HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Mail Packet - 11/19/2013 - Council Finance Committee & Ura Finance Committee Agenda - November 18, 2013Council Finance Committee & URA Finance Committee
Agenda Planning Calendar 2013
RVSD 11/14/13 kw
Nov. 18 TOPIC TIME WHO
URA URA TIF Funding Parameters Policy 30 min J. Birks
CFC
Transfort Business Review 45 min Ravenschlag
Street Maintenance Fee Review 30 min J. Ping-Small
Budget Policy Review 15 min L. Pollack
Schedule January’s Meeting 5 min M. Beckstead
Dec. 16 TOPIC TIME WHO
CFC
Audit Findings and Recommendations: Corrective Actions 15 min J. Voss
Policy Review – Reserve/Fund Balances 30 min J. Voss
M. Pfleiger
Investment Policy Review 5 min J. Voss
M. Pfleiger
URA Financial Review URA 30 min M. Beckstead
Jan. ? TOPIC TIME WHO
CFC
PFA IGA Revenue Allocation Formula 30 min M. Beckstead
Parks Maintenance and Funding 45 min M. Heffernan
URA
Feb. 10 TOPIC TIME WHO
CFC
Grocery Tax Rebate Update 30 min J. Ping-Small
Briefing on Forming a Parking Fund 15 min R. Hensley
J. Voss
TIF – Exempt Tax Districts Analysis 54 min M. Beckstead
URA
Future Council Finance Committee Topics:
• Capital Improvement Funds Policy Review
• General Policy Review
• Revenue Implications of Annexation
• Review Special Improvement Districts
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
Urban Renewal Authority Board Finance Committee
October 21, 2013
10 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
CIC Room – City Hall
Approval of the Minutes from the September 16, 2013 Meeting
1. URA TIF Funding Parameters Policy 30 minutes J. Birks
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
URA Finance Committee Meeting
Minutes
9/16/13
11:00 to Noon
CIC Room
Council Attendees: Mayor Karen Weitkunat, Bob Overbeck
Staff: Timothy Allen, Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead, Megan
Bolin, Chris Donegon, Tom Leeson, Lawrence Pollack,
Lance Smith, Steve Roy, John Voss, Katie Wiggett
Others: Dale Adamy, Daniel Parsons
Approval of the Minutes of May 20, 2013
Mayor Karen Weitkunat moved to approve the minutes for the May 20, 2013 meeting. Bob Overbeck
seconded the motion. Minutes were approved unanimously.
Prospect Station TIF Support
Tom Lesson presented the Prospect Station Redevelopment Project, a project improving the SW corner
of the Mason Trail and Prospect Road, including 32 residential rental units and 1 commercial/retail unit.
The project has significant public benefits including blight remediation and infrastructure Upgrades. The
total TIF Requested for this project is $494,000. This is a significant reduction from the original request
of $772,879. Total TIF collection over the life of the project with 0% growth each year is forecasted at
$865,340. The project will use combination lump sum payment and pay over time TIF reimbursement
structure.
Mike Beckstead noted that this project’s TIF Reimbursement Structure is a great example of Finance and
Economic Development working together to improve City practices. Tom Leeson presented the
following key reimbursement points:
• Developer must obtain C.O. of building before URA will make lump sum payment
• URA may pre-pay the reimbursement at any time
• TIF projection is based on County Estimate of Value
• Annual payment is fixed = $11,762
Tom Lesson noted that the City developed a hybrid structure because the developer began with the
assumption that they’d get a total lump sum as had been done in the past. When Staff told them the
City was planning on a pay as collected structure, the developer said he would have to walk away from
the project. The hybrid method allowed the project to move forward. The City’s total obligation will be
$494,000 plus financing costs estimated at $175,284. Based on current estimates including financing,
77% of the available TIF will be used to support the project.
2
URA Loan – Summit
In September 2011, the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA) approved a Redevelopment
Agreement with Capstone Development Corp (Developer) for The Summit on College, a mixed-use
student housing project in the Prospect South Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District. The Agreement
obligated the URA to reimburse the Developer for up to $5 million of eligible costs upon completion of
the project. The Developer obtained a Certificate of Occupancy for the project in August 2013 and is in
the process of submitting their reimbursement request to the URA.
When the amount of tax increment generated by The Summit was estimated in 2011, the URA used a
methodology based on project costs and assumed 1% appreciation each year, for a total of approximately $8
million. It was anticipated that the URA would have to borrow from the City to pay the reimbursement to
the Developer, and at the time, the financing charge on a $5 million loan was estimated to be $2.4 million.
Based on the most recent August 2013 preliminary valuation from Larimer County, the project is estimated
to generate $7 million of tax increment, creating a $1 million revenue shortfall from the original projection.
Additionally, a combination of rising interest over the past two years (adding 71 basis points) and the City’s
new interagency loan policy (adding 25 basis points), have increased the expected interest rate on the loan
from the City from 4.0% to 4.96% increasing interest cost from $2.4M to $3.8M. Table 1 summarizes the
difference between the original estimates and actual numbers:
Table 1* – Note: numbers have been updated per latest interest rates
2011 Estimates 2013 Actuals
Total Tax Increment $8 million $7 million
Reimbursement Obligation $5 million $5 million¹
Financing Cost to URA $2.4 million $3.8 million
Balance $0.6 million ($1.8 million)
¹ Subject to final verification by URA staff.
*Number have been updated since the
Between the decrease in tax increment revenue and increase in financing charge, the URA would be unable
to afford the full debt obligation of a $5 million loan from the City under current investment policy interest
rates. Consequently, City and URA staff have negotiated a loan agreement that allows the URA to uphold
its reimbursement obligation to the Developer and remain financially solvent, while making a concerted
effort to uphold the City’s interagency loan policy.
Proposed Loan Agreement Terms
The URA cash flow does not support a $5 million loan from the City based on the current interest rates and
the current interagency loan policy. A new loan structure was developed that assigns an interest rate based
on the known revenue stream and term, which turns out to be 2.68%. Since City policy would require 4.96%
interest, this leaves a gap of $1.78 million. To fill this gap, the URA commits to pledge 50% of future
unencumbered revenue from the Prospect South TIF District to the City.
For example, assume the URA collects $1 million in revenue in a given year and owes the City a $400,000
payment on the Capstone loan; 50% of the remaining $600,000, or $300,000, would be paid to the City to
help pay down the $1.78 million interest rate gap. This revenue share structure would continue for the life
3
of the Prospect South TIF District, or until the $1.78 million is paid in full, whichever happens first.
While City and URA staff support the negotiated loan terms, the variation from current policy is duly
acknowledged. Several practices have been put into place since approval of the Capstone Redevelopment
Agreement to prevent the need for additional policy exceptions, including:
Tax increment estimates are based on Larimer County’s estimate of valuation that the Developer
provides to the URA; the estimates assume 1% appreciation over the life of the associated TIF
District.
Establishing a maximum percentage of tax increment that would be available to reimburse a project
that includes a combination of both reimbursable costs to the developer and URA financing costs.
Establishing a maximum tax increment contribution percentage of the total project cost.
These items, particularly the last two bullets, have been the topic of recent discussions between the City and
URA, and staff is scheduled to present more detail to the Finance Committee for further vetting at an
upcoming meeting.
Bob Overbeck asked why the City would make an exception to common practices in this case. Mike
Beckstead answered that the City has a commitment to the developer, and by making this exception, we
can honor that commitment. The Mayor agreed that Council would need to know how this exception
would affect City policies or practices. Is the City setting a precedent by making this exception? Mike
Beckstead answered that, going forward, the City may limit itself to a 75% commitment to ensure that
this situation never happened again.
Next Steps
Staff will work on drafting a policy for estimating TIF financing.
November 18, 2013
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Josh Birks, Economic Health Director; Tom Leeson, Redevelopment Program Manager
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: Urban Renewal Authority Financial Management Policy -
Tax Increment Financing Parameters
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
PURPOSE: Present a proposed Financial Management Policy related to Tax Increment
Financing commitments to the URA Finance Committee and seek feedback.
The Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA) has been engaged in a process of continuous
improvement since the beginning of 2012. Recent improvements include:
Reorganization moving the management of the URA out from under the Finance
Department allowing for an independent review by Finance;
Changes to the method for estimating Tax Increment generated by a project, consistent
with the proven track record of the Downtown Development Authority’s approach;
Increased consultation with outside legal counsel relative to specific URA financing,
operations, and formation issues; and
Documentation of the Redevelopment Agreement negotiation, adoption, and execution
process.
The item presented to the URA Finance Committee today continues the process of improvement
by present a series of parameters to be used in developing the TIF commitments made to
individual projects by URA staff.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does the URA Finance Committee have questions about the proposed TIF
commitment parameters?
2. Does the URA Finance Committee believe that the proposed URA Financial
Management Policy needs to be reviewed by the entire URA Board during a work
session?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The attached proposed URA Financial Management Policy (Financial Policy) addresses a
concern consistently voiced by URA Board members in the past two years. The concern relates
to over commitment of TIF dollars to individual redevelopment projects. This concerns stems
November 18, 2013
from recent experience where initial estimates of the TIF generated by a project exceeded the
initial actual TIF generated by the project.
One measure taken to address this concern has been adopting a method of estimating the TIF
anticipated from a project by using the approach employed by the DDA. This approach has a
long proven track record. In addition, estimates of TIF over the course of a Urban Renewal Plan
Area (Plan Area) life have been adjusted to assume no growth as an additional layer of
conservatism.
The proposed Financial Policy provides additional insulation against this concern. The Financial
Policy is intended to provide a set of operating norms for future TIF commitments to be used by
URA staff. The financing parameters presented represent a range of preferred methods. The
decision to use one method over another or to blend methods will be contingent upon a project’s
need for gap financing, the size of the particular project, the type of improvements supported by
the TIF and/or the public benefit provided by the project.
The attached proposed Financial Policy (See Attachment 1) provides parameters related to the
two primary approaches to providing TIF commitments: (a) lump sum payments (historically the
prevalent approach) and (b) pay over time. In addition, the parameters are defined by two of the
three previously outlined URA assistance purposes:
(a) Create – When existing conditions on a site make private market rate redevelopment
impractical (i.e., environmental contamination or insufficient infrastructure) so providing
TIF assistance removes financial barriers and helps to create a project that would not
otherwise happen, and
(b) Enhance – When conditions on a site are such that the likely market rate redevelopment
outcome is not consistent with goals for Targeted Redevelopment and Infill Areas. In
these cases, providing TIF assistance changes the scope of the project so that it conforms,
or exceeds identified objectives in City Plan.
Specific details of the proposed financing parameters are provided in the attached Financial
Policy (See Attachment 1).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Urban Renewal Financial Management Policy 1.1 – Tax Increment Financing Parameters
2. PowerPoint presentation
1
URA Financial Management Policy
1.1 Tax Increment Financing Parameters
URA Finance Committee Meeting
November 18, 2013
2
Direction Sought
• Does the URA Finance Committee have
questions about the proposed TIF commitment
parameters?
