HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-11/02/2005-SpecialNovember 2, 2005
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Special Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A special meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Wednesday, November 2,
2005, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy
and Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Harris, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Mayor Hutchinson stated each participant would have five minutes to speak.
Brian Schumm, 5948 Colby Street, stated he liked the new schedule for the southwest enclave
annexation and encouraged the Council to "move it along." He stated there would need to be a
"context greater than yes or no" when the time came for the Council to make a decision and answers
for issues that had been raised.
Shannon Seal, 500 West Prospect Road, Apt. 12-G, expressed concerns regarding sexually
suggestive material advertised on billboards in the City; i.e., the recent advertising for the television
program Sex in the City. She noted that this ad had been disapproved by the City for inclusion on
bus bench and transit shelter system advertising. She asked that the Council investigate ways to
apply those same community standards to other public advertising, such as billboards.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Hutchinson thanked those who spoke during Citizen Participation.
Councilmember Ohlson requested clarification regarding Constitutional issues relating to the
billboard issue and the denial of transit system advertising. City Attorney Roy stated his
understanding was that bus shelter advertising had been approved for that particular television
program. He stated it was easier, from the Constitutional perspective, for the City to regulate ads
placed pursuant to a contract with the City on City facilities than it would be to regulate private ads
in the public right-of-way. He stated commercial speech was entitled to a certain level of First
Amendment protection and that there was always a lot of legal scrutiny given to any content -based
regulations of billboards and other forms of commercial speech. Ron Phillips, Executive Director
of Transportation Services, stated the contractual arrangement for transit system advertising had been
determined to allow these particular advertisements. He stated the City was sometimes successful
in negotiating with the contractor to talk with his clients and make changes. He stated staff did not
believe that there was any violation here to the contractual arrangement. City Attorney Roy stated
the pictures that were presented for use in the bus shelter advertising were different from the picture
403
November 2, 2005
used in the billboard. He stated staff determined that the pictures presented were not much different
than those that might appear in cosmetic ads and other advertising.
Councilmember Ohlson asked for confirmation that the Sex in the City ads (which would be different
from the billboard advertising) would therefore be allowed in the bus shelters. Phillips replied in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he would support tightening the regulations for bus shelter
advertising. He noted the irony of allowing "objectionable" advertising such as the Sex in the City
ads while banning all political speech.
Councilmember Kastein stated he would support having a discussion on bus shelter advertising
regulations under Other Business. He stated he would also like to suggest under Other Business an
approach to the southwest enclave annexation that would be the opposite of Mr. Schum n's
approach.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Items Relating to the Fundingof f Projects at the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport.
A. Resolution 2005-113 Authorizing the Execution of Grant Agreement with the State
of Colorado for Funding of Airport Projects at the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal
Airport.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2005, Authorizing the Appropriation of Funds
of the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport for Expenditure to Be Used to
Purchase Snow Removal Equipment for Use at the Airport.
Item A
A grant from the State of Colorado in the amount of $250,000 was approved by the
Aeronautic Board on September 30, 2005. The Resolution authorizes the Airport Director
to accept the grant on behalf of the Cities. The funds will be used to purchase the high-speed
snow plow truck with blade and power sweeper attachments. The snow removal equipment
is needed to meet FAA requirements for safety and time requirements for clearing snow and
ice from the runway, taxiways, ramp areas and access roads. The grant does require a local
match of $46,000 and Fort Collins' portion ($23,000) has been previously appropriated for
this purpose.
E
November 2, 2005
Item B
Additional appropriations in the amount of $160,889 are needed for Airport improvements.
In order for the Cities to expend this amount, each City must appropriate its half, $80,444.
The projects included on the Summary have been identified as high -priority and are
supported by the FAA and State Division of Aeronautics. The notable additional project on
the Summary is the purchase of a high-speed snow plow truck with blade and power
sweeper. The Colorado Aeronautical Board and the Division of Aeronautics awarded the
Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport a grant in the amount of $250,000 for aviation
purposes. A portion of the aforementioned grant proceeds was previously appropriated for
capital improvements in the 2005 Airport operating budget and the Airport Manager
recommends that unappropriated grant proceeds, totaling $160,889, be appropriated and used
with other, previously appropriated, Airport funds to purchase snow removal equipment.
First Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2005, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Sanitary Sewer
Easement for a Spring Creek Ranch, LLC Development.
Spring Creek Ranch LLC, is developing an 11-acre parcel located at 1926 Hull Street into
88 condo units. The proposed easement will connect the project to the existing City sewer
line under Spring Creek Trail located to the north of the subject property. The City Parks
Department is in agreement to allow the connection under above -said trail. The irregular -
shaped easement would contain 120 square feet to install an eight inch sewer line.
8. Items Pertaining to the Minatta Annexation and Zonis
A. Resolution 2005-114 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding
the Minatta Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2005, Annexing Property Known
as the Minatta Annexation.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2005, Amending the Zoning Map
of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included
in the Minatta Annexation.
This is a request to annex and zone 35.829 acres located on the west side of Overland Trail,
at the southwest corner of the Overland Trail - West Elizabeth Street intersection. The
property is partially developed, containing one existing single-family residence (with out-
buildings) and a portion of the existing Fort Collins -Loveland Water District Pump Station.
It is in the FAl — Farming Zoning District in Larimer County. The requested zoning in the
City of Fort Collins is RF - Residential Foothills (15.132 acres) and LMN — Low Density
Mixed -Use Neighborhood (20.697 acres).
HI
November 2, 2005
Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign
District. A map amendment will not be necessary to place this property on the Residential
Neighborhood Sign District Map.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Chief Deputy City Clerk Harris.
6B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2005, Authorizing the Appropriation of Funds of the
Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport for Expenditure to Be Used to Purchase Snow
Removal Equipment for Use at the Airport.
First Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2005, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Sanitary Sewer
Easement for a Spring Creek Ranch, LLC Development.
8B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2005, Annexing Property Known as the Minatta
Annexation.
8C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2005, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort
Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Minatta
Annexation.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2005, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance
Relating to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2006 and Adopting the Budget for
the Fiscal Years Beginning January 1, 2006 and Ending December 31, 2007, and Fixing the
Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2006.
14A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2005, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise
Water Plant Investment Fees and Raw Water Requirements.
14B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 134,2005, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise
Sewer Plant Investment Fees.
14C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2005, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise
Electric Development Fees and Charges.
14D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 2005, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to
Establish Stormwater Plant Investment Fees.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No 137, 2005, Amending Chapter 26, Article IV, Division 4 of
the City Code Relating to Wastewater Rates and Charges.
E1.
November 2, 2005
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2005, Amending the City Code to Increase the Capital
Improvement Expansion Fee, Street Oversizing Fee and Neighborhood Parkland Fee to
Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No.139, 2005, Adopting the 2006 Classified Employees Pay and
Classification Plan.
20A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2005, Appropriating Operating Funds and Approving
the Budget of the Downtown Development Authority for the Fiscal Year Beginning January
1, 2006, and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Downtown Development Authority for 2006 at five
mills.
20B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2005, Appropriating Revenue in the Downtown
Development Authority Debt Service Fund for Payment of Debt Service for the Year 2006.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt and
approve all items on the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Staff Reports
Cameron Gloss, Current Planning Director, provided a brief update on the status ofthe in -fill (refill)
development project that was designed to look at barriers to in -fill and redevelopment in the
community. He stated priorities had been identified and that nine case studies had been done
relating to a range of developments. He stated a preliminary draft of the report had been completed
and that the distribution draft would be completed by next week. He stated some regulatory changes
would be recommended and that the development community had indicated a need for flexibility and
predictability. He stated a need had also been identified for improvements in communications and
that changes would be recommended to the Development Manual and the pre -application process.
He stated substantial work would be needed on the architectural compatibility standards. He stated
the City's website had updated information about this project.
City Manager Atteberry thanked Cameron Gloss for his work on this project and noted that Pete
Wray served as acting Current Planning Director so that Gloss would have time to work on the in -fill
project. He expressed appreciation for the work done by Gloss. He also reported on the 16' annual
Treatsylvania event at the Martinez Park Farm at Halloween and stated there were over 3,500 young
visitors for this event between October 28 and 30. He noted that businesses sponsored the event and
raised $13,825 to help with the event. He reported that FCPS employee Sgt. Don Whitson received
the prestigious John Coleman Award at the National Tactical Officers Association convention for
his extensive work in promoting the use of less -than -lethal weapons systems and for research in the
_Fro 7
November 2, 2005
use of chemical munitions. He also reported that FCPS employee Sgt. Francis Gonzales was named
member of the year for the Colorado Drug Investigator Association.
Councilmember Reports
Mayor Hutchinson thanked the citizens for voting in favor of the Building on Basics ballot measure
and thanked the Councilmembers for their work on the package.
Councilmember Kastein thanked the Parks and Recreation staff for the Treatsylvania event. He
reported on discussions of the RTA Subcommittee of the Metropolitan Planning Organization with
regard to what would need to be done prior to a November 2007 RTA ballot measure. He stated a
Resolution would be presented to the Council in upcoming months to approve the time line and give
direction regarding the RTA ballot measure.
Councilmember Manvel noted that "RTA" meant Regional Transportation Authority and that the
issue was funding and the ability to facilitate transportation in the region.
Ordinance No. 132, 2005,
Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to the
Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2006 and Adopting the Budget
for the Fiscal Years Beginning January 1, 2006 and Ending December 31,
2007, and Fixine the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2006, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
This Ordinance represents the annual appropriation for fiscal year 2006, and adopts the total City
budget for fiscal year 2006 at $476,742,431 and for fiscal year 2007 at $463,935,698. This
Ordinance also sets the City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991, for fiscal year 2006.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Preparation of the 2006-2007 biennial budget has been a tremendous challenge due to: a new
approach to budgeting and service planning, an ongoing constraint on revenue growth, and rising
costs. By utilizing the Budgeting for Outcomes ("BFO') approach we are attempting to address the
fundamental question: How can citizens get the most value for the taxes and fees they pay?
The purpose of utilizing the BFO approach is to:
Identify what's important to this community and develop a sound financial and service plan
to achieve those outcomes;
Allocate dollars based on current priorities and results, not simply increase last year's
spending;
E1:
November 2, 2005
Effectively deal with revenue limitations; and
Emphasize accountability, efficiency, innovation and partnerships.
Using this approach, City Council and staffworked in close collaboration to build a financial plan,
based on revenue available, that will achieve service outcomes which matter most to our citizens and
community.
The Net City Budget, which excludes internal transfers between funds is $373, 711, 871 for 2006 and
$373,289,082 for 2007. The following table compares the 2005 budget with the 2006 and 2007
recommended budgets, including the net operating budgets, capital improvement budgets and debt
service (in millions and the numbers are rounded):
The total City budget for 2006 is $476.7 million and for 2007 is $463.9 million. The Net Operating
Budget (the money necessary for operating day-to-day services, excluding transfers between funds,
debt service and capital projects) for 2006 totals $308.8 million and for 2007 totals $322.6 million.
The Capital Improvement expenditures for 2006 total $39.4 million and for 2007 total $26.4
million.
Debt Service will be $25.5 million in 2006 and $24.3 million 2007. The debt service for both years
is within the Council's policy debt target of 15% of the combined general debt service and Special
District Funds' revenue.
In Millions (Numbers are Rounded)
2005
2006
Change
2007
Change
Net Operating
305.6
308.8
1.0%
322.6
4.5%
Debt
25.5
25.5
0.0%
24.3
(4.7)%
Capital
31.9
39.4
23.5%
26.4
(33.0)%
Total City Net
363.0
373.7
2.9%
373.3
(0.1)%
Internal Transfers
102.1
103.0
0.9%
90.6
(12.0)%
Total City Budget
465.1
476.7
2.5%
463.9
(2.7)%
BACKGROUND
Council adopted outcomes form the foundation of the budget. This is the City's first budget using
the principles and processes of Budgeting for Outcomes. The seven key outcomes and results upon
which the 2006-2007 City Budget is based are:
,1.
November 2, 2005
• Improve Economic Health
Fort Collins produces qualityjobs, is economically diverse and builds on our
core community strengths such as higher education, downtown, natural
environment and arts and culture.
• Improve Environmental Health
Fort Collins creates a clean and sustainable environment.
• Improve Neighborhood Quality
Fort Collins improves the safety, livability, choices, and affordability of
neighborhoods.
• Safer Community
People in Fort Collins are safer at home, work and play.
• Improve Cultural, Recreational, and Educational Opportunities
Fort Collinsprovides quality cultural, recreational, open space/natural areas
and educational opportunities to enrich lives.
• Improve Transportation
Fort Collins improves the safety and ease of traveling to, from and
throughout the City.
• A High Performing Government
Fort Collins is a model for an entrepreneurial, high performing City
government.
Some key highlights of the City Budget include:
Resources
1. The total budget for all Cityfunds for 2006 is $476, 742, 431 and for 2007 is $463, 935, 698.
That compares to the total budget for all Cityfunds in 2005 at $465,122,888.
2. There are no tax increases in the budget.
3. The tax revenueprojections remain conservative —sales and use taxis projected to increase
by 4% in 2006 and 4.5% in 2007.
4. The budget assumes several fee adjustments and increases, e.g., a Transportation
Development Review Fee to recover 80% of development review; increases in Recreation
Fees and in water and wastewater utility rates (user fees); and implementation of a
Transportation Maintenance Fee in 2007. The TMF will be presented and deliberated in
2006.
410
November 2, 2005
5. There are a number ofpersonnel cuts — some from vacant positions and others that require
areduction-in force. Staffing reductions total 107positionsacross allfundswhich amounts
to a reduction of approximately $6.6 million in compensation (salary and benefits) costs.
Revamped and Enhanced Services
While revenue limitations have resulted in service and staffing reductions, the City will continue to
deliver a wide array ofquality services and programs and support several new facilities in 2006 and
2007. A sample of these includes:
a. Operation, maintenance and debt service of a new Police Services Building
b. Operation and maintenance of the new Northside Azdan Community Center
C. Operation and maintenance of the new Spring Canyon Community Park
d. One -Stop Shop for Customer Service (Building & Zoning, Neighborhood Resources, Code
Compliance)
e. Improved Development Review Center services
f. Consolidated Code Enforcement and Neighborhood Services
g. Increased partnership for the Climate Wise program between Natural Resources and
Utilities
h. Work on a variety of key community planning projects, such as:
• Southeast Subarea Plan (Area of I-25/Hwy 392/Fossil Creek Reservoir)
• Northwest Neighborhoods Plan
• South College Corridor Plan
• North College Urban Renewal Plan
• CSU/Downtown Connections Plan
I. New emphasis on strategic and long-range planning efforts for redevelopment and
sustaining an economically and environmentally vibrant community
I. A wastewater system study to minimize the infiltration ofground water
k. Poudre Fire Authority services and resources to operate Station #14 and the South Ladder
Truck
1. Maintenance for the Mason Bike/Pedestrian Trail
411
November 2, 2005
in. Citizen survey to measure the performance of City government related to the BFO Key
Results and Indicators
n. A Passport Application Acceptance Center
o. Management study to assess organizational effectiveness
p. 100% conversion of the City's diesel fleet to clean burning bio-diesel
FINAL BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
In the course of the Council's budget review and discussions, some changes have been made to the
City Manager's recommended budget. The following changes are reflected in the proposed budget
adoption and appropriation ordinance.
Dial -a -Ride ($60, 000 in 2006 and $80, 000 in 2007) — The City will contract with Shamrock
Taxi to provide Dial -a -Ride night service in 2006 and 2007. The offer is to provide Dial -a -
Ride evening service after 7:00 pm, Monday through Saturday nights, for both non -
ambulatory (wheel chair) and ambulatorypassengers. The City will lease to Shamrock three
vehicles —vans large enough to accommodate wheel chairs for this evening service.
