HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Mail Packet - 10/22/2019 - Council Finance Committee Agenda - October 21, 2019Finance 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
October 21, 2019
10:00 am - noon
CIC Room - City Hall
Approval of Minutes from the August 19, 2019 Council Finance Committee meeting.
1. Development Review Fee Update 30 mins. T. Leeson
N. Currell
2. Revolving Loan Program Review 30 mins. J. Birks
S. Hein
3. Stormwater - Land Acquisition 20 mins. T. Connor
S. Boyle
4. URA Bond Refinancing 20 mins. T. Storin
J. Birks
Council Finance Committee
Agenda Planning Calendar 2019
RVSD 10/07/19 mnb
Oct 21P
st
P
Development Review Fee Update 30 min T. Leeson
N. Currell
Revolving Loan Program Review 30 min J. Birks
Stormwater – Land Acquisition 20 min T. Connor
URA Bond Refinancing 20 min T. Storin
J. Birks
Nov. 18P
th
P
City Long Term Financial Plan Review 30 min D. Lenz
Utility LTFP & CIP – Electric & Stormwater 45 min L. Smith
Water – Horsetooth Shutdown 30 min C. Web
M. Kempton
Sales Tax on Mobile Homes 15 min J. Poznanovic
Dec. 16P
th
P
Purchasing Policy Update 30 min G. Paul
Development Review Fee Update 30 min T. Leeson
N. Currell
Housing Catalyst Pilot Waiver/Refund 20 min S. Beck-Ferkiss
Utility Off Cycle Budget Items 30 min L. Smith
Jan 27P
th
P
Utility LTFP & CIP – Water and Waste Water 45 min L. Smith
Financial Policy Review & Updates 15 min J. Voss
Future Council Finance Committee Topics:
• Park/Median Design Standards & Maintenance Costs – TBD
• Metro District Policy Update – TBD early 2020
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 Meeting Minutes
08/19/19
10 am - noon
CIC Room - City Hall
Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Ross Cunniff, Ken Summers, Emily Gorgol
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Kelly DiMartino, Mike Beckstead, Jeff Mihelich, Travis Storin,
Lawrence Pollack, Jennifer Poznanovic, Kelley Vodden, Jennifer Selenske, Kerri Ishmeal,
Renee Callas, John Voss, Sean Carpenter, Terra Sampson, Kim DeVoe, John Duval, Tyler
Marr, Dave Lenz, Jo Cech, Katie Ricketts, Zach Mozer, Lance Smith, Joaquin Garbiso, Sue
Beck-Ferkiss, Beth Sowder, Carolyn Koontz
Others: Kevin Jones, Chamber of Commerce
Dale Adamy, R1st.org
______________________________________________________________________________
Meeting called to order at 10:02 am
Approval of Minutes from the July 15, 2019 Council Finance Committee Meeting. Emily moved for approval of the
minutes as presented. Mayor Troxell seconded the motion. Minutes were approved unanimously.
A. 2018 Fund Balance Review
Travis Storin, Accounting Director
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: Status of Fund Balances and Working Capital
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The attached presentation gives a status of fund balances and working capital. Fund balances are primarily
considered for funding one-time offers during the Budgeting for Outcomes process. To a lesser extent, available
monies are also used to fund supplemental appropriations between BFO cycles.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
None, this is an update for Council Finance Committee.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
To communicate what funding is available to support emerging issues and initiatives in the next budget cycle. In
each fund the balances are shown vertically by the accounting classifications. The amounts are then additionally
categorized into Appropriated, Available with Constraints, and Available for Nearly Any Purpose.
2
Appropriated, Minimum Policy or Scheduled is comprised of minimum fund balances established by policy, funds
from the 2018 balance that have been appropriated in 2019, funds set aside for 2020 in the 2019-2020 budget,
and amounts for projects specifically identified by voters. An example of the later is Community Capital
Improvements Plan.
Available with Constraints are those balances available for appropriation but within defined constraints. An
example is 4P
th
P of July donations. They are restricted for that purpose, but still available for appropriation.
Available for Nearly Any Purpose are balances that are available for appropriation at the discretion of the City
Council.
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS
3
4
All City Funds - Broadband will not be on the list until we develop a working capital position.
Ken Summers; where do we stand with reserves that have been used for Council Action in 2019?
Mike Beckstead; a bit of both - very difficult to give a single answer as it varies by fund.
For the General Fund in 2018 - we had $4.8M unassigned GF reserves at the end of 2017
How much we used – not sure but not all of it - we would have to go through the entire budget document and
identify where we used reserves
During the year we keep track of the prior years’ reserves.
For example, some of the unspent was used for;
$49K for train horn noise,
$20K code enforcement of backyard burning / outdoor firepit
Some funds were also used for Short Term Rentals
Ken Summer; General Fund would be the one to keep the closet eye on
Trend line is a percent of annual operating expenses - not all are green dollars we could spend - some nuances in
the details – something less than 4-5 months of capacity
Mayor Troxell; $4.7M loaned to URA - was refinancing that the intention all along?
5
Mike Beckstead; yes, that was our intention is to refinance soon
Travis Storin; North College set a model for that
Mayor Troxell; good news
Mike Beckstead; our fund balances are healthy - we have gone from mid 50’s to high 40’s in the last few years
- we are working with Moody’s because our fund balance is a big part of our credit rating - we want to do some
data gathering beyond GFOA around where is the threshold that might put our credit rating at risk?
B. Comprehensive 2019 Fee Updates
Jennifer, Poznanovic, Revenue Manager
Lance Smith, Utilities, Director FP&A
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: Comprehensive 2019 Fee Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Coordination of Council approved fees began in 2016 to provide a more holistic view of the total cost impact.
Previously, fee updates were presented to Council on an individual basis. After the 2019 fee update, fee phasing
will be complete with regular two and four-year cadence updates beginning in 2021.
2019 fee updates include: Electric Capacity fees, Water Supply Requirement fees, Wet Utility Plan Investment
Fees and Step III of the 2017 Capital Expansion Fees.
Staff proposes the following fee changes:
• Wet Utility PIFs as proposed
• Electric Capacity Fees as proposed
• Water Supply Requirement Fee as proposed
• 100% of proposed 2017 Capital Expansion Fees (Step III)
• Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (inflation only)
Development Review Fees were initially planned to be part of the 2019 update but have been decoupled and
will come forward at a later date.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance Committee support the following proposed next steps?
• October 8P
th
P: Council Work Session
• November 5P
th
P & 19P
th
P: Ordinance readings subject to Council direction
• 2021 updates effective January 2022
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Since the fall of October 2016, staff has worked to coordinate the process for updating all new development
related fees that require Council approval. Development related fees that are approved by Council are six
Capital Expansion Fees, five Utility Fees and Building Development Fees.
6
Previously, fee updates were presented to Council on an individual basis. However, it was determined that
updates should occur on a regular two and four-year cadence and fees updates should occur together each year
to provide a more holistic view of the impact of any fee increases.
Impact fee coordination includes a detailed fee study analysis for Capital Expansion Fees (CEFs), Transportation
Capital Expansion Fees (TCEFs) and Development Review Fees every four years. This requires an outside
consultant through a request for proposal (RFP) process where data is provided by City staff. Findings by the
consultant are also verified by City staff. For Utility Fees, a detailed fee study is planned every two years. These
are internal updates by City staff with periodic consultant verification. In the future, impact fee study analysis
will be targeted in the odd year before Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO). In years without an update, an inflation
adjustment occurs.
Phase I of the fee updates included CEFs, TCEFs, Electric Capacity Fees, and Raw Water/CIL and were adopted in
2017. Phase II included Wet Utility PIFs and step II of CEFs and TCEFs, which were approved in 2018.
Development review and building permit fees were originally included in Phase II but were decoupled from the
2018 update.
Due to the concern in the development and building community around fee changes, Council asked for a fee
working group to be created to foster a better understanding of fees prior to discussing further fee updates. In
August of 2017, the Fee Working Group commenced comprised of a balanced group of stakeholders – citizens,
7
business-oriented individuals, City staff and a Council liaison. The Fee Working Group met 14 times and was
overall supportive of the fee coordination process and proposed fee updates.
The 2019 phase III update includes Electric Capacity fees, Water Supply Requirement fees, Wet Utility Plan
Investment Fees and Step III of the 2017 Capital Expansion Fees. After the 2019 fee update, fee phasing will be
complete with regular two and four-year cadence updates beginning in 2021.
Development Review Fees were initially planned to be part of the 2019 update but have been decoupled and
will come forward at a later date. The 2019 Fee Working Group is focused on Development Review fees only and
has met three times as of mid-August. The 2019 Fee Working Group consists of a balanced group of
stakeholders – citizens, business-oriented individuals and City staff.
2019 Utility Fee Updates
The proposed changes to Utility Fees for a single-family, residential home include a 1.7% increase to the Electric
Capacity Fee (ECF) and increases to the three Wet Utility Fees ranging between 1.5% and 6.7%. The Water Plant
Investment Fee (PIF) is proposed to increase 6.7%, the Wastewater PIF is proposed to increase 1.5% and the
Stormwater PIF is proposed to increase 3.3% from current fee levels.
The chart below summarizes the proposed Utility Fees for a single-family home, assuming an 8,600 square feet
lot and 4 bedrooms:
2019 Capital Expansion Fee Updates
The chart below shows the current and proposed fee updates for CEFs:
8
Step III fees are an 11% increase from current fee levels (Step II). CEF fee increases are 100% of full fee levels
recommended in 2017. The CPI-U index for Denver-Aurora-Lakewood is used for CEF inflation (1.3% in 2019).
Comparison Charts
Fort Collins proposed fees are in the upper-middle of the pack:
The following chart shows neighboring cities across water districts with and without raw water. Fort Collins fees
are in line with neighboring cities:
Step III - Full fees proposed in 2017
Land Use Type Unit
N'hood
Park
Comm.
Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't
Current
Total
Step III
Total w
Inflation
%
Increase
w
Inflation
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,721 $2,430 $421 $236 $574 $5,152 $5,724 11%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,304 $3,253 $570 $319 $774 $6,911 $7,679 11%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,516 $3,552 $620 $347 $845 $7,543 $8,381 11%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,542 $3,589 $630 $352 $858 $7,630 $8,478 11%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,833 $4,001 $701 $392 $955 $8,502 $9,447 11%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 0 0 $531 $297 $1,451 $2,182 $2,424 11%
Office and Other Services 0 0 $531 $297 $1,451 $2,182 $2,424 11%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0 0 $124 $69 $342 $512 $569 11%
9
Fort Collins fees and the cost of code is leveling as a percentage of median new home sales price:
Community Outreach
In an effort towards better communication, outreach and notification of impact fee changes, staff met with 9
organizations across the City in the summer of 2019.
10
Overall, organizations were supportive of the approach and cadence. There was acknowledgement that
regular fee updates are necessary.
Staff also heard:
• Support for fee group recommendations
• Concerns about attainable housing - it may be less desirable to live here
• Policy questions on development standards going forward, having alignment on total cost including
operations and maintenance
Below is the 2019 fee roadmap:
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS:
Mayor Troxell; slide 7 -Fee Comparison for Median New Homes Sales Price
How do we evaluate our peer cities? Adjacent front range such as Severance, Firestone and others in
that space.
11
Mike Beckstead; we could definitely expand this list to included others in the area -
Same median home price -we need to understand their fees well enough to know what they pay - that is the
methodology behind this.
Darin Atteberry; Severance and Johnstown – benchmark cities have been more of a national market – with fee
competitiveness but that is not the market - we want to bring relevant data to Council - not just theoretical
Mike Beckstead; Do they have Impact Fees? If they do, we can certainly add them.
Darin Atteberry; Metro Districts change portfolio
Mayor Troxell; we don’t have insight on what to recommend - some communities are not there yet but there is
a lot of activity.
Mike Beckstead; before we bring fees back in 2020 we will take a look at who best to compare with how and
why and come back with a list.
Emily Gorgol; CEF - types of housing - increase with inflation - how can we somehow encourage smaller houses
to be built? -could fees not increased as much for building a smaller home?
Mike Beckstead; page 6 - you can see the different size homes we apply fees to - 90% of our fees are for 2200 sq.
ft and above so that is the majority of what is getting built. During the Fee Working Group discussions we talked
about expanding to 8 fee categories which will address part of what you are saying. The legal issue we wrestle
with is we can’t artificially raise one fee and lower another to motivate certain behaviors -fees have to be based
on a legal nexus – expand categories and maybe shift the line a little
Darin Atteberry; traffic modeling - family multiple unit less travel in trips than single family - driven by behaviors
not footprint - lower trip generation - lower rate
Smaller family size - less trip generation - lower rate
Council Policy - you have different areas where you can affect cost but this is based on the legal nexus
Ken Summers; slide 7 - CEP, impact fees are higher than other surrounding communities - described as being in
the middle of the pack - Worth noting that with all of our higher fees - how low Utilities are in comparison to
others. Is that a reflection of owning our own electric? The breakdown is interesting.
Mike Beckstead; Timnath uses a Metro District as a revenue source (tax increment financing) for a lot of their
infrastructure so they have very low impact fees. Communities are at different stages of development in terms
of development fees. Others have crafted different types of revenue sources – there is a story behind the
numbers.
Ken Summers; future expansion here based on Metro District - those builders still incur all of those capital
expansion fees. I attended a conference last week and we discussed affordable housing - lobby federal
government for more money - got into the nuts and bolts and drivers - I agree with Emily - smaller homes.
