HomeMy WebLinkAboutStudy Session Agenda Packet 04-18-16STUDY SESSION AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
7500 W . 29th Ave.
Wheat Ridge CO
April 18. 2016
6:30p.m.
Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings
sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Maureen Harper, Public Information
Officer at 303-235-2877at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are
interested in participating and need inclusion assistance.
Citizen Comment on Agenda Items
.L Staff Report(s)
2. Long-term Fiscal Sustainability (Revenues/Fees, Expenses, Capital
Projects) -Part I
~ Elected Officials' Report(s)
ADJOURNMENT
~ 4 ~
......... .,. City of • --~Wheat&__dge ~OFFICE OF THE 01Y MANAGER
Memorandum
TO:
FROM:
Mayor and City Council (\~
Patrick Goff, City Managet~
DATE: April 13, 2016 (for April 18, 2016 Study Session)
SUBJECT: Long-term Fiscal Sustainability
INTRODUCTION:
On March 21 , 2016, an initial discussion was held with City Council concerning potentiall y new
or increased revenue sou rces including, but not limited to, a stormwater utility fee. After a
general discussion, consensus was reached to continue the discussion at a futw·e study session(s).
Staff has scheduled April 181h and tentatively May 2"d and June 6th for an iterative process to
continue the discussion and provide more detailed infonnation at each successive meeting as
requested by City Council.
The agenda for the April 181h stud y session will include the following:
I. A more detruJed discussion on storm water utility fees including examples of fee
structures from other communities; a review of current unfunded storm water
infrastructure projects in Wheat Ridge; and questions for City CounciJ to consider
regarding a potential stom1water utility fee in Wheat Ridge.
2. A review of an updated DlRT Taskforce project list
3. A review of asset maintenance expenditures as requested by City Council. Total
maintenance and equipment replacement and repair in 2016 is budgeted at $6.6 million or
14% of the total budget.
4. A review of successful infrastructure ballot questions from other Denver metro area
cities.
The following infornJation was included in your March 21 51 study session memorandum and is
provided here again for your convenience.
BACKGROUND:
The City's primary revenue source is sales and use tax, equating to approximately 70% of total
General Fund revenues. The City's cun-ent tax rate is 3% which is equal to or lower than most
Denver metro area cities. In addition, Wheat Ridge has one of the lowest property tax mill levy
rates in the Denver metro area at 1.830 mills. On a house valued at $325,000, the City receives
only $47 a year in property taxes.
Sales Tax Rate Proper·ty Tax Mill Levy
Wheat Ridge 3.00 1.830
Arvada 3.46 4.310
Englewood 3.50 8.124
Golden 3.00 12.340
Lakewood 3.00 4.711
Northglenn 4.00 11.597
Thornton 3.75 10.210
Westminster 3.85 3.650
Most other Denver metro area cities also impose other fees on their residents such as a
stormwater fee to fund stom1water drainage issues (see attached staff report). The City of Wheat
Ridge does not impose this fee or many other types of development impact fees that are common
in other cities to help fund new or expanded public capital facilities.
The City of Wheat Ridge is responsible for an extensive list of assets totaling over $55 million.
These assets include land, buildings, vehicles, machinery and equipment~ infrastructure and
software. The City has over 133 miles of streets to repave, re-strip, sweep and plow on a regular
basis and 36 miles of stom1 water drainage infrastructure to unclog and clean regularly. Over 200
vehicles and large pieces of equipment, such as police patrol cars and snowplows, must be
maintained adequately to ensw·e City staff can provide a safe community for our residents. The
Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for over 42 sites that include parks, open space,
recreation centers, and other visual green space totaling approximately 430 acres.
When funding is limited, the list of postponed repairs and maintenance of these assets can
become very long-very fast. Projects that are put on hold, repairs that are neglected and
preventative maintenance that is ignored add up to a cost1y and complex problem. Unfortunately,
in the City of Wheat Ridge we currently have approximately $6.0 million in deferred
maintenance that is considered critical. This total includes over $5.0 mjliion in street pavement
rehabilitation, $500,000 in Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) sidewalk deficiencies and
$320,000 in bridge deficiencies.
In addition to the City's unfunded defen·ed maintenance backlog, staff has identified over $267
million in community investments that may have an impact on the quality of life of Wheat Ridge
residents and on the long-term fiscal and environmental sustainability of the community. These
needs include investments in street reconstruction. bicycle and pedestrian trails, stormwater
drainage improvements, park improvements, undergrounding of utility lines, and improvements
to municipal operating facilities.
Residents also request on a regular basis additional or new investments in the City's assets to
improve their quality of life. With the heavy rains in 20'15. the lack of an adequate stonnwater
drainage system prompted many residents to contact the City after their garages or lawns were
flooded. Speeding vehicles through neighborhoods prompt citizens to ask for more police patrol
or traffic calming infrastructure to slow down drivers. Our environmentally and health conscious
culture has encouraged residents to find altematives to the car and the City is continuing to
receive many requests for additional mobility options such as sidewalks and bike lanes.
These investments take a considerable amount of resources to fund and complete. For the City to
construct and maintain a modem day sto.rmwater drainage system, City staff estimates the City
needs approximately $1.0 million per year for such a system. The City would need over
$500,000 a year to address neighborhood safety concerns caused by speeding vehicles. Similarly,
to fund and address the recommendations in the City's Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, to
construct add itional sidewalks and bike lanes throughout the community, an additional $500,000
per yeaJ· would be required.
To continue to provide the current level of services and programs to the residents of Wheat
Ridge, City Council has had to use reserve funds to balance the budget. The City's policy is to
maintain a minimum reserve level of 17% of General Fund expenditures which equates to
approximately $5.0 million. The 2016 Budget was adopted with a projected undesignated reserve
level of 1 7%; therefore, additional funding is not available for cri tical repairs and maintenance of
the City's assets without a decrease to current service levels or an increase in revenues.
