Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - Mail Packet - 07/30/2024 - Council Finance Committee Agenda – August 1, 2024
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 Committee Hybrid Meeting August 1st, 2024 4:00 - 6:00 pm CIC Room Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/8140111859 Approval of Minutes from the July 3, 2024, Council Finance Committee meeting. 1.Grocery Tax Rebate Program A. Molzer Presentation: 10 mins. Discussion: 10 mins. 2. Recreation Discount Program V. Shaw Presentation: 10 mins. Discussion: 10 mins. 3. Engineering Supplemental Appropriations D. Hornkohl Presentation: 15 mins. Discussion: 15 mins. 4. Parking Supplemental Appropriations E. Keselburg Presentation: 15 mins. Discussion: 15 mins. Page 1 of 103 Page 2 of 103 Council Finance Committee 2024 Agenda Planning Calendar Revised 7/24/24 ts August 1st 2024 Grocery Tax Rebate Program 20 min A Molzer Recreation Discount Program 20 min V.Shaw Engineering Supplemental Appropriations 30 min D.Hornkohl Parking Supplemental Appropriations 30 min E. Keselburg Sept. 5th 2024 Adjustment Ordinance L.Pollack Hold for Fund Balance 30 min R.Bailey Hold for Benefits Fund Balance Policy October 5th 2024 Hold for Audit Results 45 min R Bailey CCIP Project Options 45 min G Sawyer J Wimmer Page 3 of 103 Page 4 of 103 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 CIC Room / Zoom July 3, 2024 4:00 - 6:00 pm Council Attendees: Mayor Arndt, Emily Francis, Kelly Ohlson Staff: Kelly DiMartino, Tyler Marr, Travis Storin, Jenny Lopez Filkins, Teresa Roche, Ginny Sawyer, Nina Bodenhamer, Lawrence Pollack, Meaghan Overton, Dean Klingner, Victoria Shaw, Drew Brooks, Cortney Geary, Monica Martinez, LeeAnn Williams, Chief Bergsten, Kirsten Howard, Teresa Roche, Nina Bodenhamer, Randy Bailey, Adam Halvorson, Jo Cech, Trevor Nash, Renee Reeves, Kevin Wilkins, Dave Lenz, Joe Wimmer, Carolyn Koontz Meeting called to order at 4:02 pm Approval of minutes from June 6, 2024, Council Finance Committee Meeting. Emily Francis moved for approval of the minutes as presented. Kelly Ohlson seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously via roll call by; Mayor Arndt, Emily Francis, Kelly Ohlson. A.CCIP Project List Update Ginny Sawyer, Lead Policy & Project Manager Joe Wimmer, Senior Financial Analyst SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Community Capital Improvement Tax Renewal EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to begin consideration of a community capital tax program for voter consideration in November 2025. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1.What questions does Council Finance Committee have on the initial projects listed? 2.What additional considerations does Council Finance Committee want included in the process? Page 5 of 103 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The City of Fort Collins has a 40+ year history of utilizing voter approved sales tax initiatives to fund major capital projects. While many communities rely on bonding for capital projects, Fort Collins has committed to a “pay as we go” model that has benefited the community through project engagement and utilizing tax collection from both residents and non-residents. Past tax packages have demonstrated that core elements of success include: -Benefiting the community as a whole both geographically and by interest; and -Including projects that can leverage other funding and partnerships. The current Community Capital Improvement Program (CCIP) tax will expire December 31, 2025. A renewal package will be offered to voters in November 2025. Staff has begun the initial work of identifying projects either identified in masterplans or flagged as needed capital. This is not a staff recommended list but a first collection of potential projects. The project list will continue to be refined over the next 12 months through Council interaction and public engagement. Some details of note: •Staff is researching other communities that use a revolving loan fund for affordable housing and looking at the possibility of bonding against CCIP housing fund money to create a similar program. •The Laporte Avenue redesign is not in any masterplan. This project came from a resident a few years ago and staff offered adding it to potential projects for consideration. •Projects will be further vetted to ensure they are more capital implementation than feasibility/planning outcomes. Projects will also be vetted for scalability. •While geographic disbursement of projects is a priority, the bulk of City-owned property and Poudre River reaches with associated plans are located in the downtown area. NEXT STEPS Staff will continue to vet and refine offers as mentioned above. An outreach plan will be developed and this item will come to a full council work session on August 27, 2024. The timeline anticipates Council referring a ballot measure in July/August 2025 for the November 2025 ballot. Proposed Projects: Vision Zero Plan – Arterial Intersection Improvements: $10M This project provides an annual fund for improvements to arterial intersections with safety improvements for all travel modes. This funding has allowed City staff to provide needed design, local match for grants, and construction funding, for previous major arterial intersection improvements. From the 10-year Transportation Capital Improvement Program (TCIP), notable planned projects include: -Shields and Prospect Intersection Improvements -Shields and Horsetooth Intersection Improvements -Drake and Lemay Intersection Improvements -College and Drake Intersection Improvements Active Modes Plan – Bike and Grade Separated Crossings: $20M This project provides an annual fund to construct bicycle infrastructure as recommended in the Active Modes Plan (AMP). This includes linear facility improvements such as buffered and separated bike lanes as well as spot Page 6 of 103 treatments or crossing improvements such as bike/ped signals and protected intersections. Projects have been prioritized using the outcomes-based evaluation measures of network connectivity, access to transit, safety and comfort, and health and equity, with an emphasis on Safe Routes to Schools. This fund will combine the previous CCIP Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements and CCIP Bike/Ped Grade Separated Crossing Funds so will also fund pedestrian underpass projects that align with the AMP and the Strategic Trails Master Plan, as well as aligns with our Vision Zero action plan. Active Modes – Pedestrian Plan: $16M This project provides an annual fund for construction of missing and ADA deficient sidewalks to complete the build out of the City network as well as pedestrian crossing improvements recommended in the Active Modes Plan. This funding provides approximately 1.5 to 2 miles of new sidewalk per year. Priority is given to areas near schools to advance the Safe Routes to School Program, as well as along arterial roads. Fund can also provide for local grant match. Willow Street Streetscape: $5.3M This project would create a better urban design corridor along Willow Street from Linden to Lincoln extending the previous work done on Willow Street west of Linden. The project assumes two travel lanes, two parking lanes, two bike lanes with 3-foot buffers and two 8-foot wide sidewalks. Jefferson Street (College to Linden): $6.8M Creating a corridor similar to the recently completed Linden Street project on Jefferson from College Ave to Linden Street. Two drive lanes with a two-way center left turn lane through the corridor. The sidewalks would be improved to be 22' wide similar to Linden Street. Jefferson Street (Linden to Mountain): $7.4M Creating a corridor similar to the recently completed Linden Street project on Jefferson from College Ave to Linden Street. Two drive lanes with a two-way center left turn lane through the corridor. The sidewalks would be improved to be 22' wide similar to Linden Street. Laporte and College Plaza: $7.6M The purpose of this project is to create an improved urban design and bike/ped space on Laporte from College to Mason. The project would include 3 travel lanes and 2 8-foot buffered bike lanes west of College and 2 travel lanes with 2-8 foot buffered bike lanes East of College. The project would create a pedestrian plaza in the area surrounding College and Laporte. Transfort Bus Stop Enhancements: $1M Transfort was allotted $1M in the current CCIP. The first three years of CCIP funding (2016 through 2018) funded ADA improvements at 86 stops. The next 4 years of CCIP funding ($400,000) was leveraged as the local match for $1.5M in federal funds to complete ADA improvements at 134 stops, and purchase needed amenities throughout the service area, including 25 shelters, approximately 90 other amenities such as benches and trash cans. To date, 220 stops have seen ADA upgrades as a result of CCIP funding. There are approximately 40 bus stops remaining that require ADA upgrades and additional funding will be needed for additional amenities, and to maintain existing bus stops in a state of good repair for future riders. Transfort Bus Replacement: $5M Transfort leveraged $1M as local match to receive an additional $10.5M in other funding sources, mainly federal, to purchase 14 buses. In the next 10 years, 30 buses reach the end of their useful life including eight (8) 60FT articulated MAX buses. Replacing buses at the end of their useful life is pivotal to maintaining the fleet in a Page 7 of 103 state of good repair, minimizing mechanical breakdowns and maximizing on time route performance, while also leading to lower lifetime maintenance costs. Transfort Maintenance Facility: $16M The vision for an expanded or new facility includes sufficient office space, training facilities, maintenance bays, and bus parking facilities to house the additional buses needed for expanded service. A new facility includes the potential for mixed use commercial space, and a new publicly accessible transit station. Current estimate for a new facility is approximately $77M, not including design costs. This CCIP funding request would be leveraged with federal grant dollars at a match rate of 80% federal funds and 20% local match and would be used toward the design and expansion of the existing facility, and/or design and construction of a new facility. Nature in the City (NIC): $1.5M NIC projects provide opportunities for people to interact with and become stewards of their surrounding environment. These projects increase wildlife values by creating stronger connectivity between larger patches of urban habitat, such as natural areas and City parks. By funding both internal City efforts and public/private partnerships, the community integrates diverse, native landscapes from the center of Fort Collins to the edges of the Growth Management Area. Housing Fund: $10M Staff is researching potential new use of housing fund dollars including bonding against the amount to create a revolving loan fund. We have also confirmed with local housing providers that any amount of gap funding is a value. Lee Martinez Farm Plan and Refresh: $2.6M Preserving and expanding inclusive outdoor recreation opportunities reflects the values that make Fort Collins a truly special place to live, work, and play. This project funds a plan and vision for the future of the Farm at Lee Martinez Park along with capital funding to make enhancements and expansion to the Farm. Mulberry Pool Replacement and Expansion: $26.8M Mulberry Pool is the only pool in Fort Collins that provides a small year-round leisure pool that serves families. Mulberry also provides lap lanes for both the community, Poudre School District swim teams and club teams along with swim lessons for swimmers of all abilities. A new modern facility would better serve the growing needs of Fort Collins. The facility could include a full warm water leisure pool with zero entry, slide(s) and other play features. The facility will also include at least 6 lap lanes to maintain the current level of service for the Fort Collins swim community. Pickleball Complex: $4M A pickleball complex feasibility study is underway to determine if a community park site can close the gap in the short-term while waiting for future community parks to be built. Building a 12-court complex would cost approximately $4M. Strategic Trails Implementation: $10M The Strategic Trail Plan will be completed in 2024 and early 2025. Additional annual funding will support the current Conservation Trust funding and expedite project delivery as developed by the plan. Dog Parks: $2.5M Funding would implement two new dog parks and bring existing dog parks up to the same standard. Page 8 of 103 Bike Park: $5M Implement first phase of a bike park based on feedback gathered in a future bike park feasibility study. Children’s Garden and Infrastructure Upgrades: $4.9M The Children's Garden was the first to open to the public 20 years ago. The field of informal learning in nature has matured greatly and the garden is showing its age. A comprehensive renovation will rejuvenate the space, better align with current learning theory, and address drainage and maintenance issues. The full scope of the Children's Garden construction project includes the garden itself, along with reconsiderations of the entry and access sequence for families as well as school groups, along with including art elements and interpretive signage. Historic Trolley Building Restoration: $15.4M The historic Car Barn/Trolley Building at 330 N Howes St, which has been stabilized for use as interim storage for the Museum of Discovery, provides an opportunity for an iconic structure to be rehabilitated and adapted for a community-centered use. The 2017 Downtown Master Plan identifies the building for restoration and repurposing into a local attraction. Police Detention Remodel: $400K This project is a remodel of the detention area at the Police Station to make the total area in the building more useable. Since the original construction of the Police Station, the detention area has not been used because of regulatory restrictions and currently acts as a storage facility. Catering Kitchen at the Lincoln Center: $2.6M The Lincoln Center’s event catering kitchen is in need of a full remodel. The kitchen has not been updated since its time serving as the kitchen for Lincoln Junior High prior to that property becoming The Lincoln Center in 1977. The kitchen is crucial to reputation and operations as an event center. Numerous operational aspects need to be updated. Museum of Discovery Artifact Storage and Care: $2.9M This project creates clean, safe, climate controlled, publicly accessibility, housing for historic Museum artifacts. New storage will replace the current off-site storage located in the historic Trolley/Car Barn building. Relocating the Museum's storage will allow for public use for the historic Car Barn building. Downtown River Projects: $2-$32M The Downtown reaches of The Cache la Poudre River – the sections from Shields Street to Mulberry -were planned in the Downtown River Plan. Whitewater Park, considered Reach 3, was completed in the last CCIP. Both Reach 2 (including Lee Martinez and Legacy Parks) and Reach 4 (including Old Fort Collins Heritage Park) are potential next phase projects. Options for implementation would be full funding at $32M for Reach 2 or $22M for Reach 4 or looking to progress public outreach and conceptual design in both areas for $2M. Construction Waste Diversion Equipment Replacement: $2.2M Five pieces of heavy machinery are included in this offer. The Crushing and Recycling Facility is a significant contributor to waste diversion and provides recycled materials to the public. In 2023, this facility processed approximately 138,000 tons of concrete and asphalt for reuse and diverting this material from the landfill. Shared Commercial Kitchen: $1M This project will create a (feasibility study) shared commercial kitchen and co-working space to help fill a gap in the food business and entrepreneurial eco-system. With the increase in entrepreneurial food businesses, Page 9 of 103 particularly in our underserved and underrepresented communities, Fort Collins has some infrastructure challenges to best support these endeavors. Downtown Parks Shop: $11.2M The Parks Department has been built on a district model for maintenance activities. The current downtown site is located in a refurbished commercial warehouse which is near the end of its useful life and will be displaced as part of the Civic Center Master Plan. A new facility in the downtown area will house not only the local support staff but also the crews which support the horticultural areas around our facilities and throughout the public areas and trail systems. Two districts will work out of this facility providing efficient operations in a timely manner to the public. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1.What questions does Council Finance Committee have on the initial projects listed? 