HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Mail Packet - 5/19/2020 - City Council Finance Committee Agenda - May 18, 2020Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
AGENDA
Council Finance & Audit Committee
May 18, 2020
10:00 am - noon
Zoom Meeting 27TUhttps://zoom.us/j/8140111859U27T
Approval of Minutes from the April 20, 2020 Council Finance Committee meeting.
1. 2020-2021 Budget & Financial Update 30 mins. T. Storin
2. MMOF Grant – W. Elizabeth Design 20 mins. N. Currell
3. City Give Governance & Process 20 mins. N. Bodenhamer
Council Finance Committee
Agenda Planning Calendar 2020
RVSD 05/12/20 ck
May 18P
th
P
2020-2021 Budget and Financial Review Update 30 min T. Storin
MMOF Grant - W. Elizabeth Design 20 min N. Currell
City Give Governance & Process N. Bodenhamer
June 15P
th
P
2020-2021 Budget and Financial Review Update 30 min T. Storin
B-Dam Alternatives and Recommendation 30 min T. Connor
Streets Generator 10 min
Parking Fund 30 min N. Currell
Impacts of Wayfair Court Decision / Opportunities to City 30 min J. Poznanovic
July 20P
th
P
2020-2021 Budget and Financial Review Update 30 min T. Storin
BFO Assumption Review L. Pollack
Code Revisions for Self-Insurance Fund 15 min T. Storin
J. Duval
Aug. 17P
th
P
Sept. 21P
st
P
Oct. 19P
th
P
Utility Rebate Consolidation 20 min J. Poznanovic
Future Council Finance Committee Topics:
• Park/Median Design Standards & Maintenance Costs – TBD
• Metro District Policy Update – TBD 2020
• Annual Adjustment Ordinance – Sep 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
April 20, 2020
10 am - noon
Zoom Meeting
Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Ross Cunniff, Ken Summers
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Jeff Mihelich, Kelly DiMartino, Travis Storin, Carrie Daggett, John Duval,
Josh Birks, Caryn Champine, Noelle Currell, Ken Mannon, Larry Schneider, Brian Hergott,
Adam Bromley, Blake Visser, Andrew Brooks, Lucinda Smith, Joe Olson, Kevin Gertig,
Tim McCollough, Chad Crager, Lawrence Pollack, Lindsay Ex, Claire Turney, Dean
Klingner, Jennifer Poznanovic, Jackie Thiel, Dave Lenz, Zack Mozer, Beth Rosen, Wendy
Bircher, Victoria Shaw, Kevin Gertig, Carolyn Koontz
Others: Kevin Jones, Chamber of Commerce
_______________________________________________________________
Meeting called to order at 10:04 am
Approval of Minutes from the March 16, 2020 Council Finance Committee Meeting. Ross Cunniff moved for
approval of the minutes as presented. Ken Summers seconded the motion. Minutes were approved unanimously.
A. COVID-19 Financial Response
2020-2021 Budget & Federal /State Updates
Travis Storin, Interim CFO
Josh Birks, Economic Health & Redevelopment Director
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
COVID-19 Financial Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Fort Collins leadership team is currently addressing the economic and financial impacts of the COVID-
19 pandemic. The City’s top priority is the public health and safety of the Fort Collins Community members, but
the City must also take proactive steps to support a timely economic recovery. Work is currently underway in all
City departments to assess the impacts to both revenues and expenses for 2020 and 2021.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance Committee support the guiding principles?
Does Council Finance Committee support the workstreams being developed?
2
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The City is currently working with numerous entities to estimate the changes in revenues by revenue stream due
to the State’s stay-at-home order. The key factors in forecasting the impact are the depth of the revenue drop
and the length of the recovery. The City’s expectations mirror national forecasts, i.e., we expect a significant
drop in Q2 2020 revenues, with smaller drops in Q3 and Q4 of 2020, compared to our budget. The forecast for
2021 will follow from the revised 2020 forecast.
Forecasts will be updated continually in the meantime based on March, April and May revenues and expense
reductions agreed to by the City’s leadership team. The City will avail itself of all federal and state relief funds
currently available for which it qualifies.
As senior leadership has met to start addressing the factors facing the City six workstreams have emerged that
will be occurring simultaneously:
- Analysis and Forecasting
- Cost Initiatives / Service Adjustments
- Workforce Alternatives
- Budget Process
- Federal and State Aid
- Communications
Each of these workstreams will play an integral role in taking proactive steps to support the economic recovery
of the City. The six workstreams will each have a lead and support from different areas of the organization. The
teams will make recommendations through a sub-group of the Executive Leadership Team made up of Kelly
DiMartino (Deputy City Manager), Jeff Mihelich (Deputy City Manager), Travis Storin (Interim CFO), and Teresa
Roche (CHRO).
These recommendations will be the basis for decisions being made by leadership team and ultimately presented
to Council.
3
4
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS;
Charter - we must present a balanced budget - we cannot deficit spend
Lagging indicators - revenue deficit could be anywhere from $14M - $50M
Ross Cunniff; is there a time limit for the availability of the FTA funds?
Drew Brooks; no time limit at this time on the CARES funding and our plan it to use this funding first so we can
give back to the General Fund.
Darin Atteberry; to Ross – I don’t believe there is are sunset constraints from the FAA on the airport and funding
can be used for operations or capital on or off airport property - flexibility - if we use it for operations (virtual
tower) the expectation is that when the funding is exhausted - there is no commitment to backfill – it is a one-
time grant.
Josh Birks; we will plan to continue to talk about what we know and what we don’t know -
Summarize existing social and economic responses – there are a number of gaps and concerns about Phase I – we
are engaging on that as well.
Mayor Troxell; regarding our state and federal delegation - Darin and I had a call last week with the Governor –
where we expressed our concerns regarding CARES 1.0 and the disbursements that came to the state.
On-going discussions with CO Municipal League - actively in conversations with DOLA regarding CARES 1.0 and
the allocation is at state level which is one of the structural challenges that came with CARES 1.0. Chris and I on
a call with Rep. Joe Neguse – he is an involved sponsor of CARES 2.0 which calls out support for municipalities
directly - but didn’t address northern Colorado and Fort Collins in particular.
5
Financial Impacts for all communities of all sizes, Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities
Rep. Neguse’s district includes CU Boulder and CSU - students not being in community is a big hit in our city -
lack of revenues - higher education number of employees in comparison to the airline industry - CARES 1.0 dealt
more with airline industry and not higher ed. We are a company town. Rep. Neguse also introduced funding to
address impacts of homelessness during this time. CARES 2.0 is being negotiated right now.
Darin Atteberry; the airline industry employs 750K whereas higher ed employs 2.3M - $25B going to airlines –
and higher ed was half of that amount. CSU is actively doing work in the Covid space now; helping to certify
labs, research, helping with ventilator testing, equipment – all of which is currently unfunded.
Josh Birks; today is the first day that the Colorado Dept. of Labor and Employment is accepting applications
from independent contractor, self-employed and gig workers - they will receive Covid related benefits which can
be backdated to the week of February 15P
th
P.
Travis Storin; I hope the range begins to narrow a bit by end of April - proposed strategy on funding
Plan is to provide updates to this committee at the May / June / July meetings.
CFC updates by June meeting we will have latest forecast and at the July 20P
th
P meeting, we plant to deliver a
balanced 2020 budget.
Ken Summers; undesignated reserves available to us - $38M - Does the $33M include TABOR reserves?
Travis Storin; It does include TABOR reserves - $33M GF emergency reserves available to use
We maintain a city policy to keep a 60-day operating fund available - Designations
$5M could be added in the magnitude of another $15M – so up to $20M somewhat flexible – would be some
pain in freeing those funds up
Ross Cunniff; thank you for all of the work. Assume we can make some back of the envelope projections based
on knowing the city businesses that are closed or restricted. Our program where certain businesses can be
exempt from late fees and interest – are we examining how long that program will be in place? I believe that
most of these businesses aren’t going to be in a position to come out in 60-90 days and be able to pay current
and back taxes. What do we have planned along those lines?
Travis Storin; the offering we have around the deferral of April and May payments to June 20P
th
P due but have not
currently contemplated an extension of that date.
Ross Cunniff; could be resource - scale - options on our side - maybe we could start creating some structure
around potential repayment plans and give business a sense of auto deferral
Travis Storin; even if the businesses don’t quality today for this automatic deferral - we have set up repayment
plans with any size business who reaches out to Sales Tax.
Ken Summers; taking a broader 30,00 foot perspective as we look at short term / long term – will be interesting
to see how we assess this current crisis - What is the balance between maintaining essential services as a city -
but when we look at the use of reserves - look at business activity provides revenue for city to operate on via
sales tax – if the city succeeds but the businesses fail - at what point beyond what is available from the federal
government do we look at offering additional assistance from the city to help our small local viable businesses?
Challenging question – maybe there is a space for us to provide assistance – no idea what that would look like –
if we lose a good portion of our economic base -
6
Darin Atteberry; one thing that is important is that we need to make sure that our business units stay solvent
I described it as a big giant funnel - open end and narrows down - the further we collect data we are going to
know more and more and further refine. The work that Travis, Dave, Lawrence and others have done around
scenario development is so important. We have some significant reduction efforts to help support those various
scenarios which impact work force and service levels. As Teresa Roche says, ‘the more curious we stay, the
better off we will be right now’. Local businesses are asking the city to provide resources to help them stay
afloat – local organizations are asking – durable partners - within the community. We need to be confident in
their financial viability, service offerings - some will come to the Mayor and Council. If we end up having to
reduce $50M in our operating budget – there is no question that we will have a different service offering.
I was talking with Tom Gendron, CEO of Woodward who has a great macro level perspective around the globe.