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Stormwater Utility Discussion
2. DIRT Taskforce Project List
3. 2016 Asset Maintenance
4. Examples of Successfully Passed Infrastructure Requests
~~A" ... ~ City of ~WheatRi_dge ~PUB LI C WORKS
Memorandum
TO: Patrick Goff, City Manager
FROM: Scott Brink, Public Works Director
DATE: April1 8,20 16
SUBJECT: Stonnwater Utility Discussion
Introduction
On March 21, 20 16, Council discussed City-wide stonnwatcr and drainage needs, including the
potential revenue sources to address these needs, such as a storm water utility. This was
essentially a follow-up to the Study Session held on September 14, 2015, where Council engaged
in a discussion regarding overall drainage deficiencies and needs in the City, including a lack of
fu nding available to address these needs. The discussion was motivated in part by above average
precipitation and heavy rainfall events that occurred earlier in 2014, along with an overal l history
and awareness of thjs issue for many years.
As a follow-up to the March 21, 2016 Session, staff further investigated storm water utilities in
other municipalities, described further in this memorandum. In addition, staff has begun th e
process of updating the D.l.R.T. (Drainage. lnfrastructure, Roads, and Trajls) task force list from
2007, which includes several City-wide projects and needs in addition to drainage.
Background/His tory
Drainage issues and related complaints from prope1ty owners have been on-going for several
years, and the City has often times attempted to address and mitigate these issues as resources
have allowed. Capital projects requjred to address drainage problems have generally been
difficult to implement as a result of a lack of funding. However, recent wet seasons and rainfall
events have further exposed critical needs, and caused a renewed sense of urgency for the City to
again confront the issue. Drainage issues are numerous and varied, ranging from general
nuisance areas (ex: ponding at intersections) to more serious fl ooding and property damage
issues.
From a historical perspective, Wheat Ridge was incorporated as a City in 1969. However, the
majority of development occurred prior to that time, and construction and development occurred
without much of the comprehensive planning that is typical of many municipalities. As a result,
a majority of the public infrastructure, including streets and drainage were completed on more of
a piecemeal basis without much ofthe comprehensive oversight needed, such as looking at larger
areas, subareas, and even individual neighborhoods as a whole. This is visually apparent as one
drives through the City. For exan1ple, streets vary in width and construction, some with curb and
gutter and some not, and others constructed as a more rural section without any associated
drainage in frastructure. As a result, tbere is a wide variety of ditches, culverts, drainage pipes,
graded shoulders, and other features that carry storm water. Downstream faci lities, as they may
Attachment 1
Stormwater Utility
Apri I 18, 20 16 S rudy Session
Page2
or may not exist, often cannot accommodate heavier flows originating further upstream. As a
result, some areas of the City may drain well, while in others, drainage may be very poor to even
non-existent.
Capital projects have been constructed to correct and improve drainage deficiencies as
opportunities and resources have allowed, such as when streets are reconstructed, or when
leveraged with private developments if possible. However. capital funding targeted specifically
for stonn water improvements has overall been insufficient. During and after rainfall events,
Public Works Operations crews often attempt to correct and mitigate drainage issues to the
extent possible by cleaning existing pipes and ditches, repairing aging and deteriorating pipes,
grading shoulders to facilitate drainage, iJlStalling asphalt edges, and/or other measures as they
may be possible and feasible. However, because of the overall needs and a lack of funding. these
efforts are minimal and considered more spot repair or "band-aid'' approaches, where more badly
needed capital projects are necessary to correct the issues. Capital projects may include the
reconstruction of problem streets with curb and gutter and stotm sewer, and/or the construction
oflarger storm sewer projects with detention basins and/or other facilities. In addition, much of
the infrastructure that does exist is aging and deteriorating, and simply replacing existing
drainage infrastructure, including culverts and stom1 sewers is a significant expense.
Past Funding Efforts
A previous effort to address tllis issue occurred in 2004. At that time. recently adopted
regulations of the Clean Water Act required that certain types of facil ities needed to attai n
stonnwater discharge permits. Essentially, Cities were required to address water quality issues
under subsequent provisions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act, under the requirements
of federal NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) pemtitting requirements.
As a result, the City was faced with confronting State and Federal water quality requirements in
addition to the on-going drainage needs.
ln order to address both issues (drainage and water quality), including funding needs, the City
retained the consulting finn of Carter-Burgess to prepare a report that included a list of estimated
project costs and proposed capital improvement funding mechanism. The funding mechanism
proposed at the time was a storm water utility, which a significant percentage of municipalities in
the Denver metro area (and nationwide) have adopted. However, the City Cow1cil at that time
elected not to move forward with a utility.
Essentially, a stormwater utility provides a means for assessing a monthly or quarterly fee to
properties (city-wide), similar to other utility fees such as a sanitary sewer, water, street lights, or
other services. The fee is typically calculated on a formula that estimates the contributing runoff
from a property, including the size of a property, surface type (i.e., percentage of hard surface or
turf, etc.). From this formula, a unit rate is established and then factored for different rates for
residential, commercial , and other property uses. The 2004 study by Carter-Burgess essentially
provided a funding mechanism recommendation and proposed billing means consistent with
other municipalities in the Denver area. Primarily, a typical residential property would be
assessed a unit ERU (Equivalent Residential Unit), while commercial, industrial, and other
properties would be asse sed multiple ERU's based on the size of the property, and/or the
percentage of hard surface area. For example, under various options provided in the 2004 report,
a monthly residential fee of$4.1 0 was proposed to generate revenue in the amOlmt of$500,000
Stonnwater Utility
ApriJ 18, 20 16 Study Session
Page 3
in Capital Improvements, including administrative/billing costs; $6.02 would generate
$1 ,000,000, etc. Again, these estimates are from 2004.
ln 2007, the City re-visited the issue and established a Drainage, [nfrastructure, Roads and Trails
(D.I.R.T.) task force to address all infrastructure needs comprehensively (including streets, trails,
sidewalks, and park needs iJ1 addition to stonnwater). From public input and other available
sources, the task force essentially developed a ranking of pri01ity projects from a list that was
estimated to be a total of $143 mill ion (see attached). In 2008 a propet1y tax mill levy increase of
J .5 mills ($3/month for a home valued at $300,000) was put on the ballot to address 21 identified
stormwater infrastructure needs totaling over $11 million; however, the initiative did not pass.
