HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Mail Packet - 12/17/2013 - Council Finance Committee And Ura Finance Committee Agenda Dec. 16, 2013Council Finance Committee & URA Finance Committee
Agenda Planning Calendar 2013-14
RVSD 12/5/13 kw
Dec. 16 TOPIC TIME WHO
CFC
Road to Zero Waste – How much will it cost? 30 min S. Gordon
Audit Findings and Recommendations: Status of Corrective Actions 15 min J. Voss
M. Pfleiger
Financial Management Policy Overview 30 min M. Beckstead
URA Financial Review URA 30 min M. Beckstead
Jan. 13 TOPIC TIME WHO
CFC
Parks Maintenance and Funding 45 min M. Heffernan
Policy Review – Reserve/Fund Balances 30 min J. Voss
URA
Feb. 10 TOPIC TIME WHO
CFC
Grocery Tax and Utility Rebates: 2013 report 30 min J. Ping-Small
Briefing on Forming a Parking Fund 15 min R. Hensley
J. Voss
TIF – Exempt Tax Districts Analysis 45 min M. Beckstead
PFA IGA Revenue Allocation Formula 30 min M. Beckstead
T. Demint
URA
Mar. 17 TOPIC TIME WHO
CFC
2013 Financial Highlights 45 min J. Voss
URA
Future Council Finance Committee Topics:
• Fund Balance Update - Q2
• Capital Improvement Funds Policy Review
• General Policy Review
• Revenue Implications of Annexation
• Review Special Improvement Districts
• Budget Policy Review
Future URA Committee Topics:
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
AGENDA
Council Finance & Audit Committee
December 16, 2013
10:00 to noon
CIC Room – City Hall
Approval of the Minutes from the November 18, 2013 meeting and of the revised Minutes from
the October 21, 2013 meeting.
1. Road to Zero Waste – How Much Will it Cost? 30 minutes S. Gordon
2. Audit Findings and Recommendations: 15 minutes J. Voss &
Status of Corrective Actions M. Pfleiger
3. Financial Management Policy Overview 30 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
11/18/13
10:00 to 12:00
CIC Room
Council Attendees: Mayor Karen Weitkunat, Bob Overbeck, Ross Cunniff
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead, Josh Birks, Karl Gannon,
Bruce Hendee, Mark Jackson, Diane Jones, Tom Leeson, Ken
Mannon, Lawrence Pollack, Kurt Ravenschlag, Jessica Ping-
Small, Peggy Streeter, Steve Roy, John Voss, Katie Wiggett,
Timothy Wilder
Others:
Approval of the Minutes
Bob Overbeck said that the October 21 minutes did not include all of the discussion items from the
meeting and asked that the minutes be revised to include all pertinent discussion items. The amended
minutes will be brought for approval at the December 16 meeting.
Transfort Business Review
Kurt Ravenschlag explained that Transfort plays a critical role in the achievement of the community’s
vision for a compact growth pattern with viable travel options. Fort Collins is seeing a growing demand
for transit and Transfort receives frequent requests for extended hours, Sunday service and service to
areas that are currently not serviced. Recent investments in MAX and supporting east-west transit
routes have moved our transit system forward, but significant progress is needed to achieve a baseline
level of transit service.
The 2009 Transfort Strategic Operating Plan (TSOP) concluded that Fort Collins is near the bottom of
service hours and investment per capita compared to peer communities:
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
2
Timothy Wilder explained that peer communities were selected based of demographic and geographic
characteristics as well as qualitative factors. Based on a methodology developed by the Transportation
Research Board, these communities were assigned “likeness” scores for key attributes, providing a
quantitative measure of how alike these communities are to Fort Collins.
Transfort’s effort toward implementing the TSOP and reaching a baseline level of service brings into
focus our critical need for alternative sources of funding for operations. If Transfort were to achieve full
implementation of the TSOP by 2016 without increased funding, the funding gap would total
approximately $6.7M at current rates.
In 2009, the Citizen Financial Advisory Committee (FAC) found that a combination of funding sources
would be needed to support the transit improvements envisioned by the TSOP. 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
The funding mechanisms would be targeted to place the burden of transit funding on the community at
large and individual populations that benefit from Transfort services. The committee recommended the
following options:
1. Dedicated Sales tax
2. Transit Utility Fee
3. New Negotiated Agreements with ASCSU and other partners
4. Special Assessment
Kurt explained that this conversation was intended to bring awareness to the financial challenges that
Transfort will soon be facing and to revisit the 2009 TSOP recommendations. Staff feels that the time is
nearing when the community will need to decide: do we develop a strategy to implement the existing
vision for transit in Fort Collins, develop a new vision for transit or simply maintain the status quo.
Darin Atteberry said that, with several key funding decisions such as the ¼ cent street maintenance fee
and BOB currently before Council, discussions must be prioritized. The Community does need to have a
conversation about transit, to help decide what level of service the community wants and to give the
community a feel for what is possible. However, it may be 2015 before we want to ask the community
how we can double transit funding. Ross Cunniff noted that the community has voted on transit issues
throughout the years and the voting results have showed an ever increasing desire for better transit.
Darin asked what the national trend is on fair box recovery. Kurt said that the national average is 15%.
Fort Collins is at 13% and, with MAX, should go up to 14%. Our long-term goal is 20%.
3
Ross Cunniff asked if Transfort had considered partnership with the school district. Kurt said that, in
2009, staff had discussions with PSD and Loveland. The schools are currently focused on increasing their
walking area and reduce busing.
Street Maintenance Fee Review
Jessica Ping-Small explained that 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
The ¼ cent sales tax initiatives have been supported multiple times by citizens since 1990; however,
relying on an expiring sales tax has risks such as revenue variability and potential expiration. 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. 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.
The City’s 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 saves millions of dollars over time. The City aims to maintain the average condition as
Good or LOS B. Our current budget is sufficient to maintain this goal which ensures 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
A SMF would be an alternative to asking voters to renew the ¼ cent sales tax that expires at the end of
2015. The SMF would be charged on City utility bills for maintaining City streets, bike lanes, medians
and City maintained sidewalks. The fee would be assessed based on a trip generation model for both
residential and non-residential properties. The evaluated fee was based on replacing the current ¼ cent
tax revenue
The “Trip Generation Methodology,” which estimates the average number of trips each type of user
generates in a day, 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.
Residential users are also assessed a fee based on trip generation which equates to an estimated $2.99
per month per unit. This trip generation theory is similar to the method used to calculate street
oversizing fees and has been recognized by courts as a fair and legally appropriate way of apportioning
costs.
Jess noted that both the tax and fee have strengths and weaknesses. The primary weakness of the
current ¼ cent tax is that it expires, making it unstable. The fee has the strength of stability but it could
be very impactful to the business community, especially small businesses.
4
If Council chooses to pursue the SMF fee discussion, the following items will need consideration:
• Significant public outreach/education
• Exemption for Institutional (churches, schools, government)
• Utility billing fee and actual retail space on bill
• Rebate Program (A rebate program would need to be considered for low income residents)
• Delinquency Issues (Because the SMF would be placed on the monthly utility bill, additional
discussions will need to occur regarding collections)
Darin Atteberry suggested that staff look at a sampling of fast food restaurants (i.e. 4 McDonalds) and
compare the current revenue coming in from the ¼ cent sales tax to projected SMF income.
Understanding how the cost of the fee compares for an individual business would be helpful for
determining equity.
Steve Roy asked what model Staff had used in determining the fee. Jessica answered that Staff used the
Loveland model which considers businesses’ acreage and square footage as well as truck vs. car trip
generation. Bob Overbeck asked why the residential fee was flat rather than based on acreage. Mark
Jackson answered that residential was based on average trip generation, primarily for ease of
administration. Steve Roy noted that the fee needs to be proportional and that it seemed that
nonresidential would take a larger burden than the residential. He suggested that Staff consider
subsidizing the fee with a tax to make it more equitable.
Darin explained that staff is currently leaning toward a renewal of the ¼ sales tax over the fee, and
asked that Council seriously consider continuing the tax into perpetuity. Steve Roy noted that, while a
fee may seem more reliable because it would not expire and would not require a vote, fees are subject
to repeal by Council, so a voter approved tax into perpetuity may actually be a more reliable funding
source.
Mayor Weitkunat stated that she is not a proponent of a fee because she feels that a sales tax more
effectively accounts for the impact of nonresidents. Her initial reaction is to work toward establishing a
¼ cent tax in perpetuity.
Ross Cunniff said that businesses will build the cost of the fee into their cost structure and, in that way,
the fee will be borne by external customers. Bob Overbeck asked if Staff had figured in economic
collapse or downturn in their estimates. Jessica replied that, while we cannot exactly plan for economic
collapse or downturn, Staff has been conservative in their projections. Bob asked if stress tests had
been made to see how much downturn the City can cope with. Darin responded that, because Street
Maintenance is flexible, in the case of a significant downturn, the City would simply reduce service.
Mike added that the City can bare a downturn for a short period of time, as we did in 2008; however,
the longer one postpones maintenance, the greater the cost in the end.
Darin asked Jessica if the business community, which values street maintenance, was in favor of the
SMF. Jessica replied that the Chamber of Commerce would favor a tax over a fee.
Budget Policy Review
Lawrence Pollack explained that the draft budget policy provided to Council is a significant departure
from the previous policy. 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
5
from scratch based on 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. Still a copy of the previous policy was provided with some notes on changes.
Ross asked that the committee discuss the new policy in the meeting today and delay acceptance to a
later date. Darin noted that the nature of the policy seemed to be administrative and asked if it was
really necessary to bring this to Council for approval. Mike Beckstead replied that, in the past all policies
had been brought to Council; however, some were more administrative and some required Council’s
approval. Darin proposed that we determine which policies were administrative and no longer bring
those to Council. Ross suggested that the attorneys could look through the policies and determine
which necessitated Council approval.
Mayor Weitkunat asked to be shown the index again with something showing which policies had been
reviewed and which were waiting for approval. Staff will prepare that index and will bring the Budget
Policy back to Council Finance at a later meeting.
Scheduling January’s Meeting
Mike Beckstead asked the Committee when they would like to reschedule the January 20 meeting that
falls on a holiday. The Committee believed that either the 13th or the 27th would work, so staff could
double check schedules and send out a final date later. (Note: The January meeting will be held on
Monday, January 13 at 10 a.m.)
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
Revised 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.
On principle 3, Ross Cunniff asked whether the City should consider removing sales tax on food to be
more equitable. Mike Beckstead referred him to a recent memorandum that went out to council
explaining the importance of sales tax on food and explaining the rebates we offer to make the tax more
equitable to low income residents.
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. Ross then asked whether tax on internet sales was moving forward as a possibility.
Jessica replied that it is being looked at nationally, and staff has estimated that, if internet sales are
taxed, it will generate an additional $3 M in revenue. The impact is not overly large because several
large companies such as Wal-Mart already collect sales tax on their online products.
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 noted that he would like to see the lessons learned from TIF for RMI and Capstone in
writing. He also requested that, in the future, Staff present stress tests for financing projects presented
to the Council Finance Committee. Bob asked if other organizations were public about mistakes that
they made in TIF projection, sharing in order to help others learn from their mistakes. Josh replied that
since URA law is state specific, the number of URA’s we’d be comparable to is limited; we are currently
involved in state groups that discuss issues with URA’s.
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,
3
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.
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 passed along 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 including creating a fee specifically for parks
(not limited to maintenance) and building sidewalk maintenance into the trail 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.
Ross Cunniff noted that he would like to see more alternatives to the ¼ street maintenance tax. If we do
opt for a fee, we need to ensure that there is equity between users and nonusers. Bob Overbeck asked
that staff look at the possibility of putting a fee on parking permits or yearly vehicle licenses. Ross
Cunniff asked for an estimate of how much sales tax revenue comes from out-of-City users.
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.
4
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.
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.
Bob Overbeck asked that the bullet on slide 3 and slide 18 should be changed to “Maintained cap on
maximum bond payments at $180 M = x in interest.” Bob also asked that staff highlight the issuance
and drop dead dates for the bonds.
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.
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
Revised Minutes (Redline Copy)
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.
On principle 3, Ross Cunniff asked whether the City should consider removing sales tax on food to be
more equitable. Mike Beckstead referred him to a recent memorandum that went out to council
explaining the importance of sales tax on food and explaining the rebates we offer to make the tax more
equitable to low income residents.
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. Ross then asked whether tax on internet sales was moving forward as a possibility.
Jessica replied that it is being looked at nationally, and staff has estimated that, if internet sales are
taxed, it will generate an additional $3 M in revenue. The impact is not overly large because several
large companies such as Wal-Mart already collect sales tax on their online products.
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 noted that he would like to see the lessons learned from TIF for RMI and Capstone in
writing. He also requested that, in the future, Staff present stress tests for financing projects presented
to the Council Finance Committee. Bob asked if other organizations were public about mistakes that
they made in TIF projection, sharing in order to help others learn from their mistakes. Josh replied that
since URA law is state specific, the number of URA’s we’d be comparable to is limited; we are currently
involved in state groups that discuss issues with URA’s.
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,
3
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.
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 passedushed off along 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 including creating a fee specifically for parks
(not limited to maintenance) and building sidewalk maintenance into the trail 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.
Ross Cunniff noted that he would like to see more alternatives to the ¼ street maintenance tax. If we do
opt for a fee, we need to ensure that there is equity between users and nonusers. Bob Overbeck asked
that staff look at the possibility of putting a fee on parking permits or yearly vehicle licenses. Ross
Cunniff asked for an estimate of how much sales tax revenue comes from out-of-City users.
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.
Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri), 11
pt, Font color: Black
Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri), 11
pt, Font color: Black
4
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.
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.
Bob Overbeck asked that the bullet on slide 3 and slide 18 should be changed to “Maintained cap on
maximum bond payments at $180 M = x in interest.” Bob also asked that staff highlight the issuance
and drop dead dates for the bonds.
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.
Formatted: Font: Bold
December 16, 2013
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Susie Gordon, Sr. Environmental Planner and Caroline Mitchell, Environmental Planner
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Road to Zero Waste Goals (implementation)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The “Road to Zero Waste” project is on the Council’s agenda for December 17, for consideration
of new goals for the community. At their November 26 worksession, Council requested more
information about the costs of implementing new waste reduction strategies that will help Fort
Collins increase its waste diversion level.
Several main ideas were expressed in the Road to Zero Waste plan (Attachment 1) that have
financial impacts to the community, including: new City programs that would be funded through
BFO or a new fee; a regional composting facility; regional construction and demolition (C&D)
facility; glass sorting plant; and development of a Resource Recovery Park. Working with the
consulting team, staff has prepared a pro-forma that shows an annualized budget through 2025.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does the pro-forma (attachment 2) that staff has developed for the Road to Zero Waste provide
the level of information that was requested by Council about costs for new initiatives?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Over time, the costs of replacing the community’s aging landfill in 12-15 years are estimated to
range between $20-80M. The Council has urged staff to consider new ways of managing Fort
Collins’ waste stream that departs from traditional landfill disposal. New initiatives include
recycling C&D material, composting organics, developing specialized recycling businesses
(e.g., glass-sorting plant), and new re-use programs. The total costs for these Zero Waste
programs, over time, are shown in a pro-forma analysis to be significantly lower than staying
with the “status quo” of using landfill technology.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Road to Zero Waste Plan
2. Pro-forma: a 12-Year Annualized Budget for Zero Waste Programs
1
Attachment 2
ROAD TO ZERO WASTE PLAN
December 2013 Draft
Prepared by:
Zero Waste Associates
916-652-7850; gary@garyliss.com
858-272-2950; ricanthony@aol.com
www.zerowasteassociates.com
with special assistance from Ruth Abbe, HDR Inc. and Eric Lombardi, Zero Waste Strategies
Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 1
Current Waste Diversion ........................................................................................................ 5
Benefits of More Waste Diversion ........................................................................................... 6
Values and Principles ............................................................................................................. 8
Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................. 9
Goal: Zero Waste ................................................................................................................ 9
Goal: Reduce Per Capita Waste Disposal Rate .................................................................. 9
Objective: Add Value to Local Economy ............................................................................10
Objective: Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................11
Recommendations.................................................................................................................12
1. Culture Change ...........................................................................................................12
2. Reinvest Resources in Local Economy .......................................................................13
3. Universal Recycling ....................................................................................................15
4. Prohibited Materials ....................................................................................................17
5. Construction, Deconstruction and Demolition (C&D) ...................................................18
6. Composting Organic Materials ....................................................................................20
7. Reduce & Reuse .........................................................................................................21
8. Product Stewardship ...................................................................................................22
9. Waste to Clean Energy ...............................................................................................23
10. Funding ...................................................................................................................24
11. Regional Cooperation ..............................................................................................25
Diversion Potential.................................................................................................................25
Triple Bottom Line Impacts ....................................................................................................27
Economic Impacts ..............................................................................................................27
Environmental Impact ........................................................................................................27
Social Impacts ...................................................................................................................28
Implementation ......................................................................................................................31
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 1
Executive Summary
This is a report about a long-term strategic proposal for the $6.5 million worth of valuable
resources that are thrown away every year in Fort Collins. In 1995, the Council adopted a
dramatic new direction for the City to take to provide incentives to get away from the throwaway
society and back to the values of American thriftiness and efficiency. A Pay-as-you-throw
Ordinance (PAYT) was added to the Municipal Code whereby trash haulers in Fort Collins must
charge customers based on the volume of waste generated as well as provide curbside
recycling at no extra charge. The system created a way for households to save money by
reducing their trash bills, and proved to be a good fit for Fort Collins. Those incentives were
improved a number of times through the past 18 years and the Council adopted a strategic goal
in 1999 to divert 50% of all discarded resources from landfills by 2010.
