Fiscal Feasibility Study: Formation of City-County of Aurora

8/12/2019 Fiscal Feasibility Study: Formation of City-County of Aurora

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fiscal-feasibility-study-formation-of-city-county-of-aurora 1/203

City of Aurora

Item #:SS:1st:

2nd:

Council Agenda Commentary

Item Title:

City County Feasibility Study

Item Initiator: Lawson, Michael - Fin/Budget Prog Administrator - Finance

Staff Source: Wolfe, Michelle - Deputy City Manager - General ManagementCity Manager/Deputy City Manager Signature: Skip Noe

Outside Speaker: Julie Herlands, TischlerBise, 301-320-6900

Council Goal: 2012: 6.0--Provide a well-managed and financially strong City

ACTIONS(S) PROPOSED (Check al l appropr iate act ions)

Approve Item as proposed at Study Session Approve Item with Waiver of Rec

Approve Item and Move Forward to Regular Meeting

Approve Item as proposed at Regular Meeting Information Only

PREVIOUS ACTIONS OR REVIEWS:

PolicyCommittee

Name: Public and Intergovernmental Relations Policy Committee

Meeting Date: Minutes Attached Minutes Not Available

Actions Taken: Recommends Do Not Recommend Forwarded without Reco

Recommendation Repo

HISTORY (Dates reviewed by City coun ci l , Pol icy Comm ittees, Boards and Comm issions, or Staff . Sum

comment s. ATTACH MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETINGS, POLICY COMMITTEES AND BOARDS AND COMM

Staff has provided regular monthly updates on this report to the Public and Intergovernmen

Policy Committee since the October 21, 2013 special study session.

ITEM SUMMARY (Br ief descr ipt ion of i tem, disc ussion, key po ints, recomm endat ions, etc.)

This report is the culmination of an initial phase of study on the potential formation of a City Aurora. The City retained the services of TischlerBise and its sub-consultants to study the fsuch a formation with an emphasis on the fiscal impacts. The study is primarily a fiscal impathat estimates costs to provide county services and related facilities as well as estimates th





City of Aurora, Colorado Service and Facility Delivery Plan Assumptions: City-

FISCAL FEASIBILITY S

FORMATION OF CITY-COUNTY OF A

City of Aurora,

February

With



City of Aurora, Colorado Fiscal Feasibility Study: City-

This report is provided to the City of Aurora, Colorado, as part of the TischlerBise Twork scope for a Feasibility Study for Formation of City and County of Aurora.

Public Release

TischlerBise

4701 Sangamore Road

Suite S240

Bethesda, Maryland 20816

800.424.4318

www.tischlerbise.com




Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................Approaches and Major Assumptions ..........................................................................

Inflation Assumption ...................................................................................................

Growth Projections .....................................................................................................

Fiscal Impact Results ...................................................................................................

Property Tax Implications ...........................................................................................

OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................................

APPROACHES AND MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS ......................................................................

Key Parameters from Direction Provided by City Council ..........................................

Levels of Service ..........................................................................................................

Inflation Rate...............................................................................................................

GROWTH PROJECTIONS .................................................................................................

FISCAL IMPACT RESULTS .................................................................................................

Baseline Revenue Scenario .........................................................................................

Alternative Revenue Scenario .....................................................................................

COUNTY COSTS ..............................................................................................................

Demand Base in the City of Aurora ...................................................................................

Summary of Base Year and Cumulative Costs ...................................................................

Discussion Items .........................................................................................................

REVENUES .....................................................................................................................

Summary of Base Year and Cumulative Revenues ............................................................

Property Taxes ...................................................................................................................

Base Year Property Tax Revenue ................................................................................

Projected Property Tax Revenue ................................................................................

Other Revenues ..........................................................................................................

Capital Revenues ........................................................................................................

Other Funds ................................................................................................................

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ................................................................................................

OTHER ISSUES ................................................................................................................

Judicial District and Court Organization......................................................................

ffi i i i i i i d ili i




APPENDIX ......................................................................................................................

Appendix A. Service and Facility Delivery Plan Assumptions ............................................

Appendix B. Revenue Projection Approach ......................................................................General Fund Revenue ................................................................................................

Special Revenue Funds ...............................................................................................

Appendix C. Feasibility Study Parameters ........................................................................

Statement of General Assumptions ............................................................................

Key Parameters from Direction Provided by City Council ..........................................

Appendix D: Demographic and Land Use Projection Memo .............................................

Appendix E: Acknowledgments .........................................................................................




Table of Figures

Figure 1. City of Aurora Summary of Existing Demand and Future Growth ............................

Figure 2. Annual Fiscal Impacts of City-County Formation: Total Operating Results ..............

Figure 3. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Operating Results ......

Figure 4. Annual Fiscal Impacts of City-County Formation: Operating Results by Fund .........

Figure 5. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Capital Results ...........

Figure 6. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Grand Total Results ...

Figure 7. Annual Fiscal Impacts of City-County Formation: Total Operating Results w

Revenue Scenario......................................................................................................................

Figure 8. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Operating Results w


Figure 9. Annual Fiscal Impacts of City-County Formation: Operating Results by Fund w


Figure 10. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Capital Results w


Figure 11. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Grand Total

Alternative Revenue Scenario ..................................................................................................

Figure 12. County Property Tax Revenue from City of Aurora and Equalized Tax Rates: All Fu

Figure 13. City of Aurora Summary of Existing Demand and Future Growth ..........................

Figure 14. Annual Fiscal Impacts of City-County Formation: Total Operating Results ............

Figure 15. Annual Fiscal Impacts of City-County Formation: Operating Results by Fund .......

Figure 16. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts by Fund: Operating Re

Figure 17. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Capital Results .........

Figure 18. Annual Operating and Capital Costs Compared to Revenues .................................

Figure 19. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Grand Total Results .

Figure 20. Annual Fiscal Impacts of City-County Formation: Total Operating Results wi


Figure 21. Annual Fiscal Impacts of City-County Formation: Operating Results by Fund w


Figure 22. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts by Fund: Operatin


Figure 23. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Capital Results w


Figure 24. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Grand Tota





Figure 31. Cumulative (20-Year Total) Capital Expenditures ...................................................

Figure 32. County Outstanding Debt Service: Aurora Share of Average Annual Payments ....

Figure 33. Base Year Operating Revenues ...............................................................................Figure 34. Base Year Capital Revenues ....................................................................................

Figure 35. Cumulative (20-Year Total) Operating Revenues....................................................

Figure 36. Cumulative (20-Year Total) Capital Revenues .........................................................

Figure 37. Aurora Assessed Values (Tax Year 2012): Citywide and by County (Aurora Portio

Figure 38. County Tax Revenue from City of Aurora and Equalized Tax Rates: All Funds .......

Figure 39. County Tax Revenue from City of Aurora and Equalized Tax Rates: Social Service

Figure 40. County Tax Revenue from City of Aurora and Equalized Tax Rates: DevelopmeFund ..........................................................................................................................................

Figure 41. Scenario A: Aurora Average Assessed Values per Person and Job (Tax Year 2012

by County (Aurora Portion) ......................................................................................................

Figure 42. Scenario B: Aurora Average Market and Assessed Values by Type of Property.....

Figure 43. Base Year General Fund Revenues .........................................................................

Figure 44. Base Year Social Services Fund Revenues ...............................................................

Figure 45. Base Year Community Resources (in Special Funds) Revenues ..............................Figure 46. Summary of Fiscal Feasibility Results ......................................................................

Figure 47. Summary of Fiscal Feasibility Results: Alternative Revenue Scenario ....................

Figure 48. Summary of Capital Facilities: Current and Growth-Related Needs .......................



MEMORANDUM

To: Mayor and City Council, City of Aurora

From: Carson Bise, AICP, President, and Julie Herlands, AICP, Principal

Date: February 12, 2014RE: Transmittal of the Fiscal Feasibility Study on the Formation of a City-Count

This report is the culmination of an initial phase of study on the potential formation of a

Aurora. The City retained the services of TischlerBise and its sub-consultants to study th

such a formation with an emphasis on the fiscal impacts. Throughout the process, the Co

and City staff sought direction from the Council on parameters for the study, which are e

this report and its appendices. Two key parameters for the Study are to:

• Identify the maximum costs for services and facilities associated with County fo

is, the study assumes new separate positions/operating impacts and facility need

County service.

• Assume current levels of service as provided to Aurora by the Counties toda

Arapahoe and Adams Counties.

In other words, the Fiscal Feasibility Study as presented herein identifies a baseline sta

operating and capital costs using Arapahoe and Adams Counties as the foundation. Costs

therefore reflect estimated costs if the City-County of Aurora were to provide County

facilities based on the Counties’ current organizational structures, resource allocation

from the City of Aurora. Any change to this set of assumptions has the potential to modify

The Fiscal Feasibility Study does not at this time identify efficiencies in service provision, facility use (e.g., potential co-location of new County offices in current City facilities), or p

that may result in cost savings (e.g., contracting for certain functions that may result in c

office space). It does reflect maximum potential costs for services and facilities to p

services in the City of Aurora. Furthermore, the fiscal model developed by TischlerBise for

b id d h i f bl f h i i f i




The Feasibility Study provides projections for 20 years of future growth. When one thin

County formation and the potential effects, 20 years can be viewed as a relatively short a

Forming a City-County of Aurora has lasting implications for the long term over many futubeyond an initial 20-year period.

Finally, while the report is entitled a Feasibility Study , it does not provide a judgment as t

conversion is feasible or not as there are many criteria on which feasibility can be measu

both quantitative and qualitative measures. The expectation is that Council will review th

Feasibility Study in light of a range of criteria that will include fiscal considerations but ma

other qualitative criteria such as quality of services, access to services and facilities, level

efficiencies in service provision.



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TischlerBise is under contract with the City of Aurora, Colorado, to conduct a Feasibilit

formation of a City-County. The study is primarily a fiscal impact analysis that estimates c

County services and related facilities as well as estimates the revenue implications of the

general, a fiscal impact analysis determines whether revenues generated by existin

development are sufficient to cover the resulting costs for service and facility demands req

that population base. The analysis is based on cost and revenue assumptions that refle

community’s current levels of service. Calculations are performed using a customized

model designed specifically for this assignment.

The Fiscal Feasibility Study identifies a baseline starting point for operating and capit

Arapahoe and Adams Counties as the foundation. The Fiscal Feasibility Study does no

identify efficiencies in service provision, efficiencies in facility use, or policy decisions tha

cost savings. It does reflect maximum potential costs for County services and facilities t

County of Aurora. Furthermore, the study provides projections for 20 years of future

can be viewed as a relatively short amount of time given that forming a City-County lasting implications for many future generations beyond an initial 20-year period.

Approaches and Major Assumptions

TischlerBise received guidance from the Aurora City Council on key parameters for the stu

1. City Boundary/Annexation: The Feasibility Study assumes the City’s current bound

2. Judicial District: For the Feasibility Study, it is assumed that the City and Cou

remains wholly within the existing 18th Judicial District.




4. New County Positions: Options for Service Delivery: Certain functions are r

provided in a traditional county, namely, a clerk and recorder; treasurer; sh

assessor; surveyor; and county commissioners. In a city-county, the city council w

the functions of a county commission. The other functions can be performed by e

or individuals appointed by the city council or hired by the city manager. This

structure would be determined by Constitutional amendment. The Feasibility Stud

maximum potential fiscal impact at this stage, projecting separate positions/ope

for new County services. The document, Service and Facility Delivery Plan Assum

as a separate Appendix), provides detail on service and facility assumptions.

