HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Mail Packet - 10/11/2016 - Memorandum From Mike Beckstead Re: Councilmember Questions From The September 27 Work Session On The 2017-2018 City Manager�S Recommended Budget3
• Similarly, the collective fund balance in the other Governmental Funds were
about $110M in 2006. Reserves that were ‘saved for a rainy day’ were used
during the Great Recession and total collective fund balances declined to $81M
and have since grown to about $135M at the end of 2015.
• The fund balances of the Utility funds have more swings from year to year due to
the variation in the capital projects for asset and infrastructure replacement being
funded each year. All Utility funds have reserve balances greater than the City’s
Minimum Fund Balance policy.
• Below is a table that illustrates the use of reserves in various funds since 2013:
5) Request from Gino Campana: Please provide a summary explaining the 9%
increase in the Net City Budget from 2016 to 2017.
Response from Mike Beckstead: The Net City Budget (the budget excluding internal
transfers and charges) for 2017 is proposed to increase 9.0% compared to the 2016 Net
City Budget. For 2018, the budget will decrease 0.6% compared to the 2017 Net City
Budget. There are several factors driving the increase in 2017 over 2016 as outlined in
the table below. This includes a mix of increased ongoing expenses for things like
salary, benefits, contributions to PFA and inflation. Additionally, more one-time revenue
from 2015 and 2016 (use tax and 2016 property tax) was included in the 2017-2018
Recommended Budget to fund one-time enhancements.
4
Net Cost Drivers over prior year 2017 2018
Staffing increases of 50.25 FTE in 2017 plus 5.0 FTE in 2018 4.0 0.7
Salary and benefits for current staffing levels 5.8 4.6
PFA contribution per intergovernmental agreement 3.5 1.0
Increased debt payments 2.9 (2.7)
Increased transit services (including funding from CSU) 2.6 3.4 *
Capital Projects 7.3 (9.4)
Inflation on operational expenses (excluding personnel costs) 6.3 0.1
Contribution to I-25 1.1 0.0
Various other one-time and ongoing Enhancement Offers 7.2 (0.6)
Total: $40.7 ($2.9)
$ values in M
* Mostly from Capital Replacement funded by CMAQ
For the past few budget cycles we have had a history of revenue growth over forecast
that goes into fund balance. That additional revenue then becomes reserves that are
used in the next budget cycle. Similarly, budgeted expenses are underspent annually
since the City cannot spend in excess of Council approved appropriations. That also
becomes fund balance which can be used in the next budget cycle.
The combination of these effects creates an incremental ‘stair step’ in the budget where
year one of the new budget has an increase over the previous year, while year two of
the new budget cycle is typically flat or declining from year one.
It is also important to note that the adopted budget can be modified substantially
through City Council approval of Reappropriation, the Annual Adjustment Ordinance
5
and various supplemental appropriations. With that perspective, the proposed 2017
Budget is about $8.6M less than the 2016 year-to-date Amended Budget as can be
seen on page 507 of the Recommended Budget.
Actual Actual
Amended
Budget Proposed % Change Proposed
2014 2015 2016 2017 from 2016 2018
$551,191,599 $602,173,237 $629,220,117 $620,562,809 -1.4% $614,388,368
6) Question from Ross Cunniff: Can the fund statements in the Recommended
Budget be broken out by Offer?
Response from Mike Beckstead: The expenses in the fund statements in the
Recommended Budget can be grouped in a number of ways including by department,
activity and expense category. In reviewing some of the fund statements, we concur
that grouping by expense category is not as informative as grouping in other ways,
where available. Unfortunately, it’s not possible to group by Offer since the Offers
change from one budget cycle to the next and the prior budget cycle Offers are not
stored in our budgeting system. That said, we will re-evaluate each of the fund
statements and determine what types of groupings would be more informative than
expense categorization and will incorporate that into future published fund statements.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Outcome: Safe Community
7) Question from Ray Martinez: What results would we get for Offer 95.1 -
ENHANCEMENT: Fort Collins Marijuana Impact Analysis?
Response from Ginny Sawyer: The Community Marijuana Analysis Offer is
requesting $50k for an RFP to solicit research proposals to provide both baseline data
and comparison data on some or all of the following:
• Local usage or change in use among all age groups
• Change in crime related to marijuana
• Local health impacts
• Specific impacts to student populations including PSD, CSU, and FRCC
• Local economic impact of marijuana businesses
• Other community Impacts including any impacts to neighborhoods
More and more studies are coming out from varying sources and are drawing widely
divergent conclusions. This study would focus only on the City of Fort Collins.
6
8) Request from Ross Cunniff: Please provide a memo on the training that will be
provided to patrol officers who will be using Tasers.
Response from Jerry Schiager: Please see Attachment #4 which is a memo from
Lieutenant Dan Murphy explaining the department philosophy and training in reference
to the use of Taser Electronic Control Weapons. This is in response to a question about
whether police officers use the Tasers as a convenience rather than a necessary
response to resistance. Fort Collins Police officers are trained to select the appropriate
tool to respond to the level of resistance. Our officers have used the Taser 17 times this
year to confront suspects who are displaying, at minimum, defensive resistance. Tasers
have been shown to reduce injuries to officers and suspects in situations where
suspects resist arrest. I am confident that our policy and training for this weapons
system are appropriate and in agreement with current best practices in the industry.
9) Question from Ross Cunniff: What is the scope of work on Oxbow Levee and
what are we doing with the surrounding habitat restoration?
