HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Mail Packet - 08/05/2025 - Council Finance Committee Agenda – August 7, 2025
Agenda
Council Finance Committee
August 7, 2025 - 4:00 - 6:00 pm
City Hall - CIC Conf. Room
In person with Remote Participation Available via Teams Join the meeting now
Meeting ID: 247 116 340 034
Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals who have limited English
proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities, to access City services, programs and
activities. Contact 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Please provide advance notice.
Requests for interpretation at a meeting should be made by noon the day before.
A) Call Meeting to Order
B) Roll Call
C) Approval of Minutes from July 3, 2025
D) Fund Balance Update Trevor Nash
30 minutes
E) Utilities Emergency Capital Replacements Appropriation Joe Wimmer
20 minutes
Two emergency capital repairs requested to move forward in 2025 that will require additional
appropriation;
• Lemay Waterline Replacement ($3.4M)
• Drake Wastewater Treatment Plant NPT Blower Replacement ($1.7M)
F) Other Business - Sales Tax Code Updates
G) Adjournment
Next Scheduled Committee Meeting: September 4, 2025
Page 1 of 81
Page 2 of 81
Council Finance Committee
2025 Agenda Planning Calendar
Revised 07/29/25 ck
August 7th 2025
Fund Balance Update 30 mins Trevor Nash
Utilities Emergency Capital Replacements Appropriation
Two emergency capital repairs requested to move
forward in 2025 that will require additional appropriation;
• Lemay Waterline Replacement ($3.4M)
• Drake Wastewater Treatment Plant NPT Blower
Replacement ($1.7M)
20 mins Joe Wimmer
Sept. 4th 2025
Audit Update Trevor Nash
Grocery Tax Rebate Program
Transfort Budget Martinez
2026 Budget Revisions
Oct. 2nd 2025
SE Community Center Update
Updating Council Finance on the framework and cost
share that will come forward with an IGA to the full
council. It will include the funding stack we have
presented and range for the facility we have
presented in the past. We will probably show the
funding stack we have presented in the past too.
15 mins
LeAnn Williams
Appropriation Request – Equipment Fund
Appropriation of $1M of Equipment Fund to purchase
replacement vehicles. This will also kick-off a
transitional purchase strategy to move out of Lease
Purchase and more into cash purchase.
30 mins Chris Martinez
2026 Budget Revisions
Nov. 6th 2025
Page 3 of 81
Dec. 4th 2025
E. Mulberry Threshold Analysis
Fleet Management Policies & Practices
Page 4 of 81
Page 5 of 81
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
nd Floor
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Council Finance Committee Hybrid Meeting
CIC Room / Teams
July 3, 2025
4:00 - 6:00 pm
Council Attendees: Emily Francis, Kelly Ohlson, Tricia Canonico
Staff: Kelly DiMartino, Caleb Weitz, Teresa Roche, Jennifer Poznanovic,
Josh Birks, Dianne Criswell, Brad Yatabe, Ginny Sawyer, Terri Runyan,
Joe Wimmer, Nicole Poncelet-Johnson, Dean Klingner, Monica Martinez,
Mike Calhoon, Gerry Paul, Trevor Nash, Adam Halvorson, Jo Cech
Lawrence Pollack, Monica Martinez, Kirsten Howard, Patti Forsythe,
Drew Brooks, Victoria Shaw, Dana Hornkohl, Carolyn Koontz
Others: Halee Wahl, Chamber of Commerce
Christian Carroll, Brian Duffany, EPS
Meeting called to order at 4:00 pm
Approval of minutes from May 1, 2025, Council Finance Committee meeting.
Motion made to approve by Tricia Canonico and seconded by Emily Francis.
Approved via roll call
A) Impact Fee Study Updates
Josh Birks, Deputy Director Sustainability Services.
Jennifer Poznanovic, Director, Sales Tax & Revenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
propose revisions to the 2023 capital expansion fee studies that align with
-only fee adjustments implemented in 2024 and 2025. Staff proposes
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Does the Council Finance Committee support impact fee study revisions?
2. Does the Council Finance Committee need any additional information when this comes before
the full Council?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Page 6 of 81
Fee History and Current State:
Impact fees (also known as capital expansion fees) are one-time payments imposed on new
development that must be used solely to fund growth-related capital projects. An impact fee represents
new growth’s proportionate share of capital facility needs. Fees cannot be used for improvements
which solely benefit adjacent development, existing deficiencies, and/or for maintenance. The City
collects capital expansion fees for neighborhood parks, community parks, fire protection, police,
general government, and transportation.
In November 2024, staff proposed adoption of capital expansion fees determined by studies conducted
by external consultants in 2023. For the comprehensive study and update of fees, the City contracted
with Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) to update the Capital Expansion Fees (CEFs) and with
TischlerBise to update the Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEFs). In place of adopting the full
fees presented by the studies, inflationary adjustments were approved by City Council for both 2024
and 2025. All capital expansion fees have received inflationary-only adjustments since the most recent
comprehensive studies conducted in 2017.
