AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY March 22, 2011 Ann Turnquist, Steve

S:\Common\Council Finance Commitee\Packets\2011 Packets\Mar 15, 2011\3 FEE STUDY MARCH 22 ais finance comm.doc

City Manager’s Office 300 LaPorte Avenue

PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522

970.221.6505 970.224.6107 - fax

fcgov.com

CITY COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY

March 22, 2011

Staff: Ann Turnquist, Steve Dush, Delynn Coldiron, Mark Jackson, Dan Coldiron, Mike Gebo

SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION

2011 Fee Study Recommendations

GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED

1. Staff proposes changing the method used to calculate the portion of Development Review

Center costs which should be recovered through Plan Check and Building Permit Fees. Does the Committee agree with the proposed approach?

2. Staff discussed adjustments to Plan Check and Building Permit fees with the Finance Committee approximately 2 years ago, but the Committee concluded that the timing was inappropriate. Is the timing more appropriate for implementation in January 2012?

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION For many years, the City had a Land Use Code policy to recover 80% of the costs of development through the collection of fees on development. Though this official policy was eliminated in the adoption of a more recent Land Use Code, the organization has continued to operate with the expectation that it should recover a similar percentage of these development-related costs. In 2008, staff examined our cost recovery performance and found that we were recovering less than half of the cost of the Development Review Center offer through fees. A combination of a lower number of permits and development applications and a number of years without fee increases led to a lower cost recovery. Adjustments to fees were discussed with the Council Finance Committee at that time, but staff received direction to postpone any increases until the economic situation in the community improved. In 2010, Red Oak Consulting was engaged to review the City’s fee methodology and structure and to compare Fort Collins’ practices to those of other communities. Following the completion of that study in July 2010, staff began to address the issues that were identified in two phases:

Phase 1: Development Review Center fees: August 2010 – April 2011 Phase 2: Capital Expansion and Impact Fees: May 2011 – October 2011

This report represents a summary of the work on Phase 1 of the project.

Approach

Staff has conducted a detailed analysis of the costs associated with the Development Review Center. We particularly examined whether specific activities should have a fee charged to pay for those costs. For example, some activities such as plan checks, inspections, issuance of building permits, development review, etc. are clearly activities which can be assigned to a specific builder or developer who is conducting development activity in the community. Other activities, such as Conceptual Review, questions at the Development Review Center counter about zoning, review of plans for other entities like Larimer County, work on special projects, or the many other types of questions or services provided do not readily lend themselves to charging a fee. By conducting this analysis, staff postulates that some of the costs of the Development Review Center should be categorized as Fee Related Expenses and others as Non-fee Related Expenses. The Fee Related Expenses include a portion of staff time in the Development Review Center, direct expenses of providing services, and support or overhead costs for those services (e.g. Accela, fuel, vehicles, equipment). Non-fee Related Expenses include the remaining portion of staff time in the Development Review Center, and shares of the support or overhead costs that support services not directly tied to development. Staff’s analysis resulted in the following costs:

Expenses 2011

Fee related Expenses

$2,292,664

Non-fee services/activity expenses

$1,065,333

Total Cost, Development Review Center and associated costs

$3,357,997

Revenue 2011

Current Fee Revenue

$1,450,566

Current General Revenue (G.F., Transp. Fund, etc.)

$1,001,948

Other Revenue (related offers) $ 63,385

DTS Revenue $ 128,000

Total Current Revenue

$2,643,899

Expenses less Revenue <Shortfall>

<$714,098>

By separating Fee Related Services from Non-Fee Related Services, we can more clearly determine the amount of revenue which should be generated by development related fees. Staff has built into its analysis an assumption that development and construction should pay 100% of the cost for these services, while general and other revenues should cover other costs. With a Fee Related Service Revenue target of $2,292,664 in 2011, current revenues fall short of paying 100% of the cost by $714,098.

Plan Check and Building Permit Fee Recommendation

Staff recommends that the fee tables for Plan Check and Building Permits be adjusted so that they recover 100% of the cost of Fee Related Services. To accomplish this, staff developed a new fee table to maintain appropriate relationships between the costs of various permits and activities (plan check, inspection, building permit, etc.) while generating additional revenue. The fee table, which is tied to valuations of various projects and the relative cost of providing each service becomes the formula for calculating the fee for each customer. This 2011 City of Fort Collins Fee Table will replace the 1982 UBC Fee Table which has been in use by the Development Review Center for many years.

