HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Mail Packet - 11/22/2016 - Council Finance & Audit Committee Agenda - November 21, 2016Finance 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
November 21, 2016
9:30 - 11:30 am
CIC Room - City Hall
Approval of Minutes from the October 17
th
meeting
1. Natural Areas - Financial Review 40 minutes J. Stokes
(Land Conservation & Stewardship Board was invited to attend)
2. 1601 Project Assistance 30 minutes J. Birks
3. Financial Policy Updates 15 minutes J. Voss
4. Anheuser-Busch Park & Rec. District Dissolution 20 minutes T. Storin
B. Yatabe
OTHER BUSINESS
1) URA Board
2) Council involvement in Broadband Community Tours
3) Scheduling of a Special CFC meeting for Broadband
Council Finance Committee & URA Finance Committee
Agenda Planning Calendar 2016
RVSD 11/16 mnb
Nov 21
Natural Areas – Financial Review 40 min J. Stokes
1601 Project Assistance 30 min J. Birks
Financial Policy Updates 15 min J. Voss
Anheuser-Busch Park & Rec District Dissolution 15 min T. Storin
B. Yatabe
URA URA Update on N College, Prospect South & Mall Districts 30 min J. Birks
Lyric Theater Assistance 20 min J. Birks
Dec TBD
Broadband Review – Financial, Economic, Social 90 min
A. Gavaldon
J. Birks
S. Kendall
URA
Dec 19
Future Utility Debt Requirements – Water & Stormwater 40 min L. Smith
Utility Plant Investment Fee Updates 40 min L. Smith
Xcel Franchise Agreement 20 min A. Gavaldon
Audit Findings Response Review 20 min T. Storin
URA
Jan 23
Revenue Diversification Outreach Update 30 min T. Smith
Water – Raw Water Fee or CIL 30 min C. Webb
Utility Time of Use Rate Pilot Results 30 min L. Smith
URA
Future Council Finance Committee Topics:
City Foundation – Feb 2017
Strategy Map Metrics Review – QI 2017
Parking Garage Financing – QII 2017
BFO Discussion – one-time and on-going funding guardrails
Future URA Committee Topics:
Annual URA District Updates
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Council Audit & Finance Committee
Minutes
10/17/16
9:30 - 11:30 am
CIC Room
Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Ross Cunniff, Gerry Horak
Staff: Jeff Mihelich, Mike Beckstead, Tiana Smith, Matt Baker, Peggy Streeter, Blaine Dunn,
Nalo Johnson, Travis Storin, Tom Leeson, Ann Turnquist, John Voss, Andres Gavaldon,
Noelle Currell, Jackson Brockway, Lance Smith, Laurie Kadrich and Carolyn Koontz
Others: Dale Adamy, Kevin Jones
Meeting called to order at 9:33 am
Ross Cunniff moved to approve the minutes for the 9/19 and 9/30 meetings. Gerry Horak seconded the motion.
Minutes were approved unanimously.
A. Capital Expansion Fee Outreach Update and Fee Stack
Tiana Smith, Revenue and Project Manager
Matt Baker, Street Oversizing Program Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the spring of 2016, staff initiated a comprehensive review of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees that
were first implemented in 1996 and then updated in 2013. At the same time, Engineering began an update to
the Street Oversizing Fee Study, now known as the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee. Staff have worked
together to integrate the messaging of these efforts and have been communicating to stakeholders throughout
the community to seek feedback on the recommendations.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance Committee have any comments or questions related to the feedback from the
community?
Does Council have any concerns or changes to be addressed before the Council Work Session scheduled for
November 22, 2017?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Capital Improvement Expansion fees are used to require new developments to pay a proportionate share of
infrastructure costs. The method of calculating the fees that the City of Fort Collins has used since 1996 is
referred to as incremental expansion. This method works in the following manner:
2
• New development pays a fee based on current infrastructure costs – they essentially “buy in” to the
current system.
• The revenues from the fees are then used to build new infrastructure to serve the new development
and/or the increase in population that follows the development.
The proposed changes to the program presented:
• Changing the name from “Street Oversizing” to “Transportation Capital Expansion Fee”
• Using Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) as the basis for determining impact, instead of trips generated.
• Transportation impact fees to be assessed by dwelling size instead of unit type, similar to how all other
Capital Expansion fees are assessed. Capital Expansion Fees in general are perceived to affect the
affordability of homes, and staff recognizes the sensitivity of fee increases.
• Simplify the transportation impact fee schedule from 43 categories of use to only a handful; Residential
(by size of unit) and two broad categories for commercial and industrial.
Staff from both departments have worked together to communicate the recommendations from both studies to
stakeholders in the community, presenting the fees from a comprehensive standpoint and showing the impact
to the cost of construction and housing.
This is an update from August presentation to CFC
Note: Park Fees will be presented to CFC in Q1 as the team needs to do some additional work on cost estimates.
Outreach to stakeholders;
Economic Advisory Comm.
In support of the higher cost of construction values (replacement values are more appropriate)
Concerned about funding gap if we don’t collect appropriate amount of fees
Chamber Local Legal Affairs
Concerned about affordability of housing; felt that MF was getting hit higher than single family detached
Fees are done by the dwelling unit so they (multi-family) are paying for each dwelling unit
Concerned about cost of doing business in Fort Collins
Parks and Rec Board
Understood and ok to delay Parks fees
Felt we need to better define “level of service” because it’s a hard concept
Suggested use of Community Capitals Framework to map impact of fees
Homebuilder’s Association
Requested at least a 6 month notice to implement development fee changes
General fund should pay for Gen Gov’t facilities
Disagree with how land value is assessed
NOTE - location of land is factor - example - land value in NE quadrant as opposed to SE - 4 years ago when
we did this we used the same cost per acre across the city and we are now being more location specific
This is affecting housing affordability
Mike Beckstead commented; to address some confusion in the community - we are going to provide a ‘Fees 101’
to include; How are the fees calculated? What are the inputs? What are they used for? What does is mean when
the cost of a park changes? Methodology
Tiana Smith added; I have asked the Homebuilders Assn. and as well as the other boards and commissions to put
forward a recommendation. This feedback will be included in the Council work session at the end of November.
3
Affordable Housing Board
More lead time would be helpful - at least 6+ months - for affordable housing lead time of 1 year
Big increases will chill the development of affordable housing
Prefer we use Insured value calculations
Ensure that we are using rebates and subsidies for low income / affordable housing
More outreach coming to include; Building Review Board, Board of Realtors and DDA
Conclusions; Despite the fee increases, as a percent of median sales price, fees have been steady in recent years.
Concerns with impact to housing affordability.
Mike Beckstead commented; confirming that this is related to new home sales only - based on median new
home price.
Totals Fee Stack - Comparison to Peer Cities (peer cities on chart use the same methodology for calculating
Capital Expansion Fees)
Gerry Horak asked; can we compare to communities around us? - suggest we take off Denver metro area. What
is our basis for this set of cities? Need to normalize the data.
Darin Atteberry commented; these are really not the cities we benchmark against for level of service.
We usually benchmark against national comparisons.
Gerry Horak commented; we are in the upper 1/3 or in the median - Wellington is higher than us, thinking
ahead, Timnanth - no much infrastructure yet, Loveland is higher
Mike Beckstead summarized; we will get clarification and documentation the cities we compare to and
look at methodologies - inputs on how that works..
Cost of Code Changes since 2009
Shows all changes we have made to code and the impacts of those changes on fees
Gerry Horak commented; this is a great piece information and should be included in every Council presentation
regarding a change in Code. This addresses the question that is always ask ‘what is the effect?’
Ross Cunniff added; also the overall inflationary housing since 2009
Mike Beckstead; that is our intent - we used 2009 as a starting point so as new code changes come forward this
information will be updated.
Total Fee Stack Over Time
Gerry Horak asked: have we looked at the economic arguments of the effect these fees have on housing?
Jeff Mihelich responded; there was an affordable housing study that did look into that. I will look at that.
4
Fees Recommendation: Cost of Construction Values which we plan to present to Council at work session in
November - cost of construction values for determining home values
Mike Beckstead commented; we could use insured values but they are lagging the true cost and the true value
of those assets. Need to get insured values updated. True to the methodology - use cost of construction which
is the cost of the current infrastructure.
Ross Cunniff commented; this makes sense to me - subsidize affordable housing - different general fund activity
Next Steps;
Complete remainder of outreach through end of October
November 22nd Council Work Session - implementation date will be part of work session discussion
First Reading at Council in December
We will have parks estimate end of November / early December. We are going to do a separate process for that.
Plan to bring the Park component back to the end of Q1 2017.
Ross Cunniff asked: Have you looked into using July 1st as an effective date - instead of waiting a full year?
Gerry Horak added; in doing that we need to change the process so we are staying in sync to do this every year.
Always do January 1st change with a July 1st effective date.
Mike Beckstead; we will include that in the November 22nd Work Session materials.
July 1st implementation date, the comfort level with moving forward with using cost of construction value and
the median price of new construction.
B. Sales Tax Department Update on Municipal Code Change Recommendations
Tiana Smith, Revenue and Project Manager
Peggy Streeter, Sr. Sales Tax Auditor
Blaine Dunn, Sr. Sales Tax Auditor
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The philosophy of the Sales Tax Department is to be business friendly in its operations and to ensure that the
processes in place are user-friendly and that taxpayers can remit taxes with ease.
For the administration of the City Rebate program, the intention is to help as many qualified, low-income,
disabled and senior individuals in the community as possible.
In order to deliver on both of these objectives, the Sales Tax Department is recommending the following
changes to City Code:
• Update definitions to allow more flexibility in the administration of the City Rebate Program
• Adopt definitions recommended by the Colorado Municipal League
• Align threshold amounts that set taxpayer filing frequency threshold amounts with the State of Colorado
• Allow additional option for determining taxable amounts for Building Permit reconciliation to provide more
flexibility for contractors
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Is Council Finance in support of the recommended changes?
5
Would Council Finance like to see a redline version of the code changes before presenting to Council in January
of 2017?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Since early 2016, staff from Sales Tax and City Attorney’s Office has worked with Colorado Municipal League on
a state-wide effort to update sales tax definitions for consistency across the state and taxing jurisdictions. The
City will adopt the majority of the recommended definitions and retain some that are relevant to the City of Fort
Collins.
The Sales Tax department administers the City Rebate program, a rebate program that runs from August
through October each year where low-income individuals can apply for a rebate for sales taxes paid on groceries
and low-income, senior and/or disabled individuals can also apply for a rebate on property taxes and sales taxes
paid on their utility bill. While administering the City Rebate program, staff determined that code language
prevented the eligibility of many otherwise qualified residents due to the way income, household and applicant
were being defined. By clarifying these definitions, more low-income qualified individuals will be eligible for the
rebate(s) in the future.
When contractors apply for a building permit, they pay a use tax deposit that is 3.85% of the material valuation
(or 50% of the project valuation). Upon the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the contractor must fill out
a project cost report to reconcile the estimates versus the actual material costs to determine if more tax or a
refund is due. Staff from Sales Tax staff met with Councilmember Campana regarding concerns with the current
process for obtaining the actual material costs from contractors and the difficulty. Staff is presenting an
additional option for determining the costs in order to allow more flexibility for contractors.
Presentation addresses feedback received from Mayor Troxell and Councilmember Gino Campana.
Sales Tax Code Changes:
• Adopt definitions recommended by CML
• Allow more flexibility in the administration of the City Rebate program
• Update City Code to align for consistency throughout Chapter 25
City Rebate Program; would like to cleanup 3 definitions which have made the program challenging;
1) Household - intent of this program is to help as many qualified people as possible
In the future household classification will only be used if resources are pooled
Example; 3 unrelated people living in same house would be considered a household - one person may
be low income so would not qualify
2) Income - future definition will add clarity by referencing the line item on an actual tax return
Example; self-employed has been an issue - we have been using their gross income in determining
income qualification - in future we will be taking their net which makes more sense.
3) Applicant - future definition would be; if any member of the household is disabled or elderly
Example; someone caring for a disabled child or parent
Alignment with City Code
Clean up language that is confusing for taxpayers and remove sections that are no longer relevant
We are working with Legal on the red line of the Code / Ordinance.
6
Filing Frequency Changes (Blaine Dunn)
Reason we are bringing this forward is that our filing frequency requirements are different (more frequent) from
the State. We are proposing to match what the state does; monthly / quarterly / annual filings.
Impact to cash flow - net zero in revenue - will only changes when we receive it.
We would not make this change mandatory - only if easier for the tax payer.
Building Permit Reconciliation Process (Peggy Streeter)
When a contractor /builder or homeowner pulls a building permit they pay 50% of actual and then
at the end of a project after a Certificate of Occupancy is issued they do reconciliation of actual based on the
cost of materials - project valuation. We currently require that they provide affidavits from their subcontractors
which can be challenging to get. This is difficult for them to get as the subcontractors don’t want to share their
material costs vs. labor and overhead. We would like to give them the option of actually getting affidavits from
their subs or they use a 50/50 split.
We used to allow 50/50 split on everything. Then we started requiring affidavits - they have to go back to subs
to get them to cooperate and they do not want to provide this information (materials + labor + overhead).
Mike Beckstead added: we believe we will improve compliance with this change. The change was an
administrative decision.
Next Steps;
Working with John Duvall to complete red line of City Code
To Council for approval January 2017 and changes effective in February 2017
C. Taxability Decision of Electric PILOTs of Customer’s Usage
Tiana Smith, Revenue and Project Manager
Payment In Lieu Of Taxes - not taxed now by the city - other municipalities do charge
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Sales Tax department is recommending a change to the administrative policy at Utilities to being the
collection and remittance of City sales tax on the PILOTs portion of customer’s electric usage effective January 1,
2017.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Is Council Finance in support of changing the administrative policy at Utilities to begin to tax the PILOTs portion
of the electric charges on customer’s bills?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The current practice at Utilities is to not collect and remit City sales tax on the portion of PILOTs portion of
customer’s electric usage.
PILOTs are a charge assessed to electric customer for an estimate of the taxes and franchise fees that would be
chargeable against the electric utility is it was privately owned. PILOTs at Utilities are currently 6% of the electric
charges before taxes and are payable to the City’s general fund.
The charge is taxable and Utilities does collect and pay county and state sales tax on PILOTs, however an
administrative decision was made in the 1970s to not to assess City sales tax.
7
The amount of revenue this would generate $553K over the next two years. Impacts for an average residential
customer (700kWh) would be around $0.16/month. For commercial customers this would range from $1.16-
$5.62 depending on average demand.
In the 70’s an administrative decision was made to not tax the PILOTs (the belief was it was taxing a tax). Then in
the 80s the state audited the city and determined PILOTs to be taxable. It was determined to be a Utilities
Service Charge - component of rate. Currently other utilities do pay city sales tax on their franchise fees. We are
collecting State and County taxes on PILOTS just not City.
Mike Beckstead commented; we are bringing this item forward because we discovered in the Code that we
should be charging sales tax on PILOTs. In our revenue diversification efforts, Tiana connected the dots that we
are not charging but we could. We are not advocating for this but per our Code we could do this.
Excel Franchise Agreement is scheduled for December 19th Council Finance (implementation some time in 2017).
We have had one meeting with them and are now exchanging red line versions of the Franchise Agreement.
Gerry Horak added; this could make some sense if we are going to take care of some need - possible options;
tie it to energy efficiencies or to rebates - Transport (Sunday service) pilot.
Tiana added; this was actually an error we saw on the utility bill when we were looking at how Green Energy is
taxed. PILOTs have to be stated separated on the utility bill if we are not collecting tax or change the tax code.
Mike Beckstead added; If Council Finance says no - let’s not do this at this time we will update the Code to
reflect that.
Ross Cunniff added; let’s find a nexus - most logical one would be on-bill financing or low income rebate.
Gerry Horak added; part of the money that could go into a fund for the electric development fees for affordable
housing.
For other utility components; we don’t tax water and the State taxes electricity and gas for commercial use but
not residential.
Mike Beckstead summarized;
Let’s find a nexus
Locate appropriate policy documents
If we fix the Code which would impact how we tax other utility providers
Tiana Smith commented; changing the Code would impact how we tax other utility providers as well - not just
the City. We are proposing to begin taxing PILOTS or they will have to be stated separately on the bill.
We have the ability to tax this and we made an administrative decision not to do this so charges are
bundled together on the bills.
Darin Atteberry added; it would have been optimal timing to bring this forward during budget process
You mentioned; it was an administrative decision to not do this - was that a conscious and informed decision?
8
Tiana responded; I believe it was a conscious and informed decision.
Darin Atteberry added; this is the first time I have heard of this in 20 years. What is the history of this? Who did
make those decisions? In moving forward, how to ensure that administrative decisions are made in a conscious
and informed way and how do we inform the Finance Committee. I would like to reserve the right to come back
on this item and make an informed recommendation - to be consistent or to make a recommendation on how to
transition and use these dollars.
D. FOUNDATION CREATION / CITY FOUNDATION CONSIDERATION
Nalo Johnson, Grants Development Specialist
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Presentation concludes an investigation into establishing a City of Fort Collins Foundation (tax-exempt non-
profit). Three options are presented:
• Option 1: Create a City Fund underneath and a part of the Community Foundation of Northern Colorado’s
501(c)3 status.
• Option 2: City establishes its own independent 501(c)3.
• Option 3: Formalize City’s current donation acceptance process; remove any barriers that may exist in City
Code and Administrative Policies; and make community more aware of the ability to donate to the City.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
The three options are presented to the Council Finance Committee, along with details as to roles and
responsibilities for each of the options, for their consideration.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
• The City currently works with the Community Foundation of Northern Colorado on fundraising efforts on an
as-needed basis.
• Article XX of the Colorado Constitution grants home rule cities the authority to receive donations and carry
out the purposes of such gifts.
• Section 4.7 of the City’s Administrative Policies details that donations to the City must be accepted by Council or
the City Manager and can be used by the City only for the purposes as directed by the donor.
In response to question posed at retreat. Nalo has been working with Ray Caroway, CEO Community Foundation
of Northern Colorado (CFNC).
Why undertake this investigation?
