HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Mail Packet - 2/28/2017 - Council Finance & Audit Committee Agenda - February 27, 2017Finance 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
February 27, 2017
9:30 - 11:30 am
CIC Room - City Hall
Approval of Minutes from the January 23
rd
Council Finance meeting.
1. Prospect / I25 Intersection – CDOT Commitment Letter 15 minutes L. Kadrich
2. 2017 Funding Requests 30 minutes M. Beckstead
3. 2017 Re-appropriation 15 minutes L. Pollack
4. Revenue Diversification Outreach Update 30 minutes T. Smith
5. Front Range Financial Comparison 15 minutes T. Storin
Council Finance Committee & URA Finance Committee
Agenda Planning Calendar 2016
RVSD 02/23 mnb
Feb 27
Prospect / I25 Intersection – CDOT Commitment Letter 15 min L. Kadrich
2017 Funding Requests 30 min M. Beckstead
2017 Re-appropriation 15 min L. Pollack
Revenue Diversification Outreach Update 30 min T. Smith
Front Range Financial Comparison 15 min T. Storin
URA
Mar 20 (Darin Out)
BFO Discussion – one-time and on-going funding guardrails 30 min L. Pollack
Strategy Map Metrics Review 30 min L. Pollack
Broadband Due Diligence 60 min M. Beckstead
URA
Apr 17
URA
May 15
Parking Garage Financing 20 min J. Voss
URA
Future Council Finance Committee Topics:
County IGA – URA TIF Evaluation Process
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
Finance Committee
Minutes
01/23/17
9:30 - 11:30 am
CIC Room
Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Gerry Horak (Ross Cunniff not able to attend)
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead, John Duval, Kevin Gertig, Lance Smith, Carol Webb,
Donnie Dustin, Justin Fields, Jackson Brockway, Tyler Marr, Jeff Mihelich, Travis Storin,
Nalo Johnson, Tiana Smith, Andres Gavaldon, Noelle Currell, Lawrence Pollack, John
Voss, Lisa Rosintoski, Tim McCollough, Chris Donegon, Phil Ladd, Randy Reuscher and
Carolyn Koontz
Others: Kevin Jones (Chamber of Commerce), Bill Switzer (Citizen), Dale Adamy (Citizen)
Meeting called to order at 9:46 am
Gerry Horak moved to approve Minutes for the December 15th and December 19th Council Finance Meetings.
Mayor Troxell seconded the motion. Minutes were approved unanimously.
A. Changes to the Utilities Raw Water Requirements
Donnie Dustin, P.E., Water Resources Manager
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director
Carol Webb, Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to provide the Council Finance Committee with an overview of the current
Raw Water Requirement system and associated cash-in-lieu rate, and review proposed changes to the current
approach.
Utilities staff recommends the following changes:
• Adjust Raw Water Requirement (RWR) schedules to reflect recent (lower) water use
Use number of bedrooms for indoor component of residential schedule
• Adjust the Cash-in-Lieu (CIL) rate per a hybrid cost approach
Increase CIL rate to ~$16,700 per acre-foot of requirement
• Accept cash only (and existing City-issued water certificates and credits) for RWR satisfaction
• Review and adjust (if necessary) the CIL rate biennially
• Review and adjust (if necessary) the RWR schedules every 5 to 7 years
2
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council support changing the amount of raw water requirements to reflect recent (lower) water use?
2. Does Council support adopting the proposed Cash-in-lieu rate?
3. Does Council support accepting cash only rather than cash and/or Water Rights?
3 Major Changes Recommended
1. Amount of Raw Water Requirement
2. Cash-in-Lieu Rate
3. Accepting Cash Only vs Water Rights
Change to recognize conservation water uses
CIL Rate - look at Future Water Supply needs using hybrid cost approach - value of existing Water Rights
Mayor Troxell; regarding storage and Halligan - what is the max?
Donnie Dustin: the original plan was to build it to 40,000 AF - we had partners at beginning of project but they
dropped out so the max is now 81.25 and we can’t build it bigger than that. If we wanted to add partners we
would have to start over - go back 8 years. Compared to other Front Range water providers we still would be
one of the lowest in the region for a single family home.
Staff recommendations;
Accepting cash only - we think it is imperative to switch to a cash only system. This will allow us to focus on
infrastructure and especially storage - we will need specific additional Water Rights in the future - we can
purchase them ourselves and focus on the best rights.
Carol Webb; CIL rate was tied to the market price for CBT which was steady for quite a while.
Around 2013 - we started taking a look at it - The last time the City updated CIL was in 2001 and it was market
driven. With Lance coming on board as our Strategic Financial Manager, we started looking at these fees more
like an impact fee and that is how we are developing this methodology. We have changed the methodology we
use to come up with this fee. Dramatic increase in CBT cost has prompted us to take a different approach.
Gerry Horak; we really don’t have an explanation as to why we are here - graphics might be helpful that
illustrate that our rate was so good for so long - What is the why part? What was the inflection point? What
was the change point?
3
Carol Webb; we can add that information. We have proposed reviewing this regularly from now on.
Gerry Horak; so whatever we did in 2001 that was a reaction to 2000 increase - we didn’t need to react because
the rate was going down - explanation using graph - what we did - rates went down and then in 2011 things
started going up and by 2013 it had reached what the previous peak was that caused us to react.
Mayor Troxell; a complex picture - you also have the water conservation which has been a downward pressure -
big spike that is driving
Darin Atteberry; the way I might translate what has happened is that the Council and the community may not be
aware of the monitoring that has gone on over the years. The gap may have been with communication with the
public and the Council. To Carol’s point about moving forward - enterprise wide conversation - there will be a
predictable, reliable review period - we are absolutely structured to do that.
Mike Beckstead; we will discuss that at the Feb. 14 Work Session.
Lance Smith; we did come to Council in 2014 talking about a Water Right Utilization Fee and we got feedback
that maybe that was not the mechanism so we took a step back from that and looked at how we might
restructure.
Mayor Troxell; great story - moving more towards an impact fee which is consistent with other things we do as a
City - putting it in that context - really comprehensive - there are a lot of factors including conservation that play
an important role in this – being very circumspect in looking at our community as it builds out and really looking
at those needs in a very comprehensive sort of way - think that is all built into what you have been saying.
Gerry Horak; what kind of other public outreach have you had so far?
Lance Smith; so far, we haven’t since this is a big change so we wanted to get input and direction from you
before we go forward. We are planning to talk with the Water Board and with the Chamber next Friday.
Donnie Dustin; I am lining up presentations for the Board of Realtors, Northern Colorado Homebuilder’s Assn.
and after the Work Session we plan to go to other City Boards including Economic Advisory Board, Affordable
Housing Board and think about other target groups we might focus on.
Carol Webb; we did go to the Water Board and they gave us some really great input which caused us to think
through our methodology and we made some significant adjustments based on their feedback. We will go back
to them in February between the Work Session and presenting to Council. I have also reached out to several
interested parties who work with brokered Water Rights and provided materials to them and also to both
District Managers. Their feedback was that they appreciated us heading in this direction. The manager for
Loveland Water District is also looking at adjusting their raw water and they will be able to leverage some of the
work we have done.
Gerry Horak and Mayor Troxell; that is a great part of the story - part of the public outreach and working with
others - great data but need this good stuff to begin and end with - How we got here and how we are working
with others with the same problem. We need to get out of the reactionary mode.
4
Mayor Troxell; let’s invite them to the Work Session and to Gerry’s point the map slide begins to tell the story of
Fort Collins - we are all on the same team going forward.
Gerry Horak; to Darin Atteberry - this is one where our outreach folks need to be working with Utilities on this -
how to help write the story - schedule may need to be more tentative to allow more time in between for
outreach / open houses. This is a big thing and we really need to get that input - think Council would be totally
supportive.
Mike Beckstead; clarification on what we will see at Working Session on Feb. 14 - we had been coming forward
with our 5 traditional Capital Expansion Fees plus Street Oversizing. In October Council asked us to look at other
fees that would be coming forward and that is when we pulled in the Electric Capacity Fee and the CIL Raw
Water Fee. Each of these projects started at a different time and is in a different stage of maturity relative to
the public outreach that has gone on. There has been tremendous public outreach on the first two. Electric
Capacity and Raw Water Fee are just beginning their outreach - one of the things we are going to work through
between now and Feb 14th - we are also ask to bring an Ordinance forward in March for this Council to approve
the changes in those fees as you just said Gerry on this one I don’t think we will be ready.
Gerry Horak; we need to be more thoughtful - this one should be under ‘To be scheduled’ and get the outreach
folks to help with a deliberative public outreach process on this because of the change and process – so they
understand overall approach. What if we went with a phase in approach is that legal? If so, what different rate in
future years would need to make up for the lower rates?
Mike Beckstead; I would still like to bring all of the fees forward on Feb. 14 so Council can see the full magnitude
of all of the changes we are talking about including the cost stack and comparison to other communities,
changes over time and how we compare for all 4 groups of fees. I would anticipate for March coming forward
probably with only the Capital Expansion and Street Oversizing so that we can be more deliberate.
Gerry Horak; do you feel that we have done the outreach for that?
Mike Beckstead; I do believe we have done the outreach on Capital Expansion and Street Oversizing
Gerry Horak to Darin Atteberry; if it gets bumped to March we need to communicate to Council
Darin Atteberry; I think we need to be just as forthright as to why we aren’t coming forward with this rate
increase in March as well - because the CFC feels it needs more time to be vetted in the community. I think we
can accomplish both. If there needs to be more communications related to this one - carve it out and delay it a
bit. I think we are ready to go forward with the other ones.
Mike Beckstead; the electric capacity fee is kind of in the middle - they are engaging in the public outreach now
but it is just getting started - for that one I am not sure where we will be at in the public engagement by the time
we get to March.
Gerry Horak; I have no problem bringing them forward as long as we feel that the public outreach and
engagement - we send out something out to the Council and the community before we have it on the agenda.
Darin Atteberry; let’s seek that direction at the Feb. 14th Work Session - the whole thing could get delayed in
order to bring all at one time - Confirming to Gerry - The CFC recommends that this one takes a little more time
5
Gerry Horak; yes, we need to redo the story as this it is a huge lump and a major change
Mayor Troxell; looking at some of the backup slides you built in some of the broader story so it is there -
I don’t know if it is necessary to delay but we build in that information - zooming out to zoom in
Donnie Dustin; question re: the Work Session - Do you feel more slides to try to explain this versus a 10 minute
version?
Gerry Horak; you need to set it up - the methodology part is really good work but you don’t need a lot of slides
on that – that is for the folks who want to really dig in - you are presenting to the Council and to the public.
A reasonable person is going to look at it and say ‘why are we just doing this now?’ Include what happened over
time then what we are doing now makes sense.
Carol Webb; confirming we are talking about making adjustments for the Work Session - I don’t hear any issues
with the methodology - it is more about the reason for the change, why this? why now? - tell that story then
developing the deliberative public process that we are talking about.
Mayor Troxell; strong support - make sure the public outreach and the story that you are telling and there is the
backup
Darin Atteberry; Council will be looking for - Are we cognizant of the dramatic increase we are talking about and
how we will …the costs don’t go away - you have to catch up -
Scenario A Do Nothing
Scenario B Do All At Once
Scenario C Phased Approach
Mike Beckstead; there are actually two topics on the Feb. 14th - One is to go through the Work Session on the
Raw Water Fees then talk about the 4 fees together - we were planning about talking about phasing and options
around phasing in that second session.
Darin Atteberry; 3 items on Work Session - let’s do the zoom out first then go into the Raw Water -
You just described it the other way around.
Mike Beckstead; the majority of Council have not heard this presentation - if we talk about all 4 fee groups
together they will see the new number but they won’t have the context to why the number is changing
Darin Atteberry; the thinking was start high - talk about purpose and where we are heading and then zoom in -
not sure what the answer is but we should talk about it.
Gerry Horak; touch base with Gino Campana on this - he will have some good feedback on the logic and
methods
Darin Atteberry; I might even suggest that Kevin Gertig and Carol Webb talk through that - Ray Martinez will
have a lot of focus on the affordability and how it relates to low income housing. In area of affordable housing -
that may be something we pull Beth Sowder and Jackie Thiel in and make sure we are all in synch.
6
Mike Beckstead; to summarize - 3 things
1) We want to have some dialog with Gino Campana
2) Raw Water is probably not ready for a March adoption as we haven’t done the robust public outreach
3) we will seek direction at the Work Session on Feb. 14th
Gerry Horak; a recommendation from the Council Finance Committee that we need more time
Mayor Troxell; I agree.
Next Step; Council Work Session scheduled for 2/14
B. Residential Electric Time of Use (TOU) Pilot Study
Randy Reuscher, Utilities Rate Analyst
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Financial Director
Justin Fields, Utilities Rate Analyst
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this agenda item is to provide the Council Finance Committee with the results of the residential
electric time of use pilot study. The study showed that when compared to the current tiered rate structure both
TOU rate structures reduced energy use by 2.5% and load was shifted from the on peak periods to the off peak
periods, thereby reducing our community’s contribution to the Platte River Power Authority’s (PRPA) coincident
peak. The additional complexity of the tiered TOU rate over the basic TOU rate did not provide any statistically
significant difference from the basic TOU.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1) Does the Council Finance Committee support moving to a default residential time of use rate in the future?
2) What data or background information would be useful for including in the presentation at the Council work
session on February 28th?
Timeline to Date;
• July 2015 2nd Reading Ordinance No. 078, 2015
• August 2015 customer notification & outreach
• September 2015 open house
• November 2015 pilot study started
• April 2016 reminder of new summer season & rates
• October 2016 pilot study ended – sent customer survey
• Nov/Dec 2016 comparison of rates calculated and communicated to customers
• Dec 2016 best bill guarantee credits on bills; statistical analysis performed
4 PILOT Study Objectives;
1. Determine energy conservation impacts
2. Measure potential demand reductions
3. Gauge customer preference for different rate structures
4. Ensure revenue requirements are met
6 groups in study of 1,200 customers each -randomly selected at the beginning - 10% opted out - 850 in each
test group at the end of the study
7
Mayor Troxell; how did they know the TOU information to make a decision? How were they aware of pricing to
affect a decision?
Randy Reuscher; when we started the study we sent out information regarding peak hours, price signals, then
sent a follow up postcard with reminder information, we also held an open house for customers to come in and
ask questions.
Mayor Troxell; how did they get a signal and know how they could affect that signal?
Lance Smith; it was a seasonal signal - they knew a timeframe when the pricing was different - made decisions
based on time frame
Objective 2 - Demand Reductions
• Standard TOU rate showed an 8.5% reduction in the probability that a customer’s daily peak occurs “on
peak”
• TOU w/EE tier showed a 2.8% reduction in the probability that a customer’s daily peak occurs “on peak”
• In the summer months, the TOU rate showed an 7.5% reduction in the coincident peak hour kW (adding the
tier to TOU did not have a statistically significant impact to the coincident peak hour kW)
Mayor Troxell; this is behind the scenes - seeing how it worked out - no consumer knowledge about benefit or
determent related to that -
Lance Smith; we did see a reduction in our wholesale energy costs - behind the curtain
Objective 3 - Customer Survey
October 2016 - Survey sent to all 7,000 participants, with roughly 1,450 responding (~20%)
Outcomes
• Only 25% of customers correctly identified their rate structure
• 51% of customers say they only seek out information about their consumption once per month when they
receive their bill, while 47% of customers infrequently or never seek out information about their energy
consumption
• 42% (highest response) of customers agree rates should balance equitable cost recovery with environmental
concerns
• 38% of customers are conscious of their energy use, while another 31% had energy efficient bulbs and / or
appliances, and another 8% of customers use electricity for the convenience, without concern for the cost.
Mayor Troxell; did you push anything to them via email etc. on a regular basis about the pilot?
Randy Reuscher; was really just the monthly billing cycle - we did send a notice when seasons changed to
remind them that the peak hours were different and the price differences
Mayor Troxell; real time of use and having them look at pricing and usage - it breaks them out of rate payer
monthly customer type thinking
Objective 4 – Revenue Requirements
• Standard TOU
8
• 37% of customers saved an average of $77 for the year, or ~$6 per month
• Average credit was $24 for the year
• TOU w/EE tier
• 62% of customers saved an average of $38 for the year, or ~$3 per month
• Average credit was $20 for the year
• RD (demand) customers were impacted more due to the tiered component and higher consumption
(electric heat)
Staff Recommendations;
Future Timeline;
• February 28 Council Work Session
• March / April 2017 Council action (possibly a resolution)
• Summer 2017 Begin outreach if direction is to implement TOU
• Fall 2017 Include TOU rates in 2018 rate ordinance updates
• January 2018 Potential TOU implementation
Mayor Troxell; As a municipality we have a number of audiences - this mainly to our end user and time of use
rate structures but the benefit also plays back to Platte River and not having to buy on spot markets or use gas
turbines for peaking purposes so there is a real benefit and cost savings for Platte River and then to Fort Collins
for being out ahead of the game - realize that cost benefit back to the citizens through rate benefits, etc.
Have a look at the load curve - how it impacts that during peak - through the night - charging electric vehicles
9
Randy Reuscher; we have multiple examples that we did not include in this presentation - we do have load
curves that show the differences especially during the summer months when we approach the 2 pm hour – the
beginning of the peak charges - that flattening or even the drop of demand at that time
Residential customer base makes up about 40% of total load
On the energy side we are seeing the 2.5 % reduction
1% for Fort Collins as a whole - we are approximately half of Platte River’s load
Mayor Troxell; would we have to create a new rate structure to implement this in 2018 and how is that
communicated back to Platte River? I get the message from Platte River that we can do whatever we want
however we want to do it. Platte River also has several different rate classes - I don’t understand that interplay.
Lance Smith; Platte River provides a price signal to us and if we were to implement this for the entire residential
class as we are proposing - they may change their rate structure but at this point they haven’t given us any
indication that they would respond directly to this. We have a joint rate meeting with Platte River and the 4
cities and last week at that meeting Platte River was talking about how they are going to do a cost of service
study - they may explore changing their rate structure so they are aware of our pilot.
Mayor Troxell; part of them is us - what would the best recommendation be for a rate structure based on TOU
expanding to the entire residential class?
Lance Smith; they have the single coincident peak hour and it is difficult even for us to communicate that to
anyone that we think the next hour is it.
Mayor Troxell; it really is flying blind - not really a time of use
Lance Smith; if they were to go to something that is similar to this - here is a window when we know our peak is
going to fall and therefore we want to try to shift load away from this window just as we are trying to do here -
that would be beneficial to all of the communities -
Mayor Troxell; could it be more of bending our curves down from the peak that has huge system benefits where
they aren’t having to turn on their gas peakers, etc. -that is a way to accomplish that without having to do other
kinds of investment.
Lance Smith; in 2012 Platte River started shifting much of their charges away from the demand charge over to
the energy charge - if Platte River would shift some of the at cost back to demand then you will be providing
that signal again.
Mayor Troxell; reduce energy use - capture cost for our investment in the distribution system which is not
necessarily the distribution system we have today - we will be putting other things in place to compensate for
reactive power - for example, in an industrial area where they are turning big motors on - we will be doing other
things that are infrastructure costs / capital cost.
Lance Smith; Platte River is wanting to engage with the 4 cities around rate structures going forward - vertical
integration
10
Mayor Troxell; one thing that Gerry and I tried to do is to help folks understand why are we are doing this sort of
thing and that it is in the best interest of our community - there is an educational component that we need to
have with the other 3 peer municipalities as well.
