HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Mail Packet - 5/31/2016 - Council Finance Committee And Ura Finance Committee Agenda - June 1, 2016Council Finance Committee & URA Finance Committee
Agenda Planning Calendar 2016
RVSD 05/23 mnb
June 1 TOPIC TIME WHO
CFC
Resourcing Police Services in a Growing Community 45 min Chief Hutto
J. Schiager
Downtown Parking 30 min K. Ravenschlag
S. Lorson
Wastewater Bond Refinancing 15 min J. Voss
2015 Year End Fund Balances 30 min T. Storin
URA
June 20
Utility Long Term Financial Plans – Rates and Debt Alternatives for CIPs 30 min L. Smith
Hourly Positions to Classified 25 min J. Miller
Airport Strategic Plan Funding 20 min J. Licon
Street Oversizing Fees 25 min D. Klingner
Capital Expansion Fee Update 20 min T. Smith
URA
July 18
2015 Audit Review 20 min K. Smith
Benefits - Historical Forecast Accuracy & Possible Plan Changes 30 min K. Hess
T. Storin
Colorado Care Ballot Initiative 30 min R. Shannon
Career Progression & Compensation 30 min J. Heckman
URA
Aug 15
2015 Year End Financial Summary 30 min T. Storin
URA
Future Council Finance Committee Topics:
Parking Garage Financing
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
June 1, 2016
7:00 - 9:00 am
CIC Room – City Hall
Approval of the Minutes from the May 16, 2016 meeting
1. Resourcing Police Services in a Growing Community 45 minutes Chief Hutto
J. Schiager
2. Downtown Parking 30 minutes K. Ravenschlag
S. Lorson
3. Wastewater Bond Refinancing 15 minutes J. Voss
4. 2015 Year End Fund Balances 30 minutes T. Storin
UOTHER BUSINESS
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
05/16/16
9:30 – 11:30 a.m.
CIC Room
Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Gerry Horak, Ross Cunniff
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Tyler Marr, Mike Beckstead, John Duvall, Tiana Smith, Peggy
Streeter, Blaine Dunn, Travis Storin, Noelle Currell, Victoria Shaw, Claire Turney,
Andres Gavaldon, John Voss, Lawrence Pollack, Jacqueline Theil, Tim Kemp,
Dean Klingner, Jerry Schiager, Josh Birks, Rick Richter, Carolyn Koontz
Others:
Kevin Jones, Chamber of Commerce, Cheryl Olson and Peggy Reeves, Co-Chairs
for People for a Healthier Larimer County, Dale Adamy, Citizen, Carol Plock,
Executive Director Health District of Northern Larimer County, Laurie Stolen,
Director, Alternative Sentencing Department, Criminal Justice Services, Larimer
County, Lisa Hatchadoorian, Fort Collins Museum of Art
Ann Turnquist, Museum of Discovery, Kip Baker, Committee Member
Meeting started at 9:39 am
UAPPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ross Cunniff made a motion to approve the April 18, 2016 Council Finance Committee minutes.
Mayor Wade Troxell made a second to the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously.
A. UMental Health & Substance Use
Carol Plock, Executive Director Health District of Northern Larimer County
Laurie Stolen, Director, Alternative Sentencing Department, Criminal Justice Services, Larimer
County
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Community Mental Health and Substance Abuse Partnership of Larimer County recently
commissioned a study to quantify the gaps in treatment for mental health and substance use disorders
locally. The study identified major gaps in critical behavioral health services, offering
recommendations in what services are most needed, at what levels, and for what cost. Because these
2
gaps have a significant impact on local citizens and their families, government, health, and social
services, this is an educational presentation to share the findings.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED As an educational
presentation, presenters are interested in the Committee’s reaction and questions, as well as thoughts
about the potential of the City to eventually endorse the concept of expansion of critical mental health
and substance use disorder services locally
Carol Plock stated we don’t have the tools we need to address substance use and mental health. We
are missing critical services. This initiative is in the county’s strategic plan and they are poised to take
the next steps. The intention is to build a mid county campus (20-30 acres) with an integrated level of
care to link the whole continuum of services and reduce the barriers for the public to access the
services they need. Citizens Committee will take a resolution to the commission on August 2P
nd
P and
request they add this to the 2016 ballots. Citizens group would be asking for a 25 year sales tax at .25%
Ross Cunniff commented that ownership is still being discussed. What are the options?
Carol Plock responded; County would own the facility and sales tax would be used to contract out for
services.
Ross Cunniff commented that an assessment of the impacts on city operations would be useful
background data.
Mayor Wade Troxell commented; it sounds like you are in a bit of a silo. Is this integrated?
Carol Plock responded they have met several times with the Homeward 2020 Board as well as the Fort
Collins Business Assn. This would be a public facility and referrals would be open to anyone in the
community. Our goal is exactly the opposite of a silo.
Gerry Horak commented; I can easily support this. If we are going to spend .25 on something this
seems to be more of a community need rather than a want. We need to develop some numbers for
our citizens to illustrate what a difference we think it will make. They have done their homework.
Darin Atteberry commented. It would be good to give a similar presentation to LRC (Legislative Review
Committee) and get their agreement. This topic would be on the agenda for a Council Work Session
later in the summer once the county commissioners place it on the ballot.
Ross Cunniff responded that if we do a Council Work Session then we don’t need LRC.
Carol Plock offered that if the city staff wants to meet with the county and crunch numbers together
they would be happy to do that. This will provide a constellation of services not just one service.
Projections are going to be broad and are not going to be perfect. Need good baselines, outcome
measures.
3
Jerry Schiager, Police Services commented; we have a lot of data on how many mental health calls we
go on. Our choices now are not to arrest the individual or to take them to jail or to a detention facility.
These options are not very productive.
Darin Atteberry commented; I wasn’t originally aware of all of the integration and collaboration that
has taken place. We have been talking about this issue for 15 years. Appreciate the work that has been
done.
Follow up items; Mike Beckstead and Jackie will coordinate
1) Meet internally and determine impact on city services
2) Quantify impacts to the degree possible
B. UScience & Cultural Facilities District
Lisa Hatchadoorian, Fort Collins Museum of Art
Ann Turnquist, Museum of Discovery
Kip Baker, Committee member
Proposed Science and Cultural Facilities District ballot measure, November 2016
A citizen committee has been working for the past year to develop a proposal to place a sales and use
tax measure on the November 2016 ballot to create a Science and Cultural Facilities District in Larimer
County. The tax measure would be for a 1/10P
th
P cent tax for ten years.
Several portions of the City of Fort Collins would benefit from funding through Larimer SCFD, including
Gardens on Spring Creek, Lincoln Center, and the Museum of Discovery. Under the proposed formula
for distribution of funds from the SCFD, funding recipients could receive up to an additional 20-25% of
their operating budget
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Finance Committee briefing.
SCFD is a statue exclusive to Colorado. On May 13th the county approved the ballot language.
Next step is petition signatures. In a 2012 study that was conducted by the National Endowment for
the Arts (NEA) Colorado ranked #1 in arts participation. 52% of adults in Colorado participate in arts
during the year. Nationally the figure is 37%. 110 non-profits orgs have been targeted to be included in
the district. Range of budgets is $15k to $3m. Cost is approximately $20 per person per year. Denver
SCFC experienced increased economic activity of 6%. Multiplier effect. Economic impact includes an
additional $24 spent per person attending an art event on items such as meals /parking /child care
/merchandise.
Ross Cunniff commented that it sounded like each of the 110 orgs. would get the same percentage.
How do you determine the percentage on operating revenue? Who would be on the board?
4
Lisa Hatchadorian responded that the Denver District was created in 1988 and spans 7 counties. It has
been renewed twice. They have experienced a tremendous amount of growth. They have reached
14m people with attendance and created 10k jobs and a 17% increase in visitors from outside of
Colorado. Denver has a board - made up of local officials and arts members. They will get an answer
as to how board is created and who appoints and circle back with CFC.
Gerry Horak commented that this is a status quo model. If you exist currently and you have been in
business for 5 years as long as you stay in business you are guaranteed the funding.
If you are new, you get nothing unless you partner with one of the existing organizations.
Lisa Hatchadorian responded that this is standard in the funding of the arts. Model from Denver wasn’t
really intended to create startup money but to create sustainability money. It was designed to sustain
and grow.
Ross Cunniff asked what state law mandates. Do we have options?
Lisa Hatchadorian responded that they will get this information and circle back with CFC.
Ross Cunniff commented that the funds are not to be used for debt service or capital. Are you going to
require any proof that their operating budget increased by a certain percentage? What is the
oversight?
Lisa Hatchadorian responded that Denver has a paid staff for oversight which is funded by 7% of tax.
Mike Beckstead commented that there is still a petition process before this truly becomes real.
Lisa Hatchadorian added that the effort on the petition was led by Open Stage. Petition language was
just accepted. They could take it to ballot but they will not as there is not a champion. This is the
reason for a petition. The goal is to pass petitions until the middle of July to give enough time to
correct if there is a shortfall. We have to be certified as having enough signatures by first week in
August that we have enough signatures. If petition signatures are adequate and certified we should
put this on the August Finance committee agenda.
Gerry Horak commented that we also need feedback on the logistics on the board appointments.
C. URevenue Diversification Recommendations - Tiana Smith
Tiana Smith - Revenue and Project Manager
Peggy Streeter - Senior Sales Tax Auditor
Blaine Dunn - Senior Sales Tax Auditor
The purpose of this item is to provide an update to the Council Finance Committee of the ongoing
Revenue Diversification project and the research done on the 3 alternatives staff was directed to
pursue in November of 2015. Since 2012, staff has continued to analyze and consider various facets of
5
diversification which have been presented to City Council in phases. This item summarizes the research
done on a tax on services, a transportation utility fee, an occupation tax or fee and the impact on
reducing Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG) funding these alternatives would have.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Of the 3 alternatives presented, which alternative(s) should be pursued?
The City receives 51%-54% of its revenue from sales and use tax. Sales and use tax can be a volatile
source or revenue during times of economic downturn. How to strike a balance of adequate revenue
to fund current levels of service without an overreliance on sales and use tax is an ongoing issue.
1) Tax on Services (consumer spending is shifting from goods to services)
Mike Beckstead - One of our challenges has been that good source data is virtually non-existent. Sales
from these types of services are typically not reported. It is not collected as we don’t tax it.
Tiana Smith added that based on a select group of services, our best estimate is $4.2M could be
generated which would reduce KFCG down to 0.70%. We reached out to peer cities to see what
services they taxed. These were in place before TABOR was approved.
2) Transportation Utility Fee (TUF) - based on trip generation / number of trips
Mike Beckstead commented: We built this model assuming we wanted $10m in revenue.
This is totally scalable based on the revenue goals. Residential equates to $50 and would be collected
via utility. If we exempt churches / schools / government it could go down to $8.6
Ross Cunniff added that for the exemptions we would rebate or not collect.
Darin Atteberry commented that traffic is modeled. Trip generation data is very reliable and the model
is used in traffic reports. This data is solid and is heavily relied upon.
Darin Atteberry asked about the differentiation from single family / multi family, definition of living
unit.
Peggy Streeter responded: An apartment is considered a unit.
Rick Richter added that the fee would increase based on square footage.
Darin Atteberry commented: Assumptions need to be policy discussions. Do we want to consider
multi family?
Ross Cunniff added that we need to model some amount of rebates for low income residents.
3) Occupation Tax or Fee
If a tax, it would require voter approval. Can more broadly be imposed on a larger number of tax
payers. If a fee, it would only be imposed on those likely to benefit from the service.
6
99,750 employees would generate $10m (PSD and CSU - 2 largest populations)
Could be paid by employee / employer or shared. Aurora and Denver currently have this type of tax
Would take KFCG down to 0.53%
Gerry Horak commented that we would be hard pressed not to ask voters for approval for a fee.
John Duvall added that it might make more sense to do it as a tax.
Gerry Horak - Big difference in logic - if you are increasing or if you are trying to replace an existing tax
Are there other cities that have successfully done this? Replacing one tax with another - what has been
done? Who has done this? What kind of model do they look at?
Darin Atteberry to Mike Beckstead - You may want to talk with our auditor. (macro view / bigger
reach) Maybe GFOA as a possible starting point (states where cities are more dependent on sales tax).
ICMA financial folks as a resource, do some R&D.
Gerry Horak commented - Discussion is about replacing the KFCG tax
A lot of those services have a specific NAICS code
Is there some employment data that will show us the various NAICS codes?
If it is a service company - they don’t report that piece of revenue.
What services currently pay sales tax?
Ross Cunniff mentioned plumbing, car repair and electronic services.
Tania said the material side of these services is already taxable.
Gerry Horak commented that we could have 2 ballot issues go;
1) Continue KFCG as is
2) Impose some form of an option above with a reduced KFCG
Ross Cunniff commented that outreach will be important
On Transportation versus Employment tax - which one seems to have less pain for employers?
Which would have less impact on those on lower end of income scale?
Initial look gives us something concrete to start look at - keep exploring portfolio of options
Reducing KFCG or to zero - try to diversify - $26M in sales tax
Gerry Horak added some comments regarding community outreach;
1) Needs to be very well thought out
2) Jeff or Mike or a Council member should be at the table
3) Revenue Diversification - not changing the amount of taxes collected
4) First feedback Are you interested? Does this make sense? If this something you care about?
Here are the ideas we are thinking about.
Darin Atteberry added; I agree, go out and get the feedback. The issue is revenue diversification.
We want to provide forethought and options and get the community to weigh in on those options.
7
I appreciate the work that has gone into this. Because of this work, we can now go in and have that
conversation. We could bring folks in, invite them to the table. We know that this tax expires in 2020.
We don’t want to wait until the last year. We want to start talking through these options in greater
detail.
Mike Beckstead offered a recap of the conversation;
• We are going to continue to work on quantifying the service piece
• Residence rebates for low income - keep that in focus
• Find out what other cities have done regarding diversification
• We will go ahead and start with the engagement focused on a revenue neutral discussion
asking for input as outlined in Gerry’s comments above.
D. UVine / Lemay / BNSF Project - Tim Kemp / Dean Klingner
Tim Kemp, Civil Engineer III
Dean Klingner, Manager of CAP Projects/ City Engineer
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Lemay Avenue realignment from Lincoln Avenue to Conifer Street; including the new intersection of
Lemay Avenue and Suniga Road, and a grade separated crossing of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe
(BNSF) Railway.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to present and discuss potential construction funding scenarios for this high
priority transportation capital improvement project. Staff is currently working on the preliminary
design, right-of-way acquisition, grade separation analysis, and public outreach. The expected
construction cost range is $23m - $27m.
Our current funding partners are: BNSF, the City’s Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (Street
Oversizing), and Developer contributions for Local Street obligations; which totals approximately $9 M
in anticipated funding for the project. Using the high-end range of $27 M, the current project shortfall
is $14 M - $18 M.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Staff is seeking direction regarding potential funding sources to be included, or excluded, from the
Construction Financing Plan. The Construction Financing Plan will be developed over the next several
months and brought for further discussion at the August 23 Council Work Session.
Potential funding sources for the $14 M - $18 M funding gap are as follow:
• Budget Process Opportunities
o Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) and Mid-Budget Funding Processes
o $2M BFO has been submitted for the 2017 / 2018 budget cycle
o One Time Funds
• Evaluation of Federal Grants (Odds and Likelihood)
8
• New Taxes and Expanded Use of Fees / Reserves
o Expansion of Street Oversizing Fee
o Reserves to “front” Local Street obligations
o New Sales tax options
5 year ¼ cent or Dedicated, Sun Setting 1/10 Cent
o Special Improvement District
o “Trip Shed” Fee
Goal is to get feedback on options so we can prepare for Council Work Session on 8/23. Today’s
discussion is in regard to finding construction funding.
Darin Atteberry asked; What is the total spend to date?
Tim Kemp responded; $1m in 2015-16 budget which is being used to move the design forward and on
the acquisition of the right of way.
Mayor Wade Troxell
• In support of a toll fee option
• Bond some portion of the costs and collect the fee over time
• If this works well, could be a repeatable model for Timberline and Vine
Ross Cunniff
• Mentioned SID, drawbacks are required election and range of district
• In support of a toll fee option, “what if people drove out of their way to avoid the fee?”
• Combination of tax and toll
Gerry Horak
• Do other communities use a toll system?
• Toll would be a “fair” model
• Show results like City uses to show Halligan model
• Show the flow of money for this project, go back to 1980’s
Committee is support of the toll option, offset with other funding sources (BFO, one-time, etc.).
UOTHER BUSINESS:U
URA Board - Josh Birks, Economic Health Direction
Darin Atteberry asked; What members have already been identified?
John Birks responded that the only eligible entity that is identified is the school district.
Darin Atteberry asked Josh if he sees any mixed messages with that or has any concerns?
Josh Birks responded that there are 14 eligible entities in the district, some of which might not want to
follow. We might recommend that we give them a chance to opt out.
Gerry Horak suggested this could be done by sending them a letter with a link to respond.
9
Darin Atteberry asked about the next steps;
Option 1: Do we add to the size of the board now and continue on the path we were on or wait until
the legislation is signed (it is with the Governor for signature). If this signs, I would assume we will get
some kind of analysis.
Josh Birks said that we will prepare an overview of what has changed once it get signature..
Darin Atteberry comment: Let’s proactively share information and let PSD know that we are not going
to have a formation in 3 weeks but just keep them updated.
Meeting Adjourned at 11:45 am
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Chief John Hutto, Jerry Schiager, Craig Horton
Date: June 1, 2016
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION (a short title)
Resourcing Police Services in a Growing Community
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (a brief paragraph or two that succinctly summarizes important
points that are covered in more detail in the body of the AIS.)
This is a presentation and discussion about staffing Police Services for the future. We will
answer the basic question, “How many officers will we need as the community grows?” Police
Services has been working on a data-driven staffing analysis project for over two years. As part
of this project, the needed number of police officers is identified, and efficiencies in deployment
and scheduling have been achieved. In addition to presenting a durable methodology for staffing
Police Services, information about the impacts of future annexations and revenue source changes
will be explained.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
(Work session questions should be designed to gather direction from Council without requiring
Councilmembers to make a decision.)
Does Council support the methodologies presented for determining the appropriate staffing
levels for Police Services?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION (details of item – History, current policy, previous Council
actions, alternatives or options, costs or benefits, considerations leading to staff conclusions, data
and statistics, next steps, etc.)
Beginning in 2013 Police Services staff has been working with a consultant to learn best
practices in police resource allocation. This analysis project is intended to answer three important
questions:
1. How many police officers does the community need to provide patrol response?
2. Is the department’s deployment strategy efficient and effective in providing service?
3. Are officers scheduled efficiently to align staffing with the work load?
Based on this project, Police Services staff is pleased to bring forward this presentation about
resourcing the department in this growing community. Fort Collins is growing at a very rapid
rate. Along with that comes growth in the demand for police services. Not only do police officers
need to respond to citizen calls for service, this community has a high expectation for proactive
work such as traffic enforcement, foot and bicycle patrols and visibility in neighborhoods. In
order to meet these expectations, sufficient capacity must be built into the Patrol schedule. It is
estimated that, depending on the actual rate of growth, at least six police officers and the
proportionate civilian support staff will need to be added each year to maintain the level of
service expected by this community.