The City has now achieved that 50% goal, or close to it (depending on what is counted)1. It is
time for the City to decide what the new goal will be to guide its efforts and those of the
community over the next 10 to 20 years.
From May through October, 2013, an extensive planning process was conducted that included
direct outreach to stakeholders, meetings with six of the City’s Boards and Commissions, five
“Community Conversations” with more than 250 residents and businesses, input from a Working
Group representing a cross-section of community interests, and tours of many of the existing
reuse, recycling, composting, digesting, and landfill facilities in the Fort Collins area.
Through this planning process, it became clear that:
Fort Collins has made a significant culture change, particularly in the last five years. The
idea of recycling is now embraced by most residents and businesses. When there are
discussions between service providers and citizens now, the questions are not about
whether they should recycle, but how to do it.
Most residents and businesses participating in the planning process either strongly
supported the next goal for Fort Collins to be a Zero Waste community, or accepted that
as a worthy goal.
There are many benefits that will result from pursuing Zero Waste, including:
• Reducing greenhouse gases that will address the urgency of climate change2
• Providing local jobs, income and wealth creation from conserving and using
resources locally rather than landfilling them
• Helping businesses and residents be more sustainable and efficient
1 By 2012, the City of Fort Collins had calculated that the level of waste diversion was 42% for all residential and commercially
generated waste. And, when the City includes the so-called industrial wastes (concrete and asphalt, aggregates and wood waste
from construction and demolition (C&D) projects, organics from breweries, biosolids, and waste from City operations), a “Community
Diversion rate” of 58% can be calculated for 2012.
2 “Rising global temperatures have been accompanied by changes in weather and climate including changes in rainfall, more
floods, droughts, or intensity of rain, as well as more frequent and severe heat waves. 2012 was the hottest year on record for the
contiguous United States and 2012 ranks as the warmest calendar year in the 124-year record for the Fort Collins, CO weather
station at CSU. Health care costs associated with extreme weather events in the U.S. between 2006 and 2009 exceeded $14 billion.
In the U.S., 2012 alone saw 11 weather disasters that cost a billion dollars or more. (NOAA).” Source: Fort Collins Climate Status
Report 2012, page 5, http://www.fcgov.com/airquality/pdf/FC2012ClimateStatusReportLowRes.pdf.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 2
• Promoting local food cultivation and consumption by putting valuable nutrients back
into the soil
• Saving energy and producing local clean energy
• Providing “green” marketing edge for local businesses and Colorado State University
• Protecting health of residents
• Decreasing irrigation water use by applying compost to soils
• Improving air quality and reducing mobile-source emissions by local use of resources
• Reducing use of toxic products
• Protecting and restoring habitat, biodiversity and open space through increased use
of compost products and reducing the need for mining.
There are many City policies that already point the City in the direction of Zero Waste.
The City and its Boards and Commissions are already working to implement City Plan’s
vision of a truly sustainable city that values the Triple Bottom Line and would be
significantly supported by adopting the goal of Zero Waste.
This Plan provides a road map for the City, residents, businesses and visitors to get to Zero
Waste. These services will be implemented primarily through collaboration and partnerships,
encouraging innovations in the community much like the ClimateWise Program that focuses on
education, partnerships and working together. The City’s role is that of convener, catalyst and
developing partnerships, particularly with haulers and processors who have already invested in
this future. It highlights the priorities that need to be implemented to get there:
Culture Change – providing new rules and more incentives, using Community Based
Social Marketing, social media, innovative technologies and software, and harnessing
creative talents in art, music, advertising and social change to reinforce and expand the
change that has already occurred.
Reduce and Reuse – concentrating on helping residents and businesses to live and
operate more efficiently and sustainably, creating more than 400 jobs in the process and
helping those in need to get quality food and goods donated or at very low prices.
Compostable Organics Out of Landfills – eliminating many of the fast-acting, climate
changing gases that are emitted when organics rot in landfills, and returning those as
nutrients to the soil for raising more food locally (after first donating all edible food to
people in need).
Construction, Deconstruction and Demolition – implementing new rules of the
International Building Code developed by the City’s Building Department.
There are three key types of facilities that will be needed in the Fort Collins area to fully meet
the proposed goals:
Commercial composting facility – to process food scraps, food-soiled paper and all
putrescibles and organic materials
Construction and demolition (C&D) materials recycling plant – to process mixed
materials from building and demolition projects
Reuse warehouse – to support the collection of a wide range of reusable products from
a variety of sources, and enable different businesses and nonprofit organizations to
obtain high quality materials to sell at very reasonable prices to residents and
businesses in Fort Collins.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 3
All of these could be located in a single location as a Resource Recovery Park, or they could be
developed individually in different locations. These would be owned and operated by different
entrepreneurs, or the City could help develop one or more of these facilities as a public/private
partnership if needed.
The best locations for these facilities could be considered as part of the development of a
regional Zero Waste Plan that at least includes Larimer County and the City of Loveland, and
ideally includes all those jurisdictions that ship wastes into Larimer County and those
jurisdictions that receive wastes from Larimer County.
The capital costs for these facilities are estimated to be:
Composting - $7-9 million
C&D - $5-7 million
Reuse - $500,000
TOTAL $12.5 - $16.5 million
These investments, along with the rest of the policies and programs recommended in this Plan,
would contribute significantly to recovering the $6.5 million value of materials from the Fort
Collins community that gets buried in regional landfills every year.
The alternative to these investments would be spending $20-$80 million on a new landfill once
the Larimer County landfill closes in approximately 12 to 15 years.
Initial costs for the first several years after adopting the Zero Waste goal would likely be about
$1.00 per household and business per month. The majority of this funding would be for
programs to be conducted by the City to assist in culture change and reinvesting resources in
the local economy. Additional costs would be incurred over the following 10 years through new
rates charged for additional services (e.g., curbside composting) by service providers in the
open competitive marketplace, in response to new rules and incentives adopted by the City,
designed to provide clear direction and a level playing field for investments. The competitive
marketplace will result in the most efficient implementation of programs.
For the City’s future involvement in taking the new path to Zero Waste, new proposals will be
developed through bi-annual City budget processes. The “budgeting for outcomes” system
provides the framework for evaluating the costs and benefits of specific policies and proposals
as opportunities to introduce new measures become feasible and timely.
By investing in three key facilities to support Zero Waste, adopting new policies and
implementing innovative, culture changing programs, the City will dramatically decrease the
need for its own landfill, shifting from today’s focus on waste management to a system that
optimizes the use of discarded materials as resources to help the local economy. Key policies
and programs that are included in the Plan are:
Policies
Provide recycling universally to all residents and businesses
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 4
Prohibit recyclable and hazardous materials from landfilling (like was done for electronic
equipment and recyclable cardboard)
Get compostable organics out of landfills
Reuse and recycle construction, remodeling & demolition debris
Programs
Promote, incentivize and reinforce a Zero Waste culture by making reuse, recycling and
composting convenient at home, work or play and providing clear signs and instructions
that make it easy to participate
Reinvest resources in local economy with technical assistance, grants and loans to
entrepreneurs and service providers
Encourage manufacturers to takeback difficult-to-recycle products and packaging or add
fees to incentivize more sustainable products (e.g., fees on plastic bags)
Promote “Reduce and Reuse” as a priority
Provide multi-family dwellings the same recycling services as single-family
Collect yard trimmings from all residents
Collect food scraps from all residents and businesses once composting facility available
Evaluate and pilot clean waste to energy systems for targeted waste streams
Cooperate regionally to develop programs and facilities
As a road map, this Plan highlights that there are many ways to achieve Zero Waste. The
purpose of this road map is to show that there IS a way to build on our success. Over time, the
City will partner with service providers, residents and businesses to determine the most
desirable and effective ways to get to its destination.
Entrepreneurs and service providers will be assisted in moving down this road to Zero Waste
with the Council’s adoption of a new clear goal for the community, and by the establishment of
priorities to pursue for achieving Zero Waste.
This Plan recommends that Council adopt:
1. A new goal of Zero Waste by 2030, with interim goals:
• 75% diversion by 2020
• 90% diversion by 2025.
2. A new goal for achieving per capita waste generation levels of 2.8 pounds/day by 2025
The Plan also proposes that Fort Collins pursue the priorities for actions that address:
Culture Change
Reduce and Reuse
Compostable Organics Out of Landfills; and
Construction, Deconstruction and Demolition
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 5
Current Waste Diversion
One of the major purposes for preparing this Plan is to set new goals for the future of waste
reduction and recycling in Fort Collins. In 1999, the City Council adopted a community waste
diversion goal of 50% by 2010.
By 2012, the City of Fort Collins had calculated that the level of waste diversion was 42% for all
residential and commercially generated waste. And, when the City includes the so-called
industrial wastes (concrete and asphalt, aggregates and wood waste from construction and
demolition (C&D) projects, organics from breweries, biosolids, and waste from City operations),
a “Community Diversion rate” of 58% can be calculated for 2012.3
Of the total materials recycled by residential and commercial recycling programs, residential
programs (both curbside and all drop-off materials) recovered about 23% of the total amount of
recyclables. Commercial programs recycled the
remaining 77% of these materials.
Some major businesses in Fort Collins have
reported that they have diverted over 90% of
their discarded materials from landfills and
incinerators, including:
New Belgium Brewery
Hewlett-Packard
Woodward
Anheuser-Busch
Intel
The City’s 1999 50% goal has been
achieved, or close to it (depending on what is
counted).4 The City should celebrate this
important accomplishment and the city’s
residents, businesses and service providers
should all be commended for this achievement.
However, there is still plenty of room for
improvement.
3 Source: Fort Collins Climate Action Plan 2011, page 18-19.
http://www.fcgov.com/airquality/pdf/2011_CAPStatusReport_FINAL.pdf
4 The quality of data that is collected continues to improve from year to year, as well as the analysis of that data. However, as a
result, it is difficult to get a clear trend of some of the detailed information from year to year. Data is now collected from a variety of
required sources (e.g., all waste haulers) and many voluntary sources (e.g., collectors of scrap metals, yard trimmings, concrete,
asphalt, e-waste and textiles). Additional reporting from haulers (e.g., separating multi-family residential from commercial) and other
aspects of community waste diversion (e.g., reuse operations) is needed to track this information better.
Businesses that divert over 90% of their
wastes from landfills, incinerators and
the environment are considered Zero
Waste Businesses, according to the
principles of the Zero Waste
International Alliance (ZWIA) at
www.zwia.org/standards. There are
thousands of businesses that have
achieved Zero Waste all over the world,
and hundreds of communities have
adopted a Zero Waste goal. The
remaining 10% of discarded material
highlights that more work is still to be
done, and ZWIA calls for businesses to
continue to reduce wasting through a
minimum of 1% or better per year of
continuous improvement.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 6
Benefits of More Waste Diversion
It’s clear that there is still much more that could be done to reduce wastefulness and increase
reuse, recycling and composting. Large businesses are leading the way to higher waste
diversion and “Zero Waste” in Fort Collins. Of particular significance is that the industrial
diversion rate was 70%, which contributes significantly to this overall higher community
diversion rate. The industrial diversion rate may be as high as it is because Zero Waste
businesses are able to show that they save money, reduce their liabilities, reduce their
greenhouse gases, and increase their efficiency and productivity. These are key drivers for
large businesses to have embraced Zero Waste in recent years.
Of particular significance is that the largest percentage decrease of all climate change
emissions between 2005 and 2012 in Fort Collins occurred in the waste sector, which reported
a 66.7% drop.5
Another benefit is extending the life of the Larimer County Landfill. Larimer County recently
reported that there are only 12 to 15 years of remaining life at the landfill, at current rates of use.
And each time there are major natural disasters in the area, such as catastrophic flooding that
occurred in September 2013, more materials are placed in the County landfill. The more
aggressive the waste reduction goals adopted by the City, the more the City and County will be
5 2012 Climate Status Report, page 8. http://www.fcgov.com/common/images/spotlight_image.php?id=1609&type=3
There are many other benefits to the community that could come from pursuing
higher waste diversion goals and helping both businesses and residents be
more sustainable and efficient, including:
Local jobs and economic development from conserving and using
resources locally rather than landfilling them
Promoting local food and nutrients back to soil
Protecting health of residents
Saving energy and producing clean energy – reducing, reusing and
recycling materials and products conserves 3-5 times the amount of
energy that could be produced by burning those materials. Once all
materials are reduced or recovered, there are different technologies
that could produce energy from remaining materials
Decreasing local water use by using compost
Improving local air quality and reducing mobile emissions through
more local use of resources
Reducing the use of toxic products
Protecting and restoring habitat, biodiversity and open space through
increased use of compost products and reducing the need for mining
Providing “green” marketing edge for local businesses and Colorado
State University
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 7
Zero Waste refers to taking a systems
approach to eliminating wasteful
practices, setting up reuse systems,
recycling and composting to
maximize the highest and best use of
resources that can then be reinvested
in the local economy to create more
income, wealth and jobs for residents.
able to extend the life of this landfill. A primary benefit is postponing the significant costs of
building a new landfill in the future, which could cost up to $80 million.6
Much more could be done by residents and smaller businesses to achieve higher waste
diversion. The success of major businesses shows what can be done when a significant
commitment is made. By applying “Triple Bottom Line” principles to develop and prioritize
implementation strategies, this Plan provides a road map to obtaining these benefits.
Throughout the course of the outreach for this plan, a “Road to Zero Waste” theme emerged. In
each of the Community Conversations, the following was highlighted as the only peer reviewed,
internationally accepted definition of Zero
Waste: “Zero Waste is a goal that is
ethical, economical, efficient and visionary,
to guide people in changing their lifestyles
and practices to emulate sustainable
natural cycles, where all discarded
materials are designed to become
resources for others to use. Zero Waste
means designing and managing products
and processes to systematically avoid and
eliminate the volume and toxicity of waste
and materials, conserve and recover all
resources, and not burn or bury them.
Implementing Zero Waste will eliminate all
discharges to land, water or air that are a threat to planetary, human, animal or plant health.”7
The goal of Zero Waste is to focus on new initiatives for eliminating wasteful practices and
economic inefficiencies and setting up expanded reuse systems, then recycling, composting,
digesting and redesigning remaining discarded materials. Many residents and businesses in
Fort Collins attending Community Conversations meetings or City Boards, Commissions and
stakeholder meetings expressed support for the idea of Zero Waste. What also became clear
through extensive outreach for this Plan is that there are many goals, objectives, values and
principles that should be adopted to achieve the many benefits from more waste reduction and
recycling that are reflected in this Plan.
6 For 180-acre site (same size of current operations) at $450,000 per acre.
7 Source: Zero Waste International Alliance, Standards, www.zwia.org/standards
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 8
Values and Principles
The following values and principles will contribute to achieving a Zero Waste economy. These
will help guide the community’s adoption and implementation of new policies, programs and
facilities that are needed.