Maybe take a land bank community and dedicate it to smaller homes - 10% of the cost of a house goes to fees -
All of the communities could get a better handle on this - affordable housing piece is an issue for every
12
community nationwide - we all need to take a look at fee waivers - all of us are in the same boat in regards to
what it costs to build a house.
Mayor Troxell; under Longmont - big utility gap - counter to Fort Collins and Loveland - they stand out and are
part of Platt River
Mike Beckstead; part of that is the favorability we have and the age of our infrastructure and our water rights -
Fees go up from $48K to $69K - a 40-45% increase because of the utility fees from the authorities not our
utilities - you are seeing that in a lot of the sister communities
Emily Gorgol; will the outreach be done before working session?
Jennifer Poznanovic: Yes
Mayor Troxell; I think you are good to go for October
Darin Atteberry; greater segmentation in the market would be good - some of the Northern Colorado
communities - a lot of folks driving from / moving to
ACTION ITEM: regarding the discrepancy that Ken pointed out between Utilities and Capital Expansion Fees on
slide - go forward but add a separate one pager providing more context for Council. It is an important question
that others are going to be asking. This is Phase 3 of the 3 Phase approach that Council came up with - I
appreciate that we are back at this point and we are in the 3P
rd
P phase of ramping up - it feels good that we took
the time to do that
Mike Beckstead; This will be the first time for cadence of 2-year review cycle to be in place
C. Potential New Revenue Discussion
Mike Beckstead, CFO
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: 2019 Revenue Priorities
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Financial Services coordinates updates to existing council approved fees to provide council and the community a
holistic understanding of the cost impact of these changes. Consistent with that focus, staff has assembled the
current discussions occurring around needed revenue sources to facilitate a high-level discussion of the
organization’s revenue needs and priorities.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance Committee have any concerns with the revenue opportunities under discussion?
Feedback and thoughts on prioritization?
13
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS:
Mike Beckstead; What 2 or 3 revenue sources would be Council Priorities?
What might a new fee be to support? Priorities?
These would be new fees that would generate new revenue to accomplish something specific.
Darin Atteberry; If Council says Transit is a priority – you either reprioritize to get more money there
So that is a Budget for Outcomes conversation
Transit Master Plan - We are through Phase 2 of a 3 Phase plan
We can either reprioritize existing money or create a new fee / revenue stream - might be a redirection of
resources or an additional tax. The prioritization conversation is always on the table.
We have in our sights - additional fees or tax -
candidly as a Council priority - if you want to have a big impact on Transit, it will take some additional resources
Some say between $8-16M per year to have a measurable impact - probably won’t find that in our existing budget
Ken Summers; we need to take a more strategic and simplistic thinking in terms of our budget.
Basically our sales tax revenue is not keeping up with inflation - something of concern to me when I look at our
financials – we are in good financial condition in terms of our reserves – my concern is when I look at the trend
line of flat or declining revenue that is not keeping up with inflation and we have expenses are increasing as twice
the inflation rate. The higher our taxes go, we basically encourage people to shop somewhere else.
We might have to invest money in areas that are going to bring people to Fort Collins to stay, recreate, shop and
dine. We can’t just look at it from taxing more or reallocating more resources – thus will require some real trade
offs - would have to be more stop doings
Darin Atteberry; our hope – we are not just having one-off conversations - how we are translating the Council
priority list. We know we will be doing work in this space as part of the next budget cycle.
Fee to charge to increase supply of affordable housing in Fort Collins. At the time when a developer pulls their
fees – they would be charged a new affordable housing impact fee which would help build affordable units - not
14
necessarily a novel concept – there are many states and cities that are doing this but it would be new to Fort
Collins. A couple years ago when we were doing the Foothills Mall study - we chose not to move forward with it
But it is certainly a tool that is Council chooses to put Policy or regulatory tool in place - this is one way to do that.
We have not made a recommendation whether or not this is the best tool.
Mayor Troxell; Affordable from what perspective - I would encourage a broader perspective.
Darin Atteberry; I think we are talking more about affordable rather than attainable
Jeff Mihelich; we have a Working Session coming on Affordable Housing – the whole strategy - 80% of AMI – we
can provide those options to Council
Darin Atteberry; there is alot more to it - Are we going to allow tiny homes? More affordable types of
development? Increased density? All of those things need to be at play - the context is much wider
Mayor Troxell; water fees and other districts being more – that goes right to the purchase price of the house
If we can moderate that -that is a $30K potential impact
Jeff Mihelich; possibly bring land bank properties into the mix which could lower some of the fees – go more to
cost of service - tighten up fees - a way to layer them all together and set up a matrix - when to apply and when
not to
Darin Atteberry; can add $12 - $30k per unit which equates to $90k over a 30-year mortgage. That is why we are
having conversations about fees right now.
Emily Gorgol; in response to the prioritization question - An Affordable Housing impact fee is part of the broader
affordable and attainable issue - I would prioritize that along with Transit and then parks
Jeff Mihelich; that is in alignment with the Council Priorities
D.2020 Budget Revision Review
Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: 2020 Budget Revision Recommendations
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this agenda item is to familiarize and seek feedback from the Council Finance Committee on the City
Manager’s recommended revisions to the 2020 Budget before the recommendations are reviewed and discussed at
the Council Work Sessions scheduled for September 10P
th
P and 24P
th
P. Based on direction from Council, the 2020
Budget Revisions will be combined with the previously adopted 2019-20 Biennial Budget. The 2020 Annual Budget
Appropriation Ordinance is scheduled for 1P
st
P Reading on October 15 & 2P
nd
P Reading on November 5.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
- What questions or feedback does the Council Finance Committee have on the City Manager’s recommended
revisions to the 2020 Budget?
15
- Does the Council Finance Committee support moving forward with bringing the 2020 Budget Revisions to the
full City Council for the September 10P
th
P work session?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
OVERVIEW:
The mid-cycle Revision Process is different from the biennial Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process in that:
1) There is no broad request for new and innovative Offers. This is because we are operating within the approved
2019-20 Biennial Budget and these revisions should be exceptions based on information not known at the time
the budget was adopted in 2018
2) Likewise, there is no review by BFO Teams or request for public engagement. However, the Executive
Leadership Team and City Manager conducted a comprehensive review to determine which requests should be
forwarded on for Council's consideration. Revised revenue projections and available fund reserves were
carefully considered when making these recommendations.
The 2020 Budget Revisions include both 1) reductions to 2020 ongoing expenses to align them with a decreased
2020 Sales Tax forecast and 2) additional Offers for Council’s consideration based on information that wasn’t
available at the time the 2019-20 Budget was adopted. The following are key objectives which the 2020 Budget
Revision recommendations are intended to address:
• Matching appropriations for ongoing expenditures to current ongoing revenue estimates
• Council priorities
• Fiduciary responsibilities & fund balance requirements
• High-priority projects and other needs not known at the time of the adoption of the 2019-20 Budget
The recommended 2020 Budget Revisions meet these goals. Recommended revisions to the 2020 Budget must also
meet one of the following criteria:
• The request is specifically directed by the City Manager or City Council
• The request is related to a previously approved Offer where either revenue shortfalls or unforeseen expenses
are significantly impacting the delivery of that program or service
On a related note, at the July 23, 2019 City Council work session on the Climate Action Plan update, some
Councilmembers expressed interest in considering 2020 Midcycle Revision Offers to support progress on the
CAP goals. At the work session, staff noted they are continuing to work on the 2018 community greenhouse gas
inventory and forecast to 2020, in light of improved new vehicle composition data staff received in July. By the
end of August, staff will be able to provide City Council with an update on the 2018 community carbon inventory
and a forecast for the 2020 goal.
The 2020 Mid-cycle Revision Offers developed by staff and brought forward by the Budget Lead Team do not
address specific CAP requests, in light of the limited scope of the midcycle revision process and cautious
approach regarding future revenue projections. However, once the future greenhouse gas projections are clear,
Council may request supplemental appropriations at any time during the rest of 2019 and throughout 2020
necessary to help achieve the City’s 2020 Climate Action Plan goals.
16
REVENUE: Overall, most significant City revenues are coming in at, or above, the 2019 budget except for Sales
Tax. Although total revenue for 2019 is on track to support 2019 expenses, the 2019 Sales Tax base, upon which
2020 growth is calculated, is now expected to be lower than budget. Based on 2019 YTD sales tax growth of
1.8% and continued talk of a possible recession, the growth of 2020 Sales Tax is now conservatively being
estimated at 1.5%, compared to 3.0% in the 2020 Budget.
Thus, it is necessary for the City to reduce ongoing expenses in 2020 to align with the reduced forecast for 2020
Sales Tax revenue. The decreased forecast for Sales Tax revenue primarily impacts the General Fund and Keep
Fort Collins Great (KFCG) Fund; but also impacts the funds associated with the three dedicated quarter-cent
sales tax initiatives (Street maintenance, Natural Areas and CCIP). The total reduction of anticipated revenue
from Sales Tax in 2020 is about $1.8M, with the General Fund portion being just under $1.1M.
ONGOING EXPENSE REDUCTIONS:
There are a few different opportunities to align ongoing expenses to the reduced revenue projections. First,
there was interest rate favorability associated with the debt offering for the Police Regional Training Facility and
the I-25/Prospect Interchange projects in the amount of $350k in the General Fund. Second, there is ongoing
fuel and maintenance savings within Transfort which will reduce the contribution from the General Fund. Third,
significant underspend and rising reserve balances in the Benefits Fund allows for the ongoing expense
reduction to departments based on reduced contributions to the Benefits Fund. This third opportunity equates
to just over $1.2M savings in the General Fund.
Additionally, some funds had residual, unused ongoing revenue in 2020 that can be applied to offset expenses.
Lastly, 2018 fund balances are available in some funds to offset one-time expenses. These changes to revenue
and available reserves are summarized in the table below. The Subtotal of Funding Changes line indicates that
all Sales Tax shortfalls are covered and indicates the amount of funding available by fund for the 2020 Revision
Requests.
Summary of 2020 Revenue Changes and Available Reserves (values in $k)
The reserves and revenue above are available to fund the recommended additions to the 2020 Budget. The
table below summarizes those proposed additions and Attachment #1 contains the details of those
recommended Offers.
Description
General
Fund -
Ongoing
General
Fund -
1-Time
Capital
Expan-
sion KFCG CCIP
Natural
Areas
Trans-
porta-
tion
Storm-
water
Self
Insur-
ance
Broad-
band TOTAL
Summary of Revenue Changes & Reserves
-
Reduced 2020 Sales Tax (ongoing) ($1,052) ($397) ($117) ($117) ($117) ($1,800)
-
Debt service favorability (ongoing) 350 350
-
Fuel Savings (ongoing) 206 206
-
Benefits Fund (ongoing) 1,244 1,244
-
17
Summary of 2020 Recommended Additions:
2020 Budget Revision Requests - BY FUNDING SOURCE
Fund Revision Requested FTE Ongoing $ One-Time $ Total
General Fund Developing Equity Gaps Analysis, Indicators, and Principles - - 120,000 120,000
East Mulberry Corridor Plan Update and Annexation Assessment - - 175,000 175,000
Park Improvement Project Support - - 50,000 50,000
Train Horn Noise - Federal Lobbying - - 42,000 42,000
Continued Voluntary Compliance Support for Outdoor Residential Wood Burning - 0.25 FTE 0.25 18,638 - 18,638
Chief Privacy Officer with Records Management Responsibility (start date of 1 Mar 2020) 1.00 93,750 17,962 111,712
Ongoing Agreements from 2018 Collective Bargaining 585,000 - 585,000
Sales Tax Technician - 1 FTE 1.00 50,585 - 50,585
Total General Fund 2.25 747,973 404,962 1,152,935
Capital Expansion New Block 32 Parking Structure Design - - 1,500,000 1,500,000
Fund Block 32 & 42 Plan Refresh - - 300,000 300,000
(General Government) Total Capital Expansion Fund - $0 $1,800,000 $1,800,000
Self Insurance Fund Security Specialist - 1.0 FTE (est. start date of 1 March 2020) 1.00 113,400 - 113,400
Total Self Insurance Fund 1.00 $113,400 $0 $113,400
Stormwater Fund Northeast College Corridor Outfall A4 (Lemay) Stormwater Lateral Design and Construction - - 959,500 959,500
Total Stormwater Fund - $0 $959,500 $959,500
Broadband Fund Income Qualified Connexion Credits 195,000 - 195,000
Total Broadband Fund - $195,000 $0 $195,000
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 3.25 1,056,373 3,164,462 4,220,835
18
After netting out the proposed additions fund balances are still strong and well above minimum fund balance
requirements.
Summary of Available Reserves and Revenue UafterU Recommended Additions (Values in $k)
The 2020 Budget Revisions allow the City to align ongoing expenses with reduced revenue forecasts from Sales
Tax. Conversely, the City is also able to fund a small number of additions to the 2020 Budget, which address
Council priorities and other capital projects and design work that benefit our community
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS:
Mike Beckstead; We have a 3% growth rate 2019 / 2018 base assumption for last BFO – we grew stronger in 18
than we thought we would - adjusted the 2019 YOY growth needed to meet budget to 1.7% . Challenge gets to
this year we’ve only grown at 1.8% YTD - is we took out one time events it goes down to 1.6%. We grew at 2.3
and 3.2 in 2017 and 2018 respectively. This is just sales tax – not use tax.