Response from Jon Haukaas: The project will address high flow conveyance
deficiencies with a dual approach. First will be to raise portions of the levee near Linden
Avenue and Lincoln Avenue near where the levee ties back into the adjacent streets.
This will be done with a combination of grading and by raising the elevation of the
concrete Poudre River Trail that runs along the crest of the levee. Secondly will be
reshape the banks in this section, primarily on the northerly side. This work will include
the removal of a significant amount of trees and other vegetation. The work will follow
the guidelines of the Natural Areas & Stormwater approved Poudre River Enhancement
Plan. All habitat restoration will be conducted with heavy involvement from the Natural
Areas department to include both riparian habitat and any work in the river itself.
10) Request from Gino Campana: Did the priority of the Mail Creek Stream
Rehabilitation change since the SAR response a few years ago? Please also include
the previous SAR response and provide any additional information that has changed
since that time.
Response from Jon Haukaas: The priority of the Mail Creek project has not changed
since the renewed discussions of the project in early 2014. Please refer to Attachment
#5 which is the requested SAR response regarding the advancement of Stream
Restoration projects dated 7-15-2014. A review of all related SAR responses shows a
consistent message that the Mail Creek project would be submitted for consideration in
the 2017-2018 BFO process.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
7
Outcome: Transportation
11) Request from Ross Cunniff: Please provide a City map with the locations of
traffic calming initiatives that occurred in 2015-16 and which ones are known for 2017-
2018.
Response from Joe Olson: Please refer to Attachment #6 that displays the requested
data of the Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation projects. It includes all projects since the
inception of the program in 2011, but please note that the projects in 2015-16 are
broken out with color coding to highlight those projects as requested.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Outcome: Culture and Recreation
12) Request from Ray Martinez: Please quantify the energy savings from replacing
the Rolland Moore Ball Field Lights in Offer 15.7
Response from Mike Calhoon: The cost of installation of Rolland Moore ballfield
lights for all four fields is as follows:
$1,292,000 - LED lights
915,000 - HID (traditional) lights
$377,000
The electrical cost savings for the LED lights is estimated to be at 59%. This will
provide a simple return on investment of 25 years. The Offer was originally submitted
for the entire amount to replace all four ballfield lights, but the Offer in the
Recommended Budget only funds the replacement of two of those.
13) Question from Ross Cunniff: How do we use contractual services with our
forestry operations and how could the Offers 34.4 and 34.5 be scaled down?
Response from Mike Calhoon: Offer 34.4 is not scalable because the resources are
needed to add a new Forestry pruning crew. Forestry field work is carried out with crews
consisting of 3-4 staff and supporting equipment. Forestry crews must have a Crew
Chief and two Forestry Technicians. The Forestry Field Worker II performs groundwork,
which increases crew output and efficiency. Reducing this offer compromises safety and
the ability to achieve the annual pruning rotation goal of 20% of trees less than 18” in
diameter. This target equates to pruning all smaller City broadleaf trees every 5 years,
but the current pruning cycle is 11.2 years.
Over 15,000 new City trees have been planted or have been included on development
plans since 2011. This rapid rate of growth in the public tree inventory system is
contributing to an unprecedented increase in demand for small tree pruning. This
8
Inventory increase represents around a 30% expansion to the City tree inventory that is
currently at about 50,000 trees. Contractors are not currently equipped to handle this
level of technical work. The local arborists are geared toward larger tree removal and
pruning operations. Blending the use of contractors and City crews also enables the
quicker response to emergency operations.
Offer 34.5 was originally put forth at $288,474 in 2017 and $290,000 in 2018. This
allowed us to reach the City Forester recommended 14% standard for pruning trees
above 18” on an annual basis. This equates to a 7 year cycle for large broadleaf trees.
During the budget review process this offer was scaled back to the current allocation of
$288,474 in 2017 and $190,016 in 2018. This reduction will also reduce the pruning
rotation to 11.7% of trees with a diameter of 18” or greater being pruned annually. The
current percentage of trees of this size receiving pruning is 9.4% which only allows for
pruning each large tree every 10.8 years. Decreasing this offer further will cause
significant problems with public safety, reduced tree health and diminished benefits.
Carbon sequestration benefits will also be lost with the longer pruning cycle. The
frequency standard is based on an assessment of the City’s public tree inventory,
published research and review of cycles of other cities that provide quality tree care.
14) Question from Ross Cunniff: How are the programs provided in Offer 65.2 for
Recreation Activities and Programs continuously evaluated for effectiveness and
efficiency?
Response from Bob Adams:
o Each instructor-led activity must meet a set number of enrollments in order for the
program to occur. Programs with consistently low enrollments will be re-evaluated or
discontinued.
o Quarterly surveys are sent to all customers who enrolled during the previous quarter.
Feedback is requested on the program satisfaction, marketing, facility condition,
pricing, etc. The information gathered provides relevant and timely feedback to
continuously Plan/Do/Check/Act on the programs offered.
o Recreation staff reviews their programs on an ongoing basis, insuring alignment with
our organizational mission. The following evaluation criteria is also utilized:
• Financial Viability
• Market Position
• Competitive Landscape
o With this information the staff determines if we should invest, collaborate, subsidize
or divest in the program.
9
15) Question from Ross Cunniff: What are the compelling reasons why the positions
in Offer 65.8 - ENHANCEMENT: 1.0 FTE - Ice Program Leader and Offer 65.10 -
ENHANCEMENT: 1.0 FTE - Publicity/Marketing Tech are necessary for the Recreation
Department?