Tom shared that when investors look at public companies and they are hoarding cash - that is a big problem –
businesses build these rainy-day funds – this is not a rainy day - this is a hurricane. Look at what role your
reserves are going to play in helping to bridge the gap versus long term recovery. As I have shared with Ken,
Ross and Wade - in past incidents I have not been inclined to use reserves, but in this case, I think it is
appropriate. Think it would be irresponsible not to, but using reserves is not the only fix - I think we are going to
be looking at pretty significant structural changes. Toms advise was; if you are going to significantly reduce your
reserves – you have to have a plan in place to replenish them over the next 2-3 years or they become viewed as
a grant and they never come back.
Ross Cunniff; we need to appropriately scale our service levels in order to replenish our reserves.
Ken Summers; I appreciate you sharing Tom’s assessment - It is going to be a step by step process -
looking at budget, leveraging federal funding, what is a level of comfort in utilizing our reserves. I agree with
Tom’s analogy; this is not a rainy day - this is a hurricane.
Mayor Troxell; I appreciate this conversation. I have been referring to this as the Covid lag - we haven’t even
begun to feel the economic impact that we will be feeling- it will impact the city and that is what Travis and Josh
are presenting. Right now, we are in the response phase for Covid. We should be just as intentional about how
we approach and engage with the recovery phase – we are doing this with a grass roots approach now – a lot of
innovation coming from our businesses – some who are still open and they have had to pivot their business
model. As we begin the step down - I think we should create / build a mechanism / framework through the
Chamber using innovation ‘how do we actively recover? …some of the CSU response has included creating new
solutions (testing, new vaccine research). How do we impact and leverage in ways that make the big difference
at the end of the day? With the Covid lag and heading into recovery, how do we best do this? Major issue is
and will be cashflow as we are heading into - I also want to complement Josh and NoCo Recovers - a big part of
this is working with our neighboring communities in this recovery aspect. A more intentional way to think about
recovery and how do we do it in a way – similar to how we have messaged ‘neighbor helping neighbor’ helping
our businesses as best they can, those that serve us directly – regional, large businesses that serve on a national
/ international scale - how do we support them? Thinking about our community as a whole and how we recover
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT
Does Council Finance Committee support the guiding principles and the sort the workstreams being developed?
Results:
Mayor Troxell; I support the guiding principles and also think that what Travis and Josh have outlined is right on
track
Ken Summers; looks good - we are all on the same page and you are doing a great job.
Ross Cunniff; like wise
7
B. Streets & Traffic Backup Generators
Brian Hergott, Sr. Facilities Project Manager
Larry Schneider, Director, Transportation Operations
Noelle Currell, Manager, FP&A PDT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During the 2019/2020 Budgeting for Outcomes process, offers 35.9 and 35.10 were appropriated to complete
the design, purchase and installation of new emergency backup generators to support both the Traffic and
Streets facilities. The original budget for the project was $340,000. The generators themselves have been
procured and work has started on installation ($240,000 has been spent); however, several unknowns have
arisen, and modifications are needed to complete the project. In order to complete installation, staff needs an
additional $310,000 in funds. At completion the total project cost will be $550,000.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Is the Council Finance Committee supportive of a $310,000 supplemental appropriation to finish installation of
emergency generators at the Streets/Traffic facility?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The original budget of $340,000 for three new standby generators at the Street Operations building, Streets
Operations De-icing Command Center and the Traffic Operations building did not factor in several items that are
necessary to complete the project. At the time of the original budget request, these items were not known
issues. The most significant of the impacts follow:
- At the Streets Main building the generator was intended to replace the existing generator that no longer
works. After hiring a design firm and having their electrical engineers assess the electrical system it was
revealed that there would be significantly more work than originally budgeted: this included rework of the
ageing electrical 1600-amp gear and adding components to allow the generator to function properly.
- At the Traffic Operations building the location of Traffic Operations transformer and the space available for
the generator required demolition and replacement existing exterior hardscapes.
- The original plan/replacement of diesel generators were switched to natural gas. The added diesel stored on
site would have required additional permitting and reporting at the State level which the City does not
currently have at this co-located facility. Due to this change, there is also an additional cost for natural gas
plumbing.
By October 2019, $240,000 of the original $340,000 budget were encumbered. The electrical estimates
exceeded the remaining budget. Due to the known additional budget need, $100,000 of the original budget
lapsed. By allowing the funds to lapse, Staff is coming back to request only a single additional appropriation to
complete the project; the amount to not exceed $310,000.
Waiting until later in 2020 or allowing the project to be put on hold will put the City at further risk should a
power outage occur. Staff is seeking funds now for several reasons:
- To tie the generators to the buildings, electrical needs to be shut down for as much as 2 days. The summer
months and on a weekend is the best time to coordinate these activities.
- The currently contracted vendors may request to revise their contract amount for exceeding the current
2020 completion date.
- The already procured generators would sit for an extended amount of time and may require additional
maintenance.
8
- Streets and Traffic Operations will continue through another year/winter without standby generators until
the Summer of 2021 or later.
Should Council approve the additional funds needed to complete the project, the next step would be an RFP for
the electrical scope and final work during the Summer of 2020.
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS;
Streets has been without generators for 6 years – we were not able to open garage door due to power outage
during snowstorm
Original project budget $340K in previous BFO offer- Revised project budget $550K
Today requesting approval for $310K from Transportation Fund Reserves
Mayor Troxell; directing comments to Darin and Jeff - I think we are missing an opportunity
How is Utilities been involved in this? How are we thinking about our energy future as it relates to backup
power generation? Does this fit with our go forward strategy? This is being presented as business as usual -
This location is close to the Energy Institute lab where there is close to 5 MW of distributed energy
including back up generation - can outflow - a resource that can be utilized - don’t need back up that
sits idle except for monthly test. We need to think about this in terms of our grid strategy - I am reluctant but
not saying these are not critical facilities – they are but there are other ways of doing this instead of buying
equipment that is only dedicated to this building. Another neighboring resource we could pay is New Belgium
Brewing - they have a lot of resources that could be utilized and provide that energy at the right time - their
Methane recovery powering their backup generators could provide generation for our facility. How is the utility
involved and how does this fit with our go forward strategy for distributed energy resources?
Jeff Mihelich; flexibility – we are committed to – this is something to follow up on regarding this specific application
– more importantly, how close are we to doing the types of collaboration we are talking about.
Tim McCollough; we have not been involved in this specific project but we can certainly explore these other
possibilities - you are correct, there are generation opportunities available - we can certainly explore those
possibilities with our colleagues at Operations Services –to participate in an active grid management system –
there is usually higher cost of entry for these type of opportunities but we know it is possible – FortZED project
is a similar scenario -
Darin Atteberry; point of clarification from the AIS, we actually already have these generators in our possession.
Can someone speak to that?
Brian Hergott; when we started going through the design, we went out for an RFP/ pricing for 3 generators - we
did procure those – they are currently at a facility in Firestone and are awaiting delivery - 3 units total
approximately $140K
ACTION ITEM
Ross Cunniff; would be interesting to know – part of the utility engagement – what is the expected 1 Sigma
duration for power outage events? What is the expected kW consumed during those power outage events?
Compare with an option of having natural gas generator which could run continually versus a combination of
that and battery storage which could be used when we are not experience an outage event – during summer –
peak shedding - integrated network as the Mayor spoke to - would be interesting to have some rough analysis
along those lines to help us make this decision.
9
Assuming we return the generators since they are not delivered – maybe with some kind of penalty – which
would be part of the analysis too. Back of the envelope median price of battery storage suggests that for $310K
we could get approximately 1500 Kw hours of storage. If our expected usage falls within those parameters - I
don’t know what is actually available on the market but based on some preliminary analysis - could be used in
during peak times in summer
Mayor Troxell; I was on a call with the Department of Energy - a workshop regarding a funding opportunity for
connected community – communication within buildings across jurisdictional lines. The purpose is to show the
value proposition of having this integrated distributed energy resources across various kinds of buildings - will
be coming out shortly - $42M from the Department of Energy and the awards will be in the range of $7M which
would be roughly the same as a FortZED with cost share which can come from various different resources. We
had a meeting with Intel –available funding for integration while we have a willing partner with Intel if not
others. This is why we have to be engaged in the conversations on how we meet our energy future. This is a
perfect opportunity on how we meet this need and there will be some expenses, but I would rather that the
$310K be spent toward our future and not on a chunk of iron sitting idle most of the time.
Darin Atteberry; Mayor, you bring up excellent points and I would suggest that we put this one on hold
and we take a quick look at what our other opportunities might be. Was this something that was addressed but
wasn’t included in the presentation today or was this really a miss and is there an opportunity?
I just wanted you to be aware that the generators have been purchased and are waiting to be delivered – but
you are correct, there are generation opportunities. Some excellent discussion but I am not ready to go forward
based on the conversation on the last 15 minutes.
Ross Cunniff; I agree - something between 0 and 100% that would be the sweet spot
Darin Atteberry; unless there is a critical need to act right now - I am strongly inclined to say we hold off
Ken Mannon; one of the things that drove up the cost was that the install was at the Streets facility
- We need to switch out the electrical switch gear that drove price up $200K -we had the same kind issue as
we had at EPIC - $200K of $310K is the switch gear piece - the electrical is a big critical piece
Ross Cunniff; I would suggest breaking out the electrical work (rewiring)- that would be needed regardless of
what backup strategy we have – so maybe separate the $200K out of the $540K – some of which we could
recoup if we are able to sell the generators back
Ken Mannon; we could for sure - we actually looked at trying to do some solar out at Larry’s site about 2 years
ago - we had a structural engineer come and look at the roof so we could put some solar up there - but due to
the building age and design - part of that is still the old sugar beet factory and mobile home manufacturer who
were in there. The day we couldn’t get the doors open - panic mode - during a snowstorm we don’t really have
20 minutes to 1 hour to sit and wait for power to come back on – that is what makes this critical
Darin Atteberry; Let me propose – sounds like a portion or all of the supplemental appropriation ought to come
forward. Between now and then, let’s get real answers to questions that Wade is asking - not a surprise –
something we have been driving for a few years now. As Ross suggested, let’s break it out into 2 appropriations;
one being the electrical upgrade that we need to do and then let’s get clarity on other issue
Travis Storin; I want to look into the status of this procurement - what is our flexibility?
