HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/12/2011 - ALLOCATION OF BUILDING COMMUNITY CHOICES SURPLUS ADATE: July 12, 2011
STAFF: Diane Jones
Mike Freeman
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Allocation of Building Community Choices Surplus and Other Resources for Current Capital Needs.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff will present Council with process options to allocate the remaining surplus Building
Community Choices (BCC) funds and other resources for capital project needs. This is a
continuation of the conversation that began at the April 26 Work Session.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Council has options in determining the best use for remaining BCC surplus funds and other available
resources.
1. Does Council wish to take a more short-term approach and address some immediate
opportunity capital project needs, or should these available funds be considered as part of
a more comprehensive strategic planning process with the upcoming 2013-2014 Budget for
Outcomes process?
2. Are there other options Council would like to explore?
Staff is seeking Council feedback as to how best to proceed.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Staff identified a surplus of several million dollars remaining from completed Building Community
Choices (BCC) capital project funds. Staff presented Council with project suggestions for use of
surplus funds. Council subsequently appropriated some of these funds to two urgent capital project
needs (Lincoln Center Renovation and North College Improvements), but also directed staff to
provide it with a more comprehensive analysis of what options exist for the remaining balance, and
a better picture of what additional funding options exist.
Following the April 26 Work Session discussion with Council, staff developed a range of options
available to move forward in allocating these available funds to the City’s capital project needs.
Should Council wish to take a more short term approach and invest in immediate opportunities, staff
prepared for its consideration a master list of all capital projects identified in adopted City plans, as
July 12, 2011 Page 2
well as a list of capital projects that are construction ready, address an identified safety need, or
capitalize upon opportunities to combine these funds with other resources such as grant awards
(Attachments 2 and 3). Staff will present Council with options for proceeding with this issue, and
will then implement an action plan based upon feedback received.
Available Funds: BCC Surplus Funds
Staff identified $7,064,568 in surplus Building Community Choices (BCC) capital project funds as
of the end of 20101. Following Council’s initial April 26, 2011 discussion, $2,835,000 was
appropriated to meet urgent capital project needs for the Lincoln Center Renovation ($135,000)
project and the North College Improvements ($2.7 million) project. As of this writing, there remains
$4,229,568 in surplus BCC funds available for City capital needs.
Building Community Choices (BCC) Surplus Fund Balance
Building Community Choices Balance (end of 2010) $7,064,568
Less Ordinance No. 062, 2011 (Lincoln Center Renovation) ($135,000)
Less Ordinance No. 064, 2011 (North College Improvements) ($2,700,000)
Current BCC Surplus Fund Balance $4,229,568
Available Funds: Reserves, Other Sources
Council asked staff to provide information as to other available funding sources for capital project
needs, including City reserves. The City’s overall projected 2012 year-end reserve fund balances,
plus undesignated City reserve funds available for allocation to capital project or other one-time
uses, are reflected in Attachment 1. The funds listed in Attachment 1 are City governmental funds
and are exclusive of enterprise funds and internal service funds. This is due to the restrictions
associated with those types of funds which leave no money available for allocation to non-related
capital projects or one-time uses.
Uncommitted reserve funds are generally intended for emergency needs, or those one-time
expenditures Council and City Management consider important. While the various City reserve
funds total to a large amount of money (estimated $47.5 million), the actual portion of reserves
above policy minimum and available for capital projects and other one-time uses is much smaller
(estimated $20.7 million). Of those amounts, however, it is important to understand any future
planned uses of those funds. For example, in the Recreation Fund, what is technically available
above fund balance policy minimum is planned for future facility improvements (like carpet
replacement, locker room tile, ADA compliance) and future capital replacement items (like the train
at City Park). Notes have been included in Attachment 1 to provide additional context of the
amounts shown to be available above fund balance policy minimum.
Grant awards are another potential source of funding to help address capital project needs. At this
time, there are relatively few grant fund opportunities identified that can assist with short term
needs. The Natural Areas Program recently became aware of an $18 million Great Outdoor
1
The estimated BCC surplus was reported as $6,780,000 at the April 26th Council work session. This was the unaudited
2009 year-end balance plus an estimate for the 2010 interest earnings. Since April, the 2010 year-end balance has been
audited and includes actual 2010 interest earnings plus BCC projects that closed in 2010 but did not use their entire BCC
budget. The audited BCC balance at the end of 2010 was $7,064,568.
July 12, 2011 Page 3
Colorado (GOCO) grant round this fall for urban river restoration. This GOCO round represents
an opportunity to substantially increase restoration efforts in the area between College and Shields
Street. Staff believes that the City has a good chance of competing successfully for these funds.