Concurrent with the capital expansion fee work of 2023/24, Utilities staff updated impact fee models
that were ultimately adopted in full for 2025 implementation. Utilities development fees include Water,
Wastewater, and Stormwater Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) and Electric Capacity Fee (ECF). Utilities
will continue updating fee models on a bi-annual basis and are not planned for inclusion in the 2025
capital expansion fee review.
Realignment Objectives:
The 2023 studies largely relied on an incremental expansion (or level of service) methodology, which
bases the fees on the existing levels of service of the City’s facilities and capital assets. The
incremental expansion method is a common technique and appropriate for the City’s capital growth
projections due to the limitation of detailed capital improvement plans. This approach catalogs the
current level of service in the city and converts it to a value per unit of service demand (e.g. service
population or vehicle miles traveled).
Considering discussions from previous Council Work Sessions, staff worked EPS and TichlerBise
consultants to evaluate the assumptions and variables included in the level of service approach to
understand the maneuverability within the study models to best reflect the City’s policy objectives.
Throughout the process staff has been committed to maintaining a data-driven and defensible
approach provided by the existing models and conducting a legal review of the methodologies used.
Proposed 2023 Study Revisions:
The 2023 study revisions used an adjusted methodology to capture household size by product type. In
both the EPS and TichlerBise revised 2023 studies, household sizes have been updated using the
newer data and household size by type. In general, this has led to a shift in the fee calculations that is
more representative of household size based on product type. For CEFs new household sizes drive
new fees and for TCEFs new household size factors are used to adjust trip ends by unit size and type.
Three adjustments are recommended in the proposed study revisions. The first adjustment is a wider
variety of dwelling unit sizes that better align with Larimer County’s categories, a move from five to
seven tiers. The current maximum is 2,200 square feet and the proposed maximum is 3,600 square
feet.
The second adjustment is a move from one residential dwelling unit category to three categories: single
family detached, single family attached and multifamily. The proposed average household size more
accurately reflects household size across various housing unit types and sizes. Accessory dwelling
units (ADU) fall into the multifamily dwelling unit category. The 2025 update is 2.77 persons per
household, with 3.13 for single family detached, 2.58 for single family attached, and 2.04 for multifamily.
For TCEFs specifically, household size changes increases vehicle trip ends demand from single family
detached and decreases demand for single family attached and multifamily. For the vehicle trip ends
per unit calculation, both the number of people and number of vehicles at the home are included.
Page 7 of 81
The final proposed adjustment is from seven fee types to eight fee types with general government
broken into two types: fleet and facilities. The move more accurately reflects how the funds are used. In
the study, the replacement costs did not change but have been split out by type.
In the revised CEF study, parks costs have been updated with development and land costs revised with
the most recent data. The cost per residential population shifted replacement cost per acre that
increased for neighborhood parks and decreased for community parks. Overall, parks impact fees have
gone up for single family attached and have gone down for single family attached and multifamily.
Compared to the 2023 study, the total for all three housing types has gone down.
Summary study revisions for both CEF and TCEF studies are provided as attachments to this agenda
item. Full revised CEF and TCEF studies will be available for the September Work Session.
Revenue Comparison:
Using 2024 dwelling until counts, the overall estimate for all impact fees is a 2% increase from current
2025 fees, with a 21% increase for single family detached, a 2% increase from for single family
attached and an 18% decrease for multifamily. For CEFs this is an 11% increase from current 2025
fees, with a 27% increase for single family detached, 13% increase for single family attached and a 5%
decrease for multifamily. For TCEFs this is a 12% decrease from current 2025 fees, with a 13%
increase for single family detached, 14% decrease for single family attached and a 41% decrease for
multifamily.
These figures are estimates based on 2024 dwelling unit counts and future fee revenue depends on
actual development activity that occurs. For example, if more single family detached homes are built,
TCEF revenue could increase. Based on the TCEF study, multifamily has less impact on vehicle miles
travelled (VMT) resulting in less impact on transportation expansion demand.
For fees effective January 1, 2026, staff proposes adjusting fees for inflation prior to adoption.
Total Cost of Development:
Impact fees are a small percentage of overall development costs. For a single family detached home in
Fort Collins (1,600 sq. ft. unit), impact fees are 3.1% of the total cost of development and would be
3.8% with the proposed fees. For a multifamily unit in Fort Collins (1,000 sq. ft. unit), impact fees are
5.3% of the total cost of development and would be 4.6% with the proposed fees. The proposed fee
updates better algin single family and multifamily as a percentage of the total overall cost of
development.
2025 Workplan Timeline:
After guidance from the June Council Finance Committee Meeting, staff plans to bring forward
adjustments to the CEF and TCEF studies to the September 9th Council Work Session and Council
Meetings in October. Staff proposes an effective date of January 1st, 2026, for fee updates.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Based on 2024 dwelling until counts, staff estimates a 2% increase across all impact fees. This is an
estimate and future fee revenue depends on actual development activity that occurs.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
N/A
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS
Emily Francis; why did we decide to stay with the current (past versus future what we are actually)
Page 8 of 81
Josh Birks; our current methodology uses what has been constructed and divides it by the current number
of people to determine the factor which is often called the buy in method. The other alternative would be to
look at our future plans and divide that by the anticipated number of people, which is a plan-based
approach. So, it is either buy in or plan based.