Since 2007, some improvements within the list have been completed as resow·ces have been
attained, such as the recently completed 2911' Avenue area drainage project between Sheridan and
Fenton. However, a majority of storm water needs remain on this list totally over $21 million,
without any identified funding source or timeline (see attached).
Floodplains
More recently, the 1 00-yr floodplain maps were revised by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) and adopted by the Ci ty in early 2014. The revisions placed several additional
Whe-at Ridge properties into the designate.d flood zone, thus resulting in additional regulatory
restraints and fl ood insurance costs to many properties or incre-ased insurance costs for some
properties already paying for flood i11sura.nce.
Staff, in a very preliminary manner, has explored possible grading projects that might remove
several properties from the flood zone by sluinkillg the size of the zone, thus possibly resulting
in significant savings to those properties. Such projects would also require a significant amount
of capital, and a funding source would need to be identified. More recently, the City has engaged
in a comprehensive study with the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD), and the
City of Golden to investigate the possibility of updating tl1e flood zone maps with the assistance
of historic stream gauge data in addition to hydrologic modeling. Preliminary work is indicating
that it may be possible to reduce the flood zone boundaries based on this work.
Recent Updates/Investigative Work
As a follow-up to the March 21, 2016 Study Session, staff bas further investigated stonn water
utilities in other municipalities to gain a sense of how other conununities are handling their
stormwater related needs.
The following table provides a general summary of residential single family rates in nearby
communities. Please note that some of these rates may have been recently updated:
Municipality A vg. Monthly Single Family Bill Year Initiated
Fort Collins $9.95 198 1
Loveland $10.93 1987
Boulder $14.00 1989
Longmont $13.05 1984
Stonnwater Utility
April 18, 2016 Study Session
Page4
Parker
Aurora
Greeley
Arvada
Denver
Lafayette
Golden
Berthoud
Windsor
Castle Rock
Littleton
Northglenn
Woodland Park
Lakewood
Westminster
Englewood
Erie
Federal Heights
$6.84 1999
$9.16 1969
$6.42 2002
$3.42 2001
$6.21 1981
$4.27 1999
$4.22 1997
$16.00 1989
$3.52 1991
$6.85
$2.58 1986
$2.00 2004
$2.00 1995
$3.70 1998
$6.00 2001
$1.39
$6.60
$3.15
As previously mentioned, a single family residential fee of$4.1 0 was considered by the City of
Wheat Ridge back in 2004. Combined with higher fee amounts for industrial, commercial, and
other bard surface properties, it was estimated that $500,000 could be raised for capital
improvements.
The City ofNorthglenn is somewhat similar to Wheat Ridge in tenns of area and population, and
the City established a Storm water utility in 2004. Of note:
l. Initially identified $2.7 million of construction needs for drainage over a 5-year period.
2. Prior to establishing the utility, the City was able to spend only $20,000/year on
storm water related maintenance needs -General Fund revenues were inadequate.
3. Funding needs to meet water quality requirements per federal law were estimated to be
$100,000 annually. As a result, a portion of the storm water uti lity revenue is utilized to
address water quality related requirements, including EPA mandated Stonnwater permit
requirements.
4. Revenue assists in providing a required local match when improvement grants may be
available through other agencies.
5. Allows the City to address current critical needs immediately and avoid delaying high
priority tlood relief projects.
6. The average single family horne is charged $2.00/month.
7. Commercial properties, including indushial properties, office. scho ol, church,
government, and other properties are charged $20/acre per month.
8. The stonnwater fee is billed admjnistratively with water and wastewater billing.
Stonnwater Utility
April 18, 2016 Study Session
Page 5
City of Littleton:
1. Single family annual residential fee: $31.00/lot or property ($2.58/month).
2. Multiple family residential structures, commercial, industrial, other: $258.33/developed
acre of impervious surface; $62.50/acre for grassed, landscaped or cultivated smi'aces.
3. Subdivided, undeveloped: $7.75/undeveloped lot (single famjiy); $64.58/undeveloped
lot (commercial, industrial, etc.).
4. Un-subdivided vacant: $6.46/acre.
City of Lakewood
l. Single family properties: $3.70/month ($44.40 per year); The rate was recently raised
through conunw1ity discussion/public process.
2. Non-single family properties are charged $3.70 per month for every 2,250 square feet of . . 1mperv10us area.
3. Current stonnwater constructjon needs are estimated to be between $125 and $155
million.
4. Stonnwater utility revenue was $2.5 mjJ1ion i11 2015. Allocation:
a. Maintenance: 55%
b. Construction Projects 23%
c. Engineering/Admin 14%
d. Stonnwater Quality 8%
These examples provide a short snapshot of what other municipalities in the Front Range area
have implemented. ft should be noted that revenue from a stonnwater utility is generally needed
and utilized for much beyond new projects, including maintenance of the existing system, water
quality, progranmung, and other needs. Overall stonnwater related needs vary between
communities, and the means of calculating fees vary considerably as well; particularly for non-
single family properties where calculating means may be very simple or more complex. The size
of a property (acreage), and/or the amount of impervious surface are generally the main factors
in determining amounts. Administration and billing of fees to properties is most often
accomplished by including in water or sanitary sewer utility bills.