GOCO grants typically are a 1:1 match. The grant ceiling is unknown; however, it is conceivable
the City could double a million dollar investment, or more, of City funds. BCC Surplus funds could
potentially be used as local match for this opportunity.
Future grant opportunities such as the triennial North Front Range Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) call for transportation projects will be pursued, but the next round is not
anticipated until 2014. Staff constantly looks for grant opportunities to support street improvements,
bike facilities, pedestrian connections, and address other City capital project needs.
Options:
A. Hold surplus BCC and other funds for the next 2013-2014 Budgeting for Outcomes
(BFO) process.
Council could choose not to allocate surplus BCC funds or undesignated reserves at this point,
waiting instead for the 2013-2014 BFO process scheduled to begin spring of 2012. Capital projects
would be submitted and vetted through the citywide process, using established results area criteria.
Pro: Allows for a more strategic, citywide analysis of various capital projects using established
and agreed upon criteria.
Con: There may be some time sensitive, immediate capital project needs or opportunities that
would not be funded by waiting.
B. Allocate Surplus BCC funds and other reserves in 2011 for immediate opportunity
capital project needs.
Council could choose to fund capital project needs identified as being time sensitive, pressing, or
that present an opportunity for leverage of other funding sources. This could also include using
surplus BCC funds to address a forecasted Building on Basics (BOB) revenue shortfall of
approximately $1.8 million dollars (necessary to complete the voter approved capital projects). This
would leave a BCC surplus balance of $2,429,568.
Pro: Allows the City to address capital project needs that have no other funding sources available,
are time sensitive, are identified safety issues, or present immediate opportunities to leverage
and combine with other funding sources such as grant awards.
Con: It may be difficult to identify, or rate, all capital projects throughout the City that are eligible
for consideration without established criteria such as that found in the BFO process.
C. Combination Approach
Staff and Council could identify some immediate opportunity capital projects and allocate in 2011
a portion of BCC funds or other reserves to meet those needs/opportunities, and set aside the
remainder for allocation as part of the 2013-2014 BFO process.
July 12, 2011 Page 4
Pro: Allows the City to address some immediate capital project needs or opportunities that may
be lost if delayed.
Con: Partial allocation of BCC funds may leave little balance left for the BFO process. Projects
funded now would not be vetted through the BFO process and results area criteria.
Process:
Should Council choose to hold the BCC surplus and other reserve funds for the upcoming 2013-
2014 BFO process (Option A), staff would submit capital project applications as part of the budget
protocol in the spring of 2012. Projects would be judged and ultimately selected using BFO result
area criteria and discussion. Similar to KFCG, BCC surplus capital project fund allocations can be
tracked as projects progress.
If Council wishes to allocate surplus BCC funds or reserves now for immediate capital project needs
or opportunities, staff has provided Council with a list of all City capital projects identified through
adopted plans (Attachment 2). It is important to note that many of these capital projects are not yet
designed or ready for construction. In addition, staff has developed a list of capital projects that are
ready for design or construction (Attachment 3). Note: There may be some additional future capital
projects not listed in these materials that are still in the conceptual or planning stages, are not
adopted, and not yet ready for construction. Other suggestions from City Council for potential
capital project needs not included in these materials are welcome. Finally, for Council’s information
and comparison, staff prepared a list of capital projects approved as part of the 2011-2012 budget
and scheduled for completion (Attachment 4).
Following additional Council discussion and direction as to candidate projects, if Council wants to
pursue Option B or Option C noted in the chart below, staff will provide outreach to boards and
commissions and the general public to gather feedback on project preferences. Public feedback will
be sought through the summer, in anticipation of appropriating these funds as part of the 2012
budget exceptions and annual re-appropriations process (September). Public feedback will
subsequently presented to Council for its final determination as to allocation of funds.
