The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 08/30/2016 - COMPLETE AGENDACity of Fort Collins Page 1 Wade Troxell, Mayor City Council Chambers Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado Gino Campana, District 3 Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 Ross Cunniff, District 5 and Channel 881 on the Comcast cable system Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Wanda Winkelmann City Attorney City Manager 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 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Adjourned Meeting August 30, 2016 6:00 p.m. • CALL MEETING TO ORDER • ROLL CALL 1. Items Relating to Submitting a Ballot Question for the November 8, 2016 Election A. Possible Public Hearing and Motion Regarding Protest of Ballot Language B. Resolution 2016-068 Submitting a Ballot Question to the Registered Electors of the City at a Special Municipal Election to be Held on November 8, 2016, and Conducted as a Coordinated Election with Larimer County, Asking the Voters to Confirm that the City May Retain and Spend All Revenues it has Received and will Continue to Receive Relating to the “Keep Fort Collins Great” .85% Sales and Use Tax Voters Approved in 2010. The purpose of this item is to is to set ballot language for the voters of Fort Collins to confirm that they intended for the City to collect, keep, and spend all revenues collected as authorized and directed in the 2010 “Keep Fort Collins Great” ballot question. Ballot language is being set at the earliest possible date. Any protest of the proposed ballot language must be received no later than Monday, August 29 at noon. The protest(s) shall be heard, considered, and resolved by Council prior to adoption of Resolution 2016, 068. If protest(s) are received, copies will be included in Council’s “Read-before” packet. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT City of Fort Collins Page 2 Ballot language is being set at the earliest possible date. Any protest of the proposed ballot language must be received no later than Monday, August 29 at noon. The protest(s) shall be heard, considered, and resolved by Council prior to adoption of Resolution 2016, 068. If protest(s) are received, copies will be included in Council’s “Read-before” packet.  OTHER BUSINESS  ADJOURNMENT Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 30, 2016 City Council STAFF Wanda Winkelmann, City Clerk Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer Darin Atteberry, City Manager SUBJECT Items Relating to Submitting a Ballot Question for the November 8, 2016 Election EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Possible Public Hearing and Motion Regarding Protest of Ballot Language B. Resolution 2016-068 Submitting a Ballot Question to the Registered Electors of the City at a Special Municipal Election to be Held on November 8, 2016, and Conducted as a Coordinated Election with Larimer County, Asking the Voters to Confirm that the City May Retain and Spend All Revenues it has Received and will Continue to Receive Relating to the “Keep Fort Collins Great” .85% Sales and Use Tax Voters Approved in 2010. The purpose of this item is to is to set ballot language for the voters of Fort Collins to confirm that they intended for the City to collect, keep, and spend all revenues collected as authorized and directed in the 2010 “Keep Fort Collins Great” ballot question. Ballot language is being set at the earliest possible date. Any protest of the proposed ballot language must be received no later than Monday, August 29 at noon. The protest(s) shall be heard, considered, and resolved by Council prior to adoption of Resolution 2016, 068. If protest(s) are received, copies will be included in Council’s “Read-before” packet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In 2010 voters approved a .85% sales and use tax increase to be spent for the following purposes:  33% for street maintenance and repair,  17% for other street and transportation needs,  17% for police services,  11% for fire protection and other emergency services,  11% for parks maintenance and recreation services, and  11% for other community priorities as determined by the City Council. The 2010 ballot language also asked voters whether: “the full revenues derived from the tax, and investment earnings thereon, may be retained and expended by the City for such purposes, notwithstanding any State revenue or expenditure limitations including but not limited to [TABOR]” (“KFCG Revenue Change”) 1 Packet Pg. 3 Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 2 The KFCG initiative passed with 60% approval. In the state of Colorado, any proposed tax increase is subject to the Colorado Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR). The City asked voters in 1997 for exclusion from the revenue-limitation provisions of TABOR. This is commonly called “de-Brucing.” Voters approved this ballot measure by 57%. TABOR requires for tax increases that the first year’s tax revenue, as well as the expected fiscal year spending without the tax increase, be estimated in the TABOR notice that is mailed to voters before the election. TABOR also contains language addressing the consequences of when actual revenues collected exceed these estimates. In 2010, the TABOR notice for the KFCG tax estimated one-year (2011) revenue from the .85% increase to be $18.7 million. Actual revenue in 2011 was $19.7 million. Although voters approved in 1997 a general “de-Brucing” question authorizing the City to retain and spend all excess TABOR revenues collected by the City in all future years, and also approved in 2010 the KFCG ballot question with language stating that the City could keep and expend “all revenues” from the KFCG tax, a citizen has indicated they will sue the City under TABOR asking the courts to require the City to refund a portion of the KFCG tax revenues the City has already collected and spent for the voter-authorized purposes described because the City’s actual revenues in 2011 exceeded the estimates in the TABOR notice for the KFCG tax. Similar concerns were recently raised relating to the State of Colorado’s November 2015 ballot question for Proposition BB, which asked the State’s voters to allow the State to retain and spend the revenues it received in fiscal year 2014-15 from the marijuana taxes the State’s voters approved in Proposition AA at the November 2013 election. The State appears to have done this on the basis of a legal opinion from the Colorado Office of Legislative Legal Services (“LLS”) (Attachment 2), which raised questions about whether the State’s de- Brucing waivers of TABOR’s revenue limitations were sufficient to avoid refunding its excess revenues relating to the marijuana taxes without seeking additional voter approval. Unfortunately, as the LLS opinion indicates, this question has not been answered by the Colorado appellate courts. Consequently, rather than litigate this issue, which could take years and would leave City budgeting in a state of uncertainty, the City believes it is more prudent to ask voters as soon as possible to confirm that in approving the KFCG tax in 2010 they did intend for the City to use all KFCG revenue as outlined in the original ballot language. On an annual basis, Council and citizens are provided complete accounting of KFGC collections and expenditures. These reports can be found at fcgov.com/kfcg. Some examples of KFCG tax provided services include:  Streets. More than 300 lane miles have been resurfaced, and surface patching, centerline marking, sidewalk and concrete work throughout the City has been completed.  Other Transportation. Nine bridges have been designed and/or constructed (including Shields at Rolland Moore, East and West Prospect, and multiple bridges over Arthur Ditch). Safe Routes to School, Neighborhood Plans and Neighborhood Parking initiatives have been designed and implemented. Transfort, Max and Dial-a-Ride have expanded service, including Saturday and evening trips. Signals and sidewalks have been upgraded throughout the City, improving traffic flow and ADA accessibility.  Police. Thirty positions have been added, including 19 sworn police officers. With additional resources, there has been an increase in Community Policing efforts, resulting in reduced call volumes for both neighborhoods and in Old Town.  Fire. Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) has hired 13 firefighters and staffed the South Battalion. Response times have been reduced by more than 2 minutes in PFA’s southern jurisdiction. Funding has also been used to ensure first responders have up-to-date equipment including breathing apparatuses.  Parks and Recreation. Approximately 3,000 scholarships per year have been provided to low-income citizens, Fossil Creek Trail was expanded and connected to Spring Creek trail, more than 4,000 hours per year of Adaptive Recreation programming was provided, and the existing service hours and levels at all City Recreation centers has been maintained. Various park improvements were completed, 1 Packet Pg. 4 Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 3 including Rolland Moore restrooms, Veteran’s Plaza, field lighting and playground equipment upgrades.  Other Community Priorities. Funding has been provided for Poudre River capital restoration projects, more than 10 community agencies supporting before/after school care, school lunch programs and other meals for low income citizens, the annual 4th of July celebration for citizens at City Park, and staffing/supplies to maintain the downtown flowers. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS Potential financial impacts to the City are varied. Many communities are struggling with untested TABOR interpretations. With no clear case law, litigation could be both lengthy and the outcomes unknown. If the City were to choose not to go to the voters but await threatened litigation, there would be cost for defending the anticipated case, and also in the uncertainty of the outcome. Should the City be required to refund overages in collections, those refund mechanisms are also undetermined. Regardless of the mechanism, citizens would see a reduction in service going forward related to KFCG funded services including police, fire, transportation, parks and recreation and other community priorities. The cost of placing this item on the November ballot is expected to be $300k - $500k. PUBLIC OUTREACH Staff has attempted to keep the public informed of this complex TABOR question and City actions addressing the suggested lawsuit through press releases. Once the ballot language is adopted, the City will be bound by campaign laws and will be limited in what and how information is communicated. With this in mind, and in anticipation that City Council may put this measure on the ballot, staff has developed a timeline and a set of FAQs. ATTACHMENTS 1. KFCG TABOR FAQs (PDF) 2. Colorado Office of Legislative Legal Services Opinion Dated March 10, 2014 (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 5 TABOR/KFCG FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS What is the issue? In 2010, voters approved a new .85 sales tax, “Keep Fort Collins Great” (KFCG). Recently a citizen has argued that under Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR), the City must either refund a portion of the KFCG tax revenues or seek voter approval to keep them. The City has been operating with the understanding that past voter approval and the broad language used in the 2010 KFCG ballot question allowed all revenue to be retained and spent according to the outcomes outlined by the citizens. Based on new and evolving interpretations of “de-Brucing” measures, the City has decided to confirm this with voters. What is TABOR and “de-Brucing?” In 1992, Colorado voters approved TABOR. TABOR is a complex provision of the Colorado Constitution that places limitations on how governments impose taxes and issue debt. It also places limitations on the amount of revenues governments can retain and spend. Governments may ask voters to waive TABOR revenue limitations. This is commonly called “de-Brucing,” named after TABOR’s main proponent in 1992, Douglas Bruce. In 1997, Fort Collins voters approved a general “de-Brucing” question authorizing the City to retain and spend all of its TABOR revenues in all future years. The voters also approved broad “de-Brucing” language in the KFCG ballot question. If voters already authorized the City to retain and spend all KFCG revenues, why do we need another vote? As mentioned above, a citizen has indicated he will sue the City under TABOR asking the courts to require the City to refund a portion of the KFCG tax revenues the City has already collected and spent for the purposes the voters approved in the KFCG ballot question. Rather than litigate this issue, which could take years and would leave City budgeting in a state of uncertainty, the City believes it is more prudent to ask voters as soon as possible to confirm that they did intend for the City to use all KFCG revenue as the voters directed in the original ballot language. A timeline of key dates is attached. What was originally approved by voters? In 2010, City voters approved the .85% “Keep Fort Collins Great” (KFCG) sales and use tax by 60% approval to be spent in the following percentages for these purposes: • 33% for street maintenance and repair • 17% for other street and transportation needs • 17% for police services • 11% for fire protection and other emergency services • 11% for parks maintenance and recreation services • 11% for other community priorities as determined by the City Council The 2010 ballot measure approved by voters also asked whether: “the full revenues derived from the tax, and investment earnings thereon, may be retained and expended by the City for such purposes, notwithstanding any State revenue or expenditure limitations including but not limited to TABOR.” 1.