The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 08/25/2015 - TIMING OF COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTSDATE: STAFF: August 25, 2015 Ginny Sawyer, Policy and Project Manager Darin Atteberry, City Manager WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Timing of Community Improvement Program Projects. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to discuss and confirm project timing for projects approved in April 2015 as part of the ¼-cent Community Improvement Program (BOB 2.0). The Program includes 17 funds and projects to be implemented between 2016 and 2025. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does Council support one of the two timing scenarios provided? (A or B) 2. If not, what adjustments would Council like see? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION After an 18-month community conversation and ballot referral by Council, in April 2015 voters approved a 10- year, ¼-cent sales tax for specific community improvements (Attachments 1 and 2). All projects/funds are very specifically identified in the ballot language and in the associated ordinance. However, the timing of the projects is not defined. Staff has worked on numerous timing scenarios taking into account community needs and desires, project readiness, leveraging opportunities, and program effectiveness. This work and associated discussions have led to the two scenarios presented (Attachment 3). Scenario Similarities The following Project/Funds are identical in each scenario:  Affordable Housing Fund  Arterial Intersection Improvements  Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements  Bike/Ped Grad Separated Crossing Fund  Bus Stop Improvements  Carnegie Renovations  City Park Train  Club Tico Renovations  Lincoln Avenue Bridge  Linden Street Renovation  Nature in the City  Pedestrian Sidewalk/ADA Compliance  Southeast Community Center  Transfort Bus Fleet Replacement  Willow Street Improvements August 25, 2015 Page 2 The timing and amounts for the Projects/Funds above were determined based on known funding and grant cycles and efforts to maintain consistent and predictable programs. Staff involved in these projects were consulted in developing these scenarios. Scenario Differences Both scenarios have the Lincoln Bridge funded in the first two years (2016-2017). Scenario A achieves this by funding the Downtown Poudre River Enhancements in year 3 (2018). Scenario B achieves Lincoln Bridge in the first two years and also funds the Downtown River Enhancements in year two (2017). Scenario B is accomplished by utilizing Building Community Choices (BCC) funds to cover the $1.3 M shortfall created by doing both projects in the first two years. If Council chooses to repay these funds in full from the Community Improvement quarter- cent the pay back can be complete in year four (2019). The other difference in scenarios is the timing of the Visitors’ Center at the Gardens on Spring Creek. In scenario A this project is scheduled in year two (2017). In scenario B it occurs in year three (2018). Other Considerations Staff tried numerous scenarios before finalizing the two presented. Considerations and findings include:  The Southeast Community Center is difficult to get any earlier due to the cost. A previous scenario was able to fund this in 2021-2022 although it required putting the Lincoln Bridge in year ten.  