Response from Bob Adams:
Ice Program Leader:
o Participation in ice programs has grown over 44% in last the 5 years and is not
sustainable with current staff levels.
This chart includes participation from enrollments, drop-ins, and hockey
rentals & figure skating clubs. It does not include special programs like ice
show, tournaments or private lessons.
o This will reduce overtime/compensation costs and allow for current staff to have a
work life balance.
o There is an opportunity to substantially increase participation in all areas of ice and
generate more revenue, covering the cost of an additional Leader.
• Additional staffing would allow: Direct hands on involvement and customer
interaction creating a better customer service by on ice involvement from
instructing to customer interaction.
• Hands on and support for the on ice learn to skate supervisor, Cub hockey
instructor and trainer, Curling and Speed Skating, Ice Show Director, organizing
skating promotions and events.
• Learn to Skate class organizer, Ice show leader, ice scheduler, user group
liaison, assistance with part time staff, payroll, new hire responsibilities,
Recreator and reports.
10
Publicity Marketing Technician
o Recreation’s marketing and community relations staff has expanded their range of
services to other departments within Community Services, in addition to a growing
Recreation Department. They now provide essential services to five other
areas/divisions including Parks (with Cemeteries, Golf and Forestry) and Park
Planning and Development. Staff currently coordinates marketing, communications,
media relations, public engagement/outreach, special events and
advertising/sponsorships for five additional areas. By expanding their service areas
from one department to six total departments/divisions, additional support and
resources are necessary to successfully provide and sustain high service levels.
This position will significantly contribute to our goals of providing the community and
staff high quality services.
o Public engagement and outreach is a priority and requires more focus and attention.
Additional support received from this position will allow staff to increase focus on
important public engagement and outreach projects for areas such as Park Planning
and Development, Forestry, Golf, Cemeteries, Parks and Recreation. As our need
to increase awareness, feedback and collaboration grows we must enable staff to
concentrate on public outreach/engagement projects. This position will play an
important role in coordinating and supporting the full spectrum of public outreach
projects.
o Increased revenues for Parks and Recreation are expected and needed. This
position will enhance revenue generation for Recreation and Parks by allowing staff
to pursue additional advertising revenue and sponsorships that support Parks and
Recreation programs. Several areas and programs benefit from advertising revenue
and sponsorships produced by this workgroup. Our needs for additional ad
revenues and sponsorships have grown and it is important that we leverage all of
the opportunities that are available to us.
o Special attention on partnership development. This workgroup will also be expected
to help create more partnerships and collaborations throughout the community.
Community Services benefit from seeking out and discovering innovative ways to
partner and collaborate. This position will allow staff to better develop
partnership/collaboration strategies and ideas by expanding bandwidth and
increasing resources.
o Communication expectations have increased for Parks, Forestry, Golf, Cemeteries,
Recreation and Park Planning and Development. In general, our need to
communicate with the public has expanded. Our goal is to continuously improve the
way we communicate, inform and engage the public. This position will enhance
internal resources and provide additional support to all levels of communication so
that we may provide and sustain a high level of service to internal and external
customers.
11
16) Question from Ross Cunniff: What is the compelling reason why the position in
Offer 70.4 - ENHANCEMENT: 1 FTE Landscape Architect is necessary for the Park
Planning Department?
Response from Kurt Friesen: With four project managers and 50 projects underway,
there is not sufficient staff to deliver projects of high quality in a timely manner. Core
departmental work, including neighborhood park, community park and trail development
projects are not being completed in a timely manner due to other project commitments,
often as part of other department initiatives or partnerships. The work load is not
anticipated to lighten over the next several years, with large planning & design efforts
including the Parks & Recreation Plan update, City Plan update, City Park update, and
multiple park and trail projects anticipated.
Key Considerations
• With many city wide efforts overlapping with trail or park projects, department
services are in high demand.
• The Park Planning & Development Department has not added a full time
professional staff member in over 15 years. Staff demands have increased
significantly during that timeframe.
• Without an additional staff person, grant funded projects are in jeopardy of
exceeding the allotted times for completion allowed by GOCO or other grant
funding agencies.
• Several large projects are underway, including Twin Silo Park and the Poudre
River Whitewater Park projects. Both of these projects require significant time
from 2 of 4 project managers. A full team of consultants is being used for both of
these projects, but significant time from staff is still required.
• In 2006, when Spring Canyon Park was under construction, two staff members
were dedicated to the project full time throughout construction, which lasted over
a year. Twin Silo Park is now under construction, with only one staff member
committed to the project, who also manages multiple other projects.
• The next several years will be busy ones for the department. Anticipated projects
include: Parks & Recreation Plan Update, Poudre River Trail/I-25 Underpass,
City Park update, multiple neighborhood parks, community garden construction,
and planning for park refresh efforts
• Consultant services are appropriate for larger projects, but are often not
appropriate for smaller projects that don’t have sufficient funding to afford a
consultant team, or include a body of tasks that can easily be accomplished by a
consultant team. Many small projects with low budgets are currently underway
and require attention from staff.
17) Question from Gerry Horak: Why is money needed for the scholarships for the
museum?