In addition to this incremental annual growth, there are two significant challenges on the horizon.
The eventual annexation of the East Mulberry corridor and the sunsetting Keep Fort Collins
Great tax revenue will have huge impacts on Police Services. These two concerning events could
potentially happen in the same timeframe while the department is trying to keep up with general
community growth. This will require careful planning because the time required to hire and train
police officers is at least one year from the time the vacancy is identified and there is a limit to
the number of officers that can be trained in one year.
We are looking forward to having this discussion with the Council Finance Committee. Financial
planning to prepare for the growing needs in the area of public safety will be essential in the
coming years.
ATTACHMENTS (numbered Attachment 1, 2, 3,…)
Attachment 1: PowerPoint Presentation in pdf format
1
Resourcing Police Services
in a Growing Community
Council Finance Committee
June 1, 2016
2
Today’s Discussion
• How to determine the number of officers needed
• Data-driven staffing analysis
– Improved efficiencies in deployment
– Improved efficiencies in scheduling
• Plan for growth and identify some major challenges
3
How do we know how many police
officers we need?
• “We are really busy. We need more cops.”
• Citizen perceptions of police service through
surveys and comments.
• Benchmarking with other agencies to determine
how many officers our community needs.
• Data-driven analysis of call load as it develops
over real time.
4
Citizen Perceptions
5
Citizen Perceptions
6
Benchmark Comparisons Have
Limited Value
*Benchmark City Survey – 2015 Data
7
Data-Driven Staffing Analysis
8
Data-Driven Staffing Analysis
• Data-driven analysis of staffing based on
workload generated by citizens.
• Using available data in Computer Aided Dispatch
system that is accurate and constantly updated.
• Determine the number of officers needed to meet
the workload and provide for proactive
enforcement.
• Ability to predict future staffing needs based on
trend analysis.
9
Data-Driven Staffing Analysis
2014 Resource Allocation Study Project Goals
• Learn how to better utilize public resources.
• Do we have enough police officers?
• Evaluate efficiency of deployment in patrol areas.
• Evaluate schedule efficiency.
• Improve data collection methods.
• Develop durable methodology to plan for the
future staffing needs in Police Patrol.
10
Data-Driven Staffing Analysis
This Data-Driven Staffing Analysis only applies to
the Patrol Division responding officers:
• 86 Police Officers
• 8 Community Service Officers
• 10 Sergeants
• 4 Lieutenants
It does not include Patrol special units (NET, D1,
SRO, Traffic), Criminal investigations Division,
Dispatch, Records or Administration.
11
Appropriate Staffing Levels
Two variables used to determine staffing
A. Reactive workload of the Patrol Division
• Patrol activity from 2010-2015 CAD data
– Frequency of calls
– Average time per call
• Administrative time per shift
B. Officer availability for routine patrol, traffic
enforcement, directed patrols and other proactive
activities.
12
Appropriate Staffing Levels
Reactive: MR
• Crimes in progress
• Criminal reports
• Service requests
• Extra patrols
• Traffic collisions
• Party enforcement
• Required admin duties
Proactive: MP
• Directed Patrols
• Neighborhood
Patrols
• Foot/Bike patrols
• Pedestrian contacts
• Traffic enforcement
• Bike enforcement
13
Appropriate Staffing Levels
• Recommended target
value is 30/30*
• MR + MP = 60 minutes
• Subjective decision
*Recommendation of Northwestern
University Center for Public Safety
and the International Association of
Chiefs of Police
Proactive
30 mins
Reactive
30 mins
Average Patrol Hour
14
Appropriate Staffing Levels
• Determine the reactive workload per hour (MR).
• Determine the minimum number of officers needed
to meet the reactive workload.
• Factor 30/30 balance of MR and MP.
• Factor in vacation, sick leave, training time etc.
• Determine staffing needed to accomplish the
mission
15
Appropriate Staffing Levels
• The outcome of the 2014 analysis concluded
there were sufficient patrol officers to accomplish
the workload.
– MR 30 in 2014 = 81 Officers
– MR 30 in 2015 = 85 Officers
• The analysis further concluded that improvements
in deployment and scheduling would better utilize
the existing personnel.
16
Deployment Efficiency
17
Deployment Efficiency
• Are patrol areas effective and efficient for service
delivery?
• Is the workload equal between areas?
• Is the area plan conducive to:
– Future deployment options?
– Future growth through infill and annexations?
– Community policing activities?
• Neighborhood cohesiveness
• Distribute high call areas
18
Deployment Efficiency
Original Reporting Areas
Reporting Area Workload %
Area 1 20.02%
Area 2 18.03%
Area 3 10.91%
Area 4 15.01%
Area 5 9.65%
Area 6 16.97%
Area 7 9.42%
19
Deployment Efficiency
New Patrol Areas
Reporting Area Workload %
Area 1 10.28%
Area 2 9.94%
Area 3 11.18%
Area 4 10.57%
Area 5 8.89%
Area 6 9.51%
Area 7 9.92%
Area 8 9.64%
Area 9 10.87%
Area 10 9.19%
20
Deployment Efficiency
• Equalized workload in
patrol areas
• Stand alone downtown
district D1
• Campus West smaller and
more campus focused
• Capacity for growth in
northeast area
• Multiple options for
deployment by supervisors
21
Schedule Efficiency
22
Schedule Efficiency
Workload is distributed
evenly across the days of the
week.
Sun
13.16%
Mon
13.05%
Tue
13.46%
Wed
14.32%
Thu
14.54%
Fri
16.07%
Sat
15.39%
Reactive Workload
23
Schedule Efficiency
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Average Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
Percentage of Reactive Workload by Hour and Day
24
Schedule Efficiency
Initial Schedule Efficiency: 68.51%
0:00 3:00 6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 0:00
Workload Staffing
25
Schedule Efficiency
• Existing schedule of 4/10 hour shifts in a 7-day
week creates overlaps in staffing.
• Maintaining a minimum of 8 hours of training each
month is a priority for our department, but it
complicates scheduling.
• Police contract requires the payment of overtime
for hours over 40 per week, which limits the
schedule options.
26
Schedule Efficiency
Schedule Priorities
• Service delivery
• Training time
• Work-life balance
• Schedule consistency and predictability
• Continuity of supervision and team
• Fatigue factors
• Reduce Overtime
27
Schedule Efficiency
New Schedule Efficiency Potential: 77.45%
0:00 3:00 6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 0:00
Workload Staffing
28
Schedule Efficiency
Schedule change outcomes:
• Better aligned the workers to the work.
• Increased schedule efficiency by about 8%.
• Added 80 hours ($45,000) per week of police time
where it was needed in the schedule (5-7 officers).
• Transferred one officer from Patrol to the Training
Unit to reduce overtime for instruction.
• Data-driven minimum staffing levels.
• Decreased patrol staffing overtime by 17%.
29
Planning for the Future
30
Planning for the Future
31
Planning for the Future
*Current staffing is 86 officers
32
Planning for the Future
*Benchmark City Survey – 2015 Data
33
*Average population growth (City of Fort Collins only; 10-yr. average): 1.85%
GMA Population Capacity (historic development densities) 236,384
GMA Population Capacity (high development densities) 255,247
GMA Population Buildout Scenarios (Year):
Scenario
1% Avg. Annual
Population Growth
2% Avg. Annual
Population Growth
3% Avg. Annual
Population Growth
Historic Dev. Density
2040+ 2031 2025
Maximum Dev. Density
2040+ 2036 2028
Planning for the Future
34
Planning for the Future
35
Planning for the Future
• Adding police officers each year requires proportional
increases civilian support staff such as Dispatch,
Records, Property & Evidence and Administration.
• Recruiting, hiring and training a police officer takes 12-
18 months from the time the vacancy is identified.
• Taking normal attrition into account, we only have the
capacity to hire and train about 12 additional officers
per year.
36
Planning for the Future
The data-driven staffing analysis addresses
these types of incremental growth:
– Greenfield development
– Infill development
– Redevelopment
The staffing study is updated at two-year intervals to
prepare for the budget process. The projections are
adjusted based on the actual numbers.
37
Planning for the Future
The data-driven staffing analysis does NOT
address:
• East Mulberry Annexation
– Approximately 20% increase in reactive
workload the day it is annexed.
– Requires 20-30 Police Services employees.
– Hiring these police employees should begin
about three years prior to annexation.
38
Planning for the Future
Keep Fort Collins Great sunsets in 2020
– $4.6 Million of Police Services budget in 2015
– 12% of Police Services budget in 2015
– 40 Police Services employees
15 Police Officers
7 Detectives
3 Sergeants
1 Lieutenant
5 Investigative Aides
5 Dispatchers
1 Records Technician
2 Property and Evidence
1 Crime Analyst
39
Conclusion
Two different approaches to predicting the number of
police resources needed to maintain acceptable
service levels arrive at the same conclusion.
Beginning in 2017, it will be necessary to add at least
6 police officers and the proportional civilian support
staff each year to keep up with anticipated growth.
There are significant challenges on the horizon for
police staffing that we need to plan for.
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Seth Lorson, City Planner
Kurt Ravenschlag, Parking Services Manager
Date: June 1, 2016
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Parking recommendations from the Downtown Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City investment is needed in order to implement the parking recommendations from the
Downtown Plan. Staff is requesting an appropriation to invest in a parking data-collection
system. The requested appropriation would come from the funds already assigned in the general
fund budget balance from the 2015-16 budget for an on-street paid parking pilot. Also, staff is
anticipating submitting a 2017-18 budget offer to invest in on-street paid parking technology.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does the Committee support the implementation of a parking data-collection system in
Downtown?
Does the Committee support the implementation of an on-street paid parking system in
Downtown?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
During the 2015-16 BFO process Parking Services proposed to pilot an on-street paid parking
program. At that time, City Council’s perspective was that additional public outreach was
necessary so funding was limited to a community dialogue aimed at exploring the merits of
various parking management strategies.
Planning Services began updating the Downtown Plan in 2015 which supported the Downtown
Parking Community Dialogue. The Downtown Plan public engagement effort has included
thousands of people through numerous engagement methods such as open houses, focus groups,
public events, workshops, charrettes, boards and commissions, community groups, and online
and text message questionnaires. Collaborating with the Downtown Business Association
(DBA), some parking-specific outreach has been targeted at downtown business and property
owners.
The community dialogue has focused on strategies to achieve the following objectives as
identified in the early phases of the Downtown Plan and the 2013 Parking Plan:
• Increase the availability, ease of access to, and turnover of, on-street parking;
• Develop a parking management system that is supportive of businesses, neighborhoods,
and visitors;
• Provide and communicate a variety of options for parking and for traveling to and around
Downtown;
• Encourage the use of alternate modes of transportation to reduce parking demand; and
• Identify a sustainable funding source for future access and transportation infrastructure
investment.
Staff has presented materials providing many case studies, strategies and options for achieving
the above objectives (attached). Generally, the options have been focused on how best to manage
on-street and garage parking facilities, and additional strategies to complement these resources.
Although opinions are divided, the process has been gaining informed consent to make the
changes necessary to more effectively manage current parking assets and plan for future parking
infrastructure.
Recommendations
1. Implement an on-street paid parking program;
2. Implement a system to collect parking utilization data;
3. Adjust enforcement:
i. Explore expanding enforcement to weekends and evenings after 5 p.m.;
ii. Limit 2-hour parking to an specific zone;
4. Create a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program;
1. On-Street Paid Parking Program
Parking Management
Presently, on-street public parking is limited to two hours, Monday through Saturday 8 a.m. – 6
p.m. The public garages cost $1 per hour, with the first hour free. Being that the free on-street
parking offers the most convenient and desirable spaces, the pricing system has been called
“upside-down” which causes “garage avoidance” and trolling for available spaces creating
congestion and increased exhaust emissions. Also, we’ve learned that many downtown
employees are “gaming the system” by moving their vehicles every two hours to a different
block face, thus parking on-street all day long. The two-hour time limit also reduces flexibility
for customers and visitors who want to stay longer.
Funding Public Parking
The 2013 Parking Plan states that “the City’s parking program will be self-funded.” And, “a
parking enterprise or revenue fund will be used to account for all financial aspects of the parking
program including, but not limited to, daily operations, maintenance, new parking infrastructure,
neighborhood programs, and parking demand reduction initiatives.” Currently, the parking
enterprise fund is only covering daily operations. New infrastructure, as evidenced by the
Downtown Hotel Parking Garage public-private partnership, has been required to find other
funding sources such as the City’s general fund. The Parking Plan identifies a need of up to an
additional 1,510 public parking spaces by 2021 for which there is currently not a sustainable
funding source.
Recommendation
The recommended on-street paid parking system would effectively manage parking resources
and create a revenue source to invest in needed infrastructure and programs. An on-street paid
parking program encourages people to park in the most appropriate locations based on the length
of their stay. If they are planning to stay for the entire day, it would be more cost effective to
park in the parking garages which would also create availability of on-street spaces for those
planning a short visit.
A theoretical financial model indicates that the revenue generated from an on-street paid parking
program is adequate to service bonds to pay for all 5 remaining parking structures (attached).
Additionally, it shows that surplus revenue would be generated that could be used to fund a more
comprehensive transportation management program.
2. System to Collect Parking Utilization Data
Currently, the collection of parking data is done by hand. This means that it provides point-in-
time occupancy data that does not indicate how long a vehicle has been parked nor when it
leaves. The recommendation is to invest in technology to collect parking utilization data. For
each parking space, the technology would indicate when a vehicle arrives, how long it stays, and
when it leaves. This information will provide a much better understanding of parking behavior
downtown and help with the implementation of on-street paid parking in terms of where the
greater turnover is needed, when and where an expanded phase should begin, and inform
variable rates based on demand. Additionally, staff is exploring technology that would inform
the public where parking is available in real time. Staff proposes to implement this technology
approximately a year before the on-street paid parking system.
Preliminary research suggests the first phase of data collection would be for approximately 1,500
parking spaces. Most technologies on the market are sensors that are installed into each parking
space. We estimate approximately $500,000 to implement the first phase. An appropriation
would be requested from the funds already assigned in the general fund budget balance from the
2015-16 budget request for an on-street paid parking pilot.
3. Adjust Enforcement
The most challenging times to find available on-street parking are when the 2-hour parking limit
is not being enforced (i.e. after 6 p.m. and weekends). During these times people stay for
extended amounts of time which doesn’t allow sufficient turnover; most likely, downtown
employees working evening or weekend shifts. As noted above, many downtown employees are
“gaming the system” by moving their vehicles every two hours to a different block face, thus
parking on-street all day long. The recommendation to expand 2-hour enforcement is to
encourage more turn-over during noted times. The creation of a 2-hour zone (in the downtown
core) would allow people to park in the zone for two hours then they must move out of the zone
as opposed to moving to another block face. The proposed adjustment in enforcement is to
address these phenomena, in the short term, until on-street paid parking is implemented and
supersedes these interim changes.
4. Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Many ideas came up during the parking dialogue that would reduce parking demand, such as
encouraging alternative modes of transportation, providing transit passes, providing parking
passes for garages, etc. A TDM program could coordinate with downtown employers to reduce
the amount of single-occupancy vehicles coming to downtown. FC Moves currently has a 2017 -
2018 budget offer submitted for a TDM program.
Implementation Timeline
ASAP: Adjust Enforcement, Create TDM Program
Boards and Commissions Recommendations
The following City Boards were asked to provide recommendations based on the information
provided above:
Parking Advisory Board voted to recommend an alternative strategy for parking in Downtown.
It varies from the Downtown Plan’s recommendation in that it recommends an on-street paid
parking pilot program to accompany the data-collection system and then use this data to
determine IF the City should permanently implement the paid parking program. (Memo
attached.)
Planning and Zoning Board voted to recommend an alternative strategy for parking in
Downtown. It varies from the Downtown Plan’s recommendation in that it recommends
collecting data with the proposed data-collection system and then use this data to determine IF
the City should permanently implement the paid parking program. Additionally, they noted that
the City should employ a comprehensive transportation and access management system with
parking supporting the greater effort. (Memo attached.)
Transportation Board voted to support the Downtown Plan’s recommendations. (Memo
attached.)
Downtown Development Authority (DDA) voted to support the Downtown Plan’s
recommendations. (No memo provided.)
ATTACHMENTS
1. Presentation
2. Boards’ Recommendation Memos
3. Parking Dialogue Material
4. On-Street Paid Parking Financial Model
On-Street
Paid
Parking
2017 2018
Data-
Collection
System
Collect data, research technology,
communicate and market upcoming
changes.
Downtown Parking Community Dialogue
Agenda
1. Overview
2. Process
3. Recommendations
4. Next steps
Overview
• Council Directive
• Over a year of public
dialogue based on:
– Issues and objectives
– Case studies
– Building on the
Parking Plan
• Recommendations:
– On-street paid parking
– Data collection system
– Adjust enforcement
– TDM
Process
Public Engagement
• Public: workshops, charrettes, events, online &
text surveys
• Targeted Stakeholders: Working Group meetings,
parking focus groups
• City Boards and Commissions: Parking Advisory
Board, Transportation Board
• DDA and DBA
Public Engagement
How should we
encourage people to
park in the location most
appropriate for their
type of trip?
Feedback
• Lack of parking availability (on-street & garage)
– Finding available spaces quick and convenient
• Employee parking – cost, location
• Flexibility in length of stay
• Communicate parking locations/availability
• Reduce parking demand with ped/bike/transit
• More parking garages
• Divided on paid parking – don’t “shock” the system
Workshop Poll
5. How should we encourage people to park in the most appropriate locations based on
the length of stay? (select 3) (Multiple Choice - Multiple Response)
Responses
Percent
On-street paid parking 18.02%
Free parking garages 14.53%
Better communication and wayfinding 7.56%
Expand enforcement to evenings and weekends 8.72%
Enforce 2-hour limit in a zone 11.05%
Transportation Demand Management 12.21%
Incentivize employees to park in garages 19.77%
Other 8.14%
Totals 100%
Recommendations
1. On-Street Paid Parking
2. System to collect parking utilization data
3. Adjust enforcement:
• Explore weekends and evenings
• Expand 2-hour parking limits to a specific zone
4. Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
program.
