Council Finance Committee & URA Finance Committee
Agenda Planning Calendar 2015
RVSD 06/08 mnb
June 23
CFC
TOPIC
TIME
WHO
Exempt Organization – Potential Code Updates
30 min
J. Ping-Small
2014 Year End Financial Highlights
30 min
J. Voss
2014 Year End Fund Balance Review
30 min
J. Voss
Sales Tax Recapture Initiative - Discussion
30 min
M. Beckstead
URA
July 20
CFC
TOPIC
TIME
WHO
Auditors Report
20 min
T. Storin
K. Smith
Revenue Diversification - Sales Tax on Services and Admissions Tax
45 min
J. Ping-Small
DDA Bond Interest Adjustment
20 min
M. Robenalt
Pension Liability Funding
30 min
M. Beckstead
URA
Aug 17
CFC
TOPIC
TIME
WHO
2016 Budget Revisions
30 min
L. Pollack
Use Tax Utilization Policy - Discussion
30 min
M. Beckstead
URA
Sept 21
TOPIC
Annual Adjustment Ordinance (clean-up) Review
CFC
URA
Future Council Finance Committee Topics:
Future URA Committee Topics:
TIME
WHO
15 min
L. Pollack
Finance 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
June 23, 2015
2:30 – 4:30 p.m.
Community Room – 215 N. Mason
Approval of the Minutes from the May 18, 2015 meeting
1. Exempt Organization – Potential Code Updates
30 minutes
J. Ping-Small
2. 2014 Year End Financial Highlights
30 minutes
J. Voss
3. 2014 Year End Fund Balance Review
30 minutes
J. Voss
4. Sales Tax Recapture Initiative – Discussion Only
15 minutes
M. Beckstead
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Council Audit & Finance Committee
Minutes
05/18/15
10:00 am to 12:00 Noon
CIC Room
Council Attendees:
Mayor Wade Troxell, Ross Cunniff, Gerry Horack
Staff:
Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead, John Duvall, John Voss, Josh Birks, Travis Storin, Nancy
James
Others:
Joel Stewart, Jim Manire
Approval of Minutes
Ross Cunniff made a motion to approve the March 16, 2015 Council Finance Committee minutes. (No meeting
was held in April.) Gerry Horack made a second to the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously.
Introductions
Prior to the remaining agenda items, Mike introduced Nancy James, who replaced Katie Wiggett a week ago in
the admin role. Nancy comes to Financial Services from Utilities. He also introduced Travis Storin, who joined
Financial Services in April, as the Accounting Director. Travis was previously the Director of Financial Planning
and Analyses for Kaiser Permanente in Atlanta, GA, and an auditor for KPMG prior to that.
GERP Update
The actuary firm engaged on the GERP is Milliman, Inc. The presentation was led by Joel Stewart, who puts
together the annual review of the General Employees’ Retirement Plan, which covers plan highlights, economic
and demographic assumptions, unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities, and the solvency/sensitivity model. The
presentation reviewed the Plan’s Actuarial valuation for year ending 2014, and discussed the impact to the
Plan from investment return sensitivity, which included:
• Pension Plan Overview
• GERP Plan Summary
• Valuation Results
• Solvency Model
Pension Plan Overview
All benefits and expenses must be provided for by current assets, future contributions and future investment
returns. Mike added that over the last three years the estimates have become more conservative as a couple of
significant things have taken place, 1) we have increased the supplemental contribution from the City from a
little over $500,000 to a little over a $1,100,000. We did this for the first time in 2013. This is bringing down the
City’s unfunded pension liability; and 2) three years ago, the anticipated annual return was 7.5%; after a study
and analysis it was initially brought down to 6.8% and is now down to 6.5%, which is a reasonable benchmark
number. The reduction in anticipated investment returns would, in isolation, increase the City’s unfunded
pension liability, but it is currently staying the same because we have had some fairly strong returns, and
because of the supplemental contribution increase.
GERP Plan Summary
Demographics as of 1/1/2015:
• Total Participants = 431
(113 Active, 184 Retired, 113 Term Vested & 21 Beneficiaries)
• Active Participant Ave. Age = 59.0 & Ave. Years of Service = 25.7
(Employees hired before 1/1/1999)
Plan Summary:
• Normal Retirement Date (NRD) = Age 65 (Early retirement would produce a slightly reduced payment.)
• Benefit Payable at NRD = Final Ave. Monthly Salary x 1.5% x Years of Service
• Benefit Example assuming $65,000 average salary and 25 years of service
($5,417 x 1.5% x 25 = $2,031
Key Assumption:
• Investment Return Assumption = 6.5%
• Life Expectancy
• City Contribution = 10.5% of Salary + Supplemental Contribution (currently $1.12m)
Valuation Results
•
•
The plan assets returned 6.0% during the 2014 plan year on a market value basis. The average annual
return over the last 21 years is 6.4%. The assumed rate of return for the 2014 plan year was 6.5%.
At the end of 2014, the market value of assets was $45,722.416, up from the previous year ending
market value of $44,692,556.
o Total Pension Liability (TPL)
$ 57,796,305
o Fiduciary net Position (FNP)
$ 45,772,416
o Net Pension Liability (NPL)
= TPL – FNP
$ 12,073,889
o FNP as a % of TPL
79.11%
2
The City Manager indicated that overall this is a very good position for the City to be in, as many cities have a
much higher unfunded pension liability. Mike concurred that the decision in 1999 to discontinue the General
Employees' Retirement Plan was very well thought out.