Evening service will be supported with one-time General Fund dollars
Enhanced Camera Radar ($177,000 in 2006 and $185,850 in 2007) — a second mobile
camera radar unit (van and civilian operator) will be added to address traffic enforcement
issues. The addition of a second camera radar unit will strengthen our ability to enforce
local traffic laws and promote safe travel in our community. Proposed fundingfor this
service is from the revenue generated from camera radar fines which are restricted revenues
in the General Fund.
3. Traffic Ticket Surcharge ($240, 000 in 2006 and $247,200 in 2007) — a $35 surcharge on all
one point or higher moving violation tickets is anticipated to generate revenues to fund two
additional Police traffic officers. Again, this will strengthen traffic enforcement and
community safety. Hiring for the first officer will occur in mid-2006; if revenues follow
projections a second officer will be hired in early 2007. The cost of the officers would be
supported by the projected revenue from the surcharge on traffic tickets which is
approximately $260,000 in 2006 and $262,000 in 2007.
4. Larimer County Humane Society (LCHS) (additional $65, 748 in 2006 and $124,920 in 2007)
—the City contracts with the Humane Societyfor all animal control services throughout the
City. Larimer County Humane Society("LCHS'%provides trainedpersonnelandspecialized
equipment to enforce the City's animal control ordinances, respond to calls, provide shelter
and emergency veterinary services, license pets and dispose of dead animals. The LCHS
submitted an offer for services in 2006 ($723,224) and 2007 ($795,546). In the course of
evaluating offers, it was reduced by staff to $657,476 in 2006 and $670,626 in 2007.
412
November 2, 2005
Conversations with LCHS indicates that in order to continue animal control services for the
City the full offer must be funded. Making up the gap with one-time General Fund dollars
is the only viable solution in this biennial budget.
Service effectiveness of LCHS will be assessed prior to the 2007 Budget Exception Process
and Council will determine whether or not the $124,920 allocation for 2007 will be
maintained or adjusted. Planning for 2008 and 2009 will revisit service options and
evaluate the City's animal control service needs in conjunction with the LCHS's service
targets and achievements.
5. Bike Program ($16, 000 in 2006 and $16, 000 in 2007) — the City will make available office
space, telephone, computer and office furniture for bicycle groups to use to educate and
promote bicycle use in the community. The resources will be used to support marketing and
outreach activities. For 2006 and 2007, the resources to support this program will be one-
time resources available from unspent 2005 monies. These resources represent General
Fund dollars used to support Transportation Demand Management programming in prior
years.
6. Trash Districting Study ($30,545 in 2006) — the offer to update a 1997 study related to
creating trash "districts " has been eliminated. These are one-time General Fund dollars
that are available to be reprogrammed (used) for another purpose or retained in the General
Fund Reserve Designated for Contingencies to be used at another time.
Restorative Justice/Enhanced ($17,373 in 2006 and $18, 508 in 2007) — a grant supports the
basic program activities for 2006 and 2007 which covers a half-time (50 FTE) Restorative
Justice Coordinator. In addition to the grant, an enhancement is included to increase the
staff time of the Coordinator by .15 FTE (the Coordinator would go from .50 FTE to .75
FTE) and increases program activities related to the Restorative Justice Youth Conferencing
by providing family/group conferencing for youth and young adults and the RESTORE
Program for merchants, community and shoplifters. The enhancement is a General Fund
cost. The original Drilling Platform included ongoing General Fund monies ($52,118 in
2006 and $55,525 in 2007) for the Restorative Justice basic service; however, this is
redundant with the grant that supports the basic service. A portion of the original General
Fund ongoing monies will be allocated for the cost of the enhancement — $17 373 in 2006
and $18,508 in 2007. The remaining ongoing monies ($34,745 in 2006 and $37,017 in
2007) are available to be applied to another service need (see Item #8 below).
8. Neighborhood/Homeowners Association Data Base ($15, 000 in 2006 and 2007) —this offer
is to help people identify with their geographic area (neighborhood) and to be able to use
data to deliver many targeted City services to individual neighborhoods. With the exception
of the annual $5, 000 postage line item, this offer funds roughly .15 FTE (fractions of three
Neighborhood and Building Services staff members) for the purpose of researching,
contacting and interacting on an ongoing basis with representatives of neighborhoods and
homeowners associations ("HOA'). The database is not intended to list and establish
413
November 2, 2005
contact with just HOA property managers, many of which would see the City's
communications needs as an additional burden on their time. Rather, this is about
Neighborhood Services staffmaking direct connections with neighborhood and HOA board
members and resident representatives.
General Fund ongoing monies ($15 000 per year) will be reprogrammed from the original
restorative iustice offer and applied to this service. (The original offer for Restorative
Justice basic service is covered by grant vs. General Fund resources. These General Fund
resources are reprogrammed to be used for the Restorative Justice Enhancement (#7 above)
and Neighborhood/HOA data base.
9. Street Sweeping/Quarterly ($112,000 in 2006 and $115,940 in 2007) — this adds back
sweeping ofresidential streets on a quarterly basis and provides leafpick-up in the first and
fourth quarters ofa year. This is an ongoing expense. Because of the relationship between
residential street sweeping and minimizing the negative impact on water quality as well as
the amount and types ofdebris infiltrating the City's stormwater conveyance and retention
system, the cost will be funded from resources within the Citvstormwater operational budget
(stormwater Utility Fund).
Personnel Impacts
Our employees deliver the diverse services our community relies on, and are deeply committed to
providing quality at an affordable price.
The City's compensation policy sets the pay grade maximum for each job classification at the 70th
percentile of defined market pay scales. The 2006-2007 Recommended Budget includes resources
for employees' salaries to increase by a merit adjustment (up to 4%) or a skill ladder adjustment
(not to exceed 10% per year including Cost of Living Adjustment ["COLA'J) for employees that
qualify (i.e., based on performance and/or skill achievement).
Resources are also included to provide an annual COL4-1.9% for 2006 and 2.3% for 2007.
The budget also includes compensation (pay and benefits) increases per the collective bargaining
agreement for Police personnel that are part of the bargaining unit.
Other Budget Issues
Several key issues were identified and will be addressed in 2006 in preparation for the 2007Budget
Exception Process.
Transportation Maintenance Fee
The biennial budget includes a recommendation to enact a Transportation Maintenance Fee
("TMF') in 2007. Over the next few months and prior to the 2007 Budget Exception process
414
November 2, 2005
(adjustments to the 2007 budget and appropriation ordinance that occur in late 2006),
Council and staff will work with the community and carefully examine the TMF as well as
other options to address street maintenance and other General Fund operational needs.
Without an added revenue source in 2007 additional cuts (approximately $2.6 million) will
need to be made to the 2007 budget plan.
2. Employee Compensation and Bene0ts
In preparation for 2007 employee pay adjustments, the City Manager will work on refining
the City's performance review system to achieve a greater emphasis on payfor performance.
This includes usingpayas aperformance incentive; refiningthe "market"for Cityjobs (e.g.,
ifjobs are more locally benchmarked, use local comparison and ifjobs are more regional,
use broader or more regional comparisons). Discussion will focus on the underlying
principles of how employees' pay progresses within their pay grades.
3. Police Stafizng and Services
Ensuring a safe community is a key result and priority in our community. Before we
determine the specific, future staffing and resource needs related to Police services, a more
specific service plan and set of metrics that are pertinent and directly applicable to our
community profile and public safety needs must be developed. As a starting point, Council
supported the creation ofa Council subcommittee to workclosely with the City Manager and
staff to develop the service plan and metrics.
CONCLUSION
The 2006-2007 Recommended Budget is a sound financial plan to deliver the services we believe
our citizens value most. The budgeting process has enabled us to focus and apply the resources
available to key community outcomes. This has not been without pain as we have had to trim
existing services, cut positions and forego planned staffing and service enhancements. However,
citizens will still receive excellent value for their tax dollars.
I am deeply appreciative ofthe extraordinary effort ofand partnership by Council and staffover the
past eight months to prepare the f nancial plan that will guide service delivery over the next two
years.
First Reading of the budget ordinances will be considered at Council's November 2 meeting. Any
final amendments agreed to by Council will be included in the second (and final) reading of the
budget ordinances on November 15, 2005. By Charter, the budget must be adopted and
appropriations for the 2006 fiscal year must be approved by November 30."
Mayor Hutchinson stated there would be a main motion to adopt the Ordinance and that he would
entertain motions to amend that main motion. He stated ultimately the Council would vote on the
Ordinance as amended. He stated the Ordinance would approve a two-year budget and would
415
November 2, 2005
appropriate funds for 2006. He stated the Ordinance would also set the mill levy (unchanged) for
the City.
City Manager Atteberry stated the 2006-2007 budget represented a "retooling" of the budget process.
He stated he believed that the new process had resulted in the Mayor and Council having a better
understanding of where City dollars were spent and how those dollars related to specific outcomes.
He stated the staff team had been more involved than ever in the budget process and development
of the recommended budget. He stated "budgeting for outcomes" set the stage for the next decade
and beyond, represented a collaborative process between the Council and the staff, and was
necessary to fix the structural budget problems. He stated those problems were that revenues were
not rebounding as hoped; that there was increasing regional and Internet competition for retail; that
$5.9 million in ongoing across-the-board costs had been cut in 2002-2003 without making any "deep
and narrow cuts" to services and programs; that anticipated service commitments in the ten-year
budget did not give an "encouraging" prospect; that labor market adjustments were frozen for City
employees in 2003-2005; that employee benefit contributions were not aligned with the market and
employer contributions were "too generous" given the defined market; that reserves were being
drawn down to take care of budget shortfalls; and that costs were exceeding revenues. He presented
visual information showing a cost/revenue curve to illustrate how revenues had "flattened out" and
how costs were "outstripping revenues." He stated the City Council had developed seven results
(outcomes) to guide development of the budget: (1) improve economic health, (2) improve
environmental health, (3) improve neighborhood quality, (4) create a safer community, (5) improve
cultural, recreational and educational opportunities, (6) improve transportation, and (7) build a high
performing government. He stated the total City budget in 2006 would be $476,742,431 and in 2007
would be about $464,000,000. He outlined the changes that had been made to the recommended
budget that was delivered to the Council in September. He stated Dial -a -Ride was not fully funded
in the recommended budget. He stated he was now recommending that one-time dollars be used to
fund Dial -a -Ride ($60,000 in 2006 and $80,000 in 2007). He stated there would be the same level
of service for one-third of the money. He stated enhanced camera radar was being added to the
budget ($177,000 in 2006 and $186,000 in 2007) and that the purchase of a new camera radar unit
would be self funded through revenue generated by the program. He stated a traffic ticket surcharge
was being added, and that the $35 surcharge on moving violation tickets would generate revenue for
two additional police officers focused on traffic.
Mayor Hutchinson stated night-time Dial -a -Ride was an important issue and that the funding
recommendation was a good example of what could be done when alternative approaches were
explored. He stated the night-time service was being retained at a significantly reduced cost.
City Manager Attebery stated Shamrock would be using City -equipped vans to provide to the
service and that this was an innovative approach. He stated $66,000 was added in 2006 and
$125,000 was added in 2007 for the Larimer County Humane Society contract to fully fund the
contract for 2006-2007. He stated $16,000 in one-time dollars was added to the budget each year
for 2006-2007 for marketing and outreach for the bicycle program. He stated the trash districting
study was taken out of the budget, reducing one-time expenditures by $30,000. He stated $17,000
was added to the 2006 budget and that $18,500 to the 2007 budget for an enhanced Restorative
416
November 2, 2005
Justice program. He stated two programs were added to the budget: a neighborhood homeowners'
association database (15 FTE funded through $15,000 in ongoing dollars for 2006-2007) and
quarterly neighborhood street sweeping ($112,000 in 2006 and $116,000 in 2007) to keep debris out
of the stormwater system. He stated the Council had available to spend or save $339,721 in one-time
dollars. He stated he was also recommending that the Restorative Justice program be funded with
grant money rather than ongoing dollars. He stated he was also recommending that the
neighborhood homeowners' association database ($15,000) and a portion of the Restorative Justice
program enhancements be funded with ongoing dollars. He stated the Council would have $339,721
in one-time dollars to spend or save and that there would be about $19,745 in ongoing dollars
remaining. He stated this agenda item was First Reading of the budget and appropriation Ordinance
and that there would be other agenda items on the 2006 pay plan, utility rates and charges, capital
improvement expansion fees, transportation development review fees, and the revenue allocation
formula for the City's contribution to the Poudre Fire Authority. He stated he appreciated the
partnership between the staff and the Council in the budget process.
Mayor Hutchinson stated this had been a "healthy process" for the City that had given the Council,
staff and the public greater "insight" into the budget. He stated each citizen participant would have
three minutes to speak.
Lee Winfield, 411 Park Street, thanked the Council for the hard work on Dial -a -Ride.
Kim Jordan, 2780 Dean Drive, spoke in support of a bicycle coordinator position.
Barney Apodaca, 327 Mathews Street, stated he preferred to take the bus rather than a taxicab
Dawn Scott, 1025 Wakerobin Lane, thanked the Council for funding Dial -a -Ride.
Rick Price, 1925 Wallenberg Drive, and business owner at 415 Mason Court #1, spoke in favor of
an ombudsman position for the bicycle program. He stated he was speaking on behalf of Friends of
the Fort Collins Bicycle Program. He also thanked the Council for placing the balanced Building
on Basics package on the ballot. He commented on the excellence of parks and recreation and
transportation planning staff. He noted that budgeting for outcomes had reduced the number of
transportation planners and outside consultants working on transportation planning. He asked that
the Council support the bicycle coordinator position.
Paul Rosenzweig, 413 %2 East Mulberry Street, supported establishment of bus service to the health
care providers on East Harmony Road from College Avenue to Timberline Road. He also supported
bus service to health care providers and other agencies on East Prospect Road from Lemay Avenue
to Timberline Road. He stated he would also like to see bus service restored to the new Fort Collins
High School on Timberline Road.
Eric Erslev, 705 Birky Place, supported a professional bicycle program coordinator to represent all
of the diverse sectors of the bicycling community.
417
November 2, 2005
Nancy York, Fort Collins resident, expressed disappointment in the proposed budget. She stated it
"contributed to the widening of the gaps between the haves and the have less." She opposed the
declassification of bus drivers, the elimination of bus routes, cuts to pedestrian access, and
SmartTrips. She stated this was an "elitist budget" and stated there should be a "unified connected
bus service" to serve the schools and the region. She stated there would be impacts on air quality,
affordability and health and that the transportation system was less sustainable because there would
be no alternative transportation. She urged the Council to delay passage of the budget and reevaluate
transportation options such as merging the City's bus system with the School District's system. She
also suggested evaluating whether the needs of Dial -a -Ride customers could be met with a grid bus
system.
Bruce Hall, 924 Whalers Way, stated public transit was an issue created by the City Council upon
the termination of routes critical to the handicapped and low income people. He stated access to
facilities on Harmony Road and Timberline Road had been cut. He stated the Council continued to
encourage commercial and residential development in the southeast area without regard to public
transit and air quality impacts. He stated the most needy residents were being "deprived" under the
proposed budget and that the "mobile and well-off' were "favored" by the budget. He urged the
Council to give priority to health care and social services along Harmony and Timberline Roads by
restoring Transfort routes.
Susanne Durkin -Schindler, 1342 Stonehenge Drive, stated she was one of 26 active volunteers in
the Restorative Justice Program and thanked the Council for approving hard dollars for the program.
She also thanked the City for in -kind and ongoing support provided by Facilities and Police Services.
