HomeMy Public PortalAboutTBP 2016-02-03Town Board Briefing
February 3, 2016
Please note that members of the Town Board will have dinner together starting at
5:30pm.
The Board will begin the meeting at 6pm with an executive session to discuss possible
litigation with the Town Attorney. This is anticipated to conclude by 7:00pm.
I'm hoping this agenda provides an opportunity to discuss goals and expectations of
related to several significant 2016 initiatives.
First, enclosed is a proposal from Wendy Sullivan and Melanie Rees for a Housing
Needs Assessment and attainable housing consulting services. Wendy had planned on
attending, but in order to reduce travel costs she's planning to attend February 17th. At
that meeting, pending Board discussion on the 3rd, we'll either follow up or kickoff the
work.
The second discussion item, Economic Development, is focused on water and sewer
plant investment fee rate structures. Enclosed in the packet you will find a proposal for
consulting services from Ehler's, information and a proposal from Grand Park, and
information from Trustee Mather. Please note that the spreadsheet from Grand Park
includes several worksheets.
A draft request for proposals for planning services is provided. The draft provides a very
broad scope of services. We believe it may be too broad, but are seeking Board
consensus regarding the scope of work.
Finally, Trustee Mather has requested further discussion regarding our solid waste
management initiative.
As always, feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need any additional
information.
Jeff Durbin
Town of Fraser
PO Box 370, Fraser, CO 80442 office 970-726-5491 fax 970-726-5518
www.frasercolorado.com
FRASER BOARD OF TRUSTEES
MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, January 20, 2016
MEETING: Board of Trustees Regular Meeting
PLACE: Fraser Town Hall Board Room
PRESENT
Board: Mayor Pro -Tem Philip Vandernail; Trustees; Eileen Waldow, Katie Soles,
Cody Clayton Taylor, Andy Miller and Jane Mather
Staff: Town Manager Jeff Durbin; Town Clerk, Lu Berger; Finance Manager Nat
Havens; Public Works Director Allen Nordin; Town Planner, Catherine
Trotter; Police Chief, Glen Trainor, Assistant Town Manager Bektur
Sakiev
Others: See attached list
Regular Meeting: Roll Call
Mayor Pro Tem Vandernail called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
2. Executive Session: For a conference with the Town's Attorney for the purpose of
receiving legal advice on specific legal questions under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4) (b)
and for the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to
negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators, under
C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(e) regarding the Fraser US Highway 40 Improvement
Project and to include TM Durbin, TA McGowan and TE Gagnon an DePlata.
Trustee Soles moved, and Trustee Taylor seconded the motion to enter executive
session. Motion carried: 6-0.
Enter: 6:03 p.m.
Exit: 7:10p.m.
Attorney's Opinion Required by C.R.S. 24-6-402(2)(d.5)(II)(B).
As the attorney representing the Town of Fraser, I am of the opinion that the entire
Executive Session, which was not recorded, constituted a privileged attorney-client
communication.
Rod McGowan, Town Attorney
Trustee Miller moved, and Trustee Taylor seconded the motion to exit executive
session. Motion carried: 6-0.
3. Approval of Agenda:
4.
5.
6
VA
Page 2 of 4
Trustee Waldow moved, and Trustee Miller seconded the motion to approve the
Agenda as amended:
7c moved to 7a.
4b&c moved to discussion items. Motion carried: 6-0.
Consent Agenda:
a) Minutes — January 6, 2016
Trustee Taylor moved, and Trustee Waldow seconded the motion to approve the
consent agenda. Motion carried: 6-0.
Open Forum:
a) Clark Lipscomb addressed the Board regarding affordable housing, as a follow-
up to the discussion held at the January 6t" meeting.
b) Gary Redfield spoke regarding affordable housing and Cornerstone.
C) Sam Brewer, spoke regarding tap fees.
Public Hearings:
Discussion and Possible Action Regarding:
a) Fraser US Highway 40 Improvement Project
TM Durbin addressed the need to close out the US Highway 40 Improvement Project. A
Resolution authorizing the Town Manager to close out the project was provided.
Trustee Soles moved, and Trustee Taylor seconded the motion to approve Resolution
2016-01-04. Motion carried: 4-2.
Vandernail — Aye Mather - Nay
Miller — Aye Soles - Aye
Taylor — Aye Waldow — Nay
TA McGowan left the meeting.
b) Energy Sustainability Presentation
ATM Sakiev outlined the project for the Board and introduced Allison Schwabe and
Aaron Skroch of McKinstry who outlined the project for the Board.
Matthew Robinson from Colorado Energy Office briefed the Board on the State's support
role for the Town.
C) Resolution 2016-01-03 Safeway Frontage Road Underdrain & Resurfacing
Project
A section of town roadway accessing the Safeway grocery store and The Fraser Market
Place, also known as the Safeway frontage/secondary access road, has failed and staff
Page 3 of 4
is seeking approval to initiate bidding and contracting for work to address the problem.
Staff recommends approval of Resolution 2016-01-03. The Board requested the option
of removing the drain pan be included in the bid.
Herb Meyring and Clark Lipscomb gave public comment.
Trustee Soles moved, and Trustee Miller seconded the motion to approve Resolution
2016-01-03 Safeway Frontage Road Underdrain & Resurfacing Project. Motion carried:
6-0.
d) Resolution 2016-01-02 Elk Creek Filing 1 Extension Request
Resolution 2015-07-03 approving the Final Plan and Final Plat for Elk Creek at Grand
Park Filing No. 1 and Filing No. 2 provided 120 days for execution of all documents, that
time has expired and the applicant is requesting an additional 60 days to complete
execution of all documents. Staff recommends approval of Resolution 2016-01-02
approving said extension.
Clark Lipscomb spoke on behalf of Grand Park.
Trustee Soles moved, and Trustee Taylor seconded the motion to approve Resolution
2016-01-02 Elk Creek Filing 1 Extension Request. Motion carried: 4-2.
Vandernail — Aye
Miller — Aye
Taylor — Aye
Mather - Nay
Soles - Aye
Waldow — Nay
e) Resolution 2016-01-01 Grand Park Exemption Plat Extension Request
Resolution 2015-11-04 approving the exemption plat for Grand Park Drive provided 30
days for execution of all documents, that time has expired and the applicant is
requesting an additional 60 days to complete execution of all documents. Staff
recommends approval of Resolution 2016-01-01 approving said extension.
Trustee Soles moved, and Trustee Miller seconded the motion to approve Resolution
2015-01-01 Grand Park Exemption Plat Extension Request. Motion carried: 4-2.
Vandernail — Aye
Miller — Aye
Taylor — Aye
8. Other Business:
Mather - Nay
Soles - Aye
Waldow — Nay
Trustee Mather — requested a timeline for the 2016 projects.
Sewer project status.
Trustee Miller moved, and Trustee Soles seconded the motion to adjourn. Motion
carried: 6-0. Meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Page 4 of 4
Lu Berger, Town Clerk
TOWN OF FRASER
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-02-01
REGARDING APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES FOR THE APRIL 5, 2016
TOWN OF FRASER REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION
WHEREAS, the Town of Fraser will hold its regular municipal election on Tuesday, April
5, 2016;
WHEREAS, Colorado Revised Statutes 31-10-401 et. seq. specify the number,
compensation and qualification of judges of election; and
WHEREAS, Colorado Revised Statutes 31-10-401 allows the governing body to
delegate to the Town Clerk the authority and responsibility to appoint judges of election.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO THAT:
1. The Town Clerk is authorized and directed to appoint three qualified judges of election,
and one substitute, for the Tuesday, April 5, 2016 regular municipal election.
2. The judges of election shall be compensated one hundred dollars and meals for the day,
with the supply judge receiving an additional ten dollars.
DULY MOVED, SECONDED AND ADOPTED THIS 3rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016.
TOWN OF FRASER
Peggy Smith, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lu Berger, Town Clerk
,f�■■■
■fit
I 111 a all
■■rw'�
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN SMALL COMMUNITIES:
DECIPHERING THE PROBLEM AND FINDING SOLUTIONS
July 2014
IN
I1
COLORADO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD .....................................................
1
THE SCOPE OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROBLEM ..............
2
CHALLENGES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN SMALL COMMUNITIES..
3
Land availability; Lack of resources; Community perception; Complexity
of scale
COMMON THEMES IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
IN SMALL COMMUNITIES ..........................................
6
Types of housing; Location
IMPLICATIONS FORAFFORDABLE HOUSING IN SMALL COMMUNITIES
. 8
CASE STUDIES ..................................................
10
Town of Windsor, City of Durango and the Regional Housing Alliance of
La Plata County; Town of New Castle
PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING ..................
15
Form a personal connection; Frame affordable housing in terms of public
values; Put a human face on the problem; Combat the `not in my
backyard" mentality; Demonstrate the benefits for the whole community
RESOURCES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS....
18
Federal funding; State funding; Housing authorities
ilflawlkLe ' m
There is no doubt that the lack of affordable housing is a key issue for
Colorado's communities. While there is a substantial body of knowledge on
urban and suburban efforts, rural communities have challenges, resources, and
programs that are often different and unique to more metro -based counterparts.
There are many opportunities for small communities to explore the development
of affordable housing. Many more communities are aware of the positives of
investing in affordable housing and that helping provide this service for low
income citizens will further promote economic viability in their communities.
To highlight these efforts, CML and Housing Colorado gathered information from
across Colorado to study common themes and barriers, and what communities
can do to help their lower-income residents. This marks the first time our two
organizations have come together on a publication, and we are excited to
elevate the awareness of affordable housing issues and provide these findings
and resources to help smaller communities deal with such an important issue.
CML and Housing Colorado would like to thank those that have taken time to
work with our organizations on this publication. Kelly Jepson, a graduate student
with the University of Colorado, Denver, conducted a months -long study
interviewing various parties on their affordable housing programs. We want to
thank her for her time and information. We also want to thank the municipalities
and developers that provided feedback throughout the development of this
publication, particularly those for our case studies: the Town of Windsor, the City
of Durango, and the Town of New Castle. Meghan Storrie, CML legislative &
policy advocate, and Sara Reynolds, Housing Colorado executive director, are
the primary authors Should the contents of this publication raise any questions,
we would like to hear from you.
Sam Mamet Sara Reynolds
CML executive director Housing Colorado executive director
NIle] :7_11ZUJi[1]0IN191aIA11e1119
THE SCOPE OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROBLEM
Affordable and safe housing is an integral component to a strong city or town.
Research and experience have confirmed that housing issues affect all
segments of society, from a child's ability to succeed in school to working class
families struggling to pay monthly rent, from business owners trying to retain
employees, to seniors, veterans, and those with disabilities consumed with
housing costs and unable to focus on their health needs.
Affordable housing typically is defined as paying no more than 30 percent of
gross income for housing, including utilities. "Rent -burdened households" are
those that pay higher than 30 percent, and "cost -burdened" households are
defined as paying more than 50 percent on housing.
Approximately 35 percent of Colorado households, or 699,500 households,
are rented. Of these households, 327,412 households (47 percent of all renters)
pay more than 30 percent of their income on housing. Furthermore, 165,165
households (24 percent of all renters) pay more than 50 percent of their income
on housing.'
The cost of living in recent years has contributed significantly to these numbers.
Since 2007, the average rent in Colorado has increased by 19 percent, while the
median renter household income has risen by only 1.1 percent. Inadequate
supply of affordable housing further exacerbates this issue — at the $20,000
household income level and below, there are two households competing for
each rental unit available at an affordable level ($500 per month).
The unmet demand for housing has the greatest impact on some of our most
vulnerable populations. Among the lowest of incomes, those earning less than
$10,000 per year, housing needs include the following:
• Number of households with special needs – 24,000
• Number of senior households – 21,000
• Number of families with children – 38,000
• Number of rural households – 7,000
• Number of households coming from homelessness – 14,5002
Housing Need and Rent Burden in Colorado and its Metropolitan Areas Colorado
Department of Local Affairs, Division of Housing, April 2012.
Ibid.
CHALLENGES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN
SMALL COMMUNITIES
While interviewing communities and nonprofits throughout Colorado, a number
of challenges were discussed. This section breaks these out into land availability
and geography, local economic base, community perception, and the lack of
resources for smaller communities.
LAND AVAILABILITY
Rural -resort communities. Misconceptions occur when mountainous rural -
resort communities and eastern plains communities are subject to generalized
housing discussions regarding cost and availability of land among various
regions of the country. Income statistics show relatively high area median
incomes (AMIs) for rural -resort areas in Colorado: consequentially, they do not
reflect the lower-income workers who must commute due to lack of affordability
within resort communities.' However, in Colorado, we know that workforce
housing in these areas is vital to economic development, and that this population
deserves quality affordable housing within the city or town limits where they
work. High AMIs in rural -resort areas often represent second homeowners who
have a much higher annual income, and conclude that an AMI may not
accurately represent local workforce populations, which may be lower.
Rural -resort areas lack cost-effective affordable housing developments. Within
resort communities, land availability remains a barrier for affordable housing
developments. Consequential to development barriers, over the years, housing
supply in resort towns remains relatively inelastic and slow to respond to
increased housing demands. While housing markets fluctuate periodically, the
cost of new development remains high in these communities .4
Eastern plains. Despite the availability of inexpensive and developable land in
the eastern plains, these communities face similar barriers to development of
affordable housing units as rural -resort areas. These areas continue to show a
need for more affordable housing even though their boundaries contain
developable land. The issue is that lower land value in most rural areas leads to
lower wages, lower rents, and less overall incentive for new development in the
area.' Moreover, rural housing programs may not have the same resources as
agencies in rural areas as there is more interest in development in urban areas.
Yet researchers claim that rural areas lack affordable housing supply when
compared with demand, and lower levels of regulation and development in rural
3 Housing Assistance Council. (2010). Colorado poverty statistics by county.
Rural Housing Data Portal 2010. Washington, DC: HAC. Retrieved from
www. ruraldataportal. org/index. aspx.
4 Johnson, M.P. (2007). Planning models for the provision of affordable housing.
Environment and Planning 8: Planning and Design, 34, 501-523.
5 Lang, R. E., & Anacker, K.B. (2008). The new politics of affordable housing. Housing
Policy Debate, 19(2), 37-41.
N11i7:7_11101A10IN191AIATe1119
affordable housing markets amplify the gap between supply and demand in local
housing markets.'
LACK OF RESOURCES
Unlike rural agencies, urban areas often have more resources to encourage
development, including the promise of higher return on investment through a
guarantee of high occupancy rates once the housing units are in place. In urban
settings, new developments benefit from close proximity to all necessary
building and service resources. Because the materials needed to establish new
affordable housing units are farther from rural settings, the costly nature of
building in smaller towns remains a deterrent for developers and contractors.
New projects often include discussions of building cost, transportation cost, and
proximity of community resources to the new affordable housing development
for the future inhabitants of the project. If building in the eastern plains does not
guarantee a return on investment, developers may be persuaded to build in a
more predictable and less costly urban housing environment.'
COMMUNITY PERCEPTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Community perception plays an important role in the successes and failures of
affordable housing programming in small towns due to increased neighborhood
awareness and involvement in the various stages of the housing development
process. As a whole, urban areas may adjust with relative ease to development,
and thus may be more accepting of new affordable housing units.' But how do
rural residents view affordable housing developments? Often, neighborhoods
view development as having a larger impact more closely related to the overall
community. Stigmas can develop around affordable housing that often leads to
neighborhood resistance. Despite volatile and sometimes unpredictable
community reactions, the research shows that perception surrounding
affordable housing directly and significantly impact the success or failure
of new developments.'
Many common community assumptions surround concerns of higher traffic
accidents, more crime, and additional costs to schools and other municipal
services. It is the job of affordable housing providers and local governments to
demonstrate the value of affordable housing development and dispel myths and
misconceptions that often surround affordable housing. If affordable housing is
well designed, fits in with the surrounding neighborhood, and if it is well
managed, there are very few, if any, negative impacts of that housing on the
property values of neighboring houses. Additionally, the potential population
growth associated with new affordable housing does not necessarily yield higher
municipal costs. Likewise, there is no evidence to suggest that multifamily
6 Ibid.
7 Johnson, M.P. (2007). Planning models for the provision of affordable housing.
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34, 501-523.
8 Ziebarth, A., Prochaska -Cue, K., & Shrewsbury, B. (1997). Growth and locational
impacts for housing in small communities. Rural Sociology Society, 62, 111-125.
9 Tighe, J.R. (2010). Public opinion and affordable housing: A review of the literature.
Journal of Planning Literature, 25(1), 3-17.
construction increases school -related costs any more than their single-family
counterparts. In fact, both schools and local governments can benefit from the
additional economic activity that is generated through the construction process
and subsequent population growth. See "Public Perceptions of Affordable
Housing" on page 15 for ways to reframe the message of affordable housing.
COMPLEXITY OF SCALE
While each community has different dynamics and priorities, one thing that
small communities have in common when it comes to affordable housing is
the complexity of scale. While in more urban areas a development with housing
and services might typically be 100 units, providing an economy of scale in
construction and operations, it is more difficult to get this level of effectiveness in
a rural town. The size of multifamily developments can overshadow other types
of existing housing in the community. As a result, there is more resistance when
rural areas are discussing these types of projects.10
10 Personal Communication, Pat Coyle, October 15, 2013.
K�]�i7:7_1�ZUJil11►1[yI�1A��Ze1�1�
COMMON THEMES IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
IN SMALL COMMUNITIES
TYPES OF HOUSING
Two prominent types of affordable housing in less populated areas in Colorado
include manufactured (mobile) homes and multifamily development.
Manufactured homes. While manufactured homes exist in the home -ownership
market, they are prominent in low-income rental markets as well. Studies show
that habitants of manufactured houses do not necessarily own the structure or
land underneath." Manufactured housing developments include single-family
rentals, and this type of housing is a common alternative to traditional apartment
building developments in the affordable housing market. Recent research points
to a trend in movement of low-income people into rural areas due to an initial
surplus of housing.12 It should be noted, however, that low-income individuals
who move to rural areas cannot necessarily afford existing single-family homes,
and are forced into available affordable housing. Rural -resort areas offer the
additional challenge of low land availability so manufactured housing is a
common form of affordable housing within the outlying perimeters or outside of
mountain towns.13
Multifamily development. As federal funding for affordable housing declines,
local governments become increasingly responsible for the establishment and
provision of affordable housing programs. 14 In response to the overwhelming
need for affordable housing in this country — national statistics showing more
than 14 million families with a critical housing need — affordable housing
developments need to be a common component of both rural and urban areas.
As population grows in rural areas, local governments and private developers
choose multifamily development over single-family development to provide
housing at a lower cost.15 Multifamily housing is more attractive for developers
because less land is needed and more individuals can live there, which
theoretically increases potential for a higher rate of return on the investment in
the project over time. Consideration of land cost is particularly important in
rural -resort towns where the amount of land available to build on is lower. 16
While land value is lower in the eastern plains, developers still consider the need
for a guaranteed return on investment, and multifamily housing still becomes the
more desirable framework for new affordable housing projects.
11 Beamish, J.O., Goss, R.C., Atiles, J.H., & Kim, Y. (2001). Not a trailer anymore:
Perceptions of manufactured housing. Housing Policy Debate, 12(2), 373-392.
12 Clark, S. L. 2012. In search of housing: urban families in rural contexts. Rural
Sociology, 77(1), 110-134.
13 Beamish, J.O., Goss, R.C., Atiles, J.H., & Kim, Y. (2001). Not a trailer anymore:
Perceptions of manufactured housing. Housing Policy Debate, 12(2), 373-392.
14 Reid, B. (2001). Increasing the supply of multifamily affordable housing. Journal of
Housing& Community Development, 58(2), 8-11.
15 Ibid.
16 Ziebarth, A.C. & Meeks, C.B. (1998). Public policy issues and financing for rural
housing. Advancing the Consumer Interest, 10(1), 1-7.
Multifamily housing developments are the most common forms of affordable
housing developments, and apartment -style projects are the most cost effective
on expensive rural -resort land. Housing providers in the eastern plains also
reported a need for new affordable housing development to fit in to the
overarching "look" of the existing neighborhoods. Consequently, contemporary
housing providers in various rural Colorado areas tend to consider multifamily
dwellings, but manufactured housing is still a viable option in greater areas
of communities.
LOCATION
Within the existing community. While developments within rural -resort towns
face the challenge of high land cost, placing affordable housing within the
community poses advantages both pre- and post -development." Often,
affordable housing is easier to establish in areas where a variety of
resources — such as public transportation, job training services, and housing
agencies — are located.18 During construction, costs decrease when the
project has a closer proximity to building materials, contracting businesses,
and supplies. Within towns, inhabitants likely live closer to work; thus, vacancy
rates in the development remain relatively low due to high utilization of the
affordable housing units. Research on urban/rural sprawl shows that housing
developments farther away from community resources (such as healthcare and
food) are not as economically vibrant over time. Housing proximity to resources
is one of the most influential factors in determining overall community health.19
Outside of the town. The high demand for affordable housing by local
workforce populations often spills over municipal boundaries into adjoining
areas.20 Many of these developments exist in the form of manufactured housing,
and the homes often are stacked side-by-side on relatively small parcels of land.
In addition to taking up less physical acreage, manufactured homes can provide
an overall lower-cost alternative to single-family homes.
Those who live in affordable housing developments outside the community,
however, may suffer from a lack of accessible public resources, as well as
increased costs from commuting .21 Additional problems arise when affordable
housing developments in unincorporated areas cannot sustain a substantial tax
base, and consequently cannot provide necessary services to residents. Still,
more research considers the impacts of location on developers and builders,
and points to higher costs in building materials and transport for rural areas in
general, and more specifically, in outlying rural -resort communities .22
17 Johnson, M.P. (2007). Planning models for the provision of affordable housing.
Environment and Planning 8: Planning and Design, 34, 501-523.
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid.
20 Clark, S. L. 2012. In search of housing: urban families in rural contexts. Rural
Sociology, 77(1), 110-134.
21 Ibid.
22 Johnson, M.P. (2007). Planning models for the provision of affordable housing.
Environment and Planning 8: Planning and Design, 34, 501-523.
K911197:7_11101A M01 INIMAN MATe1119
IMPLICATIONS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
IN SMALL COMMUNITIES
During this research project, the intent was to study ways small cities and towns
can further promote their affordable housing programs. Below are a few areas in
need of improvement that came from surveys and interviews.
Regional collaboration. The research revealed a visible need for greater
regional communication. In addition to infrequent regional communication,
many members that were contacted noted a lack of awareness of the specific
programs offered by other rural housing agencies in the state. This finding
underscores the need for resources that assist local agencies to connect
independently with each other. See "Resources for Affordable Housing and
Homelessness" on page 18 for funding and informational resources for rural
communities. These efforts will foster more communication among existing
rural housing agencies, and hopefully, lead to further collaborative housing
provision efforts.
Creating programs that utilize resources. Many existing programs for
members of CML and Housing Colorado must constantly work around the lack
of funds. As national funding for housing decreases, Colorado housing agencies
must seek additional funds from local resources, and many agencies have been
forced to decrease some of their programming when funds are not available. A
majority of members interviewed for this publication mentioned that increased
funds from local governments and taxpayer dollars directly contribute to the
scope and variety of programming in various housing agencies. They
overwhelmingly supported the theory that housing agencies in rural areas have
fewer readily available resources in comparison to urban housing agencies, but
also noted that the ability to offer a wide range of services to affordable housing
residents is extremely valuable and just as critical for rural communities as their
urban counterparts.
Public-private partnerships. Nonprofit housing providers and local government
collaborations are increasingly common due to a demand for workforce housing
in small communities. While many of the existing programs work with city
councils and town boards, some do not actively and collaboratively engage with
their local governments. Agencies not engaged with local governments on a
regular basis do not necessarily view the nature of the relationship as negative;
instead, these agencies often view the relationship as neutral. That being said,
partnerships between local governments and other agencies have led to great
successes and demonstrate an opportunity cost for those who do not have
those relationships in place. Many agencies are intimately involved with local
government, and those engaged in formal agreements with local governing
entities have a structure for programming cost and function, and can facilitate
a clear understanding of each agency's responsibilities and contributions to
the program. When agencies reported a lack of communication with local
government, there was often a willingness to increase collaborations in the
future to expand funding and community understanding of their mission. Most
respondents who do engage in cooperative efforts with local government largely
viewed such relationships as beneficial. While local governments that co-opt
with affordable housing agencies provide more regulation in housing provision,
they also enable the local governments and housing providers to combine
resources and pursue additional funding collaboratively. Consequently, efforts
toward increased partnerships of housing providers and local governments are a
primary recommendation for existing and future housing providers alike. Outside
of additional funding, these partnerships are a terrific option when leveraging
affordable housing dollars.
NIle] :7_1110iAR] 0IN191AIAte1119
CASE STUDIES
TOWN OF WINDSOR
The Windsor Housing Authority (WHA), with the support of the Town of Windsor,
recently leveraged minimal resources to construct workforce housing rental units
within the Town limits. ("Workforce housing" generally refers to housing that is
available to and attainable by working families and households earning low- to
moderate-incomes.)This is a terrific example of a housing authority and a
municipality being committed to serve the housing needs of household earning
low- to moderate -incomes.
Workforce Housing Needs Assessment Study. In 2008, at the direction of the
town board and in conjunction with the Colorado Division of Housing, Windsor
contracted with a consulting firm to have a workforce housing needs assessment
study prepared to determine if an actual need existed for workforce housing in
Windsor. The study found that the need for workforce housing was fast
approaching. Due to shifts in the housing market leading to higher sales prices
and rents, as well as the expansion of the local economy since 2000, the Town
decided to set goals to meet the challenge of providing workforce housing for its
residents. The study called for developing and maintaining attainable
neighborhood housing for the community by partnering with other organizations
interested in accomplishing this objective. In addition to formulating goals to
achieve construction of affordable housing projects, the Town identified the WHA
as the local agency to implement these goals.
Strategic Housing Plan. One of the recommended action steps of the study
was for a strategic housing plan to be developed. Following the adoption of the
study by the Town in 2009, the WHA adopted the Windsor Housing Authority
Strategic Housing Plan in 2012. The primary components of the plan are to
identify gaps in housing opportunities for households earning low- to moderate -
incomes, senior citizens, and individuals with disabilities; and identify strategies
to address and close these gaps. Since the adoption of the plan, the Windsor
Meadows Apartments have come to fruition.
Windsor Meadows. In 2012, the WHA, in partnership with the Town and the
Loveland Housing Authority, received tax -credit financing via the Colorado
Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA) to construct 44 workforce housing rental
units known as Windsor Meadows. Residents started moving into Windsor
Meadows in December 2013, and the complex was fully leased by the end of
February 2014. This serves as an excellent example of how these types of
partnerships can work together to accomplish the goal of providing housing for
families earning low- to moderate -incomes. The WHA and its partners are
extremely proud of this development, which may serve as an example of what
other small or rural areas may accomplish.
See www.cmLorg under Issues > Affordable Housing for sample plans and
ordinances.
10 AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Outcome. WHA's new development of Windsor Meadows represents a massive
collaborative effort by housing authorities, state housing agencies, and a
municipality. All parties spent significant time to research the potential impacts of
the development and went above and beyond to gain community support. Active
public outreach to define the housing in a way that made it work for existing
communities led to a positive view of this workforce housing development.
For more information, Joseph P. Plummer, AICP, Windsor director of planning, at
970-674-2412 or jplummer@windsorgov.com.
CITY OF DURANGO AND THE REGIONAL HOUSING ALLIANCE OF
LA PLATA COUNTY
Regional housing authorities have existed since the 1990s and have led to
numerous partnerships and opportunities for development in rural areas. In the
sparsely populated southwestern region of Colorado, the Regional Housing
Alliance of La Plata County (RHA) has developed into one of the most influential
partners for local governments interested in developing more affordable housing.
RHA is a multijurisdictional housing authority funded by La Plata County, the City
of Durango, the Town of Bayfield, and the Town of Ignacio. Since none of these
jurisdictions has a housing planner on staff, the RHA conducts housing needs
studies and coordinated the creation of an Affordable Housing Action Plan for La
Plata County.
RHA was created in 2004 as a new regional governmental entity to grapple with
La Plata County's high housing prices and resulting lack of housing affordable to
a large portion of its workforce. In just six years, home prices in La Plata County
doubled. The current median sale price of homes is $310,000 — 64 percent
higher than the nationwide median — while the county median income is
$58,000, about the same as the national average. RHA board members are from
throughout the area, including municipalities and the county at large. The
diversity of the board has helped educate multiple jurisdictions on affordable
housing options.
City of Durango and La Plata County. The small City of Durango has become
a destination for many people moving to Colorado. Population estimates from
the last two years from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs show the
number of households in La Plata County, in general, growing by about 3
percent, or about 680 households, per year. Data from the State Demographer's
Office predicts the county's population will reach almost 59,000 by 2015. Due to
population shifts and little development, housing is becoming increasingly scarce
and, consequently, less affordable. As a result, La Plata County has served as a
testing ground for various public-private affordable housing partnerships. The
development of the fair share housing ordinance serves as an example.
Fairshare housing ordinance. The Fair Share program was designed in
partnership by RHA and Maryland-based Enterprise Community Partners. The
organizations worked for 18 months with community members and government
officials to craft the policy for the City of Durango. RHA collaborated with builders
NIce] :7_1110iA10IN191AIATe111 it
to develop and implement the ordinance, which requires that a portion of the
developments sell homes at prices between $150,000 and $350,000.
On Dec. 2, 2008, the City of Durango adopted its Fair Share policy and its
implementing ordinance that requires developers of new housing to provide a
certain percentage of homes or rental units — generally 16 percent — to be
priced below market and reserved for homebuyers at certain income levels.
Previous affordable housing agreements which are still in force have
requirements ranging from 10 to 25 percent but otherwise follow Fair Share
rules. Under certain circumstances, developers can pay in -lieu fees or make
land donations as alternative means of compliance. In -lieu fees can be used to
subsidize affordable housing development or very low-cost second mortgages
for homebuyers. Any land donations will be used as sites for new affordable
housing construction.
Households must have qualifying incomes to be eligible for discount prices.
A typical family of three must have an annual income of $80,000 or less for
homes with small price discounts, and an income of $52,000 or below for homes
with the deepest price discounts. Buyers must pay back the discount on resale
of the home with a share of appreciation or agree to deed restrictions limiting the
resale price. Developers must mix the discount -priced homes with the market -
rate homes, except for limited options of paying fees to an affordable housing
fund or making land donations for affordable housing.
The ordinance allows RHA to seek more flexible funding sources from nonprofits
as opposed to strict sources provided by governments. In cases where the
ordinance is applied, the City can offset costs of building Fair Share housing for
developers to spur their interest in developing Fair Share units. For example,
developers may be entitled to refunds for utilities or other impact or construction
fees. RHA has stated that flexibility plays a key role in rural community
development.
In 2008, the RHA seeded a nonprofit organization, the La Plata Homes Fund,
with a $1.1 million contribution from BP America. The La Plata Homes Fund,
which subsequently became a Community Development Finance Institute,
has helped leverage this initial contribution to create a $3.1 million loan fund.
Through this fund, the La Plata Homes Fund provides down payment
assistance to households purchasing Fair Share units. Additional resources
can be found on the websites of Regional Housing Alliance of La Plata County
(www.rhalpc.org) and La Plata Homes Fund (www.homesfund.org).
For more information, contact Sherri Dugdale, Durango assistant to the city
manager at 970-375-5002 or sherri.dugdale@durangogov.org.
TOWN OF NEW CASTLE
Founded in 1971, the Community Resources and Housing Development Council
(CRHDC) spent much of its early years focused on housing for low-income
households in rural areas of the state. More recently, the agency has expanded
its programs and services to include regions throughout Colorado, including
urban, suburban, and rural communities.
12 AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Leveraging its strength in rural housing development, CRHDC partnered with
the Town of New Castle in 2005 on a senior housing development. Like many
rural communities, the Town of New Castle (with a population of just under 5,000
residents) saw the need for senior housing. With its proximity to Glenwood
Springs and employment opportunities, and many residents who wanted to stay
in New Castle once they retired, it was clear that affordable senior housing was
a growing need in the community.
The partnership between CRHDC and the town was particularly successful for a
variety of reasons:
• CRHDC has extensive experience in identifying funding sources and how
to structure key legal components such as land lease agreements. The
Town recognized this asset and was willing to be flexible in its approach.
• As an established community, the Town of New Castle has clear design
standards. This facilitated a final design that not only met the needs of
the future residents, but also was consistent with the character of the
existing community and priorities of town residents.
• Since the Town initiated contact with CRHDC, there was already the
political will for developing an affordable housing project in the
community. In general, senior housing projects tend to experience less
resistance in the affordable housing marketplace because so many
seniors are on fixed incomes — a common denominator that many
community members can relate to.
• Continued partnership – CRHDC has maintained a presence in the
community, long after the construction was complete. Understanding the
cultural values of the town, the project was designed to include a full-time
onsite property manager. This is unusual for a housing development that
only includes 24 units, but it was a priority for the community and was
factored into the ongoing costs of the project.
As a result of this successful project in 2005, the Town of New Castle and
CRHDC have initiated a second affordable housing project together.
When considering an affordable housing development between a nonprofit and
local government, communities should keep the following in mind.
As an affordable housing development serving seniors, CRHDC was able to
leverage U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 202
funds, a program that provides senior rental assistance to low-income seniors.
This support provides critical gap financing that makes an affordable housing
development financially viable in the long term. Local governments, on the other
hand, have access to Community Development Block Grant funds. Agencies
such as CRHDC cannot apply for those funds. Together, a nonprofit housing
agency and its local government partner can leverage significantly more
resources than would be available on their own.
Both the nonprofit partner and the local government need to maintain a
partnership over the long term; this understanding needs to be established at
the beginning of the process. Unforeseen challenges can arise over time. After
K01Ile] :7_1RZUJiM0IM191AMA11e111 63
the New Castle project was completed, a water main break caused significant
flooding at the senior housing development. The Town was quick to respond and
assist CRHDC, helping to move people temporarily and acting quickly to
minimize the amount of time residents were displaced.
Partners need to be prepared to be invested in the process and the outcome.
In this case, the Town of New Castle did not simply identify the need and bring in
a nonprofit developer, but actively participated in the entire process. Both parties
knew there would be setbacks, but the relationship started with the premise of
mutual trust. The nonprofit developer worked closely with the Town to identify
the development areas and ensure the design was consistent with the Town's
development plan. In turn, local governments can assist the development
process by mitigating barriers, such as expediting the permit processes. The
most successful projects require the developer and the local government to think
as team rather than as two separate parties.
For more information, contact, Tom Baker, New Castle town administrator, at
970-984-2311 or tbaker@newcastlecolorado.org.
14 AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
Public perception can be one of the most difficult issues to deal with when
devising an affordable housing plan. Neighborhood opposition to an affordable
housing development can be a powerful impediment to moving forward. There
may have been a time when affordable housing was considered unattractive as
a development option. Today, affordable housing developments are not only
attractive, but provide an opportunity for local governments to show their
residents the improvement to the community. This can be done by changing the
conversation around affordable housing. There has been much research and
analyses by affordable housing advocates around public opinion and below are
some opportunities to reframe the message in rural communities.
FORM A PERSONAL CONNECTION
According to the Center for Community Change, there is general, but latent,
support for affordable housing among the public. One way to increase support is
to make the idea of "home" more personal. When discussing a project, people
are much more responsive to the reference of "home" as opposed to "housing"
or "units." Take the opportunity when developing a plan to market it as a place of
security, comfort, relaxation. This invokes more positive thoughts that involve
family and friends, whereas a reference to "units" resonates as abstract.23 In
addition to the terms used, according to many studies completed since 2007,
more people are beginning to see housing affordability as an issue they may
personally face .21 This lends itself to an opportunity that more households will be
more receptive to public policy proposals to solve it.
FRAME AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN TERMS OF PUBLIC VALUES
Equating affordable housing to increased options for families to succeed can
help gain public support. Affordable housing needs to demonstrate opportunity,
rewards for hard work, and other terms that invoke an American Dream
mentality. Most citizens tend to view housing needs as a consumer issue rather
than a social issue. This is an opportunity to reframe the message and use
market-based appeals such as choice to look at the housing market in general.
Explain that the issue is to increase supply of housing to meet demand while
offering choices to different income levels. This message will reach a much
wider audience .25
23 Center for Community Change, Public Opinion Research, 2011.
24 Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Affordable Housing in Rhode Island.
25 ActionMedia.(2006). Communicating Housing Issues. PowerPoint Presentation for
Housing Alliance of Pennsylvania.
