HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Mail Packet - 10/08/2024 - Memorandum from Lawrence Pollack re: Councilmember Questions and Requests from Emails and Work Sessions on the City Manager’s 2025-2026 Recommended Budget
1
Financial Services
215 N Mason Street
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6795
fcgov.com/finance
M E M O R A N D U M
Date: October 3, 2024
To: Mayor Arndt and City Councilmembers
Through: Kelly DiMartino, City Manager
Travis Storin, Chief Financial Officer
From: Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director
Re: Councilmember questions and requests from emails and work sessions on the
2025-2026 Budget
City Council has completed their first two work sessions to review the 2025-2026 City
Manager’s Recommended Budget. Questions were asked about specific budget requests
(offers), as well as some more general inquiries about the budget. All but two of the
remaining Council follow-up requests noted by staff are included in this memo. These
remaining two items will be delivered to City Council via a Read Before memo on Tuesday
October 8:
- Please provide a comparison of Ongoing Offers from 2023-24 to 2025-26
- For the 2050 Tax, please provide the 2023 baseline spend for each of the 3
categories and compare those to the 2025-26 Budget
Inquiries of a general nature not specific to an individual Outcome
1) Question from Kelly Ohlson and Julie Pignataro: Could we please schedule time to
debrief Council on changes they would like to be considered for future budget processes
and related materials? For instance, would it be possible to indicate when offers are
self-funded?
Response from Lawrence Pollack (Budget):
Staff will follow-up with the Leadership Planning Team to discuss the requested timing
and meeting format for this review and Council insights
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
2
Outcome: Neighborhood and Community Vitality
2) Question from Kelly Ohlson: Does the City know if the faster homeless camp clean-
ups are keeping contamination out of the river, or is it same level because those areas
again become homeless camps?
Response from Marcy Yoder (Community Development and Neighborhood
Services):
Trash and potential contaminants are being removed from the flood plain at a more
frequent/timely pace leaving less chance for river contamination. These sites are also
prioritized in weekly clean-ups, especially leading up to peak run-off times. The addition
of the HOPE team from Police Services, as part of our cleanup initiatives, is also
resulting in more folks getting connected to resources when we find occupied
encampments. Although we do not currently collect data specific to water quality and the
impact of site cleanups, the assumption is that these efforts are having a positive impact
on keeping contaminants out of the river and canals.
3) Question from Mayor Pro Tem Francis: What is the City doing to provide more
support and funding to Affordable Housing?
Response from Beth Yonce (Social Sustainability):
Staff is currently working on innovative ways to support and fund Affordable Housing
through the next Community Capital Improvements Program (CCIP) funding (the current
CCIP fund ends at the end of 2025 and staff is working on options for the potential
renewal for 2026).
Additionally, staff is working diligently on implementing the strategies outlined in the
Housing Strategic Plan. In the past 3 years (since adoption in 2021), 22 of the 26
strategies have either been completed or substantially advanced. Please, go to the
Housing Dashboard to see progress toward the vision and goals laid out in the plan
through a series of indicators: https://www.fcgov.com/housing/dashboard
Part of staff’s work is convening and participating in community conversations to
advance policy objectives and seek creative ideas and solutions. For example:
• The City hosted a Community Housing Summit on September 26 to receive
feedback on the Housing Strategic Plan’s implementation
• In looking to operationalize City resources for affordable housing, staff is
investigating tools available to the Urban Renewal Authority to advance affordable
housing goals
• Staff supports regional efforts such as NoCo Housing Now and coordinating with
Larimer County
• Staff facilitates the exchange of information related to housing policy and
programs by convening a recurring Housing Providers Focus Group and by
working with the Affordable Housing Board
• Staff also informally meets with affordable housing developers as needed to
connect them with resources for their projects, whether from the City or others,
and provide ideas to overcome development challenges
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
3
Most of this work is funded through the ongoing Social Sustainability Department
Ongoing Offer.
4) Requests from Mayor Pro Tem Francis and Julie Pignataro: Please provide more
information on what the City is doing to allocate more resources to all the unfunded
areas in this Outcome. How was it decided what was above and below the line? Of
those unfunded offers, please indicate what was proposed to be a net increase in
service vs. what is being lost by not funding those offers?
Response from Beth Yonce (Social Sustainability) and Caryn Champine (Planning,
Development and Transportation Services):
Regarding Social Sustainability Department Offers, the Human Services Program
continuing enhancement offer (Offer 44.3) is the only one currently unfunded that would
result in a net decrease in funding compared to the 2019 budget. See the chart below
for more detailed information:
The following chart shows funding amounts for the Homelessness Offer (Offer 44.14 -
funded at $1.0M). Offer 44.15 (unfunded) is the remaining $230,000 requested for 24/7
shelter, resource navigation and other identified priorities. While funding amounts are
slightly higher than in 2019, the core/foundational services will remain constant due to
significant cost increases. The net increase compared to 2019 ($270,000) is for added
services for 24/7 shelter, resource navigation, and other identified priorities.
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
4
Regarding Housing Program Offers, the following chart shows both requests for funding,
as well as what has been funded and what has not been funded. Total funded amounts
for housing (not including personnel funds) includes (slight net increase in CCIP funds
compared to 2019):
• 2019: $525,000 (GF); $400,000 (CCIP)
• 2023-2024: $525,000 (GF); $1M (CCIP), $1,350,000 (ARPA)
• 2025-2026: $525,000 (GF); $500,000 (CCIP)
Headline Copy Goes HereHousing Program Budget Offers
Notes2025-2026 (proposed)2023-20242019Housing Program Budget Offers
(unfunded)
(only 2023 funded)
(unfunded)
(unfunded)(unfunded)
(unfunded)
(only 2023 funded)
(unfunded)
(unfunded)(unfunded)
shared with Equity
office(funded in 2024)
(unfunded)
(unfunded)
(unfunded)
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
5
Regarding Proposition 123 funding, the City successfully submitted our affordable
housing commitment in order to unlock funding opportunities in Fort Collins. So far, 2 of
our housing partners have successfully been awarded funds for their projects. The
Village on Eastbrook was awarded $1.6M for land banking and the Szanten Company
was awarded $5,806,584 in middle income equity funding. An additional requirement for
these funds starting in 2027 is for the City to provide an expedited development review
process for affordable housing projects (also known as “Fast Track”). The City is
currently working on this.
The following is a summary of the history of funding levels for unfunded offers submitted
by Community Development and Neighborhood Services. Only those unfunded offers
discussed at the work session are included in the table. We also included notes on any
methods we have available to resource these needs in 2025-2026. Overall, CDNS
prioritized offers for housing-related initiatives and programs, as well as relying upon
ongoing offers and programs as a continued source of neighborhood services. For
example, Mobile Home Park Resident’s Rights work will continue as funded through the
core Offer 18.2-Neighborhood Services and Offer 18.1-Code Compliance
PDT/NCV Budget Offers
2023-2024
Approved
Budget
2025-2026
Proposed
Budget
If Not Funded
Service Levels
If Funded
Service Levels
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
6
5) Question from multiple Councilmembers: Would offer 44.9-Social Sustainability: 1.0
FTE - Housing Grant writing, Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance pay for itself? In
the housing sphere, how many dollars are we leaving on the table by not having
dedicated staffing focused on grants? Lastly, please indicate if this work would be
duplicative of similar work being done by the Housing Catalyst?
Response from Beth Yonce (Social Sustainability) and Jacob Castillo
(Sustainability Services):
At this time, the City does not have a dedicated staff person who is focused on the
identification and evaluation of housing and homelessness grant opportunities for the
City and/or other partners, nor is there existing capacity with the current staff to pursue
and manage grants that may be beneficial to the City. Without that resource, it is hard to
know if any or how much funding is being “left on the table”. That said, we are in early-
stage conversations with community partners to explore the idea of pooling resources
for a shared community resource to pursue and manage grants, which would add
capacity to the overall housing landscape and minimize any potential duplication of
efforts with other entities This approach could be advantageous, because the grant
landscape is complex and while there may be funding available for certain activities the
City may not be the optimal organization to manage and ensure compliance with the
grant requirements. While it is reasonable to expect that a successful grant writing
position would “pay for itself”, there is no guarantee that would occur. As we refine our
options, we would like to ensure that we are pursuing grants that the City is well
positioned to win and successfully implement. In order to do that, we need to create a
more comprehensive grant strategy, which will assist us in focusing on the highest and
best opportunities and limit the amount of time and energy spent on chasing funding
opportunities.
It is also worth noting that some grants are only available to municipalities but are still
project specific and require coordination and collaboration with development partners.
For example, the City received a State Transformational Grant for $2.2M to pay for
water fees and permit fees for the Birdwhistle community that was built on the Kechter
land bank parcel.
At the October 22 Work Session, a staff report is planned to update the Council on the
Citywide grant development program, funded in 2022. Program results to-date, pending
applications, and the 2025 workplan will be provided as well as an assessment of
whether housing funds have been left on the table.
Outcome: Safe Community
6) Question prior to Sept 10 work session: Why are the design costs for the Water
Quality Lab in Offer 5.38 so high?
Response from Jill Oropeza (One Water):
By industry standards, design services are typically estimated at 10% of capital
construction cost. Our 2023 conceptual cost estimate for a combined water / wastewater
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
7
laboratory was $35M. Design services are therefore expected to be approximately
~$3.5M, plus inflation over 2023 dollars.
