HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 11/13/2018 - 2019 FEE UPDATE AND FEE GROUP FINDINGSDATE:
STAFF:
November 13, 2018
Jennifer Poznanovic, Project and Revenue Manager
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
2019 Fee Update and Fee Group Findings.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to review the Fee Working Group position paper and fee updates associated with Step
II Capital Expansion Fees and Wet Utility Plant Investment Fees. Since the fall of October 2016, staff has worked
to coordinate the process for updating all new development related fees that require Council approval. The 2017
Capital Expansion Fee (CEF) and Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) full fee proposals showed
significant increases from the previously approved fees. Council asked for these fees to be implemented in three
steps. The 2019 update includes Step II for CEFs and TEFs along with Wet Utility Plant Investment Fees (PIFs).
Staff proposes the following fee updates:
• 90% of proposed CEFs (Step II)
• Option A for TCEFs (Step II)
• Wet Utility PIFs as proposed
Due to the concern in the development and building community around impact fee changes, Council asked for a
Fee Working Group to be created to foster a better understanding of impact fees prior to discussing further fee
updates. The Fee Working Group meetings commenced in August of 2017, comprised of a balanced group of
stakeholders - citizens, business-oriented individuals, City staff and a Council liaison. The group met 14 times,
and the background, findings and recommendations are presented in a position paper. Overall, the Fee Working
Group supports the fee coordination process and proposed fee updates.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council support impact fee updates as proposed?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
As of October 2016, staff has worked to coordinate the process for updating all building related fees that require
Council approval. Below are impact fees that require Council approval:
November 13, 2018 Page 2
Fees in the 2019 update include six Capital Expansion Fees and three Wet Utility PIFs (Sewer, Stormwater and
Water). Development Review Fees were initially planned for Phase II updates but have been decoupled and will
come forward in 2019.
Previously, fee updates were presented to Council on an individual basis but are now on a two and four-year
cadence. Fee coordination includes a detailed fee study analysis for CEFs, TCEFs and Development Review
Fees every four years. This requires an outside consultant through a request for proposal (RFP) process. Data is
provided by City staff and findings are also verified by City staff. For Utility Fees, a detailed fee study is planned
every two years. These are internal updates by City staff with periodic consultant verification. Fee study analysis
should be targeted in the odd year before Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO).
2017 Capital Expansion full fee proposals were significant. Fee changes reflected updated asset values that
reflect higher construction costs, land values that reflect higher last cost and population and dwelling units per the
latest census. These changes caused concern in the community and Council directed a stepped implementation
for CEFs and TCEFs.
In June 2017, Council approved the following fee updates:
*Cash-in-Lieu (CIL)
November 13, 2018 Page 3
Proposed 2019 Impact Fee Updates
Fees in the 2019 update include all six Capital Expansion Fees and three Wet Utility PIFs (Sewer, Stormwater
and Water).
Staff proposes the following fee changes:
• 90% of proposed CEFs (Step II)
• Option A for TCEFs (Step II)
• Wet Utility PIFs as proposed
The chart below shows the stepped implementation for CEFs and TCEFs:
Fees Phasing
Land Use Type Unit
Previous
Total
Current
Total
Step II
Total
Step III
Total
% Change
Full Fees
% Change
Step I
% Change
Step II
% Change
Step III
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $5,059 $5,845 $7,049 $7,587 50% 16% 21% 8%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $6,182 $8,779 $10,593 $11,315 83% 42% 21% 7%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $7,574 $10,283 $12,409 $13,197 74% 36% 21% 6%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $7,762 $11,099 $13,391 $14,188 83% 43% 21% 6%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $8,094 $12,147 $14,658 $15,546 92% 50% 21% 6%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $13,241 $8,430 $10,164 $10,392 -22% -36% 21% 2%
Office and Other Services $9,071 $6,660 $8,028 $8,256 -9% -27% 21% 3%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $1,748 $2,000 $2,411 $2,464 41% 14% 21% 2%
Step I changes (current fee levels), adopted October 1, 2017, are 75% of full fee levels proposed for CEFs and
Option B for TCEFs. Option B does not increase program revenue, it provides approximately 80% of necessary
funding to mitigate proportional impacts of development. Whereas Option A includes the proportionate cost
attributable for mitigation of the impacts of new development on the transportation system, including new streets,
intersection improvements, and multi-modal improvements.
The chart below shows Step II fee changes with inflation:
CEFs & TCEFs Totals with Inflation
Land Use Type Unit
Current
Total
Step II
Total
Step II
Total w
Inflation
%
Increase
%
Increase
w Inflation
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $5,845 $7,049 $7,473 21% 28%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $8,779 $10,593 $11,221 21% 28%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $10,283 $12,409 $13,139 21% 28%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $11,099 $13,391 $14,173 21% 28%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $12,147 $14,658 $15,516 21% 28%
November 13, 2018 Page 4
*Gallons per day (GPD)
Across the three Wet Utility Fees, staff is proposing 7 to 11% increases. Water PIFs are a 7.1% increase from
current fee levels, Wastewater PIFs are a 9.5% increase from current fee levels and Stormwater PIFs are a
11.3% increase from current fee levels.
The drivers for the increases on PIFs are the same for all three funds:
• New capital projects increase the overall system value
• Annual increases in construction costs increases the replacement value of existing system
• One-time adjustment of 2.7% included to account for fee implementation being delayed in 2018
Fee Working Group
Before the 2019 impact fee update, Council asked for commitment to create a working group of citizens, industry
and staff to foster a better understanding of fees.
The Fee Working Group meetings commenced in August 2017, comprised of a balanced group of stakeholders -
citizens, business-oriented individuals, City staff and a Council liaison. The group met 14 times, and the topics
covered included: detailed review of fee methodologies, inputs, calculations, City revenue sources, alternative
revenue sources, academic economic research on impact fees, a third-party impact fee audit review and impact
fee comparisons to other communities.
Below is a summary of the key findings from the Fee Working Group position paper:
• Bringing impact fees together for review and formation of the fee working group has been beneficial to better
understand the full impact of Council approved impact fees for new development.
• The group acknowledges overall sound methodologies, calculations and inputs.
• The third-party fee audit revealed that the City manages impact fee expenditures very well. How the City
spends and collects impact fees is sound. Of the $54M examined, only $130K or 0.24% was charged
incorrectly.
• Regarding economic data, the group agrees that amenities paid for through impact fees add to property
value, but views differ as to what extent they impact demand and supply. Academic research showed that
home price increases in growing areas are mainly demand driven.
• The group agreed that impact fees are complicated and difficult to communicate across the community. They
recommend better messaging to stakeholders and the general public.
• In the 2017 study, park impact fees increased more than other impact fees due to increases in the costs of
land, water and construction. These fees are the only category where impact fees pay for 100 percent of
what is built.
November 13, 2018 Page 5
• The group acknowledges the need to identify new revenue sources for park refresh and maintenance.
• If Council approves lower fees than the staff recommendation, alternative revenue sources will be needed. If
Council goes this direction, it will be for the community to decide what alternatives to pursue.
Below are recommendations from the Fee Working Group Position Paper:
1. Better communication/outreach & notice of fee changes
2. Repayment of the $130k identified in the impact fee audit
3. Progressive fees if/where possible
4. Explore additional revenue sources for parks buildout
5. Investigate revenue alternatives to support parks refresh & maintenance
6. Explore stronger supports for affordable housing fee waivers
Community Outreach
In an effort towards better communication, outreach and notification of impact fee changes, staff met with 14
organizations across the City in the fall 2018.
Overall, there was unanimous support for the approach and cadence. Most groups were not in favor of fee
increases, yet they were not in favor of alternatives.
Staff also heard:
• Support for fee group recommendations
• Not a straight forward topic, takes a couple of conversations to set in
• Concerns about attainable housing - it may be less desirable to live here
• Policy questions on development standards going forward, having alignment on total cost including operations
and maintenance
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
2019 impact fee updates and the Fee Working Group position paper were discussed with Council Finance
Committee in August and September 2018.
November 13, 2018 Page 6
NEXT STEPS
December 4 and 18, 2018 - Council consideration of Ordinances amending the fees
January 1, 2019 - New Fees Effective
ATTACHMENTS
1. Fee Group Position Paper (PDF)
2. Fort Collins Review Report (PDF)
3. Council Finance Committee Minutes, September 17, 2018 (PDF)
4. Council Finance Committee Minutes, August 20, 2018 (PDF)
5. 2018 Impact Fee Outreach Feedback (PDF)
6. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
Finance
Administration
215 N. Mason Street
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Fee Working Group
Position Paper
Presented for Fort Collins City Council
September 2018
ATTACHMENT 1
2
Table of Contents
PART I – BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 3
Overview and Why the Group Formed ....................................................................................... 3
Original Group List: A Blend of Citizens, Industry and Staff ................................................ 4
Group List Through 2018 ....................................................................................................... 5
Fee Group Objective ............................................................................................................... 5
Overview of Meetings and Topics Covered ............................................................................... 6
Impact Fee History .................................................................................................................. 6
Fee Methodologies and Calculations Reviewed ..................................................................... 6
Capital Expansion Fee Background and Discussion .............................................................. 8
Transportation Capital Expansion Background and Discussion ............................................. 9
Utility Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) ....................................................................................... 9
Development Review Fees ................................................................................................... 10
City Revenue Overall ............................................................................................................ 10
Fee Comparison to Other Communities ............................................................................... 11
City Impact Fees and Median New Home Sales .................................................................. 13
Revenue sources considered by Council since 2012 ............................................................ 13
Progressive Fees.................................................................................................................... 14
Affordable Housing Fee Waivers ......................................................................................... 14
Academic Research ............................................................................................................... 14
Capital Expansion Fee Audit ................................................................................................ 16
PART II – FINDINGS .................................................................................................................. 17
Impact Fee Mechanics, Calculations & Methods ..................................................................... 17
Fee Audit: Collection & Spending ............................................................................................ 17
Impact Fee Economics .............................................................................................................. 17
Impact Fee Communication ...................................................................................................... 17
Park Impact Fees ....................................................................................................................... 18
Alternatives to Impact Fees & Fort Collins Total Revenue ...................................................... 18
Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................ 19
PART III - RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 20
Impact Fee List ............................................................................................................................. 21
Glossary of Terms ......................................................................................................................... 22
References ..................................................................................................................................... 22
3
PART I – BACKGROUND
Overview and Why the Group Formed
Since the fall of October 2016, staff has worked to coordinate the process for updating all new
development related fees that require Council approval. Development related fees that are
approved by Council (see a full list at the end of the paper) are six Capital Expansion Fees, five
Utility Fees and 45 Building Development Fees.
Previously, impact fee updates were presented to Council on an individual basis. However, it
was determined that updates should occur on a regular two and four-year cadence and fees
updates should occur together each year to provide a more holistic view of the impact of any fee
increases.
Impact fee coordination includes a detailed fee study analysis for Capital Expansion Fees
(CEFs), Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEFs) and Development Review Fees every
four years. This requires an outside consultant through a request for proposal (RFP) process
where data is provided by City staff. Findings by the consultant are also verified by City staff.
For Utility Fees, a detailed fee study is planned every two years. These are internal updates by
City staff with periodic consultant verification. In the future, impact fee study analysis will be
targeted in the odd year before Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO).
4
Below is the current impact fee timeline:
In June of 2017, Council approved the following Phase I impact fee updates (effective as of
October 2017):
2017 CEFs and TCEFs full fee proposals showed significant increases from the previously
approved fees. These impact fee changes reflected updated asset values. Asset values have
significantly increased since the last fee update due to higher construction costs and land values.
These changes caused consternation in the development and building community, and Council
directed a stepped implementation for CEFs and TCEFs. Bringing impact fees together to City
Council for approval allowed an understanding of the full impact of the fees; however, it was
difficult to explain given the complexity of different methodologies and qualitative aspects.
Due to the consternation in the development and building community around impact fee changes,
Council asked for a fee working group to be created to foster a better understanding of impact
fees prior to discussing further fee updates. In August of 2017, the fee working group
commenced comprised of a balanced group of stakeholders – City staff, business-oriented
individuals, citizens and a Council liaison.
Original Group List: A Blend of Citizens, Industry and Staff
Council Liaison: Ross Cunniff: District 5
Industry: Sean Dougherty: Fort Collins Board of Realtors
Ann Hutchison: Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce
Greg Mediema: Homebuilder’s Association of Northern Colorado
Moira Bright: Spirit Hospitality LLC
5
Chris Banks: Odell Brewing
Citizen: Diane Cohn: Affordable Housing Board
Rebecca Hill: Water Board
Rick Reider: Building Review Board
Linda Stanley: Economic Advisory Commission
Ragan Adams: Parks and Recreation Board
City Staff: Mike Beckstead: Project Sponsor
Tiana Smith: Project Manager/Fee Owner Capital Expansion Fees
Lance Smith: Fee Owner Electric Capacity Fees
Tom Leeson: Fee Owner Development Review Fees
Josh Birks: City Staff/Economic Health
Group List Through 2018
Council Liaison: Ross Cunniff: District 5
Industry: Will Flowers: Fort Collins Board of Realtors
Ann Hutchison: Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce
Doug Braden: Homebuilder’s Association of Northern Colorado
Moira Bright: Spirit Hospitality LLC
Citizen: Diane Cohn: Affordable Housing Board
Rebecca Hill: Water Board
Linda Stanley: Economic Advisory Commission
Ragan Adams: Parks and Recreation Board
City Staff: Mike Beckstead: Project Sponsor
Jennifer Poznanovic: Project Manager/Fee Owner CEFs
Lance Smith: Fee Owner Electric Capacity Fees
Tom Leeson: Fee Owner Development Review Fees
Josh Birks: City Staff/Economic Health
Fee Group Objective
Below is the objective of the Fee Working Group:
What: Improve understanding with stakeholders of the City’s impact fee process.
