city of thornton city manager’s office · a p e n t 5 4 e 149th ave d h l i a s t 4 8 0 e 136th...

CITY OF THORNTON CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE

02/14/2019

A G E N D A Planning Session

Training Room February 19, 2019

5:45 p.m.

I. CALL TO ORDER AND REVIEW OF AGENDA

II. CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS

III. INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATIONS

IV. STAFF BRIEFINGS

A. Discussion with the Regional Transportation District Directors to Share

Regional Transportation Goals and Priorities (Estimated 30 Minutes)

B. Thornton Active Adult Board Interviews (Estimated 20 Minutes)

C. Presentation of the Housing Needs Assessment and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (Estimated 30 Minutes)

D. Year-End Financial Report (Estimated 15 Minutes)

E. Discussion Regarding a Resolution Approving Temporary and Perpetual

Easements to NWC Development, LLC Thornton’s Farms 47, 49S, and 113 (Estimated 10 Minutes)

V. OPEN DISCUSSION

PLANNING SESSION COMMUNICATION PAGE 2

• The Council desires to foster and implement better communication between Council and

Directors by having open regular communications to address the City’s transit needs. • The Council desires to have future detailed discussions regarding:

- The N-Line Opening concerns o Regarding possible changes in scheduled operation from what was promised o Regarding bus route changes that may greatly affect residents, the age of data being

used to determine those changes, and the short review time given to staff - FlexRide Service Availability

o Afternoons between 1:30 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. are full o Possibility of additional service

- Concerns with the lack of bus service throughout all of Thornton and the need for taxpayers to be served.