Cost Assumptions

The analysis seeks to quantify the level of demand for services and facilities for the

Aurora, specifically for new County services and facilities. The starting point is to dete

levels of service in each County (emphasizing Adams and Arapahoe as this represents p

the current demand from the City of Aurora). This information is augmented with m

information from departments, where relevant and where obtained. This information is

allocate costs to reflect county services provided in the City of Aurora, and therefore the

for provisions of County services by Aurora. This baseline information is then used to

needs, which are projected over 20 years based on growth projections for the City of Auro

Revenue Assumptions

County revenues available to the City-County of Aurora are estimated for the base

property taxes and other revenue sources. A thorough review was conducted of Coun

Arapahoe and Adams counties (and Douglas County to a lesser extent). The single lar

revenue for County operations is property taxes. Base year property tax estimates are c

the City of Aurora’s current assessable property base and the counties’ current tax rat

future growth in property tax revenues, TischlerBise took two approaches to provide a bas

and an alternative revenue scenario.

• The first approach models average assessed values per capita and job in each Co

current valuations and applied that value to new growth. This approach results

annual growth in assessed values of approximately 1.8 percent.

• The second approach the alternative revenue scenario is slightly more aggres




Inflation Assumption

The analysis does not assume any inflation throughout the projection period. Cost

projections are in constant 2013 dollars. This assumption is consistent with current bu

avoids the difficulty of forecasting as well as interpreting results expressed in inflated dolla

Growth Projections

Given the current City of Aurora boundaries, the City is projected to grow from a approximately 340,000 to 470,000 over the next 20 years. The 20-year projected pop

essentially the same as Adams County today. A summary of projected growth in the Ci

provided in Figure 1.

Figure 1. City of Aurora Summary of Existing Demand and Future Growth

Fiscal Impact Results

Baseline Scenario

The fiscal impact analysis of City-County formation separates results into operating and c

Total operating costs as provided in the Service and Facility Delivery Plan Assumptions

modeled to reflect base year operating costs as well as future costs due to growth in the C

Operating Results

The chart below shows annual net fiscal results over the 20-year projection period for ope

l P j t d f ti d ti dit h

2013 2033 Net

Increase

Population 340,269 470,116 129,847

Housing Units 133,737 178,120 44,383

Jobs 114,757 157,634 42,877

Nonresidential (Sq. Ft. ) 47,504,538 65,252,870 17,748,332

Source: City of Aurora; CO State Demography Office; TischlerBise




Figure 2. Annual Fiscal Impacts of City-County Formation: Total Operating Results

The table below shows annual (5-year increments) and cumulative (total over 20 ye

impacts.

Figure 3. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Operating Results

As shown above, the net operating deficit is approximately $5 million in Year 1 and the

Net Fiscal Results ($000s)

BY FUND

City-County Feasibility Study: Aurora, Colorado

City-County of Aurora: Annual Results

Category

OPERATINGTotal Operating Revenues $105,889 $115,455 $125,583 $135,368 $145,317

Total Operating Expenditures $110,825 $121,091 $132,011 $142,404 $152,869

Total Operating Net Fiscal Results ($4,936) ($5,636) ($6,428) ($7,036) ($7,553)

Year 15

($000s)

Year 20

($000s)

Year 10

($000s)

Base Year:

Year 1 ($000s)

Year 5

($000s)




For further detail, operating funds are separated into major funds, reflecting the services

need to provide as a County. The two major funds are the General Fund and the Socia

Other minor operating revenues and expenditures are accounted for in Special Funds by

Adams counties and are presented as such (Developmentally Disabled Fund (property t

Workforce Center funding (mostly intergovernmental funding), and the Jail Commissary (f

Results are provided below.

Figure 4. Annual Fiscal Impacts of City-County Formation: Operating Results by Fund

As shown, the Social Services Fund generates the largest net deficit. The total operating

base year is $4.9 million with the majority of the deficit occurring in the Social Services Fu

of the deficit). This reflects the fact that current revenues generated by the City of Auro

Services are insufficient to cover the costs incurred by City residents. The General Funapproximately $552,000 in the first year, reflecting less than 1 percent of the estimated bu

Capital Results

The fiscal impact analysis also covers capital expenditures shown separately below The




modeled these existing revenue sources and assumed they were available to help offse

capital construction. Capital results are shown below in Figure 5. As shown, dedicated

insufficient to cover the projected capital costs over the 20-year period, however as

retired, fiscal results improve.

Figure 5. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Capital Results

The bottom line results for the baseline scenario is a net deficit of approximately $20

baseline year and $367 million over 20 years.

Figure 6. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Grand Total Results


CAPITAL


City-County of Aurora

Category

CAPITAL

Capital Revenues $3,631 $3,958 $4,310 $4,673 $5,056

Capital Expenditures $18,506 $14,544 $15,963 $17,393 $4,974

Capital Net Fiscal Results ($14,875) ($10,586) ($11,653) ($12,720) $82

Year 15

($000s)

Year 20

($000s)

Year 10

($000s)

Base Year:

Year 1 ($000s)

Year 5

($000s)


GRAND TOTAL

City-County Feasibility Study: Aurora, ColoradoCity-County of Aurora

Category

GRAND TOTAL

Grand Total Revenues $109,520 $119,413 $129,892 $140,041 $150,373

Grand Total Expenditures $129,331 $135,635 $147,974 $159,797 $157,844

Grand Total Net Fiscal Results ($19,812) ($16,222) ($18,081) ($19,756) ($7,470)

Year 15

($000s)

Year 20

($000s)

Base Year:

Year 1 ($000s)

Year 5

($000s)

Year 10

($000s)




Alternative Revenue Scenario

As noted above, an alternative revenue scenario was analyzed to test the sensitivity o

valuation assumptions. The alternative revenue scenario is slightly more aggressive tha

assumption by projecting growth in property values based on average market values for n

and nonresidential development.

The chart below shows annual net fiscal results over the 20-year projection period for ope

only. Projected revenues for operating purposes and operating expenditures (unchan

baseline scenario) are shown. Net fiscal results are revenues minus costs in each yea

above the $0 line represent annual surpluses; points below the $0 line represent a

Surpluses or deficits in any one year are not carried forward to the next year.

Figure 7. Annual Fiscal Impacts of City-County Formation: Total Operating Results with Alter

Scenario

Under this alternative revenue approach, the net operating deficit is decreased and is elim




The table below shows annual (5-year increments) and cumulative (total over 20 ye

impacts.

Figure 8. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Operating Results with Alte

Scenario

Evaluating each major fund under this alternative revenue approach generates the followi

Figure 9. Annual Fiscal Impacts of City-County Formation: Operating Results by Fund with Alter

Scenario

Net Fiscal Results ($000s): ALTERNATIVE REVENUE SCENARIO

BY FUND



Category

OPERATING

Total Operating Revenues $105,889 $117,214 $129,529 $141,521 $153,764


Total Operating Net Fiscal Results ($4,936) ($3,878) ($2,482) ($883) $894

Year 15($000s)

Year 20($000s)

Year 5($000s)

Year 10($000s)

Base Year:Year 1 ($000s)




As shown, the higher property values assumed under this scenario are sufficient to cover

costs for a City-County of Aurora. The Social Services Fund and other minor operating fun

generate net deficits, with the Social Services Fund at an average annual deficit of appr

million. As noted above, base year revenues generated within the City of Aurora for Soci

insufficient to cover current City Social Services costs. Over the projection period, these de

Capital results are negligibly affected by the alternative revenue scenario with net defic

only $3 million over the 20 years, reflecting the net increase in property taxes assum

purposes. By Year 20, the majority of initial debt assumed in the analysis is paid off and a

generated.

Figure 10. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Capital Results with Alter

Scenario

When all revenues and costs are included—including operating and capital—the bottom

the alternative revenue scenario is a net deficit of approximately $20 million in the

(unchanged from the baseline scenario) and a net deficit of $280 million over 20 years, an

of almost $90 million over the baseline scenario.

Figure 11. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Grand Total Results un

Revenue Scenario


CAPITAL



Category

CAPITAL




Base Year:

Year 1 ($000s)

Year 5

($000s)

Year 10

($000s)

Year 15

($000s)

Year 20

($000s)

Net Fiscal Results ($000s): ALTERNATIVE REVENUE SCENARIOGRAND TOTAL



Year 15

($000 )

Year 20

($000 )

Base Year:

Y 1 ($000 )

Year 5

($000 )

Year 10

($000 )




Property Tax Implications

To model property tax revenues in the City-County of Aurora, the first step in the

determine the amount generated by the current City of Aurora to each of the counti

analysis utilizes the equalized tax rate for the General Fund and other applicable county

long-term projections. That is, we determined what the rate would need to be if the sa

revenue is generated from all of the City of Aurora. Given that each county has its own

weighted equalized rate is different than current County rates.

When considering all property tax rates levied in all counties, which includes the Gener

Services Fund (all counties), Developmentally Disabled Fund (all counties), and Capital Exp

(in Arapahoe County), and equalizing the rates for these funds, the results reveal that ta

be higher and thus more revenue would be generated in the Arapahoe and Douglas cou

of Aurora while the tax rate would be lower and thus less revenue would be genera

County. The figure below provides more detail on this calculation.

Figure 12. County Property Tax Revenue from City of Aurora and Equalized Tax Rates: All Funds

ARAPAHOE CO. ADAMS CO. DOUGLAS CO.

GENERAL FUND REVENUES

County General Fund Mill Levy $13.127 $22.993 $13.965

City Tax Base in Each County $2,366,344,788 $584,444,180 $5,001,200

County General Fund Tax Revenue from Aurora $31,063,008 $13,438,125 $69,842

Weighted Mill Levy Needed to Generate Same Tax Revenue $15.079 $15.079 $15.079

Revenue Generated Under New Weighted Milll Levy $35,682,605 $8,812,955 $75,414

Increase (Decrease) in GF Revenues from Aurora $4,619,597 ($4,625,170) $5,572

OTHER FUND REVENUES

County Other Funds Mill Levy (Countywide)* $3.226 $2.610 $1.316


County Other Fund Tax Revenue from Aurora $7,633,828 $1,525,399 $6,582

Weighted Combined Mill Levy Needed to Generate Same Tax Revenue* $3.101 $3.101 $3.101

Revenue Generated Under New Weighted Mill Levy $7,337,958 $1,812,342 $15,509

Increase (Decrease) in Other Fund Revenues from Aurora ($295,870) $286,943 $8,927

TOTAL REVENUES

County Current Total Mill Levy (Countywide)** $16.353 $25.603 $15.281

Weighted Total Mill Levy (Countywide)^ $18.180 $18.180 $18.180

TOTAL REVENUES GENERATED UNDER CURRENT MILL LEVIES $38,696,836 $14,963,524 $76,423

TOTAL REVENUES GENERATED UNDER NEW^ MILL LEVIES $43,020,564 $10,625,298 $90,923




OVERVIEW

TischlerBise is under contract with the City of Aurora, Colorado, to conduct a Feasibilit

formation of a City-County. The study is primarily a fiscal impact analysis that estimates c

County services and related facilities as well as estimates the revenue implications of the

general, a fiscal impact analysis determines whether revenues generated by existin

development are sufficient to cover the resulting costs for service and facility demands req

that population base. The analysis is based on cost and revenue assumptions that refle

community’s current levels of service. Calculations are performed using a customized

model designed specifically for this assignment.

