HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Mail Packet - 8/31/2021 - Council Finance Committee Agenda - September 1, 2021Finance 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
September 1, 2021
2:30 - 5:30 pm
222 Laporte - Colorado River Community Room
Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/8140111859
Approval of Minutes from the August 11, 2021 Council Finance Committee meeting.
1. Council Priority: Equity in Taxation of Menstrual Products
30 mins. J. Poznanovic
2. Civic Center Parking Structure – Real Estate Opportunity
30 mins. N.Bodenhamer
K. Mannon
3. 2021 Annual Adjustment Ordinance 30 mins. L. Pollack
4. East Parks District Maintenance Facility 30 mins. K. Friesen
5. Utilities Water Supply Requirements Cash-in-lieu Rate Increase
45 mins. D. Dustin
L. Smith
L. Hans
Other Business
Page 1 of 227
Council Finance Committee
Agenda Planning Calendar 2021
RVSD 08/19/21 ck
Sept. 1st 2021
Council Priority: Equity in Taxation of Menstrual Products 30 min J. Poznanovic
Civic Center Parking Structure – Real Estate Opportunity 30 min N. Bodenhamer
K. Mannon
2021 Annual Adjustment Ordinance 30 min L. Pollack
East Parks District Maintenance Facility 30 min V. Shaw
K. Friesen
Utilities Water Supply Requirements Cash-in-lieu Rate Increase 45 min
D. Dustin
L. Smith
L. Hans
Oct. 6th 2021
Community Capital Improvement Plan - (CCIP) Status Update 45 min B. Dunn
GERP Review 30 min B. Dunn
Nov. 3rd 2021
Utility Long-term Financial and Capital Improvement Plan (part 1/2) 60 min L. Smith
Financial Policy Updates 30 min B. Dunn
Dec. 1st 2021
Utility Long-term Financial Plan and Capital Improvement Plan (part 2/2) 60 min L. Smith
Front Range Financial Comparison 30 min B. Dunn
Future Council Finance Committee Topics:
• 2022 Development Review and Capital Expansion Fee Updates
• Golf Debt Issuance
• Revenue Diversification
Page 2 of 227
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
August 11, 2021
3:00 - 5:00 pm
Hybrid Meeting - 222 Colorado River Community Room / Zoom
Council Attendees: Julie Pignataro, Kelly Ohlson, Emily Gorgol, Shiley Peel, Susan Gutowsky
Staff: Kelly DiMartino, Travis Storin, John Duval, Tyler Marr, Seve Ghose, Jim
McDonald, Ken Mannon, Nina Bodenhamer, Brad Buckman, Dean Klingner, Tim
Sellers, Dan Woodard, Blane Dunn, Victoria Shaw, Cody Forst,
Ginny Sawyer, Teresa Roche, Nikki Daniels, Carolyn Koontz
____________________________________________________________________________________
Meeting called to order at 3:00 pm
Julie Pignataro; I conferred with the City Manager and the City Attorney and have determined that the
Committee should conduct this meeting as a hybrid meeting allowing both in person and remote participation
because meeting in person may not be prudent for some or all persons due to the current public health
situation.
Approval of minutes from the July 7, 2021, Council Finance Committee Meeting. Kelly Ohlson moved for approval of
the minutes as presented. Emily Gorgol seconded the motion. Minutes were approved unanimously via roll call by;
Julie Pignataro, Kelly Ohlson and Emily Gorgol.
A. Carnegie Center Renovation
Jim McDonald, Cultural Services Director
Ken Mannon, Operations Services Director
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Appropriate Community Capital Improvement Program Funds (CCIP) of $2,218,000 for the renovation of the
historic Carnegie Library (Carnegie Center for Creativity).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
With the passing of the 2015 Community Capital Improvement Program Ballot Measure (Building on the Basic
2), the Carnegie Center for Creativity was scheduled for renovation beginning in 2024. With projected inflation
per the ballot materials, the approved total allotment is $2,218,000. The ballot measure also included five years
of Operations and Maintenance support of $25,000 per year.
Currently, the building is closed to the community due to budget reductions. Additionally, the elevator in the
building is to be upgraded to meet ADA standards beginning this year. With the building closure and the elevator
Page 3 of 227
construction currently underway, staff recommends commencing the renovation work in 2021 to leverage the
current situation and minimize future closure time.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance Committee support bringing forward an appropriation to Council to renovate the historic
Carnegie Library (Carnegie Center for Creativity) beginning in 2021 instead of 2024?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
In April 2015, the voters of Fort Collins passed a 10-year quarter-cent tax renewal dedicated to community
improvements (Building on the Basics 2). Improvements included ongoing funds to support affordable housing,
intersection improvements, bicycle infrastructure, implementation of Nature in the City and the renovation of
the historic Carnegie Library. Authorizing Ordinance No. 013, 2015 stated “This project will renovate the historic
1904 Carnegie library building to enhance its use as a Community Center. The Center will host special events,
community meetings, art exhibits and symposiums in the heart of Downtown.”
The historic 1904 Carnegie building is one of the oldest, continuously operating public buildings in Fort Collins,
designated a local Historic Landmark District by Resolution in 1978. The building is also a contributing structure
to the Laurel School Historic District, National Register 10/3/1980, 5LR.463. The building is now the Carnegie
Center for Creativity and offers an affordable community-focused cultural space for gallery exhibitions,
performances, classes and special events. It also serves as the home and studio of Fort Collins Public Media and
the Fort Collins Downtown Creative District on the lower level.
The project focuses on infrastructure and historic restoration to ensure the building will continue to function as
a public resource into the future. Some of the work to be completed includes:
• Uncover and restore windows
• Add a main staircase to connect floors
• Renovate and add restrooms
• Upgrade electrical and fiber
• Rehabilitate and improve mechanical systems
• Restore interior floors and finishes
• Restore and repair exterior masonry, eaves and cornice
• Address Americans with Disability Act (ADA) needs
• Address drainage issues
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS:
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance Committee support bringing forward an appropriation to Council to renovate the historic
Carnegie Library (Carnegie Center for Creativity) beginning in 2021 instead of 2024?
Page 4 of 227
Julie Pignataro: where is the $2.2M coming from?
Travis Storin; the CCIP tax collections are set aside in a dedicated fund
Julie Pignataro; a risk is that it is possible we wouldn’t collect what we project by 2025. Is it correct to
say that using this excess at this point is a risk?
Travis Storin; it is a risk if revenues went down dramatically 2021 – 2025 we could potentially have a
shortfall for the other projects, however, we anticipate meeting or exceeding based on history.
Julie Pignataro; City Park Train cost - chart shows $350K – isn’t there a different amount?
Kelly DiMartino; increased costs for the train itself and increased costs to locate the train in a place
that would require us to move the tennis / pickleball courts - you will hear more about this in your 2x2
meetings - this is a bigger conversation we need to have
Julie Pignataro; it would be helpful for us to see where all of the CCIP projects in the list are in the
process. Would this be taking funding away from something else? With building materials cost
fluctuations - Are current conditions volatile to determine those costs during the pandemic and now?
Jim McDonald; this was done before 2015 - we know that certain building materials are more
expensive right now – what does that mean? costs fluctuations
Page 5 of 227
Jim McDonald; City Give $300K needed to be raised – we are still projecting that, but we don’t have a
number yet until we see the new cost estimates – we were already discussing this as a high priority – a
really attractive project to raise funds for – community based historical building - Nina felt comfortable
with some possible individual donors in the community
Julie Pignataro; I don’t feel like I have enough information to make a decision - would like to see more
information on all of the projects in general. Great project and I understand why you are bringing it
forward at this time.
Emily Gorgol; CCIP - were these allocated this way based on when the tax was passed, or did we
allocate to the 17 different categories?
Travis Storin; the project list on slide 3 (included above)- those dollars were allocated when the ballot
was approved and cannot be changed - this is the guaranteed minimum for each project – by
appropriating $2.2M now instead of 2024 over the 10 years it doesn’t deprive any of the other
projects, they get the same dollar amount - it would just happen sooner- the dollars are set in stone by
virtue of the ballot.
Emily Gorgol; why do some have inflation, and some do not?
Travis Storin; when the projects for inclusion on a given ballot measure are being considered - the staff
looks at whether there needs to be an O&M or inflation component – will we own and operate it - so
we are going to include - For affordable housing – we don’t retain an asset. Plenty of high-level
estimates of what might be O&M. The inflation assumption for that which we own – with the cost of
housing going up over 10 years - it would appear that we only layered in inflation for that which we
own 3%
Kelly DiMartino; we could dig back more but I think it is specific project versus general contribution to
affordable housing versus it being a specific project – that is a policy or an approach that was taken
that we could revisit
Emily Gorgol; for clarification - that wasn’t adopted ballot language, it was a city decision after the CCIP
passed for the inflation part of it
John Duval; the adopted ordinance language states that the estimated capital costs would be in 2015
dollars – to the extent that inflation effects what is costs later – no wording that included any factor for
inflation. You could change this – factor in Inflation and additional costs. You are kind of balancing and
looking at all of these making a decision now – are you going to have the money at the end to have the
2015 funds to fund each of these projects for minimum needs?
Emily Gorgol; I don’t have enough information about what else is in the works and what we are not
doing - what does that mean that we won’t be doing critical bicycle improvements, etc. What is in the
pipeline and what are we moving off to update Carnegie? That is the piece of information that I feel is
missing.
Page 6 of 227
Because we know the costs of building materials are so inflated right now, would it be possible to do
that piece with an architect to get those cost estimates?
Jim McDonald; re: Carnegie specifically - we worked with Finance and Operations Services to find the
money ($30K) to engage the architect - we are trying to get that number as soon as possible
Ken Mannon; not sure where we are with engaging them
Emily Gorgol; I support this coming back to Council Finance with that number and more information
about the status of the other projects.
Travis Storin; hearing more on the way - opportunity for a dedicated agenda item for all 17 projects
All things CCIP - we will present that at a future meeting
Kelly Ohlson; I would say yes - If you are in there working already, it is easier to do the work while you
are in there. By prioritization - most things on this list would be more important to me than the
Carnegie - such as affordable housing and safety but that is not the way the ballot language reads.
We do need to have a corresponding chart with the status of all other projects. When you have
projected, it would be helpful to include actual - ¼ cent post Covid – projection is between $8-9M in
sales tax. Part of it - you could seize on part of the Covid funds to help in the restoration
That may be part of the equation - nothing else suffers as far as I can see because we have more than
projected $7 - 8M more dollars - nothing else is going to suffer. I am comfortable and have the
information I need but 2 out of 3 do not have the information. Have you looked at the asbestos issue?
Ken Mannon; yes -we always look into that as we do the buildings
Kelly Ohlson; sustainability – this is a historical building – assuming we are going to do that to the A
level
Ken Mannon; we will look at everything we can for sustainability – a lot of the work we are doing is
more upgrades than a true full renovation - some of that work would have to be additional -
Kelly Ohlson; I believe we will have significant funds at the end of this ($5-15M range) at the end of this
– whenever the end is – these things have to be completed – those funds could go to affordable
housing if Council so chose – a lot of these will be done and some are completed– there are only a few
that are general like affordable housing that could go on forever - we make sure the 5 years of O&M is
taken care of – that is easy to predict and not wait until the 5 year period is over to put money to
Affordable Housing – you could easily put more money into the fund for O&M
Travis Storin; the Vine and Lemay that is happening right now was in large part funded from the
residual from the last ¼ cent
Page 7 of 227
Kelly Ohlson; when a $350K project becomes a $5M project – it damages credibility of the city and the
council – (more about tennis and pickleball). That is not right
Kelly DiMartino; we need to have more conversation - how do we approach this because the scope has
far surpassed what the original intent was.
Julie Pignataro; if you could provide where the projects are also include when they are projected to be
completed over the next 3-4 years. Do we have a roadmap for that?
Travis Storin; to recap;
We are going to do a dedicated agenda item on CCIP including the status of each of the 17 projects /
status / actual revenue to track against projected
Julie Pignataro; it would be ok if a sub discussion after the full CCIP discussion to bring this back in the
same session
Kelly Ohlson; we could get more of the information if it were preceded by the
architectural thing – get comfortable with this - because Carnegie is closed right now
If we are comfortable with them moving forward - how old is that estimate before we move to the
architectural?
Jim McDonald; 2014 is when the estimate was done
Ken Mannon; we could have an answer from the architectural firm within the next couple months
Kelly Ohlson; would it be ok if they move forward with this part because then you would have better
numbers? $25-$30k to get more information that way we are not losing a couple months as we move
forward
Committee agreed to move forward with architectural assessment which will provide more detailed
information ($25 – 30k)
Jim McDonald; we engaged the firm a year ago and we can immediately go to them and start working
with them
Travis Storin; would it be ok to calendar a first reading on this for shortly after the next Council Finance
Committee reading? Would it be acceptable if First Readings were scheduled for subsequent to the
next Council Finance?
The Finance Committee agreed that it is fine to go ahead and put it on the schedule for First Reading.
B. Laporte Multimodal / Siphon Ped/Bike Overpass
Page 8 of 227
Brad Buckman, Interim City Engineer
Tim Sellers, Civil Engineer II
Dan Woodward, Interim Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT
Appropriation of the Multimodal Options Fund Grant, the Transportation Alternatives Program Grant, the
Revitalizing Mainstreet Grant, and Transportation Capital Expansion Fee funds for the Laporte Avenue Multi-
Modal Improvement Project. Additionally, appropriation of Transportation Capital Expansion Fee funds and
Multimodal Options Fund Grant to the Siphon Pedestrian Overpass Project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to seek support from the Council Finance Committee to in order to bring a full
appropriation to Council to receive federal funds for the Laporte Avenue Multi-Modal Improvement Project
(Laporte Project). This item will also appropriate $390,000 from the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF)
into the Capital Projects fund for the Laporte Avenue Multi-Modal Improvement Project. The City was awarded a
Multimodal Options Fund (MMOF), as well as a Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) grant for the Laporte
Project. These funds will be used for design, any necessary property acquisition, and construction of roadway
improvements along Laporte Avenue from Fishback Avenue to Sunset Street, excluding the bridges and roadway
crossing the New Mercer Canal north of Grandview Cemetery. The bridges and roadway north of Grandview
Cemetery are being replaced as part of a separate capital project using local Bridge Program funding.