Staff Recommendation to modify 2020 Sales Tax forecast from 3% to 1.5%. That lowers revenue by $1.8M
Description
General
Fund -
Ongoing
General
Fund -
1-Time
Capital
Expan-
sion KFCG CCIP
Natural
Areas
Trans-
porta-
tion
Storm-
water
Self
Insur-
ance
Broad-
band TOTAL
Available Revenue and Reserves 748 2,298 11,100 1,975 2,583 281 1,194 8,300 165 197 28,841
2020 Budget Revision Requests
Ongoing Requests (748) (113) (195) (1,056)
One-Time Requests (405) (1,800) (960) (3,165)
Total of 2020 Revisions (748) (405) (1,800) 0 0 0 0 (960) (113) (195) (4,221)
Net Impact (positive = available) $0 $1,893 $9,300 $1,975 $2,583 $281 $1,194 $7,340 $52 $2
19
$400K of that is in KFCG – rest from General Fund. Where do we make reductions of $1.8M?
How we closed the gap;
Darin Atteberry; medical claims - you can have bad years and those numbers go crazy and vary.
We do have Stop Loss insurance. The higher claims do effect out fund. Our approach to Wellness has been very
effective. This is a particularly low year and that is always a good thing as we come to year end there could be
something that could impact that.
The overall benefits fund is $25M + and we watch that closely and we intentionally have drawn it down.
20
Reappropriations shown in red address Ken’s question
Ross Cunniff; I assume new Council members know many of these funds are not mix and match
Mike Beckstead; yes, the color of money will be covered in our Council on Boarding later this week
Confirmed that there is a continency fund of $2.2M in case it is needed – inflation, etc. which we have not
touched.
Mayor Troxell; I am in support of where you are - you have done a great job of delicately teasing out and putting
togethe a proposal that makes sense.
E. Epic Program – Long Term Financing
Travis Storin, Director Accounting
Sean Carpenter, Lead Specialist, Economic Sustainability
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: Epic Homes 15-year Capital Options
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item will provide an update to Council Finance regarding the Epic Homes 15-year capital options and
discussion of each. Topics include:
• Review of capital recruitment process;
• Importance of 15-year capital in achieving desired program outcomes;
• 15-year capital options;
• Banking relationship with the national green bank; and
• Interest rate swap background.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
• Does the Committee support funding a 15-year Epic Loan option?
• Which 15-year capital option does the Committee support?
• Does the Committee support staff analysis of the debt policy and the exception request if the variable-rate,
collateralized option is desired?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Fort Collins’ innovative Epic Homes portfolio supports several community and City Council priorities, including
ambitious goals around energy efficiency and renewables, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and increased
equity and wellbeing of all residents. Meeting these objectives will require, among other activities, greater
numbers of property owners to undertake comprehensive efficiency improvements in the coming years,
particularly for older, less-efficient rental properties which make up a large percentage of the City’s housing
stock. An ongoing and attractive financing structure to support energy efficiency retrofits will be a critical
element for success moving forward.
On-Bill Financing (OBF) 1.0 (also known as the Home Efficiency Loan Program or HELP) operated successfully
from 2013 through 2016 when the encumbered funds reached the maximum outstanding loan balance of
$1.6M. At that time, Elevations Credit Union was selected through an RFP process to continue HELP for energy
21
loan financing. Utilities staff qualify the efficiency project based on the rebate measures in the Efficiency Works
Home program; however, the loan origination and servicing are independent of Utilities programs. With the
implementation of Epic Loans, Elevations loans will continue to be an option for interested customers.
Epic Loans began in August 2018 during the Champions Phase of the Bloomberg Mayors Challenge, using the
$100,000 award from the Champions Phase and a $200,000 grant from the Colorado Energy Office (CEO) to
revitalize on-bill financing. Fort Collins is among nine winning cities for the Mayors Challenge, each receiving
$1M to implement their winning idea.
Leveraging external capital is critical to achieving the long-term “revolving loan” vision of Epic Loans and offers a
continuing source of funds to meet increasing customer demand for energy efficiency financing. Epic Loans is
designed to balance the programmatic objectives and financial requirements of the City, while also meeting the
needs and expectations of capital providers and Utilities customers.
Council Finance Meetings Review
Staff presented to Council Finance in November 2018 regarding the program background and issuing an RFP for
third-party capital sources. The City issued RFP #8842 in December 2018 and staff pursued conversations and
negotiations with respondents and other potential capital providers.
Staff presented to Council Finance in May 2019 regarding the potential capital sources and next steps for
bringing capital agreements to Council. Staff have continued negotiations with potential capital providers
(including a locally managed national bank, a regional bank, Colorado Clean Energy Fund, and the CEO) and
received Legal and Purchasing review of draft contracts.
Staff presented to Council Finance in July 2019 regarding capital agreement terms. Staff was directed to bring
two of the three capital sources to full Council for consideration. Staff was also directed to explore 15-year
capital options and provide additional information on interest rate swaps to Council Finance.
Importance of 15-year Capital
During prototyping for the Bloomberg Mayors Challenge competition, rental property owners reported that no
money down, affordable monthly payments are critical considerations, in particular for owners with multiple
units. OBF 1.0 proved these factors are also important for owner-occupied properties, where many homeowners
preferred longer term loans which often allow for more comprehensive projects and /or solar installations with
affordable monthly payments. In 2016, Fort Collins Utilities implemented the Efficiency Works Neighborhood
pilot, with nearly 60 long term loans issued totaling over $750,000. An additional $1.5M in 15-year capital for
Epic Loans would support approximately120 similar projects.
Throughout the program history (2013-2019, including Elevations Credit Union loans), 35% of customers have
used longer loan terms to reduce monthly payments and / or undertake more comprehensive energy efficiency
projects. As a result, the longer-termed loans account for a larger percentage of the total loan portfolio value, at
45%. When looking specifically at on-bill financed loans (2013-2016 and 2018-2019), nearly 50% of customers
have used longer term loans (Table 1), accounting for approximately 60% of the on-bill financed loan portfolio
value. In short, longer term loans are generally used for bigger, more comprehensive projects that can generate
increased benefits for the people who live in and / or own those homes, as well as positively impacting overall
City goals.
22
Table 1. Summary of On-Bill Financed Projects by Loan Term
3- & 5-year loans 7- & 10-year loans 15 (& 20) year loans
Projects 38 65 95
Percentage 19% 33% 48%
In order to keep monthly payments low and make energy retrofit projects attractive, longer loan terms are
required. With a 15-year loan at the average long-term loan amount of $13,000, monthly payments are $101.
These attractive monthly payments are critical for overcoming both upfront cost and continual cost barriers for
home and rental property owners considering energy upgrades.
15-year Capital Options
Per Council Finance request, staff has identified the following four options for 15-year capital:
1. Pursue an agreement with the national green bank for up to $2.5M with the required 50% deposit and
use an interest rate swap to stabilize variable rates (This is the staff recommendation.)
2. Use L&P Reserves to fund $1.5M, in addition to the current $1.6M that is currently deployed or has been
repaid
3. Use only the 15-year funding available from CEO, Bloomberg, and repaid L&P Reserves
4. Implement a hybrid of Options 2 and 3, using L&P Reserves to provide backfill demand once other
Option 3 sources are exhausted
To provide sufficient financing for the expected number of projects, the short-term (3-4 year) capital goal is $7M
to $8M. This assumes $1.5M to $2M annually in energy efficiency project financing. As staff has outlined,
sufficient 15-year capital is critical to the success of the overall program.
Option 1: National Green Bank
Staff has been in discussions with a national green bank to negotiate 15-year loan terms, which were presented
and discussed at the July 15, 2019 Council Finance meeting. The terms include:
• UAmount:U Up to $2,500,000 (staff expects to only draw $1,500,000)
• ULength:U 15-years inclusive of draw period
• UDraw period:U Up to 2 years with quarterly draws based on customer loans
• UVariable rate:U Wall Street Journal Prime + 0.25% (currently 5.50%)
• UCollateral:U City will deposit 50% of drawn amount into interest bearing account from L&P Reserves
(staff expects $750,000 deposit)
• UPre-payU: City may pre-pay in whole or in part at any time and without penalty
• URepayment positionU: Senior pledge on customer loan repayments and second position on Electric
Utility revenues, after the more senior pledge held by revenue bondholders
Banking Relationship
Staff issued RFP #8842 in December 2018, to which the Colorado Green Energy Fund was one of two
respondents. The Colorado Green Energy Fund has found and managed the relationship with a financier willing
to provide 15-year terms (Figure 1). If this option is selected, Fort Collins Utilities would borrow from the
Colorado Green Energy Fund.
23
Figure 1. Banking Relationship with the Colorado Green Energy Fund and Commercial Bank
Policy Interactions
This Option has two interactions with Financial Policy #7 - Debt.
The first interaction is the required 50% collateral, or credit enhancement. Staff assesses an appropriate use of a
credit enhancement via the collateral pledge.
The second interaction is the variable rate and/or derivative swap instrument. The proposed lender is offering a
variable interest rate for the loan duration. Staff has attempted to negotiate rate lock-in rights during the draw
period, but the lender has been unable to flex. An alternative is to use an interest rate swap, which would
qualify as a derivative instrument and is covered by policy as an instrument the City should avoid. Staff assesses
a “plain vanilla” interest swap is a feasible solution, although it carries a cost premium, but it would effectively
“lock in” a fixed rate on the 15-year note if City is unwilling to accept variable rate risk.
Interest Rate Swap
Interest rate swaps are a common financial instrument, used by a wide variety of businesses to manage their
debt service payments in a manner that best suits their organizational needs. For some entities, variable rates
are preferred; for others, fixed rate obligations are best. In this option, the City would negotiate with another
party (who prefers a variable rate interest obligation) and the City would exchange the variable rate obligation
under the proposed loan with the national green bank (Option 1) for the swap party’s fixed rate instrument
(Figure 2), using well established markets / providers for these types of financial transactions. The swap would
be based on the notional principal, and only the netted difference between fixed and variable interest rate
amounts is paid. The interest swap party would also agree to a settlement cadence.
Figure 2. Example of Cash Flows of Interest Rate Swap
•Midwest Commercial
Bank providing 15-
year capital
Financier
•Colorado Green
Energy Fund
managing relationship
and finding financiers
(RFP respondent)
Broker •Fort Collins Utilities
borrowing from green
bank and issuing
loans to customers
Fort Collins
24
Option 2: Light & Power Reserves
Currently, $1.6M of L&P Reserves have been deployed for on-bill financing since 2013, of which nearly $400,000
have been repaid without any losses to date. Option 2 would dedicate an additional $1.5M of L&P Reserves for
15-year loans. Available Reserves at the end of 2018 were $8.4M. Anticipated 2019-20 budget changes include a
2019 drawdown on Reserves by $340K and a 2020 increase on Reserves by $320K. The Capital Improvement
Plan will be updated in Fall 2019, prior to updating the Strategic Financial Plans for a November 2019
presentation to Council Finance.
There is no anticipated need to increase electric rates for a one-time $1.5M appropriation of Reserves. However,
appropriating L&P Reserves for use in Epic Loans will make those funds unavailable for use in other future
capital projects, until such time that those funds are repaid by Epic Loan customers.
Option 3: 15-year Funding from Grants and Low-Cost Capital Only
There are currently other sources of limited 15-year capital, which include:
• Up to $1M low-cost loan from CEO dedicated to 15-year projects (to be presented to Council on
September 3, 2019)
• Re-allocation of up to $900K from Bloomberg and CEO grant funds, away from 5-year and 10-year
projects
Without external or Reserve financing, the full capital stack across all product offerings will support
approximately 130 fewer home upgrades for each “cycle” of the loan portfolio (e.g. each time the capital is lent,
repaid and therefore available to be re-loaned), or approximately 370 projects versus an estimated 500 projects.
In this Option, the capital burn rate would be 1 to 1.5 years faster.
Option 4: Hybrid of Options 2 & 3 Using L&P Reserves After Other Sources Exhausted
A final Option is to use the 15-year capital sources outlined in Option 3 above and use L&P Reserves
once all other sources have been exhausted.
15-year Capital Option Analysis
Staff analysis of the benefits and challenges for each Option is outlined in Table 2. If supported by Council
Finance, staff recommends bringing Option 1 to full Council for consideration on October 1, 2019.
Table 2. Analysis of 15-year Capital Options
25
Option Benefits Challenges
Option 1:
National Green
Bank (staff
recommendation)
• Provides sufficient funding for
expected 15-year projects
• Scalable for the long-term, and
replicable for other cities
• Only market capital provider willing
to provide 15-year terms, all other
market capital providers will not go
over 10-year terms
• Requires a 50% deposit into an
interest-bearing account from L&P
Reserves
• Requires a policy exception to use an
interest rate swap
• Contingent on other low-cost capital
sources to provide an attractive rate
for customers
Option 2: Light &
Power Reserves
• Provides easy access to low-cost
capital
• Impacts the opportunity costs of
other important Utilities needs
• Not scalable for long-term, or
replicable for other cities
Option 3: 15-year
Funding from
Grants and Low-
Cost Capital Only
• No additional capital agreements
needed (after CEO loan presented
to full Council)
• Does not provide sufficient funding
for expected 15-year projects
• Not scalable for long-term
• Removes low-cost capital from 5-year
and 10-year loans for blending to
create attractive customer rates
Option 4: Hybrid
of Options 2 & 3
Using L&P
Reserves After
Other Sources
Exhausted
• No additional capital agreements
needed (after CEO loan presented
to full Council)
• Not scalable for long-term, or
replicable for other cities
• Removes low-cost capital from 5-year
and 10-year loans for blending to
create attractive customer rates
• Impacts the opportunity costs of
other important Utilities needs
Next Steps
26
Travis Storin; credibility of the institution - that is a key element as we go shop for this
Will have to be one of the large multi-national banks we are targeting to take on this risk.