Colorado counties are established in the Colorado Constitution and changes in county str

an amendment to the Colorado Constitution by the statewide electorate. Aurora m

requirement to become a City and County. Creation of a new county is a complex and le

This endeavor requires rigorous planning, substantial data gathering, assumptions for th

and, if pursued, an aggressive public information/outreach process with the residents

neighboring counties that would be directly impacted, and a statewide campaign effort

Colorado Constitution. The process for determining if it is feasible and viable for the Cit

become a City and County is implemented in multiple phases with some work from eac

completed concurrently or being revised as information is gathered and as Aurora electe

staff consider various options.

The results and discussion in this report focus mainly on the fiscal feasibility of county

there are many other criteria on which feasibility can be measured or determined, th

overall feasibility is likely to reflect a wide range of variables including both quantitative

measures. The expectation is that the Aurora City Council will review the results of the F

in light of a range of other criteria, such as:

• Positive fiscal impact: Revenues generated exceed costs, regardless of whethe

costs are higher or lower.

• Cost savings: Implies lower absolute costs for services and facilities.

• Improved service delivery: This is more subjective and would be further defin

to determining overall feasibility as the study progresses.

• Other feasibility criteria as identified by City Council including level of con




APPROACHES AND MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS

Guidance was obtained from the Aurora City Council on key parameters for the study. The

are briefly summarized below. (See Appendix C. Feasibility Study Parameters for

summary.)

Key Parameters from Direction Provided by City Council

1. City Boundary/Annexation: The Feasibility Study assumes the City’s current bound


remains completely in the existing 18th Judicial District (Arapahoe, Douglas, Elber

without any portion of the jurisdiction remaining with the 17 th Judicial Distric

Broomfield).

3. Levels of Service Options: As directed by the City Council, the Feasibility Study use

of service provided by Adams and Arapahoe counties as the basis for the study an

factors based on current operations and facilities. Levels of service factors include

capital costs, staffing levels, and amount of facility space per “demand unit”

(expressed as full-time equivalents (FTE)). Demand units include population, d

employment by type, or vehicle trips and depend on the type of service or

evaluated.

4. New County Positions: Options for Service Delivery: Certain functions are r

provided in a traditional county, namely, a clerk and recorder; treasurer; sh

assessor; surveyor; and county commissioners.

In a city and county, the city council would perform the functions of a county c

described above). The other functions can be performed by elected officials

appointed by the city council or hired by the city manager. This organizational st

be determined by Constitutional amendment. Salaries of appointed positi

determined as would any other salaries of the city and county.

Based on direction from City Council, the Feasibility Study assumes the maximum

impact at this stage That is the study and quantitative analysis assumes




Existing City departments and positions would be affected by County formation, s

Attorney’s Office, Human Resources, etc. These service costs and facility needs a

the analysis and are identified under the heading “Overhead/Support.”

A complete summary of the key parameters is provided in Appendix C. Feasibility Study Pa

Levels of Service

Cost projections are based on a “snapshot approach” in which it is assumed the current le

as funded in each county’s FY2013 budget, will continue through the projection period. T

approach does not attempt to speculate about how levels of service, costs, revenues and

will change over 20 years. Instead, it evaluates the baseline fiscal impact as the cou

conduct business and what that would mean for the City-County of Aurora. It should be

fiscal model developed for this project allows for changes to these assumptions as needs c

Where possible, the analysis attempts to quantify the level of demand for services and fa

City-County of Aurora, specifically for new County services and facilities. The startin

determine current levels of service by each County (emphasizing Adams and Arapahoe as

practically all of the current demand from the City of Aurora). Current levels of service a

current county budgets. This information is augmented with more qualitative info

departments, where relevant and where obtained. This information is then used to all

reflect county services provided in the City of Aurora, and therefore the starting point foCounty services by Aurora.

This baseline information is then used to project future needs, which are discussed in th

report. Future needs are projected over 20 years based on growth of relevant demand f

population, average daily jail population, etc. An average cost approach is taken in most

needs (e.g., office space, jail, courtroom space) are projected separately and assum

financed. Further detail on operating and capital projections is provided in this report.

County revenues available to the City-County of Aurora are first estimated for the bas

similar approach for estimating base year expenditures. A thorough review was conduc

revenues in Arapahoe and Adams counties (and Douglas County to a lesser extent). The




Revenues are projected assuming that the current revenue structure and tax rates as d

FY2013 budget will not change during the analysis period. To project growth in property

TischlerBise took two approaches at this time. 1

• The first approach is the most conservative approach of the two revenue scenar

We model average assessed values per capita and job in each County base

valuations and applied that value to new growth. This approach results in an a

growth in assessed values of approximately 1.8 percent.

• The second approach is slightly more aggressive in that it projects growth in p

from new development of residential and nonresidential properties, which is

population and employment projections for the City of Aurora. Average annual m

type of development are converted to assessed values and then projected over 2

done for real and personal property. This results in an average annual growth in a

of approximately 2.6 percent.

The analysis focuses on County revenues and expenditures only and does not includ

revenues and expenditures. If County formation is pursued, it is likely that the City will ult

current City revenue generation as well as service and facility provision to identify areas

City operations might be expanded to include new County services as well as wher

revenues may be available to augment new County sources.

Inflation Rate

The rate of inflation is assumed to be zero throughout the projection period, and cos

projections are in constant 2013 dollars. This assumption is in accord with current bu

avoids the difficulty of forecasting as well as interpreting results expressed in inflated doll

including inflation is very complicated and unpredictable. This is particularly the case gi

costs, such as salaries, increase at different rates than other operating and capital

contractual and building construction costs. And these costs, in turn, almost always increa

to the appreciation of real estate. Using constant 2013 dollars avoids these problems.

model developed for this analysis allows the rate of inflation to be adjusted.




GROWTH PROJECTIONS

Given the current City of Aurora boundaries, the City is projected to grow from a

approximately 340,000 to 470,000 over the next 20 years. The 20-year projected pop

essentially the same as Adams County today. A summary of projected growth in the Ci

provided in Figure 13.


Population projections are from the City of Aurora based on county projections made by

Demographer’s Office. Aurora is expected to grow at a rate between 1.7 and 1.8 percent

and slow to 1.4 percent growth from 2025-2030. It should be noted that the City populat

shown here do not assume annexation. Based on recent development trends, the proje

that new housing development will be 50 percent in single family units and 50 percent

units. Furthermore, it is assumed that household size (persons per household) increa

reflecting recent trends in Aurora.

Employment in the City is assumed to grow at an annual rate of 1.6 percent based on proj

Denver Metro Area. Again, employment projections do not assume any annexation at th

analysis.

A detailed memo is provided as Appendix D: Demographic and Land Use Projection

summarizes growth assumptions and projections used in this analysis.

2013 2033 Net Increase

Population 340,269 470,116 129,847

Housing Units 133,737 178,120 44,383

Jobs 114,757 157,634 42,877

Nonresidential (Sq. Ft. ) 47,504,538 65,252,870 17,748,332





FISCAL IMPACT RESULTS

Baseline Revenue Scenario

The fiscal impact analysis of City-County formation separates results into operating and

Operating results are further divided into fund types: General Fund, Social Services Fun

Total operating costs as provided in the Service and Delivery Plan Assumptions documen

to reflect base year operating costs as well as future costs due to growth in the City.

For revenues, the baseline analysis is somewhat conservative for property tax gro

projection period at this time. The approach is to assume an average assessed value by pr

growth as projected and described in the Growth Projections section above. 2

The charts and tables shown first in this section depict annual net fiscal results ove

projection period for operating impacts. Projected revenues for operating purposes

expenditures are shown. Net fiscal results are revenues minus costs in each year. Data po

$0 line represent annual surpluses; points below the $0 line represent annual deficits

deficits in any one year are not carried forward to the next year.

As noted elsewhere in this report, the fiscal results reflect a set of assumptions based on

of service and the maximum cost to provide services and facilities. The results prov

starting point for continued discussion and refinement if Council proceeds with th

formation effort.

Ci f A C l d i l ibili S d Ci




Figure 14. Annual Fiscal Impacts of City-County Formation: Total Operating Results

The net operating deficit is approximately $5 to $7.6 million annually, which is rela

reflecting approximately 4 to 5 percent of the projected operating budget for County serv

City’s current General Fund budget of $251 million, the average annual net deficit of appr

million reflects 2.6 percent of the current City budget.

For further refinement, the operating funds are separated into major funds, reflecting th

City would need to provide as a County. The two major funds are the General Fund

Service Fund. Other minor operating revenues and expenditures are accounted for in Sp

Arapahoe and Adams counties and are presented as such. The other minor f

Developmentally Disabled Fund (property tax supported), Workforce Center fu

intergovernmental funding), and the Jail Commissary (fee supported). Results are provided

City of Aurora Colorado Fiscal Feasibility Study City




Figure 15. Annual Fiscal Impacts of City-County Formation: Operating Results by Fund

As shown, the Social Services Fund generates the largest net deficit followed by the

Additional information is provided in the table below showing base year results a

cumulative 20-year total by fund. As shown, total operating deficit in the base year is $4

the majority of the deficit occurring in the Social Services Fund (78 percent of the deficit

the fact that current revenues generated by the City of Aurora for Human Services (i.e.

County Social Services Fund mill levies and other revenues) are insufficient to cover the

by City residents. The General Fund net deficit is approximately $552,000 in the first year,

than 1 percent of the estimated County General Fund budget.

Over the 20-year period, the net deficits continue resulting in a 20-year cumulative t

deficit of $133 million, of which approximately $97 million is in the Social Services Fund.

City of Aurora Colorado Fiscal Feasibility Study: City




Figure 16. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts by Fund: Operating Results

The fiscal analysis also includes capital expenditures. The capital needs analysis assumeconstruction of new facilities to house new County departments. For construction of

financing is assumed over the 20-year projection period, therefore payments are made in

this phase of the analysis, payments on existing County debt are not included in t

information is provided separately at the end of this report.

Current revenues for capital improvements available to the Counties are a dedicated p

Arapahoe County and a dedicated sales tax in Adams County. For purposes of this analysmodeled these existing revenue sources and assumed they were available to help offse

capital construction. However, these revenue sources are insufficient to cover the cap

related costs where a base year net deficit of $15 million is generated and a 20-year cum

$234 million. See Figure 17 below.


BY FUNDCity-County Feasibility Study: Aurora, Colorado


Category

OPERATING

General Fund Revenues $57,857 $62,969 $68,392 $73,685 $79,098

Genera l Fund Expendi tures $58,409 $63,757 $69,487 $74,949 $80,451

General Fund Net Fis cal Results ($ 552) ($ 788) ($1,095 ) ($1,264 ) ($1,353

Soci al Servi ce Fund Revenues $35,047 $38,301 $41,736 $45,016 $48,326

Soci al Servi ce Fund Expendi tures $3 8,886 $ 42,535 $ 46,385 $ 50,043 $53,725

Social Service Fund Net Fiscal Results ($3,839) ($4,234) ($4,648) ($5,027) ($5,399

Other Speci al Fund Revenues $12,984 $14,185 $15,454 $16,667 $17,892

Other Speci al Fund Expendi tures $ 13,530 $ 14,800 $ 16,139 $17,412 $18,69 3

Other Special Fund Net Fiscal Resul ts ($546) ($614) ($685) ($745) ($801)




Year 15

($000s)

Year 20

($000s)

Year 10

($000s)

Base Year:

Year 1 ($000s)

Year 5

($000s)

City of Aurora Colorado Fiscal Feasibility Study: City-



City of Aurora, Colorado Fiscal Feasibility Study: City

Figure 17. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Capital Results

The following figure presents the findings graphically comparing operating and capital

available projected revenues. As shown, annual revenues are almost sufficient to cover o

When capital expenditures are layered onto costs, the revenues available are insufficient.