In addition, this item will enable the city to receive federal funds for the Siphon Pedestrian Overpass Project
(Siphon Project) by appropriating $500,000 from the TCEF as local matching funds for the project’s MMOF grant.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff supports bringing forward an appropriation to Council.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Laporte Avenue between Fishback Avenue and Sunset Street is a two-lane arterial roadway. Most of the
roadway within the Project limits lacks adequate bicycle and pedestrian facilities including sidewalk, bike lanes,
curb and gutter. The roadway experiences heavy bicycle and pedestrian traffic especially with Poudre High
School, and many residential neighborhoods and businesses being located adjacent to the Project limits. Several
near misses and at least one serious vehicle-pedestrian accident have occurred within the Project limits. The
corridor currently experiences a higher-than-expected volume of traffic accidents due to the lack of adequate
infrastructure. Laporte Avenue is master planned to be on the City’s low-stress bicycle network.
The Project will address the safety concerns and lack of multi-modal infrastructure. In 2019, the City applied for
two grants: a federal Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) grant and a state Multi-Modal Options Fund
(MMOF) grant. In early 2021 the City applied for the Revitalizing Mainstreet (RMS) Grant, and anticipates award
of this grant in fall of 2021. In 2020 the TAP and MMOF funds were awarded to the City through the North Front
Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) and CDOT for the design, right-of-way acquisition, and
construction of the Project. The MMOF, TAP funds are available immediately. Local funds from TCEF will be used
for grant matching funds for the TAP grant and the MMOF grant.
Funds from all three grants are ineligible for use toward public art. Community Capital Improvement Program
(CCIP) local funds are eligible for Art in Public Places (APP), and have been appropriated for APP.
Page 9 of 227
It’s not currently anticipated, but if right-of-way acquisition will be required for construction of the Project, Staff
will bring authorization for acquisition to City Council.
The Siphon Project is a connecting trail to the Power Trail, which is a multi-use recreational and commuter trail
connecting the Spring Creek Trail at the north end to the Fossil Creek Trail at the south end. Between Harmony
Road and Trilby Road, there is no safe or legal way to get from east of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks to the
Power Trail. Users must travel either to Harmony Road or Trilby Road and cross the tracks at the roadway
crossing. There is evidence of trail users crossing the railroad tracks at unauthorized locations between Harmony
and Trilby. The need for a grade separated crossing between Harmony and Trilby is amplified with the number
of schools and residential subdivisions on both sides of the railroad tracks.
The Siphon Project will design, acquire right-of-way, and construct a pedestrian overpass for the Power Trail
crossing the Union Pacific Railroad Tracks as well as a trail east of the railroad tracks to connect the Power Trail
to the residential road network.
The City submitted applications for two grants in 2019: The Multi-Modal Options Fund (MMOF) and
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP). The City was not awarded TAP funds for the Project but was
awarded MMOF funds through the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) for design,
right-of-way acquisition, and construction of the Project.
Staff anticipates bringing future items to City Council, as needed which may include; authorization to acquire
right-of-way and Union Pacific Railroad easement.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The following is a summary of the funding anticipated for design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction for
both of these Projects:
Laporte – we should receive word on the grant any day now
Design is 30% - bring that to 100% by spring – construction next summer
Emily Gorgol; all happening at the same time
Kelly Ohlson; you don’t anticipate you don’t anticipate any right of way
Brad Buckman; we think we can get what we want with existing right of way
I don’t want some parts of town getting quality landscaping – trees
Is there any landscaping as part of this?
Brad Buckman; no medians - somewhat of a constrained but we will have parkway landscaping with the same
standards as anywhere else in the city
Julie Pignataro; will construction be done before school gets back in session?
Brad Buckman; we wouldn’t be able to do the whole project before school starts – would have to go through the
winter months too
Julie Pignataro; is this almost like a median type of structure – between – tree lawn
Page 10 of 227
Brad Buckman; a typical parkway -separates the road from the sidewalk – smaller form a typical median
Emily Gorgol; have we worked with Safe Routes to School? school back in session
Encourage traffic to go in west direction – designed to be used either way
Brad Buckman; you can go both ways -working closely with FC Moves and Safet Routes to School – lock step on
design – they have reviewed this
Emily Gorgol; can be confusing – city park - multi walk – one thing we can do –
Brad Buckman; we can delineate the bike and ped users – divide the 10 feet into two 5-foot sections to
delineate those - FC Moves - feedback has been positive - we would encourage bicycles to be as safe as possible
Emily Gorgol; CSU has done a great job on campus with having them side by side – 2 separate – are we doing the
multi walk to accommodate the tree lawn?
Brad Buckman; yes, that 10-foot walk did work better for tree line and roadway
Kelly Ohlson; how hard is it to get an extra 4 feet?
Brad Buckman; that would require right of way acquisition
Kelly Ohlson; might be worth spending a little time in case we could get the full amount of space
get the land necessary without doing bad things to make it less confusing -
Page 11 of 227
BOARD OR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Staff have not yet presented to any boards or commissions for the Siphon Project specifically. However, the
Siphon Pedestrian Overpass Project was identified as a high priority bicycle and pedestrian grade separated
crossing through a Bicycle/Pedestrian Grade Separated Prioritization Study (Study). The Study was presented to
various boards and commissions.
Staff plans to present information on the Siphon Project to various boards and commissions including the
Transportation Board, Bicycle Advisory Committee, and Commission on Disabilities.
The Laporte Project was presented to the Transportation Board as well as the Bicycle Advisory Committee in
2019.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff have discussed these Projects and presented concept drawings at a high level with interested citizens at
several public outreach events in the past. As these Projects moves forward, a website will be available to the
public and Staff will develop a comprehensive communication plan.
Page 12 of 227
Siphon Overpass Project – Between Trilby and Harmony just west of Timberline
Current situation is that there is a 2-mile stretch between Harmony and Trilby with no safe or legal way to cross
the railroad track
This project provides a safe way to connect the Power Trail to Timberline Road - create a trail along the mill
creek ditch - Parks plans to extend the Mill Creek Ditch trail going east
Julie Pignataro; no question of the need - Do we have something else in town that you could compare to this?
Hoping it won’t be as zig zaggy as the bike overpass behind Whole Foods - How high will it be?
Dean Klingner; that is probably the best example of a bicycle / pedestrian overpass
Power trail – the railroad is significantly lower in grade / actually kind of down in a hole – single ramp up
Great idea to work on a better drawing / rendering
Travis Storin; is it structurally similar to the Poudre Trail – area of Lamay / Mulberry bridges over the Poudre
River?
Dean Klingner; it may need to be enclosed due to the railroad requirements - Will mainly be a ramp (as opposed
to steps)
Julie Pignataro; I am supportive of funding for both projects. We hope these grants come through.
Emily Gorgol; the overpass behind Whole Foods is so difficult to navigate / use
I have some design concerns about what that will look like and about ease of use- same concerns as Julie -
We aren’t doing an underpass because it is below grade - concerns about having kids going up and over – so
close to the school – a more detailed picture would be helpful. What does it connect to Mill Creek Ditch trail on
the other side?
Dean Klingner; the west side connects to the north / south Power Trail and the east side connects to a future
trail that is not built yet along Mill Creek Ditch and will connect out to Timberline Road with a future underpass.
Emily Gorgol; when is that future trail going to be built?
Brad Buckman; Mill Creek Ditch from the overpass to Timberline will be built as part of this project.
East of there - Park Planning has that in their future 2022 or 2023 planning and development timeline
We can find that out exactly - more of a follow-on project
Dean Klingner; This project together connects it all the way to Timberline which makes the connection to Bacon
Elementary which is a critical piece then it would be a part of the continuing system – Timberline is the main
connection – future planning would be east of Timberline
Will be building the trail out in the future later this year - Working with Parks Planning on a pedestrian
underpass in conjunction in 2022 - will follow the Mill Creek Ditch on the south side of the ditch then go under
Timberline
Emily Gorgol; If I lived in Willow Springs which is north of the ditch, could I access the pedestrian bridge?
Page 13 of 227
Dean Klingner; you would need to use the sidewalk on Timberline to cross the ditch and then you would be able
to go down and under Timberline
Emily Gorgol; how are these projects that are coming to us prioritized? I know we have a sidewalk prioritization
process and wondered if these go through something similar-
Dean Klingner; hard to answer that question for all of the projects that have come forward – there has been
some work to prioritize the community capital program funding for underpasses – projects in this space that are
active are the underpass we are discussing and a future underpass under Harmony. They are coming forward
based on the timing of the grants and the need for matching funds. In terms of Laporte, this project was
prioritized overall in our capital plans and the timing is around completing the funding package for the grant
opportunity.
Emily Gorgol; CCIP funds and grants - you can go after grants once a project is prioritized - I would really like to
see something developed similar to the sidewalk prioritization where we are really looking at what areas in town
really need multimodal improvements, where they are missing connections and that we prioritize spending our
CCIP where we can – where we are going after grants to complete those projects - I think sidewalk prioritization
has helped us focus on those areas and would like to see a similar process for this.
Dean Klingner: I would add that there is great news coming - we are starting to update our Active Modes Plan –
which will combine an update to the Bicycle Master Plan and the Pedestrian Plan - the goal is to put all those
things in one place – so we can understand how they are the prioritized for different parts of town, different
needs – that work is underway starting the second half of this year.
Emily Gorgol; when is that scheduled to come to Council?
Dean Klingner; that I don’t know but the work is scheduled to start this fall so I would anticipate the middle of
next year.
Emily Gorgol; I do support the Laporte Project, and I would support the other if we had a way for folks to get
over the ditch.
Kelly Ohlson; are we gearing up to leverage any federal money as well as looking at the possibility of getting
infrastructure funding?
Brad Buckman; we are definitely looking at that – the infrastructure bill will be an opportunity – there might be
some funding for bridge programing
Kelly Ohlson; multimodal?
Brad Buckman; we have multimodal projects to be ready should this happen –
Kelly Ohlson; if this a normal railroad route - light rail potential - some considerations - on how high and how
enclosed
Dean Klingner; the requirements for the railroad are so conservative around height, protection etc. that they
would be consistent in any future…
Page 14 of 227
Kelly Ohlson; these two are different kind of projects are the reality of multi modal. Do we touch any sensitive
environmental areas?
Brad Buckman; we do have environmental considerations / issues to look at
Dean Klingner; our own environmental standards are higher - both having federal funding – wetlands mitigation
might be the thing along the ditch – there is development going in on the south of this
consistent with setbacks ditch crossing - underpass - we are more typically putting in a wildlife corridor - in this
case we are going over the railroad
Travis Storin; to summarize
Emily Gorgol’s question around access from NE quadrant
Design concerns
Impacts to natural environment and wildlife
C. Future Capital Projects & Financing Options
Blaine Dunn, Accounting Director
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Future capital projects and financing options
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There are several large projects being considered in the next five to ten years that will likely need debt
financing. In an ideal world new debt service would perfectly dovetail with completion of other debt
service. Ongoing money is freed up when debt service discontinues. The information provided shows
the current debt position of the governmental funds and discusses different scenarios around financing
the civic center masterplan.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Inform and educate the Council Finance Committee on current debt balances and annual debt
service
2. Gather feedback on potential projects and scenarios presented
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS;
Kelly Ohlson; a big miss on the SE Recreation Center
Travis Storin; the ballot specified an outside leisure pool
$14M on the CCIP and additional $10M
Travis Storin; we are in a very preliminary phase of design – an illustration of our uncertainly – very much still a
TBD - a very worthwhile conversation
Kelly Ohlson; It looks like the rest of this presentation is focused the Civic Center
But I don’t see any update on the SE Recreation Center or the timing of the Hughes Land Acquisition
Blaine Dunn; this is focused on the Civic Center Master Plan because we don’t have any finality or firm numbers
Page 15 of 227
on the other two. We may decide to bond for 1 or 2 or 3 of these all at the same time.
Debt service capacity - We don’t have more information on the Hughes Land Acquisition at this time.
Travis Storin; whether it would make sense to use debt service or cash finance for Hughes Land Acquisition.
Kelly Ohlson; those on Council and management that is not Natural Areas funds primarily - would be more of a
General Fund liability
Travis Storin; I am aware that is a topic that needs to be explored as we get closer to a final purchase price we
will surface that with Council perhaps in Executive Session perhaps by Committee. I am not presuming any
source fund when I say cash financing - across the span of candidate funds, I would say that there is the ability to
cash finance through some configuration of multiple funds including the General Fund. It might make economic
sense for us to debt finance Hughes, but it depends on rates – that is the kind of arbitrage type calculation we
do when we decide how to make a large purchase like that.
Travis Storin; total debt service line – salient take away
$4.5M up to a temporary bubble of $6.5M then settling in around $5.5M annual debt service
Julie Pignataro; interest rates are currently low across the board - Why would you only refinance the General
Fund?
Page 16 of 227
Blaine Dunn; we would refinance everything – the example of a mortgage that is amortized and has the same
payment throughout the life of the loan – because these are bonds, we can pay more upfront etc. and structure
payments differently. We would have the other funds continue to pay the same amount for the same number
of years. They would get to stay on the same amortization schedule they are on now and their payments would
not be going toward the debt service – it would just be the General Fund that would continue to pay that into
the future.
Kelly Ohlson; I don’t agree with any of your assumptions or your recommendation
Are the different departments of one mind?
Travis Storin; one of the reasons you don’t see a staff recommendation -
You are not hearing the spectrum of different perspectives – it’s that we haven’t settled on what is right for the
city as a staff - For staff it hasn’t been argumentative -sort of a decision on if we did nothing, we could initiate
the financing and construction for the Civic Center master plan as soon as 2027. If there is energy among the
Council to do something on a more accelerated basis, there are some options on how to do this.
Darin is encouraging us to think ambitiously about the timing of this meaning sooner.
Kelly DiMartino; a desire to potentially move before 2027 – but I do think talking about next year would be
overly ambitious.
Blaine Dunn; we have been in discussion with Ken Mannon and team and Tyler about this project, about how we
finance it - we wanted to come get feedback from this committee so they could get some direction
around what the timeline might look like –
Kelly Ohlson; there might be a number between 2022 and 2027 that is a general statement of consideration.
Julie’s comment about the interest rates is relevant to me about moving it up.
We should be proud of our public buildings - Don’t know if our citizens are aware of what we are thinking of
doing this.
To Ken; Why do you think that every time I have renovated a building, it runs over more than new construction.
Why would you want to use the lower range of cost to renovate existing buildings?
Ken Mannon; when we look at the average is right now – looking at other buildings we have renovated
on a square foot cost – depends on the magnitude of the work being done.
Kelly Ohlson; we own the building at 281 (PDT). I am not even convinced of the need yet
Can someone give me 20 bullets of why we need all of this space? I need to be able to say why we need this.
I am not quite there on when to pull the trigger.
