HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Mail Packet - 10/3/2023 - Council Finance & Audit Committee Zoom Meeting Agenda – October 5, 2023 (3)Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
AGENDA
Council Finance & Audit Committee Zoom Meeting
October 5, 2023
4:00 - 6:00 pm
Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/8140111859
Approval of Minutes from the September 7, 2023 Council Finance Committee meeting.
1. Impact Fee Study Updates:
Utility Development Fees & Capital Expansion Fee Studies 90 mins.
Utilities R. Reuscher
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) M. Virata
Capital Expansion Fees (CEFs) D. Lenz
Page 1 of 121
Council Finance Committee
2023 Agenda Planning Calendar
Revised 9/28/23 ck
Oct. 5th 2023
Impact Fee Study Updates:
Utility Development Fees & Capital Expansion Fee Studies 90 min
- Utilities R. Reuscher
- Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) M. Virata
- Capital Expansion Fees (CEFs) D. Lenz
Nov. 2nd 2023
Utility Rate / Debt Forecasts 45 min L. Smith
Low-income Sales Tax Rebate 30 min J. Poznanovic
N. Bodenhamer
Mulberry Frontage Metro District Voluntary Annexation 20 min J. Birks
S. Beck-Ferkiss
Laporte Multimodal Grant Match 20 min M. Martinez
Dec. 7th 2023
Utility Rate / Debt Forecasts (continued) 45 min L. Smith
TCEF Reimbursement 15 min M. Virata
M. Martinez
January 4th 2024
Rate Forecasts for the 2025-26 BFO Cycle, Associated Capital Improvement Plans &
Rental Registration – Property Remediation Financing (C. Champine, M. Yoder)
Page 2 of 121
Page 3 of 121
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Council Finance Committee Hybrid Meeting
September 7, 2023
CIC Room – City Hall / Via Zoom
Council Attendees: Shirley Peel, Emily Francis, Kelly Ohlson
Members Absent: Julie Pignataro
Staff: Kelly DiMartino, Tyler Marr, Rupa Venkatesh, Denzel Maxwell, Travis Storin,
John Duval, Ginny Sawyer, Nina Bodenhamer, Josh Birks, Dean Klingner,
Blaine Dunn, Jo Cech, Randy Bailey, Adam Halvorson, Trevor Nash,
Lawrence Pollack, Dave Lenz, Sheena Freve, Gerry Paul, Drew Brooks,
Brad Buckman, Mallory Gallegos, Peggy Streeter, Paul Sizemore. Jacob Castillo,
SeonAh Kendall, Jancie Saeger, Mike Calhoon, Scott Phelps, Kendra Boot,
Kristin Flower, Monica Martinez, Rachel Rogers, James Reed, Judge Hueser,
Patty Netherton, Kendall Minor, Lance Smith, Teresa Roche, Kelley Vodden,
Erik Martin, Carolyn Koontz
Others: Kevin Jones, Chamber
Meeting called to order at 4:00 pm
Approval of minutes from August 3, 2023, Council Finance Committee Meeting and the Special Council Finance
Committee Meeting held on August 16, 2023. Kelly Ohlson _ moved for approval of the minutes as presented.
Emily Francis seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously via roll call by; Shirley Peel, Emily
Francis, and Kelly Ohlson
A. Annual Adjustment Ordinance
Lawrence Pollack, Accounting Director
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
First Reading of Ordinance No., 2023, Making Supplemental Appropriations in Various City Funds.
First Reading of Ordinance No., 2023, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in Various City Funds.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of these Annual Adjustment Ordinances is to combine dedicated and unanticipated revenues or
reserves that need to be appropriated before the end of the year to cover the related expenses that were not
anticipated and therefore, not included in the 2023 annual budget appropriation. The unanticipated revenue is
primarily from fees, charges, rents, contributions and grants that have been paid to City departments to offset
specific expenses.
Page 4 of 121
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
• What questions or feedback does the Council Finance Committee have on the 2023 Annual Adjustment
Ordinance?
• Does the Council Finance Committee support moving forward with bringing the 2023 Annual Adjustment
Ordinance to the full City Council on the Consent Agenda?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
These Ordinances appropriate unanticipated revenue and prior year reserves in various City funds and
authorizes the transfer of appropriated amounts between funds and/or projects. The City Charter permits the
City Council to appropriate unanticipated revenue received as a result of rate or fee increases or new revenue
sources, such as grants and reimbursements. The City Charter also permits the City Council to provide, by
ordinance, for payment of any expense from prior year reserves. Additionally, it authorizes the City Council to
transfer any unexpended appropriated amounts from one fund to another upon recommendation of the City
Manager, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged;
the purpose for which they were initially appropriated no longer exists; or the proposed transfer is from a fund
or capital project account in which the amount appropriated exceeds the amount needed to accomplish the
purpose specified in the appropriation ordinance.
If these appropriations are not approved, the City will have to reduce expenditures even though revenue and
reimbursements have been received to cover those expenditures.
The table below is a summary of the expenses in each fund that make up the increase in requested
appropriations. Also included are transfers between funds and/or projects which do not increase net
appropriations, but per the City Charter, require City Council approval to make the transfer. A table with the
specific use of prior year reserves appears at the end of the AIS.
Funding Additional
Revenue
Prior Year
Reserves Transfers TOTAL
General Fund $750,530 $625,017 $0 $1,375,547
Transportation Services Fund 1,164,250 0 0 1,164,250
Capital Projects Fund 988,168 0 0 988,168
Transportation CEF Fund 0 200,000 0 200,000
Recreation Fund 0 112,183 0 112,183
Golf Fund 14,600 138,915 0 153,515
Perpetual Care Fund 0 39,064 0 39,064
GRAND TOTAL $2,917,548 $1,115,179 $0 $4,032,727
A. GENERAL FUND
1. Fort Collins Police Services (FCPS) has received revenue from various sources.
A listing of these items follows:
a. $18,000 – 2023/2024 BATTLE Grant (Beat Auto Theft Through Law Enforcement): Police Services was
awarded a grant from the Colorado State Patrol to help prevent auto theft in Colorado.
b. $34,000 – 2022/2023 BATTLE Grant Supplemental (Beat Auto Theft Through Law Enforcement): 'The
Property Crimes division of Police Services has been awarded an additional $34,000 on top of the
original $36,516 grant to fund additional overtime to help investigate auto theft in Northern
Colorado.
Page 5 of 121
c. $12,000 - 2023 Click it or Ticket Grant: Police Services was awarded a Click it or Ticket Grant from
the Colorado Department of Transportation to pay for officers to work overtime to conduct
enforcement activities.
d. $201,363 - Police Information Services encountered an issue with the 9-11 dispatch servers that
ran the system. Because of this, it was discovered that the server licenses needed to be
upgraded. This appropriation is equal to Larimer County and Loveland's contribution for the
upgrade.
e. $16,000 - 2023/2024 High Visibility Enforcement (HVE) Grant: Police Services was awarded a grant
from the Law Enforcement Assistance Fund to pay for overtime for DUI enforcement.
f. $11,445 – 2022-23 ICAC Grant (Internet Crimes Against Children): Police Services was awarded
the ICAC grant to help fund training and equipment to investigate internet crimes targeted at
children.
g. $31,291 – 2019 JAG Grant: Police Services was awarded $31,291 for a grant to help fund overtime
to investigate illegal drug use and sales. This grant has been spent and the grant period is now
closed, however after an extensive audit it was determined that the appropriations were never
completed. This is to retroactively appropriate the funds and then close the account.
h. $110,484 - Police Miscellaneous Revenue: Police Services receives revenue from the sale of
Police reports along with other miscellaneous revenue, like restitution payments, evidence
revenue and SWAT training.
i. $202,799 - Police Reimbursable Overtime: Police Services help schedule security and traffic
control for large events. Since these events are staffed by officers outside of their normal duties,
officers are paid overtime. The organization who requested officer presence is then billed for the
costs of the officers' overtime. Fort Collins Police Services (FCPS) partners with Larimer County to staff
events at The Ranch. Police receives reimbursement from Larimer County for officers’ hours
worked at Ranch events.
j. $40,591 - School Resource Officers: Police Services have a contract with Poudre School District to
provide officers on location at a majority of the schools for safety and support. The school district
pays Police Services based on a predetermined contract amount and also partially reimbursing for
overtime incurred. This request is for the previously billed overtime and anticipated overtime for
the remaining year.
k. $8,732 - DUI Enforcement: Proceeds that have been received for DUI enforcement from Larimer
County.
l. $32,339 – 2023/2024 Black Market Marijuana Grant: Police Services was awarded the Marijuana
grant to support the investigation and prosecution of black market or illegal marijuana cultivation
and distribution in the city.
TOTAL APPROPRIATION
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2023/2024 BATTLE Grant) $18,000
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2022/2023 BATTLE Grant supplemental) $34,000
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2023 Click it or Ticket Grant) $12,000
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Partner Agency Contributions for SQL Server upgrades) $201,363
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2023/2024 HVE Grant) $16,000
Page 6 of 121
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2022/2023 ICAC Grant) $11,445
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2019 JAG Grant) $31,291
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Police Miscellaneous Revenue) $100,484
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Police Reimbursable Overtime) $202,799
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (School Resource Officers) $40,591
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (DUI Enforcement) $8,732
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2023/2024 Black Market Marijuana Grant) $32,339
Total: $719,044
FOR: Help prevent auto theft $52,000
FOR: Overtime for Seat Belt enforcement $12,000
FOR: 911 Dispatch server licenses upgrade $201,363
FOR: Overtime for DUI enforcement $16,000
FOR: Help prevent Internet Crimes Against Children $11,445
FOR: Investigate illegal drug use and sales $31,291
FOR: Police Miscellaneous Revenue $100,484
FOR: Police Reimbursable Overtime for events $202,799
FOR: Overtime for School Resource Officers $40,591
FOR: DUI enforcement $8,732
FOR: Support the investigation of illegal marijuana cultivation $32,339
Total: $719,044
2. Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate
Finance requests the appropriation of $61,000 to cover the amount due for the 2022 Manufacturing
Equipment Use Tax Rebate program as established in Chapter 25, Article II, Division 5, of the Municipal
Code. The rebate program was established to encourage investment in new manufacturing equipment by local
firms. Vendors have until December 31st of the following year to file for the rebate. This item appropriates
the use tax funds to cover the payment of the rebates.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Manufacturing Use Tax Rebate Assign) $61,000
FOR: Manufacturing Use Tax Rebates $61,000
3. Mobile Home Park Backflow Preventer Project Larimer County Additional Grant Funds
The Neighborhood Services Department received an American Rescue Plan Act Immediate Needs Grant
from Larimer County in the amount of $132,500 for the purpose of funding backflow preventer projects in
mobile home parks. The City contracted with Top Notch Plumbing, who conducted this work in May and
June of 2023 at Nueva Vida and Hickory Village Mobile Home Parks. The total project cost was $147,880,
which exceeds our grant by $15,380. On July 19, 2023, the Board of County Commissioners unanimously
agreed to fund the full project cost. All agreements have been approved and signed, and payment from
the County to the City via check is in process.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (ARPA Grant through Larimer County) $15,380
Page 7 of 121
FOR: Mobile Home Park Backflow Preventer Project $15,380
4. Land Bank Operational Expenses
This request is intended to cover expenses related to the land bank property maintenance needs for 2023.
Since expenses vary from year to year, funding is requested annually mid-year to cover these costs.
Expenses in 2023 include general maintenance of properties, raw water and sewer expenses, electricity,
repairs, and other as applicable.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Land Bank reserve) $3,600
FOR: Land Bank Expenses $3,600
5. Radon Kits
Environmental Services sells radon test kits at cost as part of its program to reduce lung-cancer risk from in-
home radon exposure. This appropriation would recover kit sales for the purpose of restocking radon test
kits.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (radon kit sales) $1,986
FOR: Radon test kit purchase $1,986
6. Transfer of remaining Gardens Reserve from General Fund to Cultural Services Fund (refer to
item B1)
Gardens on Spring Creek was moved from the General Fund to the Cultural Services Fund. This transfers the
residual assigned balance in the General Fund to Cultural Services
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Gardens on Spring Creek Reserve within the
General Fund)
$560,417
FOR: Transfer to the Cultural Services Fund $560,417
7. Forestry Additional Revenue
Forestry had unanticipated revenue earned in 2023 and is requesting an adjustment to the budget to utilize
revenues related to Payments in Lieu and Work for Others.
From 1/1/23 to 8/18/23, forestry has performed $6,905 worth of work for others and has received $7,215 for
payments in lieu.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Payments in Lieu and Work
for Others)
$14,120
FOR: Forestry operations $14,120
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FUND
1. Streets Work for Others
The Planning, Development and Transportation Work for Others program is a self-supported program for all
“Work for Others” activities within Streets. Expenses are tracked and billed out to other City departments,
Poudre School District, CSU, CDOT, Larimer County, developers and other public agencies. The original budget
of $3.1M was an estimate based on prior years budget. Due to unanticipated projects and equipment/parts
needs, and higher cost of materials, additional funding of $1.2M is requested to cover projects through the end
Page 8 of 121
of 2023. Revenue for performing the work will offset the expense (expense will not be incurred if revenue is
not received).
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (reimbursement for work done) $1,150,000
FOR: Work for Others program $1,150,000
2. FC Moves: Open Streets Vendor Fees
Open Streets is a bi-annual FC Moves event that promotes active modes of transportation and invites folks to
experience a street without cars. At Open Streets, participants can expect 1-2 miles of car-free, family-friendly
streets. Participants are encouraged to Ride the Route and explore areas called “Activity Hubs”- temporary
clusters of activity provided by local businesses and organizations. Vendors for Open Streets are charged $50 if
they are a non-profit, $100 if they are a private business. For spring 2023 we had 33 private businesses, and 19
non-profits join as vendors.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $4,250 FOR: Open Streets Program $4,250
3. FC Moves: SPIN Annual Payment
Per the contract between the City and Spin, Spin pays an annual fee in addition to permitting fees. These funds
can be used at the City's discretion, and typically are used for projects related to the Spin program, such as E-
Bikes and the Shift Your Ride TDM program. The funds have already been received.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Vendor payment (SPIN)) $10,000
FOR Shift Your Ride TDM Program $10,000
C. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
1. Country Club Reserve Payment-In-Lieu (Highway 1 Douglas Rd)
The City received a payment from Developer (Country Club Reserve) for payment in lieu of construction of
required intersection improvements of the HWY1 and Douglas Road intersection per their development
agreement.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Payment in lieu) $28,000
FOR: Intersection improvements $28,000
2. Waterfield 4th Payment-In-Lieu (Timberline and Vine) Outfall Channel Improvements
The City received a payment in lieu of construction from the Developer (Waterfield) for outfall channel
required for drainage in the amount of $25,389.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Payment in lieu) $25,389
FOR: Construction of outfall channel $25,389
3. Vine & Timberline Payment-In-Lieu (Waterfield 4th)
The City received a payment in lieu of construction from the Waterfield Developer for Timberline/Vine
intersection improvements.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Payment in lieu) $254,545
Page 9 of 121
FOR: Intersection improvements $254,545
4. Waters Edge 2nd Payment-In-Lieu (Timberline and Vine Intersection)
The City received a payment in lieu of construction from Developer (Waters Edge 2nd filing) for the
intersection of Vine and Timberline for $250,000 in November 2020.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Payment in lieu) $250,000
FOR: Intersection improvements $250,000
5. Vine & Timberline Overpass Payment-in-Lieu
The City received a payment-in-lieu of construction from the Developer (Waterfield - Filing 4) in July 2023 for
$58,466 specifically to be used for the Timberline Road Realignment and Overpass Project.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Payment in lieu) $58,466
FOR: Timberline Road Realignment and Overpass Project $58,466
6. Laporte Bridges - Salud Local Portion Payment
The Laporte Bridges capital project completed the frontage for the Salud development. The "local portion
payment" from the Salud development for 215.03’ of frontage at $264/LF came to a total of $56,768.
Engineering received this payment and completed the work using prior project funding.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Payment in lieu) $56,768
FOR: Laporte Bridges project $56,768
7. Bloom 1st Payment-In-Lieu (Timberline and Vine Intersection)
The City received a payment in lieu of $250,000 from the developer (Bloom, Filing 1) for construction at the
intersection of Vine and Timberline.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Payment in lieu) $250,000
FOR: Intersection improvements $250,000
8. College and Cherry Railroad Crossing Replacement
The Union Pacific Railroad was mandated by the Federal Railroad Administration to complete the College and
Cherry crossing replacement project in 2023 or face fines/penalties, due to a short in the wiring system
between the rail and City's traffic signal interconnect. The railroad offered to cover the cost of the crossing
itself ($542k) if the City could provide traffic control and roadway paving/patching work. The total cost of the
traffic control and paving was $86k. Several unscheduled railroad crossing repair projects during 2022 and
2023 had reduced the overall railroad crossing replacement budget, leading to the need for additional funds to
complete the College Ave. and Cherry St. replacement project. The difference between the project cost and
remaining crossing replacement funds is approximately $65k.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Payment in lieu) $65,000
FOR: Railroad crossing replacement $65,000
Page 10 of 121
D. TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL EXPANSION FUND
1. Transportation Capital Expansion Fund (TCEF) - Minor Reimbursements
The purpose of this offer is to allocate additional Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) funds for the
purpose of reimbursing development for the construction of eligible transportation related improvements
under the category of Minor Reimbursements (individual reimbursements under $500,000). The TCEF Program
will frequently partner with development to construct arterial and collector level roadways adjacent to the
development's frontage. After eligible improvements are accepted by the City, the TCEF program will
reimburse the developer for these improvements. The TCEF Program has received an initial request for a minor
reimbursement for Country Club Reserve with an initial estimate of $438,443 for the oversizing of
improvements on Turnberry Road and Douglas Road. This appropriation will ensure the TCEF Program's ability
to reimburse development for eligible improvements constructed in 2023.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves $200,000
FOR: Reimbursement for construction of arterial and collector
level roadways
$200,000
E. RECREATION FUND
1. Recreation Facilities Asset Management
Multiple facility maintenance and asset replacement needs have come up that impact operations and
customer satisfaction with City facilities. The most urgent items include:
Blinds/shades at the Senior Center that have failed; Umbrella replacement at City Park Pool; Timing system &
pads at EPIC Pool for competition practice & events; Structural engineer assessment of City Park Pool slide
structure; new office space at EPIC needed due to displacement of staff from elevator project; and re-
configuration of front desk/customer area at Northside Aztlan Community Center to address safety and
efficiency needs.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves $112,183
FOR: Facilities Asset Management $112,183
F. GOLF FUND
1. Golf Facilities Maintenance
Golf has faced multiple challenges outside of normal operations this season. Please see our annual adjustment
requests below. Total request is $138,915.