• Perception that it is difficult to leave donations to the City
• Strategic benefits associated with the City’s access to a non-profit
Darin Atteberry commented; an additional objective would be more flexibility to use dollars than a city donation
would allow. Wade’s experience is coming from what other universities do.
Mike Beckstead; Option 1 is the way it is working today - Community Foundation coordinated - put $ in fund
specifically for Kayak Park / Senior Center
9
Mike Beckstead added; 501(c) concern - we did research to see if we could find other communities who had
established a 501(c) with the same scope and we did not find any - we found specifics where one was created
specific to a part of the organization (fire/police/arts) but didn’t find one with a broader focus.
Nalo Johnson; Staff Recommendation is Option 3
City Administrative Policies allow for donation acceptance
• Build community awareness of the ability to donate to the City
• Remove any perceived barriers in our policy to accept donations
• Establish internal Accounting policy for tracking and receipting
• Establish internal guidance documents for fundraising efforts –
CFNC currently acts as our non-profit partner when requested
• Establish a clear process of how/when we utilize CFNC
• Utilize as the fiscal agent for receipt of grant funds
• Partner in fundraising strategy
Ross Cunniff commented; I would recommend against Option #2 based on my experience at PSD.
My experience is that it is much better to identify needs that could be met via charitable contributions.
Make sure we understand how money flows through and what roles Council has. Combination of 1 and 3 (with
an independent board).
Mike Beckstead summarized; I am hearing a combination of Options 1 and 3 - assume we are going to have a
City guided board.
Darin Atteberry to John Duvall; is there any tax advantage or disadvantage between Option 1 vs. Option 3
John Duval responded; no as they are all tax deductible.
Darin Atteberry added; some people would rather give to a directed fund at the foundation rather than directly
to the City.
Gerry Horak commented; I like the model for giving it the optics of a community foundation.
The money is going into that pot - some advantages - for folks who give money - make them feel more
comfortable.
Mayor Troxell commented; I agree with combining Options 1 and 3 - a standalone identity and board and it
accomplishes things we are not able to do today such as federal grants for cost sharing. Efforts to raise
community funds - example; FortZED - had a lot of community donations that ran through CSU
CSURF- for clarity of purpose and accomplishing things which are hard to do now
Mike Beckstead asked: as a point of clarification - as far as the Board make up - is it fair to say that Council would
want to direct?
Ross Cunniff responded; it would be helpful it to have a bit of independence.
Gerry Horak commented; I think we would want some representative from Council or the Mayor (a link to city)-
I am open to whatever model.
10
Mike Beckstead added; we will make sure we understand the PSD model.
Mayor Troxell added: The role of Ex Officio - understand that make up (CSURF).
Grants Update;
Grants Development Specialist (GDS) role filled in April 2015:
Develop and manage City’s comprehensive grant program
Managing participation in eCivis pilot through the Alliance for Innovation
Increase internal capacity to identify/write competitive applications
Increase revenue for the City
2015
• 15 grants applied for
• 14 grants awarded
• $20.9 million in Federal funds spent in 2015
• $400,000 in new awards obtained subsequent to inception of the Grants Development program
Q1-Q3 2016 Year-to-Date
• 33 grants applied for
• 5 Federal, 14 State, 14 Private Foundation
• Some State grants are Federal pass-through funds (DOT, DOJ, Fish and Wildlife Service, FTA &
Regional MPO)
• 12 grants awarded
• 2 Federal, 8 State, 2 Private Foundation
• Some State grants are Federal pass-through funds (DOT, DOJ)
• $719,659 in new awards year-to-date
Considerations
• eCivis has greatly expanded the number of funding opportunities to consider (particularly among private
foundation grants)
• Federal, State and Private Foundation funders have an equity focus
• Seek to fund based on need
• Competitive applications will link City priority projects to areas of need in our community
(underserved/underrepresented populations)
• Funders seek to invest in innovation/replicable models
• Cannot sell a project on ideas alone
• Need data/evidence to support our innovative practices
Nalo Johnson added: training has been to equip folks on how to write grants so they are written for evaluation
criteria - coaching has been received positively. We have departments that are familiar with how grants are
structured (PDT) Being able to point out ways they may be falling short such as evaluation criteria, a tight work
plan and how that reads to reviewers.
Gerry Horak commented; need to understand why you didn’t win and who did win? what differentiated them? -
especially for new funding opportunities.
Nalo added; another upside is departments that don’t traditionally apply for funding are now coming forward.
11
Mayor Troxell commented; strategic - what are the initiatives that are playing in Washington and how are we
aligning to them? (Smart Cities - Connected Cities) - they tend to be multiple agency - Dept. of Energy for
example. Strategically - are we skating to where the puck is going to be and aligning our resources in that
direction? Foundation - different sources of match / cost share - beyond the city organization.
Might be some reaching out with these other institutional partners throughout our community.
Part of it not just playing where we have historically - it is playing in the areas that are strategic.
Gerry Horak asked; are we including some outside reviewers (folks who do this for a living) on red teams to help
raise the game (be objective and ask tough questions)?
Nalo Johnson responded: we are currently focused on building internal capacity so we are not relying on outside
resources.
Darin Atteberry commented; I really appreciate the work that is being done and support the combination of
Options 1 and 3.
Other Business;
CFC Meeting Calendar for 2017 Holidays on the 3rd Monday of January and February 2017.
We have historically moved CFC to the 4th Monday. Asking if this would be acceptable to Council Finance.
We will confirm via email.
Long Term Planning Calendar
There are a couple of URA programs in need of timely discussion with Council Finance
What should be moved or ask for a special 1 hour meeting with Council Finance to specifically discuss
URA programs.
Gerry Horak commented; I think we need a meeting on URA to include an update on North College, Prospect
and Foot Hills; where the operations are currently, what the needs are, status of funds, etc.
Ross Cunniff added; we need to alert out partners that this would be a topic of discussion and invite them to
attend.
Darin Atteberry added; it would be good as you are calendaring out to schedule a regular review of URA twice a
year.
Gerry Horak added; regarding the Natural Area review scheduled for the December 19th Council Finance meeting
- it would be good is the Land Conversation Board knows about this and they are invited to come to the meeting
- to hear this information and that we provide the board members with the materials we will be reviewing.
Other Business;
Mike Beckstead - a walk-on topic in response to Ross Cunniff’s question before the last work session
Hand out is attached
Total Enhancements Funded in HPG
2015 - 2016 $9.6m
2017 - 2018 $11.5m (19% change)
12
We looked at funding sources. Is it one-time or ongoing money?
Big takeaways - ongoing spending general fund for HPG enhancements and KFCG are coming down in the 2017-
2018 budget vs what was funded in 2015 2016 budget. What is driving the increase is in the use of one-time
spending. It is difficult to map all of the one-time spending across the 7 outcome areas.
Recap what makes up that $2,099m of one-time spending - what is driving the change?
We did the same analysis with ongoing spend. Some is work for others; major maintenance, BART, supporting
ADA compliance in City facilities.
List what is funded by the ongoing general fund revenue in 2017-2018 that makes up the $1.152m
General ongoing which is down by about 20% from 2015 2016 budget
Mike Beckstead; all of the change is coming from one-time - our ability to scale back HPG to support Sunday
service needs ongoing revenue and ongoing is down in HPG. $375k a year - tied to some funding from the
community. We are recommending the use of one-time general fund reserves which have not been used in the
2017-2018 budget.
Ross Cunniff commented: we can clarify at Council for the public. Why is Leadership Development (maintain
level of service) under one-time?
Mike Beckstead responded; that might be LEAD 1.0 (a 9 month emerging leaders program) - we can start or stop
this based on resource availability so we tend to fund with one-time revenue.
Darin Atteberry added; happy to vet out what that offer is if that is what Ross wants to know.
Gerry Horak commented; we need to make sure we use logic consistently (one-time vs ongoing) If something
continually gets funded, it can’t be one-time. It would be good to have a meeting on this in a non-budget year to
gain a common understanding.
Darin Atteberry added; designing guardrails around defining one-time vs ongoing. I am confident in how we are
defining one-time and ongoing. The way in which we are allocating one time and ongoing could be tightened
up. It is about improving in this area.
Mike Beckstead commented; we will schedule that session in 1Q 2017 - I agree and think it would be beneficial.
Ross Cunniff; the interest is trying to find $400k for 365 Pilot - still feels like HPG is a place we can continue to
scrub because it is not a direct service to the citizens.
Gerry Horak asked; City Manager’s Monthly Report - through September we are 2% over projected for combined
sales and use tax. How much of that was used in the 2017-2018 budget?
Mike Beckstead responded; we have made that available and we have used all but $1m of the General Fund as
one time money
Mike Beckstead will get details requested by Gerry Horak.
Natural Areas Department
1745 Hoffman Mill Road
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.416.2815
970.416.2211 - fax
fcgov.com/naturalareas
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: John Stokes, Natural Areas Director
Mark Sears, Natural Areas Manager
Barb Brock, Natural Areas Financial Coordinator
Date: November 21, 2016
Subject for Discussion: Natural Area Budget overview
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this discussion is to review the City’s Natural Areas Department budget. Key topics that
will be covered include: 1) long-term budget projections, including a description of how the Department
manages the spending requirements of the ballot initiatives; 2) fund allocations to programs; 3) internal
administrative charges and certain capital expenses. This memo provides a high-level overview of
these topics.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1) What additional information or analysis would be helpful to the Finance Committee?
2) Are there questions, concerns or advice?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Funding Sources and the Blue/Green Split
The Natural Areas Department receives the vast majority of its funding from the County’s Help Preserve
Open Space Tax the City’s Open Space Yes Sales Tax.
Open Space Yes (OSY) ballot language requires that 80% of revenues be spent for land and water
conservation and restoration activities. The remaining 20% (or less) may be spent on capital
improvements or operations. Help Preserve Open Space (HPOS) is more flexible and may be spent on
conservation or capital and operations activities.
To help track spending categories, staff characterizes funds as “green” or “blue”. Green funds are
allocated to land conservation and restoration activities. Blue funds may be spent on any work of the
Department but serve as the foundation for operation and capital activities. To meet the spending
requirements of OSY, staff manages towards the 2030 end date of the OSY ballot. To date, green
spending has exceeded the 80% OSY requirement by approximately $10.5 million. The exceedance has
2
been achieved by using blue dollars for land acquisition. Staff’s approach is a soft landing in 2030
whereby the 80% requirement will be exceeded by a comfortable margin.
Assets and Programs
The Department manages ~36,000 of fee-owned acres and ~6,000 acres of conservation easements.
There are 49 separate natural areas and 44 are open to the public (several more will be open by the end
of 2017 or early 2018).
There are 117 total miles of trail; 44 miles of those trails are within the GMA.
The Department provides a number of services, including:
• Land and Water conservation
• Resource Management (Vegetation, wildlife, and restoration)
• Public Improvements (trails, bathrooms, parking lots, etc.)
• Facilities management (office buildings, shop spaces, etc.)
• Public Safety (7 rangers)
3
• Education and Outreach (including volunteer management)
• Program management/oversight
• Land and Water management (includes tasks related to resource management as well as
oversight of property right matters such as conservation easements, easements, water rights, etc.)
• Nature in the City
Long-Term Projected Revenues and Expenditures
The following graph provides projected spending information from 2017 to 2025. The long-term budget
projections are based on experience; expected future obligations associated with management,
operations, and capital expenses; and, meeting the spending requirements of OSY in both spirit and
practice.
All revenue and expense projections are based on a 2% inflation factor. Green revenue and expense
projections do not include potential fundraising or other leveraging possibilities. It is possible that green
revenues and expenditures will be greater than current projections. The last several years have seen
actual revenues exceed projections. Almost all of that revenue has been dedicated to land conservation.
A potential challenge is meeting the 80% OSY requirement while also meeting capital and operational
needs. Staff projects that the $10.5 million positive “green” balance will start to be drawn down
beginning in the next budget cycle at a modest level. That draw down will accelerate in the mid 2020’s.
4
Staff’s currently projects that the 80% requirement will be exceeded by ~$5 million by 2030. This
projection is likely to change as 2030 gets closer and as revenues, spending, and Council priorities
evolve. In addition, capital and operations expenses are projected at baseline levels; thus, the
exceedance could be drawn down. For example, this could occur if Natural Areas bought a large
property that required extensive capital investments.
Internal Charges and Capital Expenditures
Council’s Leadership Planning Team asked staff to include information regarding charges made to the
Natural Areas Department to support various internal services as well as how the Department funds its
operating infrastructure (such as office buildings).
The City’s Finance Department applies a formula to charge non-general fund sources of revenue for
various services, such as Human Resources, Finance, etc. The charges represent the budgeted expenses
of a given fund (such as the Natural Areas fund) expressed as a percentage of total funding for the
various services. For Natural Areas, this amounts to $226,000 annually. Natural Areas also contributes
~$21,000 for insurance, $48,000 for Safety, Security, and Risk Management, and $120,000 for I.T.
support. The charges amount to $415,000 annually.
In addition, Natural Areas pays for .5 FTE of a City Attorney’s time as well as for 1.5 FTE in Real
Estate Services that work on behalf of Natural Area.
Natural Areas pays for its entire infrastructure, such as office buildings.
In 2017, Natural Areas will receive both KFCG and general fund dollars. Excluding West Nile Virus,
the funds amount to $184,000. The monies primarily are used for Nature in the City (NIC) staffing and
some Poudre River efforts. NIC also will receive ~$190,000 for capital projects from the Community
Capital Improvement Program (CCIP).
1
Overview of the Natural Areas Department Budget
John Stokes, Mark Sears, Barb Brock
Council Finance Committee 11 21 16
1. What additional
information or
analysis would be
helpful?
2. Are there questions,
concerns, advice?
2
Revenues and the Blue/Green Split
3
Long-Term Projections
4
Internal Charges and Capital Expenditures
• Total internal charges $415,000 annually
• .5 City Attorney
• 1.5 FTE in Real Estate Services
• All infrastructure
5
1
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Josh Birks, Economic Health and Redevelopment Director
Date: November 21, 2016
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
A proposed Business Assistance Agreement in support of Project 1601.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to present the Council Finance Committee with a proposed Business
Assistance Agreement (the “Agreement”) between the City of Fort Collins (the “City”) and
Project 1601. The project will include the retrofit of an existing building in the community
allowing for the addition of Advance Manufacturing sector jobs. The project will include
upgrades to the existing building’s mechanical equipment resulting in reduced energy
consumption thereby reducing the carbon footprint of the building.
The proposed Agreement provides assistance in the following forms: (1) a use tax rebate on
manufacturing equipment purchased as part of the retrofit; (2) a business personal property tax
rebate on the same equipment, (3) a use tax rebate on construction materials purchased as part of
the retrofit, (4) extension of an existing utilities rebate program designed to encourage energy
efficiency, and (5) investment in public infrastructure adjacent to the project to improve public
safety and access. Items #1, #2, and #3 above relate to revenues the City would not otherwise
collect if the retrofit did not occur in the City. The value of the assistance package is estimated
at $1.1 million. Therefore, the leverage per public dollar invested through the Agreement is
approximately $32:$1.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Committee feel additional information is needed to fully evaluate the proposed
Agreement?
2. Does the Committee feel the proposed Agreement is ready for consideration by the full
City Council?
2
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Project Description
The project proposes to retrofit an existing building to include significant upgrade to the façade and
HVAC equipment (the “Project”). The retrofit will support the creation of jobs by supporting the
strategic growth of an existing Advance Manufacturing sector business in the northern Colorado
region.
Public Benefit
The Project meets numerous City Strategic Plan objectives, City Plan objectives, and Economic
Health Strategic Plan objectives.
City Strategic Plan Objectives
Economic Health
• 3.2 – Enhance Employment Opportunities through Business Retention, Expansion,
Incubation, and Attraction: The Project will create new advanced manufacturing primary
jobs in the city.
• 3.5 – Foster Sustainable Infill and Redevelopment: The Project will retrofit an existing
building enabling the productive use of the building again. This reduces the need to consume
additional raw land at the edge of the community while still supporting economic growth in
the community.
• 3.6 – Enhance the Economic Vitality of Our Community: The Project will support the
enhancement and economic vitality of an existing business district. The public improvements
associated with the Project will also help to address traffic flow and public safety along.
Environmental Health
• 4.5 – Work towards long term net zero energy goals within the community and the City
organization: The Project will retrofit an existing building including both upgrades to the
Roof Top Units (RTUs) for Heating, Air Conditioning, and Ventilation (HVAC) and lighting
upgrades. The end result is a significant reduction in energy consumption within an existing
building in our community delivering on the objectives of the Climate Action Plan and Road
to 2020.
Transportation
• 6.1 – Improve safety for all modes of travel including vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle:
The project will help to support the redevelopment of an adjacent intersection supporting the
multi-modal access of the Project and increasing the overall safety of the transportation
infrastructure in the area.
• 6.2 – Improve traffic flow to benefit both individuals and the business community: Same
as above.
3
City Plan Objectives
Economic Health
• EH 1.1 – Support Job Creation: The project will create new advanced manufacturing
primary jobs in the city.
• EH 1.4 – Target the Use of Incentives to Achieve Community Goals: The project will
achieve broader community goals including the infill/redevelopment of a site through the
retrofit of an existing building.
Environmental Health
• ENV 5.4 – Support Renewable Energy in New Development: The Project will retrofit an
existing building including both upgrades to the RTUs for HVAC and lighting upgrades. The
end result is a significant reduction in energy consumption within an existing building in our
community delivering on the objectives of the Climate Action Plan and Road to 2020.
Economic Health Strategic Plan Goals
Community Prosperity
• A.2 – Diversify Employment Opportunities for Residents: The Project will enable the
growth of the Advanced Manufacturing industry sector one of the State’s Office of Economic
Development and International Trade (OEDIT) target sectors, which the City is engaged in
supporting and developing. This will help to diversify our economy.
Place Matters
• C.4 – Invest in Public Infrastructure Upgrades that Support Plan Fort Collins
Implementation: The Project will help to support the redevelopment of an adjacent
intersection supporting the multi-modal access of the Project and increasing the overall safety
of the transportation infrastructure in the area.
The Climate Economy
• D.2 – Engage the Business Community in Carbon Reduction Efforts: The Project will
retrofit an existing building including both upgrades to the RTUs for HVAC and lighting
upgrades. The end result is a significant reduction in energy consumption within an existing
building in our community delivering on the objectives of the Climate Action Plan and Road
to 2020.
