Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Read Before Packet - 4/25/2017 - Council Finance & Audit Committee Agenda - April 28, 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 April 28, 2017 2:30 - 4:30 pm CIC Room - City Hall Approval of Minutes from the March 20 th and March 28 th Council Finance meetings. 1. Guest Discussion - Housing Catalyst - Tax Credit Review J. Brewan 15 mins. 2. Housing Catalyst - Fee Waiver Request S. Beck-Ferkiss 30 mins. 3. Long Term City Debt Funding Needs T. Storin 30 mins. J. Voss 4. Broadband Update M. Beckstead 30 mins. Council Finance Committee & URA Finance Committee Agenda Planning Calendar 2017 RVSD 04/25/17 cjk Apr 28 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 T. Storin J. Voss Broadband Update 30 min M. Beckstead URA May 15 Parking Garage Financing 20 min J. Voss Metro District Discussion 30 min T. Leeson 2017 & 2018 Revenue & Expenditure 30 min M. Beckstead URA Jun 19 2016 Year End Fund Balance Review 30 min J. Voss URA Jul 17 2018 Benefits Plan Design & Cost Share 30 min T. Roche 2016 Financial Audit Review 20 min T. Storin URA Future Council Finance Committee Topics: County IGA – URA TIF Evaluation Process Future URA Committee Topics: Annual URA District Updates Finance Administration 215 N. Mason 2nd Floor PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6788 970.221.6782 - fax fcgov.com Finance Committee Minutes 03/20/17 9:30 - 11:30 am CIC Room Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Gerry Horak, Ross Cunniff Staff: Jeff Mihelich, Mike Beckstead, Kelly DiMartino, Laurie Kadrich, Kevin Gertig, Chief Hutto, Greg Yeager, Mike Trombley, Wendy Williams, Teresa Roche, John Duval, Travis Storin, John Voss, Tiana Smith, Lawrence Pollack, Andres Gavaldon, Noelle Currell, Chris Martinez, Josh Birks, Susie Gordon, Joe Olson, Michelle Provaznik, Brian Hergott, Tracy Ochsner Others: Kevin Jones (Chamber of Commerce), Dale Adamy (Citizen) Meeting called to order at 9:32 am Ross Cunniff moved to approve Minutes for the February 27th Council Finance Meeting. Mayor Troxell seconded the motion. Minutes were approved unanimously. A. 2017 Reappropriation Ordinance Review Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Council authorized expenditures in 2016 for various purposes; a small percentage of those 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. 2 Monies requested for reappropriation for each City fund by this Ordinance are as follows: Fund 2016 Amended Budget Reappropriation Amount % of 2016 Amended Budget General Fund $143,734,196 $1,584,490 1.1% Keep Fort Collins Great Fund 25,849,423 768,055 3.0% Transportation Fund 27,871,280 30,000 0.1% Light and Power Fund 143,023,302 107,933 0.1% Data and Communications Fund 11,544,230 301,600 2.6% Utility Customer Service and Administration Fund 18,168,083 40,608 0.2% TOTAL $370,190,514 $2,832,686 0.8% 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? 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 1st Reading on March 7; 2nd 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 1st 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. Lawrence Pollack; are there changes you want to see? Questions you have about extra rigor we went through? Ross Cunniff; for the AIS for Council, please include the estimated percentage of each for what the 2016 spend is of the original amount. This way we can start tracking what percentage of our budget offers get spent each year – accountability. Mike Beckstead; confirming percent of the total budget - what does this equal as a percentage by fund 3 Ross Cunniff; April 18th Council meeting - make sure you are planning for education of new Council Members as there will be at least one. Council Finance; we are good as presented - we will bring forward to Council 4/18. B. City’s Strategy Maps Results Process Review Metrics / Action / Performance Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director 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. The Strategy MAPs will create a linkage and facilitate dialog around 1) the Strategic Objective (SO), 2) the BFO initiative funded to support achieving the SO, and 3) the Metric identified to track our progress achieving the SO. The Strategy Maps being rolled out in 2017 will include metrics aligned with each SO and all Offers funded in the 2017-18 Budget aligned with each SO in the 2016 Strategic Plan. The metrics will include a green-yellow-red performance indicator based on the target, an analysis statement of what is driving performance, and an action plan for underperforming metrics (a yellow or red indicator). The initiatives will 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 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. Mike Beckstead; intent is to use this as a foundation for results discussion with Council that will provide a clear understanding of where we are with achieving results. 