Developing the Fee Table

Impact

The impact of these fee changes for Plan Check and Building Permit services will vary from 0.5% to 6.5%, depending on the valuation of the project. Examples of the impact of these changes are included in Attachment A, including five sample projects which have received a permit from the City in the recent past. A typical single family residence (2000 square feet), a small industrial warehouse, a small commercial office, a retail building and a mixed-use building are all included to show the variation in impact on different types and valuations of construction. The largest percentage impact is on the single family residence at a 6.53% increase over current fees. This reflects the valuation of $214,000. As the valuations increase over other properties, the percentage increases are smaller because they reflect the assumption in the Fee Table that, while the cost of providing Plan Check and Building Permit services are greater for a larger,

Fee Table

Xxx $ooo Xxx $ooo Xxxx $ooo Xxxx $ooo Xxxx $ooo Xxxx $ooo

Fee Related Costs

Current Planning Zoning Customer and Administration Building Inspections Plan review Etc… Total = $2,292,664 (2011 costs)

Permit cost per Service X

All of Permits

= Fee Related Revenue

more complex building, they do not go up at a steady rate. A cost curve built into the formulas reflects the reduced cost per dollar of value for more expensive buildings. An example might be that a $200,000 house would cost $18,000 in permit fees, but a more expensive commercial office ($1,300,000) doesn’t cost 7 times as much in development related costs. It still only has one permit issued, one plan checked (though more complex), a few bathrooms and electrical systems to inspect, and other similar services. Staff believes that this approach to adjusting the fee table allows the City to match revenues and expenses more closely, while not recovering fees for services which are not closely tied to a development or building activity. The proposed increases are modest, and closely tied to the cost of providing the services. The balance of the cost of the Development Review Center continues to be paid through General Government revenues, reflecting the “community good” aspects of the services provided.

Other Recommendations

The timing of charges for the Transportation Development Review Fees (TDRF) is an additional issue that staff believes should be addressed at the same time fee increases are implemented. Currently, virtually all of the TDRFs are charged early in the Development Review process. These fees can be substantial, and have created financing problems for some developers working through the process. Staff proposes that the Planning Development Review Fee and the TDRF be combined in the fee tables, with 30% of the fee charged at application (early in the process) and 70% of the fee charged at the time of the project’s public hearing. This should alleviate the impact of the timing of the TDRF for developers, but it may cause the City some cash flow issues initially because most of the fees will be delayed until much later in the development cycle. Further analysis of current year projections will be required to identify potential delayed revenue.

Timeline and Next Phase

The tentative timeline for Council consideration of the proposal is: March 22 Council Finance Committee review and discussion May 24 Council Work Session July 5 First Reading of proposed fee changes Staff also expects to begin its work on updating and recalculating the City’s various Capital Expansion Fees for Council consideration and review in the 3rd Quarter, 2011.

ATTACHMENTS:

• 2011 Fee Study Summary and Sample Fee Costs

• Overall Impact of Fee Increase graphics

2011 Fee Study:

2011: Current Fees

$20.25 Base

100% Recoup for

Fee Services

$25.00 Base

94 UBC Table

(Unmodified)

$25.00 Base

Plan Check Fee $13,118.95 $14,595.75 $15,733.25

Permit Fee $27,497.48 $31,328.78 $33,833.36

Sales/Use Tax (City and County) $186,000.00 $186,000.00 $186,000.00

Capital Expansion $365,400.72 $365,400.72 $365,400.72

Utilities $356,611.98 $356,611.98 $356,611.98

Total: $948,629.13 $953,937.23 $957,579.31

Total $ Difference: $5,308.10 $8,950.18

from 2011 current from 2011 current

% Difference: 0.56% 0.94%

% change-2011 crnt % change-2011 crnt

CIEs

Comm Park $85,278.00 $85,278.00 $85,278.00

Neigh Park $76,494.00 $76,494.00 $76,494.00

Fire (Com) $2,036.11 $2,036.11 $2,036.11

Fire (Res) $9,211.00 $9,211.00 $9,211.00

Ggov (Com) $2,280.07 $2,280.07 $2,280.07

Ggov (Res) $11,590.00 $11,590.00 $11,590.00

Police (Com) $1,416.83 $1,416.83 $1,416.83

Police (Res) $6,283.00 $6,283.00 $6,283.00

Library $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

S/O - City $99,353.46 $99,353.46 $99,353.46

S/O - County $16,558.25 $16,558.25 $16,558.25

School $54,900.00 $54,900.00 $54,900.00

$365,400.72 $365,400.72 $365,400.72

Utilities

Elec: City Sales Tax $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Elec: Comm. Rev. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Elec: PILOTS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Elec: Sec Service $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Elec: Temp Pedestal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Sewer Dev Rev $2,879.00 $2,879.00 $2,879.00

Sewer PIF $156,767.00 $156,767.00 $156,767.00

S/W Dev Rev $1,200.53 $1,200.53 $1,200.53

S/W PIF $7,486.60 $7,486.60 $7,486.60

Construction Water $400.70 $400.70 $400.70

Water 6% PILOT Fees $24.04 $24.04 $24.04

Water Dev Rev $2,879.00 $2,879.00 $2,879.00

Water Meter $372.76 $372.76 $372.76

Water (Raw) $144,669.07 $144,669.07 $144,669.07

Water PIF $39,933.28 $39,933.28 $39,933.28

$356,611.98 $356,611.98 $356,611.98

Note: Electric fees were not

charged on permit - was billed

separately. So, not included here.