Financial Assistance Overview
The opportunity to retrofit an existing building will support the continued growth of an existing
Advanced Manufacturer in the region. This expansion will include the addition of new jobs to the
community (assistance is based only on net new employees added) as well as additional private
4
investment in the community. The proposed Project will generate significant positive economic
impacts to the community (See Economic Impact Analysis Overview). As a result, the City Council
will consider a Business Assistance Agreement (the “Agreement”) providing the following forms of
assistance: (1) a use tax rebate on manufacturing equipment purchased as part of the retrofit; (2) a
business personal property tax rebate on the same equipment, (3) a use tax rebate on construction
materials purchased as part of the retrofit, (4) extension of an existing utilities rebate program
designed to encourage energy efficiency, and (5) investment in public infrastructure adjacent to the
project to improve public safety and access. The value of the Agreement is estimated at $1.1 million,
summarized in Table 1 below. Therefore, the leverage per public dollar invested through the
Agreement is approximately $32:$1.
Table 1
Business Assistance Package Summary
Use Tax Rebate – Equipment and Construction Materials
Project 1601 plans to invest approximately $30.0 million retrofitting the building for reuse and $5.0
million in new manufacturing equipment as part of the proposed Project. As part of the Agreement,
City Council will consider rebating 100 percent of the General Fund portion of the use tax collected
in connection with these investments. The rebate would include approximately $337,500 of the total
$577,500 due on construction materials and $112,500 of the total $150,000 due on eligible
equipment, see Table 2. In both cases, the rebates only include the 2.25% General Fund portion of
Amount
Use Tax Rebate
Construction Materials $337,500
Eligible Equipment $112,500
Total Use Tax Rebate $450,000
Business Personal Propert Tax Rebate $41,000
Utility Performance Rebates $130,000
Value of Public Improvements (Est.) $550,000
Subtotal Assistance Value $1,171,000
Less Existing Rebate Programs ($75,000)
Net Value of Assistance
$1,096,000
5
the rate. As a result, there will be no need for the General Fund to bear additional cost backfilling
lost revenue to the dedicated use tax rates (e.g. Open Space, Street Maintenance, Building on Basics
Renewal, and Keep Fort Collins Great).
All manufacturers in the city are eligible to apply for the manufacturing equipment use tax rebate
program. The Project could apply for a use tax rebate for 1.5 percent of the total 3.0 percent tax rate
or $75,000 without City Council approval of the proposed Agreement. Therefore, the net value to the
Project of the Agreement is $375,000 in use tax rebate, see Table 2. The City retains $277,500 of the
use tax revenue, specifically in the dedicated use tax rates.
Table 2
Summary of Use Tax Rebates
Business Personal Property Tax Rebate – Equipment
Project 1601 plans to invest approximately $5.0 million in new manufacturing equipment as part of
the proposed Project. As part of the Agreement, City Council will consider rebating 50 percent of the
City’s property tax mill on Business Personal Property (“BPP”) for ten years. Based on assumptions
about equipment depreciation, the rebate would include approximately $41,000 of the total $82,000
in BPP due on eligible equipment, see Table 3. Project 1601 will be eligible to receive these funds
annually after they have achieved employment thresholds described below. The City will retain the
option to prepay the value of this BPP tax rebate and may elect to do so after the job threshold has
been achieved at the Project site.
Estimated
Total Tax
Retained
Revenue
Tax
Rebate
Construction Materials $577,500 $240,000 $337,500
Eligible Equipment $150,000 $37,500 $112,500
Total Use Tax Rebate $727,500 $277,500 $450,000
Less Exisitng Rebate Program ($75,000)
Net Use Tax Rebate Value $375,000
6
Table 3
Summary of Business Personal Property Tax Rebates
The actual amount of the use tax rebate and BPP tax rebate will be tied to net new job creation at
the Project site. Each new job will earn $1,500 of eligible rebate not to exceed the total use tax
and BPP tax rebate estimate of $491,000 (the “Rebate Cap”). Project 1601 will be eligible to
request a portion of the rebate as specific employment thresholds are achieved at the site, see
Table 4. City staff will verify employment is net new to the city and located at the site for each
of the proposed thresholds. Upon verification that the employment threshold has been achieved,
Project 1601 will be eligible to receive the portion of the rebate indicated in Table 4. The total
value of the use tax and BPP tax rebates will never exceed $491,000. If Project 1601 fails to
achieve a particular threshold then the rebate will be lost.
Table 4
Accrual of Use & Business Personal Property Tax Rebates
Utilities Energy Efficiency Rebate Program Support
The Agreement will include an extension of the existing Roof Top Unit rebate program within Fort
Collins Utilities allowing the Project to access the same formulaic rebate for all its units as opposed
to having the rebate capped at $50,000 annually. Details of this extension are still under
development with FCU staff. Full details will be included in the City Council Agenda Item
Summary. The preliminary estimate is that the value of these rebates would total approximately
$130,000 exceeding the current program cap of $50,000 by $80,000. The proposed Agreement
Estimated
Total Tax
Retained
Revenue
Tax
Rebate
Eligible Equipment $82,000 $41,000 $41,000
Total Business Personal Property Tax Rebate $41,000
Threshold Amount Percent
100 Net New Jobs $ 150,000 31%
200 Net New Jobs $ 300,000 61%
300 Net New Jobs $ 450,000 92%
350 Net New Jobs $ 491,000 100%
7
would contemplate asking City Council to providing additional funding to support these rebates.
That additional funding would be subject to annual appropriation. A separate appropriation
ordinance will be considered by City Council when the rebates are due.
Public Improvements
As a result of the Project, the City will invest in public improvements adjacent to the site. These
projects will provide benefit to the Project as well as address traffic flow and public safety issues
previously identified in the area. These improvements will facilitate a new point of access to the
Project site enabling safer access for employees and shipments. Therefore, the value of these
improvements has been included in the estimate of the total value of the Agreement. However, a
portion of the improvements have been desired by the adjacent property owners for years. For this
reason, the City is making the investment in these improvements.
Economic Impact Analysis Overview
The Project will generate economic impacts during construction and operations. The construction
activities will generate one-time impact for construction workers and businesses in the area. The on-
going operations of the firm will create annual economic impacts, employing workers in the
community and supporting economic activity throughout the region.
The draft economic impact analysis (See Attachment 1) estimates the one-time impacts from
construction will be approximately 312 jobs with $18.5 million in new earnings for average earnings
of $59,362 per job. In addition, the analysis estimates the facility will support over 1,600 total
workers, both employed on-site and throughout the community due to increased economic activity,
with total estimated earnings of $52.1 million, see Table 5. These estimates assume that all on-going
jobs on site will be new to the community and not transfers from existing business operations in the
region.
8
Table 5
Summary of Economic Impacts
Benefits to Other Taxing Entities
The Project will generate additional benefits and costs for local taxing districts other than the City.
Additional discussion of the City’s fiscal impacts occurs below under the City Financial Impacts
section. Both Larimer County and the Poudre School District (“PSD”) will see net benefits from the
Project, primarily from additional property tax revenue. The net benefits to each are summarized
below:
• Larimer County – Approximately $1.2 million in net benefit will be generated over the 10
year analysis period with a present value to the County of approximately $945,000 (assuming
a 5 percent discount rate).
• PSD – Approximately $1.8 million in net benefit will be generated over the 10 year analysis
period with a present value to PSD of approximately $1.4 million (assuming a 5 percent
discount rate).
Amount
Construction (One-Time)
Jobs 312
Earnings $18,502,963
Average Earnings per Job $59,362
Operations (On-Going) *
Jobs 1,616
Earnings $52,053,554
Average Earnings per Job $32,211
* NOTE: Represents total change in earnings during
the first year of full employment
9
City Financial Impacts
The economic impact analysis evaluates the fiscal impact to the City of Fort Collins, Larimer
County, and Poudre School District (PSD). These impacts include estimates of both revenues
and expenses based on the published budgets for each jurisdiction. Full details of the calculations
can be found in the attached reports. Furthermore, the analysis nets out the cost of the proposed
assistance described above before estimating the additional benefits. The net benefits area
estimated to total $4.8 million (net benefits here includes all revenue sources, e.g., sales and use
tax, utility revenue, etc.); including all revenue sources, see Table 6. Assuming a 5 percent
discount rate the present value of the estimated net benefits today is approximately $3.7 million.
Table 6
Summary of Fiscal Impacts
General Fund Impact
The proposed Project and Agreement contemplate rebating Use Tax collected from the construction
associated with retrofitting an existing building and purchasing new manufacturing equipment. The
rebates are limited to the General Fund portion of the applicable use tax rate. As such, there is no
rebate from dedicated tax rates and thus no backfill is required as a result of the Agreement. The net
effect is that the impact to the General Fund revenue of the City will be limited to revenue generated
by the project itself. As these revenues would not be generated if the Project does not occur the net
effect to the General Fund is neutral. However, the dedicated use tax funds will benefit from
additional revenue associated with the construction materials and equipment purchased as part of the
Project, totally approximately $277,500.
Amount
Additional Benefits $19,920,531
Additional Costs (15,132,760)
Net Benefits $4,787,711
Present Value of Net Benefits * $3,658,901
* NOTE: Analysis assumes a 5 percent discount rate
over a 10-year analysis period.
10
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Presentation
2. DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis – as a rough draft please excuse typos a thorough
review is underway and will be complete in advance of the full City Council
consideration
Prepared for:
City of Fort Collins
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
Prepared by:
Impact DataSource, LLC
4709 Cap Rock Drive
Austin, Texas 78735
www.impactdatasource.com
A REPORT OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF
PROJECT 1601 IN FORT COLLINS, CO
November 15, 2016
DRAFT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary………………………………………………...……………………………………………………………3
Project Summary
Introduction………………………………………………...……………………………………………………………………5
Description of The Project…………………………………………………………………………………………………5
Summary of the Economic Impact of the Project………………………………………………………………5
Analysis of Fiscal Impact
Costs and Benefits for Local Taxing Districts………………………………………………………………………6
City of Fort Collins…………………………………………………………………………………………………………7
Larimer County……………………………………………………………………………………………………………8
Poudre School District…………………………………………………………………………………………………8
Summary of Incentives
Summary of Possible City Incentives for the Project…………………………………………………………9
Methodology
Conduct of the Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10
Discussion of Economic Impact Calculations………………………………………………………………………10
Discussion of Fiscal Impact Calculations……………………………………………………………………………10
About Impact DataSource…………………………………………………………………………………………………13
Appendix A
Data & Rates………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………15
Appendix B
Detailed Economic Impact Calculations…………………………………………………………………………… 26
Appendix C
Detailed Cost-Benefit Calculations for:
City of Fort Collins..............................................................................................................34
Larimer County.................................................................................................................. 40
Poudre School District....................................................................................................... 43
Downtown Development Authority.................................................................................. 45
Page 2
DRAFT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project background
In Project 1601, a company is considering building, equipping and operating a new manufacturing facility in Fort
Collins. The firm plans to invest $35 million in new buildings and equipment. Upon completion of the construction,
they expect to increase employment in Fort Collins hiring workers with average salaries of $52,700 per year.
Economic Impact
Project 1601 will generate economic impacts during construction and operations. The construction activities, occurring
while the firm builds its new facilities, will generate a one-time impact for construction workers and businesses in the
area. The on-going operations of the firm will create annual economic impacts, employing workers in the community and
supporting additional economic activity throughout the region.
The one-time construction activity will support 312 workers in the area and support $18.5 million in new earnings for
these workers. The operations will include a manufacturing facility that will support 1,616 total workers and more
than $52.1 million in workers' earnings annually.
Economic Impact
Construction (One-Time): Total
Total Change in Jobs 312
Total Change in Earnings $18,502,963
Average Earnings per Job $59,362
Operations (On-going)* Total
Total Change in Jobs 1,616
Total Change in Earnings $52,053,554
Average Earnings per Job $32,211
* Total change in earnings during the first year of full employment.
Fiscal Impact
Project 1601 will generate fiscal impacts for the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, the school district and other local
taxing districts. The table below provides a high-level summary of the fiscal impacts for local taxing districts during
construction and over the first 10 years of operations.
Net Benefits During Construction and Over the First 10 Years for Local Taxing Districts
Present
Additional Additional Net Value of
Benefits Costs Benefits Net Benefits**
City of Fort Collins $19,920,531 ($15,132,760) $4,787,771 $3,658,901
Larimer County $4,393,828 ($3,184,698) $1,209,130 $945,426
Poudre School District $5,411,596 ($3,572,069) $1,839,528 $1,434,648
Total $29,725,955 ($21,889,526) $7,836,429 $6,038,976
** This analysis uses a 5% discount rate.
Note: The project will generate revenue for hospital/health, library, water and pest control districts, but because additional costs cannot be
determined, these taxing districts are not included in the analysis.
Page 3
DRAFT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Benefits and Costs for City of Fort Collins
The table below provides more detail on the sources of the additional benefits and costs for the city during construction
and over the first 10 years of the project. Appendix C contains the year-by-year calculations.
City of Fort Collins: Benefits, Costs & Net Benefits During Construction & Over First 10 Years
Additional Additional Net
Benefits Costs Benefits
Benefits:
Sales and Use Taxes after rebates $3,717,711 $3,717,711
Property Taxes on the Firm's Real Property $213,085 $213,085
Property Taxes on the Firm's BP Property $79,552 $79,552
Property Taxes on new Residential Property $37,958 $37,958
Capital Expansion Fees $0 $0
Building Permits and Fees $283,329 $283,329
Lodging Taxes $0 $0
Miscellaneous taxes and user fees $4,844,814 $4,844,814
City-owned Utility Revenue $10,744,083 $10,744,083
Costs:
Costs to provide city services, excl utilities ($5,265,863) ($5,265,863)
Costs to provide city-owned utilities ($9,866,897) ($9,866,897)
Total $19,920,531 ($15,132,760) $4,787,771
Present Value (5% discount rate) $14,837,499 ($11,178,598) $3,658,901
The graph below depicts the costs, benefits and net benefits to the City of Fort Collins over the first 10 years.
($2,500,000)
($2,000,000)
($1,500,000)
($1,000,000)
($500,000)
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
12345678910
Year
Net Benefits Over the First 16 Years
Benefits Costs Net Benefits
Page 4
DRAFT
PROJECT SUMMARY
Introduction
This report presents the results of an economic impact analysis performed by Impact DataSource, an Austin, Texas based
economic consulting, research and analysis firm. The report estimates the impact that a potential project in Fort Collins,
CO will have on the local economy. The report calculates the costs and benefits for specified local taxing districts during
the initial construction and over the first 10 years of operations.
City City of Fort Collins
County Larimer County
School District Poudre School District
Description of the Project
Summary of the Economic Impact of the Project
The project will have the following economic impact on the City of Fort Collins area over the first 10 years:
Economic Impact Over the First 10 Years
Total
Total number of permanent direct and indirect jobs to be created 1,616
Salaries to be paid to direct and indirect workers $492,141,304
Number of direct and indirect workers who will move to the City 97
Number of new residents in the City 243
Number of new residential properties to be built in the City 24
Number of new students expected to attend local school district 92
Taxable sales and purchases expected in the City $88,332,984
$5,726,400
The market value the firm's property in Year 1 $12,500,000
The year-by-year economic impacts can be found in Appendix B.
How this economic activity translates into additional costs and benefits for local taxing districts is summarized
next.
The market value of new residential property to be built for direct and indirect workers
who move to the City by Year 10
In Project 1601, a company is considering building, equipping and operating a new manufacturing facility in Fort Collins.
The firm plans to invest $35 million in new buildings and equipment. Upon completion of the construction, they expect to
increase employment in Fort Collins hiring workers with average salaries of $52,700 per year.
Page 5
DRAFT
ANALYSIS OF FISCAL IMPACT
Costs and Benefits for Local Taxing Districts
The project will generate additional benefits and costs for local taxing districts. A summary of these additional
benefits, costs and net benefits is provided below. The source of specific benefits and costs are provided in
more detail for each taxing district on subsequent pages.
Net Benefits During Construction and Over the First 10 Years for Local Taxing Districts
Present
Additional Additional Net Value of
Benefits Costs Benefits Net Benefits*
City of Fort Collins $19,920,531 ($15,132,760) $4,787,771 $3,658,901
Larimer County $4,393,828 ($3,184,698) $1,209,130 $945,426
Poudre School District $5,411,596 ($3,572,069) $1,839,528 $1,434,648
Total $29,725,955 ($21,889,526) $7,836,429 $6,038,976
*The Present Value of Net Benefits is a way of expressing in today's dollars, dollars to be paid or received in the future. Today's dollar and a
dollar to be received or paid at differing times in the future are not comparable because of the time value of money. The time value of money
is the interest rate or each taxing entity's discount rate. This analysis uses a discount rate of 5% to make the dollars comparable.
Note: The project will generate revenue for hospital/health, library, water and pest control districts, but because additional costs cannot be
determined, these taxing districts are not included in the analysis.
City of Fort Collins
61%
Larimer County
15%
Poudre School District
24%
Distribution of Net Benefits
Page 6
DRAFT
ANALYSIS OF FISCAL IMPACT
Benefits and Costs for City of Fort Collins
The table below displays the estimated additional benefits, costs and net benefits to be received by the city during
construction and over the first 10 years of the project. Appendix C contains the year-by-year calculations.
City of Fort Collins: Benefits, Costs & Net Benefits During Construction & Over First 10 Years
Additional Additional Net
Benefits Costs Benefits
Benefits:
Sales and Use Taxes after rebates $3,717,711 $3,717,711
Property Taxes on the Firm's Real Property $213,085 $213,085
Property Taxes on the Firm's BP Property $79,552 $79,552
Property Taxes on new Residential Property $37,958 $37,958
Capital Expansion Fees $0 $0
Building Permits and Fees $283,329 $283,329
Lodging Taxes $0 $0
Miscellaneous taxes and user fees collected from:
New Households $634,547 $634,547
New Businesses $4,210,267 $4,210,267
City-owned Utility Revenue collected from:
New Households $1,408,274 $1,408,274
New Businesses $9,335,809 $9,335,809
Costs:
Costs to provide city services, excluding utilities, to:
New Households ($689,487) ($689,487)
New Businesses ($4,576,377) ($4,576,377)
Costs to provide city-owned utilities to:
New Households ($1,293,818) ($1,293,818)
New Businesses ($8,573,079) ($8,573,079)
Total $19,920,531 ($15,132,760) $4,787,771
Present Value (5% discount rate) $14,837,499 ($11,178,598) $3,658,901
The graph below depicts the costs, benefits and net benefits to the City of Fort Collins over the first 10 years.