City staff are currently working to identify either a City-owned property or private parcels
for sale on which to build a new laboratory. If we purchase a parcel, the cost, while
unknown, is expected to be between $3-5M, and the funds will be used to support the
land purchase. In the event we are able to acquire and build on a City-owned site, the
funds will be used to facilitate the land transfer and/or support design.
The offer, as written, is intended to fund the work that moves the project forward on the
earliest timeline. If the funds are used for land acquisition, then design fees will be
wrapped into construction costs.
7) Questions from Kelly Ohlson: Does the Natural Areas Department contribute any
funding toward Offer 39.1-West Nile Virus Program Management? If so, is it based on
actual use rather than in thirds? Also, please explain why this program is managed by
Natural Areas staff rather than another department funded by the General Fund.
Response from Katie Donahue (Natural Areas):
West Nile management is solely funded through General Fund; however, the offer does
not cover any staff positions. The Natural Areas Department (NAD) does provide
staffing support, along with Parks and CPIO. In the past, Natural Areas funds were part
of the funding mix, but that was eliminated and now only staff time is contributed. It takes
about 10% of one Senior Supervisor’s capacity to manage the operations side of this
program. This role requires expertise in integrated pesticide management, and NAD
manages a significant percentage of the open water that is treated with larvicide.
8) Questions from Kelly Ohlson: How many tickets have been written by Parks Rangers,
including the number of Class 3 e-bikes on the trail system? What is the City policy on e-
bike enforcement on City trails? Is there a reason why Parks Rangers can't do more?
And, If the Parks Rangers cannot enforce, how do we get bike patrol Police out there?
Response from Mike Calhoon (Parks):
The Parks Rangers have made 9,955 contacts in 2023 and 6,312 in 2024 year-to-date.
They work with folks from an Authority of the Resource approach, which is based in
educating individuals on the "why" their actions matter to the environment they are in.
Voluntary compliance is much more durable than a punitive approach with tickets.
The data for tickets written by Parks Rangers is as follows:
- 2023 = (6): Trespass/Public Property/Locked Restroom & constructing a Structure
in a Recreation Area
- 2024 = (4): Accumulation of Rubbish & Entering upon Ice of a Recreation Area &
Dog Off-Leash
- No tickets have been written for Type 3 e-bikes by the Park Rangers
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
8
Type 1 & 2 e-bikes are allowed on the paved trail system. Type 3 e-bikes are not
allowed. People can be ticketed for using a Type 3 e-bike on the paved trail system.
However, the Park Rangers limited commission does not allow them to pursue or detain.
For Police Services to provide this type of enforcement, it would require some way of
conducting speed measurement, that officers do not have on bicycles. Additionally, there
is no deployment strategy for officers to routinely work on trails when they are
responsible for responding to calls for service. Currently, if Park Rangers need
assistance, they contact dispatch and request officer assistance.
Outcome: Culture and Recreation
9) Question from Mayor Pro Tem Francis: What was the original funding for Offer 26.16-
Access Funds for Low-Income Community Residents and how did the ARPA funding
temporarily change that?
Response from Eileen May (Cultural Services):
Prior to the ARPA funding, there was not a dedicated offer to fund the access
programming across Cultural Services offerings. The costs of providing access were
absorbed into the operational budgets of each facility as foregone revenue. The ARPA
funding allowed Cultural Services to expand prior ongoing offerings and provide more
opportunities to bring people into the facilities who may not otherwise have had a
connection to them.
Non-ARPA funded access programs vary by facility; and include free admission for
community members enrolled in the SNAP/EBT program or who indicate financial need
at the Museum of Discovery, the Ability Pass and Library programs at the Gardens on
Spring Creek, and “Big Deal” discounted tickets, and Educational Outreach for Poudre
School District and Colorado State University at the Lincoln Center.
Some of the ARPA Funded Access Programs included free field trips and transportation
for Title 1 schools in Poudre School District, and discounted field trips for schools with a
free & reduced lunch rate of 40% or greater at the Museum of Discovery. Additionally,
this program funded the education program scholarships and SNAP daily admission at
the Gardens on Spring Creek, and the Story Bakers and Summer Children’s Series at
the Lincoln Center.
10) Question from multiple Councilmembers: Please provide detail on what projects are
being funded within each of the Parks and Recreation Infrastructure Replacement
Program (IRP) offers?
Response from Dean Klingner (Community Services):
Parks created an asset management plan (https://www.fcgov.com/parks/life-cycle-
program) in 2022 that guides decision making not only based on age and condition of
assets, but also incorporates other factors to assess level of service goals of the
community, like equity as defined in the Equity and Opportunity Assessment from 2021.
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
9
Additionally, preventative maintenance, such as filling cracks in asphalt tennis courts
annually, partnerships and safety/vandalism issues are also addressed through this
funding source. Recreation is in the process of creating a similar plan.
Park projects associated with the asset management plan are a “Top 40” list of deferred
replacements that the program will focus on during the initial startup years. Where
possible, projects will be grouped to create more efficient workflow. Additional work will
occur at other parks as needed for preventative maintenance.
A few examples of park projects for 2025-2026 are: Rolland Moore Tennis Center and
Playground Renovation (built in 1983), Landings Park Renovation (built in 1984)
including a focus on conversion of turf to waterwise landscaping (per 2024 BFO offer),
and Mini-park Renovations at Alta Vista (built in 1978), Romero (built in 1982) and
Freedom Square (built in 1975). These projects will include public outreach, planning
and design in 2025/26. In addition, we will continue to address safety projects, such as
the daylighting of Spring Canyon’s splashpad controls, ADA improvements, and other
preventative maintenance items.
While focusing on the most deferred replacements is the goal for initial projects, in Soft
Gold Park (built in in 2004), there is opportunity to update some amenities due to a
planned development to the north which requires utility alignments through the park. In
this instance there are opportunities to improve the loop trail and general lighting within
the park. Determining funding sources for improvements like CCIP or other alternative
funding sources could provide the resources to make additional improvements to
amenities, like the dog park. Currently, the park is also being evaluated for preventative
maintenance projects (i.e. playground surfacing replacement). With the changing
conditions in the Soft Gold Park area and the Council priorities on equity, Parks will
initiate Soft Gold improvements scoping in the 2025-2026 budget cycle.
This map illustrates the currently identified top needs across Parks and Recreation,
where the size of the bubble represents the relative cost of the project:
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
10
Parks Top 40 List:
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
11
In parks like Soft Gold, we are constantly looking for "projects of opportunity" to make
improvements. There is an opportunity to update some amenities in Soft Gold Park due
to a planned development to the north which requires utility alignments through the park.
In this instance there are opportunities to improve the loop trail and general lighting
within the park. Determining funding sources for improvements like CCIP or other
alternative funding sources can provide the resources to make additional improvements
to amenities like the dog park. Currently the park is also being evaluated for
preventative maintenance projects (i.e. playground surfacing replacement).
11) Question from Melanie Potyondy: Since it appears that programming is expanding at
the Gardens on Spring Creek, why was Offer 26.13-3.0 FTE - Gardens on Spring Creek
Horticulture Staffing not funded?
Response from Eileen May (Cultural Services):
Offer 26.12 - Gardens on Spring Creek Expanded Programs requests funds to continue
current service levels and programs at the Gardens. This offer was originally funded in
the 2019-2020 Budgeting for Outcomes cycle to resource the facility following its
expansion. The naming convention for the offer has remained the same across budget
cycles to provide continuity for tracking, but this offer does not represent further
expansion of programs in 2025-2026.
This offer (26.12) is funded from the revenue brought in by those corresponding
programs. There is no unassigned Gardens revenue available to fund adding FTE
during this budget cycle.
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
12
12) Question from Julie Pignataro: Is there any way that funding from some of the multi-
million-dollar projects be scaled to fund some of the smaller unfunded offers in this
Outcome?
Response from Dean Klingner (Community Services):
The currently proposed budget incorporates staff analysis and recommendations to
maximize funding opportunities within the Outcome. Several offers were funded
following that analysis, such as redeploying some of the City’s tourism tax revenue to
fund Offer 26.16 - Access Funds for Low-Income Community Residents - formerly ARPA
funded. However, Staff does not have other recommended opportunities at this time.
Outcome: Transportation and Mobility
13) Question from Mayor Pro Tem Francis: What type of scalability is available in Offer
21.9-PDT Active Modes Facility Maintenance?
Response from Malory Gallegos (Streets):
This offer is intended to help us maintain new separated bike lanes recommended in the
Active Modes Plan, as well as add some low stress bikeways to our snow removal
routes. The requested scalability is as follows:
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
13
2025 $ -
One-time
2025 $ -
Ongoing
One-time Cost
Details Scalability
Amounts submitted in Offer 21.9 for 2025 $734,189 $238,317
Add low stress bikeways to snow removal
routes $68,000 $61,500 Pick-up truck
with plow
This funding would enable the inclusion of 9.2 miles of low-
stress bikeways in our snow removal routes, ensuring these
pathways are cleared during Priority 3 snow removal efforts.
This also includes anti-icing treatments before a storm when
conditions permit.
Snow removal for additional separated
bike lanes recommended in the Active
Modes Plan in 2025-2026 (14 miles)
$44,600
Currently, the 4.1 miles of separated bike lanes are cleared by
an operator when we transition from Priority 1 to Priority 2
routes. The requested funding would enable us to clear the
a dditional 14 miles of protected bike lanes estimated to be
added in 2025-2026 as recommended by the Active Modes
Plan.