Kevin Gertig; we are getting the data to be able to launch that platform so we will illustrate that with data -
getting some stats behind us we can justify.
Mayor Troxell; this is very encouraging because this is the mental framework of turning things off as opposed to
real time price signals - I don’t think people will be so engaged that they are going around checking their phones
but the way that technology is 3rd party service providers can actually capture benefits and savings in ways that
give true signals that help people make decisions - particularly when they are invested with solar roofs, electric
vehicles etc. - they are going to be dialed in on how to make it work.
The benefit of a TOU rate system is that if the customer will remember what the on peak hours are -
charges are not changing from day to day or week to week.
Mayor Troxell; a rough estimate but good enough to help decision making – on a real hot day where even in the
off peak hours it might have greater demand because of air conditioning - that is where some real time pricing
might be more advantageous. I am totally complementary of what has been done and what has come back - the
analysis that has been done. It is a difficult story - it is easy to get in the weeds - but to a consumer and making
decisions it is like cell phone structures - we deal with this all of the time as consumers – not a reach by any
means. Ultimately a vision would be - we provide base load - but during the day that could be provided not by
Platte River but could be within our community - actually have compensation structures within our community
to provide that so that someone who is a Prosumer - solar roof / electric vehicle - they are providing a resource
to our community - this is an important key piece and having consumers dialed in is what makes it work.
Mike Beckstead; CFC recommends the direction sought
Gerry Horak; great analysis - clear to where we need to move
C. City Foundation Creation
Nalo Johnson
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Presentation provides recommendations to operationalize the creation of the City of Fort Collins Foundation
(City Fund) as a fund at the Community Foundation of Northern Colorado. Along with the City Fund discussion,
we will discuss maintaining current ways in which to give to the City including: a) giving directly to the City; and
b) giving to City-related non-profits such as the Friends of the Gardens on Spring Creek and the Lincoln Center
Support League.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
The City Fund operational recommendations are presented to the Council Finance Committee for their
consideration and input.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
• Outcomes of the City Foundation investigation were presented to the Council Finance Committee in October
2016.
11
• Feedback from the committee determined to: a) move forward with operational recommendations to
establish a City of Fort Collins Foundation as a fund at the Community Foundation of Northern Colorado; and
b) examine any barriers to our current processes of donating directly to the City.
• As a result, staff will discuss major components concerning three ways to donate to the City:
1) Establishing a City Fund at the Community Foundation of Northern Colorado which can be utilized for
fundraising purposes.
2) Supporting the donor experience when giving directly to the City by naming a staff “point of contact” to lead
them through the process.
3) Engaging our City-related non-profit partners so they see the City Fund as a way in which to enhance, not
replace, their current fundraising strategies.
City Fund - Goals
Purpose Statement: Allow residents an opportunity to support initiatives for the City of Fort Collins to provide
world-class services through operational excellence and a culture of innovation.
• Way in which to enhance City projects
• Access to a non-profit arm to receive and administer grant funds
• Option for those who do not want to give directly to the City
City Fund - Framework
City Fund - Roles & Responsibilities
12
Key Caveats;
• Councilmembers and/or City staff may fundraise on behalf of the fund, but cannot be on the Advisory
Committee
IRS deems a conflict of interest
• Project-specific funds may be identified by Advisory Committee
City may independently approach Advisory Committee
Community members may approach City with specific requests to approach Advisory Committee
• City Fund is not a replacement for City Budget but a way in which to enhance what is funded through the
budget and tax initiatives process
Next Steps;
1) Council/Staff Action
• Resolution to establish umbrella fund agreement
• Identify whom to participate on the Advisory Committee Nominating Team
• Potentially establish an account balance for City Fund and identify a specific project to initially
fundraise for once Committee is in place
• CAO work with CFNC to finalize fund agreement
2) Summary Action and Timeline
• Q1 – City Fund Agreement established
• Q2 – Advisory Committee in place
• CFNC and staff liaison establish onboarding process
3) Messaging and Promotion
• Work with CPIO, CFNC, staff liaison and Advisory Committee to develop and implement branding
and marketing plan
Mike Beckstead; tentatively scheduled resolution - presenting to Futures Committee on Feb. 13 and Council
Work Session on Feb. 28.
Mayor Troxell; building a stronger message as to why to have a foundation – it is the value proposition / mission
statement / building off of the mission statement - maybe some examples - I have some examples - this is an
opportunity for the city to grow as an organization in a way that helps support activities and efforts that are very
much in line - not a general fund activity. Comment related to - not to duplicate or do away with or challenge in
any way the other non-profits. This is not another legal entity - this is a relationship that we would have
between us and the Northern Colorado Foundation - we are not trying to create something separate - we are
13
partnering with them. The Museum of Discovery was in an active fund raising role - essentially because we are
building a development office for fund raising they would all benefit from staff and people to help them with the
process - I have been involved with foundations with a flow chart of how to give. When you just give and these
become sub elements or projects within the fund - we are all trying to support the same end and that is benefit
to our community. Will you be sending out the donation thank you notes and doing the IRS issues - Does the
city send tax notice to donors now?
Travis Storin; yes, we give them a special statement / receipt for tax filing.
Mike Beckstead; that clarity - it is not in competition but really creating a menu of alternatives that folks
wanting to give to the City of Fort Collins can use. CPIO - how do we market and educate so people understand
that it is not an either or scenario.
Mayor Troxell; there is a flow chart for donations which includes recommendations from other development
officers out there (was in presentation). So, if we do support that as part of the City Fund - flow chart -
development folks representing - everyone should be on the same page and the best interest of the individual
giving the gift should drive where the gift goes - 1% load factor is low - there will be other costs including hiring
people to support the fund - that will be a load on the fund and how it is operated - there are costs in doing this
that need to be reflected. Funds and identifying a project within a fund - Is there undesignated funding? How
would that be handled?
Nalo Johnson; that would go in the unrestricted fund bucket - general donations - within the City Fund
Mayor Troxell; Gardens of Spring Creek - things that wouldn’t be General Fund focused and so how do you get to
those and enable having latitude for the Project Advisory Committee to allocate funds for those activities that
can help build the city organization in ways that are not donor directed (non-designated fund). Do other cities
have funds like this?
Nalo Johnson; while community-wide funds exist similar to what is currently created within the Community
Foundation, we haven’t found anything like this model in our research.
Gerry Horak; be clear with your recommendation when you go to Council.
Darin Atteberry; this has been a Council priority for 2 years - great work! We should check with any current
donors to make sure this doesn’t cause any problems for them. Any sort of tax lability for doing it this way or
directly to the City of Fort Collins?
Darin Atteberry to John Duval; are there any legal issues for the city using city resources to market this fund
(example CPIO)?
John Duval; There are no issues as these funds will be used for the benefit of the city so there is a clear public
purpose.
Darin Atteberry; to Wade’s point when he was talking about the value proposition story - I think we should be
very clear with what success look like - the purpose and also how we will measure success. Would be good to do
some upfront work on measures of success and commit to reporting on a regular basis. If these objectives and
metrics are met, I guarantee we will not be the only city doing this in 5 years. This is something that cities are
14
going to be really interested in. This is something that Mayor Troxell brought to the city and I think it is a great
idea - I think this allows us to have a different conversation in talking to our community - you can give in other
ways - a tremendous opportunity.
Mayor Troxell; I think of Bill Michaels who started the Community Foundation/ Chest that is now the United
Way - that came from a different time - he established a Public Hospital Foundation which has funded things
historically. I think of CSURF where there are mechanisms that are not the general operation of teaching at the
university and you can leverage it – it is in that spirit that people have done this before. -What does it mean in
the city context? I think it is as much applicable to the city organization as it is to the university, a public hospital,
etc. Painting the picture of what success looks like is an important part of the value proposition. Think about
the value proposition for donors before you talk with them - might enable some things that they might be
thinking of - as we develop more of a development organization that is part of that engagement.
Darin Atteberry; helps us move away from one offs - significant appreciation - we should be able to list folks who
give to the city - how we thank and recognize and celebrate philanthropy will be an outcome that may have not
been on our radar screen previously.
Other Business;
A. Appropriation Request - looking for Council Finance’s approval to proceed to Council On Consent
For additional 2017 Transfer Offers
• 2017 Budget Appropriation Ordinance did not include all necessary transfers between funds
• All program funding is in place per budget offers
• Transfers needed moves funding from one fund to another
• Example - Move funding from Transportation to Capital Projects
• Additional appropriation of approximately $2.9M (since finalized at $1.9M)
• Increases the City’s total budget
• No impact on the City’s net budget (which excludes transfers)
• Process documentation has been updated to avoid this in the future
Lawrence Pollack; clean up in nature - what is needed is that the Budget Appropriation Ordinance for 2017 did
not include all of the necessary transfers between funds - no funding gaps - we have the budget to provide all
programs and services - move revenue and or reserves from one fund to another fund - example -
transportation - move from Transportation Fund to Capital Projects Fund which requires an appropriation - the
total amount is $1.9m
Zero impact on the net budget - simply the governmental fund requirements of getting authorization to move
money from one fund to another - sometimes we refer to this as our double up - we have updated our process
documentation to make sure we have all transfers between funds identified.
Mike Beckstead; no impact on revenue or expenditures- we have a reconciliation process that was just in the
wrong place in our methodology a non-event – it is in both places now, We would like to put this forward as an
Ordinance - On Consent with Council Finance’s approval.
Mayor Troxell and Darin Atteberry - straight forward - ok to move forward.
B. Unfunded Needs
15
Property owners at Prospect and I25 - 2 things I wanted to make Council Finance aware of;
1) Property owner’s vision is to create a Metro District – this would mean we will need to go borrow the
entire amount – expect reimbursement of the property owner’s share as the development occurs – this
is still under discussion –
2) We learned Friday that CDOT is looking for a letter of commitment by March 1st for the City’s funding
partner’s share on that interchange - we aren’t sure if this needs Council approval or if it can just be
done administratively but wanted to make sure CFC is aware
Darin Atteberry; I25 / Prospect - Council has already made a formal statement about Prospect and I25 - hoping
we can just attach it to a letter and send it to CDOT - not binding commitment but a statement from the city
stating that we are all in.
Gerry Horak; I think they need this to go out with an RFP
Darin Atteberry; for Gerry’s I25 meetings - we are actually resourcing - we are meeting with Timnanth.
If I do send out a letter - is that acceptable to attorneys and to CDOT? At this point nothing needed from CFC
Gerry Horak; Loveland and Johnstown doing this for 402 - they met with Larimer County Commissioners.
C. Other Priorities -
Darin Atteberry; we are 23 days into the new 2 year budget and there are some things that we are going to have
to come back to Council Finance on regarding prioritization questions and then to follow with a Council Work
Session. These items include;
• Additional Jail Space (a different relationship with Larimer County as it relates to jail space)
• I25
• Gardens on Spring Creek,
• Transit - what happens with CSU
• Broadband
• Campus West Project
• Solar Gardens
• 3D Printing
As an ELT we are going to be doing a significant amount of work around that and try to begin to prioritize -
probably a Work Session as we are not going to be able to fund everything. That is the tough part as all of these
are legitimate and priorities for Council - so Work Session and then ultimately ask Council for direction.
Meeting adjourned by 11:40 am
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Laurie Kadrich, Planning, Development & Transportation Director
Mark Jackson, Planning, Development & Transportation Deputy Director
Date: February 27, 2017
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
I-25/Prospect Interchange Funding Commitment Letter to Colorado Department of
Transportation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to update the Council Finance Committee and request its feedback
and support for a letter from City Manager Atteberry to be sent to the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT), stating the City’s intent to share in costs for improvements to the
Prospect-Interstate 25 (I-25) interchange with Town of Timnath and private property stakeholder
interests. This funding partnership would allow for significant cost efficiencies to all parties and
inclusion into CDOT’s Northern Colorado improvements to I-25. City Staff and funding partners
are developing funding tools that assign a proportional share of cost from Fort Collins, Town of
Timnath, and key stakeholders/property owners proximate to the interchange.
Council submitted Resolution 2016-087 (Attachment 1) to CDOT in November 2016 stating
general intent to partner on this opportunity. Based on letters of intent received from Fort
Collins, Timnath and property owner stakeholders (Attachments 2,3), CDOT included the
interchange improvements to the base case scenario making it eligible for design-build
efficiencies. CDOT subsequently requested a more specific letter including funding amount and
relative time frame to be shared with Federal Highway Administration that allows them to
proceed with design as part of the North I-25 Improvements Project. The letter was requested
by March 1, 2017.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance Committee support moving forward with a letter of intent to Colorado
Department of Transportation stating commitment to partner on funding improvements to the
I-25/Prospect interchange as part of the North I-25 Improvements Projects?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) will make improvements to Interstate 25
(I-25) in Northern Colorado, beginning in 2017, with actual construction commencing in 2018
and ending in 2020. Planned improvements include repair or replacement of two bridges,
expansion of a third managed lane in each direction, and slip ramps and a park and ride at Larry
Kendall Parkway in Loveland. No interchange improvements were initially identified as part of
the $237 million effort. Project boundaries are SH-14 (Mulberry) to the north and SH-402
(Loveland) to the south.
The City of Fort Collins has to date committed $2.25 million of local funds in support of this
project as part of the 2017-2018 budget, and also agrees to remit an addition $2.2 million in
funds over the next five years to Larimer County to be used for CDOT’s I-25 improvements.
The interchange at Prospect Road and I-25 is aging infrastructure that is currently failing in level
of service (congestion) at peak periods of travel. Existing and planned development in the area
are exacerbating congestion issues. City of Fort Collins Staff have worked closely with CDOT
during preliminary design phases to ensure improvements to the interchange meet the City’s
needs, design standards, and integrate with our road network. City Staff have also been working
with Town of Timnath and private land interests proximate to the interchange to discuss public-
private funding partnerships that could accelerate needed improvements.
CDOT is using a Design-Build project management approach to the I-25 project. This combined
project management approach allows for possible economies of scale and cost efficiencies that
could expand the scope of the project improvements. CDOT has indicated that if the City of Fort
Collins is willing to partner on funding to improve the Prospect/I-25 interchange, there is a
window of opportunity for the interchange improvements to be included in their project.
CDOT estimates the base cost of interchange improvements at $24 million. This basic design
does not include any urban design elements desired by Fort Collins, Timnath, and private
property interests. Prospect/I-25 is acknowledged to be a key gateway entrance into Fort Collins
and Timnath. Development interests on the four quadrants of the interchange also understand
the importance and value of enhanced design elements. Urban design elements similar to that
built at the I-25/SH-392 interchange are estimated to cost $6.5 million.
CDOT has committed to half the costs for the base interchange ($12M) if Fort Collins and its
funding partners commit the other half of interchange costs plus the cost of all urban design
elements. As such, Fort Collins and partners’ share of the interchange costs are estimated at
$18.5 million to be paid over the course of 2018 thru 2020. Part of the private partner interests’
share of costs will be in kind for Rights of Way (ROW) donated to CDOT. Value of their ROW is
under negotiation with CDOT.
It is anticipated that debt service will be required to cover the $18.5M interchange costs, to be
repaid to the City of Fort Collins by Town of Timnath and private property interests over a period
of time. The proportion of costs to be assigned to each entity is still under discussion. In
addition, the most appropriate mechanism for repayment from Timnath and private interests is
also under discussion. Given the ongoing nature of these partnership conversations, combined
with the aggressive timeline requested by CDOT, there exists a window of opportunity to pull
back the offer of partnership, should negotiations with Timnath and private stakeholders fail to
result in a workable solution. While not defined date certain, this window is likely four to six
weeks, until the final Request For Proposal (RFP) is released by CDOT in late March/early April
time frame. If no agreement can be reached, the Prospect interchange improvements will not be
included in the North I-25 Improvements Project. Opportunities for cost efficiencies will be lost,
and the timeline for improving the interchange will likely be pushed back several years.
A draft letter of funding commitment for the City Manager’s signature (Attachment 4) has been
prepared and reviewed by City Attorneys. If deemed appropriate by Council Finance
Committee, Chief Financial Officer, and the City Manager, the letter will be submitted to CDOT
by their March 1 requested deadline.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution 2016-087 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins affirming its intent to share
costs for improvements to the Interstate 25 (I-25) and Prospect Road Interchange as
part of the Colorado Department of Transportation’s North I-25 Improvements Project
(11/16)
2. Town of Timnath letter of intent to partner (11/16)
3. Project Interchange Task Force (PITF) letter of intent to partner (11/16)
4. DRAFT March 1 letter to CDOT regarding funding partnership with Town of Timnath and
private property interests
City Council Finance Committee Meeting
I-25 and Prospect Interchange
2-27-17
I-25 and Prospect Interchange
Project Background:
- I-25 Improvement Project -- $237M (Mulberry Road to SH 402 in
Loveland)
- Interchange at Prospect -- $24M plus $6.5M for urban design
- Prospect – key gateway, addresses level of service deficiencies, as well
as anticipated growth
- Cost split: $12M (CDOT); $18.5M (FC – Timnath – property owners)
- Incorporating interchange will save significant time and money
(estimated $6M in costs and potentially 5-10 years in time)
2
I-25 and Prospect Interchange
Stakeholder Issues:
- Debt service required; repaid by Timnath and property owners over time
- The proportion of costs per stakeholder is being developed
- Follow up meeting in March to be scheduled w/ stakeholders to reach
agreement to terms for financial commitment
- CDOT requires funding commitment letter by 1 March -- would still have
approx. 4-6 weeks to withdraw if no agreement is reached
3
ROW Lines for Interchange Project
4
Urban Design Rendering (NE)
Questions?
6
Phone: (970) 224-3211 FAX: (970) 224-3217 www.timnathcolorado.org
4800 Goodman St. Timnath, CO 80547
November 9, 2016
Mr. Johnny Olson, P.E.
Region 4 Transportation Director
Colorado Department of Transportation
10601 W. 10
th
Street
Greeley, CO 80634
Dear Mr. Olson:
I am writing on behalf of the Timnath Town Council to express our support for the inclusion of
the I-25/Prospect Road interchange in the overall base case project of Northern Colorado
improvements to I-25. This letter also serves as confirmation of our intent to participate in the
funding of the improvements.
This interchange’s level of service is failing at peak travel times and its infrastructure is aged and
cannot support the volumes of traffic safely or efficiently. The larger I-25 improvement project
provides a unique opportunity to include this interchange as a component now rather than wait
many years for another opportunity to fund the currently needed infrastructure at a much higher
cost.
As you know Timnath, with its regional partners, is participating in the Northern Colorado
coalition that helped make the larger I-25 project possible. Details as to the level of participation
and the timing of this project are still to be determined, but given our strong relationships in
Northern Colorado, we are committed to playing a role in improving this interchange to the
benefit of Northern Colorado citizens.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact April D. Getchius, Town Manager at
agetchius@timnathgov.com or by phone at 970-224-3211.
Thank you for your continued support and leadership.
Sincerely,
Jill Grossman-Belisle, Mayor
On Behalf of the Timnath Town Council
Sent Via Email
Project Interchange
Task
Force
C/O
Land
Acquisition
and
Management,
LLC
#4
West
Dry
Creek
Circle, Ste
100
Littleton,
CO
80120
November
2,
2016
Mr.
Darin
Atteberry
City
of
Ft.
Collins,
City
Manager
P0
Box
580
Ft.
Collins,
CO
80521
Subject:
PITF
support
of
improvements
to
the
Prospect
interchange
Good
morning
Mr.