Financial/Economic Impacts:
The 2014 investment return of 6% was less than the Plan return assumption of 6.5%. Investment returns added
to supplemental and payroll contributions exceeded retiree payouts which contributed to a year over year
increase of $1.0 million to the Fiduciary Net Position (FNP). Supplemental contribution end dates fluctuate
annually based on actual Plan economic and demographic performance.
New accounting standards (GASB 67 and 68) change the reporting requirements for the city from Net Pension
Obligations of $3.7M to a net Pension Liability of $12.1M. However, this change will not impact the Plan’s
anticipated cash flows or the City’s credit rating.
The Council Finance Committee asked what the average monthly salary was for people currently in the program.
The current average is $65,000. It was further questioned why the average salary wasn’t shown for retirees who
are retiring in the program. Staff will make this update for next year.
The Council Finance Committee also questioned why we are not using use tax revenue to pay down the liability
of the Plan. Staff indicated that this conversation has not taken place to date, but is one that we can certainly
have. Staff further proposed that before the 17/18 budget is complete, that a decision be made on whether a
shift be made on how we handle this liability, which also ties into the discussion of whether or not we have a
policy in place that deals with the additional revenue from use tax within a year. Staff will schedule this item
prior to July, August at the latest, for budgetary purposes.
The Council Finance Committee also asked what happens to the money that is left over after all recipients and
beneficiaries have received all of their appropriate funds. Staff’s follow-up report indicates that after the
beneficiaries are paid their vested amounts, the remaining monies will be refunded to the City. This information
is referenced on pages 33-34, section 6, in the General Employees Retirement Plan document.
City Debt Capacity
Mike introduced Jim Manire, the City’s Financial Advisor who works for the City and guides us in making sure the
City evaluates all of the alternatives and proceeds in the correct way in regard to future bond issuances and debt
issues, etc. Mike further explained that Staff worked with Jim to evaluate the current debt capacity of the City in
anticipation of some future borrowing needs of the city associated with projects such as Parking, a Regional
Police Training Center, Vine/Lemay intersection, Climate Action Plan. Debt capacity was analyzed assuming a
commitment to maintain the City’s current Moody’s credit rating of Aaa.
Jim’s presentation provided information in a general capacity. Debt capacity is a range that will vary based on
economic conditions, type of debt taken on, funded from existing or new revenue sources, etc. Without new
3
revenue sources a range of $75M to $100M is estimated. With new revenue sources (mill levy or sales tax) a
range of $125M to $150M is estimated. The analysis excludes Utility debt supported by rate revenue.
The total debt on the governmental side, excluding Utilities is about $55M, which includes the DDA and the URA.
The City alone is in the low $40M range for total debt, with $6M that will being paid off in 2018, which is
associated with the 215 Mason Street building and the Civic parking structure. What is left is the Police Facility
which was refinanced in 2012 at 1.82%.
The City currently has a Aaa Issuer and GO rating by Moody’s. Moody’s description of a Aaa rating is obligations
that have been judged to be of the highest quality, subject to the lowest level of credit risk. There are only 24
other cities with Moody’s Aaa (qualifier is population; medium size American cities). Fort Collins is in a very elite
class in this regard.
Multiple weighted factors are used by Moody’s to determine a rating:
• Economy/Tax Base
30%
• Finances
30%
• Management
20%
• Debt/Pensions
20% (Half of this is pension related)
Most important is budgetary actuals and performance. Moody’s has an Annual Surveillance Cycle – each rating
is reviewed annually by the agencies who publish them.
The City Manager stated that the report on both of these items (GERP Update and the City Debt Capacity), are
very good news for the City, and are solid statements about our city and financial situation.
The Council Finance Committee stated that they would like to continue to see more conversation with Council
about overall capacity.
Woodward Governor – Rebate:
Ross asked Staff when the Woodward agreement was signed, if the City set aside the funds intended for
repayment when they met their side of the obligation. Staff indicated that that is not generally done at the time
an agreement is signed, but rather when the revenue comes in. The Revenue Dept. within Financial Services
coordinates with Planning and Utilities on a monthly basis and Finance records the liability associated with all of
the rebates that they have earned. There is capacity in the General Fund to pay this liability.
Ross further asked if using the funds this way match the intended use of the expansion fee buckets, and wanted
an explanation on how staff chose the three different funds that were used, and how that fits the expenditure.
John Duval stated that this item was placed on the agenda less than 24 hours in advance and could not be
posted. The question is related to the legal opinion that Council received previously that is confidential, and
cannot be discussed without an executive session, which cannot be held as it was not posted in ample time. In
the general sense that nexus isn’t the issue; the opinions that Council were given doesn’t depend on that.
4
Ross asked Staff if the City has previously used the various fee funds in this way. Staff stated that with the
exception of affordable housing, the City has not rebated capital expansion fees in the near term past.
Economic Health Policy
Staff introduced and reviewed the Financial Policy webpage for the new council member’s information. Each
year Staff will review a third of the policies that are listed in the policy section of this webpage.
The Fort Collins City Council has adopted Financial Management Policies pursuant to the provisions of Article V,
Section 12 of the City Charter, to guide the administration, management, deposit and investment of City funds.
In addition, City Council and staff have committed to regularly review and update these Financial Management
Policies. The current Economic Development financial policy was last updated in 1999. Staff presented the
Council Finance Committee with an updated policy for their review. The bulk of the new policy comes from
documents previously approved by City Council in recent years. The new financial policy will replace the existing
policy in its entirety.