Conclusion
As previously mentioned, attempts to correct and improve drainage deficiencies in the City of
Wheat Ridge have occurred only as resources have been available and leveraging opportunities
have presented .. However, a dedicated consistent funding source for implementing storm water
and drainage improvements does not exist despite previous discussions and considerations.
Drainage issues will continue, and even worsen as long as existing infrastructure continues to
deteriorate and critical capital projects addressing drainage are not completed.
At this time, staff is workjng to update the D.l.R.T. task force list and better assess City-wide
infrastructure needs in addition to drainage; including roadways, bridges, sidewalks, bllilding
facilities, parks, programming needs, and others. Upon completion of th is assessment, Council
should have a better idea of overalJ capital as well as maintenance needs related to stormwater.
However, at this time, Staff is seeking Council direction on the following:
Stormwater Utility
Ap1iJ 18, 2016 Study Session
Page6
1. Should staff continue to investigate the implementation of a stonnwater utility fee?
2. If no, what other revenue sources would Council like to consider to address stonnwater
infrastructure needs?
3. If yes, what type of fee structure would you support?
a. Flat fee for all residential and/or commercial properties?
i. $X/month for residential properties and $X/month for commercial
properties
b. Fee structure that reflects actual usage of storm water system based on amount of
impervious surface on the property?
c. A tiered fee structure based on the amount of impervious surface on the property?
Tier Impervious Area (SF) Fee/Month
1 150 -10,000 $X
2 I 0,001 -30,000 $X
3 30,001 -90,000 $X
4 90,001 or greater $X
ATTACHMENTS
I. DIRT Task Force Overall Project Ranking by Score (2007)
2. Potential Citywide Drainage Project List (20 15)
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Attachment A
D.I.R.T. Overall Protect Ranking By Score
Project Total Points
RS ##5
Jllth Ave Streetrct~pe H11rl11n
ttl Watlnvorth 454
PTR#I
s,·hno/ Site L'Pt:IYidcs
379
PTR#7
Oe11r Creek Trail
Connections 11ntl Trt~llheatls 374
PTR#I
.-tnt/U'$on, Pro.<opect,
Hi.'itorictll Parks; B11ugh 368
RS#4
38th Ave Recmr KiplinR t11
YtiUng{idd 352
LB #2
./4th a11d Wadsworth
342
SS#3
26th Ave11ue ttl 29th Avenue,
Sheridan to Fe11Wn
341
PTR #2
Park lnfrastrucfllre
Vpgrade.t 331
RS #I
Wadsworth Recmr 36th to
46th 329
RS#7
31nd A1•e Recon Wad~'K'tJrth
to Kipling 309
IT #I
Emergency WaminR S)•.wem
302
SS#tO
35tlr Avenue Ames to Depew
270
LB#J
Kipling Corridor
262
Estimated Costs
$2,500,000
$1,500,000
$2,150,000 Top4
~31,000,000 $37,150,000
$11.500,000
$3,400,000
$3,700,000
$2,800,000
$7.000,000 Top 10
$10,300,000 $75,850,000
IT #4
Dispat(·h Console.~. Mnhile
14 and Portable Radin~ 258
IT #2 & 3
Computer lided Dispattlt
15 (C4D) & Record\ 255
ISS #12
Garrison Street, 44th to 1--o
16 251
PL #J
38tlt A1·e .. Kipling to
17 J-mmgfield 246
PL #I
Ynwrgfield
18 227
SS#I6
41.n rh•enue. Fe111on to
19 Ames 223
LB #S
38tlt & Depew Fruitdale
20 222
Pll' #I
\1rwicipal Maintenance
21 Facility 218
L8#4
1-70 and Fruittlale
22 212
PL #4
Lutheran Park11'a)' m
23 Kipling 200
PL #2
Tabor to loungfield
24 188
IT #5
Cit;·-wide WiFi Netwnrk
25 (CWC) 171
PW#2
City /loll
26 170
Potential Projects
Projects Estimated Scope #
Drainage Needs Draft (2015) --
--Floodplain $ 6,800,000 Possible UDFCD match for all projects. --5 -
District I
District II --District Ill -
-~na Gl!!£rrl-
Simms/Lewis Meadows Parkl $ 1,600,000 Construct channel from Lewis Meadows Park to Simms Street. 1 -District IV -Clear Creek. -Clearvale Subdivision $ 2,400,000 Reconstruct north bank of Creek from Dudley Street east to__!!alsam Street. 1 --1 Anderson Park _$_ 1,600,000 Reconstruct channel to increase capacity in Cree.!5_. ------Denver Water Ponds $ 400,000 ~emove berms to increase capacity in Creek. 1
Tabor Lake Overflow ~-800_.~...000 Construct overflow from Lake into Creek. -_L
Clear Creek Alternate This p~ect could elmlnate need for all other pro·~ct§ except Kipling Bridg~
Coors Ponds Construct lateral weir to allow greater than 50-year flow from Creek into ponds.
----~--_1!,656, 189 -Major Drainage ---Greater than $150,000 13
District I ~ -29th Ave (Wadsworth to Sheridan) ~000,000 Majority of Segment needs reconstrction with curb and gutter and storm sewer -W -Storm sewer crossing 29th Ave to connect inlet on N to culvert on S -_ 29th Ave & Upham St rL 176,051 -+ 29th Ave, Saulsb~ St to Qu~ St $ 246,376 #3 -Storm sewer along 29th Ave to connect culverts on N to culvert on S
336,465---35th, Harlan to Jay St, N to 38th Ave $ #21 1 -35th, Ames to Depew & N on Depew $ 641,585 #4 1
District II ----48th Ave, W of Wadsworth Blvd $ 237,965 #15 1
41st Ave, Fenton St to Ames St $ 486,279 #2 -Includes inlet at 41st & Ames 1
District Ill -1-·---38th Avenue. Kipling to Youngfield $ 300,000 Drainage Issues along entire segment -Street Reconstruction and sidewalk also
needed.