Mixed-Use BuildingValuation: $8,000,000; Square Feet - Square Feet 47,696 (Residential) & 9,383 (Commercial); DUs:

61

(F&F Valuation - $203,342)

Page 1

1

2011 Fee Study: Single-Family

$17,679.90 $18,833.90 $19,178.89

Single-Family Detached Residence (Value: $214K; Sq. Ft.: 2,068; DUs: 1)

12% 11% 11%

51% 48% 47%

28% 26% 26%

6% 9% 10%3%

4% 5%

$0.00

$3,000.00

$6,000.00

$9,000.00

$12,000.00

$15,000.00

$18,000.00

$21,000.00

2011: Current Fees

$20.25 Base

100% Recoup for Fee

Services

$25.00 Base

94 UBC Table

(Unmodified)

$25.00 Base

Options

Am

ou

nts

Utilities Capital Expansion Sales/Use Tax (City and County) Permit Fee Plan Check Fee

Attachment 2

2

2011 Fee Study: Commercial Office

Commercial Office

(Value: $1.3M; Sq. Ft.: 13,079; DUs: 0)

22% 21% 21%

48% 46% 46%

24% 23% 23%

4% 6% 7%2% 3% 3%

$0.00

$20,000.00

$40,000.00

$60,000.00

$80,000.00

$100,000.00

$120,000.00

$140,000.00

2011: Current Fees

$20.25 Base

100% Recoup for Fee

Services

$25.00 Base

94 UBC Table

(Unmodified)

$25.00 Base

Options

Am

ou

nts


$123,878.89 $128,850.83 $128,997.46

3

2011 Fee Study: Warehouse

$79,429.73 $82,857.22 $83,647.22

Warehouse(Value: $895K; Sq. Ft.: 19,000; DUs: 0)

33% 32% 31%

35% 33% 33%

26% 25% 25%

4% 7% 7%2% 3% 4%

$0.00

$15,000.00

$30,000.00

$45,000.00

$60,000.00

$75,000.00

$90,000.00

$105,000.00

2011: Current Fees

$20.25 Base

100% Recoup for Fee

Services

$25.00 Base

94 UBC Table

(Unmodified)

$25.00 Base

Options

Am

ou

nts


4

2011 Fee Study: Retail

Retail(Value: $1.1M; Sq. Ft.: 14,419; DUs: 0)

51% 50% 50%

37% 36% 36%

10% 10% 10%

1% 1% 1%2% 3% 3%

$0.00

$40,000.00

$80,000.00

$120,000.00

$160,000.00

$200,000.00

$240,000.00

$280,000.00

2011: Current Fees

$20.25 Base

100% Recoup for Fee

Services

$25.00 Base

94 UBC Table

(Unmodified)

$25.00 Base

Options

Am

ou

nts


$263,469.32 $268,513.95 $268,615.92

5

2011 Fee Study: Mixed-Use

$948,629.13 $953,937.23 $957,579.31

Mixed-Use(Value: $8M; Sq. Ft.: 47,696-Res/9,383-Comm; DUs: 61)

38% 37% 37%

39% 38% 38%

20% 19% 19%

3%3% 4%2%1% 2%

$0.00

$150,000.00

$300,000.00

$450,000.00

$600,000.00

$750,000.00

$900,000.00

$1,050,000.00

2011: Current Fees

$20.25 Base

100% Recoup for Fee

Services

$25.00 Base

94 UBC Table

(Unmodified)

$25.00 Base

Options

Am

ou

nts



AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY

March 22, 2011

Staff: Mike Freeman, John Voss


2010 Financial Information.


None.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION See attached PowerPoint highlighting 2010 financial activity.

• Revenue

• Expenditures

• Debt

• Fixed assets

• Fund balances (staff will bring fund balance information to Council Finance Committee

meeting on Tuesday March 22)

ATTACHMENTS:

1. PowerPoint presentation from Finance Department

General Fund

2009 2010 2011

Actual Actual * Appropriated

Revenue/Transfers 99,102,381$ 103,520,298$ 99,377,840$

Expenditures/Transfers 106,964,977 100,189,714 103,411,510

Surplus (deficit) (7,862,596) 3,330,584 (4,033,670)

Beginning Fund Balance 45,456,119 37,593,523 40,924,107

Ending Fund Balance 37,593,523 40,924,107 36,890,437

Less Non‐Spendable(land/loans) (16,615,968) (10,029,961) (10,029,961)

Less Restricted and Committed (1,567,047) (1,567,047) (1,567,047)

Spendable Fund Balance 19,410,508 29,327,099 25,293,429

Policy Minimum 17,092,483 17,579,957 17,537,104

Over (Under) Policy Minimum 2,318,025 11,747,143 7,756,325

Policy Minimum for this fund

60 days (17%) of next year's budgeted operating expenditures/transfers.