Figure 18. Annual Operating and Capital Costs Compared to Revenues


CAPITALCity-County Feasibility Study: Aurora, Colorado


Category

CAPITAL




Year 15

($000s)

Year 20

($000s)

Year 10

($000s)

Base Year:

Year 1 ($000s)

Year 5

($000s)




y f , y y y

The total results for the baseline scenario is a net deficit of approximately $20 million in

and $367 million over 20 years. By year 20, initial debt is assumed to be retired in pa

deficits decrease.

Figure 19. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Grand Total Results


As noted in the introduction, an alternative revenue scenario was analyzed to test the

property tax valuation assumptions. The alternative revenue scenario is slightly more a

the baseline assumption by projecting growth in property values from new development

and nonresidential properties. Average market values are assumed by type of new develo

are converted to assessed values and then used to project property tax revenues over

approach results in an average annual growth in assessed values of approximately 2.

positively affects the fiscal impact results.

The two charts below show annual net fiscal results over the 20-year projection period

impacts only. Projected revenues for operating purposes and operating expenditures a

fiscal results are revenues minus costs in each year. Data points above the $0 line rep

surpluses; points below the $0 line represent annual deficits. Surpluses or deficits in an

not carried forward to the next year.


GRAND TOTAL



Category

GRAND TOTAL




Year 15

($000s)

Year 20

($000s)

Base Year:

Year 1 ($000s)

Year 5

($000s)

Year 10

($000s)




Figure 20. Annual Fiscal Impacts of City-County Formation: Total Operating Results with Alter

Scenario

Under this alternative revenue approach, the net operating deficit is decreased and is elim

18. The average annual net deficit is reduced to approximately 2 percent of the proje

budget for County services.

Evaluating each major fund under this alternative revenue approach generates the followi




Figure 21. Annual Fiscal Impacts of City-County Formation: Operating Results by Fund with Alter

Scenario

As shown, the higher property values assumed under this scenario are sufficient to cover

services for the City-County of Aurora. The Social Services Fund and other minor op

continue to generate net deficits, with the Social Services Fund at an average annapproximately $4.5 million. As noted above, base year revenues generated within the City

Social Services are insufficient to cover current City Social Services costs. Over the pro

these deficits deepen.

Operating fiscal results for the alternative revenue scenario are summarized in the tab

base year results (no change from above) as well as the cumulative 20-year total by fund

year period, total operating net deficits are approximately $50 million; however, the

generates a net surplus of $50 million. The Social Services Fund generates a net deficit of $

Other Special Funds generates a net deficit of $10 million.




Figure 22. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts by Fund: Operatin


Capital results are negligibly affected by the alternative revenue scenario with net defic

only $3 million over the 20 years, reflecting the net increase in property taxes assum

purposes. By Year 20, the majority of initial debt assumed in the analysis is paid off and a

generated.

Figure 23. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Capital Results with Alter

Scenario

Net Fiscal Results ($000s): ALTERNATIVE REVENUE SCENARIOBY FUND



Category

OPERATING

General Fund Revenues $57,857 $64,469 $71,758 $78,933 $86,303

Genera l Fund Expendi tures $58,409 $63,757 $69,487 $74,949 $80,451

General Fund Net Fiscal Resul ts ($552) $712 $2,271 $3,984 $5,851

Soci al Servi ce Fund Revenues $35,047 $38,475 $42,126 $45,624 $49,161

Soc ia l Service Fund Expenditures $38,886 $42,535 $46,385 $50,043 $53,725

Social Service Fund Net Fiscal Results ($3,839) ($4,060) ($4,258) ($4,419) ($4,564)

Other Speci al Fund Revenues $12,984 $14,270 $15,645 $16,964 $18,300 Other Speci al Fund Expendi tures $13,530 $14,800 $16,139 $17,412 $18,693

Other Special Fund Net Fiscal Results ($546) ($529) ($494) ($448) ($393)




Year 15

($000s)

Year 20

($000s)

Year 5

($000s)

Year 10

($000s)

Base Year:

Year 1 ($000s)


CAPITAL



Base Year: Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20




Total results for the alternative revenue scenario is a net deficit of approximately $20

baseline year (unchanged from the baseline scenario) and $280 million over 20 years, an

of almost $90 million over the first scenario. Net deficits decrease slightly in each of

increments shown with a net surplus generated in Year 20, which assumes initial debt is pa

Figure 24. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Grand Total Results w

Revenue Scenario


GRAND TOTAL



Category

GRAND TOTAL



Grand Total Net Fiscal Results ($19,812) ($14,401) ($13,995) ($13,385) $1,275

Year 15

($000s)

Year 20

($000s)

Base Year:

Year 1 ($000s)

Year 5

($000s)

Year 10

($000s)




COUNTY COSTS

The Service and Facility Delivery Plan Assumptions document included as Appendix A

separate cover) provides detail on the assumptions used to derive the baseline cost

provision of County services. Future projections for operating costs are derived base

factors discussed further below.

The following is a general summary of the approach:

• Countywide functions are identified and extracted from County departmental bud

• The service analysis includes General Fund services as well as services accounted

Funds where those services are provided Countywide (e.g., Social Service

components of General Fund services (e.g., Community Resources).

• Discussions with County service providers occurred over the course of this s

available and applicable, State data and other counties were utilized to cross-chec

• To derive cost factors, Arapahoe and Adams counties are used. The factors are

determine baseline costs to serve the City-County of Aurora, which accounts fo

from all counties (that is, expanding the base to include the portion of the C

County).

• Overhead/support costs are included both within new County service expenditure

administrative costs are included in Sheriff cost estimates and are derived based

administration/overhead expenses of the direct Sheriff expenditures provided

separate service and cost estimate is provided for County-ser

administration/overhead (ultimately reflecting additional effort by existing City

(e.g., City Attorney’s office)).

• Costs and staffing estimates are not adjusted at this phase of the analysis. Fo

derive estimated staffing needs for Aurora City-County based on FTE counts

applicable share, but do not adjust downward for potential staffing efficienci

business practices pay scales or vice versa We assume that salary levels are com




The following required County services are included in this analysis and fiscal modeling:

1. Assessor2. Treasurer

3. Clerk and Recorder

4. Coroner

5. Surveyor

6. Tri-County Health / Public Health

7. District Attorney

8. Courts

9. Sheriff

10. Human Services (includes additional services under “Community Resources”)

11. Information Technology

12. Overhead/Support (not otherwise captured within direct services)

DEMAND BASE IN THE CITY OF AURORA

The general approach to analyze the fiscal impact of the formation of the City-County o

determine demand factors to allocate current County costs for services and facilities provi

of Aurora. The demand factors (e.g., population, caseload) vary depending on the type o

evaluated. Full detail and narratives on County services, demand factors, allocation to Au

estimates are provided in Appendix A: Service and Facility Delivery Plan Assumptions.

The following figure summarizes the share of Aurora’s demand in each County. Wher

these factors are used to allocate operating costs and facility needs in the analysis a

figures. In some cases, detailed caseload data is used.




Figure 25. Aurora Share of Each County

A summary of baseline operating costs to serve City-County of Aurora and projection fact

below. These costs for services are then used as the baseline to project costs to serve futhe City-County of Aurora. See Figure 26.

ARAPAHOE COUNTY ADAMS COUNTY DOUGLAS COUNTY

Base Year 2013 %s %s

To tal Co un ty A uro ra P ortion A urora Tota l Co unty A uro ra Po rtio n A uro ra To tal Co un ty A uro ra Po rtio n AProperty Valuation[1] $7,327,973,674 $2,366,344,788 32% $4,524,126,060 $584,444,180 13% $4,559,179,000 $5,001,200

Population [2] 602,868 291,946 48% 467,697 47,989 10% 295,689 334 0

Jobs [3] 293,057 83,772 29% 168,722 30,984 18% 94,479 0 0

Pop and Jobs 895,925 375,718 42% 636,419 78,973 12% 390,168 334 0

Parcels [4] 223,249 104,738 47% 176,783 13,564 8% na 118

Voters [5] 373,755 170,718 46% 253,527 17,391 7% 216,461 216 0

Vehicles [6] 404,329 178,087 44% 292,945 29,273 10% 285,000 295 0

Arapahoe Sources:

[1] Net assessed value (gross less TIF District]. Arapaho e County FY2013 Budget; Aurora Certified Value Final 2012

[2] City estimate for 2013 from City of Aurora; Counties by Colorado State Demography Office

[3] US Census, OnTheMap Web Application

[4] Real and personal property. Arapahoe County Assessor, 2013 (not certified)

[5] Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder

[6] County data from US Census; Aurora share in County estimated based on vehicles per capita by TischlerBise.

Adams Sources:

[1] Net assessed value (gross less TIF District]. Adams County Assessor



[4] All real and personal property; oil and gas, minerals, and state assessed. Adams County Assessor, 2013 (not certified)

[5] Adams County Clerk and Recorder


Douglas Sources:

[1] Net assessed value estimate; Douglas County Assessor report

[2] City estimate for 2013 from City of Aurora; Douglas County from Douglas County FY2013 Adopted Budget


[4] TischlerBise estimate

[5] Douglas County Clerk and Recorder





Figure 26. Base Year Operating Costs and Summary of Projection Methodologies ($000s)

The following figure provides base year staffing estimates and space needs reflecting ma

and cost.

Figure 27. Base Year Staffing Needs and Facility Space

Aurora Estimated

Baseline Operating Projection

Costs ($000s) Methodology Assessor $2,664 City Parcels

Treasurer $1,066 City Parcels

Clerk and Recorder: Elections $1,375 City Voters

Clerk and Recorder: Motor Vehicle $2,596 City Vehicles

Clerk and Recorder: Recording $474 City Parcels

Clerk and Recorder: Admin $374 Population

Coroner $1,170 Population

Surveyor $13 Population

Tri-County Health $2,363 Population

Aid to Agencies $812 Population

District Attorney $6,907 PopulationSheriff: Detention $21,549 Jail ADP

Sheriff: Other $2,685 Population

Human Services $38,886 Population

Community Resources $11,974 Population

Developmental Disabil ity $3,620 Population

IT: Personnel and Operations $3,165 Population

IT: System Maintenance $360 Varies by System*

Overhead/Support $8,773 Varies by Service**

Total $110,825

* Modeled using applicable demand factor for the system. E.g., Asssesor system maintenanceis modeled based on growth in City Parcels.

** Modeled using applicable demand factor. E.g., Human Resources costs modeled on growth

in "new" County FTEs.

# of Facility

FTEs Space (SF) [1]

Assessor 33.0 11,300

Treasurer 11.0 4,000

Clerk and Recorder 61.0 39,500

Clerk and Rec-Voting Machines (units) na 230 units

Coroner 9.0 7,900

District Attorney na 29,400

Courts (County and District)* na 186,000

Sheriff-Operating 168.5 see below Sheriff-Detention Space (Beds) 780 beds

Sheriff - Admin Space 5,300

Human Services** 348.0 98,300

Community Resources 83.0 33,350

Developmental Disability na na

Aid to Agencies na na




A Note on the Capabilities of the Fiscal Impact Model

The fiscal model developed for this analysis models each department and divis

applicable) separately. Within each department or division, personnel and oper

are enumerated along with an area to model staffing needs. Direction from the C

was to model maximum costs and staffing requirements at this phase. The model, h

capable of altering any one of these assumptions. That is, personnel costs can be m

reflect “excess capacity” in a staff position so that instead of being driven by an i

population on a one-for-one basis, for example, the model can be adjusted to anewly hired staff have the capability to handle additional workload in excess of cur

of service (see the column, “% Estimate of Available Capacity”). Therefore new h

not be needed until that modified threshold was met.