Kelly DiMartino; when we did the Work Session, we talked about bringing the Civic Center Master plan back
For adoption and in between do some meetings with Council to answer some additional questions.
Sit down and spend some additional time. For me the short version is longer term space planning needs that we
know current facilities are not meeting those demands. You will see some things in the upcoming budget
regarding where we have significant gaps. Not wanting to continue to sink money into maintenance in a way
that is not a smart investment. More welcoming public spaces
Kelly Ohlson; I am open to all scenarios - I don’t want us to lose the window on the interest rate.
I don’t know what the long-term view is on interest rates.
Page 17 of 227
Travis Storin; from a financial standpoint, we aim to stress test - we are not putting a shovel in the ground in
2022
Kelly Ohlson; I don’t want the Hughes Land Acquisition lost in the discussion.
Emily Gorgol; 2022 sounds very ambitious - What are the options between 2022 and 2027 for a timeline?
I would be hesitant to start renovations when we don’t know what we are designing for, and we don’t have an
end game goal – Looking forward to the other projects being included to provide a more complete picture – It
was great to get a snapshot. I appreciate you taking the time and walking us through this and building this out
slowly over time.
Travis Storin; to summarize;
There needs to be a stronger story on the Civic Center Master Plan on the why and when
including the top reasons we would want to do this.
Clearly heard feedback received regarding 2022 being too quick– we are at the big end of the funnel right now
on the debt scenario. Looking to step that in and bring more information around optionality. The next time we
will be clearer on the design elements within the facility and what we are looking to debt finance
Kelly Ohlson; we are open - no decision yet but open to shovels in the ground in 2023 2024 2025 or 2026
depending on interest rates and what you bring to us. Don’t necessarily just bring this in the bonding package –
it might be the Recreation Center and the Hughes Land Acquisition - that might be the smart play. We did that
with Soapstone, the Police Station and the Streets Deicing facility- even though they were using different
funding.
Other Business
Teresa Roche; We changed our record keeper to Nationwide in September 2021- everything came forward to
Council. The Retirement Governance committee met yesterday and there are 2 changes for your consideration
which involve no cost to the city.
1) Allow SA Directors and above - if they contribute to the 457 up to 3% that the company match would go
into the 401A instead of the 457 to give them more flexibility in support of a certain population (20
employees are involved in the matching) A way for these employees to put more of their own money
into the 457 - they city matches up to 3% for this group. We consolidated plans when we went to
Nationwide
457 is specially used in the public sector - many municipalities use it
Cap is age related – if you are under 50 you can put in $19.5K - if over 50 it is $26K
annual cap established by the IRS
401A the city makes a contribution for all classified employees
Allow employees to put more money of their own into the 457 Plan
$55K is the cap per the IRS
2) Teresa Roche; also, one language clean-up item for clarity in the 401A regarding the continuation of
disability period of 1 year. We plan to bring this forward on Resolution under Consent for you to
approve these two changes.
Page 18 of 227
Julie Pignataro; I am supportive
Emily Gorgol; I support
Kelly Ohlson; this is a good thing, and it is not costing citizens one extra penny
Julie Pignataro; depending on what is happening with the Delta variant - I hope that everyone was given the
option of participating virtually if they didn’t feel comfortable or in person. My main concern is that everyone
on staff felt welcome not coming in. People are masking up a lot more again. We need to be very careful, and
we don’t want to jump back in too quickly.
Meeting adjourned at 5:30 pm
Page 19 of 227
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff:
Jennifer Poznanovic, Sr. Sales Tax & Revenue Manager
Date:
September 1, 2021
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Sales & Use Tax Exemption of Menstrual Care Products
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to discuss one of the 2021-2023 Council priorities - establishing a
Sales and Use Tax Exemption of Menstrual Care Products.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
• Does Council Finance Committee support the proposed sales and use tax exemption for
menstrual care products?
• Does Council Finance Committee support the proposed engagement plan?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
In July 2021, City Council formally adopted the 2021-2023 City Council Priorities. Within the
High Performing Government Strategic Outcome, City Council aims to advance gender equity in
City Sales Tax Code by establishing a sales and use tax exemption for menstrual care products.
Effective January 2018 the State of Colorado provides a sales and use tax exemption for
feminine hygiene products. Below are several examples of how these products are defined:
State of Colorado:
“Feminine hygiene products” means tampons, menstrual pads and sanitary napkins, pantiliners,
menstrual sponges, and menstrual cups.
Denver:
“Feminine hygiene products” as “products that are designed to absorb or contain menstrual
flow.” Feminine hygiene products include, but are not limited to, tampons, menstrual pads and
sanitary napkins, pantiliners, menstrual sponges and menstrual cups. Menstrual discs and
menstrual underwear designed to hold menstrual flow are examples of new products on the
market designed specifically for this purpose and would be included in the exempt details.
Products designed for incontinence and urine flow protection like diapers are not exempt from
sales/use tax as feminine hygiene products, nor are grooming and general hygiene products, such
Page 20 of 227
as soaps, cleaning solutions, shampoo, toothpaste, mouthwash, antiperspirants, and sun tan
lotions.
Aurora:
“Menstrual care products” as “tampons, panty liners, menstrual cups, sanitary napkins, and other
similar tangible personal property designed for hygiene in connection with the human menstrual
cycle, but does not include "grooming and hygiene products".
“Grooming and hygiene products” as “soaps and cleaning solutions, shampoo, toothpaste,
mouthwash, antiperspirants, and sun tan lotions and screens, regardless of whether the items
meet the definition of "over-the-counter-drugs."
Proposed Fort Collins Exemption:
“Menstrual care products” shall mean tampons, panty liners, menstrual cups, sanitary napkins,
and other similar tangible personal property designed for hygiene in connection with the human
menstrual cycle, but does not include “grooming and hygiene products”.
“Grooming and hygiene products” shall mean soaps and cleaning solutions, shampoo, toothpaste,
mouthwash, antiperspirants, and sun tan lotions and screens.
Financial Impacts:
According to House Bill 17-1127 Final Fiscal Note, an estimated 27% of the state population are
menstruating. In Fort Collins that would be an estimated menstruating population of 47,479
(based on 2020 population). On Average $60 is spent on menstrual care products per
menstruating person per year, which is an estimate revenue loss of $110,000 per year.
Proposed Engagement:
Staff recommends upstream notification and outreach after adoption of a sales and use tax
exemption on menstrual care products.
• Council discussion and first ordinance reading on October 5th
• Send letters to notify convenience stores, grocery stores, big box stores and online
retailers that typically sell menstrual care products
• Effective 60 days from second reading to give businesses time to update their point of
sales systems
• Press Release to notify residents
ATTACHMENTS (numbered Attachment 1, 2, 3,…)
1. PPT Sales & Use Tax Exemption of Menstrual Care Products
2. House Bill 17-1127 Sales Tax Exemption for Feminine Hygiene Products
Page 21 of 227
Sales & Use Tax Exemption of Menstrual Care Products
09-01-2021Jennifer Poznanovic, Sr. Manager Sales Tax & Revenue
Council Finance Committee Meeting
Page 22 of 227
2021-2023 City Council Priorities 2
High Performing Government
•Advance gender equity in City Sales Tax Code
•Establish a Pink Tax or Menstrual Equity Ordinance for the City of Fort Collins to
exempt certain products from sales tax
Page 23 of 227
State Exemption Effective in 2018
House Bill 17-1127
The bill creates a state sales tax exemption,
commencing January 1, 2018, for all sales, storage,
and use of feminine hygiene products.
“Feminine hygiene products” means tampons,
menstrual pads and sanitary napkins, pantiliners,
menstrual sponges, and menstrual cups.
3
Page 24 of 227
4Other Home Rule Cities –Denver
Denver
•Added a new definition & further explanation in Tax Guide:
•“Feminine Hygiene Products” as “products that are designed to absorb or contain
menstrual flow.” Feminine hygiene products include, but are not limited to, tampons,
menstrual pads and sanitary napkins, pantiliners, menstrual sponges and menstrual
cups. Menstrual discs and menstrual underwear designed to hold menstrual flow are
examples of new products on the market designed specifically for this purpose and
would be included in the exempt details.
•Products designed for incontinence and urine flow protection like diapers are not exempt
from sales/use tax as feminine hygiene products, nor are grooming and general hygiene
products, such as soaps, cleaning solutions, shampoo, toothpaste, mouthwash,
antiperspirants, and sun tan lotions.
Page 25 of 227
5Other Home Rule Cities –Aurora
Aurora
•Added two definitions:
•“Menstrual care products” as “tampons, panty liners, menstrual cups, sanitary
napkins, and other similar tangible personal property designed for hygiene in connection
with the human menstrual cycle, but does not include "grooming and hygiene products".
•“Grooming and hygiene products” as “soaps and cleaning solutions, shampoo,
toothpaste, mouthwash, antiperspirants, and sun tan lotions and screens, regardless of
whether the items meet the definition of "over-the-counter-drugs."
Page 26 of 227
6Proposed City Exemption –Fort Collins
Fort Collins
•Sales & Use Tax Exemption for Menstrual Care Products:
•Menstrual care products shall mean tampons, panty liners, menstrual cups, sanitary
napkins, and other similar tangible personal property designed for hygiene in connection
with the human menstrual cycle, but does not include “grooming and hygiene products.
•Grooming and hygiene products shall mean soaps and cleaning solutions, shampoo,
toothpaste, mouthwash, antiperspirants, and sun tan lotions and screens.
Page 27 of 227
Fiscal Impacts
Estimated Revenue Loss of $110,000 in Fort Collins
•27% of population menstruating
•174,871 Fort Collins population in 2020
•47,479 Fort Collins menstruating population
•$60 average spent per menstruating person per
year on menstrual care products
*Based on estimates from HB17-1127 Final Fiscal Note
7
Page 28 of 227
8Proposed Engagement
Upstream notification & outreach after adoption:
•Council discussion and 1st reading on October 5th
•Send letters to notify convenience stores, grocery stores, big box stores and online
retailers that typically sell menstrual care products
•Effective 60 days from 2nd reading to give businesses time to update point of sales
systems
•Press Release to notify residents
Page 29 of 227
9Next Steps
Questions and suggestions from Council Finance Committee?
Page 30 of 227
Page 31 of 227
First Regular Session
Seventy-first General Assembly
STATE OF COLORADO
INTRODUCED
LLS NO. 17-0023.01 Kate Meyer x4348 HOUSE BILL 17-1127
House Committees Senate Committees
Finance
Appropriations
A BILL FOR AN ACT
CONCERNING A SALES TAX EXEMPTION FOR FEMININE HYGIENE101
PRODUCTS.102
Bill Summary
(Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced and does
not reflect any amendments that may be subsequently adopted. If this bill
passes third reading in the house of introduction, a bill summary that
applies to the reengrossed version of this bill will be available at
http://leg.colorado.gov/.)
The bill creates a state sales tax exemption, commencing January
1, 2018, for all sales, storage, and use of feminine hygiene products. The
bill further specifies that local statutory taxing jurisdictions may choose
to adopt the same exemption by express inclusion in their sales and use
tax ordinance or resolution.
HOUSE SPONSORSHIP
Lontine, Danielson, Esgar, Arndt, Hooton, Mitsch Bush, Winter, Ginal, Michaelson Jenet,
Kraft-Tharp, Jackson, Herod, Pettersen
SENATE SPONSORSHIP
Martinez Humenik,
Shading denotes HOUSE amendment. Double underlining denotes SENATE amendment.
Capital letters indicate new material to be added to existing statute.
Dashes through the words indicate deletions from existing statute.Page 32 of 227
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado:1
SECTION 1. Legislative declaration. The general assembly2
hereby finds and declares that the intended purpose of the tax expenditure3
in this act is to increase the affordability of feminine hygiene products4
and to redress the inequitable burden that such tax places on the millions5
of women in Colorado for whom such products are medically essential. 6
SECTION 2. In Colorado Revised Statutes, 39-26-717, amend7
(1) introductory portion, (1)(k), and (1)(l); and add (1)(m) and (2)(a.5) as8
follows:9
39-26-717. Drugs and medical and therapeutic devices -10
definitions. (1) The following shall be ARE exempt from taxation under11
the provisions of part 1 of this article ARTICLE 26:12
(k) All sales of nonprescription drugs or materials when furnished13
by a licensed provider as part of professional services provided to a14
patient; and15
(l) All sales of corrective eyeglasses, contact lenses, or hearing16
aids; AND17
(m) ALL SALES OF FEMININE HYGIENE PRODUCTS PURCHASED ON18
AND AFTER JANUARY 1, 2018.19
(2) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:20
(a.5) "FEMININE HYGIENE PRODUCTS" MEANS TAMPONS,21
MENSTRUAL PADS AND SANITARY NAPKINS, PANTILINERS, MENSTRUAL22
SPONGES, AND MENSTRUAL CUPS.23
SECTION 3. In Colorado Revised Statutes, 29-2-105, amend (1)24
introductory portion and (1)(d)(I) introductory portion; and add25
(1)(d)(I)(O) as follows:26
HB17-1127-2-
Page 33 of 227
29-2-105. Contents of sales tax ordinances and proposals -1
repeal. (1) The sales tax ordinance or proposal of any incorporated town,2
city, or county adopted pursuant to this article shall MUST be imposed on3
the sale of tangible personal property at retail or the furnishing of4
services, as provided in paragraph (d) of this subsection (1) SUBSECTION5
(1)(d) OF THIS SECTION. Any countywide or incorporated town or city6
sales tax ordinance or proposal shall MUST include the following7
provisions:8
(d) (I) A provision that the sale of tangible personal property and9
services taxable pursuant to this article shall be IS the same as the sale of10
tangible personal property and services taxable pursuant to section11
39-26-104 C.R.S., except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (d)12
SUBSECTION (1)(d). The sale of tangible personal property and services13
taxable pursuant to this article shall be IS subject to the same sales tax14
exemptions as those specified in part 7 of article 26 of title 39; C.R.S.;15
except that the sale of the following may be exempted from a town, city,16
or county sales tax only by the express inclusion of the exemption either17
at the time of adoption of the initial sales tax ordinance or resolution or18
by amendment thereto:19
(O) THE EXEMPTION FOR SALES OF FEMININE HYGIENE PRODUCTS20
AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 39-26-717 (1)(m).21
SECTION 4. Act subject to petition - effective date. This act22
takes effect at 12:01 a.m. on the day following the expiration of the23
ninety-day period after final adjournment of the general assembly (August24
9, 2017, if adjournment sine die is on May 10, 2017); except that, if a25
referendum petition is filed pursuant to section 1 (3) of article V of the26
state constitution against this act or an item, section, or part of this act27
HB17-1127-3-
Page 34 of 227
within such period, then the act, item, section, or part will not take effect1
unless approved by the people at the general election to be held in2
November 2018 and, in such case, will take effect on the date of the3
official declaration of the vote thereon by the governor.4
HB17-1127-4-
Page 35 of 227
HB17-1127Colorado
Legislative
Council
Staff
FINAL
FISCAL NOTE
FISCAL IMPACT: State Local Statutory Public Entity Conditional No Fiscal Impact
Drafting Number:
Prime Sponsor(s):
LLS 17-0023
Rep. Lontine
Sen. Martinez Humenik
Date:
Bill Status:
Fiscal Analyst:
May 16, 2017
Postponed Indefinitely
Greg Sobetski (303-866-4105)
BILL TOPIC:EXEMPT FEMININE HYGIENE PRODUCTS FROM SALES TAX
Fiscal Impact Summary FY 2017-2018 FY 2018-2019
State Revenue ($1.2 million)($2.4 million)
General Fund (1.2 million)(2.4 million)
State Expenditures
TABOR Impact ($1.2 million)($2.4 million)
Appropriation Required: None.