K�l�i7:7_1�ZUJil11►1[yI�1A��Ze1�1 b'i
PUT A HUMAN FACE ON THE PROBLEM
People generally support programs to aid seniors, working families, and people
with disabilities. When promoting an affordable housing plan, take this
opportunity to show who the development will house. As opposed to using more
universal terms, such as "low-income," use examples. Research shows that
respondents are more likely to acknowledge a shortage of affordable homes
when the target population is described with an income range (for example,
young families earning $25,000 to $40,000).26 Tailor the message to local
values. If residents value professions such as teachers or law enforcement, use
them as examples of those who deserve affordable homes.
COMBAT THE "NOT IN MY BACKYARD" MENTALITY
One of the most difficult arguments against affordable housing is the "not in my
backyard" (NIMBY) approach. Support drops the closer the housing is sited to
those being surveyed .21 Common NIMBY claims around affordable housing
center on concerns about declining property values, increased traffic, changing
character of a neighborhood, or stereotypes about residents. Many of these
concerns are based upon misinformation and can be rebutted with educational
outreach. Use the planning and review process to educate concerned citizens
on what the proposed project will look like and what it will do for the community.
Concerns such as those relating to traffic congestion, service provision, or
environmental quality can be addressed within development plans. Concerns
about design and unsightliness may be addressed through design charettes and
review processes .21
Housing Colorado currently has a design charette program that can offer insight
into what works and what does not. Preconceived notions on who is occupying
the affordable homes is more difficult to change, but can be counteracted by
interactions between concerned neighbors and actual residents of affordable
homes. Additionally, municipalities can build relationships among neighbors,
residents, and developers through broad community outreach.
DEMONSTRATE THE BENEFITS TO FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY
The most successful community outreach campaigns emphasize that affordable
homes lead to community wide benefits. These include connecting housing to
broader issues of community concern such as education, health, transportation,
and jobs .21 Research often points to the benefits of an adequate supply of
affordable housing. Demonstrate that affordable homes contribute to positive
outcomes for other major priorities like education and health, and liken
26 Public Opinion Strategies. (2007). State and Local Leaders' Views of Home
Affordablilty.
27 Center for Community Change, Public Opinion Research, 2011.
28 Puget Sound Regional Council. Strategies to Address NIMBY. 2014.
29 Center for Community Change, Public Opinion Research, 2011.
16 AFFORDABLE HOUSING
affordable housing to the creation of job growth and economic vitality.30 While
demonstrating community benefit it is important to emphasize that new
developments will not lead to a negative outcome. Some researchers
recommend visual aids and a detailed program description to help bring home
the message that everyone in the community deserves an affordable home.
30 Elizabeth J. Mueller, and J. Rosie Tighe. (2007). Making the Case for Affordable
Housing: Connecting Housing with Health and Educational Outcomes. Journal of
Planning and Literature 21,371-385
NIce] :7_11ZUJil ]0IN191AIATe111 VA
RESOURCES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AND HOMELESSNESS
FEDERAL FUNDING
United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development (USDA) works with
public and nonprofit organizations to provide housing developers with loans and
grants to construct and renovate rural multi -family housing complexes. Local
governments are a key partner in moving these grants and loans forward. The
USDA has six different loan and grant options from Rental Housing Direct Loans
to Housing Preservation Grants. To receive more information about grant and
loan opportunities through the USDA, contact your local USDA office.
Resource: USDA, www.rurdev.usda.gov.
Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit
The Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program was created in
1986 under President Ronald Reagan and has received significant bipartisan
support due to the public-private partnership model that it incentivizes. Through
the annual budget setting process, Congress determines the total dollar amount
of tax credits it is willing to fund in the coming fiscal year. The amount of credit
that a state receives to allocate is based on the total population and a statutory
rate. Each state has a housing and finance authority (HFA) that is authorized to
award and distribute those tax credits each year. The Colorado Housing and
Finance Authority is the agency in Colorado responsible for administering the
federal tax program.
Through a competitive application process, private, government, and nonprofit
developers can submit project proposals for rental housing development to be
considered for LIHTC funding. If approved, the recipient of the tax credit gets a
dollar -for -dollar reduction in tax liability. The credit is transferable, and a
syndicator or direct investor will invest in the credit. The developer then uses the
proceeds from the investment by the syndicator or investor in the credit for
constructing the housing project. This reduces the amount of debt the developer
must use, which allows the developer to offer the housing to low income
households at rates that are below the current market rates.
Resource: Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, www.chfainfo.com/multifam/
multifamily_ developers/LIHTC%20allocation/LIHTC%20allocation. icm.
Community Development Block Grants
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program was passed by
Congress as Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to
help cities address their community development needs. In 1981, Congress
amended the legislation to allow states to administer CDBG funds to serve
18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING
communities outside the large cities and urban counties. The Division of
Housing currently administers the program. At least 70 percent of all CDBG
funds must be spent on activities that benefit low- or moderate -income people.
The Division of Housing uses a portion of the state's CDBG funding to provide or
improve permanent residential structures that will house low and moderate
income households outside of the larger cities and counties.
Resource: Colorado Division of Housing, www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page
&childpagename=DOLA-Main%2FCBONLayout&cid=1251593065651 &pagena
me=CBONWrapper.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
HOME Program
The HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) was created by the
National Affordable Housing Act of 1990. HOME funds provide competitive
funding to local government, nonprofit, and private developers. The purpose of
the fund is to provide formula grants to states and localities that communities
use — often in partnership with local nonprofit groups — to fund a wide range of
activities including building, buying, and/or rehabilitating affordable housing for
rent or homeownership or providing direct rental assistance to low-income
people. HOME is the largest federal block grant to state and local governments
designed exclusively to create affordable housing for low-income households.
Source: Colorado Division of Housing, www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&c
hildpagename=DOLA-Main %2FCBONLayout&cid=1251593063983&pagename
=CBONWrapper.
Private Activity Bonds
Private Activity Bonds (PABs) are tax-exempt bonds that can be issued for
specific purposes. The federal government grants annual allocations of this
bonding authority to states under the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The State of
Colorado established its PAB allocation program by statute (24-32-1701 et seq,
C.R.S.) to provide for the allocation of Colorado's PAB authority. One of the uses
for PABs is for qualified rental housing projects. Local governments can issue
these bonds to finance the new construction or acquisition/rehabilitation of
housing for low/moderate income persons.
Resource: Colorado Division of Housing, www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page
&childpagename=DOLA-Main %2FCBONLayout&cid=1251592239205&pagena
me=CBONWrapper.
STATE FUNDING
Colorado Housing Tax Credit
In 2014, a bill was passed in the Colorado General Assembly to reinstate a
state -based low income housing tax credit. Modeled after the successful federal
LIHTC program, HB 14-1017 allocated a total of $10 million ($5 million in 2015
and $5 million in 2016) towards a state tax credit program for affordable housing
development and preservation. In the same manner that the federal tax credit
reduces an investor's federal tax credit liability dollar -for -dollar, the state tax
WIle] :7_1110JA10IN191AIATe111 R1
credit will give the recipient a dollar -for -dollar reduction on their state tax liability.
Like the federal program, the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority also will
administer a state tax credit program and funding is limited to rental housing
development only. This is a brand new opportunity for affordable housing
development. More information will be released from the Colorado Housing and
Finance Authority in time for the program launch in 2015.
Colorado Housing Investment Fund
In 2012, the Colorado Housing Investment Fund (C.R.S. 24-32-717) was
created as a result of the national mortgage settlement brought by the attorney
generals of 48 states against the top mortgage lenders in the country. A portion
of the total settlement, $13.3 million, was allocated by the Colorado Attorney
General's Office to the newly created Colorado Housing Investment Fund
(CHIF), a revolving loan fund administered on behalf of the Attorney General's
Office by the Colorado Division of Housing. Nine projects were funded through
the initial $13.3 million to agencies across the state that included government,
private, and nonprofit developers for the construction and rehabilitation of rental
housing.
Early in 2014, the Colorado Attorney General's Office announced an additional
$23 million from the original 2012 mortgage settlement would be reallocated to
CHIF. The $23 million will be transferred from the foreclosure mitigation fund. At
the time of the initial settlement in 2012, Colorado was in the midst of the
nationwide foreclosure crisis. However, with the housing market rebounding, the
number of foreclosures dropped dramatically through 2013, and only a fraction
of the foreclosure dollars had been used. Recognizing the need for more
housing developments and the documented success of the current CHIF, the
attorney general will be reallocating the foreclosure dollars in to the CHIF. The
application process for government, private and nonprofit developers will be
through the Division of Housing. Those who wish to submit project proposals to
receive funds from CHIF should contact the Division of Housing or watch for
announcements from CML or Housing Colorado on requests for applications.
Affordable Housing Development Grants
Each year, the governor's budget includes funding for the Affordable Housing
Development Grants line item. This program is currently the only funded
program that offers grants to nonprofit and government agencies for affordable
housing development and preservation. Administered by the Colorado Division
of Housing, this program can fund projects that include both rental housing and
home ownership housing projects. Following priority guidelines established
through the State Housing Board, the Division of Housing accepts project
proposals throughout the year. For Fiscal Year 2014-2015, the Division of
Housing was allotted $4.3 million for the program.
Resource: Colorado Division of Housing, www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/DOLA-
Main/CBON/1251590375290.
20 AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Homeless Programs Team- Pathways Colorado
The Governor's Office and the Colorado Department of Local Affairs are working
on programs to end homelessness in rural communities. The Homeless
Programs Team within the Division of Housing is poised as the leadership entity
for working with multiple state and local partners to focus on supportive housing
programs and projects. In the action plan for 2014 alone, there are goals to
increase the capacity for transitional housing, increase access to permanent
housing units, and increase access to benefits such as education and
employment. To assist in transitional programs, the state has utilized the Fort
Lyon facility in Las Animas to serve as a transitional housing facility for homeless
individuals. The goal is not only to find permanent housing, but provide access
health care, treatment, and workforce education to help them successfully
re -integrate into their chosen communities.
Resource: Colorado Division of Housing, www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page
&childpagename=DOLA-Main%2FCBONLayout&cid=1251595945321 &pagena
me=CBONWrapper.
Pathways Home Colorado
www. colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/DOLA-Main/CBON/1251611679326
HOUSING AUTHORITIES
Local housing authorities
A housing authority is the local administrative agency for housing assistance
programs funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD). All housing authorities provide rental housing or rental assistance to
low-income families, the elderly and people with disabilities. Often, large cities
have their own housing authorities, and smaller towns are served by a county
housing authority. Colorado is also home to a few Regional Housing Authorities
that cover significantly more area. Most often, these housing authorities reside in
more rural, less populated areas.
A local housing authority is the first place to go to find out about what housing
assistance programs are available in the area. In addition to administering
federal housing programs, such as the Housing Choice Voucher, local housing
authorities often own and manage their own housing units. Housing authorities
also partner with private and nonprofit developers to build new housing units or
redevelop existing products.
On the national level, housing authorities are represented by the National
Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NARHO), a leader in
advocating the funding of HUD low- and moderate -income programs, the
production of low-income housing, shaping housing modernization and
assistance programs, and the continuing and strengthening of Community
Development Block Grants and HOME programs.
Resource: National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials,
www.nahro.org.
WIle] :7_1110JA10IN191AIATe111 til
Colorado Housing and Finance Authority
The Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA) was created in 1973 by
the Colorado legislature to address the shortage of affordable housing in the
state. Since then, CHFA has established itself as the front-runner in the
affordable housing industry by financing single-family mortgages for qualifying
homebuyers and supporting developments of apartments for low and moderate
income residents. In 1982, when Colorado had economic difficulties, CHFA
began making loans to small and medium sized businesses. Since 1973,
CHFA's financed more than 69,000 mortgages to homebuyers, more than
54,000 residential rental units, and allocated tax credits for 37,000 residential
rental units. CHFA also administers the Colorado Housing Income Tax Credit as
well as the Federal Low Income Tax Credit.
Resource: Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, www.chfainfo.com.
22 AFFORDABLE HOUSING
n
WSW CONSULTING
To
From:
Jeff Durbin, Town Manager
Wendy Sullivan, WSW Consulting
Subject: Town of Fraser Housing Needs Study
Date: January 25, 2016
155 Allyn Ave.
San Anselmo, CA 94960
www.wswconsult.com
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal to help the town of Fraser
understand, define and meet its attainable housing needs. The attached scope of
work has been prepared pursuant to our discussions regarding the desire for the
town of Fraser to have the information it needs to pursue attainable housing as a
priority in the town. This scope of work covers three primary components:
• Housing Needs. Defining the town's workforce housing needs in terms of
how many units are needed, what type (ownership and rental) and price
points. This information will help define what "attainable housing" means in
the town of Fraser;
• Development Environment. Providing an overview of the local development
environment, including town -owned land, zoning and fee provisions as they
relate to providing attainable housing. This analysis will lead to
recommendations on how the town may approach development of attainable
housing on its land; place local development and fee requirements in context
with three other mountain communities and help to identify other strategies
the town can consider to help produce and fund more housing through
incentives, regulation, or other methods; and
• Resources and Opportunities. Providing an inventory of local and regional
resources that may help meet attainable housing needs in the area. This will
include an overview of housing resources available in the county, potential
land and partnership opportunities.
The research will conclude with a summary of recommendations, housing strategies
to consider and strategic planning next steps that can help guide the Town as it
focuses its housing goals and strategies.
WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc.
0
WSW CONSULTING
155 Allyn Ave.
San Anselmo, CA 94960
www.wswconsult.com
The attached scope clarifies our research plan, timeline, budget and outputs we
propose to provide. We look forward to further discussing this proposal and to
having the opportunity to help the Town understand and address its housing needs.
Sincerely,
Wendy Sullivan
WSW Consulting
Attachment
WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Town of Fraser Attainable Housing Study Proposal - Jan. 25, 2016
Proposed Scope of Services
I. Housing Needs
We propose to identify the housing needs of the local Town of Fraser workforce.
This analysis will build upon studies completed at the end of 2015 (Grand Profile,
Fraser Valley Economic Development Plan and survey, Town of Winter Park
Housing Needs Assessment, etc.) to quantify attainable housing needs for the local
workforce in the town of Fraser. As a cost-saving measure, housing market sales
prices, jobs and other information will be used from these studies, so will reflect
trends as of fall 2015.
This report will also focus on how much housing is needed, rather than why
workforce housing is needed. These prior studies documented the impact on
current employers, economic development and the community due to housing
shortages. The town has recognized this impact by placing attainable housing at the
top of its priority list for 2016.
We propose to provide a quantitative summary of housing needs for the Town of
Fraser, which will evaluate and report upon the following:
1. Population and Demographic Trends, which will provide estimates for
persons and households, examine growth and describe the demographic
characteristics of households. Households by income and by tenure will also
be examined. This affects the type of housing needed in town.
Sources: 2010 US Census, ACS, Ribbon Demographics (Census/ACS
computations), existing studies
2. Economic Conditions and Trends, which will include data on the number of
jobs, seasonality in employment, average wages and types of jobs in Grand
County and Fraser (where available). This section will also analyze
commuting patterns. Job projections, wages and commuting are necessary to
quantify housing needs presently and in the future.
Sources: BLS, QCEW, local data (Chamber, Grand Profile Project, etc.)
3. Housing Inventory, which will include information on the number, type,
tenure, and age of residential units. It will also include an inventory of
existing affordable/income-restricted units in Fraser. Housing developments
in the planning/ development pipeline will be included in this analysis.
Current inventory and pending development affects the type of units needed.
WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Town of Fraser Attainable Housing Study Proposal - Jan. 25, 2016
Sources: Assessor property records, Census, planning/building dept,
interviews.
4. Homeownership Market, which will consider the number of sales, home
prices, and the availability of homes by price. This section will take into
account the age and appropriateness of units listed for sale to serve as
housing for residents. Local preferences for housing identified through
realtor interviews will be presented. This illustrates the extent to which
market housing addresses workforce housing needs and where gaps in the
market exist.
Sources: Assessor property records, MLS, building/planning/housing dept.,
interviews (Realtors, lenders), site analysis.
5. Rental Market, which will cover the inventory of rental units, condition/age
of units, rents, and vacancies. This will inventory both market rate and
affordable rentals. Local apartment property managers will be contacted for
rent and vacancy updates.
Sources: Census/ACS, city planning/building, interviews (property
managers)
6. Current Needs and Gaps, which will compare housing costs to the incomes of
residents to determine where gaps in home prices and rents exist, both
currently and over a 5 -year period. Needs will be identified by income
category based on groupings most useful to the town (e.g. <50% AMI, 50 to
80%,80 to 120%, and 120%+) and by ownership and rental housing.
Considerations such as the age and availability of units will be considered.
Commuting will be a factor in this analysis.
Sources: data from above sections.
II. Development Environment
This section will provide the town of Fraser with information regarding:
• Town zoning and fee provisions as related to providing attainable housing;
• Cost of development;
• Strategies for facilitating attainable housing development on town -owned
land; and
WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Town of Fraser Attainable Housing Study Proposal - Jan. 25, 2016
• Strategies the town can consider to help produce and fund more housing
through incentives, regulation, or other methods.
1. Development fees and code, which will compare Fraser's code and fee
structure to three other resort mountain communities with attainable
housing challenges. The communities selected will include a sophisticated
attainable housing producer (town of Jackson, WY), a relative new -comer to
building attainable housing (town of Frisco, CO), and a comparable low-wage
resort community with more moderate home prices than many of the ski
communities (town of Estes Park, CO). This information will be presented in
a matrix for easy reference and will include a summary of development fees,
code provisions and requirements, and attainable housing fees or dedicated
funds collected by the towns (where applicable).
2. Building on Town -Owned Land, which will provide strategy recommendations
on how Fraser could facilitate the production of attainable housing on their
available land. This will provide information on ownership and rental
projects, including cost of development, as follows:
1) Case studies of attainable apartment projects being pursued by the
town of Breckenridge and the redevelopment of Timber Ridge at Vail
will be presented to understand the cost of rental housing
development in mountain communities.
2) A summary of approaches used to produce attainable housing on
town -owned land will be provided as a reference guide for Fraser and
what it takes to develop.
3) We propose as an optional item to produce a pro -forma for a
homeownership development on the town's land. This will
specifically identify the number of units, types and price points that
could be produced and help the town understand how various fee
waivers or other concessions (density bonuses, etc.) could affect
project outcomes.
3. Attainable Housing codes, incentives and fees, which will provide strategy
recommendations the town can consider to help produce and fund more
attainable housing.
Sources: building/planning departments, interviews, inventory of
community resources.
WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Town of Fraser Attainable Housing Study Proposal - Jan. 25, 2016
III. Resources and Opportunities
This section will provide an inventory of potential local and regional
resources that can help meet attainable housing needs in the area, including:
• A summary inventory of land and resources that the Town has
available for housing;
• A summary of regional resources, including the Grand County Housing
Authority capacity, programs and roles; the town of Winter Park
housing strategy and goals; and potential land and partnership
opportunities with Grand County and/or Granby.
This section will be useful when making recommendations on potential
strategies for the town to address housing needs.
Sources: building/planning departments, interviews.
IV. Conclusions, Recommendations and Strategies
This section will tie together information from this analysis to draw
conclusions that are quantitative where applicable and informative about
trends that could impact housing policies. This will include:
• Recommendations regarding the current available supply of housing
affordable to residents, units needed to fill gaps in housing needs, and
related housing policy considerations;
• Considerations in light of current development in the town, desire to
improve private market participation, and steps that can be taken to
implement recommendations. Strategies identified may include
incentives (density bonuses or transfers, ADUs, etc.), regulatory
mandates (inclusionary zoning, linkage, replacement programs, etc.),
collaborative opportunities with other communities or the county,
housing rehabilitation and preservation strategies, among other tools;
and
• Strategies to facilitate development of attainable housing in town,
including development considerations, partnerships, local capacity,
resources and tradeoffs. This will include recommendations on how
gaps in town resources to produce and manage housing may be filled
(e.g. potential funding mechanisms, developer relationships, regional
collaboration, etc.).
WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Town of Fraser Attainable Housing Study Proposal - Jan. 25, 2016
Recommendations will focus not only on how to pursue housing development, but
also how best to protect the town's investment in attainable housing over the long
term.
All sources and calculations in this report will be fully documented and explained,
with links to on-line data as available. This lends credence to the report, makes
results transparent, and will provide information that can assist with future
updates. The report will be provided both in PDF and Word.
Primary Data Research
As noted above, we propose to use a combination of secondary data sources and
primary research to collect the data necessary to complete the housing needs
analysis. Primary research is proposed to include:
• Three (3) to four (4) local employer interviews,
• Interviews with up to two (2) local realtors,
• Interviews with at least two (2) local developers and
• Up to four (4) interviews to identify regional resources, proposed to include
Grand County, the Grand County Housing Authority, town of Winter Park and
town of Fraser.
Employer interviews - Three or four representative employers in the town of
Fraser will be interviewed to supplement information gathered from studies
completed at the end of 2015. The purpose is to understand employer perceptions
or problems associated with workforce housing needs, employee recruitment,
wages and job positions, and other issues. We will also learn where their employees
live and would prefer to live given housing opportunities.
Realtor Interviews - Local realtors will be interviewed to obtain information on
the ownership market including current prices, recent trends, occupancy patterns,
availability and what households are seeking when looking to purchase or rent a
unit. This discussion will help define housing preferences in the town, including unit
type and locations.
Local Developers - Interviews with at least two local developers will be held to
acquire general information on the current costs of development (design, planning
approval, construction, project management, and sale/lease-up), and local
challenges of developing. If an ownership housing development pro forma is
requested, a more in depth evaluation of costs associated with development will be
performed, including interviews with general contractors, local trades, utility
companies, architects and engineers.
WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Town of Fraser Attainable Housing Study Proposal - Jan. 25, 2016
Work Sessions, Site Visit and Presentation
Kick-off meeting. Early in the process we will facilitate an in-person kickoff meeting,
to include Town Council, to refine the project scope and target key informant
interviews.
Site visit. This will include a visit to town owned land and current neighborhoods.
This will help set the local context for town land analysis, housing needs and
opportunities.
Draft report and conference call. We will issue the draft report to the town on May
18, 2016. We will host a question and answer session and gather Council and staff
input at a meeting on or about May 25th. We will conduct this meeting via
conference call. Information gathered from this discussion and through written
comments from staff and Council will be used to finalize the report.
Final report and presentation. We will issue the final report on or about June 8th.
We will present report findings and recommendations in person at a public meeting
the week of June 15th. We would prepare Power Point slides to support our
presentation, which could be used in the future if there are other opportunities to
present the findings.
Town Assistance
We seek town assistance with the following tasks:
• Interviews: providing contact information for primary employers and key
informants for interviews, with introductions made where possible.
• Data: assistance compiling needed town data, including existing
reports/studies, Assessor data/contacts, planning/building departments, GIS
data coordination, etc.
Deliverables
We propose to provide:
A report documenting our research, methodology, data and trends and
recommendations from a complete assessment of the housing situation in
Fraser, as defined above; and
• Report presentation materials.
WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Town of Fraser Attainable Housing Study Proposal - Jan. 25, 2016
Budget
We propose a fixed fee contract not to exceed $45,000 (or $50,000 if the optional
pro -forma for the town's land is produced). Our budget is based on hourly rates
ranging from $55 to $150 per hour. Other expenses would be charged at our cost.
Component
Cost
Interviews (Primary Research)
Employers (3 to 4)
$1,800
Local development
$11500
Realtors (2)
$1000
Housing Needs
Population and Demographics
$1,200
Job projections and commuting
$2,000
Housing Inventory
$2,500
Homeownership Market Conditions
$2000
Rental Market Conditions
$2,000
Current Needs and Gaps
$3,000
Development Environment
Town land and codes
$1,800
Comparative communities
$3,000
Cost of development (ownership and rental)
$5,000
Optional: ownership pro forma
$5,000
Resources and Opportunities
$5,000
Conclusions, Strategies, Next Steps
$4,000
Meetings, Presentations, Management
Kick-off work session (conference call)
$800
Site -visit (two consultants)
$3,000
Draft report Q&A (conference call)
$800
Presentation (travel plus meeting)
$3,000
Contract/project management
$1600
Total
$45,000
Total (including optional pro forma)
$50,000
WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Town of Fraser Attainable Housing Study Proposal - Jan. 25, 2016
Timeline
The below timeline has an assumed kick-off date of February 23, but will be
adjusted depending upon the contract start date.
Week
Feb
March
April
May
June
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
Kick-off meeting (2/23)
x
Site visit (3/9)
x
Secondary data collection
x
x
x
x
x
Identify local interviewees
x
x
Interviews (local and regional)
x
x
x
x
Analysis and initial report draft
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Draft report submitted (5/18)
x
Draft report conference/discussion
(5/25)
x
Final report and presentation (6/15)
x
x
Team Members and Roles
We are a well seasoned team. Melanie Rees of Rees Consulting has been a housing
consultant for almost 30 years and has been working with Wendy Sullivan of WSW
Consulting since 2001. Christine Walker has been producing and managing
affordable housing for over ten years, has been our client during much of that time
and a co -consultant since starting her own business last year.
Together, we have completed numerous city, county -wide and regional housing
needs assessments in urban, rural and resort areas throughout the west. Melanie
completed some of the first housing needs assessments in Colorado back in 1990.
Since then Melanie and Wendy have continued to work with many communities
over the years as their needs have changed. We are proud of our ability to serve so
many repeat clients and to adapt to their changing needs over the years. We
customize our work to meet each community's specific needs and goals, while also
recognizing and addressing the unique constraints within each community. We
have worked together so frequently that, from our client's perspectives, we function
as one firm.
WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Town of Fraser Attainable Housing Study Proposal - Jan. 25, 2016
Resumes are included as an appendix to this proposal. Our contact information is as
follows:
Wendy Sullivan
Christine Walker
Melanie Rees
Project Manager
Research Associate
Research Associate
WSW Consulting
Navigate, LLC
Rees Consulting, Inc.
155 Allyn Ave
152 E. Gill
PO Box 3845
San Anselmo, CA 94960
Jackson Hole, WY 83001
Crested Butte, CO 81224
(303) 579-6702
(307) 690-4487
(970) 349-9845
wendy@wswconsult.com
christine@navigatejh.com
melanie@reesconsultinginc.com
Wendy Sullivan, principal of WSW Consulting, is a housing planner and attorney,
licensed in Colorado and California, specializing in affordable housing market
research and strategy. She has near 15 years of community planning experience as
a planner, analyst and attorney in the public and private sector. Wendy has
conducted and managed housing needs assessments, market studies and housing
policy development for over 40 communities and counties, with particular focus on
mountain resort communities. She is adept at primary research and interpretation,
including survey administration and other community outreach methods, as well as
secondary data research. Prior to starting her own business, she worked as a
county planner for Blaine County, Idaho (home of Sun Valley ski resort), a senior
housing analyst for RRC Associates, Inc. and as a contract attorney in municipal and
affordable housing law. Wendy has a Bachelor's degree in computer science and
math, a Master's in Regional Planning and a J.D. from the University of Colorado in
Boulder. Wendy will be Project Manager.
Christine Walker (Navigate, LLC) is a consultant based in Jackson, WY. Christine
brings hands-on experience to addressing workforce housing needs. As the former
Executive Director of the Teton County Housing Authority (TCHA) in Wyoming,
Christine facilitated the development of and managed hundreds of homes for the
Jackson Hole workforce. She understands the nuances of public policy and housing
programs, how to structure programs and management to maintain affordability
and quality of units over time and how to Navigate various program, funding and
partnership opportunities to meet your housing needs. Christine will serve as a
research associate for this study.
Melanie Rees is a consultant based in Crested Butte with a long-established
consulting practice that is exclusively devoted to housing. She started her own
business over 25 years ago. Rees Consulting's main products are housing needs
assessments, market studies for mixed -income developments and strategic/action
plans for community housing. Her primary focus is housing in high-cost areas,
particularly mountain resort communities. She previously worked in economic
development for the State of Colorado and in community development for the City
of Flagstaff. Melanie will serve as a research associate for this study.
WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Town of Fraser Attainable Housing Study Proposal - Jan. 25, 2016
Experience
We have worked often in Grand County in the past and for the town of Winter Park
most recently (2015). We have the historical perspective that is so valuable when
analyzing current conditions and projecting future needs. Melanie Rees was a
member of the consultant team on the housing needs assessments conducted in
1996 and 2001. Rees Consulting was the lead contractor on the 2007 Housing
Needs Assessment. In addition, Rees Consulting has prepared project -specific
market studies for several apartment and ownership projects in Winter Park, Fraser
and Tabernash, preforming work for the Grand County Housing Authority, the Town
of Winter Park and private developers.
The following is a list of some of the additional locations where we have completed
housing needs assessments. We have worked for most of these clients more than
once and in some cases have had the opportunity to help communities understand
their changing housing needs over a span of two decades.
City of Aspen/Pitkin County
Adams County
Town of Basalt
Blaine County, ID
Boulder County & Broomfield
City of Boulder
Town of Breckenridge
Central Oregon Region
Clear Creek County
Eagle County/Vail
Town of Estes Park
Garfield County/Glenwood Springs
Gunnison County & towns
City of Lafayette
City of Louisville
City of Longmont
Mammoth Lakes, CA
Mono & Inyo Counties, CA
Ouray County & towns
Routt County, Steamboat Springs
San Miguel County/Telluride
SE Colorado Region
Summit County
Teton Co, WY
Upper Arkansas Region
Valley & Adams Counties, ID
WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. 10
Town of Fraser Attainable Housing Study Proposal - Jan. 25, 2016
Appendix —Team Information and Resumes
WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Town of Fraser Attainable Housing Study Proposal - Jan. 25, 2016
Wendy Sullivan
Wendy possesses a diverse background in public and private planning and analysis. She is adept
at practical applications of research techniques, including survey and qualitative research, to
solve community planning and policy issues. She has consulted for land, housing, and
transportation planning projects and is adept at providing the numbers by which community
goals, policies, and strategies are formed. Housing needs assessments are particular areas of
specialization. Wendy has also helped draft strategic plans, zoning ordinances and related
regulations for communities of various sizes.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Principal
WSW Consulting
Present
San Anselmo, California
Attorney and planning research consultant, with a focus on housing needs assessments and
housing policy.
Senior Analyst March 2001— May 2007
RRC Associates, Inc. (Market research and planning firm) Boulder, Colorado
Strategic consulting in land, housing and transportation planning.
County Planner
Planning and Zoning Department, Blaine County
Graduate Research and Teaching Assistant
Washington State University
Professional Research Assistant
Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences
March 1998 — October 2000
Hailey, Idaho
September 1995 — December 1997
Pullman, Washington
September 1992 — November 1994
REPRESENTATIVE PLANNING STUDIES AND HOUSING ASSESSMENTS
Eagle County and Town of Vail, CO
Town of Snowmass Village, CO
Pitkin and Garfield County, CO
Summit County, Town of Breckenridge, CO
Town of Telluride, CO
Routt County and Steamboat Springs, CO
Teller County, City of Woodland Park, CO
Boulder, Lafayette, & Broomfield, CO
EDUCATION
Juris Doctor, May 2010
University of Colorado Law School, Boulder, Colorado
Master of Regional Planning, December 1997
Washington State University, Pullman, Washington
Boulder, Colorado
Jefferson County and Cities of Arvada and
Wheat Ridge, CO
Town of Winter Park, CO
Bridgeport, CT
Blaine County, ID
Town of Mammoth Lakes, CA
Inyo and Mono Counties, CA
City of Santa Fe, NM
Teton County and Jackson, WY
Bachelor of Science Computer Science, minor Mathematics, cum laude, May 1992
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado
NAVIGATE, Ilc
W604 �:z�l�:c�l�b�►[e�Y�Il�jrc�L[►+
Christine Walker, Principal
307.690.4487
Christine@NavigateJH.com
NavigateJH.com
Background:
Christine is principle of Navigate, LLC a real estate development consulting firm that
specializes in workforce housing strategies. Current projects include advising
developers in Jackson Hole on methods to fund workforce housing projects, consulting
with businesses on employee housing options specific to their needs, and guiding local
government officials on solutions for their workforce housing initiatives.
For almost a decade, Christine Walker acted as the Executive Director of the Teton County
Housing Authority (TCHA) where she facilitated the development of hundreds of homes for
working members of the Jackson Hole community. With Christine's leadership, Teton County,
Wyoming strategically addressed its workforce housing goals through a multifaceted
approach, helping to maintain a strong, healthy and vibrant community.
Relevant Professional Experience:
Affordable Housing Development: Christine has developed three workforce housing
projects from concept to completion in the challenging development environment of
Jackson Hole, Wyoming. All three involved complex land negotiations, layers of funding
sources, thoughtful designs to respect adjacent neighborhoods, and careful
maneuvering of the entitlement process.
Application of Housing Development Regulations: With her extensive understanding of
both local Land Development Regulations, Christine worked with developers to meet
their housing requirements efficiently and within their constraints. By demonstrating the
value to local developers in Teton County, Christine acquired nearly 250 restricted
housing units, fulfilling the goals of both the community and the developer.
Education and Experience:
Bachelor of Science, Environmental Design
University of Colorado, 1989
Wyoming Real Estate Broker
2003 - Present
Constant Care Family Management Advisory Board
2015 - Present
Teton County Planning Commission
2002-2004
NavigateJH.com
215 N. Gill Street, Jackson, WY 83001
307.690.4487 Christine@NavigateJH.com
Town of Fraser Attainable Housi
Melanie Rees
Principal, 1991 - Present
Rees Consulting, Inc.
Over the past 20 years, Melanie Rees has become an industry leader
in housing market analysis with clients that include private and non-
profit developers, public housing authorities, lenders and local
governments. Her focus is on high-cost areas throughout the
mountain west, amenity towns and cities, downtowns and energy -
impacted areas. The firm's services generally fall within three
categories:
Housing Needs Assessm en ts
sal - Jan. 25, 2016
Ownership & rental market analysis
Demographic & economic framework
Historic trending
Special needs populations
Demand forecasting
Resource identification
Gap analysis
Program evaluation
Land/site evaluation
Buyer & renter preferences
Market Studies
LIHTC properties
Transit -oriented development
Sustainable/green building
Senior independent living
Strategic Planning and Program Development
Action/work plans
Housing elements for comp plans
Impact studies
Nexus analysis
Entry-level homeownership
Mixed -income multifamily
Mixed use
Acquisition/rehab
Mitigation requirements
Inclusionary housing programs
Administrative guidelines
Deed restrictions
Rees Consulting is an approved market analyst for programs administered by the Colorado Housing
and Finance Authority and the Colorado Division of Housing.
Other Professional Experience
Economic Development Officer, 1984 - 1989
Colorado Office of Economic Development
Community Development/ Grants Administrator, 1981 - 1984
City of Flagstaff
Federal Grants Specialist/Client Representative, 1979 - 1981
International Systems, Inc.