July 12, 2011 Page 5
Council Action Options - Process
ATTACHMENTS
1. Reserve fund information
2. Capital Project lists identified in adopted City plans
3. Short List of immediate opportunity capital projects
4. Capital projects approved and scheduled as part of the 2011-2012 Budget
5. Powerpoint presentation
Attachment 1
Available Reserves Available Reserves
Excluding Policy Minimum Above
Major Governmental Funds Policy Minimum Balance Policy Minimum Notes
General Fund $ 24,181,960 $ 17,860,601 $ 6,321,359 Reflects $1.5M used for the Museum
Sales & Use Tax $ 7,535,107 $ 7,500,000 $ 35,107 Policy min. is a month's accrual of S&U Tax
Keep Fort Collins Great $ - $ 382,632 $ (382,632) New funds; no reserves until 2012
Natural Areas $ 147,145 $ 144,260 $ 2,885
Cultural Services $ 1,074,016 $ 91,405 $ 982,611
Recreation $ 1,750,247 $ 128,322 $ 1,621,925
Cemeteries $ 435,171 $ 10,719 $ 424,452
Perpetual Care $ 1,631,532 $ 926 $ 1,630,606
Transit Services $ 1,412,030 $ 220,388 $ 1,191,642
Transportation $ 9,351,786 $ 442,716 $ 8,909,070 Harmony Road maintenance funds
$ 47,518,994 $ 20,737,025
Notes:
1. This table is exclusive of enterprise funds and internal service funds
2. Available reserves often have intended uses planned that are not reflected in the table above
Updated 5 July 2011
Total Reserve Funds and Available Reserves Above Policy Minimums
ATTACHMENT 2
The current Parks & Recreation Policy Plan lists the following CIP:
Estimated Amount
(in 2011 dollars)
Community/recreation centers
Develop the Southeast Community Center at Fossil Creek Park $ 20,000,000
Develop the Southwest Community Center at Spring Canyon Park $ 20,000,000
Parks
Acquire land for six neighborhood and two community parks $ 3,300,000
Acquire land to expand the Eastside Neighborhood Park $ 1,300,000
Neighborhood Park Development
Develop Richards Lake Neighborhood Park $ 800,000
Develop Staley Neighborhood Park $ 1,000,000
Develop Iron Horse Neighborhood Park $ 800,000
Develop Maple Hill Neighborhood Park $ 800,000
Develop Side Hill Neighborhood Park $ 800,000
Develop Lind Neighborhood Park $ 400,000
Develop Fossil Lake Neighborhood Park $ 900,000
Develop Elm. School Neighborhood Park $ 900,000
Complete improvements at Rossborough Park $ 175,000
Complete improvements at Golden Meadows Park $ 175,000
Complete improvements at Avery Park $ 50,000
Community Park Development
Develop the Southeast Community Park $ 5,000,000
Complete improvements at Lee Martinez Park $ 300,000
Trail Development
Complete the Poudre River Trail $ 2,000,000
Complete the Power Trail $ 3,200,000
Complete the Fossil Creek Trail $ 11,800,000
Complete the Canal Trail $ 800,000
Complete the Boxelder Trail $ 2,400,000
Complete the Lake Canal Trail $ 1,500,000
Continue work on the Northeast trail system $ 3,300,000
The current Cultural Plan lists the following CIP:
Estimated Amount
(in 2011 dollars)
Lincoln Center Renovation $ 8,000,000
Fort Collins Museum/Discover Science Center $ 25,000,000
Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) from Approved City Plans
1
ATTACHMENT 2
The current Transfort Strategic Plan lists the following CIP:
Estimated Amount
(in 2011 dollars)
Fleet Expansion (3 buses – Phase One) $ 1,500,000
Fleet Expansion (17 buses – Phase Two) $ 8,700,000
Fleet Expansion (10 buses – Phase Three) $ 6,700,000
Bus Storage Expansion Not Estimated
Transportation Master Plan CIP
The Transportation Master Plan identifies the following capital projects:
Estimated Amount
(in 2011 dollars)
Traffic Signal System (Automated Traffic Management System) CIP List
Install video detection to replace inductive loops - 17 Video
Detection Intersections $250,000 to $1,000,000
Replacement of Serial Radios with Ethernet Radios - 23 Serial Radio
Intersections <$250,000
Convert from NEMA to 2070 Signal Controller/Cabinet - 3
Signalized Intersections <$250,000
Install Countdown Pedestrian Signal Heads at 131 signalized
intersections - Countdown Pedestrian Heads $250,000 to $1,000,000
Minor Concrete Work to provide access to pedestrian pushbuttons on
100 signalized intersection corners - Pushbutton Accessibility Project $250,000 to $1,000,000
Convert from NEMA to 2070 Signal Controller/Cabinet - 32
Pedestrian Signal Locations $250,000 to $1,000,000
Replace Video Wall - Traffic Operations Center <$250,000
Install video detection to replace inductive loops - 50 Video Detection
Intersections $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Install video detection to replace inductive loops - 63 Video
Detection Intersections $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Traffic Operations Management Center Expansion - Traffic
Operations Management Center Expansion $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Bicycle CIP List
Bicycle Improvements Program 1 (funded) $250,000 to $1,000,000
Bicycle Improvements Program 1 (unfunded) $10,000,000 to $20,000,000
Bicycle Improvements Program 2 >$20,000,000
Bicycle Improvements Program 3 >$20,000,000
Bridge CIP List
This project consists of bringing all deficient bridges located
throughout the City up to acceptable standards >$20,000,000
2
ATTACHMENT 2
Intersections CIP List
Group of various arterial intersection improvements prioritized