38th Ave, Wright St to Simms Ct $ 1,590,256 #13-To Clear Creek 1 --·-District IV
32nd Ave (Wadsworth to Kipling} $ 2,000,000 Entire Segment needs reconstruction with curb and gutter and storm sewer 1-·-32nd at Wadsworth $ 100,000 Significant Drainage/Flooding Issues -Replacement/Upgrade of Ex. lnrastructure
Needed -1--1 Dover St. 39th Ave to 44th Ave $ 256,542 No storm sewer, C & G only
Miller St, 44th PI to 47th Ave $ .§._14,054 South portion built 1
47th, Miller to Nelson & N on Nelson $ 581,298 --I 1
lnd~endence St, 44th Ave to 1-70 $ 584,094 1 1
45th & 46th PI, Field St to Everett St $ 635,566 To Clear Creek 1
Future CIP Needs Drainage (2015) 7/30/2015
Potential Projects
Proiects Estimated lScope I #
1-70 S. Frnt Rd -lndeo to Garland $ 300,000 Storm Sewer undersized -ReQ!§fement and Upgrade Needed -~ Garrison St, 44th Ave to 1-70 $ 669,658 Adds storm sewer extension to Holland St
Minor Drainage $ -2,435,826 Less than $150,000 32
District I _-~ 30th Ave E of Saulsbury St ,13~00 Add curb on N side from corner to drive add oan across 30th to SE corner. 1 --32nd PI, W of Pierce St $ 65,000 #6 1
29th Ave W of Gray St Add curb/gutter to direct runoff to E 1
29th Ave & Ja}' St Add curb/gutter to direct runoff to E 1
29th Ave & Newland St Add c~rbLgutter to direct runoff to inlet 1
Ingalls, N of 35th PI Add curb/gutter to direct runoff to ean 1
2844 Depew St Add curb/gutter N to ~9t'l_ 1
District II
43rd Ave & Gray St $ 97,000 Replace pipe with cross pan, replace gutter Nand S of 43rd to drain across Gray. 1
--Swiss Society Trailhead $ 30,025 #16-Improve drainage from cul-de-sac to under 1-70. located in Arvada. 1
48th Ave at Pierce St Add curb/gutter to direct runoff to E 1
Ingalls St N of 48th Ave Add curb/gutter to direct runoff of inlets 1
Dover Street (38th to 44th) $ 1,000,000_ Reconstruct Street with curb and gutter and storm sewer
Upham St & 46th Ave )\"dd curb/gutter to direct runoff to N & W r--1-District Ill
North Henrv lee lake Basin Add WQ to inlets within basin. ~ Miller Street (35th Ave to 38th Ave) $ 6001000 Reconstruct with curb and gutter and storm sewer
Independence Ct N of RMD Reconstruct street add storm sewer to handle seeoaae from RMD 1
35th Ave E of Johnson St Add inlets on N side of 35th and connect to Johnson storm sewer 1
41st Ave W of Kipling St $ 33,600 #8 1
32nd Ave & Flower S~ ¢ 86,336 #7 -Extends storm sewer to South Henry lake 1 - -Storm Sewer and Curb and Gutter Needed 32nd Ave at Flower Street $ 100,000 -Replace pipe & reconstruct sidewalk 1-37th Ave & Garrison St 1 --30th PI S of Mountain Shadow Dr Replace curb/gutter to drain to inlet 1 --Estes St N of 35th Ave Add curb/gutter to direct runoff to N & W 1 1-38th Ave & Kipling St Drain low area at NW corner 1
District IV
11435 32nd ~ 20 000 Drainage Issues
Swadley St N of 46th Ave $ 46 000 Add g_utter Qans from speed hump to north of irrigation ditch. 1
Jellison St S of 44th Ave $ 143 000 Connect inlet to 44th storm sewer includina curb, autter sidewalk and inlets. 1
52nd Ave E of Tabor St $ 69 000 Add gutter ~ans to improve drainage. -1
Garland St N of 38th Ave Add curb, gutter1 and inlet on east side uphill of 2nd driveway 1
39th Ave at Hovt St Add curb/gutter on N side of 39th and W side of Hovt 1
Dudley St N of 41st Ave $ 12,865 #1 0 -Clean culvert, add erosion control 1
Hovt St S of 44th Ave $ 110,000 # 11 -Estimate by City done on 6/14/07 1
Future CIP Needs Drainage (2015) 7/30/2015
Potential Projects
Projects Estimated Scone I #
Xenon St S of 44th Ave Add curb/gutter to direct runoff to inlets. add storm sewer to disconnect from ditch 1
--Iris St S of 44th Ave A<!2__gutter ean & inlet to drain low are to inlet across street 1 -Nelson St at 48th Ave Add drainage ~n to 1-70 Fron~g~ Road South 1
Bayou at Miller St Realign the ditch 1
Parks $ 101,000 3
Creekside Stormwater Pond $ 17,000 Add outlet to drain overflow onto field during wet Qeriods. _ _1_
Creekside Drainage West ·t-25,000 Increase inlet capacity at Marshall & 49th and add inle~ast of main entrance. 1
Creekside DrainaQe East 59,000 Divert flows from 48th Place east around Park. 1
Ot:!en Space $ 100 000 2
Lena Gulch W of Swadley Replace culvert w/ bridQe. 1 --Bass Lake/West Lake li!!Qrove water transfer between Lakes. 1 --Irrigation Ditches $ 100,000 Culvert Replacements and Other Maintenance City-Wide
Future CI P Needs Drainage (2015) 7/30/2015
,.
= .. n ~
3 • ::I ,..