• Does the URA Finance Committee believe that
the proposed URA Financial Management Policy
needs to be reviewed by the entire URA Board
during a work session?
3
Recent Improvements
• Reorganization allowing for an independent
review by Finance
• Changes to the method for estimating Tax
Increment generated by a project
• Increased consultation with outside legal counsel
• Documentation of the Redevelopment Agreement
negotiation, adoption, and execution process
4
Proposed Parameters
URA Assistance Purpose: Create URA Assistance Purpose: Enhance
Element Lump Sum Payment Pay Over Time Lump Sum Payment Pay Over Time
Max % TIF
Commitment Available
to Support Project
75%* 90%** 75%* 75%
TIF Payment
Calculation
Fixed $ Commitment
(a) % of Actual Annual Tax
Increment collected
(b) Fixed Annual $
Commitment
Fixed $ Commitment
(a) % of Actual Annual
Tax Increment
collected
(b) Fix Annual $
Commitment
URA Cost of Capital
Borrowing Costs:
-City Interagency Loan
Policy
-Bank Loan Underwriting
Req.
-Other: Section 108
standards
N/A
Borrowing Costs:
-City Interagency Loan
Policy
-Bank Loan Underwriting
Req.
-Other: Section 108
standards
N/A
Developer Cost
Capital
N/A
-Negotiated
-Limited by the Max % TIF
Commitment Available
N/A
-Negotiated
-Limited by the Max % TIF
Commitment Available
% TIF Contribution
relative to Total
Project Cost
25% 15%
*Includes borrowing costs
**Max % TIF Commitment on Future Prospect South projects limited to 75%
5
Three Basic Approaches
• Lump Sum Payment (Historically Prevalent)
• Pay Over Time – Percent of TIF collected
• Pay Over Time – Fixed Dollar Amount
– In the first year if actual TIF comes in lower than the
Estimate of Value, the actual TIF reimbursed will be
prorated based on the actual TIF received.
– In the first year, if actual TIF comes in higher than the
Estimate of Value, the TIF reimbursed will be based on the
original Estimate of Value calculation.
– The actual TIF paid does not grow with inflation. Once
established in (b) above, it stays constant. Once
established by (a), it can grow to equal (b) but not exceed
(b).
6
General Procedures
• Use updated TIF estimation method
• Growth Estimate will be held at 0%
• Cash flows shall be based on absolute dollars and
NPV.
– The discount rate used shall equal the URA cost of
capital.
• The term of a City loan to the URA shall be based on
the estimated TIF stream.
– The term shall be minimized to the greatest extent
possible given the estimated cash flow.
• The minimum time to process the request for payment
from the development will be 90 calendar days.
7
Direction Sought
• Does the URA Finance Committee have
questions about the proposed TIF commitment
parameters?
• Does the URA Finance Committee believe that
the proposed URA Financial Management Policy
needs to be reviewed by the entire URA Board
during a work session?
URA Financial Management Policy 1
1. Tax Increment Financing
Issue Date: TBD
Version: 1
Issued by: Director
Economic Health
URA Financial Policy 1 – TIF Parameters
1-1
1.1 Guiding Principles
A. Retaining a percentage of the total tax increment collected guards against the risk
associated with rising interest rates, a diminution of assessed value, and other market
risks.
B. During volatile and/or rising rate environments, consideration will be given to reducing
the amount of TIF committed by the URA as a hedge against dramatic rate increases that
increase the cost of financing to the URA
Objective:
The following parameters are intended to provide a set of operating norms for financing URA
projects. The financing parameters represent a range of preferred methods. The decision to
utilize a particular financing method is contingent upon a project’s need for gap financing, the size
of a particular deal, the type of improvements supported by public financing and/or the public
benefit provided.
Applicability:
This policy applies to Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority.
Authorized by:
Tax Increment Financing Parameters
URA Financial Policy 1 – TIF Parameters
1 -2
1.2 TIF Parameters
URA Assistance Purpose: Create URA Assistance Purpose: Enhance
Element
Lump Sum
Payment
Pay Over Time
Lump Sum
Payment
Pay Over Time
Max % TIF
Commitment
Available to
Support Project
75%* 90%** 75%* 75%
TIF Payment
Calculation
Fixed $
Commitment
(a) % of Actual
Annual Tax
Increment
collected
(b) Fixed Annual
$ Commitment
Fixed $
Commitment
(a) % of Actual
Annual Tax
Increment
collected
(b) Fix Annual
$ Commitment
URA Cost of
Capital
Borrowing Costs:
-City Interagency
Loan Policy
-Bank Loan
Underwriting Req.
-Other: Section 108
standards
N/A
Borrowing Costs:
-City Interagency
Loan Policy
-Bank Loan
Underwriting Req.
-Other: Section 108
standards
N/A
Developer Cost
Capital
N/A
-Negotiated
-Limited by the Max
% TIF Commitment
Available
Tax Increment Financing Parameters
URA Financial Policy 1 – TIF Parameters
1 -3
a. In the first year if actual TIF comes in lower than the Estimate of Value, the actual
TIF reimbursed will be prorated based on the actual TIF received.
b. In the first year, if actual TIF comes in higher than the Estimate of Value, the TIF
reimbursed will be based on the original Estimate of Value calculation.
c. The actual TIF paid does not grow with inflation. Once established in (b) above, it
stays constant. Once established by (a), it can grow to equal (b) but not exceed
(b).
Definitions
Create: When existing conditions on a site make private market rate redevelopment impractical (i.e.,
environmental contamination or insufficient infrastructure) so providing TIF assistance removes
financial barriers and helps to create a project that would not otherwise happen.
Enhance: When conditions on a site are such that the likely market rate redevelopment outcome is not
consistent with goals for Targeted Redevelopment and Infill Areas. In these cases, providing TIF
assistance changes the scope of a project so that it conforms, or exceeds identified objectives in City
Plan.
Getting Help
Please contact the Director of Economic Health with any questions at 970.221.6324.
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
November 18, 2013
10:00 to noon
CIC Room – City Hall
Approval of the Minutes from the October 21, 2013 meeting
1. Transfort Business Review 20 minutes K. Ravenschlag
2. Street Maintenance Fee Review 30 minutes J. Ping-Small
3. Budget Policy Review 15 minutes L. Pollack
4. Schedule January’s Meeting 5 minutes M. Beckstead
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
Minutes
10/21/13
10:00 to 12:30
CIC Room
Council Attendees: Mayor Karen Weitkunat, Bob Overbeck, Ross Cunniff
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead, Josh Birks, Marty
Heffernan, Mark Jackson, Tom Leeson, Jessica Ping-Small,
Peggy Streeter, Steve Roy, John Voss, Katie Wiggett
Others: Dale Adamy, Kevin Jones (Chamber of Commerce)
Approval of the Minutes
Bob Overbeck moved to approve the minutes for the September 16 meeting. Mayor Karen Weitkunat
seconded the motion. Minutes approved unanimously.
*For timing purposes, the items were not addressed in the order they appeared on the agenda.
Revenue Policy Review
Jessica Ping-Small noted that the most significant change to the Revenue Policy is the inclusion of 5
revenue principles that give staff and City Council a foundation for making sound financial decisions that
will provide the citizens of Fort Collins a diverse, stable and fair revenue stream equipped to provide the
services necessary to keep Fort Collins great. She presented the following 5 principles:
1. Maintain a diverse revenue base
2. Maintain a stable revenue base
3. Cultivate revenue sources that are equitable among all economic levels
4. Generate adequate revenue to maintain core service levels
5. Maintain healthy reserves
These principles were presented to Council Finance and the Futures Committee in 2012 and again to
Council Finance in January 2013 as part of the ongoing revenue diversification study. Staff has
incorporated suggested modifications in the policy.
Mike Beckstead noted that the reason a “three-legged stool” approach was said to not be practical in
Fort Collins is that municipalities that do incorporate such an approach depend on high property tax or a
city income/occupational tax. Without those two taxes to depend on, across the Front Range,
municipalities commonly depend on sales and use tax. Fort Collin’s revenue from sales & use tax is in
2
the lower end of the middle compared with other Front Range communities. Staff would like to maintain
and continually improve Fort Collins’ diverse revenue base.
Ross Cunniff suggested adding a sixth principle: “Fees for Service are fairly born by those who use those
services.” While this guideline is addressed in the policy, it could be highlighted. Ross also asked to see
the study on the impact taxing services would have in Fort Collins. Jessica will provide the study to
Council Finance.
Financial Management Policy Format and Introduction
Mike Beckstead said that staff is in the process of updating and consolidating all the financial policies
and bringing them to Council for approval. Staff has drafted an introduction to the Financial Policies
that states Council’s ability to deviate from policy when it is in the City’s best interest. An example of
the need for such a provision is seen in the current matter before the Council concerning the interest
rate proposed on a loan between the City and the URA. A deviation from the current investment policy
is proposed to Council because of short fall in estimated revenue and an increase in interest costs from
the September 2011 estimates. Steve Roy added that Council has always had the ability to make an
exception to policy per City Charter; however, it is advisable to incorporate and institutionalize language
that allows Council to make those exceptions.
Bob Overbeck said that he is concerned about there being too many exceptions or amendments made
to City policy. The best practice would be to address any mistake made and insure that that mistake not
be made again. Mike replied that Staff has learned many lessons through the Capstone Project.
Evidence of what staff learned can be seen in the new policy that Josh Birks drafted for TIF’s that
establishes clear boundaries for using that financing method. Also, staff now bases rates off of the
County’s estimate of value which factors in revenue generation rather than the project cost. Council
Finance appreciates staff’s transparency and willingness to continuously improve.
Bob Overbeck requested that, in the future, Staff present stress tests for financing projects presented to
the Council Finance Committee.
New Fees Review
Jessica Ping-Small noted that street maintenance is currently funded primarily through sales tax
including the designated ¼ cent sales tax that has a sunset date of December 31, 2015 and the Keep Fort
Collins Great sales tax. Although sales tax initiatives have been supported multiple times by citizens,
relying on an expiring sales tax has risks such as revenue variability and potential expiration. Staff has
explored the feasibility of a Street Maintenance Fee (SMF) to replace the ¼ cent designated sales tax.
Jessica also noted that Park and Trail Maintenance is currently funded though the General Fund and
$735K of Conservation Trust Funds that were diverted from trail construction in due to funding
shortfalls. Staff has drafted a Park Maintenance Fee (PMF) to generate $735K annually which would
allow the Conservation Trust Funding to go back to trail construction.
Ross Cunniff noted that he certainly wants to fund Parks without using the Conservation Trust.