On-street paid parking
• Manage parking based on cost – encourages
turnover
• Creates revenue sources for projected 1,510
public spaces needed
– Sustainable revenue
– Non punitive-based
– Support growth trajectory
On-street paid parking
• Financial Model:
– Supports development of 5 additional parking
structures
– Surplus revenue for other programs
Data Collection System
• In-space technology
• Real-time data
– Occupancy
– Turnover
• Direct public to available spaces
• Inform on-street paid parking
– Locations
– Variable pricing
Data Collection System
• Approx. 1,500 spaces
• $500,000
• Appropriate from $750,000
already assigned in general
fund reserve
Adjust enforcement
• Interim relief measures
• Explore weekends and evenings
– Encourage turnover
• Expand 2-hour parking limits to
a specific zone
– Mitigate the “2-hour shuffle”
Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) Program
Implement programs to reduce parking demand
• Help employers with parking and transit passes
• Carpooling and flex-time work schedules
• Incentivize alternative modes (bikes, transit)
• Enhance communication about transportation
options
Timeline
On-Street
Paid
Parking
2017 2018
Data-
Collection
System
Adjust enforcement & TDM. Collect
data, research technology, communicate
and market upcoming changes.
Next Step
June 14, 2016 - City Council Work Session
Thank You!
Occupancy
Old Town Parking Garage
Capacity: 326 Spaces
Occupancy :
Civic Center Parking Garage
Capacity: 903 Spaces
Occupancy:
Dec
2014
June
2015
10 a.m. average: 37%
38%
3 p.m. average: 56%
53%
8 p.m. average: 44%
46%
Dec
2014
June
2015
10 a.m. average: 43%
45%
3 p.m. average: 48%
56%
8 p.m. average: 28%
31%
Parking Management Options
Objectives and Strategies
• Program Overview
• Quick Stats
• Revenue for 2014 by
Sources
• Downtown Vitality
• Challenges &
Opportunities
• Sources
Case Studies
Parking Plan
Preferred Alternatives:
• Pay-by-cell phone to extend
beyond 2 hours.
• Implement on-street pay parking
when occupancy becomes
“untenable” for Downtown
businesses.
• Get employees to park in
appropriate locations.
Parking Dialogue
May 2016
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
Planning
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.221.6376
970.224.6111- fax
DATE: May 17, 2016
TO: Mayor Troxell and City Councilmembers
FROM: Kristin Kirkpatrick, Planning and Zoning Board Chair
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager
RE: Downtown Parking Recommendation
1. The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the Downtown Parking Recommendation at its May
12, 2016 hearing. These recommendations included: Implement an on-street paid parking
program;
2. Implement a system to collect parking utilization data;
3. Adjust enforcement:
i. Explore expanding enforcement to weekends and evenings after 5 p.m.;
ii. Limit 2-hour parking to an specific zone;
4. Create a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program;
The Planning and Zoning Board, on a 5-1 vote (Hobbs absent, Schneider dissenting) supported an
alternative recommendation to further study the need for an on-street paid parking program, with the
outcomes and recommendations of such study based upon a parking monitoring system and parking
usage data collected. The Board agreed with the Downtown Plan’s recommendation to adjust
enforcement and create a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program.
Further, Board members forwarded the comment (6-0 vote) that “while the Board recognizes the
complexity of downtown parking issues, they primarily focus on Land Use Code issues coupled with a
dynamic in-fill and redevelopment market; the only way to be successful in these situations is to focus
more holistically on transportation demand management and parking as a strategy within that
umbrella”.
Chair, Susan Kirkpatrick
Vice Chair, Holly Wright
PARKING ADVISORY BOARD
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 16, 2016
TO: City of Fort Collins Councilmembers
FROM: Parking Advisory Board
RE: Parking Advisory Board’s Downtown Plan Parking Element
Recommendation
On April 11, 2016 Seth Lorson presented staff recommendations from the Downtown Parking
Community Dialogue (an element of the Downtown Plan) to the Parking Advisory Board. The
Parking Advisory Board voted 8 – 1 to not support the recommendations and drafted an
alternative recommendation as follows: (proposed changes in bold)
1. Implement a monitoring system to collect data on occupancy and turnover, and pilot an
on-street paid parking program in a portion of downtown.
2. Adjust enforcement: (Same as staff recommendation)
• Explore weekends and evenings
• Explore 2-hour parking limits to an entire zone
3. Create a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. (Same as staff
recommendation)
4. Engage in public-private partnerships to use under-utilized surface parking on
private lots and parking structures.
5. After one year, analyze data collected from monitoring system to determine if an
on-street paid parking system should be implemented throughout downtown.
Parking Advisory Board members would like to acknowledge the time and efforts that City Staff
has dedicated to educate Board members and for allowing them to be part of the Downtown
Plan. These Staff efforts helped to generate the dialog about the alternative recommendations
the Parking Advisory Board crafted.
Discussion:
Staff recommendation to implement an on-street paid parking system without first developing
robust data about availability and turnover is premature. This conclusion is consistent with the
Downtown and surrounding neighborhoods parking plan, adopted January 15, 2013. The staff
did not present new evidence of the need for on-street paid parking in the near term. Creating a
pilot program with paid on-street, along with the downtown-wide monitoring system would
provide additional data.
Downtown Fort Collins has several surface parking lots and parking structures that are under-
utilized but in private hands. Parking spaces in structures cost $30,000 - $35,000 to build, it is
important to explore entering into formal relationships with parking lot owners to potentially
structure financial arraignments to gain access to these parking assets with the City managing
the permitting process. Surface lots are perceived by some citizens safer than structure parking
and the land-use is already committed to parking use. This option has been discussed for many
years but has never been specifically directed through policy.
Eric Shenk, Chair
Annabelle Berklund, Vice Chair
Transportation Board
DATE: April 27, 2016
TO: Mayor Troxell and City Councilmembers
FROM: Eric Shenk, Transportation Board Chair, on behalf of the Transportation Board
RE: Downtown Parking Recommendation
The Transportation Board reviewed the Downtown Parking Recommendation presented by Seth
Lorson at our April 20, 2016 meeting. These recommendations include: 1) Implement a
monitoring system to collect data on occupancy and turnover; 2) Adjust enforcement by
exploring enforcement on weekend/evenings and/or expanded 2-hour parking limits to an entire
zone; 3) Create a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program; and 4) On-street paid
parking.
The Transportation Board voted to support these recommendations on a 3-2 vote. The
Transportation Board unanimously agrees that the above recommendations are an appropriate
policy framework from which to develop a refined downtown parking management plan. The
dissenting votes expressed concerns that until these recommendations are refined into a plan,
i.e. type of parking monitoring system, additional manpower needed for enforcement, source
and amount of resources needed to implement a TDM program, that this policy lacks the
objective details necessary to be properly vetted by the Transportation Board.
If Council and Staff move forward with the above recommendations then the Transportation
Board would welcome ongoing updates as a more detailed plan comes to fruition.
Respectfully submitted,
C. Eric Shenk, Transportation Board Chair
DOWNTOWN PARKING COMMUNITY DIALOGUE
KEY ISSUES:
Throughout multiple stakeholder conversations
and planning efforts, the following key issues were
identified:
• Perceived lack of adequate parking turnover and
accessibility.
• Concern about potential neighborhood impacts due
to the increased pace of development.
• Need for better communication about parking
locations and availability.
• Desire to move away from a punitive, enforcement-
driven funding model.
OBJECTIVES:
Increase the availability, ease of access to and
turnover of on-street parking.
Develop a parking management system that is
supportive of businesses, neighborhoods, and visitors.
Provide and communicate a variety of options for
parking and for traveling to and around Downtown.
Encourage the use of alternate modes of
transportation to reduce parking demand.
Identify a sustainable funding source for future access
and transportation infrastructure investment.
Public Parking Vision Statement (Parking Plan, 2013):
The City of Fort Collins will develop and manage parking as a critical component of public infrastructure and as a tool
to promote and sustain economic health.
Identify Vision/
Objectives
Develop
Options
Evaluate
Options/
Trade-offs
Develop
Recommendations
ENGAGING STAKEHOLDERS
PROCESS:
SPECTRUM OF PARKING ALTERNATIVES Where do your peer communities
and districts fall along the spectrum?
A combination of approaches and strategies is necessary to achieve the vision and
objectives for parking and access downtown.
t
2 HOURS
FREE
(then paid)
1 HOUR
FREE
(then paid)
FREE
PARKING
30 MIN.
FREE
(then paid)
TIME-
LIMITED
PARKING
(THEN LEAVE)
20 MIN.
FREE
(then paid)
PAID
PARKING
⚫ Provides two-hour, free on-street
parking with enforcement
⚫ Provides a moderate
amount of free
on-street parking
⚫ Preserves a limited
amount of free
on-street parking
⚫ Promotes turnover
⚫ Does not provide any
free on-street parking
⚫ Promotes turnover
Fort Collins
Boulder
Missoula
Sioux Falls
Eugene
On-Street Parking Management
Strategies
Garage Parking Management
Strategies
FREE PARKING
PAID PARKING
FIRST HOUR FREE
⚫ Provides all day, free off-street
parking
⚫ Offers a viable alternative to on-
street parking
⚫ Attractive to both short- and long-
term parkers
⚫ Provides a moderate amount of
free off-street parking
⚫ Attractive to both short- and
long-term parkers
⚫ Does not provide
DRAFT – 10.12.DOWNTOWN 2015 PLAN
fcgov.com/downtown
ARTS &
CULTURE
Legend
Art in Public Places
Transformer Cabinet
Mural Project
Proposed Creative
District
MUSEUM OF
DISCOVERY
LAUREL
POWERHOUSE
ENERGY
CAMPUS
MULBERRY
N
COLLEGE
R
IVERSIDE
MOUNTAIN
CHERRY
VINE
Addressing the Arts - Past Planning Efforts:
The City will promote, encourage and stimulate the
growth of cultural development and participation,
recognizing that artistic and cultural opportunities are
essential to a vital and creative community.
- City Plan (2011)
Acquire, exhibit, and preserve public art Downtown and
throughout Fort Collins to create and enhance the unique
identities of our community landmarks, destinations,
and gateways.
-City Plan (2011)
Encourage artists, crafts people and entertainers to live
and work in the Downtown area.
–Downtown Plan (1989)
Increase the number, diversity and clustering of public
and private art and entertainment facilities.
-Downtown Plan (1989)
DOWNTOWN PLAN
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Parking Community Dialogue:
CASE STUDY SNAPSHOT
City of Boulder Parking Services
Boulder, Colorado
Population: 103,840
PROGRAM OVERVIEW:
Boulder Parking Services manages the parking garages, on-street systems and enforcement for Boulder’s
three major commercial areas: Downtown Boulder, University Hill and, when completed, Boulder Junction.
They also manage 10 Neighborhood Permit programs throughout the City. Their mission is to provide quality
program, parking, enforcement, maintenance, and alternative modes services through the highest level of
customer service, efficient management and effective problem solving.
QUICK STATS:
z 2,700 on-street spaces
z 2,194 spaces in garages
z 1,300 bike parking spaces
z 6,392 Ecopass holders
z On-street paid parking via multi-space meters
DRAFT – 10.12.DOWNTOWN 2015 PLAN
fcgov.com/downtown
ARTS &
CULTURE
Legend
Art in Public Places
Transformer Cabinet
Mural Project
Proposed Creative
District
MUSEUM OF
DISCOVERY
LAUREL
POWERHOUSE
ENERGY
CAMPUS
MULBERRY
N
COLLEGE
R
IVERSIDE
MOUNTAIN
CHERRY
VINE
Addressing the Arts - Past Planning Efforts:
The City will promote, encourage and stimulate the
growth of cultural development and participation,
recognizing that artistic and cultural opportunities are
essential to a vital and creative community.
- City Plan (2011)
Acquire, exhibit, and preserve public art Downtown and
throughout Fort Collins to create and enhance the unique
identities of our community landmarks, destinations,
and gateways.
-City Plan (2011)
Encourage artists, crafts people and entertainers to live
and work in the Downtown area.
–Downtown Plan (1989)
Increase the number, diversity and clustering of public
and private art and entertainment facilities.
-Downtown Plan (1989)
DOWNTOWN PLAN
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES:
z Boulder’s parking management and parking district system has a long history, with the first parking
meters installed on Pearl Street in 1946. During the past decades, Boulder’s parking system has evolved
into a nationally recognized, district-based, multimodal access system that incorporates transit, bicycling
and pedestrians, along with automobile parking.
z The City takes an integrated approach to parking management and actively encourages the use of
alternative modes of transportation. 56% of people accessing downtown by car, 19% walk, 9% take the
bus, 9% bike and 9% use other methods like carpooling.
z Boulder has a sophisticated customer base that is used to shopping in larger cities where on-street paid
parking is common, so they don’t hear a lot of complaints from customers about paying for parking.
z There is a fairly ‘significant’ group of downtown business owners who feel that on-street parking should
be free. However, Downtown Boulder Inc. (DBI) staff indicate that on Sundays when parking is free, all
on-street space are completely filled by employees hours before any businesses even open.
z Even with the City’s strong emphasis on encouraging the use of public transit, biking and walking when
accessing downtown, there is still a 1,500+ person waiting list for a downtown parking permit and an
estimated shortage of nearly 2,500 additional spaces by 2022.
z Due to the limited supply of parking in Downtown Boulder, there is not enough parking inventory to
DRAFT – 10.12.DOWNTOWN 2015 PLAN
fcgov.com/downtown
ARTS &
CULTURE
Legend
Art in Public Places
Transformer Cabinet
Mural Project
Proposed Creative
District
MUSEUM OF
DISCOVERY
LAUREL
POWERHOUSE
ENERGY
CAMPUS
MULBERRY
N
COLLEGE
R
IVERSIDE
MOUNTAIN
CHERRY
VINE
Addressing the Arts - Past Planning Efforts:
The City will promote, encourage and stimulate the
growth of cultural development and participation,
recognizing that artistic and cultural opportunities are
essential to a vital and creative community.
- City Plan (2011)
Acquire, exhibit, and preserve public art Downtown and
throughout Fort Collins to create and enhance the unique
identities of our community landmarks, destinations,
and gateways.
-City Plan (2011)
Encourage artists, crafts people and entertainers to live
and work in the Downtown area.
–Downtown Plan (1989)
Increase the number, diversity and clustering of public
and private art and entertainment facilities.
-Downtown Plan (1989)
DOWNTOWN PLAN
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Parking Community Dialogue:
CASE STUDY SNAPSHOT
Missoula Parking Commission
Missoula, Montana
Population: 69,122
PROGRAM OVERVIEW:
The MPC manages three parking garages, 12 surface lots, the on-street system and enforcement for
Downtown Missoula. They also manage a Residential Permit Parking Program adjacent to the University of
Montana. Their mission is to work with government, businesses and citizens to provide and manage parking
and parking alternatives, the MPC identifies and responds to changing parking needs and opportunities.
QUICK STATS:
z 1,100 on-street spaces
z 1,275 spaces in garages
z 200 bike racks
z Installed parking meters in 1948
z Currently implementing new multi-space
meters and Pay-by-phone
DRAFT – 10.12.DOWNTOWN 2015 PLAN
fcgov.com/downtown
ARTS &
CULTURE
Legend
Art in Public Places
Transformer Cabinet
Mural Project
Proposed Creative
District
MUSEUM OF
DISCOVERY
LAUREL
POWERHOUSE
ENERGY
CAMPUS
MULBERRY
N
COLLEGE
R
IVERSIDE
MOUNTAIN
CHERRY
VINE
Addressing the Arts - Past Planning Efforts:
The City will promote, encourage and stimulate the
growth of cultural development and participation,
recognizing that artistic and cultural opportunities are
essential to a vital and creative community.
- City Plan (2011)
Acquire, exhibit, and preserve public art Downtown and
throughout Fort Collins to create and enhance the unique
identities of our community landmarks, destinations,
and gateways.
-City Plan (2011)
Encourage artists, crafts people and entertainers to live
and work in the Downtown area.
–Downtown Plan (1989)
Increase the number, diversity and clustering of public
and private art and entertainment facilities.
-Downtown Plan (1989)
DOWNTOWN PLAN
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES:
z The Missoula Parking Commission’s biggest focus right now is working on implementation of new
smart meter technology and transitioning to a different rate structure (from .25/hour to $1.00/hour).
They have selected multi-space meters with a Pay-by-Phone option.
z Their second biggest priority is stakeholder and community education. The MPC works to communicate
proactively to stakeholders about why rates are changing and that there are multiple options available
for customers including less expensive off-street garage parking.
z The Missoula Downtown Partnership (MDP) actively works with the MPC to keep downtown
stakeholders informed about the changes in parking management policy and technology.
z While there is a small vocal downtown business owners who feel that parking should be free
on-street, the MDP supports the MPC’s use of on-street paid parking to ensure turnover and
availability for customer parking.
z MDP staff and board members were heavily involved in the community engagement efforts that
surrounded the recent selection of new parking meter technology for Downtown Missoula.
z Increased meter rates have allowed the MPC to decrease their reliance on revenue from fines, and they
have seen compliance increase and fine revenue decrease.
z The MPC recently used meter revenues to invest in the award-winning Park Place parking structure.
DRAFT – 10.12.DOWNTOWN 2015 PLAN
fcgov.com/downtown
ARTS &
CULTURE
Legend
Art in Public Places
Transformer Cabinet
Mural Project
Proposed Creative
District
MUSEUM OF
DISCOVERY
LAUREL
POWERHOUSE
ENERGY
CAMPUS
MULBERRY
N
COLLEGE
R
IVERSIDE
MOUNTAIN
CHERRY
VINE
Addressing the Arts - Past Planning Efforts:
The City will promote, encourage and stimulate the
growth of cultural development and participation,
recognizing that artistic and cultural opportunities are
essential to a vital and creative community.
- City Plan (2011)
Acquire, exhibit, and preserve public art Downtown and
throughout Fort Collins to create and enhance the unique
identities of our community landmarks, destinations,
and gateways.
-City Plan (2011)
Encourage artists, crafts people and entertainers to live
and work in the Downtown area.
–Downtown Plan (1989)
Increase the number, diversity and clustering of public
and private art and entertainment facilities.
-Downtown Plan (1989)
DOWNTOWN PLAN
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Parking Community Dialogue:
CASE STUDY SNAPSHOT
Cherry Creek Business Improvement District
Denver, Colorado
District size: 16 blocks
DISTRICT OVERVIEW:
The Cherry Creek North Business Improvement District (BID) was established in 1989 as the first business
improvement district in Colorado. The District serves the area between 1st and 3rd Avenues, University and
Steele Streets, a 16-block area. The mission of the BID is to creatively plan, manage, and promote Cherry
Creek North as the premier outdoor shopping and dining destination in order to support the success of their
businesses.