§̈¦67

£¤58

£¤58

§̈¦67

¬ «2

§̈¦072

¥§¦52

¥§¦52

¥§¦52

£¤63

¬«074E

¬«7

¬«7

¬ «2

87th AVE

MONA

CO S

T 650

0

HUMB

OLDT

ST

1500

E

WABA

SH S

T 850

0E

128th AVE

LINCO

LN S

T 100

E

140th AVE

TREN

TON

ST 79

00E

118th AVE

ONEI

DA S

T 690

0E

LOGA

N ST

400E

99th AVE

167th AVE

VERB

ENA

ST 84

00E

YORK

ST 2

300E

121st AVE

PENN

SYLV

ANIA

ST 5

00E

NEWP

ORT S

T 680

0E

PEAR

L ST

600E

132nd AVE

INCA

ST 9

00W

ALCO

TT S

T 250

0W161st AVE

90th AVE

ACOM

A ST

100W

75th AVE

142nd AVE

137th AVE

FORE

ST S

T 520

0E

CLAY

ST 2

700W

KEAR

NEY

ST 61

00E

HARR

ISON

ST 3

900E

GALA

PAGO

ST 7

00W

TEJO

N ST

2000

W

79th AVE

GRAP

E ST

5400

E

149th AVE

DAHL

IA S

T 480

0E

136th AVE

124th AVE

PECO

S ST

1600

W

165th AVE

ADAM

S ST

3300

E

88th AVE

157th AVE

ELIZA

BETH

ST 2

600E

GARF

IELD

ST 3

700E

OSAG

E ST

1500

W

COLO

RADO

BLV

D 40

00E

UMAT

ILLA

ST 21

00W

125th AVE

DOW

NING

ST 1

200E

HURO

N ST

800

W

86th AVE

GILP

IN S

T 17

00E

154th AVE

LEYD

EN / L

INDE

N ST

6300

E

146th AVE

163rd AVE

103rd AVE104th AVE

CLER

MONT

ST

4500

E

153rd AVE

158th AVE

UINT

A ST

8200

E

CLAU

DE C

T 220

0E

127th AVE

STEE

LE S

T 320

0E

SPRU

CE S

T 780

0E

MONR

OE S

T 360

0E

85th AVE

FRAN

KLIN

ST 1

600E

92nd AVE

OGDE

N ST

1000

E

BIRCH

ST 4

400

131st AVE

QUIV

AS S

T 170

0W

101st AVE

SHOS

HONE

ST 1

900W

74th AVE

148th AVE

CLAR

KSON

ST 8

00E

OLIV

E ST

7000

E

123rd AVE

IVY S

T 580

0E

NAVA

JO S

T 140

0W

106th AVE

QUEB

EC ST

730

0E

COLU

MBIN

E ST

2500

E

GRAN

T ST 3

00E

BRYA

NT S

T 260

0W

89th AVE

151st AVE

135th AVE

110th AVE

KRAM

ERIA

ST 6

200E

166th AVE

MILW

AUKE

E ST

3000

E

JERS

EY S

T 590

0E

GAYL

ORD

ST 22

00E

SANT

A FE

DR

1000

W

82nd AVE

ROSE

MARY

ST 7

600E

I-25

91st AVE

80th AVE

VINE

ST 21

00E

94th AVE

ASH

ST 42

00E

155th AVE

EUDO

RA S

T 490

0E

EMER

SON

ST 90

0E

JASM

INE

ST 60

00E

SYRA

CUSE

ST 7

700E

150th AVE

HOLL

Y ST

5600

E

83rd AVE

159th AVE

112th AVE

152nd AVE

97th AVE

FAIR

FAX

ST 51

00E

111th AVE

164th AVE

CHER

OKEE

ST

300W

102nd AVE

95th AVE

107th AVE

129th AVE

MARI

POSA

ST 1

300W

96th AVE

ST P

AUL S

T 310

0E

113th AVE

76th AVE

MADI

SON

ST 35

00E

COOK

ST 3

400E

ULST

ER S

T 810

0E

ROSL

YN S

T 750

0E

WILL

OW S

T 860

0E

ELAT

I ST 5

00W

BELL

AIRE

ST 4

300E

FEDE

RAL B

LVD

3000

W

CORO

NA S

T 110

0E

114th AVE

138th AVE

156th AVE

LOCU

ST / L

ILAC

ST 64

00E

CLAY

TON

ST 27

00E

NIAG

ARA

ST 67

00E

LIPAN

ST 1

200W

130th AVE

HIGH

ST 1

900E

ELM

ST 29

00W

116th AVE

119th AVE

GLEN

COE

ST 53

00E

133rd AVE

FOX S

T 600

W

81st AVE

122nd AVE

143rd AVE

WILL

IAMS

ST 1

800E

DETR

OIT S

T 280

0E

98th AVE

ELIO

T ST 2

900W

78th AVE

DELA

WAR

E ST

400W

FILLM

ORE

ST 29

00E

115th AVE

144th AVE

134th AVE

117th AVE

BEAC

H CT

2600

W

VALL

EJO

ST 22

00W

93rd AVE

HUDS

ON S

T 550

0E

147th AVE

168th AVE

108th AVE

MARI

ON S

T 130

0E

139th AVE

100th AVE

ZUNI

ST 24

00W

SHER

MAN

ST 20

0E

ALBI

ON S

T 410

0E

105th AVE

VALE

NTIA

ST 8

300E

BANN

OCK

ST 20

0W

ELM

ST 50

00E

KALA

MATH

ST 1

100W

160th AVE

DEXT

ER S

T 470

0E126th AVE

PONT

IAC

ST 71

00E

IVANH

OE S

T 570

0E

RACE

ST 2

000E

BROA

DWAY

ST

0000

DECA

TUR

ST 28

00W

XANT

HIA

ST 87

00E

162nd AVE

JOSE

PHIN

E ST

2400

E

WASH

INGT

ON ST

700

E

JACK

SON

ST 38

00E

MAGN

OLIA

ST 6

600E

RARI

TAN

ST 18

00W

POPL

AR S

T 720

0EQU

INCE

ST 7

400E

120th AVE

WYAN

DOT S

T 230

0W

141st AVE

77th AVE

145th AVE

CHER

RY S

T 46

00E

TAMA

RAC

ST 80

00E

84th AVE

LAFA

YETT

E ST

1400

E

109th AVE

XENI

A ST 8

800E

YOSE

MITE

ST 8

900E

CLIN

TON

ST 95

00E

CHES

TER

ST 94

00E

BEEL

ER S

T 920

0EAL

TON

ST 91

00E

BOST

ON S

T 93

00E

AKRO

N ST

9000

E

120th AVE

HWY 36

YOSE

MITE

ST

ZUNI

ST

128th AVE

YORK

ST

84th AVE

88th AVE

168th AVE

I-25

FEDE

RAL B

LVD

160th AVE

E-470

I-76

104th AVE

COLO

RADO

BLVD

E-470

144th AVE

100th AVE

HOLL

Y ST

152nd AVE

QUEB

EC ST

I-25

HURO

N ST

136th AVE

92nd AVE

112th AVE

WASH

INGT

ON ST

CommerceCity

Westminster

Broomfield

City of Thornton

Northglenn

District KDistrict J

District I

District L

S:\Ar

cGIS\

Stand

ardMa

ps\C

ityRT

DBou

ndary

8x10

.mxd

[2/5/2019

City

Lim

its

wit

h RT

D D

istr

ict

Bou

ndar

y O

verl

ayCi

ty L

imit

s w

ith

RTD

Dis

tric

t B

ound

ary

Ove

rlay

as o

f 8/

28/2

018

as o

f 8/

28/2

018

9500

Civic

Cen

ter D

rive.

Thor

nton

, Colo

rado

8022

9. (3

03) 5

38-7

295

City

of

Thor

nton

City

of

Thor

nton

1 in = 6,583.3 ft

The C

ity of

Thorn

ton G

IS ha

s mad

e eve

ry rea

sona

bleeff

ort to

repre

sent

geog

raphic

data

as ac

curat

ely as

poss

ible,

and a

ssum

es no

liabil

ity as

socia

ted w

ith th

eus

e or m

isuse

of its

prod

ucts.

Infor

matio

n con

taine

dhe

rein i

s for

repres

entat

ional

purpo

ses o

nly an

d is n

otint

ende

d to b

e sub

stitut

ed fo

r acc

urate

boun

dary

locati

ons,

legal

or pro

fessio

nal o

pinion

s.

GIS D

ATA

DISC

LAIM

ER

Shelley Cook

Troy WhitmoreVince Buzek

Judy Lubow


BACKGROUND (ANALYSIS/NEXT STEPS/HISTORY): (includes previous City Council action) In 2009, Council adopted a policy, which states that when there are equal to or more vacancies than applicants, the applications will be referred to the Board or Commission to conduct interviews and provide Council with a recommendation regarding whether the applicant(s) should or should not be appointed. When there are more applicants than vacancies on a Board or Commission, Council will conduct the interviews and select who should be appointed. Current members of the Board: Ann Brothers, Ward 2 (Business) Suzanne Brundage, Ward 4 (At-Large) Noel Busck, Ward 3 (At-Large) Lucille Cardona, Ward 1 (Ward 1) Carol Hastings, Ward 1 (55+ Club Appointee)

William Nelson, Ward 4 (Mayor’s Appointee) Carol Norberg, Ward 4 (Ward 4) (Chairperson) Mary Payne, Ward 3 (Ward 3) Louise Valdez, Ward 2 (Ward 2) Martin Wisniewski, Ward 3 (At-Large)

1

Interview Questions Used in the Past

Thornton Active Adult Board (TAAB)

1. Why are you interested in being appointed to the Thornton Active Adult Board?

2. What specific background or expertise would you bring if you were appointed to the Thornton Active Adult Board?

3. If appointed, how would you engage more members of the community in Thornton Active Adult Center activities?

4. How would you build consensus to reach decisions in a group setting?

5. What do you believe are some of the major concerns that the Thornton Active Adult Board will be faced with?

C

https://www.cityofthornton.net/neighborhood

PLANNING SESION COMMUNICATION PAGE 2

The HNA is performed to enhance the City’s understanding of housing issues, including gaps and prospective priorities. The AI is conducted because communities that receive and administer HUD programs are required to submit to HUD certification that they are affirmatively furthering fair housing, as a part of the consolidated planning process. The AI involves a thorough examination of the fair housing delivery system, housing transactions, locations of public housing authorities, areas having racial and ethnic concentrations of poverty and access to opportunity. Besides providing an assessment of the Thornton housing market to City Council and staff, the information from the HNA and AI will be used in the Consolidated Plan, which is a five-year strategic plan for the use of CDBG funds and other HUD funding. Thornton has conducted two other HNAs and AIs since becoming a CDBG entitlement jurisdiction in March 2010. Council accepted the first HNA and AI in 2009 and the second in 2014. City Council will formally accept or not accept this report in April.

2019 Housing Needs Assessment & Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing ChoicePurpose of Report: Identify strengths and gaps inhousing as well as any housing discrimination issues

Agenda:Housing StockHousing RatioHomeownership and Renter HousingCommunity Input ResultsHousing Issues Next Steps

Housing Stock Single-family home production has outpaced multifamily. Thornton added 832 single family permitted units and 156

multifamily units in 2017.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Num

ber o

f Uni

ts

YearSingle Family Units Duplex Units Triplex Units Apartment Units

Housing Ratio 71% = single-family homes 19% = apartments/condos7% = manufactured homes3% = duplex, triplex, fourplex

70% of the housing is owner-occupied.

Overall, homeownership rates have declined 7% since 2000.

Homeownership rates exceed 91% in the northeastern part of the city.

Homeownership

Renter Housing

Most of the renter housing is in the central and south western part of the city.

Average apartment rent:1 bedroom = $1,2522 bedroom = $1,4933 bedroom = $1,7224 bedroom = $2,353

Apartment Vacancy RatesThornton - November 2018Total Units

Available Units

Vacancy Rate

8,764 400 4.56%

Community Input Results

41% of survey respondents stated they were satisfied with current housing.

Majority of respondents indicated that it was important to live near parks, grocery stores, and recreation centers.

Majority of respondents indicated that their top priorities for home repairs are windows, roofs, and insulation.

The survey and public input indicated a lack of knowledge about fair housing (housing discrimination).

Housing Issues Housing cost burden – spending more than 30% of monthly income on housing costs • 32% of homeowners are cost burdened • 49% of renters are cost burdened

There is an insufficient understanding of credit for mortgages and loan denial rates are higher for black and Hispanic residents.

The Good News Less than 3% of residents live in an overcrowded home.

Less than 1% of homes lack plumbing or complete kitchen.