Response from Cheryl Donaldson: The Opportunity Program, FCMoD’s scholarship
fund, provides access to children living in poverty to the Museum’s exhibits and
programs. While some of the funding is provided by private funders, the need is greater
than what the Museum can support. The money is used to cover the costs associated
12
with providing these services to the children and their families. Cost associated with this
program includes a part-time contract employee to manage and maintain our
partnerships with community organizations who serve low-income youth and families,
as well as assist with the distribution of guest passes to FCMoD, including Poudre
School District, Thompson School District and social service agencies. Additionally,
there are direct program costs for incremental supplies, staff and maintenance for
school programs, summer programs, special events and general museum admission.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Outcome: Neighborhood Livability and Social Health
18) Request from Kristin Stephens and Ray Martinez: Please provide a
comprehensive response to the funded and unfunded Offers that support Affordable
Housing and the Land Bank. Please also include the impacts to Affordable Housing that
are supported through the CDBG and Home programs that are appropriated outside of
the biennial budget process due to the timing of those federal grants.
Response from Beth Sowder: Affordable Housing is directly supported by the
following offers:
Recommended for funding
27.1 Social Sustainability Core: $525,047 Affordable Housing Fund
27.17 Enhancement - Community Capital Improvement Program - Affordable
Housing Capital Fund: $250,000 (Voter approved)
Not recommended for funding
27.5- KFCG Enhancement - Mobile Home Park Revitalization: $500,000
27.7- KFCG Enhancement - Land Bank Acquisition For Affordable Housing: $1,000,000
27.15 KFCG Enhancement - Affordable Housing Innovation Competition: $130,000
27.18 Enhancement - Utility Development Support for Land Bank Program: $333,000
CDBG and HOME funds distributed by the City’s Competitive Process average between
$1.5 - $2 million per year (including project income). Please see Attachment #7.
Affordable Housing is indirectly supported by the following offers - Broad spectrum of
support services some have a closer housing connection than others – such as rental
assistance versus child care:
Recommended for funding
27.1 Social Sustainability Core: $640,000 Human Services Programs
27.10 KFCG Enhancement - Homelessness Initiatives: $224,132
Not recommended for funding
27.4- KFCG Enhancement - Human Services Program Grant Funding: $500,000
Key Economic Trends in Fort
Collins and Larimer County
Dr. Martin Shields
Department of Economics
Colorado State University
Attachment #1
Key Trends
• Health care and retail are leading sectors in terms
of job growth
– Obamacare and population growth are important
contributors to increased demand for health services
• Unemployment rate near historic low
– Labor scarcity putting slight upward pressure on
wages
– Increased in-migration due to relative economic
health and quality of life
• Despite rising wages, housing prices growing
faster than incomes
Larimer County Employment Growth
by Industry: 2015Q1-2016Q1
-248
-79
17
30
35
50
68
88
111
191
193
228
237
244
273
304
552
562
680
716
1,366
-400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Administrative and Waste Services
Mining
Utilities
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
Unclassified
Professional and Technical Services
Management of Companies and Enterprises
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting
Finance and Insurance
Transportation and Warehousing
Wholesale Trade
Public Administration
Information
Other Services, Ex. Public Admin
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Educational Services
Accommodation and Food Services
Construction
Manufacturing
Retail Trade
Health Care and Social Assistance
Source: QCEW and CDLE/LMI
Total change 5,620 (3.9%)
Unemployment Rate Approaching
Its Floor
Source: BLS
Average Weekly Wages Show
Recent Uptick
Source: QCEW and CDLE/LMI
Higher Education Levels not
Translating into Higher Pay
Source: ACS and CO Demographer
Housing Price Growth Outstripping
Income Growth since 2013
182%
141%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
200%
20002001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Housing Price Index Per Capita Income
projected
Growth since 2000 (not inflation adjusted)
Source: FHFA and BEA-REIS
Housing Market Pressures
• More people are moving into the county than
out
• People moving in have higher household
incomes than those moving out
• But these incomes are substantially lower
than the incomes of existing residents
• This puts pressure on the rental market and
the lower end of the housing market
Near Term Outlook
• Larimer County job growth rates will continue to
outpace state and nation
• Region will continue to see relatively high net in-
migration rates
– This is more due to the overall strong health of the
economy than the growth in particularly special
industries
– But increased housing prices in Fort Collins may slow
in-migration somewhat
• Planned interest rate increases by the Fed will
have little impact on housing market
1
Utilities Strategic Financial Plan & Recommendations
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director
Attachment #2
Purpose and Direction Sought
Objective:
• Continue the discussion from April 18th
on the Strategic Financial Planning
efforts for Utilities
• Provide an overview of the financial model assumptions and analysis
• Recommend strategic path forward to meet 10 year operational and financial
objectives
Direction Sought:
• Does the Council Finance Committee support the Utilities Strategic Financial
Planning recommendations?
