HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Mail Packet - 3/21/2017 - Council Finance And Audit Committee Agenda - March 20, 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
March 20, 2017
9:30 - 11:30 am
CIC Room - City Hall
Approval of Minutes from the February 27
th
Council Finance meeting.
1. 2017 Re-appropriation Ordinance Review 15 minutes L. Pollack
2. Strategy MAP Results Process Review 30 minutes L. Pollack
3. BFO Discussion - one-time and on-going funding guardrails 20 minutes L. Pollack
OTHER BUSINESS:
• Time of Future Meetings
• Sales Tax Numbers
Council Finance Committee & URA Finance Committee
Agenda Planning Calendar 2016
RVSD 03/13/17 mnb
Mar 20 (Darin Out)
2017 Re-appropriation Ordinance Review 15 min L. Pollack
Strategy MAP Results Process Review 30 min L. Pollack
BFO Discussion – one-time and on-going funding guardrails 20 min L. Pollack
URA
Apr 17
Metro District Discussion 30 min T. Leeson
Housing Catalyst – Tax Credit Review 15 min J. Brewan
Housing Catalyst - Fee Waiver Request 30 min S. Beck-Ferkiss
Long Term City Debt Funding Needs 30 min M. Beckstead
URA
May 15
Parking Garage Financing 20 min J. Voss
URA
Jun 19
2016 Year End Fund Balance Review 30 min J. Voss
URA
Future Council Finance Committee Topics:
County IGA – URA TIF Evaluation Process
2018 Benefits Plan Design & Cost Share - July
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
02/27/17
9:30 - 11:30 am
CIC Room
Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Gerry Horak, Ross Cunniff
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead, Laurie Kadrich, Brad Buckman, Kurt Ravenschlag, John
Duval, Travis Storin, John Voss, Tiana Smith, Lawrence Pollack, Andres Gavaldon, Noelle
Currell, Josh Birks, Chief Hutto, Mike Trombley, Joe Olson, Michelle Provaznik, Brian
Hergott
Others: Kevin Jones (Chamber of Commerce), Bill Switzer (Citizen), Dale Adamy (Citizen)
Meeting called to order at 9:46 am
Russ Cunniff moved to approve Minutes for the January 23rd Council Finance Meeting.
Mayor Troxell seconded the motion. Minutes were approved unanimously.
A. Prospect / I25 Intersection – CDOT Commitment Letter
Laurie Kadrich, Director of PDT
Brad Buckman, Special Projects Engineer
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
2
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
3
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.
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.
Laurie Kadrich; Big issue related to this is that moving ahead on this project today and especially having CDOT
included in its other work saves all of us at least $10m - could even be higher by the time the project is done.
We have been working with Timnath to ensure that it goes smoothly.
Stakeholder Issues will require Debt Service to be issued. We expect that City of Fort Collins would be the lead
in putting that Debt Issuance together and that the other stakeholders would repay the City of Fort Collins.
Those details have not been worked out. We have had numerous meetings with both the property owners and
the town of Timnanth - both groups have expressed a strong desire to move forward and figure something out.
The overwhelmingly want to make some kind of commitment to make this happen.
Mike Beckstead; the city is the lead on the debt - risk about when the development happens and when the
property owners would be able to support the debt. There is a big range of the value of the right of way which
could have some impact.
CDOT would like to have an assurance letter – a bit more strongly worded than what you endorsed previous so
that they can go ahead and have this assurance that the City and the property owners are willing to take care of
this funding.
Gerry Horak; I would change the wording from Assurance Letter to a Stronger Letter of Intent – there is no
assurance but understand they need something a little stronger
Darin Atteberry; read paragraph from letter (received from Mark Jackson)
Commitment to sharing costs - $12m for the interchange, $6.5m urban designs to be shared by the City of Fort
Collins, Timnanth and the residents to be paid over the course of 2018 - 2020. I was planning on signing the
letter if Council Finance is in agreement. I will send something out to Council but will sign if I don’t hear
something back to the contrary. They requested it back by the end of this month (which is tomorrow).
Ross Cunniff; no concerns, I think this is good - at some point it would be interesting to see and understand the
improvements and the impact on the surrounding areas.
Darin Atteberry; do you have a feel for Timnath’s conceptual share at this point?
Gerry Horak; I heard it is greater than 10 but not 50
Darin Atteberry; we have gone from a symbolic number to a proportionate share based on travel forecast.
4
We have laid out that proportional share and April and I are meeting again soon to discuss further.
Gerry Horak; similar to other intersections
Mayor Troxell; I would use the 392 interchange as an example of a partnership and the
Deliberative approach that we took and the design – a very attractive interchange
Laurie Kadrich; you may remember that 7th Amendment that we did with the Growth Management Area -
included the areas of influence so funding could come later and now all of that will come a bit sooner than we
anticipated.
B.2017 Funding Requests
Mike Beckstead, CFO
Darin Atteberry; can we refrain from talking about 3D Printing until the Mayor leaves this meeting to take a call
as he believes he has a conflict due to the association with CSU?
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.
5
Conversation with Loveland on training facility is now a 50/50 split which will lower our commitment – that would free up
$270K - we can freeze that appropriation and use it for something else.
Golf - during the CCIP discussion - we had some one time GF available to make an assignment of $500K to support the
irrigation system within Golf - to repurpose to support the project at the Gardens (wall and stage). We have been working
with Mike and team – we used $50k out of $500k to do design. We might be able to match future needs with debt
retirement in golf - there is a retirement in 2018 and in 2019 – 2021 –part of the future plan for golf and golf infrastructure
will be to evaluate the timing and the need and whether or not we can match that future need with that debt service. The
total need is approx. $.2.2m for Collindale and $2-2.5m for City Park Nine - about $5m of need so this was just a piece to
get us started.
Last piece- we had budgeted $750k for Lincoln Ave. enhanced design - that was taking in to account support from all
property owners along Lincoln but they have all declined.
Funding Sources - there are alternatives and options for Council to consider whether they want to reprioritize or not
Darin Atteberry; all 3 Council members have been briefed on this regularly – if we go forward with the Columbia /Lemay
that is the zero number -0 if that doesn’t work because of local HOA property needs then we do the west Drake new signal
and that is the $250k - dependent on whether we can have a favorable conversation with the HOA
Gardens Phase 1 ran into a cost issue of approx. $500k - $250k taken out of assignment for golf and $250k out of repurpose
of the police training cost as an alternative to fund.