10
Darin Atteberry; to the team who is going to be working on this - 2 things to address; it is clear that this is
something we have been trying to do as a city organization – there were reasons why this didn’t work - let’s be
clear about that - let’s say that and not continue down a path that is different than where we are headed - let’s
explore it – I think Wade brings up excellent points – if we can change course midpoint - then let’s do it and
make sure what we bring forward a little more intentional on this question.
Mayor Troxell; let’s view it in a positive go forward learning opportunity to get better perspective
Example of why solar alone doesn’t solve it either because timing may not work - provide the load – power
generation – may need other infrastructure – powering motors is different from turning on lights because of the
reactive power- generators provides motor power – when we think about the future and we actually have
energy resources - needs to be the right kind of switch gear – the outcomes you are trying to achieve as a
neighborhood and not just a building – thought about in an active management perspective -
Great opportunity - great way to think about going forward – great facility for opportunities for integration
For energy future - when we begin to integrate more distributed resources our reliability can go up and our
costs can go down if we architect it right - we are going to be providing one way or the other so might as well be
on a more robust and distributed system – get desirable outcomes in addition to the energy to open the doors
at the right time.
ACTION ITEM:
Address questions by providing a memo outlining proposed resolution / stated path.
Darin Atteberry; stated path or stay the course – we will articulate – supplemental appropriation or
state that – give a timeline or provide compelling business reasons not to - let’s be clear to the Council as to why.
C. Wood St. SCO /NOC Renovation
Adam Bromley, Director, Operations & Technology
Tim McCollough, Deputy Director, Utilities
Lance Smith, Director, Financial Planning & Analysis
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Light & Power Supplemental Appropriation for 2020 Wood Street Remodel
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff recommends bringing forward an off-cycle appropriation package to City Council in May 2020 to fund a
budget gap that exists between budgeted money in 2020 and estimated costs of the 700 Wood Street remodel
project.
This package will provide the funds necessary to complete the joint control room and associated 700 Wood
Street remodel project between Connexion and Light & Power (L&P). L&P will need to appropriate $0.9 M from
reserves, which has already been included in the Utilities’ financial rate strategy informed by the 2019 Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP). In addition to the appropriation from reserves, L&P intends to re-appropriate funds
from other capital accounts to obtain the remaining funds necessary to complete the 700 Wood Street remodel
project.
11
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance Committee support staff’s recommendation to bring forward an off-cycle supplemental
appropriation from L&P reserves to complete a joint control room facility with Connexion?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
In 2018, Light & Power included a budget offer for the 2019-2020 BFO process to update the Supervisory Control
Operations (SCO) center; that offer was approved as part of the council approved 19/20 budget. SCO is the
control room for the electric distribution center; electric system operators direct switching operations in the
field and monitor substation and distribution equipment status to maintain safe, reliable operations of the
electric system. SCO is the only area within 700 Wood Street that was not within the project scope during the
remodel in 2016-17.
The 19/20 approved offer’s budget is $950,000 and the scope of work included the following:
• New electric operator consoles replacing existing consoles that are 30+ years old
• A video display system that integrates with the new enterprise level software systems to display operational
system maps, manage outages, perform advanced distribution management and that replaces the existing
paper wall map
• Replacement of existing raised floor at the end of life
• Upgraded lighting and acoustics
• Asbestos remediation
In 2019, it was determined that several functional groups within the Connexion department (at least 20
employees) would need to be located at 700 Wood Street. Light & Power had already moved some employees
around and out of the building to accommodate the Outside Plant employees for Connexion; as such, there is
little space remaining for additional personnel. Therefore, Connexion and L&P began discussions to obtain a
conceptual design for a remodel within 700 Wood Street that met the following criteria:
• Integrates the network operations (Connexion) and electric system operations (L&P) groups into a
transparent joint control room facility
• Maintain or exceed the existing level of conference room space
• Accommodates the network engineering staff from Connexion
• Provides office/cubicle space for existing L&P staff that are or will be displaced by incoming Connexion
personnel or the new remodel design
Connexion and L&P spent many hours working with Operations Services, the contracted architect, the control
room design consultant, and general contractor to agree on the proposed conceptual design (shown in the
presentation) for the joint control room and associated remodel of 700 Wood Street. This conceptual design
multiplies the affected square footage of the original approved budget item by more than 5 (original – 1,823 ftP
2
Pproposed – 9,829 ftP
2
P). It also includes the following changes not originally included:
• Reconfiguration (moving walls) of SCO including moving the kitchen, break room, and existing bathroom to
create two bathrooms.
• Elimination of existing Poudre, Energy, Horsetooth, and Jetson conference spaces
• Addition of six new conference spaces
• Reconfiguration and displacement of L&P employee workspaces
• Incorporation of network engineering and operations employees and workspaces
• Addition of Connexion lab space
12
Due to the greatly expanded scope of the project, the estimated cost has grown considerably. The total
estimated cost for the project is $4.37 M; current estimates for each department’s share is $1.75 M for
Connexion and $2.62 M for Light & Power. Staff is currently at about 50% design with a 20% contingency budget
included and we expect to refine these estimates as we get closer to an 80% design with 20% contingency. Staff
has already reduced the total cost by over $0.4 M by value engineering line items including an additional coffee
station and the reconfiguration of a small bathroom/locker room. Staff is in process to identify other areas for
potential value engineering and cost reductions.
L&P has $0.95 M already appropriated for this work through the 2019/2020 BFO process; the recommended
approach to obtain the funds necessary to complete the remodel project as described above and to meet the
necessary requirements for Connexion and L&P is to:
• appropriate a portion ($900K) from L&P reserves in an off-cycle appropriation and
• obtain the remainder of the funds ($770K) from other capital accounts within L&P.
The off-cycle appropriation amount is included in L&P’s current rate strategy as it was planned for in the 2019
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
L&P provides proposed capital expenditures for each budget cycle to the Utilities finance department in order to
inform electric rates strategy and future increases. As part of the 2019 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for L&P,
staff anticipated a budget shortfall once discussions with Connexion began and attempted to include the
additional funds necessary through an appropriation to complete the remodel project. This would allow for the
appropriation to be funded directly through electric rate revenues. The line item included in the CIP for this
appropriation was $0.9 M, which is also short of where the current estimates are. However, this action
demonstrates that more than half of the money needed in the appropriation is already included in existing
electric rate strategy and projections and that only an additional $0.77 M is needed to what is currently planned.
One option for the additional funds is to re-appropriate unused capital dollars in our Substation parent account;
with all of the capital work currently planned for in the Substations area, it appears that the parent account
would be able to accommodate this re-appropriation. Another option is for City Council to redirect the approach
on annexation projects planned for the next two years. If those projects were delayed, a portion of the money
appropriated from reserves in January 2020 could be re-appropriated for the completion of this project.
One alternative to the recommended approach above includes an off-cycle appropriation for the entire $1.7 M
funding gap from L&P reserves. This option would be the easiest, but it would not follow the general direction
from the finance department for staff to explore capital projects that could be delayed in order to help match
expected revenue shortcomings. Other options that staff has explored include:
• submit a 2021 budget offer for the remaining funds – this option delays the project about six months and
also poses the risk for cost escalation
• extreme value engineer to reduce overall cost of the remodel – this option decreases quality, functionality,
and efficiency of workspace
• reduce scope to original approved 2020 BFO offer to include SCO only – this option eliminates the synergy of
creating a joint control room for Connexion and L&P and does not accommodate any of the Connexion
personnel that need permanent space.
Not funding the appropriation results in the delay of a permanent working space for Connexion network
operations and engineering personnel and limiting the full value of the upgraded enterprise software systems
(Advanced Distribution Management System and SCADA system) in L&P. L&P staff realizes that the timing of this
request is unfortunate given the current financial unpredictability. However, staff is mindful of the potential for
13
revenues to be below budgeted levels, we don’t anticipate the need for additional off-cycle appropriations in
2020, and as such staff is confident in the recommendation for this off-cycle appropriation.
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS;
L&P share is the gap in available funding - hybrid approach in how we would like to ask for / appropriate this
money- requesting $900K off cycle appropriation from L&P reserves - this amount is in CIP and was included in
our rate strategy and structure. We would like to get the remaining $760K allocated from other L&P accounts –
Substations parent- potentially delays other capital sub work or from Annexations which requires a change in
Council direction. Continue with current schedule to complete the project in mid-2021.
Ross Cunniff: confirming that this project is to accommodate joint shared space between Connexion and L&P
Tim McCollough; two factors that triggered this; we planned to remodel this space anyway and the cost has
escalated with the joint control room facility- we intended to move forward with this to complete our
technology investments with the physical space necessary for our new software systems and yes, it is in line
with Connexion. The increase in square footage is a primary driver in the cost increase – the original scope was
1800 sq. feet and we are now 5000 sq. feet of L&P dedicated space that we are funding it from - the moving of
additional walls, lots of hard construction and increase in square footage – major drivers in increased costs. This
happened because we are looking at the joint facility with Connexion.
Ross Cunniff; L&P portion – until we figure out what can be deferred in the CEP - specifically, I believe that
nothing in the CEP is probably optional but some of it could possibly be delayed without impacting the integrity
of the utility – I want to avoid putting projects in here that are going to lead to us to needing to expand our rates
for recovery of these reserves - that timing would be particularly unfortunate - I don’t want to add additional
costs to our utility customers if we can find a way to avoid it – that is the specific ask I have for the CIP
We really need to make sure it is something we can sustain over multiple years ($770K) however we structure it
in a way that doesn’t not end up with a rate payer impact.
Jeff Mihelich; I can say with confidence that we can absorb the substation appropriation of moving dollars will
have no impact on our ability to sustain our technology investments or reliability – the reason for posing the
question is more about an alternative to slowing down on some of the annexations to our service territory and
taking over from Xcel and Poudre Valley REA – we could easily take it out of the substation account with no
impact or we could un appropriate some dollars and delay growing into those annexed areas - they would stay
with REA or Xcel and it would also limit Connexion’s ability to service customers in those areas as well.