4 Lawrence Pollack; in the next Strategic Plan, there will be an evolution to be more specific and target driven. Some strategic objectives have many related offers and some have fewer. Gerry Horak; strategic objectives and offers should be about what they want to accomplish - not improvement - that is easy to hit Lawrence Pollack; in the next Strategic Plan, there will be an evolution to be more specific and target driven strategic objectives and additional discussion on the appropriate metrics for each SO. Some strategic objectives have many related offers and some have fewer. Mayor Troxell; who reviews and who is the recipient of these reviews? Lawrence Pollack; this is intended as an internal executive operational review of how well we are doing delivering to the commitments within the budget and achieving the objectives within the SP. The executive team plus department heads will be involved in the reviews. Does it go to Council? Mike Beckstead; this is intended to be a tool for the executive teams and Darin to manage. We plan to bring an update forward to Council in February of even years - right before we finalize the Strategic Plan. Ross Cunniff; it would be nice to have drill down capability. Lawrence Pollack; we created an internal web site where we can monitor data and would be able to take a deep dive as needed. Ross Cunniff; does this need to be internal? Mike Beckstead; I am totally in support of making this information available externally but we need several quarters to debug and refine. Ross Cunniff; should be part of the objective - open data Mayor Troxell; this reflects a lot of great thinking and is tying together what we have been trying to get to for some time. Priority against outcome areas and ability to track and review - brings it all the way back to input to the strategic plan. C. BFO Discussion – one-time and on-going funding guardrails Lawrence, Pollack, Budget Director 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 5 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 is 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 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. Mike Beckstead; this agenda item is in response to Gerry Horak’s question from a prior CFC meeting regarding one time vs on going spending. Institutionalize the practice Ross Cunniff; this would be a good deck to include in Council on-boarding Mayor Troxell; the foundation is another mechanism - beginning to create a higher level decision making process. For Kayak Park - would that go to the foundation or budget? Designated gift or to GF and ear marked? 6 Other Business; Benefits Memo included in Council Finance Packet Mike Beckstead; There is a memo included in the Council Finance documentation packet in response to Ross Cunniff’s question about benefits. We will be coming back to CFC in July with additional detail. Ross Cunniff; I read the memo - these are not targets - this is policy Mike Beckstead; we will make that part of the July discussion. Timing of Future Council Finance Meetings Mike Beckstead; should we push start time past 9:30 am due to Leadership meeting? It was decided to discuss a potential meeting time change at the next Council Finance meeting. Sales Tax Numbers Report came out on the 10th and reflected a 7.4% decline in sales tax revenue for February and a 1.2% decline YTD. Use tax is down slightly but compared with budget, because of use tax, we are about $100k over budget for total sales and use tax revenue thru February. Specifics on why the decline are difficult – Sports Authority closing is part of it, February is a short month and weather can come into play. We are watching it closely and will take a closer look after the March numbers come in. We have $4.4m of general reserves in case we had a down turn. Mike Beckstead; reappropriations have historically moved through the system and some of these project are spending now. We have not historically stopped spending on Jan 1 and then started projects back up after the reappropriation ordinance. $4.4m has been set aside so we could approach a revenue down turn in a thoughtful and methodical way, reassess priorities and develop a new spend plan. Ross Cunniff; develop a plan in the next month of things that can easily be deferred a few weeks or months if this is a short drop. What kinds of categories could be frozen until we get a better picture? Tiana Smith; 7.4% seems alarming but February is always unpredictable - it can be up or down. I would be happy to provide historical data for February. Mike Beckstead; we do have a plan - we set aside $4.4m as a buffer so that in the event of a revenue downturn, we could develop recommendations for reductions to both the current and future year in a thoughtful, methodical way. It is entirely possible that March will pop back up. We don’t want to react to one month’s data - it is concerning to all of us. We will take a hard look at numbers in early April and if downward trend continues we will take action. Finance will provide CFC a memo in early April on March reported numbers. The reappropriation ordinance will be conditional on March results. Jeff Mihelich; I hear Council Member Cunniff’s concerns and we will come back in April with some data. Fees Mike Beckstead; clarified the revenue neutral comment applied to the Transportation CEFs only and Capital Expansion Fees are increasing based on the increased cost of construction and land values. We can add a chart reflecting total revenue in the last 3 years as well as based on 10 year average. Ross Cunniff; I like having more information. 7 Mayor Troxell; the level of service has gone up with our parks - we might just design to a level of service unless a neighborhood wants to enhance beyond that. Mike Beckstead; we plan on coming back and having a conversation with Council about the level of service within our parks. Jeff Mihelich; for staff - level of service has been increasing and there needs to be some Council discussion. Mayor Troxell; do we just want to have open space and ball fields? Should this be part of the capital expansion fee or another source? Mike Beckstead; the revenue off of new fees is based on the current cost to build current parks - we are not changing the methodology. We were proposing a change on Transportation and Electric but those have been deferred. Updated the cost basis / population - calculation is staying the same - we are updating the inputs. Cost escalation is driving most of the 80% increase. Do a read before memo outlining the basis for the increase and asset value / population Meeting Adjourned at 11:10 am. 