Next Steps

Public Hearing to “accept” the report after the public comment period ends

Housing discussion with Council after the Strategic Planning Conference

Data from this report will be used to inform the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the 2020 CDBG Consolidated Plan

2018 City of Thornton Draft for Public Review Analysis of Impediments and Housing Needs Assessment i February 8, 2019

2019 CITY OF THORNTON

HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND

ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE:

Prepared for: City of Thornton, Colorado

Neighborhood Services Division 9500 Civic Center Drive

Thornton, CO 80229

Prepared by: Western Economic Services, LLC

212 SE 18th Avenue Portland, OR 97214

Phone: (503) 239-9091 Toll Free: (866) 937-9437

Fax: (503) 239-0236

Website: http://www.westernes.com

Draft for Public Review February 8, 2019

2018 City of Thornton Draft for Public Review Analysis of Impediments and Housing Needs Assessment ii February 8, 2019

HAS YOUR RIGHT TO FAIR HOUSING BEEN VIOLATED?

If you feel you have experienced discrimination in the housing industry, please contact:

Colorado Civil Rights Division Department of Regulatory Agencies

1560 Broadway, Suite 110 Denver, CO 80202

Phone: 303-894-7855 or 1-800-886-7675 https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dora/civil-rights/housing-discrimination

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 1670 Broadway

Denver, Colorado 80202-4801 Phone: (303) 672-5440

Fax: (303) 672-5004 TTY: (303) 672-5022

2018 City of Thornton Draft Report for Internal Review Analysis of Impediments and Housing Needs Assessment 5 February 8, 2019

SECTION I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study being undertaken in both a Housing Needs Assessment (HNA) and an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI). These two components use integrate sources to develop a set of recommendations and goals to address the housing needs in Thornton, as well as identify any impediments to fair housing choice in the city and set appropriate goals to address these impediments. The following narrative describes these two elements and the findings from this study. A. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC BACKGROUND The population in Thornton has expanded at a relatively fast rate over the last 17 years, rising from 82,506 people in 2000 to 136,978 in 2017. The population in Thornton is also aging, with those aged 55 and older growing at a faster rate than the rest of the population. The racial and ethnic make-up of Thornton is shifting as well. The Hispanic population has grown by over 141 percent, or almost 25,000 people between 2000 and 2016, while the white non-Hispanic population grew by 37.7 percent. The Asian population has also grown to account for more than 5.3 percent of the population in 2016. The labor force in Thornton has continued to grow in recent years, reaching 75,021 in 2017. Unemployment in Thornton has followed a similar pattern to the State of Colorado, falling over the past few years. By 2017, the unemployment rate in Thornton was 2.8 percent The poverty rate in Thornton has decreased from 9.9 percent in 2010 to 8.2 percent in 2016. There were an estimated 10,570 persons living in poverty in 2016, some 375 of which were elderly and 1,367 were children under the age of 6. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT The housing stock in Thornton rose 53.9 percent between 2000 and 2016, from 29,481 units in 2000 to 45,380 units in 2016. Homeownership in the area declined over the period, from 77.7 percent to 70.3 percent in 2010. Single-family units accounted for 71.4 percent of units in 2016. Production peaked in 2001 at 2,381 units before falling to a low of 240 units in 2009. This grew again to 1,034 units in 2017. In recent years, single-family unit production have greatly outpaced multi-family units. The real value of single-family building permits increased from $246,912 in 2011 to $359,399 in 2017. Single-family units median values were highest in the northern part of the city in Wards 3 and 4. Rental prices were also highest in these areas. Households that experience one or more of the housing problems are considered to have unmet housing needs, including overcrowding, incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities, and cost burdens. The most common housing problem was cost burden, and 32.2 percent of

C I T Y O F T H O R N T O N VII. Study Conclusions

2018 City of Thornton Draft for Public Review Analysis of Impediments and Housing Needs Assessment 6 February 8, 2019

households in 2016 had a cost burden. Renters were even more heavily impacted, with some 49.1 percent of renters were cost burdened or severely cost burdened. The Housing Needs Survey found that there is a need for a variety of housing types in the city, that residents value close proximity to groceries and parks and trails, and there may be a continued need for senior and accessible housing in the city. The Employer Survey found that many employees in the city do not live in the city. This seems to also be true for many residents that commute out of the city for work. The availability of housing in the city may not meet the needs of the current workforce. CITY OF THORNTON FORECAST By 2040, there are expected to be between 17,000 and 18,000 households below 80 percent HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI) that have housing problems in the city. These households are expected to experience housing cost burdens at a rate of 30 percent or more of their gross income. At least half of these at-need households are expected to be renters. HOUSING CHALLENGES The primary housing challenges facing Thornton, as identified in the study, fell into the following categories:

1. Unmet housing needs for many households. This represents existing households with a housing problem, especially those with cost burdens. Over 14,000 households had a cost burden (housing costs greater than 30 percent of household income) or severe cost burden (housing costs greater than 50 percent of household income) in 2016, representing 32.2 percent of the population. Renters are even more strongly hit, with 49.1 percent experiencing a cost burden.

2. Increased demand for rental/multifamily housing. The rate of renting has increased in

Thornton over the past decade. Since homeownership is declining, the need for additional rental units will be necessary to accommodate rental households.

3. Demand for both rental units and homeownership housing over the forecast horizon.

Rising housing prices, coupled with a low rental vacancy rate with high rental rates, are reflective of the growth that Thornton has already experienced. Thornton is expected to grow to over 66,000 households by 2040. Assuming the existing forecast is accurate, there are expected to be an additional 5,000 renter households and 12,000 owner households. Over 6,300 of these new households are expected to be low to moderate income households.

4. Need for new construction. The population is expected to rise by 17,000 households by 2040. The current rate of production is around 1,000 units per year. At this rate, the growing housing stock will be able to accommodate new residents. However, housing units must be available in a range of price points in order to accommodate all income levels and the 6,300 low to moderate income households expected by 2040.



5. Aging population. Thornton is experiencing an increase in the number of elderly

households in the city. As this population continues to grow, it will increase the need for renovations of existing housing stock, as well as the need for senior housing facilities with access to services.

6. Concentrated Housing Problems. Housing problems are concentrated in the southern part of the city, particularly in Ward 1. This is shown in Map V.14 on page 74. This presents the city with a challenge to address concentrated need, as well as an opportunity for investment.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS HOUSING NEEDS These housing challenges present Thornton with the opportunity to plan for future housing needs as Thornton continues to grow. The area’s expanding population and dynamic housing needs can be addressed through several strategies to promote successful growth. Through housing development in vacant properties, and encouraging low to moderate income housing, Thornton will be able to meet the housing needs of current and future residents. Recommendation 1: Encourage Low to Moderate Income Housing By 2040, Thornton is expected to have an additional 17,000 households. Over a third of these new residents are expected to be low to moderate income. Many of these low to moderate income households with be faced with housing problems, primarily cost burdens. Encouraging development of housing to accommodate lower income households will accommodate the influx of new residents in Thornton. Actions: 1. Encourage affordable housing development through density bonus, fee deferments or

waivers, and other forms of cost benefits to affordable housing developers. 2. Increase the density of housing in some areas, to maximize the use of existing

infrastructure. Review maximum density restrictions for multifamily housing in residential zoning districts for areas that could accommodate higher density rental development

3. Seek out funding opportunities from local and state sources. 4. Target areas with higher rates of housing problems for investment, particularly areas in

Ward 1.