In addition, Economic Health Office staff is currently finalizing a proposed update to the 2012 Economic Health
Strategic Plan. The update responds to a City Council request to evaluate changes to the existing strategic plan
and seeks alignment with the objectives of the Sustainability Service Area (formed in 2012). The update
introduces five themes around which to organize the City’s economic health activities:
•
•
•
•
•
Community Prosperity
Grow Our Own
Place Matters
The Climate Economy
Think Regionally
The City Manager stated that a council member recently received a call from a cluster grant applicant who did
not get selected. Bob did not know a whole lot about the program, but Josh has done a really good job of
relaying the information. It was very methodical, and streamlined.
The Council Finance Committee asked staff if they periodically review performance relative to the policy. Staff
indicated that they look very closely at the performance they get out of the money invested. They self-report at
the end of each year. They will also extend programs over to other departments to continue to improve
processes.
The Economic Health Policy will be placed on the Council Consent Agenda in the near future.
5
Other Business
The City Manager requested that the time of the Council Finance Committee meetings be moved back to begin
at 9:30 a.m. vs. 10:00 a.m., as Leadership ends at 9:30 a.m. It was agreed by all that this would be acceptable.
It was also requested that the date of the next meeting currently scheduled for June 15th be moved to another
date due to the Weld County Transportation Summit being held on the 15th of June. Staff will schedule the
meeting on another day, and notify all members and the public.
The City Manager closed the meeting by stating that credit goes to the City Council and the Council Finance
Committee for driving improvements for all of these programs.
Meeting Adjourned at 11:44 a.m.
6
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Jessica Ping-Small, Revenue and Project Manager
Date: June 23, 2015
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Consideration of potential code changes for charitable organizations as defined by Chapter 25 of
the Municipal Code.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chapter 25 of the Municipal Code allows organizations that meet the definition of charitable, per
City code, to purchase tangible personal property for use in the organizations’ activities free
from City of Fort Collins sales and use tax. Recently, Colorado case law was discovered that
may have a substantial impact on staff’s interpretation of the charitable organization definition.
Staff is recommending City Council consider amending the code to mitigate the impact of the
case law to a substantial number the city’s 300 exempt organizations.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Staff is seeking the following direction from the Council Finance Committee (CFC):
1. Does the CFC support potential code changes to amend the definition of charitable
organization?
2. Does the CFC support one of the options presented by staff?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
General Information
City code defines a charitable organization as:
Charitable organization shall mean any entity which: (i) has been certified as a not-for-profit organization under
Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; and (ii) is a religious or charitable organization. As used in this
definition, a "charitable organization" is an organization which exclusively, and in a manner consistent with existing
laws and for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, freely and voluntarily ministers to the physical, mental
or spiritual needs of persons, and which thereby lessens the burdens of government.
The City currently has 301 exempt organizations. In general terms, the code allows the
organizations to make purchases free of sales and use tax but does not exempt them from
collecting sales tax on transactions. For example, if an exempt organization, as defined by City
code, purchases materials for use in their activities, they don’t pay sales tax. However, if the
organization sells tangible goods, for example a book sale, they are still required to collect and
remit the tax to the City. This is an important distinction.
The process to become an exempt organization with the City is as follows:
•
Application submitted with following documents:
•
•
o List of officers
o Articles of Incorporation
o 501(c)3 letter
o Bylaws
o Colorado Certificate of Incorporation
o Copy of State exemption certificate
o Financial statements
Application reviewed by staff for completeness and determines if organization meets
definition of charitable
Application approved or denied (2 year renewable period)
o If denied, organization can request a hearing with the Financial Officer or
designee
Issue to Address
In the fall of 2014, City staff denied an application for exemption based on the code definition.
The organization appealed the decision and during the hearing process, the City Attorney’s
Office discovered a ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court for the City of Pueblo that uses the
same definition of charitable organization as the City of Fort Collins. If staff applies the
Colorado Supreme Court’s interpretation of our definition to our existing exempt organizations,
23% would no longer qualify.
Based on this impact, staff is recommending that City Council consider amending the definition
of charitable organization. Below are potential approaches for consideration:
Options
No code change
Redefine “charitable
organization” to align
with past application of
the definition
Impact
70/301 exempt
organizations
impacted – 23%
Existing exempt
entities maintain
exemption
Pro
Follows case law
Con
Existing exempt
orgs lose
designation
Improved clarity for
Creates unique
staff when
definition for Fort
determining eligibility Collins, adds
confusion for orgs
and retailers
Existing exempt
Reduced staff time
Revenue loss from
Amend code to exempt
entities maintain
reviewing applicants
orgs who do not
any religious or
exemption
currently qualify*
charitable organization
Simple process for
that has been granted tax Additional orgs will
entities
qualify
exempt status by the
state or eligible for tax
Diminishes confusion
exemption under state
for retailers
law
*Difficult to quantify – in many cases City not capturing revenue currently because vendors
accept State exemption when purchases made.