Atteberry:
The
Prospect Interchange
Task
Force
(PITF)
is
composed
of
property
owners
condemnation
process.
This,
in
turn,
would
substantially
shorten
the
time frame
and
reduce
the
costs
for
the
future
design/build
contractor.
HROD
also
has
expertise
in
the
formation
of
special districts.
Data
generated
by
TFII{
could
be
used
to
evaluate
additional
revenues
for
interchange
financing,
as
needed.
PITF
is
working
closely
with
COFC
staff
and
our
consultants
to
determine
the
appropriate
mix
of right-of-way donation,
[Type text]
Intended for FC/Timnath CMO letterheads and DA/AG signatures
March 1, 2017
Mr. Johnny Olson
Director CDOT Region 4
10601 W. 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80634
Dear Mr. Olson,
The North I-25 Improvements Project presents a unique and exciting opportunity to address a
key infrastructure and operational deficiency at the interchange of I-25 and Prospect Road. This
interchange is a key gateway for the City of Fort Collins and Town of Timnath, and is also an
area anticipated for future growth and development. The ability to significantly accelerate
planned improvements to the interchange, and save millions of dollars in cost through a public-
private funding partnership is an opportunity that benefits all parties. The Fort Collins City
Council has expressed its support for this effort by the adoption of Resolution No. 2016-087, a
copy of which is attached.
To that end, the City of Fort Collins, Town of Timnath, and their private funding partners are
committed to share in the costs of the interchange improvements, and fund additional desired
urban design improvements. Anticipated local funding of $12 million for the interchange and an
additional $6.5 million for urban design elements, subject to appropriation, will be shared by Fort
Collins, Timnath and private interests, and paid over the course of 2018 through 2020.
Kind Regards,
(intended for CM signature)
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Mike Beckstead
Date: February 27, 2017
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
2017 Additional Funding needs identified as of February
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Executive Leadership Team and City Council have been discussing incremental 2017
funding needs beyond what was included in the Adopted 2017 Budget. These potential requests
have been put into an Offer format for CFC consideration of what to bring forward to the full
City Council.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
What questions does the Council Finance Committee have about these requests?
Which of these items does the Council Finance Committee support being brought forward for
full City Council consideration?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Since adoption of the 2017-18 Budget in November 2016, the Executive Leadership Team and
City Council have been discussing incremental 2017 funding needs. These requests have been
vetted individually by staff and submitted to the Council Finance Committee for their
consideration of which requests, if any, should be brought forth for full City Council
consideration.
Attachment #1 is a summary table that indicates the projects under consideration and the
available funding sources that could be used to fund these requests. Attachment #2 has the
narrative descriptions of each project.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment #1 – Funding Request Summary Table
Attachment #2 – Funding Request Narratives
2017 Additional Funding Requests
Mike Beckstead, CFO
2-27-16
2017 Additional Funding Requests
2
General Fund
1-Time
General Fund
Ongoing
KFCG - Police
Reserves
Repurpose portion
of General Fund
Budget for Police
Traning Facility
Repurpose
General Fund
Assignment for
Golf
AVAILABLE FUNDING $ 270,000 $ 400,000 $ 270,000 $ 450,000 $ 750,000 $ 2,140,000
Reserved Jail Space * 107,500 129,000 236,500
Lemay/Drake Improvements 250,000 250,000
Police Campus West Build-out 218,750 218,750
Gardens - Phase 1 Completion 250,000 250,000 500,000
215 Building Security Upgrade 12,200 20,000 311,000 343,200
Broadband Business Plan Development 289,000 289,000
3D Printing 150,000 150,000
Lockers TBD TBD
Solar Landscaping 250,000 250,000
Transfort Sunday 375,000 375,000
Lincoln Ave. Enhancements 750,000 750,000
TOTAL Funded $ 269,700 $ - $ 347,750 $ 270,000 $ 250,000 $ 850,000 $ 1,987,450
Funds Remaining 300 52,250 - 200,000 (100,000) ** 152,550
Total Not Funded $ 1,000,000 $ 375,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - 1,375,000
* The 2017 request is for a partial year at $107,500. The full year cost for 2018 would be 'assigned' in the KFCG Fund
** Two options to address the shortfall of this funding sources are:
- Do half of the 215 security upgrades in 2017, with the rest in either 2018 (via the Revision process) or in the 2019-20 BFO process
- Depending on the outcome of the due diligence, delay the broadband retail model business plan
Total
Funding Source
Repurpose Lincoln
Avenue Budget
2017 Additional Funding Requests
3
- What questions does the Council Finance
Committee have about these requests?
- Which of these items does the Council
Finance Committee support being brought
forward for full City Council consideration?
2017 Additional Funding Needs
General Fund
1-Time
General Fund
Ongoing
KFCG - Police
Reserves
Repurpose portion
of General Fund
Budget for Police
Traning Facility
Repurpose
General Fund
Assignment for
Golf
AVAILABLE FUNDING $ 270,000 $ 400,000 $ 270,000 $ 450,000 $ 750,000 $ 2,140,000
Reserved Jail Space * 107,500 129,000 236,500
Lemay/Drake Improvements 250,000 250,000
Police Campus West Build-out 218,750 218,750
Gardens - Phase 1 Completion 250,000 250,000 500,000
215 Building Security Upgrade 12,200 20,000 311,000 343,200
Broadband Business Plan Development 289,000 289,000
3D Printing 150,000 150,000
Lockers TBD TBD
Solar Landscaping 250,000 250,000
Transfort Sunday 375,000 375,000
Lincoln Ave. Enhancements 750,000 750,000
TOTAL Funded $ 269,700 $ - $ 347,750 $ 270,000 $ 250,000 $ 850,000 $ 1,987,450
Funds Remaining 300 52,250 - 200,000 (100,000) ** 152,550
Total Not Funded $ 1,000,000 $ 375,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - 1,375,000
* The 2017 request is for a partial year at $107,500. The full year cost for 2018 would be 'assigned' in the KFCG Fund
** Two options to address the shortfall of this funding sources are:
- Do half of the 215 security upgrades in 2017, with the rest in either 2018 (via the Revision process) or in the 2019-20 BFO process
- Depending on the outcome of the due diligence, delay the broadband retail model business plan
Total
Funding Source
Repurpose Lincoln
Avenue Budget
Attachment #1
Attachment #2 - Additional 2017 Funding Requests
Offer Name: Reserved Jail Space for Municipal-only Charges
Amount: $129,000 Ongoing
Owner: Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
Offer Summary:
This offer requests funds of up to $129,000 to secure three reserved beds at the Larimer
County Jail to hold individuals sentenced to jail for municipal-only charges. This request is
a key part of the City’s strategy for the upcoming summer season to curb illegal,
disruptive, aggressive, and inappropriate behaviors in the downtown area.
These funds for reserved jail beds are needed because the jail’s current capacity does not
allow room for individuals with municipal-only charges sentenced to jail to stay – they are
released immediately back into the community where they repeat their crimes with little
concern, due to the lack of consequences imposed on them by the City.
This item was not included in the last BFO cycle, as other initiatives designed to address
the disruptive behaviors downtown were still in their initial phase. These other initiatives
(Outreach Fort Collins and Police Overtime) have had some positive impacts, but only
after the last budget cycle had wrapped up did the idea of reserved jail space become a
viable possibility.
Staff from the City Manager’s Office, Police Services, and Municipal Court believe this tool
would be an effective resource in getting problem offenders to stop committing the same
violations time and time again and would send a message to those committing illegal and
disruptive behaviors that the City will not tolerate such behavior.
Negotiations are still ongoing related to this item, and staff is hopeful that the total request
amount may drop. It should be noted that in the event jail capacity decreases and the jail
is able to hold more than three individuals on City charges, the cost could increase. As
negotiations finalize, staff will be able to provide a more detailed breakdown of costs.
Linkage to Strategic Objectives:
- NLSH 1.4 Protect and preserve the City’s quality of life and neighborhoods - This
offer supports this objective by providing space in jail for repeat offenders of
municipal code who negatively impact the quality of the City’s neighborhoods and
overall quality of life.
- ECON 3.6 Enhance the economic vitality of our community - This offer supports this
strategic objective by helping to make downtown a more pedestrian friendly
environment, which in turn supports a vibrant downtown business economy.
Offer Name: Drake and/or Lemay Intersection Improvements
Amount: $0 up to $250,000 One-Time
Owner: Joe Olson, City Engineer
Offer Summary:
As part of an opportunity for collaboration between local residents, a local employer, and
the City, intersection improvements have been proposed adjacent to the employer’s
campus.
Funding options for the intersection improvements are dependent on the ultimate location.
It would be possible to use Street Oversizing funds as well as funds for bicycle
improvements at one potential intersection. However those funds would not be available
at the other potential location. Staff is still working with interested parties to finalize the
location of the improvements.
Given the uncertainty, this is a request for up to $250,000 in General Fund money for
potential intersection improvements in the event that the ultimate location does not allow
for the use of other funding sources.Linkage to Strategic Objectives:
Linkage to Strategic Objectives:
- Economic Health 3.2 - Improve policies and programs to retain, expand, incubate,
and attract primary employers where consistent with City goals - This offer is a
collaboration with a local employer and local citizens to improve access to the
employer’s campus and potentially, to area neighborhoods.
Offer Name: Police Campus West Build-out
Amount: $218,750 One-Time
Owner: Mike Trombley – Police Deputy Chief - Patrol
Offer Summary:
The Campus West substation reflects a Council priority to establish a police/community
substation in the Campus West area. Police Services is partnering with Neighborhood
Services, Code Compliance, Colorado State University (CSU) Off Campus Life, CSU
Student Affairs, CSU Police Department and the City/CSU Community Liaison to rotate
staff to the office and offer a broad range of services and visibility to students, renters,
long term residents and businesses in the area. The office will provide a more permanent
police, City, and CSU presence; impact crime; address quality of life issues such as loud
parties; and provide more direct customer service.
Funding for ongoing lease payments and utilities, etc. was approved in the 2017-2018
budget (Offer #31.2), however at inception it was anticipated that market timing would
dictate that a lease would be signed by the end of the 2016 fiscal year. The costs for initial
start-up of the substation with the first year's costs include initial renovation, IT
infrastructure, furnishing, etc. and would be paid in 2016 with off cycle funding. Delays in
both the budget process and build estimates did not allow this money to be appropriated in
2016 as a lease was not yet finalized.
An agreement has been finalized in principle for build-out costs (subject to approval)
totaling approximately $250,000, broken down as follows:
• $107,000 for initial tenant renovation, completed by Delehoy construction under
specs provided by Operation Services. Of this amount, the landlord will partially
cover tenant finish costs with an allowance, with a net cost of approximately
$70,000 to the City.
• $180,000 in renovation costs, managed and completed by Operation Services (See
attachments)
o The 2017-2018 budget incorporated ongoing funds of $75,000 annually for
lease payments and O&M costs, effective January 1, 2017.
o Further negotiation has allowed the City to assume responsibility for lease
payments on June 1, 2017. As a result, $31,250 of already allocated funds
are potentially available to offset build-out costs.
• Following the above cost breakdown, total appropriation cost = $250,000, with
approximately $218,750 remaining for a funding source to be identified.
Additional Information:
- Funding is time-sensitive due to negotiations. Operation Services is preparing final
lease terms and payment allocation, as well as an itemization of the costs outlined
above.
Describe Offer Scalability: The space could be leased and held as a “shell” with no
additional cost to the City aside from what has already been budgeted, however this
simply holds the space. For the space to be functional, build-out is required.
Linkage to Strategic Objectives:
- NLSH 1.4 - Protect and preserve the City's quality of life and neighborhoods - The
officers and CSU and City employees will use collaborative, proactive, community
policing strategies to enhance their influence in the area. This will impact criminal
activity, quality of life issues, and general nuisance issues that create visible signs of
disorder before they become significant problems.
- NLSH 1.7 - Maintain and enhance attractive neighborhoods through City services,
innovative enforcement techniques and voluntary compliance with City codes and
regulations - Voluntary compliance is the goal of all enforcement strategies. As
forward-deployed police and other services are provided from a neighborhood
substation, voluntary compliance and self-policing will take hold.
- ECON 3.4 - Provide transparent, predictable and efficient processes for citizens and
businesses interacting with the City - The substation will be staffed by
representatives of Police Services, Neighborhood Services, Code Compliance, CSU
Off-Campus Life, CSU Student Affairs, CSU Police, and the City/CSU Community
Liaison. This neighborhood office will provide a place for residents and students to
access a wide variety of community and university services.
Offer Name: Gardens on Spring Creek Phase 1 Completion
Amount: $500,000 One-Time
Owner: Michelle Provaznik, Director, Gardens on Spring Creek
Offer Summary:
Since 2014, the Gardens on Spring Creek Director along with the Friends of the Gardens
on Spring Creek Board of Directors has been raising money to complete The Gardens
Master Plan including 5 acres of new gardens and expansion of the Visitor’s Center.
Phase 1 includes the completion of the gardens to include the Great Lawn, Prairie and
Foothills Gardens, and the Undaunted Garden – a xeriscape demonstration garden. The
original project budget was $2.5 million dollars. After 2 years of delays, the project budget
is now $3 million. Our project consultants summarized the overall review process/public
engagement process factors and effects they’ve had on the budget – a budgetary increase
of almost $500,000.
The Friends has secured $2.1 million towards the project to date. This includes $1.7
million from the community and $400,000 from the City of Fort Collins ($250,000 through
BFO for the Great Lawn, $150,000 from Utilities for the Undaunted Garden as a xeriscape
demonstration garden). The Friends Board is working hard to raise the remaining
$400,000 of the original budget from the community while seeking support of additional
$500,000 from the City to complete this legacy project.
Additional Information:
- Initial noise ordinance compliance was met through sound walls surrounding the
stage only. Code compliance was based on City’s interpretation that sound
measurements should be based on decibel levels at individual residential property
lines. A re-interpretation of code by City Staff to include HOA open space limits as
basis for decibel level measurements required additional sound walls at southwest to
minimize decibel levels at open space. ~$130K increase
- Mistrust among neighbors regarding managing noise levels resulted in need for
integrated noise monitoring system. ~$100K increase
- During lengthy review/public engagement timeline, construction costs have increased
substantially. ~$200K increase
- Consulting fees increase for additional design, presentations, meetings, etc. ~$60K
increase
Describe Offer Scalability: This offer is not scalable. Further delays will result is
increased costs of the project in the current economic climate.
Linkage to Strategic Objectives:
- ENV 4.3: Engage citizens in ways to educate and encourage behaviors toward
more sustainable living practices - The additional five acres of gardens will educate
the public about native and adapted plants that thrive in northern
Colorado. Additionally, the Undaunted Garden will teach about waterwise
gardening which is essential in our high desert climate. Education will take place
through demonstration, signage and scheduled programs.
- CR 2.4: Develop effective marketing and pricing strategies and programs that drive
value, attendance and cost recovery - The additional gardens and Great Lawn
venue will provide opportunities for new educational programs, increased rental
revenue, increased special event revenue and move the organization toward the
admission/membership model.
- CR 2.1: Improve the community’s sense of place with a high value on natural
areas, culture, recreation and parks systems - Five acres of gardens will replace
the field and double the size of the facility, creating a unique sense of place focused
on nature, arts and culture in the center of the community.
Offer Name: 215 North Mason Building Security Upgrade
Amount: $343,200 One-Time
Owner: Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
Offer Summary:
This offer requests $343,200 in funding to provide security upgrades to various departments
that are located in the 215 Administrative Building. This offer would build solid walls with a
front desk counter and a solid electronically activated access door into the department
similar to what currently exists within Muni Court, Parking Services, HR and SSRM. These
security upgrades would be for Accounting, Purchasing, CPIO, IT and Recreation/Park
Planning. In addition, surveillance cameras would be installed in the central lobby of each
floor and SSRM will develop and lead a training course for all within the building on what to
do and what not to do during a security incident.
This offer was not included in the 2017/18 BFO process because the need for additional
security was not an identified need in early 2016. Several incidents occurred in mid to late
2016 that led to an evaluation of how security within the building could be improved. In one
particular incident, a citizen dressed in black, carrying a black duffle bag came into Financial
Services with an issue. The citizen was highly agitated and could not be satisfied. He was
moved down to the SSRM offices and the building security guard was called, which made
the citizen more agitated. Our Director of SSRM was able to calm the individual down and
escort him out of the building. Staff was significantly spooked, several were in tears and this
led to a discussion about security and preparedness.
Other events have occurred related to the Municipal court that is located on the first floor.
The Lobby has been closed at times and staff has been asked to stay clear when there is a
potential for a participant in a municipal proceeding to create an incident.
These type of events have caused staff within 215 to feel at risk given the open access of
the entire building. Unlike 222 where access into staff areas is secure at the lobby level,
215 was built prior to consideration of this type of security. The public has access to all
three floors, the stairwells, and can walk into any department without hindrance. A solid
wall, counter area and solid door will not prevent someone from forcing their way in, but
combined with better training, will provide staff a degree of confidence in their security.
See attached cost estimate detail below
Describe Offer Scalability:
This offer could occur over time. Each area costs $60k - $80K. The offer could be spread
over 2 years with $150K in one year and $190K in another.
Linkage to Strategic Objectives:
- HPG 7.4 – Develop and implement initiatives to achieve safety goals and continue to
focus on employee health and wellness - These enhancements to the building will
provide improved security within an open designed building and provide staff a
greater degree of confidence and comfort in their work place safety
Option #3
Proposed Security Enhancements for 215 N. Mason St.
Intention
Create consistency of security throughout the 215 N. Mason St. building. The below
enhancements will meet the needs of securing the building in an appropriate manner.
Parking Services $0.00
• None needed
HR $0.00
• None needed
Accounting $79,925.00
• Installation of new front desk and door
Purchasing $70,150.00
• Installation of new front desk and door
Safety, Security and Risk Management $0.00
• None needed
CPIO $46,575.00
• Secure front reception area by adding FOB control to door. (There may be
additional remodeling that will affect entry access as this department adds
employees).
IT $59,800.00
• Installation of new front desk and door
Recreation/Park Planning $74,750.00
• Installation of new front desk and door
Lobby Camera on each floor $12,000.00
_____________
Project Total $343,200.00
Offer Name: Municipal Broadband Business Plan Development Resources
Amount: $289,000
Owner: Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
Will funding this Enhancement require an increase to ongoing costs in future years:
No: One-time. If the Municipal Broadband alternative is ultimately selected, these resources
will become on-going and will be included in the working capital estimates associated with
starting up a Broadband operation.
If the Municipal Broadband alternative is not selected, additional funding may be required to
support an intended separation parachute for these three positions. The amount will be
dependent on what ultimately is included in the recruitment package and when such a
decision is made. The earlier in the process the decision is made, less additional funding
would be needed.
Offer Summary:
This offer requests funding of $289,000 to support the contract hire of 3 professionals as the
core business team members needed to start up a new retail broadband business. These 3
key positions will include a business/general manager, an outside construction and
operations position, and a technology broadband expert position.
The initial focus of these resources would be the development of a detailed Business Plan
for the municipal broadband business. See attached initial business plan work scope. In
addition, community outreach, council discussions, incumbent discussions, etc. will require
additional support if we move forward with a municipal broadband business model. These 3
positions would be the core staff members responsible for implementing the business plan
and hiring future staff for this effort.
A business plan is needed to address issues and questions that will arise with Council and
with the community on the retail broadband option. This is needed prior to a formal decision
being made to pursue this option and will support that decision with more specific
information that was developed during the feasibility assessment that has been completed.