Other restrictions and commitments of fund balances (reserves)

The Over Policy Minimum includes 'assigned' fund balances for certain programs and

purposes. Assignments are not binding but reflect council or management's intentions or

past practices. Assignments are estimated to be $1.5 million at the end of 2011.

* 2010 is unaudited, data as of 3/21/2011.

Page 1 3/22/2011

Resourcing Our Future Fund

2009 2010 2011


Revenue/Transfers ‐$ ‐$ 18,700,000$

Expenditures/Transfers ‐ ‐ 18,700,000

Surplus (deficit) ‐ ‐ ‐

Beginning Fund Balance ‐ ‐ ‐

Ending Fund Balance ‐ ‐ ‐

Policy Minimum ‐ ‐ 384,846

Over (Under) Policy Minimum ‐ ‐ (384,846)


2% of next year's budgeted operating expenditures/transfers.


The 2011 assumes expenditures will equal appropriations. Some new programs, such as

new police officers, will take time to ramp up, maybe more than a year. Most likely there

will be enough fund balance to meet the policy minimum at the end of 2011.


Page 2 3/22/2011

Conservation Trust

2009 2010 2011




Surplus (deficit) (110,253) (117,418) (23,650)



Policy Minimum 28,115 29,285 39,943



2% of next year's budgeted operating expenditures/transfers


Funds are restricted to acquisition, development and maintenance of conservation sites

per CRS 29‐21‐101. The City has historically used these monies for trail development

and more recently parks maintenance. All balances have been appropriated for projects.


Page 3 3/22/2011

Natural Areas

2009 2010 2011




Surplus (deficit) (2,867,991) 686,878 223,755



Policy Minimum 135,995 168,955 173,659





The fund balance is restricted to the acquisition, development, and maintenance of

the City's Natural Areas.


Page 4 3/22/2011

Cultural Services

2009 2010 2011




Surplus (deficit) 73,080 221,496 (98,800)



Policy Minimum 102,253 69,372 83,505





The vast majority of the fund balance is restricted for BOB funded Cultural activitiesand a

lesser amount for Art in Public Places.


Page 5 3/22/2011

Recreation Fund

2009 2010 2011




Surplus (deficit) 115,817 (411,754) (469,000)



Policy Minimum 137,700 126,808 130,497





Portions of the fund balance, about $23k, are restricted donations. The remaining balances

are 'assigned' to various recreation programs such as Senior Center, Northside Aztlan Center,

and EPIC. Assignments are not binding but reflect management's intentions.


Page 6 3/22/2011

Cemeteries Fund

2009 2010 2011


Revenue/Transfers 608,095$ 610,380$ 513,292$

Expenditures/Transfers 597,647 569,589 587,558

Surplus (deficit) 10,448 40,792 (74,266)

Beginning Fund Balance 458,198 468,646 509,438

Ending Fund Balance 468,646 509,438 435,172

Policy Minimum 14,391 11,751 10,719

Over (Under) Policy Minimum 454,255 497,686 424,453





Page 7 3/22/2011

Perpetual Fund

2009 2010 2011


Revenue/Transfers 75,923$ 70,678$ 90,000$

Expenditures/Transfers 38,121 28,924 45,395

Surplus (deficit) 37,802 41,754 44,605



Policy Minimum 1,109 908 908





The monies in this fund are restricted for the maintenance of the cemeteries.


Page 8 3/22/2011

Transit Fund

2009 2010 2011




Surplus (deficit) 468,774 (750,823) (125,000)



Policy Minimum 231,133 199,796 220,388





All ending fund balances are appropriated and restricted to federally funded transit programs.


Page 9 3/22/2011

Street Oversizing Fund

2009 2010 2011



Expenditures/Transfers 2,543,311 546,545 2,978,079

Surplus (deficit) (1,332,759) 2,115,049 (538,165)



Policy Minimum 91,175 59,562 60,933





Half of the 2010 ending fund balance is appropriated and committed to capital projects.


Page 10 3/22/2011

Transportation Fund

2009 2010 2011




Surplus (deficit) (426,392) (328,879) (2,219,466)



Policy Minimum 512,037 488,448 454,223





All the fund balance is 'assigned' to Harmony Improvements (from CDOT) or 'restricted' to

the Civic Center Parking maintenance (per IGA with County). Assignments are not binding

but are reflections of council or management's practices and intentions.