2
Utilities Planning Process
3
Assess Operational
Needs / Risks
Determine Optimal
Solutions &
Mitigations
Identify Anticipated
Capital Projects
Over Planning
Horizon
Establish Capital
Project Prioritization
Criteria
Determine Relative
Weighting of Criteria
Prioritize Projects
with Criteria
Review Financial
Position of Each
Utility
Determine Capital
Investment
Capacities
Recommend
Financial Strategy to
Achieve
Operational
Objectives
Master
Planning
Master
Planning
Capital
Improvement
Planning (CIP)
Capital
Improvement
Planning (CIP)
Strategic
Financial
Planning
Strategic
Financial
Planning
Next Steps
As Presented at CFC April 18th
• Analyzing the anticipated capital expenses into the long
term financial models
• Perform scenario analyses to understand cash vs. debt
funding impacts on rates, reserves, debt capacity and the
financial position of each Enterprise Fund
• Develop recommendations on rate increases and debt
issuances to meet the expected needs of the Fund
4
Model & Assumptions
Utilities Strategic Financial Plan
Model
• Looks back 10 years and forward 10 years
• Incorporates capital planning
• Utilizes Available Reserves to recognize prior commitments
Assumptions
• O&M inflation based on historical trend
• PRPA wholesale rate increases based on 5/10/16 forecast
5
Objectives
Utilities Strategic Financial Plan
Objectives
• Maintain adequate reserve balances such that:
• Meet Minimum Reserves Policy
• Reserves and revenues adequate to cover near term capital
requirements
• Maintain current credit ratings for each Enterprise Fund and the City
• Avoid rate spikes by limiting rate increases to no more than 5%
annually
6
Model Scenarios
Utilities Strategic Financial Plan
• Scenario 1: No debt; rates adjusted as needed; capital expenses as
in CIP
• Scenario 2: Debt is considered; rates are modestly increased; capital
expenses as in CIP
• Scenario 3: Debt is considered; rates are modestly increased; capital
expenses are smoothed and / or the timeframe extended to
complete capital expenses.
7
8
Light & Power Enterprise Fund
Light & Power Fund CIP
9
2015 Operating Revenue not used for Purchased Power expense was $27.1M
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
$18,000,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Annual Capital Investment
501 - Light & Power Fund
Operational Technology & Fiber
Annexations
New Capacity
Substation Improvements
Distribution System Improvements
Ave. Capital Investment 2017-26
Historical Ave Capital 2006-15
Light & Power Shortfall
10
($10,000,000)
($5,000,000)
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Light & Power Available Reserves
2017 - 2026
Light & Power
Scenario 1 – Rates Only
11
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
9.0%
10.0%
Rate Increase
($5,000,000)
($2,500,000)
$0
$2,500,000
$5,000,000
$7,500,000
$10,000,000
Operating Income
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
$70,000,000
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026
Available Reserves
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
30000000
35000000
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026
Outstanding Debt
Light & Power
Recommendation
12
Recommended Strategy: Scenario 1
• Capital needs achievable through modest rate increases
• Operating Income and Available Reserves remain healthy
• No debt issuance is necessary
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Rate Increase 2-5% 2-4% 2-4% 2-4% 2-4% 2-4% 2-4% 2-4% 2-4% 2-4%
* Rate increases may change depending on what PRPA needs each year.
Light & Power Potential Rate Drivers
13
Rate Increase 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
PRPA 3.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9%
L&P Operations 0-1% 0-1% 0-1% 0-1% 0-1% 0-1% 0-1% 0-1% 0-1% 0-1%
L&P Capital Needs 0-1% 0-1% 0-1% 0-1% 0-1% 0-1% 0-1% 0-1% 0-1% 0-1%
Income Qualified Rate 1%
CAP Initiatives 0-1% 0-1% 0-1% 0-1% 0-1% 0-1% 0-1% 0-1% 0-1% 0-1%
Total Not to Exceed 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
14
Water Enterprise Fund
Water Fund CIP
15
2015 Operating Revenue was $27.7M
$-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Annual Capital Investment
502 - Water Fund Environmental Services
Water Resources
Water Distribution
Water Production
Ave. Capital Investment 2017-26
Historical Ave Capital 2006-15
($100,000,000)
($80,000,000)
($60,000,000)
($40,000,000)
($20,000,000)
$0
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Water Available Reserves
2017 - 2026
Water Shortfall
16
($5,000,000)
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
Operating Income
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026
Outstanding Debt
($10,000,000)
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
$70,000,000
$80,000,000
$90,000,000
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026
Available Reserves
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0% Rate Increase
Water
Scenario 1 – Rates Only
17
Water
Scenario 1 – Rates Only
18
• CIP not achievable through modest rate increases alone
• Available Reserves are too low
• Uncertainty of Halligan impacts near term capital needs
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Rate Increase 0.0% 1.0% 25.0% 28.0% 6.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.0%
*$160M of capital work is expected to be needed between 2017 and 2026 NOT including Halligan.
Water
Scenario 2 – Rates and Debt
19
($5,000,000)
($3,000,000)
($1,000,000)
$1,000,000
$3,000,000
$5,000,000
$7,000,000
Operating Income
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
$70,000,000
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026
Outstanding Debt
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
$35,000,000
$40,000,000
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026
Available Reserves
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0% Rate Increase
Water
Scenario 2 – Rates and Debt
20
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Rate Increase 0-3% 0-3% 0-3% 0-3% 3-5% 3-5% 3-5% 3-5% 3-5% 3-5%
Debt Issuance $35-40M $20-30M $3-5M
*$160M of capital work is expected to be needed between 2017 and 2026 NOT including Halligan.
• Capital needs achievable through modest rate increases and
debt issuance
• Available Reserves are healthy
• Operating Income slightly insufficient
• $55-70M debt issuance is necessary in near term
Water
Scenario 3 – Rates, Debt and Timeline
21
($5,000,000)
($3,000,000)
($1,000,000)
$1,000,000
$3,000,000
$5,000,000
$7,000,000
Operating Income
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026
Outstanding Debt
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
$35,000,000
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026
Available Reserves
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0% Rate Increase
Water
Recommendation
22
Recommended Strategy: Scenario 3
• Capital needs achievable through modest rate increases, debt
issuances and smoothing capital spend over 10 year horizon
• Available Reserves are healthy but not excessive
• Operating Income is positive
• Debt issuance is less than Scenario 2
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Rate Increase 0-5% 1-5% 1-3% 1-3% 3-5% 3-5% 3-5% 3-5% 3-5% 3-5%
Debt Issuance $30M $20-30M $3-5M
*$160M of capital work is expected to be needed between 2017 and 2026 NOT including Halligan.