($2,500,000)
($2,000,000)
($1,500,000)
($1,000,000)
($500,000)
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
12345678910
Year
Net Benefits for the City
Benefits Costs Net Benefits
Page 7
DRAFT
ANALYSIS OF FISCAL IMPACT
Benefits and Costs for Larimer County
The table below displays the estimated additional benefits, costs and net benefits to be received by the county during
construction and over the first 10 years of the project. Appendix C contains the year-by-year calculations.
Larimer County: Benefits, Costs & Net Benefits During Construction & Over First 10 Years
Additional Additional Net
Benefits Costs Benefits
Benefits:
Sales and Use Taxes $574,164 $574,164
Property Taxes on the Firm's Real Property $475,934 $475,934
Property Taxes on the Firm's BP Property $177,682 $177,682
Property Taxes on new Residential Property $84,781 $84,781
Miscellaneous taxes and user fees collected from:
New Households $350,695 $350,695
New Businesses $2,730,571 $2,730,571
Costs:
Costs to provide county services to:
New Households ($362,599) ($362,599)
New Businesses ($2,822,099) ($2,822,099)
Total $4,393,828 ($3,184,698) $1,209,130
Present Value (5% discount rate) $3,297,969 ($2,352,542) $945,426
Benefits and Costs for Poudre School District
The table below displays the estimated additional benefits, costs and net benefits to be received by the school
district over the first 10 years of the project. Appendix C contains the year-by-year calculations.
Poudre School District: Benefits, Costs and Net Benefits Over the First 10 Years
Additional Additional Net
Benefits Costs Benefits
Benefits:
Property Taxes on the Firm's Real Property $1,144,703 $1,144,703
Property Taxes on the Firm's BP Property $427,356 $427,356
Property Taxes on new Residential Property $203,914 $203,914
Additional State and Federal Funding $3,635,624 $3,635,624
Costs:
Costs to educate new students ($3,572,069) ($3,572,069)
Total $5,411,596 ($3,572,069) $1,839,528
Present Value (5% discount rate) $4,065,744 ($2,631,096) $1,434,648
Page 8
DRAFT
SUMMARY OF INCENTIVES
Summary of Possible Incentives for the Project from the City
The city is evaluating the following of incentives for the project:
Use Tax Rebates
Construction Use Tax Rebate
City Proposed
Construction Estimated Spend $30,000,000
Factor 50.0%
Eligible Amount $15,000,000
Use Tax Due (3.85%) $577,500
Rebate Percent 68.1%
Construction Use Rebate Amount $393,021
Equipment Use Tax Rebate
City Proposed
Equipment Estimated Spend $5,000,000
Factor 95%
Eligible Amount $4,750,000
Use Tax Due (3.00%) $142,500
Rebate Percent 68.1%
Equipment Use Rebate Amount $96,979
Total Tax Rebate Amounts
City Proposed
Construction Use Rebate Amount $393,021
Equipment Use Rebate Amount $96,979
Total Use and Fee Rebate Amount $490,000
In total, the city is considering $490,000 in tax rebates related to the project. The sales tax collections and resulting
net benefits for the City of Fort Collins shown earlier in this report reflect the revenues to be received by the city
after rebating the $490,000 in taxes and fees detailed in the table above.
Page 9
DRAFT
METHODOLOGY
Conduct of the Analysis
This analysis was conducted by Impact DataSource using estimates provided to the City of Fort Collins by the firm, local
rates and information and assumptions by Impact DataSource.
Using this data, the economic impact from the project and the costs and benefits for relevant taxing districts
were calculated for a 10-year period
Discussion of Economic Impact Calculations
The economic impact as calculated in this report can be categorized into two main types of impacts.
1. Direct economic impacts are the immediate economic activities generated by the firm or project.
These impacts include the employment at the firm and salaries paid to the firm's workers as well
as expenditures made by the firm.
2. Indirect and induced economic impacts represent the additional economic activity that is supported
by the firm or project. Indirect jobs and salaries are created in new or existing area firms, such as
maintenance companies and service firms that may supply goods and services to the firm. In
addition, induced jobs and salaries are created in new or existing local businesses, such as retail
stores, gas stations, banks, restaurants, and service companies that may supply goods and services
to new workers and their families.
Note: This report labels the combined indirect and induced impacts as simply "Indirect".
To estimate the indirect and induced economic impact of the firm and its employees on the area, regional
economic multipliers were used. This economic analysis utilized economic impact multipliers obtained an input/output
model produced by from Economic Modeling Specialists Inc. (EMSI). The EMSI multipliers used in this analysis are specific
to Larimer County and the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (NAICS 236220) industry, Turbine and
Turbine Generator Set Units Manufacturing (NAICS 333611) industry and the Corporate, Subsidiary, and Regional
Managing Offices (NAICS 551114) industry.
Two types of regional economic multipliers were used in this analysis: an employment multiplier and an
earnings multiplier. An employment multiplier was used to estimate the number of indirect and induced jobs
created and supported in the area. An earnings multiplier was used to estimate the amount of salaries
to be paid to workers in these new indirect and induced jobs. The multipliers show the estimated number of
indirect and induced jobs created for every one direct job at the firm and the amount of salaries paid to
these workers for every dollar paid to a direct worker at the firm. The multipliers used in this analysis are
listed below:
Headquarters Manufacturing
Construction Operations Operations
Earnings multiplier 0.34 0.31 0.77
Employment multiplier 0.64 0.75 2.23
Discussion of Fiscal Impact Calculations
Calculation of Revenues for the City:
The city's revenues from sales, property lodging taxes were calculated directly using data that the firm provided and
assumptions about taxable construction spending and worker spending.
Property taxes were calculated on the new residential property for some new direct and indirect workers who
may move to the county and on the firm's property that will be added to local tax rolls.
Page 10
DRAFT
METHODOLOGY
Lodging taxes were also calculated on lodging sales, in local hotels/motels, to out-of-town visitors to the firm.
Sales taxes were calculated on the taxable spending in the area by direct and indirect workers, the spending
of out-of-town visitors to the firm, and on the firm's taxable sales and purchases of supplies, materials and
services in the area.
The firm was not asked for nor could reasonably provide some data for calculating some other revenues for the
city. For example, while the city will likely receive revenues from fines paid on speeding tickets given
to new workers at the firm, the firm may not reasonably know the propensity of its workers to speed.
Therefore, some other city revenues were calculated using an average revenue approach. This approach uses
two assumptions:
1 - The city has two general revenue sources -- revenues from residents and revenues from businesses.
2 - The city will collect (a) about the same amount of other revenues from each household of new workers
that may move to the city as it currently collects from an average household of existing residents, and
(b) about the same amount of other revenues from the new firm (on a per worker basis) will be collected
as the city collects from other businesses in the city.
Using this average revenue approach, revenues likely to be received by the city were calculated from the
households of new workers who may move to the city and from the new firm using average city revenues
per worker calculations.
Utility revenues collected from new residents and new businesses were also calculated using the average revenue
approach as shown in Appendix A.
The total annual city revenues used to make average revenue calculations in this analysis were obtained
from the city's latest comprehensive annual financial report.
Calculation of Costs for the City:
This analysis sought to answer the question, what additional monies will the city have to spend to provide
services to households of new workers who may move to the city and to the firm. A marginal cost approach
was used to calculate additional city costs from the new firm and its workers.
This approach uses two assumptions:
1 - The city spends money on services for two general groups -- residents and businesses.
2 - The city will spend (a) about the same amount for variable or marginal cost for each household
of new workers that may move to the city as it currently spends for an average household of existing
residents, and (b) about the same amount for variable or marginal costs for the new firm (on a per worker
basis) as it spends for other businesses in the city.
The detailed assumptions to estimate the marginal cost per household and per worker are provided in Appendix A.
The cost to provide city-owned utility services to new residents and new businesses were calculated using the average
cost approach as shown in Appendix A.
Page 11
DRAFT
METHODOLOGY
Calculation of Net Benefits for the City:
Net benefits calculated in this analysis are the difference between additional city revenues over a 10-year
period and additional city costs to provide services to the new firm and its workers and indirect workers who
may move to the city.
Calculation of Revenues for the County:
The county's revenues from sales and property taxes were calculated directly using data that the firm provided.
Property taxes were calculated on the new residential property for some new direct and indirect workers who
may move to the county and on the firm's property that will be added to local tax rolls.
Sales taxes were calculated on the taxable spending in the area by direct and indirect workers, the spending
of out-of-town visitors to the firm, and on the firm's taxable sales and purchases of supplies, materials and
services in the area.
Also, the model estimates other additional revenue to be received by the county from new residents and new
businesses. An average revenue approach is used in the same way additional county revenues were calculated.
Calculation of Costs for the County:
The model estimates additional costs to provide services to new residents and businesses using a parallel
methodology used for the city.
Calculation of Net Benefits for the County:
Net benefits calculated in this analysis are the difference between additional county revenues over a 10-year
period and additional county costs to provide services to the new firm and its workers and indirect workers who
may move to the county.
Calculation of Revenues for Public Schools:
The school district's revenues from property taxes were calculated on the new residential property for some
new direct and indirect workers who may move to the county and on the firm's property that will be added to
local tax rolls.
School district revenues from state and federal funds and other local funding were calculated using an average
revenue approach. This approach used the assumption that the school district will collect about the same amount
of these revenues for each new student in the household of a new worker who may move to the county as it
currently collects for each existing student.
Calculation of Costs for Public Schools:
A marginal cost approach was used to calculate additional school district costs from the new firm and its workers.
This approach uses the assumption that the school district will spend about the same amount for variable or
marginal cost for each new student as it spends for each existing student.
Calculation of Net Benefits for Public Schools:
Net benefits calculated in this analysis are the difference between additional school district revenues over a
10-year period and marginal costs for the school district to provide services to students in the households of
new workers who may move to the county.
The school district's total annual revenues and expenses to make average revenue and marginal costs calculations
in this analysis were obtained from the school district's latest annual budget.
Page 12
DRAFT
METHODOLOGY
Special Taxing Districts
The hospital/health district and other local property taxing districts will receive additional property tax revenue as a result
of the project. In addition these special taxing districts may incur additional costs from new residents and from the new
firm. The project will generate revenue for hospital/health, library, water and pest control districts, but because additional
costs cannot be determined, these taxing districts are not included in the analysis.
About Impact DataSource
Impact DataSource is a 23-year-old Austin, Texas economic consulting, research and analysis firm. The company has
conducted over 2,500 economic impact analyses of firms, projects and activities in most industry groups throughout
the U.S.
In addition, Impact DataSource has prepared and customized over 50 economic impact models for its clients to
perform their own analyses of economic development projects. These clients include the New Mexico Economic
Development and the Metro Orlando (Florida) Economic Development Commission.
The New Mexico Department of Economic Development uses Impact DataSource's computer model to project the
economic impact of new or expanding firms in the state and costs and benefits for the State of New Mexico and
each local taxing district. The model also calculates the amount of eligible state and local incentives and calculates
a rate of return and payback period for these incentives.
Impact DataSource's team includes the following members:
- Jerry Walker, principal/economist, and
- Paul Scheuren, principal/economist.
Jerry Walker is an economist and Impact DataSource's Principal. Over the past seventeen years, he has conducted
economic and fiscal impact analyses and cost-benefit studies of a variety of firms, facilities, projects and activities.
He has also developed several economic impact analysis computer programs for clients to do their own economic
impact analyses of firms, projects, activities and organizations.
He also has a background in government accounting and auditing. Prior to his economic consulting career, he
had a fifteen-year career as a supervisory auditor with two federal departments – the U.S. Department of
Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. He reviewed federal programs operated by
states, local governments, colleges and universities, local education agencies, and nonprofit organizations in a
six state area from Austin, Texas. He performed financial audits and operational reviews. During the operational
reviews, the operations of the federal programs were reviewed for economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The
financial audits included analyzing costs incurred for federal programs and components of indirect cost rates.
He has also served as a part-time accounting instructor at Austin Community College, Austin, Texas.
Jerry has Bachelor of Science and Master of Business Administration degrees in accounting and economics from
Nicholls State University, Thibodaux, Louisiana.
Paul Scheuren is an Impact DataSource economist. Over the past three years, he has conducted economic and
fiscal impact analyses and cost-benefit studies of a variety of firms, facilities, projects and activities. Recently,
Paul analyzed more than 30 renewable energy projects funded by the Iowa Power Fund, Iowa's energy-related
economic development fund.
Page 13
DRAFT
METHODOLOGY
Prior to joining Impact DataSource, Paul worked as a compensation analyst at the Texas Association of School
Boards where he supported compensation consulting projects and helped streamline data analysis for a
statewide salary survey.
Paul has a Master of Arts in Economics from Clemson University as well as a Bachelor of Business Administration
in actuarial science from Temple University.
Data used in the analysis, along with schedules of the results of calculations, are on the following pages.
Page 14
DRAFT
Appendix A
Data and Rates
Page 15
DRAFT
APPENDIX A
Local Tax Rates:
Sales tax rates:
City of Fort Collins Taxable goods 3.85%
Mfg equipment eligible for use tax rebate 3.00%
Food consumed at home 2.25%
Larimer County 0.65%
Property tax rates, per $1,000 of assessment:
City of Fort Collins 9.797
Larimer County 21.882
Poudre School District 52.630
Hospital/Health Services 2.167
Other (Water, Library, etc) 4.016
City lodging tax rate (in addition to sale tax): 3.00%
Relevant City Rates:
Miscellaneous Primary Government Revenue collected from households and businesses:
Revenue and Expenditures from Fort Collins 2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Page 28
Primary Government Revenues In Thousands
Charges for services $228,073
Operating grants and contributions $8,811
Capital grants and contributions $34,068
Sales and use taxes $134,899
Property taxes $19,988
Occupational taxes $2,851
Lodging taxes $1,451
Intergovernmental not restricted to programs $22,436
Investment earnings $9,610
Miscellaneous $4,895
Total Revenues $467,082
Primary Government Revenue Sources Estimated in the Model In Thousands
Sales and use taxes $134,899
Property taxes $19,988
Lodging taxes $1,451
Total $156,338
Page 16
DRAFT
APPENDIX A
Primary Government Revenues Excluded from Miscellaneous Revenue Calcluation
In Thousands
Charges for Services
Power and Light $124,304
Water $27,698
Wastewater $19,492
Operating grants and contributions (exclude 100%) $8,811
Capital grants and contributions (exclude 100%) $34,068
Intergovernmental not restricted to programs $22,436
Investment earnings $9,610
Total $246,419
Miscellaneous Primary Government Revenue collected from households and businesses
In Thousands
Total Revenues $467,082
Less Sources estimated direct in Model ($156,338)
Less Excluded Revenues ($246,419)
Miscellaneous Revenue $64,325
Includes Primary Government Revenues not estimated in the model or excluded from
from Miscellaneous Revenue Calculation
City financial data and Impact DataSource calculations.
Percent of miscellaneous revenues and fees collected from:
Households 70%
Businesses 30%
Impact DataSource assumption.
Number of households and workers in Fort Collins:
Households 64,990
Workers 69,971
U.S. Census 2011 American Community Survey (Households), U.S. Census OnTheMap 2010 (All Workers)
Estimated miscellaneous revenues to be received from households per new $693
worker household moving to the city
Impact DataSource calculation based on above city data and assumptions.
Estimated miscellaneous revenues to be received from businesses per new $276
worker in the city
Impact DataSource calculation based on above city data and assumptions.
Page 17
DRAFT
APPENDIX A
Marginal Government Expenses imposed on the city by new households and businesses:
Primary Government Expenses In Thousands Fixed Variable
General Government $33,674 80% 20%
Public Safety $51,313 60% 40%
Cultural parks, recreation and environment $29,755 60% 40%
Planning and development $11,053 60% 40%
Transportation $38,540 60% 40%
Interest on long-term debt $2,523 100% 0%
Storm drainage $8,407 0% 100%
Golf $2,547 0% 100%
Total Expenses $177,812
Total Marginal Costs $69,953
Impact DataSource calculation based on fixed/variable split for government expenses as determined through work with
similar communities. Local expenditure data used in this analysis according to the city's 2011 CAFR.
Percent of marginal costs attributable to:
Households 70%
Businesses 30%
Impact DataSource assumption.
Estimated marginal city costs attributable to households per new worker $753
household moving to the city
Impact DataSource calculation based on above city data and assumptions.
Estimated marginal city costs attributable to businesses per new worker in the city $300
Impact DataSource calculation based on above city data and assumptions.
City-owned Utility Revenue Collected from new residents and businesses:
City-Owned Utility Revenues In Thousands
Power and Light $99,657
Water $24,101
Wastewater $19,020
Total City-Owned Utility Revenues $142,777
Estimated cost per new household to provide city-owned $1,538
utilities to new households
Impact DataSource calculation based on above city data and assumptions.
Estimated cost per new worker to provide city-owned $612
utilities to new businesses
Impact DataSource calculation based on above city data and assumptions.
Page 18
DRAFT
APPENDIX A
Costs to provide City-owned Utilities to new residents and businesses:
City-Owned Utility Expenses In Thousands
Power and Light $97,057
Water $19,941
Wastewater $14,163
Total City-Owned Utility Expenses $131,161
Estimated cost per new household to provide city-owned $1,413
utilities to new households
Impact DataSource calculation based on above city data and assumptions.
Estimated cost per new worker to provide city-owned $562
utilities to new businesses
Impact DataSource calculation based on above city data and assumptions.
Rate of annual increase in the above expenditures and other revenue: 2%
Impact DataSource assumption.