• Collindale has recently experienced an increase in rogue range balls that have crossed our boundaries
into other public spaces. They have hired a Range Attendant to monitor the driving range, remind
golfers of the rules and prevent accidents. The range would have an attendant for an average of 12
hours per day from May through October. It will be staffed from 8:00 am until sunset. 6 months x 4.3
weeks x 7 days a week x 12 hours a day x $17.47 per hour (includes overhead)=$37,861 this year
• Last fall Collindale was having false alarms related to its hydrogen sensors and fire panels. Op services
advised to get a new fire panel asap and was going to hold off invoicing until after the first of the year.
Approximate cost to replace the panel was $18k. However, the fire panel was back ordered and has still
not arrived. In the interim, the hydrogen sensors which are tied to the fire panel have been alarming and
the fire department has come and taken readings showing the whole ventilation system for the carts
may be deficient. The fire department has required us to have a new alarm design done and to assess if
the ventilation is working properly, adding approximately another $21,000. In addition, since the fire
Page 11 of 121
department assessment, we have been paying almost $1400 per week to have someone watch
Collindale every night on a fire watch. Requesting cleanup funding to pay for alarm design, new panels
and contract labor for 12 weeks $55,800 ($18,000+$21,000+(12*1400))
• In late June 2023 Southridge Golf Course experienced significant flooding in the clubhouse basement.
While these repairs will eventually be reimbursed through the SRM department, it will take a significant
amount of time and funding will likely not be available to spend in time for year end. Total repairs costs
are $45,254; PO 9231334 - $15,108 and PO 9231165 - $30,146
FROM: Prior Year Reserves $138,915
FOR: Golf Facilities Management $138,915
2. Golf Nature in the City Award
Nature in the City Grant was awarded in early 2023 to Southridge Golf Course for their Turf Conversion project.
We've received $11,680 to date and will receive the remaining reimbursement after the project is complete.
Total grant is up to $14,600.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $14,600
FOR: Turf Conversion project $14,600
G. PERPETUAL CARE FUND
1. Transfer from Perpetual Care Fund to Cemeteries Fund
Each year there is a budgeted amount for perpetual care to transfer to cemeteries which is entered by
accounting on a monthly basis. The last two years the amount received by the perpetual care fund has been
higher than budgeted, so not all money was transferred to cemeteries. This clears out the residual balance and
accounting will be changing the process in these two funds moving forward.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Perpetual Care Fund) $39,064
FOR: Transfer to the Cemeteries Fund $39,064
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This Ordinance increases total City 2023 appropriations by $4,032,727. Of that amount, this Ordinance
increases General Fund 2023 appropriations by $1,375,547, including use of $625,017 in prior year reserves.
Funding for the total increase to City appropriations is $2,917,548 from unanticipated revenue and $1,115,179
from prior year reserves. The following is a summary of the items requesting prior year reserves:
Item # Fund Use Amount
A2 General Fund Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate $61,000
A4 General Fund Land Bank Operational Expenses 3,600
A6 General Fund Transfer of Remaining Gardens Reserve 560,417
E1 Transportation CEF Fund
Transportation Capital Expansion Fund (TCEF) -
Minor Reimbursements 200,000
F1 Recreation Fund Recreation Facilities Asset Management 112,183
G1 Golf Fund Golf Facilities Maintenance 138,915
H1 Perpetual Care Fund Transfer from Perpetual Care to Cemeteries 39,064
Total Use of Prior Year Reserves: $1,115,179
Page 12 of 121
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
• What questions or feedback does the Council Finance Committee have on the 2023 Annual Adjustment
Ordinance?
• Does the Council Finance Committee support moving forward with bringing the 2023 Annual Adjustment
Ordinance to the full City Council on the Consent Agenda?
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS
Note: We were having audio / visual issues in the CIC Room during this presentation topic.
Here are the questions from the discussion and the requested follow up;
Polic Overtime
Police overtime reimbursable or otherwise is not part of their base pay. Their retirement package is entirely
based on base pay.
Railroad Crossing
Brad Buckman; The Union Pacific railroad wanted to do this project this year and they wanted us to pay half.
This is typical of a railroad crossing replacement. Because of the urgency and the short and wiring between the
traffic signal and the railroad signal interconnect, they offered to pay for the entire crossing and in return we
would pay for the paving and the traffic control which is $86K.
Kelly Ohlson; I would still like to request a follow-up to the work session. It said they were mandated by their
own governing body. I believe in being a good partner, but we didn’t do anything wrong, so I am still trying to
figure out why we are paying the $86K.
Tyler Marr; some of it relates to railroad right of way and what they are responsible for - often times, I am not
sure it is the road, which can be a loophole in federal law.
Kelly Ohlson; traffic control is a whole different thing.
Travis Storin; we will include that for First Reading. We will include language in the AIS regarding rights and
obligations for the crossing.
B. 2024 Budget Revisions
Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this agenda item is to familiarize and seek feedback from the Council Finance Committee on the City
Manager’s recommended revisions to the 2024 Budget before the recommendations are reviewed and discussed at
the Council Work Session scheduled for September 26. Based on direction from Council, the 2024 Budget Revisions
will be combined with the previously adopted 2023-24 Biennial Budget. The 2024 Annual Budget Appropriation
Ordinance is scheduled for 1st Reading on October 17, follow by 2nd Reading on November 21.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Page 13 of 121
- What questions or feedback does the Council Finance Committee have on the City Manager’s recommended
revisions to the 2024 Budget?
- Does the Council Finance Committee support moving forward with bringing the 2024 Budget Revisions to the
full City Council for the September 26th work session?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
OVERVIEW:
The mid-cycle Revision Process is different from the biennial Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process in that:
1) There is no broad request for new and innovative Offers. This is because we are operating within the approved
2023-24 Biennial Budget and these revisions should be exceptions based on information not known at the time
the budget was adopted in 2022.
2) Likewise, there is no review by BFO Teams or request for public engagement. However, the Executive Leadership
Team and City Manager conducted a comprehensive review to determine which requests should be forwarded
on for Council's consideration. Revised revenue projections and available fund reserves were carefully
considered when making these recommendations.
The 2024 Budget Revisions include offers for Council’s consideration based on information that wasn’t available at
the time the 2023-24 Budget was adopted. The following are key objectives which the Budget Revision process is
intended to address:
• Matching appropriations for ongoing expenditures to current ongoing revenue estimates, if declining
• Council priorities
• High-priority projects and other needs not known at the time of the adoption of the 2023-24 Budget.
• Fiduciary responsibilities & fund balance requirements
The recommended 2024 Budget Revisions meet these goals, as applicable. Recommended revisions to the 2024
Budget must also meet one of the following criteria:
• The request is specifically directed by the City Manager or City Council
• The request is related to a previously approved offer where either revenue shortfalls or unforeseen expenses
are significantly impacting the delivery of that program or service.
REVENUE: Overall, most significant City revenue sources are coming in at, or above, the 2023 budget. Based on
year-to-date actual collections and other information, both Sales Tax and Property Tax forecasts are
recommended to be increased for 2024.
Sales Tax collection through July are about $1.0M over budget. It is estimated that the total 2023 collections will
be about $1.5M over budget, which raises the base of ongoing Sales Tax in 2024 by that same amount. Staff
recommends keeping Sales Tax growth on that higher base at the 2.5% growth already included in the adopted
2023-24 Budget. This equates to about $1.5M of new ongoing revenue for City operations in 2024. Of that
amount, about $1.1M would be available in the General Fund.
Property Tax assessments this year are seeing 25% to 35% growth, or more. This will be realized as increased
Property Tax collections in 2024 over the budgeted increase of 13% already included in the 2023-24 Budget. This
equates to about $2.1M of new ongoing revenue for City operations in 2024.
Page 14 of 121
2022 Year-end reserve balances have been finalized and previously shared with the Council Finance Committee.
Unassigned fund balances (i.e., reserves) are available in excess of the requested amounts for the 2024 Budget
Revisions.
Summary of 2024 Revenue Changes and Available Reserves
The revenue and reserves above are available to fund the recommended additions to the 2024 Budget. The
table below summarizes those proposed additions and Attachment #1 contains the details of those
recommended offers.
Summary of 2024 Recommended Additions:
Description
General
Fund -
Ongoing
General
Fund -
1-Time
Cultural
Services
Light &
Power Water Stormwater Broadband TOTAL
Summary of Revenue Changes & Reserves
-Increased 2024 Sales Tax forecast for General Fund
( i)
$1,110,390 $1,110,390
-Increased 2024 Property Tax forecast for General Fund
( i)
2,100,000 $2,100,000
-Increased 2024 Carnegie Center revenue forecast (ongoing)25,000 $25,000
-Available Ongoing Revenue from the 2023-24 Budget 3,200,000 360,000 1,200,000 1,159,674 $5,919,674
-Available Reserves (1-Time, if requested)8,100,000 $8,100,000
-Less: 2023 Reappropriation (1-Time)(602,754)(52,500)($655,254)
-Less: 2023 Supplemental Approps (ongoing)(582,000)($582,000)
-Less: 2023 Supplemental Approps (1-Time)(1,125,100)($1,125,100)
Subtotal of Funding Changes 2,628,390 6,372,146 25,000 3,200,000 307,500 1,200,000 1,159,674 14,892,710
Page 15 of 121
After netting out the proposed additions, fund balances are still strong and well above minimum fund balance
requirements.
Summary of Available Reserves and Revenue after Recommended Additions
The 2024 Budget Revisions allow the City to include a small number of additional budget requests to the 2024
Budget, which address Council priorities that benefit our community.
Fund / Revision Requested FTE Ongoing $One-Time $ Total
General Fund
Rental Housing Program with 4.0 FTE 4.00 410,950 78,750 489,700
1.0 FTE Carnegie Center for Creativity Programming 1.00 114,899 114,899
Municipal Court Services - 1.0 FTE Deputy Court Clerk II 1.00 73,000 18,000 91,000
Municipal Court Services - Technology - 189,201 146,410 335,611
Additional Prosecution Staff 1.00 195,197 19,472 214,669
Waste Contracting Operating Budget plus 2 FTE 2.00 309,014 - 309,014
Bringing the operations of the TRC in-house plus 3 FTE 3.00 299,564 311,476 611,040
Encampment cleaning and prevention additional funds - 111,000 - 111,000
Expansion of the Enterprise Service Management (ESM) System - 68,500 87,500 156,000
Household Hazardous Waste - - 114,240 114,240
Total General Fund 12.00 $1,771,325 $775,848 $2,547,173
Cultural Services & Facilities
1.0 FTE Carnegie Center for Creativity Programming - 25,000 - 25,000
Total Cultural Services & Facilities Fund 0.00 $25,000 $0 $25,000
Light and Power Fund
Debt service for 2023 Bond Issuance - 2,954,708 - 2,954,708
Total Light and Power Fund 0.00 2,954,708 0 2,954,708
Water Fund
Poudre Instream Flows Plan: Early Design and Cost Estimating Phase - - 60,000 60,000
Total Water Fund 0.00 0 60,000 60,000
Stormwater Fund
Encampment cleaning and prevention additional funds - 64,000 - 64,000
Household Hazardous Waste - - 89,760 89,760
Total Stormwater Fund 0.00 $64,000 $89,760 $153,760
Broadband Fund
Debt service for 2023 Bond Issuance - 1,159,674 - 1,159,674
Total Broadband Fund 0.00 $1,159,674 $0 $1,159,674
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 12.00 5,974,707 925,608 6,900,315
Description
General
Fund -
Ongoing
General
Fund -
1-Time
Cultural
Services
Light &
Power Water Stormwater Broadband TOTAL
Available Revenue and Reserves 2,628,390 6,372,146 25,000 3,200,000 307,500 1,200,000 1,159,674 14,892,710
2024 Budget Revision Requests
-Ongoing Requests (1,771,325)(25,000) (2,954,708)(64,000) (1,159,674)(5,974,707)
-One-Time Requests (775,848)(60,000) (89,760)(925,608)
Total of 2024 Revisions (1,771,325) (775,848) (25,000) (2,954,708) (60,000) (153,760) (1,159,674) (6,900,315)
Net Impact (positive = available)$857,065 $5,596,298 $0 $245,292 $247,500 $1,046,240 $0 N/A
Page 16 of 121
In addition to the recommended budget revisions, there are a few other administrative changes for the 2024
Budget, as follows:
1) Modification to 2023-24 Offers 14.4 and 17.1: After the budget was completed, an organizational
staffing decision was made to move the Network Engineers from Broadband back to central Information
Technology (IT). This removes the need for the transfer of money from IT to Broadband. Instead of
being transferred, those funds will now be used to pay the personnel expenses within IT.
a. There is no change in expenses for IT
b. The removal of the transfer of funds impacts Broadband by reducing the associated transfer
revenue and the previously budgeted expenses in the same amount of $835 for no net financial
impact.
2) Modification to 2023-24 Offer 15.6: Police District One is located on the first floor of the Civic Center
Parking Structure. In April 2022 when the budget offer was submitted, the building was owned by Post
Modern Development, with a rent of $84k for 2024. In December of 2022, the Civic Center Parking
Structure was purchased by the City. Now that the City owns the building, there is no longer any rent to
be paid for this facility.
a. The removal of the transfer of funds impacts Operations Services by reducing the associated
transfer revenue and the previously budgeted expenses in the same amount of $84k for no net
financial impact.
3) Modification to 2023-24 Offer 1.42: This offer to update the Water Efficiency Plan was approved for
$100k in 2023 and $150k in 2024. A Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) grant for this effort
was awarded and appropriated with Ordinance No. 34, 2023, thus the $150K in 2024 no longer needs to
be appropriated.
a. That budgeted amount of $150k will remain in Water Fund reserves for future use, as approve
by City Council
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
• What questions or feedback does the Council Finance Committee have on the City Manager’s recommended
revisions to the 2024 Budget?
• Does the Council Finance Committee support moving forward with bringing the 2024 Budget Revisions to
the full City Council for the September 26th work session?
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS
Kelly Ohlson; extra property tax going to the city – is that after the Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) share is taken
out? They get 2/3 of our property tax, correct?
Lawrence Pollack; the second year of the budget does not have an impact on PFA direct. Yes, they do get 2/3 of
our property tax revenue. In the past two revision cycles, where we saw revenues declining, there was no
impact to PFA in any way because it was the second year of the budget. The 2nd year changes you are seeing in
property tax do not have an impact.
Page 17 of 121
Kelly Ohlson; is the $2.1M for the city? Does that change in the next two-year cycle?
Travis Storin; they get 2/3 of what was in the original budget for property tax. Any amount over budget in 2024
becomes a one-time windfall for the city. It will reset for the 2025 – 2026 budget to be 2/23 of that newly
higher budget. We are well into a project for all internal services provided to PFA by the city. We will be having
conversations in the Spring, prior to the next budget cycle around a revised IGA with PFA as a result of the work
that is in play.
Kelly Ohlson; so, the $2.1M is not on-going.
Lawrence Pollack; the total increase we anticipate in property tax in 2024 is $6M.
$4M is one time and will end up going to PFA in the future. The ongoing for the city is $2.1M.
Kelly Ohlson; is the $2.1M guaranteed regardless of the ballot measure outcome?
Travis Storin; we expect that the ongoing portion we would have even if Proposition HH passes.
Even with the haircut from 40% to 15% increases – it would still be a 15% increase for us.
Proposition HH represents an upside if it doesn’t pass.
Kelly Ohlson; So, the $2.1M isn’t going to be impacted by a yes or no vote?
Slide #8
Page 18 of 121
Travis Storin; the $2.1M is not guaranteed as on-going.
Kelly Ohlson; Do we know what it might drop to?
Travis Storin; our partners at the county and at PFA are planning contingencies in their budgets so that if HH
passes, their property tax increases will be limited to the 12-15% range rather than 35%. The $2.1M could drop
to $600K - $1M.
Kelly Ohlson; that will probably come up at the Work Session
Tyler Marr; some clarity re: Proposition HH. The city’s downside in HH results in the reduction in valuation and
the relief given from the state in the proposal, the County is not a Home Rule County, so they are actually held
to a growth cap on property tax, so they have a double-edged sword on HH. As a Home Rule Municipality,
the growth cap on property tax doesn’t apply to us but the reduction in valuation would have marginal impact.
Travis Storin; you mean the $40K exemption?
Tyler Marr; yes
Emily Francis; I had a question on the encampment clean up. Didn’t we just pass an appropriation?
Travis Storin; that was a 2023 appropriation, so this essentially would augment the 2024 budget allotment, kind
of in kind and parallel to what we just did for 2023.
Kelly DiMartino; we are anticipating that the level of dollars we are using this year is going to need to be close to
what we will need next year. Most likely, we will have a new amount we can calibrate to in the 25-26 budget.
Bridging the cap with 23, build it into 24 and then we will right size for 25.
Lawrence Pollack; alternatively, we could wait and see what the 2024 expenses are and then bring a
supplemental.
Emily Francis; it would have been good to have that information when we did the last appropriation.
Travis Storin; we will proceed to the September 26th Work Session, and we will make sure we are really clear.
Meeting Adjourned at 5:30 pm
Page 19 of 121
Page 20 of 121
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: David Lenz, Director, FP&A - Financial Services
Marc Virata, Engineering - Planning, Development & Transportation
Randy Reuscher, Lead Rate Analyst - Utilities Finance
Date: October 5, 2023
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION:
Impact Fee Study Updates: Utility Development Fees & Capital Expansion Fee Studies
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Staff have been working to update the Utility Development Fees, Transportation Capital
Expansion Fees (TCEFs) and Capital Expansion Fees (CEFs). Independent consultants have
been engaged to update the prior CEF and TCEF studies completed in 2017. Utilities Finance
has updated their fees through in-house efforts. The output of these updates is the basis for
establishing the updated fee schedules that will be brought forward to the City Council for
adoption consideration. This update focuses on an overview of these fee updates.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED:
• What questions does the committee have related to the study updates or draft fee
schedules?
• Does the committee prefer:
Option A)
o Bringing the fee updates forward to City Council for adoption for a 1/1/2024
implementation?
o or
Option B)
o Deferring the fee updates until mid-2024, upon such time that:
Clarity is reached on policy timing of Water Supply Requirement, and/or
The Committee or full City Council desire more agenda time on any or all
impact fees?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Development-related impact fees that are approved by the City Council are CEFs, TCEFs, and
Utility plant investment fees (Utility PIFs), Electric Capacity Fees and Water Supply
Requirements.