215 Bldg Security - did an assessment with Ops Services – all GF supported departments – don’t have the funds
6
$340k – all areas would be like HR entrance - hard wall with a counter and then a solid door and wall - doing that same kind
of
Broadband Business Plan - 3 new people - salaries through the remainder of the year – housing – uncertainty of retail
model - this would be the model for the full blown - June - December timeframe
Lockers - came up in Council - TBD $$
$2m could be funded
$1.4m not recommended for funding based on this abbreviated drilling platform
Mike Beckstead; I would like to bring this forward to Council as soon as we can- we don’t have a date on the calendar yet -
would like to bring this forward asap
Ross Cunniff; so our normal timeline is the end of year
Darin Atteberry; here we are 40 some days into a new 2 year budget and we are coming forward with these requests. Each
one of these has time sensitivity . For example, the Campus Police West Buildout – we have to either sign that lease or not –
if we don’t then we abandon that – this has been pending for quite awhile
Mayor Troxell; how do you address a new Council - Council priorities at year end ?
Darin Atteberry; that is a Council Priority setting session -if there are significant deviations we would either wait until end of
year or we would do that mid-course sometime after the retreat depending on Council’s preference
Ross Cunniff; the reserved jail space - I get that one
Mayor Troxell; the next Council but the next 2 Council meeting agendas are full
Darin Atteberry; practically speaking, this probably will not come forward before the election – 2 full meetings between
now and then. If we were to wait - I don’t know what the ramifications are for the lease of the police bldg.
Mike Beckstead; I think the Police West Campus buildout and the jail beds are urgent and they could come forward On
Consent depending on Council’s desire. Some sensitivity on The Gardens but not as critical as the jail beds and the Campus
West buildout so would put that in a middle tier. Security upgrades for 215 could wait for a broader discussion.
Broadband Business Plan could wait - we are making good progress with Axia on the Due Diligence – an increasingly viable
alternative - if we do that - do we need to spend $300K on a Retail Business Plan depending on our confidence. I
won’t have a good read on that for another 6 weeks or so - trip to Calgary planned 3/6 - planning to invite AXIA to meet
with Council and with the Citizens Advisory Groups in March - early April timeframe. I am comfortable saying that could
defer for a 6 week timeframe while we continue with the due diligence with AXIA.
Ross Cunniff; Climate Action Plan options are missing - important to acknowledge that and give a portfolio of trade-offs
and options as we consider appropriating $2m. I agree that the jail space and Campus West should come forward sooner.
Would like it to be On Consent but I don’t think it would stay On Consent.
Darin Atteberry; Campus West could go On Consent
Ross Cunniff; I would not put the jail space item On Consent
Gerry Horak; did you have folks go back and look at what they could do with the available funds?
7
Jeff Mihelich; re: Gardens - we are getting the staff team together this week to talk about what options we could do to take
wall out and have some type of pilot process for a year or two and monitor the sound and do the wall later on if needed.
This would require a zoning change - probably need to go through Planning and Zoning and City Council so we are working
through the mechanics of that.
Gerry Horak; have you gone back and taken a look at what you can do with available funds? 69K are add-ons - do not need
to be done in the first phase of construction. The western wall that was approved is $130k so if that is in or not in..does that
change the number by $200k?
Gerry Horak; are there things that could be taken out / scrubbed - so when it does come forward – if we do not get
another $300k what goes out and what stays in -Gardens are important but not in the same priority as Jail beds and the
Campus West Buildout . We should only recommend to Council things that need to be done soon.
Darin Atteberry; we have said need to go forward with Jail - it won’t be a Consent item but I think that the Polices Campus
West Buildout is a separate Consent item
Gerry Horak; is less possible? If it was done with less what would that look like? This should be part of the agenda item
summary.
Mike Beckstead; So, the two going forward are the Jail Space and the Campus West Buildout - more work to be done on the
others.
Darin Atteberry; To summarize;
Reserved Jail space will coming forward with an appropriation
Lemay and Drake - needs more time with HOA and PDT and Woodward
Police Campus West Buildout will come forward with companion documents that talk about how that has been
shaved down and also if there is more than can be done to take it lower - it will probably be a Consent item with a
memo
The Gardens - Jeff – being very intentional about pursuing - will help Michelle talk with Randy about this
215 Building Security - other Council priorities for consideration at their retreat / goal setting meeting in May
Broadband – let’s look at other options – not urgent
Lockers - not ready - we need to scope
Mayor Troxell; drop lockers - have that come up organically - no framework in place
Gerry Horak; I would suggest a memo for summarizing for when things are headed to Council
C. 2017 Re-appropriation
Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director
Review of the 2017 Re-appropriation Ordinance to appropriate prior year reserves.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
8
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 re-appropriation 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 re-appropriated 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 Re-appropriation Ordinance on March
21, 2017?
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.
Guidance to bring these forward to Council
Gerry Horak; how do these weigh against the things we
Lawrence Pollack; the premise - Council approved these for the prior year so to complete the commitment to
Council and the Community - for Council to judge whether they are less important than they were
Gerry Horak; I am counting on you guys to also have recommendations based on what you know current needs
are. How would you respond?
Darin Atteberry; most predominant message has been fulfilling commitments we made -
To Lawrence - other than scrubbing and the balances available - you haven’t gone in and relooked at the
assumptions and the relevancy of a program today
Mike Beckstead; historically that has not been part of the process – we can certainly entertain something like
that - we normally bring these items forward in the February / March timeframe - this gives Council – we have
always approached this as ‘ This WAS a Council priority so we are assuming it still is.
9
Gerry Horak; we are the Finance Committee -an example - business continuity plan versus the added technology
security that is being proposed - what is more important?
Darin Atteberry; very relevant question - go back and look relevant to today – I will do that – not another BFO
process – we could do it at a very high level
Mike Beckstead; we can put the topic together with the executive team and have that broader conversation
Gerry Horak; ADA playground improvement
Mayor Troxell; there is a NEXUS there that drives the discussion together
Gerry Horak; that is not going to be a slam dunk - some other things need funding -
If we could fund the jail space or the police out of some of these items which we don’t think are as a high a
priority – that would resonate
Ross Cunniff; zoom out discussion - we had some feedback last year on projects not getting done - I would like
some analysis on overall portfolio - do we think we are doing a good job of estimating construction completion
times? Big picture - are unspent funds came out the same as last time – let’s take a close look at making sure
things - very strong promise to Council that if you fund this it will get done and if it doesn’t get done it is a
concern. The fact that the amounts are so similar in the two years concerns me somewhat. Council chose not
to do some things with the promise that these other things would get done.