Page 11 3/22/2011

1

2010 Financial Report

Council Finance CommitteeMarch 22, 2011

2

Topics

• Revenue

• Expenditures

• Debt position

• Fixed assets

3

2010 Major Revenue Sources

• Governmental Activities $164.9 M 49.7%– Sales & Use Tax 74.7 M 22.5%

– Property Tax 17.8 M 5.4%

• Enterprise Activities $166.7 M 50.3%– Light & Power 99.7 M 30.1%

– Water 27.3 M 8.2%

• Net City Revenue $331.6 M 100.0%– Net revenue excludes transfers and internal service funds

4

Net City Revenue

$162 $162 $150 $163 $175 $174 $181 $168$153 $165

$137 $137$139

$144

$155 $163$166

$161

$154

$167

$-

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Millions

Governmental Funds Enterprise Funds

5

Governmental Revenue Trends

• 2010 compared to 2009: up $12.1 M, 8%

– Sales & Use Tax: up $3.2 M, 4.5%

– Capital Grants: up $5.6 M, 90%

• 2010 compared to 2007: down $16.1 M, -9%

• 2010 compared to 2001: up $3.3 M, 2.0%,

– Population increased from 122k to 144k, which is an increase of 18%

6

Enterprise Revenue Trends

• 2010 compared to 2009: up $12.9 M, 13%

– Light & Power fees up $9.9 M, 12%• Average rate increase of 7.4%, volume increase 2.7%

– Water fees up $2.5 M, 11%• Average rate increase of 3%, volume increase 8%

• 2010 compared to 2001: up $29.7 M, 22%

– Light & Power up $25.7 M, 35%

– Storm Drainage up $6.3 M, 76%

– Water down $5.3 M, -19%• Primarily water rights, plant investment fees

7

Property Taxes (excluding URA)

$10.4

$12.0 $12.3 $12.8 $13.3$14.3 $14.6

$16.2 $16.5 $17.1

$-

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

$16

$18

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Millions up 3.4%

10 year average growth: 7.2%

8

Investment Earnings (city-wide, excluding GERP)

$16.2

$10.1

$5.7 $5.1

$9.6

$16.6

$19.8

$14.2

$8.1

$4.9

$-

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

$16

$18

$20

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Millions

2010 down $14.9 M (75%) from 2007

9

Sales & Use Tax

$56.9 $56.6 $56.3 $58.2 $59.6$63.4 $64.4 $64.7 $62.2 $63.7

$14.3$11.6 $11.4

$12.5$12.8

$11.5$13.2 $10.9

$8.6$10.3

$-

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Millions

Sales Tax Use Tax

2010 up 4.5%

10 year average growth 0.4%

10

Sales Tax 2010by type of business

Grocery, Convenience, Liquor

14.5%

Restaurants, Caterers and Bars

14.0%

General Merchandise

13.2%

Electronics and Appliances

5.4%

Miscellaneous Retailers

5.1%

Building Materials, Garden

Equipment & Supplies

6.7%

Sporting, Hobby, Book, Music

6.1%

Broadcasting and

Telecommunications

5.5%

Manufacturing

1.4%

Pharmacy, Salon and Laundry

2.6%

Other

2.1%

Rental and Leasing Services

2.0%

Lodging

1.5%

Wholesale Trade

1.7%

Clothing and Accessories

3.6%

Utilities

4.9%

Furniture and Home

Furnishings

1.9%

Vehicle Sales, Parts and

Repairs

7.6%

11

Price of Government for the City of Fort Collins(cents of every dollar earned going to pay for City services, including utilities and golf)

5.55.3

5.2

5.5

5.96.1

6.5

6.26.26.36.3

6.6

-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

cents

PROJECTED

12

City Expenditures

• Includes Operating, Capital and Debt service– Excludes transfers and internal service funds

• 2010 compared to 2009: up $9.0 million, 2.5% – Governmental up $3.4 million, 2.0%

– Enterprise up $5.6 million, 2.9%

• 2010 compared to 2001: average increase of 2.3%– Governmental average annual increase 1.1%

– Enterprise average annual increase 3.7%

13

City Expenditures

$157$177 $166 $167 $158

$197 $207

$173 $169 $172

$149

$182

$167 $151 $168

$159$171

$180 $192 $198

$-

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Millions

Governmental Funds Enterprise FundsIncludes capital expenditures e.g. Police Facility, Soapstone,

Wastewater Treatment Plant, Mason Street, etc.