N
R.,,lnO
t
2
3
•
5
'
7
•
9
tO
tl
12
u
u
tS
16
11
18
t9
20
21
22
2l
14
15
26
Pt<ljKI
R.V'-11111 A'"'· ~fn'flftpr-flirt.• te \\ •~ettlt
PTUt • S< .... 5kriJPlflld"
nll., · Clnr('not+. fraU· ( •••Mite; 1M TnUIIf'ldt
,.I M*JI •ANdtno" nd Pf'Olpttl p.,.tu: IIIU•riral Pll'kJI R..,l!h
~ .JAttl .\'f'ht-R«Wn,._C'tiN (tr..tptl•a•• \•qflM,
I Ill· ....... ted ",.•ch: .......
~\ • \MIN.Htd ~ l ... A\CW.f' .. H"U• \\f:Ht..~kftd .. •ed Fat•
I'Tllll· htl< tolnm'ooar<l ""'""
lt.\.11 . \\ acb"'.nlil &.o.IC'\trd RKW,IntC'e•· J<ela A\fRHtt 1·10
R.\lf7 -Jl•d ;\' r~~•f' RtftfllntnC.ut Wall'""'*"",,. t-:•plfttl
I tt l .. E'"Ol:nt(') Wantt•a 5) ''""
~~10 .. J!ith A'nt•C' (,... AMt:t te l>tpp
il"·""'jjlloaC-
tt-. .. Obp••rta c~ Mtii!IOt aM r..uMe •• ..,
tt•l•od n . c_ ... \ldnl Dhpoorll tC:\Dh"" llr<Wib
~II · ('.om-St,....._ .. ,. oti·Tt
r1 ,l.Jitlll ''r•.e.~JpU•tt•\ ..... :.nrtd
" .... , ...... lk'td
~•I•· USA \'ot•t. fl'ttJ••ttA•tt
IIIA5•JIOiooodl)rop<w
r\\•I·M• ....... MaYttu.ttCYF•dlit\
LB ... • 1-i'l aad F"ntkdak-
PI.Jl.t • L•t..._...,.• h..r\-.""a.) •• ~tpll•a
Pt.ll· 1 tW •• V"tttftdd
ITIIS • t:lt•·\\ld< \\ lfl N<t"otk
1'\\ •I • 01• tloll
rl R: Pat ..... 1 raU~ ••d Rft'rnfiott
R.S: R..4twa' • .-Strft'ba,.
1'1.: ,...,. U..l~ .....
~\, ~~ .... S«wtr alllll Dnk~ I•Pf'W'4WC"M•
"'' r.-,. •·--·
IT lo-111<>1 Te<:lo~ lofroltni<IOOT
u , l_...albot.los
T-P-Z007 ~c-.
45-t
379 $1.!100,000
Now Trolihood ond ttolt 4ht ornd Ktplinv-Stitt MOd CDOT
bfklgt r•p4.cement t.o conn.ct •ot and wMt eldl of
l74 $1,150,000 Kipling ot Cr .. k.
Prot.~ Pw'k Ml•t•r Ptat. Comptete. Remow -.;quf1tJon
361 ~\1 IWIMO oiP<Oj>ef1Y io confiOCt HIOICMie Pwll to B.luah Hou-
352 $1t,!i00.000
:142 $3,400,000
341 c:-piole
331 52.800.00C: c-..... on~..,.._.,._...........,
329 SA5.000000 U5 "'llliongront r.coi-
309 $12,000,00(
302 Complot.
270
262
251 c-oiot.·R ........
255 Com,....·R
251
z•&
227
223
222 COI'IIpltU-Ptn1noRow
211
2U
zoo ...
171
170
t\ddiiMft\ ll01t)
('lfn Crwk Croutt11. lafnU111ft'drt hepto\flftttth
I
Cold lJIW'~IJ11•• Am f•fn.~ntCf'lft't f..-pntVntbJU; tRidtt M: .. d.. \\tnJ
2 M-•11•1 TnMf Sh:.ul. Clft-C"t,
A.I)A Tnrt!liW.a I'll a · hifniUf'IK't.,t' f•PI"''''~Wtnb
J
l)leyd" and Pf'dr.s.rtln I•P"'t'llttan
• Cl1Y•W1dtt Unln•;" (Stor• ~tt')
5
S.l'ftil rmniiVtt 1\blntnt•Mt-P~nen
6
TnMt ~1'::••1 'lp:;ndt':t and lmpr•"·cwte•l'
7
rtthtk fmpl"CU'C'Wtffl f't".fM' {Df''thtpMaM 'Rri.atC'd)
• Slrnt l~~tptO'\t:e:tC'tl! Pt'(l~ \A.«o•J.Lrwct • Nu ~crb)IM:tllnou.n«J
9
flrlde,c,)lahunu•nn-1111d Rdt~hlllnttkf•
10
TtC' .. ODIII)' l!cn:.n.d~ IA,~C11 'hiJittotC'•f. Son'!trt. H•rd•'11r"1', OthttJ
11
PRT l nll ICpfl~t'e' t.JU'C'IAt .M'C•tf"-• uf Rhll•at (1tolr C""n-tk TnUI
12
• = .. n
:I" ~ • :I ,.
w
2016 ASSET MAINTENANCE
Note: Asset maintenance is being defined as items that support overall maintenance of City assets. Funding for programs and operations such as
staffing and utilities are not included. Equipment replacement and repair is itemized separately below.