They do have the risk of defaulting - it is a possibility and deliberate vendor selection is our mitigating measure.
Ross Cunniff; if the economy tanked, we could decide to not engage or draw the full amount, right?
Travis Storin; yes, the notional amount is going to be whatever we have drawn - we will have a draw period on
the facility and only swap the amount we have drawn not the full amount -
Ross Cunniff; still some risk - the advantage to program and to businesses that cannot make the cash flow work
Are powerful to me along with the ability to make this a sustainable proposition. My concern is I would not want
to make this a standing change to policy - I would want to make it a case by case basis – so would need to be
very narrowly tailored for this circumstance - vitally important program. I am supportive of moving forward -
we need to be careful sending the message – I don’t want us to be used as part of a portfolio
This is really a special case - Fort Collins is not going to be a variable interest player - bigger picture policy
perspective
Mike Beckstead; staff is very much aligned with that - This is an exception specific to version 3.0. If we find this
works and would want to do it again - we would need to come back to Council and share our experience for 4.0 -
we view this is a one-time event as well.
Mayor Troxell; I would agree - let’s keep it as a one-time exception
Option 1 with the National Green Bank is my preference.
Question – with the interest rate swap how does the deposit play into that?
Travis Storin; the deposit scales with what we draw at a rate of 50% - according to policy we are only to do this
when we run an NPV and this is still beneficial to City of Fort Collins. In this case there is really not an NPV to run
- more a deal or no deal – we are working with Lance Smith and we have determined that it is up to $750K
earmark on reserves which would go into an interest bearing account - Comparable rates to a money market -
when we prepay or it matures, we would get those funds back
Sean Carpenter; The max loan amount would be $25K - we have not issued any loans that large to date
The average loan amount is currently $14K so we anticipate $10-14K will be the range for the vast amount of
these projects over 5, 10 or 15-year terms
Mike Beckstead: the consumer chooses the term based on the value of the energy efficiency they want to put
into their properties – the savings from the improvements are hard to realize over a shorter term - which
impacts their cashflow
Ken Summers: how many loans are we anticipating?
Travis Storin; our peak year was 2016 where we did 110 loans
Ken Summers; what happens if they default? Concerned about someone needing to borrow that amount over
such a long term
27
Mike Beckstead; we would have a lien on the house but our experience to date in the 4-5 years of this program
is that we have not had a single delinquent loan - part of that is the nature of what people are borrowing for –
they know with the lien in place that if they do sell we will get our piece.
Darin Atteberry; projects like new windows, furnaces, major capital equipment
Ross Cunniff; we are targeting certain types of projects that typically pay back similar or higher value on their
energy bill to what they are paying - that is probably also why you would want to get the monthly cost down.
Travis Storin; one of our iterations was a strictly 3P
rd
P party bank that they would go to as a qualified borrower –
with much the same amount of rigor as a mortgage – not serviced on the bill so the protections were different –
the demand for that product has been pretty limited - people like being able to pay it on their utility bill the on-
bill portion is a positive.
Ken Summers; we are talking about modifying policy and additional risk – I am concerned on the trade-off
standpoint
Mike Beckstead; might be helpful is we zoom out to 10K feet and provide some context - we started this
program in 1012 using $800K from L&P reserves as the funding source for the loans and in 2014 Council
approved another $800K for additional loans -revolving. Currently there is $1.8M in reserves available for these
loans - we can’t continue to use that funding methodology and make the volume of energy efficiency changes
we want to make in our community so we turned to how to use 3P
rd
P party capital - we went to version 2.0 with a
local credit union but when we did that the number of loans tanked dramatically. Now we are at version 3.0
where we are trying to figure out how to get a competitive capital stack across 3 different terms providing home
energy efficiencies that would not happen without this type of financing - a little bit of history on how we came
to this point. Our goal has been to figure out how we can use 3P
rd
P party capital as opposed to using our own
capital which comes with some risk.
Travis Storin; This is one component of the greater energy works portfolio - of the energy efficiency
improvements that are made - loans account for 25% of the expenditure and 15-year loans count for 50% of
loans and for 60% of the dollars
80% of those who used 10-15 year terms and on-bill financing said that they would not have done it without the
10 or 15 year terms.
Mayor Troxell; this is a model - some other municipalities are looking to us -
Sean Carpenter; that is right - some of the support we are not talking about today includes the $200K grant we
received from the Colorado Energy Office – in the hopes that we can create a ‘cookbook’ to help other
communities replicate this in Colorado and elsewhere.
Travis Storin; the low cost capital is a critical success factor- for every loan 2/3 of the loan amount comes from a
market driven source
Mike Beckstead; To summarize, there are some questions and concerns, some things in the AIS that we will
want to clarify. But I believe we have the direction to bring this forward to Council on October 1P
st
P
28
Ken Summers; to do 15 years – we will need to make a policy exception and take on more risk I am trying to get
a handle on year 11-15 – as opposed to years 1-10 and the impact
Mike Beckstead; the consumer is making the choice – we are just providing the alternatives to match the savings
of the investment, the energy efficiency benefits and their cashflow
Meeting adjourned at 11:56 am
1
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Tom Leeson, Community Development & Neighborhood Services, Director
Noelle Currell, Financial Planning and Analysis, Manager
Date: October 21, 2019
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Development Review and Building Permit Fees Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As part of the City’s coordinated fee update process, City Staff along with MGT Consulting
Group (MGT) conducted an in-depth analysis of the City’s development review and building
permit fees. This study evaluated whether these fees are set at appropriate levels, inclusive of all
costs, consistent with the City’s goals for cost recovery, and how fees compare to other
communities regionally.
Due to the complexities, processes and number of departments involved in development review
and the permitting, the Council Finance Committee requested an advisory committee be created
to better understand potential impacts of fee and methodology changes and collect feedback and
advisement regarding proposed changes.
Staff has extensively evaluated the methodology for calculating fees and is requesting feedback
on the change in methodology for calculating building permit and plan check fees from using the
valuation of a project to using the square footage of a project (not all project types apply), a flat
fee for over-the-counter permits, addition of a new erosion control and storm water inspection
fees, as well as updates to current development review fees based on a simplified fee schedule.
No methodology changes are being requested for development review fees; however, timing of
collection of Utilities development review is being shifted to when services are provided.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Is Council Finance supportive of updated fees and methodology?
Is Council Finance supportive of new Erosion Control & Stormwater Inspection fees?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Development Review Fee Advisory Committee
A Development Review Fee Advisory Committee was formed based on Council Finance
Committee’s directive to better understand how to simplify the current fee schedule. This
included calculation of fees, timing of collection, validation and acceptance of a new
2
methodology and other recommendations. This balanced group was comprised of industry
professionals, Fort Collins Citizens, and City staff.
Advisory Committee List: A Blend of Citizens, Industry and Staff
Industry: Jennifer Bray: Affordable Housing Board
Adam Eggleston: Ft. Collins Board of Realtors
Doug Braden: Home Builders Association
Citizen: Matt Robenalt: Downtown Development Authority
Cathy Mathis: Local Legislative Affairs Committee, Development
Consultant
Braulio Rojas: South Ft. Collins Business Association
Linda Stanley: Economic Advisory Commission
City Staff: Mike Beckstead: Project Sponsor
Russ Hovland: Fee Owner Building Permit Fees
Tim Kemp: Fee Owner Engineering Fees
Noelle Currell: Project Manager
Tom Leeson: Fee Owner Development Review Fees
Overview of Meetings and Topics Covered
The group convened for five (5) two-hour sessions starting in May 2019 with the final meeting
September 2019.
Fee History
Currently, there are numerous fees across CDNS (Community Development and Neighborhood
Services), Utilities, and Engineering, spread over three (3) types of fees; development review,
infrastructure inspection (engineering), and building permit. Examples include building permit
fee, plan review fee, transportation development review, over-the-counter permits, and
engineering inspection fees. The current percentage for cost recovery is set at 100%.
The City Manager is authorized to set fees based on the costs of providing development and
building permit review services, pursuant to City Code Sec. 7.5-2. The Land Use Code (Sec.
2.2.3.D) establishes the cost recovery model for development and building permit fees:
1. Recovery of Costs. Development review fees are hereby established for the purpose of
recovering the costs incurred by the City in processing, reviewing and recording
applications pertaining to development applications or activity within the municipal
boundaries of the City, and issuing permits related thereto. The development review fees
imposed pursuant to this Section shall be paid at the time of submittal of any
development application, or at the time of issuance of the permit, as determined by the
City Manager and established in the development review fee schedule.
2. Development Review Fee Schedule. The amount of the City's various development
review fees shall be established by the City Manager and shall be based on the actual
3
expenses incurred by or on behalf of the City. The schedule of fees shall be reviewed
annually and shall be adjusted, if necessary, by the City Manager on the basis of actual
expenses incurred by the City to reflect the effects of inflation and other changes in costs.
At the discretion of the City Manager, the schedule may be referred to the City Council
for adoption by resolution or ordinance.
Fee Calculation Review
To accurately calculate where fee levels should be set, an inclusive listing of fees was thoroughly
reviewed, every staff member involved in a fee activity was identified, and staff members that
complete fee related activities were interviewed to determine the amount of time spent per fee
item. Calculations were carried out to determine the fully burdened cost of employees.
Overhead calculations were also reviewed and included things like buildings, managers, and IT
support. Fees were set based on the time and the overhead allocated. Validation steps were taken
to ensure proper cost recovery, which included:
• ensuring no individual groups were over-allocated (available work hours versus total time
of fee activities)
• estimating revenue forecasts based on 2018 volumes (ensuring revenue does not end
higher than cost)
• confirmation with management teams to ensure accurate allocation of each person’s time
to the fees (e.g. only allocating 25% of some positions).
Methodology Changes and Impacts
Development Review Fees
No methodology change for the development review fees (pre-building permit activity, such as
Project Development Plan, Minor Amendment, Final Development Plan) is proposed. However,
one goal in this area was to reduce the number of fees, through fee consolidation or deletion (e.g.
Affected Property Owner mailing costs removed).
Additional changes within the development review fees include adding staff members that are
fully engaged in development review activities that have not historically been included within
the fee calculations. This includes City Attorney’s Office staff, Forestry staff, and Parks Planning
staff. Additionally, Utilities development review fees have historically been collected at time of
Building Permit, and those will now be collected at time of development review application to
more accurately reflect the time of service.
The impacts of these changes are an increase in development review fees for all application
types.
Infrastructure Inspection Fees
No methodology change is proposed for the infrastructure inspection fees. These fees were last
updated in 1997, so the impact of these changes is an increase in the infrastructure inspection
fees.
Building Permit Fees
4
Staff is proposing a methodology shift for new construction building permit fees from being
based on valuation to square footage/building type. The square footage of a project is not subject
to disagreements as it is a definite quantity provided within the application; it is known in the
early phases of a project, so it provides a stronger basis for calculating accurate fee estimate.
Additionally, square footage has a strong correlation to the amount of time it takes to
review/process an application and the time it takes to complete inspections.
To help with efficiency and overall fee consistency, over-the-counter permits will go to a flat fee
versus valuation based (examples: residential roof, water heater, furnace). Staff time in this area
is driven by type of work, not the value.
Tenant finishes and remodels will remain valuation based. Valuation cost breakouts were
updated based upon interviews with building inspectors with the result being a decrease in fees
for these application types.
It should be noted that sales and use tax is still based on valuation, so applicants will still need to
provide the project valuation for tax purposes.
The impacts of these changes, including shifting the timing of collection of the Utility
development review fees, are a decrease in building permit fees.
New Fees: Erosion Control & Storm Water Construction Inspection
These are proposed new fees that will cover field inspection personnel. Currently, no fees are
collected, and this activity is subsidized by the rate payers and not by established fees. Staff is
requesting implementation of an erosion control fee & storm water infrastructure inspection fee
to cover the costs of inspections that are currently being executed.
The process completed by Utilities is as follows; Field verification by a City Stormwater
Inspector is now required as stated in the project Development Agreement, City Land Use Code
Section 3.3.2(E)(1)(e), and Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual Ch 3, Sec 3.1). Project
managers should request inspections prior to installation of stormwater features, or at a
minimum, keep the City inspector up to date on scheduling.
Inspections target the milestones listed in the feature’s corresponding 31Tconstruction checklist31T,
which is submitted as part of the Site Grading and Drainage Certification (checklists may change
as the program evolves).
As part of the certification process, certification checklist documentation 40Tis40T submitted to
Utilities’ Water Engineering Department and requires acknowledgment that verification occurred
at the intervals specified therein.
Utilities Light and Power are not included in this study.
Developer/Builder Cost Impacts
In order to understand/quantify the impact on development, staff did a comparative study on
existing developments. Samples were chosen based upon common application types including:
5
Infill development, Single Family Homes, Multi-family, Affordable Housing, Commercial
Buildings and Industrial Uses. Fees within this study generally increased ~30%, however as part
of the overall fee stack, the updates resulted in minor changes (from less than 1% to 10% of total
City Fees). Additional details are included in attachment 1.
City Cost/Revenue Impacts
Since the fees charged are intended to cover the costs to provide the service, an analysis was
done to evaluate the costs to the City of development review, infrastructure inspection, and
building permits based on the 2018 volume of permit applications. In 2018, the City collected
$5.6 million in development related fees, which were intended to cover the costs of those
services. The actual total cost in 2018 was closer to $7.6M.
The greatest impact on collections is seen in the Utilities Funds and the Transportation fund. In
Utilities the changes are driven by the timing of collection, updated cost inputs and addition of
Erosion Control and Stormwater Infrastructure Inspections. Within the Transportation fund
changes are driven primarily by the infrastructure inspections (which as noted had not had fee
updates since 1997) and update to number of Transportation funded Development Staff (e.g.