14

Expenditures by Outcome 2010, $370 million

Safe Community46%

Environmental Health22%

Transportation12%

Culture, Parks & Recreation

9%

High Performing Government

6%

Economic Health4%

Neighborhood Livability1%

- Excludes transfers and internal service

funds

- Includes both operating and capital

Police 8%

Fire 5%

Light & Power 29%

Storm Drainage 4%

Total Safe 46%

Natural Areas/NRD 2%

Light & Power 2% Water 8%

Wastewater 10%

Total Environment 22%

Transportation 5%

Transit 3%

Capital Projects 4%

Total Transportation 12%

15

Expenditures by Fund 2010, $370 million

General21.8%

Capital Projects (governmental)

6.8%

Light & Power29.9%

Wastewater10.3%

Water8.4%

Stormwater4.1%

Golf0.8%

Recreation1.8% Natural Areas

1.7%

URA1.4%

Transportation 6.0%

Transit Services2.7%

Capital Leasing Corp1.4%

Cultural Services0.7%

Other Governmental2.1%

May not add to 100 due to rounding

16

Payment Type Over Last 4 Years

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1/5/2007

2/16/2007

3/30/2007

5/11/2007

7/6/2007

8/17/2007

9/28/2007

11/9/2007

1/4/2008

2/15/2008

3/28/2008

6/6/2008

7/18/2008

8/29/2008

10/10/2008

12/5/2008

1/16/2009

2/27/2009

4/10/2009

6/19/2009

7/31/2009

9/11/2009

11/20/2009

12/31/2009

2/12/2010

3/26/2010

5/21/2010

7/2/2010

8/13/2010

10/8/2010

11/19/2010

12/30/2010

Thousands

Number of Payments

# of Direct Deposits # of Checks

Paperless Payroll

Nov. 19, 2010

16

17

Last 4 Years by Employee Type

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1/5/2007

2/16/2007

3/30/2007

5/11/2007

7/6/2007

8/17/2007

9/28/2007

11/9/2007

1/4/2008

2/15/2008

3/28/2008

6/6/2008

7/18/2008

8/29/2008

10/10/2008

12/5/2008

1/16/2009

2/27/2009

4/10/2009

6/19/2009

7/31/2009

9/11/2009

11/20/2009

12/31/2009

2/12/2010

3/26/2010

5/21/2010

7/2/2010

8/13/2010

10/8/2010

11/19/2010

12/30/2010

Thousands

Classifed-Unclassifed

Hourly Contractual

Summer 2009Summer 2010

Average Winter Low

517 Hourlies

Average Summer Peak

855 Hourlies

Summer 2007Summer 2008

17

18

Compensation by Type 2010 - $83 million

Salaries-Regular83.9%

Salaries-Hourly 9.4%

Salaries-Contractual 2.3%

Salaries-Overtime 3.9% Other Compensation

0.5%

Other Compensation:

Standby Pay - $363,000

Termination Pay - $257,000

Severance Pay - $40,000

Overtime:

Police $1.7 M

Transportation 0.7 M

Utilities 0.5 M

Other 0.3 M

Total $3.2 M

19

Employee Benefits 2010, $25.7 million

Health40%

Social Security & Medicare19%

Retirement Contributions

20%

GERP8%

Workers Compensation5%

Dental3%

Long-term Disability2%

Other3%

Benefits are 30.9% of

compensation

Other includes Group Life,

Unemployment, and Gift Cards

20

Hourly Employees

• Are 8% of all personnel costs

• Work 20% of all hours worked

• Comprise 47% of number of employees

21

2010 Personnel Comparison

8%

20%

47%

92%

80%

53%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

$ Cost FTE Headcount

Hourly Non-hourly

22

Travel by Service Area in 2010, $500,900

Police Services 21%

Financial Services 3%

Internal Services 26%

Utility Services 32%

Community Services 15%

ELJS 3%

Down $257,000 from 2009, -34%

23

Debt Position 2010

• Outstanding debt was $163 million at the end of 2010

– Not including capital equipment leases

– Down from 2001 outstanding of $185 million

• At 11.6%, Governmental debt service is well below policy target of 15% of operational expenditures

• Each Enterprise Fund is in compliance with their own debt covenants regarding revenue coverage ratio

24

Outstanding Debt by Fund Type

$-

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Millions

Governmental Enterprise DDA

2004: Police Building,

Soapstone, Sand/Salt

Storage Building $48.6 M

2009: Wastewater

Treatment Plant $30.7 M

2010: Smart Grid

Light & Power $16.1 M

25

Governmental Debt Service as Percent of Operations

Target level of 15% established by Council in 1997

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Actual

Target

Formula =annual debt payments divided by operating expenses

26

TOTAL$ 50.4

215 Mason, Civic Center Parking, refinanced from 1998-99

9.614.620182007

Police Building, Soapstone, Streets Storage Building

39.5 48.7 20262004

Police Annex0.6 0.9 20212001

Street Facilities, refinanced from 1992

$ 0.7 $ 3.4 20121998

PurposeRemainingOriginalMaturesIssued

Governmental Debt Outstanding Dec. 31, 2010

(in millions)