Emily Francis; what is the difference between the plans we have and a capital plan?
Josh Birks; the capital plans actually create the costs associated with each piece of infrastructure in a
much more specific and defined way. We have a sense of what we need to construct, but we don’t have
when does it need to be constructed or how much will it cost. We don’t necessarily have the level of
engineering done on some of those anticipated capital improvements to be able to get a good cost.
Emily Francis; this is more revenue than if we didn’t change this at all, right? (with inflation for next year)
Josh Birks; the last year that we know everything that was built (2024) - if we applied the current fees
would have generated slightly more revenue. Given that all we have done is use inflation to update our
fees since 2017.
Page 9 of 81
Tricia Canonico; are we seeing more single family detached?
Josh Birks; that is my suspicion but let us follow up on that one.
Tricia Canonica; I was also wondering about vehicle miles travelled
Kelly Ohlson; you did what Council asked for and was curious about. Most of the new singe family
detached houses that were being built were larger than 2200 sq. ft. – glad you accommodated for actual
size above that. I never knew fleet was part of this and coming out of an impact fee.
Josh Birks; I think the question is, what part of fleet are we paying for out of capital expansion fees?
I don’t think we are paying for all of it. We can get a much more detailed answer as follow up. Capital
Expansion fees do not pay for all of fleet – they pay for fleet that is more associated with capital
construction.
Caleb Weitz; we will get more detail for you, but capital impact fees are for net new, additions to the fleet -
the fleet has to grow - they cannot pay for replacement of existing, which is the largest portion.
Kelly Ohlson; I think Council would appreciate knowing what is paid out of impact fees for fleet and what is
not.
Josh Birks; the $25M is the cost to completely replace the existing fleet. Given that our methodology for
calculating impact fees uses the existing fleet and divides it by our current population to get a factor –
example would be for each new person, we buy a factor of 1 worth of fleet -
Kelly Ohlson; I am comfortable with this moving forward
Page 10 of 81
Kelly Ohlson; why don’t we have trail impact fees when other municipalities do?
Josh Birks; we really didn’t spend any time looking at new fees we might add. We will ask our colleagues if
we have contemplated trail impact fees in the past and circle back
Kelly Ohlson; I hope we make these adjustments, and I am not proposing a new impart fee now, but it is
amazing how fast the years go by and then when we have leveled off with some things this is just an
inflation adjustment. I just wondered if you have ever thought of that
Dean Klingner; the concept of a trail impact fee is possible and does exist in other municipalities.
I don’t know who can answer why we haven’t added one in the past – this is also true for recreation centers
as we don’t have a recreation impact fee. We haven’t been in the mode of how we add or increase fees
but those are possible.,
Josh Birks; we are going to do some history digging to see if there is an answer.
Kelly Ohlson; capital tax – Why are parks maintenance facilities not covered by the park impact fees?
Dean Klingner; in general, they are, but in the entire system like for incremental demand based on new
development is funded by impact fees. Our East Park Shop was funded by impact fees.
The Downtown Park Shop existed prior to our fee models, and the demand is not being driving by new
development –
Kelly Ohlson; there might be some suggested tweaks to capital projects tax and might be one of the things
that is redirected in other areas. I wanted to be clear about the fee thing today.
Kelly DiMartino; unfortunately, the fee is not going to be an option for that so we would need to look at
another funding source for that or probably another 10-year delay on the Civic Center Master Plan.
Kelly Ohlson; what real life impacts and other options are- it doesn’t mean that people don’t support it or
care about it - I am a bit late to the party and deferred a little too much to the organization rather than what
I view as some of the other council priorities.
The 2025 impact fees are going to take place January 2026 – you need to have 25 data to do this – can
you explain so we can understand?
Josh Birks; we are using 2023 analysis of costs which is then being apportioned by the different categories
and being inflated to a $26 fee which will be adopted in January 2026. We will use the latest possible
inflation figures we have.
Kelly Ohlson; some areas of costs were greater than the standard inflation costs.
Josh Birks; the 2023 study basically went back and collected brand new primary data about costs.
Every department was asked – what is the cost of your existing infrastructure? The $25M number is a
brand-new valuation of the fleet, not using inflation but using a more holistic evaluation of the value of the
fleet. If you were to go buy every one of these vehicles today, what would it cost us? So, that is why it is
important every four years for us to do this study as it goes back and rebaselines what it would take to build
what we have today, and the inflation factor can’t capture everything.
Tricia Canonico; I really like this – that it is in keeping with the values of the Council.
We are matching what the county does for square feet – how do we cap it – 5,000 square feet?