She stated there were about 2,000 volunteer hours a year for the program and more than 1,000 hours
of community service through the program.
Marcia Fitzhom, 2101 Rollingwood Drive, thanked the City for finding money to restore night-time
Dial -a -Ride service. She expressed concern that this was one-time money. She stated the City must
explore alternative modes of transportation and collaboration with other community organizations.
She stated Transfort should be expanded to reach important services on the fringes of the City. She
asked that the Council look at a broader approach to transit in Fort Collins.
Pat Walsh, 317 Lago Court, Restorative Justice Program volunteer, thanked the Council for funding
the program. She stated the program saved the City money because for every case deferred to
Restorative Justice there was an immediate saving in court costs, judge time and other expenses and
the possibility of avoiding future court and detention time.
Archie Solsky spoke in favor of a bicycle coordinator program because of increases in the number
of bicyclists.
Theresa Holbrook, 2907 Tumbleweed Lane, Restorative Justice Program volunteer, expressed
appreciative for funding for the program. She spoke regarding the community benefits of the
program.
BE
November 2, 2005
Courtney Przybylski, Director of Community Affairs for ASCSU, spoke in favor of the bicycle
coordinator position, the stated goal of City partnerships with CSU and ASCSU, and funding for
Dial -a -Ride and Transfort. She asked that the City be cautious with raising fees.
Joe Courant, Restorative Justice Program volunteer, spoke on behalf of ongoing funding for the
Restorative Justice Program and spoke regarding the community benefits of the program.
Kathleen Regan, 411 Park Street, thanked the Council funding for evening Dial -a -Ride.
Jenny Shock spoke in support of funding for evening Dial -a -Ride and additional public transit routes.
Kathleen Winfield, 411 Park Street, thanked Council for funding night-time Dial -a -Ride.
Councilmember Ohlson asked about the benefits of providing more one-time funding for the
Restorative Justice Program. Don Vagge, Police Captain, stated the Restorative Justice Program had
received a $20,000 grant for 2006 and that grant, combined with the $17,000 that was being
supported by the City Council at this point, would provide a total of $37,000 in funding. He stated
this would be less than the current funding level. He stated if additional grant funding was received
from the Bohemian Foundation that the services of the Restorative Justice Program could be
enhanced to deal with minor offenses in cooperation with the School District.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if more "good work" could be done if the program received another
$25,000 per year. Vagge stated the program would be able to do more work for the community if
there was more funding.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the program was limited in what it could do because of limited
resources. Vagge stated the biggest problem for the program was the uncertainty of funding. City
Manager Atteberry asked if Captain Vagge could quantify the enhancements that could occur with
additional funding. Vagge stated staff could come back with additional information prior to Second
Reading.
Councilmember Manvel stated the uncertainty of funding for the Restorative Justice Program
appeared to be a problem. He stated he believed that there was broad support on Council to continue
and enhance the program. He asked what the right strategy would be; i.e. should money be
appropriated as if there would be no grant money, or should the assumption be that there would be
grant funding and to leave the budget as currently proposed? City Manager Atteberry stated if the
Council appropriated the dollars in this Ordinance, the dollars would not have to be spent if the
program received grant funding. He stated if the Council did not appropriate the dollars and the
grant money was not received, staff would bring back an appropriation Ordinance for those dollars.
He stated it would be "cleaner" to appropriate the dollars as part of this Ordinance.
Councilmember Ohlson stated his intent was to expand the Restorative Justice Program and that he
would like to know what additional funding beyond the grant money could accomplish. City
Manager Atteberry stated he would like clarification regarding the potential amount of funding.
419
November 2, 2005
Councilmember Ohlson stated he would like to know the level of Council support before an amount
would be discussed. He stated he had in mind an additional $25,000 each year. He stated he would
like staff to look at options for different amounts of money (possibly $20,000 and $40,000).
Councilmember Kastein asked where money might come from to pursue an alternative approach for
the Southwest Enclave Annexation. He stated under Other Business he would be proposing that the
Council "step back" and "define a different kind of process" relating to the annexation. City
Manager Atteberry asked CPES Director Byrne if there was a delay in the Southwest Enclave
Annexation discussions to "start fresh" with assumptions whether that would mean a need for
additional resources. Greg Byrne, CPES Director, stated "starting over" would mean a lot of staff
time.
Councilmember Kastein noted that if Council decided that the Intergovernmental Agreement needed
to be followed that other questions were "solved." He stated the Council could decide that the
Intergovernmental Agreement did not need to be followed but that the annexation "made sense."
He stated if it became known that the annexation was going to happen that he would like additional
unanswered questions to be answered. He stated Council could decide that the annexation did not
have to be done but that it still would make sense to do it through some kind of "informed consent"
process involving a lot of staff time. He stated he would like to know the "magnitude of effort" that
would be required to follow that "path." City Manager Atteberry stated he would like to see a
discussion about this issue at next week's work session.
Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification on the response he received from staff on the decision
not to do any more mini -parks. Marty Heffernan, CLRS Director, stated developers had an
obligation to create landscaped and turfed green spaces within their developments. He stated the
developers were required to set land aside for those green spaces. He stated mini -parks were
expensive to maintain and that the City was going back to a system wherein the City would provide
a larger neighborhood park instead of a mini -park due to the requirement that developers must
provide green spaces in their developments.
Councilmember Kastein asked what was different in this budget relating to mini -parks. Heffernan
stated five mini -parks had been planned through park build -out. He stated staff was proposing that
those five mini -parks not be built and that neighborhood parks be made larger. He stated the amount
of park space would remain the same and that it would be consolidated to reduce maintenance costs
in the future.
Councilmember Kastein asked about the funding for the Youth Activity Center (funding in 2006 and
half of the funding in 2007). He noted that the City paid a fairly high rent on that facility and asked
if there might be an opportunity to buy that facility. City Manager Atteberry stated it was unknown
whether the property was for sale. He stated the plan was to close the YAC in mid -year 2007
because the City believed that it could provide excellent services at the new Northside Center. He
expressed concern about the lease payment that would increase to about $350,000. He stated the
staffing level that would be needed to continue the YAC was about $240,000 ongoing and those
dollars would be needed even if the property was donated to the City. He stated this was a "difficult
420
November 2, 2005
issue" and that after the review process staff determined that the YAC did not "accomplish the
outcome" as well as other programs that were being recommended for funding. He stated staff
believed that the YAC was a lower priority than other items that were being funded. Heffernan
stated the option to purchase was not part of the original lease. City Manager Atteberry stated
acquisition of the property had not been discussed with General Growth Properties.
Councilmember Manvel noted that the YAC issue was confused by the fact that the City owned the
attached gymnasium. Heffernan stated the City did not own the gymnasium and had a lease on it.
He noted that it was built with donated dollars. He stated if the City terminated the lease because
sufficient dollars were not appropriated, the owner of the mall could allow the City to continue to
use the gymnasium at no cost or could pay back the donated money to the City over five years. He
stated the City's responsibility would then be to use that money for the benefit of the youth of Fort
Collins. He stated the City's preference would be to continue to use the gymnasium.
Councilmember Kastein stated Council had received a staff memo about the $16,000 in Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) dollars and the $60,000 in General Fund money that could be
used for the bike coordinator position. He asked what the minimum City match would be to leverage
some CMAQ dollars for less than a full-time position. Ron Phillips, Executive Director of
Transportation Services, stated the 2006 contract was for about $16,000 that was being matched by
slightly more than $3,300 of local money for marketing. He stated amount was not increased in the
proposal because increasing the amount of CMAQ funds would mean increasing the amount of
benefit to air quality based on a formula. He stated a proposal could be made to increase the amount
of CMAQ dollars, which would increase the match amount. He stated an amendment to the contract
with the Colorado Department of Transportation would be required to increase the amount of CMAQ
funds for that purpose. He stated the proposal was that the additional money come from carryover
General Fund dollars rather than an increase in the CMAQ dollars.
Councilmember Kastein asked about the time frame for approval of distribution of CMAQ money.
Phillips stated there was a signed contract with CDOT for two years of funding. He stated the City
had not yet received CDOT's notice to proceed with the contract. He stated an amendment to the
contract would be needed to change the amount of local dollars anyway.
Councilmember Manvel asked if this was comparable to the uncertainty in the grant money for the
Restorative Justice Program; i.e., if the Council wanted a bike coordinator position it needed to go
ahead and appropriate the money for the position and any grant money received could be used to
supplement those funds or could remain unspent. City Manager Atteberry replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ohlson asked about the transfer of $379,195 from the Conservation Trust Fund to
the General Fund for parks maintenance. He asked if money had been transferred from that Fund
to the General Fund in the past for parks maintenance, and if so how much had been transferred
compared to this year. Heffernan stated funds had not been transferred for parks maintenance in the
past. He stated about $60,000 of those funds had been used for trail maintenance done by the Parks
Department.
421
November 2, 2005
Councilmember Ohlson stated this was a "seismic or systemic shift" from what had been done in the
past. He asked if this change had cleared through legal staff since it was his understanding that
Conservation Trust Fund monies were limited to certain uses. Heffernan stated the Conservation
Trust Fund dollars could be used for maintenance purposes according to State law.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if historically $270,000 was spent on administration (about one -fifth
of the money) for the Conservation Trust Fund. He asked if that money was spent on different
aspects of parks and recreation administration. Heffernan stated the Conservation Trust Fund dollars
spent for administration were primarily for construction management and general supervision and
staff time of the Park Planning Manager associated with the trail construction program.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the administration dollars ($270,000) therefore went to administer
the spending of the remainder of the $1.2 million. Heffernan stated it was spent on oversight and
construction management services related to building trails.
Councilmember Ohlson stated it appeared there would be $270,000 to administer $900,000 in
projects. Heffernan stated the money was spent on design services, construction management and
other aspects of building a trail system, such as right-of-way acquisition.
Councilmember Ohlson stated this was a major shift to free up money for the General Fund and
parks maintenance. He noted that there would now be new monies in addition to what was coming
in from open space and natural areas taxes for trails and trail maintenance. He asked if figures were
available on that. Heffernan stated he could provide that information prior to Second Reading. He
stated in the past the quarter cent tax for open lands coming from the County had been used for trail
projects. He stated this had put about $100,000 per year into the hard surface trail program. He
stated to address budgetary constraints trail construction money was being shifted from the
Conservation Trust Fund to trail maintenance and maintenance for a new park and also to other City
services. He stated some of the County tax would "backfill" the hard surface trail construction
program in the amount of $200,000.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked for confinnation that the Conservation Trust Fund money came
from the State lottery. Heffernan replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Weitkunat noted the discussion related to how those dollars were allocated in
accordance with a prescribed formula. She stated adjustments were being made in this budget cycle
to change the ways the dollars were to be used. She noted that this change would free up General
Fund dollars for other purposes. Heffernan stated State lottery dollars had been devoted in
accordance with Council policy to the hard surface trail program and that those dollars would now
be used for more things. He stated the new uses were allowed under the restrictions on the use of
the money. He stated this would help the General Fund and allow the opening of the Spring Canyon
Park. He stated County open space money would be used for the hard surface trail program.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he understood that as much as $300,000 in open space dollars would
be used for trails. He stated he also understood that there would be "permanent shifting" of dollars
422
November 2, 2005
to "jumpstart" some trails projects. Heffernan stated the main contribution to the hard surface trail
program from natural areas had been to provide a place to put the trail. He stated in the last few
years there had been a shift so that actual dollars were used to complete trail projects. He stated even
more natural areas dollars would now go to the trail program as Conservation Trust Fund dollars
were reallocated. City Manager Atteberry stated this was an example of a "good outcome" of the
budget process.
Councilmember Weitkunat noted that the budget included some fee increases and that there had been
discussion relating to the amount of increases such as plant investment fees and spreading them over
a period of time. She asked if it would be appropriate to do that with this appropriation or at a later
time. City Manager Atteberry stated staff preferred to do that later in the context of the Ordinance
that would be considered after this Ordinance.
Councilmember Kastein noted there were impact fees and usage fees scheduled for later discussion.
He asked about the connection between those fees and the budget. He noted that if the budget was
approved "as is" in reliance on certain fees that there could be a problem if the Council did not
approve the fees later in the meeting.
(Secretary's Note: The Council took a recess at this point.)
City Manager Atteberry stated the plant investment fee item would be considered separately later in
the meeting. He stated staff s recommendation was that this be considered as a separate item after
adoption of this appropriation Ordinance.
Mayor Hutchinson stated any changes that would be needed based on the outcome of the plant
investment fee item could be addressed at the time of Second Reading of the appropriation
Ordinance.
Councilmember Brown asked what happens to unused one-time dollars. City Manager Atteberry
stated those unused dollars would be put into a reserve fund for appropriation by Council at a later
date.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Ordinance
No. 132, 2005 on First Reading.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he had additional questions relating to the bus driver issues and
transportation demand management. He noted that his understanding was that there were many cuts
for 2006 and then the line item in the budget would be eliminated in 2007. He asked for an
explanation of the transportation demand management (TDM) program and how many dollars were
spent at the peak ofthe program. Phillips stated 2005 budget for transportation demand management
was between $850,000 and $900,000. He stated a significant portion of those dollars would not be
spent because positions had been frozen when people left City employment. He stated some of the
programs that were part of the transportation demand management program (Smart Trips) included
M
423
November 2. 2005
business and school outreach to encourage alternative modes of transportation, a carpooling program,
and vanpooling.
Councilmember Ohlson asked for confirmation that the TDM program would be totally eliminated
from the 2007 budget. Phillips replied in the affirmative and noted that this was federal money.
Councilmember Ohlson asked why a program that had won the City many awards and seemed so
"common sense" could be eliminated. Phillips stated this was recommended through the budgeting
for outcomes process.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if there would now be a two -tiered bus driver system; i.e., that 14
positions would be hourly without benefits and that others would be classified employees with
benefits. He noted that hourly and classified employees could have the same skill sets. Phillips
stated Councilmember Ohlson's statement was correct.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to amend Ordinance
No. 132, 2005 on First Reading to add a half-time bicycle coordinator position to the budget in the
amount of $40,840 for 2006 and $42,840 for 2007 (a 5% inflation increase) from one-time funds.
City Manager Atteberry asked if the intent of the motion was to fund the bicycle coordinator position
with one-time dollars and to give direction that marketing and outreach not be done.
Councilmember Manvel stated his intent was that the funding would be in addition to the $16,000
that was needed for marketing and outreach.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked for clarification regarding the money that was available in one-
time General Fund dollars. She stated her understanding was that there were $339,721 available and
that those monies were used for Dial -a -Ride, Humane Society and bicycle program marketing and
outreach. City Manager Atteberry stated this was correct.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked what was left. City Manager Atteberry stated there was a
remaining balance of $339,721 available after adjustments were made. He stated he understood that
Councilmember Manvel would like an additional funding for the bicycle coordinator position to
come from that source of funding.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if the $40,840 would fund a half-time position. City Manager Atteberry
replied in the affirmative and noted that this would cover salary and benefits for the half-time
position.
Councilmember Manvel stated the total would be $83,680 for the two years.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the bicycle program had cost about $200,000 and that this represented
a cut to the program rather than an increase. He supported a half-time position to coordinate all of
the available volunteer energy that was available for this program. He noted that these would be
901
November 2, 2005
one-time dollars and the program would be evaluated before it would receive future funding. He
stated he would be asking "what product was produced" for many of the City's programs in the
future.
Councilmember Manvel supported the motion to amend. He stated this would increase the
possibility of getting grant money and CMAQ funds. He stated Fort Collins had an "image" as a
"bicycle friendly community" and that the City needed to encourage bicycling for recreation and
"serious transportation."