Darin Atteberry; there are some good reasons of why we haven’t gotten a project done - when I ask the
questions - there is always a compelling business reason that something got delayed - don’t want you to leave
with a different impression
Mike Beckstead; discussion in March around what we are calling Strategy Maps – think you will be very intrigued
- new system we are putting in place for tracking status was work done on time /on budget
Another layer deeper than we have done in the past - progress and timing of things
Darin Atteberry; there have been times when we have seen spending not occurring - BFO offers – are promises
If you see an underspend - Strategy Maps are going to futher refine this thinking
Mike Beckstead; to summarize
We will pull the Executive Team together and go through the higher level thinking / competitive thinking
Bring this back to CFC in March to confirm and then to Council sometime in April then with re-appropriation
Darin Atteberry; fulfilling commitments we have already made - I know Council expects this - we are 40 days
into a new 2 year budget and we are asking for more resources.
D. Revenue Diversification Outreach Update
Tiana Smith, Revenue and Project Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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.
10
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
11
• 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.
Mayor Troxell; good input - first column - Strategies instead of Alternatives - more like the lodging tax –
strategies that might add to revenue streams that don’t impact citizens as much.
General Summary - Businesses impact communities - how to address that
Like the continuity thinking – there is some community buy in – doesn’t address the diversification
Does allow for go forward – there is community buy in –
Ross Cunniff; If people don’t see the problem maybe didn’t tell the story right –the whole reason we passed
KFCG was this specific problem- downturn in sales tax revenues - we need to continue to provide critical
services such as Police and Fire. KFCG is now viewed as an extension of the city’s on-going operational budget.
I am ok with dropping the occupation tax / fee. Tax on Services (list on back up slide) our list is much shorter
than other communities. Curves of goods and services proceed along different trajectories - trying to get
multiple trajectories coming together - related but different. Transportation Utility Fee may be another case
where we need to reevaluate our story because if the concern was actually around fairness I think the argument
could be made – there are certain segments of economy that have a much larger impact on our transportation
infrastructure and frankly don’t pay their fair share. That should go to the voters - agree - intent to be revenue
neutral and see what the voters want. Fine saying Strategies instead of Alternatives
12
Sales Tax - flexibility that we have given the CFO to negotiate agreements with people who have not been
paying sales tax previously – we have gotten some additional revenue from internet sales tax - we are less
dependent on - we need to continue – to acknowledge that we have had some success
Gerry Horak; there are a lot of good ideas that we need to look at. Please send this presentation to David Roy
Utilities Fee - will pass fees on to consumers
Demand and supply drives price – could be how many fast food restaurants
Every time you have new costs you don’t get to change prices
Tiana Smith; you can choose to pay into sales tax - depending on how you choose to do your spending in Fort
Collins. There is no choice on a transportation fee on your utility bill - it doesn’t matter if you ride a bike and
don’t have an impact on streets – you are still assessed that cost.
Ross Cunniff: we could write the fee to align with impact your housing stock has.
3 Options
Mike Beckstead; we are looking for direction from Council on what option(s) to pursue
There is a lot of good work to be done in the renewal of KFCG
Gerry Horak; I agree that this is a good use of resources - we will be thinking about the Property Tax and
Gallagher issue – is the property tax rate at the right level ? Woodward facility - people asking – we don’t like tax
but worse we don’t like it when you change how we pay it – we are used to it - so just don’t change anything
Mike Beckstead; I really look at KFCG as the critical thing to focus on over the next few years
Mike Beckstead; we could continue to explore tax on services – one of the things we bumped into is that is isn’t
reported data so problematic to get anything quantifiable
To summarize; we will primarily focus on the 3rd option but keep tax on services and transportation tax
discussions alive – part of revenue continuity and what we do with KFCG
13
3D Printing - Josh Birks
Darin Atteberry; this item was postponed for 2 reasons - Wade has a conflict (CSU) and there was some vetting
that needed to be done. Josh has had numerous conversations with the owner of this offer - a private citizen
Josh Birks; original offer was for $150k for 2 years - $300k total
Applicant / Owner of offer - any funding beyond 2018 would have to be an ongoing request.
He currently operates a very successful lab which services businesses and students from his CSU campus
location. He has a vision of taking it off of campus thus hopefully meeting a broader need - in order to keep on
campus lab funded and ongoing the need is much smaller than this request – he has applied for an industry
cluster grant .
1) Keeping the current lab open and operational - lights on
2) $150K of city money to match a state grant that the applicant is chasing - part of a much bigger pool of funds
that would match the state grant. The state grant is $1.5m – he has to have a dollar for dollar match
- he thinks his fund raising efforts will be easier having the city’s endorsement - he has soft to firm commitments
for approximately $850k of the match. His request is for city to throw its weight behind this effort to move the
lab off campus and make it more accessible and available to the community. Because he is yet to receive the
state grant - our commitment would be contingent on him securing that grant. The grant request is due mid
April and he needs to have his matching fund commitments in place for that application. This is a one time
$150k. If he doesn’t receive positive response by June 1st – he is going to commit to just keeping it on campus
and set aside the vision of moving off campus.
Darin Atteberry; we either have an urgent funding issue OR…. Is this one you two believe is urgent to bring
forward?
Gerry Horak; I am more favorable - trying to build something that if it doesn’t happen the dollars go back in the
pool. I am more amiable on this because if the grant doesn’t go we don’t have to spend the $
Ross Cunniff; I don’t have any financial objections to this but I do have some policy concerns.
Gerry Horak; It should go to Council in a timely manner - it should go on the March 21st agenda (it may not make
it)
Ross Cunniff; I would like for the Council Member who is really advocating for this to have a say
Gerry Horak; Council is very interested as this is one of the Innovation pieces - Innovation Fund
Ross Cunniff; would be useful to know if for some reason the state grant doesn’t come through
is there reduced cost of using a city facility where this could be housed as a back up plan? Innovation Center
Josh Birks; keeping the on campus lab looks highly likely
Gerry Horak; we need to make sure we understand whatever contingencies they have - the state grant rules on
what he has to do and produce - whatever that is - we want to be part of that too - If they have rules of what he
14
Mike Beckstead; we will bring this forward to Council hopefully on March 21st and provide clarification as
requested on a number of items.
E. Front Range Financial Comparison
Travis Storin, Accounting Director
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
Travis Storin; 31 cities included in analysis with a mean size of 82k
15
Darin Atteberry; how do you reconcile the price of government ratio metric we use -
Reasonable to low cost of government to - price of gov’t data speaks to the contrary
Mike Beckstead; need to dig back into price of government data from the author to see what is and is not
included. I was also surprised that other cities don’t have 4-5 utilities and we include that which should cause us
to be higher than the average - I totally get that they point in different directions
Darin Atteberry; we look at our sales tax rate vs Denver metro sales tax rates - some of the key data points were
Lower or average
Mike Beckstead; if you take the RTA out - our sales tax rate is on the high side compared to other front range
communities - it is hard to get apples to apples because of that RTA - If you just look at the 3.85 rate and you
compare it to other municipalities without their RTA rate – we are at the higher side
Darin Atteberry; would be curious for example - RTA revenue in Westminster
I think we are putting approx. $8m into transit and they are putting in zero General Fund dollars.
With data said we are more competitive and we are providing a higher quality of service but this concerns me
that I am not going to be able to credibly say that any more
Mike Beckstead; This does offer some questions about the other data - what I get confident about here if that
Rubin and Brown goes through the CAFRs normalizes - make sure there are apples to apples across these ratios
and as best as possible gives like for like comparisons across their 30+ front range communites.
Darin Atteberry; one other thing that seems conflicting to me is Moody’s rating - how are you in the 97th
percentile from a ratings standpoint - but in the mid quartile in these
Mike Beckstead; liquidity ratios - we are low - debit is low - interest per capita is low – conservative fiscal is part
of the good Moody’s rating and then to the revenue side and the services that revenue supports - Moody’s
doesn’t ding us on that – liquidity / cash / low debt. Overall community wealth is a big part of Moody’s - they
look at income per capita – our numbers were lower than Boulder but were relatively healthy compared to
other communities
Travis – Moody’s is more ‘is the current model sustainable?’ - this is more absolute - Lawrence is the owner of
the Price of Gov’t. metric - I will connect with him and get detail
16
Darin Atteberry; we shouldn’t be promoting and using that metric if it is not true – want to be objective and
consistent - worried about the conflicting macro higher level messages
Mike Beckstead; there are two pieces to the price of government metric - trend is a good story – trend is
coming down
Gerry Horak; regarding fees - Kelly DeMartino mentioned in Leadership meeting that you had some meetings
with Chamber and others - had a group meeting with chamber / Were any changes
Tiana Smith; we met with the Chamber - they told us what they wanted to see out of the presentation – they
wanted to see the fees brought on an individual basis and not aggregate = info on impact to multi family and
smaller units – residential impact
Mike Beckstead; the head of builders was there plus 6 or 7 others - They were very happy with the 6 month lag
and the phasing
___________________________________________________________________________
Impact Fees
Staff was asked to provide council a memo on the status of updates to impact fees and alternatives to bring
impact fees forward in March
2017 Health Benefits
Ross Cunniff; question about health benefits for staff not being in line with our policy - where are we on that?
Memo re: Update on 2017 Benefits Plan Changes is attached per Ross’ request.
Meeting Adjourned at 11:34 am
Page 1
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Mike Beckstead, CFO
Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director
Date: March 20, 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 $1,636,892
Keep Fort Collins Great Fund 768,055
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: $2,885,088
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance Committee support moving forward with the 2017 Reappropriation
Ordinance on the Consent Agenda at the April 18, 2017 Council meeting?
Page 2
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
During the February CFC meeting the Committee requested the executive team (ELT) to review
all 2017 Reappropriation requests to ensure they were still organizational priorities and compare
those with the other potential 2017 additional funding needs which were also presented during
that same meeting.
The ELT met and first evaluated the potential 2017 additional funding needs and came to the
following conclusions:
- Police Campus West Substation Build-out: Brought forward to Council as a supplemental
appropriation for 1
st
Reading on March 7; 2
nd
Reading scheduled for March 21
- Three Jail Beds: Being brought forward to Council as a supplemental appropriation on a
future TBD date
- 3D Printing: Being brought forward to Council as a supplemental appropriation for 1
st
Reading on March 21
- It was determined that all other items presented to CFC would be postponed until more
information was solidified
That left the original 2017 Reappropriation items being considered. The ELT did a review of all
of those items and determined that they were all still organizational and community priorities.
As such, those exact same items are being brought forth again for CFC consideration.
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.
Page 3
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.
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.
Page 4
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
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-
Page 5
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
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
Page 6
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
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.
Page 7
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.
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
Page 8
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
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).
Page 9
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
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.
Page 10
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.
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.
Page 11
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 #13 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 #15 under General Fund.
Traffic
27) Traffic Operations-Arterial Ped Crossing & Neighborhood Mitigation Re-
installation - $19,000 (plus an additional $30,000 in Transportation Fund totals
$49,000 for request)
Purpose for funds: Funds are intended to complete projects already underway but were not
able to be fully completed in 2016. The projects include enhanced crosswalks at
Drake/Illinois (a rectangular rapid flash beacon) and Mulberry/Sherwood (HAWK) and
neighborhood calming projects on Starflower, Larkbunting and Springfield.
Reason funds not expensed in 2016: The need to complete in 2017 instead of 2016 is due to
a concrete contractor that ran out of good weather in the fall to pour concrete, a boring
contractor who couldn’t schedule the bore in December, and the Streets Department was
unable to accommodate the re-installation of speed tables after a late season chip seal. These
are neither new projects, nor whole projects that could be eliminated. (For instance at Drake
and Illinois the RRFB is already installed, but the concrete work is not yet compete.) They
are on-going projects that were delayed across the end of year due to weather and
construction/contractor timing. We expect to complete the projects this spring.
Page 12
TRANSPORTATION FUND
Traffic
28) Traffic Operations-Arterial Ped Crossing & Neighborhood Mitigation Re-
installation - $30,000 (plus an additional $19,000 in Keep Fort Collins Great Fund
totals $49,000 for request)
Please see description in #27 under Keep Fort Collins Great 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.
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.
Page 13
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
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 $2,885,088. A total of $1,636,892 is requested
for reappropriation in the General Fund, $768,055 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
Additional 2017 Review
• In February the Council Finance Committee (CFC)
requested the executive team to collectively
review all reappropriation requests to ensure they
were all still organizational priorities
• Additional guidance was provided to compare
reappropriation requests to other potential 2017
funding needs
• The executive team met and concluded that all
2017 reappropriation items originally submitted
were all still high priorities to be completed
3
2017 Reappropriation Summary
4
Amount by Fund being requested for Reappropriation:
General Fund $1,636,892
Keep Fort Collins Great Fund 768,055
Transportation Fund 30,000
Light & Power Fund 107,933
Data & Communications Fund 301,600
Utility CS&A Fund 40,608
Total: $2,885,088
Reappropriation by Fund
GENERAL FUND:
5
# Department Request Name Amount
1 Comm Dev & Neighborhood Svcs Development of Transition Standards for Old Town and Downtown $30,000
2 Comm Dev & Neighborhood Svcs Land Use Code Amendments pertaining to the Downtown Plan 42,548
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 78,000
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 $1,636,892
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-Arterial Ped Crossing & Neighborhood Mitigation Re-installation 19,000
KEEP FORT COLLINS GREAT FUND TOTAL $768,055
OTHER FUNDS:
7
Reappropriation by Fund
# Department Request Name Amount
28 Traffic Traffic Operations-Arterial Ped Crossing & Neighborhood Mitigation Re-installation $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 $2,885,088
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 April 18th City Council meeting
Back-up Slides
9
Process
Process:
• Prompt organization to submit Reappropriation requests
using standardized template
• Budget Office reviews to ensure requests meet criteria for
Reappropriation and checks the 2016 available balance to
verify unspent budget 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
10
Page 1
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Mike Beckstead, CFO
Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director
Date: March 20, 2017
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Review of the City’s Strategy Maps used in executive reviews of organizational performance.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since the release of the City of Fort Collins Community Dashboard in 2013, the organization has
been using metrics in reviews of City performance. With each of those reviews we have
evaluated the effectiveness of the discussions and made improvements to 1) the metrics we are
reviewing, 2) the context to why those metrics are important and 3) the participants in those
reviews. The 2017 Strategy Maps are a result of continuous improvements to our performance
reporting.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
What questions does the Council Finance Committee have about the City’s use of Strategy Maps
to evaluate organizational performance?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The current evolution of our performance reviews now aligns three to four metrics with each of
the strategic objects in the City’s 2016 Strategic Plan. These metrics have been vetted in
multiple discussions with City executives and department heads to align metrics with the ‘what’
each strategic objective is trying to achieve. These metrics include a green-yellow-red
performance indicator, analysis statement of what is driving performance, and an action plan for
underperforming metrics (a yellow or red indicator).