through Intersection Priority Study - Intersection Improvements
Program 1 $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Group of various arterial intersection improvements prioritized
through Intersection Priority Study - Intersection Improvements
Program 2 $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Group of various arterial intersection improvements prioritized
through Intersection Priority Study - Intersection Improvements
Program 3 $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Intersection improvements - College and Drake $ 4,000,000
Intersection improvements - College and Horsetooth $ 4,000,000
Parking CIP List
Parking improvements - Downtown $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Additional park and ride parking spaces - Harmony/I-25 $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
New park and ride facility - Mulberry/I-25 $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Pedestrian CIP List
Existing needs of 30 Sidewalk projects - Existing Need Sidewalk
Projects $10,000,000 to $20,000,000
Annual Pedestrian Plan/ADA Ramps & Crossing Improvements -
Existing Need ADA Ramp Improvements <$250,000
Existing needs of one Grade Separated Crossing (GSC) project -
Existing Need GSC Projects $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Six Development Driven Sidewalk Projects - Development Driven
Sidewalk Projects $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Forecasted needs of one Path/trail projects - Forecasted Need
Path/Trail Projects $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Forecasted needs of 28 Sidewalk projects - Forecasted Need Sidewalk
Projects $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Forecasted needs of one Grade Separated Crossing (GSC) project -
Forecasted Need GSC Projects $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Railroad CIP List
Tier 1 Annual RR crossing improvement program: BNSF - Trilby,
Prospect, Cherry, Laurel; UPRR - Lincoln, Prospect, Horsetooth,
Cherry, Mulberry, Drake - At Grade Crossing Upgrades $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
UPRR Railroad Crossings - railroad quiet zone crossing
improvements from Lincoln to Linden $250,000 to $1,000,000
BNSF Railroad Crossings - railroad quiet zone crossing
improvements from Trilby to Laurel $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
BNSF Railroad Crossings - railroad quiet zone crossing
improvements from Laurel to Vine $10,000,000 to $20,000,000
3
ATTACHMENT 2
Tier 2 Annual RR crossing improvement program: BNSF -
Timberline, Cherry, LaPorte, W Drake, W Horsetooth, Willow,
Mountain, Maple, Lemay, Lincoln, Vine; UPRR: Lemay, Carpenter,
Maple - At Grade Crossing Upgrades $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Tier 3 Annual RR crossing improvement program: BNSF - Swallow,
Mountain Vista, North Mason, CR52, Linden; UPRR: Willox,
Hemlock, Hickory, Trilby - At Grade Crossing Upgrades $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Sharpe Point Drive - RR crossing at GNRRo $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Greenfield Ct. - RR grade separation at RR spur $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Roadway CIP List
Build new 4L arterial - Realigned Vine from College to Lemay $ 19,000,000
Upgrade to 2L arterial standards - Lincoln from Riverside to Lemay $ 8,500,000
Upgrade to 6L Arterial standards - Harmony from Boardwalk to
Timberline $ 5,500,000
Upgrade to 6L Arterial standards - Harmony from College to
Boardwalk $ 9,500,000
Upgrade to 4L arterial standards - College from Conifer to Willox $ 11,000,000
Upgrade to 2L arterial standards - LaPorte from Impala to Taft Hill $ 2,500,000
Upgrade to collector (Downtown River District) standards - Linden
from Jefferson to Poudre River $ 1,000,000
Upgrade to collector standards - Linden from Poudre River to Vine $ 2,000,000
Upgrade to collector (Downtown River District) standards - Willow
from College to Lincoln $ 2,000,000
Build grade- separated RR crossing - Lemay and BNSF Railroad
Tracks >$20,000,000
Upgrade from 2L to 4L arterial - with grade- separated RR crossing -
Trilby from Lemay to Timberline $10,000,000 to $20,000,000
Upgrade to 2L arterial standards - Elizabeth from Overland to Taft
Hill $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Upgrade from CR to 2L arterial - LaPorte from GMA to Impala $10,000,000 to $20,000,000
Upgrade to 2L arterial standards - LaPorte from Taft Hill to Shields $10,000,000 to $20,000,000
Upgrade to collector standards - Buckingham from Linden to Lemay $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade to 4L arterial standards - Prospect from College to Lemay $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Upgrade to 2L arterial standards - Vine from Taft Hill to Shields $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade from 2L to 4L arterial - Trilby from College to Lemay $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade to 2L arterial standards - Shields from LaPorte to Vine $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade to 2L arterial standards - Taft Hill from LaPorte to Vine $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade to collector standards - Country Club from State Highway 1
