HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Mail Packet - 5/3/2022 - City Council Finance Committee Agenda - May 5, 2022Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
AGENDA
Council Finance & Audit Committee
May 5, 2022
4:00 – 6:00 pm
Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/8140111859
Approval of Minutes from the April 7, Council Finance Committee meeting.
1.Recovery Plan – 2022 Mid-Cycle Appropriation
45 mins. J. Cech
B. Dunn
2. Municipal Court Supplemental Appropriation
30 mins. B. Hergott
I.Decker
T. Ochsner
3. Light & Power Supplemental Appropriation 30 mins.A. Bromley
L.Smith
Page 1 of 89
Council Finance Committee
Agenda Planning Calendar 2022
RVSD 04/22/22 ts
May 5th 2022
Recovery Plan – 2022 Mid-Cycle Appropriation 45 min J. Cech
B. Dunn
Municipal Court Supplemental Appropriation 30 min
B. Hergott
I. Decker
T. Ochsner
Light & Power Supplemental Appropriation 30 min A. Bromley
L. Smith
June 2nd 2022
Capital Projects – Inflationary Impacts (3 projects) 30 min B. Buckman
M. Martinez
Sustainable Funding Update 60 min J. Poznanovic
G. Sawyer
Parks Design Standards Review 30 min
K. Friesen
V. Shaw
M. Calhoon
July 7th 2022
2021 Fund Balance Review 30 min B. Dunn
Capital Projects – Inflationary Impact (All projects) D. Lenz
S. Freve
August 1st 2022
Page 2 of 89
Page 3 of 89
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
April 7, 2022, 4-6 pm
Zoom
Council Attendees: Julie Pignataro, Kelly Ohlson, Emily Francis, Susan Gutowsky, Shirley Peel
Staff: Kelly DiMartino, Travis Storin, Kyle Stannert, Tyler Marr, Carrie Daggett,
John Duval, Teresa Roche, Kelley Vodden, Nina Bodenhamer, Ginny Sawyer,
Jennifer Poznanovic, Blaine Dunn, Amanda Newton, Renee Callas, Jo Cech,
Dave Lenz, Sheena Freve, Zack Mozer, Lawrence Pollack, Charles McNamee,
Gerry Paul, Rachel Springob, Kristen Howard, Patti Forsythe, Kerri Ishmael,
Mike Calhoon, Scott Phelps, Victoria Shaw, Marc Virata, Caryn Champine,
Monica Martinez, Tracy Ochsner, Erik Martin, Carolyn Koontz
Others:
Kevin Jones, Chamber
Suni Koeckeritz
______________________________________________________________________________
Meeting called to order at 4:01 pm
Approval of minutes from the March 3, 2022, Council Finance Committee Meeting. Kelly Ohlson moved for approval
of the minutes as presented. Emily Francis seconded the motion. Minutes were approved unanimously via roll call
by; Julie Pignataro, Kelly Ohlson and Emily Francis.
A. Debt Offering: Hughes Land, Natural Areas, Golf
Blaine Dunn, Accounting Director
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Certificates of Participation Financing: Hughes Stadium Land Purchase, Southridge Golf Irrigation System
Improvement & Fleet Shop Expansion
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City staff is seeking $16.5M in financing through Certificates of Participation (COPs) for a July 2022 closing. These
funds will be used for purchasing Hughes Stadium land ($8.5M), Southridge golf course irrigation system
improvement ($5.0M) and Fleet shop expansion construction ($3.0M).
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance support to bring the proposed COP financing for the first reading on 05/03/2022?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Page 4 of 89
Hughes Stadium Land Purchase
Per a voter-approved ballot measure in April 2021, the former Hughes Stadium site was rezoned as open lands,
and the City was directed to make a good-faith effort to purchase the 165-acre site from the CSU System, within
two years, at fair market value. The total estimated cost of the purchase is $12.5M; out of which $4M will come
from the City’s General Fund and Natural Area fund, and the remaining $8.5M will be secured through the COP
financing. Costs will be allocated proportionally to corresponding funds once land use is determined.
Southridge Golf Irrigation System Project
The project is to install a new irrigation system at Southridge golf course located at 5750 S Lemay Ave. It is an 18-
hole golf course situated on 128 acres in southeast Fort Collins, and it is operated and maintained by the City.
The current irrigation system has passed its typical life expectancy and caused loss of water, costly repairs, and
high labor needs. A new system will produce significant savings through better water application efficiency and
flexibility and reduces labor and repair costs. The total estimated cost of the project is $5.0M. The City is seeking
$5.0M in COP financing to fund the project. In 2022, $1.2M was appropriated out of golf reserves to secure some
of the key materials ahead of installation. The appropriation also covers contingency in case the system cost
exceeds the current estimate. Payments paid with the 2022 appropriation will be reimbursed with the financing
proceeds and put back in golf reserves.
Fleet Shop Expansion Project
The Fleet Shop Expansion project is to provide two garage bays to maintain compressed natural gas (CNG) fueled
fleet vehicles in compliance with City and State codes. A comprehensive facility audit conducted in 2018
determined the existing garage facility located at 835 Wood St. did not meet all applicable codes and standards.
The expansion will also help to meet the increasing demand for more maintenance workspace as the City’s vehicle
fleet grows. The total estimated cost of the project will be $4.0M. Operation Services will pay $1.0M out of its
reserves, which includes the $0.4M appropriated by Council in the 2022 budget for the design of new facility. The
City is seeking $3.0M in the COP financing for the remainder of the construction costs.
Debt Structure
The City is seeking to borrow a total of $16.9M, $16.5M for the projects and $400k in closing costs, with the COPs.
The COPs will have a fixed interest rate and a mixed repayment term of 10 year for Hughes Stadium land purchase
and 15 years for the other two projects. The longer term is incorporated in repayment to reduce annual debt
service payment for both Golf and Operation Services and ease cash flow pressure. The City will make semiannual
payments starting in December 2022 with the last payment occurring in December 2037. The average annual debt
service for the first 10 years is $1,598,427 and $706,860 for the remaining 5 years.
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS;
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance support to bring the proposed COP financing for the first reading on 05/03/2022?
Kelly Ohlson; assuming these gets paid back out of the appropriate funds
Blaine Dunn; yes
Kelly Ohlson; Is the phasing out compressed natural gas a 5–15-year time frame? Investing quite a bit of money
that involves CNG.
Page 5 of 89
Tracy Ochsner; we are still purchasing some CNG vehicles which have a 5–12-year life (especially on our dump
trucks). Even though we are trying to phase out and move to electric – we haven’t had a lot of good offerings in
that size vehicle yet – until we phase them out we do need a place to work on them especially when we tap into
the fuel system
Kelly Ohlson; assuming the bays will be used for other purposes – support growth of our community
Tracy Ochsner; yes – right away they will be used for other things as long as it complies with the CNG major
maintenance regulations
Kelly Ohlson; water efficiency to be improved by what percentage?
Scott Phelps; projected water savings is between 15-25% water savings – because of technology and the ability
to waster more efficiently – currently we have approximately 11 acres of non-irrigated turf – looking to increase
that to 25 - more than doubling that with the new design
Kelly Ohlson; I am good to go – very clear
Emily Francis; the plan laid out sounds appropriate to me
Julie Pignataro; will the natural gas vehicle bay we are rebuilding be EV ready? – will that be helpful
Tracy Ochsner; we don’t need any special exhaust systems or tools to make that EV ready.
We will work on EVs in these two bays.
Julie Pignataro; would an EV need to be charged there?
Tracy Ochsner it is more practical to charge outside because of the time it takes to charge but we can put
chargers inside if we need them
Julie Pignataro; Tyler and I are scheduled to meet with someone regarding a hydrogen fuel pilot - are there
hydrogen fuel large trucks – is that a thing?
Tracy Ochsner; I think you are talking about fuel cell vehicles – we have talked with CSU about doing some
hydrogen and fuel cell partnerships but to date we really have not been able to gain much traction there - most
of the vehicles that are available now from the factory now are transit buses we haven’t pursued yet as it is a
very expensive option
Julie Pignataro; do we have a comparable savings number for the golf course irrigation, or do we know when it
would pay for itself?
Scott Phelps;
Southridge is approaching 40 years - we are spending twice as much on the maintenance and piping
Total budget irrigation / piping / repairs;
$40K for Southridge - plumbing and repair costs
$12K for Colindale - their system is about 20 years old so it should be even less than the $12K with the new HDP
pipe
Water costs are not huge savings but significant savings overall environmentally
Page 6 of 89
Victoria Shaw; another benefit would be that we will actually know the total full water demands we have at
Southridge - we don’t’ own water rights to cover irrigation so we are purchasing the water that we use there –
so once we understand the true water costs and needs under the new system with the exact efficiency – we will
also know how much we need to buy long term
Julie Pignataro; is it still true that the golf courses pay for themselves?
Victoria Shaw; absolutely, they are enterprise fund, and they are doing quite well right now – a 25% uptick in our
rounds
Julie Pignataro; what are McKee strips (see slide below)
Blaine Dunn; they make up part of the Coyote Ridge Natural Area – there are three different plots of land that
make up the areas that are being appraised – no issues with easements on those properties
Julie Pignataro: with interest rates going up - is there any desire to compress the schedule?
Travis Storin; the limiting factor is on the land purchase and negotiating side where even if we could move faster
on the financing - our Real Estate and City Attorney’s office are still in the thick of it with CSU right now – which
is probably a risk to the timeline we have shown - we have slim odds to make it move faster as it is really paced
by the negotiations themselves
Julie Pignataro; is it similar to locking in a rate like when buying a house?
Page 7 of 89
Blaine Dunn; we can’t lock it in ahead of time but once we go out to the market the rate we get will be set.
We structured the bond payments, so they are as close to a mortgage as possible, so our cash flow remains as
even as possible. We did want to add a note that those rates are subject to change – we did add in a 100-basis
point (almost a 1%) buffer so as we project this out we are being extra conservative
Shirley Peel; I am good – I had the same question about the interest rate
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance support to bring the proposed COP financing for the first reading on 05/03/2022?
