HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Mail Packet - 10/7/2014 - Memorandum From Mike Beckstead Re: Past Revenue Diversification DiscussionsCity Manager’s Office
300 LaPorte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6505
970.224.6107 - fax
fcgov.com
Minutes
City of Fort Collins
Futures Committee Meeting
Regular Meeting
300 LaPorte Ave
City Hall
September 10, 2012
5:00 – 7:00 p.m.
Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent:
Wade Troxell
Lisa Poppaw
Gerry Horak
Darin Atteberry
Bruce Hendee
Guests:
Wendy Williams
Mike Becksted
Jessica Ping-Small
Dan Weinheimer
Josh Birks
Agenda Item 1: Revenue Diversification
Jessica gave a presentation which compared revenue data with like towns in Colorado and
nationally. Through the help of the Economic Health Office, this report was completed.
The results show that the City relies on Sales and Use Tax, for about 45% of its revenue. The
results of how we compare within Colorado and nationally are as follows:
Fort Collins reliance on sales tax increased to 51% with KFCG
Limited revenue diversification in other cities (diversity requires an increase in
property tax or an income tax
Fort Collins is in the middle of the pack on citizen tax burden
Fort Collins combined sales tax rate is on the low end
Fort Collins is slightly above the average of 8.828 mills compared with other
Colorado cities
Attachment 1
2
One of the components of this is the RTD. We combine this in the report, if we were to take it
out, our sales tax rate would rank higher within Colorado and the National Cities that were used
to compare this study, however, this would not compare like services for like services. Once it is
placed back in, we fall to the lower percent of Cities.
Conclusions of Comparison
Only three Colorado communities analyzed achieve revenue diversity
Revenue diversification in Fort Collins would require a three-fold increase in the property
tax rate. The mill levy would need to be raised to 31.162
Issue – How to reduce dependency on tax rates that sunset and carry the risk of non-
renewal
Goal
Transform into a sustainable community – level of basic services that are acceptable to the
community, example of Police, Fire and Streets.
Next Steps:
Create a detailed analysis of what it would be practical and feasible then come back with
recommendation of a game plan.
Agenda Item 2: Pro-Active Approach to Federal Legislative Issues and Grants
Dan gave a presentation regarding how to be pro-active on legislative issues and grants. This
includes policy, revenue, goals and alternative sources of funding for the City.
By having someone who had the knowledge and access to the different grants that are available,
the use of staff resources would not need to be as great for these projects. The preparation and
“having a story to tell” are very effective in obtaining these grants. Both before and after can be
very time consuming and staff intensive. Having a group working together in aligning projects
with grants would be useful. This group could track City projects, gain knowledge about the
different opportunities available, focusing on putting the best applications possible to obtain the
grant.
The innovation clusters have done this for us and are a good model for this type of administer. If
we have tasks that have a specific goal for a project, there might be a grant available to aid in the
funding.
Obtaining a letter of recommendation from a legislature is very important in the likelihood of
obtaining a grant. Dan can ensure that proposals get the needed letters and then that legislative
offices are promoting Fort Collins projects.
Attachment 1
3
Thoughts
CSU does a lot around Economic Development and innovation in seeking grants; perhaps
we can align with them and work collaboratively
On a strategic level, we need to be looking forward to what is coming and the ability to
follow through with it
Focus on the areas where we are doing well, where we are not and where are their
opportunities to improve
What are the things where we want to advance our community then look for grants
related to that
Do we have the capacity for going after the grants and the work involved with them
There are positive ripple effects from grants. Projects have been started by receiving a grant,
then the benefits from there lead to other bigger projects in the future. This use of grant funding
and innovation can blend together to promote future grant success and have a long term payoff
for the community brand.
Next Steps:
Attachment 1
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
9/16/12
10:00 to 12:00
CIC Room
Council Attendees: Mayor Karen Weitkunat (entered at 10:30), Mayor
Pro Tem Kelly Ohlson, Ben Manvel
Staff: Darin Atteberry, John Voss, Mike Beckstead,
Harold Hall, Chris Donegon, Jessica Ping-Small,
Angelina Sanchez-Sprague, Greg Tempel, Heather
Shepherd
Others:
Approval of the Minutes
Ben Manvel moved to approve the August, 2012 minutes and Kelly Ohlson seconded
the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously.
Auditor Response Follow-Up
John Voss reviewed the City staff responses and follow-up actions to any items the auditors
recommended. Overall, the Committee agrees with what staff has presented.
Budget Clean-Up
The information that will be presented to City Council in October on the Annual Clean-Up
Ordinance was reviewed and staff responded to any questions from the Committee. The
annual Clean-Up Ordinance allows for the appropriation of expenses related to unanticipated
revenue, grants and unforeseen costs that had not previously been budgeted.
Committee members requested that all use of prior year reserves be highlighted for
presentation to City Council, and also to include any changes not seen by this Committee.
General Employee’s Retirement Plan –Supplemental Option
This topic is in response to a question asked at a previous Council Finance Committee
meeting. What would the financial impact be on GERP funds if active employees contributed
a specific dollar amount or percentage going forward?
Currently there are 155 active employees in the plan.
Comparison of other City savings plans:
Attachment 2
401/457 Programs GERP & 401 GERP & 457
Contributor: City Staff City Staff City Staff
Pre 2010 6.5 to 7.5% 3%* 7.5%** 3% # 7.5%** Discretionary
Post 2010 6.5 to 7.5% 3%* 10.5%*** 3% # 10.5%*** Discretionary
* Required 401 contribution by staff.
# GERP members who voluntarily elected to also participate in the City 401
program during the 90’s are also required to contribute 3% to the 401.
87% of GERP participants are in the 401 program.
** 4.5% to GERP and 3% to 401 or match up to 3% for 457 only members.
*** 10.5% to GERP.
As of last year, there is an unfunded liability amount of $13.8 million in the GERP portfolio.
The City owns the investment return risk for the plan. Any deviation from the assumed 6.8%
return will have an impact on future Supplemental contribution requirements.
Ben Manvel asked staff to make some further calculations for various GERP scenarios, such as
how much money will be saved if plan members are asked to contribute different amounts
each month.
Mayor Karen Weitkunat has a concern that this issue is not highlighted or called out in the
Budget now, and it could have a large impact.
Revenue Diversification
The presentation defines the City’s current revenue and how Fort Collins compares to
other jurisdictions in Colorado and nationally. There may be some alternatives to
pursue.
Currently Fort Collins revenue is obtained as follows: Sales and Use tax 45%, Other
Revenue 42%, and Property Tax 11%.
The Committee members requested some further information that show an
explanation of each category in “Other revenue”. Additionally, the Mayor would like
to see a breakdown of Sales Tax and Use Tax revenue separately.
The city compared revenue diversification among some other, similar cities and
concluded the following:
• Only three Colorado communities analyzed achieve revenue diversity
• Revenue diversification in Fort Collins would require a three-fold increase in
the property tax rate…the mill levy would need to be raised to 31.162.
• Issue – How to reduce dependency on tax rates that sunset and carry the risk of
non-renewal.
Committee members suggest that a Revenue taxation strategy should be developed so
that further discussion can be had on this topic, and potentially presented at a work
session in early 2013.
Attachment 2
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
1/14/13
10:00 to 12:00
CIC Room
Council Attendees: Mayor Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Pro Tem Kelly Ohlson,
Ben Manvel
Staff: Darin Atteberry, John Voss, Mike Beckstead,
Mindy Pfleiger, Karen Tracy, Marty Heffernan,
Steve Roy, Wendy Williams, Diane Jones, Katie Wiggett
Others:
Approval of the Minutes of December 17, 2012
Ben Manvel moved to approve the minutes from the December 17, 2012 meeting. Kelly Ohlson
seconded the motion. Minutes were approved unanimously.
Capital Improvement Expansion Fee Update
Mike Beckstead outlined that he plans to present the updated Capital Expansion Fees in a work session
on February 12. He will present the update to City Council on March 5, and again for a second hearing
on March 19.
Jessica Ping-Small presented a comprehensive review of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees. Staff
have worked with Duncan Associates to review the methodology and update the fees established in
1996. The outcome of the study retains the basic methodology of incremental expansion but
recommends minor changes to some of the inputs. The fees have all been updated based on current
level of service which factors in current capital assets for all fees. Also, trails have been added to the
park calculations.
In the updated review the inputs to fee calculations have changed, resulting in a variation in updated
fees.
• Neighborhood and community park fees are increasing for smaller units and decreasing for
larger units.
• Fire, police, and general government fees are increasing.
• Net residential fees are increasing except for largest units, and commercial/industrial fees are
increasing.
Attachment 3
Director of CPRE Marty Heffernan explained that the new Trails Fee would be added to the updated
Parks Fees. Trail Fees were already allowed for in the City’s Plan; they had simply not been calculated in
until now. City Attorney Steve Roy asked the Finance Department to double check that there was no
“double dipping” with the updated fees.
Darin asked if the cost of a new City Hall could be included in the general government costs that are
used to build up the fees. Also, he asked if, once collected, the general government revenue could be
used to fund a new City Hall. Staff indicated the cost basis for the new fees could only be based on the
existing level of service and the associated asset base that supports this service; hence, the added costs
of a future City Hall cannot be included in the revised fees. The fees collected are to be used for
developments outlined in the city’s plan; therefore, future revenue collected from the revised fees can
be used to fund a portion of the new City Hall. While the fees are used for development, the fee
amounts are always based on the current level of service provided—never on the projected value of
future developments.
Mayor Weitkunat asked that the report add a general summary of how Capital Expansion Fees are used.
Ben Manvel asked if the city could raise the fees based on over capacity, just as they lower the fees due
to under capacity. Jessica said that she will ask Clancy Mullen of Duncan Associates if this would be an
option.
Jessica concluded that inputs to formula and asset information had been updated for all fees and that a
reduction of household size based on a national survey drove partial fee change. Staff recommends
codifying a comprehensive review every 3-5 years.
Revenue Policy and Diversification Options
Jessica presented the proposed city’s revenue principles that will become the foundation for a revised
revenue policy and possible options for diversification and stabilization of the City’s revenue sources.
Jessica offered the following five revenue principles for discussion:
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
Jessica stated that, in 2011, sales and use tax was 51% of the general government revenue. Though this
rate is not uncommon for cities in Colorado, greater diversification is desirable to create greater
stability. Many cities diversify by adopting the “three-legged stool” approach, an approach that uses
income tax, occupation privilege tax, or significantly higher property taxes. This approach is currently
not feasible in Fort Collins, so we must find ways to diversify within our framework.
On Principle 1, Mayor Weitkunat asked that the categories “Intergovernmental” and “Charges for
Services” be broken down into smaller subcategories to make the chart “2011 General Government
Revenue” more clear.
Attachment 3
On Principle 2, Ben noted that the chart “Sales and Use Tax Growth” needs another column stating the
running total so the chart will better represent the change. He also stated that, without such
information as inflation and population figured in, the chart is misleadingly positive. Staff agreed.
On Principle 4, Kelley Ohlson objected to the use of the word core describing services because it is too
subjective. The council agreed that the word core should be dropped.