To scale this further, $23,000 would enable us to clear the
additional projects that are funded or in progress through
2026, which includes 7.2 miles of separated bike lanes
(instead of the full 14 miles recommended)
2025: 2.1 miles
Centre – Bay to Worthington (in-street) = .77 miles
Shields - Mountain to Mulberry (in-street) = .36 miles
Laporte - Fishback to Sunset (raised) = 1 mile
2026: 1 mile
Lake - Shields to College (in-street) 1 mile
Snow removal for new ramps, sidewalks,
crossing improvements $18,133
Funding this portion of the offer would enable us to remove
snow on newly added ramps, sidewalks, and crossing
improvements along our snow removal routes at the current
level of service.
Sweeping for additional separated bike
lanes recommended in the Active Modes
Plan in 2025-2026 (14 miles)
$666,189 $49,084
Smaller
sweeper to fit
in bike lanes
Currently, the 4.1 miles of separated bike lanes are swept
twice annually. This proposal seeks to position us to manage
an additional 14 lane miles of separated bike lanes as
recommended by the Active Modes Plan. Acquiring
specialized equipment that fits within these lanes is essential
to effectively maintain and expand our sweeping capacity.
To scale this further, $25,243 ongoing and $666,189 one-time
equipment purchase would enable us to sweep the
additional projects that are funded or in progress through
2026, which includes 7.2 miles of separated bike lanes
(instead of the full 14 miles recommended)
2025: 2.1 miles
Centre – Bay to Worthington (in-street) = .77 miles
Shields - Mountain to Mulberry (in-street) = .36 miles
Laporte - Fishback to Sunset (raised) = 1 mile
2026: 1 mile
Lake - Shields to College (in-street) 1 mile
Maintaining signal equipment for crossing
improvements,
Cleaning and replacing bike lane barriers,
Traffic signage maintenance,
Restriping and upgrading bike facility
pavement markings,
Additional maintenance costs associated
with removing and resetting delineators
$65,000
This would fund staff overtime, material & equipment in
support of the additional 14 lane miles of separated bike
lanes anticipated in 2025-2026 as recommended by the Active
Modes Plan. This includes contracted support work.
Snow removal for additional planned
separated bike lanes in 2025-2026 (7.2
miles)
$23,000
Sweeping for additional planned
separated bike lanes in 2025-2026 (7.2
miles)
$666,189 $25,243
Smaller
sweeper to fit
in bike lanes
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
14
14) Question from Mayor Pro Tem Francis: Where are the 11 Adopted Council Priorities
being funded in this budget, like 15-minute cities in the Transportation and Mobility
Outcome? Please include insights into Ongoing Offers, as well as Enhancements.
Response from Ginny Sawyer (City Manager’s Office): Please refer to Attachment #1
for a summary of Offers supporting each Adopted Council Priority. Additional
information will be included in the presentation materials for the October 8 work session
on the 2025-26 Budget.
15) Question and request from Mayor Pro Tem Francis and Kelly Ohlson: Why are
sidewalk improvements along Prospect not being funded, especially when there appears
to be so much investment in south Fort Collins? Please include the sidewalk
prioritization model in your response.
Response from Brad Buckman (Engineering):
The sidewalk prioritization model has been used since 2017 and was developed in order
to provide a data driven and logical methodology for prioritizing our CCIP sidewalk
program. The CCIP sidewalk program fills missing gaps in the system and replaces
sidewalk segments that do not meet ADA and LCUASS requirements (notably the
narrow “Hollywood” style sidewalks). The model compiles scoring based on Demand
(35%), Health and Equity (20%), and Safety (45%). Proximity to schools will provide a
higher demand score, for example. Health and Equity considers socioeconomic and
health factors for different areas of the City. Proximity to arterials, as well as speeds, will
factor into the safety score. The pedestrian program will prioritize projects based on the
aggregated scores considering the three criteria areas. For more detail, please refer to
Attachment #2 for the Sidewalk Prioritization Model.
In the past few years, some areas in South Fort Collins have scored high based on the
model, but we have also made steady progress along Prospect Road. For example:
- 2020: constructed sidewalks on both north and south side of Prospect from
Remington to Stover.
- 2022: constructed sidewalk on north side of Prospect from Overland to Azalea.
- 2023: constructed sidewalk on north side of Prospect from Taft Hill to Fuqua (near
Bauder Elementary).
- 2024: constructed sidewalk on north side of Prospect from Fuqua to Cedarwood
(near Bauder Elementary).
- Planned for 2025: complete gap on north side of Prospect from Azalea to
Cedarwood.
The question also came up regarding planned pedestrian improvements along Prospect,
east of Shields in the vicinity of Sheely Drive and Prospect Lane. City staff has
programmed sidewalk improvements for this area in the 2025-2026 timeframe, which
would include widening the existing narrow sidewalks to meet ADA and LCUASS
standards. Additionally, we have a crossing improvement planned for Prospect Road
and Prospect Lane, installing a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon at this location, which passed
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
15
on second reading at the Sept 17, 2024 Council Meeting. Construction is anticipated for
next Summer/Fall. We also have a funded BFO offer that will (among other things)
provide design funding for a protected intersection at Shields and Prospect, greatly
improving bike/ped safety at the intersection. In the context of multimodal safety along
Prospect Road and at the intersection of Shields and Prosect, these projects all play a
significant role.
16) Question from Kelly Ohlson: For Offer 65.22 what is the reasoning for requesting 7
new Transit Security Officers and how might this be scaled?
Response from Kaley Zeisel (Transfort):
We are able to scale this offer and will discuss tradeoffs with the Transfort
Sunday/Holiday Service Offer at the October 8th work session. The addition of one or
two Transit Service Officers (TSOs) would improve system coverage, particularly as
service hours expand with the reinstatement of pre-pandemic transit service levels.
Transfort currently has five TSO positions, though a 2018 staffing assessment
recommended 12 TSO positions based on the size and scope of the Transfort system.
To ensure that staffing aligns with future service levels, staff recommends completing
the optimization study in 2025 prior to funding any of the seven (7) additional positions in
2026.
The rising concerns around safety and security on Transfort buses and at transit centers
highlight the need for additional Transit Service Officers (TSOs). A recent community
survey revealed that only 59% of respondents feel safe on Transfort/MAX, with survey
data showing a consistent decline in safety perception across 2023 and 2024.
Nationally, the Federal Transit Administration reported a 4x increase in operator assaults
from 2009. While TSO coverage is improving, it still lags behind industry
recommendations, exposing a gap in maintaining adequate oversight. This is especially
critical given the year-over-year increase in incidents, with 2024 projected to experience
the highest number to date. In 2023, 397 incidents were reported at Transfort transit
stops and centers, averaging more than one incident per day. Transfort bus operators
report safety and security as one of their top concerns, with 1/3 of operators in a 2023
engagement survey reporting feeling unsafe at work. TSOs also play an important role
as ambassadors, often helping passengers connect with vital resources and service
agencies. With incident growth within transit outpacing the rest of the City, expanding
the TSO workforce is important not only to enhancing safety conditions for passengers
and operators but also to maintaining valuable connections within the community.
Position
Cost Per
# of Requested
Transit Service Officer $79,000 6 $474,000
Mental Health Coordinator $79,000 1 $ 79,000
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
16
Outcome: High Performing Government
17) Question from Mayor Pro Tem Francis: Why is there no offer specifically for Ranked
Choice Voting (RCV) and what is planned for education and outreach to community
members? Please also provide a history of funding for elections.
Response from Delynn Coldiron (City Clerk’s Office):
We are currently researching what other municipalities have done regarding outreach
and education related to RCV and will develop a plan, including the following:
• Website – will have a section on the elections page dedicated to RCV
• Videos – will look at creating and/or providing instructional videos related to RCV
• Social Media – will have a robust social media campaign utilizing all platforms
• Events – will plan to have staff at City events to answer questions, provide
information and demonstrate RCV
• Boards & Commissions – will plan to attend one or more Super Issue meetings and
present on and demonstrate RCV
• Partnerships – will work with the League of Women Voters, Larimer County and
ASCSU to help get the word out and provide related education and demonstrations
• Equity Office (EO) – will work with EO staff and others to reach out to our Spanish-
speaking community to provide information, education and demonstrations
• Town Halls – will plan to participate in Town Hall meetings as needed/requested to
provide information, education and demonstration
• City Clerk’s Office staff will be available to any community members who are seeking
additional information/education/practice
It is anticipated that all of the above can be covered within the existing elections
budget. The budget does not currently include printing or mailing costs for postcards or
voter guides that could be mailed to registered voters. It is anticipated that an additional
$50K would be needed to send postcards to all registered voters and an additional
$100K would be needed to develop and send a voter guide.
Please see the table below for the requested history of elections expenses and
proposed funding:
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
17
18) Questions from Kelly Ohlson: What is the impact on safety from funding Offer 19.8-FC
Asphalt Art Program? What is the expected lifespan of the artwork and how will it be
maintained?