Choice and Diversity - Fort Collins’ City Plan calls for identifying mutually beneficial actions to
support multiple principles and policies, foster new relationships, leverage funding and
maximize resources.8 The diversity of materials that are found in Fort Collins’ waste stream call
for diverse solutions - there isn’t only one solution for everything that is discarded. Instead, Fort
Collins will build upon its open competitive, market economy to foster more entrepreneurial
investments in new programs, facilities and services that help the City meet its goals. This will
also continue to provide residents and businesses with choices of how they discard or manage
materials.
Universal Opportunities – A key goal requested by different stakeholders was that the City
ensure equal opportunities are provided for all sectors to reduce waste and recycle more,
including residents who live in multi-family dwellings, industries, commercial
businesses, institutions, as well as visitors. More comprehensive and convenient access to
reuse, recycling and composting services will provide these services more universally to all
sectors, including those who self-haul materials. These services will be implemented primarily
through collaboration and partnerships, encouraging innovations in the community much like the
ClimateWise Program, focusing on education, partnerships and working together.
New Rules and Incentives – The City’s primary role in improving the local landscape for
recycling and waste reduction activities is to adopt clear goals and to facilitate, educate and
enforce the codes that are adopted. Updating the codes and incentives in the City’s Ordinances
will encourage more waste reduction and foster the collection of clean, source separated
materials, and optimize the quality of materials recovered so that they could be invested in the
local economy. These regulations can continue to build on the policies, incentives and approach
that the City has adopted over the past 20 years.
8See: http://www.fcgov.com/planfortcollins/
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 9
Goals and Objectives
The following goals and objectives are recommended for the Fort Collins community to adopt as
targets for the next 5 to 20 years (and beyond) in renewing its commitment to waste diversion
and resource optimization. The resulting benefits are directly in keeping with the goals listed in
Fort Collins’ comprehensive City Plan, including: reducing overall solid waste volumes;
increasing waste diversion from landfills; developing greater economic value and uses for
discarded materials; managing hazardous materials; and investing to meet the goals of the
climate action plan and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.9 These goals are proposed to serve
as primary performance measures for tracking how well the plan is implemented over the
course of time.
Goal: Zero Waste
The City increased its waste diversion rate from 24% in 1999 to 42-58% in 2012. Given the
urgency of climate change10 and the significant opportunity for job and local wealth creation,
which is detailed in following pages of this report, the City should adopt a new goal of
Zero Waste by 2030, with interim goals being:
• 75% diversion by 2020
• 90% diversion by 2025.
Goal: Reduce Per Capita Waste Disposal Rate
Establishing a goal for waste generation per Fort Collins citizen can be used to measure
progress as the City grows in population and industrial activities at the same time. This is
particularly important because of the amount of growth and new development projects currently
underway in the community. This metric also provides a good way to see how Fort Collins is
performing compared to other communities around the country (more and more communities
are adopting this metric). The per capita waste metric was included as part of the Urban
Environmental Accords11, which call for communities to reduce their per capita waste disposal
to landfills and incinerators by 20% from current levels within seven years of adoption. The
current per capita waste disposal rate in Fort Collins is 5.12 pounds per capita per day, based
on 2012’s population of 148,700. New goals (even higher than those advocated by the Urban
Environmental Accords) are recommended to:
Reduce waste landfilled to 3.5 pounds per capita per day by 2020 (32% below 2012)
Reduce waste landfilled to 2.8 pounds per capita per day by 2025 (57% below 2012).
9 http://www.fcgov.com/planfortcollins/
10 ”Rising global temperatures have been accompanied by changes in weather and climate including changes in rainfall, more
floods, droughts, or intensity of rain, as well as more frequent and severe heat waves. 2012 was the hottest year on record for the
contiguous United States and 2012 ranks as the warmest calendar year in the 124 year record for063w the Fort Collins, CO weather
station on CSU campus. Health care costs associated with extreme weather events in the US between 2006 and 2009 exceeded
$14 Billion. In the U.S., 2012 alone saw eleven weather disasters that cost a billion dollars or more (NOAA). Source: Fort Collins
Climate Status Report 2012, page 5, http://www.fcgov.com/airquality/pdf/FC2012ClimateStatusReportLowRes.pdf.
11 The United Nations Urban Environmental Accords are a series of goals adopted by over 100 cities around the world to achieve
urban sustainability, promote healthy economies, advance social equity and protect the world’s ecosystems. Source:
http://greencitiescalifornia.org/pages/urban-environmental-accords.html
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 10
Objective: Add Value to Local Economy
Part of the message of Zero Waste is that many of the benefits that accrue are due to the value
of the materials recovered. The Commodities Analysis (see Table 1) shows the value of
materials being discarded in Fort Collins based on 2013 markets. Over a third of the value is in
reusables, from just 4% of the tons discarded and the value of recyclables increasing by 300%
since 1992.12 This highlights why it’s important to track more than just tons diverted from
landfill. By adopting new rules and incentives such as those proposed in this Plan, the
community will recover value from materials that are currently being discarded. A key indicator
will be the number of jobs created in new waste reduction and recycling services and
infrastructure, primarily in the private sector and nonprofit organizations.
To evaluate how strong waste reduction and recycling policies and programs will add value to
the local economy and the Triple Bottom Line, the Plan proposes that the City document the
number of jobs reported to the City by all aspects of the reuse, recycling, composting and
Table 1 – Commodities Analysis: Tons & Value of Materials Discarded in Fort Collins13
Estimated Annual Lost Value of 139,060 tons of Fort Collins Discards Buried in Landfills
Categories % Annual Tons $/ton Annual
Revenues Lost
1. Reusables 4% 5,600 $400 $ 2,240,000
2. Textiles 6% 8,300 $80 $ 664,000
3. Polymers 14% 19,500 $100 $ 1,950,000
4. Metals 4% 5,600 $80 $ 448,000
5. Glass 2% 2,800 $20 $ 56,000
6. Paper 25% 34,800 $20 $ 696,000
7. Putrescibles 14% 19,500 $7 $ 136,500
8. Plant Debris 16% 22,200 $7 $ 155,400
9. Wood 5% 7,000 $8 $ 56,000
10. Soils 3% 4,200 $7 $ 29,400
11. Ceramics 6% 8,300 $4 $ 33,200
12. Chemicals 1% 1,400 $1 $ 1,400
100% 139,100 $ 6,465,900
waste hauling, processing and manufacturing industries. In addition, the City could qualitatively
identify the benefits to residents and businesses (e.g., providing lower cost, high quality
products to enable them to be more sustainable).14 This will be particularly important for reuse
12 Source: Jeffrey Morris, Sound Resource Management, http://www.zerowaste.com/pages/Recycling-Markets.htm and 10/31/13
email clarifications that $33 per ton were the prices in 1992-93, compared to recent prices in the $103-$110 per ton range. These
are all current dollars, not adjusted for inflation.
13 Sources: Composition Studies: Sloan Vasquez/Clements Environmental, January 2012 for Fort Collins, and Cascadia for Boulder
March 2012; Market Estimates by Richard Anthony Associates June 2013.
14 This would be a pioneering effort. This has only been done on a very limited basis by other communities. In California, the
Recycling Market Development Zones report to the State on the number of jobs created from their direct efforts (loans and technical
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 11
and recycled product manufacturing, as they generate far more jobs than recycling collection,
composting and landfilling. The CSU Regional Economics Institute should be engaged to help
develop the best way to obtain this data, which could then be integrated into the Institute’s
projections of future employment in Fort Collins. It is estimated more than 434 direct jobs could
potentially be created if 100% of the City’s discarded materials were recovered and used to
make new products.15 Proposed goals based on actual tons landfilled are:
Add 150 new jobs by 202016
Add 300 new jobs by 2025.
Objective: Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Waste reduction and recycling contribute to the city’s Climate Action Plan and Colorado’s
statewide goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (80% below 2005 levels by 2050). Current
estimates of greenhouse gas production from the existing system (using the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency WARM Model17) show that the community could reduce greenhouse gases
by 187,389 MTCO2e per year if it were to achieve a new Zero Waste goal - the equivalent of
removing emissions of 39,071 cars from Fort Collins roadways each year. Proposed goals
based on actual tons of landfilled waste are:
Reduce annual emissions 60,000 MTCO2e by 2020
Reduce annual emissions 120,000 MTCO2e by 2025.
Because many of these greenhouse gas savings are from embodied energy in materials which
are not reported as part of the community’s GHG inventory according to new national reporting
protocols implemented in Fort Collins, the full reduction benefit will not be recognized in the
community’s GHG inventory. .
assistance). Ventura County is an example where those numbers are reported locally in management and budget documents (to be
confirmed).
15 See Table 4 on page 20 for calculation.
16 Assumes that 1/3 of total 434 jobs would be generated by 2020 and 2/3 by 2025
17 Source: http://www.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/tools/warm/Warm_Form.html
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 12
Recommendations
Each of the recommendations is followed by language excerpted from City Plan, to highlight
how these recommendations are consistent with policy already adopted by the City.
1. Culture Change
Accomplishing a new culture and awareness of Zero Waste will require a change in the
culture of the community, not unlike the dramatic reversal of social norms for tobacco
smoking that has occurred in recent decades. That change has already begun. For
example, the 2012 Climate Status Report reported that 64% of people polled indicated that
they know about the connection among methane, composting and climate change
To reinforce this change that is underway, residents and businesses will expect the City to
lead by example. A good way to provide leadership is to place recycling bins in tandem with
all City-serviced public trash bins and ensure that comprehensive signage is posted about
what to recycle. Once “all compostable” organics recycling services are readily available,
the City should add composting bins in public areas where food is sold. The City could also
assist venues and events with developing on-site composting or digestion systems until city-
wide collection services are available.
The City should continue to provide strong, enhanced programs to educate residents,
businesses and visitors about how and where to reduce, reuse and recycle in Fort Collins.
The City should also expand its efforts to work with schools to convey information and
education about Zero Waste, such as the City’s new recycling poster, which has clear
pictures of what’s accepted for recycling and what is not. Expand staffing or interns to
contact all businesses to assist them in complying with new rules regarding recycling as they
are adopted, as well as to work with Poudre School District to educate school children about
waste reduction and Zero Waste. City staff should develop educational materials for all
haulers to distribute to all their customers on a regular basis to ensure consistent messages
about how and what to recycle in Fort Collins (rather than putting responsibility on the
haulers to create high-quality educational materials).The City should also develop decals
that can be placed on containers throughout the City to provide clear, consistent messages
about what can be recycled, using both graphics and multiple languages (especially for
larger decals).
Work with ClimateWise and the City’s Waste Reduction and Recycling Assistance Program
(WRAP) to conduct outreach to businesses and multi-family complexes about how to reduce
wasting and eliminate wasteful practices.
To accomplish culture change, the City needs a comprehensive, community-based social
marketing program that will address:
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 13
Awareness – making sure everyone knows that Zero Waste is a priority in Fort
Collins
Education – making sure residents, businesses and visitors know how to participate
in local Zero Waste programs
Training – teaching employees in Zero Waste businesses and nonprofits how to work
with residents, businesses and visitors to gain their support for local Zero Waste
programs
Reinforcement and Compliance – continuously meeting with residents and
businesses to highlight how Zero Waste policies and programs work, and helping
them comply with adopted City ordinances that guide the implementation of
programs. This approach elicits more positive responses than a heavy-handed
enforcement program.
The City should work with nonprofit organizations and students to help event organizers to
obtain volunteers on a regular basis; volunteers can assist in educating the public about
where to discard different materials/products at venues and special events. For events at all
City park venues with more than 1,000 attendees, the City should adopt requirements to
meet Zero Waste standards such as:18
Only allow exhibitors/vendors to give out products that are reusable, recyclable or
compostable
Require use of durable serving-ware (and dishwashing machines for the serving-
ware) if food services are in one central location where deposits can be charged for
durables to be returned
Require recycling bins next to all trash bins and composting bins in areas where food
is sold
Use prominent and comprehensive signage above bins with graphics and narrative
Encourage use of volunteers stationed at bins to assist attendees in making right
choices in discarding their resources.
The City should issue a challenge to residents, businesses and institutions to join as
partners in working towards Zero Waste, and recognize those who are leading the way to
Zero Waste.
2. Reinvest Resources in Local Economy
18 See Vancouver for examples of good green event guidelines.
City Plan Consistency – Principle ENV 13: The City will provide Fort Collins
residents and the business community with information and education about
waste management including waste reduction, diversion, and proper disposal.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 14
Part of the message of Zero Waste is that many of the benefits that accrue are due to the
value of the materials recovered. The Commodities Analysis in Table 1 shows the value of
materials being discarded in Fort Collins based on 2013 market prices. By adopting new
rules and incentives such as those proposed in this Plan, the community will recover much
of the value that is being discarded. A key indicator of that will be the number of jobs
created in Zero Waste services and infrastructure.
The City should better identify the sources, and the potential highest and best uses of
discarded materials, as well as the importance of creating demand for some of those uses.
The City should take a more proactive approach to using these resources for improving the
City’s economic health, and reducing barriers to implementation of innovative projects.
Engage the City’s economic health staff in using financial tools to help local value-added
reuse, recycling and composting businesses that come forward to help the City meet its
goals. Examples could include reuse and manufacturing activities that create jobs using
locally “sourced” materials while at the same time reducing transportation costs and
reducing greenhouse gases associated with long-distance transportation, such as:
Wood – A mini-sawmill for manufacturing of wood flooring, cabinets and architectural
details from deconstructed lumber.
Food – Help for food donations infrastructure for nutritious, good quality foods and
produce, and, local composting and digestion facilities for expired food products.
Plastics – A local manufacturer that can use some or all of #3-7 plastic containers
and other currently non-recyclable plastics, including take-back programs or efforts
to redesign most difficult products.
Newspapers – A facility to make insulation from old newspapers.
Glass – Regional processing capacity to clean for glass collected in single-stream
recycling programs for reuse in making new glass containers, and a use for non-
container glass such as windows.
Construction and demolition debris – A local recycling facility for sorting and
recycling mixed “C&D”.
Durable goods, mattresses, carpet, batteries and paint – Take-back programs for
these and other hard to recycle materials.
Soils and gypsum – Use by local nurseries and/or blending soils targeted to different
soil conditions and plant needs.
Consider adding more services to the future Integrated Recycling Facility (scheduled for
construction in 2014) to collect more of the 12 Market Categories of materials in Fort Collins
that need additional convenient drop-off opportunities and which are not otherwise provided
by the private sector and local non-profits. Consider renaming it as the City’s first Resource
Recovery Park.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 15
Work with Colorado State University and other local academic institutions to research and
develop innovative technologies for reuse, recycling, and composting, behavioral science
research, and unique local markets or uses for recycled products. Work with the Business
Alliance for Local Living Economies (http://bealocalist.org/) and Institute for Local Self-
Reliance (www.ilsr.org) to help local manufacturers with examples and resources.
The City should increase its commitment to purchase locally manufactured products that
contain reused, recycled, or composted materials. Assist local manufacturers in being listed
as suppliers with the Purchasing Department, especially for public works and urban
redevelopment projects.
Work with social service organizations to train and refer individuals as prospective
employees in reuse, recycling or composting operations. Pursue funding from U.S.
Department of Labor to assist with this and work with community colleges to implement.
3. Universal Recycling
Update, expand, educate and effectively implement the City’s Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT)
Ordinance, and consider renaming it the “Universal Recycling Ordinance”.
Residential
Phase in a requirement over the next two years for all haulers to collect compostable yard
trimmings and trash on a weekly basis from all customers.
Initially, weekly compostables collection will solely be for the collection of yard trimmings, for
no less than six months of the year, starting by March or April 1. The City should encourage
existing processors to work with local haulers to process materials collected.
Allow haulers to charge an additional fee to cover the costs of collecting glass of higher
quality from curbside and/or through a system of drop-off containers around the City.
City Plan Consistency - Principle ENV 15: The City will recognize that
discarded materials, such as recyclable commodities, reusable products, and
organics, can be economic resources for the community.
Policy ENV 15.3 – Establish Incentives for Waste Processors. Support the use
of incentives (e.g., tax increment financing system or enterprise zones for
resource recovery industries) to create sustainable means of repurposing,
recycling, or composting as an economic alternative to Colorado’s low-cost
landfills.
Policy ENV 15.4 – Enhance the Economy. Consider potential and existing
recycling and waste recovery activities as opportunities to enhance local
revenue generation and create jobs.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 16
Require all haulers to offer every other week non-putrescible trash service - at a lower cost
than weekly service – as an option once weekly compostables collection systems are in
place and being utilized that include food scraps and food soiled paper. The universal
collection of compostables is likely to double the amount of materials that will be able to be
diverted from the residential sector.
Once this system is implemented, haulers will be able to provide more Zero Waste services
with the same number of trucks as they use today. One truck could collect all compostables
(including yard trimmings, food scraps and food soiled paper) on a weekly basis, and a
second truck could alternate collection of rubbish one week, and recyclables the next
week.19
Require haulers to deliver educational materials developed by the City to all their customers,
in order to implement changes smoothly and provide a more consistent message to
residents and businesses regarding what can be included in each collection container.
Multi-Family
Include all multi-family dwellings20 under the Universal Recycling Ordinance within two
years. Require haulers to provide in-apartment recyclables and compostables collection
containers (could be reusable bags or rigid containers) and educational programs (including
distribution of educational materials developed by the City). Multi-family dwellings that meet
recycling standards detailed by the City should be publicly recognized annually by the City
and provided some type of financial incentive by their hauler (financial incentives could be a
donation to a homeowners association for a celebration or charity of their choice, or some
reduction in fees charged for services the following year).
Commercial
Include all businesses under the Universal Recycling Ordinance within three years.
Haulers must provide at least an equal amount of recycling services as the amount of trash
services they provide to their business and commercial customers. Haulers must provide at
least one container for composting services for each business that generates more than five
gallons per week of compostable materials (e.g., food scraps, food soiled paper, and/or yard
trimmings).
Allow haulers to offer shared locking recycling and composting containers for businesses to
share where space is limited in designated locations. Allow haulers to place additional
recycling and composting containers in no more than two parking spaces, if needed, with
agreement of property owner, and amend land use codes if necessary to allow use of a
parking space for extra recycling. Allow haulers more flexibility in setting rates to
accommodate additional services proposed.
19This approach was highlighted as an opportunity in a report funded by USEPA Region 9, Beyond Recycling, Composting Food
Scraps and Soiled Paper, Peter Anderson and Gary Liss, 2009. www.beyondrecycling.org.
20 Including long-term care facilities, mobile home parks and any other residential facility that is not currently classified as a single-
family dwelling
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 17
4. Prohibited Materials
Section 15-414 of Article XV of Chapter 15 of the City Municipal Code identifies materials
that are prohibited from being placed in the community’s waste stream. In addition to the
materials currently prohibited (electronic equipment, recyclable cardboard and household
hazardous materials), the City should phase out of landfilling the following materials as soon
as markets or uses for the materials are available within 20 miles of Fort Collins’ City Hall
with capacity for the full residential sector:
a. Conventional types of recyclables (e.g., paper, glass and plastic bottles, and metal
cans)
b. Yard trimmings
c. Construction debris
d. Demolition debris
e. White goods (large household appliances)
f. Food scraps and food soiled paper
Disposal prohibitions for a new list of materials build on the successful implementation of
prohibitions already adopted in Fort Collins for recyclable cardboard and electronic
equipment. (This approach could follow the lead of the State of Massachusetts, which has
used prohibitions from disposal and/or transfer for disposal for a large variety of materials,
including: asphalt pavement, brick & concrete; clean gypsum wallboard, ferrous & non-
ferrous metals; leaves & yard waste; treated & untreated wood; and whole tires.21)
21 Source: http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/recycle/solid/massachusetts-waste-disposal-bans.html
City Plan Consistency – Principle ENV 17: The City will act as a steward of the
environment and public health by using its regulatory authority.
Policy ENV 17.1 – Update Regulations. Regularly update codes to include effective
environmental and resource conservation provisions to promote waste reduction,
efficient resource use, and recycling.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 18
5. Construction, Deconstruction and Demolition (C&D)
Expand International Building Code recycling requirements in Fort Collins from construction-
only to also include remodeling, deconstruction, and demolition projects in all sectors that
measure more than 2,500 square feet. For new buildings, additions and remodels, require a
construction waste management plan acceptable to the Building Official that includes
recycling of concrete and masonry, wood, metals and cardboard. The construction waste
management plan should be required to be submitted at the time of application for a building
permit. The construction waste management plan should be implemented and
conspicuously posted on the construction site. Compliance should be certified by the hauler
through receipts and signed affidavits. Substantive changes to the plan should be subject to
prior approval by the City’s Chief Building Official.
As additional recycling services are developed for mixed construction and demolition debris
(C&D) recycling, expand Building Code recycling requirements to add more types of
materials, and require the reuse or recycling of all mixed C&D materials.
Require contractors and builders to provide a deposit to the City to ensure that they will
meet the City recycling goals at the outset of a project.22 The City should define what a
“qualified recycling facility” for C&D processing entails, to enable deposits to be refunded in
full. The City then could allow contractors to use the established “recycling rate” for certified
qualified recycling facilities rather than having to track every load individually through the
facility to determine its residue rate. If the building permit is submitted with material going to
a certified qualified recycling facility, permit will be reviewed within a specified number of
days of submission, going to the “head of the line” in permit reviews.
22 In other communities that do this, the deposit is usually charged at the rate of the current tipping fee x the number of tons of C&D
debris that are estimated in their plans to be generated. The current tipping fee in Fort Collins is $18/ton.
City Plan Consistency – Principle ENV 17: The City will act as a steward of the
environment and public health by using its regulatory authority.
Policy ENV 17.1 – Update Regulations. Regularly update codes to include effective
environmental and resource conservation provisions to promote waste reduction,
efficient resource use, and recycling. Policy ENV 17.2 – Manage Hazardous
Materials and Waste Promote pollution prevention-based management (and practice
these measures in municipal operations) and commit to acting as a resource to assist
the community in preventing pollution and minimizing hazardous chemical usage,
motivating citizens to practice appropriate disposal techniques, and enforcing
environmental regulations, including the City’s ban of electronics in the waste stream.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 19
The City should develop training programs for contractors, builders, and service providers
on requirements, and opportunities for reuse, recycling, composting and deconstruction.
On-line resources should be developed for builders and small businesses who may not be
able to attend training programs.
The City should adopt new Building Code deconstruction goals that require a “soft strip” for
deconstruction of all projects (to take out all items that are portable and detachable for which
there are markets or uses within 20 miles of Fort Collins City Hall). Buildings or portions of
buildings that are removed should be processed first to safely remove all asbestos and lead
paint contaminants. Then all remaining products should be reused (such as doors, windows,
cabinets, and fixtures). After all reusables are taken out, all remaining materials should be
recycled from the building shell, including: concrete and masonry, wood, metals, and
cardboard. Compliance should be certified by the hauler through receipts and signed
affidavits.
At the time of application for a building permit, contractors should provide information to the
Chief Building Official to publicly notify interested deconstruction firms electronically and/or
through the local newspaper of all buildings slated to be demolished, to enable such
deconstruction firms to pursue salvaging whatever they can while final permits are being
authorized. The City should promote existing deconstruction services and used building
materials stores, and assist deconstruction companies and nonprofits to store and grade
materials from deconstruction projects.
Another recommendation would be to support the City requiring fire sprinklers in all multi-
family dwellings to prevent as much damage to such facilities as possible. Sprinklered
properties have about 10% of the damage as those without sprinklers.23
Also, the City could assist industry to develop recycling facilities for construction,
deconstruction and demolition materials locally that can meet City recycling goals, possibly
through public/private partnerships and/or economic development assistance.
City staff should also work with the City’s Emergency Manager to create Disaster
Preparedness Plans for Fort Collins and articulate strategies for how to recycle as much
debris that results from disasters as possible and sign memorandum of understandings with
disaster response agencies. In addition, the City could work with neighboring communities
affected by flooding in 2013 to obtain financial support from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) to develop mixed C&D recycling facilities in the Front Range
to recycle as much of the disaster debris as possible.
23 Source: Michael Gebo, Fort Collins Chief Building Official
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 20
6. Composting Organic Materials
Adopt a City goal to phase out the disposal of compostable organic materials in landfills by
2018.
Require all waste haulers to collect and compost yard trimmings weekly for at least six
months per year from residents, businesses and institutions requesting that service. A
negative check-off system should be used to verify if/when a hauler’s customer specifically
requests not to receive composting services (e.g., if they don’t generate any yard trimmings
because they xeriscape and/or have their own backyard composting).
Support the development of one or more composting facilities for all compostable organics
(including food scraps and food-soiled paper), using windrow, in-vessel, and/or anaerobic
digestion technology that meet the U.S. Composting Council’s Seal of Assurance for quality
compost. Work with others interested in composting to help develop facilities, such as
Colorado State University, Poudre School District, City of Loveland and Larimer County.
Encourage larger generators of compostables to consider developing small-scale
composters on their own sites or nearby sites for multiple generators to share (like Earth
Tub currently serving some downtown restaurants).
Assist private businesses to develop a composting facility or compost transfer station within
20 miles of Fort Collins’ City Hall using economic development tools; identify potential public
and private sites, and facilitate commitment for the supply of organic materials necessary to
operate a facility. If private businesses are not successful in this effort within two years (by
2016), consider developing a publicly sponsored facility.
Once a composting facility or transfer station that is permitted to collect or process all
compostable organics is available within 20 miles of Fort Collins, require all waste haulers to
collect and compost all compostable organics weekly year-round from all residents,
businesses and institutions.
Until city-wide composting services are available for all compostables, develop more pilot
programs to compost or digest all compostable organics, particularly with schools and
institutions. For example, work with the Larimer County Food Bank to develop a composter
on their site or nearby together with other local food scrap generators, with “curing” of the
compost done off-site in partnership with a larger composting operation. Also, provide use of
city open space for gardening, farming and composting, partnering with the Food Bank, to
City Plan Consistency – Policy ENV 17.4: Construction Waste Reduction.
Encourage activities that help divert debris from construction-related activities.
Explore the feasibility of requiring any City-subsidized projects to employ reduction
and solid waste diversion practices that reduce the volume of material sent from city
construction sites to landfills for disposal.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 21
provide opportunities for large scale community composting and utilizing that waste to
ultimately feed people again by growing vegetables.
Explore the possibility of digesting discarded food scraps separately from wastewater solids
at wastewater treatment plant. Encourage haulers to offer low-cost backyard and on-site
composting bin sales to foster backyard and on-site composting as a way to keep materials
from even becoming waste.
7. Reduce & Reuse
In the hierarchy of waste diversion actions, the City should promote “reduce and reuse” as
first-line actions, followed by “recycle, compost or redesign the rest”. Encourage residents,
businesses and institutions to eliminate wastefulness, to obtain the largest economic
benefits of Zero Waste. Work with ClimateWise and the City’s Waste Reduction and
Recycling Assistance Program (WRAP) to use City financial incentives and technical
assistance for businesses and multi-family complexes to reduce wasting and eliminate
wasteful practices. The City organization should lead by example by evaluating its
purchasing practices and develop guidelines that will highlight opportunities for all City
departments to reduce wastes. Encourage major institutional and corporate buyers to follow
City source reduction purchasing practices.
Promote reusable shipping containers and returnable pallets as a top priority for businesses.
Work with Colorado State University and apartments that have high turnover rates to
provide a more robust program for reuse and recycling of furniture, appliances, floor
coverings and equipment during move-ins and move-outs. Help develop a reuse
warehouse, like a food bank system, working with local thrift stores (a central place that all
thrift stores would have equal access to for sorting through incoming products and for bulk
sales to public). Promote reducing the wasting of food in cafeterias through trayless
City Plan Consistency – Policy ENV 14.2: Lower Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Recognize the critical role of successful solid waste diversion and recycling in
significantly lowering greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and place priority on
employing strategies that will enable the community to meet its adopted goals for
reducing GHG emissions and the risks of climate change.
Policy ENV 15.1 – Encourage Composting Divert organic material from landfill
disposal and put it to a beneficial secondary use as compost, which increases
water conservation, adds nutritional value, and provides carbon dioxide storage
capacity (carbon sink) when applied to soil, or for generating alternative sources of
energy. Principle SW 3: The City will encourage and support local food production
to improve the availability and accessibility of healthy foods, and to provide other
educational, economic, and social benefits.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 22
cafeterias and portion controls. Promote Federal Good Samaritan Law that eliminates
liability for donation of food and address similar liability for thrift stores with “as is” waivers.
Help local thrift stores prevent illegal dumping from occurring on their property through
increased penalties and code enforcement.
Assist the Larimer County Food Bank in diverting a higher percentage of its existing food
waste from the landfill with the addition of another truck and driver, food-safe tins and lids
and staff time for donor relations. This would enable them to provide timely and regular
donation pickup for new donors, especially from lower-volume donors such as farms,
restaurants, manufacturers, and minimal processing facilities, Another way to help reduce
wasting of food would be providing a truck to the Food Bank for mobile food pantry
distributions twice a week and the other 3 days a week to help the Food Rescue program.
Require multifamily developments and neighborhood community centers to include a secure
location for reusable items to be easily accessed for move-ins and move-outs, including
used furniture, appliances, clothing and books. Promote “leave it behind” system for
reusables for off-campus students and the community. Adopt a used clothing collection bin
ordinance to ensure quality services are provided and bins don’t become a nuisance or
create a public safety issue.
Support “adaptive reuse” in International Building Code for residential and commercial
construction, which encourages the remodeling or repurposing of buildings that are still
functional.
8. Product Stewardship
Adopt fees on products or packaging sold in Fort Collins that are hard to reuse, recycle or
compost. For example, enact a litter fee on single-use paper or plastic bags and fee or ban
on expanded polystyrene take-out containers. Fees could be invested in a Recycling
Education and Investment Fund (see recommendation #10 below).
Ask businesses that sell products in glass bottles in the Front Range and local governments
in the area to help develop a commingled glass recycling sorting system to remove debris
from single-stream glass so it can be made into new glass products. Explore options for
City Plan Consistency – Principle ENV 14: The City will apply the US Environmental
Protection Agency’s integrated “hierarchy” of waste management to help protect all
environmental resources including air, soil, and water using source reduction as the
primary approach, followed in order by reuse, recycling/composting energy recovery
using emerging pollution-free technology, and landfill disposal (where methane gas
capture is employed) as a final resort.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 23
more collection of glass separately for reuse and/or recycling into glass bottles. Work with
CSU to ban plastic bottled water on campus. Before any products are banned, develop a
plan to ensure the public has clear options that are convenient for them. Work with larger
“fast food” restaurants to use reusable plates, bowls, cups and flatware for dine-in
customers instead of single-use products. Provide info on takeback programs on City’s
website and set up a notification group like the Leaf Exchange for takebacks.
9. Waste to Clean Energy
Develop and adopt a Hierarchy of Highest and Best Use to assist in evaluation of
technology proposals and use of particular feedstocks that would otherwise be sent to
landfills for disposal. Prioritize what energy technologies and feedstocks the City would like
to focus on in the next five years after adoption of a Hierarchy of Highest and Best Use.
Encourage Colorado State University to research and pilot innovative technologies for
different applications.
In 2013, the City started a pilot program of waste to energy working with Colorado State
University; pulped food scraps from the university’s cafeterias are taken to be “digested” at
the Drake Water Reclamation Facility (DWRF). The digested food scraps generate methane
gas in a controlled environment, which is then burned to generate energy that heats the
plant during cold weather. The City should continue to work on new programs to digest food
scraps from residents, businesses, and/or institutions, delivered via truck or sewers to the
DWRF.
The City should continue to investigate diverse solutions for converting materials that
contain embedded energy, with the recognition that it could be imprudent to commit
resources (feedstocks) on a long-term basis to one single technology before more options
can be pursued.
City Plan Consistency – Policy ENV 17.3 – Encourage Producer Responsibility.
Support state and federal efforts to establish producer responsibility systems,
which encourage manufacturers to invest in ways to reduce the lifecycle impacts of
their products or to create options for “taking back” items such as electronics, paint,
and household cleaning items that impact public health and the environment.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 24
10. Funding
Adopt recycling investment fees on waste hauling services or waste shipped for landfilling to
generate revenue needed to fund new City initiatives. Initially require haulers to collect a
City Recycling Education and Investment Fee of $1.00 per household or business per
month. Part of the proceeds would go to the City for outreach and education materials and
staffing, support for expanding the Integrated Recycling Facility into a Resource Recovery
Park, as well as economic development grants and loans for reuse, recycling and
composting investments.
Other proceeds could be used by haulers to help implement their programs. Over time, look
at whether to increase the fee to generate revenue to fund other economic/business
development for Zero Waste related projects. Focus investments on one-time costs, not
operating expenses, as a waste-based fee will decrease over time and should only be used
to assist in the transition to a Zero Waste economy, and not continue once the basic
infrastructure has been established.
City Plan Consistency – Policy ENV 15.2 – Generate Energy. After recyclable,
compostable, and reusable marketable materials have been removed, utilize
the remainder of the municipal solid waste (MSW) stream as a feedstock for
energy production using newly emerging, ultra-low polluting transformation
technology.
Policy ENV 15.5 – Systems-Based Approach. Apply a systems-based approach
to managing materials that flow into the community (e.g., inventories, tracking
systems), as well as their post-consumer destinations, in order to analyze
opportunities for alternatives to landfill disposal.
City Plan Consistency – Policy ENV 15.3: Establish Incentives for Waste Processors.
Support the use of incentives (e.g., tax increment financing system or enterprise zones
for resource recovery industries) to create sustainable means of repurposing,
recycling, or composting as an economic alternative to Colorado’s low-cost landfills.
Policy ENV 16.2 – Consider Financial Investment. Consider investments in energy
generation or other kinds of facilities that are designed to collect and process materials
that cannot be recycled or reused.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 25
11. Regional Cooperation
Develop public/private and intergovernmental partnerships (Larimer County, City of
Loveland, Colorado State University and Poudre School District) to help identify locations
and develop needed facilities (e.g., composting, C&D debris recycling, and possibly
additional Resource Recovery Parks). Encourage collaboration and not duplication of
infrastructure. Identify what services are best done locally and what initiatives could
leverage economies of scale on a larger regional basis.
Work with Larimer County and City of Loveland to work on regional options. Before a new
landfill is built by the public, it will be critical to identify where materials will come from.
C&D facilities require an economy of scale and more collaboration on a larger regional basis
than historically has been done. The City should explore which other communities in the
Front Range are interested in developing this capacity (e.g., Boulder), and how to pursue it
further, working through organizations like the Colorado Association for Recycling (CAFR).
The best locations for facilities identified in this Plan could be considered as part of the
development of a regional Zero Waste Plan that at least includes Larimer County and the
City of Loveland, and ideally includes all those jurisdictions that ship wastes into Larimer
County and those jurisdictions that receive wastes from Larimer County. Develop
comparative cost of trash and recycling in neighboring communities and landfills.
Diversion Potential
Diversion estimates were prepared to identify the waste reduction potential of each policy and
program identified in this Plan. The diversion estimates are based on comparable policies and
programs implemented in other jurisdictions, research, and educated estimates by Zero Waste
Associates, the consulting firm for this Plan. Table 2 below shows the projected diversion rate,
and summarizes the diversion potential for new proposed Zero Waste policies and programs.
City Plan Consistency – Principle ENV 16: The City will collaborate with other
organizations to develop infrastructure that will accommodate larger quantities of
discarded materials, such as recyclable commodities, organics, and hazardous
waste, for appropriate processing and that will reduce shipping distances.
Policy ENV 16.1 – Coordinate with Others Coordinate with private businesses, non-
profit groups, CSU, Poudre School District, and other government agencies to
increase local infrastructure and improve market conditions for recycling, composting
and reuse industries and educate the public about source reduction and recycling.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 26
Based on this analysis, it is estimated the City can divert an additional 90 percent of materials
currently going to landfills in 2013. The City is projected to achieve a total of 96 percent
diversion, through continuation of existing programs and implementation of new policies and
programs.
Table 3 - Existing Landfill Waste Generation and Projected Diversion
Current (2012) New Programs Total Projected
Diverted Tons 190,000 125,000 315,000
Disposal Tons 139,000 14,000
Total Tons Generated 329,000 329,000
Diversion Rate 58% 96%
The diversion rates are presented as a snapshot in time, assuming full implementation of all
initiatives. More realistically, policies and programs will be developed over time accompanied by
additional research, testing, and pilot programs before all new programs are fully implemented.
Several initiatives will require new ordinances and regulations which will require City Council
action and time to implement. Other initiatives will require investment in new infrastructure.
Zero Waste is a design framework for reducing generation of waste and maximizing diversion,
not a strict tonnage goal. By implementing the proposed policies and programs, the City will be
striving towards Zero Waste, even though there will still be some residual wastes that will be
disposed.
Table 2 - Estimated Diversion Potential for Recommended Initiatives
Options Diversion Tons Diversion Percentage (of
Existing Tons Landfilled)
1. Universal Recycling 35,000 25%
2. Designated Materials 9,000 6%
3. Construction & Demolition Debris 18,000 13%
4. Composting Organics 13,000 9%
5. Reduce & Reuse 5,000 4%
6. Waste to Energy - -
7. Culture Change 45,000 32%
8. Reinvest Resources in Local Economy - -
9. Product Stewardship 1,000 1%
10. Funding - -
11. Regional Cooperation - -
Total 125,000 90%
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 27
Triple Bottom Line Impacts
Economic Impacts
To carry out this Plan, new staff or contractor resources will be needed to provide a variety of
support functions and activities including: Zero Waste outreach; technical assistance to
residential and commercial generators and City departments; technical assistance for creating
composting infrastructure; and, development of new Zero Waste policy initiatives and programs.
Development of new programs will also require investment in new processing capacity for
reuse, organics and C&D debris. The capital costs for these facilities are estimated to be:
Composting - $7-9 million
C&D - $5-7 million
Reuse - $500,000
TOTAL $12.5 - $16.5 million
These investments, along with the rest of the policies and programs recommended in this Plan,
would contribute significantly to recovering the $6.5 million value of materials from the Fort
Collins community that gets buried in regional landfills every year.
The alternative to these investments would be spending $20-$80 million on a new landfill once
the Larimer County landfill closes in approximately 12-15 years.
Initial costs for the first several years after adopting the Zero Waste goal would likely be about
$1.00 per household and business per month for the Recycling Education and Reinvestment
Fee. The majority of this funding would be for programs to be conducted by the City to assist in
culture change and reinvesting resources in the local economy. Additional costs would be
incurred over the following 10 years through new rates charged for additional services (e.g.,
curbside composting) by service providers in the open competitive marketplace, in response to
new rules and incentives adopted by the City, designed to provide clear direction and a level
playing field for investments. The competitive marketplace will result in the most efficient
implementation of programs.
For the City’s future involvement in taking the new path to Zero Waste, new proposals will be
developed through bi-annual City budget processes. The “budgeting for outcomes” system
provides the framework for evaluating the costs and benefits of specific policies and proposals
as opportunities to introduce new measures become feasible and timely.
Environmental Impact
Using data for tons of materials from Fort Collins that are taken to landfills for disposal in Table
1, the following highlights the amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) that are either emitted or
eliminated by landfilling and/or recycling. The results are derived from the U.S. Environmental
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 28
Protection Agency’s Waste Reduction Model (WARM), which is the standard in the industry for
evaluating such impacts.24 This analysis uses the assumption that the city will ultimately achieve
Zero Waste, whereby 96% or more of the materials that are currently landfilled will be diverted
through reduction strategies, reuse, recycling, composting, or waste conversion (to energy).
According to its website, EPA created WARM to help solid waste planners and organizations
track and voluntarily report GHG emissions reductions from several different waste
management practices. WARM calculates and totals GHG emissions for baseline and
alternative waste management practices - source reduction, recycling, combustion, composting,
and landfilling. The model calculates emissions in metric tons of carbon equivalent (MTCE),
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTC02e), and energy units (million BTU) across a wide
range of material types commonly found in municipal solid waste. WARM now recognizes 40
material types, and their emission factors are available for viewing in units of MTC02e and
MTCe.
The WARM Model shows that by diverting nearly all of its waste (96% or more) from landfilling,
Fort Collins could reduce greenhouse gases by 187,389 MTCO2e per year, the equivalent of
removing emissions from 39,071 cars from Fort Collins roadways each year.
Implementing this Plan will result in reductions in annual greenhouse gas emissions that are
equivalent to:
Eliminating 39,071 passenger vehicles from the road;
Eliminating the consumption of 436,137 barrels of oil;
Eliminating the CO2 emissions from the electricity use of 28,075 houses per year; or
Eliminating the CO2 emissions from the burning of coal from 806 rail cars per year.
Because many of these greenhouse gas savings are from embodied energy in materials which
are not reported as part of the community’s GHG inventory according to new national reporting
protocols implemented in Fort Collins, the full reduction benefit will not be recognized in the
community’s GHG inventory.
Social Impacts
Reuse, recycling, composting, and source reduction offer direct, and substantial, development
opportunities for communities. Discarded materials are a resource that can increase local
revenues, create jobs, lead to the formation of new business, and stimulate the overall local
economic base. On a per-ton basis, sorting and processing recyclables alone sustains eleven
times more jobs than landfilling or incineration. However, reuse of products and making new
products out of the old offer the largest economic pay-offs in the recycling loop. New recycling-
based manufacturers and reuse of high value products employs more people at higher wages
than sorting recyclables does. In order to compare jobs created through recycling with disposal-
24 WARM Model online: http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm_home.html
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 29
related jobs, the Institute for Local Self Reliance (ILSR) developed job-to-ton ratios for specific
material streams based on direct interviews with operating facilities.25
Applying the ILSR job-to-ton ratios to Fort Collins’ current volume and type of discards26
indicates that 434 direct jobs could potentially be created if 100% of the City’s discarded
materials were recovered and used to make new products (see Table 4). The potential could be
higher depending on actual businesses recruited.
Table 4 - Job Potential in Fort Collins Based on Near-100% Recovery Rate of 139,000
Annual Tons of Reusables/Recyclables Currently taken to Landfills for Disposal
Categories of Recyclable Materials Number of Potential Jobs
Reuse 42
Paper 96
Organics 4
Wood 8
Ceramics 2
Metals 38
Glass 16
Polymers 194
Textiles 34
Chemicals N/A
Total 434
In addition to these economic health benefits, there are other social benefits that accrue from
pursuing a Zero Waste approach. Many reduce and reuse programs in particular benefit those
who are having a rough time making ends meet. Reuse programs can offer high quality goods
at low prices that help peoples’ finances. Waste reduction programs such as donating food to
people is an important example of how these efforts contribute to those who need it.
The Larimer County Food Bank distributed 6.5 million meals and 8 million pounds of donated
food and other products to the community in 2011.Their direct service pantry program, Food
Share, was a source of food for nearly 80 Larimer County non-profit member agencies that
serve the hungry, which saved these agencies nearly $2.2 million on food expenses in 2012.
The Food Bank supports food pantries, kitchens, shelters and snack programs that serve low-
income populations such as single-parent families, the working poor, older adults, youth,
25 ILSR, “Salvaging the Future: Waste-Based Production”, www.ilsr.org
26 Plant debris, putrescibles and soils combined as organics.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 30
individuals in crises, childcare and residential programs, centers for the disabled, and homeless
shelters.27
The latest “Map the Meal Gap Study” of Feeding America28, found that 14% of residents in
Larimer County (1 in 7) were food insecure – they did not know where they will find their next
meal.29 Nationally, the rate is even higher – 16.1% (almost 1 in 6 people) that are food insecure
– nearly 49 million people.
This clearly is a challenge and an opportunity for a community that embraces Zero Waste.
Recent reports highlight that over 40% of all food in America is wasted:
“Food is simply too good to waste. Even the most sustainably farmed food does us
no good if the food is never eaten. Getting food to our tables eats up 10 percent of
the total U.S. energy budget, uses 50 percent of U.S. land, and swallows 80 percent
of freshwater consumed in the United States. Yet, 40 percent of food in the United
States today goes uneaten. That is more than 20 pounds of food per person every
month. Not only does this mean that Americans are throwing out the equivalent of
$165 billion each year, but also 25 percent of all freshwater and huge amounts of
unnecessary chemicals, energy, and land. Moreover, almost all of that uneaten food
ends up rotting in landfills where it accounts for almost 25 percent of U.S. methane
emissions.”30
Very similar opportunities exist for other areas of reuse, from used building materials, to
appliances, to clothes and books. As Fort Collins fulfills its commitment to the Triple
Bottom Line, placing a higher priority on reducing and reusing will lead to many social
benefits. Services provided should also be handicapped accessible.
27 Source: Fact Sheet 2013, Food Bank for Larimer County,
http://www.foodbanklarimer.org/AboutUs/~/media/COFtCollins137/Files/Fact%20Sheets/2013%20FACT%20SHEET_LONG%20FIN
AL.ashx
28 Feeding America is the largest hunger-relief organization in America. http://feedingamerica.org/
29 Source: ‘Food Insecurity’ remains an issue in Larimer County, April 27, 2012, Northern Colorado Business Report,
http://www.ncbr.com/article/20120427/NEWS/120429869
30 Source: “Wasted: How America Is Losing Up to 40 Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill,” Natural Resources
Defense Council, http://www.nrdc.org/food/wasted-food.asp
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 31
Implementation
This Plan provides a road map for the City, residents, businesses and visitors to get to Zero
Waste. It highlights the priorities that need to be adopted to get there:
Culture Change – providing new rules and more incentives, using Community Based
Social Marketing, social media, innovative technologies and software, and harnessing
creative talents in art, music, advertising and social change to reinforce and expand the
change that has already occurred.
Reduce and Reuse – concentrating on helping residents and businesses to live and
operate more efficiently and sustainably, creating over 400 jobs in the process and
helping those in need to get quality food and goods donated or at very low prices.
Compostable Organics Out of Landfills – eliminating many of the fast-acting, climate
changing gases that are emitted when organics rot in landfills, and returning those as
nutrients to the soil for raising more food locally (after first donating all edible food to
people in need).
Construction, Deconstruction and Demolition – implementing new rules of the
International Building Code developed concurrently with this Plan by the City’s Building
Department.
Three key types of facilities that will be needed in the Fort Collins area to fully implement this
plan are:
Commercial composting facility – to process food scraps, food-soiled paper and all
putrescibles and organic materials
Construction and demolition (C&D) recycling plant – to process mixed materials
from building and demolition projects
Reuse warehouse – to support the collection of a wide range of reusable products from
a variety of sources, and enable different businesses and nonprofit organizations to
obtain high quality materials to sell at very reasonable prices to residents and
businesses in Fort Collins.
All of these could be located in a single location as a Resource Recovery Park, or they could be
developed individually in different locations. These could be owned and operated by different
entrepreneurs, and the City could help develop one or more of these facilities as a public/private
partnership if needed.
Priorities and general timelines for implementing policies, programs and facilities are
summarized here and in the table below.
1. Culture change
a. Adopt education & reinvestment fund (2014)
b. Place more recycling bins in public areas over the next three years
c. Apply community based social marketing starting in 2015
d. Develop public events guidelines, brochures for haulers customers (2015)
2. Reinvest resources
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 32
a. Establish Zero Waste grants and loans program (2014)
b. Expand integrated recycling facility to serve as Resource Recovery Park (2015)
3. Universal recycling ordinance
a. Add yard trimmings collection for single-family residents (2015)
b. Provide recycling to all multi-family residents (2016)
c. Provide recycling to all businesses (2019)
4. Prohibit materials from landfill disposal
a. Source separated C&D materials (2015)
b. Yard trimmings (2016)
c. Food scraps and food-soiled paper (2018)
5. Construction and demolition recycling
a. Universal Building code amendments (2014)
b. Help develop mixed C&D sorting facility in region (2017)
6. Compost organics
a. Help develop food scraps composting and digestion facilities (2016)
7. Reduce and re-use
a. City purchasing policies to reduce waste (2015)
b. Reuse warehouse (2016)
8. Product stewardship
a. Adopt restrictions on disposable shopping bags (2014)
b. Develop glass sorting facility in region (2016)
9. Waste to clean energy
a. Develop hierarchy of highest & best use (2015)
b. Develop pilot programs for priority technologies (2017)
10. Regional cooperation
a. Pursue alternatives through regional Zero Waste Plan (2014-15)
Many partnerships will be required to implement this Plan. Sustainability staff will need to work
with:
Economic health and social sustainability staff, entrepreneurs and nonprofit
organizations to reinvest reusables, recyclables and compostables in the local economy
and create jobs, income and wealth from these discarded materials and help those in
need obtain high quality goods at low costs.
Planning and Building staff, contractors and developers to implement the C&D
recommendations.
A wide range of public and private interests to implement the organics
recommendations.
By investing in the three key Zero Waste facilities, adopting new policies and implementing
innovative, culture changing programs, the community will dramatically decrease the need for its
own landfill, shifting from today’s focus on waste management to a system that optimizes the
use of discarded materials as resources to help the local economy.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 33
Road to Zero Waste Pro-Forma
Overview
Status-Quo Scenario
year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Overall Sum
landfill tons (increasing 1.9% per year to
reflect population increase) 142,660 145,371 148,133 150,947 153,815 156,738 159,716 162,750 165,842 168,993 172,204 175,476 178,810
landfill tip fee only $18 $18 $18 $18 $25 $25 $25 $35 $35 $35 $35 $50 $50
costs to consumer -- rough estimation of costs
per ton to collect, dispose of trash +
recyclables (includes tip fee) $162 $162 $162 $162 $225 $225 $225 $315 $315 $315 $315 $450 $450
overall costs $23,110,920 $23,550,027 $23,997,478 $24,453,430 $34,608,396 $35,265,956 $35,936,009 $51,266,310 $52,240,370 $53,232,937 $54,244,363 $78,964,294 $80,464,616 $548,224,187
Net Effects of Zero Waste Scenario (Public and Private combined)
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
GRAND TOTAL NEW PROGRAM EXPENSES (Public + Private) $563,838 $584,298 $5,349,938 $6,771,850 $6,900,254 $6,991,868 $7,085,224 $7,180,353 $7,277,290 $7,376,068 $7,476,723 $7,579,291 $71,136,994
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES OVER EXPENSES $24,500 $26,610 $491,323 ($718,565) ($627,040) ($490,523) ($347,233) ($196,881) ($39,166) $126,224 $299,614 $481,343 ($969,793)
Diversion Tons 2,000 13,000 34,000 47,000 57,500 70,500 81,000 93,000 101,000 109,000 117,000 121,000
(Growth Weighted) 2,038 13,499 35,975 50,675 63,174 78,929 92,407 108,113 119,643 131,573 143,914 151,662
Percentage of Total Diversion 1% 4% 10% 14% 17% 21% 25% 28% 31% 33% 36% 37%
Percentage of Existing (58%) plus New Diversion 59% 62% 68% 72% 75% 79% 83% 86% 89% 91% 94% 95%
Assumptions
Population Growth Rate 1.9% 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.12 1.14 1.16 1.18 1.21 1.23 1.25
Interest Rate (Real) (capital costs only) 3.0% 1.03 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43
Total Population Growth Each Year
Detailed analysis of Zero Waste Scenario
City Program Costs and Revenues Notes 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Carry Over From previous year - 24,500 51,110 106,125 189,998 247,043 315,978 397,030 490,427 596,405 715,203 847,064
NEW REVENUE
Households (Single Family) 41,142 42,720 43,532 44,359 45,202 46,061 46,936 47,828 48,736 49,662 50,606 51,567
Households (Multi-Family) 19,361 20,104 20,486 20,875 21,271 21,676 22,087 22,507 22,935 23,371 23,815 24,267
Businesses 14,925 15,498 15,792 16,092 16,398 16,709 17,027 17,350 17,680 18,016 18,358 18,707
Amount per household and business per month $0.65 $0.65 $0.65 $0.65 $0.65 $0.65 $0.65 $0.65 $0.65 $0.65 $0.65 $0.65
Recycling Education and Reinvestment Fund from above fee $588,338 $610,908 $622,515 $634,343 $646,395 $658,677 $671,192 $683,944 $696,939 $710,181 $723,674 $737,424 $7,984,530
NEW PROGRAM EXPENSES
1. Culture change: Apply community-based
social marketing and other outreach/education $50,000 $100,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $2,650,000
Diversion Tons 2,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 42,000 239,000
(Growth Weighted) 2,038 5,192 5,290 10,782 10,987 16,793 22,817 29,063 35,538 42,248 49,201 52,643 282,591
Percentage of Total Diversion 1% 2% 2% 3% 3% 5% 6% 8% 9% 11% 12% 13%
2a. Reinvest resources: Establish Zero Waste
grants and loans program (2014)
Diversion tons
attributed in Culture $200,000 $200,000 $250,000 $250,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $3,300,000
2b. Reinvest resources: Funding support for a
Resource Recovery Park
Diversion tons
attributed in Culture $225,000 $200,000 $425,000
3a. Universal recycling ordinance: Add yard
trimmings collection for single-family residents
Implementation in
2016 consistent
with capital,
operating and $29,419 $29,419
3b. Universal recycling ordinance: Provide
recycling to all multi-family residents starting
Year 3, then to all businesses in Year 5 $30,548 $18,750 $31,719 $20,600 $20,992 $21,390 $21,797 $22,211 $22,633 $23,063 $23,501 $257,205
Diversion Tons 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000 18,000 21,000 24,000 27,000 30,000 32,000 197,000
(Growth Weighted) 3,115 6,349 9,704 13,184 16,793 20,535 24,413 28,430 32,592 36,901 40,109 232,124
Percentage of Total Diversion 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%
This budget is presented in two major categories: City Program Costs and Revenues and Private Sector Program Costs and Revenues. Funding for new City programs could come from the General
Fund as a Budgeting for Outcomes decision, or as a new
“Recycling Education and Reinvestment” fee of $0.65 per household and business per month ($7.80 annually). Outside of BFO, costs and benefits would be provided for any ordinances being
considered by City Council. Private initiatives will be funded by
fees for services provided. The overall costs for full implementation of this program by private initiatives phased in over 12 years is estimated to be $5.15 per household and per business
per month. This is a conservative estimate, as businesses may
already have invested in trucks and other equipment needed to provide these services, so the actual fees charged are expected to be less. The combined cost of $12-17M in community and
regionally-shared investments will help avoid the need for building
new landfills in the future, estimated at $20-80M. Calculations are based on 2012 population of 148,612, 41,142 single-family households, 19,361 multi-family households and 14,925 businesses
(from U.S. Census).
4a. Prohibit materials from landfill disposal:
Source-separated construction and demolition $29,419 $29,419
4b. Prohibit materials from landfill disposal:
Yard trimmings, food scraps and food-soiled $20,216 $20,600 $20,992 $21,390 $21,797 $22,211 $22,633 $23,063 $23,501 $196,404
Diversion Tons 4,000 4,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 80,000
(Growth Weighted) 4,232 4,313 9,888 10,076 10,267 10,463 10,661 10,864 11,070 11,281 93,115
Percentage of Total Diversion 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
5. Construction and demolition recycling:
Universal Building code amendments $29,419 $18,750 $18,750 $18,750 $18,750 $18,750 $18,750 $18,750 $18,750 $18,750 $18,750 $18,750 $235,669
Diversion Tons 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 17,500 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 $162,500
(Growth Weighted) 5,192 7,936 10,782 13,733 16,793 19,964 22,088 22,507 22,935 23,371 23,815
Percentage of Total Diversion 2% 2% 3% 4% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%
7a. Reduce and re-use: Expand City Diversion tons 5,000 20,000 - - - - - - - - -
7b(1). Re-use warehouse amortized cost 500,000 $58,615 $58,615 $58,615 $58,615 $58,615 $58,615 $58,615 $58,615 $58,615 $58,615 $586,153
7b(2). Re-use warehouse operating expense $266,000 $266,000 $266,000 $266,000 $266,000 $266,000 $266,000 $266,000 $266,000 $266,000 $2,660,000
7b. Reduce and re-use: Re-use warehouse
Total of amortized
payment and $324,615 $324,615 $324,615 $324,615 $324,615 $324,615 $324,615 $324,615 $324,615 $324,615 $3,246,153
Diversion Tons 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 20,000
(Growth Weighted) 2,116 2,156 2,197 2,239 2,282 2,325 2,369 2,414 2,460 2,507 23,066
Percentage of Total Diversion 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
8. Product stewardship: Adopt restrictions on
paper and plastic bags
Diversion tons
attributed in Culture $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000
9. Waste to clean energy: Develop hierarchy
of highest & best use $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000
10. Regional cooperation: Pursue alternatives
through regional Zero Waste Plan (2014-15) $25,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL NEW PROGRAM EXPENSES $563,838 $584,298 $567,500 $550,469 $589,350 $589,742 $590,140 $590,547 $590,961 $591,383 $591,813 $592,251 $6,992,293
Diversion Tons 2,000 13,000 22,500 33,000 43,500 54,000 64,500 74,000 82,000 90,000 98,000 102,000 678,500
(Growth Weighted) 2,038 13,499 23,807 35,580 47,793 60,456 73,583 86,025 97,136 108,639 120,543 127,847 796,946
Percentage EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) of Total Diversion OF REVENUES 1% 4% 7% 10% 13% 16% 20% 22% 25% 27% 30% 31%
OVER EXPENSES $24,500 $26,610 $55,015 $83,873 $57,045 $68,935 $81,051 $93,397 $105,978 $118,798 $131,861 $145,173 $992,237
ENDING BALANCE - PUBLIC $24,500 $51,110 $106,125 $189,998 $247,043 $315,978 $397,030 $490,427 $596,405 $715,203 $847,064 $992,237
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
BEGINNING BALANCE $0 ($2,193,432) ($2,264,479) ($2,217,172) ($2,045,238) ($1,742,131) ($1,301,017) ($714,770) $24,047 $923,191
NEW REVENUE
average cost for new services
(revenue to private sector) $5.15/hh or biz / mo $2,178,700 $5,418,942 $5,626,819 $5,842,669 $6,066,800 $6,299,528 $6,541,184 $6,792,111 $7,052,663 $7,323,210 $59,142,625
5. Construction and demolition recycling:
Help develop mixed C&D sorting facility in
region
Based on $100
($82 net) per ton
tipping fee/includes
capital and
operating costs.
Diversion tons $722,390 $736,115 $750,101 $764,353 $778,876 $793,675 $808,754 $824,121 $839,779 $7,018,164
5a. Site Construction
(50% of capital costs for a regional facility) $2,500,000 $321,085 $321,085 $321,085 $321,085 $321,085 $321,085 $321,085 $321,085 $321,085 $2,889,762
6. Compost organics: Help develop food
scraps composting and digestion facilities
Includes $55 ($37
net) per ton tipping
fee (for capital,
operating and $3,914,932 $3,989,316 $4,065,113 $4,142,350 $4,221,055 $4,301,255 $4,382,979 $4,466,256 $4,551,114 $4,637,586 $42,671,957
6a. Site Construction
(50% of costs for a regional facility) $3,500,000 $410,307 $410,307 $410,307 $410,307 $410,307 $410,307 $410,307 $410,307 $410,307 $410,307 $4,103,068
Diversion Tons 7,500 10,000 10,000 12,500 12,500 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 127,500
(Growth Weighted) 7,936 10,782 10,987 13,994 14,260 17,438 17,769 18,106 18,450 18,801 148,523
Percentage of Total Diversion 2% 3% 3% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
8. Product stewardship: Help develop glass
sorting facility in region
$400,000 capital
added to existing
recyclables $46,892 $46,892 $46,892 $46,892 $46,892 $46,892 $46,892 $46,892 $46,892 $46,892 $468,922
Diversion Tons 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 40,000
(Growth Weighted) 4,232 4,313 4,395 4,478 4,563 4,650 4,738 4,828 4,920 5,014 46,132
Percentage of Total Diversion 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
9. Waste to clean energy: Develop pilot
programs for priority technologies
$15 million to $20
million is estimate - - - - - - - - - -
TOTAL NEW PROGRAM EXPENSES $4,372,131 $5,489,990 $5,579,512 $5,670,735 $5,763,692 $5,858,415 $5,954,937 $6,053,293 $6,153,519 $6,255,648 $57,151,872
Diversion Tons - - 11,500 14,000 14,000 16,500 16,500 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 167,500
(Growth Weighted) 12,168 15,095 15,382 18,473 18,824 22,088 22,507 22,935 23,371 23,815 194,655
Percentage of Total Diversion 3% 4% 4% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES
OVER EXPENSES ($2,193,432) ($71,047) $47,307 $171,934 $303,108 $441,113 $586,247 $738,817 $899,144 $1,067,562 $1,990,753
ENDING BALANCE - PRIVATE ($2,193,432) ($2,264,479) ($2,217,172) ($2,045,238) ($1,742,131) ($1,301,017) ($714,770) $24,047 $923,191 $1,990,753
Private Sector Program Costs and Revenues
NEW PROGRAM EXPENSES
Finance Department
2nd Floor
215 N. Mason Street
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 16, 2013
To: Council Audit and Finance Committee
Through: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
From: Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
John Voss, Controller/Assistant Financial Officer
Mindy Pfleiger, Accounting Supervisor
Subject: 2012 Audit - Status of Corrective Actions
The following are management’s responses to the findings and questioned costs in McGladrey LLP
Compliance Report.
A. Significant Deficiency in Administering Federal Awards. The City does not have an adequate
system for ensuring that certain program income requirements of the CDBG program are being
met. The City had not effectively performed timely reconciliations of applicable grant-related
general ledger accounts, including cash collections from program income, to the Integrated
Disbursement and Information System (IDIS). Failure to reconcile the IDIS and general ledger
may place the City in noncompliance with grant requirements. We recommend that the City
establish a procedure to appropriately and timely reconcile IDIS to the general ledger.
Management Response: The City agrees with the recommendation. With the retirement of one
employee and transition into the grant administrator position of another, program income was
inadvertently not receipted into the IDIS system. Discussions are in process between HUD and
the Sustainability Service Area Director to get this resolved.
B. Instances of Noncompliance. The City did not comply with suspension and debarment
requirements of OMB Circular A-133 for the CDBG grant program. The City did not verify all
subrecipients were not suspended or debarred prior to providing them with federal funds. We
recommend the City implement procedures to ensure all subrecipients have not been suspended or
debarred prior to entering into contracts, and maintain documentation supporting this
verification.
Management Response: The City agrees with the recommendation. All applicants for funding
through the competitive process will be required to submit proof of active status and no
suspension or debarment from receipt of federal grant funds. This also applies to any vendors they
contract with, outside of the competitive process. Contract forms have been amended and
hereafter will include an affirmation from the applicant that the applicant is not suspended or
2
debarred. For housing and public facility contracts, Social Sustainability will
check www.sam.gov immediately before contract execution and include documentation of active
status and no exclusions in the project file.
C. Instances of Noncompliance. The City did not comply with reporting requirements of OMB
Circular A-133 for the CDBG grant program. OMB Circular A-133 dictates that the City
complete subaward reporting under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act for
all subrecipients receiving non-ARRA federal funds. The requirements pertain to recipients (i.e.
direct recipients) of grants who make first-tier subawards. The City has not submitted any of these
required reports for subrecipients receiving CDBG federal funds.
Management Response: The City agrees with the recommendation. Social Sustainability has
begun entering subawards into the system and will continue to do so until all entries are up to date.
The practice will continue for any future subawards.
The following are management’s responses to recommendations in McGladrey LLP Report to the City
Council. It should be noted that the following recommendations are not significant deficiencies or
material weaknesses. Rather, these are items for management to review and consider as opportunities to
improve City operations.
D. Community Development Block Grant.
a) Auditor Recommendation: The City is required to complete and submit on an annual basis the
SF-425 Federal Financial Report, which provides a summary of the cash receipts for the
federal program during the fiscal year. Per review of the 2012 report submitted by the City,
cash receipts of less than $200,000 were reported as being received by the City, even though
over $1 million in federal funds was awarded through these grants during 2012. We
recommend the City establish procedures to ensure federal reports submitted are reviewed for
accuracy prior to submitting.
Management Response: Staff agrees with the recommendation. The City has established
procedures to ensure that federal reports submitted are reviewed for accuracy by an
Accountant prior to submitting. In addition, Social Sustainability has been provided with the
reporting requirements to ensure the information in the SF-425 is entered and calculated
correctly, and has confirmed with HUD that the report should be submitted on a quarterly
basis.
b) Auditor Recommendation: There does not appear to be proper segregation of duties over cash
collections of program income with this grant. Loan payments are collected by grant
administration employees who then report the amount of cash collections to the finance
department. There does not appear to be an independent review of these cash collections to
verify they reconcile with amounts reported. We recommend the City establish procedures to
ensure an independent reconciliation is performed for program income cash collections
received in the CDBG programs.
Management Response: Staff agrees with the recommendation. Discussions are in progress
between Financial Services and Social Sustainability on how to address this recommendation.
c) Auditor Recommendation: The City charges payroll costs to the grant based on estimated
allocations determined during the budget process (i.e. an employee is estimated at spending 70
3
percent of their time working on the CDBG programs, and therefore 70 percent of their
payroll costs are charged to the grant accordingly. OMB Circular A-87 allows for payroll
costs to be charged on a budget basis, but requires at a minimum, the City to perform a budget
to actual comparison on an annual basis to ensure actual time spent working on the grant was
within a reasonable amount as compared to the budgeted time charged to the grant. The City
is not performing this comparison to ensure there are no significant variances from actual
time worked to budgeted time charged to the grant. We recommend the City perform the
required comparison of budget to actual time charged to grants to ensure no adjustments are
necessary for federal reimbursements.
Management Response: Staff agrees with the recommendation but is still considering how to
address this recommendation.
E. Federal Transit Administration Grant.
a) Auditor Recommendation: In connection with the City’s Urbanized Area Formula Grants, the
City did not properly report program income generated by the grants on their FFR reports
that they submit to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The omission on this
information did not result in the City requesting improper amounts of reimbursements with
federal funds. We recommend the City review all financial reports submitted to the FTA to
ensure the information is accurate.
Management Response: Staff agrees with the recommendation. The City carefully reviews
the FFR reports before submittal to verify that program income along with other financial
information is reported in the correct line item.
1
Financial Policy Structure
Council Finance Committee
December 16, 2013
2
Why Financial Policies
• Transparency to Constituents
• Ensure ongoing fiscal stability & consistency in
financial activities and process
• Provides guidance and direction in decision
making
• Recommended by GFOA and something a Rating
Agency looks for.
3
Effective Policies are:
• Explicit – in writing
• Current – reviewed on regular basis
• Literal – plain language, quantify measures
• Centrally Available – on City intranet
• Brevity – include only policy components that are
relevant to high level decision making
• Comprehensive – balance concise with all
relevant topics
4
Current Improvement Opportunities
• Not centralized and readily available
• Version control weak in some areas
• Review cycle inconsistent
• Language not always concise
• Some lack actionable measures
• Some include detailed procedures
5
Previous System
• Current Financial Management Policies
1. Budget
2. Revenue
3. General
4. Fund
5. Reserves
6. Capital Improvement Funds
7. Debt
8. Investments
9. Economic Development
6
New System
• Standardized Format
• 3 Sections/Types of Financial Policies
Council Approved: Resolution
URA Council/Board Approved: Resolution
Administrative Approved by CM or CFO
• Introduction Section, was approved by Resolution
2013-090
Single set of documents in one location
7
Review Website
• We will demonstrate and walk through the
Financial Policy website
8
Next Steps
• Continue review and updating each policy until all
are in the new format
• Determine what needs to go to Council
Some may need voiding and/or moved to
Administratively Approved policies
• Bring all revisions and recommendations back to
CFC
• Recommendation- All Council approved policies
should reviewed by CFC every 3 years
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
December 18, 2013
11 a.m. to 12:00 noon
CIC Room – City Hall
Approval of the Minutes from the November 18, 2013 Meeting
1. Financial Review URA 30 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
URA Finance Committee Meeting
Minutes
11/21/13
10:00 to 11:30 a.m.
CIC Room
Council Attendees: Mayor Karen Weitkunat, Bob Overbeck, Ross Cunniff
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead, Josh Birks, Karl Gannon,
Bruce Hendee, Mark Jackson, Diane Jones, Tom Leeson, Ken
Mannon, Lawrence Pollack, Kurt Ravenschlag, Jessica Ping-
Small, Peggy Streeter, Steve Roy, John Voss, Katie Wiggett,
Timothy Wilder
Others:
Approval of the Minutes of September 16, 2013
Mayor Karen Weitkunat moved to approve the minutes for the September 16, 2013 meeting. Minutes
were approved unanimously.
Prospect Station TIF Support
Josh Birks said that 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.
Josh added that, while historically the City has been the URA’s primary source for loans, the URA is
looking at other funding options (i.e. the federal government, banks, etc.). This is one way we are
broadening our horizons.
Josh noted that the presented policy continues the process of improvement by presenting a series of
parameters for developing the TIF commitments made to individual projects by URA staff. These
parameters are defined by the URA’s purpose to create and to enhance.
2
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 proposed Financial Policy 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.
Ross Cunniff asked how Staff settled on the maximum percentages for TIF. Mike replied that the
numbers were the result of balancing risk with achieving results. Staff determined that at 75%, the URA
could achieve its goals without too much risk. It is a conservative maximum limit.
Ross asked how this maximum percentage compares with the DDA’s. Josh answered that the primary
distinction between the DDA and the URA is that the DDA has a dual purpose, adding to blight renewal
the maintenance of the downtown area whereas the URA’s sole purpose is blight renewal. Because of
this distinction, the DDA retains more TIF to cover the cost of maintenance. The problem the URA faces
is trying to keep the TIF low while also maximizing public improvements. For example, the TIF on the
mall project would be lower if we abandoned such improvements as the YAC and the underpass.
Ross asked how any remaining TIF funds are used. Mike replied that any excess TIF stayed in the URA to
be used to improve the same area for which it was collected. Steve Roy will look into the legal
parameters for using such funds. Mike noted that the DDA uses a line of credit mechanism that satisfies
the debt obligation attached to excess TIF revenue; the URA could use a similar mechanism.
Mike noted that the conservative parameters of this policy may limit the kind of projects the URA can
take on in the future. Josh Birks added that this policy creates a forced dialogue between Staff and
Council if the URA wants to go outside these parameters. Only Council can decide to make an
exception.
Ross expressed concern that the maximum percentages may still be too high, considering future
projects and the possibility of slippage. Mayor Weitkunat said that we should emphasize that those
percentages are maximums not targets and that all but two projects have fallen well below 75%.
Next Steps
The URA TIF Policy will be discussed in more detail at a future work session.
1
URA Financial Review
Council Finance Committee
December 16, 2013
2
TIF Districts Accounted for Separately
• Money from one TIF district can not be used in
another district
• North College TIF district is currently paying
all administrative costs
• Each District assumes a 1% growth per year
3
Prospect South TIF District
• $8.6 M in property tax increment though 2037
• $8.2 M operating and debt service through 2037
Assumes Capstone revenue share to City of $528 k
Will allocate more URA administrative costs to this district
when revenue allows
• Net positive cash-flow every year
• $356 k cash balance in 2037
4
North College TIF District
• $30.7 M property tax revenue through 2031
N.C. Marketplace builds out 2017-19, each year generates
an additional $40k (total $120k)
• 2 outstanding loan obligations
City for RMI2 $ 5.3 M
2013 Bonds to outside investors $11.1 M
• A reimbursement obligation to Aspen Heights
based on actual revenue collected
not to exceed $894k, out of $3.1 M TIF (29%)
• A loan receivable of $5.3 M from RMI2
5
North College TIF District –
Base Case
• RMI2 refinance in 2017
Receive $2.5 M payback from RMI2
URA pledged TIF $2.8 M towards loan principal
URA prepays a portion of loan to City for $1.6 of $2.5 M
• No change to subsequent principal payments to City, which
still collects $5.3 M plus interest from URA
• Lowest cash balance occurs in 2023, $166k
• $5.2 M cash balance in 2031
6
North College TIF District –
Stress Case
• RMI2 does not refinance in 2017
RMI2 loses the $2.8 M TIF pledge
All TIF revenue stays with URA
RMI2 makes lump sump payment to the URA of $5.3 M in 2029
• Cash balance goes negative from 2018 to 2028
$565K deficit in 2021
Require restructuring of $5.3M URA loan with the City
Allocation of a portion of the URA operating cost to Prospect
South will reduce the deficit
• $8.8 M cash balance in 2031
Urban Renewal Authority / Midtown Plan Area
Prospect South TIF District
Base year 2011 TIF Rev through 2037
Financial Forecast
2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Tax Collection Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Cash Inflows
Property Tax Increment
Capstone 58,268 268,946 274,325 274,325 279,812 279,812 285,408 285,408 291,116 291,116 296,938 296,938 302,877 302,877
Prospect Station - 3,916 39,156 39,156 39,939 39,939 40,738 40,738 41,553 41,553 42,384 42,384 43,231 43,231
Non-Project District Amount 25,021 25,021 25,522 25,522 26,032 26,032 26,553 26,553 27,084 27,084 27,626 27,626 28,178 28,178
Property Tax Increment - 83,289 297,883 339,003 339,003 345,783 345,783 352,698 352,698 359,752 359,752 366,947 366,947 374,286 374,286
Interest - 108 194 370 498 760 925 1,282 1,487 1,948 2,200 2,774 3,079 3,779
Loan Proceeds
Loan 1 - Capstone (General Fund) 5,000,000
Loan 2 - Prospect Station (Water Fund) 247,000
Total Cash Inflows 5,000,000 330,289 297,992 339,197 339,373 346,281 346,543 353,623 353,980 361,240 361,700 369,148 369,722 377,366 378,065
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Cash Outflows
Operating
Personnel - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Goods & Services - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
County Fee - (1,666) (5,958) (6,780) (6,780) (6,916) (6,916) (7,054) (7,054) (7,195) (7,195) (7,339) (7,339) (7,486) (7,486)
subtotal operating - (1,666) (5,958) (6,780) (6,780) (6,916) (6,916) (7,054) (7,054) (7,195) (7,195) (7,339) (7,339) (7,486) (7,486)
Project Costs
Project 1 - Capstone (5,000,000)
Project 2 - Prospect Station (247,000)
subtotal project costs (5,000,000) (247,000) - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Developer Payback
Project 2 - Prospect Station (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762)
subtotal Developer Payback (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762)
Debt Service
Debt 1 Principal Capstone 75,732 (132,916) (141,858) (145,659) (155,049) (159,205) (169,068) (173,599) (183,959) (188,889) (199,774) (205,128) (216,564) (222,368)
Debt 1 Interest (134,000) (136,030) (132,467) (128,666) (124,762) (120,607) (116,340) (111,809) (107,157) (102,226) (97,164) (91,810) (86,313) (80,509)
Debt 2 Principal (Prospect Station) (6,227) (6,554) (6,898) (7,260) (7,642) (8,043) (8,465) (8,909) (9,377) (9,870) (10,388) (10,933)
Debt 2 Interest (12,968) (12,641) (12,296) (11,934) (11,553) (11,152) (10,730) (10,285) (9,818) (9,325) (8,807) (8,262)
subtotal debt service - (58,268) (268,946) (293,520) (293,520) (299,006) (299,006) (304,602) (304,602) (310,311) (310,311) (316,133) (316,133) (322,072) (322,072)
Revenue Sharing
Share 1 : 50% (Capstone / General Fund) (12,511) (14,523) (16,958) (17,045) (17,756) (17,887) (18,629) (18,808) (19,584) (19,814) (20,626) (20,913) (21,766) (22,116)
Total Cash Outflows (5,000,000) (319,444) (289,427) (329,019) (329,107) (335,440) (335,571) (342,048) (342,226) (348,851) (349,081) (355,860) (356,147) (363,086) (363,435)
Net Change in Cash - 10,845 8,565 10,178 10,265 10,841 10,972 11,576 11,754 12,389 12,619 13,287 13,574 14,280 14,630
Ending Cash & Investments - 10,845 19,410 29,588 39,853 50,694 61,666 73,241 84,995 97,383 110,002 123,290 136,864 151,144 165,774
TIF Growth Assumption
Prospect South
Urban Renewal Authority / Midtown Plan Area
Prospect South TIF District
Base year 2011 TIF Rev through 2037
Financial Forecast
Tax Collection Year
Cash Inflows
Property Tax Increment
Capstone
Prospect Station
Non-Project District Amount
Property Tax Increment
Interest
Loan Proceeds
Loan 1 - Capstone (General Fund)
Loan 2 - Prospect Station (Water Fund)
Total Cash Inflows
Cash Outflows
Operating
Personnel
Goods & Services
County Fee
subtotal operating
Project Costs
Project 1 - Capstone
Project 2 - Prospect Station
subtotal project costs
Developer Payback
Project 2 - Prospect Station
subtotal Developer Payback
Debt Service
Debt 1 Principal Capstone
Debt 1 Interest
Debt 2 Principal (Prospect Station)
Debt 2 Interest
subtotal debt service
Revenue Sharing
Share 1 : 50% (Capstone / General Fund)
Total Cash Outflows
Net Change in Cash
Ending Cash & Investments
TIF Growth 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Cumulative
2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 Total
-
308,935 308,935 315,113 315,113 321,415 321,415 327,844 327,844 334,401 334,401 7,003,580
44,096 44,096 44,978 44,978 45,877 45,877 46,795 46,795 47,731 47,731 956,872
28,742 28,742 29,316 29,316 29,903 29,903 30,501 30,501 31,111 31,111 671,176
381,772 381,772 389,408 389,408 397,196 397,196 405,140 405,140 413,242 413,242 8,631,628
4,144 4,982 5,416 6,406 6,919 8,078 8,679 10,026 10,729 12,284 97,068
-
5,000,000
247,000
-
385,917 386,754 394,824 395,814 404,114 405,274 413,819 415,166 423,971 425,527 13,975,696
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Cumulative
2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 Total
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
(7,635) (7,635) (7,788) (7,788) (7,944) (7,944) (8,103) (8,103) (8,265) (8,265) (172,633)
(7,635) (7,635) (7,788) (7,788) (7,944) (7,944) (8,103) (8,103) (8,265) (8,265) (172,633)
Page 1 Printed 12/12/2013
North College Urban Renewal Area
Base year 2005 TIF Rev through 2031 Growth Assumption
Financial Forecast
RMI2 Refinance in 2017 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