Councilmember Kastein stated he was not aware that the program was being cut back from the
$200,000 funding level. City Manager Atteberry stated the bicycle coordinator position had been
frozen since it became vacant.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he had been told that $200,000 was budgeted for the program at its
peak. Phillips stated amount of money was in the budget for the program about three years ago. He
stated for 2005 funding for the program was in the $130,000 range.
Councilmember Kastein asked how long the position had been vacant. Phillips stated it had been
vacant for 18 months following the resignation of the employee and that the position was not refilled
because positions were frozen. City Manager Atteberry stated vacant positions that were not
"critical" were frozen and that this meant that of the 107 positions being eliminated only 42 were
filled positions.
Councilmember Kastein stated it was therefore his understanding that funding would be going from
zero to the proposed funding. He stated there was merit to having this position and other positions
that had been cut. He stated he would favor stepping back to find out how much federal money
could be leveraged with a bit more local money. Phillips stated it was unlikely that staff could get
an answer before Second Reading of the Ordinance. City Manager Atteberry stated having this
position in place could help the City attract other agency dollars to continue the program longer term.
Councilmember Kastein stated if the lack of a bicycle coordinator position was a "fatal flaw" in the
budget that he would like to be able to support funding for the position.
Councilmember Brown asked for clarification that the bicycle coordinator would have a City office
and access to City staff. City Manager Atteberry stated the intent was to place the position in the
Transportation Planning area.
Councilmember Brown stated it was important for that position to have a City office and be part of
the City staff and that this was an important position.
Councilmember Roy stated he would support the motion to amend. He stated citizen input was an
integral part of the budgeting for outcomes process and that there had been a "strong message" from
citizens about the value of a bicycle coordinator position.
I
425
November 2, 2005
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would support the motion to amend because the bicycling
program was an integral part of the community. She stated it was important to use that position to
try to generate federal funds and build a "network of volunteerism."
Councilmember Manvel expressed appreciation for Council's support. He noted that for an
additional $20,000 there could be a full-time coordinator and that there might be support for that in
the future.
Councilmember Kastem stated there were "competing interests" and a lot of "give and take"on the
Council. He stated there was a $360 million net budget and $90 million City budget. He stated there
were items in the $90 million budget that were difficult to decide. He stated public safety must be
"done right" to have a City and that police officers were not being added in the next two years. He
stated in many ways this was "inexcusable." He stated there was agreement to reassess the plan for
adding police in 2007 to determine service level needs. He stated he was willing to "give" to get the
budget passed and that he would like to know if the bicycle coordinator position was as important
within the overall budget.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he believed that there were other "fatal flaws" in the budget. He
stated including a few "tiny dollar" items that he felt were important would not make a difference
in getting his positive support for the overall budget.
Mayor Hutchinson stated he would support the motion to amend because it represented a focus on
outcomes. He stated the City was finding a way to get the service will less public money. He stated
the position would be funded with one-time money and that the effectiveness of the position would
need to be evaluated in the future.
The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson,
Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED.
Councilmember Roy asked about options for funding of the Restorative Justice Program. City
Manager Atteberry stated staff would come back with options prior to Second Reading. He stated
the amount of ongoing funding in 2006 would be about $19,745. He stated if the Council wanted
to provide $40,000 in additional funding that would have to come from one-time dollars. He stated
there was about $256,000 available in one-time dollars.
Councilmember Roy made a motion to amend to fund the Restorative Justice Program with an
additional $25,000 above the enhancements that had already been approved using one-time money.
Councilmember Weitkunat requested clarification regarding the amount.
426
November 2, 2005
Councilmember Roy stated his pr posal was for the $17,000 plus $25,000 ($42,000) in one-time
monies for 2006. He stated the CoIncil had received information on the benefits of the program and
that he believed that additional furling was warranted.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he would like information to show the specific outcomes of additional
funding. He stated he was not willing to support the motion until he could see that additional
information.
THE MOTION TO AMEND WAS WITHDRAWN.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion to amend, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to accept
the second enhancement for the Restorative Justice Program as outlined ($17,373 in 2006 and
$18,508 in 2007).
City Manager Atteberry stated those numbers were already in the proposed budget.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated it appeared that a motion was not needed to approve those amounts
and that she would withdraw the motion to amend.
THE MOTION TO AMEND WAS WITHDRAWN.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion to amend, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to not
specifically allocate the remaining one-time dollars and to put those dollars into a reserve fund to
be used at the Council's discretion.
Deputy City Manager Jones stated those dollars could be appropriated and placed under a
nondepartmental category without any use specified at this time.
Councilmember Kastein stated that was his intent.
City Manager Atteberry clarified that if those dollars were appropriated they would not be earmarked
for anything and that those dollars would not need to come back to Council if direction was given
on how to use those dollars at a future time. He stated those dollars could be put into reserves and
not appropriated or could be appropriated now and placed in a fund from which the dollars could be
spent administratively in accordance with Council direction.
Councilmember Kastein stated he preferred the first option.
Councilmember Brown spoke in favor of the motion to amend in case there were budget shortages.
Councilmember Manvel asked if this motion had any effect since the money would go into reserves
whether or not there was a motion. Deputy City Manager Jones stated if the Council wanted to
appropriate the dollars and not earmark how they were to be spent that they would be placed into a
nondepartmental line item and ready to spend. She stated if the monies were not appropriated that
427
November 2, 2005
the remaining dollars would fall into a reserve fund and an appropriation must be made before the
money could be spent.
Councilmember Kastein stated he would like to stop any further specific allocation of those dollars.
He stated there was some uncertainty in the budget and in revenue projections. He stated it made
sense to have dollars in reserves in case the predictions were inaccurate.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the additional appropriation for the Restorative Justice Program
could be made if Council wanted to do that after receiving the requested information.
Councilmember Kastein stated there was also the issue of the Southwest Enclave Annexation.
Councilmember Ohlson stated since those two issues were "still in play" when additional
information was received that he would support the motion.
The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson,
Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if there was further discussion on the main motion.
Councilmember Roy stated he would not support the main motion because of "fatal flaws" in the
process and the budget. He stated he supported the budgeting for outcomes process but felt that the
process did not "listen to the citizens of Fort Collins." He stated the process took a "tremendous
amount of staff energy" and that it did not "fully engage the citizenry." He stated the Council was
focused on economic programs, creating prosperity and creating a different kind of "economic
energy" but that this budget did not speak to the people who "used bicycles, were single moms, had
to work two jobs, or had one car per household and could not get to places." He stated the budget
did not recognize "basic elements of what it means to struggle in this community." He stated there
would be a "big hole" in Transfort and that there had been a "struggle" to get night service back for
Dial -a -Ride. He stated it would now take a long time to create a transit system in the City. He stated
the budget was also lacking in the "social needs category." He stated there were cuts to affordable
housing and that there was also a "fierce attack" on the environment. He thanked all of the staff
members who worked on the budgeting for outcomes process.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she strongly supported the main motion. She stated this was a
"transitional budget" with major adjustments during a time of change. She stated the budget
represented a change in how the City does business. She stated the City government was one of the
major employers in the community and produced services to more than 125,000 people. She stated
the City looked at community values during the budgeting for outcomes process. She stated there
was "pain" from the process but that the adjustments must be made because of uncertain revenues.
She stated the City must become "leaner, stronger" and more efficient. She stated she would support
the budget, knowing that there would be adjustments made in the future.
Im
November 2, 2005
Councilmember Ohlson thanked the staff for outstanding work on the Budgeting For Outcomes
process. He stated he appreciated having an opportunity to state a non -majority viewpoint. He
stated he would not support the main motion. He stated he liked the new way of budgeting, the
addition of dollars for Dial -a -Ride, that funding was allocated for the bicycle program and residential
street sweeping as well as for two new traffic officers, that there would be funding for a police
staffing study, and small items such as the HOA database. He stated there was a "fatal flaw" in the
budget. He stated he would like more information on the pension plan (a $20 million item). He
stated he would like more information and more study on options on that in the future. He stated he
did not believe the taxpayers should have the full responsibility to make up for shortfalls in the
pension plan. He opposed the two-tier bus driver system and the elimination of transportation
demand management. He stated his impression was that anything related to "environment" was
either "cut or gutted" in the budget. He stated there was a need for a trash redistricting study. He
stated he had not given up on having two youth activity centers and that he would like Council to
study that issue in the future. He stated the 701" percentile as currently structured was flawed and
financially unsustainable. He stated millions of dollars in cut were needed because of the salary and
benefits structure of the City. He stated there should be a structure that supported high performance
and the exit of low performers. He stated the City was not moving fast enough on changes to the
benefit package.
Councilmember Brown stated he would support the main motion. He stated "hard choices" had to
be made with this budget. He spoke regarding the importance of a strong economy and stated past
Councils had taken actions to "keep business out of this City." He stated the problem was not the
salary and benefit package. He stated this budget would balance the environment and the economy.
Councilmember Kastein stated this had been a long and difficult process that needed to be done. He
stated an effort was made to decide what the City should keep doing and what it should stop doing.
He stated he saw this as an opportunity to "allocate resources properly." He stated less money meant
better prioritization and that there were some items on the "stop doing" list that he could use to say
he would not support the overall budget. He stated it was disappointing that the Youth Activity
Center would be eliminated in 2007 but that it would be difficult to fund that kind of item because
of revenue shortfalls. He stated when he looked closely at the items that the City would stop doing
that he usually came to the same decisions made by staff on the items to be cut. He stated there
would be many challenges for 2007 and that there were major items that would need to be discussed:
adequate police staffing, the transportation maintenance fee, the pay plan (actual pay plan
comparisons), and pay -for -performance. He thanked staff for the hard work on the budget and
expressed surprise at the "darts thrown last minute." He stated he hoped that this budget process
could be used again in the future and would get better over time.
Councilmember Manvel stated he would support the main motion. He thanked the staff for its work
on the budget. He expressed concern about the income side of the budget for 2006 and 2007. He
stated he agreed with some of the Council's comments about cuts that would affect the least
fortunate members of the citizenry but that items were being cut that would affect many citizens.
He stated efforts had been made to "minimize the pain to the citizens." He stated the Pay Plan would
need to be reexamined next year. He stated mid -course adjustments might be needed in mid-2006
429
November 2, 2005
if the revenue came in lower than projected. He stated he had some reservations but could support
the budget.
Mayor Hutchinson stated he supported the budget. He stated this was the first year of a major new
process and that the Council, staff and citizens were able to become effectively involved. He stated
the budget was "transparent' and that "real balance" had been achieved. He stated a "modest
investment' was being made in economic health. He stated he expected that there would be a
substantial exception process because of the `visibility" into the budget and the issues that remained.
He stated the transportation maintenance fee would be a major issue. He stated the City was "far
behind" in catching up with employee compensation. He stated there was a consensus to work on
changing the pay plan system. He stated this budget was good for the community and that there were
many compromises. He noted that appropriations were being made only for 2006.
The vote on the main motion as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown,
Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Ohlson and Roy.
THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED.
City Manager Atteberry thanked Dee Toplyn and Steve Engemoen for their work on the budget since
the retirement of Budget Director Doug Smith.
Items Relating to 2006 Water, Sewer, Stormwater Plant Investment
Fees and Electric Development Charges, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
The financial impacts vary by the size and nature ofthe development. Ifadopted, the proposed water
and sewer plant investment fees and electric development charges will increase. Fees in seven of
the twelve storm drainage basins will decrease. The stormwaterplant investmentfees will increase
in the remaining five basins. The combined utility fees for a typical single family residence
(exclusive ofraw water requirements which are not changing) will increasefrom $7,483 to $9,678
or 29.3%.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2005, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise
Water Plant Investment Fees and Raw Water Requirements.
A First Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2005, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise
Sewer Plant Investment Fees. (Option A - Full Implementation in 2006)
430
November 2, 2005
First Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2005, Amending Chapter 26 ofthe City Code to Revise
Sewer Plant Investment Fees. (Option B - Phase -In Implementation - 113 in 2006)
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2005, Amending Chapter 26 ofthe City Code to Revise
Electric Development Fees and Charges.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 2005, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to
Establish Stormwater Plant Investment Fees.
These Ordinances adopt the water, sewer and stormwater plant investment fees and electric
development fees. These fees were presented and discussed at City Council's August 23, 2005 work
session. The fees are one-time charges paid by developers or builders for the cost of the utility
infrastructure needed to serve a new development.
Two options are presented for the implementation of the sewer plant investment fees. Option A is
100% of the proposed increases as presented at the August 23 work session. Those fees result
increases from 111 % to 174%. Because of the large increases in Option A, Councilmembers
requested a phased -in approach to implement the increases over three years. Option B implements
one-third of the increases proposed in Option A for 2006
Thefee adjustmentsfluctuate by the size and nature ofthe development. Theproposed increases vary
from 3% to 44% for water. Depending on the drainage basin, the proposed stormwater plant
investment fees varyfrom a 56% decrease to a 41 % increase. Proposed electric development fee
increases varyfrom 1 % to 3391o.
Plant investment fees (PIFs) for water and wastewater have historically been adjusted about once
every five years. These PIFs were last adopted in 1998. Stormwater fees have been adopted as
individual basin masterplans were approved. With the exception of 2005, electric developmentfees
have been revised annually. In thefuture, all utility PIFs/developmentfees will be reviewed annually
and presented for Council consideration at least biennially in order to mitigate the impact of the
adjustments in any one year.
The utilities contracted with Red Oak Consulting to provide a broad area of expertise to the
development of the 2006 water, wastewater, and stormwater methodologies and costs.
The Water Board discussed the water, sewer and stormwater plant investment fees at the July 28,
2005 Board meeting. The Board unanimously approved a motion supporting the proposed
methodology of using equity in the system and future growth related capital costs as a basis for
determining the plant investment fees.
The Electric Board reviewed proposed increases to the electric development fees at its meeting on
September 15, 2004. The Board unanimously approved a motion supporting the proposed fee
changes.
431
November 2, 2005
BACKGROUND
WATER
The service area of the City of Fort Collins water utility is approaching build out. The utility can
now predict capital needs to the build out of the service area. The plant has the capacity to serve
future customers and capital projects will include a nominal amount ofgrowth-related projects that
do not add capacity. Based on these considerations, the equity buy -in method was selected. Under
this methodology, new customers are required to "buy -in" to the existing facilities at the same
equity position as existing customers.
The equity buy -in method includes calculating net water system equity, capacity units, and
determining the net system equity per unit. Water system assets were valued at replacement costs,
or the cost of duplicating existing facilities at current prices. Replacement costs were based on the
construction cost index as published by Engineering News Record. To determine net system equity,
any outstanding principal on debt was subtracted from the total replacement cost asset valuation.
The net system equity is then divided by total current capacity used in the system. This unit cost is
applied to a fee schedule designated by customer classes and their representative usage
characteristics.
The following schedule details PIFs for the various customer classes.
WATER PLANT INVESTMENT FEES BY CUSTOMER CLASS
Customer Class/
Meter Size
1998 PIF Studv
ProDose,
12006
Peak Day
Usa e d
Current
Charre
Peak Day
Usa e d
Proposed
Charize
Chan e
Unit Fee Oper allon
$3.39
$3.69
9%
Residential.
Single Family
Inside Use
180
$ 610
191
$ 710
16%
Irrigation
805
$2,752
864
$3,180
16%
Total
985
$3 362
1,055,
$3 890
16%
Multi -Family (per unit
Indoor Use
145
$ 490
133
$ 490
0%
$/S . Ft.