Education
Master of Business Administration
University of Colorado at Denver, 1991
Bachelor of Arts, Economics & Political Science
Georgia State University, 1979
TOWN OF FRASER - CHALLENGES FACING HOUSING
Water and Sewer Tap Fee Analysis of 14 Colorado Mountain Town Communities
Affordability And Tap Fees
Town
Median
Household
Income
Rank Hi
to Low
Median Real
Estate Value
Rank Hi
to Low
Water Tap
Fees
Rank Hi
to Low
Sewer Tap
Fees
Rank Hi
to Low
Total
Water/Sewer
Tap Fees
Rank Hi
to Low
Tap Fees as
a % of Med
HH]
Rank Hi to
Low
Tap Fees as
a % of Med
R/E Val
Rank HI to
Low
Fraser
$47,000
13
$250,000
10
$7,500
4
$7,500
5
$15,000
4
31.9%
3
6.0%
3
Granby
$60,000
6
$205,000
13
$6,310
11
$8,500
4
$14,810
6
24.7%
6
7.2%
1
Kremmling
$45,000
14
$205,000
14
$6,700
8
$5,000
9
$11,700
10
26.0%
5
5.7%
4
Winter Park
$65,000
5
$360,000
8
$11,550
1
$11,550
2
$23,100
1
35.5%
1
6.4%
2
Grand County
9.5
11.25
6.0
5.0
5.3
3.75
2.5
Glenwood Slogs
$57,000
7
$405,000
7
$7,165
6
$4,179
11
$11,344
11
19.9%
9
2.8%
12
Carbondale
$67,000
3
$475,000
3
$6,450
9
$4,420
10
$10,870
12
16.2%
12
2.3%
14
Rifle
$53,000
11
$255,000
9
$6,193
12
$6,382
7
$12,575
8
23.7%
7
4.9%
5
Garfield County
7.0
6.3
9.0
9.3
10.3
9.3
1
10.3
Steamboat Spgs
$65,000
4
$500,000
2
$7,697
3
$4,150
12
$11,847
9
18.2%
11
2.37%
13
Craig
$52,000
12
$235,000
11
$4,290
14
$2,390
14
$6,680
14
12.8%
14
2.84%
10
Hayden
$55,000
10
$220,000
12
$4,800
13
$2,400
13
$7,200
13
13.1%
13
3.27%
8
Moffat and Routt Counties
8.7
8.3
12
12.7
10.3333333
Breckenridge
$55,000
9
$450,000
5
$6,366
10
$11,584
1
$17,950
2
32.6%
2
3.99%
7
Eagle
$75,000
1
$410,000
6
$7,000
7
$10,000
3
$17,000
3
22.7%
8
4.15%
6
Silverthorne
$68,000
2
$460,000
4
$7,200
5
$5,800
8
$13,000
7
19.1% 1
10
1 2.83%
11
Dillon
$56,000
8
$521,000
1
$8,438
2
$6,528
6
$14,966
5
26.7%
4
2.9%
9
Eagle and Summit Counties
5.0
4.0
6.0
4.5
4.3
4.8
8.3
*Median value includes all homes in the community
Summary:
1. Fraser's Median Household Income is next to last of the 14 communities evaluated
2. Fraser's Median Real Estate Value came in 10th ranking one of the lowest
3. Fraser's Water & Sewer Tap Fee is the 4th highest out of the 14 communities evaluated
4. Fraser's Water & Sewer Tap Fee is the 3rd most costly when compared to Median Household Income of the community
5. Fraser's Water & Sewer Tap Fee is the 3rd most costly when compared to Median Real Estate Values of the community
** Note - Breckenridge (location based), Steamboat Springs, & Carbondale (fixture based) have variable water & sewer rates
Tap Fees Page 1 of 4
TOWN OF FRASER - CHALLENGES FACING HOUSING
Water and Sewer Service Fees of 14 Colorado Mountain Communities
Town
Base Fee
Service Fees on a MONTHLY basis
Water Sewer
Monthly Usage Charge per 1000 Base Fee Usage Charge
Total Base
Fee
Base Fee Rank
Hi to Low
Consumption
at 6K gallons
Total w/
Consumption
Fraser
$51.00
$1.50 per 1000
$45.83
$96.83
1
$9.00
$105.83
Granby
$44.92
None indicated
$48.72
$93.64
2
$93.64
Kremmlin
$48.00
>6,000 gallons, $1.80 per 1000
$39.00
$87.00
3
$87.00
Winter Park
$33.50
$3/1000 gallons > 4000 gallons
$36.00
$69.50
6
$6.001
75.50
Grand County
$44.35
$42.39
$86.74
$3.75
$90.49
Glenwood Sp s
$23.33
$1.70 per 1000
$46.33
$69.67
5
$10.20
$79.87
Carbondale
$3.76
$3.84 per 1000
$5.03 $6.00 per 1000
$8.79
14
$23.04
$31.83
Rifle
$25.20
Undisclosed
$40.71
$65.91
8
$65.91
Garfield County
$17.43
$30.69
$48.12
$11.08
$59.20
Steamboat Sp s
$21.84
$2.30 1000-4000; $3.45 5000-12000
$42.57
$64.41
11
$20.70
$85.11
Craig
$28.50
$2.90 per 1000
$28.00 $2.90 per 1000
$56.50
12
$34.80
$91.30
Hayden
$37.58
$3.61 6000-12000; $4.11 >12000
$30.75
$68.33
7
$3.61
$71.94
Moffat and Routt Counties
$29.31
$33.77
$63.08
$19.70
$82.78
Breckenridge
$38.45
$5.25 per 1000 above 10000 gallons
$26.00
$64.45
10
$0.00
$64.45
Eagle
$29.10
$5.45 6001-28000 gallons
$44.00
$73.10
4
$0.00
$73.10
Silverthorne
1 $13.62
$1.35 for 0-15000 gallons calculated quarterly
$31.32 1
$44.94
13
$8.10
$53.04
Dillon
$23.30
$5.50 0-6,000 gallons; $6.55 6000-10000; $8.05 > 10000
$41.20
$64.50
9
$33.00
$97.50
Eagle and Summit Counties
$26.121
$35.631
$61.75
$10.28
$72.02
Summary:
1. Fraser has the highest TOTAL Base Fee of all 14 communities evaluated
2. Fraser has the highest Base WATER fee of all 14 communities evaluated
3. Fraser has the 3rd highest Base SEWER fee of all 14 communities evaluated
4. Fraser has the highest Total Fee when assuming consumption of 6,000 gallons of water per month
Water & Sanitation Mill Levies
W&S Mill
City Levies
Fraser
0
0
2.273
7.04
13.951
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 0
Granby
Kremling
Winter Park Ski Area
WP - Grand County One
Glenwood Spgs
Carbondale
Rifle
Garfield County
Steamboat Spgs
Craig
Hayden
Moffat and Routt Counties
Breckenridge
Eagle
Silverthorne
Dillon
Eagle and Summit Counties
Service Fees Page 2 of 4
Town of Fraser
Graduated Tap Fee Analysis
Livable
Square
Water % of
Sewer % of
Footage
Tap Fee Current
Tap Fee Current
< 1,000 s.f.
$3,500
$2,500
1000
< 1,500 s.f.
$5,250
$3,750
1500
< 2,000 s.f.
$5,750
$4,250
2000
< 2,500 s.f.
$6,250
$4,750
2500
< 3,000 s.f.
$6,750
$5,250
3000
< 3,500 s.f.
$7,250
$5,750
3500
< 4,000 s.f.
$7,750
$6,250
4000
< 4,500 s.f.
$8,250
$6,750
4500
< 5,000 s.f.
$8,750
$7,250
5000
< 5,500 s.f.
$9,250
$7,750
5500
> 5,500 s.f.
$1 per s.f. for each s.f.
over 5,500 for each fee plus <5,500 s.f. tap fees
For Example: A 10,000 s.f. home's tap would would total $26,000 (9,250+7,750+4,500+4,500)
** Note - Breckenridge (location based), Steamboat Springs, & Carbondale (fixture based) have variable water & sewer rates
Town of Fraser
Water Rates and Tap Fee History
* With usage charge of $1.50 per thousand gallons
Water
Water
Sewer
Sewer
Fraser Firming
Year
Rates
% Chnge
Tap
Fee
Rates
%Chnge
Tap Fee Fee
1999
$
2,000
$ 4,000
2000
$
2,000
$ 4,000
2001
$
46.05
-
$
6,000
$
51.00
-
$ 4,000
2002
$
58.80
28%
$
6,000
$
52.00
2%
$ 4,000
2003
$
61.50
5%
$
6,000
$
52.50
1 %
$ 4,500
2004
$
75.00
22%
$
6,000
$
78.00
49%
$ 6,500
2005
$
80.50
7%
$
6,500
$
78.00
-
$ 6,500
2006
$
90.00
12%
$
6,700
$
78.00
-
$ 6,500
2007
$
99.00
10%
$
6,900
$
78.00
-
$ 6,500
2008
$
110.00
11%
$
7,500
$
90.00
15%
$ 7,300
2009
$
115.00
5%
$
7,700
$
105.00
17%
$ 7,500
2010
$
119.00
3%
$
7,700
$
121.00
15%
$ 7,500
2011
$
115.00
-3%
$
7,700
$
129.00
7%
$ 7,500
2012
$
115.00
-
$
7,700
$
129.00
-
$ 7,500
2013
$
125.50
9%
$
7,700
$
131.00
2%
$ 7,500
2014
$
135.50
8%
$
7,700
$
141.00
8%
$ 7,500 $ 14.12
2015
$
145.50
7%
$
7,700
$
131.00
-7%
$ 7,500
* With usage charge of $1.50 per thousand gallons
Fraser Fee Analysis 1-26-16.xlsx and Graduated Fee Concept
Hi Fraser Staff and Board,
Attached, please find the spreadsheet with the fee schedule I passed out at last week's meeting. PLEASE
NOTE: Susan called each town and double checked this information and there were some minor
corrections and the Kremmling information was also obtained. The changes did not change the analysis
results.
Additionally, a sheet is included that has a graduated tap fee concept for your consideration and
discussion. This concept would encourage development of smaller less expensive homes by reducing
the tap fees only. Service fees would stay the SAME. We also included a sheet with the historical tap
fee structure since 1999 that was prepared by Town staff for ease of reference.
We have also been working on rental housing concepts. The Town Code as currently written is a major
impediment to development of rental housing. As an example, a 700 s.f. 1 bedroom, 1 bath apartment
is required to pay the same tap fees as a 10,000 s.f. home in Rendezvous. We consider apartments
commercial projects and believe the commercial rate could apply per building or alternatively the
graduated tap fee concept with a further adjustment downward for a rental property might be a good
approach to encouraging this sort of development.
One last concept for consideration, we have heard concerns this fee structure would devastate the
Town financially and result in less money being raised through the tap and service fees. We think basic
economics do not support that notion and demand for affordably priced product whether it be for sale
or rent exists to cause the attached concepts to yield more revenues to the town through both tap fees
and service fees. In order to prove this to the Town, Byers Peak Properties is prepared to guarantee the
combined water and sewer tap fee and service fee revenues for the Town will meet the three year's
average of water and sewer tap fees and service fees collected by Fraser for the years 2013-2015 in
exchange for providing these same services at the same rates as Fraser properties to Byers Peak
Properties development which will be developed in the county. In the event we are wrong, Byers Peak
Properties will make up the difference by purchasing additional water and sewer taps at the end of each
year for the next five years. At which point, if it was not working as planned the Town could revisit its
tap fee structure and adjust it accordingly.
I appreciate your continued discussions and consideration of the ideas and studies we have been
preparing regarding ways to encourage the private sector to address the housing needs of the Upper
Fraser Valley. We think the Town of Fraser can be the leader in this regard and look forward to
continuing our working relationship on this front.
January 26, 2016
Mr. Jeff Durbin, Manager
Town of Fraser
153 Fraser Avenue
Fraser CO 80442-0370
EHLERS
LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE
Re: Ehlers Proposal to Provide Water and Wastewater Utility Advisory Services to the
Town of Fraser - DRAFT
Dear Mr. Durbin:
On behalf of Ehlers, we are pleased to present this proposal to provide water and wastewater
utility advisory services to the Town of Fraser. We understand that utility rates, fees and
charges ("fees", for short) have arisen as a topic of Town interest, in the context of the Town's
business climate, equity in the application of such fees, as well as a fundamental fiscal question
of whether fees are structured to provide revenues adequate to fund operations and anticipated
capital investments, and to maintain appropriate reserves in each utility fund going forward.
We understand that the Town has periodically reviewed and updated its utility fees, including in
2015. As a result, Ehlers' engagement would most likely begin with a review of utility financials
and projections, and the key underlying assumptions — including the Town's anticipated utility
capital investment requirements over the next 5 years. Ehlers also proposes to undertake a
comprehensive analysis of the utility fees assessed by comparable communities within the
region to provide context with respect to the question of whether the current fee structure is
compatible with the business climate the Town wishes to foster.
Finally, with this background analysis, Ehlers will identify and evaluate utility fee structure
alternatives, potentially including a tiered approach, that we believe will position the Town to
achieve its financial and policy objectives for the water and wastewater utility enterprises. Note
that our objective in this area is to help the Town consider and implement realistic, incremental
changes from the existing fee model, versus a wholesale restructuring of the current system.
Ehlers conducts dozens of utility rate studies for municipalities, including many with seasonal
and/or other unique usage characteristics, each year, and has developed a robust process for
collecting and reviewing historical and forecast data, building client -specific utility rate and fund
cashflow models, and building rate structure alternatives to meet the client's present and future
needs in funding operating costs, capital infrastructure, and/or other priorities.
Fee Proposal
At Ehlers, we want our clients to feel that they receive more in value from our work than we
receive in compensation, and we are always striving to find ways to keep overall advisory
expenses down. For these utility rate engagements, because we do not yet know the full scope
or intensity of our involvement with the Town, we cannot provide a precise fee estimate, and
therefore propose to at least begin our work on an hourly fee basis. We estimate the total
advisory fee for the work described above will be $12,500-$17,500.
Our standard hourly fee schedule is as follows:
Ehlers Proposal to the Town of Fraser, Colorado - DRAFT
January 26, 2016
Page 2
Senior Municipal Advisor $230 / hour
Municipal Advisor and $215 / hour
Senior Financial Specialist
Bruce Kimmel will invoice and document his time at Ehlers' senior municipal advisor rate, while
Paul Wisor and Elizabeth Diaz will bill at the municipal advisor / senior financial specialist rate.
Consulting time is billed in 15 -minute increments and we do not charge clients for mileage,
meals, or other incidental business expenses except for messenger and overnight services.
Bruce Kimmel may charge the Town for a portion of his airfare and other documented travel
expenses, depending on cost proration with other clients in the region (i.e. due to work /
meetings on the same trip) and subject to the Town's express consent.
Ehlers Team Background and Experience
Finally, we have extensive information that we would be happy to share with the Town on the
advisors that we propose for Ehlers' Fraser team, as well as relevant project experience, client
references, and our overall economic development and utility rate advisory service offerings.
Rather than present that background information here, please let us know what material would
be useful in your consideration of this proposal and we will provide it to you promptly.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this proposal to the Town of Fraser. We would be
honored to advise the Town and look forward to continuing our conversation with you.
Respectfully submitted,
Bruce Kimmel
Senior Municipal Advisor/Vice President
Paul Wisor
Municipal Advisor
1981
1,2.57
Water, W'a5te ate,
1982
1,320
Average uM
GP Flan 2 - modified 51 per sf after 1,500 sf
1983
1,075
size (F)
S;
Fee
Fee
1984
1,332
Water
Sewer
1985
1,087
Less than
1,000
3,500
2,50°0
1986
1,2.56
[gip to
1,500
5,250
3,7.50
1967
2,334
_994
1,216
2,0.54
Greaterthan
1,500
5,250
3,750
_992
1,584
add perf
1
1
1993
.5977 2,092
1994
:2,213
1995
5,149 1,832
Water
Fee
Sewer Fee
Water Total Paid
i, ante rater Tc)taI Paid
1996
11216
1,943
Actual
GP Fee
Actual
GP Fee
Actual
PaidGPPlan
ActuaI
PaidGPPlan
1997
1,7.5.5
Avg Knit
Avg Unit
1998
1,280
1,663
1999
1,216
1,727
2,0+0
4,000
2000
1,612
2,0OG
4,000
2001
7,691 1,533
6,444
4,000
2042
1,81.5
6,000
4,000
2003
2,095
6:000
4,500
2004
1,932
6,000
6,500
244.5
2,143
6,5CC
6,393
6,30,E
4,143
312,000
282,863
312,444
210,963
2446
2,243
6,700
6,493
6,500
4,243
502,500
443,762
487,500
335,262
2447
1,726
6,900
5,976
6,544
3,726
4891,9,00
388,811
461,500
283,811
2008
2,6.59
7,.544
6,949
7,300
4,6.59
60,000
.53,743
58,444
41,243
2449
2,987
7,744
7,237
7,500
4,987
15,444
13,473
15,0()4
10,473
2011
2,003
7,70D
6,253
7,500
4,003
53,940
40,272
.52,500
29,772
2012
2,422
7,100
6,672
7,.500
4,422
46, 240
37,029
45,, 444
26,029
2413
2,574
7,700
6,824
7,500
4,574
107,800
88,.533
105,000
67,533
2014
2,841
Since 2005
7,70E
7,491
7,500
4,841
107,800
1,695,500
92,274
1,440,760
105,000
1,641,900
71,274
1,073,260
Since 2009
38,5+00
34,076
37,5 0
22,826
331,100
271,582
322,SW
207,082
.89`.
61`
92`,
64`
MEMO TO: Mayor Smith and the Board of Trustees
FROM: Catherine E. Trotter, AICP, Town Planner
DATE: January 28, 2016
SUBJECT: Request for Proposals (RFP)
MATTER BEFORE BOARD:
The Fraser Town Board budgeted funds in 2016 to hire a Planning Consulting Firm to help us
update our Comprehensive Plan with a "downtown specific" focus. We anticipate the plan will
highlight a vision for redevelopment and revitalization for downtown Fraser, encouraging infill
and mixed use opportunities. We have prepared a draft RFP for your review.
ACTION REQUESTED/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
No action, discussion only. We are looking for your feedback on the draft RFP.
BACKGROUND:
The Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Fraser was last updated in 2010. To review the
document click here:
http://www.frasercolorado.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=524
During the budget hearings, we discussed combining a comprehensive plan update with a
downtown specific focus that integrates downtown revitalization.
RECOMMENDATION:
None. Looking for the Town Board's feedback on the RFP.
Please contact me with questions/concerns. ctrotter(o)town.fraser.co.us
Town of Fraser
PO Box 370, Fraser, CO 80442 office 970-726-5491 fax 970-726-5518
www.frasercolorado.com
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
February 2016
PURPOSE:
The Town of Fraser is seeking competitive proposals from qualified consultants or firms
interested in carrying out a Comprehensive Plan Update with a "downtown specific"
focus. Help us identify and prioritize our vision for redevelopment and revitalization for the
Town of Fraser so we can be recognized as a place of opportunity. The Town desires to
strengthen its identity and grow downtown Fraser into a vibrant and exciting business district,
improve consumer and investor confidence and encourage commercial activity and investment
in the Town.
BACKGROUND:
Fraser is a small mountain community centrally located within the Fraser Valley in Grand
County, approximately 70 miles northwest of Denver. The Town of Fraser encompasses
approximately 2,300 acres and is home to 1,200 year-round residents with huge seasonal
population increases as a result of second home owners and transient workers employed in the
tourism industry.
The physical setting of Fraser is divided by the railroad, the Fraser River and US Highway 40.
Berthoud Pass serves as the gateway into the Fraser Valley from the Front Range. The Town
of Winter Park and the Winter Park Ski Resort are close neighbors and partners with the Town
of Fraser.
Grand County is a popular tourist and outdoor destination for visitors of all ages. Grand County
boosts over 600 miles of hiking and biking trails throughout 1,869 square miles and is home to
almost 15,000 residents. Grand County is overflowing with natural beauty and adventure,
including Colorado's largest natural lake, Grand Lake, headwaters of the Colorado River and
Rocky Mountain National Park.
Fraser is at an elevation of 8,550 feet and was established in the early 1900's in anticipation of
the arrival of the Moffat Tunnel. History tells fascinating tales of the struggle to move people
and materials over the Continental Divide. Much of the character of Fraser comes from its
strong-willed, independent, pioneering history! Fraser provides services, amenities and homes
to the region's full-time residents, including the East Grand Fire Protection District, Fraser Valley
Elementary School, Fraser Valley Library, Community Recreation Center and satellite EMS
facility.
Town of Fraser
PO Box 370, Fraser, CO 80442 office 970-726-5491 fax 970-726-5518
www.frasercolorado.com
Many people have relocated to Fraser for the recreational amenities that surround the Town, the
quiet mountain beauty, proximity to Denver, and the relaxed, friendly and safe community
atmosphere. Open space and recreation are important quality of life features.
Fraser has experienced many changes since the 2010 Comprehensive Plan was adopted and
will continue to change. As Bob Dylan so poignantly sang, "the times they are a-changin'."
On November 3, 2015, Fraser voters approved an additional sales tax of 1 % which will provide
revenues for public -transit, public multi -modal transportation improvements, public trails and
capital projects.
Recently, the Town of Fraser has partnered with the Town of Winter Park and the Chamber of
Commerce to develop a strategic economic development plan to identify actionable near term
opportunities for collaboration between the entities with the goal of improving our local
economy.
Soaring homes prices, a shift toward weekend vacation rentals and lots of undevelopable public
land have created a housing crisis in Fraser, like many other rural -resort communities. We are
trying to establish housing strategies and working force housing policies that will help provide
opportunities for local employees to live in Town and help support the local Town character,
sense of community and economy.
Fraser is also working on a communitywide strategy to increase its sustainability and the
development of a community and county wide strategy on Municipal Solid Waste diversion
aimed at reducing the volume of materials headed to landfills.
Our challenge is maintaining this small town and rural character, ensuring its sustainability and
accommodating smart growth, economic vitality and fiscal stability.
PROJECT BUDGET:
The project budget has not been established. Interested consultants should provide a scope of
work and a practical budget for undertaking this project. The consultant should identify ways
that the community might use local resources to help minimize the expenses associated with
project tasks. Town Staff, in-house GIS consultant, Planning Commissioners and a citizen task
force of volunteers can also assist the consultant.
PROJECT VISION & GOALS:
The qualified consultant or firm would be retained to lead the community in the preparation and
adoption of an update to the Comprehensive Plan with a downtown specific focus. The Town
seeks a consultant that will guide the creation of a community vision, growth and development
policies and implementation strategies. The final document shall provide framework and
guidance for future planning and development decisions that, through public investment, private
investment and public and private partnerships, will help to shape a truly exceptional downtown
Fraser. The consultant must be skilled in helping our community agree on a vision for the
redevelopment and revitalization of Fraser and the means to achieve it!
Town of Fraser
PO Box 370, Fraser, CO 80442 office 970-726-5491 fax 970-726-5518
www.frasercolorado.com
SCOPE OF WORK:
1. Project Initiation — kick off meeting and scope refinement
2. Analyze, understand and review existing documents, plans, etc.
3. Community Engagement and Outreach — Public process (stakeholder interviews, public
workshops, open houses, etc.). Please propose new and creative ways to engage our
community!
4. Goal Setting and Visioning
5. Downtown Plan — to include the following at a minimum:
Design standards for new construction in business district
Streetscape & incorporation of public art
Public spaces & gathering places
Circulation and parking analysis and plan for all modes of transportation
Fraser River opportunities
Train depot opportunities
Mitigate challenges of State highway and railroad bisecting the town
Way finding signage
Assessment of Town -owned properties
6. Overall management of the Comprehensive Plan process and preparation of all draft
and final plan documents to include:
Statement of community values
Land use and development
3 mile plan
Parks, open space and recreation
Transportation
Infrastructure
Public safety
Housing and affordability
Economic development
Sustainability
Hazard Mitigation
Implementation framework
Downtown plan (see below)
DELIVERABLE PRODUCTS:
The consultant should provide 20 copies of the final Comprehensive Plan. All data and
information that has been collected through the process shall be provided in digital and hard
copies. All documents must be available in electronic format, text in MS Word and Adobe PDF.
Town of Fraser
PO Box 370, Fraser, CO 80442 office 970-726-5491 fax 970-726-5518
www.frasercolorado.com
In addition, the Consultant shall deliver a presentation on the Comprehensive Plan to the Fraser
Town Board and Planning Commission at a joint meeting.
PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE:
The Town anticipates approximately 12 months for completion of the Comprehensive Plan
project with the following schedule:
1. Release of RFP —
2. Questions due —
3. RFP due —
4. Town may request firm/consultant interviews by
5. Consultant/Firm selection —
6. Refine Scope of Work and project cost with consultant by
7. Consultant contract approved by
8. Project completion by
RESPONSE FORMAT:
All submittals shall provide the following information for consideration:
1. Introductory Letter: The cover letter shall summarize your firm's background,
resources, relevant experience and cost estimate for the total project. Also include the
name, address, phone number, email address of the firm and the primary contact who
will be involved in the execution of the scope of work. Provide a written description of
your firm's intended approach to the project that demonstrates an understanding of the
issues and tasks and the firm's ability to fulfill them.
2. Descriptions of Firm, Management and Team Members: Include descriptions of your
organization and team. Also include a resume for each of the key team members.
3. Description of Subcontractors: Identify any portion of the scope of work that will be
subcontracted. Include firm qualifications and key personnel, telephone number and
contact person for all subcontractors.
4. Experience with Similar Projects: Include a brief description of at least three (3)
previous projects performed that were similar in scope and complexity to this project.
The information should include images or schematics of previous wayfinding design
work. Include reference information for such projects.
5. Budget Proposal: Provide itemized costs for the elements listed in the Scope of Work,
including travel expenses. Also include a fee schedule for supplemental charges for
unforeseen work tasks.
Town of Fraser
PO Box 370, Fraser, CO 80442 office 970-726-5491 fax 970-726-5518
www.frasercolorado.com
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
Submit one (1) original hard copy and an electronic copy of the proposal, along with three (3)
color copies to the Catherine Trotter, Town of Fraser, 153 Fraser Avenue, PO Box 370, Fraser,
Colorado 80442, no later than 5:00 p.m.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
All proposals will be reviewed and evaluated by the Town, based on the following factors:
Understanding of the scope of work to be performed;
Consultant's proposed methods and procedures;
Qualifications of the firm and experience with past projects;
References; and
Budget Proposal.
The Town reserves full discretion to determine the capability of respondents. Respondents will
provide, in a timely manner, any and all information that the Town deems necessary to make
such a decision. The proposals submitted, and any further information acquired will become
and are to be considered, a part of the final, completed contract. The Town reserves the right to
retain all proposals submitted and use any idea or concepts in a proposal regardless of whether
that proposal is selected. The Town may elect not to pursue any of the proposals.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Any questions regarding this Request for Proposal should be directed to Catherine Trotter,
Town Planner at 970-726-5491 x209 or ctrotter(a)town.fraser.co.us no later than five (5)
business days prior to the deadline.
Town of Fraser
PO Box 370, Fraser, CO 80442 office 970-726-5491 fax 970-726-5518
www.frasercolorado.com
Department of Public
Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado
November 12, 2015
Jeffrey Durbin
Town of Fraser
PO Box 370
Fraser, CO 80442
Dear Mr. Durbin:
Congratulations! We are pleased to inform you that your Recycling Resources Economic
Opportunity (RREO) grant application titled Grand County Public Outreach and Strategic
Planning was recommended for approval by the Pollution Prevention Advisory Board. The
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment hereby awards you $31,815 to
implement your proposed project. We are confident that your outstanding project will help
achieve the goals of the RREO grant program by establishing partnerships and coordinating
waste diversion programs in your region of Colorado.
The department administers the RREO grant program and I will work with you in the coming
weeks to develop a contract document. The contract will outline the terms and conditions of
the grant and must be reviewed by your Financial Officer or other authorized official. The
effective start date of the contract will be the date the State Controller signs the contract
and we expect this to occur in mid-December 2015. Please note that any work done or
purchases made prior to receiving notice of a fully executed contract will not be reimbursed.
I will be in touch soon to discuss your proposed project work plan. We may have several email
exchanges in the coming weeks as we negotiate the language in the work plan. If you have
any questions, please contact me at 303-691-4955.
Again, congratulations on your award. We look forward to working with you on this exciting
project!
Sincerely,
Eric Heyboer
Recycling Grant Program Administrator
4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe
John W. Hickenlooper, Governor I Larry Wolk, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer
STATEMENT OF WORK
I. Entity Name: Town of Fraser, Colorado
II. Project Description:
This project serves to study Grand County's existing waste diversion activities, suggest ways to coordinate those
activities to maximize economic efficiencies, and establish goals that will guide future efforts to minimize the
amount of waste sent to the landfill. Specifically this study will include a waste audit, multiple community forums,
and a regional survey.
III. Work Plan:
Goal: To optimize waste reduction and diversion efforts in Grand County.
Objective: No later than the expiration date of this contract, the Contractor shall assess current conditions and gather
information to determine how best to improve resource recovery programs in Grand County.
Primary Activity #1
No Iater than February 8, 2016, the Contractor shall sub -contract a consulting firm who will
conduct an overall inventory assessment of solid waste infrastructure in Grand County and
summarize options for future materials management infrastructure and policy.
Primary Activity #2
No later than March 30, 2016, the Contractor shall invite community input on how best to
optimize waste reduction and diversion efforts in Grand County.
Sub -Activities
1. No later than March 18, 2016, the Contractor shall conduct both a mailed and internet-
based survey to identify existing attitudes and behaviors about recycling and will gather
opinions on how to improve waste reduction programs in Grand County.
2. No later than March 25, 2016, the Contractor shall purchase and distribute reusable bags
as a reward for mail -in survey participants and as an incentive to increase public forum
attendance.
3. Between March 1 and March 31, 2016, the Contractor shall hold no less than three Task
Force/public forums.
4. No later than March 31, 2016, the Contractor shall form a Waste Diversion Task Force
composed of key stakeholders to assist with public outreach and support on-going
implementation of this study.
5. Between September 1 and September 30, 2016, the Contractor shall hold no less than
three Task Force/public forums.
Primary Activity #3
No later than June 24, 2016, the Contractor shall oversee the completion of a
waste audit to confirm the general composition of the solid waste stream.
Sub -Activities
No later than June 24, 2016, the Contractor shall draft a report summarizing the results of
the waste audit.
Primary Activity #4
No later than October 31, 2016, the Contractor shall produce a final report that includes an
inventory and assessment of regional solid waste related infrastructure and feasible options for
future materials management infrastructure and policy.
Town of Fraser
PO Box 370, Fraser, CO 80442 office 970-726-5491 fax 970-726-5518
www.frasercolorado.com
version: Purchase Order Statement of Work
for Services or Services with Goods
I]acember 2015 Page 1 of 6
Sub -Activities 1. No later than September 30, 2016, the Contractor shall draft a final report.
2. By September 30, 2016, the Contractor shall conduct the final task force/public forum
meeting.
3. No later than October 31, 2016, the Contractor shall host a Waste Diversion Task Force
meeting to consider the report's findings and formulate an implementation plan.
Standards and 1. The Contractor shall negotiate a contract with a consultant that conforms to the roles and
Requirements responsibilities shown in this Work Plan.
2. The Contractor shall adhere to the following guidelines when conducting the waste audit:
a. The American Society for Testing and Materials D-5231 standard, the California
Integrated Waste Management Board's Uniform Waste Disposal Characterization
Method, and the U.S Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design Waste Management Policy & Waste Stream Audit
requirements will be used as references when developing the waste audit's
methodology.
b. The Contractor shall coordinate with the Trash Company and Waste Management to
identify no less than five samples of trash representing urban, rural, household, and
business collection routes within the largest geographic area practicable.
c. The Contractor shall conduct the trash audit(s) at the transfer station operated by the
Trash Company. Each trash sample will weigh approximately 200 pounds and will
be segregated into 30 material types.
d. The Contractor shall conduct the recyclables audit on a single day at the Ace
Hardware located in the Town of Granby where the Grand Resource and Recycle
Coalition hosts a weekly recyclables collection event. The Contractor shall
coordinate with Waste Management to ensure the recycling containers used to store
recyclables from previous collection events remain full and are accessible on the day
of the audit. Recyclables from past events and recyclables collected from participants
on the day of the audit must be sorted. No less than 1200 pounds of recyclables will
be segregated into four material types.
3. The Contractor shall use the past study, entitled "Town of Fraser Waste Management
Study" (LBA, May 2015), to create and build upon the list of stakeholders, programs,
policies and infrastructure needs in the study area.
4. The Contractor shall invite the general public, Grand County staff, staff from
municipalities within Grand County, the Fraser Valley Chamber of Commerce, the
Grand Resource and Recycle Coalition, local nonprofits, resort and recreational park
representatives, haulers, recycIers and local businesses in all scheduled public
forums.
5. The Contractor shall hold two public forums in Fraser Valley, two in the Granby
area, and two in the Kremmling area.
6. The Contractor shall survey a maximum of 800 households and businesses within the
Town of Fraser via mail and an internet-based survey tool. Reusable bags will be given
only to those who complete the mail -in survey. The Contractor shall mail surveys to all
addresses listed in the Town of Fraser's utility billing database. The Contractor shall use
the internet-based survey tool only to collect input from residents of Grand County at -
large. At minimum, the Contractor shall post a link to the survey on websites hosted by
the following organizations: Towns of Fraser, Granby, Grand Lake, Winter Park, Hot
Sulphur Springs, and Kremmling, Grand County, and the Grand Resource and Recycle
Coalition. Additionally, the survey will be advertised in the Sky -Hi Daily News. The
survey will gather:
a. Input from homeowners, second homeowners/seasonal residents. and renters.
version: Purchase Order Statement of Work
for Services or Services with Goods P 2 Of b
December 2015 age
version: Purchase Order Statement of Work
fnr services or services with Goods P 3 of 6
December 2015
b. Input from waste generators on what they need, want and will support.
c. Input from elected officials on political limitations and opportunities.
d.Input from property owners and managers on space and contracting limits.
e. Input from industry on equipment and facility infrastructure limits and costs.
7. The Contractor shall have a facilitator present at each public forum to ensure discussions
are targeted to address specific regional strategy components, opportunities for
collaborating on infrastructure and policy changes, and potential partnerships.
8. The Contractor shall receive brief monthly updates via email and bi-weekly updates
via phone from the hired consultant to track progress and identify delays. The
Contractor shall notify CDPHE program staff via email within three business days if
there is an anticipated delay that exceeds a scheduled completion date by more than
two weeks.
9. The final report shall address the following:
a. waste audit analysis that includes a 10 -year horizon for future solid waste generation
and waste diversion potential
b. results from the community survey and forums, including a discussion on all outreach
performed to inform the public
c. analysis of existing infrastructure
d. analysis of future infrastructure and policy needs
e. explanation of the region's collaborative efforts undertaken during the project and
plans for future collaboration among stakeholders
f. summary of the consultant's performance as a sub -contractor
Expected Results of
1. The region will have a thorough understanding of the attitudes, knowledge, and
Activities
capacities of county residents and businesses in relation to recyclables and
compostables.
2. The region will have an inventory of solid waste related infrastructure and a list of
feasible options for future materials management infrastructure and policy.
3. The region will have a sound understanding of the materials in its solid waste
stream.
Measurement of Expected
1. The Contractor shall have compiled the feedback received during the community forums
Results
and from the community survey.
2. The Contractor shall have a list of actionable items to improve regional infrastructure.
3. The Contractor shall have completed a waste audit.
Completion Date
Deliverables
1. The Contractor shall submit via email to CDPHE program staff
Last business day
monthly updates on this project's overall progress toward fulfilling
of the month,
all project activities and sub -activities.
beginning the
month following
the effective date
of the contract
2. The Contractor shall submit via email to CDPHE program staff a
No later than
final report.
October 31, 2016
version: Purchase Order Statement of Work
fnr services or services with Goods P 3 of 6
December 2015
IV. Budget:
Description
Rate Per
Hour
Total
Hours
Award
Amount
Matching/In
Kind Estimate
Total
Amount
Personal Services
Jeffrey Durbin, Town Manager
$50
39
$1,950
$13950
Bektur Sakiev, Assistant Town Manager
$50
91
$4,550
$4,550
Catherine Trotter, Town Planner
$50
30
$1,500
$1,500
Susan Stone, Town Project Manager
$50
22
$1,100
$1,100
Additional Volunteers for the audit
$50
36
$1,800
$1,800
Sub -Total
218
$10,900
$10,900
Supplies/Operating
Waste Audit Equipment and Supplies
$800
$1,000
$1,80
Mailings via U.S. Post Office
$78
$78
Reusable Bags, 970 ct.
$5,820
$5,82
Sub -Total
$7,400
$1,000
$8,400
Consultant
Laurie Batchelder Adams, LBA Associates
$24,415
$24,415
Total Project Cost:
$31,815
$11,900
$43,715
Budget Narrative
a. Waste audit equipment -$800 (sorting bins and tools; personal protective equipment)
b. Survey mailing, 800 households and businesses — $780
c. Reusable bags, survey and public forum incentive, $6/unit, 970 units — $5,820
d. Consultant, LBA Associates ($125/hr. X 187 hours) — $23,375; and Additional labor for the waste audit
($65/hr. X 16 hours) — $1,040
V. Additional Provisions:
To receive compensation under the Purchase Order, the Contractor shall submit a signed CDPHE Reimbursement
Invoice Form. This form is accessible from the CDPHE internet website
htty://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/standardized-ivnvoice-form-and-links and is incorporated and made part of
this SOW by reference. CDPHE will provide technical assistance in accessing and completing the form. The
CDPHE Reimbursement Invoice Form and Expenditure Details page must be submitted no later than forty-five
(45) calendar days after the end of the billing period for which services were rendered. Expenditures shall be in
accordance with the Statement of Work and Budget. The Contractor shall submit the invoice using one of the two
methods listed below.
The Contractor shall submit the following documentation with the completed CDPHE Reimbursement Invoice
Form and Expenditure Details page; copies of invoices and proof of payment such as copies of cleared checks or
credit card receipts.
version: Purchase Order statement of Work
for Services or Services with Goods Page 4 of 6
Mcember 2015 ag
Scan the completed and signed CDPHE Reimbursement Invoice Form and supporting documentation into an
electronic document. Email the scanned invoice, Expenditure Details page, and supporting documentation to:
Eric Heyboer, Grant Program Administrator, eric.heyboer@state.co.us
Mail the scanned invoice, Expenditure Details page, and supporting documentation to:
Eric Heyboer, Grant Program Administrator
Division of Environmental Health and Sustainability
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
DEHS-A2
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80246
Final billings under the Purchase Order must be received by the State within a reasonable time after the expiration
or termination of the Purchase Order; but in any event no later than forty-five (45) calendar days from the
effective expiration or termination date of the Purchase Order.