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: KFCG TABOR FAQs (4791 : Submitting a Ballot Question) How much excess tax revenue was collected, and how was it spent? In 2010, the ballot estimated one-year (2011) revenue from the .85% increase to be $18.7 million. Actual revenue was $19.7 million. On an annual basis, Council and citizens are provided complete accounting of KFGC collections and expenditures. These reports can be found at fcgov.com/kfcg. Some examples of KFCG tax provided services include: • Streets. More than 300 lane miles have been resurfaced, and surface patching, centerline marking, sidewalk and concrete work throughout the City has been completed. • Other Transportation. Nine bridges have been designed and/or constructed (including Shields at Rolland Moore, East and West Prospect, and multiple bridges over Arthur Ditch). Safe Routes to School, Neighborhood Plans and Neighborhood Parking initiatives have been designed and implemented. Transfort, Max and Dial-a-Ride have expanded service, including Saturday and evening trips. Signals and sidewalks have been upgraded throughout the City, improving traffic flow and ADA accessibility. • Police. Thirty positions have been added, including 19 sworn police officers. With additional resources, there has been an increase in Community Policing efforts, resulting in reduced call volumes for both neighborhoods and in Old Town. • Fire. Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) has hired 13 firefighters and staffed the South Battalion. Response times have been reduced by more than 2 minutes in PFA’s southern jurisdiction. Funding has also been used to ensure first responders have up-to-date equipment including breathing apparatuses. • Parks and Recreation. Approximately 3,000 scholarships per year have been provided to low- income citizens, Fossil Creek Trail was expanded and connected to Spring Creek trail, more than 4,000 hours per year of Adaptive Recreation programming was provided, and the existing service hours and levels at all City Recreation centers has been maintained. Various park improvements were completed, including Rolland Moore restrooms, Veteran’s Plaza, field lighting and playground equipment upgrades. • Other Community Priorities. Funding has been provided for Poudre River capital restoration projects, more than 10 community agencies supporting before/after school care, school lunch programs and other meals for low income citizens, the annual 4th of July celebration for citizens at City Park, and staffing/supplies to maintain the downtown flowers. If this is not approved, what happens next? That’s unknown at this point. If the City were required to provide a refund or reduce future collections, citizens would see a direct reduction in City services going forward. August 25, 2016 1.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: KFCG TABOR FAQs (4791 : Submitting a Ballot Question) 1.b Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: Colorado Office of Legislative Legal Services Opinion Dated March 10, 2014 (4791 : 1.b Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: Colorado Office of Legislative Legal Services Opinion Dated March 10, 2014 (4791 : 1.b Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: Colorado Office of Legislative Legal Services Opinion Dated March 10, 2014 (4791 : 1.b Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: Colorado Office of Legislative Legal Services Opinion Dated March 10, 2014 (4791 : 1.b Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: Colorado Office of Legislative Legal Services Opinion Dated March 10, 2014 (4791 : 1.b Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Colorado Office of Legislative Legal Services Opinion Dated March 10, 2014 (4791 : 1.b Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Colorado Office of Legislative Legal Services Opinion Dated March 10, 2014 (4791 : 1.b Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Colorado Office of Legislative Legal Services Opinion Dated March 10, 2014 (4791 : 1.b Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Colorado Office of Legislative Legal Services Opinion Dated March 10, 2014 (4791 : 1.b Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Colorado Office of Legislative Legal Services Opinion Dated March 10, 2014 (4791 : 1.b Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Colorado Office of Legislative Legal Services Opinion Dated March 10, 2014 (4791 : 1.b Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Colorado Office of Legislative Legal Services Opinion Dated March 10, 2014 (4791 : 1.b Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Colorado Office of Legislative Legal Services Opinion Dated March 10, 2014 (4791 : -1- RESOLUTION 2016, 068 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SUBMITTING A BALLOT QUESTION TO THE REGISTERED ELECTORS OF THE CITY AT A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 8, 2016, AND CONDUCTED AS A COORDINATED ELECTION WITH LARIMER COUNTY, ASKING THE VOTERS TO CONFIRM THAT THE CITY MAY RETAIN AND SPEND ALL REVENUES IT HAS RECEIVED AND WILL CONTINUE TO RECEIVE RELATING TO THE “KEEP FORT COLLINS GREAT” .85% SALES AND USE TAX VOTERS APPROVED IN 2010 WHEREAS, on November 2, 2010, the City held a special election conducted as a coordinated election with Larimer County; and WHEREAS, at that election, the City’s electorate considered, and 60% of those voting approved, a ballot question asking whether the City shall increase its taxes in 2011 by an estimated $18.7 million and by such amounts as generated thereafter by increasing the City’s sales and use tax rate from 3.00 % to 3.85% commencing on January 1, 2011, and ending midnight on December 31, 2020, to be spent only for these purposes: (a) 33% for street maintenance and repair, (b) 17% for other street and transportation needs, (c) 17% for police services, (d) 11% for fire protection and other emergency services, (e) 11% for parks maintenance and recreation services, and (f) 11% for other community priorities as determined by the City Council, which tax rate increase is commonly known as the “Keep Fort Collins Great” tax (the “KFCG Tax”); and WHEREAS, as a proposed increase in the rate of the City’s sales and use tax, the KFCG Tax was required to be approved by the voters under Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights in Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution (“TABOR”); and WHEREAS, the KFCG Tax ballot question voters approved also asked whether “all revenue generated” from the KFCG Tax could be spent for the purposes specified in the ballot question and whether “the full revenues derived from the tax, and investment earnings thereon, may be retained and expended by the City for such purposes, notwithstanding any State revenue or expenditure limitations including but not limited to [TABOR]” (“KFCG Revenue Change”); and WHEREAS, in the years 2011 to the present, the City has collected over $144 million of KFCG Tax revenues and spent these revenues for the following purposes as specifically authorized by the voters in the KFCG Tax ballot question: Packet Pg. 21 -2- (a) Streets. More than 300 lane miles have been resurfaced, and surface patching, centerline marking, sidewalk and concrete work throughout the City has been completed. (b) Other Transportation. Nine bridges have been designed and/or constructed (including Shields at Rolland Moore, East and West Prospect, and multiple bridges over Arthur Ditch). Safe Routes to School, Neighborhood Plans and Neighborhood Parking initiatives have been designed and implemented. Transfort, the Max and Dial-a-Ride have expanded service, including Saturday and evening trips. Signals and sidewalks have been upgraded throughout the City improving traffic flow and ADA accessibility. (c) Police. Thirty positions have been added, including 19 sworn police officers. With additional resources, there has been an increase in Community Policing efforts, resulting in reduced call volumes for both neighborhoods and in Old Town. (d) Fire. The Poudre Fire Authority (“PFA”) has hired 13 firefighters and staffed the South Battalion. Response times have been reduced by more than 2 minutes in PFA’s southern jurisdiction. Funding has also been used to ensure first responders have up-to-date equipment including breathing apparatuses. (e) Parks and Recreation. Approximately 3,000 scholarships per year have been provided to low-income citizens, Fossil Creek Trail was expanded and connected to Spring Creek trail, more than 4,000 hours per year of Adaptive Recreation programming was provided, and the existing service hours and levels at all City Recreation centers has been maintained. Various park improvements were completed, including Rolland Moore restrooms, Veteran’s Plaza, field lighting and playground equipment upgrades. (f) Other Community Priorities. Funding has been provided for the Poudre River capital restoration projects, to more than 10 community agencies supporting before and after school care, school lunch programs and meals for low income citizens, the annual 4 th of July celebration at City Park, and staffing and supplies to maintain the downtown flowers; and WHEREAS, a Fort Collins citizen has raised the prospect of a lawsuit against the City under TABOR to require the City to refund a substantial portion of the KFCG Tax revenues the City has already collected and spent for the voter-authorized purposes described above and to require the City to substantially reduce the KFCG Tax .85% rate voters approved in 2010; and WHEREAS, litigating this issue, rather than promptly presenting a ballot question to the voters for their resolution of the issue, will result in several years of uncertainty concerning how the City should plan and budget for current and future City services and capital projects and whether the City should continue to collect the KFCG Tax; and WHEREAS, this uncertainty will likely result in an immediate and substantial reduction of City services to the community, particularly those funded with KFCG Tax revenues, which would include: (i) police, fire and other emergency services, (ii) construction, maintenance and operation of streets and transportation services, and (iii) the operation and maintenance of parks and recreation facilities; and Packet Pg. 22 -3- WHEREAS, as with any litigation, the City will also incur its own court costs and attorney fees in defending the lawsuit, and if the City does not prevail, the City might have to pay the plaintiff’s court costs and attorney fees; and WHEREAS, if the courts require the City to refund taxpayers any amount of the KFCG Tax revenues, the City may also be required to add 10% annual simple interest to that refund amount; and WHEREAS, the threatened lawsuit relates to two TABOR provisions, one of which, Section 20(3)(b)(iii), required that voters be mailed a notice before the 2010 election to provide them with two different estimates of City revenues in 2011, the first full fiscal year of the proposed KFCG Tax (the “TABOR Notice”); and WHEREAS, the first revenue estimate in the TABOR Notice was an estimate of the maximum dollar amount the City expected to receive in 2011 from the KFCG Tax, which the City estimated would be $18.7 million, and the second revenue estimate was an estimate of the City’s “fiscal year spending” in 2011 without the KFCG Tax increase, which the City estimated would be $146.5 million in 2011; and WHEREAS, in 2011 the City’s actual KFCG Tax revenues were $19.8 million and its “fiscal year spending” without the KFCG Tax revenues was approximately $160 million; and WHEREAS, the other related TABOR provision, Section 20(3)(c), provides that if either of these two revenue estimates in a TABOR election notice is exceeded in the first full fiscal year of a tax increase, as occurred with the KFCG Tax, certain excess revenues must be refunded to the taxpayers and the tax increase is thereafter to be reduced, unless there is “later voter approval;” and WHEREAS, the City believes this “later voter approval” may be satisfied by including in the ballot question for a proposed tax increase language like that in the KFCG Revenue Change quoted above or by a ballot question approved by voters to allow a government more generally to collect, retain and spend all of the TABOR revenues it receives notwithstanding any limitations on those revenues in TABOR, like those in TABOR Section 20(3)(c); and WHEREAS, in 1997, the City’s voters approved a ballot question that has generally authorized the City “to collect, retain and expend the full proceeds of the City’s property taxes and all other funds and revenue sources . . . in 1996 and all revenues received in every year thereafter . . . notwithstanding any state revenue or expenditure limitations, including without limitation those contained in [TABOR]” (“General Revenue Change”), which further reflects the intent of the City’s voters to exempt all of the City’s TABOR revenues from all of TABOR’s revenue limitations, including those limitations in TABOR Section 20(3)(c); and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the voters’ approval of the KFCG Revenue Change and the General Revenue Change, questions have been raised recently as to whether these voter- approved waivers of TABOR revenue limitations are sufficient to satisfy the later-voter-approval requirement in TABOR Section 20(3)(c); and Packet Pg. 23 -4- WHEREAS, these questions have arisen largely related to the State of Colorado’s November 2015 ballot question for Proposition BB, which asked the State’s voters under TABOR Section 20(3)(c) to allow the State to retain and spend the revenues it received in fiscal year 2014-15 from the marijuana taxes the State’s voters approved in Proposition AA at the State’s November 2013 election; and WHEREAS, although the ballot question for Proposition AA contained language approving the waiver of any revenue limitations provided by law for these marijuana tax revenues, much like the City’s KFCG Revenue Change language, and in 2005 the State’s voters approved Referendum C that generally