The Strategy Maps being rolled out in 2017 also include all Offers funded in the 2017-18 Budget
that are aligned with each strategic objective in the 2016 Strategic Plan. These initiatives also
include a green-yellow-red performance indicator, as well as a percent complete, status of the
Offer, and action plans for Offers that are not on time or within budget.
The 2017 Strategy Maps focus organizational review and dialogue around the strategic
objectives in the City’s Strategic Plan from both a performance metric and funded budget Offer
perspective (see Attachment #2). The executive team meets monthly to review the Strategy
Page 2
Maps by Outcome with department heads knowledgeable about the metrics and accountable for
delivering the programs and services funded in the budget.
As part of the 2018 Strategic Planning process a review will be conducted with City Council in
Q1 2018 with a summary of the City’s performance based on the metrics aligned with our
strategic objectives. This will occur prior to the Council adoption of the City’s 2018 Strategic
Plan.
FINANCIAL/ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Not applicable
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment #1 – Presentation
Attachment #2 – Proof of Concept Strategy Map report for the Transportation Outcome
1
Strategy Maps
Council Finance Committee – March 20, 2017
Attachment #1
Community
Dashboard
Metrics for each
BFO Offers
BFO Scorecards
for QSARS
Refine Metrics
Strategy MAPs,
2
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Strategy Maps
1. Establish Metrics for each Strategic Objective
2. Align BFO Offers to Strategic Objective
3. Replace MOR with Strategy Map Discussion
4. Develop benchmarks and establish targets
Progress and Continuous Improvement
Performance Metric Journey
Strategic
Objectives
BFO
Metrics Initiatives
3
Strategy MAPs – Tool to Measure Progress Achieving Our
Strategic Objectives
3 Types of Metrics
Strategy Map Metrics
- 160+ metrics across 56 Strategic Objectives
- Indicate progress achieving each Strategic Objective
- Discussed in Strategy Map reviews (replaces MOR)
Community Dashboard Metrics
- 39 metrics across 7 Outcomes
- Indicates how we are doing at achieving our Outcomes
- Discussed in QSARs
Other Operational Metrics
- Day to day, operational measures that are
important to each Department
• Organized by Outcome & Strategic Objective
• Includes both measures and initiatives aligned with
each Strategic Objective
• Summarized progress and status of metrics & initiatives
• Discussed at monthly Strategy Map reviews
• Strategy Map reviews will now also include Department
Heads
4
What is a Strategy Map?
Sample Strategy Map
5
Sample Strategy MAP
6
2017 Strategy Map Reviews
7
Months:
Jan, Apr, Jul, Oct
Outcomes:
• Economic Health
• Environmental Health
• Neighborhood Livability
& Social Health
Additional Topics:
• 1 Pager – each SA
• Council priorities
• Other council commitments
• Enterprise wide items
Months:
Feb, May, Aug, Nov
Outcomes:
• Safe Community
• Transportation
• Culture & Recreation
Additional Topics:
• 1 Pager – each SA
Months:
Mar, Jun, Sep, Dec
Outcomes:
• High Performing Government
Additional Topics / Metrics:
• 1 Pager – each SA
• Safety
• Workforce
• Finance
• Baldrige
BFO Off Year Revision Process
Strategic Risk Assessment
Capital Improvement Plan LT Financial Plan
BLT Budget Council & Public Hearings
Prep
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Even Years Odd Years
C
ouncil
Elections
Inputs for the Strategic Plan Strategic Planning Process Budgeting for Outcomes
Offer
Creation BFO Teams
Community Engagement
/ Citizen Survey
Dept. Input
Strategic
Plan
*
= Council review of Strategic Plan
at 2nd
Work Session of the month
Results
Review
with Council
Strategic Plan –
Core Team / ELT & Chairs
Planning Calendar
Public Engagement
*
Back-up Slides
9
Strategy MAP Input Guidance
10
Metrics:
• Data – No change from prior QSARs, but now specific to Strategy Map metrics
• Analysis Statement - (target 150-200 characters max)
• Concise bullet summary of changes, trends, drivers, performance, the why behind the numbers
• Not - large, macro trends each time, assume some institutional knowledge about this.
• Actions - if Yellow or Red - (target 150-200 characters max)
• Concise bullet summary of actions to improve results if metric is Yellow or Red
• Actions should often reference a BFO initiative action plans – resources are tied to initiatives
BFO Initiatives:
• Green/Yellow/Red
• Visual Indicator of overall status of the initiative: Green - on track to complete during the year:
Yellow - concern about completing during the year: Red – significant obstacles and road blocks
• % Complete
• Percent complete on 1) delivering on scope or the work, 2) on budget 3) on time
• Percent complete for Enhancement Offers only
• Status - (target 150-200 characters max)
• Concise bullet summary of accomplishments and efforts in process, obstacles or issues impairing
progress
• Actions - if Yellow or Red - (target 150-200 characters max)
• Concise bullet summary of next steps, actions to be taken during next quarter
• Actions may/should reference metric that will be impacted, alternative to having an action plan in
the metric
ELT & Departmental Roles
• Service Area Directors
− Review of their area’s content prior to publication – help manage text
− Prepare Council Commitments (1 pager)
− Ensure all materials sent to Budget by the 2nd Wednesday of each month
• Department Heads
− Content experts for metrics & initiative status and action items
− Accountable for the narrative provided for metrics and initiatives
− Participate in the Strategy Map reviews
• Metric Data Owners & ClearPoint Super Users
− Content experts for metric analysis and action items, as needed
− Provide data and information to their ClearPoint Super User
− Update ClearPoint with metric and initiative information (per previous slide)
− Provide template of information to SA Director for their review
• Budget Office
− Sends Strategy Map and Council Commitment materials in PDF format to ELT
11
Strategy Map Update Timeline
12
Mon Tue Wed Thru Fri
Depts. begin
loading data
into Clear
Point
Depts.