Unless otherwise provided for in the Purchase Order, "Local Match", if any, shall be included on all invoices as
required by funding source.
The Contractor shall not use federal funds to satisfy federal cost sharing and matching requirements unless
approved in writing by the appropriate federal agency.
V1. Monitoring:
CDPHE's monitoring of the purchase order for compliance with performance requirements will be conducted
throughout the purchase order period by the Grant Program Administrator. Methods used will include a review of
documentation determined by CDPHE to be reflective of performance to include progress reports, invoices, and
site visit results.
VII. Resolution of Non -Compliance:
The Contractor will be notified in writing within 30 calendar days of discovery of a compliance issue. Within 30
calendar days of discovery, the Contractor and the State will collaborate, when appropriate, to determine the
action(s) necessary to rectify the compliance issue and determine when the action(s) must be completed. The
action(s) and time line for completion will be documented in writing and agreed to by both parties. If extenuating
circumstances arise that requires an extension to the time line, the Contractor must email a request to the Grant
Program Administrator and receive approval for a new due date. The State will oversee the
completion/implementation of the action(s) to ensure time lines are met and the issue(s) is resolved. If the
Contractor demonstrates inaction or disregard for the agreed upon compliance resolution plan, the State may
exercise its rights under the Terms and Conditions of this Purchase Order.
version: Purchase Order Statement of Work
for Services or Services with Goods
December 2015 Page 5 of 6
VIII. Attestation:
The Vendor agrees to perform services in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Purchase Order to
include Statement of Work and Budget.
/. Z') -I&
Date
vetaion: Purchase Order Statement of Work
for Services or Se icea with Goods
December 2015
Page 6 of 6
Organization:
Project Title:
Street Address:
Recycling Resources Economic Opportunity Fund Grant Program
Regional Studies to Optimize Waste Diversion
COVER SHEET AND SIGNATURE PAGE
Attachment #I
Town of Fraser
Grand County Public Outreach and Strategic Planning
153 Fraser Avenue P.O. Box 370
City, State, Zip: Fraser, COLORADO 80442
E -Mail Address: jdurbin(a7town.fraser.co.us URL Address: www.frsercolorado.com
Phone Number: 970-726-5492
Federal Tax Identification Number: 84-0574911
Legal Tax Status (check one): i For -Profit _ Nonprofit ✓Govt. _ School University
By signing and submitting this application, the applicant agrees to operate the program as described in the Application for Funding
and in accordance with the grant terms and assurances. The applicant agrees that the information provided in this application is, to the
best of the applicant's knowledge and based on reasonable inquiry, true, accurate, and complete. The applicant understands that
knowingly submitting any false information on this application could result in the project not being considered for funding or voiding
any current or future contracts with the Department of Public Health & Environment.
Print name of Authorized Official: Jeffrey L Durbin
Signature of Authorized Official:
Please print this page and sign in the box at
right. Electronic signatures are also
acceptable. Typed names are not
allowed.
Title: Town Manager Date: October 9, 2015
Protect Director or Primary Contact:
Name: Jeffrey L Durbin
Title: Town Manager
Address: 153 Fraser Avenue P.O. Box 370,
Fraser, CO 80442
Phone: 970-726-5491 (ext. 202)
E -Mail: jdurbin@town.fraser.co.us
Financial Officer:
Name: Nathaniel Havens
Title: Financial Manager
Address: 153 Fraser Avenue P.O. Box 370,
Fraser, CO 80442
Phone: 970-726-5491 (ext.206)
E -Mail: nhavens@,town.fraser.co.us
Total Amount of Funds Requested: $31,815
Total Matching/In-Kind Contributions: $11,900
Total Project Cost: $43,715
IV. A (2) Executive Summary
Currently, residents and property owners in Fraser contract directly with waste haulers for trash
and/or recycling collection. Some Grand County communities have access to recycling while others have
limited options that are often spotty, inefficient and expensive. Additionally, most of the County shares
Fraser's unique mix of full-time residents (about 15,000 in 2010) and tourists and recreationalists with
only temporary or seasonal occupancy but can more than double the number of waste generators during
high season. In addition, Grand County's geographic location is a challenge exacerbated by the closure of
the Grand County Landfill. Today, the County's Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is hauled to the Trash
Company transfer station in Granby and subsequently transferred 100 miles to the Front Range
(transfer/disposal rates are currently $113/ton in addition to curbside collection fees) - similarly,
recyclables are aggregated at the transfer station and hauled to Denver (explaining the high cost of
recycling as well).
A local non-profit (Grand Recycles) operated a permanent facility with "free" recycling
collections until 2008, when it closed due to insufficient volunteer participation. Currently, Grand
Resources Recycling Coalition provides weekly single -stream collection at an outdoor drop site operated
by volunteers at the Granby Country ACE Hardware - but this location is 15 miles away from Fraser and
inconvenient for most generators. There have been various attempts to provide other recycling options in
Fraser Valley. Despite the demand for convenient, accessible and affordable services, these have been
inconsistent and largely ineffective.
In 2005 and 2006, the Town of Fraser proposed significant changes to how solid waste was
managed in the community. This was a collaborative effort with the Town of Winter Park but was
unsuccessful in part due to failed management efforts in the Town of Grand Lake. In 2014 the Fraser
Town Board of Trustees considered a tax on single purpose bags. In lieu of a piecemeal approach,
however, the Town Board determined that an overall, comprehensive waste diversion plan was required.
Based on these challenges, we believe that regional cooperation is the best way to identify and
implement effective solutions. Specifically, we are convinced it is important for the local governments,
non -profits and private service providers operating within Grand County to collaborate and form a
regional stakeholder Task Force to participate in county -wide a regional strategy.
To that end, the Town is pursuing regional waste diversion along with a Technical Energy Audit
of the Town's properties and development of a town -wide sustainability strategy — collectively titled
Sustainability Network Project. Despite the recent economic downturn, the Town is using its reserves to
address deficits and fund the Sustainability Network project. Under the MSW diversion component of this
project, the Town has already spent $5,000 to establish an industry baseline for the County, identify
stakeholders, and educate the Fraser Board of Trustees. These pre-RREO tasks will be crucial support to
the public process and strategy foreseen in the RREO project (for example, we determined that Grand
County generates nearly 18,000 tpy of MSW, or the equivalent of 6.6 pounds/capita-day - of which only
14% is diverted). A large group of stakeholders including all local governments, GRRC, many vendors,
the Winter Park Ski Area and Rocky Mountain National Park worked with the Town to generate this
information. Several of these parties are excited to partner further on the RREO project (see their support
letters in the appendix).
The Town of Fraser does not directly manage solid waste, but believes that the time for change
has come. Our residents, property owners, businesses and guests — as well as those throughout the County
— are frustrated with current levels of service and the costs of those services. We believe that regional
collaboration is vital to implementing the highest levels of service at the lowest cost, and that these
services must prioritize waste diversion over disposal. While this has been a regional area of concern for
several years, effective leadership has been lacking. We are respectfully requesting funding assistance
which will enable the Town of Fraser to address local concerns while also providing county -wide
leadership through an aggressive public outreach and strategic planning process. It is our hope that these
efforts lead to regional collaboration and actionable waste diversion solutions.
2
IV. A (3) Pre -Awarded Risk Assessment Questionnaire
APPLICATION
PRE -AWARD RISK ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS
Name of organization: Town of Fraser
Name and title of person completing this form: Bektur Sakiev. Assistant Town Manager
Amount of funding requested on this application: $31,815
1) Please provide your total operating budget for your entity. Expenditures across all General Fund
and all like funds along with two En se Funds for 2015 is $8,693,953.00
2) Please provide the total number of grants you receive? (State, Federal, Private) $1.526.090
1. US40 Im ovements Project -- $1,394,458 funded by CDOT's RAMP Pro am.
2. Fraser River Enhancement Project — $146,000, of which $136,000 were allocated from Great Outdoors
ColoradoGOCO Re ional Local vernemnt Grant and 10 000 from Grand Cour
Conservation Trust Fund.
3. Fraser W WTP Inflow &Infiltration repair phase 11-- $112,032 funded by DOLA's Energy & Miniral
impact Assistance Fund
4. Fraser Water Protection Planning project -- $5,000 funded under CDPHE's Source Water Assessment
& Protection (SWAP) Program
Programmatic Performance
3) Total dollar amount of CDPHE only grants that you receive?$5 000 - Source Water Assessment
and Protection (SWAP) PProgam.
4) Has your organization administered programs similar to your current grant proposal? YES If so,
please list and explain.
- Fraser River Enhancement Project -- Constructing of a pedastrian b a over the Fraser River usin
State funding and allocation from Grand Count' Conservation Trust Fund.
- US40 Highway hp rovements Project — Administering 2.2 million -- including Federal and State
funds -- worth of task to upgrade almost 1 mile of a highway from 2 to 4 lanes.
- Fraser and Winter Park Police Dppartment -- Joint Fraser/Winter Park 12olice. doartment was established
in 2005 and is a bright exam le of a coo tion between two munici alities that since then roved
to be serving in the best interests of both municipalities.
5) How many years has your organization been in existence? 60
6) How many total FTE are there in your organization? 20
7) Have you previously met all deliverables of your grants on time and as described in your statement
of work? Yes If not, please explain why you would unable to meet the deliverables.
8) Are you serving as a fiscal agent for another agency that will complete the actual work on the
grant? ❑Yes ®No
9) Are you sub -awarding any portion of this contract to complete your deliverables? ®Yes ❑No
10) Has your organization had any significant changes in key personnel or accounting systems in the
last year? (e.g. Controller, Executive Director, Accounting Manager, Program Manager, etc.)No
Fiscal System
11) How many total FTE perform accounting functions within your organization? 2
12) When is your organization's fiscal year end? December 31
13) Does your organization receive an audit under the Single Audit Act/Uniform Administrative
Requirements, 2 CFR 200, subpart F (Government Auditing Standards) rlYes NNo
If es lease provide a co electronic referred of y2gr most recent audit re art.
14) Does your organization receive an annual financial statement audit under Generally Accepted
Auditing Standards (GAAS) Yes nNo
If Yes, Wease Drovide a co electronic referred of our most recent audit report.
15) Are your accounting records kept in accordance with GAAP? ®Yes ❑No
16) Does your accounting system allow you to segregate all assets, liabilities, revenue and expenditures
by funding source, and the ability to produce a self -balancing report by each fund? ®Yes ❑No
Please explain how you intend to account for all costs and revenues associated with each funding
source Utilizing our Financial System's Activity Code cai3ability within the General Ledger and
Accounts Payable subsytems.
17) Are accounting records supported by source documentation? If so, please provide examples of
source documentation that is maintained and retained?. All data received in the accounts payable
process - delivery+ documentation, invoices, statements and check images.
18) Do you have a cost allocation plan that spreads all common costs, such as phone, rent, utilities, etc.
among all funding sources? ❑Yes ®No
Please explain how you allocate your common costs. Common costs for this project would be
considered a General Fund matchin expense.
19) Does your agency have a review process for all expenditures that will provide a certainty that all
costs are reasonable, alIowable and allocated correctly to each funding source? ®Yes ❑No
Please explain your current process for reviewing costs. All invoices are reviewed by the
MWEgj2tatepro'ect mana er Finance Mara ger and Town Manager prior to disbursement
of any funds.
20) Does your agency have sufficient internal controls in place to ensure that the accounting records are
free from material misstatements? ®Yes ❑No.
Please describe your organization's overall internal fiscal controls and structure The Town adheres
to all controls as prescribed by our in endent auditors and as reccommended b—
y GASB.
21) This contract will be a cost reimbursement basis. Does your agency have an adequate cash flow
that will enable you to manage your finances between the time costs are incurred and reimbursed?
®Yes ❑No
Please explain how you intend to cover costs prior to requesting the reimbursement. The General
Fund has adequate resources to cover proms expenses on a reimbusement basis.
22) Does your entity have a time and effort reporting system in place to account for 100% of all
employees time with a breakdown of the actual time spent on each funding project? ❑Yes ®No
Please explain how you intend to document actual hours worked for each employee, by each
funding source. Not applicable
23) Does your organization have employee fidelity bond/insurance coverage for all its employees that
handle cash? ®Yes ❑No If so, what is the coverage amount? $150.00
24) Does your organization have an active oversight committee/board and are they provided financial
reports and information on a regular basis? ®Yes []No
lease Si to Below:
xecutive Di (or authorized deligee) Signature
14VLAJO-��16 2,Ok5`-
Financial Director Signature Date
4
IV. A (4) Experience/Qualifications
Parties responsible for implementing the project:
• Town Manager: Jeffrey Durbin
• Assistant Town Manager: Bektur Sakiev
• Town Planner: Catherine Trotter
• Town Project Manager: Susan Stone
• Consultant LBA Associates
• Those involved in the Waste Diversion Task Force will be identified as a result of the
presentation meetings with industry, public, private and non-profit stakeholders
Town of Fraser Staff - Jeffrey Durbin, the Fraser Town Manager, and Bektur Sakiev, the Assistant
Town Manager, will be directly involved in the RREO project management and implementation (resumes
are attached in the appendix).
Jeff Durbin has been Fraser's Town manager for 11 years now and has rich experience in
managing various projects for the Town. He has established friendly and cooperative relationship with
towns and private industry stakeholders of the County and beyond that will play major role in bringing
them together for the project's public process. The project will certainly benefit from his knowledge of
the region. Of note, Durbin managed the Town's 2005/2006, 2014 and 2015 waste diversion efforts.
Bektur Sakiev is an intern Assistant Town Manager at the Town of Fraser through the award of a
grant from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) Cathy Shipley's Best and Brightest
Program. Bektur Sakiev has 5 years of experience in the non-profit sphere and government sector. He has
been involved in conflict transformation projects, and has worked closely with public and mass media.
Also, he is involved in other components (i.e. the Town's Technical Energy Audit and developing the
Town's sustainability strategy) of the Sustainability Network project.
Additional Town staff will be involved in the project. Catherine Trotter, the Town Planner; and
Susan Stone, the Town Project Manager are expected to assist with the homeowner survey (Objective #1).
Their skills will be applied to developing the survey format, and processing and interpreting its results.
The Town Planner, having surveyed Fraser community in different projects, possesses particular skills for
developing an effective surveying instrument that will ensure reasonable participation. The Town Project
Manager communicates with Fraser home owners regularly and produces the Ice Box Newsletter
(distributed quarterly). She will help develop the design of reusable shopping bags to be used as an
incentive to participate in the survey. Both of them will contribute their time to the survey as well as
coordinating the public process meetings and other logistics of the project.
Consultant - While Town staff has extensive planning skills and the ability to allocate needed,
they will sub -contract to LBA Associates to provide waste diversion -specific skills and conduct or lead
several of the Work Plan tasks. LBA is a woman -owned business, dedicated to assisting local
governments optimize their waste diversion programs, policies and partnerships with particular expertise
with regional areas in rural Colorado. Laurie Batchelder Adams is the company's founder and president,
and is a 25 -year veteran in the recycling arena (her resume is also included in the appendix).
Planning Skills — As a Town Manager, Jeff Durbin's everyday work routine is closely related to
planning. Every project, initiative and important changes in the community requires a good planning.
Before becoming Fraser's Town manager in 2004, Jeff Durbin served in Plainfield, Illinois and Fraser,
Colorado as a Community Development Director and his responsibilities included: managing Planning
Department, developing comprehensive plans, planning for an arterial roadway, initiating and
implementing of a downtown expansion. As a Preservation Planner at Michigan State Historic
Preservation Office, he was in charge of developing statewide planning process to implement federal
guidelines throughout the State of Michigan. Relative to solid waste planning and waste diversion
specifically, LBA has completed numerous waste diversion plans for rural Colorado regions that consider
a hub -and -spoke approach, equipment sharing, regional education strategies and over -arching diversion
leadership. Examples include the five -county area served by the Southwest Colorado Council of
Governments (a 2014/2015 RREO grant project), the Tri -County Region (Eagle, Garfield and Pitkin -
2010); and Chaffee, Lake and Routt Counties (2005-2014). It also developed the Wyoming Waste
Diversion Plan (2013) as well as a recycling strategy for a four- county consortium spread between Idaho
and Wyoming (2014). Together, the Town and LBA completed planning work for Fraser in 2006 and
2015, culminating this year in pre-RREO tasks that identified key demographics, the existing waste
shed/waste flows/management system, total quantities and diversion, infrastructure and policy needs, and
recommendations for an effective public process.
Waste Audit Skills - Waste audits are important research to most planning projects. LBA has
conducted or coordinated audits at the Archuleta, Chaffee, Eagle, Garfield, Lake, Montezuma, Milner,
South Canyon and Pitkin County Landfills, as well as at DIA, the City/County of Denver Transfer Station
(2010) and the Aspen Recycling Center (2015). Every LBA audit includes written procedural guidance,
safety protocols, sorter training, equipment procurement, landfill/hauler coordination, sampling, sort
oversight and data analysis.
Collection/Processing Infrastructure Modeling/Cost-Estimate Skills - Determining feasibility in
terms of capital and operating costs is also a key component of planning work. LBA has developed cost
estimates for education programs, policy development and creation of regional collaboratives. The
company has also developed user-friendly infrastructure cost models that facility owner/operators can use
to "what if' alternative scenarios. Examples include recycling drop -sites for Routt County and
SWCCOG, compost collections for Eagle Valley and dual/single-stream MRFs for the SWCCOG, State
of Wyoming and Idaho/Wyoming consortium. These models considered equipment, labor, processing
and hauling based on projected waste flows.
Public Process Skills —Bektur Sakiev has been involved in various projects in past that required
gaining publics support. As a Regional Liaison Officer at the Foundation for Tolerance International his
duties included bringing private entrepreneurs, cross border communities and civil society together and
develop recommendations on tackling cross border issues and inter -ethnic tensions. Part of his
responsibilities in the U.S. Embassy was to gather local leaders, media outlets and community activists in
order to educate them on and gain their support for the embassy's activates. A positive, all-inclusive
public process is also critical to most planning efforts. These require presentation of clear baseline
information and even-handed facilitation of multiple stakeholders that encourages participation and an
"us" versus "them" attitude. The SWCCOG and Tri -County projects in particular included extensive
public processes to ensure access to all regional stakeholders. It is worth noting that these processes often
include a mix of small and large group meetings, as well as one-on-one conversations that extend
throughout the project and provide an open flow of information and feedback.
Policy Development — While physical infrastructure is often a focus of system improvement, the
policies needed to make facilities sustainable are equally important. Policies require strategic thinking to
creatively address obstacles or lack of incentives - as well as educating elected officials and a good public
process. Jeff Durbin has experience of facilitating variety of policies and policy changes in Fraser. One of
his main achievements in policy making is closer cooperation with Winter Park and establishment of joint
police and building departments, and wastewater treatment plant. Well thought -through fiscal policy
under his oversight ensured Fraser Town Hall's effective fiscal management that — despite facing two
periods of significant revenue declines — established reserve funds, completed and provided for upgrades
to all public facilities, provided for implementation of new programs, experienced productivity gains, and
increased levels of service across all departments. LBA examples of effective policy development
include the framework for spoke development (Routt County and Idaho/Wyoming), a regional waste
diversion collaborative (SWCCOG) and the new City/County of Denver hauler licensing ordinance
currently be developed.
Personnel Commitment & Resources - The Town and LBA will implement the following tasks to
achieve goal and objectives identified in the project Work Plan. List of project personnel, their roles for
each task and their resource commitment are shown in the table below:
6
IV. A (5) Application Narrative
Our efforts to improve service within the community will require collaboration with regional
stakeholders. Fraser will use its own resources and the RREO grant award to 1) collect waste audit data to
better inform quantities and projections considered in Town's early 2015 study; 2) bring together regional
industry stakeholders for multijurisdictional and public-private partnership to consider diversion
incentives and access, collaboration and program/policy improvements; 3) conduct an effective public
process; and 4) develop a practical, effective and supported strategy for county -wide diversion over the
next 10 years.
Issues related to the Town's waste diversion will be tackled best if addressed as a part of joint
regional strategy that brings effective and sustainable recycling to the under -served areas in Grand
County. The project's main goal is to develop a regional waste diversion strategy based on
public/industry input and buy -in. Specific activities will need to be identified to encourage industry
stakeholders to agree on establishing the regional solid waste diversion model. Those activities will start
locally and expand in scope with every phase of the project and include following tasks (see the Work
Plan in the Attachment #3):
Pre-RREO grant work (completed in early 2015 as an important foundation step to this project) -
Fraser implemented a set of tasks prior to the grant award, using its own resources. The tasks established
a draft industry baseline for the County, identified a preliminary list of stakeholders, educated Fraser's
elected officials and began to build support for the public process/strategy foreseen in the project. As a
part of pre-RREO activity, the Town and its Consultant:
• Quantified total waste generation, disposal and diversion for the 2014 baseline year.
• Identified challenges to broad, efficient, and cost-effective solid waste management.
• Identified opportunities for addressing those challenges.
• Prepared materials to support an aggressive public process and strategic planning project under
the RREO grant
The following steps of public outreach and strategic planning will be implemented using RREO grant.
At this stage, the Town and Consultant will:
Objective #1: Obtain Contractor and Verify Baseline Conditions - The Town expects to negotiate a
subcontract for Consultant support as its first order of business. Fraser's procurement policy will support
sole -sourcing this work to LBA without a competitive bidding process due to the estimated subcontract
value, its long-standing relationship with LBA, and the Consultant's vast experience with rural, regional
waste diversion strategies
7
Contractor
Baseline
Stakeholder
Strategy
Personnel
Procurement
Verifications
Homeowner
Meetings &
Development
Activities
& Waste
Survey
Task Force
&
Audits
Development
Presentation
Jeff Durbin, Town Manager
2 hours (in
0 hours
8 hours (in
16 hours
13 hours (in
kine)
kind)
(in kind)
kind)
Bektur Sakiev, Assistant
0 hours
14 hours (in
28 hours
30 hours (in
19 hours (in
Town Manager
kind
in kind
kind)
kind
- Catherine Trotter, Town
Planner;
- Susan Stone, Town
6 hours (in
8 hours (in
Project Manager;
0 hours
48 (in kind)
26 (in kind)
kind)
kind)
- Additional (staff)
volunteers for the waste
audit.
LBA Associates,
0 hours
65 hours
12 hours
38 hours
88 hours
Consultant
IV. A (5) Application Narrative
Our efforts to improve service within the community will require collaboration with regional
stakeholders. Fraser will use its own resources and the RREO grant award to 1) collect waste audit data to
better inform quantities and projections considered in Town's early 2015 study; 2) bring together regional
industry stakeholders for multijurisdictional and public-private partnership to consider diversion
incentives and access, collaboration and program/policy improvements; 3) conduct an effective public
process; and 4) develop a practical, effective and supported strategy for county -wide diversion over the
next 10 years.
Issues related to the Town's waste diversion will be tackled best if addressed as a part of joint
regional strategy that brings effective and sustainable recycling to the under -served areas in Grand
County. The project's main goal is to develop a regional waste diversion strategy based on
public/industry input and buy -in. Specific activities will need to be identified to encourage industry
stakeholders to agree on establishing the regional solid waste diversion model. Those activities will start
locally and expand in scope with every phase of the project and include following tasks (see the Work
Plan in the Attachment #3):
Pre-RREO grant work (completed in early 2015 as an important foundation step to this project) -
Fraser implemented a set of tasks prior to the grant award, using its own resources. The tasks established
a draft industry baseline for the County, identified a preliminary list of stakeholders, educated Fraser's
elected officials and began to build support for the public process/strategy foreseen in the project. As a
part of pre-RREO activity, the Town and its Consultant:
• Quantified total waste generation, disposal and diversion for the 2014 baseline year.
• Identified challenges to broad, efficient, and cost-effective solid waste management.
• Identified opportunities for addressing those challenges.
• Prepared materials to support an aggressive public process and strategic planning project under
the RREO grant
The following steps of public outreach and strategic planning will be implemented using RREO grant.
At this stage, the Town and Consultant will:
Objective #1: Obtain Contractor and Verify Baseline Conditions - The Town expects to negotiate a
subcontract for Consultant support as its first order of business. Fraser's procurement policy will support
sole -sourcing this work to LBA without a competitive bidding process due to the estimated subcontract
value, its long-standing relationship with LBA, and the Consultant's vast experience with rural, regional
waste diversion strategies
7
Waste audit data will be pivotal to understanding current diversion opportunities and identifying future
program options, and will include:
• Full day trash sort at the Trash Company's transfer station in Granby.
• One half-day single -stream recyclable sort at GRRC's drop -site in Granby.
• Guidelines that address safety and sorting procedure.
• Town of Fraser staff/volunteer sorting with training and coordination by LBA.
• Projection of 10 -year waste generation and diversion quantities based on audit findings.
The homeowner survey will include:
• Targeting those homeowners who don't directly interact with the Town on utilities and services
but are significant waste generators.
• Developing an effective survey instrument.
• Encourage survey completion through use of website and wide -spread promotions, distribution as
door hangings and mailings.
• Production of eye-catching, utilitarian reusable shopping bags with waste diversion messaging -
used as an incentive for survey participation.
Objective #2: Involve Key Stakeholders and Conduct an Effective Public Outreach Process - Activities
to address this objective will include facilitated meetings for elected officials, industry stakeholders,
government staff, non-profit organizations and the general public including residents (single-family and
multi -family renters, homeowners and property managers/owners), businesses and individual citizens.
The meetings will be conducted to produce substantive discussions around challenges and solutions,
partnerships and implementation options that will be used as the basis for the strategic plan. A Waste
Diversion Task Force will be developed that represents all sectors of the industry (public, private and
non-profit). The Task Force will be leveraged for additional public outreach, partnership -building,
review/input to the county -wide waste diversion strategy and for overall strategy support. To the extent
feasible, we will coordinate public meetings with CDPHE during its development of a state integrated
solid waste and materials management plan.
Objective #3: Develop a Practical, Implementable Regional Waste Diversion Strategy -These activities
will use the baseline/projected data and public process input to identify program, infrastructure and policy
goals to serve Grand County over the next 10 years. These goals are expected to address diversion
potential through increased recycling and organics recovery, economic benefits and incentives and
regional collaboration. The written strategy will:
• Evaluating the most feasible policy, program and infrastructure options identified by stakeholders
- options may include a new collection spoke/mini processing hub with directly transfer to the
Front Range in the southern part of the County, increased access and incentives elsewhere in the
County, a regional outreach campaign extending from the Winter Park Ski Area to Rocky
Mountain National Park, collaboration on special waste management and problem solving around
the long-haul/high cost of collection.
• Include an implementation schedule with phased tasks, defined roles and responsibilities for
specific parties.
• Ideally be widely supported by public, private and non-profit organizations.
• Will be reviewed and vetted by the Waste Diversion Task Force before being finalized.
• Be presented in its final form to the Waste Diversion Task Force and other stakeholders.
IV. A (6) Work Plan
Recycling Resources Economic Opportunity Fund Grant Program
Regional Studies to Optimize Waste Diversion
Attachment #3
WORK PLAN TABLE
Goal #1: Develop an Effective Regional Waste Diversion Strategy Based for Grand County
Objective #1: Obtain Contractor & Verify Baseline Conditions (Town Manage, Asst. Town Manager,
Contractor, Volunteers)
Primary Activity #1
Establish Contractor (Town Manager/Asst. Town Manager)
Sub -Activities #1
1. Establish contract with Contractor for the project (Town Manager, Asst. Town
Manager)
Primary Activity #2
Verify Stakeholders and Establish Baseline Conditions (Contractor)
Sub -Activities #2
1. Verify stakeholders, programs, policies and infrastructure identified in early
2015 study
Primary Activity #3
Conduct Audits of Trash & Recyclable Samples (Asst. Town Manager,
Contractor, Volunteers)
1. Develop simple sort guideline that establishes safety and sorting procedure
(Contractor)
2. Coordinate trash sort (expected to be conducted at the Trash Company's
Sub -Activities #3
transfer station in Granby) and recyclables sort (expected to be conducted in
tandem with the GRRC collection day at Ace Hardware in Granby) (Asst. Town
Manager, Contractor)
3. Train Town staff and volunteer sorters (Contractor)
4. Use sort findings to educate stakeholders about what is in the MSW stream
and what the potential is for future diversion (Contractor)
Primary Activity #4
Conduct Renter/Second Homeowner Surveys (Asst. Town Manager, Town
Planner, Town Project Manager, Contractor)
1. Develop survey instrument (Asst. Town Manager, Town Planner, Contractor)
2. Design re -useable bag graphics and coordinate production (Asst. Town
Sub -Activities #4
Manager, Town Project Manager)
2. Conduct survey of renters and second home -owners by mail (Asst. Town
Manager, Town Project Manager, Contractor)
3. Purchase and give reusable bags as a reward for completed surveys (Town
Project Manager)
1. Negotiate Contractor contract that conforms to the roles and responsibilities in
this Work Plan and grant application (Town Manager)
2. Update stakeholders/current MSW management activities as needed (Asst.
Town Manager/ Contractor)
Standards and
3. Conduct a waste audit that sorts representative samples of disposed MSW and
Requirements
recycled single -stream in Grand County (Asst. Town Manager/ Contractor /
Volunteers)
4. Complete waste projections for a 10 -year planning period that reasonably
reflect the County's MSW generation and diversion potential (LBA)
5. Survey up to 600 Fraser households (Asst. Town Manager/Town Planner/Town
Project Manager)
10
1. Finale Contractor contract
Expected Results of
2. Expanded list of stakeholders, programs, policies and facilities
Activity(s)
3. Trash and single -stream recyclables composition data and 10 -year projections
4. Input from homeowners on diversion needs and willingness to participate
Measurement of
1. Clear baseline of existing MSW management and stakeholders
Expected Results
2. Useful waste composition data and 10 -year projections
3. Survey data to inform public meeting process
Objective #2: Involve Key Stakeholders and Conduct an Effective Public Outreach Process (Town
Manager, Asst. Town Manager, Contractor)
Primary Activity #1
Build Awareness/Provide Insight on Issues/Obstacles (Asst. Town Manager,
Contractor)
1. Conduct up to 6 meetings with presentation and discussions for public, private,
non-profit and citizens (Town Manager, Asst. Town Manager, Contractor)
Sub -Activities #1
2. Identify potential public/private/non-profit partnerships (Asst. Town Manager,
Contractor)
3. Form Waste Diversion Task Force of key stakeholders to help maintain public
outreach/support on-going implementation (may be 1 of 6 meetings) (Asst. Town
Manager, Contractor)
1. All meetings will include professional presentation materials
Standards and
2. All meetings will be facilitated discussions targeted to answer specific regional
Requirements
strategy components, opportunities for collaborating on infrastructure and policy
changes, and potential partnerships
3. Meeting outcomes will be the basis for strategy development
1. Input from waste generators on what they need, want and will support
Expected Results of
2. Input from elected officials on political limitations and opportunities
Activity(s)
3. Input from property owners/managers on space and contracting limits
4. Input from industry on equipment/facility infrastructure limits and other costs
5. Clear picture of feasibility - what will and won't be economically sustainable
1. Reasonable input from representative cross-section of stakeholders - survey
Measurement of
responses, meeting attendance and responses will be quantified where possible
Expected Results
2. Well -facilitated dialogue with range of potential waste diversion
improvements that all parties are willing to consider
3. Positive reaction from participants for process, information and outcomes
4. Quantifiable goals for county -wide waste diversion strategy
Objective #3: Develop a Practical, Implementable Regional Waste Diversion Strategy (Town Manager,
Asst. Town Manager, Contractor)
Primary Activity #1
Draft Written Strategy (Contractor)
1. Clarify goals and objectives identified in public process (Town Manager, Asst.
Town Manager, Contractor)
Sub -Activities #1
2. Analyze most feasible policy, program and infrastructure options as well as
possible need for additional resources (Contactor)
3. Model/develop cost estimate for infrastructure options as appropriate
(Contractor)
10
11
4. Evaluate policy and program changes ( Contractor)
5. Establish specific actions items, responsible parties and implementation (Town
Manager, Asst. Town Manager, Contractor)
Primary Activity #2
Review and Finalize Strategy (Town Manager, Asst. Town Manager,
Contractor)
1. Waste Diversion Task Force meeting to review draft strategy (Town Manager,
Sub -Activities #2
Asst. Town Manager/ Contractor)
2. Finalize strategy (Town Manager, Asst. Town Manager, Contractor)
Standards and
1. Strategy will be professionally developed and presented
Requirements
2. Task Force and Town input will be basis for finalizing strategy
Expected Results of
Activity(s)
1. Clear, concise and targeted strategy with clear roles and responsibilities,
estimated diversion levels, costs and guidance for implementation
2. Active involvement of Waste Diversion Task Force
1. Completion of final, written strategy
Measurement of
2. Adoption and/or implementation of strategy components - may not be
Expected Results
measurable by the end of the Fiscal Year 2016 grant period
2. On-going dialogue and collaboration between regional partners and public -
may not be measurable by the end of the Fiscal Year 2016 grant period
Completion Date
Deliverables
Establish contractor contract
December 15, 2015
Verify stakeholders/ baseline conditions
January 30, 2016
Conduct trash/recyclable audits
April 15, 2016
Complete renter/second homeowner survey and
March 15, 2016
provide re -useable bags
Mid-term report
April 15, 2016
Conduct stakeholder meetings
June -August, 2016
Draft strategic plan
September 15, 2016
Waste Diversion Task Force meeting
September 30, 2016
Finalize & present plan
October 30, 2016
11
IV. A (7) Budget
Recycling Resources Economic Opportunity Fund Grant Program
Regional Studies to Optimize Waste Diversion
Attachment #4
LINE ITEM BUDGET
Description
Rate Per
Hour
Total
Hours
Grant Funds
Requested
Matching/In
Kind Estimate
Total
Amount
Personal Services
Jeffrey Durbin, Town Manager
$50
39
$1,950
$1,950
Bektur Sakiev, Assistant Town Manager
$50
91
$4,550
$4,550
Catherine Trotter, Town Planner
$50
30
$1,500
$1,500
Susan Stone, Town Project Manager
$50
22
$1,100
$1,100
Additional3 Volunteers for the audit
$50
36
$1,800
$1,800
Sub -Total
218
$10,900
$10,900
Supplies/Operating
187
Sort Equipment (sort bins, tools and
protective ear
$800
$1,000
$1800
Mailing via U.S. Post Office (surveying)
$600
$600
Reusable bags (incentives for survey)
$6,000
$6,000
Sub -Total
$7,400
$1,000
$8,400
Consultant
Laurie Batchelder Adams, LBA Associates
$125
187
$23,375
$23,375
Additional rofessional labor for the waste
audit, LBA Associate
$65
16
$1,040
$1,040
Sub -Total
1
203
$24,415
1
$24,415
Total Project Cost:
$31,815
$11,900
$43,715
The total cost of the proposed project is $43,715, of which 27% ($11,900) is in-kind contribution. The
resulting grant request is $31,815, which includes:
LBA Associates: Consultant LBA Associates ($125/hr. X 187 hours) — $23,375; and Additional
labor for the audit ($65/hr. X 16 hours) — $1,040
Waste audit equipment -$800 (sorting bins and tools; protective gear (safety goggles, hard hats,
gloves & tyvek suits); Assumes use of Pitkin County sort scale at no charge.)
Reusable bags for survey incentives ($6/unit X 1000 units) — $3,600 (bags made of recycled
materials and ordered from promotional product distributors, with preference given to local ones)
Survey mailing ($1/household X 600 households) — $600
In -Kind and matching contribution:
The Town of Fraser staff labor contribution (all full-time salaried) is estimated at $10,900 (based
on at least 218 working hours at $50 per hour flat rate, including fringe benefits). While the Town
approximated 218 working hours to implement the project, the real amount of working hours may be
higher if more or extended meetings are needed.
Other Town's in-kind contribution includes six 8feet tables and a tent for the waste audit — which
is estimated at $1000 — (based on the rates that Pitkin County recently paid for similar services).
Additionally, the Consultant is willing to complete this work at discounted 2014 rates and donate
all travel expenses.
Fraser is committed to 2015 sustainability projects of its own. However, without additional
funding it is unlikely for the Town to dedicate its resources to cover Fraser Valley and whole Grand
County and will have to focus primarily on Fraser concerns.
12
Jeffrey L. Durbin
ICMA Credentialed Manager
Fraser, Colorado Town Manager
PO Box 1311
Fraser, CO 80442
altitude8550@comcast.net
970-531-1240
2004 -current
A dedicated, creative, innovation oriented manager who believes in the spirit of public service and
embraces change and opportunity. Under my leadership Fraser has confronted challenge and
experienced great strides in improved levels of service, efficiency, accountability, and integrity.