waived TABOR’s revenue limitations for most of the State’s future TABOR revenues, like the City’s General Revenue Change has done for the City’s TABOR revenues, the State nevertheless presented Proposition BB to the voters; and WHEREAS, the State appears to have done this on the basis of a legal opinion from the Colorado Office of Legislative Legal Services (“LLS”), which provides legal advice to the Colorado General Assembly, that questioned whether these waivers of TABOR revenue limitations by the State satisfied Section 20(3)(c)’s later-voter-approval requirement, although in doing so, the LLS opinion concedes that there is currently no decision by the Colorado appellate courts that squarely addresses the question of what is required for “later voter approval” under Section 20(3)(c); and WHEREAS, while there are not any judicial decisions squarely addressing this question, the Colorado Supreme Court has in past decisions approved of voters, in various circumstances, waiving the revenue limitations imposed by TABOR for all revenues of a specific tax and even for all of a government’s TABOR revenues; and WHEREAS, considering the clear and all-inclusive language of the KFCG Revenue Change in the KFCG Tax ballot question voters approved in 2010 and the equally clear and all- inclusive language voters approved in the General Revenue Change, it is reasonable to conclude that the City’s voters have already and sufficiently determined that they want the City to collect, retain and spend all of the KFCG Tax and any other revenue TABOR Section 20(3)(c) might otherwise require to be refunded, without the electorate having to vote a third time to decide this issue; and WHEREAS, in addition, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected a rigid interpretation of TABOR that would have the effect of working a reduction in government services or unreasonably curtail the everyday functions of government; and WHEREAS, since lengthy litigation would nevertheless stall current City programs that clearly benefit citizens and taxpayers, the Council has determined that is in the City’s best interest to promptly confirm the voters’ intent with respect to this matter, rather than allow the uncertainty of litigation to interfere with the City’s provision of the services the voters requested through their 2010 approval of the KFCG Tax; and Packet Pg. 24 -5- WHEREAS, in order to eliminate this uncertainty and to also avoid the financial risks to the City that would come with litigating this issue, the City Council finds and determines that it is in the best interest of the City and its taxpayers and is necessary for the public’s health, safety and welfare that a ballot question be submitted to the City’s electorate as hereafter provided; and WHEREAS, on August 16, 2016, the City Council adopted on final reading Ordinance No. 097, 2016, calling a special City election to be held on November 8, 2016, to be conducted as a coordinated election with Larimer County; and WHEREAS, Article X, Section 3 of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins authorizes the City Council to submit any question to a vote of the people at a special election. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That there is hereby submitted to the registered electors of the City at the City’s special municipal election to be held in conjunction with the November 8, 2016, Larimer County General Election as a coordinated election, the following ballot question: City-Initiated Question Concerning Whether the City May Keep and Spend All Revenues Related to the “Keep Fort Collins Great” Sales and Use Tax City Voters Approved in 2010 MAY THE CITY KEEP ALL OF THE REVENUES THAT IT HAS COLLECTED FROM THE CITY’S “KEEP FORT COLLINS GREAT” .85% SALES AND USE TAX APPROVED BY THE VOTERS IN 2010, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH REVENUES HAVE ALREADY BEEN SPENT, AND CONTINUE TO COLLECT THE TAX AT THE .85% RATE AND SPEND ALL OF THE REVENUES IN THE FOLLOWING WAYS DIRECTED BY THE VOTERS IN 2010: 33% FOR STREET MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR; 17% FOR OTHER STREET AND TRANSPORTATION NEEDS; 17% FOR POLICE SERVICES; 11% FOR FIRE PROTECTION AND OTHER EMERGENCY SERVICES; 11% FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE AND RECREATION SERVICES; AND 11% FOR COMMUNITY PRIORITIES OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED ABOVE, AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL; WITHOUT REFUNDING ANY AMOUNT FOR EXCEEDING THE REVENUE ESTIMATES IN THE ELECTION NOTICE MAILED TO VOTERS IN 2010? Packet Pg. 25 -6- _____ Yes/For _____ No/Against Passed and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 30th day of August, A.D. 2016. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 26 City of Fort Collins Page 1 Wade Troxell, Mayor Council Information Center (CIC) Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado Gino Campana, District 3 Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 Ross Cunniff, District 5 and Channel 881 on the Comcast cable system Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Wanda Winkelmann City Attorney City Manager 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. City Council Work Session August 30, 2016 (after the Adjourned Meeting, which begins at 6:00 p.m.)  CALL TO ORDER. 1. Entertainment Districts. (staff: Aimee Jensen, Wanda Winkelmann; 10 minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion) The purpose of this item is to present information on Entertainment Districts. An Entertainment District is an area in a controlled outdoor environment that allows the consumption of alcoholic beverages. 2. Climate Action Plan Progress. (staff: Lindsay Ex, Jeff Mihelich, Mike Beckstead; 15 minute staff presentation; 45 minute discussion) The purpose of this work session is as follows:  Highlight the branding of the implementation of the Climate Action Plan as the City moves from planning into implementation;  Review the elements of the Road to 2020 draft plan to achieve the 2020 goals of a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels;  Overview of the vetting process to provide rigorous cost-benefit information for identifying most cost effective pathway to 2020 and, through this vetting, share examples how the initiatives benefit families, small businesses, and all community members;  Illustrate how the City has creatively funded residential energy efficiency (evolution of on-bill financing from City-funded to 3rd party funded) and the scalability of these funding models as other programs mature and are vetted;  Describe how other communities are funding climate-related work; and City of Fort Collins Page 2  Review the overall next steps, including the process for finalizing the 2020 roadmap, including messaging and engagement strategies around climate action. 3. Managing Traffic Congestion in Fort Collins. (staff: Martina Wilkerson, Laurie Kadrich, Joe Olson; 10 minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion) The purpose of this item is to review historic and current traffic congestion in Fort Collins and discuss policies, efforts and plans in place intended to mitigate and manage congestion.  OTHER BUSINESS.  ADJOURNMENT. DATE: STAFF: August 30, 2016 Aimee Jensen, Deputy City Clerk Wanda Winkelmann, City Clerk WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Entertainment Districts. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to present information on Entertainment Districts. An Entertainment District is an area in a controlled outdoor environment that allows the consumption of alcoholic beverages. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. What additional information, if any, does Council need regarding Entertainment Districts? 2. Does Council support consideration of an ordinance at a future Council meeting? 3. In addition to the stakeholders listed on the Public Engagement Summary, what additional public outreach should be conducted? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In the 2011 legislative session, Senate Bill 11-273 was enacted which authorizes alcoholic beverages to be consumed in a Common Consumption Area located with an Entertainment District that is established by a local jurisdiction. Such area is essentially a geographically defined space with which liquor licensed establishments may allow patrons to consume alcohol not only within those premises, but also within additional areas shared in common between liquor licensed establishments. Those common areas can include sidewalks or plazas. 1. By ordinance, the City needs to establish code allowing Entertainment Districts and set forth a process for the Liquor Licensing Authority to approve a Common Consumption Area. City Council must adopt an ordinance in order to create an Entertainment District within which a Common Consumption Area could be considered by the City’s Liquor Licensing Authority. An Entertainment District is an area within the City that can be no more than one hundred (100) acres in size, and must be comprised of at least twenty thousand (20,000) square feet of premises licensed as a tavern, hotel and restaurant, brew pub, distillery pub, retail gaming tavern, vintners’ restaurant, beer and wine, manufacturer or beer wholesaler that operates a sales room, or limited winery. A Common Consumption Area is the area within the Entertainment District that is approved by the Liquor Licensing Authority and uses physical barriers to close the area to motor vehicle traffic and to limit pedestrian access. The ordinance must set forth a process in which the Common Consumption Area within the Entertainment District shall be approved by the Liquor Licensing Authority. The ordinance can designate the location, size, security and hours of operation of the Common Consumption Area. If the ordinance does not restrict alcohol service to a specified time, the Liquor Licensing Authority may allow a certified Promotional Association to operate a Common Consumption Area past 2:00 a.m. (for example, the City of Glendale allows service until 4:00 a.m.). 1 Packet Pg. 3 August 30, 2016 Page 2 2. The ordinance needs to create a process for the Liquor Licensing Authority to certify, recertify, and decertify a Promotional Association. The ordinance must give the Liquor Licensing Authority the authority to certify, recertify and decertify Promotional Associations. A Promotional Association is an association that is incorporated within Colorado that organizes and promotes entertainment activities within a Common Consumption Area, and is organized or authorized by two (2) or more licensees who own or lease property within an Entertainment District. The Liquor Licensing Authority must certify a Promotional Association before operation. To qualify for certification, the Promotional Association must have a board of directors with at least one (1) director from each attached license, agree to submit to annual reports, maintain a properly endorsed general liability and liquor liability insurance policy acceptable to the Liquor Licensing Authority, and name the City of Fort Collins as an additional insured. The Promotional Association must also conduct a survey of the neighborhood to ensure the use is compatible with the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood or the desires of the adult inhabitants. If approved, the Promotional Association will serve as the operator of the Common Consumption Authority. In the event the certified Promotional Association applies for recertification after one (1) year, there should be a process in place for that recertification. In the event of a violation after approval, the Liquor Licensing Authority will have the power to decertify a Promotional Association. The process will be in the same manner for show cause violations as related to liquor licenses. 3. The ordinance needs to create a process for a liquor licensee to attach to an existing Common Consumption Area. The ordinance must set forth a process for application for attachment of liquor licensed premises to an existing Common Consumption Area of a certified Promotional Association. If a liquor licensee wishes to attach to an existing Common Consumption Area of a certified Promotional Association, it should be done on forms prepared by the City Clerk. No action is required for those Licensees electing not to be a part of the Common Consumption Area. Public Outreach Staff will conduct public engagement if Council is interested in pursuing an ordinance permitting Entertainment Districts. Other Communities with an Entertainment District o Greeley o Glendale o Crested Butte o Central City/Black Hawk o Cripple Creek o Salida o Frederick o Castle Rock o Snow Mass Next Steps If Council would like to move forward, staff will: 1. Conduct public outreach 2. Prepare an Ordinance for Council consideration 3. Prepare application forms and set fees. 1 Packet Pg. 4 August 30, 2016 Page 3 ATTACHMENTS 1. Public Engagement Plan (PDF) 2. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 5 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT TITLE: ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT OVERALL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT LEVEL: Involve BOTTOM LINE QUESTION: Shall entertainment districts be allowed in Fort Collins? KEY STAKEHOLDERS: City Council, Board and Commission Members, Business Leaders/Associations TIMELINE: Spring 2017 PHASE 1: Discuss proposal with City Council at Work Session Timeframe: Scheduled for August 30 Key Messages: 1. Provide an overview of entertainment districts. 