Council Direction / Next Steps
The Council Finance supports the 5 revenue principles with the suggested revisions. The Council does
want staff to initiate the ¼ cent renewal process, but does not want to make the ¼ cent sales tax
permanent.
The Council Finance wants staff to further research the Transportation Utility Fee and the Sales Tax on
Services as the most feasible diversification options. They would also like staff to research Differential
Sales Tax Rates and the Occupational Privilege Tax.
Near Term Actions:
Jess stated that staff will mobilize efforts to replace or extend the two ¼ cents expiring in December
2015 or assess and make recommendation on replacing the Transportation ¼ Cent with a Transportation
Utility Fee.
Kelley noted that the dates for the projected Citizen Campaign were not accurate. Darin agreed and
said that they should be changed to May 2014-Nov. 2014.
Longer Term Actions:
Jessica stated that, for a long term option, the city could evaluate options to diversify and/or promote
stability within its revenue stream. Staff decided on the following six options as the most feasible:
1. Expand sales tax to cover services
2. Implement a differential sales tax rate
3. Assess a transportation utility fee
4. Increase property tax
5. Make ¼ cent taxes permanent
6. Implement an occupational privilege tax
Kelley suggested that, if the city does add a service tax, it could drop the 2.25% tax on take home foods.
The council agreed that this is a valid option. In light of this conversation, Mike noted that the lack of
hard data on Service Tax would make adopting such a tax both challenging and risky.
Darin suggested that a parks maintenance fee be added to the potential transportation utility fee. Staff
will evaluate this alternative in conjunction with assessing a Transportation Utility Fee.
Kelley believes that a two hour work session or a special work session should be scheduled to discuss
this topic further. Darin agrees that this would be a good topic for the Futures Committee.
Attachment 3
City Manager’s Office
300 LaPorte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6505
970.224.6107 - fax
fcgov.com
Minutes
City of Fort Collins
Futures Committee Meeting
Regular Meeting
300 LaPorte Ave
City Hall
February 11, 2013
4:00 – 6:00 p.m.
Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent:
Wade Troxell - Chair
Gerry Horak
Lisa Poppaw
Darin Atteberry
Bruce Hendee
Guests:
Jessica Ping Small, Mike Beckstead, Lawrence Pollack, Lori Frank
Agenda Item 1: Approval of Minutes
The minutes from December and January were approved.
Agenda Item 2: Revenue Diversification
1. Revenue Policy Update
Revenue comparison analysis presented to Council Finance and Futures
Committee in September 2012
Staff received feedback to articulate a policy or “philosophy” to which revenue
decisions could be made in the future
Revenue principles and next steps presented to Council Finance in January 2013
o Task – Develop Principles of a Revenue Policy that Promote Revenue
Sustainability
2. Revenue Policy Update – Approach
Reviewed existing City of Fort Collins revenue policy
Researched cities and organizations locally and nationally for revenue
diversification and/or sustainable revenue policies
Analyzed various policies to create 5 principles that staff recommend be
incorporated into existing City revenue policy document and adopted by City
Council
o Staff is recommending 5 revenue principles based on their research
1. Maintain Diverse Revenue base
Attachment 4
2
a. 51% coming from sales and use tax , fluctuates based
on grant revenue each year
b. Sales and use tax is the primary source of revenue
2. Maintain a stable revenue base
a. The largest decline in combined sales and use tax was
6.2% from 2008 to 2009
3. Cultivate revenue sources that are equitable among all
economic levels
4. Generate adequate revenue to maintain service levels
a. The challenge is to find the right balance of service
levels to meet the “needs vs. wants” of the community
5. Maintain healthy reserves
a. The City meets and generally exceeds all reserve
policies
The principles will serve as the foundation for revenue decisions in the future to
keep Fort Collins great.
Next Steps:
1. Near Term Action: BOB and Pavement Management ¼ cent taxes expire on December
31, 2015
a. Timeline to replace ¼ cents for November election
2. Near Term Option: Transportation Utility Fee
a. City had one in 1992…
b. Pavement Management – easier to understand
3. Long Term Action
a. Replace not increase, needs to be the key message. Promoting a stable, less
volatile revenue stream, not an increase in total revenue
4. Sales Tax on Revenues
a. Reasons to tax services:
i. Assumes the sales tax rate would be reduced to accommodate the revenue
generated from taxing services
ii. Significant revenue potential with potential for less volatility
National data establishes service levels.
Vendor Information gives us some information
Given the data for services, you have to be careful not to
underestimate
5. Raise the property tax
a. The current mill levy is average amongst our peers and hasn’t been increased
since 1992
6. Make the ¼ cent taxes permanent
a. Sales Tax is funded by everyone, not just property owners as a Transportation
Utility Fee is
Final Thoughts:
Staff will be drafting Revenue Policy around 5 principles
Attachment 4
3
Staff will be initiating TUF fee study Q2 2013
o Also included in fee study will be Park Maintenance Fee and Transit
Fee
Future initiatives to consider:
Sales Tax on Services
Increase Mill Levy
Ask voters to make ¼ cent permanent
Differential Sales Tax Rate (restaurants/liquor)
Occupational Privilege Tax
Feedback:
Example is the PRPA organic model: goes 5 years and then gets renewed
Need to have more BOB’s in place for improvements: ex Prospect:
BOB should have no stadium impacts
Revenue Diversification originally was here to reduce sales tax, but we have seen that that will
not happen. Will require voter approval as well – Pavement Maintenance fee is in place of
Revenue Diversification (and that is our street improvement?) Voters do not have to approve the
fee, voters only approve taxes.
Timing – Strategic thinking – confident the fee can be implemented.
Agenda Item 3: Performance Metrics: Community Dashboard Review
1. Continuation of Quarter 1 2012 Futures Committee Meeting
2. Website Tour
Website address shortened to www.fcgov.com/metrics
3. Process and Publication Timeline
Published about 6 weeks after quarter end
Notification with link will be sent to Council
Quarterly reviews by management with dialogue and action cascading through the
organization
o Consistent Quarterly Process with Systematic Organizational Focus on
Metrics
4. Current State
Every metric has targets and results thresholds
Systematic process with each metric has data owner & SIT owner
5. Next steps
Add applicable benchmarks and goals
Refinement of metrics, targets, and thresholds
o Community Dashboard will evolve as part of Continuous Improvements
Launch Phase II – BFO Performance Review
Other communities are doing scorecards, but only a few midsize cities are doing any metric
reporting to this extent.
Attachment 4
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Council Audit & Finance Committee
Minutes
10/21/13
10:00 to 12:30
CIC Room
Council Attendees: Mayor Karen Weitkunat, Bob Overbeck, Ross Cunniff
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead, Josh Birks, Marty
Heffernan, Mark Jackson, Tom Leeson, Jessica Ping-Small,
Peggy Streeter, Steve Roy, John Voss, Katie Wiggett
Others: Dale Adamy, Kevin Jones (Chamber of Commerce)
Approval of the Minutes
Bob Overbeck moved to approve the minutes for the September 16 meeting. Mayor Karen Weitkunat
seconded the motion. Minutes approved unanimously.
*For timing purposes, the items were not addressed in the order they appeared on the agenda.
Revenue Policy Review
Jessica Ping-Small noted that the most significant change to the Revenue Policy is the inclusion of 5
revenue principles that give staff and City Council a foundation for making sound financial decisions that
will provide the citizens of Fort Collins a diverse, stable and fair revenue stream equipped to provide the
services necessary to keep Fort Collins great. She presented the following 5 principles:
1. Maintain a diverse revenue base
2. Maintain a stable revenue base
3. Cultivate revenue sources that are equitable among all economic levels
4. Generate adequate revenue to maintain core service levels
5. Maintain healthy reserves
These principles were presented to Council Finance and the Futures Committee in 2012 and again to
Council Finance in January 2013 as part of the ongoing revenue diversification study. Staff has
incorporated suggested modifications in the policy.
Mike Beckstead noted that the reason a “three-legged stool” approach was said to not be practical in
Fort Collins is that municipalities that do incorporate such an approach depend on high property tax or a
city income/occupational tax. Without those two taxes to depend on, across the Front Range,
municipalities commonly depend on sales and use tax. Fort Collin’s revenue from sales & use tax is in
Attachment 5
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.
Bob Overbeck suggested that staff add a 3-4 year history of Fort Collins’ sales tax base for principle 1.
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.
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,
Attachment 5
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 pushed off to the customer, in that way non-residents would still pay the fee just like they
currently pay the tax.
Council Finance discussed various alternatives to the fee 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.
Attachment 5
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.
Ross Cunniff asked for whatever information staff has on the mall’s tenant mix. Mike will provide a
spreadsheet. 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.
Attachment 5
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 19, 2013
City Council
STAFF
John Voss, Controller/Assistant Financial Officer
Jessica Ping-Small, Revenue and Project Manager
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT
Resolution 2013-093 Amending the City Council's Financial Management Policies by Updating the
Revenue and Debt Policies Sections Contained Therein.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to approve an updated City Debt Policy and Revenue Policy. Neither policy
has been updated in many years. Since the last update, staff has developed a new framework for
updating, controlling, formatting and publishing financial policies. The most significant change to the
Revenue Policy is the inclusion of six revenue principles that provide staff and City Council a foundation
for making sound financial decisions that provide citizens of Fort Collins a diverse, stable and fair revenue
stream equipped to provide the services necessary to keep Fort Collins great. Under the new Debt Policy,
the City’s discrete governmental funds are limited to $70M in additional debt, compared to $150M under
the existing policy.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Both policies evolved as part of the Budget document. In that context, the Budget document focused on
explaining revenue and debt concepts, rather than setting policy. Staff recently developed a new format
for financial policies, and due to a major overhaul in both format and content, it is impractical to use “strike
through and underline” of the new policy text. As such, adoption of a new set of policies is
recommended.
REVENUE-The only significant change to the revenue policy’s content is the addition of six revenue
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. As appropriate, the burden of the cost of services will be fairly placed on those using the services.
5. Generate adequate revenue to maintain core service levels
6. Maintain healthy reserves.
These revenue principles provide 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.
The principles were presented to the Council Finance Committee and the Futures Committee in 2012 as
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment 6
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 2
part of the ongoing revenue diversification study. The Council Finance Committee reviewed the
principles again on October 21, 2013.
ISSUING DEBT- The major changes to the Debt Policy are as follows:
A. Changed method of limiting governmental debt, from “percent of General Fund” revenue to
“percent of governmental fund” revenue.
B. Added capacity guidelines for enterprise funds, i.e. the utility funds.
C. Added information about Moral Obligation Pledge and when it may be used.
D. Added language about goal to keep the City’s overall credit rating at AAA.
E. Added guidance on refinancing.
Under the current Debt Policy, City governmental funds may borrow up to an additional $150 million;
whereas the new Debt Policy caps new debt obligations at $70 million.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACT
There are no immediate impacts. The long term strength of the City's financial and economic conditions
should be enhanced and preserved by following of these policies.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Council Finance Committee reviewed the proposed new debt policy on August 16, 2013 and the
proposed new revenue policy on October 21, 2013.
ATTACHMENTS
1. : Council Finance Committee minutes, October 21, 2013 (PDF)
2. : Council Finance Minutes, August 19, 2013 (PDF)
3. : Current Debt Policy (PDF)
4. : Current Revenue Policies (PDF)
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment 6
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment8.1: Council Finance Committee minutes, October 21, 2013 (Debt & Revenue Policy)
Attachment 6
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment8.2: Council Finance Minutes, August 19, 2013 (Debt & Revenue Policy)
Attachment 6
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment8.2: Council Finance Minutes, August 19, 2013 (Debt & Revenue Policy)
Attachment 6
Financial Management Policy 7
Issuing Debt
Issue Date:
Version: 2
Issued by:
Controller/Assistant
Financial Officer
Financial Policy 2 – Issuing Debt
1
7.1 Authorization for Municipal Borrowing
The City Charter (Article V. Part II) authorizes the borrowing of money and the issuance of long
term debt. The Charter and State Constitution determine which securities may be issued and when
a vote of the electors of the City and approved by a majority of those voting on the issue.
7.2 Purpose and Uses of Debt
Long term obligations should only be used to finance larger capital acquisitions and/or
construction costs that are for high priority projects. Debt will not be used for operating purposes.
Debt financing of capital improvements and equipment will be done only when the following
conditions exist:
a) When non-continuous projects (those not requiring continuous annual
appropriations) are desired;
b) When it can be determined that future users will receive a significant benefit from the
improvement;
c) When it is necessary to provide critical basic services to residents and taxpayers (for
example, purchase of water rights);
d) When total debt, including that issued by overlapping governmental entities, does not
constitute an unreasonable burden to the residents and taxpayers.
Objective:
The purpose of this policy is to establish parameters and provide guidance governing the
issuance of all debt obligations issued by the City of Fort Collins (City).
Applicability:
This debt policy applies to all funds and Service Areas of the City and closely related agencies
such as the Downtown Development Authority (DDA), Fort Collins Leasing Corporation and the
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA).
Authorized by:
City Council Resolutions 2013-XXX, Last change was authorized through adoption of the 2006-07 Budget in
November 2005.
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment8.3: Current Debt Policy (Debt & Revenue Policy)
Attachment 6
Financial Policy 2 – Issuing Debt
2
7.3 Types of Debt and Financing Agreements
The types of debt permitted are outlined in State statute. The City will avoid derivative type
instruments. In general the following debt types are used by the City:
a) General obligation bonds- backed by the credit and taxing power of the City and not
from revenues of any specific project. Colorado law limits general obligation debt to
10% of the City’s assessed valuation. Under TABOR this type of debt must approved by
voters.
b) Revenue Bonds - issued and backed by the revenues of a specific project, tax
increment district (TIF), enterprise fund, etc. The holders of these bonds can only
consider this revenue source for repayment. TABOR does not require that voters
approve these types of debt.
c) Lease Purchase – issued whereby the asset acquired is used as collateral. Examples
include Certificates of Participation (COP), Assignment of Lease Payments (ALP) and
equipment leases. TABOR does not require that voters approve these types of
agreements.
d) Moral Obligation Pledge – Is a pledge to consider replenishing a debt reserve fund of
another government agency if the reserve was used to make debt payments. This
type of commitment will only be used to support the highest priority projects, or
when the financial risk to the City does not increase significantly, or when the City’s
overall credit rating is not expected to be negatively impacted. Because it is a pledge
to consider replenishing, it is not a pledge of the City’s credit, and as such is not a
violation of State statutes and City Charter. However, decision makers should keep
in mind that not honoring a Moral Obligation Pledge will almost certainly negatively
impact the City’s overall credit rating. TABOR does not require that voters approve
these types of agreements.
e) Interagency Borrowing – issued when the credit of an agency (DDA, URA) of the City
does not permit financing at affordable terms. Usually used to facilitate a project
until the revenue stream is established and investors can offer better terms to the
agency. Program parameters are outlined in City’s Investment Policy. TABOR does
not require that voters approve these types of agreements.
f) Conduit Debt – Typically limited to Qualified Private Activity Bonds (PAB) defined
by the IRS and limited to the annual allocation received from the State. Low income
housing is one example of a qualified use of PAB. There is no pledge or guarantee to
pay by the City.
g) Any other securities not in contravention with City Charter or State statute.
7.4 Debt Structure and Terms
The following are guidelines, and may be modified by the City to meet the particulars of the
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment8.3: Current Debt Policy (Debt & Revenue Policy)
Attachment 6
Financial Policy 2 – Issuing Debt
3
financial markets at the time of the issuance of a debt obligation:
a) Term of the Debt: The length of the financing will not exceed the useful life of the asset
or average life of a group of assets, or 30 years, whichever is less. Terms longer than
20 years should be limited to the highest priority projects.
b) Structure of Debt: Level debt service will be used unless otherwise dictated by the
useful life of the asset(s) and/or upon the advice of the City's financial advisor.
c) Credit Enhancements: The City will not use credit enhancements unless the cost of the
enhancement is less than the differential between the net present value of the debt
service without enhancement and the net present value of the debt service with the
enhancement.
d) Variable Rate Debt: The City will normally not issue variable rate debt, meaning debt
at rates that may adjust depending upon changed market conditions. However, it is
recognized that certain circumstances may warrant the issuance of variable rate debt,
but the City will attempt to stabilize the debt service payments through the use of an
appropriate stabilization arrangement.
e) Derivative type instruments and terms will be avoided.
f) Interest during construction will be capitalized when the debt is in an enterprise fund.
7.5 Refinancing Debt
Refunding of outstanding debt will only be done if there is a resultant economic gain regardless of
whether there is an accounting gain or loss, or a subsequent reduction or increase in cash flows.
The net present value savings shall be at least 3%, preferably 5% or more. In an advanced
refunding (before the call date), the ratio of present value savings to the negative arbitrage costs
should be at least 2.
7.6 Debt Limitations and Capacity
Debt capacity will be evaluated by the annual dollar amount paid and the total amount outstanding
with the goal to maintain the City’s overall issuer rating at the very highest rating, AAA. Parameters
are different for Governmental Funds, Enterprise Funds, and Related Agencies.
a. Governmental Funds - Annual debt service (principal and interest) will not exceed
5% of annual revenues. For calculation, revenues will not include internal charges,
transfers and large one-time grants. Outstanding debt in relation to population and
assessed value will be monitored.
b. Enterprise Funds – Each fund is unique and will be evaluated independently. Each
funds debt will be managed to maintain a credit score of at least an A rating. These
funds typically issue revenue bonds and investors closely watch revenue coverage
ratio. Coverage ratios are usually published in the Statistical Section of the City’s
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment8.3: Current Debt Policy (Debt & Revenue Policy)
Attachment 6
Financial Policy 2 – Issuing Debt
4
Comprehensive Annual Financial Statement.
c. Related Agencies – Each agency will be evaluated independently, taking into account
City Charter, State statutes, market conditions and financial feasibility.
7.7 Debt Issuance Process
When the City utilizes debt financing, it will ensure that the debt is soundly financed by:
a) Selecting an independent financial advisor to assist with determining the method of
sale and the selection of other financing team members
b) Conservatively projecting the revenue sources that will be used to pay the debt;
c) Maintaining a debt service coverage ratio which ensures that combined debt service
requirements will not exceed revenues pledged for the payment of debt.
d) Evaluating proposed debt against the target debt indicators.
7.8 Other
Debt Management - The City will also have an Administrative Policy and Procedure that
includes guidance on:
a) Investment of bond proceeds
b) Market disclosure practices to primary and secondary markets, including annual
certifications
c) Arbitrage rebate monitoring and filing
d) Federal and State law compliance practices
Getting Help
Please contact the Controller/Assistant Financial Officer with any questions at 970.221.6772
Related Policies/References
The City of Fort Collins Charter (Article V. Part II)
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment8.3: Current Debt Policy (Debt & Revenue Policy)
Attachment 6
Financial Policy 2 – Issuing Debt
5
e) Ongoing market and investor relations efforts
DEBT POLICIES
7.1. POLICY STATEMENT
The City of Fort Collins recognizes the primary purpose of capital facilities is to support provision of
services to its residents. Using debt financing to meet the capital needs of the community must be
evaluated according to two tests - efficiency and equity. The test of efficiency equates to the highest
rate of return for a given investment of resources. The test of equity requires a determination of
who should pay for the cost of capital improvements. In meeting the demand for additional capital
facilities, the City will strive to balance the load between debt financing and "pay as you go"
methods. The City realizes failure to meet the demands of growth may inhibit its continued
economic viability, but also realizes too much debt may have detrimental effects. Through the
rigorous testing of the need for additional debt financed facilities and the means by which the debt
will be repaid, the City will strike an appropriate balance between service demands and the amount
of debt. The City of Fort Collins uses lease purchase financing for the provision of new and
replacement equipment, vehicles and rolling stock to ensure the timely replacement of equipment
and vehicles and to decrease the impact of the cost to the user department by spreading the costs
over several years. This method may also be used to acquire real property. The type of lease that
the City uses is termed a conditional sales lease, in effect a purchase rather than a rental of
property. The annual installments for all leases are appropriated by the Council each year. For
Definitions
Conduit Debt: when a government agency issues municipal securities to raise capital for revenue-
generating projects where the funds generated are used by a third party (known as the "conduit
borrower") to make payments to investors.. If a project fails and the security goes into default, it
falls to the conduit borrower's financial obligation, not the conduit issuer (City). Common types of
conduit financing include industrial development revenue bonds (IDRBs), private activity bonds and
housing revenue bonds (both for single-family and multifamily projects). Most conduit-issued
securities are for projects to benefit the public at large (i.e. airports, docks, sewage facilities) or
specific population segments (i.e. students, low-income home buyers, veterans).
Credit Enhancements: is usually bond insurance, but can be also subordination of other debt, reserve
accounts, or other types of collateral.
Agency: although the term is not normally used by local governments, an agency is an organization created
by the City with separate powers and authorities.
Debt Service Coverage Ratio: is a common measure of the ability to make debt service payments. The
formula is net operating income (operating revenue – operating expense) divided by debt service
(annual principal and interest)
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment8.3: Current Debt Policy (Debt & Revenue Policy)
Attachment 6
Financial Policy 2 – Issuing Debt
6
purposes of securing credit ratings and monitoring annual debt service as a percentage of operating
expenditures; lease purchase financing is considered a long-term liability of the City and therefore
will be issued under the same conditions as long-term debt.
7.2. AUTHORIZATION FOR MUNICIPAL BORROWING
The Charter authorizes the borrowing of money and the issuance of the following securities to
evidence indebtedness:
1. short-term notes,
2. general obligation securities,
3. revenue securities,
4. refunding securities,
5. special assessment securities,
6. tax increment securities, and
7. any other securities not in contravention of the Charter.
The Charter and State Constitution determine which securities may be issued only after a vote of
the electors of the City and approved by a majority of those voting on the issue.
7.3. CONDITIONS FOR USING DEBT
Debt financing of capital improvements and equipment will be done only when the following
conditions exist:
1. When non-continuous projects (those not requiring continuous annual appropriations) are
desired;
2. When it can be determined that future users will receive a benefit from the improvement;
3. When it is necessary to provide basic services to residents and taxpayers (for example,
purchase of water rights);
4. When the rights of bond buyers and subsequent investors are protected through full
disclosure; and
5. When total debt, including that issued by overlapping governmental entities, does not
constitute an unreasonable burden to the residents and taxpayers.
7.4. DEBT INDICATORS AND TARGET LEVELS OF DEBT
While no absolute measures of debt burden exist, the City recognizes that municipal bond rating
agencies and financial analysts have established key debt indicators by which they evaluate the
credit strength of issuers. Since debt issued by entities sharing the same geographic area, for
example, Poudre R-1 School District, cannot be controlled by the City, the indicator that will be used
will be calculated using only direct debt issued by the City itself. The indicator does not include
debt issued by the City or by the City Council as the Board of Directors for the City's utilities, as the
revenue collected for services are the source of repayment. The City Council has chosen to use
direct debt service as a percent of General Fund and debt service expenditures to monitor its debt.
This indicator measures how the City's debt burden compares to financial operations. As debt
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment8.3: Current Debt Policy (Debt & Revenue Policy)
Attachment 6
Financial Policy 2 – Issuing Debt
7
service requirements increase, the flexibility to make decisions regarding other expenditures is
reduced. Excessive debt may be indicated if the percentage is maintained at very high levels. A
debt service to operating budget expenses ratio of 10 to 15 percent is considered fair; over 15
percent is generally considered poor.
THE TARGET INDICATOR IS:
Direct debt service as a percent of operating expense: 15 percent for the 2004-2008 period.
Using the debt indicator as defined above, the City will have some debt capacity. This means the
City could use some of its operating revenue to support additional debt during the five-year
projection period.
Since the City=s sustained growth causes demand for capital improvements financed through debt
or lease financing, the City target is set at a level slightly above the median for cities of comparable
size. The indicator is a full loading of governmental debt and is calculated in the same manner that
rating agencies use.
7.5. SOUND FINANCING OF DEBT
When the City utilizes debt financing, it will ensure that the debt is soundly financed by:
1. Conservatively projecting the revenue sources that will be used to pay the debt;
2. Financing the improvement over a period not greater than the useful life of the
improvements;
3. Determining that the benefits of the improvement exceed the costs, including interest costs;
4. Maintaining a debt service coverage ratio which ensures that combined debt service
requirements will not exceed revenues pledged for the payment of debt; and
5. Evaluating proposed debt against the target debt indicators.
7.6. FINANCING METHODS
The City maintains the following policies in relation to methods of financing used to issue debt:
1. Total General Obligation (payable from Property Tax levies) debt will not exceed 10% of
assessed valuation per the City Charter;
2. Where possible, the City will use revenue or other self-supporting bonds instead of General
Obligation Bonds;
3. When appropriate, the City will issue non-obligation debt, for example, Industrial
Development Revenue Bonds, to promote community stability and economic growth;
4. Staff will maintain open communications with bond rating agencies about its financial
condition and whenever possible, issue rated securities; and
5. Staff will exchange information with Larimer County, Poudre R-1 School District, the Poudre
Valley Hospital District and other entities whose debt would contribute to the overlapping debt
indicators for the purpose of monitoring such debt burdens.
The budget includes appropriations for debt service payments and reserve requirements for all
outstanding debt and for debt anticipated to be issued within the ensuing budget term.
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment8.3: Current Debt Policy (Debt & Revenue Policy)
Attachment 6
Financial Policy 2 – Issuing Debt
8
7.7. BOND MARKET DISCLOSURE
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires the City of Fort Collins to covenant in its
bond documents to provide bondholders certain annual financial information. The provision of the
information is done through qualified information repositories. The SEC rule did not establish a
standard format for the financial information. The required information may be presented in an
appropriate disclosure document determined by the City in consultation with legal counsel.
In addition to annual financial information, the City is required to covenant in the bond documents
that it will provide notice of the following Amaterial events@ to the information repositories, with
respect to the City=s bonds:
1. principal and interest payment delinquencies;
2. non-payment related defaults;
3. unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties;
4. unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties;
5. substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform;
6. adverse tax opinions or events affecting the tax-exempt status of the City=s bonds;
7. modifications to rights of the owners of City bonds or bond calls; or
8. rating changes.
The City is further required to covenant that it will provide notice in a timely manner if it fails to
comply with its disclosure undertakings.
The City considers its Comprehensive and Financial Report (CAFR) to be the most appropriate
document in which to provide the continuing disclosure information. In addition to the required
annual financial information, the CAFR contains financial and statistical information and related
disclosures that are useful to existing and potential investors in the secondary bond market as
required by the rule. In accordance with the City=s bond ordinances, the Financial Officer is
authorized and directed to report all material events, as defined above, to the appropriate
information repositories.
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment8.3: Current Debt Policy (Debt & Revenue Policy)
Attachment 6
REVENUE POLICIES
2.1. REVENUE LIMITATION
The City of Fort Collins’ revenue and expenditures are limited by Section 20 of Article X,
Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution (Article X, Section 20 or ATABOR@). While
TABOR places limits on both revenue and expenditures, its primary application is in
limiting of the State and all local governments. Even though the limit is placed on both
revenue and expenditures, the constitutional amendment in reality applies to a limit on
revenue collections. Growth in revenue is limited to the increase in the Denver-Boulder-
Greeley Consumer Price Index plus local growth (new construction and annexation).
This percentage is added to the preceding year’s revenue base, giving the dollar limit
allowed for revenue collection in the ensuing year. Any revenue collected over the limit
must be refunded to the citizens, unless the voters approve the retention of the excess
revenue. Federal grants or gifts to the City are not included in the revenue limit. City
enterprises (electric, water, wastewater and stormwater utilities) are also exempt from
the imposed limits. Beginning in 2003, the Golf Fund revenue source was s will allow it
to be considered for enterprise status for purposes of Article X, Section 20TABOR. In
order for an entity toTo become an enterprise, voters would need tomust approve a
Charter amendment for the Golf Fundthat entity.
In November 1997, Fort Collins’ voters approved a ballot measure that allows the City to
retain revenues that exceed the growth limit imposed by Article X, Section 20TABOR.
The measure was effective for 1996 and ensuing years. The approved measure
specified that any retained revenues over the growth limit must be used for certain
designated purposes.
$ Public health and safety (including, but not limited to, environmental monitoring and
mitigation)
$ Transportation
$ Growth management
$ Maintenance and repair of public facilities
While not included as part of the approved ballot measure, legal Legal principles require
that those revenues collected in excess of the growth limit from fees charged or other
legally restricted revenues must be used for the purpose for which they were collected.
In addition, such revenues must also be used for the designated purposes approved by
the voters.
2.2 REVENUE REVIEW, OBJECTIVES, AND MONITORING
a. Review and Projections
The City reviews estimated revenue and fee schedules as part of the budget
process. The Major major revenue sources in the general General fund Fund are
sales & use tax, property tax, lodging tax, intergovernmental revenues, fines & and
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", First line: 0"
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", First line: 0"
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", First line: 0"
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", First line: 0"
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment8.4: Current Revenue Policies (Debt & Revenue Policy)
Attachment 6
forfeitures, user fees & and charges, and transfers from other funds. Conservative
revenue projections are made for the budget term. The projections are monitored
and updated as necessary.
b. ObjectivesPrinciples
The City has established six (6) general principles that will be used to guide
decisions on revenue
1. Develop and maintain stable revenue sources.
The City will strive to maintain stable revenue sources by:
a. Targeting revenue sources with minimal volatility
b. Monitoring current revenue sources for variability
c. Adjusting forecasts as necessary to accommodate unanticipated
increases and declines
d. Monitoring and adjusting expenditures for unanticipated revenue
gains/losses
2. Develop and maintain a diverse revenue base.
A. For all general government operations, the City will strive to
maintain diverse revenue sources. The City recognizes that becoming
too dependent upon one revenue source would make revenue yields
more vulnerable to economic cycles. Therefore, the City will strive to
maintain diverse revenue sources by:
a. Targeting revenue from multiple sources
b. Working to expand fee based revenue where possible
c. Working to minimize overdependence on any single revenue
source
d. Staff will monitor dependency on sales and use tax to ensure an
over reliance does not occur
3. Cultivate revenue sources that are equitable among citizens of different
economic levels.
The City will strive to preserve a revenue stream that does not
overburden low income residents by:
a. Providing low income citizens with opportunities to participate in
programs through reduced fee structures and scholarships
b. Providing a Sales Tax on Food and Utility rebate to lessen the
burden of taxes and fees on low income citizens
c. Ensuring fees do not exceed cost to provide service
4. As appropriate, the burden of the cost of services will be fairly placed on
those using the services.
a. Fees for services will be based on a cost recovery model and
assessed to the users of the service when applicable
Formatted: Font: Not Bold, No underline
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.88", First line: 0"
Formatted: Font: Not Bold, No underline
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.25", No bullets or
numbering
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Underline
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt
Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 1.5", No
bullets or numbering, Tab stops: Not at 0"
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.25", No bullets or
numbering
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.75", No bullets or
numbering
Packet Pg. 84
b. With the exception of services provided for the common good
of the community, service fees will be based on the need of the
users and paid by the specific users
5. Generate adequate revenue to maintain service levels in line with citizen
expectations.
The City will generate adequate revenue to maintain core service
levels by:
a. Ensuring fees for service do not exceed cost to provide service
b. Maintaining a cost recovery model
c. Monitoring service level performance annually through the
Community Scorecard
d. Regularly reviewing services to assess core vs. desired
6. Maintain healthy reserves.
The City will maintain healthy reserves by:
a. Adhering to State mandated reserve and internal reserve policies
b. Maintaining a Tabor (State) reserve for the General Fund of 3% or
more of the City’s fiscal year spending
c. Meeting City policy for the General Fund of an additional
contingency of 60 days or 17% of next year’s adopted budgeted
expenditures
For all general government operations, the City will strive to maintain diverse
revenue sources. The City recognizes that becoming too dependent upon one
revenue source would make revenue yields more vulnerable to economic cycles.
c. Targets
The City's major source of revenue for governmental activities and more
specifically for programs within the General Fund is the Sales and Use Tax. The
City will monitor the dependency on sales and use tax by tracking the percentage
of the General Fund and General Government that comes from sales and use tax.
Over the past five years, 2000-2004, the percentage of General Government Total
Revenue from sales and use tax (the 2.25% portion not dedicated for specific uses
by the voters) has been approximately 38%. The target for this percentage shall
be 40%.
For the General Fund, the percentage of revenues from sales & use tax has been
approximately 60%. When the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is
completed each year, the Finance Department will monitor these two percentages
and report the results to Council. For the General Fund the target shall be 60%.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.25", No bullets or
numbering
Formatted: List Paragraph, Left, Numbered +
Level: 1 + Numbering Style: a, b, c, … + Start
at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 1.5" +
Indent at: 1.75", Tab stops: Not at -0.83" +
-0.5" + 0" + 0.5" + 0.88" + 1.25" + 1.63" +
2" + 2.5" + 3" + 3.5" + 4" + 4.5" + 5" +
5.5" + 6" + 6.5"
Formatted: Font: +Headings (Cambria)
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment8.4: Current Revenue Policies (Debt & Revenue Policy)
Attachment 6
d. Monitoring
The percentages will beare monitored each year with the preparation of the annual
financial report. Preliminary estimates of the percentages should be available in
April and be incorporated into the budget process. The percentages will beare
reviewed by Council Finance Committee annually. and Council annually.Council.
e. Policy Action
In the event the percentages exceed the targets, the City Manager will provide an
analysis of the City's revenues to the Council. The City Manager may propose
adjustments to revenue sources other than the sales and use tax (some examples
include user fees, fines & forfeitures, transfers from other funds) to meet the
targets or decrease the trend of increasing dependency on sales and use tax.
Generally, for this policy to be effective, revenues from all other sources will need
to grow at roughly the same rate as the sales and use tax collections.
2.3. FEE POLICY
As a home rule municipality, the City of Fort Collins has the ability to determine the
extent to which fees should be used to fund City facilities, infrastructure and services.
There are two kinds of fees that the City may establish: impact fees and special service
fees. Impact fees are typically one-time charges levied by the City against new
development. The fees are based on current levels of service and act as a buy-in
method for new development. The revenue can only be used for capital infrastructure
needs created by the impact of the new development. to generate revenue for the
construction of infrastructure and capital facilities needed to offset the impacts of the
new development. Special service fees are charges imposed on persons or property
that are designed to defray the overall cost of the particular municipal service for which
the fee is imposed. This Policy sets forth principles for identifying: 1) the kinds of
services for which the City could appropriately fees could appropriately be imposed by
the Cityimpose fees; 2) methods for calculating the percentage of costs to be recovered
by such fees; and 3) the manner in which the fees should be allocated among individual
fee payers.
a. Fees Should Be Cost Related
The amount of a fee should not exceed the overall cost of providing the facility,
infrastructure or service for which the fee is imposed. In calculating that cost, direct
and indirect costs may be included. That is:
1. costs which are directly related to the provision of the service; and,
2. support costs which are more general in nature but provide support for the
provision of the service.
b. Percentage of Cost Recovery
The extent to which the total cost of service should be recovered through fees
depends upon the following factors:
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.88"
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment8.4: Current Revenue Policies (Debt & Revenue Policy)
Attachment 6
1. The nature of the facilities, infrastructure or services. In the case of fees for
facilities, infrastructure as well as governmental and proprietary services, total
cost recovery may be warranted. In the case of governmental services, it
may be appropriate for a substantial portion of the cost of such services to be
borne by the City=’s taxpayers, rather than the individual users of such
services. Governmental services are those which are provided by the City for
the public good such as regulating land use, maintaining streets, and
providing police and fire protection. Proprietary services are those which are
provided for the benefit and enjoyment of the residents of the City, at their
discretion, such as parks and recreation services.
2. The nature and extent of the benefit to the fee payers. When a particular
facility or service results in substantial, immediate and direct benefit to fee
payers, a higher percentage of the cost of providing the facility or service
should be recovered by the fee. When a particular facility or service benefits
not only the fee payer but also a substantial segment of the community, lower
cost recovery is warranted.
3. The level of demand for a particular service. Because the pricing of services
can significantly affect demand, full cost recovery for services is more
appropriate when the market for the services is strong and will support a high
level of cost recovery.
4. Ease of collection. In the case of impact fees, which can be collected at the
time of issuance of a building permit, ease of collection is generally not a
factor. In the case of fees for services, however, such fees may prove to be
impractical for the City to utilize if they are too costly to administer.
c. Establishment and Modification of Fees and Charges
Aside from user fees, (e.g. Recreation classes and facility room rentals), all fees
imposed by the City will be established by the City Council by ordinance. In the
case of impact fees, utility fees and charges, and special service fees assessed
against property the ordinance establishing the fees will determine:
1. the level of cost that should be recovered through the fees according to the
criteria established in this Policy;
2. an appropriate method for apportioning the cost of providing each service
among the users of the service; and,
3. a procedure for periodically reviewing and modifying the amount of fees in
order to maintain appropriate cost recovery levels.
The amounts of these kinds of fees may be modified only by ordinance of the City
Council.
The amounts of other kinds of special service fees, such as user fees charged for
the use of City recreational and cultural facilities, may be determined by the City
Manager, according to criteria established by the City Council by ordinance, absent
any provision of the City Charter or Code to the contrary.
Formatted: Font color: Red
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment8.4: Current Revenue Policies (Debt & Revenue Policy)
Attachment 6
All fee revenues will be estimated by the City Manager and submitted to the City
Council as part of the City Manager=’s recommended budget.
d. Rebate Programs
If the amount of a particular fee is considered to be too high to accommodate the
needs of particular segments of the community and the public interest would be
served by adjusting the amount or manner of payment of such fees in particular
instances, the amount of the fee may be waived, rebated, or deferred as
appropriate. In the case of fees established by ordinance, the criteria for waiving,
rebating, or deferring payment of such fees shall be established by the City Council
by ordinance.
2.4. SALES AND USE TAX DISTRIBUTION
The City's Sales and Use Tax totals 3.00 cents, developed as follows:
1968 - General City uses 1.00 cent
1980 - General City uses 1.00 cent
1982 - General City uses 0.25 cent
2006 - Street Maintenance 0.25 cent*
2006 - Building on Basics 0.25 cent*
2006 - Natural Areas & Open Space 0.25 cent*
2011 - Keeping Fort Collins Great 0.85 cent*
3.85 cents
*Excluding sales of grocery food.
Revenue generated by the Sales and Use Tax will be distributed, based on adopted
budgets, in the following manner:
TAX ON ALL SALES & USES: 2.25 cents
$ Fixed Dollar Amounts
Annual Debt Service
Sales & Use Tax Debt Service Reserves
$ General Fund
Subject to appropriations, actual Sales and Use Tax revenue generated by the 2.25 cent
tax in excess of the fixed dollar amounts listed above, will be transferred deposited to the
General Fund.
Actual sales and use tax revenue generated by the 0.25 cent tax for Natural Areas and
Open Space will be transferred to, and be retained in the Natural Areas Fund to be
used to acquire, operate and maintain open spaces, community separators, natural
areas, wildlife habitat, riparian areas, wetlands and valued agricultural lands and to
provide for the appropriate use and enjoyment of these areas by the citizenry, through
land conservation projects to be undertaken where there is an identifiable benefit to the
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment8.4: Current Revenue Policies (Debt & Revenue Policy)
Attachment 6
residents of the City, as determined by the City Council, either within the City or its
growth management or regionally, provided certain provisions are met.
Actual sales and use tax revenue generated by the 0.25 cent tax for Street Maintenance
will be deposited transferred to, and retained in the Transportation Services Fund to be
used to pay the costs of planning, design, right-of-way acquisition, incidental upgrades
and other costs associated with: the repair and renovation of City streets, including but
not limited to curbs, gutters, bridges, sidewalks, parkways, shoulders and medians.
Actual sales and use tax revenue generated by the 0.25 cent tax for Building on Basics
projects will be transferred to, and be retained in the Capital Projects Fund or
corresponding operating funds to be used to pay the costs of planning, design, right-of-
way acquisition, construction, and at least seven (7) years of operation and maintenance
for street/transportation projects and other community capital projects, identified during
the Building on Basics process, approved by the voters.
2.5. PRIVATE CONTRIBUTIONS
The City encourages the solicitation of private contributions. These services and programs
represent extra services that the City has not been able to provide to residents through its
regular revenue base. In times of revenue constraints the City may not be able to provide the
same level of service without additional support. Therefore, efforts should be made to secure
private contributions in support of these programs and services, as these contributions are an
integral part of their successful operation. With respect to Article X, Section 20 of the State
ConstitutionTABOR, the City=’s Finance Department will make a determination as to whether a
contribution is a gift and is therefore excluded from constitutional limits.
Formatted: Font color: Red
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment8.4: Current Revenue Policies (Debt & Revenue Policy)
Attachment 6
Getting Help
Please contact the Revenue and Project Manager with any questions at 970.221.6626.
Related Policies/References
Information about related policies or procedures, guidelines, forms, etc. Give complete references and
ensure that documents cited are readily available (i.e. either as widely distributed manuals or online). If
needed provide additional background discussion here. Reference to detailed procedures that are
recommended in order to carry out the intent of the policy.
Definitions
Governmental Services: services provided by the City for the public good such as regulating land use,
maintaining streets, and providing police and fire protection.
Impact Fees: usually one-time charges, levied by the City against new development to offset the impacts of
the new developments
Proprietary Services: services provided for the benefit and enjoyment of the residents of the City, at their
discretion, such as parks and recreation services
Special Service Fee: charges imposed on persons or property that are designed to defray the overall cost of
the particular municipal service for which the fee is imposed
Formatted: Font color: Red
Formatted: Font color: Red
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment8.4: Current Revenue Policies (Debt & Revenue Policy)
Attachment 6
- 1 -
RESOLUTION 2013-093
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL’S FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
POLICIES BY UPDATING THE REVENUE AND DEBT POLICIES
SECTIONS CONTAINED THEREIN
WHEREAS, in 1994, the City Council adopted Resolution 1994-174 approving certain
Financial Management Policies (the “Policies”) for the City, which Policies establish guidelines
for the preparation of the annual budgets of the City and its long-range financial plans; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has periodically amended the Policies; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager and Financial Officer have recommended that the City
Council further amend the Policies to include updated details in the Revenue and Debt Policy
sections; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Revenue Policy update is to include the addition of
revenue principles to provide staff and City Council a foundation for making sound financial
decisions, which principles call for maintaining a diverse and stable revenue base; cultivating
revenue sources that are equitable among all economic levels; placing the burden of the cost of
service on those using the services; generating adequate revenue to maintain core service levels;
and maintaining healthy reserves; and
WHEREAS, the purposes of the Debt Policy updates are to: include a revised method of
limiting government debt from “percent of General Fund” revenue to “percent of government
fund” revenue; add capacity guidelines for enterprise funds; add information about “moral
obligation pledges” and guidelines as to when such pledges may be used; add language about
maintaining the City’s overall credit rating at AAA; and add refinancing guidance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council Finance Committee has reviewed the proposed changes to
the Revenue and Debt Policies and has recommended approval of the same.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS that the Financial Management Policies, as previously amended, are hereby
further amended by the incorporation of updated Revenue and Debt Policy sections, as attached
hereto as Exhibits "A" and “B” and incorporated herein by this reference.
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment 6
- 2 -
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this
19th day of November, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Deputy City Clerk
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment 6
Financial Management Policy 2
Revenue
Issue Date:
Version:
Issued by: Revenue and Project
Manager
Financial Policy 2 – Revenue
1
2.1 Limitations
The City of Fort Collins’ revenue and expenditures are limited by Article X, Section 20 of the
Colorado Constitution (TABOR). While TABOR limits both revenue and expenditures, its
primarily application is in limiting revenue collections. Growth in revenue is limited to the
increase in the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index plus local growth (new
construction and annexation). This percentage is added to the preceding year’s revenue
base, giving the dollar limit allowed for revenue collection in the ensuing year. Any revenue
collected over the limit must be refunded to the citizens unless the voters approve the
retention of the excess revenue. Federal grants or gifts to the City are not included in the
revenue limit. City enterprises (electric, water, wastewater and stormwater utilities) are
also exempt from the imposed limits. In 2003, the Golf Fund revenue sources was
considered for enterprise status for purposes of TABOR. In order for an entity to become an
enterprise, voters must approve a Charter amendment for that entity.
In November 1997, Fort Collins’ voters approved a ballot measure that allows the City to
retain revenues that exceed the growth limit imposed by TABOR. The measure specified
that any retained revenues over the growth limit must be used for certain designated
purposes.
Objective:
Monitoring and controlling revenues is important to the City of Fort Collins. Through its revenue policy, the
City primarily aims to maintain a diversified revenue system which will protect it from possible short-term
fluctuations in any of its various revenue sources. To accomplish this, revenues are monitored on a
continuous basis. An understanding of the economic and legal factors which directly and indirectly affect
the level of revenue collections is an important part of the City’s revenue policy.
Applicability:
This policy applies to all City Revenues. This policy does/does not apply to or govern revenues generated by
City-owned general improvement districts.
Authorized by:
City Council
EXHIBIT A
Packet Pg. 93
Attachmenta: Exhibit A (Debt & Revenue Policy - RESO)
Attachment 6
Financial Policy 2 – Revenue
2
Public Health and Safety (including, but not limited to, environmental monitoring
and mitigation)
Transportation
Growth Management
Maintenance and Repair of Public Facilities
Legal principles require that those revenues collected in excess of the growth limit from
fees charged or other legally restricted revenues must be used for the purpose for which
they were collected. In addition, such revenues must also be used for the designated
purposes approved by the voters.
2.2 Revenue Review, Objectives and Monitoring
A. Review and Projections
The City reviews estimated revenue and fee schedules as part of the budget process.
The major revenue sources in the General Fund are sales and use tax, property tax,
lodging tax, intergovernmental revenues, fines and forfeitures, user fees and charges,
and transfers from other funds. Conservative revenue projections are made for the
budget term. The projections are monitored and updated as necessary.
B. Principles
The City has established six (6) general principles that will be used to guide decisions on
revenue:
1. Develop and maintain stable revenue sources.
The City will strive to maintain stable revenue sources by:
a. Targeting revenue sources with minimal volatility
b. Monitoring current revenue sources for variability
c. Adjusting forecasts as necessary to accommodate unanticipated
increases and declines
d. Monitoring and adjusting expenditures for unanticipated revenue
gains/losses
2. Develop and maintain a diverse revenue base.
For all general government operations, the City will strive to maintain
diverse revenue sources. The City recognizes that becoming too dependent
upon one revenue source would make revenue yields more vulnerable to
economic cycles. Therefore, the City will strive to maintain diverse revenue
sources by:
a. Targeting revenue from multiple sources
b. Working to expand fee based revenue where possible
c. Working to minimize overdependence on any single revenue source
d. Staff will monitor dependency on sales and use tax to ensure an over
Packet Pg. 94
Attachmenta: Exhibit A (Debt & Revenue Policy - RESO)
Attachment 6
Financial Policy 2 – Revenue
3
reliance does not occur
3. Cultivate revenue sources that are equitable among citizens of different
economic levels.
The City will strive to preserve a revenue stream that does not overburden
low income residents by:
a. Providing low income citizens with opportunities to participate in
programs through reduced fee structures and scholarships
b. Providing a Sales Tax on Food and Utility rebate to lessen the burden of
taxes and fees on low income citizens
c. Ensuring fees do not exceed cost to provide service
4. As appropriate, the burden of the cost of services will be fairly placed on those
using the services.
a. Fees for services will be based on a cost recovery model and assessed to
the users of the service when applicable
b. With the exception of services provided for the common good of the
community, service fees will be based on the need of the users and paid
by the specific users
5. Generate adequate revenue to maintain service levels in line with citizen
expectations.
The City will generate adequate revenue to maintain service levels by:
a. Ensuring fees for service do not exceed cost to provide service
b. Maintaining a cost recovery model
c. Monitoring service level performance annually through the Community
Scorecard
6. Maintain healthy reserves.
The City will maintain healthy reserves by:
a. Adhering to State mandated reserve and internal reserve policies
b. Maintaining a Tabor (State) reserve for the General Fund of 3% or more
of the City’s fiscal year spending
c. Meeting City policy for the General Fund of an additional contingency of
60 days or 17% of next year’s adopted budgeted expenditures
C. Targets
The City's major source of revenue for governmental activities and more specifically for
programs within the General Fund is Sales and Use Tax. The City will monitor the
dependency on Sales and Use Tax by tracking the percentage of the General Fund and
General Government that comes from Sales and Use Tax.
Packet Pg. 95
Attachmenta: Exhibit A (Debt & Revenue Policy - RESO)
Attachment 6
Financial Policy 2 – Revenue
4
D. Monitoring
The percentages are monitored each year with the preparation of the annual financial
report. The percentages are reviewed by Council Finance Committee annually.
2.3 Fee Policy
As a home rule municipality, the City of Fort Collins has the ability to determine the
extent to which fees should be used to fund City facilities, infrastructure and services.
There are two kinds of fees that the City may establish: Impact Fees and Special Service
Fees. Impact fees are typically on-time charges levied by the City against new
development. The fees are based on current levels of service and act as a buy-in method
for new development. The revenue can only be used for capital infrastructure needs
created by the impact of the new development. Special service fees are charges imposed
on persons or property that are designed to defray the overall cost of the particular
municipal service for which the fee is imposed. This Policy sets forth principles for
identifying: 1) the kinds of services for which the City could appropriately impose fees;
2) methods for calculating the percentage of costs to be recovered by such fees; and 3)
the manner in which the fees should be allocated among individual fee payers.
A. Fees should be cost related
The amount of a fee should not exceed the overall cost of providing the facility,
infrastructure or service for which the fee is imposed. In calculating that cost, direct
and indirect costs may be included. That is:
1. Costs which are directly related to the provision of the service; and,
2. Support costs which are more general in nature but provide support for the
provision of the service.
B. Percentage of cost recovery
The extent to which the total cost of service should be recovered through fees
depends upon the following factors:
1. The nature of the facilities, infrastructure or services. In the case of fees for
facilities, infrastructure as well as governmental and proprietary services, total
cost recovery may be warranted. In the case of governmental services, it may be
appropriate for a substantial portion of the cost of such services to be borne by the
City’s taxpayers, rather than the individual users of such services.
2. The nature and extent of the benefit to the fee payers. When a particular facility
or service results in substantial, immediate and direct benefit to fee payers, a
higher percentage of the cost of providing the facility or service should be
recovered by the fee. When a particular facility or service benefits not only the fee
Packet Pg. 96
Attachmenta: Exhibit A (Debt & Revenue Policy - RESO)
Attachment 6
Financial Policy 2 – Revenue
5
payer but also a substantial segment of the community, lower cost recovery is
warranted.
3. The level of demand for a particular service. Because the pricing of services can
significantly affect demand, full cost recovery for services is more appropriate
when the market for the services is strong and will support a high level of cost
recovery.
4. Ease of collection. In the case of impact fees, ease of collection is generally not a
factor. In the case of fees for services, however, such fees may prove to be
impractical for the City to utilize if they are too costly to administer.
C. Establishment and Modification of Fees and Charges
Aside from user fees, (e.g. recreation classes and facility room rentals), all fees
imposed by the City will be established by the City Council by ordinance. In the case of
impact fees, utility fees and charges, and special service fees assessed against property
the ordinance establishing the fees will determine:
1. The level of cost that should be recovered through the fees according to the
criteria established in this Policy;
2. An appropriate method for apportioning the cost of providing each service among
the users of the service; and,
3. A procedure for periodically reviewing and modifying the amount of fees in order
to maintain appropriate cost recovery levels.
The amounts of these kinds of fees may be modified only by ordinance of the City
Council.
The amounts of other Special Service Fees, such as user fees charged for the use of
City facilities, may be determined by the City Manager, according to criteria
established by the City Council by ordinance, absent any provision of the City Charter
or Code to the contrary.
All fee revenues will be estimated by the City Manager and submitted to the City
Council as part of the City Manager’s recommended budget.
D. Rebate Programs
If the amount of a particular fee is considered to be too high to accommodate the
needs of particular segments of the community and the public interest would be
served by adjusting the amount or manner of payment of such fees in particular
instances, the amount of the fee may be waived, rebated, or deferred as appropriate.
In the case of fees established by ordinance, the criteria for waiving, rebating, or
deferring payment of such fees shall be established by the City Council by ordinance.
Packet Pg. 97
Attachmenta: Exhibit A (Debt & Revenue Policy - RESO)
Attachment 6
Financial Policy 2 – Revenue
6
2.4 Sales and Use Tax Distribution
The City's Sales and Use Tax totals 3.00 cents, developed as follows:
1968 - General City uses 1.00 cent
1980 - General City uses 1.00 cent
1982 - General City uses 0.25 cent
2006 - Street Maintenance 0.25 cent*
2006 - Building on Basics 0.25 cent*
2006 - Natural Areas & Open Space 0.25 cent*
2011 - Keeping Fort Collins Great 0.85 cent*
3.85 cents
*Excluding sales of grocery food.
Revenue generated by the Sales and Use Tax will be distributed, based on adopted budgets,
in the following manner:
Subject to appropriations, actual Sales and Use Tax revenue generated by the 2.25 cent tax
in excess of the fixed dollar amounts listed above, will be deposited to the General Fund.
Actual sales and use tax revenue generated by the 0.25 cent tax for Natural Areas and Open
Space will be transferred to, and be retained in the Natural Areas Fund to be used to
acquire, operate and maintain open spaces, community separators, natural areas, wildlife
habitat, riparian areas, wetlands and valued agricultural lands and to provide for the
appropriate use and enjoyment of these areas by the citizenry, through land conservation
projects to be undertaken where there is an identifiable benefit to the residents of the City,
as determined by the City Council, either within the City or its growth management or
regionally, provided certain provisions are met.
Actual sales and use tax revenue generated by the 0.25 cent tax for Street Maintenance will
be deposited and retained in the Transportation Services Fund to be used to pay the costs of
planning, design, right-of-way acquisition, incidental upgrades and other costs associated
with the repair and renovation of City streets, including but not limited to curbs, gutters,
bridges, sidewalks, parkways, shoulders and medians.
Actual sales and use tax revenue generated by the 0.25 cent tax for Building on Basics
projects will be transferred to, and be retained in the Capital Projects Fund or
corresponding operating funds to be used to pay the costs of planning, design, right-of-way
acquisition, construction, and at least seven (7) years of operation and maintenance for
street/transportation projects and other community capital projects, identified during the
Building on Basics process, approved by the voters.
Actual sales and use tax revenue generated by the 0.85 cent tax for Keep Fort Collins Great
will be deposited and retained in the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund which is allocated as
follows: 33% for street maintenance and repair; 17% for other street and transportation
needs; 17% for police services; 11% for fire protection and other emergency services; 11%
for parks maintenance and recreation services; and 11% for community priorities other
than those listed above, as determined by the City Council.
Packet Pg. 98
Attachmenta: Exhibit A (Debt & Revenue Policy - RESO)
Attachment 6
Financial Policy 2 – Revenue
7
2.5 Private Contributions
The City encourages the solicitation of private contributions. These services and programs
represent extra services that the City has not been able to provide to residents through its
regular revenue base. In times of revenue constraints the City may not be able to provide
the same level of service without additional support. Therefore, efforts should be made to
secure private contributions in support of these programs and services, as these
contributions are an integral part of their successful operation. With respect to TABOR, the
City’s Finance Department will make a determination as to whether a contribution is a gift
and is therefore excluded from constitutional limits.
Packet Pg. 99
Attachmenta: Exhibit A (Debt & Revenue Policy - RESO)
Attachment 6
Financial Policy 2 – Revenue
8
Getting Help
Please contact the Revenue and Project Manager with any questions at 970.221.6626.
Related Policies/References
Information about related policies or procedures, guidelines, forms, etc. Give complete references and
ensure that documents cited are readily available (i.e. either as widely distributed manuals or online). If
needed provide additional background discussion here. Reference to detailed procedures that are
recommended in order to carry out the intent of the policy.
Definitions
Governmental Services: services provided by the City for the public good such as regulating land use,
maintaining streets, and providing police and fire protection.
Impact Fees: usually one-time charges, levied by the City against new development to offset the impacts of
the new developments
Proprietary Services: services provided for the benefit and enjoyment of the residents of the City, at their
discretion, such as parks and recreation services
Special Service Fee: charges imposed on persons or property that are designed to defray the overall cost of
the particular municipal service for which the fee is imposed
Packet Pg. 100
Attachmenta: Exhibit A (Debt & Revenue Policy - RESO)
Attachment 6
Financial Management Policy 2
Issuing Debt
Issue Date:
Version: 2
Issued by:
Controller/Assistant
Financial Officer
Financial Policy 2 – Issuing Debt
1
2.1 Authorization for Municipal Borrowing
The City Charter (Article V. Part II) authorizes the borrowing of money and the issuance of long
term debt. The Charter and State Constitution determine which securities may be issued and when
a vote of the electors of the City and approved by a majority of those voting on the issue.
2.2 Purpose and Uses of Debt
Long term obligations should only be used to finance larger capital acquisitions and/or
construction costs that are for high priority projects. Debt will not be used for operating purposes.
Debt financing of capital improvements and equipment will be done only when the following
conditions exist:
a) When non-continuous projects (those not requiring continuous annual
appropriations) are desired;
b) When it can be determined that future users will receive a significant benefit from the
improvement;
c) When it is necessary to provide critical basic services to residents and taxpayers (for
example, purchase of water rights);
d) When total debt, including that issued by overlapping governmental entities, does not
constitute an unreasonable burden to the residents and taxpayers.
Objective:
The purpose of this policy is to establish parameters and provide guidance governing the
issuance of all debt obligations issued by the City of Fort Collins (City).
Applicability:
This debt policy applies to all funds and Service Areas of the City and closely related agencies
such as the Downtown Development Authority (DDA), Fort Collins Leasing Corporation and the
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA).
Authorized by:
City Council Resolutions 2013-XXX, Last change was authorized through adoption of the 2006-07 Budget in
November 2005.
EXHIBIT B
Packet Pg. 101
Attachmentb: Exhibit B (Debt & Revenue Policy - RESO)
Attachment 6
Financial Policy 2 – Issuing Debt
2
2.3 Types of Debt and Financing Agreements
The types of debt permitted are outlined in State statute. The City will avoid derivative type
instruments. In general the following debt types are used by the City:
a) General obligation bonds- backed by the credit and taxing power of the City and not
from revenues of any specific project. Colorado law limits general obligation debt to
10% of the City’s assessed valuation. Under TABOR this type of debt must approved by
voters.
b) Revenue Bonds - issued and backed by the revenues of a specific project, tax
increment district (TIF), enterprise fund, etc. The holders of these bonds can only
consider this revenue source for repayment. TABOR does not require that voters
approve these types of debt.
c) Lease Purchase – issued whereby the asset acquired is used as collateral. Examples
include Certificates of Participation (COP), Assignment of Lease Payments (ALP) and
equipment leases. TABOR does not require that voters approve these types of
agreements.
d) Moral Obligation Pledge – Is a pledge to consider replenishing a debt reserve fund of
another government agency if the reserve was used to make debt payments. This
type of commitment will only be used to support the highest priority projects, or
when the financial risk to the City does not increase significantly, or when the City’s
overall credit rating is not expected to be negatively impacted. Because it is a pledge
to consider replenishing, it is not a pledge of the City’s credit, and as such is not a
violation of State statutes and City Charter. However, decision makers should keep
in mind that not honoring a Moral Obligation Pledge will almost certainly negatively
impact the City’s overall credit rating. TABOR does not require that voters approve
these types of agreements.
e) Interagency Borrowing – issued when the credit of an agency (DDA, URA) of the City
does not permit financing at affordable terms. Usually used to facilitate a project
until the revenue stream is established and investors can offer better terms to the
agency. Program parameters are outlined in City’s Investment Policy. TABOR does
not require that voters approve these types of agreements.
f) Conduit Debt – Typically limited to Qualified Private Activity Bonds (PAB) defined
by the IRS and limited to the annual allocation received from the State. Low income
housing is one example of a qualified use of PAB. There is no pledge or guarantee to
pay by the City.
g) Any other securities not in contravention with City Charter or State statute.
2.4 Debt Structure and Terms
The following are guidelines, and may be modified by the City to meet the particulars of the
Packet Pg. 102
Attachmentb: Exhibit B (Debt & Revenue Policy - RESO)
Attachment 6
Financial Policy 2 – Issuing Debt
3
financial markets at the time of the issuance of a debt obligation:
a) Term of the Debt: The length of the financing will not exceed the useful life of the asset
or average life of a group of assets, or 30 years, whichever is less. Terms longer than
20 years should be limited to the highest priority projects.
b) Structure of Debt: Level debt service will be used unless otherwise dictated by the
useful life of the asset(s) and/or upon the advice of the City's financial advisor.
c) Credit Enhancements: The City will not use credit enhancements unless the cost of the
enhancement is less than the differential between the net present value of the debt
service without enhancement and the net present value of the debt service with the
enhancement.
d) Variable Rate Debt: The City will normally not issue variable rate debt, meaning debt
at rates that may adjust depending upon changed market conditions. However, it is
recognized that certain circumstances may warrant the issuance of variable rate debt,
but the City will attempt to stabilize the debt service payments through the use of an
appropriate stabilization arrangement.
e) Derivative type instruments and terms will be avoided.
f) Interest during construction will be capitalized when the debt is in an enterprise fund.
2.5 Refinancing Debt
Refunding of outstanding debt will only be done if there is a resultant economic gain regardless of
whether there is an accounting gain or loss, or a subsequent reduction or increase in cash flows.
The net present value savings shall be at least 3%, preferably 5% or more. In an advanced
refunding (before the call date), the ratio of present value savings to the negative arbitrage costs
should be at least 2.
2.6 Debt Limitations and Capacity
Debt capacity will be evaluated by the annual dollar amount paid and the total amount outstanding
with the goal to maintain the City’s overall issuer rating at the very highest rating, AAA. Parameters
are different for Governmental Funds, Enterprise Funds, and Related Agencies.
a. Governmental Funds - Annual debt service (principal and interest) will not exceed
5% of annual revenues. For calculation, revenues will not include internal charges,
transfers and large one-time grants. Outstanding debt in relation to population and
assessed value will be monitored.
b. Enterprise Funds – Each fund is unique and will be evaluated independently. Each
funds debt will be managed to maintain a credit score of at least an A rating. These
funds typically issue revenue bonds and investors closely watch revenue coverage
ratio. Coverage ratios are usually published in the Statistical Section of the City’s
Packet Pg. 103
Attachmentb: Exhibit B (Debt & Revenue Policy - RESO)
Attachment 6
Financial Policy 2 – Issuing Debt
4
Comprehensive Annual Financial Statement.
c. Related Agencies – Each agency will be evaluated independently, taking into account
City Charter, State statutes, market conditions and financial feasibility.
2.7 Debt Issuance Process
When the City utilizes debt financing, it will ensure that the debt is soundly financed by:
a) Selecting an independent financial advisor to assist with determining the method of
sale and the selection of other financing team members
b) Conservatively projecting the revenue sources that will be used to pay the debt;
c) Maintaining a debt service coverage ratio which ensures that combined debt service
requirements will not exceed revenues pledged for the payment of debt.
d) Evaluating proposed debt against the target debt indicators.
2.8 Other
Debt Management - The City will also have an Administrative Policy and Procedure that
includes guidance on:
a) Investment of bond proceeds
b) Market disclosure practices to primary and secondary markets, including annual
certifications
c) Arbitrage rebate monitoring and filing
d) Federal and State law compliance practices
Getting Help
Please contact the Controller/Assistant Financial Officer with any questions at 970.221.6772
Related Policies/References
The City of Fort Collins Charter (Article V. Part II)
Packet Pg. 104
Attachmentb: Exhibit B (Debt & Revenue Policy - RESO)
Attachment 6
Financial Policy 2 – Issuing Debt
5
e) Ongoing market and investor relations efforts
Definitions
Conduit Debt: when a government agency issues municipal securities to raise capital for revenue-
generating projects where the funds generated are used by a third party (known as the "conduit
borrower") to make payments to investors.. If a project fails and the security goes into default, it
falls to the conduit borrower's financial obligation, not the conduit issuer (City). Common types of
conduit financing include industrial development revenue bonds (IDRBs), private activity bonds and
housing revenue bonds (both for single-family and multifamily projects). Most conduit-issued
securities are for projects to benefit the public at large (i.e. airports, docks, sewage facilities) or
specific population segments (i.e. students, low-income home buyers, veterans).
Credit Enhancements: is usually bond insurance, but can be also subordination of other debt, reserve
accounts, or other types of collateral.
Agency: although the term is not normally used by local governments, an agency is an organization created
by the City with separate powers and authorities.
Debt Service Coverage Ratio: is a common measure of the ability to make debt service payments. The
formula is net operating income (operating revenue – operating expense) divided by debt service
(annual principal and interest)
Packet Pg. 105
Attachmentb: Exhibit B (Debt & Revenue Policy - RESO)
Attachment 6
Attachment 7
Attachment 7
Attachment 7
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
1/27/14
10:00 to 12:00
CIC Room
Council Attendees: Mayor Karen Weitkunat, Bob Overbeck, Ross Cunniff
Staff: Mike Beckstead, Craig Foreman, Dawna Gorkowski, Marty
Heffernan, Mark Jackson, Brian Janonis, Jessica Ping-Small,
Ginny Sawyer, John Voss, Wendy Williams, Katie Wiggett
Others: Dale Adamy, Kevin Jones (Chamber of Commerce)
Approval of the Minutes
Mayor Karen Weitkunat moved to approve the minutes from the December 16 meeting. Bob Overbeck
seconded the motion. Minutes approved unanimously.