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 03/28/17 3:30 - 4:30 pm Colorado River Community Room 222 Laporte Ave. Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Gerry Horak, Ross Cunniff Staff: Darin Atteberry, Jeff Mihelich, Mike Beckstead, John Duval, Travis Storin, John Voss, Tiana Smith, Andres Gavaldon, Noelle Currell Others: AXIA Kevin Jones and Ann Hutchinson (Chamber of Commerce) Meeting called to order at 3:31 pm A. AXIA Art Price, Chairman & CEO Robert Price, VP Enterprise and Residential Services Jordan Allred, Director, Business Development, Enterprise and Residential Services Purpose; To give Council Finance the opportunity to hear about Axia’s experience. Overview presentation was given; • Founded in 1998 and Headquartered in Calgary, Canada • Highlights: o 100% Pure Fiber Networks o History of Open-Access networks across the globe o Advanced network methodologies for SME, government entities and residences o Pushing the boundaries of broadband definition and how broadband is delivered to the end user o Vision of bringing affordable, high performing broadband services to underserved communities • Acquired by Partners Group on July 31st, 2016 o Partners Group is the 3rd largest Private Equity fund in the world by Market Capitalization, with over $65B USD of assets under management No direction sought from Council Finance. No Action Items were noted. Meeting adjourned at 4:30 pm COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Staff: Julie Brewen, CEO and Duane Hopkins, CFO of Housing Catalyst Date: April 28, 2017 SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program Primer and Impact of President Trump’s Tax Reform Proposals EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program, Section 42 of the IRS Code, is the primary financing tool for new affordable housing. A result of the recent national election and possible changes to the corporate tax rate have had an immediate detrimental effect on current and future affordable housing development in Fort Collins. A presentation will explain how the program works and how the investor market has been impacted. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED Discussion may include ways the City of Fort Collins has provided gap financing in the past and needs for this funding going forward. Housing Catalyst Affordable Apartments Sample occupations for income-restricted apartments (Based on 2016 income limits for 4-person households) Restriction Income limit Hourly salary Sample occupations 30% of AMI $23,460 $11.27 Bank Teller or Personal Banker; City Utility Worker; Office Assistant; Sherwin Williams Branch Manager; Certified Nursing Assistant; Housekeeper; HC Janitor 40% of AMI $31,280 $15.03 City Office Support Specialist or Transportation Dispatcher; PSD School Custodian; Credit Union Financial Specialist; HC Administrative Asst; Forestry Field Worker; Maintenance Technician 50% of AMI $39,100 $18.80 PSD first thru fourth year teacher with BA; Larimer County Accountant I, Civil Engineer I or Health Dept Social Worker; HC Administrative Assistant or Accounting Clerk; Landscape Project Manager 60% of AMI $46,920 $22.56 PSD 5th through 9th year teacher with BA or 1st through 6th year teacher with MA; CSU Pharmacy Technician; CSU Financial Aid Counselor; County Employment Specialist; HC Property Manager Housing Catalyst Established in 1971 Building Strong Foundations for 45 Years! Introduction to Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program • Created in 1986 within Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code and made permanent in 1993 • The federal government’s primary housing program that encourages the investment of private equity in affordable housing development. • LIHTC program generates private tax benefits in exchange for capital investment to support the development of new and rehabilitated affordable rental housing • Department of Treasury issues tax credits to State Housing and Finance Authorities (HFAs). Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA) the state’s designated allocating agency. • $2.35 Per person per capita • LIHTC investment has provided over $2 billion in equity for rental housing in Colorado since the program began. • New construction and rehabilitation projects • Rental units with tenants earning no more than 60% of area median income • Housing for families, special needs tenants, and the elderly • Urban, rural and suburban locations • Low income businesses located in low-income communities (New Market Tax Credits). What Do Tax Credits Finance How Do Tax Credits Work? • Investors earn dollar-for-dollar credit against their federal tax liability in exchange for providing financing to develop affordable rental housing • Investors also receive tax benefits from losses • Generally, tax credits are received over the first 10 years of operation Parties in a Tax Credit Structure • 96 apartments • Located in south Fort Collins on the City’s Horsetooth Land Bank site • Apartments to be completed in Summer 2018 Village on Horsetooth New Construction Horsetooth Funding Sources $12,409,716 Total Project Funding $26,235,711 USBankCDC • Federal and State LIHTC Equity $7,210,995 Federal Grants/Deferred Fees • City of Fort Collins CDBG/HOME/Fee Waivers • Division of Housing CDBG DR • RAD Sale Proceeds • Deferred Developer Fee $6,615,000 PAB First Mortgage • ANB Bank Impact of Proposed Changes to the Corporate Tax Rate • Village on Horsetooth $26 million project 95 Unit New Construction $4 million gap from drop in pricing • Village on Shields $62 million project 285 Unit Substantial Rehabilitation $5.6 million gap from drop in pricing Contact Information Housing Catalyst 970-416-2910 www.housingcatalyst.com March 6, 2017 Sue Beck‐Ferkiss, Social Sustainability Specialist Office of Social Sustainability 22 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 Re: Village on Redwood Development Fee Waivers Dear: Mrs. Beck‐Ferkiss, On behalf of Housing Catalyst, I am writing this letter to formally request $100,708.06 in certain fee waivers for the above referenced project under the City of Fort Collins City Council Ordinance: No. 037, 2013 and the associated intergovernmental agreement. To assist in this fee waiver request, I have enclosed the following information: 1. Schedule of units that will be at or below 30% of the Fort Collins/Loveland adjusted median income (13 units). 2. Schedule of waived fees. 3. Paid and reimbursement request amounts for development fee waiver values. 4. Village on Redwood Development timeline. Thank you for your time and attention to this request. Please contact me if you require additional information. Sincerely, Julie J. Brewen Executive Director Project Overview Village on Redwood is a 72‐unit affordable housing community being constructed at 1331 Redwood Street on Fort Collins. Of the 72 total units, 13 units (18% of the total development) will be dedicated to households at the 0‐ 30% Area Median Income level. Target Population Number of Units Area Median Income * 13 units 0‐30% AMI 10 units 31‐40% AMI 19 units 41‐50% AMI 30 units 51‐60% AMI 72 units total  Eligible for Fee Waivers Waived Fees Schedule 1. Development Review Fees  Project Development Plan w/ Subdivision Plat  Planning – Sign Posting  Planning – APO Label Fee  Final Development Plan w/ Subdivision Plat  Transportation Development Review ‐ Residential  Transportation Development Review – Commercial  Transportation Development Review – Project Development Plan  Transportation Development Review – Area to be developed  Transportation Development Review – ROW Vacation  Transportation Development Review – Final Plan  Planning – Minor Amendment  Transportation Development Review – Minor Amendment 2. Building Permit Fees  Building Permit Fee w/ Subs  Building Plan Check Fee 3. Capital Improvement Expansion Fees  Residential Capital Improvement Expansion (Fire)  Commercial Capital Improvement Expansion (Fire)  Residential Capital Improvement Expansion (Government)  Commercial Capital Improvement Expansion (Government)  Residential Capital Improvement Expansion (Police)  Commercial Capital Improvement Expansion (Police)  Residential Street Oversizing Fee  Commercial Street Oversizing Fee  Residential Capital Improvement Expansion (Community Parkland)  Residential Capital Improvement Expansion (Neighborhood Parkland) Eligible City Fees and Waiver Schedule Fee Amount Reimbursement Request - Waiver (18%) Paid by FCHA Development Review Fees $22,290.31 $4,012.26 $18,278.05 Building Fees $88,403.93 $15,912.71 $72,491.22 Capital Impact Expansion Fees $445,176.00 $80,131.68 $365,044.32 Storm Drainage Dev. Review Fees $3,619 $651.42 $2,967.58 TOTAL $559,489.24 $100,708.06 $457,781.18 Village on Redwood Development Timeline Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Award ‐ May 2015 Project Development Plan Approval – October 2015 Building Permit submitted to City of Fort Collins – November 2015 LIHTC Partnership Closing – February 2016 Construction Start – March 2016 Fee Waiver Request – March 2017 Construction Complete – May 2017 Lease‐up Complete – February 2018 Construction – Permanent Loan Conversion – February 2018 COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Staff: Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Sustainability Specialist Date: April 28, 2017 SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Fee Waiver Request from Housing Catalyst for the Village on Redwood EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Fort Collins Housing Authority, doing business as Housing Catalyst (HC), has requested that certain development and capital improvement expansion fees be waived for qualifying units at the Village on Redwood. In March 2013, City Council limited the types of projects for which fee waivers may be requested and made these waivers discretionary. Eligible projects are those constructed for homeless or disabled persons, or for households whose income falls at or below 30% of the area median income of all City residents. HC is requesting fee waivers in the amount of $100,708 for the 13 qualifying units at the Village on Redwood. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does the Council Finance Committee (CFC) support granting the fee waiver request? 2. If so, does the CFC support a waiver of fees and backfilling or waiver without a backfill? 3. If CFC desires the CEFs to be backfilled, should this funding come from the General Fund or the Affordable Housing Capital Fund? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION HC is seeking the waiver of certain development and capital improvement expansion fees for the Village on Redwood affordable housing project as allowed by City Code, the Land Use Code, and an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and the Fort Collins Housing Authority dated July 3, 2013. The Village on Redwood will deliver 72 units, of which 13 will be targeted to households making no more than 30% of the area median income (AMI). The request from HC is attached as attachment 1. Under Colorado Statutes and City of Fort Collins ordinances and resolutions dating back to 1988, projects of housing authorities are exempt from taxes and some fees. For many years, the City waived building permit and development review fees and some capital expansion fees for housing authority projects. Historically they had been small amounts. In March 2013, City Council amended its policies on fee waivers for affordable housing to allow for more discretion in determining the kinds of housing authority sponsored projects for which City fees should be waived. This was after a large waiver was granted to a project that was being developed primarily by CARE Housing with the housing authority having only a very small interest. By adopting Ordinance No. 37, 2013, City Council limited the types of projects for which HC could ask for waivers. These are projects that are constructed for homeless or disabled persons, or for households whose income is no greater than 30% of the area median income of all City residents. Furthermore, these waivers will be granted at the discretion of City Council upon a determination that the proposed waiver will not jeopardize the financial interests of the City or the timely construction of the capital improvements to be funded by the fees for which a waiver is sought. This change also limited waiver eligibility to only the housing authority. The City created an Internal Housing Affordability Task Force this year which plans to look the City’s waiver policy as well as other housing related policies. The purpose of the task force is to convene a group of representatives from diverse City departments that affect housing affordability, to brainstorm ideas that might help incentivize or remove barriers to the development of a wide range of housing, to vet ideas internally in an effort to speak for the City with a unified voice, and to analyze external information and perspectives about the City’s housing system. The Village on Redwood is a 72 unit affordable housing community being constructed at 1331 Redwood Street in Fort Collins. See attachment 2 for map of location. Of the 72 total units, 13 units, equaling 18% of the total development, will be dedicated to households making no more than 30% AMI. HC is seeking the waiver of certain fees for those 13 qualifying units. The total of these fees for the project is $559,489. The request is for 18% of that, $100,708, to be waived. The 2017 income limits published by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for 30% of the Fort Collins AMI is $16,150 for a household of 1 and $24,600 for a household of 4. Households at this income level are some of the City’s most vulnerable residents. These units fit the definition and are eligible for fee waivers as established by City Code, the Land Use Code, and the Intergovernmental Agreement (attachment 3). Funding for this $18.3 million project is a combination of city and state grants, Low Income Housing Tax Credit financing, owner equity and conventional financing. Current pro formas rely upon these fee waivers to complete the project’s funding. The City has established affordable housing production goals in the 2015-2019 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan (Plan). The need for financial support for these goals to be met is also stated in the Plan. The annual production goal for this 5 year plan is 188 units. This project will deliver 72 units which is 38 % of the City’s goal. Since the City does not develop housing, development partners are relied on to bring this necessary housing product to the community. This project will increase the inventory of affordable rental units which is one of the strategies listed in the Plan. It is estimated that approximately $80,132 would be subject to backfill by the City to reimburse city departments for capital impact expansion fees if this waiver is granted, as has been the City’s custom to date. While backfill is now considered discretionary, traditionally backfill of waived fees occurred and has come from General Fund reserves. Alternatively, funds for this request could come from the Affordable Housing Capital Fund that was approved by the voters as part of the City Capital Improvements Program. This fund will accumulate $4 million over ten years. Of that amount, $200,000 was scheduled for 2016 and $250,000 for 2017. The Affordable Housing Board supports this waiver request. The City’s waiver policy has greatly limited the types of projects that qualify for waivers. This policy recognizes that households earning no more than 30% AMI cannot afford market rate housing in our City at this time. The average rent is currently over $1,200 a month. A one person household at 30% AMI would need to pay 89% of their income to pay the average rent. A four person household would need to pay 59% of their income to afford the average market rate. Ideally, renters would never pay more than 30% of their income on housing. Developers need public subsidy to produce housing that this demographic can afford. Staff also supports granting this waiver request. Next Steps • This request is ready to be presented to Council after this committee’s review. • The Internal Housing Affordability Task Force will continue to meet monthly and plans to form recommendations to present to City Council at the beginning of 2018. ATTACHMENTS 1. Housing Catalyst’s Waiver Request 2. Map of Village on Redwood Location 3. Intergovernmental Agreement between City of Fort Collins and Fort Collins Housing Authority. Fee Waiver Request for Village on Redwood ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 1 City’s Affordable Housing Supports • Development Incentives – Fee Waivers and Delays – Priority Processing – Density Bonus • Grants and Loans – Acquisition, rehabilitation, construction • Financing Support • Policy Guidance • Community