Recommendation 2: Encourage Rental-Multifamily Housing Development By 2040, Thornton is expected to have an additional 5,000 renter households. Many of these low to moderate income households with be faced with housing problems, primarily cost burdens. The production of rental/multifamily units has remained steady in the area in the past few years, but the increase in the proportion of renter households and the low rental vacancy rate indicates a strong need for additional rental units. By encouraging the development of additional rental/multifamily units throughout Thornton, and the rehabilitation or



redevelopment of existing units, the area will be better prepared to accept the influx of additional renter households. Actions: 1. Assess areas with established infrastructure that can accommodate additional

rental/multifamily development. 2. Encourage rental developments through development incentives and fee waivers. 3. Review zoning requirements that may limit rental/multifamily developments and areas of

increased density, especially in areas adjacent to existing amenities and infrastructure. 4. Review the availability and need for additional amenities, such as public K-12 schools,

grocery stores and public transportation within the vicinity for new developments.

Recommendation 3: Encourage Development of Senior Housing The elderly population in Thornton is growing. As the population continues to age, it will strain any existing senior housing and limit options for those who wish to age in place. A comprehensive approach including developing senior housing and making sufficient renovations to allow elderly households to age in place will fortify Thornton to accommodate a large portion of the population. Actions: 1. Encourage the development of senior housing in close proximity to existing services and

infrastructure through development incentives and fee waivers or deferments. 2. Review existing zoning requirements for lot size and density restrictions that may limit the

amount of development of vacant or underdeveloped parcels over the course of the next several decades.

Recommendation 4: Encourage new construction of a variety of housing choices This Housing Needs Assessment finds that the expected growth in Thornton will necessitate additional housing development to accommodate a variety of households. The additional units should be able to address the needs of all income levels. The development of single-family homes, at a variety of price points, will help ensure that incoming residents have access to their preferred housing options and meet the needs of incoming workers. Actions: 1. Assess areas with established infrastructure that can accommodate additional rental and

owner-occupied development. 2. Review the availability and need for additional amenities, such as public K-12 schools in

areas with proposed new development. 3. Review the availability and need for grocery stores and public transportation within the

vicinity for new developments. 4. Identify mixed housing opportunities in the city and encourage local decisions that promote

a mix of housing types.



5. Coordinate with service and utility providers to ensure that plans are in place to provide adequate facilities as growth occurs.

B. FAIR HOUSING GOALS AND PRIORITIES OVERVIEW

Title VIII of the 1968 Civil Rights Act, also known as the Federal Fair Housing Act, made it illegal to discriminate in the buying, selling, or renting of housing based on a person’s race, color, religion, or national origin. Sex was added as a protected class in the 1970s. In 1988, the Fair Housing Amendments Act added familial status and disability to the list, making a total of seven federally protected characteristics. Federal fair housing statutes are largely covered by the following:

The Fair Housing Act, The Housing Amendments Act, and The Americans with Disabilities Act.

The purpose of fair housing law is to protect a person’s right to own, sell, purchase, or rent housing of his or her choice without fear of unlawful discrimination. The goal of fair housing law is to allow everyone equal opportunity to access housing.

ASSESSING FAIR HOUSING

Provisions to affirmatively further fair housing are long-standing components of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) housing and community development programs. These provisions come from Section 808(e) (5) of the federal Fair Housing Act, which requires that the Secretary of HUD administer federal housing and urban development programs in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing.

In 1994, HUD published a rule consolidating plans for housing and community development programs into a single planning process. This action grouped the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG)1, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) programs into the Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development, which then created a single application cycle. As a part of the consolidated planning process, and entitlement communities that receive such funds from HUD are required to submit to HUD certification that they are affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH). This was described in the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and a Fair Housing Planning Guide, which was released in March of 1993.

In 2015, HUD released a new AFFH rule, which gave a format, a review process, and content requirements for the newly named “Assessment of Fair Housing”, or AFH. The assessment would now include an evaluation of equity, the distribution of community assets, and access to opportunity within the community, particularly as it relates to concentrations of poverty among minority racial and ethnic populations. Areas of opportunity are physical places, areas within communities that provide things one needs to thrive, including quality employment, high performing schools, affordable housing, efficient public transportation, safe streets, essential

1 The Emergency Shelter Grants program was renamed the Emergency Solutions Grants program in 2011.



services, adequate parks, and full-service grocery stores. Areas lacking opportunity, then, have the opposite of these attributes.

The AFH would also include measures of segregation and integration and provide some historical context about how such concentrations became part of the community’s legacy. Together, these considerations were then intended to better inform public investment decisions that would lead to amelioration or elimination of such segregation, enhancing access to opportunity, promoting equity, and hence housing choice. Equitable development requires thinking about equity impacts at the front end, prior to the investment occurring. That thinking involves analysis of economic, demographic, and market data to evaluate current issues for citizens who may have previously been marginalized from the community planning process. All this would be completed by using an on-line assessment tool.

However, on January 5, 2018, HUD issued a notice that extended the deadline for submission of an AFH by local government consolidated plan program participants to their next AFH submission date that falls after October 31, 2020. Then, on May 18, 2018, HUD released three notices regarding the AFFH; one eliminated the January 5, 2018, guidance; a second withdrew the on-line assessment tool for local government program participants; and, the third noted that the AFFH certification remains in place. The HUD Notice stated that the AFFH databases and the AFFH assessment tool guide would remain available for the AI; and, encouraged jurisdictions to use them, if so desired.

Hence, the AI process involves a thorough examination of a variety of sources related to housing, the fair housing delivery system, housing transactions, locations of public housing authorities, areas having racial and ethnic concentrations of poverty and access to opportunity. The development of an AI also includes public input, and interviews with stakeholders, public meetings to collect input from citizens and interested parties, distribution of draft reports for citizen review, and formal presentations of findings and impediments, along with actions to overcome the identified fair housing issues/impediments.

In accordance with the applicable statutes and regulations governing the Consolidated Plan, City of Thornton certifies that they will affirmatively further fair housing, by taking appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified in the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, and maintaining records that reflect the analysis and actions taken in this regard.

OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS

As a result of detailed demographic, economic, and housing analysis, along with a range of activities designed to foster public involvement and feedback, City of Thornton has identified a series of fair housing issues/impediments, and other contributing factors that contribute to the creation or persistence of those issues.

Table I.1, on the following page, provides a list of the contributing factors that have been identified as causing these fair housing issues/impediments and prioritizes them according to the following criteria:

High: Factors that have a direct and substantial impact on fair housing choice Medium: Factors that have a less direct impact on fair housing choice, or that City of Thornton has limited authority to mandate change. Low: Factors that have a slight or largely indirect impact on fair housing choice, or that City of Thornton has limited capacity to address.



Table I.1

Contributing Factors City of Thornton

Contributing Factors Priority Justification

Discriminatory patterns in lending High As demonstrated by 2008-2016 HMDA data, black and Hispanic loan denial rates exceeded 12.7 percent and 14.4 percent respectively, compared with 9.6 percent for white households.

Access to proficient schools Low

School proficiency index is markedly lower for Hispanic populations than white school proficiency, indicating inequitable access for Hispanic households to proficient schools. However, City of Thornton has little control over increasing access on a large scale.