RESULT: The Council Finance Committee members are good with this topic going forward for first reading on
May 3, 2022.
B. 2023 Capital Expansion Fee Updates
Dave Lenz, Director Financial Planning & Analysis
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since 2016, City staff has made significant changes to how we determine, update, and communicate the various
development related impact fees that require City Council approval. Through coordination across service areas
and functional teams, the City has consolidated the approach and attempted to consolidate the cadence of
updates to City Council for approval of all fee changes. This update focuses primarily on the Capital Expansion
Fee updates that are currently under way.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
What questions or input does Council Finance Committee have related to the Capital Expansion Fee Update?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Since the fall of October 2016, staff has worked to coordinate the process for updating all development related
impact fees that require Council approval. This resulted in the completion of two studies, the Capital Expansion
Fee Study dated August 2016 (CEF Study) for the neighborhood park, community park, fire, police, and general
government capital expansion fees (CEFs) and the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study dated April 2017
(TCEF Study) for the transportation capital expansion fee (TCEF).
Development related impact fees that are approved by Council are CEFs, TCEFs, and five Utility plant investment
fees (Utility PIFs).
Page 8 of 89
Previously, fee updates were presented to Council on an individual basis. However, it was determined that
updates should occur on a regular two and four-year cadence and fees updates should occur together each year
to provide a more holistic view of the impact of any fee increases.
Fee coordination includes a detailed fee study analysis for CEFs and the TCEF every four years. This is achieved
through contracting with an outside consultant with data provided by City staff Findings by the consultant are
also verified by City staff. For Utility PIFs, a detailed fee study is planned every two years. These are internal
updates by City staff with periodic consultant verification. In the future, fee study analysis will be targeted in the
odd year before Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO). In years without an update, an inflation adjustment occurs.
Additionally, a comprehensive Development Review and Building Permit Fee Study update was also completed
in 2019. Due to a number of factors, the implementation of the new fee structure was delayed until January
2022.
Given the nature and magnitude of some of the fee updates, a phased approach was followed for
implementation of the updated structures. The original schedule is highlighted below.
Due to competing work objectives in 2021, the planned updates to the Capital Expansion Fees and
Transportation Capital Expansion fees were deferred in the spring of 2021.
Currently, the work has been re-engaged on both the CEF and TCEF updates. Staff are evaluating study work
plans and efforts in conjunction with other City-wide workstreams. Two options are under consideration for the
projects.
• Option 1 would accelerate the completion of the two studies in 2022 and return the update cadence to the
original timeframe. The TCEF study was started in 2021 and paused in Q2. This option allows quicker re-
engagement with the existing consultant.
• Option 2 would have the fee updates targeted for completion in 2023. Pursuing this path could allow for
potential integration and scoping with other significant workflows (revenue diversification, East Mulberry
annexation evaluation), as well as allow for more fulsome outreach and engagement. The 4-year update
cycle would then commence as planned.
The two scenario timeframes and update schedules are highlighted below.
Option 1
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Capital Expansion Fees Update Step II Step III Inflation Update Inflation
Transportation Expansion Fee Update Step II Inflation Update Inflation
Electric Capacity Fee Update Update Inflation Update Inflation
Water Supply Requirement Update Update Inflation Update Inflation
Water, Sewer, Stormwater PIFs Update Update Inflation Update Inflation
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Capital Expansion Fees Update Step II Step III Inflation Inflation Update Inflation Inflation Update Inflation Inflation
Transportation Expansion Fee Update Step II Inflation Inflation Update Inflation Inflation Update Inflation Inflation
Electric Capacity Fee Update Update Inflation Update Inflation Update Inflation Update Inflation Update
Water Supply Requirement Update Update Inflation Update Inflation Update Inflation Update Inflation Update
Water, Sewer, Stormwater PIFs Update Update Inflation Update Inflation Update Inflation Update Inflation Update
Page 9 of 89
Option 2
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS:
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
What questions or input does Council Finance Committee have related to the Capital Expansion Fee Update?
Julie Pignataro; confirming that option 2 is the staff recommendation
Dave Lenz; yes, as a finance staff that is where we come down, there are other workstreams outside of ours –
but we are central to a number of these workstreams; Revenue Diversification, Capital Expansion Fees, the
Mulberry Annexation project too which has a number of resources on the finance side
Julie Pignataro; would one cost more in terms of person hours or collection or non-collection of fees?
Dave Lenz; the work itself would be the same regardless of the option – the big concern I have in updating these
is thinking about some of the options for revenue diversification that might be integrated into this - if we have
better definition about direction on one of those options we have the ability to adjust the study to reflect that
potential for a different structure
Kelly Ohlson; disagree with staff recommendation for 2 - I think we should pull the plug on East Mulberry
Annexation now – but that is not our discussion today
How sophisticated are we in the inflation rates we are charging?
Land inflation rates around here are very different than the standard inflation rate which is different for street
projects (where asphalt went up) which is different from rates for construction
Standard one size fits all inflation rate
Travis Storin; the transportation capital expansion fee is indexed to construction inflation. The other 5
components - parks around construction or land acquisition and when you get to general government, fire and
police is where you might see more of a plain vanilla consumer price index
Dave Lenz; it is a single index that reflects that - It is a more general inflationary component for those other key
pieces and that is what we have based on the code that has been established - Transportation uses one indices
reflective of that component and the rest of the fees are related to a general CPI – Denver, Boulder, Front Range
inflationary fee
Kelly Ohlson; so, when we do this again I hope our model gets a little more sophisticated
The development review and building permit fee study was completed in 2019 and should have started January
1, 2020 (pre Covid) What are the real reasons for a full 2-year delay in implementing? What a two-year lag?
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Capital Expansion Fees Update Step II Step III Inflation Inflation Inflation Update Inflation Inflation Inflation Update
Transportation Expansion Fee Update Step II Inflation Inflation Inflation Update Inflation Inflation Inflation Update
Electric Capacity Fee Update Update Inflation Update Inflation Update Inflation Update Inflation Update
Water Supply Requirement Update Update Inflation Update Inflation Update Inflation Update Inflation Update
Water, Sewer, Stormwater PIFs Update Update Inflation Update Inflation Update Inflation Update Inflation Update
Page 10 of 89
Dave Lenz; the study was completed in late 2019 but I don’t think it was ever the intent to update those fees as
of 1/1/20.
Travis Storin; on the development review side we had some software challenges from the permit side
Monica Martinez; Ocella platform - at that time Ocella had other significant projects - that is where the initial
delay came from and then that was compounded by Covid
Caryn Champine; adding a bit of context, we made an intentional decision to not raise fees for customers
because it was more of a policy choice given the pandemic and the constraints that businesses were
experiencing we felt that coming out with increased customer fee was not the most contextually sensitive piece.
Kelly Ohlson; I guess I am an option 2 because I think Mulberry Annexation may go away and I am more troubled
that we only use the standard inflation rate rather that something a bit more sophisticated
If we do option 2 – I am less enthusiast going to the wall for future new fees and taxes – I don’t know when we
have discussed this – was talked about in detail from 2005 – 2013 to get these on a regular schedule and to do
regular updates and the interim inflation figures – this is not something new - we have been struggling with this
for 17 years
Travis Storin; in terms of the two options, we are positioned and ready to do either one
There is enough runway to do a 1/1/23 implementation date. We are interested in getting back on the 4-year
cadence for the reasons that you stated
Kelly Ohlson; Slide - #15 Appendix (see above)
if you look at Land Use Type / Residential - Neighborhood Parks
Jumps are not in proportion
Between 1200 and 1700 sq. ft it goes up $239
Between 1200 and 2200 sq ft it only goes up $29
Dave Lenz; yes, I don’t have the detail around why the fees are varied
Page 11 of 89
Kelly Ohlson; different – jumping around – why would that be the case?
Emily Francis; regarding the same slide, why don’t we charge commercial businesses for parks?
Dave Lenz; residents are driving the need for community / neighborhood parks
Travis Storin; when it comes to Council being able to establish a nexus for fees – fees have to exist to recover the
cost of delivering services – if we don’t associate any costs of delivering service for these land use types then we
don’t have the basis with which to establish a fee
John Duval; the way you describe it is accurate - I would add that in the constitutionality of fees one of the key
points is that the fee payers must reasonably benefit from the payment of those fees. In the past the analysis
has been that parks are used by residents not companies. I can’t say there is any case law that gives us clear
direction on this but that gives us the analysis.
Emily Francis; I disagree – I think that commercial businesses do benefit from having a park nearby. To confirm
these capital expansion fees are the same fees we are talking about when we talk about how to pay for our
parks, transportation, and housing.
Travis Storin; the parks fees we have suggested reconfiguring the code to allow for us to perform asset
replacement work in existing parks whereas right now these fees can only be used for new park acquisition.
They are one and the same.
Emily Francis; does that impact either of the timelines if we are talking about updating those?
Travis Storin; that was part of the rationale behind the recommendation for option 2 was to allow some
integration with the ongoing revenue work but they are not mutually exclusive, and Council could update them
for 1/1/23 and then still revisit them earlier than a 4-year cadence if they so desire - you would not be restricted
around the revenue conversation based on which option you indicate your comfort with today
Emily Francis; when do we decide is we are going to update our methodology?
Travis Storin; so that is the fee study that is referenced, every 4 years we do a fee study and for the other 3 years
you see inflationary updates. During those fee studies, we revisit the methodology, the legal nexus, and the
assumptions that feed into the financial models that produce the pricing of the fee.
Emily Francis; I would like to choose the option that is more predictable and consistent for the end user.
Smaller more frequent incremental increases are better than a large increase in one year. I don’t know which
approach is more consistent for the end user.
Dave Lenz; we are going to have cadence of updates that will hopefully be regular – when we do the full fee
study update, we may come to a result that says this is too much to bring in at one point in time if it is a
significant change – when they did the initial study some of those fees were graduated in over time.
Ideally it won’t result - we haven’t decided to change the nexus – dependent on making a decision to change the
code
Emily Francis; Option 2 would make more sense –mainly because I don’t want us to do it and then re do it.