resource ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 2 Strategic Plan Alignment • City Plan – Policy LIV 8.3 Offer incentives: “offset the costs of City’s impact fees” • 2014 Housing Affordability Policy Study • 2015-2019 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan – Increase the inventory of affordable rental units: • Action items include: Regularly review and update all existing city incentive programs • Examples: Development review fee waivers, density bonus, priority possessing, fee delays Annual production goal of 188 units – Redwood 72 = 38% Fee Waivers Historically • In the past 7 years, 11 Affordable Housing projects were awarded fee waivers. • The waivers range in amounts from $125 to $509, 896. • Last waiver granted was for Redtail Ponds in the amount of $274,200. • Development fee waivers have only been provided to affordable housing projects. ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 4 Fee Waiver Policy • Historically, affordable housing projects received waivers of taxes and some fees • Policy amended in March 2013 • Waivers now discretionary for limited types of projects • HC only may request waivers for: Homeless Disabled 0-30% AMI • Must not jeopardize financial interests of City ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 5 2017 Housing Affordability Task Force Purpose: – convene a group of representatives from diverse City departments that affect housing affordability, – to brainstorm ideas that might help incentivize or remove barriers to the development of a wide range of housing, – to vet ideas internally in an effort to speak for the City with a unified voice, – and to analyze external information and perspectives about the City’s housing system. ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 6 Village on Redwood • Developed and managed by the Fort Collins Housing Authority d/b/a Housing Catalyst • $18.3 million total development costs • 72 Affordable Units – 13 Units 30% AMI – 10 Units 31-40% AMI – 19 Units 41-50% AMI – 30 Units 51-60% AMI • 1 through 4 Bedroom Units ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 7 ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 8 1331 REDWOOD ST 2017 Income Limits Income Family Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 30% $16,150 $18,450 $20,750 $24,600 $28,780 $32,960 $37,140 $41,320 50% $26,900 $30,750 $34,600 $38,400 $41,500 $44,550 $47,650 $50,700 60% $32,300 $36,900 $41,500 $46,100 $49,800 $53,450 $57,200 $60,850 ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 9 Current Waiver Request Fee Amount Waiver (18%) Paid by HC Development Review Fees $22,290 $4,012 $18,278 Building Fees 88,404 15,913 72,491 Capital Expansion Fees* 445,176 80,132 365,044 Storm Drainage DR Fee 3,619 651 2,968 TOTAL $559,489 $100,708 $457,781 * Historically Backfill ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 10 Potential Sources of Backfill • Historically City has backfilled waived CEFs • Traditionally have used General Fund Reserves • Additional current possibility includes: – Affordable Housing Capital Fund • Recent legal opinion indicates backfill is discretionary ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 11 Affordable Housing Capital Fund • Passed by the voters in 2016 • Will provide $4 million over 10 years – 2016 allocation $200,000 – 2017 & 2018 allocations $250,000 – 2019 & 2020 allocations $400,000 – 2021 through 2025 allocations $500,000 • Referred language: This project will fund capital costs of development or rehabilitation of one or more public or private housing projects designated specifically for low income individuals or families. ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 12 Recommendations • Affordable Housing Board supports granting this request • SSD staff supports granting this request ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 13 COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Staff: Travis Storin, Director of Accounting John Voss, Controller Date: April 28, 2017 SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Debt Service Planning EXECUTIVE SUMMARY There are several large projects being considered in the fifteen years that will likely need debt financing. In an ideal world new debt service would perfectly dovetail with completion of other debt service. Ongoing money is freed up when debt service discontinues. As the base case scenario shows, there is simply not enough debt service ending to close the gap that may be caused by new debt service. The presentation and discussion is intended to highlight the issues and propose some options to close the gap. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Should staff investigate refinancing of the 2012/2004 debt, related to police and natural areas, in an effort to lower annual cash outflows? 2. Should staff plan on using General Government Capital Expansion Fees to lower the amount needed to finance a new City Hall and as well as lower annual debt service? 3. Should staff draft the details of a program which sets aside money in the Budgeting for Outcomes process? 