Reading to add language clarifying that ballots will be mailed to inactive registered electors with a status designation of “inactive-failed to vote”, but who voted in the last presidential election. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 4, 2011 (w/o attachments) 2. June 23, 2011 Memo Analyzing Possible Changes to Mail Ballot Provisions COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: October 4, 2011 STAFF: Rita Harris AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 16 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2011, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code to Expand the Types of Registered Electors Who Automatically Receive Mail Ballots, and to Require the City to Pay the Postage Due for Ballots Returned by Mail. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance would amend the City Code to require that ballots in a City mail ballot election be mailed to inactive registered electors who voted in the last presidential election in addition to all active registered electors. In addition, the Code would be amended to require that the City pay postage on all voted ballots returned by mail. Both amendments are anticipated to increase voter participation. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Mail ballot elections in Colorado are governed by C.R.S, Title 1, Article 7.5, known as the “Mail Ballot Election Act”. In 2006, the City of Fort Collins codified its own mail ballot election provisions, superceding the Mail Ballot Election Act, although the City’s provisions as written in 2006 were closely aligned with the state law. This was permissible, because under the State Constitution, elections are a matter of local concern. Mail Ballot Recipients The Mail Ballot Election Act and the City Code both require ballots to be mailed to “each active registered elector”. Council has expressed a desire to expand the types of registered electors who automatically receive mail ballots in a City election to include inactive registered electors who voted in the last presidential election. Colorado uses a statewide voter registration system controlled by the Secretary of State. Each registered voter has a designated status, which is defined in current rules promulgated by the Secretary of State as follows: a. “Active status” or “active record” means that there are no conditions or restrictions on the voter’s eligibility. b. “Cancelled status” or “cancelled record” means that the voter’s registration has been cancelled or revoked based upon a determination that the voter is ineligible, or the applicant has been deemed not registered in accordance with these rules and Title 1, C.R.S.; or the voter has withdrawn their registration. c. “Inactive – failed to vote status” means that the voter was active prior to a General Election, but subsequently failed to vote in that General Election. d. “Inactive – returned mail status” or “inactive – undeliverable status” means that a voter information card or confirmation card was returned to the county clerk and recorder by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable. e. “Inactive – undeliverable ballot status” means that a voter was mailed a ballot that was subsequently returned to the county clerk and recorder by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable. This proposal would target a segment of voters classified as “inactive - failed to vote”, specifically those voters who are classified as such only because they failed to vote in the non-presidential General Election (Nov 2010, Nov 2014, Nov 2018, etc.). Voters who failed to vote in both the presidential election (Nov 2008, Nov 2012, Nov 2016, etc.) and COPY COPY COPY COPY October 4, 2011 -2- ITEM 16 the non-presidential election two years later will not automatically receive a ballot under this proposal. However, any eligible voter (other than one who has a “cancelled” status) who did not automatically receive a ballot may request a ballot by completing simple paperwork to document the request and update the voter’s registration information (primarily current address). This paperwork is forwarded to the County elections office after the City’s election and is used to not only update registration information, but also serves to change the voter’s registration back to “active”. Return Postage The second portion of the Ordinance would eliminate the requirement for voters to affix postage when returning a ballot by mail, and instead, requires the City to provide postage. This can be accomplished through a postage permit under which the City will pay postage only on those ballots returned, at the current first-class rate. This change also differs from the Mail Ballot Election Act, which requires the voter to pay postage. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Mail Ballot Recipients Approximately 9500 additional voters would have received a ballot for the April 2011 election if ballots were mailed to inactive voters who had voted in the last presidential election. The approximate cost to include those additional voters would have been $19,000. Return Postage For the April 2011 election, 16,965 ballots were returned by mail. If the City had paid return postage on those ballots, the cost would have been $7,465. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ATTACHMENT 2 ORDINANCE NO. 130, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 7 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO EXPAND THE TYPES OF REGISTERED ELECTORS WHO AUTOMATICALLY RECEIVE MAIL BALLOTS, AND TO REQUIRE THE CITY TO PAY THE POSTAGE DUE FOR BALLOTS RETURNED BY MAIL WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins is a Colorado home rule municipality and, as such, is authorized under Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution to exercise certain specific powers, including the power to legislate upon, provide, regulate, coordinate and control all matters pertaining to municipal elections; WHEREAS, on November 7, 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 165, 2006, establishing in Chapter 7, Article VII of the City Code its own provisions for conducting local mail ballot elections; and WHEREAS, among the provisions contained in Chapter 7, Article VIII is Section 7-186, which establishes the procedure for mailing ballots to the registered electors of the City; and WHEREAS, Section 7-186 presently states that ballots are to be mailed by the City Clerk to each active registered elector in the City, which requirement is the same as exists under the state Mail Ballot Election Act; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it would be in the best interests of the citizens of the City to expand the category of electors to whom ballots are mailed and to also amend Section 7-186 of the Code to require that the postage for such ballots be paid by the City, so as to encourage more widespread participation in City elections. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 7-186(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7-186. Mailing of ballots; exception. (a) No sooner than twenty-five (25) days before an election, and no later than fifteen (15) days before an election, the City Clerk shall mail to each active registered elector, and to each inactive registered elector with a status designation of “inactive-failed to vote”, but who voted in the last presidential election, a mail ballot packet, which shall be marked "DO NOT FORWARD," or with any other similar statement that is in accordance with United States postal service regulations. Said packet shall be sent in accordance with all applicable United States postal service regulations to the last mailing address appearing in the registration records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder. . . . Section 2. That Section 7-190(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7-190. Voting and return of ballots. . . . (b) The eligible elector may return the marked ballot to the City Clerk by United States mail or by depositing the ballot at the office of the City Clerk or any place designated by the City Clerk. The ballot must be returned in the return envelope. If an eligible elector returns the ballot by mail, the elector may provide the necessary postage or, if not so paid by the elector, the cost of return postage shall be paid by the City. In order to be counted, the ballot must be received at the office of the City Clerk or a designated depository prior to 7:00 p.m. on election day. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of October, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Chief Deputy City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of October, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: October 18, 2011 STAFF: Steve Roy AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 10 SUBJECT Postponement of Second Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2011, Amending the Appeals Procedure Contained in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code Relating to the Procedures for Hearing Appeals to the City Council to December 20, 2011. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item is being postponed to December 20, 2011 to allow time for public outreach. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends postponement of the Ordinance on Second Reading. DATE: October 18, 2011 STAFF: Jim O’Neill AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 11 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement for the Financing by Lease-Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment and Appropriating the Amount Needed for Such Purpose. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance authorizes the Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease-purchase agreement with Pinnacle Public Finance for the lease-purchase of vehicles and equipment. The cost of the items to be lease-purchased is $1,495,000. Payments at the 2.35% interest rate will not exceed $ 317,787 in 2012. Money for 2012 lease-purchase payments is included in the 2012 budget. The effect of the debt position for the purpose of financial rating of the City will be to raise the total City debt by 0.8%. A competitive process was used to select Pinnacle Public Finance for this lease. Staff believes acceptance of this lease rate is in the City's best interest. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION This Ordinance authorizes the Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease-purchase financing agreement with Pinnacle Public Finance at 2.35 percent interest rate. The agreement is for an original term from the execution date of the agreement to the end of the current fiscal year. The agreement provides for renewable one-year terms thereafter, to a total term of five (5) years, subject to annual appropriation of funds needed for lease payments. The total lease terms, including the original and all renewal terms, will not exceed the useful life of the property. This lease-purchase financing is consistent with the financial policies of the City of Fort Collins. All equipment shall be purchased following the City's purchasing ordinances and procedures to ensure that the City realizes all cost savings. The vehicles and equipment financed under the agreement will comply with applicable City policies, and will be in accordance with the goal of optimizing City resources without impacting service to the community. An "Equipment Request" justifying the replacement of each vehicle or piece of fleet equipment is on file with Fleet Services. The fleet manager has researched each request, and approved them based on current and projected maintenance costs, fuel economy, downtime, and relevant safety factors. Other equipment purchases have been approved in accordance with departmental procedures. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The City's lease-purchase policy provides that: The City of Fort Collins uses lease-purchase for the provision of new and replacement equipment, vehicles and rolling stock in order to ensure the timely replacement of equipment and vehicles. This method may also be used to acquire real property. Members of the management staff have developed an equipment needs schedule for rolling stock which encompasses the demands of operating departments. This schedule is used to project equipment needs for each budget year. The type of lease that the City uses is termed a conditional sales lease. With each rental payment the City builds equity and assumes risk in the asset over the term of the lease. The annual installments are subject to appropriation by the Council each year. October 18, 2011 -2- ITEM 11 Advantages of a lease-purchase over a cash purchase are: * Decreasing the impact of inflation on the purchase of new and replacement equipment. * Resolving the problem of capital replacement needs backlog. * Conserving operating reserves. * Reducing the initial impact of the cost to user departments by enabling costs to be spread over the useful life of the equipment. * Safeguarding the opportunity to use cash assets to earn higher interest than the interest cost of lease- purchasing. It should be noted that the City is able to discontinue the equipment leases so that future City Councils will have the option to continue or discontinue the policy of lease-purchasing City equipment. According to Section 29-1-103 C.R.S., local governments are required to identify as part of their budgets: (1) the total expenditures during the ensuing fiscal year for all lease purchase agreements involving real and personal property; and (2) the total maximum payment liability under all lease purchase agreements over the entire terms of the agreements, including all optional renewal terms. Staff recognizes that the State does not include lease-purchase in the legal definition of debt; however, rating agencies include lease-purchases in calculating the City's debt burden. The proposed Ordinance authorizes the lease-purchase financing of the following: Description Quantity Cost Traffic - Replacement Vehicle Ford F-150 half-ton pickup 1 24,736 Topper and equipment 1 lot 3,151 Transportation Fund Total: $ 27,887 Parks - Replacement Vehicle Chevy 1-ton flatbed truck 1 23,000 Forestry - Replacement Vehicle Chipper chassis - International 4300 Truck 1 70,736 Chipper body - Southco 1 22,870 Forestry Total: 93,606 Building Inspection Chevy Colorado pickup 1 18,275 Operations Services - Replacement Vehicles Chevy Express Facilities technician vans 2 43,918 Equipment for Facilities vehicles 1 lot 12,000 Ops Services Total: 55,918 Police Patrol - Replacement Vehicles & Radios Chevy Caprice patrol cars 5 140,000 Chevy Tahoe Patrol SUV 1 33,000 Patrol vehicle equipment 1 lot 36,000 Motorola police mobile radios 1 lot 83,188 Patrol Replacement Vehicles Total: 292,188 Investigations - Replacement Vehicles Chevy Impala, Chevy pickup, Dodge Journey 3 70,000 Investigations vehicle equip. 1 lot 12,872 Investigations Replacement Vehicles Total: 82,872 Police Information Services Ford Fusion hybrid staff car 1 28,000 Equipment Fund Total: $ 593,859 October 18, 2011 -3- ITEM 11 Police Patrol - New Officer Vehicles Chevy Caprice patrol cars 5 140,000 Patrol Vehicle equipment 1 lot 30,000 Patrol New Officer Vehicle Total: 170,000 General Fund Total: $ 170,000 MIS Replacement desktops, workstations, laptops 1 lot 126,124 Replacement Police laptops 148 577,130 Data & Communications Fund Total: $ 703,254 Lease Total: $ 1,495,000 Departments have appropriately justified the purchase of all new and replacement vehicles and equipment. Information on replacement units is given below. See Attachment 1 for a list of vehicle and equipment purchases organized by department. The Operations Services Director has determined that the following units meet requirements for replacement. These units are included in the financing list, above. Department Old unit: Age: Miles / hours: New unit: Disposal of old unit: Notes: Traffic Ops 2270 14 119,497 Pickup Auction Unit beyond useful life Parks 2452 11 101,119 1-ton flatbed Auction Unit beyond useful life Forestry 2449 17 4888 Chipper truck Auction Unit beyond useful life Building Insp. 26700 9 100,673 Small pickup Auction Unit beyond useful life Ops Services 2653, 26300 13 94,870 & 90,539 HVAC & Electrician vans Auction Units beyond useful life Patrol 1167, 11033, 11020, 11008, 11055 9-10 > 90,000 Patrol cars Auction Units beyond useful life Investigations 11608, 21602, 21620 5-10 >90,000 Inv. cars Auction Units beyond useful life Note on usage: Units will accumulate additional miles/hours between now and when replacement vehicles arrive. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Due to improvements in emissions and engine technology, new vehicles and equipment will use less fuel and produce fewer emissions than the units being replaced. Police vehicles are replacements except for those needed for newly-authorized positions. This represents an increase in fleet size, with a corresponding increase in fuel usage and emissions. The new officers to be added by Police were approved by Council and vehicles must be added to accommodate the increase in staffing levels. Those vehicles are as fuel efficient as can be provided pursuant to the needs of patrol and investigation officers. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. October 18, 2011 -4- ITEM 11 ATTACHMENTS 1. Vehicle and Equipment Purchases by Department ATTACHMENT 1 Vehicle and Equipment Purchases by Department Description Quantity Cost Traffic - Replacement Vehicle Ford F-150 half-ton pickup 1 24,736 Topper and equipment 1 lot 3,151 Traffic Total: 27,887 Parks - Replacement Vehicle Chevy 1-ton flatbed truck 1 23,000 Forestry - Replacement Vehicle Chipper chassis - International 4300 Truck 1 70,736 Chipper body - Southco 1 22,870 Forestry Total: 93,606 Building Inspection Chevy Colorado pickup 1 18,275 Operations Services - Replacement Vehicles Chevy Express Facilities technician vans 2 43,918 Equipment for Facilities vehicles 1 lot 12,000 Ops Services Total: 55,918 Police Patrol - New & Replacement Vehicles & Radios Chevy Caprice patrol cars 10 280,000 Chevy Tahoe Patrol SUV 1 33,000 Patrol vehicle equipment 1 lot 66,000 Motorola police mobile radios 1 lot 83,188 Patrol Replacement Vehicles Total: 462,188 Investigations - Replacement Vehicles Chevy Impala, Chevy pickup, Dodge Journey 3 70,000 Investigations vehicle equip. 1 lot 12,872 Investigations Replacement Vehicles Total: 82,872 Police Information Services Ford Fusion hybrid staff car 1 28,000 MIS Replacement desktops, workstations, laptops 1 lot 126,124 Replacement Police laptops 148 577,130 MIS Total: 703,254 Lease Total: $ 1,495,000 ORDINANCE NO. 132, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR THE FINANCING BY LEASE-PURCHASE OF VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT AND APPROPRIATING THE AMOUNT NEEDED FOR SUCH PURPOSE WHEREAS, the City has a need for and desires to provide certain real and personal property for City purposes; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by the Colorado Constitution, Article XX, §6, the City Charter, and Section 31-15-801, C.R.S. (the “Act”), to enter into rental or leasehold agreements in order to provide necessary land, buildings, equipment and other property for governmental or proprietary purposes, and such agreements may include options to purchase and acquire title to such leased or rented property; and WHEREAS, the City has received a proposal from Pinnacle Public Finance to lease equipment to the City, consisting of the following: Description Quantity Cost Traffic - Replacement Vehicle Ford F-150 half-ton pickup 1 24,736 Topper and equipment 1 lot 3,151 Transportation Fund Total: $ 27,887 Parks - Replacement Vehicle Chevy 1-ton flatbed truck 1 23,000 Forestry - Replacement Vehicle Chipper chassis - International 4300 Truck 1 70,736 Chipper body - Southco 1 22,870 Forestry Total: 93,606 Building Inspection Chevy Colorado pickup 1 18,275 Operations Services - Replacement Vehicles Chevy Express Facilities technician vans 2 43,918 Equipment for Facilities vehicles 1 lot 12,000 Ops Services Total: 55,918 Police Patrol - Replacement Vehicles & Radios Chevy Caprice patrol cars 5 140,000 Chevy Tahoe Patrol SUV 1 33,000 Patrol vehicle equipment 1 lot 36,000 Motorola police mobile radios 1 lot 83,188 Patrol Replacement Vehicles Total: 292,188 Investigations - Replacement Vehicles Chevy Impala, Chevy pickup, Dodge Journey 3 70,000 Investigations vehicle equip. 1 lot 12,872 Investigations Replacement Vehicles Total: 82,872 Police Information Services Ford Fusion hybrid staff car 1 28,000 Equipment Fund Total: $ 593,859 Police Patrol - New Officer Vehicles Chevy Caprice patrol cars 5 140,000 Patrol Vehicle equipment 1 lot 30,000 Patrol New Officer Vehicle Total: 170,000 General Fund Total: $ 170,000 MIS Replacement desktops, workstations, laptops 1 lot 126,124 Replacement Police laptops 148 577,130 Data & Communications Fund Total: $ 703,254 Lease Total: $ 1,495,000 and; WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to lease the above-described equipment from Pinnacle Public Finance, which is also providing financing for the Equipment acquisition; and WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into a lease-purchase agreement with respect to the leasing and financing of the Equipment; and WHEREAS, the useful life of the Equipment is longer than the maximum lease-purchase term of five (5) years; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the lease payments to result from the proposed arrangement will require payments by the City in the sum of $79,447 per quarter, and that payments in that amount are reasonable and proper and represent the fair rental value of the Equipment; and WHEREAS, funds for the 2012 lease payments are included in the 2012 budget; and WHEREAS, the lease of the Equipment will not constitute a “multiple-fiscal year direct or indirect debt or other financial obligation” of the City within the meaning of Article X §20(4)(b) of the Colorado Constitution and may therefore be entered into without voter approval; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the then current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: -2- Section 1. That the Purchasing Agent is hereby authorized to enter into a lease-purchase agreement for the above-described Equipment with Pinnacle Public Finance in accordance with the following terms and provisions: a. The agreement shall be for an original term from the execution date of the agreement through December 31, 2011. The agreement shall provide for renewable one-year terms thereafter up to a total term of five (5) years, subject to annual appropriation of funds needed for lease payments. The total lease terms, including the original and all renewal terms, shall not exceed the useful life of the property. b. The City shall make equal quarterly payments throughout the term of such agreement but subject to annual appropriation of funds needed for such payments. c. If the City leases the Equipment for the original term and all renewal terms, the payment to Pinnacle Public Finance will total the sum of the principal, $1,495,000, plus interest at a fixed rate equal to 2.35% per year, which is a reasonable amount. d. The City shall have the option to purchase part or all of the Equipment on any quarterly payment date of any term. The option to purchase shall be exercised by paying the quarterly payment due on said date and the unpaid principal due after said date. e. If the City renews the agreement for all the renewal terms and makes all payments during said terms, the City shall be deemed to have exercised the option to purchase said Equipment. f. The agreement shall constitute only a current expense of the City and shall not be construed to be a debt or pledge of the City's credit or revenues. Section 2. That the amount of TWENTY SEVEN THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHTY SEVEN DOLLARS ($27,887) to be provided under the lease-purchase agreement is hereby appropriated for expenditure in the Transportation Fund from unanticipated revenue in the appropriate funds for the acquisition of vehicles and equipment in accordance with the terms and provisions of the lease-purchase agreement, upon receipt thereof. Section 3. That the amount of FIVE HUNDRED NINETY THREE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY NINE DOLLARS ($593,859) to be provided under the lease-purchase agreement is hereby appropriated for expenditure in the Equipment Fund from unanticipated revenue in the appropriate funds for the acquisition of vehicles and equipment for Parks, Forestry, Building Inspection, Operations Services, and Police, in accordance with the terms and provisions of the lease-purchase agreement, upon receipt thereof. -3- Section 4. That the amount of ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($170,000) to be provided under the lease-purchase agreement is hereby appropriated for expenditure in the General Fund from unanticipated revenue in the appropriate funds for the acquisition of vehicles for Police, in accordance with the terms and provisions of the lease-purchase agreement, upon receipt thereof. Section 5. That the amount of SEVEN HUNDRED THREE THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED FIFTY FOUR DOLLARS ($703,254) to be provided under the lease-purchase agreement is hereby appropriated for expenditure in the Data & Communications Fund from unanticipated revenue in the appropriate funds for the acquisition of equipment in accordance with the terms and provisions of the lease-purchase agreement, upon receipt thereof. Section 6. Any inconsistency between the provisions of this Ordinance and those of the Act is intended by the Council. To the extent of any such inconsistency the provisions of this Ordinance shall be deemed made pursuant to the City Charter and shall supersede, to the extent permitted by law, the conflicting provisions of the Act. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 1st day of November, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -4- DATE: October 18, 2011 STAFF: JR Schnelzer AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 12 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2011, Amending Section 2-338 of the City Code Pertaining to the Duties and Functions of the Parks and Recreation Board. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance will modify the duties of the Parks and Recreation Board as contained in Section 2-338 of the City Code to broaden the scope of the Parks and Recreation Board’s functions to allow the Board to promote awareness and appreciation of the value of parks and recreation as a resource contributing to the quality of Fort Collins. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Parks and Recreation Board has long wanted to promote awareness and appreciation for the value that the Park and Recreation system has on the quality of life for the citizens and visitors of Fort Collins. The Board has discussed ways to communicate these values to the community but there has been no formal way that they can, as a group forward these ideas. The Board is requesting this amendment to the City Code because it is very interested in promoting the positive aspects of parks and recreation to the citizens of Fort Collins, but the current Code language does not empower the Board to do so. The amendment would also clean up outdated department and entity names in Section 2-338. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION This has been a Parks and Recreation Board discussion item since April 2011. At its August 24 and September 14, 2011 meetings, the Board discussed the wording of the Code modification and voted unanimously to recommend Council adopt the Code amendment. ATTACHMENTS 1. Parks and Recreation Board minutes, August 24, 2011 and September 14, 2011 PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD September 14, 2011 DRAFT Communications & Stewardship Sub-Committee Waiting for approval of update to Bylaws to determine which way to proceed. Rob Cagen and Michael Chalona spoke with Kelly Ohlson regarding the delay to update the Parks & Recreation Bylaw language to include “promote awareness and understanding of, and appreciation for, the value of parks and recreation as a resource contributing to the quality of our city”. After the proposal was presented to the Leadership Team, they felt that other Boards bylaws should be reviewed to see if it made sense to add this language to their bylaws as well, or if it should even be added. Discussion: Kelly – The reason for the hesitation, is because historically, there have been issues with other Boards going beyond their boundaries. So, while this added language may work for the P&R Board, the question came up; “what about other Board?” Board – We understand the issue with the Code, but we’ve been working on this for about six months, and a delay in allowing this language to be added to our bylaws while they examine other Boards will reduce our chance to engage our target audience; which is the schools. Kelly – I’ll visit with the team on Monday, September 19, to see if we can move the Parks & Recreation bylaws update along, and allow the other Board to “catch up”. Board – We do have respect for the process, but we’re only asking to have the ability to promote sustainability and appreciation for the parks and recreation facilities; which doesn’t seem like an unreasonable request. Kelly – If you can send me some talking points that I can refer to at the Leadership meeting, that would be great. * Note: P&R Board worked via e-mail on Thursday & Friday and sent the following talking points to Kelly on September 16: • As Parks & Recreation Board Members, we’re amazed by all that the City is doing with parks and recreation, and want to share the information we’ve learned with the citizens of Fort Collins. To this end, our communication subcommittee spent most of 2011 researching the optimal way to do so. • We have already spent five months trying to expand our bylaws. • One of the Board’s top priorities is to coordinate with Poudre School District (PSD) to improve stewardship in parks to reduce vandalism and other inappropriate uses. If we have to wait for other boards and go as a group it may put us out 9-12 months. If this is the case, not only will we lose momentum, and enthusiasm, but we’ll lose an entire school year.” ORDINANCE NO. 133, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTION 2-338 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PERTAINING TO THE DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD WHEREAS, Section 2-338 of the City Code sets forth the functions of the City's Parks and Recreation Board (the “Board); and WHEREAS, those functions are presently limited to advising the City Council and City staff with regard to rules, regulation, policies, and administrative and budgetary matters pertaining to the Parks and Recreation Department and assisting the City in cooperating with Poudre School District and other organizations and individuals interested in the City’s Parks and Recreation programs; and WHEREAS, at its regular meetings on August 24 and September 14, 2011, the Board voted to recommend that the City Council adopt a proposed City Code amendment expanding the Board’s functions; and WHEREAS, the Board has recommended to the City Council that the Board’s functions be expanded to include publicly promoting awareness and understanding of, and appreciation for, the value of parks and recreation as a resource contributing to the quality of life in our community; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it would be in the best interests of the City to expand the functions of the Board accordingly. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that Section 2-338 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-338. Functions. The duties and functions of the Board shall be as follows: (1) To advise and make recommendations to the Cultural, Library and Recreational ServicesCulture, Parks, Recreation and Environment Director and the City Council for their approval as to rules, regulations, policies, administrative and budgetary matters pertaining to the Department,parks and recreation but excluding matters relating to the operation and maintenance of City-owned golf courses and cemeteries; (2) To assist the City in cooperating with the Poudre R-1 School District and other organizations and individuals interested in the City's parks and recreation programs.; (3) To promote community awareness and understanding of, and appreciation for, the value of parks and recreation as a resource contributing to the quality of life in Fort Collins. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: October 18, 2011 STAFF: Ann Turnquist AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 13 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2011, Amending Chapter 23, Article V, of the City Code to Add New Provisions Related to the Naming of City Properties and Facilities. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance establishes a process for the City Council’s responsibilities in the naming of City facilities or properties. The process defines how appropriate names are selected when a facility is to be named for a person (living or dead), or for an organization (e.g., foundations) or corporations. This Ordinance establishes Council’s role in such facility naming and establishes the City Manager’s authority to name other facilities. In addition to this Ordinance, an Administrative Policy is outlined which establishes staff’s role in the naming of facilities in other circumstances. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The purpose of this policy is to establish a systematic and consistent approach for the official naming of parks, recreational facilities, cultural facilities, natural areas, trails and civic buildings, or portions thereof. The City’s objectives for naming of facilities include: • To name City facilities through a consistent, fair and appropriate process utilizing established criteria. • To ensure that City-owned facilities are easily identified and located. • To encourage the dedication of lands, facilities, or donations by individuals and organizations. City-owned facilities include all property assets under the City’s ownership and control including parks, recreational and cultural facilities, civic buildings, natural areas, and trails. Such facilities will not include streets which are named according to policies established through the City Code Sec. 24-91 and as a part of the Development Review Process. CITY COUNCIL NAMED FACILITIES: Under the proposed Ordinance (Sec. 23-141 Naming of properties and facilities for persons or entities), the City Council has the authority to select or approve the naming of a facility or a portion of a facility that is to be named after individuals, organizations (e.g., foundations) or corporations. Provisions include the following: A. Donor Naming Policy In circumstances where a significant financial donation has been made for the acquisition, construction or improvement of the facility, the facility or a portion of the facility may be named either for the donor or in consideration of the wishes of the donor. The following guidelines shall be used when such a name is proposed: 1. Donations shall be of a significant size and proportion to the total cost of the facility or portion of the facility to be named. As a guideline, a donation of 75 percent (75%) or more of the value of the facility, feature or portion of the facility to be named is a baseline in determining a naming or recognition opportunity. 2. It is the City’s intent to encourage and recognize private contributions. If a significant donation is received from the private sector or an individual, significant consideration will be given to a donor’s naming or recognition request while balancing the public interest. 3. If the City does not believe a donation is sufficiently large to warrant the naming of an entire facility after the donor individual or organization, the City may offer the donor the opportunity to name a part of a facility or a feature of the facility to recognize the donation. October 18, 2011 -2- ITEM 13 B. Non-Donor Honorees A facility or portion thereof may be named for a community member or other significant contributor to the community (living or deceased), subject to approval of City Council. If such a naming is to be considered, the City may solicit nominations for such naming. Such nominations will be reviewed by an ad hoc committee of Councilmembers and appropriate staff members. The ad hoc committee will make recommendations to the full City Council regarding the nominations. Names which are proposed to honor a non-donor deceased person shall be subject to a minimum 12 month waiting period following the death of such honoree. Such honorees should have provided significant service or direct benefit to the community which will endure over many years. When the City Council is to select or approve the name of a facility or portion thereof, an ad hoc Council Committee will first review the proposal in preparation for formal consideration by City Council. Names selected pursuant to this Ordinance will be adopted by Council Resolution. The Council may solicit input from the public and City boards and commissions as deemed appropriate and advisable. The proposed Resolution will include the following information: • A description of the contributions of the individual, organization, or corporation to the City. • Written documentation of approval by next of kin of the person to be honored (if available/possible) is required as part of the proposal if the facility is to be named after a deceased person. Exceptions to approval of a relative or executor will be considered when no living relatives can be identified or are unable to participate in such approval process. • A provision allowing the City to change or modify the approved name in the future, should such a modification be necessary for the public good (e.g., change of use for the facility; future negative associations with the selected name, etc.), regardless of whether the naming was for a donor honoree or non-donor honoree. ADMINISTRATIVELY NAMED FACILITIES Other naming of facilities will occur in compliance with an Administrative Policy approved by the City Manager. Provisions of the policy include the process for naming of facilities which are not named after individuals, organizations (e.g., foundations) or corporations. This authority is outlined in the proposed Ordinance (Sec. 23-142 Naming of properties and facilities for other than persons or entities.) The attached draft administrative policy outlines the process to be used for administrative naming of City-owned facilities and properties. (See Attachment 1) OTHER NAMING POLICIES The proposed Ordinance applies to City-owned parks, recreational and cultural facilities, civic buildings, natural areas, and trails. The provisions do not apply to the naming of City streets. Arterial and collector streets are named through provisions of the City Code Section 24-91. Sec. 24-91. List of street names. All new arterial and collector streets, as defined in the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan, are to be named from the list of street names approved by the City Council. The list of street names shall be composed of names of natural areas, natural features, historic and/or well-known places, citizens of the City or Growth Management Area whom the Council would like to honor posthumously, and such other names of places, things or deceased persons as the Council may approve. With respect to citizens of the City whom the Council desires to honor posthumously, such citizens must have devoted much time and effort to the City either as a former City officer or employee, a former Colorado State University officer or employee, a person important in the founding of the City or a former citizen of exemplary character deserving of special recognition. The list of street names shall be adopted and amended by the City Council by resolution. All new arterial and collector streets which are not extensions of existing arterial and collector streets must be named from the foregoing list of street names, and the Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services shall strike names October 18, 2011 -3- ITEM 13 from the list as they are used in the naming of such new arterial and collector streets and shall promptly file an updated list in the Office of the City Clerk. Local streets are named by developers as part of the Development Review Process. During the Development Review Process, staff reviews the proposed names of local streets to ensure that the selected names do not duplicate existing names, create confusion with other similar names within the City or adjacent areas, or are “sound-alike” to existing street names. When staff finds problems with a developer’s proposed names, they will reject the names under these criteria, but otherwise do not make changes to those names. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Administrative Naming Policy Attachment 1 DRAFT Administrative Naming Policy The City Manager is authorized to select or approve the name of a facility or portion of a facility (e.g., a room in a facility) that is not named after individuals, organizations, or corporations. These facilities may include parks, recreational facilities, cultural facilities, natural areas, trails and civic buildings, or portions thereof. A. Administrative Naming Conventions: 1. Most facilities will be named from any one of the following categories: a. Geographic location (e.g., neighborhood, historic area, etc.) b. Unique natural features (e.g., Rabbit Brush Park) c. Specific purpose of the facility (e.g., Senior Center, Museum of Discovery, Utilities Service Center, etc.) d. Place of historical or cultural significance 2. Names that are similar to existing parks, natural areas, trails, recreation facilities, cultural facilities and civic buildings in the City system (or other systems in the region) will not be considered if they cause confusion with existing facilities. 3. Facilities shall not be named after products or commodities. 4. Naming rights for City facilities shall not be offered for sale or at auction, separate from the provisions of this policy. B. Administrative Name Selection Process: For facilities or for portions of facilities which are to be named by the City Manager:  The Manager may solicit input from the City Council, the public and City Boards and Commissions as deemed appropriate and advisable.  A Service Area, Unit or Department may submit to the City Manager a request for naming a park, natural area, trail, recreation facility, cultural facility or civic building, or portion thereof.  Those submitting a naming request should show how the proposed name is consistent with the criteria stated in this policy.  The City Manager will review the proposal for adherence to the Facility Naming Policy and approve the name in writing. C. Related Code Provisions: In accordance with City Code Sec. 23-141. Naming of Properties and facilities for persons or entities adopted by City Council on ________, the City Council is responsible for naming City facilities or properties when the such facility is to be named for an individual (living or deceased), an organization (e.g. foundations) or a corporation. Arterial and collector streets are named in accordance with City Code Sec. 24-91. List of street names; local or residential streets are named by developers as part of the development review process. 1 ORDINANCE NO. 134, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 23, ARTICLE V, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO ADD NEW PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE NAMING OF CITY PROPERTIES AND FACILITIES WHEREAS, the City Code is silent as to the process for naming of City properties and facilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council has expressed a concern about establishing a systematic and consistent approach for the official naming of parks, recreational and cultural facilities, natural areas, trails, and other civic lands, buildings and facilities, and portions thereof; and WHEREAS, the objectives to be served through the naming of such City properties and facilities include: • fairness and appropriateness; • easy identification and location of City facilities by users, public officials and the general public; and • encouragement of the dedication of lands and facilities and the donation of funds by individuals and organizations; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has proposed and recommended to the Council the procedures and standards for naming of City properties and facilities as set forth below as new City Code Sections 23-141 and 23-142; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that this issue should be addressed by amendments to Article V of Chapter 23 of the City Code, entitled City Facilities Generally, as provided below. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Article V of Chapter 23 of the City Code, entitled City Facilities Generally, be amended by the addition of a new Section 23-141 to read as follows: Sec. 23-141. Naming of properties and facilities for persons or entities. (a) The requirements of this Section shall apply to the naming of City-owned or operated properties or facilities for persons or entities, including but not limited to individuals, families, designated groups of persons, and for-profit and not-for- profit organizations and associations. Any property assets under the City’s ownership and control including parks, recreational and cultural facilities, civic buildings, natural areas, trails, or any portions of such properties or facilities shall be named in accordance with this Section, except that the naming of streets and alleys, to the extent carried out by the City, shall be governed by § 24-91. (b) The naming of a City property or facility, or portion thereof, for one or more persons or entities shall be approved by the City Council by resolution, after review by an ad hoc City Council committee formed for the purpose of selecting and recommending a name for such property, facility or portion thereof. The formation of an ad hoc naming committee may be initiated by request of the City Manager or the Mayor or by majority vote of the City Council. An ad hoc naming committee may seek such public input, and may request and consider proposals and recommendations of City boards and commissions and the City Manager, as said committee deems appropriate. A resolution approving a City property or facility name pursuant to this Section shall include a description of the donation or other significant service or benefit to the community, that is the basis for the designation of the name approved. The resolution shall further provide that the City may modify or remove the approved name in the future, in the event that the City Council determines such modification or removal to be appropriate in light of changed circumstances or other matters of public interest or convenience. Examples of such grounds for modification of an approved name include a change of use of the facility; a change in public perception of the name, or development of a new purpose or priority for the property named. (c) In the event that a significant financial donation has been made for the acquisition, construction or improvement of a property or facility, the property or facility or a portion thereof may be named either for the donor or in consideration of the wishes of the donor. Donations shall be of a significant size and proportion to the total cost of the property or facility or portion thereof to be named. Generally, the donation should be no less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the value of the property, facility, feature or portion thereof to be named. If such a donation is received from an individual, family or entity, the City Council will give significant weight to a naming or recognition request from the donor, but will consider such a request in light of other policy or practical priorities and concerns and the public interest in general. In some instances, the naming of a portion of a property or facility or a specific feature of the property or facility for a donor may be an appropriate alternative to naming the entire property or facility. (d) A property or facility or a portion thereof may be named for a community member or other significant contributor to the community, after solicitation of nominations from the general public for appropriate names of honorees. Other than names for donors as described in subparagraph (c), above, to be eligible for consideration under this subparagraph (d) a name must be either the name of a living person or an entity, or the name of a person deceased for no less than twelve (12) months at the time of nomination. Persons or entities for which a property or facility or portion thereof is named hereunder shall be determined to have provided significant service or direct benefit to the community that has endured, or will endure, over many years. -2- (e) Prior to final approval of the naming of a property or facility is named for a deceased person, the City shall make reasonable efforts to identify, locate and obtain the consent of next of kin of such person. Section 2. That Article V of Chapter 23 of the City Code, entitled City Facilities Generally, be amended by the addition of a new Section 23-142 to read as follows: Sec. 23-142. Naming of properties and facilities for other than persons or entities. (a) The City Manager is authorized to establish administrative rules and procedures for the selection and approval of names for City-owned or operated properties or facilities, except as specified in § 23-141 and § 24-91. All administrative naming of properties and facilities, and portions thereof, shall be in accordance with such rules and procedures. (b) The City Manager shall not name City owned or operated properties or facilities, or portions thereof, for products or commodities, and shall not offer for sale or auction the name or naming rights of any such property, facility or portion thereof. (c) In connection with the naming of such properties and facilities, the City Manager shall generally give preference to the use of names associated with geographic location, unique natural, historical or cultural features or significance, and the specific purposes of the property or facility, and the avoidance of confusion with existing facilities or locations. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -3- Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -4- DATE: October 18, 2011 STAFF: Mike Beckstead Jason Licon AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 14 SUBJECT Resolution 2011-093 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Grant Award and Agreement with the U.S. Department of Transportation for a Grant Pertaining to the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Resolution authorizes the City Manager to execute a grant agreement with the United States Department of Transportation. The grant is in the amount of $221,500. The grant will be used to fund the Airport’s efforts to address the air service needs of the community through completion of an air service development, communications and marketing plan for the Airport and development of a plan for the wingless flight program. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION With funds made available through the Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program, the Airport, in conjunction with the Cities of Loveland and Fort Collins, plans to develop and implement a community based air service strategic plan with goals and objectives of meeting the growth needs of their aviation requirements needs for their citizens and businesses. This plan will work to increase awareness of Airport initiatives, support incumbent carriers, provide new jobs and improve the region’s access to the air transportation network. This plan will also include substantial public engagement in the local Airport sponsor communities to further enhance the relationship between the Airport and community members, including the general public and business interests. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The funding derived from the grant totals $221,500, and the Grant requires local matching cash funds in the amount of $19,602, which are available for appropriation from the Airport Fund balance, and a local matching “in kind” contribution valued at $16,335, to be provided by the Airport. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. RESOLUTION 2011-093 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A GRANT AWARD AND AGREEMENT WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR A GRANT PERTAINING TO THE FORT COLLINS-LOVELAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT WHEREAS, the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland jointly own and operate the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport (the “Airport”); and WHEREAS, the Cities have applied for a grant under the Small Community Air Service Development Program from the U.S. Department of Transportation (“DOT”) in the amount of $221,500 (the “Grant”) to fund a the Airport’s efforts to address the air service needs of the community through completion of an air service development, communications and marketing plan for the Airport and development of a plan for the wingless flight program; and WHEREAS, the DOT has notified that the Grant has been awarded to the Airport on the terms and conditions set forth in the Grant Award and Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Grant Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the Grant requires local matching cash funds in the amount of $19,602 (the “Local Cash Funds”), which are available for appropriation from the Airport Fund balance, and a local matching “in kind” contribution valued at $16,335 to be provided by the Airport; and WHEREAS, the Grant funds and the Local Cash Funds required under the Grant Agreement will be appropriated by the City of Loveland as a supplement appropriation to the Airport’s 2011 budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Grant Agreement and the Grant Assurances attached thereto are hereby approved. Section 2. That the City Manager is authorized, following consultation with the City Attorney, to modify the Grant Agreement in form or substance as deemed necessary to effectuate the purposes of this resolution or to protect the interests of the City. Section 3. That the City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Grant Agreement, and the Grant Assurances attached thereto, on behalf of the City of Fort Collins. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 18th day of October A.D. 2011. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk DATE: October 18, 2011 STAFF: Mike Beckstead Jason Licon AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 15 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2011, Authorizing the Appropriation of 2012 Fiscal Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2012 annual operating budget for the Airport totals $779,550, and will be funded from Airport operating revenues, contributions from the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland ($85,000 from each city), and interest earnings. This Ordinance authorizes the City of Loveland to appropriate the City of Fort Collins contribution, which is a 50% share of the 2012 Airport budget and totals $389,775. This Ordinance also appropriates the City’s 50% share of capital funds, totaling $608,500 for the Airport from federal and state grants; contributions from Fort Collins and Loveland; and the Airport General Fund. Most of the 2012 Airport capital funds, totaling $1,217,000, will be used to continue major Airport improvements such as taxiway and apron rehabilitation and some funds are slated for utility master planning and design engineering to accommodate Airport business development. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In 1963, the City of Fort Collins and the City of Loveland agreed to the establishment of a regional aviation facility and became owners and operators of the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, located approximately 16 miles southeast of downtown Fort Collins, just west of Interstate 25 on Earhart Road. The Airport is operated as a joint venture between the City of Fort Collins and the City of Loveland, with each city retaining a 50% ownership interest, sharing equally in policy-making and management, and with each assuming responsibility for 50% of the capital and operating costs associated with the Airport. The Airport’s mission is to provide a safe and efficient air transportation airport facility to the general public and aviation community by providing airport facilities that meet Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety standards and to implement a plan that ensures the efficient development of the Airport to meet the needs of the Fort Collins and Loveland communities. Airport revenues cover operating costs and capital projects. Each city contributes equal funding for Airport operating and capital costs. Airport development and improvement funds are also received, for eligible projects, from the FAA and the Colorado Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics. The annual operating costs for 2012 for the Airport are $779,550, and the City of Fort Collins contribution is $389,775. In addition, the Airport Manager is recommending additional capital expenditures and has identified the following funding sources: FAA Entitlement Grant $ 1,000,000 State Grant 108,500 Airport Revenues 108,500 Total $ 1,217,000 The additional capital expenditures will be to continue runway improvements and for utility master planning and design engineering to accommodate Airport business development, $1,217,000. Thus, the City of Fort Collins appropriation for the capital expenditures identified above is $608,500 (50% of the total). October 18, 2011 -2- ITEM15 FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS This Ordinance appropriates the City’s 50% share ($998,275) of the annual appropriation for fiscal year 2011 for Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport budget. The City of Loveland manages the Airport’s budget and finances; however, since the City of Fort Collins owns 50% of the Airport, it is necessary for the City to appropriate its 50% portion of the Airport budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 135, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF 2012 FISCAL YEAR OPERATING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS FOR THE FORT COLLINS-LOVELAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT WHEREAS, in 1963, the City of Fort Collins and the City of Loveland (the “Cities”) agreed to establish a regional general aviation facility and became owners and operators of the Fort Collins- Loveland Municipal Airport (the “Airport”); and WHEREAS, the Airport is operated as a joint venture between the Cities, with each city retaining a 50% ownership interest, sharing equally in policy-making and management, and assuming responsibility for 50% of the capital and operating costs associated with the Airport; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Intergovernmental Agreement, dated May 16, 2000, between the Cities for the joint operation of the Airport (the “IGA”), the Airport Manager is responsible for preparing the Airport’s annual operating budget and submitting it to the Cities for their approval; and WHEREAS, the Airport Manager has submitted for City Council consideration a 2012 Airport operating budget totaling $779,550 and the City’s share is $389,775; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to authorize the City of Loveland to appropriate the City’s share of the necessary funds for operating costs of the Airport, totaling $389,775, for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2012, and ending December 31, 2012; and WHEREAS, the Airport Manager recommends the following capital improvements for 2012, totaling $1,217,000, that are not included in the 2011 Airport operating budget: Taxiway Improvements and Utility Master Planning and Design Engineering $1,217,000 WHEREAS, funding for the 2012 capital improvements has been identified as follows: FAA Entitlement Grants $ 1,000,000 State Grant 108,500 Airport Revenues 108,500 Total $ 1,217,000 WHEREAS, the City’s 50% share of the 2012 capital improvement costs is $608,500; and WHEREAS, under the IGA, the City’s share of existing and unanticipated Airport revenue will be held and disbursed by the City of Loveland as an agent on behalf of the Cities since the City of Loveland provides finance and accounting services for the Airport; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Article V, Section 8(b), of the City Charter, any expense or liability entered into by an agent of the City, on behalf of the City, shall not be made unless an appropriation therefor shall have been made by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby adopts the 2012 Airport operating budget. Section 2. That the City Council hereby authorizes the appropriation of THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY-NINE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY-FIVE DOLLARS ($389,775) to be expended to defray the operating costs of the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport. Section 3. That the City Council hereby authorizes the appropriation of SIX HUNDRED EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($608,500) to be used for 2012 capital improvements at the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: October 18, 2011 STAFF: Matt Robenalt Kathy Cardona AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 19 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2011, Making Annual Appropriations for the Downtown Development Authority for the Fiscal Year 2012 and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2012. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Annual Appropriation Ordinance for the Downtown Development Authority is presented for First Reading. Ordinance No. 137, 2011, sets the Downtown Development Authority 2012 budget amount of $814,380 to be appropriated for fiscal year 2012 for the administrative operations budget; sets the amount of $1,652,346 for debt service payments to be appropriated for fiscal year 2012; and sets the 2012 Mill Levy for the Fort Collins, Downtown Development Authority at five (5) mills, unchanged since 2002. The approved budget becomes the Downtown Development Authority’s financial plan for 2012. This Ordinance does not appropriate funds for projects or programs of the DDA funded with bond proceeds. Examples of projects and programs funded with bond proceeds include annual holiday light display, facade improvements, the enhanced alley annual maintenance costs, ice rink, and participation in the river district improvement projects, etc. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Downtown Development Authority (the “DDA”) was created in 1981 with the purpose, according to State statue, of planning and implementing projects and programs within the boundaries of the DDA. By state statue the purpose of the ad valorem tax levied on all real and personal property in the downtown development district, not to exceed five (5) mills, shall be for the budgeted operations of the authority. The DDA and the City adopted a Plan of Development that specifies the projects and programs the DDA would undertake. In order to carry out the purposes of the State statue and the Plan of Development the City, on behalf of the DDA, has issued various tax increment bonds, which require debt servicing. The DDA staff and Budget Committee are very cognizant of the changed revenue environment of the organization and economic conditions, and have made a strong effort to budget conservatively to reflect this climate. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority is requesting approval of the DDA Operations and Maintenance budget, for fiscal year 2012, in the amount of $814,380. It is also requesting approval of the DDA debt payment commitments in the amount of $1,652,346 for 2012 obligations. Uses: Personnel Services: $452,768 Contractual Professional Services: 318,114 Purchased Supplies and Commodities: 23,635 Other: 19,863 Total $814,380 The DDA debt service fund is projected to have sufficient revenue to meet the required debt service payments for 2012. Uses: Debt Payment: 2012 $1,652,346 October 18, 2011 -2- ITEM 19 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its September 8, 2011 meeting, the Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors adopted its proposed budget for 2012 totaling $2,466,726 and determined the mill levy necessary to provide for payment of administrative costs incurred by the DDA. ATTACHMENTS 1. Map of the Downtown Development Authority. 2. Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Board Resolution 2011-03 Recommending to Council the Determining and Fixing of the Mill Levy of the DDA for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2012 3. Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Board Resolution 2011-04 Recommending to Council the Budget of the Estimated Amounts Required to Pay the Expenses of Conducting the Business of the DDA for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2012 4. Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Board Resolution 2011-05 Recommending to Council the Appropriation of $1,368,973 and $283,373 from the DDA Debt Service Fund for Payment of Debt Service and the DDA’s Obligation for the Civic Center Parking Structure for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2012 5. Powerpoint presentation E VINE DR RIVERSIDE AVE SMITH ST E ELIZABETH ST S MASON ST N COLLEGE AVE S LEMAY AVE MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST WHEDBEE ST PETERSON ST E LINCOLN AVE E MYRTLE ST LINDEN ST STOVER ST REMINGTON ST S COLLEGE AVE 12TH ST MAPLE ST E PLUM ST 9TH ST W OAK ST S HOWES ST CHERRY ST E OLIVE ST W OLIVE ST CONIFER ST E OAK ST E MULBERRY ST BUCKINGHAM ST S MELDRUM ST W LAUREL ST W MYRTLE ST LAPORTE AVE HEMLOCK ST WILLOW ST S WHITCOMB ST N LEMAY AVE REDWOOD ST 1ST ST 3RD ST 2ND ST W MAGNOLIA ST N SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST W MOUNTAIN AVE CA J E TA N ST 10TH ST COWAN ST N MASON ST O S I A ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 4 1 Ordinance No. 137, 2011 addresses the following: a. Within DDA boundary, sets DDA property tax levy at 5 mills for 2012 b. Appropriation of DDA’s Operations & Maintenance (“O&M”) Budget c. Appropriation of 2012 debt payment expenditures on existing bond and lease obligations DDA statute requires annual Council action on each item listed above. This ordinance does not appropriate funds for projects or programs of the DDA funded with bond proceeds. 1 DDA Funding Sources 5 mill Property Tax Levy Funds O&M budget to operate organization. •personnel •contractual •professional •purchased services supplies services services Property Tax Increment Services debt on bonds and leases approved by City Council on behalf of the DDA Board. Bond proceeds used to fulfill Board commitments to: •facade •capital •grants •maintenance •art •project and to projects planning - culture public the city obligations investments private improvements 2 ATTACHMENT 5 2 Questions for DDA Staff? 3 ORDINANCE NO. 137, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 AND FIXING THE MILL LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 WHEREAS, the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority (the “DDA”) has been duly organized in accordance with Section 31-25-804, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, on September 8, 2011, the DDA Board of Directors (the “DDA Board”), acting under the provisions of Section 31-25-816, C.R.S., adopted a budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2012 and determined the mill levy necessary to provide for payment during fiscal year 2012 of all properly authorized expenditures to be incurred by the DDA; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to appropriate the sum of TWO MLLION, FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY SIX THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY SIX DOLLARS ($2,466,726) in the DDA Operation and Maintenance Fund and the Debt Service Fund for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2012 and ending December 31, 2012, to be used as follows: DDA Operations & Maintenance $ 814,380 DDA Debt Service Fund 1,652,346 $2,466,726 WHEREAS, the DDA Board has recommended to the City Council a mill levy of five mills upon each dollar of assessed valuation on all taxable property within the DDA District, such levy representing the amount of taxes for DDA purposes necessary to provide for payment during the ensuing fiscal year for all properly authorized expenditures to be incurred by the DDA; and WHEREAS, Section 39-5-128(1), C.R.S., requires certification of any tax levy to the Board of County Commissioners no later than December 15, 2011. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, as follows: Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from the Downtown Development Authority Operations and Maintenance Fund the sum of EIGHT HUNDRED FOURTEEN THOUSAND, THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY DOLLARS ($814,380), to be expended for the authorized purposes of the DDA. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from the Downtown Development Authority Debt Service Fund the sum of ONE MILLION, SIX HUNDRED FIFTY TWO THOUSAND, THREE HUNDRED AND FORTY SIX DOLLARS ($1,652,346), for payment of debt service on previously issued and outstanding bonds, to pay the City’s investment service charge, and to be used to cover the DDA’s one-third share of payment on the Civic Center Parking Structure. Section 3. That the 2012 mill levy rate for the taxation upon each dollar of the assessed valuation of all taxable property within the DDA District as of December 31, 2011 shall be five (5) mills, which levy represents the amount of taxes for the District purposes to provide for payment during the aforementioned fiscal year of all properly authorized expenditures to be incurred by the DDA. Said mill levy shall be certified to the County Assessor and the Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado, by the City Clerk as provided by law. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: October 4, 2011 STAFF: Brian Janonis Ellen Switzer AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 20 SUBJECT Items Relating to Utility Rates, Fees and Charges for 2012. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Water Rates and Charges. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Water Plant Investment Fees. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Wastewater Rates, Fees and Charges. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Sewer Plant Investment Fees. E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Rates, Fees and Charges. F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Development Fees and Charges. G. First Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Stormwater Plant Investment Fees. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following overall monthly rate increases are recommended for 2012. % Increase Water 6.0% Wastewater 8.0% Electric 8.3% The water and wastewater rate increases are across the board to all customer classes. There is no change in the monthly rate for stormwater. City Council has requested additional data and time to study proposed changes to the electric residential energy service rate (hereafter referred to as “RESR”). Staff will return to Council on November 15, 2011, to recommend changes to the RESR. All other electric rates are included in the electric rate increase referenced above. The electric rate increases are proposed to vary by customer class from 3.9% to 15.9%. The proposed changes will impact individual electric customers more or less than the customer class averages. With the water and wastewater rate changes contained in the proposed ordinances, a typical single family customer’s monthly bill will increase $4.44 from $138.66 to $143.10 or 3.2%. If revisions to the RESR are approved by Council at a later date, the typical residential customer will likely see an additional increase in costs. The later change will depend on the rate form option preferred by City Council. Changes to the water and wastewater plant investment fees and electric development fees will also go into effect if the proposed ordinances are approved. A 4.7% increase in water plant investment fees (PIFs) and a 1.2% increase in stormwater PIFs are proposed. A 3% reduction in wastewater PIFs is recommended. On average, electric development fees will increase from 1% - 3.5% for residential and decrease less than 1% for commercial. Several additional Code modifications and clarifications are also contained in the ordinances above. October 18, 2011 -2- ITEM 20 BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Monthly Utility Rates The recommended 2012 rate increases differ from the rates that were proposed in the original 2011-2012 Budget. The changes are summarized in Attachment 1 and further explained by the staff memos included as Attachments 2 and 3. All proposed rates would be effective for meter readings on or after January 1, 2012. A. Monthly Water Rates (Ordinance No. 138, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Water Rates and Charges.) Staff proposes a 6% water rate increase. The increase is across the board and applies to all rate classes. With the proposed rate, a typical single family residential customer’s monthly bill will increase 6% as shown in the following table: Single Family Typical Use 2011 Monthly Water Bill Proposed 2012 Monthly Water Bill $ Increase % Increase January 5000 gallons $24.13 $25.58 $1.45 6% July 21,000 gallons $65.11 $69.04 $3.93 6% Monthly Average* $35.87 $38.05 $2.18 6% *Average based on seasonal use of 117,131 gallons per year Although water rates were increased 3% in 2007, 2010 and in 2011, total Water Fund revenues decreased 23% between 2006 and 2010. The reduction in use is thought to be a combination of conservation, weather and economic factors. While water use is down, the vast majority of the costs of operating the water system are fixed and do not vary based on customer use. The proposed 2012 rate increase is required to fund operations, capital improvements and maintain debt service coverage. Staff has increased projections for Water Fund capital projects needs between 2013 and 2020 by $33 million. Most of this increase is for distribution system replacement ($22 million). The distribution system project increase is a result of the preliminary data from the asset management program. The increase is not related to Halligan Reservoir which is to be funded from the Water Rights Reserve. The Water Rights Reserve is funded by developers’ cash-in-lieu-of water rights payments and is restricted to the purchase of water rights and water storage only. See Attachment 2 for additional detailed explanation of the water rate increase. In addition, staff is proposing to eliminate unmetered construction water for customers with planned water services with meters greater than 1-inch. Staff is also recommending a monthly charge for 3/4-inch and 1-inch construction water service. Construction water will remain unmetered for 3/4-inch and 1-inch services but instead of a flat one time fee on the building permit (equivalent to 1.5 times the base charge for the future account), a monthly account will be established and billed a flat charge based on estimated construction use of 7000 gallons per month. Monthly billing will continue until the permanent meter is set. These changes are proposed to eliminate, or at least reduce, the extended over use of the unmetered construction service and will better reflect the cost of the water provided. Construction Water Frequency of Billing 3/4-inch Meter 1-inch Meter Current 2011 One time charge $ 20.40 $ 50.93 Proposed 2012 Monthly charge $ 25.46 $ 48.55 Includes PILOTs October 18, 2011 -3- ITEM 20 B. Monthly Wastewater Rates (Ordinance No. 140, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Wastewater Rates, Fees and Charges.) Staff proposes an 8% wastewater rate increase for 2012. The increase is across the board and applies to all rate classes. With the proposed increase, a typical residential customer’s bill will increase from $28.59 to $30.88 or $2.29 per month. The typical customer is based on 4,800 gallons of winter quarter water use. Council previously approved a series of annual wastewater rate increases starting in 2008. The prior rate increases, as well as the proposed 2012 increase, are necessary to fund wastewater operations and meet the increase in long term debt service obligations for the now completed capital project which replaced the trickling filter, made odor control improvements and prepared for future regulatory requirements at the Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility. C. Monthly Electric Rates (Ordinance No. 142, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Rates, Fees and Charges.) Based on Council response at the September 13, 2011 Work Session, the electric rate ordinance does not contain any changes to the RESR, the rate applicable to the majority of residential customers. The changes to the RESR will be presented in a separate ordinance on November 15, 2011 and will contain several rate form alternatives. The ordinance for consideration at this meeting pertains only to the Residential Demand, Commercial (General Service, General Service 25, General Service 50), Industrial (General Service 750) and Traffic rates. Fort Collins’ wholesale and retail electric rates are among the lowest in the region and nation. This will continue to be true following the 8.3% electric rate increase proposed for 2012. The 8.3% increase is the system average and will not be equally applied to all customer rate classes. Based on a cost-of-service study, the proposed rates vary by rate class as follows: Proposed Rate Class Increases for 2012 Individual customers will vary from the class average. Summer increases (June, July and August) will be greater than average. RESR – Not included in Ordinance No. 142, 2011 6.0% Residential Demand Rate 15.9% 1. General Service (small commercial less than 25 kW) 3.9% 1. General Service 25 (small commercial between 25-49 kW) 15.5% General Service 50 (medium commercial between 50-749 kW) 8.7% General Service 750 (large com/industrial greater than 749kW) 11.0% Traffic Signals 11.3% Floodlights 0.0% Average System Increase 8.3% 1. New rate classes proposed for 2012 4.8% of the 8.3% system-wide increase is due to a 6.4% increase in Platte River Power Authority’s purchase power rates. In addition, Platte River’s wholesale rate will be seasonal, with higher rates in June, July and August. Platte River’s 2012 purchase power rate increase is due to several key factors: • Reduced surplus sales • Increased operating and maintenance costs • Increased financing and depreciation costs as new projects are placed into service • Reduced interest income – due to low interest rates and lower cash reserves The remaining 3.5% of the 8.3% is required to reduce the use of Light and Power’s reserves to cover the cost of system improvements and replacements. While the reduction of reserves has been intentional, expenditures in the Light and Power Fund have exceeded revenues each year since 2007. Even following the proposed 3.5% increase, expenditures are projected to exceed revenues for 2012. October 18, 2011 -4- ITEM 20 The larger commercial classes are experiencing a greater than average increase due to the shift of purchase power costs from demand charges to energy charges in Platte River’s new rate form. Those customers with larger load factors, typically larger commercial and industrial customers and also the traffic signal system, will have larger than average increases in the purchase power components of their rates. (Load factor measures the consistency of power use over time.) Although the last cost-of-service study showed that the residential demand (“RD”) rate was 18% under cost-of-service, all rate classes were limited to a 10% increase in 2011. The 2012 increase brings the RD rate class up to full cost-of- service. The rate has traditionally been selected by high-use customers such as those who exclusively heat their homes with electricity. The increase to this rate will make the RESR more economical for many of the existing RD customers in 2012. Staff is also recommending that the RD rate be available only to those customers providing documentation that their home is heated entirely with electric energy. These changes will begin a phase-out of the RD rate. Electric Rate Form Changes Changes in the electric rate forms are necessary to align rates in support of the City’s Energy Policy and Climate Action Plan goals. By adopting rate forms to incentivize customers to conserve and use energy more efficiently and by providing energy conservation assistance and programs to our customers, the City will more likely be able to achieve its policy goals. In addition, successful implementation of these tools will delay or defer the expense of constructing additional generation resources. Rate form changes are also needed to pass through the seasonal cost differentials that will be charged by Platte River Power Authority beginning in 2012. All rates will have higher costs in the summer (June, July and August) than during the remaining nine “non-summer” months. Consistent with Platte River, the recommended rates also shift a greater proportion of the rate from the demand charges to energy charges. Rate form options were presented to the Council Finance Committee on August 15, 2011 and to the full Council at work sessions on September 13, 2011 and October 11, 2011. Based on Council’s responses to the questions posed at the work sessions, there is a delay in the ordinance making changes to the RESR until November 15, 2011. Several options for the RESR ordinance will be presented at that time. The changes recommended for the RD and Commercial/Industrial rates seemed to have wide-spread support at the September 13 Work Session. The following summarizes changes to the electric rate forms that are included in the proposed electric rate ordinance. • Residential Demand: The residential demand rate will be increased to the cost-of-service and energy charges will reflect the seasonal differential. The rate will be available only to customers who heat their residences exclusively with electricity. • Small /Medium Commercial: The General Service rate is currently one rate class serving all commercial customers with average monthly demands of less than 50 kW. Staff is proposing that it be split into two rate classes beginning in 2012. N General Service - energy-only seasonal rate for customers with average monthly demands of less than 25 kW N General Service 25 - energy/demand seasonal rate for customers with average monthly demands of between 25 and 49kW • Large Commercial / Industrial: The recommended rate form changes for the GS50 and GS750 rate classes are due to Platte River’s seasonal wholesale rate. N General Service 50 – add seasonal energy and coincident demand components for customers with average demands of between 50-749 kW N General Service 750 – add seasonal energy and coincident demand components for customers with average demands of 750 kW and greater Additional Amendments to Electric Article and Rates • Wholesale Transactions: Staff is recommending the addition of a Code section and definition to clarify terms of wholesale transactions and to specify that the retail rates, requirements and electric development fees do not apply to wholesale purchases. October 18, 2011 -5- ITEM 20 • Clarification of Net Metering Credit: Staff is recommending that the rate schedule specify that credits for net excess generation due to net metering will be based on the summer season retail energy charge as reflected in the new rate structure. • Clarification of Parallel Generation Credit: Staff is recommending that the rate tariff schedule specify that credits for parallel generation delivered to the utility will be based on Platte River Power Authority’s avoided cost rate. • Clarification of Distribution Facilities Demand: The proposed change more fully defines distribution facilities demand for the large commercial and industrial rate classes and permits the Utilities Executive Director to use an alternative method to recover a customer’s cost-of-service share of distribution demand if the costs associated with serving a customer are not fully recovered by the standard rate. Monthly Rate Increase Summary The following chart summarizes the impact of the proposed rate changes on a typical single family residential customer: Typical Residential Customer – Monthly Utility Bill Current 2011 Estimated 2012 $ Increase % Increase Electric 700 kWh/mo $59.94 $59.94 * * Wastewater 4,800 gal/mo WQA $28.59 $30.88 $2.29 8.0% Stormwater 8,600 sq.ft. lot, light runoff $14.26 $14.26 $0.00 0.0% Water 117,131 gal/yr $35.87 $38.03 $2.15 6.0% Total Estimated Average Monthly Utility Bill $138.66 $143.10 $4.44 3.2% * The 2012 electric RESR will not be considered by Council until a later Council meeting and therefore will not be effective as of January 1, 2012. A change, averaging 6% is expected to be effective February 1, 2012. October 18, 2011 -6- ITEM 20 The following charts compare Fort Collins Utilities’ monthly rates to others along the Front Range. The electric rate shown for Fort Collins for 2012 is the current 2011 rate. A change to the RESR is expected to be effective in February. The average change to the residential energy rate class is projected to be 6%. 2011 Residential Rate Comparison January Water Use - 5,000 Gallons $- $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 Stormwater $7.13 $10.39 $8.89 $7.10 $14.26 $5.63 $14.26 $- $8.16 Wastewater $20.38 $18.11 $15.83 $20.32 $28.59 $20.48 $30.88 $31.27 $16.72 Water $13.96 $13.19 $18.05 $18.85 $24.13 $26.70 $25.58 $25.26 $38.41 Electric $51.65 $55.37 $76.21 $76.21 $59.94 $76.21 $59.94 $77.47 $76.21 Longmont Loveland Denver Boulder Ft. Collins Greeley Ft. Collins '12 Co.Sprs Aurora 2011 Residential Rate Comparison July Water Use 21,000 Gallons $- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 Stormwater $10.39 $7.13 $14.26 $7.10 $14.26 $8.89 $5.63 $8.16 $- Wastewater $18.11 $20.38 $28.59 $20.32 $30.88 $15.83 $20.48 $16.72 $31.27 Water $40.71 $59.18 $65.11 $60.14 $69.04 $80.71 $80.14 $123.46 $128.10 Electric $55.37 $51.65 $59.94 $85.16 $59.94 $85.16 $85.16 $85.16 $77.47 Loveland Longmont Ft. Collins Boulder Ft. Collins '12 Denver Greeley Aurora Co.Sprs October 18, 2011 -7- ITEM 20 Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) and Electric Development Fees City Code requires staff to present water, wastewater and stormwater plant investment fees to Council for approval no less than every other year. These fees were last changed in 2009 effective on January 1, 2010. Staff is recommending changes to each of the wet utility PIFs. Water and Stormwater PIFs are increasing 4.7% and 1.2% respectively. Wastewater PIFs are recommended to decrease 3%. Electric development fees are also required to be approved by City Council no less than every second year, although historically staff has recommended annual changes. The current electric development fees were approved by Council in 2010 and were effective January 1, 2011. Staff is recommending the following changes to be effective on January 1, 2012. A. Water Plant Investment Fees (Ordinance No. 139, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Water Plant Investment Fees.) The water plant investment fees were developed to recover the current value of past investment and the current value of future growth-related investment through 2040. This method includes calculating net water system equity, capacity units and determining the net system equity per unit. The Water PIFs are calculated to increase an average of 4.7% for 2012. There are two major factors influencing the increase. First, projected capital improvements related to regulatory requirements have been allocated to the PIF for that portion of the improvements that will serve new growth. Other revisions have been made to the long range capital improvement plan which also impacted the Water PIF calculations. Together, these capital changes have increased the PIF requirement. The second factor offsets the increase. In 2009, detailed information was not available to classify the construction work in progress. The decision was made to treat it all as backbone related capital additions. This overstated the 2010 PIF requirement. Since that time, additional reporting is available to clearly classify the work in progress. This resulted in a reduction in equity of the backbone system. Water PIF charges for a typical single family lot (8600 sq ft) would increase from $3,826 to $4,084 or $258. The following table shows the proposed increases for water PIFs. Water Plant Investment Fees 2011 2012 Existing Proposed % Change Single Family Residential: Domestic Interior Use - Flat Charge $ 730 $ 730 0.0% Exterior Use - $/Sq ft $ 0.36 $ 0.39 8.3% Duplex and Multi Family: Domestic Interior Use - Charge per Unit $ 490 $ 510 4.1% Exterior Use - $/Sq ft $ 0.27 $ 0.27 0.0% Non-Residential by Meter Size 3/4" $ 7,530 $ 7,880 4.6% 1" $ 21,730 $ 22,750 4.7% 1-1/2" $ 45,300 $ 47,410 4.7% 2" $ 69,070 $ 72,290 4.7% 3" $ 157,920 $ 165,290 4.7% 4" and above assessed on individual basis October 18, 2011 -8- ITEM 20 B. Wastewater/Sewer Plant Investment Fees (Ordinance No. 141, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Sewer Plant Investment Fees.) The wastewater plant investment fees were developed to recover the current value of past investment and the current value of future growth-related investment through 2040. This method includes calculating net wastewater system equity, capacity units and determining the net system equity per unit. The Wastewater PIFs are calculated to decrease 3% for 2012. Like the Water PIF, this reduction is in part due to a change in the basis for calculating construction work in progress. Other recent revisions to the long range capital improvement plan have reduced the Wastewater PIF calculations. Wastewater PIF charges for a single family lot would decrease from $3,550 to $3,440, a reduction of $110. The following table shows the proposed changes. Wastewater Plant Investment Fees 2011 2012 Existing Proposed % Change Single Family Residential $ 3,550 $ 3,440 -3% Duplex and Multi Family, per unit $ 2,490 $ 2,410 -3% Non-Residential by Water Meter Size 3/4" $ 7,100 $ 6,880 -3% 1" $ 17,880 $ 17,300 -3% 1-1/2" $ 31,490 $ 30,480 -3% 2" $ 55,290 $ 53,520 -3% 3" $ 150,130 $ 145,310 -3% 4" and above assessed on individual basis C. Electric Development Fees (Ordinance No. 143, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Development Fees and Charges.) Electric development fees recover both actual on-site costs (building site charges) and allocated off-site costs (electric capacity charges) to serve commercial or residential development. These fees are typically adjusted annually to reflect changes in costs. Proposed 2012 fees will increase slightly for some developments (1%-3%) and decrease slightly for others. The table below shows the changes for a typical single family lot and a model commercial development. Typical Single Family Lot 8600 square feet, 70 foot of street frontage, 150 amp service, 4/0 secondary service Current 2011 Proposed 2012 $ Change % Change $3,139 $3,233 $94 3.0% Model Commercial Development 82,000 sq ft, 1900 ft street frontage, 250 ft primary srv, 600 amps, 208Volt, 3-phase, 1-transformer Current 2011 Proposed 2012 $ Change % Change $31,076 $30,981 -$95 -0.3% D. Stormwater Plant Investment Fees (Ordinance No. 144, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Stormwater Plant Investment Fees) The Stormwater PIFs are recommended to increase 1.2% in 2012. The increase represents a $7.3 million increase in capital facilities added since the last study. However, annexation has caused an increase in total developed and developable acres which results in an increased divisor in the calculation. The two changes result in a modest increase of 1.2%. The PIF will increase from $6,313 per acre to $6,390 per acre. Stormwater PIF charges for a typical single family lot would increase from $1,069 to $1,082, an increase of $13. October 18, 2011 -9- ITEM 20 PIF Change Summary The following chart summarizes the impact of the proposed PIF and development fee changes on a typical residential lot: PIF Changes for Typical Single Family Current 2011 Proposed 2012 Change % Change $ Water1 Raw Water2 Wastewater Stormwater3 Electric1 Total $3,826 $5,203 $3,550 $1,069 $3,139 787 $4,084 $5,203 $3,440 $1,082 $3,233 $17,042 6.7% 0.0% -3.1% 1.2% 3.0% 1.5% $258 $0 (-$110) $13 $94 $255 1Typical, based on lot size of 8,600 sq. ft.; 70-foot street frontage 2 No increase for Raw Water 3 8,600 sq. ft. lot plus estimated 6,156 sq. ft common area and right-of-way; .5 run off coefficient Next Steps: November 1, 2011 City Council Meeting • Second Reading of these seven Ordinances November 15, 2011 City Council Meeting • First Reading of Residential Energy Service Rate Ordinance with seasonal and seasonal-tiered options • First Reading of Service Charges Ordinance with increases for after-hours service charges and a monthly fee for manual meter reading for customers who opt out of the Advanced Meter Fort Collins project. December 6, 2011 City Council Agenda • Second Reading of Residential Energy Service Rate Ordinance • Second Reading of Service Charges Ordinance January 1, 2012 • Effective date of the seven Ordinances included in this agenda item summary and for changes in service charges. (Monthly rate ordinances are effective for billings with meter readings on or after this date.) October 18, 2011 -10- ITEM 20 the total increase. That amount will depend on the rate form option selected by Council at the November 15, 2011 Council meeting. Utility programs can help customers to reduce their water and electric use and to lessen the financial impact of the rate increases. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Funding from the proposed electric rate increase will allow the Utilities to continue programs and services aimed at meeting the goals and objectives of the Energy Policy and Climate Action Plan. Accurate seasonal price signals may delay/ avoid the need for additional peak electric generation. Water and wastewater rates provide funding for conservation programs and environmental regulatory compliance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its September 15, 2011 meeting the Water Board recommended approval of the proposed 2012 water and wastewater monthly rates and the plant investment fees for 2012. At its October 6, 2011 meeting, the Electric Board voted to recommend approval of the proposed 2012 electric rates (exclusive of the Residential Energy Services Rate) and the proposed 2012 electric development fees. PUBLIC OUTREACH Notice of the proposed electric rate changes was published in the Coloradoan on October 2, 2011 and a mailing was sent to City electric customers outside of the city limits in accordance with PUC requirements. Electric rate forms were discussed at the Council Finance Committee on August 15, 2011 and at a Council Work Session on September 13. A written review of all the rates was included in the October 10, 2011, Council Finance Committee Agenda; however, discussion of the item was postponed until October 17, 2011. Staff plans to conduct outreach to all customers following adoption of the Ordinances. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2012 Utility Rate Increases – Explanation of Change 2. Staff memo to Council related to water rate increase, September 19, 2011 3. Staff memo to Council related to electric rate increase, September 19, 2011 4. Staff memo to Council related to plant investment fees, September 19, 2011 5. Council Work Session Summary September 13, 2011 6. Council Finance Committee, August 15, 2011 7. Water Board minutes, September 15, 2011 8. Electric Board minutes, October 6, 2011 9. Power Point Presentation ATTACHMENT 1 2012 Utility Rate Increases Current Original Projection Recommendation 2011-2012 Budget 2012 Revised Budget Explanation of Change Electric Purchase Power 4.53% 4.80% 2012 purchase power rate will increase 6.4% for Fort Collins. This was projected at 6.0% in 2010 when the 2011-2012 Budget was prepared. Capital Funding 1.70% 3.50% Expenditures have exceeded revenues since 2008. During this time, much of the capital and system replacement program has been intentionally funded by reserves, which has resulted in reduced L&P reserves balances. Two substations ($11.3 million), the SW Annex Electric Transfer ($1.9 M to date) and replacement of aging infrastructure ($7.4M) have proceeded without raising rates for the construction. Miscellaneous revenues (primarily interest income and development fees), which have helped to fund fixed costs and capital projects and system replacement in the past, have declined significantly. Growth in energy sales, which has also forestalled rate increases in the past, has declined. Projected reserves are now anticipated to fall below minimum policy levels as early as 2013 without a series of rate increases starting in 2012. The 1.7% originally planned, is no longer adequate to reverse this unsustainable deficit. Total Electric 6.23% 8.30% The 8.3% projection does not include rate increases for the Fort Collins Solar Program and the Energy Effeciency Financing Program 2012 Budget exception requests. Water 0% 6% Actual total water fund revenues have decreased 23% between 2006 and 2010. A 6% rate water rate increase is needed to address steadily declining water fund revenues due to customer conservation and wet weather. These uncertainties, as well as the slow economy, have made it difficult to project water revenues. Actual revenues from the sale of water were $6.4 million less than projections between 2006-2010. Since 2010, demand projections have dropped from 150 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) to as low as 138.5 gpcd. The water fund has also been impacted by a drop in interest revenue and plant investment fees requiring the Water Fund to rely more heavily on rate revenue to cover fixed costs and capital improvements. The proposed increase is necessary to stabilize revenue and net income and maintain adequate reserves to fund long term capital maintenance programs. Wastewater 8% 8% No change from 2011-2012 Budget. Stormwater 0% 0% No change from 2011-2012 Budget. ATTACHMENT 2 Utilities City of electric stormwater. wastewater water 7CC Wood Street Fort CoLLins : utilities @fcgov. corn fcgov.cornJutthlies MEMORANDUM Date: September 19. 