TIF revenue year 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Cash Inflows
Property Tax Increment 1,284,690 1,137,337 1,137,337 1,160,084 1,160,084 1,183,285 1,223,285 1,287,751 1,327,751 1,354,306 1,354,306 1,381,392 1,381,392 1,409,020 1,409,020 1,437,201
1,437,201 1,465,945 1,465,945
Aspen Heights 87,321 174,641 174,641 178,134 178,134 181,696 181,696 185,330 185,330 189,037 189,037 192,818 192,818 196,674 196,674 200,608 200,608
Property Tax Increment 1,284,690 1,137,337 1,224,658 1,334,725 1,334,725 1,361,419 1,401,419 1,469,448 1,509,448 1,539,637 1,539,637 1,570,429 1,570,429 1,601,838 1,601,838 1,633,875
1,633,875 1,666,552 1,666,552
Bond Proceeds (Par) 11,085,000
Bond Proceeds (Premium) 316,806
Interest 16,197 12,005 7,175 8,936 10,754 14,466 11,893 8,348 4,941 4,200 4,739 4,983 11,491 12,589 14,776 17,086 33,245 97,315 172,595
Interest from loans 80,664 80,664 80,664 80,664 80,664 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RMI2 principal repayments 2,503,939 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Cash Inflows 12,783,357 1,230,006 1,312,497 1,424,325 3,930,082 1,375,885 1,413,312 1,477,796 1,514,389 1,543,836 1,544,376 1,575,412 1,581,920 1,614,427 1,616,614 1,650,961 1,667,120
1,763,867 1,839,148
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Cash Outflows
Operating
Personnel (202,091) (205,770) (209,885) (214,083) (218,365) (222,732) (227,187) (231,730) (236,365) (241,092) (245,914) (250,832) (255,849) (260,966) (266,185) (271,509) (276,939) (282,478)
(288,128)
Goods & Services (7,536) (7,542) (7,693) (7,847) (8,004) (8,164) (8,327) (8,494) (8,663) (8,837) (9,013) (9,194) (9,378) (9,565) (9,756) (9,952) (10,151) (10,354) (10,561)
Project Store Front (25,000) (50,000)
subtotal operating (234,627) (263,312) (217,578) (221,930) (226,368) (230,896) (235,514) (240,224) (245,028) (249,929) (254,928) (260,026) (265,227) (270,531) (275,942) (281,461) (287,090)
(292,832) (298,688)
Bond Costs
Fees (200,393)
Debt Service Reserve Fund (948,963) 948,963
Project Costs
Project 1 - Valley Steel
Project 2 - NCMP (Phase 1)
Project 2 - NCMP (Phase 1) REFUND
Project 3 - RMI2
Project 4 - JAX
Project 5 - NEECO
Project 6 - North College.:Vine-Conifer
Project 7 - Kaufman Robinson
Project 8 - NCMP phase 2 (212,387)
Project 9 - Aspen Heights Principal (52,843) (133,149) (137,476) (141,944) (146,557) (151,321) (28,876) - - - - - - - - - -
Project 9 - Aspen Heights Interest (25,745) (24,028) (19,701) (15,233) (10,619) (5,856) (938) - - - - - - - - - -
subtotal project costs (1,361,742) - (78,588) (157,177) (157,177) (157,177) (157,177) (157,177) (29,814) - - - - - - - 948,963 - -
Debt Service
Debt 1 Principal (Valley S & seed $)
Debt 1 Interest
Debt 2 Principal (N. College M.P. 2009 CAF) (4,728,540)
Debt 2 Interest (78,643)
Debt 3 Principal (RMI2) (2,365,826) (252,333) (266,692) (273,360) (288,567) (295,781) (311,884) (150,512) (336,729) (345,147) (348,955) (68,153)
Debt 3 Interest (662,992) (132,598) (132,598) (132,598) (73,453) (67,145) (60,477) (53,643) (46,429) (39,035) (31,237) (27,475) (19,056) (10,428) (1,704)
2013 Bond Principal - (540,000) (550,000) (560,000) (575,000) (595,000) (615,000) (635,000) (665,000) (690,000) (715,000) (745,000) (775,000) (805,000) (840,000) (870,000) (910,000)
- -
2013 Bond Interest (135,888) (407,663) (396,863) (385,863) (369,063) (351,813) (333,963) (309,363) (283,963) (257,363) (229,763) (201,163) (171,363) (140,363) (108,163) (74,563) (38,675)
- -
Debt 4 Principal (JAX) (106,203)
Debt 4 Interest (1,549)
Debt 5 Principal (NEECO) (326,472)
Page 2 Printed 12/12/2013
North College Urban Renewal Area
Base year 2005 TIF Rev through 2031
Financial Forecast
RMI2 Refinance in 2017
TIF revenue year
Cash Inflows
Property Tax Increment
Aspen Heights
Property Tax Increment
Bond Proceeds (Par)
Bond Proceeds (Premium)
Interest
Interest from loans
RMI2 principal repayments
Total Cash Inflows
Cash Outflows
Operating
Personnel
Goods & Services
Project Store Front
subtotal operating
Bond Costs
Fees
Debt Service Reserve Fund
Project Costs
Project 1 - Valley Steel
Project 2 - NCMP (Phase 1)
Project 2 - NCMP (Phase 1) REFUND
Project 3 - RMI2
Project 4 - JAX
Project 5 - NEECO
Project 6 - North College.:Vine-Conifer
Project 7 - Kaufman Robinson
Project 8 - NCMP phase 2
Project 9 - Aspen Heights Principal
Project 9 - Aspen Heights Interest
subtotal project costs
Debt Service
Debt 1 Principal (Valley S & seed $)
Debt 1 Interest
Debt 2 Principal (N. College M.P. 2009 CAF)
Debt 2 Interest
Debt 3 Principal (RMI2)
Debt 3 Interest
2013 Bond Principal
2013 Bond Interest
Debt 4 Principal (JAX)
Debt 4 Interest
Debt 5 Principal (NEECO)
Debt 5 Interest
Debt 6 Principal (N. College, Vine to Conifer)
Debt 6 Interest
Debt 7 Principal (Kaufman Robinson)
Debt 7 Interest
Debt 8 Principal (N. College M.P. 2011 Water)
Debt 8 Interest
subtotal debt service
Total Cash Outflows
Net Change in Cash
Page 3 Printed 12/12/2013
North College Urban Renewal Area
Base year 2005 TIF Rev through 2031 Growth Assumption
Financial Forecast
RMI2 Refinance in 2017 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
TIF revenue year 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Cash Inflows
Property Tax Increment 1,284,690 1,137,337 1,137,337 1,160,084 1,160,084 1,183,285 1,223,285 1,287,751 1,327,751 1,354,306 1,354,306 1,381,392 1,381,392 1,409,020 1,409,020 1,437,201
1,437,201 1,465,945
Aspen Heights 87,321 174,641 174,641 178,134 178,134 181,696 181,696 185,330 185,330 189,037 189,037 192,818 192,818 196,674 196,674 200,608
Property Tax Increment 1,284,690 1,137,337 1,224,658 1,334,725 1,334,725 1,361,419 1,401,419 1,469,448 1,509,448 1,539,637 1,539,637 1,570,429 1,570,429 1,601,838 1,601,838 1,633,875
1,633,875 1,666,552
Bond Proceeds (Par) 11,085,000
Bond Proceeds (Premium) 316,806
Interest 16,197 12,005 7,175 8,936 10,754 1,209 - - - - - - - - - - - 245,120
Interest from loans 80,664 80,664 80,664 80,664 80,664 80,664 80,664 80,664 80,664 80,664 80,664 80,664 80,664 80,664 80,664 80,664 80,664 -
RMI2 principal repayments - - - - - - - - - - - 5,303,939 -
Total Cash Inflows 12,783,357 1,230,006 1,312,497 1,424,325 1,426,143 1,443,292 1,482,083 1,550,112 1,590,112 1,620,301 1,620,301 1,651,093 1,651,093 1,682,502 1,682,502 1,714,539 7,018,478
1,911,672
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Cash Outflows
Operating
Personnel (202,091) (205,770) (209,885) (214,083) (218,365) (222,732) (227,187) (231,730) (236,365) (241,092) (245,914) (250,832) (255,849) (260,966) (266,185) (271,509) (276,939) (282,478)
Goods & Services (7,536) (7,542) (7,693) (7,847) (8,004) (8,164) (8,327) (8,494) (8,663) (8,837) (9,013) (9,194) (9,378) (9,565) (9,756) (9,952) (10,151) (10,354)
Project Store Front (25,000) (50,000)
subtotal operating (234,627) (263,312) (217,578) (221,930) (226,368) (230,896) (235,514) (240,224) (245,028) (249,929) (254,928) (260,026) (265,227) (270,531) (275,942) (281,461) (287,090)
(292,832)
Bond Costs
Fees (200,393)
Debt Service Reserve Fund (948,963) 948,963
Project Costs
Project 1 - Valley Steel
Project 2 - NCMP (Phase 1)
Project 2 - NCMP (Phase 1) REFUND
Project 3 - RMI2
Project 4 - JAX
Project 5 - NEECO
Project 6 - North College.:Vine-Conifer
Project 7 - Kaufman Robinson
Project 8 - NCMP phase 2 (212,387)
Project 9 - Aspen Heights Principal (52,843) (133,149) (137,476) (141,944) (146,557) (151,321) (28,876) - - - - - - - - -
Project 9 - Aspen Heights Interest (25,745) (24,028) (19,701) (15,233) (10,619) (5,856) (938) - - - - - - - - -
subtotal project costs (1,361,742) - (78,588) (157,177) (157,177) (157,177) (157,177) (157,177) (29,814) - - - - - - - 948,963 -
Debt Service
Debt 1 Principal (Valley S & seed $)
Debt 1 Interest
Debt 2 Principal (N. College M.P. 2009 CAF) (4,728,540)
Debt 2 Interest (78,643)
Debt 3 Principal (RMI2) (764,810) (252,333) (266,692) (273,360) (288,567) (295,781) (311,884) (319,681) (336,729) (345,147) (363,194) (388,096) (1,097,665)
Debt 3 Interest (662,992) (132,598) (132,598) (113,478) (107,170) (100,503) (93,669) (86,454) (79,060) (71,263) (63,271) (54,853) (46,224) (37,144) (27,442) (24,014)
2013 Bond Principal - (540,000) (550,000) (560,000) (575,000) (595,000) (615,000) (635,000) (665,000) (690,000) (715,000) (745,000) (775,000) (805,000) (840,000) (870,000) (910,000)
-
2013 Bond Interest (135,888) (407,663) (396,863) (385,863) (369,063) (351,813) (333,963) (309,363) (283,963) (257,363) (229,763) (201,163) (171,363) (140,363) (108,163) (74,563) (38,675)
-
Debt 4 Principal (JAX) (106,203)
Debt 4 Interest (1,549)
Debt 5 Principal (NEECO) (326,472)
Debt 5 Interest (5,735)
Page 4 Printed 12/12/2013
North College Urban Renewal Area
Base year 2005 TIF Rev through 2031
Financial Forecast
RMI2 Refinance in 2017
TIF revenue year
Cash Inflows
Property Tax Increment
Aspen Heights
Property Tax Increment
Bond Proceeds (Par)
Bond Proceeds (Premium)
Interest
Interest from loans
RMI2 principal repayments
Total Cash Inflows
Cash Outflows
Operating
Personnel
Goods & Services
Project Store Front
subtotal operating
Bond Costs
Fees
Debt Service Reserve Fund
Project Costs
Project 1 - Valley Steel
Project 2 - NCMP (Phase 1)
Project 2 - NCMP (Phase 1) REFUND
Project 3 - RMI2
Project 4 - JAX
Project 5 - NEECO
Project 6 - North College.:Vine-Conifer
Project 7 - Kaufman Robinson
Project 8 - NCMP phase 2
Project 9 - Aspen Heights Principal
Project 9 - Aspen Heights Interest
subtotal project costs
Debt Service
Debt 1 Principal (Valley S & seed $)
Debt 1 Interest
Debt 2 Principal (N. College M.P. 2009 CAF)
Debt 2 Interest
Debt 3 Principal (RMI2)
Debt 3 Interest
2013 Bond Principal
2013 Bond Interest
Debt 4 Principal (JAX)
Debt 4 Interest
Debt 5 Principal (NEECO)
Debt 5 Interest
Debt 6 Principal (N. College, Vine to Conifer)
Debt 6 Interest
Debt 7 Principal (Kaufman Robinson)
Debt 7 Interest
Debt 8 Principal (N. College M.P. 2011 Water)
Debt 8 Interest
subtotal debt service
Total Cash Outflows
Net Change in Cash
Ending Cash & Investments
25 Cumulative
2031 Total
1,465,945 27,593,636
200,608 3,085,197
1,666,552 30,678,833
11,085,000
316,806
335,633 822,292
- 1,609,128
- 5,303,939
2,002,185 66,662,058
27 Cumulative
2031 Total
(288,128) (5,329,125)
(10,561) (228,999)
(75,000)
(298,688) (5,633,124)
(200,393)
-
(109,403)
(4,992,662)
1,257,203
(5,303,939)
(172,758)
(326,472)
(2,700,000)
(192,891)
(3,643,634)
- (792,166)
- (102,121)
- (17,279,236)
(150,000)
(27,088)
(5,000,000)
(594,299)
(5,303,939)
(1,832,733)
-
- (11,085,000)
- (4,195,850)
-
(172,758)
(9,366)
(326,472)
(21,294)
(2,700,000)
(105,794)
(192,891)
(9,887)
(3,000,000)
(252,884)
- (34,980,253)
(298,688) (57,892,613)
1,703,496 8,769,445
8,769,445
Debt 6 Principal (N. College, Vine to Conifer) (2,700,000)
Debt 6 Interest (105,794)
Debt 7 Principal (Kaufman Robinson) (192,891)
Debt 7 Interest (2,769)
Debt 8 Principal (N. College M.P. 2011 Water) (2,883,983)
Debt 8 Interest (68,834)
subtotal debt service (11,337,300) (1,610,655) (1,079,461) (1,078,461) (1,822,351) (1,306,316) (1,316,158) (1,311,392) (1,323,984) (1,322,204) (1,327,910) (1,329,115) (1,337,945) (1,336,734)
(1,348,501) (1,360,101) (2,070,354) -
Total Cash Outflows (12,933,670) (1,873,967) (1,375,627) (1,457,567) (2,205,896) (1,694,388) (1,708,848) (1,708,792) (1,598,826) (1,572,133) (1,582,837) (1,589,141) (1,603,171) (1,607,265)
(1,624,442) (1,641,561) (1,408,481) (292,832)
Net Change in Cash (150,313) (643,960) (63,130) (33,243) (779,753) (251,096) (226,765) (158,681) (8,714) 48,168 37,464 61,953 47,922 75,237 58,060 72,978 5,609,996 1,618,840
Ending Cash & Investments 1,600,672 956,712 893,582 860,339 80,586 (170,510) (397,274) (555,955) (564,669) (516,501) (479,038) (417,085) (369,163) (293,925) (235,866) (162,888) 5,447,108
7,065,949
North College - Stress Case
$40,000 a year NC Build Out
Ending Cash & Investments
Cumulative
Total
27,593,636
3,085,197
30,678,833
11,085,000
316,806
653,000
641,159
2,503,939
62,724,797
Cumulative
Total
(5,329,125)
(228,999)
(75,000)
(5,633,124)
(200,393)
-
(109,403)
(4,992,662)
1,257,203
(5,303,939)
(172,758)
(326,472)
(2,700,000)
(192,891)
(3,643,634)
(792,166)
(102,121)
(17,279,236)
(150,000)
(27,088)
(5,000,000)
(594,299)
(5,303,939)
(1,490,869)
-
(11,085,000)
(4,195,850)
-
(172,758)
(9,366)
(326,472)
(21,294)
(2,700,000)
(105,794)
(192,891)
(9,887)
(3,000,000)
(252,884)
-
-
(34,638,389)
(57,550,748)
5,174,048
Debt 5 Interest (5,735)
Debt 6 Principal (N. College, Vine to Conifer) (2,700,000)
Debt 6 Interest (105,794)
Debt 7 Principal (Kaufman Robinson) (192,891)
Debt 7 Interest (2,769)
Debt 8 Principal (N. College M.P. 2011 Water) (2,883,983)
Debt 8 Interest (68,834)
subtotal debt service (11,337,300) (1,610,655) (1,079,461) (1,078,461) (3,442,487) (1,272,598) (1,282,799) (1,278,200) (1,291,173) (1,289,573) (1,295,681) (1,127,912) (1,310,566) (1,309,566)
(1,307,545) (1,014,419) (948,675) - -
Total Cash Outflows (12,933,670) (1,873,967) (1,375,628) (1,457,568) (3,826,032) (1,660,671) (1,675,490) (1,675,601) (1,566,015) (1,539,502) (1,550,609) (1,387,938) (1,575,793) (1,580,097)
(1,583,487) (1,295,880) (286,802) (292,832) (298,688)
Net Change in Cash (150,313) (643,960) (63,131) (33,243) 104,050 (284,786) (262,177) (197,804) (51,626) 4,335 (6,233) 187,474 6,128 34,330 33,127 355,081 1,380,317 1,471,035 1,540,459
Ending Cash & Investments 1,600,672 956,712 893,581 860,338 964,388 679,602 417,425 219,620 167,994 172,329 166,096 353,570 359,698 394,028 427,155 782,236 2,162,554 3,633,589 5,174,048
North College - Base Case
$40,000 a year NC Build Out
(5,000,000)
(247,000)
- - - - - - - - - - (5,247,000)
(11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) - (247,002)
(11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) - (247,002)
(234,385) (240,667) (253,295) (260,083) (273,356) (280,682) (294,632) (302,529) (317,193) (324,873) (5,000,000)
(74,549) (68,268) (61,818) (55,030) (48,060) (40,734) (33,211) (25,315) (17,207) (8,707) (2,002,758)
(11,507) (12,111) (12,747) (13,416) (14,121) (14,862) (15,642) (16,463) (17,328) (18,237) (247,000)
(7,688) (7,084) (6,448) (5,779) (5,074) (4,333) (3,553) (2,731) (1,867) (957) (175,284)
-
-
(328,129) (328,129) (334,308) (334,308) (340,610) (340,610) (347,039) (347,039) (353,595) (352,774) (7,425,043)
(23,013) (23,431) (24,377) (24,872) (25,871) (26,451) (27,509) (28,183) (29,307) (36,376) (528,326)
(370,539) (370,958) (378,235) (378,730) (386,187) (386,767) (394,413) (395,086) (402,929) (397,415) (13,620,003)
15,377 15,796 16,589 17,084 17,927 18,507 19,406 20,080 21,042 28,111 355,693
181,151 196,947 213,536 230,620 248,547 267,053 286,460 306,540 327,582 355,693
Prospect South