However, discussing the two possible fees together may be confusing, so Ross suggested that Council
Finance focus first on the more urgent matter of the sun setting street maintenance tax. Council
Finance agreed that they want to discuss Park Maintenance separately at a later date and that they
would like to be brought a broader discussion with all potential funding options.
3
Mike Beckstead called attention to the example fee breakdown for the Street Maintenance Fees. A
triple bottom line analysis showed that this fee would be very hard on small businesses such as fast food
businesses which would be required to pay $10,334 annually. Ross Cunniff noted that the cost of the
fee would be pushed off to the customer, in that way non-residents would still pay the fee just like they
currently pay the tax.
Council Finance discussed various alternatives to the fee. Darin concluded that when the ¼ cent tax
expires in December 31, 2015, the City has 3 options:
1. Continue the tax another term
2. Vote to continue the tax in perpetuity
3. Move to some other funding mechanism such as the proposed fee.
Council will discuss the options at a work session in November. Staff will incorporate Council Finance’s
suggestions into the presentation for November.
Updates
Mike Beckstead noted that the Long Range Financial Plan has been moved out to 2014 given other
priorities in 2013. Completing this task will remain on Financial Services work plan but will be delayed.
A matrix the details council priorities identified and discussed at the May Council retreat is being
developed by Diane Jones and will be presented to the council at the November retreat. This matrix will
illustrate how each of the priorities identified are addressed within the current budget, through the
budget revision process or through staff goals.
Staff will bring an appropriation for the Flood on November 19. The appropriation is still in
development, staff anticipates the total appropriation will be around $2.7M with funding provided by
FEMA and the state covering all but approximately $350K.
Foothills Mall Financial Review
Mike announced that there will be an Open House at the Mall on October 30 from 4-7 p.m. All are
welcome to attend.
He then explained that the planned development at Foothills Mall associated with the Redevelopment
Agreement and incentive package approved by Council on May 7, 2013 has several modifications and
revisions that will be going back to the Planning & Zoning Board in November 2013 and January 2014.
These changes will have a minor impact on the financial incentive package.
In summary, the deal is intact, there is no change to the incentive package, and the financial return to
the City is substantially unchanged. Details from the discussion are highlighted below:
1. The Foothills Mall has reduced in size by approximately 10%.
2. The opening of the Mall is delayed approximately 1 year.
3. The Foothills Activity Center is planned at 18K square feet and to be located in between Macy’s
and the planned parking structure.
4. Estimated sales per square foot have increased from $350 to $378 based on known tenants that
will occupy the Mall.
5. The incentive value of $53M to support the public improvements is unchanged.
4
6. The par value of the bonds has declined slightly from $73M to $71M.
7. The maximum bond payment amount is unchanged at $180M
8. Sales tax remitted as part of the Sales Tax Revenue Pledge is unchanged at $9M.
9. Net new sales tax revenue has increased from $108M to $117M.
This information will be brought to Council at the December 3 meeting.
Next Steps
Staff will add the tentative dates for all future policy updates to the long-term planning calendar.
Staff will bring funding options for Park and Trail Maintenance to Council Finance as a separate
discussion in the near future. Staff will also incorporate Council Finance suggestions to the Street
Maintenance Fee presentation before bringing it to Council in November.
November 18, 2013
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff:
Kurt Ravenschlag, Transfort General Manager
Timothy Wilder, Transfort Service Development Manager
Karl Gannon, Transfort Financial Analyst
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Transfort Business Review: Current Financial Picture and Options for Achieving the
Community’s Transit Vision.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Transfort plays a critical role in the achievement of the community vision, as described in Plan
Fort Collins, for a compact growth pattern with viable travel options. The recent investments in
MAX and supporting east-west transit routes have moved the transit system forward, but there is
still significant progress to be made to achieve a baseline level of transit service in the
community. This baseline is described in the 2009 Transfort Strategic Operating Plan (TSOP)
and includes the transition to a grid network. Fort Collins lags far behind its peer communities in
terms of service provided and investment in transit.
The biggest challenge facing the achievement of a transit service that addresses community
needs is the lack of a comprehensive and diverse strategy to fund service improvements. While
Transfort has a heavy reliance on the General Fund to cover operating expenses, this source is
likely unable to close the gap between the existing transit investment and funding for a baseline
level of transit service. Other funding options need to be explored, as identified by the Citizen
Finance Advisory Committee in the TSOP . We are now at a crossroads where financial
decisions need to be made in order to pursue the community transit vision that supports the
vision outlined in the City Plan; maintain the status quo; or alternatively define another
transportation and land use vision for Fort Collins.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does the Council Finance Committee have the information they need to understand
Transfort’s financial situation?
2. Would the Council Finance Committee like staff to pursue additional funding options or
explore further the ones recommended by the Citizen Finance Advisory Committee?
November 18, 2013
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Transit Vision
The Vision for Transit within Plan Fort Collins is one that will be a safe, affordable, easy, and
convenient mobility option for all ages and abilities. It goes on to state that transportation
planning decisions, management strategies, and investments will support and be coordinated
with the City's land use vision, with transit service to support development of key districts on
high-frequency lines. Plan Fort Collins and the Transfort Strategic Operating Plan (TSOP) state
that the City’s public transit system will be expanded in phases to provide integrated, high-
frequency, productivity-based transit service along major transportation corridors, with feeder
transit lines connecting all major district destinations, consistent with adopted transit plans.
Triple Bottom Line
Transfort is a great working example of the City’s commitment to the triple bottom line of
sustainability. Public transportation addresses social issues by allowing for affordable mobility to
those who may otherwise not have it, spurs economic development, and improves air quality by
reducing emissions of single occupant vehicles. These benefits continue to grow with every
dollar invested in transit.
Demand for Transit
Fort Collins is beginning to see a growing demand for transit that will only continue over the
next 10 -20 years. The population growth in Larimer County is expected to increase by 22% in
the next 10 years, with the population over 65 increasing by 140% over the next 20 years.
Demands for additional transit capacity will be coming from our land use intensification, infill
development, and our ever growing student and youth population. Beyond just demand from
growth, Transfort receives frequent requests for more service from the broader community.
Common requests include a desire for extended hours; Sunday service and service to areas of
Fort Collins not yet served by transit.
Peer Comparison
The peer comparison analysis shows that Transfort is near the bottom of service hours and
investment per capita next to communities most like Fort Collins. Communities for comparison
were selected as peers of Fort Collins on the basis of demographic and geographic characteristics
as well as qualitative factors (e.g., “best of” lists). Based on a methodology developed by the
Transportation Research Board, comparison communities were assigned “likeness” scores for
key attributes, providing a quantitative measure of how alike these communities are to Fort
Collins. The data shows that Fort Collins has an operating cost of $48.56 per capita ($63 with
MAX, $120 with Transfort Strategic Plan baseline), compared to a peer average of $93. Service
hours, which are a measure of the amount of service provided, are .54 hours per capita (.67 with
MAX, 1.3 with Transfort Strategic Plan baseline), compared to a peer average of .93 hours per
capita.
Current Transfort Financial Picture
Transfort’s current funding sources are varied. With an Operating Budget in 2013 of $9.6M,
25% comes from federal operating grants, 7% from intergovernmental agreements, 8% from
fares and advertising fees, 1% from miscellaneous rents and investment income and the balance,
59% from the General Fund and KFCG. Intergovernmental agreements include; Transfort’s
agreement with the Associated Student of CSU (ASCSU) to provide fixed route transit to all full-
November 18, 2013
time fee paying students, to provide extended night service around the campus housing area, and,
in conjunction with Police Services, to provide late night service at the weekends between the
downtown area and student housing via the Safe Ride Home Program. In addition,
intergovernmental agreements also include Transfort’s community partnerships with
communities that are serviced by the FLEX regional fixed route. Inclusive of Transfort’s
agreements with ASCSU, fare revenue, and a grant from the Bohemian Foundation to subsidize
Transfort’s policy of allowing youth to ride free on fixed route service, Transfort’s current fare
revenue recovery is approximately 13% of the total Operating Budget. Funding for capital
projects is an ever increasing challenge for Transfort. The sole remaining dedicated capital
funding source (FTA Section 5309) has been reduced to approximately $300,000 per year but
that does not cover the cost of a replacement bus (approximate price tag of $425,000) and we
may soon find that the age of our fleet is creeping up again – which leads to additional costs on
the maintenance side.
Future Transfort Funding Gap – Transfort Strategic Operating Plan
Transfort’s effort toward implementing the Transfort Strategic Operating Plan (TSOP) brings
into focus the critical need for alternative sources of funding for operations. Under advisement
of the Finance Department, the annual allowable increase for General Fund allocations is 1%.
Currently, the General Fund provides 57% or $5.6M towards the cost of Transfort’s operations.
If Transfort was to achieve full implementation of the TSOP by 2016, the funding gap would
total approximately $6.7M at current rates. Transfort cannot rely solely on increased levels of
federal funding and raising fares, which typically reduces ridership. One of the main functions
of the TSOP Finance Committee in 2009 was to identify additional funding sources to bridge this
funding gap.
TSOP – Citizen Financial Advisory Committee Funding Recommendations
During the 2009 Transfort Strategic Operating Plan development a Citizen Financial Advisory
Committee was assembled with the purpose of developing a set of funding recommendations that
will, in turn, enable the operational recommendations to be implemented. The recommendations
of the FAC were included in the overall TSOP update and approved by City Council. The
advisory committee found that there was no one funding source likely to support the transit
improvements envisioned by the Transfort Strategic Operating Plan. Instead, a combination of
sources would be required. The committee recognized that timing of the funding would have to
be informed by the timing of any improvements in the transit system. And, while this advisory
committee forecasted certain levels of support from each potential source, they recognized that
further discussion and debate may result in changes to the amounts recommended. In evaluating
possible revenue streams for the strategic plan, the advisory committee used several criteria to
evaluate each:
• Reliable and dedicated source
• Fair: Places burden on users, but not undue burden on those least able to pay
• Ease of administration and implementation
• Revenue grows with the community
• Ability for differentiation by community
• Likely success with voters, public acceptance
November 18, 2013
In regard to the last item, likelihood of success, the advisory committee was keenly aware of the
current economic situation, and advised that timing will require careful judgment.
After reviewing a wide range of possible funding sources, the committee recommended further
consideration of the revenue sources as described below by the 2009 committee . These
recommendations reflected the general consensus of the committee except for the Transit Utility
Tax as discussed below.
Maintenance of Effort
Transfort receives municipal general fund revenues, Federal and State support, passenger fares
and other revenue to operate transit service. The TSOP update anticipates continuation of that
effort and growth in fares commensurate with an increased level of service.