Benchmark Data
Staff completed the following research to support the discussion:
Municipality
Aurora
Boulder
Broomfield
Cherry Hills Village
Colorado Springs
Denver
Greeley
Longmont
Loveland
Westminster
Pueblo
Windsor
Thornton
Fort
Collins
language
Current
State
language
X
Other
language
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Staff also reached out to numerous jurisdictions with the same definition as ours to understand if
cities had changed their code based on the Colorado Supreme Court ruling. The majority of the
cities queried reported that they would continue their existing application of the code regardless
of the ruling.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis and impact to existing and potential organizations that qualify for
exemption under the City of Fort Collins code, staff recommends that City Council consider
amending Chapter 25 of the Municipal Code to exempt any entity that has been granted tax
exempt status by the state or is eligible for tax exemption under state law.
ATTACHMENTS
1. PowerPoint Presentation
Exempt Organizations
Council Finance Committee
June 23, 2015
1
Overview
• Direction Sought
• Current State
• Issue to Address
• Options
• Recommendation
2
Questions for Council Finance
• Does CFC support potential code changes to amend the
definition of charitable organization?
• Does the CFC support one of the options presented by
staff?
3
Current State
• Chapter 25 of the Municipal Code defines a charitable
organization as:
– Charitable organization shall mean any entity which: (i) has been
certified as a not-for-profit organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code; and (ii) is a religious or charitable organization.
As used in this definition, a "charitable organization" is an organization
which exclusively, and in a manner consistent with existing laws and for
the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, freely and voluntarily
ministers to the physical, mental or spiritual needs of persons, and
which thereby lessens the burdens of government.
4
Current State
• 301 organizations have been approved for sales and use
tax exemption
– Applications are made to Sales Tax Dept.
– Staff reviews application to determine eligibility
– Exemption granted for 2 year renewable period
• Code allows the entities exemption from paying sales
and use tax on purchases BUT does not exempt them
from collecting sales tax if selling tangible goods
5
Issue to Address
• In fall of 2014 staff denied an application for exemption
based on definition
• During appeal process, City Attorney’s Office discovered
a ruling from the CO Supreme Court:
– Definition of charitable organization the same as Fort
Collins
– CO Supreme Court interpreted definition differently
than staff has historically
Impact of Ruling: 23% (70) of City Exempt Orgs
No Longer Qualify Under Existing Definition
6
Options
Options
No code change
Redefine “charitable
organization” to align
with past application of
the definition
Impact
Pro
Con
70/301 exempt
organizations
impacted – 23%
Follows case law
Existing exempt orgs
lose designation
Existing exempt entities Improved clarity for staff
maintain exemption
when determining
eligibility
Amend code to exempt
any religious or
Existing exempt entities
charitable organization
maintain exemption
that has been granted
tax exempt status by the
Additional orgs will
state or eligible for tax
qualify
exemption under state
law
7
Creates unique
definition for Fort
Collins, adds
confusion for orgs and
retailers
Reduced staff time
reviewing applicants
Simple process for
entities
Diminishes confusion
for retailers
Revenue loss from
orgs who do not
currently qualify
Staff Recommendation
• Amend code to exempt any entity granted tax exemption
from the State:
– Allows existing organizations to retain exemption
– Supports local charitable organizations
– Reduce staff time and subjectivity of definition
– Simplifies process for charitable organizations
– Diminishes confusion for retailers
8
Questions for Council Finance
• Does CFC support potential code changes to amend the
definition of charitable organization?
• Does the CFC support one of the options presented by
staff?
9
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: John Voss, Controller
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION – 2014 Financial Highlights
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – The financial condition of the City continues to be healthy.
Revenues increased as did expenditures. The population continues to grow and with it a demand
for more services. Outstanding debt continues to decline.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
None.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION – Todays review focuses on revenues, expenditures and debt.
At an upcoming meeting fund balances will looked at with more detail.
ATTACHMENTS
PowerPoint presentation
June 23, 2015
2014 Financial Highlights
Council Finance Committee
June 23, 2015
1
Contents
•
•
•
•
2
Revenue
Expenditures
Debt
General Fund change in Fund Balance
Tale of Two Cities
• Governmental Activities
– Activities that do not lend themselves to be fully funded
by User Fees and are wholly or partially tax supported
– Transportation, Police, Fire, Parks, Natural Areas, etc.
• Enterprise Activities
– 100% funded by User Fees
– Light & Power, Water, Wastewater, Storm Drainage, and
Golf
3
Revenue
4
5
Sales & Use Tax and Capital Impact Fees lead revenue increase
6
Capital Grants down, primarily MAX. 2014 Sales & Use Tax up 15.4%.
Impact Fees driving increase in Charges for Services
7
Sales & Use Tax is primary source of revenue at 51%
8
Community growth and strong economic rebound are reflected in
Sales & Use Tax revenue
9
URA expects an additional $281k in 2015. General Fund expects an
additional $566k in 2015.