Establishing positive relationships throughout the community, a good sense of humor, and an
approachable honest style are important components of my management style. I set high expectations,
but find realistic ways to achieve success.
• Responsible for direct management of Administration, Finance, Planning, Public Works (streets,
water, wastewater collections, open space, and facilities), Wastewater Treatment Plant, Joint
Police Department (including municipal court and animal control) and Building Department.
• Prepare and manage the Municipal Budget that includes General Fund, Water Fund,
Wastewater Fund, Joint Facilities Fund, Capital Equipment Replacement Fund, Capital Asset
Fund, Debt Service Fund, and the Fraser River Enhancement Fund. Established an effective
financial management program for the organization based upon a high degree of transparency,
efficiency, and accountability.
• Despite facing two periods of significant revenue declines, effective fiscal management
facilitated establishment of reserve funds, completed and provided for upgrades to all public
facilities, provided for implementation of new programs, experienced productivity gains, and
increased levels of service across all departments.
• Implemented a Street/Pavement Management Program and developed multi-year Capital
Improvement Plans and funding plans for all streets, water systems, wastewater collections
systems, and the wastewater treatment plant.
• Brought over $3,250,000 in grant revenues into the community.
• Implemented emergency preparedness planning and training and successfully managed severe
flooding and high water conditions along with a significant wildfire immediately west of the
community.
• Established the Fraser Winter Park Police Department, prior to which the community relied on
the County Sheriff for law enforcement services.
• Dissolved Fraser Sanitation District and incorporated those operations with the Town of Fraser
to provide for more efficient and effective service to our residents and customers. The
community had been struggling with this matter for almost 20 years.
• Led the community in discussions and negotiations regarding the Denver Water Board and
Northern Water Conservancy District Firming Projects. These projects will result in the
additional diversions of water from the Fraser Valley to the Front Range (Denver). These
projects will shape the future of the Front Range and the Fraser Valley.
• Implemented a wide variety of Intergovernmental Agreements to provide more cost effective
services, with entities including the East Grand Fire Protection District, the East Grand School
Jeffrey L. Durbin
District, the Fraser Valley Recreation District, the Town of Winter Park, the Town of Granby,
Grand County, and others.
• Establishment of a new animal control program, implementation of local medical marijuana
regulations pursuant to an amendment to the Colorado Constitution, and a trademark battle with
International Falls, MN were among the most unusual professional challenges.
• The most unique effort, and one I'm most proud of, was a two year cooperative study with the
Town of Winter Park to consider the consolidation of our two communities.
Fraser, Colorado Community Development Director
2000-2003
In 2000, the Town of Fraser was just embarking into the world of significant development. Until that
time, annual construction activity was minimal. My role was to prepare the community for dramatic
change and to implement systems and procedures that could add capacity and increase effectiveness.
• Prepared a new Comprehensive Plan for the community (the last such effort was over 20 years
prior). Implemented a geographic information system and a complete overhaul of the Town's
development codes and administrative procedures.
• Established new administrative procedures to provide for consistent and clear expectations.
• Responsible for Planning Department and management of contractual relationships with Grand
County Building Department and Town Engineer.
Plainfield, Illinois Community Development Director
1994-2000
Responsible for all departmental operations during a time when the community grew from 4,000
residents to well over 15,000. Departmental divisions included building, planning, zoning, and code
enforcement.
• Overhauled the Zoning Code and Development Review Processes (including implementation of
fiscal impact analyses and design review).
• Prepared Comprehensive Plan and development evaluation process that received Urban
Innovation Award.
• Established inter -jurisdictional planning and implementation agreements for a new arterial
roadway necessary to serve future development within ten different jurisdictions.
• Implemented Village Board vision for a Clean Community Initiative with community cleanups, a
new code enforcement program, and enforcement of development agreements.
• Initiated and implemented efforts to expand the downtown into undeveloped areas along with
areas requiring redevelopment. This effort included a national urban design competition and
establishment of a Main Street Program.
Received the employee of the year award for my success in negotiating an agreement with the United
States Postal Service to construct a new Post Office in the downtown expansion area as an anchor,
and also negotiated the dedication of a new Village Hall site with a developer within the project area.
Page 2 of 4
Jeffrey L. Durbin
State of Michigan, State Historic Preservation Office Preservation Planner 1992-1994
Worked with local governments to establish local historic preservation programs, helped find ways to
maintain local landmarks, and resolved other related local matters. Developed statewide goals and
programs that would support historic properties and resources at all public and private levels.
• Developed statewide planning process to implement federal guidelines throughout the State of
Michigan.
• Prepared Michigan Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan.
• Managed public participation programs.
• Prepared the organization for State Program Review as required by National Park Service rules.
Danckaert & Associates Design/Drafting
1989-1992
Responsible for individual and team design duties, along with preparation of construction documents
and shop drawings. Managed permitting with the appropriate local jurisdictions and construction
administration on a variety of projects.
L Gale Abels and Associates
Design/Drafting
1987-1989
Responsible for individual and team design duties, along with preparation of construction documents
and shop drawings. Managed permitting and code compliance with the appropriate local jurisdictions.
Page 3 of 4
Jeffrey L. Durbin
Michigan State University Masters of Urban and Regional Planning 1994
Significant Accomplishments Included:
Old Town Lansing
Design services for a Revitalization project in a North Lansing National Historic District.
Deray Neighborhood
Worked with development corporation on redevelopment and revitalization of a southwest
Detroit neighborhood.
Greater Lansing Global Village Housing Development Authority
Prepared market analysis and feasibility study for an affordable housing project in Lansing, MI.
St Louis Marketplace
Assisted community with development project evaluations.
University of Colorado
Bachelor of Environmental Design
Significant Accomplishments Included:
1989
Navajo Housing Project
Worked with the Navajo Reservation to design, fund, and construct prototype affordable housing
for the Navajo Nation consistent with traditional culture and vernacular housing.
Julesburg Organic Chicken Farm Redevelopment Project
Worked for the Colorado Economic Development Department on a feasibility analysis and
programmatic design to redevelop an abandoned sugar factory in Julesburg, Colorado, into an
organic chicken farm to initiate community re -investment and job creation.
Colorado Recycling Program
Program development and collection operations.
References available upon request
Page 4 of 4
BEKTUR SAKIEV
Town Hall, Fraser, Colorado
Mail: P.O. Box 370, Fraser, CO 80442
Location: 153 Fraser Ave, Fraser, CO 80442
970-726-5491 (office) 970-726-5518 (fax)
970-396-1132 (cell) I bsakiev@town.fraser.co.us
EDUCATION
University of Colorado -Denver Expected
M.A. in Political Science; Program on Politics and Public Policy Summer 2015
American University — Central Asia, Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic June 2008
B.A. in International and Comparative Politics
EMPLOYMENT
Assistant Town Manager 2015 (current)
Town of Fraser, Colorado
Teaching Assistant 2014 (spring/fall)
Department of Political Science
University of Colorado -Denver
• Course: Introduction to Comparative Politics
Information Assistant 2011-2013
Public Affairs Section
United States Embassy in the Kyrgyz Republic
• Monitor political and media activity, research, reports
• Facilitate embassy programs on political, social, and cultural exchanges
Program Officer 2009-2011
Program on Political Parties
National Democratic Institute (NDI) office in Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic
• Conducted seminars and trainings for political parties
• Researched and monitored party activity and elections
Regional Liaison Officer 2008-2009
Foundation for Tolerance International (FTI), Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic
Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflicts (GPPAC)
• Coordinated GPPAC activities throughout Central Asian region
• Conducted seminars on peace building and civil society, research, data gathering
• Organized summer camp for students of cross-border areas in Central Asia
Sakiev Resume, 1
PUBLICATION
"Land and Water Management Patterns in Ferghana Valley," Vater Resources Management in
Central Asia: Regional and International Issues at Stake, CIDOB-Barcelona Institute of
International Affairs, No 25, November 2009: 77-91. (Available at:
http://www.cidob.org/en/content/download/22811/254352/file/doc asia 25.pdf)
CONFERENCES AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Facilitator 2010-2011
Inter -parliamentary cooperation visits to
Germany, Lithuania, Poland, and Czech Republic
9 Led a group of political party representatives from Kyrgyz Republic
Paper presentation January 2009
"Water Management in Central Asia: Local and International Perspectives"
Barcelona Institute of International Affairs, Barcelona, Spain
Paper presented: "Land and Water Management Patterns in Ferghana Valley"
Participant October 2008
Training/ conference for Regional Liaison Officers (RLO)
Soesterberg, Netherlands
Workshops on planning network capacity
ADDITIONAL WORK EXPERIENCE
Event Assistant August 2008
Media Center for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)
Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic
• Translated and conducted explanatory work on summit agreements
Translator Aug -Sept. 2007
AKIpress News Agency, Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic
• Translated news content from Russian into English
Intern Feb -Apr. 2007
Government Agency for Regional Issues, Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic
Researched and analyzed documents on usage of water resources
and state border delineation in Central Asian region
LANGUAGES
Kyrgyz (native proficiency)
Russian (native proficiency)
Sakiev Resume, 2
CATHERINE ELIZABETH TROTTER, AICP
P.O. Box 2012
Winter Park, CO. 80482
Cell phone 970-531-0090
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Town Planner, Town of Fraser, Fraser, CO. Feb. 1995 - Sept. 1999, Sept. 2004 - present
• Comprehensive knowledge of planning techniques utilized in a resort community with large seasonal
population fluctuations.
• Responsible for zoning code, subdivision regulation, and land use administration, interpretation,
enforcement and amendments.
• Coordinate, review and process development proposals and applications.
• Assist and inform the public about the municipal planning and development review process.
• Grant application preparation and administration.
• Prepare and present technical and administrative reports and staff recommendations to various boards.
• Ability to work effectively with elected and appointed officials, public and private agencies, citizens groups,
and developers.
• Capable of managing multiple projects in a dynamic political environment.
Planner/Office Manager, Yaklich & Associates, Tabernash, CO. Sept. 1999 - Sept 2001, Aug. 2002- Aug. 2004
• Responsible for managing the operations of a real estate office, including Accounts Payable and
Receivable and Payroll.
• Coordinated and processed subdivision applications at the county level for real estate broker/land
developer.
• Processed quarterly billing and performed administrative duties for the Tabernash Meadows Water &
Sanitation District.
Land Use Planner, Solvista Golf & Ski Ranch, Granby, CO. Sept. 2001 - May 2002
• Coordinated and prepared development/land use proposals and applications for golf and ski ranch resort.
• Working knowledge of county regulations and codes.
• Ability to work effectively with government officials, community organizations and consultants.
Accounts Payable Clerk & Accessory Buyer, B. Jammin' Inc., Winter Park, CO. Oct. 1993 - June 1994
• Provided technical, administrative and sales support for the operation and maintenance of eight retail
stores.
• Responsible for Accounts Payable & purchasing of accessories for all stores.
Community Development Intern, Town of Estes Park, Estes Park, CO. May - Sept. 1993
• Assisted with a variety of projects, targeting future growth and development strategies.
• Attended public workshops and meetings.
Coastal Waterbird Researcher, Massachusetts Audubon Society, Cape Cod, MA. Mar. - Sept. 1992
• Protected, monitored, and managed the nesting areas of threatened and endangered coastal waterbirds.
• Researched and recorded breeding success.
• Formulated and implemented management recommendations to enhance these seasonal nesting areas.
• Worked in conjunction with local landowners, town governments, agencies, and the public.
Office Manager, Diversified Contracting, Boston, MA. Oct. 1990 - Dec. 1991
• Responsible for all aspects of managing a construction business.
• Accounts Payable and Receivable, Payroll, Job Costing, General Ledger, Marketing.
• Converted the company from a manual to a computerized accounting system.
Assistant Planner, Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA), Boston, MA. Jan. - May 1990
• Collaborated with planners in the Neighborhood Housing & Development Department.
• Generated database which depicted status of BRA housing projects from 1984 to 1990.
Conducted research on existing elderly housing in Boston.
Familiar with many aspects of neighborhood and housing development.
Land Use Planner, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. Summer 1987
• Gathered data via survey instrument from visitors at Quabbin Reservoir.
• Analyzed the data regarding land use for recreational and wildlife activities.
EDUCATION:
Boston University, Boston, MA.
Master of Science, September 1990
Major: Urban Planning
Awards: Urban Planning Graduate Assistantship
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS:
American Institute of Certified Planners, AICP
American Planning Association (APA)
APA Colorado
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
Bachelor of Science, May 1987
Major: Zoology/Pre-Med
Awards: Edna Bailey Sussman Scholarship
Susan Stone
1164 Ulysses Street
Golden, CO 80401
970-531-1952
Education University of Texas at Austin
Bachelor of Science in Architectural Studies 1982
Expertise Project Management and Construction Administration
Code Compliance Specialist for ADA (Handicap Accessibility)
Supervision of Employees in Retail Setting
Visitor Center Management — including website design and maintenance
Public Works Administration and Project Management
Work Town of Fraser
Experience 1996-2015
Public Works Administrator and Project Manager 2004-2015
Visitor Center Coordinator 1996-2004
Fraser, Colorado
Winter Park Ski Resort
1994-1996
Manager of Lost and Found
Winter Park, Colorado
TX. Dept. of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, Maint. & Const.
1990-1993
Construction Administrator
Austin, Texas
State of TX. Gen. Svc. Commission
Elimination of Architectural Barriers Section
1989-1990
Architect Assistant
Austin, Texas
Austin Independent School District
Construction Management Division
1984-1989
Project Manager
Austin, Texas
0 04
LAURIE BATCHELDER ADAMS
EDUCATION
Solid Waste Association of North America - Recycling Manager Certification -
1998
University of Denver - MEPM, Environmental Policy and Management - 1996
University of Vermont - MS, Civil Engineering - 1987
University of Vermont - BS, Medical Technology - 1981
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
LBA Associates, Inc., President - 1996 thru 1999, 2002 to present
HDR Engineering, Inc., Environmental Resource Department Manager - 1999 thru
2002
Woodward -Clyde Consultants, Inc., Senior Project Engineer - 1990 thru 1996
The Johnson Company, Inc., Project Engineer - 1988 thru 1990
DuBois & King, Inc., Design Engineer - 1987 thru 1988
REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
Integrated Solid Waste System Planning
• Southwest Colorado Recycling Study for Southwest CO Council of
Governments (on-going)
• Waste Diversion Guidance for United Nations Environmental Programme Small
Island Developing States - as part of sustainability work on tourist
destination islands (on-going)
• Routt County, CO Recycling Study - three -county infrastructure
feasibility analysis
• Western Greater Yellowstone Consortium Recycling Study - regional concept
and cost -estimating study for three Idaho and one Wyoming counties
focusing on MRF analysis
• City of Boulder Zero Waste Evaluation Study - with Kessler Consulting
• Guam Zero Waste Plan - with Matrix Design Services
• Wyoming Statewide Recycling Plan - MSW, C&D, oil & gas waste stream
diversion
• Town of Vail - ski resort/commercial waste audits & diversion policy
evaluation
• Boulder County C&D study - waste projection estimates, diversion
opportunities, preliminary market opportunities and infrastructure needs
• Boulder County recycling & composting capital improvement plans - also
compost and HHW facility planning
• Multiple projects for the Boulder County, CO Recyclables Processing
Center
• Quarterly evaluation of market indices relative to hauler rebates and
market revenues at (2001-06)
2186 S. Washington St.,
Denver, CO 80210 303-733-7943 laurie@lbaassoc.com
Laurie Batchelder Adams
• Feasibility study for using recycled glass in parkways and roadways for
Boulder County, CO
• Preliminary single -stream analysis for Boulder County, CO Recyclables
Processing Center
• MRF acceptance testing for Boulder County, CO Recyclables Processing
Center
• Garfield/Pitkin/Eagle Counties - 4 -landfill waste composition studies
focusing on MSW, C&D diversion opportunities, waste shed materials flows,
organics collections analysis, regional diversion plan (Aspen Mountain
ski resorts in Pitkin County)
• Logan, UT five-year strategic solid waste plan including integration of
trash collection, curbside/drop-off recycling, curbside yard waste and
composting, household hazardous waste, municipal and C&D landfill
disposal and administration
• Denver, CO solid waste plan - recycling/composting, policy analysis,
waste comp, benchmarking, outreach
• Eagle Valley Alliance for Sustainability - feasibility assessment for
curbside organics collection
• Fremont County, WY - optimization analysis for transfer station and
recycling programs
• Chaffee & Lake County, CO ten-year solid waste management plan including
two waste audits, a planning workshop and survey of CO municipalities for
solid waste service/fee and diversion rate levels
• South Routt County, CO five-year solid waste management plan including
on-site waste sort and facilitation of over 20 recycling businesses and
organizations (Steamboat Springs ski resort is located in Routt County)
• Denver Int'l Airport Integrated Waste Management Plan including
municipal/commercial/industrial waste
• Indian Health Service / EPA8 "train -the -trainer" waste audit and planning
project for Wind River and Crow Creek Reservations, created the "Tribal
Waste Audit Handbook"
• Blaine County, ID - peer review of recycling program with improvement
options development including funding for MRF expansion, commercial
recycling and composting (Sun Valley ski area is located in Blaine
County)
• Larimer County, CO strategic solid waste system plan
• Solid waste planning for two Los Angeles Corps of Engineers installations
and Malmstrom Air Force Base
• Lewis & Clark County, MT Environmental Impact Analysis for landfill,
recycling and composting facilities
• Preliminary solid waste strategic plan for City of Novorossiysk, Russia
Recycling Programs & Facility Studies
• Teton County, WY MRF Study - conceptual sizing and cost analysis for 4
recycling streams
• Summit County, CO Cities/Haulers Facilitation - MRF/drop-site
improvements, PAYT (Frisco, CO)
LBA Associates, Inc. 2015
Laurie Batchelder Adams
• Recycling drop site/processing development - Fremont County Solid Waste
District (Lander, WY)
• MSW composting feasibility study - San Luis Valley Resource Conservation
& Development (Alamosa, CO)
• Yard waste/biosolids/mortalities composting study for Garfield County, CO
• Recyclables drop sites/transfer and yard waste composting facility
analysis for Fremont County, WY
• Recycling program & waste composition study for DIA
• Pilot organics collection study for Denver and DIA
• Best management practices for glass recycling for Loveland
• State-wide recycling survey for CDPHE Pollution Prevention Advisory Board
Assistance Committee
• New recycling program for City/Count of Denver's Red Rocks Amphitheater's
• Feasibility study for new Eagle County, CO recyclables transfer station -
plus assistance in assessing curbside recycling for Towns of Eagle/Gypsum
& Eagle County Airport recycling program
• Winter Park Resort's solid waste program and data review (Winter Park,
CO)
• Expanded recycling program at Denver's Webb Municipal Building to earn
gold LEED certification
• Recycling planning study for new program on the University of Utah's Salt
Lake City campus
• Larimer County, CO's recycling program four-year review
• Infrastructure audit and MRF conceptual improvements for Pitkin County,
CO facility
• Cart study for Denver, CO - testing of physical integrity of injection -
versus rotationally -molded samples
• Feasibility and conceptual development of recycling and yard
waste/biosolids compost facilities for Southern Utah Valley Solid Waste
District, UT
• Colorado County Solid Waste Survey - covering 30 Colorado counties
• Recycling extension service research for CO Governor's Office of Energy
Management & Conservation
Procurement & Contracting
• DIA Hauler Procurement - for trash, recyclables, organics (volunteer
bidder review, on-going)
• Larimer County MRF operations procurements services - RFP and 10 -year
contract
• Hauler licensing/contracting study - Arvada, CO
• Single -hauler study (hauler ordinances and contract incentives review) -
City of Boulder, CO
• Privatization of trash collection, addition of curbside recycling
collection - Eagle, CO
• Peer review of recyclables processing and HHW/e-scrap RFPs to Pitkin
County, CO
LBA Associates, Inc. 2015
Laurie Batchelder Adams
• Transfer station operations RFP for Teton County, WY that encouraged
waste diversion over disposal (included waste stream generated at Jackson
Hole ski resort)
• RFP development and bid evaluation for vendor -capitalized MRF retrofit
and 10 -year operating contract for Larimer County, CO - including
facilitation of advisory board input
• RFP assistance for 10 -year recyclables processing contract for Denver, CO
- reflecting municipal changes to both fully automated and single -stream
collection
• Recyclables processing contract advice for Logan, UT - for both dual- and
single -stream materials
• Contract negotiation assistance for 75,000 tpy MRF operator for Boulder
County, CO
Solid Waste Facilities
• Southern Utah Valley Solid Waste District (with RT Sprague) -
benchmarking to assess landfill rate -setting
• City/County of Denver Transfer Station Operations Plan
• Compost feasibility study for Superior and Louisville, CO
• Closure study/evaluation of post -closure development of Lowry Air Force
Base landfill as golf course
• Landfill, compost and service compliance audit for Logan, UT
• Planning for balefill facility in Aleutian Islands, AK to comply with
USACE and FAA requirements
• HELP Model research for landfills in semi -arid climates in Colorado
• Landfill siting study for 34 -town Central Vermont Solid Waste District in
Montpelier, VT
• Permit compliance at Barrow Landfill, AK
OTHER
Colorado Association for Recycling - Past President of Board of Directors
Solid Waste Association of North America - Past President of Int'1 Board &
Past Recycling Division Director
Municipal Solid Waste Management Magazine - Editorial Advisory Board
PUBLICATIONS
Batchelder Adams is a frequent presenter at trade and professional
conferences. A list of her publications is available upon request.
LBA Associates, Inc. 2015
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
JAMES L. NEWBER.RY
District 1, Winter Park 80482
MERRIT S. LINKE
District I1, Granby 80446
KRISTEN MANGUSO
District III, Kremmling 80459
September 22, 2015
RREO Regional Planning Studies Grant Program
Attn: Eric Heyboer
Recycling Grant Program Administrator
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80246
E -Mail: undetvl(a),co.erand.co.us
PHONE: 970/725-3100
Fax: 970/725-0565
EDWARD T. MOYER
Interim County Manager
ALAN N. HASSLER
County Attorney
RE: Town of Fraser RREO Regional Planning Studies Grant Application — Letter of Support
Dear Mr. Heyboer,
We would like to express our support for the RREO Regional Planning Studies grant application being
submitted by the Town of Fraser in coordinating stakeholders to form a waste diversion task force.
This initiative for setting a regional county -wide solid waste diversion strategy will help improve waste
diversion in Grand County and will evaluate the current system and waste stream, build awareness among
generators, and develop a strategic diversion plan over a 10 -year planning period.
We strongly urge your support for the Town of Fraser's RREO Regional Planning Studies grant
application.
Sincerely,
.'*'Im� a L,
Merrit Linke James L. Newberry Kristen Manguso
Commissioner Chairman Commissioner Commissioner
ML: rp
P.O. BOX 264 HOT SULPHUR SPRINGS, CO 80451
0
October 6, 2015
RREO Regional Planning Studies Grant Program
Attn: Eric Heyboer
Recycling Grant Program Administrator
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80246
RE: Town of Fraser RREO Regional Planning Studies Grant Application — Letter of Support
Dear Mr. Heyboer,
The Winter Park & Fraser Chamber is pleased to support the Town of Fraser's initiative for
setting a regional, county -wide solid waste diversion strategy.
The Winter Park & Fraser Chamber believes that is critical for Grand County governments and
its private and non-profit stakeholders to collaborate on improved waste diversion. These
challenges must be approached community wide in order to most effective.
We applaud and support Fraser's leadership in coordinating stakeholders to form a waste
diversion task force that will evaluate the current system and waste stream, build awareness
among generators, and develop a strategic diversion plan over a 10 -year planning period
In the past 18 months the Chamber has worked to collect data that will be useful for this effort.
We will continue to provide available data (and in fact, have already done so for Fraser's
research efforts earlier this year), identify potential samples for waste audits, share our
knowledge, and participate in the public process/task force to inform and guide the strategy as
appropriate.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.
Thank you for your consideration,
atierinet ,� oss Ross
Executive Director
Winter Park & Fraser Chamber
October 7, 2015
RREO Regional Planning Studies Grant Program
Attn: Eric Heyboer
Recycling Grant.Program Administrator
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80246
RE: Town of Fraser RREO Regional Planning Studies Grant Application — Letter of Support
Dear Mr. Heyboer,
Please accept this letter as the Town of Winter Park's support for the Town of Fraser's
Recycling Resources Economic Opportunity Fund Grant Program project application. As noted
in Fraser's application, leadership on this issue is sorely needed in the Fraser Valley. The Town
of Fraser has committed to providing the necessary resources in addition to the RREO funding
to ensure this project's success, and we look forward to collaborating with them on this
endeavor.
The Town of Winter Park respectfully encourages the RREO Fund to consider this funding
request, and we appreciate the opportunity to consider regional solutions to address solid waste
concerns in the Fraser Valley.
Sincerely,
Drew Nelson
Town Manager
October 7, 2015
RREO Regional Planning Studies Grant Program
Attn: Eric Heyboer
Recycling Grant Program Administrator
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80246
TOWN OF GRANBY
PO Box 440
Zero Jasper Avenue
Granby, Colorado 80446
970-887-2501
970.887. 9347 Fax.
RE: Town of Fraser RREO Regional Planning Studies Grant Application — Letter of Support
Dear Mr. Heyboer,
The Town of Granby is pleased to support the Town of Fraser's initiative for setting a regional,
county -wide solid waste diversion strategy.
It is critical for Grand County governments and its private and non-profit stakeholders to
collaborate on improved waste diversion
We support Fraser's leadership in coordinating stakeholders to form a waste diversion task
force that will evaluate the current system and waste stream, build awareness among
generators, and develop a strategic diversion plan over a 10 -year planning period
Specifically, we are willing to provide available data (and in fact, have already done so for
Fraser's research efforts earlier this year), identify potential samples for waste audits, share our
knowledge, and participate in the public process/task force to inform and guide the strategy as
appropriate
Sincerely,
ally d
Town anager
aC
TOWN OF
RAND LAKE
September 28, 2015
RREO Regional Planning Studies Grant Program
Attn: Eric Heyboer
Recycling Grant Program Administrator
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80246
RE: Town of Fraser RREO Regional Planning Studies Grant Application — Letter of Support
Dear Mr. Heyboer,
The Town of Grand Lake is pleased to support the Town of Fraser's initiative for setting a
regional, county -wide solid waste diversion strategy.
It is critical for Grand County governments and its private and non-profit stakeholders to
collaborate on improved waste diversion.
We support Fraser's leadership in coordinating stakeholders to form a waste diversion task force
that will evaluate the current system and waste stream, build awareness among generators, and
develop a strategic diversion plan over a 10 -year planning period.
Specifically, we are willing to provide available data (and in fact, have already done so for
Fraser's research efforts earlier this year), identify potential samples for waste audits, share our
knowledge, and participate in the public process/task force to inform and guide the strategy as
appropriate.
,
udy M..rke
Mayo•
P.O. BOX 99, GRAND LAKE, COLORADO 80447-0099
PH. 970/627-3435
FAX 970/627-9290
E-MAIL town@townofgrandlake.com
SENT Op l
yF United States Department of the Interior
A
vi o
A NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Rocky Mountain National Park
�q&CH 3 �aa9 Estes Park, Colorado 80517
M REPLY REFER TO:
A3815 (ROMO) SEP 3 0 2015
RREO Regional Planning Studies Grant Program
Attn: Eric Heyboer
Recycling Grant Program Administrator
Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80246
Dear Mr. Heyboer:
Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) is pleased to support the Town of Fraser's grant application
and initiative for setting a regional, Grand County -wide solid waste diversion strategy. As a major
regional tourism and recreation attraction, the park understands its role as an economic driver and solid
waste generator. We also understand the importance of thoughtful and long-range planning, including
stakeholder involvement and participation, as well as the identification and incorporation of best
management practices for waste diversion, re -use and recycling opportunities and goals.
If successful, this grant would provide funding for local governments in Grand County and private and
non-profit stakeholders to collaborate on improved waste diversion. We support Fraser's leadership in
coordinating stakeholders to form a waste diversion task force that will evaluate the current system and
waste stream, build awareness among generators, and develop a strategic diversion plan over a 10 -year
planning period.
Specifically, we are willing to provide available data (and in fact, have already done so for Fraser's
research efforts earlier this year), identify potential samples for waste audits, share our knowledge, and
participate in the public process/task force to inform and guide the strategy as appropriate.
Through our Environmental Management System (EMS) goals, the park has identified that
opportunities exist to increase and enhance the recycling, re -using and diversion rates for our internal
operations in the Colorado River District located in Grand County. This grant would provide the
necessary collaboration, stakeholder involvement and long-range plan toward realizing these goals.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Ben Bobowski
Acting Superintendent
cc: Laurie Batchelder Adams
October 5, 2015
RREO Regional Planning Studies Grant Program
Attn: Eric Heyboer
Recycling Grant Program Administrator
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80246
RE: Town of Fraser RREO Regional Planning Studies Grant Application — Letter of Support
Dear Mr. Heyboer,
Winter Park Resort is pleased to support the Town of Fraser's initiative for setting a regional,
county -wide solid waste diversion strategy.
Winter Park Resort encourages Grand County governments and its private and non-
profit stakeholders to collaborate on improved waste diversion. The Resort has been
actively diverting waste products since mid 1980's. We started our "CONNECTION"
program in early 2000 to bring awareness to our employees and community for waste
and energy reduction initiatives.
Winter Park Resort supports Fraser's leadership in coordinating stakeholders to form a
waste diversion task force that will evaluate the current system and waste stream, build
awareness among generators, and develop a strategic diversion plan over a 10 -year
planning period.
Specifically, Winter Park Resort supports stakeholders providing available data (and in
fact, we have already done so for Fraser's research efforts earlier this year), identify
potential samples for waste audits, share our knowledge, and participate in the public
process/task force to inform and guide the strategy as appropriate.
Sincerely,
Hal D. Newberry
Base Operations Director
Winter Park Resort
WINTER PARK RESORT P.O. BOX 36 WINTER PARK, CO 80482
970.726.5514 303.892.0961 FAX 303.892.5823
www.winterparl(resort.com
Pawnee
NarionqJ
Steamb Fort Collins UrassJand
S gs 0 Sterling
Greeley
BOLJI(Je
C"eamb,.,z,
S Fort
Arapaho
National Fol res enver
Willie 81 Breckenridge
J�, 0
National forest
Aspen COLORADO
Grand
Junction
Colarado
Springs
San Jsab6
NarionaJ Forest
Montro,".. 0
0 - - Sa�*l
Uncompahgre Pueb':Q
N,q rion.W Fores r 0
Telluride
Ma Grande
NarianaJ f-oresc
Alamn5a
Coriez
San Jua q Pagosa Springs
Narion,q) Foresr G TcindaA
Rainn
I
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE
OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
CERTIFICATE
I, Wayne W. Williams, as the Secretary of State of the State of Colorado, hereby certify that, according to
the records of this office,
LBA associates inc.
is a Corporation formed or registered on 01/20/2005 under the law of Colorado, has complied with all
applicable requirements of this office, and is in good standing with this office. This entity has been
assigned entity identification number 20041439155.
This certificate reflects facts established or disclosed by documents delivered to this office on paper
through 09/08/2015 that have been posted, and by documents delivered to this office electronically
through 09/09/2015 @ 11:29:09.
I have affixed hereto the Great Seal of the State of Colorado and duly generated, executed, authenticated,
issued, delivered and communicated this official certificate at Denver, Colorado on 09/09/2015 @
11:29:09 pursuant to and in accordance with applicable law. This certificate is assigned Confirmation
Number 9300372.
***********************End of
NOW or/
FM .10
Secretary of State of the State of Colorado
Notice: A certificate issued electronically from the Colorado Secretary of State's Web site is fully and immediately valid and effective. However,
as an option, the issuance and validity of a certificate obtained electronically may be established by visiting the Certificate Confirmation Page of
the Secretary of State's Web site, http://www.sos.state.co.us/bizICertificateSearchCriteria.do entering the certificate's confirmation number
displayed on the certificate, and following the instructions displayed. Confirming the issuance of a certificate is mereloptional and is not
necessaty to the valid and effective issuance ofa certificate. For more information, visit our Web site, http://www.sos.state.co.us/click Business
Center and select "Frequently Asked Questions. "
CERT GS D Revised 08/20/2008
LBA ASSOCIATES
September 8, 2015
Jeff Durbin, Town Manager
153 Fraser Ave., PO Box 370
Fraser, Colorado 80442
RE: Town of Fraser
RREO Grant Application
Dear Jeff:
LBA Associates, Inc. (LBA) is pleased to confirm our interest in working with the Town of Fraser
again on waste diversion practices in Grand County. Like you, we feel that this region has unique
waste management challenges, but that the public, private and non-profit stakeholders can
collectively drive more sustainable recycling and organics recovery over the next 10 years.
To be successful, this project will require strategic thinking, creative -problem solving, good public
dialogue and strong partnerships. LBA brings years of relevant experience from other rural, regional
communities in Colorado, Wyoming and Idaho and is excited to be a part of the change process in
Grand County.
We have reviewed the Town's RREO Work Plan and budget, and can commit to completing the tasks
outlined therein for the time and material costs indicated. We also have the ability to meet the
November 2015 through October 2016 schedule.
Thank you for including us - we look forward to getting started.
Sincerely,
Laurie Batchelder Adams, President
LBA ASSOCIATES, INC.
2186 S. Washington St., Denver, Colorado 80210 303-733-7943 laurie0ftaassoc.com
Notes from Trustee Jane Mather to members of the Board of Trustees regarding solid
waste and recycling for Fraser
The issues that I believe Town staff should be addressing in the near term are:
- Reducing the costs of trash pick-up, now $30 to $40 per unit, by having a town contract.
- Reducing the costs of recycling pick-up, now $25 to $35 per unit, by having a town
contract. At the current costs, many of us make the extra effort to drive to Granby to get rid of
our recycling, either at Ace or the Trash Company.
- Providing a way for visitors to the Fraser Valley to get rid of trash and recycling if they do not
have a way to get rid of these items where they are visiting.
I know that the last issue, addressing visitors needs, is an item that affects all of the Fraser
Valley, as visitors outside of Fraser in unincorporated Grand County and Winter Park would also
use this service. I doubt that visitors in Granby would use Fraser services, as they have
services in Granby.
I pay to recycle in Granby and pay for trash pick-up in Fraser. I believe that visitors to the
community would also be willing to pay a reasonable amount that covers the service
costs. Therefore visitors to Winter Park and unincorporated Grand County could be served
without a concern that it is costing Fraser money. Perhaps, these other government entities
might want to contribute something, but that is a question that can be asked without a major
survey.
The basic questions are:
- How much trash and recycling would we have, therefore how many bins do we need? (This
can be a much quicker survey, if a survey is even needed.)
- Where can it be located that has enough space and where payments can be monitored?
I understand that many of us are concerned that our trash is being sent to the Front
Range. This is a reasonable question, but it is much bigger and more complex question than
providing local trash and recycling service at a reasonable rate.