Wastewater Enterprise Fund
23
Wastewater Fund CIP
24
2015 Operating Revenue was $22.1M
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Annual Capital Investment
503 - Wastewater Fund
Environmental Services
Wastewater Collection
Water Reclamation
Ave. Capital Investment 2017-26
Historical Ave Capital 2006-15
($10,000,000)
($5,000,000)
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Wastewater Available Reserves
2017 - 2026
Wastewater Shortfall
25
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
$10,000,000
Operating Income
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026
Outstanding Debt
$0
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
$100,000,000
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026
Available Reserves
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0% Rate Increase
Wastewater
Scenario 1 – Rates Only
26
Wastewater Recommendation
27
Recommended Strategy: Scenario 1
• Capital needs in CIP are met with modest rate increases
• Operating Income and Available Reserves remain healthy
• No debt issuance is necessary
• Regulatory driven nutrient removal estimated to require $60-80M in
2027-30
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Rate Increase 1-3% 1-3% 1-3% 1-3% 1-3% 0-3% 0-3% 0-3% 0-3% 0-3%
* $80M of capital work is expected to be needed between 2017 and 2026.
Stormwater Enterprise Fund
28
Stormwater Fund CIP
29
2015 Operating Revenue was $15.0M
$-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Annual Capital Investment
504 - Stormwater Fund Boxelder Basin Stormwater
Authority
Stream Rehabilitation
Minor Capital
Major Capital
Ave. Capital Investment 2017-26
Historical Ave Capital 2006-15
($120,000,000)
($100,000,000)
($80,000,000)
($60,000,000)
($40,000,000)
($20,000,000)
$0
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Stormwater Available Reserves
2017 - 2026
Stormwater Shortfall
30
Stormwater
Scenario 1 – Rates Only
31
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
Operating Income
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026
Outstanding Debt
($30,000,000)
($25,000,000)
($20,000,000)
($15,000,000)
($10,000,000)
($5,000,000)
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026
Available Reserves
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
120.0% Rate Increase
Stormwater
Scenario 2 – Rates and Debt
32
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
Operating Income
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
$70,000,000
$80,000,000
$90,000,000
$100,000,000
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026
Outstanding Debt
($10,000,000)
($5,000,000)
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
$35,000,000
$40,000,000
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026
Available Reserves
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0% Rate Increase
Stormwater
Scenario 2 – Rates and Debt
33
• CIP not achievable through modest rate increases and debt
issuance
• Available Reserves are still negative in some years
• $80-90M debt issuance is necessary in near term
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Rate Increase 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 7.9% 0.0% 10.0%
Debt Issuance $35-40M $45-50M $15-20M
*$156M of capital work is expected to be needed between 2017 and 2026.
Stormwater
Scenario 3 – Rates, Debt and Timeline
34
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
Operating Income
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026
Outstanding Debt
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026
Available Reserves
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0% Rate Increase
Stormwater
Recommendation
35
Recommended Strategy: Scenario 3
• CIP is achievable over 15 years rather than 10 years
• Operating Income and Available Reserves remain healthy
• $40-50M debt issuance is necessary in near term
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Rate Increase 0-3% 0-3% 0-3% 0-3% 0-3% 0-3% 0-3% 0-3% 0-3% 0-3%
Debt Issuance $20-25M $20-25M $5-10M
*$156M of capital work is expected to be needed between 2017 and 2031.
Utility-wide Summary of Recommendations
36
Recommendations
37
Manage the operational and capital needs for each Enterprise Fund
as follows:
• Light & Power – Modest rate adjustments
• Water – Rate adjustments less than 5% annually, debt issuance
$50-60M and spreading the CIP more evenly over the 10 years
• Wastewater – Modest rate adjustments
• Stormwater – Minimal rate adjustments, debt issuances $40-50M
and spreading the CIP over 15 years rather than 10 years
Purpose and Direction Sought
Objective:
• Continue the discussion from April 18th
on the Strategic Financial Planning
efforts for Utilities
• Provide an overview of the financial model assumptions and analysis
• Recommend strategic path forward to meet 10 year operational and financial
objectives
Direction Sought:
• Does the Council Finance Committee support the Utilities Strategic Financial
Planning recommendations?
