HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Mail Packet - 1/13/2015 - Council Finance & Audit Committee Agenda - January 12, 2015Council Finance Committee & URA Finance Committee
Agenda Planning Calendar 2015
RVSD 01.05.15 tg
Jan. 12 TOPIC TIME WHO
CFC
Airport Financials 45 min J. Licon
Climate Action Plan – Macro Financials 45 min J. Birks
URA
Feb. 9 TOPIC TIME WHO
CFC
Police Training Facility 45 min J. Hutto
M. Beckstead
Climate Action Plan – Macro Financials 30 min J. Birks
GF Back-Fill Requirements – Capital Expansion Fees & Dedicated Taxes 15 min M. Beckstead
URA
Mar. 16 TOPIC TIME WHO
CFC
URA
Apr. 20 TOPIC TIME WHO
CFC
URA
May 18 TOPIC TIME WHO
CFC
Economic Health Policy 30 min J. Voss
J. Birks
URA
Future Council Finance Committee Topics:
• Review Special Improvement Districts
Future URA Committee Topics:
• No Topics in Queue
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
AGENDA
Council Finance & Audit Committee
January 12, 2015
10:00 a.m. to Noon
CIC Room – City Hall
Approval of the Minutes from the December 15, 2014 meeting
1. Airport Financials 45 minutes Jason Licon
2. Climate Action Plan – Macro Financials 45 minutes Josh Birks
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
12/15/14
10:00 a.m. to 12:00 Noon
CIC Room
Council Attendees: Ross Cunniff, Bob Overbeck
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead, Josh Birks, Karen Cumbo,
Carrie Daggett, Mike DeKock, John Duval, Kevin Gertig,
Tauny Gilmore, Marty Heffernan, Bruce Hendee, Jessica
Ping-Small, John Voss, Katie Wiggett
Others: Dale Adamy, Mike Freeman, RMI; Audrey Frajo, Chamber
Approval of the Minutes
Bob Overbeck moved to approve the minutes from the November 17 meeting. Ross Cunniff seconded
the motion. Minutes approved unanimously.
2014 Revenue Update
Mike Beckstead provided details on the additional revenue that is anticipated above forecast for 2014.
Mike explained that Staff last updated the revenue forecast in September and the additional revenue
above budget was used in the 2015/16 budget. October and November revenue growth was
exceptionally strong and an additional $6.2M of Sales and Use tax revenue (with approximately $3.7M
of this within the General Fund) is anticipated by year end.
Bob Overbeck asked for an update on the Police Training Facility. Darin Atteberry said that the topic will
be discussed at a Council Work Session in January. Staff is currently in dialogues with potential partners.
While Weld County will not be a partner, some towns within Weld County are interested.
Mike outlined the following options for CFC in the use of the additional $3.7M of GF revenue:
1. Assign additional revenue to select projects eliminated from Capital Project List
2. Allow Select projects to compete with other priorities in 2015 revision or 2017/18 BFO process
Council Finance discussed the merits of the projects eliminated from the Capital Project List. Marty
Heffernan explained that the Southridge Irrigation System ($2.2M) project is a top priority while the
Fossil Creek Synthetic Turf project ($1.3M) and the Park Conversion to Raw Water ($.8M) are less
pressing projects, though important. Darin noted that each of these projects helped with water
conservation. Marty added that the Southridge Irrigation System would result in 20% savings on water.
Ross Cunniff said that it would be helpful to see the water cost savings in terms of average household
water use.
2
Darin asked Marty to calculate the cost of a worst-case catastrophic event due to the Fossil Creek turf
situation. Ross agreed that such information would be good to know on all projects so Council could set
aside only the necessary funds while Staff came up with Plans for completing these projects over time.
Ross said that, after the April election, the new Council should have a say on how these revenues are
spent.
Darin explained that the top three priorities from these projects would be Transfort Bus Fleet
Replacement, Computer Aided Dispatch and the Southridge Irrigation System. Council Finance
recommends setting aside $.5M from the $3.7M for each of these three projects. Staff will move
forward with this recommendation and make these assignments in the 2014 year end fund balance.
Review of Prior Revenue Diversification Discussions
Jessica Ping-Small explained that, since 2012, Staff has been analyzing and considering various facets of
revenue diversification and presenting their findings to Council in phases. This presentation is to recap past
discussions and to seek direction on next steps.
The City receives 45-50% of its revenue from sales and use tax which can be a volatile source of revenue.
The conundrum of how to strike the balance of adequate revenue to fund current service levels without an
overreliance on sales and use tax is an ongoing issue in Fort Collins and surrounding municipalities. The
City’s dependence on sales and use tax is about average compared to other Colorado cities.
Jessica showed a breakdown of Fort Collins tax base, noting that a significant portion of Fort Collins tax is
comprised of voter approved taxes that eventually sunset. Jessica went on to address Fort Collins’ mill levy
rate, pointing out that the City mill rate of 9.797 is currently slightly above the average of 8.828 mills
compared to other Colorado cities.
Since 2012, Staff has looked at multiple options to both diversify and stabilize revenue, using Colorado
Springs comprehensive revenue diversification study as a guide. Staff came up with 7 main alternatives, 3 of
which were still based on sales tax.
One option is a sales tax on services, a tax that is hard to estimate potential revenue for. If adopting a tax on
services, the City would have three tiers of services to explore for possibly taxing: 1) services that other
surrounding cities tax; 2) personal care type services; and 3) consulting type services. Council Finance asked
that Staff prepare a memo further explaining this option.
Bob Overbeck asked about the possibility of taxing online sales. Jessica answered that online sales
represent an estimated loss in sales tax of $3-4M annually. The possibility of state-level tax rates is being
discussed nationally.
Darin Atteberry pointed out that Staff’s diversity discussion is very much focused on stability rather than
finding new revenue. Bob Overbeck asked if Staff has looked at Sales and Use Tax levels in the 2008
downturn to see what a base might look like in another downturn. Jessica answered that Staff has looked at
the 2008 base and, while revenue from sales and use tax was down 6-7%, it was not as volatile as might be
expected. Mike Beckstead added that property taxes in Fort Collins also remained relatively flat during the
recession.
Bob had asked Staff to examine the impact of a City Mill Level at 31.162, the mill rate at which a “three-
3
legged stool” would be achieved. Jessica showed numbers comparing a 2012 bill at the current rate of 9.797
mills with a bill at 31.162 mills, noting an increase of roughly 300%. Ross asked if the sales tax rate would be
lowered if the mill levy was raised. Jessica answered that it likely would.
Council Finance recommends that Council discuss the possibility of a Transportation Fee before or in
conjunction with discussions on renewing the ¼ cent Street Maintenance Tax. Council Finance would also
like to see more information about a potential tax on services, an admissions tax and other options.
Staff will bring a presentation to Council Finance in Q3 or Q4 2015 to tie up the loose ends on potential
diversification options.
Rocky Mountain Innosphere (RMI) Business Update
Mike Freeman of Rocky Mountain Innosphere (RMI or the Innosphere) explained that RMI is Colorado’s
leading science and technology incubator. RMI is focused on supporting entrepreneurs who are building
high growth potential companies in cleantech, biosciences, hardware and software.
Bob Overbeck asked if Council could get a breakdown of RMI’s funding partners with their level of
funding. Mike replied that each funding partner contributes $25K or more with the largest donation
being $125K; however, RMI cannot release a list of each company and their donations as these are
private organizations and often chose to keep their donations private.
Mike explained the importance of RMI’s strategic partners, industry partners, and bank partners. Bob
Overbeck noted that it would be nice to hear a deeper story on these partners work with RMI. Mike
went on to discuss RMI’s economic impact in 2013, noting that the most significant number was the
total capital raised: $35.3M in 2013.
Mike went over RMI’s proposed major initiatives for 2015:
• Further implementing Lean Launchpad (up front training program)
• Better defining services delivered by staff vs. advisors, providers
• Creating more definition around software program
• Defining role with CSU Powerhouse
• Advancing our access to capital program (focus on seed funding)
• Implementing an Early Exit program.
Mike then explained RMI’s Key Initiative for 2015: the Early Exit Program. This program is customized
for companies with early exit potential (approximately 5 companies a year). These companies will pay
RMI a 2% transaction fee (of the value of a sale) when they exit. This will be an opt-in program solely for
companies with good acquisition potential.
Establishing a Parking Fund in 2015
Mike DeKock explained that the City has set up a new fund to report parking revenues and expenditures
that were previously reported in the Transportation Fund. The CFO has the authority to establish a new
fund; however, Council approval is required to transfer the parking reserves currently reported in the
Transportation Fund into the Parking Fund.
An ordinance will be presented for the February 4, 2015 Council Meeting to transfer an estimate of
reserves as of December 31, 2014 of approximately $1,519,485. Mike explained that this balance is an
estimate because year-end accruals are still coming in. If there are any additional transactions recorded
4
altering the year-end reserve amount, an appropriation will be proposed for the year-end adjustment
ordinance.
Darin noted that this is not a change to parking practices, only a change in financial reporting to improve
transparency. Bob Overbeck noted that it might be useful to add an asterisk stating how much money
the City forfeits annually with the issuance of warnings or “oops” tickets. Ross asked that Staff look into
the “oops” tickets because he believes the tickets have a statement on them saying that they are
granted through the DBA or DDA.
Council Finance supports the transfer of funds from the Transportation Fund to the Parking Fund.
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Jason Licon
Date: January 12, 2015
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Airport Financial Information Presentation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is an informational summary of the Fort Collins – Loveland Airport’s financial history,
present status, and challenges that it may face in the future.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
This is an informational item
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Fort Collins – Loveland Airport is a jointly owned and operated facility that obtains funding
through a variety of revenue sources. These sources include Federal and State grant funding,
airport generated revenue, and contributions from the two Cities. The presentation will provide
detailed information on the total financial picture at the Airport and how the reduction in future
revenue sources will impact the overall health of the facility. The declassification of the Airport
from a primary commercial service airport to a non-primary commercial service airport has
produced a reduction in guaranteed Federal Grant resource funding from $1 million annually to
$150,000 starting in 2015.
ATTACHMENTS
Airport Financial Information Presentation
Airport Financial
Information
Transient
General
Aviation
59.0%
Local
General
Aviation
37.0%
Air Taxi
4.0%
Military
0.4%
Commercial
0.6%
Operations by Category
Airport Statistical Snapshot
Activity Statistics
Fort Collins-Loveland Airport
Airport Size 1,073 acres
Full Time Employees 4
Operations 260/day
Airport Based businesses 13
Planes Based 248
Annual Fuel Flowage 1,000,000 gal
Square Feet of Pavement 1.4 million
Equivalent Highway Lane Miles 20
Total Jobs (Airport, Tenant, CIP) 237
Total Regional Economic Impact $121.2 million
Comparable Airports
Activity Statistic Fort Collins-
Loveland
Airport
Greely Airport Rocky Mountain
Metro – Jefferson
County Airport
Front Range
Airport
Cheyenne
Airport
Airport Classification Commercial General Reliever Reliever Commercial
Based Aircraft 248 195 362 310 95
Annual Fuel Flow (gallons) 1,000,000 325,000 3,000,000 100,000 N/A
Operations 260/day 220/day 330/day 122/day 151/day
Transient General Aviation 59% 40% 43% 42% 12%
Local General Aviation 37% 59% 51% 56% 28%
Air Taxi 4% NA 5% <1% 9%
Military <1% <1% 2% 2% 51%
Commercial <1% NA <1% NA <1%
Staff FTE 4 7 24 8 9
Airport Funding
Airport
Creation
Federal Program
Purchased Land 1962 &
Cities Operate
Airport must comply
with Federal Grant
Assurances &
Regulations
FAA & State
Funding
FAA grants 90%
• Entitlement - Classification
• Discretionary - Priority
• Both Require Local Match
State Grants 90%
• Discretionary
• Requires Local Match
Airport
Generated
Land & Building Leases
Fuel Flowage and Sales
Tax
Other
Airport Investment Summary 2004-2013
Total Investment $30,680,000
• Federal Contributions
$17,620,000 – 57%
• Airport Revenue
$7,890,000 – 26%
• State Contributions
$3,480,000 – 11%
• City Contributions
$1,690,000 – 6%
[CATEGORY
NAME],
[VALUE]
[PERCENTAGE]
[CATEGORY
NAME],
[VALUE]
[PERCENTAGE]
[CATEGORY
NAME],
[VALUE]
[PERCENTAGE]
[CATEGORY
NAME],
[VALUE]
[PERCENTAGE]
Airport Financial Summary
2011 2012 2013 2014*
*Through Nov 30
2015
(Budget)
Operations & Maintenance
Revenue $1,202,000 $1,334,000 $1,039,000 $937,000 $1,019,000
Expend $710,000 $860,000 $712,000 $684,000 $845,000
O & M Total $492,000 $474,000 $327,000 $253,000 $174,000
Capital
Revenue $6,629,000 $976,000 $2,941,000 $779,000 $550,000
Expend $7,269,000 $868,000 $3,055,000 $87,000 $885,000
Capital Total ($640,000) $108,000 ($114,000) $692,000 ($335,000)
Total Net ($148,000) $582,000 $213,000 $945,000 ($161,000)
Operations & Maintenance Revenue Sources
2011 2012 2013 2014*
*Through Nov 30
2015
(Budget)
Commercial Airline Fees $462,000 $360,000 $28,000 $11,000 $14,000
Security Badging $10,000 $4,000 $13,000 $2,000 $10,000
Fuel Sales $256,000 $351,000 $364,000 $282,000 $340,000
Land & Facilities Leases $268,000 $430,000 $287,000 $273,000 $287,000
Miscellaneous/Sale $36,000 $19,000 ($8,000) $14,000 $12,000
City of Fort Collins $85,000 $85,000 $177,500 $177,500 $177,500
City of Loveland $85,000 $85,000 $177,500 $177,500 $177,500
Total O & M Revenue $1,202,000 $1,334,000 $1,039,000 $937,000 $1,018,000
Operations & Maintenance - Expenditures
2011 2012 2013 2014
*Through Nov
2015
(Budget)
Personnel $401,000 $393,000 $358,000 $309,000 $389,000
Administrative $38,000 $51,000 $38,000 $34,000 $68,000
Professional Services $79,000 $64,000 $95,000 $76,000 $113,000
Maintenance $18,000 $23,000 $21,000 $25,000 $40,000
Vehicle & Equipment $73,000 $217,000 $91,000 $69,000 $111,000
Insurance $27,000 $23,000 $24,000 $23,000 $30,000
Utilities $74,000 $89,000 $85,000 $148,000 $94,000
Total O & M Expense $710,000 $860,000 $712,000 $684,000 $845,000
Capital – Expenditure Examples
2011
•Runway 15/33 Rehabilitation
•General Aviation Ramp Repair
•Utility Planning
•Equipment Purchase
2012
•Air Service Development
•General Aviation Ramp Rehabilitation
& Lighting
•Surplus Snow Removal Equipment
Purchase
•Runway Weather Sensor System
2013
• General Aviation Ramp &
Connector Reconstruction
2014
• Airport Rescue and Firefighting
Vehicle Acquisition
• Snow Removal Equipment
Building
Capital Funds by Source
$7,000,000
$689,500
$1,532,015
$540,000
$400,000
$512,117
$1,058,000
$433,280
$291,265
$120,677
$193,212
$104,391
$0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 $8,000,000 $9,000,000
2011
2012
2013
2014
CAPITAL REVENUE SOURCES 2011-2014
Federal State Local
Capital Revenue & Fund Balance
2011 2012 2013 2014*
*Thru Nov 30
2015 (Budget)
Federal Contributions $6,517,000 $375,000 $1,812,000 $154,000 $150,000
State Contributions $113,000 $601,000 $1,130,000 $626,000 $40,000
Local (From Operation Revenue) $493,000 $474,000 $327,000 $253,000 $174,000
Total $7,123,000 $1,450,000 $3,269,000 $1,033,000 $364,000
Unreserved Capital Balance as of 12-31-2013: $1,600,000
Total Capital Assets, Net as of 12-31-2013: $22,800,000
2015 Budget Appropriation
Appropriation by Cities Fort Collins
50%
Loveland
50%
Total
City Contribution $177,500 $177,500 $355,000
Airport Revenues & Grants $687,000 $687,000 $687,000
Total Appropriation $864,500 $864,500 $1,042,000
Budget O & M Capital Total
2015 $845,000 $885,000 $1,730,000
Examples of Airport Impact
Regional Business Activity
•Conserves the most limited resource for businesses, time
•Supports high quality employers requiring global access
•Airport is the first impression for many doing area business
Part of a System
•Pilot training - Recreation
•Diversion point for rerouted aircraft - Safety
•Supports a wide range of aircraft types
•Scheduled Air Service Support
Emergency Services Support
•Emergency medical flights – 148 inbound flights in 2014
•Hospital helicopter air ambulance
•Wildfires & other Disaster related staging
•Law Enforcement, Search & Rescue
Airport Pavement Condition Index
Airport Aerial
Future Airport Financial Needs
• Airside capital improvement funding necessary to maintain
existing Airport facilities is approximately $700,000 annually on
average
• FAA entitlement is being reduced from $1 million to $150,000 in 2015
• State of Colorado Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics just
announced that they are facing a severe revenue shortfall that will reduce
the airport’s planned resources by 90% in 2015 or $360,000
• In 2016 the anticipated funding levels from grant resources are as follows:
• $150,000 annually from the FAA
• $250,000 annually from the State
• Other capital improvement considerations
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Josh Birks, Economic Health Director
Lucinda Smith, Director Environmental Services Department
Date: January 12, 2015
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Climate Action Plan – Macro Financials
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to present progress on the Climate Action Plan (CAP)
financial work. The CAP being developed for consideration at the February 17, 2015 City
Council meeting will provide a high level framework plan. The framework plan will set Fort
Collins on the path to achieve reduction objectives that lead to carbon neutrality (a 100 percent
reduction in net greenhouse gas emissions) by 2050.
A key consideration in adopting the revised CAP is understanding how to fund the strategies and
tactics included in the plan. The materials included with this Agenda Item Summary provide:
1. A draft set of principles used to guide financing of the CAP strategies and tactics;
2. An understanding of the available funding tools; and
3. A preliminary understanding of what needs to be paid for
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does the committee have comments/suggestions on the draft Climate Action Plan
Financing Guiding Principles?
2. Does the committee feel that there is sufficient analysis to answer the question “Can the
CAP be funded?” What additional information, if any, would be help to City Council and
the committee in answering this question?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
In April 2014, City Council initiated an effort to develop an updated Climate Action Plan (CAP)
that would outline the steps necessary to reduce community greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions:
20% below 2005 levels by 2020;
80% below 2005 by 2030; and
Carbon neutrality (a 100% reduction in net greenhouse gas emission) by the year 2050.
This direction was based on analysis provided from the “Stepping Up” report prepared by the
Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) to answer the question of how quickly Fort Collins could
technically and cost-effectively accelerate its 80% GHG reduction goal, plus additional analysis
of alternative new goals provided by The Brendle Group.
When considering a policy goal and strategic plan such as this, questions that are typically
considered include:
Is it possible?
What would it take?
What are the impacts of taking the action? Of not taking action?
What is the correct/logical order of steps?
Can it be funded?
The conversation with the Council Finance Committee (CFC) is intended to address the last
question: “Can the CAP be funded?” Not all the details of funding will be address as part of the
proposed CAP framework plan to be considered by the City Council on February 17, 2015. The
objective is to provide sufficient information to City Council and the CFC to allow the CAP to
proceed to implementation.
This first work session with the CFC focuses on macro financial information, including:
1. A draft set of principles used to guide financing of the CAP strategies and tactics;
2. An understanding of the available funding mechanisms; and
3. A preliminary understanding of what needs to be paid for
Guiding Principles
Recognizing that City Council will consider a framework plan in February that will set in motion
a significant amount of work on implementing specific strategies and tactics, staff recommends
including a set of guiding principles as part of the framework plan. These guiding principles
provide a set of boundary conditions for the implementation of the plan with the goal of
mitigation a portion of the risk inherent with the unknowns of a framework plan. The current
draft of the Guiding Principles can be found in ATTACHMENT #1.
These principles have intentionally be provided as a list of qualitative statements (excluding the
adopted objectives of Platte River Power Authority relative to their long range planning) to allow
for flexibility. Over time these qualitative statements could be translated into quantitative
statements about. For example, the principles may eventually include specifics relative to the
amount of debt the City would be willing to incur to support the carbon reduction goals.
Funding Mechanisms
City staff, along with support from RMI and The Brendle Group, has been researching available
funding mechanisms to support the implementation of the CAP (See ATTACHMENT #2). This
list of funding mechanisms is not intended to be an exhaustive list. The list does illustrate the
primary methods of funding carbon reduction and climate action efforts across the United States.
The financing mechanisms largely rely on entity borrowing funds, whether household, business,
or government, that must be repaid. The intent is to develop business models that rely on these
financing mechanisms to access the anticipated net savings from the CAP in later years to
amortize the initial costs associated with the proposed strategies and tactics reducing initial costs
for pursuing the CAP. The mechanisms fall into three main categories:
Individual and Business Financing – These mechanisms provide access to borrowing or
funds that individuals and businesses can use to make investments in energy efficiency,
distributed power, and other similar investments. In general, these financing mechanism
aid individuals and businesses in amortizing initial costs in improvements over time to
reduce the upfront costs. In some cases, the government, whether it is municipal, county,
or state, can aggregate the investments into a larger pool to reduce borrowing costs (e.g.,
On-bill financing, Property Assessed Clean Energy Bonds or Tax Increment Financing).
Government Financing – These mechanisms involve the government borrowing funds,
whether it is municipal, county, or state, directly to support investments in utility scale
energy efficiency, solar rebates, transit infrastructure, and other similar investments. The
intent is to use the borrowing power of the government to accelerate adoption of key
strategies, reduce risk to private lenders of consumer lending programs, make key
investments in municipal infrastructure (e.g., public transit) to support carbon reduction
goals. In many cases, the borrowing still requires a funding source to justify the debt
which can range from the existing revenues (e.g., taxes and/or fees) available to the
government to new revenues (e.g., new taxes and/or fees).
Other Sources of Funds – The last category captures a series of potential funding sources
that do not logically fall into the other two categories. These may include new
governmental revenue sources (e.g. User Fees, Development Exactions, and Public
Benefit Funds) or donations from private parties interested in furthering carbon reduction
goals.
Financing Needs
ATTACHMENT #3 provides the final piece of the financial overview picture. Understanding
the need for financing by type of investment helps to provide scale relative to the use of each of
the funding mechanisms described above. The financing needs are outlined by major outcome
area: Buildings, Electric Supply, Road to Zero Waste/Land Use, and Transportation. In addition,
the document lists potential financing mechanisms for each major cost category. A few general
observations are listed for each outcome area:
Buildings:
Individuals and businesses bear the majority of these costs and rely on financing
mechanisms designed to meet their needs (e.g., on-bill financing, PACE, traditional
loans, etc.).
The one exception is Utility Program Costs to encourage energy efficiency improvements
and upgrades, which relies on existing revenues, rates, or a new business model for the
utility.
Electric Supply
The vast majority of the cost in this category is the increment electric costs associated
with the strategies and tactics in the CAP. The purchase of electricity creates revenue that
offsets these costs making them self-funding.
Individuals and businesses largely bear the coast of developing and installing distributed
solar. Again, financing mechanisms that address the needs of individuals and businesses
are largely used to fund these costs. The government may reduce borrowing costs through
tools like new business models and PACE.
Solar rebates are paid for by government with costs either recouped through revenues or
rates. Borrowing may be used to accelerate the ability of government to offer rebates and
encourage rapid deployment of solar installation.
Road to Zero Waste/Land Use
These costs are largely self-funded as individuals make investments or funded by fees or
rates.
Transportation:
Public transit infrastructure is largely funded by government, whether it is local, state, or
national. Financing relies on existing revenues or other revenue sources such as tax
increment financing or parking revenues.
Individual Electric Vehicles and Charging Infrastructure relies on individual and business
investments and occurs through traditional methods used to make current purchases of
internal combustion engines and capital investments.
Can the CAP be funded?
The net societal costs and benefits listed in ATTACHMENT #4 shows net cumulative savings
by 2050 of approximately $6.6 billion dollars. Therefore, the savings exceed the costs over the
time horizon considered by the analysis. The challenge then of funding the CAP is developing
business models that allow for the diverse portfolio of investments made by Fort Collins
Utilities, Platte River Power Authority, third parties providing finance for energy efficiency
investments, and the City itself, as well as individual businesses and homeowners to leverage
these savings. Fort Collins Utilities’ proposed Integrated Utility Services model, for example,
would provide a financing structure whereby homeowners would see net benefits from energy
efficiency investments beginning in year one, since these investments would be financed over
time rather than paid up front.
The specifics of the business models that enable the leveraging of savings by individuals,
businesses, Fort Collins Utilities, PRPA, third parties, and society will be developed further
during implementation.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft CAP Financing Guiding Principles
2. Potential CAP Financing Mechanisms
3. CAP Financing Needs and Potential Mechanisms
4. Current CAP Model Output – Societal Costs and Benefits
5. Staff Presentation
Council Finance Committee - January 12, 2015
1
Climate Action Plan:
Financing Overview
Direction Sought
2
1. Does the committee have
comments/suggestions on the draft Climate
Action Plan Financing Guiding Principles?
2. Does the committee feel that there is enough
information to indicate potential feasibility of
Funding the CAP? What additional
information, if any, would be help to City
Council and the committee in answering this
question?
3
Scenario 1
2020 2030 2040 2050
% below 2005
baseline 25% 75% 86% 92%
Net Cumulative
Costs/Savings
$292M
cost $388 savings
$2.8B
Savings $7B Savings
Avg. monthly
cost/savings
per resident
$28 cost $13 savings $56 savings $98 savings
4
- Includes Cost of Carbon for all fuels
- Includes 2.5% discount rate
Scenario 1
*
*Does not indicate the
cash flow impact to
households or businesses
5
Financing Overview
• Primary Challenge:
– Current analysis shows savings from the proposed scenario
by 2030; continuing to 2050
– Financing can be used to access those savings to spread
out the initial incremental costs; reducing the impact
• Three Broad Financing Mechanism Categories:
– Individual/Business
– Government
– Other
• All approaches (excluding philanthropy and grants) require an
entity to take on debt and use anticipated savings to repay
Guiding Principals – City/Utility
• No significant adverse impact on the City’s balance
sheet
• No adverse impact on the City’s credit rating
• The City’s investment should catalyze investment in
strategies by end-users and the third parties
• Internally the City’s priority is utility rate revenue
before general fund revenue
6
Guiding Principals – Consumer
• Access to affordable energy and value-added
services.
• Feel happy and confident in the results of services
provided.
• Experience a streamlined purchase process.
• Experience enhanced customer service.
• An understanding of benefits versus costs that allows
each user to make their own determination of value.
7
8
Borrower
Category Financing Mechanism Likely Borrower Capital Providers Comments
Individuals
and
Business
Financing
Savings This can be both revenue and financing
Traditional bank loan
or consumer lending
(CCs)
Fort Collins Citizen Banks or finance
companies
Not necessarily the best at doing this kind of financing
Mortgage/Home
Equity
Fort Collins Citizen Banks or finance
companies
New build will rely on this significantly
Purchase Power
Agreements
Fort Collins Citizens Third party developers They raise their own capital
Energy Efficiency
Loans
Fort Collins Citizen Utility, banks or finance
companies
Often private market, 2013 saw successful secondary
market in Pennsylvania, subsidized loans typically $4-
5K to consumers
MEETS Small/Mid
Commercial
ESCOs They raise their own capital
On-bill Financing
(PPP)
Fort Collins Citizen Utility reserves and
third party investors
Attracts private capital when combined with some
form of public credit enhancement
Property Assessed
Clean Energy
State then County
authorized-
Municipal opt-in
Institutional investors In place in Colorado for both Residential and
Commercial. Property attached county backed
financing (low cost to municipality, affects debt)
Tax Increment
Financing (PPP)
Municipality (to
lend to developers)
Municipal bond
investors
Need to designate certain geographies as special
districts to qualify
Linked Deposit Fort Collins Citizens CRA Bank Resources Below market rate investing
9
Financing Mechanism Likely Borrower Capital Providers Comments
Government
Financing
General Obligation Municipal Municipal bond
investors
Can be a part of a General Obligation bond that also
funds other items, typically passed by voters
Green Bonds State/
Municipal/Compan
ies
Government and or
private sector investors
Could be used to raise funds to back other loan
programs. Private companies also issue green bonds.
QECBs State(to
Municipalities)
Federal government
and institutional
investors
Low interest specifically targeted federally backed
bond that can fund Energy Efficiency loans etc.
(typically $500,000 at the state level)
Social Impact Bonds Municipal Used for social purpose, e.g. Denver's for
homelessness
Loan Loss Reserve
Fund (PPP)
Municipal City funds – General
Obligation Bonds if
necessary,
Philanthropy,
Government Grants
Typically 10% of a Loan program backed by City
expands options in market for "riskier" loans.
Debt Service reserves
(PPP)
Municipal City funds – – General
Obligation Bonds if
necessary
Public Sector risk mitigation fund (typically 10% of
projects/funds)
Loan Guarantees
(PPP)
Federal/State to
Municipal
City funds – – General
Obligation Bonds if
necessary
Risky for public agency
Pooled bond
financing
Regional Working with other municipalities to get better rates/
more capital. Contribute towards shared debt service
reserve of 5% of the principal.
10
Financing Mechanism Likely Borrower Capital Providers Comments
City
Revenue
Sources
Philanthropic N/A unless PRIs or
MRIs
Foundations PRIs, Foundations, Smart Growth Funds, etc. Leverage
STAR
User Fees Do not have to
securitize
Collected via special districts, tolls, etc. Other financing
mechanisms listed would securitize these (Gos, Green
Bonds)
Development
Exactions
Do not have to
securitize
Fees charged to developers. Other financing
mechanisms listed would securitize these (Gos, Green
Bonds). Do not necessarily need to securitize.
Utility
Government Grants Department Of Energy,
State of Colorado,
Housing and Urban
Development, etc.
Public Benefit Funds Surcharge on Utility bills; would need structure and
authorization. Can then be secured in the market if
necessary.
11
What needs to be paid for?
• Individuals/Businesses
– Energy Efficiency Measures (existing buildings)
– New Energy Efficiency Standards (new buildings)
– Cost of Electricity
– Distributed Solar
– Individual Electric Vehicles
and Charging Infrastructure
12
What needs to be paid for?
• Government
– Efficiency Programs – to encourage adoption of new measures
– Solar Rebates
– Upgrades/improvements to the local distribution system to handle
distributed/renewable energy loads
– Public Transit Infrastructure
– Community Charging Infrastructure – especially on the local electric
distribution system
– Involvement in Lending Programs for Individuals/Businesses (Public Private
Partnership)
• Private Third Parties
– Lending Program Costs (e.g., underwriting, defaults, marketing, etc.)
Next Month’s Discussion
Potential Items for next month’s discussion:
• Refinement of the CAP Analysis
– Greater detail on cost impacts
– Refined breakout of costs and benefits by outcome
area
• Financial Deep Dives – Case Studies of Other
Communities and Financing Mechanisms
• Potential Capacity of Financing Mechanisms
compared to need for financing
13
Direction Sought
14
1. Does the committee have
comments/suggestions on the draft Climate
Action Plan Financing Guiding Principles?
2. Does the committee feel that there is enough
information to indicate potential feasibility of
Funding the CAP? What additional
information, if any, would be help to City
Council and the committee in answering this
question?
ATTACHMENT #1
D R A F T
Guiding Principles for Climate Action Plan Financing
January 6, 2015
City/Utility:
1. No significant adverse impact on the City’s balance sheet
2. No adverse impact on the City’s credit rating
3. The City’s investment should catalyze investment in strategies by end-users and the third parties
4. Internally the City’s priority is utility rate revenue before general fund revenue
Platte River Power Authority
1. Maintain Minimum Energy Reserve Margin of 15 percent
2. Achieve Renewables of 20 percent by 2020
3. Maintain Competitive Rates (Platte River should remain the lowest cost wholesale power
provider located in Colorado)
4. Achieve CO2 Reduction of 20 percent by 2020, 35 percent by 2030, and 80 percent by 2050
Consumers/End Users
1. Access to affordable energy and value-added services.
2. Feel happy and confident in the results of services provided.
3. Experience a streamlined purchase process.
4. Experience enhanced customer service.
5. An understanding of benefits versus costs that allows each user to make their own
determination of value.
Private/Third Party Sources of Capital
1. Earn returns commensurate with level of risk assumed.
2. Recognition of the key role of capital providers in the implementation of the CAP.
3. Honesty and transparency in setting the expectations of capital providers.
4. Recognition of the fixed costs associated with establishing financing programs, and the key role
of scale in reducing the cost of capital.
5. Ensure that public sector commitments, if any, to support or scale programs are honored.
6. Cooperation on the part of local stakeholders to help address any barriers to the provision of
capital or its timely repayment
7. Frameworks around the provision of capital must follow established protocols and are not
subject to change from one administration to the next.
ATTACHMENT #2
Potential CAP Financing Mechanisms
Borrower
Category Financing Mechanism Likely Borrower Capital Providers Comments
Individuals
and
Business
Financing
Savings This can be both revenue and financing
Traditional bank loan
or consumer lending
(CCs)
Fort Collins Citizen Banks or finance
companies
Not necessarily the best at doing this kind of financing
Mortgage/Home
Equity
Fort Collins Citizen Banks or finance
companies
New build will rely on this significantly
Purchase Power
Agreements
Fort Collins Citizens Third party developers They raise their own capital
Energy Efficiency
Loans
Fort Collins Citizen Utility, banks or finance
companies
Often private market, 2013 saw successful secondary
market in Pennsylvania, subsidized loans typically $4-
5K to consumers
MEETS Small/Mid
Commercial
ESCOs They raise their own capital
On-bill Financing
(PPP)
Fort Collins Citizen Utility reserves and
third party investors
Attracts private capital when combined with some
form of public credit enhancement
Property Assessed
Clean Energy
State then County
authorized-
Municipal opt-in
Institutional investors In place in Colorado for both Residential and
Commercial. Property attached county backed
financing (low cost to municipality, affects debt)
Tax Increment
Financing (PPP)
Municipality (to
lend to developers)
Municipal bond
investors
Need to designate certain geographies as special
districts to qualify
Linked Deposit Fort Collins Citizens CRA Bank Resources Below market rate investing
ATTACHMENT #2
Financing Mechanism Likely Borrower Capital Providers Comments
Government
Financing
General Obligation Municipal Municipal bond
investors
Can be a part of a General Obligation bond that also
funds other items, typically passed by voters
Green Bonds State/
Municipal/Compan
ies
Government and or
private sector investors
Could be used to raise funds to back other loan
programs. Private companies also issue green bonds.
QECBs State(to
Municipalities)
Federal government
and institutional
investors
Low interest specifically targeted federally backed
bond that can fund Energy Efficiency loans etc.
(typically $500,000 at the state level)
Social Impact Bonds Municipal Used for social purpose, e.g. Denver's for
homelessness
Loan Loss Reserve
Fund (PPP)
Municipal City funds – General
Obligation Bonds if
necessary,
Philanthropy,
Government Grants
Typically 10% of a Loan program backed by City
expands options in market for "riskier" loans.
Debt Service reserves
(PPP)
Municipal City funds – – General
Obligation Bonds if
necessary
Public Sector risk mitigation fund (typically 10% of
projects/funds)
Loan Guarantees
(PPP)
Federal/State to
Municipal
City funds – – General
Obligation Bonds if
necessary
Risky for public agency
Pooled bond
financing
Regional Working with other municipalities to get better rates/
more capital. Contribute towards shared debt service
reserve of 5% of the principal.