4. Feedback on assumptions such as specific projects and project timing. ATTACHMENTS PowerPoint Presentation - Debt Planning 1 Debt Planning Travis Storin and John Voss 4-28-17 Objectives • Inform and educate on debt service cash flows for the next 15 years • Feedback on potential projects, timing, funding mechanisms, and other current staff assumptions 2 Scope and Assumptions • Does not include Utilities, Golf, DDA, URA, etc. • Base case assumes Hotel Parking issues in 2017 • Does not include proposed debt for Lemay/Vine • Does not include potential dedicated revenue from General Improvement District for I-25/Prospect interchange 3 Existing Debt Service 4 Source Fund Project 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 General Fund 215 N Mason 830 820 General Fund CCPS 276 273 DDA Debt Fund CCPS 276 273 General Fund Hotel Parking 948 648 648 648 648 648 648 648 648 648 DDA Debt Fund Hotel Parking 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 General Fund Police Building 1,732 1,685 1,647 1,565 1,564 1,561 1,554 1,551 1,552 1,547 Capital Exp. Fund Police Building 375 375 375 375 375 375 375 375 375 375 Natural Areas Fund Soapstone etc. 1,237 1,275 1,307 Transportation Fund Streets Storage Build. 117 115 118 131 134 136 144 141 General Fund Police Annex 60 62 64 65 67 4,902 5,825 4,459 3,085 3,088 3,021 3,021 3,015 2,875 2,871 948 0 In 000’s Funding Available when existing debt matures 5 Fund 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Natural Areas No 1,307 1,307 1,307 1,307 1,307 1,307 1,307 1,307 1,307 1,307 1,307 Capital Expansion Yes 375 375 375 375 Transportation Yes 141 141 141 141 141 141 General Fund Yes 445 445 445 445 445 445 445 445 1,992 2,640 2,640 2,640 Prospect I25, Timnath IGA, 30% of Muni Share Yes 243 243 243 243 243 243 243 243 243 243 243 243 Land Owners, Prospect I-25, GID (place holder) Yes Resources Freed Up All 688 1,995 1,995 1,995 1,995 1,995 2,136 2,136 4,058 4,706 4,706 4,706 Resources Available for Projects Under Consideration Yes 688 688 688 688 688 688 829 829 2,751 3,400 3,400 3,400 In 000’s Project Assumptions 6 Project Debt 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Police Training 8,500 625 625 625 625 625 625 625 625 625 625 625 625 I-25 Prospect 19,000 1,398 1,398 1,398 1,398 1,398 1,398 1,398 1,398 1,398 1,398 1,398 1,398 2nd CCPS 10,000 1,278 1,278 1,278 1,278 1,278 1,278 1,278 1,278 1,278 1,278 Municipal Parking Structure 11,000 1,406 1,406 1,406 1,406 1,406 1,406 1,406 1,406 1,406 City Hall/281 replacement 60,000 3,977 3,977 3,977 3,977 3,977 3,977 3,977 3,977 3,977 Lemay Vine RR (placeholder) New Debt Service Obligations 2,023 2,023 3,302 8,685 8,685 8,685 8,685 8,685 8,685 8,685 8,685 8,685 In 000’s Funding freed up and available (previous slide) 688 688 688 688 688 688 829 829 2,751 3,400 3,400 3,400 Shortfall, additional resources needed (1,336) (1,336) (2,614) (7,997) (7,997) (7,997) (7,856) (7,856) (5,933) (5,285) (5,285) (5,285) Base Case, funding needs Option 1 – Refinance Police Building • Payoff 2012 debt package, refinanced from original 2004 debt • Pay off Natural Areas and Transportation portions • Refinance Police portion ($14.5 M) over a longer term (20 years) • Combine refinancing with new Police Training facility and I-25 Prospect Interchange • $41.9 million total (14.5 + 8.4 + 19.0) ($27.4 new debt) • Interest rate will be higher than existing 1.8%, model assumes 4.0% • Results in lower annual cash flows but total cost increases • Base case $56.0 M $4.0 M annual • Option 1 $61.8 M $3.1 M annual • Increase $ 5.8 M $0.9 M annual (reduction through 2026) 7 Option 1 – Refinance 2012 Debt and Package with new debt 8 Project Debt 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Police HQ & Training, I-25 Prospect 41,970 3,088 3,088 3,088 3,088 3,088 3,088 3,088 3,088 3,088 3,088 3,088 3,088 2nd CCPS 10,000 1,278 1,278 1,278 1,278 1,278 1,278 1,278 1,278 1,278 1,278 Municipal Parking Structure 11,000 1,406 1,406 1,406 1,406 1,406 1,406 1,406 1,406 1,406 City Hall/281 replacement 60,000 3,977 3,977 3,977 3,977 3,977 3,977 3,977 3,977 3,977 Lemay Vine RR (placeholder) New Debt Service Obligations 3,088 3,088 4,367 9,750 9,750 9,750 9,750 9,750 9,750 9,750 9,750 9,750 In 000’s Funding freed up and available 2,828 2,841 2,844 2,846 2,854 2,851 2,851 2,851 2,851 3,499 3,499 3,499 Shortfall, additional resources needed (260) (247) (1,523) (6,903) (6,986) (6,898) (6,899) (6,899) (6,899) (6,250) (6,250) (6,250) Option 1, funding needs Changes from base Option 2 – Use General Government Capital Expansion Fee • Keeps assumptions from Option 1 for police refinancing package • Reduce the amount needed to finance the new City Hall • Borrow $43.2 M instead of $60 M • Assumes draft CEF fees are ultimately adopted in 2017 • Assumes GG CEF revenue is based on average billing units for 10 years: 2006 to 2015 • Results in lower annual cash flow needs by $1.1 M • Without use of GG CEF $ 8.0 M • With use of GG CEF $ 6.9 M 9 Option 2 – Use General Govt. Capital Expansion Fee for new City Hall 10 Project Debt 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Police HQ & Training, I-25 Prospect 41,970 3,088 3,088 3,088 3,088 3,088 3,088 3,088 3,088 3,088 3,088 3,088 3,088 2nd CCPS 10,000 1,278 1,278 1,278 1,278 1,278 1,278 1,278 1,278 1,278 1,278 Municipal Parking Structure 11,000 1,406 1,406 1,406 1,406 1,406 1,406 1,406 1,406 1,406 City Hall/281 replacement 43,243 2,866 2,866 2,866 2,866 2,866 2,866 2,866 2,866 2,866 Lemay Vine RR (placeholder) New Debt Service Obligations 3,088 3,088 4,367 8,639 8,639 8,639 8,639 8,639 8,639 8,639 8,639 8,639 In 000’s Funding freed up and available 2,828 2,841 2,844 2,846 2,854 2,851 2,851 2,851 2,851 3,499 3,499 3,499 Shortfall, additional resources needed (260) (247) (1,523) (5,793) (5,785) (5,788) (5,788) (5,788) (5,788) (5,140) (5,140) (5,140) Option 2, funding needs Changes from base Option 3 - Disciplined Set Aside • Set aside $500k each year of growth in ongoing revenue • Spend that on one time initiatives until it's needed for debt service • Is scalable and could be done in variable amounts • Funding source - from GF ongoing revenue TBD • Over time, can build up on going revenue capacity to support future debt service gap with a new city hall. 11 Key Takeaways • Debt service for anticipated projects is not covered by cash flow from existing debt service • Options to free cash flows: 1. Refinance Police Headquarters and package with new debt for Police Training Facility and I-25/Prospect Interchange 2. Use Governmental Capital expansion fund balance to offset City Hall debt 3. Set aside revenue growth 4. Other a) Sale of 281 N. College b) GID for I-25/Prospect c) Delay timing of projects 12 Directions and Comments Sought • Is refinancing the police headquarters debt an attractive option? • Does the Committee support the use of General Government Capital Expansion Fees towards a new City Hall? • Draft program details which sets aside $ in budget process? • Comments on assumptions? 