Access to low poverty areas High Hispanic households have lower access to low poverty areas than white households in the city, as demonstrated by low poverty indices. These areas are found primality in areas of southern parts of Thornton.

Access to labor market engagement Low Hispanic households have lower access to labor market engagement as indicated by the Access to Opportunity index. However, the city has little control over impacting labor market engagement on a large scale.

Moderate levels of segregation for black households High

Hispanic households have moderate levels of segregation in the city, which has increased since 2000. Other racial minorities that represent a small proportion of the overall population also have moderate to high levels of segregation in the City.

Insufficient affordable housing in a range of unit sizes High

The rate of cost burden and severe cost burden for households at or below 30 percent HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI) in the city exceeds 83.6percent.

Insufficient accessible affordable housing High

The number of accessible affordable units may not meet the need of the growing elderly and disabled population, particularly as the population continues to age.

Black and Hispanic households tend to have higher rates of housing problems

High Some 46.6 percent of black households and 46.2 percent of Hispanic households housing problems in 2015, according to CHAS data, compared to the jurisdiction average of 34.4 percent.

Location of public housing units tend to have lower levels of access to opportunity

High The location of public housing units tends to be in areas with lower levels of access to proficient schools, low poverty areas, and labor market engagement.

Lack of fair housing infrastructure High The fair housing survey and public input indicated a lack of collaboration among agencies to support fair housing.

Insufficient fair housing education High The fair housing survey and public input indicated a lack of knowledge about fair housing and a need for education.

Insufficient understanding of credit High The fair housing survey and public input indicated an insufficient understanding of credit, used to access mortgages.



ADDITIONAL FINDINGS In addition to the table above, there are several significant findings. Overall, City of Thornton has a moderate level of segregation by race and ethnicity, particularly for black households. The city does not have any Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) at the time of this report. R/ECAPs are geographic areas that contain at least 50 percent minority, or non-white, population, and at least a 40 percent poverty rate. This is explained in further detail in section IV.D. Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty. Black households have lower access to areas of opportunity, including access to proficient schools, low poverty areas, and labor market engagement. Black and Hispanic households have a higher incidence of housing problems, as well as a higher incidence of mortgage denials in the city. The survey and public input revealed there is a continued need for fair housing outreach and education in the city. The Land Use Planner Survey found that the use of the word “family,” zoning density minimums, and a lack of accessible development standards may limit access to housing options in the city. FAIR HOUSING ISSUES, CONTRIBUTING FACTORS, AND PROPOSED ACHIEVEMENTS The Table I.2, on the following page, summarizes the fair housing issues/impediments and contributing factors. It includes metrics and milestones and a timeframe for achievements.

I. Executive Summary


Table I.2 Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Recommended Actions

City of Thornton

Fair Housing Issues/ Impediments Contributing Factors Recommended Action to be Taken

Segregation Moderate levels of segregation for black households

Review zoning and Comprehensive Plan for potential barriers to affordable housing options, including density maximums and lot size requirements; recommend appropriate amendments each year, over the next five (5) years.

Disparities in Access to Opportunity

Access to proficient schools Review opportunities annually to increase funding sources for additional low-income housing in high opportunity areas. Explore opportunities annually for redevelopment or rehabilitation of residential properties in high opportunity areas.

Access to low poverty areas

Labor market engagement

Disproportionate Housing Needs

Black and Hispanic households tend to have higher rates of cost burdens Encourage the development of future affordable housing sites in high

opportunity areas. Insufficient affordable housing in a range of unit sizes

Publicly Supported Housing

Location of public housing units tend to have lower levels of access to opportunity Locate any future publicly supported housing units in high opportunity areas.

Research opportunities for increased funding options annually. Insufficient accessible affordable housing

Disability and Access Insufficient accessible affordable housing

Review development standards for accessible housing and inclusionary zoning policies for accessible housing units; recommend appropriate amendments each year, over the next five (5) years. Encourage a percentage of new housing developments to include accessible units.

Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach

Insufficient fair housing education Promote fair housing education through annual or biannual workshops.

Insufficient understanding of credit Promote outreach and education related to credit for prospective homebuyers.

Discriminatory patterns in lending Continue use of fair housing outreach brochures, city website outreach


SECTION II. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION PROCESS The following section describes the community participation process undertaken for the 2018 City of Thornton Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice.

A. OVERVIEW

The outreach process included the 2018 Fair Housing Survey, a public input meeting, and a public review meeting.

The Fair Housing Survey was distributed as an internet outreach survey, as well as being made available as a printed version. As of the date of this document, 10 responses have been received. The Housing Needs survey was distributed as an internet outreach survey, as well as being made available as a printed version. As of the date of this document, 687 responses have been received. The Thornton Employer Survey was conducted via telephone surveys of employers in Thornton to gather additional feedback on the needs of workforce housing in Thornton. Some 20 employers took part in this survey. One public input meeting was held on January 31, 2019 in order to gather feedback and input from members of the public. The Draft for Public Review AI was made available on February 7, 2019 and a 30-day public input period was initiated. A public hearing was held during the public review period in order to gather feedback and input on the draft Analysis of Impediment. After the close of the public review period and inspection of comments received, the final report was made available to the public at the beginning of February, 2019.

B. THE 2018 FAIR HOUSING SURVEY The purpose of the survey, a relatively qualitative component of the AI, was to gather insight into knowledge, experiences, opinions, and feelings of stakeholders and interested citizens regarding fair housing as well as to gauge the ability of informed and interested parties to understand and affirmatively further fair housing. Many individuals and organizations throughout City of Thornton were invited to participate. At the date of this document, some 10 responses were received. A complete set of survey responses can be found in Section VI.H Fair Housing Survey Results.

C I T Y O F T H O R N T O N II. Community Participation Process


C. THE 2018 HOUSING NEEDS SURVEY

The Housing Needs Survey was conducted to gather feedback on the various housing needs in the community. This qualitative component of the study includes insight into the perceived need for housing and amenities in the City of Thornton. A total of 687 responses have been received, to date. A complete set of survey responses can be found in Section V.E. Housing Needs Survey.

D. EMPLOYER SURVEY

The Thornton Employer Survey was undertaken in late 2018 to gather feedback and input from employers within the city and the relative need for housing for the city’s workforce. Some 20 employers participated in the survey, and a complete set of responses can be found in Section V.F. Employer Survey.

E. PUBLIC INPUT

The Home Builders Association of Metro Denver wrote a letter to provide input in the city’s Housing Needs Assessment. A summary of their input is outlined below, and the complete letter is included in the Appendix.

• Costs remain a top challenge for builders• The high level of demand for housing is still outpacing supply of housing• The City’s current zoning code does not allow for balanced housing

A Mayor’s meeting to discuss housing issues is summarized below. A complete summary is included in the Appendix.

• Agreed need for affordable housing in the city• Biggest challenge to affordable housing is funding• Challenged by NIMBYism in the community

A public input meeting was held on January 31, 2019. This meeting was held to provide residents and stakeholders preliminary information gathered for the Analysis of Impediment (AI) and offer and opportunity to provide feedback and insight into fair housing in the city. A complete transcript of the proceedings is included in the appendix. A summary of comments received will be included below.