Page 12 of 89
Giving us the time to do it well makes more sense to me.
Julie Pignataro; appreciate Emily questions and Kelly’s concerns – I am almost at 6 of one or half dozen of the
other at this point - which would make me lean toward option 2 - your preference and staff’s recommendation
Kelly Ohlson; delay in fees costs us – do we have any context for the amount per year – cost of delay?
If we are going to look at how we are doing parks fees to include refresh then it probably makes sense to get it
done all at once.
Travis Storin; message received around sophistication in the inflation rates for the pricing models
Across our 6 fee categories – (excluding Utilities) $11M per year of revenue
Each 1% of inflation that would be missed out on could be $100K - $110K per year
But again, with inflation rising as fast as it is - we will be making adjustments
Kelly Ohlson; not massive amounts of money – we are talking a relatively small amount of money – I had heard
in the past a much more significant number
Travis Storin; low 6 figures – I am going off of 2020 revenue
Kelly Ohlson; less than $1M
Travis Storin; yea
Kelly Ohlson - Let’s make sure we do it right with the methodology inflation and the different in the size of the
homes – let’s have a state-of-the-art thing – I can live with Option 2
Travis Storin; it actually creates more pain the longer you wait to update fees so delays are as unattractive for
staff as they would be from a policy making standpoint - firm commitment
Kelly Ohlson; when we don’t do it – then you have that sticker shock
Travis Storin; summary / action items;
1) Support for Option #2 by consensus
2) Clear direction around the use of construction or land-based indices for inflation in the 3 off years the next
time we update fees
Kelly Ohlson; and justification to explain to Council for the weird numbers on the appendix slide
Page 13 of 89
C. 2023-2024 Budget Process Review
Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director
Jennifer Poznanovic, Sr. Manager, Revenue
Teresa Roche, Human Resources Executive
Chris Martinez, Manager, FP&A
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
2022 BFO Assumptions for funding availability and expense pressures including inflation, salary adjustments,
and changes to benefits costs.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2022 the City will again use Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) to prepare the City Manager’s
Recommended Budget for 2023-24 Biennial Budget. Key assumptions are established early in the process and
reviewed with the Council Finance Committee.
1. Funding Sources: The sales and use tax forecast is an important revenue stream necessary to support ongoing
costs. General Fund sales and use tax is allocated across all seven Outcomes, while the voter approved
dedicated tax forecasts are allocated to specific Outcomes where applicable Offers can utilize that funding, per
ballot language requirements. Likewise, in the enterprise funds, utility rate increases are necessary to address
inflationary costs and maintain service delivery. Available reserves can also be used to fund offers, typically for
one-time types of expenses. For this budget, the remaining American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding will be
available to fund offers in support of the City’s Recovery Plan.
2. Expense Pressures are numerous, including significant inflation, as well as the challenge of balancing taking
care or existing City assets vs. net new enhancements.
3. Salary and Benefits: The 2023-24 Budget includes a 3.5% average salary pool increase for 2023 and 3.0% in
2024, which will be reflected in offers. Employee benefit cost changes have also been entered into the City’s
budgeting tool and are used to calculate total employee compensation for 2023-24.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
What questions does CFC have about the 2022 BFO assumptions for the 2023-24 Biennial Budget?
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS:
Kelly Ohlson; salaries and benefits are our biggest budget item other than transfers in and out for utilities
I am going to take Teresa Roche up on her offer for another 1:1 or 1;2 discussion.
Context point -when I came back on Council in 2005 employees paid 1-3% of their healthcare costs - would be
great if nobody had to pay
I agree with staff’s assumptions
Sales Tax – because of 3.5 inflation factor and then 2.5 - those are good numbers – we have historically been
safe and conservative with inflation
Use Tax, I agree with being cautious – not understating - I think you are almost right on the money, and I am
going to trust the assessors
Page 14 of 89
Kelly Ohlson; slide #11 (see above)
How do we do salary increases, asset renewal and replacement with inflation running at 4-7 % (pick your
number) Intuitively the math doesn’t work for me.
Lawrence Pollack; I don’t have specific detail to give you behind that aside from these rate increases are done
through various modeling that utilities does for rate increases – looking at a combination of where that incoming
revenue is as well as reserve balances and then balancing that with those asset renewals and future capital and
potential bond offerings to support those capital needs.
ACTION ITEM:
Kelly Ohlson; before our first work session, could we have a few paragraphs on how that pencils out - Intuitively
it didn’t make any sense
Page 15 of 89
Kelly Ohlson; The rate is overall costs, right?
Our fair share 30% - not just the employer costs but employee costs will go up as well
Teresa Roche; the first section outlines the actual increases, and the second section is information on what is
causing our benefits to go up – the numbers for Medical and Rx – our specific plan and knowing regional costs
Teresa Roches; while it varies by a couple percentage points YOY we still have approximately a 70/30 cost model
- I can’t say specifically what we are going to charge employees but our current assumptions without having the
medical claims history for this year is potentially a 7.5% increase in 2023 and 9% in 2024.
Kelly Ohlson; the policy floated around is a 70/30 split but that is because that’s the market – it is not an
adopted policy - Ours is to be right around market - could be a little more a little less – benefits package
Teresa Roche; that is accurate – there is no policy on that split - only policy is that the money needs to be in our
benefits fund / reserves.
Kelly Ohlson; can you flush out the Concierge service benefit – I did hear it could be a cost savings, so I liked that
Teresa Roche; our Concierge is a resource that any employee can call - when they have to have a procedure and
want to understand options, or an employee is in the claims maze, and they just need someone to make sure
their claims are accurate and to walk along with them. Concierge is a beautiful term for someone who is an
advocate. It is a 3rd Party- we did an RFP last year and they were chosen as a partner.
Page 16 of 89
Kelly Ohlson; for the first work session - can I have a copy of when this was adopted by Council or
was that adopted administratively? I just don’t want to get the hook
Teresa Roche; this is an administrative policy – but in light of the fact that we always come to you to present our
assumptions – I feel like Council is very involved in that - I am not aware of any resolution
Kelly Ohlson; unusual – this used to be the finance committee - Why do we have a separate compensation
committee? Am I misunderstanding what this comm does?
Teresa Roche; the intention was to look at your 3 Council appointed employees -their performance
management and their total compensation and secondly to look at any projects that are emerging – one that
will actually be discussed on April 18th is the analysis of council pay and benefits – we also use this committee to
we run things by such as the childcare exploration. Anything concerning council - a group that guides us.
Emily Francis; no questions - assumptions look correct - great amount of detail – thank you
Page 17 of 89
Julie Pignataro; (slide 13 - see above) I thought we were very careful not to use ARPA for continuing expenses.
Lawrence Pollack; there were a few enhancements that were classified employees
Generally ongoing revenue should support classified employees and one time supports contractual -because
that is a resource we can more easily turn on and off
Travis Storin; specifically, that was the mental health response team – enhancement of 5 FTEs - we really
wanted to highlight that as a potential risk coming out of last year’s budget
Julie Pignataro; I am eager to see how the studies come out for employees – the cost-of-living analysis will
probably be fascinating
Shirley Peel; no questions - very helpful and thank you
Julie Pignataro; to Teresa - do we want to go over this again in the compensation committee - since Susan
Gutowsky was not able to join? Answer is yes and it will be on the May agenda
Page 18 of 89
Kelly Ohlson; (slide 3 - see above) why do we include December of 2020?
Travis Storin; compared to the prior year –so increase or decrease compared to versus 2020 - we have $27.3M
additional revenue on sales and use tax in 2021 versus 2020 - we budgeted pretty flat coming out of 2020 and
into 2021 - We had $27.3M more in 2021 versus 2020 – we had considerable growth in 2021 versus 2020 mostly
of that was on the wings of the economic nexus in marketplace concept -the internet retailers -
ACTION ITEM:
Kelly Ohlson; Have someone call me and walk me through this chart.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Annual audit memo in packet;
Independent 3rd party audit that is required by charter which we very much welcome each year. They are
required to send this letter communicating the scope of their audit which we are about to begin later this month
to the council because you are the governance committee that they are accountable to – outlines the
procedures they will perform and their expectations of staff in terms of the information that we supply to them
in performance of the audit.
Meeting adjourned
Page 19 of 89
Page 20 of 89
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Blaine Dunn, Accounting Director
Jo Cech, Fiscal Recovery Manager
Sarah Meline, Recovery Policy & Engagement Specialist
Date: May 5, 2022
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Review of 2022 Mid-Cycle ARPA Appropriation for Recovery Efforts
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City staff are seeking a mid-cycle appropriation of $4.1M of the Organization’s remaining
$19.9M of American Rescue Plan (ARPA) Funds to support pandemic recovery efforts. These
projects were reviewed and selected by the Recovery Executive Lead Team because they
address immediate needs for both community and enterprise recovery.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Finance Committee support bringing forward the proposed 2022 Mid-Cycle ARPA
Appropriation for first reading on May 17, 2022?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The federal American Rescue Plan Act established $1.9 trillion in COVID-19 relief funding,
including $350 billion State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) to aid state and local fiscal
recovery. $28.1M of SLFRF has been allocated to the City of Fort Collins. These funds are
designed to provide flexibility so that each recipient can meet unique local needs, including
support for the communities and businesses hardest hit by the pandemic.
In May of 2021, City Council allocated approximately $4.2M of the $28.1M SLFRF funds to be
spent over the following 12-18 months for short-term response efforts. City Council also
approved an additional $4.0M of ARPA fund allocations in the 2022 Budget. A summary of
ARPA projects funded to date can be found in Attachment 1.
The remaining $19.9M of funds are expected to be used to achieve priorities laid out in the
City’s Adopted Recovery Plan through 2022 mid-cycle and 2023-2024 budget appropriations. At
the request of Council, staff have brought forward project proposals to be considered for 2022
mid-cycle ARPA funding to address immediate recovery needs. Eighteen specific projects were
submitted to the Recovery Executive Lead Team to review. The Team reviewed and ranked all
eligible projects (those eligible to be funded with SLFRF funds per Treasury rules).
Page 21 of 89
Ranking was based on immediate need, rather than the value of the project for achieving
recovery. All offers were deemed appropriate for achieving recovery.
Ten high-ranked projects were selected to move forward for Finance Committee review, and
lower ranked projects encouraged to be submitted as offers for the 23/24 Budgeting for
Outcomes (BFO) process.
The ten high-ranked projects are listed below, and a full breakdown of the projects, including
brief descriptions, can be found in Attachment 2.
Project Name Cost FTE Requested
Crisis Communication Plan
$130,000 0
Heartside Hill $1,100,000 0
Indigenous Community Relations Specialist $313,217 1
Rapid Rehousing $201,000 0
Neighborhood Resilience Projects $40,000 0
Capital Project Business Liaison $275,000 1
Recovery Administration Funding $250,000 3*
HR Staff Support $268,000 3
COVID-Related Workspace and Workload
Adjustments
$1,300,000 0
Cybersecurity Upgrade Planning $275,000 0
*FTEs already approved, not counted in
total FTEs $4,152,217 5
Some of the proposed projects include requests for contractual FTEs. The need for the FTEs is
due to:
• Ongoing impacts of the City’s hiring freeze in 2020-2021 and a high turnover rate,
• additional administrative needs for the implementation of recovery programing,
• and increased need for engagement and relationship building with the community to
provide support and build resilience.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Summary of ARPA Projects Funded to Date
2. 2022 ARPA Mid-Cycle Project Breakdown
3. Presentation Slides
Page 22 of 89
Recovery Plan –2022 Mid-Cycle Appropriation
05.05.2022
Blaine Dunn, Accounting Director
Jo Cech, Fiscal Recovery Manager
Sarah Meline, Recovery Policy & Engagement SpecialistPage 23 of 89
2Council Finance Question
Does Finance Committee support bringing
forward the proposed 2022 Mid-Cycle ARPA
Appropriation for first reading on May 17, 2022?
Page 24 of 89
Agenda
•Background
•ARPA Funds Allocated to Date
•2022 Mid-Cycle Offers
•Mid-Cycle FTEs
•Discussion and Questions
Page 25 of 89
4American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
•Other funds available within (ARPA)
for:
•Childcare, utility/water bills,
libraries,small business,support for
people experiencing homelessness
and broadband
•Collaboration with partners and the State
vital to leverage all funds available for the
community and avoid duplication of funds
$410B
Stimulus
Checks
$360B
Government
$246B
Extended Unemployment Programs
$194B
Other
$176B
Education
$143B
Expanded Tax Credits
$123B
COVID-19
Response
$105B
Health
$59B Small
Business
$56B Transportation
$16B Agriculture
$360B Allocated for
Local Government (SLFRF)
Page 26 of 89
5
City’s ARPA
Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF)
$28.1M allocation for Fort Collins
Ordinance
No.079, 2022:
short-term,
immediate
needs
$4.2M $4.0M $19.9M
Allocation of Funds
Allocated Post-Recovery Plan Adoption;
long-term recovery and resilience
Adopted 2022
Budget
Page 27 of 89
ARPA Allocations to Date 6
Health Economic Recovery Equity & Community
Recovery
Environmental
Resilience
PFA TecGen PPE GearMental Health Response
Team Build OutMunicipal Court Services –
Mental Health, Addiction,
Teen Diversion
Small Business GrantsSpecial Events Recovery
GrantMulticultural Business &
Entrepreneur CenterExtension of For Fort Collins
Parking Structure Repairs &
Security UpgradesExpanded Technical
Assistance for Small
BusinessesEconomic Health Strategic
Plan
Eviction Legal FundSupport for 24/7 ShelterUtilities Direct Assistance
ProgramLearning Loss MitigationHomeless Support ServicesEviction Legal Fund
extensionChildcare System SupportExpanded Community
Outreach and EngagementIncreased Funding for
Reduced Fee Scholarship
ProgramsCultural Services Access
Fund & Community Programs
Innovate Fort Collins
Challenge
Ordinance 079, 2022 ST Immediate Needs 2022 Adopted Budget
$4.2M $4.0M
Reference Attachment 1Page 28 of 89
7City’s Remaining ARPA Funds
$19.9M Unallocated Funds
2022 Mid-
Cycle
Appropriation
$4.1M $15.8M
2023 / 2024 Budget
Page 29 of 89
2022 Mid-Cycle Appropriation 8
$4.1M in Proposed Projects
Health Equity & Community
Recovery
Economic Recovery Environmental
Resilience
Crisis Communication
Plan
Heartside HillIndigenous Community
Relations SpecialistRapid RehousingNeighborhood Resilience
ProjectsRecovery Administration
Funding*
HR Staff SupportConstruction Project
Business LiaisonCOVID-Related
Workspace and Workload
AdjustmentsCybersecurity Upgrade
Planning
None
$130,000 $1,904,217 $2,118,000 $0
Reference Attachment 2
*FTEs already approved, includes administration
funding through 2024 Page 30 of 89
9Mid-Cycle Project Breakdown
Project Name Recovery Theme Cost FTE Requested
Crisis Communication Plan+Health $130,000 0
Heartside Hill+Equity & Community Resilience $1,100,000 0
Indigenous Community Relations Specialist+Equity & Community Resilience $313,217 1
Rapid Rehousing+Equity & Community Resilience $201,000 0
Neighborhood Resilience Projects+Equity & Community Resilience $40,000 0
Recovery Administration Funding Equity & Community Resilience $250,000 3*
Capital Project Business Liaison+Economic Recovery $275,000 1
HR Staff Support Economic Recovery $268,000 3
COVID-Related Workspace and Workload
Adjustments Economic Recovery $1,300,000 0
Cybersecurity Upgrade Planning Economic Recovery $275,000 0
*FTEs already approved, not counted in total FTEs
+Community-focused TOTAL $4,152,217 5
Reference Attachment 2
Page 31 of 89
10Mid-Cycle FTEs
Project Name Recovery Theme Offer Amount FTE Requested
Indigenous Community Relations Specialist Equity & Community Resilience $313,217 1
Recovery Administration Funding+Equity & Community Resilience $250,000 3*
Capital Project Business Liaison Economic Recovery $275,000 1
HR Staff Support Economic Recovery $268,000 3
*Administrative FTEs already approved, not counted in
total FTEs
+Community-focused
TOTAL 5
Reference Attachment 2
•Recovering from hiring freeze (2020-2021)
•Additional staffing needed for recovery-related programing
•HR staffing to support increased hiring need (workforce impacts)
•All positions contractual
Page 32 of 89
11Council Finance Question
Does Finance Committee support bringing
forward the proposed 2022 Mid-Cycle ARPA
Appropriation for first reading on May 17, 2022?
Page 33 of 89
THANK YOU!
Page 34 of 89
Backup Slides
Page 35 of 89
14Summary of ARPA Funding Received by the City
•State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) -
Received directly from US Treasury
•Federal Transportation Agency (FTA) - Public
transportation to prevent layoffs and severe cuts to transit
services
•Community Development Block Grant (CDBG –
HOME) -Provide supportive services and safe socially
distant housing solutions
•Shuttered Venue Operators Grants –Small Business
Administration Office of Disaster Assistance program to
aid hard-hit venues
•Environmental Protection Act (EPA) - Air quality
monitoring and pollution cleanup
•Institute of Museum and Libraries –Expanded
education and wellness programs
•TOTAL ARPA FUNDING TO DATE: $40.45M
SLFRF
$28.1M
FTA
$7.9M
CDBG-HOME
$2.9M
SHUTTERED
VENUE
$1.9M
AIR QUALITY/EPA
$200K
INSTITUTE OF
MUSEUM AND LIBRARY
$50K
Page 36 of 89
15Eligible Uses of Funds
Equity-Focused Services
• Serve hard-hit communities/families; equity in health; housing; education
Public Health Response
•Contain COVID-19; behavioral healthcare services; communication
Negative Economic Impacts
•Assist/support workers & families; small businesses; impacted industries – tourism & hospitality
Infrastructure: Water, Sewer, & Broadband
• Clean & drinking water revolving funds eligible projects; broadband for marginalized community
Revenue Loss
•Formula-driven replacement of lost 2020 City revenues
INELIGIBLE
• Pension fund contribution, debt service; fund reserves; federal match requirements
Per U.S. Treasury Final RulePage 37 of 89
City of Fort Collins ARPA $28.1M
State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund
$0.3
$1.8 $1.9
$0.1$0.9
$1.3 $1.3
$0.0
$0.1
$1.9 $2.1
$4.6
$3.6 $3.7
$4.0
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
$7
$8
$9
$10
Health Equity & Community Economic Recovery Environmental ResilienceMillions
Ord. 079, 2022 Approved ST Needs 2022 Budget 2022 Mid-Cycle 2023/2024 Budget
NOTE: Administrative costs spread throughout each recovery theme. Council can opt to change proposed allocationPage 38 of 89
ARPA ALLOCATION TO DATE
Attachment 1
Short-Term Projects – Approved in 2021
Project Name Recovery
Theme
Cost FTE
Requested
Description
Poudre Fire Authority
TecGen PPE Gear
Health $150,000 0 TecGen51 gear protects firefighters from bodily fluids and COVID-19 exposure on
emergency calls.
Eviction Legal Fund
Equity &
Community $20,000 0
Programing to support education, support and mitigation of eviction locally,
including legal clinics, direct client representation, "know your rights training", and
inclusive educational outreach. Programing provided by community partner.
Direct Assistance for Utilities
Customers
Equity &
Community $460,000
1
Funding for direct financial assistance to Fort Collins Utilities customers struggling
to pay bills due to the pandemic. Program includes direct financial assistance,
staffing to administer program. Previously funded through CARES CVRF.
24/7 Shelter at Fort Collins
Rescue Mission
Equity &
Community $30,000 0 Continue providing 24/7 shelter for men experiencing homelessness at the FoCo
Rescue Mission. Previously funded through CARES CVRF.
Learning Loss Mitigation Equity &
Community $400,000 0 Funds for nonprofits and other organizations to address student learning loss and
related developmental setbacks occurring as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Homelessness Initiatives
and Support Services
Equity &
Community $760,000 0 Funds for nonprofits and other organizations to provide support and resources for
people experiencing homelessness.
For Fort Collins
Economic
Recovery $190,000 0
For Fort Collins is a "support local" campaign in response to business impacts of
COVID-19 and various public health orders. The campaign provides support to
businesses to help reopen, find recovery assistance and resources to encourage
supporting local businesses. Previously funded through CARES CVRF.
Multicultural Business and
Entrepreneur Center
Economic
Recovery $400,000 4 Center provides support and resources for businesses and entrepreneurs, with a
specific focus on providing support for underserved community members.
Special Events Recovery
Grant
Economic $125,000 0 Grants to help cover security and safety costs at special events as they return to the
community after being paused during the pandemic.
Small Business Grants Economic
Recovery $1,060,000 1 Grants for small businesses impacted by the pandemic. Previously funded through
CARES CVRF.
Recovery Communications
All Themes $50,000 0
Funds to support ongoing pandemic communications and the outreach / public
engagement for the development of the Recovery Plan, with a specific focus on
equitable and inclusive engagement with historically underserved community
members.
Recovery Administration
All Themes $572,846 3
Staff and administration costs for Recovery Manager, Recovery Policy and
Engagement Specialist, part-time Recovery Program Support and part-time HR
Covid Specialists.
$4,217,846 9 TOTAL
Page 39 of 89
ARPA ALLOCATION TO DATE
Attachment 1
Approved in 2022 Budget
Project Name Recovery
Theme
Cost FTE
Requested
BFO
Offer #
Description
Mental Health Response
Team
Health $817,629 5 18.18 Build out of co-response team to support emergency calls for mental
and/or behavioral health issues.
Municipal Court Services
– Mental Health,
Addiction and Teen
Diversion Services
Health
$75,000 0 57.6
Creation of teen diversion services program for Municipal Court and
additional resources for alternative sentencing options involving
defendants with mental illness and/or substance use disorders.
Eviction Legal Fund
Equity &
Community
$220,000 0 10.8
Programing to support education, support and mitigation of eviction
locally, including legal clinics, direct client representation, “know your
rights training”, and inclusive educational outreach. Programing
provided by community partner.
Childcare System Support Equity &
Community
$170,000 0 47.8 Funds to support nonprofits and organizations to increase childcare
system support, programing and access.
Expanded Community
Outreach and
Engagement
Equity &
Community
$55,000
0 32.6
Funding to expand, systematize and enhance engagement with divers
groups, including those who have been historically undeserved and most
impacted by the pandemic.
Increased Funding for
Reduced Fee Scholarship
Program
Equity &
Community
$100,000
0 34.21
Additional funds to increase access to recreation and childcare programs
for vulnerable and underserved community members.
DEI Office Professional
Services Increase
Equity &
Community
$25,000 0 44.4
Funding to support the establishment and expansion of a Diversity,
Equity and Inclusion Office to coordinate equity and inclusion efforts
across the City and strengthen relationships with vulnerable populations
and community partners.
Language Access Services
for Council Meetings &
High Priority Civic
Engagement Events
Equity &
Community
$34,560 0 44.6
Ongoing interpretation for City Council Meetings and high priority civic
engagement events.
Affordable Housing Fee
Credit Fund
Equity &
Community
$350,000 0 47.12 Fee relief to developers of housing targeting the lowest wage earners in
the City.
Homelessness Initiatives
Increase
Equity &
Community
$201,000 1 47.13 Funds for nonprofits and other organizations to provide support and
resources for people experiencing homelessness.
Human Service Program
Increase
Equity &
Community
$150,000
0 47.9
Additional funding to be distributed to nonprofits and community
partners for human services programs for the community.
Page 40 of 89
ARPA ALLOCATION TO DATE
Attachment 1
Project Name Recovery
Theme
Cost FTE
Requested
BFO
Offer #
Description
Cultural Services Access
Fund for Low-Income
Residents
Equity &
Community
$185,000
0 55.13
Funds to increase access to cultural services across the City, including
the Lincoln Center, Museum of Discovery and Gardens on Spring Creek.
Cultural Services
Community Programs
Manager & Program
Support
Economic
Recovery
$169,575 1 55.12
Staffing for cultural services program manager along with funds to
support diverse community outreach and events.
Parking Structure Critical
Preventative Repairs
Economic
Recovery
$745,400 0 20.3 Repairs to prolong the lifespan of parking structures.
Parking Structure Security
Upgrades
Economic
Recovery
$446,000 0 20.6 Security upgrades to increase safety within parking structures and
ensure each structure as adequate security.
Expanded Technical
Assistance for Small
Businesses
Economic
Recovery
$111,258 1 22.11 /
22.13
Funds to create grants to increase access and education for technical
assistance needed by businesses along with staffing to support
administration of the program.
Economic Health Strategic
Plan
Economic
Recovery
$100,000 0 49.9 Funds to develop an updated strategic plan for the Economic Health
Office.
$3,955,422* 8 TOTAL
*The $100,000 Innovate Fort Collins Challenge (Offer 48.11) was initially funded by ARPA in the 2022 Budget. However, after further review the project is not
eligible to be funded by ARPA, therefore the funding source was changed to General Fund.
Page 41 of 89
Attachment 2
2022 Mid-Cycle Project Breakdown
Project Name Recovery
Theme
Cost FTE
Requested
Description
Crisis Communication
Plan+
Health $130,000 0 Establish a city-wide communication plan to expedite and improve
coordination of communication for events such as another coronavirus surge,
a wildfire, or other natural or human-caused events.
Heartside Hill+ Equity &
Community
$1,100,000 0 Funding for the development of 64 new units of affordable housing to be
developed by CARE Housing in the Heartside Hill Community.
Neighborhood
Resilience Projects+
Equity &
Community
$40,000 0 Programing to meet immediate needs of individuals through Adopt A
Neighbor volunteer program and meet neighborhood needs through
community-led investment in infrastructure, resilience and placemaking.
Rapid Rehousing+ Equity &
Community
$201,000 0 Passthrough funds to community partners for rapid rehousing programing for
families/individuals to resolve their housing crisis.
HR Staff Support Economic
Recovery
$268,000 3 3 contractual FTEs to assist with a backlog of talent and data management
action items at the City. HR has not yet recovered from the consequences of
the pandemic hiring shutdown and significant staff turnover. The FTEs will
assist the staff in expediting requests for talent acquisition.
Indigenous
Community Relations
Specialist+
Equity &
Community
$313,217 1 1 FTE and programmatic expenses for 2.5 years to conduct community
engagement including surveys, focus groups and community meetings with
the Native community. Also funds Tribal Consultation and engagement with
Tribes on a government-to-government basis.
Capital Projects
Business Liaison
Economic
Recovery
$275,000 1 1 FTE to address the impacts on small and medium-sized businesses affected
by City construction projects. Assist project managers to implement best
practices to ensure businesses maintain needed levels of customer activity
and to increase available resources to deliver consistent business support
during periods of construction.
COVID-Related
Workspace and
Workload
Adjustments
Economic
Recovery
$1,300,000 0 Update workspaces to align with COVID protocols for quarantine and hybrid
meeting space across the City. Address the need for new public Wi-Fi access
networks at Cultural Services and Recreation facilities across the City with
updated wireless technologies and standards. Fast track implementation of a
citywide solution to address the increased volume of IT requests through
improved automation and self-service options.
Page 42 of 89
Attachment 2
Project Name Recovery
Theme
Cost FTE
Requested
Description
Cybersecurity Upgrade
Program
Economic
Recovery
$275,000 0 Perform planning to address cybersecurity needs addressed in strategic plan
to safeguard all devices and users from digital intrusions. Will involve ongoing
program management, staff training and external consulting work to safely
support our hybrid workforce and community from compromises to data
security.
Recovery
Administration
Funding
Equity &
Community
$250,000 3* FTEs (previously approved)* Fiscal Recovery Manager, Recovery Policy and
Engagement Specialist, Data Analyst. Also includes funding for administrative
expenses, outreach and contingency through 2024.
*FTEs already approved, not counted
in total FTEs
+ Community-focused
$4,152,217 5 TOTAL
Mid-Cycle Offers by Service Area/Department
Service Area / Department Number
of Offers
Estimated
Cost
Number of
FTEs
SSA 3 $1,576,000 1
PDT 1 $40,000 0
Equity Office 1 $313,217 1
HR - Internal Employee Services 1 $268,000 3
IT- Internal Employee Services 2 $1,575,000 0
Emergency Preparedness 1 $130,000 0
Recovery Administration 1 $250,000 3*
TOTAL 10 $4,152,217 5
*Administrative FTEs already approved, not counted in Total FTE additions
Page 43 of 89
Attachment 2
Mid-Cycle Offers by Recovery Theme
Service Area / Department Number
of Offers
Estimated
Cost
Number of
FTEs
Health 1 $130,000 0
Equity & Community Recovery 5 $1,904,217 4*
Economic Recovery 4 $2,118,000 4
Environmental Resilience 0 N/A N/A
TOTAL 10 $4,152,217 5
*3 Administrative FTEs already approved, not counted in total FTEs
Parklane Mobile Home Park: The timing of the Parklane Mobile Home Park purchase request occurred after mid-cycle offers had been vetted
and ranked by the Recovery Executive Lead Team. Further research is needed to determine how City ARPA funds could be used to support the final
project proposal, if desired. Additional information about the project and potential actions Council could take were detailed in the April 13 Memo.
Page 44 of 89
Page 45 of 89
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff:
Date: May 5, 2022
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: Municipal Court’s Urgent Needs
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Municipal Court and the City Attorney’s Office are jointly requesting $700,000.00 in
appropriations from General Fund Reserves to address urgent needs at 215 N Mason.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance support the appropriations of funds to address the urgent needs for
Municipal Court and the City Attorney’s Office?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Municipal Court was moved into its current location at 215 N Mason in 2007 when the Justice
Center became over-crowded and required the court to vacate the space. This location was
available at the time, was empty and could provide a temporary court space with minimal
renovations. There have been minimal space changes since 2007 to address safety and security
needs, but little to address growth needs. The City has spent a total of $637,350 over the last 15
years (including initial move-in costs), but court caseloads have continued to grow and expand
programming, and the Court and the City Attorney’s Office (which is responsible for the
prosecution function and needs office/work space at Municipal Court) have hired more staff to
handle these caseloads.