Traffic Engineers and Civil Engineers).
Next Steps and Public Outreach
Staff is currently engaging in a robust public outreach process with the following groups:
• South Fort Collins Business Association
• Super Issues Forum
• Northern Colorado Homebuilder’s
Association
6
• Downtown Development Authority
• North Fort Collins Business Association
• Local Legislative Affairs Committee
• Affordable Housing Board
• Water Board
• Human Relations Board
• Economic Advisory Commission
• Building Review Board
• Housing Catalyst
To date, four (4) of 13 public outreach sessions have been completed: Planning and Zoning
Board, Local Legislative Affairs Committee, Northern Colorado Home Builders Association and
Fort Collins Board or Realtors. Staff has documented feedback and will work on any to-do items
that are presented from this feedback. Questions and comments revolved mainly around
efficiencies, affordability/attainability of housing, waivers of fees for low income housing and
the overall fee stack:
- Efficiencies – when volumes decrease, will staff numbers decrease? More efficiencies
will equate to a decrease fee amounts.
- Affordability and attainability – Any increase is a hit and a concern, how can we retain
citizens, keep them here in Fort Collins and not moving to surrounding areas due to lesser
living expenses (housing)?
- Waivers for low income housing – Is it possible to look at and possibly find the
appropriate fees to waive?
- Overall fee stack – It is felt that this is the greater concern.
- Many felt that the Development Review and Building Permit fees were insignificant but
that it is the Capital Improvement Expansion fees are more significant.
- Would it be possible to adjust impact fees to be collected at time of Certificate of
Occupancy instead of time of building permit?
Advisory Group Summary of Findings
The group acknowledges and agrees with the overall methodology changes, fee structure,
calculations and inputs.
The group agrees that though there are increases in some areas, overall the changes make sense
and fees will be less complicated.
The group agrees with 100% cost recovery. Fees must reflect the cost it takes to provide the
service and nothing more.
The group notes that any fee increases, particularly to housing, are a concern.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: PowerPoint Presentation
Attachment 2: Memo from Development Review Fee Advisory Committee
Attachment 3: Proposed Fee List
1
Development Review Fee Updates – Council Finance
Tom Leeson/Noelle Currell – October 21, 2019
Council Finance Direction Sought
• Is Council Finance supportive of updated fees and methodology?
• Is Council Finance supportive of new Erosion Control & Stormwater
Construction Inspection Fees?
2
Fee Coordination Timeline
3
Detailed fee studies:
• 4 years for CEF, TCEFs & Development fees
• 2 years for Utility fees
In years without updates, an annual inflation adjustment occurs
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
2019 Fee Group – Development Review/Building Fees only
• Decoupled from 2019 fee update
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Capital Expansion Fees Update Step II Step III Update
Transportation CEFs Update Step II Update
Electric Capacity Fees Update Update Update
Water Supply Requirement Update Update Update
Wet Utility Fees Update Update Update
Building Development Fees Update Update
Fee Working Group Active Active Active
What is Development Review
& Purpose of Fees
Fees recover the costs to process, review, inspect and record
applications pertaining to development applications/activity and
issuance permits related thereto.
4
Development Review
• Project Development Plan
• Final Development Plan
• Major/Minor Amendments
Development
Construction Permit
• Infrastructure
• Erosion Control
• Stormwater
Building Permit
• Plans Review
• Building Inspections
Fees in Scope for this Study
5
Fee Type Description When is it
Paid?
# of Application
Types/Fees/Measures
1. Development Review
Fees
Covers staff time related to reviews of
development in the community
Development
Application
Submittal
32
2. Infrastructure Inspections Covers infrastructure, erosion controls
and stormwater inspections
Development
Construction
Permit Issuance
37
3. Building Permit Covers staff time/materials inspecting
buildings
Building Permit
Issuance
37
• Customer Focus ~150 “fees” to 106
History of Fees
• Last Update – Varies by Type/Department of City
• Infrastructure Inspections - 1997
• Utilities Development Review - 2001
• Development Review - 2006
• Building Permits - 2011
• Cost recovery assumptions varied by type of fee/department
• Costs spread across multiple areas of city and fractions of people
making accurate assessment actual cost difficult
• Staff initiated a bottoms up analysis of costs associated with each fee
6
How Did Staff Update
• Met with every staff member involved in process
• Based on their experience, determined time the activity drives
• Used actual personnel, materials and overhead costs to develop new
fee
• Did a look back – used historical fee volumes and new fee numbers
to validate costs and revenue are aligned
7
Key Updates & Impacts
8
Fee Type Methodology Changes Cost
Recovery Impact to Fees
Development Review
Fees
• All Cost Inputs Updated
• Some Costs Previously in Permits now in
Development Review Fees
• Fees Consolidated
• Utility Fees Based on Full Cost Recovery
• Utility Fees Collected at Time of Service
100% ↑
Infrastructure
Inspections
• All Cost Inputs updated
• New Fees Proposed 100% ↑
Building Permit
• All Cost Inputs updated
• New construction square footage based
vs. value based
• Over the counter Flat Fees
100% ↓
New Erosion Control/Stormwater Fees
• Two Fees
• Erosion Control Construction Inspection
• Bi-weekly inspections of developments currently under
construction
• Fee based on size of site and duration of construction
• Stormwater
• Inspection of permanent Stormwater infrastructure (e.g. porous
pavers)
• Fee based on quantity/type of Stormwater Facilities
• Why Needed
• Activities are currently being carried out by City Staff – being
funded through rate payers, not development
• Fees are Paid at Development Construction Permit
9
City Revenue Impact
Costs include: Personnel, Materials and OH
*Current collections is 2018 actual data, Future is 2018 volumes w/ new fee amounts
10
Fee Type Current
Collections*
Future*
1. Development Review $583K $3,654K
2. Infrastructure Inspection $322K $898K
New Stormwater Fees $0 $75k-$100K
3. Building Permit $4,751K $3,008K
Total $5.6M $7.6M
Fee Type PDP FDP DCP Building Permit Others Total PDP FDP DCP Building Permit Others Total New H/(L) Old % Change
Development Review 25,083 2,000 400 - - 27,483 22,425 17,250 5,132 - - 44,807 17,324 63.0%
Infrastructure Inspections - - 2,722 - - 2,722 - - 7,931 - - 7,931 5,209 191.4%
Building Permit - - - 100,619 - 100,619 - - - 66,638 - 66,638 (33,981) -33.8%
Subtotal Fees Updated 25,083 2,000 3,122 100,619 - 130,823 22,425 17,250 13,063 66,638 - 119,375 (11,448) -8.8%
Escrows - - - - 71,483 71,483 - - - - 71,483 71,483 - 0.0%
Impact Fees - - - 839,735 - 839,735 - - - 839,735 - 839,735 - 0.0%
Others 250 - - 509,369 700 510,319 250 - - 509,369 700 510,319 - 0.0%
Subtotal Other Fees 250 - - 1,349,104 72,183 1,421,536 250 - - 1,349,104 72,183 1,421,536 - 0.0%
Grand Total $ 25,333 $ 2,000 $ 3,122 $ 1,449,722 $ 72,183 $ 1,552,360 $ 22,675 $ 17,250 $ 13,063 $ 1,415,742 $ 72,183 $ 1,540,912 $ (11,448) -0.7%
Old Structure/What was Actually Paid New Fee Structure
Infill/Mixed Use - Uncommon
Residential Sq Ft – 175,884
Commercial Sq Ft – 6,952
Tenant Finish Value - $250k
119 Units
Decrease of $96/unit
11
Fee Type PDP FDP DCP Building Permit Others Total PDP FDP DCP Building Permit Others Total New H/(L) Old % Change
Development Review 40,150 4,000 400 - 8,499 53,049 20,348 31,927 18,735 - 25,919 96,930 43,881 82.7%
Infrastructure Inspections - - 55,433 - - 55,433 - - 190,733 - - 190,733 135,300 244.1%
Building Permit - - - 338,469 4,204 342,673 - - - 184,033 - 184,033 (158,639) -46.3%
Subtotal Fees Updated 40,150 4,000 55,833 338,469 12,703 451,155 20,348 31,927 209,468 184,033 25,919 471,697 20,542 4.6%
Escrows - - - - 6,500 6,500 - - - - 6,500 6,500 - 0.0%
Impact Fees - - - 1,970,176 - 1,970,176 - - - 1,970,176 - 1,970,176 - 0.0%
Others 250 - 446 762,904 750 764,349 250 - 446 762,904 750 764,349 - 0.0%
Subtotal Other Fees 250 - 446 2,733,080 7,250 2,741,026 250 - 446 2,733,080 7,250 2,741,026 - 0.0%
Grand Total $ 40,400 $ 4,000 $ 56,279 $ 3,071,549 $ 19,953 $ 3,192,180 $ 20,598 $ 31,927 $ 209,914 $ 2,917,113 $ 33,169 $ 3,212,722 $ 20,542 0.6%
Old Structure/What was Actually Paid New Fee Structure
Residential Single Family
Timbervine
178 Building Permits
173 Units
327k residential sq ft added
7 Stock plans
Increase of $119/unit
12
Fee Type PDP FDP DCP Building Permit Others Total PDP FDP DCP Building Permit Others Total New H/(L) Old % Change
Development Review 47,312 2,000 400 - 2,186 51,898 21,650 16,785 2,025 - 8,595 49,055 (2,843) -5.5%
Infrastructure Inspections - - 42,170 - - 42,170 - - 98,341 - - 98,341 56,170 133.2%
Building Permit - - - 333,831 - 333,831 - - - 141,443 - 141,443 (192,389) -57.6%
Subtotal Fees Updated 47,312 2,000 42,570 333,831 2,186 427,900 21,650 16,785 100,366 141,443 8,595 288,838 (139,062) -32.5%
Escrows - - - - 21,765 21,765 - - - - 21,765 21,765 - 0.0%
Impact Fees - - - 3,483,740 - 3,483,740 - - - 3,483,740 - 3,483,740 - 0.0%
Others 250 - 56,959 953,110 650 1,010,969 250 - 56,959 953,110 650 1,010,969 - 0.0%
Subtotal Other Fees 250 - 56,959 4,436,850 22,415 4,516,474 250 - 56,959 4,436,850 22,415 4,516,474 - 0.0%
Grand Total $ 47,562 $ 2,000 $ 99,529 $ 4,770,682 $ 24,601 $ 4,944,374 $ 21,900 $ 16,785 $ 157,324 $ 4,578,293 $ 31,010 $ 4,805,312 $ (139,062) -2.8%
Old Structure/What was Actually Paid New Fee Structure
Residential Multi-Family
The Wyatt
Residential Sq Ft – 356,324
Garage Sq Ft – 26,974
Clubhouse Sq Ft – 7,732
368 units
Decrease of $378/unit
13
Fee Type PDP FDP DCP Building Permit Others Total PDP FDP DCP Building Permit Others Total New H/(L) Old % Change
Development Review 19,364 2,000 400 - 600 22,364 22,425 17,250 8,167 - 5,450 53,292 30,928 138.3%
Infrastructure Inspections - - 7,437 - - 7,437 - - 14,519 - - 14,519 7,082 95.2%
Building Permit - - - 117,689 - 117,689 - - - 30,922 - 30,922 (86,767) -73.7%
Subtotal Fees Updated 19,364 2,000 7,837 117,689 600 147,490 22,425 17,250 22,686 30,922 5,450 98,733 (48,757) -33.1%
Escrows - - - - 40,073 40,073 - - - - 40,073 40,073 - 0.0%
Impact Fees - - - 904,504 - 904,504 - - - 904,504 - 904,504 - 0.0%
Others 250 - - 288,215 - 288,465 250 - - 288,215 - 288,465 - 0.0%
Waiver Amount (2,985) (360) - (97,333) (30) (100,708) (4,037) (3,105) (597) (102,899) (206) (110,843) (10,135) 10.1%
Subtotal Other Fees (2,735) (360) - 1,095,386 40,043 1,132,334 (3,787) (3,105) (597) 1,089,820 39,867 1,122,198 (10,135) -0.9%
Grand Total $ 16,629 $ 1,640 $ 7,837 $ 1,213,075 $ 40,643 $ 1,279,824 $ 18,639 $ 14,145 $ 22,089 $ 1,120,742 $ 45,317 $ 1,220,931 $ (58,892) -4.6%
Old Structure/What was Actually Paid New Fee Structure
Affordable Housing
Village on Redwood
Residential Sq Ft – 84k
72 units
18% affordable housing waivers
Decrease of $818/unit
14
Fee Type PDP FDP DCP Building Permit Others Total PDP FDP DCP Building Permit Others Total New H/(L) Old % Change
Development Review 85,064 8,000 800 - 11,322 105,185 89,700 69,000 2,780 - 24,700 186,180 80,995 77.0%
Infrastructure Inspections - - 4,034 - - 4,034 - - 24,264 - - 24,264 20,231 501.5%
Building Permit - - - 123,890 1,854 125,744 - - - 73,612 - 73,612 (52,132) -41.5%
Subtotal Fees Updated 85,064 8,000 4,834 123,890 13,176 234,963 89,700 69,000 27,044 73,612 24,700 284,056 49,093 20.9%
Escrows - - - - 120,720 120,720 - - - - 120,720 120,720 - 0.0%
Impact Fees - - - 969,000 - 969,000 - - - 969,000 - 969,000 - 0.0%
Others 1,000 - - 505,049 3,985 510,034 1,000 - - 505,049 3,985 510,034 - 0.0%
Subtotal Other Fees 1,000 - - 1,474,049 124,705 1,599,754 1,000 - - 1,474,049 124,705 1,599,754 - 0.0%
Grand Total $ 86,064 $ 8,000 $ 4,834 $ 1,597,939 $ 137,881 $ 1,834,718 $ 90,700 $ 69,000 $ 27,044 $ 1,547,661 $ 149,405 $ 1,883,810 $ 49,093 2.7%
Old Structure/What was Actually Paid New Fee Structure
Commercial - Harmony Commons
Commercial Sq ft – 25,805
Hotel Sq Ft – 59,594
Child care Sq Ft – 12,142
Total Value of Tenant Finishes - $3.72M
Increase of $49k
15
Fee Type PDP FDP DCP Building Permit Others Total PDP FDP DCP Building Permit Others Total New H/(L) Old % Change
Development Review 37,372 2,000 400 - - 39,772 22,425 17,250 1,657 - - 41,332 1,560 3.9%
Infrastructure Inspections - - 8,198 - - 8,198 - - 28,808 - - 28,808 20,610 251.4%
Building Permit - - - 35,476 - 35,476 - - - 43,156 - 43,156 7,680 21.6%
Subtotal Fees Updated 37,372 2,000 8,598 35,476 - 83,446 22,425 17,250 30,465 43,156 - 113,296 29,850 35.8%
Impact Fees - - - 146,930 - 146,930 - - - 146,930 - 146,930 - 0.0%
Others 250 - - 127,600 - 127,850 250 - - 127,600 - 127,850 - 0.0%
Subtotal Other Fees 250 - - 274,530 - 274,780 250 - - 274,530 - 274,780 - 0.0%
Grand Total $ 37,622 $ 2,000 $ 8,598 $ 310,007 $ - $ 358,227 $ 22,675 $ 17,250 $ 30,465 $ 317,686 $ - $ 388,077 $ 29,850 8.3%
Old Structure/What was Actually Paid New Fee Structure
Industrial - South College Storage
Storage sq ft – 107,890
$5.8M valuation
Increase of $30k
16
City Revenue impacts by Fund
Revenue increases about $2M – mainly in Transportation and Utilities
Funds which have not been recovering cost
17
Fee Comparison:
For Median New Home Sales Price $488K*
18
Fort Collins Proposed Fees in the Lower-Middle of the Pack
Neighboring Cities
New Median Sales Comparison with Fees
19
Fort Collins Fees are Inline with Neighboring Cities
Fort Collins Fee Stack
Median New Home Sales
20
Fort Collins Fees & Code Cost Impact is Leveling %
of Median New Home Sales Price
Advisory Committee
• Advisory Committee Members
• 16 invitees
• City Staff, DDA, Board of Realtors, Affordable Housing, EAC,
Developers, Builders
• 8 hours of meetings spread over 4 months
• Final outcomes
• Unanimously Supported
• Fee increase concerns, but understand drivers
• Acknowledgement that these fees are a very small percentage of the
total fees paid to the City and overall impact is small (-4 - 9% of total
fees)
21
Public Outreach
22
Organization Date
Fort Collins Board of Relators 10/8/2019
Northern Colorado Homebuilder's Association 10/9/2019
Local Legislative Affairs Committee 10/11/2019
Planning & Zoning Board 10/11/2019
Affordable Housing Board 10/15/2019
Water Board 10/17/2019
Super Issues Forum 10/29/2019
Building Review Board 10/31/2019
Downtown Development Authority 11/14/2019
Economic Advisory Commission TBD
Housing Catalyst TBD
North Fort Collins Business Association TBD
South Fort Collins Business Association TBD
Next Steps
• October/November/December – Outreach
• 1/14/20 – Council Work Session
• Feb 2020 – Adoption
• April 2020 – Fees Implemented
• Summer 2021 – Fee Updates in Coordination with all other Fees
(lead out of Finance)
23
Council Finance Direction Sought
• Is Council Finance supportive of updated fees and methodology?