How: Semi-monthly meetings that present information on the mechanics, alternatives, and
impacts of the City’s impact fees that are approved by City Council.
Why: Foster a common understanding of why and how impact fees are calculated, in addition
to collecting feedback to share with City Council on future fee calculations and processes.
6
Overview of Meetings and Topics Covered
The fee working group meetings commenced in August of 2017. The group met fourteen times,
six meetings in 2017 and eight meetings in 2018. Topics covered included: detailed review of fee
methodologies, inputs, calculations, City revenue sources, alternative revenue sources, academic
economic research on impact fees, a third-party impact fee audit review and impact fee
comparisons to other communities.
Impact Fee History
Capital Expansion Fees provisions were adopted in 1996 to impose certain fees to be collected at
the time of building permit issuance for the purpose of funding the provision of additional capital
improvements as the City’s population increases. Fees are intended to ensure new growth and
development in the City bear a proportionate share of costs of capital expenditures necessary to
provide community park, library, police, fire and general government capital improvements
(currently police, fire, general government, community and neighborhood parks).
Transportation Capital Expansion Fees, formerly the “Street Oversizing Program” was created in
1979 to ensure that new development, in a fair and equitable manner, contribute toward the
construction of arterial and collector roadways so that essential municipal services, in this case
the development of a safe and reliable transportation network, could keep up with the continued
growth of the City.
Utility Plant Investment Fees are industry standard and have been in place for decades. Utility
PIFs have served as a catalyst for economic growth in the Fort Collins community by allowing
each utility to build the infrastructure and capacity ahead of such growth. These fees provide a
mechanism for new development to reimburse existing utility customers for such investments.
Fee Methodologies and Calculations Reviewed
The group discussed the four types of methodologies used in calculating the various fees: level
of service, plan-based, hybrid and cost recovery, along with information needed for these
calculations. The chart below shows methodologies for the impact fees within this group’s scope
along with high-level calculations that the group discussed in detail.
7
Level of Service: This methodology is standards-based, and fees are based on the existing level
of service. As the community grows, capital facilities and equipment have to be expanded
proportional to growth and cannot exceed the cost of maintaining the existing level of service or
pay for deficiencies in current service or future needs.
Capital Expansion Fees, Electric and Stormwater Plant Investment Fees all use the standards-
based or level of service methodology. Fees are set by assessing City’s capitalized assets or level
of service and an estimate of who can use the asset (functional population or equivalent dwelling
unit (EDU)). Calculation inputs include development and construction costs and land cost. The
asset value is divided by who can use the asset. Impact fees can only be used to develop new
infrastructure and cannot be used to correct existing deficiencies or add features to existing
infrastructure.
Plan-based: Fees are set based on a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), and development pays a
portion of their impact on that plan. Impact fees cannot be used to correct existing deficiencies,
for operating costs, or for maintenance. Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEFs) are
plan-based. The calculation used for TCEFs, is Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) multiplied by the
growth cost per VMT.
Hybrid: Fees are calculated using aspects of both plan-based and level of service. Water and
Wastewater Plant Investment Fees and Raw Water/Cash-in-Lieu Fees have a hybrid
methodology. The Water and Wastewater Plant Investment Fees set fees based on a CIP along
with current asset values. Raw Water/Cash-in-Lieu Fees are calculated using the cost of future
water storage plus the value of current assets.
Cost Recovery: Fees are calculated based on recovering all or a portion of the cost of
administering a particular program. Development Review Fees are set at 80% cost recovery per
City code.
8
Capital Expansion Fee Background and Discussion
Capital Expansion Fees include fire, police, general government, community and neighborhood
park impact fees. CEFs at the City are standards-based, meaning these fees are based on the
existing level of service. In the 2017 impact fee study conducted by Duncan Associates,
comparison across the Front Range indicates universal use of the standards-based methodology
for CEFs.
The City began charging CEFs in 1996. CEFs were updated each year for inflation using the
Denver-Aurora-Lakewood CPI and continue to be updated on an annual basis. A consultant was
hired in 2013 to perform a thorough review and update of methodology and inputs to these
impact fees. CEFs were updated as a result, and at that time, staff committed to updating fees
every four to five years. With consultant Duncan Associates, CEFs were again updated in 2017
based on this commitment.
As the community grows, capital facilities and equipment must be expanded proportional to
growth to maintain the same level of service. CEFs cannot pay for deficiencies in the current
level of service in existing assets or facilities. As an example, park impact fees cannot be used to
upgrade or add features to an existing park. John Duval, Deputy City Attorney spoke with group
in detail further on legal aspects.
Community and Neighborhood Park Impact Fees
Within the group there has been much discussion around impact fee increases, particularly the
parks fees. The 2017 impact fee levels for parks increased more than for any other fee. As part of
the 2017 fee update, staff hired Ditesco Engineering to provide current costs to build existing
parks and assets, using the last three parks built for both community (Twin Silo, Spring Canyon,
Fossil Creek) and neighborhood parks (Waters Way, Registry, Radiant). Their calculations show
that the 2017 increases were driven by significant increases in asset values based on increases in
construction costs, land values, water costs, etc.
As one example of the discussion within the group, initial perception of some group members
was that Twin Silos was designed with excessively costly features. Kurt Friesen, Director of
Parks Planning, presented a breakdown of the costs of park construction. This showed that land,
water and construction costs are the largest factors in the cost of parks. Shifts in features,
amenities and park elements have had a relatively minor impact on the cost to build new parks.
Kurt Friesen also discussed parks standards for future parks with the group. He noted that some
parks today do have more amenities than other older parks because park system needs have
evolved and changed, but the different features, amenities and park elements do typically balance
out. Kurt also explained the park system development strategy of an even distribution of parks
throughout the City, with a community park within every four-square miles and a neighborhood
park within every mile.
9
The group felt that it was important to note that parks are the only category where impact fees
pay for 100 percent of new park development. There are no other revenue streams for building
new parks. This is not the case for fire, police and general government.
Police, Fire & General Government Impact Fees
The group had detailed discussions around the inputs and calculations on the police, fire and
general government fees. Ann Turnquist, Administrative Services Director of Poudre Fire
Authority, joined the group to discuss the details of the fire fees and how they are used. The
majority of the conversations focused on parks fees, as there was little disagreement on these
impact fees.
Transportation Capital Expansion Background and Discussion
Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEFs), previously “street oversizing” fees, were
created in 1979 and prior to the 2017 study, the last major update was in 2003. TCEF
methodology is plan-based such that new development pays its proportionate share for growth-
related infrastructure needed to maintain current transportation standards. TCEF revenue is used
to expand or provide additional facilities to keep up with development.
The 2017 study with TischlerBise raised residential fees and lowered commercial fees, due to a
shift in the calculation from using trip generation to using vehicle miles travelled (VMT). Not all
trips are the same in length; on average residential trips are longer than commercial. Categories
were simplified in the study, they were reduced from 43 to 8 categories.
In June of 2017, Council approved Option B for TCEFs. Option B provides approximately 80%
of necessary funding to mitigate proportional impacts of development based on the currently
approved Transportation Master Plan. Whereas Option A includes 100% of the proportionate
cost attributable for mitigation of the impacts of new development on the transportation system
including new streets, intersection improvements, and multi-modal improvements that were
added to the most recent Transportation Master Plan. Staff is proposing Option A be adopted in
the next round of fee updates in discussion fall of 2018.
In the fall on 2017 Dean Klinger, Director of Engineering and Kyle Lambrecht, TCEFs Program
Manager joined the group to review TCEFs.
Utility Plant Investment Fees (PIFs)
Lance Smith, Utility Strategic Finance Director, reviewed Utility PIFs with the group. There
was little discussion on Electric PIFs and Raw Water Cash-in-Lieu as these fees have been
consistently coming to Council every two years.
10
Wet Utility PIFs (water, wastewater, stormwater) updates plan to be proposed to Council in the
fall of 2018. These impact fees are largely changing based on the investment that has been made
on asset and infrastructure of these three utility services. Across the three utility fees, staff is
proposing 7 to 11 percent increases. These fees are also on a two-year cadence as with the
Electric PIFs.
Development Review Fees
Development Review Fees are currently being analyzed with an external consultant and were not
ready to be discussed with the fee group. As such, these fees have been decoupled from the fee
updates in 2018 and will come forward at a later date.
City Revenue Overall
Impact fee revenue goes into specific funds for CEFs, Transportation and each Utility Enterprise
Fund. Revenue can only be used for the intended purpose of the fee. For example, police fees
cannot fund parks and parks fees cannot be used to upgrade existing parks.
As seen in the chart below, impact fee revenue from 2005 to 2017 is volatile due to development
volatility.
11
The overall City government revenue was reviewed by the team consistent with the chart below.
The discussion can be summarized as:
• Sales and Use tax account for about 50% of governmental revenues.
• Property tax accounts for about 8% and per the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with
the Poudre Fire Authority (PFA), 68% of property tax revenue is dedicated to PFA.
• Charges for Services are 17% of governmental revenues and these funds are used specific
to the service the fees pay for.
• All revenue coming into the City are utilized for various costs and activities.
The group noted that if CEFs were decreased, one or a combination of the following would be
required: 1) an alternative revenue source to make up the shortfall, requiring de-funding
something that is currently funded; 2) the delay of building the future assets; and/or 3)
decreasing the scope of those assets to match the available fee revenue.
Fee Comparison to Other Communities
Fee comparisons to other communities were also presented to the group. The chart below shows
that Fort Collins impact fees are consistent or lower than other Front Range communities.
12
When comparing median home sales prices with impact fees in neighboring communities, it was
apparent that other factors such as amenities and location are primary drivers of home prices. For
example, the chart below shows that Timnath has the lowest fees and highest home prices,
whereas Wellington has the lowest home prices and the highest fees. In other words, the amount
of impact fees within a community do not correlate strongly with home prices.
Some in the group noted that there is often a higher level of service in Fort Collins compared to
these neighboring communities. When comparing Fort Collins impact fees to those of
neighboring communities, the group had a conversation on what communities get from impact
fees and what the level of service is in Fort Collins compared to other communities. For
example, Timnath recently opened a new small park, whereas the level of service provided at
Spring Creek or Twin Silos parks in Fort Collins is higher. Fort Collins also has amenities such
as undergrounded utilities, public transportation and sign code, arguably adding to the
13
desirability and value of homes. Some in the group suggest social capital plays a role and that
could be weaved into a third dimension on the charts.
City Impact Fees and Median New Home Sales
While impact fees are a sizable portion of the price of new homes, from 2012 through 2017, this
proportion decreased from 13 to 10 percent of the median new home sales price (see chart
below). New median home sales prices have been increasing while the percentage of fees to
median new home sales has been decreasing. The team considers home location, land values and
the cost of construction to be the primary drivers of the increase in new median home prices.
Revenue sources considered by Council since 2012
When discussing alternatives to impact fees, the group reviewed the revenue diversification
options discussed with Council and the Community in 2014 and 2015. Starting in 2012, the City
explored various alternatives with a goal to be revenue neutral and to reduce dependency on
sales tax. Staff looked for replacement revenue sources to broaden the base and to lower the
current tax rate.
An increase in property tax is very unlikely as it would require a structural change at the state
level. Also, income tax is not allowed per current Colorado state constitution. Alternatives
considered include: tax on services, differential sales tax rate, transportation utility fee,
increasing property tax, making quarter cent taxes permanent, occupational privilege tax,
park/trail maintenance fee and an Xcel franchise fee. In 2015, Council suggested three
alternatives to be further researched – tax on services, transportation utility fee and occupational
privilege tax. Staff talked to business-oriented groups, and they were unanimously unsupportive.
14
Progressive Fees
Some in the group suggest that impact fees be more progressive, i.e. lower impact fees for
smaller homes and higher impact fees for larger homes, or potentially add more steps within the
impact fees. Legally, impact fees cannot be artificially adjusted to achieve a more progressive
fee structure. Impact fees must be based on data and the number of people estimated to live
within various size homes.
The CEF fee study consultant used 2013 census data for current CEF fees, but City staff had the
consultant go back and look at 2015 western state census data. The 2015 census data indicated
fewer people in smaller homes and more people in larger homes than the 2013 census data.
Using the 2015 data would reduce CEF fees on smaller homes and increase CEF fees for larger
homes. There is more progression using the 2015 census data, but important to note is that the
formula would stay the same, only the inputs would change to add more progressiveness.
The City currently has six different dwelling unit size categories. The CEF fees could get more
progressive by expanding the number of categories. Currently, around 90 percent of building
permits are 2200 square feet and larger (the current largest dwelling unit category).
Affordable Housing Fee Waivers
Diane Cohn, Fort Collins Affordable Housing Board Chair, presented research on economic
impact of development fees on affordable housing. The group acknowledges that increased fees
may be a barrier for affordable housing production. The current fee waiver policy is limited.
Some in the group suggest the City reconsider the Area Median Income (AMI) level for waivers
to include greater than 30%, especially for affordable home ownership, like those homes built by
Habitat for Humanity, who currently serve families at 35-60% of AMI. In addition, perhaps
longer requirements for affordability (beyond 20 years) could be coupled with greater AMI
limits.
The group also suggested a more nuanced approach to fee waivers for affordable housing be
explored, for example, waiving some fees or portions of fees, such as parks and transportation,
but not others like utilities or police/fire fees. Critical to any new fee waivers is accountability
and compliance of the terms for length of affordability commitment. In addition, some in the
group suggest the City evaluate any negative impacts that changes to fee policies may have on
the City’s affordable housing developments.
Academic Research
Linda Stanley, Senior Research Scientist at Colorado State University (Ph.D., Economics),
presented impact fee academic research to the group. Below is a summary of the findings with
references found at the end of the paper.