Ross Cunniff; I am not in support of that particular option. Requesting a brief memo summarizing what that
means to any timelines on the substation project list unless you can say it is zero now.
Jeff Mihelich; I can say it is zero now - we have a buffer of reserve in that capital account and we already have
projects in the queue. If Council Finance supports, we could update the AIS to include funding the gap entirely
from the substation account.
Ross Cunniff; reserves available – it that after considering what we know now about construction inflation and
the future projects - part of the overage - inflation - the reserves we are projecting from the Substation account -
does that account for higher than originally projected costs in those Substation capital projects list?
Jeff Mihelich; it does - we account for inflationary growth in all of our capital accounts and our 10-year CIP –
accounts for the potential delaying of projects and escalation of costs
14
Ross Cunniff; based on construction inflation amounts not just Denver / Boulder CPI
Jeff Mihelich; our projects in the substation and the electric utility are more aligned with commodity prices –
typically aluminum and copper – we typically don’t see general inflationary measures follow our projects.
ACTION ITEM:
Ross Cunniff; I can be supportive but would like a brief SAR style follow-up with the substation capital project list
and the amounts projected in the reserves.
Darin Atteberry; Tim - let me go even further as that is a predictable question for capital projects – how does
that effect the rest of the capital? Is Council comfortable with our numbers? I would go beyond the SAR and
Include that information in the AIS going forward to Council. Saying that this question came up in Council
Finance and the attachments that go along with that. Tim, I appreciate your response very much and you
answered the question very satisfactorily, but I think the rest of the Council ought to have the same visibility into
that. Those are the exact questions our rate payers are going to ask when we think about increasing rates.
Mayor Troxell; in terms of this and combining Connexion and L&P into the same NOC is exactly the right kind of
thinking of how these become synergistic and leveraging and important to our future - the distribution utility
will become a bigger player in part because it will be actively managing the distribution grid. Now with fiber –
flow and integration of vehicles – it will be much more complex. I will mention again, possible funding
opportunity with the Department of Energy for connected communities. Some of the cost on this project that
would be reimbursable. That might be another source but I don’t think it aligns time wise so I don’t mean to
push something that doesn’t make sense – there is other revenue that might be available that would be right in
line with what we are talking about here.
Ken Summers; good discussion and questions - whatever we do will need to be well laid out and justified – it will
generate a lot of questions in our current environment and timing is going to be critical. The synergy between
L&P and Connexion will be important moving forward.
Mayor Troxell; thank you for the presentation – I think there is clear direction
Other Business;
A procedural 6-page letter from our auditor BKD is included in the packet.
Mandated that they send this to us as part of the standard operating procedures.
Meeting adjourned 12:01 pm
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Travis Storin
Date: May 18, 2020
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: 2020-2021 Budget and Financial Review
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this agenda item is to review:
• The early known financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic
• The projected 2020-2021 financial scenarios
• Staff governance of the associated recovery work
• Staff recommendations on use of reserves
• Progress against the financial scenarios and remaining shortfall
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
• Does the Committee have specific comments or questions for staff?
• Does the Committee have guidance or input regarding the use of reserves?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
UApril Tax Collections
As discussed with Finance Committee early in the pandemic, staff anticipates that the general
economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic to have a severe impact to City revenues. While
those impacts are still difficult to quantify, April financial results represented the first firm data
point for gaining this understanding. The below table summarizes April sales and use tax
(collections in April on March taxable sales):
Given that the stay-at-home orders and general economic halt did not take hold until mid-to-late
March, an 11% contraction of sales/use tax collections in April indicates a potential 20+%
contraction for May.
UStaff Response Plan
Staff has laid out the below multi-point budget recovery plan across six workstreams:
UCurrent shortfall projections
As part of the Analysis & Forecasting workstream, staff has developed a revenue forecasting
model that allows for individual risk adjustment of approximately 200 different revenue streams
across multiple scenarios. The below table represents the four scenarios staff has developed:
APRIL SUMMARY OVER PRIOR YEAR
Month Year to Date
Net Sales Tax Collected: -7.7% 1.0%
Net Use Tax Collected: -28.4% -19.6%
Net Sales and Use Tax Collected: -11.3% -2.5%
Year to date, sales and use tax collections excluding rebates are down 2.5% and total $45.3M.
APRIL SUMMARY OVER BUDGET
Month Year to Date
Net Sales Tax Collected: -10.0% -0.5%
Net Use Tax Collected: -14.7% -6.0%
Net Sales and Use Tax Collected: -10.7% -1.3%
Year to date, the City has collected 1.3% less sales and use tax revenue, totaling $586K under budget.
Considering continued uncertainty, staff is maintaining all four scenarios are possible. May
results, reported in early June, will heavily inform which scenario is most probable. For purposes
of the current contingency planning work, staff is focused on Scenario C based on April results
and because it will lead scalable recovery options applicable across multiple scenarios.
UUse of reserves
Industry best practices are heavily focused on prescriptive or formulaic maintenance of minimum
reserve balances. However, those best practices are generally silent on advising use of those
reserves. As a result, staff has established a set of judgmental operating principles. The three
possible reserve options are:
• Match staff-identified budget cuts
• Backfill our one-time losses vs. the ongoing shortfall
• Backfill the 3-month deficit experienced during Q2 from reserves; balance the 2020
budget for July-December.
For each option, it’s a core operating principle to draw only an amount that can be reasonably
repaid within a 3-5 year window starting in 2022.
U2020 Scenario Progress
In the weeks since this work has begun, staff has identified $19M in backfill for the 2020
shortfall prior to the use of reserves. Focusing on Scenario C and the use of $10.4M in reserves,
there is an estimated remaining revenue gap of $16.9M.
Staff is transitioning its efforts toward budget adjustments that may have a service level or
program impact. The remainder of May will be spent on establishing a portfolio of options that
over-solve for the gap by a multiple of 2, so that multiple options/configurations can be
considered in how to make up the remaining $17M.
UNext steps
The trigger points for executing on budget cuts with a significant impact to services, employees,
or the community are in June at the earliest. In the meantime, staff is carefully putting together
its contingency plan for each of the four scenarios. The Budget Lead Team is meeting for 2-hour
work sessions throughout May and June and is driving toward a balanced 2020-2021 by July so
as to satisfy the Charter-required City Manager’s Recommended Budget in time for Labor Day.
ATTACHMENTS
PowerPoint Presentation (Attachment 1)
COVID-19: Financial Update
May 18, 2020
2
Agenda
• Review April sales tax collections
• Projected revenue shortfall
• Financial contingencies identified to-date:
• Use of reserves determination
• Citywide guidance/directives
• Tier 1 cuts
• Staff next steps
3
April Sales Tax Results
April Sales & Use Tax Collections
4
*Sales and Use Tax collected in April for economic activity that occurred in March
APRIL SUMMARY OVER PRIOR YEAR
Month Year to Date
Net Sales Tax Collected: -7.7% 1.0%
Net Use Tax Collected: -28.4% -19.6%
Net Sales and Use Tax Collected: -11.3% -2.5%
Year to date, sales and use tax collections excluding rebates are down 2.5% and total $45.3M.
APRIL SUMMARY OVER BUDGET
Month Year to Date
Net Sales Tax Collected: -10.0% -0.5%
Net Use Tax Collected: -14.7% -6.0%
Net Sales and Use Tax Collected: -10.7% -1.3%
Year to date, the City has collected 1.3% less sales and use tax revenue, totaling $586K under budget.