Dedicated Sales Tax
A dedicated sales tax is an excise tax on retail goods imposed at the point of sale and dedicated
to a specific purpose. The FAC evaluated several tax rates and settled on testing a 0.25-cent tax
as the appropriate amount for public acceptance. This tax rate is nearly the same as the dedicated
open space tax rate (1/4 cent) in Fort Collins and discussions were held about whether an
additional sales tax or a rededication of an existing sales tax would be appropriate with an
additional increase of 1/10 cent. The group was undecided about which is more appropriate, but
agreed that a dedicated sales tax is necessary for the productivity and reliability of the tax.
Virtually all residents of Fort Collins benefit from transit in one form or another and a sales tax is
borne by most residents. A sales tax increase or rededication will require passage by voters in a
general election.
Transit Utility Fee
A transit utility fee is an additional fee charged on residential and business utility accounts. Fort
Collins operates its own electric utilities and would most likely use these municipal enterprises
as a means to collect the fee. There are several methodologies for calculating this fee: (1) a flat
fee for every electric account; (2) an excise fee based on the amount of the electricity bill; and
(3) a fee based on trip generation factors for different land use types (e.g., residential, office,
retail, industrial). Ultimately the FAC recommended an $8.00 flat fee to be assessed on all utility
accounts.
New Negotiated Agreements
Currently, the ASCSU pays an annual fee of about $520,000 to Transfort in exchange for fare-
free service for all full-time registered Colorado State University (CSU) students. The agreement
is renegotiated every three years and is based on historic student ridership. Transfort is also
actively seeking other partners in a similar arrangement. The revenue projections for negotiated
agreements include assumptions that 2-3 new agreements are established for the sale of similar
discounted passes.
Special Assessment
A special assessment in this context is an annual per household or square foot charge placed on
property within a special improvement district. A special assessment may only be levied against
parcels of real estate that have been identified as receiving a direct and unique "benefit" from a
November 18, 2013
public project, which in this case could be the new Mason Corridor MAX BRT line. The special
assessment rates considered in this analysis are between $200 and $300 per year for residential
units and between $0.05 and $0.06 per built square foot per year for commercial property. The
annual special assessment rates would decline as more residences and commercial
establishments are built as this revenue source is targeted to raise about $1 million at build out.
Funds generated by special assessment may only be used for operation of the Mason Corridor.
The funding mechanisms described above are targeted to place the burden of transit funding on
the community at large and individual populations that benefit from Transfort services. The FAC
concluded that negotiated agreements, continuation of fares and the special assessment target
individual transit users and those specially benefited by transit service improvement. The
continuance of general fund support, transit utility fee and dedicated sales tax is targeted to the
broader community, which also receives benefit from improved transit service. At the end of the
evaluation process, the FAC was pleased with the balance of funding they recommended.
Recommendations were documented by the FAC in a letter prepared for Fort Collins and
Loveland City Councils, City Managers and for the Poudre School District Superintendent on
April 4, 2009.
Bottom Line Issues
The intent of this conversation is to bring awareness to the pending financial challenges that
Transfort will soon be facing and revisit the 2009 TSOP recommendations. The current vision
for transit in Fort Collins and the growing demand for transit services are at odds with
Transfort’s current funding model. Staff feels that the time is nearing where the community
needs to decide: do we develop a strategy to implement the existing vision for transit in Fort
Collins, develop a new vision for transit or maintain the status quo.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: PowerPoint
1
TRANSFORT
Achieving the Community’s Transit
Vision
Staff: Kurt Ravenschlag, General Manager
Timothy Wilder, Service Development Manager
2
Questions for Council
1. Does the Council Finance Committee have the
information they need to understand Transfort’s
financial situation?
2. Would the Council Finance Committee like staff to
pursue additional funding options or explore further
the ones recommended by the Citizen Finance
Advisory Committee?
3
City Plan/Transportation Master Plan
Vision
“Using transit will be a safe, affordable, easy and
convenient mobility option for all ages and abilities”
integrated, high-frequency, productivity based transit service
“The City will be a responsible steward of
transportation resources, ensuring the travel
infrastructure will be high quality and recognized as
world class by residents, visitors and peers.”
sustainable long term funding
4
Transit Triple Bottom Line
More $ Invested in
Local Economy
Social Equity
Mobility Options
Air Quality
Congestion &
Parking
City Plan -
Sustainable City
City Plan -
Sustainable City
5
2009 Transfort Strategic Plan
Addresses community priorities
Establishes baseline transit service
Grid network with central spine
Three phases
Identifies potential funding options
6
Productivity Based Service
7
Grid Network with Central Spine
Phase 3 Frequencies
8
Changing Mobility Needs
Silver Tsunami
Millennials driving 25% less
Service sector employment
Land use intensification
40% increase miles traveled
on public transit
9
Transfort Ridership
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
5 - 6% Average Annual Increase
Public
CSU
10
Peer Community Comparison
• Selection based on
Likeness Scores
• Community
characteristics
• Lower the score =
more like Fort Collins
• Source: Transportation
Research Board
Characteristics Analyzed:
Service Area Population
Population Density
Service Area Size (sq. miles)
% College Students
Cost of Living Index
Qualitative Factors
11
Selected Peers
Ann Arbor
Santa Rosa
Fort Collins
Eugene
Athens
Burlington
Champaign
Asheville
Madison
Portland, ME
Charlottesville
12
Summary of Peer Comparison
Operating Cost
Per Capita
Service Hours
Per Capita
Peer Average $90.66 .93
Transfort $48.56 .54
Lowest Peer $30.92 .54
Highest Peer $178.63 1.74
13
Per Capita Investment vs Peer Average
$-
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
$120.00
$140.00
$160.00
$180.00
$200.00
Existing Service Full Service with MAX (2015) Phase 3 (Strategic Plan)
Transfort
Peer Average
Peer High
Peer Low
14
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
$-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
$180
$200
Service Hours Per Capita
Operating $ Per Capita
Operating $ Investment
Service Hours
Transit Investment Per Capita by Peers
with MAX and Baseline Service
15
2012 – 2016 Transfort Operating Budgets
Sources of Funding
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Not Determined
Miscellaneous
KFCG
Intergovernmental
Agreements
Fees for Services
Federal Operating
General Fund
16
Budget by Service Type
Fixed Route
Operations
55%
Express
BRT Service
29%
Regional
Service
6%
Complementary
Paratransit
10%
17
Frequently Requested Service
Improvements
Improvement Timeframe
East-West connections to MAX Partial Implementation in May 2014
Extended hours Partial Implementation in May 2014
Increased frequencies Partial Implementation in May 2014
CSU service enhancements Under Discussion
Sunday service Unknown – Part of Phase 3
Additional coverage
(e.g., Southeast service)
Unknown;
Timberline Route to be
removed in May 2014
Senior & disabled beyond service area Unknown
18
Baseline Transit Service (Phase 3) Gap
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Phase 3
Not Determined (Gap)
Miscellaneous
KFCG
Fees for Services
Intergovernmental
Federal Operations
General Fund
19
TSOP Citizen Finance Advisory
Committee
• “The purpose of the citizen Financial Advisory Committee
(FAC) is to develop a set of funding recommendations that
will, in turn, enable the operational recommendations to be
implemented”.
20
Advisory Committee Considerations
21
Transfort Strategic Plan –
Recommended Funding
Maintenance
of Effort,
$12,538,213
Dedicated
Sales Tax,
$2,831,248
Transit Utility
Fee,
$3,242,235
New
Negotiated
Agreements,
$228,326
Special
Assessment,
$456,653
22
* unknown
future and
funding
needs
* addresses community
demand
*additional funding
sources needed
*static funding
*does not address
community demand
BOTTOM LINE ISSUES
• Not in financial position to meet community priorities
Achieve
Transit
Vision
At a crossroads for
deciding on the
community’s transit
system….
23
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
• Achievement of City
Plan Vision Requires
Robust Transit System
• Sustainability
• Demand for Transit is
Growing
• Potential to Provide
Community-wide Pass
24
Questions for Council
1. Does the Council Finance Committee have the
information they need to understand Transfort’s
financial situation?
2. Would the Council Finance Committee like staff to
pursue additional funding options or explore further
the ones recommended by the Citizen Finance
Advisory Committee?
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Jessica Ping-Small, Revenue and Project Manager
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
Mark Jackson, PDT Deputy Director
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: Street Maintenance Fee
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Street maintenance is currently funded primarily from 3 sources:
• General fund contributions
• KFCG sales tax
• A Designated ¼ cent sales tax that will sunset December 31, 2015
Although the ¼ cent sales tax initiatives have been supported multiple times by citizens since
originally established in 1990, relying on an expiring sales tax has risks such as revenue
variability and potential expiration. Staff has explored the feasibility of a Street Maintenance Fee
(SMF) to replace the ¼ cent designated sales tax to promote revenue diversification and provide
more certainty in the revenue used to support a basic service.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Council direction on the preferred alternative to support street maintenance
a) Ask voters to continue the 1/4 cent tax prior to its expiration in 2015
b) Implement a Street Maintenance Fee
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Problem Statement
Fort Collins has historically funded Street Maintenance services primarily through a renewable,
ten year quarter-cent sales tax. These revenues, combined with some General Fund and now
Keep Fort Collins Great sales tax dollars, together provide the services and materials needed to
maintain our street system at a “Good” condition, level of service B (LOS B). Proponents of this
model argue that the ten year sunset clause and voter-required renewal builds accountability into
the service, and that the community has never yet failed to renew the tax.
Inherent in this funding model however, is the risk that a tax is not renewed by the voters, thus
placing critical core community services at risk. The street system is the City’s largest asset
investment, and failure to maintain the investment will cost many millions extra in repair and
rebuild expenses, as well as affect travel, commerce and access for the community.
Street Maintenance Revenue
Street Maintenance is primarily funded by sales tax. The designated ¼ cent sales tax and Keep
Fort Collins Great (KFCG) contribute the majority of the funding. The general fund also
contributes a portion of the revenue to street maintenance.
Current Funding Sources:
A portion of the rationale behind the Keep Fort Collins Great sales tax initiative was to fund
critical services such as street maintenance. The current revenue base, including both the
designated ¼ cent and KFCG, allows the City to maintain our streets to meet citizen
expectations.
Street Maintenance Program Summary
The Street Maintenance Program (SMP) provides management of the overall street network and
maintains safe and accessible street pavement, sidewalks, curbs and gutters. Proactive street
maintenance will save millions of dollars over time
Maintenance treatments implemented with the SMP efforts include:
• Surface treatments (a thin surface membrane paired with crack sealing to seal out water
and prevent oxidation; performed on roads in Good condition)
• Overlays (new asphalt surface intended to correct ride and seal the road; performed on
roads in Fair condition)
• Reconstruction (removal of the old pavement down to the soil and replace with new
asphalt; performed on roads in Poor and Very Poor condition)
All maintenance treatments include repairs of existing curb, gutter, sidewalks and pedestrian
access ramps and cross pans. SMP budgets are not used to add missing sidewalks.