inputs due
in
ClearPoint
SA Directors
Review of
Dept. Input
- ClearPoint
closed
- SA 1 Pager
due to
Budget
Budget
Distributes
Strategy
Map to ELT
Strategy
3 Map Review
rd Week of Month
2nd
Week of Month
1st
Week of Month
Service Area Decisions
13
• 1-Pager information to be included
• 1-pager (two-sided) should include any council commitments or
enterprise wide projects not covered within a BFO initiative
• Council Priority Dashboard items included, as needed
• Review of Strategy Map materials before being sending to
Budget
• Who attends the meetings (generally only Department Heads)
• Who updates ClearPoint – Super Users or Department Heads
• Who needs training
Next Steps
• Budget to provide a list of owners for each metric and BFO Initiative
SA responsible to make sure data is updated per calendar
• Budget will coordinate finalizing Metrics for each Strategic Objective
A number of new metrics have been identified
They will be added to Strategy Maps as finalized
• Results Journey Teams review Targets & Green-Yellow-Red
Evaluations
Service Area Directors and Department Heads to determine changes
• Budget to provide training to those involved in the process
• New Strategy Maps to be used instead of MORs starting in April
• Continuous Improvement
Check in with ELT for improvements along the way
Share best practice example Strategy Maps
14
Transportation Outcome
Strategy Map Review
Data as of March 1, 2017
OOSSbbttrrjjaeaetctceettiiggvviieeccss
6.6.HHoommee1 - Improve safety for all modes of travel including vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle.
Citywide Scorecard
MORReport MOR Measure Summary Report
MORReport MOR Initiative Summary Report
Scorecard Measure Analysis Actions
Traffic
TRANAverage TRAN 37. Average
SpeedNeighborhood Speed on Neighborhood
Streets
Traffic
Police Services
SAFEVoluntary SAFE 27. Voluntary
speedcompliance speed compliance
(Monthly)
Police Services
Traffic
SAFEof SAFE 6. Number of
Injury/CrashesInjury/Fatal Crashes
Traffic
Injury/Fatal crashes is the number of reported public street
crashes involving motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians
where someone was injured or killed. The 4th quarter of 2016
was below target with 56 injury crashes (the target is below 70
for Q4). The number of injury crashes in Q4 '16 was similar to
Q4 '15 (50 injury crashes) and less than prior 4th quarters
including 2012 (63 injury crashes), 2013 (70 injury crashes) and
2014 (70 injury crashes).
In 2016 overall, there were 261 injury crashes. This is an
increase compared to 2015 (240 injury crashes) but a decrease
compared to the previous three years: 2012 - 293, 2013 - 269,
2014 - 262 and similar to the previous 4-year average of 266.
Between 2012 and 2016 vehicle-miles traveled in Fort Collins
increased by about 13%. In light of the increase in traffic a
steady or decreasing trend in injury crashes is indicative of an
overall improvement in traffic safety.
Initiative Percent
Complete
Status Actions
1.1 EngineeringOffer Engineering Core Offer
(2017-18)
Engineering
0%
3.to3.18 KFCG: Safe Routes to
School Program (2017-18)
FC Moves - Safe Routes to
School
0%
Strategy Map Outcome - Transportation (Dec-16) Generated 03/02/17 at 12:13 AM EST, Page 1
3.4 ENHANCEMENT:
CommunityCapital Community Capital
Improvement Program -
BicycleInfrastructure Bicycle Infrastructure
(2017-18)
FC Moves - FC Bikes
0%
1.2 KFCGBridge KFCG City Bridge
Program (2017-18)
Engineering
0%
3.21 KFCG: SchoolCrossing School Crossing
Guard Program (2017-18)
FC Moves - Safe Routes to
School
0%
35.Road35.1 Harmony Road
Maintenance (2017-18)
Traffic
0%
60.11 ENHANCEMENT:
StreetsOperations Streets Field Operations
Manager (1.0 FTE) (2017-
18)
Streets
0%
60.Street60.3 Essential Street
Operations (2017-18)
Streets
0%
3.20 KFCG: FC Bikes (2017-
18)
FC Moves - FC Bikes
0%
33.6 KFCG ENHANCEMENT:
SignalInspection Signal Pole Inspection
(2017-18)
Traffic
0%
1.5 ENHANCEMENT:
CommunityCapital Community Capital
ImprovementProgram Improvement Program
ArterialIntersections Arterial Intersections
Improvements (2017-18)
Engineering
0%
1.7 ENHANCEMENT:
CommunityCapital Community Capital
Improvement Program -
Pedestrian Sidewalk/ADA
(2017-18)
Engineering
0%
60.Removal60.2 Snow and Ice Removal
(2017-18)
Streets
0%
1.9 ENHANCEMENT:
CommunityCapital Community Capital
Improvement Program -
60.Maintenance60.1 Street Maintenance
Program (2017-18)
Streets 0%
1.10 ENHANCEMENT:
Horsetoothand Horsetooth Road and
CollegeAvenue College Avenue
IntersectionImprovements Intersection Improvements
(2017-18)
Engineering
0%
1.11 ENHANCEMENT:
RailroadCrossing Railroad Crossing
Maintenance (2017-18)
Engineering
0%
1.12 ENHANCEMENT:
SunigaImprovements Suniga Road Improvements
–Blondel – College Ave to Blondel
Street (2017-18)
Engineering
0%
1.15 ENHANCEMENT:
SharpDrive Sharp Point Drive
ConnectionRailroad Connection and Railroad
Crossing (2017 Only)
Engineering
0%
1.18 KFCG ENHANCEMENT:
City Bridge Program (2017-
18)
Engineering
0%
1.19 ENHANCEMENT:
LincolnAvenue Lincoln Avenue
ImprovementsStreet Improvements - 1st Street
toand to Lemay Pedestrian and
LandscapeEnhancements Landscape Enhancements
(2017 Only)
Engineering
0%
1.21 ENHANCEMENT: CCiittyy
Bridge Program (2017-18)
Engineering
0%
Strategy Map Outcome - Transportation (Dec-16) Generated 03/02/17 at 12:13 AM EST, Page 3
OOSSbbttrrjjaeaetctceettiiggvviieeccss
6.6.HHoommee2 - Improve traffic flow to benefit both individuals and the business community.