2. Elicit Council’s feedback on entertainment districts. Tools and Techniques: 1. Information provided in an AIS and PPT presentation PHASE 2: If Council supports moving forward, conduct public outreach to Board and Commission members at a Super Issue Meeting, Business Leaders/Associations (such as DDA, DBA, NFCBA, etc.). Timeframe: September – November, 2016 Key Messages: 1. Provide an overview of entertainment districts 2. Elicit stakeholder feedback on the establishment of an entertainment district Tools and Techniques: 1. Public meetings PHASE 3: Present ordinance establishing an entertainment district for Council’s consideration Timeframe: December 2016 Key Messages: 1. Summary of feedback received from interested stakeholders Tools and Techniques: 1. Include sample ordinances and fees from other municipalities ATTACHMENT 1 1.1 Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: Public Engagement Plan (4738 : Entertainment District) 1 Entertainment Districts Wanda Winkelmann, City Clerk Aimee Jensen, Deputy City Clerk 8-30-16 ATTACHMENT 2 1.2 Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4738 : Entertainment District) General Direction Sought 1. What additional information, if any, does Council need regarding Entertainment Districts? 2. Does Council support consideration of an ordinance at a future Council meeting? 3. In addition to the stakeholders listed on the Public Engagement Summary, what additional public engagement should be conducted? 2 1.2 Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4738 : Entertainment District) Background Senate Bill 11-273 allows local jurisdictions to opt in by Ordinance to allow Entertainment Districts. What is an Entertainment District? • Area in a controlled outdoor environment that allows the consumption of alcoholic beverages. 3 1.2 Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4738 : Entertainment District) Definitions Entertainment District: • Cannot be more than 100 acres and no less than 20,000 square feet of currently existing liquor licensed premises. Common Consumption Area: • Outdoor area in an Entertainment District. • Must be approved by the Liquor Licensing Authority. • Uses physical barriers to close the area. Promotional Association: • Organizes and promotes entertainment activities within a common consumption area and is organized by two or more people who own or lease property within an Entertainment District. 4 1.2 Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4738 : Entertainment District) Promotional Association Details Promotional Association • Operates the Common Consumption Area – including security, maintaining barriers, planning entertainment. • Made up of one representative from each liquor-licensed premise ‘attached’ to the Common Consumption Area. • Makes sure rules and regulations regarding the Common Consumption Area are obeyed. 5 1.2 Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4738 : Entertainment District) Common Consumption Area Details Common Consumption Area: • Outdoor venue that allows consumption of alcoholic beverages from adjacent liquor-licensed premises. • Must demonstrate needs and desires of the neighborhood, like a ‘regular’ liquor license does. 6 1.2 Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4738 : Entertainment District) 7 • Judge certifies Promotional Association The Promotional Association involves two or more liquor licensees who own or lease property within the Entertainment District. • Judge approves the Common Consumption Area The Promotional Association applies for the Common Consumption Area through a process similar to a new liquor license application. Process for Liquor Licensing Authority (Municipal Judge) 1.2 Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4738 : Entertainment District) Across Colorado • Greeley • Glendale • Crested Butte • Central City/Blackhawk • Cripple Creek • Salida • Frederick • Castle Rock 8 Cities with, or adopting, Entertainment Districts: 1.2 Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4738 : Entertainment District) 9 Example Common Consumption Area MAP LEGEND Heavy Duty Pinions Permanent Metal Gate Common Consumption Area 1.2 Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4738 : Entertainment District) General Direction Sought 1. What additional information, if any, does Council need regarding Entertainment Districts? 2. Does Council support consideration of an ordinance at a future Council meeting? 3. In addition to the stakeholders listed on the Public Engagement Summary, what additional public engagement should be conducted? 10 1.2 Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4738 : Entertainment District) DATE: STAFF: August 30, 2016 Lindsay Ex, Environmental Program Manager Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Climate Action Plan Progress. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this work session is as follows:  Highlight the branding of the implementation of the Climate Action Plan as the City moves from planning into implementation;  Review the elements of the Road to 2020 draft plan to achieve the 2020 goals of a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels;  Overview of the vetting process to provide rigorous cost-benefit information for identifying most cost effective pathway to 2020 and, through this vetting, share examples how the initiatives benefit families, small businesses, and all community members;  Illustrate how the City has creatively funded residential energy efficiency (evolution of on-bill financing from City-funded to 3rd party funded) and the scalability of these funding models as other programs mature and are vetted;  Describe how other communities are funding climate-related work; and  Review the overall next steps, including the process for finalizing the 2020 roadmap, including messaging and engagement strategies around climate action. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does Council have feedback on the branding process? 2. Does the outline for the February Work Session meet Council’s expectations? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In 2015, City Council unanimously adopted updated community greenhouse gas goals:  20% below 2005 levels by 2020,  80% below 2005 by 2030, and  Carbon neutrality by the year 2050. Branding the Implementation of the Climate Action Plan As the City has developed messaging and engagement strategies to help reach our 2020 goals, staff has heard from the community that more diverse messaging is needed to best engage the community - e.g., one person might be interested in low-cost measures such as energy efficiency, another is interested in environmental impacts, and yet another may be focused on health related outcomes such as cleaner air for their family. While messaging has been focused in the last several years on the development of the Climate Action Plan, the messaging team is now turning to branding the implementation plan. Implementation will include more targeted and focused messages on specific actions people can take to help the community reach its goals for 2020 and beyond. Many of these actions build upon the things residents and businesses are already doing, such as engaging in City rebate programs, practicing conservation, using energy 2 Packet Pg. 17 August 30, 2016 Page 2 and water efficiently, utilizing our great public transit systems and recycling to minimize waste. It is these types of actions that reduce operating costs, utility bills, provide increased comfort in homes and where we work, and these actions also benefit the 2020 goals. Until a formal branding effort can be developed, the City has developed the slogan “Road to 2020: Forging an Efficient Future.” This messaging is designed and intended to be more inclusive in an effort reach a broader group of residents and businesses. The messaging team will also engage the public to get feedback on messaging to further develop messages that resonate with people and their neighbors and connects them to opportunities to get involved. This engagement has already begun during the August 24th event at the Lincoln Center with Former Governor Bill Ritter, Mayor Wade Troxell, and City Manager Darin Atteberry. In addition, staff is meeting with the project’s Community Advisory Committee whose members bring a triple bottom line perspective to this work, as well numerous boards, commissions, and stakeholder groups in the coming months to refine this branding. Beyond the community engagement, when staff was conducting the research associated with how other communities fund their climate-related work (more information below), staff also asked these communities how they brand their efforts. Of the fourteen communities, 6 use the phrase “Climate Action Plan.” Other names include Community Climate Action Plan, Climate Protection Plan, Sustainability Management Plan, and Environmental Action Plan (see Attachment 2 for a full list of communities and name selected). The outcome of branding discussions with the community and final branding is anticipated to be shared with Council and the community during the February 28, 2017 Work Session. Road to 2020 and Initiative Vetting. At the March 2016 Work Session related to the Road to 2020 (see Attachment 1), staff presented Council with 31 initiatives in five strategy areas that had been initially modeled to create an initial roadmap to the 2020 goals, see the table below. Strategy Area Estimated 2020 Impact Example Initiatives Benefits to Residents, Families and Businesses Energy Efficiency 50% Energy Efficiency in Businesses and Homes Increased comfort, lower home and business utility bills, decreased environmental impact; green energy jobs Road to Zero Waste 25% Community Recycling Ordinance, Municipal Biomass Burner Reduced waste, better utilization of materials consumed Clean Energy 19% Community Solar Gardens, Rooftop Solar Incentives Allows all residents to access clean energy, regardless of ownership status; lower home and business utility bills; stable long-term pricing for businesses and residents; green energy jobs Multi-modal Transportation and Development 13% Bicycle Network and Ridership Improvements, Transit System Expansion Improved health, increased sense of safety while choosing cleaner transportation options; supports all residents access to healthy and sustainable lifestyles, including underserved populations and all ages August 30, 2016 Page 3 Impact indicated the 31 initiatives could surpass the 2020 goals Since this Work Session, all 31 initiatives have undergone or will undergo a thorough modeling and vetting process by the end of 2016 to inform decision-making, prioritization and financing options for specific projects and programs. Teams initially complete an analysis of their initiative in a template, and then the Finance Mechanisms committee meets to review assumptions and calculations for completeness and reasonability. Based on their assessment, they will come to consensus and provide a confidence grade (High/Medium/Low) based on the following considerations: Confidence Grade Grade Definition High Substantial vetting; contains detailed breakdown of all major costs and benefits, with clear links on what drives benefits. Includes consideration to sensitivity of key variables over time. Can be validated vs. external benchmarks. Medium Moderate vetting; contains reasonable detail on breakdown of major costs and benefits. Justifies linkage and scale of benefits. Substantiated with internal data. Low First pass vetting; includes required data, but can be issued a low rating due to insufficient detail on the breakdown of one or more major costs or benefits, poor linkage between cost and benefit, or oversimplified assumptions (such as flat costs in perpetuity). The vetting process is iterative. After the first review and grading, each initiative template will be returned to the working group with specific feedback. Once this feedback is addressed, the initiative can be revised and reviewed again to increase the assessed confidence level. For each initiative, the template will include details on project information, costs, and benefits:  Project Information o Definition o Objectives o Deliverables o Value Proposition o Alternatives Analysis o Keys to Success o Pilot/Proof of Concept o Market and Policy Analysis  Annual Costs (to the Administrator, e.g., the City, and the Participants, e.g., the Private Sector) o Overhead Costs o Incentive Costs o Installation Costs o Maintenance Costs  Annual Benefits (to the Administrator, e.g., the City, and the Participants, e.g., the Private Sector) o Reduction in Carbon Emissions by Resource Type o Resource Cost Savings o Savings in Carbon Emission Costs For common assumptions that are used across many initiatives (i.e., forecasted electric rates, population growth), a list of core variables is included and will automatically populate. This ensures consistency in individual initiative estimates and projections. 2 Packet Pg. 19 August 30, 2016 Page 4 Based on above inputs, the template then automatically aggregates costs and benefits, discounts to present values, and calculates the cost/benefit ratio and cost per GHG. Once initiative vetting is complete, all of the initiatives will be combined into the model and scenarios will be run to assess the most cost effective pathway to 2020. These pathways will be presented to City Council at the February 28, 2017 Work Session. Specific examples, and the associated benefits that these initiatives provide to families and small businesses, will be highlighted during the Work Session presentation. Alignment with the Budget Process The Road to 2020 strategic plan identifies strategies to reach the 2020 goals, and, in many cases, the identified programs and services have been in place for decades. As the City has a long history of ensuring its core community services are sustainable, many of those programs and services are aligned with the climate action goals originally established in 1999. Through the 2017-2018 biennial budget process, 60 budget offers in the City Manager’s Recommended Budget (equaling $161.3 million) are tied to the City’s Strategic Plan objective of reducing emissions. A majority of the offers ($157.7 million, or 97.8 percent of the total costs) are existing core services or enhancements associated with those services. Only $3 million of offers in the recommended budget are new requests or are scaling up existing services to meet the community goals. Here is the full breakdown of the budget offers that impact the 2020 goals, which will be considered by City Council this fall:  $157.7 million (97.8 percent) to provide existing core City services that also benefit the goals. Examples include the power the City purchases from Platte River Power Authority and the City’s FC Moves and Transfort Bus Services that advance multi-modal transportation options, such as bicycle commuting and mass transportation.  $2.2 million (1.3 percent) to scale up existing programs toward goals, such as energy efficiency and community solar programs.  $800,000 (0.5 percent) to fund new programs to directly impact the goals, such as a pilot program to leverage private sector investment in innovative approaches, or support services such as community engagement and improved technology.  $600,000 (0.4 percent) to help the City organization to lead by example and achieve its own carbon reduction goals, which mirror the community goals. See Attachment 3 for specific offers and how they align with the 2017-2018 Recommended Budget. Staff is currently analyzing how the recommended budget does (or does not) put the City on track to reach the 2020 goals. For more information on the City’s budget process, go to fcgov.com/budget. The City Manager’s Recommended Budget will be available for public review beginning September 5. Example of Innovative Finance Mechanism to Support Energy Efficiency and Scalability Potential In addition to investments made through the City’s budget, the City recognizes that private sector investment, partnerships and innovative finance mechanisms will all play a role in helping to achieve the goals. The City is currently planning for the transition of the on-bill financing (known as HELP or Home Energy Loan Program) to private sector funding. Initiated in 2013, over 75 loans have been completed to date, used primarily for home efficiency upgrades and with a few solar and water projects. The energy loans, taken as a group, are estimated to be saving 10% of the carbon emissions of these homes. This equates to 1.2 tons avoided per household and 72 annual tons per year. The improvements are also providing utility bill savings, comfort improvements and health and safety benefits. The approved outstanding loan balance of $1.6M is expected to be met in the 4th quarter of 2016. As discussed with Council Finance Committee on August 15, staff is proposing to transition to a 3rd party loan model in partnership with Elevations Credit Union as quickly as possible. The logic for this transition is that meeting Energy Policy and carbon reduction goals is going to require unprecedented scale for the efficiency 2 Packet Pg. 20 August 30, 2016 Page 5 upgrades of Fort Collins building stock. This, in turn, will facilitate needed investment. Over the course of the next 15-25 years, there could be thousands of home efficiency upgrades and renewable energy systems. Assuming three to four thousand homes invested $10,000 (the average loan amount) over the next five years, this equates to $30-45M in investment. The current model of using Utilities reserve funds has reached the limits of its ability to seed fund the on-bill financing loan program. While the Utilities may be able to borrow additional funds and re-loan to customers under the current model, this approach would in turn put limits on potential borrowing for other Utilities capital needs. What the City has accomplished is the demonstration of interest and demand for home efficiency financing. This transition of the program to utilize 3rd party capital will allow for the scaling of the efficiency programs in alignment with the Energy Policy and Road to 2020 goals. This model can be utilized for the other climate-related initiatives as well, where the City can provide initial funding capital, develop and pilot a successful program, and then transition to 3rd party capital to achieve the scale necessary to meet the overall goals. Peer Cities Research During the public hearings regarding the funding of the various Road to 2020 initiatives, e.g., business energy efficiency incentives, Councilmembers requested additional information on how other communities are approaching the implementation of their carbon reduction goals. More specifically, the following questions were researched by staff:  Did other communities put their climate goals to a vote? If yes, what were the outcomes and how was it worded on the ballot?  How have other cities funded their climate work? Were new revenue sources created, e.g., taxes or fees, and if so, what was the source and scale of these funds? To answer these questions, staff interviewed and researched fourteen cities across the country. The cities were chosen for having plans that associated with their carbon reduction goals and possessing one or more of the following characteristics:  Listed as a national or statewide peer to the City to Fort Collins  Relative population size to Fort Collins  Presence of a university  Geographic dispersion with a focus on representing each geographic area of the country. Public Voting on Goals or Funding In general, very few cities have put either their goals or creation of funding sources to a public vote. While no Colorado communities put their goals to a vote, two communities have put funding of the implementation to a vote - Boulder and Carbondale. Boulder’s vote included a tax on light and power consumption assessed by kWh usage, which passed in 2005 and renewed in 2010 and 2015 for five year increments. The most recent renewal was passed with 82% of voters approving the continuation of the tax. This tax generates approximately $1.8M annually. Carbondale’s vote, using a similar structure, did not pass in April 2015. 61% of voters voted “no” on the tax. Nationally, Berkeley, California put their goals to a vote and the vote passed with an 81% approval. While staff is only aware of Boulder and Carbondale putting the funding of their climate work to a vote, two other places have votes on their ballots this cycle, e.g., San Diego has a 0.5% tax for 40 years focused on transportation funding specifically (not climate work as a whole) that will generate up to $18B over the lifecycle of the tax if approved. In addition to San Diego, the State of Washington will be voting on a revenue-neutral carbon tax in the November election; revenue neutral means that it is a tax assessed on energy producers and collected at the state level for energy produced above specific emission levels, with the potential to receive a corporate tax credit on emission reductions initiatives. 2 Packet Pg. 21 August 30, 2016 Page 6 During this research, staff became increasingly aware of this notion of funding climate work, either via a carbon tax or another revenue source, as an emerging trend. Notably, most of the carbon costing discussions are occurring at a statewide level and are focused on finding revenue-neutral solutions, similar to Washington’s ballot initiative. Attachment 4 includes a full report out of the 14 cities used in the study, as well as 3 additional cities and one state (Carbondale, CO; San Diego, CA; Seattle, WA; and the State of Washington) that have held a vote on either climate action goal approval or are in the process of creating a funding source or tax. Sources and Scale of Funding From speaking with the fourteen communities, staff found a variety of ways in which communities are funding their carbon reduction goals. In general, communities utilized general funds, enterprise funds, grants, public/private partnerships, and other taxes and fees to support their work. Three of these cities’ funding sources are highlighted below, and Attachment 5 lists the full breakdown of these cities and what the primary and secondary revenue sources are and what projects are funded from each source.  Kansas City, MO - this city leans heavily on grants, bonds, and partnerships with the private sector to fund a variety of sustainability-focused projects with co-benefits to core services such as stormwater, multi-modal transit, and bike infrastructure.  Boulder, CO - This is the only city that staff identified where voters approved a carbon tax assessed on light and power utility bills. This tax provides $1.8 million a year for climate action-related projects such as a city-administered grant program to businesses, a system-wide decarbonization strategy, and an expanded energy efficiency program for rental housing (around 50% of Boulder’s total housing stock).  Asheville, NC - Many of Asheville’s ongoing municipal climate action-related projects are funded through their “Green Revolving Fund” which generates approximately $400,000 annually from the cost savings associated with citywide LED streetlight replacement (similar to the City of Fort Collins’ Waste Innovation Fund). In addition, Asheville also dedicates a portion of their Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to a separate “Green CIP” which focuses on municipal energy efficiency, equipment replacement, and fuel switching for the municipal fleet. Next Steps In preparation for the February 27, 2017 Work Session, staff’s next steps are as follows:  Complete the vetting of the 31 initiatives, as indicated above, and compile these initiatives into scenarios to achieve the 2020 goals.  Develop and publish online a Road to 2020 Dashboard that tracks the City’s progress toward the goals.  Engage the community in the development of the branding discussion to identify which messages and phrases resonate most with the community and inspire action.  The City is also evaluating how it can achieve its own greenhouse gas reduction goals, with a similar focus on the 2020 goal to reduce municipal emissions 20% below 2005 by 2020. ATTACHMENTS 1. March 10, 2016 Work Session Summary (PDF) 2. Peer Cities Research - Branding of Climate-Related Work by Cities (PDF) 3. Road to 2020 - Budget Alignment (PDF) 4. Peer Cities Research - Voting Associated with Climate-Related Efforts (PDF) 5. Peer Cities Research - Funding Associated with Climate-Related Efforts (PDF) 6. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 22 ATTACHMENT 1 2.1 Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: March 10, 2016 Work Session Summary (4783 : Climate Action Plan Progress) 2.1 Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: March 10, 2016 Work Session Summary (4783 : Climate Action Plan Progress) Climate Action Branding by City City Program Name Change in Name? Rationale for name? Ann Arbor, MI CAP N Desire to combat climate action "head on" Asheville, NC Sustainability Management Plan N More focus on the local level, not too much focus on the broader climate Aspen, CO Canary Initiative N Be the "Canary in the Coal Mine" for climate action Austin, TX Community Climate Action Plan N Highlight everyday actions that citizens can do to make Austin sustainable. Highlights a partnership between the City and its residents Berkeley, CA Climate Action Plan and Resiliency Plan N Name of old plan and plan name for the "100 Resilient Cities Initiative" Boulder, CO Boulder's Climate Commitment Y Name change allows for a broader focus on energy production, natural resources, and preserving urban, agricultural, and natural ecosystems Burlington, VT CAP N Most used name from US Compact of Mayors Denver, CO CAP N Plan named in conjunction with a locally-focused climate adaption plan. CAP is a broader document for the City Eugene, OR Climate Recovery Plan Y Pressure from environmental groups to focus more on the environmental aspects of climate action Kansas City, MO Climate Protection Plan Y Pressure from environmental groups to focus more on the environmental aspects of climate action Palo Alto, CA CAP N Currently in process of updating new Climate Action, have not discussed any changes Portland, OR CAP N 4th Climate related plan. Has moved from “Carbon Dioxide Reduction plan” to “Global Warming Action Plan” to “Climate Action Plan”. Desire to focus on the elements of action, adaption, and preparation. Santa Barbara, CA CAP N Most common name for plans used among member cities of the U.S. Compact of Mayors Tacoma, WA Environmental Action Plan N Focus locally on what Tacoma can do locally in terms of action ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Peer Cities Research - Branding of Climate-Related Work by Cities (4783 : Climate Action Overview: Where the money goes: Budget Offers: How do offers impact the goals? Existing Services - $157.7m The Road to 2020 is a series of goals and actions set in place to keep our City healthy, vibrant, and resilient now and far into the future. The goals will guide the community toward a future that promotes economic, social and environmental health. We want to grow an efﬁcient economy that creates jobs and sparks innovation! Working toward our goals is about more than greenhouse gases; it’s also about saving money, reducing air pollution and creating/maintaining a safer and livable community long-term. These are just some of the programs that are being considered 16-2058 Auxiliary aids and services are available for persons with disabilities. 1 offers - $380k Example: Pilot Projects and Innovation Fund ($380K) 6 offers - $450K Examples: City Energy Project Matching Funds ($50k) or Travel Behavior Survey ($100K) 5 offers - $2.1M Examples: Energy Services ($950K) or Community Solar ($250K) 14 offers related to these goals 2 offers - $150K Examples: 0.5 FTE Road to Zero Waste Support ($47K) or 1.0 FTE Energy Services Energy ($100K) DRIVEN Brand new or something we would not have done without the goals ACCELERATED Scaling up existing programs and/or doing something differently because of the goals MOTIVATION IMPACT 97.8% 0.5% 1.3% 0.4% Scaling Up Existing Programs - $2.2m City Internal Improvements Toward Goals - $600k New Programs Toward Goals - $800k DIRECT Offer directly and quantiﬁably reduces GHG ENABLING ENERGY EFFICIENCY Some strategies with key budget offers that are under consideration: MISSION: Advance mechanisms of energy efﬁciency retroﬁts to the entire existing building stock that are effective, safe & affordable. 