10
Interest rates continue historic lows, expect slight rise in 2015
Unrealized gains and losses washout when held to maturity
11 Light & Power revenue declines, while the other Enterprise Funds see
increased revenue
Expenditures
12
13
14
Efficiency Programs Appear to be Working
Personnel Costs
15
16
Personnel Costs Rise in all Service Areas
2014 Full Time Equivalent (FTE)
Classified &
Unclassified (a) Hourly (b) TOTAL
Service Area
Police Services
294.3
6.1
300.3
Financial Services
39.8
0.3
40.1
Community & Operation Services
293.8
222.8
516.6
Utility Services
351.8
45.2
397.0
Planning, Dev & Transportation
219.6
75.9
295.4
ELJS
42.3
1.5
43.8
Employee & Comm Services
33.8
5.2
39.0
Sustainability Services
19.6
5.2
24.8
Total
1,294.9
362.3
1,657.1
(a) Approved positions
(b) Based on actuals divided by 2,080
17
18
19
Debt
20
Better
21
Compliance with Debt Policy
• Annual debt service can not exceed 5% of
governmental revenue
Revenue *
Debt Service
DS/Revenue
DS Policy Limit
2014
$ 229.5 M
$ 5.4 M
2.20%
5.00%
* Does not include one-time large capital grants, as per policy
22
Fund Balance in General Fund
2013 Ending
2014 net
2014 Ending
$ 60.7
$ 13.2
$ 73.9
• At the June CFC meeting we’ll review fund
balances for all funds in more detail
23
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: John Voss, Controller/Assistant Financial Officer
Date: June 23, 2015
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: Status of Fund Balances and Working Capital
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The attached presentation gives a status of fund balances and working capital. Fund balances are
primarily considered for funding one-time offers during the Budgeting for Outcomes process.
To a lesser extent available monies are also used to fund supplemental appropriations between
BFO cycles.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
None, this is an update for Council Finance Committee.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
To aid in answering the question of what funding is available to support emerging issues and
initiatives in the next budget cycle. In each fund the balances are shown vertically by the
accounting classifications. The amounts are then additionally categorized into Appropriated,
Available with Constraints, and Available for Nearly Any Purpose.
Appropriated, Minimum Policy or Scheduled is comprised of minimum fund balances
established by policy, funds from the 2014 balance that have been appropriated in 2015, and
amounts for projects specifically identified by voters. An example of the later is Building on
Basics.
Available with Constraints are those balances available for appropriation but within defined
constraints. An example is 4th of July donations. They are restricted for that purpose, but still
available for appropriation.
Available for Nearly Any Purpose are balances that are available for appropriation at the
discretion of the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS
1. PowerPoint presentation.
Status of Fund Balances
Council Finance Committee
June 23, 2015
1
Objectives
•
•
•
•
2
Types of constraints
Restricted balances can be available
Review fund balances
Using fund balances in the budget process
Fund Balance Definitions
most
constrained
•
Non-spendable
– Not spendable in form (inventory, long-term receivables)
– Legally or contractually required to be maintained intact
(permanent endowments)
•
Restricted
– Externally enforceable legal restrictions (TABOR emergency
reserve, debt covenants, re-development agreements, IGA’s)
•
Committed
– Constraint formally imposed at the highest level of decision
making authority through Ordinance (Capital Expansion fees,
Neighborhood Parkland fees)
•
Assigned
– Intended to be used for specific purposes (Affordable Housing,
Camera Radar, Encumbrances)
•
least
constrained
3
Unassigned
– Available for any City purpose
– Reported only in the General Fund except in cases of negative
fund balance
Restricted balances can be available
• Available but with some constraints, examples
– BCC-CE residuals are restricted but available only for capital as
defined in the ballot language
– Udall Endowment interest is restricted but available to be
appropriated for maintenance and improvements of Udall Natural
Area
• Available for nearly any purpose, examples
– Funds available at the discretion of the City Council for any
municipal purpose
4
All City Funds
2014
Total
2013
Total
* General Fund
* Capital Expansion Fund
* Sales & Use Tax Fund
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
5
GID #1 Fund
Keep Fort Collins Great Fund
Neighborhood Parkland Fund
Conservation Trust Fund
Naturals Areas Fund
Cultural Services Fund
Recreation Fund
Cemeteries Fund
Perpetual Care Fund
Museum Fund
Transit
Street Oversizing
Transportation
Capital Projects Fund
Light & Power Fund
Water Fund
Wastewater Fund
Storm Drainage Fund
Equipment Fund
Self Insurance Fund
Data & Communications Fund
Benefits Fund
Utility Customer Service Fund
TOTAL
$
$
60.7
18.8
2.5
1.1
12.8
5.6
1.9
10.1
2.5
2.5
0.5
1.7
3.5
11.2
15.0
21.0
55.3
65.5
33.1
17.2
2.3
3.6
1.4
10.5
2.3
362.6
$
$
74.0
21.8
4.3
1.2
14.9
7.1
1.7
12.1
1.7
2.6
0.5
1.7
0.8
1.4
15.3
18.8
24.5
56.6
61.3
39.1
19.6
3.0
1.8
1.3
7.8
2.6
397.5
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
$
$
$
$
64.6
12.6
4.3
0.9
8.1
6.4
1.2
2.6
0.9
0.7
0.1
0.4
2.0
1.4
5.4
18.9
37.0
56.6
18.0
14.3
1.1
1.8
0.6
5.6
1.2
266.7
$
1.9
9.2
0.3
6.8
0.7
0.5
9.5
0.8
1.9
0.4
1.7
0.4
(0.6)
13.9
0.6
5.6
19.6
4.7
21.1
5.3
0.5
2.2
1.4
108.4
$
7.5
12.8
1.4
0.7
22.4
General Fund - Year End 2014 - $74.0
2013
Total
Assigned - Minimum 60 day Policy
Non-spendable
Advances
Landbank inventory
Restricted
TABOR Emergency
Police Programs
Donations & Misc
Economic Rebates
DDA/Woodward Debt
Committed
Traffic Calming
Culture & Recreation
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders
Manufacturing Use Tax Rebate
Council Priorities 2014-16 Bud.
Council Priorities
DPS/Comm System
Camera Radar
Affordable Housing Land Bank
Waste Innovation
Reappropriation
$
Unassigned
6
Year End Total
$
2014
Total
20.9
$
21.5
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
$
21.5
Available but
with some
Constraints
$
-
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
$
-
5.0
3.0
5.3
3.0
5.3
3.0
-
-
5.3
1.4
0.7
2.4
2.3
6.3
1.5
1.1
5.2
2.3
6.3
0.8
5.2
2.3
0.7
1.1
-
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.4
-
4.5
0.3
4.3
0.1
0.9
0.3
0.1
0.9
4.9
0.5
9.3
6.9
0.1
0.8
0.2
0.1
1.2
7.6
3.3
60.7
$
74.0
4.9
0.5
9.3
3.7
0.2
1.2
(0.1)
0.2
1.0 Police Training Fac.
0.7 Parking Meters
0.5
Transit
Buses
0.5 Police CAD
0.5 Golf Irrigation Sys.
3.0 Lincoln Ave 3.2
0.3 Lincoln Neighborhood
0.1
0.4 FAC
0.6
0.2
0.1
-
$
64.6
$
1.9
3.3
$
7.5
General Fund Balances
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
7
$5.3 loaned to URA (Advances)
$3.0 is value of land held for resale in Landbank program
$6.3 is an emergency reserve required by TABOR, equal to 3% of qualified
governmental revenue
$1.5 restricted to Police Programs; for Drug Task Force $660k, dispatch system
replacement $0.9
$1.1 restricted by donor for various purposes (Horticulture, Udall Endowment,
etc)
$5.2 is restricted to Economic Incentive Rebates
$2.3 is for debt contingency on DDA debt obligation to Woodward
Traditionally fund balances are Assigned for camera radar and photo red-light,
public safety dispatch system, Affordable Housing and Waste Innovation
$1.2 are set aside for the re-appropriation process
Capital Expansion Fund - Year End 2014 - $21.8
2013
Total
Committed
General Government
Police
Fire
Community Parkland
Year End Total
•
•
•
•
•
•
8
$
6.6
0.9
0.3
11.0
18.8
2014
Total
$
7.6
0.9
0.8
12.5
21.8
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
2.7
0.9
0.8
8.2
12.6
4.9
4.3
9.2
$
$
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
$
-
Monies collected on building permits, revenue varies greatly with development activity
Must be used for new and /or expanding facilities
$2.7 in loans to the URA (RMI2) in General Government
Police monies used for debt on new police headquarters
Fire monies used to pay debt on Station #4
$4.3 in planned for remaining 2 planned Community Parks, excluding S.E. Community Park
Sales & Use Tax Fund - Year End 2014 - $4.3
2013
Total
Restricted
BOB
Natural Areas
Year End Total
•
9
$
1.3
1.3
2.5
2014
Total
$
2.1
2.2
4.3
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
$
2.1
2.2
4.3
Available but
with some
Constraints
$
-
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
$
-
Sales Tax for BOB and Natural Areas deposited here
– Voter language requires deposit in Sale & Use Tax Fund
– Residual balance owed to Natural Areas and BOB. 2014 revenue exceeded appropriations
needed to make transfers. Will be addressed in annual year end adjustment ordinance in
September 2015.
General Improvement District #1 Fund - Year End 2014 - $1.2
2014
Total
2013
Total
Committed
Capital Improvements
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders
Year End Total
•
•
10
$
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
0.9
1.2
0.9
0.3
0.2
1.1
1.2
0.9
0.3
$
$
$
Property tax based - 4.924 mill levy generates about $240 K annually
Contributing $1M to the Old Town Square Renovation in 2015
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
$
-
Keep Fort Collins Great Fund - Year End 2014 - $14.9
2013
Total
Restricted
Street Maintenance
Other Transportation
Police Services
Fire & Emergency Services
Parks & Recreation
Other
Year End Total
•
11
$
1.6
4.8
2.9
0.5
0.9
2.1
12.8
2014
Total
$
3.1
4.4
3.1
0.5
1.2
2.6
14.9
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
1.8
3.4
1.1
0.1
0.5
1.2
8.1
1.3
1.0
2.0
0.4
0.7
1.4
6.8
$
The $6.8 will be made available in the next BFO process
$
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
$
-
Neighborhood Parkland Fund - Year End 2014 - $7.1
2013
Total
Committed
Neighborhood Parks
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders
Year End Total
•
•
12
$
2014
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
0.7
0.7
5.5
7.0
6.3
0.1
5.6
0.1
7.1
0.1
6.4
$
$
$
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
$
Monies collected on building permits, revenue varies greatly with development activity
$0.7 is for new Neighborhood Parklands
-
Conservation Trust Fund - Year End 2014 - $1.7
2013
Total
Restricted
Parks, Rec & Open Space Capital Imp
Year End Total
$
•
•
•
13
1.9
1.9
2014
Total
$
1.7
1.7
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
$
1.2
1.2
Available but
with some
Constraints
$
0.5
0.5
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
$
Shared Lottery Proceeds – an average of $1.3 collected annually
Can be spent on a variety of specified Recreation purposes as defined by the State
City has primarily used these monies for trails
-
Natural Areas Fund - Year End 2014 - $12.1
2013
Total
Minimum Policy
Restricted
Natural Areas
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders
Capital Projects
Year End Total
•
•
14
$
$
0.2
2014
Total
$
-
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
$
-
Available but
with some
Constraints
$
-
9.1
9.9
0.4
9.5
0.8
10.1
1.5
0.7
12.1
1.5
0.7
2.6
9.5
$
$
$
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
$
Major funding sources
– About 60% comes from City quarter cent sales tax, expires at end of 2030
– About 30% comes from County Open Space tax, expires at end of 2043
• Revenue sharing to municipalities will drop from 58% to 50% beginning in 2019
$8.3 to be appropriated in 2015 for potential land purchases.