2.What additional considerations does Council Finance Committee want included in the process? DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS Back to full Council on the 27th – In December we would like to come back with recommended package Engage the public – August 2025 deadline for ballot in November Mayor Arndt; for the estimated $110M, what period of time does that cover? That is hard to estimate given that prices keep going up. Travis Storin; our approach is to use today’s dollars. It is not layering inflation on the funding or the costs. Kelly Ohlson; this is one of my top 5 priorities. We need more time. I am not sure that using today’s dollars is still the best method – construction costs went up way more than inflation. I would like to avoid $14M for a Community Center - better finesse there I don’t want to be flexible with the language – if we decide that the train is a bad idea – If that costs 10x more That is some of the high value stuff - Why do we give such credence to one person’s idea? I remember when a certain group of people got the attention and everyone else was left in the dust. Why did one person’s idea get the attention that it did? Ginny Sawyer; it wasn’t solicited. They came to us, and this is their area of expertise. They said this kind of fits in with some of your plans. Always open to ideas Kelly Ohlson; I am open to more on affordable housing. I want to be ready to do the Mulberry Pool, but I thought we were using dollars from the new tax for that. Travis Storin; during the referral process that ultimately led up to Council referral. The intent is that it would be for the indoor aquatic facility Southeast Community Center. The door is open, if Council wishes to do that for the Mulberry Pool. There is built in flexibility for either / or a ballot measure. I will continue to hold until we see the September materials. Page 10 of 103 Kelly Ohlson; at some point within the next year, we need to make a decision on whether Mulberry is on this or not. Tyler Marr; fully funding both the indoor components of the Southeast Community Center and Mulberry Pool would probably present some pretty substantial opportunity costs out of the 2050 tax compared to some of the maintenance goals the Council was trying to set. I don’t think we have looked at it being all one or the other. If we were going to take the whole cap to build two pools from now until 2050. Emily Francis; I have the same kind of question about Mulberry Pool and Lee Martinez Park. They are both what I would consider refresh or maintenance which should be part of the tax we just passed. It seems to me that the added components at the Southeast Community Center lap lanes should be under this CCIP. The lap lanes as the original was just the outdoor pool. If the community wants lap lanes, they should be under CCIP, but the refresh should fall under the tax we just passed. Travis Storin; I believe those decisions will rest with the Council. The IGA with the school district (land swap) was contingent on passage of 2050 but not necessarily funding from 2025. That was the dependency that was built in. Kelly Ohlson; I saw in the paper that you were talking about the Pickleball complex. Spring Creek Park was designed to be a new kind of park and because of sensitivity around veterans’ issues, that was allowed to be an addition later. It was extremely controversial but ended up being extremely loved. Located next to Natural Areas, it wasn’t a park that was going to be filled with other things. That was promised. You may want to find a different place for the Pickleball complex. The Downtown River projects – I would like everyone to take a look at the Natural Areas map for the city of Fort Collins. You will see tiny green spots. I would prefer that those areas are focused on habitat and restoration. That is my drop dead one. If habitat restoration is done well and folks have better access to the river – I am all for it. If it’s Disneyland on the Poudre – count me out because we have just little slivers of wildlife habitat. Ginny Sawyer; there are a lot of different opportunities which is they the dollar amounts are so different. There are divergent structures which we know you want taken out. There is an opportunity at Lee Martinez Park that includes Parks, Utilities and Natural Areas. Restoring some of that area and would benefit all three entities. Kelly Ohlson; Can you include in the next document – maybe two pages and include the history from 1997 which included Fossil Creek Park and Gardens on Spring Creek Page 11 of 103 I also like the circle chart (see slide #8 below). Not necessarily the outcomes but the concept of showing that. It says - Natural Areas but should say Nature in the City. important for ballot Of all of the things you cut- Nature in the City was cut in half while -very few other things were cut in half. What am I missing? Page 12 of 103 Ginny Sawyer; I called them to ask why they are asking for less money. Their answer was that they are working toward going deeper as opposed to wider. It was a conscious decision on their part based on their direction and what they are trying to achieve. Kelly Ohlson; I would like to have more context. For that amount of money, the goodwill that builds throughout the city with neighborhood projects, etc. is very significant. Working with schools, neighborhoods and HOAs is a win for the entire organization. Emily Francis; what do we count as capital improvement? It seems like a catch all. Ginny Sawyer; it is a catch all for what we want funded – previously it was called Building on Basics, Community Choices and Designing Tomorrow Today. We worked on a new name, and we ended up with Community Capital Improvement Program. Looking for something that we can point to – we said we would build this or do this and here is what we created. Emily Francis; maybe we can do some thinking around changing the name. The conversation with the Museum of Discovery artifacts (see below) – if the non-profit side talking about sharing that expense with us? Artifacts are city owned so we looked at it as a city expense. Museum of Discovery Artifact Storage and Care: $2.9M This project creates clean, safe, climate controlled, publicly accessibility, housing for historic Museum artifacts. New storage will replace the current off-site storage located in the historic Trolley/Car Barn building. Relocating the Museum's storage will allow for public use for the historic Car Barn building. Kelly DiMartino; that was based on the agreement between the city and the nonprofit in terms of what the city and the non-profit will contribute. It would probably be good to have an update on this. The nonprofit contributions have outpaced the city contributions. It is raising questions on the non-profit side as well on the path going forward. Kelly Ohlson; I suggested the partnership be put on the ballot but there was no money. To be fair, the city paid significantly more in the beginning, which included the land, buildings, etc. Pursuant to a discussion about things being out of sync, people said it would be an equal partnership. I was there from day 1 and you look the other way on things. We did more than our share in the beginning. Kelly DiMartino; from the agreement perspective, the city’s role around capital and facilities and the nonprofit around operations. It would be a good thing to get us all regrounded. Partners want to look at how it looks moving forward. Travis Storin; around the artifacts in the trolley barn. Within this process, this is a good time to identify strategies around fund raising outside of the tax. Whether that is philanthropic fund raising or P3 or working with other governmental agencies. It is helpful to receive some direction and guidance around which you think are good candidates for that, in both directions (staff and Council). Because what is a bad look is when we get late in the process and say we want to haircut this – can you go raise this amount of money? It becomes filling a hole rather than something that is co-created. Page 13 of 103 Nina Bodenhamer; when we go back to the IGA with the Museum of Discovery, it also included the land for the facility. That is the ideal way to structure a philanthropic partnership. 5 years later, it is time to revamp who is contributing what. When we look at this menu that staff is suggesting you will bill, there are opportunities for philanthropic contributions and how do we do that not as a budget strategy but as a community investment strategy. When we are talking about ballot language, we will also want to be very careful about the language around what the philanthropic role is and what the partnership role is and what is our strategy if it is not met. Emily Francis; I think that is fair and this would be a good one for that partnership. Ginny Sawyer; the artifacts are also prime for grants. Nina Bodenhamer; the artifacts are owned and insured by the city. PFA has artifacts that could be added to that. Thinking about what that looks like as a partnership for community curation. Emily Francis; I do like the affordable housing strategy. The Lee Martinez and Mulberry Pool, some of the Transfort bus stop enhancements are a blurry line between the tax we just passed and then asking again. I know there is discussion around the ballot language intent and what it says but voters read maintain and enhance and it feels like these 4 items …the voters feel like they just gave you money to do this. It feels like a very blurry area. Tyler Marr; staff is coming at this as trying to preserve maximum flexibility in some of these areas. Lee Martinez may be a perfect example, what we are talking about is an expansion of the usable space in one form or another. When we talk about refresh – it is right on that cusp. Emily Francis; I am concerned about the appetite to pass more taxes. Ginny Sawyer; always say renewal - this is not a tax increase. Emily Francis; a question – I know the URA is working on the Albertsons location. They have been talking about a community hub going in somewhere to provide support services. I wondered if that had been considered. Ginny Sawyer; we have had discussions on that. I think it is a readiness conversation. In the next six months, depending on what happens, it may come back onto the mix. Emily Francis; is that because it is based on the assumption that it would only work at Albertsons or? Ginny Sawyer; I had a conversation with Josh around not wanting to predetermine anything with some of the things with these other projects - if it is an actual feasibility study that needs to happen then that might not be appropriate. We can keep it in the mix though. Emily Francis; I would like to keep it in the mix. It is in the URA plan. I feel that the Community Hub, especially with our equity office, try to meet some of these things that we have been talking about for a very long time. Mayor Arndt; Regarding the Arterial Intersection Improvements (see below). This also seems to be borderline between is that a capital improvement or is that something that is in our plans that is a priority for Council the streets tax, right? How do you decide? Page 14 of 103 Vision Zero Plan – Arterial Intersection Improvements: $10M This project provides an annual fund for improvements to arterial intersections with safety improvements for all travel modes. This funding has allowed City staff to provide needed design, local match for grants, and construction funding, for previous major arterial intersection improvements. From the 10-year Transportation Capital Improvement Program (TCIP), notable planned projects include: -Shields and Prospect Intersection Improvements -Shields and Horsetooth Intersection Improvements -Drake and Lemay Intersection Improvements -College and Drake Intersection Improvements Travis Storin; The Streets Maintenance Program (SMP) is around maintenance of existing signals, pavement quality and bridges. The arterial intersections, some of the expansions that you see, additions of medians and safety features. Mayor Arndt; The Mulberry Pool would be a perfect one for partner maybe with CSU. Kelly DiMartino; we have a study underway, but I haven’t seen the results. Tyler Marr; I don’t think it is finished. There is active work with CSU as they should think about replacing the Moby pool, which is older. Mayor Arndt; Transfort Bus Replacement $5M (see below). When we replace buses do we buy another style? We keep buying these enormous buses that are not very full. When other cities buy smaller buses which run fuller and are more nimble, might not need a CDL. Transfort Bus Replacement: $5M Transfort leveraged $1M as local match to receive an additional $10.5M in other funding sources, mainly federal, to purchase 14 buses. In the next 10 years, 30 buses reach the end of their useful life including eight (8) 60FT articulated MAX buses. Replacing buses at the end of their useful life is pivotal to maintaining the fleet in a state of good repair, minimizing mechanical breakdowns and maximizing on time route performance, while also leading to lower lifetime maintenance costs. Tyler Marr; when you hear us talking about optimizing the Transit Master Plan – those are exactly the kind of questions that are being asked in that work. Where do fixed routes make sense? In some cases, the standard buses will still be what we are after. In a number of these other areas, it is micro transit, a smaller way to achieve the same goals Emily Francis; Taft & Elizabeth- why do we focus this on downtown, when we are talking about 15-minute communities, streetscapes and walkability. Why do we focus it just on downtown? Travis Storin; Jefferson to start, I think you are observing the sequential adherence to a Transportation Master Plan. The combination of the Vine/Lemay overpass, the Linden work we have done, and the River District improvements are all part of a way to give the trucks a route around downtown rather than through it. That is not to suggest that it is somehow better than streetscapes in other parts of town. That is where we Page 15 of 103 would look to Council for guidance – we see your plan that was adopted x years ago and here are this Council’s priorities. Tyler Marr; when you look at the Jefferson and Willow block, it is one of the last remaining pieces of that right sizing. To put it candidly, DDA has often times brought magic funding to some of these projects through their increment. The first half of Willow (from College to Linden), the DDA funded a significant portion of that project. Emily Francis; it is important to think about 15-minute cities and building that out. We focus so much on downtown, rightfully so but if we are trying to build out community hubs. We need to start looking at how we make those improvements in other parts of the city. Kelly Ohlson; blurred lines between the two taxes. I think we can get close to not ordering those too much – you may run into some blowback from Council on things – we don’t control what else is on the ballot – there could be 3 other things on the ballot that we don’t control, so we want to make this attractive and not redundant. Kelly Ohlson; Regarding the $26.8M for Mulberry Pool (see below) - is that our share or would the city be splitting that? Mulberry Pool Replacement and Expansion: $26.8M Mulberry Pool is the only pool in Fort Collins that provides a small year-round leisure pool that serves families. Mulberry also provides lap lanes for both the community, Poudre School District swim teams and club teams along with swim lessons for swimmers of all abilities. A new modern facility would better serve the growing needs of Fort Collins. The facility could include a full warm water leisure pool with zero entry, slide(s) and other play features. The facility will also include at least 6 lap lanes to maintain the current level of service for the Fort Collins swim community. Joe Wimmer: that is our share - $51M would be the total. We will make sure that is clear, Kelly Ohlson; is there room available at the museum artifact storage site or does it require another building? Ginny Sawyer; this is why we want to have a more holistic conversation. The city owns that entire half block from the Trolley Barn to Eco-Thrift which is part of the Civic Center Master Plan. We do need to have conversations around if it is part of the Trolley Barn, how does that work? How do we repurpose the Trolley Barn to be accessible and nice storage? If it is not the right place, can it be on that property or is there a nearby property where that could occur. The current section storing artifacts is 5400 square feet and it is packed. Kelly Ohlson; the Trolley Barn is not the right building for museum storage. Wouldn’t this be the time to ask for more solid waste diversion capital? Construction Waste Diversion Equipment Replacement: $2.2M Five pieces of heavy machinery are included in this offer. The Crushing and Recycling Facility is a significant contributor to waste diversion and provides recycled materials to the public. In 2023, this facility