15
The effect of impact fees on housing prices: The increase in the price of a home due to the
imposition of an impact fee varies significantly by the value of the home, by the community, and
by the type of fee.
o Value of home. The increase in price resulting from an impact fee is proportional
to the value of a home, with higher priced homes having a greater increase in
price, often with over-shifting (i.e., the increase in price is greater than the
increase in the fee). (Burge and Ihlanfeldt, 2006; Mathur, Waddell, and Blanco,
2004)
o Type of fee. There is less effect of water/sewer fees on housing prices, with some
research finding no effect (Burge and Ihlanfeldt, 2006). Impact fees that fund
highly visible and valued amenities are likely to increase housing prices of both
new and existing homes (Mathur 2013).
Demand-driven increases in willingness to pay are, in large part, responsible for these price
increases (as opposed to a reduction in supply due to cost increases). There are two main demand
side effects.
o Impact fees create infrastructure valued by community residents. This is why
impact fees that fund highly visible and valued amenities are likely to increase
housing prices of both new and existing homes.
o Impact fees offset future tax liabilities that are capitalized into the price of a
home. In other words, consumers are willing to pay more for a home with lower
property taxes than that same home with higher property taxes.
The academic evidence finds that, in growing areas, market demand is the primary determinant
of housing prices, whether growth management programs, including impact fees, are present or
not.
The effect of impact fees on housing stock: Effects on both supply and demand interact to
determine whether impact fees will slow down, speed up, or have no effect on residential
construction rates. Thus, the empirical findings are nuanced. (Burge and Ihlanfeldt, 2006 and
Burge 2016)
• Non-water/sewer impact fees have positive effects on construction rates in suburban
areas and negligible impacts on rates in central city and rural areas.
• Non-water/sewer impact fees increase construction of large homes but not affordable
ones in outer suburban areas.
• Water/sewer impact fees are an insignificant determinant of construction rates for all size
categories of homes and across all parts of a metropolitan area.
• Burge (2016) notes, “It is crucial that state and local government officials become
familiar with the more recent evidence to support the idea that impact fees may not
reduce residential growth at all in the long run.”
The effect of impact fees on employment and the economy: Impact fees do not appear to reduce
employment growth overall, but there may be sector specific effects.
• Nelson and Moody (2003) found a significant positive association between impact fees
collected per building permit in one year and job growth over the next two years.
16
• Jones (2015) found that the use of fees was positively related to service-sector
employment growth and, to a lesser extent, negatively related to manufacturing
employment growth. There was no relationship of impact fees to retail jobs.
Capital Expansion Fee Audit
In April of 2018, the Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce, Northern Colorado Home
Builders Association and the Fort Collins Board of Realtors sponsored a third-party audit by
Development Planning & Financing Group, Inc. (DPFG).
The City reviewed and responded to the findings in the DPFG Review both with the audit
sponsors and later with the fee working group. The City collected and spent approximately $54M
in impact fees from 2012 to 2016. DPFG did not identify any issues with how fees are collected
or with how the City has spent its police, fire, general government and community parks CEFs.
The DPFG Review questioned $3.8M of transportation ($1.4M) and neighborhood “parks”
($2.4M) expenditures.
The City’s analysis of the DPFG review found $3.4M of the $3.8M in question to be allowable
overhead costs based on the City’s current code language. Of the remaining $387k in fee
expenditures, staff determined $257k to be appropriate and $130k to be inconsistent with current
understanding of how park fees should be used.
Of the charges questioned, $257k are related to costs incurred during the two years after the park
was largely completed. The maintenance costs for new parks transfers to the Park Department
two years after parks are established. This is related to general warranty periods from
construction and the need to make sure features and vegetation are sustainable prior to turning
over to the Parks Department for ongoing maintenance. The $257k of costs in question are
related to water costs while vegetation is taking root, equipment replacement associated with
warranty issues, costs related to maintaining property of parks to be constructed, landscaping,
and expenditures for future parks.
The remaining costs in question, approximately $130k, are largely for the installation of new
equipment in existing parks. Staff had previously understood park CEFs could be used for new
features in old parks. This understanding has been corrected and staff is now aware this is not an
allowable expenditure of CEFs and will not occur in the future.
In summary, of approximately $54M in impact fees collected and spent in 2012 to 2016, only
$130k or 0.24% should not have been charged to Parks Planning.
17
PART II – FINDINGS
Impact Fee Mechanics, Calculations & Methods
From the meetings in 2017 that largely focused on impact fee mechanics, calculations and
methodology, the group acknowledged that the City’s impact fee methodologies are sound and
legally defensible. Impact fee calculations align with industry practice and the methodologies,
data requirements and calculations became clearer after detailed review with City staff.
Fee Audit: Collection & Spending
After reviewing the third party DPFG Review, the group agrees that the system is in compliance
and that the City has done an excellent job in managing fee allocations and expenditures. In the
five years, from 2012 to 2016, the City collected and spent approximately $54M in CEFs. Of the
$54M evaluated only $130k was not allowable expenditures. A majority of the group thinks the
$130k used from the neighborhood parkland should be transferred to the general fund. The Fort
Collins Board of Realtors has agreed to share the findings (see references).
Impact Fee Economics
The group agrees that impact fee amenities add to property values, however differ in views as to
what extent. For example, living right next to a park or just being in Fort Collins with
community and neighborhood parks throughout the City.
Some in the group also consider the increased demand from amenities as an undesirable effect as
it pushes growth out of the City – cheap and easy vs. high rise density along with less
homeownership. Regardless of demand, some in the group want to highlight that rising costs of
impact fees do have an impact on housing costs, whether supply or demand driven. However, the
portion of median home sales prices accounted for by impact fees has decreased from 13 percent
in 2012 to 10% in 2017.
Impact Fee Communication
Bringing impact fees together for review and forming of the fee working group has been
beneficial to better understand the full impact of Council approved impact fees for new
development.
The group agreed that impact fees are complicated and difficult to communicate across the
community. The City must better explain the basis, calculation and usage of impact fees to
stakeholders. For example, when the business community was shown that Fort Collins impact
fees are lower than the fees of other Front Range communities, some in the group and business
community initially took the message to be that impact fees are going up because the market will
18
bear it while others thought that the City was increasing its impact fees because they were lower.
While comparisons are important, they should be shown in context. The underlying message on
the need for updates due to changes in the inputs in the calculations may not have been heard.
Going forward the City needs to be mindful in how it messages. Comparisons should have
context, such as level of service, total cost and looking at best practices.
Park Impact Fees
Many of the group conversations on impact fees revolved around CEFs, namely park fees. The
fee levels for parks increased more than for any other impact fee due to large increases in the
inputs to the fee calculations (i.e., land and water prices; construction costs). Although some in
the group noted that parks may have too many amenities, this was a small percentage of the cost
of building a new park.
Parks are the only category where impact fees pay for 100 percent of what is built; there are no
other revenue streams for building new parks. This is not the case for fire, police and general
government. Some in the group want to highlight that the 2008 parks and recreation policy plan
did realize a potential inadequacy of park impact fees to fund new parks. Council supported full
build out but did not identify additional revenue streams to fund parks. The 2008 plan discusses
the need for additional funding streams for development and subsequent maintenance and
emphasizes that the plan for park development should recognize the cost of subsequent
maintenance.
Alternatives to Impact Fees & Fort Collins Total Revenue
If lower impact fees are approved than was recommended in 2017, as an example, the City could
build lower cost parks, which would lower levels of service. Some in the group suggest not to
rule out public involvement such as philanthropy and considerations of regional cooperation. The
group acknowledged that reallocating revenue from the General Fund would require lowering
levels of service across the City. It is also unclear if home prices would drop if impact fees were
decreased or even eliminated.
Other alternatives discussed include: sales tax increase, property tax increase, occupation tax, or
looking into Metro Districts to build parks and streets, most of which staff previously worked on
from 2012 to 2016 regarding revenue diversification. Group consensus is that the general
community would be in favor of impact fees on new development instead of supporting other
revenue sources, such as increasing taxes or reallocating General Fund monies to pay for impacts
of new development. This would need to be further examined as the group does not fully
represent the community.
Given the limitations on total revenue, if full impact fee increases are not implemented, the City
will need to turn to alternatives or reallocate revenue from the General Fund. Limited revenues
and endless needs make for choices. If Council elects to continue to implement less than
recommended, the group suggests exploring alternative revenue sources.
19
Summary of Findings
• Bringing impact fees together for review and formation of the fee working group has
been beneficial to better understand the full impact of Council approved impact fees for
new development.
• The group acknowledges overall sound methodologies, calculations and inputs.
• The third-party fee audit revealed that the City manages impact fee expenditures very
well how the City spends and collects impact fees is sound.
• Regarding economic data, the group agrees that amenities paid for through impact fees
add to property value, but views differ as to what extent they impact demand and supply.
Academic research showed that home price increases in growing areas are mainly
demand driven.
• The group agreed that impact fees are complicated and difficult to communicate across
the community. They recommend better messaging to stakeholders and the general
public.
• In the 2017 study, park impact fees increased more than other impact fees due to
increases in the costs of land, water and construction. These fees are the only category
where impact fees pay for 100 percent of what is built.
• The group acknowledges the need to identify new revenue sources for park refresh and
maintenance.
• If Council approves lower fees than the staff recommendation, alternative revenue
sources will be needed. If Council goes this direction, it will be for the community to
decide what alternatives to pursue.
20
PART III - RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Better Communication, Outreach and Notification of Impact Fee Changes: Predictability
of when impact fees change and communication to the community should be more
transparent. Bringing impact fees together for review on a two and four-year cadence
along with better communication on when specific impact fees are locked in, will aid in
transparency and predictability.
Communication around impact fee updates and comparisons with other communities
needs better clarity and messaging going forward. Comparisons should have context,
such as level of service, total cost and looking at best practices. The group also suggests
finding a better way to communicate level of service vs plan-based methodologies.
2. Repayment from Impact Fee Audit: The full group recommends paying back the $130k
identified in the DPFG audit review.
3. Progressive Fees if/where Possible: Some in the group suggest that impact fees be more
progressive, i.e. lower impact fees for smaller homes and higher impact fees for larger
homes, or potentially add more steps within the impact fees. Staff plans to incorporate
more home size grouping in the next update in 2021.
4. Explore Alternative Revenue Source for Parks Buildout: The group recommends
considering alternative revenue sources for building new parks as it is the only category
that is fully funded by impact fees.
5. Investigate Revenue Alternatives to Support Parks Refresh and Maintenance: When the
City is at buildout, what will be the funding source to refresh parks? Some also
recommend a deeper dive may be useful to better understand if plan based or level of
services is best for the City’s park fees.
6. Explore Stronger Supports for Affordable Housing Fee Waivers: Some in the group
recommended the City reconsider the Area Median Income (AMI) level for waivers to
include greater than 30%. In addition, perhaps longer requirements for affordability
(beyond 20 years) could be coupled with greater AMI limits. The group also suggested a
more nuanced approach to fee waivers for affordable housing be explored, for example,
waiving some fees or portions of fees, such as parks and transportation, but not others
like utilities or police/fire fees.
21
Impact Fee List
Type of
Fee
Fee Category Fee Name
CEF Permit Fees - Building Permits Parkland: Neighborhood
CEF Permit Fees - Building Permits Parkland: Community
CEF Permit Fees - Building Permits Transportation Capital Expansion
CEF Permit Fees - Building Permits Fire Capital Expansion
CEF Permit Fees - Building Permits Police Capital Expansion
CEF Permit Fees - Building Permits General Gov. Capt. Exp.
Utility Development Fees Cash-in-lieu of the Water Raw Water Requirement & Excess Water Use Surcharge
Utility Development Fees Electric Development Fees
Utility Development Fees Sewer Plant Investment Fee
Utility Development Fees Stormwater Plant Investment Fees
Utility Development Fees Water Plant Investment Fee
Dev Development Review - Addition of Permitted Use Additional Rounds of Review
Dev Development Review - Annexation Transportation Development Review
Dev Development Review - Basic Development Review Transportation - Initial - (flat fee)
Dev Development Review - Basic Development Review Transportation if detached single family
Dev Development Review - Basic Development Review Transportation if multi-family/other residential
Dev Development Review - Basic Development Review Transportation if commercial, industrial, retail
Dev Development Review - Basic Development Review Transportation - size of development
Dev Development Review - Basic Development Review Transportation - Final (flat fee)
Dev Development Review - Water Water Development Review
Dev Development Review - Sewer Sewer Development Review
Dev Development Review - Stormwater Stormewater Development Review
Dev Development Review - Easments and Right of Ways - Dedications Transportation Development Review (Easement)
Dev Development Review - Easments and Right of Ways - Dedications Transportation Development Review ( Right-of-Way)
Dev Development Review - Easments and Right of Ways - Vacations Processing Fee (per easement)
Dev Development Review - Easments and Right of Ways - Vacations Processing Fee (per Right-of-Way)
Dev Development Review - Major Amendment Initial Transportation Development Review
Dev Development Review - Major Amendment Final Transportation
Dev Development Review - Minor Amendment Transportation Development Review
Dev Development Review - Modification of Standards Transportation Development Review
Dev Development Review - Overall Development Plan Transportation Development Review
Dev Development Review - Project Development Plan - Initial Transportation (flat fee)
Dev Development Review - Project Development Plan - Initial Transportation if detached single family
Dev Development Review - Project Development Plan - Initial Transportation if multi-family/other residential
Dev Development Review - Project Development Plan - Initial Transportation if commercial, industrial, retail
Dev Development Review - PDP Final Transportation Re-review
Dev Development Review - Rezoning Transportation Development Review
Dev Development Review Road Projects
Dev Development Review - Wireless Telecomm - Initial Transportation
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Building Permits
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Over-the-counter (No Review) Residential Building Permits
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Building Plan Check
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Poudre School District Impact Fee - Single Family Attached
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Poudre School District Impact Fee - 1-4 attached dwelling units
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Poudre School District Impact Fee -5 or more attached dwelling units
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Thompson School District Impact Fee - Single Family Detached
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Thompson School District Impact Fee - 5 or more attached dwelling units
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Larimier County Reg. Road
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Elec. PILOTS
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Elec: Secondary Service (Service A & B)
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Elec: Temp Pedestal
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Water PIF
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Water Right
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Water Meter
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Sewer PIF
22
Glossary of Terms
References
Been, V. (2005). Impact Fees and Housing Affordability, Cityscape, A Journal of Policy development and
Research 8(1), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
https://www.huduser.gov/periodicals/cityscpe/vol8num1/ch4.pdf
Burge and Ihlanfeldt (2006). Impact Fees and Single-Family Home Construction. Journal of Urban
Economics, 60, 284-306. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119006000222
Burge and Ihlanfeldt (2006). The Effects of Impact Fees on Multifamily Housing Construction. Journal of
Regional Science, 46, 5-23. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0022-4146.2006.00431.x
Burge, Gregory (2016). Impact Fees in Relation to Housing Prices and Affordable Housing Supply.