Page 11 of 81
Josh Birks; we could certainly look at that but one of the reasons we did not was that the number of units
above that are minimal – the size plateaus at a certain. Even though the unit is bigger doesn’t mean there
are more people living in it so even though it is larger we use the number of people to calculate impact –
there are always exceptions.
Tricia Canonico; I like the fact that we are looking at who is using the transportation system
Do we have any data on how these stacks up to peer communities?
Jen Poznanovic; we can do that with Park fees but what is challenging is that they are
all done and structured very differently so it wouldn’t be apples to apples. That is why what we
wanted to share today is the total cost of development. We worked on doing a deep dive with this in 2018
and it became incredibly challenging. How does it differ - if you are in a different water district – your
percentage can be very different.
Caleb Weitz; there is an additional layer of complexity
Some municipalities lean more heavily into covering the infrastructure cost of development within the
development code and certain infrastructure requirements they put on developments themselves to build
parks, etc. So, that, in addition to what Jen said makes an apples-to-apples comparison very difficult to
look at versus that better measurement being the total cost of development –
Josh Birks; we charge a fee for parks so the developer is still incurring the cost, but it wouldn’t show up in
that community’s fee structure because it shows up on their cost of construction.
Kelly Ohlson; the reality whenever it was presented to us, there was shock in the room – we were always
near the low end or because it is imperfect as you say- City of Fort Collins getting the best data we could –
we were never at the top – more like 40%
Kelly DiMartino; it is accurate to say we were not near the top for the fee structure
Josh Birk; we can certainly look back and see what has historically been presented and see with the
limitations, caveats and disclaimers we have described -
Emily Francis; it is so complicated - I know that is such a small part of the development stack
What Council is trying to do is to better align our values and our fees.
Emily Francis; why do we lump ADUs into the multifamily category?
Josh Birks; the reality is that we don’t’ have enough data to split ADUs out as their own category.
The closest category is multifamily. Part of what we are learning through this process is that the fee
schedule is one part of the conversation but then in our land use code – how we choose to define an ADU
and when we recognize an ADU as a unit – and then would be subject to impact fees The need to be able
to calculate a good fee that is based on the required methodology. We may need to talk about how to
address other concerns that the Council
Emily Francis; the maximum for an ADU is 750 square feet.
I would like to align that to 750 square feet rather than 700 etc.
Josh Birks; we will look at that - unless there is some significant reason not to adjust the rate point. This
doesn’t follow the county.
Page 12 of 81
Emily Francis; I do like that we are breaking it out more. The fleet thing - I know this is a small part of
development, but it does make me think about - Is this the right way for Fort Collins to structure their impact
fees? I know there are a lot of options - miles of street – do we want to prioritize other things through
impact fees as a reflection of our values - Is this the right structure for us?
Josh Birks; are there other ways for us to look at creating impact fees?
One example - a more recent approach to transportation systems is to use person trips that look
at all modes - not just cars - that could give us a more nuanced evaluation of how our transit structure is
being used. There are other changes like that we could evaluate but the reality is those changes are
more fundamental to the methodology and therefore kind of put us back at square one.
My advice would be to take a step forward in creating granularity and then depending on what you decide
around priorities in the future –there is guidance for us to continue to look at alternative methods for
evaluating the impacts. Whether to do that as part of the next reset in 4 years’ time, or if that is insufficient
get guidance to do it sooner rather than later. The kind of falls into a work priority or new work stream.
Kelly DiMartino; it would be a priority considering the magnitude of resources for a project like that.
Emily Francis; it makes me think of our larger discussion around budget – what we want to have secure
funding for
Kelly Ohlson; I don’t understand how all of the new park center would just be replacing the existing
There are new parks on the very same ballot –
How is half of that not covered? The fact that we have a rational Nexxus, but we don’t use impact fees to
pay for things we shouldn’t be paying for. New people, new parks, new development….
Dean Klingner; there would be some percentage, we are just saying that wholesale we can’t replace the
entire shop. We need to spend some time doing some analysis on that specific shop. What parks are they
servicing – that shop serves downtown to a large extent the flower projects – what parks have been built or
supported by new development.
Kelly Ohlson; and flesh it out for the next work session - $8M building to take care of flowers in downtown.
We want to take care of our people. We are going to need a little more meat on the bone.
Dean Klingner; I think it will be helpful for us to describe the entire reach of the downtown shop - Describe
that a little bit better.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Joe Wimmer; an awareness item – Utilities has solicited proposals to have a consultant come help us with
our rate study and our long-term financial planning as we look at significant capital projects over the next
ten years; Halligan, wastewater treatment plant. We are going to be doing a lot of debt financing, so it was
prudent to have a rate study done. We are hoping to complete this year which will inform our next BFO
cycle (2027- 28). We will come back to Council Finance with results of the rate study and rate forecast.