13 Page 1 COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Staff: Mike Beckstead, CFO Date: April 28, 2017 SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Discussion on AXIA’s withdrawn broadband proposal, lessons learned, implications of a recently proposed General Assembly House bill concerning broadband, and alternatives moving forward. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff learned on April 20 th and received formal notification from AXIA on April 21 st concerning their inability to move forward with their business model as proposed. Reasons were described as a business model structural issue with their parent company, Partners Group (PG), concerning the strength of the US cablecos and telecos within the US market and the impact this has on the adoption risk. Last week a General Assembly House bill was proposed which, and if passed, could have implications on the Retail Model previously discussed with Council (House Bill). Specifically it could impair the City’s ability to utilize revenue bonds within the L&P utility, require GO bonds be backed by the City, and require the municipal broadband organization be subject to normal municipal open records requests. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1) CFC recommendation on next steps moving forward with broadband 2) CFC direction concerning the work session scheduled for May 9 th BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION AXIA Staff initially met with AXIA and two representatives from the PG, (Doris Schurch – VP, Private Infrastructure out of Switzerland and Ammanuel de Ladoucette – Private Infrastructure out of London). This meeting was in response to a City issued Request for Information (RFI) and AXIA outlined their business model and proposal. The two representatives were questioned concerning their role as banker and provided assurances that PG was involved for that role. AXIA had previously been a publicly traded company in Canada who intentionally took themselves private recognizing the need to find a financial backer for their proposed business model. PG paid approximately $280M for AXIA in July of 2016, discussed their desire to create utility type revenue streams off of infrastructure investments and viewed broadband in the US as an opportunity. Page 2 It appears that while Partners Group had provided assurances they were willing to fund 3-5 ventures per year within the US market, when the first business plan for a project in Bloomington, Indiana was presented to PG, the proposal was declined due to: 1) the strength of the US incumbents, and 2) the adoption risk this concern elevates. PG’s lack of acceptance of the Bloomington proposal is not specific to Bloomington or any other city within the US, but is considered a structural business model issue that has caused AXIA to withdraw from all current discussion with US municipalities concerning this business model. House Bill A draft of the House Bill was received by staff last week. It outlines several restrictions and limitations to municipalities that have a L&P Enterprise. Issues with this legislation are outlined below and if passed, will have implications on the City’s Retail Model Alternative for its own broadband utility (BBU): • Requiring a City BBU to pay the same taxes, fees and comply with the same City laws and regulations affecting private providers of broadband services. • Requiring that a City BBU be a utility enterprise separate from the City’s other utility enterprises. • Beginning on June 1, 2018, prohibiting the City from using the ratepayer funds from any of its other utilities, like its L&P Enterprise, “to subsidize competitive activities” of its BBU to include “bonding secured with revenues from” those other City utilities (something existing incumbents can do, i.e. Triple Plan bundling). • Prohibiting a City BBU from denying under CORA the public inspection of all its privileged and confidential commercial and financial information (something a private broadband provider is not required to do). • Private providers currently have the right to bring an enforcement action against municipalities who they allege are violating the existing state statues that place certain limitations on municipalities in providing cable tv, telecommunication and broadband services to their citizens. The proposed bill adds to this enforcement right the requirement that the “court shall award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” This will arguably give large broadband providers a tactical advantage in such actions against municipalities. ALTERNATIVES / NEXT STEPS; Initial thinking on next step alternatives include: 1) Retail Model 2) Creations of an Equity Partnership with AXIA that shares risk across both parties and addresses PG concerns 3) Issue an RFP seeking other potential partners for a Public Private Partnership that would mostly include equity sharing Page 3 Additional detail will be provided at the CFC meeting on April 28 th .