An example from the model is shown below for the Assessor’s Office with base ye

personnel, operations, and number of FTEs. As shown, there is the ability to add

cost components and new positions as plans for City-County formation becomdefined.

ASSESSOR Annual

Expenditure Base Year Project Using Demand Unit Projection Change

Na me Budget Amount Whi ch Dema nd Ba se? Mul ti pl ier Methodol ogy (+/-)

Personnel $2,475,000 CITY PARCELS 1.00 CONSTANT 0%

Operations $189,000 CITY PARCELS 1.00 CONSTANT 0%

Operating Cost 3 $0 FIXED 1.00 CONSTANT 0%




Direct Entry Cost Type 1 $0 DIRECT ENTRY 1.00 CONSTANT 0%

Direct Entry Cost Type 2 $0 DIRECT ENTRY 1.00 CONSTANT 0%

TOTAL $2,664,000

ASSESSOR STAFFING INPUT Remaining

Base Year Current Demand % Estimate Capacity/

FTE Pr oj ect Us ing Uni ts Served of Avai la bl e Ini ti al Hi re

Ca tegor y Pos iti ons Whi ch Dema nd Ba se? Per Pos iti on Ca pa ci ty Thr es hol d

Assessor Staff 33.0 CITY PARCELS 3,588 100% 3,588

Staff Type 2 0.0 FIXED 0 0% 0







SUMMARY OF BASE YEAR AND CUMULATIVE COSTS

Summaries of projected expenditures are shown below in a series of tables:

1. Base year operating expenditures;

2. Base year capital expenditures;

3. Cumulative (20-year total) operating expenditures; and

4. Cumulative capital (20-year total) expenditures reflecting debt service payments

future growth-related needs.

Base year operating expenditures for the City-County of Aurora are estimated at $110.8

are shown below by Fund.

Figure 28. Base Year Operating Expenditures

Base Ye ar Operating Expenditures ($000s)

ALL OPERATING FUNDS

City-County Feasibility Study: Aurora, ColoradoCity-County of Aurora

Category

General Fund

Assessor $2,664 4.6% 2.4%

Treasurer $1,066 1.8% 1.0%

Clerk And Recorder $4,819 8.3% 4.3%

Coroner $1,170 2.0% 1.1%Surveyor $13 0.0% 0.0%

Public Trustee $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tri-County Health [Contract] $2,363 4.0% 2.1%

Aid To Agencies $812 1.4% 0.7%

District Attorney (18Th Judicial District) $6,907 11.8% 6.2%

Sheriff-Detention $21,549 36.9% 19.4%

Sheriff-Other $2,685 4.6% 2.4%

Community Resources $2,064 3.5% 1.9%

Information Technology $3,525 6.0% 3.2%

Support $8,773 15.0% 7.9%

Subtotal General Fund $58,409 100.0% 52.7%

Social Services Fund Expenditures*

Human Services: Admin/Finance/Legal/Operations $5,434 14.0% 4.9%

Human Services: Child Support Enforcement $2,937 7.6% 2.7%

Human Services: Children Youth & Family Services $14,492 37.3% 13.1%

Base Year Estimated

Expenditures ($000s)

% of

Fund

% of

Total




General Fund expenditures comprise approximately 53 percent of total operating expend

majority of total expenditures for Human Services (at 35 percent) followed by Dete

(almost 20 percent). The majority of “Other Funds Expenditures” is for Workforce Serviassumed to have offsetting revenues.

As noted elsewhere in this study, operating costs reflect estimated costs attributable for n

serve the City-County of Aurora. To derive estimates for Information Technology and Supp

weighted average of Aurora’s direct costs to current County direct costs is derived and a

individual support cost component. That is, a simplified cost allocation approach was u

because similar services are provided in the City of Aurora today, this is an area refinement to determine the incremental increase in IT and other overhead services, p

resulting costs needed to support additional County direct services.

Capital expenditures are also estimated to capture baseline facility costs. In addition, fut

costs to serve growth are included. Construction costs for buildings/office space are assum

financed. Other capital costs for vehicles or IT systems are assumed to be pay-go. Base

shown below in Figure 29. Initial costs reflect the first year of debt service for the majoritcosts along with one-time payments for new computer systems and vehicles.

Figure 29. Base Year Capital Expenditures

Base Year Capital Expenditures ($000s)

CAPITAL NEEDS



Category

General Government $2,657 14.4%

DA & Courts $4,027 21.8%

Sheriff / Detention $6,135 33.2%

Human Services $2,024 10.9%

IT Systems $3,664 19.8%

TOTAL $18,506 100.0%

%Base Year Estimated

Expenditures ($00 0s)




The next two figures show cumulative costs over the 20-year projection period. Figu

cumulative operating expenditures for all funds and Figure 31 provides a summary

capital expenditures over the 20-year period. Capital expenditures reflect debt service aexpenses.

Cumulative operating expenditures total $2.8 billion over 20 years with Human Services

Services comprises the majority of the costs at approximately 55 percent of to

expenditures.

Figure 30. Cumulative (20-Year Total) Operating ExpendituresCumulative Operating Expenditures ($000s)

ALL FUNDS



Category

General Fund

Assessor $66,379 4.6% 2.4%Treasurer $26,562 1.8% 1.0%

Clerk And Recorder $120,255 8.3% 4.3%

Coroner $29,264 2.0% 1.1%

Surveyor $325 0.0% 0.0%

Public Trustee $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tri-County Health [Contract] $59,100 4.1% 2.1%

Aid To Agencies $20,310 1.4% 0.7%

District Attorney (18Th Judicial District) $172,754 11.9% 6.2%

Sheriff-Detention $539,056 37.0% 19.5%Sheriff-Other $67,161 4.6% 2.4%

Community Resources $51,625 3.5% 1.9%

Information Technology $87,449 6.0% 3.2%

Support $217,089 14.9% 7.8%

Subtotal General Fund $1,457,328 100.0% 52.6%

Social Services Fund Expenditures*

Human Services: Admin/Finance/Legal/Operations $135,916 14.0% 4.9%

Human Services: Child Support Enforcement $73,461 7.6% 2.7%

Human Services: Children Youth & Family Services $362,477 37.3% 13.1%

Human Services: Community Support Services $400,770 41.2% 14.5%Subtotal Social Services Fund $972,624 100.0% 35.1%

Other Funds Expenditures**

Other Funds Expenditures** $338,415 100.0% 12.2%

Subtotal Other Funds $338,415 100.0% 12.2%

TOTAL $2,768,367 100.0%

20-Year Cumulative


% of

Fund

% of

Total




Cumulative capital expenditures total $325 million, which is approximately 11 pe

expenditures. As shown in Figure 31, the single highest cost is for Detention Facilities follo

and space for Human Services. The cumulative capital costs include payment of principal aconstructed space to serve base year needs as well as future growth.

Figure 31. Cumulative (20-Year Total) Capital Expenditures

Discussion Items

There are several “what-if” considerations on County expenditures that can be addressed

ongoing discussions regarding provision of services as a County.

Sheriff / Detention Expenditures

Projections in this analysis are based on the assumption that the rate of incarceration in t

of Aurora would hold constant. In other words, as population grows in the City-County,

population would increase at the same rate. Past trends in Arapahoe and Adams C

information provided by the Counties, provides some insights.

• In both Arapahoe and Adams counties, the number of bookings has generally d

time. However, the average length of stay in Jail has generally increased, which

an increase in demand for bed space.

Cumulative Capital Expenditures ($000s)

CAPITAL NEEDS



Category

General Government $37,754 11.6%

DA & Courts $96,748 29.8%

Sheriff / Detention $138,361 42.6%

Human Services $48,632 15.0%

IT Systems $3,664 1.1%

TOTAL $325,159 100.0%

%20-Year Cumulative





• Incarceration rates. From a 2011 study 4

o Arapahoe County: 21.0 inmates per 10,000 residents

conducted for Adams County, the foll

incarceration rates were reported:

o Adams County: 29.2 inmates per 10,000 residents

o For comparison purposes: Jefferson County: 21.3 inmates per 10,000 res

County: 36.1 inmates per 10,000 residents

• Looking at the current conditions, given the reported Average Daily Population

and Adams Counties and current general County population, the latest rates are:

o Arapahoe County: 19.1 inmates per 10,000 residents (decreased from 201o Adams County: 25.7 inmates per 10,000 residents (decreased from 2011)

Using the approach outlined in the Service Plan, an average daily inmate population of 6

would result in an incarceration rate of 20 inmates per 10,000 residents. The Feasibility an

this rate holds constant over time, resulting in a projected average daily population of 940

the 20-year projection period. (It should be noted that the Detention Facility included

assumes construction of a facility to house a maximum population of 780 in the basprojected maximum need for 1,078 beds by the end of the 20-year projection period.)

The incarceration rate assumption presents an opportunity throughout the City-Cou

process to discuss detention/correction philosophy, service provision, current practices,

from elsewhere, and other related topics. For example, should the community’s expectat

incarceration rate will hold steady over time? Or are there opportunities to initiate goals t

rate through alternative sentencing or other means?

Human Services

Human Services expenditures are captured in the Social Services Fund. The majority of ex

covered by funding from the State and Federal government. Benefits that are fully sup

State or Federal government (i.e., Food Assistance and Old Age Pension) are not in

analysis. Estimated initial operating costs are approximately $39 million, which assumes t

population transfers from current Arapahoe and Adams Counties. There are two possible

assumption:




• Second, it is possible that base year operating costs may be overestimated for o

of Human Services, namely Child Support Enforcement (base year estimate of ap

million). It is likely that active cases at the time of County transition would be roriginating County. That is, those cases in Arapahoe and Adams Counties today

with those counties and the City-County of Aurora would be responsible for ne

time of County formation. If this is the case, then base year costs for this divi

lower, however an infrastructure would need to be put in place to cover new case

would be transferred. As City-County formation continues to be pursued, these as

operational decisions will need to be negotiated with the Counties and State. F

this analysis at this phase, the estimate derived is useful as a baseline level ostandard to be used for annualized County operations and to project future expen

Another area for discussion and refinement if City-County formation is pursued is on fu

service and needs due to changing demographics and income levels. For instance, caseloa

at a higher rate than the general population in Arapahoe County. While growth in case

always equate to a growth in local budget requirements, the expectation for future levels

be established at the front-end of the process and therefore considering several alternscenarios during the next phases will assist in long-term planning.

Community Resources

The Feasibility Study assumes the City-County of Aurora is a separate Workforce region. H

not guaranteed unless population is above 500,000. That said, the assumption in the aintergovernmental revenues offset expenditures, so there is a neutral fiscal impact.

Existing County Debt

As discussed in the Service Plan, Arapahoe and Adams Counties have existing debt/lease

facilities that currently serve Aurora. The City-County would be obligated per State law proportionate share of existing County general obligation debt . However, none of the thre

any outstanding general obligation debt. Although there is no applicable general obligat

possibility is that the City-County of Aurora would pay its fair share of annual debt se

payments) (incurred by a certain date) for the proportion of the facility serving the City




The following figure provides a summary of estimated outstanding debt/lease paymen

Aurora. As shown, it is estimated that approximately $3.5 million per year reflects Aur

outstanding debt obligations. These costs are not included in the fiscal results at this time.

Figure 32. County Outstanding Debt Service: Aurora Share of Average Annual Payments

It should be noted that the above figures reflect the outstanding debt/lease obligations a

2013. As planning for City-County formation continues, debt/lease obligations will changeportion of the above obligations will have been paid off. In addition, there is the potential

additional new debt/lease obligations may be incurred that impact County formation.

It also should be noted that the City of Aurora has contributed to capital facilities curren

operated by Arapahoe and Adams counties, therefore further research on City equity i

may be applicable.

Office County Outstanding Debt? Aurora $ Share Arap Portion # of Yrs Adams Portion # of Yrs A

Assessor Yes-Adams Co. $1,005,000 $1,005,000 18

Treasurer Yes-Adams Co. $349,000 $349,000 18

Clerk and Recorder Yes-Adams Co. $2,681,000 $2,681,000 18

Coroner Yes-Arap. Co. $850,000 $850,000 9

District Attorney Yes-Arap. and Adams Co. $2,802,000 $1,970,000 6 $832,000 11

Courts (County and District) Yes-Arap. and Adams Co. $4,406,000 $3,336,000 4 $1,070,000 18

Sheriff - Admin Space Yes-Arap. Co. $850,000 $850,000 9 Human Services Yes-Arap. Co. $13,271,000 $13,271,000 9

Communi ty Res ources Yes -Ara p. a nd Ada ms Co. $3,604,000 $2,252,000 18 $1,352,000 18

Overhead/Support Yes -Arap. and Adams Co. $2,468,000 $126,000 18 $2,343,000 18

TOTAL $32,286,000 $22,655,000 $9,632,000




REVENUES

Revenues are estimated for the initial year, based on share of current County reve

generated in the City of Aurora. These base year revenues are then used in most cases to

revenues for the 20-year projection period.

SUMMARY OF BASE YEAR AND CUMULATIVE REVENUES

Summaries of projected revenues are shown below in a series of tables:

1. Base year operating revenues;

2. Base year capital revenues;

3. Cumulative (20-year total) operating revenues for two revenue scenarios, the d

are provided in this chapter; and

4. Cumulative (20-year total) capital revenues for the same two revenue scenarios.

Figure 33. Base Year Operating Revenues

Base Year Operating Revenues ($000s)

ALL FUNDS



Category

General Fund Revenue

Property Taxes $44,571 77.0% 42.1%

License & Permits $1,408 2.4% 1.3%

Intergovernmental $1,005 1.7% 0.9%

Charges for Services/Fees $9,110 15.7% 8.6%

Fines $262 0.5% 0.2%

Investments/Interest $0 0.0% 0.0%

Internal Charges $1,333 2.3% 1.3%

Miscellaneous/Other $168 0.3% 0.2%

Transfers/Fund Balance $0 0.0% 0.0%Subtotal General Fund $57,857 100.0% 54.6%

Social Services Fund Revenue*

Property Taxes $5,165 14.7% 4.9%

Intergovernmental* $29,447 84.0% 27.8%

Fees and Charges $22 0.1% 0.0%

Others $412 1 2% 0 4%

% of

Fund

% of

Total

Base Year Estimated

Revenues ($000s)




As shown, property taxes comprise 77 percent of the General Fund revenue sources

combined, property taxes are approximately 50 percent of the total. The next largest sou

in the General Fund is Charges for Services. In the Social Services Fund, intergovernmemake up 84 percent of the fund (which excludes pass-through funds for Food Assista

funded) and Old Age Pension (state funded)).

Current revenues for capital purposes available to the Counties are a dedicated p

Arapahoe County and a dedicated sales tax in Adams County. For purposes of this analys

modeled these existing revenue sources and assumed they were available to help offse

capital construction. Results for the base year are shown below.

Figure 34. Base Year Capital Revenues

For longer-term projections, two revenue scenarios are included in this analysis, which

value assumptions.

• The first approach (Scenario A) is the most conservative approach of the two rev

approaches. It models average assessed values per capita and job in each Co

current valuations and applies those values to new growth. This approach results

annual growth in assessed values of approximately 1.8 percent.

• The second approach (Scenario B) is slightly more aggressive in that it proje

t l i l f id ti l d id ti l ti A

Base Year Capital Revenues ($000s)

CAPITAL FUNDS



Category

Capital Revenues*

Property Taxes $1,479 40.7%

Sales Taxes $2,148 59.2%

Other $4 0.1%

TOTAL $3,631 100.0%

* Reflects existing dedicated taxes for capital purposes:

property tax in Arapahoe; and sales tax in Adams.

Base Year Estimated

Revenues ($000s)%




Figure 35. Cumulative (20-Year Total) Operating Revenues

Figure 36. Cumulative (20-Year Total) Capital Revenues

20-Year Cumulative Operating Revenues ($000s)

ALL FUNDS


SCENARIO

Category

General Fund

Property Taxes $1,103,917 76.9% 41.9% $1,175,452 78.0

License & Permits $35,216 2.5% 1.3% $35,216 2.3

Intergovernmental $25,139 1.8% 1.0% $25,139 1.7Charges for Services/Fees $227,559 15.8% 8.6% $227,559 15.1

Fines $6,546 0.5% 0.2% $6,546 0.4

Investments/Interest $0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0

Internal Charges $33,349 2.3% 1.3% $33,349 2.2

Miscellaneous/Other $4,202 0.3% 0.2% $4,202 0.3

Transfers/Fund Balance $0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0

Subtotal General Fund $1,435,928 100.0% 54.5% $1,507,464 100.0

Social Services Fund Revenue*

Property Taxes $127,932 14.6% 4.9% $136,222 15.4Intergovernmental* $736,547 84.1% 27.9% $736,547 83.4

Fees and Charges $560 0.1% 0.0% $560 0.1

Others $10,312 1.2% 0.4% $10,312 1.2

Subtotal Social Services Fund $875,351 100.0% 33.2% $883,641 100.0

Other Funds Revenue**

Property Taxes $62,453 19.3% 2.4% $66,500 20.3

Intergovernmental and Fees/Charges $261,697 80.7% 9.9% $261,697 79.7

Subtotal Other Funds $324,150 100.0% 12.3% $328,197 100.0

TOTAL $2,635,429 100.0% $2,719,302

Scenario A.

Baseline City-

County

% of

Fund

% of

Total

Scenario B.

Alternative

Revenue Projection

% of

Fund

20-Year Cumulative Capital Revenues ($000s)

CAPITAL FUNDS


SCENARIO

Category

General Fund

Property Taxes $38,018 41.9% $40,983 43.7%

Sales Taxes $52,636 58.0% $52,636 56.2%

Other $80 0.1% $80 0.1%

Scenario B.

Alternative

Revenue Projection

Scenario A.

Baseline City-

County

% %




PROPERTY TAXES

The majority of County revenues are generated from property taxes. Within the Gene

estimated that approximately 77 percent of the funding would be from property

considering all funds together, including the Social Service Fund, the share from pro

approximately 50 percent.

Base year property values by County for the City of Aurora are shown below:

Figure 37. Aurora Assessed Values (Tax Year 2012): Citywide and by County (Aurora Portion)

Base Year Property Tax Revenue

To model property tax revenues in the City-County of Aurora, the first step is to determi

of property tax revenue generated by the current City of Aurora to each of the counties. T

base-year revenue generated from the City of Aurora and is used in the model as base ye

revenues reflecting “new” County revenue.

Then, for future years in the projection, the model uses the equalized mill levy (propert

the General Fund and other applicable countywide funds. That is, we determined whawould need to be if the same amount of revenue is generated from all of the City of Auro

each county has its own mill levies, the weighted equalized mill levy is different than c

levies (see Figure 38):

CITYWIDE ARAPAHOE CO. ADAMS CO.

Residential $1,412,095,070 $1,311,682,470 $97,643,080

Nonresidential (Comm+Ind)^ $1,033,601,388 $709,212,018 $324,389,370

Vacant $105,638,700 $85,615,470 $17,918,320

Other* $22,989,220 $19,456,400 $3,521,950

Personal Property $381,465,790 $ 240,378,4 30 $140,971,460

Total $2,955,790,168 $2,366,344,788 $584,444,180

^ TIF values excluded from the figures

* Other = Agricultural, Other Natural Resources, Producing Mines, Oil & Gas, State Assessed

Source: County Assessors via City of Aurora, Taxable Year 2012




Figure 38. County Tax Revenue from City of Aurora and Equalized Tax Rates: All Funds

• To generate the same amount of revenue, the General Fund mill levy (property t

need to be higher in Arapahoe and Douglas counties and lower in Adams County.

• Similarly, the current Social Service Fund rate would be higher in Arapahoe and Do

and lower in Adams County. (See Figure 39 below.)

• Conversely, the Developmentally Disabled mill levy would be lower in Arapaho

counties and higher in Adams County. (See Figure 40 below.)

• When considering all property tax rates levied in all counties, which includes the

Social Services Fund (all counties), Developmentally Disabled Fund (all countie

Expenditure Fund (in Arapahoe County), and equalizing the rates for these fun



County General Fund Mill Levy $13.127 $22.993 $13.965City Tax Base in Each County $2,366,344,788 $584,444,180 $5,001,200

County General Fund Tax Revenue from Aurora $31,063,008 $13,438,125 $69,842

Weighted Mill Levy Needed to Generate Same Tax Revenue $15.079 $15.079 $15.079

Revenue Generated Under New Weighted Milll Levy $35,682,605 $8,812,955 $75,414

Increase (Decrease) in GF Revenues from Aurora $4,619,597 ($4,625,170) $5,572

OTHER FUND REVENUES

County Other Funds Mill Levy (Countywide)* $3.226 $2.610 $1.316

City Tax Base in Each County $2,366,344,788 $584,444,180 $5,001,200County Other Fund Tax Revenue from Aurora $7,633,828 $1,525,399 $6,582

Weighted Combined Mill Levy Needed to Generate Same Tax Revenue* $3.101 $3.101 $3.101

Revenue Generated Under New Weighted Mill Levy $7,337,958 $1,812,342 $15,509

Increase (Decrease) in Other Fund Revenues from Aurora ($295,870) $286,943 $8,927

TOTAL REVENUES

County Current Total Mill Levy (Countywide)** $16.353 $25.603 $15.281

Weighted Total Mill Levy (Countywide)^ $18.180 $18.180 $18.180

TOTAL REVENUES GENERATED UNDER CURRENT MILL LEVIES $38,696,836 $14,963,524 $76,423

TOTAL REVENUES GENERATED UNDER NEW ̂MILL LEVIES $43,020,564 $10,625,298 $90,923

TOTAL INCREASE (DECREASE) FROM CURRENT $4,323,727 ($4,338,227) $14,499

* For this analysis, "Other Funds" mill levy includes Social Services, Developmentally Disabled, and Capital Expenditure; Road & Bridg

** For this analysis, "Total" mill levy includes General Fund, Social Services, Dev. Disabled, and Cap. Expenditure; Road & Bridge Fund

^ Mill levy needed to generate same amount of revenue (General Fund, So cial Services Fund, Dev. Disabled, and Capital Exp.)




There is a statutory limit of 2.500 mills ($2.500 per $1,000 in assessed valuation) on the

Fund for counties where the per capita assessed valuation is $2,600 or more. The City

capita assessed valuation is approximately $8,700 and therefore would be constrained byequalized rate based on the FY2013 analysis would be $1.748 per $1,000 in assessed valu

detail is below.

Figure 39. County Tax Revenue from City of Aurora and Equalized Tax Rates: Social Service Fund

Colorado statutes permit a levy of up to 1.000 mills on the purchase of services for the dedisabled. The City-County of Aurora would be required to hold an election to authorize

certify a mill levy for this purpose. Adams, Arapahoe, and Douglas Counties have autho

levy at different levels with Arapahoe and Douglas counties at the maximum level and Ad

$.257 per $1,000. Using the same approach as described above, the equalized rate wit

Aurora would be $.853 per $1,000. See below.

Figure 40. County Tax Revenue from City of Aurora and Equalized Tax Rates: Developmentally Dis


Social Services

Social Service Rate $1.601 $2.353 $0.31


County Social Service Fund Tax Revenue from Aurora $3,788,518 $1,375,197 $1,580

Weighted Tax Rate Needed to Generate Same Tax Revenue $1.748 $1.748 $1.748

Revenue Generated Under New Weighted Tax Rate $4,135,229 $1,021,327 $8,740

Increase (Decrease) in GF Revenues from Aurora $346,711 ($353,871) $7,159


Developmentally Disabled

Developmentall Disabled Rate $1.000 $0.257 $1.00


County Dev. Disabled Fund Tax Revenue from Aurora $2,366,345 $150,202 $5,001

Weighted Tax Rate Needed to Generate Same Tax Revenue $0.853 $0.853 $0.853

Revenue Generated Under New Weighted Tax Rate $2,018,700 $498,582 $4,266

Increase (Decrease) in GF Revenu es from Aurora ($347,645) $348,380 ($735




Projected Property Tax Revenue

As noted above, to project Property Tax revenues over the next 20 years, two sdeveloped.

• The first approach (Scenario A) is the most conservative approach of the two rev

approaches. We model average assessed values per capita and job in each Co

current valuations and applied that value to new growth. This approach results

annual growth in assessed values of approximately 1.8 percent. Factors used to p

growth are shown below:

• The second approach (Scenario B) is slightly more aggressive in that it proje

property values using values of new development of residential and nonresident

Average annual market values are assumed by type of development, converte

values, and projected over 20 years. This is done for real and personal property.

an average annual growth in assessed values of approximately 2.6 percent.

Using the above information, an average assessed value per capita and job is derived for e

Scenario A. This is done by dividing the sum of residential, nonresidential, and personal p

by the current number of persons and jobs in the respective county. This factor is then u

new property value based on projected population and employment in the City. Using

existing development is a relative conservative approach as new development typica

values than existing development. Average assessed values are shown below.

Figure 41. Scenario A: Aurora Average Assessed Values per Person and Job (Tax Year 2012) C

County (Aurora Portion)

This approach generates over $1.3 billion in property tax revenues in all funds over 2

average of almost $67 million annually.

CITYWIDE ARAPAHOE CO. ADAMS CO.

Real & Personal Assess ed Value* $2,827,162,248 $2,261,272,918 $563,003,910

Population and Jobs 455,026 375,718 78,973

$ AV per Capi ta and Job $6,213 $6,019 $7,129

* Includes Residential and Nonresidential




For Scenario B, a slightly different approach is taken, which assumes an average market v

development and applies that value to projected future growth. The following summariz

and assessed value assumptions by type of land use.

Figure 42. Scenario B: Aurora Average Market and Assessed Values by Type of Property

In total, this approach generates approximately $1.4 billion in property tax revenues in al

years, or an average of $71 million annually, reflecting an increase of approximately 6.5

Scenario A.

Property Tax Limitations

Two property tax limitations exist in the State of Colorado, the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (

statutory “5.5 Percent Limit.”

• 5.5 Percent Limit: Local governments may not collect property tax revenue gr

percent over the previous year. This limitation does not apply to home rule count

charter includes this limit) and therefore is assumed to be not applicable as it is

the City-County of Aurora will continue to be a home rule government.

• TABOR limits any increase in property tax revenues from one year to the next by t

additional property taxes generated from new local growth plus inflation.

The City of Aurora passed a permanent three-mill property tax reduction in 2000 that a

exempts the City’s General Fund from TABOR spending limits. While property taxes in the

Aurora may eventually be affected by TABOR, the City notes that their revenue projection

which are higher than those modeled in this Feasibility Study, are “expected to rema6

Market Value Assessment Assessed

(Per Unit / Per SF) Rate Value

Single Family Unit $380,000 7.96% $30,248

Multifamily Unit $130,000 7.96% $10,348

Retail $130 29.00% $37.70Office $110 29.00% $31.90

Industrial $70 29.00% $20.30

Sources: TischlerBise data and analysis of online property listings (Zillow; Loopnet)




Other Revenues

Other new revenues would be available to the City-County of Aurora. For the analyestimates are derived using each county’s current revenue structure and determini

revenue is generated in the City of Aurora currently using applicable demand factors bas

of service. A summary is provided below.

Figure 43. Base Year General Fund Revenues

Non-property tax revenues generate about 23 percent of General Fund revenues for the

Aurora in the base year.

As shown above, the amount assumed as base year revenues for the City-County of Au

include fund balance or interest/investments, despite the fact that the City of Aurora has

GENERAL FUND Aurora Revenue Generated in Each County

ArapCo AdamsCo DougCo Aurora Total Auror

Share Base YTaxes Property Taxes $31,063,008 $13,438,125 $69,842 $44,570,975 $44,570

License & Permits License & Permits $1,406,736 $1,224 $0 $1,407,960 $1,407

Intergovernmental Community Resources (Arap) $1,152 $1,152 $

Treasurers Office (Arap) $50,196 $50,196 $50

Corrections (Adams) $795,549 $795,549 $795

Other $158,373 $158,373 $158

Charges for Services/Fees Assessor $23,500 $5,400 $28,900 $28

Treasurer $2,923,466 $201,844 $3,125,310 $3,125

Clerk & Recorder $3,363,568 $ 717,655 $4,081,223 $4,08

Sheriff $1,041,432 $401,289 $1,442,721 $1,442

Other $11,208 $238,469 $249,677 $249

Overhead (Adams) $182,070 $182,070 $18Fines Clerk & Recorder (Arap) $77,280 $77,280 $7

Community Resources (Arap) $162,640 $162,640 $162

Sheriff $21,800 $0 $21,800 $2

Investments/Interest Investments/Interest $759,165 $258,013 $1,017,178

Internal Charges Administrative Services $376,725 $376,725 $376

Community Resources $177,466 $177,466 $177

Facilities and Fleet Management $677,631 $677,631 $677

Information Technology $101,505 $101,505 $10

Miscellaneous/Other Miscellaneous/Other $168,000 $0 $168,000 $168

Transfers/Fund Balance Transfers/Fund Balance $1,717,210 $0 $1,717,210

TOTAL $44,123,688 $16,398,011 $69,842 $60,591,540 $57,857

Subtotal Taxes $31,063,008 $13,438,125 $69,842 $44,570,975 $44,570

Subtotal Other Revenues $13,060,680 $2,959,886 $0 $16,020,565 $13,286

GRAND TOTAL $44,123,688 $16,398,011 $69,842 $60,591,540 $57,857

Sources: County FY2013 Budgets; TischlerBi se analysis


S i l S i F d



Social Services Fund

The Social Services Fund is supported by property taxes in addition to intergovernmensummary is provided below. As shown, 84 percent is estimated from intergovernmental fu

percent of the fund from property taxes, and one percent from other sources.

Figure 44. Base Year Social Services Fund Revenues

Community Resources Fund

Community Resources is another service area that is partially accounted for in Special R

particularly in Arapahoe County. To capture applicable revenue sources, TischlerBise

analysis of other revenues available to offset costs grouped into Community Resources. include:

• CSU Extension

• Senior Resources

• Veteran Services

• Community Development Services

• Workforce Centers and Services• Judicial Services (includes alternative sentencing programs for District and County

• Related administrative functions

/

SOCIAL SERVICES FUND Aurora Revenue Generated in Each County

ArapCo AdamsCo DougCo Aurora Total Aurora

Social Services Tax Rate $1.601 $2.353 $0.316 Share Base Ye

Pr oper ty Ta xes $3,788,518 $1,375,197 $1,580 $5,165,296 $5,165

I ntergovernmenta l* $23,199,586 $6,247,912 $29,447,498 $29,447Fees and Charges $22,400 $22,400 $22

Others $224,000 $188,275 $412,275 $412

$27,234,504 $7,811,384 $1,580 $35,047,468 $35,047

Subtotal Taxes $3,788,518 $1,375,197 $1,580 $5,165,296 $5,165

Subtotal Intergovernmental Revenue $23,199,586 $6,247,912 $0 $29,447,498 $29,447

Subtotal Other Revenue $246,400 $188,275 $0 $434,675 $434

GRAND TOTAL $27,234,504 $7,811,384 $1,580 $35,047,468 $35,047,

* Excludes Food Assis tance and Old Age Pension benefit f unding.

Sources: County FY2013 B udgets; TischlerBise analysis


The majority of funding for workforce services is from intergovernmental sources It sh



The majority of funding for workforce services is from intergovernmental sources. It sh

that the analysis models workforce service costs and revenues based on current service

provided by Arapahoe and Adams counties. As noted elsewhere, Aurora is modeled eseparate Workforce region—with local costs and offsetting intergovernmental reven

establishment as a new Workforce region is not guaranteed unless population is above

assumption throughout the analysis is that intergovernmental revenues offset expen

percent), so there is a neutral fiscal impact.

Figure 45. Base Year Community Resources (in Special Funds) Revenues

The analysis also includes additional revenue accounted for in a Jail Commissary Fun

County. This is included in the model at a base year amount of approximately $595,000.

Capital Revenues

Both Arapahoe and Adams counties have a limited dedicated funding source for capital

Arapahoe County has a dedicated property tax millage and Adams County has a dedicate

for certain capital improvements. (This is separate from each county’s Open Space Sales T

Arapahoe County: Property Tax

In Arapahoe County, there is a dedicated property tax mill levy of $.625 per $1,000 in ass

FY2013, Aurora generated approximately $1.5 million under this revenue source.

COMMUNITY RESOURCES (in Special Funds) Aurora Revenue Generated in Each County

ArapCo AdamsCo DougCo Aurora Total AurorShare Base Y

Workforce Funds * I ntergovernmenta l $4,448,807 $890,537 $5,339,344 $5,339

Fees and Charges $25,850 $25,850 $25

Internal Charges $25,998 $25,998 $25

Others $3,572 $3,572 $3

Gr an t Fun d I nter go ver nmenta l-Comm Res our ces $ 4,3 54 ,7 26 $ 4,3 54 ,7 26 $ 4,3 54

Fees a nd Cha rges /O ther -Comm Res our ces $1 17 ,98 6 $ 11 7,9 86 $1 17

$8,976,938 $890,537 $0 $9,867,476 $9,867

Subtotal Intergovernmental Revenue $8,803,533 $890,537 $0 $9,694,070 $9,694

Subtotal Other Revenue $173,405 $0 $0 $173,405 $173

GRAND TOTAL $8,976,938 $890,537 $0 $9,867,476 $9,867

* Arapahoe/Douglas Works! in Arapahoe and Douglas counties and Workforce & Business Center Fund in Adams County

Sources: County FY2013 Budgets; TischlerBi se analysis


Adams County: Sales Tax



Adams County: Sales Tax

In Adams County, there is a voter-approved sales tax of ½ of 1 percent (Jan. 1, 2009 th

2028). The sales tax is reserved as follows:

• .3% sales tax is used for capital facilities including Justice Center expansion, Gover

and Pre-Trial Holding Facility.

• .2% sales tax is used to finance transportation projects, and is shared with citie

the County.