Municipal Court has put in BFO offers in the past to address these issues, but no funding has
been awarded. Staff again plans to submit two new offers this year requesting funding for a plan
that would address projected needs for a 15- or 30-year time horizon. Both of these options
would require more than doubling the current space and will be multimillion dollar projects.
While we work through the long-term plan, we need to address some urgent needs so that we can
provide a higher standard of public access and service, meet current hearing schedules, and
provide appropriate space for the increased staff. As it stands, both the Court and the City
Attorney’s Office have staff funded and ready to onboard who do have a workspace, and we do
not have adequate space for defendants to discuss their cases with prosecutors without their
conversations being overheard. We continue to address the safety and security needs for
employees and the public.
Page 46 of 89
In 2021 Clark Enersen completed a thorough study of the Court’s current space and future space
needs. They identified the current space size and its limitations, and developed both 15 year and
30 year plans addressing standard space requirements for courts.
The plan we bring before you today will address our urgent needs and get us by for an interim
period while phasing and final plans are approved and can move forward. The planned
renovations to be completed with these funds are aligned with the plans from Clark Enersen so
that they will be incorporated into the final plan. However, they do not address any renovations
to the courtroom.
Staff is requesting the $700,000.00 in appropriation from General Fund Reserves to address
these urgent needs which will allow us to properly serve the community and begin work towards
a plan that will fully meet the Court’s needs in the near future.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Demo Floor Plan
2. New Floor Plan
3. Current Budget
Page 47 of 89
PR01
5
4
1
2
3
4
TELECOM
167
OFFICE
166
OFFICE
165
CLERK 1
163
OFFICE
161
CLERK 2
159
BREAK
160
WORK
164
STAIR
155
ELECTRICAL
143
MUNICIPAL COURT
156
INTAKE ROOM
152
OPEN OFFICE
162
LOBBY
168
HALL
148
REMOVE ALL ELECTROCHROMIC
WINDOWS, COUNTERTOPS & WALLS.
SALVAGE ELECTROCHROMIC
WINDOWS 1 & 4, PROTECT, & STORE
AT WAREHOUSE. RE-USE WINDOW 3
AT CLERK 4 OFFICE.
WAITING
139
MEETING
140
CONFERENCE
133
PROSECUTOR'S
OFFICE
145
PROBATION
147STORAGE
271
OFFICE
146
BREAK ROOM
137
CORRIDOR
136
VESTIBULE
144
WATER
186
WOMEN
134
REMOVE ALL WALL PANELS
REMOVE SINK, APRON, &
COUNTERTOP AT SINK
4' - 0"REMOVE DISHWASHER
REMOVE 16" UPPER CABINET
REMOVE 30" UPPER CAB.(3) CABS7' - 8"(3) CABS. -MOVE EAST TO
BUTT UP TO REMAINING
16" TALL CAB.
16" UPPER TALL CABINET
TO REMAIN
PROVIDE OPENING FOR NEW
36" WIDE DOOR
REMOVE ALL
EXISTING FURNITURE
PROVIDE OPENINGS FOR
NEW 36" WIDE DOORS
PROVIDE OPENINGS FOR
NEW 36" WIDE DOORS
CLERK 3
169
REMOVE ALL FURNITURE AND RE-
USE AT RE-LOCATED PROBATION
PROVIDE OPENING FOR
NEW 36" WIDE DOOR
REMOVE DOORS & FRAME
RE-MOVE DOOR FOR RE-USE
5 4 3 2 1
A
B
C
D
PROJECT
DATE
DRAWN
PRINTED FILE NAME: 2/17/2022 10:14:35 AM0000-Project-SD.rvtURGENT NEEDS
1st Floor Municipal Courts
Demolition
-
Author
10.06.21
MC04DSPACE PLANS215 North MasonNO ISSUE DATE
SCALE:N 3/16" = 1'-0"
01 - MC - Urgent Needs Demolition 01
Page 48 of 89
MUNICIPALCOURTINTAKEROOMOFFICECLERKCLERKOFFICEMEETINGTELECOMJUDGE'SOFFICECLERKOPENOFFICEKITCHENETTEWORKROOMWAITINGPROBATIONOPENOFFICEELECTRICALMEETINGPROSECUTIONOFFICEVIRTUALCOURTRRRRCLERKWATERENTRANCE/EXITLOBBYWOMEN'SRESTROOMVESTIBULEPROSECUTIONOFFICEPROSECUTIONOFFICEPROSECUTIONOFFICEArraignmentArraignmentPTE STATIONSPROBATIONMEETINGAREAREUSE EXISTING CLERK WINDOW, MATCH EXISTING TRANSACTION COUNTERPTE STATIONEXISTING WALL PANELS TO REMAIN, UNO BY KARENWALL TO DECK W/ ACOUSTIC BATTFILM GLASSALL NEW WALLS TO HAVE ACOUSTIC BATT INSULATIONMECHO SHADES, ALL WINDOWS THIS ROOMMONITORSD PlanApril 15, 2022Municipal Court Urgent NeedsPage 49 of 89
PROJECT BUDGET
PROJECT:215 N Mason - 1st Flr Muni-Court Urgent Needs Renovation CLIENT:Municipal Courts PHONE:
ADDRESS: CONTACT:Patty Netherton FAX:
LOCATION:Fort Collins, CO ADDRESS 215 N. Mason EMAIL:
COUNTY:Larimer LOCATION:Fort Collins, CO DATE:Updated 4/22/22
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AREA (SF):3,000 DURATION (wk):48 Weeks
Estimator:Brian Hergott - Op Services DESIGN:10 WEEKS
Permitting 8 WEEKS
INDIRECT COST CONSTRUCTION:30 Weeks
COST EXTENDED SUBCONTRACTOR /
CODE DESCRIPTION EQUIP MATERIAL OTHERST LABOR I&T SUB TOTAL SUPPLIER
01000 Building Permit Fees ($2680 +1410)0 0 0 0 0 4,090 4,090
01000 PFA Permit Fees ($2458)0 0 0 0 0 2,458 2,458
01020 Real Estate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
01030 Environmental Services (Asbestos Testing)0 0 0 0 0 1,600 1,600
01035 Engineering & Surveying Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
01040 Geo-tech Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
01050 Material Testing Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
01060 Architectural Design Services 0 0 0 0 0 26,000 26,000
01070 PMPD Project Mgt Services (6 Mo X $4,000)0 0 0 0 0 24,000 24,000
01080 Energy Modeling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
01090 Commissioning Services 0 0 0 0 0 8,000 8,000
02000 IT - data cabling Install 0 0 0 0 0 15,000 15,000
02002 IT - Added Computures, Phones & Install 0 0 0 0 0 8,000 8,000
02003 IT - Infrastructure Upgrades 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 10,000
02005 Security Cameras 0 0 0 0 0 3,000 3,000
02006 FF&E - New Cubicales/Sit-Stand desk 0 0 0 0 0 52,000 52,000
02010 Water Tap Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
02015 Electrical Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
02020 Sanitary Sewer Fee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
02025 LEED Certification 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
02030 Art in Public Places 0 0 0 0 0 6,400 6,400
10500 Building Signage - Interior 0 0 0 0 0 3,500 3,500
Building Signage - Exterior 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 1,000
08870 Door Access Control 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 5,000
19080 Owner Contingency 10% of Construction 0 0 0 0 0 47,000 47,000
TOTAL INDIRECT COST ……………………………………..0 0 0 0 0 217,048 217,048
DIRECT COST
COST EXTENDED SUBCONTRACTOR /
CODE DESCRIPTION EQUIP MATERIAL OTHERST LABOR I&T SUB TOTAL SUPPLIER
01000 Contractor General Conditions (6 Mo. X $6,000)0 0 31,680 0 0 0 31,680
01010 Contractor - Supervision 1/2 time (6 Mo x $7,000)0 0 0 21,000 10,500 0 31,500
01010 Field Office Exp. (Use City Space)0 0 0 0 0 0 0
01050 Vehicle & Fuel Exp. (7 Mo x $900) 4,900 0 1,400 0 0 0 6,300
01060 Misc. Const. Expenses (Computer, phone, Etc.)0 0 3,000 0 0 0 3,000
01062 Construction Surveying 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
01841 Environmental (No Asbestos) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
01841 Dust Partitions for Work Areas 500 800 0 1,500 750 2,000 5,550
01890 Trash Removal (5 Dumpsters X $400)0 0 2,000 1,100 550 0 3,650
01900 General Cleanup (3,000 SF X .5)0 0 0 1,500 750 0 2,250
01910 Final Clean Building 0 0 0 0 0 2,400 2,400
02070 Exterior Site Demolition (New Egress Door)0 0 0 0 0 3,500 3,500
02071 Interior Demolition (Salvage Doors & Frames)500 0 1,000 1,500 750 0 3,750
02072 Interior Demolition (Demo Walls)400 0 1,000 4,500 2,250 0 8,150
02073 Interior Demolition (Ceilings)500 0 600 1,875 938 0 3,913
02074 Interior Demolition (Flooring=3,000 SF)200 0 700 3,000 1,500 0 5,400
02076 Interior Demolition Electrified Windows 200 0 200 1,050 525 0 1,975
02200 Earthwork 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
02200 Errosion Control 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
02200 Utilities (None)0 0 0 0 0 0 0
03300 Footings & Foundations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
03301 Vapor Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
03314 CIP Flatwork (Exterior Sidewalk)0 0 0 400 200 1,800 2,400
03251 Concerte Pumping 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
04200 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 1,800 1,800
05120 Structural Steel 0 300 0 0 0 0 300
05200 Structural Stud Framing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
05501 Metal Fabrications 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
06100 Misc. Carpentry - Wood blocking 80 350 100 850 425 0 1,805
06400 Finish Carpentry - New Chairrails & Clerk Counter 50 2,100 200 1,875 938 0 5,163
07160 Foundation Damproofing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07210 Foundaiton Insulation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07211 Batt Insulation (Sound Batt between Rooms)200 1,800 0 750 375 0 3,125
08200 Doors and Frames (8 Doors)100 6,400 1,200 2,400 1,200 0 11,300
08411 Windows/Glass (Clerks)100 1,800 300 1,200 600 0 4,000
08700 Alluminum Door, Frames -Egress Door 0 0 0 0 0 3,800 12,000
08800 Mirrors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
08850 Door Hardware 400 7,200 500 2,400 1,200 0 11,700
08860 OH Coiling Fire Door 150 1,800 160 960 480 600 4,150
08870 Skylights 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
08880 Glass & Glazing (Clerk Window)25 20 0 450 225 0 720
09200 Metal Stud Framing 0 0 0 0 0 12,900 12,900
09260 Gypsum Drywall Finishes (Includes Patchwork)0 0 0 0 0 18,600 18,600
09511 Acoustical Ceiling 0 0 0 0 0 15,000 15,000
09650 Flooring 0 0 0 0 0 25,000 25,000
09690 Tile 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
09900 Painting/Staining 0 0 0 0 0 12,600 12,600
09901 Sealed Concrete 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
09950 FRP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10522 Fire Extinguishers 0 0 0 0 0 600 600
10600 Toilet & Bath Accessories 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10800 Lockers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11500 Window Blinds - 0 0 0 0 0 8,730 8,730
15200 Fire Sprinkler (Add @ Storage Rm)0 0 0 0 0 4,200 4,200
15300 Fire Sprinkler Adjustments 0 0 0 0 0 4,400 4,400
15400 Plumbing (Remove Breakroom Sink)0 0 0 0 0 800 800
15500 HVAC - Mechanical Systems 0 0 0 0 0 46,800 46,800
15510 HVAC - Mechanical Controls 0 0 0 0 0 28,500 28,500
15550 Test & Balance 0 0 0 0 0 1,660 1,660
16000 Electrical 0 0 0 0 0 37,500 37,500
16002 Phone/Data Conduits 0 0 0 0 0 3,000 3,000
16004 Fire Alarm 0 0 0 0 0 4,500 4,500
TOTAL HARD CONSTRUCTION COST …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3,405 22,570 7,960 27,310 13,655 240,690 412,121