-
Cultural Services & Facilities Fund - Year End 2014 - $1.7
2013
Total
Minimum Policy
Committed
Art in Public Places
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders
Capital Projects
Museum Portion
Cultural Services Surplus
Year End Total
•
•
•
15
$
$
0.1
2014
Total
$
-
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
$
-
Available but
with some
Constraints
$
-
0.3
0.3
0.3
-
0.1
0.4
1.0
0.6
2.5
0.1
0.4
0.9
1.7
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.9
0.8
0.8
$
$
$
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
$
-
Accounts for Lincoln Center and other Cultural Service activites.
Their own revenues are about $2.5, and total expenses are $3.3.
Museum activity moved to their own fund in 2013. Residual fund balance moved to Cultural
Service Fund in 2014, approximately $900k.
Recreation Fund - Year End 2014 - $2.6
2013
Total
Minimum Policy
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders
Recreation Programs
Recreation Surplus
Year End Total
•
16
$
0.1
$
0.1
0.1
2.2
2.5
2014
Total
$
-
$
0.1
0.1
2.4
2.6
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
$
-
$
0.1
0.6
0.7
Fees and charges cover about 85% of operating costs.
Available but
with some
Constraints
$
-
$
0.1
1.8
1.9
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
$
-
Cemeteries Fund - Year End 2014 - $0.5
2013
Total
Assigned
Cemeteries Surplus
Year End Total
17
$
0.5
0.5
2014
Total
$
0.5
0.5
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
$
0.1
0.1
Available but
with some
Constraints
$
0.4
0.4
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
$
-
Perpetual Care Fund - Year End 2014 - $1.7
2013
Total
Restricted
Perpetual Care
Year End Total
•
18
$
1.7
1.7
2014
Total
$
1.7
1.7
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
$
-
Available but
with some
Constraints
$
To be used to maintain the cemeteries once on-going operations cease.
1.7
1.7
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
$
-
Museum Fund - Year End 2014 - $0.8
2014
Total
2013
Total
Assigned
Capital Projects
Cultural Services Surplus
Year End Total
•
19
$
-
$
0.1
0.7
0.8
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
$
$
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
$
-
Balances and activity moved out of Cultural Services Fund. Desired better transparency because
of partnership agreement with Museum non-profit.
Transit Fund - Year End 2014 - $1.4
2013
Total
Minimum Policy
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders
Transit Surplus
Year End Total
•
•
20
$
0.2
$
4.2
(0.9)
3.5
2014
Total
$
-
$
1.1
0.3
1.4
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
$
-
$
1.1
0.9
2.0
Available but
with some
Constraints
$
-
$
(0.6)
(0.6)
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
$
-
Fund balances are used as a local match to FTA capital grants.
Deficit is result of purchases made in 2014 in anticipation of grant that was not fully finalized until
early 2015. Federal reimbursement occurred in March 2015.
Street Oversizing Fund - Year End 2014 - $15.3
2013
Total
Minimum Policy
Restricted
Street Oversizing Surplus
Assigned
Capital Projects
Year End Total
•
21
$
0.1
2014
Total
$
10.1
$
1.0
11.2
-
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
$
14.6
$
0.7
15.3
-
Available but
with some
Constraints
$
0.7
$
0.7
1.4
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
13.9
$
13.9
$
Monies are collected from developers, revenue varies greatly with development activity
-
Transportation Fund - Year End 2014 - $18.8
2013
Total
Minimum Policy
Restricted
Fiscal Agent
CC Parking Garage IGA
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders
Capital Projects
DT Parking
Harmony Road
Transportation Surplus
Year End Total
•
•
•
•
•
22
$
$
0.5
2014
Total
$
-
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
$
-
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.3
0.6
6.1
5.5
15.0
0.6
0.3
0.6
5.8
9.8
18.8
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.5
2.3
5.4
$
$
Available but
with some
Constraints
$
$
0.4
0.2
0.6
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
$
$0.3 Capital Projects – Primarily Traffic Response Signal System
$0.8 Fiscal Agent – unspent capital leasing proceeds at year end
$0.9 limited to Civic Center Parking Garage per IGA with Larimer County
$5.3 may be reassigned but is intended by management to be used for Harmony Road
improvements.
– Residual of the $13 million from State when ownership transferred to City
NOTE: Parking balances will move to their own fund in 2015
5.3
7.5
12.8
Capital Project Fund - Year End 2014 - $24.5
2013
Total
Restricted
BCC-Streets
BCC-Community Enhancements
BCC-Natural Areas
Building on Basics (BOB)
Assigned
General City Projects
Year End Total
•
•
23
$
2014
Total
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
0.1
0.2
0.1
11.5
2.9
17.1
14.4
9.1
21.0
4.5
24.5
4.5
18.9
$
$
Available but
with some
Constraints
$
2.9
2.7
5.6
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
$
-
BCC-Community Enhancements has $2.9 available for capital projects
Building on Basics (BOB) is expected to have $2.7 available for capital projects, after the projects
are completed
Light & Power Fund - Year End 2014 - $56.6
2014
Total
2013
Total
Minimum Policy - 25% Operations
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders
Approved Capital Projects
Capital Improvements
Capital Outlay
Available for capital and operations
Year End Total
$
2.3
$
3.2
15.0
34.0
0.8
55.3
$
7.2
$
1.9
20.1
27.4
56.6
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
$
7.2
$
1.9
18.9
9.0
37.0
Available but
with some
Constraints
$
$
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
1.2
18.4
19.6
$
-
•
New Policy Minimum is equal to 25% of operating expenses, excluding depreciation and nonrenewable energy purchases
•
Approved but unencumbered capital projects include new Utility Administrative Building, Wood
Street Renovations, Smart Grid, Substation Improvements, SW Enclave System, Underground
Conversion Program and Art in Public Places.