April Sales & Use Tax Collections
Analysis
5
Category % Change* Amount
Grocery, Convenience, Liquor 29% $370k
Pharmacy, Salon and Laundry 12% $56k
Miscellaneous Retailers 5% $41k
Vehicle Sales, Parts and Repair -25% -$176k
Sporting, Hobby, Book, Music -30% $116k
Restaurants, Caterers and Bars -39% -$618k
Clothing and Accessories -49% -$175k
Lodging -61% -$139k
*Compared to April 2019
6
Contingency Plan Status & Revenue Projections
Workstream Updates
7
Workstream Lead Status
Analysis & Forecasting David Lenz Reported to ELT 5/6
Cost Initiatives / Service
Adjustments
Jo Cech 5/14 BLT Session
Workforce Alternatives Karen Burke 5/14 BLT Session
Budget Process Lawrence Pollack Sellers kick-off 5/11
Federal & State Aid SeonAh Kendall
Blaine Dunn
Reported to 4/15; Sponsor update on
5/19
Communications Amanda King Multi-part Coloradoan series began
5/17
Revenue Impact Methodology
8
• Includes modeling of all Governmental Revenue impacts
• Estimates of impact in relation to macroeconomic conditions
• Retail Sales Tax segmentation:
• 18 reporting categories, risk adjusted
• Use tax segmentation:
• Autos, building permits, returns tax
• City Specific Facilities – Recreation, Cultural Services, Transportation
• Accounting for shutdowns and reduced service levels
• Property Tax – valuation for 2020/2021 established – potential collections issue
• Grants – limited impacts expected
• Licenses/Fees/Fines – will reduce with overall economic decline
Revenue Scenario Details
9
Item Scenario
A
Scenario
B
Scenario
C
Scenario
D
2Q Economic Downturn (10%) (15%) (20%) (25%)
Downturn months 3 4 5 5
Recovery months 4 4 6 9
Recovery level (% of base) 95% 95% 92.5% 90%
Sales Tax 2020 (% change) (11%) (15%) (19%) (22%)
Use Tax 2020 (% change) (11%) (16%) (22%) (25%)
2020 Revenue Shortfall ($25 M) ($34 M) ($46 M) ($53 M)
2021 Revenue Shortfall ($13 M) ($14 M) ($21 M) ($30 M)
10
2019 Fund Balances and Use of Reserves
11
2018 2019
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
General Fund non-emergency $ 33.3 $ 38.1 $ 24.9 $ 2.6 $ 10.6
General Fund emergency 33.0 33.7 33.7 - -
Capital Expansion Fund 19.5 22.9 1.5 21.4 -
Sales & Use Tax Fund 0.8 0.8 0.8 - -
GID #1 Fund 0.7 0.9 - 0.9 -
Keep Fort Collins Great Fund 9.8 8.5 5.5 3.0 -
Community Capital Imprvmt Plan 12.7 11.5 7.8 3.7 -
Neighborhood Parkland Fund 10.1 9.2 5.4 3.8 -
Conservation Trust Fund 2.3 2.8 0.9 1.9 -
Natural Areas Fund 18.6 19.5 9.2 10.3 -
Cultural Services Fund 2.2 2.3 0.5 0.9 0.9
Recreation Fund 2.5 2.6 0.7 1.9 -
Cemeteries Fund 0.8 0.5 0.5 - -
Perpetual Care Fund 2.0 2.0 - 2.0 -
Museum Fund 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.6 -
Transportation Capital Expansion 24.9 24.2 9.4 14.8 -
Transportation 14.6 13.5 4.2 1.4 7.9
Parking Fund 1.5 1.5 0.3 1.2 -
Capital Projects Fund 12.0 24.7 22.2 2.5 -
Equipment Fund 3.6 2.9 1.6 1.3 -
Self Insurance Fund 2.7 1.7 2.2 (0.5) -
Data & Communications Fund 3.4 3.1 0.7 0.8 1.6
Benefits Fund 11.7 15.3 7.2 8.1 -
TOTAL $ 224.1 $ 243.6 $ 139.6 $ 83.0 $ 21.0
65.0 Available for shortfall, subject to source constraints
2.8 Researching -- could be $2.8M or more available here (was to be used for Vine/Lemay)
All Governmental Funds
12
Reserve philosophy discussion
• Aim to replenish reserves within 5-year window (starting from 1/1/2022)
• i.e., don’t draw more than can be reasonably paid back (~$5M/year)
• Lower boundary: match our staff-identified cuts
• Mid-range: Backfill our one-time loss vs. ongoing gap
• Upper boundary: 3-month revenue deficit we’re experiencing Apr-Jun
13
Status of Shortfall
14
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D
2020 Revenue Shortfall* $25M $34M $46M $53M
Federal and State COVID-19
Funding
$6.5M $6.5M $6.5M $6.5M
Spending Reductions:
Non-Personnel
$8.7M $8.7M $8.7M $8.7M
Spending Reductions: Personnel $3.5M $3.5M $3.5M $3.5M
Use of Reserve
Funding
$6.3M $10.4M ~ $15.3M $10.4M ~ $19.4M $10.4M ~ $20.6M
Subtotal $25.0M $29.1M ~ $34.0M $29.1M ~ $38.1M $29.1M ~ $39.3M
Remaining Gap -- $0 ~ $4.9M $7.9M ~ $16.9M $13.7M ~ $23.9M
2020 Scenario Progress w/
Reserves
* Governmental Revenue only, does not include Utility funds
15
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D
Use of Reserve
Funding
$6.3M $10.4M ~ $15.3M $10.4M ~ $19.4M $10.4M ~ $20.6M
Remaining Gap -- $0 ~ $4.9M $7.9M ~ $16.9M $13.7M ~ $23.9M
2020 Scenario Progress w/
Reserves
* Governmental Revenue only, does not include Utility funds
Within Scenario C:
• If $10.4M reserves used in 2020, $3M in 2021. City solves remainder with ongoing cuts:
• Payback period of 2.5 years after 2021
• If $19.4M reserves used in 2020, $12M in 2021. City solves remainder with ongoing cuts:
• Payback period of ~5 years after 2021
16
Citywide initiatives (in flight)
• Suspend City picnic and employee recognition week
• Suspend use of DBA giftcards
• All non-essential, non-accreditation-based travel and training
• All non-travel food, including Boards and Commissions (Council??)
• Overtime only for police and public works emergencies – all other OT
subject to SA Director advance approval with preference to offset
• Any price increase on a contract renewal subject to Purchasing Director
and CFO review
17
Tier 1 Non-personnel Submissions
Tier 1 Reductions
2020 Non-
Personnel Budget
% of overall non-
Personnel
Budget
Cuts in
Governmental
Funds
Cuts in Non-
Governmental
Funds Total Cuts
% of SA
Budget Cut
Police Services 8,839,211 7.4% 509,854 - 509,854 5.8%
Financial Services 1,063,415 0.9% 23,701 70,405 94,106 8.8%
Community Services 29,641,929 24.9% 337,631 5,113 342,744 1.2%
Planning, Development, & Transportation 53,578,002 44.9% 15,404,383 283,410 15,687,793 29.3%
Executive Services 1,003,206 0.8% 211,454 - 211,454 21.1%
Judicial Services 337,972 0.3% 9,913 - 9,913 2.9%
Legal Services 287,041 0.2% 19,924 - 19,924 6.9%
Information/Employee Services 15,431,579 12.9% 194,770 174,368 369,138 2.4%
Sustainability Services 2,548,335 2.1% 175,804 1,800 177,604 7.0%
Other 6,498,466 5.5% - - - 0.0%
Total Governmental 119,229,155 100.0% 16,887,434 535,096 17,422,530 14.6%
Utility Services, excl. Purch Power 70,582,878 100% 0 1,068,167 1,068,167 1.5%
18
Tier 1 Non-personnel Submissions
• $5.3M adjustment to Street Maintenance Program budget
• $9.5M capital project deferrals:
• $3.3M Linden St.
• $3.0M Lemay/Vine
• $1.3M other TCEF funding (Sharp Point, Harmony/Strauss
Cabin, Power Trail Grade Sep)
• $1.4M Discretionary: Travel/training/consulting
• $460K Supplies
19
Next steps
• Expense gap of $17M to solve
• Based on Scenario C and $13-14M use of reserves in 2020-2021
• Plan must be identified ASAP, but the trigger points are in June at earliest
• BLT to convene starting 5/14 for 2-hour sessions throughout May/June
• Toolset include 2019 contingency plans, T2/3 non-personnel items, and
2020 BFO Drilling Platform
• Driving towards a balanced 2020-2021 by July, CM-recommended Budget by
Labor Day
20
Next steps
• Discussion:
• Does the Finance Committee have any questions/input to share
regarding staff’s status and timeline
• Is there a desired update cadence/forum in addition Finance
Committee?
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Drew Brooks, Transfort & Parking Director
Noelle Currell, Planning Development & Transportation Finance Manager
Date: May 18, 2020
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Multi-Modal Options Funding Grant Appropriation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The West Elizabeth travel corridor is currently the highest priority pedestrian/alternative mode
area for improvement in the City and was highlighted in City Plan and the Transit Master Plan.
The City was awarded a $750,000 Multi-Modal Options Funding (MMOF) grant from the North
Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) to help complete 30% design of
the project. Colorado State University (CSU) has appropriated $375,000 to help fulfill the grant
match requirements. The City will be required to bring $375,000 in local funds to fulfill the total
match and complete the $1.5M design.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Is Council Finance supportive of an out of cycle supplemental appropriation for the Multi-Modal
Options Fund (MMOF) and required local match to complete 30% design for West Elizabeth
Enhanced Travel Corridor?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
UMMOF Background
In December 2019, the NFRMPO did a call for projects for the MMOF grants. The City
was awarded all 4 projects for which is applied.
Projects include:
• West Elizabeth 30% Design – Award $750,000
• Transfort Compressed Natural Gas Bus Replacements - $908,091
• Siphon Overpass - $500,000
• Laporte Avenue - $250,000
Both the Siphon Overpass and the Laporte Avenue Grant Appropriations and related
Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA) will be brought forward for review in Spring 2021.
The bus replacement IGA and corresponding appropriation will be brought forward on
consent as no additional matching funds are required.
UWest Elizbeth Corridor Background
The West Elizabeth Corridor is currently the most productive transit area and one of the
highest pedestrian use areas within the City.
• It has more passengers per revenue hour than Max and there are often times where
“trailer” buses are required in order to accommodate all the passengers.
• Most passengers are going to/from CSU. This includes CSU’s foothills campus
which is harder for Transit to access due to the limited ability to turn buses around
at Overland Trail.
• Current bike/ped count data show extremely high usage and potential for modal
conflict at the major intersection of W. Elizabeth and City Park Ave (see
Attachment 2 for August 2019 traffic pattern and bike/ped data).
Design along this corridor is expected to allow for safer travel for all modes and a more
direct route for buses which will include a turn around at the end of Elizabeth which
could help lead to some route consolidation.
Due to the many factors and current condition of this corridor, it is one of the top priority
areas for improvement within the City and has specifically been highlighted in the Transit
Master Plan as the highest priority project.
Staff is recommending doing the appropriation currently for several reasons:
• There is an extremely long lead time between 30% Design and final project completion.
• 30% Design completion will enable the City to submit for the Federal Transit Authority
(FTA) Small Starts grant program; historically, projects have not been able to request
this grant without being at 30% design.
• Having this project get to a “shovel ready” status could help boost the local economy as
it comes out of the COVID recession.
• The project funds are highly leveraged in that CSU is contributing $375,000 to the
project
• Transit Reserves which will be utilized for the local match are healthy and due to Federal
CARES funding are not expected to take an impact like other City funds.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Council Finance PowerPoint Presentation
2. August 2019 Traffic Data from Intersection of W. Elizabeth and City Park Ave.
1
Multi-Modal Options Fund Grant Appropriation
Drew Brooks, Noelle Currell – May 18, 2020
Council Direction Sought
Is Council Finance supportive of an out of cycle supplemental
appropriation for the Multi-Modal Options Fund (MMOF) and required
local match to complete 30% design for West Elizabeth Enhanced
Travel Corridor?