Meeting Adjourned at 5:10 pm
Page 13 of 81
Page 14 of 81
Council Committee Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 2
August 7, 2025
Finance Committee
STAFF
Caleb Weitz – CFO
– Senior Accounting Manager
tatus of Fund Balances and Working Capital
The attached presentation provides the status of fund balances and working capital for each fund at the
City. Fund balances are primarily considered for funding one-time offers during the Budgeting for
are also used to fund supplemental
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Council Finance can use the information presented to make informed decisions about planned reserve
spending and budget issues in the coming year.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The City’s overall finances are divided by purpose into separate funds (i.e. Natural Areas, Recreation,
Wastewater, etc.). Every year each fund’s revenues and expenses are netted against each other and
applied against the existing fund balance to calculate the updated fund balance. In this way each fund
has a separate reserve balance which can be used, with review and approval from Council through the
budget process, on projects and operations that benefit the City.
It should be noted, however, that fund balances often have restrictions on their use. The calculation of
fund balances occurs once per year, however after that time reserve balances may be appropriated
through the supplemental, reappropriation, or standard budgeting process. Furthermore, reserve
balances may be obligated for the funding of multi-year capital projects, or may be restricted by State
law, granting agencies, voters, or other parties outside the City government.
Funds are presented individually on their own slide, with fund balances shown vertically by accounting
classifications. The amounts are then additionally categorized based on their restrictions as either
Appropriated, Available with Constraints, or Available for Nearly Any Purpose.
Page 15 of 81
Council Committee Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 2
Appropriated, Minimum Policy or Scheduled is comprised of minimum fund balances established by
policy, funds from the 2024 balance that have been appropriated in 2025, and amounts for projects
specifically identified by voters. An example of the latter is Community Capital Improvements Plan.
Available with Constraints are those balances available for appropriation but within defined constraints.
An example are donations received through City Give. They are restricted for the purpose of the
donation, but still available for appropriation.
Available for Nearly Any Purpose are balances that are available for appropriation at the discretion of the
City Council.
As a result, it is important to examine both the total amount of reserves as well as potential restrictions on
use of reserves to derive actionable data from the fund balance report.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Total Fund Balances and working capital at the City have generally increased over the past 10 years,
however the amount of these funds that are considered ‘available for any use’ has declined. In particular,
the General Fund has no funds that are considered unassigned as of year-end 2024. Since budgeting
has become more accurate, this means that now there are no reserve funds in the General Fund to pay
for new initiatives and will impact future budget processes, as General Fund reserves have been an
important funding source for items like asset management. This is particularly important to note during
this period of weakening sales tax revenues and steady expenses, which was discussed with the Council
in June 2025. Additional information on budgetary impacts will be provided in the 2026 revision process.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Fund balances are made available in the ACFR which is posted to the City’s website each year.
Public input on use of reserves is included as part of the budget process.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Fund Balance Power Point presentation
Page 16 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
Chief Financial Officer
Caleb Weitz
Status of Fund
Balances
08-07-2025
Trevor Nash
Senior Accounting Manager
Page 17 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
2
Objectives
•Inform Committee on Debt Portfolio
•Inform Committee on types of fund balance constraints
•Review fund balances as of 12/31/2024
•Summarize how Fund Balances are used in the budget process
Page 18 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
3
Debt Portfolio – Governmental Debt
Definitions
•Certificate of Participation (COP) – lease-based financing arrangement where the City pays lease amounts
to investors rather than traditional debt payments
•Tax Increment Financing (TIF) – payments represent incremental property tax revenue increases
Debt Item Issuance Amount Balance at 12/31/24 Payoff Year Purpose
2012 COP $34.3M $3.8M 2026 Natural Areas/Police/Transportation
2017 COP $8.4M $2.7M 2027 Firehouse Alley Parking Structure
2019 COP $23.9M $18.5M 2038 I-25 Overpass & Police Training Facility
2022A COP $2.8M $2.5M 2037 Fleet Shop Expansion
2023 COP $7.8M $6.5M 2032 Hughes Property Purchase
2013 URA TIF $11.0M $6.5M 2029 URA – North College Ave
2019 URA TIF $5.0 M $3.8M 2036 URA – Midtown Prospect South
Total $93.2 M $42.0 M
Page 19 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
4
Debt Portfolio – Enterprise Debt
Definitions
• Revenue Bonds– bonds secured by the future revenues generated by the asset being built
•Certificate of Participation (COP) – lease-based financing arrangement where the City pays lease amounts to investors rather
than traditional debt payments
Debt Item Issuance Amount Balance at 12/31/24 Payoff Year Purpose
EPIC Program Loans $6.7M $4.5M Varies EPIC Loans
Water 2003 Revenue Bonds $2.5M $0.2M 2030 Water utility (Halligan)
Wastewater 2016 Revenue Bonds $18.8M $8.7M 2028 Wastewater utility (Mulberry wastewater plant)
Broadband 2018A Revenue Bonds $85.0M $85.0M 2042 Initial Broadband costs (tax exempt)
Broadband 2018B Revenue Bonds $45.0M $36.1M 2031 Initial Broadband capital and operating costs
2023 Light & Power Revenue Bonds $39.0M $38.1M 2044 Light & Power Utility
2023 Broadband Revenue Bonds $20.4M $20.4 M 2044 Broadband Utility
Stormwater 2023 Revenue Bonds $38.2M $37.2M 2043 Stormwater Utility projects (Oak Street project)
2022A COP $4.6M $4.1M 2037 Southridge Golf Course Irrigation
Total $260.2M $234.3M
Page 20 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
5
Fund Balance Definitions
Least
Constrained
Non-spendable
•Non-liquid in form (e.g. inventory, long-term receivables, land)
•Legally or contractually required to be maintained intact (e.g. permanent endowments)
Restricted
•Externally / 3rd Party enforceable legal restrictions (e.g. TABOR emergency reserve, debt covenants, re-development agreements, IGA’s)
Committed
•Constraint formally imposed at the Council or Board Level through Ordinance (e.g. Capital Expansion fees, Neighborhood Parkland fees)
Assigned
•Intended to be used for specific purposes (e.g. Affordable Housing, Camera Radar, Encumbrances), not authoritative. This amount includes the 60 day contingency balance.
