The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - Mail Packet - 5/16/2017 - Council Finance & Audit Committee Agenda - May 15, 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 May 15, 2017 9:30 - 11:30 am CIC Room - City Hall Approval of Minutes from the April 28 th Council Finance meeting. 1. Parking Garage Financing 20 minutes J. Voss 2. Long Term City Debt Funding Needs 30 minutes T. Storin J. Voss 3. Metro District Discussion 30 minutes T. Leeson 4. Budget Contingency Planning 30 minutes M. Beckstead Council Finance Committee & URA Finance Committee Agenda Planning Calendar 2017 RVSD 05/10/17 ck May 15 Parking Garage Financing 20 min J. Voss Long Term City Debt Funding Needs 30 min T. Storin J. Voss Metro District Discussion 30 min T. Leeson Budget Contingency Planning 30 min M. Beckstead URA Jun 19 Sherwood House Transaction 30 min J. Kozak-Thiel PILOTs on Water 20 min T. Smith J. Duval URA Jul 17 2018 Benefits Plan Design & Cost Share 30 min T. Roche 2016 Financial Audit Review 20 min T. Storin 2016 Year End Fund Balance Review 30 min T. Storin URA Aug 21 Development Fees & Wet Utility PIFs 30 min T. Smith L. Smith Budget Revisions for 2018 30 min L. Pollack 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 04/28/17 2:30 - 4:30 pm CIC Room Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Gerry Horak, Ross Cunniff, Bob Overbeck Staff: Mike Beckstead, Jeff Mihelich, Jackie Thiel, Carrie Daggett Sue Beck-Ferkiss, John Duval, Travis Storin, John Voss, Tiana Smith, Lawrence Pollack, Andres Gavaldon, Noelle Currell, Ginny Sawyer, Jackson Brockway, Lance Smith, Kurt Friesen Others: Julie Brewen, CEO of Housing Catalyst, Kevin Jones (Chamber of Commerce), Dale Adamy (Citizen) Meeting called to order at 2:35 p.m. Gerry Horak moved to approve Minutes for the March 20th and March 28th Council Finance Meeting. Ross Cunniff seconded the motion. Minutes were approved unanimously. Agenda Review - walk on item added -Capital Expansion Fees (with or without Twin Silos) Broadband update moved to item #3 on the agenda A. Guest - Housing Catalyst - Tax Credit Review Julie Brewen CEO of Housing Catalyst Duane Hopkins, CFO of Housing Catalyst 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. $2.34 per capita - 60% of area median income - Village on Horsetooth funding sources – formal LOI pulled after election – created a $4m gap in the debt – equity investors are nervous – assuming a 20-25% corporate tax rate – tax credit dropped significantly – gap between mortgage and tax credits – tv show front line – subsequent NPR stories – see how that show on 5/9 impacts GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 2 Discussion may include ways the City of Fort Collins has provided gap financing in the past and needs for this funding going forward. TV Show Frontline to air on May 9th regarding Affordable Housing Gerry Horak; how do you plan to get message out to media ahead of this show? (not reactionary) Makes sense for someone to contact public radio - for them to know before the story comes out Julie Brewen; they are creating speaking points now for mayors, media, etc. Gerry Horak; how will the Governor’s proposal for affordable housing that is in the proposed budget be used? Julie Brewen; two pieces; 1) The Affordable Housing Trust Fund will go to the Colorado Housing Authority - (approx. $10m) allocated in a competitive process, 2) Marijuana revenue might still happen (approx. $12.3m) would go to the Colorado Division of Housing and be earmarked that for homeless and permanent support housing. Julie Brewen; at 60% of median income the rent is fixed but that amount is not always adequate to cover all operating expenses so we need to decrease that debt Darin Atteberry; the City receives between $ 1.1 and $1.5m of funding which is less than 1% of our General Fund Budget – this amount was much higher in the past - it is very important to convey message to other regional partners Mayor Troxell; I did talk with both senators, Mike Wallace at NLC regarding this - they are looking for broader impacts. In terms of filling the gap Julie Brewen; we did get some addn. CBDG funding and also created some value engineering of approx. $1m for Horsetooth based on what we learned at the Village on Redwood Jackie Thiel; we will work with Julie on a local communication strategy - also reaching out to the Coloradoan Editorial Board - they have some new members who are very interested in this topic Mayor Troxell; you may want to also work with Lisa White, Colorado Municipal League B. Housing Catalyst - Fee Waiver Request Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Sustainability Specialist SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Fee Waiver Request from Housing Catalyst for the Village on Redwood – 72 new units 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 3 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 (approximately $100K out of $18M project) for Village on Redwood? 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. New fund available - Affordable Housing Capital Fund - potential source for backfill if fees waived. Currently have $200k in fund which will grow over time to a total of $4m over 10 years. Affordable Housing Board and Social Sustainability support the request for waiver. Request for $100K with potentially $80K potentially being backfilled Ross Cunniff; I think it makes sense to waive and backfill. I am supportive of the waiver and then backfill either entirely from the capital fund or from a mix of capital fund and general fund. Example of why we would want to have a flexible capital fund. Gerry Horak; deal with the waiver request first - then decide how we want to use the other fund and not tie it to this request. The level of fee waivers hasn’t really been that much money over time. Maybe we backfill when we have a year with a lot of sales tax. Mike Beckstead; based on the ballot language - this is an alternative Gerry Horak; what is the policy and how do we want to use it? The new Council should set up the rules for the use of the funds - this should be scheduled into the Council work plan 6 month calendar. Darin Atteberry; Council has this option - stay true to the language - in the early days we were talking about the permanent supportive housing for the chronically homeless as well – this language became more flexible. Agree with Gerry - let’s have a conversation about the bigger purpose of this. I am hearing go ahead and move forward with the waiver then later talk about how to fund. Jackie Thiel; as part of that visioning process we could focus what the different approaches would get us. Gerry Horak; give some assurance into the community - we could focus looking at low income and special populations and once fee waivers reach a certain level we quit giving them if we don’t backfill. Mike Beckstead; 2014 was the last time we waived fees of $224k. This is the 3rd request we have brought forward in the last 7 years. 4 Mayor Troxell; I agree with the direction and the visioning Next Steps; Council Finance recommendation is for this request to be presented to Council l for their consideration. We will work on a strategy and policy on how to deal with the funding and how we navigate the backfill requirements. C. Impact Fees Recommendations; Community Park Discussion (Walk-on item added to agenda – follow up from Council meeting discussion) Tiana Smith, Revenue Manager We just learned that we cannot include admin fees so they have been removed them from this presentation. Fees went down due to this change for both Community and Neighborhood Parks - this happened due to disconnect between old consultant and new consultant Ross Cunniff; can we double check to make sure this change is reflected in all data? Tiana Smith; yes Mayor Troxell; brings down by 4% - taking Twin Silos out Mike Beckstead; clarification - 4% is off the total of all of the fees. This is really closer to a 10% reduction inside the capital expansion fees. Average cost per acre to illustrate Twin Silo Park which is half the size of the other parks with the same amenities – revised cost per acre if more open space had been available. We tried to get very analytical about the features and attributes of each park and compare the last 3 parks and we didn’t see more features in Twin Silos, then looked at cost and that confirmed that it was really the per acre cost that drove the variation. We had a short conversation about what we are going to build in the future (large park vs small park meaning higher cost per acre). If we take Twin Silos out of the equation it takes it down from $182k to $151k per acre. Mayor Troxell; top one is normalized / projected – we don’t have a total expense for Twin Silos Capital Expansion Fees Mike Beckstead; with or without Twin Silos, I look at it as $300 differential per residential unit - varies by size - not seeing the admin fees - the real change is going from $18,000 to $17,240 with both adjustments Ross Cunniff; does this include any inflationary or deflationary Tiana Smith; we will include that Kurt Friesen; the standards for community parks are prescriptive - we provide guidelines and directives on how to design parks but we don’t have a list. Recreational facilities are somewhat prescriptive - we want things to evolve over time – we want park uses to meet the needs of the community. The fee is a commitment to the city to build a park compatible with other parks. 5 Gerry Horak; is that the right standard? What if we would look at Loveland and Greeley? Kurt Friesen; the old standard is the acres per thousand metric. Over time the NRPA has said that is not a great metric - we can find something better / qualitative. It has been 7 per thousand – we are at approx. 5.5 now. PRPA is now saying 9 per thousand. Darin Atteberry; driven by the master plans and we are building parks that are fairly consistent in size and elements and we will continue on that trajectory until Council develops something different. Great conversation to have - what are the assumptions on the master plan? What happens with the two new community parks? Does that still make sense or do we need to change? Fee went into effect in 1996 Jeff Mihelich; establish community park base standard; x number of ball fields, play structures, trails, etc. - to get to base standard and that is what you tie your fee to Gerry Horak; be clear on how much each elements cost - not going over the budget - tradeoffs - if it comes in higher - some elements must be taken out Gerry Horak; would be good to understand this methodology on other fees now that I have a clear understand on parks Ross Cunniff; for May 16th, let’s come up with this same information for Fire and Police; for example, 12 fire houses – x amount of equipment which is divided by population Gerry Horak; Standards - what is a Community Park supposed to look like? What are the standards we have used in the past? Rule of 3 - end up with an answer. Did we do the hard heavy lifting independent of the fee discussion? Darin Atteberry; I am very confident with our methodology. If we had a Fee Committee as Gerry suggested this would be a good thing for them to address. Master Park Plan was last updated in 2008 - not advocating that this be updated in 2017 but updating the assumptions - If those community parks are dramatically different it will have an impact on the fee structure. Darin Atteberry; a bit of confusion for himself and for Council regarding the 2 parks - at the appropriate time we should talk with Council - in addition to comparison slides Kurt presented Tuesday evening for consensus and buy in Gerry Horak; so we can confirm that is the level we want (expenditure / amenities, etc.) vast confusion regarding buy -in – I have already paid for it so why do I have to pay for it again? Argument of transparency comes up – money coming in and going out – fees used in the ways we said. Mike Beckstead; to summarize; We will have some policy and design review in the future We are scheduled to bring these Fees forward for adoption on May 15th Council was in agreement that we should phase these fees in over time Open question is; do we want to bring fees forward with or without Twin Silos? 6 Mayor Troxell; I would like it without Twin Silos - base is on real costs - this is our basis for our level of service I think for the combined fees the phasing is good. I am excited about the plan – higher density , clustering, agriculture - becomes Community Park Plan – about ball fields and amenities, not so much about open space Ross Cunniff; I am ok with that direction - taking Twin Silos out Gerry Horak; transportation fees - effects on residential / vs commercial – how we arrive at these things first – why we believe that nexus is better than what we used before. Gerry Horak; when did that change? How has this been selling other places? Who has adopting this and who has been keeping the other one? Tiana will discuss these questions with Dean (Consultant). Mike Beckstead; we will work on some rationale as to why that is the best practice and document. D. Long Term City Debt Funding Needs (topic moved to May 15th meeting) Travis Storin, Accounting Director John Voss, Controller SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Debt Service Planning E. Broadband Update Mike Beckstead, CFO 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 20th and received formal notification from AXIA on April 21st 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 9th BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION AXIA 7 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. 