TOWN OF FRASER - JOINT FACILITIES
BALANCE SHEET
DECEMBER 31. 2015
JOINT FACILITIES FUND
ASSETS
40-10210 JFOC CHECKING -GMB 0318047507 131,456.33
40-10215 GMB MONEY MARKET -O&M RESERVE 31,046.81
40-11550 A/R - W PR 10,335.38
40-11560 A/R - GC#1 16,184.92
40-11570 A/R - TOF 9,366.45
TOTAL ASSETS
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
LIABILITIES
40-20920 JFOC O&M RESERVE
TOTAL LIABILITIES
FUND EQUITY
UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE:
REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES - YTD
BALANCE - CURRENT DATE
TOTAL FUND EQUITY
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
198,389.89
196, 631.34
196, 631.34
1,758.55
1,758.55
1,758.55
198,389.89
TOWN OF FRASER - JOINT FACILITIES
REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET
FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015
JOINT FACILITIES FUND
PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT
REVENUE
40-30-100
INTEREST - O&M ACCOUNTS
26.49
300.23
300.00 (
.23)
100.1
40-30-200
O&M REIMBURSEMENT - WPR
10,335.38
165,271.55
242,567.00
77,295.45
68.1
40-30-210
O&M REIMBURSEMENT - GC#1
16,184.92
260,019.78
386,932.00
126,912.22
67.2
40-30-220
O&M REIMBURSEMENT - TOF
9,366.45
146,013.23
209,833.00
63,819.77
69.6
40-30-900
MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE
.00
1,458.32
.00 (
1,458.32)
.0
40-30-999
CARRYOVER BALANCE
.00
.00
196,089.00
196,089.00
.0
TOTAL REVENUE
35,913.24
573,063.11
1,035,721.00
462,657.89
55.3
TOTAL FUND REVENUE
35,913.24
573,063.11
1,035,721.00
462,657.89
55.3
TOWN OF FRASER - JOINT FACILITIES
EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET
FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31. 2015
JOINT FACILITIES FUND
PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT
PLANT EXPENDITURES
40-85-110
SALARIES
10,388.48
173,222.74
207,713.00
34,490.26
83.4
40-85-210
HEALTH INSURANCE
1,920.60
32,337.07
56,448.00
24,110.93
57.3
40-85-220
FICA TAX
769.32
12,590.41
15,890.00
3,299.59
79.2
40-85-230
RETIREMENT
415.54
6,299.38
8,309.00
2,009.62
75.8
40-85-250
UNEMPLOYMENT TAX
31.23
520.99
623.00
102.01
83.6
40-85-280
TRAINING PROGRAMS
.00
240.00
3,000.00
2,760.00
8.0
40-85-290
TRAVEL - MEALS AND LODGING
.00
95.45
3,500.00
3,404.55
2.7
40-85-295
MEALS - LOCAL BUSINESS
.00
45.35
500.00
454.65
9.1
40-85-310
LEGAL FEES
.00
.00
5,000.00
5,000.00
.0
40-85-320
AUDIT FEE
.00
4,074.00
4,750.00
676.00
85.8
40-85-330
ENGINEERING FEES
1,092.00
1,092.00
15,000.00
13,908.00
7.3
40-85-350
SLUDGE REMOVAL
1,467.09
31,127.99
65,000.00
33,872.01
47.9
40-85-370
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
267.96
3,215.52
10,000.00
6,784.48
32.2
40-85-375
REIMBURSABLE PROF SERVICES
.00
.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
.0
40-85-410
BANK CHARGES
.00
.00
100.00
100.00
.0
40-85-430
INSURANCE - PLANT
.00
25,176.54
32,000.00
6,823.46
78.7
40-85-440
ADVERTISING
.00
1,074.55
500.00 (
574.55)
214.9
40-85-460
PLANT MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
755.63
28,238.85
50,000.00
21,761.15
56.5
40-85-475
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE
86.69
1,104.38
2,500.00
1,395.62
44.2
40-85-480
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
.00
.00
500.00
500.00
.0
40-85-490
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
.00
.00
500.00
500.00
.0
40-85-500
OPERATING SUPPLIES
209.38
2,840.09
20,000.00
17,159.91
14.2
40-85-506
OPERATING SUPPLIES - CHEMICALS
3,050.40
26,743.74
75,000.00
48,256.26
35.7
40-85-510
EQUIPMENT PURCHASE AND REPAIR
.00
4,445.05
20,000.00
15,554.95
22.2
40-85-520
TESTING
2,682.80
35,413.08
65,000.00
29,586.92
54.5
40-85-525
PERMITS
.00
.00
10,000.00
10,000.00
.0
40-85-550
POSTAGE
.00
215.68
.00 (
215.68)
.0
40-85-560
UTILITIES - TELEPHONE
257.79
3,255.51
3,500.00
244.49
93.0
40-85-562
UTILITIES - ELECTRICITY
11,073.46
166,280.25
145,000.00 (
21,280.25)
114.7
40-85-565
UTILITIES - NATURAL GAS
319.16
2,506.20
6,500.00
3,993.80
38.6
40-85-567
UTILITIES - PLANT GENERATOR
.00
.00
500.00
500.00
.0
40-85-569
UTILITIES - TRASH REMOVAL
174.48
2,027.76
2,500.00
472.24
81.1
40-85-650
VEHICLE EXPENSES
924.74
6,971.98
7,500.00
528.02
93.0
40-85-690
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE
.00
150.00
1,000.00
850.00
15.0
TOTAL PLANT EXPENDITURES
35,886.75
571,304.56
839,333.00
268,028.44
68.1
TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES
35,886.75
571,304.56
839,333.00
268,028.44
68.1
NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES 26.49 1,758.55 196,388.00 194,629.45 .9
TOWN OF FRASER - JOINT FACILITIES
BALANCE SHEET
DECEMBER 31, 2015
JFF - CRR/CIP FUND
47-10220
COLOTRUST 8006 - CRR
47-10310
CB MONEY MARKET - CRR
47-10410
GMB MONEY MARKET - CRR
47-10526
CDARS - 1015300872 - CRR
47-10527
CDARS - 1017868876 - CRR
47-10528
CDARS - 1018437569 - CRR
47-10529
CDARS - 1018459163 - CRR
TOTAL ASSETS
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
LIABILITIES
47-20910 JFOC - CRR FUNDS
TOTAL LIABILITIES
cl lkin —1 11—
UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE:
REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES - YTD
BALANCE - CURRENT DATE
TOTAL FUND EQUITY
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
418,755.57
170,917.37
40,056.05
386,536.41
300,554.48
386,998.95
2,233,428.19
2,090,776.93
TOWN OF FRASER - JOINT FACILITIES
REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET
FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015
JFF - CRR/CIP FUND
PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT
CRR AND CIP FUND REVENUES
47-30-100 INTEREST INCOME - CRR ACCOUNTS
47-30-800 SALE OF JFOC FIXED ASSETS
47-30-990 CRR CARRYOVER BALANCE
TOTAL CRR AND CIP FUND REVENUES
TOTAL FUND REVENUE
824.83
12,243.36
12,000.00 (
243.36)
102.0
.00
14,215.69
.00 (
14,215.69)
.0
.00
.00
1,879,684.00
1,879, 684.00
.0
824.83
26,459.05
1,891,684.00
1,865,224.95
1.4
824.83
26,459.05
1,891,684.00
1,865,224.95
1.4
TOWN OF FRASER - JOINT FACILITIES
EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET
FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015
JFF - CRR/CIP FUND
PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT
CAPITAL RPLMNTRESERVE PROJECTS
47-60-370
ENG, LEGAL & OTHER PROF SRVCS
47-60-730
CRR PROJECTS
.0
.0
TOTAL CAPITAL RPLMNTRESERVE PROJEC
101,755.31
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
47-65-370
ENG, LEGAL & OTHER PROF SRVCS
47-65-730
CIP PROJECTS
.00 (
145,000.00
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
.0
46.4
TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES
67,355.00
NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES
10,896.00
.00
101,755.31
.00
.00 (
25,700.00
101,755.31)
25,700.00
.0
.0
10,896.00
101,755.31
25,700.00 (
76,055.31)
395.9
.00
.00
25.00
67,330.00
.00 (
145,000.00
25.00)
77,670.00
.0
46.4
.00
67,355.00
145,000.00
77,645.00
46.5
10,896.00
169,110.31
170,700.00
1,589.69
99.1
( 10,071.17) (
142,651.26)
1,720,984.00
1,863,635.26
( 8.3)
TOWN OF FRASER
COMBINED CASH INVESTMENT
DECEMBER 31. 2015
COMBINED CASH ACCOUNTS
01-10200 GENERAL CHECKING #878-000884
01-10220 GENERAL CO -01-0160-8001
TOTAL COMBINED CASH
01-10100 CASH ALLOCATED TO OTHER FUNDS
TOTAL UNALLOCATED CASH
CASH ALLOCATION RECONCILIATION
10 ALLOCATION TO GENERAL FUND
20 ALLOCATION TO CONSERVATION TRUST FUND
30 ALLOCATION TO CAPITAL EQUIP REPLACEMENT FUND
32 ALLOCATION TO CAPITAL ASSET FUND
40 ALLOCATION TO DEBT SERVICE FUND
50 ALLOCATION TO WATER FUND
55 ALLOCATION TO WASTEWATER FUND
TOTAL ALLOCATIONS TO OTHER FUNDS
ALLOCATION FROM COMBINED CASH FUND - 01-10100
ZERO PROOF IF ALLOCATIONS BALANCE
158,935.35
8,571,728.78
8,730,664.13
( 8,730,664.13)
.00
2,981,000.72
12,035.33
412,321.87
110,536.96
574,811.02
1,417,881.95
3,222,076.28
8,730,664.13
( 8,730,664.13)
.00
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 01/18/2016 09:07AM PAGE: 1
10-10100
CASH -COMBINED FUND
10-10290
CASH WITH TREASURER
10-11100
PROPERTY TAXES RECEIVABLE
10-11550
ACCTS REC - BILLINGS
10-22920
TOTAL ASSETS
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
IEI\ Mmbdl K�
10-21740
UNEMPLOYMENT TAXES PAYABLE
10-21760
HEALTH INSURANCE PAYABLE
10-21775
FLEX HEALTH PLAN PAYABLE
10-22210
DEFERRED TAXES
10-22920
SUBDIVISION IMP SECURITY DEP
10-22930
DRIVEWAY PERMIT SURETY
10-22950
RENTAL PROPERTY DEPOSITS HELD
TOTAL LIABILITIES
10-27000 COMMITTED FUND BALANCE
10-27100 TOTAL RESTRICTED FUND BALANCE
UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE:
REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES - YTD
BALANCE - CURRENT DATE
TOTAL FUND EQUITY
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
TOWN OF FRASER
BALANCE SHEET
DECEMBER 31, 2015
GENERALFUND
2, 981, 000.72
615.82
197,206.00
57,212.20
( .44)
35.58
2,240.57
197,206.35
245,242.25
21,125.00
inn nn
466,049.31
750,000.00
251,805.00
1,768,180.43
1,768,180.43
2,769,985.43
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 01/18/2016 09:07AM PAGE: 2
TOWN OF FRASER
REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET
FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015
GENERALFUND
PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT
TAXES
10-31-100
GENERAL FUND PROPERTY TAX
567.65
197,416.94
197,265.00 (
151.94)
100.1
10-31-200
SPECIFIC OWNERSHIP TAX
963.44
11,875.29
10,000.00 (
1,875.29)
118.8
10-31-300
MOTOR VEHICLE TAX
309.00
3,813.50
4,200.00
386.50
90.8
10-31-400
TOWN SALES TAX
106,435.69
1,457,579.81
1,595,000.00
137,420.19
91.4
10-31-410
USE TAX- BUILDING MATERIALS
103.62
261,381.98
65,000.00 (
196,381.98)
402.1
10-31-420
USE TAX - MOTOR VEHICLE SALES
6,036.88
59,822.74
55,000.00 (
4,822.74)
108.8
10-31-430
STATE CIGARETTE TAX
346.92
3,230.43
4,000.00
769.57
80.8
10-31-800
FRANCHISE FEES
1,050.67
40,829.30
50,000.00
9,170.70
81.7
10-36-610
TOTAL TAXES
115,813.87
2,035,949.99
1,980,465.00 (
55,484.99)
102.8
10-36-900
LICENSES & PERMITS
17.49
22,666.10
30,000.00
7,333.90
75.6
10-32-100
BUSINESS LICENSE FEES
320.00
13,100.00
12,750.00 (
350.00)
102.8
10-32-110
REGULATED INDUSTRY FEES/TAXES
5,808.70
92,535.01
25,000.00 (
67,535.01)
370.1
TOTAL LICENSES & PERMITS 6,128.70 105,635.01 37,750.00 ( 67,885.01) 279.8
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
10-33-100 GRANTS .00 77,847.44 166,000.00 88,152.56 46.9
TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL .00 77,847.44 166,000.00 88,152.56 46.9
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
10-34-100
ANNEXATION FEES
.00
275.00
1,000.00
725.00
27.5
10-34-110
ZONING FEES
.00
8,925.00
1,500.00 (
7,425.00)
595.0
10-34-120
SUBDIVISION FEES
.00
29,550.00
1,500.00 (
28,050.00)
1970.0
10-34-130
MISCELLANEOUS PLANNING FEES
80.00
2,300.00
1,000.00 (
1,300.00)
230.0
TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES
80.00
41,050.00
5,000.00 (
36,050.00)
821.0
MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE
10-36-100
INTEREST EARNINGS
740.19
5,161.34
3,250.00 (
1,911.34)
158.8
10-36-300
RENTAL INCOME
1,305.00
15,615.00
9,500.00 (
6,115.00)
164.4
10-36-610
REIMBURSABLE - PROF SERVICES
( 3,154.87)
110,064.24
100,000.00 (
10,064.24)
110.1
10-36-900
MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE
17.49
22,666.10
30,000.00
7,333.90
75.6
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE
( 1,092.19)
153,506.68
142,750.00 (
10,756.68)
107.5
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 01/18/2016 09:07AM PAGE: 3
TOWN OF FRASER
REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET
FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015
GENERALFUND
PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT
OTHER SOURCES & TRANSFERS
10-39-900 TRANSFERS IN FROM OTHER FUNDS
00 10,000.00
10,000.00
.00 100.0
10-39-999 UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE
.00 2,116,144.50
2,003,613.00 (
112,531.50) 105.6
TOTAL OTHER SOURCES & TRANSFERS
.00 2,126,144.50
2,013,613.00 (
112,531.50) 105.6
TOTAL FUND REVENUE
120,930.38 4,540,133.62 4,345,578.00 ( 194,555.62) 104.5
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 01/18/2016 09:07AM PAGE: 4
TOWN OF FRASER
EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET
FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31. 2015
GENERALFUND
PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT
Ifelyty ki1Zi7_111
10-41-110
SALARIES
5,115.00
20,475.00
26,000.00
5,525.00
78.8
10-41-220
FICA TAX
391.30
1,566.35
1,989.00
422.65
78.8
10-41-280
TRAINING PROGRAMS
.00
3,152.17
6,000.00
2,847.83
52.5
10-41-290
TRAVEL, MEALS AND LODGING
.00
1,946.18
5,000.00
3,053.82
38.9
10-41-295
MEALS AND ENTERTAINMENT
1,192.32
7,717.89
8,000.00
282.11
96.5
10-41-690
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE
600.00 (
13,779.45)
8,000.00
21,779.45
(172.2)
10-41-860
GRANTS AND AID TO AGENCIES
.00
14,155.00
.00 (
14,155.00)
.0
10-41-861
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS
.00
9,000.00
9,000.00
.00
100.0
10-41-862
FRASER/W INTER PARK POLICE DEPT
33,835.00
406,020.00
432,000.00
25,980.00
94.0
10-41-863
STREET LIGHTING AND SIGNALS
2,055.15
17,452.95
15,250.00 (
2,202.95)
114.5
10-41-864
SPECIAL EVENTS
.00
12,500.00
10,000.00 (
2,500.00)
125.0
10-41-867
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - IGA
.00
44,993.10
68,114.00
23,120.90
66.1
10-41-868
WINTER SHUTTLE - IGA
.00
64,750.00
80,000.00
15,250.00
80.9
10-41-870
BUSINESS DIST STREETSCAPE
689.90
3,889.90
100,000.00
96,110.10
3.9
10-41-871
BUSINESS ENHANCEMENT PROGRAMS
.00
48,089.92
105,000.00
56,910.08
45.8
TOTAL TOWN BOARD 43,878.67 641,929.01 874,353.00 232,423.99 73.4
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 01/18/2016 09:07AM PAGE: 5
TOWN OF FRASER
EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET
FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31. 2015
GENERALFUND
PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT
ADMINISTRATION
10-45-110
SALARIES
23,327.24
243,764.50
250,000.00
6,235.50
97.5
10-45-210
HEALTH INSURANCE
3,550.56
42,170.92
35,000.00 (
7,170.92)
120.5
10-45-220
FICA TAX
1,595.22
15,756.18
19,125.00
3,368.82
82.4
10-45-230
RETIREMENT
867.81
8,395.06
10,000.00
1,604.94
84.0
10-45-250
UNEMPLOYMENT TAX
70.46
736.95
750.00
13.05
98.3
10-45-280
TRAINING PROGRAMS
.00
3,324.82
4,000.00
675.18
83.1
10-45-290
TRAVEL, MEALS AND LODGING
.00
6,605.51
5,000.00 (
1,605.51)
132.1
10-45-295
MEALS AND ENTERTAINMENT
520.74
1,330.23
3,500.00
2,169.77
38.0
10-45-310
LEGAL FEES
7,077.24
51,431.52
65,000.00
13,568.48
79.1
10-45-320
AUDIT FEES
.00
12,221.00
22,672.00
10,451.00
53.9
10-45-330
ENGINEERING FEES
441.00
5,995.65
10,000.00
4,004.35
60.0
10-45-360
COMPUTERS -NETWORKS AND SUPPORT
1,825.15
32,770.70
65,000.00
32,229.30
50.4
10-45-370
OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
6,483.90
37,601.87
90,000.00
52,398.13
41.8
10-45-375
REIMBURSABLE PROF SERVICES
5,875.00
111,490.27
100,000.00 (
11,490.27)
111.5
10-45-380
JANITORIAL SERVICES
856.32
7,760.60
15,300.00
7,539.40
50.7
10-45-385
TREASURER'S FEES
11.37
3,948.31
5,918.00
1,969.69
66.7
10-45-395
RECORDING FEES
.00
500.00
1,000.00
500.00
50.0
10-45-410
BANK CHARGES
46.50
639.98
1,000.00
360.02
64.0
10-45-420
ELECTIONS
2,156.20
2,156.20
5,000.00
2,843.80
43.1
10-45-430
INSURANCE - ALL DEPARTMENTS
.00
37,970.04
42,000.00
4,029.96
90.4
10-45-440
ADVERTISING
54.45
152.54
2,500.00
2,347.46
6.1
10-45-490
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
.00
6,887.52
7,000.00
112.48
98.4
10-45-500
OPERATING SUPPLIES
2,294.56
10,197.34
12,000.00
1,802.66
85.0
10-45-510
EQUIPMENT PURCHASE AND REPAIR
6,701.11
10,938.78
15,750.00
4,811.22
69.5
10-45-550
POSTAGE
168.00
1,294.38
2,000.00
705.62
64.7
10-45-560
UTILITIES -TELEPHONE
557.98
6,386.36
6,500.00
113.64
98.3
10-45-561
UTILITIES - NATURAL GAS
423.17
3,352.49
6,000.00
2,647.51
55.9
10-45-562
UTILITIES - ELECTRICITY
498.31
4,784.63
7,000.00
2,215.37
68.4
10-45-569
UTILITIES - TRASH REMOVAL
108.61
1,201.66
2,500.00
1,298.34
48.1
10-45-670
PROP MGMT - 107 EISENHOWER DR
1,285.54
13,613.05
29,000.00
15,386.95
46.9
10-45-671
PROP MGMT - 105 FRASER AVE
.00
2,382.27
500.00 (
1,882.27)
476.5
10-45-673
PROP MGMT - 153 FRASER AVE
240.00
4,570.15
20,000.00
15,429.85
22.9
10-45-674
PROP MGMT - 200 EISENHOWER DR
.00
28.98
1,000.00
971.02
2.9
10-45-676
PROP MGMT - 400 DOC SUSIE AVE
.00
110.53
500.00
389.47
22.1
10-45-690
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE
.00
1,325.50
8,000.00
6,674.50
16.6
10-45-810
LEASE/PURCHASE - PRINCIPAL
.00
20,206.87
20,207.00
.13
100.0
10-45-820
LEASE/PURCHASE- INTEREST
.00
18,166.89
18,167.00
.11
100.0
TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 67,036.44 732,170.25 908,889.00 176,718.75 80.6
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 01/18/2016 09:07AM PAGE: 6
TOWN OF FRASER
EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET
FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31. 2015
GENERALFUND
PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT
PUBLIC WORKS
10-60-110
SALARIES
29,627.93
381,132.91
410,296.00
29,163.09
92.9
10-60-210
HEALTH INSURANCE
6,512.03
76,562.16
75,000.00 (
1,562.16)
102.1
10-60-220
FICA TAX
2,238.42
27,710.16
31,388.00
3,677.84
88.3
10-60-230
RETIREMENT
1,183.13
12,231.12
16,412.00
4,180.88
74.5
10-60-250
UNEMPLOYMENTTAX
92.94
1,156.11
1,231.00
74.89
93.9
10-60-260
WORKERS COMP CLAIMS
31.30
500.00
.00 (
500.00)
.0
10-60-280
TRAINING PROGRAMS
.00
804.25
2,000.00
1,195.75
40.2
10-60-290
TRAVEL, MEALS AND LODGING
.00
1,280.72
2,000.00
719.28
64.0
10-60-295
MEALS AND ENTERTAINMENT
.00
339.11
750.00
410.89
45.2
10-60-330
ENGINEERING FEES
8,444.50
18,293.27
45,000.00
26,706.73
40.7
10-60-360
COMPUTER NETWORK SUPPORT
200.00
1,770.00
2,000.00
230.00
88.5
10-60-370
OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
.00
3,968.00
2,500.00 (
1,468.00)
158.7
10-60480
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
.00
.00
2,500.00
2,500.00
.0
10-60490
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
.00
440.75
750.00
309.25
58.8
10-60-500
OPERATING SUPPLIES
14,404.34
67,597.13
75,000.00
7,402.87
90.1
10-60-506
PLANTS/PLANTER SUPPLIES
40.07
11,810.17
12,000.00
189.83
98.4
10-60-510
EQUIPMENT PURCHASE AND REPAIR
2,130.83
47,976.56
35,000.00 (
12,976.56)
137.1
10-60-560
UTILITIES - TELEPHONE
211.29
3,363.25
2,700.00 (
663.25)
124.6
10-60-561
UTILITIES -NATURAL GAS
776.49
4,962.70
6,000.00
1,037.30
82.7
10-60-562
UTILITIES -ELECTRICITY
178.02
1,717.72
3,000.00
1,282.28
57.3
10-60-569
UTILITIES - TRASH REMOVAL
115.46
2,043.95
2,100.00
56.05
97.3
10-60-670
PROP MGMT - 125 FRASER AVE
3,890.00
4,577.37
5,000.00
422.63
91.6
10-60-673
PROP MGMT - FRASER RIVER TRAIL
11,132.85
25,381.01
13,000.00 (
12,381.01)
195.2
10-60-674
PROP MGMT - HWY 40 PEDESTRIAN
.00
4.86
18,000.00
17,995.14
.0
10-60-675
PROP MGMT - KOPPERS PARK
.00
1,717.26
.00 (
1,717.26)
.0
10-60-676
PROP MGMT - OLD SCHLHOUSE PK
.00
1,227.76
5,000.00
3,772.24
24.6
10-60-678
PROP MGMT - OUTDOORACTIVITYCTR
.00
51.07
.00 (
51.07)
.0
10-60-679
PROP MGMT - SCHOOL BUS GARAGE
1,457.65
4,928.26
7,000.00
2,071.74
70.4
10-60-681
PROP MGMT - COZENS RANCH PARK
44,374.37
187,284.17
230,000.00
42,715.83
81.4
10-60-684
PROP MGMT - FRODO
.00
.00
5,000.00
5,000.00
.0
10-60-685
PROP MGMT - MTN MAN PARK
.00
700.00
500.00 (
200.00)
140.0
10-60-686
GORANSON STATION
.00
1,541.78
1,500.00 (
41.78)
102.8
10-60-690
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE
1,194.83
2,809.81
1,500.00 (
1,309.81)
187.3
10-60-725
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
179,746.03
198,489.59
285,000.00
86,510.41
69.7
10-60-730
CAPITAL PROJECTS
.00
.00
10,000.00
10,000.00
.0
TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS
307,982.48
1,094,372.98
1,309,127.00
214,754.02
83.6
120 ZEREX AVENUE
10-65-380
JANITORIAL SERVICES
450.00
4,800.00
5,610.00
810.00
85.6
10-65-561
UTILITIES - NATURAL GAS
97.02
969.58
1,515.00
545.42
64.0
10-65-562
UTILITIES - ELECTRICITY
75.61
744.73
1,010.00
265.27
73.7
10-65-670
PROP MGMT - 120 ZEREX
97.14
416.64
5,000.00
4,583.36
8.3
TOTAL 120 ZEREX AVENUE 719.77 6,930.95 13,135.00 6,204.05 52.8
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 01/18/2016 09:07AM PAGE: 7
TOWN OF FRASER
EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET
FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015
GENERALFUND
PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT
TRANSFERS
10-90-935 TRANSFER TO CAF
00
50,000.00
50,000.00
.00
100.0
10-90-940 TRANSFER TO DEBT SERVICE FUND
.00
246,550.00
246,550.00
.00
100.0
TOTAL TRANSFERS
.00
296,550.00
296,550.00
.00
100.0
TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES
419,617.36
2,771,953.19
3,402,054.00
630,100.81
81.5
NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES
( 298,686.98)
1,768,180.43
943,524.00 (
824,656.43)
187.4
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 01/18/2016 09:07AM PAGE: 8
TOWN OF FRASER
BALANCE SHEET
DECEMBER 31. 2015
CONSERVATION TRUST FUND
ASSETS
20-10100 CASH -COMBINED FUND
TOTAL ASSETS
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
FUND EQUITY
UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE:
REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES - YTD 12,035.33
BALANCE -CURRENT DATE
TOTAL FUND EQUITY
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
12,035.33
12,035.33
12,035.33
12,035.33
12,035.33
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 01/18/2016 09:07AM PAGE: 9
TOWN OF FRASER
REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET
FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015
CONSERVATION TRUST FUND
PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT
REVENUE
20-30-100 CONS TRUST (LOTTERY) PROCEEDS
1,260.98
5,522.90
6,500.00
977.10
85.0
20-30-800 INTEREST EARNINGS
2.22
17.46
15.00 (
2.46)
116.4
20-30-999 UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE
.00
16,494.97
6,899.00 (
9,595.97)
239.1
TOTAL REVENUE
1,263.20
22,035.33
13,414.00 (
8,621.33)
164.3
TOTAL FUND REVENUE
1,263.20
22,035.33
13,414.00 (
8,621.33)
164.3
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 01/18/2016 09:07AM PAGE: 10
TOWN OF FRASER
EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET
FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015
CONSERVATION TRUST FUND
PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT
EXPENDITURES
20-40-910 TRANSFER TO GENERAL FUND
00
10,000.00
.00 (
10,000.00)
.0
20-40-920 TRANSFER TO OTHER FUNDS
.00
.00
10,000.00
10,000.00
.0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
.00
10,000.00
10,000.00
.00
100.0
TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES
.00
10,000.00
10,000.00
.00
100.0
NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES
1,263.20
12,035.33
3,414.00 (
8,621.33)
352.5
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 01/18/2016 09:07AM PAGE: 11
TOWN OF FRASER
BALANCE SHEET
DECEMBER 31. 2015
CAPITAL EQUIP REPLACEMENT FUND
ASSETS
30-10100 CASH -COMBINED FUND
TOTAL ASSETS
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
FUND EQUITY
UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE:
REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES - YTD 412,321.87
BALANCE -CURRENT DATE
TOTAL FUND EQUITY
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
412,321.87
412,321.87
412,321.87
412,321.87
412, 321.87
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 01/18/2016 09:07AM PAGE: 12
TOWN OF FRASER
REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET
FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015
CAPITAL EQUIP REPLACEMENT FUND
PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT
REVENUE
30-30-100
HWY USE TAX PROCEEDS
5,425.21
42,495.37
45,039.00
2,543.63
94.4
30-30-800
INTEREST EARNINGS
117.92
750.84
300.00 (
450.84)
250.3
30-30-920
TRANSFER FROM UTILITY FUNDS
.00
20,000.00
20,000.00
.00
100.0
30-30-999
UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE
.00
465,578.04
464,835.00 (
743.04)
100.2
TOTAL REVENUE
5,543.13
528,824.25
530,174.00
1,349.75
99.8
TOTAL FUND REVENUE
5,543.13
528,824.25
530,174.00
1,349.75
99.8
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 01/18/2016 09:07AM PAGE: 13
TOWN OF FRASER
EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET
FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015
CAPITAL EQUIP REPLACEMENT FUND
PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT
EXPENDITURES
30-40-745
PUBLIC SAFETY FLEET PURCHASE
53,732.85
62,045.35
48,000.00 (
14,045.35)
129.3
30-40-750
REGULAR FLEET PURCHASE
.00
9,039.16
90,000.00
80,960.84
10.0
30-40-755
HEAVY EQUIPMENT PURCHASE
.00
.00
20,000.00
20,000.00
.0
30-40-810
LEASE/PURCHASE - PRINCIPAL
.00
42,014.94
42,015.00
.06
100.0
30-40-820
LEASE/PURCHASE - INTEREST
.00
3,402.93
3,403.00
.07
100.0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
53,732.85
116,502.38
203,418.00
86,915.62
57.3
TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES 53,732.85 116,502.38 203,418.00 86,915.62 57.3
NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES ( 48,189.72) 412,321.87 326,756.00 ( 85,565.87) 126.2
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 01/18/2016 09:07AM PAGE: 14
TOWN OF FRASER
BALANCE SHEET
DECEMBER 31. 2015
CAPITAL ASSET FUND
ASSETS
32-10100 CASH -COMBINED FUND
TOTAL ASSETS
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
FUND EQUITY
UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE:
REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES - YTD 110,536.96
BALANCE -CURRENT DATE
TOTAL FUND EQUITY
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
110,536.96
110,536.96
110,536.96
110,536.96
110,536.96
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 01/18/2016 09:07AM PAGE: 15
CAPITAL ASSET REVENUE
32-30-100 RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE
32-30-800 INTEREST EARNINGS
32-30-910 TRANSFER IN FROM GENERAL FUND
32-30-999 UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE
TOTAL CAPITAL ASSET REVENUE
TOTAL FUND REVENUE
TOWN OF FRASER
REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET
FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015
CAPITAL ASSET FUND
PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT
.00
1,399,453.53
1,420,000.00
20,546.47
98.6
186.90
1,365.30
250.00 (
1,115.30)
546.1
.00
50,000.00
50,000.00
.00
100.0
.00
671,470.94
667,788.00 (
3,682.94)
100.6
186.90
2,122,289.77
2,138,038.00
15,748.23
99.3
186.90
2,122,289.77
2,138,038.00
15,748.23
99.3
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 01/18/2016 09:07AM PAGE: 16
TOWN OF FRASER
EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET
FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015
CAPITAL ASSET FUND
PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT
CAPITAL ASSET EXPENDITURES
32-40-815 CAPITAL PROJ - STREETS NEW 8,245.35 2,011,752.81 2,138,038.00 126,285.19 94.1
TOTAL CAPITAL ASSET EXPENDITURES 8,245.35 2,011,752.81 2,138,038.00 126,285.19 94.1
TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES 8,245.35 2,011,752.81 2,138,038.00 126,285.19 94.1
NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES ( 8,058.45) 110,536.96 .00 ( 110,536.96) .0
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 01/18/2016 09:07AM PAGE: 17
TOWN OF FRASER
BALANCE SHEET
DECEMBER 31, 2015
DEBT SERVICE FUND
40-10100 CASH -COMBINED FUND 574,811.02
40-10290 CASH WITH TREASURER 251.52
40-11100 PROPERTY TAXES RECEIVABLE 80.000.00
TOTAL ASSETS 655,062.54
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
LIABILITIES
40-22210 DEFERRED PROPERTY TAXES 80,000.00
TOTAL LIABILITIES 80,000.00
ter, —
40-27000 RESTRICTED FUND BALANCE 300,000.00
40-27100 UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE 245,940.84
UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE:
REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES - YTD 29,121.70
BALANCE - CURRENT DATE 29.121.70
TOTAL FUND EQUITY 575,062.54
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 655,062.54
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 01/18/2016 09:07AM PAGE: 18
TOWN OF FRASER
REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET
FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015
DEBT SERVICE FUND
PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT
REVENUE
40-30-100
PROPERTY TAX
230.01
79,992.98
80,000.00
7.02
100.0
40-30-200
SPECIFIC OWNERSHIP TAX
390.39
4,621.49
3,000.00 (
1,621.49)
154.1
40-30-800
INTEREST EARNINGS
133.50
969.62
250.00 (
719.62)
387.9
40-30-910
TRANSFER IN FROM GENERAL FUND
.00
246,550.00
246,550.00
.00
100.0
TOTAL REVENUE
753.90
332,134.09
329,800.00 (
2,334.09)
100.7
TOTAL FUND REVENUE
753.90 332,134.09 329,800.00 ( 2,334.09) 100.7
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 01/18/2016 09:07AM PAGE: 19
TOWN OF FRASER
EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET
FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015
DEBT SERVICE FUND
PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT
40-40-385
TREASURER'S FEES GO BOND
4.60
1,599.89
2,000.00
400.11
80.0
40-40-810
BOND PRINCIPAL - 02 S&U ISSUE
.00
25,000.00
25,000.00
.00
100.0
40-40-811
BOND PRINCIPAL - 98 GO ISSUE
.00
45,000.00
45,000.00
.00
100.0
40-40-812
BOND PRINCIPAL - 98 S&U ISSUE
.00
180,000.00
180,000.00
.00
100.0
40-40-820
BOND INTEREST - 02 S&U ISSUE
.00
5,637.50
5,638.00
.50
100.0
40-40-821
BOND INTEREST - 98 GO ISSUE
.00
7,525.00
7,526.00
1.00
100.0
40-40-822
BOND INTEREST - 98 S&U ISSUE
.00
35,910.00
35,910.00
.00
100.0
40-40-850
BOND AGENT FEES
1,590.00
2,340.00
3,000.00
660.00
78.0
40-40-910
TRANSFER TO DSF RESERVES
.00
.00
25,726.00
25,726.00
.0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
1,594.60
303,012.39
329,800.00
26,787.61
91.9
TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES
1,594.60
303,012.39
329,800.00
26,787.61
91.9
NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES
( 840.70)
29,121.70
.00 (
29,121.70)
.0
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 01/18/2016 09:07AM PAGE: 20
TOWN OF FRASER
BALANCE SHEET
DECEMBER 31, 2015
WATER FUND
50-10100
CASH - COMBINED FUND
1,417,881.95
50-10290
CASH W/TREASURER - COLLECTIONS
2,437.79
50-11500
A/R CUSTOMER SERVICE CHARGES
184,662.33
50-11550
A/R - BILLINGS
104.00
50-16100
LAND
100,000.00
50-16200
BUILDINGS
2,946,174.49
50-16203
WELLS SYSTEM
768,371.74
50-16212
WATER DISTRIBUTION/STORAGE
9,845,211.82
50-16213
WELLS
1,076,740.43
50-16400
EQUIPMENT
353,994.02
50-16500
WATER RIGHTS
19,775.86
50-17900
ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION
( 3,568,312.67)
50-17901
ACCUMULATED DEPR - BLDGS& IMPR
( 145,747.00)
50-17902
ACCUMULATED DEPR - SYSTEM&IMPR
( 601.534.00)
TOTAL ASSETS 12,399,760.76
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
LIABILITIES
50-20775 DUE TO RENDEZVOUS - TAPS 23,100.00
50-20776 DUE TO GRAND PARK - TAPS 15,400.00
50-21100 ACCRUED PTO AND BENEFITS 4,746.10
50-22910 ROAD CUT SURITY FEES 16,100.00
50-22920 BULK WATER SECURITY DEP 5,000.00
TOTAL LIABILITIES 64,346.10
50-27000 COMMITTED FUND BALANCE 460,000.00
UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE:
50-29800 RETAINED EARNINGS 10,794,683.01
REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES - YTD 1,080,731.65
BALANCE - CURRENT DATE 11.875.414.66
TOTAL FUND EQUITY 12,335,414.66
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 12,399,760.76
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 01/18/2016 09:07AM PAGE: 21
TOWN OF FRASER
REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET
FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015
WATER FUND
PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT
LICENSES & PERMITS
50-32-100 EXCAVATION PERMIT FEES
TOTAL LICENSES & PERMITS
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
50-34-100 CUSTOMER SERVICE CHARGES
50-34-150 PENALTIES & INTEREST
50-34-200 PLANT INVESTMENT FEES
50-34-300 WATER METER SALES
TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES
MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE
50-36-100 INTEREST EARNINGS
50-36-900 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE
OTHER SOURCES & TRANSFERS
50-39-200 GRANTS AND AID FROM AGENCIES
50-39-910 TRANSFERS IN
50-39-999 UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE
TOTAL OTHER SOURCES & TRANSFERS
TOTAL FUND REVENUE
.00 550.00 275.00 ( 275.00) 200.0
.00 550.00 275.00 ( 275.00) 200.0
195,905.35
783,046.92
760,040.00 (
23,006.92)
103.0
20.95
3,182.27
1,000.00 (
2,182.27)
318.2
.00
15,400.00
15,400.00
.00
100.0
15.00
38,433.69
2,000.00 (
36,433.69)
1921.7
195,941.30
840,062.88
778,440.00 (
61,622.88)
107.9
298.15
379.00
2,079.13
4,004.70
800.00 (
2,500.00 (
1,279.13)
1,504.70)
259.9
160.2
677.15
6,083.83
3,300.00 (
2,783.83)
184.4
.00
50,000.00
25,000.00 (
25,000.00)
200.0
.00
.00
50,000.00
50,000.00
.0
.00
766,652.00
720,401.00 (
46,251.00)
106.4
.00
816,652.00
795,401.00 (
21,251.00)
102.7
196,618.45
1,663,348.71
1,577,416.00 (
85,932.71)
105.5
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 01/18/2016 09:07AM PAGE: 22
TOWN OF FRASER
EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET
FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31. 2015
WATER FUND
PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT
►(9�17tii9:7
50-40-110
SALARIES
17,023.66
184,622.00
185,000.00
378.00
99.8
50-40-210
HEALTH INSURANCE
2,272.67
25,828.91
26,000.00
171.09
99.3
50-40-220
FICA TAX
1,272.67
13,682.17
14,153.00
470.83
96.7
50-40-230
RETIREMENT
645.95
6,217.46
6,500.00
282.54
95.7
50-40-250
UNEMPLOYMENT TAX
50.52
555.20
555.00 (
.20)
100.0
50-40-280
TRAINING PROGRAMS
35.00
394.00
3,000.00
2,606.00
13.1
50-40-290
TRAVEL, MEALS AND LODGING
.00
100.30
3,000.00
2,899.70
3.3
50-40-295
MEALS AND ENTERTAINMENT
500.00
650.04
2,000.00
1,349.96
32.5
50-40-310
LEGAL FEES
5,200.00
65,193.25
75,000.00
9,806.75
86.9
50-40-330
ENGINEERING FEES
.00
14,272.50
10,000.00 (
4,272.50)
142.7
50-40-360
COMPUTERS -NETWORKS AND SUPPORT
400.00
5,743.39
6,000.00
256.61
95.7
50-40-370
OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
590.38
1,074.26
5,000.00
3,925.74
21.5
50-40430
INSURANCE
.00
17,084.32
20,000.00
2,915.68
85.4
50-40440
ADVERTISING
.00
240.66
500.00
259.34
48.1
50-40-460
SYSTEM REPAIR AND MAINT - PROD
893.25
8,939.01
75,000.00
66,060.99
11.9
50-40-465
SYSTEM REPAIR AND MAINT - DIST
1,131.15
20,465.42
70,000.00
49,534.58
29.2
50-40490
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
80.00
8,625.00
8,000.00 (
625.00)
107.8
50-40-500
OPERATING SUPPLIES -PRODUCTION
375.03
10,907.16
35,000.00
24,092.84
31.2
50-40-505
OPERATING SUPPLIES-DISTRIB
847.15
36,289.91
25,000.00 (
11,289.91)
145.2
50-40-510
EQUIPMENT PURCHASE AND REPAIR
76.58
1,073.62
10,000.00
8,926.38
10.7
50-40-520
TESTING
253.48
1,653.92
10,000.00
8,346.08
16.5
50-40-550
POSTAGE & BILLING SUPPLIES
109.50
1,859.50
2,500.00
640.50
74.4
50-40-560
UTILITIES - TELEPHONE
332.74
4,302.60
3,500.00 (
802.60)
122.9
50-40-562
UTILITIES - ELECTRICITY
3,101.49
30,039.97
55,000.00
24,960.03
54.6
50-40-670
PROP MGMT - FRASER WTP
4.67
1,201.18
3,000.00
1,798.82
40.0
50-40-680
PROP MGMT - MARYVALE WTP
.00
426.76
3,000.00
2,573.24
14.2
50-40-690
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE
101.68
178.78
2,000.00
1,821.22
8.9
50-40-715
WATER RIGHTS - DIVERSION & DEV
.00
6,481.87
15,000.00
8,518.13
43.2
50-40-730
CAPITAL PROJECTS
.00
88,657.50
204,000.00
115,342.50
43.5
50-40-760
FRASER FIRMING - CAPPROJ
.00
15,856.40
680,000.00
664,143.60
2.3
50-40-930
TRANSFER TO CERF
.00
10,000.00
10,000.00
.00
100.0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 35,297.57 582,617.06 1,567,708.00 985,090.94 37.2
TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES 35,297.57 582,617.06 1,567,708.00 985,090.94 37.2
NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES 161,320.88 1,080,731.65 9,708.00 ( 1,071,023.65) 11132.