ATTACHMENT #2
Financing Mechanism Likely Borrower Capital Providers Comments
City
Revenue
Sources
Philanthropic N/A unless PRIs or
MRIs
Foundations PRIs, Foundations, Smart Growth Funds, etc. Leverage
STAR
User Fees Do not have to
securitize
Collected via special districts, tolls, etc. Other financing
mechanisms listed would securitize these (Gos, Green
Bonds)
Development
Exactions
Do not have to
securitize
Fees charged to developers. Other financing
mechanisms listed would securitize these (Gos, Green
Bonds). Do not necessarily need to securitize.
Utility
Government Grants Department Of Energy,
State of Colorado,
Housing and Urban
Development, etc.
Public Benefit Funds Surcharge on Utility bills; would need structure and
authorization. Can then be secured in the market if
necessary.
ATTACHMENT #3
CAP Financing Needs and Potential Mechanisms
BUILDINGS
Existing Building
Energy Conservation
Measures
New Building Energy
Conservation
Measures
(Utility?) Program
Costs
Heat Pumps
2030 costs $391 Million $33 Million $130 Million $32 Million
2050 costs $682Million $40 Million $227 Million $80 Million
Financing
Strategies
• On-Bill Financing
• MEETS (
• PACE ((Property
Assessed Clean
Energy Bonds)
• Home Equity
• Traditional Loans
• Mortgage
• On-Bill financing
• MEETS
• New Utility
Business
Model (IUS
financing
spread)
• Rate payers
• GO’s
• On-Bill
financing
• Mortgage
• Home Equity
ELECTRIC SUPPLY
Utility Electric Distributed Solar Solar Rebates System Balancing
2030 costs $571 Million $458 Million $154 Million
20502 costs $2.1 Billion $692 Million $173 Million
Financing
Strategies
• Self-funded
through rate
payers
• Power Purchase
Agreement
• New Utility
Business models
(such as
Integrated Utility
Services)
• PACE (Property
Assessed Clean
Energy Bonds)
• Mortgage/Home
Equity
• Self-funded
• GO’s
ATTACHMENT #3
TRANSPORTATION
Public Transit
Infrastructure
Individual Electric Vehicles and
Charging Infrastructure
Community Electric
Vehicle Charging
Infrastructure
2030 costs $238 Million $ 54 Million $ 13 Million
20502 costs $269 Million $ 125 Million $ 83 Million
Financing
Strategies
• Gov. grants
• Tax Increment
Financing
• Parking revenue
• Government Financing
• Traditional Car leases
• Traditional Car loans
• Vision Fleets (muni)
• Commercial CapEx
• Self-funded
• Gov. grants
• Government
Financing
• New Business
Models
1
Scenario 1 - CAP Model Output and Platte River Modeling
Scenario1
Scenario 1 reflects a compilation of strategies that are significantly aggressive yet potentially achievable.
It generally reflects best practice tactics research by the Rocky Mountain Institute, followed by some
modifications made by staff and The Brendle Group. It reflects initial preferences of the Citizen Advisory
committee members, based on the results of an informal on-line survey (12/9/14) and an informal poll on
12/15/14.
Population growth: Average 1.48%/year for 2050 population of 260,000
PRPA Model: FC80 (achieves a 20% reduction by 2020, and an 80% reduction by 2030 from Platte River
electric system CO2 emissions from 2005)
Financials: Net Present Value, using a discount rate of 2.5%
Cost of carbon applied? Yes, to all fuels
Figure 1 and Table 1 below provide CAP model outputs that have been updated since the results
presented to Council on December 9, 2014.
Figure 1. Emissions Reduction by Fuel Type (Scenario 1)
The analysis revisions incorported into Scenario 1 (that have occurred since the inforamtion presnted to
Counci on December 9, 2014) include the following points:
1) Airline travel has been removed from the analysis. It was a recommendation by staff, informally
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
2020
2023
2026
2029
2032
2035
2038
2041
2044
2047
2050
GHG Emissions (metric tons CO2e)
Millions
Emissions Reduction by Focus Area
Electricity
Natural Gas
Gasoline/Diesel
Air Travel
Solid Waste
Other
Remaining Gap
BAU Forecast
Adjusted BAU Forecast
Emissions Reduction Goal
Attachment 1
2
supported by the CAC, to remove airline travel from the community GHG inventory. Airline travel
is not required according to the standard community GHG reporting protocol, is not included by a
vast majority of communities, and the local community does not have significant influence over it.
(Note: Emissions from airline travel will continue be tracked but now reported as “information
only” in future Fort Collins community GHG inventories.)
2) Platte River Power Authority’s analysis of system-wide electric generation model runs for Fort
Collins have been completed. Scenario 1 includes the FC80 run, identifying a system that
achieves a 20% reduction by 2020 and an 80% reduction by 2030 from Platte River electric
system CO2 emissions compared to 2005 levels.
3) Electric retails rates have been entered into the model that reflect changes in Platte River’s
wholesale rates and additional changes to Fort Collins Utilities’ retail rates that include the
estimated cost of Utility-offered programs and services include in the modeled strategies.
Figure 2. Relative Contribution by Strategy in 2030
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
GHG Emissions (million metric tons)
2030 Baseline GHG Emissions Effects
3
Table 1. Key Metrics by Strategy in Scenario 1
Figure 3. Net Present Value by 2030
KEY METRICS by STRATEGY 2020 2030 2040 2050
Cumulative Energy Saved in New Construction (GBtu) 479 3,853 8,619 14,948
Cumulative VMT Reduced (millions) 264 1,822 4,185 6,779
Cumulative Energy Saved in Existing Residential Buildings
(GBtu)
2,219 17,245 49,135 93,071
Cumulative Energy Saved in Existing CII Buildings (GBtu) 2,535 19,698 56,124 106,309
Cumulative VMT Reduced (millions) 90 1,294 2,962 4,793
Total FE and EV Sales 8,958 59,418 124,250 195,441
Installed Solar PV Capacity (MW) 32 135 221 256
$(3,000)
$(2,500)
$(2,000)
$(1,500)
$(1,000)
$(500)
$-
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
Incremental
Costs
Incremental
Savings
Net
Costs/Benefits
Present Value ( $ Millions)
NPV of Accelerated Scenario (2015-2030)
Zero Waste
Transportation
Electricity
Buildings
4
Figure 4. Net Present Value by 2050
Platte River Modeling
The Modeling Process
Under an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Fort Collins, Platte River Power Authority has
applied its in-house modeling and analysis expertise and outside consulting resources to conduct
modeling to support Fort Collins CAP update. Platte River has completed its modeling of two scenarios
for Fort Collins:
Scenario AS-FC80 - a 20% reduction by 2020, and an 80% reduction by 2030 from Platte River electric
system CO2 emissions in 2005, and
Scenario AS-FC60- a 20% reduction by 2020, and a 60% reduction by 2030 from Platte River electric
system CO2 emissions in 2005. Scenario AS-2 was requested by the City to provide an additional
increment between the 2030 CO2 target proposed in the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and the City’s primary
scenario, AS-FC1.
The process for modeling is outlined in the figures below.
$(6,000)
$(4,000)
$(2,000)
$-
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
Incremental
Costs
Incremental
Savings
Net
Costs/Benefits
Present Value ( $ Millions)
NPV of Accelerated Scenario (2015-2050)
Zero Waste
Transportation
Electricity
Buildings
5
Figure2. PR Modeling Process Flow
Inputs to Platte River’s Modeling
Both scenarios modeled by Plate River for Fort Collins are comprised of six main adjustments to Platte
River’s generation system that were mutually agreed upon by the City , Platte River and Brendle Group.
• Additional electricity demand from EV charging
• Additional electricity demand from fuel switching
• Reduced electricity demand from efficiency,
• Reduced electricity demand from distributed solar,
• Reduced electricity demand from distributed CHP
• Distributed biomass is treated as a PR system resource
6
Figure 3. Modifications to Platte River Base Load for Fort Collins’ Modeling
Figure 4 below shows Platte River’s Generation Mix Under FC80.
-
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035
Energy (MWhs)
Energy Served by Platte River
Original Load
Load After EVs
Load After Fuel Switching
Load After EE
Load After Solar DG
Load After CHP
Load After Biomass
EV
Fuel Switching
New EE
Solar DG
CHP
2015 2035
7
FC80 It contains the following changes:
o Platte River’s Craig coal units 1 & 2 (approx. 155 MW) both retire at the end of 2019
o Platte River’s Rawhide coal unit capacity factor falls from about 90% to about 60% by
2029 in response to increased distributed generation
o Rawhide (approx. 280 MW) would retire from the fleet in 2029
o Platte River’s surplus sales drop by approximately 60%; energy purchases increase to
about 4% of energy mix
o Platte River adds about 200 MW of reciprocating natural gas engines in anticipation of
Rawhide retirement.
Wholesale Cost Impacts
Another output of Platte River’s modeling is the wholesale rate impact. The relative rate impact of is
three scenarios is shown in figure 5, all with a cost of carbon applied.
• RS – the Plate River base case involving no change in generation mix
• FC60 –the case showing wholesale rate changes associated with PR generation achieving 60%
reduction by 2030.
• FC80 –the case showing wholesale rate changes associated with PR generation achieving 80%
reduction by 2030.
Figure 5. Wholesale Electric Rate Impacts (with a cost of carbon)
The base case scenario (RS1) shows an increase of 113% above 2015 rate by 2035. The FC80 shows
an increase of 197% above 2015 rate, or an additional 83% above the base case increase. Looking only
at wholesale rates does not provide the full cost picture for Fort Collins. Fort Collins Utilities rates will also
include the cost of programs. And ultimately, customers pay bills, not rates, so the economic impact is
also be affected by the extent to which customers are able to take advantage of programs that offer
increased efficiency savings.
$-
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
$120.00
$140.00
$160.00
$180.00
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Wholesale Rate Impacts
RS: CO2 Tax
FC: CO2 Tax, 80% CO2
Reduction
FC: CO2 Tax, 60% CO2
Reduction
8
Platte River Modeling Analysis Caveats
Platte River has identified caveats to systems that were modeled for Fort Collins. A number of these
concerns will require further investigation before implementing such large levels of renewables. However,
the major change in generation source does not occur until 2029, allowing over 10 years for further
investigation.
It is not clear that new systems meet electrical safety and reliability standards
Detailed electric system modeling is needed
• Wholesale level – renewables integration / reliability
• City distribution level – operations / reliability / renewables integration
• Analysis to date has considered only hourly increments – need to do sub-hourly
• Additional modeling needed to consider integration of wholesale/retail systems
City level PV solar capacity added is assumed roughly equal to the peak load
• This level of renewable additions is unprecedented
No storage is assumed for PV solar integration at the distribution level
Uncertainties exist regarding permitting of combined heat & power sources
• No emissions are currently produced in the City from electric generation
• NOx emissions limits constrain the size of generation that can be added
• Other permitting issues not yet considered – land, water, etc.
Future wholesale wind and solar balancing costs unknown
• Model assumes costs are covered by Xcel – current scenario (low renewables)
• Additional new resources or electric storage may be required – at added cost
All federal hydropower allocations cannot be delivered at high solar levels
• Excess solar is assumed sold to the market when not needed – validity uncertain
Large wholesale market purchases are required to serve load when solar not available
• Amounts to nearly 20% of total deliveries to the City – unrealistic
• CO2 emissions are not currently included – source evaluation needed
When solar and wind are at high levels – large sales to the market are required
• Such sales may not be possible – market and other constraints
Transmission may not be available for large amounts of wind and solar
• It is assumed that purchases are possible using transmission
• More regional transmissions studies are needed to evaluate true costs
Stranded fixed costs are not included for the existing system:
• Decommissioning of coal units / fuel supply agreements / other factors
• Need more time to evaluate these costs
Construction times required for adding new resources is constrained
• Financing and installation of renewable resources
• Decommissioning of existing resources
• Electrification infrastructure challenges – EV’s and electric appliances
• Rate Payers
• Value of Solar
Rate Structure
ROAD TO ZERO WASTE/LAND USE
Private business Programs End User Fees City Programs
2030 costs $88 Million $44 Million $9 Million
2050 costs $213 Million $85 Million $21 Million
Financing
Strategies
• • Self-funded • Rates
• Government
Financing