Hiring permanent staff without a formal decision will require a degree of creativity and
flexibility in the recruitment process and financial offers. Anticipate hiring staff on a contract
basis knowing there is uncertainty in final direction, not relocating any candidates, having all
candidates in Fort Collins for two weeks out of each month and working from home the
other two weeks, and providing transportation and temporary living expenses during this
transitional time. Given the uncertainty and to enhance the attractiveness of this
requirement effort, a significant early exit incentive would be included in the recruitment
proposal. If a decision is made to move forward with a municipal broadband, these 3
positions would be converted to classified and relocation costs, if needed, would be
included. If a decision is made to not move forward with a municipal broadband, these
positions would be eliminated and the early exit bonus would be paid.
Budget numbers assume:
• Salary - 3 staff @$10K/mo, Jun – Dec = $210,250
• Travel - $750 each month, 3 staff, 7 months $ 15,750
• Temporary Housing – 12 days/mo x 3 staff x 7 months x $250 $ 63,000
Project Total $289,000
Linkage to Strategic Objectives:
- ECON 3.9 – Encourage the development of reliable, high speed internet services
throughout the community – This Offer builds the business plan to support the retail
model for broadband delivery
Retail Model
• Form Business Team –
o GM / Marketing
o Operations & Construction
o Technology & Equipment
o Financial
• Develop Business / Implementation Plan
o Define organization (Operations Plan)
Operational Process
Milestones
Staffing & sequence hire
Shared resources
Policies & protocol (high level)
o Facilities and equipment needs
Space & facilities
Technical / monitor equip
Control room
Trucks and equip
o Sales & Marketing plan
Residential
Commercial
o Details on billing system & implementation
o Details on data security
o Details on fully loaded pricing of other
communities
o Recommendation on video
o Recommendation on final pricing - $60
o RFP for design work
o RFP for project management work
o RFP for equipment & electronics
o RFP for construction contractor
o Financial plan – to the degree possible
Finalize pricing
PILOTS
Shared resources
• Customer Analysis
• Exit Strategy
• TBD
•
TBD 2017
start
Offer Name: Idea2Product 3D Printing Community Innovation Center
Amount: $150,000 One-Time
Owner: Josh Birks, Economic Health Director
Offer Summary:
This funding will accelerate innovation, commercialization and entrepreneurship in Fort
Collins by expanding City support of the Idea2Product Lab (I2P) currently housed on the
Colorado State University (CSU) campus.
This offer will provide City support of the construction of a 3D Printing facility off the CSU
campus. This expansion has the intent of broadening the lab’s reach to more local and
regional companies and entrepreneurs. This will enable the lab to enhance its educational
and workforce training programs and provide advanced fabrication capabilities.
The offer will match funds raised from private sources, other communities, and an
anticipated grant from the Office of Economic Development and International Trade
(OEDIT) to be submitted in the second quarter of 2017. The grant application will request
$1.5 million in Advance Industry Infrastructure funds to support the construction of the new
lab. The OEDIT grant has a matching requirement of 1 to 1. Therefore, I2P plans to raise
the remaining funds from two sources – fundraising and this offer request.
Currently, I2P has projected fundraising of $850,000 from a number of sources. The City’s
funds will be pledged and contingent upon I2P raising the remaining funds and receiving
the OEDIT grant. If unsuccessful, the City’s funds can be released and used for another
purpose. I2P anticipates having word on the remaining funds and grant by June 31, 2017.
BACKGROUND: Three years ago CSU created the I2P lab with the intention of providing
support for innovators in the community and it has been a huge success. Funding this
offer would expand I2P to its next phase, which would:
- Expand I2P’s community, directly enabling the “grow your own” theme adopted by
the City in the Economic Health Strategic Plan (EHSP);
- Expand workforce development and business incubation; and
- Enhance Downtown economic viability.
Reasons to support this offer include:
- Small companies create the most jobs but lack the resources to build their products;
- “Maker” groups are spurring economic vitality across many economic sectors and
regions;
- Local “clubs” like STEM robotics teams and art guilds have no place to meet;
- Dozens of Fort Collins companies, entrepreneurs and (non-CSU) individuals have
used I2P; and
- The current I2P facility is over capacity and people can’t use it when they want to due
to parking and access constraints.
Additional Information:
Support Advanced Manufacturing: One of the biggest opportunities for I2P II is the
expansion of advanced manufacturing technology and capabilities for corporate and
entrepreneurial users. Most companies and entrepreneurs need more advanced 3D
printing equipment than maker spaces provide. I2P has more advanced 3D printing
and scanning capabilities but more is needed to serve commercial needs.
I2P Success: I2P has leveraged City cluster funding to enable nearly 2,000 user
sessions and trained nearly 500 new users in 3D printing and scanning in 2015.
Established companies and individual entrepreneurs alike have developed products
and prototypes accelerating their innovation and commercialization capability.
Potential to Expand Space: Funding will support the evaluation and potential
expansion off campus. This move would allow I2P II the space to add new capabilities,
including: electronics, casting, mold-making, welding, a wood shop and a (light) metal
shop (equipment to be acquired through donation and acquisition). Any move off-
campus will depend on actual funding and a clear business model.
Expanded Community: Additional funding and the potential to grow will support the
expansion of the community served by I2P II. With additional space, I2P II could host
school organizations (STEM, robotics, Odyssey of the Mind), artist guilds, model
plane/Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, classic car clubs and countless other organizations
intent on creating things and/or learning how to create things.
Expanded Training Programs: I2P currently works with the Larimer County
Workforce Center (LCWC) to help train clients – currently unemployed residents of the
county. With additional funding, I2P II can develop ties to Front Range Community
College for job preparation and hands-on skills development. In addition, I2P II can
continue to provide 3D printers to schools (10 already provided to PSD).
Linkage to Strategic Objectives:
- ECON 3.1 - Improve effectiveness of economic health initiatives through
collaboration with regional partners - The EHO does not operate in a vacuum. I2P
has been a partner to the City since 2014 when the initial round of cluster funding
was offered competitively. This is an opportunity to accelerate innovation,
commercialization and entrepreneurship in the City by expanding support for I2P.
- ECON 3.3 – Support workforce development and provide community amenities that
support citizens and employers within the city - People and their talents is the key to
a healthy economy. I2P II will significantly enhance the ability for residents to
develop and maintain specialized skills essential to advanced manufacturing and
innovation.
- ECON 3.6 – Enhance the economic vitality of Downtown - The location of I2P II in or
near the downtown will contribute to the Downtown vitality. The facility especially if
located near transit (e.g., MAX Bus Rapid Transit) will facilitate movement of CSU
students and professors into downtown, as well as, support the collaboration with
private entrepreneurs and businesses.
Page 1
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Mike Beckstead, CFO
Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director
Date: February 27, 2017
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Review of the 2017 Reappropriation Ordinance to appropriate prior year reserves.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council authorized expenditures in 2016 for various purposes. The authorized expenditures
were not spent or could not be encumbered in 2016 because:
• there was not sufficient time to complete bidding in 2016 and therefore, there was no known
vendor or binding contract as required to expend or encumber the monies
• the project for which the dollars were originally appropriated by Council could not be
completed during 2016 and reappropriation of those dollars is necessary for completion of
the project in 2017
• to carry on programs, services, and facility improvements in 2017 with unspent dollars
previously appropriated in 2016
In the above circumstances, the unexpended and/or unencumbered monies lapsed into individual
fund balances at the end of 2016 and reflect no change in Council policies.
Monies reappropriated for each City fund by this Ordinance are as follows:
General Fund $1,648,892
Keep Fort Collins Great Fund 770,055
Transportation Fund 30,000
Light and Power Fund 107,933
Data and Communications Fund 301,600
Utility Customer Service and Administration Fund 40,608
TOTAL: $2,899,088
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance Committee support moving forward with the 2017 Reappropriation
Ordinance on March 21, 2017?
Page 2
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Process: The Budget Office reviews requests to ensure they meet the criteria and verifies there is
enough underspend in the prior year to cover the requested amount. The Budget staff follows-up
with the submitter as necessary and along with the CFO determines which requests to bring
forward to City Council.
GENERAL FUND
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
1) Development of Transition Standards for Old Town and Downtown Plans - $30,000
(plus an additional $5,000 in KFCG totals $35,000 for request)
Purpose for funds: During the course of both the Old Town Neighborhoods Plan and the
Downtown Plan, the community identified several concerns specifically related to
architectural design, building height, parking, and other development impacts in the areas of
transition between the Downtown and the adjacent Old Town Neighborhoods. The new
transition standards created with these funds implement one of the highest priority issues
identified in both Plans.
Reason funds not expensed in 2016: Funds were not fully expended by December 2016 for
the Downtown Plan and Old Town Plan since the Downtown Plan vendor did not accomplish
specific goals established, and they experienced scheduling issues with respect to delivering
their final product.
2) Development of Land Use Code Amendments Specific to the Downtown Plan -
$42,548
Purpose for funds: This request completes the two-year Downtown Plan effort by
incorporating revisions, additions and clarifications to the Land Use Code pertaining
specifically to the Downtown area.
Reason funds not expensed in 2016: Funds were not fully expended by December 2016 for
the Downtown Plan because the primary vendor did not accomplish specific goals that were
established (including their oversight of subsidiary vendors), and the primary vendor
experienced scheduling issues with respect to delivering their final product.
Communications & Public Involvement
3) Engagement Platform Replacement - $4,000 (plus an additional $8,400 in KFCG
totals $12,400 for request)
Purpose for funds: Funding will be used to purchase an online public engagement platform.
The online platform offers a suite of tools that allow for additional outreach and input to
significantly enhance the City's public engagement efforts. It's customizable ‘toolbox’
approach, allows for a mix of tools that leverage IAP2 (International Associations of Public
Participation) best practices, and mirrors the City's in-person approach to public engagement.
Page 3
This platform will be an instrumental tool in engaging residents during the City's upcoming
comprehensive plan updates.
Reason funds not expensed in 2016: Funding from 2016 was earmarked to replace the City's
former platform, MindMixer, which no longer met the needs of the City. The City's public
engagement team researched other platforms throughout the year, but a suitable replacement
platform was not identified until Q4. Due to the selection timing, the contract was not
finalized by year-end. The contract was finalized in January, and the platform will be
implemented in Q1 2017.
4) Public Engagement - Staff IAP2 (International Associations of Public Participation)
Training - $10,000
Purpose for funds: In cooperation with HR, the funding will be used for IAP2 (International
Associations of Public Participation) Training. IAP2 is the City's selected framework for
engaging with the public, and this course will enable employees to better engage with their
communities by providing a systems approach to public engagement and tools to connect
with underserved populations.
Reason funds not expensed in 2016: Funding from 2016 was earmarked to assist in the
continuation of this course, but due to contract timing was not secured by year-end. The
project is moving forward in 2017 with a contract in place in January and the course
scheduled for May.
Environmental Services
5) Advanced Waste Stream Optimization - $118,785
Purpose for funds: The original offer directed staff to help the City become more systematic
about managing the community’s waste stream for optimal benefit. Reappropriating the
unspent portion of the original funds will allow staff to address specific tasks related to
Sustainable Materials Management, which was a new initiative in 2015-16:
1. Support economic development of recycling business/industry cluster in Fort Collins
using a competitive process for issuing small grants. ($50K)
2. Conduct extensive community educational campaign to reduce food waste at the
source. ($20k)
3. Create analytic toolkit and protocol for conducting waste sorts (residential, business,
organizations, etc.) to easily and regularly audit waste materials and improve
diversion practices. ($20K)
4. Conduct life cycle assessment research of high-impact materials, in coordination with
Purchasing, to enhance the City’s sustainable procurement practices. ($10k)
5. Contribute to continued analysis of Drake Water Reclamation Facility’s capacity to
use food waste for bioenergy. ($10)
6. Support regional wastershed planning efforts in relation to stakeholder engagement
and outreach. ($8k)
Reason funds not expensed in 2016: The funds that were used supported broad and diverse
interdepartmental and intergovernmental projects in 2015-2016 to further the goals of the
Page 4
offer. Several additional strategies that are central to advancing Sustainable Materials
Management in the community and the City organization were identified but delayed due to
lack of available staff time and alignment with the timing of regional planning efforts.
6) Road to 2020 Initiatives and Implementation - $76,719
Purpose for funds: To complete project work on the 2016 Work Plans associated with the
2016 off-cycle appropriations for the Road to 2020 program. The reappropriated funds will
be used primarily ($50K) to address how to divert the 70,000 ash trees in Fort Collins from
landfill disposal in the event of an Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) infestation. The remaining
funds will be utilized to complete work associated with four of the other funded projects.
This work will be accomplished using consultants and/or an hourly program intern to ensure
completion in 2017.
Reason funds not expensed in 2016: The Biomass Feasibility Study Team study, designed to
explore diverting wood waste from landfills by developing a regional biomass burner,
concluded that a biomass burner is not a suitable solution for managing the large volume of
woody material anticipated to come from dead ash trees as a result of Emerald Ash Borer
(EAB). The parameters of the study were to research biomass burning only - not other
approaches to wood utilization or landfill diversion mechanisms. Although the initial goals
of the study have been achieved, no solution has been identified to address waste-wood
issues caused by an EAB infestation. Reappropriating the funds will allow staff to
redesign/expand the study to examine additional options for use of urban waste-wood from
City Forestry Division activities. The study would remain focused on the threat of EAB-
generated woody material, but would also examine options for the wood generated by private
properties. This option best addresses the overall emission reduction potential, as well as the
Road to Zero Waste goals.
FC Moves
7) Lincoln Corridor Plan Neighborhood Projects - $201,199
Purpose for funds: These funds originally provided for the design and construction of a total
of ten neighborhood infrastructure projects identified in the Lincoln Corridor Plan, mostly
located within the Northside Neighborhoods (Buckingham, Andersonville, San Cristo/Via
Lopez, and Alta Vista). Staff coordinated the design and implementation of the projects with
a Neighborhood Advisory Committee comprised of neighborhood residents. Six of the ten
projects have been completed, and one is being completed in coordination with the
development department. This reappropriation will fund the remaining three projects:
neighborhood art, park improvements, and brewery wayfinding.
Reason funds not expensed in 2016: These projects are a multi-year effort, including design
and construction of projects on varying timelines. Of the ten funded neighborhood projects,
six have been completed, and four are nearing completion. At the direction of Council and
executive leadership, staff worked extensively with a citizen Neighborhood Advisory
Committee to ensure the projects meet the diverse needs and desires of the neighborhoods
involved. For the remaining projects, this coordination, context sensitive design, and
Page 5
development of a public art approach took most of 2016. The remaining projects are on track
to be completed in 2017, if funds are reappropriated.
Natural Areas
8) Instream Water Flow - $168,445
Purpose for funds: The funds will provide for environmental flows within the urban reach of
the Cache la Poudre River. This includes both stream flow and mechanisms to measure and
convey water past existing diversion structures. Fish passageways are the preferred means to
convey and measure water as construction of these features provide for increased aquatic
connectivity and thereby increase the overall health of the Poudre River.
Reason funds not expensed in 2016: The Natural Areas Department (NAD) helped design
and install one fish passageway on the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Structure. The
passageway is functional but additional work is needed to enhance the connection of the
passageway to live stream flows under low flow conditions. NAD plans to use a portion of
the remaining funds (approximately $40,000) to design and construct the modification to the
passageway in 2017 and, once completed, will be able to finalize the water measurement
component of the project. In addition, Natural Areas is working with the Cache la Poudre
Reservoir Company (CLPRC) to design and install fish passage/water measurement on the
Timnath Reservoir Inlet Ditch (aka Timnath Inlet). NAD met several times in 2016 with
CLPRC to discuss designs, contracted with Anderson Consulting Engineers to develop
preliminary designs, and is in the process of developing an agreement with CLPRC outlining
roles, responsibilities, funding, and operational needs of the diversion. These conversations
were not completed in time to allow construction in 2016. This project represents multi-year
planning and design and the remaining funds are needed to help complete the construction
phase planned for 2017. It’s also important to note the cost of the project will exceed current
funding levels; therefore the remaining funds are needed to help match and leverage the
outside funding sources needed to complete the project.
Operation Services
9) Edora Pool Ice Center (EPIC) Entrance Concrete Work - $125,000
Purpose for funds: A building modification study done in late 2015 determined that the
entrance to EPIC requires some slope modifications in order to comply with current
Americans with Disabilities Act regulations. These modifications were not identified prior to
starting the interior work in the EPIC lobby in 2016. Once the interior was under
construction, it increased the urgency to complete the exterior work. This modification will
create fully accessible parking spaces and a compliant path of travel to the front door. The
project scope extends from the front doors to the handicap stalls in the parking lot and will
include a heating system embedded in the concrete.
Reason funds not expensed in 2016: This work was added late to the lobby renovation
project that was completed in 2016. Surveys and design took more iterations to determine the
best course of action for the modification work than originally anticipated. The design for
implementation was not finalized until late December in 2016, and there was not enough
Page 6
time to get bids on the work in order to tie up the funds. This request is to complete the
construction phase based on the design from 2016.
10) Lincoln Center Asbestos Abatement - $78,000
Purpose for funds: Remove the ceiling tiles, grid and abate asbestos in the Columbine
meeting room at the Lincoln Center. Reinstall new grid and replace ceiling tiles.
Reason funds not expensed in 2016: This request is to remove asbestos above the ceiling in
the Columbine Room at the Lincoln Center. After the bidding process was complete, it was
determined that the suspended ceiling needed to be removed and reinstalled to complete the
full abatement. This additional work caused a scheduling delay and a cost increase.
Parks
11) East Park Satellite Shop - $59,000
Purpose for funds: Funds will be used to purchase supplies and equipment for the satellite
shop that will serve the new east park district and Forestry crew. The shop is located at the
Bacon Park site next to Bacon Elementary school on Timberline Road. When the permanent
facility is constructed on the new East Park site these items will be transferred and used at the
new permanent location to be built in 2018 or 2019.
Reason funds not expensed in 2016: Fund were not spent in 2016 because the existing house
that is being repurposed as a satellite shop will not be available until the tenant moves out in
spring of 2017.
12) Median Renovation Project - $120,093
Purpose for funds: Funds will be used to renovate medians at Harmony Rd. and JFK Blvd.
Reason funds not expensed in 2016: Due to coordination of this project with Engineering the
project was delayed until 2017. Funds will be used to renovate medians at Harmony Rd. and
JFK Blvd.
13) Parks Lifecycle Projects - $93,655 (plus an additional $163,076 in KFCG totals
$256,731 for request)
Purpose for funds: Funds will be used to renovate restroom/storage area at Edora Park and
tennis courts at Troutman Park.
Reason funds not expensed in 2016: Funds were not spent at the Edora restroom/storage area
because the complexity of the project delayed the bidding process. There were not sufficient
funds remaining to replace the tennis courts at Troutman Park. Re-appropriated funds will be
added to 2017 funds to complete this project.
Page 7
Police Information Services
14) Police Services Dispatch Video Wall - $197,402
Purpose for funds: The Police Services Dispatch Video Wall system is at end of life and
monitors and other components are failing. The funds originally allocated for the project in
2016 are still needed to replace and upgrade the system. Without these funds, the systems
operational functionality will continue to degrade and not meet the needs of today’s dispatch
team.
Reason funds not expensed in 2016: The Police Services Dispatch Video Wall 2016 funds
were not expended due to the retirement of the project management resource in charge of the
project. It took ~5months to find a project management resource replacement. The new
resource is now in place and ready to lead the project to completion.