Page 21 of 121
Plant Investment Fees, Wastewater Plant Investment Fees, and Stormwater Plant Investment
Fees, by 9% as an inflationary adjustment.
Each model was updated this year to capture current inputs, including current escalation factors
and each of the various drivers such costs, consumption, and future system needs. Utilities have
experienced extreme cost pressures, especially on the electric side. Some items such as electric
transformers have increased dramatically in price due to supply chain issues and higher material
costs. The table below shows the proposed increase for 2024 for each of the development fees by
fund.
There are many variables in calculating the impact of a development, particularly between
residential and commercial. Shown in the table below is an example of a single-family
residential house receiving all four services from Fort Collins Utilities. The 2023 amount is
expected to increase by approximately $790 in 2024, from $11,120 to $11,911. This equates to
an overall increase of 7.1% for these one-time fees.
The Water Supply Requirements and Excess Water Use, which was discussed with City Council
at the August 8, 2023, work session, is not part of the proposed utility development fee updates
for 2024. Staff recently established a project team to focus on messaging and clarifying the
Utility Fee Unit of Measure 2024 Proposed Increase
Electric Capacity Fee (ECF) $ / kW 14.8%
Water Plant Investment Fee (PIF) $ / GPD 5.7%
Wastewater Plant Investment Fee (PIF) $ / GPD 4.1%
Stormwater Plant Investment Fee (PIF) $ / acre of development 7.0%
Page 22 of 121
purpose of these fees, hold various internal and external stakeholder meetings, and gather input
through the end of 2023 and into early 2024. The timeline for continuing discussions with
Council is currently unknown.
TCEF Study Update
The Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) is a one-time fee collected from development
and redevelopment to mitigate impacts to the transportation network. It is used to support growth
share related infrastructure improvements which add capacity to the system from both a roadway
and multi-modal perspective. Fees cannot be used for improvements which solely benefit
adjacent development, existing deficiencies, and/or for maintenance.
TCEF is used for reimbursements to developers for constructing improvements beyond the "local
street", such as Northfield's reimbursement for Suniga Road. TCEF is also used as a contribution
for growth related share of Capital Projects. This includes roadway/intersection projects as well
as bicycle/pedestrian projects as part of Active Modes and our Active Modes Plan.
TCEF's last program update was in 2017 by TischlerBise. The methodology
TischlerBise utilized is an incremental expansion approach for roadways and ActiveModes, and
analyzed data from the following:
• 2012 Transportation CIP (10 year)
• Multimodal Projects (2014 Bicycle Master Plan)
• Intersections (2010/2016 Arterial Intersection Prioritization Study)
• The 2017 anticipated 10-year buildout of additional lane miles through development
• The 2017 City's Arterial Cost per Lane Mile ($1.4M), along with baseline data and
projections from the North Front Range MPO
The City again contracted with TischlerBise for the current study update. The 2023 TCEF study
uses a combination of incremental expansion for roadways and plan-based methodologies to
provide improvements for Active Modes. The methodology also utilized data from more updated
sources:
• 2023 Transportation Capital Projects Prioritization Study
• 2022 Active Modes Plan
• 2022 Fort Collins Travel Diary Report
• The current anticipated 10-year buildout of additional lane miles through development
• The current City's Arterial Cost per Lane Mile ($2.0M), along with baseline data and
projections from the North Front Range MPO
For residential development, updated amounts are based on square feet of finished living space.
Garages, porches and patios are excluded from the TCEF assessment. For nonresidential
development, TCEFs are stated per thousand square feet of floor area, using three categories.
The TCEF schedule for nonresidential development is designed to provide a reasonable fee
amount for general types of development. There has been further emphasis on active modes and
Page 23 of 121
to provide further clarity the maximum supportable fee schedule is broken down by roadway
capacity and active modes.
Summary fees are highlighted below and the TCEF Draft Report with full detail is included as
attachment 2.
CEF Study Update:
The City has five separate Capital Expansion Fees (CEFs), related to neighborhood and
community parks, and fire, police and general government services. These capital expansion
fees are assessed by the city on new development to recoup the proportionate share of the costs
of bringing on new capital equipment and facilities to provide a similar level of service as
existing developments receive. Repair and maintenance costs are not included in these fees.
These fees were initially adopted in 1996 based on an internal study by City staff. External study
updates were completed in 2013 and 2017 by Duncan Associates. The studies relied on the
standards-based (or incremental expansion) methodology, which bases the fees on the existing
levels of service. The new fees were adopted in 2017 and implemented over a three-year time
period.
In the spring of 2023, the City solicited bids and contracted with Economic & Planning Systems,
Inc. (EPS) to update the Capital Expansion Fee Study. The EPS Study Update adheres to the
existing standard-based approach to fee calculation, continuing to use construction cost
replacement valuations.
Key data input updates include:
• Updated 2023 asset inventories for City of Fort Collins and Poudre Fire Authority,
• Neighborhood and Community Park development costs and current land valuation
estimates,
• Current market cost of construction estimates and Larimer County valuations,
• Updated residential household size and non-residential occupancy factors,
• Alignment of existing conditions with the concurrent TCEF Study Update.
Highlighted below are the updated draft fee calculations for residential and non-residential
properties compared to the current fee rates. More detailed information is included in the CEF
Summary Draft in Attachment 3.
Page 24 of 121
Almost all fee categories have increased from current 2023 fee levels. The biggest overall
impact contributing to higher rates is the significantly higher asset valuations for police and fire
services (and to a lesser extent, general governmental) outpacing the service population growth
rates. These inflationary impacts have been realized locally in the higher cost of the City’s
purchases of goods and services, especially in the post-COVID environment.
The study update had differing results for the neighborhood and community parks. The most
recent neighborhood park builds (Bucking Horse, Cresent, Traverse) were all significantly more
expensive to buildout on $/acre basis than prior facilities, leading to much higher fee calculations
than for the community parks. A new maintenance facility also contributed to higher overall
costs.
Overall, the residential fee amounts increased by 0% to 26% ($0 - $2,800) based on size of
property. This variable difference is attributed primarily to the relative changes in occupancy
factors based on updated U.S. Census Bureau housing survey data. On the non-residential
developments, increases to commercial and industrial types are driven by the underlying
employees per square foot calculations based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip
generation rates. The Office and Other Services type has been broken out from Commercial and
is aligned with TCEF categories based on differing demand impacts.
Summary:
In March of 2022, staff provided the City Council with an analysis of the total costs of
development activity as part of the total cost of building new housing stock. The table below
updates the total fees component of that analysis, with current 2023 fees and the proposed 2024
study updates included for an 1,890 square foot residential property.
The total overall increase would be approximately $3,500 or 6%. As noted in the utility section
above, no increase in the water supply requirement is included.
Fee Type 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Capital Expansion Fees 6,038$ 7,630$ 8,591$ 8,824$ 8,992$ 9,764$ 12,041$
Transportation Capital Expansion Fees 5,150$ 6,543$ 6,586$ 6,623$ 7,115$ 7,621$ 8,106$
Development Review, Permits, Infrastructure Fees 2,532$ 2,532$ 2,532$ 3,314$ 2,792$ 2,792$ 2,792$
Utility Fees 21,907$ 22,321$ 25,517$ 26,353$ 35,992$ 37,142$ 37,838$
Combined Fees 35,627$ 39,026$ 43,226$ 45,114$ 54,891$ 57,319$ 60,777$
Percentage Change Baseline 9.5% 10.8% 4.4% 21.7% 4.4% 6.0%
City Charged Fees: Impact on One or Two-Family Residence - 1890 sq. ft
Page 25 of 121
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: PowerPoint Presentation
Attachment 2: TCEF Draft Report
Attachment 3: CEF Draft Summary
Page 26 of 121
Headline Copy Goes Here
Engineering
Marc Virata
David Lenz
October 5, 2023
Impact Fee Study
Updates:
Utility Development
Fees & Capital
Expansion Fee Studies
Financial Planning & Analysis
Randy Reuscher
Lead Rate Analyst - Utilities
Page 27 of 121
Headline Copy Goes Here
2
Agenda
•Fee Framework
•Fee Updates:
•Utility Development Fees
•Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF): TischlerBise
•Capital Expansion Fee (CEF): Economic & Planning Systems, Inc
•Summary Findings
•Questions
Page 28 of 121
Headline Copy Goes Here
3
Questions for Council Finance Committee
•What questions does the committee have related to the study updates or draft fee schedules?
•Does the committee prefer:
•Option A)
Bringing the fee updates forward to City Council for adoption for a 1/1/2024 implementation?
or
•Option B)
Deferring the fee updates until mid-2024, upon such time that:⎻Clarity is reached on policy timing of Water Supply Requirement, and/or⎻The Committee or full City Council desire more agenda time on any or all impact fees?
Page 29 of 121
Headline Copy Goes Here
4
Fee Framework
•In April 2022, Council Finance Committee endorsed the schedule below, with the fees being updated
for inflation in 2022 and study updates to be completed in 2023.
•Implementation of the capital expansion fee updates from the 2017 studies were phased in over a two-year
period for TCEF and 3-year period for CEF.
•Staff have committed to bringing forward fee updates on a coordinated two- and four-year schedule to allow for
more holistic view of the impact of fee increases
•Fee study analysis are targeted in the odd year before Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO).
•Building Permits and Development Review Fee coordination are part of the overall process. Both underwent a
comprehensive review in 2019 and 2020, with new fee schedules established effective in January 2022.
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Capital Expansion Fees (CEF)Update Step II Step III Inflation Inflation Inflation Update Inflation Inflation Inflation Update
Transportation Expansion Fee (TCEF)Update Step II Inflation Inflation Inflation Update Inflation Inflation Inflation Update
Electric Capacity Fee Update Update Inflation Update Inflation Update Inflation Update Inflation Update
Water Supply Requirement Update Update Inflation Update Inflation Update Inflation Update Inflation Update
Water, Wastewater, Stormwater PIFs Update Update Inflation Update Inflation Update Inflation Update Inflation Update
Page 30 of 121
Headline Copy Goes Here
6
Utility Fees Overview
Page 32 of 121
Headline Copy Goes Here
7
Utility Fees – Proposed Changes
Utility Fee 2024 Proposed Increase
Electric Capacity Fee (ECF)14.8%
Water Plant Investment Fee (PIF)5.7%
Wastewater Plant Investment Fee (PIF)4.1%
Stormwater Plant Investment Fee (PIF)7.0%
Page 33 of 121
Headline Copy Goes Here
8
Utility Fees – Residential Example
Page 34 of 121
Headline Copy Goes Here
Previous UpdatesUse of FeesPremise of Fees
TCEF: Overview
11
•One-time fee from
development and
redevelopment
•Used to support growth share
related infrastructure
improvements
•Cannot be used for
maintenance
“Transportation Capital
Expansion Fee Study” (2017),
TischlerBise
•2012 Transportation CIP
•2014 Bicycle Master Plan
•2010/2016 Arterial Intersection
Prioritization Study
•10 year build out through
development
•2016 Arterial Cost/Lane Mile
($1.4M)
•Reimbursement to developers
•Northfield reimbursement
•Contribution to Capital Projects
•Roadway projects (TCPPS)
•Active Modes (Active Modes
Plan)
Page 35 of 121
Headline Copy Goes Here
12
TCEF: 2023 Study Update – TischlerBise
TCEF 2023 Study Update Methodology
•Roadway Capacity: Incremental Expansion Methodology (same as previous TCEF study)
•Active Modes Component: Plan Based Methodology
Data inputs
•North Front Range MPO and census data to update demand from development
•Growth Share of Plans
•2023 Transportation Capital Projects Prioritization Study (TCPPS)
•2022 Active Modes Plan
•10-year buildout of additional lane miles through development
•Arterial Cost per Lane Mile ($2.0M)
•Travel Diary Study Report
Page 36 of 121
Headline Copy Goes Here
13
TCEF: 2023 Study Update – TischlerBise
•Roadway Capacity: Incremental Expansion Methodology
•Projected 10 year needs of transportation infrastructure (in terms of lane miles)
•TCPPS projects that are growth related
•Development construction of additional lane miles
•Evaluates the growth share of infrastructure that's attributable to development impact
•Impact is based on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
•Vehicle trip length from Travel Diary Survey (4.9 miles)
•Roadway Capacity Analysis
•13% increase in VMT
•61.9 new lane mile needs over 10 years to maintain current LOS
•7% (4.3 lane miles) of trips on roadway network is external-external trips
•$8.6M out $124M of our roadway capacity needs not attributable to growth/TCEF
•57.6 miles attributed to growth
Page 37 of 121
Headline Copy Goes Here
14
TCEF: 2023 Study Update – TischlerBise
•Active Modes Component: Plan Based Methodology
•10-year growth related cost compared to 10-year growth projection
•High and Medium priority Active Modes Projects ($87M)
•Active Modes Plan Analysis
•From $87M of High & Medium priority Active Modes Plan projects 13% ($11M) attributed to 10-year growth
•Based on demand from residential and nonresidential development and allocated based on the percent of
commuters who walk or bike to work (22% active modes Travel Study Log)
•Active Modes Plan share increase from 2017 (4%) to 2023 (9%)
Page 38 of 121
Headline Copy Goes Here
15
TCEF: Study Updated Draft Fees
•Generally, in range when compared to an inflation adjustment approach
•(7.45% based on August 2022-August 2023 Engineering News-Record Denver City Cost Index)
•Estimate $115M over the next 10 years to keep with anticipated growth needs and level of service
Residential Unit
Roadway
Fee % of Total
Active
Modes % of Total
Update
Total
Current
Total Change % Change
up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,863 91% $272 9% $3,135 $2,703 $432 16%
701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $4,988 91% $487 9% $5,475 $5,020 $455 9%
1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling $6,363 91% $625 9% $6,988 $6,518 $470 7%
1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $7,380 91% $726 9% $8,106 $7,621 $485 6%
over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $8,191 91% $809 9% $9,000 $8,169 $831 10%
Development Type Unit
Roadway
Fee % of Total
Active
Modes % of Total
Update
Total
Current
Total Change % Change
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.$11,045 95% $585 5% $11,630 $9,946 $1,684 17%
Office & Other Services 1,000 sq. ft.$6,450 88% $896 12% $7,346 $7,327 $19 0%
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft.$2,897 79% $786 21% $3,683 $2,365 $1,318 56%
Page 39 of 121
Headline Copy Goes Here
Previous UpdatesUse of FeesPremise of Fees
CEF: Overview
18
•New developments pay a
proportionate share of costs
to “buy-in” to the current level
of services the City provides.
•Paid upon application of a
building permit and assessed
by land use type.
•The concept of growth paying
for the impact of growth is a
policy decision that past City
Councils have made.
•Duncan and Associates (2013
and 2017)
•Adhered to the incremental
expansion methodology
•Updated asset values based
on the cost of construction per
sq. ft.
•Additional capital added to
General Government Fees
•For approved capital
expenditures identified in
capital improvement plans.
•Includes planning, design,
surveying, permitting and
engineering costs; the cost of
purchasing or leasing real
property and construction costs.
•Does not include repair or
maintenance costs.
Page 40 of 121
Headline Copy Goes Here
19
CEF: 2023 Study Update – Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
•Standards Based or “Incremental Expansion” Approach
•Maintains the current level of service or investment per unit of development
•Replacement/Construction cost valuations
•Offsets for debt funding
•Adjustments by land use type and occupancy factors
•Key Data inputs
•Updated 2023 asset inventories for City of Fort Collins and Poudre Fire Authority
•Neighborhood and Community Park development costs and current land valuation estimates
•Current market cost of construction estimates and Larimer County valuations
•Updated residential household size and non-residential occupancy factors
•Alignment of existing conditions with concurrent TCEF Study Update
Page 41 of 121
Headline Copy Goes Here
20
CEF: 2023 Study Update – Economic & Planning Systems, Inc
•Overall
•Residential Occupancy Factor decreases
•Non-Residential Employee per sq. ft. adjustments
•Additional Non-Residential category justified by different demand impact – Office and Other Services
(consistency with TCEF)
•Higher functional population
•Parks
•Higher land valuations
•Inclusion of East District Maintenance Facility
•Neighborhood Parks – higher development costs reflective of newest park buildouts
•Police and Fire
•Significant Asset Value increases – Additional Equipment and Facilities and Higher unit replacement costs
•General Government
•Increased Asset Values but lower increases relative to Police and Fire
Page 42 of 121
Headline Copy Goes Here
21
CEF: Study Updated Draft Fees
Residential Unit
N'hood
Park
Comm.
Park Fire Police Ge n. Gov't
Update
Total
Current
Total Change % Change
up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,813 $2,140 $569 $360 $703 $6,585 $6,593 ($8) 0%
701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $4,260 $3,241 $862 $545 $1,064 $9,972 $8,844 $1,128 13%
1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling $4,783 $3,638 $967 $612 $1,194 $11,195 $9,652 $1,543 16%
1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $5,145 $3,913 $1,040 $658 $1,285 $12,041 $9,764 $2,277 23%
over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $5,848 $4,448 $1,183 $748 $1,460 $13,687 $10,880 $2,807 26%
Development Type Unit
N'hood
Park
Comm.
Park Fire Police Ge n. Gov't
Update
Total
Current
Total Change % Change
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.$1,281 $811 $1,582 $3,674 $2,791 $883 32%
Office and Other Services 1,000 sq. ft.$701 $444 $866 $2,010 $2,791 ($781) -28%
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft.$332 $210 $410 $953 $656 $297 45%
Page 43 of 121
Headline Copy Goes Here
22
CEF: Study Detailed Updated Draft Fees
CEF - Update
Residential Unit
N'hood
Park
Comm.
Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't
Update
Total
up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,813 $2,140 $569 $360 $703 $6,585
701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $4,260 $3,241 $862 $545 $1,064 $9,972
1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling $4,783 $3,638 $967 $612 $1,194 $11,195
1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $5,145 $3,913 $1,040 $658 $1,285 $12,041
over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $5,848 $4,448 $1,183 $748 $1,460 $13,687
Development Type Unit
N'hood
Park
Comm.
Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't
Update
Total
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.$1,281 $811 $1,582 $3,674
Office and Other Services 1,000 sq. ft.$701 $444 $866 $2,010
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft.$332 $210 $410 $953
CEF - Current Fees
Residential Unit
N'hood
Park
Comm.
Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't
Current
Total
up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,108 $2,977 $516 $289 $703 $6,593
701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,822 $3,985 $698 $391 $948 $8,844
1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling $3,082 $4,351 $759 $425 $1,035 $9,652
1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $3,114 $4,396 $772 $431 $1,051 $9,764
over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $3,470 $4,901 $859 $480 $1,170 $10,880
Development Type Unit
N'hood
Park
Comm.
Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't
Current
Total
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.$650 $364 $1,777 $2,791
Office and Other Services 1,000 sq. ft.$650 $364 $1,777 $2,791
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft.$152 $85 $419 $656
CEF - Change $
Residential Unit
N'hood
Park
Comm.
Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't
Change
Total
up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling $705 ($837)$53 $71 ($0) ($8)
701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $1,438 ($744)$164 $154 $116 $1,128
1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling $1,701 ($713)$208 $187 $159 $1,543
1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,031 ($483)$268 $227 $234 $2,277
over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $2,378 ($453)$324 $268 $290 $2,807
Development Type Unit
N'hood
Park
Comm.
Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't
Change
Total
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.$631 $447 ($195)$883
Office and Other Services 1,000 sq. ft.$51 $80 ($911) ($781)
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft.$180 $125 ($9)$297
CEF - Change %
Residential Unit
N'hood
Park
Comm.
Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Change %
up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling 33%-28%10% 25% 0% 0%
701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling 51%-19%23% 39% 12% 13%
1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling 55%-16%27% 44% 15% 16%
1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling 65%-11%35% 53% 22% 23%
over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling 69%-9%38% 56% 25% 26%
Development Type Unit
N'hood
Park
Comm.
Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't Change %
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft.97% 123%-11%32%
Office and Other Services 1,000 sq. ft.8% 22%-51% -28%
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft.119% 147%-2%45%
Page 44 of 121
Headline Copy Goes Here
23
CEF and TCEF: Combined Updated Draft Fees
Residential Unit CEF Total TCEF Total
Update
Total
Current
Total Change Change %
up to 700 sq. ft.Dwelling $6,585 $3,135 $9,720 $9,296 $424 5%
701-1,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $9,972 $5,475 $15,447 $13,864 $1,583 11%
1,201-1,700 sq. ft.Dwelling $11,195 $6,988 $18,183 $16,170 $2,013 12%
1,701-2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $12,041 $8,106 $20,147 $17,385 $2,762 16%
over 2,200 sq. ft.Dwelling $13,687 $9,000 $22,687 $19,049 $3,638 19%
Development Type Unit CEF Total TCEF Total
Update
Total
Current
Total Change Change %
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $3,674 $11,630 $15,304 $12,737 $2,567 20%
Office and Other Services 1,000 sq. ft. $2,010 $7,346 $9,356 $10,118 ($762) -8%
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. $953 $3,683 $4,636 $3,021 $1,615 53%
Page 45 of 121
Headline Copy Goes Here
24
Fees Summary
•Building on the examples shared with City Council from Spring 2022 to highlight total fee
impacts for development activity:
•Update below includes current 2023 fee levels.
•Building Permit and Development Review fees were adjusted with the new fee
structure adopted in January 2022.
•2024 includes TCEF and CEF study updates and proposed utility updates. Does not
include changes to water supply requirements.
Fee Type 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Capital Expansion Fees 6,038$ 7,630$ 8,591$ 8,824$ 8,992$ 9,764$ 12,041$
Transportation Capital Expansion Fees 5,150$ 6,543$ 6,586$ 6,623$ 7,115$ 7,621$ 8,106$
Development Review, Permits, Infrastructure Fees 2,532$ 2,532$ 2,532$ 3,314$ 2,792$ 2,792$ 2,792$
Utility Fees 21,907$ 22,321$ 25,517$ 26,353$ 35,992$ 37,142$ 37,838$
Combined Fees 35,627$ 39,026$ 43,226$ 45,114$ 54,891$ 57,319$ 60,777$
Percentage Change Baseline 9.5% 10.8% 4.4% 21.7% 4.4% 6.0%
City Charged Fees: Impact on One or Two-Family Residence - 1890 sq. ft
Page 46 of 121
Headline Copy Goes Here
25
Questions for Council Finance Committee
•What questions does the committee have related to the study updates or draft fee schedules?
•Does the committee prefer:
•Option A)
Bringing the fee updates forward to City Council for adoption for a 1/1/2024 implementation?
or
•Option B)
Deferring the fee updates until mid-2024, upon such time that:⎻Clarity is reached on policy timing of Water Supply Requirement, and/or⎻The Committee or full City Council desire more agenda time on any or all impact fees?
Page 47 of 121
Headline Copy Goes Here
27
Capital Expansion Fee Revenues
Neighborhood
Park
Community
Park Fire Police General
Government Transportation Total
2018 2,246,386$ 2,334,469$ 611,475$ 301,224$ 830,551$ 3,408,383$ 9,732,488$
2019 1,689,236$ 2,184,132$ 455,819$ 254,242$ 684,940$ 4,222,239$ 9,490,608$
2020 1,676,231$ 2,366,471$ 479,513$ 268,246$ 742,648$ 3,900,225$ 9,433,334$
2021 2,054,596$ 2,901,241$ 626,675$ 349,923$ 1,024,608$ 4,130,376$ 11,087,419$
2022 1,838,872$ 2,596,272$ 621,370$ 347,546$ 1,084,708$ 4,530,263$ 11,019,031$
Total 9,505,321$ 12,382,585$ 2,794,852$ 1,521,181$ 4,367,455$ 20,191,486$ 50,762,880$
2018 - 2022 Annual
Avg.1,901,064$ 2,476,517$ 558,970$ 304,236$ 873,491$ 4,038,297$ 10,152,576$
Page 49 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
Submitted to:
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
September 20, 2023
Prepared by:
4701 Sangamore Road
Suite S240
Bethesda, Maryland 20816
800.424.4318
www.tischlerbise.com
Page 50 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
[Page Intentionally left blank]
Page 51 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
i
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Transportation Capital Expansion Fees by Type of Land Use ................................................................... 2
General Impact Fee Requirements ............................................................................................................... 4
Colorado Impact Fee Enabling Legislation ................................................................................................ 4
Additional Legal Guidelines ....................................................................................................................... 4
Impact Fee Methodologies ....................................................................................................................... 6
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee – Roadway Capacity Component ..................................................... 8
Existing Levels of Service for Transportation ............................................................................................ 8
Development Prototypes and Projected Vehicle Miles of Travel ........................................................... 10
Capital Cost per Vehicle Miles of Travel ................................................................................................. 12
Revenue Credit Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 12
Input Variables for TCEF – Roadway Capacity Component .................................................................... 13
Revenue Projection from Maximum Supportable Fee Amounts ............................................................ 14
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee – Active Modes Component .......................................................... 15
Active Modes Capital Plan ...................................................................................................................... 15
Active Modes Capital Plan Cost Analysis ................................................................................................ 15
Revenue Credit Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 16
Input Variables for TCEF – Active Modes Component ............................................................................ 17
Revenue Projection from Maximum Supportable Fee Amounts ............................................................ 18
Implementation and Administration .......................................................................................................... 19
Credits and Reimbursements .................................................................................................................. 19
Citywide Service Area.............................................................................................................................. 19
Expenditure Guidelines ........................................................................................................................... 19
Development Categories......................................................................................................................... 20
Appendix A – Land Use Assumptions .......................................................................................................... 21
Base Year Population and Housing Units ................................................................................................ 21
Population and Housing Unit Projections ............................................................................................... 23
Current Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area ............................................................................. 24
Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Projections ....................................................................... 26
Vehicle Trip Generation .......................................................................................................................... 27
Residential Trip Generation by Housing Unit Size (sq. ft.) ...................................................................... 30
Appendix B – Active Modes Project Lists .................................................................................................... 33
Page 52 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
1
[Page Intentionally left blank]
Page 53 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Fort Collins currently collects Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) based on a 2017
study completed by TischlerBise. The City has retained TischlerBise to update its TCEF program.
The 2023 TCEF study uses a combination of incremental expansion and plan-based methodologies to
provide improvements for all modes of travel. Figure 1 provides an overview of the methodology and
cost components used in the Fort Collins study.
Figure 1. TCEF Methods and Cost Components
Transportation Capital Expansion Fees by Type of Land Use
As documented in this report, the City of Fort Collins has complied with applicable legal precedents and
Colorado’s Impact Fee enabling legislation (discussed below). The TCEF schedule is proportionate and
reasonably related to the cost of capital improvements needed to accommodate new development.
Specific costs have been identified using local data and current dollars. With input from City staff,
TischlerBise determined demand indicators for transportation capacity and calculated proportionate
share factors to allocate costs by type of development. The TCEF methodology also identifies the extent
to which new development is entitled to various types of credits to avoid potential double payment of
growth-related capital costs.
Figure 2 shows the maximum supportable TCEF schedules. For residential development, updated
amounts are based on square feet of finished living space. Garages, porches and patios are excluded
from the TCEF assessment. Fees by dwelling size rather than type simplifies administration, improves
proportionality, and is consistent with the way other Capital Expansion Fees are collected in Fort Collins.
For nonresidential development, TCEFs are stated per thousand square feet of floor area, using three
broad categories. The TCEF schedule for nonresidential development is designed to provide a
reasonable fee amount for general types of development. For unique developments, the City may allow
or require an independent assessment.
Active modes improvements and expansions were included in the 2017 analysis. There has been further
emphasis on active modes and to provide further clarity the maximum supportable fee schedule is
broken down by roadway capacity and active modes.
Types of
Improvement
Cost
Allocation
Service
Area
Cost
Recovery
Incremental
Expansion Plan-Based
Capacity Roadway
Expansion
Vehicle Miles
of Travel (VMT)Citywide -Roadway
Capacity -
Active Modes Person and Jobs Citywide --
Bike Lanes,
Ped/Bike Intersections,
Signals
Page 54 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
3
Figure 2. Maximum Supportable TCEF
up to 700 11.79 $2,863 0.99 $272 $3,135 $2,703 $432 16%
701 to 1,200 20.54 $4,988 1.77 $487 $5,475 $5,020 $455 9%
1,201 to 1,700 26.20 $6,363 2.27 $625 $6,988 $6,518 $470 7%
1,701 to 2,200 30.39 $7,380 2.64 $726 $8,106 $7,621 $485 6%
over 2,200 33.73 $8,191 2.94 $809 $9,000 $8,169 $831 10%
Commercial 45.48 $11,045 2.12 $585 $11,630 $9,946 $1,684 17%
Office & Other Services 26.56 $6,450 3.26 $896 $7,346 $7,327 $19 0%
Industrial 11.93 $2,897 2.86 $786 $3,683 $2,365 $1,318 56%
Increase/
Decrease
Persons
per Unit
Jobs
per KSF
Active
Modes Fee
Residential (per dwelling unit)
Nonresidential (per 1,000 square feet)
Maximum
Supportable Fee
VMT
per KSF
Roadway
Capacity Fee
Roadway
Capacity Fee
Current
Fees
VMT
per Unit
Percent
Change
Maximum
Supportable Fee
Square Feet of
Finished Living Space
Percent
Change
Development Type
Active
Modes Fee
Current
Fees
Increase/
Decrease
Page 55 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
4
GENERAL IMPACT FEE REQUIREMENTS
Colorado Impact Fee Enabling Legislation
For local governments, the first step in evaluating funding options for transportation improvements is to
determine basic options and requirements established by state law. Some states have more
conservative legal parameters that basically restrict local government to specifically authorized actions.
In contrast, “home-rule” states grant local governments broader powers that may or may not be
precluded or preempted by state statutes depending on the circumstances and on the state’s particular
laws. Home rule municipalities in Colorado, like Fort Collins, have the authority to impose impact fees
based on both their home rule power granted in the Colorado Constitution and the impact fee enabling
legislation enacted in 2001 by the Colorado General Assembly.
Impact fees (also known as capital expansion fees) are one-time payments imposed on new
development that must be used solely to fund growth-related capital projects, typically called “system
improvements”. An impact fee represents new growth’s proportionate share of capital facility needs. In
contrast to project-level improvements, impact fees fund infrastructure that will benefit multiple
development projects, or even the entire service area, as long as there is a reasonable relationship
between the new development and the need for the growth-related infrastructure. Project-level
improvements, typically specified in a development agreement, are usually limited to transportation
improvements near a proposed development, such as ingress/egress lanes.
According to Colorado Revised Statute Section 29-20-104.5, impact fees must be legislatively adopted at
a level no greater than necessary to defray impacts generally applicable to a broad class of property. The
purpose of impact fees is to defray capital costs directly related to proposed development. The statutes
of other states allow impact fee schedules to include administrative costs related to impact fees and the
preparation of capital improvement plans, but this is not specifically authorized in Colorado’s statute.
Impact fees do have limitations, and should not be regarded as the total solution for infrastructure
funding. Rather, they are one component of a comprehensive portfolio to ensure adequate provision of
public facilities. Because system improvements are larger and more costly, they may require bond
financing and/or funding from other revenue sources. To be funded by impact fees, Section 29-20-104.5
requires that the capital improvements must have a useful life of at least five years. By law, impact fees
can only be used for capital improvements, not operating or maintenance costs. Also, development
impact fees cannot be used to repair or correct existing deficiencies in existing infrastructure.
Additional Legal Guidelines
Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of impact fees on development as a
legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against
regulatory takings. Land use regulations, development exactions, and impact fees are subject to the Fifth
Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public use without just compensation. To
comply with the Fifth Amendment, development regulations must be shown to substantially advance a
legitimate governmental interest. In the case of impact fees, that interest is the protection of public
Page 56 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
5
health, safety, and welfare by ensuring development is not detrimental to the quality of essential public
services. The means to this end are also important, requiring both procedural and substantive due
process. The process followed to receive community input (i.e. stakeholder meetings, work sessions, and
public hearings) provides opportunities for comments and refinements to the impact fees.
There is little federal case law specifically dealing with impact fees, although other rulings on other types
of exactions (e.g., land dedication requirements) are relevant. In one of the most important exaction
cases, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a government agency imposing exactions on development
must demonstrate an “essential nexus” between the exaction and the interest being protected (see
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987). In a more recent case (Dolan v. City of Tigard, OR, 1994),
the Court ruled that an exaction also must be “roughly proportional” to the burden created by
development.
There are three reasonable relationship requirements for development impact fees that are closely
related to “rational nexus” or “reasonable relationship” requirements enunciated by a number of state
courts. Although the term “dual rational nexus” is often used to characterize the standard by which
courts evaluate the validity of development impact fees under the U.S. Constitution, TischlerBise prefers
a more rigorous formulation that recognizes three elements: “need,” “benefit,” and “proportionality.”
The dual rational nexus test explicitly addresses only the first two, although proportionality is reasonably
implied, and was specifically mentioned by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case. Individual
elements of the nexus standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs.
All new development in a community creates additional demands on some, or all, public facilities
provided by local government. If the capacity of facilities is not increased to satisfy that additional
demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate.
Development impact fees may be used to cover the cost of development-related facilities, but only to
the extent that the need for facilities is a consequence of development that is subject to the fees. The
Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate
conditions created by the developments upon which they are imposed. That principle likely applies to
impact fees. In this study, the impact of development on infrastructure needs is analyzed in terms of
quantifiable relationships between various types of development and the demand for specific facilities,
based on applicable level-of-service standards.
The requirement that exactions be proportional to the impacts of development was clearly stated by the
U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case and is logically necessary to establish a proper nexus.
Proportionality is established through the procedures used to identify development-related facility
costs, and in the methods used to calculate impact fees for various types of facilities and categories of
development. The demand for facilities is measured in terms of relevant and measurable attributes of
development (e.g., a typical housing unit’s average weekday vehicle trips).
A sufficient benefit relationship requires that impact fee revenues be segregated from other funds and
expended only on the facilities for which the fees were charged. The calculation of impact fees should
also assume that they will be expended in a timely manner and the facilities funded by the fees must
serve the development paying the fees. However, nothing in the U.S. Constitution or the state enabling
Page 57 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
6
legislation requires that facilities funded with fee revenues be available exclusively to development
paying the fees. In other words, benefit may extend to a general area including multiple real estate
developments. Procedures for the earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are discussed near the
end of this study. All of these procedural as well as substantive issues are intended to ensure that new
development benefits from the impact fees they are required to pay. The authority and procedures to
implement impact fees is separate from and complementary to the authority to require improvements
as part of subdivision or zoning review.
Impact fees must increase the carrying capacity of the transportation system. Capacity projects include,
but are not limited to the addition of travel lanes, intersection improvements (i.e., turning lanes,
signalization or roundabouts) and widening roads (e.g., adding travel lanes, paved shoulders, and bike
lanes). Whenever improvements are made to existing roads, non-impact fee funding is typically required
to help pay a portion of the cost.
Impact Fee Methodologies
In contrast to project-level improvements, impact fees fund growth-related infrastructure that will
benefit multiple development projects, or the entire jurisdiction (referred to as system improvements).
There are three general methods for calculating one-time charges for public facilities needed to
accommodate new development. The choice of a particular method depends primarily on the timing of
infrastructure construction (past, concurrent, or future) and service characteristics of the facility type
being addressed. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation, and can be
used simultaneously for different cost components.
Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating infrastructure costs for new development
involves two main steps: (1) determining the cost of development-related capital improvements and (2)
allocating those costs equitably to various types of development. In practice, TCEF calculations can
become quite complicated because of many variables involved in defining the relationship between
development and the need for facilities within the designated service area. The following sections
discuss three basic methods.
COST RECOVERY (PAST IMPROVEMENTS)
The rationale for recoupment, often called cost recovery, is that new development is paying for its share
of the useful life and remaining capacity of facilities already built, or land already purchased, from which
new growth will benefit. This methodology is often used for utility systems that must provide adequate
capacity before new development can take place.
INCREMENTAL EXPANSION (CONCURRENT IMPROVEMENTS)
The incremental expansion method documents current level-of-service (LOS) standards for each type of
public facility, using both quantitative and qualitative measures. New development is only paying its
proportionate share for growth-related infrastructure needed to maintain current standards. Revenue
will be used to expand or provide additional facilities, as needed to keep pace with new development.
Page 58 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
7
PLAN-BASED (FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS)
The plan-based method allocates costs for a specified set of improvements to a specified amount of
development. Improvements are typically identified in a capital improvements plan and development
potential is identified by land use assumptions. There are two options for determining the cost per
service unit: 1) total cost of a public facility can be divided by total service units (average cost), or 2) the
growth-share of the capital facility cost can be divided by the net increase in service units over the
planning timeframe (marginal cost).