Unassigned
•Available for any City purpose
Most
Constrained
Page 21 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
6
Use of Restricted Balances
Available, but with some
constraints
•Street Maintenance Program
within Transportation fund are
restricted, but available as
defined in the ballot language
•Donations made within a fund
are available, but for the
donations purpose
Available for nearly any
purpose
•Funds available at the
discretion of City Council for
any municipal purpose
Page 22 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
Page 23 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
Page 24 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
Page 25 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
Page 26 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
11
Community Capital Improvement Plan
Page 27 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
12
2050 Tax
Page 28 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
13
Transit
Page 29 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
14
Other Governmental Funds
Page 30 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
15
Water Fund
Page 31 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
16
Wastewater
Page 32 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
17
Additional Enterprise Funds
Page 33 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
18
Self Insurance
Page 34 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
19
Benefits
Page 35 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
20
Additional Internal Service Funds
Page 36 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
21
Audit Summary
FY24 Audit was concluded in June
•ACFR was finalized earlier than ever before
•No audit findings on the in the main audit
•One audit finding in the single audit
•Audit covered the fund balances presented in this presentation
Audit team will present to Council Finance September 4th
Page 37 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
Page 38 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
23
Capital Expansion
Page 39 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
24
Sales & Use Tax
Page 40 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
25
GID #1
Page 41 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
26
Neighborhood Parkland
Page 42 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
27
Conservation Trust
Page 43 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
28
Natural Areas
Page 44 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
29
Cultural Services & Facilities
Page 45 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
30
Recreation
Page 46 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
31
Cemeteries
Page 47 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
32
Perpetual Care
Page 48 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
33
Museum
Page 49 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
34
Transportation Capital Expansion
Page 50 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
35
Transportation
Page 51 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
36
Parking
Page 52 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
37
Capital Projects
Page 53 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
38
Golf
Page 54 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
39
Light & Power
Page 55 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
40
Storm Drainage
Page 56 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
41
Equipment
Page 57 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
42
Data and Communications
Page 58 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
43
Utility Customer Service Fund
Page 59 of 81
Page 60 of 81
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff:
Jeremy Woolf, Senior Director, Water Operations
Andrew Gingerich, Director, Water Field Operations
Joe Wimmer, Utilities Finance Director
Date: August 7, 2025
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Supplemental Appropriation Request for (1) Blower Replacement at the Drake Water
Reclamation Facility and (2) Lemay Water Line Replacement Project
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Blower Replacement Project at the Drake Water Reclamation Facility (DWRF) has
undergone design, up to sixty percent, for replacing two blowers. Staff has identified the need for
an additional $1,700,000 from Wastewater Utility Fund reserves to supplement the existing
appropriated budget for preliminary design. The additional appropriation will fund final design
and installation of both blowers, having a minor contingency to fund unanticipated costs for the
blowers to be placed into service.
The Lemay Water Line Replacement Project is the result of unanticipated and continuous water
leaks occurring since spring 2025. Based on the number and frequency of leaks, approximately
$200,000 has been spent to date on responding to leaks. Considering the condition of the water
line and risk to City staff and the public, the water line needs to be replaced. Staff has identified
the need for a $3,400,000 appropriation from Water Utility Fund reserves to (1) supplement the
water main repairs operating budget by $200,000 for unanticipated costs incurred to respond to
numerous leaks and (2) fund $3,200,000 for design and construction of a new water line, as well
as removal of the existing water line.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does the Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle appropriation of:
• $1,700,00 from Wastewater Utility Fund reserves to complete the Blower Replacement
Project and
• $3,400,000 from the Water Utility Reserve Fund reserves to supplement the $200,000 in
operational costs incurred on responding to water line leaks and $3,200,000 to complete
the Lemay Water Line Replacement Project
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Blower Replacement Project arises from unexpected operational failure this year combined
with the high potential for the DWRF to be in noncompliance with state regulations. The DWRF
has two secondary process treatment trains (North and South). Each treatment train has a total of
six aeration basin zones, which is supported by four (4) blowers. Absent operation of all four
Page 61 of 81
blowers, capacity to the aeration basin zones is reduced, thereby impacting the efficiency of plant
operations. DWRF’s North Process Train is currently operating with only three (3) blowers. One
of the two (2) high speed turbo compressor style (Turbo) blowers stopped working. Based on the
Turbo blowers no longer being supported by the manufacturer and being at the end of their
useful life, both Turbo blowers require replacement to ensure compliance with permit
requirements, as well as to ensure efficient operations.
