HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Mail Packet - 6/18/2013 - Council Finance & Audit Committee Agenda � June 17, 2013Council Finance Committee & URA Finance Committee
Agenda Planning Calendar 2013
RVSD 6/10/13 KW
Jun. 17 TOPIC TIME WHO
CFC
Capital Expansion Fees 50 min M. Beckstead
RFP Auditor Selection 10 min M. Beckstead
2012 Fund Balance Status 45 min J. Voss
URA
Jul. 15 TOPIC TIME WHO
CFC
Auditor 2012 Report 30 min Kevin Smith
Revenue Policy Review 30 min J. Ping-Small
Assistance Package for Local Company Expansion 30 min S. Kendall
URA The Summit (Capstone) update 15 min M. Bolin
Aug. 19 TOPIC TIME WHO
CFC
Utilities Building/Financing 45 min J. Voss/
L. Smith
Debt Policy Update 15 min J. Voss
Transfort Financing 60 min Ravenschlag
URA
Sep. 16 TOPIC TIME WHO
CFC
Budget Policy Review 30 min L. Pollack
URA
Future Council Finance Committee Topics:
• RFP for Audit Services, 5 year contract (August 2013)
• Policy review – Reserve/Fund Balances (QIII 2013)
• Revenue Implications of Annexation
• Financial Management Policy Reviews during 2013 – Quarterly Commitments
Future URA Committee Topics:
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
AGENDA
Council Finance & Audit Committee
June 17, 2013
10:00 to noon
CIC Room – City Hall
Approval of the Minutes from the May 20, 2013 Meeting
1. Capital Expansion Fees 50 minutes M. Beckstead
2. FRP Auditor Selection 10 minutes M. Beckstead
3. 2012 Fund Balance Status 45 minutes J. Voss
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Council Audit & Finance Committee
Draft of Minutes
5/20/13
10:00 to 12:00
CIC Room
Council Attendees: Mayor Karen Weitkunat, Ross Cunniff, Bob Overbeck
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead, Carrie Daggett,
Ingrid Decker, Chris Donegon, Harold Hall, John Voss,
Katie Wiggett
Others: Jim Manire, Joel Stewart
Approval of the Minutes of March 18, 2013
Ross Cunniff moved to approve the minutes for the March 18, 2013 meeting. Bob Overbeck seconded
the motion. Minutes were approved unanimously.
Election of Officers
Ross Cunniff nominated the Mayor as chair of the Council Audit and Finance Committee. Bob
Overbeck seconded the nomination.
Other Business
Mike Beckstead announced an additional item on the Agenda. The item “Funding for the Murphy
Center” was added.
URA North College Refinance
John Voss presented the URA’s plan to refinance approximately $11.2 million of the debt it originally
borrowed from the City in relation to the North College area. Because an established revenue stream
can be shown to investors, private money can be used to replace City money. The 2013 bonds require
the URA to establish a debt reserve fund. To better enhance the credit rating on the replacement debt,
the City must pledge to replenish the URA’s debt reserve fund if the URA ever uses the funds to make
debt payments. With the City’s pledge, the new URA debt is expected to have an effective interest rate
of 2.98% and a credit rating of Aa3. Without the City’s pledge, the interest rate would likely be 5% or
higher. The refinancing of this debt will improve the cash flows of the URA and is expected to save
$922,000 through 2029.
The City’s pledge includes a commitment to maintain an unrestricted fund balance in the General Fund
in an amount at least equal to the Reserve Fund Requirement, estimated at $961,000. The General
Fund can easily meet that requirement: at the end of 2012, the collective unrestricted fund balances in
2
the General Fund totaled $37 million. Property tax revenue in the North College URA plan area is
unlikely to decline enough to trigger the use of the Debt Service Reserve Fund.
Ross Cunniff asked how this restriction in the General Fund would be noted if a special reserve fund
were not created. John Voss said that there will be a note within the general fund, setting aside the
reserve fund money. A future CFC topic on Fund Balance will explain this further.
Council Finance Committee reviewed and tentatively approved the refinancing and the concept of a
debt reserve replenishment pledge at their meeting on December 17, 2012. Staff recommends that this
topic be brought to council on June 4 because it is a time sensitive issue.
Projected Timeline –
May 16 Send rating documents to Moody’s
May 29 Receive credit rating from Moody’s
June 4 City Council and URA Board approve refinancing actions
June 6 Publish Preliminary Official Statement on internet sites
June 18-19 Market Bonds
July 9 Closing
Actuary Annual Pension Valuation Report (GERP) (Milliman)
Joel Stewart of Milliman presented the January 1, 2013 Actuary Annual Pension Valuation. Highlights of
the Report:
• The Market Value of Assets is $39,489,447 for 2013, which is an increase from $37,015,380
in 2012
• The Actuarial Value of Assets is $38,940,438 for 2013, which is a decrease from $39,973,803.
The reason for this decrease is the deferred loss from 2008. We deferred the 2008 loss of
$15,153,315, recognizing 20% each year for five years to smooth out the effect of the loss.
This year will be the last year affected by that loss.
• The Funded Percentage from an Actuarial basis is down from 74.3% in 2012 to 71.2% in
2013.
• However, the Funded Percentage from the Market Value of Assets basis is up from 68.8% in
2012 to 72.2% in 2013.
As of January 1, 2013, there are a total of 454 plan members, 140 of which are active, 129 of which are
term vested and 185 of which are retired. The total numbers of members is lower than last year’s 462.
Because this is a closed group, the numbers can be expected to steadily decrease.
Joel presented Milliman’s forty year projection of contributions, benefit payments, and market value of
assets, a projection in which supplemental contributions end in 2033. The projection assumes Market
Value of Assets earns 6.8% per annum, and contributions are 10.5% of compensation. It includes
supplemental contributions of $1,120,000 for 2013-2033. Under the current projection assumptions the
ending asset value in year 2052 should be zero.
Ross asked to see the most recent report on the Plan’s Investments. Harold Hall will provide the
Quarterly Report to Council. Ross also asked whether it was possible to shift existing employees over to
the current retirement plan. John Voss replied that case law doesn’t allow members to be changed after
3
retirement age, meaning only 30 GERP members would be eligible for change. John noted that in 2012
Steve Roy prepared a report on the City’s options with the Plan. Staff will send Council the report.
Funding for the Murphy Center
When the Sister Mary Alice Murphy Center of Hope opened in 2009, United Way committed to
owning/funding/operating the Center for 3 years. Now that 3 years have passed, Serve6.8 intends to
take ownership and operation of the Center. Serve 6.8 is the “community service” arm of the
Timberline Church. It has 501.c.3 status. The United Way of Larimer County is requesting City funding in
the amount of $45,000 for the operation of the Murphy Center, from January to July, 2013 (six months)
to help keep the nonprofit open during the transition.
Other funding partners include United Way ($58,000), Bohemian Foundation ($45,000) and Serve6.8
($35,000). The Murphy Center is the one-stop center in Fort Collins for homeless and near homeless
persons; approximately 23 agencies provide services at the Center.
Since 2004, the City has contributed approximately $90,000 in CDBG and General Fund dollars to build
the facility, and as such has a legal and financial interest. In addition, the City has funded several of the
agencies that occupy the Center. The City’s goal in funding the transition would be to smooth the
transition on executing new legal documents and to ensure that parameters for property use tied to
federal funding are clear.
Staff are interested in ensuring that the Murphy Center continues to play a critical role in care for the
homeless and near homeless. The City’s donation will come from the General Fund Reserves. Providing
financial assistance to the Murphy Center can be seen as a long term investment in the community.
Ingrid Decker of the City’s Attorney Office shared the legal context for making the donation. According
to the City Charter, the City cannot appropriate funds for private businesses. However there is a public
purpose exception which Council has used in the past. The Murphy Center, touching several programs
the City already helps through HUD and touching a public need, may qualify for this exception.
However, Council may want to clearly define the use of this exception to avoid future conflicts.
Ross Cunniff agreed that Council may want to define its policy on funding with the Public Purpose
exception, noting that this is a question of “can we?” and “should we?” Council Finance will bring this
policy up as a future agenda topic.
Council Direction / Next Steps
The Council Finance supports the URA Refinance and recommends that it be brought to Council on
June 4.
Staff will sent Council the GERP Quarterly Report as well as the legal report from Steve Roy.
1
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Jessica Ping-Small, Revenue and Project Manager
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: Capital Improvement Expansion Fee Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the fall of 2012, staff initiated a comprehensive review of the Capital Improvement Expansion
Fees that were first implemented in 1996. The goal of the review was to ensure that the
methodology first implemented was still applicable and also to assess the fee structure to confirm
that it was in line with the current level of service. To assist with the review, Finance staff
contracted with Duncan Associates, a nationally known firm that specializes in impact fees.
Staff presented the information at a City Council Work Session on February 12, 2013. Staff was
given direction to conduct additional public outreach. The outreach has been completed and is
summarized in the attached Power Point presentation.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1) Does Council Finance Committee have any comments or questions related to the draft
study?
a) Methodology
b) Fee calculations
c) Square Footage vs. Single Family/Multifamily Option
d) Factors driving fee adjustments
2) Are there any additional concepts or questions to consider?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Capital Improvement Expansion fees are used to require new developments to pay a
proportionate share of infrastructure costs. The City’s Capital Improvement Expansion fees were
originally prepared and adopted in 1996. The fees included in the study are:
• Neighborhood Parks
• Community Parks
• Trail Fee - NEW
• Fire
• Police
• General Government
Although the fees have been updated annually for inflation according to the Denver-Boulder-
Greeley Consumer Price Index, there has not been a comprehensive review of the study since
implementation.
Staff worked with the Duncan Associates to review the methodology and update the fees. The
outcome of the study retains the basic methodology of incremental expansion but recommends
minor changes to some of the inputs. The fees have all been updated based on current level of
service which factors in current capital assets for all fees. In addition, trails have been added as a
possible fee.
2
In addition to the updates to current Level of Service, the study also suggests another option for
calculating residential fees. The current residential fees are assessed by square footage of unit.
Another option would be to assess residential fees based on a single family or multifamily
classification. Information regarding this option is included in the draft study.
Key Updates from 1996 Study
• Neighborhood Parks and Community Parks: Changes have been made in this update
in determining the service units for parks. A service unit is the standard measure of
demand used in calculating capital expansion fees. Per the study conducted by Duncan
Associates, the park fees continue to be based on population, but rather than using
population directly, the number of people is translated into equivalent dwelling units,
based on the average number of residents in an occupied single-family detached unit.
This approach has the advantage of eliminating the need to consider occupancy rates,
which can be quite variable over time.
• Trail Fee: A new Trail fee is included in the study. The fee will provide funding to help
build out our paved trail system. The City is planning to build an additional 30.7 miles of
trail at an estimated cost of 24 million dollars. The Conservation Trust Fund from the
state Lottery provides about 1.2 million dollars annually. Of this amount, $470,000 is
allocated in the budget for new trails and $730,000 is allocated to parks and trail
maintenance. The Natural Areas program also provides $350,000 annually for new trails,
but this funding may not be available after 2014 because it may be needed for Natural
Area operations. This means, without the Trail fee or other new funding, it will take 50
years to complete the trail system. It should also be noted that the Conservation Trust
Fund is scheduled to sunset in 2024 unless it is extended.
Based on expected population growth rates, staff anticipates collecting $450,000 annually
from the new Trail fee, on average. This revenue, together with the $470,000 from
Conservation Trust would provide $920,000 annually for new trails. This reduces the
time to build out the trail system from 50 years to 25 years.
• Fire, Police and General Government: Functional Population was retained as the
service unit or measure for Fire, Police and General Government. Nonresidential
functional population was simplified from the previous study using a typical weekday
versus separate calculations for weekends.
• General Government: The Streets facilities and equipment was included as part of the
infrastructure for the updated fee calculations. As the Streets facilities and equipment
serve the purpose of General Government, it was appropriate to include them in the
current update. Streets capital was not included in the original 1996 fee calculations.
Updated Fee Structure – What’s driving the increase?
• Updated inventory of capital assets which includes facilities and vehicles
• Current level of service has increased based on updated infrastructure information
• Updated household data which resulted in less variation between small and large units
then previous study
3
Current Fund Balance Information
1. Neighborhood Parkland Fees: Expenditures shall be made for approved purposes for the
acquisition, development and administration of neighborhood parks, including purchases
of new or replacement park site equipment and plantings.
• Fund Balance as of 12/31/2012: $5,127,970
• Offers Funded in 2013 Budget: $750,000
• Offers Funded in 2014 Budget: $1,050,000
2. Community Parkland Fees: Expenditures shall be made for the acquisition, construction
and development of capital improvements related to the provision of community
parklands.
• Fund Balance as of 12/31/2012: $9,156,115
• Offers Funded in the 2013 Budget: $1,270,000
3. Fire Protection Capital Improvement Expansion Fees: Expenditures shall be made for the
acquisition, construction and development of capital improvements related to the
provision of fire protection services to City residents, as described in the capital
improvements plan for fire protection.
• Fund Balance as of 12/31/2012: $262,255. The balance is being used by
PFA to pay debt service on Station #4.