Response from Aaron Iverson (FC Moves):
Asphalt Art is a proven safety measure as shown in this study from Bloomberg:
https://assets.bbhub.io/dotorg/sites/43/2022/04/Asphalt-Art-Safety-Study.pdf
Some highlights from the study of before and after analysis:
50% decrease in the rate of crashes involving pedestrians or other vulnerable
road users
37% decrease in the rate of crashes leading to injuries
17% decrease in the total crash rate
Similarly, the Observational Behavior Assessment indicates:
25% decrease in pedestrian crossings involving a conflict with drivers
27% increase in frequency of drivers immediately yielding to pedestrians with the
right of way
38% decrease in pedestrians crossing against the walk signal
We have collected video data at Roosevelt/Maple and Canyon/Magnolia/Sherwood to
conduct a similar before and after analysis, and this activity is underway.
The plan for maintenance of Asphalt Art is as follows:
• The paint we used for the two most recent projects (Roosevelt/Maple and
Canyon/Magnolia/Sherwood) is expected to last three years.
• We will evaluate conditions annually and maintain the art as needed.
• The asphalt art budget offer builds in funding for maintenance, if funded.
Otherwise, we will absorb into the Active Modes operating budget and explore the
potential for partnerships with APP.
19) Request from Mayor Pro Tem Francis: Please describe the City's fund-raising
strategies, including how Offer 35.16-1.0 FTE Cultural Services Fundraising fits into that.
Please include why this was submitted to HPG instead of the Culture and Recreation
Outcome
Response from Nina Bodenhamer (City Give):
City Give allows the City to respond to strategic priorities and community needs well-
positioned for private funding. While the City Give Director focuses on building internal
practices and fundraising for large, designated organizational priorities, there is ample
opportunity for Cultural Services to leverage ongoing revenue streams (for example,
membership, sponsorships, and annual campaigns) while building relationships and
funding opportunities with donors uniquely focused on community Arts and Cultural.
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
18
This offer was submitted within HPG because all City fundraisers report directly to City
Give to ensure internal alignment of priorities, organizational-wide strategy, donor
coordination, and financial governance.
20) Request from Kelly Ohlson: Please provide clarity on the various HVAC systems
needing replaced and which of those are eligible for electrification? What is the City's
strategy for addressing these needs over the next few budget cycles?
Response from Tracy Ochsner (Operation Services):
Here are details for the HVAC related offers:
Offer 16.14 for the Police Services HVAC
• Constructed in 2007 – 18 yrs old - 2 Roof top Units
• Life expectancy is usually 25 years but because this facility operates 24/7 it is
reduced to 15-20 years.
• Since 2019 we have $550k of HVAC maintenance at Police Services.
• The existing two rooftop units are currently all electric with an evaporative (water)
component for cooling and hot water boilers that supply hot water for heating.
• The current natural gas boilers are not scheduled for replacement until 2037 at which
point electrification will be a key strategy for the boiler retrofit.
• Operation Services prefers to use heat pump technology to meet our energy
efficiency, electrification, and climate goals, but unfortunately, the heat pump
technology available today does not meet the size and application needed for the
Police Services retrofit.
• The proposed electric rooftop solution will improve the energy efficiency by
approximately 30% and move to a new refrigerant since the current refrigerant is be
phased out at the end of the year.
• The automation controls are also a part of this project which will provide better
comfort and energy performance.
Offer 16.24 for the 215 N. Mason HVAC
• Constructed in 2001, this system is at the end of its useful life.
• Since 2019, we have spent $343k in maintenance on this system.
• Originally designed as a gas fired system, a like-for-like replacement would not be
aligned with Council and Climate goals.
• We are currently underway with the integrated design assistance program (IDAP) to
identify the most efficient and cost-effective system that would be electrified.
• The system that is looking most promising has about a $7-8 million price tag in
current dollars.
• Some Inflation Reduction Act dollars would be available, depending on the system
chosen.
- A consultant has been hired to help us maximize those dollars, but it’s likely to
only pay for 10-15% of the overall system. If we can figure out how to put a large
geothermal system for the entire block 32 (campus) then we might see a higher
percentage up to 30%, but the geothermal field cost would be on top of the $7-8
million.
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
19
Strategy for 215 N. Mason HVAC and others beyond this budget cycle
• We are optimistic that additional grants will be available for electrifying this system
and others in the future. Our consultant will be looking into how we can leverage
additional grants. Still, some City money will be required and how much is not known
at this point.
• Staff is evaluating the City’s HVAC systems to understand the estimated timing
needs along with any possible grant opportunities.
21) Question from Melanie Potyondy and Kelly Ohlson: What changes have been made
to investments to urban forestry since before the pandemic and what of these offers for
another Forestry crew and related equipment is eligible from the 2050 Tax?
Response from Kendra Boot (Parks - Forestry):
Forestry programs which were funded prior to the pandemic include:
• Forestry’s primary operating budget
• Tree replacement
• Emerald Ash Borer mitigation
• Contractual pruning
• Community Canopy Program
This table shows how the investments have changed:
Offer 59.14 - 3.0 FTE - 1.0 Forestry Crew Chief and 2.0 Technician II and 59.15 -
Forestry Equipment are not eligible to be funded from the 2050 tax.
22) Question from Mayor Pro Tem Francis: What is the City's plan to address legacy
software needs and how is that balanced with offers to advance the utilization of artificial
intelligence (AI)?
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
20
Response from Kevin Wilkins (Information Technology):
Ongoing IT offers are addressing legacy software support, and maintenance, including
critical security updates. Legacy modernization is being managed in strategic digital
transformation initiatives and being accelerated with existing ARPA funds for
standardizing and automating legacy software patching.
23) Question prior to Sept 10 work session: Why was Offer 48.7 - 1.0 FTE Equity &
Inclusion Public Engagement Specialist not funded?
Response from Claudia Menendez (Equity & Inclusion Office):
Currently, Offer 48.7 - 1.0 FTE Equity & Inclusion Public Engagement Specialist is
unfunded. However, there is a plan for addressing and mitigating the perceived gap in
services.
The Equity & Inclusion Office (EIO) invests a substantial amount of time in planning and
coordinating cultural events such as Juneteenth, Latino/Hispanic Heritage Month and
the Native American Powwow that were not previously supported by the City. The EIO
invests nearly $20,000 for these events in addition to the Equity Officer’s time
participating in planning meetings with event committees. This is how we are modeling
ways to embed equity work into everyday department programs and services.
To structure strong partnership and collaboration across departments it would be most
efficient for these initiatives and costs to be adopted by the Cultural Services
Department. This will create capacity for the EIO to focus on engagement with
vulnerable and disproportionately affected populations and build spaces for dialogue
between staff and culturally and linguistically diverse community groups. Although Offer
48.7 is not funded, Offer 26.14- 1.0 Contractual FTE - Cultural Community Programs -
formerly ARPA funded is recommended for funding in the Cultural Services Department
to provide them with more capacity to take on these community cultural events.
Offer 26.14 will be a continuation and expansion of inclusive and equitable programming
aligned to the FOCO Creates Plan including key goals and recommended actions,
Council Priorities, and Strategic Objectives. The innovative program expands the role of
arts in government and seeks to make government more fun and approachable. The
program routinely contracts with community-based individuals to plan and implement the
program suite, expanding the ability to identify and incorporate diverse creatives and
approaches. The program collaborates with internal staff and external stakeholders to
achieve authentic, equitable community engagement. Cultural Services will fold in
Juneteenth, Latino/Hispanic Heritage Month and the Native American Powwow support
into its programming.
The City is also planning to do an overall assessment of engagement positions across
the organization to get a better sense of independent work streams, opportunities for
better collaboration and ways to optimize engagement activities. This realignment may
find increased support for the Equity & Inclusion Office engagement initiatives.
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
21
24) Question from Kelly Ohlson: What are the other means by which employees get
raises outside of the annual budget process and what is the projected annual increases
from those decisions?
Response from Kelley Vodden (Human Resources):
Eligible employees can receive pay increases outside of the annual budget process
through Compensation’s job evaluation process. A job evaluation may be required when
there is a new job or a substantive change in the duties and responsibilities of a job that
may occur due to changes in the organizational structure, business needs, type of work,
staffing requirements, or technology. The primary goal of a job evaluation is to ensure
that the work being performed corresponds with the business need and job, as defined
by the Service Area, and is properly placed in the job architecture.
As such, the outcome/decision resulting from a job evaluation may or may not result in
an increase or decrease in salary or change in pay grade. In 2023, 112 employees
received an off-cycle pay increase outside of the annual pay increase process for a total
of $429,727, an average increase of 6.94%. In 2024, as of September 4, 54 employees
received an off-cycle pay increase outside of the annual pay increase process for a total
of $340,810, an average increase of 7.09%.
Pay equity is another avenue that can drive off-cycle pay. The City continuously
evaluates internal pay equity throughout the year as our Compensation Analysts review
all classified and unclassified management employment offers to ensure
competitiveness with the offer and validate equity across the City for colleagues in
similar positions. They also apply an internal equity review to all other salary actions
through the job evaluation process. The pay equity compensation changes are included
is the totals mentioned above.
Lastly, Step Ladder increases depend on tenure, performance, and required licensing or
credentials prescribed for each step. Once achieved and documented, the eligible
employee automatically moves to the next step level. The City has 13 positions in its
Step Pay Plan. When the required talent costs are higher than the annual merit budget,
leaders with Step employees absorb these costs by making other trade-offs on operating
dollars; most often, they have planned for this possibility every year in their budgets.