QUICK STATS:
z 670 on-street spaces
z 2,054 spaces in garages
z 2 B-Cycle stations
z Installed parking meters in 2003
z On-street paid parking via single space
DRAFT – 10.12.DOWNTOWN 2015 PLAN
fcgov.com/downtown
ARTS &
CULTURE
Legend
Art in Public Places
Transformer Cabinet
Mural Project
Proposed Creative
District
MUSEUM OF
DISCOVERY
LAUREL
POWERHOUSE
ENERGY
CAMPUS
MULBERRY
N
COLLEGE
R
IVERSIDE
MOUNTAIN
CHERRY
VINE
Addressing the Arts - Past Planning Efforts:
The City will promote, encourage and stimulate the
growth of cultural development and participation,
recognizing that artistic and cultural opportunities are
essential to a vital and creative community.
- City Plan (2011)
Acquire, exhibit, and preserve public art Downtown and
throughout Fort Collins to create and enhance the unique
identities of our community landmarks, destinations,
and gateways.
-City Plan (2011)
Encourage artists, crafts people and entertainers to live
and work in the Downtown area.
–Downtown Plan (1989)
Increase the number, diversity and clustering of public
and private art and entertainment facilities.
-Downtown Plan (1989)
DOWNTOWN PLAN
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES:
z In 2003, an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) was created between the City of Denver and the
Cherry Creek North BID to address a mutually agreed-upon “lack of adequate public parking”. The
IGA included three strategies to address the issue, including:
z Installing multi-space smart parking meters
z Implementing a Residential Parking Permit Program to protect surrounding neighborhoods
from spillover
z Building a parking garage through a Public Private Partnership with the BID that included
condominiums on top and two levels of parking for employees (approximately 200 spaces) that
would be provided to employees at a subsidized monthly rate (about half price)
z In 2009, the multi-space meters were replaced with single-space smart meters, which were very well-
received by district stakeholders and customers due to the increased convenience of having a meter at
each space.
z The BID is working with private property owners to identify unused and underutilized spaces in garages
for additional employee and visitor parking.
z Before the installation of parking meters, there was no mechanism to keep employees from parking on-
street in front of stores. There are still some instances of this happening but it isn’t nearly as prevalent
DRAFT – 10.12.DOWNTOWN 2015 PLAN
fcgov.com/downtown
ARTS &
CULTURE
Legend
Art in Public Places
Transformer Cabinet
Mural Project
Proposed Creative
District
MUSEUM OF
DISCOVERY
LAUREL
POWERHOUSE
ENERGY
CAMPUS
MULBERRY
N
COLLEGE
R
IVERSIDE
MOUNTAIN
CHERRY
VINE
Addressing the Arts - Past Planning Efforts:
The City will promote, encourage and stimulate the
growth of cultural development and participation,
recognizing that artistic and cultural opportunities are
essential to a vital and creative community.
- City Plan (2011)
Acquire, exhibit, and preserve public art Downtown and
throughout Fort Collins to create and enhance the unique
identities of our community landmarks, destinations,
and gateways.
-City Plan (2011)
Encourage artists, crafts people and entertainers to live
and work in the Downtown area.
–Downtown Plan (1989)
Increase the number, diversity and clustering of public
and private art and entertainment facilities.
-Downtown Plan (1989)
DOWNTOWN PLAN
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Parking Community Dialogue:
CASE STUDY SNAPSHOT
Epark: City of Eugene Parking Services
Eugene, Oregon
Population: 159,190
QUICK STATS:
z 996 on-street spaces
z 2,627 spaces in garages
z 917 bike spaces; 100 bike racks
z On-street parking is a mixture of coin-operated
and single-space credit card meters
z Pay-by-phone available (off-street only)
z Offer “1st hour free” in two largest garages
(~1,000 spaces)
z Installed parking meters in 1939
z 2014 parking revenue: $3,100,000
z Revenue by sources:
DRAFT – 10.12.DOWNTOWN 2015 PLAN
fcgov.com/downtown
ARTS &
CULTURE
Legend
Art in Public Places
Transformer Cabinet
Mural Project
Proposed Creative
District
MUSEUM OF
DISCOVERY
LAUREL
POWERHOUSE
ENERGY
CAMPUS
MULBERRY
N
COLLEGE
R
IVERSIDE
MOUNTAIN
CHERRY
VINE
Addressing the Arts - Past Planning Efforts:
The City will promote, encourage and stimulate the
growth of cultural development and participation,
recognizing that artistic and cultural opportunities are
essential to a vital and creative community.
- City Plan (2011)
Acquire, exhibit, and preserve public art Downtown and
throughout Fort Collins to create and enhance the unique
identities of our community landmarks, destinations,
and gateways.
-City Plan (2011)
Encourage artists, crafts people and entertainers to live
and work in the Downtown area.
–Downtown Plan (1989)
Increase the number, diversity and clustering of public
and private art and entertainment facilities.
-Downtown Plan (1989)
DOWNTOWN PLAN
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES:
z Epark Eugene has parking management jurisdiction for the entire City of Eugene including enforcement
of public streets on the University of Oregon campus. The downtown program (which includes 52-block
area) accounts for about half the overall program in size and in revenue generated.
z There is a mixture of coin-operated meters and single-space credit card enabled meters throughout
Downtown Eugene and on the University of Oregon campus. Multi-space meters are also being piloted
in some areas.
z The City is currently transitioning from a Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) that costs $40/
annually to a market-based fee structure that will cost $150 per quarter (or $600/annually).
z In 2010, parking meters were removed from a 12-block area in Downtown Eugene where the City
wanted to incentivize redevelopment. Now that the area is nearly redeveloped, the business owners are
asking the City to reinstall meters to encourage turnover and address the issue of employees parking
on-street.
z The biggest challenge that Epark is currently facing is its decentralized organizational structure.
Maintenance of the off-street facilities is currently managed by another City department, as is fine
adjudication.
z Downtown Eugene offers a variety of transportation options, including bus depot, train station and Bus
DRAFT – 10.12.DOWNTOWN 2015 PLAN
fcgov.com/downtown
ARTS &
CULTURE
Legend
Art in Public Places
Transformer Cabinet
Mural Project
Proposed Creative
District
MUSEUM OF
DISCOVERY
LAUREL
POWERHOUSE
ENERGY
CAMPUS
MULBERRY
N
COLLEGE
R
IVERSIDE
MOUNTAIN
CHERRY
VINE
Addressing the Arts - Past Planning Efforts:
The City will promote, encourage and stimulate the
growth of cultural development and participation,
recognizing that artistic and cultural opportunities are
essential to a vital and creative community.
- City Plan (2011)
Acquire, exhibit, and preserve public art Downtown and
throughout Fort Collins to create and enhance the unique
identities of our community landmarks, destinations,
and gateways.
-City Plan (2011)
Encourage artists, crafts people and entertainers to live
and work in the Downtown area.
–Downtown Plan (1989)
Increase the number, diversity and clustering of public
and private art and entertainment facilities.
-Downtown Plan (1989)
DOWNTOWN PLAN
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Parking Community Dialogue:
CASE STUDY SNAPSHOT
Sioux Falls Public Parking
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Population: 164,676
QUICK STATS:
z 1,000 on-street spaces
z 2,400 spaces in garages
z On-street paid parking via combination of coin-operated and single-space credit card meters
z Installed parking meters in the 1940s
z 2014 parking revenue: $2,010,881
z Revenue for 2014 by sources:
z On-street meter: 16%
z Garage and surface lot permits: 65%
z Enforcement: 18%
z Miscellaneous: 1%
DOWNTOWN VITALITY:
DRAFT – 10.12.DOWNTOWN 2015 PLAN
fcgov.com/downtown
ARTS &
CULTURE
Legend
Art in Public Places
Transformer Cabinet
Mural Project
Proposed Creative
District
MUSEUM OF
DISCOVERY
LAUREL
POWERHOUSE
ENERGY
CAMPUS
MULBERRY
N
COLLEGE
R
IVERSIDE
MOUNTAIN
CHERRY
VINE
Addressing the Arts - Past Planning Efforts:
The City will promote, encourage and stimulate the
growth of cultural development and participation,
recognizing that artistic and cultural opportunities are
essential to a vital and creative community.
- City Plan (2011)
Acquire, exhibit, and preserve public art Downtown and
throughout Fort Collins to create and enhance the unique
identities of our community landmarks, destinations,
and gateways.
-City Plan (2011)
Encourage artists, crafts people and entertainers to live
and work in the Downtown area.
–Downtown Plan (1989)
Increase the number, diversity and clustering of public
and private art and entertainment facilities.
-Downtown Plan (1989)
DOWNTOWN PLAN
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES:
z Perception is that there is not enough parking in Downtown Sioux Falls, however the downtown
development organization is partnering with the public parking system to change this perception
through public education and marketing efforts.
z The City recently rebranded the public parking system and transitioned from enforcement officers to
“Parking Attendant Liaisons”.
z The public parking system launched a mobile-optimized website that has off-street parking locations
and rates, on-street meter rates and information about when parking is free (after 5:00 PM during the
weekdays and on weekends).
z Sioux Falls Public Parking reports that their biggest opportunity is the integration of new technology
– both hardware (i.e., transition from coin-operated to single-space credit card enabled meters) and
software (i.e., new mobile and web resources for customers).
z The public parking system functions as a self-supporting enterprise fund and is trying to balance
their desire to offer a range of affordable off-street parking permit rates while also planning for future
investment in additional structured parking assets.
SOURCES:
• Sioux Falls Public Parking
On-Street Meter and New Parking Garage Assumptions
This analysis covers revenues and expenses for new systems only
Sensor Technology
Expenses
$350 per sensor per space
Phase 1 - 1,500 sensors
Phase 2 - 600 sensors - Year 3
Ongoing O&M
Maintenance expenses are set at 10% of initial cost
Assumed 7 year replacement cycle
On-Street Meters
Revenue
On-street meters will be deployed in TWO phases
Phase 1 - Year 0-5, covers 840 spaces and 70 Meter Mechanisms (one for every 12 spaces). This is based on the
streets and borders identified in the original assumptions.
Phase 2 - Year 6-10, covers 741 spaces and 62 Meter Mechanisms (one for every 12 spaces). This is based on the
streets and borders identified in the original assumptions.
Some street/borders identified in Phase 2 do not have # of spaces identified.
Progressive pricing [1st $1, 2nd $2, 3rd $3…] and variable pricing based on demand?
Charges will increase in $.25 increments every 3 years
Meters enforced 10am - 8pm, Monday thru Saturday, 300 days per year
Utilization rates vary from .6 in lower demand areas to .8 in high demand areas
Expenses
Initial expenses are set for 2016 based on Old Town Parking Structure 2016 budgeted expenses.
A 2% per year inflation factor is included from year 0.
On-street metered maintenance expenses are set at 10% of initial cost
Capital
Each meter mechanism is set at $10,000 for 2016
A 2% per year inflation factor is included from year 0 given this year is almost over
Maintenance expenses are set at 10% of initial cost
Assumed 7 year replacement cycle
Garage cost per space set at $30,000.
A 2% per year inflation factor is included from year 0 given this year is almost over
Each automated attendant is set at $75,000 for 2016 and will be expensed
A 2% per year inflation factor is included from year 0 given this year is almost over
Assumed 7 year replacement cycle
New Parking Garages
Bond Payments
Full capital cost of garages to be covered by bonds
5%, 30 year
Starts at Certificate of Occupancy (CoO)
Garage build sequence
Meldrum and Oak - Build Year 3 - CoO Year 4
Oak / Remington - Build Year 5 - CoO Year 6
215 North Mason - Build 7 - CoO Year 8
Willow Street - Build 9 - CoO Year 10
Mathews and Olive - Build 11 - CoO Year 12
On-Street Meters and New Garage Cash Flow Summary
(in 000's)
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15
Revenue
On-Street Metered $ - $ 3,024 $ 3,024 $ 3,024 $ 3,024 $ 3,024 $ 5,079 $ 5,079 $ 5,079 $ 5,079 $ 5,079 $ 5,079 $ 5,079 $ 5,079 $ 5,079 $ 5,079
Garages - - - - 831 848 1,441 1,470 1,899 1,937 2,392 2,439 2,813 2,869 2,926 2,985
Total Revenue $ - $ 3,024 $ 3,024 $ 3,024 $ 3,855 $ 3,872 $ 6,520 $ 6,548 $ 6,978 $ 7,016 $ 7,470 $ 7,518 $ 7,891 $ 7,948 $ 8,005 $ 8,064
Expenses
On-Street Sensors $ (525) $ (53) $ (54) $ (277) $ (78) $ (80) $ (81) $ (627) $ (84) $ (86) $ (319) $ (90) $ (91) $ (93) $ (720) $ (97)
On-Street Metered $ (714) $ (71) $ (73) $ (74) $ (76) $ (762) $ (147) $ (874) $ (152) $ (155) $ (158) $ (161) $ (873) $ (167) $ (1,004) $ (174)
Garages $ - $ - $ - $ (247) $ (856) $ (1,072) $ (1,487) $ (1,683) $ (1,963) $ (2,176) $ (2,743) $ (2,685) $ (2,917) $ (3,200) $ (3,036) $ (2,327)
Total Operating
Expenses $ (1,239) $ (124) $ (126) $ (598) $ (1,009) $ (1,913) $ (1,715) $ (3,183) $ (2,199) $ (2,416) $ (3,219) $ (2,935) $ (3,882) $ (3,460) $ (4,760) $ (2,599)
Bond Repayment
Garages $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (932) $ (932) $ (1,578) $ (1,578) $ (2,027) $ (2,027) $ (2,595) $ (2,595) $ (3,060) $ (3,060) $ (3,060) $ (3,060)
Total Bond Exp $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (932) $ (932) $ (1,578) $ (1,578) $ (2,027) $ (2,027) $ (2,595) $ (2,595) $ (3,060) $ (3,060) $ (3,060) $ (3,060)
Total Expenses $ (1,239) $ (124) $ (126) $ (598) $ (1,941) $ (2,845) $ (3,293) $ (4,762) $ (4,226) $ (4,443) $ (5,814) $ (5,530) $ (6,942) $ (6,521) $ (7,820) $ (5,659)
Cash Flow $ (1,239) $ 2,900 $ 2,898 $ 2,426 $ 1,914 $ 1,027 $ 3,226 $ 1,787 $ 2,752 $ 2,573 $ 1,656 $ 1,988 $ 949 $ 1,427 $ 185 $ 2,405
NPV @ 3% $22,703
Fund Balance $ (1,239) $ 1,661 $ 4,559 $ 6,984 $ 8,898 $ 9,925 $ 13,151 $ 14,938 $ 17,690 $ 20,262 $ 21,918 $ 23,907 $ 24,856 $ 26,283 $ 26,468 $ 28,872
On-Street Meters and New Garage Cash Flow
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15
Revenue
Phase 1 Meters $ - $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000
$ 3,024,000
Phase 2 Meters 2,054,700 2,054,700 2,054,700 2,054,700 2,054,700 2,054,700 2,054,700 2,054,700 2,054,700 2,054,700
Meldrum and Oak Garage 831,004 847,624 864,577 881,868 899,506 917,496 935,846 954,563 973,654 993,127 1,012,990 1,033,249
Oak / Remington Garage 576,385 587,912 599,671 611,664 623,897 636,375 649,103 662,085 675,326 688,833
215 North Mason Garage 399,780 407,776 415,931 424,250 432,735 441,390 450,218 459,222
Willow Street Garage 415,931 424,250 432,735 441,390 450,218 459,222
Mathews and Olive Garage 324,551 331,042 337,663 344,416
Total Revenue $ - $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,855,004 $ 3,871,624 $ 6,519,661 $ 6,548,481 $ 6,977,657 $ 7,015,636 $ 7,470,306 $ 7,518,138 $ 7,891,478 $ 7,947,734 $ 8,005,114
$ 8,063,643
Operating Expenses
Phase 1 Parking Sensors $ (525,000) $ (52,500) $ (53,550) $ (54,621) $ (55,713) $ (56,828) $ (57,964) $ (603,060) $ (60,306) $ (61,512) $ (62,742) $ (63,997) $ (65,277) $ (66,583) $
(692,726) $ (69,273)
Phase 2 Parking Sensors $ - $ - $ - $ (222,854) $ (22,285) $ (22,731) $ (23,186) $ (23,649) $ (24,122) $ (24,605) $ (255,989) $ (25,599) $ (26,111) $ (26,633) $ (27,166) $ (27,709)
Phase 1 Meters $ (714,000) $ (71,400) $ (72,828) $ (74,285) $ (75,770) $ (77,286) $ (78,831) $ (804,080) $ (80,408) $ (82,016) $ (83,656) $ (85,330) $ (87,036) $ (88,777) $ (923,635)
$ (92,364)
Phase 2 Meters $ (684,530) $ (68,453) $ (69,822) $ (71,219) $ (72,643) $ (74,096) $ (75,578) $ (786,310) $ (78,631) $ (80,204) $ (81,808)
Meldrum and Oak Garage (831,004) (847,624) (864,577) (881,868) (899,506) (917,496) (935,846) (954,563) (973,654) (993,127) (1,012,990) (101,299)
Automated Attendant (79,591) (7,959) (8,118) (8,281) (8,446) (8,615) (8,787) (91,425) (9,142) (9,325) (9,512) (9,702) (9,896)
Space Sensors (167,140) (16,714) (17,048) (17,389) (17,737) (18,092) (18,454) (203,743) (20,374) (20,782) (21,197) (21,621) (22,054)
Oak / Remington Garage (576,385) (587,912) (599,671) (611,664) (623,897) (636,375) (649,103) (662,085) (675,326) (688,833)
Automated Attendant (82,806) (8,281) (8,446) (8,615) (8,787) (8,963) (9,142) (9,325) (97,020) (9,702) (9,896)
Space Sensors (115,928) (11,593) (11,825) (12,061) (12,302) (12,548) (12,799) (13,055) (149,966) (14,997) (1,500)
215 North Mason Garage (399,780) (407,776) (415,931) (424,250) (432,735) (441,390) (450,218) (459,222)
Automated Attendant (86,151) (8,615) (8,787) (8,963) (9,142) (9,325) (9,512) (9,702) (100,940)
Space Sensors (80,408) (8,041) (8,202) (8,366) (8,533) (8,704) (8,878) (9,055) (94,211)
Willow Street Garage (415,931) (424,250) (432,735) (441,390) (450,218) (459,222)
Automated Attendant (89,632) (8,963) (9,142) (9,325) (9,512) (9,702) (9,896)
Space Sensors (83,656) (8,366) (8,533) (8,704) (8,878) (9,055) (9,236)
Mathews and Olive Garage (324,551) (331,042) (337,663) (344,416)
Automated Attendant (93,253) (9,325) (9,512) (9,702) (9,896)
Space Sensors (65,277) (6,528) (6,658) (6,791) (6,927)
Total Operating
Expenses $ (1,239,000) $ (123,900) $ (126,378) $ (598,490) $ (1,009,446) $ (1,912,900) $ (1,714,939) $ (3,183,406) $ (2,199,051) $ (2,416,320) $ (3,219,426) $ (2,935,281) $ (3,881,911)
$ (3,460,302) $ (4,760,175) $ (2,598,597)
Bond Repayment
Meldrum and Oak Garage $ (931,947) $ (931,947) $ (931,947) $ (931,947) $ (931,947) $ (931,947) $ (931,947) $ (931,947) $ (931,947) $ (931,947) $ (931,947) $ (931,947)
Oak / Remington Garage $ - $ - $ (646,398) $ (646,398) $ (646,398) $ (646,398) $ (646,398) $ (646,398) $ (646,398) $ (646,398) $ (646,398) $ (646,398)
215 North Mason Garage $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (448,342) $ (448,342) $ (448,342) $ (448,342) $ (448,342) $ (448,342) $ (448,342) $ (448,342)
Willow Street Garage $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (568,049) $ (568,049) $ (568,049) $ (568,049) $ (568,049) $ (568,049)
Mathews and Olive Garage $ (465,569) $ (465,569) $ (465,569) $ (465,569)
Total Bond Expenses $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (931,947) $ (931,947) $ (1,578,345) $ (1,578,345) $ (2,026,687) $ (2,026,687) $ (2,594,736) $ (2,594,736) $ (3,060,305) $ (3,060,305) $ (3,060,305)
$ (3,060,305)
Total Expenses $ (1,239,000) $ (123,900) $ (126,378) $ (598,490) $ (1,941,393) $ (2,844,847) $ (3,293,284) $ (4,761,751) $ (4,225,738) $ (4,443,007) $ (5,814,162) $ (5,530,017) $ (6,942,216)
$ (6,520,607) $ (7,820,480) $ (5,658,902)
Cash Flow $ (1,239,000) $ 2,900,100 $ 2,897,622 $ 2,425,510 $ 1,913,611 $ 1,026,777 $ 3,226,377 $ 1,786,730 $ 2,751,919 $ 2,572,628 $ 1,656,144 $ 1,988,121 $ 949,263 $ 1,427,127 $ 184,634
$ 2,404,741
NPV @ 3% $22,703,107
Capital and Bond Payments
Unit 2016 Cost Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15
Capital
Phase 1 On-Street Sensors 1,500 $ 350 525,000 603,060 692,726
Phase 2 On-Street Sensors 600 $ 350 222,854 255,989
Phase 1 Meter Mechanisms 70 $ 10,000 714,000 804,080 923,635
Phase 2 Meter Mechanisms 62 $ 10,000 684,530 786,310
Meldrum and Oak Garage 450 $ 30,000 14,326,308
Automated Attendant $ 75,000 79,591 91,425
Space Sensors $ 350 167,140 203,743
Oak / Remington Garage 300 $ 30,000 9,936,727
Automated Attendant $ 75,000 82,806 97,020
Space Sensors $ 350 115,928 149,966
215 North Mason Garage 200 $ 30,000 6,892,114
Automated Attendant $ 75,000 86,151 100,940
Space Sensors $ 350 80,408 94,211
Willow Street Garage 200 $ 30,000 7,170,555
Automated Attendant $ 75,000 89,632
Space Sensors $ 350 83,656
Mathews and Olive Garage 150 $ 30,000 5,595,184
Automated Attendant $ 75,000 93,253
Space Sensors $ 350 65,277
$ 1,239,000 $ - $ - $ 14,795,893 $ - $ 10,819,992 $ - $ 8,465,813 $ - $ 7,343,844 $ 551,156 $ 5,753,715 $ 786,310 $ 246,986 $ 1,616,361 $ 195,151
Land Purchase
Willow Street Garage* 32,670 $ 40.00 $ 1,561,747
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,561,747 $ - $ - $ -
Bond Payment (assumes full cost in bond @ 5%, 30 year)
Meldrum and Oak Garage 931,947 931,947 931,947 931,947 931,947 931,947 931,947 931,947 931,947 931,947 931,947 931,947
Oak / Remington Garage 646,398 646,398 646,398 646,398 646,398 646,398 646,398 646,398 646,398 646,398
215 North Mason Garage 448,342 448,342 448,342 448,342 448,342 448,342 448,342 448,342
Willow Street Garage + Land 568,049 568,049 568,049 568,049 568,049 568,049
Mathews and Olive Garage 465,569 465,569 465,569 465,569
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ 931,947 $ 931,947 $ 1,578,345 $ 1,578,345 $ 2,026,687 $ 2,026,687 $ 2,594,736 $ 2,594,736 $ 3,060,305 $ 3,060,305 $ 3,060,305 $ 3,060,305
2% Inflation Factor
On Street Parking Spaces and Revenue
Street Border 1 Border 2 Spaces Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15
College Laporte Mountain 103 $ 370,800 $ 370,800 $ 370,800 $ 370,800 $ 370,800 $ 370,800 $ 370,800 $ 370,800 $ 370,800 $ 370,800 $ 370,800 $ 370,800 $ 370,800 $ 370,800 $ 370,800
College Mountain Oak 62 223,200 223,200 223,200 223,200 223,200 223,200 223,200 223,200 223,200 223,200 223,200 223,200 223,200 223,200 223,200
College Oak Olive 58 208,800 208,800 208,800 208,800 208,800 208,800 208,800 208,800 208,800 208,800 208,800 208,800 208,800 208,800 208,800
Linden Walnut Jefferson 59 212,400 212,400 212,400 212,400 212,400 212,400 212,400 212,400 212,400 212,400 212,400 212,400 212,400 212,400 212,400
Mountain Mason College 58 208,800 208,800 208,800 208,800 208,800 208,800 208,800 208,800 208,800 208,800 208,800 208,800 208,800 208,800 208,800
Mountain College Remington 12 43,200 43,200 43,200 43,200 43,200 43,200 43,200 43,200 43,200 43,200 43,200 43,200 43,200 43,200 43,200
Mountain North Remington Chestnut 16 57,600 57,600 57,600 57,600 57,600 57,600 57,600 57,600 57,600 57,600 57,600 57,600 57,600 57,600 57,600
Oak Mason College 48 172,800 172,800 172,800 172,800 172,800 172,800 172,800 172,800 172,800 172,800 172,800 172,800 172,800 172,800 172,800
Oak College Remington 15 54,000 54,000 54,000 54,000 54,000 54,000 54,000 54,000 54,000 54,000 54,000 54,000 54,000 54,000 54,000
Olive Mason College 32 115,200 115,200 115,200 115,200 115,200 115,200 115,200 115,200 115,200 115,200 115,200 115,200 115,200 115,200 115,200
Olive College Remington 39 140,400 140,400 140,400 140,400 140,400 140,400 140,400 140,400 140,400 140,400 140,400 140,400 140,400 140,400 140,400
Pine Walnut Jefferson 43 154,800 154,800 154,800 154,800 154,800 154,800 154,800 154,800 154,800 154,800 154,800 154,800 154,800 154,800 154,800
Walnut College Linden 60 216,000 216,000 216,000 216,000 216,000 216,000 216,000 216,000 216,000 216,000 216,000 216,000 216,000 216,000 216,000
Walnut Linden Chestnut 47 169,200 169,200 169,200 169,200 169,200 169,200 169,200 169,200 169,200 169,200 169,200 169,200 169,200 169,200 169,200
Jefferson College Linden 68 244,800 244,800 244,800 244,800 244,800 244,800 244,800 244,800 244,800 244,800 244,800 244,800 244,800 244,800 244,800
Laporte College Mason 9 32,400 32,400 32,400 32,400 32,400 32,400 32,400 32,400 32,400 32,400 32,400 32,400 32,400 32,400 32,400
Mason Laporte Mountain 10 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000
Mason Mountain Oak 19 68,400 68,400 68,400 68,400 68,400 68,400 68,400 68,400 68,400 68,400 68,400 68,400 68,400 68,400 68,400
Mason Oak Olive 28 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800
Mountain Remington Mathews 4 14,400 14,400 14,400 14,400 14,400 14,400 14,400 14,400 14,400 14,400 14,400 14,400 14,400 14,400 14,400
Remington Mountain Oak 22 79,200 79,200 79,200 79,200 79,200 79,200 79,200 79,200 79,200 79,200 79,200 79,200 79,200 79,200 79,200
Remington Oak Olive 28 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800
Phase One 840 70 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000
$ 3,024,000
Chestnut Jefferson Mountain 60 $ 216,000 $ 216,000 $ 216,000 $ 216,000 $ 216,000 $ 216,000 $ 216,000 $ 216,000 $ 216,000 $ 216,000
College Olive Magnolia 37 99,900 99,900 99,900 99,900 99,900 99,900 99,900 99,900 99,900 99,900
College Magnolia Mulberry - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
College Mulberry Myrtle 18 48,600 48,600 48,600 48,600 48,600 48,600 48,600 48,600 48,600 48,600
College Myrtle Laurel 33 89,100 89,100 89,100 89,100 89,100 89,100 89,100 89,100 89,100 89,100
Howes Olive Oak 24 64,800 64,800 64,800 64,800 64,800 64,800 64,800 64,800 64,800 64,800
Howes Oak Mountain 29 78,300 78,300 78,300 78,300 78,300 78,300 78,300 78,300 78,300 78,300
Howes Mountain Laporte 43 116,100 116,100 116,100 116,100 116,100 116,100 116,100 116,100 116,100 116,100
Jefferson Pine College 8 21,600 21,600 21,600 21,600 21,600 21,600 21,600 21,600 21,600 21,600
Jefferson Linden Chestnut 17 45,900 45,900 45,900 45,900 45,900 45,900 45,900 45,900 45,900 45,900
Magnolia Mathews Remington - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Magnolia Remington College 7 18,900 18,900 18,900 18,900 18,900 18,900 18,900 18,900 18,900 18,900
Magnolia College Mason 34 91,800 91,800 91,800 91,800 91,800 91,800 91,800 91,800 91,800 91,800
Mason Magnolia Olive 27 72,900 72,900 72,900 72,900 72,900 72,900 72,900 72,900 72,900 72,900
Mason Magnolia Mulberry 22 59,400 59,400 59,400 59,400 59,400 59,400 59,400 59,400 59,400 59,400
Mason Mulberry Myrtle 14 37,800 37,800 37,800 37,800 37,800 37,800 37,800 37,800 37,800 37,800
Mason Myrtle Laurel 23 62,100 62,100 62,100 62,100 62,100 62,100 62,100 62,100 62,100 62,100
Mathews Mountain Oak 33 89,100 89,100 89,100 89,100 89,100 89,100 89,100 89,100 89,100 89,100
Mathews Oak Olive 31 83,700 83,700 83,700 83,700 83,700 83,700 83,700 83,700 83,700 83,700
Mathews Olive Magnolia - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mountain Chestnut Peterson 67 180,900 180,900 180,900 180,900 180,900 180,900 180,900 180,900 180,900 180,900
Mountain Mason Howes 63 170,100 170,100 170,100 170,100 170,100 170,100 170,100 170,100 170,100 170,100
Oak Mason Howes 57 153,900 153,900 153,900 153,900 153,900 153,900 153,900 153,900 153,900 153,900
Oak Remington Mathews 39 105,300 105,300 105,300 105,300 105,300 105,300 105,300 105,300 105,300 105,300
Olive Mason Howes 51 137,700 137,700 137,700 137,700 137,700 137,700 137,700 137,700 137,700 137,700
Olive Remington Mathews 4 10,800 10,800 10,800 10,800 10,800 10,800 10,800 10,800 10,800 10,800
Phase Three 741 62 $ 2,054,700 $ 2,054,700 $ 2,054,700 $ 2,054,700 $ 2,054,700 $ 2,054,700 $ 2,054,700 $ 2,054,700 $ 2,054,700 $ 2,054,700
1,581 132 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 5,078,700 $ 5,078,700 $ 5,078,700 $ 5,078,700 $ 5,078,700 $ 5,078,700 $ 5,078,700 $ 5,078,700 $ 5,078,700 $ 5,078,700
Pay On Street Parking Revenue
Stations
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Metered Space Revenue Projection Model
Days 300
Street Border 1 Border 2 Spaces Hrs/day
(1)
Utilizatio
m
Net
hrs/day
(3)
Days of
Week (4)
Weeks
per year
(5)
avg
hours
per car
cars
per
day
1st hour
rate
2nd hour
rate
revenue
per car
Revenue per
year
1st hour
rate
2nd hour
rate
revenue
per car
Revenue per
year
1st hour
rate
2nd hour
rate
revenue
per car
Revenue per
year
1st hour
rate
2nd hour
rate
revenue
per car
Revenue per
year
1st hour
rate
2nd hour
rate
revenue
per car
Revenue per
year per space
Base Average Annual Parking Operating Expenses - costs will increase 2% per year
Parking Services
907000
Civic Center
Parking Structure
907010
Old Town Parking
Structure 907020 Chestnut Street Meldrum and Oak Oak / Remington 215 North Mason Willow Street Mathews and Olive
Spaces 900 300 200 450 300 200 200 150
Operating Costs (2016 Budget)
Personnel Services $ 623,576 $ 398,150 $ 210,179 140,119 315,269 210,179 140,119 140,119 105,090
521010 - Banking Services 16,320 13,000 6,000 4,000 9,000 6,000 4,000 4,000 3,000
521180 - Collections Services 20,200 - - - - - -
521240 - Security Services 72,000 61,000 40,667 91,500 61,000 40,667 40,667 30,500
529999 - Other Prof & Tech Services 3,200 4,200 2,400 1,600 3,600 2,400 1,600 1,600 1,200
531010 - Water 240 160 360 240 160 160 120
531040 - Storm Drainage Services 5,200 2,900 1,800 1,200 2,700 1,800 1,200 1,200 900
531060 - Electricity 6,000 25,000 13,500 9,000 20,250 13,500 9,000 9,000 6,750
533250 - Vehicle Repair Services 6,500 7,000 - - - - - -
533340 - Maintenance Contracts 59,535 151,042 71,662 47,775 107,493 71,662 47,775 47,775 35,831
533999 - Other Repair & Maint Serv 34,513 65,012 32,688 21,792 49,032 32,688 21,792 21,792 16,344
534010 - Office & Bldg Rental Services 11,000 - - - - - -
541020 - Employees Liability Insurance 629 - - - - - -
541030 - Auto Liab, Comp & Collision 214 - - - - - -
541040 - Physical Property Insurance 17,100 - - - - - -
542010 - Telephone Services 8,500 4,500 2,200 1,467 3,300 2,200 1,467 1,467 1,100
542020 - Cell Phones Services 660 - - - - - -
543060 - E-Mail & PDA Admin Services 476 238 -
544010 - Mileage 200 -
544020 - Conference and Travel 5,000 2,500 1,000 667 1,500 1,000 667 667 500
549010 - Copy & Reproduction Services 4,500 500 300 200 450 300 200 200 150
549020 - Interview Applicant Travel - - - - - - -
549110 - Postage & Freight Services 6,000 - - - - - -
549210 - Dues & Subscription Services 1,200 -
549230 - Advertising Services 200 1,000 500 333 750 500 333 333 250
551010 - Motor Fuel, Oil & Grease 6,950 1,200 - - - - - -
555010 - Office Supplies 4,325 1,400 600 400 900 600 400 400 300
555020 - Office Equipment 3,000 3,000 1,000 667 1,500 1,000 667 667 500
555060 - Computer Hardware 900 1,000 800 533 1,200 800 533 533 400
555070 - Computer Software - - - - - - -
556010 - Health & Safety Supplies 300 500 301 201 452 301 201 201 151
559010 - Meals - Business, Non Travel 300 - - - - - -
559020 - Food & Related Supplies 1,200 300 150 100 225 150 100 100 75
559090 - Clothing Supplies 6,600 2,700 1,250 833 1,875 1,250 833 833 625
559999 - Other Supplies 12,400 9,943 4,243 2,829 6,365 4,243 2,829 2,829 2,122
565040 - Motor Vehicles and Accessories 75,000 - - - - - -
569999 - Other Capital Outlay 270,050 100,000 66,667 150,000 100,000 66,667 66,667 50,000
$ 924,598 $ 1,054,235 $ 511,813 $ 341,209 $ 767,720 $ 511,813 $ 341,209 $ 341,209 $ 255,907
Assumes revenue will cover incremental operating expenses: $ 341,209 $ 767,720 $ 511,813 $ 341,209 $ 341,209 $ 255,907
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: John Voss, Controller
Date: June 1, 2016
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: Refinancing 2009 Wastewater Revenue Bonds
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The current market conditions are favorable to refinance the
2009 Wastewater Revenue Bonds and achieve a savings of $2.4 million. Closing is expected to
occur on August 18, 2016.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does CFC support the refinancing and projected timeline?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Wastewater Fund issued revenue bonds of $30.7 million
in 2009 in which to rehabilitate the Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility. Final payment will
occur December 1, 2028. The amount currently outstanding is $24.4 million. However, the
amount eligible to prepay and refinance is $20.1 million.
Savings are estimated to be $2.4 million with net present value savings of $2.1 million.
Date
Old Debt
Service
New
Debt
Service
Savings
12/1/2016 $ 1,707
$ 1,663
$ 44
12/1/2017 2,422
2,270
153
12/1/2018 2,425
2,272
153
12/1/2019 2,450
2,242
208
12/1/2020 2,467
2,256
210
12/1/2021 2,486
2,279
207
12/1/2022 2,507
2,298
209
12/1/2023 2,534
2,324
210
12/1/2024 2,557
2,346
211
12/1/2025 2,585
2,379
206
12/1/2026 2,612
2,403
208
12/1/2027 2,623
2,413
211
12/1/2028 2,644
2,434
The proposed timeline to refinance is:
July 5 Bond Ordinance, first reading
July 19 Bond Ordinance, second reading
July 21 Publish Preliminary Official Statement and Notice of Sale
August 2 Competitive bond sale (online auction)
August 18 Closing and Delivery of Bond Proceeds
For this refinancing the City is using Jim Manire with First Southwest as Financial Advisor and
Dee Wisor with Butler Snow as Bond Counsel.