http://www.impactfees.com/publications/burge-Impact_Fees_in_Relation_to_Housing_Prices-2016.pdf
City of Fort Collins (2008). City of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan.
http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=236&docid=2242785&dt=DEPT+REPORTS
Development Planning & Financing Group, Inc. (2018). Capital Expansion Fee Review prepared for the
Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce, Northern Colorado Home Builders Association and the Fort
Collins Board of Realtors. (see attached)
Ditesco (2017). Park Development Fee Analysis prepared for the City of Fort Collins.
https://www.fcgov.com/finance/pdf/parks-fee-analysis.pdf?1488231835
Duncan Associates (2017). Capital Expansion Fee City prepared for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
https://www.fcgov.com/finance/pdf/capital-expansion-fee.pdf?1497285402
Jones, AT (2015). Impact Fees and Employment Growth, Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 29(4)
341 –346. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0891242415589368
AMI Area Median Income
CEFs Capital Expansion Fees
CIP Capital Improvement Plan
Equivalent Dwelling Unit The ratio of the average household size of a dwelling type to the average household size
of the typical single-family detached unit – the service unit used for parks
Functional Population The number of people present at a land use expressed in full time equivalents, the
service unit used for fire, police and general government
Level of Service Ratio of the replacement cost of existing facilities to existing service units
PIFs Plant Investment Fees
TCEFs Transportation Capital Expansion Fees
VMT Vehicle Miles of Travel
Wet Utility PIFs Water, wastewater and stormwater plant investment fees
23
Mathur, S., Waddell, P, & Blanco, H (2004). The Effect of Impact Fees on the Price of New Single-Family
Housing. Urban Studies, 41(7), 1303-1312.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0042098042000214806
Mathur, S. (2013). Do All Impact Fees Affect Housing Prices the Same? Journal of Planning Education and
Research. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0739456X13494241
Nelson, AC, Pendall, R., Dawkins, CJ, Knaap, GJ (2002). The Link Between Growth Management And
Housing Affordability: The Academic Evidence. A discussion paper prepared for the Brookings Institution
Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-link-between-
growth-management-and-housing-affordability-the-academic-evidence/
Nelson, AC & Moody, M. (2003) Paying For Prosperity: Impact Fees and Job Growth. A discussion paper
prepared for the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/paying-for-prosperity-impact-fees-and-job-growth/
Nelson, AC, Bowles, LK, Juergensmeyer, JC, & Nicholas, JC (2008). A Guide to Impact Fees and Housing
Affordability, Washington DC: Island Press. https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-link-between-
growth-management-and-housing-affordability-the-academic-evidence/
TischlerBise (2017). Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study prepared for the City of Fort Collins,
Colorado. https://www.fcgov.com/finance/pdf/transportation-capital-expansion-fee-study-
2017.pdf?1497285409
Yinger, John. 1998). The Incidence of Development Fees and Special Assessments. National Tax Journal.
51(1), 23-41. http://www.impactfees.com/publications%20pdf/v51n1023.pdf
3302 EAST INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD
PHOENIX, AZ 85018
TEL (602) 381-3226
FAX (602) 381-1203
www.dpfg.com
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
April 6, 2018
Ms. Ann Hutchison
Director
Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce
Mr. Greg Miedema
Director
Northern Colorado Home Builders Associations
Ms. Natalie Davis
Chief Executive Officer
Fort Collins Board of Realtors
RE: City of Fort Collins Impact Fee Peer Review
Dear Ms. Hutchinson, Mr. Miedema and Ms. Davis:
At your request, we have performed certain agreed upon procedures (“Agreed Upon Procedures”
and/or “Review”) related to the City of Fort Collin’s, Colorado (“City”), collection and
expenditure of capital expansion fees (“CEF”) as outlined below.
The purpose of the Review was not to examine the City’s accounting records in accordance with
generally accepted financial auditing or attestation standards, but rather to determine whether the
City is properly utilizing funds collected through its CEF program for the funding of public
improvements as outlined in: the City’s Ordinance related to such matters (“Ordinance”); the
supporting CEF studies; as well as Colorado Revised Statute (“CRS”) 29-20-1045 et seq. (the
“Act”).
In accordance with the Agreed Upon Procedures, we have reviewed in varying degree of detail,
the majority of the City’s CEF expenditures in terms of dollar volume for the time period
January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016.
I. Agreed Upon Procedures Scope of Work
The following tasks were performed as part of our Agreed Upon Procedures.
ATTACHMENT 2
2
Reviewed CEF Ordinance and Supporting Documents/Studies
Obtained the City’s Ordinance as well as supporting studies and back-up materials including
but not limited to: CEF Studies; City’s Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”); Annual
Statements of CEF Account Balances for the last five (5) year fiscal period; the City’s
Annual Financial Reports for the last five (5) years; CEF Account General Journals for the
last five (5) fiscal years and other reports as required.
CIP / CEF Review
Reviewed the City’s CIP as well as the funding of the improvements included in the CIP
through a review of the CEF account expenditures for the five (5) year analysis period as
follows:
1. Reviewed the City’s CIP, CEF Account Balance Reports and General Journals by
CEF account for the last five (5) years.
2. For all CEF transactions selected from the general journal, requested supporting
documentation from the City.
3. Determined the appropriateness of each transaction by reviewing the transaction
description accompanying each transaction and on a test basis traced the selected
expenditure to the listing of eligible public facilities as outlined in the CIP and/or the
CEF Study as appropriate.
4. Discussed any discrepancies (if any) with the appropriate City personnel.
CEF Implementation Plan
Evaluated the City’s implementation of the CEF programs as follows:
1. Reviewed the Ordinances adopting the City’s CEF program.
2. Obtained the City’s current CEF charges from the Development Service Department
or its equivalent.
Report of Findings
1. Prepared a written report of findings outlining the results of our Agreed Upon
Procedures.
II. Executive Summary
The following is a summary of our Review findings:
A. CEF Ordinance and Supporting Documentation – Our Review indicated that the City
had enacted Ordinances for the review period.
B. Transaction Support – We noted that all of the City’s CEF revenue and expenditure
transactions reviewed agreed to the general ledger and that the transactions had reasonable
levels of backup and supporting documentation.
3
C. Police – No issues related to the collection or expenditures of Police CEF’s were noted.
D. Fire - No issues were found related to the collection or expenditures of Fire CEF’s.
E. Transportation – It was noted that approximately $1.4 million in Transportation Fees
had been expended for operational expenses which appears to be in conflict with the Act and
industry practices for such matters.
F. Parks – Approximately $586,000 in park fees had been expended for operational
expenses, $218,000 for repairs/replacement of existing park equipment and $1.6 million for
administrative type expenses. All of these expenditures appear to be in conflict with the Act
and industry practices.
G. Financial Recap –The summary table below illustrates the total expenditures that were
identified as part of our Agreed Upon Procedures that in our opinion, do not meet the
requirements of CRS 29-20-1045 (4)(b) of having a useful life of five (5) years or more.
Each questionable expenditure was categorized as either an operational expense, a
repair/replacement, or an administrative expense. Further detailed schedules for each Fee
category can be found in the addendum to this Report.
Capital Expansion Fee
Exhibit
Reference Operational Expense Repair/Replacement
Administration
Expense Total
Transportation
Transportation Cap Expan No 2 B $ 1,374,294.80 $ - $ 1,510.60 $ 1,375,805.40
Transportation Subtotal $ 1,374,294.80 $ - $ 1,510.60 $ 1,375,805.40
Parks
Waters Way Park C $ 114,688.22 $ 202.38 $ - $ 114,890.60
Waters Way Repairs D $ - $ 41,845.53 $ - $ 41,845.53
Registry Park E $ 13,429.20 $ - $ - $ 13,429.20
Radiant Park F $ 13,217.35 $ - $ - $ 13,217.35
New Park Site Development G $ 24,773.98 $ 68,467.21 $ 641.26 $ 93,882.45
Lee Martinez Park Addition H $ 3,822.65 $ - $ - $ 3,822.65
Richards Lake I $ 2,839.91 $ - $ - $ 2,839.91
Avery Park J $ 1,893.72 $ 85,683.96 $ - $ 87,577.68
Maple Hill Park K $ 6,546.39 $ 4,707.00 $ - $ 11,253.39
Trailhead Park L $ 18,363.34 $ - $ - $ 18,363.34
Parkland & Administration Cost M $ 386,539.06 $ - $ 1,562,298.66 $ 1,948,837.72
Parkland Equipment Replacement N $ - $ 17,423.13 $ - $ 17,423.13
Parks Subtotal $ 586,113.82 $ 218,329.21 $ 1,562,939.92 $ 2,367,382.95
Total $ 1,960,408.62 $ 218,329.21 $ 1,564,450.52 $ 3,743,188.35
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Summary of Findings
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Development Impact Fee Review
4
III. Detailed Findings
A. CEF Ordinance - The City enacted ordinances for the collection of CEF’s as illustrated
on the table below.
Fiscal Year Ending Ordinance Number Fees Included Fee Study Present Date Signed Comments
2017 049, 2017
Park, Police, Fire and
General Government,
Street Oversizing
Capital Improvements
Yes. Included Parks,
Police, Fire, General
Government and
Transportation 6/7/2017
Ordinance indicates that funds
shall not be used to remedy
deficiencies but only provide for
new capital improvements
required by new development.
Also indicates that funds shall
not be used for costs associated
with operation, administration,
maintenance or replacement of
capital improvements.
2016 132, 2016
Park, Police, Fire and
General Government,
Street Oversizing
Capital Improvements
No - Increased by
Denver Greeley CPI
and ENR Index. (1) 12/20/2016
2015 148, 2015
Park, Police, Fire and
General Government,
Street Oversizing
Capital Improvements
No - Increased by
Denver Greeley CPI
and ENR Index. (1) 12/1/2015
2014 172, 2014
Park, Police, Fire and
General Government,
Street Oversizing
Capital Improvements
No - Increased by
Denver Greeley CPI
and ENR Index. (1) 12/16/2014
2013 120, 2013
Park, Police, Fire and
General Government,
Street Oversizing
Capital Improvements
No - Increased by
Denver Greeley CPI
and ENR Index. (1) 9/3/2013
2012 121, 2012
Park, Police, Fire and
General Government,
Street Oversizing
5
C. Transportation – It was noted that potentially $1.4 million of Transportation Expansion
Fee expenditures were made for administrative expenses rather than capital facilities that
have an estimated useful life of five (5) years or longer
1
. The questionable items include
salaries and related benefits, land maintenance services, termination pay, cell phone service
bills, vehicle repairs and office supplies. See Exhibit B for more details.
D. Parks - It was noted that approximately $590,000 of Parkland Expansion expenditures
were made for operational expenses such as electric and water utilities, yard maintenance,
grocery store expenditures, restaurant meal expenses, computer hardware and software
expenses, mobile stage rentals, fed-ex shipping expenses, vehicle repair services, and
conference and travel expenses were charged to various parkland expense accounts. See
Exhibits C through M for further information.
There also appeared to be potentially $218,000 spent on repair or replacement type
expenditures involving the Parkland Expansion accounts. Some of the expenses included
repairing existing playground soft surfacing, and demolishing an existing park playground
established in 1962 and constructing a new playground in its place. There was also an
existing shade structure that had been updated using impact fee funds. See Exhibits C
through N for further details.
Lastly, there were approximately $1.5 million of administration related expenses charged to
the Parkland Expansion accounts. Of this amount, $1.1 million appear to be utilized for City
employee salary expenses. A majority of the remaining $400,000 in expenditures consisted
of administration services to the general fund, health insurance premiums and employee
retirement contributions. See Exhibits G through M for further detailed expense findings.
IV. Recommendations
Based on our Agreed Upon Procedures it appears that the City has expended approximately
$3.7 million in Fees for non-capital assets. In our opinion the City should refund the
appropriate Fee accounts $3.7 million as outlined herein. The stakeholder group may wish to
engage legal counsel to obtain their advice as to the legalities of the items noted within the
body of the Report.
While we were not able to observe the processes and procedures that the City utilized to
authorize expenditures from its Fee accounts; given our findings related to the expenditure of
funds for non-capital assets, it is suggested that the City formulate and institute policies and
procedures to ensure that Fees are only being expended for their intended purposes.