268
$ 928
263
$ 970
4%
Total perDwellin Unit
413
$1418
396
$1460
3%
Non -Residential meter size
'/a inch
1,357
$ 4,600
1,800
$ 6,640
44%
]inch
4,513
$ 15,300
5,230
$ 19,300
26%
1 %: inch
9,204
$ 31,200
10,470
$ 38,630
24%
2 inch
15,811
$ 53,600
16,710
$ 61,660
15%
3 inch
30,413
$103,100
33,240
$122,660
19%
> in h
Based on specific u r reauirements
432
November 2, 2005
The impact to a typical single family residence (8600 sq ft lot) is a 15.7% increase of $528 from
$3,362 to $3,890.
The methodology proposed for the water PIFs results in PIFs that are equitable to both new and
existing customers. The PIFs are directly related to the new customer's impact on the system, are
stable, predictable, and easy to update, while still flexible.
The Ordinance also includes a housekeeping change related to single family residential feesforPIFs
and raw water requirements. Since the capital and raw water requirements to provide service to a
single family residential lot do not measurably increase beyond the lot size of one-half acre, staff
recommends that Code include a maximum limit of one-halfacre when calculating plant investment
fees and raw water requirements for single family residential lots.
WASTEWATER (SEWER)
The City's wastewater utility will need to consider available treatment capacity to serve future
connections. The utility anticipates a significant amount ofgrowth-related treatment plant projects
on the planning horizon. A hybrid method was selected to assess PIFs for new wastewater
customers. The hybrid method allocates the costs of the existingfacilities and the projected growth -
related improvements.
The proposed 2006 sewer PIF includes a flow component to recognize peakflows to the treatment
plant as a result ofinf ltration and inflow (M). Infiltration is ground water that enters a wastewater
collection system through leaking joints, cracked pipes, the walls of manholes, leaks in private
service lines, and illegally connected sump pumps. Inflow is surface and subsurface water entering
the collection system at some of the same points as infiltration, as well as through pick holes in
manhole covers, illegally connected roofdownspouts, exteriorfoundation drains, areaway drains,
and sump pumps. High groundwater levels in Fort Collins also contribute to the high amount ofI/I.
Despite ongoing efforts to minimize and reduce the amount of III in the wastewater collection
system, it remains a consideration when sizing capitalfacilities. The olderportions ofthe collection
system, constructed before the mid 1970's, contribute the majority of ET A recently completed year
long monitoring effort, however, indicates that new wastewater collection systems also contribute
to the problem, and therefore impact future capital improvements. Data from treatment plant flow
records were used in determining an appropriate (M) allowance. III was allocated based on each
customer classes' proportionate share of total flow to the treatment plant.
This methodology results in PIFs that are equitable to both new and existing customers. The PIFs
are directly related to the new customer's impact on the system, are stable, predictable, and easy
to update, while still flexible.
Two options are presented for Council consideration. Option A implements 100% of the proposed
changes in 2006. Option B implements one-third of the proposed increase.
The proposed fees are shown in the following tables.
433
November 2, 2005
OPTIONA
SEWER PLANT INVESTMENT FEES BY CUSTOMER CLASS
Customer Class/Meter Size
Ex&Wdn 1998-2005
Proposed
2006
Change
Single Family:
Winter Qtr
Usa e d
Current
Charge
Unit
Cost
Domestic
180
$1,030
$1,490
Peak ow ll & I
0
$ 0
7114255
$1,330
Total
180
$1,030
$2 820
174%
Multi -Family
Domestic per Unit
145
$ 830
$1,040
Peak Flow lI & I er Unit
0
$ 0
111
$ 920
Total per Unit
145
$ 830
236
$1960
136%
Non-Residential(Meter Size
Y4 inch
440
$ 2,500
709
$ 5,880
135%
1 inch
1,110
$ 6,500
1,814
$ 15,040
131%
1 '/: inch
2,260
$12,900
3,279
$ 27,180
Ill%
2inch
3,240
$18,900
5,802
$ 48,100
154%
3 inch
6,900
$39,600
12,105
$100,350
153%
4 inch and above assessed on individual basis
With Option A, the sewer plant investment fee for a typical single family residence would increase
$1, 790 from the current amount of $1,030 to the proposed fee of $2, 820 or 174%.
With Option B, sewer plant investment fees for a typical single-family residence in 2006 would
increase $597from $1,030 to $1,627, or 58%
ELECTRIC
Electric development charges include the allocated and actual costs to the utility for each
commercial or residential development. The two components of these charges are the Electric
Capacity Fee for the off -site electric system, and Building Site Charge for the on -site electric costs.
The electric development charges are typically increased annually to adjust for inflation and cost
increases, however, no adjustment was made in 2005. The proposed 2006 changes include a two-
year inflation adjustment, a new standard for larger residential service wire, the final 25% capital
costs for substation transformer allocation and the final 25% capital costs for distribution
transformers.
The following tables compare current fees with proposed fees for residential and commercial
development:
434
November 2, 2005
ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT FEES & CHARGES
RESIDENTIAL
Category
Charge
200412005
2006
% diff.
Per square fooi
$0.03395
$0.0362
7°
Per lineal front foin
$7.24
$7.3
2°
C
150A Single
$891
$952
7 °
Electric
Capacity
200A Single
$1,572
$158
1°
Fee
�.
150A Multi
$62
$635
29
ao
200A Multi
$1,04
$1111
69
m
1/
$41
$436
69
4/
$55
$57
3°
Building
35
$60
$639
5°
Site Charges
rn
1/0 mobil
$31
$32
5°
0
410 mobil
43
44
3°
ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT FEES & CHARGES
COMMERCIAL
Category
Charge
200412005
2006
% di .
Per s uare oo
$0.03393
$0.0362
7°
Per lineal front foot
$26.27
$26.87
29
208V 1 ph
$62
$836
33°
Electric
Capacity
240V I-P
Fee
Service
$721
$95
33°
208V3-Ph
$1,082
$1,43
33°
Entrance (pet
100 amps
240V3-Ph
$1,249
$1,65
33°
48OV3-Ph
$2,498
$3,31
33°
Building
Primary Circuit 1- h'
$6.32
$6.51
3°
Site
Charges
Primary Circuit 3- h
$10.91
$11.1
2°
Transformer Installation
$1 789
$1 80
1 °
The impact to a typical single family residence (8600 sq ft lot, 150 amp service) is an increase of
$108 from $2,340 to $2,448 or 4.6%.
435
November 2, 2005
STORMWATER
PIFs for stormwater (currently called basin fees) were previously adopted upon the completion of
the stormwater master plan for each basin. In response to the food of 1997, City Council changed
the rainfall standard, which required a total rework of the stormwater masterplans. The old master
plans often included regional elements sized to handle additional runofffrom development. The
recently approved City-wide master plan includes a change in philosophy. All new development
must now provide on site detention as specified in the master plan. Regional elements are sized to
handle existing flows and to work incoordination with on site detention in new developments. City
Council has adopted a city-wide, pay-as-you-go financing plan, funded from rates, for projects
designed to solve existingproblems. In recognition of these changes, the proposed stormwater PIFs
are uniform throughout the city.
Although there is no "extra capacity" built into capital projects specifically for undetained new
development, detained runofffrom new development uses the existing system already paid for by
existing ratepayers. Developers should pay for a proportionate share of the system infrastructure
as it exists at the time they develop. After paying for their share of the stormwater system in place
at the time of development, new customers will pay their share of the future improvements through
monthly rates.
The unit of measure used to allocate the value of the existing system between new customers and
existing customers is acres ofdeveloped land, adjusted with a runoff coefficient (a measure of how
water runs off various surfaces).
Proposed stormwater development fees are calculated by dividing the value of the current system,
less outstanding debt, by the total acres of land (existing developed and developable) in the service
area. This number is then adjusted by the average runoff coefficient for the system. The result is
the unit value of the existing system per acre of developed land.
PROPOSED STORMWA TER PLANT INVESTMENT FEE
Single Family
Component
Unit
Unit Cost
Unit Charge, $ er acre
$ 3, 070
Runoff Coefficient
0.40
Gross Developed Area, s t
18,330
Gross Developed Area, acres
18,330143,643
0.42
Total $3, 070 x .40 x .42
$ 520*
*rounded
A stormwater PIF of $3,070 per acre is recommended for 2006 This methodology results in
stormwater PIFs that are fair to new and existing customers and are practical to administer.
DR
November 2, 2005
Due to the changes in stormwater master planning philosophy and the change to a City-wide pay
as you go program, funded from rates, direct meaningful comparisons to the previous stormwater
basin fees are difficult. None the less, the following table shows the proposed 2006 stormwater PIF
as compared to the previous basin fees.
Pro osed 2006 Stormwater PIF Com arison
Basin(per
Current
Basin Fee
acre(per
Proposed PIF
acre
$ Change
Change
Canal Importation
$ 6,181
$3,070
$-3,111
-50%
CooperSlough/
Boxelder**
$ -
$3,070
$ 3,070
NA
Dry Creek
$ 5,000
$3,070
$-1,930
-39%
Evergreen/
Greenbriar*
$10,000
NA
NA
NA
Foothills
$ 6,525
$3,070
$-3,455
-53%
Fossil Creek
$ 2,274
$3,070
$ 796
35%
Fox Meadows
$ 6,468
$3,070
$-3,398
-53%
McClelland/
Mail Creek
$ 3,717
$3,070
$ -647
-17%
Old Town
$ 4,150
$3,070
$ -1, 080
-26%
Poudre River**
$ -
$3,070
$ 3,070
NA
Spring Creek
$ 2,175
$3,070
$ 895
41 %
West Vine
$ 7,004
$3,070
$ -3, 934
-56%
City Wide A
$ 4,458
$3,070
$ -1388
-31
* Incorporated into the Dry Creek Basin
"No basin fee collected at this time
The stormwater PIF ordinance also includes two housekeeping changes:
(1) The following sentence in Sec. 26-522. Disposition offees and charges has
been deleted: `If there are amounts in the fund in excess of the amount
required to satisfy the purpose of the fund, the City Council may by
ordinance authorize the transfer of such excess amount to any other fund of
the city. " This change is necessary to be consistent with the Charter
provision in Article AW Municipal Public Utilities, Section 6 Municipal
Utility Rates and Finances, which states "All net operating revenues of the
city's utilities shall be held within the respective utility's fund and may be
expended onlyfor renewals, replacements, extraordinary repairs, extensions,
improvements, enlargements and betterments to such utility, or other specific
utility purpose determined by the Council to be beneficial to the ratepayers
of said utilities. "
(2) All references to "basin fees" have been changed to "stormwater plant
investment fees ".
437
November 2, 2005
SUMMARY OF CHANGES AND COMPARISONS
The following table shows the overall impact of the proposed Plant Investment fees and Electric
Development Charges on atypical single family residence. Single family customers represent 85%
of our customer base.
OPTIONA
Im act on Single Family
Current
Proposed
Chan e
Water*
$3,362
$3,890
15.7%
$ 528
Wastewater
$1,030
$2,820
173.8%
$1,790
Stormwater*
$ 751
$ 520
-30.8%
$ 231
Electric *
$2, 340
$2, 448
4.6%
$ 108
Total
$7 483
1 $9 678
29.3%
$2,195
* Typical, based on lot size
OPTION B
Current
Proposed
Change
Water*
$3,362
$3,890
15.7%
$528
Wastewater
$1,030
$1,627
58.0%
$597
Stormwater*
$751
$520
-30.8%
($231)
Electric*
1 $2,3401
$2,448
4.6%
$108
Total
1 $7,4831
$8,485
13.4%
$1,002
Comparison to other utilities is difficult due to differences in customer use patterns, the unique
capital needs of each utility, and different policy direction from governing bodies. The question of
how we compare to other area utilities often arises. The table and graph below compare the impact
of total development fees for a single family residence linked to the building permit process with
some neighboring communities.
All comparisons are based on sewer PIF Option A.
M
November 2, 2005
ill
Water
Raw
Water
Wastewater
Stormwater 2
Total
$ 9 885
$
$2 860
$
$11 745
14.8581
3.5021
32
18,680
teld
24.424
7.25
31.672
r
7,345
1,405
2,110
10,860
llins-
3,36
5,20
1,03
750(3,
10,340
ort Collins
6 Pro ose
O.ormnton=
3,89
5,20
2,82
520 (3
12,43
7 400
9 500 1
3 900
20 800
ont
7 856
9 0000J,3
000
650
20 506
nd
3.650
9.200(l)
1,940
490
15 28
on
5 93
610
2 94
17 48
r
6,30016,400
3,000
630
26,33
/o Ft.
9,70
10,50
3,30t
841
24,34
1. Water dedication fees requirements are 3 acre ft/acre minimum. Calculation based on
8,600 sq ft residential lot.
2. Residential customer with 8,600 square foot lot and 0.4 impervious factor.
3. Typical residential customer based on gross developed acres. Gross developed acres
can include open space and right-of-way.
$35,000
Water, Wastewater and Stormwater PIF Comparison
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
-
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
dF
s'
°
o
a
0I
C
$
OO
3
U V
O
t
LL
Water ® Raw Water p Wastewater g Stormwater
The following is a similar graph for the electric development fees.
439
November 2, 2005
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff sent a letter explaining the proposed fee changes and an invitation to attend an informational
open house to local builders and developers. Approximatelyfive attended the open house and talked
with staff. In addition, staff met with the Affordable Housing Board, the Home Builders Association
and the Chamber of Commerce to discuss the proposed changes. The majority of the reaction from
these groups to the proposed increases was negative. "
City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item.
Mike Smith, Utilities General Manager, presented background information relating to the agenda
item. He stated two options were being presented relating to item B (the plant investment fees for
wastewater). He stated Option B would phase -in the wastewater plant investment fee over three
years. He stated this would reduce the fee considerably and that the overall increase for all of the
four utilities would drop from $2,195 to $1,000 for a typical single-family unit. He stated staff and
the City's consultant would be available to present the slides that had been shown at the Study
Session if Council wanted a more detailed presentation and to answer questions.
Councilmember Manvel asked for an estimate of the impact of phasing the fee; i.e., how much
money would be foregone in 2006 and 2007. Terri Bryant, Utilities Budget and Finance Manager,
stated over a three-year period about $1.5 million would be lost (about $.5 million per year average).
Councilmember Manvel asked for clarification. Bryant stated about $1 million would be foregone
in 2006, $500,000 in 2007 and the remainder in 2008.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the overall percentage increase in the fees was approximately 10%.
Smith stated the total increase for a typical single-family unit would be about 30% for Option A and
about 13% for Option B.
440
November 2, 2005
Councilmember Manvel noted that most fees were not changing at that rate and asked for an estimate
for the total fees for developing an average house. City Manager Atteber y stated information was
included in a table in the agenda material titled "Historical Comparison of Impact Fees to Sales
Price."
Councilmember Manvel asked if this showed a smaller percentage of increase in previous years than
what was being proposed. He stated it appeared that the City was "behind the curve" on fees. Smith
stated over the last 10 to 15 years there was an increase in total cost ranging from 7.5% to 7.9%.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the increase was 7.1 % prior to the increases that were proposed.
He also asked much these particular fees had gone up in the last few years. Smith stated the water
and wastewater plant investment fees were studied in 1998 and were to be looked at in 2003. He
stated the last increase was in 1998 for most of the fees. Bill Bray, Electric Planning and
Engineering Services Manager, stated the electric fees were last updated in 2004 and that those fees
had historically increased by 34% per year, keeping pace with inflation and labor costs. He stated
over the last four years a portion of distribution transformers for commercial customers and a portion
of substation transformers for residential and commercial customers were phased in, accounting for
a slightly higher increase in 2002, 2003 and 2004. He stated the proposed costs would be the last
25% of those transformer costs and the rate increases would likely drop back to 2-3% per year.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the majority of the large 30% jump in fees should have been
prorated over the last six or seven years. Smith replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Manvel stated a 30% increase over six or seven years did not look that "damaging."