CREDITS
Regardless of the methodology, a consideration of “credits” is integral to a legally defensible impact fee
study. There are two types of “credits” with specific characteristics, both of which should be addressed
in studies and ordinances.
• First, a revenue credit might be necessary if there is a double payment situation and other
revenues are contributing to the capital costs of infrastructure to be funded by TCEF revenue.
This type of credit is integrated into the TCEF calculation, thus reducing the gross amount. In
contrast to some studies that only provide general costs, with credits at the back-end of the
analysis, Fort Collins’s 2023 transportation TCEF update uses growth shares to provide an up-
front reduction in total costs. Also, the 2023 update provides TCEF revenue projections to verify
that new development will fully fund the growth cost of future infrastructure (i.e., only TCEF
revenue will pay for growth costs).
• Second, a site-specific credit or developer reimbursement might be necessary for dedication of
land or construction of system improvements to be funded by TCEF revenue. This type of credit
is addressed in the administration and implementation of the TCEF program.
Page 59 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
8
TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL EXPANSION FEE – ROADWAY CAPACITY COMPONENT
The City of Fort Collins Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEF) are calculated using an incremental
approach for roadway capacity improvements. Transportation improvements that provide additional
vehicular capacity, account for approximately 91 percent of the growth-related cost in the analysis while
active modes represent 9.
The roadway capacity component of the TCEF is derived from custom trip generation rates (see
Appendix A), trip rate adjustment factors, and the capital cost per vehicle miles of travel (VMT). The
latter is a function of average trip length, trip-length weighting factor by type of development, and the
growth cost of transportation improvements.
Existing Levels of Service for Transportation
There are currently 497 lane miles of arterial streets in the City of Fort Collins. The steps to calculate a
current level of service for the City’s arterial street network involve calibrating existing development to
the system network. To do so, development units by type are multiplied by adjusted vehicle trip ends
per development unit. The factors used to calculate the current level of service expressed in vehicle
miles of travel (VMT) are discussed below, and shown in Figure 5 after the discussion.
VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL
VMT is a measurement unit equal to one vehicle traveling one mile1. In the aggregate, VMT is the
product of vehicle trips multiplied by the average trip length. For the 2023 TCEF update, the average trip
length is calibrated to lane miles of existing City arterials within Fort Collins.
TRIP GENERATION RATES
The 2023 TCEF update is based on average weekday vehicle trip ends (AWVTE). For residential
development, trip rates are customized using demographic data for Fort Collins, as documented in
Appendix A. For nonresidential development, trip generation rates are from the reference book Trip
Generation published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 11th Edition, 2021). A vehicle trip
end represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed
across a driveway). To calculate transportation fees, trip generation rates require an adjustment factor
to avoid double counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. Therefore, the basic trip
adjustment factor is 50 percent for industrial, institutional, and office development. As discussed further
below, the TCEF methodology includes additional adjustments to make the fees proportionate to the
infrastructure demand for particular types of development.
1 Typical VMT calculations for development-specific traffic studies, along with most transportation models of an
entire urban area, are derived from traffic counts on particular road segments multiplied by the length of that road
segment. For the purpose of the TCEF study, VMT calculations are based on attraction (inbound) trips to
development located in the service area, with trip length limited to the road network considered to be system
improvements (arterials and collectors). This refinement eliminates pass-through or external- external trips, and
travel on roads that are not system improvements (e.g., state highways).
Page 60 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
9
ADJUSTMENT FOR PASS-BY TRIPS
For retail development, the trip adjustment factor is less than 50 percent because such development
attract vehicles as they pass by on arterial roads. For example, when someone stops at a convenience
store on the way home from work, the convenience store is not the primary destination. For the average
shopping center, ITE indicates that 25 percent of the vehicles that enter are passing by on their way to
some other primary destination. The remaining 75 percent of attraction trips have the commercial site
as their primary destination. Because attraction trips are half of all trips, the trip adjustment factor is 75
percent multiplied by 50 percent, or approximately 38 percent of the trip ends.
TRIP LENGTH WEIGHTING FACTOR BY TYPE OF LAND USE
The transportation fee methodology includes a percentage adjustment, or weighting factor, to account
for trip length variation by type of land use. TischlerBise derived the weighting factors using household
survey results provided by North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NRFMPO, 2010). As
shown in Figure 3, trips associated with residential development are approximately 110 percent of the
average trip length. Conversely, trips associated with commercial development (i.e., retail and
restaurants) are approximately 66 percent of the average trip length while other nonresidential
development typically accounts for trips that are 100 percent of the average for all trips.
Figure 3. Average Trip Length by Trip Purpose in North Front Range
Type of Development Trip Purpose Trips
Average
Miles Per Trip
Weighting
Factor
1-Residential All other at home activities 4,920 5.30 3.469
1-Residential Dropped off passenger 566 4.36 0.328
1-Residential Picked up passenger 557 3.47 0.257
1-Residential Indoor recreation/entertainment 516 4.80 0.330
1-Residential Change transportation mode 354 9.37 0.441
1-Residential Outdoor recreation/entertainment 254 6.60 0.223
1-Residential Service private vehicle 160 5.44 0.116
1-Residential Working at home 127 4.06 0.069
1-Residential Loop Trip and Other travel related 55 2.71 0.020
1-Residential School at home 7 2.03 0.002
1-Residential Total 7,516 5.255 1.10
2-Retail/Restaurant Routine shopping 1,236 2.76 1.571
2-Retail/Restaurant Eat meal outside home 577 3.10 0.824
2-Retail/Restaurant Other 180 5.37 0.445
2-Retail/Restaurant Major purchase / specialty item 91 6.15 0.258
2-Retail/Restaurant Drive through 88 1.80 0.073
2-Retail/Restaurant Total 2,172 3.170 0.66
3-Other Nonresidential Attend a class 790 2.59 0.756
3-Other Nonresidential Work/business related 618 8.48 1.937
3-Other Nonresidential Errands (bank, dry cleaning, etc.)475 2.34 0.411
3-Other Nonresidential Personal business (attorney, accountant)241 5.50 0.490
3-Other Nonresidential Health care 224 6.39 0.529
3-Other Nonresidential Civic/religious 196 5.13 0.372
3-Other Nonresidential Other activities at school 92 3.72 0.126
3-Other Nonresidential All other activities at work 70 5.82 0.151
3-Other Nonresidential Total 2,706 4.771 1.00
TOTAL 12,394 4.784
Data Source: Table R-27, NFRMPO Household Survey, 2010. Analysis excludes "Visit friends/relatives"
because the average distance of 22.43 miles traveled is an outlier, approximately four times the overall average.
"Work/job" travel was also excluded because trip origns and destinations can not be allocated
between residential and type of nonresidential development.
Page 61 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
10
LANE CAPACITY
The TCEF roadway capacity component is based on established daily per lane capacities for arterial
roads. According to City staff, arterial roads were established to have a daily per lane capacity of 7,700,
assuming 12 feet travel lanes, with no additional shoulder width, in an urban area.
AVERAGE VEHICLE TRIP LENGTH
The City of Fort Collins recently completed a travel diary study which surveyed residents on their daily
travel including modes, distance, and purpose. Based on the results of the study, the average vehicle trip
length in Fort Collins is 4.90 miles.
ORIGIN & DESTINATION TRIP ANALYSIS
Lastly, there is a demand on Fort Collins transportation network that is not associated with any
development within city limits. Specifically, there are vehicle trips that originate and end outside of Fort
Collins. The nature of these trips means there is a demand that is not Fort Collins growth-related thus
not eligible for TCEF funding. Therefore, TischlerBise partnered with transportation engineers at
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig to identify the thru-trips (external – external) in Fort Collins. Based on analysis of
the Fort Collins travel demand model, seven percent of trips were identified as external – external. As a
result, a seven percent reduction is included in the demand calculation.
Figure 4. Origin & Destination Trip Analysis
Development Prototypes and Projected Vehicle Miles of Travel
The relationship between the amount of development within Fort Collins and vehicle miles of travel
(VMT) is documented in Figure 5. In the table below DU means dwelling unit; KSF means 1,000 square
feet of nonresidential development; Institute of Transportation Engineers is abbreviated ITE; VTE means
vehicle trip ends. Trip generation rates by bedroom range are documented in Appendix A – Land Use
Assumptions.
Projected development over the next ten years and the corresponding need for additional lane miles is
shown in the lower section of Figure 5. Fort Collins has a current infrastructure standard of 1.62 arterial
lane miles per 10,000 VMT. Based on the detailed demand factors and projected growth, VMT is
projected to increase from 3.07 million to 3.55 million over the next ten years (or 13 percent). To
accommodate projected development over the next ten years, Fort Collins will need 61.9 additional lane
miles of complete streets to maintain current levels of service.
Origin/Destination Internal External
Internal 50% 15%
External 28% 7%
Source: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig analysis of
Fort Collins travel demand model
Page 62 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
11
Figure 5. Projected VMT Increase to Development within Fort Collins
Development Weekday Development Primary Trip Trip Length
Type VTE Unit Adjustment Wtg Factor
Residential 0-1 Bedroom 4.26 DU 58%1.10 R1
Residential 2 Bedrooms 6.34 DU 58%1.10 R2
Residential 3 Bedrooms 8.80 DU 58%1.10 R3
Residential 4+ Bedrooms 10.56 DU 58%1.10 R4
Commercial 37.01 KSF 38%0.66 NR1
Office & Other Services 10.84 KSF 50%1.00 NR2
Industrial 4.87 KSF 50%1.00 NR3
Avg Trip Length (miles) [1]4.90
Vehicle Capacity Per Lane 7,700
Base Year 1 2 3 4 5 10 10-Year
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2033 Increase
Residential 0-1 Bedroom 6,212 6,320 6,429 6,550 6,671 6,792 7,524 1,312
Residential 2 Bedrooms 17,883 18,195 18,507 18,856 19,205 19,554 21,660 3,777
Residential 3 Bedrooms 24,688 25,118 25,549 26,030 26,512 26,993 29,901 5,213
Residential 4+ Bedrooms 23,807 24,222 24,637 25,102 25,566 26,031 28,835 5,028
Commercial KSF 10,024 10,060 10,097 10,135 10,173 10,211 10,393 370
Office & Other Services KSF 21,999 22,215 22,430 22,627 22,823 23,019 23,950 1,951
Industrial KSF 10,944 10,979 11,014 11,049 11,083 11,117 11,378 434
0-1 Bedroom Trips 15,349 15,615 15,885 16,184 16,483 16,782 18,590 3,242
2 Bedroom Trips 65,759 66,907 68,054 69,337 70,621 71,904 79,648 13,889
3 Bedroom Trips 126,008 128,202 130,402 132,857 135,317 137,772 152,615 26,607
4+ Bedroom Trips 145,813 148,355 150,897 153,745 156,587 159,435 176,609 30,795
Commercial Trips 140,970 141,485 142,000 142,535 143,071 143,607 146,169 5,199
Office & Other Services Trips 119,232 120,403 121,573 122,637 123,700 124,764 129,808 10,576
Industrial Trips 26,650 26,735 26,820 26,904 26,987 27,071 27,706 1,057
Total Inbound Vehicle Trips 639,780 647,702 655,631 664,199 672,766 681,334 731,145 91,365
Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) 3,073,002 3,113,973 3,154,985 3,199,451 3,243,911 3,288,376 3,548,550 475,548
Arterial Lane Miles 497 502.3 507.6 513.4 519.2 525.0 558.9 61.9
Ten-Year VMT Increase =>13%
[1] Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Study (2022)
Fort Collins Travel Model
5-Year Increment
Page 63 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
12
Capital Cost per Vehicle Miles of Travel
As indicated by the travel demand model above, there is a need for 61.9 new lane miles to continue
providing the current level of service to projected future demand. Furthermore, seven percent of the
demand on the Fort Collins transportation network is from external – external trips. As a result, 57.6
miles is attributed to future growth in Fort Collins (61.9 lane miles x [1 - 0.07] = 57.6 lane miles).
Additionally, Fort Collins staff estimates the construction cost of a new lane mile being $2,000,500. By
combining the projected need in lane miles and cost per lane mile results in a growth-related capital
cost per $115.5 million. Over the next ten years, there is a projected increase of 475,548 VMT.
Comparing the growth-related capital cost and growth in VMT, the study finds a capital cost of $242.85
per VMT ($115,488,00 / 475,548 VMT = $242.85 per VMT, rounded).
Figure 6. Capital Cost per VMT
Revenue Credit Evaluation
A credit for other revenues is only necessary if there is potential double payment for system
improvements. In Fort Collins, Road & Bridge Fund property taxes and gas tax revenue will be used for
maintenance of existing facilities, correcting existing deficiencies, and for capital projects that are not
TCEF system improvements. As shown later in Figure 8, TCEF revenue over the next ten years mitigates
the growth-related share of the roadway capacity needs. Thus, there is no potential double payment
from other revenues to fund the growth cost of roadway capacity projects.
Importantly, seven percent of the future need is attributed to external – external trips which represents
$8.6 million. This is not attributed to Fort Collins development, thus, not eligible for TCEF funding. Fort
Collins will have to identify other revenues (i.e., grants) to support this external cost.
10-Year Need in Roadway Lane Miles 61.9
Lane Miles Attributed to External - External Trips (7%)4.3
Fort Collins Growth-Related Lane Miles 57.6
Construction Cost per Lane Mile $2,005,000
Fort Collins Growth-Related Construction Cost $115,488,000
10-Year Increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)475,548
Capital Cost per VMT $242.85
Page 64 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
13
Input Variables for TCEF – Roadway Capacity Component
A summary of inputs for the roadway capacity component of the TCEF program are detailed in Figure 7.
Residential fees are based on the square footage of the dwelling unit while there are three
nonresidential development types in the fee schedule (consistent with the current Fort Collins TCEF
schedule). The roadway capacity TCEF is found by multiply the VMT demand factor and the growth cost
per VMT. For example, the fee for a housing unit over 2,200 square feet is $8,191 (33.73 VMT per unit x
$242.85 per VMT = $8,191 per unit).
The fees represent the highest supportable amount for each type of applicable land use and represents
new growth’s fair share of the cost for capital facilities. The City may adopt fees that are less than the
amounts shown. However, a reduction in TCEF revenue will necessitate an increase in other revenues, a
decrease in planned capital expenditures, and/or a decrease in levels of service.
Figure 7. Maximum Supportable TCEF – Roadway Capacity Component
Roadway Expansion $242.85
Gross Total $242.85
Net Total $242.85
up to 700 11.79 $2,863
701 to 1,200 20.54 $4,988
1,201 to 1,700 26.20 $6,363
1,701 to 2,200 30.39 $7,380
over 2,200 33.73 $8,191
Commercial 45.48 $11,045
Office & Other Services 26.56 $6,450
Industrial 11.93 $2,897
Development Type
VMT
per KSF
Roadway
Capacity Fee
Nonresidential (per 1,000 square feet)
Square Feet of
Finished Living Space
VMT
per Unit
Roadway
Capacity Fee
Fee Component
Cost
per VMT
Residential (per dwelling unit)
Page 65 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
14
Revenue Projection from Maximum Supportable Fee Amounts
This section summarizes the potential cash flow to the City of Fort Collin if the TCEF is implemented at
the maximum supportable amounts. The cash flow projections are based on the assumptions detailed in
this chapter and the development projections discussed in Appendix A – Land Use Assumptions.
At the top of Figure 8, the cost of growth over the next ten years is listed. The summary provides an
indication of the TCEF revenue generated by new development. The fee for the average sized single
family and multifamily units are used in the calculations. Shown at the bottom of the figure, the
maximum supportable TCEF is estimated to generate $111.3 million in revenue while there is a growth-
related cost of $115.5 million, offsetting about 97 percent of the growth-related costs. The remaining
funding gap represents the external – external share of future demand on the transportation network.
Figure 8. Projected Revenue from Maximum Supportable TCEF – Roadway Capacity Component
Infrastructure Costs for Transportation Facilities
Total Cost Growth Cost
Roadway Capacity $124,109,500 $115,488,000
Total Expenditures $124,109,500 $115,488,000
Projected Development Impact Fee Revenue
Single Family Multifamily Commercial Office Industrial
$7,380 $4,988 $11,045 $6,450 $2,897
per unit per unit per KSF per KSF per KSF
Year Housing Units Housing Units KSF KSF KSF
Base 2023 47,183 25,406 10,024 21,999 10,944
1 2024 47,769 26,087 10,060 22,215 10,979
2 2025 48,354 26,768 10,097 22,430 11,014
3 2026 49,009 27,529 10,135 22,627 11,049
4 2027 49,663 28,291 10,173 22,823 11,083
5 2028 50,318 29,052 10,211 23,019 11,117
6 2029 50,972 29,813 10,249 23,215 11,152
7 2030 51,627 30,575 10,287 23,412 11,186
8 2031 52,508 31,599 10,323 23,591 11,250
9 2032 53,389 32,624 10,358 23,770 11,314
10 2033 54,271 33,649 10,393 23,950 11,378
Ten-Year Increase 7,087 8,243 370 1,951 434
Projected Revenue $52,304,559 $41,115,500 $4,083,218 $12,585,770 $1,257,186
Projected Revenue => $111,346,000
Total Expenditures => $124,109,000
Non-Impact Fee Funding => $12,763,000
Page 66 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
15
TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL EXPANSION FEE – ACTIVE MODES COMPONENT
The City of Fort Collins TCEF are calculated using a plan-based approach for active mode expansions.
Transportation improvements that provide additional vehicular capacity, account for approximately 91
percent of the growth-related cost in the analysis while active modes represent 9.
The active modes component of the TCEF is based on the demand from residential and nonresidential
development and allocated based on the percent of commuters who walk or bike to work. Person per
housing unit and employee density factors are then applied to find the proportionate demand from the
development types.
Active Modes Capital Plan
The 2022 Active Modes Plan is the guiding document for the capital expansion plans for bike and
pedestrian infrastructure in Fort Collins. The Plan identified High, Medium, and Low priority/readiness
projects needed in the coming future to address existing demand and future demand from
development. Since the TCEF study examines infrastructure need over the next ten years, City staff has
advised that the high and medium project lists are a realistic plan over that planning horizon. Between
the two lists there are 200 projects ranging from small spot treatments addressing signage and side
paths to extensive separated bike lane expansion projects. Pages from the Plan listing the projects are
provided in the appendix of this report.2 Overall, the capital plans for active mode expansion totals
$87,554,000 over the next ten years.