processed approximately 138,000 tons of concrete and asphalt for reuse and diverting this material from the landfill. Ginny Sawyer; it has come up and similar to community hub – we aren’t sure where this is going yet, so let’s keep this in the mix. Page 16 of 103 Tyler Marr; as we are working through these grants that look specifically at construction demolition and the organics, that will give us a better sense for what those options are and if this might be a logical place to ask. Kelly Ohlson; is this going to be more refined when it comes to the work session? Ginny Sawyer; we will get the materials out earlier for your review. Kelly Ohlson; the timetable isn’t long enough. Voting is mid-October and that is not enough time for people to organize for or against. Historically we did it later, so that staff could interact, but actually they can anyway as long as they don’t advocate for it. Staff can answer questions and give presentations, they just can’t promote. It used to be backed up close to the election so staff could be out in a semi advocacy role, educating the public – cutoff date earlier so folks know what is on the ballot. Ginny Sawyer; The August date is the latest possible date that it can be referred to the ballot. Mayor Arndt; Bike Parks; could we be more creative? Many other cities do different things. Dog Parks; some cities have small dog pocket parks in neighborhoods which are gathering places. Some have lease free times. Maybe a few dog parks could offer lease free times. Central Park does it in New York City. There are huge fines if you pass the time for lease free. I feel like we could be more creative than a chain link fence around gravel. Looking around at what other cities do - an example is Cherry Creek Park in Denver Dog Parks: $2.5M Funding would implement two new dog parks and bring existing dog parks up to the same standard. Bike Park: $5M Implement first phase of a bike park based on feedback gathered in a future bike park feasibility study. Page 17 of 103 B.General Fund Admin Charge to Other Funds Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Overview of the General Fund Administrative Charge to Other Funds EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The General Fund Administrative Charge is intended for partial cost recovery for Citywide support services. This includes the services provided by the City Attorney’s Office, City Manager’s Office, Human Resources and Finance, as well as a few others. These various shared services are necessary for day-to-day running of the City organization and to support the breadth of programs and services City departments provide externally to the community. The goal of the model is to have a methodology that is fair to all contributing funds. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED What questions does the Council Finance Committee have about the General Fund Administrative Charge Model and how it is deployed within the City’s budgeting process? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION There are a wide variety of services necessary to run the City organization and support the wide breadth of programs and service to the community provided by City departments and their staff. These shared administrative services are generally centralized so that each department need not replicate those activities with their own staff. Centralization also allows for standardization, efficiency and economies of scale that would not occur if each of those activities was decentralized. The many services provided by Human Resources are an example. The employee life cycle begins with recruitment and continues through the phases of hiring, onboarding, training and development, etc. All of these services require talented staff to ensure process standardization and consistency across the organization. It is much more cost effective to have those staff working together as a team to help facilitate the employee experience, rather than if each department had to hire their own resources to complete those functions. Lastly, many of these services have state and federal compliance requirements, requiring specialized knowledge of those. These types of services are typically housed within the General Fund because they are not owned by any individual department. Similar to a PILOT, a payment in lieu of tax, the intent of the General Fund Administrative Charge is to provide a methodology for the departments focused on external service delivery to the community to pay for the use of those shared administrative services. The value proposition is that it is overall less expensive to utilize administrative staff rather than incremental departmental hiring or paying a third party. The use of the General Fund Administration Charge model has been in place for well over 20 years. It is used during the budget process for departments to include their ratio of the charges within their ongoing budget requests. The General Fund departments included in the model are as follows: -City Attorney’s Office -City Manager’s Office -City Clerk’s Office -City Council Page 18 of 103 - City Hall Facility Charges - Emergency Preparedness and Security - Finance - Human Resources Step #1: The model for the 2025-26 Budget starts with the originally adopted operating budgets from 2024 for each City fund. A number of modifications are then made so as to not double count expenses. For example, transfers between funds are backed out as those don’t reflect budgeted activity that would utilize administrative services. Other budgeted expenses, like PILOTs and Purchased Power, are also backed out for similar reasons. This then determines the modified budget for each fund, applicable for use in the model. From there, each fund’s % of the total City modified budget is calculated. This % is what the total cost of the shared services in the General Fund will be multiplied by to determine the ratioed share of those expenses, by fund. Step #2: The budgets for each of the 8 departments listed above are then entered into the model with additional adjustments to again avoid any double counting, like in Step #1. Here is an example, City Charter requires certain funds to pay a specified portion of the City Manager’s compensation. In this case, the Light & Power fund pays 40% and the Water fund pays 20%. Those amounts are backed out of the model so as to not double count them. A similar thing happens within the City Attorney’s Office based on agreements with departments like Natural Areas. In that case, the 0.50 FTE of dedicated attorneys to supporting the Natural Areas is backed out so those costs are also not double counted. Step #3: The ratioed modified costs of those 8 departments are then summed up by fund for the total GF Admin Charge to be budgeted in Year 1 of the biennial budget. Year 2 is calculated by taking the Year 1 cost for each fund and increasing it by the inflationary assumption included in the budget; which is 2.5% for 2026. Step #4: The City Funds are split into what is referred to as ‘charged funds’ and ‘non-charged funds’ where the only difference is the ‘non-charged funds’ are not charged the amount calculated in the model. The reason for this is the ‘non-charged funds’ all receive a subsidy from the General Fund to cover a portion of that fund’s budgeted expenses. If there was an additional General Fund Admin Charge given to those funds, the only way they would be able to pay for it would be to then increase the subsidy from the General Fund. Such transactions would not add any value, so those funds are not charged. Step #5: These amounts for the ‘charged funds’ are then discussed with the various fund managers to go through the calculations and answer their questions so we can align on the amount specified in the model, which is to be included in that department’s Ongoing Offers. For the 2025-26 Budget, there was a conversation about the applicability of debt service (principal and interest payments) in the model. It was determined that, similar to PILOTS, debt service obligations don’t have ongoing operational impacts and so those costs have been backed out of the modified budgets. The result of this change benefited funds with greater debt than funds without much debt. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED What questions does the Council Finance Committee have about the General Fund Administrative Charge Model and how it is deployed within the City’s budgeting process? Page 19 of 103 DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS CSA = Customer Service & Admin Mayor Arndt; do you give them a budget? Lawrence Pollack; the calculated amount is based off of their budget - the last two columns (purple) on slide 7 (see below) are the totals that would be included in on-going offers in the departments associated with those funds. Kelly DiMartino; think about us charging them a percentage of the big picture allocations – it is how we allocate across the organization. Mayor Arndt: one fund hit legal really hard one year - Lawrence Pollack; we say that comes out in the wash over time Mayor Arndt; I was wondering if it changes behavior over the year Travis Storin; it is usually not a time and effort kind of thing – most of these expenses with personnel being the largest line item – your headcount is usually what is driving consumption of HR resources - - it is a dollar magnitude Page 20 of 103 Lawrence Pollack; one of the things we test with each department who is receiving this administrative charge is conceptually the cost of these would be less than if they have hired their own staff or paid for third party expertise. The other side benefit is consistency especially in HR and Legal. Consistency on our hiring practices as opposed to everyone having their own mini-HR department. This is another conceptual reason for a shared services model. Kelly DiMartino; I would say the bigger challenge that we experience is people wanting a greater amount of access to their central shared services. There is never enough capacity to meet all of our needs. Kelly Ohlson; not what I asked for - Step #4 (see below) I wanted to get this fixed as I think it has been wrong for 30 years – Natural Areas Fund - $460K. Parkland Fund and the Conservation Trust Fund and Capital Projects Fund are all zero. All enterprise funds but Natural Areas is not an enterprise fund. It is the only place of any significance in the city that gets charged for these services and is not an Enterprise Fund. People go to the ballot and bring that in, and the city penalized them. Step #4: The City Funds are split into what is referred to as ‘charged funds’ and ‘non-charged funds’ where the only difference is the ‘non-charged funds’ are not charged the amount calculated in the model. The reason for this is the ‘non-charged funds’ all receive a subsidy from the General Fund to cover a portion of that fund’s budgeted expenses. If there was an additional General Fund Admin Charge given to those funds, the only way they would be able to pay for it would be to then increase the subsidy from the General Fund. Such transactions would not add any value, so those funds are not charged. Lawrence Pollack; slide 7 (see above) Natural Areas is the only governmental fund that does not receive a General Fund subsidy. The cost to Natural Areas to provide these services to them is $460K for 2025. Page 21 of 103 Kelly Ohlson; use Parks - it is just built into their budget Lawrence Pollack; that is because Parks is in the General Fund so there is no money moving. Kelly Ohlson; I don’t think that is fair – citizens bring the money to the table and the city runs the show. I don’t get it. Lawrence Pollack; it is very common across other cities Emily Francis; it is funded differently. They are paying it but then we reimburse it from the General Fund. If the tax went away and we wanted to fund Natural Areas it would move down. Mayor Arndt; because it is ballot initiated Kelly Ohlson; I just don’t get it – Natural Areas is being punished – some of these things aren’t bringing in the money Mayor Arndt; but if the voters are voting on the tax – it should be self-sustaining – it goes back to the General Fund. Voters are saying, we want to pay this much money and it goes to Natural Areas. Then Natural Areas wants to hire someone – they are going to hire city of Fort Collins HR because it is cheaper, and it is better for us to do it that way. So, they have to pay for it since it wasn’t in the General Fund. That is a substantial difference – then you are double funding it through the General Fund and the tax the voters approved. It goes back to the voters. Kelly Ohlson; How do we determine that $472K is the correct amount? Is the formula the same for everyone? Lawrence Pollack; every fund is treated the same - the only exception is that you are not charged if you received a General Fund contribution. It is meant to be a consistent methodology and we go through extensive rigor to ensure we are not double counting. Page 22 of 103 C.Intergovernmental Agreement with Poudre Fire Authority Dave Lenz, Director, Financial Planning & Analysis SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Update to the Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District (dated July 15, 2014) that established the Poudre Fire Authority. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Fort Collins (“City”) and the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District (“District”) established the Poudre Fire Authority (“PFA”) with an Intergovernmental Agreement (“IGA”) in 1981. This agreement was further adjusted in 1983 and 1987 to include a revenue allocation formula (“RAF”). This agreement was further amended and restated in 2014 to include an update to the RAF and Support Services provided to PFA by the City. The full 2014 amended and restated IGA including the RAF (Exhibit A) and Support Services provided (Exhibit B) is included as Attachment 1. During 2024, City and PFA staff continued discussions to update the IGA, completing an analysis of the support services (and associated costs) provided by each party and beginning the evaluation of the RAF. These preliminary findings have previously been shared with the Council Finance Committee in March, City Council/District Board in a joint Work Session in April, and ongoing PFA and District Board meetings. This update focuses on the proposed adjustments to the RAF, including the changes to administrative oversight of the joint agreement, as well as a recap of the shared services analysis and updated timeline to finalize adoption of the amended agreement. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED What questions does the committee have related to the update of the Intergovernmental Agreement, the proposed Revenue Allocation Formula Adjustments or the Support Services and costs provided? Does the committee support the proposed changes to the Intergovernmental Agreement and supporting Exhibits A and B? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Support Services Provided: During the second half of 2023, City and PFA staff reviewed the Support Services provided in the existing Exhibit B.This effort involved over 30 collaborative meetings with both City and PFA personnel. The interviews and analysis involved investigation on the scope of services being provided by City personnel, including support areas that were not specifically outlined in Exhibit B as services to be provided. Additionally, certain services had transitioned to PFA over the ensuing time since the agreement update in 2014. In all instances, efforts were made to identify the time and costs involved in each City department or PFA program providing the support. During 2024, City and PFA staff jointly reviewed all findings of the 2023 costing of the services provided which indicated the City provides PFA with approximately $728,000 annually of in-kind costs and an additional $3.5 million in direct charges ($3.0 million is for Benefits and Wellness). PFA’s cost of services provided is estimated at approximately $292,000 annually ($248,400 is for two added positions – 50% for an IT Analyst III role and 85% of the Battalion Chief - Emergency Management role). Page 23 of 103 The net amount of the in-kind costs results in a total of approximately $436,000 provided by the City to PFA. This amount captures the new estimated baseline of service provided that will be incorporated into the updated IGA and RAF discussed in the sections below. It is intended that these services will be regularly reviewed by City and PFA staff for any material annual additions or subtractions to provided services. Additionally, the new agreement will incorporate an annual inflation adjustment to this net calculated amount based upon an agreed CPI Index. Revenue Allocation Formula - Current: The RAF specifies how both the City and the District make contributions to the PFA. The District’s contribution is annually through the adopted mill levy (minimum of 10.595 mills) and the City’s contribution is through a combination of a portion of the City’s base sales and use tax revenue (undedicated for specific other projects or legally restricted or committed for other uses) and 67.5% of the operating mill levy of the City’s property tax revenue. The City’s contributions are based on the biennial budgeted amounts for sales/use and property taxes. These amounts are not adjusted for actual collections (please refer to Exhibit A of the IGA for the RAF calculation details). In the 2023 Budget, the City’s contributed approximately $35.9 million in revenue sharing to PFA ($19.2 million in property tax and $16.9 million in sales/use tax, less $0.2 million for PFA contribution agreements). For the 2024 budget, the revenue contribution increases to approximately $38.7 million ($21.7 million in property tax and $17.3 million in sales/use tax, less $0.3 million in PFA contribution adjustments). The District contributed $8.8 million in 2023 and $12.4 million in 2024. The City’s 2024 contribution amounts are detailed below: Service Area Annual In-Kind Costs Annual Charged Total Cost of Services Provided Finance $182,115 $18,402 $200,517 Human Resources $145,963 $2,969,712 $3,115,675 Information Technology $191,481 $47,000 $238,481 Police - Dispatch $159,462 $207,229 $366,691 Op Services $5,390 $194,643 $200,033 All Other $43,215 $20,000 $63,215 Total $727,626 $3,456,986 $4,184,611 Cost of City Services provided to PFA Service Annual In-Kind Costs Emergency Management $176,214 Finance $12,976 Risk Management $23,296 Human Resources $3,539 Information Technology $72,138 Miscellaneous $3,576 Total $291,738 Cost of Services provided - Absorbed by PFA Page 24 of 103 The total sales and use tax amount subject to the RAF calculations above is $128,243,683 ($101,245,013 of Existing Base plus $26,998,670 of New Base), with the total sales and use tax contribution amount totaling $17,261,150. Revenue Allocation Formula - Proposed: City and PFA staff have been evaluating the current RAF over the past few months. Goals of this evaluation have been to: • Simplify the sales and use tax calculations to incorporate the Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG) 0.6% base rate increase • Adjust the calculations to incorporate the new baseline of cost of services provided. • Adjust the amount in the use tax calculation to include currently “excluded” one-time amounts. • Change contributions to PFA to be based on actual results versus the current budgeted amounts. This will also incorporate a “risk corridor” band to share a portion of revenue upside and limit the revenue downside related to actual results vs. budgeted estimates. • Provide an annual true-up for the risk corridor above. • Add further definition around adjustments for future growth and annexations. • Move to an annual budget amount for sales, use, and property taxes aligned with the annual appropriated budget for these amounts. Calculation Adjustments Actual 2024 Contribution (As of 4/22/22) Existing Base Sales Tax 92,770,987$ Existing Base Use Tax 8,474,026$ Total Existing Base Sales & Use Tax 101,245,013$ First 1% of Existing Base Sales & Use Tax 44,997,784$ Existing Base Sales & Use Tax RAF - 29%29.0% Existing Base Sales & Use Tax Contribution 13,049,357$ Property Tax 32,174,388$ Property Tax RAF - 67.5%67.5% Property Tax Contribution 21,717,712$ New Base Sales Tax 24,738,930$ New Base Use Tax 2,259,740$ Total New Base Sales & Use Tax 26,998,670$ New Base Sales & Use Tax RAF - 15.6%15.6% New Base Sales & Use Tax Contribution 4,211,793$ Total City Contribution 38,978,862$ Emergency Dispatch ($231,849) Homelessness Support ($20,000) Net City Contribution 38,727,013$ Adjustments for PFA Funded Position Support Page 25 of 103 The first adjustment step is to simplify the sales and use tax calculated contribution amount. If we take the 2024 tax amounts and contribution amounts from the current RAF calculation shown above, we are able to determine a single new calculation percentage as shown below (B divided by A equals C): The next step in our adjustment is to account for the new baseline cost of services provided under Exhibit B. To accomplish this, we take the calculation from the above section and add the net cost of services provided to get the new contribution amount (A plus B equals C). The final step of the RAF calculation adjustment is to include the full available use tax amounts (currently “excluded” one-time amounts) in the use tax base (D) to calculate the total sales and use tax base (E). To calculate the new updated percentage amount, we the use previously calculated contribution by the total base sales and use tax (F divided by E equals G). For simplification and some slight rounding difference, we will use a blended rate of the 2025 and 2026 years (H) as the calculation rate to determine the final Sales and Use Tax Contribution (I). 2024 Combined Sales and Use Tax Total Sales Tax Base 117,509,917$ Total Use Tax Base 10,733,766$ Total Sales and Use Tax Base 128,243,683$ (A) Total Sales and Use Tax Contribution 17,261,150$ (B) Calculated Contribution Rate 13.460%(C) 2024 2025 2026 Total Tax Contribution 17,261,150$ 18,383,050$ 18,891,202$ (A) Additional Contribution to Cover Cost Allocation -$ 435,888$ 435,888$ (B) Total Contribution after Cost Allocation 17,261,150$ 18,818,938$ 19,327,089$ (C) 2024 2025 2026 Combined Sales and Use Tax - New Calculated % Total Sales Tax Base 117,509,917$ 125,845,203$ 129,620,574$ Total Use Tax Base 10,733,766$ 16,379,311$ 16,379,311$ (D) Total Sales and Use Tax Base 128,243,683$ 142,224,514$ 145,999,885$ (E) Total Sales and Use Tax Contribution 17,261,150$ 18,818,938$ 19,327,089$ (F) Calculated Contribution Rate 13.460% 13.232% 13.238%(G) Average of 2025 and 2026 N/A 13.235% 13.235%(H) Total Sales and Use Tax Contribution with Avg Rate 18,823,414$ 19,323,085$ (I) Page 26 of 103 The Property Tax RAF calculation amount remains unchanged at 67.5% of the eligible City Property tax mill levy amount. Additionally, the amount of net shared services costs will be deducted from (or added to) the contribution amount to PFA from the City. This will allow for expansion or contraction of the net contribution amount based on material additions to (or reduction in) services provided by either the City or PFA under Exhibit B. (Note that the adjustments previously made to the PFA contribution amount for Dispatch and Homelessness position support are excluded above and will be handled as an annual charged service.) Actuals versus Budgeted Contribution Amounts and Risk Sharing Currently, the contribution amounts that are provided by the City to PFA are set every two years based on City’s biennial budgeting process. There is no adjustment in the contribution to PFA for the amounts that actually are collected for sales, use, and property tax. The proposed adjustment will be to contribute actual tax receipts to PFA on a monthly basis, with a true-up at year-end based upon the agreed upon cap and floor bands. The City’s budgeting process has a conservative bias, as it should, based on the need to “protect for the downside”. If we look at the average variance of budget vs. actual for the three tax categories since 2003, we see the following variation patterns: To allow for sharing upside potential revenue with PFA and to share some downside risk of potential revenue shortfall (without putting at risk the need to provide PFA’s core fire and emergency services), this proposed RAF adjustment puts in place a cap and floor on the percentage variation from budget that PFA receives from the City. The following are the proposed risk sharing bands for each tax. 2024 2025 2026 Total - Proposed RAF Sales Tax Contribution 15,816,423$ 16,655,613$ 17,155,283$ Use Tax Contribution 1,444,727$ 2,167,802$ 2,167,802$ Property Tax Contribution 21,717,712$ 22,571,998$ 23,023,438$ Total Contribution 38,978,862$ 41,395,412$ 42,346,523$ Less: Net Shared Services Costs -$ (435,888)$ (435,888)$ Net Contribution 38,978,862$ 40,959,525$ 41,910,635$ Total - Current RAF Sales Tax Contribution 15,816,423$ 16,938,323$ 17,446,474$ Use Tax Contribution 1,444,727$ 1,444,727$ 1,444,727$ Property Tax Contribution 21,717,712$ 22,571,998$ 23,023,438$ Total Contribution 38,978,862$ 40,955,048$ 41,914,640$ Actual vs. Budget Annual Average Variance (%) Number of years Average Variance Number of years Average Variance Sales Tax 2.4%11 5.4% 10 -2.0% Use Tax 14.1%16 18.5%5 -5.4% Property Tax 0.4%11 2.3% 10 -1.7% Actual Exceeds Budget Budget Exceeds Actual 2003 - 2023 Page 27 of 103 If any of the individual actual tax amounts collected are within the band range, no adjustment is necessary. If a tax amount is above or below the annual cap or floor, an adjustment will be made at year end to adjust for the excess (or shortage) to bring the annual contribution back to the band percentage amount. Annexation and Growth Provisions The current RAF allows for adjustments to the contribution amounts paid to PFA in the event the City annexes property currently within District boundaries. These provisions will be maintained in the proposed RAF through adjustments to the sales and use tax and/or property tax contribution percentages. Mechanics of this process are still under evaluation. Annual Setting of the Budgeted tax amounts The proposed RAF changes include the budgeted sales, use, and property tax amounts to be set at time of annual appropriation of the individual year budgets (as opposed to the biennial cadence currently in the RAF). This will allow for a timelier update to these key budget assumptions, especially in the aftermath of severe shocks to the economy (positive or negative). The two-year estimate will still be provided in the biennial budget approval. Other items still under consideration/finalization •District, PFA and City ongoing legal reviews •Movement of dispatch services to a charge for service as opposed to a deduction from the RAF •Full detail of City and PFA roles and responsibilities including joint calendarization of timelines NEXT STEPS/PATH FORWARD The goal is to complete the update of the IGA for inclusion in the 2025/26 City BFO Cycle. City and PFA staff are working jointly to reach agreement on terms and conditions to include in an update to bring to both the City Council and District Board for approval. Tentative schedule for moving forward: Work Streams: July: Finalize Combined Agreement Terms and City/District/PFA Legal Evaluations Communications/Actions: July: Council Finance Committee - proposal July: District Board - proposal August: City Council Adoption consideration - 1st August: District Board Adoption consideration Sept: City Council Adoption consideration - 2nd Upper Band (% above Budget) Lower Band (% below Budget) Sales Tax 3.0% -2.0% Use Tax 6.0% -2.0% Property Tax 2.0% -2.0% Page 28 of 103 GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED What questions does the committee have related to the update of the Intergovernmental Agreement, the proposed Revenue Allocation Formula Adjustments or the Support Services and costs provided? Does the committee support the proposed changes to the Intergovernmental Agreement and supporting Exhibits A and B? DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS A brief introduction was given to the Council Finance Committee in March. Shared Services – slide #6 (see below) Page 29 of 103 Kelly Ohlson; is the basic purpose of this to get as close to fairness as possible? Dave Lenz; the goal is to get an updated understanding of what is going on now and what has changed over the last 10 years and the fairness of this. There is one area where we still need to do more work and that is dispatch’s share – in terms of how much the district funds and how much the city shares, and it also involves UC Health and the City of Wellington. We can move closer and closer over time, and it can be done in the context of the agreement. The sense of fairness – we want to formalize the agreement and be able to track and have an agreement that can react Kelly Ohlson; what isn’t Emergency Management a core assignment? Dave Lenz; initially, we had been providing that service to them. They have taken on some additional responsibilities over the last 10 years. They have funded a position to handle some of the things we have been doing. Travis Storin; in 2019, PFA ran all local emergency preparedness and management. In 2019, the city took that over upon the retirement of a longstanding Battalion Chief who handled that function. This function is now called Emergency Preparedness Services (EPS) and is within the city organization. PFA retained the fire protection side of emergency management. Chief Bergsten; Emergency Management did not cover any of the district side, so all of the wildland urban interface outside the city of Fort Collins. That is a big risk area for us to address and that is why we are doing the emergency management on our side is to address the entire district side. Some of the flooding / water issues we have outside the city of Fort Collins. Page 30 of 103 Kelly Ohlson; would this pass the test for fairness? Mayor Arndt; this is great. We have to build systems for the future. The system is changing to be more resilient in the future and to anticipate changes. Chief Bergsten; it also allows us to be more nimble. The current agreement does not allow us to make any changes or edits. Having the true up in year 2. If there were dramatic changes, they could be identified and addressed in a true-up. We budget conservatively but if it is a good year, we would be able to share in the same benefits on both sides. Kelly Ohlson; I would like to request a meeting to understand for comparable suburban type cities that we are not the richest funded fire authority. I would like to understand comparable geography /population – especially with the property tax increase. Mayor Arndt; I went down to Conifer which is a high fire district. They have five fire districts and chiefs, and the administrative costs are crazy. I hope they get what they need, and their service is excellent. PFA was founded in 1981. It was absolutely brilliant to come together and reduce redundancies and increase efficiency for the public. Will you do the sit down with Council member Olson? Kelly Ohlson; have there been discussions about becoming one entity a municipal department within the city? Chief Bergsten; it was considered during these discussions and that is what we are building into - We are currently at an 80/20 split – 80% of calls from the city and 20% from the district and that continues to shift more toward the city side. It could be a city department and then you contract with the district. Travis Storin; I would say an auxiliary goal with this update is to prepare for a landing. There will be a future Council in District 4 that will be confronted with that very question. As we get deeper into the East Mulberry annexation plan, that call volume that the Chief was mentioning will start to become overwhelming. You look at a model, maybe a municipal department that contracted services for the rural areas. This could happen in 10 or 25 years. This being the structural update to prepare for that dialog. Chief Bergsten; I am happy to meet with Councilmember Ohlson. The goal is to provide the best level of service for the best price equally across the district and the city. Meeting Adjourned at 5:53 PM Page 31 of 103 Page 32 of 103 COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Staff: Adam Molzer, Manager, Social Sustainability Date: August 1, 2024 SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Grocery Tax Rebate EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (a brief paragraph or two that succinctly summarizes important points that are covered in more detail in the body of the AIS.) The Grocery Tax Rebate program’s 2024 budget affords $165,000 for rebates to qualified residents. Due to increased participation in the program, the total rebate payouts in 2024 are anticipated to be near $583,000. An appropriation of general fund dollars of $418,460 would fulfill the budget necessary to meet this obligation. In addition, $24,000 needs to be allocated to cover an anticipated staffing shortfall due to the Council-supported personnel conversion to classified status of the Program Coordinator in 2024. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED (Work session questions should be designed to gather direction from Council without requiring Councilmembers to make a decision.) 1. Does Council Finance Committee support a general fund appropriation request of $442,460 that will make the Grocery Tax Rebate program budget whole in 2024 ? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION (details of item – History, current policy, previous Council actions, alternatives or options, costs or benefits, considerations leading to staff conclusions, data and statistics, next steps, etc.) Program Details: Established in 1972, the Grocery Tax Rebate is intended to provide financially insecure residents relief from City sales tax charged on purchased food. The rebate amount is currently $80 per person. Grocery Tax Rebate qualifications include: Page 33 of 103 •Resident inside the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA). •Household income between 0-60% of Area Median Income (AMI). •Must have a document that aligns the applicant’s identity with a Fort Collins address. Applications are submitted via the Get FoCo online platform, where staff manually review each application and the uploaded documentation (EBT card copy, Medicaid card, LEAP letter, Free/Reduced Lunch letter) to verify income and residency eligibility. This is the third year partnering with Get FoCo and 96% of applications are now received via the web platform. One 0.75-FTE staff member assists residents with the application process, manually uploads payment data, and supports a variety of other program functions to ensure a positive customer experience. This staff position was converted from hourly to classified status with benefits in January 2024, per Council guidance. Program Growth: Between 2020-2023, the number of applications received increased over 95%, and rebates issued grew by 186%. In 2023, the City processed 1,966 applications. The total amount issued in 2023 for the grocery rebate program was $354,121. The FY2023 budget afforded $150,000 for rebates. From January to June 2024, the City has processed 1,553 applications. The total amount issued year-to-date in 2024 is $292,460. The FY2024 budget affords $165,000 for rebates. If a monthly average of $48,500 is realized for Q3 + Q4 2024, the total rebate obligation for 2024 will reach $583,460. The monthly average during Q3 + Q4 2023 was $37,333. Additionally, Council Finance Committee expressed support for the conversion of the Grocery Tax Rebate Coordinator position from hourly to classified at their 12/14/2023 meeting. This conversion took effect in January 2024 and the resulting $24,000 personnel budget shortfall needs to be made whole. An appropriation to meet the 2024 rebate and personnel obligations will require Council approval. Actual & Anticipated Obligation & Budget January – June 2024 Obligated +$292,460 July – December 2024 Anticipated +$291,000 Year Applications Household Members Grocery Rebate Repeat %65+%Single HH %GetFoco % 2020 1006 1890 $123,435 886 88%509 51%641 64%N/A N/A 2021 948 1758 $117,987 844 89%446 47%588 62%N/A N/A 2022 1281 2626 $181,186 857 67%486 38%686 54%614 48% 2023 1966 4654 $354,121 866 44%453 23%911 46%1572 80% 2024 YTD June 1553 3655 $292,460 643 41%277 18%713 46%1493 96% * Rebate amounts above are tabulated by application receipt date, resulting in slight variations from the City's fiscal year due to timing. Page 34 of 103 Personnel Conversion Shortfall + $24,000 FY2024 Rebate Budget (general fund) -$165,000 Estimated Funding Needed $442,460 Lastly, the 2020-2024 data set also reveals the following about program participation trends: •Increased enrollment of new participants to the rebate program (lower proportion of repeat participants). •Residents under age 65 are increasingly participating in the rebate program. •Households with sizes greater than one are increasingly participating in the rebate program. ATTACHMENTS (numbered Attachment 1, 2, 3,…) Page 35 of 103 Headline Copy Goes Here Social Sustainability Department Adam Molzer Grocery Tax Rebate Program 08-01-2024 Page 36 of 103 Headline Copy Goes Here 2 Direction Needed from the Council Finance Committee Does Council Finance Committee support a general fund appropriation request of $442,460 that will make the Grocery Tax Rebate program budget whole in 2024 ? Page 37 of 103 Headline Copy Goes Here 3 Program Description Grocery Tax Rebate Program •Established in 1972 •Relief from City sales tax charged on food purchased by low-income City residents •$80 per person in eligible household (2024) Qualifications •Resident in Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA) •Household income between 0-60% Area Median Income (AMI) Page 38 of 103 Headline Copy Goes Here 4 Trends Applicants are increasingly: •Younger •Families and Couples •Receiving a Rebate for the First Time 95% Increase in Number of Applications Received Between 2020 - 2023 Page 39 of 103 Headline Copy Goes Here 5 Rebate & FTE Budget Shortfall $418k 2024 Rebate Obligation Exceeding Budget January – June $292,460 July – December $291,000 Anticipated 2024 Budget -$165,000 ________________________________________________ Rebate Funding $418,460 Needed Staff Conversion $24,000 Shortfall __________________________________________________________ Total Appropriation $442,460 Page 40 of 103 Headline Copy Goes Here 6 Direction Needed from the Council Finance Committee Does Council Finance Committee support a general fund appropriation request of $442,460 that will make the Grocery Tax Rebate program budget whole in 2024 ? Page 41 of 103 Headline Copy Goes Here 7 Questions? Page 42 of 103 COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Staff: Victoria Shaw, Senior FP&A Manager, Community Services LeAnn Williams, Recreation Director, Community Services Date: August 1, 2024 SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: Recreation Reduced Fee Program EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Recreation reduced fee program provides an opportunity for income qualified members of the community to take part in recreational activities at a discounted rate. The program has been funded at the level of $190,000 per year from the General Fund, however usage and needs have surpassed this allocation. In 2023, the allocation covered approximately 50% of the usage. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does Council Finance Committee have any feedback for staff on reduced fee program offered by Recreation? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The reduced fee scholarships offered by Recreation have an ongoing goal of filling the gap for the community by ensuring anybody that meets the program’s qualifications can access the valuable, engaging, educational and beneficial programs offered by the Recreation department. Program Details: The program offers drop-in passes which allow for unlimited drop-in visits to facilities, and automated discounts for activity enrollments. By minimizing financial barriers, the recreation department can serve and support the community with programs that promote health, wellness, and overall well-being. Eligibility for the program requires participants to reside in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area and meet income standards. The income standards can be met with proof of income up to 185% of the Federal Poverty Level or qualification through the Poudre School District free and reduced lunch program. The passes then allow community members to access additional recreation programs at a discounted rate without additional approvals. The discounted rates for these services are: •$50 Family Pass: includes 2 adults and no limit on children in the same household. •$30 Adult Pass: for those 18-59 years of age (not including those who are currently attending high school). •$10 Youth/Senior Pass: for those under 18 or 60 and over. •Beginner/Introductory classes receive 90% discount. Page 44 of 103 •Intermediate level classes, fitness classes, youth sports leagues, CARA Track & Cross- Country, SuperTots & Skyhawks receive 70% discount. •Advanced/Competitive classes receive 10% discount. Program Participation: Participation in these offerings has been robust, with a steep decline in 2020 due to the pandemic. Activity enrollments rebounded to pre-pandemic levels in 2021 and have since increased to 72% above the pre-pandemic level in 2023, suggesting the need for this program is higher than ever and programs have been more effective at reaching the qualifying populations. Similarly, reduced fee pass scans also declined steeply in 2020. They have rebounded to pre- pandemic levels but have not seen the same degree of growth as the activity enrollments. Participation is tracked for youth and adult programming. The majority of costs (78.5%) are associated with youth requests. This is driven by the reduced fee childcare and youth programs. The below table breaks down the youth and adult participation by programs. Youth Activities Summary # Requests Value of Requests Swim lessons 784 $39,350 Skating 252 $19,455 3,161 5,285 5,494 2,450 5,556 7,810 9,469 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Recreation Low-Income Activity Enrollments 3,161 5,285 5,494 2,450 5,556 7,810 9,469 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Recreation Low-Income Activity Enrollments Page 45 of 103 Adaptive - $0 Pottery 155 $10,119 Northside Atzlan Youth 1,098 $124,433 Foothills Activity Center Youth 233 $14,822 Sports 926 $67,711 Farm 164 $12,012 Youth Tennis 114 $9,154 3,726 $297,057 Adult Activities # Requests Value of Requests Aqua fitness 176 $5,164 Adult Swim lessons 19 $599 Adaptive 890 $30,902 Skating 19 $499 Social 9 $174 Arts and Crafts 111 $6,206 Fitness/Wellness 4,131 $13,784 Pottery 103 $11,093 Educational 90 $3,611 Dance 87 $2,881 Adult Tennis 44 $4,559 Outdoor Recreation 64 $1,852 5,743 $81,322 Program Funding: The program has not been turning away participants based on available funding. The current funding level of $190,000 per year is allocated across the actual usage for the program and allows for partial revenue reimbursement. The Recreation fund by default foregoes any of the revenue not backfilled by the General Fund funding level. In 2023, this funding level represented about 50% General Fund reimbursement, and 50% foregone revenue to the Recreation fund. Page 46 of 103 Headline Copy Goes Here Community Services LeAnn Williams Victoria Shaw Recreation Reduced Fee Program 08-01-2024 Page 47 of 103 Headline Copy Goes Here 2 Direction Needed from the Council Finance Committee Does Council Finance Committee have any feedback for staff on reduced fee program offered by Recreation? Page 48 of 103 Headline Copy Goes Here 3 Program Description Recreation Reduced Fee Program •Provides an opportunity for income qualified members of the community to take part in recreational activities at a discounted rate. •Pass rates under this program are: • $50 Family Pass •$30 Adult Pass •$10 Youth/Senior Pass •Discounts with a pass are 90% for Beginner/Introductory and 70% for Intermediate level, fitness, or youth sport leagues. Qualifications •Resident in Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA) •Prior to 2024, the area included all of Poudre School District boundary •Exceptions approved for ARO participants outside of GMA by Recreation Director •Household income up to 185% of Federal Poverty Level or PSD free and reduced lunch program Page 49 of 103 Headline Copy Goes Here 4 Trends •Levels of participation have rebounded after declining due to the pandemic •2024 Year-to-date participation is lower than 2023 due to change of boundary to qualify •Reduction is primarily in youth programs 3,161 5,285 5,494 2,450 5,556 7,810 9,469 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Recreation Reduced Fee Activity Enrollments 31,137 34,268 40,438 16,190 26,181 38,173 43,539 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Recreation Reduced Fee Pass Scans Page 50 of 103 Headline Copy Goes Here 5 Funding and Budget Shortfall Quarter Youth % of Total Requests Youth Number of Requests Youth Scholarship Value Adult % of Total Requests Adult Number of Requests Adult Scholarship Value Total Scholarship Value 1 16%588 $41,068.80 37% 2,112 $20,304.24 $61,373.04 2 18%656 $41,043.75 22% 1,281 $18,729.55 $59,773.30 3 42%1,558 $152,602.29 16%922 $19,851.60 $172,453.89 4 25%924 $62,342.06 25% 1,428 $22,436.21 $84,778.27 3,726 $297,056.90 5,743 $81,321.60 $378,378.50 2023 REDUCED FEE ACTIVITY SCHOLARSHIPS Child Care & Youth Programs Enroll Funded Licensed Programs YTD 621 $81,723 Unlicensed CD/Youth Programs YTD 710 $57,532 Total 1,331 $139,255 Compared to total requests 36% 47% 2023 REDUCED FEE CHILDCARE SCHOLARSHIPS •In 2023 and 2024, 40% of Summer Camp participants were in the reduced fee program •2023 total value of Youth and Adult usage was $378K, but General Fund contribution level is $190K or ~50% •2024 anticipated shortfall will be lower due to new GMA boundariesPage 51 of 103 Headline Copy Goes Here 6 Direction Needed from the Council Finance Committee Does Council Finance Committee have any feedback for staff on the low-income program offered by Recreation? Page 52 of 103 Headline Copy Goes Here 7 Questions? Page 53 of 103 Page 54 of 103 COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Staff: Brad Buckman, Monica Martinez, Dana Hornkohl Date: August 1, 2024 SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Engineering Capital Projects – Supplemental Appropriations (4 projects) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Four current transportation capital improvement projects will require additional funding for work to continue prior to proposed Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) offers being finalized later this year for appropriation in 2025. Two of these projects are under construction: Laporte Avenue Multimodal Improvements (Laporte) and College Avenue – Trilby Road Intersection Improvements (College/Trilby). Two more projects are currently under design: Zach Elementary School Crossings – Safe Routes to School (Zach SRTS) and College Avenue – Triangle Drive Intersection Improvements (College/Triangle). Zach Elementary SRTS is scheduled to begin construction later this year; College/Triangle is scheduled to begin construction early in 2025. The estimated cost to complete these projects will exceed the currently appropriated budgets. There is sufficient discretionary transportation funding available to complete these projects if appropriated. It is necessary to 1) appropriate additional funds to complete these projects, 2) reduce scope, and/or 3) delay final delivery. Reduction of scope will result in projects that do not fully meet the established project goals or adopted City standards and plans. Delaying final delivery until other funding becomes available will negatively impact other transportation capital projects in the delivery pipeline. Staff is recommending supplemental appropriations totaling $4,152,470 which would allow for completion of the four projects as intended when work began. This request is coming before Council Finance Committee now to avoid additional cost impacts due to potentially pausing and restarting active construction and design projects. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED •Does Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle appropriation of Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Grant Funds, Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) Funds, and Transportation Services Fund Reserves as well as a reappropriation of funds from the Laporte Bridges project to complete the Laporte Avenue Multimodal Improvements project? •Does Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle appropriation of TCEF Funds, Transportation Services Fund Reserves, and Community Capital Improvement Program (CCIP) Arterial Intersection Improvements Fund to complete the College Avenue – Trilby Road Intersection Improvements project? •Does Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle appropriation of TCEF Funds and Transportation Services Fund Reserves to complete the Zach Elementary School Crossings – Safe Routes to School project? Page 55 of 103 •Does Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle appropriation of Funding Advancements for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery (FASTER) Act Grant Funds, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Funds, TCEF Funds, and Transportation Services Fund Reserves to complete the College Avenue – Triangle Drive Intersection Improvements project? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Since the Summer of 2021, the nation, Colorado, and the Denver region have experienced significant inflation in construction costs (Attachments 1, 2, and 3). The CDOT Colorado Construction Cost Index (CCI) reports an annual percentage increase in construction costs of 8.03%. These inflationary pressures continue to impact the City’s transportation capital improvement projects that are in active design and construction. Costs to acquire real property for right-of-way, permanent easements, temporary easements, and the professional services associated with acquiring real property have also escalated significantly over the same period. Laporte Avenue Multimodal Improvements The Laporte project will provide pedestrian and bicycle side paths in three phases 1) between Taft Hill Rd and Frey Ave (Bridges), 2) between Frey Ave and Fishback Ave (East), and 3) between Sunset St and Taft Hill Rd (West). The initial phase of this work (Bridges) was completed in 2023 and replaced two aging bridges in the corridor. The second phase of this work (East) began earlier this year and is scheduled to be completed later this summer. The third phase (West) is scheduled to begin in October once property acquisition is complete. The project delivery method for the East and West phases of the project is Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC). The chosen contractor held pricing for the East phase despite a delay in beginning construction due to property acquisition and CDOT approval. The contractor has demonstrated by providing open book pricing, confirmed by an independent cost estimate, that price escalation has impacted many of the materials and costs for the West phase. The cost to acquire real property for the West phase has been significantly higher than was estimated. Construction was broken into an East and West phase to accommodate the property acquisition schedule introducing additional design cost. During this design effort, the City applied for and was awarded Fiscal Year 2027 HSIP grant funds to install a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) in the West phase of the project. CDOT has agreed to provide the funding early so that the RRFB may be included in the construction. Savings from the Bridges phase ($517,000) can be reappropriated to the West phase. Including the local match for the HSIP award, it is estimated that an additional $560,055 (including $49,500 in CDOT HSIP funds) is needed to complete construction on the West phase. College Avenue – Trilby Road Intersection Improvements The College/Trilby project will improve safety for current and future traffic levels as growth continues in the region and will create a safer intersection for all users. Dual use side paths for pedestrians and bicycles are included throughout the intersection. The intersection will feature dual left turn lanes from S College Ave to Trilby Rd, right turn lanes for each direction of travel, and a widened Trilby Rd approach to S College Ave. Right-of-way acquisition costs for the College/Trilby project have been significantly more than was initially estimated (~$3.0M), with total acquisition costs likely to be ~$4.5M. The primary Page 56 of 103 factor in this increase is land value escalation over the period of acquisition. As with the Laporte project, the delivery method for the College/Trilby project is CM/GC. Construction was broken into three phases to take advantage of property that had been acquired and to lock in lower pricing for early work. Phase 1 work (walls) began earlier this year. Phase 2 construction (utility relocation and storm drainage) will begin in several weeks, with Phase 3 work (sidewalks, paving, signals, landscaping) following later this Fall. Work is scheduled to be complete next Spring. As with Laporte, the contractor has provided open book pricing for Phase 2 and 3 that has been confirmed by an independent cost estimate. The pricing shows escalation for several items including storm drainage infrastructure. It is estimated that the project will need $1,509,000 to address the construction and acquisition escalation. As property around the College/Trilby project redevelops, the redevelopment will trigger repayments to the City for the eligible costs of the intersection improvements, including right-of- way acquisition. Currently, that total is estimated to be approximately $1.25M. Reimbursement payments will be due to the City upon execution of any development agreement. Zach Elementary School Crossings – Safe Routes to School The Zach Elementary SRTS project will provide signal and crossing improvements across Kechter Rd at Jupiter Dr and Cinquefoil Ln. SRTS grant funding was awarded in 2023. After the award, during the design phase, additional concrete work was identified and included in the project. It was also determined that there was temporary easement acquisition needed to complete the project that was not originally included in the project budget. With the additional work, easement acquisition, and construction cost escalation, it is estimated that the project will need $454,500 to begin construction later this Fall and ending early in 2025. College Avenue – Triangle Drive Intersection Improvements The College/Triangle project will install a new traffic signal as well as bicycle and pedestrian improvements connecting Triangle Dr to the northeast towards the Lakeview on the Rise development and onto Water’s Way Park. There is severe crash history at this intersection and in 2023 CDOT committed FASTER funding to the City for signal improvements. CDOT has also committed funding for pedestrian improvements to bring the intersection into compliance with ADA requirements. Working with a consultant, the City has developed 30% design documentation and a total cost estimate of $1,628,915 (including $832,211 in CDOT FASTER and ADA funds). Staff has identified three alternatives to reach final completion on the four projects. •Option 1: Secure off-cycle appropriations for the projects to complete design, acquisition, and construction and avoid additional costs with delaying the work. There is currently sufficient discretionary funding to cover these proposed appropriations. •Option 2: Reduce the scope of work for the projects. All four projects have been value engineered to minimize costs. Additional reduction of scope would potentially compromise project goals or limit the ability to meet City standards. •Option 3: Delay final delivery until additional funding can be secured. This option would result in the project not meeting the identified project goals within the promised timeframe, expose the remaining work to further inflation, and would impact the schedule and budget for other transportation capital projects in the design, acquisition, and construction pipeline. Page 57 of 103 Summary of requested supplemental appropriations for all four projects. • Grant Funds: $881,711 • TCEF Reserves: $2,220,230 • Transportation Fund Reserves: $450,529 • CCIP – Arterial Intersection Improvements: $600,000 • Total: $4,152,470 Summary of Existing Funding and Proposed Supplemental Appropriations ATTACHMENTS 1. Engineering News Record, Construction Cost Index History – As of July 2024 2. Engineering News Record, City Cost Index – Denver – As of July 2024 3. Colorado Department of Transportation, Colorado Construction Cost (CCI) Index Report, Calendar Year 2024 – First Quarter Grant Funds Local Funds Re- Appropriation Total Grant Funds TCEF Reserves Trans. Fund Reserves CCIP Arterial Intersection Fund Total Increase Laporte 4,937,500$ 1,365,495$ 517,000$ 6,819,995$ 49,500$ 335,454$ 175,101$ -$ 560,055$ 8% College/Trilby 13,640,992$ 2,873,513$ -$ 16,514,505$ -$ 908,820$ 180$ 600,000$ 1,509,000$ 9% Zach Elementary SRTS 745,587$ 187,397$ -$ 932,984$ -$ 179,410$ 275,090$ -$ 454,500$ 49% College/Triangle -$ -$ -$ -$ 832,211$ 796,546$ 158$ -$ 1,628,915$ N/A TOTAL 19,324,079$ 4,426,405$ 517,000$ 24,267,484$ 881,711$ 2,220,230$ 450,529$ 600,000$ 4,152,470$ N/A Previously Appropriated Proposed Supplemental Appropriations Page 58 of 103 Page 59 of 103 City Cost Index - Denver - As of July 2024 The building and construction cost indexes for ENR's individual cities use the same components and weighting as those for the 20-city national indexes. The city indexes use local prices for portland cement and 2 X 4 lumber and the national average price for structural steel. The city's BCI uses local union wages, plus fringes, for carpenters, bricklayers and iron workers. The city's CCI uses the same union wages for laborers. To find more recent cost index data, go to this webpage (link below) and click on the link for the year you need, and then navigate to the week you need. Keep in mind that the city cost index figures are always published in the second weekly issue of the month. http://www.enr.com/economics/current_costs Go back to view all City Indexes. ENR COST INDEXES IN DENVER (1978-2024) YEAR MONTH BCI %CHG CCI %CHG 2024 July 7472.79 +3.1 9458.27 +1.3 2024 June 7456.73 +9.4 9442.27 +5.9 2024 May 7459.23 +12.7 9444.77 +8.3 2024 April 7436.73 +12.6 9422.27 +8.2 2024 March 7184.92 +9.4 9169.81 +5.8 2024 February 7182.42 +9.2 9167.31 +5.6 2024 January 7184.92 +10.2 9169.81 +6.4 2023 December 7198.79 +10.6 9285.75 +7.8 2023 November 7196.29 +9.4 9283.25 +6.9Page 60 of 103 YEAR MONTH BCI %CHG CCI %CHG 2023 October 7261.23 +10.7 9348.19 +7.9 2023 September 7263.73 +10.4 9350.69 +7.8 2023 August 7280.79 +10.4 9367.75 +7.4 2023 July 7245.75 +12.3 9332.71 +7.5 2023 June 6814.21 +6.5 8913.93 +3.3 2023 May 6619.54 +5.6 8719.26 +1.5 2023 April 6607.04 +6.0 8706.76 +1.8 2023 March 6568.04 +6.1 8667.76 +1.8 2023 February 6579.79 +7.7 8679.51 +3.0 2023 January 6517.31 +8.2 8616.99 +2.4 2022 December 6511.31 +9.5 8610.99 +3.2 2022 November 6580.67 +12.1 8680.35 +5.0 2022 October 6561.13 +12.5 8660.78 +5.3 2022 September 6577.41 +13.8 8677.09 +6.1 2022 August 6593.83 +14.9 8718.57 +7.1 2022 July 6450.96 +16.3 8679.37 +9.3 2022 June 6398.77 +15.6 8627.13 +8.7 2022 May 6269.45 +16.5 8589.63 +10.4 2022 April 6233.95 +17.2 8554.13 +10.8 2022 March 6191.70 +17.2 8511.88 +10.8 2022 February 6110.37 +16.2 8430.55 +10.1 2022 January 6021.13 +14.9 8418.76 +10.2 2021 December 5948.13 +14.3 8345.76 +9.8 2021 November 5871.97 +12.8 8269.59 +8.7 Page 61 of 103 YEAR MONTH BCI %CHG CCI %CHG 2021 October 5830.22 +12.4%8227.84 +8.5% 2021 September 5781.97 +11.6 8179.59 +7.9 2021 August 5714.19 +1.09 8138.79 +7.4 2021 July 5546.00 +7.0 7943.60 +4.8 2021 June 5536.25 +7.0 7933.85 +4.8 2021 May 5379.40 +3.9 7777.00 +2.7 2021 April 5320.92 +2.8 7718.50 +1.9 2021 March 5284.83 +2.3 7682.40 +1.6 2021 Feb 5257.83 +2.0 7655.40 +1.4 2021 Jan 5239.12 +1.7 7636.68 +1.1 2020 Dec 5205.78 +1.3 7603.33 +0.9 2020 Nov 5207.06 1.2%7604.60 0.8% 2020 Oct 5186.02 +1.3 7583.57 +0.5 2020 Sept 5182.52 +1.4 7580.07 +0.6 2020 Aug 5178.18 +1.3 7575.73 +0.6 2020 July 5182.68 +1.7 7580.23 +0.8 2020 June 5175.47 +1.1 7573.02 +0.4 2020 May 5177.50 +5.3 7575.05 +0.6 2020 April 5175.00 +5.7 7572.55 +0.8 2020 March 5166.00 +6.0 7563.54 +1.1 2020 Feb 5155.43 +5.1 7552.96 +0.4 2020 Jan 5153.93 +5.3 7551.46 +0.6 2019 Dec 5138.85 +5.1 7536.38 +0.3 Page 62 of 103 YEAR MONTH BCI %CHG CCI %CHG 2019 Nov 5144.91 +5.6 7542.44 +0.6 2019 Oct 5120.21 +5.0 7543.94 +0.6 2019 Sept 5111.46 +5.1 7535.19 +0.6 2019 Aug 5109.47 +6.3 7533.20 +0.6 2019 July 5093.91 +7.8 7517.63 +0.9 2019 June 5118.44 +7.7 7542.17 +0.9 2019 May 4916.70 +3.5 7529.30 +0.7 2019 April 4896.16 +4.4 7508.77 +1.3 2019 Mar 4871.91 +3.9 7484.52 +1.0 2019 Feb 4907.16 +4.7 7519.77 +1.5 2019 Jan 4893.25 +4.3 7505.86 +1.3 2018 Dec 4889.70 +4.3 7513.69 +1.4 2018 Nov 4872.10 +3.9 7499.09 +1.2 2018 Oct 4875.10 +5.2 7499.09 +1.6 2018 Sept 4863.09 +4.6 7487.08 +1.2 2018 Aug 4807.30 +3.4 7484.83 +1.2 2018 July 4723.98 +1.8 7447.08 +0.8 2018 June 4751.84 +1.9 7474.95 +0.9 2018 May 4751.84 +1.9 7474.95 +0.9 2018 Apr 4689.58 +0.7 7412.68 +0.1 2018 Mar 4688.98 +2.9 7412.08 +4.6 2018 Feb 4688.98 +1.6 7412.08 +0.7 2018 Jan 4689.81 +1.6 7412.92 +0.7 2017 Dec 4689.22 1.5 7412.32 +0.6 Page 63 of 103 YEAR MONTH BCI %CHG CCI %CHG 2017 Nov 4689.22 +2.5 7412.32 +3.5 2017 Oct 4632.99 +1.8 7378.65 +3.4 2017 Sept 4650.98 +2.2 7396.64 +3.7 2017 Aug 4648.92 +2.7 7394.58 +4.0 2017 Jul 4642.44 –2.6 7388.09 –3.9 2017 Jun 4665.09 +3.5 7410.74 +4.5 2017 May 4665.09 +4.3 7410.74 +4.6 2017 Apr 4657.54 +4.0 7403.19 +4.3 2017 Mar 4558.89 +1.8 7083.25 –0.2 2017 Feb 4569.27 +2.1 7093.63 0.0 2017 Jan 4615.98 +3.9 7361.63 +4.1 2016 Dec 4620.41 +4.0 7,366.07 +4.1 2016 Nov 4575.45 +3.1 7161.82 +1.3 2016 Oct 4551.16 +2.3 7137.53 +0.9 2016 Sep 4549.16 +2.3 7135.53 +0.9 2016 Aug 4525.24 +1.80 7111.59 +0.60 2016 Jul 4525.74 +1.80 7112.09 +0.60 2016 Jun 4506.93 +1.40 7093.28 +0.30 2016 May 4473.30 +0.40 7088.11 +0.10 2016 Apr 4480.46 +0.70 7096.86 +0.30 2016 Mar 4477.58 +0.70 7093.98 +0.30 2016 Feb 4476.08 +0.60 7092.48 +0.20 2016 Jan 4443.86 –0.20 7071.66 –0.10 Page 64 of 103 YEAR MONTH BCI %CHG CCI %CHG 2015 Dec 4445.86 0.00 7073.66 0.00 2015 Nov 4440.74 –0.20 7067.07 –0.20 2015 Oct 4441.99 +0.20 7068.32 +0.10 2015 Sep 4448.49 +0.80 7074.82 +0.50 2015 Aug 4444.74 +0.70 7071.07 +0.40 2015 Jul 4446.38 0.00 7072.71 0.00 2015 Jun 4446.38 –0.23 7072.71 –0.15 2015 May 4456.77 +0.20 7083.10 +0.13 2015 Apr 4441.10 +2.2 7067.43 +0.8 2015 Mar 4447.85 +2.7 7074.18 +1.1 2015 Feb 4449.85 2.7 7076.18 1 2015 Jan 4451.35 2.5 7077.68 1 2014 Dec 4447.6 2.4 7073.93 0.9 2014 Nov 4447.5 1.8 7077.93 0.6 2014 Oct 4435.5 1.8 7065.93 0.6 2014 Sep 4412.18 1.1 7042.61 0.1 2014 Aug 4412.11 1.1 7041.86 0.1 2014 Jul 4412.11 1.1 7041.86 0.1 2014 Jun 4414.11 1.3 7043.86 0.3 2014 May 4384.09 0.7 7013.84 –0.1 2014 Apr 4344.34 0.0 7012.84 0.0 2014 Mar 4332.38 0.2 7000.88 0.1 2014 Feb 4335.13 0.2 7003.63 0.2 2014 Jan 4341.69 0.6 7010.19 0.4 Page 65 of 103 YEAR MONTH BCI %CHG CCI %CHG 2013 Dec 4344.19 0.8 7012.69 0.5 2013 Nov 4346.44 0.6 7014.94 0.4 2013 Oct 4357.05 0.8 7025.55 0.5 2013 Sep 4364.82 1.1 7033.32 0.7 2013 Aug 4363.57 0.8 7032.07 0.5 2013 Jul 4366.32 2.7 7034.82 0.3 2013 Jun 4358.14 2.5 7026.64 0.1 2013 May 4352.39 2.3 7020.89 0.0 2013 Apr 4342.64 2.4 7011.14 0.1 2013 Mar 4323.75 2.0 6992.25 –0.1 2013 Feb 4324.75 3.5 6993.25 1.5 2013 Jan 4316.50 3.3 6985.00 1.4 2012 Dec 4310.75 3.3 6979.25 1.4 2012 Nov 4322.00 3.6 6990.50 1.6 2012 Oct 4323.00 3.7 6991.50 1.6 2012 Sep 4319.28 3.8 6987.78 1.7 2012 Aug 4329.78 3.9 6998.28 1.7 2012 Jul 4249.73 2.2 7013.28 2.1 2012 Jun 4253.73 2.7 7017.28 2.4 2012 May 4254.23 2.8 7017.78 2.5 2012 May 4254.23 2.8 7017.78 2.5 2012 Apr 4239.48 2.6 7003.03 2.3 2012 Mar 4237.73 2.7 7001.28 2.4 Page 66 of 103 YEAR MONTH BCI %CHG CCI %CHG 2012 Feb 4177.84 1.3 6889.53 0.8 2012 Feb 4177.84 1.3 6889.53 0.8 2012 Jan 4177.84 2.1 6889.53 7.9 2011 Dec 4174.84 1.7 6886.53 7.7 2011 Nov 4172.10 1.5 6883.80 7.6 2011 Oct 4167.10 1.6 6878.80 7.6 2011 Sep 4160.60 1.6 6872.30 7.8 2011 Aug 4169.45 1.9 6881.14 7.8 2011 Jul 4156.70 1.6 6868.39 7.6 2011 Jun 4142.47 2.9 6854.16 7.7 2011 May 4136.72 3.2 6848.41 7.9 2011 Apr 4133.34 3.4 6845.03 8 2011 Mar 4126.64 3.3 6838.33 7.9 2011 Feb 4123.64 3.5 6835.33 8 2011 Jan 4091.89 2.9 6383.58 0.7 2010 Dec 4105.46 3.2 6397.15 0.9 2010 Nov 4108.71 4.1 6400.4 9 2010 Oct 4100.21 3.9 6391.9 8.9 2010 Sep 4093.66 3.7 6375.35 8.6 2010 Aug 4093.66 3.5 6805.35 15.8 2010 Jul 4093.16 3.5 6384.85 8.6 2010 Jun 4024.32 1.5 6366.39 8.2 2010 May 4007.57 0.7 6349.64 7.6 2010 Apr 3995.82 1.1 6337.89 7.3 Page 67 of 103 YEAR MONTH BCI %CHG CCI %CHG 2010 Mar 3993.82 1 6335.89 7.2 2010 Feb 3984.75 0.9 6326.81 7.1 2010 Jan 3975.44 0.3 6341.44 7.1 2009 Dec 3977.19 -0.1 6343.19 6.9 2009 Nov 3948.07 -2.1 5870.56 -2 2009 Oct 3947.82 -2.9 5870.31 -2.5 2009 Sep 3947.13 -3.1 5869.62 -2.6 2009 Aug 3955.6 1.7 5878.09 -0.2 2009 Jul 3954.83 1.8 5877.32 -0.2 2009 Jun 3963.77 3.9 5886.26 1.2 2009 May 3978.21 5.3 5900.7 2.1 2009 Apr 3951.52 5.1 5908.2 2.5 2009 Mar 3953.27 5.2 5909.95 2.6 2009 Feb 3950.77 5.6 5907.45 2.9 2009 Jan 3965.02 5.8 5921.7 3 2008 Dec 3979.06 6.3 5935.74 3.3 2008 Nov 4033.8 7.8 5990.48 4.3 2008 Oct 4065.99 7.9 6022.67 4.4 2008 Sep 4071.24 8.1 6027.92 4.5 2008 Aug 3890.02 3.2 5892.17 2.1 2008 Jul 3886.59 3 5888.74 1.9 2008 Jun 3816.84 1.4 5818.99 0.9 2008 May 3779.42 0.4 5781.57 0.3 Page 68 of 103 YEAR MONTH BCI %CHG CCI %CHG 2008 Apr 3760.17 0.8 5762.32 0.9 2008 Mar 3757.12 0.8 5759.27 0.9 2008 Feb 3741.12 0.4 5743.27 0.6 2008 Jan 3748.74 0.6 5750.88 0.8 2007 Dec 3744.81 0.3 5746.96 0.6 2007 Nov 3767.3 1.1 5769.45 1.1 2007 Oct 3767.3 1.1 5769.45 1.1 2007 Sep 3766.3 1.6 5768.45 1.4 2007 Aug 3768.56 2.1 5770.7 3.4 2007 Jul 3775.26 2.3 5777.41 3.5 2007 Jun 3765.5 2.5 5767.64 3.7 2007 May 3764.5 2.8 5766.64 3.9 2007 Apr 3730.18 1.7 5711.79 2.7 2007 Mar 3727.43 1.7 5709.04 2.8 2007 Feb 3724.93 1.5 5706.54 2.6 2007 Jan 3725.43 1.5 5707.04 2.6 2006 Dec 3732.7 2 5714.3 2.9 2006 Nov 3724.9 3.4 5706.51 3.9 2006 Oct 3724.9 3.4 5706.51 3.9 2006 Sep 3707.91 2.7 5689.52 3.4 2006 Aug 3697.42 3.6 5588.24 2.5 2006 Jul 3690.42 2.6 5581.24 1.9 2006 Jun 3672.12 1.9 5562.93 1.4 2006 May 3661.32 1.8 5552.14 1.4 Page 69 of 103 YEAR MONTH BCI %CHG CCI %CHG 2006 Apr 3669.62 2.2 5560.44 1.6 2006 Mar 3665.29 3 5556.1 2.1 2006 Feb 3670.02 3.1 5560.83 2.2 2006 Jan 3672.02 3 5562.83 2.1 2005 Dec 3660.74 2.6 5551.55 1.9 2005 Nov 3633.49 1.8 5524.3 1.4 2005 Oct 3600.99 1.7 5491.8 1.3 2005 Sep 3611.04 2 5501.86 1.5 2005 Aug 3569.69 2.4 5451.61 0.9 2005 Jul 3595.92 3.4 5477.84 1.5 2005 Jun 3605.25 3.8 5487.16 1.7 2005 May 3595 3.9 5476.91 1.8 2005 Apr 3589.56 9 5471.47 5 2005 Mar 3558.31 9.4 5440.22 5.2 2005 Feb 3560.31 14.4 5442.22 8.3 2005 Jan 3566.25 15.4 5448.16 9 2004 Dec 3568.42 14.9 5450.34 8.7 2003 Dec 3104.91 6.2 5015.43 5.7 2002 Dec 2925.15 -2 4744.3 1.7 2001 Dec 2985.37 -2.5 4663.08 -2.2 2000 Dec 3060.54 5.5 4766.74 6 1999 Dec 2901.28 1.3 4498.45 0.6 1998 Dec 2863.92 -0.1 4470.35 3.3 Page 70 of 103 The latest news and information YEAR MONTH BCI %CHG CCI %CHG 1997 Dec 2865.25 -0.8 4329.24 -0.1 1996 Dec 2887.49 8.5 4334.09 6 1995 Dec 2661.49 2 4087.82 2 1994 Dec 2608.72 1.4 4008.74 -0.1 1993 Dec 2573.9 5.6 4012.02 4.7 1992 Dec 2438.39 2.7 3833.64 3.2 1991 Dec 2375.26 2.3 3715.34 1.3 1990 Dec 2321.28 2.8 3668.2 1.3 1989 Dec 2277.59 1.1 3641.78 2.9 1988 Dec 2252.48 -5.1 3538.26 0.8 1987 Dec 2374.39 0.8 3506.95 0.1 1986 Dec 2355.81 5.7 3503.37 5.6 1985 Dec 2229.4 2 3316.24 6.8 1984 Dec 2185.17 -10.5 3106.45 -15.8 1983 Dec 2440.68 10.3 3690.22 7.1 1982 Dec 2213.7 7.1 3445.7 7.7 1981 Dec 2066.42 9.9 3200.57 8.6 1980 Dec 1880.46 2.7 2947.14 7.6 1979 Dec 1831.81 8.3 2739.14 6.8 1978 Dec 1692.06 7.5 2564.77 9 Page 71 of 103 #1 Source for Construction News, Data, Rankings, Analysis, and Commentary JOIN ENR UNLIMITED Copyright ©2024. All Rights Reserved BNP Media. Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing Page 72 of 103 Division of Project Support Construction Engineering Services Branch Colorado Construction Cost (CCI) Index Report Calendar Year 2024 — First Quarter Prepared for: Keith Stefanik, Chief Engineer Prepared by: Stephen Bokros, Manager Cost Estimating Services Unit Construction Engineering Services Branch Division of Project Support Page 73 of 103 CCI Report Summary First Quarter Ending March 31, 2024 Relative change from last quarter, quarterly data .................................... 4.55%* Cumulative change from same quarter last year, quarterly data ..................11.85%* Relative change from last year, annual data**......................................... 9.59% * Calculations based on quarterly data may vary significantly due to strong seasonality in Colorado. ** Calculations derived from the most recent four consecutive quarters of data compared to the previous four consecutive quarters of data. For example, relative change for Second Quarter Ending June 30, 2017 is derived from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 data compared to July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016 data. Page 74 of 103 Summary for all Design-Bid-Build projects awarded between 01/01/2024 and 03/31/2024. Project Amount Number of Projects Number of Bidders Biddable Items Total Amount Average Number of Bidders $0.00 to $999,999.99 4 13 $2,302,663.56 3.25 $1,000,000.00 to $4,999,999.99 11 39 $26,901,130.91 3.55 $5,000,000.00 to $19,999,999.99 11 36 $93,423,055.12 3.27 $20,000,000.00 or Greater 0 0 $0.00 0.00 Total 26 88 $122,626,849.59 3.38 Average number of bidders per project increased to 3.38 this quarter, from 3.02 the previous quarter. Average cost per Design-Bid-Build project was $4,716,417.29. Page 75 of 103 Colorado Construction Cost Index Tabulations: Quarterly Data Earthwork Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete Pavement* Structural Concrete Reinforcing Steel Fisher Ideal Index Year Quarter Price ($/CY) Qty (CY) Price ($/TON) Qty (TON) Price ($/SY) Qty (SY) Price ($/CY) Qty (CY) Price ($/LB) Qty (LB) Relative Cumulative 2012 Q1 9.32 295,331.00 83.52 611,829.00 29.47 459,695.83 433.44 7,636.00 0.88 1,956,874.00 1.0000 2012 Q2 10.61 367,636.10 82.65 328,357.21 31.18 264,194.31 472.96 5,910.00 0.97 833,101.00 1.0190 1.0190 2012 Q3 11.92 212,117.00 90.76 59,799.23 34.76 107,643.81 487.93 2,388.20 1.04 485,586.00 1.0995 1.1204 2012 Q4 9.49 246,805.00 102.24 146,197.04 n/a** n/a** 527.68 1,772.00 0.94 310,307.00 1.0344 1.1589 2013 Q1 8.08 659,125.00 76.07 393,759.56 31.81 549,580.81 487.00 9,019.00 0.87 1,929,721.00 0.8044 0.9322 2013 Q2 12.75 316,498.00 84.37 501,946.32 52.18 60,482.78 427.09 6,857.00 0.91 1,048,761.00 1.2121 1.1300 2013 Q3 8.72 419,967.00 85.00 147,064.84 35.57 170,833.67 372.83 9,917.00 0.77 2,350,291.00 0.8947 1.0110 2013 Q4 10.00 75,520.00 80.78 198,528.45 42.64 92,749.00 309.40 1,752.00 0.85 486,791.00 1.0086 1.0197 2014 Q1 20.16 99,605.00 92.28 433,692.17 76.84 57,552.78 476.21 3,265.00 0.98 629,246.00 1.2581 1.2829 2014 Q2 12.88 610,731.00 88.13 548,253.70 34.34 302,520.17 517.01 8,249.90 0.90 1,468,195.00 0.8421 1.0803 2014 Q3 13.30 708,794.00 100.07 102,680.99 52.39 147,911.17 592.26 16,294.30 1.01 2,949,114.00 1.1740 1.2683 2014 Q4 10.73 695,288.00 113.42 141,154.23 46.12 156,635.11 549.86 6,657.10 1.03 948,029.00 0.9591 1.2164 2015 Q1 16.60 301,494.80 83.80 736,968.84 34.36 311,378.67 744.81 1,994.30 1.66 368,665.00 0.8798 1.0702 2015 Q2 15.12 167,066.00 94.22 311,989.59 46.36 219,498.00 577.73 1,119.00 1.64 205,245.00 1.1391 1.2190 2015 Q3 20.32 40,649.00 98.61 89,024.05 75.70 12,880.78 739.20 706.90 1.33 86,854.00 1.1536 1.4063 2015 Q4 12.16 309,414.10 81.21 66,957.40 47.46 128,174.06 598.73 3,702.00 1.42 366,651.00 0.7434 1.0454 2016 Q1 12.27 939,477.00 84.03 1,078,315.35 39.18 243,518.78 617.10 6,507.71 1.02 1,627,487.00 0.9767 1.0211 2016 Q2 31.34 14,104.00 110.17 118,434.28 104.99 1,936.89 1,028.57 126.00 2.79 12,189.00 1.4571 1.4878 2016 Q3 10.66 503,305.00 83.55 286,987.61 52.59 275,462.06 606.80 1,952.80 0.94 331,788.70 0.6500 0.9671 2016 Q4 18.00 81,788.00 106.93 108,909.09 47.97 51,601.89 978.88 300.80 2.28 18,840.00 1.2318 1.1913 2017 Q1 24.99 110,497.40 82.20 480,758.14 36.08 60,069.44 1,138.99 67.00 2.17 26,054.00 0.8105 0.9655 2017 Q2 11.28 153,010.00 88.48 302,427.67 36.44 147,787.36 592.94 2,168.00 1.06 416,630.00 0.9916 0.9574 2017 Q3 27.34 51,552.00 115.01 19,675.64 97.88 2,088.89 629.83 2,292.00 1.15 346,069.00 1.4673 1.4048 2017 Q4 16.17 23,686.00 95.90 152,110.33 72.95 2,823.00 1,068.73 263.00 2.32 24,850.00 0.9449 1.3274 2018 Q1 13.97 163,772.00 90.91 302,427.23 92.58 7,834.00 862.30 1,167.00 1.39 206,568.00 0.9415 1.2497 2018 Q2 15.58 47,167.00 110.11 42,157.74 n/a** n/a** 809.61 887.00 1.54 139,494.00 1.1643 1.4551 2018 Q3 15.69 77,482.00 107.51 38,587.91 60.91 11,825.11 711.51 5,097.00 1.07 1,480,110.00 0.8995 1.3088 2018 Q4 16.51 174,175.00 89.89 594,326.44 35.97 974,214.00 674.59 2,017.00 1.29 213,561.00 0.8238 1.0785 2019 Q1 12.73 545,088.00 101.34 491,723.60 53.33 197,389.61 840.94 4,426.90 1.40 871,380.00 1.1848 1.2778 2019 Q2 26.64 55,197.00 119.73 116,528.65 79.43 13,611.17 479.34 8,463.00 1.05 1,230,972.00 1.1236 1.4357 2019 Q3 n/a** n/a** n/a** n/a** 104.00 4,074.22 n/a** n/a** n/a** n/a** 1.0100 1.4501 2019 Q4 16.30 207,333.00 95.42 275,273.38 43.76 41,068.89 798.39 468.00 1.39 149,577.00 0.8508 1.2337 2020 Q1 20.76 456,146.00 93.02 867,587.63 62.82 53,818.89 805.97 4,026.00 1.22 820,456.00 1.0204 1.2589 2020 Q2 9.86 764,455.00 104.16 156,927.56 51.27 177,038.39 809.92 1,804.90 1.43 363,737.00 0.9156 1.1527 2020 Q3 18.41 38,940.00 119.00 26,251.98 46.08 108,008.22 874.51 829.50 1.35 142,067.00 1.1208 1.2920 2020 Q4 7.97 236,919.00 103.21 204,957.94 118.13 129.78 663.99 1,372.40 1.50 170,603.00 1.1677 1.5087 2021 Q1 29.41 70,042.00 86.42 717,198.89 75.43 38,520.44 776.10 1,205.40 1.44 193,123.00 0.9550 1.4408 2021 Q2 15.43 336,448.00 90.69 153,802.91 61.18 44,898.56 988.80 2,639.00 1.61 431,045.00 0.9405 1.3550 2021 Q3 15.10 614,822.00 104.66 60,911.11 83.54 7,714.89 879.03 2,306.00 1.51 302,787.00 1.0677 1.4467 2021 Q4 18.77 279,454.00 114.06 772,464.56 49.21 107,696.78 733.07 1,857.40 1.52 409,460.00 1.0811 1.5641 2022 Q1 21.51 158,601.00 118.27 377,371.40 66.87 79,738.72 1,027.78 1,812.50 1.60 537,299.00 1.0708 1.6748 2022 Q2 21.07 368,073.00 119.68 350,768.54 61.64 75,600.89 936.83 1,583.60 1.60 570,628.00 0.9971 1.6700 2022 Q3 27.51 212,003.00 188.25 29,884.24 88.39 8,176.00 1,214.56 3,082.70 2.43 766,514.00 1.4597 2.4377 2022 Q4 28.25 390,484.00 133.85 653,275.51 100.75 10,902.00 969.78 9,549.00 1.99 2,502,608.00 0.8024 1.9559 2023 Q1 27.03 61,005.00 126.73 238,040.15 100.75 10,902.00 969.78 9,549.00 2.16 10,645.00 0.9592 1.8761 2023 Q2 35.41 62,225.00 141.34 129,616.77 100.75 10,902.00 1,171.30 3,770.00 1.95 153,583.00 1.1378 2.1346 2023 Q3 27.74 46,034.00 147.68 82,792.32 84.77 51,409.44 1,195.41 5,832.00 1.85 1,109,315.00 0.9933 2.1204 2023 Q4 32.05 130,828.00 128.90 706,131.09 84.77 51,409.44 1,287.29 7,025.00 2.44 205,353.00 0.9465 2.0070 2024 Q1 31.63 196,210.00 139.37 306,279.71 115.14 14,538.17 1,052.46 5,027.00 1.76 1,314,768.00 1.0455 2.0984 Weighted average prices and quantities are calculated after outliers (< 5% and > 95%) are removed in the preceding 7 years for a given quarter. * Concrete Pavement is normalized to 9 inches thick. ** Assuming same price and quantity as previous quarter for index calculations, due to insufficient data of this sub group. Page 76 of 103 Co n s t r u c t i o n C o s t I n d e x 0.7000 0.9000 1.1000 1.3000 1.5000 1.7000 1.9000 2.1000 2.3000 2.5000 20 1 2 Q 2 20 1 2 Q 3 20 1 2 Q 4 20 1 3 Q 1 20 1 3 Q 2 20 1 3 Q 3 20 1 3 Q 4 20 1 4 Q 1 20 1 4 Q 2 20 1 4 Q 3 20 1 4 Q 4 20 1 5 Q 1 20 1 5 Q 2 20 1 5 Q 3 20 1 5 Q 4 20 1 6 Q 1 20 1 6 Q 2 20 1 6 Q 3 20 1 6 Q 4 20 1 7 Q 1 20 1 7 Q 2 20 1 7 Q 3 20 1 7 Q 4 20 1 8 Q 1 20 1 8 Q 2 20 1 8 Q 3 20 1 8 Q 4 20 1 9 Q 1 20 1 9 Q 2 20 1 9 Q 3 20 1 9 Q 4 20 2 0 Q 1 20 2 0 Q 2 20 2 0 Q 3 20 2 0 Q 4 20 2 1 Q 1 20 2 1 Q 2 20 2 1 Q 3 20 2 1 Q 4 20 2 2 Q 1 20 2 2 Q 2 20 2 2 Q 3 20 2 2 Q 4 20 2 3 Q 1 20 2 3 Q 2 20 2 3 Q 3 20 2 3 Q 4 20 2 4 Q 1 Calendar Year - Quarter Colorado CCI - Quarterly Data, Cumulative Assuming 2012 Q1 = 1.0000 Quarterly Trendline: Annual Percentage = 8.03% Page 77 of 103 Colorado Construction Cost Index Tabulations: Annual Percentage Change Earthwork Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete Pavement* Structural Concrete Reinforcing Steel Fisher Ideal Index (Annual Change) Year Quarter Price ($/CY) Qty (CY) Price ($/TON) Qty (TON) Price ($/SY) Qty (SY) Price ($/CY) Qty (CY) Price ($/LB) Qty (LB) Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2012 Q1 8.54 1,643,084.00 83.57 1,241,881.88 31.36 667,746.33 425.94 719,256.60 0.86 7,149,441.00 15.75% --- 2012 Q2 9.14 1,480,770.10 85.60 1,177,201.54 30.19 816,996.14 443.73 482,553.33 0.90 4,772,516.00 -10.64% -- 2012 Q3 9.26 1,540,869.10 85.79 1,121,413.82 31.08 843,324.44 453.18 246,336.20 0.91 4,774,608.00 --10.96% - 2012 Q4 10.28 1,123,054.10 86.44 1,075,973.36 30.75 832,137.83 461.30 231,142.60 0.93 3,571,733.00 ---15.53% 2013 Q1 9.06 1,640,490.10 81.96 917,016.69 32.04 921,360.25 486.13 171,271.80 0.92 3,544,580.00 10.18% --- 2013 Q2 9.43 1,589,152.00 83.62 1,091,967.52 34.03 717,397.39 469.76 439,498.40 0.90 3,760,240.00 -6.96% -- 2013 Q3 8.97 1,797,152.00 83.46 1,179,429.29 34.27 780,587.25 433.64 110,260.00 0.84 5,637,961.00 --3.92% - 2013 Q4 8.94 1,624,766.00 81.91 1,233,105.61 35.13 872,983.69 419.68 82,635.00 0.83 5,815,564.00 ----2.97% 2014 Q1 11.48 911,590.00 87.61 1,263,123.94 46.14 381,618.22 400.29 348,656.00 0.84 4,515,089.00 9.65% --- 2014 Q2 11.85 1,205,823.00 87.98 1,303,383.13 39.83 623,655.61 433.90 417,310.20 0.84 4,934,523.00 -6.78% -- 2014 Q3 13.42 1,494,650.00 89.33 1,258,855.88 44.14 600,788.11 541.68 916,397.20 0.96 5,533,272.00 --15.05% - 2014 Q4 12.87 1,905,718.00 93.84 1,194,508.19 45.71 535,731.67 552.98 445,708.90 0.98 5,959,513.00 ---20.73% 2015 Q1 13.05 2,107,558.80 89.29 1,505,930.18 38.96 789,770.89 573.93 628,474.40 1.02 5,704,023.00 3.93% --- 2015 Q2 13.33 1,663,898.80 91.88 1,278,350.68 43.24 706,748.72 592.19 129,733.50 1.09 4,441,073.00 -7.23% -- 2015 Q3 13.63 995,753.80 91.69 1,264,591.17 41.62 571,919.33 582.12 20,378.60 1.26 1,575,781.00 --1.03% - 2015 Q4 14.79 818,579.90 88.28 1,197,470.58 41.60 672,400.83 622.80 51,661.40 1.54 1,029,400.00 ----1.69% 2016 Q1 12.76 1,464,883.10 87.31 1,536,858.49 44.35 604,327.61 584.07 257,857.82 1.14 2,283,131.00 0.67% --- 2016 Q2 12.65 1,311,916.10 87.76 1,343,198.17 43.44 386,502.72 589.95 21,455.62 1.10 2,088,744.00 --2.50% -- 2016 Q3 11.90 1,774,241.10 86.35 1,540,764.97 46.66 648,828.00 600.27 109,230.39 1.08 2,336,431.70 ---2.85% - 2016 Q4 12.11 1,546,589.00 88.15 1,579,665.43 46.60 572,255.83 614.48 43,736.55 1.02 1,988,525.70 ----0.35% 2017 Q1 13.86 707,879.40 89.72 982,654.73 51.86 403,163.94 671.29 4,832.80 1.14 387,092.70 4.54% --- 2017 Q2 13.10 846,760.40 87.35 1,166,127.13 47.43 548,620.42 623.09 35,667.20 1.08 792,864.70 -0.60% -- 2017 Q3 18.01 394,566.40 89.14 899,330.24 42.66 275,247.25 634.52 24,023.00 1.16 807,026.00 --4.13% - 2017 Q4 17.96 335,196.40 87.05 969,483.05 41.83 226,468.36 644.35 28,740.00 1.17 813,026.00 ---1.06% 2018 Q1 14.50 389,889.00 89.19 827,260.46 39.65 159,163.97 678.88 58,760.00 1.17 988,218.00 0.56% --- 2018 Q2 16.44 342,507.00 89.03 607,596.81 85.48 12,034.39 746.16 25,415.00 1.29 792,847.00 -19.65% -- 2018 Q3 14.80 368,871.00 89.18 626,447.65 70.50 21,592.61 747.97 85,976.00 1.14 1,925,915.00 --11.53% - 2018 Q4 15.46 520,654.00 89.21 1,047,318.74 36.62 992,983.61 723.69 95,700.00 1.15 2,114,731.00 ---3.18% 2019 Q1 14.08 902,010.00 94.81 1,206,169.09 39.10 1,183,250.72 752.85 231,190.20 1.21 2,784,865.00 3.08% --- 2019 Q2 14.64 851,604.00 97.70 1,240,977.52 39.56 1,196,861.89 634.01 139,523.30 1.15 3,794,578.00 --13.30% -- 2019 Q3 15.25 1,153,471.00 93.10 1,488,059.22 39.84 1,193,589.00 621.84 202,577.40 1.18 5,583,068.00 ---9.30% - 2019 Q4 15.25 1,186,629.00 95.28 1,169,006.16 54.92 260,443.89 621.10 128,855.60 1.18 5,519,084.00 ---14.14% 2020 Q1 18.80 1,097,687.00 92.08 1,544,870.18 61.24 116,873.17 613.90 222,691.00 1.16 5,468,160.00 9.12% --- 2020 Q2 14.30 1,428,945.00 94.94 1,301,967.57 53.19 276,000.39 806.51 44,099.30 1.29 1,333,770.00 -4.39% -- 2020 Q3 14.39 1,466,874.00 95.35 1,326,040.54 50.62 379,934.39 814.45 42,770.40 1.30 1,475,837.00 --2.95% - 2020 Q4 13.11 1,496,460.00 96.62 1,255,725.10 51.48 338,995.28 789.68 48,196.80 1.31 1,496,863.00 ----4.71% 2021 Q1 10.99 1,110,356.00 92.83 1,105,336.37 52.44 323,696.83 773.95 41,697.60 1.43 869,530.00 -8.23% --- 2021 Q2 14.45 682,349.00 90.91 1,102,211.72 55.57 191,557.00 856.99 60,463.00 1.52 936,838.00 --2.80% -- 2021 Q3 14.64 1,258,231.00 91.00 1,136,870.85 69.17 91,263.67 861.81 37,614.00 1.54 1,097,558.00 ---0.18% - 2021 Q4 16.74 1,300,766.00 99.98 1,704,377.47 58.33 198,830.67 865.86 32,031.20 1.54 1,336,415.00 ---17.45% 2022 Q1 16.69 1,391,205.00 112.57 1,394,922.03 61.12 276,289.17 912.48 34,459.60 1.56 1,744,736.00 31.79% --- 2022 Q2 18.12 1,422,830.00 116.25 1,591,887.66 61.24 306,991.50 890.94 37,797.50 1.56 1,884,319.00 -29.99% -- 2022 Q3 21.90 1,020,011.00 118.08 1,560,860.79 61.40 307,452.61 1013.91 58,353.40 1.85 2,348,046.00 --85.09% - 2022 Q4 24.87 1,131,041.00 127.38 1,441,671.74 69.67 210,657.83 1020.16 256,444.80 1.96 4,441,194.00 ---20.32% 2023 Q1 25.47 1,031,565.00 129.89 1,271,968.44 68.45 94,678.89 1020.16 256,444.80 2.16 10,645.00 8.87% --- 2023 Q2 28.55 725,717.00 134.71 1,050,816.67 95.46 19,078.00 1047.93 29,033.40 2.09 3,433,350.00 -26.32% -- 2023 Q3 28.87 559,748.00 134.23 1,103,724.74 87.57 62,311.44 1067.99 69,064.00 1.95 3,776,151.00 ---11.68% - 2023 Q4 31.07 300,092.00 131.19 1,156,580.33 84.77 51,409.44 1204.58 45,610.00 1.94 1,478,896.00 ---0.29% 2024 Q1 31.88 435,297.00 134.11 1,224,819.89 91.46 65,947.61 1150.53 56,596.00 1.86 2,783,019.00 9.59% --- Weighted average prices and quantities are calculated after outliers (< 5% and > 95%) are removed in the preceding 7 years for a given quarter. * Concrete Pavement is normalized to 9 inches thick. Page 78 of 103 Co n s t r u c t i o n C o s t I n d e x 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% -20.00% Colorado CCI - Annual Percentage Change 85.09% 31.79% 29.99% 26.32% 23.05% 20.73% 19.65% 17.45%15.53% 15.05% 14.14% 10.96%11.53% 10.64%10.18% 9.65% 9.59% 9.12% 8.87% 6.96% 6.78%7.23% 4.54% 4.13% 4.39% 3.92% 3.93%3.18% 3.08% 2.95% 1.03% 1.06% 0.67% 0.60% 0.56% 0.29% -0.35%-0.18%-1.69%-2.50% -2.97%-2.85%-2.80% -4.71% -8.23%-9.30% -11.68%-13.30% 20 1 2 Q 2 20 1 2 Q 3 20 1 2 Q 4 20 1 3 Q 1 20 1 3 Q 2 20 1 3 Q 3 20 1 3 Q 4 20 1 4 Q 1 20 1 4 Q 2 20 1 4 Q 3 20 1 4 Q 4 20 1 5 Q 1 20 1 5 Q 2 20 1 5 Q 3 20 1 5 Q 4 20 1 6 Q 1 20 1 6 Q 2 20 1 6 Q 3 20 1 6 Q 4 20 1 7 Q 1 20 1 7 Q 2 20 1 7 Q 3 20 1 7 Q 4 20 1 8 Q 1 20 1 8 Q 2 20 1 8 Q 3 20 1 8 Q 4 20 1 9 Q 1 20 1 9 Q 2 20 1 9 Q 3 20 1 9 Q 4 20 2 0 Q 1 20 2 0 Q 2 20 2 0 Q 3 20 2 0 Q 4 20 2 1 Q 1 20 2 1 Q 2 20 2 1 Q 3 20 2 1 Q 4 20 2 2 Q 1 20 2 2 Q 2 20 2 2 Q 3 20 2 2 Q 4 20 2 3 Q 1 20 2 3 Q 2 20 2 3 Q 3 20 2 3 Q 4 20 2 4 Q 1 Calendar Year - Quarter Calculations derived from the mostrecent four consecutive quarters of data comparedto the previous four consecutive quarters of data. Page 79 of 103 Comments: The methodology for preparing the CCI is documented in a brief report attached to the ‘2012 CCI Q2 (Quarter Two)’ report at the link below under the ‘Construction Cost Index’ heading and ‘2012 CCI Q2’ report (https://www.codot.gov/business/eema/constructioncostindex). Starting with 2016 Q3, this quarterly CCI report includes calculations based on annual data. The annual data calculations are less volatile than the quarterly data calculations, partially due to the strong seasonal nature of transportation construction in Colorado. For the current quarter, price changes for the five subgroups, as shown in the ‘Colorado Construction Cost Index Tabulations: Quarterly Data’, are listed as follows: Earthwork (Excavation and Embankment): The average price was $31.63/CY (cubic yard), which is down $0.42 CY, with 149.98% of the quantity, from the previous quarter. Hot Mix Asphalt: The average price was $139.37/Ton, which is up $10.47/TON, with 43.37% of the quantity, from the previous quarter. Concrete Pavement: The average price was $115.14/SY (square yard), which is up $30.37, with 28.28% of the quantity, from the previous quarter. Structural Concrete: The average price was $1,052.46/CY, which is down $234.83 SY, with 71.56% of the quantity, from the previous quarter. Reinforcing Steel: The average price was $1.76/LB (pound), which is down $0.68, with 640.25% the quantity, from the previous quarter. Additional Information: This quarter, based on preceding quarterly data, two subgroups, Hot Mix Asphalt and Concrete Pavement, showed an increase in price. While Earthwork, Structural Concrete, and Reinforcing Steel showed a decrease in price. 