Does not include capital lease obligations

27

Golf3.24.52018-2021

2001-2007

TOTAL$ 113.1

Storm Drainage31.441.52017-2022

2001-2007

Wastewater39.159.12014-2028

1992-2010

Water23.335.12013-2030

1997-2009

Light & Power$ 16.1 $ 16.1 20202010

PurposeRemainingOriginalMaturesIssued

Enterprise Debt Outstanding Dec. 31, 2010

(in millions)

Does not include capital lease obligations

28

Fixed Assets

• Long term assets valued at more than $5,000

– Exceptions: land, rights of way, and water rights all are tracked no matter the cost

• Cost basis at the end of 2010 was $1.19 billion

– Replacement costs are higher

29

2010 City Fixed Assets by Type - $1.19 billion

Land & Land Improvements

13%

Water Rights3%

Street Infrastructure16%

Construction in Progress7%

Buildings22%

Infrastructure32%

Machinery & Equipment7%

(Predominantly utilities)

(ROWs included in land)

30

Fixed Assets by Fund/Function/Service Area 2010, $1.19 B

Transportation32.9%

Culture, Parks & Recreation14.8%Police

3.2%

General Government2.6%

Water16.6%

Wastewater11.4%

Light & Power9.3%

Stormwater8.5%

Golf0.7%

31

Questions


AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY

Staff: Josh Birks and Jon Haukaas


Urban Renewal Authority loan to fund acquisition of a portion of the North East College Corridor Outfall (NECCO) regional pond


1. Does the City Council Finance Committee have sufficient information to make a recommendation concerning the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority entering into a loan from the Storm Drainage Fund Reserves for $326,472 to fund a portion of the acquisition of a regional detention pond as part of the NECCO backbone?

2. Is the City Council Finance Committee in support of advancing the consideration of a loan from the Storm Drainage Fund Reserves to the Urban Renewal Authority Board in May or June?

3. Is the City Council Finance Committee in support of authorizing the Executive Director of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority to negotiate and execute a loan from the Storm Drainage Fund Reserves?

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION PROJECT OVERIVEW: The North College Corridor continues to receive considerable development and/or redevelopment interest. The removal of the Dry Creek floodplain and the establishment of the North College Urban Renewal Area (NCURA) eliminated several impediments to development and/or redevelopment. However, the area continues to need numerous public infrastructure improvements to full address the City’s standard for adequate public facilities (APF). The North College Infrastructure Funding Plan, accepted by City Council on May 4, 2010, identified approximately $74.2 million in required public infrastructure improvements. The design of these improvements requires close coordination by City staff to ensure the elements fit together in an integrated fashion and to provide predictability for nearby development.. Since 2006, Engineering, Transportation, and Utilities staff have been working to design several public infrastructure improvements, including:

� The realignment of Vine Drive (from College Avenue to Lemay Avenue); � A unified regional stormwater outfall for east of College Avenue and south of Willox

Avenue to East Vine Drive; and � Two large diameter water pipelines owned by outside agencies.

The planned unified regional stormwater system will provide much needed drainage for stormwater runoff east of North College Avenue and south of Willox Avenue to East Vine Drive (See Figure 1). The preliminary design of the infrastructure was completed in February 2006. Subsequently, stormwater designed the NECCO system to nearly complete engineering drawings. The infrastructure three main components (See Figure 2):

� A unified regional stormwater and water quality system designed to serve the area north and east of the NECCO regional detention pond;

� A regional detention pond located just west of Redwood Drive; and � The outfall pipe connecting the pond to the East Vine Diversion channel (located east of

Lemay Avenue). The regional detention pond and the outfall pipe connecting to the East Vine Diversion channel constitute the infrastructure known as the “backbone” of NECCO. This is the essential infrastructure required to allow the unified regional stormwater and water quality system to function properly. NECCO DETENTION POND: The NECCO detention pond land was purchase4d with Stormwater Utility fund. The Stormwater Utility paid for 54.83 percent, or $896,462, of the land to accommodate the existing offsite flows and future water quality treatment of existing properties, largely located north of Conifer Street. Jon Prouty, the property owner, paid for 22.45 percent, or $322,593, through the purchase of an easement on the land allowing his remaining property to use the land for temporary retention until the completion of the NECCO outfall pipe connecting the pond to the East Vine Diversion channel. The remaining 22.72 percent, or $326,472, of the land will aid future development on adjacent properties (See Table 1).