25) Request from Kelly Ohlson: Please provide a graphical distribution of the # of
employees who received various percent salary increases in 2024. For example, how
many employees received a 0% increase or greater than 7.5% in 2024?
Response from Kelley Vodden (Human Resources):
Please see the requested chart below:
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
22
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
1
Attachment I: City Council Priorities/Connection to 2025-2026 City Manager’s
Recommended Budget
COUNCIL PRIORITY 2025-2026 CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
OFFERS ADVANCING THE PRIORITY
NEIGHBORHOOD & COMMUNITY VITALITY
(1) Operationalize City
resources to build and preserve
aAordable housing
FUNDED
NCV 17.1 – Ongoing: Planning and Development
Services
NCV 17.2 – Ongoing: CDNS Administrative Services
NCV 18.2 - Ongoing: Neighborhood Services
NCV 18.5 – Ongoing: Rental Housing
NCV 18.13 – Enhancement: Mini-Grant Expansion to
Address the Climate/Housing Nexus in AAordable
Housing Units
NCV 44.1 – Ongoing: Social Sustainability Department
Core Operations
NCV 44.2 – Continuing Enhancement: CCIP - AAordable
Housing Capital Fund
NOT FUNDED
NCV 18.10 – Enhancement: CDNS: 1.0 FTE Sr Public
Engagement Coordinator & Mobile Home Park Code
Compliance & Resilience
NCV 18.12 – Continuing Enhancement: CDNS: 2.5 FTE
Full Implementation of Rental Programs
NCV 44.5 – Enhancement: Partial Salary and Cost
Support for Existing HUD Team StaA in Social
Sustainability Department
NCV 44.8 – Enhancement: AAordable Housing Program
Funding Increase
NCV 44.9 – Enhancement: Social Sustainability: 1.0 FTE -
Housing Grant Writing, Monitoring, Reporting, and
Compliance
NCV 44.10 – Continuing Enhancement: AAordable
Housing Fee Relief
NCV 44.11 – 1-Time Enhancement: AAordable Housing
Land Bank
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
2
(2) Improve human and social
health for vulnerable
populations
FUNDED
C&R 26.14 – Enhancement: 1.0 FTE - Cultural
Community Programs
C&R 46.5 – Enhancement: 3.0 FTE Universal Preschool
C&R 46.6 – Ongoing: Adaptive Recreation and Reduced
Fee Scholarships
C&R 46.8 – Enhancement: 1.0 FTE Behavioral Support
Specialist
ECON 43.5 – Enhancement:3.0 FTE Classified -
Multicultural Business and Entrepreneurship Center
(Inclusive Business Support)
ENV 42.4 – 1-Time Enhancement: Air Quality Monitoring
Fund
ENV 42.6 – Enhancement: 1.0 FTE Healthy Homes
Navigator and Funding for Direct Household Support
ENV 42.9 – Enhancement: Environmental Services – Low
Income OAset – Contract for Waste
ENV 67.3 – Continuing Enhancement: Sustainability
Services – NoCoBiz Connect (NBC) – Sustainable
Business Program (Equitable Business Support and
Recognition
HPG 48.5 – Ongoing: Equity & Inclusion OAice
NCV 18.2 – Ongoing: Neighborhood Services
NCV 18.3 – Ongoing: Conflict Transformation Works
NCV 18.5 – Ongoing: Rental Housing
NCV 18.13 – Enhancement: Mini-Grant Expansion to
Address the Climate/Housing Nexus in AAordable
Housing Units
NCV 34.2 – Ongoing: Digital Inclusion Program (Get FoCo
& Connexion Equitable Access)
NCV 44.1 – Ongoing: Social Sustainability Department
Core Operations
NCV 44.4 – Ongoing: Grocery Tax Rebate Program
NCV 44.6 – Enhancement: Grocery Tax Rebate Program
Balance-and-Growth
NCV 44.14 – Continuing Enhancement: Homelessness
Core & Homelessness Priorities
SAFE 29.26 – Enhancement: Police: 7.0 FTE - HOPE,
Records, Sr Technician and Victim Advocate
SAFE 62.2 – Ongoing: Municipal Court Specialized
Services
T&M 20.5 – Capital Project: CCIP – Pedestrian Sidewalk -
ADA
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
3
T&M 65.7 – Ongoing: Dial-A-Ride
T&M 65.17 – Enhancement: CRP Funds – ADA Bus Stop
Improvements
T&M 65.22 – Enhancement: Transfort: 7.0 FTE –
Additional Transit Security OAicers & Mental Health
Collaboration
NOT FUNDED
C&R 26.16 – Enhancement: Access Funds for Low-
Income Community Residents
ENV 42.7 – Enhancement: Environmental Services – 1.0
FTE Bilingual Community Liaison
HPG 48.7 – Enhancement: 1.0 FTE Equity & Inclusion
Public Engagement Specialist
NCV 18.8 – Continuing Enhancement: Eviction Legal
Fund
NCV 18.9 – Continuing Enhancement: Immigration Legal
Fund
NCV 18.10 – Enhancement: CDNS: 1.0 FTE Sr Public
Engagement Coordinator & Mobile Home Park Code
Compliance & Resilience
NCV 18.12 – Continuing Enhancement: CDNS: 2.5 FTE
Full Implementation of Rental Programs
NCV 44.3 – Continuing Enhancement: Human Services
Program Grant Funding
NCV 44.7 – 1-Time Enhancement: Childcare & Social
Services Recovery Step-Down Grants
NCV 44.15 – Enhancement: Homelessness Foundational
Programs
T&M 19.11 – Enhancement: SRTS Adaptive Specialist
T&M 53.7 – Asset Management – Enhanced: PDT
Accessibility Program Implementation
T&M 65.21 – Enhancement: Transfort Sunday and
Holiday Service
NCV 18.8 – Continuing Enhancement: Eviction Legal
Fund
NCV 18.9 – Continuing Enhancement: Immigration Legal
Fund
CULTURE & RECREATION
NONE
Commented [GS1]: Moving these under vulnerable
populations
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
4
ECONOMIC HEALTH
(3) Advance a 15-minute city by
igniting neighborhood centers
FUNDED
C&R 46.10 – Capital Project: Southeast Community
Center
C&R 60.2 – Capital Project: Neighborhood Park
Development
C&R 60.3 – Capital Project: Community Park
Development
ECON 45.1 - Ongoing: Urban Renewal Authority
ECON 45.2 - Ongoing: Urban Renewal Authority Debt
Service
NCV 17.1 – Ongoing: Planning and Development
Services
NCV 17.2 – Ongoing: CDNS Administrative Services
(4) Pursue an integrated,
intentional approach to
economic health
FUNDED
C&R 26.6 – Ongoing: Fort Fund
ECON 12.1 – Ongoing: Convention and Visitor's Bureau
Annual Support
ECON 43.1 – Ongoing: Downtown General Improvement
District (GID) - Operating Budget
ECON 43.3 – Ongoing: Business & Workforce Support
ECON 43.4 – Ongoing: Economic Health Leadership &
Capital Projects
ECON 43.5 – Enhancement:3.0 FTE Classified -
Multicultural Business and Entrepreneurship Center
(Inclusive Business Support)
ECON 45.1 – Ongoing: Urban Renewal Authority
ECON 55.1 – Ongoing: Downtown Parks and Amenities
Maintenance
ECON 55.2 – Ongoing: Downtown Maintenance -
Downtown Development Authority Facilities &
Infrastructure, Old Town Square
ECON 68.1 – Ongoing: Metro Districts
ENV 67.3 – Continuing Enhancement: Sustainability
Services - NoCoBiz Connect (NBC) - Sustainable
Business Program (Equitable Business Support and
Recognition)
NCV 17.1 – Ongoing: Planning and Development
Services
NCV 17.4 – Ongoing: Building Services
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
5
NOT FUNDED
ECON 43.6 – Enhancement: 1.0 FTE Economic Lead
Specialist Development Business Liaison and Program
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
(5) Accelerate zero waste
infrastructure and policies
FUNDED
ENV 40.1 – Ongoing: Timberline Recycling Center
ENV 42.11 – Enhancement: 1.0 FTE – Sr. Specialist -
Contracted Waste and Recycling
ENV 42.1-Ongoing: Environmental Services
NOT FUNDED
ENV 42.10 – 1-Time Enhancement: Recycling
Characterization Study & Measurement Consulting
(6) Reduce climate pollution
and air pollution through best
practices, emphasizing
electrification
FUNDED
ECON 15.1 – Asset Management-Ongoing: Utilities: Light
& Power - Wholesale Purchased Power
ECON 15.7 - Asset Management-Ongoing: Utilities: Light
& Power - Attrition-Based LED Streetlight Conversion
Program
ENV 7.1 – Ongoing: Utilities Light & Power – Community
Renewable Purchased Power
ENV 7.2 – Ongoing: Utilities Light & Power – Energy
Services
ENV 7.3 – Ongoing: Utilities Light & Power – Demand
Response
ENV 7.4 – Ongoing: Utilities Light & Power – Renewable
Customer Programs
ENV 7.6 – Continuing Enhancement: Utilities: Light &
Power - Electric Vehicle Monitoring and Management
Demonstration
ENV 7.23 – Capital Project: Utilities Light & Power: Virtual
Power Plant Development and Enrollment
ENV 7.24 – Enhancement: Utilities Light & Power:
Strategic Electrification Design Assistance Programs to
support aAordable housing
ENV 7.25 – Enhancement: Utilities Light & Power: Epic
Loan Program Funding
ENV 42.1 – Ongoing: Environmental Services
ENV 42.4 – 1-Time Enhancement: Air Quality Monitoring
Fund
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
6
ENV 42.6 – Enhancement: Environmental Services – 1.0
FTE Healthy Homes Navigator and Funding for Direct
Household Support
ENV 42.8 – Enhancement: 2.0 FTE Investing 2050 Tax
Revenue to Accelerate Our Climate Future
ENV 71.1 – 1-Time Enhancement: Parks Lawn and
Garden Equipment Replacement
HPG 16.9 – Asset Management – Enhanced: Fleet
Vehicle and Equipment New Replacements
HPG 16.14 – Asset Management – Enhanced: Police
Services HVAC Electrification and EAiciency
Replacements
NCV 18.13 -Enhancement: Mini-Grant Expansion to
Address the Climate/Housing Nexus in AAordable
Housing Units
NOT FUNDED
ENV 74.1 – 1-Time Enhancement: Carbon Sequestration
in Areas Protected by the Land Use Code
(7) Protect community water
systems in an integrated way to
ensure resilient water resources
and healthy watersheds
FUNDED
ENV 7.9 - Utilities: Wastewater - Minor Capital
ENV 7.14 – Ongoing: Utilities: Water Quality Services -
Pollution Control Lab
ENV 7.19 – Ongoing: Utilities: Water Conservation
ENV 7.29 - Utilities: Wastewater - DWRF Sidestream
Phosphorus Removal Phase 2 - Design
ENV 7.31 – 1-Time Enhancement: Utilities:
Water/Wastewater/Stormwater CLPR Water Quality
Network (Dashboard)
HPG 4.23 – 1-Time Enhancement: Utilities: One Water
Action Framework
HPG 4.25 – Enhancement: Utilities:
Water/Wastewater/Stormwater – One Water Operator
SAFE 5.6 – Asset Management-Ongoing: Utilities: Water -
Water Minor Capital
SAFE 5.10 – Asset Management-Ongoing: Utilities:
Stormwater - Minor Capital
SAFE 5.11 – Asset Management-Ongoing: Utilities: Water
- Water Treatment and Source of Supply Asset