2
MMOF Program History
• State Grant administered through North Front Range Metropolitan
Planning Organization
• Call for projects in December 2019
• City of Fort Collins awarded all 4 projects which were submitted (final
notification of award on April 2, 2020)
• Speaking specifically to only 1 project today
• Grant requires 50% local match
• All funds must be expended by June 2023
• Signed IGAs must be in place by December 2021
3
W. Elizabeth Corridor History
• Highest Ridership Corridor
• High Priority Enhanced Travel
Corridor
• Council Priority
• Transit Master Plan
Priority
• Substantial Multi-Modal
Improvement
Recommendations
4
West Elizabeth Corridor Design Project
• Funding will complete 30% Design
• Allows for project to be eligible for FTA
Small Starts Grant Funding (same
grant that was utilized for MAX)
• Leveraged funds/partnership - CSU
contributing $375k
5
MMOF Grant $ 750,000
Transit Reserves $ 375,000
CSU Funds $ 375,000
Total Project Cost $ 1,500,000
Council Direction Sought
Is Council Finance supportive of an out of cycle supplemental
appropriation for the Multi-Modal Options Fund (MMOF) and required
local match to complete 30% design for West Elizabeth Enhanced
Travel Corridor?
6
Backup
7
Transit Fund Reserves Trend
8
$3.3 $3.5
$1.5
($0.3) ($1.8)
$4.2 $3.4
$6.3 $6.5
-5.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
2012A 2013A 2014A 2015A 2016A 2017A 2018A 2019A 2020B
$ Millions
290 - Transit Fund: Revenue, Expense & Balance
Balance Revenue Expenses A = Actual B= Budget
Additional MMOF Grants Awarded
Laporte (Fishback to
Sunset)
Siphon Overpass Transfort Buses
Project
Description
Bike/Ped improvements
to connect high school
sidewalks
Pedestrian overpass
over Union Pacific
Railroad
Purchase of 3 CNG
buses
Total Project
Budget $3.2M $3.4M $1.9M
MMOF Grant /
Local Match $250k / $250k $500k / $500k $910k / $0
Anticipated
Appropriation
Request
Spring 2021 Spring 2021 ASAP (on consent)
9
Siphon Overpass of Union Pacific Railway
• Currently a 2-mile gap between at-grade railroad crossings
(Harmony Road and Trilby Road)
• Many people crossing railroad tracks at unauthorized
locations
• Construction of pedestrian/bicycle overpass of Union
Pacific Railroad
• Connection of Power Trail to Timberline Road
10
MMOF Grant $ 500,000
Grant Match $ 500,000
Bike/Ped Grade Separated
Crossing CCIP $ 1,600,000
Park Planning
Conservation Trust Funds $ 500,000
Pending BFO Request $ 300,000
Total Project Cost $ 3,400,000
Laporte Avenue (Fishback to Sunset)
• 1-mile corridor with substantial gaps in sidewalk and bike
lanes
• Significant multi-modal use due to adjacent residential and
Poudre High School
• Project will construct sidewalk, curb and gutter, protected and
on-street bike lanes, and multi-use paths in various segments
throughout corridor
• Separate locally funded project will replace two deficient
bridges on Laporte near Grandview Cemetery
11
MMOF Grant $ 250,000
Pending BFO Request $ 1,100,000
TAP Grant $ 750,000
Grant Matches $ 437,000
Bike/Ped CCIP $ 650,000
Total Project Cost $ 3,187,500
New Buses for Transfort
• In 2016 Transfort was awarded $950,000 in
FY21 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
funding for the purchase of two Compressed
Natural Gas buses.
• MMOF funds will allow Transfort to purchase
an additional vehicle, for a total of three (3)
buses
• MMOF projects must be completed, invoiced
and reimbursed by June 2023
• No local match is needed
12
MMOF Grant $ 908,091
CMAQ $ 950,000
Transit Reserves $ 1,909
Total Project Cost $ 1,860,000
Overview of Projects
13
Project Total
Budget
MMOF
Funds TAP Funds
CSU
Funds
CMAQ
Funds
Total COFC
Funds
Grant Match
(COFC
Funds)
Other COFC
Funds Additional Notes/COFC Funds:
Laporte (Fishback to Sunset) -
Non-bridge portion 3,187,500 250,000 750,000 2,187,500 437,500 1,750,000
-$2.2M of Bridge funds previously approved (separate project not included here)
-$1.1M 2021 BFO request (option for value Engineering)
-$437k grant match ($250k MMOF, $187.5k TAP)
-$400k CCIP Ped Program Funds
-$250k CCIP Bike Program
Siphon Overpass 3,400,000 500,000 2,900,000 500,000 2,400,000
-$1.6M of CCIP Bike/Ped Grade Separated Crossing
-$500k of MMOF Grant Match
-$500k of Park Planning Conservation Trust Funds
-$300k Other (Bike, SRTS, other grants?)
W. Elizabeth Corridor 1,500,000 750,000 375,000 375,000 375,000
Transfort Buses 1,860,000 910,000 950,000 -
*Also applied for $1,198,129 in Low-No funds, IF we win we'll need local match in the
amount of $469,310. If we don't win we'll just buy CNG buses with the CMAQ + MMOF
and will not need any additional local funds. And that's for the 2021 bus purchase.
If we get Low-No then we get 3 electric buses and charging infrastructure needed.
Total 9,947,500 2,410,000 750,000 375,000 950,000 5,462,500 1,312,500 4,150,000
*outstanding funding needs in blue
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Nina Bodenhamer, Director, City Give
Date: May 18, 2020
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION City Give: Ensuring the Public’s Trust
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Give’s transparent, non-partisan operational protocols and governance structure is intended to
uphold the public’s trust as we marry charitable giving with civic priorities and the City’s strategic
objectives.
City Give’s structure reflects a dedicated commitment to transparent governance and builds upon:
• Conversations with donors, residents, community partners, volunteers and business leaders;
• Peer examination, input and collaboration with organizations ranging from our own
Community Foundation of Norther Colorado to consistent technical assistance from
Bloomberg Philanthropies.
• Tightly intertwined policy and protocol development between philanthropic practices and
financial governance;
• And, reliance on time-tested, best-practices for public charities.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Discussion: How does City Give, an operational initiative, safeguard against potential conflicts of
interest between charitable giving and the City of Fort Collins?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Concerns for the influence philanthropy exerts on public institutions have been explored for decades.
In response, public institutions have heavily invested in philanthropic governance models, internal
fiduciary controls, conflicts of interest policy, and charitable gift management.
These historic models of philanthropy have much to offer as municipalities turn to philanthropy as a
viable source of funding public service.
The City of Fort Collins has long been the beneficiary of community giving. However, historically, no
uniformed pathway existed for the governance, reporting and accountability of charitable gifts. The
establishment of City Give is a pioneering first critical step to address public accountability and
transparency related to charitable giving.
To ensure City policy and service delivery remain independent of intentional or unintentional donor
influence, City Give has developed a range of operational checks & balances. Including:
• Philanthropic Administrative Policy
• Financial Governance Policy: enterprise-wide protocols for the acceptance, tracking and
reporting of charitable gifts.
• Hands-on tools and staff training for donor stewardship, and the legal and fiduciary controls
of charitable gifts; and,
• A fundraising portfolio of projects directly aligned with the City’s strategic objectives and
public good.
ATTACHMENT City Give Questions & Answers, Philanthropic Administrative Policy, Philanthropic
Financial Policy
DOES MY DONATION END UP
IN THE GENERAL FUND?
No. Charitable gifts to the City can
only be used for the intended purpose.
Charitable gifts to the City of Fort Collins
are delivered directly into the budgets of
benefiting projects, and can’t be redirected
by elected officials or City staff.
DOES CITY GIVE CHARGE A
FEE ON CHARITABLE GIFTS?
No. Philanthropic gifts are not charged
administrative fees by City Give or the
City of Fort Collins. All gifts to the City
go fully and directly to the project or
program you choose.
IS THERE A RELIABLE
PROCESS FOR GIVING TO
THE CITY?
Strong oversight of philanthropic gifts is
a priority, and the City of Fort Collins has
created multiple layers of accountability
and transparency for donated funds and
the projects receiving donated funds. City
Give is subject to the City’s policies and
regulations, including the City’s accounting
and conflict of interest policies.
IS A DONATION TO THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TAX DEDUCTIBLE?
Yes. Per IRS code 26 U.S.C. 170(c)(1), a
gift to a local government entity is tax
deductible if the gift is for public purpose.
All donors receive a charitable tax receipt
verifying each gift.
CAN I MAKE AN
ANONYMOUS GIFT?
The City will work diligently to protect
and maintain the confidentiality of a
donor’s name and privileged information
at a donor’s request. And, City staff will
not disclose privileged or confidential
information to unauthorized parties at
any time for any purpose. However, the
City of Collins as a public institution, may
be required legally to provide details of a
charitable gift under the Colorado Open
Records Act in Title 24, Article 72, Part 2 of
the Colorado Revised Statutes (CORA).
The City of Fort Collins has long
been the beneficiary of charitable
giving: The Senior Center, Inspiration
Playground, conservation
easements, The Lincoln Center. And,
most recently, the Poudre River
Whitewater Park and improvements
to Eastside Park. And, there are
countless ways charitable giving
impacts City services: climate action,
parks and recreation, performing
arts, and the list goes on.
IS THIS A WAY FOR DONORS
TO CREATE PET PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY?
No, charitable giving is not a political vehicle
or beyond the scope and transparency of
the public oversight. Charitable gifts must
reflect the priorities and needs of the City
of Fort Collins, and align with City Plan and
the City’s strategic objectives.
WHY DID THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS CREATE CITY GIVE?
We heard from residents, colleagues and
donors that we needed to “get our charitable
house in order” and that is exactly what we
did. This new structure to facilitate municipal
giving reflects considerable thought and
conversations within Fort Collins and with
other communities across the country.
Our unique model creates an organized,
transparent structure for quickly getting
charitable gifts directly to the projects that
can best benefit from support.
IS COMMUNITY GIVING
A “WORK AROUND” TO
FILL GAPS IN THE CITY’S
OPERATING BUDGET?