4. Police Capital Expansion Fees: Expenditures shall be made for the acquisition,
construction and development of capital improvements related to the provision of police
services as described in the capital improvements plan for police services.
• Fund Balance as of 12/31/2012: $1,008,220. The balance is being used to
pay debt service on new Police Facility.
5. General Government Capital Expansion Fees: Expenditures shall be made for the purpose
of funding capital improvements related to the provision of general governmental
services.
• Fund Balance as of 12/31/2012: $ 6,159,361 of which $4,834,743 has
been loaned to the URA for North College Marketplace and JAX, leaving
only $1,0324,618 in liquid investments, it was not anticipated this money
was needed before the loan will be repaid.
The attached study is in draft form; however, the methodologies and inputs are not likely to
change significantly.
ATTACHMENTS
1. PowerPoint Presentation
2. Draft Fee Study – Duncan Associates
1
Capital Improvement
Expansion Fee Update
Council Finance Committee
June 17, 2013
2
Capital Improvement Expansion
Fee Overview
• Background
• Definitions
• Methodology
• Fee Overview
• Fees by type
• Revenue Analysis
• Public Outreach
• Conclusions
3
Fees Included in Update
• Neighborhood Parks
• Community Parks
• Trail – New Fee
• Fire
• Police
• General Government
4
Background
• Capital Improvement Expansion Fees require new
developments to pay a proportionate share of infrastructure
costs or to “buy-in” to the system
• Revenue is used to expand infrastructure to serve new
development
• First implemented at the City of Fort Collins in 1996
• Fees updated annually according to the Denver-Boulder-
Greeley Consumer Price Index
• In 2012, City contracted with Duncan Associates to:
Analyze methodology
Update Fees
Draft Study – Basis for presentation
5
Definitions
• Incremental Expansion: Methodology used for calculating
capital expansion fees based on current level of service
• Level of Service (LOS): Ratio of the replacement cost of
existing facilities to existing service units
• Service Unit: A common or standardized measure of the
demand for the type of facility in question
• Functional Population: The number of people present at a
land use expressed in full time equivalents – the service unit
used for fire, police and general government
• Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU): The ratio of the average
household size of a dwelling type to the average household
size of the typical single-family detached unit – the service
unit used for parks
6
Methodology
• Largely unchanged from 1996 study – retained incremental
expansion approach
• Continued use of functional population for Police, Fire and
General Government but simplified formula
• Updated Park fees to be based on average # of residents in a
dwelling unit
• Updated household size data
• Updated all formula inputs including current asset info
• Included option for assessing residential fees by single
family/multifamily vs. current sq. ft. approach
7
Projects Partially Funded with Capital Expansion Fees
8
Fees – Overview
What’s Driving the Changes?
• Parks - Updated data source for household size which
resulted in less variation between small and large units than
previous study
• Police, Fire and General Government - Inputs to the
calculations that include:
Updated inventory of existing capital facilities
Updated determination of current replacement costs
Updated identification of existing levels of service
• Inclusion of Trails infrastructure and the addition of streets
capital to General Government
Although methodology remains similar – the inputs to fee calculations changed,
resulting in a variation in updated fees – both positive and negative.
9
Fee Overview – With Current Fee Structure
N'hood Comm. Gen.
Land Use Type Unit Park Park Trail Fire Police Gov't w/o Trail w/Trail
Updated Fees
Resid., up to 700 sf Dwelling $1,181 $1,001 $474 $255 $128 $300 $2,865 $3,339
Resid., 701-1,200 sf Dwelling $1,515 $1,285 $608 $324 $162 $384 $3,670 $4,278
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sf Dwelling $1,674 $1,419 $672 $359 $180 $423 $4,055 $4,727
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sf Dwelling $1,744 $1,479 $700 $373 $187 $443 $4,226 $4,926
Resid., over 2,200 sf Dwelling $1,868 $1,584 $749 $400 $200 $475 $4,527 $5,276
Commercial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $0 $308 $154 $730 $1,192 $1,192
Industrial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $0 $73 $37 $171 $281 $281
Current Fees
Resid., up to 700 sf Dwelling $937 $1,041 $0 $112 $75 $142 $2,307 $2,307
Resid., 701-1,200 sf Dwelling $1,325 $1,477 $0 $160 $109 $201 $3,272 $3,272
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sf Dwelling $1,559 $1,735 $0 $186 $129 $235 $3,844 $3,844
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sf Dwelling $1,791 $1,996 $0 $215 $148 $272 $4,422 $4,422
Resid., over 2,200 sf Dwelling $2,181 $2,428 $0 $262 $180 $330 $5,381 $5,381
Commercial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $0 $229 $160 $257 $646 $646
Industrial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $0 $63 $44 $71 $178 $178
Change
Resid., up to 700 sf Dwelling $244 -$40 $474 $143 $53 $158 $558 $1,032
Resid., 701-1,200 sf Dwelling $190 -$192 $608 $164 $53 $183 $398 $1,006
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sf Dwelling $115 -$316 $672 $173 $51 $188 $211 $883
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sf Dwelling -$47 -$517 $700 $158 $39 $171 -$196 $504
Resid., over 2,200 sf Dwelling -$313 -$844 $749 $138 $20 $145 -$854 -$105
Commercial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $0 $79 -$6 $473 $546 $546
Industrial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $0 $10 -$7 $100 $103 $103
Percent Change
Resid., up to 700 sf Dwelling 26% -4% n/a 128% 71% 111% 24% 45%
Resid., 701-1,200 sf Dwelling 14% -13% n/a 103% 49% 91% 12% 31%
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sf Dwelling 7% -18% n/a 93% 40% 80% 5% 23%
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sf Dwelling -3% -26% n/a 73% 26% 63% -4% 11%
Resid., over 2,200 sf Dwelling -14% -35% n/a 53% 11% 44% -16% -2%
Commercial 1,000 sf n/a n/a n/a 34% -4% 184% 85% 85%
Industrial 1,000 sf n/a n/a n/a 16% -16% 141% 58% 58%
Total Fees
10
Neighborhood, Community
Park and Trail Fees
• Key Factors:
Service Units based on housing units or equivalent
dwelling units (EDU) – the average # of people in a
dwelling unit
Fees are increasing for smaller units
Fees are decreasing for larger units due to findings
that larger units have fewer people than 1996 study
• Trails – included in fee calculations which is a
change from original study
Basing fee structure on equivalent dwelling units.
11
Neighborhood/Community Park Fees
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Neighborhood Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $937 $1,181 26%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,325 $1,515 14%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,559 $1,674 7%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,791 $1,744 -3%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,181 $1,868 -14%
Community Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,041 $1,001 -4%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,477 $1,285 -13%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,735 $1,419 -18%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,996 $1,479 -26%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,428 $1,584 -35%
Total Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,978 $2,182 10%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,802 $2,800 0%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $3,294 $3,093 -6%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $3,787 $3,223 -15%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $4,609 $3,452 -25%
Trails
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $0 $474 n/a
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $0 $608 n/a
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $0 $672 n/a
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $0 $700 n/a
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $0 $749 n/a
Total Parks and Trails
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,978 $2,656 34%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,802 $3,408 22%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $3,294 $3,765 14%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $3,787 $3,923 4%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $4,609 $4,201 -9%
12
Park Fees – Single Family/Multifamily Option
EDUs/ Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit EDU Unit
Neighborhood Parks
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 1.00 $1,762 $1,762
Multi-Family Dwelling 0.67 $1,762 $1,181
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.67 $1,762 $1,181
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.86 $1,762 $1,515
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.95 $1,762 $1,674
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.99 $1,762 $1,744
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.06 $1,762 $1,868
Community Parks
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 1.00 $1,494 $1,494
Multi-Family Dwelling 0.67 $1,494 $1,001
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.67 $1,494 $1,001
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.86 $1,494 $1,285
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.95 $1,494 $1,419
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.99 $1,494 $1,479
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.06 $1,494 $1,584
Trails
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 1.00 $707 $707
Multi-Family Dwelling 0.67 $707 $474
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.67 $707 $474
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.86 $707 $608
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.95 $707 $672
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.99 $707 $700
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.06 $707 $749
Recommend maintaining current method because the
single/multifamily option favors multifamily over
single family developers and negatively affects revenue.
13
Fire Capital Improvement Fees
• Two most common methodologies:
Calls for Service
Functional Population – current and recommended
method
• Fees increasing for both residential and commercial units
• A credit is given for debt service on Fire Station 4
• Service Unit calculated by dividing total cost of existing
facilities and equipment by functional population or $204 per
service unit
Fees increasing due to updated asset information.
14
Proposed Fire Fees
Fee Comparison
Func. Pop. Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit Func. Pop. Unit
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.25 $204 $255
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.59 $204 $324
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.76 $204 $359
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.83 $204 $373
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.96 $204 $400
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 1.51 $204 $308
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0.36 $204 $73
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $112 $255 128%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $160 $324 103%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $186 $359 93%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $215 $373 73%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $262 $400 53%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $229 $308 34%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $63 $73 16%
15
Police Capital Improvement Fees
• Functional population methodology retained –same as
Fire
• Fees increasing for residential with a slight decrease for
commercial and industrial units
• Service Unit calculated by dividing total cost of existing
facilities and equipment by functional population or
$102 per service unit
• Facility assets assumes 25% excess capacity for police
facility – credit is calculated into the fee
Fees increasing primarily due to updated asset information.
16
Proposed Police Fees
Fee Comparison
Func. Pop. Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit Func. Pop. Unit
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.25 $102 $128
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.59 $102 $162
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.76 $102 $180
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.83 $102 $187
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.96 $102 $200
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 1.51 $102 $154
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0.36 $102 $37
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $75 $128 71%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $109 $162 49%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $129 $180 40%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $148 $187 26%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $180 $200 11%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $160 $154 -4%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $44 $37 -16%
17
General Government Fees
• Retained Functional Population methodology
• Service Unit calculated by dividing total cost of existing
facilities and equipment by functional population or
$323 net cost per service unit (includes existing debt
credit)
• Fees increasing for both residential and commercial
• Streets capital inventory included in updated fee study
Fees increasing more for commercial and smaller residential units.
18
Proposed General Government Fees
Fee Comparison
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $142 $300 111%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $201 $384 91%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $235 $423 80%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $272 $443 63%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $330 $475 44%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $257 $730 184%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $71 $171 141%
Func. Pop. Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit Func. Pop. Unit
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.93 $323 $300
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.19 $323 $384
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.31 $323 $423
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.37 $323 $443
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.47 $323 $475
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 2.26 $323 $730
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0.53 $323 $171
19
Proposed Fee Breakdown
Residential
1200-1700 sq. ft.
Total Fee w/out Trail % Total Fee w/Trail %
Neighborhood Park $1,674 41% $1,674 35%
Community Park 1,419 35% 1,419 30%
Trail 0 0% 672 14%
Fire 359 9% 359 8%
Police 180 4% 180 4%
General Government 423 10% 423 9%
Total $4,055 100% $4,727 100%
Park fees account for over 75% of the total fee structure.
20
Single and Multifamily Building Permit Data*
Units with most permits would increase
5% and 12% respectively excluding new trail fee.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Residential
over 2,200 sq ft
Residential
1,701-2,200 sq ft
Residential
1,201-1,700 sq ft
Residential
701-1,200 sq ft
Residential
up to 700 sq ft
*Multifamily units based on average size of unit in development
21
Annual Revenue Impact Analysis – Based on 10 yr. Avg.
Unit Type*
Current Fees
Proposed Fees
w/o Trails
%
Change
Proposed
Fees
w/Trails
%
Change
Resid., up to 700 sq. ft. $28,607 $35,526 0% $41,404 45%
Resid., 701-1,200 sq. ft.
769,574 863,184 12% 1,006,186 31%
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.
1,065,557 1,124,046 5% 1,310,324 23%
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sq. ft.
704,867 673,624 -4% 785,204 11%
Resid., over 2,200 sq. ft.
888,941 747,860 -16% 871,595 -2%
Commercial 276,428 510,065 85% 510,065 85%
Industrial 4,323 6,824 58% 6,824 58%
Total $3,738,296 $3,961,130 6% $4,531,602 21%
*Units include both single and multifamily dwellings for residential
22
Annual Revenue Impact Analysis – 2012 Actuals
*Units include both single and multifamily dwellings for residential
Unit Type*
Current Fees
Proposed Fees
w/o Trails
%
Change
Proposed
Fees
w/Trails
%
Change
Resid., up to 700 sq. ft. $0 $0 0% $0 0%
Resid., 701-1,200 sq. ft.
1,119,024 1,255,140 12% 1,463,076 31%
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.
2,025,788 2,136,985 5% 2,491,129 23%
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sq. ft.
946,308 904,364 -4% 1,054,164 11%
Resid., over 2,200 sq. ft.
322,860 271,620 -16% 316,560 -2%
Commercial 10,594 19,549 85% 19,549 85%
Industrial 22,203 35,051 58% 35,051 58%
Total $4,446,778 $4,622,709 4% $5,379,529 21%
23
Fee Comparison – Residential
Neighborhood and Community Park fees are the most common
and substantial of the Capital Expansion fee mix in Northern Colorado.