Replacement Program
SAFE 5.19 – Ongoing: Utilities: Water Quality Services -
Water Quality Lab (WQL) and Watershed Program
SAFE 5.20 – Asset Management-Ongoing: Utilities: Water
Quality Services - Source Watershed Protection
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
7
SAFE 5.24 - Utilities: Stormwater - Fossil Creek Stream
Rehab Trilby to Lemay
SAFE 5.34 – Enhancement: Utilities: Utility Network
Implementation
SAFE 5.38 - Utilities: Combined One Water Laboratory
SAFE 64.2 – Ongoing: Encampment Cleaning and
Prevention
NOT FUNDED
ENV 7.33 – Enhancement: Utilities: Wastewater 1.0 FTE
Maintenance Operator
ENV 7.34 – Enhancement: Utilities: ERA 1.0 FTE –
Stormwater Inspector for Soils
ENV 72.1 – Enhancement: Poudre Flows Design and
Permitting
ENV 74.2 – Enhancement: Senior Inspector,
Zoning/Water Conservation - 1.0 FTE
SAFE COMMUNITY
NONE
TRANSPORTATION & MOBILITY
(8) Advance a 15-minute city by
accelerating our shift to active
modes
FUNDED
C&R 54.2 – Ongoing: Hard-Surface Trails Maintenance
C&R 54.8 – Enhancement: 4.0 FTE Operational
Resources for Recent Park and Trail Expansions
C&R 60.1 – Capital Project: Recreational Trail
Development
NCV 17.6 – Ongoing: Right-of-Way Construction
Inspection & Management Division
T&M 19.1 – Ongoing: FC Moves Mobility Management
T&M 19.2 – Ongoing: Safe Routes to School
T&M 19.3 – Ongoing: Active Modes Program
T&M 19.4 – Ongoing: FC Moves Education & Engagement
T&M 19.5 – Capital Project: CCIP – Bicycle Infrastructure
T&M 19.7 – Continuing Enhancement: Shift Your Ride
Program
T&M 19.10 – Capital Project: Active Modes Plan
Infrastructure Implementation
T&M 20.4 – Capital Project: CCIP – Arterial Intersections
T&M 20.5 – Capital Project: CCIP – Pedestrian Sidewalk -
ADA
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
8
T&M 20.13 – Capital Project: Power Trail At Harmony
Road Grade-Separated Crossing
T&M 53.5 – Ongoing: TraAic – Neighborhood
Transportation Safety
NOT FUNDED
T&M 19.8 – Enhancement: FC Asphalt Art Program
T&M 19.11 – Enhancement: SRTS Adaptive Specialist
T&M 21.9 – Enhancement: PDT Active Modes Facility
Maintenance
HIGH PERFORMING GOVERNMENT
(9) Develop a Hughes site
master plan
NONE
(10) Make government more
accessible, approachable and
fun
FUNDED
C&R 63.1 – Ongoing: Community Services
Administration and Technology Support
HPG 11.1 - CPIO: Creative Services
HPG 4.8 – Utilities: Customer Engagement & Workforce
Culture
(11) Modernize and update the
City Charter
NONE
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
City of Fort Collins
Sidewalk Prioritization Model
Version 2.1
December 8, 2017
Engineering
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
City of Fort Collins Sidewalk Prioritization Model Page i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... i
Introduction and Background ....................................................................................................................... 1
Relationship to other plans ....................................................................................................................... 1
History of the sidewalk program............................................................................................................... 1
History of Design Requirements ............................................................................................................... 1
Prioritization Model Background .............................................................................................................. 2
Inventory and Scoring System ...................................................................................................................... 4
Inventory Process ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Scoring System .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Implementation .......................................................................................................................................... 12
Using and Maintaining the Project List ................................................................................................... 12
Integrating the Sidewalk Program with other City Plans and Programs................................................. 12
Funding ....................................................................................................................................................... 13
Sources .................................................................................................................................................... 14
Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 15
Appendix A – Health and Equity Methodology ........................................................................................... 16
Summary: ................................................................................................................................................ 16
Methods: ................................................................................................................................................. 16
Equity .................................................................................................................................................. 16
Health .................................................................................................................................................. 16
Justification: ............................................................................................................................................ 17
Limitations: ............................................................................................................................................. 17
Data Sources: .......................................................................................................................................... 17
Equity .................................................................................................................................................. 17
Health .................................................................................................................................................. 18
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
City of Fort Collins Sidewalk Prioritization Model Page 1
Introduction and Background
Relationship to other plans
The Sidewalk Prioritization Model stems from work performed for the Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan
completed in 2011. The Pedestrian Plan relates to the City Plan and the Transportation Master Plan
which provides a vision over the next 20 years and defines long-term multimodal transportation system
for Fort Collins’ future. Overall, the plans provide the framework that serves as a reference guide for
transportation issues in Fort Collins.1
History of the sidewalk program
The City of Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan addresses citywide pedestrian needs. However, there was not an
inventory of existing sidewalks or sidewalk deficiencies. In May of 2012, the Engineering Department
began the Citywide Pedestrian Access Project (a.k.a. Pedestrian Needs Assessment) which provides a
complete sidewalk inventory, as well as identifies sidewalk inadequacies, and also identifies inadequate
handicap accessibilities according to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The initial
assessment was complete in May of 2013.
As a result of the data collection, over 1,000 miles of sidewalk-appropriate locations and 30,000 ramp-
appropriate locations were inventoried. These locations include existing facilities, as well as areas where
facilities are not present but are warranted based on initial observation.
History of Design Requirements
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted by the United States Congress and signed into
law by President George H.W. Bush in 19902. Intent of the ADA “was to create a civil rights law
protecting people with disabilities from discrimination on the basis of their disabilities2.” Situations
addressed in the ADA include discrimination by employers, public facilities, transit, businesses, and
pedestrian facilities.
Today, the ADA is regulated by several governmental agencies. At the federal level, the Department of
Justice enforces the ADA standards3. Many design standards for accessibility are set forth in the ADA
and best design practices are issued by the Federal Highway Administration4.
1 (Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan, 2011)
2 (Feldblum, Barry, & Benfer, 2008, p. 1)
3 (United States Department of Justice, n.d.)
4 (Federal Highway Administration, 2000)
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
City of Fort Collins Sidewalk Prioritization Model Page 2
Pedestrian facilities are addressed by the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), and include design
standards for handicap curb ramps and sidewalks that were developed primarily for buildings and on-
site facilities and are not easily applicable to sidewalks, street crossings, and pedestrian facilities in the
public right-of-way5. Original ADA standards adopted in 1991 specify the minimum width for an
accessible route, or sidewalk, as 36 inches6. Maximum cross slope for a sidewalk was 2%, and maximum
running slope for a sidewalk was 5%, with any facility having a greater slope being considered a ramp.
ADA design standards were revised and published again in 2010. Updated standards provide greater
detail in the requirements for curb ramps, specifying a maximum slope for the adjoining surface (usually
the roadway at the exit of the ramp) of 5%, and a maximum slope for curb ramp flares of 10%7. Updated
standards also maintain the minimum width of sidewalks as 36 inches7. Detectible warning devices,
commonly referred to as truncated domes, are also required on handicap ramps within the public right-
of-way.