No, however community needs are always
deeper than any City’s budget. Charitable gifts
are a vehicle to expand and enrich City pro-
grams and services: from youth recreation to
public art, from neighborhood park improve-
ments to urban gardens, from the performing
arts to the preservation of open spaces.
HOW DOES CITY GIVE
MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN
OUR COMMUNITY?
When you donate to City Give, it is an invest-
ment in the potential of what our City has
to offer. Fort Collins will continue to grow
and change, and we want to keep – or even
expand – the same level of excellent service
and experiences for which we are known.
HOW DO I MAKE A GIFT TO
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS?
Checks can be made payable to City of
Fort Collins, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort
Collins, CO 80524, Attention: City Give.
Or, contact Nina Bodenhamer, City Give
Director at 970-221-6687.
WHAT ARE SOME OF
THE CURRENT CITY
GIVE PROJECTS?
The City Give portfolio includes a growing
range of giving opportunities, including
the future 9/11 Memorial Park; Restorative
Justice, a juvenile diversion program; and,
our parks and trails. City Give also hosts
online giving campaigns including, Give to
Serve and Share Some Shade.
Page 1 of 4
Issue Date: 1-2019
Version: 1
Issued by: D. Atteberry
1.1 PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT
The City of Fort Collins (City) will pursue philanthropic support that is consistent with the City’s goals and objectives, and in
the best interests of Fort Collins residents. The City will always consider the public trust and comply with all applicable laws
when accepting philanthropic donations. It reserves the right to decline any charitable gift if, upon review, acceptance of the
donation offer is determined in the sole discretion of the City not to be in the best interests of the City.
Existing and future philanthropic activities across departments, programs, and projects within the City will be housed under
the umbrella of City Give--an approved and City-initiated program. It is an organizational tool to strengthen, orchestrate, and
enhance philanthropic partnerships and charitable giving efforts that benefit Fort Collins. City Give policy applies to all funds
and Service Areas of the City, and corresponds, relates and refers to Philnathropic Financial Governance Policy.
The mission of City Give is to advance City of Fort Collins’ public initiatives and strategic objectives through charitable and
philanthropic giving in a commitment to strengthen and enhance residents’ quality of life. City Give is funded and staffed
by the City of Fort Collins, and was developed as a unit of CoFC Finance Department in 2019.
A charitable gift is defined as a complete, voluntary transfer of assets from a person, business, or organization to the City, with
no goods or services expected, implied, or forthcoming in return to the donor. The following criteria generally identify a
charitable gift:
• Gifts are motivated by philanthropic intent;
• Gifts are transfers of assets to the City’s control for which the City is not obligated to return any unexpended
funds or other transferred assets;
• Gifts are not generally subject to an exchange of consideration or other contractual duties between the City and
the donor, although objectives may be stated and funds may be restricted to specific purposes; and
• Funds or other assets received from foundations, family foundations, corporations, and corporate foundations
will be classified as gifts unless they require compensation, performance or other consideration that results in
funds or other assets being designated as payment for a sponsorship or other benefit to the donor.
Charitable gifts and donations—raised from the philanthropic sector of foundations, corporations, and individuals to
support public initiatives of the City of Fort Collins—will be made directly to the City of Fort Collins. Acceptance,
stewardship, tracking, and expenditures of all charitable gifts are governed by City Administrative and Finance
Governance Policy with great attention to transparency and accountability.
The acceptance of charitable gifts and the development of philanthropic partnerships will comply with the City’s Conflicts of Interest
provisions in City Charter Article IV, Section 9 and its Ethical Rules of Conduct in City Code Section 2-568.
City Give Administrative Policy • Page 2 of 4
1.2 SELECTION AND PRIORITIES OF PROGRAMS FOR PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT
To ensure all fundraising efforts that benefit the City are conducted in a strategic and coordinated manner, the following
establishes a process for the selection and prioritization of philanthropic solicitations and fundraising campaigns.
Philanthropic campaigns include all requests to solicit charitable contributions from individuals, foundations, businesses,
corporations, and organizations, and will be subject to enterprise-wide coordination and identified for prioritization by the
City Manager and Chief Financial Officer.
All projects identified for philanthropic support must serve the best interests of residents and demonstrate effective,
efficient use of resources.
All fundraising campaigns will support the City’s objectives, policies, and key outcome areas identified through the
City’s Strategic Plan. Strategic fundraising campaigns will include but not be limited to:
Facilities, Capital Development and Expansion, and Infrastructure
A capital development and/or expansion campaign is a Council-led, organized effort to collect and accumulate substantial
funds to finance major needs of the City such as capital development or expansion, infrastructure build, or major facility
renovation and/or repair.
All facilities, capital development and expansion, and infrastructure projects identified for philanthropic support will
include—at the request of the City Manager—a philanthropic feasibility study to address the following:
a. Rationale: alignment with City strategic plan and priorities;
b. Financial goals;
c. Community capacity, targeted constituents, and projected sources of revenue (i.e., private gifts, grants, etc.);
d. Timeline and duration of campaign;
e. Partnerships and parties involved; and
f. Required resources, including marketing materials.
Strategic Objectives, Short-Term Projects and Departmental Programming
Fundraising for short-term projects and organizational programming priorities will be aligned with strategic objectives and
key outcomes, approved by the City Manager, and will include:
• Projects and campaigns identified by senior leadership with feasibility and strategy informed by City
Give;
• Proposals and projects developed within City service areas, approved by service area directors, and endorsed by
City Give; and
• Proposals developed and approved, in collaboration with City service areas and/or community partners, by
City Give.
City Give Administrative Policy • Page 3 of 4
Special Projects / General Fundraising
There are occasions where fundraising has been approved for an initiative where there is no lead donor or specified
timeline. Examples of this include crowdfunding initiatives and ongoing endowment funds. In these circumstances, internal
functional fund agreements (FFAs) will be drafted by City Give and approved and signed by the director of the benefiting
service area.
The purpose of the FFA is to document the fund’s purpose, fundraising requirements and deadlines, alternative uses if
required gift minimums are not reached, restrictions on gift designation and/or use, and recognition, as well as any other
obligations.
Fundraising priorities will be determined by the City Manager and Chief Financial Officer to ensure philanthropic
strategies are aligned with the City’s priorities, and must serve the best interests of residents and demonstrate effective,
efficient use of resources.
1.3 NAMING & RECOGNITION POLICY TBD Q2 2020
1.4 PHILANTHROPIC RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT
Philanthropic Relationship Management is the identification, orchestration, and management of relationships with
community stakeholders, charitable donors and philanthropic organizations on behalf of the City.
This policy helps ensure that the City’s philanthropic relationships are managed in a collaborative and professional
manner that will maximize the City’s ability to steward charitable donations, fully engage its constituents, and
ultimately fulfill the City’s mission and the donors’ philanthropic goals. Philanthropic relationship management will:
• Align the City’s strategic priorities with donor values and giving interests;
• Proactively cultivate and maintain relationships compatible with City priorities;
• Maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of philanthropic activities; and
• Avoid duplicated and/or uncoordinated requests for charitable support.
Because many donors and philanthropic partners have varied and multiple interests, City Give will serve as concierge on
behalf of the City for those individuals and organizations identified as Key Organizational Relationships, made up of:
• Individuals, businesses, and/or organizations with a history of municipal and philanthropic
engagement;
• Previous, current and prospective charitable donors to the City;
• Local, regional, state and national philanthropic organizations;
• Community stakeholders and individual donors with a vested interest in and/or passion for our community;
and
• Regional, family, and corporate foundations, businesses, organizations, and philanthropic partnerships that touch
varied and diverse service areas within the City.
City Give Administrative Policy • Page 4 of 4
All requests of Key Organizational Relationships for charitable gifts, philanthropic partnerships, community engagement
(including public endorsements, letters of support), event sponsorships, in-kind support, or philanthropic support will be
facilitated through City Give.
1.5 CONFIDENTIALITY AND DOCUMENT CURATION
The City is committed to safeguarding the privacy and confidentiality of charitable donors or prospective donors to the full
extent permitted by law, including their names, addresses, telephone numbers, and emails. Protecting the privacy of its
beneficiaries is of the utmost concern to the City. However, most of the records in the City’s possession are public records
subject to public inspection under the Colorado Open Records Act in Title 24, Article 72, Part 2 of the Colorado Revised
Statutes (CORA).
Therefore, any information supplied to the City by donors will only be used by the City to fulfill the donors’ intent in making
the donation unless the City is required under CORA or court order to release such information or the donor has given the
City permission to release the information. The actions of collecting, accessing, using, destroying, or disclosing confidential
information may only occur within the scope of a City employee’s responsibilities.
City Give will document, track, and store all fully executed records of donor relations, gift agreements, and grant awards,
including donor’s intended use and all defined terms of charitable gifts.
City staff will exercise reasonable effort to secure and protect from inadvertent disclosure any confidential information in
hard copy or downloaded to or stored on any type of electronic device (e.g., computer, mobile device, etc.) or peripheral
device (e.g., memory card, external hard drive, etc.).
1.5 501(C)(3) PARTNERSHIPS, AND VOLUNTEER AND EXTERNAL FUNDRAISERS
The City values the generosity and passion of community advocates. These entities provide valuable assistance in
public outreach, fundraising, and support for the City’s mission.
At the same time, as a public trust and the beneficiary of the funds raised, the City is obligated to require that the funds raised
by such entities be adequately managed and properly expended in the same manner as if the funds were raised by the City
itself.
In an effort to establish best practices, allocate the resources, and develop effective partnerships, fundraising campaigns and
special project funds to benefit the City will be guided by a Memo of Understanding (MOU)
to address solicitation protocols, relationship orchestration, potential conflicts of interest, codes of ethics, and donor
confidentiality procedures.
• MOU’s will be drafted, finalized and recommended for approval by City Give; and
• MOU’s will be approved and signed by the City Manager, Director of the benefited service area, and Board Chair
of the partnering 501(c)(3) organization or a primary representative of the volunteer or external fundraisers.