to Lemay $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade to collector standards - Country Club from Lemay to
Turnberry $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Upgrade to 4L arterial standards - Drake from Harvard to Stover $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade to 2L arterial standards - Timberline from Carpenter to
Trilby $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
4
ATTACHMENT 2
Upgrade to 2L arterial standards - LaPorte from Shields to Wood $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Build new 4L arterial - Realigned Vine from Lemay to Timberline $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Build 4L arterial realignment - Timberline Realignment from
Realigned Vine to Giddings $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Upgrade from 2L to 4L arterial - Prospect from Summit View to I-25 $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Build new collector - Avondale from Triangle to College $250,000 to $1,000,000
Build new collector - Troutman from Seneca to Shields $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade from 2L to 4L arterial - Timberline from Kechter to Battle
Creek $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Build new collector - Trilby from Westchase to Ziegler $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade from 2L to 4L arterial with intersection re-alignment and RR
grade separation - Lemay from Lincoln to Realigned Vine >$20,000,000
Build new 2L arterial - Mountain Vista from Bar Harbor to
Timberline Realignment $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade to 2L arterial standards - Mountain Vista from Turnberry to
Bar Harbor Extended $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Build new collector - Sharp Point from Midpoint to Mileshouse $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade from 2L to 4L arterial - with grade- separated RR crossing -
Mountain Vista from Giddings to I-25 $10,000,000 to $20,000,000
Build new 2L arterial - Giddings from Richards Lake to Mountain
Vista $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade from CR to 2L arterial - Turnberry from Mountain Vista to
Douglas $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade to collector standards - Aran from Skyway to Saturn <$250,000
Upgrade from CR to collector - Strauss Cabin from Harmony to
Horsetooth $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade from CR to collector - Horsetooth from Ziegler to Strauss
Cabin $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade to 2L arterial standards - Strauss Cabin from Kechter to
Harmony $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade from 2L to 4L arterial - Timberline from Trilby to Kechter $10,000,000 to $20,000,000
Build new 2L arterial - Conifer Extension from Lemay to Timberline $10,000,000 to $20,000,000
Build new collector - Snow Mesa from Timberwood to Ridge Creek $250,000 to $1,000,000
Upgrade to 2L arterial standards - International from Bannock to
Timberline $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Build new 2L arterial - International from Timberline to Greenfields $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade from 2L to 4L arterial - Prospect from I-25 to Growth Mgmt.
Area $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Build grade- separated RR crossing - Timberline and BNSF Railroad
Tracks >$20,000,000
Upgrade from 4L to 6L arterial - College from Carpenter to Trilby $10,000,000 to $20,000,000
Upgrade from 4L to 6L arterial - College from Trilby to Fossil Creek $10,000,000 to $20,000,000
5
ATTACHMENT 2
Build new collector - Nancy Gray from Bucking Horse to Mileshouse $250,000 to $1,000,000
Build grade- separated RR crossing - Mountain Vista and BNSF
Railroad Tracks >$20,000,000
Upgrade from 2L to 4L arterial - Lemay from Realigned Vine to
Conifer $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Upgrade to 2L arterial standards - Kechter from Timberline to Ziegler $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Build new collector - William Neal from Chase to Ziegler $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Build new collector - Bar Harbor from Mountain Vista to Conifer $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Build new collector - Mileshouse from Nancy Gray to Drake $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Build new collector - New Roadway from Trilby to Skyway $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Build new collector - Technology from Harmony to Rock Creek $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Build new collector - Aran from Trilby to Skyway $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade from CR to 2L arterial - Richards Lake from Turnberry to
Giddings $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Build new 2L arterial - International from Lincoln to Bannock >$20,000,000
Upgrade to 2L arterial standards - Kechter from Strauss Cabin Rd to I-
25 $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade from CR to 2L arterial - Douglas from County Road 13 to
Turnberry $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade to collector standards - Hickory from College to Soft Gold