Relevant County Rates:
Miscellaneous Primary Government Revenue collected from households and businesses:
Revenue and Expenditures from Larimer 2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Page 26
Primary Government Revenues In Millions
Charges for services $54.96
Operating grants and contributions $83.08
Capital grants and contributions $3.09
Property taxes $92.43
Sales and use taxes $45.09
Other Taxes ($7.64)
Other Revenues $5.36
Total Revenues $276.37
Primary Government Revenue Sources Estimated in the Model In Millions
Property taxes $92.43
Sales and use taxes $45.09
Total $137.52
Page 19
DRAFT
APPENDIX A
Primary Government Revenues Excluded from Miscellaneous Revenue Calcluation
In Millions
Operating grants and contributions (75%) $62.31
Capital grants and contributions (75%) $2.32
Total $64.63
Miscellaneous Primary Government Revenue collected from households and businesses
In Millions
Total Revenues $276.37
Less Sources estimated direct in Model ($137.52)
Less Excluded Revenues ($64.63)
Miscellaneous Revenue $74.22
Includes Primary Government Revenues not estimated in the model or excluded from
from Miscellaneous Revenue Calculation
County financial data and Impact DataSource calculations.
Percent of miscellaneous revenues and fees collected from:
Households 70%
Businesses 30%
Impact DataSource assumption.
Number of households and workers in Larimer County:
Households 135,600
Workers 124,146
U.S. Census 2011 American Community Survey (Households), U.S. Census OnTheMap 2010 (All Workers)
Estimated miscellaneous revenues to be received from households per new $383
worker household moving to the county
Impact DataSource calculation based on above county data and assumptions.
Estimated miscellaneous revenues to be received from businesses per new $179
worker in the county
Impact DataSource calculation based on above county data and assumptions.
Marginal Government Expenses imposed on the county by new households and businesses:
Primary Government Expenses In Millions Fixed Variable
General Government $33.88 80% 20%
Judicial and Public Safety $63.13 60% 40%
Streets and highways $25.42 60% 40%
Recreation $16.65 60% 40%
Health and Human Services $56.49 60% 40%
Interest on long-term debt $2.63 100% 0%
Solid Waste $5.25 0% 100%
Total Expenses $203.45
Total Marginal Costs $76.70
Impact DataSource calculation based on fixed/variable split for government expenses as determined through work with
similar communities. Local expenditure data used in this analysis according to the county's 2011 CAFR.
Page 20
DRAFT
APPENDIX A
Percent of marginal costs attributable to:
Households 70%
Businesses 30%
Impact DataSource assumption.
Estimated marginal county costs attributable to households per new worker $396
household moving to the county
Impact DataSource calculation based on above county data and assumptions.
Estimated marginal county costs attributable to businesses per new worker $185
in the county
Impact DataSource calculation based on above county data and assumptions.
Rate of annual increase in the above expenditures and other revenue: 2%
Impact DataSource assumption.
Relevant School District Rates:
The school district’s estimated marginal cost of providing services to each $3,896
new child in the district
Impact DataSource calculation based on values below.
Average annual cost of providing services to each child in the district $7,793
2013 Budget Poudre School District General Fund - Estimated values for 2011-12
Average annual cost for each new child, as a percent of average annual cost 50%
Impact DataSource assumption.
Estimated annual state, federal and other funding received by the district $3,966
for each child enrolled
2013 Budget Poudre School District General Fund - Estimated values for 2011-12
Relevant Community Rates:
Expected inflation rate over the first 10 years 3.0%
Impact DataSource assumption.
Discount rate used in analysis to compute discounted cash flows 5.0%
Impact DataSource assumption.
Percent of the gross salaries a typical worker spent on taxable goods and services 27%
Impact DataSource calculation from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey
Percent of the gross salaries a typical worker spent on taxable food consumed at home 6%
Impact DataSource calculation from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey
Page 21
DRAFT
APPENDIX A
Property tax asssessment rates:
Nonresidential assessment rate 29.00%
Residential assessment rate 7.96%
Median value of a new residential property constructed in the city $238,600
U.S. Census American Community Survey 2011 Fort Collins, CO
Percent annual increase in the taxable value of residential and commercial 0.0%
real property on local tax rolls over the first 10 years
Impact DataSource assumption.
Depreciation rates:
To estimate the annual taxable or depreciable value of furniture, fixtures and equipment owned by the firm,
this analysis uses the following depreciation schedule. Therefore, property taxes on the firm's furniture, fixtures
and equipment are calculated on the following percentages of the costs of such equipment purchased each year:
Year 1 100%
Year 2 90%
Year 3 80%
Year 4 70%
Year 5 60%
Year 6 50%
Year 7 40%
Year 8 30%
Year 9 20%
Year 10 20%
Impact DataSource assumption.
The Firm's Investments, Assets and Construction:
The market value of investments at the firm's facility each year:
Buildings and Furniture,
Other Real Fixtures,
Property and
Land Improvements Equipment Total
Year 1 $0 $30,000,000 $5,000,000 $35,000,000
Year 2 $0$0$0$0
Year 3 $0$0$0$0
Year 4 $0$0$0$0
Year 5 $0$0$0$0
Year 6 $0$0$0$0
Year 7 $0$0$0$0
Year 8 $0$0$0$0
Year 9 $0$0$0$0
Year 10 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total $0 $30,000,000 $5,000,000 $35,000,000
Page 22
DRAFT
APPENDIX A
Spending During Construction:
Estimated spending for construction and capital expansion fees (if applicable):
Construction Capital
Spending Expansion Fees
Year 1 $30,000,000 Year 1 $0
Year 2 $0 Year 2 $0
Year 3 $0 Year 3 $0
Year 4 $0 Year 4 $0
Year 5 $0 Year 5 $0
Year 6 $0 Year 6 $0
Year 7 $0 Year 7 $0
Year 8 $0 Year 8 $0
Year 9 $0 Year 9 $0
Year 10 $0 Year 10 $0
Percent of construction costs for:
Materials 50%
Labor 50%
Estimated percent of construction materials that will be subject to the city's use tax 100%
Percent of taxable spending by construction workers that will be in the city 0%
Percent of furniture, fixtures and equipment to be subject to 3% use tax rate: 95%
Expected city building permits and plan check fees to be paid during construction, if applicable:
Plan Check Total Permits
Permit Fees Fees and Fees
Year 1 $62,997 $30,332 $283,329
Year 2 $0$0$0
Year 3 $0$0$0
Year 4 $0$0$0
Year 5 $0$0$0
Year 6 $0$0$0
Year 7 $0$0$0
Year 8 $0$0$0
Year 9 $0$0$0
Year 10 $0 $0 $0
The above fees were estimated using the city's Building-Combination Estimate of Fees web application. The estimate is
based on construction with a $30 million valuation with subcontractors.
http://www.fcgov.com/building/fees.php
Page 23
DRAFT
APPENDIX A
Activities During the Firm's Operations:
The firm's estimated taxable purchases of materials, supplies and services in the community and the
firm's estimated taxable sales that will be subject to sales tax in the city
Taxable Taxable
Purchases Sales
Year 1 $250,000 $0
Year 2 $0 $0
Year 3 $0 $0
Year 4 $0 $0
Year 5 $0 $0
Year 6 $0 $0
Year 7 $0 $0
Year 8 $0 $0
Year 9 $0 $0
Year 10 $0 $0
New employees in Fort Collins each year:
New New Total
Headquarters Manufacturing New Employees
Employees Employees added
added each year each year each year
Year 1 0 0 0
Year 2 0 250 250
Year 3 0 250 250
Year 4 0 0 0
Year 5 0 0 0
Year 6 0 0 0
Year 7 0 0 0
Year 8 0 0 0
Year 9 0 0 0
Year 10 0 0 0
Total 0 500 500
Number of new workers who will move to the city to take job at the firm:
Estimated percent of the 255 newly hired employees moving to the city 15.0%
Number of new
employees moving
to the city
Year 1 0
Year 2 38
Year 3 38
Year 4 0
Year 5 0
Year 6 0
Year 7 0
Year 8 0
Year 9 0
Year 10 0
Total 75
Page 24
DRAFT
APPENDIX A
Average annual salaries of new employees in the first year $57,383
Percent of expected increase in employee salaries after Year 1 2.5%
Multipliers for calculating the number of indirect and induced jobs and earnings in the area during operations:
Headquarters Manufacturing
Earnings 0.3100 0.7700
Employment 0.7500 2.2310
This cost-benefit analysis uses the above multipliers to project the indirect and induced benefits
in the community as a result of the direct economic activity. The employment multiplier shows
the number of spin-off jobs that will be created from each direct job. Similarly, the earnings
multiplier estimates the salaries and wages to be paid to workers in these spin-off jobs for
each $1 paid to direct workers.
Percent of workers in new indirect and induced jobs that will move 2%
to the city for the job
Estimated percentage of workers moving to the city that will have new 25%
residential property built for them the first year that they move to the city
Household size of a typical new worker moving to the city: 2.50
Number of school children in a typical worker's household 0.95
Percent of taxable shopping by a typical new worker that will 55%
be in the city
Visitors to the Firm from Out-of-Town:
Number of out-of-town visitor days resulting from the project:
Includes vendors, customer audits and visiting corporate employees.
Visitors
Year 1 -
Year 2 -
Year 3 -
Year 4 -
Year 5 -
Year 6 -
Percent of annual increase in the number of visitors after year 6 0%
Average daily taxable visitor spending, excluding lodging in the city $35
Percent of visitor days that will result in a night in a hotel/motel in the city 50%
Average nightly room rate in a local motel $95
Page 25
DRAFT
Appendix B
Economic Impact Calculations
Page 26
DRAFT
APPENDIX B
Number of local jobs added each year and worker salaries to be paid: Headquarters
Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total
Year Jobs Jobs Jobs Salaries Salaries Salaries
1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
4 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
5 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
6 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
7 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
8 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
9 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
10000$0$0$0
Total 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
Number of local jobs added each year and worker salaries to be paid: Manufacturing
Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total
Year Jobs Jobs Jobs Salaries Salaries Salaries
1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
2 250 558 808 $14,704,394 $11,322,383 $26,026,777
3 250 558 808 $30,144,007 $23,210,886 $53,354,893
4 0 0 0 $30,897,607 $23,791,158 $54,688,765
5 0 0 0 $31,670,048 $24,385,937 $56,055,984
6 0 0 0 $32,461,799 $24,995,585 $57,457,384
7 0 0 0 $33,273,344 $25,620,475 $58,893,818
8 0 0 0 $34,105,177 $26,260,987 $60,366,164
9 0 0 0 $34,957,807 $26,917,511 $61,875,318
10 0 0 0 $35,831,752 $27,590,449 $63,422,201
Total 500 1,116 1,616 $278,045,934 $214,095,369 $492,141,304
Page 27
DRAFT
APPENDIX B
Number of local jobs added each year and worker salaries to be paid: Headquarters & Manufacturing
Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total
Year Jobs Jobs Jobs Salaries Salaries Salaries
1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
2 250 558 808 $14,704,394 $11,322,383 $26,026,777
3 250 558 808 $30,144,007 $23,210,886 $53,354,893
4 0 0 0 $30,897,607 $23,791,158 $54,688,765
5 0 0 0 $31,670,048 $24,385,937 $56,055,984
6 0 0 0 $32,461,799 $24,995,585 $57,457,384
7 0 0 0 $33,273,344 $25,620,475 $58,893,818
8 0 0 0 $34,105,177 $26,260,987 $60,366,164
9 0 0 0 $34,957,807 $26,917,511 $61,875,318
10 0 0 0 $35,831,752 $27,590,449 $63,422,201
Total 500 1,116 1,616 $278,045,934 $214,095,369 $492,141,304
Number of direct and indirect workers and their families who will move
to the area and their children who will attend local public schools:
New Workers Total Total
Moving to New New
Year the Area Residents Students
10 0 0
2 49 121 46
3 49 121 46
40 0 0
50 0 0
60 0 0
70 0 0
80 0 0
90 0 0
10 0 0 0
Total 97 243 92
Page 28
DRAFT
APPENDIX B
Number of new residential properties that may be built in the city for direct and indirect workers
who will move to the community:
Total New
Residential
Year Properties
10
212
312
40
50
60
70
80
90
10 0
Total 24
Page 29
DRAFT
APPENDIX B
Local taxable spending on which sales taxes will be collected:
Direct and
Taxable Indirect Taxable Taxable
Construction Workers' Visitors' Sales by Purchases by
Year Spending Spending* Spending the Firm the Firm Total
1 $15,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $250,000 $15,250,000
2 $0 $3,864,976 $0 $0 $0 $3,864,976
3 $0 $7,923,202 $0 $0 $0 $7,923,202
4 $0 $8,121,282 $0 $0 $0 $8,121,282
5 $0 $8,324,314 $0 $0 $0 $8,324,314
6 $0 $8,532,421 $0 $0 $0 $8,532,421
7 $0 $8,745,732 $0 $0 $0 $8,745,732
8 $0 $8,964,375 $0 $0 $0 $8,964,375
9 $0 $9,188,485 $0 $0 $0 $9,188,485
10 $0 $9,418,197 $0 $0 $0 $9,418,197
Total $15,000,000 $73,082,984 $0 $0 $250,000 $88,332,984
* Spending includes only expenditures on items subject to general sales tax.
Manufacturing purchases subject to use tax and local taxable spending by direct and indirect workers
on food consumed at home:
Spending on
Rebateable Food
Manufacturing Manufacturing Consumed
Year Purchases Purchases at home
1 $4,750,000 $4,750,000 $0
2 $0 $0 $1,561,607
3 $0 $0 $3,201,294
4 $0 $0 $3,281,326
5 $0 $0 $3,363,359
6 $0 $0 $3,447,443
7 $0 $0 $3,533,629
8 $0 $0 $3,621,970
9 $0 $0 $3,712,519
10 $0 $0 $3,805,332
Total $4,750,000 $4,750,000 $29,528,478
Page 30
DRAFT
APPENDIX B
Local spending by visitors on lodging by out-of-town visitors:
Spending
Year on Lodging
1$0
2$0
3$0
4$0
5$0
6$0
7$0
8$0
9$0
10 $0
Total $0
Page 31
DRAFT
APPENDIX B
Market value of new residential property built for direct and indirect workers who move to the
community and the market value of the firm's property:
Value of Value of Firm's
Firm's Business
New Real Personal Total
Residential Property Property Taxable
Year Property Tax Rolls Tax Rolls Property
1 $0 $7,500,000 $5,000,000 $12,500,000
2 $2,863,200 $7,500,000 $4,500,000 $14,863,200
3 $5,726,400 $7,500,000 $4,000,000 $17,226,400
4 $5,726,400 $7,500,000 $3,500,000 $16,726,400
5 $5,726,400 $7,500,000 $3,000,000 $16,226,400
6 $5,726,400 $7,500,000 $2,500,000 $15,726,400
7 $5,726,400 $7,500,000 $2,000,000 $15,226,400
8 $5,726,400 $7,500,000 $1,500,000 $14,726,400
9 $5,726,400 $7,500,000 $1,000,000 $14,226,400
10 $5,726,400 $7,500,000 $1,000,000 $14,226,400
Assessed value of new residential property built for direct and indirect workers who move to the
community and the assessed value of the firm's property:
Value of Value of Firm's
Firm's Business
New Real Personal Total
Residential Property Property Taxable
Year Property Tax Rolls Tax Rolls Property
1 $0 $2,175,000 $1,450,000 $3,625,000
2 $227,911 $2,175,000 $1,305,000 $3,707,911
3 $455,821 $2,175,000 $1,160,000 $3,790,821
4 $455,821 $2,175,000 $1,015,000 $3,645,821
5 $455,821 $2,175,000 $870,000 $3,500,821
6 $455,821 $2,175,000 $725,000 $3,355,821
7 $455,821 $2,175,000 $580,000 $3,210,821
8 $455,821 $2,175,000 $435,000 $3,065,821
9 $455,821 $2,175,000 $290,000 $2,920,821
10 $455,821 $2,175,000 $290,000 $2,920,821
Page 32
DRAFT
Appendix C
Cost and Benefit Calculations
Page 33
DRAFT
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for City of Fort Collins
Benefits:
Sales and use tax collections:
On
Direct and Rebate
On Taxable Indirect On Taxable Taxable On Taxable
Construction Workers' Visitors' Sales by Purchases by Construction
Year Spending* Spending Spending the Firm the Firm Spending Total
1 $577,500 $0 $0 $0 $9,625 ($393,021) $194,104
2 $0 $148,802 $0 $0 $0 $0 $148,802
3 $0 $305,043 $0 $0 $0 $0 $305,043
4 $0 $312,669 $0 $0 $0 $0 $312,669
5 $0 $320,486 $0 $0 $0 $0 $320,486
6 $0 $328,498 $0 $0 $0 $0 $328,498
7 $0 $336,711 $0 $0 $0 $0 $336,711
8 $0 $345,128 $0 $0 $0 $0 $345,128
9 $0 $353,757 $0 $0 $0 $0 $353,757
10 $0 $362,601 $0 $0 $0 $0 $362,601
Total $577,500 $2,813,695 $0 $0 $9,625 ($393,021) $3,007,799
* Tax collections prior to possible rebates.
Sales and use tax collections:
On Rebate on On Food
Manufacturing Manufacturing Consumed
Year Purchases* Purchases at home Total
1 $142,500 ($96,979) $0 $45,521
2 $0 $0 $35,136 $35,136
3 $0 $0 $72,029 $72,029
4 $0 $0 $73,830 $73,830
5 $0 $0 $75,676 $75,676
6 $0 $0 $77,567 $77,567
7 $0 $0 $79,507 $79,507
8 $0 $0 $81,494 $81,494
9 $0 $0 $83,532 $83,532
10 $0 $0 $85,620 $85,620
Total $142,500 ($96,979) $664,391 $709,912
* Tax collections prior to possible rebates.