V. General Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
DPFG neither expresses nor implies any warranties of its work nor predicts results of the
procedures outlined above. DPFG’s work was performed on a “level-of-effort” basis; that is,
the depth of our analyses and extent of our authentication of the information on which our
Report was predicated, may be limited in some respects due to the extent and sufficiency of
1 Colorado Revised Statute 29-20-1045 (4)(b)
6
available information, and other factors. Moreover, we did not examine any such information
in accordance with generally accepted financial auditing or attestation standards. Our work
was performed in compliance with the Agreed Upon Procedures only.
This Report was based on information that was current as of November 17, 2017 and DPFG
has not undertaken any update of its research effort since such date. Because of the limited
nature of our review, no warranty or representation is made by DPFG that the results
contained in this Report are accurate.
The professionals at DPFG are not trained legal professionals and as such, we are not
providing legal interpretations related to the Act.
This Report is qualified in its entirety by, and should be considered in light of, these
assumptions, limitations, and conditions.
Sincerely,
Carter T. Froelich, CPA
Managing Principal
CTF/kb
Attachments
Exhibit A
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Development Impact Fee Review
Summary of Findings
Capital Expansion Fee
Exhibit
Reference Operational Expense Repair/Replacement
Administration
Expense Total
Transportation
Transportation Cap Expan No 2 B $ 1,374,294.80 $ - $ 1,510.60 $ 1,375,805.40
Transportation Subtotal $ 1,374,294.80 $ - $ 1,510.60 $ 1,375,805.40
Parks
Waters Way Park C $ 114,688.22 $ 202.38 $ - $ 114,890.60
Waters Way Repairs D $ - $ 41,845.53 $ - $ 41,845.53
Registry Park E $ 13,429.20 $ - $ - $ 13,429.20
Radiant Park F $ 13,217.35 $ - $ - $ 13,217.35
New Park Site Development G $ 24,773.98 $ 68,467.21 $ 641.26 $ 93,882.45
Lee Martinez Park Addition H $ 3,822.65 $ - $ - $ 3,822.65
Richards Lake I $ 2,839.91 $ - $ - $ 2,839.91
Avery Park J $ 1,893.72 $ 85,683.96 $ - $ 87,577.68
Maple Hill Park K $ 6,546.39 $ 4,707.00 $ - $ 11,253.39
Trailhead Park L $ 18,363.34 $ - $ - $ 18,363.34
Parkland & Administration Cost M $ 386,539.06 $ - $ 1,562,298.66 $ 1,948,837.72
Parkland Equipment Replacement N $ - $ 17,423.13 $ - $ 17,423.13
Parks Subtotal $ 586,113.82 $ 218,329.21 $ 1,562,939.92 $ 2,367,382.95
Total $ 1,960,408.62 $ 218,329.21 $ 1,564,450.52 $ 3,743,188.35
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Exhibit B
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Transportation Capital Expansion Account
Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
Advertising Services $ 55.56 Operational Expense
Cell Phones Services $ 1,650.00 Operational Expense
Clothing Supplies $ 467.30 Operational Expense
Construction Services $ 897.50 Operational Expense
Copy & Reproduction Services $ 51.67 Operational Expense
Dental Insurance $ 3,613.49 Operational Expense
Education & Training Services $ 175.00 Operational Expense
E-Mail & PDA Admin Services $ 718.52 Operational Expense
Employees Group Life Ins $ 1,124.41 Operational Expense
GERP (1) $ 1,599.38 Operational Expense
GERP Supplemental Charges (1) $ 13,440.00 Operational Expense
Health Insurance $ 59,206.05 Operational Expense
Internal Investment Services $ 3,827.96 Operational Expense
Land Maintenance Services $ 400,127.60 Operational Expense
Long-term Disability $ 2,998.65 Operational Expense
Office Supplies $ 591.32 Operational Expense
Other Prof & Tech Services $ 26.00 Operational Expense
Postage & Freight Services $ 26.40 Operational Expense
Retirement Contributions $ 49,336.03 Operational Expense
Salaries-Hourly $ 9,872.24 Operational Expense
Salaries-Regular $ 674,535.17 Operational Expense
Social Security & Medicare $ 50,579.61 Operational Expense
Telephone Services $ 2,637.16 Operational Expense
Termination Pay $ 14,020.71 Operational Expense
Tools & Related Supplies $ 231.84 Operational Expense
Vehicle Repair Services $ 541.29 Operational Expense
Water $ 81,943.94 Operational Expense
Workers Compensation $ 1,510.60 Administration Expense
Total $ 1,375,805.40
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 1,374,294.80
Repair/Replacement $ -
Administration Expense $ 1,510.60
Total $ 1,375,805.40
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Footnote:
(1) "GERP" is the City of Fort Collins General Employee Retirement Plan.
Description of Expenditures
Exhibit C
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Waters Way Park
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
Bath Inc $ 5,949.63 Operational Expense
City of Fort Collins Utility B $ 19,604.21 Operational Expense
Fort Collins-Loveland Water Di $ 607.63 Operational Expense
Hedrick, James $ 1,016.11 Operational Expense
Hurr/Vasa Lawn & Landscape $ 202.38 Repairs/Replacement
Korby Landscaping LLC $ 38,323.69 Operational Expense
Raw water bill for 2012 $ 750.00 Operational Expense
Rcls hrly payroll exp to proj $ 26,337.83 Operational Expense
UMB Card Services $ 22,099.12 Operational Expense
Total $ 114,890.60
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 114,688.22
Repairs/Replacement $ 202.38
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 114,890.60
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Exhibit D
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Waters Way Repairs
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
RCL Waters Way Repair Expense $ 41,845.53 Repairs/Replacement
Total $ 41,845.53
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ -
Repairs/Replacement $ 41,845.53
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 41,845.53
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Exhibit E
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Registry Park
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
City of Fort Collins Utility B $ 7,998.17 Operational Expense
Fort Collins-Loveland Water Di $ 5,431.03 Operational Expense
Total $ 13,429.20
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 13,429.20
Repairs/Replacement $ -
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 13,429.20
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Exhibit F
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Radiant Park
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
City of Fort Collins Utility B $ 2,433.59 Operational Expense
2013 Raw Water bill-Parks Dept $ 683.10 Operational Expense
Fedex Corp $ 213.61 Operational Expense
Fort Collins-Loveland Water Di $ 9,220.45 Operational Expense
Raw water bill for 2012 $ 666.60 Operational Expense
Total $ 13,217.35
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 13,217.35
Repairs/Replacement $ -
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 13,217.35
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Exhibit G
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
New Park Site Development
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
Aller-Lingle Massey Architects $ 1,986.00 Repairs/Replacement
Arrow Fencing and Automated Ga $ 7,966.14 Repairs/Replacement
B H A Design INC $ 1,774.00 Operational Expense
Batteries Plus $ 33.95 Operational Expense
Best Rental Inc $ 2,202.82 Operational Expense
Bettin, Cameron $ 582.52 Administration Expense
Dickinson Electric $ 8,836.64 Repairs/Replacement
DLT Solutions AutoCad renewal $ 4,170.66 Operational Expense
ENCK Resources $ 4,000.00 Operational Expense
High Sierra Electronics $ 1,381.00 Repairs/Replacement
Keeton Industries $ 3,065.90 Repairs/Replacement
Korby Landscaping LLC $ 4,772.50 Repairs/Replacement
Korby Sod LLC $ 2,206.00 Repairs/Replacement
Payroll Labor Distribution $ 58.74 Administration Expense
Reclass Lincoln Center Rental $ 1,125.00 Operational Expense
Sam's Club Direct $ 6.87 Operational Expense
SOF Surfaces $ 37,783.03 Repairs/Replacement
Southwestern Painting & Decora $ 470.00 Repairs/Replacement
UMB Card Services $ 8,933.44 Operational Expense
Xerox Corporation $ 754.62 Operational Expense
Xerox Corporation (ACH) $ 1,772.62 Operational Expense
Total $ 93,882.45
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 24,773.98
Repairs/Replacement $ 68,467.21
Administration Expense $ 641.26
Total $ 93,882.45
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Exhibit H
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Lee Martinez Park Addition
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
UMB Card Services $ 3,822.65 Operational Expense
Total $ 3,822.65
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 3,822.65
Repairs/Replacement $ -
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 3,822.65
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Exhibit I
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Richards Lake
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditures
UMB Card Services $ 2,839.91 Operational Expense
Total $ 2,839.91
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 2,839.91
Repairs/Replacement $ -
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 2,839.91
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Exhibit J
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Avery Park
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
Avery Park FPUP $ 50.00 Operational Expense
Banner Concrete $ 54,608.46 Repairs/Replacement
City of Fort Collins Miscellan $ 117.81 Operational Expense
Finishing Touch $ 12,900.00 Repairs/Replacement
King Surveyors Inc $ 3,440.00 Repairs/Replacement
Korby Landscaping LLC $ 10,137.50 Repairs/Replacement
Playpower LT Farmington Inc $ 4,598.00 Repairs/Replacement
UMB Card Services $ 1,713.16 Operational Expense
W/O Jefferson/SH 14 projects $ 12.75 Operational Expense
Total $ 87,577.68
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 1,893.72
Repairs/Replacement $ 85,683.96
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 87,577.68
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Exhibit K
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Maple Hill Park
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
Baker Lateral Company $ 392.70 Operational Expense
Boxelder Sanitation District $ 6,063.69 Operational Expense
Concrete Structures Inc $ 4,707.00 Repairs/Replacement
Poudre School District $ 90.00 Operational Expense
Total $ 11,253.39
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 6,546.39
Repairs/Replacement $ 4,707.00
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 11,253.39
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Exhibit L
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Trailhead Park
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
Hartshorn Waterworks LLC $ 15,373.34 Operational Expense
Ops $ 297.00 Operational Expense
Ops Billing 04-16 $ 165.00 Operational Expense
Ops Billing 05-16 $ 297.00 Operational Expense
Ops Billing Jan 16 $ 714.00 Operational Expense
Ops Services Billing Dec-15 $ 1,517.00 Operational Expense
Total $ 18,363.34
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 18,363.34
Repairs/Replacement $ -
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 18,363.34
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
Salaries-Regular $ 1,183,090.52 Administration Expense
Salaries-Hourly $ 4,685.93 Administration Expense
Health Insurance $ 132,016.65 Administration Expense
Dental Insurance $ 8,119.24 Administration Expense
Retirement Contributions $ 75,946.03 Administration Expense
GERP $ 12,858.64 Administration Expense
Social Security & Medicare $ 86,024.87 Administration Expense
Workers Compensation $ 3,215.81 Administration Expense
Employees Group Life Ins $ 1,942.10 Administration Expense
Long-term Disability $ 5,144.03 Administration Expense
Education & Training Services $ 240.00 Operational Expense
Cell Phones Services $ 12,610.63 Operational Expense
Office Supplies $ 7,424.21 Operational Expense
Meals - Business, Non Travel $ 2,033.44 Operational Expense
Other Supplies $ 17,816.98 Operational Expense
Telephone Services $ 5,046.56 Operational Expense
Internal Investment Services $ 4,652.00 Operational Expense
Admin Services to General Fund $ 151,263.04 Operational Expense
E-Mail & PDA Admin Services $ 1,067.60 Operational Expense
Transfer to Fund 603 $ 48,242.00 Operational Expense
Conference and Travel $ 21,494.55 Operational Expense
Vehicle Repair Services $ 9,223.25 Operational Expense
Motor Fuel, Oil & Grease $ 3,102.70 Operational Expense
Copy & Reproduction Services $ 2,028.60 Operational Expense
Postage & Freight Services $ 10,946.33 Operational Expense
Dues & Subscription Services $ 10,817.00 Operational Expense
Right of Way $ 11,373.97 Operational Expense
Computer Hardware $ 33,406.71 Operational Expense
Other Employee Travel $ 5,649.58 Operational Expense
Mileage $ 155.20 Operational Expense
Meals - Traveling $ 284.14 Operational Expense
Computer Software $ 6,862.82 Operational Expense
Other Personnel Costs $ 205.00 Operational Expense
Food & Related Supplies $ 2,303.50 Operational Expense
GERP Supplemental Charges $ 27,328.00 Administration Expense
Salaries-Overtime $ 825.93 Administration Expense
Termination Pay $ 20,341.35 Administration Expense
Copier Rental Services $ 6,432.97 Operational Expense
Interview Applicant Travel $ 5.09 Operational Expense
Other Prof & Tech Services $ 6,517.73 Operational Expense
Other Office Related Supplies $ 448.03 Operational Expense
Office Equipment $ 989.82 Operational Expense
Software Maint & Support Serv $ 2,087.36 Operational Expense
Salaries-Contractual $ 582.06 Administration Expense
Computer Software - Capital $ 728.01 Operational Expense
Clothing Supplies $ 326.05 Operational Expense
Taxable Employee Recognition $ 177.50 Administration Expense
Contract Pmt to Govt/Other $ 414.00 Operational Expense
Other Land & Bldg Supplies $ 10.71 Operational Expense
Health & Safety Supplies $ 329.48 Operational Expense
Total $ 1,948,837.72
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 386,539.06
Repairs/Replacement $ -
Administration Expense $ 1,562,298.66
Total $ 1,948,837.72
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Exhibit N
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Parkland Equipment Replacement
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
Reclass playground expenses $ 12,233.69 Repairs/Replacement
UMB Card Services $ 5,189.44 Repairs/Replacement
Total $ 17,423.13
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ -
Repairs/Replacement $ 17,423.13
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 17,423.13
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
09/17/2018
10 am - noon
CIC Room - City Hall
Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Ross Cunniff, Ken Summers (via phone)
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Kelly DiMartino, Jeff Mihelich, Mike Beckstead, Wendy Williams, John
Duval, Ginny Sawyer, Laurie Kadrich, Noelle Currell, Tim Kemp, Kyle Lambrecht, Jennifer
Poznanovic, Lawrence Pollack, Tyler Marr, Katie Ricketts, Andres Gavaldon, Zack Mozer,
Lance Smith
Others: Fee Working Group members; Diane Cohn, Will Flowers, Linda Stanley, Ragan Adams,
Rebecca Hill, Doug Braden and Moira Bright.