Not having specific guidelines for public right-of-way facilities, the Public Right-of-Way Accessibility
Guidelines (PROWAG) were developed and were originally intended to supplement the ADAAG. The
Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines have most recently been formatted as a stand-along
document applicable to new construction and alterations of existing facilities8. PROWAG has similar
requirements as ADAAG with regards to maximum cross slope of 2% for sidewalks and ramps, ramp
slope of 8.3%; however, the minimum width for an accessible route, or sidewalk, is 48 inches. Following
are a few additional items considered in PROWAG not adequately addressed in ADAAG:
· Pedestrian Access Route (allows sidewalk running grade to match roadway grade)
· Additional curb ramp design options
· Detectable warnings
· Crosswalks
· Accessible Pedestrian Signals
· On-street Parking
· Roundabouts
The Federal Highway Administration recommended planning, designing, and constructing from only one
set of guidelines. The City of Fort Collins Engineering department policy is to implement the PROWAG
guidelines.
Prioritization Model Background
The Sidewalk Prioritization Model (“Model”) was developed in order to provide a data driven and logical
methodology for the prioritization of specific pedestrian facilities in need of rehabilitation. Because of
5 (Special Report: Accessible Public Rights-of-way Planning and Designing for Alterations, 2007, p. 2)
6 (ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities, 1991, p. 4.3.3)
7 (2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, 2010)
8 (United States Access Board, n.d.)
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
City of Fort Collins Sidewalk Prioritization Model Page 3
finite annual funding, as well as limited personnel and materials, it was necessary to prioritize certain
projects in order to achieve the highest level of return for funding spent.
The Model provides a numerical score for each pedestrian facility. Facility scores are based on several
factors discussed later in this report. Methodology for development of the Model is loosely based on a
similar system implemented by the City of Seattle, Washington in their Pedestrian Master Plan9.
9 (Pedestrian Master Plan - Seattle's Stratety for Prioritizing Pedestrian Projects, 2014)
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
City of Fort Collins Sidewalk Prioritization Model Page 4
Inventory and Scoring System
Inventory Process
Members of the City of Fort Collins Engineering department have conducted a thorough inventory of the
cities sidewalks and ramps. Using GPS and GIS software a comprehensive map was created containing
information about the condition of all of the sidewalks within city limits, as well as the condition of
access ramps and whether or not these meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Requirements. The
data contains sidewalks ranging from good to missing as well as other important attributes that will
allow us to determine which sections should be constructed or replaced first in order to best suit
pedestrians’ needs.
Scoring System
Whether walking to a destination from a home, car, or even a bike rack everyone navigating the city is at
some point a pedestrian. The common use of walking as a way of travel leads to the need for a safe and
complete sidewalk network. This is particularly important near popular pedestrian trip generators such
as:
· Downtown
· University or College
· Mason Corridor
· Trail System
· Schools
· Parks
· Public Buildings
· Hospitals
· Shops
A scoring system was created using input from stakeholders in the form of a written survey. The
distance the average person was willing to walk to a particular service was determined and various point
values were assigned to several popular walking destinations. Points are based on relative importance
and the number of people who access these services. Point values assigned to destinations can be seen
in the following figures. Points were also awarded to items located in densely populated areas where
walking is a viable mode of transportation and where the greatest number of people can benefit from
sidewalks.
The scoring system also includes current sidewalk characteristics such as sidewalk condition, and the
traffic volume of the street. Priority is given to larger, arterial roadways, where pedestrian traffic is
heavier and there is a greater need to separate pedestrians from passing cars. Alternately, local streets
see less foot traffic as well as slower vehicle speeds allowing for a safer environment for pedestrians.
The scoring system was redesigned to be easy to use, but thorough in its assessment of need.
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
City of Fort Collins Sidewalk Prioritization Model Page 5
To help develop priority areas it is important to develop a framework for selecting priority projects. The
process is based on analysis of factors related to pedestrian demand, heath/equity, and safety. This
analysis allows staff to identify more accurately locations in need of pedestrian improvements.
Following are the components used to develop the prioritization model:
Figure 1: Summary of Final Scoring System10
10 (Prioritization Model revised September 2017 to include Health/Equity and Safety criteria)
PRIORITIZED SIDEWALK INVENTORY
DEMAND – 35% SAFETY – 45%
CITYWIDE PEDESTRIAN INVENTORY
HEALTH &
EQUITY –
20% ST
E
P
2
:
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
ST
E
P
1:
Id
e
n
t
i
f
y
Ne
t
w
o
r
k
ST
E
P
3:
De
v
e
l
o
p
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
L
i
s
t
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
City of Fort Collins Sidewalk Prioritization Model Page 6
DE
M
A
N
D
S
C
O
R
E
High Rating
Bus Stop
University/College
High School
Elementary School
High RatingDowntown
Medium Rating
Mason Corridor
Parks
Low Rating
Hospitals
Senior Living
City Buildings
City Services
Community Services
Trail Access
Figure 2: Summary of Demand Scoring
Dist. Score
¼ Mile 20
½ Mile 15
¾ Mile 10
1 Mile 5
Dist. Score
¼ Mile 6
½ Mile 4
¾ Mile 2
1 Mile 1
Dist. Score
¼ Mile 4
½ Mile 3
¾ Mile 2
1 Mile 1
Dist. Score
¼ Mile 2
½ Mile 1
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
City of Fort Collins Sidewalk Prioritization Model Page 7
HE
A
L
T
H
&
E
Q
U
I
T
Y
S
C
O
R
E
Equity Score
70%
Age: Below 18
Age: 65 or older
Poverty
Race
Hispanic/Latino
Vehicle Availability
Disability Status
Health Score
30%
Mental Health
Obesity
Physical Activity
Figure 3: Summary of Health and Equity Scoring
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
City of Fort Collins Sidewalk Prioritization Model Page 8
SA
F
E
T
Y
S
C
O
R
E
Arterials & Non-Arterials
ADA Compliant
Speed Limit
Sidewalk Condition
Street Classification
Arterials
Bike Lane Buffer
Attached/Detached
Sidewalk Width
Figure 4: Summary of Safety Scoring
Score
<4’ 10
Speed Score
45+ 20
40 15
35 10
30 5
Score
Missing 20
Poor 10
Fair 5
Score
Arterial 20
Collector 15
Local 10
Score
No 10
Score
Attached 10
Width Score
< 4’ 20
4’ < 6’ 10
6' 0
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
City of Fort Collins Sidewalk Prioritization Model Page 9
Figure 5: Pedestrian Demand Scoring Example
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
City of Fort Collins Sidewalk Prioritization Model Page 10
Figure 6: Health and Equity Analysis
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
City of Fort Collins Sidewalk Prioritization Model Page 11
Figure 7: Block to Block Average Total Score
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
City of Fort Collins Sidewalk Prioritization Model Page 12
Implementation
Implementation considerations for this program will help to maintain a prioritized project list, provide
detailed prioritization maps, increase staff’s ability to generate rough construction estimates, evaluate
construction techniques, and incorporate pedestrian infrastructure into transit and bicycle projects by
collaborating with the Street Maintenance Program, FC Moves, Parking Services, and the Poudre School
District to utilize workforces for cost savings and minimize impacts to the public.
Using and Maintaining the Project List
The project list will be a living document based in a GIS format that is updated on an annual basis. The
list will serve as a resource to staff and is intended to provide the department with an extensive list of
prioritized sidewalk needs. Some project shuffling is expected to occur in order to coordinate with other
projects and opportunities. It is possible that a lower priority project may be built before a higher
priority project because of an opportunity for construction and cost savings.
The completeness of a walking route in a particular area or corridor will be considered and may cause
the projects in the list to be shuffled. If the effectiveness of a new sidewalk project is diminished by the
absence of a particular section, incorporating the missing link in the route may be moved forward for
construction ahead of other projects.
Changes to the list may occur at any time as roadway construction occurs or the construction of street
frontage improvements as part of private development. In addition, changes to project scoring may
occur as conditions change with the locations of schools, parks, or other items within the scoring table.
Integrating the Sidewalk Program with other City Plans and Programs
The objectives of coordination with other City plans and programs is to construct sidewalks as quickly
and efficiently as possible to create an effective walking network.
On an annual basis the sidewalk program will be coordinated with the Streets Maintenance Program
(SMP), FC Moves and Safe Routes to School, and Capital Projects to coordinate construction and adjust
the sidewalk projects timing to complement and enhance the effectiveness of projects. Some
components that may be taken into consideration are:
· Traffic Management Program
· Pedestrian Crossing Improvement Program
· Parks and Trails Planning
· Bicycle Facilities Planning
· Neighborhood Connections
Coordination between the groups will help identify these types of needs to make improvements to our
overall transportation network.
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
City of Fort Collins Sidewalk Prioritization Model Page 13
Funding
Based on planning-level estimates we have quantified a total program cost as demonstrated in Table 2.
The table is broken down into four main components that identify the overall need – missing sidewalks
and ramps, non-compliant sidewalks and ramps. As the table shows, almost half of the cost of the
program is associated with non-compliant sidewalks with each of the remaining components totaling
the remaining half of the cost. The table also categorizes the individual components in a scalable format
and has additional sub-categories (not shown) that enables more focused and effective decisions if
funding unexpectedly becomes less or more available and projects need to be identified quickly. This is
able to be done with the ability to prioritize any of the components for any number of years.