• Is Council Finance supportive of new Erosion Control & Stormwater
Construction Inspection Fees?
24
Backup
25
Methodology
1. List of fees/application types was thoroughly reviewed
• Fees will be “consolidated” from customer side – customer currently
sees breakout; they will see one number and City will split out
amongst funds on the backend
• Certain fees no longer called out individually (e.g. Sign Posting or
Affected Property Owners)
2. Identification of all staff involved in fee related activities
3. Interviews with staff on individual fees/application types – amount of
time spent per item - average
4. Calculation of fully burdened cost of employees
5. Fees based on fully burdened cost and time
26
How they are Calculated: 100% Cost Recovery
Example of Calculated Amount – Sewer Manhole:
• Fully burdened hourly inspector cost - $56.06/hour
• Cost includes salary, benefits, vehicle, clothing, computer refreshes,
annual training/certifications
• Total time for Inspection – 120 minutes
• Total Direct Cost - $112.12
• Total Indirect Cost - $60.61
• Includes Inspector Manager time, admin time (take in application),
software, building, general City OH (HR, Legal, Finance)
• Calculated Cost - $172.73
27
Tenant Improvements Examples
28
Value Description Current Fee New Fee Change % Change
$ 450 Install new electrical breaker for the installation of canned lights, and install vent to washer. Replaced water lines for sink
and washer box. with stub wall. $ 25 $ 50 $ 25 100%
$ 3,400 Install a a 40,000 btu garage furnace and install 50 ft of gas line and add new electrical circuit. $ 142 $ 127 $ (15) -11%
$ 21,000
This in an addition of an unheated 3 season Sunroom (12'X15') 180 sq. ft. including several new caissons added at
engineered support points with a 60 foot patio pad extension on west side and 26 foot patio pad extension on the south
side, and adding electrical.
$ 522 $ 400 $ (123) -23%
$ 34,000
Remodel of 3033 to include constructing small sections of demising walls to separate space into 3 retail suites. Relocate
light switches as needed and modify one entrance/exit door and add 3rd entrance/exit door for tenant B. Add doors to
separate tenant suites from the common area.
$ 757 $ 557 $ (200) -26%
$ 65,000 Tenant finish of 2,515 sq. ft. for "Crooked Stave Taproom" to include minor demolition, electric, mechanical and plumbing.
Work to also include changing out light fixtures, and adding wood planks and painting no exterior foyer. $ 1,209 $ 823 $ (387) -32%
$ 120,000
Interior remodel of 265 sq ft to include removing one non-loading curtain wall to open up the kitchen and extend it into the
current study. Adding a new gas range with hood, moving existing electrical and plumbing as needed. Black Timber Builders
to do the framing.
$ 1,789 $ 1,170 $ (619) -35%
$ 480,000
Tenant finish of 8300 sq ft for 'Computer Services, Inc.' to include reconfiguring the current office space, new framing,
acoustical ceilings, fire sprinkler modifications, plumbing, HVAC and electrical. $ 4,669 $ 3,330 $ (1,339) -29%
$ 1,000,000
Complete interior demoltion and tenant finish of 10898 sq ft to include relocating office spaces, meeting spaces, restrooms
and a second story addition of 1186 sq ft will be added. Exterior changes will include changing the existing façade to match
the addition.Steel frame construction throughout building.
$ 8,429 $ 6,200 $ (2,229) -26%
$ 10,288,390
Renovation of existing 25,075 sq. ft. building to include new manufacturing/ testing space on 1st floor with office and
conference rooms. Mechanical equipment will be housed in mechanical basement. All new mechanical and plumbing work
throughout building, including (9) new rooftop HVAC units. Minor exterior improvements including new entry canopy on
southeast corner and small (2x5') windows on south and east sides of building.
$ 53,905 $ 57,286 $ 3,381 6%
Planning, Development & Transportation
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 N. College Ave.
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.416.2350
970.224.6134 FAX
www.fcgov.com
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 9, 2019
TO: City Leaders
THRU: Noelle Currell, Manager, FP&A
Tom Leeson, CDNS Director
FROM: 32TJennifer Bray: Affordable Housing Board16T32T
32TAdam Eggleston: Ft. Collins Board of Realtors16T 32T
32TDoug Braden: Home Builders Association16T32T
32TMatt Robenalt: Downtown Development Authority16T32T
32TCathy Mathis: Local Legislative Affairs Committee16T32T
38TBraulio32T38T Rojas: South Ft. Collins Business Association16T32T
32TLinda Stanley: Economic Advisory Commission16T32T
RE: Development Review Fee Study Advisory Committee
UPurpose:
32TThe purpose of this memorandum is to inform City Leaders of the Development Review
Fee Advisory Committee’s recommendations regarding action to update the
City’s Development Review and Building Permit fees.16T32T
UPosition:
32TThe Development Review Fee Advisory Committee was formed based on Council
Finance Committee’s directive to better understand how to simplify the current fee
schedule, calculating of fees, timing of fee collection, validating and gaining buy-in to a
new methodology and providing recommendations. T16T32This fee committee met five times
between May and September.
32TURecommendations:U16T 32TU
16T
32TMethodology Change: The group agreed that the methodology changes are sound and
that there are positive benefits with these changes. It is felt the fee changes do not have
a crushing impact.16T32T
16T
32TCost Recovery: It was agreed upon that recovery of costs should be set at 100%.
16T
32TStorm Water Construction Inspection: This is a new fee and is necessary to cover the
cost of inspectors for storm water construction. The group agreed that this fee should
be included in the fee listing.16T32T
16T
32TSmall project fees, Director Discretion: It was felt by the group that the Director of
Community Development and Neighborhood Services should have discretion in relation
to small project fees. 16T32T
16T
32TPublic Outreach: The following list is the agreed up public outreach that will take place
before this item goes before Council:
Organization Contact
Affordable Housing Board Sue Beck-Ferkiss
Water Board 28TUtconnor@fcgov.comU28T
Super Issues Forum Christine Macrina <cmacrina@fcgov.com>
Building Review Board rhovland@fcgov.com
Fort Collins Board of Relators Heather@fcbr.org.
