capital improvement tax renewal stakeholder … alice huang, jean gatza, curtis johnson, jeffrey...

Capital Improvement Tax Renewal Stakeholder Committee Summary for 4/13

Committee Attendees: Greg Brown, Leslie Durgin, Barbara Gutmann, Davis Hart, Diane Jones, Deborah Malden, Jim Mapes, Chris Miller, Ann Moss, Manuela Sifuentes, Tara Winer Public Attendees: Nick Forster (host/co-founder of eTown), Ron McMan (Board of Directors of BMoCA), Kari Palazzari (Treasurer of Studio Arts Boulder) Staff Attendees: Amanda Bevis, Michael Calderazzo, Joe Castro, Matt Chasansky, Susan Connelly, Maria Diaz, Alice Huang, Jean Gatza, Curtis Johnson, Jeffrey Long, Chris Meschuk, Bridget Pankow, Gerrit Slatter, Greg Testa, Deryn Wagner, Joel Wagner Introduction of 2 members who could not attend meeting #1 – Barbara Guttmann and Manuela

Sifuentes

In your view, what do you think will result in a successful ballot initiative? *from new members

Diversity in types of projects

Significant projects and capture the imagination of the public (exciting)

Support of the public to make the next iteration successful

Mundane projects, including fundamental safety projects.

New or different solutions to demonstrated issues. It should also be financially sound, as a wise and sustainable choices for city.

*Projects that meet in the middle in such a way that people are willing to share resources

*Represent voices that are not always heard

Public Engagement Exercise

Public comment during the Stakeholder Committee Meetings is limited to 15 minutes, as people can

always reach members via the [email protected] email. The consensus is that the

committee needs public engagement, especially earlier in the process to help guide decision making and

building support from the beginning.

Highlights:

Key question: How do we build excitement in the community for this initiative, especially as staff

cannot advocate for it once it is on the ballot.

Method: Polling, online, phone, ways of reaching a diverse population that may be the silent

majority. The questions and concept should be simple and easy to understand

Concerns: How interested are voters in these issues and projects? How do we have a mix that is

attractive to the public?

Members themselves can reach out to the community as part of public engagement

Staff Presentations

All projects being presented do not have dedicated funds.

Public Safety: Radio Infrastructure ($6 million) – replace and outdated system that inadequately

supports police, fire, rangers, public works, and many other city users

mailto:[email protected]

Public Safety: Incident Command Vehicle ($570,000) – replace an aging vehicle that supports

emergency response activities (e.g. fire, flood, active shooter) and public events

Public Safety: Rescue Vehicle ($330,280) – replace 30-year old vehicle that is undersized and

under-armored for modern threats. Also, supports response for natural disasters (high ground

clearance, high water, etc.)

Public Safety: Fire Station 3 ($12 million) – relocate 50-year-old building located in 100-year

floodplain. Current station is undersized and has several health and safety deficiencies. Improve

safety and critical response times.

Public Safety: Fire Station 2 and 4 ($14.2 million) – relocate/replace 60 and 40-year-old stations

that are undersized and have several life and safety deficiencies. Improve service and critical

response times.

Public Safety: Warehouse ($2 million) – build a central conditioned space for reserve vehicles

and equipment

Facilities: Maintenance Backlog ($3.24 million) – fund high priority maintenance backlog items at

9 buildings, including key exterior and safety needs.

Facilities: Outdoor Lighting Compliance ($7.1 million) – meet upcoming code requirements for

light pollution, energy conservation, and safety and security

Facilities & Fleet: Repairs ($1.4 million) – fund repairs and upgrades to city fleet facility,

addresses key safety concerns and helps expand alternative fueling tank.

Facilities & Fleet: Large Vehicle Washrack ($950,000) – protect existing and future investments,

and allow vehicles to remain in service for their full lifetime

Arts & Culture: Public Art ($1.5 million) – Art as an investment, statement of community values,

and enhance public spaces

Please see the Summary of Questions for the Q&A portion

Clicker Results: from initial “gut-check” on fit for these projects.