Table 1 – NECCO Detention Pond Land Purchase Transaction Summary

Purchaser Seller

Purchase Price (Fee Simple) $1,436,939 $0

Drainage Easement $108,588 $0

Retention Easement $0 $322,593

Subtotal $1,545,527 $322,593

Less: Credit from Seller ($322,593) $0

Total Due $1,222,934 $0

Less: Current Stormwater Funds ($896,462)

Shortfall (URA Loan) $326,472 $0

In addition, the land purchase included an easement for a drainage channel to the north of the detention pond. The price paid for this easement was for an open channel and a pipe for runoff from the north. All properties planned to use the pond are required to drain to the NECCO detention pond and will not be allowed to have onsite detention. This creates a more efficient system of handling stormwater runoff and water quality treatment.

Future development does not receive a reduction, nor a reimbursement, if their sites develop with less imperviousness than assumed in the NECCO design. In addition, all future development will be required to contribute to the cost of the unified regional stormwater runoff and water quality treatment facility that is NECCO. URA ACTION: The proposed loan from the Stormwater Drainage fund will provide the Urban Renewal Authority with the necessary funds to contribute $326,472 to the purchase of the NECCO detention pond. This contribution will cover the shortfall in the land purchase transaction (as shown in Table 1). The loan from the Stormwater Drainage fund will be interest only for a term of 10 years. The estimated financing cost associated with the loan is $5,000 annually. The actual financing cost will depend on the interest rate assigned to the loan. Per City Code, the interest rate of on this type of loan must equal the applicable Treasury Bill rate at the time of authorization. Therefore, the interest rate will be set the day after approval by the Urban Renewal Board. The URA will receive reimbursement for the $326,472, when future development and/or redevelopment occurs on adjacent property. BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS: The Water Board considered making the loan to the URA for a term of 10 years at its August 19, 2010 meeting and unanimously recommended that Council approve the Ordinance to appropriate $326,472 from the Stormwater reserves for the purpose of making a loan to the URA. The North College Citizen Advisory Group (CAG) voted unanimously at their September 2, 2010 meeting to recommend that the URA Board authorize borrowing $326,472 from Stormwater reserves to fund the acquisition shortfall for the Northeast College Corridor Outfall regional pond.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. City Council Finance Committee Summary Presentation, March 21, 2010 2. Water Board meeting minutes, August 19, 2010 3. North College Citizen Advisory Group meeting minutes, September 2, 2010 4. North College Infrastructure Plan, Public Infrastructure Summary Table 5. Preliminary NECCO Project Cost Map

Figure 1 – Map of Stormwater Basin

Figure 2 – NECCO Infrastructure

Figure 3 – NECCO Regional Detention Pond Location

Snyder

SnyderSnyder

Rocky Mountain Raptor Program

Schlagel Kederike Lemay, LLC

Kederike Lemay, LLC

LAGUNITAS DIVERSIFIED

PROJECTS, LLCAKBARY,

ALI/KAMANDY, KHALIL/MOE

FLACK AND

JENSEN, LLC

Schlagel

DOS RIOS LLC

E VINE DR

CONIFER ST

N LE

MAY A

VE

REDW

OOD

ST

N CO

LLEG

E AVE

FOXTAIL ST

SITKA ST

E WILLOX LN

CAJETAN ST

OSIANDER ST

LINDENWOOD DR

BLUE

SPR

UCE

DR

JERO

ME S

T

MAIN ST

CLARK ST

PASCAL ST

BAYBERRY CIR

RED

CEDA

R CI

R

9TH

ST

BRISTLECONE DR

SUGA

RPIN

E ST

COULTER ST

MULL

EIN

DR

ALTA

VIST

A ST

GROUSE CIR

BELLFLOWER DR

10TH

ST

BLON

DEL S

T

LINDE

N ST

LUPINE DR

NOKOMIS CT

MART

INEZ

ST

STEEPLECHASE DR

11TH

ST

ASCOT C

T

SHOR

TLEA

F ST

QUAIL RUN

BREWER DR

PINON ST

LOPEZ CT

FOX GLOVE CT

MONT

EREY

DR

HIBDON CT

TRUJILLO ST

PICA RUN

WIMB

LEDO

N CT

HICKORY ST

HEMLOCK ST

SAN CRISTO ST

ALPINE ST

WOODLAWN DR

STEEPLECHASE CT

GINSENG CIR

YARROW CIR

WINDJAMMER CV

PEREGRINE RUN

RENE

GADE

CT

MATU

KA C

T

MUDD

LER

CT

CRANBERRY CT

Lake Cana

l

COY DITCH

Lindenmeier Lake

Cache La Poudre River

COY DITCH

$1,150,000.00

$250,000.00

$3,565,000.00

$545,100.00

$1,635,300.00

$563

,500.0

0

$230,0

00.00

$115,000.00$782,000.00

$1,62

1,500

.00

$371

,450.0

0

$2,530,000.00

$126,500.0

0

$568

,100.0

0

$16,905.00

/

NECCO Project AlignmentProperty Owners

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250Feet

Documents

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY March 22, 2011 Ann Turnquist, Steve