*Fort Collins Fees based on a 1201-1700 sq. ft. unit
$- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000
Loveland
Longmont
Fort Collins Proposed*
Windsor
Fort Collins Current*
Greeley
Boulder
Neighborhood Park
Community Park
Trail
Fire
Police
General Government
24
Fee Comparison - Commercial/Industrial*
Commercial
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Industrial
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
*Longmont’s General Government fee is a flat $375
*Commercial/Industrial fees approximated based on varied
multipliers and unique city classifications
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000
General Government
Police
Fire
$-
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
General Government
Police
Fire
25
Fund Balance Analysis
Fund Balance As of 12/31/12
Neighborhood Parks $5,127,970*
Community Parks $9,156,115**
Fire $262,255
Police $1,008,220
General Government $6,159,361***
*Neighborhood Parks - $1.8M in offers funded in the 2013-2014 budget
**Community Parks - $1.3M in offers funded in the 2013-2014 budget
***General Government - $4.8M on loan to the URA for N. College Marketplace
and JAX
26
Public Outreach
ENTITY DATE
Council Finance Committee January 14 & June 17
Chamber of Commerce January 25 & March 15
Affordable Housing Board February 7
Board of Realtors/Homebuilders
Association
February 12 & April 16
Council Work Session February 12
Economic Advisory Committee February 20
Building Review Board February 28 & April 25
City Council Work Session– July 9
27
Public Outreach Feedback
• Concern about fee increase for smaller units – puts a
burden on affordable housing
• General discomfort with Commercial/Industrial increase
• Mixed level of support for trail fee
• Concern that fee increases don’t take infill into account
• Most understand methodology but don’t support
increase
The Boards are generally comfortable with methodology but
do not support the fee increases, especially for smaller units.
28
Conclusions
• Fee update retains basic methodologies of original study
• Inputs to formula and asset information updated for all fees
• Changes to household size driving fee change for Parks
• Inclusion of trails increasing net fees substantially
• Recommend continuing residential sq. footage approach
• Staff will recommend codifying comprehensive review every 3-
5 years
• New web page: http://www.fcgov.com/finance/capitalexpansion.php
29
Backup Slides
30
Fire Fees – Single Family/Multifamily Option
Func. Pop. Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit Func. Pop. Unit
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 1.85 $204 $377
Multi-Family Dwelling 1.24 $204 $253
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.25 $204 $255
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.59 $204 $324
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.76 $204 $359
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.83 $204 $373
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.96 $204 $400
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 1.51 $204 $308
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0.36 $204 $73
31
Police Fees – Single Family/Multifamily Option
Func. Pop. Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit Func. Pop. Unit
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 1.85 $102 $189
Multi-Family Dwelling 1.24 $102 $126
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.25 $102 $128
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.59 $102 $162
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.76 $102 $180
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.83 $102 $187
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.96 $102 $200
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 1.51 $102 $154
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0.36 $102 $37
32
General Government Fees –
Single Family/Multifamily Option
Func. Pop. Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit Func. Pop. Unit
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 1.38 $323 $446
Multi-Family Dwelling 0.93 $323 $300
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.93 $323 $300
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.19 $323 $384
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.31 $323 $423
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.37 $323 $443
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.47 $323 $475
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 2.26 $323 $730
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0.53 $323 $171
Capital Expansion Fee Study
for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado
prepared by
June 2013
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 1
Background....................................................................................................................................... 1
Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 1
Demand Factors .............................................................................................................................. 1
Comparative Fees ............................................................................................................................ 2
PARKS .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Service Units ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Cost per Service Unit ...................................................................................................................... 5
Net Cost per Service Unit .............................................................................................................. 7
Potential Fees ................................................................................................................................... 7
FIRE .................................................................................................................................................... 10
Service Units ................................................................................................................................... 10
Cost per Service Unit .................................................................................................................... 10
Net Cost per Service Unit ............................................................................................................ 11
Potential Fees ................................................................................................................................. 12
POLICE .............................................................................................................................................. 13
Service Units ................................................................................................................................... 13
Cost per Service Unit .................................................................................................................... 13
Net Cost per Service Unit ............................................................................................................ 14
Potential Fees ................................................................................................................................. 15
GENERAL GOVERNMENT ....................................................................................................... 16
Service Units ................................................................................................................................... 16
Cost per Service Unit .................................................................................................................... 16
Net Cost per Service Unit ............................................................................................................ 17
Potential Fees ................................................................................................................................. 17
APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ................................................................................. 19
Average Household Size by Housing Types ............................................................................. 19
Average Household Size by Unit Size ........................................................................................ 20
Existing Housing Units by Type ................................................................................................. 22
APPENDIX B: FUNCTIONAL POPULATION ...................................................................... 23
Residential Functional Population .............................................................................................. 23
Nonresidential Functional Population ....................................................................................... 24
Total Functional Population ........................................................................................................ 25
List of Tables
Table 1. Current and Updated Capital Expansion Fees ................................................................ 3
Table 2. Park Service Unit Multipliers ............................................................................................. 4
Table 3. Park Service Units, 2012 ..................................................................................................... 4
Table 4. Existing Park and Trail Facilities ....................................................................................... 5
Table 5. Neighborhood Park Development Cost per Acre .......................................................... 5
Table 6. Community Park Development Cost per Acre ............................................................... 6
Table 7. Park Cost per Service Unit ................................................................................................. 7
Table 8. Potential Park Capital Expansion Fees............................................................................. 8
Table 9. Comparative Park Capital Expansion Fees ...................................................................... 9
Table 10. Existing Fire Stations ...................................................................................................... 11
Table 11. Existing Fire Cost per Service Unit .............................................................................. 11
Table 12. Potential Fire Capital Expansion Fees ......................................................................... 12
Table 13. Comparative Fire Fees .................................................................................................... 12
Table 14. Existing Police Vehicles .................................................................................................. 13
Table 15. Existing Police Cost per Service Unit ........................................................................... 14
Table 16. Police Debt Credit ........................................................................................................... 14
Table 17. Police Net Cost per Service Unit .................................................................................. 15
Table 18. Potential Police Capital Expansion Fees ...................................................................... 15
Table 19. Comparative Police Fees ................................................................................................ 15
Table 20. Existing General Government Facilities ...................................................................... 16
Table 21. General Government Cost per Service Unit ............................................................... 16
Table 22. General Government Debt Credit ................................................................................ 17
Table 23. General Government Net Cost per Service Unit ....................................................... 17
Table 24. Potential General Government Capital Expansion Fees ........................................... 18
Table 25. Comparative General Government Fees ..................................................................... 18
Table 26. Average Household Size, 2000 and 2010 ..................................................................... 19
Table 27. Average Household Size by Housing Type, 2000 ...................................................... 19
Table 28. Average Household Size by Housing Type, 2006-2010 ............................................ 20
Table 29. Change in Average Household Size, 2000-2010 ......................................................... 20
Table 30. Current Average Household Size by Housing Type .................................................. 20
Table 31. Average Household Size by Dwelling Unit Size, Western U.S., 2011 ..................... 21
Table 32. Dwelling Units by Housing Type, Fort Collins, 2000-2010 ...................................... 22
Table 33. Dwelling Units by Housing Type, Fort Collins, 2012 ................................................ 22
Table 34. Functional Population per Unit for Residential Uses ................................................ 24
Table 35. Functional Population per Unit for Nonresidential Uses ......................................... 25
Table 36. Existing Functional Population ..................................................................................... 25
Prepared by Duncan Associates
360 Nueces St., Suite 2701, Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 258-7347 x204, clancy@duncanassociates.com
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 1 May 21, 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study provides the analysis required to update the City’s capital expansion fees for
neighborhood park, community park, fire, police and general government facilities. The City’s
capital expansion fees are impact fees that assess new developments for the proportionate share of
the cost of new capital facilities required to serve them at the same level of service provided to
existing development.
Background
The City’s capital expansion fees were originally adopted in June 1996, based on a study prepared by
City staff.1 The fees have been updated periodically to account for inflation, but have not been
comprehensively reevaluated in 16 years. The current community park fees are about 82% higher
than the ones originally calculated in 1996, while the fire, police and general government fees are
about 50% higher than originally calculated. The park fees were increased by 14% in 2000 to
include the cost of irrigation water and required Americans with Disabilities Act improvements.
Excluding this adjustment, the park fees were increased by 68% over the 16 year period to account
for inflation. By way of comparison, the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index increased
by 66% from June 1996 to June 2012.
Methodology
The same basic methodology employed in the 1996 study is retained in this update. The overall
methodology is known as “incremental expansion.” The incremental expansion methodology bases
the fees on the existing level of service. The concept behind the incremental expansion
methodology is simple: as a community grows, capital facilities and equipment will need to be
expanded proportional to the growth. The existing level of service, whether measured directly in
terms of cost per service unit or indirectly in terms of an intervening variable, such as acres of
parkland, is assumed to be adequate to serve existing development, but with little or no excess
capacity to serve growth).2
Demand Factors
In impact fee analysis, the demand for services generated by different types of development must be
expressed in terms of a common measure, known as a service unit. For example, residential
population is a commonly-used service unit for park impact fees. For each land use type, the
number of service units expected to be generated by a unit of development is specified in what is
often called a demand equivalency table. In this table, for example, a new single-family detached
home may be determined to house an average number of residents.
Some changes have been made in this update in determining the service units and demand
equivalency tables. The park fees continue to be based on population, but rather than using
1 City of Fort Collins, Capital Expansion Cost Study, May 21, 1996.
2 The exceptions are that the new police station is estimated to have about 25% excess capacity to serve future
development, and the new Fire Station #4 is estimated to have about 95% excess capacity.
Executive Summary
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 2 May 21, 2013
population directly, the number of people is translated into equivalent dwelling units, based on the
average number of residents in an occupied single-family detached unit. This approach has the
advantage of eliminating the need to consider occupancy rates, which can be quite variable over
time. Functional population is retained as the service unit for fire, police and general government
fees. Functional population represents the number of people present at a land use, expressed in full-
time equivalents.
While the service units are relatively unchanged, the methodology used to calculate the demand
equivalency tables have been modified somewhat in this update. The park fees are based on
dwelling unit size, expressed in square footage and divided into five size ranges (up to 700 square
feet, for example). To determine persons per unit by unit size, the 1996 study relied on census data,
which does not include information on the size of the dwelling unit. Since the census does provide
data on the number of bedrooms, bedrooms were used as an indicator of unit size. Building permit
data were analyzed to determine the relationship between bedrooms and square footage, and
regression analysis was used to determine persons by unit size ranges. This update relies on a single
data source, the American Housing Survey, that provides information on both number of residents
and unit size. Since the data provided by the American Housing Survey are regional (western United
States), the results have been adjusted to match the overall average household size in Fort Collins.
The basic functional population methodology used in the 1996 study was also used in this update. A
minor change was to simplify the calculation of functional population multipliers for nonresidential
land uses. The 1996 study calculated nonresidential functional population on a weekly basis, with
separate calculations for weekdays and weekends, while this update uses a daily approach based on a
typical weekday.
Comparative Fees
Current and updated capital expansion fees are shown in Table 1. As noted, this is the first
comprehensive update of the City’s capital expansion fees in 16 years. All of the inputs into the
calculation of fees were updated. This update included an inventory of existing capital facilities,
determination of current costs and identification of existing levels of service. Changes in costs and
levels of service, however, would cause fees to go up or down uniformly for all land use types.
Changes to inputs that would affect fees differently by land use type are related to the demand
equivalency tables discussed above. Changes to residential fees by unit size for all the fee types are
the result of utilizing a more direct data source for linking residents and unit size. This resulted in
less variation between the number of residents in the smallest and largest size ranges than was found
in the 1996 study. Consequently, the updated fees for smaller units increase more than fees for
larger units.
The updated park fees tend to be higher than current fees for neighborhood parks and lower for
community parks. Without the additional trail fee, which could be adopted as part of the
community park fee or as a separate fee, the combined park fees would be relatively similar to
current fees overall, although higher for the smallest units and lower for larger units. The combined
park and trail fees would be higher than current park fees for all but the largest units.
Fire and police tend to increase less for nonresidential than for residential units, while the opposite
is true for general government fees. This reflects changes in the functional population multipliers.
Executive Summary
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 3 May 21, 2013
While the calculation of residential functional population is simple and unchanged from the previous
study, the calculation of nonresidential functional population requires many inputs, including trip
generation rates, average vehicle occupancy, employee density and average time spent at a land use.
Since the 1996 study did not specify what inputs were used, it is not possible to determine precisely
what input changes were responsible for the residential/nonresidential variability in the updated fees
compared to the current fees.
The total of all updated fees, including the new trail fee, is higher than current fees for all land uses
except for the largest residential units. It should be kept in mind while that the percentage increases
for nonresidential look high, the nonresidential fees are relatively low. For example, the 85%
increase for commercial equates to only $0.55 more per square foot.
Table 1. Current and Updated Capital Expansion Fees
N'hood Comm. Gen.
Land Use Type Unit Park Park Trail Fire Police Gov't w/o Trail w/Trail
Updated Fees
Resid., up to 700 sf Dwelling $1,181 $1,001 $474 $255 $128 $300 $2,865 $3,339
Resid., 701-1,200 sf Dwelling $1,515 $1,285 $608 $324 $162 $384 $3,670 $4,278
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sf Dwelling $1,674 $1,419 $672 $359 $180 $423 $4,055 $4,727
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sf Dwelling $1,744 $1,479 $700 $373 $187 $443 $4,226 $4,926
Resid., over 2,200 sf Dwelling $1,868 $1,584 $749 $400 $200 $475 $4,527 $5,276
Commercial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $0 $308 $154 $730 $1,192 $1,192
Industrial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $0 $73 $37 $171 $281 $281
Current Fees
Resid., up to 700 sf Dwelling $937 $1,041 $0 $112 $75 $142 $2,307 $2,307
Resid., 701-1,200 sf Dwelling $1,325 $1,477 $0 $160 $109 $201 $3,272 $3,272
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sf Dwelling $1,559 $1,735 $0 $186 $129 $235 $3,844 $3,844
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sf Dwelling $1,791 $1,996 $0 $215 $148 $272 $4,422 $4,422
Resid., over 2,200 sf Dwelling $2,181 $2,428 $0 $262 $180 $330 $5,381 $5,381
Commercial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $0 $229 $160 $257 $646 $646
Industrial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $0 $63 $44 $71 $178 $178
Change
Resid., up to 700 sf Dwelling $244 -$40 $474 $143 $53 $158 $558 $1,032
Resid., 701-1,200 sf Dwelling $190 -$192 $608 $164 $53 $183 $398 $1,006
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sf Dwelling $115 -$316 $672 $173 $51 $188 $211 $883
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sf Dwelling -$47 -$517 $700 $158 $39 $171 -$196 $504
Resid., over 2,200 sf Dwelling -$313 -$844 $749 $138 $20 $145 -$854 -$105
Commercial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $0 $79 -$6 $473 $546 $546
Industrial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $0 $10 -$7 $100 $103 $103
Percent Change
Resid., up to 700 sf Dwelling 26% -4% n/a 128% 71% 111% 24% 45%
Resid., 701-1,200 sf Dwelling 14% -13% n/a 103% 49% 91% 12% 31%
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sf Dwelling 7% -18% n/a 93% 40% 80% 5% 23%
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sf Dwelling -3% -26% n/a 73% 26% 63% -4% 11%
Resid., over 2,200 sf Dwelling -14% -35% n/a 53% 11% 44% -16% -2%
Commercial 1,000 sf n/a n/a n/a 34% -4% 184% 85% 85%
Industrial 1,000 sf n/a n/a n/a 16% -16% 141% 58% 58%
Total Fees
Source: Current fees from City of Fort Collins, Ordinance No. 121, November 6, 2012; updated fees from Table 8 (parks and
trails), Table 12 (fire), Table 18 (police) and Table 24 (general government).
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 4 May 21, 2013
PARKS
The City provides a number of public park facilities for the benefit of residents. This section
calculates updated community and neighborhood park capital expansion fees.
Service Units
The demand for City park facilities is generated by people. However, it is preferable to base the
service unit on housing units, since the number of housing units can be more easily determined than
the number of people, which is affected by highly variable occupancy rates. The proposed service
unit for the park impact fee update is an equivalent dwelling unit or EDU. An EDU represents the
average number of people living in a single-family detached dwelling unit. A single-family home is
by definition one park service unit. The number of service units associated with other types and
sizes of dwelling units is determined by dividing average household size of that housing type by the
average household size of a single-family unit. The resulting service unit multipliers are presented in
Table 2.
Table 2. Park Service Unit Multipliers
Average Single-Family EDUs/
Housing Type Unit HH Size Avg. HH Size Unit
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 2.76 2.76 1.00
Multi-Family Dwelling 1.85 2.76 0.67
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.86 2.76 0.67
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.38 2.76 0.86
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.62 2.76 0.95
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.73 2.76 0.99
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.93 2.76 1.06
Source: Average household size from Table 30 and Table 31 in Appendix A; EDUs/unit is average
household size divided by single-family average household size.
The existing number of service units can be determined by multiplying the estimated number of
housing units by the service unit multipliers for each housing type and summing. Existing service
units (EDUs) in the City of Fort Collins are calculated in Table 3.
Table 3. Park Service Units, 2012
Existing EDUs/ Existing
Housing Type Unit Units Unit EDUs
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 35,838 1.00 35,838
Multi-Family Dwelling 25,846 0.67 17,317
Total 53,155
Source: Existing units from Table 33 in Appendix A; EDUs per unit from Table 2.
Parks
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 5 May 21, 2013
Cost per Service Unit
The City of Fort Collins provides a variety of parks and recreation facilities for it residents. Existing
park and trail facilities are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4. Existing Park and Trail Facilities
Park Facility Type Number Acres
Developed Community 6 507.65
Developed Neighborhood 27 352.48
Developed Pocket 11 14.83
Total Developed Acres 874.96
Undeveloped Parks/Natural Features 75.75
Total Park Acres 950.71
Trails 4 121.24
Source: City of Fort Collins Park Planning, December 4, 2012 and
January 8, 2013.
The cost per acre to develop a neighborhood park is shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Neighborhood Park Development Cost per Acre
General conditions, mobilization $60,000 Site survey and plat $7,000
Traffic control $7,000 Environmental studies $10,000
Adjacent street improvements $15,000 Landscape architecture firm $6,000
Access drive and parking lot $20,000 Architect $30,000
Domestic water system $17,000 Engineering firm $15,000
Sanitory sewer system $25,000 Soils evaluation/testing $8,000
Demolition $7,000 Irrigation design $6,000
Topsoil management $25,000 As-built stormwater survey $5,000
Storm drainage improvements $15,000 Stormwater analysis/floodplain $15,000
Earthwork $70,000 Subtotal, Consultant Fees $102,000
Electrical service $15,000
Underground irrigation system $70,000
Lined irrigation pond $65,000 Street oversizing and local $5,000
Irrigation pump house and pumps $85,000 Light & Power charges $7,000
Raw water delivery system $15,000 Water plant investment fee $15,000
Restroom $200,000 Raw water fee $10,000
Picnic shelter(2) $55,000 Sewer plant investment fee $3,500
Playground infrastructure $25,000 Plan check and permit fees $2,000
Playground equipment/surface $70,000 Stormwater drainage fees $6,000
Sidewalks - concrete $20,000 Subtotal, Development Fees $48,500
Plaza area $20,000
Special feature - multi-use pad $35,000
Ballfield $30,000 Administration $80,000
Site lighting $5,000 Park mainteance facility $30,000
Landscape, trees, etc. $45,000 APP $11,781
Soil prep, and seeding $45,000 Raw water for irrigaiton $80,000
Bike racks, picnic tables, etc. $10,000 Total Development Cost $1,530,381
Contingency and change orders $107,100 ÷ Acres 6.8
Subtotal, Construction $1,178,100 Development Cost per Acre $225,056
Source: City of Fort Collins Park Planning, December 4, 2012 (2011 pricing).
Parks
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 6 May 21, 2013
The cost per acre to develop a community park is shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Community Park Development Cost per Acre
General conditions $250,000 Bike racks, picnic tables, entry, etc. $250,000
Traffic control $10,000 Signage $50,000
Adjacent street improvements $100,000 Maintenance facility $200,000
Access drive and parking lots $840,000 Contingency and change orders $783,800
Domestic water system $60,000 Subtotal, Construction $7,338,000
Sanitary sewer system $55,000
Demolition $40,000 Site survey and plat $10,000
Topsoil removal/replacement $50,000 Environmental studies $15,000
Earthwork $475,000 Landscape Architecture firm $300,000
Strom drainage improvements $100,000 Architecture $80,000
Electrical & telecomm. service $300,000 Engineering firm $100,000
Underground irrigation system $500,000 Soils engineer site evaluation $35,000
Lined irrigation pond $60,000 Soils engineer construction testing $40,000
Irigation pumphouse & pump $80,000 Irrigation design $70,000
Raw water delivery system $25,000 As-built survey w/stormwater need $15,000
Restrooms $470,000 Stormwater analysis $10,000
Picnic shelter (4) $350,000 Subtotal, Consultant Fees $675,000
Playground infrastructure $300,000
Playground equipment $500,000 Street oversizing and local $70,000
Sidewalks concrete/gravel paths $220,000 Light & Power charges $140,000
Plaza areas $163,000 Water plant investment fee $5,000
Special features, bike trials, etc. $10,000 Raw water fee- domestic $7,000
Ballfield (2) $80,000 Sewer plant investment fee $2,500
Skate park $200,000 Plan check and permit fees $45,000
Dog park with pond $120,000 Public R.O.W. inspection fees $45,000
Tennis courts $80,000 Storm drainage fee $15,000
Basketball courts $120,000 Subtotal, Development Fees $329,500
Splash park complete $150,000
Site features, walls, etc. $240,000 Administration $160,000
Site trail bridges, culverts, etc. $90,000 Art in Public Places $95,000
Site fencing $100,000 Raw water $300,000
Site lighting: ball fields, tennis, etc. $300,000 Total Development Cost $8,897,500
Landscape, trees, etc. $500,000 ÷ Acres 74.6
Soil prep and seeding $400,000 Development Cost per Acre $119,269
Source: City of Fort Collins Parks Department, December 2012 (2011 pricing).
The existing level of service can be expressed in terms of the current cost per service unit, as shown
in Table 7. The total cost represents the expenditure that would be required to acquire the amount
of existing developed park land and to develop that land as parks and trails at today’s prices. The
trail cost per mile is based on a standard per mile construction cost, plus the proportional per-mile
cost of the 23 existing underpasses. The total cost is divided by the existing number of service units
to determine the cost per service unit to provide the same level of service to future residents.
Parks
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 7 May 21, 2013
Table 7. Park Cost per Service Unit
Neighborhood/ Community
Pocket Parks Parks Trails
Developed Acres 367.31 507.65 na
x Development Cost per Acre $225,056 $119,269 na
Existing Park Facility Cost $82,665,319 $60,546,908 na
Total Acres 367.31 628.89 na
x Land Cost per Acre $30,000 $30,000 na
Existing Park Land Cost $11,019,300 $18,866,700 na
Miles of Trails na na 34.00
x Construction Cost per Mile na na $1,104,626
Existing Trail Cost na na $37,557,284
Total Existing Facility Cost $93,684,619 $79,413,608 $37,557,284
÷ Existing EDUs 53,155 53,155 53,155
Cost per EDU $1,762 $1,494 $707
Source: Developed and total acres from Table 4; development cost per acre from Table 5 and
Table 6; land cost per acre, miles of trails and trail cost per mile from Park Planning, December
5, 2012, January 18, 2013 and February 1, 2013; existing EDUs from Table 3.
Net Cost per Service Unit
Impact fees should be reduced in order to account for other types of revenues that will be generated
by new development and used to fund capacity-expanding improvements of the same type as those
to be funded by the impact fees. Cases in which such a credit is warranted include funding of
existing deficiencies and outstanding debt payments on existing facilities. Since the fees are based
on the existing level of service, there are no deficiencies. The City has no outstanding debt on past
park or trail improvements. Consequently, no credits against the park impact fee are required based
on these criteria, and the net cost per service unit is the same as the cost per service unit calculated
above.
Potential Fees
The maximum neighborhood park, community park and trail capital expansion fees that may be
adopted by the City based on this study are determined by multiplying the number of service units
generated by a dwelling unit by the net cost per service unit. The resulting fee schedules are
presented in Table 8. Two options are shown: fees by housing type (single-family and multi-family)
and fees by unit size.
Parks
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 8 May 21, 2013
Table 8. Potential Park Capital Expansion Fees
EDUs/ Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit EDU Unit
Neighborhood Parks
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 1.00 $1,762 $1,762
Multi-Family Dwelling 0.67 $1,762 $1,181
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.67 $1,762 $1,181
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.86 $1,762 $1,515
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.95 $1,762 $1,674
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.99 $1,762 $1,744
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.06 $1,762 $1,868
Community Parks
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 1.00 $1,494 $1,494
Multi-Family Dwelling 0.67 $1,494 $1,001
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.67 $1,494 $1,001
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.86 $1,494 $1,285
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.95 $1,494 $1,419
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.99 $1,494 $1,479
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.06 $1,494 $1,584
Trails
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 1.00 $707 $707
Multi-Family Dwelling 0.67 $707 $474
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.67 $707 $474
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.86 $707 $608
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.95 $707 $672
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.99 $707 $700
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.06 $707 $749
Source: EDUs per unit from Table 2; net cost per EDU is cost per EDU from Table 7.
The updated park fees by unit size are compared to current fees in Table 9. In general, the updated
fees are higher for smaller units and lower for larger units. This reflects the fact that this study
found that larger units have fewer residents than was found in the 1996 study.
Without the new trail fee component, the total updated park fees would probably generate about the
same amount of revenue as the current fees, depending on the size mix of new units. With the trail
component, the total park and trail fee would be higher than the current park fee for all but the
largest units.
Parks
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 9 May 21, 2013
Table 9. Comparative Park Capital Expansion Fees
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Neighborhood Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $937 $1,181 26%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,325 $1,515 14%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,559 $1,674 7%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,791 $1,744 -3%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,181 $1,868 -14%
Community Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,041 $1,001 -4%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,477 $1,285 -13%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,735 $1,419 -18%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,996 $1,479 -26%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,428 $1,584 -35%
Total Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,978 $2,182 10%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,802 $2,800 0%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $3,294 $3,093 -6%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $3,787 $3,223 -15%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $4,609 $3,452 -25%
Trails
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $0 $474 n/a
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $0 $608 n/a
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $0 $672 n/a
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $0 $700 n/a
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $0 $749 n/a
Total Parks and Trails
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,978 $2,656 34%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,802 $3,408 22%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $3,294 $3,765 14%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $3,787 $3,923 4%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $4,609 $4,201 -9%
Source: Current fee from City of Fort Collins, Capital Improvement Expansion Fees, Effective January 2,
2012; updated fees from Table 8.
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 10 May 21, 2013
FIRE
Fire protection and rescue service is provided in Fort Collins by the Poudre Fire Authority pursuant
to an intergovernmental agreement. The fee is based on the fire stations and apparatus that are
located within the city limits, plus the City’s share of administrative and training facilities. The City
collects the fees from new development in the city limits and provides the funds to the Fire
Authority to be used for capacity-expanding improvements serving the city. This section calculates
updated fire capital expansion fees.
Service Units
The two most common methodologies used in calculating public safety (fire and police) service units
and impact fees are the “calls-for-service” approach and the “functional population” approach. The
1996 study used the functional population approach, and this update retains this methodology. This
approach is a generally-accepted methodology for both fire and police impact fee types, and is based
on the observation that demand for public safety facilities tends to be proportional to the presence
of people. This approach generates service unit multipliers that are similar to those based on call
data, but are more stable over time.3 The service unit is functional population. The description of
the functional population methodology, the calculation of the service unit multipliers and the
determination of existing fire and police service units are presented in Appendix B.
Cost per Service Unit
The cost per service unit to provide fire protection to new development is based on the current level
of service provided to existing development. The level of service is quantified as the ratio of the
replacement cost of existing fire capital facilities serving Fort Collins to existing fire service units in
Fort Collins, as summarized in Table 10. The fire stations included in calculating the level of service
for Fort Collins are limited to those stations located within the city limits. The portions of the
administration and training facilities service attributed to Fort Collins are based on the City’s share
of the Authority’s total annual call volume.
3 See Clancy Mullen, Fire and Police Demand Multipliers: Calls-for-Service versus Functional Population, proceedings of the
National Impact Fee Roundtable, Arlington, VA, October 5, 2006 http://growthandinfrastructure.org/proceedings/
2006_proceedings/fire%20police%20multipliers.pdf
Fire
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 11 May 21, 2013
Table 10. Existing Fire Stations
Building Building
Facility Address Acres Sq. Feet Cost
Fire Station #1 Peterson 505 0.54 8,516 $1,672,835
Fire Station #2 S. Bryan 415 0.31 4,376 $729,125
Fire Station #3 Mathews 2000 0.55 6,500 $688,295
Fire Station #4 1945 W. Drake 3.54 15,380 $2,616,461
Fire Station #5 Hogan 4615 1.18 8,773 $1,431,268
Fire Station #10 Vermont 2067 0.62 9,830 $1,213,549
Fire Station #12 E. Country Club Rd. 321 1.09 9,800 $1,308,246
Fire Station #14 2109 Westchase Rd. 0.89 10,800 $1,236,189
Administration (City share) 102 Remington 0.50 8,375 $1,553,855
Training Center (City share) W. Vine 3400 3.35 10,888 $973,923
Offices (City share) W. Vine 3400 n/a 10,134 $727,153
Fire Tower (City share) W. Vine 3400 n/a 3,152 $604,151
Burn Building (City share) W. Vine 3400 n/a 9,256 $382,263
Total 12.57 115,780 $15,137,313
Source: Poudre Fire Authority, December 3-4, 2012 and February 12, 2012 (City share of administration and
training facility acres, square feet and building cost based on 83.75% of calls to locations within city limits in
2011).
The fire stations and equipment serving existing development in Fort Collins have a total estimated
replacement cost of $33 million, as summarized in Table 11. The Poudre Fire Authority issued debt
to finance its newest fire station in the city (Fire Station #4, which was completed in 2011) and is
using the capital expansion fees to retire the debt. The amount of the outstanding principal on the
debt represents capacity to serve future development, and this amount is excluded from the fee
calculation. Dividing the net cost of existing capital facilities and equipment (excluding the value of
the remaining debt on Fire Station 4) by the existing functional population results in a net cost of
$204 per service unit.
Table 11. Existing Fire Cost per Service Unit
Fire Facility Building Replacement Cost $15,137,313
Fire Facility Land Cost $377,100
Fire Vehicle Replacement Cost $17,607,388
Total Replacement Cost $33,121,801
– Debt on New Fire Station 4 -$2,589,499
Net Replacement Cost $30,532,302
÷ Existing Functional Population (24-Hour) 149,740
Net Cost per Functional Population $204
Source: Existing building cost from Table 10; land cost based on acres from
Table 10 and $30,000 cost per acre; vehicle replacement cost from Poudre
Fire Authority, December 5, 2012; outstanding debt principal from Poudre
Fire Authority, February 12, 2013; existing 24-hour functional populaiton from
Table 36.
Net Cost per Service Unit
Impact fees should be reduced in order to account for other types of revenues that will be generated
by new development and used to fund capacity-expanding improvements of the same type as those
to be funded by the impact fees. Cases in which such a credit is warranted include funding of
Fire
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 12 May 21, 2013
existing deficiencies and outstanding debt payments on existing facilities. While there is some debt
on existing facilities, as noted above, this debt has been excluded from the value of the facilities used
in determining the existing level of service, and the Poudre Fire Authority can continue to use the
updated capital expansion fees to retire the debt on Fire Station 4.
Potential Fees
The maximum fire capital expansion fees that may be adopted by the City based on this study are
determined by multiplying the number of service units generated by a unit of development by the
net cost per service unit. The resulting fee schedule is presented in Table 12. Two residential fee
options are shown: fees by housing type (single-family and multi-family) and fees by unit size.
Table 12. Potential Fire Capital Expansion Fees
Func. Pop. Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit Func. Pop. Unit
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 1.85 $204 $377
Multi-Family Dwelling 1.24 $204 $253
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.25 $204 $255
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.59 $204 $324
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.76 $204 $359
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.83 $204 $373
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.96 $204 $400
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 1.51 $204 $308
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0.36 $204 $73
Source: Functional population per unit from Table 34 and Table 35 in Appendix B; net cost per
functional population from Table 11.
Table 13 compares the current fire fees with the updated fire fees (using the residential option of
fees by housing type). The updated fees increase more for residential than for nonresidential uses,
and more for smaller residential units than larger ones.
Table 13. Comparative Fire Fees
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $112 $255 128%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $160 $324 103%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $186 $359 93%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $215 $373 73%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $262 $400 53%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $229 $308 34%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $63 $73 16%
Source: Current fees from City of Fort Collins, Ordinance No. 121, November 6, 2012; updated fees from
Table 12.
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 13 May 21, 2013
POLICE
The City provides police protection throughout the town. This section calculates updated police
capital expansion fees.
Service Units
The two most common methodologies used in calculating public safety (fire and police) service units
and impact fees are the “calls-for-service” approach and the “functional population” approach. The
1996 study used the functional population approach, and this update retains this methodology. This
approach is a generally-accepted methodology for both fire and police impact fee types, and is based
on the observation that demand for public safety facilities tends to be proportional to the presence
of people. This approach generates service unit multipliers that are similar to those based on call
data, but are more stable over time. The service unit is functional population. The description of
the functional population methodology, the calculation of the service unit multipliers and the
determination of existing fire and police service units are presented in Appendix B.
Cost per Service Unit
The cost per service unit to provide police protection to new development is based on the existing
level of service provided to existing development. The level of service is quantified as the ratio of
the replacement cost of existing police capital facilities to existing police service units.
The replacement cost of existing police vehicles is shown in Table 14.
Table 14. Existing Police Vehicles
Vehicle Type Number Unit Cost Total Cost
Bearcat 1 $233,554 $233,554
Car 24 $22,000 $528,000
Mini-Bus 1 $77,313 $77,313
Motorcycle 3 $20,841 $62,523
Patrol Car 105 $33,845 $3,553,725
Patrol Pickup 1 $75,845 $75,845
Patrol SUV 28 $40,025 $1,120,700
Patrol Van 13 $32,950 $428,350
Pickup 6 $26,923 $161,538
Police Car 1 $18,967 $18,967
Police Van 1 $29,125 $29,125
SUV 14 $37,727 $528,178
Van 9 $29,125 $262,125
Total 207 $7,079,943
Source: City of Fort Collins, December 5, 2012.
The City’s recently-completed new police station was built with some excess capacity to serve future
growth. According to the City, approximately 25% of the building represents excess capacity.
Consequently, only 75% of the cost will be included in determining the current level of service (cost
per service unit) for existing development. Including vehicles and equipment, the portion of the
City’s existing police facilities serving existing development has a total estimated replacement cost of
Police
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 14 May 21, 2013
$34.7 million, as summarized in Table 15. Dividing the cost of existing capital facilities and
equipment serving existing development by existing service units results in a cost of $231 per
functional population.
Table 15. Existing Police Cost per Service Unit
Police Station Building Square Feet 99,878
Police Station Land Acres 7.53
Police Station Building/Land Value (75%) $20,294,687
Police Firing Range Value $351,930
Police Facility Contents Value $6,937,981
Police Vehicle Replacement Value $7,079,943
Total Police Facility/Equipment Value $34,664,541
÷ Existing Functional Population (24-Hour) 149,740
Police Cost per Functional Population $231
Source: Building square feet, acres and replacement values from City of
Fort Collins, December 5, 2012 (75% of police station deemed to serve
existing development); existing functional population from Table 36.
Net Cost per Service Unit
Impact fees should be reduced in order to account for other types of revenues that will be generated
by new development and used to fund capacity-expanding improvements of the same type as those
to be funded by the impact fees. Cases in which such an offset is warranted include funding of
existing deficiencies and outstanding debt payments on existing facilities. Since the updated fees are
based on the existing level of service, there are no existing deficiencies.
The City has some outstanding debt on the police station, as well as outstanding capital lease
payments on some vehicles. A relatively simple way to calculate a credit for outstanding debt is to
divide the debt by the number of existing service units. This places new development on an equal
footing with existing development in terms of the proportion of their costs that are funded through
debt. Since 25% of the new police station represents excess capacity available to serve, only 75% of
the debt is eligible for credit. The other 25% of the debt represents the cost of facilities that will
serve future development, and this portion of the debt service could be retired with police capital
expansion fees. As shown in Table 16, the police debt credit is $129 per functional population.
Table 16. Police Debt Credit
Outstanding Debt on Police Station (75%) $18,900,000
Outstanding Vehicle Capital Lease Payments $453,578
Total Police Facility Debt $19,353,578
÷ Existing Functional Population (24-Hour) 149,740
Police Debt Credit per Functional Population $129
Source: Outstanding debt and capital lease payments as of December 31,
2012 from City of Fort Collins, December 3, 2010; existing functional
population from Table 36 in Appendix B.
The credit for outstanding debt is subtracted from the cost per service unit to determine the net cost
per service unit (see Table 17 below).
Police
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 15 May 21, 2013
Table 17. Police Net Cost per Service Unit
Police Cost per Functional Population $231
– Police Debt Credit per Functional Population -$129
Net Police Cost per Functional Population $102
Source: Cost per functional population from Table 15; debt credit from
Table 16
Potential Fees
The maximum police capital expansion fees that may be adopted by the City based on this study is
the product of the number of service units generated by a unit of development and the net cost per
service unit calculated above. The resulting fee schedule is presented in Table 18. Two residential
fees options are shown: fees by housing type (single-family and multi-family) and fees by unit size.
Table 18. Potential Police Capital Expansion Fees
Func. Pop. Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit Func. Pop. Unit
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 1.85 $102 $189
Multi-Family Dwelling 1.24 $102 $126
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.25 $102 $128
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.59 $102 $162
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.76 $102 $180
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.83 $102 $187
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.96 $102 $200
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 1.51 $102 $154
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0.36 $102 $37
Source: Functional population per unit from Table 34 and Table 35 in Appendix B; net cost from Table
17.
Table 19 compares the current police fees with the updated fees (using the residential option of fees
by housing type). The updated fees are higher for residential uses and lower for nonresidential uses.
Table 19. Comparative Police Fees
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $75 $128 71%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $109 $162 49%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $129 $180 40%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $148 $187 26%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $180 $200 11%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $160 $154 -4%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $44 $37 -16%
Source: Current fees from City of Fort Collins, Ordinance No. 121, November 6, 2012; updated fees from
Table 18.
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 16 May 21, 2013
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
The City provides a number of administrative facilities that will need to be expanded as the
community grows. To ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of these facilities,
the City charges a general government capital expansion fee. This section calculates updated general
government capital expansion fees.
Service Units
One of the most common methodologies used in calculating general government impact fees is the
“functional population” approach. This allocates the cost of growth to different types of new
development based on the presence of people at the site of the land use. The description of the
functional population methodology, the calculation of the service unit multipliers and the
determination of existing general government service units are presented in Appendix B.
Cost per Service Unit
The City’s existing general government facilities and replacement costs are summarized in Table 20.
Table 20. Existing General Government Facilities
Land Building Building
Facility Address Acres Value Sq. Feet Cost
City Hall 300 Laporte Ave 2.00 $60,000 31,553 $8,968,435
Main Administration Bldg. 281 N. College 0.75 $22,500 37,603 $6,689,347
City Office Building 215 N. Mason 2.00 $60,000 71,500 $12,731,810
OPS Service Facility 2.50 $75,000 26,564 $5,647,145
Streets Storage 625 Ninth St 3.24 $97,200 48,400 $4,125,256
Streets Office/Shop 625 Ninth St 8.48 $254,400 14,287 $763,936
Total 18.97 $569,100 229,907 $38,925,929
Source: City of Fort Collins, January 4, 2013 (land value based on $30,000 per acre).
The existing level of service (cost per service unit) is determined by dividing the replacement cost of
existing facilities by the existing service units being served by those facilities. As shown in Table 21,
the cost per service unit for general government facilities is $328 per functional population.
Table 21. General Government Cost per Service Unit
Building Replacement Value $38,925,929
Land Value $569,100
Vehicle/Equipment Value $9,753,022
Total Replacement Cost $49,248,051
÷ Existing Functional Population (16-Hour) 150,354
Cost per Functional Population $328
Source: Building and land replacement costs from Table 20; vehicle-
equipment value is sum of original costs from City fixed asset listings,
January 2, 2013; existing functional population from Table 36 in Appendix B.
General Government
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 17 May 21, 2013
Net Cost per Service Unit
Impact fees should be reduced in order to account for other types of revenues that will be generated
by new development and used to fund capacity-expanding improvements of the same type as those
to be funded by the impact fees. Cases in which such an offset is warranted include funding of
existing deficiencies and outstanding debt payments on existing facilities. Since the updated fees are
based on the existing level of service, there are no existing deficiencies.
The City has some outstanding debt on the main administration building. A relatively simple way to
calculate a credit for outstanding debt is to divide the debt by the number of existing service units.
This places new development on an equal footing with existing development in terms of the
proportion of their costs that are funded through debt. As shown in Table 22, the police debt credit
is $5 per functional population.
Table 22. General Government Debt Credit
Outstanding Debt on Main Administration Bldg. $745,745
÷ Existing Functional Population (16-Hour) 150,354
Cost per Functional Population $5
Source: Outstanding debt from City of Fort Collins, December 3, 2010;
existing functional population from Table 36 in Appendix B.
The credit for outstanding debt is subtracted from the cost per service unit to determine the net cost
per service unit, as shown in Table 23.
Table 23. General Government Net Cost per Service Unit
Cost per Functional Population $328
– Debt Credit per Functional Population -$5
Net Cost per Functional Population $323
Source: Cost per functional population from Table 15; debt credit from
Table 16
Potential Fees
The maximum general government capital expansion fees that may be adopted by the City based on
this study is the product of the number of service units generated by a unit of development and the
net cost per service unit calculated above. The resulting fee schedule is presented in Table 24. Two
residential fee options are shown: fees by housing type (single-family and multi-family) and fees by
unit size.
General Government
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 18 May 21, 2013
Table 24. Potential General Government Capital Expansion Fees
Func. Pop. Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit Func. Pop. Unit
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 1.38 $323 $446
Multi-Family Dwelling 0.93 $323 $300
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.93 $323 $300
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.19 $323 $384
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.31 $323 $423
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.37 $323 $443
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.47 $323 $475
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 2.26 $323 $730
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0.53 $323 $171
Source: Functional population per unit from Table 34 and Table 35 in Appendix B; net cost per
functional population from Table 23.
Table 25 compares the current general government capital expansion fees with the updated fees
(using the residential fee options of fees by unit size). The updated fees increase more for
nonresidential than for residential uses, and more for smaller residential units than larger ones.
Table 25. Comparative General Government Fees
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $142 $300 111%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $201 $384 91%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $235 $423 80%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $272 $443 63%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $330 $475 44%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $257 $730 184%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $71 $171 141%
Source: Current fees from City of Fort Collins, Ordinance No. 121, November 6, 2012; updated fees from
Table 24.
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 19 May 21, 2013
APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
Average Household Size by Housing Types
A key input into impact fee analysis is the average number of people residing in different types of
dwelling units. This statistic, known as average household size, is the ratio of household population
to households (which is the same as occupied dwelling units).
The most reliable data on average household size comes from the decennial census counts.
However, these 100%-count data are only available for all housing units, with no distinction by
housing type. Overall, the trend between the 2000 and 2010 census was one of a slight decline in
overall average household size, as can be seen in Table 26.
Table 26. Average Household Size, 2000 and 2010
Total Occupied Household Average
Housing Type Units Units Population HH Size
All Housing Types, 2000 47,755 45,882 112,597 2.45
All Housing Types, 2010 60,503 57,829 136,901 2.37
Source: 2000 and 2010 US Census for Fort Collins, CO, SF1 (100% counts).
The 2000 census provided data on average household size by housing type for a 1-in-6 sample
(about 17%). Those data are shown in Table 27.
Table 27. Average Household Size by Housing Type, 2000
Total Occupied Household Average
Housing Type Units Units Population HH Size
Single-Family Detached 26,706 25,941 73,943 2.85
Single-Family Attached 3,613 3,464 7,031 2.03
Multi-Family 16,163 15,190 28,522 1.88
Mobile Home 1,267 1,216 2,840 2.34
RV/Other 17 17 40 2.35
Total 47,766 45,828 112,376 2.45
Multi-Family/SF Attached 19,776 18,654 35,553 1.91
Source: 2000 US Census for Fort Collins, CO, SF-3 data (1-in-6 sample)
Unfortunately, the Census Bureau has discontinued providing robust sample data as part of the
decennial census, and instead conducts annual data from 1% samples, which has been aggregated
into a 5% sample for the 2006-2010 period. These data are based on a much smaller sample than the
2010 census, and also collapse single-family detached and attached housing into the same category.
They are shown in Table 28.
Appendix A: Demographic Data
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 20 May 21, 2013
Table 28. Average Household Size by Housing Type, 2006-2010
Total Occupied Household Average
Housing Type Units Units Population HH Size
Single-Family, Det./Att. 38,434 36,779 96,923 2.64
Multi-Family 19,441 17,747 31,168 1.76
Mobile Home 1,414 1,350 3,383 2.51
Other 13 13 21 1.62
Total 59,302 55,889 131,495 2.35
Source: US Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey data (5%
sample), Fort Collins, CO.
Comparing the data from 2000 and 2006-2010, it is clear that the decline in average household size is
not due to a change in the mix of housing, but rather to a more general decline in household size
among all housing types. While mobile home units show an increase, the sample sizes are too small
for this housing type for the results to be reliable.
Table 29. Change in Average Household Size, 2000-2010
Percent
Housing Type 2000 2006-10 Change
Single-Family, Detached/Attached 2.75 2.64 -4.00%
Multi-Family 1.88 1.76 -6.38%
Mobile Home 2.34 2.51 7.26%
Total 2.45 2.35 -4.08%
Average HH Size
Source: Table 27 and Table 28.
An estimate of current average household size by housing type starts with the data from the 2000
census, since these numbers are based on the most robust sample. The average household sizes
from the 2000 census are adjusted downward for all housing types by the overall decline, as shown
in Table 30.
Table 30. Current Average Household Size by Housing Type
Ratio of
Avg. HH Size 2010/2000 Current
Housing Type 2000 Census Avg. HH Size Avg. HH Size
Single-Family Detached/MH 2.85 0.9673 2.76
Multi-Family/SF Attached 1.91 0.9673 1.85
Total 2.45 0.9673 2.37
Source: 2000 average household size from Table 27; ratio derived from Table 26.
Average Household Size by Unit Size
In the 1996 study, average household size by dwelling unit size was estimated using census micro
data for Larimer County to determine average household size by bedrooms, and City building permit
data to determine average dwelling unit size by bedrooms using linear regression analysis. The two
results were combined to estimate average household size by dwelling unit size.
While the approach used in the original study has the advantage of relying solely on local (city and
county level) data, its weakness is that it is indirect – neither the census data nor the building permit
data contain information on both the number of persons in the unit and the size of the unit.
Appendix A: Demographic Data
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 21 May 21, 2013
Consequently, the 1996 analysis had to utilize an intervening variable of the number of bedrooms in
the unit.
A simpler and more direct approach is to utilize national data from the American Housing Survey,
sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and conducted by the U.S.
Census Bureau. The most recent survey was done in 2011. This survey provides data on the
number of residents and the square footage of a sample of individual housing units. The data from
the Western Census Region, which includes Colorado, was used. Average household sizes by
dwelling unit size from the western U.S. were converted to Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs), with
one EDU representing the average number of persons residing in an occupied single-family
detached unit. These EDU multipliers were then multiplied by the average household size of a
single-family unit in Fort Collins to estimate local average household sizes by dwelling unit size, as
summarized in Table 31.
Table 31. Average Household Size by Dwelling Unit Size, Western U.S., 2011
Ft. Collins
House- Avg. EDUs/ Avg. HH
Housing Type/Size Sample HH Pop. Holds HH Size Unit Size
0-700 sf 4,726 3,943,814 2,046,482 1.93 0.675 1.86
701-1,200 sf 11,845 13,908,874 5,631,663 2.47 0.864 2.38
1,201-1,700 sf 8,570 11,753,334 4,320,515 2.72 0.951 2.62
1,701-2,200 sf 6,218 8,824,060 3,112,727 2.83 0.990 2.73
2,200 sf + 7,686 11,545,664 3,793,080 3.04 1.063 2.93
All Units 39,045 49,975,747 18,904,467 2.64 0.923 n/a
All Single-Family Det. 23,453 34,517,546 12,053,378 2.86 1.000 2.76
American Housing Survey, 2011
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Housing Survey, 2011, Western Census
Region; Fort Collins average household size by unit size based on average household size for a single-family
detached unit in Fort Collins from Table 30 and EDUs/unit from the American Housing Survey.
The updated average household sizes confirm the tendency of larger units to have more residents,
but the difference between the smallest and largest units is less pronounced than it was found to be
in the 1996 analysis, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Average Household Size by Unit Size, 1996 and 2012
Appendix A: Demographic Data
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 22 May 21, 2013
Existing Housing Units by Type
The mix of housing units by type in Fort Collins has not changed significantly over the last decade,
as shown in Table 32. Because of its larger sample size, the housing shares from the 2000 census
will be used.
Table 32. Dwelling Units by Housing Type, Fort Collins, 2000-2010
Housing Type 2000 2006-10 2000 2006-10
Single-Family Detached 26,706 33,525 55.9% 56.5%
Single-Family Attached 3,613 4,909 7.6% 8.3%
Multi-Family 16,163 19,441 33.8% 32.8%
Mobile Home 1,267 1,414 2.7% 2.4%
RV/Other 17 13 0.0% 0.0%
Total 47,766 59,302 100.0% 100.0%
Single-Family Det./Mobile Home 27,973 34,939 58.6% 58.9%
Total Units % of Total Units
Source: 2000 data from 2000 US Census, SF3 (1-in-6 sample); 2006-2010 data from US
Census, American Community Survey (5% sample).
The current number of dwelling units in Fort Collins by housing type is estimated based on the total
number of units enumerated in the 2000 census, the share of units by housing type from the 2000
census, and the number of building permits issued over the last two years, as shown in Table 33.
Table 33. Dwelling Units by Housing Type, Fort Collins, 2012
Housing Est. 2010 2010-2011 Est. 2012
Housing Type Share Units Permits Units
Single-Family Detached/MH 58.6% 35,432 406 35,838
Multi-Family/SF Attached 41.4% 25,071 775 25,846
Total 100.0% 60,503 1,181 61,684
Source: Housing share based on 2000 Census from Table 32; 2010 total units from 2000 Census (Table
26), 2010 units by housing type based on housing share; 2010-2011 permits are number of permits
issued by City in 2010 and 2011 calendar years from City of Fort Collins, December 3, 2012.
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 23 May 21, 2013
APPENDIX B: FUNCTIONAL POPULATION
A common methodology used in calculating public safety (fire and police) and general government
service units and impact fees is the “functional population” approach. This approach is a generally-
accepted methodology for these impact fee types and is based on the observation that demand for
public safety and general government facilities tends to be proportional to the presence of people at
a particular site.
Functional population is analogous to the concept of “full-time equivalent” employees. It
represents the number of “full-time equivalent” people present at the site of a land use, and it is
used for the purpose of determining the impact of a particular development on the need for
facilities. For residential development, functional population is simply average household size times
the percent of time people spend at home. For nonresidential development, functional population
is based on a formula that factors trip generation rates, average vehicle occupancy and average
number of hours spent by visitors at a land use.
Two types of functional population are used in impact fee analysis: “24-hour” functional population
and “daytime” functional population. 24-hour functional population is most appropriate for
services, like fire and police protection, that operate on a 24-hour per day basis. Daytime functional
population is more appropriate for general government facilities, which do not operate around the
clock.
Residential Functional Population
For residential land uses, the impact of a dwelling unit on the need for capital facilities is generally
proportional to the number of persons residing in the dwelling unit. This can be measured for
different housing types in terms of either average household size (average number of persons per
occupied dwelling unit) or persons per unit (average number of persons per dwelling unit, including
vacant as well as occupied units). In this analysis, average household size is used to develop the
functional population multipliers, as it avoids the need to make assumptions about occupancy rates.
Determining residential functional population multipliers is considerably simpler than the
nonresidential component. It is estimated that people, on average, spend 16 hours, or 67 percent, of
each 24-hour weekday at their place of residence and the other 33 percent away from home. For
daytime functional population, a 16-hour day is used, and it is estimated that people spend half of
the 16-hour day at home. The functional population per unit for residential uses is shown in Table
34.
Appendix B: Functional Population
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 24 May 21, 2013
Table 34. Functional Population per Unit for Residential Uses
Average
Housing Type Unit HH Size 24-Hour Daytime 24-Hour Daytime
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 2.76 0.67 0.50 1.85 1.38
Multi-Family Dwelling 1.85 0.67 0.50 1.24 0.93
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.86 0.67 0.50 1.25 0.93
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.38 0.67 0.50 1.59 1.19
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.62 0.67 0.50 1.76 1.31
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.73 0.67 0.50 1.83 1.37
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.93 0.67 0.50 1.96 1.47
Occupancy Func. Pop. Per Unit
Source: Average household size from Table 30 (housing type) and Table 31 (unit size).
Nonresidential Functional Population
The functional population methodology for nonresidential land uses is based on trip generation and
employee density data. Functional population per 1,000 square feet is derived by dividing the total
number of hours spent by employees and visitors during a week day by 24 hours (16 hours for
daytime functional population). Employees are estimated to spend 8 hours per day at their place of
employment, and visitors are estimated to spend one hour per visit. The formulas used to derive the
nonresidential functional population estimates are summarized in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Nonresidential Functional Population Formulas
24-HR FUNCPOP/UNIT = (employee hours/1000 sf + visitor hours/1000 sf) ÷ 24 hours/day
Where:
Employee hours/1000 sf = employees/1000 sf x 8 hours/day
Visitor hours/1000 sf = visitors/1000 sf x 1 hour/visit
Visitors/1000 sf = weekday ADT/1000 sf x avg. vehicle occupancy – employees/1000 sf
Weekday ADT/1000 sf = one-way avg. daily trips (total trip ends ÷ 2)
DAILY FUNCPOP/UNIT = (employee hours/1000 sf + visitor hours/1000 sf) ÷ 16 hours/day
Where:
Employee hours/1000 sf = employees/1000 sf x 8 hours/day
Visitor hours/1000 sf = visitors/1000 sf x 1 hour/visit
Visitors/1000 sf = weekday ADT/1000 sf x avg. vehicle occupancy – employees/1000 sf
Weekday ADT/1000 sf = one-way avg. daily trips (total trip ends ÷ 2)
Appendix B: Functional Population
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 25 May 21, 2013
Using this formula and information on trip generation rates, vehicle occupancy rates from the
National Household Travel Survey and other sources and assumptions, nonresidential functional
population estimates per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area are calculated in Table 35.
Table 35. Functional Population per Unit for Nonresidential Uses
Trip Persons/ Employee/ Visitors/
Land Use Unit Rate Trip Unit Unit 24-Hour Daytime
Retail 1,000 sq. ft. 21.47 1.96 1.02 41.06 2.05 3.08
Office 1,000 sq. ft. 5.51 1.24 2.31 4.52 0.96 1.44
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. 3.48 1.24 1.05 3.27 0.49 0.73
Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 1.78 1.24 0.43 1.78 0.22 0.33
Func. Pop. Per Unit
Source: Trip rates based on one-half of average daily trip rate from ITE, Trip Generation, 8th ed., 2008 (retail based
on shopping center, office based on general office, industrial based on light industrial); persons/trip is average
vehicle occupancy from Federal Highway Administration, Nationwide Household Travel Survey, 2009;
employees/unit from U.S. Department of Energy, Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, 2003;
visitors/unit is trips times persons/trip minus employees/unit; functional population/unit calculated based on
formula from Figure 2.
Total Functional Population
The total functional population of Fort Collins is determined by multiplying the number of existing
units of development by the functional population per unit, as shown in Table 36.
Table 36. Existing Functional Population
Existing
Land Use Unit Units 24-Hour Daytime 24-Hour Daytime
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 35,838 1.85 1.38 66,300 49,456
Multi-Family Dwelling 25,846 1.24 0.93 32,049 24,037
Commercial/Institutional 1,000 sq. ft. 32,533 1.51 2.26 49,125 73,525
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 6,295 0.36 0.53 2,266 3,336
Total Functional Population 149,740 150,354
Func. Pop./Unit Functional Pop.
Source: Existing dwelling units from Table 33; existing nonresidential building square footage from Larimer
County Assessor’s Office, December 4, 2012; functional population per unit from Table 34 and Table 35
(commercial/institutional is average of retail and office; industrial/warehouse is average of industrial and
warehouse).
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
John Voss, Controller/Assistant Financial Officer
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: Status of Fund Balances and Working Capital
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The attached presentation gives a status of fund balances and
working capital. Fund balances are primarily considered for funding one-time offers during the
Budgeting for Outcomes process. To a lesser extent available monies are also used to fund
supplemental appropriations between BFO cycles.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
None, this is an update for Council Finance Committee.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
To aid in answering the question of what funding is available to support emerging issues and
initiatives in the next budget cycle. In each fund the balances are shown vertically by the
accounting classifications. The amounts are then additionally categorized into Appropriated,
Available with Constraints, and Available for Nearly Any Purpose.
Appropriated, Minimum Policy or Scheduled is comprised of minimum fund balances
established by policy, funds from the 2012 balance that have been appropriated in 2013, and
amounts for projects specifically identified by voters. An example of the later is Building on
Basics.
Available with Constraints are those balances available for appropriation but within defined
constraints. An example is 4
th
of July donations. They are restricted for that purpose, but still
available for appropriation.
Available for Nearly Any Purpose are balances that are available for appropriation at the
discretion of the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS
1. PowerPoint presentation.
1
Status of Fund Balances
Council Finance Committee
June 17, 2013
2
Objective
• Understanding the different levels of constraints
• Review fund balances
• Using fund balances in the budget process
3
Fund Balance Definitions
• Non-spendable
– Not spendable in form (inventory, long-term receivables)
– Legally or contractually required to be maintained intact
(permanent endowments)
• Restricted
– Externally enforceable legal restrictions (TABOR emergency
reserve, debt covenants, contracts)
• Committed
– Constraint formally imposed at the highest level of decision
making authority through Ordinance (Capital Expansion fees,
Neighborhood Parkland fees)
• Assigned
– Intended to be used for specific purposes (Affordable Housing,
Camera Radar, Encumbrances)
• Unassigned
– Available for any City purpose
– Reported only in the General Fund except in cases of negative
fund balance
most
constrained
least
constrained
4
Focus on Availability
• Available but with some constraints, examples
– BCC-CE residuals are restricted but available only for capital as
defined in the ballot language
– 4th of July donations are restricted but available only for 4th of July
activities
• Available for nearly any purpose, examples
– Funds available at the discretion of the City Council for any
municipal purpose
5
2011
Total
2012
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
General Fund $ 40.2 $ 55.2 $ 52.3 $ 1.6 $ 1.3
Capital Expansion Fund 14.6 16.7 7.4 9.3 -
Sales & Use Tax Fund 7.4 2.0 2.0 - -
GID #1 Fund 1.0 1.1 1.1 - -
Keep Fort Collins Great Fund 6.3 10.3 7.7 2.6 -
Neighborhood Parkland Fund 5.6 5.1 5.1 - -
Conservation Trust Fund 1.7 1.7 1.7 - -
Naturals Areas Fund 4.5 8.0 8.0 - -
Cultural Services Fund 1.8 1.9 1.5 0.4 -
Recreation Fund 2.2 2.3 1.1 - 1.2
Cemeteries Fund 0.6 0.5 0.1 - 0.4
Perpetual Care Fund 1.6 1.6 - 1.6 -
Transit 2.4 3.3 3.3 - -
Street Oversizing 5.2 7.3 7.3 - -
Transportation 13.2 13.6 6.5 - 7.1
Capital Projects Fund 20.1 20.4 20.3 0.1 -
URA Fund (6.9) (9.2) - - (9.2)
Light & Power Fund 44.1 51.9 36.0 15.9 -
Water Fund 65.9 67.0 61.6 5.4 -
Wastewater Fund 30.3 27.8 15.8 12.0 -
Storm Drainage Fund 10.6 13.8 11.3 2.5 -
Equipment Fund 2.5 2.2 1.6 0.2 0.4
Self Insurance Fund 2.5 3.5 1.3 2.2 -
Data & Communications Fund 1.9 1.3 0.9 0.2 0.2
Benefits Fund 11.9 12.6 9.3 - 3.3
Utility Customer Service Fund 3.3 2.8 2.8 - -
TOTAL $ 294.5 $ 324.7 $ 266.0 $ 54.0 $ 4.7
All City Funds
6
2011
Total
2012
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned - Minimum 60 day Policy $ 17.3 $ 18.8 $ 18.8 $ - $ -
Non-spendable
Advances 5.5 5.5 5.5 - -
Landbank inventory 3.0 3.0 3.0 - -
Restricted
TABOR Emergency 4.3 4.7 4.7 - -
Police Programs 2.2 1.2 0.5 0.7 -
Donations 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.6 -
Economic Rebates - 3.0 3.0 - -
Committed
Traffic Calming 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.3 -
Culture & Recreation 0.1 0.1 0.1 - -
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders 5.5 4.4 4.4 - -
Manufacturing Use Tax Rebate - 0.2 0.2 - -
N. College (Conifer to Willox) - 5.2 5.2 - -
DPS/Comm System 1.1 0.7 0.1 - 0.6
Camera Radar 0.8 0.9 0.3 - 0.6
Affordable Housing Land Bank 0.2 0.2 - - 0.2
Waste Innovation 0.2 0.3 0.1 - 0.2
Woodward Debt Reserve 2.3 2.3 -
Reappropriation & 2013-14 3.8 3.8 -
Unassigned (1.0) (0.3) - - (0.3)
Year End Total $ 40.2 $ 55.2 $ 52.3 $ 1.6 $ 1.3
General Fund - Year End 2012 - $55.2
7
General Fund Balances
• $5.5 loaned to URA (Advances)
• $3.0 is value of land held for resale in Landbank program
• $4.7 is an emergency reserve required by TABOR, equal to 3% of qualified
governmental revenue
• $1.2 restricted to Police Programs; for Drug Task Force $650K, BOB dispatch
system $650K
• $0.7 restricted by donor for various purposes (Horticulture, 4th
of July, Udall, etc)
• $3.0 is restricted to Economic Incentive Rebates
• $0.5 of traffic calming comes from surcharge on tickets
• $0.7 DPS is assigned for police radios
• $0.9 are balances from camera radar and photo red-light, traditionally used for
that program
• The $0.3 adjustment needed is the result of appropriations from non-specific
General Fund fund balances that did not exist.
• $5.2 for North College Road Improvements (Conifer to Willox)
8
• Monies collected on building permits, revenue varies greatly with development activity
• Must be used for new and /or expanding facilities
• $4.8 in loans to the URA (N. College Marketplace, JAX)
• Police monies used for debt on new police headquarters
• Fire monies used to pay debt on Station #4
• $8.0 in Community Parkland is anticipated for Southeast Community Park
2011
Total
2012
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned - Policy Minimum N/A $ - $ - $ - $ -
Committed
General Government 0.6 1.3 - 1.3
Advances-General Government 5.1 4.8 4.8 -
Police 1.2 1.0 1.0 -
Fire 0.3 0.3 0.3 -
Community Parkland 7.4 9.3 1.3 8.0
Year End Total $ 14.6 $ 16.7 $ 7.4 $ 9.3 $ -
Capital Expansion Fund - Year End 2012 - $16.7
9
• Sales Tax for BOB and Natural Areas deposited here
– Voter language requires deposit in Sale & Use Tax Fund
– Residual balance owed to Natural Areas and BOB. 2012 revenue exceeded appropriations
needed to make transfers. Will be addressed in annual ‘Clean Up’ ordinance in September
2013.
2011
Total
2012
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned - Policy Minimum N/A $ - $ - $ - $ -
Restricted -
BOB - 1.0 1.0 -
Natural Areas - 1.0 1.0 -
Assigned
Manufacturing Use Tax Rebate 0.3 - - -
2.25% General Fund 7.1 - - -
Year End Total $ 7.4 $ 2.0 $ 2.0 $ - $ -
Sales & Use Tax Fund - Year End 2012 - $2.0
10
• Property tax based - 4.924 mill levy generates about $240 K annually
2011
Total
2012
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned - Policy Minimum N/A $ - $ - $ - $ -
Committed
Capital Improvements 0.9 0.6 0.6 -
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders 0.1 0.5 0.5 -
Year End Total $ 1.0 $ 1.1 $ 1.1 $ - $ -
General Improvement District #1 Fund - Year End 2012 - $1.1
11
• The $2.6 will made available in the BFO process
• Less than KFCG report in February due to miscalculation of remaining balance for projects with a
multiyear budget.
2011
Total
2012
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned - Policy Minimum N/A $ - $ - $ -
Restricted
Street Maintenance 0.4 1.2 0.6 0.6
Other Transportation 2.2 3.7 3.4 0.3
Police Services 2.3 2.9 2.2 0.7
Fire & Emergency Services 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.3
Parks & Recreation 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.3
Other 0.8 1.4 1.0 0.4
Year End Total $ 6.3 $ 10.3 $ 7.7 $ 2.6 $ -
Keep Fort Collins Great Fund - Year End 2012 - $10.3
12
• Monies collected on building permits, revenue varies greatly with development activity
• $4.7 is for new Neighborhood Parklands
2011
Total
2012
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned - Policy Minimum N/A $ - $ - $ - $ -
Committed -
Neighborhood Parks 5.3 4.7 4.7 -
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders 0.3 0.4 0.4 -
Year End Total $ 5.6 $ 5.1 $ 5.1 $ - $ -
Neighborhood Parkland Fund - Year End 2012 - $5.1
13
• Shared Lottery Proceeds – an average of $1.3 collected annually
• Can be spent on a variety of specified Recreation purposes as defined by the State
• City has primarily used monies for trails
2011
Total
2012
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned - Policy Minimum N/A $ - $ - $ - $ -
Restricted
Parks, Rec & Open Space Capital Imp 1.0 1.4 1.4 -
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders 0.7 0.3 0.3 -
Year End Total $ 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 1.7 $ - $ -
Conservation Trust Fund - Year End 2012 - $1.7
14
• Major funding sources
– About 60% comes from City quarter cent sales tax, expires at end of 2030
– About 30% comes from County Open Space tax, expires at end of 2018
• $6.8 to be re-appropriated in 2013 and another $0.4 is funding offers in the 2013-14 budget.
2011
Total
2012
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned - 5% Operations $ 0.2 $ 0.2 $ 0.2 $ -
Restricted
Natural Areas 4.1 7.3 7.3 -
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders 0.2 0.5 0.5 -
Year End Total $ 4.5 $ 8.0 $ 8.0 $ - $ -
Natural Areas Fund - Year End 2012 - $8.0
15
• Accounts for Museum and Lincoln Center.
• Their own revenues are about $2.4, and total expenses are $4.0.
• BOB balances are for operation of the new Museum
• Museum activity will move to their own fund in 2013. Separate accounting is needed because of
the partnership with the Discovery non-profit organization.
2011
Total
2012
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned - 5% Operations $ 0.1 $ 0.1 $ 0.1 $ -
Restricted
Building on Basics Cultural Plan 0.6 0.6 0.6 -
Committed
Art in Public Places 0.3 0.2 0.2 -
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders 0.1 0.1 0.1 -
Capital Projects 0.1 0.1 0.1 -
Cultural Services Surplus 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.4
Year End Total $ 1.8 $ 1.9 $ 1.5 $ 0.4 $ -
Cultural Services & Facilities Fund - Year End 2012 - $1.9
16
2011
Total
2012
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned - 5% Operations $ 0.1 $ 0.1 $ 0.1 $ -
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders 0.1 0.1 0.1 -
Recreation Programs 0.3 0.3 - - 0.3
Recreation Surplus 1.7 1.8 0.9 - 0.9
Year End Total $ 2.2 $ 2.3 $ 1.1 $ - $ 1.2
Recreation Fund - Year End 2012 - $2.3
17
2011
Total
2012
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned - Policy Minimum N/A $ - $ - $ - $ -
Assigned
Cemeteries Surplus 0.6 0.5 0.1 - 0.4
Year End Total $ 0.6 $ 0.5 $ 0.1 $ - $ 0.4
Cemeteries Fund - Year End 2012 - $.5
18
• To be used to maintain the cemeteries once on-going operations cease.
2011
Total
2012
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned - Policy Minimum N/A $ - $ - $ - $ -
Restricted
Perpetual Care 1.6 1.6 - 1.6
Year End Total $ 1.6 $ 1.6 $ - $ 1.6 $ -
Perpetual Care Fund - Year End 2012 - $1.6
19
• Fund balances are used as a local match to FTA capital grants.
2011
Total
2012
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned - 5% Operations $ 0.2 $ 0.2 $ 0.2 $ -
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders 0.6 3.6 3.6 -
Transit Surplus 1.6 (0.5) (0.5) -
Year End Total $ 2.4 $ 3.3 $ 3.3 $ - $ -
Transit Fund - Year End 2012 - $3.3
20
• Monies are collected from developers, revenue varies greatly with development activity
2011
Total
2012
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned - 5% Operations $ 0.1 $ 0.1 $ 0.1 $ -
Restricted
Street Oversizing Surplus 4.2 6.2 6.2 -
Assigned
Capital Projects 0.9 1.0 1.0 -
Year End Total $ 5.2 $ 7.3 $ 7.3 $ - $ -
Street Oversizing Fund - Year End 2012 - $7.3
21
• $0.7 Capital Projects – Harmony Bridge Replacement
• $0.1 Fiscal Agent – unspent capital leasing proceeds at year end
• $0.8 limited to Civic Center Parking Garage per IGA with Larimer County
• $4.2 may be reassigned but is intended by management to be used for Harmony Road
improvements.
– Residual of the $13 million from State when ownership transferred
2011
Total
2012
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned - 5% Operations $ 0.5 $ 0.5 $ 0.5 $ -
Restricted -
Fiscal Agent 0.2 0.1 0.1 -
CC Parking Garage IGA 0.8 0.8 0.8 -
Assigned -
Prior Year Purchase Orders 0.8 1.2 1.2 -
Capital Projects 0.7 0.6 0.6 -
DT Parking 0.4 0.5 - - 0.5
Harmony Road 8.6 6.4 2.2 - 4.2
Transportation Surplus 1.2 3.5 1.1 - 2.4
Year End Total $ 13.2 $ 13.6 $ 6.5 $ - $ 7.1
Transportation Fund - Year End 2012 - $13.6
22
2011
Total
2012
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned - Policy Minimum N/A $ - $ - $ -
Restricted -
BCC-Streets 0.4 0.4 -
BCC-Community Enhancements 3.3 3.7 3.7 -
BCC-Natural Areas 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1
Building on Basics (BOB) 9.1 12.5 12.5 -
Assigned -
General City Projects 7.1 3.5 3.5 -
Year End Total $ 20.1 $ 20.4 $ 20.3 $ 0.1 $ -
Capital Project Fund - Year End 2012 - $20.4
23
2011
Total
2012
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned - Policy Minimum N/A $ - $ - $ - $ -
Assigned -
URA Deficit (6.9) (9.2) - - (9.2)
Year End Total $ (6.9) $ (9.2) $ - $ - $ (9.2)
Urban Renewal Authority Fund - Year End 2012 - $(9.2)
Loans in thousands Original Current
Project Holding Fund Loan Balance
Valley Steel Storm Drainage Fund 150 -
North College Marketplace Phase 1 Capital Expansion Fund 5,000 4,729
JAX Capital Expansion Fund 173 106
NECCO Storm Drainage Fund 326 326
Kaufman Robinson General Fund 193 193
North College Marketplace Phase 2 Water Fund 3,000 2,884
North College Rd Improvements Capital Projects Fund 2,700 2,700
RMI2 General Fund 5,304 5,304
16,846 16,242
• Plan to refinancing $10.9 in loans July 23
• URA to borrow another $5 for The Summit project (Capstone)
24
• Capital improvements is the amount equal to the average annual cost of the approved 5 year
capital improvement plan (this is the capital minimum)
• Approved but unencumbered capital projects include Smart Grid, Substation Improvements, SW
Enclave System, Underground Conversion Program, Service Center Additions and Mason
Corridor.
2011
Total
2012
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned - 8% Operations $ 2.8 $ 2.9 $ 2.9 $ -
Committed
Art in Public Places 0.7 0.7 - 0.7
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders 3.0 3.8 3.8 -
Approved Capital Projects 10.8 15.2 15.2 -
Capital Improvements 25.7 28.7 13.5 15.2
Capital Outlay 1.1 0.6 0.6 -
- - - -
- - - -
Year End Total $ 44.1 $ 51.9 $ 36.0 $ 15.9 $ -
Light & Power Fund - Year End 2012 - $51.9
25
• Per policy, monies remaining after the other reserves are met are assigned to Capital
Improvements.
2011
Total
2012
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned - 5% Operations $ 1.5 $ 1.5 $ 1.5 $ -
Restricted -
Debt 0.3 0.3 0.3 -
Committed
Art in Public Places 0.9 0.9 - 0.9
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders 5.9 2.5 2.5 -
Approved Capital Projects 44.9 46.4 46.4 -
Capital Improvements 10.6 13.3 9.9 3.4
Capital Outlay 1.8 2.1 1.0 1.1
Year End Total $ 65.9 $ 67.0 $ 61.6 $ 5.4 $ -
Water Fund - Year End 2012 - $67.0
26
• Per policy, monies remaining after the other reserves are met are assigned to Capital
Improvements
2011
Total
2012
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned - 5% Operations $ 1.1 $ 1.0 $ 1.0 $ -
Restricted -
Debt 0.4 0.4 0.4 -
Bonds 3.8 - - -
Committed -
Art in Public Places 0.4 0.5 - 0.5
Assigned -
Prior Year Purchase Orders 7.5 0.4 0.4 -
Approved Capital Projects 11.1 10.9 10.9 -
Capital Improvements 5.8 14.2 2.7 11.5
Capital Outlay 0.2 0.4 0.4 -
Year End Total $ 30.3 $ 27.8 $ 15.8 $ 12.0 $ -
Wastewater Fund - Year End 2012 - $27.8
27
• Per policy, monies remaining after the other reserves are met are assigned to Capital
Improvements
2011
Total
2012
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned - 5% Operations $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ -
Restricted
Debt 0.4 0.3 0.3 -
Committed
Art in Public Places 0.2 0.2 0.2 -
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders 1.2 0.4 0.4 -
Approved Capital Projects 6.9 8.1 8.1 -
Capital Improvements 0.7 3.1 0.6 2.5
Capital Outlay 0.5 1.0 1.0 -
Year End Total $ 10.6 $ 13.8 $ 11.3 $ 2.5 $ -
Storm Drainage Fund - Year End 2012 - $13.8
28
• Capital Leasing – unused lease purchase proceeds at year end
• Equipment Replacement – $0.4 is for replacement of vehicles and equipment for Police, Forestry
and Parks
2011
Total
2012
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned - 5% Operations $ 0.2 $ 0.2 $ 0.2 $ -
Restricted -
Capital Leasing 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.2
Assigned -
Prior Year Purchase Orders 0.4 0.2 0.2 -
Approved & unencumbered capital proj 0.9 0.5 0.5 -
Equipment surplus 0.3 0.4 - - 0.4
Year End Total $ 2.5 $ 2.2 $ 1.6 $ 0.2 $ 0.4
Equipment Fund - Year End 2012 - $2.2
29
2011
Total
2012
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned - 5% Operations $ 0.1 $ 0.1 $ 0.1 $ -
Committed -
Self Insurance surplus 2.4 3.4 1.2 2.2
Year End Total $ 2.5 $ 3.5 $ 1.3 $ 2.2 $ -
Self Insurance Fund - Year End 2012 - $3.5
30
• Capital Leasing – unused lease purchase proceeds at year end
2011
Total
2012
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned - 5% Operations $ 0.2 $ 0.2 $ 0.2 $ -
Restricted
Capital Leasing 0.6 - - -
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders 0.2 - - -
Data & Communication Surplus 0.9 1.1 0.7 0.2 0.2
Year End Total $ 1.9 $ 1.3 $ 0.9 $ 0.2 $ 0.2
Data and Communications Fund - Year End 2012 - $1.3
31
2011
Total
2012
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned - 5% Operations $ 0.5 $ 0.4 $ 0.4 $ -
Assigned -
Prior Year Purchase Orders 0.1 - -
Medical Claims 11.0 11.8 8.5 - 3.3
Dental Claims 0.3 0.4 0.4 - -
Year End Total $ 11.9 $ 12.6 $ 9.3 $ - $ 3.3
Benefits Fund - Year End 2012 - $12.6
• The $8.5 is partially for 2013-14 budget and also as set aside as recommended by the
health insurance actuary’s.
32
• The 2013-14 budget approved using $1.4 for operations
2011
Total
2012
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned - 5% Operations $ 0.3 $ 0.3 $ 0.3 $ -
Assigned -
Prior Year Purchase Orders 1.1 1.1 1.1 -
Approved & unencumbered capital proj 0.2 - - -
UCSA Surplus 1.7 1.4 1.4 -
Year End Total $ 3.3 $ 2.8 $ 2.8 $ - $ -
Utility Customer Service Fund - Year End 2012 - $2.8