Local Legislative Affairs Committee
ahutchison@fcchamber.org or at (970) 482-
3746
Northern Colorado Homebuilder's
Association nikki@nocohba.com
Economic Advisory Commission Josh Birks
Housing Catalyst jbrewen@housingcatalyst.com
Downtown Development Authority Matt & Kristy
North Fort Collins Business Association greg.woods@stewart.com
South Fort Collins Business Association brian@legacyfinancialgroup.us.com
Planning & Zoning Board reverette@fcgov.com
16T
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BUILDINGS (Permit and Plan Check):
Total Cost
/ Sq Ft
Total Cost
/ Sq Ft
Stock Plan
Staff
Recommended
Stock Plan -
Staff
Recommended
A (Assembly) $ 0.37 $ 0.40
B (Business) $ 0.46 $ 0.50
E (Educational) (set by State, not able to allocate)
F (Factory) $ 0.33 $ 0.35
I (Institutional) $ 0.46 $ 0.50
M (Mercantile) $ 0.37 $ 0.40
R-1 (Hotel) $ 0.30 $ 0.35
R-2 (Apartment) $ 0.32 $ 0.35
R-3 (Single Family Detatched/Duplex) $ 0.62 $ 0.51 $ 0.65 $ 0.55
R-4 (Assisted Living) $ 0.52 $ 0.55
S (Storage) $ 0.37 $ 0.40
U (Utility) $ 0.36 $ 0.40
New Building Pricing
Up to Value: Scale
$ 2,000 $105
$ 25,000 $105 for the first $2k, then $15.5 for each $1k after
$ 50,000 $462.5 for the first $25k, then $10.5 for each $1k after
$ 100,000 $725 for the first $50k, then $6.5 for each $1k after
$ 500,000 $1050 for the first $100k, then $60 for each $10k after
$ 1,000,000 $3450 for the first $500k, then $55 for each $10k after
Tenant Improvements
Project Type: Cost/Service
Staff
Recommended
Air Conditioner Replacement $ 60.04 $ 65.00
Antennas $ 60.04 $ 65.00
Basement Finish $ 150.11 $ 155.00
Boiler Replacement $ 60.04 $ 65.00
Commercial Roof Replacement $ 200.14 $ 210.00
Commercial Signs $ 60.04 $ 65.00
Demolition $ 60.04 $ 65.00
Fireplace (Wood burning, pellet, gas, log) $ 60.04 $ 65.00
Furnace Replacement $ 60.04 $ 65.00
Gas Pipe Installation $ 60.04 $ 65.00
Mobile Home Setup $ 80.06 $ 85.00
Pool/Spa $ 100.07 $ 110.00
Rooftop Unit Replacement $ 80.06 $ 85.00
Single Family Deck or Patio Cover $ 100.07 $ 110.00
Residential Roof Replacement (under XXX square feet) $ 80.06 $ 85.00
Solar PV Systems $ 60.04 $ 65.00
Temporary Sales or Construction Trailer Setup $ 80.06 $ 85.00
Upgrade/ Replace Electrical Service $ 60.04 $ 65.00
Water Heater Replacement $ 60.04 $ 65.00
Window Installation $ 60.04 $ 65.00
Stock Plans: Cost/Service
Staff
Recommended
Single Family Attached $ 529.60 $ 550.00
Single Family Detached $ 529.60 $ 550.00
Duplex $ 529.60 $ 550.00
Flat Fee Services
INSPECTION FEES: Measure Cost/Service Staff
Recommended
Minimum
Charge
Boring linear ft. (NEW) $ 0.35 $ 0.40 $ 50.00
Concrete or asphalt square yards $ 2.50 $ 2.55 $ 50.00
Drive Approach square yards $ 1.39 $ 1.40 $ 50.00
Fire Access Grass Crete square yards $ 0.63 $ 0.65 $ 50.00
Fireline Fitting ( Bend, Tee, Cross ) each $ 83.37 $ 85.00
Gutter CrossPans square yards $ 2.50 $ 2.55 $ 50.00
Meter Pit (1 1/2") each $ 125.05 $ 130.00
Meter Pit (3" ) each $ 396.00 $ 400.00
Meter Pit (3/4" ) each $ 125.05 $ 130.00
Pedestrian Ramps each $ 97.26 $ 100.00
Potholes each $ 27.79 $ 30.00 $ 50.00
Reinforced Concrete Pipe linear ft. $ 1.46 $ 1.50 $ 50.00
Sanitary Sewer Main linear ft. $ 2.24 $ 2.25 $ 50.00
Sewer Connection/Disconnect each $ 229.26 $ 230.00
Sewer Manhole each $ 166.74 $ 170.00
Sewer Service Line Stub each $ 416.85 $ 150.00
Sidewalk, trails, curb/gutter, curb/gutter w sidewalk linear ft. $ 2.50 $ 2.55 $ 50.00
Stormwater Manhole each $ 166.74 $ 170.00
Structural concrete, masonry or stone work for retaining
walls, box culverts, wing walls, drop structures or other linear ft. $ 2.92 $ 2.95 $ 50.00
Trench linear ft. $ 2.29 $ 2.30 $ 50.00
Water Connection/Disconnect each $ 250.11 $ 255.00
Water Fitting ( Bend, Tee, Cross ) each $ 83.37 $ 85.00
Water Main linear ft. $ 2.40 $ 2.45 $ 50.00
Water Main (Fire Line)** linear ft. $ 2.40 $ 2.45 $ 50.00
Water Service Line Stub each $ 416.85 $ 150.00
APPURTENANCES:
Fire Hydrant each $ 250.11 $ 255.00
Fittings each $ 83.37 $ 85.00
Inlet each $ 229.26 $ 230.00
Valve and Valve Box each $ 104.21 $ 105.00
DRIVEWAY PERMIT:
For driveway up to 15' wide each $ - $ 75.00
EXCAVATION PERMITS:
Application Fee each $ 41.68 $ 45.00
Infrastructure Construction Inspection
Service Name: Cost/Service Staff
Recommended
Addition of Permitted Use $ 5,807 $ 5,825
Additional Rounds of Review $ 6,629 $ 6,650
Annexation $ 5,103 $ 5,125
Basic Development Review $ 13,783 $ 13,800
Change of Use $ 4,793 $ 4,800
Development Construction Permit (DCP): $ 2,001 $ 2,025
Easement Vacation $ 1,018 $ 1,025
Easement/Right-of-way Dedication $ 672 $ 675
Extra Occupancy Rental $ 1,730 $ 1,750
Final Plan $ 17,242 $ 17,250
Limited-Scope Project (Director Discretion) $ - $ 5,600
Lot Line adjustments $ 329 $ 350
Major Amendment $ 15,379 $ 15,400
Minor Amendment $ 4,769 $ 4,775
Modification of Standards $ 1,559 $ 1,575
Off-site construction Staging $ 431 $ 450
Overall Development Plan $ 10,274 $ 10,275
Plan Amendment (for deviations from City Plan or Sub Area Plans) $ 10,419 $ 10,425
Prelminary Development Review $ 2,542 $ 2,550
Project Development Plan(PDP) Initial $ 22,406 $ 22,425
PUD Large +640 acres $ 109,656 $ 109,675
PUD Small 50 - 640 acres $ 42,155 $ 42,175
Reasonable Accomodation Request $ 519 $ 525
Rezoning $ 4,776 $ 4,800
Right of Way Vacation $ 1,593 $ 1,600
Road Project $ 11,640 $ 11,650
Short Term Rental Denial Appeal $ 182 $ 200
Text Amendments $ 2,973 $ 2,975
Variance $ 412 $ 425
Wireless telecomm - Final $ 3,148 $ 3,150
Wireless telecomm - Initial $ 2,991 $ 3,000
Zoning Verification Letter $ 140 $ 150
Planning Fees
Dependent on number of lots, acres of site disturbance and expected years of inspection
Erosion Control
Feature Type Measure Cost
Pourous Pavers quantity of instances $ 365
Bioretention quantity of instances $ 315
Extended Detention Basin quantity of instances $ 250
Ungerground Treatment quantity of instances $ 415
Stormwater Infrastructure
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Josh Birks & Shannon Hein
Date: October 21, 2019
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Economic Health Revolving Loan Fund – Good News
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to share the good news that the City of Fort Collins Revolving Loan
Fund has officially launched and provide an overview of the program. The Revolving Loan Fund
is intended to support small businesses and startup companies operating in Fort Collins. The City
has pledged funds to support access to capital for small businesses in Fort Collins, which have
historically not had access to traditional financial capital markets (“under banked” or “non-
bankable”) The demographic focus of this program will be low-income, minority, veteran, and
women-owned small businesses.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does the Committee have any questions about the program?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
A revolving loan fund (RLF) is a gap financing tool used for the development and expansion of
small businesses and startup companies. This Ordinance will support the first step in the
development of the City’s RLF that over time will become an “evergreen” source of capital for
underserved and disadvantaged borrowers in the community. “Evergreen” is the term used to
refer to a self-replenishing pool of money through interest and principal payments from previous
loans to be used for new loans as budgeted and appropriated in future years.
Businesses with 1-100 employees make up 98% of all firms in Fort Collins. These businesses
employ 47% of the workforce and provide 40% of the total wages in our community.
UDemonstrated needU:
Data from the small business needs assessment deployed in 2018 demonstrated the need
and interest for capital resources from women-owned businesses, specifically women-
owned businesses in the revenue band of $100,000 - $499,000.
A report by Minority Business Development Agency
<http://www.mbda.gov/sites/default/files/DisparitiesinCapitalAccessReport.pdf>, found
that, “Among firms with gross receipts under $500,000, loan denial rates for minority
firms were about three times higher, at 42 percent, compared to those of non-minority-
owned firms, 16 percent.”
The City’s Economic Health Office (EHO) has identified access to capital as a barrier to
the small business community within the Economic Health Strategic Goal, B.4, Increase
Capital to Support Startup Companies and Entrepreneurs. As such, EHO believes a
revolving loan fund can support in meeting Strategic Objective B.4.
Goals
The goals of the RLF include:
A. Encouraging business starts, strengthening and/or expansion of businesses through self-
employment. This in turn facilitates job creation as a means of economic self-sufficiency
for low-and moderate-income individuals.
B. Helping bridge the financial gap for small businesses which might eventually qualify for
bank financing and preparing the small business owner for traditional bank relationships.
C. Foster diversity in the business community by encouraging business ownership among
traditionally underserved minorities, women, and the disabled.
D. Promote entrepreneurship and business innovation as a means of harnessing the creative
potential of small businesses and investing in the economic success of the community.
Contributions to this RLF comes from two sources:
Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) support of economic development efforts (2017,
2018, 2019 and beyond)
2019 City of Fort Collins Cluster Funding (one-time contribution)
Since 1982, Platte River has granted funds annually to support economic development efforts.
Prior to 2017, these contributions received by the City of Fort Collins were directed toward
Rocky Mountain Innosphere (Innosphere). In August 2017, the City requested PRPA to remit the
funds directly to our organization in order to support the development of a small business
lending program. These funds were received in 2017 and 2018 and are in the City’s General
Fund reserve available for appropriation. Funds to be appropriated are as follows:
Source Fund Amount
2017 PRPA Contribution General Fund $21,878
2018 PRPA Contribution General Fund 21,916
2019 PRPA Contribution General Fund 36,436
City of Fort Collins Cluster Contribution KFCG (transfer to General
Fund)
98,500
Total RLF Appropriation and
Transfer
$178,730
Summer 2019, the City issued Request for Proposal (RFP) #8963 seeking a qualified, licensed
and accredited capital vendor to manage and administer the revolving loan fund on the City’s
behalf. The City selected Colorado Lending Source (“CLS”) as the vendor. CLS will lend its
own funds and use the City’s contribution only in the case of default on a loan. The total loan
pool will be $1.0 million.
Term loans would be available to eligible small businesses for up to $50,000 for the following
purposes:
Working capital
Equipment
Inventory
Business purchase
Oversight
A representative from the selected vendor will meet with City of Fort Collins staff at least semi-
annually to review the program, lending data, and to provide updates. Staff will provide updates
to City Council annually.
ATTACHMENTS (numbered Attachment 1, 2, 3,…)
October 24, 2019
Revolving Loan Fund Overview
Josh Birks, Shannon Hein
Direction Sought
2
Does the committee have any questions about the
Revolving Loan Fund program
Background
3
Small Business
Strategies that Create
Community Jobs
Council Priorities
98% of all firms in Fort Collins are
businesses with 1 – 100 employees
Small Business Capital Needs
Small Business Needs Assessment – Fort Collins
• 67% of women-owned businesses reported this
would be a benefit, higher than any other segment
surveyed
Minority Business Development Agency report
• Firms with gross receipts under $500,000, loan
denial rates for minority firms were 3X higher than
non-minority-owned firms.
4
Timeline
5
What is a Revolving Loan Fund?
6
City seed money Service partner
administers
the fund
Provide
character-based
loans
Payments will
go back into the
fund
Fund is
replenished,
becoming
evergreen
Service
Partner
Goals
7
Encourage business starts, strengthening, expansions
Help bridge the financial gap for small businesses
Foster diversity in the business community
Promote entrepreneurship and business innovation
Who Qualifies?
• Good character
• Must be a small business
• Located in Fort Collins
• Unable to obtain conventional
financing
8
Source of Funding
9
Source Fund Amount
2017 PRPA Contribution General Fund $21,878
2018 PRPA Contribution General Fund 21,916
2019 PRPA Contribution General Fund 36,436
City of Fort Collins Cluster
Contribution KFCG (transfer to General Fund) 98,500
Total RLF Appropriation and Transfer $178,730
Key Features
10
Service partner
manages and
leverages the
fund 10x
No
Administrative
fee
Opportunity
for women,
minority, and
veteran-
owned
businesses
Advisory board
reporting
1. 2. 3. 4.
Additional Benefits
11
Weekly office
hours
Character-
based lending
Low origination
fees and
interest rates
Spanish-
speakers on
staff
Technical
assistance
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Direction Sought
12
Does the committee have any questions about the
Revolving Loan Fund program
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Theresa Connor, P.E., Shane Boyle, P.E., Lance Smith
Date: 10/21/2019
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Off-Cycle Budget Amendment for Strategic Land Acquisition
in the West Vine Stormwater Basin
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The West Vine Stormwater Master Plan envisions an open channel connection between the City-
owned Forney Property and City-owned land located adjacent to this parcel to the east. The
parcel at 1337 West Vine came in for conceptual development review. Staff has negotiated a
price for purchasing the rear portion of the property while the West Vine road frontage portion is
being subdivided into residential lots. The purpose of this item to appropriate prior year reserves
in the Storm Drainage Fund to purchase the parcel.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance Committee have any questions or suggestions regarding the off-cycle
budget amendment to fund strategic land acquisition in support of the West Vine Stormwater
Master Plan?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
34TMuch of the West Vine Basin, located in western Fort Collins generally along Vine Drive and
Laporte Avenue, was developed in the County prior to stormwater and floodplain regulations
being adopted. For this reason, there is significant potential for flooding in the basin during a
large rainstorm event. The City’s Stormwater Master Drainage Plan for the West Vine Basin
identifies improvements that would help to mitigate and convey flood flows through the basin to
the Poudre River.
16T
34TA portion of the property at 1337 West Vine lies within the proposed alignment for the West
Vine Outfall Stormwater Project and is currently for sale (see attached presentation). The
purpose of this appropriation is to authorize the purchase of the portion of the property that is
needed in order to construct the West Vine Outfall project. If the City does not purchase the
property, it may be sold to a third party and developed, which would hinder the City’s ability to
construct this important Stormwater project. 16T34T
16T
34TRecent projects and property acquisition in the area that are part of the West Vine Outfall
include construction of a portion of the West Vine Outfall from Vine Drive to the Poudre River
in 2013-2014 and acquisition of the Forney Property for a future regional detention pond in
2012.16T 34T
ATTACHMENTS: Presentation
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Travis Storin – Director, Accounting
Josh Birks – Director, Economic Health Office
Date: October 21, 2019
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Prospect South Loan Refinance Moral Obligation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2013, the City loaned the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (“Authority”) $5 million
from the General Fund to reimburse a developer for eligible expenses as part of the Summit
development in the Prospect South Tax Increment Financing District. The City has requested the
Authority consider refinancing this loan to free up the $5 million for investing in other
community priorities. The Authority may also benefit from refinancing by being able to issue
bonds with lower interest rates than the existing loan. As part of this refinance, the Authority is
seeking a moral obligation from the City. The moral obligation would result in improved bond
ratings and reduced debt service costs to the Authority.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does the Council Finance Committee agree with moving forward with the proposed loan
refinance and the associated moral obligation?
What additional information would be useful prior to presenting this item to City Council?
BACKGROUND
The City and Authority have entered into two loan agreements for development projects in the
Prospect South TIF District. What follows is a summary of each loan agreement.
UThe Summit
On September 6, 2011, City Council established the Prospect South Tax Increment Financing
(TIF) District within the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Area. After the establishment of Prospect
South as a TIF district, Capstone Development Corporation sought TIF assistance for The
Summit, a 220-unit student housing development. On September 13, 2011, the Authority Board
approved a financial agreement where the Authority would reimburse $5 million of eligible
expenses to Capstone. Per the agreement, the $5 million reimbursement was due upon
completion of the project. At the time, staff estimated The Summit would generate $8 million of
tax increment over the life of the project.