Dale Adamy, R1ST.org, Kevin Jones, Chamber of Commerce, Rusty McDaniel, Asst.
Larimer County Engineer, Traci Shambo, Larimer County Development Review Manager
____________________________________________________________________________________
Meeting called to order at 10:06 am
Approval of Minutes from the August 20th Council Finance Committee Meeting and the Special Council Finance
Committee Meeting on September 5th. Ross Cunniff move for approval of minutes from both meetings. Mayor
Troxell seconded the motions. Minutes were approved unanimously.
A. Fee Review - Fee Team Report - Total Impact
Jennifer Poznanovic, Revenue & Project Manager
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Impact Fee Working Group Findings & Recommendations
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since the fall of October 2016, staff has worked to coordinate the process for updating all new development
related fees that require Council approval. The 2017 CEFs and TCEFs full fee proposals showed significant
increases from the previously approved fees. Due to the concern in the development and building community
around impact fee changes, Council asked for a fee working group to be created to foster a better understanding
of impact fees prior to discussing further fee updates.
The fee working group meetings commenced in August of 2017, comprised of a balanced group of stakeholders
– City staff, business-oriented individuals, citizens and a Council liaison. The group met 14 times, and the topics
covered included: detailed review of fee methodologies, inputs, calculations, City revenue sources, alternative
ATTACHMENT 3
2
revenue sources, academic economic research on impact fees, a third-party impact fee audit review and impact
fee comparisons to other communities.
Below is a summary of the key findings from the Fee Working Group position paper:
• Bringing impact fees together for review and formation of the fee working group has been beneficial to
better understand the full impact of Council approved impact fees for new development.
• The group acknowledges overall sound methodologies, calculations and inputs.
• The third-party fee audit revealed that the City manages impact fee expenditures very well. how the City
spends and collects impact fees is sound.
• Regarding economic data, the group agrees that amenities paid for through impact fees add to property
value, but views differ as to what extent they impact demand and supply. Academic research showed
that home price increases in growing areas are mainly demand driven.
• The group agreed that impact fees are complicated and difficult to communicate across the community.
They recommend better messaging to stakeholders and the general public.
• In the 2017 study, park impact fees increased more than other impact fees due to increases in the costs
of land, water and construction. These fees are the only category where impact fees pay for 100
percent of what is built.
• The group acknowledges the need to identify new revenue sources for park refresh and maintenance.
• If council approves lower fees than the staff recommendation, alternative revenue sources will be
needed. If Council goes this direction, it will be for the community to decide what alternatives to pursue.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Next Steps:
• November 13th: Council Work Session
• December 4th & 18th: Ordinance readings
• 2019: Utility Fees, Development Fees & Step III for CEFs
Feedback & Questions from Council Finance Committee
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
• Impact Fee Working Group Position Paper
• 3rd
Party Impact Fee Audit
Discussion / Next Steps:
Mike Beckstead; team validated that our fees are so complex - hard to convey details in a meaningful way in a
20 minute presentation. Challenge of what we are still faced with is how to communicate this to the
community.
3
Question came out of discussion was -how we use the fees and expenditures
Through detail analysis we agreed that $130K was misapplied due to a misunderstanding – they thought park
impact fees could be used to put new things in existing parks.
Ross Cunniff; we talked about that at a Council meeting.
Darin Atteberry; really important - we did discuss it but it requires more context. Mike, can you take a few
minutes and provide some background.
Mike Beckstead; This was a combination of the Building Board and Board of Realtors - they received a grant of
$25K and hired a company out of Phoenix to do the audit review. They asked for 5 years of revenue coming into
capital expansion and funds coming out - peer review / audit of the way we calculate, collect and spend fees -
they looked at 5 years of data which included approximately $54M in total – they spent quite a bit of time with
it and we provided written responses to each of their concerns. Code says it ok to use fees for overhead costs in
parks planning but there was a philosophy that they would prefer that not to be -they did acknowledge that is
the way code is written so that is an acceptable way to use fees. With that summary, we provided the report
back to the Board of Realtors and the Building Board – they reviewed and agreed that it should be shared in this
report and publicly. It was a very appropriate and very meaningful action which very strongly validates the
integrity of our systems.
Ross Cunniff; best practice going forward - fee collections - we did find .25% and now we can take action to
rectify that - keep everything above board
Darin Atteberry; how do we fold in an outside review similar to what was done here? I see this as good news
and it should be shared. Thanks to all of the team members doing this on a daily basis.
As Ross said - we move forward with this lesson learned - to have some sort of review like this every x number of
years
Mike Beckstead; we will figure out how to integrate that into the schedule that Jennifer discussed earlier –
maybe after the next cycle of fee inputs in 2021 -
Mayor Troxell; how specialty is this type of audit? Could this be part of our regular fiscal audit?
Mike Beckstead; we could look into that.
Mike Beckstead; the economic data looks at communities that allow amenities to be built - amenities are part
of what creates the flywheel of desire and value in a community - without these it becomes a less attractive
community so the multiplier esp on higher value homes – the value of fee adds to value of property to a greater
degree - this is the Policy choice of Council in terms how we pay for these – it clearly adds to the price of the
home too - it has a multiplier effect that is positive .
Mike Beckstead; as the team turned over a bit - Will and Doug stepped in and they shared
that they were hearing from their organizations that we were raising fees because we were on the low end of
the scale in the lower quadrant – somehow all of the work we did to show we were competitive was
misinterpreted and somehow got lost in that discussion.
4
Ross Cunniff; one nuance – you could look at design of our parks and look at the implications on on-going
maintenance and refresh - change the master design - go back into the fee calculation
Mike Beckstead; we had a conversation a few years ago about a park maintenance fee - $1 per month per
resident which would help fund maintenance - set it aside – we did talk about a park maintenance fee and a
trail maintenance fee – those discussions - we may want to come back and have a conversation- do we want to
have a dedicated funding stream.
Back up slide below illustrates when impact fees are locked in – this addresses Ross Cunniff’s earlier request for
analysis - Permits - October timeframe - fees change - permit applications – active applications – rolling kind of
number
Ross Cunniff; we have to either build $600K less of amenities or have less in General Fund (time = money)
5
Data has to back that up - more people in larger homes – 2015 census data would give us a higher slope on that
line - When we update CES again in 20 -21 that is something we would be looking at - expanding those
categories
Ross Cunniff; I read through the report – the duration of time that a house is supposed to be affordable - tie the
waiver to a better outcome – from a 20 - to 40-50 year horizon.
Mike Beckstead; there is a commission working on that - we will share this data with the Affordable Housing
Taskforce.
Mike Beckstead; The period of notification that fees are changing - we have been having this dialog for the last
2 ½ years – Council said let’s do this in steps - our communication with the community – there has been a 2 year
dialog going on so that notification has been occurring from our perspective – one of the feedbacks we are
going to hear from the community - to allow for more time to get ready for fee changes – that will be Council’s
call but that is what we are hearing in our outreach as feedback.
Mayor Troxell; fee stacking - is there some comparative analysis of overall fee stacking against other jurisdictions
Mike Beckstead; we didn’t bring it with us but we have been using that data - we look at how our fees and fee
stacking compare to other Front Range communities; Timnath, Wellington, Loveland and Fort Collins.
Ross Cunniff; using insurance industry standard saves community $$, productivity loss, yes, this adds to the fee
stack but we think impact on health and safety-
Mayor Troxell; it puts us in the lower half of the fee stack – looking at building, utility and capital
6
Mike Beckstead; with this update we would be right in the middle – we don’t have cost of code included in this
comparison because we don’t know what their cost of code is. We looked at our cost of code over time –
median home prices – has been right in the 10% range
Ross Cunniff; I would like to add my thanks to the committee members and the staff who participated – I think it
ended up being a much more involved task than we thought it would be
Mayor Troxell; I add my thanks - this is an excellent piece of work with a lot of complexity - illustrates the kinds
of questions that were being asked by many over a long time are now answerable.
B. Partnership Fee Update – Regional Road Fee & School PILOs Update
Ginny Sawyer, Senior Project Manager
Kyle Lambrecht, Civil Engineer III
Tim Kemp, Interim Capital Projects Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to present and discuss updates to the Larimer County Regional Road and School
District fees. These fees are considered “partnership” fees; fees collected by the City of Fort Collins on behalf of
Larimer County and the Poudre and Thompson School Districts, respectively.
The County has made fee adjustments to the Regional Road Fee which will need to be considered by the City
Council. Currently, adoption of the Regional Road Fee is aligned with the City’s Capital Expansion Fees which are
considered annually in December.
The School District agreements are set to expire on December 31, 2018. Staff from the City and each District
have been working on minor revisions to the Intergovernmental Agreements which will come before Council for
consideration, before the end of 2018.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does the Council Finance Committee have any additional questions regarding the fees or the timing of
the updates?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Regional Road Fee
In 2000, the City and Larimer County entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) authorizing the City to
collect a Regional Road Fee on behalf of Larimer County. The fee is collected at the time a building permit is
issued. The Regional Road Fee helps generate revenue for road improvements on regionally significant
roadways that are necessitated by new development. The fees are only used on capacity related improvements
that are of mutual benefit to both the City and Larimer County.
Since 2000, the City and Larimer County have partnered to design and construct several projects along regionally
significant roadways; including improvements to Taft Hill Road, Shields Street, and the Shields Street/Vine Drive
intersection. City and County staff continue to plan for future improvements, recognizing opportunities for
26
Ross Cunniff; for Council, It would be helpful to have one chart with all three projects as columns -
matrix / policy considerations so we can compare and understand them
Ken Summers; and a map where we can see all three - seems like a big piece of the northeast part of
the GMA
Josh Birks; there are still some big pieces out there
Ken Summers; the total number of housing units supports significant population growth
B. Fee Review - Utilities Wet PIFs, Step II CEFs
Jennifer Poznanovic, Revenue and Project Manager
Lance Smith, Utility Strategic Finance Director
Randy Reuscher, Utility Rate Analyst
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Fee Review: Wet Utility Plant Investment Fees, Step II Capital Expansion Fees (CEFs) and Transportation
Capital Expansion Fees (TCEFs)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As of October 2016, staff has worked to coordinate the process for updating impact fees that require
Council approval. Brining fees forward for review together provides a more holistic view of the impact.
Phase I included CEFs, TCEFs and Electric Capacity Fees was approved by Council in June of 2017.
Increases were significant, and Council directed a stepped implementation for CEFs and TCEFs. Along
with approval, Council asked for a commitment to create a working group of citizens, industry and staff
to foster a better understanding of fees. Phase II fees are Wet Utility PIFs and Development Review
Fees.
Staff proposes the following fee changes:
• 90% of proposed CEFs (Step II)
• Option A for TCEFs (Step II)
• Wet Utility PIFs as proposed
Development Review Fees were initially planned for Phase II updates but have been decoupled and will
come forward at a later date.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Proposed Next Steps:
• September 17th
: Council Finance Committee
o Working Group Position Paper
o Outreach plan
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AUGUST 20, 2018 ATTACHMENT 4
27
• September/October: Public Outreach
• November 13th
: Council Work Session
• December 4th
& 18th
: Ordinance readings
• 2019:
o Development Review Fees
o Electric Capacity Fees
2. Questions from Council Finance Committee?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
As of October 2016, staff has worked to coordinate the process for updating all building related fees
that require Council approval. Bringing fees forward for review together provides a more holistic view
of the impact.
Previously, fee updates were presented to Council on an individual basis but are now on a two and
four-year cadence. Fee coordination includes a detailed fee study analysis for CEFs, TCEFs and
Development Review Fees every four years. This requires an outside consultant through a request for
proposal (RFP) process. Data is provided by City staff and findings are also verified by City staff. For
Utility Fees, a detailed fee study is planned every two years. These are internal updates by City staff
with periodic consultant verification. Fee study analysis should be targeted in the odd year before
Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO).
In June of 2017, Council approved the following Phase I fee updates:
2017 Capital Expansion full fee proposals were significant. Fee changes reflected updated asset values
that reflect higher construction costs, land values that reflect higher last cost and population and
Type of Fee
Approved by
Council
Capital Expansion Fees 6
Utility Fees 5
Bldg. Development Fees 45
28
dwelling units per the latest census. These changes caused consternation in the community and
Council directed a stepped implementation for CEFs and TCEFs.
Along with the fee approvals above, Council asked for commitment to create a working group of
citizens, industry and staff to foster a better understanding of fees. The working group commenced in
August of 2017 and has met 12 times to date. The working group’s position paper findings will be
presented next month in the September Council Finance Committee meeting.
Phase II fees are Wet Utility PIFs and Development Review Fees.
Staff proposes the following fee changes:
• 90% of proposed CEFs (Step II)
• Option A for TCEFs (Step II)
• Wet Utility PIFs as proposed
Development Review Fees were initially planned for Phase II updates but have been decoupled and will
come forward at a later date.
The chart below shows the stepped implementation for CEFs and TCEFs:
Step I changes (current fee levels) adopted October 1, 2017 are 75% of full fee levels proposed for CEFs
and Option B for TCEFs. Option B does not increase program revenue, it provides approximately 80% of
necessary funding to mitigate proportional impacts of development. Whereas Option A includes the
proportionate cost attributable for mitigation of the impacts of new development on the
transportation system, including new streets, intersection improvements, and multi-modal
improvements.