Item
Maintenance
General Fund
Socrata Open Budget Annaul Software maintenance
PEG Fee expenditures for Channel 8 maintenance
Other equipment maintenance (annual software/hardware renewals)
Professional Services
Multi function copier lease
Jperating supplies
.:aclllty repair and maintenance
::>ther equipment maintenance (service for generator, compressor, motors/pumps)
Misc. Tools & equipment
Contractual Services
Other equipment maintenance
Annual radio system costs
Early warning sire maintenance
Radio maintenance and repair
:>ther equipment maintenance
Other equipment maintenance
Bus shelter and bench cleaning, refuse and snow removal
On-call traffic signal maintenance
Street & ped light maintenance
On-call sewer cleaning
Tools and shop supplies
Vehicle and equipment parts (emissions, parts, tires)
Outsourced vehicle maintenance
Pavement tape and paint
Street maintenance materials
Traffic signal maintenance supplies
Sign materials
Tools and Work Equipment
Operating supplies
ROW Maintenance
Turf Weed Control
ROW Broadleaf/weed control
Program
Budget#
101
113
117
117
117
118
118
118
118
118
203
204
204
204
211
212
303
303
303
303
303
303
303
303
303
303
303
303
603
603
603
603
Program Budget
City Treasurer
Public Information
Information Technology
Information Technology
Information Technology
Facilities Maintenance
Facilities Maintenance
Facilities Maintenance
Facilities Maintenance
Facilities Maintenance
Community Services Team
Communications Center
Communications Center
Communications Center
Patrol Operations
Investigations Bureau
Public Works Operations
Public Works Operations
Public Works Operations
Public Works Operations
Public Works Operations
Public Works Operations
Public Works Operations
Public Works Operations
Public Works Operations
Public Works Operations
Public Works Operations
Public Works Operations
Parks Maintenance
Parks Maintenance
Parks Maintenance
Parks Maintenance
Amount
$ 7,500.00
$ 35,000.00
$ 577,575.00
$ 21,215.00
$ 65,000.00
$ 41,07S.OO
$ 69,300.00
$ 12,500.00
$ 2,000.00
$ 6S,038.00
$ 1,400.00
$ 84,000.00
$ 5,310.00
$ 2,500.00
$ 15,000.00
$ 400.00
$ 36,000.00
$ 45,000.00
$ 15,000.00
$ 40,000.00
$ lO,SOO.OO
$ 73,SOO.OO
$ 70,000.00
$ 10,000.00
$ 25,000.00
$ 10,000.00
$ 15,000.00
$ 3,000.00
$ 40,000.00
$ 59,S30.00
$ 4,000.00
$ 9,000.00
Computer software 117 Information Technology s 65,000.00
Office Furniture & Equipment 117 Information Technology s 19,875
Other major equipment 203 Community Services Team $ 3,400.00
Communications equipment 204 Communications Center $ 1,350
Uniforms & Protective Oothing 207 Accreditation & Training $ 66,900
Operating Supplies (equipment) 211 Patrol Operations $ 14,000
Uniforms & Protective Clothing 211 Patrol Operations $ 10,300
Other major equipment 211 Patrol Operations s 7,500
Other major equipment 213 Crime & Traffic Team s 300
Other major equipment 303 Public Works Operations s 158,800
Fleet Replacement 303 Public Works Operations s 564,200
Plow edges 303 Public Works Operations s 8,000
Sweeper brooms 303 Public Works Operations s 7,000
Rentals & Leases 603 Parks Maintenance s 5,450
Other equipment & maintenance 603 Parks Maintenance s 4,500
Other major equipment 603 Parks Maintenance s lll,426
Tools & Work equipment 603 Parks Maintenance s 5,000
Other equipment maintenance 604 Forestry s 1,500
Rentals & Leases 605 Natural Resources $ 400
Other equipment maintenance 605 Natural Resources $ 650
Facility repair and maintenance 620 Anderson Building $ 1,000.00
Subtotal $ 1,180,011
Capital Equipment Replacement Fund
Cisco Firewall 57 s 230,000.00
Subtotal $ 230,000.00
Overall equipment replacement & repair $ 1,410,011.00
Overall total maintenance $ s,t91J949.oo
Overall total maintenance and equipment replacement & repair $ 6,601,960.00
Examples of Successfully Passed Infrastructure Funding Requests
Total Funding Voter
Tax Increase Entity Name Amount Purpose Project Name Additional Project Information Approved Project Selection
One cent sales and use tax City of Commerce City $166 mrllion Paries, recreation and roadway improvements 5 Projects S Years h!.!l!llJ.'tt!!!Y:!. ~32!! com[on<l•x !SI!!?N!I!• 2013 Robust public engagement strategy 1 Increase (permanent) l.ill.
Property tax: 25 cents per City of Denver SSSOmlllion 319 projects totillln the follOWing categortes: 18 Health and Bener Denver GO Bonds A-1 I!IIRl/J.'tt:!!:!J. !lrll•!t•&ov !1!Bll;2!!1!:nJLII~n• 2007 lnfrasuuctures Priorities Task Force In 2006 and
$1,000 assessed value for a authorized In Human Servtces, l C Ubr;aries,l D Streets, Transportation & ~!B!!l!l~n{)}.~Ut!·!!•D"~·l!!!!!!!· annual 6 Year Needs Assessment of Capitil
2 total of $5.58. bonding. Public Works, lE Parks and Recreauon. 1F Refurbish Exlsting 1!12jU!ml!b2Ut·!h!::I!!!!SI:i!!!! h!!!ll Projects.
Buildings. lG & lH Cultural Facilities and 11 Publlc Safety
Pald using exisung property tax, City of Old ahoma City 5835.5 million Projects Include the repair of hundreds of miles of residential 2007 City Bond Election: h!JR l fwww ~c ~l!!2!!ds~Q27l 2007 Pro1ects are determinl!'d based on citizen survey
no tax lncreasl!' and artenal streets, repainng bridges. improving parks, Smoothl!'r. safer streets .... and results, street and bridge ratlnss. plannins studies,
addressmg drainage systems. constructing sidewalks and more. Project period between Crty Councrl's strategiC prrorltles. operating impact
3 trails, buildrng new pollee and fire st11trons. replacing busses. 2007 ~nd 2017 and departmental business plans
updating libra roes and providing lncenuves for economic
development. Propositions 1 • ll.