Active Modes Capital Plan Cost Analysis
Based on the projected growth in demand on the Fort Collins transportation network, 13 percent ($11.4
million) of the total capital cost of the Active Modes Plan is attributed to development over the next ten
years. As shown in Figure 9, the cost is allocated to residential and nonresidential demand based on the
data from the Travel Diary Study Report (2022). From the survey, 22 percent of commuters in Fort
Collins use active modes to travel to work. This factor is used to allocate the active modes capital cost to
nonresidential demand while the remaining 78 percent is allocated to residential demand. The allocated
costs are compared to the 10-year projected increase in population and jobs to find capital cost per unit
factors. For example, the capital cost per person is $275.18 ($11,382,000 x 78 percent / 32,262
population increase = $275.18 per person).
2 The Active Modes Plan can also be found on the City’s website at https://www.fcgov.com/fcmoves/active-
modes-plan.
Page 67 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
16
Figure 9. Active Modes Cost Analysis
Revenue Credit Evaluation
A credit for other revenues is only necessary if there is potential double payment for system
improvements. In Fort Collins, there are general revenues and grants for maintenance of existing
facilities and addressing existing demand. However, there are no other revenues available to address
future demand on active mode infrastructure. As shown later in Figure 11, TCEF revenue over the next
ten years mitigates the growth-related share of the active modes plan. Thus, there is no potential
double payment from other revenues to fund the growth cost of active modes projects.
High and Medium Priority Projects $87,554,000
Growth-Share of Project List 13%
Growth-Related Cost of Active Modes Plan $11,382,020
Residential Nonresidential
Proportionate Share [1] 78.0% 22.0%
Attributed Capital Cost $8,877,976 $2,504,044
10-Year Population/Jobs Increase 32,262 7,580
Capital Cost per Person/Job $275.18 $330.37
[1] Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Study Report (2022)
Page 68 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
17
Input Variables for TCEF – Active Modes Component
A summary of inputs for the active modes component of the TCEF program are detailed in Figure 10.
Residential fees are based on the square footage of the dwelling unit while there are three
nonresidential development types in the fee schedule (consistent with the current Fort Collins TCEF
schedule). The active modes TCEF is found by multiply the person/job demand factor and the growth
cost per person/job. For example, the fee for a housing unit over 2,200 square feet is $809 (2.94 persons
per unit x $275.18 per person = $809 per unit).
The fees represent the highest supportable amount for each type of applicable land use and represents
new growth’s fair share of the cost for capital facilities. The City may adopt fees that are less than the
amounts shown. However, a reduction in TCEF revenue will necessitate an increase in other revenues, a
decrease in planned capital expenditures, and/or a decrease in levels of service.
Figure 10. Maximum Supportable TCEF – Active Modes Component
Fee Component Cost per
Person
Cost
per Job
Active Modes $275.18 $330.37
Gross Total $275.18 $330.37
Net Total $275.18 $330.37
up to 700 0.99 $272
701 to 1,200 1.77 $487
1,201 to 1,700 2.27 $625
1,701 to 2,200 2.64 $726
over 2,200 2.94 $809
Commercial 2.12 $585
Office & Other Services 3.26 $896
Industrial 2.86 $786
Development Type
Jobs
per KSF
Active
Modes Fee
Nonresidential (per 1,000 square feet)
Square Feet of
Finished Living Space
Persons
per Unit
Active
Modes Fee
Residential (per dwelling unit)
Page 69 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
18
Revenue Projection from Maximum Supportable Fee Amounts
This section summarizes the potential cash flow to the City of Fort Collin if the TCEF is implemented at
the maximum supportable amounts. The cash flow projections are based on the assumptions detailed in
this chapter and the development projections discussed in Appendix A – Land Use Assumptions.
At the top of Figure 11, the cost of growth over the next ten years is listed. The summary provides an
indication of the TCEF revenue generated by new development. The fee for the average sized single
family and multifamily units are used in the calculations. Shown at the bottom of the figure, the
maximum supportable TCEF is estimated to generate $11.5 million in revenue while there is a growth-
related cost of $11.4 million, offsetting about 100 percent of the growth-related costs. The remaining
funding gap represents the existing demand in Fort Collins and will be funded through other revenues.
Figure 11. Projected Revenue from Maximum Supportable TCEF – Active Modes Component
Infrastructure Costs for Transportation Facilities
Total Cost Growth Cost
Active Modes $87,554,000 $11,382,020
Total Expenditures $87,554,000 $11,382,020
Projected Development Impact Fee Revenue
Single Family Multifamily Commercial Office Industrial
$726 $487 $585 $896 $786
per unit per unit per KSF per KSF per KSF
Year Housing Units Housing Units KSF KSF KSF
Base 2023 47,183 25,406 10,024 21,999 10,944
1 2024 47,769 26,087 10,060 22,215 10,979
2 2025 48,354 26,768 10,097 22,430 11,014
3 2026 49,009 27,529 10,135 22,627 11,049
4 2027 49,663 28,291 10,173 22,823 11,083
5 2028 50,318 29,052 10,211 23,019 11,117
6 2029 50,972 29,813 10,249 23,215 11,152
7 2030 51,627 30,575 10,287 23,412 11,186
8 2031 52,508 31,599 10,323 23,591 11,250
9 2032 53,389 32,624 10,358 23,770 11,314
10 2033 54,271 33,649 10,393 23,950 11,378
Ten-Year Increase 7,087 8,243 370 1,951 434
Projected Revenue $5,145,408 $4,014,284 $216,268 $1,748,349 $341,094
Projected Revenue => $11,465,000
Total Expenditures => $87,554,000
Non-Impact Fee Funding => $76,089,000
Page 70 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
19
IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION
Development impact fees (in this case TCEF) should be periodically evaluated and updated to reflect
recent data. Fort Collins has consistently annually updated the TCEF schedule based on local inflation
data. If cost estimates or demand indicators change significantly, the City should redo the fee
calculations.
Colorado’s enabling legislation allows local governments to “waive an impact fee or other similar
development charge on the development of low or moderate income housing, or affordable employee
housing, as defined by the local government.”
Credits and Reimbursements
A general requirement that is common to impact fee methodologies is the evaluation of credits. A
revenue credit may be necessary to avoid potential double payment situations arising from one-time
impact fees plus on-going payment of other revenues that may also fund growth-related capital
improvements. The determination of revenue credits is dependent upon the impact fee methodology
used in the cost analysis and local government policies.
Policies and procedures related to site-specific credits should be addressed in the resolution or
ordinance that establishes the impact fees. Project-level improvements, required as part of the
development approval process, are not eligible for credits against impact fees. If a developer constructs
a system improvement included in the fee calculations, it will be necessary to either reimburse the
developer or provide a credit against the fees due from that particular development. The latter option is
more difficult to administer because it creates unique fees for specific geographic areas.
Based on national experience, TischlerBise typically recommends reimbursement agreements with
developers that construct system improvements. The reimbursement agreement should be limited to a
payback period of no more than ten years and the City should not pay interest on the outstanding
balance. The developer must provide sufficient documentation of the actual cost incurred for the system
improvement. The City should only agree to pay the lesser of the actual construction cost or the
estimated cost used in the impact fee analysis. If the City pays more than the cost used in the fee
analysis, there will be insufficient fee revenue for other capital improvements. Reimbursement
agreements should only obligate the City to reimburse developers annually according to actual fee
collections from the applicable Benefit District.
Citywide Service Area
The TCEF service area is defined as the entire incorporated area within Fort Collins. The infrastructure
funded through the TCEF is citywide benefiting and can be attributed to demand throughout the city.
Expenditure Guidelines
Fort Collins will distinguish system improvements (funded by transportation capital expansion fees) from
project-level improvements, such as local streets within a residential subdivision. TischlerBise
Page 71 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
20
recommends limiting transportation fee expenditures to arterials and collectors. System improvements
that are eligible for transportation fee funding include:
• Constructing an arterial or collector street.
• A carrying-capacity enhancement to existing arterials or collectors, such reconstruction to add
greater street depth and width, including additional vehicular travel lanes, bike lanes, and/or
shoulders.
• Adding turn lanes, traffic signals, or roundabouts at the intersection of a State Highway with a
City arterial or collector, or a City arterial with another City arterial or collector.
Development Categories
Proposed transportation fees for residential development are by square feet of finished living space,
excluding unfinished basement, attic, and garage floor area. Appendix A provides further documentation
of demographic data by size threshold.
The three general nonresidential development categories in the proposed TCEF schedule can be used for
all new construction within the Service Area. Nonresidential development categories represent general
groups of land uses that share similar average weekday vehicle trip generation rates, as documented in
Appendix A.
• “Industrial” includes the processing or production of goods, along with warehousing,
transportation, communications, and utilities.
• “Commercial” includes retail development and eating/drinking places, along with entertainment
uses often located in a shopping center (i.e., movie theater).
• “Office & Other Services” includes offices, health care and personal services, business services
(i.e., banks) and lodging. Public and quasi-public buildings that provide educational, social
assistance, or religious services are also included in this category.
An applicant may submit an independent study to document unique demand indicators for a particular
development. The independent study must be prepared by a professional engineer or certified planner
and use the same type of input variables as those in this transportation capital expansion fee update.
For residential development, the fees are based on average weekday vehicle trip ends per housing unit.
For nonresidential development, the fees are based on average weekday vehicle trips ends per 1,000
square feet of floor area. The independent fee study will be reviewed by City staff and can be accepted
as the basis for a unique fee calculation. If staff determines the independent fee study is not reasonable,
the applicant may appeal the administrative decision to City elected officials for their consideration.
Page 72 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
21
APPENDIX A – LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
Development-related capital expansion fees often use per capita standards and persons per housing
unit or persons per household to derive proportionate share fee amounts. Housing types have varying
household sizes and, consequently, a varying demand on City infrastructure and services. Thus, it is
important to differentiate between housing types and size.
When persons per housing unit (PPHU) is used in the development impact fee calculations,
infrastructure standards are derived using year-round population. In contrast, when persons per
household (PPHH) is used in the development impact fee calculations, the fee methodology assumes all
housing units will be occupied, thus requiring seasonal or peak population to be used when deriving
infrastructure standards. Thus, TischlerBise recommends that fees for residential development in Fort
Collins be imposed according to persons per housing unit.
Based on housing characteristics, TischlerBise recommends using two housing unit categories for the
TCEF study: (1) Single Family and (2) Multifamily. Each housing type has different characteristics which
results in a different demand on City facilities and services. Figure 12 shows the US Census American
Community Survey 2021 5-Year Estimates data for the City of Fort Collins. Single family units have a
household size of 2.54 persons and multifamily units have a household size of 1.73 persons
Figure 12. Fort Collins Persons per Housing Unit
Base Year Population and Housing Units
The City of Fort Collins has provided its own 2023 base year household population estimate which is
what will be used to calculate base year housing units.
Figure 13. Base Year Household Population
In 2023, there are an estimated 72,590 housing units in Fort Collins. The housing mix and PPHU factors
in Figure 12 are applied to the household population to estimate single family and multifamily units.
Overall, single family housing is 65 percent of the total, while multifamily is 35 percent.
House-Persons per Housing Persons per Housing Vacancy
holds Household Units Housing Unit Mix Rate
Single Family 115,988 44,342 2.62 45,625 2.54 65%3%
Multifamily 42,457 22,862 1.86 24,496 1.73 35%7%
Subtotal 158,445 67,204 2.36 70,121 2.26 4%
Group Quarters 8,197
TOTAL 166,642
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 5-Year Estimate American Community Survey
Single unit includes detached and attached (i.e. townhouse) and mobile homes
Units in Structure Persons
Base Year
Fort Collins, CO 2023
Household Population [1]164,053
[1] Source: City of Fort Collins Population Estimate
Page 73 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
22
Figure 14. Base Year Housing Units
However, recent trends over the last three years show multifamily housing growing at a greater rate
than single family at 54 percent vs 46 percent of total housing growth respectively as shown in Figure
15. This is the trend that will be used for housing and population growth projections.
Figure 15. Building Permit History
In 2023, the household population in Fort Collins is estimated to be 164,053. To estimate the total
residents, the group quarters population of 10,392 is applied to the household population. As a result,
the 2023 population is estimated at 174,445 residents and will be used for housing and population
projections.
Figure 16. Base Year Population
2023
Fort Collins, CO Housing Units [1]
Single Family 47,183
Multifamily 25,406
Total 72,590
[1] Source: City of Fort Collins Population Estimate; PPHU Factors
2020-2023
Fort Collins, CO Building Permits
Single Family 1,104 46%
Multifamily 1,284 54%
Total 2,388
Source: City of Fort Collins
Percent of
Total
2023 2023 2023
Fort Collins, CO
Household
Population
Group Quarters
Population
Total
Population
Population 164,053 10,392 174,445
Source: City of Fort Collins Population Estimate
Page 74 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
23
Population and Housing Unit Projections
From the 2023 base year housing unit totals, there is a projected increase of 21 percent in housing stock over the next ten years. Following the
trend that there is more multifamily development (54 percent) than single family development (46 percent), there is an estima ted 8,243
multifamily units and 7,087 single family units projected. Population growth is assumed to continue with housing development based on the
PPHU factors by housing type. As a result, there is a projected increase of 32,262 residents over the next ten years. This is an 18.5 percent
increase from the base year, slightly lower than housing development at 21 percent since there is a shift in multifamily development and smaller
household sizes.
Figure 17. Residential Development Projections
Base Year
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Population [1] 174,445 177,109 179,774 182,753 185,733 188,713 191,693 194,673 198,684 202,696 206,707 32,262
1.5% 1.5% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 2.1% 2.0% 2.0% 18.5%
Housing Units [2]
Single Family 47,183 47,769 48,354 49,009 49,663 50,318 50,972 51,627 52,508 53,389 54,271 7,087
Multifamily 25,406 26,087 26,768 27,529 28,291 29,052 29,813 30,575 31,599 32,624 33,649 8,243
Total 72,590 73,856 75,122 76,538 77,954 79,370 80,786 82,202 84,108 86,014 87,920 15,330
[2] Source: Housing growth is projected based on housing development and PPHU factors
[1] Source: City of Fort Collins Population Estimate; Population growth is projected based on housing development and PPHU factors by
type of home
Total
Increase
Percent Increase
City of
Fort Collins, CO
Page 75 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
24
Current Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area
The impact fee study will include nonresidential development as well. Job estimates are from North
Front Range MPO Traffic TAZ database. The model forecasts employment growth for the entire city from
2020 to 2045 in five-year increments. To find the total employment in the base year, 2023, a straight-
line approach from 2020 to 2025 was used. Listed in Figure 18, 107,677 jobs are estimated in the City of
Fort Collins. Nearly half the employment is in the office industry. However, retail, industrial, and
institutional industries have a significant presence as well.
Figure 18. Base Year Employment by Industry
The base year nonresidential floor area for the industry sectors is calculated with the Institution of
Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) square feet per employee averages, Figure 19. For industrial the Light
Industrial factors are used; for institutional the Hospital factors are used; for retail the Shopping Center
factors are used; for office the General Office factors are used.
Figure 19. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Employment Density Factors
By combining the base year job totals and the ITE square feet per employee factors, the nonresidential
floor area is calculated in Figure 20. There is an estimated total of 43 million square feet of
nonresidential floor area in Fort Collins. The office and industrial industries account for almost two-
thirds of the total floor area at 37 percent and 25 percent respectively, while retail accounts for 23
percent and institutional accounts for 14 percent of the total.
Base Year
2023
Industrial 17,181 16%
Institutional 17,433 16%
Retail 21,282 20%
Office 51,782 48%
Total Jobs 107,677 100%
Employment
Industries
Source: North Front Range MPO TAZ
employment database
Percent
of Total
Employment ITE Demand Emp Per Sq Ft
Industry Code Land Use Unit Dmd Unit Per Emp
Industrial 110 Light Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 1.57 637
Institutional 610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 2.86 350
Retail 820 Shopping Center 1,000 Sq Ft 2.12 471
Office 710 General Office 1,000 Sq Ft 3.26 307
Source: Trip Generation , Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition (2021)
Page 76 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
25
Figure 20. Base Year Nonresidential Floor Area
Base Year Sq. Ft.Base Year
Jobs [1]per Job [2]Floor Area (Sq. Ft.)
Industrial 17,181 637 10,944,355
Institutional 17,433 350 6,101,592
Retail 21,282 471 10,023,588
Office 51,782 307 15,896,963
Total 107,677 42,966,498
[1] Source: North Front Range MPO TAZ employment database
Employment
Industries
[2] Source: Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation
Engineers, 11th Edition (2021)
Page 77 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
26
Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Projections
Based on the TAZ employment database, over the ten-year projection period, it is estimated that there will be an increase of 7,580 jobs. The
majority of the increase comes from the office sector (58 percent); however, the institutional sector (23 percent) has a significant impact as well.
The nonresidential floor area projections are calculated by applying the ITE square feet per employee facto rs to the job growth. In the next ten
years, the nonresidential floor area is projected to increase by 2.8 million square feet, a 6 percent increase from the base year. The office and
institutional sectors have the greatest increase.
Figure 21. Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Projections
Base Year
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Jobs [1]
Industrial 17,181 17,236 17,291 17,345 17,399 17,453 17,507 17,560 17,661 17,762 17,862 681
Institutional 17,433 17,621 17,809 17,980 18,152 18,323 18,495 18,666 18,832 18,999 19,165 1,732
Retail 21,282 21,359 21,437 21,518 21,599 21,680 21,760 21,841 21,916 21,991 22,066 785
Office 51,782 52,271 52,760 53,204 53,648 54,091 54,535 54,979 55,374 55,768 56,163 4,381
Total Jobs 107,677 108,487 109,297 110,047 110,797 111,547 112,297 113,047 113,784 114,520 115,257 7,580
Industrial 10,944 10,979 11,014 11,049 11,083 11,117 11,152 11,186 11,250 11,314 11,378 434
Institutional 6,102 6,167 6,233 6,293 6,353 6,413 6,473 6,533 6,591 6,650 6,708 606
Retail 10,024 10,060 10,097 10,135 10,173 10,211 10,249 10,287 10,323 10,358 10,393 370
Office 15,897 16,047 16,197 16,334 16,470 16,606 16,742 16,879 17,000 17,121 17,242 1,345
Total Floor Area 42,966 43,254 43,542 43,810 44,079 44,348 44,616 44,885 45,164 45,443 45,721 2,755
City of
Fort Collins, CO
Total
Increase
[2] Source: Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition (2021)
[1] Source: North Front Range MPO TAZ employment database
Nonresidential Floor Area (1,000 square feet) [2]
Page 78 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
27
Vehicle Trip Generation
RESIDENTIAL VEHICLE TRIPS BY HOUSING TYPE
A customized trip rate is calculated for the single family and multifamily units in Fort Collins. In Figure 22, the most recent data from the US
Census American Community Survey is inputted into equations provided by the ITE to calculate the trip ends per housing unit factor. A single
family unit is estimated to generate 12.70 trip ends and a multifamily unit is estimated to generate 6.00 trip ends on an ave rage weekday.