Citywide Scorecard
MORReport MOR Measure Summary Report
Measure Analysis Actions
TRANresponse TRAN 18. Pothole response
time
Streets
The purpose of this metric is to track the response time to repair potholes.
Pothole repair prolongs the life of streets and reduces future maintenance
and rehabilitation costs. The goal is to fill potholes within 48 hours of the
initial report. In the fourth quarter of 2016, Streets received 19 pothole
requests from citizens. The average pothole response time was 36 hours.
Weekends and holidays are not accounted for when generating the pothole
response time.
TRANTravel TRAN 28. Average Travel
Speeds/ArterialSpeeds/Times on Arterial
Streets
Traffic
Traffic volume-weighted average travel times (in minutes/mile) on City
arterial streets including Harmony, Horsetooth, Drake, Prospect, Mulberry,
Taft Hill, Shields, College, Lemay and Timberline during the p.m. peak period
on weekdays. In Q4 '16 overall travel time on arterials decreased by about
2.9% compared to Q3 '16 and by about 3.7% compared to Q4 '15. This is
primarily due a reduction in impacts related to construction projects.
TRANcitizens TRAN 49. % of citizens
responding very good/good -
TrafficFort Traffic congestion in Fort
CCoolllliinnss
Citizen Survey
Strategy Map Outcome - Transportation (Dec-16) Generated 03/02/17 at 12:13 AM EST, Page 4
MORReport MOR Initiative Summary Report
Initiative Percent
Complete
Status Actions
2.1 ENHANCEMENT: I-25
ImprovementsLocal Improvements Local
FundingCouncil Funding Match (Council
Reserve Assignments)
(2017-18)
PDT Administration
0%
33.4 ENHANCEMENT: 1.0
FTEEngineering FTE - Traffic Engineering
Technician (2017-18)
Traffic
0%
1.3 TransportationCapital Transportation Capital
Expansion (Street
Oversizing) Program (2017-
18)
Engineering
0%
33.5 KFCG ENHANCEMENT:
Adaptivefor Adaptive Signal System for
Harmonyand Harmony Road and
Timberline Road (2017-18)
Traffic
0%
73.3 ENHANCEMENT:
ParkingEquipment Parking Capital Equipment
(2017-18)
Parking
0%
73.6 ENHANCEMENT:
Parkingand Parking Capital Repair and
MaintenanceCenter Maintenance - Civic Center
Parking Structure (2017-18)
Parking
0%
33.Traffic33.3 KFCG: Traffic
OperationsEquipment Operations Equipment
(2017-18)
Traffic
0%
73.7 ENHANCEMENT:
Parkingand Parking Capital Repair and
MaintenanceTown Maintenance - Old Town
Parking Structure (2017-18)
Parking
0%
33.Operations33.1 Traffic Operations
(2017-18)
Traffic
0%
73.Services73.1 Parking Services
(2017-18)
Parking
0%
Strategy Map Outcome - Transportation (Dec-16) Generated 03/02/17 at 12:13 AM EST, Page 5
OOSSbbttrrjjaeaetctceettiiggvviieeccss
6.6.HHoommee3 - Identify strategies to reduce motorist delays due to trains.
Citywide Scorecard
MORReport MOR Measure Summary Report
MORReport MOR Initiative Summary Report
Measure Analysis Actions
Nothis No Measures are linked to this
StrategicObjective Strategic Objective
Citywide Scorecard
Initiative Percent
Complete
Status Actions
Noto No Initiative are linked to
thisObjective this Strategic Objective
Citywide Scorecard
0%
Strategy Map Outcome - Transportation (Dec-16) Generated 03/02/17 at 12:13 AM EST, Page 6
OOSSbbttrrjjaeaetctceettiiggvviieeccss
6.6.HHoommee4 - Improve transit availability, grow ridership and address MAX parking concerns.
Citywide Scorecard
MORReport MOR Measure Summary Report
MORReport MOR Initiative Summary Report
Measure Analysis Actions
TRANRoute TRAN 1. Transfort Fixed Route
PassengersHour Passengers per Revenue Hour
Transfort/Dial-a-Ride
Passengers per Revenue Hour for the fourth quarter totaled 33.62 – a 2%
decrease over the same period in 2015. Total revenue hours increased by
nearly 7,400 hours for 2016 as compared to 2015 due primarily to the new
FLEX to Boulder service which began in January 2016 and increased service
on the HORN campus shuttle. The 2016 data reflects continued increases
in transit ridership particularly routes serving the CSU campus.
TRANTransfort TRAN 2. Cumulative Transfort
FixedRidership Fixed Route Ridership
Transfort/Dial-a-Ride
Annual Fixed Route Ridership surpassed four million passenger boardings
for the first time in 2016. Fixed Route Ridership in the fourth quarter
surpassed the previous year's fourth quarter by 3.5%. Increases were seen
across nearly every route and the highest increases were experienced on
the Horn campus shuttle (40%) and MAX (41%). Fourth quarter data is an
indication that a new baseline of ridership has been achieved and the
higher ridership reported this year can be expected every quarter hence.
These ridership increases buck the trend of many U.S. transit agencies,
which are experiencing decreases due in part to the low price of fuel.
TRANcitizens TRAN 45. % of citizens
responding very good/good -
Easepublic Ease of traveling by public
transportationCollins transportation in Fort Collins
Citizen Survey
Initiative Percent
Complete
Status Actions
67.13 ENHANCEMENT:
Transfortand Transfort Sunday and
Holiday Service (2017-18)
Transfort/Dial-a-Ride
0%
Strategy Map Outcome - Transportation (Dec-16) Generated 03/02/17 at 12:13 AM EST, Page 7
OOSSbbttrrjjaeaetctceettiiggvviieeccss
6.aesthetic6.HHoommee5 - Fill the gaps for all modes of travel and improve the current transportation infrastructure while enhancing the aesthetic
environment.
Citywide Scorecard
MORReport MOR Measure Summary Report
MORReport MOR Initiative Summary Report
Measure Analysis Actions
TRANLane TRAN 3. Cumulative Lane
MilesPavement Miles of Roadway Pavement
Improved
Streets
The number of lane miles improved displays the City’s commitment to
providing safe, well-maintained streets. Proper maintenance reduces future
maintenance costs by extending the life of the existing pavements and
maximizing past tax dollar investments. Quarterly targets are set to
provide information on our progress towards meeting our yearly resurfacing
goals. These targets vary from quarter to quarter due to weather
limitations of construction and programming needs. Achieving our yearly
goals allows us to meet our overall street pavement condition Level of
Service (LOS) 'B' (good).