Table 2: Sidewalk Program Costs
Sidewalk Program Components
Total Cost* 20 yrs. 25 yrs. 30 yrs. 35 yrs. 40 yrs.
Missing
Sidewalks $21,000,000 $1,100,000 $800,000 $700,000 $600,000 $500,000
Non-compliant
Sidewalks $65,000,000 $3,200,000 $2,600,000 $2,100,000 $1,800,000 $1,600,000
Missing Ramps $22,000,000 $1,100,000 $900,000 $700,000 $600,000 $500,000
Non-compliant
Ramps $26,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,100,000 $900,000 $800,000 $700,000
Totals $134,300,000 $6,700,000 $5,400,000 $4,400,000 $3,800,000 $3,300,000
* Current Total Cost estimated from 2014 data
Table 3 illustrates various funding levels as a scalable program. The table starts with a given number of
years to bring the Sidewalk Program into compliance, then subtracts the current anticipated funding
level, then showing the amount of funding required to accomplish the program in the provided number
of years.
Program costs will change over time due to inflation, construction of sidewalks by private development,
and potential construction efficiencies in materials and project scheduling.
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
City of Fort Collins Sidewalk Prioritization Model Page 14
Table 3: Sidewalk Program Funding Levels
Scalable Sidewalk Program
20 yrs. 25 yrs. *30 yrs. 35 yrs. 40 yrs.
Total Yearly
Funding Need $6,700,000 $5,400,000 $4,400,000 $3,800,000 $3,300,000
Current
Anticipated
Funding
$1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000
Annual Funding
Need $5,600,000 $4,300,000 $3,300,000 $2,700,000 $2,200,000
Est. Number of
Projects Per Year 275 220 180 155 135
Est. Miles
Completed Per
Year (Includes
Ramps)
28 23 19 16 14
* Current Proposed Funding Level
Sources
To date, funding for the Pedestrian Access Project that allowed for the data collection necessary for this
analysis has come from the Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG) program and Building on Basics (BOB). For
the past few years the program has received $350,000 annually for sidewalk repair and replacement
projects.
The original Building on Basics Capital Improvement Projects (2006-2015) tax initiative was set to expire
in 2015. In April 2015, voters approved a 10-year quarter cent tax renewal dedicated to community
improvements – Community Capital Improvement Program (CCIP). A percentage of CCIP was
established as Safe Routes to Everywhere which include transit, bicycle improvements, and pedestrian
improvements. 14 million over the next 10 years has been programmed for pedestrian improvements
and Table 4 illustrates those funding levels.
Table 4: Safe Routes to Everywhere (Pedestrian Improvements) Funding Levels
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
$1 M $1 M $1.1 M $1.1 M $1.1 M $1.2 M $1.2 M $1.5 M $2.4 M $2.4 M
Additional funding continues to be sought through the budget for outcomes process to accelerate
implementation of the program.
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
City of Fort Collins Sidewalk Prioritization Model Page 15
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Citywide Pedestrian Access Project pursues the Pedestrian Plan goals of promoting walking for
transportation and recreation.
The program provides a comprehensive understanding of sidewalk needs for the City of Fort Collins. A
long-term comprehensive program is necessary in order to:
· Address sidewalk needs objectively and comprehensively;
· Increase the Pedestrian Level of Service rating;
· Reduce the number of non-ADA compliant sidewalks and accessible ramps;
· Reduce injuries related to tripping hazards;
· Create connectivity along high volume pedestrian corridors and Safe Routes to School corridors;
· Insure efficient use of City funds; and
· Ultimately build more sidewalks more quickly to provide “complete” streets.
With a comprehensive prioritization program better coordination can occur, an appropriate funding
strategy can be pursued, and will allow the City to address the most needed projects first.
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
City of Fort Collins Sidewalk Prioritization Model Page 16
Appendix A – Health and Equity Methodology
Annemarie Heinrich, Environmental Health Specialist II, of Larimer County Department of Health &
Environment, Built Environment developed the original methodology for the prioritization model.
Summary:
A health and equity score at the block group level was created so that the City of Fort Collins can better
prioritize sidewalk improvements. The score is based on proportion of the population affiliated with ten
health and socio-economic factors: under 18, 65 or older, households at or below federal poverty level,
Hispanic/Latino, non-white, households without a vehicle, disability status, obesity in adults, no leisure
time physical activity in adults, and poor mental health for more than 14 days in adults. Final scores
range from 0 to 100, with 100 being highest priority, in order to identify vulnerable communities who
would likely benefit most from improved pedestrian infrastructure. This ranking is not to be used in
isolation; rather it is combined with the City’s pedestrian demand and safety factors.
Methods:
Equity
The equity score was derived from the following factors included in the 2011-2015 American
Community Survey 5-year estimates: age (under 18 and 65 or older), households at or below federal
poverty level, Hispanic/Latino, race (non-white), households without a vehicle, and disability status.
The disability dataset is the sole equity factor at the census tract level, while all other factors are at the
block group level. In order to create determine count at the block group level, it was assumed that the
disabled population was evenly spread throughout the census tract based on population. Thus, each
block group received the proportionate number of disabled population based on population size.
Population count of each factor of interest were compiled for each block group and standardized by the
total population of the block group. Block groups were ranked from highest to lowest standardized
count by decile and each block group received an equity score between one and ten, ten being the
highest.
Health
The health score was derived from the following indicators in the 500 Cities dataset: obesity in adults,
no leisure time physical activity in adults, and poor mental health for more than 14 days in adults. In
order to assign a health score, percent of each health factor were combined. Census tracts were sorted
according to overall percent and for each quantile, tracts were then given a score between one and five.
Health & Equity Final Score
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
City of Fort Collins Sidewalk Prioritization Model Page 17
Census tracts 8069001601, 8069001709, and 8069001301 did not have a health score tied to them due
to data limitations. For each of these, block groups with the same equity score were identified. An
average health score was calculated for the like-equity score blocks and this average served as a health
score estimate.
Block groups within the same tract were given the same health score. Equity was weighted 2.33 times
more than health to create a health and equity score, or 70% of the total score. Health and equity scores
were standardized to a 100-point scale.
Justification:
A total population count was calculated to determine a health and equity score as opposed to assigning
each factor a score that contributes to the final score. This ensures no factor or person is valued more
than another.
Equity was weighted more than health, simply because more factors contributed to its value.
Limitations:
While literature broadly shows associations between socio-economic and health factors and the built
environment, it is nearly impossible to understand precisely how these factors influence sidewalk quality
or need for pedestrian infrastructure. Because of this, there is no standardized methodology. This model
assumes each factor contributes equally to the vulnerability and need of a community. Additionally, the
model is not all inclusive of factors that could contribute to a community’s vulnerability or potential
benefit from improved pedestrian infrastructure.
Data Sources:
Equity
Age:
United States Census Bureau / American FactFinder. “B01001: Sex By Age.” 2011-2015 American Community
Survey 5-year estimates. U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey Office, 2016. Web. 4 May 2017.
<http://factfinder2.census.gov>.
Poverty:
United States Census Bureau / American FactFinder. “B17017: Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Age of
Householder.” 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. U.S. Census Bureau’s American
Community Survey Office, 2016. Web. 4 May 2017. <http://factfinder2.census.gov>.
Race:
United States Census Bureau / American FactFinder. “B02001: Race.” 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-
year estimates. U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey Office, 2016. Web. 4 May 2017.
<http://factfinder2.census.gov>.
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485
City of Fort Collins Sidewalk Prioritization Model Page 18
Hispanic or Latino Origin:
United States Census Bureau / American FactFinder. “B03003: Hispanic or Lation Origin.” 2011-2015 American
Community Survey 5-year estimates. U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey Office, 2016. Web. 4 May
2017. <http://factfinder2.census.gov>.
Vehicle Availability:
United States Census Bureau / American FactFinder. “B25044: Tenure by Vehicles Available.” 2011-2015 American
Community Survey 5-year estimates. U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey Office, 2016. Web. 4 May
2017. <http://factfinder2.census.gov>.
Disability:
United States Census Bureau / American FactFinder. “B18101: Sex By Age by Disability Status.” 2011-2015
American Community Survey 5-year estimates. U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey Office, 2016.
Web. 4 May 2017. <http://factfinder2.census.gov>.
Health
Mental Health:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion,
Division of Population Health. “Mental health not good for≥14 days among adults aged≥18 years.” 500 Cities, 2017.
Web. 4 May 2017. <https://chronicdata.cdc.gov/500-Cities/500-Cities-Local-Data-for-Better-Health/6vp6-wxuq>.
Physical Activity:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion,
Division of Population Health. “No leisure-time physical activity among adults aged≥18 years.” 500 Cities, 2017.
Web. 4 May 2017. <https://chronicdata.cdc.gov/500-Cities/500-Cities-Local-Data-for-Better-Health/6vp6-wxuq>.
Obesity:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion,
Division of Population Health. “Obesity adults aged≥18 years.” 500 Cities, 2017. Web. 4 May 2017.
<https://chronicdata.cdc.gov/500-Cities/500-Cities-Local-Data-for-Better-Health/6vp6-wxuq>.
Docusign Envelope ID: DB49093D-8864-4AF4-AD39-CD13E677D485