Social Sustainability
15) Affordable Housing and Homebuyer Assistance (HBA) Programs - $252,718 (plus
an additional $200,000 in KFCG totals $452,718 for request)
Purpose for funds: The Affordable Housing Funds and KFCG funds dedicated to housing are
allocated annually to support critical affordable housing needs in the City of Fort Collins.
All funds were awarded to housing service providers to further the goals identified in the
City’s Affordable Housing Strategic Plan. The funding awarded in the Spring Competitive
process was allocated upon second reading of the ordinance approving the allocation of the
funds on May 17, 2016. The balance of funding was awarded to eligible housing projects in
the Fall 2016 Competitive Process. The first reading of the resolution approving the
allocation of the funds occurred November 15, 2016. Any un-allocated funds are intended to
accumulate in the fund to meet future affordable housing needs.
Reason funds not expensed in 2016: Although the funds were committed, it isn't always
possible to negotiate and complete project contracts prior to the year end, which means that
PO’s cannot be established. Some funds are allocated as match funding for projects
receiving federal HOME/CDBG dollars. Under federal guidelines, these projects cannot be
contracted until all CDBG/HOME requirements have been met. The HBA program is a City
managed program, funds dedicated to that program aren’t contracted or PO’d, they’re wired
to closing as individual loans are approved. From the time of initial funding commitments to
completions of development, most housing projects take multiple years to complete.
16) Neighborhood Renewal Project - $59,328
Purpose for funds: These funds were for the Renewal of Neighborhoods in a State of Change
BFO Enhancement administered by the Social Sustainability Department. The intent of the
offer is to focus public investment in older neighborhoods “in order to stabilize them or begin
a restoration process.”
Reason funds not expensed in 2016: Staff planned and implemented several projects from
this fund in 2016 which met the goals defined in the original offer. Additional projects within
Page 8
the scope of the original offer have been identified, however, time ran out towards the end of
the calendar year and staff was not able to begin the required procurement process needed to
utilize the funds. Staff has been working with Purchasing to create an RFP early in 2017 to
facilitate a pilot asset mapping project in the North College corridor area which will be used
to design and implement a robust community engagement process and design a strategy
document. This will result in the engagement of residents and neighborhood stakeholders to
develop and implement plans focused on improving their own communities. This direct
involvement of residents in choosing their own neighborhood projects is one of the
significant goals of the city’s neighborhood renewal plan. ($15,000).
Through the asset mapping and neighborhood engagement work done staff will work to
implement infrastructure and beautification projects as identified by the residents of the
North College Corridor area. This portion of work will focus directly on the goals of the
neighborhood renewal plan (Item #1 of the original BFO offer) through constructing
neighborhood-focused urban design elements such as streetscapes that include tree-lined
streets and sidewalks, landscaping along street edges, landscaped medians, etc. ($44,000).
KEEP FORT COLLINS GREAT FUND
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
17) Development of Transition Standards for Old Town and Downtown Plans - $5,000
(plus an additional $30,000 in General Fund totals $35,000 for request)
Please see description in #1 under General Fund.
Communications & Public Involvement
18) Engagement Platform Replacement - $8,400 (plus an additional $4,000 in General
Fund totals $12,400 for request)
Please see description in #3 under General Fund.
FC Moves
19) Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Town - $21,860
Purpose for funds: Funding will be used to create a Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Town
(Walk and Wheel Skills Hub). The City is leasing a portion of Summitview Church's parking
lot at Drake and Dunbar, which will be repaved and restriped to function as a bicycling and
walking skills hub for people of all ages and abilities. The project is scheduled for installation
in June/July 2017.
Reason funds not expensed in 2016: Funds were not fully expended in 2016 due to the
overall timing of when the lease was signed with Summitview Church and weather-related
construction delays. In August 2016, the City signed a 5-year lease agreement with
Summitview Church to utilize the eastern portion of its north parking lot for the purposes of a
Page 9
bicycle and pedestrian safety course. By the time the lease was signed, it was too late in the
season for the contractor to schedule the resurfacing of the parking lot in 2016, which was
needed for the Safety Town construction. This project has been scheduled for installation in
June/July 2017.
Information Technology
20) Business Continuity Plan - $50,000
Purpose for funds: Business Continuity Planning (BCP) involves emergency preparation,
response, resiliency, and recovery planning in order for the City to have a plan that restores
the most critical City systems in a time of crisis. The purpose of this funding is to bring in a
consultant, or team of consultants, to meet with all City Departments and Divisions to help
gather information for the BCP development by documenting the most fundamental services
and establish priority/order/timeframe for the identified, critical services that are to be
restored. They will also help IT determine the best ways to carry out the proposed BCP.
Reason funds not expensed in 2016: Scope development and overall project lead for the
BCP was dependent upon the skills, expertise, and capacity of the IT Infrastructure Director.
However, in June 2016, the Infrastructure Director left employment with the City. Given the
absence of the critical staff position assigned as the lead of this project, it could not be
completed in 2016. The IT Department has successfully filled the vacancy and has already
begun the planning work necessary to complete this project in 2017.
Natural Areas
21) Land Improvement - $90,792
Purpose for funds: This offer was funded to support extensive ecological restoration of the
Poudre River floodplain and channel improvements for the purpose improving wildlife
habitat and restoring biodiversity. Due to the complexity and scale of this work, Natural
Areas requested funds and received $125K/yr to support and match Natural Areas funding.
The primary work intended include restoration planning and construction of restoration at
Kingfisher Point Natural Area.
Reason funds not expensed in 2016: The conceptual restoration plan for Kingfisher Point
was completed in 2015. In 2016 the final design process was initiated as was the permitting
with FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers, but there wasn't time within that year to
complete the projects. This reappropriation amount is needed to complete those projects.
Some may push into 2018, but this requested KFCG money will be spent in 2017.
22) NISP Analysis and Response - $162,604
Purpose for funds: These funds are intended to support the City's effort and engagement with
NISP (the Northern Integrated Supply Project) planning and permitting process. This
process has been underway since 2008. The City's anticipated future engagement is likely to
be extensive and will require these funds for technical and legal assistance.
Page 10
Reason funds not expensed in 2016: These funds were not used fully in 2016 because the
permitting process has not passed expected milestones. For example these funds are needed
to support the City's evaluation and response to the Final Environmental Impact Statement
expected late 2017. The City's engagement with NISP is multi-year and multifaceted and
some aspects and associated processes are in their early stages still. The money we
requested was in 2015 was for use in the City's response to NISP, which is incomplete due to
the delayed timeline as determined by the Army Corps of Engineers. So in 2016 we were
unable to spend this money for its intended application because the external support will be
needed (increasingly) as the process reaches the final EIS.
Parks
23) ADA Playground Improvements - $37,552
Purpose for funds: Funds will be used to upgrade aging playground infrastructure at Lee
Martinez Park to current ADA playground standards.
Reason funds not expensed in 2016: The ADA improvement funds were not spent in 2016
due to having insufficient funds to complete the full upgrade at Lee Martinez Park
playground, which delayed construction. Funds have been secured for the full upgrade in the
2017 budget. These requested ADA improvement funds will be added to 2017 funding to
complete this project.
24) Equipment for Twin Silos Community Park - $9,771
Purpose for funds: Funds will be used to purchase equipment for Twin Silos Community
Park.
Reason funds not expensed in 2016: Funds were not spent in 2016 due to not having
sufficient funds to purchase a toolcat for Twin Silos Community Park. The requested funds
will be added to 2017 equipment funding to complete this purchase.
25) Parks Lifecycle Projects - $163,076 (plus an additional $93,655 in General Fund
totals $256,731 for request)
Please see description in #12 under General Fund.
Social Sustainability
26) Affordable Housing and Homebuyer Assistance (HBA) Programs - $200,000 (plus
an additional $252,718 in General Fund totals $452,718 for request)
Please see description in #14 under General Fund.
Page 11
Traffic
27) Traffic Operations Multiple locations - $21,000 (plus an additional $30,000 in
Transportation Fund totals $51,000 for request)
Purpose for funds: Funds are intended for the installation of a crosswalk at Drake and
Illinois, a bore at Sherwood and Mulberry and speed tables at Starflower and Larkbunting
and Springfield Drive between City Park and Taft Hill Rd.
Reason funds not expensed in 2016: Concrete contractor could not fit us into their schedule
before it was too cold to pour concrete. The crosswalk and the bore are scheduled to be
completed in Q1 2017. The speed tables were chip sealed and now need to be re-installed.
Streets was not able to add these to their schedule last year. They will be re-installed this
spring.
TRANSPORTATION FUND
Traffic
28) Traffic Operations Multiple locations - $30,000 (plus an additional $21,000 in
General Fund totals $51,000 for request)
Please see description in #26 under General Fund.
LIGHT & POWER FUND
Economic Health Office
29) Broadband Strategic Planning - $107,933
Purpose for funds: The City of Fort Collins, local education institutions, data oriented
businesses, and community leaders recognize the increasing importance of broadband
services to the community. The purpose of the Broadband Strategic Plan is to better
understand the community’s current and future expectations regarding both residential and
business broadband services and to then define a strategy for how those expectations can best
be met.
Reason funds not expensed in 2016: The broadband team accomplished many goals in 2016
including statistically-valid market demand studies (residential and small businesses),
financial feasibility analysis, citizen outreach and multiple site visits to municipal broadband
providers. December 20, 2016, Council directed staff to develop a Broadband Utility
Business Plan and continued work on due diligence with a potential third party alternative
model. The remaining funds will be used for consultation on the due diligence and site visits
for the City's executive team to meet with failed broadband projects.
Page 12
DATA & COMMUNICATIONS FUND
Information Technology
30) Electronic Plan Review Implementation - $301,600
Purpose for funds: The purpose of these funds is to continue the implementation of the
Electronic Plan Review system for the Community Development and Neighborhood Services
department that was approved by City Council on 7/19/16 per Ordinance #84. The system
enables the City to provide electronic plan review as part of the building permit and
development review process that includes streamlined processes for plan submittal, routing
and review of construction/development plans, reduction of paper, automated online access
of review comments, and overall greater efficiency of the review process.
Reason funds not expensed in 2016: As originally stated in the Agenda Item Summary, this
complex project requires about an 18-month project timeline to complete. To date, the
purchase of the software licensing, at a cost of $182,400, was completed in October 2016 and
systems configuration and design have since commenced. The requested funds will be used
for the completion of this project and are for two purposes: 1) Fund the consulting services
necessary to complete the custom configuration of the involved systems and to provide
training. 2) Once the systems configuration is near completion, end user systems will be
receive hardware and minor software upgrades that will enable staff to process and review
the large-scale electronic documents efficiently at their desks and in conference rooms
UTILITY CUSTOMER SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION FUND
Utility Technology & Customer Service
31) Cyber Security Consulting Services - $40,608
Purpose for funds: IT App. Services for Utilities is currently working with a 3rd party cyber
security consultant to help identify any risks in the computing environment/infrastructure that
needs to be mitigated for the Utilities Billing System. This vendor will also be performing a
cyber security assessment on the Electric SCADA System. The 3rd party consultant (AESI)
will be working with Utilities to recommend a good Cyber Security Governance Framework.
We are putting the previously committed funds to good use now having just worked through
a cyber security assessment of the Utilities Billing System. We would like to have the
remaining $40,608 of the original BFO approved offer reappropriated for work focused on
additional Utilities critical systems. Being able to use these funds would help Utilities to stay
ahead of on-going risks, and improve the cyber security maturity level of the overall Utilities
Service Area.
Reason funds not expensed in 2016: During the initial BFO year that the Cyber Security
funds were approved (2015), the staff member responsible for carrying out the cyber security
program for Utilities was seriously injured in a non-work related accident. She missed many
months of work initially, and was not able to return to full-time work until September 2016.
As a result, we were only able to finalize an RFP and select a vendor in late 2016. In
Page 13
addition, we believe that the current vendor did not understand the full requirements of the
project, which could require additional negotiation and money. Having these funds will help
us to keep moving in this vitally critical area.
FINANCIAL/ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This Ordinance increases 2017 appropriations by $2,899,088. A total of $1,648,892 is requested
for reappropriation in the General Fund, $770,055 from the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund and
$480,141 is requested from various other City funds. Reappropriation requests represent
amounts budgeted in 2016 that could not be encumbered at year-end. The appropriations are
from 2016 prior year reserves.
ATTACHMENTS
2017 Reappropriation Ordinance
Mike Beckstead, CFO
2-27-17
2017 Reappropriation Summary
2
What qualifies for Reappropriation?:
• Funds that were originally appropriated in 2016 for
a specific purpose but were not fully expensed or
encumbered by the end of the fiscal year
• Appropriate the funds from 2016 reserves into the
2017 budget for the same specific uses that were
originally proposed and approved for 2016
Process
Process:
• Prompt organization to submit Reappropriation
requests using standardized template
• Budget Office reviews requests to ensure they meet
the criteria for Reappropriation
• Check the 2016 available balance; verifying
underspend is greater than the requested amount
• Follow-up with submitter as necessary
• Budget Office and CFO determine which requests to
bring forward to City Council
3
2017 Reappropriation Summary
4
Amount by Fund being requested for Reappropriation:
General Fund $1,648,892
Keep Fort Collins Great Fund 770,055
Transportation Fund 30,000
Light & Power Fund 107,933
Data & Communications Fund 301,600
Utility CS&A Fund 40,608
Total: $2,899,088
Reappropriation by Fund
GENERAL FUND:
5
# Department Request Name Amount
1 Comm Dev & Neighborhood Svcs Development of Transition Standards for Old Town and Downtown Plans $33,774
2 Comm Dev & Neighborhood Svcs Land Use Code Amendments pertaining to the Downtown Plan 38,774
3 Comm. & Public Involvement Engagement Platform Replacement 4,000
4 Comm. & Public Involvement Public Engagement - Staff IAP2 Training 10,000
5 Environmental Services Advanced Waste Stream Optimization 118,785
6 Environmental Services Road to 2020 Initiatives and Implementation 76,719
7 FC Moves Lincoln Corridor Plan Neighborhood Projects 201,199
8 Natural Areas Instream Water Flow 168,445
9 Operation Services EPIC Entrance Concrete Work 125,000
10 Operation Services Lincoln Center Asbestos Abatement 90,000
11 Parks East Park Satellite Shop 59,000
12 Parks Median Renovation Project 120,093
13 Parks Parks Lifecycle Projects 93,655
14 Police Information Services Police Services Dispatch Video Wall 197,402
15 Social Sustainability Affordable Housing and HBA Programs 252,718
16 Social Sustainability Neighborhood Renewal Project 59,328
GENERAL FUND TOTAL $1,648,892
KEEP FORT COLLINS GREAT FUND:
6
Reappropriation by Fund
# Department Request Name Amount
17 Comm Dev & Neighborhood Svcs Development of Transition Standards for Old Town and Downtown Plans $5,000
18 Comm. & Public Involvement Engagement Platform Replacement 8,400
19 FC Moves Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Town 21,860
20 Information Technology Business Continuity Plan 50,000
21 Natural Areas Land Improvement 90,792
22 Natural Areas NISP Analysis and Response 162,604
23 Parks ADA Playground Improvements 37,552
24 Parks Equipment for Twin Silos Community Park 9,771
25 Parks Parks Lifecycle Projects 163,076
26 Social Sustainability Affordable Housing and HBA Programs 200,000
27 Traffic Traffic Operations Multiple locations 21,000
KEEP FORT COLLINS GREAT FUND TOTAL $770,055
OTHER FUNDS:
7
Reappropriation by Fund
# Department Request Name Amount
28 Traffic Traffic Operations Multiple locations $30,000
29 Economic Health Office Broadband Strategic Planning 107,933
30 Information Technology Electronic Plan Review Implementation 301,600
31 Utility Tech. & Cust. Service Cyber Security Consulting Services 40,608
OTHER FUNDS TOTAL $480,141
GRAND TOTAL $2,899,088
2017 Reappropriation Summary
8
Guidance Requested:
1) CFC feedback on the Reappropriation requests being presented
2) CFC direction on putting Reappropriation on the Consent Agenda
of the March 21st City Council meeting
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Tiana Smith, Revenue and Project Manager
Date: February 27, 2017
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Revenue Diversification Outreach Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (a brief paragraph or two that succinctly summarizes important
points that are covered in more detail in the body of the AIS.)
The purpose of this item is to provide an update to the Council Finance Committee of the
ongoing Revenue Diversification project and the outcomes of the outreach done on the 3
alternatives to various community stakeholders.
Since 2012, staff has continued to analyze and consider various facets of diversification which
have been presented to City Council in phases. In May of 2016, Council Finance directed staff
to conduct outreach to the community on three alternatives for diversifying revenue: a tax on
services, a transportation utility fee and an occupation fee or tax.
Outreach was conducted with 11 stakeholder groups, both business-oriented and community-
oriented.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Which of the 3 options presented for continuing the revenue diversification initiative would
Council Finance like for staff to pursue:
1. Pursue additional revenue diversification research
2. Put forward 1 or more alternatives of the 3 already researched to vote
3. Shift focus from revenue diversification to revenue continuity/reliability
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION (details of item – History, current policy, previous Council
actions, alternatives or options, costs or benefits, considerations leading to staff conclusions, data
and statistics, next steps, etc.)
The City receives 51%-54% of its revenue from sales and use tax. Sales and use tax can be a
volatile source or revenue during times of economic downturn. The issue of how to strike a
balance of adequate revenue to fund current levels of service without an overreliance on sales
and use tax is an ongoing issue.
In 2012, staff embarked on an ongoing project to assess the City’s revenue. Phases of the project
have included the following initiatives:
• Analyze City’s revenue base and compare it to benchmark jurisdictions
• Evaluate diversification options
• Update Revenue Policy to include revenue principles for decision making
• Analyze a Street Maintenance and Park Maintenance Fee
• Complete comprehensive fee comparison study
In November of 2015, staff was directed by Council Finance to pursue researching a tax on
services, a transportation utility fee, an occupation tax or fee and how additional revenue from
these alternatives may reduce the amount of Keep Fort Collins Great funding needing to be
renewed in 2020.
In May of 2016, staff was directed to conduct public outreach on those three alternatives to
gauge the interest of the community.
Outreach was completed with 11 stakeholders including both business-oriented and community-
oriented groups.
The following groups were unanimously not supportive:
• Small Business Development Center
• South Fort Collins Business Association
• North Fort Collins Business Association
• Downtown Development Authority
• Chamber Local Legislative Affairs Committee
• Economic Advisory Commission
• City Works Alumni
• Super Issues Boards and Commissions
The overall feedback was that diversifying revenue was not a problem in the City and shouldn’t
be pursued.
One community-oriented group, the Community Issues Forum, conducted through Colorado
State’s Center for Public Deliberation was cautiously supportive and most supportive of a
transportation utility fee and least supportive of an occupation tax or fee.
Staff will present 3 options for moving the revenue diversification initiative forward as
mentioned above and seek direction from Council Finance on the path forward.