The Street Maintenance Program had set a performance goal of 110 total
lane miles of road to resurface in by the end of 2016. In the fourth quarter
we were able to resurface a total of 36 lane miles. This brings the total
cumulative to 111 lane miles.
NOTE: The total lane mile goal for 2016 was lowered compared to last year
to refocus our efforts on Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ramp
compliance. Two million additional dollars were reallocated toward this
effort subsequently lowering our resurfacing goal.
Initiative Percent
Complete
Status Actions
3.9 ENHANCEMENT:
ProtectedPilot Protected Bike Lane Pilot
Project (2017-18)
FC Moves - FC Bikes
0%
73.Fire73.2 ENHANCEMENT: Fire
HouseParking House Alley Parking
Structureand Structure Operating and
Maintenance (2017-18)
Parking
0%
Strategy Map Outcome - Transportation (Dec-16) Generated 03/02/17 at 12:13 AM EST, Page 8
OOSSbbttrrjjaeaetctceettiiggvviieeccss
6.6.HHoommee6 - Develop long-term transportation plans that improve local and regional transportation networks.
Citywide Scorecard
MORReport MOR Measure Summary Report
MORReport MOR Initiative Summary Report
Measure Analysis Actions
Nothis No Measures are linked to this
StrategicObjective Strategic Objective
Citywide Scorecard
Initiative Percent
Complete
Status Actions
Noto No Initiative are linked to
thisObjective this Strategic Objective
Citywide Scorecard
0%
Strategy Map Outcome - Transportation (Dec-16) Generated 03/02/17 at 12:13 AM EST, Page 9
OOSSbbttrrjjaeaetctceettiiggvviieeccss
6.6.HHoommee7 - Develop plans that address adequate infrastructure within the northeast area of Fort Collins.
Citywide Scorecard
MORReport MOR Measure Summary Report
MORReport MOR Initiative Summary Report
Measure Analysis Actions
Nothis No Measures are linked to this
StrategicObjective Strategic Objective
Citywide Scorecard
Initiative Percent
Complete
Status Actions
Noto No Initiative are linked to
thisObjective this Strategic Objective
Citywide Scorecard
0%
Strategy Map Outcome - Transportation (Dec-16) Generated 03/02/17 at 12:13 AM EST, Page 10
Page 1
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Mike Beckstead, CFO
Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director
Date: March 20, 2017
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Review of the City’s practice and methodology for budgeting ongoing expenses vs. one-time
expenses.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City budget contains both ongoing revenue that is forecasted annually with a high level of
confidence and one-time revenue which is comprised of prior year reserves and other less
predictable revenue like use tax. Likewise, the budget includes ongoing expenses for existing
programs and services, as well as one-time expenses predominately used for enhancements and
short-term programs (like a pilot program). There are documented guidelines that help ensure
we treat those types of revenue and expenses consistently.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
What questions does the Council Finance Committee have about the City’s practice and
methodology for budgeting ongoing expenses vs. one-time expenses?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
There are many types of revenue included in the City’s budget, many of which have various
restrictions on how they can be used. Often times those restrictions are based on the source of
that revenue. For instance, ‘tree donations’ are restricted to be used only on forestry related
expenses and utility fee revenue is restricted for expenses related to that utility.
Another type of restriction is in the form of ongoing revenue vs. one-time revenue. Ongoing
revenue like sales tax and property tax are forecasted with a high degree of confidence and are
primarily used to fund expenses for ongoing programs and services. One-time revenue like
reserves are generally used for one-time expenses like a consulting study. Another example of
one-time revenue is use tax above a base of $14.5M. Use tax is a volatile revenue stream with
potentially significant ups and downs from year to year. The City considers a base level of
$14.5M of use tax as a reliable forecast every year so that base revenue is considered ongoing
revenue. The amount of use tax forecasted above that base level is considered one-time revenue
since it cannot be counted on reliably every year. For example, an annual forecast of $22.0M of
use tax would be comprised of $14.5M of ongoing revenue and $7.5M of one-time revenue
Page 2
There is a conscious effort to not use one-time revenue for ongoing expenses. The reason for this
is that one-time revenue cannot be counted on to be available every year, thereby jeopardizing
the funding for ongoing programs. Reserve balances, like a savings account, may drop to
minimum fund balance levels. Use tax may drop significantly when development slows. It is a
prudent business practice, when fiscally possible, to use consistent and reliable revenue sources
to fund expenses associated with ongoing programs and services.
This City does not have a formal policy for the use of ongoing and one-time revenue with the
types of expenses that revenue can be used for. The reason for this is that sometimes, especially
in economic downturns, it may be prudent to continue a program or service to the community
with our savings account based on reserve availability and the importance of that service to the
community. Another example is from the 2017-18 Budget. One-time revenue in the General
Fund was used to fund $375K of Offer 67.13 for Transfort Sunday and Holiday Service
(Transfort 365). Staff believes it is best to not have a policy for the use of ongoing and one-time
revenue to all the City Manager and City Council the flexibility to make prudent business
decisions about how to fund programs and services that are important to the community.
FINANCIAL/ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Not applicable
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment #1 – Presentation
Ongoing vs. One-Time Budgeting
Council Finance Committee – March 20, 2017
2
Ongoing vs. One-Time Revenue
Ongoing Revenue
• Forecasted with a high level of confidence
• Examples include
• Sales Tax
• Use Tax up to $14.5M
• Property tax
• Recreation fees, utility fees, internal charges for service
One-Time Revenue
• Less predictable revenue streams
• Examples include
• Use Tax above $14.5M
• Reserves
3
Use Tax - $14.5M Base
4
Ongoing vs. One-Time Expenses
Ongoing Expenses
• Associated with existing, ongoing programs and services
• Examples include
• Salaries & benefits - unless contract staff for pilot program
• Street maintenance, facility operations, West Nile Virus management program
One-Time Expenses
• Expenses for short-term programs and non-recurring expenses
• Examples include
• Pilot programs
• Consulting studies additional median renovations,
• Neighborhood park development
• Additional median renovations
5
Ongoing vs. One-Time Budgeting
• Ongoing revenue primarily used for ongoing expenses
• One-time revenue primarily used for one-time expenses
• Guidelines documented for use in the budgeting process
− Mission critical programs during economic downturns
− Important community services when ongoing revenue has been
depleted (Transfort 365)
Ongoing vs. One-Time Budgeting
6
What questions does the Council Finance Committee have
about the City’s practice and methodology for budgeting
ongoing expenses vs. one-time expenses?
LincolnAvenue Lincoln Avenue
ImprovementsII Improvements - Phase II
(2017 Only)
Engineering
0%
Strategy Map Outcome - Transportation (Dec-16) Generated 03/02/17 at 12:13 AM EST, Page 2