All and any charitable gifts to benefit the City generated by 501(c)(3) Partnerships, and Volunteer and
External Fundraisers are subject to the Gift Acceptance, Gift Agreement, and Donor Acknowledgement policy outlined in
Finance Governance Policy.
Issue Date: 11-2019
Version: 2
Issued by: D. Atteberry
Page 1 of 5
52.1 OVERVIEW
A. Charitable gifts will only be accepted when they have a purpose consistent with the goals and
objectives of the City of Fort Collins (City) and are in the best interest of the City and its residents. The
City will always consider the public trust and comply with all applicable laws when accepting donations.
B. The City reserves the right to decline any charitable gift if, upon review, acceptance of the donation offer
is determined in the sole discretion of the City to be not in the best interests of the City or its residents.
C. A “gift” is defined as a complete, voluntary transfer of an asset from a person, entity or an
organization to the City where no compensation, goods or services are expected, implied, or
forthcoming in return from the City to the donor. Gifts usually take the form of cash, real property,
and/or personal property. Charitable gifts may be accepted by the City in the form of cash, real
property and/or personal property.
1. Restricted or designated charitable gifts are donations the donor specifies for a particular City
service area, program, or purpose; and
2. Unrestricted or undesignated charitable gifts are donations given to the City for an unspecified use.
D. The following criteria generally identify a charitable gift:
1. Gifts are motivated by philanthropic intent;
2. Gifts are transfers of assets to the City’s control for which the City is not obliged to return any
unexpended funds or other transferred assets;
3. Charitable gifts are not generally subject to an exchange of consideration or other contractual
duties between the City and the donor, although objectives may be stated and funds may be
restricted to specific purposes; and
4. Funds and other assets received from foundations, family foundations, corporations, and
corporate foundations will be classified as gifts unless they require compensation, performance
or other consideration that result in funds or other assets being designated as a payment for a
sponsorship or other benefit to the donor.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this policy is to establish a process for acceptance and documentation of donations made to
the City of Fort Collins. This policy also establishes the standards and duties for City officials and employees
regarding the acceptance of philanthropic gifts.
OBJECTIVES:
1. To establish and guide relationships with
donors who share the City’s commitment to
provide a high-quality civic environment; and
2. To responsibly and efficiently manage
charitable gifts;
APPLICABILITY:
This City Give policy applies to all funds and
Service Areas of the City of Fort Collins
This City Give policy corresponds, relates and
refers to City Give Administrative Policy.
FINANCIAL GOVERNANCE
POLICY
CITY GIVE
Financial Policy • City Give Governance • Page 2 of 5
E. The City will make every effort to accommodate and accept all gifts from donors. However, it will not
accept gifts that:
1. Violate a federal, state, or local law;
2. Are too difficult or expensive to administer;
3. Could create unacceptable liability or cause the City to incur future unanticipated or anticipated
expenses;
4. Are for purposes that do not further the City’s mission;
5. Could damage the reputation of the City; or
6. Provide a donor with goods or services of financial value in exchange for the donor’s gift, unless
such value is fully disclosed in the time and manner as required under federal, state and local
laws and regulations.
52.2 ACCEPTANCE OF CHARITABLE GIFTS OF CASH, REAL PROPERTY AND PERSONAL
PROPERTY TO BENEFIT THE CITY
A. All donations to the City, including offers to employees related to the City, shall immediately
be submitted to the City Give Director for consideration of acceptance. Based on the value of
the donation offered as outlined below, appropriate City staff or City Council shall review every
donation and determine if the benefits to be derived warrant acceptance of it.
B. The City reserves the right to decline any charitable gift if, upon review, acceptance of the donation
offer is determined, at the sole discretion of the City, not to be in the best interests of the City or its
residents.
C. Charitable donations of cash, real property or personal property valued at $5,000 or below may be
accepted by the Director of the benefited service area.
D. Charitable donations of cash, real property and personal property valued at more than $5,000 and
up to $1,000,000 may be accepted by the City Manager. The City Manger reserves the right to refer
the acceptance of any charitable gift to City Council for acceptance.
E. Charitable donations of cash, real property and personal property valued between $100,000 and
$1,000,000 shall require notification of City Council by the City Manager.
F. Donations valued at $25,000 or more shall be accepted through a written agreement consistent
with this Policy.
G. For any charitable cash gifts accepted by the City, a Charitable Gift Acceptance Form is to be
completed by the receiving service area Director or by the City Manager and submitted to City Give
Director.
H. Charitable donations do not become the property of the City until accepted by the City consistent
with this Policy.
I. Offers of donations for gratuitous purposes (e.g. holiday gift baskets, etc.) to any employee,
department or the City shall be made available to benefit all employees.
Financial Policy • City Give Governance • Page 3 of 5
52.3 GIFT AGREEMENTS FOR GIFTS VALUED AT $25,000 OR MORE
A. A Gift Agreement documents the mutual understanding between a donor and the City in relation to
the donor’s charitable contribution.
B. Charitable gifts and/or donations valued at $25,000 or more to benefit the City shall be accepted
through a written Gift Agreement consistent with these guidelines:
1. Gift Agreements will be generated by the City Give Director, in collaboration with the Director of
the benefited service area, the City Manager and the City Attorney.
2. The City Manager will have authority to sign all Gift Agreements, except gifts valued at more
than$1,000,000 will be subject to Council approval.
3. A signed award letter from a foundation or corporation is an acceptable form of gift
documentation in lieu of a Gift Agreement if it documents restrictions on the gift’s designation,
use, reporting requirements, giving vehicle, contribution schedule, recognition, and/or other
obligations agreed upon by the foundation or corporation and the City.
4. Wills, trusts, or other estate planning documents are acceptable forms of gift documentation. 4.1.
However, to help ensure the donor’s philanthropic intent is fully realized, City Give will work
with the donor to generate a signed gift agreement.
5. Any recognition or naming under consideration shall be fully outlined in the Gift Agreement.
52.4 DONOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF CHARITABLE GIFTS
All charitable gifts received by the City will be acknowledged in writing.
1. Donations of cash, real property and personal property valued at $5,000 or below will be
acknowledged by the Director whose service area receives the charitable gift
2. Donations of cash, real property and personal property valued between $5,000 and
$1,000,000 will be acknowledged by the Director of the service area benefited by the donation,
and the City Manager facilitated by the City Give Director.
3. Donations valued at more than $1,00,000 will be acknowledged by the City Manager facilitated by
the City Give Director only after the gift has been accepted through a written agreement approved
by the City Council.
52.5 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING OF CHARITABLE GIFTS TO BENEFIT THE CITY
A. A financial receipt of all charitable gifts accepted by the City will be generated by the benefited
service area’s Finance Representative.
1. CoFC Charitable Receipts will be mailed to the donor within 30 days of processing.
B. Charitable donations received by a Finance Representative without an accompanying Gift
Acceptance Form will be forwarded to the appropriate staff for acceptance based on the value of
the donation offer as outlined in Sections 1.2 above:
1. Notification of gifts received and valued at $5,000 or below will be forwarded to the Director of
the benefited service area for acceptance.
2. Gifts received and valued at $5,000 or above will be forwarded to City Give for facilitation for
appropriate acceptance: City Manager or City Council.
Financial Policy • City Give Governance • Page 4 of 4
C. Incoming donations should be coded as revenue to object account 473050 – Contribution/
Donation Private Source. The Business Unit is of the benefited service area’s choosing but must be
in the Fund intended by the donor per his/her/their specifications.
1. Gifts or donations that meet the below criteria must have a dedicated reserve account set up by
the Accounting Department. The receiving service area’s financial coordinator or analyst should
email the City Give Gift Acceptance Form, charitable receipt, donor acknowledgement form, and
a completed New Object Request Form to Accounting@fcgov.com. The criteria for a reserve
account are:
i. a contractual restriction to their use; and
ii. are anticipated to have a residual balance at year-end.
52.6 CHARITABLE GIFTS VIA NONPROFIT 501(C)3S, SPECIAL PROJECT AND
CAMPAIGN PARTNERS
A. In a commitment to safeguard the City’s fiscal governance, third-party fundraisers, including
support leagues, nonprofit 501(c)s or Special Projects funds, raising money to benefit the City will
transfer funds and assets collected to the City within 36 months of receipt.
1. Unless otherwise determined by the terms of an operating memorandum of understanding of
which the City is a party.
B. Based on the value of the donation offer as outlined in Sections 1.2 through 1.4 above, appropriate
City staff will accept and acknowledge charitable gifts awarded to nonprofit 501(c)3s to benefit
the City.
1. Charitable donations of cash, real property or personal property valued at $5,000 or below may
be accepted by the Director of the benefited service area.
2. Charitable donations of cash, real property or personal property valued at more than $5,000 and
up to $100,000 may be accepted by the City Manager.
C. Charitable gifts valued at more than $25,000 made to supporting partners and 501(c)3’s to
benefit the City shall be accepted through a written Gift Agreement consistent with this Policy.
1. For donations made to supporting 501(c)3’s to benefit the City, a copy of the signed Gift
Agreement will also be forwarded to the Director of the benefited service area and/or to the
Board Chair of the 501(c)3.
52.7 ONLINE GIVING
A. All online charitable gifts to benefit the City of Fort Collins will be solicited and accepted
through the City Give online platform in conjunction with Accounting & Treasury and IT.
1. Departmental requests to develop and launch online campaigns are to be submitted to
City Give, and online gifts will be accepted via the City Give Business Unit.
2. Upon transfer of gross funds, receiving departments will be responsible for the Journal
Entry, credit card fee reconciliation, and Council appropriation of funds.
B. Online fundraising is restricted to City of Fort Collins campaigns, departments and fundraising
accounts. The City of Fort Collins may not host or offer digital links to online solicitations or
credit card portals of third-party fundraisers or any organization not the sole responsibility of
the City of Fort Collins.
Council Finance Committee
May 18, 2020
Philanthropic Governance
Questions & Discussion
With Gratitude, Nina