F. THE FINAL PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS

A 30-day public review process was held February 7, 2019 through March 15, 2019.

It included a public review meeting on February 19, 2019. Comments from this meeting will be summarized below.

City of Thornton – Financial Report 2018 Year End

Presented: February 19, 2019

1

YEAR-END 2018 FINANCIAL REPORT

2

Agenda

• Redesigned monthly financial report

• 2018 year-end review

• Fund overview

• Sales & use tax allocation

• General Government sales tax performance

• DPO sales tax performance

REDESIGNED MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT

3

• Streamlined

• Graphs and charts may change depending on activity

• Visuals include takeaway, what is the message?

• Capital project update starting with January 2019

• Report on projects when complete

• Featured projects

4

2018 YEAR-END REVIEW

• No surprises

• Total revenues by fund better than original forecast

Exceptions:

1. Sewer $0.6M less – tap fees

2. TDA 144th $0.4M less – sales tax declined

• Total expenses by fund less than budgeted

• See monthly financial report for more details by fund

FUND OVERVIEW (SEE HANDOUT)

5

FUND TYPE & NAME FTE'SREVENUE

PROJECTION BUDGETCAPITAL

CARRYOVERDEBT -

PRINCIPAL PRIMARY REVENUE PRIMARY SPENDINGGENERAL GOVERNMENT

1 General Fund 904 $144.4M $136.0M Sales & use taxes Core City services

2 Governmental Capital 20.4M 28.6M 29.3M 36.5M Sales & use taxes Contractual obligations, capital projects

SPECIAL REVENUE

3 TASHCO 81K 94K Trans from general fund Arts & culture programs

4 Cash-in-lieu 15K 68K 125K Developer contributions Cap projects/recreational amenities

5 Conservation Trust 1.3M 1.6M 533K Lottery Cap projects/recreational amenities

6 Parks & Open Space Funds 12.3M 39.9M 40.1M 49.1M POS Sales & Use tax Cap projects/recreational amenities

7 ADCO Open Space 3.4M 1.3M 2.4M ADCO Sales & Use tax Cap projects/recreational amenities

8 ADCO Road & Bridge 3.3M 3.5M 6.2M ADCO Sales & Use tax Street rehab, road projects

9 E911 Authority 1.1M 1.2M 911 Surcharges Transfer to general fund

10 136th Ave GID 63K 63K Property Tax Transfer to general fund

URBAN RENEWAL

11 TDA North (Larkridge) 11.8M 22.8M 5.5M 11.3M Property & Sales Tax Developer incentives/capital projects

12 TDA 144th (the Grove) 3.5M 3.4M 25.7M Property & Sales Tax Developer incentives/capital projects

13 TDA South 0.6M 0.5M 1.0M Property Tax Developer incentives/capital projects

INTERNAL SERVICE

14 Risk 5 6.4M 6.2M Trans from GF & Enterprise

ENTERPRISE15 Water 101 76.4M 77.4M 133.3M 34.6M Charges for service Treatment and delivery of water

16 Sewer 9 17.2M 16.8M 15.4M Charges for service Collect sewage, send to Metro

17 Environmental Svcs 26 5.5M 5.6M 31K Charges for service Trash and recycling

18 Stormwater 5 3.0M $3.3M Charges for service Storm and surface water management

1,050 $310.8M $348.5M $ 233.9M $157.2M

2019 BUDGET

Worker's comp, property casualty, dental and vision insurance

SALES & USE TAX ALLOCATION

6

Parks & Open Space Gov’t

Capital

General Fund

Transfer what is needed

Sales TaxBuilding Use TaxConsumer Use TaxVehicle Use TaxAudit AssessmentsMarijuana

$$’s to S&U Tax Fund

GENERAL GOVERNMENT SALES TAX PERFORMANCE

7

2017 Actual 1.7%

2018 Actual 9.6%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

YTD Sales Tax Increase - Compare 2017 and 2018

2018 Forecast 7.3%

Avg. ST Growth 1997 – 2018: 5.1%

DPO SALES TAX

8

• 87 locations reporting (stores, kiosks, food court, food trucks)

• Grand opening on 9/27/19 (3 full months reported)

• Total sales tax generated $1.85M

Westminster IGARev Share: $494K

To GenGov: $543K

Incentive: $692K

Parks & OpenSpace: $124K

Monthly Financial ReportDecember 31, 2018 (Unaudited)

2

•Provides core City services including public safety, fire and emergency medical response, street maintenance, parks and recreation, building permits and planning.

GENERAL FUND

2017 2018 2018 BudgetRevenues Sales, Use & Other Taxes 84,021,437$ 79,092,888$ 81,891,124$ Property Tax 10,821,256 13,114,292 13,231,539 Licensing & Permits 7,623,869 6,601,694 5,544,251 Grants & Intergovernmental 6,825,439 8,983,544 7,535,375 Charges for Services 9,690,535 10,733,938 11,098,728 Other Revenues 2,968,707 3,833,358 2,926,350 Total Revenues 121,951,243 122,359,714 122,227,367

Expenses General Government 20,221,101 T 20,440,555 23,309,054 Police 37,611,677 40,862,594 40,341,086 Fire and Ambulance 19,615,818 20,589,373 18,919,994 City Development 8,477,299 9,346,939 9,276,620 Streets, Traffic and engineering 12,925,506 13,003,529 13,961,875 Community Services 20,616,937 23,517,393 24,369,509 Total Expenses 119,468,338 127,760,384 130,178,138

Net Transfers In (Out) 7,455,000 7,245,153 7,348,940

Change in Fund Balance 9,937,905 1,844,483 (601,831) Fund Balance, January 1 27,335,567 37,273,471 27,335,567 Fund Balance, December 31 37,273,472$ 39,117,954$ 26,733,736$

Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Balance (Unaudited)For Years Ended December 31, 2017 and 2018

General Fund

2017 2018 2018 BudgetRevenues Sales, Use & Other Taxes 84,021,437$ 79,092,888$ 81,891,124$ Property Tax 10,821,256 13,114,292 13,231,539 Licensing & Permits 7,623,869 6,601,694 5,544,251 Grants & Intergovernmental 6,825,439 8,983,544 7,535,375 Charges for Services 9,690,535 10,733,938 11,098,728 Other Revenues 2,968,707 3,833,358 2,926,350 Total Revenues 121,951,243 122,359,714 122,227,367

Expenses General Government 20,221,101 T 20,440,555 23,309,054 Police 37,611,677 40,862,594 40,341,086 Fire and Ambulance 19,615,818 20,589,373 18,919,994 City Development 8,477,299 9,346,939 9,276,620 Streets, Traffic and engineering 12,925,506 13,003,529 13,961,875 Community Services 20,616,937 23,517,393 24,369,509 Total Expenses 119,468,338 127,760,384 130,178,138

Net Transfers In (Out) 7,455,000 7,245,153 7,348,940

Change in Fund Balance 9,937,905 1,844,483 (601,831) Fund Balance, January 1 27,335,567 37,273,471 27,335,567 Fund Balance, December 31 37,273,472$ 39,117,954$ 26,733,736$


General Fund

3

Sales, Use and Other Taxes provided 61% of the General Fund revenues

in 2018.

4

•Capital improvement projects that support the maintenance and expansion of the City’s core services.