38
39
Proposed 2017 Utility Rate Increases
Utility
Proposed 2017
Increase
Considerations
Electric 3.45%
PRPA 2.0%; 1.25% necessary to generate positive
operating income
Water 5.00% 10 year capital investment plan; low Available Reserves
Wastewater 3.00% 10 year capital investment plan
Stormwater 5.00%
Near-term stream restoration priorities; increase debt
capacity to meet 15 year capital investment plan
Attachment #3
Water & Stormwater Increase 3% vs 5%
Ramifications of limiting rate increases to 3.0% in the Water Fund
Lowers annual revenue increase by $500K
Near term (2017-18) offers not funded or reduced 2017 2018
Offer 6.19 - Conservation Coordinator (unfunded) $70K
Offer 6.23 - Utility Inspector (unfunded) $85K
Offer 6.28 - Water Vulnerability Assessment (unfunded) $250K
Offer 6.26 - Underground Electric Supply (reduced) $95K
Offer 6.29 - Cathodic Protection (reduced) $1.0M
Longer term (2017-26) would reduce revenues by at least $10M and delay capital improvements
Ramifications of limiting rate increase to 3.0% in the Stormwater Fund
Lowers annual revenue increase by $300K
Near term (2017-18) offers not funded 2017 2018
Offer 8.6 - Stream Rehabilitation Program (unfunded in 2017; reduced in2018) $350K $600K
Longer term (2017-31) would reduce revenues by $4.5M
Alternative - Debt Issuance in 2017
Utilize proceeds to support capital improvements - prioritize stream restoration
1
Professional Standards
2221 South Timberline Road
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.416.2960
970.224.6088 - fax
MEMORANDUM
To: Assistant Chief Jerry Schiager
From: Lt. Dan Murphy – Professional Standards Unit
Ref: Taser Training & Use of Force - Council Reply
Date: 9/30/16
The Fort Collins Police Taser training program is part of an agency wide philosophy of
escalation and de-escalation based on the totality of the circumstances taught in the
agency’s defensive tactics system. As with all of defensive tactics techniques, they are
related to how an officer handles response options related to the amount and type of
resistance the suspect offers.
All techniques are fundamentally based on the landmark case that sets standards for
law enforcement use of force under the Fourth Amendment is Graham v. Conner. In
Graham, the Supreme Court established standards for determining if a use of force by
an officer was reasonable.
In Chew v. Gates, the 9
th
Circuit Court of Appeals ranked several of the Graham factors
that can be used to assess the risk posed by an individual’s action.
1. The first factor is whether the subject poses an immediate risk to the safety of
officers or others?
2. Next, is the subject actively resisting the officers’ attempt to perform their lawful
duties?
3. The third factor to consider is whether the circumstances of the situation were
tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving. In other words, were the circumstances
changing quickly and requiring immediate response from officers, or had the
pace of the situation slowed and provided officers time to evaluate the situation
and consider numerous options?
4. The next factor to consider is the severity of the crime that the subject was
suspected of committing or was in the process of committing.
5. Finally, was the subject attempting to flee to evade seizure by officers?
All officers are taught to use tools in the tool box approach to response to resistance;
they rely on law, policy, ethics, agency values, norms and community expectations to
make split second force decisions. All officers are taught, when practical, they should try
to give a verbal warning to the suspect and have reasonable perception that the
suspect is capable of complying with demands.
Attachment #4
2
The agency’s Taser/Electronic Control Weapon (ECW) policy also dictates that there is
a staff review of each “Taser Application” by the “Standing Use of Force Board” within
the Patrol Division to ensure it was reasonable and appropriate for the circumstances.
Use of the Taser is also described in Fort Collins Policy manual under; 309.5.1
APPLICATION OF THE ECW.
The ECW may be used in any of the following circumstances, when the circumstances
perceived by the officer at the time indicate that such application is reasonably
necessary to control a person:
(a) The subject is violent or is physically resisting.
(b) The subject has demonstrated by words or action, the intent to use defensive
resistance or higher against the officer or another.
(c) The subject is about to commit suicide or inflict serious bodily injury upon
himself/herself. Mere flight from a pursuing officer, without other known circumstances
or factors, is not sufficient cause for the use of the ECW to apprehend an individual.
Currently there are 60 Tasers on patrol since January 2016, they are assigned to
officers with body cameras and there have been 17 applications (situations where the
darts were fired at a suspect) and 24 deployments (situations where the Taser was
displayed). Each Taser operator is required to attend a 10 hour user certification course
which includes use of force training, proper operation and function, proper handling,
medical concerns, escalation & de-escalation tactics, active decision making scenarios,
qualification and a written test. Operators must then recertify as a Taser operator yearly
through the Training Unit.
The following charts are used to teach officers response to resistance and show the
placement of the Taser/ECW plus other use of force options in our defensive tactics
program.
Police
Presence
Verbal
Commands
Physical
Force
Intermediate
Weapons
Deadly
Force
Chemical
Agents, Taser
Officer
Use of Force Options
Think of this concept as a
toolbox. Use the right tool for the
job at hand. It might be
appropriate to use deadly force
right away; you may not have
time for anything else. You may
start with one tool and then
switch to another. Keep in mind
de-escalation and escalation of
force. Never sacrifice safety.
3
Continuum of Force
The continuum of Force (Force Continuum) shows the relationship between different
types of force. This is matched with the levels of resistance a suspect can offer during a
contact. Remember the law allows for one step above that of the suspect (One + One
theory). Important: Do not assume your action in response to resistance must be in this
order from bottom to top. Proper application of your response to resistance should
follow the Use of Force Options above.