26.17 City Energy Project-Matching Funds for Fort Collins Participation • Leverage City investments with matching philantropic dollars to expand & build upon existing Energy Efﬁciency programs 6.76 Light and Power Energy Services • Accelerate existing programs to improve comfort & decrease cost • Leverage City investments by 3-5 times & support local economy KEY OFFERS BENEFITS/EXPECTED OUTCOMES TRANSPORTATION MISSION: Optimize transportation by planning, designing, & developing to reduce dependency on single occupancy, fossil-fuel vehicles while improving trafﬁc ﬂow & reducing polution. ROAD TO ZERO WASTE MISSION: Develop viable solutions to reduce, divert, recycle, & compost the community’s waste & the beneﬁcial use of its byproducts. 26.11 Road to Zero Waste Program Support • Leadership in regional “wasteshed” planning • Exploration of waste-to-energy technology of it KEY OFFERS BENEFITS/EXPECTED OUTCOMES INNOVATION MISSION: Engaging our community & demonstrate the effectiveness of speciﬁc innovations in order to achieve the 2020 goals, create economic opportunities & build new partnerships. 26.8 Pilot Projects and Innovation Fund • Engages private, academic & public sector to innovate around technical, social, policy & ﬁnancial solutions to achieve the 2020 goals KEY OFFERS BENEFITS/EXPECTED OUTCOMES 3.7 Low Stress Bike Route Design Construction • Increase bike commuting, safety and conﬁdence of cyclists • Reduce the vehicle miles traveled & air pollution 3.23 Travel Behavior Survey • Optimize tracking of vehicle miles traveled to best understand which transportation investments have the most impact KEY OFFERS BENEFITS/EXPECTED OUTCOMES CLEAN ENERGY MISSION: Foster rapid adoption of alternative & clean sources of energy including solar projects & promotion of other alternative energy sources such as geothermal, combined heat & power, etc. 5.26 Electric Distributed Battery Pilot Program • Explore utility-scale energy storage & logistics of adding storage • Balance reliability with transition to cleaner energy sources 6.79 Renewable Non-residential Solar Rebates • Increases upfront rebates for midsize non- residential solar systems, thus increasing customer choices 6.80 Renewable Community Solar Rebates • Encourage participation in community solar projects • Provide an economical alternative to rooftop solar KEY OFFERS BENEFITS/EXPECTED OUTCOMES 2 Communities and Voting for Climate-related Work City Public Vote Explored Public Vote Taken? Funding Attached to Vote? Vote Passed? Ann Arbor, MI N N N Approved by City Council Asheville, NC N N N Approved by City Council Aspen, CO N N N Approved by City Council Austin, TX N N N Approved by City Council Berkeley, CA Y Y N Y, 82% approval (Measure M) Boulder, CO Y Y Y, assessed on light and power utility usage  $0.0049/kWh for residential accounts  $0.0009/kWh for commercial accounts  $0.0003/kWh for industrial accounts Y, 81% approval (Initiative 202)  Average cost per capita is $8-$11/ year  Generates ~$1.8M/year Burlington, VT N N N Approved by City Council Carbondale, CO Y Y Y, assessed on light and power utility usage  $0.008 per kWh for residential light and power  $0.035 per therm for residential of natural gas  $0.0029 for commercial accounts light and power  $$0.02 per therm for commercial natural gas N, concerns that the tax would put additional burden on low income households and was an extra burden on all ratepayers  Average cost per capita ~$60- 84/year residential and ~$120- 360/year commercial  Estimated to generate $350K/year Denver, CO N N N Approved by the mayor’s office Eugene, OR* Y* N N Approved by City Council Kansas City, MO N N N Approved by City Council Palo Alto, CA N N N Approved by City Council Portland, OR* Y* N N Approved by City Council San Diego, CA Y Pending Y, 0.5% sales tax increase for 40 years for $18 Billion in transportation projects Will vote November, 2016 Santa Barbara, CA N N N Approved by City Council Seattle, WA* Y Pending Y, both public transit funding and statewide carbon tax on the November ballot Will vote November, 2016 State of Washington Y Pending N, Revenue neutral tax Will vote November, 2016 Tacoma, WA* Y Pending N, Revenue neutral tax (Statewide) Will vote November, 2016 (Initiative-732) *Vote explored is a state-wide carbon neutral tax ATTACHMENT 4 2.4 Packet Pg. 28 Communities and Funding for Climate-related Work (Dollar amount listed when available. Self-reported data) City Primary Revenue Source(s) Major Programs Funded Secondary Revenue Source(s) Other Programs Funded Ann Arbor, MI General Fund Revenue, grants, and PACE financing  Energy efficiency rebates  Increasing availability of renewable power Asheville, NC Green Revolving Fund ($400K/year)  Energy efficiency rebates  Fleet conversion to CNG and more efficient fuel sources  Residential solid waste program  Support for low-income populations through expanded local agriculture  Community solar program  Grants  Green Capital Improvement Program or CIP (~$1M/year)  Commercial energy efficiency rebates  Green Infrastructure projects  LED Replacement  Improved composting equipment Aspen, CO Mix between general fund, enterprise fund and the Renewable Energy Management Program (~$13M/year split between Aspen and Pitkin County)  Electric vehicle program expansion  REC purchases  Expanded transit networks  Commercial green building program  Grants  Landfill enterprise fund revenues (follow-up)  City composting and recycling program  Commercial energy efficiency programs  Energy efficiency rebates Austin, TX Grants and Enterprise Fund revenues (one DOE grant provides $2.5M/year)  Energy efficiency rebates  Public outreach  REC purchases  Expanded bike infrastructure City Primary Revenue Source(s) Major Programs Funded Secondary Revenue Source(s) Other Programs Funded Burlington, VT Light and Power Enterprise Fund  Energy efficiency rebates  On-bill financing  Grants  Renewable Energy creation (biomass burning)  Regional transportation networks Denver, CO Environmental Health Enterprise Fund (~$7-9M/year)  Energy efficiency rebates  Urban agriculture  EV fleet conversions  TIF District creation (~$380K/year)  Private sector partnerships  PACE financing  Grants (ARRA)  Green infrastructure Eugene, OR Grants  Expansion of multi-modal transit  Energy efficiency rebates  REC purchases  Complete streets pilot programs  Transportation and multi-modal transit (including low-stress bike lanes)  Private sector partnerships  Partnership with the Oregon energy trust  Green building incentives  Energy efficient affordable housing projects Kansas City, MO Grants and city capital operating funds ($14.3M/year, $30.6 per capita)  Energy efficiency rebates  Municipal facility energy efficiency upgrades  Green infrastructure  Community gardens  Outreach to low-income populations through bus expansion, infrastructure and urban agriculture  GO Bonds ($200M/year for projects with co-benefits to climate action)  TDD District creation ($20M+)  PACE Financing  Private sector partnerships ($30- 1 Road to 2020: Forging our Efficient Future Jeff Mihelich, Mike Beckstead, Lindsay Ex August 30, 2016 ATTACHMENT 6 2.6 Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4783 : Climate Action Plan Progress) Questions for City Council 1. Does Council have feedback on the branding process? 2. Does the outline for the February Work Session meet Council’s expectations? 2 2.6 Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4783 : Climate Action Plan Progress) Outline • Branding – Road to 2020 • Road to 2020 • Budget Alignment • Initiative Vetting • Funding Energy Efficiency and Scaling Up • Research on Funding Climate-related Work • Next Steps 3 2.6 Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4783 : Climate Action Plan Progress) Transitioning CAP 4 2.6 Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4783 : Climate Action Plan Progress) Bridging Language ROAD paints the picture that this is a journey we are on together, while 2020 keeps our next goal in sight. FORGING is an actionable word that depicts building something and feels like unchartered territory. OUR reminds us that this is for our community here in Fort Collins. EFFICIENT covers all things from energy consumption to waste management and economic spending. FUTURE reinforces that this is long-term planning, that Fort Collins is forward- thinking and that the efforts made will impact us today and tomorrow. 5 2.6 Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4783 : Climate Action Plan Progress) Community Engagement 6 • August 4 (& Sept 29) – Community Advisory Committee • August 5 – Planning and Zoning Board • August 24 – Lincoln Center Event with Former Gov. Ritter • August 25 – Energy Board Work Session • August 30 – City Council Work Session • Additional Boards, Stakeholder Groups TBD 2.6 Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4783 : Climate Action Plan Progress) Actions to Outcomes 7 2.6 Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4783 : Climate Action Plan Progress) 8 Road to 2020: Budget Alignment • 90 Offers – $161M (2017) § Most are core services (98%) § Remaining 2% or $3.6M § $2.2M – Scaling Up Existing Programs (5 offers) § $800K – New Programs (7 offers) § $600K – Internal City Improvements to Lead by Example (3 offers) 2.6 Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4783 : Climate Action Plan Progress) Iterative Process 9 2.6 Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4783 : Climate Action Plan Progress) Initiative Vetting 10 Template Submission Finance Feedback Revisions Finance Mechanisms Grading Model Aggregates Data • One model houses all initiative data • Costs • Benefits • Cost Effectiveness • Project Information • In Process – co-benefits, e.g., ozone • Iterative vetting process refines assumptions • Core variables • Teams enter assumptions • Finance mechanisms team assesses confidence level 2.6 Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4783 : Climate Action Plan Progress) Initiative: Bicycle Network 11 Improve bicycling conditions & increase bike ridership to 10% • Low stress network • Reduction in Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) drives GHG reduction • Aligned with community culture • Requires consistent participation for GHG benefit $6M infrastructure costs No required 3rd party investment Modest ROI Improves health and air quality Moderate carbon reductions Participants save $15/Month on their fuel costs 2.6 Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4783 : Climate Action Plan Progress) Initiative: Community Solar 12 Provides incentive for community solar projects • Clean power option for residents beyond rooftop solar • Significant community interest • Leverages municipal investment • Clear and automatic GHG benefit $1M incentive costs $2.6M 3rd party investment Balanced ROI Benefits families Moderate carbon reductions Participants save $28/Month on their utility bills 2.6 Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4783 : Climate Action Plan Progress) Long-Term Funding Strategies 13 Funding Options: • City Debt/Cash • Utility Rates/Debt • Taxes/Fees • Public Private Partnerships • Private Debt & Grants City Bonds City Green Bonds Establish Green Bank Considerations: • Funding follows the Project • Projects need positive cash flow to support investment • Project Maturity & Vetting • City Debt & Rate Capacity • Peer Cities Research • Examples: • On-Bill Financing 2.6 Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4783 : Climate Action Plan Progress) On-Bill Financing: How It Works Loans for residential efficiency upgrades: 1. Audit identifies opportunities 2. Homeowner/contractors define scope 3. Utilities qualifies project 4. 3rd party qualifies customer for loan 5. Project complete, loan closed 6. Paid thru utilities bill 7. Utilities maintains loan/absorbs loan losses 14 2.6 Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4783 : Climate Action Plan Progress) On-Bill Financing: Results 15 • Currently $1.6M funding approved • Energy Efficiency is an important initiative within overall energy goals • Will require significant capital to achieve goals • 3,000 homes @ $12k per loan = $36M • Beyond the capacity of the City • Staff issued RFP to solicit 3rd party capital to allow program to scale up as needed 2.6 Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4783 : Climate Action Plan Progress) On-Bill Financing: Elevations Example Elevations Credit Union Provides 3rd Party Capital and: • Provides loan/closing support • Sets interest rate (2.75% to 9.125%) • Reduces fees • Loan service TBD - Utility bill or Elevations • No loan default risk to the City • Project eligibility process remains the same 16 Example - City Provides Initial Funding Capital, Develops a Successful Program and then Transitions to 3rd Party Capital to Achieve Scale 2.6 Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4783 : Climate Action Plan Progress) Peer Cities Research 17 Palo Alto 80% by 2030 Asheville 2% annual reduction 80% by 2050 Boulder 20% by 2020 43.5% by 2030 81% by 2050 Fort Collins: 20% by 2020 80% by 2030 Carbon neutral by 2050 Kansas City 30% by 2020 80% by 2050 Austin 40% by 2030 Carbon neutral by 2050 Smaller Similar Population Larger Denver 80% by 2050 Aspen 30% by 2020 80% by 2050 2.6 Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4783 : Climate Action Plan Progress) Peer Research: Public Voting 18 Public Votes Already Occurred • Goals: • Berkeley (passed, 81%) • Funding: • Boulder (passed, 82%) - Tax on light and power consumption, ~$1.8M annually • Carbondale (failed, 61%) - Electricity and gas surcharge, about $350K would have been generated annually Public Votes Pending (Nov. Ballot) • Goals: N/A • Funding: • San Diego - 0.5% tax for 40 years, up to $18B generated for transportation projects • State of Washington - Revenue neutral tax assessed at the state level (credits for emission reduction initiatives) 2.6 Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4783 : Climate Action Plan Progress) Peer Research: Financing Mechanisms Funding Source City Taxes, Fees, and Credits (i.e. carbon tax) Enterprise Fund Revenue Pooled Entity Resources (i.e. PACE financing) Special District Funding (i.e. TIF Districts) Grant Funds Bonds Asheville, NC Aspen, CO Austin, TX Boulder, CO Denver, CO Kansas City, MO Palo Alto, CA = Primary revenue source (if applicable) = Other revenue sources 19 2.6 Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4783 : Climate Action Plan Progress) Peer Cities Research – Considerations for Fort Collins • Kansas City, MO • Boulder, CO • Asheville, NC 20 2.6 Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4783 : Climate Action Plan Progress) Next Steps • Innovate FC Competition – Sept 28 • February 2016 Work Session: • Full vetting of all 31 initiatives and scenarios to 2020 developed • Road to 2020 Dashboard • Outcome of branding process 21 2.6 Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4783 : Climate Action Plan Progress) Questions for City Council 22 1. Does Council have feedback on the branding process? 