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 an 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 includes: 1) Retail Model 2) Creations of an Equity Partnership with AXIA that shares risk across both parties and addresses PG concerns 8 3) Issue an RFP seeking other potential partners for a Public Private Partnership that would mostly include equity sharing Looking for some direction Jeff Mihelich; first time we went around our RFI was very broad and vague. For the next go round (RFP) we will be more specific especially around the shared risk piece - it will be much more detailed Ross Cunniff; how ready are you going to be to discuss retail in detail on May 9th Darin Atteberry; we did a good amount of early work around retail - we can talk pretty comprehensively – If Council wants to prepare for a November election, we are going to have to invest in additional resources - significant consulting resources. Mike Beckstead; Retail was the work in 2016 with Uptown Services – depth of the surveys - they have done 40- 45 different communities - we have a high level feasibility business plan – I would like to get it to the next level of detail. Ross Cunniff; is it possible to structure the ballot language to be flexible around the Retail or Partner approaches? Carrie Daggett; we could use permissive language Ross Cunniff; messaging gets a bit more difficult - we were going to need the utility authorization to option to exercise right of first refusal – we need to keep that degree of flexibility - consider that as options for the May 9th work session – trying to give Council options. I don’t want to terminate the partnership if we think there is still value in it but also don’t’ want to short change the retail model. Ross Cunniff; de couple the November ballot question from what the business model - we move forward with Darin Atteberry; for us to get a retail model ready for the November ballot - we absolutely need additional resources to get this right and ready for a vote - additional horsepower – deliver on what we promised Mike and Jeff met with Dan Endries - his real message was that we need to own the infrastructure - that is the asset -that is the thing that you want to control - he was less supportive of 50/50 ventures – Mike has Concerns about a potential $90m investment being dependent on a partner Mayor Troxell; Axia model was the in ground fiber with electronics providing the open access – Interface to allow for services to run on top Mike Beckstead; they made it work by using a minimum take rate of 40% - targeting 55 -60% - they didn’t care if directly through them or through someone else – indifferent to who provides the connections Gerry Horak; citizens want internet provided by the city cheaper than what they pay today Ross Cunniff; and they want good reliability, good customer service Mike Beckstead; Longmont was $50 - introductory - most are in the $60-70 range Average Retail per Unit RPU 9 SeonAh - $50 price discount off of the full price of 1 gig - Ross Cunniff; question for May 9th work session - Some belief out there that this service could exist in the GMA – would like to understand if that would be possible as well as the pros and cons Mayor Troxell; I would like to keep looking at the 3rd party possibility - Who are the parties in Chattanooga? Mike Beckstead; they do it themselves via their L&P - they had a $330m investment - $110m of R grants SeonAH Kendall; community engagement – wholesale (public / private) was the least popular option - they like the wholesale and retail options. Ross Cunniff; overall bonding capacity of the City of Fort Collins particularly the Utilities - we will still be able to bond for broadband - still be able to bond for water and electric utility improvements. Gerry Horak; what is our bonding capacity? Mike Beckstead; Kevin, Lance and I have some more work to do before we answer that. We are on for the May 9th work session. We want more information about the Retail model - the similar kind of discussion for Council Meeting Adjourned at 4:19 pm 1 Debt Financing – Firehouse Alley Parking Garage John Voss May 15, 2017 Request For Proposal • Received 6 proposals • Selected Vectra Bank as best overall 2 Term Summary • First payment January 15, 2018 • Final payment July 15, 2027 • Average Annual Payment $962,000 • Rate of 2.48% • Callable at anytime with no prepay fee • Borrowing • Issue Costs* $ 80,000 • Purchase Price 8,350,000 • Total 8,430,000 3 * estimate subject to change Source of Annual Debt Service • 2018 General Fund Reserves ($902k in 2018 budget, need $60k more) • 2019 and forward • General Fund ongoing $662,000 • DDA contribution $300,000 4 Key Upcoming Dates • June 6 Bond Ordinance first reading Budget Ordinance first reading • July 5 Bond Ordinance second reading Budget Ordinance second reading IGA Resolution for DDA contribution commitment • July 18 Debt Closing • August Purchase condo units in Firehouse Alley Parking Garage 5 Committee Feedback Questions and Comments 6 COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Staff: Travis Storin, Director of Accounting John Voss, Controller Date: May 15, 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 May 15, 2017 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 COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Staff: Tom Leeson, CDNS Director Josh Birks, Economic Health Director Date: May 15, 2017 SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Residential Metro Districts EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City staff has had discussions with property owners about the formation of metropolitan districts to finance the cost of infrastructure, as well as on-going O&M for projects that include amenities that go beyond City requirements and further other City goals, specifically related to sustainability. The City generally supports the formation of Metro Districts for developments where the projected use is primarily commercial, but the City policy is currently to not approve a Metro Districts for residential projects. However, the policy is intended as a guide only, and the policy also states that the City generally supports the formation of a District where it is demonstrated that a District is needed to provide public improvements to local development and will result in enhanced benefits to existing or future business owners and /or residents of the City and the District. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED Is a Metro District an appropriate financing tool for a residential development that is proposing infrastructure improvements and amenities that go beyond City requirements and further other City goals, such as sustainability or urban infill with quality public spaces? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Metro Districts, within the City of Fort Collins, have predominately been utilized as a financing tool for commercial development projects. Metro District Policy The City Council adopted Resolution No. 2008-069 to provide guidelines and parameters to be considered when reviewing and approving service plans for Metro Districts (the “Policy”) (See Attachment 1 for full policy). As related to the use of Metro Districts for developments that are solely or predominantly residential, the Policy states: “The City generally supports the formation of a District where the projected use is primarily commercial. The City will not approve a Service Plan proposing a residential use only. However, mixed use may be considered as long as the Service Plan clearly identifies that the project is predominately commercial. ‘Predominately commercial’ as used in this Policy shall mean that the assessed value derived from non-residential usage is no less than 90% of the assessed value of the entire project. The actual market value of the project may differ from the assessed value for the project.” However, the Policy also states: “This Policy is intended as a guide only. Nothing in this document is intended, nor shall it be construed, to limit the discretion of City Council, which retains full discretion and authority regarding the terms and limitations of all District Service Plans.” As also relevant to the City’s consideration of a Metro District for a solely or predominantly residential development, the Policy provides: “The City generally supports the formation of a District where it is demonstrated that a District is needed to provide public improvements to local development and will result in enhanced benefits to existing or future business owners and /or residents of the City and the District, whether such enhanced benefits are provided by the District or by the entity developing the District because the District exists to provide public improvements. A District may be permitted to conduct ongoing operations and maintenance activities where it can be demonstrated that having the District provide operations and maintenance is in the best interest of the City and the existing or future taxpayers of the District.” “A District, when properly structured, can enhance the quality of development in the City. The City is receptive to District formation as an instrument to provide competitive financing for projects, build better and enhanced infrastructure, and, where needed, to create a quasi-governmental entity to provide essential improvements which are otherwise not available and could not be practically provided by the City or any other existing municipal or quasi-municipal entity, including existing special districts, within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis. It is not the intent of the City to create multiple entities which could be construed as ‘competing governments.’ Formation of a District will not be favorably received if the District will be used to fund basic infrastructure improvements normally required of new development.” When a Metro District service plan is filed with the City, the Policy directs that the following occur: “Once the City Manager has established compliance with this Policy, the City Manager will, within a reasonable time, place before the City Council for its consideration a resolution approving the Service Plan. The resolution will be processed and governed by the City Charter and the City Code.” Residential Metro Districts City staff has had discussions with property owners about the formation of metropolitan districts to finance the cost of infrastructure for predominately residential developments, as well as on- going O&M for developments that include amenities that go beyond City requirements and further other City goals, such as sustainability or urban infill with quality public spaces. A list of potential infrastructure improvements and amenities to be financed by a Metro District has been included as a way to illicit a response by Committee members. These project amenities are ones that go above and beyond the requirements within the City’s Land Use Code. As an example, a Metro District could be utilized to fund the construction and on-going O&M of the following elements of a residential development: • Non-potable water irrigation system • Community Center with pool and Health, Wellness and Senior Center • Sustainability Center o Commercial electric lawn mowers, and electric vehicle to collect compost o Solar recharging station for electric equipment and vehicles o Solar gardens to provide renewable energy for community buildings o Compost Collection Site • Mixed use centers with high quality public spaces and amenities • Community Kitchen o Kitchen will provide opportunities to use food before it is directed to composting by:  Source reduction  Education for residents and school children • Expanded Trail System and Natural Areas • Rehabilitation of an Irrigation Ditch o Addition of Wetlands to improve water quality and provide habitat for wildlife o High quality natural spaces o Trails to link to surrounding area • Community Gardens and Orchards • Urban Agriculture • Greenhouses and Aquaponics Facility Again, these elements are project amenities that are above and beyond the requirements within the City’s Land Use Code. Sustainability Assessment Tool In an effort to evaluate the hypothetical proposal with regards to the City’s Triple Bottom Line ethos, City staff utilized the Sustainability Assessment Tool (SAT). The SAT is designed to inform a deeper understanding of how policy and program choices affect the social equity, environmental health and economic health of the community. The SAT does not dictate a particular course of action; rather, the analysis provides policy makers and staff with a greater awareness of some of the trade-offs, benefits and consequences associated with a proposal, leading to more mindful decision-making. This was the first time the SAT has been utilized to evaluate a hypothetical development project and the rating scores were developed by SAT participants when comparing this proposal to a standard residential development that would meet the minimum requirements of the City Land Use Code. Please refer to Attachment 2 for the complete results of the SAT and description of the potential project. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: City Financial Policy 10 – Metro Districts Attachment 2: Sustainability Assessment Tool Financial Management Policy 10 Metro District Issue Date: 7/9/2008 Version: 1 Issued by: Josh Birks Financial Policy 10 – Metro District 1 10.1 Introduction A. The City establishes the following as its Special District policy for (i) the review and approval or disapproval of Service Plans, including any amendment thereof, for the creation of a Metropolitan District ("District") pursuant to Title 32, Article 1 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (the "Act"); and (ii) for the regulation of those Districts. This Policy is intended as a guide only. Nothing in this document is intended, nor shall it be construed, to limit the discretion of City Council, which retains full discretion and authority regarding the terms and limitations of all District Service Plans B. The City generally supports the formation of a District where it is demonstrated that a District is needed to provide public improvements to local development and will result in enhanced benefits to existing or future business owners and/or residents of the City and the District, whether such enhanced benefits are provided by the District or by the entity developing the District because the District exists to provide public improvements. A District may be permitted to conduct ongoing operations and maintenance activities where it can be demonstrated that having the District provide operations and maintenance is in the best interest of the City and the existing or future taxpayers of the District. C. For a District whose primary revenue source is property taxes, and in the absence of special circumstances, District formation will not be favorably received where the Objective: To provide guidelines and parameters to be considered when reviewing, developing and approving service plans for Title 32 Metropolitan Districts. Applicability: Applies to all Metro Districts formed by the City of Fort Collins Authorized by: City Council Resolution 2008-069 Financial Policy 10 – Metro District 2 future assessed value of all property within the District at full build-out is projected to be less than ten million dollars ($10,000,000). The ten million dollar assessed valuation threshold, for Districts whose primary revenue source is property taxes, will increase biennially after 2008 to adjust for increases in the Consumer Price Index for the Denver-Boulder-Greeley statistical region as prepared by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Special circumstances and special cause must be demonstrated for exceptions to be granted. D. All Districts and all persons or entities developing property within a District must comply with all provisions of the City Code and Land Use Code and all related standards. E. The City generally supports the formation of a District where the projected use is primarily commercial. The City will not approve a Service Plan proposing a residential use only. However, mixed use may be considered as long as the Service Plan clearly identifies that the project is predominately commercial. "Predominately commercial" as used in this Policy shall mean that the assessed value derived from non-residential usage is no less than 90% of the assessed value of the entire project. The actual market value of the project may differ from the assessed value for the project. F. A District, when properly structured, can enhance the quality of development in the City. The City is receptive to District formation as an instrument to provide competitive financing for projects, build better and enhanced infrastructure, and, where needed, create a quasi-governmental entity to provide essential improvements which are otherwise not available and could not be practically provided by the City or any other existing municipal or quasi- municipal entity, including existing special districts, within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis. It is not the intent of the City to create multiple entities which could be construed as "competing governments." Formation of a District will not be favorably received if the District will be used to fund basic infrastructure improvements normally required of new development. 10.2 Service Plans A. Any Service Plan submitted to the City for approval must comply with all state, federal and local laws and ordinances, including the Act. B. The Service Plan must include all information required by the Act. C. The Service Plan must enumerate and describe all powers requested on behalf of the District. Demonstration of the need or benefit of each power is required. Powers which are not clearly needed will not be approved in the Service Plan. D. Any intergovernmental agreement which is required, or known at the time of formation of the District to likely be required, to fulfill the purposes of the District, must be described in the Service Plan, along with supporting rationale. The Service Plan must provide that execution of intergovernmental agreements which are likely to cause a substantial increase in the District’s budget and are not Financial Policy 10 – Metro District 3 described in the Service Plan will require the prior approval of City Council. E. The Service Plan must include the description of any planned inclusion into, or exclusion of property from, the District’s boundaries known at the time of the submittal of the Service Plan. The Service Plan must provide that inclusions or exclusions by the District that are not described in the Service Plan will require the prior approval of City Council. F. The Service Plan must describe any planned extraterritorial service agreement. The Service Plan must provide that any extraterritorial service agreements by the District that are not described in the Service Plan will require the prior approval of City Council. G. The Service Plan must contain language that prohibits the District from using powers of eminent domain. However, the City may choose to exercise its powers of eminent domain to construct public improvements within the District in which case the District and City will enter into an intergovernmental agreement concerning the public improvement and funding for the use of eminent domain. H. The Service Plan must restrict the District's total mill levy authorization for both debt service and operations and maintenance to forty (40) mills (the "Maximum Mill Levy"), subject to adjustment as provided below. It is anticipated that a portion of the Maximum Mill Levy may be utilized by the District to fund operations and maintenance functions, including customary administrative expenses incurred in operating the District such as accounting and legal expenses and otherwise complying with applicable reporting requirements. The District's Board of Directors will have full discretion to determine what portion of the Maximum Mill Levy may be levied for debt service and what portion for operations and maintenance. For example, a District levying 30 mills for debt service and 5 mills for operations would be in compliance, as would a District levying 20 mills for debt service and 15 mills for operations. In both examples, the total mill levy of the Districts would be 35 mills, which is within the Maximum Mill Levy. The Maximum Mill Levy may be adjustable from the base year of 2008; provided, however, that in the event the method of calculating assessed valuation is changed after the base year of 2008, the mill levy limitation applicable to such debt may be increased or decreased to reflect those changes, the increases or decreases to be determined by the District Board in good faith (that determination to be binding and final), so that to the extent possible, the actual tax revenues generated by the District's mill levy, as adjusted, for changes occurring after January 1, 2008, are neither diminished nor enhanced as a result of the changes. For purposes of the foregoing, a change in the ratio of actual valuation to assessed valuation will be a change in the method of calculating assessed valuation. I. The Service Plan must include Debt and operating financial projections prepared by an investment banking firm or financial advisor qualified to make such projections (the "Financial Plan"). The financial firm must be listed in the Bond Buyers Marketplace or, in the City's sole discretion, other recognized publication as a provider of financial projections. The Financial Plan must include debt issuance and service schedules and Financial Policy 10 – Metro District 4 calculations establishing the District's projected maximum debt capacity (the "Total Debt Limitation") based on assumptions of (i) the projected interest rate on the debt to be issued by the District; (ii) the projected assessed valuation of the property within the District; and (iii) the projected rate of absorption of the assessed valuation within the District.· These assumptions must use market-based, market- comparable valuation and absorption data and may use an annual inflation rate of three percent (3%) or the Consumer Price Index for the preceding 12 month period for the Denver- Boulder- Greeley statistical region as prepared by the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics, whichever is greater. The Total Debt Limitation set forth in the Service Plan must not exceed 100% of the projected maximum debt capacity as shown in the Financial Plan. The Financial Plan must also include foreseeable administrative and operation and maintenance costs. J. If, after the Service Plan is approved, the State Legislature includes additional powers or grants new or broader powers for Districts by amendment of Part 10 of Article 1, Title 32, C.R.S., no such powers will be available to or exercised by an existing District without the prior approval of the City Council. K. Every Service Plan must include, in addition to all materials, plans and reports required by the Act, an Infrastructure Preliminary Development Plan ("PDP"). This PDP must include, at a minimum, a map or maps, and construction drawings of such scale, detail and size as required by the Planning Department, providing an illustration of public improvements proposed to be built, acquired or financed by the District, along with a written narrative and description of those items and a general description of the District's proposed role with regard to the same. Due to the preliminary nature of the PDP, the Service Plan must indicate that the City's approval of the PDP shall not bind the City's reviewing and making land use approvals. Approval of the PDP must precede or be concurrent with approval of the Service Plan. L. Development Fees must not be imposed by the District unless the Development Fees are identified with particularity in the Service Plan and the Financial Plan. 10.3 Bonded Indebtedness A. Original issuance of bonded indebtedness by the District prior to build-out is limited to that debt which can be sized, serviced and defeased with no more than the Maximum Mill Levy as described in Paragraph H of the Service Plans Section above. B. The District will be limited to issuing new debt as provided in the Financial Plan. In the absence of evidence that development phasing will be of a duration that makes it impracticable to issue all debt within a fifteen-year period, or other special circumstances, the Service Plan must provide that all new debt will be issued within a period of fifteen (15) years from the date of the District's formation. Debt issued by the District will have a maximum maturity of thirty (30) years for each series of debt. The restrictions on issuance will not pertain to refundings, but the thirty-year maximum maturity does apply to refundings unless such refundings result in a net present value savings as set forth in Section 11-56-101, et seq., C.R.S., and are otherwise Financial Policy 10 – Metro District 5 permitted by law. 10.4 Multiple-District Structures A. It is the intent of the City that citizen/resident control of Districts is encouraged to occur as early as possible. B. Multiple-District structures may be proposed in the following situations: 1. The projected absorption of the project and the public improvements to be financed are reasonably projected to occur over an extended period of time after the date of organization of the District. 2. The project has varying projected uses, such as residential and commercial. Service Plans proposing mixed use must, at a minimum, reflect that 90% of the assessed value is derived from non-residential usage. The actual market value of the project may differ greatly from the 90% assessed value for non-residential. C. The Service Plan must fully describe the need, reasoning and mechanics if a Multiple-District structure is proposed. 10.5 Dissolution of District The Service Plan must provide for dissolution of the District, and all debts and financial obligations of the District must be defeased as well, no more than 40 years after the Service Plan is initially approved. Additionally, the Service Plan must provide that the District is obligated to obtain the approval of the City Council 20 years after organization of the District (and every ten (10) years thereafter) in order to continue providing operations and maintenance services; provided, however, that failure to obtain such approval shall not be considered a material modification unless such approval is not obtained forty-five (45) days after written notice to the District by the City of the need to request such approval. 