ATTACHMENTS
Revenue Diversification CFC 2-27-17 PowerPoint
Revenue Diversification
Tiana Smith
12/19/16
Council Finance
Committee
1
Revenue Diversification-
The Intent
Goal:
Revenue neutral - explore
options but not new revenue
Reduce dependency on sales
tax (currently 50% avg)
Find replacement revenue
source- broaden base
Lower current tax rate
2
Tax
• Requires voter approval due to
TABOR
• Can be used for any public
purpose authorized by Council
• Can be broadly imposed on a
large number of taxpayers
Fee
• Does not require voter approval
• Must be used to defray the cost of a
particular government service and
be related to the cost of that
services
• Can only be imposed on those who
are likely to benefit from the service
funded with the fee
Broadening Revenue Base
2 Options: Tax vs Fee
3
Options and Tax Rate Impacts
1. Tax on services
2. Transportation Utility Fee
3. Occupation Tax or Fee
4
Alternatives Considered
Revenue
Generated
Tax Rate
Impact
.15%
.32%
$4.9M
$10M
$10M .32%
Business Oriented Groups
Unanimously Not Supportive
• Small Business Development Center
• South Fort Collins Business Association
• North Fort Collins Business Association
• Downtown Development Authority
• Chamber Local Legislative Affairs Committee
• Economic Advisory Commission
• City Works Alumni
• Super Issues Boards and Commissions
5
What They Told Us…
“This is a solution looking for a problem”
-Want to know what the City is doing to tighten their belt…
-Build up reserves when times are good to use when economy is down
-Tax on services isn’t diversifying the base, could push employers out of town
-Transportation Utility Fee has too large of an impact on high-traffic businesses
and will trickle down to patrons/low-income, seems counter to goals on economic
health of community
-Head Fee hurts employers in Fort Collins, encourages them to go elsewhere
6
Community Oriented Groups
Only 1 Group Cautiously Supportive
CityWorks Alumni Group
Super Issues Forum
-Too great of an impact on low-income
-Don’t see a problem with being reliant on sales tax
-Everyone should pay their fair share
Community Issues Forum - Cautiously Supportive
-Most supportive of a Transportation Utility Fee of all alternatives, least
supportive of Head Fee
7
Not supportive
Conclusions
• Community doesn’t view this as an issue worth addressing
• Likely wouldn’t pass a vote on any of the alternatives
• A lot of dialogue in the community about the impact these 3
alternatives would have on the business community
• Approval any of these alternatives could drive businesses out of town
to neighboring communities
8
For Discussion:
3 Options
9
Pursue Revenue
Diversification Research
• Choose different
alternatives to research
and outreach
Put 1 or More
Alternative(s) to Vote
• Transportation Utility Fee
• Occupation Fee/Tax
• Tax on Services
Shift Focus to
Revenue Continuity
• Renewal of KFCG
• Spending analysis of
General Fund vs KFCG
• Renew at a lower rate
• Increase base rate from
2.25%
• Fee Coordination/Updates
• Explore other needs
• Transit
• Vine/Lemay overpass
Additional Questions/Feedback
Thank you!
10
Backup
11
Tax on Services
• Consumer spending is shifting
from goods to services*
• Could possibly tax services
thought to be less impactful to
lower income to insulate from
times of economic downturn
• Would be taxed at same amount
3.85%
*Source: “Expanding Sales Taxation of Services,” Michael Mazerov, Center for Budget and 12
Policy Priorities, 2009
Tax on Services Estimates*
$4.2M
13
Service Category
Estimated Tax
Generated @ 3.85%
Animal Care (grooming/training, etc) $ 193,717
Laundry/Dry Cleaning $ 218,042
Hair Care $ 884,204
Personal Care (massage, spa services, tanning, weight loss, nail) $ 1,346,419
Bowling/Sports Facilities $ 162,038
Exercise (fitness membership, martial arts) $ 1,395,310
$ 4,199,730
*Extremely difficult to estimate, due to accuracy of net taxable sales reported.
Tax on Services Peer Cities
14
Fort Collins
• Lodging
• Telecom
• Pay Television
• Gas and
Electric
Longmont
• Fabrication
• Telecom
• Freight
Thornton
• Lodging
• Telecom
• Pay Television
• Gas, electric
• Recreation
• Linen
• Security
• Sound
• Bowling
• Laser tag, mini
golf
• Laundry
Lakewood
• Linen services;
• Telecom
• Pay television
• Gas, electric
and steam
services
• Security
• Sound
• Warranty
services
• Computer
software
• Movie Theatres
• Liquor
Establishments
Boulder
• Meals
• Telecom
• Labor
• Gas, electricity
steam and heat
• Fabrication
• Computer
software
Tax on Services
15
Pros
Less distinction between
consumption of goods and
consumption of services*
Less impact on low-income by
taxing service purchases made
primarily by higher-income
individuals *
Cons
Will be difficult to estimate revenue
initially because lack of current data on
amount being spent on those services
If a tax rate is reduced, there is risk that
we may not receive estimated revenue
from taxing services
Completely new practice/costs for
businesses not accustomed to
collecting/remitting taxes
*Source: “Expanding Sales Taxation of Services,” Michael Mazerov, Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 2009
Transportation Utility Fee
• Fee based on number of trips
generated by particular land use
• Charged to customer utility bills
• The higher your “traffic” the
higher the fee
• Low impact to individual
residents (around $50/year)
16
Transportation Utility Fee Impacts
Based on Generating $10M
17
Amount
of Fee/
Year
Amount of trips or traffic generated by business
$50
$45K
$47K
$3K
$10K
$14K
Transportation Utility Fee
Peer Cities
• Loveland is only City in CO with this fee
• Pays for “maintenance of city streets”
18
Description Monthly Fee
Residential (per dwelling) $2.10
Industrial (per acre) $23.27
High traffic retail (per acre) $232.69
Retail (per acre) $91.44
Misc Retail (per acre) $59.44
Commercial (per acre) $30.20
Institution (per acre) $30.20
Transportation Utility Fee
Fee Based on # of Trips
19
Pros
Low impacts to individual residents
($50/yr)
Revenue can be scaled based on
desired revenue
Cons
Big impacts to high traffic
businesses
Impact on low-income
Occupation Tax/Fee
• Fee based on number of heads for
businesses within Fort Collins
• Could be shared or paid by
employer or employee
• About $4/paycheck generates $10M
• People pay their fair share of
services; if you live elsewhere but
drive on City’s streets, you pay for it
20
Occupation Tax Employer Impact
21
Source: City of Fort Collins Demographics Data from 2012
With Exempt Orgs
(99,750 employees)
Without Exempt Orgs
(84,750 employees)
Average Cost Per Bi-Monthly Check $ 3.86 $ 4.54
Annual Cost Per Employee $ 100 $ 118
Annual Impact to 25 employees $ 2,506 $ 2,950
Annual Impact to 100 employees $ 10,025 $ 11,799
Annual Impact to 500 employees $ 50,125 $ 58,997
Annual Impact to 1000 employees $ 100,251 $ 117,994
$10M
Occupation Tax/Fee- Peer Cities
Aurora
• $2/month- employee
• $2/month- employer
Denver
• $5.75/month-employee
• $4.00/month- employer
22
Occupational Tax or Fee
Fee for # of “Heads”
Pros
Can be a fee or a tax based on
desired administration
All employees pay for the
services they use while in Fort
Collins
Revenue is scalable if passed
as a fee
Cons
Perception of penalizing
Fort Collins employers
If tax, the revenue amount
becomes fixed
If fee, the revenue
generated is earmarked
23
Backup
24
Sales Tax History
Sales Tax Revenues Largely Flat in 2000s……
Overall Growth of 4.5% Compares with CPI/Population of 4.1% 25
CAGR Since 2001
• Sales Tax w/o KFCG 2.5%
• Sales Tax with KFCG 4.5%
• CPI & Population 4.1%
Fort Collins Combined Sales Tax Rate is on the Low End
2014 Sales Tax Rate Comparison
Colorado Cities
26
**Jurisdictions with multiple tax rates due to special districts and/or located in multiple counties
2015- .05% increase in Larimer
for Jail and Human Society
Sales Tax Breakdown-
General Fund VS KFCG
27
00100 - General Fund
00254 - Keep Fort Collins
Great Fund
Police $36,390,296 $4,870,202
Sustainbility Services $5,631,086 $1,217,127
Finance $3,938,339 $0
Transfers $23,669,887 $0
IT/CPIO/HR $10,769,161 $50,000
Operation Services $11,136,747 $100,000
Recreation $0 $1,519,917
Community Services Admin $339,243 $53,504
Cultural Services $971,949 $109,395
Parks $9,623,189 $2,493,777
Natural Areas $230,295 $355,825
ELJS $6,575,215 $0
PDT Administration $551,578 $0
Transfort / Dial-a-Ride $0 $1,811,981
Comm Dev & Neighborhood Svcs $6,860,024 $136,000
FC Moves $0 $744,591
Streets $0 $8,049,479
Traffic $0 $358,414
Engineering $0 $2,742,592
Parking $0 $51,872
510 - Poudre Fire Authority $20,556,908 $3,266,692
Sum: $133,370,993 $28,174,186
Public Outreach Plan
Outreach Plan- June through August
Who:
Boards and commissions- Economic Advisory Council
Service trade groups that may be impacted, i.e. hair salons
Business associations, i.e. Chamber of Commerce, Small Business
Association, Small Business Development Center
What:
Education on alternatives
Impacts to various business sectors
Feedback on alternatives
28
Public Outreach Report Back to Council Finance in Q3
Transportation Utility Fee-
$10M= .32% reduction in tax rate
29
$10M
KFCG reduced by .32%
$10M
KFCG reduced by .32%
Use Monthly Fee Yearly Fee Lot Size in
Acres Use Monthly Fee Yearly Fee
Lot Size in
Acres
Industrial High Traffic Retail
Manufacturing $ 292 $ 3,503 5.4 Fast Food $ 1,193 $ 14,321 1.8
Manufacturing $ 3,784 $ 45,408 70 Bank $ 796 $ 9,547 1.2
Retail Convenience Store $ 530 $ 6,365 0.8
Drug Store $ 556 $ 6,670 2.1 Grocery Store $ 3,912 $ 46,940 5.9
Old Town Restaurant $ 53 $ 635 0.2 Commercial
Old Town Shop $ 32 $ 381 0.12 Law Office $ 16 $ 188 0.25
Large Retail $ 2,620 $ 31,443 9.9 Motel $ 88 $ 1,055 1.4
Institutional Total Annual Fee Cost Per Residential Unit: $ 4 $ 50
Church (large lot) $ 314 $ 3,766 5
Church (small lot) $ 31 $ 377 0.5
Elementary School $ 339 $ 4,068 5.4
High School $ 753 $ 9,040 12
Total Annual Fee Cost Per Residential Unit: $ 4 $ 50
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Travis Storin, Accounting Director
Date: February 27, 2017
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
RubinBrown – 2016 Public Sector Financial Stats
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RubinBrown LLP, an accounting/services group with a substantial practice in the Denver,
Kansas City and St. Louis regions, annually reviews the CAFR and audited financial statements
of municipalities with populations greater than 5,000.
Financial ratios are aggregated for each region into Quartiles and Average allowing each
municipality to assess by ratio their comparative position within the region.
Staff reports results to Council on a biannual basis in order to share external comparators.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Share information only
ATTACHMENTS
1) Denver Region summary with Fort Collins highlighted
2) RubinBrown ’16 Public Sector Stats Report
3) Presentation
More Favorable Less Favorable
Q1 Breakpoint Q2 Median Q3 Breakpoint Q4
2015
Median
2014
Median
General Ratios
Change in net position as a percent of prior year
net position (%) 7.5% 4.9% 4.0% 2.4% 4.0% 4.0%
Revenue coverage ratio (times) 1.22 1.21 1.16 1.08 1.16 1.14
Accumulated depreciation as a percent of
depreciable capital assets (%) 39.5% 39.8% 44.8% 56.0% 44.8% 44.8%
Liquidity Ratio
Liquidity Ratio (times) 4.18 3.31 2.85 2.09 2.85 2.85
Debt Ratios
Debt to assets leverage ratio (%) 3.5% 4.0% 6.5% 14.8% 6.5% 7.4%
Total debt per capita ($ per citizen) $ 122.97 $ 309.15 $ 354.23 $ 876.02 $ 354.23 $ 390.16
Revenue Ratios
Tax revenue per capita ($ per citizen) $ 707.85 $ 879.45 $ 1,003.71 $ 1,086.70 $ 879.45 $ 860.02
Total grants, contributions, & other
intergovernmental revenue as a percent of total
revenue (%)
12.0% 18.9% 21.5% 18.9% 14.6%
Expense Ratios
Total expense per capita ($ per citizen) $ 913.48 $ 1,191.76 $ 1,351.40 $ 1,521.38 $ 1,191.76 $ 1,132.09
Total general government (administration)
expense per capita ($ per citizen) $ 157.21 $ 256.14 $ 300.99 $ 326.83 $ 256.14 $ 268.79
Total public safety expense per capita ($ per
citizen) $ 247.34 $ 352.91 $ 384.73 $ 478.00 $ 352.91 $ 355.74
Total interest expense per capita ($ per citizen) $ 2.95 $ 8.30 $ 12.41 $ 43.94 $ 12.41 $ 13.46
Governmental Fund Ratios
Expenditure Ratios
Total debt service expenditures as a percent of
total revenue (%) 1.9% 2.9% 4.4% 7.6% 4.4% 5.0%
Capital outlay expenditures as a percent of total
expenditures (%) 27.1% 18.9% 17.7% 11.5% 18.9% 17.5%
General Fund Ratios
Financial Position Ratio
Unrestricted fund balance (assigned and
unassigned) as a percent of total expenditures net
of transfers (%)
54.3% 36.7% 31.3% 17.5% 31.3% 33.5%
Revenue Ratios
Operating margin (%) 11.8% 2.6% -1.4% 2.6% 2.5%
Intergovernmental revenue as a percent of total
revenue (%) 3.2% 6.7% 9.2% 9.4% 6.7% 6.7%
Transfers in as a percent of total revenue and
transfers in (%) 0.0% 0.4% 0.9% 2.3% 0.9% 1.2%
Fort Collins measurement and quartile
Denver Region Summary - Fort Collins Position in Range
RubinBrown 2016 Public Sector Stats Publication
For year ended 12/31/2015
A Publication of RubinBrown LLP
PUBLIC SECTOR ’16
STATS
Contents
1 Executive Summary
6 St. Louis Metropolitan Area
8 Kansas City Metropolitan Area
10 Denver Metropolitan Area
12 State of Tennessee
14 Financial Ratio Interpretations
17 RubinBrown Public Sector Services Group
Welcome
RubinBrown is pleased to present our 2016 Public Sector Statistical Analysis, our tenth annual
survey of municipal statistical and financial information.
This analysis has been created in order to provide a comprehensive report of key government-wide, governmental and
general fund financial statistics for the regions we serve so that cities may compare how they are doing relative to other
municipal governments in their region and identify trends occurring in their communities.
If you have questions about this publication, please contact us (see page 17 for contact information).
RubinBrown Public Sector Stats 2016 | 1
executive Summary
RubinBrown is a national leader in providing accounting and auditing services
to governments with offices in St. Louis, Kansas City, Denver and Nashville. This
study includes results for municipalities in the St. Louis, Kansas City and Denver
Front Range metropolitan areas. Additionally, for the first time, cities throughout
the state of Tennessee have been included in our survey.
All cities included in the data have populations greater than 5,000. Additionally,
the cities of St. Louis, Kansas City, Nashville, Memphis and Denver are excluded
from the study due to their size relative to the other municipalities. Finally, for
purposes of this study, metropolitan St. Louis includes municipalities in both
Missouri and Illinois, and metropolitan Kansas City includes municipalities in both
Kansas and Missouri. Denver results consist of municipalities primarily in the Front
Range region. Tennessee municipalities are located throughout the state with
the majority of them in middle Tennessee.
Methodology
Financial information was collected from the 2015 fiscal or calendar year
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), or from the 2015 audited
financial statements if no CAFR was prepared.
All municipalities included in the study prepare financial statements in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Key financial
ratios were calculated in three categories: government-wide (governmental
activities only), governmental funds and general fund information. Each
participant in the survey received customized financial statistics to use as an
analysis tool.
This year, participation in all three previously included regions remained
consistent. A total of 41 St. Louis municipalities, 24 Kansas City municipalities
and 31 Denver Front Range municipalities were included. First time participants
included 32 Tennessee municipalities.
Format of the Report
The ratios are presented separately for the St. Louis, Kansas City, Denver and
Tennessee regions. The average population of the cities included in the St. Louis
region was 22,000. This compares to the average population of 47,000 for cities
surveyed in the Kansas City region, 82,000 for those in the Denver region and
53,000 for Tennessee.
For each ratio presented, the report presents information both by quartile
with focus on the median. In prior years the focus was on the average. We
determined that, although the results are different, the median is a better
representation of the center of the results for each region and eliminates the
distortion caused by any outliers.
The computed values for each ratio were also sorted from more favorable
to less favorable and quartiles were determined. The quartile information is
presented by displaying the ratio value that separates each quartile. For a
description and interpretation of the ratios, please refer to the “Financial Ratio
Interpretations” on page 14.
The conclusions reached as to which results are more or less favorable are
based upon what is most commonly accepted in the industry while taking into
consideration what the majority of cities are likely to believe.
2 | RubinBrown Public Sector Stats 2016
executive Summary
Participating municipalities by region
St. Louis Region
Alton
Arnold
Ballwin
Brentwood
Bridgeton
Chesterfield
Clayton
Collinsville
Crestwood
Creve Coeur
Des Peres
Edwardsville
Ellisville
Fairview Heights
Fenton
Ferguson
Festus
Florissant
Glendale
Hazelwood
Kirkwood
Ladue
Lake St. Louis
Manchester
Maplewood
Maryland Heights
O’Fallon
Olivette
Richmond Heights
Rock Hill
Saint John
Shrewsbury
St. Charles
St. Peters
Sunset Hills
Town and Country
University City
Webster Groves
Weldon Spring
Wentzville
Wildwood
Kansas City Region
Belton
Blue Springs
Gardner
Gladstone
Grandview
Harrisonville
Independence
Lawrence
Leavenworth
Leawood
Lee’s Summit
Lenexa
Liberty
Merrian
RubinBrown Public Sector Stats 2016 | 3
St� �ouis � �ansas City � Denver � Tennessee
�o� t�e Re�ions Co�pare
MU�ICIPALIT�’S
ABILIT� TO PA�
CURRE�T LIABILITIES
(median liquidity)
� �
lo�er �ig�er
50%
25%
0%
MI�IMUM GFOA RECOMME�DS
OPERATI�G CUSHIO� OF MU�ICIPALIT�’S GE�ERAL FU�D
(median unrestricted fund balance as a percent of total expenditures net of transfers)
AVERAGE POPULATIO� OF MU�ICIPALIT�
��,��� ��,��� ��,��� ��,���
MEDIA� CHA�GE I� �ET POSITIO�
2013 2014 2015
1%
9%
5%
3%
7%
����
����
����
���� ����
����
����
����
����
����
RELIA�CE O� E�TER�AL REVE�UE SOURCES OUTSIDE OF
MU�ICIPALIT�’S CO�TROL
(median total grants, contributions and other
intergovernmental revenue as a percent of total revenue)
lessreliant reliant �ore
�� ���
MU�ICIPALIT�’S RISK
OF DEFAULTI�G
O� DEBT
(median debt to assets
leverage ratio)
�ig�er
lo�er
���
��
4 | RubinBrown Public Sector Stats 2016
Each statistic may be viewed differently or may be more or less meaningful
based upon each city’s situation. For example, a small city may view a large
amount of funding being spent on public safety as favorable, whereas our
analysis places this in a less favorable quartile.
In addition, per capita ratios may be adversely affected if a city serves a large
non-resident population due to a significant daily influx of workers.
Analysis
The results of this year’s survey indicate that 2015 was another year of
continued growth, but only marginal growth and at a continued slow pace as
compared to the growth experienced in 2011 and 2012. After several years of
decreases in revenues, these amounts increased as the economy began to
rebound in 2011.