Smith stated the 15% water increase averaged out to a little more than 2% per year. City Manager
Atteberry stated if the Council implemented the item that was being presented in full, adopted the
transportation development fee later in the agenda, and adopted a slight increase in street oversizing
the overall percentage would go to 7.8%.
Mayor Hutchinson asked for citizen input on this item.
Michelle Jacobs, Director of Community Affairs for the Homebuilders' Association of Northern
Colorado, spoke in support of Option B of Ordinance No. 134, 2005. She stated the cost of housing
was so high because of high fees. She asked that the Council reconsider the large increase to the
stormwater plant investment fee.
Councilmember Ohlson asked what would not get done or who would pay the additional costs if the
fees were phased in. Smith stated projects would be delayed and that he believed that the majority
of the Council wanted these fees to be reviewed on a more regular basis. He stated the fees would
likely be reviewed three years from now and that the fees could differ from what is being projected
for the third year right now. He stated the ratepayers would be "filling the void" unless the cost
would be shifted to later customers through the plant investment fee. He stated he did not believe
that would be allowed. Rick Gardena, consultant, stated for the water, wastewater and stormwater
utilities there were two primary revenue sources; i.e., plant investment fees and user charges. He
441
November 2, 2005
stated the portion of the cost not funded through one source must be recouped from the other source.
He stated Option B would mean the adoption of a fee lower than was needed to support the cost and
that the difference ($1 million in the first year) must be paid by the existing ratepayers. He stated
this payment would be in one of two forms: (1) cash reserves, or (2) incremental rate increases.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if any work would not get done with a three-year phase -in. Smith
stated preliminarily staff believed that the same amount of work could be done using cash reserves.
Councilmember Ohlson stated if this was spread over three years that the City would be "behind the
curve" in the third year and an additional increase could be necessary.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated this had not been done for five years and that there was now an
immediate need for a 173% increase that must be paid by the users. She questioned the immediacy
of collecting this increase. She stated this was a "huge" increase that would impact affordable
housing. She stated plant investment fees were for capital improvements rather than day-to-day
usage.
Mayor Hutchinson asked that staff address that question.
Gardena stated the fee had been understated and that he understood the question to be why the fee
must now be at this extremely high level. He stated the plant investment fee was a representation
of the unit cost of providing service. He stated for the last 2-5 years that unit cost was understated.
He stated the last study was done in 1998 and that since then the costs of the system had changed and
the City's investment in the system had changed. He stated a "snapshot" had been taken to show the
cost of providing a unit of capacity to new development. He stated if a fee was set lower than that
cost this was a conscious decision to have ratepayers pick up some of that cost. He stated a fee
adjustment was always based on a "snapshot calculation" of today's cost and what the cost was
estimated to be in the future. He stated the process that was being followed would result in a fee that
was representative of the cost to provide capacity to customers today. He stated there was urgency
in changing the fee only to the extent that the City wanted to "discontinue a subsidy that had been
occurring." He stated the phase -in plan (Option B) could be followed to the extent that there were
adequate reserves or incremental rate increases. He stated the phase -in plan would not change the
cost.
Councilmember Roy asked if there was a Council policy regarding an annual or biennial fee review.
City Manager Atteberry stated there was a policy for capital expansion fees but not for plant
investment fees. He stated he understood the difficulty of substantial fee increases and the general
concern on Council that the appropriate annual or biennial reviews were not being done.
Councilmember Kastein noted that the agenda material included comparisons with other
communities and that for residential rates the City's plant investment fee was one of the lowest rates.
He stated he would like more information about the commercial rates in comparison with other
municipalities. Smith stated it was difficult to make comparisons for commercial. Bryant stated it
was difficult to obtain that information from other entities and that only one community was willing
442
November 2, 2005
to share data for rates for specific types of structures. She stated there were many variables such as
the number of stormwater basins. She stated it was difficult to gather information because of the
variables, the time involved and the unwillingness of other communities to share information. She
stated some entities used the valuation, some used the square footage and some used the guest room
count to determine the building permit fee.
Councilmember Kastein stated he recognized how difficult it was to obtain that type of information
and asked how important it was from the economic standpoint to determine how the City's rates
compared and competed with other entities. City Manager Atteberry stated it was important to have
that information and that it be accurate. He stated if the City's fee schedules and costs were "true
barriers to development" compared with neighboring cities that this was important policy
information to have. He stated the Economic Development Advisor might be able to help with that
information or that other options could be explored to gather than information. He stated staff could
work on obtaining that information in other ways.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the rates were last raised in 1998. Smith stated the water and
wastewater plant investment fees were last raised in 1998.
Councilmember Ohlson stated it was therefore seven or eight years since that was done. He stated
the agenda material indicated that: "In the future, all utility PIFs and development fees will be
reviewed annually and presented for Council consideration at least biennially in order to mitigate the
impact of adjustments." He asked if that was built into the Ordinance. City Attorney Roy stated this
was not included in the Code for the plant investment fees and that it was in the Code for the capital
improvement expansion fees.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he would like to see that for Second Reading. City Attorney Roy
stated a Code change would need to be brought forward to make that direction permanent.
Councilmember Ohlson stated this would not necessarily mean that the plant investment fees would
be increased every year but that they would be brought forward for consideration. Smith stated the
previous Council had a choice between reviewing the fees annually or averaging the fees over a
longer period of time. He stated Council chose the second option to avoid changing the fee every
year. City Attorney Roy stated a WHEREAS clause in the proposed Ordinance referenced an annual
review. He stated that would need to be compared with the Code language and asked if Council's
intent was that there be an annual Council review or an annual administrative review and brought
to Council whenever the City Manager believed that was necessary.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he would like to see fees reviewed annually and presented for Council
consideration at least biennially.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the consensus appeared to be in favor of the process outlined by
Councilmember Ohlson.
MKI
November 2, 2005
Councilmember Manvel asked if the previous Council determined the appropriate fee for the first
year of the five years and knew that the fee would get more and more out of date, or whether the
previous Council determined what the fee should be in 2'h years and charged that every year for the
five years. Smith stated there was a projection of what the fees would be for the five year period,
including inflation and CPI, and the fees were then averaged over the five years.
Councilmember Manvel asked if it would be correct to say that the rate was actually changed about
four years ago instead of six or seven.
Mayor Hutchinson asked ifhe could entertain a motion to adopt all of the Ordinances. City Attorney
Roy stated there should be a separate motion relating to the Ordinance that had two options and that
the remainder of the Ordinances could be done with a single motion.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt
Ordinance No. 134, 2005 (Option B) on First Reading.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he would support the motion for many reasons. He stated he
appreciated the Homebuilders' Association speaking in favor of"appropriate" fees. He stated there
would be a "systemic change" to do an annual review and bring forth the fees for Council
consideration at least biennially.
Councilmember Manvel stated he favored the other option and would vote against the motion. He
stated the phase -in would mean "digging" a $1 million "hole" for next year and a $500,000 "hole"
for the year after. He stated the fee had been undercharged for the last 3-5 years. He stated the
"urgency" was to "stop the hemorrhaging" of the fund that was being built up to build facilities for
new housing. He stated new housing had not been adequately for the facility costs for the last four
years. He stated an $1,800 fee increase was minimal when compared with the $350,000 price of the
house. He stated he did not want to move the burden from those building new housing to the
ratepayers of Fort Collins.
Councilmember Kastein asked that, if possible, staff have the commercial data by Second Reading.
He stated the City should be able to compare its commercial rates with other entities. City Manager
Atteberry stated "flawed" commercial data was already available. He stated staff would do its best
to obtain additional information.
Mayor Hutchinson stated he would support the motion. He stated there were issues of fairness,
economic health and competitiveness. He stated this was the right "fix."
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Manvel.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
444
November 2, 2005
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Ordinance
No. 133, 2005, Ordinance No. 135, 2005, and Ordinance No. 136, 2005 on First Reading. Yeas:
Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Secretary's Note: The Council took a recess at this point.)
Ordinance No.137, 2005,
Amending Chapter 26, Article IV, Division 4 of the City Code
Relating to Wastewater Rates and Charges. Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Ordinance is projected to increase annual Wastewater Fund operating revenues by 5%.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance increases the City's wastewater rates by 5% effective January 1, 2006 The increase
is applied "across the board" for all customers. With the proposed rate, a typical single family
residential customer's monthly bill will increasefrom $17.87 to $18.76 or 89 cents per month. This
is based on a system average 5,200 gallons per month winter quarter water use. No rate changes
are proposed for electric, water or stormwater for 2006
BACKGROUND
The wastewater rate increase is needed to fund the operations and maintenance of the City's
wastewater system and to meet debt service coverage requirements. Wastewater revenues have
continued to lag projections since wastewater rates are based on metered water consumption. Over
the lastfew years water consumption for both inside and outside use has been reduced considerably
through voluntary conservation. An increase in efficiencies has resulted in a reduction of budgeted
personnel over the last few years (6 FTE's prior to 2006, 4.3 FTE for the 2006-2007 budget, and
2.7 FTE in customer service) However, despite these cost reductions, the vast majority of
wastewater expenses arefixed and are unrelated to the amount ofwastewater processed. Examples
offixed costs include debt, customer services, operation and maintenance of the collection system
and most costs related to the water reclamation plants. The 5% rate increase is necessary to
generate sufficient revenue to meet these obligations for debt and operations.
As shown in the graph below the City's wastewater rates remain comparable to those of other local
utilities.
Mk
November 2, 2005
2005 Residential Wastewater Rate Comparison
5200 gallons WQA
$30
528.06
$25
$20
$18.76
$18.86
$20.00 $20.00
03
S+6
$14.77
ar
C
0
$+a
$5
sojr
Qg
gg
rb
rib
Water Board.
The Water Board will review the proposed rate changes at its October 27, 2005 meeting. "
City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item.
Mike Smith, Utilities General Manager, presented background information relating to the agenda
item. He stated there were no increases proposed for electric rates, stormwater rates, or water rates
for 2006. He stated a 5% water rate increase was projected for 2007, and a 5% wastewater rate
increase projected for both water and wastewater rates in 2006 and 2007. He stated the proposed
Ordinance would change the water and wastewater rates by 5% for 2006. He stated wastewater rates
were based on winter quarter water consumption and wastewater revenues were down because of
the drought and conservation efforts. He stated there was a 5% wastewater rate increase for 2005
and there had been only a 2.9% increase in revenue. He stated the 5% increase in 2006 would
amount to about 890 per month for a typical single-family customer. He stated for the combined
utility rates there would be about a 1% overall increase for a typical single-family residential
customer. He stated the typical bill for wastewater in 2005 was around $17.87 and that it would go
up to about $18.76 in 2006. He stated the City's wastewater rates were mid -range compared with
other municipalities and that efforts had been made to build better capital projects, trim back
operations and reduce staffing. He stated there had been a 10% decrease in the 2006 wastewater
budget compared to 2005. He stated major capital improvements at the plant were expected in
several years and that money might have to be borrowed to accomplish those. He stated the rate
increase would help ready the City for a bond issue that would keep the City's good rating.
Councilmember Manvel stated there appeared to be good reason for the 5% increase. He stated the
Utilities were well run and an "asset to the community." He stated he was "impressed" with the
Eno
November 2, 2005
work of the Utilities in finding ways to cut the budget. He asked for a brief explanation for the
benefit of the public regarding electric rates and why there would be no increase. Smith stated many
electric rate increases around the country had to do with the generation of electricity; i.e., generating
plants run by natural gas. He stated natural gas prices had gone up considerably and that many utility
providers were imposing 10- 15% increases repeatedly. He stated the electricity supplied from Platte
River Power Authority was provided mainly from the coal-fired plants at Rawhide and Craig and
natural gas fired turbines were used only during peaking times. He stated the coal-fired facilities
generated electricity a lot cheaper than natural gas fired facilities. He stated the Platte River facilities
would run cleaner than natural gas within the next five years.
Mayor Hutchinson noted that every new Council should be briefed on the City's relationship with
Platte River Power Authority.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance
No. 137, 2005 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel,
Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Meeting Time Extended
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to extend the meeting
time beyond 10:30 p.m. to midnight. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel,
Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 138,2005,
Amending the City Code to Increase the Capital Improvement
Expansion Fee, Street Oversizing Fee and Neighborhood Parkland Fee
to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services. Adopted on First Reading
The following is staffs memorandum on this item:
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
In 2004 (the last full audited year), the City collected $3.8 million of Capital Improvement
Expansion fees, $1.9 million of Neighborhood Parkland fees, and $4.1 million of Street Oversizing
fees. For 2006, with the increases for inflation and construction costs, the City estimates that it will
collect $3.3 million of CapitallmprovementExpansion fees, $1.6 million ofNeighborhood Parkland
fees, and $3.8 million of Street Oversizing fees. The fees are collected when building permits are
issued forprojects. The decreases are due to the expectation that buildingpermits, on which thefees
are based, will be lower in 2006 than they were in 2004 and the estimates for 2005. At year-end of
2005, staffestimates that the total available balance in the Capital Improvement Expansion Fund
447
November 2, 2005
will be approximately $18.9 million. The Neighborhood Parkland Fund will have about $5. i
million. The Street Oversizing Fund is estimated to have nearly $4.6 million at the end of the year.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance increases the fee schedules for the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees and
Neighborhood Parkland Fee by the actual2004 and estimated 2005 changes in the Denver -Boulder -
Greeley Consumer Price Index ("CPI'). Given that the 2004 CPI was 0.20% and that fees are
adjusted by whole dollars, a significant portion of the individual fees would not have changed during
2005. Therefore, the 2004 CPI of 0.20%and the 2005 CPI of 1.90% have been combined, resulting
in a cumulative change of 2.10%.
Costs in the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees (LIEF) Study and the fee schedule for the
Neighborhood Parkland Fees were calculated using costs from 1995. The fees were last adjusted
in 2003. This Ordinance increases the CIEF and the neighborhood parkland fees by the combined
increase in the CPI of 2.10%, and the Street Oversizing fees by 1.61 %, which reflects the projected
increase reported in the Engineering News Record.
l7CIIZ�fY;T/ZiA/17
In May of 1996, Council adopted Ordinance No. 051, 1996, which established capital improvement
expansion fees for Library, Community Parkland, Police, Fire, and General Government services.
The purpose of the fees is to have new development pay a proportionate share of the capital
improvements and equipment that will be necessary to provide services to the development. The
Code provisions approved by the Ordinance provide for the annual adjustment of the fees to keep
up with inflation, using the Denver -Boulder (now Denver -Boulder -Greeley) Consumer Price Index.
The City has imposed a Parkland Fee for neighborhood parks since 1968. In August of 1996,
Council adopted Ordinance No. 105, 1996, which conformed the Neighborhood Parkland Fee to the
housing size differentials in the Capitallmprovement Expansion Fee ordinance, and updated the fee
schedule to reflect pre-1996 inflation. The Neighborhood Parkland fees were adjusted for inflation
in 1997-2002, along with the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees. Based on the Denver -Boulder -
Greeley Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers, the inflation level since the last annual
adjustment is an increase of 0.20%for 2004 and 1.90%for 2005. This Ordinance adjusts the fee
schedules in Chapter 7.5 and Chapter 23 of the Code to account for inflation. In the Ordinance, all
amounts for the capital improvement expansion fees have been rounded to the nearest dollar. "
City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item.
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager, presented background information regarding the agenda item.
She stated this Ordinance related to the capital improvement expansion fee, the street oversizing fee
and the neighborhood parkland fee. She stated these fees were adjusted in relation to the Denver -
Greeley -Boulder Consumer Price Index.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt
Ordinance No. 138, 2005 on First Reading.