Park Trailhead $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Build new collector - Timberwood from Timberline to Snow Mesa $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Build new collector - Redwood from Vine to Conifer $250,000 to $1,000,000
Build new collector - Mason from Willox to State Highway 1 $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Build new collector - Redwood from Willox to Country Club $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade from CR to 2L arterial - Richards Lake from Giddings to I-
25 $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Build new collector - Swallow from Taft Hill to Bassick $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade from 2L to 4L arterial - includes realignment and grade-
separated RR crossing - Timberline from Sykes to Realigned Vine $10,000,000 to $20,000,000
Upgrade to 6L Arterial standards - Timberline from Custer to
Horsetooth $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Upgrade from 4L to 6L arterial - Timberline from Harmony to
Horsetooth $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Upgrade from 4L to 6L arterial - Mulberry from Timberline to
Summit View $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade from 4L arterial to 6L arterial - College from Fossil Creek to
Harmony $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Upgrade from 4L to 6L arterial - Timberline from Drake to Prospect $10,000,000 to $20,000,000
Upgrade from 2L to 4L arterial - Timberline from Mulberry to Sykes $10,000,000 to $20,000,000
Upgrade to 2L arterial standards - Trilby from Shields to College $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
6
ATTACHMENT 2
Upgrade from 2L to 4L arterial - Carpenter from Lemay to Timberline $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade from 2L to 4L arterial - Carpenter from County Road 9 to I-
25 $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade from 2L to 4L arterial - Carpenter from Timberline to
County Road 9 $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade to 2L arterial standards - Willox from Shields to College $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade from 2L to 4L arterial - Lemay from Conifer to Country Club$5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Upgrade to 4L arterial standards - Riverside from Mulberry to Lincoln $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Upgrade from 2L to 4L arterial - Horsetooth from Taft Hill to Shields $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade from 2L to 4L arterial - Shields from Carpenter to Trilby $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade from 2L to 4L arterial - Shields from Trilby to Fossil Creek $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade from 2L to 4L arterial - Carpenter from College to Lemay $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Upgrade from 4L to 6L arterial - Mulberry from Riverside to
Timberline $10,000,000 to $20,000,000
Upgrade from 4L to 6L arterial - Mulberry from Summit View to I-25 $10,000,000 to $20,000,000
Implement access management plan - College from Vine to Conifer $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade from 2L to 4L arterial - Taft Hill from Harmony to
Horsetooth $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade from CR to 2L arterial - Taft Hill from Vine to GMA $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Build grade- separated RR crossing - Drake and BNSF Railroad
Tracks >$20,000,000
Upgrade from 2L to 4L arterial - Shields from Fossil Creek to
Harmony $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Upgrade from 2L to 4L arterial - Taft Hill from GMA to Harmony $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Upgrade to 2L arterial standards - Vine from Overland Trail to Taft
Hill $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade to 2L arterial standards, includes realignment for potential
interchange - Vine from I-25 to GMA $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Build new collector - Mason from Realigned Vine to Willox $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Upgrade from 2L to 4L arterial - Prospect from Overland Trail to Taft
Hill $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Build grade- separated RR crossing - Trilby and UPRR Railroad
Tracks >$20,000,000
Upgrade to 2L arterial standards with connection to realigned Vine -
Vine from Timberline to I-25 $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Upgrade to 2L arterial standards - Overland Trail from Elizabeth to
Vine $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade to 2L arterial standards - Overland Trail from Vine to
Michaud $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
7
ATTACHMENT 2
Upgrade from 2L to 4L arterial - US 287 from State Highway 1 to
GMA $10,000,000 to $20,000,000
Upgrade to 2L arterial standards - Trilby from Taft Hill to Shields $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Build grade- separated RR crossing (see Railroad CIP) - Carpenter
and UPRR Railroad Tracks >$20,000,000
Upgrade to 2L arterial standards - Mulberry from Overland \Trail to