Since 2013, revenue continues to slowly grow in most regions while costs
continue to grow but generally at a faster pace than revenues. This has
resulted in continued steady net position growth as discussed in more detail in
the regional analysis that follows.
Use of the Study
Finance officers may use the study to determine how their cities compare to
others of similar size and geographic area in key financial ratio measurements.
Both quartile and median ratio values are provided for comparison.
The finance officer may wish to share the results of the analysis with the
municipality’s chief executive officer and governing body to help key officials
understand the impact of decisions on the financial condition of municipality.
executive Summary
6 | RubinBrown Public Sector Stats 2016
St. louiS metroPolitan area
41 �UMBER OF
MU�ICIPALITIES 22�000 AVERAGE
POPULATIO� 4�4� MEDIA� CHA�GE
I� �ET POSITIO� 32
2014
2013
2011
2012
2015
45% 50% 55% 60%
unrestricted General Fund
balance as � of e�penditures
(median – all cities)
unrestricted General Fund
balance as � of e�penditures
(median – all cities)
ST. LOUIS
KA�SAS
CIT�
DE�VER
TE��ESSEE
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Tax Revenue
Expenses
Total Debt
$250
$1,000
median Dollars Per capita
$500
$750
$1,250
����
����
����
����
����
����
���� ����
����
����
����
���� ��,��� ��,��� ��,���
The results for the St. Louis area prior to 2015 reflected a significant slowing
down of the economic recovery and related revenue growth. The median
change in net position for St. Louis municipalities went from 6.3% to 3.3% from
2012 to 2014. This was a time of growth but at a very slow pace. In 2015 the
median change in net position was a much healthier 4.4%. Still, 10 of the 41
St. Louis municipalities (or 24%) reported a decrease in government-wide net
position in 2015, as compared with 22% in 2014.
The cause of this increased growth in net position is evident when revenue
per capita and expenses per capita are examined. As indicated in the chart
below, median revenue per capita for St. Louis municipalities increased
significantly in 2015. This is a strong reflection of an improving economy and tax
RubinBrown Public Sector Stats 2016 | 7
◀ More Favorable Less Favorable ▶
Q1
Quartile
Breakpoint
Q2 Median Q3
Quartile
Breakpoint
Q4
2015
Median
2014
Median
GOVERNMENT-WIDE RATIOS
General Ratios
Change in net position as a percent of prior year net position (%) 8.6% 4.4% 1.0% 4.4% 3.3%
Revenue coverage ratio (times) 1.21 1.15 1.04 1.15 1.10
Accumulated depreciation as a percent of
depreciable capital assets (%)
38.1% 45.5% 52.6% 45.5% 45.5%
Liquidity Ratio
Liquidity ratio (times) 4.17 2.70 1.88 2.70 3.52
Debt Ratios
Debt to assets leverage ratio (%) 3.0% 15.8% 33.9% 15.8% 18.9%
Total debt per capita ($ per citizen) $127.25 $480.26 $1,289.53 $480.26 $539.22
Revenue Ratios
Tax revenue per capita ($ per citizen) $624.60 $840.26 $1,074.02 $840.26 $759.62
Total grants, contributions & other intergovernmental revenue
as a percent of total revenue (%)
6.7% 8.7% 12.4% 8.7% 9.0%
Expense Ratios
Total expense per capita ($ per citizen) $820.84 $1,017.18 $1,335.10 $1,017.18 $1,007.59
Total general government (administration) expense
per capita ($ per citizen)
$104.84 $158.73 $208.17 $158.73 $162.10
Total public safety expense per capita ($ per citizen) $244.23 $432.45 $665.04 $432.45 $404.65
Total interest expense per capita ($ per citizen) $7.21 $25.26 $73.59 $25.26 $27.38
GOVERNMENTAL FUND RATIOS
Expenditure Ratios
Total debt service expenditures as a percent of total revenue (%) 3.9% 9.2% 14.3% 9.2% 9.1%
Capital outlay expenditures as a percent of total expenditures (%) 26.4% 17.0% 12.2% 17.0% 17.0%
GENERAL FUND RATIOS
Financial Position Ratio
Unrestricted fund balance (assigned and unassigned) as a
percent of total expenditures net of transfers (%)
71.6% 46.1% 29.7% 46.1% 48.3%
Revenue Ratios
Operating margin (%) 5.3% 2.6% -3.1% 2.6% 2.7%
Intergovernmental revenue as a percent of total revenue (%) 0.0% 3.5% 9.9% 3.5% 2.2%
Transfers in as a percent of total revenue and transfers in (%) 0.0% 0.2% 2.6% 0.2% 0.3%
Financial ratio Study for St. louis metropolitan area municipalities Fiscal years ending in 2015
8 | RubinBrown Public Sector Stats 2016
KanSaS city metroPolitan area
24 �UMBER OF 41
MU�ICIPALITIES 47�000 AVERAGE
POPULATIO� 2�5� MEDIA� CHA�GE
I� �ET POSITIO�
2014
2013
2011
2012
2015
35% 45% 50%
2014
2013
2011
2012
2015
unrestricted General Fund
balance as � of e�penditures
(median – all cities)
unrestricted General Fund
balance as � of e�penditures
(median – all cities)
40%
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
The growth experienced by Kansas City area in 2014 continues into 2015. The
median increase in net position for Kansas City municipalities was 2.5% in 2015
compared to 2.4% in 2014. Much of this was caused by increases in revenues
of almost 3.8% with the majority of that in grants, contributions and other
intergovernmental revenues as opposed to taxes.
Although not illustrated in the tax revenue per capita chart, tax revenue for
Kansas City municipalities increased in 2015 by 2.2%. However, the mix of that
revenue increase was concentrated in the larger cities, thereby causing the
median tax revenue per capita to actually decrease in 2015. Meanwhile,
as illustrated by the expenses per capita chart below, median expenses per
capita for Kansas City municipalities barely increased on a per capita basis.
As indicated below, long-term debt per capita in the Kansas City region (which
excludes pension or other non-bonded debt) decreased in 2015.
Finally, general fund unrestricted fund balance as compared to expenditures
has fluctuated significantly over the past 5 years, but remains at a very healthy
level.
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Tax Revenue
Expenses
Total Debt
$500
$1,500
$1,000
median Dollars Per capita
$750
$1,250
��,���
��,���
��,��� ��,���
��,���
���� ����
RubinBrown Public Sector Stats 2016 | 9
◀ More Favorable Less Favorable ▶
Q1
Quartile
Breakpoint
Q2 Median Q3
Quartile
Breakpoint
Q4
2015
Median
2014
Median
GOVERNMENT-WIDE RATIOS
General Ratios
Change in net position as a percent of prior year net position (%) 6.2% 2.5% 0.3% 2.5% 2.4%
Revenue coverage ratio (times) 1.15 1.06 1.01 1.06 1.05
Accumulated depreciation as a percent of
depreciable capital assets (%)
35.3% 45.1% 49.8% 45.1% 43.6%
Liquidity Ratio
Liquidity ratio (times) 2.98 1.81 0.93 1.81 1.40
Debt Ratios
Debt to assets leverage ratio (%) 11.8% 27.4% 44.5% 27.4% 26.2%
Total debt per capita ($ per citizen) $774.86 $1,078.26 $1,708.10 $1,078.26 $1,144.46
Revenue Ratios
Tax revenue per capita ($ per citizen) $584.75 $646.75 $845.40 $646.75 $698.87
Total grants, contributions & other intergovernmental revenue
as a percent of total revenue (%)
3.1% 10.6% 17.7% 10.6% 7.6%
Expense Ratios
Total expense per capita ($ per citizen) $831.96 $1,019.59 $1,359.01 $1,019.59 $1,012.91
Total general government (administration) expense
per capita ($ per citizen)
$121.82 $163.29 $229.83 $163.29 $152.05
Total public safety expense per capita ($ per citizen) $287.05 $344.13 $436.17 $344.13 $350.74
Total interest expense per capita ($ per citizen) $28.85 $38.74 $60.59 $38.74 $53.24
GOVERNMENTAL FUND RATIOS
Expenditure Ratios
Total debt service expenditures as a percent of total revenue (%) 11.1% 14.0% 23.2% 14.0% 13.9%
Capital outlay expenditures as a percent of total expenditures (%) 27.7% 17.3% 10.4% 17.3% 21.5%
GENERAL FUND RATIOS
Financial Position Ratio
Unrestricted fund balance (assigned and unassigned) as a
percent of total expenditures net of transfers (%)
61.7% 40.3% 27.3% 40.3% 41.1%
Revenue Ratios
Operating margin (%) 9.8% 1.7% 0.0% 1.7% 1.7%
Intergovernmental revenue as a percent of total revenue (%) 0.2% 1.1% 10.5% 1.1% 0.9%
Transfers in as a percent of total revenue and transfers in (%) 0.3% 2.1% 5.9% 2.1% 2.2%
Financial ratio Study for Kansas city metropolitan area municipalities Fiscal years ending in 2015
10 | RubinBrown Public Sector Stats 2016
Denver metroPolitan area
31 �UMBER OF 24
MU�ICIPALITIES 82�000 AVERAGE
POPULATIO� 4�0� MEDIA� CHA�GE
I� �ET POSITIO�
unrestricted General Fund
balance as � of e�penditures
(median – all cities)
2014
2013
2011
2012
2015
25% 35% 40%
2014
2013
2011
2012
2015
30%
unrestricted General Fund
balance as � of e�penditures
(median – all cities)
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
The 2015 and 2014 results for the municipalities surveyed in the Denver region
indicate conditions continue to improve as they have since 2013. The median
increase in net position for Denver municipalities has grown to 4.0% from 2.9% in
2013.
Median tax revenue per capita for Denver municipalities was $879 during the
past year, as compared to $860 during 2014. Median expenses per capita
increased by a similar percentage as revenues.
The below chart indicates that long-term debt per capita in the Denver region
(which excludes pension or other non-bonded debt) continued to decrease in
2015.
Finally, median general fund unrestricted fund balance as compared
to expenditures has fluctuated significantly over the past 5 years, with a
considerable decline this past year.
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Tax Revenue
Expenses
Total Debt
$500
$1,000
median Dollars Per capita
$250
$750
$1,250
���� ����
����
���� ����
���� ���� ����
���� ����
��,���
��,��� ��,��� ��,���
��,���
RubinBrown Public Sector Stats 2016 | 11
◀ More Favorable Less Favorable ▶
Q1
Quartile
Breakpoint
Q2 Median Q3
Quartile
Breakpoint
Q4
2015
Median
2014
Median
GOVERNMENT-WIDE RATIOS
General Ratios
Change in net position as a percent of prior year net position (%) 7.5% 4.0% 2.4% 4.0% 4.0%
Revenue coverage ratio (times) 1.22 1.16 1.08 1.16 1.14
Accumulated depreciation as a percent of
depreciable capital assets (%)
39.5% 44.8% 56.0% 44.8% 44.8%
Liquidity Ratio
Liquidity ratio (times) 4.18 2.85 2.09 2.85 2.85
Debt Ratios
Debt to assets leverage ratio (%) 3.5% 6.5% 14.8% 6.5% 7.4%
Total debt per capita ($ per citizen) $122.97 $354.23 $876.02 $354.23 $390.16
Revenue Ratios
Tax revenue per capita ($ per citizen) $707.85 $879.45 $1,086.70 $879.45 $860.02
Total grants, contributions & other intergovernmental revenue
as a percent of total revenue (%)
12.0% 18.9% 21.5% 18.9% 14.6%
Expense Ratios
Total expense per capita ($ per citizen) $913.48 $1,191.76 $1,521.38 $1,191.76 $1,132.09
Total general government (administration) expense
per capita ($ per citizen)
$157.21 $256.14 $326.83 $256.14 $268.79
Total public safety expense per capita ($ per citizen) $247.34 $352.91 $478.00 $352.91 $355.74
Total interest expense per capita ($ per citizen) $2.95 $12.41 $43.94 $12.41 $13.46
GOVERNMENTAL FUND RATIOS
Expenditure Ratios
Total debt service expenditures as a percent of total revenue (%) 1.9% 4.4% 7.6% 4.4% 5.0%
Capital outlay expenditures as a percent of total expenditures (%) 27.1% 18.9% 11.5% 18.9% 17.5%
GENERAL FUND RATIOS
Financial Position Ratio
Unrestricted fund balance (assigned and unassigned) as a
percent of total expenditures net of transfers (%)
54.3% 31.3% 17.5% 31.3% 33.5%
Revenue Ratios
Operating margin (%) 11.8% 2.6% -1.4% 2.6% 2.5%
Intergovernmental revenue as a percent of total revenue (%) 3.2% 6.7% 9.4% 6.7% 6.7%
Transfers in as a percent of total revenue and transfers in (%) 0.0% 0.9% 2.3% 0.9% 1.2%
Financial ratio Study for Denver metropolitan area municipalities Fiscal years ending in 2015
12 | RubinBrown Public Sector Stats 2016
State oF tenneSSee
32 �UMBER OF
MU�ICIPALITIES 53�000 AVERAGE
POPULATIO� 8�1� MEDIA� CHA�GE
I� �ET POSITIO�
Denver
St� �ouis
�ansas City
Tennessee
median Dollars Per capita
TA� REVE�UE E�PE�SES TOTAL DEBT
$250
$1,000
$500
$750
$1,250
����
����
��,���
����
����
��,���
����
��,���
����
��,���
����
��,���
As this is the first year that Tennessee municipalities are included in the survey,
trend information is not available. However, the financial ratios generally
demonstrate that many cities have very healthy financial positions and have
experienced positive results of operations.
For instance, the median change in net position was 8.1% in 2015. This is much
higher than the results in the other regions surveyed.
The median liquidity ratio was 0.92. This is below 1.0, which means many
governments might find it difficult to continue to pay off current liabilities as
they become due.
The survey also shows that at the median general fund level of unrestricted
fund balance as a percent of expenditures is 37.2%. This is above average
and also above what the GFOA recommends at 2 months’ reserves or
30% 40% 50% approximately 16.7%.
unrestricted General Fund
balance as � of e�penditures
(median – all cities)
ST. LOUIS
KA�SAS
CIT�
DE�VER
TE��ESSEE
�����
�����
�����
�����
RubinBrown Public Sector Stats 2016 | 13
◀ More Favorable Less Favorable ▶
Q1
Quartile
Breakpoint
Q2 Median Q3
Quartile
Breakpoint
Q4
GOVERNMENT-WIDE RATIOS
General Ratios
Change in net position as a percent of prior year net position (%) 12.8% 8.1% 3.2%
Revenue coverage ratio (times) 1.17 1.09 1.04
Accumulated depreciation as a percent of
depreciable capital assets (%)
33.5% 46.0% 53.4%
Liquidity Ratio
Liquidity ratio (times) 1.61 0.92 0.51
Debt Ratios
Debt to assets leverage ratio (%) 11.3% 21.6% 30.7%
Total debt per capita ($ per citizen) $437.85 $720.25 $1,813.39
Revenue Ratios
Tax revenue per capita ($ per citizen) $671.50 $828.87 $1,320.79
Total grants, contributions & other intergovernmental revenue
as a percent of total revenue (%)
14.3% 28.8% 42.1%
Expense Ratios
Total expense per capita ($ per citizen) $851.67 $1,221.18 $2,266.28
Total general government (administration) expense
per capita ($ per citizen)
$85.05 $142.05 $195.17
Total public safety expense per capita ($ per citizen) $332.46 $401.78 $472.61
Total interest expense per capita ($ per citizen) $11.98 $24.01 $52.58
GOVERNMENTAL FUND RATIOS
Expenditure Ratios
Total debt service expenditures as a percent of total revenue (%) 4.1% 6.8% 9.8%
Capital outlay expenditures as a percent of total expenditures (%) 14.9% 10.5% 4.4%
GENERAL FUND RATIOS
Financial Position Ratio
Unrestricted fund balance (assigned and unassigned) as a
percent of total expenditures net of transfers (%)
60.5% 37.2% 24.1%
Revenue Ratios
Operating margin (%) 9.4% 2.7% -0.1%
Intergovernmental revenue as a percent of total revenue (%) 10.5% 13.6% 20.7%
Transfers in as a percent of total revenue and transfers in (%) 0.1% 2.2% 5.0%
Financial ratio Study for State of tennessee municipalities Fiscal years ending in 2015
14 | RubinBrown Public Sector Stats 2016
Financial ratio interPretationS
GOVERNMENT-WIDE RATIOS
Government-wide financial statements report information on all of the nonfiduciary activity of the government and its component
units. The study focuses on governmental activities that are normally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues. The
government-wide financial statements utilize the economic measurement flow and accrual basis of accounting. The measurement
and timing of recognition is similar to that of a business entity.
General Ratios –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Change in net position as a % of
prior year net position
Formula:
Increase (decrease) in governmental
activities net position
Governmental activities net
position, beginning of year
Interpretation: The ratio measures the
change in the municipality’s financial
condition for the year. A positive ratio
indicates that the financial condition has
improved; a negative ratio indicates a
deteriorating financial condition.
Accumulated depreciation as a
% of depreciable capital assets
Formula:
Governmental activities accumulated
depreciation, end of year
Governmental activities depreciable
capital assets, end of year
Interpretation: The ratio measures the
relative age of depreciable capital assets
compared to the assets’ economic lives.
Lower ratios are considered more favorable;
the municipality will not face significant
replacement cost in the near future.
Revenue coverage ratio
Formula:
Governmental activities
current year revenue*
Governmental activities
current year expense
* Current revenue includes both program
and general revenue but excludes
gains, losses, contributions, special and
extraordinary gains or losses and transfers.
Interpretation: The ratio measures
interperiod equity – whether current
year revenue covers the cost including
depreciation of providing current year
services. A ratio greater than 1.00
indicates positive interperiod equity;
current year taxpayers are providing
adequately for current year services.
When the ratio falls below 1.00, either
prior year revenues were used to fund a
portion of current year services or future
citizens are being burdened with some of
the cost for providing services consumed
currently. A higher value for the ratio is
usually considered favorable. However,
an extremely high ratio may indicate that
RubinBrown Public Sector Stats 2016 | 15
GOVERNMENT-WIDE RATIOS
Expense Ratios ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Expense ratios measure the current period cost of providing services to citizens or current-period financing cost. Functional expense
categories include depreciation measuring the cost of using capital assets to provide current year services. Low ratios are depicted as
favorable. However, the amount of expense incurred is not necessarily commensurate with the quality, efficiency or effectiveness of
the service provided.
Total expense per capita
Formula:
Government-wide total expense
Population
Interpretation: The ratio is a measure
of the expense necessary on average
to provide services to a given citizen.
A lower ratio is considered favorable
indicating that a municipality is providing
services to citizens at a comparatively
lower cost. However, when comparing
the results of this ratio between two
different municipalities, one must
consider whether the two municipalities
provide comparable levels of police,
fire, waste management, parks and
recreation, and similar services. In
addition, the amount of expense incurred
is not necessarily commensurate with the
quality, efficiency or effectiveness of the
services provided.
Total general government
(administration) expense per
capita
Formula:
Government-wide general
government (administration) expense
Population
Interpretation: See previous comments.
Total public safety expense per
capita
Formula:
Government-wide public
safety expense
Population
Interpretation: See previous comments.
Total interest expense per capita
Formula:
Government-wide interest expense
Population
Interpretation: The ratio is a measure
of the interest expense incurred per
citizen. A lower ratio is considered
favorable, indicating that a municipality
has minimized its debt obligations, and
reduced the strain that debt service
payments can place on current
municipal resources.