The chart below shows Step II fee changes with inflation:
Fees Phasing
Land Use Type Unit
Previous
Total
Current
Total
Step II
Total
Step III
Total
% Change
Full Fees
% Change
Step I
% Change
Step II
% Change
Step III
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $5,059 $5,845 $7,049 $7,587 50% 16% 21% 8%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $6,182 $8,779 $10,593 $11,315 83% 42% 21% 7%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $7,574 $10,283 $12,409 $13,197 74% 36% 21% 6%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $7,762 $11,099 $13,391 $14,188 83% 43% 21% 6%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $8,094 $12,147 $14,658 $15,546 92% 50% 21% 6%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $13,241 $8,430 $10,164 $10,392 -22% -36% 21% 2%
Office and Other Services $9,071 $6,660 $8,028 $8,256 -9% -27% 21% 3%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $1,748 $2,000 $2,411 $2,464 41% 14% 21% 2%
29
CEF fee increases are 90% of full fee levels recommended in 2017 and reflects Option A for TCEFs.
Including inflation, total Step II fee increases are a 27 to 28% increase from current fee levels (Step I).
The CPI-U index for Denver-Aurora-Lakewood is used for CEF inflation (3.1% in 2017 and 3.2% in 2018).
The Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index Values for Denver is used for TCEFs (4.0% in
2017 and 1.2% in 2018).
The chart below shows the proposed Wet Utility PIFs changes:
Across the three Wet Utility Fees, staff is proposing 7 to 11% increases. Water PIFs are a 7.1% increase
from current fee levels, Wastewater PIFs are a 9.5% increase from current fee levels and Stormwater
PIFs are a 11.3% increase from current fee levels.
The drivers for the increases on PIFs is the same for all three funds:
• New capital projects increase the overall system value
• Annual increases in construction costs increases the replacement value of existing system
• One-time adjustment of 2.7% included to account for fee implementation being delayed in
2018
CEFs & TCEFs Totals with Inflation
Land Use Type Unit
Current
Total
Step II
Total
Step II
Total w
Inflation
%
Increase
%
Increase
w Inflation
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $5,845 $7,049 $7,473 21% 28%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $8,779 $10,593 $11,221 21% 28%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $10,283 $12,409 $13,139 21% 28%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $11,099 $13,391 $14,173 21% 28%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $12,147 $14,658 $15,516 21% 28%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $8,430 $10,164 $10,720 21% 27%
Office and Other Services $6,660 $8,028 $8,472 21% 27%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $2,000 $2,411 $2,542 21% 27%
30
Discussion / Next Steps:
The Fee Working Group started in August 2017 - the group is working on a position paper which will be
brought back to Council Finance on September 17th
.
Mike Beckstead; getting an understanding of the fee structure and the different methodologies and on
what type of fees they are used has been one of the biggest challenges - stressed the complexity for
the community - we had a couple people on the team say that they had heard we were changing fees
because we were the lowest compared to our peer cities and we had headroom to change so they
thought that was why we were changing so the whole conversation about the methodology and cost
got lost someplace - this was a big aha from the Fee Working Group - we are taking that input from
them and from our public outreach this time around to figure out how we can do a better job of clarity
of message around why fees are changing and what is the driver of those fees changing.
Randy Reuscher presented Utility Fees
Mayor Troxell; what are the drivers for the increases?
Randy Reuscher; the increase in the system value - we are looking at today’s cost for construction –
replacement cost if we had to rebuild our system today
31
Community outreach planned for September and October prior to the Council work session in
November.
Mayor Troxell; this has been a lot of work over time and a lot of misunderstanding too - a number of
Council Members have been involved with questions - goes back to Gino Campana - a lot has come
together - it doesn’t indicate increases but reflects the infrastructure that has been invested and
replacement cost - rationalization to our fee structure as it related to fees
Mike Beckstead; I agree - our Fee Working Group will be here at Council in September.
I think it will be an interesting dialog - we got into discussions around why fees change, asset value
increasing and methodology changes - then we talked about alternatives - other revenue sources -
32
realization that some really difficult choices would have to be made if we don’t keep our fees current
and if we didn’t have these fees we would have to use GF to fund to fund what these fees are intended
to do.
Mayor Troxell; I appreciate the robust list for community outreach. I think you should present to the
Chamber not necessarily to the LLAC as they have a different set of optics.
Ross Cunniff; could we have an overall open house?
Mike Beckstead; I don’t believe we have had open houses in the past as the public is normally not
engaged - we have always gone to the business group
Ross Cunniff; we could have business people come to our open house - If we have trade-offs to be
made or not doing projects or raising sales tax to try to cover the difference - that is important for both
businesses and citizens to understand. We only implemented 75% of fee increase that was
recommended - we should have an understanding of the difference between the full recommendation
and what we actually collected and what does that mean for the projects we are building. That would
be a helpful analysis.
Mike Beckstead; we did it on estimates based on a 10-year permit average
Ross Cunniff; I would like to see actuals
Mike Beckstead; we can come close - a firmer estimate - we will include that in the September work
session packet. We set those on the calendar presuming Council wants to move forward but
our goal is to educate and share the details - we are not being presumptuous with the December
meeting.
Ross Cunniff; metro districts - would like to understand where that infrastructure funding comes from.
Darin Atteberry; John Duval and Carrie Daggett will find out
Mike Beckstead; we will be back to Council Finance on September 17th
and the Work Session on Fees is
scheduled for November 13th
.
C. HR Benefits Discussion
Joaquin ‘Keen’ Garbiso, Sr. Manager, Benefits
Kelly DiMartino, Sr. Assistant City Manager
Jim Lenderts served on the Total Compensation Committee
Jim Sampson from HUB International
ATTACHMENT 5
Economic Health Office
300 LaPorte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6505
970.224.6107 - fax
fcgov.com
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 31, 2018
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager;
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager;
Jacqueline Kozak-Thiel, Chief Sustainability Officer
Josh Birks, Economic Health and Redevelopment Director
FROM: Sam Solt, Chair – Economic Advisory Commission;
Ted Settle Vice-Chair – Economic Advisory Commission; and
Members, Economic Advisory Commission
RE: CAPITAL EXPANSION FEE
The purpose of this memorandum is to inform City Council of the Economic Advisory Commission’s
(EAC) recommendation regarding the Capital Expansion Fee pending action on November 13th.
Position:
The Fort Collins Economic Advisory Commission members received a presentation on the Capital
Expansion Fee by Jennifer Poznanovic at our October 17, 2018 meeting. We understand that the City of
Fort Collins has taken essential steps to harmonize fee update frequency and review fee rates in 2017 in a
phased implementation. Two EAC members were part of the Fee Working Group and actively
participated in formulating the Position Paper.
The members of the EAC agree with and support the overall proposed recommendation of the Position
Paper. The members specifically expressed agreement on several positions: 1) fees for the parks are
essential in order to maintain uniquely Fort Collins values, 2) parks being funded solely by fees is greatly
concerning for sustainability of the future park construction and operation and 3) there needs to be a
recognition of funding deficit, especially for operating the park system.
Furthermore, additional opinions expressed by the members for the future consideration and the expected
first full review of the fees in 2021 include the concept of “growth paying its own way”, the need for
timely adjustment of fees, the need for changes in the underlying fee categories to keep up with the
changing market conditions, and consideration of taking a total cost of ownership approach to funding
capital projects. In the latter opinion, the Capital Expansion Fee appears to be predicated on the capital
cost of the specific project. This means that operating costs for projects like parks need to come from the
general operating budget which will most likely always be stressed. Under a total cost of ownership
approach the 'capital' cost would include initial cost to buy or build, cost to eliminate at the end of life,
and a discounted cash flow representing a revenue stream to cover operating costs.
We recommend that the city revise the Capital Expansion Fee and continue to incorporate
recommendations in the Position Paper by the Fee Working Group.
1
Fee Group Findings & Impact Fee Updates
November 13, 2018
Council Work Session
ATTACHMENT 6
Agenda
• Background
• Proposed 2018 Fee Updates – Effective in 2019
• Working Group Position Paper
• Community Outreach Feedback
• Council Direction
2
Impact Fee Coordination
3
Objective:
• Review fee updates together to provide a holistic
view of the total cost impact
• Bring impact fees forward per a defined cadence…
2 - 4 years
Type of Fee Fee Name
Capital Expansion Neighborhood Park
Capital Expansion Community Park
Capital Expansion Fire
Capital Expansion Police
Capital Expansion General Government
Capital Expansion Transportation
Utility Water Supply Requirement
Utility Electric Capacity
Utility Sewer Plant Investment
Utility Stormwater Plant Investment
Utility Water Plant Investment
Building
Development
45 Development Review &
Building Permit Fees
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Capital Expansion Fees Update Step II Step III Update
Transportation CEFs Update Step II Update
Electric Capacity Fees Update Update Update
Raw Water Update Update Update
Wet Utility Fees Update Update Update
Development Review Fees Update Update
2017 – Drivers of Fee Increases
4
Capital Expansion Fees (2017 proposed increase 71% to 79%):
• Fee based on replacement cost of existing infrastructure
• Cost of construction, land, water up significantly since last fee revision
Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (2017 proposed changes -32% to 114%):
• Cost of construction up since last fee revision
• Current transportation plan & calculation shift
Electric Capacity Fees (2017 changes approximately -50% to 40%):
• Change in methodology from plan-based to “buy-in”
Raw Water Fees (effective 1/1/2018):
• New fee model - value of the existing water rights portfolio & growth related capital expenses
Large Increase Created Significant Business Community Concern
2017 Recap
5
Council directed stepped implementation for CEF & TCEF in 2017
Success Factors:
• Bringing fees together was good for
understanding the full impact of fees
• Formed citizen/staff working group
Lessons Learned:
• Fee increase recommendations were significant,
caused confusion in the community
• Difficult to explain with different methodologies
and qualitative aspect
Fee Status as of October 2017 Next Steps
CEFs • 75% of fees implemented • Phased in approach - three steps
TCEFs • 80% of fees implemented • Phased in approach - two steps
Electric Capacity • 100% of fees implemented • Every two years
Raw Water • 100% of fees implemented • Every two years
CEFs & TCEFs
Step II with Inflation
6
Fire fees updated July 2018 to reflect calculation error
CEFs & TCEFs Totals with Inflation
Land Use Type Unit
Current
Total
Step II
Total
Step II
Total w
Inflation
%
Increase
%
Increase
w Inflation
Residential,up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $5,845 $7,049 $7,473 21% 28%
Residential,701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $8,779 $10,593 $11,221 21% 28%
Residential,1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $10,283 $12,409 $13,139 21% 28%
Residential,1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $11,099 $13,391 $14,173 21% 28%
Residential,over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $12,147 $14,658 $15,516 21% 28%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $8,430 $10,164 $10,720 21% 27%
Office and Other Services $6,660 $8,028 $8,472 21% 27%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $2,000 $2,411 $2,542 21% 27%
• Step II fees are a 27% to 28% increase from current fee levels (Step I)
• CEF fee increases are 90% of full fee levels recommended in 2017
• Reflects Option A for TCEF fees
7
Wet Utility PIFs
Utility Criteria Current
Charge
2019
Charge $ Change
%
Change
Water $ / GPD $ 4.66 $ 4.99 $ 0.33 7.1%
Wastewater $ / GPD $ 13.98 $ 15.31 $ 1.33 9.5%
Stormwater
Per acre
(adjusted for run-off
factor)
$ 8,217 $ 9,142 $ 925 11.3%
The drivers for the increase on Wet PIFs is the same for all three funds:
• New capital projects increase the overall system value
• Annual increases in construction costs increases the replacement value of existing system
• One-time adjustment of 2.7% included to account for fee implementation being delayed in 2018
Fee Working Group
2017 Group Composition
8
Industry
Sean Dougherty
Will Flowers
Fort Collins Board of Realtors
Ann Hutchison
Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce
Greg Mediema
Doug Braden
Homebuilder’s Association of Northern
Colorado
Moira Bright
Spirit Hospitality LLC
Chris Banks
Odell Brewing
Citizen
Diane Cohn
Affordable Housing Board
Rebecca Hill
Water Board
Linda Stanley
Economic Advisory Commission
Ragan Adams
Parks and Recreation Board
Rick Reider
Building Review Board
Staff
Mike Beckstead
Project Sponsor
Tiana Smith
Jennifer Poznanovic
Project Manager/Fee Owner CEFs
Lance Smith
Fee Owner Electric Capacity Fees
Tom Leeson
Fee Owner Development Review Fees
Josh Birks
City Staff/Economic Health
Council
Ross Cunniff
District 5
Council
Group Objective
What: Improve understanding with stakeholders of the City’s impact fee
process.
How: Semi-monthly meetings that present information on the
mechanics, alternatives, and impacts of the City’s impact fees
that are approved by City Council.
Why: Foster a common understanding of why and how impact fees
are calculated, in addition to collecting feedback to share with
City Council on future fee calculations and processes.