Draft Selection Criteria

Input will be collected via survey monkey or online survey between now and 4/27 meeting

What influenced your “gut check” responses (rapid-fire):

Health and Safety

Affects a large portion of the community

Some kind of payback on the investment

Appealing

No unintended negative consequences

Easy to understand

Protect money already investments

Direct line between tax payer to what the money is spent on

This tax is the best place for this funding to come from

Support other things

Joint department projects (such as the art playing off of other projects)

What makes Boulder Boulder (helps improves livability)

Information is together and ready to go (not a lot of uncertainty on the costs and issues)

Likelihood of funding coming from elsewhere

Summary of Questions Raised During Department Presentations

Radio Infrastructure

What is the risk that the cost of building these 4 transmission stations / new system will grow?

The city has hired an expert on radio systems to help with the analysis and recommendation. The

system being recommended is the emerging standard for this work and has been recently

implemented by neighboring communities (Westminster, CU Police, JeffCo). The majority of

project costs are based off of MSRP, but the project will be competitively bid to ensure the lowers

pricing possible. The land for the transmission sites is already owned, so the risk of unanticipated

costs should be low.

If this project is so critical, why has it not been done before? How has the city not come up with

another means of funding this? I don’t think this is the right place for this tax. These projects

seem like a high enough priority for the city to fund this through other means. Most

departments have dedicated revenue except Fire, Safety, Human Services, and Facilities. Those

are funded by the general fund. The vast majority of the general fund is for operations. However,

after the dot-com bust, the city stopped using the general fund for capital project maintenance

and fell behind. Theoretically, we can take from the general fund but it will be taken from

someplace else.

Public Safety: Vehicles

Does the county or CU have a rescue vehicle that could be shared? Yes, the County has one but

depending on the emergency, more than one vehicle may be needed.

Fire Stations

Can land from the Fire Stations be sold to pay for these projects? Fire Station 3 is located in the

floodplain, so it could not be sold. The land from the other stations could theoretically be sold or

used for other purposes. But, due to timing it is unlikely that any land proceeds could be used to

offset the costs. In other words, funding for the full cost would have to be approved so that the

new station could be built. After the new station is built, the old one could be decommissioned

and sold.

Lighting

Will this project going to make things lighter or less light? It will direct the light downwards

instead of up and out, and would reduce light pollution. It will not affect safety.

WRT to the comment about buying down the rate on the energy performance bond, is the total

cost $7 million or $21 million? The total cost of lighting improvements is $7 million, and the city

is exploring the use of energy performance bonds if not funded by this tax. Funding one-third of

the scope with these funds would help reduce the duration and the interest rate on the energy

performance bond, reducing total borrowing costs.

Facilities

Are there opportunities to help meet climate goals with these improvements? Yes, expending

the alternative fuels capacity helps reduce greenhouse emissions. Ultimately, we would like to go

to net-zero for facilities and fleet. However, hybrid and electric technology is not currently there

for heavy vehicles (fire, police, pickup trucks, etc.). The city has pursued and received grant funds

to pilot electric vehicles (e.g. HOP buses and an electric truck) and will continue to look into

solutions.

Why are roofing projects considered for the capital tax? When maintenance is over a certain

amount, it is a capital investment and it protects our current capital investments.

When replacing roofs, are we considering solar panels? We always evaluate roofs for solar

potential. Most of the facilities on this list already have solar, so these costs are just for repair.

Art

How does 1% compare to other communities? This is at the bottom tier for similar cities and

communities. Many communities have been implementing percents for art, as it does provide

better alignment with projects. The City of Boulder has started it piecemeal, but it is not a policy.

Request: please share data from other cities’ arts spending

With temporary art installations, why are these projects considered for the capital tax? All art

has a lifespan, and an expense over its lifetime is maintenance.

Department PresentationsCapital Tax Renewal Stakeholder CommitteeApril 13, 2017

Introduction

City of Boulder 2017 Capital Tax Renewal

Public Safety Greg Testa, Chief of Police

Michael Calderazzo, Fire Chief



Description$6 million requested

New Radio System

- Consolidate 16 current sites into 4 sites

- Ensures high level of redundancy/ reliability

- Compatible with County, CU Boulder and others

Support Systems

- Site security, remote monitoring, back-up power, heating/cooling, shelter repairs



Rationale/Design and Approval Current system:

Analog - obsolete, non-serviceable equipment (available from secondary outlets such as e-Bay only)

Voice conversations have coverage

Tower sites are too low in elevation and too close together

New Proposed System

Move to a P25 digital radio system (standard for North American federal, state and local)

Leverages current VHF spectrum;

Optimizes coverage footprint

Significant upgrades to infrastructure and equip.