2. Does the outline for the February Work Session meet Council’s expectations? 2.6 Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4783 : Climate Action Plan Progress) 23 Road to 2020: Forging our Efficient Future Jeff Mihelich, Mike Beckstead, Lindsay Ex August 30, 2016 2.6 Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4783 : Climate Action Plan Progress) DATE: STAFF: August 30, 2016 Martina Wilkinson, Civil Engineer Laurie Kadrich, Director of PDT Mark Jackson, PDT Deputy Director Joe Olson, City Traffic Engineer WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Managing Traffic Congestion in Fort Collins. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to review historic and current traffic congestion in Fort Collins and discuss policies, efforts and plans in place intended to mitigate and manage congestion. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does Council have feedback on the approach to congestion in Fort Collins? 2. Are there additional strategies that Council would like to see considered? 3. Is there additional information that Council like to see regarding congestion management? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Bottom Line Traffic congestion is a challenging and complicated issue that results in driver frustration as well as economic, safety, emissions, and quality of life issues. According to the latest Citizen Survey, it is one of two top concerns among city residents. The City has implemented a new data collection system to measure and monitor congestion citywide in real time. Staff utilizes a number of strategies to address congestion. In the short term this includes active management of the signal system, and various operational strategies. Targeted capacity projects also result in significant improvements. In the longer term, the City supports cultural and programmatic efforts such as alternative modes, travel demand programs and land use planning to reduce vehicle-miles traveled. All these efforts support the interests of the Climate Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions stemming from the transportation system. There is no single solution to the issue of congestion, but rather a multitude of approaches and efforts are needed to manage and mitigate to the degree possible. Context According to the 2015 Citizen Survey, “Ease of Driving” and “Traffic Congestion” are two of only a handful of areas (affordable housing and parking downtown are others) where the City rates “Much Lower” when compared to other benchmark cities. Traffic and transportation is noted as the “top priority” for residents in the survey. Impacts of Congestion Traffic congestion has many impacts on quality of life including:  Motorist Frustration - congestion makes the overall driving experience more difficult and can lead to aggravation or road rage.  Excess Vehicle Emissions - more stopping, starting, idling etc., increases pollution and greenhouse gases generated by motor vehicles. 3 Packet Pg. 54 August 30, 2016 Page 2  Neighborhood Livability - congested arterial roadways can result in motorists utilizing short cuts through neighborhoods.  Economic Impacts - travel time reliability is very important to business, and lost productivity related to traffic delays is also impactful.  Safety - Increased congestion tends to increase crash risk. Defining and Categorizing Congestion Congestion is understood from a common sense perspective by motorists as increased travel time. From a more technical standpoint, congestion is also measured as total delay in a corridor which is calculated by taking each vehicle’s delay and multiplying that by the total volume on the roadway. While the first measure reflects a driver’s experience, the second measure correlates to corridor operations, fuel consumption and emissions. Both are important. Traffic congestion can be divided into two main types: recurring/typical congestion and non-recurring/unexpected congestion. Recurring congestion is the predictable congestion related to peak hour travel that occurs at the same times each day. It is primarily caused by high traffic volumes during peak times. In Fort Collins and other cities, recurring congestion manifests primarily at signalized intersections where the total volume of vehicles in one location of roadway is highest (because space is shared between multiple corridors). Traditional improvement strategies such as adding auxiliary lanes at intersections or adjusting signal timing are intended primarily to reduce recurring congestion. Non-recurring congestion is atypical congestion most often associated with traffic incidents (crashes), work zones, weather, special events, trains, etc. While it can occur anytime, it is often worst during peak hours when the non- recurring congestion aggravates the normal recurring congestion resulting in excessive and frustrating delays. Measuring Congestion Since 1991, traffic volumes on arterial streets in Fort Collins have increased about 46%. At the same time, population has increased by about 80%. Thus, the vehicle-miles traveled per capita have decreased over time. Despite that, traffic volumes measured earlier this year were the highest recorded since the City began keeping records in 1991. In the fourth quarter of 2014 the City deployed Bluetooth readers at major intersections capable of receiving anonymous signals from Bluetooth equipped devices carried by motorists. As motorists pass between devices the system can compute travel times on City arterials. Staff is using this data to monitor congestion throughout the City. Despite increased traffic volumes, overall travel times are lower (better) when comparing the 2nd quarter of 2016 to the same time period in 2015. There are many reasons for the improvement; two notable changes include the completion of the SH-14-Mulberry Bridge project and a reduction in train delays at Lemay/Riverside. Managing Traffic Congestion The City is utilizing numerous strategies to address congestion: Recent, Ongoing or Pending  The Traffic Operations Center staff monitors and manages traffic signal operations in real-time to help mitigate non-recurring congestion related to work zones, traffic incidents etc.  Traffic data is continually updated and background traffic signal timing plans are routinely adjusted to accommodate changing traffic patterns.  New “traffic responsive” signal timing system adjacent to railroad tracks and along North College that will automatically sense excessive train delays or truck impacts caused by the closure of I-80 during the winter and automatically implement new timing plans accordingly are in the process of being deployed. 3 Packet Pg. 55 August 30, 2016 Page 3  Variable message board pilot project is scheduled for this year and will advise motorists of train related delays.  The development review process requires a rigorous analysis of the transportation system in the area of proposed projects, and completion (when warranted) of infrastructure by applicants to mitigate their anticipated impacts.  Intersection capital improvement projects reduce delay and improve safety. For example, the Timberline/Horsetooth project completed in 2015 reduced delay by 32% at the intersection, resulting in a travel time reduction of 20-30 seconds per vehicle on the eastbound and southbound approaches (this equates to a reduction in total intersection delay of more than 100 hours every day). In 2016, the Shields/Drake and Timberline/Prospect capital projects are under construction.  Right turn lanes-in the past five years one or more right turn lanes have been added at 15 intersections in Fort Collins. Right turn lanes are somewhat easier and less costly to implement than left turn lanes (since they get added to the outside edge of the roadway). At locations with specifically heavy right turning movements, the addition of right turn lanes provides relief at intersection bottlenecks at a relatively low cost. Short Term  An adaptive signal system is proposed for the Harmony and Timberline corridors which will use new technologies that allow traffic signals to adjust automatically based on current traffic conditions.  Capital projects-staff uses a data-driven arterial intersection prioritization analysis to identify strategic locations for improvements. Funding through a variety of sources is sought for the highest priority locations. The intersection of College and Horsetooth is expected to be completed in the short term.  Traffic Incident Management (TIM) is a collaborative effort among staff and both local and regional Police/Fire to clear crashes more quickly  Regional partnerships and efforts-An example of this is the work to improve congestion on I-25. In addition to being the major access corridor to our city where travel time reliability is important for businesses and citizens, incidents on the interstate tend to create detour traffic that can cause significant additional traffic on the east side of the City. Cultural/Programmatic Another strategy for congestion mitigation is to reduce vehicle-miles traveled on the system. This generally consists of providing and encouraging alternatives to the single occupant vehicle. The City has a number of efforts that support this approach:  Increase mode shift to bicycling and walking. The adoption and ongoing implementation of the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plans, as well as the Safe Routes to Everywhere initiative is systematically building infrastructure that supports active transportation options. The City of Fort Collins has some of the highest mode split for bicycling in the nation, with the number of commuters using bicycles between 6 and 7%.  Increased Transit Ridership. Between the first half of 2015 and the first half of 2016, transit ridership has increased by 57% (1.4 million cumulative ridership compared to 2.2 million cumulative ridership).  Travel Demand Management (TDM). This strategy encompasses approaches that reduce and/or redistribute the demand on the system (such as carpooling efforts, support of flexible work hours and telecommuting).  Land Use Planning-City Plan recognizes that one of the potential benefits of increased density is to reduce both trips and trip lengths and encourage alternate modes of travel.  Information/Technology. The City is working on the implementation of FCTrips2.0-a next generation version of travel information from the City to road users. Work Zone Management The number of Work Area Traffic Control permits within the City has increased by 48% in the last five years with a record 2,505 permits in 2015. While roadwork results in improved conditions when complete, the impact during construction can be severe, and congestion related to work zones is at an all-time high. The following are strategies underway specifically to address construction congestion: 3 Packet Pg. 56 August 30, 2016 Page 4  Project planning/coordination to reduce multiple project conflicts/overlaps. Citywide coordination meetings in the spring, and ongoing area specific meeting are intended to minimize overlap where possible. For instance, the Prospect Road work this summer was originally scheduled for 2015, but delayed due to the Mulberry Bridge project  Formalize a City-administered lane closure policy to reduce impacts on heavily traveled corridors. This is a proactive approach to how/when to limit approval of lane closures-such as detailed guidelines to when night and/or weekend work is required in lieu of weekday work.  Implementation of a Lane Rental Policy that provides incentives/disincentives in construction contracts to reduce duration of lane or road closures. Long Term The timeline and ultimate impact on congestion from long term efforts are less defined than shorter term efforts, and the list of elements will undoubtedly change in coming years. Some of the areas that staff is tracking include:  Implement updated City Plan, Transportation Master Plan, and Transfort Strategic Plan. These plans set the stage for how transportation will be approached in coming years.  Connected vehicles and roadways. The potential to reduce collisions can provide a significant reduction in incident-related congestion.  Autonomous/Self Driving Vehicles. This technology has the potential to significantly increase capacity on our roadways by streamlining travel speeds, and reducing distance between vehicles. Other Congestion Considerations The discussion above has highlighted the numerous detailed opportunities to impact congestion. There are also several broader concepts to consider:  Can you build your way out of congestion? The likelihood of a community completely building its way out of congestion is remote. The financial, environmental, and community costs are likely too much to bear, and the resulting roadway system will not reflect the many other interests of our community. Staff’s approach is to focus on specific and strategic infrastructure improvements at key locations to help manage flow and address safety issues, and fully support non-infrastructure efforts (i.e., technology etc.).  