GOVERNMENTAL CAPITAL FUND

2017 2018 2018 Budget

Revenues Sales, Use & Other Taxes 8,863,313$ 20,184,705$ 11,819,021$ Grants & Intergovernmental 6,438,878 6,580,401 6,195,409 Other Revenues 1,407,018 2,422,316 2,455,110 Total Revenues 16,709,209 29,187,422 20,469,540

Capital Outlay 23,980,622 30,587,737 60,277,764 Debt 3,971,936 3,492,402 3,361,550 Contractual Obligations 1,268,138 1,924,808 2,466,204 Total Expenses 29,220,696 36,004,947 66,105,518

COP Proceeds ‐ 17,224,278 ‐ Change in Fund Balance (12,511,487) 10,406,753 (45,635,978)

Fund Balance, January 1 50,612,276 38,100,789 27,335,567 Fund Balance, December 31 38,100,789$ 48,507,542$ (18,300,411)$


Governmental Capital

2017 2018 2018 Budget

Revenues Sales, Use & Other Taxes 8,863,313$ 20,184,705$ 11,819,021$ Grants & Intergovernmental 6,438,878 6,580,401 6,195,409 Other Revenues 1,407,018 2,422,316 2,455,110 Total Revenues 16,709,209 29,187,422 20,469,540

Capital Outlay 23,980,622 30,587,737 60,277,764 Debt 3,971,936 3,492,402 3,361,550 Contractual Obligations 1,268,138 1,924,808 2,466,204 Total Expenses 29,220,696 36,004,947 66,105,518

COP Proceeds ‐ 17,224,278 ‐ Change in Fund Balance (12,511,487) 10,406,753 (45,635,978)

Fund Balance, January 1 50,612,276 38,100,789 27,335,567 Fund Balance, December 31 38,100,789$ 48,507,542$ (18,300,411)$


Governmental Capital

5

Single family permits issued in the past decade peaked at 902 in 2017. Major home builders indicated to City staff, the pace would begin to moderate in mid‐2018, with continued slowing

projected through 2019.

GENERAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING 2018 BY PRIORITY (Unaudited)

6

Debt & Contractual Obligations• $6.8 Million

General Fund• $127.8 Million

Capital Maintenance• $8.6 Million

New Projects• $20.6 Million

7

General Fund spending in 2018 was $2.4M under budget. The majority of this savings was related tolower than anticipated spending for worker’s compensation and property casualty claims andinternal support functions (information technology and maintenance services).

8

Per City Council policy, the committed fund balance reserve in the General Fundwill be maintained in an amount equal to 17% of the current year General FundBudget. The 2018 committed fund balance reserve is $23.1M. In addition, theGeneral Fund holds the TABOR emergency reserve of $4.9M as required by theColorado Constitution.

$‐

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

$70,000,000

$80,000,000

$90,000,000

$100,000,000

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

GENERAL AND GOVERNMENTAL CAPITAL FUND BALANCE BY YEAR

Tabor and Council Policy Other Non‐spendable/Restricted

Assigned‐ Capital Carryover Available

9

• These funds account for revenue that must beused for specific purposes, including recreationalamenities, transportation improvements and 911communications.

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS

Revenue performed as expected in each of these special revenue funds, and spendingwas on track with the 2018 adopted budget; spending will continue in 2019 for capitalprojects underway in the ADCO Road & Bridge, ADCO Open Space, Conservation Trust,and Cash In Lieu Funds.

Revenues Expenses Change in

Fund Balance 2018 Budgeted

Expenses

ADCO Road & Bridge 3,633,286$ 2,624,188$ 1,009,098$ 8,977,689$ ADCO Open Space 1,213,218 3,092,625 (1,879,407) 5,481,951 Conservation Trust 1,332,511 2,450,733 (1,118,222) 3,168,327 Cash In Lieu 78,262 55,638 22,624 180,698 TASHCO 89,002 96,877 (7,875) 121,901 136th GID 10,994 5,500 5,494 5,500 E‐911 1,117,932 1,100,000 17,932 1,100,000 Debt Service 1,802,830 2,007,338 (204,508) 1,800,200

Special Revenue and Other Funds

Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Balance (Unaudited)For Year Ended December 31, 2018



Expenses

ADCO Road & Bridge 3,633,286$ 2,624,188$ 1,009,098$ 8,977,689$ ADCO Open Space 1,213,218 3,092,625 (1,879,407) 5,481,951 Conservation Trust 1,332,511 2,450,733 (1,118,222) 3,168,327 Cash In Lieu 78,262 55,638 22,624 180,698 TASHCO 89,002 96,877 (7,875) 121,901 136th GID 10,994 5,500 5,494 5,500 E‐911 1,117,932 1,100,000 17,932 1,100,000 Debt Service 1,802,830 2,007,338 (204,508) 1,800,200

Special Revenue and Other Funds


10

Beginning in 2019, the dedicated 0.25% voter approved sales and use tax revenuewill be accounted for in the “Parks & Open Space” Fund. Capital projects underwayprior to 2019 in the “Parks” and the “Open Space” Funds will continue for the nextcouple years, and then these two funds will be made inactive.

2018 revenues in the “Parks and Open Space” Fund include $52.3M in COPproceeds. The bulk of these proceeds ($44.5M) will be used to build the Trail WindsRecreation Center at 136th Avenue and Holly Street.

•These funds account for revenue that must be used for parks, recreational amenities, and open space.

PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FUNDS



Expenses

Parks 2,630,432 5,135,456 (2,505,024) 5,885,243 Open Space 4,209,092 3,069,630 1,139,462 10,652,699 Parks & Open Space 55,016,455 18,298,860 36,717,595 54,884,064

Parks and Open Space Funds




Expenses

Parks 2,630,432 5,135,456 (2,505,024) 5,885,243 Open Space 4,209,092 3,069,630 1,139,462 10,652,699 Parks & Open Space 55,016,455 18,298,860 36,717,595 54,884,064

Parks and Open Space Funds


11

•An Urban Renewal Authority established to finance the design and construction of various improvements within the TDA’s boundaries.

THORNTON DEVELOPMENT

AUTHORITY (TDA)

Sales tax revenue in the TDA 144th Fund declined in 2018. The Hilton Garden Inn will open in2019 which should increase shopping traffic in this urban renewal plan area and help getthe Grove shopping area back on track for growth.

Revenue in the TDA South and TDA North Funds met the original forecast. Capital projectspending in the TDA North Fund will continue in 2019.

Revenues Expenses Change in Fund

Balance 2018 Budgeted

Expenses

TDA South 517,318$ 326,046$ 191,272$ 1,368,890$ TDA North 13,527,920 13,514,763 13,157 19,555,839 TDA 144th 3,528,657 4,212,542 (683,885) 4,380,634

Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Positions (Unaudited)For the Year Ended December 31, 2018Thornton Development Authority Funds

Revenues Expenses Change in Fund

Balance 2018 Budgeted

Expenses

TDA South 517,318$ 326,046$ 191,272$ 1,368,890$ TDA North 13,527,920 13,514,763 13,157 19,555,839 TDA 144th 3,528,657 4,212,542 (683,885) 4,380,634

Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Positions (Unaudited)For the Year Ended December 31, 2018Thornton Development Authority Funds

12

• Supports the operation, maintenance, and expansion of the City’s water utilityWATER FUND

2017 2018 2018 BudgetOperating Revenues Charges for Services 45,776,730$ 47,866,841$ 50,176,333$ Total Operating Revenues 45,776,730 47,866,841 50,176,333

Operating Expenses 24,610,058 24,976,793 26,495,497

Operating Income 21,166,672 22,890,048 23,680,836

Non‐operating Revenues (Expenses) Capital Outlay (17,839,557) (43,901,688) (183,141,185) Debt (2,855,544) (2,859,644) (2,859,644) Tap Fees & Contributed 22,215,890 28,168,962 22,504,928 Lease Revenue 3,325,026 9,773,724 2,829,515 Miscellaneous Revenue 1,584,822 3,473,498 3,838,432 Total Non‐operating Revenues (Expenses) 6,430,637 (5,345,148) (156,827,954)

Change in Net Position 27,597,309$ 17,544,900$ (133,147,118)$

Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Positions (Unaudited)For Years Ended December 31, 2017 and 2018

Water Fund




Non‐operating Revenues (Expenses) Capital Outlay (17,839,557) (43,901,688) (183,141,185) Debt (2,855,544) (2,859,644) (2,859,644) Tap Fees & Contributed 22,215,890 28,168,962 22,504,928 Lease Revenue 3,325,026 9,773,724 2,829,515 Miscellaneous Revenue 1,584,822 3,473,498 3,838,432 Total Non‐operating Revenues (Expenses) 6,430,637 (5,345,148) (156,827,954)

Change in Net Position 27,597,309$ 17,544,900$ (133,147,118)$


Water Fund

13

Total billed water consumption increased 4.7% in 2018. The increase is attributable to growth in customer accounts and an extended number of hot days with limited precipitation during June, July, August and September.

14

• Supports the operation, maintenance, and expansion of the City’s sewer utilitySEWER FUND




Non‐operating Revenues (Expenses) Capital Outlay (6,665,587) (2,993,193) (18,432,891) Tap Fees & Contributed 2,167,110 2,578,061 3,009,527 Miscellaneous Revenue 308,750 319,205 287,856 Total Non‐operating Expenses (4,189,727) (95,927) (15,135,508)

Change in Net Position (815,980)$ 2,160,601$ (12,810,562)$


Sewer Fund




Non‐operating Revenues (Expenses) Capital Outlay (6,665,587) (2,993,193) (18,432,891) Tap Fees & Contributed 2,167,110 2,578,061 3,009,527 Miscellaneous Revenue 308,750 319,205 287,856 Total Non‐operating Expenses (4,189,727) (95,927) (15,135,508)

Change in Net Position (815,980)$ 2,160,601$ (12,810,562)$


Sewer Fund

15

• Supports the operation, maintenance, and expansion of the City’s trash utilityTRASH FUND



Operating Income 637,922 (404,106) (698,110)

Non‐operating Revenues (Expenses) Capital Outlay (139,711) (191,771) (223,004) Miscellaneous Revenue 72,595 130,401 120,000 Total Non‐operating Expenses (67,116) (61,370) (103,004)

Change in Net Position 570,806$ (465,476)$ (801,114)$


Sanitation



Operating Income 637,922 (404,106) (698,110)

Non‐operating Revenues (Expenses) Capital Outlay (139,711) (191,771) (223,004) Miscellaneous Revenue 72,595 130,401 120,000 Total Non‐operating Expenses (67,116) (61,370) (103,004)

Change in Net Position 570,806$ (465,476)$ (801,114)$


Sanitation

16

Total debt outstanding increased in 2018 due to COP’s issued for the Public Safety Center (theGovernmental Capital Fund will service this debt) and the Trail Winds Recreation Center (theParks and Open Space Fund will service this debt).

17

• These funds account for the City’s technology,printing/mailing, building and custodialmaintenance, and insurance programs and theassociated reimbursement from City departments.

INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS

The Information Technology, Reprographics, Consolidated Services and MaintenanceServices Funds were closed at year‐end. Beginning in 2019, these support functionswill be reported in the General Fund.

The Risk Fund will remain an internal service fund in 2019. This Fund receives moneyfrom the General, Water, Sewer and Sanitation Funds to cover the cost of worker’scompensation and property casualty claims as well as account for dental and visioninsurance premiums.



Expenses

Risk Management 5,302,397$ 5,262,907$ 39,490$ 6,351,131$ 7,349,874 7,261,920 87,954 7,812,658

Reprographics 667,167 640,509 26,658 663,731 Consolidated Services 379,894 386,861 (6,967) 485,769 Maintenance Services 5,830,763 5,429,750 401,013 6,748,837


Internal Service Funds



Expenses

Risk Management 5,302,397$ 5,262,907$ 39,490$ 6,351,131$ IInnffoorrmmaattiioon n TTeecchhnolnologgyy 7,349,874 7,261,920 87,954 7,812,658 Reprographics 667,167 640,509 26,658 663,731 Consolidated Services 379,894 386,861 (6,967) 485,769 Maintenance Services 5,830,763 5,429,750 401,013 6,748,837


Internal Service Funds


percent of the fee value. At these values and rates, the calculated easement value would be approximately $16,236. Oil and gas easements are being purchased by pipeline companies at a significantly higher rate than appraised value to expedite projects and avoid the eminent domain process. Because of the range of difference between the compensation amount and the 2017 appraised amount, staff does not recommend incurring the expense of obtaining a formal appraisal for this transaction. By working with NWC on the easement alignments, the City can negotiate the best terms and avoid NWC exercising its powers of eminent domain. NWC is the natural gas pipeline collection company in the area of these Farms and these lines will serve existing and future wells drilled under the City’s oil and gas leasing program. The City has recently granted several easements to other pipeline operators under the same terms for wells drilled previously as part of the City’s oil and gas leasing program. The City purchased the Farms in 1986 as part of Thornton’s Water Project. The Farms have farmhouses and other various improvements. Most of the Farms are being leased to tenants and continue to produce irrigated crops. Some of the Farms are no longer leased to grow irrigated crops, but have been revegetated to self-sustaining natural grasses. Any damage or other impacts to the Farms will be corrected by NWC, per the terms of the easements.

PurposeA discussion regarding approving temporary and perpetual easements to NWC Development, LLC on Thornton’s Farms 47, 49S and 113.

Agenda

- History- Issue- Recommendation

1

History• NWC Development, LLC (NWC), a natural gas collection pipeline company,

requested easements from the City in order to construct natural gas collection lines onThornton’s Farms 47, 49S, and 113.

• The requested easements are for pipelines only and don’t grant any rights to drill oiland gas wells.

• These natural gas lines will follow the same course as the Black Diamond oil and gaslines the City granted easements for at the November 13, 2018 Council meeting.

IssueThornton’s options:

– Grant the easements to NWC which will ensure the location and terms of the easements are favorable to the City.

– Do not approve a resolution granting the easements to NWC, which may result in NWC exercising its rights of eminent domain.

2

RecommendationApprove a resolution granting easements to NWC to ensure the location and terms of the easements are on the City’s terms.

Questions ?

4

city of thornton city manager’s office · a p e n t 5 4 e 149th ave d h l i a s t 4 8 0 e 136th...

Documents