Real Life Examples

Interoperability

Lack of Redundancy

No active monitoring

Ease of listening to system communications that lack privacy protections



Funding Needs

Impact and Implications

New system design now available and proven in other communities.

If not funded, continued system failures are highly probable

Recommendation: New Radio Stations and Support Systems for $6 million

Introduction


Police Department

Curtis Johnson, Deputy Chief of Police

Police/Fire Incident Command Vehicle


Description

$570,000 requested

Replacement of Police and Fire Incident Command Vehicle (ICV)

- Mobile platform designed to facilitate the management of disasters, special events and critical incidents at the scene

- Dispatch/Communication

- Private/secure space for command personnel to make strategic decisions (plan, organize, coordinate)



Rationale/Design and Approval

- Current vehicle was purchased in 2000 and is due for replacement

- Replacement fund balance is not adequate to purchase a new vehicle

- Advancements in vehicle technology and in infrastructure technology are needed

- Updating police and fire response capability will improve management of disasters and critical incidents in a community that:

is vulnerable to wildfire

is considered the number one flood risk in Colorado

has the largest university in the state



Funding Needs

Impact and Implications-Managing disasters and critical incidents has become more complex

-ICV is an integral part of this function

-If not funded, options include evaluating renovating/upgrading vehicle using replacement funds

-Total cost of fully outfitted vehicle: $750,000

-Additional funding from Fleet Replacement Fund: $180,000

-Funding requested: $570,000

Rescue Vehicle


Rescue Vehicle


Description• $330,280 requested

• Light armored rescue vehicle

to replace 37 year old vehicle.

• Used to evacuate people from

hazardous situations and

move officers in to dangerous

areas.

• Current vehicle is unreliable,

unsafe and cannot move

enough people.

Rescue Vehicle



• Vehicle of this type necessary to safely respond to violent events and can also be used in floods and other hazardous conditions.

• Similar vehicles used to rescue people during the Planned Parenthood shooting in Colorado Springs and Pulse Nightclub shooting in Orlando.

• In both cases, lives were saved because this type of vehicle was used to rescue innocent people and get officers close to the danger.

Rescue Vehicle



“I gotta tell you," Dyer said, "I caught a bunch of flak when we bought the BearCat," a kind of armored vehicle that law enforcement used as a battering ram to breach the nightclub. "If we had not had the BearCat that night, we would not have gotten in the building when we did, and I can guarantee you there would have been more victims.“

Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer

Rescue Vehicle


Funding Needs

Impact and ImplicationsImproves department’s ability to respond to hazardous situations. If unfunded, department will have a limited ability to rescue people from harm.

Total cost = $330,280

Old vehicle has no replacement fund so there are no other funds available to purchase the new vehicle.


Fire-Rescue Mike Calderazzo, Fire Chief

Introduction


Boulder Fire-Rescue currently

responds from 7 stations distributed

throughout the City.

The requests made by the fire

department would fund:

Needed relocations or extensive

remodels of existing stations 2, 3,

and 4

A warehouse to store fire apparatus

and fire department supplies and

equipment

City of Boulder Fire Stations

Fire StationYear Built

AgeExisting

Square FeetSquare Feet

NeededSquare Feet Difference

1 1957 58 7,941 17,000 9,059

2 1959 56 4,752 15,333 10,581

3 1964 51 6,160 13,600 – 15,3207,440 –9,160

4 1967 48 2,000 11,000 9,000

5 1992 23 3,622 15,333 11,711

6 1979 36 3,435 11,000 7,565

7 2000 15 5,081 11,000 5,919



• Age

• Energy Efficiency

• Lack of Diverse Workplace

Accommodations

• Health and Safety Impacts

• Space limitations

• Extended Travel Times

Common Shortcomings for Stations 2, 3, and 4


Description• $12 million requested

• Built in 1964

• Located in the 100-year floodplain

• Community demographics have

outgrown the department’s ability for

timely response

• Has construction deficiencies with

potential to expose personnel to

occupational hazards

Station 3 – 30th & Arapahoe

• Lacks community outreach and meeting spaces



• Identified in the department’s master plan and capital

improvement plan due to its location in the 100-year

floodplain and inadequate response coverage.

• It also aligns the department with city efforts to create

sustainable and energy efficient infrastructure with

which to provide services.



Funding Needs

$12 million dollars for facility costs including $4 million for land


• Service Improvement – Relocating will improve 4 minute travel time goals by 36%-37% depending on available locations.

• Resiliency – Current facility is in 100-year floodplain and cannot be hardened against flood without major grade level changes rendering it un-useable for fire truck access.


City of Boulder 2012 Recommended Budget


Why 4 minute Travel Times Matter – Cardiac Arrest


Description• $14.2 million requested

• These two stations have outgrown their originaldesign parameters:

• Station 2 is difficult to access with modern fire trucks and is not able to provide adequate facilities for a diverse workforce.

• Station 4 is a converted residential house that is no longer able to efficiently serve the southern portion of the City.

• Neither facility can accommodate EMS service improvements

Station 2/4



The department master plan has identified these facilities for evaluation due to their location, insufficient size, and inefficient design. The stations are unable to provide effective service delivery to meet the risk in the community.

Station 2/4


Funding Needs

$14.2 million dollars for facility replacement/remodel costs.

Station 2/4

Station 2 – Baseline and Broadway: Impacts and Implications

• Health and Safety – Current facility lacks industry standard

decontamination and presents a potential for workforce exposure to

exhaust fumes

• Facility limitations– Current facility is 59 years old and does not meet

the needs of a modern diverse workforce and energy efficiency

standards.


Station 2 – Baseline and Broadway: Impacts and Implications• Response Inefficiency and Limitations – Facility is unable to meet

the needs for EMS service expansion and quick wildland response

• Station 2 is in its 60th year and does not meet current life safety and building codes. • Sleeping quarters open directly on to the apparatus floor.

• The structural fire engine needs to back up 20' to allow the wildland fire engine to exit.

• Exercise equipment is located in the apparatus bay and one of the bedrooms.

• The ramp is located dangerously close to the intersection of Baseline and Broadway.

Station 2/4


Station 4 - 4100 Darley: Impacts and Implications

• Fire Station 4 is a non-conforming single family residence

converted to a fire station in 1977. It was designed for a crew of

two personnel and a mini-pumper.

• Even after maximizing the building footprint, it is about 1/3 the

size needed and has no potential for expansion. Relocation would

allow for improved response times and expansion of EMS service

delivery to the south end of the city which will require additional

room for response vehicles.

Station 2/4


Description• $2 million requested

• Current building is an agricultural OSMP barn with space for 2 vehicles (1 is the incident command vehicle)

• Supplies for facilities and firefighter safety gear are stored at various locations throughout the city incurring additional travel and an inability to inventory and track these supplies.

Warehouse – Diagonal and Jay


Funding Needs$2 million

Impact and Implications• Reserve trucks, equipment and supplies are stored in sheds across the

city and an OSMP barn.

• Responsibilities for ordering, receiving, distribution and inventory are widely distributed and poorly tracked.

• A dedicated facility for support services and storage would consolidate equipment and support services operations under one roof and allow for better inventory control and asset management.

Warehouse


• Referenced in the master plan for “developing a fire materials and

equipment storage solution.”

• Reserve trucks must be stored in a controlled environment or they

must be weatherized – if forced to store them outside, the

department will have to move one unit out of “ready reserve”

status because it will take time to place it in service during an

emergency.

• Reserves are not close to existing staff so they must be driven to

and serviced off site by an emergency crew on a large fire truck.

Warehouse


Public SafetyQuestions?


Break


Introduction


Public Works, Facilities and Fleet Joe Castro, Facilities and Fleet Manager

Facilities (Facilities and Asset Management, FAM)


Total Buildings & Structures-385

135 of 385 buildings and structuresCapital Improvement Program (CIP) Facility database Policies, standards and best practicesEquipment Replacement Program Energy usage and sustainability

1. Facilities Maintenance Backlog


Description- $3.24 million requested

- Make repairs that are past due at some city facilities- FAM has $1.6 million a year for CIP projects

- 2015 Estimate of 135 facilities -- $10 million

- 2016 Detailed assessment of 20 facilities -- $10.6 million in backlog

- 9 Buildings in this request:- Fire Stations 1, 5, 6 and 7;

Municipal Building;Main Library; George Reynolds Library;Carnegie Library;and Public Safety Building

- Red - one of the city’s 28 essential buildings



Rationale/Design and Approval - Broad categories of work include:

Roofs $ 95,000

Fire Protection $ 400,000

Exterior Repairs $1,250,000

Plumbing $ 115,000

Door replacements & wall repair$1,380,000

Total: $3,240,000



Funding Needs

Impact and ImplicationsCurrent buildings will continue to deteriorate resulting in more costly repairs and could result in poor indoor air quality, loss of fire protection systems and unscheduled shutdowns.

$3.24 million

Public Safety Building - $630,000 –replace 195 doors to be bullet proof; repair fire sprinkler system

Main Library $801,000 – replace 1970s era storefront windows; repair fire detection/sprinkler system

2. Outdoor Lighting Compliance


Description$7.1 million requested

Change outdoor lighting at city facilities throughout Boulder to comply with the July 2018 deadline for 2003 Outdoor Lighting Ordinance, meet new Building Performance Ordinance energy requirements for existing building by 2021 and meet current exit lighting requirements.



Rationale/Design and Approval The objectives are to prevent light trespass, reduce light pollution (also known as “sky glow”), reduce excessive glare, promote energy conservation, and improve safety and security (including addressing the special nighttime lighting needs of an aging population.

112 facilities audited; 4,545 fixtures

• 73 percent lighting ordinance

compliant !

• 27 percent to go -- 1,230 fixtures

non-compliant

• 936 energy code non-compliant



Funding Needs

Impact and ImplicationsOrdinances not met; energy conservation goals not met; in some cases unsafe exit lighting levels

Staff also evaluating energy performance bonds with 20+ year paybacks

Total need is $7.1 million; break-out of some areas:

Pearl Street Mall $1,320,00 Chautauqua $ 125,000

Central Park $ 510,000 Parking Garages $1,390,000

Municipal Service Center $ 315,000 Reservoir/Fire Training Ctr $ 205,000

Fleet Facilities


Purchase and Maintain 445 City Vehicles & 600 equipmentBudget for ReplacementMaintain Communications Hardware and FrequenciesVehicle Wash Facility Fuel Services

Additional ServicesAlternative Fuels – reduce GHG emissionsVehicle Emissions TestingFabricate and Install EquipmentLand-based Radio Systems Services

Fleet Services

3. Fleet Facility Repairs


Description$1,405,000 in repairs and upgrades- Repairs to 28-year old facility - $505,000

- - Replace Fire Alarm/Detection System

- - Replace Mechanical Room HVAC

- - Replace 2 Bay Infrared Heaters

- Upgrades - $450,000

- - Interior Reflective Paint

- - Replace failing oil lines/system

- - Remove 5 unsafe lifts; overhaul 25-ton lift; add 2 new

- - Larger alternative fuel tank

- Failed pavement - $450,000

Existing

Example of New

3. Fleet Facility Repairs



- Reduce facility backlog of critical building systems

- Remove ‘red-tagged’ vehicle lift systems; overhaul existing lift

- Allow for more use of alternative fuels

4. Large Vehicle Washrack


Description- $950,000 requested

- Construct an enclosed, automated vehicle washrack with undercarriage washing

Existing Example of New

4. Large Vehicle Washrack



- Remove corrosive effects of de-icers

- Prolong life of vehicles and reduce repairs

3. & 4. Fleet Projects


Funding Needs


42 percent of fleet facilities and equipment provides direct support to emergency response services

Current 28-year-old facility and equipment not compatible for current needs and providing for a safe and efficient work environment

3. Repairs and Upgrades - $1,400,000

Facility Repairs

Upgrades

Pavement Repairs

4. Large Vehicle Washrack - $950,000

Introduction


Office of Arts + Culture Matt Chasansky, Arts & Cultural Services Manager

Public Art


Description

Untitled - Anna Charney - 2016

$1.5 million requested

Foundational strategic framework:

Community Cultural Plan

A series of 6 – 10 capital projects to

commission works of art.

Public Art


Description• New Public Art Policy guides process.

• Implemented in stages.

• Some commissions will be associated with other projects funded by this tax, and therefore be tied in scope, site, and schedule. Others will be independent.

• 3 or 4 projects will begin selection each year.

• 6-9 month window for community selection and a further 9-12 months for design and construction.

• Each project’s site, scope, criteria, and cost to be proposed in the 2018-2019 Public Art Implementation Plan.

Harm to Table – Matthew Mazzotta - 2016

Public Art



• Updated Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, Cultural Plan, Public Art Implementation Plan.

• Public art has broad appeal, can enhance the success of other projects funded with this tax, and is an enormous return on a relatively small investment.

• Artist approval: community selection panel, Boulder Arts Commission, City Manager.

• Design / Construction approval: normal permitting.

• Each distinct public art commission has its own schedule, criteria, and design / approval processes.

Currents - Karen Yank - 2015

Public Art


Funding Needs

Impact and Implications• Significant benefits for economic vitality, social

cohesion, attachment, and positive impacts on the visual environment are described in the Cultural Plan.

• Unfunded, no additional public art projects.

• Total Cost: ~1% of all projects or $1.5 million

• Alternative Funding: ad hoc

• Contingency Cost: 10-15% of each project

budget.

Mapping Stories - Markus Dorninger - 2016

Facilities, Fleet, and ArtQuestions?


Radio Infrastructure Additional Information

There is an overwhelming trend in Public Safety agencies moving to P25 (Project 25)-based

systems. P25 is a digital radio standard that is specified in conjunction with the public safety community

to meet the needs of the community for interoperability between agencies. It is an open standard

managed by the Association of Public Safety Officials. It was developed to enable a common operating

platform that is multi-vendor interoperable and provides backwards compatibility with legacy

equipment such as analog systems. Being a digital standard, it provides the following key performance

improvements over analog:

Improved audio quality and clarity, especially at the fringe of radio coverage

Enhanced digital features

Greater coverage

Secure end-to-end encryption with no degradation in voice as a result of using encryption

This standard helps ensure interoperability and a consistent evolution of technology over time. The City

of Boulder can continue to evolve its infrastructure as the P25 standard evolves and feel confident that

the large majority of public safety agencies are following the same path.

The city has hired an expert on radio systems to help with the analysis and recommendation. The

system being recommended is the emerging standard for this work and has been recently implemented

by neighboring communities (Westminster, CU Police, JeffCo). The majority of project costs are based

off of MSRP, but the project will be competitively bid to ensure the lowers pricing possible. The land for

the transmission sites is already owned, so the risk of unanticipated costs should be low.

Funding

Funding from the general fund was allocated in 2015 for the Radio Infrastructure Study (completed in

2016) to better understand the scope and cost of this project. If this project is not included in the capital

tax renewal, the city will have to look to other revenues within the general fund to fund the project. This

will have implications for other potential uses of the general fund for other capital needs, operating

costs, and programs.

How Public Safety Capital Needs are Funded

Committee members have requested more detail about why/how "have to have" essential capital needs

like the radio infrastructure replacement should be considered for a revenue source that seems more

appropriate for "nice to have" projects. Why are there no ‘dedicated sources’ for public safety needs?

Public safety is part of the general fund. The total approved budget for the general fund was $139.8

million, of which $130.9 million was for operations. During the downturn of the early 2000’s capital

maintenance and replacement was severely cut and has never recovered.

Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC II) had specific recommendations about funding for capital, including:

To prevent more costly future expenses, maintenance and basic renovation of city

facilities/equipment should not be deferred beyond industry accepted standards.

In terms of vehicles and equipment, a balance needs to be maintained between replacement of vehicles and extending the use of an existing vehicle.

Earmark funds only for capital purchases and construction if possible.

The 2011 Capital Bond and 2014 CCS ballot items were in response to the BRC’s findings and this

renewal is the next step in the process. The Capital Bond was geared towards essential deficiencies and

public safety (capital maintenance, roads, Wildland Fire Station), and passed by a 3-to-1 margin. The

2014 CCS package was more action item (Civic Area, Hill Improvements, Community Projects) and

passed by a 2-to-1 margin. This committee has the opportunity to shape this package; it doesn’t have to

be one or the other, it should reflect the community’s current needs.

Considerations:

Public Safety needs are prioritized along with many other competing needs for un-earmarked general fund dollars (e.g. ongoing operating costs, project costs, capital needs, emerging needs, and savings).

While there have been recent changes and general fund tax renewals un-earmarked some funding, there has been no direction to apply these specifically for public safety or other specific needs.

Several key public safety needs were addressed with Capital Improvement Bond (2011); the remaining unfunded projects on the list for consideration are the “next in line”.

All priorities and options will be considered in the budget process. Depending on what projects are recommended for funding with the capital improvement tax renewal (and if it passes), there may be adjustments to the budget as the process moves forward, and depending on community and council priorities.

There are inherent trade-offs in all budget processes. The committee will be given as much information as possible to inform their recommendation of would make the renewal successful.

The annual capital budgeting process is based upon a prioritization of needs, and city council makes a lot of its decisions based upon its perception of the community’s priorities. If the committee believes that these projects are high priority, this is the opportunity to communicate that to city council and the public.

Public Art Additional Information Requested Thanks for the opportunity to respond to the advisory panel. Attached is an overview of Percent for Art Programs, organized as such:

pp 1-2: Community Culture and Safety Plan Appendix 6: Comparison of Public Art Programs in Colorado

p 3: Brief overview of Public Art Funding Mechanisms in Neighboring Cities, Benchmark Cities, and Notable Programs

pp 4-9: Percent for Art Ordinances Among Respondents to the 2009 Public Art Field Survey (provided by Americans for the Arts)

Additionally, here are some additional resources for the panel: Link to the full Community Cultural Plan: https://boulderarts.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Community-Cultural-Plan-11-17-2015.pdf Link to a summary of just the Public Art content from the full Community Cultural Plan: https://boulderarts.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/CCP_Public-Art-summary.pdf Link to the Public Art Policy: https://boulderarts.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2016_Public_Art_Policy-1-201612051351.pdf Link to the 2017-2018 Public Art Implementation Plan: https://boulderarts.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2017-Public-Art-Implementation-Plan_3.20.17.pdf Also, one quick comment in response to the question on temporary work: We have a policy to document temporary works (video, photo, artifacts) to capture components of the experience in perpetuity. This is practice is common for any municipal program that uses CIP funds for temporary works. Let me know if you have any questions. Hope you have a great weekend! Mandy Mandy Vink Public Art Program, Office of Arts and Culture

303-441-4342 [email protected] boulderarts.org Library & Arts Department 1001 Arapahoe Avenue | Boulder, CO 80302 bouldercolorado.gov

https://boulderarts.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Community-Cultural-Plan-11-17-2015.pdf

https://boulderarts.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Community-Cultural-Plan-11-17-2015.pdf

https://boulderarts.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/CCP_Public-Art-summary.pdf

https://boulderarts.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2016_Public_Art_Policy-1-201612051351.pdf

https://boulderarts.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2016_Public_Art_Policy-1-201612051351.pdf

https://boulderarts.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2017-Public-Art-Implementation-Plan_3.20.17.pdf

https://boulderarts.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2017-Public-Art-Implementation-Plan_3.20.17.pdf

mailto:[email protected]

http://boulderarts.org/

bouldercolorado.gov

118

APPENDIX SIX

Comparison of Public Art Programs in Colorado page 1

City Funding Mechanism Eligible Projects Benchmark Budgets

Fort Collins Standard Percent for Art 1% of CIP; Over $250,000; Artists added to projects of $50,000 - $250,000 at the discretion of PM.