Page 34
DRAFT
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for City of Fort Collins - Continued
Property tax collections on:
Firm Property
New Real Prop. Business Real Prop. Business Total Taxes
Residential Taxes Prop. Taxes Taxes Prop. Taxes After
Year Property Collected Collected Abated Abated Abatement Total
1 $0 $21,308 $14,206 $0 $0 $35,514 $35,514
2 $2,233 $21,308 $12,785 $0 $0 $34,094 $36,326
3 $4,466 $21,308 $11,365 $0 $0 $32,673 $37,139
4 $4,466 $21,308 $9,944 $0 $0 $31,252 $35,718
5 $4,466 $21,308 $8,523 $0 $0 $29,832 $34,298
6 $4,466 $21,308 $7,103 $0 $0 $28,411 $32,877
7 $4,466 $21,308 $5,682 $0 $0 $26,991 $31,456
8 $4,466 $21,308 $4,262 $0 $0 $25,570 $30,036
9 $4,466 $21,308 $2,841 $0 $0 $24,150 $28,615
10 $4,466 $21,308 $2,841 $0 $0 $24,150 $28,615
Total $37,958 $213,085 $79,552 $0 $0 $292,636 $330,595
Page 35
DRAFT
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for City of Fort Collins - Continued
Other city revenues from building permits and fees, lodging taxes, miscellaneous revenue collected
from new households and new businesses:
Rebated Miscellaneous Miscellaneous
Building Capital Capital Revenues Revenues
Permits and Expansion Expansion Lodging Collected from Collected from
Year Fees Fees Fees Taxes Households* Businesses** Total
1 $283,329 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $283,329
2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $34,283 $227,468 $261,751
3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $69,937 $464,035 $533,972
4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $71,335 $473,316 $544,651
5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $72,762 $482,782 $555,544
6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $74,217 $492,438 $566,655
7 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,702 $502,286 $577,988
8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $77,216 $512,332 $589,548
9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $78,760 $522,579 $601,339
10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $80,335 $533,030 $613,366
Total $283,329 $0 $0 $0 $634,547 $4,210,267 $5,128,143
* Miscellaneous revenues collected from households is based on the number of new households moving to the community
and the per household miscellaneous revenue collected from new households as calculated and discussed on page 19.
**Miscellaneous revenues collected from businesses is based on the number of new workers in the community and
the per new worker miscellaneous revenue collected from businesses as calculated and discussed on page 19.
Page 36
DRAFT
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for City of Fort Collins - Continued
City-owned utility revenue collected by the city from new residents and new businesses:
City-Owned City-Owned
Utility Utility
Revenues Revenues
Collected from Collected from
Year Households Businesses Total
1$0 $0 $0
2 $76,085 $504,386 $580,471
3 $155,213 $1,028,947 $1,184,160
4 $158,317 $1,049,526 $1,207,844
5 $161,484 $1,070,517 $1,232,000
6 $164,713 $1,091,927 $1,256,640
7 $168,008 $1,113,766 $1,281,773
8 $171,368 $1,136,041 $1,307,409
9 $174,795 $1,158,762 $1,333,557
10 $178,291 $1,181,937 $1,360,228
Total $1,408,274 $9,335,809 $10,744,083
Page 37
DRAFT
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for City of Fort Collins - Continued
Costs:
The costs of providing municipal services and utility services to new residents:
Cost of City Cost of City Cost of City- Cost of City-
Services to Services to Owned Utility Owned Utility
New New Svcs to New Svcs to New
Year Residents Businesses Residents Businesses Total Costs
1$0$0$0$0$0
2 $37,251 $247,248 $69,901 $463,178 $817,578
3 $75,992 $504,386 $142,598 $944,883 $1,667,859
4 $77,512 $514,474 $145,450 $963,781 $1,701,216
5 $79,062 $524,763 $148,359 $983,056 $1,735,241
6 $80,643 $535,258 $151,326 $1,002,717 $1,769,945
7 $82,256 $545,964 $154,353 $1,022,772 $1,805,344
8 $83,901 $556,883 $157,440 $1,043,227 $1,841,451
9 $85,579 $568,020 $160,589 $1,064,092 $1,878,280
10 $87,291 $579,381 $163,801 $1,085,374 $1,915,846
Total $689,487 $4,576,377 $1,293,818 $8,573,079 $15,132,760
Net Benefits for the City:
Net Cumulative
Year Benefits Costs Benefits Net Benefits
1 $558,468 $0 $558,468 $558,468
2 $1,062,486 ($817,578) $244,908 $803,376
3 $2,132,343 ($1,667,859) $464,484 $1,267,860
4 $2,174,712 ($1,701,216) $473,496 $1,741,356
5 $2,218,004 ($1,735,241) $482,763 $2,224,120
6 $2,262,238 ($1,769,945) $492,293 $2,716,412
7 $2,307,435 ($1,805,344) $502,091 $3,218,504
8 $2,353,615 ($1,841,451) $512,164 $3,730,668
9 $2,400,800 ($1,878,280) $522,519 $4,253,187
10 $2,450,430 ($1,915,846) $534,584 $4,787,771
Total $19,920,531 ($15,132,760) $4,787,771
Page 38
DRAFT
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for Larimer County
Benefits:
Sales tax collections:
On
Direct and
On Taxable Indirect On Taxable Taxable
Construction Workers' Visitors' Sales by Purchases by
Year Spending Spending Spending the Firm the Firm Total
1 $97,500 $0 $0 $0 $1,625 $99,125
2 $0 $25,122 $0 $0 $0 $25,122
3 $0 $51,501 $0 $0 $0 $51,501
4 $0 $52,788 $0 $0 $0 $52,788
5 $0 $54,108 $0 $0 $0 $54,108
6 $0 $55,461 $0 $0 $0 $55,461
7 $0 $56,847 $0 $0 $0 $56,847
8 $0 $58,268 $0 $0 $0 $58,268
9 $0 $59,725 $0 $0 $0 $59,725
10 $0 $61,218 $0 $0 $0 $61,218
Total $97,500 $475,039 $0 $0 $1,625 $574,164
Property tax collections:
Firm Property*
New Real Prop. Business Real Prop. Business Total Taxes
Residential Taxes Prop. Taxes Taxes Prop. Taxes After
Year Property Collected Collected Abated Abated Abatement Total
1 $0 $47,593 $31,729 $0 $0 $79,322 $79,322
2 $4,987 $47,593 $28,556 $0 $0 $76,149 $81,137
3 $9,974 $47,593 $25,383 $0 $0 $72,976 $82,951
4 $9,974 $47,593 $22,210 $0 $0 $69,804 $79,778
5 $9,974 $47,593 $19,037 $0 $0 $66,631 $76,605
6 $9,974 $47,593 $15,864 $0 $0 $63,458 $73,432
7 $9,974 $47,593 $12,692 $0 $0 $60,285 $70,259
8 $9,974 $47,593 $9,519 $0 $0 $57,112 $67,086
9 $9,974 $47,593 $6,346 $0 $0 $53,939 $63,913
10 $9,974 $47,593 $6,346 $0 $0 $53,939 $63,913
Total $84,781 $475,934 $177,682 $0 $0 $653,615 $738,397
Page 39
DRAFT
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for Larimer County
Other county miscellaneous user fees and taxes collected from new households and new businesses:
Miscellaneous Miscellaneous
Revenues Revenues
Collected from Collected from
Year Households Businesses Total
1$0 $0 $0
2 $18,947 $147,525 $166,472
3 $38,652 $300,950 $339,602
4 $39,425 $306,969 $346,394
5 $40,213 $313,109 $353,322
6 $41,018 $319,371 $360,389
7 $41,838 $325,758 $367,596
8 $42,675 $332,273 $374,948
9 $43,528 $338,919 $382,447
10 $44,399 $345,697 $390,096
Total $350,695 $2,730,571 $3,081,267
Costs of providing county services to new residents:
Costs of Costs of
County County
Services: Services:
Year New Residents Businesses Total
1$0 $0 $0
2 $19,590 $152,470 $172,060
3 $39,964 $311,038 $351,002
4 $40,763 $317,259 $358,022
5 $41,578 $323,604 $365,182
6 $42,410 $330,076 $372,486
7 $43,258 $336,678 $379,936
8 $44,123 $343,411 $387,534
9 $45,006 $350,279 $395,285
10 $45,906 $357,285 $403,191
Total $362,599 $2,822,099 $3,184,698
Page 40
DRAFT
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for Larimer County - Continued
Net Benefits for the County:
Cumulative
Net Net
Year Benefits Costs Benefits Benefits
1 $178,447 $0 $178,447 $178,447
2 $272,730 ($172,060) $100,671 $279,118
3 $474,054 ($351,002) $123,052 $402,170
4 $478,960 ($358,022) $120,939 $523,108
5 $484,035 ($365,182) $118,853 $641,961
6 $489,281 ($372,486) $116,795 $758,757
7 $494,703 ($379,936) $114,767 $873,524
8 $500,303 ($387,534) $112,769 $986,292
9 $506,086 ($395,285) $110,801 $1,097,093
10 $515,228 ($403,191) $112,037 $1,209,130
Total $4,393,828 ($3,184,698) $1,209,130
Page 41
DRAFT
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for Poudre School District
Benefits:
Property tax collections:
Firm Property*
New Real Prop. Business Real Prop. Business Total Taxes
Residential Taxes Prop. Taxes Taxes Prop. Taxes After
Year Property Collected Collected Abated Abated Abatement Total
1 $0 $114,470 $76,314 $0 $0 $190,784 $190,784
2 $11,995 $114,470 $68,682 $0 $0 $183,152 $195,147
3 $23,990 $114,470 $61,051 $0 $0 $175,521 $199,511
4 $23,990 $114,470 $53,419 $0 $0 $167,890 $191,880
5 $23,990 $114,470 $45,788 $0 $0 $160,258 $184,248
6 $23,990 $114,470 $38,157 $0 $0 $152,627 $176,617
7 $23,990 $114,470 $30,525 $0 $0 $144,996 $168,986
8 $23,990 $114,470 $22,894 $0 $0 $137,364 $161,354
9 $23,990 $114,470 $15,263 $0 $0 $129,733 $153,723
10 $23,990 $114,470 $15,263 $0 $0 $129,733 $153,723
Total $203,914 $1,144,703 $427,356 $0 $0 $1,572,058 $1,775,972
Additional State and Federal school funding received:
Additional
State & Federal
School
Year Funding
1$0
2 $188,197
3 $387,685
4 $399,316
5 $411,295
6 $423,634
7 $436,343
8 $449,433
9 $462,916
10 $476,804
Total $3,635,624
Page 42
DRAFT
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for Poudre School District
Costs:
Costs of educating children of new workers who move to the district:
Cost of
Educating
New
Year Students
1$0
2 $184,907
3 $380,908
4 $392,335
5 $404,105
6 $416,228
7 $428,715
8 $441,577
9 $454,824
10 $468,469
Total $3,572,069
Net Benefits for the School District:
Net Cumulative
Year Benefits Costs Benefits Net Benefits
1 $190,784 $0 $190,784 $190,784
2 $383,344 ($184,907) $198,437 $389,221
3 $587,196 ($380,908) $206,288 $595,509
4 $591,195 ($392,335) $198,860 $794,369
5 $595,543 ($404,105) $191,438 $985,808
6 $600,251 ($416,228) $184,023 $1,169,830
7 $605,329 ($428,715) $176,613 $1,346,444
8 $610,788 ($441,577) $169,211 $1,515,654
9 $616,639 ($454,824) $161,815 $1,677,470
10 $630,527 ($468,469) $162,058 $1,839,528
Total $5,411,596 ($3,572,069) $1,839,528
Page 43
DRAFT
1
PROJECT 1601 - Business Assistance Agreement
Josh Birks, Economic Health & Redevelopment Director
11-21-16
Confidentiality & Code Name
Confidentiality
• It is not uncommon for a business to request confidentiality during
the initial phases of negotiation
• Therefore, today I will refer to the Project using a code name
2
General Direction Sought
1. Does the Committee feel additional information is needed to fully
evaluate the proposed Agreement?
2. Does the Committee feel the proposed Agreement is ready for
consideration by the full City Council?
3
Project 1601 - Description
• Retrofit of an existing building
• Upgrade to façade and HVAC equipment
• Will lead to a significant reduction in energy consumption
• Advanced Manufacturing sector
• Infill and Redevelopment Site
• Avoids the need to utilize raw land at the edge of the city
4
Public Benefit/Connection to Plans
5
Financial Assistance Overview
• Total Estimated Assistance - $1.1 million
• Use Tax & Business Personal Property
Tax subject to employment performance
• Utility Rebates subject to energy
conservation performance
• Public Improvements
• Existing Use Tax Rebate Program netted
6
Amount
Use Tax Rebate
Construction Materials $337,500
Eligible Equipment $112,500
Total Use Tax Rebate $450,000
Business Personal Propert Tax Rebate $41,000
Utility Performance Rebates $130,000
Value of Public Improvements (Est.) $550,000
Subtotal Assistance Value $1,171,000
Less Existing Rebate Programs ($75,000)
Net Value of Assistance
$1,096,000
Retained Revenue
7
Estimated
Total Tax
Retained
Revenue
Tax
Rebate
Construction Materials $577,500 $240,000 $337,500
Eligible Equipment $150,000 $37,500 $112,500
Subtotal $727,500 $277,500 $450,000
Less Exisitng Rebate Program ($75,000)
Total Assistance Package Value $375,000
• Use Tax -
$277,500
• BPP - $41,000
Employment Thresholds
8
Threshold Amount Percent
100 Net New Jobs $ 150,000 31%
200 Net New Jobs $ 300,000 61%
300 Net New Jobs $ 450,000 92%
350 Net New Jobs $ 491,000 100%
Economic & Fiscal Impacts
9
Amount
Construction (One-Time)
Jobs 312
Earnings $18,502,963
Average Earnings per Job $59,362
Operations (On-Going) *
Jobs 1,616
Earnings $52,053,554
Average Earnings per Job $32,211
* NOTE: Represents total change in earnings during the
first year of full employment
Amount
Additional Benefits $19,920,531
Additional Costs (15,132,760)
Net Benefits $4,787,711
Present Value of Net Benefits * $3,658,901
* NOTE: Analysis assumes a 5 percent discount rate
over a 10-year analysis period.
General Direction Sought
1. Does the Committee feel additional information is needed to fully
evaluate the proposed Agreement?
2. Does the Committee feel the proposed Agreement is ready for
consideration by the full City Council?
10
11
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: John Voss, Controller
Date: November 21, 2016
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Financial Policies Update - Revenue and Debt
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Revenue and Debt Policies have not be updated since 2013.
No changes are recommended to the Debt Policy. Changes recommended to the Revenue Policy
relate to TABOR and the recent need for voter approval to keep the excess revenue associate
with KFCG.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Concur with recommended changes?
Recommend bringing the City Council December 21, 2016?
ATTACHMENTS
PowerPoint
Revenue Policy – proposed clean
Revenue Policy – with changes shown
Debt Policy – as currently adopted
1
Financial Policy Review – Revenue and Debt
John Voss
11-21-2016
Two Policies Up for Review
• Financial Management Policy 2 – Revenue
• Financial Management Policy 5 – Debt
• Both were last modified in 2013
2
Policy 2 - Revenue
Main Topics:
1. Limitations (TABOR)
2. Revenue Review, Objectives and Monitoring
3. Fees
4. Sales & Use Tax Distribution
5. Private Contributions
3
Recommend new sections that relate to TABOR, clarify
several areas and delete a few redundant items
Policy 2 - Revenue changes
2.1 Limitations under TABOR
• Add section C. TABOR Notice for New Tax or Tax Increase
• Develop revenue forecasts that are reasonable and factor in the
implications of over collection.
• Review these forecasts with the appropriate leadership staff.
4
Policy 2 - Revenue changes, continued
2.1 Limitation under TABOR (continued)
• Add section D. Monitor New Tax Revenue
• Staff will monitor actual revenue against the forecast revenue
disclosed in the TABOR notice.
• In the second year, confirm actual revenue to forecast and
determine if any action is needed.
5
Policy 2 - Revenue changes, continued
2.1 Limitation under TABOR (continued)
• Add section E. TABOR Legislation and Judicial Decisions
• When such matters are discovered affecting the City, staff will confer to
determine what actions, if any, the City should take in response.
• Add section F. Maintain Records of ‘Fiscal Year Spending’
• Calculate annually
• Maintain supporting records for at least 6 years
• Document which agencies, funds and revenues qualify under TABOR
6
Policy 2 - Revenue changes, continued
2.2 C. Targets,
• Currently no policy is set
• Recommend removing section
2.2 D. Monitoring Revenue Sources
• Set clearer standard
7
Policy 2 - Revenue changes, continued
2.4 Sales & Use Tax Distribution
• Update listing of Sales & Use Tax portions
• Note that this section of policy is informational
• Add reference to City Code Chapter 25 for details on:
o Rate
o Taxable transactions
o Permitted uses
o Term of tax, if applicable
8
Policy 7 - Debt
Main topics:
A. Purpose and Use of Debt
B. Types of Debt and Financing Arrangements
C. Debt Structure and Terms
D. Refinancing Debt
E. Debt Limitations and Capacity
F. Debt Issuance Process
9
No changes recommended for Debt Policy
Council Finance Committee Direction
• Committee comments and direction to staff
10
Next Steps
• Schedule Revenue Policy for City Council consideration on
December 20.
• Revenue and Debt Policy will be reviewed again no later than 2019
11
Financial Management Policy 2
Revenue Issue Date: 12/20/2016
Version: 3
Issued by: Revenue and Project
Manager
Financial Policy 2 – Revenue DRAFT PROPOSED CLEAN
1
2.1 Limitations under TABOR (Taxpayer Bill of Rights)
A. Background
The City of Fort Collins’ revenue and expenditures are limited by Article X, Section 20 of the
Colorado Constitution (TABOR). While TABOR limits both revenue and expenditures, its
primary application is in limiting revenue collections. Growth in revenue is limited to the
increase in the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index plus local growth (new
construction and annexation). This percentage is added to the preceding year’s revenue
base, giving the dollar limit allowed for revenue collection in the ensuing year. Any revenue
collected over the limit must be refunded to the citizens unless the voters approve the
retention of the excess revenue. Federal grants or gifts to the City are not included in the
revenue limit. City enterprises (electric, water, wastewater and stormwater utilities) are
also exempt from the imposed limits. In 2003, the Golf Fund revenue sources was
considered for enterprise status for purposes of TABOR. In order for an entity to become an
enterprise, voters must approve a Charter amendment for that entity.