10.6 Default of District A. In the event that a District fails to pay its debt when due or defaults in the performance of any obligation that has been agreed to between the District and the City, which obligation has been identified by the City in writing as a material obligation, and such default is continuing after the delivery of notice thereof to the District and the expiration of any cure periods, the District shall be precluded from issuing additional debt except refunding bonds issued to avoid or to cure a payment default, without the prior approval of the City Council. B. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction has made a final, unappealable determination that a District has defaulted on any of its financial obligations, the Financial Policy 10 – Metro District 6 District will be precluded from issuing additional debt, except to refund or refinance a financial obligation for the purpose of avoiding or curing a default, without receiving written permission from the City Council following a public hearing on the matter. C. In the event of a material modification of the Service Plan, the City and the electors of the District will be entitled to exercise their respective rights under the Act. Departures from the Service Plan that constitute a material modification include without limitation: 1. actions or failures to act that create greater financial risk or burden; 2. performance of a service or function or acquisition of a major facility that is not closely related to a service, function or facility authorized in the Service Plan; and 3. failure to perform a service or function or acquire a facility required by the Service Plan. Actions that are not to be considered material modifications include without limitation changes in quantities of facilities or equipment, immaterial cost differences, and actions expressly authorized in the Service Plan. Following formation of the District, the District's Board of Directors may, from time to time, submit a letter to the City Manager, or designee, outlining the proposed actions of the District for which the Board of Directors is unclear as to whether a Service Plan amendment is required. The City Manager, or designee, will determine whether an amendment to the Service Plan is required under the provisions of this Policy and Section 32-1-207, C.R.S., and then provide a copy of the determination to the District's Board of Directors. 10.7 Annual Report A. The Service Plan must obligate the District to file an annual report not later than September 1 of each year with the City Clerk for the year ending the preceding December 31, the requirements of which may be waived in whole or in part by the City Council or the City Manager. Unless waived by the City the Service Plan must require the annual report to include the following: 1. A narrative summary of the progress of the District in implementing its Service Plan for the report year; 2. Except when exemption from audit has been granted for the report year under the Local Government Audit Law, the audited financial statements of the District for the report year including a statement of financial condition (i.e., balance sheet) as of December 31 of the report year and the statement of operations (i.e., revenues and expenditures) for the report year; 3. Unless disclosed within a separate schedule to the financial statements, a summary of the capital expenditures incurred by the District in development of improvements in the report year; Financial Policy 10 – Metro District 7 4. Unless disclosed within a separate schedule to the financial statements, a summary of the financial obligations of the District at the end of the report year, including the amount of outstanding indebtedness, the amount and terms of any new District indebtedness or long-term obligations issued in the report year, the amount of payment or retirement of existing indebtedness of the District in the report year, the total assessed valuation of all taxable properties within the District as of January 1 of the report year and the current mill levy of the District pledged to debt retirement in the report year; and 5. Any other information deemed relevant by the City Council or deemed reasonably necessary by the City Manager. B. In the event the annual report is not timely received by the City Clerk or is not fully responsive, notice of such default shall be given to the District Board at its last known address. The failure of the District to file the annual report within forty-five (45) days of the mailing of such default notice by the City Clerk may constitute a material modification of the Service Plan, at the discretion of the City. 10.8 Sanctions Should any District undertake any act which constitutes a material modification to the Service Plan, the City Council may impose one (1) or more of the following sanctions, as it deems appropriate: 1. Exercise any applicable remedy under the Act; 2. Withhold the issuance of any permit, authorization, acceptance or other administrative approval, or withhold any cooperation, necessary for the District's development or construction or operation of improvements or provision of services; 3. Exercise any legal remedy under the terms of any intergovernmental agreement under which the District is in default; or 4. Exercise any other legal remedy, including seeking injunctive relief against the District, to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Service Plan or applicable law. 10.9 Review and Approval Process A. Once the City Manager has established compliance with this Policy, the City Manager will, within a reasonable time, place before the City Council for its consideration a resolution approving the Service Plan. The resolution will be processed and governed by the City Charter and the City Code. B. The proponents of the District must cause a notice of the public hearing at which the proposed resolution is to be considered by the City Council to be mailed by first class mail to the owners of record of all property within the proposed District and within any inclusion area specifically identified in the Service Plan, as such owners of Financial Policy 10 – Metro District 8 record are listed on the records of the County Assessor. The mailed notice must be made at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing on the resolution. The notice shall include the following: 1. A description of the general nature of the proposed services and public improvements to be provided by the District; 2. A description of the property to be included in the District and the inclusion area (if any), which description will be by street address, by reference to lots or blocks on any recorded subdivision plat thereof, or by metes and bounds if not subdivided, by tax identification number or by any other method reasonably calculated to apprise owners of the property to be included in the District; 3. The place at which a copy of the Service Plan may be examined; 4. The date, time and place of public hearing on the Service Plan; 5. A statement that all protests and objections must be submitted in writing to the City Manager at or prior to the public hearing, in order to be considered; and 6. A statement that all protests and objections to the District, as proposed, will be deemed to be waived unless presented in writing at the time and in the manner specified in this subsection. C. The resolution will be conclusive of the City's determination on the Service Plan. No action or proceeding, at law or in equity, to review any acts or proceedings or to question the validity of the Council's determination pursuant to this Policy, whether based upon irregularities or jurisdictional defects, will be maintained unless commenced within 30 days after the adoption of the Council's ordinance, or else be thereafter perpetually barred. In the manner and to the extent provided in this Policy, City Council will maintain continuing jurisdiction over the operations and affairs of the District and will exercise its rights in relation thereto, as deemed appropriate by City Council, pursuant to the Act and as consistent with this Policy. 10.10 Fees With the submittal of a Service Plan, the entity proposing the District must also submit to the City Clerk the following amounts: 1. a non-refundable application fee not to exceed $2,000; and 2. a $10,000 deposit to reimburse the City for staff, legal, and consultant A request for an amendment or modification to a Service Plan must be submitted to the City Clerk and be accompanied by the following: 1. a non-refundable application fee not to exceed $250; and 2. a $1,500 deposit to reimburse the City for staff, legal, and consultant time. Financial Policy 10 – Metro District 9 The City may draw against the deposits referred to above based upon then current hourly rates (including benefits) of employees working on the Service Plan and the applicable rates for legal and other consultants. If the reimbursed amount exceeds the deposit, the balance shall be due to the City immediately and prior to consideration of the Service Plan or amendment by the City Council. Any deposit amounts remaining upon Council consideration of the Service Plan or amendment will be returned. The purpose of staff, legal, and consultants' review is to provide the City Council with expert advice in considering the adequacy of the Service Plan and in forming a basis for adopting an ordinance approving, disapproving, or conditionally approving the Service Plan for the District. The fees set forth in this Section may be waived by City Council. *The Fort Collins SAT was developed by modifying the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Analysis Tool developed by Eugene, Oregon, July 2009. 1 City of Fort Collins SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL (SAT) Creating a sustainable community Plan Fort Collins is an expression of the community’s resolve to act sustainably: to systemically, creatively, and thoughtfully utilize environmental, human, and economic resources to meet our present needs and those of future generations without compromising the ecosystems upon which we depend. How to use the tool The Sustainability Assessment Tool (SAT) is designed to inform a deeper understanding of how policy and program choices affect the social equity, environmental health and economic health of the community. The City of Fort Collins has developed a Sustainability Assessment Framework that describes the purpose, objectives, and guidelines to assist City Program/Project Managers to determine: • The process for cross-department collaboration in using the SAT • Timing for applying a SAT • When to apply a SAT • How to document the results of the SAT and present at City Council Work Sessions and Regular Council Meetings Further detailed guidance is available at: http://citynet.fcgov.com/sustainability/sustainabilityassessments.php The SAT does not dictate a particular course of action; rather, the analysis provides policy makers and staff with a greater awareness of some of the trade-offs, benefits and consequences associated with a proposal, leading to more mindful decision-making. Brief description of proposal Please provide a brief description of your proposal – 100 words or less The hypothetical proposal is for a 55+ age-targeted community which includes single family dwellings, single family attached townhomes , and multi-family dwellings. Other elements of the proposal include of open space, with community gardens and orchards, and an aquaponics greenhouse. Commercial and community areas are included, with an emphasis on sustainable living that would include programs, activities and training opportunities to promote healthy living and neighborhood connections. Elements proposed within the center could include a small grocery store with a local food emphasis, farmers’ market/artisan center, farm-to-table café, community kitchen, and a senior housing component. Other possible elements include walking paths within open space, restored wetlands, buffers, pocket park amenities, and enhanced street designs. A sustainability center is included which would provide compost collection, electric charging, recycling, and tool library. An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) housing component is included, with the vision to provide flexible space for professional caregivers, other family members, or live/work areas. The proposal also includes irrigation system using non-potable water to irrigate all common areas and reduce water use 60%. This SAT addresses the hypothetical development, when comparing this it to a standard residential development that would meet the minimum requirements of the City Land Use Code. 2 Staff lead(s): Please note staff name, position/division SUSTAINABILIRTY SERVICES AREA Jackie Kozak Thiel, Chief Sustainability Officer, Lucinda Smith, Environmental Services Director Susie Gordon, ESD, Environmental Program Manager Katie Ricketts, Economic Health, Economic Health Analyst Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Sustainability, Social Sustainability Specialist Victoria Shaw, Sustainability Services, Sr. Financial Analyst PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION Tom Leeson, CDNS Director Jason Holland, CDNS, City Planner Aaron Iverson, FC Moves, Sr. Transportation Planner COMMUNITY & OPERATION SERVICES Mark Sears, Natural Areas Manager Marc Rademacher, Recreation, Recreation Area Manager UTILITIES Carol Webb, Water Resources/Treatment Operation Manager Renee Davis, Water Conservation Specialist 3 Social Equity Described: Placing priority upon protecting, respecting, and fulfilling the full range of universal human rights, including those pertaining to civil, political, social, economic, and cultural concerns. Providing adequate access to employment, food, housing, clothing, recreational opportunities, a safe and healthy environment and social services. Eliminating systemic barriers to equitable treatment and inclusion, and accommodating the differences among people. Emphasizing justice, impartiality, and equal opportunity for all. Goal/Outcome: It is our priority to support an equitable and adequate social system that ensures access to employment, food, housing, clothing, education, recreational opportunities, a safe and healthy environment and social services. Additionally, we support equal access to services and seek to avoid negative impact for all people regardless of age, economic status, ability, immigration or citizenship status, race/ethnicity, gender, relationship status, religion, or sexual orientation. Equal opportunities for all people are sought. A community in which basic human rights are addressed, basic human needs are met, and all people have access to tools and resources to develop their capacity. This tool will help identify how the proposal affects community members and if there is a difference in how the decisions affect one or more social groups. Areas of consideration in creating a vibrant socially equitable Fort Collins are: basic needs, inclusion, community safety, culture, neighborhoods, and advancing social equity. Analysis Prompts • The prompts below are examples of the issues that need to be addressed. They are not a checklist. Not all prompts and issues will be relevant for any one project. Issues not covered by these prompts may be very pertinent to a proposal - please include them in the analysis. • Is this proposal affected by any current policy, procedure or action plan? Has advice been sought from organizations that have a high level of expertise, or may be significantly affected by this proposal? Proposal Description 1. Meeting Basic Human Needs • How does the proposal impact access to food, shelter, employment, health care, educational and recreational opportunities, a safe and healthy living environment or social services? • Does this proposal affect the physical or mental health of individuals, or the status of public health in our community? • How does this proposal contribute to helping people achieve and maintain an adequate standard of living, including housing, or food affordability, employment opportunities, healthy families, or other resiliency factors? Analysis/Discussion • Provides shelter/housing for residents. • Provides a community that focuses on resident health through an emphasis on local food (orchards and gardens), workshops, walking opportunities, etc. Research has shown that older adults’ health is maintained and improved by staying physically, mentally and socially active. • The accessory dwelling units may be relatively more affordable and/or could increase the financial feasibility of home ownership through rental of those units. • The hypothetical proejct could extend the time that seniors could stay in their homes through cost reduction including lower water costs and offering tax deductible services for grounds maintenance (thru the metro district) whereas HOA dues would not be tax deductible. 2. Addressing Inequities and being Inclusive • Are there any inequities to specific population subsets in this proposal? If so, how will they be addressed? • Through a metro district, access to trails will be open to the public at large (vs. the restriction of an HOA). • All units will be ADA compliant. 4 • Does this proposal meet the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act? • How does this proposal support the participation, growth and healthy development of our youth? Does it include Developmental Assets? • If the proposal affects a vulnerable section of our community (i.e. youth, persons with disabilities, etc.) • It would serve some of the needs for a growing demographic of senior citizens. • The hypothetical project aligns with City SO 1.1 to “improve access to a broad range of quality housing that is safe, accessible, and affordable.” 3. Ensuring Community Safety • How does this proposal address the specific safety and personal security needs of groups within the community, including women, people with disabilities, seniors, minorities, religious groups, children, immigrants, workers and others? • The metro district could improve bike and pedestrian facilities. • Would contribute to the restoration and improvement of an irrigation ditch, currently an eyesore and potential safety hazard, with the intent of providing enhanced open space, trails, and appropriate amenities adjacent to the ditch. 4. Culture • Is this proposal culturally appropriate and how does it affirm or deny the cultures of diverse communities? • How does this proposal create opportunities for artistic and cultural expression? • Commercial and community areas could host concerts, workshops, farmers’ market, art classes, health and wellness programs, and other cultural activities. 5. Addressing the Needs of Neighborhoods • How does this proposal impact specific Fort Collins neighborhoods? • How are community members, stakeholders and interested parties provided with opportunities for meaningful participation in the decision making process of this proposal? • How does this proposal enhance neighborhoods and stakeholders’ sense of commitment and stewardship to our community? • The hypothetical project would increase the amount of park space beyond the minimum required. • The project would result in increased traffic in the area, and it would be required to contribute to improvements to mitigate the anticipated traffic changes. • Supports Nature in the City goals to provide access to natural environments within a 10 minute walking distance of residents. 6. Building Capacity to Advance Social Equity • What plans have been made to communicate about and share the activities and impacts of this proposal within the City organization and/or the community? • How does this proposal strengthen collaboration and cooperation between the City organization and community members? • Creation of a metro district governing structure allows more rapid engagement of a citizen governing board than an HOA model. • A metro district operates as a form of government, vs. an HOA. • With an intentional senior community, more seniors may be able to stay in their homes longer and avoid publically-funded health care options. • Seniors living here may have more time for community volunteerism 5 Overall, the effect of this proposal on social equity would be: Please reach a consensus or take a group average on the rating, enter an “x” in one of the following boxes and indicate the overall rating. Rating represents group consensus Rating represents group average 1.6 +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3 Very positive Moderately positive Slightly positive Not relevant or neutral Slightly negative Moderately negative, impact likely Very negative, impact expected (10) (1) (2) Environmental Health Described: Healthy, resilient ecosystems, clean air, water, and land. Decreased pollution and waste, lower carbon emissions that contribute to climate change, lower fossil fuel use, decreased or no toxic product use. Prevent pollution, reduce use, promote reuse, and recycle natural resources. Goal/Outcome: Protect, preserve, and restore the natural environment to ensure long-term maintenance of ecosystem functions necessary for support of future generations of all species. Avoid or eliminate adverse environmental impacts of all activities, continually review all activities to identify and implement strategies to prevent pollution; reduce energy consumption and increase energy efficiency; conserve water; reduce consumption and waste of natural resources; reuse, recycle and purchase recycled content products; reduce reliance on non-renewable resources. Analysis Prompts • The prompts below are examples of issues that need to be addressed. They are not a checklist. Not all prompts and issues will be relevant for any one project. Issues not covered by these prompts may be very pertinent to a proposal - please include them in the analysis. • Is this proposal affected by any current policy, procedure or action plan? Has advice been sought from organizations that have a high level of expertise, or may be significantly affected by this proposal? 1. Environmental Impact • Does this proposal affect ecosystem functions or processes related to land, water, air, or plant or animal communities? • Will this proposal generate data or knowledge related to the use of resources? • Will this proposal promote or support education in prevention of pollution, and effective practices for reducing, reusing, and recycling of natural resources? • Does this proposal require or promote the continuous improvement of the environmental performance of the City organization or community? • Will this proposal affect the visual/landscape or aesthetic elements of the community? Analysis/Discussion • Hypothetical project includes a non-potable water system for irrigation. Combined with xeric landscaping, it could decrease treated water use 6 • Does this proposal directly generate or require the generation of greenhouse gases (such as through electricity consumption or transportation)? • How does this proposal align with the carbon reduction goals for 2020 goal adopted by the City Council? • Will this proposal, or ongoing operations result in an increase or decrease in greenhouse gas emissions? • How does this proposal affect the community’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or otherwise mitigate adverse climate change activities? development through robust bike and pedestrian facilities, and the senior-targeted development is anticipated to reduce vehicle trips during peak hours. • Common facilities would be solar powered if supported by public private partnership. • Includes solar recharging stations for electric lawn mowers and maintenance vehicles. 3. Protect, Preserve, Restore • Does this proposal result in the development or modification of land resources or ecosystem functions? • Does this proposal align itself with policies and procedures related to the preservation or restoration of natural habitat, greenways, protected wetlands, migratory pathways, or the urban growth boundary • How does this proposal serve to protect, preserve, or restore important ecological functions or processes? • Would restore and improve the habitat along an irrigation ditch, increasing wildlife corridor opportunities. • The design proposes an extensive open space and pocket park network with a planting design that emphasizes habitat and open corridors for wildlife within the neighborhood. Supports urban agriculture through community orchards and gardens. • Increased development density will increase impacts to the natural environment when compared to no development. Compared to a standard residential development, this proposal increases the quantity and quality of natural environment plantings and open space provided. 4. Pollution Prevention • Does this proposal generate, or cause to be generated, waste products that can contaminate the environment? • Does this proposal require or promote pollution prevention through choice of materials, chemicals, operational practices and/or engineering controls? • Does this proposal require or promote prevention of pollution from toxic substances or other pollutants regulated by the state or federal government? • Will this proposal create significant amounts of waste or pollution? • Hypothetical project establishes a goal to reduce waste generated by 90% and seek “zero waste” through neighborhood composting facilities, etc. • A minimal use of irrigated turf is proposed with expanded maintenance of outdoor spaces and residential lots to reduce pollution. 5. Rethink, Replace, Reduce, Reuse, Recirculate/Recycle • Does this proposal prioritize the rethinking of the materials or goods needed, reduction of resource or materials use, reuse of current natural resources or materials or energy products, or result in byproducts that are recyclable or can be re-circulated? • Hypothetical project establishes a goal to reduce waste generated by 90% and seek ”zero waste” through neighborhood composting 7 • Prevention of food waste through education and other programs conducted in the community kitchen. 