Tyler $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade from 2L arterial to 4L arterial - Timberline from Prospect to
Mulberry $10,000,000 to $20,000,000
Upgrade from 2L to 4L arterial - Overland Trail from Wells Fargo to
Drake $10,000,000 to $20,000,000
Upgrade from CR to 2L arterial - Shields from Vine to Douglas Road $10,000,000 to $20,000,000
Upgrade from CR to 2L arterial - Gregory from Country Club to State
Highway 1 $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Build new collector - Hickory from Soft Gold Park Trailhead to
Shields $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade to collector standards - Michaud from Overland Trail to
GMA $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Upgrade to 2L arterial standards - Vine from College to Redwood $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Build grade- separated RR crossing - Trilby and BNSF Railroad
Tracks >$20,000,000
8
ATTACHMENT 3
BCC balance at the end of 2010 $ 7,064,568
Less Ord. No. 062, 2011 Lincoln Center 135,000
Less Ord.No. 064, 2011 North College 2,700,000
$ 2,835,000
Current Balance $ 4,229,568
Potential BCC Surplus Uses - Immediate Opportunities
1 BOB Shortfall 1,800,000
2 Senior Center Expansion 1,000,000
3 Digital Dome 1,082,382
4 Lincoln Center Renovation Enhancements 200,000
5 The Great Lawn 830,000
6 Revitalizing the Downtown River Experience 1,200,000
7 Mulberry Bridge Enhancements 850,000
8 Troutman Underpass 1,122,000
9 Trilby Road Bike Lanes: Timberline Road to Lemay Avenue 280,000
10 Kechter Road Bike Lanes: Timberline Road to Rabbit Creek Road 140,000
11 North College/US 287 Multi-Use Path 910,000
12 Timberline Rd Temporary Multi-Use Path (Kechter to Bacon Elementary) 325,000
13 North College from Conifer Street to Willox Lane (Design & ROW) 1,500,000
14 Prospect Road Bridge over the New Mercer Canal 1,200,000
15 West Mulberry Street Bridge over the New Mercer Canal 1,100,000
16 Deconstruct/construct a new “green” Oak St. public restroom facility 470,000
17 Purchase the property at the NW corner of Timberline & Harmony 495,000
18 Renovate Second level of City Hall 395,000
19 Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center 2,700,000
$ 17,599,382
Updated 6 July 2011
BCC Balance and Potential Uses - Immediate Opportunities
ATTACHMENT 4
Offer # 2011 2012
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
138.1 Utilities Asset Management Software $166,667 $176,667
165.1 Water Distribution System Replacement 975,000 1,015,000
166.1 Cathodic Protection 170,000 115,000
167.1 Wastewater System Replacement 1,230,000 1,270,000
168.1 Flow Monitoring Stations 100,000 75,000
169.1 Water Supply Development 100,000 100,000
170.1 Halligan Reservoir Enlargement 190,000 190,000
171.1 Water Production Replacement Program 1,175,000 1,340,000
173.1 Collection System Study 170,000 50,000
175.1 Water Engineering Distribution System Replacements 1,910,000 1,425,000
177.1 North College Sewer 900,000 0
178.1 Wastewater Engineering Distribution System Replacements 700,000 0
184.1 Meter Replacement & Rehabilitation 0 920,000
187.1 Water Reclamation Replacement 975,000 1,275,000
188.1 Sludge Disposal Program 100,000 200,000
189.1 Drake Water Reclamation Facility (DWRF) 100,000 0
Total Environmental Health $8,961,667 $8,151,667
SAFE COMMUNITY
78.1 Electric Substations $315,000 $725,000
79.1 Southwest Annexation Electric System 1,755,000 0
136.1 Canal Importation Basin 2,840,000 0
137.1 Boxelder Stormwater Authority Payment 0 370,000
142.1 Stormwater Developer Repays 95,000 95,000
143.1 Drainage & Detention System 370,000 370,000
144.1 Stormwater Master Planning 95,000 95,000
210.1 Utilities Asset Management Software 83,333 88,333
Total Safe Community $5,553,333 $1,743,333
CULTURE, PARKS & RECREATION
40.2 New Park Site Acquisition 150,000 400,000
40.2 Park Site Equipment Replacement 15,000 15,000
40.3 New Park Site Development 150,000 150,000
40.3 Richards Lake Park 300,000 200,000
40.3 Staley Neighborhood Park 500,000 400,000
40.3 Trailhead Park 200,000 300,000
40.3 Soft Gold Park 100,000 0
40.3 Waters Way Park 100,000 0
41.2 Fossil Creek Trail $50,000 $50,000
41.2 Open Space Acquisition 10,000 10,000
41.2, 41.3 Trail Acquisition and Development 350,000 350,000
41.3 Tri-City Trails 30,000 30,000
44.3 New Museum Facility Natural Areas Support 115,113 0
60.6 Senior Center Expansion Design (BOB) 0 430,239
106.13 KFCG - Trail Acquisition and Development 163,000 158,000
106.15 KFCG - Spring Canyon - Veteran's Plaza 25,000 0
Total Culture, Parks & Recreation $2,258,113 $2,493,239
TRANSPORTATION
114.1 Bicycle Program Plan Implementation (BOB) $125,000 $125,000
114.2 Pedestrian Plan Implementation (BOB) 300,000 0
CAPITAL PROJECTS 2011-2012
By Outcome
ATTACHMENT 4
Offer # 2011 2012
CAPITAL PROJECTS 2011-2012
By Outcome
146.7 North College Improvements - Phase II (BOB) 4,275,671 0
146.9 Railroad Crossing Replacement 100,000 100,000
146.10 Intersections Improvements (BOB) 0 3,500,000
146.12 City Bridge Program 300,000 300,000
146.13 KFCG - City Bridge Program 0 564,931
146.14 KFCG - South Shields Street Bridge Over
Larimer Canal No. 2 1,500,000 0
146.15 KFCG - Laporte-Whitcomb Bridge Replacement 0 670,000