ME
November 2, 2005
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the Council had agreed that this would be the CPI process for
adjusting these fees.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2005-115
Ratifying and Adopting the Proposed Transportation Development
Review Fees in Accordance with
Section 2.2.3(D) of the Land Use Code, Postponed Until November 8
The following is staff s memorandum on this item:
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
The fee would be established with the intent to recover 80% of the costs for the Transportation
Service Area to provide development related services. The amounts anticipated to be collected for
the budget years 2006 and 2007 are $488, 621 and $513, 557 respectively.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Transportation Services currently recovers approximately 44% ofits development related costs from
fees collected for the Development Construction Permit for administration to issue the permit and
for construction inspection. At present no fee is collected for development review. As part of the
City's budgeting process for 2006 and 2007, the City Manager's proposed budget includes
increasing development charges to recover 80% of the development related costs for the
Transportation Service Area. The additional revenues required for this purpose in the proposed
budget are $488,621 for 2006 and $513,557 for 2007. The activities supported by the
Transportation Development Review Fee include Engineering Development Review; portions of
Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning; and some Engineering overhead expenses.
Section 2.2.3(D)(1) of the Land Use Code establishes development review fees for the purpose of
recovering the cost incurred by the City for processing, reviewing, and recording applications.
Section 2.2.3(D)(2) ofthe Land Use Code states that the amount of the development review fees shall
be established by the City Manager, or by the City Council if the City Manager so requests, and
shall be based on the actual expenses incurred by the City.
By approval of this resolution the City Council ratifies and adopts the proposed Transportation
Development Review Fee to recover about 80% of the City's cost for the Transportation Service
Area to perform development related work. The Fee should beset to begin on January 3, 2006. The
fee structure is shown in Attachment 1.
EF-M
November 2, 2005
BACKGROUND
Upon determination that a Transportation Development Review Fee would be part of the proposed
Transportation budgetfor 2006 and 200 7, staffbegan a task to develop afee structure. Engineering
staff gathered information from other cities along the Front Range and Larimer County, and
gathered information related to development submittals in Fort Collins for the past two years. Data
on projects submitted to the City includes the types ofwork submittals, the number ofsubmittals per
year, and development project information that includes numbers of units, square footage of
buildings, and acreage size of the development. No supporting data is available from
Transportation Development Review for actual time spent on each project or by project type.
Therefore, to develop a fee structure, staff used its best judgment to estimate time charges per
project and assume numbers ofprojects expected to be submitted per year. Other assumptions used
to develop the fee structure are shown in Attachment 2.
Before developing a fee structure, staff hosted a meeting for development professionals on
September 26, 2005. Staff explained its charge to meet the proposed budget requirement, received
their comments, and heard theirpreferences on developing a fee structure. With their comments and
the data staff collected, we designed a proposed fee structure and some alternatives.
Another meeting was held with the development community on October 13, 2005, where staff
presented the proposed fee structure information. Some revisions were made based on input
received at the meeting. Comments received from the development community at the two meetings
are included as Attachment 3.
The proposed fee structure was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board at a work session on
October 14, 2005. Written comments, if any, will be provided under separate cover.
The Transportation Board reviewed the proposed fee structure at its regular meeting on October
19, 2005 and voted to recommend adoption of Option 1 of three options presented with a
recommendation to look at ways to streamline the development review process. A letter from the
Transportation Board is included as Attachment 4.
Changes to improve the development review process are in process. In 2003 a consulting team was
hired to review and evaluate the whole development review process. The team produced a report
("Zucker Report') that made recommendations for change. A memo summarizing the status of the
Zucker recommendations and the status of the changes made to date is included for reference as
Attachment 5.
Included for your information is a chart titled "Historical Comparison of Impact Fees to Sales
Price" (Attachment 6). Importantfor this issue, the chart shows the proportion ofthe historical sale
price of the average single family home that goes to development impact fees. The proposed fee
structure would, for the worst case of $500 per unit, result in a 0.14% increase in the sale price of
the average single family home. For additional analysis this chart only shows information through
mid-2005. However, if all of the proposed fee increases are approved for 2006, would total a
450
November 2, 2005
maximum $27,551. The Development Impact Fees would make up 7.85% of the average single
family home sale price of $350, 790.
Following the Transportation Board meeting, staff continued to analyze the optional fee structures
to develop fees that will be as fair as possible. The final three options developed are shown in
Attachment 7, titled "Transportation Development Submittal Fees and Options for PDP Rates. "
Staff recommends Option 2 for the City Manager's Recommended Budget. Some additional
supporting information used to compare the options are shown in Attachments 8 and 9, titled "PDP
Fee Ranges as %, " and "Transportation Development PDP Sample Projects" respectively. The
sample projects used were projects for which the development review process as been completed or
are already in the review process.
It is proposed that the fee structure be adopted with the understanding that data will be gathered
annually to provide support for further adjusting of the fee structure. "
City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item.
Ron Phillips, Executive Director of Transportation Services, presented background information
relating to the agenda item. He stated as a result of the Budgeting For Outcomes process the
recommended 2006-2007 budget included revenues from transportation development review fees
to offset 80%ofTransportation Services development review related costs. He stated Transportation
Services currently recovered about 44% of its costs in the form of engineering inspection fees and
construction permit fees related to development. He stated these fees were for development review
rather than impact fees paid at the time of building permit issuance. He stated a development review
fee was not paid by the builder in most cases and would be paid by the developer who made a
proposal for a development. He stated these additional fees must generate about $488,000 in 2006
and $513,000 in 2007. He stated the new fee structure was developed after outreach to the
development community, research of recent history of development activity, and a review of
practices of other local governments on the Front Range. He stated the fee structure must be based
on anticipated costs, the revenues generated must meet the budget, fees should be predictable for
applicants, the structure should reflect the relative size and complexity of submittals, and there
should be an appropriate credit for affordable housing. He stated the proposed structure of the fees
was included in the agenda material. He stated charges for most review types would be based on the
average amount of labor needed for the review process. He stated charges for Project Development
Plans (PDPs) would vary according to the size of the project (land size, number of units for
residential, and land size and square footage of construction for commercial and industrial uses).
He stated in 2006 data would be collected on actual labor consumed by each type of submittal and
that appropriate adjustments would be proposed after one year. He stated the Transportation Board
recommended Option 1 with a lower fixed amount on PDPs due to a concern over higher unit costs
for small residential projects. He stated staff responded by capping the fee at $500 per unit as apart
of recommended Option 2. He stated based on recent projects most resulting per unit costs would
be in the $200-$300 range. He stated due to concern for high fees on large projects the
recommended fee structure discounted large projects after the first $30,000. He stated for most
451
November 2, 2005
PDPs the total fees would be under $10,000. He stated staff recommended adoption of Option 2
which was included in the proposed Resolution.
David May, Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce, spoke in opposition to the fee increase. He
stated it was being put into place to "backfill" and balance the budget and was therefore a "revenue
scheme." He stated there would be no resulting improvement in service. He stated there was no
good comparative data on fees in general. He stated many fees would have an impact on the goal
adopted by Council relating to economic vitality. He stated the business community did not object
to fees in general to cover costs but did object to "inconsistencies" and "big lurches" in increasing
fees. He suggested that the Council adopt a "fee moratorium" until a determination could be made
that fees were reasonable compared with other communities. He stated fees needed to be looked at
in the "aggregate" rather than piecemeal. He asked that the Council consider increasing fees over
a period of time.
Michelle Jacobs, Director of Community Affairs for the Homebuilders' Association of Northern
Colorado, stated a development review fee would be a cost to land developers that would be
reflected in the cost of housing. She stated most lots sold for new homes in the City were about
5,000 square feet and that the cost of that lot was $70,000 to $75,000. She asked that Council
consider the impact of this fee on affordable housing and the impact to the business community. She
asked that the Council consider whether the level of standards imposed by the City was appropriate
and reasonable. She questioned making the business community pay for that high level of standards
to have the privilege of building in Fort Collins. She asked the Council to increase the development
review fee over the next three years rather than approving a "huge jump" all at once.
Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification regarding the difference between an impact fee and
a development review fee. Phillips stated the City went through a development review process for
every plan for specific uses. He stated once a development was approved the builder obtained a
building permit and paid impact fees at that time. He stated transportation development review fees
would be paid in two installments: an initial fee at the time initial plans were submitted for review
and a subsequent fee paid at the time of submittal of the final plans for review. He noted that the fee
would be paid in phases and would not all be due up front.
Councilmember Kastein asked if there were 200 units that the review fee would be 200 x $500.
Phillips replied in the affirmative and stated there would be a $500 maximum fee.
Councilmember Kastein asked if there would be an additional fee for the final plan review. Phillips
stated there would be one fee and that part would be due initially and the remainder would be due
upon submittal of final plans. Don Bachman, City Engineer, spoke regarding the fee structure. He
stated the fee would be due at the time of application.
Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification that the fee would be capped at $500 per residential
unit. Bachman replied in the affirmative. Phillips stated if all of the fees that were being considered
at this Council meeting were collected in their maximum amount the fee portion of the collection
would be 7.85% of a $350,000 home.
452
November 2, 2005
Councilmember Kastein asked for a chart showing all development review and impact fees included
prior to Second Reading. City Manager Atteberry stated staff could prepare that information and
noted that this agenda item was a Resolution and would not have a Second Reading. He asked for
clarification regarding the percentage increase from the transportation development review fee and
impact fees. Phillips stated if the transportation development review fee, impact fees and capital
expansion fees were included that the increase would be 7.85%.
Councilmember Kastein asked if that increase would apply to commercial as well. Phillips stated
the transportation development review fee would apply to commercial as well.
Councilmember Kastein stated he would like to see more analysis on the commercial side. He stated
the fee would not provide any improved level of service since development review was already
occurring. He noted that development review was currently being funded from the General Fund
and that there would be no "service improvement." Phillips stated there would be no "service
enhancement" resulting from this fee. He stated for many years the policy had been that the City
would attempt to achieve an 80% fee structure; i.e., 80% of the development review costs would be
captured in fees. He stated the transportation development review process had not had associated
review fees. He stated this was an attempt to "catch up" with planning and utility development
review fees that were already achieving about an 80% revenue capture rate. He stated staff had
attempted to show how the fees would be generated on various kinds of development review
projects. He stated other municipalities had a wide range of approaches to transportation
development review fees.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if this fee would be for services rendered by the Transportation
Services Department in the development review process. Phillips replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked why there would be a per unit charge and why a development with
200 houses was more complicated than a development with 100 houses. She stated Arvada had a
cap for fees for projects and asked if the work on a project at a certain point actually became "level"
instead of more complex. She expressed concern that a $390,000 fee was not "reasonable at all" and
questioned why there was a per unit fee rather than a cap. She stated the transportation planning
related to the project and did not seem to be directly related to the number of units. Phillips stated
staff agreed that a $390,000 transportation development review fee would be "exorbitant" and that
this figure represented all of the project development plans for a year. He stated project development
plans were the major portion of the department's work and the major generator of the fee. He stated
when proposed fees were analyzed for actual recent projects that the highest transportation
development review fee for a development would have been $78,950 for the Summit at the Lifestyle
Center. He stated the cost per unit for actual residential projects would have varied from $163 to
$500 (the maximum proposed fee). He stated when the $30,000 level was reached that the per
square foot cost would be lowered, resulting in lower total fees for the high cost projects.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if staff looked at capping the project rather than the per unit fee.
Bachman stated sets of plans with a variable number of plan sheets were reviewed. He stated it took
more time to review plans for developments that had more units. He stated staff did not look at an
453
November 2, 2005
absolute capon large projects because projects were all different in scale. He stated if larger projects
were capped the necessary revenue must come from the smaller projects, which would bring up the
per unit cost for those smaller projects.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she was "uncomfortable" with this agenda item. She stated it was
being proposed as a way to generate $500,000 in revenue for transportation. She stated the
information being presented to the Council was two months old and that was the length of time spent
on outreach and discussion of this proposal. She stated it was difficult to "digest" the information
being presented at a late night meeting. She stated she believed that the Councilmembers all
"believed in the fee" but that the methodology and data were difficult to accept at this time. She
stated this was "last minute information" and that she would like more time to consider the proposal
and would like more complete information.
Councilmember Ohlson asked why this proposal did not come forth sooner if the 80% policy was
in place and had already been done for planning and the utilities development review process.
Phillips stated the cost of development study done about 11 years ago looked only at the cost of
development in the Planning Department. He stated the planning development review fees were
based on that study. He stated the Utilities instituted its fee about 3-4 years ago and that staff had
been working on the goal of redoing the cost of development study. He stated Transportation staff
began some of the analysis last spring in conjunction with the Finance Department, Utilities and
CPES. He stated the cost numbers were developed through that process and that the budgeting for
outcomes process determined that transportation should also be brought up to the 80% level. He
stated the staff work on this issue then progressed through the budget process. He stated there had
been an intense effort to do outreach and develop the staff s recommendations.
Councilmember Manvel stated this was a complicated item and that he appreciated the effort to
present the information to the Council. He stated the proposal was "middle road" and that this in
some ways represented a "phase -in" of fees since the transportation fees were not adopted at the
same time as the planning and utilities fees.
Councilmember Kastein asked if staff could improve the process and come back with another
Resolution and some "guarantee" of efficiencies in the review process; i.e., a quicker and less
problematic design review process. Phillips stated staff had been successfully working on
efficiencies by implementing the Zucker Report recommendations over the last 18 months. He
stated staff approached the development industry in the first outreach session with a proposal to
charge a fee that would cover two rounds of review and an increased fee for additional rounds of
review. He stated the parties at the outreach session asked staff not to include that in the proposed
Resolution. He stated it was not just the City's development review process that took time and that
the time frame was often impacted by the other side as well. He stated many improvements had been
made in the review process.
Councilmember Brown stated the `common theme" among the developers that were part of the
outreach was that "projects sometimes go back through the entire review even though it is just a
stormwater fix." He stated the developers seemed to be saying that they would be willing to pay
454
November 2, 2005
extra if the review time was cut in half. He stated he was concerned that the City was going from
being "the Choice City" to being "fee choice City." He stated something should be given in return
for the money.
City Manager Atteberry stated the 80% policy provided that the City should recoup 80% of its
current costs. He recommended that the Council approve the Resolution because it represented
$500,000 of ongoing revenue to the General Fund. He stated the City had "real costs" and that the
City had made significant efforts since the Zucker Report. He stated approval of this fee would not
prohibit system improvements. He stated the Council could give direction to staff to continue to
look for further efficiencies and noted that the City was doing that anyway. He stated the policy was
directly related to current costs and affected the revenue stream for the 2006-2007 budget.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she did not understand the three options that would come up with
different sums of money when the goal was to recoup 80% of the costs. She agreed with the basic
premise but stated the information that had been presented was "extremely confusing." She stated
this was a Resolution and that there would be no second chance to look at it. She stated she was
"perplexed" and needed clearer information. Phillips stated Attachment 7 presented the three
options and how much would be generated from each option for each type of use. He stated the total
to be generated varied from $489,868 to $489,377. He stated the "target' was approximately
$488,000. He stated the three options varied as far as which type of development would pay more,
and that staff was recommending option 2 because staff believed that this was the fairest and most
evenly balanced. He stated all of the options would generate approximately the same amount of
revenue based on projections using the 2003-2004 experience.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked how Council would choose among the options. Phillips stated
Attachment 9 outlined the cost for each option for each development project used as an example.
He stated all of the options would generate approximately the same total revenue and that staff
believed that option 2 was the most balanced between large and small projects. Bachman stated the
main variant in the three options was the fixed fee that would be collected up front.