26 Design-Bid-Build projects for a total of $122,626,849.59 were bid and awarded this quarter. The five categories for CCI items totaled $58,169,575.52, which is 47.44% of the total Design-Bid-Build awarded amount. Last quarter, by comparison, had 41 Design-Bid-Build projects bid and awarded. Projects Awarded This Quarter and Not Used in the CCI Calculations Project Type Number of Projects Biddable Items Total Amount Design-Build 0 $0.00 Hybrid / Modified / Streamlined Design-Build 0 $0.00 Construction Manager / General Contractor 2 $140,282,498.55 Emergency 2 $284,045.00 Sub Total 4 $140,566,543.55 Page 80 of 103 Headline Copy Goes Here Capital Projects Manager Dana Hornkohl Engineering Capital Projects Supplemental Appropriation Requests August 1, 2024 Page 81 of 103 Headline Copy Goes Here 2 Questions for the Council Finance Committee •Does Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle appropriation of Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Grant Funds, Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) Funds, and Transportation Services Fund Reserves as well as a reappropriation of funds from the Laporte Bridges project to complete the Laporte Avenue Multimodal Improvements project? •Does Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle appropriation of TCEF Funds, Transportation Services Fund Reserves, and Community Capital Improvement Program (CCIP) Arterial Intersection Improvements Fund to complete the College Avenue – Trilby Road Intersection Improvements project? •Does Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle appropriation of TCEF Funds and Transportation Services Fund Reserves to complete the Zach Elementary School Crossings – Safe Routes to School project? •Does Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle appropriation of Funding Advancements for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery (FASTER) Act Grant Funds, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Funds, TCEF Funds, and Transportation Services Fund Reserves to complete the College Avenue – Triangle Drive Intersection Improvements project? Page 82 of 103 Headline Copy Goes Here 3 Construction Inflation Background National, State, and Regional Construction Cost Indices Page 83 of 103 Headline Copy Goes HereLaporte Avenue Multimodal Improvements 4 •Bicycle and pedestrian side paths •Previously Appropriated •Grant Funds: $4.94M •Local Funds: $1.37M •Re-Appropriation from Bridges Phase: $517K •TOTAL: $6.82M •Proposed Supplemental Appropriations •Grant Funds: $50K •TCEF Funds: $335K •Transportation Fund Reserves: $175K •TOTAL: $560K, 8% Increase •TOTAL COST: $7.38M •Construction is divided into three phases •Bridges: Taft Hill Rd to Frey Ave, Completed 2023 •East: Frey Ave to Fishback Ave, Under construction •West: Sunset St to Taft Hill Rd, October 2024 •Cost escalation due to increase in scope, real property, and construction costs Page 84 of 103 Headline Copy Goes HereCollege Avenue – Trilby Road Intersection Improvements 5 •Pedestrian and bicycle improvements •Dual left turn lanes from S College Ave to Trilby Rd •Right turn lanes for each direction of travel •Widened Trilby Rd approach to S College Ave •Previously Appropriated •Grant Funds: $13.64M •Local Funds: $2.87M •TOTAL: $16.51M •Proposed Supplemental Appropriations •TCEF Funds: $909K •Transportation Fund Reserves: $180K •CCIP Arterial Intersection Fund: $600K •TOTAL: $1.51M, 9% Increase •TOTAL COST: $18.02M •Construction is divided into three phases •One: Walls, Under construction •Two: Utility relocation and storm drainage, August 2024 •Three: Sidewalks, paving, signals. landscaping, Fall 2024 •Cost escalation due to real property and construction costs Page 85 of 103 Headline Copy Goes HereZach Elementary School Crossings – Safe Routes to School 6 •Signal and crossing improvements across Kechter Rd at Jupiter Dr and Cinquefoil Ln •Previously Appropriated •Grant Funds: $746K •Local Funds: $187K •TOTAL: $933K •Proposed Supplemental Appropriations •TCEF Funds: $179K •Transportation Fund Reserves: $275K •TOTAL: $455K, 49% Increase •TOTAL COST: $1.39M •Cost escalation due to increase in scope, easement acquisition, and construction costs •Off-cycle appropriation sought to keep project on schedule and minimize exposure to construction escalation Page 86 of 103 Headline Copy Goes Here 7 College Avenue – Triangle Drive Intersection Improvements •New traffic signal as well as bicycle and pedestrian improvements connecting Triangle Dr to the northeast •No Funds Previously Appropriated •Proposed Supplemental Appropriations •Grant Funds: $832K •TCEF Funds: $797K •Transportation Fund Reserves: $158 •TOTAL COST: $1.63M •Off-cycle appropriation sought to keep project on schedule and minimize exposure to construction escalation Page 87 of 103 Headline Copy Goes Here 8 Proposed Supplemental Appropriations Grant Funds Local Funds Re- Appropriation Total Grant Funds TCEF Funds Trans. Fund Reserves CCIP Arterial Intersection Fund Total Increase Laporte 4,937,500$ 1,365,495$ 517,000$ 6,819,995$ 49,500$ 335,454$ 175,101$ -$ 560,055$ 8% College/Trilby 13,640,992$ 2,873,513$ -$ 16,514,505$ -$ 908,820$ 180$ 600,000$ 1,509,000$ 9% Zach Elementary SRTS 745,587$ 187,397$ -$ 932,984$ -$ 179,410$ 275,090$ -$ 454,500$ 49% College/Triangle -$ -$ -$ -$ 832,211$ 796,546$ 158$ -$ 1,628,915$ N/A TOTAL 19,324,079$ 4,426,405$ 517,000$ 24,267,484$ 881,711$ 2,220,230$ 450,529$ 600,000$ 4,152,470$ N/A Previously Appropriated Proposed Supplemental Appropriations Summary of requested supplemental appropriations •Grant Funds: $881,711 •TCEF Reserves: $2,220,230 •Transportation Fund Reserves: $450,529 •CCIP – Arterial Intersection Improvements: $600,000 •Total: $4,152,470 Page 88 of 103 Headline Copy Goes Here 9 Alternatives •Option 1: Secure off-cycle appropriations for the projects to complete design, acquisition, and construction and avoid additional costs with delaying the work. There is currently sufficient funding to cover these proposed appropriations. •Option 2: Reduce the scope of work for the projects. All four projects have been value engineered to minimize costs. Additional reduction of scope would potentially compromise project goals or limit the ability to meet City standards. •Option 3: Delay final delivery until additional funding can be secured. This option would result in the project not meeting the identified project goals within the promised timeframe, expose the remaining work to further inflation, and would impact the schedule and budget for other transportation capital projects in the design, acquisition, and construction pipeline. Page 89 of 103 Headline Copy Goes Here 10 Questions for the Council Finance Committee •Does Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle appropriation of Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Grant Funds, Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) Funds, and Transportation Services Fund Reserves as well as a reappropriation of funds from the Laporte Bridges project to complete the Laporte Avenue Multimodal Improvements project? •Does Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle appropriation of TCEF Funds, Transportation Services Fund Reserves, and Community Capital Improvement Program (CCIP) Arterial Intersection Improvements Fund to complete the College Avenue – Trilby Road Intersection Improvements project? •Does Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle appropriation of TCEF Funds and Transportation Services Fund Reserves to complete the Zach Elementary School Crossings – Safe Routes to School project? •Does Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle appropriation of Funding Advancements for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery (FASTER) Act Grant Funds, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Funds, TCEF Funds, and Transportation Services Fund Reserves to complete the College Avenue – Triangle Drive Intersection Improvements project? Page 90 of 103 Headline Copy Goes Here Page 91 of 103 Page 93 of 103 COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Staff: Eric Keselburg, Sr Manager, Parking Services Date: August 1, 2024 SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Parking Services Supplemental Appropriations EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Parking Services is requesting appropriation of available Parking Reserves to fund the following items. The Civic Center Parking Structure (CCPS) item will be funded using dedicated CCPS Reserves. 1. The southeast corner public stairwell in CCPS needs to be replaced, as identified during the recent condition assessment. This stairwell is located on the most heavily trafficked exit from CCPS and has been closed since June 2020, as design and funding are finalized. 2. Parking Services began sealant work in the Firehouse Alley Garage in 2023. Funds allocated for this project in 2023 were not used due to timing delays and subsequently became part of the Parking Reserves. These funds are now needed to complete the project. 3. Parking Services presented to City Council in October 2023, to request support to research a sustainable funding model for the downtown parking system. The scope for the Request for Proposal (RFP) has been drafted and reviewed by the Downtown Development Authority (DDA); which has agreed to contribute financially to assist with the Downtown Parking System Strategy Study, and subsequent implementation plan. 4. The third-party security company, Precision Security, provides security services in the three (3) City-managed parking structures. The current staffing and hours of coverage are not changing; however, the cost of service has increased yearly including a 4.5% for 2024 service. Parking Services is requesting appropriations versus aligning with the standard Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process due to project timing and the need to adjust the current year budget. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED Parking Services is requesting the appropriation of available Parking Services reserve funding to allow for movement on the customer experience items, and to allow the RFP to be submitted to Page 94 of 103 begin the downtown parking study; to gather both partner and community feedback, ahead of Council direction. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION There are a few asks being compiled together. The first being the CCPS stairwell, which following the 2019 condition assessment was found to have repair needs. Due to the pandemic and financial constraints imposed on Parking Services, the maintenance schedule was paused (approved by the contracted structural engineering firm). Once the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding was provided (BFO cycle 2022/2023), Parking Services resumed maintenance repairs. However, the subsequent and necessary condition assessment performed found that the southeast stairwell had degraded to an unsafe level; which required it to be closed (June 2022) for public use. Several design options were discussed and presented; that said, a viable design was submitted, and a path forward was determined. To complete this project a supplemental appropriation of $1,200,000 is being requested. These funds will be appropriated from the CCPS Reserves. The second request is to utilize prior funding which was set-aside in 2023 for necessary parking structure deck sealant maintenance work in FAPS. This project was planned to bridge funding availability from both 2023 and 2024; due to timing delays, the available 2023 funding was not used and subsequently rolled into the Parking Reserves. To complete this project a supplemental appropriation of $110,000 is requested. These funds will be appropriated from Parking Reserves. The third ask revolves around the following. Parking Services presented to City Council at a work session in October 2023, specifically pertaining to the current state of the Parking Services operation and the request to support continuing efforts to develop a new financial and strategic model and related implementation plan for downtown parking. The identified problem statement showcased that the current parking system model does not provide the parking choices needed for those who visit the downtown area. As well, it is incapable of addressing the demand distribution challenges, which frustrates our users, because of the reliance on an enforcement methodology and the use of low dollar paid parking in undesirable facilities. Also, Parking Services is unable to fulfill its required goals to fund its maintenance needs because it cannot achieve cost neutrality in its current model. The scope of the RFP has been drafted and reviewed by the DDA, who agreed to contribute financially to the downtown parking study. At this time, a supplemental appropriation of $185,000 is requested to fund this work. The DDA has agreed to reimburse the City for the cost in the amount of $65,000 or up to 50% of total cost. The final piece of the request is due to the increased cost of third-party security services provided in the three (3) City-managed parking structures. Parking Services contracts armed security to ensure the evening and late-night users of the parking facilities have adequate protection, with armed security at each facility, with added security staffing during the weekend. The cost of the contract for armed security has increased yearly including an increase of 4.5% in 2024. Parking has managed past yearly increases within its budget, but cost increases have now accumulated resulting in this request for $50,000 in supplemental appropriation from Parking Reserves. Page 95 of 103 The available reserve balance is sufficient to cover the presented requests and will help to minimize execution, and advance efforts made to date. As well, the contract increase will provide uninterrupted security coverage for our downtown customers. ATTACHMENTS Attached: CFC- Parking Services PowerPoint presentation Page 96 of 103 Headline Copy Goes Here Sr Manager, Parking Services Eric Keselburg Council Finance Committee – Parking Services July 23, 2034 Page 97 of 103 Headline Copy Goes HereParking Services –Appropriation Request 2 1.Civic Center Parking Structure- Project Costs: •Additional request of $1,200,000 2.Firehouse Alley Parking Structure- Project Cost: •Additional request of $110,000 3.Request for Proposal for Downtown Parking System Strategy Study: •$185,000; $65,000, or up to 50% of total cost, to be reimbursed by the Downtown Development Authority 4.Precision Security Costs: • Contract increase; additional request of $50,000 Page 98 of 103 Headline Copy Goes HereCivic Center Parking Structure- Project Costs 3 •Condition assessment conducted in the Civic Center Parking Structure identified that the southeast corner stairwell needed replacement, versus repair. •Stairwell closed for public use June 2022, while design and funding conversations occurred. •Path forward identified, which would require an additional twelve (12) – eighteen (18) months for completion of work. •Due to extended closure of stairwell, and associated top-deck parking space closures, there is a strong public desire to re-open this stairwell. Page 99 of 103 Headline Copy Goes HereFirehouse Alley Parking Structure- Project Costs 4 •Parking deck sealant work required as part of identified maintenance. •This project was planned to bridge funding availability from both 2023 and 2024; due to timing delays, the available 2023 funding was not used and subsequently rolled into the Parking Reserves. •Project near completion. Page 100 of 103 Headline Copy Goes HereRFP: Downtown Parking System Strategy Study 5 •Parking Services presented to City Council in October 2023 to ask if there was support to continue our efforts to develop a new financial and strategic model for Parking Services and related implementation plan for downtown parking. •Anticipated cost for the robust Downtown Parking System Strategy Study: $185,000. The Downtown Development Authority has verbally agreed to assist with funding; $65,000, or up to 50% of total cost, to be reimbursed. Page 101 of 103 Headline Copy Goes HerePrecision Security Costs 6 Parking Structure(s) Security Services: •Armed: 4.5% increase; from $36.75/hour to $38.40/hour •Security schedule: •Sunday - Thursday 7:00pm-3:00am. 3 total; one per parking structure •Friday - Saturday 7:00pm-3:00am. 4 total; one per structure and an additional “floater” •Parking Services treasury collection. Page 102 of 103 Headline Copy Goes Here Page 103 of 103