2011 To: Mayor Weilkunat and Councilmembers From: Kevin Geruig, Water Resources & Treatme.i.X)peia[ions Manager -tJ Brian Janoni.s. Utilities Executive Directoi , Ii Thru: Darin Atteherry. City Manager ‘‘rfi ) Re: 2012 Water Fund Rate Increase The proposed 6 percent water rate increase for 2012 is needed to address steadily declining water fund revenues. The impact of customers’ response to water saving measures. the unusually wet weather in 2009 and again this year, as well as the decline in the economy, has negatively impacted water fund revenues. The unstable environment created with the changes in the economy, conservation, and weather makes it difficult to project water fund revenues. Actual operating revenues between 2006 and 2010 were a total of $6.4 million less than projections. As of the end of May the 2011 demand projections have been decreased from 150 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) to 145.9 in order to accommodate the wet year. The May demand adjustment reduces the 201 lopcradng revenue projections by $159,000, or 1°A. More recent information indicates that it may drop by an additional 5(4 to [38.5 gpcd resulting in a further reduction in revenue of $675.000. The following is a five year analysis of actual water fund revenue from 2006-2010: • Actual total water fund revenues between 2006 and 2010 have decreased 23°A. • Operating revenue has decreased l0’7 over the last five years after factoring in the 6% rate increases (3’% in 2007 & 2010). • Development related revenue declined 74(4. • Non operating revenue decreased 63% • With shrinking develonment revenue, operating revenue is being relied upon to cover more of the costs. • In 2006 operating revenue was 7ILA of total revenue: by 2010 it was 89/o 01 total revenue. • Demand decreased 15(4 over the last five years and is projected to drop by 19 if the 2020 water conservation goal is met. The proposed rate increase is intended to stabilize revenue, as well as net income, and rnaiiitaii adequate reserves which help fund long term capital maintenance projects. Net incoim’ has declined an overall $4.8 million from 2006 to 2010. City cf Fort Collins Although the water utility continues to experience increased costs in chemicals, supplies and energy. the overall increase in actual expenses from 2006 through 2010 have been contained at 10’A. During that period the cost of the operating programs, which includes treatment, transmission and distribution, engineering, laboratory services, water resources and conservation. increased by 169; administrative costs increased 24Vc, and interest expense decreased 504. The Water Fund’s 2011 operating budget is 6°/c lower than 2010’s operating budget. The graphs below demonstrate a 5-year history of actual revenue and projected revenue through 2020. with and without the 6% rate increase in 2012. Additional graphs include a 5-year history of expenditures in the water fund, the comparison of projected operating revenues vs. actual operating revenues, and the impact on net income. $10 $40 $35 $30 I Develop Revenue Water Fund Revenue With 0%Rate Incr 2012 & 2°/i 2.5%2013-2014 C Other Nonoperating -.-—-_—-—.-•-•-----•---. mOperatingRevenue Actual ojected Revenue —-- - Revenue $25 $20 $15 $5 S. 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 I Develop Revenue Water Fund Revenue With 6% Rate lncr 2012 & 8% 2013-2015 0 Other Nonoperahng $40 — -------• ------- iOperatirigRevenue - $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20’4 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ft°o([ ins Water Operating Expenditures, Capital, & Bond Principal IapitalF’ojects $3,623,369 $3,318,667 $3,401,817 $3,754,579 - $5,515,793 D kro- CaptaI $841,535 $617,586 $594,378 $713,005 $499,069 oBondftincipal $5,300,935 $4722,368 $4,868,800 $4,227,982 I $2,574,911 C Transfer to CS & A F,rid $2,835,917 $2,901 642 $3,859,087 $3,839,790 $3,897,100 O Pynnts & Transfers $4,318,426 $4,309,071 $4,229,206 $3,916,545 $3,553,911 D Water Conservation $- $. $- $1,269 $273,262 DWaterResources $1,376,381 t. $1,389,636 t $1,386,216 $1,493,842 f $1,449,875 4 - — 0 Water Quality $878,464 $940,117 $874,180 $941,200 $897,282 •WaterT&D Eng $2056236 $2167859 $2316977 $2255027 $2369234 4-.- 0 Water F1’oduction $3,898,511 $4,160,623 $4,355,886 $4,772,714 $4,444,073 • Water ter Ope-ators $451,944 $466,530 $522,268 $543,655 $583,148 $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 -i $5 — 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 $10 $81 $6 City of Fort CoLLins U, 0 Water Revenue - Charges for Services Actual Revenue is $6.4 mIllion Iessthan projected 2006-2010 $30 $251.. - $20 $15 sioL $5 4 2006 2007 2008 2009 —.— Actual Operating Revenue 2010 Fojected Net Income- Water Fund 2006-2010 $4 $2 $- L* 2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 —.—Net Income $7,904,128 $6,946,393 $5,326,007 $1,124,766 $3,144,821 ATTACHMENT 3 Utilities C.t f electric stormwater wastewater I water 0 700 Wood Street Fort CoLlins 970221.66 19 utllhties@fcgov corn fcgov.com/utililies MEMORANDUM DATE: September 19, 2011 TO: Mayor Weitkunat and Councilmembers FROM: Steve Catanach, Light and Power Operations Manager 41 Ellen Switzer, Utilities Financial Operation4anager . st’ Brian Janonis, Utilities Executive Director THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager RE: 2012 Electric Rates - Additional background for the September 26, 2012 Otyof rtIns the total cost of operating, maintaining and improving electrical infrastructure. The original 2012 budget provided a I increase to begin funding more of the costs of the capital improvements through monthly rates, however, the draw down on reserves has been accelerated due to significant decreases in interest income and development fee revenue. Without a series of 3.5% rate increases starting in 2012 to cover the costs of capital additions and improvements, Light and Power Fund working capital reserves will fall below minimum policy levels starting as early as 2013. (Note: These proposed 3.5% increases do not include any purchase power adjustments.) The following chart shows the reduction in these revenue sources. Light and Power - Non Operating Revenues $9- -— $8 . I Misc Reenue - —1 I —-——- o DeIopment Fees $6 - — • inteist w - I-.... 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 BudOet Est 2011 Otiginat Revised 2011 Budget Est2012 2012 • Development related revenue declined 67% between 2006 and 2010. • Interest revenue decreased 63% • With these shrinking revenues; operating revenue is being relied upon to cover more of the costs of capital additions and replacements. Net Assets: Change in Net Assets declined from $9.8 million in 2006 to $1.2 million in 2010 and was -$1.0 million in 2009. This provides funding for all system additions and capital projects except for those funded by bond issues. The proposed 8.3% rate increase is will begin to stabilize revenue, as well as net income, and maintain adequate reserves for operating and capital contingencies. The graph that follows shows the annual change in net assets over this period. Change In Net A5seta L&P Fund (M Rind fliwnu.e .me AS Op.ratJn E.sp.nua IncIui5n Depr.cletton) 512 -.-- Change In Net Melts 62782OW 5(2) City of ECcjins Increases for implementation of the Energy Policy Services have been funded by earlier rate increases in 2010 and 2011. However, labor, services and materials for Light and Power operations and maintenance, as well as, capital projects and system additions and improvements continue to increase. Since 2006 the combined cost of the Light and Power Operations and System Additions and Replacement programs increased 25%, with an increase of 19% in personal services and an increase of 34% in non-personal services purchases. During periods of consistent 3+% annual growth, increased fixed costs were able to be funded by revenues from increased kWh sales. KWh sales have stabilized and even declined over the last few years. While this is consistent with Energy Policy objectives, it does not provide adequate ongoing funding for the distribution system. Rate increases are required to cover the increasing fixed costs of operating and improving the electric system. Summary: The following graphs show the gap between Light and Power’s total revenues and expenditures. Revised Estimate 2012 includes the projected rate increase of 8.3%. Please observe that even with this rate increase, expenses will continue to exceed expenses and the Utility will continue to draw on remaining reserves for the difference. Light and Power - Expenditures with Depreciation O,fi P...d Oil Iudg2OlO 2012 Light and Power - Expenditures without Depreciation - $120- --—--- 4-_;i- ‘ C 1 lii I 2004 2007 2004 0009 2010 bidcil2Oll 0112011 Odgil R.iadE,l Totai Revenuwa ITotaI fljy lUdi4 2012 2012 While the draw down on reserves was intentional, reserves are projected to be reduced to minimum levels in the next few years. A series of rate increases, starting in 2012 are necessary to reverse this unsustainable deficit. $140 $120 $100 $80 fr $40 $20 2004 2007 2001 2009 2010 Budgil 2011 Lii 2011 1otaI Revenuel nTolai Expancttures Recommendation: Staff recommends an 8.3% rate increase for 2012. ATTACHMENT 4 Utilities C ity of electric storrnwater wastewater water 700 Wood Street Fort ColLins 97Q2 TOD utilities @fcgov. corn (cgov corn/utilities MEMORANDUM DATE: September 19, 2011 TO: Mayor Weitkunat and Councilmembers FROM: Bill Switzer, Rate Analyst • Brian Janonis, Utilities Executive Directori!6 ThRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager €if RE: 2012 Utility Plant Investment Fees — Additional background for the September 26, 2012 Council ....F&iboWns Water Plant Investment Fees Initially, in 2005, the approach used to calculate the water PIFs was the Buy-In approach based on the understanding that all “backbone” and treatment facilities necessary for future growth had been constructed. However, to accommodate the additional capital needed to meet future growth, a 14MG treated water reservoir was scheduled (in 2009) for construction in 2016-17 for an estimated cost of $23M The need for this project resulted in a change to the Hybrid approach for the 2009 study. Table A below shows an overall increase of 4.7% to the proposed 2012 water PIFs. All 2011 values are in current dollars. Three items of significance need to be highlighted: Water Plant investment Fee analysis and update - Table A 2009 Study 2011 Study for2Ol2 Fees Descnptlon Change $ $ $ Existing Backbone Facilities Distritution System (16-Inch and larger) 87,1 00.000 86,400,000 (700,000) -0.8% Less $5.5M Contract investment I 968 (10,1 00,000) (1 0800,000) (700,000) 6.9% Other Facilties 237,100.000 250.700,000 13600,000 5.7% Less $2,313K Contract investment 1988 (4,200,000) 14,500,000) (300,000) Less $668K Contract investment 1999 (900,O00 (1,000,000) (1 00,000) Proposed Growth Related Capital Mdltions Capital improvements 27,660,000 3,000,000 Regulatory projects attributed to unused capacity (27.7 of 78.0 Mgd) - 31,400,000 Total capital Additions 27,660,000 34,400,000 6,740,000 24.4% CWIP 2010 10,894,766 309,746 (10,585,020) -97.2% Total Existing Backbone Facilities 347,554,766 355,509,746 7,954,9602.3% Less: Outstanding Existing Debt Principal (a) (29,800,000) (23,303,000) 6,500,000 -21.8% Total Debt Service — (29,800MOO) (23,300.000) 6,500,000 -21.8% Total System Valuation 317,754,766 332,209,746 14,454,980 4.5% Goss System CapacIty 87,000.000 87,000,000 0 Less: Contract CapacIty 9,000,000 9,000,000 0 Not System Capacity, GPO 78,000,000 76,000,000 0 0.0% Proposed PIF, $ per gpd 4.07 4.26 0.19 4.7% (a) Ewisting debt principal excludes remaining A-Bpilncipaipayrnents. 1. The following changes have been made to the proposed capital additions: • A 14MG treated water reservoir ($23M) scheduled for 201 6-2017 was removed from the CIP for reasons described by the Lisa Voytko: “it has been determined that the proposed new 14 Mgal reservoir is not required, iF a new chlorine contact basin at the Water Treatment Facility is constructed. While storage for emergency, fire and operational needs is still required, it can be met by using the existing finished water reservoirs on site to their full extent. Currently part of the volume in those reservoirs must be reserved to meet chlorine contact time, a requirement for disinfection. When a new stand-alone chlorine contact basin is constructed, that volume in the reservoirs will CT o1 Fart Collins be available, and will meet the projected future needs of the Fort Collins rate payers for storage (fire, emergency, operational).” • There are also significant projects planned for regulatory purposes (including the chlorine contact basin mentioned above). Those portions of the regulatory projects attributable to unused capacity are considered as growth related expenses and included in the PIE calculation. Wastewater Plant Investment Fees C:ey cf fort CoWns In 2005, the Hybrid approach was and continues to be used to calculate the wastewater PIEs because the City’s wastewater growth met the criteria (above) for this approach. Table B below shows an overall reduction of 3% to our 2012 wastewater PIEs. Four items of significance need to be highlighted: Wastewater Plant Investment Fee analysis and uDdate -Table B 2009 Study 2011 Study Change Description $ $ - Existing Backbone Facilities Coflection System (10-Inch and larger) 61,900,000 67,600,000 5,700,000 9% Other Facilities 215,600,000 232,700,000 17,100,000 8% Less $19M Contract investment 1987 (35,800,000) (38,100000) (2,300,000) 6% cWl) ‘:•. I 8,400,000 1,6b1 562 ( IS 798,4313; -91% Total Existing Backbone FacilitIes 260,100,000 263,801,562 3,701,562 1% Proposed Capital Additions Capital Improvements (w/o collection) 91,000,000 55,500,000 )95,50Q,000 -39% Capital rn proveme nts - collection only 1 0,661 081 1 0,400,000 (261,03!) -2% Regulatory projects attributed to unused capacity (9.5 at 27.2 Mgd) . 0 1 9,400,000 19,400,000 Total Proposed Capital Additions 101,661,081 65,300,000 (16361,081) -16% Debt Service Proposed Debt Carrying Costs Less: Outstanding Existing Debt PrIncipal (39,700,000) (37,300,000) 2,400,000 Less: Poposed Debt Principal 0 Total Debt Service (39,700,000) (37:300,000) 2,400,000 -6% Total System Valuation 322,061,081 311,801,562 (10,259 519) -3% Giss System Capacity 29,000,000 29,000,000 0 0% Less: Con tract Cape city 1.800.000) 1.800000) 0 0% Net System Capacity, Gala per Day 27,200,000 27,200,000 Proposed PIF, $ per gpd $ 1184 $ 1 1.46 -3% 1. A $38M South Process Train Expansion project planned for 2014-15 was removed from the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). In 2009, projected growth needs were re-evaluated with the result that this project is no longer necessary due to significantly reduced growth projections. 2. There also are significant projects planned for regulatory purposes. Those portions of the regulatory projects attributable to unused capacity are considered as growth-related expenses and included in the PIF calculation. 3. In 2009, in a manner similar to the situation detailed above for water PIFs, we incorrectly classified all 2008 CWIP ($18.4M) as growth-related construction. More recently available detailed reports reveal that related to both 2008 and 2010 CWIP totals; little Ft°oLLins was applicable for backbone facilities. Thus the value of the system was overstated in the 2009 calculation for the 2010 PlFs. 4. As with water PIFs, an average calculation of the most recent four years’ history has been used to set estimated usage for new customers with tap sizes of 3” or less. The most recent four years’ history (2007-2010) shows significant reduction Backbone System Investments Existing infrastructure equity Replacement Costs Master Plan Expenses Flood Mapping Developer Repays Annual Inflationary Increase Total Capital Improvements 2008/10 Cost Levels Annual Inflationary Increase Total Total Backbone Facilities asof 12/31 Total Principal Outstanding Total Backbone System Equity Amount per acre Average runoff coefficient Fee per acre adjusted for run-off factor Estimated fee per equivalent residential un Existing developed & developable acres Proposed developed & developable acres Total projected Fto11ins 77 1.2% 13 1.2% 1. The existing developed and developable acres have increased significantly, primarily from the South West Annexation which increased the Fossil Creek portion within the City limits by over 50%. This increase in the divisor of the PIE formula almost offsets the 11.2% increase In system backbone equity. Table C 2009 studi 2011 study Change Proj 12/31/09 Proj 12/31/11 $ [ O/, $146,369,006 $ 11,833,301 $ 4,683,808 $ (966,691) $151,052,815 $ 10866,610 8.8% 7.8% $ 134,535,705 $ 5,650,500 $ 140186205 6,897,000 $ 289,674 $ 7,186,674 $ 147372,879 $ 34,087,500 $ 113,285,379 $ 3,472 0.55 3,484,000 $ 111,488 $ 3,595,488 $ $ $ (3,413000) -49.5% (178,186) (3,591,186) -50.0% $ 154,648,303 $ 7,275,424 4.9% $ 28,622,500 $ (5,465,000) -16.0% $ ATTACHMENT 5 Utilities City of elctic stomiwater wastewater water 700 Wood Street Fort CoLLins IICO 80522 974 = TDD utilities@fcgov.com fcgov coin/utilities Memorandum Date: September 15, 2011 To: City Councilmembers Thru: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Brian Janonis, Utilities Executive Director From: Patty Bigner, Utilities Customer and Employee Relations Manager Re Work Session Summary (Partial) — September 13, 2011 Electric Rate Options All City Councilmembers cQins Examples of customers in the proposed OS customer class include housing services for condos and apartments (lights, laundry, etc.); small retail; professional offices; non-profit agencies; and small churches. The proposed GS 25 customer class includes fast food restaurants, medium- sized churches, restaurants, larger retail, fraternity and sorority houses, convenience stores, copy centers and banks. The remaining large commercial industrial rates will remain in the coincident peak form but with a Cityof Fort CoLLins of the rate, if it is changed, will be delayed beyond January 1, 2012. Typically, rate changes occur with the first meter reading of the new year. Staff plans to move forward with rate changes with the exception of the Residential Energy Rate. Rate ordinances for the Residential Demand, GS, GS 25, GS 50 and GS 750 rate classes will be discussed at ATTACHMENT 6 1 Attachment 7 Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes, September 15, 2011 2012 Water/Wastewater Budget Exceptions and Rate and PIF Recommendations; 2012 Stormwater Budget Exceptions and Rate and PIF Recommendations (Attachments available upon request). Chairperson Janett introduced this item and reminded the current members that the previous Water Board recommended a 3 percent rate increase for 2011-2012. They also recommended small incremental rate increases more often rather than large rate increases less often. The Water Board made this recommendation to Council; however, they did not approve a 3 percent rate increase for 2012. Water Fund Financial Analyst Rita DeCourcey presented information on this item and stated the budget exceptions include a 6 percent increase for the water fund. This is needed to stabilize the water fund revenue. This is projected to result in $1.5 million additional operating revenue in 2012, depending on demand. Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) transfers will have to be increased by approximately $88,000 to cover the 2012 rate increase. Additional funds are needed to accelerate the normal upgrade process for meter replacements to meet the timeline of the Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI) project. Wastewater Fund There are no exceptions to the wastewater fund. There is an 8 percent water fund rate increase included in the original 2011-2012 biennial budget for the wastewater fund. The 6 percent rate increase for 2012 is needed to stabilize the water fund revenue, fund long term capital programs, meet debt service requirements, maintain adequate reserves, and meet financial reserve policies. Water Fund Revenue Total Revenue has dropped almost 23 percent from 2006 to 2010. Since the Operating Revenue has increased from 70.7 percent in 2006 to 88.5 percent in 2010, it has to cover a greater percentage of the costs. Demand has dropped 15 percent from 172 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) to 146 gpcd. Water Fund Expense Analysis 2006-2010 There was a 10 percent overall increase in operating and interest expense and a 16 percent increase in operating program expenses, including an increase in Commodity Costs (chemical costs increased 34 percent even though less water was treated). Payments and Transfers increased 44 percent, including increased funding for the General Employees Retirement Plan (GERP) and asset management. Interest Expense decreased 50 percent because 2002 bonds were paid off and 1998 bonds were refinanced at lower interest rates. Operating expense for the CS&A fund increased 28 percent from 2006 to 2010, including 11 percent for Asset Management. Ms. DeCourcey noted most of the costs for Asset Management are one-time costs. Water Fund Fixed and Variable Expense 87 percent of the costs are fixed considering PILOTs. If PILOTs are removed, approximately 94 percent of the costs are fixed. Demand decreased 15 percent and the total variable expense increased 11 percent. This includes increased electrical and chemical costs such as alum and lime. Ms. DeCourcey noted that alum and lime are utilized the most in the treatment facility. 2 Water Fund Net Income The net income has dropped approximately $4.8 million from 2006 to 2010. Water Fund Reserves As Is Rate Increases and Capital per 2011 – 2012 Budget and Revised Capital If Utilities looks at capital reserves without the rate increase and the revised capital budget, the capital budget will be increased by approximately $33 million from 2012 to 2020 above the original 2011-2012 budget. If Utilities looks at limiting the capital expense approximately $5 million from 2012 to 2014, this will assist the reserve calculations. Utilities will look at prioritizing capital projects to see what needs to be completed in the future. The water fund 6 percent rate increase is an across the board increase and does not vary by customer class. A typical residential customer’s bill will increase $1.47 for winter use (5,000 gallons) and $3.93 for summer use (21,000 gallons). Water Rate Comparison Ms. DeCourcey showed a graph comparing the water rates for the City of Fort Collins with other cities in the Front Range. This water rate comparison is for average residential usage in January and July. Board discussion: A board member asked for clarification on the administrative costs and why they increased? The biggest component is the transfer to the CS&A fund and this included the new asset management program. Water Engineering and Field Services Operations Manager Jon Haukaas stated most of the costs are up-front fees associated with the consultants as a part of setting up the program. A board member questioned the item concerning over charging from the Water Fund Expense Analysis. Ms. DeCourcey stated the internal IT department overcharged Utilities for an internal service charge. Utilities will receive a reimbursement from this overcharging. Will customer billing become less costly? Financial Analyst Phil Ladd stated Utilities does not expect an increase and no upgrades are planned to the billing system. Some other services will be brought in house and this may offset the costs. Are more people having trouble paying their water bill? Mr. Ladd stated the collection rate has stayed steady. The City of Fort Collins has a lien ordinance which states that if a tenant moves out of the property without paying their water bill, the bill is collected from the property owner when the property changes hands. A board member noted reserves decline over time. At what level does Utilities want the reserves and why at that particular level? Ms. DeCourcey stated Utilities would like to cover their capital appropriations including prior year and new appropriations, a 5 percent operating reserve, a principal and interest reserve, a debt service reserve, and an Art in Public Places reserve. Are the costs for the Halligan project included in the projections? Yes, those costs are included in prior year capital projects. A board member suggested showing the rate comparison over time rather than showing year to year increases. 3 Chairperson Janett stated when the Legislative, Finance, and Liaison (LFL) Committee reviewed the financial information at their September meeting, they noted that even though demand is going down, fixed costs are increasing. Water Resources Manager Dennis Bode reiterated this point by stating the water use for August was less than predicted. Ms. DeCourcey stated this may be due to the fact that industry is learning how to use less water in their processes and consumers are more educated on water usage. Chairperson Janett stated this is a dilemma because it sends a mixed message to consumers that they should save water even though their rates are increasing. Is the 15 percent decrease in demand per person? Yes. Chairperson Janett requested the information presented to the LFL Committee concerning the concept of less demand and increased costs be sent to the entire board. Stormwater Fund 2012 Budget Exceptions Mr. Ladd presented information on this item and stated there are three budget exception requests for the Stormwater Fund: • Land Acquisition – Remove structures from Poudre River Floodway • Land Acquisition – Master Plan Flood Mitigation project property • Household Hazardous Waste Community Event Increase (The event held in 2011 exceeded expectations so additional funding is needed for 2012.) Board discussion: Do the expenses for the hazardous waste event include paying for the waste to be hauled away? Yes, the items are removed by professionals who handle household hazardous waste. What is the largest volume of items collected? Environmental Regulatory Specialist Susan Strong stated paint is the most collected item. A pilot project is being implemented to use collected paint for a graffiti abatement program. How much is going to the landfill versus what is going down the drain? Ms. Strong stated she is unsure how much is collected versus what is sitting in garages and such. Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager Kevin Gertig stated there will also be a prescription drug collection event sponsored by Police Services. This event will be held in October 2011. A board member stated he felt the numbers are overwhelming. He feels that it is important to portray the information to the public and feels staff should remind the public of the costs associated with projects such as the renovation of the Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility (MWRF). It is also important to consider population density when presenting the numbers, such as comparing Denver to the City of Fort Collins. Stormwater Rate Comparison Mr. Ladd presented a graph showing stormwater rates for the City of Fort Collins compared with other cities along the Front Range. Utilities does not anticipate an increase in fees. Will there be any reduction in fees? Yes, there is the potential for reduced fees because debt will be paid off in 2017. 4 How long has the rate been at $14.26? It has been at this current rate since 2005. Stormwater and Floodplain Program Manager Ken Sampley stated since these fees have funded capital improvement projects, it is not a straight comparison when looking at other cities in the graph. A board member expressed concerns that Utilities promised the rates would be reduced and they haven’t been reduced as of yet. Plant Investment Fees (PIF) (Developer Fees) Utility Rate Analyst Bill Switzer presented information on this item and stated City Code requires Utilities to review the fees annually and submit for Council approval at least every second year. Plant Investment Fees are an additional source of revenue and help offset rate increases. The fees presented are the maximum allowable. A consulting company was hired in 2005 to set up a new PIF model. In March 2011, the City Manager asked Utilities to review the fees. • Water PIFs increased 4.7 percent for all commercial customer classes. • Wastewater PIFs decrease 3 percent for all customer classes. • Stormwater PIFs increased slightly by 1.2 percent. Increased infrastructure was offset by an increased service area. Board discussion: Chairperson Janett stated because of the reduction in water usage, there is excess capacity in both the water treatment and wastewater treatment plants. The concept of sharing capacity with the special districts has been discussed. What would happen with the PIFs at that point? Mr. Switzer stated this would be beneficial in relationship with Capital Investment Fees. Chairperson Janett stated this is another incentive to encourage cooperation with neighboring districts. Additional Fee Changes – Construction Water Mr. Haukaas stated there are additional fee changes including construction water fees and miscellaneous service charges. Construction water fees are applied to new construction projects for water that is not metered. The contractor pays 1.5 months of their base charge. Since there has been a slow down in the building industry and some of the projects have taken longer than anticipated, Utilities is losing revenue and metering of actual water usage with these construction projects. Utilities would like to initiate a monthly billing charge. As soon as the property has a certificate of occupancy, the user would receive a meter and would be charged actual usage at that point. If there is a large development, a temporary meter pit may be installed to meter the usage. Utilities can track the usage better with this implemented. Additional Fee Changes – Miscellaneous Service Charges The after-hours water connect fee and the fees for special trips will increase because Utilities desires to recover their actual costs. The after-hours water connect fee of $85.35 includes two hours of personnel time and one hour of vehicle usage time. Board discussion: What does Utilities define as a special trip? A special trip is defined as any service request from a citizen including water turn-ons and turn-offs. This does not include normal projects such as turning on a water meter? No. 5 Why would Utilities make a trip after hours? This is simply because of customer service issues. Will the 6 percent rate increase for 2012 pay for future projects or will there be another rate increase? Utilities is only asking for the board’s recommendation for the 2012 budget. Utilities needs time to determine what other projects are priorities and what kind of rate increase may be needed at a later time. The current rate increase is to stabilize the revenues and balance increasing expenses. A board member suggested it might be beneficial to remove the line item concerning the asset management expenses from the operating expense presentation when the information is presented to Council. This may be helpful in showing that the increase was not as severe because most of the costs associated with asset management were up-front fees. Also, when presenting information on the average bill, it may be beneficial to present the information relative to several years’ worth of data. It may also be beneficial to show what the average consumer will conserve over time. Vote on the motion. It passed unanimously. Vote on the motion. It passed unanimously. Board discussion: A board member asked for more details on the land acquisition items under the 2012 Budget Exception Requests for the Stormwater Fund. Mr. Haukaas stated that when the 2011-2012 budget was submitted, there was not a major capital project identified for 2012. Typically, Utilities does approximately $3 million in capital projects every year. At that time, the only identified stormwater item was for approximately $300,000. If a project is not identified, the funds would be earmarked for later capital projects. Utilities desires to have the budget exception in place for a grant match for acquiring property in the floodplain and floodway areas. Utilities desires to have funds available for buying properties to remove from the floodway in the College Avenue and Vine Drive area. The second budget exception relates to a master plan flood mitigation project property near LaPorte Avenue and Vine Drive east of Taft Hill Road. Is this the direction the City wants to go in philosophically from the City’s Master Plan? This policy has been in place for a number of years. Utilities will revisit the grant application process in 2012. The City desires to have the grant match funds available if the opportunity becomes available to purchase the properties. What is the benefit for the city? The primary benefit is public safety; however, there are also environmental and recreational benefits when the properties are converted to open space. Would the Water Board revisit the issue or does the board have one chance to review the information? Utilities Executive Director Brian Janonis stated the negotiations are not held in the public format because of sensitivity with the negotiation process. Board Member Gessler moved that the Water Board recommend City Council adopt the proposed 6 percent across the board water rate increase and the 8 percent across the board wastewater increase for 2012. Board Member Goldbach seconded the motion. Board Member Gessler moved that the Water Board recommend City Council adopt the proposed changes to the 2012 plant investment fees for water, wastewater, and stormwater. Board Member Goldbach seconded the motion. 6 Floodplain Administrator Marsha Hilmes-Robinson stated there are no capital projects mitigating flood damages on the Poudre River. There are regulations in place to control new development and land acquisition is just another tool for the City to use to remove the risks. With the risk, there are damage potentials that affect the City as a whole such as debris removal and landfill storage issues. Chairperson Janett reminded the board there was less impact during the 1997 Spring Creek flooding because the City bought properties and removed some of the risk. A board member stated that it seems counter productive for the City to remove successful businesses. Mr. Haukaas stated the properties are only purchased when the property owners are willing to sell the property. A board member asked for clarification on the concept of how the properties are sought for purchase? Mr. Haukaas stated Utilities and Real Estate Services staff members handle the negotiations on a one-on-one approach for each property. Vote on the motion. It passed unanimously. * Board Member Eccleston departed at 7:05 p.m. Board Member Balderson moved that the Water Board recommend City Council approve the Water and Stormwater Funds’ 2012 proposed exceptions to the 2011-2012 Budget. Board Member Bovee seconded the motion. 1 Attachment 8 Excerpt from Unapproved Electric Board Minutes, October 6, 2011 2011 L&P Budget Exceptions and Rate Recommendations (Presentation available upon request) Utilities Financial Operations Manager Ellen Switzer presented information on this item. She began the presentation by thanking the board members for arranging their schedule to review the information before it is presented to Council. The residential energy rate will not be presented to Council at this time. It will be presented later this year. Electric Rate Increase Staff is recommending an 8.3 percent electric rate increase. There are several components to the rate increase. The wholesale electric rates from Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) will increase 6.4 percent, with a 4.8 percent increase at the retail level. There will be higher seasonal rates in June, July, and August. More costs will shift from the demand component to the energy component. There are several key factors relating to the PRPA rate increase, including reduced surplus sales, increased Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs, increased financing cost and depreciation, and reduced interest income. Reduced interest income is affecting all the Utilities funds. Board discussion: Did anyone question the increase to O&M costs? Mr. Catanach stated he will have to research the answer to this question. Ms. Switzer stated the remaining 3.5 percent rate increase is related to internal needs for Light and Power. Utilities is trying to slow the use of reserves for capital projects. Since 2007, expenses have been greater than revenues. Is there a target for reserves? Mr. Catanach stated there is a mandated minimum that Utilities should preserve. He also stated Light &Power operational expenses for 2010-2011 have been reduced by 9 percent. The budget structure was revamped and there was a 2.4 percent reduction for the 2011-2012 Budget. Is the reserve based on a percent of the revenue? Ms. Switzer stated it is based on two things. There is an operating reserve equal to 8 percent of the operating budget less purchase power. There is also a capital reserve. There was also a fairly large reduction in other revenues not related to rates, including increased development fees. Also, because of lower interest rates, interest income has been reduced. Proposed Electric Rates All electric rates will be seasonal. Rates will be higher during the months of June, July, and August. The residential energy rate is not included in the ordinance. The residential demand rate will be restricted to those customers who do not have natural gas service. Board discussion: A customer will have to be 100 percent electric to participate in the residential demand rate? Currently, it is an option. 2 The General Service (GS) Rate will be split into two classes (General Service <25 kW Energy Only and General Service >25kW Energy and Demand). General Service 50 and 750 (larger commercial and industrial customers) will retain coincident peak pricing with seasonal differential. Ms. Switzer stated the rate schedules are posted on the City Clerk’s webpage at www.fcgov.com. Ms. Switzer explained the graph for the 8.3 percent electric rate increase by customer class for Summer, Non Summer, and Average. The average increase is 6 percent. Board discussion: This chart shows the percentage in rate change? Where does that leave the overall rate? Ms. Switzer stated the actual rate schedules are on the City Clerk’s webpage with the old and new rates listed. The rate changes are based on load factor and load characteristics. What is a typical customer profile for GS<25? Ms. Switzer stated this is typically a small office, such as an attorney or accountant. What customer class do most of the restaurants belong to? Most of the restaurants are as high as GS50. What are the criteria for generating the differential for cost of service versus seasonal rates? Ms. Switzer stated this is purely based on purchase power cost from PRPA. Recommended Electric Rate Clarifications Staff is recommending a new definition for wholesale transactions be included in the City Code. This is subject to requirements for interconnection and is not governed by the electric rate schedules or electric development fees. The code clarification sets the value of the energy. Mr. Catanach stated there will be a net metering credit for net excess generation that will be based on the summer season retail energy charge. The value is carried month to month. With the tiered rate structure, the value is impossible to track over a 12 month period. Utilities will purchase the power back at the lowest tiered rate for the season. Board discussion: Is there more incentive in the summer? The majority of the production is in the summer. Mr. Catanach stated the parallel generation credit for energy delivered to the utility will be based on PRPA’s avoided cost rate. The Special Services Agreement states the customer can earn the credit for offsetting the demand. If a customer consistently generates a benefit to the system (for example 10 kW), Utilities is willing to recognize the demand benefit. Since Utilities has to invest in system capacity, it is important to ensure the rate reflects the true value that a generating customer brings to Utilities. Was there a change in the City Code to implement this? No; however, the change in the Special Services Agreement was presented to Council. Electric Development Fees The Electric Development Fees are required to be adjusted by Council every other year. Typically, they are presented to Council every year. The 2011 Electric Development Fees were approved in 2010. The proposed changes for 2012 include a 3.0 percent increase for a typical 3 single family lot and a 0.3 percent decrease for a model commercial development. The changes are based on the current construction estimates. Ms. Switzer explained the graph for the 2011-2012 Electric Development Fee Comparison based on a typical single family lot and a model commercial development. Board discussion: How do these rates compare with other cities? Mr. Catanach stated these rates are comparable with other nearby cities. Miscellaneous Fees These changes will be presented to Council on November 15, 2011. The after-hours service charge will increase to $85.35. It is currently at $55.45. A monthly charge for manual meter reading for those customers who opt out of the Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI) program needs to be determined. Currently, it is estimated at $10-15 per month. Mr. Catanach stated the rate should not be a punishing rate for individuals who choose to opt out of the AMI program. Board discussion: How long do you expect this rate structure to continue? When is the next phase of the rate change for the other classes? The rate form will remain the same until at least 2014. A board member expressed concern that the timing of the rate changes along with the AMI program implementation should be considered. 2012 Budget Revisions/Exceptions The following changes are recommended to the original 2012 budget: • Purchase Power: $1,724,505 • Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs): $121,969 • Energy Efficiency Financing Program: $300,000 Ms. Switzer stated the $300,000 for the Energy Efficiency Financing Program will cover loans and fees to set-up and administer the program. Council has been asking for this program. Board discussion: Is this in lieu of on-bill financing? Energy Services Manager John Phelan stated there is a range of options with the program. The requested amount would be sufficient to get the program started as a pilot program. Utilities would like the program up and running in the first quarter of 2012. What is the increase from last year’s budget? Last year’s budget was $50,000. Is this an exception or a revision? Ms. Switzer stated that typically these are called exceptions; however, a Councilmember requested they be referred to as revisions in the future. Ms. Switzer stated there may also be a city wide exception for increasing salaries for employees currently paid less than market value. This is a city wide recommendation. Mr. Catanach stated the City has budgeted 2 percent for increases. $800,000 would be dedicated to market increases. The City will also supplement this with a budget exception. 4 How far are some of the Utility employee’s salaries below market value? Mr. Catanach stated some salaries are 15-20 percent below market value; however, some of these positions are entry level or new hire positions. Approximately half of the Light and Power employee’s salaries are 6-7 percent below market value. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. * Chairperson Wolley abstained from the vote due to a conflict of interest as a representative of a business. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. Discussion on the motion: A board member recommended the line item for the Energy Efficiency Financing Program be removed from the list of exceptions. He would like more explanation on the program. A board member asked for clarification on the item. Is it a form of a loan program? Yes. How did Utilities arrive at $300,000 for the program? Mr. Phelan stated this amount is enough to establish a pilot program. When City Council requested an increase to the budget, did they ask for a specific increase for this item? No, Council only asked that the program be implemented. What is the duration of the loan program? Typically, it is 5-10 years. Utilities can design the terms of the loan. Does Utilities have a document that describes the scope of the program? No, not currently. A board member suggested dividing the recommended motion into two segments. Vice Chairperson DeCourcey withdrew the original motion. Board Member Yurash requested a friendly amendment to staff’s recommended motion. Board Member Yurash moved that the Electric Board recommend that City Council adopt the proposed electric rate increases for all rate classes with the exception of the Residential Energy Rate. Board Member Graham seconded the motion. Board Member Harris moved that the Electric Board recommend that City Council adopt the proposed changes to the 2012 Electric Development Fees and Charges. Vice Chairperson DeCourcey seconded the motion. Vice Chairperson DeCourcey moved that the Electric Board recommend that City Council approve the proposed exceptions to the Light and Power Fund’s 2011-2012 Budget. Board Member Graham seconded the motion. Amended Motion: Board Member Yurash moved that the Electric Board recommend that City Council approve the recommended budget additions for Purchase Power costs, Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs), and the creation of an exception for increasing Utility employees’ salaries for market rate adjustments. Vice Chairperson DeCourcey seconded the motion. 5 Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. Board discussion: Is the last chance for Utilities to add this amount to the exception process? Yes, it will be voted on by Council on October 18, 2011. The board members agreed to not modify the recommendation concerning the Energy Efficiency Financing Programs. A board member felt the original recommended motion concerning this was too vague. Attachment 9 - Utility Rates 1 1 2012 Utility Rates and Fees Ordinances First Reading October 18, 2011 2 7 Ordinances – Effective January 1, 2012 • Monthly Water Rates • Monthly Wastewater Rates • Monthly Electric Rates (excludes the Residential Energy Rate) • Water Plant Investment Fees • Wastewater Plant Investment Fees • Electric Development Fees • Stormwater Plant Investment Fees Attachment 9 - Utility Rates 2 3 Monthly Utility Rates Water 6.0% Stormwater 0.0% Electric 8.3% Wastewater 8.0% Average Increase • Water and Wastewater – across the board to all customers • Electric increases vary – by customer class – within classes – seasonally 4 6% Water Rate Increase • Stabilize Water Fund revenue • Revenues decreased 23% between 2006-2010 • Demand down 15% • The vast majority of costs are fixed • Variable costs (chemicals/electricity) increasing • Fund capital projects (not Halligan) • Slow use of reserves and maintain debt coverage • Also change billing for water used during construction Attachment 9 - Utility Rates 3 5 8% Wastewater Rate Increase • Part of planned series of wastewater increases to fund the debt for the Mulberry Wastewater Treatment Facility • Wastewater revenues are increasing less than the adopted rate increases • Loss of large contract customer • Reduced water use 6 8.3% Electric Rate Increase • Residential Energy Rate – not changed in tonight’s ordinance – will come back to Council November 15th with options • Two factors in 8.3% increase +4.8% retail impact from PRPA’s 6.4% rate increase +3.5% needed to slow the use of L&P reserves for capital additions • Fort Collins Electric Rates remain among the lowest in the state and nation. Attachment 9 - Utility Rates 4 7 Rate Increase Varies by Customer Class & Season 2012 RATE INCREASE 16.8% 19.6% 18.1% 27.0% 20.0% 20.7% 19.2% 2.0% 15.1% 10.9% 4.7% 7.6% 4.4% 6.0% 15.9% 3.9% 15.5% 8.7% 11.0% 8.3% -1.6% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% RESIDENTIAL - Not included in proposed Ord RESIDENTIAL DEMAND RATE GS<25 RATE GS>25 GS50 GS750 system Summer Non Summer Average 8 Recommended Electric Rate Clarifications • Wholesale transactions - add new Code section –retail rates do not apply to purchases • Net metering credit for net excess generation –based on the summer season retail energy charge • Parallel generation credit for energy delivered to utility –based on Platte River’s avoided cost rate • Clarification of distribution facilities demand for the largest customers Attachment 9 - Utility Rates 5 9 Current Estimated $ % 2011 2012 Increase Increase Electric 700 kWh/mo $59.94 $59.94 * * Wastewater 4,800 gal/mo WQA $28.59 $30.88 $2.29 8.0% Stormwater 8,600 sq.ft. lot, light runoff $14.26 $14.26 $0.00 0.0% Water 117,131 gal/yr $35.87 $38.03 $2.15 6.0% Total Estimated Average Monthly Utility Bill $138.66 $143.10 $4.44 3.2% 2012 Utility Rates Typical Residential Customer – Monthly Utility Bill * The 2012 electric residential energy rate will not be implemented January 1, 2012. A change, averaging 6% is expected to be effective February 1, 2012. Monthly Rates Summary 10 Plant Investment Fees • By Code, PIF/ Electric Development Fees are to be adjusted at least biennially • Proposed changes for 2012: Water PIF +4.7% Wastewater PIF -3.0% Stormwater PIF +1.2% Electric Development Fees: • Residential +3.0% • Commercial -0.3% Attachment 9 - Utility Rates 6 11 PIFs Summary PIF Changes for Typical Single Family Current Proposed Change Change 2011 2012 % $ Water1 $3,826 $4,084 6.7% $258 Raw Water2 $5,203 $5,203 0.0% $0 Wastewater $3,550 $3,440 -3.1% ($110) Stormwater3 $1,069 $1,082 1.2% $13 Electric1 $3,139 $3,233 3.0% $94 Total $16,787 $17,042 1.5% $255 1 Typical, based on lot size of 8,600 sq. ft.; 70' street frontage 2 No increase for Raw Water 3 8,600 sq. ft. lot plus estimated 6,156 sq. ft common area and right-of-way; .5 run off coefficient 12 2011 Residential Rate Comparison July Water Use 21,000 Gallons $- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 Loveland Longmont Ft. Collins Boulder Ft. Collins '12 Denver Greeley Aurora Co.Sprs Electric Water Wastewater Stormwater Conclusion: Total utility costs are competitive in the region. Electric rates are among the lowest in the country. Attachment 9 - Utility Rates 7 13 Next Steps • November 1, 2011 – 2nd reading of these 7 ordinances • November 15, 2011 – 1st reading of Residential Energy Service Rate (RESR) Ordinance with seasonal & seasonal- tiered options – 1st reading of Service Charges Ordinance • December 6, 2011 City Council Agenda – 2nd reading of RESR & Service Fees Ordinances • January 1, 2012 - All rates effective except RESR • February 1, 2012 - Proposed effective date of RESR 14 Questions? ORDINANCE NO. 138, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO REVISE WATER RATES AND CHARGES WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the City Charter to from time to time fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs, expenses and other obligations of the water utility, as set forth therein; and WHEREAS, Section 26-118 of the City Code requires that the City Manager analyze the operating and financial records of the water utility during each calendar year and recommend to the City Council the user rate fees to be in effect for the following year; and WHEREAS, the Water Board considered the proposed water rates, fees and charges for 2012 at its September 15, 2011 meeting and recommended approval of the proposed rate changes by a unanimous vote; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended to the City Council that the following water use rates be imposed for the billing year beginning January 1, 2012. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 26-126 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-126. Schedule A, flat rates for unmetered construction water use. For residential and nonresidential premises under construction there shall be a one-time charge equal to one and one-half (1½) times the monthly base charge as specified for the applicable residential or nonresidential account in § 26-127.with a planned meter size greater than 1”, no flat unmetered water service will be provided. For residential and nonresidential premises under construction with a planned meter size of 1-inch or less, the following flat rates will apply per month until the permanent meter is set: ¾-inch construction service, flat charge per month $24.02 1-inch construction service, flat charge per month $45.80 Section 2. That Section 26-127 (a) and (b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: 1 Sec. 26-127. Schedule B, meter rates. (a) Residential Rates. (1) Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit. a. Base Charge. Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit shall pay a base monthly charge of twelvethirteen dollars and eight- threesixty cents ($12.8313.60). b. Quantity Charge. Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit shall pay a monthly quantity charge as follows: For the first seven thousand (7,000) gallons used per month, a charge of onetwo dollars and ninety-two and eight-tenthsten and five-tenths cents ($1.9282.105) per one thousand (1,000) gallons. For the next six thousand (6,000) gallons used per month, a charge of two dollars and twenty-one and six tenthsforty-one and nine-tenths cents ($2.2162.419) per one thousand (1,000) gallons. For all additional gallons used per month, a charge of two dollars and fifty-four and nine-tenthsseventy-eight and three-tenths cents ($2.5492.783) per one thousand (1,000) gallons. (2) Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units. a. Base Charge. Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units shall pay a base monthly charge of fifteen dollars and ninety-seven cents ($15.097). b. Quantity Charge. Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units shall pay a monthly quantity charge as follows: For the first nine thousand (9,000) gallons used per month, a charge of onetwo dollars and ninety-one and three-tenthstwo and eight- tenths cents ($1.9132.028) per one thousand (1,000) gallons. For the next four thousand (4,000) gallons used per month, a charge of two dollars and nineteen and nine-tenthsthirty-three and one-tenth cents ($2.1992.331) per one thousand (1,000) gallons. For all additional gallons used per month, a charge of two dollars and fifty-three and zero tenthssixty-eight and two-tenths cents ($2.5302.682) per one thousand (1,000) gallons. 2 (3) Residential customers with more than two (2) dwelling units. a. Base Charge. Residential customers with more than two (2) dwelling units shall pay a base monthly charge of twelvethirteen dollars and seventy-threeforty-nine cents ($12.7313.49) for the first dwelling unit and four dollars and twenty-fourforty-nine cents ($4.244.49) for the second and each additional dwelling unit. b. Quantity Charge. Residential customers with more than two (2) dwelling units shall pay a monthly quantity charge of one dollar and eighty-four and eight-tenthsninety-five and nine-tenths cents ($1.8481.959) per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the winter season months of November through April. They shall pay a monthly quantity charge of two dollars and thirty-one and zero tenthsforty- four and nine-tenths cents ($2.3102.449) per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the summer season months of May through October. The meter reading date shall generally determine the seasonal monthly quantity charge; however, no customer shall be billed more than six (6) full billing cycles at the summer quantity charge. (b) Nonresidential Rates. (1) Base charge. Nonresidential customers shall pay a base monthly charge based on meter size as follows: Meter Size (inches) Monthly Base Charge ¾ $ 11.4812.17 1 32.0333.95 1½ 87.1092.33 2 131.26139.14 3 200.21212.22 4 314.30333.16 6 609.72646.30 8 1,077.121,141.75 (2) Quantity charges. Nonresidential customers shall pay a monthly quantity charge of one dollar and fifty-nine and seven-tenthssixty- nine and three-tenths cents ($1.5971.693) per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the winter season months of November through April. They shall pay a monthly quantity charge of onetwo dollars and nine and six-tenthseleven and six-tenths cents ($1.9962.116) per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the summer season months of May through October. The meter reading date shall generally determine the seasonal monthly quantity charge; however, no customer shall be 3 billed more than six (6) full billing cycles at the summer quantity charge. (3) Charges for excess use. Monthly water use in excess of the amounts specified in the following table shall be billed at two dollars and twenty-nine and five-tenthsforty-three and three-tenths cents ($2.2952.433) per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the winter season months of November through April. Monthly water use in excess of the amounts specified below shall be billed at twothree dollars and eighty-seven and zero tenthsfour and two-tenths cents ($2.8703.042) per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the summer season months of May through October. The meter reading date shall generally determine the seasonal billing excess quantity charge; however, no customer shall be billed more than six (6) full billing cycles at the summer excess quantity charge. Meter Size (inches) Specified Amount (gallons per month) ¾ 100,000 1 300,000 1½ 625,000 2 1,200,000 3 1,400,000 4 2,500,000 . . . Section 3. That the amendments to the Chapter 26 of the City Code contained herein shall go into effect for all bills issued based on meter readings on or after January 1, 2012. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ 4 Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk 5 ORDINANCE NO. 139, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO REVISE WATER PLANT INVESTMENT FEES WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the City Charter to from time to time fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs, expenses and other obligations of the water utility, as set forth therein; and WHEREAS, Section 26-120 of the City Code provides that the rates and parameters of the Water Plant Investment Fees be reviewed annually by the City Manager and shall be presented to City Council for approval no less frequently than biennially; and WHEREAS, on November 3, 2009, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 116, 2009, which established the plant investment fees that are now in effect; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is appropriate for new development to contribute its proportionate share of providing capital improvements; and WHEREAS, City staff recommends that existing Water Plant Investment Fees be adjusted based on the current replacement cost of the capital facilities that will be needed to serve new development and for future growth related capital expansion; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended to the City Council the adjustments to the Water Plant Investment Fees set forth herein, to be effective January 1, 2012; and WHEREAS, the Water Board considered the proposed Water Plant Investment Fees for 2012 at its September 15, 2011, meeting and recommended the approval of the proposed fees by an unanimous vote; and WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, it is the desire of the City Council to amend Section 26- 128 of the City Code to revise Water Plant Investment Fees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 26-128 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-128. Schedule C, water plant investment fees. The water plant investment fee prescribed in § 26-120 shall be payable by users both inside and outside of the City, as follows: (1) Single-family residential buildings: For the first three-fourths-inch water tap or meter, a fee of seven hundred thirty dollars ($730.) for a single-family residence, plus thirty-sixthirty-nine cents ($0.360.39) for each square foot of lot area. For a single-family residential lot greater than one-half (½) acre in size, the lot size shall be deemed to be one-half (½) acre for the purpose of this fee calculation. For each additional tap or meters larger than three-fourths (¾) inch, the nonresidential rate shall apply. (2) Residential buildings of two (2) or more dwelling units: For each residential building unit, a fee of four hundred ninetyfive hundred ten dollars ($490.510.), plus twenty-seven cents ($0.27) for each square foot of lot area. The fee will provide for one (1) tap per residential building and an adequate number of additional taps to serve common irrigable areas, if any. The number and size of taps shall be determined by the Utilities Executive Director based upon the criteria established in the Uniform Plumbing Code as amended pursuant to Chapter 5 of the Code. (3) Mobile home parks: For each mobile home park, a fee of four hundred ninetyfive hundred ten dollars ($490.510.) for each mobile home space in the park, plus twenty-seven cents ($0.27) for each square foot of lot area. The fee will provide for one (1) tap per mobile home park. The size of the tap shall be determined by the Utilities Executive Director based upon the criteria established in the Uniform Plumbing Code as amended pursuant to Chapter 5 of the Code. (4) Hotels, rooming houses, sororities, fraternities and similar uses: The nonresidential rate shall apply. (5) Nonresidential service: a. Service to all nonresidential taps, including but not limited to taps for commercial and industrial service, shall be charged according to the size of the meter pursuant to the following schedule: Meter Size (inches) Nonresidential Plant Investment Fee ¾ $ 7,5307,880 1 21,73022,750 1½ 45,30047,410 2 69,07072,290 3 157,920165,290 b. The fee for all meters larger than three (3) inches shall be negotiated withdetermined by the Executive Director and -2- shall be based on estimated peak day demand but shall not be less than the charge for a three-inch meter. Section 2. That the amendments to Chapter 26 of the City Code contained herein shall go into effect on January 1, 2012. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -3- ORDINANCE NO. 140, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO REVISE WASTEWATER RATES, FEES AND CHARGES WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the City Charter to fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs, expenses and other obligations of the wastewater utility, as set forth therein; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 26-277 requires that the City Manager analyze the operating and financial records of the wastewater utility during each calendar year and recommend to the City Council the user rate fees or adjustments to be in effect for the following year; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 26-277 further requires that the user rates be revised as necessary to assure equity of the rate system established and to assure that sufficient funds are obtained to adequately operate and maintain the wastewater system; and WHEREAS, the Mulberry Wastewater Reclamation Plant has undergone a upgrade of the plant's treatment processes to prepare the plant for future regulation-based improvements and to make odor control improvements; and WHEREAS, such improvements are not related to growth and will require increased user rates to generate sufficient revenues to repay the debt necessary to finance these improvements; and WHEREAS, the Water Board considered the proposed wastewater rates, fees and changes for 2012 at its September 22, 2011, meeting and recommended approval of the changes by unanimous vote; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended to the City Council that the following wastewater rates be imposed for the billing year beginning January 1, 2012. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 26-280 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-280. Service charges established by category. The schedule of rates for each category described in § 26-279 shall be as follows: Category Class of Customer Rate A Single-family residential user (flat rate) $31.2433.74 per month Single-family residential user (metered water use) $13.9515.07 per month plus $2.7122.929 per 1,000 gallons of either winter quarter water use or 3,000 gallons, whichever is greater. For single family customers who have not established a winter quarter water use at the service address, a system average of 4,800 gallons per month shall be billed. B Duplex (two-family) residential users (flat rate) $48.7852.68 per month Duplex (two-family) residential users (metered water use) $18.0719.52 per month plus $2.7122.929 per 1,000 gallons of either winter quarter water use or 4,000 gallons, whichever is greater. For duplex customers who have not established a winter quarter water use at the service address, a system average 7,200 gallons shall be billed. C Multi-family residential user (more than two dwelling units including mobile home parks) and winter quarter based nonresidential user $2.7122.929 per 1,000 gallons of winter quarter water use, plus a base charge of $2.132.30 per month per dwelling unit served. For multi family customers who have not established a winter quarter water use at the service address, a system average of 3,400 gallons per living unit shall be billed. D Minor nonresidential user $2.7122.929 per 1,000 gallons of water use, measured sewage flow or winter quarter water use, whichever is applicable, plus the following applicable base charge: Size of water meter (inches) ¾ or smaller 1 1½ 2 3 4 6 8 Base Charge $7.838.46 18.0719.52 36.3739.28 62.2367.21 99.43107.38 157.03169.59 688.35743.42 794.80858.38 -2- E and F Intermediate nonresidential user and Significant industrial user $2.7122.929 per 1,000 gallons of water use, measured wastewater flow or winter quarter water use, whichever is applicable; plus a surcharge of $2.8053.029 per million gallons for each milligram per liter of suspended solids in excess of 235 milligrams per liter; plus a surcharge of $2.3362.523 per million gallons for each milligram per liter of BOD in excess of 265 milligrams per liter or a surcharge of $1.4751.593 per million gallons for each milligram per liter of COD in excess of 400 milligrams per liter, or a surcharge of $4.3674.716 per million gallons for each milligram per liter of TOC in excess of 130 milligrams per liter, whichever is applicable. The user shall pay this calculated amount plus the applicable base charge set forth below: Size of water meter (inches) ¾ or smaller 1 1½ 2 3 4 6 8 Base charge $7.838.46 18.0719.52 36.3739.28 62.2367.21 99.43107.38 157.03169.59 688.35743.42 794.80858.38 G User outside City limits The rate for users outside the City limits shall be the same as for like service inside the City limits as is specified in Categories A—F and H in this Section H Special with agreement The rate pursuant to a special wastewater services agreement approved by the City Council pursuant to § 26-290 shall be set forth in said agreement. Section 2 That Section 26-281(c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: (c) The amount of the wastewater strength surcharge to be billed each user shall be calculated from one (1) of the following three (3) formulas, depending on whether the wastewater is more amenable to testing for BOD, COD or TOC or on the selection of the Executive Director in the absence of monitoring: -3- (1) Cs=Vu[Bc(B) + Sc(S)] (2) Cs=Vu[CODc(COD) + Sc(S)] (3) Cs=Vu[TOCc(TOC) + Sc(S)] Where: Cs = User's surcharge for wastewaters of excessive strength per billing period Vu = Volume of water used or wastewater discharged per billing period Bc = Cost of service for treatment of a unit of BOD B = Concentration of BOD from a user in excess of two hundred sixty- five (200265) mg/l Sc = Cost of service for treatment of a unit of TSS S = Concentration of TSS from a user in excess of two hundred fiftythirty-five (250235) mg/l CODc = Cost of service for treatment of a unit of COD COD = Concentration of COD from a user in excess of threefour hundred (300400) mg/l TOCc = Cost of service for treatment of a unit of TOC TOC = Concentration of TOC from a user in excess of one hundred thirty (100130) mg/l Section 3. That Section 26-282(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-282. Wastewater strength or industrial surcharges and categories established. (a) The schedule of wastewater strength surcharge for customers located either inside or outside the City limits shall be as follows: Parameter Excess over (mg/l) Rate per 1,000 gallons BOD 265 $0.0023360.002523 COD 400 0.0014750.001593 TOC 130 0.0043670.004716 TSS 235 0.0028050.003029 Section 4. That Section 26-289 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-289. Miscellaneous fees and charges. The following is a schedule of miscellaneous fees and charges: -4- Description Amount (1) Connection fees and service charges Fees shall be set forth as in § 26-712(b) (2) Industrial discharge permits: a. Administration $76.00 annually b. Surveillance Determined for each user annually, based on direct cost plus 15% indirect costs, billed monthly (3) Laboratory support services Determined on a case-by- case basis based on direct cost plus 15% indirect costs (4) Determined on a case-by-case basis based on direct cost plus 15% indirect costs Cost plus 15% (5) Charges for disposal at the Fort Collins Regional Sanitary Waste Transfer Station: a. Septic tanks, vaults, privies, portable toilets: Generated within Larimer County $0.0660.071 per gallon Generated outside Larimer County b. Recreational vehicle sanitary waste holding tanks: $0.1000.108 per gallon Residential customers of the City of Fort Collins Wastewater Utility No charge for single individual disposal at Transfer Station Others $2.182.35 base fee plus $0.0660.071 per gallon (6) Miscellaneous fees Determined on a case-by- case basis based on direct costs plus 15% indirect costs Section 5. That the amendments to the Chapter 26 of the City Code contained herein shall go into effect for billings based upon meter readings on or after in January 1, 2012. -5- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -6- ORDINANCE NO. 141, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO REVISE SEWER PLANT INVESTMENT FEES WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the City Charter to fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs, expenses and other obligations of the wastewater utility, as set forth therein; and WHEREAS, Section 26-277 of the City Code requires that the City Manager analyze the operating and financial records of the wastewater utility during each calendar year and recommend to the City Council the user rate fees or adjustments to be in effect for the following year; and WHEREAS, Section 26-283 of the City Code provides that the City Manager review the rates and parameters of the Sewer Plant Investment Fees annually and present them to City Council for approval no less frequently than biennially; and WHEREAS, on November 3, 2009, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 117, 2009, which established the Sewer Plant Investment fees now in effect; and WHEREAS, it is the City Council’s intent that existing Sewer Plant Investment Fees be adjusted based on the current replacement cost of the capital facilities that will be needed to serve new development and for future growth related capital expansion; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended to the City Council the adjustments to the Sewer Plant Investment Fees set forth herein, to be effective January 1, 2012; and WHEREAS, the Water Board considered the proposed Wastewater Plant Investment Fees for 2012 at its September 15, 2011, meeting and recommended the approval of the proposed fees by an unanimous vote; and WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, it is the desire of the City Council to amend Chapter 26 of the City Code to revise Sewer Plant Investment Fees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 26-284(a) and (d) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-284. Sewer plant investment fees and surcharges established. (a) The schedule of sewer plant investment fees, subject to the exceptions and additional requirements provided in this Section, is as follows: Category SPIF A $ 3,550.3,440. B and C $2,490.2,410. for each dwelling unit or mobile home space Category Water meter size (inches) Fee D, E, F ¾ $7,1006,880 1 17,88017,300 1½ 31,49030,480 2 55,29053,520 3 150,130145,310 4 and above Calculated on an individual basis based on peak wastewater flow (determined in the manner set forth hereinafter) but not less than the charge for a three-inch meter G Same as equivalent category, plus any special sanitation district fees. H Determined pursuant to paragraph (d) of this Section. . . . (d) The amount of the plant investment fee and surcharge for each nonresidential surcharged user, users in Category H and any user that is expected to generate greater than its proportionate share of peak day flow at the treatment plant for the applicable category (including both contributed wastewater volume and volume related to infiltration and inflow), shall be calculated utilizing the following formula: SPIF = Site Flow x [Flow$ + (BOD x BOD$) + (TSS x TSS$)] + I&I Flow x [Flow$ + (200 mg/l x BOD$) + (250 mg/l x TSS$)] Where: SPIF = Plant investment fee for Category H users and users discharging wastewater with average concentrations of BOD and/or TSS which exceed those average concentrations which are set forth in § 26-282(b) under Category E-34 Site Flow = The user's proportionate share of peak day flow at the treatment plant based on site flow discharge from user's site -2- I&I Flow = That proportionate share of peak day flow due to infiltration and inflow as allocated to user's site flow discharge Flow$ = $6.346.10 per gallon (unit cost of facilities attributable to treating wastewater flow) BOD = Average BOD concentration for user category or measured BOD concentration for the user as determined in accordance with Subsection (c) of this Section, but not less than 200 mg/l BOD$ = $0.01380.0134 per mg/l (unit cost of facilities attributable to treating BOD) TSS = Average TSS concentration for user category or measured TSS concentration for the user as determined in accordance with Subsection (c) of this Section, but not less than 250 mg/l TSS$ = $0.01100.0107 per mg/l (unit cost of facilities attributable to treating TSS) . . . Section 2. That the amendments to Chapter 26 of the City Code contained herein shall go into effect on January 1, 2012. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -3- Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -4- ORDINANCE NO. 142, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO REVISE ELECTRIC RATES, FEES AND CHARGES WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the City Charter to fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs, expenses and other obligations of the electric utility, as set forth therein; and WHEREAS, Platte River Power Authority (“Platte River”) costs are increasing due to reduced surplus sales, increased operating costs for aging plants and environmental mitigation, increased financing costs, and continuing capital investment; and WHEREAS, Platte River will increase the City’s wholesale cost of power approximately 6.4% in 2012; and WHEREAS, the increased wholesale power costs will require a 4.8% increase in the City’s electric rates; and WHEREAS, the revenues in the Light and Power Fund have not been sufficient to fund capital projects and system replacements and reserves have been utilized to make up for the short fall; and WHEREAS, the reduction in reserves was accelerated due to reductions in interest revenue and development fee revenue; and WHEREAS, without additional rate increases, reserves are projected to fall below minimum policy levels as early as 2013; and WHEREAS, a 3.5% rate increase will begin to fund the necessary capital improvements and system replacements and will also begin to stem the decline in reserves; and WHEREAS, City Council desires to enact rate structures to encourage additional energy conservation measures in order to meet Energy Policy and Climate Action Plan goals; and WHEREAS, in order to further encourage energy conservation, the recommended adjustments to the electric rates include an amendment to the residential demand service rate schedule limiting participation to those customers who establish to the satisfaction of the Utility that their residences are heated entirely by electric energy; and WHEREAS, City Council has requested an additional work session to review and study the rate form options for the residential energy service rate class and will defer making a decision related to changes for the 2012 residential energy service rate until that review is completed later in 2011 or early 2012; and WHEREAS, the City Manager and staff have recommended to City Council the following adjustments to the existing residential demand, general service, general service 50, general service 750 and traffic signal electric rates for all billings issued with meter readings on or after January 1, 2012; and WHEREAS, the City Manager and staff have recommended to City Council the creation of a new rate class, general service 25; and WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, it is the desire of the City Council to amend Chapter 26 of the City Code to revise electric rates, fees and charges. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 26-391 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition “Wholesale energy” which reads in its entirety as follows: Wholesale energy, as used in this Article, shall mean that energy sold to the City or to Platte River Power Authority by negotiated contract to be sold by the City or Platte River Power Authority to others. Section 2. That Sections 26-446 and 26-447 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins shall be renumbered as Sections 26-447 and 26-448 respectively. Section 3. That the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new Section 26-447 which reads in its entirety as follows: Sec. 26-446. Wholesale transactions. The sale of wholesale energy, as defined in this Article, shall be subject to requirements for interconnection to the City’s electric system and requirements for sales to the City, if applicable, will not be governed by the electric rate schedules or electric development fees and charges set out in this Article. Section 4. That Section 26-465(a), (c), (k) and (q) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins are hereby amended to read as follows: (a) Availability. The residential demand service rate, schedule RD, shall be available within the corporate limits of the City and the suburban fringe. Service under this rate class is available only to customers who establish to the satisfaction of the utility, by providing to the utility such documentation as the utility may deem appropriate, that the residence served is heated entirely by electric energy. Such documentation must be submitted by April 1, 2012. At such time that the utility implements a time-of-use rate, this rate schedule will no longer be available. -2- . . . (c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates are as follows: (1) Ffixed charge, per account: Six dollars and thirty-twoseven dollars and twenty-four cents ($6.237.24). (2) Ddemand charge, per kilowatt: Three dollars and eighty-seventwo dollars and forty-three cents ($3.872.43). (3) Ddistribution facilities charge, per kilowatt-hour: Onetwo and eighty- eight one-hundredths cents ($0.018800.0288). (4) Eenergy charge, per kilowatt-hour: Two and forty-eight one- hundredths cents ($0.0248). a. during the summer season billing months of June, July and August: three and seventy-two one-hundredths cents ($0.0372). b. during the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: three and fifty-five one-hundredths cents ($0.0355). c. the meter reading date shall generally determine the summer season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate. (5) Iin lieu of taxes and franchise: A charge at the rate of six and zero- tenths (6.0) percent of monthly service charges billed pursuant to this Section. . . . (k) Parallel generation. Customers may operate all or part of their instantaneous energy or capacity needs by operation of a qualifying facility in parallel with the utility system, provided that electric service is being rendered under the special services provisions of this schedule, and provided further that such facility is constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the electric service rules and regulations. The credit for the energy delivered to the electric utility under this provision shall be provided at applicable Platte River Power Authority avoided cost rates. If a customer is receiving net metering service, such customer's service shall also be governed by the net metering service terms and conditions described in Subsection (q) below, and the credit for energy delivered to the electric utility shall be calculated as described in that Subsection. . . . -3- (q) Net metering. . . . (5) The customer-generator's consumption of energy from the utility shall be measured on a monthly basis and, in the event that the qualifying facility has produced more electricity than the customer-generator has consumed, the customer-generator shall receive a monthly credit for such production. During the second calendar quarter of each year, the customer-generator shall receive payment for the net excess generation accrued for the preceding twelve (12) months. The credit per kilowatt hour for the energy delivered to the electric utility under this provision shall be provided at the summer season energy charge as specified in Subsection (c). Section 5. That Section 26-466(b), (c), (m) and (r) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-466. General service, schedule GS. . . . (b) Applicability. This schedule applies to individual commercial and industrial services, served at the established secondary voltage of the City's distribution system; and optionally, for apartments and multiple dwellings in existence prior to January 1, 1980, where more than one (1) dwelling or single living quarters are served through one (1) meter. Single-phase motors from one (1) to five (5) horsepower may be connected with the approval of the utility. This schedule applies to an individual single or three-phase service with an energy-only meter and for demand metered services with an average metered demand of not greater than fifty (50)twenty-five (25) kilowatts. (c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates for this schedule are as follows: (1) Ffixed charge, per account: a. Ssingle-phase, two-hundred-ampere service: three dollars and twenty-onesixty-eight cents ($3.213.68). b. Ssingle-phase, above two-hundred-ampere service: Nine dollars and forty-sixten dollars and eighty-three cents ($9.4610.83). c. Tthree-phase, two-hundred-ampere service: Four dollars and eight-eightfive dollars and fifty-nine cents ($4.885.59). -4- d. Tthree-phase, above two-hundred-ampere service: Eleven dollars and fifty-sixthirteen dollars and twenty-four cents ($11.5613.24). (2) Ddemand charge, per kilowatt-hour: a. First two thousand (2,000) kilowatt-hours: Three and sixty- two one-hundredths cents ($0.0362).during the summer season billing months of June, July and August: two and sixty-seven one-hundredths cents ($0.0267). b. Next five thousand (5,000) kilowatt-hours: One and seventy- eight one-hundredths cents ($0.0178).during the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: one and thirty-nine one-hundredths cents ($0.0139). c. All additional kilowatt-hours: Zero ($0.00).the meter reading date shall generally determine the summer season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate. (3) Demand charge, per kilowatt: a. All kilowatts billed in excess of twenty-five (25) kilowatts: Six dollars and fifty-seven cents ($6.57). (43)Ddistribution facilities charge, per kilowatt-hour: Oone and fifty- eighteighty-one one-hundredths cents ($0.01580.0181). (54)Eenergy charge, per kilowatt-hour: Two and forty-eight one- hundredths cents ($0.0248). a. during the summer season billing months of June, July and August: three and seventy-two one-hundredths cents ($0.0372). b. during the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: three and fifty-five one-hundredths cents ($0.0355). c. the meter reading date shall generally determine the summer season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate. -5- (65)Iin lieu of taxes and franchise: A charge at the rate of six and zero- tenths (6.0) percent of all monthly service charges billed pursuant to this Section. . . . (m) Parallel generation. Customers may operate all or part of their instantaneous energy or capacity needs by operation of a qualifying facility in parallel with the utility system, provided that electric service is being rendered under the special services provisions of this schedule, and provided further that such facility is constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the electric service rules and regulations. The credit for the energy delivered to the electric utility under this provision shall be provided at applicable Platte River Power Authority avoided cost rates. If a customer is receiving net metering service, such customer's service shall also be governed by the net metering service terms and conditions described in Subsection (r) below, and the credit for energy delivered to the electric utility shall be calculated as described in that Subsection. . . . (r) Net metering. . . . (5) The customer-generator's consumption of energy from the utility shall be measured on a monthly basis and, in the event that the qualifying facility has produced more electricity than the customer- generator has consumed, the customer-generator shall receive a monthly credit for such production. During the second calendar quarter of each year, the customer-generator shall receive payment for the net excess generation accrued for the preceding twelve (12) months. The credit per kilowatt hour for the energy delivered to the electric utility under this provision shall be provided at the summer season energy charge as specified in Subsection (c). Section 6. That Section 26-466 (f) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby deleted and the remaining sections 26-466 (g) through 26-466 (r) are renumbered 26-466 (f) through 26-466 (q) respectively. (f) Standby service charges. Standby service, if available, will be provided on an annual contract basis at a level at least sufficient to meet probable service demand (in kilowatts) as determined by the customer and approved by the utility according to the following: -6- (1) The monthly standby distribution charge shall be three dollars and two cents ($3.02) per kilowatt of contracted standby service. This charge shall be in lieu of the distribution facilities charge. For all metered kilowatts in excess of the contracted amount, the standby distribution charge shall be nine dollars and six cents ($9.06) per kilowatt. (2) In the event the contractual kilowatt amount is exceeded, the beginning date of the contract period will be reset. The first month of the new contract period will become the current billing month and such month's metered demand shall become the minimum allowable contract demand for the standby service. Requests for standby service may be subject to a waiting period. An operation and maintenance charge may be added for special facilities required to provide standby service. Section 7. That currently numbered Sections 26-467 through 26-473 are renumbered as Sections 26-468 through 26-474 respectively and that an entirely new Section 26-467 General service 25, schedule GS25, is hereby inserted to read as follows: Sec. 26-467. General service 25, schedule GS25. (a) Availability. The schedule GS shall be available within the corporate limits of the City and the suburban fringe. (b) Applicability. This schedule applies to individual commercial and industrial services, served at the established secondary voltage of the City's distribution system; and optionally, for apartments and multiple dwellings in existence prior to January 1, 1980, where more than one (1) dwelling or single living quarters are served through one (1) meter. Single-phase motors from one (1) to five (5) horsepower may be connected with the approval of the utility. This schedule applies to an individual single or three-phase service with an average metered demand of not less than (25) kilowatts or greater than fifty (50) kilowatts. (c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates for this schedule are as follows: (1) fixed charge, per account: a. single-phase, two-hundred-ampere service: three dollars and sixty-eight cents ($3.68). b. single-phase, above two-hundred-ampere service: ten dollars and eighty-three cents ($10.83). c. three-phase, two-hundred-ampere service: five dollars and fifty-nine cents ($5.59). -7- d. three-phase, above two-hundred-ampere service: thirteen dollars and twenty-four cents ($13.24). (2) demand charge, per kilowatt: a. during the summer season billing months of June, July and August: seven dollars and seven cents ($7.07). b. during the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: four dollars and thirty- six cents ($4.36). c. the meter reading date shall generally determine the summer season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate. (3) distribution facilities charge, per kilowatt-hour: one and eighty-one one-hundredths cents ($0.0181). (4) energy charge, per kilowatt-hour: a. during the summer season billing months of June, July and August: three and seventy-two one-hundredths cents ($0.0372). b. during the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: three and fifty-five one-hundredths cents ($0.0355). c. the meter reading date shall generally determine the summer season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate. (5) in lieu of taxes and franchise: a charge at the rate of six and zero- tenths (6.0) percent of all monthly service charges billed pursuant to this Section. (d) Renewable resource. Renewable energy resources, including but not limited to energy generated by the power of wind, may be offered on a voluntary basis to customers at a premium of one and nine-tenths cents ($.019) per kilowatt hour. The utility may establish and offer voluntary programs designed to increase and enhance the use of energy generated by renewable energy resources in support of Council- adopted policy applicable to the utility. -8- (e) Excess capacity charge. A monthly capacity charge of two dollars ($2.) per kilowatt may be added to the above charges for service to intermittent loads in accordance with the provisions of the electric service rules and regulations. (f) Standby service charges. Standby service, if available, will be provided on an annual contract basis at a level at least sufficient to meet probable service demand (in kilowatts) as determined by the customer and approved by the utility according to the following: (1) the monthly standby distribution charge shall be four dollars and twenty-seven cents ($4.27) per kilowatt of contracted standby service. This charge shall be in lieu of the distribution facilities charge. For all metered kilowatts in excess of the contracted amount, the standby distribution charge shall be twelve dollars and eighty-one cents ($12.81) per kilowatt. (2) in the event the contractual kilowatt amount is exceeded, the beginning date of the contract period will be reset. The first month of the new contract period will become the current billing month and such month's metered demand shall become the minimum allowable contract demand for the standby service. Requests for standby service may be subject to a waiting period. An operation and maintenance charge may be added for special facilities required to provide standby service. (g) Service charge. Service charges and connection fees shall be as set forth in Subsection 26-712(b). (h) Conservation assistance, rebates and incentives. The utility may establish programs to assist customers or provide incentives to customers in order to reduce energy consumption or system peak demands consistent with Council-adopted policy applicable to the utility. Such programs may include financial or technical assistance, incentives or rebates and shall be consistent with program objectives approved by the Utilities Executive Director. (i) Billing demand. The billing demand shall be determined for each point of delivery by suitable meter measurement of the highest fifteen-minute integrated demand occurring during the billing period. (j) Power factor shall be determined by using watt and volt-ampere measurements collected by the electric meter at the point of service. The power factor calculated from such measurements shall be the basis of billing adjustment until satisfactory correction has been made. Review shall be conducted on a monthly basis by the utility. If the power factor falls below ninety-percent lagging, a power factor adjustment may be made by increasing the billing demand by one (1) percent for each one (1) percent or fraction thereof by which the power factor is less than -9- ninety-percent lagging. This adjustment shall be based on the power factor at the time of maximum demand as recorded during the billing period. (k) Service rights fee in certain annexed areas. A fee for defraying the cost of acquisition of service rights from Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association (PVREA) shall be charged for each service in areas annexed into the City after April 22, 1989, if such area was previously served by PVREA. The service rights will be collected monthly for a period of ten (10) consecutive years following the date of acquisition by the City of electric facilities in such area from PVREA. If service was previously provided by PVREA, the fee shall be twenty-five (25) percent of charges for electric power service. For services that come into existence in the affected area after date of acquisition, the fee shall be five (5) percent of charges for electric power service. In the event that the City Council has determined that a reduction of the service rights fee is justified in order to mitigate the economic impacts to a lot or parcel of land at the time of annexation of said lot or parcel of land, the service rights fee charged pursuant to this Subsection may be reduced by the City Council pursuant to a schedule set forth in the ordinance annexing said parcel or lot. The service rights fee charged pursuant to this Subsection shall not be subject to a charge in lieu of taxes and franchise otherwise required in this Section. (l) Special services. Special services or complex service arrangements that are beyond those required for service under this rate schedule may be arranged by a written services agreement that the Utilities Executive Director may negotiate and enter into on behalf of the utility. Said agreement shall establish the terms and conditions for any special services or arrangements and shall incorporate by reference the requirements of this Chapter, as applicable. Any special services agreement modifying the rates, fees or charges for said services from those set forth in this Article shall be subject to approval by the City Council in accordance with Section 6 of Article XII of the Charter. (m) Parallel generation. Customers may operate all or part of their instantaneous energy or capacity needs by operation of a qualifying facility in parallel with the utility system, provided that electric service is being rendered under the special services provisions of this schedule, and provided further that such facility is constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the electric service rules and regulations. The credit for the energy delivered to the electric utility under this provision shall be provided at applicable Platte River Power Authority avoided cost rates. If a customer is receiving net metering service, such customer's service shall also be governed by the net metering service terms and conditions described in Subsection (r) below, and the credit for energy delivered to the electric utility shall be calculated as described in the Subsection. (n) Commodity delivery. If the electric utility authorizes the delivery of electric capacity or energy utilizing the utility's distribution system under mandatory provisions of state or federal law, a credit will be applied to the customer's monthly electric bill based upon the electric utility's displaced costs as credited to the utility -10- by its supplier of electric energy. Capacity, energy, standby capacity, backup capacity and special services shall be delivered, metered, billed, dispatched and controlled in accordance with a special services agreement with the electric utility. (o) Payment of charges. The foregoing rates are net. Payment becomes delinquent twenty-five (25) days after the billing date. (p) Contract period. The applicant shall take electric service under this or any other applicable schedule which is in effect during the term of the contract subject to adjustment from time to time by the City Council. All contracts under this schedule shall be for twelve (12) months and shall be automatically renewed annually. The contract may be terminated at the end of the term upon the giving of ten (10) days' advance written notice to the City or may be terminated upon the giving of ten (10) days' advance written notice to the City in the event of vacation of the premises or a change in ownership or tenant occupancy status. (q) Rules and regulations. Service supplied under this schedule is subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the electric utility rules and regulations as approved by the City Council. Copies may be obtained from the Utility's Customer Service Office. (r) Net metering. (1) Net metering service is available to a customer-generator producing