Future Year Impacts: Ongoing state revenue decrease.
NOTE: This bill was not enacted into law; therefore, the impacts identified in this analysis
do not take effect.
Summary of Legislation
Beginning January 1, 2018, this bill creates a state sales and use tax exemption for
feminine hygiene products, including tampons, menstrual pads, pantiliners, menstrual sponges,
and menstrual cups. The exemption is not extended by default to counties or municipalities that
levy sales taxes, though these local governments may choose to incorporate the exemption at any
time.
State Revenue
The bill is expected to reduce General Fund sales and use tax revenue by $1.2 million in
FY 2017-18 and $2.4 million in FY 2018-19, and by similar amounts in subsequent years. The
revenue reduction for FY 2017-18 represents a half-year impact based on the January 1, 2018,
effective date for the sales and use tax exemption in the bill.
Assumptions. According to the National Institute of Health, girls experience menarche,
or first menstruation, at age 12 on average, and women experience menopause at age 51 on
average. The State Demographer estimates that Colorado's population of women and girls
between ages 12 and 51 will average 1,523,000 in 2018 and 1,551,000 in 2019. These forecasts
were reduced to reflect the population of women expected to stop menstruating while pregnant or
nursing, but not to accommodate other factors that halt menstruation, including medical
Page 36 of 227
Page 2 HB17-1127
May 16, 2017
procedures, health conditions, or voluntary menstrual suppression. To the extent that these factors
reduce consumption of feminine hygiene products, the revenue reduction will be less than
estimated.
Based on estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, this fiscal note
assumes that 59.6 percent of feminine hygiene product use is attributable to menstrual pads and
pantiliners, and that 40.4 percent of product use is attributable to tampons. Menstrual sponges and
menstrual cups are also exempted from sales tax in the bill but were not considered separately in
this fiscal analysis. It is assumed that women who menstruate for an average of 13 cycles annually
use about 235 menstrual pads or tampons, or some combination of these. Based on current retail
prices, pre-tax spending on the products exempted in the bill averages $60 per woman annually,
generating $1.71 in state sales tax after netting out the state's 3.33 percent vendor fee.
TABOR Impact
This bill reduces state revenue from sales and use taxes, which will reduce the amount of
money required to be refunded under TABOR. TABOR refunds are paid out of the General Fund.
Since the bill reduces both revenue to the General Fund and the refund obligation by equal
amounts, there is no net impact on the amount of money available in the General Fund for the
budget. However, the bill will reduce money available for the General Fund budget in the future
during years when the state does not collect money above the TABOR limit.
Local Government Impact
The sales tax exemption for feminine hygiene products is not by default extended to
counties or municipalities. However, the bill is expected to reduce revenue to special districts
collecting sales taxes on the same tax base as the state. Regional Transportation District (RTD)
sales tax revenue is expected to decrease by $240,000 in FY 2017-18 and $495,000 in
FY 2018-19. Scientific and Cultural Facilities District (SCFD) sales tax revenue is expected to
decrease by $24,000 in FY 2017-18 and $50,000 in FY 2018-19.
To the extent that other local governments choose to authorize the exemption at a local
level, sales tax revenue collected by these jurisdictions will be reduced. These impacts are not
estimated.
Effective Date
The bill was postponed indefinitely by the House Appropriations Committee on May 5, 2017.
State and Local Government Contacts
Counties Information Technology Municipalities
Regional Transportation District Revenue Special Districts
The revenue and expenditure impacts in this fiscal note represent changes from current law under the bill for each
fiscal year. For additional information about fiscal notes, please visit: www.leg.colorado.gov/fiscalnotes/Page 37 of 227
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Ken Mannon, Director, Operation Services
Nina Bodenhamer, Director, City Give
Date: September 1, 2021
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Tentative Purchase & Charitable Donation of Civic Center
Condominiums
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this items is to discuss the tentative purchase by the
City of the real property and improvements located at 144 N. Mason St., Units 1 through 8, Fort
Collins, Colorado, 80524.
The City has negotiated a cash sale price for the property of $975,000, substantially below the
property’s appraised market value of $3,300,000.
The $2,325,000 difference between the estimated market value in the Appraisal and the
$975,000 purchase price will be awarded as a charitable donation to the City.
The seller, Civic Center, LLC, provided the City with a written appraisal performed by CBRE,
Inc. in July, 2018 which estimates the market value of the property at $3,300,000. An updated
Appraisal is currently being performed as the Seller’s responsibility and expense per IRS
regulation.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance Committee support an Appropriation of $975,000 from the General
Government Capital Expansion Fund for the tentative purchase of the real property located at
144 N. Mason St., Units 1 through 8, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80524?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Since its inception in 2018, City Give has facilitated a range of donations of real property: from
26 acres of property toward the expansion of Two Trees Natural Areas to water shares; from
mineral rights to five (5) acres adjacent Southridge Greens golf course.
The donation of real property is a tangible investment in the City’s mission, values and service
to our residents. Asset-based giving requires strict adherence to IRS guidelines, and depends
on the staff determination if any potential donation is in the long-term best interests of tax-
payers.
Civic Center Condominiums is a 15,629-square foot, urban office condominium building located
at 144 North Mason, in Fort Collins, Colorado. Constructed in 2001, and renovated in 2014, the
building consists of eight (8) individual commercial condominium units attached to the Civic
Center Parking Garage. Units l and 2 are combined for occupancy by the Fort Collins Police
Department. Units 4, 5, and 6 were combined and operated as an executive office suite facility
with private offices and shared conference and reception areas.
Ownership of the Civic Center Condominiums provides the City with potential revenue sources
as well as options for the expansion of City offices.
Page 38 of 227
Per IRS requirements for the donation of real property above $5,000, an Appraisal must be
performed by the Seller within 60 days of the signed Purchase and Sale Agreement in order to
substantiate the charitable gift.
At this time, a Purchase & Sale Agreement has not been finalized. However, if the final terms
and current Appraisal satisfy staff’s decision points, a closing date must be met no later than
10/15/2021. Hence, the need an Appropriation of $975K from the General Government Capital
Expansion for the tentative purchase.
Capital expansion fees are paid by new development to underwrite a proportionate share of
infrastructure costs to “buy-in” to the level of service the City of Fort Collins provides for Fire,
Police, General Government facilities, Neighborhood Parks and Community Parks.
The current General Government Capital Expansion Fund has a current balance of $12M.
Authorized expenditures include, but are not limited to, the cost of purchasing or leasing real
property; construction, acquisition or expansion of capital improvements or assets.
ATTACHMENTS
1. CBRE Appraisal of 144 N. Mason St., Units 1 through 8, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80524,
July, 2018
Page 39 of 227
Page 40 of 227
Page 41 of 227
Page 42 of 227
Page 43 of 227
Page 44 of 227
Page 45 of 227
Page 46 of 227
Page 47 of 227
Page 48 of 227
Page 49 of 227
Page 50 of 227
Page 51 of 227
Page 52 of 227
Page 53 of 227
Page 54 of 227
Page 55 of 227
Page 56 of 227
Page 57 of 227
Page 58 of 227
Page 59 of 227
Page 60 of 227
Page 61 of 227
Page 62 of 227
Page 63 of 227
Page 64 of 227
Page 65 of 227
Page 66 of 227
Page 67 of 227
Page 68 of 227
Page 69 of 227
Page 70 of 227
Page 71 of 227
Page 72 of 227
Page 73 of 227
Page 74 of 227
Page 75 of 227
Page 76 of 227
Page 77 of 227
Page 78 of 227
Page 79 of 227
Page 80 of 227
Page 81 of 227
Page 82 of 227
Page 83 of 227
Page 84 of 227
Page 85 of 227
Page 86 of 227
Page 87 of 227
Page 88 of 227
Page 89 of 227
Page 90 of 227
Page 91 of 227
Page 92 of 227
Page 93 of 227
Page 94 of 227
Page 95 of 227
Page 96 of 227
Page 97 of 227
Page 98 of 227
Page 99 of 227
Page 100 of 227
Page 101 of 227
Page 102 of 227
Page 103 of 227
Page 104 of 227
Page 105 of 227
Page 106 of 227
Page 107 of 227
Page 108 of 227
Page 109 of 227
Page 110 of 227
Page 111 of 227
Page 112 of 227
Page 113 of 227
Page 114 of 227
Page 115 of 227
Page 116 of 227
Page 117 of 227
Page 118 of 227
Page 119 of 227
Page 120 of 227
Page 121 of 227
Page 122 of 227
Page 123 of 227
Page 124 of 227
Page 125 of 227
Page 126 of 227
Page 127 of 227
Page 128 of 227
Page 129 of 227
Page 130 of 227
Page 131 of 227
Page 132 of 227
Page 133 of 227
Page 134 of 227
Page 135 of 227
Page 136 of 227
Page 137 of 227
Page 138 of 227
Page 139 of 227
Page 140 of 227
Page 141 of 227
Page 142 of 227
Page 143 of 227
Page 144 of 227
Page 145 of 227
Page 146 of 227
Page 147 of 227
Page 148 of 227
Page 149 of 227
KEN MANNONDirector, Operation Services
NINA BODENHAMER
Director, City Give
September 1, 2021
Tentative Purchase
& Charitable
Donation of Civic
Center
Condominiums
Page 150 of 227
Civic Center Condominiums
Civic Center Condominiums, 144 North Mason, Fort Collins, CO
•Eight (8) individual commercial units attached to the Civic
Center Parking Garage
•A total of 15,629-square feet
•Constructed in 2001, and renovated in 2014
Owned by Civic Center, LLC
•Estimated market value of $3,300,000 per a July 2018
Appraisal
•A current Appraisal the Seller’s responsibility and expense per
IRS regulation
Page 151 of 227
Tentative Purchase Details
Civic Center Condominiums
•Negotiated cash price of $975,000
•Substantially below the property’s appraised market
value of $3,300,000
The $2,325,000 Difference
•Between the estimated market value and the $975,000
purchase price will be awarded as a charitable donation
to the City.
Page 152 of 227
General Government
Capital Expansion Fund
Capital expansion fees are paid by new development to “buy-in”
to infrastructure and services provided by the City:
•Fire, Police, General Government Facilities, Neighborhood
Parks and Community Parks
General Government, Capital Expansion Fund
•Fund Balance: Approximately $12MM
•Authorized expenditures include the cost of purchasing or
leasing real property; construction, acquisition or expansion of
capital improvements or assets.
Page 153 of 227
Next Steps & Discussion
A Purchase & Sale Agreement Has Not Been Finalized
•Per IRS, an Appraisal is to be performed within 60 days of the
signed Purchase & Sale Agreement
•Places tentative closing date no later than 10/15/2021
Does Council Finance Committee support the
Appropriation of $975,000 from the General
Government Capital Expansion Fund for the tentative
purchase of the Civic Center Condominiums?
Page 154 of 227
Page 1
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director
Travis Storin, Chief Financial Officer
Date: September 1, 2021
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
First Reading of Ordinance No. , 2021, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds.
First Reading of Ordinance No. , 2021, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in Various City Funds.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of these Annual Adjustment Ordinances is to combine dedicated and unanticipated
revenues or reserves that need to be appropriated before the end of the year to cover the related
expenses that were not anticipated and therefore, not included in the 2021 annual budget appropriation.
The unanticipated revenue is primarily from fees, charges, rents, contributions, donations, and grants that
have been paid to City departments to offset specific expenses.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
• What questions or feedback does the Council Finance Committee have on the 2021 Annual
Adjustment Ordinance?
• Does the Council Finance Committee support moving forward with bringing the 2021 Annual
Adjustment Ordinance to the full City Council?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
These Ordinances appropriate unanticipated revenue and prior year reserves in various City funds and
authorizes the transfer of appropriated amounts between funds and/or projects. The City Charter permits
the City Council to appropriate unanticipated revenue received as a result of rate or fee increases or new
revenue sources, such as grants and reimbursements. The City Charter also permits the City Council to
provide, by ordinance, for payment of any expense from prior year reserves. Additionally, it authorizes the
City Council to transfer any unexpended appropriated amounts from one fund to another upon
recommendation of the City Manager, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be
expended remains unchanged; the purpose for which they were initially appropriated no longer exists; or
the proposed transfer is from a fund or capital project account in which the amount appropriated exceeds
the amount needed to accomplish the purpose specified in the appropriation ordinance.
If these appropriations are not approved, the City will have to reduce expenditures even though revenue
and reimbursements have been received to cover those expenditures.
The table below is a summary of the expenses in each fund that make up the increase in requested
appropriations. Also included are transfers between funds and/or projects which do not increase net
appropriations, but per the City Charter, require City Council approval to make the transfer. A table with
the specific use of prior year reserves appears at the end of the AIS.
Page 155 of 227
Page 2
A. GENERAL FUND
1. Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) administrative transfer (to Non-lapsing)
Transfers the existing appropriations within the General Fund of $130,000 to the Emergency
Management Performance Grant (EMPG) business unit per City policy regarding accounting for grants.