GOVERNMENTAL FUND RATIOS
Governmental funds are used to account for the basic activities of the municipality that are not supported by user charges or
characterized by the municipality acting in a fiduciary capacity. Governmental funds account for operations, acquisition of capital
assets related to basic operations, and the debt service requirements for related debt. Primary resources are taxes, intergovernmental
revenues and for capital asset acquisition long-term debt proceeds. Governmental funds report using the current financial resource
16 | RubinBrown Public Sector Stats 2016
Financial ratio interPretationS
GENERAL FUND RATIOS
The general fund is the primary operating fund of a municipality. It accounts for the revenues that are not restricted for specific
purposes and activities. Most of the basic operations of the municipality are accounted for in the general fund. The general fund, a
governmental fund, reports using the current financial resource measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting.
Financial Position Ratio –
Unrestricted fund balance
(assigned & unassigned) as a % of
total expenditures net of transfers
Formula:
General fund unrestricted
fund balance
General fund total expenditures
(net of transfers)
Interpretation: The ratio shows the
relationship between available fund
balance and expenditures and more
specifically the amount of available
fund balance there is to cover future
expenditures without reliance on
corresponding revenues. It also measures
the ability of the general fund to continue
operations if its revenue is temporarily
interrupted or declines. This is a measure
of the general fund operating cushion.
Municipalities may set a target for this
ratio. The GFOA recommends a minimum
of 2 month’s reserves or a ratio of around
16.7%. A higher ratio is usually considered
favorable. However, an extremely high
ratio may indicate that the municipality
is not providing the level of services
commensurate with its revenue stream.
Revenue Ratios ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Operating margin
Formula:
(General fund total revenue –
General fund total expenditures
(net of transfers))
General fund total revenue
Interpretation: This ratio indicates the
amount contributed to the government’s
change in fund balances (bottom line)
for every $1 generated in revenue. This
ratio is similar to the revenue coverage
ratio above but just for the general
fund. A positive ratio reflects revenues
that are greater than expenditures
(net of transfers) and is a measure of
sustainability. There are many reasons
a government may have a negative
ratio meaning more expenditures than
revenues so this ratio should be looked at
over a period of time. Results should be
positive more often than negative over
time to reflect fiscal sustainability.
Intergovernmental revenue as a
% of total revenue
Formula:
RubinBrown Public Sector Stats 2016 | 17
rubinbroWn Public Sector ServiceS GrouP
Through our extensive list of clients we serve as well
as our involvement in associations and professional
organizations at the local, regional and national levels,
we understand the issues unique to the public sector.
RubinBrown’s commitment to quality is demonstrated
through our membership in the American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Governmental
Audit Quality Center. This firm-based voluntary
membership center is designed to help CPAs meet the
challenges of performing quality audits in the unique and
complex public sector industry.
The Public Sector Services Group of RubinBrown
provides services to a broad spectrum of government
organizations, including municipal governments (cities
and counties), institutions of higher education, local public
school districts, state governments and political districts
such as public libraries and municipal utility districts.
Our public sector team includes experienced
professionals all of whom are well trained in the financial
reporting and audit requirements as promulgated in:
· Government Accounting Standards Board
· Government Audit Standards, issued by the Comptroller
General of the United States
· Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and
Uniform Guidance
Industry Involvement
RubinBrown is committed to staying active within the
industry, which helps us remain current on all new issues. We
are active members of our regional and state Government
Finance Officers Association (GFOA) chapters.
Many team members are associate members of the
national GFOA, including the Special Review Committee
of the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence
in Financial Reporting Program, the Association of
Government Accountants and special industry related
committees of the AICPA.
Public Sector Specialized Services
Assurance and Accounting Services
· Financial statement audits
· Single audits of federal financial assistance under
Uniform Guidance
· GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in
Financial Reporting Program Expertise
· Outsourced accounting and financial statement
preparation
· Agreed-upon procedures
· Forensic auditing
Consulting Services
· Internal auditing
· Operational reviews/efficiency analysis
· Cyber security review
· Strategic and long-range planning
· Financial analysis and review
· Benchmarking
· Technology analysis and implementation
RubinBrown also is equipped to help public sector clients
with technology consulting, fringe benefit consulting
and retirement plan administration, bookkeeping
RubinBrown is one of the nation’s largest
accounting and business consulting firms, with
over 500 team members working from offices in
Denver, Kansas City, Nashville and St. Louis, including
an office in St. Louis’ CORTEX Innovation District.
Founded in 1952, the firm’s team members establish
best practices within specific industry segments
and work to serve the community both inside and
outside the workplace. Our mission is to help clients
build and protect value, while at all times honoring
the responsibility to serve the public interest.
RubinBrown is an independent member of
Baker Tilly International, a high-quality, dedicated
network of 165 independent firms in 141 countries.
Denver Office
1900 16th Street
Suite 300
Denver, Colorado 80202
ph: 303.698.1883
@RubinBrown
RubinBrown LLP
RubinBrown.com
1.800.678.3134
Kansas City Office
10975 Grandview Drive
Building 27, Suite 600
Overland Park, Kansas 66210
ph: 913.491.4144
Nashville Office
3102 West End Avenue
Suite 400
Nashville, Tennessee 37203
ph: 615.253.5200
St. Louis Office
One North Brentwood
Suite 1100
St. Louis, Missouri 63105
ph: 314.290.3300
St. Louis Cortex Office
4240 Duncan Avenue
CIC@4240, Suite 200
St. Louis, Missouri 63110
ph: 314.290.3300
Front Range Financial Comparison
Travis Storin, Accounting Director
2-27-17
Overview
• Based on year-end 2015 position
• Gathered independently by RubinBrown LLP annually
• Sourced from audited financials for consistency
• Cities with population of at least 5,000; excluding Denver
• Average population for included cities is 82,000
• Benchmarks by government-wide (incl. Utilities),
governmental-only, and general fund only
2
Cities included in study
• Arvada
• Aurora
• Boulder
• Brighton
• Broomfield
• Canon City
• Castle Rock
• Centennial
• Cherry Hills Village
• Colorado Springs
• Commerce City
• Englewood
• Erie
• Evans
• Fort Collins
• Fountain
• Golden
• Greeley
• Greenwood Village
• Lakewood
• Littleton
• Lone Tree
• Longmont
• Louisville
• Loveland
• Northglenn
• Parker
• Thornton
• Westminster
• Wheat Ridge
• Windsor
3
Cities range in population from 6,000 to 456,600 (2015 estimate)
Government-wide Ratios
4
More Favorable Less Favorable
Q1 Breakpoint Q2 Median Q3 Breakpoint Q4
2015
Median
2014
Median
General Ratios
Change in net position as a percent of prior
year net position (%)
7.5% 4.9% 4.0% 2.4% 4.0% 4.0%
Revenue coverage ratio (times) 1.22 1.21 1.16 1.08 1.16 1.14
Accumulated depreciation as a percent of
depreciable capital assets (%)
39.5% 39.8% 44.8% 56.0% 44.8% 44.8%
Liquidity Ratio
Liquidity Ratio (times) 4.18 3.31 2.85 2.09 2.85 2.85
Debt Ratios
Debt to assets leverage ratio (%) 3.5% 4.0% 6.5% 14.8% 6.5% 7.4%
Total debt per capita ($ per citizen) $ 122.97 $ 309.15 $ 354.23 $ 876.02 $ 354.23 $ 390.16
Fort Collins measurement and quartile
Government-wide Ratios (cont.)
5
More Favorable Less Favorable
Q1 Breakpoint Q2 Median Q3 Breakpoint Q4
2015
Median
2014
Median
Revenue Ratios
Tax revenue per capita ($ per citizen) $ 707.85 $ 879.45 $ 1,003.71 $ 1,086.70 $ 879.45 $ 860.02
Total grants, contributions, & other
intergovernmental revenue as a percent of
total revenue (%)
12.0% 18.9% 21.5% 18.9% 14.6%
Expense Ratios
Total expense per capita ($ per citizen) $ 913.48 $ 1,191.76 $ 1,351.40 $ 1,521.38 $ 1,191.76 $ 1,132.09
Total general government (administration)
expense per capita ($ per citizen)
$ 157.21 $ 256.14 $ 300.99 $ 326.83 $ 256.14 $ 268.79
Total public safety expense per capita ($ per
citizen)
$ 247.34 $ 352.91 $ 384.73 $ 478.00 $ 352.91 $ 355.74
Total interest expense per capita ($ per
citizen)
$ 2.95 $ 8.30 $ 12.41 $ 43.94 $ 12.41 $ 13.46
Fort Collins measurement and quartile
Governmental and GF Ratios
6
More Favorable Less Favorable
Q1 Breakpoint Q2 Median Q3 Breakpoint Q4
2015
Median
2014
Median
Governmental Fund Ratios
Expenditure Ratios
Total debt service expenditures as a percent
of total revenue (%)
1.9% 2.9% 4.4% 7.6% 4.4% 5.0%
Capital outlay expenditures as a percent of
total expenditures (%)
27.1% 18.9% 17.7% 11.5% 18.9% 17.5%
General Fund Ratios
Financial Position Ratio
Unrestricted fund balance (assigned and
unassigned) as a percent of total expenditures
net of transfers (%)
54.3% 36.7% 31.3% 17.5% 31.3% 33.5%
Revenue Ratios
Operating margin (%) 11.8% 2.6% -1.4% 2.6% 2.5%
Intergovernmental revenue as a percent of
total revenue (%)
3.2% 6.7% 9.2% 9.4% 6.7% 6.7%
Transfers in as a percent of total revenue and
transfers in (%)
0.0% 0.4% 0.9% 2.3% 0.9% 1.2%
Fort Collins measurement and quartile
Interpretation
Fort Collins ranked in 2nd Quartile in:
• in net position vs. prior year
• Revenue coverage
• Accumulated depreciation as % of depreciable
assets
• Liquidity
• Debt to assets
• Debt per capita
• Grants & Intergovernmental as % of revenue
• Interest expense per capita
• Debt service as % of revenue
• Unrestricted GF balance vs. expenditures
• Transfers into GF as % of total revenue
7
Indicates:
• Healthy age of infrastructure,
property, equipment
• Conservative use of debt
• High ability to meet current
obligations with current revenues and
cash/investments
• Continuity if temporary revenue
disruption
• Reasonable reliance on external
revenues (grants)
Interpretation
Fort Collins ranked in 3rd Quartile in:
• Tax revenue per capita
• Total expense per capita
• General government expense per capita
• Public safety expense per capita
• Capital outlay as a percent of total expenditures
• General Fund Operating Margin
• General Fund Intergovernmental revenue as
percent of total revenue
8
Indicates:
• High revenue/spending per capita,
commensurate with citizens’
expectations and willingness to fund
desired level of service
• GF had a negative operating margin
in 2015 due to budgeted/intentional
use of reserves in 2015/2016 BFO
services, and placement of temporary and permanent
accounting, bookkeeping and financial personnel.
Jeff Winter, CPA, CGMA
Partner-In-Charge
314.290.3408
jeff.winter@rubinbrown.com
Cheryl Wallace, CPA
Partner & Vice Chair
303.952.1288
cheryl.wallace@rubinbrown.com
Kaleb Lilly, CPA
Partner & Vice Chair
913.491.4417
kaleb.lilly@rubinbrown.com
Ted Williamson, CPA
Partner & Vice Chair
314.678.3534
ted.williamson@rubinbrown.com
General fund intergovernmental
revenue
General fund total revenue
Interpretation: The ratio measures the
general fund’s reliance on revenues
from external sources to finance current
operations. A low ratio is considered
favorable indicating that the general
fund is not overly reliant on revenue
sources that are beyond its control.
Transfers in as a % of total
revenue and transfers in
Formula:
General fund transfers in
General fund total revenues
and transfers in
Interpretation: The ratio measures the
reliance of the general fund on transfers
from other funds. To the extent the
transfers are from enterprise funds, the
users of enterprise services may be
subsidizing general fund operations. A low
ratio is considered favorable indicating
that the general fund is not dependent
on transfers.
measurement flow and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Expenditures are often controlled by annual budgets.
Expenditure Ratios ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Total debt service expenditures
as a % of total revenue
Formula:
Governmental fund debt
service expenditures
Governmental fund total revenues
Interpretation: This ratio measures the
amount of current revenue that is
devoted to meeting the year’s debt
service requirements. Significant debt
service requirements potentially lower the
amount that can be used for providing
current services. A low ratio is considered
favorable.
Capital outlay expenditures as a
% of total expenditures
Formula:
Governmental fund capital
outlay expenditures
Governmental fund total expenditures
Interpretation: The ratio measures
whether the municipality is adequately
providing for capital asset additions and
improvements. A high ratio is considered
favorable indicating that the municipality
is providing adequately for its capital
asset needs.
the municipality is not providing services
commensurate with the current revenues
being generated from its tax base.
Liquidity Ratio ––––––––––
Liquidity ratio
Formula:
Governmental activities liquid assets*
Governmental activities
current liabilities
* Cash and short-term investments,
excluding any restricted assets.
Interpretation: The ratio measures the
municipality’s ability to meet current
obligations from existing cash and short-
term investment balances. A higher
ratio is considered favorable indicating
that the municipality will be able to pay
current liabilities as they become due.
Debt Ratios ––––––––––––––
Debt to assets leverage ratio
Formula:
Governmental activities total debt†
Governmental activities total assets
Interpretation: The ratio is a measure of
the degree to which the municipality’s
total assets have been funded with debt.
A lower ratio is considered favorable
indicating that the government does not
have significant creditor claims against its
assets and has less risk of default on debt.
Total debt per capita
Formula:
Governmental activities total debt†
Population
Interpretation: The ratio is a measure of
the debt burden to citizens. A lower ratio
is considered favorable indicating that
the citizens are less heavily burdened. The
municipality has the ability issue future
debt at a lower cost.
† Total long-term liabilities excluding
operating liabilities such as accrued
compensated absences, claims and
judgments payable, and pension
obligations. Short-term operating debt is
also not included.
Revenue Ratios ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Tax revenue per capita
Formula:
Governmental activities tax revenue
Population
Interpretation: The ratio is a measure of
the tax burden to citizens. A lower ratio
is considered favorable indicating that
current citizens are paying lower taxes.
Therefore the municipality has greater
ability to increase taxes to meet future
needs.
Total grants, contributions & other
intergovernmental revenue as a
% of total revenue
Formula:
(Governmental activities total
operating grants and contributions +
total capital grants and contributions
+ other intergovernmental revenue)
Governmental activities total revenue*
Interpretation: The ratio measures
the municipality’s reliance on
grants, contributions and other
intergovernmental revenue. A lower ratio
is considered favorable indicating that
the municipality is less reliant on external
sources that are beyond its control.
���� ����
����
���� ����
��,��� ��,��� ��,���
revenue growth. Expenses also increased per capita but at a slower pace than
revenues as compared to prior years.
Another important metric is the amount of debt governments are taking on. Long-
term debt per capita in the St. Louis region (which excludes pension or other non-
bonded debt) has been decreasing since 2011. New issuances have not been
very strong except for refundings which do not increase total debt outstanding.
Finally, the most scrutinized ratio is the general fund’s unrestricted fund balance
as compared to operating expenditures. Although decreasing, this shows a
very strong financial position for the St. Louis city governments with close to 50%
of annual expenditures in unrestricted fund balance.
Mission
North Kansas City
Olathe
Overland Park
Prairie Village
Raymore
Raytown
Richmond
Shawnee
Warrensburg
Denver Region
Arvada
Aurora
Boulder
Brighton
Broomfield
Canon City
Castle Rock
Centennial
Cherry Hills Village
Colorado Springs
Commerce City
Englewood
Erie
Evans
Ft. Collins
Fountain
Golden
Greeley
Greenwood Village
Lakewood
Littleton
Lone Tree
Longmont
Louisville
Loveland
Northglenn
Parker
Thorton
Westminster
Wheat Ridge
Windsor
State of Tennessee
Bartlett
Brentwood
Bristol
Chattanooga
Clarksville
Cleveland
Collierville
Columbia
Cookeville
East Ridge
Farragut
Franklin
Gallatin
Germantown
Goodlettsville
Greeneville
Hendersonville
Jackson
Johnson City
Kingsport
Knoxville
Lebanon
Maryville
Morristown
Mount Juliet
Murfreesboro
Oak Ridge
Sevierville
Smyrna
Springfield
Spring Hill
Tullahoma
special
districts
and/or
other
incentives
to
entice
CDOT
to
include
the
Prospect
Interchange
into
the
design/build
RFP.
We
realize
it
will
take
a
strong
alliance
with
equitable
participation
of
all
parties
to
reach
this
goal.
As
property
owners,
we
want
to
assure
you
and
City
Council
that
we
are
committed
and
look
forward
to
participating
and
discussing
our
contributions
to
the
Prospect Interchange
improvements.
We
look
forward
to
the
opportunity
to
work
with
COFC
and
CDOT
on
this
exciting
Public-Public-Private
Partnership.
Please
feel
free
to
contact
us.
Northeast
Corner
7
(Z_-
Rudolph
Farms
z
4
t
t-,
David
White
Southeast
Corner
Paradigm
Properties
Jeff
Hill
Northwest
Corner
Gateway
At
Prospect
Tim
Mckenna
Southwest
Corner
CSIJRF
Rick
Callan
‘7
from
each
of
the
4
quadrants
of
the
Prospect
Interchange.
We
formed
this
Task
Force
with
a
common
interest
in
improving
the
operating
conditions
at
the
Interchange.
We
wish
to
express
to
you,
the
Mayor,
City
Council
and
to
CDOT
our
interest
in
working
with
all
of
you
in
a
true
Public-Public-Private
Partnership.
PITF
represents
over
99%
of
the
CDOT-identified
property
that
CDOT
is
currently
seeking
for
the
expansion
of
1-25
in
the
vicinity of
Prospect
and
of
the improvements
to
the
Prospect
interchange
itself
Over
the
past
few
months
we
have
met several times
with
CDOT
representatives,
with
COFC
staff
and
amongst
ourselves
to
discuss
what
the
private sector
might
do
to
enhance
the
performance
of
the
Prospect
interchange
and
environs.
With
this
in
mind,
we
have
jointly
contracted
with
a
well-known
market
research
and
planning
firm,
THK
Associates,
Inc.,
to
determine
the
development
potential
and
market
timing
for
all
four of
our properties.
THK
has
worked
extensively
with
CDOT
and
many
municipalities
throughout
Colorado
to
conduct similar
research
and
modeling.
The
results
of
TH
K’s
analyses
could
then
be
used
to
determine
bonding
and/or
improvement
district
funding
based
on
our proposed
land uses.
This
study
will
be
completed within the
next
few
weeks,
As
an
additional
possible
inducement
to
CDOT,
we
have
met
several
times
with
Hamre, Rodriguez,
Ostrander
&
Dingess
(HROD),
a
law
firm
whose practice
includes
Colorado
eminent
domain
law.
HROD
also
has
worked
closely
with
CDOT
and
many
Colorado
municipalities.
Since
our
properties
include
the
entirety
of
the
interchange
property
being
sought
by
COOT,
we
have
been
discussing with
HROD
the possible
donation
of
the
property
that
CDOT
is
seeking.
By
avoiding
a
lengthy
and
usually
contentious condemnation
process
we
believe
that
such
donations
could
substantially decrease
the
time,
budget
and
prickly
nature
of
the
“normal”