ATTACHMENTS
• PowerPoint Slides
• Prospective Refunding of the Series 2009 A Bonds (First Southwest)
• Analytics of Refunding (First Southwest)
1
Refinancing 2009 Wastewater Revenue Bonds
John Voss
June 1, 2016
Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility
Image from Google Maps 2
Original Issue
• Issued January 29, 2009
• 20 year, final payment in 2028
• Coupon interest varied from 2.0% to 5.0%
• Not callable until December 1, 2018
• Original issue: $30,655,000
• Current outstanding: $24,405,000
• Eligible for prepayment: $20,080,000
3
Potential Savings
• Estimate new rate of 2.11%
• Savings of $2.4 million
• Net Present Value savings of $2.1 million
• Percentage Savings of refunded bonds: 10.6%
• Debt Policy requires at least 5% savings before refinancing
• Waiting until December 2018 to refinance would only yield another $398,000
• That assumes market interest rates do not change over the next 2.5
years
4
Cash Flow Comparison
5
Date
Old Debt
Service
New Debt
Service Savings
12/1/2016 $ 1,707 $ 1,663 $ 44
12/1/2017 2,422 2,270 153
12/1/2018 2,425 2,272 153
12/1/2019 2,450 2,242 208
12/1/2020 2,467 2,256 210
12/1/2021 2,486 2,279 207
12/1/2022 2,507 2,298 209
12/1/2023 2,534 2,324 210
12/1/2024 2,557 2,346 211
12/1/2025 2,585 2,379 206
12/1/2026 2,612 2,403 208
12/1/2027 2,623 2,413 211
12/1/2028 2,644 2,434 210
32,018 29,580 2,438
$ in 000s
New debt service and savings
are estimates
Debt Issue Process
• Alternative Issuing Processes
• Negotiated Sales
• Private Placement
• Competitive Bid
• Market conditions point to Competitive Bid as best alternative
• Recent bid process by Greeley
• $39.1 M refinancing of Water Revenue Bond
• 1.747%
• March 2, 2016
6
Key Upcoming Dates
• July 5 Bond Ordinance first reading
• July 19 Bond Ordinance second reading
• July 21 publish:
• Preliminary Official Statements
• Notice of Sale
• August 2 Competitive bond sale (online auction)
• August 18 Projected Closing and Delivery of Bond Proceeds
7
Committee Feedback
Questions and Comments
8
City of Fort Collins
Prospective Refunding of Series 2009A Bonds May 23, 2016
Summary Refunding Analysis of
Series 2009A Wastewater Utility Enterprise Sewer Revenue Bonds
Original Issue: The 2009A Bonds were issued to finance significant improvements to
the City’s 60-year old Mulberry wastewater treatment plant. The
2009A Bonds are secured by a pledge of the net revenues of the City’s
Wastewater Enterprise.
Original Issue Amount: $30,655,000
Original Maturities: 2011 – 2028
Currently Outstanding: $24,405,000
Eligible for Prepayment: $20,080,000
Interest Rates: 2.75% to 5.00%
Prepayment Option: $20,080,000 of the 2009A Bonds are eligible for prepayment with no
penalty on December 1, 2018. The proposed refunding will affect
these bonds only.
Today’s Market: The City could issue refunding bonds today at an estimated net
interest rate of 2.11%. If the savings are distributed between 2017
and 2025, the estimated annual savings are projected to be over
$150,000 to $200,000 per year. This would produce an estimated
total savings of over $2,400,000, net of all costs (equivalent to an
estimated $2,133,819 present value, which is more than 10% of the
refunded amount).
Background: Although subject to movement within a narrow range, interest rates
in the municipal market have remained low through 2015 and have
begun to test 5-years lows in May of 2016. While the ability to
actually prepay the Bonds is over 24 months away, the extremely
low projected interest rates for the refunding bonds creates a very
attractive opportunity to lock in debt service savings.
Advanced Refunding: The approach which the City can use to refund the bonds in today’s
market is called an “advanced refunding”. The City would sell new
refunding bonds and deposit the proceeds into an escrow. The
escrow will make the regular payments due on the refunded bonds
through December 1, 2018, and then will have sufficient funds on
hands to prepay all the remaining 2009A Bonds on that date. After
closing, the City is only responsible for making payments on the new
refunding bonds, and also on any 2009A Bonds which are not
included in the refunding.
Discussion: Refunding recommendations vary among market professionals, with
some recommending refunding when present value savings are as
low 3.0% of the refunded amount. The City has set a minimum PV
savings target of 5.0% in its debt policy. As mentioned above, the
projected PV savings of $2.1 million are currently equal to 10% of the
refunded amount.
The approach we recommend to this refunding is to seek an updated
rating from Standard & Poor’s and to offer the 2016 Bonds through a
competitive sale to underwriters. The City originally used the
competitive sale method to offer the 2009A Bonds, and the market
demand for highly-rated utility system bonds is very strong.
The trade-off for executing this refunding as described is that under
IRS regs, the City is entitled to only one advanced refunding during
the life of the financing. Because of the high level of projected
savings, we recommend proceeding with an advanced refunding at
this time.
The City’s financing team is preparing to move forward on a timeline
which would bring the Refunding Ordinance to City Council for first
and second readings on July 5 and July 19. Closing would occur in
mid-August.
May 19, 2016 2:05 pm Prepared by FirstSouthwest (LDR) (Finance 7.013 t:\colorado\fort collins, city of\Fort Collins:REV_519-REF2009A,REF2009A) Page 1
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
City of Fort Collins, CO
Wastewater Utility Enterprise Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016
***PRELIMINARY; for discussion purposes only***
RATES AS OF 5.19.2016
Dated Date 08/18/2016
Delivery Date 08/18/2016
Sources:
Bond Proceeds:
Par Amount 18,945,000.00
Premium 2,912,767.10
21,857,767.10
Other Sources of Funds:
Debt Service Fund 188,138.00
22,045,905.10
Uses:
Refunding Escrow Deposits:
Debt Service Fund 188,138.00
Bond Proceeds 21,637,008.71
21,825,146.71
Delivery Date Expenses:
Cost of Issuance 125,000.00
Underwriter's Discount 94,725.00
219,725.00
Other Uses of Funds:
Additional Proceeds 1,033.39
22,045,905.10
May 19, 2016 2:05 pm Prepared by FirstSouthwest (LDR) (Finance 7.013 t:\colorado\fort collins, city of\Fort Collins:REV_519-REF2009A,REF2009A) Page 2
BOND DEBT SERVICE
City of Fort Collins, CO
Wastewater Utility Enterprise Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016
***PRELIMINARY; for discussion purposes only***
RATES AS OF 5.19.2016
Period Annual
Ending Principal Coupon Interest Debt Service Debt Service
12/01/2016 207,974.17 207,974.17 207,974.17
06/01/2017 363,450.00 363,450.00
12/01/2017 363,450.00 363,450.00 726,900.00
06/01/2018 363,450.00 363,450.00
12/01/2018 363,450.00 363,450.00 726,900.00
06/01/2019 363,450.00 363,450.00
12/01/2019 1,515,000 3.000% 363,450.00 1,878,450.00 2,241,900.00
06/01/2020 340,725.00 340,725.00
12/01/2020 1,575,000 3.000% 340,725.00 1,915,725.00 2,256,450.00
06/01/2021 317,100.00 317,100.00
12/01/2021 1,645,000 4.000% 317,100.00 1,962,100.00 2,279,200.00
06/01/2022 284,200.00 284,200.00
12/01/2022 1,730,000 4.000% 284,200.00 2,014,200.00 2,298,400.00
06/01/2023 249,600.00 249,600.00
12/01/2023 1,825,000 4.000% 249,600.00 2,074,600.00 2,324,200.00
06/01/2024 213,100.00 213,100.00
12/01/2024 1,920,000 4.000% 213,100.00 2,133,100.00 2,346,200.00
06/01/2025 174,700.00 174,700.00
12/01/2025 2,030,000 4.000% 174,700.00 2,204,700.00 2,379,400.00
06/01/2026 134,100.00 134,100.00
12/01/2026 2,135,000 4.000% 134,100.00 2,269,100.00 2,403,200.00
06/01/2027 91,400.00 91,400.00
12/01/2027 2,230,000 4.000% 91,400.00 2,321,400.00 2,412,800.00
06/01/2028 46,800.00 46,800.00
12/01/2028 2,340,000 4.000% 46,800.00 2,386,800.00 2,433,600.00
18,945,000 6,092,124.17 25,037,124.17 25,037,124.17
May 19, 2016 2:05 pm Prepared by FirstSouthwest (LDR) (Finance 7.013 t:\colorado\fort collins, city of\Fort Collins:REV_519-REF2009A,REF2009A) Page 3
BOND PRICING
City of Fort Collins, CO
Wastewater Utility Enterprise Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016
***PRELIMINARY; for discussion purposes only***
RATES AS OF 5.19.2016
Maturity Yield to Call Call
Bond Component Date Amount Rate Yield Price Maturity Date Price
Bond Component:
12/01/2019 1,515,000 3.000% 0.970% 106.549
12/01/2020 1,575,000 3.000% 1.100% 107.932
12/01/2021 1,645,000 4.000% 1.240% 114.078
12/01/2022 1,730,000 4.000% 1.370% 115.787
12/01/2023 1,825,000 4.000% 1.500% 117.192
12/01/2024 1,920,000 4.000% 1.640% 118.213
12/01/2025 2,030,000 4.000% 1.790% 118.827
12/01/2026 2,135,000 4.000% 1.960% 118.917
12/01/2027 2,230,000 4.000% 2.160% 116.887 C 2.293% 12/01/2026 100.000
12/01/2028 2,340,000 4.000% 2.320% 115.292 C 2.543% 12/01/2026 100.000
18,945,000
Dated Date 08/18/2016
Delivery Date 08/18/2016
First Coupon 12/01/2016
Par Amount 18,945,000.00
Premium 2,912,767.10
Production 21,857,767.10 115.374859%
Underwriter's Discount -94,725.00 -0.500000%
Purchase Price 21,763,042.10 114.874859%
Accrued Interest
Net Proceeds 21,763,042.10
May 19, 2016 2:05 pm Prepared by FirstSouthwest (LDR) (Finance 7.013 t:\colorado\fort collins, city of\Fort Collins:REV_519-REF2009A,REF2009A) Page 4
SUMMARY OF REFUNDING RESULTS
City of Fort Collins, CO
Wastewater Utility Enterprise Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016
***PRELIMINARY; for discussion purposes only***
RATES AS OF 5.19.2016
Dated Date 08/18/2016
Delivery Date 08/18/2016
Arbitrage yield 1.791069%
Escrow yield 0.944163%
Value of Negative Arbitrage 397,889.24
Bond Par Amount 18,945,000.00
True Interest Cost 1.931719%
Net Interest Cost 2.109108%
All-In TIC 2.012682%
Average Coupon 3.924443%
Average Life 8.194
Par amount of refunded bonds 20,080,000.00
Average coupon of refunded bonds 4.479038%
Average life of refunded bonds 8.222
PV of prior debt to 08/18/2016 @ 2.012682% 23,958,966.03
Net PV Savings 2,133,819.32
Percentage savings of refunded bonds 10.626590%
May 19, 2016 2:05 pm Prepared by FirstSouthwest (LDR) (Finance 7.013 t:\colorado\fort collins, city of\Fort Collins:REV_519-REF2009A,REF2009A) Page 5
SAVINGS
City of Fort Collins, CO
Wastewater Utility Enterprise Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016
***PRELIMINARY; for discussion purposes only***
RATES AS OF 5.19.2016
Present Value
Prior Prior Prior Refunding to 08/18/2016
Date Debt Service Receipts Net Cash Flow Debt Service Savings @ 2.0126823%
12/01/2016 439,803.13 188,138.00 251,665.13 207,974.17 43,690.96 42,366.44
12/01/2017 879,606.26 879,606.26 726,900.00 152,706.26 149,572.22
12/01/2018 879,606.26 879,606.26 726,900.00 152,706.26 146,606.65
12/01/2019 2,449,606.26 2,449,606.26 2,241,900.00 207,706.26 195,196.93
12/01/2020 2,466,806.26 2,466,806.26 2,256,450.00 210,356.26 193,678.67
12/01/2021 2,485,806.26 2,485,806.26 2,279,200.00 206,606.26 186,380.41
12/01/2022 2,507,068.76 2,507,068.76 2,298,400.00 208,668.76 184,468.36
12/01/2023 2,533,868.76 2,533,868.76 2,324,200.00 209,668.76 181,657.74
12/01/2024 2,556,843.76 2,556,843.76 2,346,200.00 210,643.76 178,843.46
12/01/2025 2,585,443.76 2,585,443.76 2,379,400.00 206,043.76 171,458.92
12/01/2026 2,611,600.00 2,611,600.00 2,403,200.00 208,400.00 169,925.22
12/01/2027 2,623,350.00 2,623,350.00 2,412,800.00 210,550.00 168,159.39
12/01/2028 2,643,850.00 2,643,850.00 2,433,600.00 210,250.00 164,471.51
27,663,259.47 188,138.00 27,475,121.47 25,037,124.17 2,437,997.30 2,132,785.93
Savings Summary
PV of savings from cash flow 2,132,785.93
Plus: Refunding funds on hand 1,033.39
Net PV Savings 2,133,819.32
May 19, 2016 2:05 pm Prepared by FirstSouthwest (LDR) (Finance 7.013 t:\colorado\fort collins, city of\Fort Collins:REV_519-REF2009A,REF2009A) Page 6
SUMMARY OF BONDS REFUNDED
City of Fort Collins, CO
Wastewater Utility Enterprise Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016
***PRELIMINARY; for discussion purposes only***
RATES AS OF 5.19.2016
Maturity Interest Par Call Call
Bond Date Rate Amount Date Price
WasteWater Revenue Bonds Series 2009A, WSTW09:
BOND 12/01/2019 4.000% 1,570,000.00 12/01/2018 100.000
12/01/2020 4.000% 1,650,000.00 12/01/2018 100.000
12/01/2021 4.250% 1,735,000.00 12/01/2018 100.000
12/01/2022 4.000% 1,830,000.00 12/01/2018 100.000
12/01/2023 4.250% 1,930,000.00 12/01/2018 100.000
12/01/2024 4.000% 2,035,000.00 12/01/2018 100.000
12/01/2025 4.375% 2,145,000.00 12/01/2018 100.000
12/01/2026 5.000% 2,265,000.00 12/01/2018 100.000
12/01/2027 5.000% 2,390,000.00 12/01/2018 100.000
12/01/2028 4.500% 2,530,000.00 12/01/2018 100.000
20,080,000.00
May 19, 2016 2:05 pm Prepared by FirstSouthwest (LDR) (Finance 7.013 t:\colorado\fort collins, city of\Fort Collins:REV_519-REF2009A,REF2009A) Page 7
UNREFUNDED BOND DEBT SERVICE
City of Fort Collins, CO
Wastewater Utility Enterprise Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016
***PRELIMINARY; for discussion purposes only***
RATES AS OF 5.19.2016
Period Annual
Ending Principal Coupon Interest Debt Service Debt Service
12/01/2016 1,385,000 2.750% 70,343.75 1,455,343.75 1,455,343.75
06/01/2017 51,300.00 51,300.00
12/01/2017 1,440,000 4.000% 51,300.00 1,491,300.00 1,542,600.00
06/01/2018 22,500.00 22,500.00
12/01/2018 1,500,000 3.000% 22,500.00 1,522,500.00 1,545,000.00
4,325,000 217,943.75 4,542,943.75 4,542,943.75
May 19, 2016 2:05 pm Prepared by FirstSouthwest (LDR) (Finance 7.013 t:\colorado\fort collins, city of\Fort Collins:REV_519-REF2009A,REF2009A) Page 8
ESCROW CASH FLOW
City of Fort Collins, CO
Wastewater Utility Enterprise Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016
***PRELIMINARY; for discussion purposes only***
RATES AS OF 5.19.2016
Net Escrow
Date Principal Interest Receipts
12/01/2016 382,257.00 57,546.01 439,803.01
06/01/2017 338,665.00 101,138.33 439,803.33
12/01/2017 340,102.00 99,700.35 439,802.35
06/01/2018 341,328.00 98,475.98 439,803.98
12/01/2018 20,422,794.00 97,008.27 20,519,802.27
21,825,146.00 453,868.94 22,279,014.94
Escrow Cost Summary
Purchase date 08/18/2016
Purchase cost of securities 21,825,146.00
May 19, 2016 2:05 pm Prepared by FirstSouthwest (LDR) (Finance 7.013 t:\colorado\fort collins, city of\Fort Collins:REV_519-REF2009A,REF2009A) Page 9
ESCROW SUFFICIENCY
City of Fort Collins, CO
Wastewater Utility Enterprise Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016
***PRELIMINARY; for discussion purposes only***
RATES AS OF 5.19.2016
Escrow Net Escrow Excess Excess
Date Requirement Receipts Receipts Balance
08/18/2016 0.71 0.71 0.71
12/01/2016 439,803.13 439,803.01 -0.12 0.59
06/01/2017 439,803.13 439,803.33 0.20 0.79
12/01/2017 439,803.13 439,802.35 -0.78 0.01
06/01/2018 439,803.13 439,803.98 0.85 0.86
12/01/2018 20,519,803.13 20,519,802.27 -0.86
22,279,015.65 22,279,015.65 0.00
May 19, 2016 2:05 pm Prepared by FirstSouthwest (LDR) (Finance 7.013 t:\colorado\fort collins, city of\Fort Collins:REV_519-REF2009A,REF2009A) Page 10
ESCROW STATISTICS
City of Fort Collins, CO
Wastewater Utility Enterprise Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016
***PRELIMINARY; for discussion purposes only***
RATES AS OF 5.19.2016
Modified Yield to Yield to Perfect Value of
Total Duration Receipt Disbursement Escrow Negative Cost of
Escrow Escrow Cost (years) Date Date Cost Arbitrage Dead Time
DSF 188,138.00 0.286 0.311799% 0.311799% 187,347.56 790.44
BP 21,637,008.71 2.192 0.944163% 0.944163% 21,239,909.90 397,098.80 0.01
21,825,146.71 21,427,257.46 397,889.24 0.01
Delivery date 08/18/2016
Arbitrage yield 1.791069%
May 19, 2016 2:05 pm Prepared by FirstSouthwest (LDR) (Finance 7.013 t:\colorado\fort collins, city of\Fort Collins:REV_519-REF2009A,REF2009A) Page 11
ESCROW CASH FLOW
City of Fort Collins, CO
Wastewater Utility Enterprise Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016
***PRELIMINARY; for discussion purposes only***
RATES AS OF 5.19.2016
Net Escrow
Date Principal Interest Receipts
12/01/2016 382,257.00 57,546.01 439,803.01
06/01/2017 338,665.00 101,138.33 439,803.33
12/01/2017 340,102.00 99,700.35 439,802.35
06/01/2018 341,328.00 98,475.98 439,803.98
12/01/2018 20,422,794.00 97,008.27 20,519,802.27
21,825,146.00 453,868.94 22,279,014.94
Escrow Cost Summary
Purchase date 08/18/2016
Purchase cost of securities 21,825,146.00
May 19, 2016 2:05 pm Prepared by FirstSouthwest (LDR) (Finance 7.013 t:\colorado\fort collins, city of\Fort Collins:REV_519-REF2009A,REF2009A) Page 12
ESCROW DESCRIPTIONS
City of Fort Collins, CO
Wastewater Utility Enterprise Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016
***PRELIMINARY; for discussion purposes only***
RATES AS OF 5.19.2016
Type of Type of Maturity First Int Par Max Total
Security SLGS Date Pmt Date Amount Rate Rate Cost
Aug 18, 2016:
SLGS Certificate 12/01/2016 12/01/2016 382,257 0.310% 0.310% 382,257.00
SLGS Certificate 06/01/2017 06/01/2017 338,665 0.540% 0.540% 338,665.00
SLGS Note 12/01/2017 12/01/2016 340,102 0.720% 0.720% 340,102.00
SLGS Note 06/01/2018 12/01/2016 341,328 0.860% 0.860% 341,328.00
SLGS Note 12/01/2018 12/01/2016 20,422,794 0.950% 0.950% 20,422,794.00
21,825,146 21,825,146.00
SLGS Summary
SLGS Rates File 19MAY16
Total Certificates of Indebtedness 720,922.00
Total Notes 21,104,224.00
Total original SLGS 21,825,146.00
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: John Voss, Controller
Date: June 1, 2016
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: Status of Fund Balances and Working Capital
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The attached presentation gives a status of fund balances and working capital. Fund balances are
primarily considered for funding one-time offers during the Budgeting for Outcomes process.
To a lesser extent available monies are also used to fund supplemental appropriations between
BFO cycles.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
None, this is an update for Council Finance Committee.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
To aid in answering the question of what funding is available to support emerging issues and
initiatives in the next budget cycle. In each fund the balances are shown vertically by the
accounting classifications. The amounts are then additionally categorized into Appropriated,
Available with Constraints, and Available for Nearly Any Purpose.
Appropriated, Minimum Policy or Scheduled is comprised of minimum fund balances
established by policy, funds from the 2015 balance that have been appropriated in 2016, and
amounts for projects specifically identified by voters. An example of the later is Community
Capital Improvements Plan (aka BOB 2.0).
Available with Constraints are those balances available for appropriation but within defined
constraints. An example is 4P
th
P of July donations. They are restricted for that purpose, but still
available for appropriation.
Available for Nearly Any Purpose are balances that are available for appropriation at the
discretion of the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS
PowerPoint presentation
1
Status of Fund Balances
Council Finance Committee
June 1, 2016
2
Objectives
• Types of constraints
• Restricted balances can be available
• Review fund balances
• Using fund balances in the budget process
3
Fund Balance Definitions
• Non-spendable
– Not spendable in form (inventory, long-term receivables)
– Legally or contractually required to be maintained intact (permanent
endowments)
• Restricted
– Externally enforceable legal restrictions (TABOR emergency reserve, debt
covenants, re-development agreements, IGA’s)
• Committed
– Constraint formally imposed at the highest level of decision making authority
through Ordinance (Capital Expansion fees, Neighborhood Parkland fees)
• Assigned
– Intended to be used for specific purposes (Affordable Housing, Camera
Radar, Encumbrances)
• Unassigned
– Available for any City purpose
– Reported only in the General Fund except in cases of negative fund balance
most
constrained
least
constrained
4
Restricted balances can be available
• Available but with some constraints, examples
– BCC-CE residuals are restricted but available only for capital as
defined in the ballot language
– Udall Endowment interest is restricted but available to be
appropriated for maintenance and improvements of Udall Natural
Area
• Available for nearly any purpose, examples
– Funds available at the discretion of the City Council for any
municipal purpose
5
2014
Total
2015
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
General Fund $ 74.0 $ 72.4 $ 63.4 $ 1.3 $ 7.7
Capital Expansion Fund 21.8 22.9 13.9 9.0 -
Sales & Use Tax Fund 4.3 3.7 3.7 - -
GID #1 Fund 1.2 0.4 - 0.4 -
Keep Fort Collins Great Fund 14.9 16.8 7.8 9.0 -
Neighborhood Parkland Fund 7.1 8.4 7.4 1.0 -
Conservation Trust Fund 1.7 2.0 1.5 0.5 -
Naturals Areas Fund 12.1 13.5 1.3 12.2 -
Cultural Services Fund 1.7 1.9 0.8 - 1.1
Recreation Fund 2.6 3.0 0.9 0.3 1.8
Cemeteries Fund 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.5 -
Perpetual Care Fund 1.7 1.8 - 1.8 -
Museum Fund 0.8 1.0 - 1.0 -
Transit 1.4 (0.3) - (0.3) -
Street Oversizing 15.3 16.8 1.8 15.0 -
Transportation 18.8 17.1 2.7 - 14.4
Parking Fund - 1.5 0.7 0.6 0.2
Capital Projects Fund 23.6 25.8 24.0 1.8 -
Light & Power Fund 56.6 51.4 35.0 16.4 -
Water Fund 61.3 61.5 57.1 4.4 -
Wastewater Fund 39.1 35.5 17.0 18.5 -
Storm Drainage Fund 19.6 22.0 17.9 4.1 -
Equipment Fund 3.0 2.2 1.1 1.1 -
Self Insurance Fund 1.8 1.7 1.5 0.2 -
Data & Communications Fund 1.3 1.8 0.3 - 1.5
Benefits Fund 7.8 5.4 6.0 (0.6) -
Utility Customer Service Fund 2.6 0.3 0.9 (0.6) -
TOTAL $ 396.6 $ 391.1 $ 266.7 $ 97.7 $ 26.7
All City Funds
6
2014
Total
2015
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned - Minimum 60 day Policy $ 21.5 $ 22.7 $ 22.7 $ - $ -
Non-spendable
Advances 5.3 5.2 5.2 - -
Landbank inventory 3.0 1.8 1.8 - -
Restricted
TABOR Emergency 6.3 6.4 6.4 - -
Police Programs 1.5 1.0 0.6 0.4 -
Donations & Misc 1.1 0.7 - 0.7 -
Economic Rebates 5.2 3.3 3.3 - -
DDA/Woodward Debt 2.3 2.3 2.3 - -
Committed -
Traffic Calming 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 -
Culture & Recreation 0.2 0.2 0.2 -
Assigned - -
Prior Year Purchase Orders 4.9 3.3 3.3 - -
Manufacturing Use Tax Rebate 0.5 2.3 2.3 - -
2016 Budgeted use of reserves 9.3 5.2 5.2 - -
Council Priorities set aside 6.9 7.7 7.7 - -
DPS/Comm System 0.1 - - - -
Camera Radar 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.6
Affordable Housing Land Bank 0.2 0.2 - - 0.2
Waste Innovation 0.1 0.2 - - 0.2
Reappropriation 1.2 1.1 1.1 - -
Unassigned 3.3 7.7 1.0 - 6.7
Year End Total $ 74.0 $ 72.4 $ 63.4 $ 1.3 $ 7.7
General Fund - Year End 2015 - $72.4
1.0 Police Training Facility
0.7 Parking Meters
0.5 Transit Buses
0.5 Police CAD
0.5 Golf Irrigation System
4.4 Recession Contingency
7
General Fund Balances
• $5.2 loaned to URA (Advances)
• $1.8 Land-bank program, lowered to market value
• $6.3 is an emergency reserve required by TABOR, equal to 3% of qualified governmental
revenue
• $1.0 restricted to Police Programs; for Drug Task Force $927k, dispatch system
replacement $0.1
• $0.7 restricted by donor for various purposes (Horticulture, Udall Endowment, etc)
• $3.3 is restricted to Economic Incentive Rebates
• $2.3 is for debt contingency on DDA debt obligation to Woodward
• Traditionally fund balances are Assigned for camera radar and photo red-light, public safety
dispatch system, Affordable Housing and Waste Innovation
• $1.1 is set aside for the re-appropriation process
8
• Monies collected on building permits, revenue varies greatly with development activity
• Must be used for new and /or expanding facilities
• $2.7 in loans to the URA (RMI2) in General Government
• Police monies used for debt on new police headquarters
• Fire monies used to pay debt on Station #4
• $3.2 is planned for remaining two planned Community Parks (East and Northeast)
2014
Total
2015
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Committed
General Government 7.6 8.5 2.7 5.8
Police 0.9 0.8 0.8 -
Fire 0.8 1.1 1.1 -
Community Parkland 12.5 12.5 9.3 3.2
Year End Total $ 21.8 $ 22.9 $ 13.9 $ 9.0 $ -
Capital Expansion Fund - Year End 2015 - $22.9
9
• Sales Tax for BOB and Natural Areas deposited here
– Voter language requires deposit in Sale & Use Tax Fund
– Residual balance owed to Natural Areas and BOB. 2015 revenue exceeded appropriations
needed to make transfers. Will be addressed in annual year end adjustment ordinance in
September 2016.
2014
Total
2015
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Restricted -
BOB 2.1 1.8 1.8 -
Natural Areas 2.2 1.9 1.9 -
Year End Total $ 4.3 $ 3.7 $ 3.7 $ - $ -
Sales & Use Tax Fund - Year End 2015 - $3.7
10
• Property tax based - 4.924 mill levy generates about $240k annually
2014
Total
2015
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Committed
Capital Improvements 1.2 0.4 - 0.4
Year End Total $ 1.2 $ 0.4 $ - $ 0.4 $ -
General Improvement District #1 Fund - Year End 2015 - $0.4
11
• The $9.0 will be made available in the 2017-18 BFO process
2014
Total
2015
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Restricted
Street Maintenance 3.1 4.7 1.6 3.1
Other Transportation 4.4 3.1 2.6 0.5
Police Services 3.1 3.5 0.5 3.0
Fire & Emergency Services 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.3
Parks & Recreation 1.2 1.6 0.8 0.8
Other 2.6 3.1 1.7 1.4
Year End Total $ 14.9 $ 16.8 $ 7.8 $ 9.0 $ -
Keep Fort Collins Great Fund - Year End 2015 - $16.8
12
• Monies collected on building permits, revenue varies greatly with development activity
• $1.0 is for new Neighborhood Parklands
2014
Total
2015
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Committed -
Neighborhood Parks 7.0 8.4 7.4 1.0
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders 0.1 - - -
Year End Total $ 7.1 $ 8.4 $ 7.4 $ 1.0 $ -
Neighborhood Parkland Fund - Year End 2015 - $8.4
13
• Shared Lottery Proceeds – an average of $1.3 collected annually
• Can be spent on a variety of specified Recreation purposes as defined by the State
• City has primarily used these monies for trails
2014
Total
2015
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Restricted
Parks, Rec & Open Space Capital Imp 1.7 2.0 1.5 0.5
Year End Total $ 1.7 $ 2.0 $ 1.5 $ 0.5 $ -
Conservation Trust Fund - Year End 2015 - $2.0
14
• Major funding sources
– About 60% comes from City quarter cent sales tax, expires at end of 2030
– About 30% comes from County Open Space tax, expires at end of 2043
• Revenue sharing to municipalities will drop from 58% to 50% beginning in 2019
• $12.2 to be appropriated in 2016 for potential land purchases
2014
Total
2015
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Restricted
Natural Areas 9.9 12.2 - 12.2
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders 1.5 0.6 0.6 -
Capital Projects 0.7 0.7 0.7 -
Year End Total $ 12.1 $ 13.5 $ 1.3 $ 12.2 $ -
Natural Areas Fund - Year End 2015 - $13.5
15
• Accounts for Lincoln Center and other Cultural Service activities
2014
Total
2015
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Committed
Art in Public Places 0.3 0.4 0.4 -
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders 0.1 0.1 0.1 -
Capital Projects 0.4 - - -
Cultural Services Surplus 0.9 1.4 0.3 - 1.1
Year End Total $ 1.7 $ 1.9 $ 0.8 $ - $ 1.1
Cultural Services & Facilities Fund - Year End 2015 - $1.9
16
• Fees and charges cover about 85% of operating costs
2014
Total
2015
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders 0.1 0.1 0.1 -
Recreation Programs 0.1 0.3 - 0.3
Recreation Surplus 2.4 2.6 0.8 - 1.8
Year End Total $ 2.6 $ 3.0 $ 0.9 $ 0.3 $ 1.8
Recreation Fund - Year End 2015 - $3.0
17
2014
Total
2015
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned
Cemeteries Surplus 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.5
Year End Total $ 0.5 $ 0.6 $ 0.1 $ 0.5 $ -
Cemeteries Fund - Year End 2015 - $0.6
18
• To be used to maintain the cemeteries once on-going operations cease
2014
Total
2015
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Restricted
Perpetual Care 1.7 1.8 - 1.8
Year End Total $ 1.7 $ 1.8 $ - $ 1.8 $ -
Perpetual Care Fund - Year End 2015 - $1.8
19
• Balances and activity moved out of Cultural Services Fund. Desired better transparency because
of partnership agreement with Museum non-profit.
2014
Total
2015
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned
Capital Projects 0.1 - - -
Cultural Services Surplus 0.7 1.0 - 1.0
Year End Total $ 0.8 $ 1.0 $ - $ 1.0 $ -
Museum Fund - Year End 2017 - $1.0
20
• Deficit is result of purchases made in 2015 in anticipation of grant that was not fully finalized until
early 2016.
• Recommend revisiting the budgeting and accounting methods used in Transit. Current practices
are complex, require high maintenance by staff and difficult to report.
2014
Total
2015
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders 1.1 - - -
Transit Surplus(Deficit) 0.3 (0.3) - (0.3)
Year End Total $ 1.4 $ (0.3) $ - $ (0.3) $ -
Transit Fund - Year End 2015 - ($0.3)
21
• Monies are collected from developers, revenue varies greatly with development activity
2014
Total
2015
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Restricted
Street Oversizing Surplus 14.6 14.8 1.1 13.7
Assigned
Capital Projects 0.7 2.0 0.7 1.3
Year End Total $ 15.3 $ 16.8 $ 1.8 $ 15.0 $ -
Street Oversizing Fund - Year End 2015 - $16.8
22
• $5.7 may be reassigned but is intended to be used for Harmony Road improvements.
– Residual of the $13 million from State when ownership transferred to City
• Parking balances moved to their own fund in 2015
• $8.7 will be made available in 2017-18 BFO process
2014
Total
2015
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Restricted -
Fiscal Agent 0.8 0.1 0.1 -
CC Parking Garage IGA 0.9 - - -
Assigned -
Prior Year Purchase Orders 0.6 0.6 0.6 -
Capital Projects 0.3 1.1 1.1 -
DT Parking 0.6 - - -
Harmony Road 5.8 5.7 - - 5.7
Transportation Surplus 9.8 9.6 0.9 - 8.7
Year End Total $ 18.8 $ 17.1 $ 2.7 $ - $ 14.4
Transportation Fund - Year End 2015 - $17.1
23
• New Fund in 2015, previously included in Transportation Fund
2014
Total
2015
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Restricted -
Fiscal Agent - - - -
CC Parking Garage IGA - 0.9 0.3 0.6
Assigned -
Prior Year Purchase Orders - 0.2 0.2 -
DT Parking - 0.4 0.2 - 0.2
Available for capital and operations - - - -
Year End Total $ - $ 1.5 $ 0.7 $ 0.6 $ 0.2
Parking Fund - Year End 2015 - $1.5
24
• BCC-Community Enhancements has $0.8 available for capital projects
• Building on Basics (BOB) is expected to have $1.0 available for capital projects, after the projects
are completed
2014
Total
2015
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Restricted -
BCC-Community Enhancements 2.9 2.4 1.6 0.8
Building on Basics (BOB) 16.2 9.7 8.7 1.0
Misc. projects (11) - 1.1 1.1 -
Assigned -
General City Projects 4.5 12.6 12.6 -
Year End Total $ 23.6 $ 25.8 $ 24.0 $ 1.8 $ -
Capital Project Fund - Year End 2015 - $25.8
25
• New Policy Minimum is equal to 25% of operating expenses, excluding depreciation and non-
renewable energy purchases
• Approved but unencumbered capital projects include new Utility Administrative Building, Wood
Street Renovations, Smart Grid, Substation Improvements, SW Enclave System, Underground
Conversion Program and Art in Public Places
2014
Total
2015
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Minimum Policy - 25% Operations $ 7.2 $ 8.1 $ 8.1 $ -
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders 1.9 1.5 1.5 -
Approved Capital Projects 20.1 17.2 17.2 -
Available for capital and operations 27.4 24.6 8.2 16.4
Year End Total $ 56.6 $ 51.4 $ 35.0 $ 16.4 $ -
Light & Power Fund - Year End 2015 - $51.4
26
• New Policy Minimum is equal to 25% of operating expenses, excluding depreciation
2014
Total
2015
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Minimum Policy - 25% Operations $ 4.7 $ 5.2 $ 5.2 $ -
Restricted -
Debt 0.3 0.3 0.3 -
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders 0.5 0.5 0.5 -
Approved Capital Projects 43.7 37.4 37.4 -
Available for capital and operations 12.1 18.1 13.7 4.4
Year End Total $ 61.3 $ 61.5 $ 57.1 $ 4.4 $ -
Water Fund - Year End 2015 - $61.5
27
• New Policy Minimum is equal to 25% of operating expenses, excluding depreciation
2014
Total
2015
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Minimum Policy - 25% Operations $ 2.9 $ 3.2 $ 3.2 $ -
Restricted -
Debt 0.2 0.2 0.2 -
Assigned -
Prior Year Purchase Orders 0.4 0.4 0.4 -
Approved Capital Projects 15.1 9.6 9.6 -
Available for capital and operations 20.5 22.1 3.6 18.5
Year End Total $ 39.1 $ 35.5 $ 17.0 $ 18.5 $ -
Wastewater Fund - Year End 2015 - $35.5
28
• New Policy Minimum is equal to 25% of operating expenses, excluding depreciation
2014
Total
2015
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Minimum Policy - 25% Operations $ 1.5 $ 1.4 $ 1.4 $ -
Restricted
Debt 0.3 0.3 0.3 -
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders 0.2 0.1 0.1 -
Approved Capital Projects 14.3 16.1 16.1 -
Available for capital and operations 3.3 4.1 - 4.1
Year End Total $ 19.6 $ 22.0 $ 17.9 $ 4.1 $ -
Storm Drainage Fund - Year End 2015 - $22.0
29
• Equipment Replacement – $1.1 is for replacement of vehicles and equipment for Police,
Forestry and Parks
2014
Total
2015
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Minimum Policy - 8.3% Operations $ 0.8 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ -
Capital Leasing - - - -
Assigned -
Prior Year Purchase Orders 0.3 0.3 0.3 -
Approved & unencumbered capital proj - - - -
Equipment surplus 1.9 1.2 0.1 1.1 -
Year End Total $ 3.0 $ 2.2 $ 1.1 $ 1.1 $ -
Equipment Fund - Year End 2015 - $2.2
30
• New Policy Minimum is equal to 25% of operating expenses
• Loss fund reserves have declined significantly over the last 7 years due to a major
settlement and planned use of reserves
2014
Total
2015
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Minimum Policy - 25% Operations $ 1.0 $ 1.0 $ 1.0 $ -
Committed -
Self Insurance surplus 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2
Assigned -
Prior Year Purchase Orders 0.2 0.2 0.2 -
Year End Total $ 1.8 $ 1.7 $ 1.5 $ 0.2 $ -
Self Insurance Fund - Year End 2015 - $1.7
31
2014
Total
2015
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders 0.3 0.3 0.3 -
Data & Communication Surplus 1.0 1.5 - - 1.5
Year End Total $ 1.3 $ 1.8 $ 0.3 $ - $ 1.5
Data and Communications Fund - Year End 2015 - $1.8
32
• The charges to departments have been reduced slightly to use up some of the fund balance,
which continues through 2016
• New Policy Minimum is equal to 30% of medical and dental expenses
• This fund does not meet policy minimums
2014
Total
2015
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Policy minimum - 30% Operations $ 5.3 $ 5.8 $ 5.8 $ -
Assigned -
Benefit Surplus 2.5 (0.4) 0.2 (0.6) -
Year End Total $ 7.8 $ 5.4 $ 6.0 $ (0.6) $ -
Benefits Fund - Year End 2015 - $5.4
33
• The last couple of years USC has reduced fees to the four utility funds with intent of using some
of this fund balance.
2014
Total
2015
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
Assigned -
Prior Year Purchase Orders 0.4 0.5 0.5 -
Unrestricted 2.2 (0.2) 0.4 (0.6)
Year End Total $ 2.6 $ 0.3 $ 0.9 $ (0.6) $ -
Utility Customer Service Fund - Year End 2015 - $0.3
210
32,018
29,580
2,438
Notes:
College Laporte Mountain 103 10 0.8 8 6 50 2 4 $ 1.00 $ 2.00 $ 3.00 $ 370,800 $ 1.00 $ 2.00 $ 3.00 $ 370,800 $ 1.00 $ 2.00 $ 3.00 $ 370,800 $ 1.00 $ 2.00 $ 3.00 $ 370,800 $ 1.00 $ 2.00
$ 3.00 $ 370,800 (1) Assume Meters enforced 10am - 6pm
College Mountain Oak 62 10 0.8 8 6 50 2 4 1.00 2.00 3.00 223,200 1.00 2.00 3.00 223,200 1.00 2.00 3.00 223,200 1.00 2.00 3.00 223,200 1.00 2.00 3.00 223,200 (2) Assumes 20% of day is
free - turnover at 1 vehicle/hr
College Oak Olive 58 10 0.8 8 6 50 2 4 1.00 2.00 3.00 208,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 208,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 208,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 208,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 208,800 (3) Net hours based on meter
enforcement and free time
Linden Walnut Jefferson 59 10 0.8 8 6 50 2 4 1.00 2.00 3.00 212,400 1.00 2.00 3.00 212,400 1.00 2.00 3.00 212,400 1.00 2.00 3.00 212,400 1.00 2.00 3.00 212,400 (4) Monday through Saturday
Mountain Mason College 58 10 0.8 8 6 50 2 4 1.00 2.00 3.00 208,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 208,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 208,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 208,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 208,800 (5) Up to 12 holidays
Mountain College Remington 12 10 0.8 8 6 50 2 4 1.00 2.00 3.00 43,200 1.00 2.00 3.00 43,200 1.00 2.00 3.00 43,200 1.00 2.00 3.00 43,200 1.00 2.00 3.00 43,200 (6) Amount charged per hour
Mountain NRemington Chestnut 16 10 0.8 8 6 50 2 4 1.00 2.00 3.00 57,600 1.00 2.00 3.00 57,600 1.00 2.00 3.00 57,600 1.00 2.00 3.00 57,600 1.00 2.00 3.00 57,600 (7) High levels of usage
would be .85 to 1.00
Oak Mason College 48 10 0.8 8 6 50 2 4 1.00 2.00 3.00 172,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 172,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 172,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 172,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 172,800
Oak College Remington 15 10 0.8 8 6 50 2 4 1.00 2.00 3.00 54,000 1.00 2.00 3.00 54,000 1.00 2.00 3.00 54,000 1.00 2.00 3.00 54,000 1.00 2.00 3.00 54,000
Olive Mason College 32 10 0.8 8 6 50 2 4 1.00 2.00 3.00 115,200 1.00 2.00 3.00 115,200 1.00 2.00 3.00 115,200 1.00 2.00 3.00 115,200 1.00 2.00 3.00 115,200
Olive College Remington 39 10 0.8 8 6 50 2 4 1.00 2.00 3.00 140,400 1.00 2.00 3.00 140,400 1.00 2.00 3.00 140,400 1.00 2.00 3.00 140,400 1.00 2.00 3.00 140,400
Pine Walnut Jefferson 43 10 0.8 8 6 50 2 4 1.00 2.00 3.00 154,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 154,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 154,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 154,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 154,800
Walnut College Linden 60 10 0.8 8 6 50 2 4 1.00 2.00 3.00 216,000 1.00 2.00 3.00 216,000 1.00 2.00 3.00 216,000 1.00 2.00 3.00 216,000 1.00 2.00 3.00 216,000
Walnut Linden Chestnut 47 10 0.8 8 6 50 2 4 1.00 2.00 3.00 169,200 1.00 2.00 3.00 169,200 1.00 2.00 3.00 169,200 1.00 2.00 3.00 169,200 1.00 2.00 3.00 169,200
Jefferson College Linden 68 10 0.8 8 6 50 2 4 1.00 2.00 3.00 244,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 244,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 244,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 244,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 244,800
Laporte College Mason 9 10 0.8 8 6 50 2 4 1.00 2.00 3.00 32,400 1.00 2.00 3.00 32,400 1.00 2.00 3.00 32,400 1.00 2.00 3.00 32,400 1.00 2.00 3.00 32,400
Mason Laporte Mountain 10 10 0.8 8 6 50 2 4 1.00 2.00 3.00 36,000 1.00 2.00 3.00 36,000 1.00 2.00 3.00 36,000 1.00 2.00 3.00 36,000 1.00 2.00 3.00 36,000
Mason Mountain Oak 19 10 0.8 8 6 50 2 4 1.00 2.00 3.00 68,400 1.00 2.00 3.00 68,400 1.00 2.00 3.00 68,400 1.00 2.00 3.00 68,400 1.00 2.00 3.00 68,400
Mason Oak Olive 28 10 0.8 8 6 50 2 4 1.00 2.00 3.00 100,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 100,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 100,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 100,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 100,800
Mountain RemingtonMathews 4 10 0.8 8 6 50 2 4 1.00 2.00 3.00 14,400 1.00 2.00 3.00 14,400 1.00 2.00 3.00 14,400 1.00 2.00 3.00 14,400 1.00 2.00 3.00 14,400
RemingtonMountain Oak 22 10 0.8 8 6 50 2 4 1.00 2.00 3.00 79,200 1.00 2.00 3.00 79,200 1.00 2.00 3.00 79,200 1.00 2.00 3.00 79,200 1.00 2.00 3.00 79,200
RemingtonOak Olive 28 10 0.8 8 6 50 2 4 1.00 2.00 3.00 100,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 100,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 100,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 100,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 100,800
Phase One 840 10 0.8 8 6 50 2 4 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000 $ 3,024,000
Chestnut Jefferson Mountain 60 10 0.8 8 6 50 2 4 $ 1.00 $ 2.00 $ 3.00 $ 216,000 $ 1.00 $ 2.00 $ 3.00 $ 216,000 $ 1.00 $ 2.00 $ 3.00 $ 216,000 $ 1.00 $ 2.00 $ 3.00 $ 216,000
College Olive Magnolia 37 10 0.6 6 6 50 2 3 1.00 2.00 3.00 99,900 1.00 2.00 3.00 99,900 1.00 2.00 3.00 99,900 1.00 2.00 3.00 99,900
College Magnolia Mulberry - 10 0.6 6 6 50 2 3 1.00 2.00 3.00 0 1.00 2.00 3.00 0 1.00 2.00 3.00 0 1.00 2.00 3.00 0
College Mulberry Myrtle 18 10 0.6 6 6 50 2 3 1.00 2.00 3.00 48,600 1.00 2.00 3.00 48,600 1.00 2.00 3.00 48,600 1.00 2.00 3.00 48,600
College Myrtle Laurel 33 10 0.6 6 6 50 2 3 1.00 2.00 3.00 89,100 1.00 2.00 3.00 89,100 1.00 2.00 3.00 89,100 1.00 2.00 3.00 89,100
Howes Olive Oak 24 10 0.6 6 6 50 2 3 1.00 2.00 3.00 64,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 64,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 64,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 64,800
Howes Oak Mountain 29 10 0.6 6 6 50 2 3 1.00 2.00 3.00 78,300 1.00 2.00 3.00 78,300 1.00 2.00 3.00 78,300 1.00 2.00 3.00 78,300
Howes Mountain Laporte 43 10 0.6 6 6 50 2 3 1.00 2.00 3.00 116,100 1.00 2.00 3.00 116,100 1.00 2.00 3.00 116,100 1.00 2.00 3.00 116,100
Jefferson Pine College 8 10 0.6 6 6 50 2 3 1.00 2.00 3.00 21,600 1.00 2.00 3.00 21,600 1.00 2.00 3.00 21,600 1.00 2.00 3.00 21,600
Jefferson Linden Chestnut 17 10 0.6 6 6 50 2 3 1.00 2.00 3.00 45,900 1.00 2.00 3.00 45,900 1.00 2.00 3.00 45,900 1.00 2.00 3.00 45,900
Magnolia Mathews Remington - 10 0.6 6 6 50 2 3 1.00 2.00 3.00 0 1.00 2.00 3.00 0 1.00 2.00 3.00 0 1.00 2.00 3.00 0
Magnolia Remington College 7 10 0.6 6 6 50 2 3 1.00 2.00 3.00 18,900 1.00 2.00 3.00 18,900 1.00 2.00 3.00 18,900 1.00 2.00 3.00 18,900
Magnolia College Mason 34 10 0.6 6 6 50 2 3 1.00 2.00 3.00 91,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 91,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 91,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 91,800
Mason Magnolia Olive 27 10 0.6 6 6 50 2 3 1.00 2.00 3.00 72,900 1.00 2.00 3.00 72,900 1.00 2.00 3.00 72,900 1.00 2.00 3.00 72,900
Mason Magnolia Mulberry 22 10 0.6 6 6 50 2 3 1.00 2.00 3.00 59,400 1.00 2.00 3.00 59,400 1.00 2.00 3.00 59,400 1.00 2.00 3.00 59,400
Mason Mulberry Myrtle 14 10 0.6 6 6 50 2 3 1.00 2.00 3.00 37,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 37,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 37,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 37,800
Mason Myrtle Laurel 23 10 0.6 6 6 50 2 3 1.00 2.00 3.00 62,100 1.00 2.00 3.00 62,100 1.00 2.00 3.00 62,100 1.00 2.00 3.00 62,100
Mathews Mountain Oak 33 10 0.6 6 6 50 2 3 1.00 2.00 3.00 89,100 1.00 2.00 3.00 89,100 1.00 2.00 3.00 89,100 1.00 2.00 3.00 89,100
Mathews Oak Olive 31 10 0.6 6 6 50 2 3 1.00 2.00 3.00 83,700 1.00 2.00 3.00 83,700 1.00 2.00 3.00 83,700 1.00 2.00 3.00 83,700
Mathews Olive Magnolia - 10 0.6 6 6 50 2 3 1.00 2.00 3.00 0 1.00 2.00 3.00 0 1.00 2.00 3.00 0 1.00 2.00 3.00 0
Mountain Chestnut Peterson 67 10 0.6 6 6 50 2 3 1.00 2.00 3.00 180,900 1.00 2.00 3.00 180,900 1.00 2.00 3.00 180,900 1.00 2.00 3.00 180,900
Mountain Mason Howes 63 10 0.6 6 6 50 2 3 1.00 2.00 3.00 170,100 1.00 2.00 3.00 170,100 1.00 2.00 3.00 170,100 1.00 2.00 3.00 170,100
Oak Mason Howes 57 10 0.6 6 6 50 2 3 1.00 2.00 3.00 153,900 1.00 2.00 3.00 153,900 1.00 2.00 3.00 153,900 1.00 2.00 3.00 153,900
Oak RemingtonMathews 39 10 0.6 6 6 50 2 3 1.00 2.00 3.00 105,300 1.00 2.00 3.00 105,300 1.00 2.00 3.00 105,300 1.00 2.00 3.00 105,300
Olive Mason Howes 51 10 0.6 6 6 50 2 3 1.00 2.00 3.00 137,700 1.00 2.00 3.00 137,700 1.00 2.00 3.00 137,700 1.00 2.00 3.00 137,700
Olive RemingtonMathews 4 10 0.6 6 6 50 2 3 1.00 2.00 3.00 10,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 10,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 10,800 1.00 2.00 3.00 10,800
Phase Two 741
YEAR 1-3 YEAR 4-6 YEAR 7-9 YEAR 10-12 YEAR 13-15
• Downtown Sioux Falls Inc.
z Avg. Commercial Lease (Rent)/Sq Ft: $14.28
z Retail Mix:
z Retail: 50%
z Restaurants and Bars: 50%
z Retail Sales Mix:
z Retail: 36%
z Restaurants and Bars: 34%
z Other: 30%
z District Vacancy: <6%
Sioux Falls
SOUTH DAKOTA
Rapid Transit connect to the University of Oregon.
z According to the Eugene Chamber (Downtown Eugene Inc.), off-street garages are almost never at
capacity, however there are very few available on-street spaces.
z While downtown vacancy is at about 25%, this is mostly because there are a few very large vacant
spaces; most of the smaller retail spaces leased at the beginning of summer 2015.
z Downtown retail is majority locally-owned and can be very seasonal; there are some businesses that
aren’t open for months at a time (especially when school is not in session).
z Parking garage safety is biggest concern for downtown business and property owners.
SOURCES:
• Epark: City of Eugene Parking Services
• Downtown Eugene Inc.
z Leased commercial space: 18%
z Monthly garage permits: 41%
z On-street meter revenue: 19%
z Daily garage parking: 12%
z Citations (in garages): 1%
z Special events: 3%
z Citations (on-street): 6%
DISTRICT VITALITY:
z Avg. Commercial Lease (Rent)/Sq Ft: $24.00
z Retail Mix:
z Retail: 50%
z Restaurants and Bars: 50%
z Retail Sales Mix:
z Retail: 36%
z Restaurants and Bars: 34%
z Other: 30%
z District Vacancy: 25%
Eugene
OREGON
as before the implementation of meters.
z While there were some challenges with meter technology that was originally installed (it was early
generation equipment), since the new single-space meters were installed in 2009, complaints and
tickets have gone down significantly while meter revenue continues to rise. The new meters also
decreased the tension between City enforcement officers and district stakeholders.
z Consumer expectations are rapidly changing and the BID doesn’t hear many complaints from district
business owners or patrons about paying for parking. While the BID admits that they may have lost
some customers with the installation of paid parking on-street, the district has continued to thrive and
now there are multiple options for people to choose from when visiting the district.
z The two biggest lessons learned from the district’s installation of meters were:
1. It’s about balancing the needs of all users and offering multiple options at varying price points; and
2. The importance of using data to determine who is actually parking in valuable on-street spaces,
which in Cherry Creek North’s case was employees and business owners.
SOURCES:
• City of Denver Public Works
• Cherry Creek Business Improvement District
smart meters
z 2014 on-street parking revenue: $1,276,092
(Off-street is all privately managed)
DISTRICT VITALITY:
z Avg. Commercial Lease (Rent)/Sq Ft: $22.32
z Over 400 Businesses, 74% are Local
z Retail Mix:
z Retail: 40%
z Restaurants and Bars: 14%
z Office/Services: 46%
z Retail Sales Mix:
z Retail: 36%
z Restaurants and Bars: 34%
z Other: 30%
z District Vacancy: 10%
Denver
COLORADO
Almost immediately after the commitment was made to build Park Place, a developer purchased a
significantly-sized adjacent property that had long been vacant.
z Having meters provides a diversified revenue stream that has helped MPC navigate the recession.
SOURCES:
• Missoula Parking Commission
• Missoula Downtown Partnership
z Offer “1st hour free” in garages
z 2014 parking revenue: $1,557,656
REVENUE FOR 2014 BY SOURCES:
z Lease spaces – 44%
z Parking meters – 31%
z Parking tickets – 14%
DOWNTOWN VITALITY:
MONTANA
Missoula
z Avg. Commercial Lease (Rent)/Sq Ft: $15.12
z Retail Mix:
z Retail: 65%
z Restaurants and Bars: 35%
z Retail Sales Mix:
z Retail: 60%
z Restaurants and Bars: 40%
z Downtown Vacancy: 13%
support both employees and customers, so the DBI supports the City charging for parking on-street.
z Revenue from on-street paid parking supports other downtown initiatives, including an EcoPass for
all downtown employees, Transportation Demand Management efforts and downtown amenities like
public art and pop-jet fountains.
z As part of an ongoing, multi-year planning project (Access Management and Parking Strategy or
“AMPS”), the City is creating a toolbox of funding mechanisms (i.e., Parking Benefit District, TDM
District) for commercial districts who want to manage parking and raise revenue.
SOURCES:
• Downtown and University Hill Management District and Parking Services
• Downtown Boulder Inc.
DOWNTOWN VITALITY:
z Avg. Commercial Lease (Rent)/Sq Ft: $29.01
z Retail Mix:
z Retail: 60%
z Restaurants and Bars: 40%
z Retail Sales Mix:
z Restaurants and Bars: 55%
z Retail: 45%
z Downtown Vacancy: Very low (< 3%)
z Pay-by-phone available
z Offer “1st hour free” in garages
z Enhanced wayfinding through variable
messaging signage
z Piloting sensors in garages to indicate space
availability
z Installed parking meters in 1946
z 2014 parking revenue: $10,721,689
REVENUE FOR 2014 BY SOURCES:
z On-street meter – 33%
z Short term garage-hourly- 17%
z Long term garage-permits – 26%
z Parking products – garage/on-street – 6%
z NPP-resident/commuter – 1%
z Enforcement – 16%
Boulder
COLORADO
any free off-street parking
⚫ Less attractive for short-term
parkers
Boulder
Missoula
Eugene
Fort Collins
Sioux Falls
Fort Collins,
Missoula, MT
Boulder, CO
Eugene,
OR
Sioux Falls,
SD
CO
Other Strategies to be
Considered with On-Street
& Garage Parking:
Expand Enforcement
To Evenings and Weekends
Manage Employee Parking
Options / incentives to move employees off-street.
Residential Parking Permit Program
Reduce spillover impact on neighborhoods.
Enhanced Communication,
Education and Wayfinding
Help customers find parking quickly and easily.
Alternative Funding Options
• Parking District
• Impact Fee
Transportation Circulation Options
• Circulator Shuttle
• Bike Share
Increase Supply
• Parking Garages
• Surface Lots
Park & Ride
• Max
L
o
n
g
-
T
e
r
m
S
h
o
r
t
-
T
e
r
m
L
e
n
g
t
h
O
f
S
t
a
y
On-Street
Garage
One-Stop Shop
Quick Lunch
Shopping Around
Long Dinner
Employees