FROM: Previously appropriated expenses (lapsing business unit) $130,000
FOR: Transfer to Non-lapsing Grant business unit in the same Fund $130,000
2. City Give, responsible for managing philanthropic activity benefitting City programs and services, has
received philanthropic revenue from various sources for City programs and services within the General
Fund. A listing of these items follows:
a. $20,000 – The Gardens on Spring Creek - Urban Agriculture Grant: The Friends of the Gardens
on Spring Creek has received an Urban Agriculture grant award of $20,000 from the American
Public Gardens Association and the United States Botanic Garden. These funds are in support of
the Community Garden Outreach Program developed and managed by The Gardens on Spring
Creek, specifically for staffing and tools/supplies for the program.
b. $177 – Police Services - Police Explorers Program Support: The City Give program has received
a donation in support of the Police Services Community & Special Services Department's Police
Explorers program. Appropriating these funds will allow them to be spent to support the program,
per the donor's request.
c. $3,253 – Neighborhood Services - Restorative Justice Services Program Support: The City Give
program has received a donation in support of the Neighborhood Services Department's
Restorative Justice Services program. Appropriating these funds will allow them to be spent on
general program support, per the donor's request.
d. $2,000 – Parks, Forestry Division - Living Tree Memorial Program: The City Give program has
received multiple donations in support of the Parks Department / Forestry Division's 'Living Tribute'
tree planting program. Appropriating these funds will allow them to be spent on new tree plantings,
per the donors' requests.
e. $2,700 – The Gardens on Spring Creek - Garden Bed Program Support: The City Give program
has received multiple donations in support of the Gardens on Spring Creek 'Garden Bed' program.
Appropriating these funds will allow them to be spent on that program, per the donors' request.
TOTAL APPROPRIATION
FROM: Unanticipated Philanthropic Revenue (Urban Ag Grant) $20,000
FROM: Unanticipated Philanthropic Revenue (Various Donations) $8,130
$28,130
FOR: Community Garden Outreach Program $20,000
FOR: Police Explorers Program $177
Funding Unanticipated
Revenue
Prior Year
Reserves Transfers TOTAL
General Fund $484,673 $1,040,259 $0 $1,524,932
Capital Projects Fund 0 0 100,000 100,000
Transportation Services Fund 0 0 70,000 70,000
Self Insurance Fund 0 673,857 0 673,857
Golf Fund 350 0 0 350
Recreation Fund 2,000 0 0 2,000
GRAND TOTAL $487,023 $1,714,116 $170,000 $2,371,139
Page 156 of 227
Page 3
FOR: Restorative Justice Services Program $3,253
FOR: Living Tree Memorial Program $2,000
FOR: Garden Bed Program Support $2,700
$28,130
3. Land Bank Operational Expenses
This request is intended to cover expenses related to the land bank property maintenance needs for
2021. Since expenses vary from year to year, funding is requested annually mid-year to cover these
costs. Expenses in 2021 include general maintenance of properties, raw water and sewer expenses,
electricity, repairs, and other as applicable.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Land Bank reserve) $11,500
FOR: Land Bank Expenses $11,500
4. Poudre Fire Authority Contribution to Emergency Operations Center Remodel
This item requests appropriation of Poudre Fire Authority's $100,000 contribution towards the Emergency
Operations Center (EOC) remodel. This is a requested use of reserves since the funds were deposited
into City accounts late in 2020. The EOC is located in the municipal building at 215 North Mason St.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves $100,000
FOR: EOC remodel $100,000
5. Fort Collins Police Services (FCPS) has received revenue from various sources. A listing of these
items follows:
a. $65,366 – 2021-22 BATTLE (Beat Auto Theft Through Law Enforcement) Grant: The BATTLE
Grant is a state funded grant for overtime for officers to reduce auto theft and bring those who
steal automobiles to justice. This grant pays for overtime on a reimbursable basis along with the
purchase of two ALPR (Automatic License Plate Recognition) cameras systems.
b. $600,000 – Collective Bargaining Unit (CBU) - 2021 Salary & Benefit Increases: 2021 is the 3rd
year of the City's current agreement with the Police Services Collective Bargaining Unit and the
Fraternal Order of Police. Due to the timing of the negotiated calculation for these increases each
year, the amount of the increase was not known when the 2021 Annual Budget was adopted.
These prior year reserves in the General Fund will help fund these increases in 2021.
c. $8,370 – 2020-21 Click It or Ticket Grant: In October of 2020, Fort Collins Police Services was
awarded a 'Click It of Ticket' grant from the Colorado Department of Transportation and the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to pay for officers to work overtime to conduct
enforcement activities.
d. $32,092 - Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistant Grant (JAG): The Edward Byrne Memorial
Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) has been awarded to the City of Fort Collins to be used to fund
overtime costs for officers who work at the Northern Colorado Drug Task Force. These funds are
not shared with our partners and are exclusive to the City of Fort Collins, as City of Loveland and
Larimer County have received their own respective grant awards.
e. $7,035 - 2020 Law Enforcement Assistance Fund (LEAF) Grant: In 2020, Fort Collins Police
Services was awarded a grant from the Law Enforcement Assistance Fund (LEAF) to pay for
overtime for DUI enforcement and the purchase of a Police Laser (LIDAR) Speed Gun.
f. $7,650 - 2021 Law Enforcement Assistance Fund (LEAF) Grant: In 2021, Fort Collins Police
Services was awarded a grant from the Law Enforcement Assistance Fund (LEAF) to pay for
overtime for DUI enforcement.
g. $58,658 – Peace Officer Mental Health (POMH) Support Program Grant: Colorado's Department
of Local Affairs (DOLA) has awarded Fort Collins Police Services a Peace Officer Mental Health
Page 157 of 227
Page 4
Support Program grant. The grant will be spent in line with the program purpose, to hire a
contractual Mental Health Specialist who will assist with mental health programming to staff and
serving in an advisory capacity to our mental health co-response team.
h. $66,543 – Police Records Request Fees and Other Miscellaneous Police Revenue: Fort Collins
Police Services receives fee revenue from requests for Police reports and records. This request
also includes other miscellaneous Police revenues.
i. $198,971 – Reimbursements for Police Overtime Worked at Events: Police Services help
schedule security and traffic control for large events. Since these events are staffed by officers
outside of their normal duties’, officers are paid overtime. The organizations who requested officer
presence and then billed for the costs of the officers' overtime. FCPS partners with Larimer
County to staff events at The Ranch. Police receives reimbursement from Larimer County for
officers’ hours worked at Ranch events.
j. $8,556 – Contribution to Northern Colorado Drug Taskforce: As a part of the City of Fort Collins
contribution to the Northern Colorado Drug Taskforce, any Drug Offender Surcharge or Court
Ordered Restitution that is remitted from Larimer County Court to Fort Collins Police, is then
passed along to the NCDTF. Any additional restitution that is collected by FCPS is additionally
passed along to the NCDTF.
k. $4,664 - 2020-2021 State of Colorado Peace Officer Standards and Training (COPOST) Grant:
COPOST provides funding to agencies for various Police trainings on a reimbursement basis.
This is reimbursement for classes taken by officers within Fort Collins Police Services.
TOTAL APPROPRIATION
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2021-22 BATTLE Grant) $65,366
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (2021 CBU Assignment) $600,000
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2020-21 Click It or Ticket Grant) $8,370
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (‘JAG’ Grant) $32,092
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (2020 LEAF Grant) $837
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2020 LEAF Grant) $6,198
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2021 LEAF Grant) $7,650
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (POMH Grant) $58,658
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Records Fees & Miscellaneous Revenues) $66,543
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Overtime Reimbursement) $198,971
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (LarCo Restitution & DOS Remittances) $8,556
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (2020-21 COPOST Grant) $2,085
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2020-21 COPOST Grant) $2,579
$1,057,905
FOR: Overtime pay and two (2) ALPRs $65,366
FOR: 2021 Collective Bargaining Unit salary & benefit increases $600,000
FOR: Overtime for additional seat belt enforcement $8,370
FOR: Overtime for Drug Task Force officers $32,092
FOR: Overtime for DUI enforcement and a LIDAR Speed Gun $14,685
FOR: Contractual Mental Health Specialist $58,658
FOR: Police Administration $66,543
FOR: Police Services Overtime Costs $198,971
FOR: Contribution to Northern Colorado Drug Task Force $8,556
FOR: Officer Training Classes $4,664
$1,057,905
6. Radon Kits
Environmental Services sells radon test kits at cost as part of its program to reduce lung-cancer risk from
in-home radon exposure. This appropriation would recover kit-sales for the purpose of restocking radon
test kits.
Page 158 of 227
Page 5
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (radon kit sales) $1,560
FOR: Radon test kit purchase $1,560
7. Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate
Finance requests the appropriation of $154,528 to cover the amount due for the 2020 Manufacturing
Equipment Use Tax Rebate program as established in Chapter 25, Article II, Division 5, of the Municipal
Code. The rebate program was established to encourage investment in new manufacturing equipment by
local firms. Vendors have until December 31st of the following year to file for the rebate. This item
appropriates the use tax funds to cover the payment of the rebates.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Manufacturing Use Tax Rebate Assignment) $154,528
FOR: Manufacturing Use Tax Rebates $154,528
8. Transfer to Transportation Services Fund for Sweeping Landfill Fees (refer to item D1)
Historically, the City did not pay tipping fees to Larimer County. Instead, a fee was paid through the
Innovation Fund at the rate of $5.27 per square yard for rubble and was not increased over time to match
the fee increases changed at the landfill. By 2021, the tipping fee at the landfill for rubble had increased to
$20.35 per square yard. Streets is now paying the increased tipping fee and does not have the budget to
offset the cost. The sweeping budget was already reduced by $128K due to a reduction offer and is
unable to absorb the higher fee.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves $70,000
FOR: Transfer to Transportation Services Fund $70,000
9. Transfer to Transportation Services Fund for Interest Rate Savings on 2019 COP
As part of the 2019-20 BFO cycle, the City budgeted for the principal & interest debt service payments to
be made related to the Certificate of Participation (COP) issuance for the Interstate 25 & Prospect Road
interchange and the Police Training Center. Once the COP issuance was eventually completed, the
interest rates had moved in a favorable direction compared to the City's projections, resulting in savings
compared to the budgeted debt service payments. These savings were accounted for in the 2020
Revision process, but the budget savings were recorded entirely within the General Fund. Since the City's
Transportation Services Fund was also funding a portion of these debt service payments, that Fund
should also have received a portion of the interest rate savings. This transfer will pass those savings to
the Transportation Services Fund.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves $101,309
FOR: Transfer to Transportation Services Fund $101,309
B. COMMUNITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND
1. Southeast Community Innovation Center & Pool administrative transfer (refer to item C1)
Administrative transfer of amount appropriated in the 2021 Ordinance #75. The amount should have
been transferred from the Community Capital Improvement Program Fund to the Capital Projects Fund
for this project. This step was inadvertently omitted in the Ordinance language, the purpose of the
amount remains the same.
FROM: Existing Appropriations $100,000
FOR: Transfer to Capital Projects Fund $100,000
C. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
1. Southeast Community Innovation Center & Pool administrative transfer (refer to item B1)
Administrative transfer of amount appropriated in the 2021 Ordinance #75. The amount should have
been transferred from the Community Capital Improvement Program Fund to the Capital Projects Fund
Page 159 of 227
Page 6
for this project. This step was inadvertently omitted in the Ordinance language, the purpose of the
amount remains the same.
FROM: Transfer from Community Capital Improvement Projects Fund $100,000
FOR: Southeast Community Innovation Center & Pool project $100,000
D. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FUND
1. Sweeping Landfill Fees (refer to item A9)
Historically, the City did not pay tipping fees to Larimer County. Instead, a fee was paid through the
Innovation Fund at the rate of $5.27 per square yard for rubble and was not increased over time to match
the fee increases changed at the landfill. By 2021, the tipping fee at the landfill for rubble had increased to
$20.35 per square yard. Streets is now paying the increased tipping fee and does not have the budget to
offset the cost. The sweeping budget was already reduced by $128K due to a reduction offer and is
unable to absorb the higher fee.
FROM: Transfer from General Fund Prior Year Reserves $70,000
FOR: Sweeping Landfill Fees $70,000
E. SELF-INSURANCE FUND
1. Self Insurance Fund Insurance Premiums
Subsequent to the development of 2021 budget assumptions in spring 2020, the City’s insurance
premiums were dramatically increased for the 2020 and 2021 premium years. The drivers were conveyed
to the Council Finance Committee in December 2020 as part of a 2020 supplemental appropriation, and
the same conditions exist within the 2021 budget. Starting in 2022 the increase is fully realized within the
2022 Recommended Budget.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves $673,857
FOR: 2021 Insurance Premiums Increase $673,857
F. GOLF FUND
1. City Give: Parks, Golf Division - Youth Golf Scholarship Fund
The City Give program, responsible for managing philanthropic activity benefitting City programs and
services, has received a donation in support of the Parks Department / Golf Division's 'Youth Golf
Scholarship Fund'. Appropriating these funds will allow them to be spent per the Scholarship Fund's
objectives, and per the donor's request.
FROM: Unanticipated Philanthropic Revenue (Donations) $350
FOR: Youth Golf Scholarship Fund $350
G. RECREATION FUND
1. City Give: Recreation - Adaptive Recreation Opportunities Program Support and Equipment
The City Give program, responsible for managing philanthropic activity benefitting City programs and
services, has received a donation in support of the Recreation Department's Adaptive Recreation
Opportunities program. Appropriating these funds will allow them to be spent on program support and
new equipment, per the donor's request.
FROM: Unanticipated Philanthropic Revenue (Donations) $2,000
FOR: Adaptive Recreations Opportunities Program Support and Equipment $2,000
Page 160 of 227
Page 7
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This Ordinance increases total City 2021 appropriations by $2,371,139. Of that amount, this Ordinance
increases General Fund 2021 appropriations by $1,524,932, including use of $1,040,259 in prior year
reserves. Funding for the total increase to City appropriations is $487,023 from unanticipated revenue,
$1,714,116 from prior year reserves, and $170,000 from transfers between Funds.