9
Overview:
Meetings & Topics
Commenced in August of 2017 with 14 meetings over the past year
10
• Academic economic research on
impact fees
• A third-party impact fee audit review
• Alternative revenue sources
• Progressive Fees
• Affordable Housing Fee Waivers
• Detailed review of fee methodologies,
inputs, calculations for CEFs, TCEFs &
Utility PIFs
• City revenue sources
• Impact fee comparisons to other
communities
Topics covered:
*Development Review Fees decoupled from the 2018 fee update
11
1. Team & select organizations have a more accurate understanding of why we have
impact fees, how impact fees are calculated & why impact fees change over time
2. Value added from deeper dive into fee details and review of fee audit
3. Citizens involved seemed to be less interested – doesn’t impact current residents
4. Team would prefer lower fees, yet understands the challenges with alternative
revenue sources
5. Recommendations from the group will help the process going forward
Observations
Reflections:
Impact Fee Effort
12
• Review of impact fees together is beneficial
for understanding the full impact of fee updates
• Overall, sound methodologies, calculations
and inputs
• The third-party fee audit revealed how the City
spends and collects impact fees is sound
• Impact fee amenities add to property value,
but views differ as to what extent they impact
housing costs
Key Findings*
• Impact fees are complicated and difficult to
communicate across the community
• Park impact fees are the only category where
impact fees pay for 100 percent of what is built
• Need to identify new revenue sources for park
refresh and maintenance in the future
• If less than recommended is approved,
alternative revenue sources will be needed
Fee Group Findings
*September 2018 Fee Group Position Paper
CEF Audit Review Overview
13
• DPFG* examined whether the City properly collected and spent
$54M in impact fees from 2012 to 2016
• Fees reviewed: 6 Capital Expansion Fees
• No issues with Police, Fire, General Government & Community Parks
• Questions on $3,787k concerning Neighborhood Parks & Transportation
- $3,400k in overhead costs – consistent with Code
- $387k in fee expenditures questions
• Of the $54M only $130k or 0.24% was charged incorrectly
• Maintenance of new parks is charged to CEFs for two years
• Refresh of old parks should not be charged to CEFs - $130k
*Development Planning & Financial Group
14
Recommendations
Group Recommendations Staff Recommendations
1. Better Communication/Outreach & Notice of Fee
Changes
Currently underway with community outreach and
the group as ambassadors of the process
2. Repayment of the $130k Identified in the Impact
Fee Audit
Staff agrees
3. Progressive Fees if/where Possible Explore progressive fees in the 2021 updates
4. Explore Additional Revenue Sources for Parks
Buildout
Current policy is 100% of new parks are funded by
impact fees
5. Investigate Revenue Alternatives to Support
Parks Refresh & Maintenance
Staff agrees that in the future we will need to have
this conversation
6. Explore Stronger Supports for Affordable Housing
Fee Waivers
Currently underway with a dedicated internal
Affordable Housing Task Force
2018 Outreach
15
• Process & cadence of
fee updates
• Step II of 2017
proposed fees
• Findings from Fee
Working Team
Organization Date
Super Issues Forum September 6
Northern Colorado Homebuilder's Association September 11
Fort Collins Board of Relators September 11
2018 Building Code Review Committee September 12
Downtown Development Authority September 13
North Fort Collins Business Association September 26
Parks and Recreation Board September 26
Building Review Board September 27
Affordable Housing Board October 11
Human Relations Board October 11
Planning & Zoning Board October 12
Economic Advisory Commission October 17
Local Legislative Affairs Committee October 26
Housing Catalyst November 6
2018 Outreach: What We Heard
16
Key themes across outreach meetings:
• Supportive of the approach and cadence
• Most not in favor of fee increases - yet not in favor of alternatives
We also heard:
• Supportive of fee group recommendations
• Not a straight forward topic, takes a couple of conversations to set in
• Concerns about attainable housing - it may be less desirable to live here
• Policy questions - development standards going forward, alignment on total cost
(including operations and maintenance)
Direction Sought
17
Does Council support impact fee updates as proposed?
If yes, proposed next steps:
• December 4th & 18th: Ordinance readings
• New Fees Effective January 1, 2019
2019 Efforts Planned:
• Utility Fees, Development Fees & Step III for CEFs
Backup
18
Fee Comparison:
For Median New Home Sales Price $483K*
19
Fort Collins Fees in the Lower-Middle of the Pack
*Does not include raw water *Multiple Listing Service (MLS)
Neighboring Cities
Median Sales Comparison with Fees
20
Of Median Home Sales Prices, Wellington Has Higher Fee Percentages…
Timnath Has Lower Fee Percentages
*Does not
include raw
water
Fort Collins Fee Stack
Median New Home Sales
21
Fort Collins Fees & Code Cost Impact is Leveling %
of Median New Home Sales Price
*Without raw water
Why Do We Have Impact Fees
22
Capital Expansion Fees
• New developments pays a proportionate share of
infrastructure costs to “buy-in” to the level of service
• Fee revenue used to build new service capacity
• In place since 1996
Transportation Capital Expansion Fees
• New development contributes toward the construction of
arterial and collector roadways needed per growth
• Fee revenue used to build out additional infrastructure
• In place since 1979
Utility Plant Investment Fees
• Provides a mechanism for new development to reimburse
existing utility customers for existing infrastructure
• Fee revenue used to build additional infrastructure
The concept of growth paying for the impact of growth is a policy
decision that City Council made and continues to support
Fee Revenue Used to Add Infrastructure Needed Because of Growth
Example
23
Fees Provides a Revenue Source to Maintain Current Levels of Service
Community Parks:
• Acres of parks per capita is a measure of level of
service
• The goal is to maintain acres of parks per capita
• As growth occurs, new parks must be added, or park
service levels decline
• A Community Parks Impact Fee generates only
designated revenue used to build the next community
park and to maintain the existing level of service
Capital Expansion
Fees:
• Community parks
• Neighborhood parks
• Fire
• Police
• General government
CEF Audit Review Findings:
Expenditures on Parks
Neighborhood Parks:
• Approximately $387k of expenditures questioned
• Each expenditure analyzed – findings:
• $257k related to 2 year warranty period
• Utilities, Raw water, replaced failed equipment,
landscaping, etc.
• Expenditures for future parks
• $130k related to improvements to existing
park
24
Park
2 Yr Maint /
Start Up
Equip / Work
Existing Parks
Water's Way $ 211,000
Trailhead $ 18,000
Registry $ 4,000
Radiant $ 13,000
Maple Hill $ 11,000
Lee Martinez $ 4,000
Avery $ 88,000
Other Parks $ 38,000
Total $ 257,000 $ 130,000
CEFs & TCEFs
2017 Recommendation
25
*Prior Fees January 1, 2017 – September 30, 2017 Fire fees updated July 2018 to reflect calculation error
2017 Fee Recommendation:
• Asset values reflect higher construction costs
• Population & dwelling units per latest census
• Land values reflect higher land cost
Full Fees proposed in 2017
Land Use Type Unit N'hood Park
Comm.
Park Fire Police
Gen.
Gov't Transp. Total
Previous
Total*
% Change
Full Fees
Residential,up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,721 $2,430 $421 $236 $574 $2,205 $7,587 $5,059 50%
Residential,701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,304 $3,253 $570 $319 $774 $4,095 $11,315 $6,182 83%
Residential,1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,516 $3,552 $620 $347 $845 $5,317 $13,197 $7,574 74%
Residential,1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,542 $3,589 $630 $352 $858 $6,217 $14,188 $7,762 83%
Residential,over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,833 $4,001 $701 $392 $955 $6,664 $15,546 $8,094 92%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 0 0 $531 $297 $1,451 $8,113 $10,392 $13,241 -22%
Office and Other Services $531 $297 $1,451 $5,977 $8,256 $9,071 -9%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0 0 $124 $69 $342 $1,929 $2,464 $1,439 71%
CEFs & TCEFs
Fees Phasing
26
Fire fees updated July 2018 to reflect calculation error
• Step I changes adopted Oct. 1, 2017:
• 75% of CEFs
• Option B TCEFs
• Step II changes proposed:
• 90% of CEFs
• Option A TCEFs
Fees Phasing
Land Use Type Unit
Previous
Total
Current
Total
Step II
Total
Step III
Total
% Change
Full Fees
% Change
Step I
% Change
Step II
% Change
Step III
Residential,up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $5,059 $5,845 $7,049 $7,587 50% 16% 21% 8%
Residential,701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $6,182 $8,779 $10,593 $11,315 83% 42% 21% 7%
Residential,1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $7,574 $10,283 $12,409 $13,197 74% 36% 21% 6%
Residential,1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $7,762 $11,099 $13,391 $14,188 83% 43% 21% 6%
Residential,over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $8,094 $12,147 $14,658 $15,546 92% 50% 21% 6%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $13,241 $8,430 $10,164 $10,392 -22% -36% 21% 2%
Office and Other Services $9,071 $6,660 $8,028 $8,256 -9% -27% 21% 3%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $1,439 $2,000 $2,411 $2,464 71% 39% 21% 2%
Capital Expansion Fees
Step II
27
• Approximately 20% increase from current fee levels
• Proposed fee increases (Step II) are 90% of full fee levels recommend in 2017
• Current fees (Step I) are 75% of full fee levels recommended in 2017
Fire fees updated July 2018 to reflect
calculation error
Step II - 90%of full fee levels
Land Use Type Unit N'hood Park
Comm.
Park Fire Police
Gen.
Gov't
Step II
Total
Current
Total
%
Increase
Residential,up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,549 $2,187 $379 $212 $517 $4,844 $4,018 21%
Residential,701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,074 $2,928 $513 $287 $697 $6,498 $5,387 21%
Residential,1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,264 $3,197 $558 $312 $761 $7,092 $5,879 21%
Residential,1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,288 $3,230 $567 $317 $772 $7,174 $5,949 21%
Residential,over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,550 $3,601 $631 $353 $860 $7,994 $6,627 21%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $0 $0 $478 $267 $1,306 $2,051 $1,709 20%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $0 $0 $112 $62 $308 $482 $402 20%
28
Transportation Capital Expansion Fees
Option A
Based on the City’s current
Capital Improvement Plans:
• Option B does not increase
program revenue, provides
approximately 80% of necessary
funding to mitigate proportional
impacts of development
• Option A includes the
proportionate cost attributable
for mitigation of the impacts of
new development on the
transportation system, including
new streets, intersection
improvements, and multi-modal
improvements
Option A
Land Use Type Unit Option A Option B
%
Increase
Residential,up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,205 $1,827 21%
Residential,701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $4,095 $3,392 21%
Residential,1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $5,317 $4,404 21%
Residential,1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $6,217 $5,150 21%
Residential,over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $6,664 $5,520 21%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $8,113 $6,721 21%
Office and Other Services $5,977 $4,951 21%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $1,929 $1,598 21%
29
Water PIFs
Water
Rate Class Criteria Current
Charge
2019
Charge $ Change % Change
Residential
Single Family 8600 sq ft $3,558 $3,826 $268 7.5%
Duplex & Multi-family 3435 sq ft $1,364 $1,423 $59 4.3%
Commercial
3/4 Inch by tap size $7,180 $7,940 $760 10.6%
1 Inch by tap size $20,040 $20,960 $920 4.6%
1 1/2 Inch by tap size $43,760 $43,520 ($240) -0.5%
2 Inch by tap size $67,760 $72,470 $4,710 7.0%
30
Wastewater PIFs
Wastewater
2017 2019 Change in
Customer Class Volume Volume Volume Proposed %
GPD GPD GPD Charge Change
Residential 250 231 -7.6% $ 3,537 1.2%
Duplex / Multi-family 180 169 -6.1% $ 2,588 2.8%
Commercial (meter size)
3/4 510 491 -3.7% $ 7,518 5.5%
1 1,230 1,081 -12.1% $ 16,553 -3.7%
1.5 2,390 2,072 -13.3% $ 31,728 -5.0%
2 4,230 4,298 1.6% $ 65,813 11.3%
31
Stormwater PIFs
Stormwater
Rate Class Current 2019 $ Change % Change
Residential
Gross Area Developed (sq ft) 8,600 8,600
Common Area Allocation (sq ft) 6,156 6,156
Base Rate (per acre*) $8,217 $9,142
Runoff Coefficient 0.5 0.5
Total Fee $1,392 $1,548 $157 11.3%
Commercial
Gross Area Developed (sq ft) 43,560 43,560
Base Rate (per acre*) $8,217 $9,142
Runoff Coefficient 0.8 0.8
Total Fee $6,574 $7,314 $740 11.3%
When Are Impact Fees Locked In?
32
• All 6 CEFs locked in at time of building permit application
• Utility PIFs (5) fees assessed at time of payment (not locked in)
• Building permit application
• Lock in impact fees - expect 5 utility fees
Conceptual
Design
Pre-Hearing
Review &
Public Hearing
Final Plan
Review
Final Documents
Certified &
Recorded
Full Building
Permit Review
Building
Inspections &
Completion
Development Review Flowchart
• Building permit pulled
• Pay impact fees
• Development review fees paid
prior to building permit application
Building Permit Applications
June 2017 through July 2018
33
• CEFs & TCEFs
determined at time of
completed building
permit application
• Spike in building
permit applications
prior to fee increases
in October 2017
• Estimated lost
revenue Oct 17-Jul
18 - $600k
Parkland & Administration Costs
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Exhibit M
Capital Improvements
No - Increased by
Denver Greeley CPI
and ENR Index. (1) 11/6/2012
2011 125, 2010
Park, Police, Fire and
General Government,
Street Oversizing
Capital Improvements
No - Increased by
Denver Greeley CPI
and ENR Index. (1) 1/7/2011
Footnotes
(1) The absence of a Fee Study in this instance does not represent non-compliance w/ Colorado statutes or industry standards for such matters.
Ordinance Review
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
B. Transaction Support - Based upon our Review of the revenue and expenditure
transactions randomly selected from the City’s General Ledger along with appropriate
supporting documentation, we did not note any discrepancies which would lead us to believe
that City staff is not properly documenting its CEF transactions.
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Stormwater PIF
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $8,430 $10,164 $10,720 21% 27%
Office and Other Services $6,660 $8,028 $8,472 21% 27%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $2,000 $2,411 $2,542 21% 27%
CEF fee increases are 90% of full fee levels recommended in 2017 and reflects Option A for TCEFs. Including
inflation, total Step II fee increases are a 27 to 28% increase from current fee levels (Step I). The CPI-U index for
Denver-Aurora-Lakewood is used for CEF inflation (3.1% in 2017 and 3.2% in 2018). The Engineering News
Record's Construction Cost Index Values for Denver is used for TCEFs (4.0% in 2017 and 1.2% in 2018).
The chart below shows the proposed Wet Utility PIFs changes: