HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Mail Packet - 1/26/2016 - Council Finance & Ura Finance Committee Agenda - January 25, 2016Council Finance Committee & URA Finance Committee
Agenda Planning Calendar 2016
RVSD 1/15 nlj
Jan 25 TOPIC TIME WHO
CFC
Utilities Low Income Assistance Program Evaluation Recommendations 30 min L. Rosintoski
City Low-Income Rebate Program Review 30 min N. James
URA
Feb 22 TOPIC TIME WHO
CFC
Utility CIP & LTFP Review 60 min L. Smith
Annual Re-appropriation Ordinance 15 min J. Buxman
Code Change: Waiver of Claims 30 min T. Smith
Pool Safety Appropriation 30 min
K. Bernish
K. Mannon
URA
Mar 21 TOPIC TIME WHO
CFC
Compensation for BFO 30 min. J. Miller
M. Beckstead
URA
Apr 18 TOPIC TIME WHO
CFC
Parking Garage Financing 30 min J. Voss
Capital Expansion Fee - Revision 45 min T. Smith
URA
Future Council Finance Committee Topics:
CAP Financing Strategies
Future URA Committee Topics:
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
AGENDA
Council Finance & Audit Committee
January 25, 2016
9:30 – 11:30 a.m.
CIC Room – City Hall
Approval of the Minutes from the December 21, 2015 meeting
1. Utilities Low Income Assistance Program 30 minutes L. Rosintoski
Evaluation Recommendations
2. City Low-Income Rebate Program Review 30 minutes N. James
Other Business
• Fix North 1-25 Business Alliance
• 2015 Sales & Use Tax Revenue
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
12/21/15
9:30 – 11:30 p.m.
CIC Room
Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Gerry Horak, Ross Cunniff
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Jeff Mihelich, Mike Beckstead, John Duvall, Carrie Daggett, Eric
Potyondy, Carol Webb, Andres Gavaldon, Noelle Currell, Travis Storin, Tiana Smith, John
Voss, Nancy James
Others: Kevin Jones – Chamber of Commerce, Ann Hutchison – Chamber of Commerce, Dale
Adamy - Citizen
Absent:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ross Cunniff made a motion to approve the November 18, 2015 Council Finance Committee minutes.
Gerry Horak made a second to the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Gerry Horak made a motion that the Council Finance Committee go into Executive Session for the
purpose of meeting with the City’s attorneys and staff to discuss specific legal questions related to the
manner in which particular policies, practices or regulations of the City related to the acceptance by
the City of Josh Ames Certificates may be affected by existing or proposed provisions of federal, state
or local law as permitted under Section 2-31(a)(2) of the City Code and Colorado Revised Statutes
Section 24-6-401(4)(b). Ross Cunniff made a second to the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Council Finance Committee adjourned into Executive Session at 9:37 a.m.
Council Finance Committee reconvened from Executive Session at 10:24 a.m.
2
STRATEGIC RISK ASSESSMENT
Andres stated that the Strategic Risk Management (SRM) was first completed in 2013 per Council
direction. The focus is on strategic, long term issues that would prevent the City from completing its
overall objectives.
The result of the 2013 SRM was a list of risks compiled by 5 service areas (excluding internal SAs). Each
risk was ranked on probability and magnitude and a resulting list of priority risks were identified. An
overview of the results was presented to ELT after completion, and input was used in the development
of the newly formed Strategic Plan process.
In 2015 SRM was done more in alignment with Strategic Plan. The 5 participating Service Areas
(excluding internal SAs) were complete with their work in October enabling the Strategic Planning
group to utilize the results of the SRM process. 2015 also had efficiency and analysis improvements
over 2013. Some of the highlights include: less time commitment from City staff (6-8 hours per SA in
2013 v. 3 hours in 2015), linking of strategic risks to the strategic objective they impact, and analysis of
both executive risks and most cited strategic objectives.
Noelle gave an overview of the overall process which resulted in 194 identified risks, 33 Service Area
Priority Risks (and mitigation plans) and 12 executive level risk themes. The Priority Risks, Executive
Level Risk themes and Strategic Objective impact analysis will be presented to the Strategic Planning
group. Mitigation Plans impacts are expected to manifest themselves as 2017/2018 BFO offers. In
addition, several items have been highlighted for improvements in the 2017 iteration of SRM including
cross referencing community priorities with strategic objective impact, and an ELT level assessment of
overall enterprise wide strategic risks.
Currently, the ranking of each risk item was left to each service area.
Wade stated that he thought the process is excellent in how these items are identified and tied to the
strategic plan. He agrees in keeping the high risk items as the priority. Wade stated that he would like
to add ‘man-made’ issues in addition to the natural disasters that are already identified.
Mike indicated that staff will add the future Process Improvement to the bottom of page 10, which can
be discussed by ELT.
POLICY FORMALIZING USE TAX CURRENT PRACTICES
Travis stated that this item is informational and a confirmation to Council Finance Committee of
documented practice.
Excess Use Tax Utilization was discussed at the July 2015 Council Finance Committee meeting. City
Staff sought either confirmation of current practice or input on policy considerations if a change was
desired. CFC indicated support of the current practice and recommended adoption of an administrative
policy in order to document that practice.
3
Mike stated that because we did not need revenue for the 2016 budget revisions, staff did not update
the use tax forecast for 2016, which was done in 2014. Mike further stated that there is currently
$17M budgeted for 2016 in regard to Use Tax, which is conservative. He feels that the budgeted
$17M Use Tax should be adjusted to the forecast of $25M, which is much more reflective to what we
anticipate the revenue will be, and also sends a more appropriate message to the community about
what our revenue is vs. what we anticipate for the year. Gerry requested that there be a more active
discussion between staff and the Committee on a quarterly basis in regard to this topic. He would like
to prioritize items, increase revenue and decrease financial liabilities, and indicated by doing this on a
quarterly basis it would allow the discussion to take place out of cycle from when Council reviews
these items. After discussion regarding this process, forecast vs. budget, Mike stated that this will
appear in two ways. First it will appear in the Sales Tax report that comes out on the 10
th
of each
month, and secondly, staff has agreed to come back to the Committee on a quarterly basis with the
status of General Fund budget. Staff would like to use these processes to measure against the Sales
Tax Report in 2016. The next update on the fund balance sheet will be in February 2016.
RESPONSE PLAN TO 2014 AUDIT FINDINGS
In July, McGladrey presented the Report to the City Council. This report covered the audit of the basic
financial statements and compliance of the City of Fort Collins for year-end December 31, 2014.
The City received unqualified or “clean” opinions for both reports. Incidental to these audits,
McGladrey identified certain control deficiencies that they recommend we rectify prior to the 2015
audit. All deficiencies identified were of the lowest severity on a scale of one to three.
City staff has implemented process improvements throughout 2015 to respond to these seven control
deficiencies. Corrective action is already either in motion or complete in all cases.
Staff seeks input on areas of priority or concern, other than those established in this Report to the City
Council, for matters of recordkeeping and/or the City’s internal control environment.
Travis stated that the City has received the CFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial
Reporting award for the 28
th
year in a row.
For the 2014 Fiscal Year Audit, seven control deficiencies of a minor nature were identified, five of
which were directly related to Grant Management Programs.
Audit Findings:
Deficiency #1 – Cash Reconciliations: “…cash reconciliations provided during the audit had
unreconciled differences between the bank statements and general ledger…”
Travis stated mandates for the department have been implemented, such as having desk level
procedure documents for each position in the department, so as to avoid this happening again in the
4
future. The Accounting Department is also cross-training, which is another good internal control.
John and his team have been going out to meet with various City cash handlers, and have installed
monthly monitoring/supervisor review procedures. Travis further stated that the safe-guarding and
anti-fraud measures are quite good. Utilities is a major cash collection department and they do a great
job.
Deficiency #2 - Journal Entry Review: “…no secondary reviews were performed over entries at the time
they were recorded. City implemented a procedure where monthly reports summarizing all journal
entries in excess of $25,000 were generated and reviewed, however no evidence of this review was
maintained…”
In 2014 staff transitioned from management review of individual transactions over $25,000 to bulk
review of all such transactions. In 2015, staff has reverted to the original process albeit with electronic
process enhancements. Travis stated that he does not foresee that this will appear on next year’s
report.
Deficiencies #3 – 7 – Grant Programs
Travis stated grant management within the City has been handled in a decentralized fashion, with what
is supposed to be an open communication and monitoring process with central finance. Last year the
City had approximately $26M in Federal expenditures. The City Grants Compliance Administrator
made significant policy improvements in 2013-2014; however, execution remains a challenge in the
City’s decentralized model. Central Finance is responding to the identified deficiencies in a two-prong
approach: For the 2015 Fiscal year, training was conducted for all departmental grant recipients.
There was specific focus on this year’s deficiencies and other past pain points, and there was also
monitoring by Finance of reconciliation controls. For 2016 and beyond, the City will pilot eCivis, a
centralized workflow, reminder, and retention product. All City grant recipients will be required to use
this tool, which will go live in January of 2016.
Wade stated that there should be some sort of centralized area for this, although he does recognize
the need for decentralizing as well, and having expertise in other areas, etc. Mike also stated that Nalo
Johnson is on staff now, and is researching what grants are available and is also working with
Accounting on the compliance portion as well.
Wade recognized Travis and how he stepped up at the Municipal Ethics discussion that they had, and
stated he really took ownership of the discussion we had within our community. Darin also stated that
Travis exemplified what you want to have in a financial environment; you want people to be able to
initiate, and have an open dialogue. He too appreciated what Travis did at the Ethics discussion,
inviting himself onto the panel, and stated it spoke to our culture. He is seeing Travis emerge as a
leader, and is really glad he is on our team.
5
OTHER BUSINESS
Update 2016 Use Tax Forecast
This item was discussed under: POLICY FORMALIZING USE TAX CURRENT PRACTICES
GERP Pension Plan IRA Determination Letter
This item will be coming in front of Council in January, and is a legal formality.
Revenue Diversification Work Plan
Staff was directed by Council Finance in mid-November to create a timeline and associated work plan
in 2016 for evaluating and conducting outreach on five identified alternatives for revenue
diversification to include a tax on services, a transportation fee, an occupation tax, increasing the Xcel
franchise fee and a gifting foundation.
Mike presented a timeline of this work plan to the Committee and will make a final presentation to
Council Finance in Q3 of 2016.
Meeting Adjourned at 11:28 a.m.
Finance Committee
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Utilities Low-Income Assistance Program
January 25, 2016
Staff:
Lisa Rosintoski - Customer Connections Department Manager
Randy Reuscher - Utilities Strategic Financial Planning Analyst
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Utilities Low-Income Assistance Program
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session item is to present Fort Collins Utilities:
1. Low-income assistance program evaluation,
2. Data driven recommendations, and
3. proposed implementation strategy.
In 2014 a comprehensive low-income program review was completed resulting in a scenario
recommendation that would guide implementation efforts (Attachment 01, p.23)1. In 2015, a project team
was formed to examine the recommendations and develop an implementation plan. The 2015 team has
incorporated elements of energy efficiency, education, income qualification, convenience and accessibility,
internal and local non-profit collaboration, and creative funding into the proposed solutions.
In consideration of the 2014 recommendations and subsequent planning and development, staff
recommends two priority improvements that require City Council approval to drive the successful
implementation of an integrated low-income assistance program:
1. Income Qualified Rate (IQR) – Propose Utilities qualify customers based on income to receive a
discounted Utilities rate. Remaining on IQR will require a once per year requalification process that
will be managed with an extensive customer outreach campaign.
2. Medical Assistance Program – Discontinue the medical assistance program rate in a phased
manner, since data supports the majority of participants will qualify for the greater benefits allocated
through IQR.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does City Council support bringing the Income-Qualified Rate forward as presented?
2. Are there areas of concern that staff has not addressed?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Bottom Line
Utilities staff has evaluated existing low-income utility customer assistance programs in order to redesign a
program portfolio incorporating elements of energy efficiency, education, income criteria, convenience, as
well as collaboration opportunities with other City programs and local non-profits. The evaluation has
determined the foundations of an integrated and robust low-income assistance program portfolio should be:
1. Development of an Income-Qualified electric Rate (IQR) to address ongoing low-income customer
segment needs.
1 Presentation provided to City Council on January 27, 2015.
2
Roger D. Colton. Funding Fuel Assistance: State and Local Strategies to Help Pay Low-Income Home Energy Bills;
pp 36-40
2. Funding enhancements to temporary assistance opportunities managed through the Payment
Assistance Fund.
Data Driven Recommendations
Fort Collins Utilities (Utilities) has 62,000+ residential customers and approximately 9,000 (~16 %) of those
customers earn less than 165% of Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (Graph 1). The latest US Census data (2009-
2013) indicates 18.6% of people in the City of Fort Collins are below poverty level, compared to 13.2% in the
state of Colorado and 15.4% nationwide.
Graph1: Based on 2009-2013 US Census data.
Utilities low-income assistance has a clear line of sight to support the Social Sustainability Department
affordable housing goals as follows:
• Earning below 165% FPL means difficulty meeting basic needs such as housing and utility costs,
impacting the number of cost-burdened households in Fort Collins.
• Data shows households earning less than 30% AMI are more likely to be severely cost-burdened,
often paying more than 50% of their income on housing (Attachment 03. p. 34).
• Existing Utilities cost savings and resource conservation programs target customers who can afford
to absorb high upfront costs of efficient measure installation.
• These programs are built into the rate structure and costs are absorbed by all rate paying residents,
regardless of their ability to afford the programs. Our low income customer segment is paying for but
unable to utilize most incentives.
• Supportive services can be necessary for some households to achieve housing success (Attachment
03. p.46).
• When families are not cost burdened by housing costs they have more resources available and a
better chance to achieve greater personal well-being.
• With an average $192 cost savings per qualifying customer each year, IQR can play an important
role in reducing the number of cost burden homes in Fort Collins.
• It is reasonable to assume these dollars will be spent at local businesses, bolstering local economy
and enhancing quality of life in our community.
Graph 2: Based on 2009-2013 US Census data.
Utilities Role in Low-Income Assistance
A comprehensive low-income assistance program review was conducted in 2014 with internal and external
key stakeholders, in order to understand how to optimally support low-income customers. The product of this
review resulted in an evaluation report that outlines guiding principles to manage the implementation of the
low-income assistance program portfolio (Attachment 01). Significant findings of this report included:
A determination of two specific need types amongst Utilities customers was determined as:
1. Ongoing: Assistance needed for low-income customers experiencing regular challenges in paying
utility bills.
2. Temporary: Assistance needed for customers unable to pay utilities due to short term or emergency
circumstances.
The identification of Utilities’ role in low-income customer assistance was recognized as:
1. Rates: Utilities ability and responsibility to adequately and fairly serve all customer segments through
the rate structure that is just, reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory.
2. Funding: Regular evaluation of opportunities that could leverage existing or potential partnerships or
funding mechanisms.
3. Efficiency and Conservation Education: Ability to incorporate cost and energy reduction opportunities
into low-income customer engagement processes.
4. Administration: Understand and leverage internal and external processes and expertise to address
emerging customer needs; ensure or provide excellent customer service and program accessibility.
Below are the details that highlight Utilities role.
1. Rates:
a. The development of an IQR is recommended in order to address ongoing low-income customer
needs.
b. The introduction of an IQR will help low-income customers realize cost savings and resource
conservation opportunities they are unable to access through existing assistance types that
require upfront expenses.
c. IQR is an important part of a continued Utilities realignment that ensures access to assistance is
available and conservation incentives are realized across all customer segments, for the benefit
of all ratepayers.
d. Utilities consulted the City Attorney’s Office in evaluating the option of an income-qualified rate
under City Charter and Code requirements. Utilities and the CAO continue to work together to
fully express the ratepayer benefits achieved through the discounted rate, as well as options for
phasing in the rate within the Electric Utility rate structure.
2. Funding:
a. If Utilities is to adequately manage temporary assistance to customers in need enhancing
funding mechanisms through PAF is necessary based on the fund not meeting the need Utilities
has experienced in the community.
b. Staff is managing due diligence related to allowing the transition of unclaimed Utilities funds to
support PAF and IQR administration on a regular basis through public noticing.
i. Colorado General Assembly enacted CRS Section 40-8.5-101 (Attachment 04) to collect
unclaimed utility deposits from utility corporations for the benefit of state-wide low-income
energy assistance. Municipal utilities either default to this system or may develop their own
in order to best serve their customers. Fort Collins Utilities recommends a formal unclaimed
utility funds transfer procedure. (Attachment 02)
c. Customer solicited donations to support PAF
i. Utilities will continue to solicit donations from customers to support PAF. Marketing
enhancements and process improvements are expected to increase the annual donation
total.
ii. On average, PAF donations amount to $35,000 per year.
d. Matching funds to support PAF
i. Non-profit administrative partner Energy Outreach Colorado has committed in 2016 to
match funding dollar-for-dollar. This partnership increases access to PAF and offers an
incentive to customers considering making a donation to PAF.
3. Efficiency and Conservation Education:
a. Increased access to free direct materials installs.
b. Increased access to complimentary programs managed by state, county and nonprofit
organizations that can reduce cost burden and the need for Utilities assistance.
c. Create a menu of low or no cost conservation opportunities and tips targeting low-income
customers.
d. Identified low-income customers through the IQR will allow Utilities to provide more targeted
communications and marketing opportunities
4. Administration:
a. Manage PAF through Energy Outreach Colorado to increase number of agencies available for
assistance and create a more accessible, convenient program.
b. Manage IQR qualification process through Customer Care and Technology division to ensure
accessibility and excellent customer service.
Stakeholder Engagement:
1. Interdepartmental: Customer Connections, Social Sustainability Services, City Finance, Utilities
Finance, Neighborhood Services.
2. Boards, Commissions and Committees: Energy Board, Water Board, Senior Advisory Board,
Affordable Housing Board, Human Relations Commission, Community Development Block Grant
Commission, Commission on Disability, Finance Committee, Economic Advisory Committee, and
Chamber of Commerce.
3. Intergovernmental and Non-profit Partners: Colorado Energy Office, Larimer County Human
Services, Energy Outreach Colorado, United Way, Office on Aging, Catholic Charities, La
Famalia/The Family Center, Discover Goodwill.
4. Community Action Partners: Social Sustainability Grantee Trainings (26 non-profit agencies),
Volunteers of America.
• Outreach planned to several other organizations upon City Council adoption of IQR.
5. Housing: Fort Collins Housing Authority, Neighbor to Neighbor, Care Housing
• Outreach planned to several other organizations upon City Council adoption of IQR.
Next Actions:
In consideration of program evaluations and information gleaned from community outreach efforts, it has
become clear the foundations of an integrated and robust low-income assistance program portfolio will be:
1. Development of an Income Qualified Electric Rate (IQR) to address ongoing low-income customer
needs.
2. Funding enhancements managed through the PAF to support customers needing temporary
assistance.
These enhancements can be managed through City Council approval, City Code changes, related to four
specific items:
1. Utilities staff present an ordinance for the purpose of an income qualified, discounted electric rate for
low-income customers based on AMI.
2. Utilities staff present an ordinance to pursue a phased approach to discontinue the Medical
Assistance Program rate.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 01 – Low-Income Assistance Program Report
Attachment 02 – Funding Fuel Assistance: State and Local Strategies to Help Pay Low-Income Home
Energy Bills. pp 36-40
Attachment 03 – City of Fort Collins 2015 – 2019 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Attachment 04 – Code of Colorado Regulations 3412-3413
Attachment 01 - Low Income Assistance Program Report
Low Income Assistance
Program Evaluation Report
Fort Collins Utilities
2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 4
Recommendations Identified by the Project Team ..................................................................... 4
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 5
Project Management Process ..................................................................................... 5
Project Team .............................................................................................................. 6
Data .......................................................................................................................... 8
Payment Assistance Program ................................................................................................... 8
Utility Payment Assistance Program ..................................................................................... 9
Payment Assistance Program & Utility Shut-Offs ............................................................... 10
Graph 1: 2013-14 Utility Delinquencies, Shut-Offs & Accts. Assisted w/ PAF$ .............. 10
Payment Assistance Program Strengths & Limitations....................................................... 11
Graph 2: Payment Assistance Fund Assistance Awarded 2004-2013 ............................. 11
Medical Assistance Program................................................................................................... 11
Graph 3: Medical Assistance Program Participation ....................................................... 12
Medical Assistance Program – Strengths & Limitations ..................................................... 13
Rate Impact Adjustments.................................................................................................... 13
Graph 4: 2013 Medical Assistance Program Customer Use ............................................ 13
Graph 5: Medical Assistance Program Participation by Rate Category .......................... 14
Conservation/Efficiency Education......................................................................................... 15
City Finance Rebate Program ................................................................................................. 15
Graph 6: City Finance Office 2013 Rebate Summary ...................................................... 16
Low Income Rate .................................................................................................................... 16
Focus Group ........................................................................................................................ 17
Criteria ..................................................................................................................... 18
Graph 7: Low Income Assistance Program Criteria ......................................................... 19
Temporary (T) Assistance: ...................................................................................................... 20
Chronic (C) Assistance: ........................................................................................................... 20
Graph 9: Low Income Assistance Program – Chronic Application .................................. 20
Scenario Creation ..................................................................................................... 21
Utilities Role in Supporting Low Income Customers .............................................................. 21
Rates ....................................................................................................................................... 21
Administration ....................................................................................................................... 21
Funding ..................................................................................................................................... 21
Conservation/Efficiency Education......................................................................................... 21
Graph 10: Utilities’ Role in Supporting Low Income Customers ..................................... 22
Scenario Forming...................................................................................................... 22
Graph 11: Scenarios for Structuring the Low Income Assistance Program..................... 23
Recommendations ................................................................................................... 23
Next Actions............................................................................................................. 24
Appendix 1: Project Team Benchmarking 2012 ............................................................................. 25
Appendix 2: Research and Recommendations from 2012 Project Team ...................................... 29
Appendix 3: Low Income Assistance Program Project Charter 2014 ............................................ 36
Appendix 4: Catholic Charities Emergency Clinic 2013 Program Data .......................................... 39
Appendix 5: Medical Assistance Application 2014 ........................................................................ 43
Appendix 6: Compiled Focus Group Questions & Responses (4.29.14) ........................................ 45
Appendix 7: Larimer County Area Median Income 2013............................................................... 53
Appendix 8: Bill Insert/Envelope for Payment Assistance Campaign 2014 ................................... 54
Low Income Assistance – Program Evaluation Report
Executive Summary
The purpose of the Low Income Assistance Program evaluation project was to evaluate existing
low income utility customer assistance programs and design a program portfolio incorporating
elements of energy efficiency, education, income criteria, as well as collaboration with other
City programs and local non-profits. The following key deliverables were managed by a multi-
disciplined project team:
• Create a comprehensive program that addresses community needs based on Utilities’
role.
• Structure programs to have minimal impact on staff time.
• Provide education to increase awareness and conservation practices for low-income
customers, empowering them to reduce electricity and water use and lower their bills
• Create measurable performance metrics/phased approach.
• Avoid shut-offs and reduce write-offs; intervene earlier to minimize costs to the Utility
and the customer.
• Create networking opportunities with local non-profits and other City departments to
support sustainable implementation of program.
The project team, consisting of Utilities staff, City staff and external non-profits, received
presentations that provided detailed data, from both internal and external presenters, to
understand how Utilities provides low income utility support, as well as how other agencies
administer low income support. This process consisted of understanding the data, creating
Utilities low income criteria based on Utilities role, reviewing the criteria based on seven
scenario options and recommending a scenario that best supported the community’s need for
low income utility assistance.
Recommendations Identified by the Project Team
1. Utilities role is managed within four categories: rates, administration, funding and
efficiency.
2. Low Income Assistance Program criteria were determined to consist of income, Utilities
electric customer, and efficiency/conservation education. There are two systems
generally used for classifying low income program participation: the Federal Poverty
Guideline and area median income (AMI). AMI was selected for this program because
the majority of local non-profits use it as the system to determine low income program
participation in our area. For the purposes of this program, low income is defined as
income between 0% and 50% of the area median income for Larimer County.
3. Temporary crisis is defined as assistance available in situations where a customer could
not pay utilities because of an emergency or life-changing circumstance. This assistance
would be offered through the current Payment Assistance Program and would be
limited to $150 maximum per calendar year (could be more than one disbursement).
Documentation on the situation requiring temporary utility assistance would be
requested.
4. Chronic circumstance is a long-term situation with difficulty making utility payments due
to financial hardship. A low income electric rate could offer a tiered approach based on
the area median income for Larimer County: one rate for customers who fall between
0%–29% AMI; a second rate for customers who fall between 30%–50%. Participation in
this “low income” electric rate would be facilitated through the City Finance Office as an
extension of the existing City Rebate Program. The Medical Assistance Program would
be discontinued.
5. The focus group work session identified the following barriers to program participation:
location of trust, convenience (one application to fulfill requirements) and
transportation.
6. Requirement that both temporary and chronic levels of assistance include an
energy/water efficiency/conservation educational opportunity and/or audit.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Project Team recommends (1) enhancements to the current Payment
Assistance Program and (2) the creation of a low income electric rate, with two levels of
eligibility based on participant income level. The Payment Assistance Program would be
administered through the Utilities Customer Connections Department - Customer Finance
Division. The “low income” electric rate would be facilitated through the City Finance Office as
an extension of the existing City Rebate Program.
An enhanced Payment Assistance Program and a “low income” electric rate will strengthen
support to the low income population by recognizing that financial hardship often has two
characteristics: temporary crisis and on-going financial difficulty. Utility customers would be
eligible for one but not both of these offerings in any calendar year.
Project Management Process
Utilities staff began benchmarking low income programs offered by the Utilities with other key
municipal utilities and local Investor Owned Utilities, specifically Austin Energy, Colorado
Springs Utilities, Eugene Water and Electric Board, Xcel Energy (appendix 1 and appendix 2).
In late 2013, Utilities began a review titled the Low Income Assistance Program. The Utilities
Customer Connections Manager pulled groups of staff together to share information and select
a project manager. The project description was to “evaluate current utility assistance programs
and design a “low income” program for utility customers, incorporating elements of energy
efficiency, education, income criteria and collaboration with other City programs and local non-
profits.”
Critical to the project was engaging City staff who had experience working directly with the low
income population and/or had been involved in recent trainings such as “Bridges Out of
Poverty” and homelessness initiatives. Engagement with representatives from local non-profit
groups who had experience and in-depth knowledge about working with the low income
population was also invaluable.
On February 7, 2014, the project launched with 11 team members and bi-weekly meetings
scheduled through June 2014, for a total of 12 meetings (appendix 3). This group received
presentations from local non-profits on low income offerings, as well as utility customer
program and rate design information. A focus group was held on February 7, 2014 to gain
insight from other local non-profit groups, as well as community members, on the need for
assistance and the role the utility might play in providing assistance.
Project Team
The project team represented various departments across the City and local non-profits who
work with low income community members. Each member brought valuable experience to
their role on the team:
Mary Atchison, former Director of Social Sustainability City of Fort Collins – Mary
worked on various low income community initiatives in 2014. She has 12 years of
nonprofit leadership experience and ten years as a private therapist.
Bevia Byrne, Fort Collins Utilities Customer Support Supervisor – Joining the City in
2012, Bevia has completed several “Bridges out of Poverty” trainings and events and was
also part of the City’s Bridges Steering Committee. As supervisor of the Utilities
customer support team, she leads the customer service representatives in assessing and
directing low income and financially struggling customers to the various payment
assistant organizations for support.
René Evenson, Fort Collins Utilities Customer Accounts (project manager) – In her role
as residential accounts coordinator, Rene’ helped create the Payment Assistance
Program for Fort Collins Utilities in 2004. She has 12 years of experience helping
residential customers understand electric and water consumption and providing
resources to reduce their use.
Shawn Montoya, Fort Collins Utilities Customer Finance – Shawn has worked in the
collections/adjustments/lending areas at credit unions and now at the City of Fort
Collins for a combined total of over 20 years. His interest in the low income discussion is
based on finding pro-active methods for assisting individuals and families that have a
true financial need.
Amanda Nagl, Neighborhood Administrator City of Fort Collins – Amanda is involved in
this project from a quality of life focus for families and neighborhoods, with an emphasis
on process improvement for the organization. Her education is in Organizational
Leadership and Human Resource Management (M.S.) and Psychology (B.A.).
Randy Reuscher, Fort Collins Utilities Finance Rate Analyst – Randy studies the effect
utility rates and rate design has on various sectors in our community. He and his
department have presented information on current residential rates, proposed rate
scenarios, area median income data and customer segmentation based on income data
and has been an active member of this discussion.
Jenne Loffer, United Way 2-1-1 Call Center Manager – Jenne has worked as the United
Way of Larimer County 2-1-1 Call Center Manager for nine years. She is also involved in
community committees and boards, such as the Fort Collins Housing Authority Board
and the Young Adult Resource Alliance. Jenne is passionate about helping people and
working collaboratively to make the community the best it can be for all people.
Linda Rumney, Social Worker Larimer County Office on Aging – Linda Rumney is a
social worker who has been with the Larimer County Office on Aging (LCOA) for ten
years. The LCOA provides resources and services for older and disabled adults as well as
the intake for the Foundation on Aging emergency grant program. Linda works with
clients who struggle financially and strongly supports programs to assist those that are
most vulnerable and struggling to meet their basic needs.
Emily Sander, former City of Fort Collins Finance – For the past 17 years, Emily has
worked with federal, state and local governments, as well as non-profit organizations, to
help them better serve the community. Ms. Sander is a graduate of Colorado State
University and holds a Bachelor of Science in Human Development and Family Studies.
Nancy Stafford, Director Property Management, Fort Collins Housing Authority – As an
employee at the housing authority, Nancy works with low income families daily. She is
very aware of the difficulty for the lowest income households to provide basic
necessities like heat, cooling and water for their families. She felt privileged to
participate in the discussions regarding low income utility clients.