$2.3 $2.7 $3.5
$3.3
$1.6 $1.6 $1.9 $1.9 $1.9 $1.9 $1.9 $1.9
$5.6 $5.8
$5.5 $5.2
$5.6 $5.8
$6.6 $6.6 $6.7 $6.9
$6.2
$7.4 $7.4 $7.5 $7.7
$7.9 $8.0
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
$16
$18
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* 2014* 2015* 2016* 2017*
Funding in Millions of Dollars
SMP Funding by Source
Other Funding 1/4 Cent Street Maintenance Tax Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG) *Projected
Street Maintenance Program Assessment
The Street Maintenance Program uses state of the art Deighton software and standardized
pavement conditions collected by third party contractors to project the future condition of the
road system. The system includes thirteen million square yards of pavement with a replacement
value of a half billion dollars. The computer program recommends potential treatment strategies
for the road system and then prepares a cost/benefit evaluation to optimize the individual
treatments for a given budget scenario. These budget options produce a projected average
pavement condition for the system over time. The City of Fort Collins has set a goal to maintain
the average condition as Good or LOS B. Our current budget is sufficient to maintain this goal.
Street Maintenance Costs:
This graphic has been used to show the importance of investing early in the ongoing
maintenance as opposed to deferring maintenance until much more costly repairs or even road
replacement is necessary. Strategic, prioritized maintenance of the street system is good
stewardship of public resources and maximizes the usable life of our roads.
$6-$8 HERE
2012 Pavement Conditions
The above graph shows the condition distribution by road class and for the entire roadway
system. The improved Pavement Conditions Index for arterial roads reflects our commitment on
those roads for the past two years.
Miles of Maintenance Funded by ¼ Cent Sales Tax
This graphic shows the relationship between the ¼ cent Street Maintenance Program sales tax
and the program’s overall ability to maintain the City street network. Prior to the passage of
KFCG, the program was almost entirely dependent on the ¼ cent tax.
In 2013, the street maintenance program performed maintenance on 138 total lane miles. The
breakdown is as follows: arterial roadways -55.3, local roads 82.7.
If the ¼ cent sales tax is not renewed, the street maintenance program will be reduced to 81 lane
miles (41% reduction). There will also be an increase in street deficiencies including pot holes
and a reduced LOS.
Every road performs differently based on the soils, traffic loading and environmental
conditions. The expected life cycle of a properly designed road is 20 years. Roads constructed
prior to these standards can vary widely. Routine maintenance of roads in good to fair condition
can extend the life of the road to 40 years. The maintenance cycle SMP currently uses is 10 to
12 years. We are currently addressing 138 lane miles of road or approximately 38 centerline
miles.
Maintaining the current funding level will ensure the following:
• Overall pavement conditions will be maintained at a LOS B
• Potholes, crack sealing and other ongoing street maintenance will be maintained at
current levels
• Ongoing systematic street maintenance results in safer travel for cars, buses, bikes and
pedestrians and lower vehicle repair costs to citizens
Street Maintenance Fee Summary
History
The Transportation Maintenance or Transportation Utility Fee has a long history in Fort Collins,
dating back to its adoption by City Council in 1988 and a subsequent review of the fee by the
Colorado Supreme Court. A court challenge regarding the ability of the City to levy such a fee
was made and the case was argued at the Colorado State Supreme Court. In the case, the court
found that the fee was not a property tax, excise tax or special assessment, but rather a special
service fee. Though the fee was upheld, the fee was discontinued.
In 2005, staff embarked on a second journey to implement a Transportation Maintenance Fee
(TMF). The proposed street maintenance fee was not a replacement of the ¼ cent sales tax but
was in addition to the existing ¼ cent sales tax. The ordinance was passed on first reading;
however, between first and second reading, the Library District was formed. The creation of the
Library District freed up General Fund dollars for street maintenance therefore the ordinance did
not pass second reading.
Fee Overview
A Street Maintenance Fee (SMF) would be charged on City utility bills for maintaining City
streets, bike lanes, medians (excluding landscaping) and City maintained sidewalks.
Maintenance includes such work as keeping pavement surfaces in good condition, performing
seal coats as needed, repairing potholes and cracks, repaving and other work to keep our
transportation system safe. This fee is being considered as an alternative to asking voters to
renew the ¼ cent sales tax approved by voters in 2005 that expires at the end of 2015.
The fee would be assessed based on a flat fee for residential residents and on trip generation non-
residential properties. The fee would be assessed on the following parcel use categories:
• Residential
• Commercial
• High-Traffic Retail
• Retail
• Industrial
• Institutional
The basis of this fee is to charge users of the City’s transportation system for a portion of its
maintenance. By charging a fee for the cost of maintenance, a portion of the system would be
funded by the parties most frequently using the streets and most directly benefiting from its
maintenance.
The fee would be based on the actual cost of maintaining the system, including City streets, bike
lanes, medians (excluding landscaping) and City maintained sidewalks. The fee would be
allocated to different users based the “Trip Generation Methodology.” This methodology
estimates the average number of trips each type of user generates in a day. This results in a fee
structure in which users pay in rough proportion to the extent they use the system. For example,
users who add 10 trips per day to the transportation system pay a fee much lower than those user
types (i.e. high traffic businesses) that average 300 trips per day. This trip generation theory is
similar to the method used to calculate street oversizing fees, and has also been recognized by
courts as a fair and legally appropriate way of apportioning costs.
Fee Structure:
The fee structure table is the output of the trip generation methodology. Staff took the estimated
revenue needed and applied a trip generation formula by land use to generate the fee. The table
shows the fee per acre by land use, the total revenue by land use and the percent that the land use
contributes to the total.
From a business perspective, high traffic retail and retail which generate the most trips will pay a
higher percentage of the overall fee. Residential users are also assessed a fee based on trip
generation which equates to an estimated $2.99 per month per unit.
The table also includes estimates for consideration if institutional organizations are exempted
from the SMF and the potential for a rebate. If rebates for low income citizens and a waiver of
Street Maintenance Fee
(Enter target here) $ 7,216,500 Pavement Management Need
Total Annual Percent of Fee
SMF Fee Schedule Revenue by Land Use
Institutional $45.30 Per Acre 757,894 10%
Industrial $39.01 Per Acre 297,899 4%
High Traffic Retail $478.45 Per Acre 1,557,960 22%
Retail $191.00 Per Acre 1,913,765 26%
Commercial $45.30 Per Acre 551,458 8%
Residential $2.99 Per Unit 2,137,524 30%
Total Fee $ 7,216,500
Administrative Cost (3%) (216,495)
Revenue Net of Administrative Fees $ 7,000,005
Potential Costs to Consider
Utility Billing Charge (unknown)
Rebate/Delinquencies (1200 estimated) (259,550)
Institutional Exemption
Government (303,386)
Public Schools (307,429)
Private Schools (13,715)
Churches (133,364)
Total Potential Costs $ (1,017,444)
Revenue Sought
institutional organizations were included in the fee structure, the general fund would need to
offset the lost revenue of approximately $1M.
This table illustrates the street maintenance fee using average lot sizes. For example, a fast food
restaurant would incur an annual fee of $10,300 whereas a restaurant in Old Town would have
an annual fee of $460. As the table illustrates, the fee is more impactful for businesses that
Use Monthly
Fee
Yearly
Fee
Lot Size
in Acres
Industrial
Manufacturing $210.66 $2,527.88 5.4
Manufacturing $2,730.74 $32,768.87 70
Retail
Drug Store $401.10 $4,813.24 2.1
Old Town Restaurant $38.20 $458.40 0.2
Old Town Shop $22.92 $275.04 0.12
Large Retail $1,890.92 $22,691.01 9.9
Institutional
Church (large lot) $226.51 $2,718.07 5
Church (small lot) $22.65 $271.81 0.5
Elementary School $244.63 $2,935.52 5.4
High School $543.61 $6,523.38 12
High Traffic Retail
Fast Food $861.21 $10,334.49 1.8
Bank $574.14 $6,889.66 1.2
Convenience Store $382.76 $4,593.10 0.8
Grocery Store $2,822.85 $33,874.15 5.9
Commercial
Law Office $11.33 $135.90 0.25
Motel $63.42 $761.06 1.4
Total Annual Fee Cost Per Residential Unit: $35.88
Total New Fee Revenue $ 7,000,005
Distribution of Total New Fees By Land Use
30% Residential
70% Non-Residential
Sample Street Maintenance Fees
generate more traffic and less so for low traffic businesses. It is logical to assume that the
business owners will pass the fee to their customers through their cost of goods or services.
Pros and Cons Analysis
Tax Fee
Pros Pros
Perception of Accountability Reliable – No expiration
Everyone pays – including visitors Fee is paid by trip generators
Cons Cons
It expires – (could change that) Perception that businesses carry the burden
Regressive Perception that visitors get a free pass
Very impactful to small businesses
General Fund fee waiver back fill possibility
Both the tax and fee have strengths and weaknesses. The primary weakness of the current ¼ cent
tax is that it expires which makes it unstable. The fee has the strength of stability but it can be
very impactful to the business community.
Revenue Policy Analysis
In addition to the pros and cons, staff analyzed the tax vs. fee as they relate to the City’s Revenue
Principles which are scheduled for final adoption by City Council on December 3, 2013. The
principles are part of an effort to create a foundation for staff and City Council to make revenue
decisions. The following table is provided as a visual for how the fee vs. tax align with the
principles.
Principle Fee Expiring
Tax
Permanent
Tax
Maintain a diverse revenue base X
Maintain a stable revenue base X X
Cultivate revenue sources that are equitable among all
economic levels
X
As appropriate, the burden of the cost of services will be
fairly placed on those using the services.
X
Generate adequate revenue to maintain service levels X X X
Maintain healthy reserves. N/A N/A N/A
Additional Considerations:
If City Council chooses to continue the SMF fee discussion, the following items will need
additional consideration:
• Significant public outreach/education
o A full public engagement process will need to occur to engage stakeholders and
educate citizens
• Exemption for Institutional (churches, schools, government)
o The SMF revenue from institutions is estimated at $760k, if an institutional
exemption is considered, the revenue would need to be made up – most likely
from the General Fund.
• Utility billing fee and actual retail space on bill
• Rebate Program
o A rebate program, similar to the sales tax on food and utility rebates would need
to be considered for low income residents
• Delinquency Issues
o Because the SMF would be placed on the monthly utility bill, additional
discussions will need to occur regarding collections
Triple Bottom Line Analysis Summary:
Staff completed a triple bottom line analysis of the fee vs. tax discussion. Included is a summary
of the discussion. The full analysis is included as an attachment.
• Solutions Needed; there is a clear and present need for a tax or fee for street maintenance.
o The current tax sunsets in 2015 and is not adequate to meet public expectations
o The physical need for maintenance has grown past current revenue streams
o These two problems are additive
• Primary flaws identified;
o Fee fatigue has been identified as a substantive community concern
o Construction fatigue from 2012/2013 may frustrate a public if funding is raised
for more maintenance
• Stakeholder engagement; critical and difficult
o Business needs and public expectations may be in direct conflict
o Both a fee and tax will likely result in passing direct or indirect costs to the public
o Visitors and tourists are stakeholders that may be difficult to engage
Conclusions
Maintaining the street system is a critical component of the City’s infrastructure. For the City to
maintain a “Good” LOS B pavement rating, the current revenue levels need to be continued.
Sales tax has been a consistent and reliable funding source for the past few decades; however,
sales tax as a funding source is not without risks.
Sales tax is variable and the expiring model of funding street maintenance, a core service, puts
the ongoing funding in jeopardy. A street maintenance fee (SMF), although a stable and ongoing
alternative funding method for a core service, can be negatively impactful to certain industries
and does not directly account for the impact of visitors to our street system.
Next Steps
The fee will be discussed at the City Council Work Session on November 26, 2013.
ATTACHMENTS
1) Power Point Presentation
2) Benchmark Data
3) Triple Bottom Line Analysis and Synthesis
1
Street Maintenance Fee
Council Finance Committee
November 18, 2013
2
Question For Council
• Which option does Council support as the
preferred alternative for street maintenance
funding?
Option 1 - Continue the 1/4 cent tax
Option 2 - Implement a Street Maintenance
Fee
3
Street Maintenance Revenue
KFCG made it possible to maintain a LOS B or Good. Without
the ¼ cent or KFCG, street maintenance would fall behind quickly.
$2.3 $2.7 $3.5
$3.3
$1.6 $1.6 $1.9 $1.9 $1.9 $1.9 $1.9 $1.9
$5.6 $5.8
$5.5 $5.2
$5.6 $5.8
$6.6 $6.6 $6.7 $6.9
$6.2
$7.4 $7.4 $7.5 $7.7
$7.9 $8.0
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
$16
$18
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* 2014* 2015* 2016* 2017*
Funding in Millions of Dollars
SMP Funding by Source
Other Funding 1/4 Cent Street Maintenance Tax Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG) *Projected
4
How is the 1/4 Cent Revenue Spent?
Surface
Treatments,
$4,353,904
Concrete,
$1,157,061
Administration,
$391,530
Crackseal ,
$327,494
Road Survey,
$99,664
Testing ,
$46,850
2012 Data
Total spending for the full Street Maintenance Program is
in line with how the ¼ cent revenue is spent.
5
Tax/Fee Highlights
• A “street maintenance” sales tax in some form has
been in place since 1990
• The street maintenance sales tax was approved by
a rate of 72.48% when it was last renewed
• A street maintenance fee was first implemented in
1984 – and considered numerous times since - one
was almost adopted by Council in 2006
• The current revenue of approximately $16M
annually is needed to maintain the current level of
service – as the street system and material costs
grow, the revenue will need to grow also
6
Options to Fund Street Maintenance
• Pursue a Street Maintenance Fee
• Ask Voters to renew the ¼ cent Street
Maintenance Sales Tax for an additional 10
years
• Ask Voters to approve a permanent Street
Maintenance ¼ cent Sales Tax
7
Street Maintenance Fee – How Much?
Fee based on current annual revenue projection of the
¼ cent sales tax or $7 million annually.
Land Use Annual
Fee per Acre
% of Fee
Revenue by
Land Use
Institutional $544 10%
Industrial $468 4%
High Traffic Retail $5,741 22%
Retail $2.292 26%
Commercial $544 8%
Residential $36 per Unit 30%
8
Street Maintenance Fee – Examples
Use Annual Fee Lot Size in
Acres
Manufacturing $2,527 5.4
Manufacturing $32,768 70
Old Town Restaurant $458 0.2
Large Retail $22,691 9.9
Fast Food $10,334 1.8
Grocery Store $33,874 5.9
Office $135 0.25
Residential $36 N/A
High traffic retail and industrial land uses will see the most impact.
9
Street Maintenance Fee
A SMF is a stable revenue source yet impactful to the business community.
Tax Fee
Pros Pros
Perception of Accountability Reliable – No expiration
Everyone pays – including
visitors
Fee is paid by trip generators
Cons Cons
It expires – (could change that) Perception that businesses carry
the burden
Regressive Perception that visitors get a free
pass
Very impactful to small
businesses
10
Street Maintenance Fee
• Additional considerations:
– Significant public outreach/education
– Institutional exemption - $760K annually
– Utility bill considerations (fee and space)
– Rebate program
– Delinquency issues
There are significant considerations and public outreach
work to be completed if staff is directed to move forward.
11
Question For Council
• Which option does Council support as the
preferred alternative for street maintenance
funding?
Option 1 - Continue the 1/4 cent tax
Option 2 - Implement a Street Maintenance
Fee
12
Back-up Slides
13
What Street Maintenance treatments
make up current ¼ cent funding?
14
Fee – Approach
• Developed methodology including:
– What is it?
– What will it fund?
– How will it be assessed?
– How much?
– Current funding source – does it go away?
• Additional analysis:
– Benchmark data both locally and nationally
– TBLAM
15
Street Maintenance Fee - History
• In 1984, City Council adopted an ordinance establishing a
Transportation Utility Fee (TUF) to fund street
maintenance
• In 1985 a lawsuit was filed regarding the validity of the
fee
• The validity of the fee was upheld by the Colorado
Supreme Court, however City Council repealed the
ordinance in 1992
• In 2006, City Council was poised to adopt a new iteration
of the TUF but with the formation of the Library District,
the fee was tabled
16
Street Maintenance Fee (SMF)
• Why now?
– ¼ cent Street Maintenance sales tax expires December
2015 (forecasted at $7M in annual revenue)
– Direction is needed on whether to pursue a fee or tax
• What is it?
– A fee assessed monthly on utility bills to residents
and businesses within the City to fund street
maintenance
• What will it fund?
– A portion of the maintenance for streets, bike lanes,
medians (excluding landscaping) and city maintained
sidewalks
17
Street Maintenance Fee
• How will it be assessed?
– Fee calculation based on factors such as:
• Trip Generation
• Land Use Type
• Square footage for commercial
• Who pays?
– Residential households
– Commercial and Industrial properties based on
factors of land use, size and trip generation
Fee calculation is based on the proportional
use of streets by each land use type.
18
Street Fee Benchmark Data
• Street Maintenance Fee:
– Loveland is the only local jurisdiction with one
– Common in Oregon
– Trip generation/land use methodology very common
– Many street maintenance programs funded with
general fund or designated sales tax
November 18, 2013
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
Lawrence Pollack, Budget and Performance Management Manager
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Budget Policy Review
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed revisions to the City's Budget policies are subject to review periodically. These
policies reflect the existing budget methodology and alignment with City Charter and Code.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Are there any questions about the new policy?
2. Are there any changes requested?
3. Is the policy ready to bring to City Council for consideration and approval?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The previous budget policy evolved as part of the Budget document. In that context it focused
on explaining budget concepts rather than setting policy. The new policy was created from
scratch based upon policy guidelines from the Government Finance Officers Association
(GFOA) presented as best practices. As such, a red line version of the previous policy was not
deemed valuable or useful. Staff has come up with a new format for financial policies to keep
them consistent across all departments within Financial Services.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Previous Budget Policy
2. Draft 2013 Budget Policy
Financial Management Policy
Budget Policy Issue Date:
Version:
Issued by:
Financial Policy – Budget Policy
1
1.1 Overview
The Fort Collins City Charter establishes time limits and the essential content of the City
Manager’s proposed budget, however the budget preparation process is not prescribed, but
is developed by the City Manager with input from the City Council.
The fiscal year of the City is the calendar year. The City may adopt budgets for a budget
term of one fiscal year or more. After the Charter amendment in 1997 allowing the budget
term to be more than one fiscal year, the Council has adopted two-year budgets that
correspond with the election cycle.
The budget is a 2-year plan by which the City Council sets the financial and operational
priorities for the City - through the budget, services are implemented. The budget along
with the annual appropriation ordinance provides the basis for the control of expenditures.
The State Constitution and the City Charter provide the basic legal requirements and time
lines for the process. Council goals, ordinances and resolutions provide additional direction
and respond to the needs of the community.
1.2 Principals for Budget Planning
The City provides a wide variety of services to the residents of the community. It is in the
power of the City Council to adopt a budget and manage the available resources to best
meet the service needs for the overall good of the community (City Charter Article II,
Section 5 (c)).
In 2005 the City Council, on recommendation from the City manager, endorsed the
Objective:
Governments allocate scarce resources to programs and services through the budget process. As a
result, it is one of the most important activities undertaken by governments. The purpose of this
policy is to establish parameters and provide guidance governing the budget for the City of Fort
Collins (City).
Applicability:
This budget policy applies to all funds and Service Areas of the City.
Authorized by:
City Council
Financial Policy – Budget Policy
2
Budgeting for Outcomes budget process. At a high level, the budgeting for outcomes
methodology can be summarized as:
1. Determine how much money is available. The budget should be built on expected
revenues. This would include base revenues, any new revenue sources, and the
potential use of fund balance.
2. Prioritize results. The results or outcomes that matter most to citizens should be
defined. Elected leaders should determine what programs are most important to their
constituents.
3. Allocate resources among high priority results. The allocations should be made in a
fair and objective manner.
4. Conduct analysis to determine what strategies, programs, and activities will best
achieve desired results.
5. Budget available dollars to the most significant programs and activities. The
objective is to maximize the benefit of the available resources.
6. Set measures of annual progress, monitor, and close the feedback loop. These
measures should spell out the expected results and outcomes and how they will be
measured.
7. Check what actually happened. This involves using performance measures to
compare actual versus budgeted results.
8. Communicate performance results. Internal and external stakeholders should be
informed of the results in an understandable format.
At that time, the City Council also identified the key outcomes it believed should be used in
the new budget process. In addition, the 2005-2007 Policy Agenda sets forth the
implementation and continued improvement of the collaborative budget process, aligning
spending with desired outcomes.
In 2012, the City Council passed resolution 2012-076 promoting improved results through
performance measures and data-driven decision making. In reference to the budget, an
outcome-based performance measurement system will help ensure that available resources
are used to achieve excellent results at low cost to the taxpayers and will enhance the
citizen’s understanding of the City and the services it provides.
1.3 Scope
A. Comprehensiveness
The proposed budget shall provide a complete financial plan for each fund of the city and
shall include appropriate financial statements for each type of fund showing comparative
figures for the last completed fiscal year, comparative figures for the current year, and the
City Manager's recommendations for the ensuing budget term (City Charter Article V, Part
1, Section 2). In addition, the City of Fort Collins Budget Document may include items such
as:
Financial Policy – Budget Policy
3
1) Statement of organization-wide strategic goals.
2) A description of the budget process, including a timeline.
3) A Glossary of Budget Terms.
4) A City of Fort Collins organizational chart.
5) Letter from the City Manager.
6) Budget Overview which may include:
a) The economic outlook;
b) Revenue assumptions;
c) Summary of use of reserves;
d) Budget priorities and highlights.
7) Copy of signed appropriation ordinance and a schedule of 2nd year proposed
appropriations.
8) Revenue, expense and changes in fund balance summaries.
9) Summary of employee full-time equivalent staffing by service area and department.
10) A section for each of the key strategic Outcomes, which may include:
a) Information indicating how the Offers in the Outcome are funded, by fund;
b) Major key purchases;
c) Major enhancements purchased;
d) Detailed listing of all offers funded and unfunded;
e) Strategic objectives of the Outcome.
11) Fund Statements.
12) Overview of debt position.
13) Current Capital Improvement Plan.
14) Summary of changes to user fees.
15) Summary of property tax mill levy and assessments.
The annual appropriation ordinance shall also include the levy in mills, as fixed by the
Council, upon each dollar of the assessed valuation of all taxable property within the
city, such levy representing the amount of taxes for city purposes necessary to provide,
during the ensuing fiscal year, for all properly authorized expenditures to be incurred
by the city, including interest and principal of general obligation bonds. If the Council
fails in any year to make said tax levy as above provided, then the rate last fixed shall
be the levy fixed for the ensuing fiscal year and the Financial Officer shall so certify
(City Charter Article V, Part 1, section 5).
B. Budget Form
The City of Fort Collins uses the Budgeting For Outcomes model to create the City budget. A
new budget is designed from the ground up based on the results desired in each of the
Outcomes defined by the City. The BFO budget-building process includes four steps:
1) Determine how much revenue will be available (the price people pay);
2) Determine the priorities of the City and its citizens and the results to be achieved;
Financial Policy – Budget Policy
4
3) Allocate the revenue needed to achieve the desired results;
4) Determine which budget items will best produce the desired results at the price
allocated.
C. Basis of Budgeting
All budgetary procedures conform to state regulations and to generally accepted accounting
principles. The basis or principle used for budgeting is the same as that used for
accounting, with a few exceptions, and varies according to the fund type.
Governmental Funds use the modified-accrual basis of accounting. This means that revenues
are recognized when they are earned, measurable and available. Expenditures are
recognized in the period that liabilities are due and payable. The budgetary basis is the
same and is used in the General Fund, Special Revenue and Debt Service Funds, and Capital
Project Funds.
Proprietary and Fiduciary Funds use the full accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are
recognized when they are earned and expenses are recognized when liabilities are incurred.
However, the budgetary basis in these funds is primarily based on the modified-accrual
approach. Instead of authorizing budget for depreciation of capital assets, the budget
measures and appropriates cash outflows for capital acquisition and construction, which is
a modified-accrual approach. In full accrual based accounting debt proceeds are recorded as
liabilities rather than a revenue (funding source). For these reasons a reconciliation and
adjustment is made on these fund statements to show the difference between the budgetary
basis and the accounting basis.
D. Budget Calendar
The fiscal and accounting year shall be the same as the calendar year. "Budget term" shall
mean the fiscal year(s) for which any budget is adopted and in which it is to be
administered. Council shall set by ordinance the term for which it shall adopt budgets in
accordance with this Article (City Charter Article V, Part 1, section 1).
On or before the first Monday in September, commencing in 2010 and every other year
thereafter, the City Manager shall file with the City Clerk a proposed budget for the City for
the ensuing two-year term (City Charter Article V, Part 1, section 2). The Council shall,
within ten (10) days after the filing of said proposed budget with the City Clerk, set a time
certain for public hearing and cause notice of such public hearing to be given by publication.
At the hearing, all persons may appear and comment on any or all items and estimates in
the proposed budget. Upon completion of the public hearing the Council may revise the
budget estimates (City Charter Article V, Part 1, section 3).
After said public hearing and before the last day of November preceding the budget term,
Financial Policy – Budget Policy
5
the Council shall adopt the budget for the ensuing term. The adoption of the budget shall be
by ordinance. Before the last day of November of each fiscal year, the Council shall
appropriate such sums of money as it deems necessary to defray all expenditures of the city
during the ensuing fiscal year. The appropriation of funds shall be accomplished by passage
of the annual appropriation ordinance. Such appropriation of funds shall be based upon the
budget as approved by the Council but need not be itemized further than by fund with the
exception of capital projects and federal or state grants which shall be summarized by
individual project or grant (City Charter Article V, Part 1, section 4).
Appropriations for each year of the two-year budget will be approved by the City Council
annually. Appropriations for the 2nd year of the biannual budget are adopted during the
budget revision process. That process allows for adjustments to the originally adopted
biennial budget that address new Council priorities or support changing needs based on
economic conditions. The City Manager may present any budget adjustment
recommendations to the City Council in Work Sessions and then Council may amend the
budget and, as required by the State and City Charter, appropriate or authorize
expenditures for the coming fiscal year.
1.4 Roles and Responsibilities
All powers of the city and the determination of all matters of policy shall be vested in the
Council except as otherwise provided by the Charter. Without limitation of the foregoing,
the Council shall have power to adopt the budget of the city.
The City Manager shall be responsible to the Council for the proper administration of all
affairs of the City and to that end shall have power and be required to prepare the budget
and submit it to the Council and be responsible for its administration after adoption.
The City Manager and Chief Financial Officer, along with the other executive directors,
known as the Budget Lead Team (BLT), develop the guidelines, consistent with the policies,
to be used for budget preparation. During the development of the budget, various
department and division representatives may be called upon to provide their expertise.
From April through June, City staff from all departments and divisions prepares the Offers
(budget requests) for inclusion in the budget.
1.5 Budgeting Control System
No appropriation shall be made by the Council which exceeds the revenues, reserves or
other funds anticipated or available at the time of the appropriation, except for emergency
expenses incurred by reason of a casualty, accident or unforeseen contingency arising after
the passage of the annual appropriation ordinance (City Charter Article V, Part I, Section 8
(a)).
Financial Policy – Budget Policy
6
Control of expenditures is exercised at the fund level. Fund managers are responsible for all
expenditures made against appropriations within their fund and can allocate available
resources within the fund.
All appropriations unexpended or unencumbered at the end of the fiscal year shall lapse to
the applicable general or special fund, except for:
• appropriations for capital projects which shall not lapse until the completion of the
capital project; and
• federal or state grants which shall not lapse until the expiration of the federal or state
grant (City Charter Article V, Part I, Section 11).
A. Budget Transfers
Between Funds or Capital Projects
During the fiscal year, the Council may, by ordinance, upon the recommendation of the City
Manager, transfer any unexpended and unencumbered appropriated amount or portion
thereof from one fund or capital project account to another fund or capital project account
provided that:
1) the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged;
2) the purpose for which the funds were initially appropriated no longer exists; or
3) the proposed transfer is from a fund or capital project account in which the amount
appropriated exceeds the amount needed to accomplish the purpose specified in the
appropriation ordinance (City Charter Article V, Part I, Section 10 (b)).
Within a Fund
Budget control is maintained at the departmental level. The Chief Financial Officer Manager
has the authority to approve departmental expenses greater than budget so long as
expenses are less than budget within a fund. In no case may the total expenditures of a
particular fund exceed that which is appropriated by the City Council (City Charter Article V,
Part I, Section 10 (a)).
B. Applicable Amendments to the Budget
Budget Increases
There generally are four opportunities during the fiscal year for supplemental additions to
the current year annual appropriation approved by Council:
1) The first is through the encumbrance carry-forward process whereby approved
purchase orders that cannot be executed prior to the end of the fiscal year will have
available budget carried forward into the new year.
Financial Policy – Budget Policy
7
2) The second is usually adopted in March/April to re-appropriate funds from the previous
year’s ending balance for projects or obligations that were approved but not completed
during that year.
3) The third opportunity in the 2nd half of the year is used to fine-tune (clean-up) the
current fiscal year for previously unforeseen events. In addition, if revenue is received
during the fiscal year from a source that was not anticipated at the time of budget
adoption or appropriation for the fiscal year, such as grants or implementation of a new
fee, Council may appropriate that unanticipated revenue for expenditure when received
anytime during the year.
4) Lastly, the Council, upon recommendation of the City Manager, may make supplemental
appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year; provided, however, that
the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous
appropriations for that fiscal year, shall not exceed the then current estimate of actual
and anticipated revenues to be received by the city during the fiscal year. This provision
shall not prevent the Council from appropriating by ordinance at any time during the
fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from reserves accumulated in
prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously appropriated (City
Charter Article V, Part I, Section 9).
Budget Decreases/Frozen Appropriations
The budget may be decreased below adopted appropriations during the fiscal year due to
changes in service demand, changes in economic conditions, and/or changes in Council
goals. Each service area is responsible for developing a plan to reduce appropriations,
which will be ready for implementation should the need arise. If the City Manager directs
budget reductions, Council will be informed and the appropriations will be “set aside”
through administrative action. While the appropriation amount is not changed,
expenditures shall not exceed the reduced amount recommended by the City Manager.
1.6 Balanced Budget Definition
All funds are required to balance. As such, total anticipated revenues must equal the sum of
budgeted expenditures for each fund. Revenues are derived from two sources: current
revenue charges and unallocated reserves carried forward from prior years.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT POLICIES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Financial Management Policies are a compendium of all City policies that shape
the Budget. They are intended to assist the Council and the City Manager in preparing
the Budget and help communicate to residents and customers how the community
goals are being addressed.
BUDGET POLICY
1.1 Overview ......................................................................................................
1.2 Charter Process Requirements ....................................................................
1.3 Changes to Adopted Budget ........................................................................
1.4 Lapsed Appropriations .................................................................................
1.5 Budget Philosophy and Preparation ............................................................
1.6 Principles for Budget Planning .....................................................................
BUDGET POLICY
1.1. OVERVIEW
The budget is a long-range plan by which the City Council sets financial policy. Through
the budget, services are implemented. The budget along with the annual appropriation
ordinance provides the basis for the control of expenditures. For the City of Fort Collins,
direction for the budget emanates from many distinct sources. The State Constitution
and the City Charter provide the basic legal requirements and time lines for the process.
Council goals, ordinances and resolutions provide additional direction and respond to
the needs of the community. (INCLUDED)
1.2. CHARTER PROCESS REQUIREMENTS
a. Budget Term
The fiscal year of the City is the calendar year. The City may adopt budgets for a
budget term of one fiscal year or more. After the Charter amendment in 1997
allowing the budget term to be more than one fiscal year, the Council has adopted
two-year budgets that correspond with the election cycle. (INCLUDED)
b. Budget Recommendation
On or before the first Monday in September preceding each budget term, the City
Manager shall file with the City Clerk a proposed budget for the ensuing budget
term along with an explanatory message. The proposed budget shall provide a
complete financial plan for each fund of the City and shall include appropriate
financial statements for each type of fund showing comparative figures for the last
completed fiscal year, comparative figures for the current year, and the City
Manager=s recommendations for the ensuing budget term. (INCLUDED)
c. Public Record, Hearing
The City Manager=s proposed budget shall be a public record and be available to
the public for inspection and copying. The City Council shall, within ten (10) days
after the filing of the proposed budget, set a time for a public hearing. At the
hearing, the public may comment upon the proposed budget. (INCLUDED)
d. Adoption of Budget and Appropriation of Funds
After the public hearing and before the last day of November preceding the budget
term, the Council shall adopt the budget, by ordinance, for the ensuing term.
Before the last day of November of each fiscal year, the Council shall appropriate
such sums of money as it deems necessary to defray all expenditures of the City
during the ensuing fiscal year. The appropriation of funds shall be accomplished
by passage of the annual appropriation ordinance. The appropriation of funds shall
be based upon the budget as approved by the Council but need not be itemized
further than by fund with the exception of capital projects and federal or state
grants, which shall be summarized by individual project or grant. (INCLUDED)
1.3. CHANGES TO ADOPTED BUDGET
After the commencement of the fiscal year, the amounts appropriated for the proposed
expenditures in the adopted budget are not subject to repeal and are considered
appropriated for the purposes specified. The expenditures of City operating funds
cannot exceed the budgeted appropriations for their respective fund. In certain cases,
however, adopted budgets may be increased, decreased, or amounts transferred
between funds.
a. Budget Increases (INCLUDED)
1. Supplemental Appropriations B The Council, upon recommendation by the
City Manager, may make supplemental appropriations from actual revenues
received, anticipated revenues, and prior year reserves provided that the total
amount of the supplemental appropriation plus previous appropriations for the
fiscal year does not exceed the actual or anticipated revenue total or the
available reserve balance. No appropriation can be made which exceeds the
revenues, reserves, or other funds anticipated or available except for
emergencies due to accident or unforeseen event arising after the adoption of
the annual appropriation.
2. Unanticipated Revenue B If a fund receives revenue during the fiscal year
from a source that was not anticipated at the time of budget adoption such as
grants, bond issue or implementation of a new fee, Council may appropriate
such revenue for expenditure.
3. Encumbrance Carryover B If a fund has open and valid purchase orders at
the end of a fiscal year, those related appropriations are encumbered and
carried over to the ensuing fiscal year and added to the budgeted
appropriations to cover the actual expense when it occurs.
b. Budget Decreases (INCLUDED)
The budget may also be decreased below adopted appropriations during the fiscal
year. Changes in service demand, economic conditions, projected growth limits,
and Council goals and direction may cause such budget reductions. Each service
area is responsible for developing a plan to reduce appropriations. Each plan must
be in place and ready for implementation should the need arise. If the City
Manager directs budget reductions, Council will be informed immediately and the
appropriations will be set aside through administrative action. While this
administrative action does not lower the appropriations within a fund, expenditures
from the fund shall not exceed the amount recommended by the City Manager. If
the circumstances leading to the implementation of reductions change, the
appropriations may be made available for expenditure.
c. Level of Control and Budget Transfers (INCLUDED)
1. Control of expenditures is exercised at the fund level. Fund managers are
responsible for all expenditures made against appropriations within their fund
and can allocate available resources within the fund.
2. During the fiscal year, the Council may by ordinance and upon the
recommendation of the City Manager, transfer any unexpended and
unencumbered appropriated amount from one fund or capital project account
to another fund or capital project account, provided that:
(a) the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be spent remains
unchanged;
(b) the purpose for which the funds were initially appropriated no longer
exists; or
(c) the transfer is from a fund or capital project account in which the
amount appropriated exceeds the amount needed to accomplish the
purpose specified by the appropriation.
1.4. LAPSED APPROPRIATIONS (INCLUDED)
All appropriations not spent or unencumbered at the end of the fiscal year lapse into the
fund balance applicable to the specific fund, except for:
a. Capital Projects - appropriations for capital projects which do not lapse until the
project is completed and closed out; and
b. Grant Funds - appropriations for federal or state grants which do not lapse until
the expiration of the grant.
Council can terminate a capital project or a federal or state grant at any time prior to
completion of the project or expiration of the grant.
1.5. BUDGET PHILOSOPHY
a. Philosophy (NOT INCLUDED)
The City of Fort Collins is committed to presenting a sound financial plan for
operations and capital improvements within growth limit guidelines. To achieve
this end, the City utilizes conservative growth and revenue forecasts and:
$ Prepares multi-year financial plans for operations and capital improvements;
$ Allows staff to manage the operating and capital budgets, with City Council
deciding allocations in both;
$ Adopts financial management policies which establish guidelines for multi-
year financial plans;
$ Establishes budgets for all funds based on adopted policies;
$ Appropriates the budget in accordance with the City Charter and State
Constitution;
$ Adjusts the budget to reflect changes in the local economy, changes in
priorities, and receipt of unbudgeted revenues;
$ Organizes the budget so that revenues are related to expenditures as much
as possible;
$ Provides department managers with immediate access to revenue and
expenditure information for controlling their annual expenditures against
appropriations;
$ Utilizes a performance measurement system for all activities in the City;
$ Evaluates recommendations that have a budget impact in light of annual
appropriations and multi-year financial plans.
b. Budget Preparation (INCLUDED)
While the Charter establishes time limits and the essential content of the City
Manager=s proposed budget and the adoption of the budget, the language is silent
on the budget preparation process.
The City=s Financial and Management Policies guide budget preparation and long-
range planning. The City Manager, Deputy City Manager, Budget Director, and
designated Service Area Directors develops the guidelines, consistent with the
Policies, to be used for budget preparation. The aforementioned individuals are
collectively referred to as the Budget Leadership Team. During the development of
the budget, various department and division representatives may be called on to
provide their expertise . In addition, the City Council and the Executive Lead Team
provide guidance during preparation.
The City=s 2006-2007 biennial budget was prepared using a process called
Budgeting for Outcomes (ABFO@). The purpose of utilizing the BFO approach is
to:
$ Identify what=s important to a community and develop a sound financial and
service plan to achieve those outcomes;
$ Allocate dollars based on current priorities and results, not simply increase
last year=s spending;
$ Effectively deal with revenue limitations; and
$ Emphasize accountability, efficiency, innovation and partnerships.
In March, programs develop multi-year revenue projections and submit them to the
Budget Office. These revenue projections effectively Aset the price of
government@; the amount available for purchasing outcomes/results. City Council
adopts the outcomes/results that form the foundation of the budget. The revenues
are then allocated, by the Leadership Team, across the outcomes. Results
Teams, organized by outcome/result, prepare ARequests for Results@ (ARFR=s@)
that include strategy maps, two to three high level indicators to measure results,
and purchasing strategies. Sellers (departments/divisions) prepare Aoffers@ in
response to the RFR=s. The Seller=s offers are reviewed by the Results Teams,
ranked, and recommended for inclusion or omission from the City Manager=s
recommended budget, based upon the offer=s merits and the resources available,
given the outcome/result.
The City Manager=s budget recommendation is submitted to City Council before
the first Monday in September. The recommended budget is made available for
public inspection at this time. In September, a recommended budget-in-brief is
published in the local newspaper for public information. In addition, two public
hearings and Council work sessions are held in September and October. The
budget for the ensuing budget term is adopted no later than November 30.
1.6 PRINCIPLES FOR BUDGET PLANNING
The City provides a wide variety of services to the residents of the community. It is the
responsibility of City Council to adopt a budget and manage the available resources to
best meet the service needs for the overall good of the community. (INCLUDED)
To aid in planning for the allocation of resources to meet the good of the whole
community, Council adopted Resolution 2001-161, that set forth the Principles for
Budget Planning. Those Principles as adopted by Council are as follows: (NOT
INCLUDED FROM HERE DOWN)
a. The City should strive to attain the lowest possible interest rates on debt in order to
minimize the cost to taxpayers and users of City services.
b. The City should maintain adequate reserve levels to ensure minimal loss of service
to the community should there be unforeseen reductions in revenues or a
catastrophic occurrence.
c. Employees of the City are a valuable resource in providing services to the
community, and a compensation policy should be maintained for City employees
that reflects the value of attracting and retaining quality employees.
d. Primary services are those services that are necessary for the good of the entire
community. They are basic to the safety, health, and welfare of the community,
and the allocation of all resources necessary for the provision of primary services is
the first priority in budget preparation. Primary services are:
Police
Fire
Development Review
Affordable Housing
Neighborhood and
Building Services
Water
Transportation
Electric
Engineering
Pedestrian Access
Wastewater
Stormwater
Natural Resources
Facilities Maintenance
(all public facilities
including parks)
e. Secondary services are those services that enhance the quality of life of the
residents and to many, increase the value of living and working in the community.
While the value of secondary services is recognized, the allocation of resources to
those services shall be considered only after the necessary allocation has been
made to fund primary services. Secondary services are:
Recreation
Human Rights
Golf
Parks
Library
Human Services Contract
Natural Areas
Performing Arts
Cemeteries
Airport
Museum
f. Support services provide the management, guidelines, and operational assistance
to carry out the provision of primary and secondary services. Resources should be
allocated to support services to support the level and quality of primary and
secondary services expected and desired by the community. Support services are:
General Administration
Budget
Clerical Support
Information Technology
Real Estate Services
Finance
Human Resources
Fleet Management
Geographic Information
Systems
Legal
City Clerk
Municipal Court
g. No new services, other than those identified as primary services, shall be
undertaken by the City until all existing primary, secondary, and support services
have received a sufficient level of funding to meet the needs of the community.
h. Any adjustment to the existing budget shall take into account the effect that such
adjustment would have on future budget resources.
N/A
-Negotiated
-Limited by the Max
% TIF Commitment
Available
% TIF
Contribution
relative to Total
Project Cost
25% 15%
*Includes borrowing costs
**Max % TIF Commitment on Future Prospect South projects limited to 75%
1.3 General Procedures:
A. The Larimer County Estimate of Value provided to the developer/property owner shall
be utilized for estimating future tax increment collections associated with a project. There
shall be no annual appreciation applied to the estimate.
B. Growth Estimate in cash flow analysis will be held at 0%
C. Cash flows shall be based on absolute dollars and NPV. The discount rate used shall equal
the URA cost of capital.
D. The term of a City loan to the URA shall be based on the estimated TIF stream. The term
shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible given the estimated cash flow.
E. The minimum time to process the request for payment from the development will be 90
calendar days.
F. In the pay over-time as a Fixed Annual $ Commitment as described in (b) above: