Castle Pines North may "blight" area slated for development days before law would ban doing so
By Carlos Illescas
The Denver Post
Posted: 04/23/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT
Updated: 04/23/2010 05:54:29 AM MDT
Castle Pines North might declare 3,300 acres of land slated for commercial and residential development "blighted" just days before a state law kicks in that would probably prevent the city from doing so.
House Bill 1107 becomes law June 1. With a few exceptions, it would prevent local governments from using urban-renewal authority to declare agricultural land blighted in order to create a tax increment financing district.
Tax increment financing districts allow towns and cities to fund improvements made by developers through special property taxes.
Castle Pines North Mayor Jeff Huff said the city isn't trying to pull a fast one by declaring The Canyons blighted. He said the plan to use urban-renewal authority to help fund improvements to the land, east of Interstate 25 and south of Reuter Hess Reservoir, has been in the works for months. That the city is scheduled to take up the issue a week before the law takes effect is just coincidence, he said.
"I realize there is controversy surrounding the way this has been implemented in the past," Huff said. "But we're not doing it in a sense to beat the clock."
Critics say governments for years have been abusing urban-renewal laws, initially intended for cities to use to redevelop rundown urban areas. The current law says that cities can declare undeveloped land as blighted if several criteria are met, such as if infrastructure is needed there.
Aurora recently did that for a massive development called Horizon Uptown and offered the developer, Lend Lease, $89 million in tax incentives.
Huff said the council has not yet decided about offering tax breaks for The Canyons project, which could include up to 2,500 homes and 2 million square feet of commercial space.
"This is not intended to become a windfall to a developer," Huff said. "If incentives were made, then the city would require that the money be reinvested in projects that would benefit the project."
The sponsor of the new law, Rep. Randy Fischer, D-Fort Collins, said he is frustrated that Castle Pines North is moving to get urban-renewal designation before his law kicks in.
"I think people that live in those surrounding communities would be sort of appalled to know they are trying to ram something through without very much public notice or involvement," Fischer said. "It's counter to my beliefs that government ought to be operating in an open and transparent manner."
Tom Ragonetti, a lawyer representing The Canyons project, said the developer is OK with its property potentially receiving urban-renewal designation. He said the designation gives The Canyons more options as it develops the property.
"Having the availability of any tool is helpful," he said.
Castle Pines North might also include two existing commercial areas in the urban-renewal boundary to help fund improvements.
Castle Pines North has been moving quickly on The Canyons project. The land was annexed last fall, and the city plans to consider creating an urban-renewal authority at its meeting next week. A public hearing and vote on the urban-renewal plan are scheduled for next month.
"Our intent is to provide an avenue for balanced growth in our community, both in the newly annexed portion and the business districts that have been there several years," Huff said.
Carlos Illescas: 303-954-1175 or cillescas@denverpost.com
Friday, April 23, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Take Lemons and Make Lemonade
A blogsite reader writes, "My guess would be that you are opposed to the Metro District dissolving or has that changed? Was just curious about your position these days now that you are the Treasurer for the City."
As a long-term resident it is my sense that if we want to save money and build a stronger community, the prudent action is recombination of the Castle Pines North Metro District with the Castle Pines Metro District (the District in Castle Pines Village). These two Districts were planned to operate as one. The two Districts perform essentially the same tasks. Contractual consolidation of services can realize cost benefits to all concerned. While putting those pieces back together, an opportunity should be extended to Surrey Ridge, Charter Oaks, and Beverly Hills to join with the combined Districts to create a consolidated water utility (NOT another CoCPN annexation) for all our communities. The District can pursue that future in fulfillment of the dissolution action initiated by the City. That would be a wonderful use of our money.
As Treasurer I'd opine that it is in CoCPN's purview to consider withdrawal of the petition in the best interests of the community. If that action occurred, it would be my sworn duty to support it - but I'd still support the North District to go have a cup of coffee with the Castle Pines Metro District.
As a long-term resident it is my sense that if we want to save money and build a stronger community, the prudent action is recombination of the Castle Pines North Metro District with the Castle Pines Metro District (the District in Castle Pines Village). These two Districts were planned to operate as one. The two Districts perform essentially the same tasks. Contractual consolidation of services can realize cost benefits to all concerned. While putting those pieces back together, an opportunity should be extended to Surrey Ridge, Charter Oaks, and Beverly Hills to join with the combined Districts to create a consolidated water utility (NOT another CoCPN annexation) for all our communities. The District can pursue that future in fulfillment of the dissolution action initiated by the City. That would be a wonderful use of our money.
As Treasurer I'd opine that it is in CoCPN's purview to consider withdrawal of the petition in the best interests of the community. If that action occurred, it would be my sworn duty to support it - but I'd still support the North District to go have a cup of coffee with the Castle Pines Metro District.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
That's the Way, Uh-Huh, Uh-Huh, I Like It!
Ilona Major of Lone Tree, and Jackie Millet of the Council, came to DCWRA last week to chat with regional water interests on how they brought people together to save water and save money pursuing efficiencies in outdoor irrigation practices in the City of Lone Tree (CoLT). For more information, click on: http://www.dcwater.org/pages/conservation/hoas/outdoorIrrigation.html
We have a similar opportunity here in CoCPN. One issue landscape contractors face when operating HOA irrigation systems is that numerous contractors rotate from job to job. In the Douglas County region, it's common practice to fire your landscape contractor with great regularity. This means the irrigation system becomes filled with a hodgepodge of sprinkler heads and repair parts. There is no conformity, so when a component fails, the irrigation tech pulls whatever spare part is available on the truck, and that's what goes in the ground. So long as there is frequent turnover at the HOA board level, frequent turnover with management companies, and frequent turnover with landscape contractors, this situation could persist. It's a heck of a way to run a navy. What can we do? Wholesale replacement of component parts may be the only way to right the ship to save water and money. But that transition costs money up front.
There is room for better education in all corners as to best management practice in operating common area irrigation systems, as well as the associated financial benefits. Continuing regional meetings will be held in the fall on such topics, while summaries of prior meetings are found on www.DCWater.org. In the meantime, what cooperative actions could CoCPN pursue to save water and save money for its citizens?
There is a new design of sprinkler head that is generically called "rotary sprinkler nozzle". Rather than spraying a mist, these nozzles shoot streams of water that are more effective in watering the roots of the turf plants. These nozzles have become standard issue in other parts of the US. They are now available at local irrigation wholesalers, and even at box store retailers. With rebates from some water providers, such as Town of Castle Rock, and Denver Water, the costs of the heads is virtually nothing. The cost that an HOA or a District would incur in retrofitting these heads is the cost of the labor for the installation. If you have thousands of heads to retrofit, this is not a small sum of money. But, the water and money saved can be huge.
These rotary sprinkler nozzles are about 30% more efficient than traditional heads. There is independent study to verify this claim, and Town of Castle Rock has confirmed such efficiencies here in the local area. For a homeowner, half the water you buy is used in outdoor irrigation. That means retrofitting your lawn with rotary sprinkler nozzles could reduce your annual water bill by 15%. But for an HOA, most all of their water is used during the irrigation season. That means the HOA or District could save 30% off their water bill by retrofitting with rotary sprinkler nozzles. That's not just 30% in one year, but 30% water and money savings every year.
Where could we get the money to pay for these retrofits? CoCPN may pay $300,000 for legal fees to pursue the Metro District. The Metro District may pay another $300,000 to fulfill the mandate to formulate a dissolution plan for presentation to the voters for consideration. Is it possible to move along on the Metro/City topic without spending that $600,000? Could that money then be refocused on retrofitting rotary sprinkler nozzles in the common areas of CoCPN? What if the District gave rebates for the rotary sprinkler nozzles, and the CoCPN paid for the labor to retrofits the nozzles in the common areas irrigated by the Districts and the HOAs in CoCPN? Please consider it.
If we could save 30% on HOA and Metro District irrigation bills, that would be great. But what if we could buy less water for outdoor irrigation? Could we redirect that four million dollars towards a drought protection program? If we can get off or lessen our dependence upon Denver Basin Groundwater, then we can look at reusing the aquifers for times of drought. That transformation costs a lot of money too. But if we could do that, not only would CoCPN be the best place to live on the Front Range, but we'd have one of the most desirable water systems in the Front Range too. All this will take money. The question is, what's the best way to spend Other People's Money? Should we spend it on attorney's fees, or should we invest in best management practices in outdoor irrigation?
Rather than pursuing dissolution of Denver Water, the CoLT partnered with their water provider for the benefit of their citizens. The Council realized they really couldn't do much about water, and yet they wanted to help. Rather than spending significant sums of money on attorneys fees, they created $70,000 in funding to audit every sprinkler head operated in the common spaces owned by the Homeowner's Associations (HOAs) in Loan Tree. They got the idea from attending one of three outreach session for HOAs sponsored by Douglas County Water Resource Authority (www.DCWater.org). Denver Water in return pledged an additional $360,000 to retrofit irrigation controllers and make other upgrades in these open spaces.
Congratulations to CoLT for this exemplary program. Hopefully CoCPN can take this page from Lone Tree's play book, and come up with an idea that really moves our community forward as a leader in the efficient use of our most precious natural resource.
We have a similar opportunity here in CoCPN. One issue landscape contractors face when operating HOA irrigation systems is that numerous contractors rotate from job to job. In the Douglas County region, it's common practice to fire your landscape contractor with great regularity. This means the irrigation system becomes filled with a hodgepodge of sprinkler heads and repair parts. There is no conformity, so when a component fails, the irrigation tech pulls whatever spare part is available on the truck, and that's what goes in the ground. So long as there is frequent turnover at the HOA board level, frequent turnover with management companies, and frequent turnover with landscape contractors, this situation could persist. It's a heck of a way to run a navy. What can we do? Wholesale replacement of component parts may be the only way to right the ship to save water and money. But that transition costs money up front.
There is room for better education in all corners as to best management practice in operating common area irrigation systems, as well as the associated financial benefits. Continuing regional meetings will be held in the fall on such topics, while summaries of prior meetings are found on www.DCWater.org. In the meantime, what cooperative actions could CoCPN pursue to save water and save money for its citizens?
There is a new design of sprinkler head that is generically called "rotary sprinkler nozzle". Rather than spraying a mist, these nozzles shoot streams of water that are more effective in watering the roots of the turf plants. These nozzles have become standard issue in other parts of the US. They are now available at local irrigation wholesalers, and even at box store retailers. With rebates from some water providers, such as Town of Castle Rock, and Denver Water, the costs of the heads is virtually nothing. The cost that an HOA or a District would incur in retrofitting these heads is the cost of the labor for the installation. If you have thousands of heads to retrofit, this is not a small sum of money. But, the water and money saved can be huge.
These rotary sprinkler nozzles are about 30% more efficient than traditional heads. There is independent study to verify this claim, and Town of Castle Rock has confirmed such efficiencies here in the local area. For a homeowner, half the water you buy is used in outdoor irrigation. That means retrofitting your lawn with rotary sprinkler nozzles could reduce your annual water bill by 15%. But for an HOA, most all of their water is used during the irrigation season. That means the HOA or District could save 30% off their water bill by retrofitting with rotary sprinkler nozzles. That's not just 30% in one year, but 30% water and money savings every year.
Where could we get the money to pay for these retrofits? CoCPN may pay $300,000 for legal fees to pursue the Metro District. The Metro District may pay another $300,000 to fulfill the mandate to formulate a dissolution plan for presentation to the voters for consideration. Is it possible to move along on the Metro/City topic without spending that $600,000? Could that money then be refocused on retrofitting rotary sprinkler nozzles in the common areas of CoCPN? What if the District gave rebates for the rotary sprinkler nozzles, and the CoCPN paid for the labor to retrofits the nozzles in the common areas irrigated by the Districts and the HOAs in CoCPN? Please consider it.
If we could save 30% on HOA and Metro District irrigation bills, that would be great. But what if we could buy less water for outdoor irrigation? Could we redirect that four million dollars towards a drought protection program? If we can get off or lessen our dependence upon Denver Basin Groundwater, then we can look at reusing the aquifers for times of drought. That transformation costs a lot of money too. But if we could do that, not only would CoCPN be the best place to live on the Front Range, but we'd have one of the most desirable water systems in the Front Range too. All this will take money. The question is, what's the best way to spend Other People's Money? Should we spend it on attorney's fees, or should we invest in best management practices in outdoor irrigation?
Rather than pursuing dissolution of Denver Water, the CoLT partnered with their water provider for the benefit of their citizens. The Council realized they really couldn't do much about water, and yet they wanted to help. Rather than spending significant sums of money on attorneys fees, they created $70,000 in funding to audit every sprinkler head operated in the common spaces owned by the Homeowner's Associations (HOAs) in Loan Tree. They got the idea from attending one of three outreach session for HOAs sponsored by Douglas County Water Resource Authority (www.DCWater.org). Denver Water in return pledged an additional $360,000 to retrofit irrigation controllers and make other upgrades in these open spaces.
Congratulations to CoLT for this exemplary program. Hopefully CoCPN can take this page from Lone Tree's play book, and come up with an idea that really moves our community forward as a leader in the efficient use of our most precious natural resource.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Regional Economic Summary at April 2010
Every month an economic summary is distributed for the Denver Metro area, including Douglas County. CoCPN is just a tiny little part of this area, but our community does experience the same sorts of trends that the region faces. With the economy showing signs of stabilizing, now may be a good time to take a look at the most recent Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation summary, compiled by Development Research Partners of Littleton, Colorado. Their report is dated 4/6/10, and covers topics such as Economic and Demographic Research, Industry Studies, Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis, and Real Estate Economics.
Douglas County's unemployment rate is 6.6%, far better than the national average of 10.4%. By comparison, in 2000 we were at 2.1% unemployment; in 2005 4.2%; and in 2009 6.4%. It's thought (and hoped) the unemployment situation bottomed in August, though improvement is painfully sluggish. Retail sales were off 5.9% in 2009. This compares with an 18.3% growth rate in 1999, and a 16.9% growth rate in 2004.
In the metro area, the number of homes sold was down 3.3 year over year, with single family home prices down 13.4%. Metro area building permits totaled 546 in 2009, compared with 20,879 in 2005. Apartment vacancy rates hover in the 8% range. The office space vacancy rate is 14.6%. Industrial vacancy rates are around 7%, with an average lease rates of $4.75 per square foot. Retail space vacancy rates are 8.8%, with average lease rates of $16.23 per square foot. There are 14.3 million square feet of vacant property out of 214 million existing square feet. Would it be hard to get new buildings built in CoCPN when there is already this much empty space in place?
Nationwide, 4th quarter GDP was 5.6%. A 2 to 3% rate is expected in the first quarter of 2010. There is no sign of higher interest rates at this time. It's thought the economy may be trending from recovery to expansion. The Consumer confidence rate is encouraging for the first time since the fall of 2007, and one in twelve companies are expected to add jobs over the next three months. CPI inflation rates are up 2.1% from a year ago, mainly on energy prices. Gasoline has risen twelve cents in the past month. Foreclosure rates are up 6% year over year, and that situation may worsen before it gets better. New homes sales are stifled by rising foreclosure rates, hesitant consumers, and limited credit. Another telling statistic is that even with the recent recovery in stock market prices , household net worth is still down 19% from 2007 levels!
If CoCPN is looking for economic growth to lift us into the future, will we be waiting for years to come? I remember how we thought the community could lift its way out of bankruptcy through economic development. That didn't work then either. This means it may be time to consider a property tax hike to pay for the ongoing operation of CoCPN. Once we get a good handful of box stores built on LaGae and at The Canyons, it may be possible to attract enough sales tax to help pay for CoCPN. At that time the extra property tax to run the CoCPN could go away. But until then, the cost of CoCPN will have to be borne by current residents. As usual, there is no free lunch.
I remember people grousing about a $1 a month hike in their water bill. We always want to spend other people's money thoughtfully. But if you think about it, $12 a year is unlikely to create the sort of impact that falling properly values or stock markets or rising unemployment and foreclosure rates have had on household finances the past three years. However, people feel out of control with some of the bigger picture issues, while it's easy to demonize local targets. Let's hope the folks who advocated for the creation of CoCPN will now stand up to resell the value proposition of CoCPN, and the reasons why citizens should vote for higher property taxes to support CoCPN.
Can CoCPN Council do anything about inflation or interest rates, or unemployment, or housing prices, or the stock market? Of course not. And until the broad economy turns around, we'll all be "pushing on a string" with economic development efforts here in CoCPN. If we have four or five years to wait, that means we have time to plan for the day we hire professionals to help us attract the type of future we truly want. Until then, we need to focus on how to hunker down, tighten our belt, and try to run CoCPN as best we can on the revenues already in place. Remember these facts the next time you start to complain about a pothole or snow removal. Until the economy recovers, do you believe anyone is going to vote for higher taxes to fund CoCPN?
Douglas County's unemployment rate is 6.6%, far better than the national average of 10.4%. By comparison, in 2000 we were at 2.1% unemployment; in 2005 4.2%; and in 2009 6.4%. It's thought (and hoped) the unemployment situation bottomed in August, though improvement is painfully sluggish. Retail sales were off 5.9% in 2009. This compares with an 18.3% growth rate in 1999, and a 16.9% growth rate in 2004.
In the metro area, the number of homes sold was down 3.3 year over year, with single family home prices down 13.4%. Metro area building permits totaled 546 in 2009, compared with 20,879 in 2005. Apartment vacancy rates hover in the 8% range. The office space vacancy rate is 14.6%. Industrial vacancy rates are around 7%, with an average lease rates of $4.75 per square foot. Retail space vacancy rates are 8.8%, with average lease rates of $16.23 per square foot. There are 14.3 million square feet of vacant property out of 214 million existing square feet. Would it be hard to get new buildings built in CoCPN when there is already this much empty space in place?
Nationwide, 4th quarter GDP was 5.6%. A 2 to 3% rate is expected in the first quarter of 2010. There is no sign of higher interest rates at this time. It's thought the economy may be trending from recovery to expansion. The Consumer confidence rate is encouraging for the first time since the fall of 2007, and one in twelve companies are expected to add jobs over the next three months. CPI inflation rates are up 2.1% from a year ago, mainly on energy prices. Gasoline has risen twelve cents in the past month. Foreclosure rates are up 6% year over year, and that situation may worsen before it gets better. New homes sales are stifled by rising foreclosure rates, hesitant consumers, and limited credit. Another telling statistic is that even with the recent recovery in stock market prices , household net worth is still down 19% from 2007 levels!
If CoCPN is looking for economic growth to lift us into the future, will we be waiting for years to come? I remember how we thought the community could lift its way out of bankruptcy through economic development. That didn't work then either. This means it may be time to consider a property tax hike to pay for the ongoing operation of CoCPN. Once we get a good handful of box stores built on LaGae and at The Canyons, it may be possible to attract enough sales tax to help pay for CoCPN. At that time the extra property tax to run the CoCPN could go away. But until then, the cost of CoCPN will have to be borne by current residents. As usual, there is no free lunch.
I remember people grousing about a $1 a month hike in their water bill. We always want to spend other people's money thoughtfully. But if you think about it, $12 a year is unlikely to create the sort of impact that falling properly values or stock markets or rising unemployment and foreclosure rates have had on household finances the past three years. However, people feel out of control with some of the bigger picture issues, while it's easy to demonize local targets. Let's hope the folks who advocated for the creation of CoCPN will now stand up to resell the value proposition of CoCPN, and the reasons why citizens should vote for higher property taxes to support CoCPN.
Can CoCPN Council do anything about inflation or interest rates, or unemployment, or housing prices, or the stock market? Of course not. And until the broad economy turns around, we'll all be "pushing on a string" with economic development efforts here in CoCPN. If we have four or five years to wait, that means we have time to plan for the day we hire professionals to help us attract the type of future we truly want. Until then, we need to focus on how to hunker down, tighten our belt, and try to run CoCPN as best we can on the revenues already in place. Remember these facts the next time you start to complain about a pothole or snow removal. Until the economy recovers, do you believe anyone is going to vote for higher taxes to fund CoCPN?
Thursday, April 15, 2010
A Better Investment of Other People's Money
CoCPN Council has an opportunity to invest in the future of the community, rather than expending a large sum of unbudgeted money for legal fees incurred in pursuit of the Metro District. Is there a better use of the money? New designs in sprinkler heads are 30% more efficient than traditional heads which mist, subjecting water used in outdoor irrigation to wind and evaporation. (There are several manufacturers. One example can be found at http://www.hunterindustries.com/products/mprotator/) The new heads, generically termed "rotary sprinkler nozzles", sell at local retails for about $7 each.
CoCPN has +/- 3,374 built units. If each unit uses 20 sprinkler heads for outdoor irrigation, the community has about 67,500 installed sprinkler heads. If that number of rotary sprinkler nozzles is purchased at retail, the cost of replacement rotary sprinkler nozzles is $472,360. If the heads could be purchased in bulk at $5.20 each, the cost is $350,000 - about the mid-point of the estimate of the cost of legal fees to pursue the Metro District. Would it be possible to arrange coupons through local retailers to purchase these rotary sprinkler nozzles at reduced costs? Yes. At most, residents would have to go to the store, or the Metro District Building, or the city offices to pick them up. (Speaking of EcoDevo, if you want to take another step, create summer jobs for high school and college students as installers.) So, what would a reduction of 30% in the amount of water used in outdoor irrigation mean to the residents of CoCPN?
a) Approximately half of our water consumption is used in outdoor irrigation. This means a 30% reduction in outdoor irrigation results in a 15% reduction in overall water usage.
b) Unlike many communities, residents of CoCPN already have a drought reserve called the Denver Basin Aquifers. The Metro District is currently purchasing surface water assets to move away from annual reliance upon our drought reserve. While this dependence is a regional issue with regional solutions, cooperative leadership to take action on the demand side of this issue could be a gold star in the crown of CoCPN. (Town of Castle Rock already offers a rebate of $5 per nozzle to its citizens, as does Denver Water to citizens of Lone Tree. Let's do our part!)
c) The delivered price of a water solution may run to $15,000 per home. However, the core cost of the water itself is about $8,750 per built unit. A reduction of 15% represents $1,312.50. Would you be willing to reduce costs by $1,312.50 per built unit for an investment of only $104.00 per built unit? Crunch the ROI on that! There are also additional annual savings to be gleaned from reduced energy costs associated with moving and treating irrigation water.
d) $350,000 is a lot of money. Saving $4,078,375 net of this investment is a lot more money - other people's money. We hear about saving ten thousand dollars a month from consolidation. It's right to try to save taxpayer money every chance we get. But wouldn't you agree $325,000 is better spent on our future than on attorney's fees?
CoCPN has +/- 3,374 built units. If each unit uses 20 sprinkler heads for outdoor irrigation, the community has about 67,500 installed sprinkler heads. If that number of rotary sprinkler nozzles is purchased at retail, the cost of replacement rotary sprinkler nozzles is $472,360. If the heads could be purchased in bulk at $5.20 each, the cost is $350,000 - about the mid-point of the estimate of the cost of legal fees to pursue the Metro District. Would it be possible to arrange coupons through local retailers to purchase these rotary sprinkler nozzles at reduced costs? Yes. At most, residents would have to go to the store, or the Metro District Building, or the city offices to pick them up. (Speaking of EcoDevo, if you want to take another step, create summer jobs for high school and college students as installers.) So, what would a reduction of 30% in the amount of water used in outdoor irrigation mean to the residents of CoCPN?
a) Approximately half of our water consumption is used in outdoor irrigation. This means a 30% reduction in outdoor irrigation results in a 15% reduction in overall water usage.
b) Unlike many communities, residents of CoCPN already have a drought reserve called the Denver Basin Aquifers. The Metro District is currently purchasing surface water assets to move away from annual reliance upon our drought reserve. While this dependence is a regional issue with regional solutions, cooperative leadership to take action on the demand side of this issue could be a gold star in the crown of CoCPN. (Town of Castle Rock already offers a rebate of $5 per nozzle to its citizens, as does Denver Water to citizens of Lone Tree. Let's do our part!)
c) The delivered price of a water solution may run to $15,000 per home. However, the core cost of the water itself is about $8,750 per built unit. A reduction of 15% represents $1,312.50. Would you be willing to reduce costs by $1,312.50 per built unit for an investment of only $104.00 per built unit? Crunch the ROI on that! There are also additional annual savings to be gleaned from reduced energy costs associated with moving and treating irrigation water.
d) $350,000 is a lot of money. Saving $4,078,375 net of this investment is a lot more money - other people's money. We hear about saving ten thousand dollars a month from consolidation. It's right to try to save taxpayer money every chance we get. But wouldn't you agree $325,000 is better spent on our future than on attorney's fees?
Monday, April 5, 2010
Expert on The Topic of Economic Gardening
Chris Gibbons, Director of Business/Industry Affairs at the City of Littleton, forwarded a twenty-minute video on the topic of Economic Gardening. The video can be viewed at http://tinyurl.com/2slmh5.
Operation, Maintenance, Repair & Replacement
I read in The Connection where we ran an ad saying we're in fine financial condition. It's my sense we need a couple pieces of data before we can make statements to the community that go that far. (I'm not going to raise a ruckus or anything, I just think we need to think about two more items.)
Item #1: We need to think about what it costs us to:
a) Operate
b) Maintain
c) Repair
d) and in some cases Replace our assets over time. O, M, R & R.
I don't have any notion of what the assets of the City are worth. I was told Doug recently mentioned three hundred million dollars. I don't know. Certainly our assets could take a number of forms, and there is likely not one approach that covers every item. But let's use streets as one example.
a) We operate our streets. That means we keep them open and available for use. There are some costs attached to operating this asset. That could include police patrols or other factors.
b) We maintain our streets. This include plowing, sweeping, striping, or keeping traffic signals in good order. Minor items such as pot hole repair could be called a maintenance item. We have a surface management plan.
c) We may have to repair curbs, or parts of the street impacted by erosion.
d) At some point simply repairing parts of the street may not work, or may not be cost effective. At that point we may have to replace a large segment of the street. For example, a portion of Monarch just north of The Ridge has been replaced twice in the past twenty-five years. We realize all of our assets have a useful life. As we approach the useful life of the asset, repairs should be expected to increase, and at some point we may have to replace some assets.
In order to determine which assets should be placed on a regular maintenance schedule, and which items should be replaced as they approach their useful life, we should initiate a study of the assets we own. We should start with an inventory, and then a best management practices approach to classifying our assets, and putting together a financial illustration of what O, M, R & R looks like. We can then determine how much money, if any, should be put aside not just to operate and maintain, but also repair and replace our assets (not just our streets).
Item #2: As we approach a retreat, we should think about a three to five year capital spending budget. There may be some items we would like to see added to our community. Some items could carry price tags worthy of attention. A budgeting process could give an idea of how much the items we desire may cost. We can then think about how to raise the revenue needed to fund the items. Examples could include another traffic signal, or roundabout, or more efficient landscape treatments on parcels owned by the City.
When we know what it costs to fulfill O, M, R&R, and when we know how much we desire to spend on capital items, we can then determine how these two costs impact our budget and our balance sheet. At that time we can then make a determination that all is good, or that we need to start putting aside a little bit of money, or uh oh, we've got to begin finding ways to fund a substantial obligation. In the wake of understanding the implications of these studies we can make informed pronouncements regarding the financial health of the City.
I do not want to raise any alarm where none is appropriate, but with this note I ask you to undertake the task of determining these missing data points for #1 replacement reserves fund study and #2 capital budget study
When may we expect to have these studies underway at CoCPN?
Item #1: We need to think about what it costs us to:
a) Operate
b) Maintain
c) Repair
d) and in some cases Replace our assets over time. O, M, R & R.
I don't have any notion of what the assets of the City are worth. I was told Doug recently mentioned three hundred million dollars. I don't know. Certainly our assets could take a number of forms, and there is likely not one approach that covers every item. But let's use streets as one example.
a) We operate our streets. That means we keep them open and available for use. There are some costs attached to operating this asset. That could include police patrols or other factors.
b) We maintain our streets. This include plowing, sweeping, striping, or keeping traffic signals in good order. Minor items such as pot hole repair could be called a maintenance item. We have a surface management plan.
c) We may have to repair curbs, or parts of the street impacted by erosion.
d) At some point simply repairing parts of the street may not work, or may not be cost effective. At that point we may have to replace a large segment of the street. For example, a portion of Monarch just north of The Ridge has been replaced twice in the past twenty-five years. We realize all of our assets have a useful life. As we approach the useful life of the asset, repairs should be expected to increase, and at some point we may have to replace some assets.
In order to determine which assets should be placed on a regular maintenance schedule, and which items should be replaced as they approach their useful life, we should initiate a study of the assets we own. We should start with an inventory, and then a best management practices approach to classifying our assets, and putting together a financial illustration of what O, M, R & R looks like. We can then determine how much money, if any, should be put aside not just to operate and maintain, but also repair and replace our assets (not just our streets).
Item #2: As we approach a retreat, we should think about a three to five year capital spending budget. There may be some items we would like to see added to our community. Some items could carry price tags worthy of attention. A budgeting process could give an idea of how much the items we desire may cost. We can then think about how to raise the revenue needed to fund the items. Examples could include another traffic signal, or roundabout, or more efficient landscape treatments on parcels owned by the City.
When we know what it costs to fulfill O, M, R&R, and when we know how much we desire to spend on capital items, we can then determine how these two costs impact our budget and our balance sheet. At that time we can then make a determination that all is good, or that we need to start putting aside a little bit of money, or uh oh, we've got to begin finding ways to fund a substantial obligation. In the wake of understanding the implications of these studies we can make informed pronouncements regarding the financial health of the City.
I do not want to raise any alarm where none is appropriate, but with this note I ask you to undertake the task of determining these missing data points for #1 replacement reserves fund study and #2 capital budget study
When may we expect to have these studies underway at CoCPN?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