Temporary lncre~se .3% In sales City of Boulder S27 million Temporary (3 yur) lncrl!'ase In sales and use tax for Communttv. Culture & Saf"IY 2.Afor8oulder.or& (W<!bsrte no lonaer 2014
and use talt for capital community, culture and safety. Rate was 3.56" Ina eased to av.Hable)
rmprovements 3.86". Projl!'cts included: S8.7m Civic Alea. SS,l2m Boulder Wtbsrtt fOJ pro~ impiPmentiOOII
Creek Path from 3rd to 17th Streets, S4m Museum of Boulder. https;//bouldercolorado-sov/crtv·
S3.85m Dairy Center for the AilS, S3.27m University Hill manaatr/Communtty<Uiture-safttV
4 Commercoal Dostroct, Sl.Sm Chauuugqua Park, and S.6m
public art. Remaining funds directed toward CIP projects. In
13' Boulder also passed a sales tax increase by 1!'> tents for
transportation construction, maintenance and services.
4 mill levy. .5" sales and use City of Northglenn 4 mrll atneratts Sl This mill levy was previously a water/sewer caprtal charge 09'/10'
t1IX rnaease mrftlon ennually, .S% from the late 1980s. The .5% sales and use tax is restrictl!'d for
sales/use tu generalonfrastructurt/facdoty uses. In 15' voters ipproved
&entnotts S2 6 removing the sunset proviSion on the sales/use tax.
5 mlliron
Examples of Colorado Cities/Towns Infrastructure Ballot Questions Passed in 13, 14' & 15' (tax increases/extensions/debt issuance approval)
Dedicated sales tax. 1 percent City of Golden Generates S6 Pnonties are to pay capital debt servke obllsations, maintain N/A N/A
1 of 3 percent s~les tax rate mlllton annually infrastructure and fund new capital needs.
2 Sales tax continuation .1" City of Colorado Springs For parks and recreation projects. 2013
3 Temporary .62% sales and use City of Colorado Springs For road maintenance. Expires December 31. 2020. 2015
tax oncrease
4 .5% sales and use tax City of Durango For recreation facilities. parks and tr.llls. 2015
1 mtn Increase Jeffco Ubrary lncre01t from 3.5 Restorin_g library hours, restoring library investment In books 2015
mlUs to 4 S molls and materials, upd;tting computers, lnll!'rnet
5 access/technology, repalnng and refurbishrn& library bulldrngs
and stabilizing the library's fonances
6 One percent sat.s tAX for street Bavfttld Fo. Slruu 2015
fund
7 lncrea~d mol lw, by 10 m~b for Bowmar fo< road mprovements and to pure hue property 2014
tO years
8 lncreued property tax by 7 205 Brook\ ode For road malntenan<l!. 2015
mrU1 to a 10 milllw,
9 lncreued sales and use rax by s" Cedarectae For capotal poojl'CU. 2015
Extend food tax untlll2·31·2021 City of Greeley For caprtal projects and rood molnttnance. 2015
10 for capital projects and road
m~lntenanc•
11 .65" sales and use tiXIncreue lor Crty of Greeley For road m••ntenance 2015
road mamten~nc~
12 I" sales tax fot capttal proJects Ouray For capital proj«ts. 2015
Elc1end .5" sales and use tu untrl Coty of Pueblo For caprtal prOjKts. 2015
13 U ·31-21 for caprtal omprovemenU
14 Ex1end 1"sales tax lor capotal Crty of Tronldad for capltal projeCtS. 2014
projects untl120l0
IS Ex1ensoon of a S" sales ta.tor Wray Publoc omptovements 2014
publrc Improvements
16 Increase sales tn by 1" lot capotal Fraset For copotal projects. 2015
imptovemenu
Extend .25" sales and use tax lot Fort Collins Community capital impro"ement proaram. 2015
17 Community Capotallmpro"ement
Procram
18 Elc1end 25" sales and Ule tax for
strHts
Fon Colhns For strt-et 1mprovemenu 2015
Elc1end .S" sales and use tax lor Florence For SUHt ltTlprovement.s. 2015
19 ru.et improvements tlvO<.f8h 12·
31-2025
20 1" rMtease on sales tax untd 2024 Estes Park For streets. tra~s. rrc:teatoon center, and Qpttal o<quosiUons lot 2014
emera~ tespOnse.
21 .S% sales and use tax oncrease lot Crested Bune for parks and recreatoon 2015
parks and recteatlon
22 Increased debt by $6.2 million Etle For pohce statJon11nd mumc:rpal CourtS. 2013
23 $9.5 molhon lot infrastructure F1restone For acquisition, development, and renovation of exrstlna and
!planned streets, parks and sldemlks. 2013
24 Inc• ease debt by $9601< lor weet KttntSbura For street rmprovements. 2014
Improvements
2S Increase debt by SS.S2 moHoon for llf•v•n• Fot recruhon lacollttu. 2014
ro<reallon fadtitoes
lncJeue debt by $20 S moH1011 for lontmont For >torm drao~ge apotallmprovements In ll' voten passed debt 2014
<totm droiM&e <apttol oncreose of $45.3 moA1011 lor 1 fiber optiC system to provocle hoa/1-
26 lmptovements speed broadband •ervke and an Increase of $31.1 m1ft1011 to finance
was:tewatef system rmpf'O'Je-me.nts
27 lncrea>e debt by $995,000 lor Lyons For cons of munoopal operatoons ond maontenancelmpacted by 2014
munoctpal operations flood rna dinner
28 $3J million lot major slleet Sheridan For major Slteol lmprovements. 2015
Improvements
29 Increase debt by up to Sl 9 million Ridae~v For downtown 2014
for downtown
30 Increase do.bt up to $2.4 million I Of Welllnaton fOf communoty park. 2014
communotv park
31 Incrust debt by S16 million for
re-creatKK'I cente-r
Windsor fo< recrutoon center. 2014
32 lncrtiH<! debt by $15.7 million to Woodllnd Pit~ fOf aquatiC lacdotoes. 2014
OQUitiC focilotiOS