24
Water Fund - Year End 2014 - $61.3
2013
Total
Minimum Policy - 25% Operations
Restricted
Debt
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders
Approved Capital Projects
Capital Improvements
Capital Outlay
Available for capital and operations
Year End Total
•
25
$
$
1.5
2014
Total
$
4.7
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
$
4.7
0.3
0.3
0.3
2.1
45.9
13.2
2.5
65.5
0.5
43.7
12.1
61.3
0.5
43.7
7.4
56.6
$
$
Available but
with some
Constraints
$
$
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
4.7
4.7
New Policy Minimum is equal to 25% of operating expenses, excluding depreciation
$
-
Wastewater Fund - Year End 2014 - $39.1
2013
Total
Minimum Policy - 25% Operations
Restricted
Debt
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders
Approved Capital Projects
Capital Improvements
Capital Outlay
Available for capital and operations
Year End Total
•
26
$
$
1.0
2014
Total
$
2.9
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
$
2.9
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
12.4
18.5
0.7
33.1
0.4
15.1
20.5
39.1
0.4
14.4
0.1
18.0
$
$
Available but
with some
Constraints
$
$
0.7
20.4
21.1
New Policy Minimum is equal to 25% of operating expenses, excluding depreciation
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
$
-
Storm Drainage Fund - Year End 2014 - $19.6
2013
Total
Minimum Policy - 25% Operations
Restricted
Debt
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders
Approved Capital Projects
Capital Improvements
Capital Outlay
Available for capital and operations
Year End Total
•
27
$
$
0.7
2014
Total
$
1.5
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
$
1.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
8.1
6.7
1.2
17.2
0.2
14.3
3.3
19.6
0.2
10.9
1.4
14.3
$
$
Available but
with some
Constraints
$
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
-
$
3.4
1.9
5.3
$
New Policy Minimum is equal to 25% of operating expenses, excluding depreciation
-
Equipment Fund - Year End 2014 - $3.0
2013
Total
Minimum Policy - 8.3% Operations
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders
Equipment surplus
Year End Total
•
28
$
0.2
$
0.3
1.8
2.3
2014
Total
$
0.8
$
0.3
1.9
3.0
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
$
0.8
$
0.3
1.1
Available but
with some
Constraints
$
$
0.5
0.5
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
$
1.4
1.4
Equipment Replacement – $0.5 is for replacement of vehicles and equipment for Police, Forestry
and Parks
Self Insurance Fund - Year End 2014 - $1.8
2013
Total
Minimum Policy - 25% Operations
Committed
Self Insurance surplus
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders
Year End Total
•
•
29
$
0.1
2014
Total
$
3.4
$
0.1
3.6
1.0
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
$
0.6
$
0.2
1.8
1.0
Available but
with some
Constraints
$
0.6
$
0.2
1.8
$
-
New Policy Minimum is equal to 25% of operating expenses
Loss fund reserves have declined significantly over the last 7 years due to a major
settlement and using reserves during the recession
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
$
-
Data and Communications Fund - Year End 2014 - $1.3
2013
Total
Minimum policy
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders
Data & Communication Surplus
Year End Total
30
$
0.1
$
0.6
0.7
1.4
2014
Total
$
-
$
0.3
1.0
1.3
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
$
-
$
0.3
0.3
0.6
Available but
with some
Constraints
$
-
$
-
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
$
0.7
0.7
Benefits Fund - Year End 2014 - $7.8
2013
Total
Policy minimum - 30% Operations
Assigned
Medical Claims
Dental Claims
Benefit Surplus
Year End Total
•
•
31
$
0.4
$
9.7
0.4
10.5
2014
Total
$
$
5.3
2.5
7.8
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
$
5.3
$
0.3
5.6
Available but
with some
Constraints
$
$
2.2
2.2
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
$
-
The charges to departments have been reduced slightly to use up some of the fund balance.
This continues through 2016.
New Policy Minimum is equal to 30% of medical and dental expenses
Utility Customer Service Fund - Year End 2014 - $2.6
2013
Total
Policy minimum
Assigned
Prior Year Purchase Orders
Approved Capital projects
Unrestricted
Year End Total
•
32
$
0.3
$
0.6
0.2
1.2
2.3
2014
Total
$
-
$
0.4
2.2
2.6
Appropriated,
Min. Policy, or
Scheduled
Available but
with some
Constraints
$
-
$
$
0.4
0.8
1.2
$
1.4
1.4
Available for
Nearly Any
Purpose
$
-
The last couple of years USC has reduced fees to the four utility funds with intent of using some
of this fund balance. Another $400k of reserves per year are planned to be used in 2015-16.