Earlier scenarios also attempted to get more projects by adjusting funds. These scenarios had funds very heavily weighted in the out years, which was problematic from both a programmatic stand point as well as a capacity standpoint.  Staff considered advancing the full cost of the Lincoln Bridge and repaying through 2025. This scenario did not move the Community Center although it did allow Willow to move into year 2017, versus years 2018/19 as represented in Scenarios A and B. The interest on this payback is over $1M. ATTACHMENTS 1. Projects and Amounts (PDF) 2. Resolution 2015-019 (PDF) 3. Scenarios A and B (PDF) 4. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS AND COSTS Project Project Cost 1 Affordable Housing Fund $ 4M 2 Arterial Intersection Improvements $ 6M 3 Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements $ 5M 4 Bike/Ped Grade Separated Crossing Fund $ 6M 5 Bus Stop Improvements $ 1M 6 Carnegie Bldg Renovation $ 1M 7 City Park Train $ 350 K 8 Club Tico Renovation $ 250 K 9 Downtown Poudre River Enhancements – Whitewater Park $ 4M 10 Lincoln Ave. Bridge $ 5.3M 11 Linden St. Renovation $ 3M 12 Nature in the City $ 3M 13 Pedestrian Sidewalk / ADA-Compliance $ 14M 14 SE Community Center w. Pool $ 14M 15 Gardens on Spring Creek Visitor's Center $ 2M 16 Transfort Bus Fleet Replacement $ 2M 17 Willow Street Improvements $ 3.5M ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 2 KϮ͘Ϭ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽ ŶŶƵĂů/ŶĨůĂƚŝŽŶZĂƚĞ ϯ͘ϬϬй Ͳ/ŶĨůĂƚŝŽŶĂĚĚĞĚƚŽWƌŽũĞĐƚ ^ĂůĞƐdĂǆ'ƌŽǁƚŚZĂƚĞ Ϯ͘ϲϬй WƌŽũĞĐƚ ϮϬϭϱ WƌŽũĞĐƚ ŽƐƚ ϮϬϭϲ ϮϬϭϳ ϮϬϭϴ ϮϬϭϵ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϭ ϮϬϮϮ ϮϬϮϯ ϮϬϮϰ ϮϬϮϱ ϭͲĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ&ƵŶĚ Ψ ϰ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϬ ϮϱϬ ϮϱϬ ϰϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϮͲƌƚĞƌŝĂů/ŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ Ψ ϲ͕ϬϬϬ ϯϱϬ ϯϱϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϴϬϬ ϴϱϬ ϭ͕ϭϱϬ ϯͲŝĐǇĐůĞ/ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ Ψ ϱ͕ϬϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϳϬϬ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ϰͲŝŬĞͬWĞĚ'ƌĂĚĞ^ĞƉĞƌĂƚĞĚƌŽƐƐŝŶŐ&ƵŶĚ Ψ ϲ͕ϬϬϬ ϭ͕ϰϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ ϭ͕ϲϬϬ Ϭ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ Ϭ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ Ϭ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ϱͲƵƐ^ƚŽƉ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ Ψ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϲͲĂƌŶĞŐŝĞůĚŐZĞŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶ Ψ ϭ͕ϳϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϭ͕ϵϲϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϳͲŝƚǇWĂƌŬdƌĂŝŶ Ψ ϯϱϬ ϯϱϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬ ϴͲůƵďdŝĐŽZĞŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶ Ψ ϮϱϬ ϮϱϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬ ϵͲŽǁŶƚŽǁŶWŽƵĚƌĞZŝǀĞƌŶŚĂŶĐĞŵĞŶƚƐͲ <ĂǇĂŬ Ψ ϰ͕ϬϬϬ ϬϬ ϰ͕ϯϲϳϬϬϬϬϬϬϬ ϭϬͲ'ĂƌĚĞŶƐŽŶ^ƉƌŝŶŐƌĞĞŬsŝƐŝƚŽƌΖƐĞŶƚĞƌ Ψ Ϯ͕ϬϬϬ Ϭ Ϯ͕ϭϮϮϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬ ϭϭͲ>ŝŶĐŽůŶǀĞ͘ƌŝĚŐĞ Ψ ϱ͕ϯϬϬ Ϯ͕ϳϯϬ Ϯ͕ϴϭϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϭϮͲ>ŝŶĚĞŶ^ƚ͘ZĞŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶ Ψ ϯ͕ϬϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϱϲϭ Ϯ͕ϴϴϰ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϭϯͲEĂƚƵƌĞŝŶƚŚĞŝƚǇ Ψ ϯ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϬ ϮϬϬ ϮϬϬ ϮϬϬ ϮϬϬ ϮϱϬ ϯϬϬ ϯϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϳϱϬ ϭϰͲWĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ^ŝĚĞǁĂůŬͬͲŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞ Ψ ϭϰ͕ϬϬϬ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϭ͕ϮϬϬ ϭ͕ϯϬϬ Ϯ͕ϬϬϬ Ϯ͕ϬϬϬ Ϯ͕ϮϬϬ ϭϱͲ^ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĞŶƚĞƌǁŝƚŚWŽŽů Ψ ϭϰ͕ϬϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϯ͕ϰϵϯ ϭϱ͕ϯϮϲ Ϭ ϭϲͲdƌĂŶƐĨŽƌƚƵƐ&ůĞĞƚZĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚ Ψ Ϯ͕ϬϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ ϱϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϱϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ϭϳͲtŝůůŽǁ^ƚƌĞĞƚ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ Ψ ϯ͕ϱϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ ϳϮϭ ϯ͕ϵϮϵ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ĚũƵƐƚĂďůĞsĂƌŝĂďůĞƐ 6FHQDULR$+LJKOLJKWV /LQFROQ%ULGJHLVLQ\HDUVDQGWR FRLQFLGHZLWKWKHRWKHUZRUNRQ/LQFROQ $YHQXH 7KH5LYHUSURMHFWLVKDVEHHQPRYHGWR \HDU 7KH9LVLWRU V&HQWHULVLQ\HDU ATTACHMENT 3 KϮ͘Ϭ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽ ŶŶƵĂů/ŶĨůĂƚŝŽŶZĂƚĞ ϯ͘ϬϬй Ͳ/ŶĨůĂƚŝŽŶĂĚĚĞĚƚŽWƌŽũĞĐƚ ^ĂůĞƐdĂǆ'ƌŽǁƚŚZĂƚĞ Ϯ͘ϲϬй WƌŽũĞĐƚ ϮϬϭϱWƌŽũĞĐƚ ŽƐƚ ϮϬϭϲ ϮϬϭϳ ϮϬϭϴ ϮϬϭϵ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϭ ϮϬϮϮ ϮϬϮϯ ϮϬϮϰ ϮϬϮϱ ϭͲĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ&ƵŶĚ Ψ ϰ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϬ ϮϱϬ ϮϱϬ ϰϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϮͲƌƚĞƌŝĂů/ŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ Ψ ϲ͕ϬϬϬ ϯϱϬ ϯϱϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϴϬϬ ϴϱϬ ϭ͕ϭϱϬ ϯͲŝĐǇĐůĞ/ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ Ψ ϱ͕ϬϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϳϬϬ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ϰͲŝŬĞͬWĞĚ'ƌĂĚĞ^ĞƉĞƌĂƚĞĚƌŽƐƐŝŶŐ&ƵŶĚ Ψ ϲ͕ϬϬϬ ϭ͕ϰϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ ϭ͕ϲϬϬ Ϭ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ Ϭ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ Ϭ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ϱͲƵƐ^ƚŽƉ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ Ψ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϲͲĂƌŶĞŐŝĞůĚŐZĞŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶ Ψ ϭ͕ϳϬϬ ϬϬϬϬ ϭ͕ϵϲϭϬϬϬϬϬ ϳͲŝƚǇWĂƌŬdƌĂŝŶ Ψ ϯϱϬ ϯϱϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬ ϴͲůƵďdŝĐŽZĞŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶ Ψ ϮϱϬ ϮϱϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬ ϵͲŽǁŶƚŽǁŶWŽƵĚƌĞZŝǀĞƌŶŚĂŶĐĞŵĞŶƚƐͲ <ĂǇĂŬ Ψ ϰ͕ϬϬϬ Ϭ ϰ͕Ϯϰϰ ϬϬϬϬϬϬϬ ϭϬͲ'ĂƌĚĞŶƐŽŶ^ƉƌŝŶŐƌĞĞŬsŝƐŝƚŽƌΖƐĞŶƚĞƌ Ψ Ϯ͕ϬϬϬ ϬϬ Ϯ͕ϭϴϰϬϬϬϬϬϬϬ ϭϭͲ>ŝŶĐŽůŶǀĞ͘ƌŝĚŐĞ Ψ ϱ͕ϯϬϬ Ϯ͕ϳϯϬ Ϯ͕ϴϭϭϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬ ϭϮͲ>ŝŶĚĞŶ^ƚ͘ZĞŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶ Ψ ϯ͕ϬϬϬ ϬϬϬ ϱϲϭ Ϯ͕ϴϴϰϬϬϬϬϬ ϭϯͲEĂƚƵƌĞŝŶƚŚĞŝƚǇ Ψ ϯ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϬ ϮϬϬ ϮϬϬ ϮϬϬ ϮϬϬ ϮϱϬ ϯϬϬ ϯϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϳϱϬ ϭϰͲWĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ^ŝĚĞǁĂůŬͬͲŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞ Ψ ϭϰ͕ϬϬϬ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϭ͕ϮϬϬ ϭ͕ϯϬϬ Ϯ͕ϬϬϬ Ϯ͕ϬϬϬ Ϯ͕ϮϬϬ ϭϱͲ^ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĞŶƚĞƌǁŝƚŚWŽŽů Ψ ϭϰ͕ϬϬϬ ϬϬϬϬϬϬϬ Ϯ͕ϰϵϯ ϭϱ͕ϯϮϲϬ ϭϲͲdƌĂŶƐĨŽƌƚƵƐ&ůĞĞƚZĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚ Ψ Ϯ͕ϬϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ ϱϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϱϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ϭϳͲtŝůůŽǁ^ƚƌĞĞƚ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ Ψ ϯ͕ϱϬϬ ϬϬ ϳϮϭ ϯ͕ϵϮϵϬϬϬϬϬϬ ϭ͕Ϯϵϯ ĚũƵƐƚĂďůĞsĂƌŝĂďůĞƐ 6FHQDULR%+LJKOLJKWV 7KH/LQFROQ%ULGJHLVLQ\HDUVDQGWR FRLQFLGHZLWKWKHRWKHUZRUNRQ/LQFROQ $YHQXH 7KH5LYHUSURMHFWLVLQ\HDU 7KH9LVLWRU V&HQWHUDWWKH*DUGHQVKDVEHHQ PRYHGWR\HDU 7KHUHLV0VKRUWIDOOLQWKDWQHHGV WREHUHFRQFLOHG Timing of Community Improvement Program Projects (BOB 2.0) Council Work Session August 25, 2015 ATTACHMENT 4 Question  Does Council support one of the two timing scenarios provided? (A or B)  If not, what adjustments would Council like see? Capital Improvement-Background  80.53% Voter Approval in April  Dedicated tax is method Fort Collins has historically used to fund capital  Estimate ¼ -cent revenue at $83M  Target project dollar amount: $75.1 M  5 years of O&M for select projects: $2.6M  3% inflation on non-fund projects: $5.3 M  Affordable Housing Fund- $4M  Arterial Intersection Improvements Fund - $6M  Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements - $5M  Bike/Ped Grade-Separated Crossings Fund - $6M  Bus Stop Improvements - $1M  Carnegie Building Renovation - $1.7M  City Park Train - $350K  Club Tico Renovation - $250K Capital Improvement-Projects  Downtown Poudre River Enhancements- $4M  Gardens on Spring Creek Visitor’s Center - $2M  Lincoln Ave Bridge Improvements - $5.8M  Linden Street Renovations Walnut to Jefferson - $3M  Nature in the City - $3M  Pedestrian Sidewalk/ ADA Compliance - $14M  Southeast Community Center/Outdoor Pool - $14M  Transfort Bus Fleet Replacement - $2M  Willow Street Improvements – $3.5 M T Capital Improvement-Projects Timing Rationale  Provide citizens tangible projects as early as possible  Leverage available funds and opportunities  Provide even and predictable funding for Funds throughout the 10-year term  Work with known grant cycles 6 Timing Options 7 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Lincoln Ave Bridge City Park Train Club Tico Renovations Willow Street Linden Street Carnegie Renovation Southeast Community Center Scenario A Poudre River Enhancement Scenario A Visitor’s Center Scenario B Poudre River Enhancement Scenario B Visitor’s Center Scenarios A and B Affordable Housing Fund Arterial Intersection Improvement Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements Bike/Ped Grade Separated Crossing Fund Bus Stop Improvements Nature in the City Pedestrian Sidewalk/ADA Compliance Transfort Bus Fleet Replacement Willow Street Improvements (2018-19) 8 The following Funds and Projects have identical funding in each scenario: Scenario A Highlights:  Downtown Poudre River Enhancements – 2018  Gardens on Spring Creek Visitor's Center - 2017 9 Scenario B Highlights:  Downtown Poudre River Enhancements – 2017  Gardens on Spring Creek Visitor's Center – 2018  $1.3 M shortage in 2017 Options to reconcile:  BCC Funds  Adjust other funds and projects 10 Question  Does Council support one of the two timing scenarios provided? (A or B)  If not, what adjustments would Council like see?