The following is a summary of the items requesting prior year reserves:
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment #1 – Presentation to City Council Finance Committee
Item #Fund Use Amount
A3 General Land Bank Operational Expenses 11,500
A5 General PFA Contribution to Emergency Operation Center
Remodel
100,000
A 6b General Collective Bargaining Unit - 2021 Salary & Benefit
Increases
600,000
A 6f General 2020 Law Enforcement Assistance Fund (LEAF) Grant 837
A6l General 2020-21 State of Colorado Peace Officer Standards and
Training (COPOST) Grant
2,085
A8 General Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate 154,528
A9 General Transfer to Transportation Fund for Sweeping Landfill Fees
(refer to item D1)
70,000
A 10 General Transfer to Transportation Services Fund for Interest Rate
Savings on 2019 COP
101,309
E1 Self Insurance Total Self Insurance Fund 673,857
Total Use of Prior Year Reserves:1,714,116
Page 161 of 227
2021 Annual Adjustment Ordinance
Council Finance Committee –September 1, 2021
Attachment #1
Page 162 of 227
22021 Annual Adjustment Ordinance
The recommended 2021 Annual Adjustment Ordinance is
intended to address:
•2021 unanticipated revenues (e.g., grants & donations)
•Appropriation of unassigned reserves to fund unanticipated expenditures
associated with approved 2021 appropriations
•Should be routine and non-controversial
•Items approved by the ordinance need to be spent within fiscal / calendar
year 2021, unless non-lapsing in nature
Page 163 of 227
32021 Annual Adjustment Ordinance
City-wide Ordinance No. , 2021 increases total City 2021
appropriations by $2,371k
•This Ordinance increases General Fund 2021 appropriations by $1,525k,
including the use of $1,040k in prior year reserves. Those reserves are
primarily for:
o $600k for Police Collective Bargaining Unit Salary & Benefit Increases
o $155k for Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate
o $100k for Emergency Operations Center Remodel
o $101k for Transfer to Transportations Services Fund for Interest Rate Savings
•Funding for the total City appropriation of $2,371k is:
o $487k from Unanticipated Revenue
o $1,714k from Prior Year Reserves
o $170k from Transfers Between FundsPage 164 of 227
4Summary of 2021 Adjustments by Fund
Funding (all values in $k)Unanticipated
Revenue
Prior Year
Reserves Transfers TOTAL
General Fund $485 $1,040 $0 $1,525
Capital Projects Fund 0 0 100 100
Transportation Services Fund 0 0 70 70
Self Insurance Fund 0 674 0 674
Golf Fund 0 0 0 0
Recreation Fund 2 0 0 2
GRAND TOTAL $487 $1,714 $170 $2,371
Page 165 of 227
5Larger Adjustments
Item (in $k)General Fund Self Insurance
Fund Other TOTAL
Collective Bargaining Unit - 2021 Salary &
Benefit Increases $600.0 $600.0
Reimbursements for Police Overtime Worked
at Events $199.0 $199.0
Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate $154.5 $154.5
Self Insurance Fund Insurance Premiums $673.9 $673.9
Sub-Total $953.5 $673.9 $0.0 $1,627.4
All Other Recommended Items 571.4 - 172.4 743.8
TOTAL $1,524.9 $673.9 $172.4 $2,371.1
Page 166 of 227
62021 Annual Adjustment Ordinance
Guidance Requested:
•What questions or feedback does the Council Finance Committee have
on the 2021 Annual Adjustment Ordinance?
•Does the Council Finance Committee support moving forward with
bringing the 2021 Annual Adjustment Ordinance to the full City Council?
Page 167 of 227
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Kurt Friesen, Park Planning & Development Director
Mike Calhoon, Director of Parks
Victoria Shaw, Community Services FP&A Manager
Matt Schaefer, Senior Facilities Project Manager
Date: 09/01/2021
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION East District Maintenance Facility
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An additional appropriation of $1.2M is needed for the East District Maintenance Facility,
proposed near the intersection of Drake & Ziegler. The maintenance facility will house
equipment and staff for the east park district, which includes multiple parks on the east side of
the city. The additional appropriation is needed to fund necessary elements of the project, as well
as to account for material cost escalations which are largely the result of COVID. Additional
appropriations will come from dedicated park impact fees.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance Committee support an additional appropriation request to Council for the
East Park District Maintenance Facility project?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Facility Location & Need
A new East District Maintenance Facility (EDMF) is proposed near the intersection of Drake &
Ziegler. The facility will house Parks maintenance staff and equipment to serve a total of 8 parks
located within the east park district. Parks within the district include Twin Silo, Stew Case,
English Ranch, Harmony, Radiant, and the Archery Range. In addition, new parks including
Bucking Horse Park, scheduled for completion in 2022 and East Community Park, will also be
served by this facility.
Currently, maintenance staff and equipment for these parks is being housed in temporary
facilities adjacent to the Fossil Creek Park maintenance facility, located in Fossil Creek Park.
City staff are moving equipment and staff daily from this shop location to the east side of the city
to provide maintenance in the east district. There is an immediate need for the new maintenance
facility to relieve pressure on the facilities in Fossil Creek Park that was designed to
accommodate only two crews. The Forestry Division has seen significant growth with an average
of 1,500 trees per year being added to the existing 57,000 public tree inventory. One of the
Forestry teams will also work out of the EDMF to enhance the level of service and operational
efficiencies gained by a precinct model.
Page 168 of 227
In 2019, the City purchased the triangular shaped 3.1 acre parcel for the maintenance facility,
located south of the Drake Water Reclamation Facility. This site was selected for the
maintenance facility as it is conveniently located near the proposed East Community Park site
and provides direct access to the other neighborhood parks and trails in the area, including
Bucking Horse Park, a new neighborhood park planned for construction in 2022.
Community Outreach
Two neighborhood meetings have been conducted to date for the project. The first was held
November 20, 2019, and the second on May 27, 2021. At both meetings, community members
were provided opportunity to provide feedback on both the maintenance facility and a new
neighborhood park proposed in the Bucking Horse neighborhood. Support for both projects was
positive. The maintenance facility project was also reviewed and approved by the Planning &
Zoning Board on April 20, 2021.
Appropriation History
A total of $5.8M has been appropriated for the project to date. This includes $0.75M from the
Neighborhood Parkland Fund, and $5.05M from the Community Parkland Fund. As outlined in
Ordinance 58, approved in 2000, maintenance facilities are essential to the health and longevity
of parks and must be included as part of the overall park building plan, with 20% of the cost
being associated with neighborhood parks and 80% with community parks.
Budget Shortfall
Design of the facility has been underway for approximately one year. 100% construction
documents and multiple cost estimates for the project have been prepared. An initial Guaranteed
Maximum Price (GMP) was prepared in May 2021, which aligned with the available budget, but
identified many necessary project elements as unfunded alternates. Additionally, significant cost
escalations have taken place because of COVID. To deliver a complete project, an additional
appropriation of $1.2M is needed, as outlined:
East District Maintenance Facility Project Cost Summary
Maintenance Facility Costs ($M) Original
Budget
Current
Projection $ Increase
Construction $ 4.00 $ 4.77 $ 0.77
Fees/Utilities/Furnishings $ 1.80 $ 1.80 $ 0.00
Land (previously billed to East Community Park Project) $ - $ 0.43 $ 0.43
TOTAL $ 5.80 $ 7.00 $ 1.20
Of the $1.2M total appropriation request, approximately $800,000 is for construction, and the
remaining amount is for reimbursement of the East Community Park account, from which
funding was drawn to cover the cost of the land purchase ($431,000), as the maintenance facility
was originally planned to be on the park site. This appropriation will backfill the park account
accordingly.
The total project cost represents a 20% increase over the 2020 estimate. This is in line with
material pricing changes which have occurred since 2020. Raw material shortages and
manufacturing issues contributed to sharp increases in building materials over the past year. The
Page 169 of 227
chart below illustrates the commodity level pricing changes for non-residential projects in the
Denver Metro Area from 2019 through Q1 of 2021. Source: M.A. Mortenson
This summary suggests an overall average material cost escalation of approximately 26%. Cost
escalations of this magnitude are common in the market today and align with both Northern
Colorado and Denver construction cost indices, where a 5% increase was observed in the first
quarter of 2021. Primary drivers for these cost escalations include material shortages, skilled
labor shortages, and an increase in transportation related expenses.
Financial Impacts
Staff proposes the additional funding be split between neighborhood and community park
sources. $640,000 is proposed to be added from the Neighborhood Parkland Fund and $520,000
added from the Community Parkland/Capital Expansion fund. These funds are comprised of
dedicated impact fees that can only be used for new park development, including new park
maintenance facilities.
Typically, each fund is forecasted to generate approximately $1.5M annually. Actual revenues
vary and are driven by the pace and quantity of residential development occurring throughout the
city. Based on normally forecasted revenue levels, the proposed additional appropriations could
delay the development of both the next new neighborhood and community park by
approximately 6 months.
Maintenance Facility Funding ($M) Original Proposed $ Increase
Neighborhood Parkland $ 0.75 $ 1.39 $ 0.64
Community Parks Capital Impact $ 5.05 $ 5.57 $ 0.52
Total $ 5.80 $ 6.96 $ 1.16
Page 170 of 227
Next Steps
City staff recommends bringing forward an appropriation request of an additional $1.2M for the
East District Maintenance Facility for City Council approval. Construction of the maintenance
facility is anticipated to begin fall 2021 with the facility open in summer/fall 2022.
ATTACHMENTS (numbered Attachment 1, 2, 3,…)
Attachment 1 – EDMF Project Presentation
Page 171 of 227
Presented by:
East District
Maintenance Facility
09-01-2021
Kurt Friesen
Director, Park Planning &
Development
Page 172 of 227
2Question for Council Finance Committee
Does Council Finance Committee support an additional appropriation request to Council for the
East District Maintenance Facility Project?
Page 173 of 227
Maintenance Facility Purpose
•Typically located on or near a
Community Park
•Provides localized equipment to
perform daily maintenance tasks
•Provides office space for district
park crews
•Strategically located for
efficiencies
•Dispersed facility locations help
to improve customer service
3
Spring Canyon Community Park Maintenance FacilityPage 174 of 227
4Precinct Maintenance Facility System Benefits
•Resilient model for the continuity of
operations
•Provides for the efficient delivery of
high-quality services with lower GHG
emissions
•Increased safety with less equipment
transportation. Average drive time
across Fort Collins is 20 minutes
•Opportunities for
permanent/temporary co-location of
operations between departments
•Equitable service throughout the
community
Page 175 of 227
5East Park District
Page 176 of 227
6Site Context
East District
Maintenance Facility
Location
Page 177 of 227
7Temporary Facilities at Fossil Creek Park
Page 178 of 227
8Maintenance Facility Renderings
Page 179 of 227
Community Support
2 Community Meetings:
Meeting 1 -November 20, 2019
Meeting 2 -May 27, 2021
Planning & Zoning Approval:
April 20, 2021
9
Page 180 of 227
Material Price Escalations 10
Page 181 of 227
Additional Appropriation Request 11
4
4.8
1.8
1.8 0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
ORIGINAL BUDGET
PROJECTION
Construction Fees/Utilities/Furnishings Land
$5.8M
$7.0M
Land purchased
from park
account
Backfill
park
account
$1.2M Additional Funding Needed
Page 182 of 227
Financial Impact 12
Maintenance
Facility Funding
($M)
Original Proposed $ Increase
Neighborhood
Parkland $ 0.75 $ 1.40 $ 0.65
Community Parks
Capital Impact $ 5.05 $ 1.60 $ 0.55
Total $ 5.80 $ 7.00 $ 1.20
Page 183 of 227
Next Steps
Construction begins: Fall 2021
Estimated completion: Summer/Fall 2022
13
Page 184 of 227
14Question for Council Finance Committee
Does Council Finance Committee support an additional appropriation request to Council for the
East District Maintenance Facility Project?
Page 185 of 227
1
Utilities
electric · stormwater · wastewater · water
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.212.2900
V/TDD: 711
utilities@fcgov.com
fcgov.com/utilities
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
STAFF: Donnie Dustin, Water Resources Manager
Lance Smith, Director of Finance, Planning & Administration
Dr. Liesel Hans, Interim Deputy Director of Water Resources & Treatment
DATE: August 24, 2021
SUBJECT: Proposed Changes to the Water Supply Requirements Cash-in-Lieu Fee
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Water Supply Requirements (“WSR”) and its associated Cash-in-Lieu (“CIL”) Fee generate
the revenue used to ensure that adequate water supplies and associated infrastructure are
available to reliably serve the water needs of development within the City of Fort Collins
Utilities (“Utilities”) water service area. Starting in 2017, the CIL is being reviewed at least
every 2 years. Staff is proposing significant changes to the WSR volume calculations to improve
the precision of how we estimate the water demand of development, which were presented at the
May 11 City Council work session and will be considered for adoption on September 21. In
addition, there have been significant cost increases to the Halligan Water Supply Project and
other water rights required for providing reliable water supplies as growth continues. Unlike
most other fees, the CIL fee increase is a function of unprecedented inflation in costs. Staff
proposes the CIL fee be increased approximately 60% to $68,200 per acre-foot of use at the tap
to reflect these changes.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT:
• What questions or feedback does the Council Finance Committee have regarding the
proposed CIL fee change?
• What additional information is needed for City Council’s consideration of the proposed
change?
BACKGROUND:
Developing water supplies in Northern Colorado is complex, dynamic, and full of uncertainty.
Climate change, increased competition, permitting issues, and changing growth make developing
these supplies and assessing the cost to do so quite complex. The Utilities’ Water Supply and
Demand Management Policy provides guidance for addressing these uncertainties through
multiple means like developing additional supplies (e.g., Halligan Water Supply Project, etc.),
continued water conservation efforts, and adjusting the WSR and associated CIL fee as needed to
reflect changes in costs. The purpose of this agenda item is to describe the proposed changes to
the CIL fee.
Page 186 of 227
2
Water Service Providers in Fort Collins:
Utilities water service area covers the central portion of Fort Collins. Utilities supplies water to
approximately 75% of residents and businesses within the Fort Collins city limits. Water service
in the surrounding areas is provided by other water providers, mainly the East Larimer County
(ECLO) and Fort Collins-Loveland (FCLWD) water districts (see Attachment 1). Each water
service provider has their own drivers (source of supply, development patterns) that determine
their WSR calculations and CIL fee. The proposed CIL fee changes only apply to the Utilities
water service area.
Water Development Fees:
There are three water-related development fees assessed on development in the Utilities water
service area. The first is the WSR and associated CIL fee which assesses the cost to provide
reliable water resources for the new water demand. The second is the water plant investment fee
(“PIF”) which assesses the cost of the treatment and distribution infrastructure required to
process and transport the treated water. Lastly is the tap fee, which assesses the cost of the meter
and connection to the new development. The focus of this agenda item is on the WSR and CIL
fee.
Key Terms and Definitions:
The following are definitions of the WSR and CIL fee. A complete list of terms and definitions
can be found in Attachment 2.
Developers, including greenfield development and redevelopment, must meet a Water
Supply Requirement:
• Water Supply Requirements (“WSR”): A requirement for water service from Utilities.
A WSR accounts for the additional water demand, defined in gallons or acre-feet of
water, brought into the Utilities water service area by a new development or
redevelopment. The developer satisfies a WSR by dedicating water rights or paying cash-
in-lieu of water rights to Utilities. This provides the revenue to develop reliable water
resources for the development, including water rights and associated infrastructure.