electric energy exclusively with a qualifying facility when the generating capacity of the customer-generator's qualifying facility meets the following two (2) criteria: a. the qualifying facility is sized to supply no more than one hundred twenty (120) percent of the customer-generator's average annual electricity consumption at that site, including all contiguous property owned or leased by the customer- generator, without regard to interruptions in contiguity caused by easements, public thoroughfares, transportation rights-of- way or utility rights-of-way; and b. the rated capacity of the qualifying facility does not exceed the customer-generator's service entrance capacity. (2) The energy generated by an on-site qualifying facility and delivered to the utility's electric distribution facility shall be used to offset energy provided by the utility to the customer-generator during the applicable billing period. (3) The customer-generator and electric service arrangements shall be subject to the requirements and conditions described in the City of -11- Fort Collins Utility Services Interconnection Standards for Generating Facilities Connected to the Fort Collins Distribution System. (4) A customer-generator who receives approval from the electric utility to obtain net metering service shall be subject to the monthly rates described above in this rate schedule section. (5) The customer-generator's consumption of energy from the utility shall be measured on a monthly basis and, in the event that the qualifying facility has produced more electricity than the customer- generator has consumed, the customer-generator shall receive a monthly credit for such production. During the second calendar quarter of each year, the customer-generator shall receive payment for the net excess generation accrued for the preceding twelve (12) months. The credit per kilowatt hour for the energy delivered to the electric utility under this provision shall be provided at the summer season energy charge as specified in Subsection (c). Section 8. That renumbered Sections 26-468(c), (f), (g), (k), (p) and (u) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins are hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-467468. General service 50, schedule GS50. . . . (c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates for this schedule are as follows: (1) Ffixed charge, per account: Eighteen dollars and thirty-sixtwenty-one dollars and two cents ($18.2621.02). An additional charge of forty dollars and zero cents ($40.) may be assessed if telephone communication service is not provided by the customer. (2) Ccoincident demand charge, per kilowatt: Twelve dollars and eighty center ($12.80) but not less than one cent ($.01) per kolowatt hour. a. during the summer season billing months of June, July and August: ten dollars and thirty-six cents ($10.36). b. during the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: seven dollars and seventy-six cents ($7.76). c. the meter reading date shall generally determine the summer season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate. -12- (3) Ddistribution facilities demand charge, per kilowatt: Four dollars and eighty-twofive dollars and fifty-two cents ($4.825.52). (4) Eenergy charge, per kilowatt-hour: Two and forty-eight one- hundredths cents ($0.0248). a. during the summer season billing months of June, July and August: three and seventy-two one-hundredths cents ($0.0372). b. during the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: three and fifty-five one-hundredths cents ($0.0355). c. the meter reading date shall generally determine the summer season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate. (5) Iin lieu of taxes and franchise: A charge at the rate of six and zero- tenths (6.0) percent of all monthly service charges billed pursuant to this Section. . . . (f) Standby service charges. Standby service, if available, will be provided on an annual contract basis at a level at least sufficient to meet probable service demand (in kilowatts) as determined by the customer and approved by the utility according to the following: (1) Sstandby distribution charge. a. Tthe monthly standby distribution charge shall be three dollars and ninety-onefour dollars and forty-eight cents ($3.914.48) per kilowatt of contracted standby service. This charge shall be in lieu of the distribution facilities charge. For all metered kilowatts in excess of the contracted amount, the standby distribution charge shall be eleven dollars and seventy-threethirteen dollars and forty-four cents ($11.7313.44) per kilowatt. b. Iin the event the contractual kilowatt amount is exceeded, the beginning date of the contract period will be reset. The first month of the new contract period will become the current billing month and such month's metered demand shall become the minimum allowable contract demand for the standby service. Requests for standby service may be subject -13- to a waiting period. An operation and maintenance charge may be added for special facilities required to provide standby service. (2) Sstandby generation and transmission charge. All charges incurred by the utility under Platte River Power Authority's applicable tariffs, as may be amended from time to time, will be billed to the customer as a standby generation and transmission charge. (g) Excess circuit charge. In the event a utility customer in this rate class desires excess circuit capacity for the purpose of controlling the available electric capacity of a backup circuit connection, this service, if available, will be provided on an annual contract basis at a level at least sufficient to meet probable backup demand (in kilowatts) as determined by the customer and approved by the utility according to the following: (1) Tthe excess circuit charge shall be eighty-threeninety-five cents ($0.830.95) per contracted kilowatt of backup capacity per month. For any metered kilowatts in excess of the contracted amount, the excess circuit charge shall be two dollars and forty-nineeighty-five cents ($2.492.85) per kilowatt. (2) Iin the event the contractual kilowatt limit is exceeded, a new annual contract period will automatically begin as of the month the limit is exceeded. The metered demand in the month of exceedance shall become the minimum contracted demand level for the excess circuit charge. . . . (k) Distribution facilities demand. The distribution facility demand charge used by the utility is designed to recover the costs of operating and maintaining the electric distribution system and it is based on a per unit rate tied to the peak demand (kW) of a customer’s monthly electric use. Under the utility’s billing system, cost recovery is based on a twelve month model. Monthly billing is one-twelfth (1/12) of the annual cost recovery required for given service and the twelve-month use patterns serve as the reference base for monthly billings. (1) The distribution facilities demand shall be determined for each point of delivery by suitable meter measurement of the highest one-hour integrated demand occurring during the billing period and shall not be less than seventy (70) percent of the highest distribution facilities demand (in kilowatts) occurring in any of the preceding eleven (11) months. (2) If the Utilities Executive Director determines the calculation described in (1) above does not recover the customer’s share of the -14- actual distribution facilities costs, the customer’s distribution facilities demand charge may be determined according to a billing calendar designed to fully recover said customer’s share of the distribution facilities costs. . . . (p) Parallel generation. Customers may operate all or part of their instantaneous energy or capacity needs by operation of a qualifying facility in parallel with the utility system, provided that electric service is being rendered under the special services provisions of this schedule, and provided further that such facility is constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the electric service rules and regulations. The credit for the energy delivered to the electric utility under this provision shall be provided at applicable Platte River Power Authority avoided cost rates. Parallel generation will be provided consistent with all of the requirements contained in Platte River Power Authority's Tariff Schedule 3: Parallel Generation Purchases, as may be amended from time to time. All charges incurred by the utility under this tariff will be billed to the customer. If a customer is receiving net metering service, such customer's service shall also be governed by the net metering service terms and conditions described in Subsection (q) below, and the credit for energy delivered to the electric utility shall be calculated as described in that Subsection. (u) Net metering. . . . (5) The customer-generator's consumption of energy from the utility shall be measured on a monthly basis and, in the event that the qualifying facility has produced more electricity than the customer- generator has consumed, the customer-generator shall receive a monthly credit for such production. During the second calendar quarter of each year, the customer-generator shall receive payment for the net excess generation accrued for the preceding twelve (12) months. The credit per kilowatt hour for the energy delivered to the electric utility under this provision shall be provided at the summer season energy charge as specified in Subsection (c). Section 9. That renumbered Sections 26-469(c), (f), (g), (k), (q) and (v) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins are hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-468469. General service 750, schedule GS750. . . . (c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates for this schedule are as follows: -15- (1) Ffixed charge, per account: Fifty four dollars and elevensixty-one dollars and ninety-six cents ($54.1161.96). a. Aadditional charge for each additional metering point: Forty seven dollars and eighty-onefifty-four dollars and seventy- four cents ($47.8154.74). b. Aan additional charge of forty dollars and zero cents ($40.) for each metering point may be assessed if telephone communication service is not provided by the customer. (2) Ccoincident demand charge, per kilowatt: Twelve dollars and sixty- one cents ($12.61) but not less than one cent ($0.01) per kilowatt hour. a. during the summer season billing months of June, July and August: ten dollars and twenty cents ($10.20). b. during the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: seven dollars and sixty-four cents ($7.64). c. the meter reading date shall generally determine the summer season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate. (3) Ddistribution facilities demand charge, per kilowatt: a. Ffirst seven hundred fifty (750) kilowatts: Four dollars and seventy-fivefive dollars and forty-four cents ($4.755.44). b. Aall additional kilowatts: Two dollars and eighty-fourthree dollars and twenty-five cents ($2.843.25). (4) Eenergy charge, per kilowatt-hour: Two and forty-five one- hundredths cents ($0.0245). a. during the summer season billing months of June, July and August: three and sixty-seven one-hundredths cents ($0.0367). b. during the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: three and forty-nine one-hundredths cents ($0.0349). -16- c. the meter reading date shall generally determine the summer season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate. (5) Iin lieu of taxes and franchise: A charge at the rate of six and zero- tenths (6.0) percent of all monthly service charges billed pursuant to this Section. . . . (f) Standby service charges. Standby service, if available, will be provided on an annual contract basis at a level at least sufficient to meet probable service demand (in kilowatts) as determined by the customer and approved by the utility according to the following: (1) Sstandby distribution charge. a. Tthe monthly standby distribution charge shall be two dollars and ninety-seven three dollars and forty cents ($2.973.40) per kilowatt of contracted standby service. This charge shall be in lieu of the distribution facilities charge. For all metered kilowatts in excess of the contracted amount, the standby distribution charge shall be eight dollars and ninety-oneten dollars and twenty cents ($8.9110.20) per kilowatt. b. Iin the event the contractual kilowatt amount is exceeded, the beginning date of the contract period will be reset. The first month of the new contract period will become the current billing month and such month's metered demand shall become the minimum allowable contract demand for the standby service. Requests for standby service may be subject to a waiting period. An operation and maintenance charge may be added for special facilities required to provide standby service. (2) Sstandby generation and transmission charge. All charges incurred by the utility under the Platte River Power Authority's applicable tariffs, as may be amended from time to time, will be billed to the customer as a standby generation and transmission charge. (g) Excess circuit charge. In the event a utility customer in this rate class desires excess circuit capacity for the purpose of controlling the available electric capacity of a backup circuit connection, this service, if available, will be provided on an annual contract basis at a level at least sufficient to meet probable backup demand (in kilowatts) as determined by the customer and approved by the utility according to the following: -17- (1) Tthe excess circuit charge shall be sixty-threeseventy-two cents ($0.630.72) per contracted kilowatt of backup capacity per month. For any metered kilowatts in excess of the contracted amount, the excess circuit charge shall be one dollar and eighty-ninetwo dollars and seventeen cents ($1.892.17) per kilowatt. (2) Iin the event the contractual kilowatt limit is exceeded, a new annual contract period will automatically begin as of the month the limit is exceeded. The metered demand in the month of exceedance shall become the minimum contracted demand level for the excess circuit charge. . . . (k) Distribution facilities demand. The distribution facilities demand charge used by the utility is designed to recover the costs of operating and maintaining the electric distribution system and it is based on a per unit rate tied to the peak demand (kW) of a customer’s monthly electric use. Under the utility’s billing system, cost recovery is based on a twelve month model. Monthly billing is one-twelfth (1/12) of the annual cost recovery required for given service and the twelve month use patterns serve as the reference base for monthly billings. (1) The distribution facilities demand shall be determined for each point of delivery by suitable meter measurement of the highest one-hour integrated demand occurring during the billing period and shall not be less than seventy-five (75) percent of the highest distribution facilities demand (in kilowatts) occurring in any of the preceding eleven (11) months. (2) If the Utilities Executive Director determines the calculation described in (1) above does not recover the customer’s share of the actual distribution facilities costs, the customer’s distribution facilities demand charge may be determined according to a billing calendar designed to fully recover the customer’s share of the distribution facilities costs. (q) Parallel generation. Customers may operate all or part of their instantaneous energy or capacity needs by operation of a qualifying facility in parallel with the utility system, provided that electric service is being rendered under the special services provisions of this schedule, and provided further that such facility is constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the electric service rules and regulations. The credit for the energy delivered to the electric utility under this provision shall be provided at applicable Platte River Power Authority avoided cost rates. Parallel generation will be provided consistent with all of the requirements contained in Platte River Power Authority's Tariff Schedule 3: Parallel Generation Purchases, as may be amended from time to time. All charges incurred by the utility under this tariff will be billed to the customer. If a customer -18- is receiving net metering service, such customer's service shall also be governed by the net metering service terms and conditions described in Subsection (q) below, and the credit for energy delivered to the electric utility shall be calculated as described in that Subsection. . . . (v) Net metering. . . . (5) The customer-generator's consumption of energy from the utility shall be measured on a monthly basis and, in the event that the qualifying facility has produced more electricity than the customer- generator has consumed, the customer-generator shall receive a monthly credit for such production. During the second calendar quarter of each year, the customer-generator shall receive payment for the net excess generation accrued for the preceding twelve (12) months. The credit per kilowatt hour for the energy delivered to the electric utility under this provision shall be provided at the summer season energy charge as specified in Subsection (c). Section 10. That renumbered Section 26-471 (c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-470471. Traffic signal service, schedule T. . . . (c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates (including a six-and-zero-tenths-percent charge in lieu of taxes and franchise) are as follows: (1) Ffixed charge, per account: Sixty-three dollars and ninetyseventy- three dollars and sixteen cents ($63.9073.16). (2) Ccharge, per kilowatt-hour: Five and fifty-fivesix and eighteen one- hundredths cents ($0.05550.0618). (3) Sservice extensions and signal installations made by the utility shall be paid for by the City General Fund, subject to material and installation costs at the time of installation. Section 11. That the amendments to Chapter 26 of the City Code contained herein shall go into effect for all bills issued based on meter readings on or after January 1, 2012. -19- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -20- ORDINANCE NO. 143, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO REVISE ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT FEES AND CHARGES WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the City Charter to fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs, expenses and other obligations of the electric utility, as set forth therein; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is appropriate for new development to contribute its proportionate share of providing capital improvements; and WHEREAS, Section 26-471 of the City Code requires the City Manager and staff to annually consider the parameters and rates related to setting electric development fees and charges; and WHEREAS, Section 26-471 of the City Code requires that the electric development fees be presented to the City Council for approval no less frequently than biennially; and WHEREAS, on November 16, 2010 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 115, 2010, which established the electric development fees now in effect; and WHEREAS, the City Manager and staff have recommended to the City Council the following adjustments to the electric development fees and charges for all invoices paid on or after January 1, 2012; and WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, it is the desire of the City Council to amend Chapter 26 of the City Code to revise electric development fees and charges. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 26-471 the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new subsection (e) which reads in its entirety as follows: (e) This Section does not apply to wholesale energy transactions, as defined in this Article. Any applicable fees and charges will be addressed in a written services agreement subject to approval by City Council in accordance with Section 6 of Article XII of the Charter, if applicable. Section 2. That Section 26-472(b) and (c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-472. Residential electric development fees and charges. . . . (b) The ECF shall be the total of the site footage charge, dwelling charge and systems modification charge, to be determined as follows: (1) Tthe site footage charge shall be the combined total of: a. Ffour and nine hundred fifty-four thousandths cents ($0.049540.04950) per square foot of developed site square footage, including all applicable tracts but excluding the area dedicated public rights-of-way; and b. Eightten dollars and seventy-eight cents ($8.7810.08) per lineal foot of the developed site abutting a dedicated street or roadway. (2) Tthe dwelling unit charge shall be as follows: a. Ffor a single-family panel size with one-hundred-fifty-amp service (nonelectric heat), one thousand two hundred eighty-fiveeighty-one dollars ($1,285.1,281.) per dwelling unit; b. Ffor a single-family panel size with two-hundred-amp service or with one-hundred-fifty-amp service (electric heat), two thousand one hundred seventy-sixsixty-five dollars ($2,176.2,165.) per dwelling unit; c. Ffor a multi-family panel size with one-hundred-fifty-amp service (nonelectric heat), eight hundred fifty-sixfifty-four dollars ($856.854.) per dwelling unit; d. Ffor a multi-family panel size with two-hundred-amp service or with one-hundred-fifty-amp service (electric heat), one thousand five hundred twenty-sixnineteen dollars ($1,526.1,519.) per dwelling unit. (3) Aa system modifications charge will apply when a new or modified service will require infrastructure in addition to or different from the standard base electrical system model. The differential costs associated with such system modifications will be included in the calculated ECF. (c) A Building Site Charge ("BSC") for any new or modified residential service shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit for the related construction or modification. The BSC shall be based upon the current rates as of the time of issuance of the building permit. The BSC shall be the total of the secondary service charges, and any additional charges, determined as follows: -2- (1) Tthe secondary service charge shall be as follows: Secondary Service Size Charge (up to 65 feet) Plus Per Foot Charge For Each Foot Over 65 1/0 service $639.00642.00 $4.664.65/Foot 4/0 service $813.00821.00 $5.835.82/Foot 350 kCM Service $830.00818.00 $6.566.54/Foot 1/0 Mobile Home Service $499.00503.00 N/A 4/0 Mobile Home Service $638.00646.00 N/A (2) Aactual special costs to the utility of installation of secondary service resulting from site conditions shall be included in the BSC as additional charges. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, frozen or rocky soil, concrete cutting and asphalt replacement. Section 3. That Section 26-473(b) and (c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-473. Nonresidential electric development fees and charges. . . . (b) The ECF shall be the total of the site footage charge, kVA service charge and systems modification charge, to be determined as follows: (1) Tthe site footage charge shall be the combined total of: a. Ffour and nine hundred fifty-four thousandths cents ($0.049540.04950) per square foot of developed site square footage, including all applicable tracts but excluding the area of dedicated public rights-of-way; and b. Tthirty-eight dollars and zerothirty cents ($38.0038.30) per lineal foot of the developed site abutting a dedicated street or roadway. (2) Tthe kVA service charge shall be determined as follows: a. Ffor customer electric loads served by the utility the kVA service charge shall be: i. Uutility owned transformers: Tthe kVA service charge shall be fifty-nine dollars and sixfour cents ($59.0659.04) per kilovolt-amp (kVA) of service load rating. -3- ii. Ccustomer owned transformers: Tthe kVA service charge shall be forty-eight dollars and sixty-one fifty-nine cents ($48.6148.59) per kilovolt-amp (kVA) of service load rating. b. Ffor the utility to receive customer generation in excess of the customer’s electric service provided by the utility, the following KVA service charge will also apply: i. Uutility owned transformers: Tthe kVA service charge shall be forty-eight dollars and sixty-four fifty-nine cents ($48.6448.59) per kilovolt-amp (kVA) of generation service rating in excess of the service load rating as paid per subparagraph (2)a.i. above. Such ratings shall be determined by the Utilities Executive Director. ii. Ccustomer owned transformers: Tthe kVA service charge shall be thirty-eight dollars and nineteennine cents ($38.1938.09) per kilovolt-amp (kVA) of generation service rating in excess of the service load rating paid per subparagraph (2)a.ii.above. Such ratings shall be determined by the Utilities Executive Director. (3) Aa system modifications charge will apply when a new or modified service will require infrastructure in addition to or different from the standard base electrical system model. The differential costs associated with such system modifications will be included in the calculated ECF. (c) A Building Site Charge ("BSC") for extending primary circuitry to the transformer for any new or modified nonresidential service shall be invoiced and paid in the same manner and at the same time as the ECF is invoiced and paid pursuant to Subsection (a) of this Section. The BSC shall be the total of the primary circuit charge, transformer installation charge and any additional charges, determined as follows: (1) Tthe primary circuit charge for service from the utility source to the transformer shall be as follows: a. Ffor single-phase service, a charge of eightnine dollars and seventy- sixfifteen cents ($8.769.15) per foot of primary circuit; b. Ffor three-phase service, a charge of eighteen dollars and forty- threezero cents ($18.4318.00) per foot of primary circuit. (2) Tthe transformer installation charge shall be as follows: -4- a. Ffor single-phase service, a charge of one thousand three hundred eighteentwo hundred seventy-eight dollars ( $1,318.1,278.) per transformer; b. Ffor three-phase service, a charge of two thousand four hundred twenty-onethree hundred eighty-five dollars ( $2,421.2,385.) per transformer. (3) Aactual special costs to the utility of installation of service resulting from site conditions shall be included in the BSC as additional charges. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, frozen or rocky soil, concrete cutting and asphalt replacement. Section 4. That the amendments to Chapter 26 of the City Code contained herein shall go into effect as of January 1, 2012. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -5- ORDINANCE NO. 144, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO REVISE STORMWATER PLANT INVESTMENT FEES WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the City Charter to by ordinance from time to time fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs, expenses and other obligations of the storm water utility, as set forth therein; and WHEREAS, Section 26-511(a) of the City Code requires that the City Manager review the rates and parameters of the Stormwater Plant Investment Fees annually and present them to City Council for approval no less frequently than biennially; and WHEREAS, on November 3, 2009, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 119, 2009, which established the Stormwater Plant Investment Fees now in effect; and WHEREAS, the Council has adopted stormwater basin master plans recommending stormwater facilities that are necessary to provide for the proper drainage and control of flood and surface waters within the City; and WHEREAS, existing stormwater rate payers have paid for the design, right-of-way and construction of stormwater facilities identified in the drainage basin master plans that will benefit and be utilized by new development; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that new development should pay its proportionate share of the costs of the stormwater infrastructure as it exists at the time of development; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended to the City Council the revised Stormwater Plant Investment Fees set forth herein, to be effective January 1, 2012; and WHEREAS, the Water Board considered the proposed Stormwater Plant Investment Fees for 2012 at its September 15, 2011, meeting and recommended the approval of the proposed fees by an unanimous vote; and WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, it is the desire of the City Council to amend Chapter 26 of the City Code to revise Stormwater Plant Investment Fees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 26-512(2) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-512. Stormwater plant investment fees established. . . . (2) Plant investment fee base rate. The stormwater plant investment fee base rate is six thousand three hundred thirteenninety dollars ($6,3136,390.) per gross acre of area. . . . Section 2. That the amendment to Chapter 26 of the City Code contained herein shall go into effect January 1, 2012. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: October 18, 2011 STAFF: John Stokes, Daylan Figgs Steve Catanach, Ginger Purvis AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 21 SUBJECT Resolution 2011-094 Directing Certain Actions Be Taken to Improve Coordination and Consultation Between the City and Platte River Power Authority in Connection with the Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Substation Transmission Line Project and for Future Projects. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Resolution directs the City Manager and City Attorney to take certain follow up actions in light of recent discussions and analysis related to the Platte River Power Authority Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Substation Transmission Line Project. The City Council discussed this issue at its adjourned meeting on October 11, 2011, and the Resolution calls for follow up work to: (1) address impacts from the proposed Project; (2) develop a set of policies and procedures for planning and consultation related to future Platte River projects; and (3) improve the City’s level of involvement in future infrastructure and specific project planning by Platte River. The Resolution also directs the City Manager to provide a copy of the Resolution to Platte River and the other Platte River member cities. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION At its October 11, 2011 meeting Council directed City staff to develop a resolution expressing the intent of the City Council that the City Manager and City Attorney work closely with Platte River staff, and that the City’s representatives on the Platte River Board of Directors work closely with their counterparts on the Platte River Board, in order to establish procedures and policies that will improve the level of coordination and communication regarding Platte River infrastructure and project planning. This direction grew out of a review of a proposed transmission line that crosses Pineridge Natural Area. The review was conducted by a consulting firm (SAIC) on behalf of PRPA and the City. Based on that review, Council concluded that the proposed alternatives to the existing project were not worthy of support at this time. However, Council desires improved communication and influence with respect to PRPA project infrastructure planning and implementation and directed staff to create a resolution that specifically referenced a number of areas for improved communication and collaboration, including: 1. formal notice to the general public and property owners in the vicinity of the proposed project; 2. formal notice to City representatives, including the Mayor and City Manager; 3. written description and analysis of alternative means to accomplish the project, alternative routes, configurations and designs, and analysis of related impacts, costs and benefits; 4. detailed analysis of natural resource, aesthetic and other impacts and evaluation of means by which such impacts may be avoided, minimized, or offset; and 5. a process for soliciting and considering input by City boards and commissions and the City Council. Included in the Resolution is direction to staff to develop a written plan to avoid, minimize, and offset impacts associated with the Pineridge crossing. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Other than staff time to develop these initiatives, none. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The proposed efforts have the potential to lessen environmental impacts associated with PRPA infrastructure projects. October 18, 2011 -2- ITEM 21 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. RESOLUTION 2011-094 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS DIRECTING CERTAIN ACTIONS BE TAKEN TO IMPROVE COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION BETWEEN THE CITY AND PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE DIXON CREEK SUBSTATION TO HORSESHOE SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT AND FOR FUTURE PROJECTS WHEREAS, Platte River Power Authority (“Platte River”) is in the process of developing new power transmission facilities as part of its Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Substation Transmission Line Project, and has planned to proceed with the initial work required for Phase III (the “Project”) of that larger project, the purpose of which is to complete a redundant 230 kV transmission circuit to the City of Loveland and portions of Fort Collins; and WHEREAS, as part of the Project, Platte River has proposed to install new and upgraded transmission facilities in existing Western Area Power Administration (“WAPA”) rights-of-way across the City’s Pineridge Natural Area (“Pineridge” or the “Natural Area”); and WHEREAS, the City Council has expressed concerns about the Project and has expressed objections to the impacts the Project may have upon the Natural Area; and WHEREAS, in light of the concerns raised regarding the Project, the City and Platte River on August 26, 2011, entered into an Interim Agreement staying work on the Project in order to allow additional review and analysis of the Project, possible transmission-related alternatives to the Project as originally planned by Platte River, and impacts, costs and benefits associated with such alternatives; and WHEREAS, the City and Platte River have worked cooperatively and shared the cost of evaluating the foregoing, and those efforts are outlined and described in a report entitled “Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study, dated October 2011, by SAIC, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk and available for public inspection (the “Alternatives Report”), and which Alternatives Report is incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Alternatives Report and related analysis have identified no alternative to the Project that is clearly preferable to the Project in light of the overall impacts, costs and benefits; and WHEREAS, Platte River has expressed serious concerns regarding further delay of the Project in light of its desire to provide increased transmission capacity in certain areas of its transmission system; and WHEREAS, it is not the intent of the City Council to delay the Project if no constructive benefit can be accomplished as a result of such delay; and WHEREAS, Platte River staff has agreed to work closely with City staff to avoid and minimize impacts to the Natural Area and surrounding properties in connection with the Project; and WHEREAS, Platte River staff has further agreed to work closely with City staff to develop a plan and procedure for future consultation and review of Platte River projects; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council that the City Manager and City Attorney work closely with Platte River staff, and that the City’s representatives on the Platte River Board of Directors work closely with their counterparts on the Platte River Board, in order to establish procedures and policies that will improve the level of coordination and communication regarding Platte River infrastructure and project planning. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Manager and City Attorney are directed to work with Platte River staff to negotiate and establish by written agreement the means by which Platte River will avoid, minimize and offset damage to the Natural Area and the natural resources in the vicinity of the Natural Area in connection with the Project. Section 2. That the City Manager and City Attorney are directed to work with Platte River staff to develop and present for City Council and Platte River Board of Directors approval a consultation and review process to be used by Platte River in connection with Platte River projects on or impacting City property, to include provisions addressing the following items, together with such other provisions as may be determined to be appropriate: a. formal notice to the general public and property owners in the vicinity of the proposed project; b. formal notice to City representatives, including the Mayor and City Manager; c. written description and analysis of alternative means to accomplish the project, alternative routes, configurations and designs, and analysis of related impacts, costs and benefits; d. detailed analysis of natural resource, aesthetic and other impacts and evaluation of means by which such impacts may be avoided, minimized, or offset; and e. a process for soliciting and considering input by City boards and commissions and the City Council. Section 3. That the City Manager is directed to work with the City’s representatives on the Platte River Board of Directors and Platte River representatives in order to improve and expand upon the degree of consultation and coordination between Platte River and its member cities in connection with the ongoing and periodic development of plans for Platte River system infrastructure. Section 4. That the City Manager is directed to provide a copy of this Resolution to Platte River and to each of the member cities of Platte River. -2- Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 18th day of October A.D. 2011. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk -3- Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Vice-President 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 Gerry Horak, District 6 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 on the Comcast cable system Darin Atteberry, City Manager Steve Roy, City Attorney Wanda Krajicek, 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. SKYVIEW SOUTH GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 15 MEETING October 18, 2011 (after the Regular Council Meeting) 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. First Reading of Ordinance No. 002, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 for the Fiscal Year 2012 and Directing the Secretary of the District to Certify Such Levy to the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County. (staff: Mike Beckstead; 5 minute discussion) The sum of $24,615 is anticipated to be collected from the mill levy of 10.0 mills for fiscal year 2012. The total amount will be used to maintain and repair roads in the Skyview subdivision. 4. Other Business. 5. Adjournment. SKYVIEW SOUTH GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AGENDA DATE: October 18, 2011 STAFF: Mike Beckstead AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY SKYVIEW SOUTH GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 15 3 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 002, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 for the Fiscal Year 2012 and Directing the Secretary of the District to Certify Such Levy to the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The sum of $24,615 is anticipated to be collected from the mill levy of 10.0 mills for fiscal year 2012. The total amount will be used to maintain and repair roads in the Skyview subdivision. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In 2009, the City annexed Phase 3 of the Southwest Enclave Annexation. The area annexed included the entire Larimer County Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 (GID No.15). A map of the GID No. 15 is attached. The County organized GID No. 15 in 1997. Pursuant to Section 31-25-603, C.R.S., since the annexation involved the entire improvement district, GID No.15 became a City-operated district and Council acts as the ex officio Board of Directors of the District. Under state law, the City is required to set the mill levy for the District and to certify the amount of the levy to Larimer County. This Ordinance continues the establishment, as in years past, of a levy of 10.0 mills. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS This Ordinance sets the Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 mill levy, which will generate about $24,615 at 10.0 mills for fiscal year 2012. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Map of GID No. 15 ORDINANCE NO. 002 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EX-OFFICIO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SKYVIEW SOUTH GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 15, DETERMINING AND FIXING THE MILL LEVY FOR THE SKYVIEW SOUTH GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 15 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 AND DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT TO CERTIFY SUCH LEVY TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY WHEREAS, the Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 (the “GID”) was created by Larimer County in 1997 and annexed into the City by phase three of the Southwest Enclave Annexation in 2009; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 31-25-603, C.R.S., and Section 37-25-609, C.R.S., as a result of the annexation of the entire GID into the City, the GID is now a district of the City and the City Council is to act as the ex-officio board of directors of the GID; and WHEREAS, the GID staff has considered the amount of money to be raised by a levy on the taxable property in the GID and recommends establishing a levy of 10.0 mills upon each dollar of the assessed valuation of all taxable property within the limits of the GID for 2012; and WHEREAS, the GID staff estimates a levy of 10.0 mills will result in $24,615 of revenue; and WHEREAS, the amount of this proposed mill levy is not an increase over prior years so that prior voter approval of the levy is not required under Article X, Section 20 of the State Constitution; and WHEREAS, Section 39-5-128(1), C.R.S., requires certification of any tax levy to the Board of County Commissioners no later than December 15; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, Ex-Officio the Board of Directors of City of Fort Collins Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15, as follows: Section 1. That the 2012 mill levy rate for taxation upon each dollar of the assessed valuation of all taxable property within the GID shall be 10.0 mills. Section 2. That the City Clerk shall certify this levy of 10.0 mills to the County Assessor and the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado as provided by law. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor, Ex Officio President ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. _________________________________ Mayor , Ex Officio President ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary W TRILBY RD S COLLEGE AVE W SKYWAY DR CONSTELLATION DR MARS DR VENUS AVE ARAN ST ORBIT WAY DEBRA DR H OLYOKE C T P O L A R I S DR S T A R W A Y S T AV O NDALE R D RAMA H D R N E P T U N E D R GALA X Y W A Y URANUS ST F LA G L E R R D WITHDRAWN Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Vice-President 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 Gerry Horak, District 6 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 on the Comcast cable system Darin Atteberry, City Manager Steve Roy, City Attorney Wanda Krajicek, 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. GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 MEETING October 18, 2011 (after the Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 Meeting) 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. First Reading of Ordinance No. 061, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the General Improvement District No. 1 for the Fiscal Year 2012; Directing the Secretary of the District to Certify Such Levy to the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County and Making the Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Appropriation. (staff: Mike Beckstead; 5 minute discussion) The sum of $249,000 is anticipated to be collected from the mill levy of 4.924 mills for fiscal year 2012. Additional revenue for the General Improvement District (GID) No. 1 from sources like automobile specific ownership taxes, ad valorem taxes, and interest earnings are anticipated to total $54,179. The total 2012 revenue for GID No. 1 is expected to be $303,179. 4. Resolution No. 022 Adopting the General Improvement District No. 1 Capital Improvements Plan. (staff: Clark Mapes; 20 minute discussion) City Council serves as the Board of Directors of General Improvement District No. 1 (the GID). The GID is a property tax district formed by property owners in 1976 to fund parking, pedestrian, and street beautification improvements to enhance the Downtown as a business and commercial area. The City’s Advance Planning Department has developed a new Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) to guide the use of the GID’s revenues, from 2012 going forward about 15 years. GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AGENDA October 18, 2011 5. First Reading of Ordinance No. 062, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Improvement District fund for the Downtown Wayfinding Sign System Project. (staff: Clark Mapes; 15 minute discussion) This Ordinance appropriates $500,000 from the General Improvement District No. 1 (GID No. 1) Fund Balance for fabrication and installation of a Downtown Wayfinding Sign System. Schematic design of a sign system was done in 2009, and this appropriation is the next step toward implementation. The appropriation will be used to hire a sign company to develop final design and construction details, and then fabricate and install signs, in collaboration and coordination with the City’s Traffic Operations sign shop. Depending on final design decisions, the City’s sign shop may prove able to fabricate and install some of the signs, with some of the appropriated funds used to cover those costs. Installation will occur in 2012. 6. Other Business. 7. Adjournment. DATE: October 18, 2011 STAFF: Mike Beckstead AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 3 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 061, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the General Improvement District No. 1 for the Fiscal Year 2012; Directing the Secretary of the District to Certify Such Levy to the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County and Making the Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Appropriation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The sum of $249,000 is anticipated to be collected from the mill levy of 4.924 mills for fiscal year 2012. Additional revenue for the General Improvement District (GID) No. 1 from sources like automobile specific ownership taxes, ad valorem taxes, and interest earnings are anticipated to total $54,179. The total 2012 revenue for GID No. 1 is expected to be $303,179. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The recommended appropriations for this amount are as follows: Projects: • $246,031 to be used for capital improvements in the downtown area for projects yet to be determined Other expenses: • $20,338 for staffing • $11,000 for the Larimer County Treasurer’s fee for collecting the property tax • $23,000 for the property tax rebate program • $2,500 for estimated electrical costs for downtown lighting and water • $310 for miscellaneous expenses FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS This Ordinance includes the annual appropriation for 2012 at $303,179. This item also sets the General Improvement District No. 1 mill levy, which will generate about $249,000 at 4.924 mills for fiscal year 2012. Additional 2012 revenue for the GID No. 1 includes auto specific ownership taxes, ad valorem taxes, and interest which are projected to be $54,179 in 2012. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Map of GID No. 1. ORDINANCE NO. 061 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EX-OFFICIO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1, DETERMINING AND FIXING THE MILL LEVY FOR THE GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2012; DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT TO CERTIFY SUCH LEVY TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY AND MAKING THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 ANNUAL APPROPRIATION WHEREAS, City of Fort Collins General Improvement District No. 1 (the “GID”) in Fort Collins, Colorado, has been duly organized in accordance with the ordinances of the City and the statutes of the State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, the GID staff has considered the amount of money to be raised by a levy on the taxable property in the GID and recommends that a levy of 4.924 mills upon each dollar of the assessed valuation of all taxable property within the limits of the GID is required during 2012 to pay the cost of operating the GID; and WHEREAS, the GID staff estimates a levy of 4.924 mill will result in $249,000 of revenue; and WHEREAS, the amount of this proposed mill levy is not an increase over prior years so that prior voter approval of the levy is not required under Article X, Section 20 of the State Constitution; and WHEREAS, Section 39-5-128(1), C.R.S., requires certification of any tax levy to the Board of County Commissioners no later than December 15; and WHEREAS, additional revenue is collected by the GID from such sources as the automobile ownership tax, ad valorem taxes, and interest earnings and that revenue for 2012 is anticipated to be $54,179; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council, acting as the ex-officio Board of Directors of the GID, to appropriate the necessary funds for operating costs and capital improvements of the GID for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2012, and ending December 31, 2012. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, Ex-Officio the Board of Directors of City of Fort Collins General Improvement District No. 1, as follows: Section 1. That, for the purpose of providing the necessary funds to meet the expenses to be incurred in the General Improvement District No. 1 in 2012, 4.924 mills is hereby levied upon each dollar of the assessed valuation of all taxable property within the General Improvement District No.1 as of December 31, 2011. Section 2. That the Secretary of the General Improvement District No. 1 is hereby authorized and directed to certify such levy to the Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County as provided by law. Section 3. That the City Council, acting ex-officio as the Board of Directors of City of Fort Collins General Improvement District No. 1, hereby appropriates out of the revenues of General Improvement District No. 1 for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2012 and ending December 31, 2012 the sum of THREE HUNDRED THREE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY NINE DOLLARS ($303,179) to be raised by taxation and additional revenue to be expended for the authorized purposes of the General Improvement District No.1. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor, Ex Officio President ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary Passed and adopted on final reading on the1st day of November, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor, Ex Officio President ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary DATE: October 18, 2011 STAFF: Clark Mapes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 4 SUBJECT Resolution No. 022 Adopting the General Improvement District No. 1 Capital Improvements Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Council serves as the Board of Directors of General Improvement District No. 1 (the GID). The GID is a property tax district formed by property owners in 1976 to fund parking, pedestrian, and street beautification improvements to enhance the Downtown as a business and commercial area. The City’s Advance Planning Department has developed a new Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) to guide the use of the GID’s revenues, from 2012 going forward about 15 years. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Purpose The purpose of the new CIP is to guide ongoing work by staff, and provide a framework for Board decisions. The CIP does not represent a specific commitment or obligation to fund any given project. Need A CIP for the GID was last updated in 1994. That CIP consisted of a memo to City Council that identified a list of potential projects to be pursued over approximately a 15-year period. Most of the projects on that list have been completed, along with several others. Bonds that financed a group of the projects were retired in 2009. Additional background on the past project list is included later in this Agenda Item Summary. As the previous list of projects has approached substantial completion, a number of questions and issues have emerged over the past several years regarding the use of the GID fund. A new CIP is needed to identify the next generation of potential projects to pursue. The new list provides clarification and information on the key questions and issues, including: • What new capital improvements should be listed as potential projects to pursue? • What maintenance and renovations of existing improvements should be on the list? • What are the top priorities? • What is the right balance of responsibilities for various special improvements among the City’s General Fund, the Downtown Development Authority (DDA), and the GID, considering recent changes in budgets and revenues among the three funding sources? • What is the best balance between a fixed project list and schedule that commits the GID Fund, versus a more general list with flexibility for staff to respond to partnership opportunities or urgent needs that may arise? • What financing and funding options should be considered? Process to Develop the Plan The CIP process involved property owners who self-fund the GID, the GID Board of Directors (City Council), and other key stakeholders to determine how the GID should continue to invest in Downtown public improvements with a new list of potential projects. The City's Advance Planning Department managed the process in collaboration with other City departments and the DDA. One aspect of the process was the opportunity to remind property owners and other stakeholders about the GID, and review how it works. The main steps in the process were: October 18, 2011 -2- ITEM 4 • May – Assembled background information, identified issues, and brainstormed potential future GID projects. • June – Discussed the CIP with the DDA Board and Downtown Business Association (DBA) Board, the DBA Executive Committee, and DBA Membership. • Late June/Early July – Gathered owner and public input with a mailing, open house, and online questionnaire, seeking thoughts and ideas on projects and priorities. • August – Discussed preliminary material with the GID Board (City Council) at the August 9 Work Session. Continued internal work among key City departments and DDA to flesh out project ideas with analysis of costs, partnership opportunities, constraints, etc. Assembled draft Plan material. Continued communications with the DBA. • September - Reviewed draft Plan material with owners and the public at a second open house. Assembled the CIP document. Reviewed material with the DDA and DBA. • October – Presentation of the Plan to the GID Board (City Council) at the October 18 meeting for consideration. List of Potential Projects The primary emphasis of the Plan was to develop a preliminary list of potential projects for staff to pursue using the GID Fund. The list is derived from planning documents, staff discussion, and public outreach. Some notable aspects of the top projects on the list are: • Two of the top projects are DDA projects -- Old Town Square Renovations, and Additional Pedestrian- Enhanced Alleys. These also happen to be the largest projects envisioned in the plan. They are dependent on the DDA’s revenue stream, and possibly other funding sources as well, in addition to the GID, in order to be feasible within a time frame of less than 15 years. They will require a high level of coordination in pursuit of a viable funding package. • Another top project is dependent on the outcome of another planning effort currently underway: Jefferson/Mountain Gateway and Streetscape Improvements. This could emerge as the first project to move forward to construction, because it may offer the opportunity to partner with committed funding by the Colorado Department of Transportation and the DDA within 1-2 years. Besides the list, the plan also contains background information, implementation recommendations, and conceptual project descriptions. Additional Context: Capital Improvements History The GID transformed the face of downtown with streetscape installations on College Avenue and Linden Street. A large initial package of improvements was constructed in 1977, closely related to the creation of the GID in 1976. Attachment 5 contains key excerpts from the founding Ordinance and Resolutions that describe the original purposes of the GID. That initial package included the corner plazas, medians, and street trees along College Avenue, the Oak/Remington parking lot, and Oak Street Plaza. The GID provided the primary financing with a $1.1 million, 15-year bond issue. Secondarily, a special assessment on specified properties provided additional funding. In 1992, the bonds that financed the initial package were paid off. A public process affirmed support for continuation of the GID, and a list of potential projects was developed. The list was last updated in 1994 (see Attachment 4), and since then, most of the projects have been completed, along with a few other projects as well. Some of the completed projects involving paver replacement were done as a group, with a $1.1 million bond issue providing financing. That bond debt committed most of the GID Fund revenues for a ten-year period from 1999-2009. Other projects were completed on a pay-as-you-go basis, using available reserves and revenues. Staff formulated these projects in response to leverage and partnership opportunities, and urgent needs. These include some projects from the list, and some additional projects that were not on the list. The intent of the new CIP is to continue to allow flexibility for staff to pursue opportunistic projects, in addition to projects on the list. October 18, 2011 -3- ITEM 4 FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The GID was established to fund improvements in the Downtown; and the proposed CIP is a framework and guide for future spending of GID revenues. While the plan does not create any direct financial obligations, the City does provide indirect financial support for the GID and its projects, with staff work by various departments, maintenance and operation of GID improvements, and occasional participation in projects by City departments and other capital improvement programs. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS GID improvements support pedestrian use and efficient parking, which help make Downtown arguably the City’s best example of urban development that makes efficient use of resources. City Plan emphasizes that keeping Downtown vital is a big part of sustainable solutions to land use and resource issues; and GID capital improvements are a major factor in the vitality of Downtown. The CIP reinforces Downtown’s efficient, livable mixeduse development, which makes it the most walkable part of the city, thus mitigating emissions created by driving to and from destinations and activities. The purpose of GID improvements is to enhance Downtown as a business and commercial area, which supports sales tax revenues that are used, in part, for environmental programs and quality of life initiatives that define Fort Collins. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. PUBLIC OUTREACH Public outreach centered around two open houses with mailings to all 900 property owners in the GID. All open house information, including a significant questionnaire, was online, as well. The other significant outreach was with the Downtown Business Association Board, membership, and Legislative Affairs Committee; and the Downtown Development Authority Board. Staff found wide agreement and very little controversy regarding the Plan. A log of public outreach is Attachment 2, and a log of public comments is Attachment 3. ATTACHMENTS 1. Capital Improvements Plan 2. Log of Public Meetings and Outreach 3. Log of Public Comments 4. Previous List of Projects (1994) 5. Original Purposes of the GID 6. Work Session Summary, August 9, 2011 7. Powerpoint Presentation Downtown General Improvement District #1 Capital Improvements Plan ATTACHMENT 1 II GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 General Improvement District #1 Capital Improvements Plan October 12, 2011 Advance Planning 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-221-6376 fcgov.com/advanceplanning For additional copies, please visit our website, or contact us using the above information. GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 III Table of Contents General Improvement District #1 (GID)........................................1 What Is the GID?.............................................................................................. 1 Background and Context: Capital Improvements History.............................................. 2 GID Revenues ................................................................................................. 4 GID Administration .......................................................................................... 5 Capital Improvements Plan.......................................................6 Use of the Plan ............................................................................................... 6 Potential Projects List ...................................................................................... 6 Capital Improvements Plan Implementation..................................9 Needed actions............................................................................................... 9 Financing ...................................................................................................... 9 Project Descriptions............................................................. 11 Old Town Square Renovations ............................................................................ 11 Jefferson/Mountain Gateway Urban Design and Landscaping ....................................... 12 Reserve Fund to Respond to Emerging Partnership Opportunities and............................. 13 Urgent Needs ................................................................................................ 13 Additional Pedestrian-Enhanced Alleys ................................................................. 14 Enhanced Crosswalks....................................................................................... 15 Enhanced Crosswalks Continued:......................................................................... 16 Shorten East/West Pedestrian Crossings Leading Into the Core Area .............................. 16 Old Town Square Lighting Renovation................................................................... 17 Jefferson Streetscape...................................................................................... 18 Mulberry/Mason Gateway and Streetscape............................................................. 19 Public Restrooms Funding ................................................................................. 20 Public Restrooms Funding, Continued ................................................................... 21 Holiday Lights and Electricity Funding .................................................................. 22 Sidewalks, Curbs, and Gutters Replacement ........................................................... 23 Linden Street Pedestrian Lights Augmentation ........................................................ 24 Mulberry/College Streetscape/Gateway ................................................................ 25 Parking Facilities Improvements and Renovations..................................................... 26 Other Ideas ........................................................................ 27 Conclusion......................................................................... 28 IV GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 1 General Improvement District #1 (GID) WHAT IS THE GID? The Downtown GID is a property tax district initiated by Downtown property owners in 1976 for the purpose of funding parking, pedestrian, and street beautification improvement projects, to enhance the Downtown as a business and commercial area. Map of the GID boundary City staff manages the GID, working with finances and budgets, and planning, design, engineering, operations, and maintenance of projects. City Council serves as the Board of Directors. North 2 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS HISTORY The GID was formed by City Council adoption of Ordinance No. 77, 1976. It was formed specifically to fund the 1977 package of capital improvements that included the original set of College Avenue corner plazas, medians, and landscaping, along with the Oak/Remington parking lot and Oak Street Plaza. The GID provided the largest share of financing for that package, with a $1.1 million, 15-year bond issue. Secondarily, a special assessment on specified properties provided additional funding. In 1992, the bonds that financed the initial package were paid off. A public process affirmed support for continuation of the GID, and the GID was reauthorized and reaffirmed by City Council Resolution 92-37 in 1992. A new capital improvements plan -- consisting of a list of potential projects -- was developed. That list was updated in 1994, and then it served well as a working framework for about 15 years’ worth of projects. The projects involved renovations and extensions of College Avenue streetscape improvements, and a customized Downtown sign system. Most of the streetscape projects were completed by 2004, and work is underway on a sign system. One project not completed from the 1994 list is a streetscape enhancement project at the northwest corner of the Mulberry Street/College Avenue intersection, to help mark the intersection as the main south entry to Downtown. This project is being carried forward as a potential future project, and is related to concepts for future redevelopment of the block. Several of the completed projects, involving corner plazas, were done as a package with a $1.1 million bond issue providing financing. That bond debt committed most of the GID Fund revenues for a ten-year period from 1999-2009. Also, a number of projects have been completed on a pay-as-you-go basis, using available reserves and revenues. Staff formulated these projects in response to urgent needs, leverage opportunities, and partnership opportunities. These include some additional projects that were not on the 1994 list: ► Oak Street Plaza renovation, done in a funding partnership with City and DDA funds. ► A package of sidewalk, curb, and gutter replacements, largely completed over the past two years, with another phase of replacements scheduled for later in 2011. ► On a much smaller scale, a package of bicycle dismount signs and sidewalk decals. The intent of capital improvement plans is to allow flexibility for staff to pursue these kinds of opportunistic projects, in addition to projects on the list. GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 3 Thanks to Downtown leaders in the 1970s, the GID has transformed the face of Downtown with streetscape and parking enhancements on College Avenue and Linden Street. Features include paving, trees, planters, seating …irrigation and drainage… bike dismount decals… …College Ave. medians and crosswalk islands… Oak Street Plaza…and the Oak/Remington Parking Lot. Most projects have partnered with and leveraged other funding sources. Linden Streetscape, done in a partnership that saved the Linden Hotel and reconstructed Linden Street. 4 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 GID REVENUES The GID receives revenues primarily from a property tax mil levy set by City Council members acting as the Board of Directors. The mil levy has remained at 4.94 mils since 1992. Secondarily, the GID receives other revenues from a share of vehicle registration tax, and interest on the fund balance. The general magnitude of the GID Fund can be demonstrated, using 2012 budget figures, as follows: Property tax revenues: $249,000 Other revenues: $ 54,000 Total revenues: $303,000 Fixed and Administrative Costs: $ 56,000 Revenues available for projects: $247,000 Fund balance: (separate from 2011 revenues): $818,000 15-year projected revenues: $5-6 million 15-year projected revenues available for projects: $4.5-5.5 million Annual revenues are projected to continue growing slowly, from approximately $300,000 in 2012, to approximately $500,000 over 15 years to 2026, depending on property values. The Board approves spending in the City’s overall budget process, and in any other funding appropriation requests that may occur between budget cycles. Approximately $36,000 is committed annually for ongoing, routine disbursements including residential rebates, Larimer County Treasurer's Services, and small water and electric bills for irrigation and lighting. Starting in 2011, the budget also included funding for staff administration in the amount of $38,000, partly to conduct the public process to develop this capital improvement plan. The budget item for staffing drops to $20,000 in 2012, and after 2012 it will be determined in future budgeting processes. $500,000 of the $818,000 fund balance has been earmarked to build the Wayfinding Sign System, which is a project from the 1994 list. Whenever any budget or appropriation item is requested, the Board will have the opportunity to provide direction on the project involved. GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 5 GID ADMINISTRATION The GID is managed collaboratively by City staff in several departments, without any formal organizational structure. A general outline of the informal organization of staff work is as follows: The City Manager’s Office provides executive leadership. The Finance and Budget offices administer finances and prepare budget statements. Advance Planning develops and oversees a capital improvements plan with a list of projects, formulates projects, prepares budget offers, monitors expenditures, and serves as a primary point of contact for project-related ideas, questions, and issues. Parks provides comprehensive, crucial maintenance of GID improvements, and also formulates projects. Engineering assists with design and provides construction supervision. Parking Services operates the GID-built Oak/Remington parking lot, and collaborates on all projects and ideas that affect parking. Besides these primary roles, staff in all departments and the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) coordinate and collaborate in many other ways. A few examples are identifying project ideas, vetting ideas, formulating projects, seeking opportunities to leverage resources, and resolving technical questions and issues. In addition to City staff, the DDA staff coordinates and collaborates with City staff in matters of mutual overlapping interest. The DDA formulates and executes capital projects that overlap with the purposes of the GID, and it manages property tax revenues that are interrelated with the GID’s revenues. Three high priority projects on the potential projects list are DDA projects; the top priority project, Old Town Square Renovations, involves the DDA-owned Old Town Square. 6 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 Capital Improvements Plan This capital improvements plan is a key aspect of the GID. City Council Resolution 92-37 requires staff to prepare and maintain a plan, in consultation with property owners, with a list of projects to guide the use of the GID’s revenues. Accordingly, this plan is essentially a list of potential projects to be pursued by staff using GID funding. The list is intended to represent about a 15-year time frame. USE OF THE PLAN This plan is a guide and framework for staff work, and for Board decisions. It does not represent a specific commitment or obligation to fund any given project. Staff uses the plan to formulate projects, assemble funding packages, and move projects forward to execution. The Board uses the plan to provide context for annual budgeting, other funding requests, and any other governance issues. Besides the projects on the list, the intent of this plan is to continue to allow flexibility for staff to respond to other new opportunities or urgent needs that may arise, as has been the practice in the past. Also, the plan should be updated as needed to remain useful as new information emerges and conditions change. POTENTIAL PROJECTS LIST The crux of this plan is the Potential Projects List. The list was developed in an open planning process in 2011,which sought all thoughts and ideas for projects, starting with ideas from other previous planning efforts. The overall pool of ideas was then refined in staff discussion and analysis, public outreach, and review by City Council sitting as the GID Board at a worksession. Two primary considerations in evaluation of any project ideas are: ► The appropriateness of GID funding relative to other funding sources. The GID is for enhancements that would not otherwise be done -- GID funds should not be used as a substitute for City funding of items the City is normally obligated to do, and would do if the GID did not exist. ► The importance to downtown as a business and commercial area, in terms of the original purposes of the GID-- identity and image, pedestrian use, and parking. Another significant consideration is the potential to leverage or partner with other funding sources to maximize the effects of GID funding. GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 7 Priorities Table 1 (opposite) shows three levels of priority that emerged in the planning process, with groups of projects in each level. Projects within each level are also listed in general order of priority. Priorities are based on rankings by property owners and the public, discussion with the GID Board, and staff evaluation of projects considering all input and other factors. Priority refers to priority for staff work and funding commitments. The intent is to guide the allocation of staff work to get projects formulated, funded, and executed; and to guide the spending and accrual of revenues. Priorities do not necessarily refer to priority for timing of execution -- some smaller projects could be completed while larger, higher-priority projects are still being planned, designed, and financed. Priorities are not meant to prevent efforts or actions on any projects if opportunities arise to initiate action at any time on any project, regardless of priority shown. Hypothetical Scenario for GID Funding, 15-year total Table 1 shows a hypothetical funding scenario for how the GID’s projected funding capacity could be allocated among the projects on the list. Revenues available for project funding are projected in the range of $4.5-5.5 million. This scenario is shown only to illustrate the general magnitude of what might be possible. The figures are hypothetical GID funding contributions to each project over a 15-year period starting in 2012. They reflect educated guesses of funding amounts that would be realistic and substantial enough to make the projects financially feasible. Most of the projects are expected to involve funding packages that include other funding sources. Some projects may involve an initial, one-time cost for construction; others may involve an initial cost and a subsequent annual line item commitment for maintenance; and others may only involve an annual line item commitment for an ongoing program. To develop actual funding scenarios, each project will require further planning, design, cost estimating, and financing work to define a scope and funding package. All projects will be formulated to account for long term maintenance and operations. 8 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 Potential Funding Partners Conceptual ideas for potential funding partners are shown for each project. These are suggestions for funding sources that appear appropriate to the project, and worth pursuing with further staff work. Some projects will only be feasible as envisioned with participation by funding partners. Others could be feasible without partners, at least at some level, but partnerships would still be highly advantageous for the extent and quality of execution, the efficiency of joint efforts, and the maximum effect of GID funds. Table 1. Potential Projects GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 9 Capital Improvements Plan Implementation NEEDED ACTIONS Needed actions include the following: ► Meet to review and discuss this capital improvements plan with all affected City departments, following adoption. ► Maintain contacts among staff to monitor and coordinate with all related non-GID projects and efforts. Examples include Jefferson Street planning and Parking Plan projects, Mason Corridor, private development projects, budget discussions involving holiday lights and other projects, ongoing conversations about public restrooms, pavement management programs, and other efforts to maintain and enhance streets, sidewalks, and crosswalks. ► Flesh out specific project needs based on project descriptions, including timing for actions by staff, and incorporate the needs into departmental work plans and budgets for appropriate years. ► Develop and maintain funding and timing scenarios for the overall project list, to determine financing options that may include debt financing. ► Explore funding scenarios with the DDA. ► Explore feasibility of including top projects the next citywide capital improvement package for voters in 2015, with the City Manager’s Office. ► Examine suggestions for private sector participation in funding, by owner and business interests. ► Develop scope, conceptual design, and cost estimates for projects. FINANCING As staff proceeds with work on the project list, financing approaches will be explored. For some smaller projects, available revenues may be adequate to proceed on a pay-as-you-go basis. Some larger projects, or groups of projects, may need up-front debt financing such as bonding or borrowing against the revenue stream, in order to allow timely completion, or timely participation with other funding sources. The annual revenue stream available to fund projects is projected to grow from about $240,000 in 2012, to about $440,000 over 15 years. If these projections prove valid, this stream could support debt financing of about $2-2.5 million over 15 years. For up-front debt financing of projects, borrowing from City reserves may be a possibility to consider and explore, along with private market bonds or loans. While borrowing from City reserve funds may be possible, in 2011 it has become a highly scrutinized and competitive activity to be used considered only for the highest priority projects. 10 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 If bonding or borrowing is to be part of project financing, lead time is a major issue not to be overlooked by staff. Debt financing can take a year or more to execute. Time requirements include: ► The political approval process. ► Incorporation into City budgets if borrowing from City reserves. ► An election of GID electors as defined by State law. ► Technical work to structure loan or bond packages and sell any bonds. Any of these steps can typically involve 3-6 months or more. Packaging of debt financing is an issue, particularly if external markets, rather than the City, are considered. External markets are not as interested in small packages, and it is a much more efficient use of the revenue stream to finance a larger package all at once, versus multiple smaller packages, because of the fixed costs for each loan or bond issue. These factors would also apply to borrowing from City reserves, although perhaps to a lesser degree. Timing of financing is a current issue in 2011. Interest rates are at 50-60-year lows and are forecasted to remain low for the near future. Staff should consider whether a funding scenario with debt financing in the near future could be worthwhile in this regard. The limitation on this idea is that borrowing years in advance of project construction can have tax implications that negate the benefit of the borrowing at low rates. While advance borrowing could be advantageous, it should only be considered if projects are well-defined and ready to proceed to construction on a timely schedule. GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 11 Project Descriptions OLD TOWN SQUARE RENOVATIONS This potential project would enable the GID to assist the DDA with funding of portions of Old Town Square renovations. Specific components would be determined through additional planning and design work. Some example needs include: reconfiguration of the fountain, stage, and kiosk/restroom building to make room for larger performances and enhance the connection with Linden Street; electric infrastructure for performance sound and lighting; plaza lighting renovation; renovation of the fountain equipment; and updating of finishes, plantings, and irrigation. Old Town Square is now over 25 years old, and draws more, bigger crowds than ever. Numerous needs and ideas for renovations have come up over the years. While it is highly successful as the #1 focal point of Downtown, it has been described as “tired” and renovations emerges as the most important project for GID funding. It is owned and maintained by the DDA, but DDA funding is now sharply reduced to a level where it has lost the ability to cover renovation costs in the near future. There is a conceptual cost estimate of $2.5 million in 2010 dollars. Other recommended funding sources include the DDA, and the next Citywide Capital Improvements Program package (e.g., 1997 BCC, 2005 BOB), which is expected to be presented to City voters in 2015. A hypothetical funding scenario of approximately $1 million each from the GID, DDA, and the next citywide package should be a starting point for staff work in formulating a financing package. Staff should continue to explore other funding sources as well. Origin: Old Town Square Needs Assessment Study, 2009. North end of Old Town Square at its junction with Linden Street. 12 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 JEFFERSON/MOUNTAIN GATEWAY URBAN DESIGN AND LANDSCAPING This potential project is dependent on the outcome of a Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study currently underway by the City, DDA, and CDOT. That study is scheduled for completion in Fall 2011. It includes funding for construction of its recommendations. However, the funding is not expected to adequately address the community’s need and desire to mark this Downtown gateway with pedestrian and beautification enhancements. This project is to capture the opportunity to partner in design enhancements to fully realize the community’s desires to enhance this intersection, if such enhancements exceed the scope of the committed funding as expected. Any GID funding would be used to augment and partner with, and not to replace, the committed funding. Origin: Downtown Plan Existing conditions at the southwest corner of this key Downtown entry. GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 13 RESERVE FUND TO RESPOND TO EMERGING PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES AND URGENT NEEDS This is a general idea for the GID to be able to respond opportunistically to projects that may arise as new priorities. A number of possible examples have been noted: ► Repairs and Renovations to Existing GID Improvements ► Enhanced linkages to Mason Corridor ► Additional Bike Parking ► Bike Parking Maintenance and Operations ► Additional Enhanced Interpretive/Wayfinding Signage ► Enhanced Linkages to New Museum, Possibly with Expansion of GID Boundary ► Pedestrian Lighting, Mountain South Side, College to Remington ► Pedestrian Lighting, Other Locations ► Canyon Art Walk ► West Oak Street Parking - Design to Close for Events ► Linden Street Paver Renovation ► Pine Street Streetscape Enhancements ► Amphitheatre Participation ► Special Events Facility Participation ► Community Marketplace Participation ► Parks Maintenance Shop Participation ► Ice Rink, Full Size, Multi-Use, All-Season Outdoor ► Redevelopment Projects - Streetscape or Parking Partnerships ► Another Parking Structure - Funding Participation ► College Avenue Mid-Block Pedestrian Crossing, Civic Center Garage to Old Town Square via Opera Galleria and Trimble Court per Downtown Strategic Plan ► Expand Planting Program for Corner Noses at Street Corners ► Annual Maintenance of Existing GID Improvements, If City Funding Becomes Unavailable 14 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 ADDITIONAL PEDESTRIAN-ENHANCED ALLEYS This potential project is to enable the GID to assist in funding additional enhanced alleys. A Downtown Alleys Master Plan Report by the DDA identifies a system of alley makeover projects to enhance pedestrian connectivity and interest. A number of these projects have been executed by the DDA, but more remain. Candidate alley projects are: Linden to Chestnut, behind Armadillo and the Wright Life; Mountain to Olive on the west side of College, behind Old Chicago and Ace Hardware; Laporte to Tenney Court between the Civic Center garage and Tenney Court; and Oak to Olive at the Oak/Remington Lot, behind the Aggie Theater and Tony’s Lounge. Long-term, specialized maintenance is a key component to include in the formulation of any more alley enhancements project. Origin: Downtown Plan Existing alley on extending south from Mountain Avenue, across Oak Street to Olive Street, on the west side of College Avenue. (Behind Old Chicago and Ace Hardware.) A pedestrian-enhanced alley (Trimble Court). GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 15 ENHANCED CROSSWALKS This project would enhance key street crossings to more visibly support pedestrian use. The project would begin with identification of the key crossings that warrant enhancements. One prime example location would be the crossing of Mulberry Street along College Avenue, to better tie Downtown to CSU. That location, which is considered the southern entry into Downtown, could also potentially be related to a larger gateway streetscape project, and also be related to similar enhancements at the crossing of Mulberry Street one block to the west where the Mason Corridor enters Downtown. Origin: Downtown Plan, Downtown Strategic Plan Hypothetical example of crosswalk enhancement concept with colored, textured paving. Actual Downtown example of an enhanced crosswalk with colored, textured paving, a median refuge, and corner plaza pavers. 16 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 ENHANCED CROSSWALKS CONTINUED: SHORTEN EAST/WEST PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS LEADING INTO THE CORE AREA At key street corners, crosswalk enhancements could include the extension of curb lines to shorten the pedestrian crossing and provide additional landscaping and seating areas. The Downtown Strategic Plan recommends orienting redevelopment in the near West Side and East Side areas to east/west streets leading into the core area, and recommends this kind of enhancement. For example, crossing Mason and Howes at Mountain, Oak, and Magnolia are mentioned. Those crossings of Mason could also include exploration of smoother rail crossings for bicycles. Some east side locations may be similar, e.g., Olive at Remington and Mathews. Origin: Downtown Strategic Plan Example of Olive Street crossing Remington GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 17 OLD TOWN SQUARE LIGHTING RENOVATION This project would be included as part of any larger Old Town Square renovation package, but it was also suggested as a special, smaller project to highlight separately as a possible first step. The idea is to update lighting with more historic-styled fixtures that offer today’s better performance in terms of energy efficiency, aesthetics, and functionality in lighting the plaza. The predominant existing lighting type in Old Town Square. 18 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 JEFFERSON STREETSCAPE This project idea is dependent on outcome of a Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study currently underway by the City and CDOT. That study is scheduled for completion in Fall 2011. It includes a funding allocation for subsequent construction of its recommendations. This project idea is to help meet a need or opportunity for additional streetscape enhancement funding that the GID could add to committed funding, assuming that the committed funding will not adequately cover the full streetscape recommendations that may result from the study. Any GID funding would be used to augment and partner with, and not to replace, the committed State funding. Concept sketch of one early alternative being examined, with three traffic lanes, median segments, a bike lane, and improvements to parking and sidewalks. GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 19 MULBERRY/MASON GATEWAY AND STREETSCAPE This potential project would augment the Mason Corridor bus rapid transit improvements. This intersection will become a significant south entry to Downtown, with a role similar and related to the role of the Mulberry/College intersection. Conceptual graphics from discussions a few years ago suggest enhanced crosswalks and corner ramps; improvements could also include urban design features, such as the low planters/seat walls and corner plazas found at other downtown corners. Existing conditions. Conceptual illustration of street improvements and future redevelopment. Example gateway streetscape improvements. 20 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 PUBLIC RESTROOMS FUNDING This project is a general idea for staff to assist ongoing efforts to provide appropriate public restroom facilities Downtown. This may involve defining specific needs, evaluating options and technologies, seeking additional locations for public facilities, improving existing facilities, seeking partnerships, and using GID funding if necessary to leverage other funding. The recommendation is for any GID funding to be used for permanent physical facilities; and to be used to leverage other funding sources. Restroom issues are a continual, multi-faceted topic for Downtown property and business owners, the DDA, Police District 1, City facilities managers and maintenance crews, and other interests. Example of a “have2p” restroom locator for smart phones from another city that has restroom options. GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 21 PUBLIC RESTROOMS FUNDING, CONTINUED Part of the general idea to provide appropriate public restroom facilities, includes transforming the nondescript, anonymous appearance of the facility at the Oak/Remington parking lot with an architectural makeover or replacement. The concept is that the character of the facility may be contributing to lack of awareness that it exists, and also to undesirable/illicit activity, both of which are problems; and that enhancing the appearance and identity of the facility could affect behavior and use of the facility. Possible enhancements are a roof, fascias for signage, opaque glass block inserts, and other architectural enhancements. Also, the current door/entry arrangement, which is based on occupying the facility behind a closed door, could be reconsidered with different entry arrangement. Other ideas, such as adding classical music, could be tried. Existing public restroom in the Oak/Remington lot. An example from another city. 22 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 HOLIDAY LIGHTS AND ELECTRICITY FUNDING This potential project would enable the GID to assist with funding of a share of the annual holiday lighting installation. The recommendation is for any GID funding to be limited to capital investment in equipment or permanent infrastructure; to be used to leverage other funding sources more appropriate for event installations; and to be considered only if necessary to prevent the loss of the program. This annual installation is currently funded by the DDA under a contract set to expire after 2011. The DDA, DBA, and City have been parties to a three-way partnership in the contract, but all three have had revenue cuts that place the program in question. This potential project is not the type of capital project envisioned in the original creation of the GID, and has raised particular questions and mixed reviews regarding appropriate use of GID revenues. However, it is of top importance to the public and the Downtown business community and thus is included as a potential project to support with GID funding. Holiday lights in trees along East Mountain Avenue. GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 23 SIDEWALKS, CURBS, AND GUTTERS REPLACEMENT This potential project is an ongoing program to repair and replace damaged sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. A large, one-time project is currently fixing the extra-wide, core-area sidewalks in 2011. This project would fund smaller scale replacements, throughout the GID, as an ongoing program. Modest funding amounts could be useful, e.g., as little as $10,000 in a given year. There is currently no effective program for this concrete work. Municipal Code places responsibility on property owners to maintain sidewalks, curbs, and gutters so they do not endanger the public; but that is difficult to implement, and does not require consistent quality of finish. A GID program could provide a more practical, organized, quality approach for Downtown. New sidewalk, curb, and gutter fitted in among older existing portions of sidewalk that were in good condition. Example showing cracks and heaving in concrete sidewalk and tree grate curb. 24 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 LINDEN STREET PEDESTRIAN LIGHTS AUGMENTATION This project would design and install additional lighting consistent with other similar areas. Linden Street lighting between Walnut and Jefferson is not consistent with lighting levels in other high-activity areas, due to long distances between the current pedestrian fixtures, creating darker areas. This project should be considered in relation to Old Town Square lighting renovation. A goal for overall Old Town Square renovations is to strengthen the visual linkage to this block. Replacement of lighting to continue the same matching fixtures throughout Linden Street and Old Town Square should be considered as a way to achieve the goal. A stretch of Linden Street sidewalk that would benefit from more street/sidewalk lighting. GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 25 MULBERRY/COLLEGE STREETSCAPE/GATEWAY This project was on the previous 1994 project list. It would upgrade the west side of College Avenue at current Sports Authority frontage, reinforcing the theme set by landscaping on the east side. The goal is to enhance the image at this key south entry to Downtown. Street trees, low screen walls, plantings, irrigation, and a seating area are recommended. Also, a median planter could reinforce the Downtown theme, and new enhanced crosswalks could aid pedestrian crossings and highlight the link between Downtown and CSU. Origin: Downtown Plan Existing Conditions Landscaping on the east side of College Avenue at Mulberry Existing median Downtown median planter Existing crosswalk Enhanced crosswalk 26 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 PARKING FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS AND RENOVATIONS This project idea is dependent on outcome of a Parking Plan for Downtown scheduled for completion in 2012. That plan is expected to recommend improvements to public garages and lots to create a more positive brand, and improve the everyday experience for users. Example features may include better-designed, coordinated signage and paint. It may also recommend additional parking, considering shared parking and partnerships in new lots or garages. Successful examples of user-friendly finishes and signage transforming garages in other cities. GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 27 Other Ideas During the process, some ideas were suggested that fall outside the scope of this capital improvements plan, but are recorded here for future reference and further consideration by appropriate entities. Expansion of the GID’s Boundary: The question of possible expansion of the GID’s boundaries was raised, related to ideas for potential projects outside of the GID. Three areas in particular were noted: ► The north edge -- the two blocks bounded by Maple Street, Cherry Street, College Avenue, and Howes Street, with Mason Street separating the two blocks. ► The River District area – the area bounded by Jefferson/Riverside, the Poudre River, Lincoln Avenue, and College Avenue. ► The south edge -- the commercial areas between Mulberry and Laurel. Any of these ideas would involve outreach and complex discussion of issues, pros, cons, and logistics. Boundary expansion is allowed by State law, and would require initiation by a petition of property owners, then City Council approval, and an election by electors in the expansion area. Ice Rink Funding: This suggestion was for the GID to assist with funding of the annual holiday ice rink installation and removal, if no other funding is available to continue the program after 2011. The installation has been funded by the DDA, but major revenue reductions in 2011 have led the DDA to discontinue its funding. The cost is about $40,000 in 2011. This was rated very highly as being important to Downtown in the 2011 planning process. However, as a temporary attraction, it was not widely supported as being appropriate for GID funding, in light of the needs for other, permanent capital improvements that are more consistent with the purposes of the GID. Other Ideas: ► Shuttles from/to hotels and other south Fort Collins locations. ► Shuttle to Lincoln Center. ► Portable security cameras. ► Downtown circulator shuttle along key routes within and around Downtown. ► Trolley expansion to the Trolley Barn. ► Surcharge on certain criminal citations to help pay for restrooms and maintenance. ► Noise abatement, especially train noise. ► Development and maintenance of an email list of property owners. 