Bill Switzer, Fort Collins Utilities Finance Rate Analyst (retired) – Bill was a Rate Analyst
with Fort Collins Utilities for 42 years. He was a member of the team who created the
Medical Assistance Program and provided program history as well as background on
rate philosophy and design for this project team.
Data
Project team meetings received presentations on Utility programs, rate theory and design and
information on other programs available to low income members of the community. This
material provided team members an opportunity to understand how programs support low
income community members. It was also a forum for sharing their experience working with
community members. The intent was to give each team member a solid basis for evaluating
current programs and headroom to brainstorm about future offerings.
Payment Assistance Program
The Payment Assistance Program was created in 2003 out of a concern that low income
customers might be negatively impacted by the new electric rate philosophy in the “Energy
Supply Policy.” Utilities staff researched local and nationwide payment assistance programs and
recommended the “Payment Assistance Program.”
Since implementation in 2004, the Payment Assistance Program has awarded an average of
$33,000/year in donations to roughly 350 utility customers who are in danger of shut-off for
non-payment.
Catholic Charities Larimer County manages the application/verification process through their
“Emergency Assistance” clinic. This clinic works to provide a number of services, and draws
from a number of funds to provide that assistance (appendix 4). Currently, the maximum
amount a customer can receive in Payment Assistance Program funds is $150/year. If the utility
bill is larger than that amount, funds may be pulled from one of the other sources of support
available to Catholic Charities. In some instances, there may be no other funding available. The
Payment Assistance Program is the only funding source that helps Fort Collins Utility customers
with delinquent amounts for water billing.
City of Fort Collins Utility Payment Assistance Program 12/01/03
Utility Payment Assistance Program
The City will offer a utility payment assistance program, administered by Fort
Collins Utilities and Catholic Charities Northern, to help residential customers
with low income or a financial crisis remain current with their utility accounts and
avoid shut-off.
Program Guidelines
• Program is open to Fort Collins Utilities’ customers.
• Customer must have received a shut-off notice for a current address in the
customer’s name.
• Customer is eligible for help once within a 12 month period.
• Deposit and late fees will not be included.
• Assistance is available for both electric and water usage.
• Program participation subject to available funds.
Administration
Catholic Charities Northern will receive program applications and screen
applicants through their existing “Emergency Assistance Program.” With utility
account history and other information from Fort Collins Utilities Credit and
Collections staff, Catholic Charities staff and trained volunteers will determine
need and award assistance. A yearly administrative fee of 8% of the funds
administered will be paid to Catholic Charities.
Budget
The City of Fort Collins will solicit donations from ratepayers to fund this
program.
Payment Assistance Program & Utility Shut-Offs
One of the indicators of need in our community is the number of utility shut-offs that occur due
to non-payment of the utility bill. Not every shut-off is due to financial difficulty. Some shut-offs
may occur because the account owner forgets to pay the bill or may be out of the country.
However, the majority of the shut-offs do occur because there is a financial hardship for the
customer.
The current due date for a utility bill is 20 days after the bill is generated. If no payment is
received by day 43-44, a pink shut-off notice is mailed and a $10/late fee is added to the utility
bill. If no payment is received by day 50, the customer’s services are interrupted.
Graph 1: 2013-14 Utility Delinquencies, Shut-Offs and Accounts Assisted with PAF$
2013-14 Utility Delinquencies, Shut-Offs and Accounts Assisted with PAF $
Shut Off Total Cut for NonPay Cut for NonPay Cancel Actual Cut NonPay Assisted Dollar
Notices Processed by Month Count by Month Count by Month Accounts Amount
Mailed # COUNT YR/Month COUNT YR/Month COUNT YR/Month PAF Helped PAF $
4,385 1310 2014/04 388 2014/04 922 2014/04 30 $3,441
4,032 1124 2014/03 314 2014/03 810 2014/03 23 $2,402
4,901 1093 2014/02 322 2014/02 771 2014/02 34 $3,410
5,374 1145 2014/01 360 2014/01 785 2014/01 46 $5,767
4,857 984 2013/12 329 2013/12 655 2013/12 30 $3,359
4,666 1139 2013/11 323 2013/11 816 2013/11 19 $2,123
5,397 1295 2013/10 440 2013/10 855 2013/10 35 $3,944
4,644 1055 2013/09 367 2013/09 688 2013/09 23 $2,557
5,054 1091 2013/08 354 2013/08 737 2013/08 23 $2,324
4,529 1157 2013/07 364 2013/07 793 2013/07 30 $3,387
4,627 1114 2013/06 456 2013/06 658 2013/06 23 $2,316
3,691 1372 2013/05 505 2013/05 867 2013/05 24 $2,449
4,982 1664 2013/04 854 2013/04 810 2013/04 30 $2,995
4,856 1222 2013/03 434 2013/03 788 2013/03 15 $1,527
5,394 944 2013/02 355 2013/02 589 2013/02 39 $4,329
4,725 952 2013/01 335 2013/01 617 2013/01 44 $5,759
4,757 1166 406
760 29 $3,256
The bottom amount is the average per month (from left to right) : total shut-off notices mailed; total shuts
offs originally scheduled; total cancelled before shut-off: total that were shut-off; total accounts that PAF
The number of utility accounts in 2013-2014 that were shut-off was less than the total eligible
for shut-off. However, the average number of customers who received payment assistance was
29 per month, leaving an average of 700 customers monthly who did not receive assistance
from the Payment Assistance Program. A customer might be denied assistance if no funding
was available at the time of the request or if the customer had already received assistance in
the calendar year. No data is available on how many customers requested assistance but were
denied.
Payment Assistance Program Strengths & Limitations
The Payment Assistance Program has been successful in helping a limited number of customers
over the last ten years. All the funds that are donated are spent during that calendar year:
Graph 2: Payment Assistance Fund Assistance Awarded 2004-2013
Payment Assistance Fund
Assistance Awarded 2004-2013
Year # Customers Total Avg. Amount
2004 218 $16,680 $76.50
2005 313 $27,044 $86.40
2006 320 $28,947 $90.46
2007 349 $33,317 $95.47
2008 347 $33,698 $97.11
2009 427 $41,192 $96.47
2010 378 $37,791 $99.98
2011 391 $37,010 $94.65
2012 345 $34,530 $100.00
2013 328 $36,385 $111.00
Customer donation amounts are either “one-time” or a specified amount added to the utility
bill. Donations have been trending to the “one-time” donation method and have been declining
in the last few years. Every year significant amounts of funding have been used from other
funding sources to assist utility customers.
The agreement for program administration with Catholic Charities Northern Colorado has been
in place for ten years. During that time, the clinic has moved from The Mission on Linden Street
to the Sister Mary Alice Murphy Center for Hope on Conifer Street. Access to services has been
reorganized from the “first-come-first served” method to appointments only on M-Th 8-5pm.
This has created a challenge for some utility customers and has made it more difficult to receive
assistance.
Medical Assistance Program
The residential “tiered electric rate” was adopted in 2011 and implemented in 2012. At that
time, concerns were raised regarding customers who used durable medical equipment (non-
optional electricity usage) or medically necessary air conditioning and the impact a tiered
electric rate would have on their quality of life. Following a Council discussion, staff began
gathering information for the purpose of developing a Medical Assistance Program. Local non-
profit groups also provided input.
Program objectives included: (1) enhance the quality of life for our citizens;
(2) remove the economic impact of tiered electric rates due to medically necessary electric
consumption; and (3) maintain community conservation values. Customers were qualified for
the program based on the following criteria:
• Customer of Fort Collins Utilities
• Household use of Durable Medical Equipment (DME)
• Household medically necessary use of air conditioning (AC)
• Income threshold of 60% area median income (AMI) – approximately 185% of the
federal poverty level
Three “electric medical” rates were created:
• Durable Medical Equipment (E102)
• Medically Necessary Air Conditioning (E103)
• Durable Medical Equipment and Air Conditioning (E104)
The Medical Assistance Program was well-received by customers, with highest participation
occurring in 2013 (appendix 5). In 2014, participation declined. The total participating in 2014 at
the time of the presentation to the project team was about 80 customers.
Graph 3: Medical Assistance Program Participation
Medical Assistance Program – Strengths & Limitations
The Medical Assistance Program has been available to customers for three years. During that
time, the number of participants has fluctuated and overall participation has been low.
Barriers to participation in this program may include the need to re-apply every year, the
necessity to have the attending physician sign the application and the need for equipment
information on the application. However, based on feedback from customers who have
participated in the program, the assistance has been valued and worth the effort to apply.
Rate Impact Adjustments
Customers who qualified for the program were given credit for kWh consumption used to
power durable medical equipment or medically-necessary air conditioning. It was determined
that the credited revenue for the kilowatt-hour (kWh) reduction should be recovered over a
wider range of use because the first tier of use was not solely for medical reasons.
Consumption credits were calculated in this way:
• DME - Monthly credit equivalent of 150 kWh per month used for electric durable
medical equipment recovered over the full first tier (500 kWh). 150 kWh determined
from other city estimates in CA and AZ as well as Longmont.
• AC - Summer (June – August) monthly credit equivalent of 350 kWh per month
recovered over the full first two tiers (1000 kWh) for air conditioning (staff estimate).
Graph 4 below shows how program participant electric consumption tracked through the three
electric “tiers” in 2013:
Graph 4: 2013 Medical Assistance Program Customer Use
The average credit per customer based on category (DME, AC or DME & AC) is outlined below
for 2012 & 2013. With the combination of DME & AC, customers received about $200/year.
DME only was about $150. Customers with medically-necessary air conditioning received the
smallest amount, Graph 5 below:
Graph 5: Medical Assistance Program Participation by Rate Category
Conservation/Efficiency Education
One of the goals of the low income program evaluation was to investigate how to tie education
on energy and water conservation/efficiency with receiving assistance. There are several ways
to accomplish this goal. Attending an efficiency class could be a requirement in the month
following the award of assistance. This class could be centrally located at a non-profit location
or at the Senior Center, Northside Azatlan Community Center or be available as a video that
could be watched either online or at a designated location. Video content will respect privacy
and financial circumstances of the customer.
Additionally, where all parties agree (including the landlord) a “walk-thru” audit could be
recommended or required. This audit could: check lighting fixtures and replace incandescent
bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs; provide a clothesline where eligible; install low-flow
showerheads and faucet aerators; and do a safety check of gas fired appliances.
Participation in these educational offerings could dictate the customer’s eligibility to continue
to receive assistance from one year to the next. Any reductions in consumption could be
tracked using the customer consumption data in the utility customer information system.
Future program offerings could also include specific measures or rebates that would be
available to the low income population.
City Finance Rebate Program
A low income rebate program is administered every year through the City Finance Office. It
includes rebates on sales tax on (1) food, (2) property tax/rent or (3) utilities. The utility rebate
has been in place since 1975 and serves senior and disabled low income utility customers. The
rebate amount is based on a monthly consumption average for all utilities:
Sales Tax:
• Established in 1984 – Rebate to low income citizens
• $55 per eligible household member – amount updated annually
Property Tax/Rent:
• Established in 1972 – Rebate to senior and disabled low income citizens
• City portion of applicants property tax levy
OR
• 1.44% of rental payment for year
Utility:
• Established in 1975 - Rebate to senior and disabled low income citizens
• Based on billing data for average monthly Fort Collins Utilities customer consumption of
water, wastewater, stormwater and electric service
• Eligible applicants given rebates for each service in the applicant’s name:
Electricity $48.43 Water $32.14
Stormwater $17.87 Wastewater $14.26
*amounts from 2013
Requirements for these rebates include:
• Income – 50% Larimer County area median income
• Residency in Fort Collins one year prior to application date
• US Citizenship
• Proof of ID for all members 18 years or older
• Utility rebate available to customers of Fort Collins Utilities
• Applications are accepted August 1 – October 31 each year. Applicants can mail in
applications or turn them in at 215 N Mason. City Staff is available to help applicants
throughout the program and the rebate check is mailed within 6-8 weeks.
Graph 6: City Finance Office 2013 Rebate Summary
Low Income Rate
The Utility Finance Department presented information that investigated the case for a low
income “discounted” rate. This investigation looked into the Utility’s emphasis on offering
annual efficiency/conservation programs for customers. These include:
• Energy Star dishwasher and refrigerator rebates
• LED & CFL lighting discounts
• Free EV charging stations
• Residential solar rebates
• Low-flow toilet rebates
• Free sprinkler audits
The Utility also spends money annually to purchase renewable energy to meet self-imposed
community goals. Together these expenditures represent 5% of residential electric charges and
6% of water charges.
All customers, regardless of their income level, pay for these progressive policies and programs.
Certainly not all, but the majority of low income customers are typically renters and not home
owners. It is unclear how many of them can participate in the current level of
efficiency/conservation programs outlined above. However, a discounted or low income
electric rate could reduce their utility expense and give them a benefit equitable to
participation in the utilities’ efficiency/conservation programs.
Specific details about this discounted electric rate will be forthcoming from the Utility Finance
Department. The project team recommends a low income rate that has two tiers of
participation for utility customers between 0% and 50% AMI.
Focus Group
A focus group was held on April 4, 2014. Over 30 people attended from the following non-profit
and City groups:
Project Self-Sufficiency Vida Sana
Catholic Charities Larimer County United Way
Larimer County Office on Aging Make Change NoCo
National MS Society Serve 6.8
Fort Collins Housing Authority Disabled Resource Services
City of Fort Collins Neighbor to Neighbor
Social Sustainability
Environmental Services
Fort Collins Utilities
Financial Services
Neighborhood Services
The presentation to this group shared the project purpose, introduced the project team
members and outlined the timeline. The group was then given six questions that explored low
income need in the community, the role of the utility in conjunction with assistance and what a
successful program might look like. Seven discussion groups led by a volunteer facilitator
discussed each of these questions and recorded their findings.
Focus Group Questions
1. Is utility payment support for low income assistance an issue or need in our community?
2. What challenges do customers who are trying to receive low income assistance
encounter?
3. What kind of reasons could be associated with receiving low income utility payment
assistance?
4. What should Utilities’ role be in supporting low income assistance for utility payments?
5. What would a successful low income utility payment assistance program look like? How
would you measure success?
6. Other comments/observations you believe are relevant to a utility low income
assistance program.
An edited transcript of answers to focus group questions is attached (appendix 6). Several
themes developed regarding needs that could be addressed by the program:
• Transportation to apply for assistance is a challenge.
• There are different populations with unique needs.
• There is a need for energy/water conservation education.
• Work should be done with landlords to make properties more energy efficient.
The project team attended and was active in the focus group discussion and evaluated
responses. Those responses and emerging themes, as well as information received from
presentations and project team experience, formed the basis for the program evaluation and
recommendation – the key deliverable of the project team’s efforts.
Criteria
The project team had several discussions reviewing data presentations and focus group input.
Each team member contributed expertise gained from their non-profit experience.
This project team has direct experience working with many segments of the low income
community, including senior, people with disabilities those with medical circumstances and
those with financial hardship. Team discussions centered on characterizing those populations
and creating program criteria that would have the broadest reach in assisting these customers.
Criteria based on income level of the participant seemed the broadest level of participation,
since this would capture seniors, medical circumstances and financially challenged participants.
Federal programs covered the remaining populations. An electric account with Fort Collins
Utilities and the willingness to participate in electric/water conservation education or audits
were felt to be crucial requirements to maintain program integrity. Also, rather than requiring
that the utility customer be in danger of being shut-off for non-payment, the requirement for
this program would be an electric account that is “delinquent” or behind in payments.
Graph 7 below shows the criteria that were evaluated. Criteria received a “yes” or “no” based
on a group process that reviewed enhancements unique to this program and the availability of
other City or Federal programs:
Graph 7: Low Income Assistance Program Criteria
Low I ncome Assistance Program Criteria (requirements for assistance) 6.5.14
Criteria Yes/No T/C Comments
Income YES - Federal Poverty or AMI Guideline C Basis for chronic support
Disabled NO Covered by income; SSI or SSDI; A&D
Senior NO Covered by income
Medical Circumstances NO Covered by medical rate
Utilities Customer YES T or C
Education: class brochure/webportal requirement video training YES; see types below T or C T C
Energy/Water Walk Thru Audits
YES
T or C
Recognizing rental properties and simple adjustments such as lighting
and irrigation in partnership with Larimer County Conservation Corps.
Utility Bill Delinquency YES T or C shut-off notice not required
T=Temporary C=Chronic
Input from the focus group indicated that there are various “populations” within the low
income community that require different levels of support. Additionally, we heard that not only
are there “low income” but there are “no income” members of our community.
Rather than bundling all low-income into one category, the project team created two
categories of need. Guiding principles for this discussion was the Larimer County area median
income data and historical experience with the Payment Assistance Program regarding need.
Some customers find themselves in crisis with paying a utility bill rarely, while others have an
on-going need for assistance. Using this information, two levels of assistance were defined:
Temporary (T) Assistance
Would be available when a customer could not pay utilities because an emergency had
occurred. This would be offered through the current Payment Assistance Program and would
be limited to $150 maximum a calendar year (could be more than one disbursement):
Graph 8: Low Income Assistance Program – Temporary Application
Low I ncome Assistance Program: Temporary Application
Requirements Definition Mechanism Next Actions Comments
Income
Self report for tracking
application
Use existing PAF application and review with
Catholic Charites
Proof of hardship medical, job, car, utility disconnect notice application As part of application ask what is hardship
Utilities Customer
City of Fort Collins service territory for electric and/or water
Account
Create a menu of options for conservation classes.
Delinquency not
required if person
experiencing hardship
may not be delinquent
but rather being
proactive.
Education
Video in lobby, web-portal training in lobby, brochures
Complete one energy/water audit
marketing & visit
Audit may not be possible if owner does not allow.
However, could pursue other options such as, light
bulbs, toilets, shower nozzles, etc.
Note: Receives maximum assistance of $150 one time a year, but can use money incrementally.
Chronic (C) Assistance
Would be available to customers with ongoing challenges in paying utility bills. A “low income
utility rate” would offer a tiered approach based on the area median income for Larimer
County: one rate for customers who fall between 0%-30% AMI; a second rate for customers
who fall between 30%-50%:
Graph 9: Low Income Assistance Program – Chronic Application
Low I ncome Assistance Program: Chronic Application
Requirements Definition Mechanism Frequenc
Next Actions
Income
AMI - aligns with Sec. 8 and City Rebate
Low Income Electric Rate -
Sliding Rate; 0-30%; 30-50%
Annual
verification
-Collaborate with City Rebate program on
application
-Rate follows person
Utilities Customer City of Fort Collins service territory for electric Account verification Ongoing
Education
Attend one energy or water conservation class
Web portal training
Logged into CIS
1 time a year
Create a menu of options for conservation classes.
Energy/Water
Complete one energy/water audit
Logged into CIS
1 time
Scenario Creation
Utilities Role in Supporting Low Income Customers
For the past 15 years, Fort Collins Utilities has created and administered programs to assist
customers having difficulties staying current with their utility bills. The Payment Assistance
Program and Medical Assistance Program have both been successful. However, more support
could be offered to low income customers.
An evaluation of the Utilities’ role in supporting low income customers is crucial in determining
what additional support can be offered. The project team identified four areas of responsibility
for the Utilities’ role in supporting low income customers: rates, administration, funding and
efficiency.
Rates
The cost of providing electricity has continued to rise and rate increases have been
implemented for the residential segment of our community over the last few years. The utility
already administers an electric medical rate and offers help with a payment assistance
program. Therefore the key question was: What combination of programs and rates does the
Utility offer to low income customers?
Administration
The core competency of the Utility is providing electricity and water services, maintenance,
billing and customer service. Although the Utility offers programs to help customers stay current
with utility payments, there are other non-profits in the community which have a much more
seasoned track record with offering this help. Input from the focus group indicated that low
income customers have the highest comfort in dealing with known organizations, where there is
convenience for completing an application and where transportation is accessible to
the point of application. Therefore the key question was: Is the Utility the most knowledgeable
and efficient administrator for low income programs?
Funding
Funding for the Payment Assistance Program has come from customer donations and funding
for the electric medical rate has been covered in the cost of service to all customers. Therefore
the key question was: How might we increase funding to cover programs that provide
assistance to more low income customers?
Conservation/Efficiency Education
Conservation/efficiency education for low income customers has been challenging to track and
measure. Low income customers often cannot pay for an audit and don’t have the disposable
income to replace old and inefficient appliances with energy efficient models and receive a
rebate. More focus is needed on how to raise awareness about resource conservation and
incentivize efficiency. Therefore the question was: How do we provide both classes/audits and
other opportunities to this segment of our community?
Graph 10: Utilities’ Role in Supporting Low Income Customers
Process: Data→ Criteria→ Scenario Creati on→ Recommendati ons
Utilities Role in Supporting
Low Income Customers
Rates Administration Funding Efficiency
low income utility does all fundraising (PAF) rebates
1x/year
medical utility does none education
(3rd party admin) grants
programs funding walk-thru audits
rate utilities combo repurpose credit on (energy & water)
customer accounts $
Qualify for both
medical and low
income
City 100%
combo
City does none
(3rd party admin) round up on bill
Barriers: Location of trust
Convenience (i.e. one application for all low income funding)
Transportation
NEED: Metrics
Scenario Forming
The project team participated in a “scenario forming” brainstorm that yielded various
combinations of roles, and therefore, various ways the Utility could structure the program.
After discussion with the project team, Scenario 2 seemed the most beneficial in terms of
meeting project deliverables and crafting a program that would meet the needs of the low
income population. Scenario 2 includes:
• A “low income electric rate” – this would have two tiers, would be income based, and
would apply to customers whose income level ranged from 0% - 50% AMI (Appendix 7:
Area Median Income).
• The Utility would administer the program in conjunction with the City Finance Office,
using the existing framework of their “rebate program” to promote and receive
applications for the “low income rate.”
• The Payment Assistance Program would serve customers who find themselves in
temporary emergency situations; marketing and fundraising enhancements might
include:
1. Adding a “round-up” option to the utility bill to the nearest dollar or a fixed
dollar amount.
2. Expanding the current customer donation campaign to include both commercial
and residential customers with outreach twice a year.
3. Working with the City Attorney to move any credits left on customer inactive
accounts to the Payment Assistance Program after a defined period of time.
4. Working with Utility Key Account businesses to make the Payment Assistance
Program part of their yearly charitable giving.
• Educational opportunities on saving energy and water resources would be provided to
all customers who receive assistance; a walk-thru audit would be available if all parties
agree (including landlords).
Graph 11: Scenarios for Structuring the Low Income Assistance Program (Slide from 1/27/15
City Council work session)
Recommendations
The project team recommended the following activities based on the decision making process
that selected Scenario 2. The recommendations are:
1. Utilities role is managed within four categories: rates, administration, funding and
efficiency/conservation education.
2. Low Income Assistance Program criteria was determined to be; (1) income, (2) Utilities
customer, (3) conservation/efficiency education and possible audit.
3. Low income is defined as income between 0% and 50% of the area median income for
Larimer County. There are two systems generally used for classifying low income
program participation: the Federal Poverty Guideline and area median income (AMI).
AMI was selected for this program because the majority of local non-profits use it as the
system to determine low income program participation in our area.
4. Temporary crisis is defined as assistance available in situations where a customer could
not pay utilities because of an emergency or life-changing circumstance. This would be
offered through the current Payment Assistance Program and would be limited to $150
maximum a calendar year (could be more than one disbursement).
5. Chronic circumstance is a long-term situation with difficulty making a utility payment
due to economic hardship. A low income utility rate would offer a tiered approach based
on the area median income for Larimer County: one rate would be for customers who
fall between 0%–29% AMI; a second rate would be for customers who fall between
30%–50%. This program would be administered through the City Finance Office as an
extension of the existing rebate program.
6. Work to minimize the following barriers to receiving assistance identified by the focus
group: location of trust, convenience (one application process for several programs) and
transportation to the application site.
7. Both temporary and chronic levels of assistance include an energy/water
conservation/efficiency educational opportunity and/or audit.
8. Rates—create a low income rate that addresses chronic financial hardship
circumstances; discontinue the electric medical rate because the project team
recognized that medical rate participation would be addressed under the low income
rate guidelines.
9. Administration—Utilities manage the temporary low income support program titled the
“Payment Assistance Program” and partner with City Finance Office in the management
of the low income rate implementation.
10. Funding—Increase marketing and funding support for the Payment Assistance Program.
Next Actions
The project team identified the following next actions for the ongoing management of the
program:
• Create metrics to measure program success and determine frequency of evaluation.
• Expand efficiency/conservation education program offerings.
• Expand fundraising/marketing for Payment Assistance Program.
Appendix 1: Project Team Benchmarking 2012
Project Team Charter
Customer Connections Department Low-Income Assistance Program
Members
Bevia Byrne
Lori Clements
René Evenson
Laurie D’Audney
Maia Jackson
John Phelan
Lisa Rosintoski
Diana Royval
Lance Smith
*Heidi Phelps/Sharon Thomas (Social Sustainability)
*Julie Brewen/Michele Christensen (Housing Authority)
Project Statement: Fort Collins City Council tasked Utilities with creating a comprehensive low-
income assistance program after the implementation of the tiered electrical rate. Based on the
current values and project efforts at Utilities, staff plans to incorporate elements of energy
efficiency and education in the program.
Objectives (S.M.A.R.T.)
1. Improve current assistance programs
2. Create a comprehensive program that addresses community needs
3. Structure program to have minimal impact on staff (CSR) time
4. Increase awareness and education or conservation among members of the low-income
community
5. Create measurable performance metrics/phased approach
6. Avoid shut-offs and reduce write-offs; intervene earlier
7. Track repeat customers
Gaps
The largest gaps that have emerged in the research process are the need for more bill
assistance, a lack of an energy efficiency element, the need to partner more with organizations
external to the City of Fort Collins to offer assistance and better communication/collaboration
between City departments.
Phase 1: Review other assistance programs run by other utilities
• Austin Energy
• Eugene Water and Electric Board
• Colorado Springs Utilities
• Excel Energy
Summary: A strong effective program incorporates elements of education, energy efficiency,
conservation and monetary assistance.
Review current city-wide assistance programs
• Finance Department: Utility rebate program
• Recreation: Scholarship program
• Social Sustainability: Resources to partner with organizations external to the City
Summary: The program that the Finance department offers could potentially be expanded as
part of the low-income assistance program; we could also raise some awareness for it on our
website or distribute some of their printed materials at our events. The Recreation department
can offer input on how to develop applications and verify income. Social Sustainability can
provide connections city-wide of organizations to partner with and can assist with focus groups.
Review the data of current programs/community data
• 66,000 (approx. total Utilities customers) / 345 (customers helped by the Payment
Assistance Fund in 2012 ($35,100 available funds). (391 customers/ $36,300 in 2011)
• Cliff-effect: the phenomenon that often people at the lower ends of the income
spectrum may be able to get a lot of assistance, but as they work their way up towards
self-sufficiency, the benefits begin to drop off. They make too much to get help but not
enough to survive or move upward.
• 80% area median income (AMI) for Larimer County for a family of four $60,650
• 2013 median income for a family of four: $75,800
2007-2011 Census data for Fort Collins
Income ranges Families Married-couple
families
Non-family
households
Less than $10,000 3% 1.1% 16.6%
$10,000-$14,999 2.1% 0.8% 9.5%
$15,000-$24,999 6.1% 4.0% 17%
$25,000-$34,999 7.7% 6.2% 13.1%
$35,000-$49,999 10.8% 9.4% 17.5%
$50,000-$74,999 21.1% 21.2% 13.7%
This income range corresponds with 80% of AMI for Larimer County
Phase 2: Other programs that Utilities could partner with and outreach opportunities
• Social Sustainability
• Finance: expand current rebate program.
• Catholic Charities: expand current role and involvement, enlist assistance for
management of new low-income program.
• Volunteers of America: run a senior focused handyman program with emphasis on
energy efficiency.
• Larimer Home Improvement Program: funded by social security, provide low rate loans
for energy efficiency repairs.
• Disabled Resources: run a handyman program focused on energy efficiency.
• Northern Colorado AIDS Project: assist those in need with home repairs and upgrades.
• Low-income assistance program or “fair.”
Possible funding opportunities
• Community Development Block Grants (CDBG): Federal grants that fund programs that
benefit low to moderate income persons, prevent or eliminate slums or blight, fulfill
community development needs. Up to $800,000 in potential funding available.
• Ray C. Anderson Foundation: Funds projects that support economic, environmental, and
social sustainability. Grants from $2,000-25,000.
• Community Foundation of Northern Colorado: Funds projects that inspire community
building and sustainability. Must be a 501c3 organization or a municipality.
• Fort Collins Utilities becomes a 501c3.
Phase 3: Potential scenarios for program
Option 1
• Hire temporary/seasonal employees to assist customers in filling out applications for
LEAP, Longs Peak Energy Conservation, City of Fort Collins programs.
• Customers at 50% of AMI qualify for a free home energy/water audit.
• Direct install of window plastic, light bulbs, shower heads, sink aerators, etc.
• Educational material on conservation behavior.
Option 2
• Customers at 80% AMI qualify for a free home energy/water audit.
• Depending on the income level, after receipt of audit results the customer could qualify
for certain upgrades for free or at a significantly reduced cost.
• Educational material on conservation behavior.
Option 3
• Customers at 80% AMI qualify for a home energy/water audit, an
assessment/consultation of their usage and bill history.
• Some upgrades identified as necessary in the audit could be done for free or at a
reduced cost based on income level (pricing could be developed on a sliding scale
correlated with income levels).
• Partner with other agencies that perform direct install and home upgrades.
• If the customer attends educational programs or online learning opportunities to lower
their usage they could receive credits on their bill.
Host focus groups with low-income members of the community
• Gather feedback on possible programs.
• Identify gaps in assistance in the community.
• Discuss needs that are currently being or not being met.
• Discuss ideas and opinions on assistance needs with perspective of individuals in that
community.
Major Milestones:
• Complete summary materials to include in Council retreat packets.
• Host focus groups June/July.
• Write up final program plan by August.
• Send materials through the Council approval process August/September.
NOTE: After each milestone is completed there will be a phase gate review with core team for
continuation to next milestone.
Appendix 2: Research and Recommendations from 2012 Project Team
Fort Collins Utilities low income program research and recommendations
Maia Jackson, Project Support Coordinator
What are we currently doing city-wide to assist low-income community members?
(applicable to Utilities customers and our program development)
Finance Department
• Sales tax on food rebate
• Utility rebate
• Property tax/rental rebate
The Finance department offers three different rebate programs to assist low-income member of
our community. The one that is most applicable to Utilities is the utility rebate. This program
offers a rebate on utilities paid during the year. It is only available to low-income seniors 65 and
older and low-income disabled residents. The amount of the rebate depends upon the number
of services provided at a particular residence/location. Electrical service only = $48.43; Water
service only = $32.14; Stormwater service only = $14.26; Wastewater service only = $17.87; or a
maximum rebate of $112.70 if all of the above services are provided by the City of Fort Collins.
Applicants need to have lived within the City of Fort Collins for one year and be a legal resident
of the United States. The income qualifications for the utility refund are set to 50% of the area
median income (AMI). This allows for an increased number of senior and disabled residents to
qualify. For reference this would be a maximum household income of $38,850 for a family of
four. This is the same income qualification level for the property tax rebate and the sales tax on
food rebate. The rebate program has set enrollment dates; the enrollment period begins on
August 1 and closes October 31. Estimated total cost of the utility rebate program is $179,000.
Finance has offered to share the current list of participants in the three rebate programs for us
to cross reference with our customer information. This will be a resource to help get an idea of
how many people might participate in the program, a place to start to set up focus groups and
a frame of reference for which parts of the community to start outreach with.
Recreation Department
The Recreation department offers a scholarship and reduced fee program for reduced income
individuals.
To qualify for reduced fee consideration, the following guidelines must be met:
• Participation in a state or federal assistance program, or income within federal low
income guidelines per most recent tax return.
• If assistance is received through any county, state, or federal program(s), current
verification must be provided, specifying an expiration date if applicable, or obtain a
benefits report from Larimer County Human Services.
• If not on a qualifying assistance program, a copy of most recent tax return must be
attached to this application.
• Proof of Fort Collins or Poudre School District residency, including a current utility bill
showing name and address, or three other bills mailed to the same address.
• Proof of lawful presence in the United States.
The important piece to consider about the Recreation department program is how they verify
income and how they work with state and federal agencies to determine if a person meets the
qualifications to participate. If a customer is already participating in a social services program
with the county, state, federal government or Poudre School District they only need to provide
proof of their participation in this program to be eligible. Income guidelines are based on
federal income guidelines and poverty levels. Income can also be verified by tax returns or pay
stubs. If a customer applies and is not affiliated with any of the other assistance programs but
meets the income requirements, their information can be verified with pay stubs and tax
returns. Social Security is also a resource that can be utilized for income verification. Staff can
call to verify information that has been provided by customers but cannot request information
on behalf of the customers. All copies of tax returns/paystubs/any personal information is
shredded after the application is approved or denied and while it is in process it is stored in a
lockbox. Files are retained for three years per retention policy.
It takes staff anywhere from five minutes to three hours a day to process applications. They
have a check sheet for the applications that front desk personnel go over when an applicant
drops off the application. This helps with problems of missing documentation or incorrect
information which tends to add more time for the staff processing. Last year their department
processed 1,300 applications and had 3,500 individuals participating in the program.
Social Sustainability Department
Currently does not have a specific low-income assistance program of their own but they work
collaboratively with external to the City organizations and non-profits. They would like to see
more collaboration and cross-communication among internal city groups that offer assistance
programs. The department is very interested in collaborating and helping with the development
of the low-income assistance program and spreading the word once it is operational.
They had feedback on how to structure the program and how to gather ideas from the
community to ensure that what is created is actually what the population we are reaching out
to needs. They suggested hosting several focus groups in the community. We can utilize
connections with the groups that the Social Sustainability department works with, the list of
people participating in the rebate programs with the Finance department, and our own list of
customers that have accessed assistance from our existing funds/programs to create focus
groups. These focus groups would give us a well-rounded picture of the problems, the needs
and how the people most closely affected view possible solutions. It would also provide an
opportunity to present ideas of potential programs and gather feedback.
A sliding scale program set-up was suggested for a way to address energy fixes for customers at
different income levels. Concern was expressed that the dynamic of the “cliff effect” may
become a factor in this program. This is the phenomenon that often people at the lower ends
of the income spectrum may be able to get a lot of assistance, but as they work their way
towards self-sufficiency, the benefits begin to drop off. They make too much to get help but not
enough to survive or move upward. The Utilities program should be conscious of this
phenomenon as the program is written so that we are helping the most people possible and the
ones that are in the most need. An advantage of staying mindful of this phenomenon when
writing the program is that this assistance and education could be a vehicle to help push this
group of people that are perpetually struggling out of poverty. This could provide an overall
benefit to the community: stronger community members and more energy efficient homes
with more mindful and aware occupants.
Fort Collins Housing Authority (FCHA)
In addition to administering the Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) programs,
they manage the Public Housing units owned by the Wellington Housing Authority, and operate
the Larimer County Housing Authority’s HCV program. FCHA manages the non-subsidized
affordable housing properties owned by Villages, Ltd. and the low-income senior apartments
located in the historic Northern Hotel.
Housing programs include:
• Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8)
• Project-Based Vouchers
• Public Housing
• Single Room Occupancy (SRO)
• Resident Service Programs
• Villages Affordable Housing
FCHA has offered to be a resource in setting up the income verification pieces of the assistance
program. They have also offered to help with customer lists as a place to begin outreach.
What are other utilities doing to assist low-income community members?
Eugene Water and Electric Board
Contacts: Wendi Shultz-Kerns, Cash Accounting Supervisor (Runs the customer assistance
program). Is in the office Mon.-Thurs. 541-685-7074 (direct line) wendi.schultz-
kerns@eweb.org
• Education became a priority and they now split their funding; half towards energy
education and half for monetary assistance.
• Utilize incentive credits (all towards the bill cost), no cash dispensed, won’t be paid out
if they move outside of the service area, managed with different pay codes.
• Performed a survey through an external company and found that the education
component is very important and impactful on starting lifestyle change.
• Put out an RFP, accepted bids, the Human Services Division won the bid, they then
outsourced to various local agencies that work with the low-income community in a
social service capacity. Major recommendation: model program to have “one-stop
shopping” which allows clients to apply for multiple programs in one place, offer a bus
pass etc.
• Customer calls EWEB customer service line, referred to one of the partnering intake
agencies, customer calls the agency (agency has special phone line dedicated to the
program), customer makes appointment and they are advised as to what income
paperwork they need to bring in, agency processes application (utilize a state based
system so they can see other assistance programs that the customer accesses), the
voucher is approved or denied and they sign a release approving that their account
information and energy use/consumption will be shared with the external agencies.
• There is a voucher system for each entity, each agency sends a spreadsheet in daily with
the new voucher numbers, posted to the customer account using a special pay code,
and it then charges the appropriate budget. The agencies are not given funds directly,
they are given a budget to work within and EWEB is invoiced for specific program work
only.
• Program is funded with 1% of revenue from rates, eligibility based on 60% margin
median household income, requires two in-house staff members, three energy
advocates (that provide the case management and education), and staff from intake
agencies (approximately 25 people).
• The breakdown is about 9% admin, and 15% delivery cost = about 24% cost to operate.
• Can be renewed with an intergovernmental agreement each year.
Austin Energy
Contacts: Elaine Kelly-Diaz (oversees the groups that handle the customer assistance
programs) Elaine.Kelly-diaz@austinenergy.com
Ronnie Mendoza, Customer Assistance Program Manager
• Two components to the program: The discount program which has fixed charges and
the “+1” program that offers energy assistance. They also have a free weatherization
program that is available to all customers regardless of income.
• Enrollment process: They use forms rather than automatic enrollment, this allows for
more checks and balances. Customers that qualify receive other assistance benefits
through city, county, and federal agencies. The Health and Human Services Commission
generated a list of customers that qualify because of their being a part of other
assistance programs.
• Massive outreach program to community agencies to bring them on as partners in the
program. Calls for major involvement in the community. They serve over 1,900
households. Having strong community advocates is a major contributor to the success of
the program.
• The “+1” program is a budgeted line item, the assistance program is unrecognized
revenue, the customer charge is waived—it is approximately a $300,000 budgeted
expense
• Devote four staff members to the program: one admin, two community coordinators,
one coordinator that works specifically with medically vulnerable customers. Major
recommendation: don’t split up staff member duties, devote people specifically to the
vulnerable customers and create a sub-group in the “customer care department” whose
sole purpose is working with the customer care program.
• In house they manage the service agreements and funds, the community organizations
take care of the qualification and application processes.
• If a customer is in the discount program they are automatically eligible for the efficiency
program but at what level is determined by the energy audit, the customers usage and
personal situation.
• Not everyone receives the energy efficiency program, there is an education component
to it, energy audit, conservation, and weatherization.
Colorado Springs Utilities
Contact for Utilities: Monica Whiting, General Manager, Customer Revenue & Services
Department, Customer & Corporate Services Division, direct line (719) 668-
3824, mwhiting@csu.org
Contacts for the LEAP program: Felicia Hubbard, fhubbard@csu.org Kelly
Smith, KKSmith@csu.org
Energy Resource Center contact: Howard Brooks (ERC director) direct line 719-591-0774,
website: http://www.erc-co.org/
HEAP program contacts: Deb Mathis (program manager): dmathis@csu.org, direct line 719-668-
8509. Mark James (Deb’s manager) MJames@csu.org
• C.O.P.E. program (Customer Option to Provide Energy) is a donation program,
Colorado Springs Utilities matches up to $500,000.
• When a customer calls in for assistance customer service staff refer them to local
agencies that help to administer the program; it is a once a year opportunity for
assistance.
• LEAP program was discovered to be underutilized by Colorado Springs Utilities
customers. With further research it was discovered that the application was very
difficult and customers that should be approved were being denied because of
mistakes on applications that could have been prevented if they had guidance.
• Decided that during “LEAP season” they would hire a seasonal or temporary
employee and have a specific “LEAP desk” set up in the customer service area and
encourage customers to come in for assistance and guidance on their applications.
• The courier that picks up payments from drop boxes around the city also would
come and pick up the LEAP applications and deliver them to the county office.
• This program immediately doubled their customers’ use of the LEAP program.
• Energy Efficiency program: They partner with the Energy Resource Center (ERC)
which is a state run program that provides energy audits for low-income customers
and will provide home improvements, customers just need to work for it a little
more.
• They will support tenants; landlords need to sign off and the ERC will negotiate with
the landlords on the cost.
• Colorado Springs Utilities program Home Efficiency Assistance Program (HEAP). They
have a contract with the ERC to run this program. It is modeled after the ERC, but
uses CSU’s criteria. Also focuses on water, not just energy; can be a tenant or owner
occupied
• The cost is built into the rate, it is a demand side management project; it is not a
subsidizing situation.
What are we currently doing as a utility?
The current assistance options Fort Collins Utilities supports and communicates to our
customers are:
• Payment Assistance Fund—Fort Collins Utilities manages voluntary customer donations.
Utility customers who have received a shut-off notice can get payment assistance once
during a 12-month period. Persons contact Catholic Charities Larimer County at
970-484-5010 to schedule an appointment. An intake worker will interview the person
and contact Utilities for information about his/her account. If the person qualifies and
money is available, he/she will receive assistance that can be credited to electric and
water accounts.
• Resource Referral—Fort Collins Utilities website recognizes United Way as a resource
for individuals who are in need of utility bill assistance.
• Program Information—Utilities customers are made aware of LEAP (Larimer County
manages). Funds are provided by the federal government and the Colorado Energy
Assistance Foundation (CEAF). Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LEAP) is a
program designed to help low-income households with winter home heating costs. If a
household is eligible for LEAP, it may also qualify for help such as minor furnace repair
or replacement of broken windows. Households must submit a written application
during the LEAP season (Nov. 1 – Apr. 30).
• Home Energy and Water Efficiency Programs—Fort Collins Utilities provides home
energy audits at substantially reduced cost, monthly reports and rebates to support
lowering utility bills in a sustainable manner.
• Program Sponsorship—Utilities customers are made aware of the Larimer County
Conservation Corps. Through a partnership with Fort Collins Utilities, Loveland Water
and Power and Platte River Power Authority, the Larimer County Conservation Corps is
offering free energy and water assessments and efficiency upgrades to qualifying
residents through March 29. The basic assessments include a visual inspection of
appliances, heating/cooling systems, and insulation levels in walls, attics and
crawlspaces. Corps members also will install free CFLs, programmable thermostats,
retractable clotheslines, low-flow toilets, showerheads and faucet aerators and provide
conservation tips and rebate opportunities to help lower energy and water bills. The
2013 goal is to assess and complete efficiency upgrades for 250 households within Fort
Collins.
• Medical Assistance Program—This program was developed after the implementation of
the tiered rate with the recognition that some members of our community would be
pushed into a higher tier because of their dependence on certain types of high energy
medical equipment. This program is available to customers who require the use of
medically necessary equipment in their home and/or have medical conditions that
require the use of air conditioning during the summer months. To qualify for the
program the maximum household income cannot exceed 60% of the area median
income ($46,620 for a family of four), the customer needs to obtain a signature from his
or her physician stating the equipment necessary and/or verifying the need of air
conditioning in the summer months. The customer must also prove lawful presence in
the United States. Currently, we do not collect any income or tax verifying
documentation and we do not contact employers of the customer. Acceptance into this
program does not automatically renew and must be applied for annually.
What should our program look like?
• Laurie’s recommendations (emailed)
• John’s recommendations (meeting on 2/27)
• My ideas
• Recommendation 1: Offer assistance in filling out LEAP applications. In addition to LEAP,
offer assistance with the Federal Weatherization Program (currently managed through
Longs Peak Energy Conservation). This could also be an opportunity to partner with
applicable City of Fort Collins assistance programs that are Utilities related. Hire
temporary/seasonal employees and have them stationed at customer service to assist
customers in filling out paperwork. Include the Longs Peak program in that process and
offer information on any other city-wide (utility related) assistance programs.
• Recommendation 2: Ask those who need help for their feedback on what a successful,
accurate program looks like. Host two to three small, select focus groups of hand-picked
people throughout the Fort Collins community that fall into this income demographic
and would be likely to utilize such a program. Enlist the help of Social Sustainability,
Finance and the Fort Collins Housing Authority in gathering potential participants and
gathering feedback.
• Recommendation 3: Education component—bill credits (home energy audit).
• Recommendation 4: Sliding scale assistance program for home upgrades with education
component.
Focus on incorporating the “forgotten” low-income groups in our community: 50-80% of AMI--
$60,650 for a family of four in the Fort Collins/Loveland area. (Justification: contacted Ken
Waido and Timothy Wilder for specific quantitative data if it exists.)
36 I P a g e
Appendix 3: Low Income Assistance Program Project Charter 2014
Fort Collins Utilities
Low Income Assistance Program
Project Charter
Version#:7.0
Date: 02.18.14
1.0 Project Description: The purpose of this project is to (1) evaluate current utility assistance
programs and (2) design a "low income" program for utility customers that will
incorporate elements of energy efficiency, education, income criteria and collaboration
with other City programs and local non-profits.
Fort Collins City Council tasked the Utility with creating a comprehensive low-income
assistance program when the tiered electric rate was implemented in January 2012.
Phase I. Evaluate the effectiveness of current programs perceived as being helpful to
"/ow-income" customers and make recommendations for enhancements (Medical
Assistance Program and Payment Assistance Program); explore current methods of
fundraising and outreach, with an eye towards expanding marketing efforts and funding
sources (duration Jan. - June 2014)
Phase II. Begin a purposeful networking and collaboration with local non-profits and other
City departments to benchmark offerings in the community and share data; and
investigate the formation of a foundation or other entity or expanded program that can
leverage local networking and collaboration to create an "umbrella" program that knits
programs and offerings together, increasing fundraising possibilities and community
impact (duration July- December 2014)
2.0 Business Case: The Utility has programs that were created to help "/ow-income"
customers, however, it's not clear how effective the programs are and their availability is
not widely known. A review of the existing programs, as well as a study of programs from
other utility companies, was completed in 2013 (see attachment A). The study provides
the basis for analyzing scenarios that will result in a recommendation for a low income
assistance program to be managed by Fort Collins Utilities.
3.0 Key Deliverables:
• Create a comprehensive program that addresses community needs
• Structure program to have minimal impact on staff time
T02-00026 Page 1
37 I P a g e
Fort Collins Utilities
Low Income Assistance Program
Project Charter
• Provide education to increase awareness and conservation practices for low-income
customers, empowering them to reduce electricity and water use and lower their bills
• Create measurable performance metrics phased approach
• Avoid shut-offs and reduce write-offs; intervene earlier to minimize costs to the Utility
and the customer
• Create networking opportunities with local non-profits and other City departments to
support sustainable implementation of program
4.0 Cost and Completion Targets:
The primary cost of the project is labor:
Phase I
Project Manager
Project Sponsor
Project Team
Various SMEs
50%
5%
20%
5%
600 hrs
42 hrs
168 hrs
18 hrs
30 weeks
21 weeks
21 weeks
9 weeks
Total hours estimate 828 hours
I Phase II
Staffing requirements TBD
5.0 Assumptions and Constraints:
5.1.Key assumptions:
• Local non-profits partner with FCU to create and manage the program
• City Council requests more data
• Most of the research has been completed as part of the 2013 study (Attachment A).
Core Project Team will validate research and focus on the different program scenarios
and receive feedback from local non-profits on the need
• Need financial analysis as part of the identified scenarios to quantify how best to meet
targeted needs of community
T02-00026 Page 2
38 I P a g e
Fort Collins Utilities
Low Income Assistance Program
Project Charter
5.2 Constraints:
An RFP to request bids for administering the Payment Assistance Program is not part of
the scope of this project
The target date completion has been defined by pre-determined meeting dates with City
Council. An earlier or later meeting date may impact deliverables timeline
6.0 Measures of Success:
• All deliverables are completed on time and have the full support of the project team.
• Utilities Senior Management accepts deliverables for review and agrees that they meet
business objectives.
• Presentation of project findings given to Fort Collins City Council.
• Deliverables are used and have benefit for low income customers
• The creation of a centralized communication process among providers that supports
low income assistance in the community.
7.0 Project Team Roles and Responsibilities:
Project Sponsor:
Lisa Rosintoski, Utilities Customer Connections Manager
Provides direction and resources as necessary; liaison to executive management and
Fort Collins City Council.
Project Manager:
Rene' Evenson, Residential/Small & Mid-Sized Commercial Accounts Rep. Utilities
Overall management of project; defines schedule; sets work-flow and scope; selects
core team members.
Core Team Members:
Attends bi-weekly meetings; shares data and expertise as requested/available; may
have tasks outside defined meeting times; partners with team for successful outcome.
T02-00026 Page 3
39 I P a g e
Fort Collins Utilities
Low Income Assistance Program
Project Charter
Subject Matter Experts:
Provides information to core project team as part of the decision making process:
Salvation Army
Disabled Resource Services
FC Church Network
MakeChange NOCO
Catholic Charities
Foundation on Aging
Bohemian Foundation
7.0 Signatures:
Signatures below indicate that the signing parties:
• Have read and understand the Project Charter
• Agree that the Project Charter accurately reflects the assumptions, expectations,
commitments, and conditions of the project
• Authorize the Project Manager to proceed on this project based on the assumptions,
expectations, commitments, and conditions contained in this Project Charter.
Lisa Rosintoski
Project Sponsor
Rene' Evenson
Project Manager
Bevia Byrne
Core Project Team
'2.1.-\r l4'
Date
T02-00026 Page4
40 I P a g e
Sil:t!& L:
Fort Collins Utilities
Low Income Assistance Program
Project Charter
02-2!-/Lj
Shawn Montoya Date
Core Project Team
I7 /;;
Bill Switzer ' Date
Core Project Team
Amanda Nagl
Core Project Team
l f ?>[J:ll 'j
5 D Datle
01- I 14
Jenne Loffer snature Date
Core Project Team
3h/t1
Linda Rumney Date
Core Project Team
o2r2/r-!j
Emily Sander Sign Date
Core Project Team
JM DZ- 21-lf
Mary Atchison
Core Project Team
Signature Date
T02-00026 Page 5
41 I P a g e
Fort Collins Utilities
Low Income Assistance Program
Project Charter
T02-00026 Page 6
42 | P a g e
Appendix 4: Catholic Charities Emergency Clinic 2013 Program Data
“Utilities Public Assistance Fund” is the Utility Payment Assistance Program. In addition to these funds, utility customers
received $29,000 combined assistance from the Utilities EOC (Energy Outreach Colorado), Utilities EFSP (FEMA) and Utilities
Private Funds (Catholic Charities).
43 | P a g e
Appendix 5: Medical Assistance Application 2014
44 | P a g e
45 | P a g e
Appendix 6: Compiled Focus Group Questions & Responses (4.29.14)
Compiled Focus Group Questions & Responses (4.29.14)
1) Is utility payment support for low income assistance an issue or need in our
community?
Big issue with many families. Utility bills high and income to pay is low; that is
why they need assistance.
Yes! Go thru $170,000 per year at CCN.
DRS: High need, lots of people come to DRS for utility assistance; they typically
can help those with disabilities—difficult because shut off is usually close, maybe
an hour away, first issue is how to stop shut off.
• Serve 6.8: 40-50 people/week ask for assistance.
• MS: EOC funds only 1x/yr. – Many requests beyond 1x/yr.
• UT: No emergency funds @ utilities.
• Medical assistance thru utilities – too low income $36,000.
• 211 highest call need.
• Housing Authority utility allowance doesn’t meet need.
• Many callers have LEAP, it isn’t enough.
• Some need is for those that don’t qualify for existing due to income but can’t
afford utilities. (High rent, all electric home, high % of income to rent.)
2) What challenges do customers who are trying to receive low income assistance
encounter?
Diversity and Transportation:
• Right language and outreach targets; Spanish-speaking need help with
application; more services in languages people speak.
• Undocumented families have equal rights.
• Transportation/Dial-A-Ride and SAINT all have limitation in the area of
transportation; just getting in to pay the late fee can be an issue; particularly
with mental illness issues that lead to procrastination.
• No dispatch-able transport system = problem.
• Transportation – to access agencies, doctor signatures.
• Need transportation to complete application.
Working With Utility:
• Can only make payment arrangements every six months and people still get
behind.
46 | P a g e
• Have to go up Utilities Chain of Command which takes time; person answering
usually can’t do anything about it, have to explain; sometimes they pass call to
decision makers but other times not, frustrating.
• Shut off notice typically gives them 3-4 days; it is the pink slip that opens up
help.
• Seems like Utilities is more “hard core” than they used to be; very subjective
depending on who answers but appears staff has been trained more hard line
than years prior.
• Utilities – Will cut off for non-payment regardless of medical needs.
• Some clients may have been offered payment plan by Utilities but they didn’t
follow through, waiting for crisis slip (pink) to respond.
• Section 8 reimbursements are confusing on utility bill.
• N2N writes check and should reflect on individual bill.
• Utilities are concerned with frequent flier customers/abuse of the program.
Family Finances:
• Some people have no income.
• These clients are living on $700/month; A and D clients are living on
$174/month—no education is going to help in these situations.
• Credit and criminal past can be a problem.
• Problem = money, not communication gaps.
• Late fee when strapped = big issue, increases problem.
• For some, it is a money management issue; for example, people still buy
cigarettes every day.
• Shortage of resources/loan.
• Hard winter leads to more need/more issues
Funding Support Issues & Where to Go:
• United Way cut funding to DRS 75% during “Bridges Out of Poverty” campaign;
DRS clients are getting out of poverty so they don’t fit that “funding mold”
anymore.
• 211 might help, lots of questions about where to go for help.
• Not enough options.
• Not enough promotion/education about accessing donated utilities or about
how to donate to it.
• No awareness on criteria; assistance is there but not aware.
• First come, first serve. Usually run out of money – CCN.
• Where to access help – where to start.
47 | P a g e
• Resources (community) need to be defined.
• Murphy Center and area churches are who they typically go to.
• PSS has some funds to help people in their program with Utilities.
Housing Issues:
• Market rent is the real issue, if rent were lower, people could pay utilities.
• Utilities is not the problem leading to homelessness, that is a housing issue.
• There are some cases where Utilities cost is the straw and could lead to losing
housing.
• I see the housing cost as the most challenging issue in Fort Collins. This then
causes utilities to become an issue. In a college town, most places can charge per
bedroom. It is unrealistic for a family in this town to try and make it with such
high housing costs.
• Agencies have few funds to make properties more energy efficient, especially
multi-family.
Different Populations with Unique Needs:
• Disabilities vs. those working toward self-sufficiency = different populations and
very different needs.
• Many DRS clients suffer from mental illness and other issues, may be paralyzed
by anxiety or fear so they procrastinate, increases crisis.
• There are concerns about medical equipment for DRS clients, they are not
familiar with the medical program and neither are their clients, lots of hoops to
jump through for this population.
• For some it is a temporary issue; for others it is ongoing. Create a system for
each that looks different.
Program Constraints & Marketing:
• More outreach marketing.
• Agencies want to be more proactive than reactive.
• Paperwork – system: Programs not communicating info HIPPA.
• Assistance 1 X annually.
• Time – crisis mode issue; working with agency system.
• Limited appointment availability. “Hoops” customers need to jump through to
get assistance (Call every day. Lottery, Mon-Thurs. afternoons.)
• So few DRS clients have registered their medical equipment.
• No one stop shot for assistance; time intensive for agencies and customers.
• Most DRS clients do not have computer access to pay online.
48 | P a g e
3) What kind of reasons could be associated with receiving low income utility payment
assistance?
Financial
• Low income (wages)/financial situation/no income.
• Priorities: rent, utility, food; downsize when income diminishes; determining
what is important; making trade-offs to pay other bills.
• Elderly – fixed income.
• Unexpected expenses – car, layoff, medical, job loss, death in family, natural
disasters.
• Medical/mental health issues, disability, hospital stay, no family-support to help,
large medical crisis, get behind on bills and can’t catch up, shortage of payees in
Fort Collins—Touchstone has a few but not enough.
• Increase in utility use/cost.
• Shift of cost (help for utilities but not for car repair).
• High rent.
• Lack of money management skills; poor planning abilities; people wait until last
minute.
• People access lots of funds, some on a schedule; Are people depending on help
to pay every month?
• Landlords regulate utilities.
Family Changes
• Single parents; divorce.
• Larger household with kids/grandkids or aging parents.
• Health reasons.
4) What should Utilities’ role be in supporting low income assistance for utility
payments?
Working with Other Organizations:
• Partnerships with organizations/agencies that support low income; can explain
better and better access; distribute funding; understand language, culture and
sensitive to assistance.
• Know where low income population is going to for help.
• Work with health agencies; going beyond.
• Non-profit can validate/investigate; income verification concern for Utility.
• They are trained to work with these clients in a humanizing manner.
49 | P a g e
• Maybe a liaison for agencies when they call Utilities, a title to ask for? Some way
to save time.
• Train Utilities staff to work with agencies.
• Collecting customer donations and contracting vendor to appropriate funds or if
there is an existing organization to appropriate funds with guidelines of
assistance (round up on bill? Corporate sponsors?).
• Example: Project Cope/Colo. Springs.
Energy Conservation & Education:
• Education on how to conserve and be energy efficient (requirement for
assistance).
• Education about budgeting.
• Educating agencies.
• Rebate programs for efficiency for landlords/owners who add efficiency
measures (insulation) when remodeling (program requirements are issue).
• Utilities could give more aid for larger homes.
• Require energy audit for aid? (Who would pay?)
• Educational awareness on utility usage. When to use appliances or how simple
tasks like window plastic, turning off lights, how to use thermostat, etc. can save
money.
• Referring customers to payment assistance organizations who educate on
budgeting, employment, housing and medical needs. City’s web site offering
listing of various organizations (with disclaimer).
Program Design:
• More info on client account.
• Collect $/fundraise for project.
• Client realization that City is providing assistance.
• Utilities manage $; challenge is the administration of the money; designated
fund.
• Providing or supporting centralized customer information system for customer
convenience as they seek assistance. Database or site with access from
assistance organizations or customer access.
• Computer in lobby for customer assistance access (restrictions on access).
• Variations across agencies might be an obstacle.
• Agency – intake, 1 x/year.
• Review annual aid amount? More than $150.
• Program for people with zero income.
50 | P a g e
• Create a pool of money to apply for Project Self Sufficiency.
• Is there a way to trigger Utilities that someone is in the hospital? A plan that can
be worked out for that? Issue: There are not enough advocates. Utilize retirees?
• Tracking of reason for assistance for statistical purposes would be helpful in
determining community needs.
• Exceptions – when come into play?
• Behavior vs. circumstance; entitled vs. folks truly trying to support themselves.
• Utilities to disperse $ for distribution thru credible agencies.
• Education re: existing resources.
5) What should a successful low income utility payment assistance program look like?
How would you measure success?
What a Program Could Look Like:
• Easily accessible with information and languages.
• Education assistance.
• Give money with commitment to visit home to review utility support/education
(how to manage renters).
• Give more resource options to low income utility support such as food, home
repairs, etc.
• How to support rental properties with owners “comply with building efficiency
and conditions”; how to enforce.
• Quality of tracking difference. For example, tracking utility use before and after
(audits).
• Partnership with LCCC.
• % of funds to address root cause.
• Round up on utility bill.
• Other collaboration; free energy saving devices.
• Is it a discount rate? Issue is that there are always those in crisis. Some DRS
clients would benefit from a discount.
• Discount doesn’t alleviate crisis issues.
• Different populations need different plans.
• Work with landlords to include utilities = they know what they are getting into
• Example= Legacy Apartments.
• Taking physical & mental health into consideration.
• Need resources to help with all needs to achieve a balanced life rather than
living day to day.
• Social Sustainability Summit? Resource fairs for needs?
51 | P a g e
• Effective communication/updates on organizations with current funding.
• Transportation referrals (SAINT or bus availability) – the most frequent obstacle
in getting assistance according to 211; work with transportation for shuttle.
Measure & Communicate Success:
• Amount or # coming in to ask for assistance.
• Raise awareness.
• Measure of success should be by number of involuntary shut-offs and/or notices
(decrease).
• Number of households assisted each year.
• Data on repeat assistance customers, year after year with likelihood of repeat
assistance need. Collect metrics (reasons); what is triggering requests?
• Education tracking and impact on assistance needs (surveys after assistance
awarded).
• Monitoring assistance. For example, how results saving compared to before
assistance; bill reduction monthly vs. crisis mode.
• Education assistance.
• Communicate success to donors and receivers; better utilization of social media.
• Market to people who have auto debit.
• Get more people to contribute; marketing to businesses.
• Define success.
• True outcomes take time.
• Define parameters of who should receive assistance.
• All work together to accomplish same thing.
6) Other comments/observations you believe are relevant to a utility low income
assistance program.
• Lack of knowledge about utility assistance program.
• Need to partner better.
• Make sure we run out of funds!
• Sense calmness from receiving support. Not to worry having utility. Need to
continue to offer calmness to more people.
• How do you know how much to give? (good question)
• Walmart with donations and partnerships.
• Utility low income open house.
• Helping people who cannot attend.
52 | P a g e
• Anything needed to strategically manage funds – PAF & EOC (look at water turn
offs).
• Educate owners on including water in rent.
• Second donation campaign to cover water in summer.
• Verify income?
• Clarify “low income” and boundaries for the program.
• Crisis need as opposed to “abusing” the opportunity.
• PS-S recommended studying Loveland’s program—she said it works very well.
Questions:
• What happened to REACH program?
• Did LEAP replace REACH?
• How is the current program advertised and how do people contribute?
• Should there be some system change to alert but allow more time for crisis
response? (i.e. the doorway to help is also the roadblock)
53 | P a g e
Appendix 7: Larimer County Area Median Income 2013
Appendix 8: Bill Insert/Envelope for Payment Assistance Campaign 2014
Attachment 02 - Funding Fuel Assistance: State and Local Strategies to Help Pay Low-Income Home
Energy Bills. pp 36-43
CAPTURING MISCELLANEOUS UTILITY FUNDS
A third source of fuel assistance funding that involves participation by local utility companies (natural gas
or electricity) revolves around the capture of miscellaneous utility funds that might otherwise go for non-
utility purposes. The capture of these funds does not represent a donation by the companies. Even in the
absence of the programs recommended below, the revenues would not flow into company coffers.
Instead, the recommendations below are based upon identifying sources of dollars that originate within
the regulated utility arena but are in the process of being transferred to another person or entity. Through
the suggestions below, at that point of transfer, some portions of the funds are captured for use in support
of low-income energy assistance programs.
CONTRIBUTIONS OF UTILITY REFUNDS
One voluntary contribution initiative that is related to, but distinct from, a utility check-off program is an
effort to capture utility rate refunds as contributions for low-income fuel assistance. Rather than regular
periodic solicitations, this initiative simply asks customers to give back all or part of refund money to
which they would otherwise be entitled.
The Colorado Program
Colorado pioneered this initiative as one means of providing an opportunity for the general public to
contribute to low-income conservation and weatherization assistance.\34\ Public Service Company of
Colorado sought such donations from its customers and generated more than $1.7 million in donations to
the Colorado Energy Assistance Foundation.\35\
Importantly, these funds are over and beyond any funds generated through customer contributions made
in response to bill-stuffers or through additions to monthly bills. Rather than replacing regular
contributions made as a part of a program whereby customers add to their bills, the Colorado program
seeks to take advantage of the special situation that occasionally arises with regard to rate refunds to
customers.
In January 1992, Public Service of Colorado (PSCo) began to notify its customers of a refund to which
they were entitled as a result of an overcharge from one of its natural gas suppliers. The refund was
owed to natural gas consumers in certain parts of the state who were consumers from January 1, 1985
through December 31, 1988. Refund amounts varied depending on the length of time the consumer
received gas during those four years and the amount of gas they used.
One of PSCo's natural gas suppliers was found to have been improperly pricing gas to include a gas
search charge which resulted in a $67.75 million overcharge. A portion of that money was returned
through the purchased gas adjustment clause on the company's bills, but an additional $45 million was to
be refunded as a credit on each customer's March, 1992 bill. The potential refund amounts averaged
about $35 per household and $261 per business.
In the notification letter that Public Service of Colorado sent with regard to the refund, the company asked
its consumers to donate their refund amounts to CEAF. The notification letter from the utility stated in
relevant part:
\34\ The fund could be used, in the alternative, to provide winter emergency or "crisis"
assistance to income-eligible households.
\35\ CEAF is a public/private fuel fund. In October 1988, Colorado Governor Romer took the
initiative through executive order of establishing the Commission on Low-Income Energy
Assistance, appointing 11 volunteer commissioners to "use all avenues available to and seek
new ways to raise funds for LEAP." The Commission in turn established the non-profit Colorado
Energy Assistance Foundation as a fund-raising entity.
We are very pleased to be returning this money (which includes taxes and interest) and would
like to introduce you to an agency which would appreciate a donation of all or a portion of this
refund to be used for a very worthy purpose.
The Colorado Energy Assistance Foundation (CEAF) is a non-profit agency helping the Low-
Income Energy Assistance Program (LEAP) provide funds to people who need help paying their
energy bills. CEAF's operation costs are paid entirely through corporate donations, so all private
donations go directly to the people who need help.
This is a great way to give! Just check the box on the tear-off form below, mail it in the enclosed
return envelope so that it reaches us by February 26, 1992, and your tax deductible donation will
be sent to CEAF. You have the option of donating all or a part of your refund amount.\36\
The refund program was promoted primarily through the local print \37\ and broadcast media.\38\
Moreover, more than 200 local churches were asked to solicit the donation of all or part of the PSCo
refund through their congregation's newsletters or bulletins.
In total, CEAF spent roughly $39,000 for 114 30-second television spots on local news shows, and
roughly $9,200 for eight (8) insertions into local newspapers. Total expenditures for the media/public
relations campaign reached $58,951, according to CEAF. The refund donation program recovered
$1,126,638 of the $29,657,910 refunds owed to "active" PSCo customers, or about 3.8 percent of the
total refund. The two month campaign, directed toward 466,678 total customers, resulted in 43,711
donations, averaging $25.77 per donation. Nearly one-in-ten (9.4%) of the total number of customers
eligible to receive refunds donated something through the program.
According to CEAF, the refunds were considered to be "found money" by ratepayers, thus making it
easier for them to make the requested donation. In contrast, the highest percentage of bill insert
response CEAF had received during the preceding 2.5 years was 9/10ths of 1 percent. PSCo placed
inserts into the November and February bills during 1990 and 1991. In 1991, 6,987 donations were
obtained from a total of 1,127,298 customers receiving the inserts. The bill inserts generated $285,087 in
1991. The rate refund solicitation thus generated 10 times the response that the annual winter bill insert
solicitation generates. CEAF found that it obtained a return of 16:1 on its administrative investment.
Rate Refunds In the Various States.
Given the extent to which states provide their utility regulators with authority to grant "interim" rate relief, it
is reasonable for persons interested in generating additional fuel assistance dollars to work with their
state utilities to institutionalize a program similar to the Colorado initiative to be associated with future
refunds of interim rate increases which are ultimately denied or reduced by state regulators. As with
CEAF, such refund donations could be directed to state or local fuel funds for use in winter emergency or
crisis situations.
In many states, rate increases sought by public utilities may be collected under bond subject to refund.
Under such regulatory schemes, interim rate increases are primarily permissible if state regulators find
that such an interim rate increase is necessary to prevent substantial and material deterioration of the
financial condition of the public utility or to prevent substantial deterioration of the adequacy and reliability
of service to its customers. Interim rate increases are permissible, however, only if the utility files an
"assurance" with regulators of the company's ability and willingness to refund to its customers with
interest such amounts as the company may collect from such interim rates in excess of the rates
ultimately approved by the utility commission. Most state statutes provide that regulators shall order a
refund in an amount equal to the excess, if any, of the amount collected pursuant to the interim rates over
the amount which would have been collected pursuant to the rates finally approved by regulators.
In sum, low-income fuel assistance programs should work with their states' public utilities to establish a
mechanism through which ratepayers may contribute some or all of any rate refund which they are
entitled to receive back to low-income fuel assistance. Public Service Company of Colorado, in
conjunction with the Colorado Energy Assistance Foundation, has found that ratepayers are generous in
their assistance, particularly when their contribution involves not-out-of-pocket money such as refund
checks.
UNCLAIMED DEPOSITS
Unclaimed utility deposits are a source for funds potentially available for low-income fuel assistance.
Through such an effort, rather than letting this ratepayer supplied money escheat to the state's general
fund, by using it to provide fuel assistance, those funds will be returned to benefit the class likely to have
paid them in the first place.
In Arizona, which now requires unclaimed deposits to be used as a supplemental source of LIHEAP
benefits, state officials estimate that from $400,000 to $600,000 per year will be generated. In Colorado,
which enacted a similar provision in 1990, estimates are that unclaimed residential and commercial
deposits will add $300,000 to LIHEAP coffers.\39\ Other states would generate similar amounts. A study
in North Carolina found that the four largest utilities in that state would have provided $120,000 in
additional fuel assistance funds each year.\40\ This would have provided assistance to nearly 1200
additional low-income households. A study in Connecticut found that the utilities in that state would
provide from $200,000 to $300,000 each year, with a total of nearly $700,000 available over a three year
period (1989 - 1991).\41\
It is reasonable to devote unclaimed deposits to low-income programs. Deposit refunds most often go
unclaimed when households move and leave no forwarding address; it then becomes impossible for the
utility to find these households. Those mobile households will tend to be poor. One report considered the
mobility of low-income households.\42\ According to that report, compared to the roughly twelve percent
of the total population that changed residences each year, nearly one-quarter (23 percent) of the low-
income population moved. Disproportionately represented in the "mover" households are recipients of
public assistance, minorities, and female-headed households.
The forced mobility of low-income households is in no sense a theoretical problem. A 1983 Wisconsin
study, for example, found that among its poorest payment-troubled customers, the combination of home
payments and utility bills often makes housing unaffordable.\43\ As a result, 24 percent of these
households had moved within the past year and an additional 26 percent planned to move in the next
year. Wisconsin Public Service reported that "the main reason they are moving is because they can't
afford to live where they do." In a second group of low-income payment-troubled customers, Wisconsin
Public Service found that more than one-third (36%) had lived in their current home for less than six
months. In addition, more than four of ten (42%) planned to move in the next year, citing the
unaffordability of their current housing as the reason for the move.
Moreover, a more recent study of Head Start families in Missouri found that these low-income households
were forced into a pattern of "frequent mobility" by unaffordable home energy bills.\44\ The mobility
engaged in by the 800+ households studied was not only "frequent," but was consistent over time. Of the
813 households, 259 had moved more than three times within the last five years. Moreover, while 100 of
the 259 households reported that they had not moved at all within the past 12 months, only 50 had
reported that they had not moved at all within the past 24 months; 30 percent of the frequent mover
households reported that they intended to move again within the next 12 months. The study found that
these households do not experience relatively long periods of stability marked by episodes of frequent
mobility. Their mobility is, instead, an ongoing fact-of-life.
The unaffordable home energy bills faced by these Head Start households represent a substantial cause
of the frequent mobility amongst Missouri's low-income school age children. More than two-in-five of the
frequent mover households identified by this study listed unaffordable heating bills as a "very important"
factor contributing to their most recent move; another 25 (10.8 percent) listed these bills as "somewhat
important." "As can be seen...of the frequent mover population, unaffordable energy bills played a role in
the move in more than half of the cases."
In sum, to capture funds abandoned by frequently mobile households for use as low-income home
energy assistance has a certain empirical appeal to it. To capture such funds for these uses is likely to
result merely in returning the dollars to the class of households who paid them in the first instance.
UNCLAIMED RATE REFUNDS
A program similar to the capture of unclaimed deposits would capture unclaimed utility rate refunds that
otherwise would escheat to the state. These unclaimed rate refunds would be devoted to low-income
energy assistance. As with unclaimed deposits, it would be "fair" to capture these monies for low-income
benefits, since it is likely that low-income households paid the funds in the first instance. In pursuing such
a program, it is important to remember that to do so would cost the utilities nothing: without such a use,
these unclaimed funds would simply escheat to the state.
While the capture of escheated fund for low-income weatherization would not generate "millions" of
dollars per year for low-income fuel assistance programs in any particular state, this effort alone would, in
fact, increase existing fuel assistance funds in many states by ten to twenty percent.
THE ARIZONA RATEPAYER ASSISTANCE TRUST FUND
Fuel assistance initiatives in other states do not necessarily have to succeed in order to provide important
lessons, and ideas, for use by others. Arizona's effort to capitalize a low-income energy assistance fund
is one such program. In 1992, the Arizona legislature enacted a ratepayer assistance trust fund that
would have raised from $44 to $55 million to supplement the state's LIHEAP program. Utilities, who
actively supported the legislation, were asked to agree to place into the fund a voluntary .006 percent
annual assessment for five years, after which each year's interest from the fund would have gone in
perpetuity to supplement the state LIHEAP program.
The legislation required that utilities announce their intent to participate in the voluntary program by April
30, 1993, and nearly all of the state's utilities, including smaller unregulated ones, intended to do so. The
companies saw the assessment as a reasonable way to address a serious problem while assuming they
could simply recover the cost of the assessment through a corresponding rate increase that would not
need regulatory approval.
The deal fell apart when the Arizona Corporation Commission announced that utilities would have to seek
such an increase through rate hearings, just like utilities must seek for any other request for an increase
in customer rates. Utilities were thus faced with having to announce their participation in the fund before
knowing whether, or to what extent, regulators would pass along the increased costs through increased
rates. As a result, utilities chose not to participate.
According to Arizona officials, the trust fund concept still appears to have been a reasonable mechanism
to generate additional dollars for fuel assistance. The trust fund concept may have worked, it is believed,
if there had not been a strict deadline as to utility company participation and if questions as to who should
pay for the assessment --utility customers or shareholders-- were resolved either through legislation or
through some expedited single-issue regulatory procedure.
SUMMARY
In many instances, the capture of "utility" funds does not involve an expense to the utility at all. Instead,
funds may have been generated within the utility context which no longer belongs to the utility company.
In these instances, during the transfer of these funds to other purposes, persons interested in financing
fuel assistance programs may endeavor to capture some or all of them for the benefit of low-income
households. Many times, devoting these funds to low-income purposes would, in effect, simply use the
dollars to benefit the class of customers who paid the funds in the first instance.
Moreover, while the Arizona Ratepayer Assistance Trust Fund discussed above does not fall within this
specific area, the Trust Fund does represent a fundraising tactic which, after it is fully capitalized over a
reasonably short time horizon, would not represent an ongoing expense to the utilities or to their non-
participating ratepayers. \39\ An additional amount, hard to estimate according to Colorado officials, will
be acquired from underfunded interim rate increases.
References:
\36\ The company then agreed to match all contributions generated through the refund donation program
dollar-for-dollar up to a maximum of $2.5 million.
\37\ Advertisements were placed in the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News.
\38\ Ads were placed on four local television stations.
\40\ R. Colton (1991). Poverty and Energy in North Carolina: Combining Public and Private Resources
To Solve a Public and Private
Problem, at 192.
\41\ R.Colton (1992). Fillings the Gaps: Financing Low-Income Energy Assistance in Connecticut, at
143.
\42\ R.Colton (1991). The Forced Mobility of Low-Income Households: The Indirect Impacts of Shutoffs
on Utilities and Their Customers.
\43\ Bergo and Matousek, Wisconsin Pubic Service Corporation Lifestyle Study (July 1983). More than
eight of ten of these households had incomes of less than $10,000 per year
\44\ R.Colton (1995). A Road Oft Taken: Unaffordable Home Energy Bills, Forced Mobility, and Childhood
Education in Missouri, Fisher,Sheehan & Colton, Public Finance and General Economics: Belmont, MA.
The preceding was an excerpt from: FUNDING FUEL ASSISTANCE: State and Local Strategies to Help
Pay Low-Income Home Energy Bills
Prepared By: Fisher, Sheehan & Colton Public Finance and General Economics (FSC) Belmont, MA
May 1996
Project Director: Roger D. Colton
Fisher, Sheehan & Colton
Public Finance and General Economics (FSC)
34 Warwick Road, Belmont, MA 02178
617-484-0597 *** 617-484-0594 (FAX)
rcolton101@aol.com (E-Mail)
Additional Research Assistance Provided By: Michael Sheehan, Vicki York, Madelynne Diness, and April
Mejias.
Flying Pencil Publications
Scappoose, Oregon
Attachment 03 – City of Fort Collins 2015 – 2019 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Attachment 04 – Code of Colorado Regulations section 3412-3413 (p.65-76)
http://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/GenerateRulePdf.do?ruleVersionId=5738
01-25-16
Utilities Low-Income Assistance Program
Lisa Rosintoski, Customer Connections Manager
Finance Committee Outcomes
Direction sought and questions to be answered:
1. Does the Finance Committee support the concept of an
Income-Qualified Rate as presented?
2. Are there areas of concern staff has not addressed?
2
Purpose
3
1. Low-Income
Assistance Program
evaluation
2. Data driven
recommendations
3. Implementation
strategy
4
2004
Payment
Assistance Fund
Established
2012
Medical
Assistance
Program
2014
Comprehensive
Review of Low-
Income
Assistance
2015
Implementation
Strategy of Low-
Income
Assistance
Program
2016
Implement
Low-Income
Assistance
Program
Portfolio
with Income
Qualified
Rate
Low-Income Program Evaluation
5
Conditions:
• Temporary
• Ongoing
Data
Criteria
Scenarios
Barriers:
• Location of Trust
• Convenience
• Transportation
Low-Income Program Evaluation
Our Role as a Utility
6
Efficiency
and
Conservation
Education
Rates
Funding
Administration
Efficiency and
Conservation
Education
Funding
Rates
Develop Income-
Qualified Rate
Enhance Payment
Assistance Fund
7
Low-Income Assistance
Integrated Approach
Implementation Strategy
Temporary Support:
• Enhance PAF funding through partnerships
• Enhance PAF funding through donations
• Manage due diligence for unclaimed funds
Ongoing Support:
• Rate Ordinance to implement Income-Qualified Rate
(IQR) effective Jan. 1, 2017
• Ordinance phasing out Medical Assistance Program rate
8
Data: Community Need
Data: Utility Costs
Implementation Strategy
Income-Qualified Rate
• Customers must apply for discount and meet qualifications
• Rate design objective – lower utility cost to the same % of
income for a household at AMI
• For customers at 165% of Federal Poverty Level (FPL)
• Electric - 35% discount
• Water – 45% discount
• Wastewater – 50% discount
• Calculations based on 2.5 persons / household average in Fort Collins
11
Data: Utility Costs
THANK YOU!
Lisa Rosintoski
Utilities Customer Connections Manager
Core Team
Lisa Rosintoski, Travis Paige, Pete Iengo, Megan
McDaniel, Rene Evenson, Dianne Tjalkens, Sharon
Thomas, Beth Sowder, Lance Smith, Randy
Reuscher, John Phelan, Norm Weaver, Lori Clements,
Bevia Byrne, Shawn Montoya, Tracy Brann, Nancy
James, Tina Hopkins-Dukes, Peggy Streeter, Cyril
Vidergar, Mary Evans, Matt Sheetz, Tiana Smith.
Key Stakeholders
Catholic Charities Larimer County, United Way
211,Fort Collins Housing Authority, Neighbor to
Neighbor, The Family Center/La Familia, Larimer
County Human Services, Energy Outreach Colorado,
Colorado Energy Office, and 63 additional stakeholder
organizations
Finance Committee Outcomes
Direction sought and questions to be answered:
1. Does the Finance Committee support the concept of an
Income-Qualified Rate as presented?
2. Are there areas of concern staff has not addressed?
14
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Nancy James, Finance Executive Administrative Assistant
Tiana Smith, Revenue and Project Manager
Date: January 25, 2016
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Sales Tax on Food, Property Tax/Rental and Utility Rebate Program Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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, rebates that
were created in 1972, 1975 and 1985 respectively.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
None, update to the Council Finance Committee.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
History
Property Tax Rebate
• Established in 1972 for low income senior (65 and over) residents
• Expanded in 1980 to include low income disabled residents
• Eligible property owners entitled to a refund of all City property taxes paid in the
preceding year
• Eligible renters entitled to a rebate of 1.44% of rental payments for property on which
City property taxes were paid
• The 1.44% rebate for renters was the percentage of total rent at the time that resulted in a
rebate amount equal to that of property owners which was calculated at $33.33 in 1972.
• Income eligibility level updated in 2012 to 50% of the area median income (AMI) as
reported by HUD on an annual basis
Utility Rebate
• Established in 1975 for low income senior residents
• Program applies to applicants who hold an account with the City of Fort Collins Utilities
• Amount of refund is based on average monthly residential consumption of water,
wastewater, stormwater and electric service, updated annually
• 2015 Rebate Amounts: Electricity $50.42, Water $29.73, Stormwater $15.03,
Wastewater $31.44
• Income eligibility level updated in 2012 to 50% of the area median income (AMI) as
reported by HUD on an annual basis
Sales Tax on Food Rebate
• Established in 1984 and rebate amount set at $25 per person in eligible household
• Income eligibility level updated in 2005 to 50% of the area median income (AMI) as
reported by HUD on an annual basis
• In 2005, per Council direction, staff researched and recommended changes to the income
level for the Sales Tax on Food Rebate only. The goal was to increase the number of
households that qualified.
• Rebate amount updated to $58 per person in 2015 (updated annually)
2015 Rebate Summary
Total Applications Received 1548
Total Qualified Applications Processed 1473
Average Rebate Amount $191
Total Food Tax Rebate $174,058
Total Property Tax/Rental Rebate 64,239
Total Utility Rebate 43,376
Total Rebate for 2013 $281,673
Year # of Qualified
Applicants
Total Rebate Amount Average Rebate Amount
2014 1455 $277,413 $191
2013 1303 $238,990 $183
2012 1261 $209,950 $166
2011 1126 $138,654 $123
2010 1101 $142,510 $129
Participation in the program increased 0.9% in 2015 over 2014. The City was denied access to
distribute 2,500 flyers in Poudre School District back-to-school packets, which in years past had
been done to successfully target low-income families. Staff believes that this may have
contributed to program participation remaining relatively level for 2015. However, as routine
practice, staff mails applications to all previous year participants. Of the 1,548 applications
received, 344 (22%) were identified as new applicants, which is largely reflective of the
extensive outreach and marketing efforts performed this year.
2015 Rebate Demographics
2015 Outreach
• Made information available through 2-1-1 and at United Way’s physical office
• Partnered with local agencies such as Homelessness Prevention, Volunteers of America
and Larimer Health and Human Services
• Provided on-site help at the DMA, Care Housing, Retail Ponds and The Villages low-
income housing sites throughout Fort Collins
• Provided program education to staff at Matthews House
• Application forms and posters distributed to City offices and recreation centers, Poudre
River Libraries, the Workforce Center, Larimer County Social Service offices, Rescue
Mission, Larimer County Food Bank, Elderhaus, Foothills Gateway, Murphy Center,
United Way, Education and Life Center (ELTC), Matthews House, MAX north and south
stations, local grocers, Homeless Prevention at Plymouth Church, Salud Clinic, Ft.
Collins Office on Aging, Catholic Charities, Salvation Army, PSD front offices, as well
as to several senior living apartment clubhouses
• Advertised program in Coloradoan, City News, Cable 14, and on K99 and Pirate Radio
93.5
• Advertised on fcgov.com and City’s Facebook page
• Provided applications and posters to the Villages low-income apartments
• Distributed door hanger flyers at Care Housing Units, The Villages Housing Units, and
Hickory Village Mobile Home Park
• Distributed applications to patrons in line at Larimer County Food Bank
• Applications mailed out to all applicants from the prior year
• City webpage with downloadable application in English and Spanish with new e-mail to
submit applications and back-up documentation electronically
• In 2014 City distributed over 2,500 flyers to 6 PSD schools with highest low-income
populations; also provided PSD with an electronic copy to be e-mailed to all parents
NOTE: City was denied access in 2015 to distribute flyers in back-to-school packets as
done in previous years. Poudre School District indicated that our program did not meet
their qualifying criteria.
Goals for 2016
• Continue with proven outreach strategies
• Process documentation will help knowledge transfer for new temp
• Rebate applications will be changed to be more user-friendly for applicants
• Marketing synergies with Utilities income-qualified rated program
• Plan to use MS Govern software as database for all applicants
• Continue to increase and improve partnership with non-profits to advertise the program
• Re-establish partnership with PSD
ATTACHMENTS
Power Point Presentation
2015 Rebate Program Update
1-25-2016
2
Program Overview
Property Tax / Rental Rebate:
• Established in 1972 – Rebate to senior and disabled lower income citizens
• City portion of applicant’s property tax levy OR 1.44% of rental payment for year
Utility Rebate:
• Established in 1975 – Rebate to senior and disabled lower income citizens
• Based on billing data for average monthly consumption for water, wastewater, stormwater and electric service
Electricity - $50.42, Water - $29.73, Stormwater - $15.03, Wastewater - $31.44
TOTAL: $126.62
Sales Tax on Food Rebate:
• Established in 1984 – Rebate to lower income citizens
• $58 per eligible household member – increased annually according to the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price
Index for Urban Consumers, as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
3
Program Qualifications
All Programs:
• Fort Collins Resident – prior year and up to application date
• U.S. Citizenship, or lawfully reside in the U.S.
• Current ID required for all household members 18 years of age and older
Sales Tax on Food Rebate:
• Income – 50% of Local Area Median Income per household size
Property Tax / Rental Rebate:
• 65 years of age or over, or Disabled; each meeting the income requirement
• Income – 50% of Local Area Median Income per household size
Utility Rebate:
• 65 years of age or over, or Disabled; each meeting the income requirements
• Customer of Fort Collins Utilities
• Income – 50% of Local Area Median Income per household size
Marketing and Outreach
We partnered with over 50 agencies and companies throughout the City. 4
Marketing and Outreach
5
• Provided on-site application assistance at various multi-unit
complexes:
• The Villages on Plum, Bryan & Elizabeth
• Redtail Ponds
• Care Housing
• DMA Plaza
• Northern Hotel
• Provided in-home application assistance to those with medical
issues, and shut-ins
• Distributed applications to patrons in line at Larimer County Food
Bank
• Distributed door-to-door flyers at various locations such as Care
Housing Units, The Villages Housing Units, and Hickory Village
Mobile Home Park
• Presentations given at various locations such as Matthews House
6
Marketing Opportunities for 2016
Murphy Center:
• 2015 Partnering support declined due to change in ownership transition – support should
improve in 2016
PSD:
• 2012 Partnered with PSD targeting the top low-income schools in the District
Distributed applications through their Flyer Packet
• 2013 Partnered with PSD targeting the top low-income schools in the District
Distributed applications in the first Take-Home Packet of the year
• 2014 Partnered with PSD targeting the top low-income schools in the District
Distributed 2,500 flyers in Take-Home Packet
• 2015 PSD denied City access to distribute flyers or applications in packets
Eliminated our direct access to low-income qualifying families
• 2016 – Goal is to reestablish partnership with PSD
7
Program Enhancements - 2015
Rebate E-mail Created: groceryrebates@fcgov.com
• Provided applicants a convenient avenue to submit applications and supporting
documentation.
• Applicants and staff were able to take photos of documents with their phones and submit
documents through the email, eliminating the need of a scanner, copier, FAX machine, postage
and/or physical trips to our office.
• Staff utilized the e-mail to notify applicants of missing documentation, confirm receipt of
application, etc., which also eliminated paper usage and postage, and/or time spent on the
phone trying to reach applicants.
• 64 applications received via email for 2015
Program Improvements - 2015
Improved Customer Service:
• Improved overall communication to applicants, and application assistance
• Improved follow-up with all applicants
8
RESULTS: 2014 2015
Incomplete Applications Received 225 – (15%) 71 – (5%)
(A 10% decline from applications received
each year)
Applications Incomplete at End of
Program
18 0
Duplicate Applications Received 22 10
2015 Rebate Summary
9
Total Applications Received (344 New Applicants – 22%) 1,548
Total Qualified Applications Processed 1,473
Average Rebate Per Application $191
Total Food Tax Rebate $174,058
Total Property Tax/Rent $ 64,239
Total Utility Rebate $ 43,376
Total Rebate For 2015 $281,673
Year # Qualified Applicants Total Rebate Amt Average Rebate Amt
2014 1455 $277,413 $191
2013 1303 $238,990 $183
2012 1261 $209,950 $166
Continuous Improvement
What we did better in 2015:
• Same employee processing applications in 2015 as 2014
Better relationships between staff and applicants
Decreased fraud with greater attention to detail by staff
• Cross-training - multiple staff able to help rebate applicants
• Cost savings by using email instead of letters to receive rebate information
• Process documentation to ease training and transition
What we’ll do better in 2016:
• Process documentation will help knowledge transfer for new temp
• Rebate applications will be changed to be more user-friendly for applicants
• Marketing synergies with Utilities income-qualified rated program
• Plan to use MS Govern software as database for all applicants
10
Questions/Comments
11
Audit may not be possible if owner does not allow.
However, could pursue other options such as, light
Walk Thru Audits bulbs, toilets, shower nozzles, etc.
A component of both levels of assistance is a combination of audits and conservation
education. The need for education in resource conservation/efficiency was a recurring theme in
focus group discussions and the timing with receiving assistance seems optimal for providing
this education.