Psychological Intimidation
Verbal Commands
Physical Control
Chemical Agents,
Taser
Intermediate Weapons:
ASP, Baton, K-9
Deadly Force
Officer’s Response
To Resistance
Officer Presence
Verbal Non-compliance
Passive Resistance
Defensive Resistance
Active Aggression
Aggravated Active
Aggression
Suspect’s Resistance
Attachment #5
S College Ave
S Shields St
S Howes St
Carpenter Rd
W Laurel St
WWillox Ln
E Horsetooth Rd
S County Road7
W Elizabeth St
W Horsetooth Rd
W Harmony Rd
W Mulberry
St
E Trilby R
d
Remington St
Laporte Ave
W Drake Rd
S County
Road11
E
L
incolnAve
E Harmony R
d
N Timberline Rd
N Mason
St
W Vine Dr
N Taf
t
H
i
ll
Rd
E P
r
ospe
c
t Rd
Tur
nb
erry Rd
Kecht
er Rd
Country Club Rd
E Mulberry St
N Shields St
Landin
gs
Dr
E VineDr
W Prospect Rd
Jefferson
St
E Willo
x
Ln
Mountain Vista Dr
E Drake Rd
Funding
Year
CDBG
Grant
CDBG
Program
Income
CDBG
Unprogram
med,
Uncommitt
ed or
Reprogram
med
CDBG
ARR Act
of 2009
(FY2008)
HOME
Grant
HOME
Program
Income
HOME
Unprogram
med and
Reprogramm
ed
Affordable
Housing
Funds
(AHF)
AHF
KFCG
Human
Services
Program
(HSP)
HSP
KFCG
Total
Funding
Housing &
Public
Facility
Public/
Human
Service
Planning &
Administratio
n
Total
FY07 $1,034,986 $18,500 $399,878 $640,931 $50,000 $292,686 133,000 $335,000 $2,904,981 $2,137,261 $493,023 $274,697 $2,904,981
FY08 $998,391 $57,000 $374,320 $618,429 $75,000 $477,477 333,000 $440,334 $3,373,951 $2,502,390 $598,643 $272,918 $3,373,951
FY09 $1,017,507 $52,653 $0 $271,137 $686,973 $34,385 $98,429 136,000 $440,334 $2,737,418 $1,873,358 $641,529 $222,531 $2,737,418
FY10 $1,104,431 $84,623 $56,430 $682,541 $48,576 $0 188,890 $389,601 $2,555,092 $1,749,322 $567,959 $237,811 $2,555,092
FY11 $923,469 $70,698 $191,338 $599,287 $45,093 $339,615 325,024 $389,601 $150,733 $3,034,858 $2,080,657 $689,458 $264,743 $3,034,858
FY12 $977,728 $67,436 $778,750 $543,317 $201,326 $89,888 325,047 $389,601 $150,733 $3,523,826 $2,560,130 $697,108 $266,588 $3,523,826
FY13 $995,649 $149,513 $0 $521,147 $244,834 $0 313,047 $389,601 $250,733 $2,864,524 $1,758,524 $812,107 $293,893 $2,864,524
FY14 $924,036 $797,304 $311,245 $539,698 $573,472 $0 313,047 $389,601 $250,047 $4,098,450 $2,846,836 $858,537 $393,077 $4,098,450
FY15 $951,389 $0 $181,739 $519,485 $0 $342,524 325,047 200,000 $394,073 $250,047 $3,164,304 $2,081,091 $799,248 $283,965 $3,164,304
FY16 $949,887 $251,749 $290,077 $539,676 $427,451 $0 325,047 200,000 $389,601 $250,047 $3,623,535 $2,501,967 $809,857 $311,711 $3,623,535
Total $9,877,473 $1,549,476 $2,583,777 $271,137 $5,891,484 $1,700,137 $1,640,619 $2,717,149 $400,000 $3,947,347 $1,302,340 $31,880,939 $22,091,536 $6,967,469 $2,821,934 $31,880,939
Notes:
1. Every year all funds are allocated in the Public/Human Service category with requests always higher than available dollars
2. Not all Administrative dollars are spent every year. Remaining dollars roll to the next program year where they must be allocated to the Housing/Public Facility category
3. In some years not all available housing dollars are allocated, if this occurs, they are allocated in the next funding cycle
4. Some housing dollars that have been allocated to projects are returned to the program if the project could not move forward
5. Program Income comes from loan payments, loan payoffs, etc.
6. We follow the federal fiscal year with a one year delay, beginning October 1 of each year
Attachment #7
Competitive Process Funding History by Fund Source Funding History by Category
W Tril
by Rd
W County Road 54G
County
Road 42C
S County
Road9
Joh
n
F K
e
nnedy
P
kwy
E Douglas Rd
Giddin
gs Rd
S Timberline Rd
S
Lemay Ave
N College Ave
S Taft Hill Rd
S OverlandTrl
Ziegler Rd
N Lemay Ave
Riversid
e
Ave
N
O
verland Tr
l
S
C
entennial
D
r
Bo
a
rd
w
a
l
k
D
r
Gregory Rd
S
Mason
St
S County
Road 13
PARKER ST
CASAGRANDEBLVD
MAPLE HILL DR
STARFLOWER DR
TILDEN ST
CLARENDON
HILLS DR
DUNBAR AVE
E STUART ST
CHERRY ST
WARBLER DR
NANCY
GRAYAVE
AVONDALE
RD
SAINT
THOMASDR
NANCY
GRAYAVE
WILLOW
SPRINGS
WAY
CASTLEROCK
DR
E TRILBYRD
ROOKERYRD
LAPORTE AVE
PARKLAKE
CT
CONSTITUTION
AVE
STETSON
CREEK DR
CORBETTDR
SENECAST
W VINE DR
1ST
ST
WILMINGTON
DR
HINSDALEDR
W ELIZABETH ST
LOCHWOODDR
DELANY DR
LADY MOON DR
E WILLOXLN
PROVINCE RD
TIMBER
CREEK DR
MATHEWS ST
TRIANGLE
DR
PADDINGTON RD
BON HOMME
RICHARD DR
E ELIZABETH ST
W PROSPECT RD
BENNETTRD
W SWALLOW RD
2011-2014 Projects
Speed Bump
Speed Display
2015-2016 Projects
Speed Bump
Speed Display
2017 Potential Projects
Speed Bump
Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Projects
N S
E
W
Attachment #6