6. Emphasize Local • Does this proposal emphasize use of local materials, vendors, and or services to reduce resources and environmental impact of producing and transporting proposed goods and materials? • Will the proposal cause adverse environmental effects somewhere other than the place where the action will take place? • The District could support local urban agriculture and community “farm to table” efforts via its community gardens and orchards and community kitchen. Environmental Health Summary Overall, the effect of this proposal on environmental health would be: Please reach a consensus or take a group average on the rating, enter an “x” in one of the following boxes and indicate the overall rating. Rating represents group consensus Rating represents group average 2.1 +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3 Very positive Moderately positive Slightly positive Not relevant or neutral Slightly negative Moderately negative, impact likely Very negative, impact expected (4) (5) (3) Economic Health Described: Support of healthy local economy with new jobs, businesses, and economic opportunities; focus on development of a diverse economy, enhanced sustainable practices for existing businesses, green and clean technology jobs, creation or retention of family waged jobs. Goal/Outcome: A stable, diverse and equitable economy; support of business development opportunities. Analysis Prompts • The prompts below are examples of the issues that need to be addressed. They are not a checklist. Not all prompts and issues will be relevant for any one project. Issues not covered by these prompts may be very pertinent to a proposal - please include them in the analysis • Is this proposal affected by any current policy, procedure or action plan? Has advice been sought from organizations that have a high level of expertise, or may be significantly affected by this proposal? 1. Infrastructure and Government • How will this proposal benefit the local economy? • If this proposal is an investment in infrastructure is it designed and will it be managed to optimize the use of resources including operating in a fossil fuel constrained society? • Can the proposal be funded partially or fully by grants, user Analysis/Discussion 8 fees or charges, staged development, or partnering with another agency? • How will the proposal impact business growth or operations (ability to complete desired project or remain in operation), such as access to needed permits, infrastructure and capital? proposal that would go above and beyond a standard residential development, with the intent to use the funding to meet City goals. 2. Employment and Training • What are the impacts of this proposal on job creation within Larimer County? • Are apprenticeships, volunteer or intern opportunities available? • How will this proposal enhance the skills of the local workforce? • The hypothetical project could provide some minor number of professional, skilled and unskilled-labor positions for operation of the recreation center, the sustainability center, and the irrigation system and grounds maintenance. • ADU’s enable opportunities for live/work businesses within the neighborhood. • There could be opportunities for internships with CSU students in areas of local food, recreation, programs, etc. 3. Diversified and Innovative Economy • How does this proposal support innovative or entrepreneurial activity? • Will “clean technology” or “green” jobs be created in this proposal? • How will the proposal impact start-up or existing businesses or development projects? • If the hypothetical project includes a Certified Community Kitchen, it could support small scale entrepreneurial endeavors. • The hypothetical project would support the “green” workforce through needs for maintenance of the solar garden, composting facilities, and non-potable water system. 4. Support or Develop Sustainable Businesses • What percentage of this proposal budget relies on local services or products? Identify purchases from Larimer County and the State of Colorado. • Will this proposal enhance the tools available to businesses to incorporate more sustainable practices in operations and products? • Are there opportunities to profile sustainable and socially responsible leadership of local businesses or educate businesses on triple bottom line practices? • The hypothetical project could provide a model for developing an intentional 55+ age community and enhancing environmentally and socially sustainable neighborhood development patterns. 5. Relevance to Local Economic Development Strategy Alignment with the Economic Health Strategic Plan: • Aligns with Objective C.3 to “balance land uses that support a healthy economy through maintaining a mix of land uses that supports the retention and expansion of businesses while encouraging a broad mix of residential housing.” • Aligns with Objective C.5 to “encourage a culture and economy unique to Fort Collins and consistent with community values,….including…. the encouragement of urban agriculture, and ….continuing to support and enhance Fort Collins outdoor recreation culture.” 9 • Because it is a green field development, it does not align with Objective C.2 to “leverage infill and redevelopment that meets multiple community objectives.” Economic Prosperity Summary Overall, the effect of this proposal on economic prosperity will be: Please reach a consensus or take a group average on the rating, enter an “x” in one of the following boxes and indicate the overall rating. Rating represents group consensus Rating represents group average 1.2 +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3 Very positive Moderately positive Slightly positive Not relevant or neutral Slightly negative Moderately negative, impact likely Very negative, impact expected (2) (8) 1 Residential Metro Districts Tom Leeson, CDNS Director Josh Birks, Economic Health Director 1-23-17 Purpose and Direction Sought Objective: • Provide an overview of City’s Metro District Policy, and evaluate hypothetical residential development Direction Sought: • Is a Metro District an appropriate financing tool for a residential development that is proposing infrastructure improvements and amenities that go beyond City requirements and further other City goals, specifically related to sustainability? 2 Metro District Policy 3 Fort Collins Resolution No. 2008-069: • The City generally supports the formation of a District where the projected use is primarily commercial. The City will not approve a Service Plan proposing a residential use only. • This Policy is intended as a guide only. Nothing in this document is intended, nor shall it be construed, to limit the discretion of City Council, which retains full discretion and authority regarding the terms and limitations of all District Service Plans.” Metro District Policy cont. 4 Fort Collins Resolution No. 2008-069: • A District may be permitted to conduct ongoing operations and maintenance activities where it can be demonstrated that having the District provide operations and maintenance is in the best interest of the City and the existing or future taxpayers of the District.” Hypothetical Residential Proposal 5 • Non-potable water irrigation system • Community Center Health, Wellness and Senior Center • Sustainability Center •Commercial electric lawn mowers, and electric vehicle to collect compost •Solar recharging station for electric equipment and vehicles • Solar gardens to provide renewable energy for community buildings • Compost Collection Site • Expanded Trail System and Natural Areas • Rehabilitation of an Irrigation Ditch • Community Gardens and Orchards Sustainability Assessment Tool 6 Sustainability Assessment Tool • How policy and program choices affect the social equity, environmental health and economic health of the community. • This was the first time the SAT has been utilized to evaluate a hypothetical development • Compared this hypothetical development to a standard residential development that would meet the minimum requirements of the City Land Use Code. Sustainability Assessment Tool 7 Hypothetical Residential Project SAT Summary SAT Scoring +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3 Average Score Very positive Moderately positive Slightly positive Not relevant or neutral Slightly negative Moderately negative, impact likely Very negative, impact expected Social Equity Summary (10) (1) (2) 1.6 Environmental Health Summary (4) (5) (3) 2.1 Economic Prosperity Summary (2) (8) 1.2 Direction Sought 8 Direction Sought: • Is a Metro District an appropriate financing tool for a residential development that is proposing infrastructure improvements and amenities that go beyond City requirements and further other City goals, specifically related to sustainability? COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Staff: Mike Beckstead Date: May 15, 2017 SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Budget Contingency Planning EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Sales Tax results through April of 2017 indicate a shortfall from budget, when including use tax the short fall to the General Fund is roughly $500k with a third of the year behind us. Other revenue is equal to or slightly ahead of budget in the General Fund. As a result of a potential revenue short fall if the rest of the year’s sales tax growth remains soft, the City Manager and Executive Leadership Team has been developing a framework for adjusting the City budget in the event there is a revenue shortfall. Staff will review macro-economic indicators, year-to-date revenue and expenditures and a framework for budget adjustments if revenue continues to underperform vs. budget. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED What questions does the Council Finance Committee have about the proposed contingency framework? Is the Council Finance Committee supportive of bringing the remaining 2017 Reappropriation items forward for full Council consideration? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Sales tax is the most significant revenue stream in the General Fund and Keep Fort Collins Great Fund, and is critical in supporting the programs and services funded by the City’s three other voter approved quarter cent tax initiatives. 2017 sales tax through April is flat compared to 2016. However, analysis of the data exposed two anomalies. First is a large sales tax audit finding in Q1 2016 that was not comparable to Q1 2017. Second is the required rebate of sales tax revenue from the Foothills Mall over the agreed upon base level of sales tax collections. Factoring out those two anomalies puts s2017 sales tax growth at 4.0% for the year. This growth is still below budget, but is moderate growth over 2016. Historically, the 1 st quarter of the year is not a good predictor of annual sales tax revenue; but since it is under budget year to date, it is financially prudent to have a contingency plan that would be implemented upon specified and agreed upon trigger points. The contingency plan being presented to the Council Finance Committee is a framework of the actions that would occur based on those trigger points. If those triggers would occur, specific reductions to programs and other budget line items would be brought back to the Council Finance Committee. ATTACHMENTS Attachment #1 – Presentation Attachment #2 – Drilling Platforms with Offers funded by the General Fund and Keep Fort Collins Great Fund 1 Budget Contingency Planning Mike Beckstead, CFO May 15, 2017 Attachment #1 Macro Economic Indicators 2 Macro Indicators Mostly Strong – GDP Softening, Project Submittals Down National: • Consumer confidence 16 year high • Small business confidence optimistic • Unemployment 4.5% March – lowest since 2007 • Interest rates Historical lows – anticipated incr • Housing sales & prices Strong • Consumer price index 2.4% last 12 months • Building permits up 3.6% Mar, down 6% Feb • Q1 GDP .7% - consumer spending down State / Local: • Unemployment - State 2.6%, lowest since 1976 • Business licenses up 5% last 12 months • Building permits issued up 3.3% YTD over 2016 • Building permit valuations up 43.9% YTD over 2016 • Development project submittals received down 28.6% YTD compared with 2016 3 Historical Q1 Compared to Full Year Sales Tax Only Front Range Comparison April Results 4 Quarter over Quarter Growth QI 2017 • Fort Collins (1.2%) • Fort Collins adjusted for audit & filing 2.6% • Boulder (.5%) • Loveland 5.9% • Longmont 7.1% • Westminster 3.5% • Thornton 4.5% • Arvada 5.3% Fort Collins – April Results with w/out Compared to 2016 YTD mall mall Sales Tax Month 6.1% 4.0% Sales Tax YTD 0.6% 0.1% Sales Tax Adjusted for Audit 3.0% 2.4% Use Tax YTD (3.8%) Compared to Budget YTD Sales Tax $(1,742k) Use Tax 912k $( 830k) April Rebound, Adjusting for Audit – Moderate 3% Growth…. Revenue to Budget – GF down $500k, KFCG down $200k General Fund Revenue – YTD April 5 Total General Fund Revenue Slightly Under Budget…. Evaluating General Government Fees & Other Budget 2017 Actual 2017 Over/ (Under) Budget Sales & Use Tax $ 28,121 $ 27,586 $ (535) Property Tax 8,426 8,662 236 PILOTs 3,023 3,112 89 General Govern Fees 2,575 1,947 (628) Other 5,033 5,705 671 Subtotal $ 47,179 $ 47,012 $ (167) Unrealized Gains/Losses 0 (193) (193) Total $ 47,179 $ 46,819 $ (360) 2017 Revenue Scenarios 6 Macro Indicators and Comparison to Front Range Indicate Moderate Growth…. Revenue Other than Sales Tax on Budget. GF KFCG Total GF KFCG Total GF KFCG Total Sales Tax $ (3.7) $ (1.0) (4.7) $ (3.0) $ (0.7) (3.7) $ (1.1) $ (0.3) (1.4) Use Tax 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.7 1.3 0.4 1.7 Property Tax - - - - - - - - - PILOTs 0.1 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.1 