WSRs are in line with the City’s approach that development pays for itself.
• Cash-in-lieu (“CIL”) Fee: A developer can meet a WSR by paying cash, instead of
providing water rights. The CIL fee is based on the cost to meet future water needs and
includes the expected cost to acquire water rights and associated infrastructure. The
current cost is $42,518 per 325,851 gallons (1 acre-foot) of use at the tap and the CIL fee
is updated at least every two years.
Goals, Outcomes and Drivers:
The WSR and CIL fee help Utilities follow the City’s strategic plan object ENV 4.4: Provide a
reliable, high-quality water supply, as well as guidance from the City’s Water Supply and
Demand Management Policy, by assuring cash is collected to pay for additional infrastructure or
water rights needed to increase the reliable yield of the Utilities’ water supply system. Utilities is
responsible for ensuring our customers have enough water today and into the future, while
upholding the City approach that development and redevelopment pay their own way. As the
Page 187 of 227
3
costs of acquiring and developing water resources have increased, the cost to secure water for the
additional demand have increased too. Since 2018, there has been a significant increase in the
costs to develop water supplies. This is not unique to Utilities – all water providers across the
Front Range are facing a significant increase in costs. Most water providers are shifting to plan
for populations much larger than previously expected, and at the same time, climate change is
dramatically increasing the variability in water availability from year to year. Responsible water
management is essential to meet the needs of Fort Collins today, and to maintain our quality of
life into the future.
Water Supply Requirements (“WSR”):
Although not part of this agenda item, Staff is proposing significant changes to the WSR
calculations to reflect water demands more granularly across varied types of development and to
encourage efficient water use in new development. The key WSR changes include:
• Commercial WSR being based on business type and size versus just tap size
o Better reflects actual use (higher use pays more; lower use pays less)
• Separating indoor and outdoor water needs
o Incentivizes low water use landscapes
• Elimination of the Water Supply Factor from the WSR calculations
o Recognizes that elements of the factor are represented in updated yield modeling
o Reduces confusion for customers who increase their water allotment
The proposed WSR changes mentioned above were described in detail for the May 11, 2021 City
Council Work Session (see link below for materials) and will be presented for action at the
September 21, 2021 City Council regular meeting.
https://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=72&docid=3524135&dt=AGENDA+ITEM&doc
_download_date=MAY-11-2021&ITEM_NUMBER=03
Cash-in-Lieu (“CIL”) Fee:
Once the amount of water needed for a development is determined via the WSR calculations, the
total cost can be calculated via the CIL fee (if the developer does not provide “wet” water rights,
which most do not). In 2017, City Council adopted significant changes to the CIL fee
methodology that became effective in 2018. Prior to that, the CIL fee had not been updated since
2001. With guidance from BBC Research & Consulting (specializing in utility fees and rates),
the methodology adopted was a hybrid between incremental cost and equity buy-in approaches.
An incremental cost approach only considers the additional costs needed to increase its water
supply system capacity to serve new development. An equity buy-in approach places an overall
value on both the existing and future water supply system to determine the CIL fee. A hybrid
combination of both these methods was used since adding capacity to the water supply system
depends on the addition of storage (incremental costs) and use of the existing portfolio of water
supplies (buy-in portion) to make the additional capacity. Each utility determines its approach
based on its own unique factors. For example, East Larimer County Water District’s (ELCO) has
more of an incremental approach, Fort Collins-Loveland Water District (FCLWD) has a hybrid
approach, and the City of Greeley has a full equity buy-in approach.
Page 188 of 227
4
The current CIL fee method calculates the cost to increase reliable yield as the sum of:
1. Cost of future infrastructure (e.g., Halligan Water Supply Project, etc.)
2. Cost of future water rights (e.g., local ditch shares)
3. Buy-in to existing water supplies
Using this methodology, the CIL fee was increased by 166% in 2017 (effective in 2018) after
having not been updated since 2001. Staff committed to reviewing and updating the CIL at least
every two years. A 24% increase was adopted in 2019 (effective in 2020). A standard
inflationary 3% increase was adopted (with other Utility fees) in 2020 (effective in 2021).
Over the last few years, there have been significant increases to the expected costs of the
Halligan Water Supply Project (“Halligan”) and the cost of local water rights. Halligan costs
have increased due to permitting length and complexity, rising construction costs, mitigation
needs and access issues. Also, the cost of water rights has increased as much as 22 percent per
year due to competition for these dwindling resources and booming development across the
Front Range. The following presents the three components that go into the CIL fee methodology.
1. Cost of future infrastructure ($201.8M):
Adding storage to the Utilities water supply system (via the Halligan project) will help meet a
majority of the projected future needs by storing existing and future water rights at times of
surplus (e.g., wet years) for use in drought years when other water supplies are diminished. The
Halligan cost used in the 2019 CIL fee update was $74.1M. A Halligan cost update completed in
late 2019 (after outreach on the updated CIL fee) projected a range of costs between $100M and
$150M. A 30 percent design analysis of Halligan is currently being conducted (due for
completion in early 2022). Early indications are that the costs will increase. Therefore, staff
recommends using the upper portion of the 2019 cost analysis range ($150M). For comparison,
alternatives described in the permitting for the Halligan Water Supply Project are up to 4.5 times
more expensive. In addition to Halligan, there are about $5.2M of additional long-term
infrastructure needs. Applying a standard 30% engineering contingency to these needs, the total
estimated future infrastructure costs are $201.8M.
2. Cost of future water rights ($53.4M):
Although the Halligan project is expected to address most of the Utilities water supply needs,
additional water rights are required to meet projected future demands. Utilities currently plans to
acquire about 150-200 additional shares in the North Poudre Irrigation Company (“NPIC”) and
about 300 acre-feet of shares in other local ditch companies (referred to as the Southside Ditches
or “SSD”). Costs for these shares have increased between 11-22% per year in recent years,
roughly doubling their projected costs over the past five years. For example, North Poudre
Irrigation Company shares have gone from $88,000 to $200,000 per share from 2017 to the
present. Applying these market increases and a 30% contingency results in a total estimated
future water right costs of $53.4M.
3. Buy-in to Existing Water Supplies ($264.7M):
New development will be buying into and benefitting from the existing water supply portfolio
that includes valuable and reliable senior direct Poudre flow rights, Colorado-Big Thompson
Page 189 of 227
5
Project units and other Horsetooth Reservoir sources. Utilities’ plan for generating new water
supplies requires two main components: infrastructure and wet water. Building a new or larger
“bucket” isn’t valuable without water to store in that bucket. In some years our water rights yield
more water than we use and therefore without storage we underutilize our portfolio. The
majority of the ‘wet water’ used to generate additional supply to meet future demands will come
from using the existing customers’ water supply portfolio in conjunction with the additional
storage. We currently model and estimate the amount to be about 2,645 acre-feet. BBC Research
& Consulting estimated that the Utilities’ water supply portfolio is worth about $3.17B, or about
$100,100 per acre-foot of reliable yield. Applying this amount to the to 2,645 acre-feet of water
used from existing customers water supply portfolio, the value of use of the existing portfolio is
estimated to be $264.7M.
Factor of Safety (20%):
There are many uncertainties in developing water supplies and assessing future growth within
the Utilities service area, including potential impacts of climate change, uncertainty in the
ultimate costs of developing water supplies, the amount and type of development, etc. The
current WSR calculations include a 1.92 water supply factor that among other things, included a
20 percent factor of safety that recognized these uncertainties. The 1.92 factor will be removed
from the WSR calculations due to updated modeling that more accurately captures other
variables included in the factor. This simplifies the calculation and makes it more transparent.
Staff recommends the continuation of the 20 percent factor of safety by incorporating it into the
CIL fee calculation instead of the WSR volume calculation. The continuation of this factor is
justified considering the results of the 2019 Water Supply Vulnerability Study (“Study”)
conducted by Utilities, which identified numerous risks and uncertainties that have not yet been
incorporated into our water supply planning. For example, the Study indicated a 20-35 percent
reduction in water supply reliability from projected temperature increases alone, which suggests
this factor could even be higher than 20 %
Proposed CIL fee:
Combining the components of the CIL fee methodology mentioned above, the following is the
calculation for the proposed CIL fee:
$201.8M: Cost of future infrastructure
$53.4M: Cost of future water rights
$264.7M: Buy-in to existing water supplies
$519.9M: Total cost to increase reliability
Page 190 of 227
6
This results in about a 60 percent increase to the current cost per acre-foot of use (at the tap) of
$42,518. The following table shows a comparison of the values used in the current and proposed
CIL fee that briefly explains what is in the separate components and the rationale for the
changes.
Excess Water Use (“EWU”) Surcharge Rate:
Some non-residential taps (only some commercial businesses and irrigation taps), specifically
those installed after March 1984, have an allotment (annual volume of water in gallons) that is
based upon the WSR that was satisfied at the time of development or redevelopment. Non-
residential taps with allotments face the EWU surcharge if their annual water use exceeds their
allotment, which is in addition to the standard water use rates. Customers can satisfy additional
Component Includes Current Proposed Rationale
1. Cost of future
infrastructure
Halligan estimate + other
minor needs $98.9M $201.8M
Uses upper cost estimate for
Halligan and increases contingency
to correctly match the design phase
2. Cost of future
water rights
NPIC and SSD shares
needed in addition to
Halligan
$28.2M $53.4M
Reflect current market prices. NPIC
shares have increased about 22%
per year in recent years
3. Buy-in to
existing portfolio
Estimate of portfolio
value, and how much
future demand will utilize
$40.5M $264.7M
Corrects approach of basing value
on least valuable water rights, and
previous CIL fees. Total portfolio
conservatively valued at $3.17B.
Total $167.6M $519.9M
Factor of Safety Considers the uncertainty
in water supply planning
1.2 (in WSR
calculation)
1.2 (in CIL fee
calcuation)
New modeling captures much of
what used to be in the 1.92 factor in
the WSR calculation. Retains the
longstanding 20% “factor of safety”.
Cost per acre-foot
of use ~$42,500* ~$68,200
* - The current CIL fee includes a standard inflationary 3% increase that was adopted in 2020 (effective in 2021) without
adjustments to the CIL fee components.
Page 191 of 227
7
WSR to increase their allotments. The EWU surcharge provides revenue to purchase additional
water supplies to account for the additional water demand over the allotment and therefore over
the WSR satisfied for the property. As the EWU surcharge rate is based on the CIL fee, the EWU
surcharge rate will also increase by about 60 percent from a rate of $10.39 to $16.67 per 1,000
gallons over the allotment. Utilities has programs to help customers mitigate the impact of these
costs including facility audits, fixture rebates, the Landscape Water Budget program, the
Xeriscape Incentive Program, and the Utilities’ Allotment Management Program, which provides
eligible customers a temporary waiver from the EWU surcharges if they meet certain
qualifications and submit an application detailing a project that demonstrates a long-term water
reduction. Customers potentially impacted by the proposed CIL change have already been
notified through outreach earlier this year.
Development Impacts:
The following graphs show a comparison of the current (in green) and proposed (in blue) costs
for different types of development, along with a comparison with other regional water providers.
Note that the other water provider amounts are only estimates and are based on 2021 rates, not
any expected increases for 2022. The first two graphs compare costs for typical single-family
homes and typical multifamily developments, respectively. The last two graphs compare costs
for use from a ¾-inch tap for a low water use entity (office space) and a high water use
commercial entity (restaurant). Under the current system, both ¾-inch tap customers would pay
the same amount even though there are large differences in water use. The updated WSR
calculations provide more accurate assessment of the different water uses. Although future
higher water use development (like restaurants) will see a significant cost increase from the
proposed changes, these changes should result in allotments that are correctly sized and avoid
those future customers from being charged EWU surcharge fees each year because of an
undersized tap.
Page 192 of 227
8
$13,100
$21,100
$18,300
$18,400
$19,200
$29,000
$32,000
$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000
Ft. Collins Utilities
Current (Jan 2021)
Ft. Collins Utilities
Proposed (Jan 2022)
Loveland (2021)
Greeley (2021)
Westminster (2021)
East Larimer County
(2021)
Ft. Collins Loveland
(2021)
Cost, rounded to nearest $100 ($)
Water Supply Costs for a Typical Single Family Home in
Northern Colorado
$215,700
$291,200
$240,823
$266,000
$426,400
$553,600
$873,700
$0 $250,000 $500,000 $750,000 $1,000,000
Ft. Collins Utilities
Current (Jan 2021)
Ft. Collins Utilities
Proposed (Jan 2022)
Westminster (2021)
Greeley (2021)
Loveland (2021)
East Larimer County
(2021)
Ft. Collins Loveland
(2021)
Cost, rounded to nearest $100 ($)
Water Supply Costs for Multi-Family Development in
Northern Colorado
Page 193 of 227
9
$38,300
$6,300
$3,600
$6,700
$39,400
$40,000
$40,200
$0 $25,000 $50,000
Ft. Collins Utilities
Current (Jan 2021)
Ft. Collins Utilities
Proposed (Jan 2022)
Westminster (2021)
Greeley (2021)
East Larimer County
(2021)
Ft. Collins Loveland
(2021)
Loveland (2021)
Cost, rounded to nearest $100 ($)
Water Supply Costs for 4,300 sqft Office or 3/4"
Commercial Taps in Northern Colorado
$38,300
$85,000
$39,400
$40,000
$40,200
$57,968
$59,000
$0 $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000
Ft. Collins Utilities
Current (Jan 2021)
Ft. Collins Utilities
Proposed (Jan 2022)
East Larimer County
(2021)
Ft. Collins Loveland
(2021)
Loveland (2021)
Westminster (2021)
Greeley (2021)
Cost, rounded to nearest $100 ($)
Water Supply Costs for 2,800 sqft Restaurant or
3/4" Commercial Taps in Northern Colorado
Page 194 of 227
10
Summary:
The proposed changes to the CIL fee reflect the unprecedented increasing costs of developing
water supplies, while also addressing the uncertainty in doing so. This obtains the goal of
generating adequate revenue to pay for developing reliable supplies for new development into
the future, while assuring development pays its own way and avoids impacts to current
customers. Although the CIL fee increase is significant, the WSR changes will help balance that
out by being more reflective of actual water use and other changes will enable more
opportunities for future development to lower their water use to minimize costs.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff will be conducting outreach to boards and commissions and stakeholders through October.
Input from these entities will be shared when changes are proposed for adoption by City Council
on November 2 and 16, 2021.