Can traffic congestion be “solved” by limiting growth? Traffic congestion is a typical byproduct of a growing urban area. While certainly not on a par with major metropolitan urban areas such as Denver or Los Angeles, Fort Collins is not immune to increased congestion due to growth. The interrelationship between local land use, regional growth and resulting congestion is very complex. As a community grows and/or density is increased, the pressures on existing (and often constrained) systems also increase. However, if growth in Fort Collins is limited, then more and more of those who work in Fort Collins will travel greater distances from neighboring communities. This is reflected by the fact that Loveland and Greeley (less dense) have longer travel times to work than Fort Collins (by up to 24%), but Boulder (with strong growth boundaries) has significantly higher annual delay per capita than Fort Collins (by about 50%). The balance is delicate, and no single solution is available.  Is congestion always a bad thing? Common sense would dictate that congestion is by definition negative. In some instances however, congestion may not only be acceptable, but to some degree supported. US 287 (College Avenue) through downtown Fort Collins is a good example. In this area traffic flow is compromised in favor of a comfortable pedestrian environment and ease of parking. This approach helps downtown Fort Collins retain its unique character. 3 Packet Pg. 57 August 30, 2016 Page 5  Traffic Congestion and the Climate Action Plan Reducing mobile source emissions plays a large role in our Climate Action Plan (CAP). Many of the strategies discussed above also support the goals of the CAP. Conclusions Congestion is an understandably frustrating element of traveling to/from and within the City of Fort Collins. Although volumes are at their highest levels, measurement of travel time and calculated delays with a new citywide tool show that the various congestion management strategies can be effective. Staff will continue to prioritize understanding this very complex phenomenon as well as managing and minimizing congestion utilizing a multitude of approaches. ATTACHMENTS 1. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) 3 Packet Pg. 58 1 Traffic Congestion in Fort Collins Joe Olson, City Traffic Engineer Martina Wilkinson, Asst. City Traffic Engineer ATTACHMENT 1 3.1 Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4771 : Congestion in Fort Collins) Questions for Council 2 • Does Council have feedback on the approach to congestion in Fort Collins? • Are there additional strategies that Council would like to see considered? • Is there additional information that Council would like to see regarding congestion management? 3.1 Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4771 : Congestion in Fort Collins) What is Congestion? 3 • Travel Time – experience of motorists • Delay – travel time in excess of ‘free flow’ travel time – (Travel Time) x (Traffic Volume) = Total Delay – Correlates with fuel consumption, vehicle emissions, greenhouse gases 3.1 Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4771 : Congestion in Fort Collins) What is Congestion? 4 • Perceptions of congestion vary significantly • Fort Collins citizen survey Top 2 interests: – Affordable housing – Congestion City of Fort Collins, 2015 Citizen Survey 3.1 Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4771 : Congestion in Fort Collins) Impact of Congestion 5 • Driver Frustration • Vehicle Emissions – Impact on CAP goals • Quality of Live – Neighborhood cut-through • Economic - Travel time reliability • Safety – Increased crash risk 3.1 Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4771 : Congestion in Fort Collins) Types of Congestion 6 • Recurring Congestion – Predictable congestion during peak hours • Non-Recurring or Unexpected Congestion – Traffic incidents (crashes) – Work zones – Railroad blockages – Weather – Special events 3.1 Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4771 : Congestion in Fort Collins) Historical Vehicular Volumes 7 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Fort Collins Traffic Volume (1991 - 2016) Traffic Volume Trend 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Fort Collins Traffic Volume vs. Population Trend (1991 - 2016) Traffic Volume Trend Population 3.1 Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4771 : Congestion in Fort Collins) Measuring Congestion 8 • Bluetooth Data System – Anonymous – Real-time and Historical Data 3.1 Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4771 : Congestion in Fort Collins) Measuring Arterial Congestion 9 2016 Quarter 2 Data – PM peak hour (What Drivers Experience) (Measure of System Performance and Emissions) 1.94 2.08 2.35 2.39 2.46 2.48 2.52 2.56 2.61 2.63 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Travel Time / Mile (minutes) Ave. Travel Time by Corridor 10.6 17.0 17.8 19.6 21.5 22.0 22.8 25.1 31.2 35.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 Delay (Veh-Hours/Mile) Total Delay by Corridor 3.1 Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4771 : Congestion in Fort Collins) Trends (Q4 2014 – Q2 2016) 10 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60 2.70 2.80 Travel Time (minutes/mile) 0 10 20 30 40 Delay (veh.-hrs./mile) Harmony Horsetooth Drake Prospect College Corridor Travel Time Corridor Delay 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60 2.70 2.80 Travel Time (minutes/mile) 0 10 20 30 40 Delay (veh.-hrs./mile) Harmony Horsetooth Drake Prospect College 5% 6% Comparing Q2 2015–Q2 2016 3.1 Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4771 : Congestion in Fort Collins) Comparison to Other Cities 11 33.2 24.5 23.6 21.7 20.9 19.5 19.2 18.0 16.0 Wellington Denver Longmont Greeley Co Springs Fort Collins Boulder Pueblo Grand Junction Travel Time to Work (Minutes) 35.0 32.6 27.0 20.4 13.2 13.0 12.2 10.4 Denver Boulder Colorado Springs Fort Collins Longmont Greeley Pueblo Grand Junction Annual Delay per Capita (Hours) Source: U.S. Census Bureau Source: Texas Transportation Institute 2015 Urban Mobility Report 3.1 Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4771 : Congestion in Fort Collins) Reducing Congestion Recent, Ongoing and Pending Efforts 12 • Traffic Operations Center timing adjustments 3.1 Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4771 : Congestion in Fort Collins) Reducing Congestion Recent, Ongoing and Pending Efforts 13 • Incident management • Updated signal and corridor plans • Addressing railroad blockages – Lemay / Riverside: 83% reduction in blockage times • Capital Projects 3.1 Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4771 : Congestion in Fort Collins) Reducing Congestion Recent, Ongoing and Pending Efforts 14 • Right turn lanes – 16 locations in past five years 3.1 Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4771 : Congestion in Fort Collins) Reducing Congestion Short Term Efforts 15 • Adaptive Signal System (new technology) • Traffic Incident Management • Regional Partnerships – I-25 Source: Coloradoan 3.1 Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4771 : Congestion in Fort Collins) 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 Travel Time (minutes) Time of Day Horsetooth Lemay (W. Leg) to Timberline 11/17/2014 to 12/12/2014 Reducing Congestion Short Term Efforts 16 • Addressing bottlenecks – Arterial Intersection Prioritization Study (AIPS) – Intersection Capital Projects – Development Driven 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 Reducing Congestion Longer Term Efforts 17 • Cultural and Programmatic Efforts to Reduce Vehicle-Miles Traveled – Increased mode shift to bicycling and walking – Increased transit ridership – Travel Demand Management (TDM) programs – Land Use Planning – increased density to reduce trips and trip length – Technology 3.1 Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4771 : Congestion in Fort Collins) Work Areas and Construction 18 • Construction Planning/Coordination • Safety! • Lane Closure Strategy • Construction Lane Rentals 3.1 Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4771 : Congestion in Fort Collins) Looking to the Future 19 • Update of City Plan, Transportation Master Plan – Street classifications, multi-modal efforts, land use, density etc. • Vehicle safety measures • Connected and ultimately autonomous vehicles – Increases efficiency and roadway capacity 3.1 Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4771 : Congestion in Fort Collins) Other Considerations 20 • Can we build our way out of congestion? • Does limiting growth “solve” the challenge? • Meeting CAP goals depends on congestion reduction – 23% of potential GHG reduction in CAP is related to transportation 3.1 Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4771 : Congestion in Fort Collins) Conclusions 21 • Congestion is: – A complex phenomenon impacted by numerous things – Important to measure consistently and accurately • Managing congestion is: – Multi-faceted and requires immediate, short term and long term efforts – Something City staff is actively working on • The first Annual Congestion Report in 2017 3.1 Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4771 : Congestion in Fort Collins) Questions for Council 22 • Does Council have feedback on the approach to congestion in Fort Collins? • Are there additional strategies that Council would like to see considered? • Is there additional information that Council would like to see regarding congestion management? 3.1 Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4771 : Congestion in Fort Collins) 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 Travel Time (minutes) Time of Day Horsetooth Lemay (W. Leg) to Timberline 11/17/2014 to 12/12/2014 11/16/2015 to 12/11/2015 Horsetooth/Timberline: Delay: 32% reduction Saves 105 hours / day No change in volumes before/after 3.1 Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4771 : Congestion in Fort Collins) $50M)  Utility pass-throughs ($100K/year)  Stormwater system overhaul  Bike infrastructure  Bike share program  Multi-modal transit (KC Streetcar)  ROI buy-down program  Transit-oriented development Palo Alto, CA Mix between general fund, enterprise fund and secondary sources  Community solar program  Natural gas offset purchases  Water system infrastructure, education, and incentives  Anaerobic digester facility  EV and CNG fleet conversion  Multi-modal transportation  Urban food systems  Green energy tariffs ($100K/year)  PACE financing  Grants  On-bill financing  Feed-in-energy tariffs  REC purchases  Energy efficiency rebates Portland, OR Enterprise Fund Revenues, general fund dollars, and grants  Green Infrastructure  LED light installation  Solar programs  Creating non-profit spin-off groups  REC Purchases  Local Improvement Districts  Grants  Partnership with the Oregon energy trust  Home weatherization programs  Energy efficiency rebate programs Santa Barbara, CA Grants  Climate Action Planning  Scientific research consultations  Energy efficiency rebates  Municipal facility upgrades Tacoma, WA Enterprise Fund Revenue  REC purchases  Outreach to low-income populations  Energy efficiency rebates  General fund dollars  Grants  Increased availability of renewable power 2.5 Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Peer Cities Research - Funding Associated with Climate-Related Efforts (4783 : Climate  Green Infrastructure  PACE financing  Private sector partnerships  GO Bonds  Green building certification fees  Energy efficiency rebates  Warehouse to Energy Efficiency Loans  Green building program and design workshops Berkeley, CA Mix between general fund, enterprise fund, CIP funds and secondary sources  Energy efficiency rebates  Buy local programming  Commercial recycling program  Commercial electric vehicle program  Zero waste initiatives  Fuel switching program for municipal fleet  Green infrastructure projects  Greywater incentives  Community engagement  Composting programs  Bike share program  GO bonds  PACE financing  Grants (Among others, the 100 resilient cities initiative provides around $1M for resiliency planning, staff, and resource support.)  Green Energy Building fees  Green business certification program  Resiliency planning  Green infrastructure/building  Support for low income energy efficiency programs  Community solar program  LED streetlights  EV infrastructure Boulder, CO Carbon Tax ($1.8M a year)  Energy efficiency rebates  System-wide decarbonization strategy  Natural gas replacement  Public engagement  Boulder Energy Challenge grants  Energy smart advisor program  SmartRegs program for rental housing  Local carbon offset fund  GO bonds  Grants (one grant provides ~$1M/year for resiliency work)  Resiliency planning  Municipal energy efficiency upgrades ATTACHMENT 5 2.5 Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Peer Cities Research - Funding Associated with Climate-Related Efforts (4783 : Climate Attachment: Peer Cities Research - Voting Associated with Climate-Related Efforts (4783 : Climate Action Offer does not directly reduce emissions, but supports that effort 2020 Road to 2020 BUDGET ALIGNMENT Forging Our Efﬁcient Future through the Budgeting for Outcome process; a majority of the programs that are being considered in the budget process are existing programs that are being scaled up or are offers that are not driven or accelerated by these goals, yet beneﬁt them. ATTACHMENT 3 2.3 Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Road to 2020 - Budget Alignment (4783 : Climate Action Plan Progress) Water and Land Use 2% Carbon Sequestration (storage of carbon) in open lands and in urban forests Open lands and forested urban environment improves air quality and sense of place Estimated 2020 109% Initial Modeling 2 Packet Pg. 18