Utilities Building Financing Update
Mike Beckstead explained that Financial Services has been working with the Utilities finance team to
evaluate the possibility of using existing fund balance cash to fund the construction of the new CSA
building rather than borrowing through a bond offering. At the end of 2013, the four Utility Enterprise
Funds combined had $58 M in cash and investments available for funding future capital projects.
Mike said that cash earned approximately .9% in 2013 and borrowing rates are currently about 4.5%.
Staff believes that using available cash when earning rates are at historically low levels is an appropriate
use of existing cash. Conversely, issuing bonds for the CSA building would be complicated because each
enterprise fund is a unique entity and one cannot support the others. Staff has confirmed with bond
counsel that we can structure a deal, but only with many cross agreements between the Utility Funds.
Given the risk of other large capital projects within Utilities that will require funding within the next 5-10
years (i.e. Halligan Reservoir and Mulberry annexation), staff feels that the CSA building is a less
appropriate bonding candidate. Staff recommends using cash to fund the Utility CSA building.
Bob Overbeck asked Mike what savings would result from using cash rather than bonding. Mike replied
that there would be substantial savings, up to 5 M in the next 20 years. Bob asked if, despite the
potential savings, using cash on this project may put Utilities cash balances in jeopardy. Mike replied
that this project will only require 15 M of the 43 M available. Holding the cash for future projects with
uncertain timing requirements would be overly conservative.
Council Finance supports staff’s decision to use cash for funding the CSA building project.
Attachment 8
2
Parks Maintenance and Trail Funding
Trail Funding:
Marty Heffernan gave an overview of the City’s trail system, a system including 34 miles of paved trails
and 23 underpasses with a value of $39 million. Current plans will add 31 miles of new trail and 10
underpasses at a cost of approximately $23 million.
Funding for the trail system has come primarily from Conservation Trust (Lottery) proceeds. In 2001,
due to budget shortfalls, a significant amount of ConTrust funds were redirected to park and trail
maintenance. Currently, $735,000 of ConTrust funds are used for maintaining rather than building the
system. Of the approximately $1.4 million in funds that ConTrust provided annually in 2012 and 2013,
only $665,000 went to trail development. Natural Areas has provided $350,000 for trail development
since 2003, but this funding may not be available after 2014 due to Natural Areas’ needs.
Mayor Weitkunat noted that many aren’t in favor of any Natural Area funds being used to fund Trails
projects. She asked that Staff look for future funding plans that eliminate Trails’ reliance on these funds.
Marty explained that the City has about $6 million set aside for trail development in 2014 and 2015,
funding that will be expended on six major trail projects. In 2016, the City will still have 26 miles of trail
to build at a cost of over $17 million with only $665,000 in annual funding. This means it will take 27
years (2014 to 2040) to complete the trail system without additional funding.
Marty walked through four options for increasing trail funding:
1. Redirect all ConTrust funding to trail development
a. Provides ~$1.4 million annually
b. Builds out trail system in 14 years (2014 to 2027)
c. Requires replacement of $735,000 for park and trail maintenance annually
d. Replacement funds could be provided by a new park maintenance fee of ~$1 per month
or by the General Fund
Ross asked how much the General Fund was over projection in 2013 and if those excess funds could
provide the $735,000 needed for Option 1. Mike said that the General Fund was $5.5 million over
projection in 2013; however, much of that came from an increase in Use Tax, a volatile revenue.
2. The creation of a capital expansion fee for trails
a. Similar to our park capital expansion fees
b. One-time assessment (~$700) on new residential dwellings
c. Provides ~$500,000 annually
d. With existing ConTrust funding ($665,000) provides $1.165 million for trail development
e. Builds out trail system in 17 years (2014 to 2030)
Ross asked if this was the capital expansion fee that was dropped from the package of the updated
capital expansion fees passed by Council in 2013. Marty answered that this was from that study and
noted that, even with Trails added to the other updated fees, Fort Collins capital expansion fees would
still not be high compared to other municipalities in the Front Range.
Attachment 8
3
3. Continuing Natural Area funding for trails ($350,000) if the County quarter cent tax for open
space is extended in 2018
a. Only affordable if the County 1/4 cent for Natural Areas is extended
b. Provides $350,000 annually
c. With existing ConTrust funding provides $1.015 million for trail development
d. Builds out trail system in 19 years
e. If combined with a trail impact fee (Option 2) builds out trail system in 13 years
f. Could delay infrastructure improvements (parking lots, restrooms) for newly acquired
natural areas
The Mayor noted that Council has not been interested in continuing to use Natural Area funds for
projects that are not directly tied to Natural Areas.
4. One-time Trail Funding
a. Dedicate one-time funding ($5 to $10 million) to trail development
b. Possible funding sources are BOB 2 or reserves
c. Current BOB 2 trail offer is for $2 million but could be increased
d. With current ConTrust funding builds out trail system in 13 to 20 years
The Mayor cautioned that, for trails to be funded by BOB 2, the offer would need to have strong public
backing. A good BOB 2 offer for Trail Funding would give the public clear details of what will be funded
and what the short-term benefit will be. Ross Cunniff added that Council is interested in this option;
they just need to see more data.
Park Maintenance:
Marty also presented the need for more park maintenance funding. The City has 44 neighborhood parks
and 6 community parks comprising 875 acres of developed parkland. Currently capital expansion fees
fund the building or our park system while the funding to maintain parks comes primarily from the
General Fund ($3,661,521), an amount of funding that hasn’t increased since 2006. Park maintenance is
also funded with KFCG dollars, fee revenue from rentals and ConTrust funding.
Over the next 15 years as the community grows, park capital expansion fees will fund construction of 10
new neighborhood parks and 3 new community parks. KFCG will provide maintenance funding for 4
neighborhood parks between 2016 and 2019. However, the average annual maintenance cost for these
neighborhood parks is approximately $35,000 per park, an ongoing expense; so if KFCG sunsets, an
alternative funding source will be needed.
Also, a new community park is being designed with construction scheduled for 2015/2016. Ongoing
maintenance funding of approximately $370,000 annually will be needed for this park beginning in 2017,
and one-time, start-up funding for tools and equipment will be needed in 2016. Staff will be requesting
the start-up funding from the General Fund in the 2015/2016 budget process.
While these new parks are provided to serve our growing population and a larger population should
produce additional General Fund revenue, Marty noted that an alternative funding source is needed for
maintenance of these new parks. He suggested a park maintenance fee as one possible way to fund
future maintenance. The fee would be approximately $1 per household, collected on the Utility bill.
Attachment 8
4
The Mayor said that she supports finding a mechanism for funding maintenance. While the City always
sets aside funds for building the system, we have not yet set up a viable plan for maintaining what we
build. Mike noted that, if Council did choose to move forward with a park maintenance fee, a rebate
program for low-income would be provided.
Council Finance supports Staff’s efforts to find a funding mechanism for park maintenance and asks that
they move forward. Mike emphasized the importance of timing if Staff moves forward with a fee,
considering the many taxes that are coming up for renewal. Staff does currently have an RFP out for a
Fee Comparison study, a study that will give us a strong, broad view of how the City’s fees compare with
the Front Range’s. This study will give valuable guidance as we move forward with fee discussions.
Transportation Maintenance Fee Discussion
Mike noted that the topic of Street Maintenance Fees was brought to Council Finance in October and
November of 2013. A transportation maintenance fee was discussed as a potential alternative to the
1/4 cent tax that expires in 2015. Staff presented the fee study and its financial impact on local
businesses. While the cost can arguably be passed off to the customer, it would be difficult for
businesses to absorb the entire cost of the fee and there is a perception that the fee places a larger
burden on businesses.
Mike noted that some of the businesses that would pay the fee do not currently collect sales tax (i.e.
banks); for these businesses, the fee would be a completely new addition. Ross noted that the
businesses affected by the fee would be competing with businesses similarly affected by the fee, so the
addition in cost to the customer shouldn’t hurt the businesses. Ross asked that the fee discussion
continue.
The Mayor questioned continuing the fee discussion, saying that the fee places a large burden on
businesses and can be seen as double hitting the resident and the business owner. She believes that the
fee doesn’t have Council or citizen support, whereas the 1/4 tax does. Ross agreed that the fee needs to
be improved to become what is best for Fort Collins. Bob believes that Staff should continue to work on
the possibility of transportation Maintenance Fee. The Mayor asked what they hoped to see from Staff
if they continue. Bob replied that he’d like to have the discussion in a Work Session to get feedback
from the rest of Council and from citizens on what they actually support and what changes they would
like made. Darin Atteberry will talk to Councilmembers about the topic before it moves forward.
Grocery Tax and Utility Rebates: 2013 Report
Jessica Ping-Small said that the Finance Department currently administers three rebate programs for
low-income, senior and disabled residents. The rebates are for Property Tax, Utilities and Sales Tax on
Food. In May of 2012, City Council approved several improvements to the program which helped
increase the number of qualified applicants by 13% that year. Katie Wiggett gave an overview of the
2013 program. In 2013, Staff focused on continuing to simplify the process for applicants and on
promoting the program leading to an increase of 2% qualified participants.
2013 Outreach:
• Translated the application into Spanish to help reach a larger demographic and made a
telephone translating service available to applicants
Attachment 8
5
• Distributed over 2,500 applications to low income PSD elementary schools in their Back-to-
School packets
• Articles in the Coloradoan, in City News and a News Bulletin on Cable 14
• Partnerships with local agencies such as the Larimer Food Bank, Volunteers of America, Larimer
Health and Human Services, etc.
• Provided on-site help at the DMA and Senior Center
• Application forms distributed to the Senior Center, Aztlan Center, Utility Billing Office and the
Workforce Center as well as to several senior living apartment clubhouses
• Provided applications and advertising posters to the Villages low-income apartments
• Applications mailed out to all applicants from the prior year
• City webpage with downloadable application in English and Spanish
• Information in the Senior Voice and available through United Way’s 211
Goals for 2014:
• Continue with proven outreach strategies
• Look for more effective ways to partner with PSD for targeted outreach
• Develop strategy for better reaching Spanish-speaking community
• Increase on-site application assistance at low income housing
• Increased partnership with non-profits to advertise the program
• Partner with the Social Sustainability Service Area to increase community outreach
Bob Overbeck suggested advertising the program on local radio stations and on Channel 97. The Mayor
suggested that the outreach to schools at the beginning of the school year might be less effective
because of all the paperwork that parents get at that time. She also asked about the logic of having the
program begin in August, suggesting that it might be easier for applicants if the program started closer
to tax season when more people had their documentation ready and are thinking about rebates. Staff
said they could move the program forward in 2015, but they would need 2014 to prepare applicants for
the change in deadlines.
Council Finance is pleased with the outreach efforts made in 2013 and the continued improvements to
the program. They feel that a change in scheduling for the rebate may be very helpful for participation.
Attachment 8
Attachment8.4: Current Revenue Policies (Debt & Revenue Policy)
Attachment 6