Objective:
Monitoring and controlling revenues is important to the City of Fort Collins. Through its revenue policy, the
City primarily aims to maintain a diversified revenue system which will protect it from possible short-term
fluctuations in any of its various revenue sources. To accomplish this, revenues are monitored on a
continuous basis. An understanding of the economic and legal factors which directly and indirectly affect
the level of revenue collections is an important part of the City’s revenue policy.
Applicability:
This policy applies to all City Revenues. This policy does/does not apply to or govern revenues generated by
City-owned general improvement districts, DDA, URA, PFA or Library District.
Authorized by:
City Council, Resolutions 1994-174, 2013-093, and 2016-XXX
Financial Policy 2 – Revenue DRAFT PROPOSED CLEAN
2
B. ‘De-Brucing’
In November 1997, Fort Collins’ voters approved a ballot measure that allows the City to
retain revenues that exceed the growth limit imposed by TABOR. The measure specified
that any retained revenues over the growth limit must be used for certain designated
purposes.
• Public Health and Safety (including, but not limited to, environmental monitoring
and mitigation)
• Transportation
• Growth Management
• Maintenance and Repair of Public Facilities
C. TABOR Notice for New Tax or Tax Increase
• Develop revenue forecasts that are reasonable and factor in the implications of over
collection.
• Review these forecasts with the appropriate leadership staff.
D. Monitor New Tax Revenue
• Staff will monitor actual revenue against the forecast revenue disclosed in the TABOR
notice.
• In the second year, confirm actual revenue to forecast and determine if any action is
needed.
E. TABOR Legislation and Judicial Decisions
Staff shall monitor new TABOR legislation, judicial decisions and actions taken by other
governments to see if they affect the City. This will include working with the City’s outside
consultants, such as special bond counsel and CML. When such matters are discovered
affecting the City, staff will confer to determine what actions, if any, the City should take in
response.
F. Documentation of ‘Fiscal Year Spending’ under TABOR
Although the City has de-Bruced, current interpretations of TABOR section 20(3)(c) merits
the need for the ongoing calculation of ‘fiscal year spending’. Staff will maintain and update
records annually to calculate the City’s fiscal year spending under TABOR. These records
shall be kept for at least six years. Also, documentation shall be kept current that defines
which related agencies, funds and types of revenues are required under TABOR to be
included in fiscal year spending and those that can be excluded.
Financial Policy 2 – Revenue DRAFT PROPOSED CLEAN
3
2.2 Revenue Review, Objectives and Monitoring
A. Review and Projections
The City reviews estimated revenue and fee schedules as part of the budget process.
The major revenue sources in the General Fund are sales and use tax, property tax,
lodging tax, intergovernmental revenues, fines and forfeitures, user fees and charges,
and transfers from other funds. Conservative revenue projections are made for the
budget term. The projections are monitored and updated as necessary.
B. Principles
The City has established six (6) general principles that will be used to guide decisions on
revenue:
1. Develop and maintain stable revenue sources.
The City will strive to maintain stable revenue sources by:
a. Targeting revenue sources with minimal volatility
b. Monitoring current revenue sources for variability
c. Adjusting forecasts as necessary to accommodate unanticipated
increases and declines
d. Monitoring and adjusting expenditures for unanticipated revenue
gains/losses
2. Develop and maintain a diverse revenue base.
For all general government operations, the City will strive to maintain
diverse revenue sources. The City recognizes that becoming too dependent
upon one revenue source would make revenue yields more vulnerable to
economic cycles. Therefore, the City will strive to maintain diverse revenue
sources by:
a. Targeting revenue from multiple sources
b. Working to expand fee based revenue where possible
c. Working to minimize overdependence on any single revenue source
d. Staff will monitor dependency on sales and use tax to ensure an over
reliance does not occur
3. Cultivate revenue sources that are equitable among citizens of different
economic levels.
The City will strive to preserve a revenue stream that does not overburden
low income residents by:
a. Providing low income citizens with opportunities to participate in
programs through reduced fee structures and scholarships
b. Providing a Sales Tax on Food and Utility rebate to lessen the burden of
taxes and fees on low income citizens
Financial Policy 2 – Revenue DRAFT PROPOSED CLEAN
4
c. Ensuring fees do not exceed cost to provide service
4. Generate adequate revenue to maintain service levels in line with citizen
expectations.
The City will generate adequate revenue to maintain core service levels by:
a. Ensuring fees for service do not exceed cost to provide service
b. Maintaining a cost recovery model
c. Monitoring service level performance annually through the Community
Scorecard
d. Regularly reviewing services to assess core vs. desired
5. Maintain healthy reserves.
The City will maintain healthy reserves by:
a. Adhering to State mandated reserve and internal reserve policies
b. Maintaining a Tabor (State) reserve for the General Fund of 3% or more
of the City’s fiscal year spending
c. Meeting City policy for the General Fund of an additional contingency of
60 days or 17% of next year’s adopted budgeted expenditures
6. Fees for Services are fairly born by those who use those services.
C. Monitoring
In an annual summary financial report the major sources revenue and the associated
percentages will be reviewed by the Council Finance Committee.
2.3 Fee Policy
As a home rule municipality, the City of Fort Collins has the ability to determine the extent
to which fees should be used to fund City facilities, infrastructure and services. There are
two kinds of fees that the City may establish: Impact Fees and Special Service Fees. Impact
fees are typically on-time charges levied by the City against new development. The fees are
based on current levels of service and act as a buy-in method for new development. The
revenue can only be used for capital infrastructure needs created by the impact of the new
development. Special service fees are charges imposed on persons or property that are
designed to defray the overall cost of the particular municipal service for which the fee is
imposed. This Policy sets forth principles for identifying: 1) the kinds of services for which
the City could appropriately impose fees; 2) methods for calculating the percentage of costs
to be recovered by such fees; and 3) the manner in which the fees should be allocated
among individual fee payers.
A. Fees should be cost related
The amount of a fee should not exceed the overall cost of providing the facility,
Financial Policy 2 – Revenue DRAFT PROPOSED CLEAN
5
infrastructure or service for which the fee is imposed. Cost may include direct and
indirect costs. That is:
1. Costs which are directly related to the provision of the service; and,
2. Support costs which are more general in nature but provide support for the
provision of the service.
B. Percentage of cost recovery
The extent to which the total cost of service should be recovered through fees
depends upon the following factors:
1. The nature of the facilities, infrastructure or services. In the case of fees for
facilities, infrastructure as well as governmental and proprietary services, total
cost recovery may be warranted. In the case of governmental services, it may be
appropriate for a substantial portion of the cost of such services to be borne by the
City’s taxpayers, rather than the individual users of such services.
2. The nature and extent of the benefit to the fee payers. When a particular facility
or service results in substantial, immediate and direct benefit to fee payers, a
higher percentage of the cost of providing the facility or service should be
recovered by the fee. When a particular facility or service benefits not only the fee
payer but also a substantial segment of the community, lower cost recovery is
warranted.
3. The level of demand for a particular service. Because the pricing of services can
significantly affect demand, full cost recovery for services is more appropriate
when the market for the services is strong and will support a high level of cost
recovery.
4. Ease of collection. In the case of impact fees, ease of collection is generally not a
factor. In the case of fees for services, however, such fees may prove to be
impractical for the City to utilize if they are too costly to administer.
C. Establishment and Modification of Fees and Charges
Aside from user fees, (e.g. recreation classes and facility room rentals), all fees
imposed by the City will be established by the City Council by ordinance. In the case of
impact fees, utility fees and charges, and special service fees assessed against property
the ordinance establishing the fees will determine:
1. The level of cost that should be recovered through the fees according to the
criteria established in this Policy;
2. An appropriate method for apportioning the cost of providing each service among
the users of the service; and,
Financial Policy 2 – Revenue DRAFT PROPOSED CLEAN
6
3. A procedure for periodically reviewing and modifying the amount of fees in order
to maintain appropriate cost recovery levels.
The amounts of these kinds of fees may be modified only by ordinance of the City
Council.
The amounts of other Special Service Fees, such as user fees charged for the use of
City facilities, may be determined by the City Manager, according to criteria
established by the City Council by ordinance, absent any provision of the City Charter
or Code to the contrary.
All fee revenues will be estimated by the City Manager and submitted to the City
Council as part of the City Manager’s recommended budget.
D. Rebate Programs
If the amount of a particular fee is considered to be too high to accommodate the
needs of particular segments of the community and the public interest would be
served by adjusting the amount or manner of payment of such fees in particular
instances, the amount of the fee may be waived, rebated, or deferred as appropriate.
In the case of fees established by ordinance, the criteria for waiving, rebating, or
deferring payment of such fees shall be established by the City Council by ordinance.
2.4 Sales and Use Tax Distribution
Sales and Use Tax shall be used and accounted for as intended by the voters. Details of how
the different segments of sales and use tax are used are outlined in the City Code Chapter
25. The following is a summary for informational purposes only.
The City's Sales and Use Tax currently totals 3.85 cents, developed as follows:
1968 - General City uses 1.00 cent
1980 - General City uses 1.00 cent
1982 - General City uses 0.25 cent
2015 - Street Maintenance 0.25 cent*
2015 - Community Capital Improvement Program 0.25 cent*
2006 - Natural Areas & Open Space 0.25 cent*
2011 - Keeping Fort Collins Great 0.85 cent**
3.85 cents
* Excludes sales and use tax on grocery food for home consumption
** Excludes sales and use tax on grocery food for home consumption and manufacturing
equipment
Financial Policy 2 – Revenue DRAFT PROPOSED CLEAN
7
2.5 Private Contributions
Efforts should be made to secure private contributions in support of City programs and
services, as these contributions are an integral part of their successful operation.
Financial Policy 2 – Revenue DRAFT PROPOSED CLEAN
8
Getting Help
Please contact the Revenue and Project Manager with any questions at 970.221.6626.
Related Policies/References
City Code Chapter 25 Taxation, Article III Sales & Use Tax
City Code Chapter 26 Utilities
Administrative Fee
Definitions
Governmental Services: services provided by the City for the public good such as regulating land use,
maintaining streets, and providing police and fire protection.
Impact Fees: usually one-time charges, levied by the City against new development to offset the impacts of
the new developments
Proprietary Services: services provided for the benefit and enjoyment of the residents of the City, at their
discretion, such as parks and recreation services
Rebate: a return of a portion of a fee within a specified time. Unlike a waiver or discount, the rebate is given
after the fee has been paid in full
Special Service Fee: charges imposed on persons or property that are designed to defray the overall cost of
the particular municipal service for which the fee is imposed
Waiver: when a portion of a fee is reduced before being paid by a buyer
Financial Management Policy 2
Policy – Revenue Issue Date:
11/19/201312/20/2016
Version: 23
Issued by: Revenue and Project
Manager
Financial Policy 2 – Revenue DRAFT PROPOSED WITH CHANGES
1
2.1 LimitationsLimitations under TABOR (Taxpayer Bill of Rights)
A. Background
The City of Fort Collins’ revenue and expenditures are limited by Article X, Section 20 of the
Colorado Constitution (TABOR). While TABOR limits both revenue and expenditures, its
primarily application is in limiting revenue collections. Growth in revenue is limited to the
increase in the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index plus local growth (new
construction and annexation). This percentage is added to the preceding year’s revenue
base, giving the dollar limit allowed for revenue collection in the ensuing year. Any revenue
collected over the limit must be refunded to the citizens unless the voters approve the
retention of the excess revenue. Federal grants or gifts to the City are not included in the
revenue limit. City enterprises (electric, water, wastewater and stormwater utilities) are
also exempt from the imposed limits. In 2003, the Golf Fund revenue sources was
considered for enterprise status for purposes of TABOR. In order for an entity to become an
enterprise, voters must approve a Charter amendment for that entity.
Objective:
Monitoring and controlling revenues is important to the City of Fort Collins. Through its revenue policy, the
City primarily aims to maintain a diversified revenue system which will protect it from possible short-term
fluctuations in any of its various revenue sources. To accomplish this, revenues are monitored on a
continuous basis. An understanding of the economic and legal factors which directly and indirectly affect
the level of revenue collections is an important part of the City’s revenue policy.
Applicability:
This policy applies to all City Revenues. This policy does/does not apply to or govern revenues generated by
City-owned general improvement districts, DDA, URA, PFA or Library District.
Authorized by:
City Council, Resolutions 1994-174, & 2013-093, and 2016-XXX
Financial Policy 2 – Revenue DRAFT PROPOSED WITH CHANGES
2
B. ‘De-Brucing’
In November 1997, Fort Collins’ voters approved a ballot measure that allows the City to
retain revenues that exceed the growth limit imposed by TABOR. The measure specified
that any retained revenues over the growth limit must be used for certain designated
purposes.
• Public Health and Safety (including, but not limited to, environmental monitoring
and mitigation)
• Transportation
• Growth Management
• Maintenance and Repair of Public Facilities
Legal principles require that those revenues collected in excess of the growth limit from
fees charged or other legally restricted revenues must be used for the purpose for which
they were collected. In addition, such revenues must also be used for the designated
purposes approved by the voters.
C. TABOR Notice for New Tax or Tax Increase
• Develop revenue forecasts that are reasonable and factor in the implications of over
collection.
• Review these forecasts with the appropriate leadership staff.
D. Monitor New Tax Revenue
• Staff will monitor actual revenue against the forecast revenue disclosed in the TABOR
notice.
• In the second year, confirm actual revenue to forecast and determine if any action is
needed.
E. TABOR Legislation and Judicial Decisions
Staff shall monitor new TABOR legislation, judicial decisions and actions taken by other
governments to see if they affect the City. This will include working with the City’s outside
consultants, such as special bond counsel and CML. When such matters are discovered
affecting the City, staff will confer to determine what actions, if any, the City should take in
response.
F. Documentation of ‘Fiscal Year Spending’ under TABOR
Although the City has de-Bruced, current interpretations of TABOR section 20(3)(c) merits
the need for the ongoing calculation of ‘fiscal year spending’. Staff will maintain and update
records annually to calculate the City’s fiscal year spending under TABOR. These records
shall be kept for at least six years. Also, documentation shall be kept current that defines
which related agencies, funds and types of revenues are required under TABOR to be
included in fiscal year spending and those that can be excluded.
Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: A, B, C, … + Start at: 1 +
Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent
at: 0.5"
Comment [JV1]: Recommend deleting, there is
no policy established by this paragraph
Financial Policy 2 – Revenue DRAFT PROPOSED WITH CHANGES
3
2.2 Revenue Review, Objectives and Monitoring
A. Review and Projections
The City reviews estimated revenue and fee schedules as part of the budget process.
The major revenue sources in the General Fund are sales and use tax, property tax,
lodging tax, intergovernmental revenues, fines and forfeitures, user fees and charges,
and transfers from other funds. Conservative revenue projections are made for the
budget term. The projections are monitored and updated as necessary.
B. Principles
The City has established six (6) general principles that will be used to guide decisions on
revenue:
1. Develop and maintain stable revenue sources.
The City will strive to maintain stable revenue sources by:
a. Targeting revenue sources with minimal volatility
b. Monitoring current revenue sources for variability
c. Adjusting forecasts as necessary to accommodate unanticipated
increases and declines
d. Monitoring and adjusting expenditures for unanticipated revenue
gains/losses
2. Develop and maintain a diverse revenue base.
For all general government operations, the City will strive to maintain
diverse revenue sources. The City recognizes that becoming too dependent
upon one revenue source would make revenue yields more vulnerable to
economic cycles. Therefore, the City will strive to maintain diverse revenue
sources by:
a. Targeting revenue from multiple sources
b. Working to expand fee based revenue where possible
c. Working to minimize overdependence on any single revenue source
d. Staff will monitor dependency on sales and use tax to ensure an over
reliance does not occur
3. Cultivate revenue sources that are equitable among citizens of different
economic levels.
The City will strive to preserve a revenue stream that does not overburden
low income residents by:
a. Providing low income citizens with opportunities to participate in
programs through reduced fee structures and scholarships
b. Providing a Sales Tax on Food and Utility rebate to lessen the burden of
taxes and fees on low income citizens
Financial Policy 2 – Revenue DRAFT PROPOSED WITH CHANGES
4
c. Ensuring fees do not exceed cost to provide service
4. Generate adequate revenue to maintain service levels in line with citizen
expectations.
The City will generate adequate revenue to maintain core service levels by:
a. Ensuring fees for service do not exceed cost to provide service
b. Maintaining a cost recovery model
c. Monitoring service level performance annually through the Community
Scorecard
d. Regularly reviewing services to assess core vs. desired
5. Maintain healthy reserves.
The City will maintain healthy reserves by:
a. Adhering to State mandated reserve and internal reserve policies
b. Maintaining a Tabor (State) reserve for the General Fund of 3% or more
of the City’s fiscal year spending
c. Meeting City policy for the General Fund of an additional contingency of
60 days or 17% of next year’s adopted budgeted expenditures
6. Fees for Services are fairly born by those who use those services.
C. Targets
The City's major source of revenue for governmental activities and more specifically for
programs within the General Fund is Sales and Use Tax. The City will monitor the
dependency on Sales and Use Tax by tracking the percentage of the General Fund and
General Government that comes from Sales and Use Tax.
D.C.Monitoring
The percentages are monitored each yearIn with the preparation of the an annual
annual summary financial report the major sources revenue and the associated
percentages will be . The percentages are reviewed by the Council Finance Committee
annually.
Comment [JV2]: No policy established,
recommend removing this section from policy
Financial Policy 2 – Revenue DRAFT PROPOSED WITH CHANGES
5
2.3 Fee Policy
As a home rule municipality, the City of Fort Collins has the ability to determine the
extent to which fees should be used to fund City facilities, infrastructure and services.
There are two kinds of fees that the City may establish: Impact Fees and Special Service
Fees. Impact fees are typically on-time charges levied by the City against new
development. The fees are based on current levels of service and act as a buy-in method
for new development. The revenue can only be used for capital infrastructure needs
created by the impact of the new development. Special service fees are charges imposed
on persons or property that are designed to defray the overall cost of the particular
municipal service for which the fee is imposed. This Policy sets forth principles for
identifying: 1) the kinds of services for which the City could appropriately impose fees;
2) methods for calculating the percentage of costs to be recovered by such fees; and 3)
the manner in which the fees should be allocated among individual fee payers.