2013-2014= $272,232.00 (Calculated Biennially)

Lakewood Standard Percent for Art

1% of CIP; New Projects Only 2013= $41,000 2014= $45,000

Littleton General Fund Includes capital funds, operating revenue, donations, etc.

2013= $69,475.00 2014= $71,778.98

Loveland Pooled Percent for Art (at least 1% stated in ordinance)

CIP; Over $50,000 excl engineering, admin, fees, permits, and indirect costs; excl special impr. districts.

2013= $273,501.00 2014= $607,120.00 2015= $351,040.00

Vail Private Fee and Tax Increment

Real Estate Transfer Tax (set amount)

Approx. $80,000/year

119

Comparison of Public Art Programs in Colorado, page 2

Type Funding Pros Cons Models 1. Traditional

Percent-for-art

A portion (typically 1% - 3%) of the construction budget of municipal capital improvement projects is set aside from the project budget for the purposes of commissioning public artworks. In most cases, a threshold amount is set; for instance the rule might apply only for projects that have a total budget of more than $50,000.00.

Protected politically over the long term.

Public is invested in founding the program.

Palatable implications to tax rates.

Could be applied to utilities spending to increase capacity.

Funding will be inconsistent over time.

Funding is typically low, and projects few, for our size city.

Project sites only associated with their source construction projects.

Denver, Longmont, Ft. Collins, Grand Junction.

2. Public Benefit / Private Mandate

Private developers are required to set aside a portion of commercial projects to acquire artwork for public display. Often, additional rules are included such as a threshold budget, or the stipulation that the owner may contribute the amount to a pool which is spent by public commissioning.

Adds a source of funding and projects to build a critical mass of artworks.

Adds a tool for fulfilling public benefit requirements.

May not be palatable to developers.

Aurora (in addition to traditional percent-for-art).

3. Percent-for-art Pooled

Rather than being derived directly from CIP project budgets, the funds are calculated according to the budgets of CIP projects, and then transferred from the general fund into a pooled account. Funds are then spent based on a strategic plan, rather than solely based on an association with the CIP project site. Note: transportation and/or Parks and Recreation projects may be exempted from the rule.

More flexible budgets and sites.

Projects can be distributed geographically in a more strategic way, rather than only adjacent to city buildings.

Possibly less politically stable.

Requires complex budgeting and analysis, and risks incomplete calculations.

Loveland.

4. General Fund An account within the city budget, derived from the general fund or some other reliable source, is assigned to the commissioning of public art. In many cases the amount is determined by a formula, such as a percentage of the total general fund.

Offers flexibility for the implementation of a strategy over short periods of time.

Most precarious in terms of sustainable funding.

Co Springs.

5. Private Fee or Tax Increment

A specific allocation derived from an incremental tax or fee is transferred to a special account. For instance, a portion of the fees on permits or a portion of the seat tax for a convention or theater district can be applied to commissioning public art.

Offers a complimentary funding mechanism that can bolster a standard model.

May not be palatable to those impacted by the fees or taxes.

Wheat Ridge.

City Funding Mechanism Eligible Projects

Boulder, CO

Fort Collins, CO % for Art 1% of CIP over $250,000

Lakewood, CO % for Art 1% of CIP (new projects)

Littleton, CO General Fund

Includes capital funds,

operating, donations

Loveland, CO Pooled % for Art at least 1% of CIP over $50,000

Vail, CO

Eugene, OR % for Art 1% of CIP

Tempe, AZ % for Art 1% of CIP

Ann Arbor, MI % for Art 1% of CIP

Santa Rosa, CA

% for Art; Public Art in

Private Development

% of CIP; .5% - 1% of qualifying

projects

Denver, CO % for Art 1% of CIP over $1,000,000

San Diego, CA % for Art 2% of CIP

Chicago, IL % for Art 1.33% of CIP

San Francisco, CA % for Art 2% of CIP

Phoenix, AZ % for Art 1% of CIP

Oakland, CA % for Art 1.5% of CIP

capital improvement tax renewal stakeholder … alice huang, jean gatza, curtis johnson, jeffrey...

Documents