North Process Train aeration projects, while included in DWRF capital improvement plans, were
not scheduled for funding in the 2025/26 budget. After failure of the blower, $650,000 was
allocated from existing Water Reclamation & Biosolids Replacement Program capital funds for
design of the blowers, funding the project through sixty percent design document completion.
Staff estimates $2,350,000 in total project costs for design and construction of the two new
blowers. Final design and construction, with appropriate contingency, estimated at $1,700,000
will undergo a formal request for proposal proposed in August.
Figure 1 – Blower Replacement Budget Summary
$1,700,000
Total Project
Staff requests a $1,700,000 supplemental appropriation from Wastewater Utility Fund reserves
based on the budget analysis summarized in Figure 1. The $1,700,000 supplemental
appropriation provides funding for final design and construction of two new blowers at DWRF’s
North Process Train, with appropriate contingency to undergo a formal request for proposal
proposed for August.
The Lemay Water Line Replacement project arises from the condition of the water line resulting
in an unprecedented number of water main leaks since spring 2025. Based on the condition of
the water line staff recommends replacing the water line. The 20-inch water line along Lemay
Avenue, between Harmony Road and Harbor Walk has suffered seven (7) leaks from April
through mid-June 2025. Each leak resulted in closure of Lemay Ave for eighteen to twenty-four
hours, thereby impacting those living and/or traveling this arterial roadway. Each leak has
required approximately $25,000 for repairs, greatly impacting the water main repairs operating
budget.
The water line, constructed in 1977, is a 20” ductile iron pipe. Prior specifications did not require
the water line to be wrapped in plastic, with native soil used as backfill on top of the pipe. The
2025 leaks have all been on top of the water line, which is consistent with native backfill
material directly in contact with ductile iron pipe. Continuous leak repair creates isolated system
vulnerability. Staff recommends replacing the entire 2,800 linear feet of 20” ductile iron pipe
along Leamy Ave, from Harbor Walk to Harmony Road, with new polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
pipe. Design will determine exact sizing and location along Lemay Ace, with the potential for
lower total project costs.
Page 62 of 81
Figure 2 – Lemay Water Line Replacement Budget Summary
Total Project
$200,000
TOTAL Appropriations $3,400,000
Staff requests a $3,400,000 supplemental appropriation from Water Utility Fund reserves based
on the budget analysis summarized in Figure 2. The $3,400,000 supplemental appropriation
provides funding (1) for design and construction of the new PVC water line along Lemay, which
is anticipated to be completed by summer 2026 and (2) to supplement the water main operating
budget based on the unprecedented costs for repairs.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The requested $1,700,000 supplemental appropriation for the Blower Replacement project would
be funded from Wastewater Utility Fund reserves. Based on approximately $13.1 million of
available unencumbered reserves, this fund can cover this appropriation.
The requested $3,400,000 supplemental appropriation for the Lemay Water Line Replacement
project and to supplement the 2025 water main operating budget would be funded from Water
Utility Fund reserves. Based on approximately $26.1 million of available unencumbered reserves,
this fund can cover this appropriation.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Presentation – Council Finance Committee
Page 63 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
Sr Director, Water Operations
Jeremy Woolf
Drake Water
Reclamation Facility
North Process Train
Blower Replacement
August 7, 2025
Director, Utilities Finance
Joe Wimmer
Page 64 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
2
Direction Sought
Does the Committee support an appropriation of $1.7M from
Wastewater Fund reserves to complete the North Process Train
(NPT) Blower Replacement at the Drake Water Reclamation Facility
(DWRF)?