A. Fees should be cost related
The amount of a fee should not exceed the overall cost of providing the facility,
infrastructure or service for which the fee is imposed. In calculating that Ccost may
include, direct and indirect costs may be included. That is:
1. Costs which are directly related to the provision of the service; and,
2. Support costs which are more general in nature but provide support for the
provision of the service.
B. Percentage of cost recovery
The extent to which the total cost of service should be recovered through fees
depends upon the following factors:
1. The nature of the facilities, infrastructure or services. In the case of fees for
facilities, infrastructure as well as governmental and proprietary services, total
cost recovery may be warranted. In the case of governmental services, it may be
appropriate for a substantial portion of the cost of such services to be borne by the
City’s taxpayers, rather than the individual users of such services.
2. The nature and extent of the benefit to the fee payers. When a particular facility
or service results in substantial, immediate and direct benefit to fee payers, a
higher percentage of the cost of providing the facility or service should be
recovered by the fee. When a particular facility or service benefits not only the fee
payer but also a substantial segment of the community, lower cost recovery is
warranted.
3. The level of demand for a particular service. Because the pricing of services can
significantly affect demand, full cost recovery for services is more appropriate
Financial Policy 2 – Revenue DRAFT PROPOSED WITH CHANGES
6
when the market for the services is strong and will support a high level of cost
recovery.
4. Ease of collection. In the case of impact fees, ease of collection is generally not a
factor. In the case of fees for services, however, such fees may prove to be
impractical for the City to utilize if they are too costly to administer.
C. Establishment and Modification of Fees and Charges
Aside from user fees, (e.g. recreation classes and facility room rentals), all fees
imposed by the City will be established by the City Council by ordinance. In the case of
impact fees, utility fees and charges, and special service fees assessed against property
the ordinance establishing the fees will determine:
1. The level of cost that should be recovered through the fees according to the
criteria established in this Policy;
2. An appropriate method for apportioning the cost of providing each service among
the users of the service; and,
3. A procedure for periodically reviewing and modifying the amount of fees in order
to maintain appropriate cost recovery levels.
The amounts of these kinds of fees may be modified only by ordinance of the City
Council.
The amounts of other Special Service Fees, such as user fees charged for the use of
City facilities, may be determined by the City Manager, according to criteria
established by the City Council by ordinance, absent any provision of the City Charter
or Code to the contrary.
All fee revenues will be estimated by the City Manager and submitted to the City
Council as part of the City Manager’s recommended budget.
D. Rebate Programs
If the amount of a particular fee is considered to be too high to accommodate the
needs of particular segments of the community and the public interest would be
served by adjusting the amount or manner of payment of such fees in particular
instances, the amount of the fee may be waived, rebated, or deferred as appropriate.
In the case of fees established by ordinance, the criteria for waiving, rebating, or
deferring payment of such fees shall be established by the City Council by ordinance.
Financial Policy 2 – Revenue DRAFT PROPOSED WITH CHANGES
7
2.4 Sales and Use Tax Distribution
Sales and Use Tax shall be used and accounted for as intended by the voters. Details of how
the different segments of sales and use tax are used are outlined in the City Code Chapter
25. The following is a summary for informational purposes only.
The City's Sales and Use Tax currently totals 3.00 85 cents, developed as follows:
1968 - General City uses 1.00 cent
1980 - General City uses 1.00 cent
1982 - General City uses 0.25 cent
2006 2015 - Street Maintenance 0.25 cent*
2006 2015 - Building on Basics Community Capital Improvement Program 0.25 cent*
2006 - Natural Areas & Open Space 0.25 cent*
2011 - Keeping Fort Collins Great 0.85 cent**
3.85 3.85 cents
* Excludesing sales and use tax onf grocery food for home consumption.
** Excludes sales and use tax on grocery food for home consumption and manufacturing
equipment
Financial Policy 2 – Revenue DRAFT PROPOSED WITH CHANGES
8
Revenue generated by the Sales and Use Tax will be distributed, based on adopted budgets,
in the following manner:
Subject to appropriations, actual Sales and Use Tax revenue generated by the 2.25 cent tax
in excess of the fixed dollar amounts listed above, will be deposited to the General Fund.
Actual sales and use tax revenue generated by the 0.25 cent tax for Natural Areas and Open
Space will be transferred to, and be retained in the Natural Areas Fund to be used to
acquire, operate and maintain open spaces, community separators, natural areas, wildlife
habitat, riparian areas, wetlands and valued agricultural lands and to provide for the
appropriate use and enjoyment of these areas by the citizenry, through land conservation
projects to be undertaken where there is an identifiable benefit to the residents of the City,
as determined by the City Council, either within the City or its growth management or
regionally, provided certain provisions are met.
Actual sales and use tax revenue generated by the 0.25 cent tax for Street Maintenance will
be deposited and retained in the Transportation Services Fund to be used to pay the costs of
planning, design, right-of-way acquisition, incidental upgrades and other costs associated
with the repair and renovation of City streets, including but not limited to curbs, gutters,
bridges, sidewalks, parkways, shoulders and medians.
Actual sales and use tax revenue generated by the 0.25 cent tax for Building on Basics
projects will be transferred to, and be retained in the Capital Projects Fund or
corresponding operating funds to be used to pay the costs of planning, design, right-of-way
acquisition, construction, and at least seven (7) years of operation and maintenance for
street/transportation projects and other community capital projects, identified during the
Building on Basics process, approved by the voters.
Actual sales and use tax revenue generated by the 0.85 cent tax for Keep Fort Collins Great
will be deposited and retained in the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund which is allocated as
follows: 33% for street maintenance and repair; 17% for other street and transportation
needs; 17% for police services; 11% for fire protection and other emergency services; 11%
for parks maintenance and recreation services; and 11% for community priorities other
than those listed above, as determined by the City Council.
2.5 Private Contributions
The City encourages the solicitation of private contributions. These services and programs
represent extra services that the City has not been able to provide to residents through its
regular revenue base. In times of revenue constraints the City may not be able to provide
the same level of service without additional support. Therefore, Eefforts should be made to
secure private contributions in support of City these programs and services, as these
contributions are an integral part of their successful operation. With respect to TABOR, the
City’s Finance Department will make a determination as to whether a contribution is a gift
and is therefore excluded from constitutional limits.
Comment [JV3]: Redundant with City Code
Chapter 25 sec. 25-75 Rate of tax. Not adding value,
recommend eliminating
Comment [JV4]: Recommend eliminating non-
policy language portions.
Financial Policy 2 – Revenue DRAFT PROPOSED WITH CHANGES
9
Getting Help
Please contact the Revenue and Project Manager with any questions at 970.221.6626.
Related Policies/References
City Code Chapter 25 Taxation, Article III Sales & Use Tax
City Code Chapter 26 Utilities
Administrative Fee
Definitions
Governmental Services: services provided by the City for the public good such as regulating land use,
maintaining streets, and providing police and fire protection.
Impact Fees: usually one-time charges, levied by the City against new development to offset the impacts of
the new developments
Proprietary Services: services provided for the benefit and enjoyment of the residents of the City, at their
discretion, such as parks and recreation services
Rebate: a return of a portion of a fee within a specified time. Unlike a waiver or discount, the rebate is given
after the fee has been paid in full
Special Service Fee: charges imposed on persons or property that are designed to defray the overall cost of
the particular municipal service for which the fee is imposed
Waiver: when a portion of a fee is reduced before being paid by a buyer
Financial Management Policy 7
Debt Issue Date: 11-19-13
Version: 2
Issued by: Controller/
Assistant Financial
Officer
Financial Policy 7 – Debt
1
7.1 Authorization for Municipal Borrowing
The City Charter (Article V. Part II) authorizes the borrowing of money and the issuance of long
term debt. The Charter and State Constitution determine which securities may be issued and when
a vote of the electors of the City and approved by a majority of those voting on the issue.
7.2 Purpose and Uses of Debt
Long term obligations should only be used to finance larger capital acquisitions and/or
construction costs that are for high priority projects. Debt will not be used for operating purposes.
Debt financing of capital improvements and equipment will be done only when the following
conditions exist:
a) When non-continuous projects (those not requiring continuous annual
appropriations) are desired;
b) When it can be determined that future users will receive a significant benefit from the
improvement;
c) When it is necessary to provide critical basic services to residents and taxpayers (for
example, purchase of water rights);
d) When total debt, including that issued by overlapping governmental entities, does not
Objective:
The purpose of this policy is to establish parameters and provide guidance governing the issuance
of all debt obligations issued by the City of Fort Collins (City).
Applicability:
This debt policy applies to all funds and Service Areas of the City and closely related agencies such
as the Downtown Development Authority (DDA), Fort Collins Leasing Corporation and the Fort
Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA).
Authorized by:
City Council Resolutions, 1994-174, 2013-093
Financial Policy 7 – Debt
2
constitute an unreasonable burden to the residents and taxpayers.
7.3 Types of Debt and Financing Agreements
The types of debt permitted are outlined in State statute. The City will avoid derivative type
instruments. In general the following debt types are used by the City:
a) General obligation bonds—backed by the credit and taxing power of the City and not
from revenues of any specific project. Colorado law limits general obligation debt to
10% of the City’s assessed valuation. Under TABOR this type of debt must be approved
by voters.
b) Revenue Bonds—issued and backed by the revenues of a specific project, tax
increment district (TIF), enterprise fund, etc. The holders of these bonds can only
consider this revenue source for repayment. TABOR does not require that voters
approve these types of debt.
c) Lease Purchase – issued whereby the asset acquired is used as collateral. Examples
include Certificates of Participation (COP), Assignment of Lease Payments (ALP) and
equipment leases. TABOR does not require that voters approve these types of
agreements.
d) Moral Obligation Pledge—a pledge to consider replenishing a debt reserve fund of
another government agency if the reserve was used to make debt payments. This type
of commitment will only be used to support the highest priority projects, or when the
financial risk to the City does not increase significantly, or when the City’s overall
credit rating is not expected to be negatively impacted. Because it is a pledge to
consider replenishing, it is not a pledge of the City’s credit, and as such is not a
violation of State statutes and City Charter. However, decision makers should keep in
mind that not honoring a Moral Obligation Pledge will almost certainly negatively
impact the City’s overall credit rating. TABOR does not require that voters approve
these types of agreements.
e) Interagency Borrowing—issued when the credit of an agency (DDA, URA) of the City
does not permit financing at affordable terms. Usually used to facilitate a project until
the revenue stream is established and investors can offer better terms to the agency.
Program parameters are outlined in City’s Investment Policy. TABOR does not require
that voters approve these types of agreements.
f) Conduit Debt—Typically limited to Qualified Private Activity Bonds (PAB) defined by
the IRS and limited to the annual allocation received from the State. Low income
housing is one example of a qualified use of PAB. There is no pledge or guarantee to
pay by the City.
g) Any other securities not in contravention with City Charter or State statute.
7.4 Debt Structure and Terms
The following are guidelines, and may be modified by the City to meet the particulars of the
financial markets at the time of the issuance of a debt obligation:
a) Term of the Debt: The length of the financing will not exceed the useful life of the asset
Financial Policy 7 – Debt
3
or average life of a group of assets, or 30 years, whichever is less. Terms longer than
20 years should be limited to the highest priority projects.
b) Structure of Debt: Level debt service will be used unless otherwise dictated by the
useful life of the asset(s) and/or upon the advice of the City's financial advisor.
c) Credit Enhancements: The City will not use credit enhancements unless the cost of the
enhancement is less than the differential between the net present value of the debt
service without enhancement and the net present value of the debt service with the
enhancement.
d) Variable Rate Debt: The City will normally not issue variable rate debt, meaning debt
at rates that may adjust depending upon changed market conditions. However, it is
recognized that certain circumstances may warrant the issuance of variable rate debt,
but the City will attempt to stabilize the debt service payments through the use of an
appropriate stabilization arrangement.
e) Derivative type instruments and terms will be avoided.
f) Interest during construction will be capitalized when the debt is in an enterprise fund.
7.5 Refinancing Debt
Refunding of outstanding debt will only be done if there is a resultant economic gain regardless of
whether there is an accounting gain or loss, or a subsequent reduction or increase in cash flows.
The net present value savings shall be at least 3%, preferably 5% or more. In an advanced
refunding (before the call date), the ratio of present value savings to the negative arbitrage costs
should be at least 2.
7.6 Debt Limitations and Capacity
Debt capacity will be evaluated by the annual dollar amount paid and the total amount outstanding
with the goal to maintain the City’s overall issuer rating at the very highest rating, AAA. Parameters
are different for Governmental Funds, Enterprise Funds, and Related Agencies.
a. Governmental Funds—Annual debt service (principal and interest) will not exceed
5% of annual revenues. For calculation, revenues will not include internal charges,
transfers and large one-time grants. Outstanding debt in relation to population and
assessed value will be monitored.
b. Enterprise Funds—Each fund is unique and will be evaluated independently. Each
fund’s debt will be managed to maintain a credit score of at least an A rating. These
funds typically issue revenue bonds and investors closely watch revenue coverage
ratio. Coverage ratios are usually published in the Statistical Section of the City’s
Comprehensive Annual Financial Statement.
c. Related Agencies—Each agency will be evaluated independently, taking into account
City Charter, State statutes, market conditions and financial feasibility.
Financial Policy 7 – Debt
4
7.7 Debt Issuance Process
When the City utilizes debt financing, it will ensure that the debt is soundly financed by:
a) Selecting an independent financial advisor to assist with determining the method of
sale and the selection of other financing team members
b) Conservatively projecting the revenue sources that will be used to pay the debt;
c) Maintaining a debt service coverage ratio which ensures that combined debt service
requirements will not exceed revenues pledged for the payment of debt.
d) Evaluating proposed debt against the target debt indicators.
7.8 Other
Debt Management - The City will also have an Administrative Policy and Procedure that
includes guidance on:
a) Investment of bond proceeds
b) Market disclosure practices to primary and secondary markets, including annual
certifications
c) Arbitrage rebate monitoring and filing
d) Federal and State law compliance practices
e) Ongoing Market and investor relations efforts
Getting Help
Please contact the Controller/Assistant Financial Officer with any questions at 970.221.6772.
Related Policies/References
- The City of Fort Collins Charter (Article V., Part II)
Financial Policy 7 – Debt
5
Definitions
Conduit Debt: 1- An organization, usually a government agency, that issues municipal securities to raise
capital for revenue-generating projects where the funds generated are used by a third party
(known as the "conduit borrower") to make payments to investors. The conduit financing is
typically backed by either the conduit borrower's credit or funds pledged toward the project by
outside investors. If a project fails and the security goes into default, it falls to the conduit
borrower's financial obligation, not the conduit issuer (City). 2- Common types of conduit financing
include industrial development revenue bonds (IDRBs), private activity bonds and housing revenue
bonds (both for single-family and multifamily projects). Most conduit-issued securities are for
projects to benefit the public at large (i.e. airports, docks, sewage facilities) or specific population
segments (i.e. students, low-income home buyers, veterans). 3- In some cases, a governmental entity
issues municipal bonds for the purpose of making proceeds available to a private entity in
furtherance of a public purpose, such as in connection with not-for-profit hospitals, affordable
housing, and many other cases. These types of municipal bonds are sometimes referred to as
"conduit bonds." One common structure is for the governmental issuer to enter into an
arrangement with the private conduit borrower in which the bond proceeds are loaned to the
conduit borrower and the conduit borrower repays the loan to the issuer. For most conduit bonds,
although the governmental issuer of the bonds is legally obligated for repayment, that obligation
usually is limited to the amounts of the loan repayments from the conduit borrower. If the conduit
borrower fails to make loan repayments, the governmental issuer typically is not required to make
up such shortfalls. Thus, unless the bond documents explicitly state otherwise, investors in conduit
bonds should not view the governmental issuer as a guarantor on conduit bonds.
Credit Enhancements: the requirement that a certain percentage or amount of non-federal dollars or in-
kind services be provided in addition to the grant funds.
Interagency: the individual responsible for fiscally managing the grant award and the person who
maintains the records in the City’s financial system.
Debt Service Coverage Ratio: is a common measure of the ability to make debt service payments. The
formula is net operating income (operating revenue – operating expense) divided by debt service
(annual principal and interest)
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Travis Storin, Accounting Director
Brad Yatabe, Assistant City Attorney
Kurt Friesen, Director of Park Planning
Date: November 21, 2016
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Anheuser-Busch Park and Recreation District Dissolution
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Legal counsel from Anheuser-Busch contacted the City Attorney’s Office in August 2016 to
seek the City’s consent in the dissolution of a park and recreation district formed in 2008. The
Board of Directors believes the overhead costs of administering the district do not justify the
benefits as originally anticipated.
State statute permits to dissolve without conducting an election if: A) the City Council and
district board both consent and B) the district does not carry any outstanding financial
obligations. Without Council consent, it is presumed that the District will conduct an election for
which they would be the sole voter.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Staff seeks input on areas of priority or concern to address prior to bringing to Council via
Resolution.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Please see executive summary.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Presentation
Attachment 2 – 2015 District Annual Report
Attachment 3 – September 16, 2008 AIS and Resolution 2008-089
Dissolution of Anheuser-Busch Park and Recreation District
11-21-16
District Formation
• Approved via Resolution 2008-089; 18-acre District is wholly
owned by Anheuser-Busch
• Consists of wildlife habitat area and softball field
• Authorized to impose a small mill levy of 5-10 mills for operations,
in addition to user fees
• Original intention for district formation was for 1) legal protection,
2) preservation of facilities, and 3) ability to pursue funding
resources unavailable to private entities
2
Approximate District Boundaries
3
Request for Dissolution
• District Board believes original purposes are no longer needed
and overhead costs do not justify the legal benefits
• CO Revised Statutes allow for dissolution without an election if:
A) District has no financial obligations or outstanding bonds,
and
B) The District Board and Council both consent
• A-B anticipates land to still be used as ballfield and park
4
Implications to City
• No financial impact to City; A-B is solely responsible for paying operating
costs of district
• No impact to Parks operations
5
• Staff recommends support of District Board’s dissolution proposal
• Discussion at 11/21 Council Finance
• Address follow-ups and, if supported, bring forward to Council via
Resolution
Next Steps
6
Thank You!