28 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 Conclusion This plan will guide discussions and efforts over years, with updates as needed. New information and changes have been constant, and that is expected to continue. The project information will evolve and change as progress is made and new information is available. Still, this plan is important in determining a basis for staff work to pursue projects, funding, and coordination efforts by various stakeholders. Downtown General Improvement District #1 Capital Improvements Plan Log of Public Meetings and Outreach June‐September, 2011 June 8 DBA Board, introduction, thoughts and ideas June 9 DDA Board, introduction, thoughts and ideas June 15 DBA Legislative Affairs Committee, thoughts and ideas June 23 DBA membership, introduce and invite to Open House June Neighborhood News newsletter June 27, 28 Open House #1with mailing and online information June 27–July 15 Online Questionnaire with Facebook link August 9 City Council Worksession August 10 DBA Board, review public outreach August 18 DBA membership, review public outreach Sept. 7 DBA Legislative Affairs Committee, review draft materials Sept. 8 DDA Board, review draft materials Sept. 12, 13 Open House #2 with mailing and online information Advance Planning 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6376 970.224.6111 - fax fcgov.com/advanceplanning ATTACHMENT 2 Downtown General Improvement District #1 Capital Improvements Plan Log of Public Comments June – September, 2011 Following are comments received in response to an online questionnaire and two public open houses on potential projects to fund using the GID. Online Comments: 1. Enhance lighting from College to Remington parking garage along South side of Mountain Ave. 2. Keep up the good work with District One officers. They help to make it safer for regular folks who want to enjoy downtown. My Mom enjoys Old Town, but without police presence, I don't take her there. 3. Move some events more north. 4. We need a festival grounds somewhere near downtown to put all the public events that are so popular here. Where, I don't know. 5. I think more bike parking would be a good thing. You can’t ride them downtown so it would be great to have enough places to park them! 6. Could the 200 N. College block be improved? There are no street lights on the sidewalk. For shoppers, it would be nice to even have a garbage can on the northwest corner. I'm not sure if there could be benches and other improvements made on the street as well, but it is a really neglected street that holds the city building on it. If the city wants growth in the downtown to continue, I would think that this block that links the downtown to the bus stop and the discovery center would be an important street to improve to encourage people to go downtown after being in the museum/discovery center. 7. Consider partnerships for funding a permanent full size multi-use outdoor ice rink downtown to accommodate all season activities. 8. The pedestrian bulbs that stick out in the streets, for example on Mountain and Mason, are hazardous to bike riders because they push them into the traffic lane. While I appreciate the new sharrows, the drivers don't know what they mean and it's still dangerous to ride in the middle of the lane. I'd suggest not adding any more bulbs. How about smoothing out the railroad crossings at Oak and Olive. They almost knock your teeth out on a bike. How come the city is Advance Planning 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6376 970.224.6111 - fax fcgov.com/advanceplanning ATTACHMENT 3 Downtown GID Public Comments Continued 2 studying sound protections from trains only south of downtown and not in downtown? The residents here have to listen to loud and frequent train horns in the middle of the night. 9. Wide streets need large banners. Some of the existing banners have been too small and do not call enough attention to themselves. Size the brackets accordingly. I am interested in how the public art/artists is/are chosen. I think we need to have some standards for the public art. 10. Restroom Signs, and more public transport at night!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 11. Yes, please oh please....more parking for bikes! We are finally getting folks to ride downtown, but they have no place to lock up. I hate to see people lock to trees.... 12. Large downtown roofed amphitheater two small open-air amphitheaters two hotels--boutique and mid-level--200 rooms max round-about at College/Laporte/Walnut 13. Instead of extending the trolley straight east on Mountain, send it up Howes to Laporte and over on the north side of Laporte to Mason. This will allow for Transfort and the Municipal Railway to be more seamlessly integrated. On Jefferson/Riverside, positioning the bike lanes between moving traffic and parking lanes is unacceptable considering the truck traffic. Bikes will either have to choose between getting doored or going under the wheels of a semi truck. A 2 way contra-flow cycle-track constructed on the Northeast side of Riverside would be safer and more pleasant to ride. 14. I guess this is outside the GID area, but there is significant tourist (and local) travel between downtown and Odell Brewing (and FCB) via West Mountain Ave and Lincoln Ave (by bike, car, and some pedestrians). Pedestrian sidewalks and bike lanes (and signage, landscaping, etc) along Lincoln Ave would be a benefit and have a high-profile. A friendlier connection from Odell's to Linden and/or NBB via Willow or 1st Street also is an idea. (and/or enhanced visibility of the entrances to the Poudre trail there.) (b) The railroad crossings on Mason Street at Oak and Olive are very rough for bicycles. It would be great to upgrade them to the track crossing type used at Mountain and Laporte. (c) rather than add downtown circulator shuttles, I’d rather see more circulator shuttles to get to and from downtown from area hotels, etc. (d) Kudos to DDA on the great alleyway improvements in recent years. Thanks for the downtown planning and ongoing improvements. 15. Better public transit options for getting to downtown from other areas. 16. More regular late bus routes to downtown from other parts of Fort Collins (Such as Harmony and Timberline). The routes right now are not viable options for going out even for dinner on some evening, or downtown events. 17. This is a great list so far! Keep up the good work. 18. There is a street in Denver that has open grates in the sidewalk where sounds emanate from. It leads to the art and cultural complex and is so cool! I think that when considering art in the public places (which is always interesting) that this "sound art" could be incorporated somehow. 19. Extend trolley line to new museum. Downtown GID Public Comments Continued 3 20. Not at this time but the need for proper toilet and trash facilities is very important in my opinion. I'm not even sure I would know where to find a restroom if I were in Old Town at 11pm. 21. Keep the Mason Corridor project alive!!! Especially through/around campus! 22. Didn't see the year-round community market place anywhere in here. A market place would add a lot more to Old Town than fancy cross walks. 23. Some great ideas here! 24. Downtown tries to be very pedestrian friendly but it still has 287 running right through the center. I think the best thing for Old Town is reducing the traffic. I wish I had suggestions on how to reroute traffic away. The other thing as far fetched as it is would be a monorail. They can be beautiful and they are raised so they don't affect traffic. Also, it can be used to get all around town and even connect surrounding towns. 25. A non-grade pedestrian/bicycle crossing of the railroad track running through Mason Street. 26. Get folks who live in FC to volunteer to help on projects, including labor (skilled and unskilled). People will show up and help if asked. 27. Thanks for posting on FB for more input. 28. All of these projects are nice, but if we don't get a grip on the drunks and violence surrounding Old Town then all of the improvements are in vein. 29. Physically separated bike lanes are welcome anywhere downtown where appropriate! 30. Watch the spending. 31. Please consider adding a fence to the Oak Street Plaza fountain. My family loves to play in the water, but I hesitate to take them because there is no visual barrier from the street fountain and the street. Perhaps a row of benches, it would add additional seating and create a boundary for children. It feels very unsafe in its current condition. Thank you for taking time to gather opinions! 32. I strongly support projects that integrate solar and other renewable technologies that showcase art and the City's commitment to being green. In my opinion projects that directly relate to the Mason Street BRT investments will be extremely valuable long-term and will make the community that much more accessible and appealing to students, visitors and existing residents. I'm not sure if Lincoln Street is included in the boundary but I think it is one of the biggest priority streetscape/improvement projects that needs to be addressed due to the significant bike traffic and impression that it leaves on tourists (visiting the breweries). 33. THE PIAZZA~ A brilliant idea to create a 'european style' open plaza behind the twenty-plus restaurants that currently back up to the existing parking lot near the south east corner of mason and mountain ave. Remove the parking and build a beautiful plaza for outdoor patios connected to each restaurant etc. The patios could include Tasty Harmony, the Rio Grande, Ingredient, Lulu's, Beach House, Sonnys?, Old Chicago, The Indian Buffet, Fish, Dempseys?, and Joes Coffee, This would GREATLY enhance our town!! Downtown GID Public Comments Continued 4 34. I think the sidewalks are in extreme need of repair and should be the top priority. It would be neat to extend the plaza at Oak westward and remove parking to keep it completely for pedestrians. Jefferson definitely needs streetscape improvements - I liked the rendering showing a median -that might help mitigate the truck noise. The alley/parking lot behind 281 N College/Washingtons needs lighting and other enhancements - it does not feel safe there at night. Improving that same section along College is necessary as well. The aesthetics drop in quality on that block compared to south of Laporte. The alley improvements are wonderful and shouldn't stop until they're all complete. 35. I'd like to see projects that help bring a closer link between old town and attractions like: 1) the Breweries (bike tours) 2) new Museum on Cherry 3) and even the Poudre river. Given this, I like the ideas involving enhancements of roadways, sidewalks, signs, etc. on the East and North sides of Old Town. Biking Jefferson can be a little scary without a bike lane. Proactively search for and incentivize business to develop the empty block between Maple and Cherry. Develop something that complements Fort Collins and helps attract visitors and additional tax revenues!! A little tax incentive now will pay off in the long run. From my experience, most people drive their own cars or bike to Old Town. I feel addressing high dollar public transportation projects is something that can wait until Old Town is beefed up a bit. 36. If mini electric cars grow then create parking spaces for them because you can get 2 in one auto spot. Also more parking for bikes & under 50cc scooters. Thank you!! 37. Keep some holiday lighting in the trees up year-round 38. Adding medians down Loomis Ave. To slow traffic down and make it safer for bikes, pedestrians and also slow storm water 39. Use FEDERAL grants and opportunities to fix roads, traffic lights, etc. 40. Keep up the great work! 41. The trolley extension to Mason is a bad idea! The goal is to reach the old trolley barn on Howes. That needs to have the priority. 42. Yeah, enhance the streets, they need repaving! 43. GID funds should be used primarily for new capital projects and not for maintenance of existing or new projects. Need to do projects that increase activity and interest in downtown which will generate more money for GID to do more projects. 44. Maintain existing facilities ... quit spending on useless ideas. 45. There is nothing about bicycling enhancements here. Bike guideways through Oak St. Plaza and Old Town Square would help direct and smooth out cycling in old town. Also, roundabouts at Canyon and Magnolia, Olive and Oak would help make this a better bike route to Old Town. (Not to mention Mulberry and Canyon). 46. I endorse Glenn Konen's "The Piazza" project between Mountain and Oak Street. Downtown GID Public Comments Continued 5 47. Gateways at Mulberry and Whitcomb, and at Mulberry and Canyon, to invite and lead the CSU communities toward the downtown. 2. Roundabout at Mulberry and Canyon. 48. Improve the DDA parking lot that "fronts" and is defined by two intersecting alleys between Mountain and Oak to become a Piazza for public events etc., in the same way that so many open spaces occur in Europeon cities and towns. THIS IS NOT TO SAY IT BECOME A "park" that is mostly green OR to become another Oak Street Plaza dominated with things and trees but an open, mostly hard surfaced space with pavers that are loose set for easy revisions and maintenance and other infrastructure to support the "events". 49. Public transportation is key for this town going forward.... a street car or electric car system would put Fort Collins above and beyond the future........ the bus system is simply not up to par for a town of our size.......... safety call phones would be another great addition....to be able to call for assistance if needed. 50. I would really like the downtown to work on getting more free parking because I really believe that that issue is a big reason why FC has a successful downtown. 51. The questionnaire is a bit too long and it would be helpful when setting a priority if you could see the list of possibilities at the beginning. I live on W. Oak and go into the downtown daily. While it is a central place for our entire community, it is also a part of our own neighborhood and we "locals" support it more than the rest of the community because we are there more often. The residential neighborhood surrounding Old Town should always have opportunities for direct impact on DDA activities. 52. Less about making it look pretty and more about functionality, first!!!! 53. If Mulberry street leading to College and Mason streets is considered the major DT gateway, then it seems to me that a vision plan is necessary that would guide future enhancements, future developments (Sports Authority lot, for example), signage, streetscaping, etc... I suggest that this also ties in nicely to the pending Mason Corridor. If some of the suggestions in this surveys had been more connected as part of a plan, it would be easier to assessment them relative to one another and prioritize accordingly. 54. PLEASE do not invest in the $500,000 bathroom on Oak Street. Can't believe the City is recommending such a boondoggle! 55. A thought: with enough foot traffic downtown, a private entity could run something like the ice rink. With that in mind, perhaps GID and public funding should focus on advancing public works (e.g., streetscapes, gateways, shuttles between downtown and conference hotels) which help maintain activity and interest downtown. 56. Many parking issues could be resolved by putting parking outside the downtown area and providing free, or inexpensive, consistent shuttle service into the core area. This would reduce the number of cars in old town while potentially increasing the number of pedestrians. 57. I would really like to see Old Town get away from using pavers. I'm guessing they are as costly as quality concrete, but seem more prone to settling causing Downtown GID Public Comments Continued 6 tripping hazards and more work when it comes to snow removal. In addition, if business owners need to use a lift to maintain their facade, much more work goes into protecting the pavers from damage. They seem really 80s too, just a terrible idea! 58. Thanks for taking input....our city rocks. 59. I am happy to see continued focus to make this one of the best towns ever. We had friends in from Texas and Arizona this weekend, and LOVED the Old Town atmosphere! Beautiful flowers, music in the square, art visible, just a great mix! 60. A lot of the projects are ridiculous and seem totally unnecessary. 61. Thank you for getting people's opinions. 62. Spend more money just outside downtown....like Mid Town. 63. Include fiscal information in the questionnaire. Knowing approximately how much of the GID funding will be used for each of these projects, and how much each of the projects cost could significantly change my opinion of what is important. 64. I would have appreciated the option to respond "DO NOT SUPPORT THIS PROPOSAL AS DEPICTED HERE". Hi, Medium, Low priority or No Opinion do not cover the spectrum! **************************************************************************************** Open House #1 Comments: Wayfinding Sign System 65. Need signage for existing restrooms. 66. Way-finding to Poudre Trail access – current signage is very poor; need to be a local to know where to go. 67. Need way-finding on I-25 – it is very poor as it exists. 68. The way-finding in Grand Junction is very effective and impressive. The scale, color and location are all great. In Grand Junction it is difficult to find Old Town and the National Monument, but they did a fantastic job. 69. High priority because we need cohesive signage that leads visitors all the way to Old Town from I-25 to parking garages, museum and river corridor. 70. Pedestrian Signs/Kiosks are another target for graffiti; at least in the form you are showing now. Mulberry/College South Entry to Dowtnown 71. I really like the pavers for interest. Check out Weaverville, CA. They have thermoplastic fake bricks that look really fun. Can see on Google street view. 72. Mulberry/College needs major help. Really would be great to have pedestrian refuges but not sure if possible. Encourage parking lot to be mini pocket park w/ mini smoothie/coffee or other small business idea. Downtown GID Public Comments Continued 7 Canyon Avenue Art Walk & Southwest Entry at Canyon/Mulberry 73. Yes, yes, yes, but NOT a roundabout. 74. Very dangerous intersection solution potential. Suggestions: create a roundabout, close off Canyon to Mulberry, and reduce the number of options leaving South from Canyon to Mulberry. 75. Repaint crosswalk by Mulberry pool to Mulberry. NO ONE stops for pedestrians. 76. I really like the pavers for interest. Check out Weaverville, CA. (Caltrans Project – view a Google street view). They have thermoplastic fake brick X- walls that look really fun. 77. Mulberry and College needs major help! Really would be great to have pedestrian refuges not the same, if possible. Encourage parking lot at Sports Authority to be mini pocket park with mini smoothie/coffee or other business idea at corner. 78. Hire the designers who did Ashland Oregon’s Lithia Park. It fully utilizes a small, narrow area for a fantastic public park. Adds value to the town. 79. Too much money to rebuild now. Put a Farmer’s Market here. Close Mulberry connection. Two narrower lanes. 80. I am a big fan of gateways to Old Town so pedestrian traffic is comfortable, safe and it is a pleasant stroll downtown. 81. Narrow Canyon to two narrow travel lanes and provide a public space for Farmer’s Markets, concerts etc, and during off time, a place to travel through or to and enjoy Fort Collins. Linden Street Paver Sidewalk Paver Renovation 82. When is Linden going to be paved? I love paved streets. Are we going to continue with pavers on NE Linden? 83. When is paving on Linden Street going to be done? Jefferson Streetscape 84. No median. Jefferson should be part of DBA. Fort Collins history is very important on corner of Jefferson and Linden. I think it should be kept quiet. Make Willow a truck route. Jefferson/Mountain Gateway 85. NO Roundabout. Landscaping great. Jefferson should be inclusive for Old Town. A walkable area from Linden to College. 86. I like these because of leverage possibilities and the entrance aspect to Downtown. 87. Enhanced gateway to Old Town great use of GID. 88. Roundabout please. Old Town Square 89. I’m not so sure about a fire place. 90. We need more enforcement in Old Town Square for people on their bikes and skateboards. 91. Cameras in Old Town Square will deter negative behavior. 92. Cameras would be great there for negative behavior. More cafes/restaurants with outside seating or rooftops for people to sit and eat during concerts. Downtown GID Public Comments Continued 8 93. Economic driver of Old Town. Let’s keep it current and viable. Good use of GID. Holiday Lights 94. Lights in picture have been reduced – it made a difference. Photography setting at OTS drop-off completely different (worse). Museum cuts also. 95. Have private sponsors, businesses, NGO’s and foundations fund. Ice Rink 96. NO ice rink. 97. I like the idea of a new full size rink, but where? 98. Fund new full size rink in appropriate location. 99. We need to make the plaza more family friendly than a bar district. 100. Move it to parking lot behind Lyric Cinema, or Oak and Remington parking lot. Does not add to ambience of Old Town feel. Sidewalks, curbs and gutters 101. GID funding should not be used for costs related to city maintenance. This is general fund projects responsibility. Mid-Block Pedestrian Crossing, Civic Center Garage to Old Town Square via Opera Galleria and Trimble Court 102. I like the centerline at College parallel parking idea with sidewalk in middle. It is challenging today the way it exists. 103. Paid parking downtown like Boulder. Enhanced Crosswalks 104. Enhancement of crosswalks period! Drivers do NOT stop. 105. Thermoplastic brick x-walks. The city standard enhanced seems to not be eye catching enough and too pale. East/West Pedestrian Crossings into Downtown 106. Bulb-outs whenever possible. I agree – shorten the ped crossings. Art on the corners could be low maintenance. Additional Pedestrian-Enhanced Alleys 107. Love the alleyway projects. Good on ya DDA ! Enhanced Linkages to new Museum 108. This would get people’s attention more once the museum is built. Yes, we definitely need an enhanced pedestrian connection between the transit center and Mason Ct. Mid-block crossing possible? 109. High importance once it is built. Public Art 110. Love the utility box art. 111. The wonderful planters and flower beds are more important for me if costs compete. Downtown GID Public Comments Continued 9 112. Art on the corners like Grand Junction. Call them and ask them for details. 113. NO TAX DOLLARS FOR THIS, PERIOD! Hideous, white, marble monstrosity and other “modern” art stinks!!! 114. I like the new location of the white statue. In the right location it shines and is appropriate. Additional Public Restrooms 115. Public restrooms need to be highly maintained. Example of restrooms in Bryant Park, NYC. 116. Should be paid for by City General Fund, not GID. Upgrade Existing Restrooms at Oak/Remington 117. Restrooms must be maintained, ex. Bryant Park, NYC. 118. Downtown needs far more restrooms to accommodate the late night crowd, which can be 2000-3500 on any given weekend night. Would cut down on public urination. 119. Good idea to improve this and it will reduce public urination and make it more comfortable for Old Town pedestrians. 120. Existing restrooms are often locked by cleaning service. Ensure these are available for residents and citizens. Oak Street Parking Lot 121. I like this idea. Temporary sounds great. 122. West Oak St and Chestnut St. could be more utilized for events. Enhanced Bus Stops 123. I totally agree! Also, have additional pull-outs for buses to keep traffic moving. 124. This should be funded by City General Transportation Fund, not GID. 125. I am the only person I know who rides the bus. Transit Circulator 126. The cost of maintaining this transit circulator negatively impacts other more important projects. Trolley Track Extension 127. I like anything to do with the trolley. Extend tracks to trolley barn, have parking there, run the trolley more often, get the second car up and running, etc. 128. Have parking at City Park with free rides for people who get validated tickets from merchant. Don’t know how to manage, but … 129. The loss of parking for the infrequent use of the trolley is not a good idea. Additional Ideas - Additional Parking Facility 130. Include river district into to GID and extend Old Town feel to Poudre River – expand boundary. 131. We have two parking structures – probably should be free so people will use them. Downtown GID Public Comments Continued 10 Additional Ideas - Noise Abatement 132. Yes, noise abatement in Old Town! Especially train noise. 133. Bars on College that have outside patios, especially Tony’s. It is so annoying since that was put in. Other 134. Tie in North College improvements to Old Town appearance. Fill in blocks that don’t have continuous sidewalks/bike lanes/ landscaping. Partner with city funds for this North Gateway to Old Town. 135. Enhance Mulberry/College intersection AND Mason St. block west of intersection to improve “gateways” to Old Town. 136. More bike racks like the NB ones in parking spaces. 137. Jefferson St. is so much a part of Old Town – on the west side with shops and on the east side with Historic site. Please do not put a roundabout there. I suggest moving it for traffic to Willow and Lincoln. More areas for business and arts. 138. I coordinate responsible alcohol retreats (CRAR) and we work to get people home from bars safely. Tow signs and ticketing are a deterrent for people needing to leave their car in Old Town. I’d like to explore the idea of developing some sort of system that would exempt a tow or a ticket from someone who sought a safe walk home (rather than drive drunk). Bars would distribute them. 139. The property north of transit facility (Maple, Cherry, College and Mason) block 23 is under contract for several million dollars and is zoned for a 9- story building. How about having a basement parking garage, and the first four story exterior similar to Northern Hotel, with floors 2 and 3 affordable rent or purchase condos, 4,5,6 and 7 hotel, floor 8 six-figure condos, and floor 9 seven-figure penthouses. 140. Move bike parking from on-street parking places to upper level of courthouse parking garage and make those parking places into handicapped parking. NO METERS EVER! Reduce two-hour parking to one hour and expand two-hour parking area. 141. We need to move bicycle parking off sidewalks and streets to parking garages or create bicycle lots. 142. Enforcement of bikes and skateboards on sidewalks. 143. I like the idea of a horse trolley. I hope the city would partner with local companies to make this work. 144. Hard to get things done in one hour – need to park longer than two hours. 145. People shopping in Old Town can’t get things done in one hour – need to move car every hour. Encourage use of parking structures – there is parking! 146. How about creating gateways to downtown either at Mulberry and Howes, or at Mulberry and Canyon? These would clearly identify the old town boundary, but would serve as welcoming points into the downtown, particularly to the students, faculty and employees of CSU. These welcoming points might resemble the city gates we see in European cities which stand as reminders of the history of the area and lend a feeling of welcome and inclusion into something special. At either point, a large Downtown GID Public Comments Continued 11 roundabout (yes, I know…) might work. Or, perhaps landscaping and signage would suffice. Then, configuring the streets to welcome bicycles and an easy flow of traffic would do the rest. These would complement the newly developed Mason Street Corridor--all of them saying "Come on down" to the 35,000 people on campus. 147. Don’t let GID substitute for City General Fund responsibilities (things the City is normally obligated to do if there was no GID.) 148. Need a standing permanent committee with owner/stakeholder representation like the North College CAG. Open House #2 Comments: Overall Project List: 149. More Alleys should be #1 150. Love the enhanced alleys, support Old Town Square Renovations, support public restrooms, support leveraging funds. 151. Yes to Old Town Square as #1 project venue for events to promote Downtown. 152. I like Jefferson/Mt. gateway idea. This area is seeing a lot of traffic and gateways are important to show you are in Downtown. 153. Again, sidewalks, curbs, and gutters should be paid for by City General Fund. 154. Where is railroad horn issue ? ? ? 155. Project list should be flexible because of additional funding and bonding potential in addition to partnering with development. 156. Basic maintenance should be paid for by general fund, but maintenance of enhanced alleys and pavers should be paid for by the GID fund. 157. Yes to top 5 and another parking structure. 158. Very important to maintain existing improvements. 159. Very important to take advantage of developments and tie landscaping and sidewalks to look of downtown. 160. Integrating Mason Corridor very important. 161. What about maintenance? Cleaning paving. REQUIRE businesses to clean their grease. 162. Spread out the improvements out from the core where most of the attention is. 163. Pine Street needs some design improvements. 164. Chestnut Street – New Garage. 165. Like the capital projects. They can create leverage. Lead Downtown forward. This GID could easily degenerate into a maintenance thing fixing cracks, planting flowers, putting up lights. Old Town Square Renovations: 166. Overdue. It’s tired. #2. (After Alleys). 168. #1. 169. Yes #1. 170. Old Town Square is a focal point of Old Town. Downtown GID Public Comments Continued 12 171. #1 priority. 172. #1. Layout needs to be updated for size of events held there. Permanent concession building would be beneficial to DBA. 173. Kids and homeless people hanging out by restrooms discourages some people from going “back there” to use restroom. Jefferson/Mountain Gateway and Streetscape: 174. Yep! 175. #1 Reserve Fund for Emerging Opportunities: 176. Maybe not the most exciting, but likely very important to get to smaller projects. Alleys: 177. Love the alley enhancements. I think it makes them safer and more attractive to use as walkways to other parts of Downtown. 178. Consider Oak to Olive alley between Remington and Matthews. It gets used as a connection, and for drinking and vandalism. Mulberry/MasonGateways: 179. Making Mulberry/Mason look more like a gateway is VERY IMPORTANT. 180. Yes – may have to wait ‘til redevelopment occurs. Crosswalks: 181. Need Pine and Jefferson Cross Walks. Tie in Rodizio. 182. Yes to enhancing Remington/Olive crosswalks leading to downtown. Important corner. Jefferson Streetscape: 183. Not my top priority. What does this redesign do to truck traffic? Old Town Square Lighting Renovation: 184. #2 Priority. 185. Make this continuous down to Jefferson along Linden Street. (Overlaps with Linden Street Lighting Renovation project idea.) 186. Only do this if it’s in context with square renovation plan that we’re sure of. Parking Facilities Improvements and Renovations : 187. Why don’t we put bathrooms in parking garages? Public Restrooms Funding : 188. More, smaller facilities. Consider off-the-shelf facilities that come with complete systems like in Europe and big cities. 189. Yes! #1. 190. Better signage on existing restrooms. Downtown GID Public Comments Continued 13 191. Improvement of bathrooms and signage needed. Also, make them safer to use. 192. YES. Sidewalks, curbs and gutter replacement : 193. No. 194. No. 195. Partner with City General Fund. Parking Facilities Improvements and Renovations : 196. Why don’t we put bathrooms in parking garages? Downtown General Improvement District No. 1 Capital Improvements History Previous List of Projects (1994) In 1992, a public process affirmed support for continuation of the GID, following the final payment on bonds that financed the original 1977 package of GID improvements. The continuation of the GID included development of a list of potential projects. The list was last updated in 1994 (see below), and since then, most of the projects have been completed. List and Status of “Future GID Capital Projects” from 1994: Project Status 1. Paver Replacement, Oak /College intersection east side. Completed, 1996. 2. Laporte/College intersection streetscape. Completed, 2001. 3. Paver Replacement, Mountain/College intersection. Completed, 2001. 4. Mulberry/College intersection streetscape (west side of College). Not Completed. Carried forward as a potential future project in 2011 CIP.* 5. North College streetscape, Laporte Avenue to the river. Completed, 2004. 6. Paver replacement, bus shelter and fountain improvements, west side of Oak/College intersection. Completed, 2006. 7. Downtown Signage. Not Completed. Design work underway; proposed for installation in 2011. * This project has not proceeded toward completion because it is related to concepts for redevelopment on the adjacent “Wells Fargo” block. Ideally, this project would be done in partnership with redevelopment, and it has not made sense to proceed while redevelopment ideas were being explored. Several of the completed projects involving paver replacement at intersections were done as a package, which also included paver replacement at the Olive/College intersection in addition to projects on the list. The paver replacement projects included related renovations of irrigation, drainage, and benches. Advance Planning 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6376 970.224.6111 - fax fcgov.com/advanceplanning ATTACHMENT 4 Downtown General Improvement District #1 Original Purposes, As Stated in the Founding Ordinance and Resolutions A few key paragraphs in the founding Ordinance and related City Council Resolutions address the purposes of General Improvement District #1: Resolution 76‐63, 1976 “…the City Council hereby declares its intent to form a local improvement district for the purpose of improving the visual appearance of streets and other public ways and to make such streets and other public ways better accommodate pedestrians and vehicular traffic within the district, such improvements to include generally construction and reconstruction of sidewalks, curbs, gutters and streets, installation of planters and landscaping, installation of street furniture, installation of plazas, installation of light signalization for traffic and other allied improvements and for the purpose of acquiring property and constructing parking facilities thereon to serve the area…” Ordinance No. 77, 1976 “…to create a general improvement district within the City, for the purpose of acquiring property and constructing parking facilities thereon, and constructing and installing other street beautification improvements, all as particularly set forth in…[Resolution 76‐63].” Resolution 92‐37, 1992 “…to pay the costs of operating and maintaining the Existing Improvements and the costs of constructing, installing and operating other improvements and works of the GID …so long as such improvements are within the purposes for which the GID was created and organized as described in Ordinance No. 77. 1976” “…to fund the cost of operating and maintaining the Existing Improvements, constructing extensions and betterments thereto, and constructing installing and operating such additional improvements as may be subsequently approved by the Board of Directors.” Advance Planning 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6376 970.224.6111 - fax fcgov.com/advanceplanning Advance Planning 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6376 970.224.6111 - fax fcgov.com/advanceplanning MEMORANDUM DT: August 9, 2011 TO: General Improvement District #1 Board of Directors TH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager/Policy, Planning and Transportation Services Karen Cumbo, Planning, Development, and Transportation Director Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director FM: Clark Mapes, City Planner RE: August 9 City Council Work Session Summary – Downtown General Improvement District Capital Improvements Plan Councilmembers present: Mayor Weitkunat, Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, Wade Troxell, Aislinn Kottwitz, Gerry Horak, Ben Manvel. Staff present: Joe Frank, Clark Mapes, Matt Robenalt. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED: • Does the Board have any questions, comments, or ideas about potential projects and priorities? • Does the Board need any additional information for the adoption hearing on October 18? Summary of discussion: Council had general comments and questions about the approach to the GID, and specific comments and questions about individual projects. General comments and questions: ƒ The GID should not fund projects that would otherwise be the responsibility of the City or other funding source. ƒ Questions about the original purpose of the GID were discussed. Projects should continue to reflect original purposes of beautification, pedestrian, and parking improvements. ATTACHMENT 6 ƒ Staff answered questions about the stated purposes in founding documents. There is wide latitude in the purposes. The purposes noted above are to “enhance the Downtown as a business and commercial area”; and in addition to the purposes noted above, operations and maintenance of improvements are allowed, along with “other improvements as may subsequently be approved by the Board”. ƒ Council will need to see staff recommendations for the project list, and not just results of public outreach. ƒ Council needs more explanation of costs and funding, and how listed projects relate to revenue projections. ƒ The question of expansion northward to Cherry Street was discussed, with the idea of linkages to the new museum in mind. ƒ The question of expanding south toward CSU, similar to the DDA, was raised. Specific comments and questions: ƒ Public restrooms need better signage or other wayfinding. ƒ Council expressed support for keeping a reserve for unforeseen projects. ƒ Mulberry/College intersection gateway improvements may involve so much work that they may not be the best choice for limited funds. Follow up items: ƒ Council noted the need for further analysis of needs regarding public restrooms. ƒ Crosswalks are an increasing issue. Council requested any information that may be available to provide context for crosswalk improvements, i.e., previous lists, known priorities, or other efforts by the City. ƒ Next steps include development of staff recommendations and clarification of how to use the cost magnitude shown for potential projects on the list. 1 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 1 THE THE GID GID 2 North ATTACHMENT 7 2 33 44 3 5 66 4 77 88 5 9 y Annual Revenues about $300,000 y 15-Year Projection $5-6 million y Annual Revenues about $300,000 y 15-Year Projection $5-6 million THE THE GID: GID: MAGNITUDE MAGNITUDE 10 DOWNTOWN GID CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN DOWNTOWN GID CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 10 • Guide Staff Work • Framework for Decisions • NOT a commitment or obligation • Guide Staff Work • Framework for Decisions • NOT a commitment or obligation 6 11 PROCESS PROCESS ► Mailings to all 900 property owners ► Two Open Houses (June and September) ► Downtown Business Association (DBA) and Downtown Development Authority (DDA) ►City Council Worksession (August) ► Mailings to all 900 property owners ► Two Open Houses (June and September) ► Downtown Business Association (DBA) and Downtown Development Authority (DDA) ►City Council Worksession (August) 12 POTENTIAL PROJECTS LIST 7 13 POTENTIAL PROJECTS LIST 14 ► Budgets ► Coordination with City departments and DDA ► Funding scenarios with DDA ► Scope, conceptual design, and cost estimates for each project. ► Funding and timing scenarios for the list IF IF APPROVED: APPROVED: 8 15 BOARD OF DIRECTORS ACTION REQUESTED BOARD OF DIRECTORS ACTION REQUESTED Resolution 022 Adopting the General Improvement District #1 Capital Improvements Plan Resolution 022 Adopting the General Improvement District #1 Capital Improvements Plan 16 9 GID GID and and DDA DDA Boundaries Boundaries 17 Maple Street Vine Drive Peterson Street Lemay Avenue Jefferson Street Meldrum Street Laurel Street Mulberry Street 18 NEED NEED for for a a NEW NEW CIP CIP • Project list last updated in 1994 • Mostly completed • Bonds retired in 2009 • New Ideas, questions, and issues • Project list last updated in 1994 • Mostly completed • Bonds retired in 2009 • New Ideas, questions, and issues 10 19 THIS WORK SESSION 20 QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL • Are there any questions, comments, or ideas about: - Potential projects? - Priorities? - The balance of responsibilities among the City, the DDA, and the GID? - The balance between a fixed project list and schedule, and a more general list with flexibility for staff to find partnerships or respond to needs? • Does the Board need any particular information for the adoption hearing on October 18? • Are there any questions, comments, or ideas about: - Potential projects? - Priorities? - The balance of responsibilities among the City, the DDA, and the GID? - The balance between a fixed project list and schedule, and a more general list with flexibility for staff to find partnerships or respond to needs? • Does the Board need any particular information for the adoption hearing on October 18? 11 21 COST COST ESTIMATES ESTIMATES 22 12 23 24 24 13 25 26 26 14 27 27 28 PROCESS PROCESS • May -- Grounding, issues, and brainstorming. • June -- Discussions with DDA Board, and DBA Board, the DBA Executive Committee, and DBA Membership. • June/July -- Sought thoughts and ideas from property owners and the public: mail, open house, online. • May -- Grounding, issues, and brainstorming. • June -- Discussions with DDA Board, and DBA Board, the DBA Executive Committee, and DBA Membership. • June/July -- Sought thoughts and ideas from property owners and the public: mail, open house, online. 15 29 PROCESS PROCESS • August -- GID Board Work Session -- Analyze costs, partnership opportunities, constraints, etc. • September -- Review draft CIP material with property owners and the public -- Assemble the CIP document. • October 18 – Board Meeting for Approval. • August -- GID Board Work Session -- Analyze costs, partnership opportunities, constraints, etc. • September -- Review draft CIP material with property owners and the public -- Assemble the CIP document. • October 18 – Board Meeting for Approval. 30 DOWNTOWN GID CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN DOWNTOWN GID CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 30 RESOLUTION NO. 022 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS EX-OFFICIO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1, ADOPTING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins General Improvement District No. 1 (the “GID”) has been duly formed and organized in accordance with the ordinances of the City and the statutes of the State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, in 1994, a list of capital improvement projects was identified, most of which are now complete or underway; and WHEREAS, City staff has been working on a new capital improvements plan for the GID to identify potential future projects and priorities for the GID; and WHEREAS, the content of the plan was developed by staff with input and guidance from City Council and after public outreach with property owners and other stakeholders; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the adoption of the General Improvement District No. 1 Capital Improvements Plan, dated October 12, 2011, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk and available for public inspection, and which is incorporated herein by this reference (the “GID No. 1 Capital Improvements Plan”) is in the best interests of the GID as it will provide a guide and framework for using GID revenue to best serve the needs of the district. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, Ex-Officio the Board of Directors of City of Fort Collins General Improvement District No. 1, that the General Improvement District No. 1 Capital Improvements Plan is hereby approved and adopted. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the City of Fort Collins General Improvement District No. 1, this 18th day of October A.D. 2011. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk DATE: October 18, 2011 STAFF: Clark Mapes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 5 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 062, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Improvement District fund for the Downtown Wayfinding Sign System Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance appropriates $500,000 from the General Improvement District No. 1 (GID No. 1) Fund Balance for fabrication and installation of a Downtown Wayfinding Sign System. Schematic design of a sign system was done in 2009, and this appropriation is the next step toward implementation. The appropriation will be used to hire a sign company to develop final design and construction details, and then fabricate and install signs, in collaboration and coordination with the City’s Traffic Operations sign shop. Depending on final design decisions, the City’s sign shop may prove able to fabricate and install some of the signs, with some of the appropriated funds used to cover those costs. Installation will occur in 2012. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION A memorandum to City Council dated September 20, 2011, introduced this item (Attachment 1). A customized Downtown Wayfinding Sign System has been listed as a potential project for GID No. 1 funding since the early 1990’s. It is the last project to be executed under a list of GID capital improvement projects approved by City Council in 1994. A sign system is also recommended in the 1989 Downtown Plan and the 2004 Downtown Strategic Plan; and is part of recommendations in a 2008 report by UniverCity Connections. The appropriation will implement the 2009 Downtown Fort Collins Wayfinding Sign System Schematic Design Manual, which was developed in a public process in 2008 and 2009. The manual spells out parameters for a new sign system and a new staff team to administer the system. It may be found online at http://www.fcgov.com/advanceplanning/pdf/downtown-sign-system-doc.pdf. Objectives of the sign system are to: • Build awareness of downtown by announcing its presence along main thoroughfares. • Lead visitors to main entries and clarify the entrance and arrival sequence. • Help visitors locate public parking garages and lots, and make the garages more user-friendly, to reduce common anxieties about public garages. • Help visitors navigate the area and find destinations easily, in cars or on bikes, and then on foot once parked. • Build awareness of attractions in and around downtown by highlighting key destinations that may not be immediately obvious. • Add a sense of welcome in support of the overall image. • Enhance the perception of downtown as an interesting and desirable place with distinctive, helpful graphics. • As much as possible, allow for flexibility and updating of signs. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The appropriation of $500,000 for this project is from the GID No. 1 Fund reserve balance, which is projected to be $818,000 at the end of 2011. Installation of the sign system will create the need for ongoing annual maintenance and administration by a staff team. The cost of this will be determined as part of final design, but a conceptual estimate in approximately $5,000 per year for materials. The division of responsibility for ongoing funding between the City General Fund and GID No. 1 will be determined in annual budget processes. The system is intended to enhance the Downtown area as a business and commercial area. October 18, 2011 -2- ITEM 5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The parking signage included in the system is partly intended to reduce trolling for parking in the Downtown -- that is, the tendency for drivers to drive around looking for parking. The system as a whole is intended to support objectives for getting vehicles parked efficiently, and encouraging pedestrian use in the Downtown. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. PUBLIC OUTREACH A sign system has consistently been a prominent, highly supported project in extensive public participation in the following planning efforts: The 1989 Downtown Plan. The 2004 Downtown Strategic Plan. The 2008 UniverCity Connections Transit and Mobility Task Group Report. The 2009 Downtown Fort Collins Wayfinding Sign System Schematic Design Manual. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Memorandum, September 20, 2011 2. Powerpoint Presentation Advance Planning 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6376 970.224.6111 - fax fcgov.com/advanceplanning Memorandum September 20, 2011 TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers TH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager – Planning, Policy and Transportation Services Karen Cumbo, Planning, Development & Transportation Director Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director FM: Clark Mapes, City Planner RE: Downtown Wayfinding Sign System Appropriation Request This memorandum updates Council about the ongoing project to create a customized sign system for Downtown, and informs Council about a pending appropriation request to fund installation of signs under the system. That appropriation item is scheduled for the October 18 Council meeting. In the meantime, Council is invited to relay any questions and comments to staff through the City Manager’s Office. The proposed sign system is a project of the Downtown General Improvement District (GID). City Council acts as the Board of Directors of the GID, and may also have an interest in this project from a Council perspective. The GID is self-funded by Downtown property owners for the purpose of improvements such as parking, pedestrian, and beautification facilities and amenities. A sign system has been included on GID project lists since the early 1990’s. A sign system was first recommended in the 1989 Downtown Plan, and is also recommended in the 2004 Downtown Strategic Plan. It is also part of the recommendations in a 2008 report by UniverCity Connections. The purpose of the proposed sign system is to help visitors more easily locate public parking facilities and navigate the area, to increase awareness of Downtown attractions, and to enhance public perception of the Downtown as a distinct place. ATTACHMENT 1 2 The proposed system is described in the 2009 Downtown Fort Collins Wayfinding Sign System Schematic Design Manual. The manual outlines design parameters, and explains that a significant new City program, with a staff team, will be required to successfully administer and maintain the system. The manual may be found online at: http://www.fcgov.com/advanceplanning/pdf/downtown-sign-system-doc.pdf Also, some examples of the design concepts are included at the end of this memo. The manual was developed in a public process in 2008-2009 that included meetings with stakeholders, a public open house, and a full-size outdoor mock-up demonstration. The most interested stakeholder group is the Downtown Business Association, and they are anxious to implement the system. The planning-level cost estimate for full installation of the system by a sign contractor is approximately $500,000. Value engineering in the final design phase, and the potential for some work to be done by the City’s Sign Shop, may reduce this cost. Previous Council Presentation At the April 21, 2009 Council meeting, staff presented a draft schematic design of the proposed sign system during the City Manager’s Staff Report. The key point in the discussion was a concern that Council should be kept informed, and given a chance to weigh in, on such a highly visible project. The conclusion was that staff would send the design illustrations electronically to Council, which was done the next day; and that Council members would contact the City Manager’s office with any desires for further involvement such as a work session discussion or another briefing. Otherwise, staff was to proceed with installation of signs under the system as a part of ongoing operations, similar to the way existing signs are managed. No feedback was received from Councilmembers. Ongoing Communication As the staff team proceeds with implementation, it will continue to inform and coordinate with interested parties. In particular, the team will: o Maintain communications with the Downtown Business Association (DBA) and Downtown Development Authority (DDA). o Work with the DBA to encourage owners and businesses to become advocates for the sign system, anticipating questions about any spending on signs, design choices, implementation, and so on. o Inform Council/GID Board, via memos, about implementation progress, including final design, scheduling of installations, and spending of GID funds. 3 Appropriation and Implementation The next step toward implementation is an appropriation request to the GID’s Board of Directors (City Council) for $500,000 from the GID Fund. The $500,000 comes out of a projected year- end fund balance of $818,000. Upon approval of the appropriation, staff will develop a Request for Proposals seeking a sign contractor to prepare final design and construction details, and then fabricate and install signs in collaboration and coordination with the City’s Traffic Operations Sign Shop. Installation is expected in 2012. Design Examples Following are illustrations of a few representative signs showing the main aspects of the schematic design for the sign system. Within Downtown, signs would be metal with a consistent theme of mottled, faux-weathered brown finish and background panels of textured aluminum. Parking signs build from a basic circle “P” symbol, with a flexible system allowing for additional information as appropriate to specific locations, such as the word “Downtown”, the facility name, or “First Hour Free.” Outside of Downtown along key inbound routes, the design style would be an adaptation of standard traffic signs to reflect the City’s branding kit, to establish the identity of Fort Collins in the sequence leading visitors to Downtown. Some examples of the schematic design are shown on the following pages. 4 Parking directional signs showing multiple options, to be tailored to specific locations for user- friendliness. About 8 feet Selected Examples: Downtown Wayfinding Sign System Schematic Design 5 Parking facility identification and entry signs: building–mounted format, at right; and freestanding vertical format, below. The freestanding sign below features a changeable information panel for information on pricing and events. These would be double-sided, dimensional cabinets with illumination. 6 Sign Panel Option That Can Be Wall- mounted Parking Garage/Lot “You Are Here” Pedestrian Informational Sign – Freestanding and Wall-Mounted. Would include a guide map, and be easily updatable. Sign shown as freestanding; but sign panel can be wall-mounted if more appropriate to specific locations. 1 1 Downtown General Improvement District #1 Appropriation of Funds for Wayfinding Sign System $500,000 out of $818,000 Balance Downtown General Improvement District #1 Appropriation of Funds for Wayfinding Sign System $500,000 out of $818,000 Balance 1 2 General Improvvement District (GID) Funding: Funded by Commercial Property Owners Downtown General Improvvement District (GID) Funding: Funded by Commercial Property Owners Downtown ATTACHMENT 2 2 3 Sign System: Implements Adopted Plans and 1994 List of GID Projects Sign System: Implements Adopted Plans and 1994 List of GID Projects 4 Sign Sign System System Purposes Purposes 3 5 6 ► Downtown Business Association (DBA) ► Downtown Development Authority (DDA) ► Council/GID Board ► Downtown Business Association (DBA) ► Downtown Development Authority (DDA) ► Council/GID Board Ongoing Ongoing Communication Communication 4 7 Board of Directors Action Requested: Board of Directors Action Requested: Ordinance No. 062 Appropriating Funds in the General Improvement District #1 Fund Ordinance No. 062 Appropriating Funds in the General Improvement District #1 Fund ORDINANCE NO. 062 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS EX-OFFICIO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1, APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND FOR THE DOWNTOWN WAYFINDING SIGN SYSTEM PROJECT WHEREAS, City of Fort Collins General Improvement District No. 1 (the “GID”) in Fort Collins, Colorado, has been duly organized in accordance with the ordinances of the City and the statutes of the State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council, acting ex-officio as the Board of Directors of the GID, to appropriate $500,000 for the Downtown Wayfinding Sign System Project (“the Project”); and WHEREAS, a wayfinding sign system has been included on the GID project lists since the early 1990's and was recommended in the 1989 Downtown Plan, the 2004 Downtown Strategic Plan, and in the 2008 UniverCity Connections report; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the sign system is to help visitors better navigate the area, easily locate public parking facilities, increase awareness of Downtown attractions, and to enhance public perception of the Downtown as a distinct place; and WHEREAS, the funds will be used to hire a sign company to develop final design and construction details, and to fund fabrication and installation of the signs; and WHEREAS, the GID will collaborate with the City’s Traffic Operations’ Sign Shop, the Downtown Business Association, and the Downtown Development Authority on the Project; and WHEREAS, the Project will implement the 2009 Downtown Fort Collins Wayfinding Sign System Schematic Design Manual, which was developed in a public process in 2008 and 2009; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously appropriated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, Ex-Officio the Board of Directors of City of Fort Collins General Improvement District No. 1, that there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the General Improvement District No. 1 Fund the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000) for expenditure on the Project. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor, Ex Officio President ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary Passed and adopted on final reading on the1st day of November, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor, Ex Officio President ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary Karen 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 Krajicek, 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 18, 2011 after the General Improvement District No. 1 Meeting 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Presentation of the City Manager's Recommended 2012 Budget Revision Requests. (staff: Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead; 2 hour discussion) The purpose of this work session is to review the 2012 Budget Revision Requests to be considered for inclusion in the 2012 Annual Appropriation Ordinance. The Ordinance will be considered on First Reading on October 18, 2011. This is a continuation of the work session agenda from October 11, 2011. 3. Other Business. 4. Adjournment. October 18, 2011 Page 2 Based on Council discussion, several modifications and additions have been made to the 2012 Budget Revision Recommendations as outlined below: • Eliminated the Below Market Pay Adjustment request • Changed funding source from KFCG to General Fund on the Downtown Ice Rink Installation and Removal, Downtown Holiday Lighting, Mason Street Parking Study, and Poudre Fire Authority Non-Discretionary and Total Compensation Increase • Added 2012 Budget Revision Requests to support N Regional Planning Assistance – Attachment #1A N Neighborhood Planning Outreach Specialist (Ombudsman) – Attachment #1B N Affordable Housing Relocation Assistance – Attachment #1C An updated listing of all Budget Revision requests and funding sources is provided in Attachment 2. Revised Citywide supplemental appropriations under consideration now total $8.2M, reflecting a net reduction of $637K based on the changes described above. The General Fund share increased by $380K to $2.0M. The Utility Funds share decreased by $317K to $5.4M. All Other Funds share decreased by $700K to $0.8M. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The overall impact to City fund balance if all revisions are approved is an increase of $437K. The General Fund balance will increase by $1.2M and the KFCG fund balance will increase by $773K. By using General Fund rather than KFCG funding for the four items described above and adding the three Council requests, the amount being added to the General Fund balance is $379K lower than originally anticipated. A summary of economic impacts is provided in Attachment #2. ATTACHMENTS 1. October 11, 2011 Council Work Session Summary 2. 2012 Budget Revision Request Detail - updated October 14, 2011 3. Work Session Item #3-Follow-up from October 10, 2011 Council Finance Committee Meeting 4. 2011 (only) Budgeting for Outcomes Unfunded Offers 5. Keep Fort Collins Great 2011 Offer Status Financial Services 300 Laporte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.416.2259 fcgov.com/business ATTACHMENT #1 M E M O R A N D U M Date: October 14, 2011 To: Mayor and City Council Through: Darin Atteberry, City Manager From: Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer Re: Oct. 11, 2011 Work Session Summary Follow up – 2012 Budget Revisions City Manager Darin Atteberry reviewed a high-level summary of the City Manager's Recommended 2012 Budget Revisions. Councilmembers raised various questions in preparation for 1st reading of the budget. It was decided that it was appropriate to have an additional work session to continue the discussion. That work session is scheduled for October 18 and 1st reading of the 2012 Annual Appropriation Ordinance is postponed until November 1, 2011. For questions that were not able to be answered during the meeting, the answers to the majority of those are included in this memo. Some questions may require additional time to adequately research and respond. /sek Attachment Page 2 of 8 October 11 th Council Member Requests re: 2012 Budget Revisions 1) Question from Aislinn Kottwitz Can trail connections in southeast Fort Collins be considered in 2012 Response from Craig Foreman, Director of Park Planning & Development In 2012 the Fossil Creek Trail at east Trilby Road will be joined with the Power Trail and a new underpass installed under the road from which the Fossil Creek Trail will extend south along Stanton Creek. This section of trail will connect to the Fossil Creek Trail being constructed this fall in the Greenstone Development that is located just north of Carpenter Road along Stanton Creek. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2) Question from Aislinn Kottwitz What would be required, including cost, to do an ice rink or City funded holiday lights in south Fort Collins? Response from J.R. Schnelzer, Director of Parks and Bill Whirty, Manager of Parks Ice rink in south Fort Collins: • A location and electricity requirements would need to be determined. • An ice rink would cost approximately $300,000 to $1,000,000 depending on the size. • If a permanent site could not be found, annual set up and tear down costs would be $40,000 to $50,000 depending on rink size. If a permanent sight was found, annual maintenance costs might be $10,000 to $15,000, but the City has no experience with permanent outdoor rinks, so this estimate is very preliminary. The Recreation Department could operate the ice rink. The Old Town Square ice rink generates sufficient revenue to cover Recreation’s expenses to operate the rink. Holiday lights in south Fort Collins: • The City would need to work with businesses to determine locations and electricity availability. • If the amount of lighting requested is similar to the lighting in downtown, the lights would cost approximately $125,000, and the annual installation and removal would cost approximately $70,000. A light replacement program would need to be established and would cost an additional $20,000 per year after the first three years of use. In Old Town Square, the DDA purchased a used ice rink in 2005 and paid for annual maintenance through the 2011 holiday season. Additionally, the DDA purchased the downtown lights in 2007 and initially a portion, and then in 2010 all, of the annual installation and removal of the lights through the 2011 holiday season. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Page 3 of 8 3) Question from Aislinn Kottwitz Can transit service south of Harmony be considered in 2012 Response from Karen Cumbo, Director of PDT and Marlys Sittner, Transfort/DAR Gen. Mgr. Transfort staff received feedback from City Council at the September 27 th work session that the addition of transit service along Lemay Avenue south of Harmony Road should be considered in a more systematic, fully vetted manner as part of the 2013-2014 BFO process. Staff recommends this as the preferred course of action in consideration of the Transfort Strategic Operating Plan. Should City Council choose to add this service in 2012, $320,000 is needed to fund the fixed route service along with the ADA-mandated complementary paratransit (Dial a Ride) service. Please note that although this is a one-time budget amendment request, if accepted this would become an ongoing cost to be incorporated into Transfort’s 2013-2014 BFO service provision offers. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4) Request from Gerry Horak Please provide a written 2012 Budget Revision Request for Regional Planning Assistance Response from Karen Cumbo, Director of PDT and Mark Jackson, PDT Budget, Policy & Communications Manager Please refer to Attachment #1A ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 5) Request from Gerry Horak Please provide a written 2012 Budget Revision Request for a Neighborhood Planning Outreach Specialist (Ombudsman) Response from Karen Cumbo, Director of PDT and Steve Dush, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Director Please refer to Attachment #1B ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 6) Request from Gerry Horak Please provide a written 2012 Budget Revision Request for Affordable Housing Relocation Assistance Response from Karen Cumbo, Director of PDT and Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director Please refer to Attachment #1C ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 7) Question from Gerry Horak What happens to the $812k that won't be used for Below Market Pay Adjustments? Response from Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer Excluding any additional requests from Council, that amount would go into fund balance of multiple funds. In the General Fund that amount would be $140k. Page 4 of 8 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 8) Statement from Gerry Horak Not pleased with the process, or lack thereof, used for the additions to the 2012 budget, no public outreach, no options from which to choose. Response from Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer Your concerns have been heard and changes will be made to the next budget revision process in 2013. Those changes include: • Starting the process earlier including time at the annual Council workshop after Council elections • Public outreach will be included in the process • The revision requests will go to Council Finance earlier in the year • One or two Council Work Sessions will be conducted depending on the volume of revision requests. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 9) Question from Gerry Horak How will the elimination of the Furlough day be funded? Response from Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer The budgeted savings of $130k in 2011 will be covered by forecasted underspending with the various funds. We do not need to appropriate an additional $130k due to existing appropriations. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 10) Question from Gerry Horak and Aislinn Kottwitz What is the forecasted General Fund balance at the end of 2011? Response from Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer The forecasted General Fund balance at the end of 2010 was $39.9 million. The actual fund balance at year-end was $40.9 million. For 2011, there was a budgeted use of $4.1 million of reserves which contributed to a 2011 projected General Fund balance of $35.8 million. Based on revenue changes, supplemental appropriations, and departmental underspending, we are now forecasting to end 2011 with a General Fund balance of $38.6 million. In 2012, we originally budgeted to use $400k of General Fund reserves. Based on net changes to forecasted General Fund revenue and the 2012 Budget Revisions, the 2012 year- end General Fund balance is forecasted to be $39.4 million, an increase of $800k over 2011. Page 5 of 8 General Fund Fund Balance Reconciliation amounts in millions Fund Balance 2010 forecast $ 39.9 Fund Balance 2010 actual $ 40.9 2011 Budget Surplus (Deficit) Original (4.1) PO carryforward appropriations (2.4) Supplemental Approriations (5.0) Grant Revenue (supplemental) 1.1 Revenue variance * 4.9 Department savings (underspending) 3.2 2011 forcasted deficit $ (2.3) 2011 Forecasted ending fund balance $ 38.6 2012 Budget Surplus (Deficit) orginal (0.4) Net 2012 Budget Revision impact 1.2 2012 Forecasted ending fund balance $ 39.4 * Includes $2.2 million in Sales & Use Tax revenue greater than budget, as well as updated forecasts for other General Fund revenue items based on October YTD actuals ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 11) Question from Kelly Ohlson Can Old Town Properties contribute to downtown holiday lighting? Response from J.R. Schnelzer, Director of Parks and Bill Whirty, Manager of Parks The City will contact the DDA, DBA and Old Town Properties to determine if other funding options exist. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 12) Question from Kelly Ohlson What is driving the $3.1M increase in Sales Tax in 2012; is it an increase in the base or a change in the % increase; and what is the forecasted increase? Response from John Voss, Interim Finance Director The $3.1 million increase is due to a change in the base. The forecasted increase in Sales Tax from 2011 to 2012 is 1.95%. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Page 6 of 8 13) Question from Kelly Ohlson What rate was the assumed interest income in 2011-12 budget, what is current rate forecasted, when was new forecast developed, why the change? Response from Harold Hall, Investment Administrator The interest rate assumption that was projected in year 2010 for the 2011-2012 budget was: 2011 = 2.25% 2012 = 2.50% The current Interest rate forecast assumption was developed and revised in August 2011 as part of the 2012 Budget Revision Process. 2012 = 1.25% YTD actual interest rate earned in 2011 = 1.42%. Reasons for the downward change in interest rate assumptions: 1) The expected recovery that was projected by economists for the US economy in year 2010 and beyond did not materialize 2) In an attempt to stimulate the economy, the Federal Reserve Bank lowered the Overnight Funds rate to a range of 0% to.25% in December 2008 3) The Federal Reserve is not expected to increase the Overnight Funds rate until mid 2013 or later 4) Because of the financial crisis unfolding in Europe and the continued weakness in the domestic economy investors have flocked to safe investment classes such as Treasury and Agency securities 5) The increase in demand for safe investments has increased their prices and lowered their interest rates to historic lows 6) The City investment policy restricts our investment options to the same fixed income securities that currently have historically low interest rates 7) The City investment portfolio is structured so that maturities are laddered from immediately to as long as 5 years 8) As older higher yielding investments mature they are reinvested at the new lower yields ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 14) Statement from Kelly Ohlson Disagree with the proposed uses of KFCG funds – change all to General Fund where appropriate Response from Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer Those changes have been made and are reflected in the AIS for the October 18 Council Work Session. There is now no requested use of additional KFCG revenue that was not in the adopted 2011-12 budget. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Page 7 of 8 15) Question from Lisa Poppaw How will the new affordable housing/human services dollars be leveraged? Response from Karen Cumbo, Director of PDT and Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director This budget amendment request provides funding for necessary administration costs of the City’s local Affordable Housing and Human Services programs and services. Federal funds are restricted from paying for local program administrative costs. As a result of federal funding reductions, there is only enough funding available for federal program administration. No funds are currently allocated for local program administration. Several factors have led to the need for this budget request. • The City’s Human Services Program and Affordable Housing Fund programs have seen recent marked growth, both in terms of actual dollars and in corresponding administration /implementation resources required. • To date, no local program funds have been allocated to cover the administration costs of the two growing City programs. All funds have been directed to programs. • Federal funds, which until now have always covered oversight of those two City programs, have been cut—impacting the separate funding categories of administration and project financing. There are now only enough federal resources to administer the federal programs. • Federal audits are bringing increased compliance scrutiny. It is inappropriate for federal funds to be used to administer our local programs. This proposal does not add FTEs; it only shifts work responsibilities where most needed. The request also does not use City dollars to cover federal programs and tasks. Lastly, it does not take away program funding for 2012. Those direct service dollars have already been committed and allocated to needed programs and projects. Managers of these local programs continue to seek opportunities to leverage funds with grants and partnerships as they arise. The goal is to maximize service provision to the Community while tracking, reporting and managing cases in a responsible and transparent manner. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 16) Question from Lisa Poppaw and Aislinn Kottwitz Why are there no 2012 Budget Revision Requests that benefit south Fort Collins? Response from Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer The biennial revision process is focused on the City's business needs, as well as the latest forecasts for revenue and expense changes since the original budget was adopted a year ago. It allows for mid course corrections to reflect those changes and a more accurate financial understanding of the second year of the biennial budget. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Page 8 of 8 17) Question from Wade Troxell Is it feasible to fund the Digester Gas Treatment System offer from 2011 in 2012? Response from Link Mueller, Utilities Project Manager and Kevin Gertig, Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager Since the last BFO process, staff has been working on alternative methods of methane gas usage other than the gas treatment system offered in the 2011/2012 budget. • A CSU graduate team is investigating DWRF’s existing gas production capacity and the potential for utilizing CSU’s waste food as a feed stock for additional gas production. • Staff is participating in Natural Resources’ solid waste analysis to identify other possible waste food sources for gas production • A GEO phase 1 technology grant has been applied for to investigate the installation of micro-turbines at DWRF in the event a stable feedstock supply can be secured Staff recommends that any available enhancement funds for the reclamation plants be applied to the elimination of chlorine gas disinfection • As directed by Council, staff is preparing a ultra-violet (UV) enhancement offer for submission in the 2013-2014 BFO process • A CSU senior design group is working with staff to investigate various ultra-violet disinfection alternatives for DWRF ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Attachment #1A - From the October 11 Work Session Summary Memo Revision Title: Fund: Contact: Cumbo/Jackson Result Area: Package/Offer #: N/A Total Amount: $50,000 Funding Source #1: Funding Amount #1: $50,000 FTE Requested: Description: 2012 BUDGET REVISION REQUEST Regional Planning Assistance None This offer creates a funding source for participation in regional planning opportunities that arise from time to time. Some of these opportunities are regional partnerships that require financial participation. An example of a current funding partnership need is the currently ongoing "Embrace Northern Colorado" effort. Note: These funds are separate and in addition to annual dues allocated for membership in the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (regional transportation and air quality planning). The cost for this proposal is suggested to be in the $25,000 to $50,000 range, and is requested to come from General Funds. Note: This is a one time (2012) budget amendment request. If accepted, this fund pool would have to be considered as part of the 2013-2014 BFO process as an ongoing expense. 100 - GENERAL FUND Economic Health General Fund Attachment #1B - From the October 11 Work Session Summary Memo Revision Title: Fund: Contact: Cumbo/Dush Result Area: Package/Offer #: N/A Total Amount: $75,000 Funding Source #1: Funding Amount #1: $75,000 FTE Requested: Description: 2012 BUDGET REVISION REQUEST Neighborhood Planning Outreach Specialist (Ombudsman) 1.0 FTE This request funds a new position to act in a liaison role between the City's Current Planning Department and citizens and neighborhood organizations potentially affected by proposed development. This Neighborhood Outreach Specialist would assist citizens throughout the development review planning process. This position is to be housed in the Neighborhood Services Division of CDNS. Specific personnel costs have not been determined yet by CDNS and Human Resources, but it is anticipated that this position is likely to fall in or near the Administrative Professional (AP) level 03. Fully loaded personnel costs may be in the range of $75,000. There may also be additional resources needed for materials, office expenses, etc. Please note that this is a one time budget amendment request. If approved, these costs would be added as ongoing expenses as part of the 2013-2014 CDNS/Neighborhood Services BFO offers. 100 - GENERAL FUND Neighborhood Livability General Fund Attachment #1C - From the October 11 Work Session Summary Memo Revision Title: Fund: Contact: Cumbo/Frank Result Area: Package/Offer #: N/A Total Amount: $50,000 Funding Source #1: Funding Amount #1: $50,000 FTE Requested: Description: 2012 BUDGET REVISION REQUEST Affordable Housing Relocation Assistance None This request creates a pool of funds to provide affordable housing relocation assistance. If deemed appropriate and legal, these funds are intended to serve as matching money to other services and resources provided by the developer and other public agencies (e.g. Larimer County). These funds would be managed by the City's local Affordable Housing/ Human Services programs. Funds would be eligible only for documentable expenses such as, but not limited to, moving expenses, security deposits, first month rent, temporary hotel costs, and food vouchers. General funds are requested for this fund pool. Other funding options could include use of 2012 local Affordable Housing and Human Services program funds. Note: If local AH/HS funds are used for this pool, this would mean fewer resources available to go to other program needs. The City will not receive FY 2012 Federal funds (e.g. Community Development Block Grant) until October 1 and may not be available in time to address immediate relocation needs. Another consideration when contemplating use of federal funds, is the associated regulations and rules that come with federal funding. If these regulations and requirements are not followed, federal funds such as CDBG would not be eligible. Note : This is a one time budget amendment request. If approved, these costs would be added to Advance Planning's ongoing services 2013-2014 BFO offer. 100 - GENERAL FUND Neighborhood Livability General Fund ATTACHMENT #2 Page General KFCG Utility Other Number Adjustment Requested Fund Fund Funds Funds Total Comments Eliminated Requests 36 Below Market Pay Adjustment $139,799 $0 $317,205 $355,386 $812,390 Pulled from consideration by City Manager Perceived Council Support 8 Police Services Ticket Surcharge Officer (1 FTE) $118,709 $118,709 9 Affordable Housing/Human Services $54,499 $54,499 21 Restore Conservation Trust Funds for Trail Construction $546,571 $546,571 25 Development Review - Customer Service Demand (1 FTE) $65,000 $65,000 32 CMO Policy and Project Manager Increase from .8 to 1.0 FTE $29,157 $29,157 34 Mason Corridor Synergies and Support Services $200,000 $200,000 Changed all KFCG funding to General Fund 35 Reorganization Office of Sustainability $91,650 $30,550 $122,200 43 Light & Power Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) Increase $121,969 $121,969 47 Purchase Power Increase $1,724,505 $1,724,505 49 Water Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) Increase $88,054 $88,054 54 Water Meter Replacement and Rehabilitation $580,000 $580,000 55 Household Hazardous Waste Community Event $22,000 $22,000 56 Remove Structures from Poudre River Floodway $1,000,000 $1,000,000 57 Master Plan Flood Mitigation Project Property $1,600,000 $1,600,000 58 MIS Email, Blackberry & Smart Phone Services $108,000 $108,000 59 MIS Network Services Resource Support $62,400 $62,400 60 MIS Technology Customer Software Compliance Support $59,488 $59,488 61 MIS Technology Customer Support Restructure $30,709 $30,709 62 Microsoft Office 2010 Software Upgrade $550,000 $550,000 Total by Fund $1,105,586 $0 $5,136,528 $841,147 $7,083,261 Council Discussion 7 Assistant to the City Manager and CPIO (1 FTE) $176,320 $176,320 22 Development Review Succession Planning (1.25 Cont. FTE) $75,341 $75,341 31 PFA Non-Discretionary & Total Compensation Increase $228,926 $228,926 Changed all KFCG funding to General Fund 33 Federal Legislation Analysis and Action $79,414 $79,414 41 Downtown Ice Rink Installation and Removal $40,000 $40,000 Changed all KFCG funding to General Fund 42 Downtown Holiday Lighting $85,000 $85,000 Changed all KFCG funding to General Fund 48 Energy Efficiency Financing Program (.5 FTE) $300,000 $300,000 Total by Fund $685,001 $0 $300,000 $0 $985,001 New Proposals Regional Planning Assistance $50,000 $50,000 As requested by Councilmember Horak Neighborhood Planning Outreach Specialist (Ombudsman) $75,000 $75,000 As requested by Councilmember Horak Affordable Housing Relocation Assistance $50,000 $50,000 As requested by Councilmember Horak $175,000 $0 $0 $0 $175,000 Total Request by Fund $1,965,587 $0 $5,436,528 $841,147 $8,243,262 2012 Budget Revision Request Detail Updated 10/14/2011 IDALIA DR Y U M A CT I D A L I A CT RICK DR SOLAR CT M E R C U R Y D R W SATURN DR F O S S IL CREST DR E TRILBY RD E SATURN DR G A L A X Y CT E SKYWAY DR PLATEAU CT AURORA WAY LEO CT OR I O N CT PLUTO CT SUNDOWN CT FL A G L E R RD General Improvement Skyview South District No. 15 Legend General Improvement District #15 Parcels 1 inch = 600 feet ATTACHMENT 1 the City Council Finance Committee on Sept. 26, 2011. Public notification will begin October 2 and Electric Rate Ordinances will be considered by City Council at first reading Oct. 18, 2011. Second reading isNov. 1,2011. Next Steps September 26 - Council Finance Committee related to all utilities rates and fees October 11 - Work session on Residential Energy Rate October 18 - I reading of Electric Rates (without changes to Residential Energy Rate); also 1’ reading of ordinances for water and wastewater rates and PIFs/development fees October 25 - Work session on Energy Conservation Programs November 1 - 2 reading of Rates and Fees Jan. 1, 2012 - all rates effective except for Residential Energy Rate Late 2011 or early 2012 - 1 5t reading of ordinance changing Residential Energy Rate to be effective shortly thereafter. seasonal adjustment. Questions for City Council included: Residential Rate Options 1. Of the four proposed rate options for the residential energy rate, which specific option is preferred? 2. Does City Council support the proposed change to the residential demand rate? Commercial Rate Options I. Does City Council support the proposed change that would create an additional rate class from the existing General Service rate class? Questions from Councilmembers primarily focused on aspects of the residential energy rate, its merits in addressing carbon reduction and energy efficiency goals, and its impacts on customers as well as the perceived value or lack of value to the system (generation, transmission and distribution). Other questions focused on the impacts to customers related to size of households and square footage of homes, number and type of appliances, and electricity use associated with lifestyle (home office or other differences). City Council requested additional information: 1. Assumptions related to elasticity (in plain English) — what kind of impact can be expected? What is the corresponding carbon reduction? 2. Are the options designed to be revenue neutral? If demand and energy are reduced, the purchase power requirements will also be reduced lowering overall revenue requirements. 3. Provide more context on system impacts. How might the tiered rates affect shifts in demand which may have a negative impact on the overall load? 4. Provide more data on the monthly variation in bill impacts, including the typical variation in monthly use. 5. Provide sample (8 to 10) scenarios of year-round use and the price impacts of the options. Examples: Large users with no air conditioning (AC), large users with AC, small users with AC, small users without AC, etc. Changes to the Residential Demand Rate and the Commercial General Service Rate were discussed and generally seemed acceptable. Councilmembers had a number of unresolved questions regarding the Residential Energy Rate and requested a follow-up Work Session, now scheduled for Oct 1 1, 2011. Councilmembers recognized that the schedule for implementation were present. Utilities Executive Director Brian Janonis provided introductions and noted that the consideration of a change to the electric rate form is unprecedented in the history of the Light and Power Utility. Presentations were provided by Patty Bigner and SAIC consultant Joe Mancinelli. Staff answering questions included Bill Switzer, Steve Catanachm and Patty Bigner. SAIC consultant Joe Mancinelli provided a brief presentation on industry trends and response to those trends by utilities across the country, with specific information on electric rates, customer assistance, time of use rates, and special programs for electric vehicles. The residential energy rate options proposed for Council discussion included: • Single Tier (current rate structure) • Seasonal (Platte River Power Authority [PRPA] pass-through) • Three Tier • Five Tier Staff also proposed phasing out the Residential Demand Rate and suggested limiting the rate to residential customers who could provide documentation of total electric residence (no natural gas). One change to the rate form is proposed for the commercial rate classes. As noted in the Agenda Item Summary, the proposed change to the General Service (GS) or commercial rate class would more accurately reflect electric use of this diverse group of customers. This change would create a fourth commercial rate class to include the lower end of the mid-sized commercial customers by splitting the GS customer class into two customer classes, GS and GS 25. $ 1 26,025,803 3,514 0.55 $ 12,740,424 $ 42 $ S 6,313 $ 6,390 11.2% 1.2% 1,069 32,628 $ $ 1,082 $ 35,860 3,232 9,9% in use from the four year history two years previous. The history used for wastewater calculations is for the 6 winter months (November through April). This continued trend appears unstable and, as a result, the estimated usages will remain the same as used in the prior PIE study until a more stable trend or methodology is developed. The following table shows the resulting fee impact of the new $/gpd as applied to the estimated gpds for the customer classes: Wastewater Plant Investment Fee analysis and update Current Proposed 2012 Volume Proposed Fee Customer Class 05-’08 data PIF Change gpd $ $ % Single family Res 300 $ 3,550 $ 3,440 -3% Duplex& Multi-tam 210 $ 2,490 $ 2,410 -3% Nonresidenia I Meter Size (inches) 3/4” 600 $ 7,100 $ 6,880 -3% 1’, 1,510 $ 17,880 $ 17,300 -3% 1 1/2” 2,660 $ 31,490 $ 30,480 -3% 2” 4,670 $ 55,290 $ 53,520 -3% 3” 12,680 $ 150,130 $ 145,310 -3% Stormwater Plant Investment Fees The current methodology used for calculating storm water PlFs was designed by Jim Hibbard and endorsed in the Fee Study Draft Report presented in June 2010 by Red Oak consulting. It is essentially a buy-in method with the system value consisting of land, master plan and drainage system and the capacity defined as the City’s developable acreage. The fee is adjusted to reflect the average runoff coefficient for the City. The fee per acre is then applied to all new developments based on the average acreage of the development. Table C below shows an overall increase of 1.2% to our 2012 storm water PIFs. One item of significance needs to be pointed out: 2. In 2009 we incorrectly classified all 2008 Construction Work in Progress (CWIP; $1 0.8M) as growth related construction. More recently available detailed reports reveal that, for both 2008 and 2010 CWIP totals, little was applicable for backbone facilities. Thus the value of the system was overstated in the 2009 calculation for the 2010 PlFs. 3. An average calculation of the most recent four years’ history has been used to set estimated usage for new customers with tap sizes of 3” or less. The most recent four years’ history (20072010) shows significant reduction in use from the four year history two years previous. Staff considers the recent four years of use less than what would normally be expected due to above average annual rainfall for the same period. As a result the estimated usages will remain the same as used in the prior PIE study until a more stable trend or methodology is developed. The following table shows the resulting fee impact of the new $/gpd to the customer classes: Water Plant Investment Fee analysis and update 2009 Study 2009 implemented 2011 Study Average Use System Peak Peak Day Use Fee Customer Class par Bill (a), (b) r per Bill (a), tb) PIF Fee PIF Fee PIF Fee Change gpd gpd $ $ $ % Single Family flea Domestic Use (base) 172 172 700 730 730 0.0% Peak Use (par sqft) 785 0.370 0.360 0.390 8.3% Total 319 3.00 957 Duplex, per unit Domestic Use (base) 120 120 490 490 510 4.1% Peak Usa (persqft) 217 0.260 0.270 0.270 0.0% Total 153 2.20 337 MultI-family Domestic Use (base) 120 120 490 490 510 4.1% Peak Use (per sqft) 217 0.260 0.270 0.270 0.0% Nonresidential Meter Size Inches 3/4 561 3.10 1.850 7,530 7,530 7,880 4.6% 1 1,820 3.10 5,340 21,730 21,730 22,750 4.7% 1 1/2 3,375 3 10 11,130 45,300 45,300 47,410 4.7% 2 5,144 3.10 16970 69,070 69,070 72,290 4.7% 3 11,766 3.10 38,800 157,920 157,920 165,290 4.7% a) Indoor usage is based on 2005-2.008 winter average use. Total dass use is based on 252 08 annual average. (b) Includes 6 percent (or waterlosses. Finance Committee AIS Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) are used to finance growth related capital facility costs for water and wastewater “backbone” (transmission and distribution mains for water; trunk and collection mains for wastewater) and treatment facilities and stormwater infrastructure. The fees establish equity between existing customers and new customers by sheltering existing customers from the cost of growth, and must be established and applied in a legal manner (Colorado Senate Bill 15, 2001). It is important to note that the legal requirements allow a maximum threshold for PIFs but do not require the utility to charge at these levels. The utility can charge less than the legal allowable requirements. In 2005, the City of Fort Collins Utilities hired Red Oak consulting to assist in creating models to develop PIFs consistent with the above requirements. Staff has updated this model every two years to set PIEs in accordance with City Code requirements. In March 2010, the City Manager asked Red Oak consulting to review the City’s existing development related fees which included the four Utility Plant Investment Fees; storm water, water, wastewater and electric. In a June 10, 2010 draft report, Red Oak found all four Utilities’ fees as “reasonable and sound’. This report has yet to be finalized. There are three design approaches to PIF methodology: • The Buy-In approach - - used when existing capacity is sufficient to meet future needs to build-out in 2040. PIFs are to recover the growth related portion of capacity carried by current customers in their rates. • The Incremental approach -- used when no current capacity exists to meet additional growth. The PIFs are to recover the costs of the new capacity planned to accommodate growth to build-out in 2040. • The Hybrid approach -- used when some capacity is available but more is needed to meet projected growth to build-out in 2040. This combines the buy-in and incremental methodologies. Council Finance Committee AIS When developing the 2011-2012 Budget, staff projected a 6.23% increase in electric rates for 2012. The current recommended increase is 8.3%. The components of the rate increase are as follows: 2012 Electric Rate Increase - Original Budget 2012 Recommended 2012 Retail Purchase Power Rate Increase 4.53% 4.80% Increase for Capital 1.70% 3.50% Total Increase 6.23% 8.30% Increase for Purchase Power Platte River’s rate increase projection has increased for 2012 from 6.0% to 6.4%. In addition, Platte River is revising its rate structure to charge more per kWh and peak kW for the three summer months of June, July and August and is increasing the per unit energy cost while reducing the per unit peak demand charge. This results in a projected increase of 4.8% to the City’s retail rates, an increase of 0.27% from the original 2012 budget projection. KWh sales are projected at 2010 levels. Increase for Capital Light and Power is moving from a period where capital expenditures were funded mainly through system growth and development fees to a future where the majority of resources will be directed toward maintaining, upgrading and replacing existing capital infrastructure which must be funded through rates. Over the last few years, instead of raising rates for these needs, Light and Power has been intentionally drawing down reserves to fund many capital expenditures. During this time two substations were built, much of the Southwest Annexation was transferred, and aging infrastructure was upgraded without an impact on rates. Because of the availability of surplus reserves, rate increases have not kept pace with February 1, 2012 • Proposed effective date of Residential Energy Service Rate Ordinance. (Effective for billings with meter readings on or after this date.) FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The rates are projected to increase 2012 annual operating revenues of the Water Fund by 6%, the Wastewater Fund by 8% and the Light and Power Fund by 8.3%. (The short delay in adopting the RESR increase will slightly reduce the increase for Light and Power.) The projected revenue from the rate increases is included in the revised 2012 budget projections. The increases are necessary to fund purchase power, operations and system additions and replacements and to meet debt service requirements. The proposed water and wastewater rate ordinances will increase costs for a typical residential customer by $4.47 per month if such customer’s water use remains unchanged. An additional change to the RESR at a later date will change N DE R ST N HOWES ST JEFFERSON ST J E R O M E S T MAIN ST COLORADO ST HO F FM A N MI L L RD P A S C A L S T WALNUT ST O V A L D R S SHERWOOD ST E MOUNTAIN AVE ENDICOTT ST 11TH ST SYCAMORE ST MU L L E I N DR EAST DR E LAUREL S T FRONTAGE RD PINE ST WOO D L AW N DR LESSER DR BEL L F L OWE R D R WEST DR OLD MAIN DR E MAGNOLIA ST LILAC LN MONTEZUMA FULLER ALLEY PENNOCK PL MARTINEZ ST ELM S T TENNEY CT LINCOLN AVE LOPEZ CT EASTDALE DR TRUJILLO ST LINDE N C ENTER DR BAUM ST S SHERWOOD ST E LAUREL ST FRONTAGE RD N LEMAY A V E N MASON ST Downtown Development Authority Boundary Map Legend Parcels Downtown Development Authority Boundary 1 inch = 1,320 feet . Amended: April 1, 2008 Printed: 1/20/2011 ATTACHMENT 1