01
Page 65 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
3
Overview
Background
•Drake Water Reclamation Facility (DWRF)
•North Process Train (NPT)
•Secondary Treatment Aeration from
Blowers
•Timeline of NPT Blowers
Recommendation
•Replace two turbo blowers this year
•Mid-cycle appropriation of $1,700,000 from
wastewater reserves
Page 66 of 81
Headline Copy Goes HereDrake Water Reclamation Facility – Aeration Basin
Page 67 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
5
NPT Secondary Treatment with Aeration
Page 68 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
6
NPT Blower Timeline
2011
to
Today
Today
Year
End
2025
2011:
•Two Turbo Blowers installed
•Two centrifugal blowers remained in
service
•Four total NPT blowers
October 2024:
• NPT Blower outage
• Manufacturer no longer supports
equipment
•Unable to make repairs
April 29, 2025:
•Blower inoperative and formally taken
out of service
Page 69 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
7
NPT Blower Timeline
2011
to
Today
Today
Year
End
2025
2011:
•Two Turbo Blowers installed
•Two centrifugal blowers remained in
service
•Four total NPT blowers
October 2024:
• Temporary NPT Blower outage
• Manufacturer no longer supports
equipment
•Unable to make repairs
April 29, 2025:
•Blower inoperative and formally taken
out of service
Limited to three (3) out
of the four (4) blowers
required by the State of
Colorado Water Quality
Control Division
for the
Drake Water
Reclamation Facility
North Process Train
Page 70 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
8
NPT Blower Timeline
2011
to
Today
Today
Year
End
2025
2011:
•Two Turbo Blowers installed
•Two centrifugal blowers remained in
service
•Four total NPT blowers
October 2024:
• Temporary NPT Blower outage
• Manufacturer no longer supports
equipment
•Unable to make repairs
April 29, 2025:
•Blower inoperative and formally taken
out of service
Limited to three (3) out
of the four (4) blowers
required by the State of
Colorado Water Quality
Control Division
for the
Drake Water
Reclamation Facility
North Process Train
Project Schedule
December 2024 – June 2025:
• Project Initiation COMPLETE
• Replacement Evaluation COMPLETE
•Conceptual Design COMPLETE
• 60 Percent Design COMPLETE
July:
• Construction Contractor Request for
Proposals – in progress
August:
• Presentation to Council
September:
• Equipment Procurement with a
minimum five week lead time
By year end 2025:
•Four (4) NPT Blowers in OperationPage 71 of 81
Headline Copy Goes HereFinancial Impact
9
•Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost = $2,350,000
•Project Initiated with WRB Replacement Program Funds = $650,000
•Requesting mid-cycle appropriation of $1,700,000 from wastewater reserves
Item Replacement
Program
Mid-Cycle
Appropriation
Budget
Design $150,000 $150,000
Construction $100,000 $1,700,000 $1,800,000
Contingency $400,000 $400,000
Total $650,000 $1,700,000 $2,350,000
Page 72 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
10
Wastewater Fund Reserves Position
Description Total
2024 Year-End Fund Balance $47.2M
Previously Appropriated ($34.1M)
Minimum Reserve Policy ($4.1M)
Available Reserves $13.1M
•DRWF Blowers appropriation $ 1.7M
•2025 Available $ 11.4M
Page 73 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
11
Direction Sought
Does the Committee support an appropriation of $1.7M from
Wastewater Fund reserves to complete the North Process Train
(NPT) Blower Replacement at the Drake Water Reclamation Facility
(DWRF)?
01
Page 74 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
Andrew Gingerich
Director, Water Field Operations
Joe Wimmer
Director, Utilities Finance
Lemay Ave 20"
Transmission Main
Emergency
Replacement
August 7, 2025
Page 75 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
13
Direction Sought
Does the Committee support an appropriation of $3.2M from Water
Fund reserves to complete the Lemay Transmission Main
Replacement Project?
01
Does the Committee support an appropriation of $200k from
Water Fund reserves to supplement the water main repairs
operating budget?
02
Page 76 of 81
Headline Copy Goes HereBackground
14
-7 Main Leaks Occurred between 4/22/25 & 6/18/25
-Each leak requires full closure of Lemay Ave for 18 – 24 Hours
-Repair costs estimated between $175,000 - $200,000
-Leak repair doesn't affect individual services but creates isolated
system vulnerability
-Street repair and safety considerations
Page 77 of 81
Headline Copy Goes HereRecommendation – Emergency Replacement
15
- Existing main is 1979 Ductile Iron Pipe direct buried w/out plastic wrap
-All 7 Failures have been electrolysis holes on top of pipe
-1979 vintage pipe exists from Harbor Walk to Harmony Road (~2,800 L.F.)
-1985 vintage pipe N. of Harbor Walk (plastic wrap & no known leaks)
-Recommend replacing the entire 2,800 L.F. of existing Ductile Iron Pipe with
new Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe (PVC).
-Design will determine the exact sizing and location within Lemay Ave which
can hopefully lower cost estimates.
-Construction to be completed by summer of 2026 to meet water demands
Page 78 of 81
Headline Copy Goes HereFinancial Impact
16
•Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost = $3,200,000
•Water Main Repairs Operating Budget Need = $200,000
•Total Supplemental Appropriation Request = $3,400,000
Item Budget
Design $250,000
Construction $2,500,000
Contingency $450,000
Total $3,200,000
Page 79 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
17
Water Fund Reserves Position
Description Total
2024 Year-End Fund Balance $79.5M
Previously Appropriated ($46.4M)
Minimum Reserve Policy ($7.0M)
Available Reserves $26.1M
•Lemay Water Line Replacement $ 3.4M
•2025 Available $ 22.7M
Page 80 of 81
Headline Copy Goes Here
18
Direction Sought
Does the Committee support an appropriation of $3.2M from Water
Fund reserves to complete the Lemay Transmission Main
Replacement Project?
01
Does the Committee support an appropriation of $200k from
Water Fund reserves to supplement the water main repairs
operating budget?
02
Page 81 of 81