General Govt (0.6) - (0.6) (0.6) - (0.6) (0.6) - (0.6) Other 0.7 - 0.7 0.7 - 0.7 0.7 - 0.7 Total 2017 $ (2.9) $ (0.9) $ (3.8) $ (2.2) $ (0.6) $ (2.8) $ 0.4 $ 0.1 $ 0.5 Est 2018 - ST Only $ (4.7) $ (3.7) $ (1.4) 1% Growth Slow Growth - 2.6% On Budget Growth Over/(Under) Budget Over/(Under) Budget Over/(Under) Budget General Fund Set Aside for Economic Changes 7 General Fund Contingency Provides Buffer if Downturn Occurs • $4.4M General Fund reserves assigned as Contingency • Buffer for a potential economic downturn • Allow time to plan changes in the expense structure • A portion of the set aside could be used in each year • Reduced available funding for enhanced programs and services which could otherwise have been provided to the community Contingency Plan Framework 8 Establish Trigger Points • Monitor revenue monthly (all revenue streams in all funds) • Trigger Point #1: 2 consecutive months of negative Sales Tax growth • Trigger Point #2: H1 2017 Actual Sales Tax growth – determine necessary adjustments Budget Adjustment Actions – in order of priority to achieve adjustments • Sweep Vacancy & Fuel savings – Q1 estimated at $700k and $740k, respectively • Utilize a portion of $4.4M GF set aside each year − Blend between use of set aside and reductions below − Max 1/3 in 2017 and 2/3 in 2018 • TBD % reduction in Purchased & Tech Services, Supplies….10% equal $1.1M − Determine stop doing list & other savings from those programs • Drilling Platform – stop doing list of programs Monitor to Trigger Points….Develop Specific Stop Doing List Framework Example 9 If July, revenue shortfall estimated at $2.8M in 2017 and $3.7M in 2018 CM & ELT Will Develop Stop Doing List for Both Professional/Tech & Programs 2017 2018 Revenue Shortfall $ (2.8) $ (3.7) Salary/Fuel Savings Sweep 0.7 Contingency 1.0 2.0 Professional/Tech Reductions 0.6 0.9 Program Reductions 0.5 0.8 Total Savings Initiatives $ 2.8 $ 3.7 Confirm salary & fuel sweep of $.7 Stop Doing Criteria • Drilling Platform priority • Council priority • Programs started 10 Remaining 2017 Reappropriation Requests Given Macro Indicators & Comparisons, Staff Recommends Moving Forward with Remaining Re-appropriations 10 11 Supporting Data Governmental Actuals vs. Budget by Fund YTD April 12 General Fund $7.5M Under Budget, KFCG $2.3M Under Budget Budget 2017 Actual 2017 (Over)/ Under Budget General Fund $50,684 $43,199 $7,485 Keep Fort Collins Great 7,464 5,154 2,310 Natural Areas 5,161 4,118 1,043 Cultural Services 1,667 1,296 371 Recreation 1,897 1,841 56 Transportation 7,012 6,729 283 Golf* 912 935 (22) Self Insurance Fund 1,300 1,219 81 Benefits Fund 9,076 9,172 (96) URA - N. College District 2,742 2,587 155 Other Funds 24,238 11,448 12,790 Fund Lapsing Total 112,154 87,699 24,455 Less Transfers & Depreciation (24,134) (10,462) (13,672) TOTAL $88,020 $77,237 $10,783 Governmental YTD Actuals vs. Budget by Expense Category YTD April 13 $10.8M Under Budget April YTD, $900K in Personnel Budget 2017 Actual 2017 (Over)/ Under Budget Personnel Costs $31,093 $30,163 $930 Purchased Prof & Tech Services 16,264 14,286 1,978 Purchased Property Services 11,574 7,246 4,328 Other Purchased Services 11,455 11,482 (27) Supplies 5,497 4,378 1,119 Capital Outlay 6,377 3,690 2,687 Other 2,191 1,940 250 Debt & Other Uses 3,570 4,053 (483) 88,020 77,237 10,783 Q1 Actuals vs. Budget – GF & KFCG 14 Significant Underspend in Both GF & KFCG… Opportunity for Stop Doing List YTD through April 2017 General Fund Keep Fort Collins Great Budget 2017 Actual 2017 (Over)/ Under Budget Budget 2017 Actual 2017 (Over)/ Under Budget Personnel Costs $18,648 $18,258 $390 $2,133 $1,943 $190 Purchased Prof & Tech Services 10,784 10,139 645 2,020 1,271 749 Purchased Property Services 4,610 3,011 1,599 1,696 866 830 Other Purchased Services 1,179 1,187 (8) 70 64 6 Supplies 1,781 1,223 558 438 412 26 Capital Outlay 1,149 663 486 732 321 411 Other 1,718 1,593 125 339 254 85 Debt & Other Uses 5 3 2 35 22 13 39,873 36,076 3,797 7,464 5,154 2,310 Transfers 10,811 7,123 3,688 21 21 Total 50,684 43,199 7,485 7,485 5,175 2,310 Total Ongoing RESERVES 11.1 00 27.1 568,047 0 83.1 00 87.1 00 75.1 00 96.1 46,346 0 17.1 00 55.1 00 75.2 00 27.4 00 27.10 0 224,132 0 303,335 Drilling Platform - Ranked Offers by Outcome Budget Year: 2017 NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY AND SOCIAL HEALTH - 2017 Offer Cost Offer Funding . GENERAL FUND Social Sustainability 1,628,421 0 1,060,374 Keep Fort Collins Great Offer Dedicated OTHER Low Income, Senior and Disabled Rebate Programs 303,335 Graffiti Abatement Program 138,632 0 138,632 ENHANCEMENT: Poudre School District After-School Programs for Title 1 Schools 75,000 75,000 0 One-time Revenue Neighborhood Programs and Services 1,614,879 181,073 1,433,806 Development Review One-time Revenue Special Assessments KFCG: Residential Parking Permit Program 46,346 0 0 Keep Fort Collins Great Median and Streetscape Maintenance 628,575 9,242 619,333 Park Fees Community Gardens Outreach Program 100,267 0 100,267 Larimer Humane Society Contract 898,393 0 898,393 ENHANCEMENT: Human Services Program Grant Funding 100,000 100,000 0 One-time Revenue KFCG ENHANCEMENT: Homelessness Initiatives 224,132 0 0 Keep Fort Collins Great Attachment #2 Total Ongoing RESERVES 27.13 00 75.7 00 27.6 71,235 0 75.9 00 69.2 0 25,000 11.2 00 27.19 00 75.11 82,000 13,584 Offer Funding . OTHER ENHANCEMENT: Support for Social Sustainability Programs 72,217 0 72,217 Drilling Platform - Ranked Offers by Outcome Budget Year: 2017 NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY AND SOCIAL HEALTH - 2017 Offer Cost ENHANCEMENT: Neighborhood Livability relative to City Code 379,109 89,025 290,084 GENERAL FUND Offer Dedicated One-time Revenue KFCG ENHANCEMENT: 1.0 FTE Classified Special Agency Session Resource Specialist - Connecting Homelessness Resources 71,235 0 0 Keep Fort Collins Great ENHANCEMENT: Neighborhood Improvement and Community Building Grant Fund (Previously Renewal of Neighborhoods in a State of Change) 300,000 300,000 0 One-time Revenue KFCG ENHANCEMENT: Downtown Business Association Ambassador Program 25,000 0 0 Keep Fort Collins Great ENHANCEMENT: Low Income, Senior and Disabled Rebate Program Additional Funding 28,745 0 28,745 ENHANCEMENT: Childcare Services 50,000 50,000 0 Keep Fort Collins Great One-time Revenue ENHANCEMENT: 1.0 FTE - Compliance Inspector - Environmental 95,584 0 0 Keep Fort Collins Great Total Ongoing RESERVES 93.3 00 15.1 774,365 0 65.2 4,693,552 148,643 65.1 2,325,383 25,000 34.1 164,347 100,000 20.1 570,809 50,000 56.6 00 15.4 550,000 0 56.1 2,854,243 233,000 65.3 526,805 219,475 Keep Fort Collins Great Recreation Recreation Museum Museum Recreation Administration and Communication Services 1,262,624 0 516,344 Gardens on Spring Creek Keep Fort Collins Great General Fund Lodging Taxes Cultural Services Cultural Services Parks Life Cycle Program 550,000 0 0 Keep Fort Collins Great Cultural Services 5,799,462 717,497 1,994,722 Keep Fort Collins Great Keep Fort Collins Great Cemeteries Perpetual Care ENHANCEMENT: 1 FTE - Operations Manager at The Gardens on Spring Creek 65,765 0 65,765 Keep Fort Collins Great Keep Fort Collins Great Memorial Parks 774,082 0 153,273 Keep Fort Collins Great Recreation Recreation Urban Forest Management 1,527,668 0 1,263,321 Keep Fort Collins Great Keep Fort Collins Great Recreation Recreation Ice & Aquatics 2,350,383 0 0 One-time Revenue Park Fees Recreation Activities and Programs 4,842,195 0 0 Parks, Trails and Facility Grounds Maintenance 6,768,142 457,162 5,536,615 BOB O&M Keep Fort Collins Great Offer Dedicated OTHER Cultural Facility Utilities and Custodial 1,894,663 0 1,894,663 Drilling Platform - Ranked Offers by Outcome Budget Year: 2017 CULTURE AND RECREATION - 2017 Offer Cost Offer Funding . GENERAL FUND Offer Total Dedicated Ongoing OTHER RESERVES Drilling Platform - Ranked Offers by Outcome Budget Year: 2017 CULTURE AND RECREATION - 2017 Offer Cost Offer Funding . GENERAL FUND 34.6 0 93,000 15.7 0 440,000 36.1 49,022 0 56.13 0 58,000 65.7 0 133,600 34.4 0 44,042 56.12 00 56.5 0 100,000 15.6 0 157,000 34.5 KFCG ENHANCEMENT: – Increased Contractual 44,902 243,572 Pruning of Larger Trees (greater than 18 – inches in diameter) to Meet the Frequency Standard Set by The City Forester 288,474 0 0 Keep Fort Collins Great Keep Fort Collins Great Museum ENHANCEMENT: 3.5 FTE and Maintenance of Southeast Community Park 464,093 0 307,093 General Fund One-time Revenue ENHANCEMENT: Dehumidification System to Protect Artifacts and Exhibitions - Museum 300,000 200,000 0 One-time Revenue ENHANCEMENT: 4.0 FTE – 1 Crew Chief, 2 Forestry Technicians and 1 Forestry Field Worker to Support Increased Pruning of Smaller Trees (less than 18 – inches in diameter) to Meet the Frequency Standard Set by the City Forester 296,716 0 252,674 General Fund ENHANCEMENT: New Cultural Plan 75,000 75,000 0 General Fund KFCG ENHANCEMENT: Recreation Vehicle Replacement & Facility Improvements 133,600 0 0 Keep Fort Collins Great Community Services Administration and Technology Support 338,337 0 289,315 Keep Fort Collins Great ENHANCEMENT: Gardens Equipment Purchase 58,000 0 0 General Fund ENHANCEMENT: Rolland Moore Ball Field Lights 440,000 0 0 General Fund ENHANCEMENT: - Forestry Emerald Ash Borer Pre- Infestation 93,000 0 0 Offer Total Dedicated Ongoing OTHER RESERVES Drilling Platform - Ranked Offers by Outcome Budget Year: 2017 CULTURE AND RECREATION - 2017 Offer Cost Offer Funding . GENERAL FUND 15.3 0 144,588 65.10 32,853 0 15.8 0 84,000 15.13 00 Keep Fort Collins Great Parks Department Equipment Replacement 47,000 0 47,000 Park Fees Recreation KFCG ENHANCEMENT: American Disability Act (ADA) Playground Compliance 84,000 0 0 KFCG ENHANCEMENT: - 1.0 FTE Senior Park Ranger 144,588 0 0 Keep Fort Collins Great ENHANCEMENT: 1.0 FTE - Publicity/Marketing Tech 65,706 32,853 0 Total RESERVES 25.1 291,900 20,000 78.1 749,480 0 16.1 333,749 0 78.5 0 267,000 16.4 00 72.1 00 25.13 0 418,107 78.7 0 60,000 Offer OTHER Drilling Platform - Ranked Offers by Outcome Budget Year: 2017 ECONOMIC HEALTH - 2017 Offer Cost Offer Funding . GENERAL FUND Keep Fort Collins Great Economic Health Office 1,032,605 0 720,705 Keep Fort Collins Great One-time Revenue Transportation Development Review Programs and Services 5,685,699 4,527,720 408,499 Development Review Keep Fort Collins Great DDA Contributions General Improvement District 1 One-time Revenue Keep Fort Collins Great Park Fees Downtown Landscaping and Maintenance 1,807,544 339,674 1,134,121 Transportation ENHANCEMENT: City Plan, Transportation Master Plan and Transit Operating Plan 549,903 282,903 0 One-time Revenue General Fund General Fund Convention and Visitor Services 897,820 897,820 0 ENHANCEMENT: Expansion of Downtown Maintenance 35,000 25,000 10,000 Park Fees General Fund Lodging Taxes ENHANCEMENT: Use Tax and Business Personal Property Tax Rebates 418,107 0 0 ENHANCEMENT: Sign Code Amendments 60,000 0 0 Dedicated Ongoing Offer Total OTHER RESERVES Drilling Platform - Ranked Offers by Outcome Budget Year: 2017 ECONOMIC HEALTH - 2017 Offer Cost Offer Funding . GENERAL FUND Dedicated Ongoing 78.10 00 25.9 00 25.6 00 ENHANCEMENT: Historic Preservation Ordinance Review 49,180 49,180 0 82,500 0 One-time Revenue One-time Revenue ENHANCEMENT: Additional Ongoing Support for the Northern Colorado Regional Airport (FNL) 92,500 92,500 0 One-time Revenue ENHANCEMENT: Implement New Northern Colorado Regional Airport (FNL) Strategic Plan 82,500 Total RESERVES 26.2 337,600 0 86.1 2,688,680 0 86.5 4,697,986 0 26.1 129,793 0 85.1 341,510 0 84.1 76,243 0 61.1 0 58,000 26.17 00 84.3 20,000 0 26.10 0 40,000 Offer OTHER Drilling Platform - Ranked Offers by Outcome Budget Year: 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH - 2017 Offer Cost Offer Funding . GENERAL FUND Natural Areas Stewardship 2,716,125 0 27,445 Keep Fort Collins Great Timberline Recycling Center 337,600 0 0 Natural Areas Natural Areas - Department Management and Land Conservation 4,749,343 0 51,357 Natural Areas Environmental Services Department 1,568,917 10,000 1,429,124 One-time Revenue Keep Fort Collins Great West Nile Virus Management Program 341,510 0 0 Keep Fort Collins Great Nature in the City Implementation Capacity 76,243 0 0 Keep Fort Collins Great KFCG ENHANCEMENT: Expand Downtown Recycling 58,000 0 0 Keep Fort Collins Great Keep Fort Collins Great ENHANCEMENT: City Energy Project - Matching Funds for Fort Collins Participation 50,000 50,000 0 One-time Revenue KFCG ENHANCEMENT: Nature in the City Programmatic Funding 20,000 0 0 Keep Fort Collins Great KFCG ENHANCEMENT: Community and Municipal Electric Vehicle Readiness Roadmap 40,000 0 0 Dedicated Ongoing Offer Total OTHER RESERVES Drilling Platform - Ranked Offers by Outcome Budget Year: 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH - 2017 Offer Cost Offer Funding . GENERAL FUND Dedicated Ongoing 26.16 00 26.8 0 382,000 26.12 00 26.7 00 26.15 00 26.11 00 ENHANCEMENT: Alternative Fuel Municipal Lawn and Garden Equipment Fund 50,000 50,000 0 One-time Revenue 0 KFCG ENHANCEMENT: Road to 2020 Pilot Projects and Innovation Fund 382,000 0 0 Keep Fort Collins Great One-time Revenue ENHANCEMENT: 0.5 FTE Road to Zero Waste Support 47,318 0 47,318 One-time Revenue ENHANCEMENT: Expanded Municipal Innovation Fund 50,000 50,000 0 ENHANCEMENT: 1.0 Contractual FTE: Climate