Mayor Hutchinson suggested postponing this Resolution for two weeks to allow time for additional
information. City Attorney Roy noted that this item was an integral part of the budget and should
be considered by November 15.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to postpone
Resolution 2005-115 to November 15, 2005.
Councilmember Roy stated it would be helpful to give Council Option 1, 2 and 3 language in the
Resolution. Phillips stated the language of the Resolution as proposed related to Option 2, which
was the staff's recommendation.
Councilmember Ohlson asked which one of the options the development community would favor.
Bachman stated the development community commented that the lower flat fee option (Option 1)
was better for small projects and expressed a concern that smaller projects could get "priced out."
455
November 2, 2005
He stated Option 1 favored smaller projects over larger projects and that option 3 favored larger
projects over smaller projects. Phillips stated setting the cap for residential units largely took care
of the concerns.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated this had been a "confusing presentation" since the Council did not
hear clearly about all of the options.
City Manager Atteberry suggested that this meeting be adjourned and continued to November 8 after
the work session. He noted that the DDA item still needed to be decided at this meeting.
The motion maker and second accepted the suggestion to revise the motion to postpone to November
8 as a friendly amendment.
Councilmember Kastein stated there would be fees that were not charged before for the same level
of service and that he would like to hear about some "efficiency to be gained" (more secure vesting
rights, a speedier process, etc.). City Manager Atteberry stated this was a complex process and that
it would be difficult to make that kind of commitment by November 8 or November 15. He stated
he would commit to having staff spend some time on this issue.
The vote on the motion to postpone to November 8 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown,
Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
AEenda Order Changed
City Manager Atteberry suggested that agenda items #18 and 19 be postponed
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would prefer to change the order of the agenda rather than
postponing.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if there was a consensus to change the agenda order. The consensus was
to go ahead with the DDA item and to consider the other agenda items after that.
Items Relating to the 2006 Downtown
Development Authority Budget Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum on this item:
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
Ordinance No. 140, 2005, sets the Downtown Development Authority ("DDA') annual mill levy at
5.0 mills and appropriates $2, 377, 757 in the Operations and Maintenance Fund. Of this amount,
456
November 2, 2005
$817, 757 covers administrative expensesfor the DDA, $560, 000 covers the program expenses of the
Downtown Cultural Program, and $1, 000, 000 is forDDA participation in projects in the downtown
area. The mill levy is projected to generate $399, 041. Funds for DDA participation in downtown
projects and for the Downtown Cultural Program will come in the form ofa request to City Council
for authorization ofa new bond in 2006. The balance offends for administrative expenses comes
from the following sources: the mill levy that the DDA Board of Directors ("Board') is
recommending remain unchangedat 5. 0 millsfor 2006; interest earnings; and unexpended revenues
remaining in the 2005 budget.
Ordinance No. 141, 2005, appropriates the tax increment revenue for debt service to be paid in
2006. The debt includes DDA revenue bonds, DDA subordinate revenue bonds, the DDA share of
the lease purchase certificates ofparticipation for the Civic Center Parking Structure, and monies
for projects supported by the Tax Increment Revenues from the expansion of the DDA boundaries.
The total tax increment revenue for 2006 is projected to be $3,338, 956. The 2006 appropriation in
the Downtown Development Authority Debt Service Fund is $3,521,154 of which $1,550,000 is
anticipated debt to be recovered in 2006, and $1,971,154 is current, actual debt.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2005, Appropriating Operating Funds and Approving
the Budget of the Downtown Development Authority for the Fiscal Year Beginning January
1, 2006, and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Downtown Development Authorityfor 2006 at five
mills.
The Board will adopt their proposed budget for 2006, totaling $2, 377, 757, on November 3,
2005. The Board determined the mill levy necessary to provide for payment of
administrative costs incurred by the DDA, at its regular meeting of October 6, 2005.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2005, Appropriating Revenue in the Downtown
Development Authority Debt Service Fund for Payment of Debt Service for the Year 2006
This Ordinance appropriates funds for 2006from the tax increment received by the Cityfor
the DDA for debt service payments. Debt service and annual lease payments include:
Existing Debt
2004 Subordinate Bonds
$ 247,430
Prior year refunding Bonds
1,442,575
Share of Parking Structure
281.149
$1, 971,154
457
November 2, 2005
Anticipated debt to be incurred in 2006
2006 DDA Projects 1,000,000
2006 Downtown Cultural Program 550,000
1 550 000
TOTAL $3,521,154
BACKGROUND
Through action of City Council and the qualified electors, the City of Fort Collins created theDDA
in 1981. The purpose of the DDA is to plan and implement improvements within its boundaries.
The DDA established a Plan of Development ("Plan') that specified the types ofprojects that it
would undertake. In order to undertake the Plan, the City on behalfof the DDA has issued various
bond anticipation notes and revenue bonds. The first issuance of revenue bonds for the DDA
occurred in 1984. Subsequently, the bonds have been refunded to effect savings and to better match
the tax increment ofthe authority with the debt service ofthe bonds. The first refunding ofthe bonds
occurred in 1985. The most recent refunding of the bonds occurred in 2001. The most recent
issuance of new bonds occurred in 2004. The total debt service on outstanding and anticipated
bonds for 2006 will be $3, 240, 005.
In addition to the debt service on the outstanding bond issues, the DDA has entered into an
agreement with the City to use some of the tax increment for the downtown Civic Center Parking
Structure. According to the agreement with the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County, the DDA
is to pay a share of the annual lease payment on the Civic Center Parking Structure. In 2006, the
DDA share of the payment is $281,149.
The Downtown Cultural Program will also be financed with tax increment monies. Please see
Attachment A which is a synopsis of the Downtown Cultural Program. Although historically the
DDA has used tax increment monies primarily for acquisition ofproperty interests and installation
ofpublic improvements, the state statute governing downtown development authorities permits the
use of such monies for any undertaking or activity of an authority, whether economic or physical,
as authorized in the plan of development for the authority.
The DDA's Plan is replete with references to cultural programs and activities, including the
following most significant ones:
OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSES
To maintain the District as a regional center for commercial, financial,
governmental, social, recreational, and cultural activities and to prevent
deterioration from occurring.
IM
November 2, 2005
PRIORITIES
Encourage activities and services that will attract the entire community and
also attract tourism by broadening the entertainment, cultural and social
activities and events that take place in the District. Encourage projects that
will promote the image of the District as a place for entertainment,
relaxation, conversation, education, center of art and center of culture. "
In addition to the projects financed using the tax increment from the Authority, the DDA has the
ability to impose a mill levy for the administration, operation, and maintenance of the entity. The
mill levy for 2006 is 5.0 mills. According to preliminary information from the County Assessor, this
mill levy should generate $399, 041 of revenue in 2006
The total operating budget for the DDA is $2,347,757.
Staff has attached the corresponding resolutions adopted by the DDA Board of Directors."
City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item.
Chip Steiner, Executive Director of the Downtown Development Authority, presented background
information regarding the agenda item. He spoke regarding the cultural program the DDA hoped
to launch. He stated the cultural program was a new element in the DDA budget amount to about
$560,000. He stated two Ordinances were being presented for consideration to set the operating mill
levy at five mills and to appropriate funds to service the debt for 2006.
Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification regarding the skating rink and where that appeared
in the agenda material. Steiner stated that was in the bonds considered by Council two weeks ago.
City Manager Atteberry stated there could be some Building Community Choices school partnership
dollars that would go toward electrical improvements and that there would be a future agenda item
on that.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt
Ordinance No. 140, 2005 on First Reading.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she had no problem with appropriating the funds and moving in
this direction.
Councilmember Roy stated he would look forward to an update at a work session within the next
six to eight months.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
459
November 2, 2005
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Ordinance
No. 141, 2005 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel,
Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Steiner thanked Council for adopting the two Ordinances.
Agenda Order Changed
Councilmember Weitkunat suggested that the agenda order be changed again so that the Poudre Fire
Authority item could be discussed next.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if there was a consensus to do as Councilmember Weitkunat suggested.
The consensus was favor of the change in the agenda order.
Resolution 2005-116
Adopting a Revenue Allocation Formula to Define the
City of Fort Collins' Contribution to the Poudre Fire Authority
Budget for the Year 2006 for Operations and Maintenance Adopted
The following is staffs memorandum on this item:
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
Adoption ofthe Resolution will establish a Revenue A llocation Formula, thereby defining the City's
contribution to the Poudre Fire Authority in 2006 for operations, maintenance, and capital in the
amount of $13,868,469. The 2006 contribution reflects an increase over the City's 2005
contribution of approximately $600,000.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In December 1981, the Council entered into an agreement with the Poudre Valley Fire Protection
District, creating the Poudre Fire Authority ("PFA').
According to the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and the Poudre
Valley Fire Protection District, the City will contribute fundingfor maintenance and operating costs
to PEA based on a Revenue Allocation Formula ("RAF'). The RAF is to beset annually based upon
a percentage ofsales and use tax revenues (excluding dedicated sales and use tax revenues that must
be spent on specific projects) and a portion of the operating mill levy of the City's property tax.
ArticleX, Section 20 of the State Constitution ("TABOR') limits the rate ofgrowth to a combination
of the Denver -Boulder -Greeley Consumer Price Index and additions to the local property tax base
primarily due to construction and annexation. Although voters passed a ballot measure in
November, 1997 allowing the City to retain excess revenues over the growth limits imposed by
TABOR, the RAF is still reviewed annually and proportionately reduced, when necessary, if City
November 2, 2005
revenues exceed the estimated annual percentage increase in revenues that the City would normally
be permitted to retain under TABOR.
As in past years, the City initially calculated the RAF at a sum equal to .303 of one cent of the 2.25
cent sales and use tax applicable to all taxable sales and uses plus 67.09% of the property tax
available for operations. That amount was reduced because the City's estimated revenues are
expected to exceed the estimated annual percentage increase in revenues for 2006 that the City
would normally be permitted to retain under TABOR. Based on these calculations, the City's 2006
contribution to the PFA for operations and maintenance is $12,482,867.
In addition to the RAF contribution, the 2005-2006 Budget authorizes one mill of the City's property
tax mill levy to fund the PTA's capital needs. This mill levy was approved by the Council in 1991
to provide additional funding necessary for anticipated capital improvements, including land
acquisition, construction of additional stations, and acquisition of major fire fighting apparatus.
The revenue from this dedicated mill is to be managed according to the property tax levy and
revenue limitation provisions of TABOR. It is anticipated that the one mill tax levy will generate an
estimated $1, 385, 602. "
City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item.
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager, presented background information relating to the agenda item.
She stated an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and the Poudre Fire Authority had
been in place since 1981 and that the agreement established a revenue allocation formula to provide
the City's contribution to the Poudre Fire Authority. She stated the allocation would total
$13,868,469 for 2006 and that this represented an increase of 4.4% over 2005. She stated
$1,245,000 in ongoing dollars would also go to the Poudre Fire Authority to cover the ongoing
expenses for operating Station 14 and the south ladder truck.
Mayor Hutchinson noted that there was a 55 second response from Station 14 to a construction cave-
in accident and that the victim would probably not have survived if that station had not been active.
Councilmember Manvel noted that the Poudre Fire Authority did not go through the Budgeting For
Outcomes process. He asked if the PFA would go through that process in the future. John Mulligan,
Fire Chief, stated would be discussed at the Board level.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt
Resolution 2005-116.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated there could be future Council and Poudre Fire Protection District
discussions about the revenue allocation formula.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the Poudre Fire Authority had an excellent strategic plan and a well done
analysis of resource needs.
461
November 2, 2005
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 139, 2005,
Adopting the 2006 Classified Employees Pay
and Classification Plan. Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum on this item:
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
Funding for the Pay and Classification Plan will be accomplished with existing funds, as proposed
by the 200612007 budget.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Pay Plan continues in support ofthe practice ofsetting Citypay range maximums at the market
70th percentile. Data from the public and private sectors, including reported published survey data
and a special City of Fort Collins Compensation Survey, were used to determine the prevailing
market rates for 100 benchmark jobs.
BACKGROUND
This Pay Plan continues in the philosophy ofmarket comparability and competitiveness.
PRIMARY DATA SOURCES:
Mountain States Em�lover's Council (MSEC) Front Range Compensation Survey
MSEC Colorado Front Range Compensation Survey represents Colorado employers of all sizes.
Data is collected from 400 respondents situated all across the Front Range, including the four
geographic areas of Denver/Boulder, Northern Colorado, Colorado Springs and Pueblo and
representing 45,149 employees. The Northern Colorado survey information includes 37 employers
of various sizes, representing a total of over 21,017 employees. Although public sector employers
are included in the survey, they represent only 11 %ofthe employers. MSEC surveys 304 benchmark
jobs. The former MSEC Utilities Compensation Survey and Parks and Recreation Survey are now
included in the Front Range Compensation Survey.
Mountain States Emplover's Council (MSEC) Information Technology Compensation Survey-
Data is collected from 269 respondents. There are 5,337 employees and 116 benchmark jobs.
Information is not broken down by geographic region or type of industry.
Mountain States Emplover's Council (MSEC) Public Emplovers Compensation Survey;
88 respondents provided data from the Front Range representing 274 benchmark jobs.
462
November 2, 2005
Colorado Municipal League (CMD:
CML reports compensation information from 176 jurisdictions in the State of Colorado, including
162 municipalities, I counties and 3 special districts. The survey provides information on 122 full-
time and 27part-time benchmarkjobs commonly shared by most municipalities, as well as a second
survey of 36 executive and management level jobs in the public sector.
RESULTS:
Pay Plan: The pay structures were again established by calculating the 70th percentile on
benchmarks and allowing an approximate 10% difference between pay grades. Pay ranges still
capture a 36% spread.
The pay for each pay grade has been reviewed by comparing the benchmark jobs in each
occupational group to similar jobs in the local private and public sectors. This analysis permitted
an evaluation of the competitiveness of the pay grade. Each of the pay grades in an occupational
group was similarly analyzed, and if it was observed that a structure adjustment was needed, the pay
ranges in that occupational group were adjusted.
These analyses indicated that occupational groups needed to be adjusted to remain competitive with
the market. The proposed average structure adjustment is 11.47%. The size of this adjustment is
explained by the continuing movement in the prevailing wage for jobs in our market, and also the
fact that our pay ranges have not been adjusted to the market since 2002. "
City Manager Atteberry stated staff would be available to answer questions. He noted that Section
4 of the Ordinance directed the City Manager to explore an employee compensation policy for the
year 2007 to tie employee performance to employee compensation and to report back to the Council
prior to submission of the 2007 Pay Plan to the Council.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Ordinance
No. 139, 2005 on First Reading.
Councilmember Kastein stated he would be looking at the Pay Plan for the 70th percentile as a pay
range maximum. He stated pay -for -performance meant to him that the 70th percentile maximum
would be used to reward and retain high performers. He stated he would like to see an estimation
of actual pay and stated he would expect that "actual pay" would be around the 50th percentile, with
performance being rewarded at the 70th percentile side of the range.
Councilmember Manvel stated some paygrades in certain categories had a "larger deficit" than other
categories due to the freezes that had been in place. He stated there might be a need to differentiate
somewhat between the pay categories for the next Pay Plan to ensure that the City stayed competitive
in technical areas.
Councilmember Roy stated a pay -for -performance matrix was "long overdue" and that he would like
to see the City "shoot for the 70th percentile" as a pay maximum. He stated there could be
463
November 2, 2005
opportunities to look at wage schedules even more differently to be "more rewarding and more
accountable."
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Kastein stated the best opportunity to discuss the Southwest Enclave Annexation
was at the work session next week.
Adjournment
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adjourn the
meeting to November 8, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 11:44 p.m.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
464
Mayor