Staff will continue to review and adjust the CIL fee as part of the City’s 2-year rates and fees
adjustment cycle. Although the next update would be in 2023 (effective in 2024), staff may
propose a mid-cycle adjustment depending on the outcome of the Halligan Water Supply Project
30 percent design analysis being conducted (due for completion in early 2022).
Staff is planning to update the Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (“Policy”) in
2023-2024. This effort will integrate the potential impacts of climate change and other
vulnerabilities (per the 2019 Water Supply Vulnerability Study) to determine new planning
criteria around our water supply reliability (e.g., frequency of water restrictions, etc.). The Policy
update will need to consider future water supply and conservation needs, which will likely result
in revisions to the WSR and CIL fee.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Fort Collins Area Water Districts Map (PDF)
2. Definitions and Terms (PDF)
Page 195 of 227
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!HORSETOOTH
MULBERRY
SHIELDSLAPORTEUS
HIGHWAY
287
STRAUSS CABINLAUREL
MOUNTAIN
DRAKE
PROSPECT
WILLOX
TAFT HILLVINE
COUNTRY C LU B
SUNIGA VINE
RICHARDS LAKE
TURNBERRYTRILBY
COUNTY ROAD 38
MULBERRY
DOUGLAS
ELIZABETH LEMAYMULBERRY
COUNTYROAD3 8 E
MOUNTAIN VISTA
L I N COLN
HARMONY
GRE
G
O
RYKECHTER
C
O
UNTYROAD54G
STATE HIGHWAY 392HARMONY
VINE
MASONMAINSUNIGA
ZIEGLERLINCOLN
COUNTY ROAD 3CARPENTERJOHNFKENNEDY
COUNTY ROAD 30
HARMONY COUNTY ROAD 5COUNTY LINEINTERSTATE25COUNTY ROAD 5TAFT HILLCOUNTY ROAD 19GIDDINGSCOLLEGETIMBERLINELEMAYLEMAYLEMAYZIEGLERRIV
E
R
SID
E
OVERLANDTERRYLAKEZ
I
EGLERSHIELDSCOUNTYROAD5INTERSTATE 25TAFTHILL/
Fort Collins Area Water Districts
0 1 2 3 4 50.5
Miles
Water Districts
East Larimer County Water District
Fort Collins Loveland Water District
Fort Collins Utilities (Water)
Sunset Water District
West Fort Collins Water District
GMA
!!!!!!City Limits
Major Streets
Figure Updated: 10/23/2018
All boundaries are approximate
Page 196 of 227
Information current as of May 2021
Definitions and Terms related to Water Supply Requirements Update
• Acre-foot: An acre-foot is equivalent to 325,851 gallons. One acre-foot can supply around three
to four single family homes in Fort Collins per year. For comparison, the maximum volume of
Horsetooth Reservoir is about 157,000 acre-feet.
• Allotment: The volume of water a given tap can use per year before incurring Excess Water Use
surcharges. Only non-residential taps installed after 1984 have water allotments. The allotment
volume is based on the amount of Water Supply Requirement satisfied at the time of
development plus any increases to the allotment paid for after development. A customer may
increase their allotment at any time by paying cash or providing additional water rights.
• Allotment Management Program: Provides eligible Utilities water customers with a temporary
waiver from their Excess Water Use surcharges if they meet certain qualifications and submit an
application detailing a project that demonstrates long-term water reductions.
• Cash-in-lieu: The cash equivalent of the water supply required to meet the needs of
development. The cash-in-lieu fee is based off the cost to meet future water needs and includes
the expected cost to acquire water rights and associated infrastructure. The current cost is
$42,518 per 325,851 gallons and is updated every two years.
• Duplex: Residential buildings of two dwelling units.
• Dwelling Unit: One or more rooms and a single kitchen designed for or occupied as a unit by
one family for living and cooking purposes, located in a single-family or multifamily dwelling.
• ELCO: East Larimer County Water District. Water district that generally serves the northeastern
portion of the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. Map found here.
• Excess Water Use (EWU) surcharge: A volumetric charge assessed on all water used through
the remainder of the calendar year once a non-residential customer has exceeded their annual
allotment. The EWU is applied in addition to the regular utility rates. This surcharge is tied to the
cash-in-lieu fee for the Water Supply Requirements and is evaluated every two years. Revenue
from the EWU surcharge goes toward acquiring, developing and improving Utilities’ water
supplies to address the impact of customers exceeding their planned allotment. The current EWU
surcharge is $10.39 per 1,000 gallons over the allotment.
• FCLWD: Fort Collins-Loveland Water District. Water district that generally serves all areas south
of Harmony Road in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. Map found here.
• Multifamily: Residential development with three or more dwelling units
• Non-residential: All commercial, industrial, public entity, group housing, nursing homes,
fraternities, hotels, motels, commonly owned areas, club houses, and pools, including HOA
common spaces and irrigation accounts.
• Plant Investment Fees: Water Impact Fee paid by the developer to cover the cost of
transmission, treatment, and distribution of water to a new development.
• Residential: Single-family, duplex, mobile / manufactured homes, and multi-family dwelling units,
including fraternity and sorority multifamily housing.
Page 197 of 227
Information current as of May 2021
• Water Impact Fees: Fees met by developers to cover the costs of acquiring water supply, the
transmission, treatment, and distribution of water, as well as installation of cost of the water
meter.
• Water Supply Factor (1.92): Factor historically included in Water Supply Requirement
calculations to account for annual variation in water right yields, different sources of supplies,
losses between water sources and the taps, and annual variations in water demands.
• Water Supply Requirements (WSR): Water Supply Requirements (WSRs) are part of the Water
Impact Fees met by developers to account for the additional demand created from new
development. WSR is a requirement for water service from Utilities. A WSR accounts for the
additional water demand, defined in gallons or acre-feet of water, brought into the Utilities water
service area by a new development or redevelopment. The developer satisfies a WSR by
dedicating water rights or paying cash-in-lieu to Utilities. This provides the revenue to develop
reliable water resources for the development, including water rights and associated infrastructure.
WSRs are in line with the approach that development pays for itself.
Page 198 of 227
Utilities Cash-in-Lieu
Fee Changes
09-01-2021
Council Finance Committee
Donnie Dustin, P.E., Utilities Water Resources Manager
1Page 199 of 227
2Purpose
•What questions or feedback does
the Council Finance Committee have
regarding these changes?
•What additional information is
needed for City Council’s
consideration of the proposed
changes?
Proposed changes to the Cash-in-Lieu Fee
Page 200 of 227
3Bottom Line
Proposal
•Increase Cash-in-Lieu (CIL)
fee to $68,200 per acre-foot
• Current fee is ~$42,500 per
acre-foot
Reasons
•Significant water supply cost
increases
• Consider uncertainties in
developing water
Page 201 of 227
4Water Supply Planning
Uncertainty in water supply development
•Increased competition; permitting issues;
changing growth; climate change
Utilities plans for these uncertainties
•Additional supplies (e.g., Halligan Water Supply
Project)
• Continued water conservation
Proposed fee change address needs and changing
conditions/information
•Captures the cost to plan and manage our water
Page 202 of 227
Fort Collins Area Water Districts 5
Proposed changes
would apply only to
new development
and re-development
within Fort Collins
Utilities water service
area.
5
Page 203 of 227
HORSETOOTH
RESERVOIR
How Development Pays for Water 6
PLANT INVESTMENT
FEES (PIF)
DISTRIBUTION
WATER TREATMENT
TAP FEES (Water Meters)WATER METERS
WATER SUPPLY
REQUIREMENTS (WSR)
Source of Supply, which includes
water rights, storage and transmission
CACHE LA
POUDRE RIVERWATER
SUPPLY
HORSETOOTH
RESERVOIR
Page 204 of 227
7What are Water Supply Requirements?
Development Additional Water Demand
Water Supply Requirements (WSR)
Volume of water needed to
meet additional demand
Cost of water supplies
(cash-in-lieu)
Total
WSR
Cost
Page 205 of 227
8What are Water Supply Requirements?
Development Additional Water Demand
Water Supply Requirements (WSR)
Translated to water allotments for
commercial and irrigation customers
Page 206 of 227
Goals, Outcomes and Drivers
Why?
•Ensure adequate water
supply for future customers
•Avoid impacts to existing
customers
What has changed?
•Significant water supply cost
increases
•Consider uncertainties in
developing water
9
GOAL: assess development the cost of providing reliable water supplies
“Development pays its own way”
Page 207 of 227
Water Supply Requirement (WSR)10
Volume of Water Required
Page 208 of 227
WSR Changes
Significant outreach in 2020-21
to developers/other stakeholders
Changes include:
•Tap size-based to business
type-based
•Separate irrigation taps
Elimination of water supply factor
•Elements better represented
in modeling
•Avoids customer confusion
11
Page 209 of 227
Cash-in-Lieu Fee (CIL)12
Cost of the Water
Page 210 of 227
13CIL Fee Methodology
$XXXM: Cost of future infrastructure
$XXXM: Cost of future water rights
+$XXXM: Buy-in to existing water supplies
______________________________________
$XXXM: Total cost to increase reliability
How much will it cost to increase reliability?
Future supplies do not provide adequate
reliability without the existing portfolio.
Page 211 of 227
Cost of Future Infrastructure
$150M: Halligan Water Supply Project costs
+ $5.2M: Costs of additional infrastructure needs
+ $46.6M: 30% standard engineering contingency
__________________________________________
$201.8M: Total cost of future infrastructure
14
Page 212 of 227
Cost of Future Water Rights
$35.6M: North Poudre Irrigation Co. shares
+ $5.5M: Southside Ditch shares
+ $12.3M: 30% contingency
____________________________________
$53.4M: Total cost of future water rights
15
Page 213 of 227
Buy-in to Existing Water Supplies
New development benefits from use of existing
portfolio
•Valuable senior rights and Horsetooth
Reservoir sources
•Existing rights fill Halligan project
Previously based on historic/long-term CIL fee
(lesser value rights)
Revised to include value of all existing water
sources
•Only a portion of a portfolio worth about
$3.17B
16
Page 214 of 227
Buy-in to Existing Water Supplies
2,645: use of existing water
supplies (acre-feet)
x $100,100: per acre-foot value
of existing portfolio
__________________________
$264.7M: Buy-in to existing
water supplies
17
Page 215 of 227
18Future Water Supply Needs
$201.8M: Cost of future infrastructure
$53.4M: Cost of future water rights
+$264.7M: Buy-in to existing water supplies
______________________________________
$519.9M: Total cost to increase reliability
How much will it cost to increase reliability?
Page 216 of 227
Factor of Safety
Historic WSR included a 20% factor
of safety in amount requested
•Recognized uncertainties in
water supply development
Propose inclusion of this factor in
the CIL fee
•2019 Water Supply Vulnerability
Study
•Identified many uncertainties not
in planning yet
19
Factor of Safety = 1.2
Page 217 of 227
Proposed Cash-in-Lieu Fee
Current cost per acre-foot of use: $42,518
$16.67: Proposed Excess Water Use Surcharge per
1,000 gallons over allotment (current = $10.39)
20CosttoIncreaseReliabilityIncreasedReliabilityxFactor of Safety
=$519.9𝑀𝑀9,150 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑥𝑥1.2=$𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔,𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐/𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂−𝒇𝒇𝒇𝒇𝒇𝒇𝒇𝒇
Page 218 of 227
Cost Impacts 21
Development Impacts
Page 219 of 227
22
$13,100
$21,100
$18,300
$18,400
$19,200
$29,000
$32,000
$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000
Ft. Collins Utilities
Current (Jan 2021)
Ft. Collins Utilities
Proposed (Jan 2022)
Loveland (2021)
Greeley (2021)
Westminster (2021)
East Larimer County
(2021)
Ft. Collins Loveland
(2021)
Cost, rounded to nearest $100 ($)
Water Supply Costs for a Typical Single Family
Home in Northern Colorado
Page 220 of 227
23
$215,700
$291,200
$240,823
$266,000
$426,400
$553,600
$873,700
$0 $250,000 $500,000 $750,000 $1,000,000
Ft. Collins Utilities
Current (Jan 2021)
Ft. Collins Utilities
Proposed (Jan 2022)
Westminster (2021)
Greeley (2021)
Loveland (2021)
East Larimer County
(2021)
Ft. Collins Loveland
(2021)
Cost, rounded to nearest $100 ($)
Water Supply Costs for Multi-Family Development in
Northern Colorado
Page 221 of 227
24
$38,300
$6,300
$3,600
$6,700
$39,400
$40,000
$40,200
$0 $25,000 $50,000
Ft. Collins Utilities
Current (Jan 2021)
Ft. Collins Utilities
Proposed (Jan 2022)
Westminster (2021)
Greeley (2021)
East Larimer County
(2021)
Ft. Collins Loveland
(2021)
Loveland (2021)
Cost, rounded to nearest $100 ($)
Water Supply Costs for 4,300 sqft Office or 3/4"
Commercial Taps in Northern Colorado
Page 222 of 227
25
$38,300
$85,000
$39,400
$40,000
$40,200
$57,968
$59,000
$0 $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000
Ft. Collins Utilities
Current (Jan 2021)
Ft. Collins Utilities
Proposed (Jan 2022)
East Larimer County
(2021)
Ft. Collins Loveland
(2021)
Loveland (2021)
Westminster (2021)
Greeley (2021)
Cost, rounded to nearest $100 ($)
Water Supply Costs for 2,800 sqft Restaurant or
3/4" Commercial Taps in Northern Colorado
Page 223 of 227
Proposed CIL fee reflects cost to
provide reliable supplies
•Assures development pays its own way
•Considers various uncertainties
Revised WSR calculations reflect use
more accurately
•Data-driven approach
•Higher use pays more; lower use pays less
•Flexibility to lower use/costs (e.g., lower
water use landscapes)
Summary 26
Page 224 of 227
Next Steps
September 21
WSR changes to City Council
September-October
Stakeholder Outreach
October 21
Water Commission
November 2 and 16
City Council
27
Timeline
Page 225 of 227
Next Steps
Continue 2-year rate/fee change cycle
•Consider increase after Halligan design milestone in
2022 (effective 2023)
Water Supply & Demand Management Policy Update
(Anticipated launch - 2023)
•Integrate potential impacts of climate change
•Determine planning criteria (e.g., reliability, frequency
of water restrictions, etc.)
•Consider future water supply and/or conservation
needs
•Revise WSR and CIL fee as needed
28
Page 226 of 227
For Questions or Comments, Please Contact:
THANK YOU!
Donnie Dustin
ddustin@fcgov.com, 970-416-2053
29Page 227 of 227