Figure 22. Customized Residential Trip End Rates by Housing Type
Owner-occupied 74,579 33,116 2,493 35,609 2.09
Renter-occupied 55,237 11,226 20,369 31,595 1.75
Total 129,816 44,342 22,862 67,204 1.93
Housing Units (3) => 45,625 24,496 70,121
Persons per Housing Unit => 2.54 1.73 2.26
Persons in Trip Vehicles by Trip Average National Trip Difference
Households (4) Ends (5) Type of Unit Ends (6) Trip Ends Ends per Unit (7) from ITE
Single Family 115,988 323,073 88,984 832,918 577,996 12.70 9.43 35%
Multifamily 42,457 97,146 40,832 194,723 145,934 6.00 4.54 32%
Total 158,445 420,219 129,816 1,027,640 723,930 10.80
4. Total population in households from Table B25033, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
7. Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition (2021).
2. Households by tenure and units in structure from Table B25032, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
5. Vehicle trips ends based on persons using formulas from Trip Generation (ITE 2021). For single-family housing (ITE 210), the
fitted curve equation is EXP(0.89*LN(persons)+1.72). To approximate the average population of the ITE studies, persons were
divided by 12 and the equation result multiplied by 558. For multi-family housing (ITE 221), the fitted curve equation is
(2.29*persons)-64.48 (ITE 2017).
6. Vehicle trip ends based on vehicles available using formulas from Trip Generation (ITE 2021). For single-family housing (ITE
210), the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.92*LN(vehicles)+2.68). To approximate the average number of vehicles in the ITE studies,
vehicles available were divided by 21 and the equation result multiplied by 256. For multi-family housing (ITE 221), the fitted
curve equation is (4.77*vehicles)-46.46 (ITE 2021).
Households by Structure Type (2)
Single
Family
1. Vehicles available by tenure from Table B25046, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
3. Housing units from Table B25024, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
Tenure by Units
in Structure
Vehicles
Available (2)Multifamily Total Vehicles per
HH by
Housing Type Local Trip
Ends per Unit
Page 79 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
28
RESIDENTIAL VEHICLE TRIPS ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
A vehicle trip end is the out-bound or in-bound leg of a vehicle trip. As a result, so to not double count
trips, a standard 50 percent adjustment is applied to trip ends to calculate a vehicle trip. For example,
the out-bound trip from a person’s home to work is attributed to the housing unit and the trip from
work back home is attributed to the employer.
However, an additional adjustment is necessary to capture City residents’ work bound trips that are
outside of the city. The trip adjustment factor includes two components. According to the National
Household Travel Survey (2009), home-based work trips are typically 31 percent of out-bound trips
(which are 50 percent of all trip ends). Also, utilizing the most recent data from the Census Bureau's web
application "OnTheMap”, 51 percent of Fort Collins workers travel outside the city for work. In
combination, these factors account for 8 percent of additional production trips (0.31 x 0.50 x 0.51 =
0.08). Shown in Figure 23, the total adjustment factor for residential housing units includes attraction
trips (50 percent of trip ends) plus the journey-to-work commuting adjustment (8 percent of production
trips) for a total of 58 percent.
Figure 23. Residential Trip Adjustment Factor for Commuters
NONRESIDENTIAL VEHICLE TRIPS
Vehicle trip generation for nonresidential land uses are calculated by using ITE’s average daily trip end
rates and adjustment factors found in their recently published 11th edition of Trip Generation. To
estimate the trip generation in Fort Colins, the weekday trip end per 1,000 square feet factors
highlighted in Figure 24 are used.
Figure 24. Institute of Transportation Engineers Nonresidential Factors
For nonresidential land uses, the standard 50 percent adjustment is applied to office, industrial, and
institutional. A lower vehicle trip adjustment factor is used for retail because this type of development
attracts vehicles as they pass-by on arterial and collector roads. For example, when someone stops at a
convenience store on their way home from work, the convenience store is not their primary destination.
Employed Fort Collins Residents (2019) 73,469
Residents Working in the City (2019) 36,223
Residents Commuting Outside of the City for Work 37,246
Percent Commuting Out of the City 51%
Additional Production Trips 8%
Standard Trip Adjustment Factor 50%
Residential Trip Adjustment Factor 58%
Source: U.S. Census, OnTheMap Application, 2019
Employment ITE Demand Wkdy Trip Ends Wkdy Trip Ends
Industry Code Land Use Unit Per Dmd Unit Per Employee
Industrial 110 Light Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 4.87 3.10
Institutional 610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 10.77 3.77
Retail 820 Shopping Center 1,000 Sq Ft 37.01 17.42
Office 710 General Office 1,000 Sq Ft 10.84 3.33
Source: Trip Generation , Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition (2021)
Page 80 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
29
In Figure 25, the Institute for Transportation Engineers’ land use code, daily vehicle trip end rate, and
trip adjustment factor is listed for each land use.
Figure 25. Daily Vehicle Trip Factors
Residential (per housing unit)
Single Family 210 12.70 58%
Multifamily 220 6.00 58%
Nonresidential (per 1,000 square feet)
Industrial 110 4.87 50%
Institutional 610 10.77 50%
Retail 820 37.01 38%
Office 710 10.84 50%
Land Use
ITE
Codes
Daily Vehicle
Trip Ends
Trip Adj.
Factor
Source: Trip Generation , Institute of Transportation Engineers,
11th Edition (2021); National Household Travel Survey, 2009
Page 81 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
30
Residential Trip Generation by Housing Unit Size (sq. ft.)
As an alternative to simply using average trip generation rates for residential development by housing
type, TischlerBise has derived custom trip rates using demographic data for Fort Collins. Key inputs
needed for the analysis (i.e., average number of persons and vehicles available per housing unit) are
available from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS).
FORT COLLINS CONTROL TOTALS
As previously shown in Figure 12, Fort Collins averages 2.26 residents per housing unit. Single family
includes detached and attached dwellings and manufactured housing. Duplexes and apartments are
combined as multifamily. The average number of persons per housing unit in Fort Collins will be
compared to national averages derived from traffic studies tabulated by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE).
Trip generation rates are also dependent upon the average number of vehicles available per dwelling.
Figure 26 indicates vehicles available by housing type within Fort Collins. As expected, single family
housing has more vehicles available per dwelling (1.95) than multifamily housing (1.67).
Figure 26. Vehicles Available per Housing Unit
DEMAND INDICATORS BY DWELLING SIZE
Custom tabulations of demographic data by bedroom range can be created from individual survey
responses provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, in files known as Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS).
Because PUMS files are available for areas of roughly 100,000 persons, Fort Collins is included in Public
Use Microdata Area (PUMA) 103 that covers the northern portion of Larimer County. At the top of
Figure 27, cells with yellow shading indicate the survey results, which yield the unadjusted number of
persons and vehicles available per dwelling. These multipliers are adjusted to match the control totals
for Fort Collins, as documented in Figure 12 and Figure 26.
Tenure Vehicles
Available [1]Single Family Multifamily Total
Vehicles per
Household by
Tenure
Owner-occupied 74,579 33,116 2,493 35,609 2.09
Renter-occupied 55,237 11,226 20,369 31,595 1.75
Total 129,816 44,342 22,862 67,204 1.93
Housing Type Vehicles
Available
Housing
Units [3]
Vehicles per
Housing Unit
Single Family 88,984 45,625 1.95
Multifamily 40,832 24,496 1.67
Total 129,816 70,121 1.85
Households [2]
[1] Vehicles available by tenure from Table B25046, American Community Survey, 2017-
[3] Housing units from Table B25024, American Community Survey, 2021
[2] Households by tenure and units in structure from Table B25032, American Community
Survey, 2021
Page 82 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
31
In comparison to the national averages based on ITE traffic studies, Fort Collins has fewer persons per
dwelling, but a greater number of vehicles available per dwelling. Rather than rely on one methodology,
the recommended multipliers shown below with grey shading and bold numbers are an average of trip
rates based on persons and vehicles available (all types of housing units combined). In Fort Collins, the
average housing unit is estimated to yield an 8.40 Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends (AWVTE).
Figure 27. Average Weekday Vehicle Trips Ends by Bedroom Range
To derive average weekday vehicle trip ends by dwelling size, TischlerBise matched trip generation rates
and average floor area, by bedroom range, as shown in Figure 28. Floor area averages were calculated
with certificate of occupancies issued from 2020 through 2022. The logarithmic trend line formula is
derived from the four actual averages in Fort Collins. The trend line is then used to derive estimated trip
ends by dwelling size thresholds.
In 2017, TischlerBise completed the previous TCEF for Fort Collins. At that time, the average size home
(1,701 to 2,200 square feet) was estimate to generate 8.92 daily vehicle trip ends. Compared to the
updated average rate of 9.72 vehicle trip ends, the average size home has increased by 8 percent.
Bedroom Vehicles Housing Housing Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted
Range Available 1 Units1 Mix Persons/HU Persons/HU2 VehAvl/HU VehAvl/HU2
0-1 457 386 388 8.6%1.18 1.17 0.99 0.97
2 1,885 1,678 1,117 24.6%1.69 1.68 1.50 1.47
3 3,585 3,217 1,542 34.0%2.32 2.30 2.09 2.05
4+4,410 3,630 1,487 32.8%2.97 2.94 2.44 2.39
Total 10,337 8,911 4,534 2.28 2.26 1.97 1.93
National Averages According to ITE (Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021)
ITE AWVTE per AWVTE per AWVTE per Housing Persons per Veh Avl per
Code Person Vehicle Available Household Mix Household Household
221 Apt 1.84 5.10 4.54 35%2.47 0.89
210 SFD 2.65 6.36 9.43 65%3.56 1.48
Wgtd Avg 2.37 5.92 7.72 3.18 1.27
Recommended AWVTE per Dwelling Unit by Bedroom Range
AWVTE per AWVTE per
HU Based HU Based on
on Persons3 Vehicles Available 4
0-1 2.77 5.74 4.26
2 3.98 8.70 6.34
3 5.45 12.14 8.80
4+6.97 14.15 10.56
Total 5.36 11.43 8.40
AWVTE per Dwelling by House Type
AWVTE per AWVTE per
HU Based HU Based on
on Persons3 Vehicles Available 4
221 Apt 4.10 9.89 7.00 1.73 1.67
210 SFD 6.02 11.54 8.78 2.54 1.95
All Types 5.36 11.44 8.40 2.26 1.93
Fort Collins
VehAvl/HU
Persons1
Bedroom
Range
AWVTE per
Housing Unit5
ITE
Code
AWVTE per
Housing Unit5
Fort Collins
Persons/HU
Unadjusted
VehAvl/HU
1. American Community Survey, Public Use Microdata Sample
for CO PUMA 00103 (2017 -2021 5-Year).
2. Adjusted multipliers are scaled to make the average PUMS
values match control total s for Fort Collins, based on American
Community Survey (2017 -2021 5-Year).
3. Adjusted persons per housing unit multiplied by national
weighted average trip rate per person.
4. Adjusted vehicles available per housing unit multiplied by
national weighted average trip rate per vehicle available.
5. Average of trip rates based on persons and vehicles available
per housing unit.
Page 83 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
32
Figure 28. Residential Vehicle Trip Ends by Dwelling Size
Bedrooms Square Feet Trip Ends Sq Ft Range Trip Ends
0-1 781 4.26 up to 700 3.77
2 1,162 6.34 701 to 1,200 6.57
3 1,729 8.80 1,201 to 1,700 8.38
4+2,684 10.56 1,701 to 2,200 9.72
over 2,200 10.79
Actual Averages per Hsg Unit Fitted-Curve Values
y = 5.1986ln(x) -30.289
R² = 0.9931
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
Tr
i
p
E
n
d
s
p
e
r
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
Square Feet of Living Area
Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends
by Dwelling Square Footage
Unit size ranges are based on
current fee schedule and consistent
with residential certificates of
occupancy issued from 2020 -2022.
Average weekday vehicle trip ends
per housing unit are derived from
2021 ACS PUMS data for the area
that includes Fort Collins.
Page 84 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
33
APPENDIX B – ACTIVE MODES PROJECT LISTS
Below are pages from the Fort Collins Active Modes Plan (2022) listing the high and medium
priority/readiness projects.
Page 85 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
34
Figure 29. High Priority/Readiness Projects
Page 86 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
35
Figure 30. High Priority/Readiness Projects cont.
Page 87 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
36
Figure 31. High Priority/Readiness Projects cont.
Page 88 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
37
Figure 32. Medium Priority/Readiness Projects
Page 89 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
38
Figure 33. Medium Priority/Readiness Projects cont.
Page 90 of 121
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
39
Figure 34. Medium Priority/Readiness Projects cont.
Page 91 of 121
Prepared for:
City of Fort Collins
Prepared by:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Date:
9/26/2023
EPS #233062
Working Draft
Impact Fee Nexus Study
Page 92 of 121
Impact Fee Summary
I. Parks Impact Fee
II. Police Impact Fee
III. Fire Impact Fee
IV. General Government Impact Fee
V. Demographic Calculations
Table of Contents
Page 93 of 121
Table 1
Fort Collins Existing Capital Expansion Fees (CEF), 2023
Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study
Land Use Type
Neighborhood
Park
Community
Park Fire Police
General
Government
TCEF
(Transportation)Total
Residential (per dwelling)
Up to 700 sq. ft. $2,108.00 $2,977.00 $516.00 $289.00 $703.00 $2,703.00 $9,296.00
700 - 1,200 sq. ft. $2,822.00 $3,985.00 $698.00 $391.00 $948.00 $5,020.00 $13,864.00
1,201 - 1,700 sq. ft. $3,082.00 $4,351.00 $759.00 $425.00 $1,035.00 $6,518.00 $16,170.00
1,701 - 2,200 sq. ft. $3,114.00 $4,396.00 $772.00 $431.00 $1,051.00 $7,621.00 $17,385.00
Over 2,200 sq. ft. $3,470.00 $4,901.00 $859.00 $480.00 $1,170.00 $8,169.00 $19,049.00
Nonresidential (per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Commercial $0.00 $0.00 $650.00 $364.00 $1,777.00 $9,946.00 $12,737.00
Office and Other Services $0.00 $0.00 $650.00 $364.00 $1,777.00 $7,327.00 $10,118.00
Industrial $0.00 $0.00 $152.00 $85.00 $419.00 $2,365.00 $3,021.00
Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-26-23.xlsx]1-Current Fees
Page 94 of 121
Table 2
Summary of Draft Impact Fees
Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study
Land Use Type
Neighborhood
Park Update
Neighborhood
Park Current
Community
Park Update
Community
Park Current Update Current Update Current Update Current Update Current
% Change
from Current
Residential (per dwelling)
Up to 700 sq. ft. $2,813.46 $2,108.00 $2,140.12 $2,977.00 $568.93 $516.00 $360.00 $289.00 $702.54 $703.00 $6,585.05 $6,593.00 -0.1%
700 - 1,200 sq. ft. $4,260.38 $2,822.00 $3,240.76 $3,985.00 $861.52 $698.00 $545.15 $391.00 $1,063.85 $948.00 $9,971.66 $8,844.00 12.8%
1,201 - 1,700 sq. ft. $4,782.88 $3,082.00 $3,638.21 $4,351.00 $967.18 $759.00 $612.00 $425.00 $1,194.32 $1,035.00 $11,194.59 $9,652.00 16.0%
1,701 - 2,200 sq. ft. $5,144.61 $3,114.00 $3,913.37 $4,396.00 $1,040.33 $772.00 $658.29 $431.00 $1,284.65 $1,051.00 $12,041.25 $9,764.00 23.3%
Over 2,200 sq. ft. $5,847.97 $3,470.00 $4,448.40 $4,901.00 $1,182.56 $859.00 $748.29 $480.00 $1,460.28 $1,170.00 $13,687.50 $10,880.00 25.8%
Nonresidential (per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Retail/Commercial $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,281.17 $650.00 $810.68 $364.00 $1,582.04 $1,777.00 $3,673.89 $2,791.00 31.6%
Office and Other Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $701.02 $650.00 $443.58 $364.00 $865.64 $1,777.00 $2,010.24 $2,791.00 -28.0%
Industrial $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $332.38 $152.00 $210.32 $85.00 $410.43 $419.00 $953.13 $656.00 45.3%
Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-26-23.xlsx]2b-Impact Fee Summary
Fire Police General Government TotalParks
Page 95 of 121
Table 2
Summary of Draft Impact Fees
Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study
Fire Police Total
Land Use Type
Neighborhood
Park
Community
Park
Update
Residential (per dwelling)
Up to 700 sq. ft. $2,813.46 $2,140.12 $568.93 $360.00 $702.54 $6,585.05
700 - 1,200 sq. ft. $4,260.38 $3,240.76 $861.52 $545.15 $1,063.85 $9,971.66
1,201 - 1,700 sq. ft. $4,782.88 $3,638.21 $967.18 $612.00 $1,194.32 $11,194.59
1,701 - 2,200 sq. ft. $5,144.61 $3,913.37 $1,040.33 $658.29 $1,284.65 $12,041.25
Over 2,200 sq. ft. $5,847.97 $4,448.40 $1,182.56 $748.29 $1,460.28 $13,687.50
Nonresidential (per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Retail/Commercial $0.00 $0.00 $1,281.17 $810.68 $1,582.04 $3,673.89
Office and Other Services $0.00 $0.00 $701.02 $443.58 $865.64 $2,010.24
Industrial $0.00 $0.00 $332.38 $210.32 $410.43 $953.13
Current
Residential (per dwelling)
Up to 700 sq. ft. $2,108.00 $2,977.00 $516.00 $289.00 $703.00 $6,593.00
700 - 1,200 sq. ft. $2,822.00 $3,985.00 $698.00 $391.00 $948.00 $8,844.00
1,201 - 1,700 sq. ft. $3,082.00 $4,351.00 $759.00 $425.00 $1,035.00 $9,652.00
1,701 - 2,200 sq. ft. $3,114.00 $4,396.00 $772.00 $431.00 $1,051.00 $9,764.00
Over 2,200 sq. ft. $3,470.00 $4,901.00 $859.00 $480.00 $1,170.00 $10,880.00
Nonresidential (per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Retail/Commercial $0.00 $0.00 $650.00 $364.00 $1,777.00 $2,791.00
Office and Other Services $0.00 $0.00 $650.00 $364.00 $1,777.00 $2,791.00
Industrial $0.00 $0.00 $152.00 $85.00 $419.00 $656.00
Percent Change
Residential (per dwelling)
Up to 700 sq. ft.33.5%-28.1%10.3% 24.6%-0.1% -0.1%
700 - 1,200 sq. ft.51.0%-18.7%23.4% 39.4% 12.2% 12.8%
1,201 - 1,700 sq. ft.55.2%-16.4%27.4% 44.0% 15.4% 16.0%
1,701 - 2,200 sq. ft.65.2%-11.0%34.8% 52.7% 22.2% 23.3%
Over 2,200 sq. ft.68.5%-9.2%37.7% 55.9% 24.8% 25.8%
Nonresidential (per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Retail/Commercial -- --97.1% 122.7%-11.0%31.6%
Office and Other Services -- --7.8% 21.9%-51.3% -28.0%
Industrial -- --118.7% 147.4%-2.0%45.3%
Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-26-23.xlsx]2a-Impact Fee Summary
General
GovernmentParks
Page 96 of 121
Table 3
Comparison to 2017 Study
Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study
Description 2017 2023 Update Difference % Change
Household Size
Up to 700 sq. ft. 1.78 1.40 -0.38 -21.3%
700 - 1,200 sq. ft. 2.40 2.12 -0.28 -11.7%
1,201 - 1,700 sq. ft. 2.61 2.38 -0.23 -8.8%
1,701 - 2,200 sq. ft. 2.65 2.56 -0.09 -3.4%
Over 2,200 sq. ft. 2.95 2.91 -0.04 -1.4%
Non-Residential Occupancy Factors
(Employees per 1,000 sq. ft. + Visitors)
Retail/Commercial 2.25 2.12 -0.13 -5.8%
Office and Other Services -- 1.16 -- --
Industrial 0.53 0.55 0.02 3.8%
Service Population
Population -- 174,445 -- --
Functional Population 157,626 203,952 46,326 29.4%
Asset Value
Neighborhood Parks $153,272,704 $350,566,728 $197,294,024 128.7%
Community Parks $216,422,189 $266,667,038 $50,244,849 23.2%
PFA Fort Collins $55,846,482 $123,252,885 $67,406,403 120.7%
Police $31,264,546 $77,990,689 $46,726,143 149.5%
General Government $100,991,253 $152,198,009 $51,206,756 50.7%
Total $557,797,174 $970,675,349 $412,878,175 74.0%
Source: Duncan Associates; Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-26-23.xlsx]3-Comp to 2017
Page 97 of 121
I. Parks Impact Fee
Page 98 of 121
Table 4
Parks Maintenance Facility Per Capita Cost
Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study
Description Replacement Cost
Maintenance Facilites
East District $7,325,000
Community Park Share (80%) $5,860,000
Community Park Acres Served 118
Community Park Cost/Acre $49,493
Neighborhood Park Share (20%) $1,465,000
Neighborhood Park Acres Served 84
Neighborhood Park Cost/Acre $17,399
Spring Canyon $1,815,147
Community Park Share (80%) $1,452,117
Maintenance Facility Need 103
Community Park Cost/Acre $14,098
Total Park Replacement Cost $363,029
Neighborhood Park Acres Served 132
Neighborhood Park Cost/Acre $2,750
Fossil Creek $2,623,710
Community Park Share (80%) $2,098,968
Community Park Acres Served 142
Community Park Cost/Acre $14,781
Neighborhood Park Share (20%) $524,742
Neighborhood Park Acres Served 167
Neighborhood Park Cost/Acre $3,152
Total Replacement Cost $11,763,856
Maintenance Facility Need w
Community Park Average Cost/Acre $26,124
Neighborhood Park Average Cost/Acre $7,767
Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-26-23.xlsx]6-Maintenance Fac. Cost
Page 99 of 121
Table 5
Parks Cost per Service Unit
Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study
Description Neighborhood Parks Community Parks
Development Cost per Acre A $580,708 $215,342
Developed Acres B 422 573
Existing Park Replacement Cost = A x B $245,058,961 $123,390,913
Land Cost per Acre A $250,000 $250,000
Developed Acres B 422 573
Existing Land Cost = A x B $105,500,000 $143,250,000
Maintenance Facility Cost per Acre A $7,767 $26,124
Developed Acres B 422 573
Maintenance Facility Need = A x B $3,277,656 $14,969,230
Total Park Replacement Cost $350,566,728 $266,667,038
Cost per Residential Population 174,445 $2,009.61 $1,528.66
Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-26-23.xlsx]7-Parks Cost per Service Unit
Page 100 of 121
Table 6
Neighborhoood Parks Residential Impact Fee Calculation
Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study
Description Impact Fee Current Fee
per unit per unit
Cost per Service Population $2,009.61
Residential
Up to 700 sq. ft.1.40 $2,813.46 $2,108.00
700 - 1,200 sq. ft.2.12 $4,260.38 $2,822.00
1,201 - 1,700 sq. ft.2.38 $4,782.88 $3,082.00
1,701 - 2,200 sq. ft.2.56 $5,144.61 $3,114.00
Over 2,200 sq. ft.2.91 $5,847.97 $3,470.00
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-26-23.xlsx]8-NParks-Res. Impact Fee
Avg. HH
Size
Page 101 of 121
Table 7
Community Parks Residential Impact Fee Calculation
Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study
Description Impact Fee Current Fee
per unit per unit
Cost per Service Population $1,528.66
Residential
Up to 700 sq. ft.1.40 $2,140.12 $2,977.00
700 - 1,200 sq. ft.2.12 $3,240.76 $3,985.00
1,201 - 1,700 sq. ft.2.38 $3,638.21 $4,351.00
1,701 - 2,200 sq. ft.2.56 $3,913.37 $4,396.00
Over 2,200 sq. ft.2.91 $4,448.40 $4,901.00
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-26-23.xlsx]9-CParks-Res. Impact Fee
Avg. HH
Size
Page 102 of 121
II. Police Impact Fee
Page 103 of 121
Table 8
Fort Collins Police Department Inventory and Replacement Cost per Capita, 2023
Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study
Description Quantity Cost Factor Capacity Factor Bldg. Cost Land Cost Replacement Cost
Police Facilities Per SF
Police Facilities 3 $517 90% $60,753,240 $3,421,110 $58,099,026
IT Equipment -- -- -- -- 18,414,943
Subtotal $517 $60,753,240 $3,421,110 $76,513,969
Police Fleet Inventory Per Unit
Admin Vehicle 29 $33,916 $983,559
Drug Task Force 11 31,842 350,258
Equipment 4 209,137 836,549
Investigation 83 37,400 3,104,223
Mobile Command Vehicle 1 440,929 440,929
Patrol 296 41,644 12,326,696
Public Safety 6 97,887 587,323
Subtotal 430 $43,325 $18,629,537
Debt Principal
2012 COPS -$7,430,000
2019 COPS -6,604,740
Vehicle Equipment -3,118,078
Subtotal -$17,152,818
Total $77,990,689
Cost per Service Population Functional Population: 203,952 $382.40
Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-26-23.xlsx]10-Police_Inv. RC
Page 104 of 121
Table 9
Police Residential Impact Fee Calculation
Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study
Description Factor Impact Fee Current Fee
per unit per unit
Cost per Service Population $382.40
Residential
Up to 700 sq. ft.0.94 $360.00 $289.00
700 - 1,200 sq. ft.1.43 $545.15 $391.00
1,201 - 1,700 sq. ft.1.60 $612.00 $425.00
1,701 - 2,200 sq. ft.1.72 $658.29 $431.00
Over 2,200 sq. ft.1.96 $748.29 $480.00
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-26-23.xlsx]11-Police-Res. Impact Fee
Page 105 of 121
Table 10
Police Non-Residential Impact Fee Calculation
Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study
Description Service Pop. Impact Fee Impact Fee Impact Fee Current Fee
per 1,000 sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. per sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft.
Cost per Service Population $382.40
Nonresidential
Retail/Commercial 2.12 $810.68 $0.81 $810.68 $364.00
Office 1.16 $443.58 $0.44 $443.58 $364.00
Industrial 0.55 $210.32 $0.21 $210.32 $85.00
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-26-23.xlsx]12-Police-Non Res. Fee
Page 106 of 121
III. Fire Impact Fee
Page 107 of 121
Table 11
Fire Inventory and Replacement Cost per Capita, 2023
Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study
Description Location Factor Cost Factor Replacement Cost
Fire Facilities SF Cost per SF Bldg. Cost Land Cost Replacement Cost
Burn Building (Training) 3400 W. Vine Drive 1,560 $650 $1,014,000 $0 $1,014,000
Fire Stations -- 111,630 650 72,559,500 4,987,466 77,546,966
Vacant Land (Future Station #18) 4500 E. Mulberry -- -- 0 675,000 675,000
Fit Tower Training 3400 W. Vine 3,764 650 2,446,600 0 2,446,600
Offices -- 25,974 650 16,883,100 831,307 17,714,407
Training Center A 3400 W. Vine Drive 13,970 650 9,080,500 698,298 9,778,798
Subtotal 156,898 $650 $101,983,700 $7,192,071 $109,175,771
Fire Fleet Inventory Units Cost per Unit Replacement Cost
Fleet 22 $44,214 $972,713
Battalion Chiefs 8 41,552 332,413
Frontline Apparatus 45 465,978 20,968,995
Reserves 5 760,000 3,800,000
Training 13 196,521 2,554,774
Support 6 28,570 171,420
Antiques 3 38,499 115,496
Lawn Mowers 25 5,960 149,000
Equipment 92 48,541 4,465,734
Misc.15 154,276 2,314,139
Subtotal 189 $189,654 $35,844,684
Total $145,020,455
Source: City of Fort Collins; Poudre Fire Authority; Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-26-23.xlsx]13-Fire_Inv. RC
Page 108 of 121
Table 12
Fire Asset Cost by Service Area
Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study
Description Call Volume
Total Replacement
Cost
Functional
Population
Cost per Service
Population
A B = A / B
Total 100.00% $145,020,455
PFA Fort Collins 84.99% $123,252,885 203,952 $604.32
Source: City of Fort Collins; Poudre Valley Fire Authority; Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-26-23.xlsx]14-FoCoFireAssets
Page 109 of 121
Table 13
Fort Collins Fire Residential Impact Fee
Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study
Description Factor Impact Fee Current Fee
per unit per unit
Cost per Service Population $604.32
Residential
Up to 700 sq. ft.0.94 $568.93 $516.00
700 - 1,200 sq. ft.1.43 $861.52 $698.00
1,201 - 1,700 sq. ft.1.60 $967.18 $759.00
1,701 - 2,200 sq. ft.1.72 $1,040.33 $772.00
Over 2,200 sq. ft.1.96 $1,182.56 $859.00
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-26-23.xlsx]15-FC Fire-Res. Impact Fee
Page 110 of 121
Table 14
Fort Collins Fire Non-Residential Impact Fee Calculation
Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study
Description Service Pop. Impact Fee Impact Fee Impact Fee Current Fee
per 1,000 sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. per sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft.
Cost per Service Population $604.32
Nonresidential
Retail/Commercial 2.12 $1,281.17 $1.28 $1,281.17 $650.00
Office 1.16 $701.02 $0.70 $701.02 $650.00
Industrial 0.55 $332.38 $0.33 $332.38 $152.00
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-26-23.xlsx]16-FC Fire-Non Res. Fee
Page 111 of 121
IV. General Government Impact Fee
Page 112 of 121
Table 15
General Government Inventory and Replacement Cost per Capita, 2023
Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study
Description Location Factor Cost Factor Bldg. Cost Land Cost Replacement Cost
Facilities SF Cost per SF
281 North College 281 N College Ave 37,603 $513 $19,290,339 $855,000 $20,145,339
City Hall 300 LaPorte Ave 31,553 583 18,401,710 1,306,358 19,708,068
215 N Mason Office 215 N Mason St 72,000 518 37,324,800 1,238,000 38,562,800
300 LaPorte (OPS Services) 300 LaPorte Ave 26,564 540 14,344,560 0 14,344,560
Streets Building 625 9th St 51,314 513 26,324,082 1,817,640 28,141,722
Traffic Operations Building 626 Linden St 9,500 540 5,130,000 424,440 5,554,440
Fleet / FACs Warehouse - Loomis 518 N Loomis Ave 10,122 432 4,372,704 22,050 4,394,754
IT Equipment -- -- -- -- -- 9,706,551
Subtotal 238,656 $525 $125,188,195 $5,663,488 $140,558,234
Fleet Quantity Cost per Unit
Heavy Equipment 180 $112,554 $20,259,649
Misc. Maintenance Equipment 67 43,531 2,916,571
Vehicles, Trucks, and Trailers 96 52,782 5,067,109
Subtotal 343 $82,342 $28,243,329
Debt Principal
2012 COPS -$280,000
2019 COPS -13,780,260
Vehicle Equipment -2,543,294
Subtotal -$16,603,554
Total $152,198,009
Cost per Service Population Functional Population: 203,952 $746.25
Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-26-23.xlsx]17-Gen Gov_Inv. RC
Page 113 of 121
Table 16
General Government Residential Impact Fee Calculation
Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study
Description Factor Impact Fee Current Fee
per unit per unit
Cost per Service Population $746.25
Residential --
Up to 700 sq. ft.0.94 $702.54 $703.00
700 - 1,200 sq. ft.1.43 $1,063.85 $948.00
1,201 - 1,700 sq. ft.1.60 $1,194.32 $1,035.00
1,701 - 2,200 sq. ft.1.72 $1,284.65 $1,051.00
Over 2,200 sq. ft.1.96 $1,460.28 $1,170.00
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-26-23.xlsx]18-Gen Gov-Res. Impact Fee
Page 114 of 121
Table 17
General Government Non-Residential Impact Fee Calculation
Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study
Description Service Pop. Impact Fee Impact Fee Impact Fee Current Fee
per 1,000 sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. per sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft.
Cost per Service Population $746.25
Nonresidential
Retail/Commercial 2.12 $1,582.04 $1.58 $1,582.04 $1,777.00
Office 1.16 $865.64 $0.87 $865.64 $1,777.00
Industrial 0.55 $410.43 $0.41 $410.43 $419.00
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-26-23.xlsx]19-Gen Gov-Non Res. Fee
Page 115 of 121
V. Demographic Factors
Page 116 of 121
Table 18
Demographic Factors
Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study
Description 2023 Source
Service Population
Population A 174,445 City of Fort Collins, 2023
Jobs 107,677 North Front Range MPO TAZ, 2023
Jobs Per Employed Person 1.06 LEHD, 2020
Employees 102,037 Calculation
In-Commuters 57.8%LEHD, 2020
Commuting Employee Weight 50.0%EPS Estimate
In-Commuting Employee Impact B 29,507 Calculation
Total Service Population = A + B 203,952
Residential 85.5%
Nonresidential 14.5%
Source: TischlerBise; North Front Range MPO TAZ, 2023; U.S. Census LEHD; Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-26-23.xlsx]20-Service Population
Page 117 of 121
Table 19
Residential Service Demand Allocation
Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study
Description Factor 2023 Source
Residential Conditions
Population 174,445 City of Fort Collins, 2023
Nonworking Residents 52.0%90,711 LEHD, 2020
Working Residents 48.0%83,734 LEHD, 2020
Out Commuter Residents 43.2%36,173 LEHD, 2020
Work/Live Residents 42.2%35,336 LEHD, 2020
Residential Service Demand
Nonworking Residents 20 hours per day 1,814,228 person-hours per day
Out Commuter Residents 14 hours per day 506,421 person-hours per day
Work/Live Residents 14 hours per day 494,698 person-hours per day
Residential Total A 2,815,347 person-hours per day
Total Person-Hours per Day B 24 4,186,680 population X 24 hours
Residential Service Demand Factor =A/B 67.2%percent of day spent at home
(population's allocation to residential
land uses)
Source: U.S. Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD); U.S. Census; Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-26-23.xlsx]23-Residential Service Demand
Page 118 of 121
Table 20
Residential Occupancy Factors
Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study
Description Index
Average
HH Size
% of Time
in Unit
Impact Fee
Factor
Fort Collins Average 100.0% 2.36 67.2%1.59
By Square Feet
Up to 700 sq. ft.59.2% 1.40 67.2%0.94
700 - 1,200 sq. ft.90.0% 2.12 67.2%1.43
1,201 - 1,700 sq. ft.100.7% 2.38 67.2%1.60
1,701 - 2,200 sq. ft.108.4% 2.56 67.2%1.72
Over 2,200 sq. ft.123.3% 2.91 67.2%1.96
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-26-23.xlsx]24-Occupancy_Factor
Source: 2019 U.S. Census Bureau American Housing Survey, Division 8 (Mountain); Economic
& Planning Systems
Page 119 of 121
Table 21
Employees Per 1,000 Square Feet
Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study
Description Floorspace Workers Workers SF per Emp.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
By Unit Type
Retail/Commercial 10,024,000 21,282 2.12 471
Office and Other Services 21,999,000 69,215 3.15 318
Industrial 10,944,000 17,181 1.57 637
Source: TischlerBise; North Front Range MPO TAZ, 2023; Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-26-23.xlsx]27-Employ_per_unit
Page 120 of 121
Table 22
Occupancy Factors
Fort Collins Impact Fee Nexus Study
Land Use Unit
ITE
Code
Daily Trip
Ends Daily Trips
[1]
Persons/
Trip
Employees
per 1,000 sq. ft.Vistor Hours Service
Population
Sq. Ft.(Trip ends / 2)(8 hours/day)per day
A B C D = (A * B) - C E
Retail/Commercial 1,000 820 37.75 18.88 1.91 2.12 8 16.98 33.99 50.97 24 1.00 2.12
Office and Other Services 1,000 710 9.74 4.87 1.18 3.15 8 25.17 2.60 27.77 24 1.00 1.16
Industrial 1,000 110 4.87 2.44 1.18 1.57 8 12.56 1.30 13.86 24 0.50 0.55
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
[1]The daily trips are the daily trip ends divided by 2 so that non-residential land uses are not charged for both ends of a trip (origin and destination)
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233062 Fort Collins Impact Fee Study\Models\[233062-Impact Fee Model 9-26-23.xlsx]28-NR_Occupancy Factors
Visitor
Hour
Factor
=[(C * 8) +
(D * E)]/24
Employee
Hours in
Day
Employee
Hours
Total
Hours
in Day
Total
Hours
Page 121 of 121