Action Plan Program Assistant 48,501 48,501 0 One-time Revenue ENHANCEMENT: Indoor Air Quality- Evaluating and Enhancing Existing Programs to Reach More Residents and Improve Program Outcomes 54,000 54,000 Total RESERVES 57.4 (128,603) (366,609) 10.1 0 25,000 13.2 00 19.18 00 13.1 00 22.1 16,000 0 22.2 00 57.1 2,073,119 0 57.3 459,592 2,038,305 58.1 175,044 0 9.1 1,360,016 67,000 62.1 00 Drilling Platform - Ranked Offers by Outcome Budget Year: 2017 HIGH PERFORMING GOVERNMENT - 2017 Offer Cost Offer Funding . GENERAL FUND Offer OTHER ENHANCEMENT: Microsoft Office 365 (495,212) 0 0 Data & Communications General Fund Financial Programs and Services 3,770,640 0 3,745,640 Facilities Vehicle and Equipment Rental - Existing Commitments 16,222 0 16,222 General Fund Elections 257,808 257,808 0 One-time Revenue City Clerk Administration 771,447 0 771,447 City Council 175,437 0 159,437 Keep Fort Collins Great City Manager's Office 2,104,379 0 2,104,379 Information Technology Infrastructure Services 4,402,846 0 2,329,727 Data & Communications Information Technology Infrastructure 2,497,897 0 0 Data & Communications General Fund Data & Communications Information Technology Administration Services 507,904 0 332,860 Data & Communications Information Technology Application Services 3,023,673 0 1,596,657 Data & Communications Keep Fort Collins Great Data & Communications General Legal Services 2,205,273 0 2,205,273 Dedicated Ongoing Total RESERVES Drilling Platform - Ranked Offers by Outcome Budget Year: 2017 HIGH PERFORMING GOVERNMENT - 2017 Offer Cost Offer Funding . GENERAL FUND Offer Dedicated Ongoing OTHER 42.1 00 19.2 00 23.1 34,032 0 41.2 00 24.1 55,000 0 19.7 00 42.5 161,450 0 10.5 33,079 0 19.5 00 10.7 60,500 181,500 10.6 00 Facilities Operations 9,187,698 2,434,540 6,753,158 Facilities Work for Others HR Core and Learning & Organizational Development 2,231,611 343,000 1,888,611 One-time Revenue Special Event Coordinator 108,688 0 108,688 Communications and Public Involvement (CPIO) 1,819,256 231,262 1,553,962 Cable PEG Fees Keep Fort Collins Great Municipal Facility Efficiency Fund 150,000 150,000 0 Sustainability Services Area Admin 473,115 0 418,115 Keep Fort Collins Great ENHANCEMENT: 1.0 FTE - Purchasing Buyer 66,158 0 33,079 One-time Revenue KFCG: Volunteer Services 161,450 0 0 Keep Fort Collins Great ENHANCEMENT: City Procurement and Vendor Payment Modernization Program 242,000 0 0 Utility CS&A ENHANCEMENT: City Facility Roof and HVAC Major Maintenance 775,000 775,000 0 One-time Revenue One-time Revenue Utility CS&A General Fund ENHANCEMENT: Financial Planning & Analysis Organization Training 25,000 25,000 0 Total RESERVES Drilling Platform - Ranked Offers by Outcome Budget Year: 2017 HIGH PERFORMING GOVERNMENT - 2017 Offer Cost Offer Funding . GENERAL FUND Offer Dedicated Ongoing OTHER 9.5 72,000 0 22.5 00 42.8 00 19.23 00 42.6 0 300,000 22.4 00 19.6 00 9.7 00 10.2 00 23.6 0 90,000 Data & Communications ENHANCEMENT: State Government Advocacy 55,000 55,000 0 One-time Revenue ENHANCEMENT: Budget Analysis Reporting Tool (BART) Assessment and Upgrade 300,000 228,000 0 One-time Revenue ENHANCEMENT: 1.0 FTE - Human Resources Partner 90,847 0 90,847 ENHANCEMENT: Facility Maintenance for Utilities Buildings 500,000 500,000 0 Facilities Work for Others ENHANCEMENT: Job Architecture and Enhanced Career Management Programs 300,000 0 0 General Fund ENHANCEMENT: Required Building Modifications 600,000 600,000 0 One-time Revenue ENHANCEMENT: Employee Engagement/Recognition Week/Ethics Hotline 87,700 87,700 0 One-time Revenue KFCG ENHANCEMENT: Messaging and Engagement Priorities 90,000 0 0 ENHANCEMENT: Payment Card Industry (PCI) Audit 85,000 85,000 0 One-time Revenue Keep Fort Collins Great ENHANCEMENT: 1.0 FTE - Program Performance Evaluation Analyst 79,291 0 79,291 Total RESERVES Drilling Platform - Ranked Offers by Outcome Budget Year: 2017 HIGH PERFORMING GOVERNMENT - 2017 Offer Cost Offer Funding . GENERAL FUND Offer Dedicated Ongoing OTHER 42.12 00 10.8 00 23.4 00 62.2 00 ENHANCEMENT: Leadership Development - Maintain Level of Service 100,000 100,000 0 One-time Revenue One-time Revenue ENHANCEMENT 0.75 FTE - Enhanced Legal Services 86,860 0 86,860 ENHANCEMENT: 1.0 FTE - Process Analysts supporting new Continuous Improvement Program 137,249 0 137,249 ENHANCEMENT: Video Production Assistance Programs - Fort Collins Public Access Network (FC Public Media) 30,000 30,000 0 Total Ongoin RESERVES 29.6 00 29.4 1,495,423 17,479 29.10 745,602 0 37.1 00 29.1 568,649 0 29.14 00 29.8 40,556 0 52.3 00 92.1 00 52.2 2,804,685 0 29.13 00 29.11 0 80,519 Drilling Platform - Ranked Offers by Outcome Budget Year: 2017 SAFE COMMUNITY - 2017 Offer Cost Offer Funding . GENERAL FUND Offer Dedicated OTHER Police Portion of Regional Crime Lab Operating Costs 75,000 0 75,000 Police Criminal Investigation Division Programs and Services 6,741,787 0 5,228,885 Keep Fort Collins Great General Fund Police Patrol Services 14,087,221 0 13,341,619 Keep Fort Collins Great Municipal Court Services 747,696 56,950 690,746 Camera Radar Police Information Services 7,366,105 455,935 6,341,521 Ambulance Contract Keep Fort Collins Great North Range Behavioral Health Contract 105,910 105,910 0 One-time Revenue Police Office of the Chief and Administration 2,616,487 0 2,575,931 Keep Fort Collins Great Office of Emergency Management 184,101 0 184,101 Police Facilities Utilities and Building Operations 420,796 0 420,796 KFCG: Poudre Fire Authority Operation, Maintenance and Capital 2,804,685 0 0 Keep Fort Collins Great Police Juvenile Transport Contract 90,000 90,000 0 General Fund One-time Revenue Police Red Light & Camera Radar Program 644,306 563,787 0 Camera Radar Total Ongoin RESERVES 29.2 00 29.5 29,292 0 29.15 113,340 0 29.23 00 52.1 00 29.24 112,405 0 29.12 1,370,212 489,919 29.53 00 29.44 00 29.29 00 Offer Cost Offer Funding . GENERAL FUND Offer Dedicated OTHER Police Regional CRISP Project 653,302 653,302 0 CAD System One-time Revenue Police Criminal Investigations Fleet Fuel, Lease Purchase and Maintenance 344,191 0 314,899 Keep Fort Collins Great Police Patrol Fleet Fuel and Maintenance 1,107,832 31,180 963,312 Traffic Calming Surcharge Keep Fort Collins Great Police Vehicle Replacement 72,102 72,102 0 One-time Revenue Traffic Calming Surcharge Poudre Fire Operation, Maintenance & Capital (General Fund) 23,828,348 0 23,828,348 Police Vehicle Debt Service 1,012,624 16,899 883,320 Camera Radar Keep Fort Collins Great Traffic Calming Surcharge Patrol Division Specialized Units 5,438,409 827,756 2,750,522 PSD Revenue for SRO Keep Fort Collins Great General Fund Traffic Calming Surcharge Keep Fort Collins Great ENHANCEMENT: SWAT replacement Negotiator’s Console 32,000 32,000 0 One-time Revenue ENHANCEMENT: Police Services Technician - Records Release 1.0 FTE 77,489 0 77,489 ENHANCEMENT: Police Patrol Resources for a Growing Community 9.0 FTE 681,798 0 681,798 SAFE COMMUNITY - 2017 Drilling Platform - Ranked Offers by Outcome Budget Year: 2017 Total Ongoin RESERVES 37.2 00 29.47 00 29.27 0 130,621 29.43 00 29.38 0 21,755 29.36 0 1,080,000 29.45 0 77,489 29.48 0 74,668 29.16 0 177,151 Drilling Platform - Ranked Offers by Outcome Budget Year: 2017 SAFE COMMUNITY - 2017 Offer Cost Offer Funding . GENERAL FUND Offer Dedicated OTHER ENHANCEMENT: 1.0 FTE Increase - Deputy Court Administrator; 0.5 FTE Hourly Conversion to Classified - Court Support Specialist; Contingent 0.5 FTE Increase - Hourly Deputy Court Clerk I 98,329 0 98,329 ENHANCEMENT: Police Transcription Service 68,000 68,000 0 One-time Revenue ENHANCEMENT: Police Personal Protective Equipment 130,621 0 0 General Fund ENHANCEMENT: Police Property & Evidence Storage Upgrade 245,000 245,000 0 One-time Revenue ENHANCEMENT: Mental Disorders Case Coordinator 35,820 14,065 0 One-time Revenue General Fund ENHANCEMENT: Proposed Police Training Facility (Council Reserve Assignments) 1,080,000 0 0 General Fund KFCG ENHANCEMENT: Police Services Technician - Support 1.0 FTE 77,489 0 0 Keep Fort Collins Great KFCG ENHANCEMENT: Police Property & Evidence Technician (Patrol Taser) 1.0 FTE 74,668 0 0 Keep Fort Collins Great KFCG ENHANCEMENT: Police Body Camera and Taser Program 177,151 0 0 Keep Fort Collins Great Total Ongoin RESERVES 29.39 0 990,000 29.33 00 29.40 17,212 0 29.37 0 232,700 31.2 0 75,000 Drilling Platform - Ranked Offers by Outcome Budget Year: 2017 General Fund SAFE COMMUNITY - 2017 Offer Cost Offer Funding . GENERAL FUND Offer Dedicated OTHER 168,124 KFCG ENHANCEMENT: FC911 Dispatchers 1.0 FTE (PFA Funded) 17,212 0 0 ENHANCEMENT: Police CAD and RMS Replacement CRISP (Council Reserve Assignments) 2,980,000 1,990,000 0 CAD System Keep Fort Collins Great Keep Fort Collins Great ENHANCEMENT: Existing Range Safety Repairs 232,700 0 0 General Fund KFCG ENHANCEMENT: Police Campus West Substation 75,000 0 0 ENHANCEMENT: Criminal Investigations Division (CID) Detectives 1.0 FTE 168,124 0 Total Ongoin RESERVES 2.1 00 60.3 2,289,465 0 60.1 14,730,796 0 33.1 3,141,096 0 3.2 597,159 0 67.1 7,958,682 64,100 1.2 1,700,000 0 3.18 78,641 0 3.20 461,672 0 67.5 827,768 0 Drilling Platform - Ranked Offers by Outcome Budget Year: 2017 TRANSPORTATION - 2017 Offer Cost Offer Funding . GENERAL FUND Offer Dedicated OTHER ENHANCEMENT: I-25 Improvements Local Funding Match (Council Reserve Assignments) 1,125,000 1,125,000 0 Transportation One-time Revenue Essential Street Operations 2,814,832 0 525,367 Keep Fort Collins Great Traffic Operations 3,141,096 0 0 Street Maintenance Program 16,465,362 0 1,734,566 Keep Fort Collins Great Transportation Keep Fort Collins Great Transportation Keep Fort Collins Great Transportation Ongoing: Transportation Planning Services 597,159 0 0 0 Transit Local Fixed Route Network 15,798,357 0 7,775,575 Keep Fort Collins Great KFCG: Safe Routes to School Program 78,641 0 0 Keep Fort Collins Great Transit Services Transit Services KFCG City Bridge Program 1,700,000 0 Keep Fort Collins Great KFCG: FC Bikes 461,672 0 0 Keep Fort Collins Great Dial-A-Ride Service 1,722,467 0 894,699 Keep Fort Collins Great Transit Services Total Ongoin RESERVES Drilling Platform - Ranked Offers by Outcome Budget Year: 2017 TRANSPORTATION - 2017 Offer Cost Offer Funding . GENERAL FUND Offer Dedicated OTHER 67.6 1,570,825 291,756 33.3 241,900 0 1.3 4,348,336 877,636 3.21 94,350 0 63.1 50,000 0 3.19 64,000 0 60.10 0 2,000,000 1.6 00 1.21 0 65,702 1.18 0 534,558 Transit Services Community Capital Improvement Transit Services Transfort Capital Repair and Replacement including CCIP Bus Replacement & Bus Stop Improvements 1,862,581 0 0 Keep Fort Collins Great Transportation Capital Expansion (Street Oversizing) Program 5,445,891 0 219,919 Keep Fort Collins Great KFCG: Traffic Operations Equipment 241,900 0 0 Keep Fort Collins Great Street Oversizing Street Oversizing KFCG: School Crossing Guard Program 94,350 0 0 KFCG ENHANCEMENT: All Kids Need Safe Routes to School 64,000 0 0 Keep Fort Collins Great Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program 150,000 100,000 0 Traffic Calming Surcharge Keep Fort Collins Great KFCG ENHANCEMENT: ADA-Safe Routes to Everywhere Compliance (1.0 FTE) 2,000,000 0 0 Keep Fort Collins Great 0 ENHANCEMENT: Lemay Realignment and Railroad Crossing Improvements Project 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 One-time Revenue Keep Fort Collins Great ENHANCEMENT: City Bridge Program 65,702 0 0 General Fund KFCG ENHANCEMENT: City Bridge Program 534,558 0 Total Ongoin RESERVES Drilling Platform - Ranked Offers by Outcome Budget Year: 2017 TRANSPORTATION - 2017 Offer Cost Offer Funding . GENERAL FUND Offer Dedicated OTHER 1.11 0 150,000 1.4 0 462,988 33.5 200,000 0 33.6 34,298 65,702 1.19 529,194 220,806 3.9 0 50,000 67.13 375,000 0 0 One-time Revenue General Fund ENHANCEMENT: Railroad Crossing Maintenance 150,000 0 0 General Fund ENHANCEMENT: Riverside Bridge at Spring Creek Replacement 1,300,223 837,235 Keep Fort Collins Great KFCG ENHANCEMENT: Adaptive Signal System for Harmony Road and Timberline Road 200,000 0 0 Keep Fort Collins Great ENHANCEMENT: Lincoln Avenue Improvements - 1st Street to Lemay Pedestrian and Landscape Enhancements 750,000 0 0 KFCG ENHANCEMENT: Signal Pole Inspection 100,000 0 0 Keep Fort Collins Great ENHANCEMENT: Protected Bike Lane Pilot Project 50,000 0 0 Keep Fort Collins Great Transportation General Fund ENHANCEMENT: Transfort Sunday and Holiday Service 750,000 375,000 0 One-time Revenue Transit Services • Increased land use will increase tax base. Hypothetical project offers strategies to keep some aging residents living in Fort Collins, also helping the tax base. • Hypothetical project could use a metro district to fund elements of the facilities, etc., thereby reducing pressure on area landfills. • Neighborhood community center could support additional services such as tool lending library, hosting workshops on waste diversion, etc. • Hypothetical project provides a community composting collection service and processing facility, & using resultant compost in community gardens. by 60% compared to a standard residential development. 2. Climate Change • Hypothetical project is designed to minimize car use within the because the metro district will provide services such as snow removal, lawn mowing, maintenance and watering and gutter cleaning. • The proposal could draw more seniors to Fort Collins. Social Equity Summary