146.19 I-25 & SH 392 Interchange Project 2,640,000 0
Total Transportation $9,240,671 $5,259,931
OTHER
40.2, 40.3 Administration - Neighborhood Parkland 395,677 406,087
41.2, 41.3 Administration - Conservation Trust 262,126 267,905
204.3 Administration - BOB Projects $34,914 $35,961
204.3 Police Facility - Debt 750,000 750,000
Total Other 1,442,717 1,459,953
Total Capital Projects $27,456,501 $19,108,123
1
1
Allocation of Building Community
Choices Surplus and Other
Resources for Current Capital Needs
July 12, 2011
Work Session
2
Background
• Building Community Choices (BCC) sales tax
approved by voters in 1997
• Projects now completed, surplus funds remain
– Largely due to interest earnings
• Funds available for “any capital projects approved
by City Council”
ATTACHMENT 5
2
3
Background
April 26 City Council Work Session:
• Council was presented with two important and
immediate capital project needs:
– Lincoln Center Renovation Shortfall
– North College Improvements
• Council asked Staff about other options to fund
capital project needs. In response, Staff:
– Compiled a list of potential capital projects
– Identified potential funding sources
– Developed a public input process if needed
4
Background: Current BCC Fund Balance
Current BCC Surplus Fund Balance $4,229,568
Less Ordinance 64 ($2,700,000)
(North College Improvements)
Less Ordinance 62 ($135,000)
(Lincoln Center Renovation)
Building Community Choices $7,064,568
Balance (end of 2010)
3
5
Background: Other Funding Sources
• Available City Reserve Funds
– Excludes Enterprise and Internal Services
Funds
– Factors in Policy minimums
• “Designated use”
• Emergency needs
– “Available” fund amounts relatively small
• Grant funds
– Staff continues to seek opportunities for
outside funds wherever possible
6
Feedback Requested:
• What process does Council wish to follow for
allocating the remaining BCC funds and other
available funds?
– Option A: Hold surplus funds for allocation as part of
2013-2014 Budgeting for Outcomes process
– Option B: Address immediate opportunity capital
project needs in 2011
– Option C: Combination approach
• Are there other options Council would like Staff
to explore?
4
7
• Spring 2012: Capital projects submitted as part of
2013-2014 BFO process
• Spring-Fall 2012:
– Council discussion of projects
– Public input gathered
– Projects prioritized
Process Option A:
Hold funds for allocation as part of the
2013-2013 -2014 Budgeting for Outcomes
8
• Late Fall 2012:
– Projects selected
– Funding sources determined
– Budget finalized
• 2013-2014: Project construction / implementation
Process Option A:
Hold funds for allocation as part of the
2013-2013 -2014 Budgeting for Outcomes
5
9
Process Option A:
Hold funds for allocation as part of the
2013-2013 -2014 Budgeting for Outcomes
Pro’s
• Allows for a more
strategic, citywide
analysis
• Uses established and
agreed upon criteria
Con’s
• May be missed
opportunities for time
sensitive, immediate
capital projects
10
• Staff provides list of “ready” projects
– Time sensitivity, opportunity, safety
– Address capital needs w/ no funding source
• Staff provides City Capital Project lists from
adopted plans
• Council input
• Council suggests projects for public comment
Process Option B:
Address immediate opportunity
capital project needs
6
11
Process Option B:
Address immediate opportunity
capital project needs
• July-September 2011: Boards and Commissions
and public feedback
• October 2011: Council chooses projects,
appropriates funds
• End of 2011 thru 2012: Project
design/prep/construction
12
Pro’s
• Addresses:
• Projects without
funding sources
• Time sensitivity
• Safety issues
• Immediate
opportunities to
leverage &
combine funds
Con’s
• May be difficult to
identify, or rate, all
potential capital
projects without
established criteria
Process Option B:
Address immediate opportunity
capital project needs
7
13
Process Option C:
Combination approach
Allocate funding to some projects immediately; hold
the balance for 2013-2014 BFO
– establish short list of projects
– gather public input
– allocate funds in October
• Hold the balance for 2013-2014 BFO
14
Pro’s
• Addresses some
immediate needs and
opportunities that
may be lost if
delayed.
• Balance of funds will
be selected and
allocated using
established criteria
Con’s
• Will be less balance
left for the BFO
process.
• Projects funded now
would not be vetted
through the BFO
process and results
area criteria
Process Option C:
Combination approach
8
15
Capital Project Candidates
• Per Council’s request Staff compiled the list of
capital projects identified in adopted plans
– Excludes Utilities or Internal Services
• City Staff also identified list of “ready” capital
projects
– No identified funding source
– Time sensitive, opportunity
– Safety need
– Ability to leverage other funding sources
16
Feedback Requested:
• What process does Council wish to follow for
allocating the remaining BCC funds and other
available funds?
– Option A: Hold surplus funds for allocation as part of
2013-2014 Budgeting for Outcomes process
– Option B: Address immediate opportunity capital
project needs in 2011
– Option C: Combination approach
• Are there other options Council would like Staff
to explore?