NIGHT/WEEKEND WORK SURCHARGE 4.00%16,485
ESTIMATING AND CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY ………………………………………………………………………………………3.00%12,364
SUBCONTRACTOR BONDS………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….0.1%386
PAYMENT AND PERFORMANCE BOND ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1.00%4,820
CONTRACTORS FEE ………………………………………………………………………………………8.00%35,694
VALUATION FOR BOND:482,000
TOTAL CONTRACTOR PRICE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$481,869 $160.62 Per SF
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET - 2022………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$698,916.84 $232.97
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET - 2023 (6% Escalation)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$740,851.86 Cost per SF
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET - 2024 (6% Escalation)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$785,302.97
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET - 2025 (6% Escalation)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$832,421.14
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET - 2025 (6% Escalation)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$882,366.41
This estimate is for cost if project is to be designed and constructed in 2022, if the project is further out you will need to add a 6% acceleration cost per year.
Renovate several areas of the north end of first floor of 215 N Mason for
Municipal Court to create more space and better work to serve public.
Page 50 of 89
Presented by:
Municipal Courts Phase I
Urgent Needs Request
05-05-22
Jill Hueser
Chief Judge -Municipal Court
Brian Hergott
Lead Sr. Facilities Project Manager
Page 51 of 89
2Council Finance Meeting
Does Council Finance support a joint request for
appropriations of funds to address the urgent needs for
Municipal Court and the City Attorney’s needs at 215 N.
Mason?
Page 52 of 89
3Council Finance Meeting
Municipal Court was moved into its current location at 215 N Mason in 2007 when
the Justice Center became over-crowded and required the court to vacate the space.
This location was available at the time, was empty and could provide a temporary
court space with minimal renovations. There have been minimal space changes
since 2007 to address safety and security needs, but little to address growth needs.
The City has spent a total of $637,350 over the last 15 years (including initial
move-in costs), but court caseloads have continued to grow and expand
programming, and the Court and the City Attorney’s Office (which is responsible
for the prosecution function and needs office/work space at Municipal Court) have
hired more staff to handle these caseloads.
Page 53 of 89
4Council Finance Meeting
Municipal Court has put in BFO offers in the past to address these issues, but no
funding has been awarded. Staff again plans to submit two new offers this year
requesting funding for a plan that would address projected needs for a 15-or 30-
year time horizon. Both of these options would require more than doubling the
current space and will be multimillion dollar projects. While we work through the
long-term plan, we need to address some urgent needs so that we can provide a
higher standard of public access and service, meet current hearing schedules, and
provide appropriate space for the increased staff. As it stands, both the Court and
the City Attorney’s Office have staff funded and ready to onboard who do have a
workspace, and we do not have adequate space for defendants to discuss their cases
with prosecutors without their conversations being overheard. We continue to
address the safety and security needs for employees and the public.
Page 54 of 89
5Council Finance Meeting
In 2021 Clark Enersen completed a thorough study of the Court’s current space and future
space needs. They identified the current space size and its limitations, and developed both
15 year and 30 year plans addressing standard space requirements for courts.
The plan we bring before you today will address our urgent needs and get us by for an
interim period while phasing and final plans are approved and can move forward. The
planned renovations to be completed with these funds are aligned with the plans from
Clark Enersen so that they will be incorporated into the final plan. However, they do not
address any renovations to the courtroom.
Staff is requesting the $700,000.00 in appropriation from General Fund Reserves to
address these urgent needs which will allow us to properly serve the community and begin
work towards a plan that will fully meet the Court’s needs in the near future.
Page 55 of 89
6Council Finance Meeting
Current Conditions –This looks like the Public main Entrance –Not Courts
Page 56 of 89
7Council Finance Meeting
Current Conditions –This is the Entrance for Municipal Courts on North end
Page 57 of 89
8Council Finance Meeting
Current Conditions -Courtroom with Very Limited Space
Page 58 of 89
9Council Finance Meeting
Current Conditions –Intake Security Processing
Page 59 of 89
10Council Finance Meeting
Current Conditions –Prosecutors Offices –3 sharing this repurposed space
Page 60 of 89
11Council Finance Meeting
Current Conditions –Probation Offices –sharing this repurposed space
Page 61 of 89
12Council Finance Meeting
Current Conditions –Prosecutors Meeting Space (Repurposed from Breakroom)
Page 62 of 89
13Council Finance Meeting
Current Conditions –Clerk Processing Windows with Traffic Arrows for Public
Page 63 of 89
14Council Finance Meeting
Current Conditions –Admin Area at full Capacity
Page 64 of 89
15Council Finance Meeting
Current Conditions –Large Storage Space we could use with Urgent Needs
Page 65 of 89
16Council Finance Meeting
First Floor North –Shows Area to be modified for Urgent Needs Request
Page 66 of 89
17Council Finance Meeting
First Floor North –New Updated floor plan for Urgent Needs Request
Page 67 of 89
18Council Finance Meeting
Is Council Finance supportive of staff’s
recommendation of appropriating $700,000
to address some urgent needs for Municipal
Court and City Attorney’s space at 215 N
Mason?
Page 68 of 89
QUESTIONS?
Page 69 of 89
Page 70 of 89
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Adam Bromley, Lance Smith
Date: May 5, 2022
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Off-Cycle Appropriations of L&P Fund Reserves
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on information from vendors of distribution transformers, it is necessary to either scale
back the number of transformers the City will purchase this year or request an additional
appropriation to maintain the expected transformer demand for both growth as well as prudent
asset replacements. A reduction in the number of transformers purchased could negatively
impact new development and system reliability. Staff is recommended a supplemental
appropriation of $1,432,000 which would allow for more transformers to be ordered in 2022 to
be delivered as soon as they are available, likely in late 2023 at the earliest.
Looking toward future growth a new substation will be necessary to adequately serve the north
east areas of the City as those areas are developed. A supplemental appropriation is also being
requested to order the two substation transformers that will be needed to serve this load growth.
Again, this supplemental appropriation rather than waiting for additional funds to become
available in early 2023 will allow these transformers to be delivered within the next 3 years.
Staff is proposing to bring forth an appropriation ordinance which also includes $2,234,000 for
two substation transformers.
The total supplemental appropriation being proposed for your consideration is for $3,666,000.00.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle appropriation of L&P reserves to procure
enough distribution transformers so that L&P can support new construction and necessary
replacements through 2024? In addition, does Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle
appropriation of L&P reserves to begin the procurement process for two (2) substation
transformers that will be used to complete the construction of a new substation that serves
Northeast Fort Collins?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Distribution Transformers
In the last six weeks or so, L&P staff has engaged with the distribution transformer manufacturer
industry to better understand the significant price increases to the transformers that we typically
purchase. The main drivers of the price increases are related to supply chain issues mainly
related to shortages and/or significant inflationary pressures for almost all raw materials used to
construct a distribution transformer including transformer core steel and aluminum secondary
winding supplies. While some manufacturers are better off than others, simply due to their
buying power and existing contracts in these markets, these supply chain issues have far-
Page 71 of 89
reaching impacts to prices, lead times, labor and transportation costs, and production capacity.
What we’re hearing from the industry related to supply chain issues suggests that these price
increases and extended lead times will definitely endure the short term (i.e. through 2023) and
will likely continue into a longer term, if not permanent, scenario.
L&P typically purchases a year’s worth of transformers in advance; L&P uses the economic
order quantity estimating methodology using historical usage data for each stock number along
with known future work order needs to arrive at the quantity for purchase for each year. This
methodology works really well when lead times are reasonable (i.e. 10-20 weeks) or if lead time
increases changed very gradually. Depending on the specific needs of the transformer design,
lead times can be 3-5 times longer than what we saw at this time last year, which does not
provide enough time to react adequately. There are quite a few new developments and capital
projects on the horizon so we can assume that new construction needs will not go away in the
near future. L&P projects that current stock levels could last until next summer or fall (2023) if
we are very intentional with how we use units that we have. However, because lead times for the
transformers we use the most often are greater than 1.5 years, we need to order as many as we
can now to make sure that they arrive close to when we’re projecting the existing stock to run
out.