When Capstone completed The Summit in 2013 and received a Certificate of Occupancy,
Capstone requested reimbursement. The Authority was unable to reimburse Capstone for two
reasons:
1. The original estimate of tax increment generation for the Summit was inaccurate. Staff’s
updated tax increment generation estimate in 2013 showed the Summit should generate
$7 million, not $8 million as predicted in 2011.
2. Interest rates rose from 4% to 4.96%.
As such, the City and Authority negotiated a loan agreement at that time to reimburse Capstone.
The City agreed to loan the Authority $5 million with a 2.68% interest rate. This interest rate was
based on the known revenue stream of the Prospect South TIF District at the time. This left a
$1.78 million interest rate gap. To fill that gap, the Authority agreed to pledge 50% of future
unencumbered revenue from the Prospect South TIF District to the City. Both City Council and
the Authority Board approved this loan agreement on November 5, 2013.
UProspect Station
In October 2013, the Authority executed a Redevelopment Agreement with Prospect Station
LLC. The Redevelopment Agreement obligated the Authority to reimburse the developer up to
$494,000 for eligible expenses. The Agreement required 50% of the reimbursement obligation
($274,000) to be paid in a single payment upon completion of the project with the remaining
50% paid by the Authority over a 21-year period. Knowing the Authority would not have
sufficient funds to make a single payment upon completion of Prospect Station, the City
approved Resolution 2013-079 declaring City Council’s intent to provide a loan to the Authority
for half of the Authority’s reimbursement obligation.
Prospect Station received a Certificate of Occupancy in September 2014 and subsequently
requested reimbursement. In response, the City and Authority entered into a loan agreement for
$247,000 to fulfill the Authority’s Redevelopment Agreement with Prospect Station. The loan
has a 23-year term and 4.5% interest rate. The Authority Board approved the loan agreement on
November 18, 2014 with City Council approval following on December 16, 2014.
DISCUSSION
Finance staff approached Authority staff in the summer of 2019 with the idea of refinancing the
Prospect South loan. Refinancing the loan could allow the City to allocate the $5 million to other
priorities. A refinance could also allow the Authority to get a lower interest rate than the
effective interest rate of 4.96% on the Prospect South loan.
To assess the viability of a refinance, the City and Authority contracted with their own bond and
finance counsel. The Authority has contracted with Ehlers for their finance counsel and
GreenbergTraurig for their bond counsel. Based on the current tax increment projections, the
Authority anticipates receiving between a BBB+ and AA- rating for their bond issuance. The
attached proforma outlines the differences between BBB+, A, and AA- rated bonds. The URA
expects the following terms for this bond issuance:
Amount Borrowed Outstanding balance and cost of issuance
(Approx. $5 million)
Term 18 years
Interest Rate 2.587% - 2.929%
Coverage Ratio 1.94 - 2.01
Total Cost $6,150,782 - $6,343,395
The Authority is seeking a moral obligation from the City to receive a more favorable bond
rating and interest rate. A moral obligation allows the City to meet any debt service costs from
the bond issuance in the case of a default. Council is not obligated to meet these debt service
costs in the event of a default by the URA. Council may elect to appropriate funds to service this
debt or Council can elect to not service this debt. A moral obligation would likely result in a
rating increase from BBB+ to A or higher. The savings between these two ratings is $165,192
over the life of the loan. The moral obligation will also make it easier for investors to trade the
bonds in the secondary market, reducing the interest cost upon issuance by the Authority.
In summary, this refinance will allow the City to allocate $5 million to other community
priorities during the upcoming Budgeting for Outcomes process while potentially saving the
URA $794,000 - $986,000 over the life of the loan. This loan refinance would also honor the
strong partnership between the City and the URA.
NEXT STEPS
The Authority Board will consider the proposed loan refinance at their regular meetings on
October 24 and November 7. City Council will consider the moral obligation on November 19.
Staff aim to complete the refinance by the end of 2019.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Loan Agreement for The Summit
2. Loan Agreement for Prospect Station
3. Proforma for Proposed Prospect South Loan Refinance
Attachment 3: Proforma for Proposed Prospect South Loan Refinance
Assumptions
URA Mill Levy 91.634
AV Reassessment Rate 2.00%
AV Off Cycle Growth Rate 0.50%
FYE Assessed Value Est. Mill Levy Est. TIF Revenues
Total Debt
Service
Debt Service
Coverage
Ratio BBB+
Debt Service
Coverage
Ratio A
Debt Service
Coverage
Ratio AA-
Debt Service
Coverage
Ratio BBB+ A AA-
$ 15,734,281 $ 8,014,409 $ 6,343,395 1.94x $ 6,178,204 1.99x $ 6,150,782 2.01x $ 793,607 $ 958,798 $ 986,220
7,137,002 Min Min Min
Historical 2018 $ 5,820,420 90.828 $ 528,657 $ 422,235 1.25x $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
2019 6,690,467 91.634 613,074 455,172 1.35x - - - - - -
Prelim. 2020 7,975,601 91.634 730,836 516,851 1.41x 376,033 1.94x 366,616 1.99x 362,878 2.01x 140,818 150,235 153,973
Projected 2021 8,015,479 91.634 734,490 518,678 1.42x 371,189 1.98x 361,709 2.03x 363,194 2.02x 147,489 156,969 155,484
2022 8,175,789 91.634 749,180 528,877 1.42x 375,909 1.99x 361,932 2.07x 363,694 2.06x 152,968 166,946 165,183
2023 8,216,668 91.634 752,926 530,750 1.42x 375,159 2.01x 361,807 2.08x 363,849 2.07x 155,591 168,944 166,901
2024 8,381,001 91.634 767,985 541,191 1.42x 374,549 2.05x 361,834 2.12x 359,299 2.14x 166,641 179,356 181,891
2025 8,422,906 91.634 771,825 470,802 1.64x 373,699 2.07x 366,634 2.11x 359,619 2.15x 97,103 104,168 111,183
2026 8,591,364 91.634 787,261 320,336 2.46x 372,472 2.11x 365,829 2.15x 364,319 2.16x (52,136) (45,494) (43,984)
2027 8,634,321 91.634 791,197 320,336 2.47x 375,992 2.10x 364,779 2.17x 363,544 2.18x (55,656) (44,444) (43,209)
2028 8,807,007 91.634 807,021 326,393 2.47x 373,992 2.16x 363,619 2.22x 362,524 2.23x (47,599) (37,226) (36,131)
2029 8,851,042 91.634 811,056 326,393 2.48x 371,439 2.18x 361,922 2.24x 360,827 2.25x (45,046) (35,529) (34,434)
2030 9,028,063 91.634 827,278 332,572 2.49x 373,464 2.22x 364,817 2.27x 363,722 2.27x (40,892) (32,245) (31,150)
2031 9,073,203 91.634 831,414 332,572 2.50x 375,064 2.22x 362,317 2.29x 361,072 2.30x (42,492) (29,745) (28,500)
2032 9,254,668 91.634 848,042 338,874 2.50x 371,229 2.28x 364,539 2.33x 363,294 2.33x (32,355) (25,665) (24,420)
2033 9,300,941 91.634 852,282 338,874 2.52x 372,094 2.29x 366,349 2.33x 360,262 2.37x (33,220) (27,475) (21,388)
2034 9,486,960 91.634 869,328 345,302 2.52x 372,507 2.33x 362,737 2.40x 361,942 2.40x (27,204) (17,434) (16,640)
2035 9,534,394 91.634 873,675 345,302 2.53x 372,457 2.35x 363,827 2.40x 363,197 2.41x (27,154) (18,524) (17,895)
2036 9,725,082 91.634 891,148 351,859 2.53x 371,934 2.40x 364,477 2.45x 364,017 2.45x (20,075) (12,618) (12,158)
2037 9,773,708 91.634 895,604 351,039 2.55x (5,788) (7,541) (10,476) 356,827 358,580 361,514
Notes:
BBB+ scenario assumes current rates plus 25 bps as of 9/26/2019
A and AA- scenarios assume current BQ rates as of 9/26/2019
AV = Assessed Value
Refinancing Scenarios (Net of Debt Service Coverage Ratio and interest earnings)
Current Debt Service Dependent On Credit Rating Savings
10/21/19
Prospect South Loan Refinance
Travis Storin and Josh Birks
Direction Sought
Does the Finance Committee agree with moving forward with the
proposed loan refinance and the associated moral obligation?
What additional information would be useful prior to presenting this item
to the URA Board or City Council?
2
Background
September 6, 2011
TIF District Created
September 13, 2011
Authority approved
reimbursement
agreement
August 2013
Capstone requested
reimbursement
November 5, 2013
City Council and
Authority approved
loan agreement
3
October 2013
Redevelopment
Agreement approved
September 2014
Prospect Station
requested
reimbursement
November 18, 2014
Authority approved
loan agreement
December 16, 2014
City Council
approved loan
agreement
The Summit Timeline
Prospect Station Timeline
Loan Overview
4
• $5 million loan from General Fund to URA for eligible expenses for The
Summit
• 24-year term
• 2.68% interest rate (vs. policy rate of 4.96% - gap of $1.77M)
• 50% of future unencumbered revenue to repay gap
• Water Fund loan for Prospect Station
• 23-year term
• 4.5% interest rate
• Reimbursement amount = $247,000
Do nothing
1) URA continues to repay City loans and provide a revenue share up to the cap
Refinance (URA revenue bonds)
2) City pledges its moral obligation
3) City does not pledge its moral obligation
Summary of Available Options
5
Currently the URA
is paying an
interest rate of
4.5% on the two
City loans.
• The City loans were
critical to the Prospect
South area.
• A portion of the
interest on the $5mm
loan is on a revenue
sharing basis and not
due until revenues are
available.
With today’s low
interest rates on
tax-exempt bonds,
the URA will see a
true interest rate
somewhere
between 2.587%
and 2.929%,
depending on the
rating received.
In dollars, that
savings is
estimated to be
between $794 and
$986 thousand
between 2020 and
2037.
Is a Refinance Recommended?
6
What Impacts the Rating?
7
Strengths Weaknesses
Fairly mature TIF
• Coverage of annual
debt service is
around 2 times
Oversight and government
confidence in the project
• City’s moral
obligation
Concentrated tax base
• While there are 111
property owners, the
top ten account for
over 80% of the
assessed value
Debt Structure
• 18 Year Term (Remaining Life of the URA)
• Semiannual Payments starting in June 2020
• Last payment December 2037
• Borrowing
• Issue Costs* $ 0.2M
• Project Amounts 5.1M
• Total $ 5.3M
8
*Subject to change
Anticipated Payments
Current
• 2.68% - Interest Rate
• Debt Service
• $297,000 (2019)
• Revenue Share
• Backfill additional interest
per policy (4.96%)
• $158,000 (2019)
• $455,000 – 2019 Debt Service
9
New Loan by Rating*
• AA- Rating
• 2.6% - Interest Rate
• $363,000 – Debt Service
• A Rating
• 2.7% - Interest Rate
• $366,000 – Debt Service
• BBB+ Rating
• 2.9% - Interest Rate
• $376,000 – Debt Service
*Market rates as of 9/26/19; subject to change
10/1 –
11/5
Draft and
perfect the
transaction
documents.
10/14
Meet with the
URA Finance
Committee.
10/21
Meet with the
Ft. Collins
Finance
Committee to
request/recom
mend granting
Moral
Obligation.
11/7
URA Board
Meeting
11/19
City Council
Meeting for
Moral
Obligation
11/21
Rating Call or
Meeting
12/3
Post POS and
Notice of Sale
12/12
Sell bonds
12/26
Close
transaction/Dist
ribute funds
Proposed Refinancing Timeline
10
Current property values’ annual growth shows excess revenue after
debt service of this new debt to be between $8.2 and $8.4 million
• Provides the URA with other incentive options to encourage development
and additional property tax revenue
Moral obligation from City represents a non-binding covenant to make
up for any shortfall in URA debt service
• The City’s moral obligation can be worth 4-5 credit rating notches above a
TIF-only pledge
Looking Forward
11
Direction Sought
Does the Finance Committee agree with moving forward with the
proposed loan refinance and the associated moral obligation?
What additional information would be useful prior to presenting this item
to the URA Board or City Council?
12
Staff seeks direction from Council Finance with which option to proceed for City Council consideration. If
supported, staff is tentatively scheduled to present the selected 15-year capital option to full Council on October
1, 2019.
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS:
A 15 year loan term is programmatically important - 80% of customers / owners said if longer term is not
available, it would not be feasible for them to participate.
Ross Cunniff; see if my impression is right – interest rate swap – really a bet that the variable rate will go down
and they will potentially make potentially more money –
Travis Storin; speculating or they have a hedge of their own that they are trying to install
Ross Cunniff; re: the risk to the person who wants to pay the fixed interest
1) Variable rate goes down - paying more for money than we would have had to
2) Hard to back up - there may be some potential that a partner might default on the agreement
What are our contingencies if that happened?
Unused 2020 Ongoing Revenue 398 15 165 197 775
- Available Reserves (1-Time, if requested) 2,700 11,100 2,400 2,700 1,900 8,300 29,100
-
Less: 2019 Reappropriation (1-Time) (340) (28) (584) (952)
-
Less: 2019 Supplemental Approps (1-Time) (62) (20) (82)
Subtotal of Funding Changes 748 2,298 11,100 1,975 2,583 281 1,194 8,300 165 197 28,841