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 01/18/2016 09:08AM PAGE: 23
TOWN OF FRASER
BALANCE SHEET
DECEMBER 31, 2015
WASTEWATER FUND
55-10100
CASH - COMBINED FUND
3,222,076.28
55-10290
CASH W/TREASURER - COLLECTIONS
1,841.51
55-11500
A/R CUSTOMER SERVICE CHARGES
166,512.51
55-11550
A/R- BILLINGS
53,651.29
55-15950
CAP REPL RES HELD W/JFOC
760,929.23
55-15955
O&M RESERVE HELD W/JFOC
46,920.69
55-16100
LAND
144,320.40
55-16200
SEWER TREATMENT PLANT
3,308,298.56
55-16210
METER BUILDING & IMPROVEMENTS
8,056.39
55-16220
SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM
10,816,277.19
55-16250
CONSOLIDATED COLLECTION SYSTEM
279,069.00
55-16400
EQUIPMENT
98,106.17
55-17900
ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION
( 884,726.42)
55-17905
ACCUM DEPR - PLANT/JFOC
( 48,836.52)
55-17910
ACCUMDEPR - SEWER COLLECT-FSD
( 3,629,247.72)
55-17915
ACCUM DEPR-EQUIPMENT
( 42,697.20)
TOTAL ASSETS
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
55-21100 ACCRUED PTO AND BENEFITS
TOTAL LIABILITIES
FUND EQUITY
UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE:
55-29800 RETAINED EARNINGS
55-29820 RETAINED EARNINGS- RESTRICTED
REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES - YTD
BALANCE -CURRENT DATE
TOTAL FUND EQUITY
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
10,048,619.90
807,849.92
4,769.34
4,769.34
14,300,551.36
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 01/18/2016 09:08AM PAGE: 24
TOWN OF FRASER
REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET
FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015
WASTEWATER FUND
PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
55-34-100
CUSTOMER SERVICE CHARGES
55-34-150
PENALTIES & INTEREST
55-34-200
PLANT INVESTMENT FEES
2,580.95
TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES
1,580.95)
MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE
55-36-100
INTEREST EARNINGS
55-36-500
JFF MANAGEMENT FEE
55-36-900
MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE
938,346.29
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE
285,162.29)
OTHER SOURCES & TRANSFERS
55-39-999 UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE
TOTAL OTHER SOURCES & TRANSFERS
TOTAL FUND REVENUE
163,941.42
643,265.34
637,184.00 (
6,081.34)
101.0
16.32
2,580.95
1,000.00 (
1,580.95)
258.1
.00
292,500.00
15,000.00 (
277,500.00)
1950.0
163,957.74
938,346.29
653,184.00 (
285,162.29)
143.7
747.60
5,221.79
3,000.00 (
2,221.79)
174.1
7,250.00
29,000.00
29,000.00
.00
100.0
46,401.29
46,401.29
.00 (
46,401.29)
.0
54,398.89
80,623.08
32,000.00 (
48,623.08)
252.0
.00
3,011,956.00
2,968,217.00 (
43,739.00)
101.5
.00
3,011,956.00
2,968,217.00 (
43,739.00)
101.5
218,356.63
4,030,925.37
3,653,401.00 (
377,524.37)
110.3
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 01/18/2016 09:08AM PAGE: 25
TOWN OF FRASER
EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET
FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31. 2015
WASTEWATER FUND
PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT
►(»I90tlj:7
55-40-110
SALARIES
17,243.16
188,296.60
195,000.00
6,703.40
96.6
55-40-210
HEALTH INSURANCE
2,278.54
26,236.54
28,000.00
1,763.46
93.7
55-40-220
FICA TAX
1,289.52
13,956.93
14,918.00
961.07
93.6
55-40-230
RETIREMENT
656.69
6,380.98
7,000.00
619.02
91.2
55-40-250
UNEMPLOYMENT TAX
51.21
566.22
585.00
18.78
96.8
55-40-280
TRAINING PROGRAMS
.00
200.00
2,500.00
2,300.00
8.0
55-40-290
TRAVEL, MEALS AND LODGING
.00
20.49
2,500.00
2,479.51
.8
55-40-295
MEALS AND ENTERTAINMENT
523.94
618.37
1,000.00
381.63
61.8
55-40-310
LEGAL FEES
.00
693.25
15,000.00
14,306.75
4.6
55-40-330
ENGINEERING FEES
.00
8,392.00
10,000.00
1,608.00
83.9
55-40-360
COMPUTERS -NETWORKS AND SUPPORT
400.00
4,647.53
6,000.00
1,352.47
77.5
55-40-370
OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
590.38
1,027.83
10,000.00
8,972.17
10.3
55-40-410
BANK CHARGES
.00
.00
100.00
100.00
.0
55-40-430
INSURANCE
.00
4,404.60
6,500.00
2,095.40
67.8
55-40-440
ADVERTISING
.00
92.62
500.00
407.38
18.5
55-40-460
SYSTEM REPAIR AND MAINT-COLLEC
120.00
75,102.29
130,000.00
54,897.71
57.8
55-40490
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
.00
1,525.00
6,000.00
4,475.00
25.4
55-40-500
OPERATING SUPPLIES -COLLECTIONS
.00
474.03
5,000.00
4,525.97
9.5
55-40-510
EQUIPMENT PURCHASE AND REPAIR
77.92
358.09
5,000.00
4,641.91
7.2
55-40-520
TESTING
.00
.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
.0
55-40-550
POSTAGE & BILLING SUPPLIES
109.50
1,912.92
3,000.00
1,087.08
63.8
55-40-560
UTILITIES -TELEPHONE
117.49
1,671.64
500.00 (
1,171.64)
334.3
55-40-650
WW TREATMENT CHARGES/JFOC
10,924.05
136,646.78
209,833.00
73,186.22
65.1
55-40-690
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE
101.68
165.47
3,000.00
2,834.53
5.5
55-40-730
CAPITAL PROJECTS
38,818.69
108,222.99
370,000.00
261,777.01
29.3
55-40-930
TRANSFER TO CERF
.00
10,000.00
10,000.00
.00
100.0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES
NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES
73,302.77 591,613.17 1,042,936.00 451,322.83 56.7
73,302.77 591,613.17 1,042,936.00 451,322.83 56.7
145,053.86 3,439,312.20 2,610,465.00 ( 828,847.20) 131.8
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 01/18/2016 09:08AM PAGE: 26
TOWN OF FRASER
BALANCE SHEET
DECEMBER 31, 2015
GENERAL FIXED ASSETS
ASSETS
91-16100
LAND
730,630.35
91-16200
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
208,379.39
91-16203
MAINTENANCE BUILDING
57,722.51
91-16208
HOUSE - 400 DOC SUSIE AVE
54,839.27
91-16209
VISITOR CENTER
183,895.00
91-16211
BUSBARN & 105 FRASER AVE HOUSE
100,000.00
91-16250
CHURCH
267,000.00
91-16306
PARKS
367,800.08
91-16311
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
3,439,840.00
91-16312
HIGHWAY 40 PATH
8,872.00
91-16490
EQUIPMENT - OTHER
872,015.00
91-16500
OFFICE EQUIPMENT
57,261.75
91-17900
ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION
( 2,260,048.61)
TOTAL ASSETS
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
FUND EQUITY
UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE:
91-29800 INVESTMENT IN FIXED ASSETS 4,088,206.74
BALANCE -CURRENT DATE
TOTAL FUND EQUITY
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
4,088,206.74
4,088,206.74
4,088,206.74
4,088,206.74
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 01/18/2016 09:08AM PAGE: 27
ASSETS
95-18100 AMOUNT TO BE PROVIDED
TOTAL ASSETS
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
LIABILITIES
TOWN OF FRASER
BALANCE SHEET
DECEMBER 31. 2015
GENERAL LONG-TERM DEBT
3,131,161.31
95-25050 2002 SERIAL BONDS 360,000.00
95-25060 1998 REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS 2,035,000.00
95-25070 1998 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 475,000.00
95-25200 ACCRUED COMPENSATED ABSENCES 15,677.17
95-25500 CAPITAL LEASES KOMATSU LOADER 245,484.14
TOTAL LIABILITIES
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
3,131,161.31
3,131,161.31
3,131,161.31
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 01/18/2016 09:08AM PAGE: 28
Town of Fraser, Colorado nstry
Revised ROM Project Pro -Forma (2015-07-13)
-
-
Annual Savings
-.
Baseline -.
®:
AnnualFees
-
Total Annual
Cash Flow
Analysis
..
it
sh
-
1
$57,800
$500
0
7 500
$6,570
($5,830)
66 540
($31,257)
($35,282)
($66,539)
$1,006,618
1
1
2
$59,534
$515
$0
$7,725
$6,767
($6,005)
$68,536
($30,199)
($38,337)
($68,535)
$968,281
$1
$2
3
$61,320
530
0
$7,957
$6,970
0
$76,777
29,048
($47,728)
($76,776)
$920.,553
1
3
4
$63,160
$546
$0
$8,195
$7,179
$0
$79,081
($27,617)
($51,463)
($79,080)
$869,090
$1
$4
5
$65,054
563
0
$8,441
$7,395
0
81,453
26,073
55,379)
($81,452)
$813,711
1
5
6
$67,006
$580
$0
$8,695
$7,616
$0
$83,897
($24,411)
($59,484)
($83,896)
$754,227
$1
$6
7
$69,016
$597
$0
$8,955
$7,845
$0
$86,414
$22,627
$63,786
($86,413)
690,441
$1
$7
8
$71,087
$615
$0
$9,224
$8,080
$0
$89,006
($20,713)
($68,292)
($89,005)
$622,149
$1
$8
9
$73,219
633
0
$9,501
$8,323
0
$91,676
($18,664)
($73,011)
($91,675)
$549,139
1
9
10
$75,416
$652
$0
$9,786
$8,572
$0
$94,426
($16,474)
($77,951)
($94,425)
$471,187
$1
$10
11
$77,678
672
0
$10,079
$8,830
0
$97,259
($14,136)
($83,123)
($97,258)
$388,065
1
11
12
$80,009
$692
$0
$10,382
$9,094
$0
$100,177
($11,642)
($88,534)
($100,176)
$299,531
$1
$12
13
$82,409
713
0
$10,693
$9,367
0
$103,182
($8,986)
94,195
($103,181)
$205,335
1
13
14
$84,881
$734
$0
$11,014
$9,648
$0
$106,278
($6,160)
($100,117)
($106,277)
$105,218
$1
$14
15
$87,428
756
0
$11,344
$9,938
0
$109,466
($3,157)
($105,218)
($108,375)
0
$1,091
$1,105
16
$90,051
$779
$0
$11,685
$0
$0
$102,514
$0
$0
$0
$0
$102,514
$103,619
17
$92,752
802
0
12,035
$0
0
$105,590
$0
0
0
0
$105,590
209,209
18
$95,535
$826
$0
$12,396
$0
$0
$108,757
$0
$0
$0
$0
$108,757
$317,966
19
$98,401
851
0
$12,768
0
0
$112,020
0
0
0
0
$112,020
$429,987
20
$101,353
$877
$0
$13,151
$0
$0
$115,381
$0
$0
$0
$0
$115,381
$545,367
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
* Compliance check with Colorado Revised Statute Title 29 to ensure annual cash flow is positive by a minimum of $1.00
i111Sf!'�1'
Lila Of Ydur 8urlding
Town of Fraser - Revised ROM FIM Summary
July 13, 2015
FIM Name
Fadlity
FIM Description
Benefits
Total
Construction
Cost*
Annual Utility
Savings
Annual
Operational
Savings
Elevated
Baseline Credit
Total Annual
Savings
Potential..
Incentives
Net Cost (After
IncentivesAnnual
Capital Infusion)
Simple Payback
(Years)***
Insulate exposed hot water piping in Town Hall with International Energy
This measure will lower heating energy costs by reducing the heat lost from
Conservation Code (IECC) compliant fiberglass pipe insulation.
exposed hot water piping to the surroundings. This measure will also improve
HW Pipe Insulation
Town Hall
occupant comfort by helping to reduce overheating issues in the building during
$5,000
$300
$0
$0
$300
$0
$0
$5,000
N/A
warm periods of year while also protecting occupants from potential burning.
Replace non -programmable thermostats with programmable or occupancy sensing
This measure will improve occupant comfort and reduce energy costs by
Programmable Thermostats
ToF - Community Center, Public Works
thermostats, and adjust existing programmable thermostats for optimal
optimizing the space temperature setpoint during occupied and unoccupied
$3,000
$300
$0
$0
$300
$0
$0
$3,000
10.0
Facility, Town Hall, Visitor Center
performance.
periods.
Upgrade the existing lighting systems to high -efficiency Light Emitting Diode (LED)
LEDs use less energy than fluorescent, mercury vapor, metal halide and halogen
lighting technology including the Town -owned exterior security and decorative
fixtures and last significantly longer. Lower energy use means reduced electric
ToF - Bus Barn, ToF - Community
lighting fixtures.
utility costs. The longer life associated with modern LED fixtures means reduced
Center, Town -owned Lighting, Fraser
maintenance time and expense. The warranty for the new LED fixtures will be 10
LED Lighting
Water Treatment Facilities, Lions Park,
Since the ROM Presentation, we have removed the proposed LED Lighting
years (parts only, does not include labor). By implementing a comprehensive
$90,000
$6,200
$900
$0
$7,100
$6,100
$0
$83,900
11.8
Maryvale Water Treatment Facilities,
upgrades at the WWTP from the project, as it was not financially viable to
Town -wide LED lighting retrofit, the Town of Fraser will be able to improve the
Public Works Facility, Town Hall, Visitor
implement at this time.
overall look and consistency of the lighting in its facilities and also reducing the
Center
number of fixtures in the maintenance inventory.
Town of Fraser Facilities Subtotals
$98,000
$6,800
$900
$0
$7,700
$6,100
$0
$91,900
11.9
This is an alternate to recommended base WWTP Aeration/Mixing measure. This
The primary benefit of this measure is a reduction in energy use at the WWTP.
measure consists of replacing the existing mixers and blowers with a dry -pit jet
This measure will also eliminate the need to operate the existing blowers and
mixing and aeration system. The existing digester blowers and mixers would be
lighting mixers which have been problematic in the past. While this measure is
replaced as part of the measure. The jet mixing/aeration system provides
more expensive than the Membrane Disc diffusers, it provides increased energy
Aeration/Mixing Upgrades -Jet Mixing &
WWTP
independent mixing and aeration for the digesters. A stainless steel manifold sits
savings and also reduces the long term maintenance at the plant by renewing the
$650,000
$45,000
$5,670
$0
$50,670
$0
$0
$650,000
12.8
Aeration
inside the digesters but the jet pumps and blowers will be located outside of the
life cycle of the equipment serving the digesters.
digesters to simplify service and maintenance.
Install a 100 kW solar photovoltaic (PV) array at the Waste Water Treatment Plant
Solar PV systems are a renewable energy source that converts the sun's energy
(WWTP). The solar array will be a ground -mounted system located between the
into electricity.
two lagoons to minimize visibility from the surrounding area.
Solar PV - 100kW Array
WWTP
The size of the PV Array was decreased since ROM to allow for other capital
$510,000
$11,000
$0
$0
$11,000
$210,000
$0
$300,000
N/A
intensive measures to be implmented at the WWTP. Additional capital infusion
can be applied to the project to increase the array size without impacting the
target finance period of 15 years.
Install buffer tanks to mitigate the impact of peak I&I flows on the WWTP.
This measure will reduce the need to operate additional equipment at the WWTP
during peak I&I seasons.
After further investigation, it has been determined that implementing this
measure will increase energy consumption/costs at the WWTP due to the addition
of a new bubbler. In order for the overall project to finance within a 15 year
period, this increase in energy costs will need to be offset through an elevated
Flow Equalization Tanks
WWTP
baseline and capital infusion as depicted in the values to the right.
$280,000
($7,500)
$0
$7,500
$0
$0
$280,000
$0
N/A
Eliminating this measure along with the following measure, "Process Flexibility
Upgrades", will result back to a self-funded project with little to no capital
infusion or elevated baseline requirement.
The WWTP has two (2) 55 ft. diameter clarifiers that are designed for a hydraulic
Construction of the splitter box will facilitate the use of one aeration basin and two
capacity of 2.8 MGD. The WWTP has two trains. Each clarifier is designed to
clarifiers under peak I&I conditions, thus eliminating the unnecessary use of
receive mixed liquor from one train without the ability to cross -feed. Currently, the
equipment and energy associated with the use of a second aeration basin. This
WWTP operates 1 train for approximately 8 months each year, and two trains are
measure will also provide increased operation flexibility by allowing either train to
operated the remainder of the year to treat increased flow from Inflow and
serve either clarifier.
Process Flexibility Upgrades
WWTP
Infiltration (I&I). Two trains are required for 4 months of the year due to the
$100,000
$3,000
$0
$0
$3,000
$0
$100,000
$0
N/A
hydraulic limitations of a single clarifier to handle the increased flows. This
limitation can be easily overcome by constructing a splitter box upstream of the
existing clarifier influent with the ability to receive mixed liquor from both aeration
WWTP Subtotals
Grand Total
* ---- Ae. i.... ......e.. -
111b
basins and convey the flow to either or both clarifiers.
$1,540,000
000
$51,500
$58,300
$5,670
$6,570
$7,500
$7,500
$64,670
$72,370
$210,000
$216,100
$380,000
$380,000
$950,000
$1,041,900
14.7
14.4
...4.e..... -1-A ...... Al...II .-A
........ -ill A......
k- 11 TM. A-1 ........�.-.vA .-......e ..F •. ...L
** Incentives are contingent on final approval from providers. Amounts shown are for reference only.
*** N/A depicts a capital measure or project related costs which are not driven by utility and/or operational savings.
Confidential and Proprietary
Sheet 1 of 1
TOWN OF FRASER - CHALLENGES FACING HOUSING
Water and Sewer Tap Fee Analysis of 14 Colorado Mountain Town Communities
Town
Median
Household
Income
Rank Hi
to Low
Median Real
Estate Value
Rank Hi
to Low
Affordability And Tap Fees
Water/Sewer Rank Hi Tap Fees as a
Tap Fees to Low % of Med HHI
Rank Hi Tap Fees as a %
to Low of Med R/E Val
Rank HI
to Low
Fraser
$47,000
13
$250,000
10
$15,000
4
31.9%
3
6.0%
3
Granby
$60,000
6
$205,000
13
$14,810
6
24.7%
6
7.2%
1
Kremling
$45,000
14
$205,000
13
$11,700
10
26.0%
5
5.7%
4
Winter Park
$65,000
4
$360,000
8
$23,100
1
35.5%
1
6.4%
2
Grand County
9.3
11
5.3
3.75
2.5
Glenwood Sp s
$57,000
8
$405,000
7
$11,344
11
19.9%
9
2.8%
12
Carbondale
$67,000
3
$475,000
3
$10,870
12
16.2%
12
2.3%
14
Rifle
$53,000
11
$255,000
9
$12,575
8
23.7%
7
4.90/.
5
Garfield County
7.3
6.3
10.3
9.3
10.3
Steamboat Sp s
$65,000
4
$500,000
2
$11,847
9
18.2%
11
2.37%
13
Craig
$52,000
12
$235,000
11
$6,680
14
12.8%
14
2.84%
10
Hayden
$55,000
9
$220,000
12
$7,200
13
13.1%
13
3.27%
8
Moffat and Routt Counties
8.3
8.3
12
12.7
10.3333
Breckenridge
$55,000
9
$450,000
5
$17,950
2
32.6%
2
3.99%
7
Eagle
$75,000
1
$410,000
6
$17,000
3
22.7%
8
4.15%
6
Silverthorne
$68,000
2
$460,000
4
$13,000
7
19.1%
10
2.83%
11
Dillon
$56,000
7
$521,000
1
$15,000
4
26.8%
4
2.9%
9
Eagle and Summit Counties
4.8
4.0
4.0
4.8
8.3
*Median value includes all homes in the community
Summary:
1. Fraser's Median Household Income is next to last of the 14 communities evaluated
2. Fraser's Median Real Estate Value came in 10th ranking one of the lowest
3. Fraser's Water & Sewer Tap Fee is the 4th highest out of the 14 communities evaluated
4. Fraser's Water & Sewer Tap Fee is the 3rd most costly when compared to Median Household Income of the community
5. Fraser's Water & Sewer Tap Fee is the 3rd most costly when compared to Median Real Estate Values of the community
Tap Fees Page 1 of 2
TOWN OF FRASER - CHALLENGES FACING HOUSING
Water and Sewer Service Fees of 14 Colorado Mountain Communities
Town
Base Fee
Service Fees on a MONTHLY basis
Water Sewer
Monthly Usage Charge per 1000 Base Fee Usage Charge
Total Base
Fee
Base Fee Rank
Hi to Low
Consumption
at 6K gallons
Total w/
Consumption
Fraser
$51.00
$1.50 per 1000
$45.83
$96.83
14
$9.00
$105.83
Granby
$44.92
None indicated
$48.72
$93.64
13
$93.64
Kremling
Not Found
Not Found
$39.00
$39.00
2
$39.00
Winter Park
$33.50
$3/1000 gallons > 4000 gallons
$36.00
$69.50
10
$6.00
$75.50
Grand County
$32.35
$42.39
$74.74
$3.75
$78.49
Glenwood Spgs
$23.33
$1.70 per 1000
$46.33
$69.67
11
$10.20
$79.87
Carbondale
$3.76
$3.84 per 1000
$5.03 $6.00 per 1000
$8.79
1
$23.04
$31.83
Rifle
$25.20
Undisclosed
$40.71
$65.91
8
$65.91
Garfield County
$17.43
$30.69
$48.12
$11.08
$59.20
Steamboat Spgs
$21.84
$2.30 1000-4000; $3.45 5000-12000
$42.57
$64.41
5
$20.70
$85.11
Craig
$28.50
$2.90 per 1000
$28.00 $2.90 per 1000
$56.50
4
$34.80
$91.30
Hayden
$37.58
$3.61 6000-12000; $4.11 >12000
$30.75
$68.33
9
$3.61
$71.94
Moffat and Routt Counties
$29.31
$33.77
$63.08
$19.70
$82.78
Breckenridge
$38.45
$5.25 per 1000 above 10000 gallons
$26.00
$64.45
7
$0.00
$64.45
Eagle
$29.10
$5.45 6001-28000 gallons
$44.00
$73.10
12
$0.00
$73.10
Silverthorne
$13.62
$1.35 for 0-15000 gallons calculated quarterly
$31.32 1
$44.941
3
$8.101
53.04
Dillon
$23.30
$5.50 0-6,000gallons; $6.55 6000-10000; $8.05 > 10000
$41.20
$64.50
6
$33.00
$97.50
Eagle and Summit Counties
$26.12
$35.63
$61.75
$10.28
$72.02
Summary:
1. Fraser has the highest TOTAL Base Fee of all 14 communities evaluated
2. Fraser has the highest Base WATER fee of all 14 communities evaluated
3. Fraser has the 3rd highest Base SEWER fee of all 14 communities evaluated
4. Fraser has the highest Total Fee when assuming consumption of 6,000 gallons of water per month
Water & Sanitation Mill Levies
W&S Mill
City Levies
Fraser
0
0
2.273
7.04
13.951
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Granby
Kremling
Winter Park Ski Area
WP - Grand County One
Glenwood Spgs
Carbondale
Rifle
Garfield County
Steamboat Spgs
Craig
Ha den
Moffat and Routt Counties
Breckenridge
Eagle
Silverthorne
Dillon
Eagle and Summit Counties
Service Fees Page 2 of 2
R
Leading the Way
Housing Ladder is Key to Denver's Continued Growth
what elements of our current vibrancy do you think will
have the most impact on our future?
1B: Denver and the metro area have so much going for
them. Mayor Hancock's vision for downtown and the airport
culminated by the airport cities and growth in the metro area
have created what many call nodes linked by transportation.
Nodes such as downtown Denver, the Denver Tech Center, Au-
rora Medical Center, Arvada and points beyond now linked by
significant transportation including light rail and the new In-
terstate 70 redevelopment just getting started. The collabora-
tion between multiple city leaders has set the stage for smart
growth that will keep it pleasurable to live here. I've lived in
Arvada for nearly 30 years and the possibility of having my
morning coffee in Old Town and hopping on the light rail to
downtown is fantastic!
One of our opportunities is to resolve the congestion to the
access of our biggest asset as a region - the mountain areas
and, specifically, the west -bound I-70 access thereto.
Let's face it, beyond our strong and diversified business cli-
mate, it's our recreation resources that give us a big advan-
tage and reason people want to live here. We have to solve the
transportation challenges there.
1S: Colorado and the Front Range, in particular, have seen
tremendous growth and new construction in the past
few years. Coming out of the recession, what is the state
of the construction industry and can you speak to the
construction cost increases you are seeing in the market?
JB: Construction costs increases are a factor of supply and
demand and I think it will be a short-term issue.
During the recession, we saw a great loss of labor and talent
in the trades due to a drop off in construction activity. The
protracted duration of the recession resulted in those work-
ers leaving this profession to seek other job opportunities. I
don't think we'll ever get them back So now, we have an op-
portunity to train new workers for a variety of construction
trades. The benefit to the current construction growth is that
the industry has good jobs to offer both new and seasoned
workers, which builds industry expertise and headcount. Un-
til the building cycle tapers and/or labor resources meet the
demand, we'll see construction pricing on an upward path.
JS: Looking to the future, what do you see as our greatest
challenge?
JB: Denver seems to be at the epicenter of the national
scene. We have seen and continue to see a large increase in
22 / BUILDING DIALOGUE / SEPTEMBER 2015
we are seeing currently is just not realistic
for the millennials who are maybe three to
five years into their careers and finding real estate prices out
of reach. We are missing affordable housing options that are
between rental and single-family home prices - we're miss-
ing housing product in the $200K to $250K range, for instance.
One of the answers is condos and owned affordable prod-
uct. In the last 10 years, we really haven't seen any new condo
development. This leaves a huge gap in the housing options
ladder.
We have to solve the legal framework that increases condo
construction risk and makes it too expensive to embark upon.
Developers won't develop condos. Contractors won't build
them and architects won't design them.
Affordable housing is key to the sustainability of growth
in Denver. We are at our strongest when we have conditions
that help young people grow up, get educated, have robust job
opportunities, and can live and own real estate in the urban
corridors. We have all of the above except the latter. This is a
critical challenge for our future.
It is the housing ladder topic that spawned a conversation
with Chris Waggett, CEO of D4 Urban and chairman of Tran-
sit Alliance.
1S: Pertaining to the housing stock, specifically at affordab
price range, what do you see as implications from the lack
of entry-level ownership options?
CW:1 moved here nine years ago, so I'm one of the many w
migrated to Denver. We love the lifestyle, the opportunity,'
business climate, openness to newcomers and the prospE
of Denver's growth we've witnessed
in the last nine years. It's been fas-
cinating to watch the pendulum
swing from employees in 2006 to
employer in the downturn, and now
back to the employee. Talent is criti-
cal to our future and the good news
is that we have lots of talent here and
new talent moving here. Talent moves j
to where it wants to be and employers i
follow that educated talent. The symbi-
osis of talent and employers is importChris
-
ant to Colorado's economic engine. FOLI
Right now we have lots of rental op-
tions for young workers and then nothing
A
between multifamily rental and single-family homes, whose
price tags are either out of reach for most young professionals
or are located in suburban locations that they don't aspire to
move to until they have families. Condominium construction
is virtually nonexistent, so we have a both an affordability and
housing product gap.
This gap is the result of constrained supply, which increas-
es pricing, and we are simply pricing ourselves out of the af-
fordable range. Key competitors like Dallas, Phoenix and Salt
Lake City have relatively affordable median house prices of
$165K to $175K compared to Denver's at $330K and an average
cations to Colorado in terms of being an attractive place for
their workforce to live.
The ability to offer our young talent and our retiring baby
boomers a full spectrum of affordable urban and suburban
housing product types is critical to our future. I'm concerned
that without it, we will see impacts on migration to Den-
ver -metro region and an exodus from these two populations
in search of affordable housing opportunities. Lack of housing
affordability will be a headwind to growth - both economic
and population. Loss of population will reduce our tax base
and will impact our ability to attract businesses that seek tal-
ent, all of which could put us at risk in terms of continued
prosperity and also in an economic downturn.
We have an opportunity to look to the future and prevent a
loss of young, educated talent in the next generation by offer-
In
Leading the Way
ing common sense construction defects reforms that would
stimulate condo development as an affordable economic
pathway to home ownership and close the housing gap. Fur-
thermore, focusing that development around transit is "smart
growth" and what was promised to, and endorsed by, the vot-
ers in FasTracks and the expansion of RTD's light-rail system.
It's actually the only way that we can prudently manage pop-
ulation growth and preserve our quality of life.
The business and population growth that is going on in
Colorado right now is amazing and it's enabled us as a region
to achieve what we are today. However, we need to be proac-
tive to solve the housing affordability and options problem
and it requires leadership from the state, cities and regional
leaders - without a collaborative effort, rm concerned that t e
housing affordability and opportunity issue could derail our
positive growth and our regional prosperity. It's just another
reason why the Metro Mayors Caucus has been unanimously
imploring the state to act on this issue as they know the im-
pact it's having in their communities now and going forward.
Finally, our first project is a market -rate affordable product
at Alameda Station, known as Denizen. We are currently col-
laborating with Medici Communities to develop a tax credit
affordable product on our mixed-use Bus Barn site, west of
Alameda Station, that will be connected to it via pedestrian
bridge. We would dearly like to be developing condominium
product next for first-time homebuyers, but current legislative
realities make this a challenging proposition. \\
ers Construction built the Triangle Building adjacent to Union Station.
Photo courtesy Saunders Construction
SEPTEMBER 2015 \ BUILDING DIALOGUE \ 23
top of mind
MARKET PULSE Home sales are outpacing last year's sales, but tight inventories
and mortgage underwriting continue to weigh on the market. First-time buyers are slowly emerging
but make up just 30 percent of buyers, down from historical norms of around 40 percent.
SUPPLY & DEMAND
All trend lines are from August 2014 to August 2015.
1 1,
• Seasonally adjusted annual rate, which is the actual rate of sales for the month.
multiplied by 12 and a*sted for seasonal sales differences. 2014 data reflects final seasonal adjustments.
• ' Number of existing homes on the market at the end of the month.
National median.
UPS AND DOWNS OF
HOME PRICES AND
INCOME
Equilibrium between home prices and
household income helps keep the housing
market stable, although the two rarely line up.
Since early 2014, the gap has been widening
but at a more modest pace than in previous
vears as home price eains have slowed.
15 �— We—Rome Price
--�— Median Household
12 l- Income
u..wn�cnr¢el
9 / A 1 Il
6`
3
Source: NAR Research
Why Renters Can't Make the Move
C�
Lawrence Yun is
NAR chief economist.
In August, rents spiked 3.6 percent over
the same time a year earlier, the fastest
pace since 2008. As rental vacancy rates
fall across most parts of the country and
more jobs are created, they will continue
to jump further. This trend is both good
news and bad news.
Naturally, people collecting rents are
thrilled with the gains they're seeing.
Both large apartment investors and
mom-and-pop landlords are enjoying the
best conditions they've seen in years. As
REALTORS'', many of you are among the
biggest beneficiaries; our surveys indi-
cate about a third of you own investment
property.
Of course, renters don't like forking
over more money to be tenants. That's
why, when rents rise strongly, it creates
demand for home buying. But that isn't
happening this time. In fact, the share of
first-time buyers, who typically lead the
move from renting to owning, continues
to hover at near 30 -year lows.
Rising rents are making it difficult for
potential first-time buyers to become
owners, especially since rent increases
are outpacing wage gains. That means
more of a tenant's income is being eaten
up in rent, making it harder to save for a
down payment.
The weak wage growth is a conse-
quence of decade-long subpar economic
growth. Historically. U.S. gross domestic
product grows at a 3 percent annual rate.
But since the recession, growth has been
averaging only 2.2 percent. A decrease of
0.8 percentage points might sound small
but, in an economy of $18 trillion, it has a
significant, cumulative impact.
Meanwhile, home prices are rising, in
large part because builders aren't adding
new homes for sale at a rate matching
demand. Only 5 million single-family and
apartment homes have been built in the
last five years, even though 12.5 million
jobs have been added during that period.
The lag in construction represents
good and bad news. It's helping to keep
rents and home prices up, but it's making
home ownership more difficult as tenants
struggle to save for the down payment
they'll need to buy an increasingly costly
home. While the construction outlook is
unclear, until builders contribute to the
overall housing stock at a more normal
pace, home prices and rents will continue
to rise.
12 REALTOR' NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015 REALTORMAG.REALTOR.ORG
f
A Dream Too Far
Owning a home is a key rung on the ladder of economic advancement.
What happens if that rung remains elusive for many? By Meg White
It's been almost a year since the gap Policy Center. And an uneven recovery and further out of reach" he says, noting
between America's wealthiest and has only exacerbated the divide. While the the correlation between low home own -
m ddle:income famiUesleached.itshighest—stock market -rebounded for investors—the—ership levels and high wealth inequality--
level on record. The Pew Research Center latest tumult notwithstanding—many "They're joined at the hip. They perpetuate
found the median net worth of the nation's current and former home owners are still each other."
upper-income families ($639,400) was
almost seven times that of middle-income
families ($96,500), making for the widest
wealth disparity since the Federal Reserve
began collecting such data. The situation
was ten times worse for the families earn-
ing too little to enter the middle income
bracket, with a 70 -to -1 ratio separating
them from high-income families.
Paul Weech. CEO of NeighborWorks, a
national coalition of local affiliates working
to support affordable housing and com-
munity development, has been watching
this gap for decades. "We've always had
inequality in this country [but] the macro
data has shown a growing gap," he says.
"It's a fact that more and more of the
wealth is flowing to fewer people."
For those who care about maintaining
a high home ownership rate, it's a trouble-
some trend, says National Association of
REALTORS s, Chief Economist Lawrence
Yun. "It's certainly not in the interest of
broader America, and it's something that
everyone should be concerned about."
A Vicious Cycle
Though no one was immune to the Great
Recession, its impact was felt far more
acutely by lower-income Americans than
those with more wealth. "The housing
boom and bust really did widen wealth
inequality:' says Laurie Goodman, director
of The Urban Institute's Housing Finance
dealing with fallout dating back to 2008.
Some positive economic indicators are
not as reassuring as they once were. Chris
Herbert, managing director of Harvard's
Joint Center for Housing Studies, notes
that even though the unemployment rate
has decreased significantly, many of the
gains have been in low-wage, part-time
jobs with few benefits. "There's still a lot
of underemployment," Herbert says. "A
5 percent unemployment rate is not what
it used to be."
One of the most common ways for
Americans to move up the economic
ladder and invest in other wealth -
generating activities—such as the stock
market, paying for advanced educational
opportunities, or starting a business—is by
leveraging equity they have in their homes.
"We traditionally have been huge sup-
porters of home ownership," says Weech.
"We see it as a way to provide stability for
households but also as an asset -building
strategy."
John Taylor, CEO of the National Com-
munity Reinvestment Coalition, an associ-
ation of about 600 organizations focused
on improving access to private capital in
underserved communities, agrees that
those who lack the opportunity to become
home owners have a weakened ability to
reinvest their wealth. "If you continue to be
a renter, locked out of the home ownership
arena, increasingly those things are further
In the second quarter of this year, the
home ownership rate fell to 63.5 percent,
its lowest level since 1967 In particular, the
relative scarcity of first-time buyers sug-
gests continuing challenges for an industry
that relies on a continual move -up trend.
"If people cannot make that first step into
their starter home, it stops the whole chain
reaction," Yun says. "For a home owner
in the upscale neighborhood, who are the
future buyers?"
Opening the Credit Box
Many would-be buyers are still unable to
take advantage of home affordability—
fostered by low interest rates—because
they can't secure mortgage approval. They
entered the market on the wrong side of
the "buy low, sell high" equation, and now
they're locked out. "They suffered dispro-
portionate losses," says Goodman. "Now,
we see mortgage credit being unavailable
exactly when it would be the most useful."
Goodman says pilot programs that use
less traditional credit -scoring factors—
such as allowing farnily members who are
not on the deed to contribute to the overall
tally of household wealth and counting
utility, cell phone, and rent bills toward
payment history—can help correct this.
"Right now if you don't pay utility bills on
time it hurts you, but if you do, it doesn't
help," she says. "This will allow [companies
such as Vantage and FICO] to score a lot
16
16 REALTOR' NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015 REALTORMAG.REALTOR.ORG
IF
more people than before."
Goodman also favors a closer focus on
overall employment history, rather than a
person's longevity with a single employer.
"Take someone who's had three jobs over
the last three years but has been steadily
employed. That person wouldn't be able to
get a mortgage [under current rules]," she
says. "Rethinking those types of issues is
To ensure lower- and middle-income
Americans have access to nonpredatory
loans, Taylor says, the federal government
needs to strengthen the Community
Reinvestment Act. The 1977 law aims to
ensure banks serve the credit needs of
everyone in the communities where they
work. The Federal Reserve Board enforces
the rule, but Taylor says banks have found
loopholes, such as closing branches in
low-income areas. Taylor also describes a
sophisticated game of hot potato, where
bank A sells a mortgage that satisfies
CRA requirements to bank B just in time
for bank B's CRA inspection. Then bank
B turns around to sell the same qualifying
loan to bank C for the same reason, so
they're all using one loan to secure passing
grades. "Frankly, it's pretty sad," he says.
Building More Homes
Another approach to improving access is
to increase the supply of affordable homes.
In September, NAR released a study that
found new -home construction was not
keeping pace with job growth in two-thirds
of the 146 metro areas it studied.
Increased tax incentives for builders
of low- and moderate -income housing
could help, but that alone won't solve the
problem. The crunch is partly a result of
slow permitting. "Many local and state
officials are not providing what the builders
are requesting," he says. "Approving more
permits will allow more building."
Taylor says he has spoken with major
home builders who want to alleviate the
inventory crunch but can't due to per
issues. "A lot of cities and towns don't nec-
essarily want to build moderate -income
homes," Taylor says, but fie predicts the
Supreme Court's recent ruling upholding
the validity of disparate impact claims
under the Fair Housing Act will make
it harder for municipalities to hamper
only going to take the federal
government suing the first three or four
towns and emptying out their
coffers before they all come up
with [low- and moderate -income
housing] initiatives."
Such initiatives are likely to benefit
local economies in the long-term. A recent
Harvard University study found that when
low-wage workers are forced to migrate to
lower-cost areas, the cities they leave be-
hind stagnate. So without affordable hous-
ing, cities such as San Francisco will find it
difficult to maintain a balanced workforce.
"It undermines the ability of metro areas
to grow," Herbert says. "Not everyone can
be a software developer. Somebody has to
be doing all the other jobs that need to be
done in that economy. The Bay Area would
be growing much faster if it didn't have this
problem."
Some problems go far deeper. Dysfunc-
tion in the public education and criminal
justice systems weighs more heavily on
the poor. The housing and mortgage
industries can do little to alleviate these
deep-seated societal challenges. "The
thing about the credit issues is that they're
solvable;' Goodman says. "You work on
what you can fix." But Taylor says policy
makers should be paying attention to how
these dilemmas are affecting people's
ability to own a home. "The 48 -year low in
home ownership ought to be the canary in
the coal mine letting Wall Street and banks
and others know we're reaching a tipping
point:'
REALTORMAG.REALTOR .ORG REALTOR' NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015 17
Town of Fraser
Graduated Tap Fee Analysis
Livable
Square Water % of Sewer % of
Footage Tap Fee Current Tap Fee Current
< 1,000 s.f.
$3,500
$2,500
1000
< 1,500 s.f.
$5,250
$3,750
1500
< 2,000 s.f.
$5,750
$4,250
2000
< 2,500 s.f.
$6,250
$4,750
2500
< 3,000 s.f.
$6,750
$5,250
3000
< 3,500 s.f.
$7,250
$5,750
3500
< 4,000 s.f.
$7,750
$6,250
4000
< 4,500 s.f.
$8,250
$6,750
4500
< 5,000 s.f.
$8,750
$7,250
5000
< 5,500 s.f.
$9,250
$7,750
5500
> 5,500 s.f.
$1 per s.f. for each s.f. over 5,500 for each fee plus <5,500 s.f. tap fees
For Example: A 10,000 s.f. home's tap would would total $26,000 (9,250+7,750+4,500+4,500)
** Note - Breckenridge (location based), Steamboat Springs, & Carbondale (fixture based) have variable water & sewer rates
Town of Fraser
Water Rates and Tap Fee History
* With usage charge of $1.50 per thousand gallons
Water
Water
Sewer
Sewer
Fraser Firming
Year
Rates
% Chnge
Tap Fee
Rates
%Chnge
Tap Fee Fee
1999
$
2,000
$
4,000
2000
$
2,000
$
4,000
2001
$
46.05
-
$
6,000
$
51.00
-
$
4,000
2002
$
58.80
28%
$
6,000
$
52.00
2%
$
4,000
2003
$
61.50
5%
$
6,000
$
52.50
1%
$
4,500
2004
$
75.00
22%
$
6,000
$
78.00
49%
$
6,500
2005
$
80.50
7%
$
6,500
$
78.00
-
$
6,500
2006
$
90.00
12%
$
6,700
$
78.00
-
$
6,500
2007
$
99.00
10%
$
6,900
$
78.00
-
$
6,500
2008
$
110.00
11%
$
7,500
$
90.00
15%
$
7,300
2009
$
115.00
5%
$
7,700
$
105.00
17%
$
7,500
2010
$
119.00
3%
$
7,700
$
121.00
15%
$
7,500
2011
$
115.00
* -3%
$
7,700
$
129.00
7%
$
7,500
2012
$
115.00
* -
$
7,700
$
129.00
-
$
7,500
2013
$
125.50
* 9%
$
7,700
$
131.00
2%
$
7,500
2014
$
135.50
* 8%
$
7,700
$
141.00
8%
$
7,500 $ 14.12
2015
$
145.50
* 7%
$
7,700
$
131.00
-7%
$
7,500
* With usage charge of $1.50 per thousand gallons
A Comparison Of New Building Fees
Within The Town Of Fraser Versus Within Grand County Only
Using The Willows Unit 6 As An Example
Description Property Facts
Residential statistics:
- F
Dwelling finished s.f.
1630
Unfinished basement s.f.
1161
Garage s.f.
337
Deck s.f.
167
Valuation
$ 280,554.90
Fees:
600.00
Town of Winter Park
(250.00)
Permit review and administration fee
Town of Fraser
$
Use tax
$
Water PIF
Sewer PIF
$
Water meter, 3/4"
$
Driveway permit fee
$
East Grand Fire
Impact fee
Town of
Fraser
$ 3,137.64
$ 5,611.10
$ 7,700.00
$ 7,500.00
$ 850.00
$ 50.00
$ 483.00
$ 25,331.74
Grand County
Permit review and administration fee
Various entities
Sales tax on materials
Water tap (private)
Sewer tap (private)
Water meter, 3/4" at cost
Driveway permit fee (GC)
Similar fire -protection district
Impact fee
Key:
* = Per actual checks and paperwork.
t = Per Yuko, Community Development Administrator, Grand County Building Department.
f = Developer estimated figures.
F = Eliminates the double -up of sales/use taxes which should be complimentary.
Grand Fay./(Unf.)
County Variance
$ 1,515.22 t $ (1,622.42)
$
- F
$
(5,611.10)
$
3,500.00 f
$
(4,200.00)
$
1,200.00 f
$
(6,300.00)
$
600.00
$
(250.00)
$
125.00 t
$
75.00
$
5,425.00
$
483.00
$
-
$
7,423.22
$
(17,908.52)
TOWN OF FRASER - CHALLENGES FACING HOUSING
Water and Sewer Tap Fee Analysis of 14 Colorado Mountain Town Communities
Town
Median
Household
Income
Rank Hi
to Low
Median Real
Estate Value
Rank Hi
to Low
Affordability And Tap Fees
Water Tap Rank Hi Sewer Tap
Fees to Low Fees
Rank Hi
to Low
Total
Water/Sewer
Tap Fees
Rank Hi
to Low
Fraser
$47,000
13
$250,000
10
$7,500
4
$7,500
5
$15,000
4
Granby
$60,000
6
$205,000
13
$6,310
11
$8,500
4
$14,810
6
Kremmling
$45,000
14
$205,000
14
$6,700
8
$5,000
9
$11,700
10
Winter Park
$65,000
5
$360,000
8
$11,550
1
$11,550
2
$23,100
1
Grand County
9.5
11.25
6.0
5.0
5.3
Glenwood Sp s
$57,000
7
$405,000
7
$7,165
6
$4,179
11
$11,344
11
Carbondale
$67,000
3
$475,000
3
$6,450
9
$4,420
10
$10,870
12
Rifle
$53,000
11
$255,000
9
$6,193
12
$6,382
7
$12,575
8
Garfield County
7.0
6.3
9.0
9.3
10.3
Steamboat Sp s
$65,000
4
$500,000
2
$7,697
3
$4,150
12
$11,847
9
Craig
$52,000
12
$235,000
11
$4,290
14
$2,390
14
$6,680
14
Hayden
$55,000
10
$220,000
12
$4,800
13
$2,400
13
$7,200
13
Moffat and Routt Counties
8.7
8.3
12
Breckenridge
$55,000
9
$450,000
5
$6,366
10
$11,584
1
$17,950
2
Eagle
$75,000
1
$410,000
6
$7,000
7
$10,000
3
$17,000
3
Silverthorne
$68,000
2
$460,000
4
$7,200
5
$5,800
8
$13,000
7
Dillon
$56,000
8
$521,000
1
1
$8,438
2
$6,528
6
$14,966
5
Eagle and Summit Counties
5.0
4.0
1 6.0
4.5
4.3
`Median value includes all homes in the community
Summary:
1. Fraser's Median Household Income is next to last of the 14 communities evaluated
2. Fraser's Median Real Estate Value came in 10th ranking one of the lowest
3. Fraser's Water & Sewer Tap Fee is the 4th highest out of the 14 communities evaluated
4. Fraser's Water & Sewer Tap Fee is the 3rd most costly when compared to Median Household Income of the community
5. Fraser's Water & Sewer Tap Fee is the 3rd most costly when compared to Median Real Estate Values of the community
Tap Fees 11m e I o['4
TOWN OF FRASER - CHALLENGES FACING HOUSING
Water and Sewer Service Fees of 14 Colorado Mountain Communities
Summary:
1. Fraser has the highest TOTAL Base Fee of all 14 communities evaluated
2. Fraser has the highest Base WATER fee of all 14 communities evaluated
3. Fraser has the 3rd highest Base SEWER fee of all 14 communities evaluated
4. Fraser has the highest Total Fee when assuming consumption of 6,000 gallons of water per month
Water & Sanitation Mill Levies
W&S Mill
Citv I Levies
Fraser
0
0
2.273
7.04
13.951
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Service Fees on a MONTHLY basis
Kremling
Winter Park Ski Area
WP - Grand County One
Glenwood Spgs
Carbondale
Rifle
Water
Sewer
Total Base
Base Fee Rank
Consumption
Total w/
Town
Base Fee
Monthly Usage Charge per 1000
Base Fee Usage Charge
Fee
Hi to Low
at 6K gallons
Consumption
Fraser
$51.00
$1.50 per 1000
$45.83
$96.83
1
$9.00
$105.83
Granby
$44.92
None indicated
$48.72
$93.64
2
$93.64
Kremmlin
$48.00
>6,000 gallons, $1.80 per 1000
$39.00
$87.00
3
$87.00
Winter Park
$33.50
$3/1000 gallons > 4000 gallons
$36.00
$69.50
6
$6.00
$75.50
Grand County
$44.35
$42.39
$86.74
$3.75
$90.49
Glenwood Spgs
$23.33
$1.70 per 1000
$46.33
$69.67
5
$10.20
$79.87
Carbondale
$3.76
$3.84 per 1000
$5.03 $6.00 per 1000
$8.79
14
$23.04
$31.83
Rifle
$25.20
Undisclosed
$40.71
$65.91
8
$65.91
Garfield County
$17.43
$30.69
$48.12
$11.08
$59.20
Steamboat Spgs
$21.84
$2.30 1000-4000; $3.45 5000-12000
$42.57
$64.41
11
$20.70
$85.11
Craig
$28.50
$2.90 per 1000
$28.00 $2.90 per 1000
$56.50
12
$34.80
$91.30
Hayden
$37.58
$3.61 6000-12000; $4.11 >12000
$30.75
$68.33
7
$3.61
$71.94
Moffat and Routt Counties
$29.31
$33.77
$63.08
$19.70
$82.78
Breckenridge
$38.45
$5.25 per 1000 above 10000 gallons
$26.00
$64.45
10
$0.00
$64.45
Eagle
$29.10
$5.45 6001-28000 gallons
$44.00
$73.10
4
$0.00
$73.10
Silverthorne
$13.62
$1.35 for 0-15000 gallons calculated quarterly
$31.32
$44.94
13
$8.10
$53.04
Dillon
$23.301
$5.50 0-6,000gallons; $6.55 6000-10000; $8.05 > 10000
$41.20
$64.50
9
$33.001
$97.50
Eagle and Summit Counties
$26.121
1 $35.631
$61.751
1
$10.281
72.02
Summary:
1. Fraser has the highest TOTAL Base Fee of all 14 communities evaluated
2. Fraser has the highest Base WATER fee of all 14 communities evaluated
3. Fraser has the 3rd highest Base SEWER fee of all 14 communities evaluated
4. Fraser has the highest Total Fee when assuming consumption of 6,000 gallons of water per month
Water & Sanitation Mill Levies
W&S Mill
Citv I Levies
Fraser
0
0
2.273
7.04
13.951
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Granby
Kremling
Winter Park Ski Area
WP - Grand County One
Glenwood Spgs
Carbondale
Rifle
Garfield County
Steamboat Spgs
Craig
Hayden
Moffat and Routt Counties
Breckenridge
Eagle
Silverthorne
Dillon
Eagle and Summit Counties
Service Fees Page 2 of 4
Town of Fraser
Sustainability
Planning
Q...or Ypd+a ealad+AgY
• Background & Overview
• GHG Emissions Inventory Results
• Government Operations
• Community -wide
• Outreach
• Potential Actions/Scenario Planning and Goals
• Work Plan/Next Steps
• Technical Energy Audit Update
• Questions/Discussion
Q...or Ypd+r ealad+AgY
Q...or Ypd+a ealad+AgY
Many definitions! Town of Fraser definition:
The Town of Fraser believes in and encourages sustainable
development, which is defined as a pattern of resource use
that aims to meet human needs while preserving the
environment so that these needs can be met not only in the
present but also for future generations. Incorporating
sustainability concepts into the development review
process would involve evaluating the triple bottom line,
economic prosperity, environment quality and social
equity (people, planet and profit). AIM kh i,
rr
Q...
Oi Ypd+r eniAdtAgY
Solid Waste Energy Use Transportation
Local government policies affect all major sources of
greenhouse gas emissions
Q...or Ypd+r ealad+AgY
ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability
• Membership association of local governments committed to
increasing sustainability
• Over 1,000 local government members Leadership
• Tools, resources, technical assistance Commitment
• Five Milestones for Sustainability J&
Planning process
M�ilestone 1
Inventory
---�Mflestone 2
�:::stablish T . arget
Westo e 3
Develop Climate
Action Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M�ilestone 4
Implement Climate
Action Plan
• Document baseline emissions sources
• Government Operations
• Community -wide
• Illustrate opportunities for emissions reductions
• Enable focused and effective policymaking
• Monitor progress toward emission reduction goals
• 3rd party verification
Q...or Ypd+r ealad+AgY
• It maps Fraser's 2014 activities with GHG emissions
represented as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)
• Boundary
• Operational Control - government operations
• Town of Fraser limits - community
• Activity Sectors Include:
• Buildings Energy Use: Electricity & Natural Gas
• Transportation: Tail -Pipe Emissions
• Materials and Waste
• Other
GHGs included: CO2i CH4, Neo
• Scopes (1, 21 3 recommended)
Q...or Ypd+r ealad+AgY
Q...or Ypd+a ealad+AgY
Inventory Boundary: All facilities, vehicles, etc. operated
Stationary Sources
Buildings and Facilities
Public Lighting -streetlights,
traffic signal
Water Treatment & Transport -
pumps, irrigation
Refrigerants (N/A)
Solid Waste from
Government Operations
Wastewater Treatment
Facility
Q...or Ypd+r ealad+AgY
Mobile Emissions
Vehicle Fleet
Mobile Equipment (N/A)
Refrigerants (N/A)
Employee Commute
Business Travel (in VF)
Materials Production
Asphalt & Cement (N/A)
Copy Paper
Computers & Hardware
Fertilizer
Five Basic Emissions Generating Activities:
• Use of Electricity by the Community
• Use of Fuel in Residential and Commercial Stationary
Combustion Equipment (natural gas)
• On -Road Passenger and Freight Motor Vehicle Travel
(ADT)
• Use of Energy in Potable Water and Wastewater
Treatment and Distribution (also in gov ops)
• Generation of Solid Waste by the Community (Laurie)
Q...or Ypd+r ealad+AgY
Q...or Ypd+a ealad+AgY
*Includes JFF Or —40% gasoline use
Q...or Ypd+a ealad+AgY
Vehicle Fleet
8%
MI-BIRITT-1111TIM
Facilities
9%
Emiployee Public Lighting
2% Other/Scone 3
Q...or Ypd+a ealad+AgY
Q...or Ypd+a ealad+AgY
Q...or Ypd+a ealad+AgY
• Ways to message sustainability:
• Quality of life
• Responsibility
• Instead of "economic development', "business" or
making "viable" decisions
• Interested i n :
• Transit
• Housing
• What other communities are doing
0...or Ypd+r ealad+AgY
• A few facilities have taken action:
• Grand Park Community Recreation Center
• Reduced energy use 10-20% since opened 5 years ago
• Built with LEED in mind - many sustainable features
• Fraser Valley School District
• ESPC in 2009, typical savings 1-v20% energy
• Safeway
• Won't give out store -specific information
• Safeway goal to reduce emissions by 25% from 2010 by
2020
• Fraser Valley Shopping Center
• Rooftop unit replacement
• Fraser Marketplace
Q...or Ypd+r ealad+AgY
Take Aways :
• Some action/engagement
• Many are uninterested/unengaged
• Not much knowledge of rebates -
• Upfront cost an issue
Xcel or M PEI
• Some interest once made aware
• Interest in LED parking lot lighting
• Limited recycling
Q...or Ypd+r ealad+AgY
Natural Gas - Town of Fraser - last 5 years
Program o,f participants
Energy Efficient Soa - Co
�Ener,gy Star Homes - Co
Home Energy Audits - Co
Insulation Rebates - Co
XcelaergySu
LowIncome Kits - CO 14
Low Income at ri ti - CO2
Refrigerator Recycling - CO 2
Residential) eaiting - CO 4
Water Heating - Co, 2
...............................................................................................................................
Grand Total 28
Q...or Ypd+r ealad+AgY
Electricity - Grand & Jackson Counties, etc. (20,000 customers)
• 2014 COMMERCIAL TOTALS:
• Customers:9
• Amount invested: _ $14,072
• MMBTU Savings: 538.5
` "F A I N A : N
• 2014 RESIDENTIAL TOTALS: `� 4n.iui:w ilk
• Customers: 488
• Amount invested: _ $37,677
• MMBTU Savings: 1,025.14
Q...or Ypd+r ealad+AgY
Q...or Ypd+a ealad+AgY
Local Examples
• 20% below 2005 by 2020 (State of CO)
• Denver, Fort Collins
• Towns of Mountain Village, Norwood, Ophir and Telluride, San Miguel
County
• 80% below 2005 by 2050 (Boulder, CO)
• Recommendation:
• 20% below 2014 by 2025
Q...or Ypd+r ealad+AgY
Government Operations
• Energy Savings Performance Contracting at WWTP
• —700,000 kWh at the WWTP (solar and aeration/mixing upgrades)
• 40+% reduction in electricity, N 600 mt-0O2e
• 28% reduction in gov. ops GHG emissions overall
• Waste management - Recycling Resources Economic Opportunity
Fund Grant
• Increased public transportation
Community -wide
• Community Solar - 100kW (example)
• Residential Energy Education/Awareness - 10% reduction
• Commercial RCx - N5% reduction energy use
• Residential & Commercial Rebates - lighting, heat pump water
heaters
• Increased public transportation (2A)
Q...or Ypd+r ealad+AgY
H'.
30k
25k
20k
0
15 k
E
10k
0
u
sk
ok
2014 20191 2024,
Residential Energy 0 Commercial Energy Transportation & Mobile Sources
10 Water & Wastewater 100 Solid Waste -- Original Forecast
-- 20% by 2025 Goal Reduction l
�-Hghchar('s Corn
• Assumptions:
• 5% annual growth
• Clean Power Plan - emissions reduction
• CAFE standards - MPG increase
• Residential Energy Education/Awareness: 6% reduction
• Commercial Retro -commissioning: 4% reduction
• Community Solar: 3.5% reduction
• ESPC at the WWTP: 2.5% reduction
Q...or Ypd+r ealad+AgY
• Ouray
• "Greenlights" LED lightbulb program - "prebate" up to 75% of cost
• Green Projects Grant Program
• Sneffels Energy Board - regional effort
• Green Business Certificate Program - sustainability certificate
• Regional Compost Facility and Waste Campaigns
• Regional Solar Garden
• Educational/Outreach Program
• Nederland
• NedSustainable - Advisory Board, Action Plan
• Sustainability Resolution, Envision 2020
• Increased tracking and managing resources
• Sustainability Action Matrix
Q...or Ypd+r ealad+AgY
bag fees, M�FU recycling space
ope,ratio�n�s
'14
LA Aweiates, IcMay 6,' 015
Bs� n. 2
Q...
Oi Ypd+a eniadtAgY
r
Energy
N le
J7 �
c ° ° d T l� ���
Q...or Ypd+a ealad+AgY
• Summary Report - January/February 2016
• Staff Training for Ongoing Tracking - January 2016
• Replicate analysis in 2016
• Resolution - Early 2016
• Commitment
• Goals
• Implementation
Q...
or Ypd+r ealad+AgY
Town of Fraser
Technical Energy Audit (TEA) Update
Q...or Ypd+a ealad+AgY
• 11 Facilities were included in the TEA:
• Bus Barn
• Community Center
• Fraser Water Treatment Plant
• Lions Park
• Maryvale Water Treatment Plant
• Public Works Facility
• School House Park
• Storage Building
• Town Hall
• Visitor Center
• Wastewater Treatment Plant
• The TEA effort has involved the following:
• N70,400 ft2 of indoor space surveyed
• N590 existing lighting fixtures surveyed
• N50 Data logging devices deployed
• 3 Years of Utility Data Analyzed
• 39 Utility Meters
Q...or Ypd+r ealad+AgY
0
• March 2015: TEA Executed
• May 2015: TEA Kick -Off Meeting
June 2015: Preliminary Presentation
• Initial List of Potential Measures (+/- 30010 Accuracy)
July 2015 - Ongoing: Project Delay
2016 Activities
• Pre -Final Presentation (9001b Complete)
• M&V Workshop
• Delivery of TEA Report and ESPC Proposal
• ESPC Project Contract Execution
• Commence Construction Phase
• Commence Performance Assurance Phase
Q...or Ypd+r ealad+AgY
v
Q...or Ypd+a ealad+AgY
• Guaranteed Outcomes: Costs, Savings & Performance
• Single Point of Accountability
• Project Oversight from the Colorado Energy Office
• Reduced utility and operation costs
• Reduced exposure to energy price volatility
• Ability to blend long payback capital intensive
upgrades with short payback measures
• Freedom to select preferred contractors to implem(
the proposed scope of work
• Less reactive maintenance for equipment that has
exceeded its useful life
• Focused training for staff on new equipment and
improved operations
• Overall improvement to system reliability and
equipment performance
Q...or Ypd+r ealad+AgY
DESIGN -BUILD ACHIEVED HIGHER
QUALITY IN ALL MEASURED CATEGORIES
as compared to Design -Bid -Build
TOTAL PROJECT
DELIVERY
SPEED
CONSTRUCTION
SPEED
UNIT COST
CHANGE
ORDERS
SCHEDULE
DELAYS
Source: Construction Industry Institute (CII)/Penn State Research comprising 351 projects ranging from 5K to 2.5M square
feet. The study includes varied project types and sectors.
Q...
Oi Ypd+r eniAdtAgY
The WWTP accounts
for 65% of the total
annual utility costs.
Therefore, we have
prioritized our efforts
to investigate utility
and operational
savings opportunities
at this facility to
maximize the
project's overall
impact.
MEMIUM
CornirnuinflLy Center n.,)A(iri
20/o 3 11,4c
Visitor Center
1, IDA)
rks Facility
D/01
Fraser Water
Treatment Plant
4%
er Treatment
Vant
'5%
• Aeration/Mixing Upgrades - High efficiency Jet Mixing & Aeration for
digesters
• Tertiary Treatment - Construct tertiary treatment system to meet new
copper & phosphorus effluent requirements
• WWTP 100 kW Solar PV Array - Ground mounted solar photovoltaic
a rray
• Process Flexibility Upgrades Total - Modifications to aeration basins to
better manage peak Infiltration & Inflow (I & I)
• Flow Equalization Tanks - Holding tank to help better manage short -
duration periods of high I&I
• Downsizing of Aerated Grit Chamber Blowers - Right -size blowers to
match plant requirements
• LED Lighting - High efficiency, long lasting LED lighting
Q...or Ypd+r ealad+AgY
• $2.8M WWTP Project:
• Tertiary Treatment
• Digester Jet Aeration/Mixing Upgrades
• 100 kW Solar PV system
• Funded over 15 year period using ESPC Model
• $1M Tier II DoLA grant
• $1.2M in guaranteed utility savings over 15 year period
• $850k capital infusion from WWTP
• $10k in MPEI utility incentives
• Benefits
• Meet new copper and phosphorus requirements
• Avoid potential EPA fines
• Guaranteed construction cost
• Reduce energy use at WWTP
• Reduce CO2 emissions
Q...or Ypd+r ealad+AgY
• Financial (Simple Payback, ROI) - This is easy but doesn't address all
important factors that need to be considered for the life of the facility
• Complexity - Overly complex systems may be difficult to operate and
maintain and this needs to be accounted for in the overall evaluation of
viability
• Durability - Whatever is installed needs to be designed to last, and low
first cost does not always provide for this
• Persistence - Savings must not degrade over time
• Sustainability- What are the environmental effects from implementing
the measure.
• Other Benefits - Some measures may provide tangible benefits to an
entity that do not show up on a utility bill (e.g. end of life replacement,
enhanced working environment, lower maintenance costs, etc.)
A Tota/ Cost of Ownership approach must be followed that considers
a// of the items above
Q...or Ypd+r ealad+AgY
• Cost ROI
• Engineering & Design
• Permits
• Equipment & Materials
• Bonding
• Installation
Savings —Cost
Cc
• Construction Management / Safety
• Commissioning / Performance Assurance
• Savings
• Utility savings (electricity, natural gas, propane, water, sewer, etc.)
• Maintenance savings (services calls/contracts, parts, lift rentals, labor, etc.)
• Increased revenue (memberships, event rentals, etc.)
• Expected equipment service life
• Grants, rebates, other incentives
Q. -or Ypd+r ealad+AgY
EPC Benefit - Leverage the savings from measures with faster returns to
help fund more capital intensive measures.
Payback Term
(Years)
Measure Description
Short Programmable Thermostats
(0-6)
Medium LED Lighting (Interior/ Exterior/ Decorative Poles)
(7-12) WWTP Aeration / Mixing Upgrades
Building Weatherization
WWTP Solar Photovoltaic Array
Long WWTP Tertiary Treatment
(13-25+) WWTP Flow Equalization Tanks
WWTP Process Flexibility Upgrades
Town Hall Cooling Improvements
Combined Proiects Typical Finance Period 12 — 20 years (Max 25 Years)
Interactivity between measures is also important to consider.
Q...or Ypd+r ealad+AgY
• Authorize McKinstry to proceed forward with the
remaining TEA activities with focus on improving the
performance of the WWTP and resolving the pending
compliance issues.
• Approve Final TEA Report in 2016
• Approve ESPC Contract in 2016
• Construction commences in 2016
Q...or Ypd+r ealad+AgY
Alison Schwabe
Sustainability Program Manager, McKinstry
alisonc@mckinstry.com 1 303-215-4076
Aaron Skroch
Energy Engineer, McKinstry
aaronsk@mckinstry.com 1 303-215-4064
0...
or Ypd+r ealad+AgY
Questions?
• 55 years of success
• Privately held
• Vendor and product neutral
• Fully integrated delivery approach
• Emphasis on Client satisfaction
• Experienced staff of 57+ in Golden, CO
• In-house design -build construction expertise
• National buying power
• Self -perform energy engineering, building
modeling, mechanical design & construction,
construction management, commissioning and M&V
• powerED - staff & community engagement
• Energy efficiency and sustainability is what we do!
}
A j i� lYr / �
1 I1Y li }
1 >z
i l � M
"
!1 Y
1
i � 1
0
AV
LEGyEl\TD
�+ _ # EVENT TRAFFIC
m' PRODUCTION VEHICLES UNDER 13,
PRODUCTION VEHICLES OVER IT
FRASERAV
IL ,i
.' EIBENHOVf1ER _ DR
er�r _
W
REi P1r.IW AY _ RS.A%y
,T�$' �" ' •.,?' 804
-
Lu
Olt
TOUCH THE SUN m
72
MUSIC FESTAL
TOUCH THE SU N
MUSIC FESTIVAL
FRASER VALLEY PKWY
tony@aaatm.net 213-494-7154
� V i
-44U 5.
Mm
it
'y,.. "� - "•- 'mss x,94 . �� ��-
Ap
Ap
kp i
d -
�y i\
h` -- 1e f �_r _ .
�d y�� r •> i%
Vot +4 f
V ie "u+'`
FRAME, 1
MAIN ST
tony@aaatm.net 213-494-7154
KINGS
CROSSING
RD
_t
iE ii ii MAIN ST
_ t =
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR
TOUCH THE SUN MUSIC FESTIVAL
DETAIL 3
MAIN ST & KINGS CROSSING RD
LEGEND
TRAFFIC CONE
TYPE II BARRICADE
EVENT TRAFFIC
THROUGH TRAFFIC
Q MESSAGE BOARD
TRAFFIC MANAGEIIIENT PLAN FOR
TOUCH THE SUN MUSIC FESTIVAL
DETAIL 4
HIGHWAY 40 & RENDEZVOUS RD
MGHVVAY 40
Si
LEGlEND
TRAFFIC CONE
TYPE 11 BARRICADE
EVENT TRAFFIC
THROUGH TRAFFIC
MESSAGE BOARD
tony@aaatm.net 213-494-7154
FRAME I:
� =6
F MOM M E I mm
10L
�rrr
TRAFbW MANAOEIVYENT PLAN FOR
�Y�r�Y'/Y�r P'�Zlt1 L\�T�.T it�TCY�/Y TT�C�y7<T�Z
"-El it ALlmXJ :)
HyVY 40 & PA AitKET PL
s'too.
tony@aaatm net 213-494-7154
LEGLIND
TRAFFIC CONE
TYPE II BARRICADE
EVENT TRAFFIC
THROUGH TRAFFIC
Vus MESSAGE BOARD
FRAME 1:
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT .NT FLAN FOR
TOUCH THE SUN MUSIC FESTIVAL
DETAIL 6
HWY 40 & COUNTY RD 72
FRAME 2:
Highway 40
tony@aaatm.net213-494-7154
FRAME: :
LEGEND
j TRAFFIC CONE
TYPE If BARRICADE
EVENT TRAFFIC
THROUGH TRAFFIC
PRODUCTION VEHICLES
UNDER 13'
s MESSAGE BOARD
TRAFFIC CONE
TYPE II BARRICADE
EVENT TRAFFIC
THROUGH TRAFFIC
MESSAGE BOARD
ow -
FRAME fis
!►]
tory@aaatm.net 213-494-7154
,FRA � mm"
LEI I .
m
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN FDR
T D JCS 7111.-E SUN MUSIC FES TIVAl.1,
D'. WE 4 I L"' L 7
HWY 40 & COUNTY RD 5
er
FRAME 1:
LEGEND
TRAFFIC CONE
TYPE II BARRICADE
EVENT TRAFFIC
THROUGH TRAFFIC
rv"e MESSAGE BOARD
tony@aaatm.net 213-4947154
Hwy 4 0
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR
TOUCH THE SUN MUSIC FESTIVAL
DETAIL 2
HWY 40 & RENDEZVOUS WAY
LEGEND
TRAFFIC CONE
TYPE II BARRICADE
EVENT TRAFFIC
THROUGH TRAFFIC
MESSAGE BOARD
+ t-
1 1 '
a1�L1S'
I�r
MAIN ST
L
a
tony@aaatm.net 213-494-7154
FRAME- I on
ear400lo
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT FLAN FOR
TOUCH TBE SUN MUSIC FESTIVAL
El .L i
_
MAIN ST & VILLAGE DR/
VASQUEZ RD