Based on historical usage and projected needs, L&P staff has identified three transformer models
(specific size and type) with the highest likelihood of use prior to the end of 2023. Staff intends
to utilize existing budget appropriated for one order of the single most used transformer type and
size (single phase submersible). The requested supplemental appropriation will fund an
additional quantity of that same transformer type and size as well as necessary quantities of the
other two transformer models with the highest usage (three phase padmounted, 75 kVA and 150
kVA). Because we are relying on existing stock in the other transformer models and we will
need to stay ahead of the long lead times moving into the future, orders for all transformer
models will need to be placed at the beginning of 2023 and 2024 in order to receive those
transformers in 2024 and 2025. This will change the estimated budget for transformers that was
originally planned in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and 2023/24 BFO offer. All of these
changes are shown in the table below.
2022
2022 Transformer Order Total Cost $2.225 M
2022 Transformer Budget $0.793 M
Supplemental Appropriation Request to fulfill Total Cost $1.432 M
2023 2024
Transformer Budget Planned in CIP $1.132 M $1.260 M
Updated BFO Offer for Transformer Budget $4.123 M $3.749 M
Staff has done enough research to feel confident that these orders along with a supplemental
appropriation for additional orders will supplement existing stock levels so that L&P can
continue to serve existing and new development. Staff also has contingency plans in place to
ensure delivery of electric service to new and existing customers.
Page 72 of 89
Substation Transformers
Anticipated annexations and growth in NE Fort Collins will require a new to supply electric
capacity to new customer loads so as to not overburden existing substations in the surrounding
areas. A new substation will allow for Light & Power to continue to operate the system at our
current substation and feeder design standards which guarantee high reliability and stability.
Typically, each substation comprises two substation power transformers and substation
switchgear. This new substation is a planned project in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that
was scheduled for the 2023/24 budget cycle.
Due to price increases and lead times for distribution transformers, staff was concerned that
power transformers would have similar supply chain issues. Upon reaching out to the
manufacturer that provided power transformers to L&P in the recent past, we found that there are
similar supply chain issues affecting power transformer manufacturers. Lead times for these
power transformers are longer than 3 years at this point; however, prices didn’t increase in the
same manner. In order to avoid even longer delays for these transformers, a supplemental
appropriation to begin the procurement process immediately is prudent.
The lead times of these transformers does change the trajectory of the substation construction
schedule and associated purchases of other high dollar materials (i.e. switchgear). The same
amount of capital dollars is proposed to complete construction of the new substation; however, it
will be allocated different than what was planned for in the CIP. The table below shows what
was planned for in the CIP and what changes to that plan are if supplemental appropriation and
BFO offer are approved.
2022 2023 2024
2021 Capital Improvement Plan $6.649 M $3.761 M
Supplemental Appropriation/Updated BFO offer $2.234 M $0.300 M $7.876 M
The following table shows where L&P reserves are and will be after these supplemental
appropriations:
DESCRIPTION TOTAL
Year-End 2020 Total Reserves $48.7 M
Minimum Required ($8.0 M)
Appropriated ($17.1 M)
Year-End 2020 Reserves Available $23.4 M
Page 73 of 89
2021 Preliminary Additions ~ $19 M
Year-End 2021 Reserves Available ~$42 M
Connexion Funding ($20 M)
Transformers ($3.6 M)
Remaining Reserves ~$18.4 M
ATTACHMENTS (numbered Attachment 1, 2, 3,…)
Page 74 of 89
L&P Reserves Supplemental Appropriation: Transformers
05-05-2022Adam Bromley, Interim Deputy Director, Utilities Light & Power
Page 75 of 89
2Questions for the Council Finance Committee
1.Does Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle
appropriation of L&P reserves to procure enough distribution
transformers so that L&P can support new construction and
necessary replacements through 2024?
2.In addition, does Council Finance Committee support an off-
cycle appropriation of L&P reserves to begin the procurement
process for two (2) substation transformers that will be used
to complete the construction of a new substation that serves
Northeast Fort Collins?
Page 76 of 89
Underground (Submersible) Transformer Background 3
Underground Electric System Design
•15 years ago: started moving towards a stainless steel,
rectangular, welded tank design for all underground
transformers –highly specific to our need
•Stainless –Reduces Corrosion in vault environment
•Rectangular –Better absorbs fault energy
•Welded tank –Eliminates water ingress to tank
•Reduced risk to public and personnel safety
•Higher reliability
Submersible Transformer Designs
•85% of installs are 50 kVA
•Historical cost: $3-4K per unit
•Historical Lead Time: 10-20 weeks
•L&P typically procures 1 year’s worth of stock in advance
Page 77 of 89
2022 Market Changes
Submersible Transformer Changes
•85% of installs are 50 kVA
•Stainless Steel supply is critically constrained
•~130% price increase from 2021
•Current Budget does not cover
stock needs
•Lead Times: >1.5 years
Stock Levels
•Current stock submersibles: Projected to last to
summer/fall 2023
•If we order transformers today, we’ll receive in Q4
2023 or Q1 2024
•Orders placed in Jan 2023 will deliver
late 2024 or early 2025
4
Page 78 of 89
Above-Ground (Padmounted) Transformer Background 5
Padmounted Transformers
•Largely specified to industry standard
•Mild Steel tank construction –mild steel fewer supply
chain issues
Cost and Lead Time Changes
•2022 Cost Increases: 35-45% per unit
•Lead Times: >1 year
•L&P typically procures 1 year’s worth of stock in
advance
• 3-phase padmount needs are dependent on
commercial/industrial customer development,
which can be volatile to predict
•Good News:2020 off-cycle appropriation enabled
procurement of these types where we can be more
resilient to the lead time changes we’re seeingPage 79 of 89
6Staff Recommendation
•Use 2022 and leftover 2021/20 appropriated budget for transformers to purchase 50 kVA submersible transformers
•Obtain funding through an off-cycle appropriation to purchase enough transformers to get stock levels to support new installs and necessary replacements through 2024
•This order will include more 50 kVA submersibles, various frequently utilized 3-Phase padmounted transformers
•Increase BFO offer amounts for 2023 and 2024 that align with updated pricing and lead times we’ve received from manufacturers –buying higher quantities up front
•Submersible >130% price increase, >4x lead time lengths
•Padmounts 35-45% increase, >3x lead time lengths
Page 80 of 89
7Staff Recommendation
2022
Total Estimated Cost $2.225 M
Budget $0.793 M
Additional Funds Needed $1.432 M
2023 2024
Existing BFO Offer $1.132 M $1.260 M
Updated BFO Offer $4.123 M $3.749 M
Page 81 of 89
Substation Transformer Background 8
L&P Substation Design
•Includes two substation transformers, one switchgear
•Provides contingency for issues in field, other
substations, etc.
Substation Transformer History
•Last procurement/installation: ~2011
•Estimated inflated cost: >$1M per unit
•Historical Lead Time: > 1 year
•L&P will submit a BFO offer to fund substation land
acquisition and substation materials, construction in
2023-24 budget cycle
Recent Manufacturer Quote (3/4/2022)
•Cost: $0.972 M
•Lead Time: >3 years (Q3 2025)Page 82 of 89
9Staff Recommendation
•Starting procurement of substation transformers now will help avoid
construction delays
•Reduce existing BFO offer for 2023
2022 2023 2024
Off -Cycle Requested $2.234 M
Amounts in CIP $6.649 M $3.761 M
Submitted BFO Offer $0.3 M $7.876 M
Page 83 of 89
10Total Appropriation Requested
Distribution Transformers: ~$1.432 M
Substation Transformers: ~$2.234 M
Total Off-Cycle Appropriation from Reserves: ~$3.666 M
L&P Forecasted Rates and Debt Issuance
•Only debt issuance necessary for electric infrastructure is projected in 2023
•Use of Available Reserves could defer this issuance for a year or possibly two
•Delaying improvements related to the Mulberry Annexation could also delay this issuance
•Remaining near term debt capacity is available for Transformers
Year 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Rate Increase 2.0% 3.0% 4.1% 4-5% 4-5% 3-5% 2-3% 2-3% 2-4% 2-5%
Debt Issued ($M)$55.0
Page 84 of 89
11Reserves
DESCRIPTION TOTAL
Year-End 2020 Total Reserves $48.7 M
Minimum Required ($8.0 M)
Appropriated ($17.1 M)
Year-End 2020 Reserves Available $23.4 M
2021 Preliminary Additions ~ $19 M
Year-End 2021 Reserves Available ~$42 M
Connexion Funding ($20 M)
Transformers ($3.7 M)
Remaining Reserves ~$18.3 M
Page 85 of 89
12Energy Board Support
Energy Board –April 14, 2022
•Unanimous Support (7-0) to move forward with both supplemental
appropriations from reserves.
Page 86 of 89
13Questions for the Council Finance Committee
1.Does Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle
appropriation of L&P reserves to procure enough distribution
transformers so that L&P can support new construction and
necessary replacements through 2024?
2.In addition, does Council Finance Committee support an off-
cycle appropriation of L&P reserves to begin the
procurement process for two (2) substation transformers that
will be used to complete the construction of a new substation
that serves Northeast Fort Collins?
Reminder: Total Off-Cycle Appropriation from Reserves: ~$3.7 M
Page 87 of 89
QUESTIONS?
Page 88 of 89
2022 Market Changes
Submersible Transformer Changes
•85% of installs are 50 kVA
•Stainless Steel supply is critically constrained
•~130% price increase from 2021
•Current Budget does not cover
stock needs
•Lead Times: >1.5 years
Stock Levels
•Current stock submersibles: Projected to last to
summer/fall 2023
•If we order transformers today, we’ll receive in Q4
2023 or Q1 2024
•Orders placed in Jan 2023 will deliver
late 2024 or early 2025
15
Page 89 of 89