• Fund balance and interest earned on the .3% sales tax “can be used to h

incremental future operating and capital costs associated with the Justice CenteCenter, and Pre-Trial Holding Facility.” 7

Based on the share of Adams County sales taxes generated in the City of Aurora, it is esti

City of Aurora contributes approximately $2.15 million annually to the Capital Facilities Fu

Appendix B includes detail on projection methodologies for revenue sources.

Other Funds

Road and Bridge Fund

Counties in Colorado are required to maintain a Road and Bridge Fund.

• Arapahoe County levies a property tax of $.797 per $1,000 collected county

percent distributed back to municipalities in the County based on property assess

o For the base year examined, Aurora contributes approximately $1.9 milli

taxes to the Arapahoe County Road and Bridge Fund.

• Adams County levies a property tax of $1.300 per $1,000, which is collected coun

percent distributed back to municipalities based on property value. In addition,

has a dedicated sales tax funding the Road and Bridge Fund.

o For the base year examined, Aurora contributes approximately $760,0

taxes to the Adams County Road and Bridge Fund.


The City and County of Broomfield has a Street Fund mill levy as part of its City budge



The City and County of Broomfield has a Street Fund mill levy as part of its City budge

have a separate Road and Bridge Fund as part of its County budget. The City of Au

currently have a mill levy in a separate Street Fund or Road and Bridge Fund. To make ulost from conversion to a City-County, a new dedicated tax would need to be implemented

Open Space Funding: Dedicated Sales Taxes

Both Arapahoe and Adams counties have a dedicated sales tax for Open Space purposes

and usage limitations vary by county, but the City receives funding from each county from

• Arapahoe County: The voter-approved Open Space sales tax rate is .25%. Jurisdict

County receive 50 percent of the funds collected in the County based on share

with a portion of the remaining funds available for grants in special districts an

municipalities. The City of Aurora has received approximately 56 percent of

distributed to municipalities over a nine-year period from 2004 to 2012 ($42 m

total $75 million).8

• Adams County: The voter-approved Open Space sales tax rate is .25%. It is auth

2026. Jurisdictions receive 30 percent of the funds generated and is distributed

location where the tax was generated. The remaining funds are distribut

competitive grant program (68% of the funds) and 2 percent is for administration c

Based on estimated share of sales tax generated in Aurora in each County, it is estimate

contributes approximately $9 to $10 million annually to both Open Space Sales Tax Fundthe same time, the City of Aurora receives approximately $6 million in revenues annu

counties combined, although this figure may vary depending on the awarding of grants f

This revenue source is anticipated to grow in the short-term at an annual rate of 2.5 perc

can generally be used for park land acquisitions and improvements, construction, main

some limitations), and patrol costs for parks and open space.

Because these taxes are County taxes that were approved by voters in each respective clegal analysis would need to be conducted to determine the process to continue this ta

County of Aurora.


SUMMARY OF FINDINGS



SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Based on the assumptions identified in this document and supporting materials, in particu

Delivery Plan ( Appendix A ) and the parameters for the Study, namely to identify the maxi

costs, the overall findings are that the revenues generated by current and futur

insufficient to cover expenses related to new City-County services. However, the

operating purposes is approximately 5 percent of the operating budget for County service

3 percent of the City’s current budget. Capital requirements significantly worsen the fisca

the study assumption that needed facilities are built new by the City-County of Aurora.

the results is shown below.

Figure 46. Summary of Fiscal Feasibility Results


BY FUND



Category

OPERATING




CAPITALCapital Revenues $3,631 $3,958 $4,310 $4,673 $5,056



GRAND TOTAL




Year 15($000s)

Year 20($000s)

Year 10($000s)

Base Year:Year 1 ($000s)

Year 5($000s)


When an alternative revenue assumption is taken, reflecting a nominal increase in reven



p , g

from property taxes—increasing annual property value growth from 1.8 percent to

sufficient revenues are available for General Fund purposes and the net operating deficit percent of the projected operating budget for County services and one percent of the

budget. However, revenues are still insufficient to cover all needs over the entire 2

particularly capital requirements. Net fiscal results improve toward the end of the project

to debt being retired.

Figure 47. Summary of Fiscal Feasibility Results: Alternative Revenue Scenario


BY FUND



Category

OPERATING

Total Operating Revenues $105,889 $117,214 $129,529 $141,521 $153,764Total Operating Expenditures $110,825 $121,091 $132,011 $142,404 $152,869


CAPITAL




GRAND TOTAL



Grand Total Net Fiscal Results ($19,812) ($14,401) ($13,995) ($13,385) $1,275

Year 15

($000s)

Year 20

($000s)

Year 5

($000s)

Year 10

($000s)

Base Year:

Year 1 ($000s)


A challenge to provision of City-County services is accommodating capital facility co



current revenue structure. As noted, the assumption in this analysis is construction of

Total capital costs—including principal and interest—projected over 20 years is $325 mover 40 percent is for Detention / Sheriff related facilities. These needs include not only t

serve the base year population but to serve projected growth as well. A summary of all c

provided below in Figure 48. Construction costs reflected in the figure below are principal

do not include interest (financing) costs. Average annual debt service of $16.6 million re

principal and interest payments (at a conservative interest rate of 4.5 percent) over the 20

Figure 48. Summary of Capital Facilities: Current and Growth-Related Needs

Finally, as a benchmark, purely from a service population standpoint, the projected pop

City-County of Aurora in 20 years is assumed to be approximately 470,000—or comp

population of Adams County today. Adams County currently has 955 employees (FTEs) i

providing countywide services (excluding support/overhead and IT staff). The fiscal ana

need for 879 employees (FTEs) by Year 20, without support/overhead or IT staff, a differ

8%). However, it should be noted that Adams County departmental staffing data, part

CAPITAL FACILITIES

Infrastructure

Units

Base Year Infra

Needed

Total At

Buildout

Total Construction

Cost ($1,000s)*

A

S

Assessor Sq. Ft. 11,300 15,392 $3,078

Treasurer Sq. Ft. 4,000 5,448 $1,090

Clerk and Recorder Sq. Ft. 39,500 53,882 $10,776

Clerk and Recorder Machine 230 314 $1,569

Coroner Sq. Ft. 7,900 10,776 $2,155

Tri-County Health Sq. Ft. 17,000 23,190 $4,993

Overhead/Support Sq. Ft. 18,300 24,963 $4,638

District Attorney Sq. Ft. 29,400 40,105 $8,021

Courts (County and Di stri ct) Sq. Ft. 186,000 253,723 $63,431

Sheriff Detention Beds 780 1,078 $97,010

Sheriff Office Sq. Ft. 5,300 7,324 $1,465

Sheriff Detention Vehicles Vehicles 6.00 8.00 $300

Sheriff IT System Unit 1.00 1.00 $452

Sheriff Bomb Squad Unit 1.00 1.00 $3,400

Human Services Sq. Ft. 98,300 134,091 $26,818

Community Resources Sq. Ft. 33,350 45,493 $9,098 IT Systems na $3,664

Totals (Sq. Ft. only/Total $s) 450,350 614,387 $241,957

* Reflects construction cost without financing costs; includes base year, growth, and replacement needs, where applicab


OTHER ISSUES



OTHER ISSUES

Several considerations of what may be considered “off-model” issues have emerged du

effort. This section summarizes those issues and is in no particular order.

Judicial District and Court Organization

Based on City Council direction at this phase of the analysis, court services and faci

modeled based on the City-County of Aurora remaining with the 18

th

Judicial Distelsewhere). However, if the City is interested in pursuing the formation of a new Judicial

would allow for a combined Municipal-County Court), a separate analysis is suggested. Th

explore, but may not be limited to: the process for formation; cost effectiveness of a s

trade-offs regarding funding sources and revenue streams (state versus local); struct

relationships, and operating cost impacts for the District Attorney’s Office, Public Def

Probation services, and Clerk’s Office; and technology implications.

The following additional items related to Judicial Services are noted:

• To create a new Judicial District, the support of two thirds of both houses of

Legislature is required. This decision might be separate and could follow after a po

from the election creating Aurora as a City and County.

• On the other hand, it may be possible to include the creation of a separate JudiciaConstitutional Amendment. More research is necessary to ascertain if the creati

District could be accomplished in the Constitutional Amendment. However, crea

District and the City and County might be considered two subjects and would

denied on the basis of the single subject requirement for ballot initiatives in Color

• Other considerations of joining an existing District or pursuing creation of a new D

population served; location within Aurora of highest crime rates by type; ideDistrict; prevention programs and innovative community programs; utilization

courts such as drug courts and family court; and domestic violence issues. Other

may include how probation is managed within each District; community

i li d l d f it i i i d tili ti


provide input on selection criteria as well as allow for Aurora residents to



nominating commission and supply community feedback in the process, but

selection is by the Governor.

• Broomfield City-County is part of the 17th Judicial District and its District and Cou

funded and controlled by the State. The City-County has a separate Municipal Co

appointed by the Council. Unlike other counties in the state, the Clerk’s O

Municipal, County, and District Court Clerks’ functions with the state reimbu

County for a portion of the staffing.

• Denver is a single Judicial District and operates the court system in total. Denver

court operation costs and does not receive reimbursement from the Co

Department. With this relationship, there have been recent issues with data

efficient sharing of information with the State.

• In counties that are part of the State Court system, the state reimburses 80 perce

state-mandated salaries for district attorneys with the localities in the Judicial Dithe remaining 20 percent. However, in many instances, salaries are negotiated h

state minimum, and the locality is therefore obligated to cover 100 percent of the

• Both Counties have Alternative Sentencing/Diversion programs in place. The

Aurora would need to do the same and could have the opportunity to shape prog

ground up.

Efficiencies in Service Provision and Facilities

During the Feasibility Study process, there has been some discussion on identifying

service between City and County operations and facilities. While direction from the City

identify maximum costs for new County services and costs, some discussion on efficiencies

There are two main aspects when talking about efficiencies: decreasing costs and

revenues. Within this general framework, the following is offered for further discussions in


with a volatile and transient population, requiring a higher staffing ratio th



at County Detention facilities currently. The City facility and service wou

be used; however, transport costs and the potential ability to release pr

with a coordinated process could achieve some efficiencies.

o Another area of cost savings may be with Courtroom space. For pu

Feasibility Analysis, we assume full costs to build out new courtroom s

understanding that some future needs may be accommodated in the

space with upgrades and finishing.

o A third area is with support functions. The analysis assumes some portio

overhead/support services such as Human Resources, Finance, Admi

Given the duplication with existing City services, a refinement to this an

determination of what capacities exist within the current City staff. How

levels have been reduced in recent years—at the same time population

increased, therefore available capacity may be limited. Furthermore, the c

these services is likely to be relatively minimal given the overall operating

• Decreasing costs: Investigating a more efficient way to provide County servic

question for City stakeholders is to define what this means. Does it mean cheaper

provided by the Counties? Does it mean faster or more accessible than provide

the Counties? Does it mean at a higher quality than currently provided by the C

would this be defined? And finally, how would these elements be weighted in re

other—i.e., how to weight cheaper, faster, and better?

• Increasing revenues: Focusing on economic development opportunities within cur

(e.g., transit-oriented development opportunities) as well as part of the ongoing

annexation (i.e., what will the annexed property provide from a net revenue stand

are realistic market opportunities? What is best fiscal return to the City? A

incentives “efficient” from a fiscal perspective?

• Achieving efficiencies can also be discussed within the context of achieving ef

current City services. A 2006 study conducted for the City of Aurora, City of A

Revenues, addresses the need and potential for improving efficiencies with curren

i di ti thi i i th t b f ld d i t th di i ffi i i f


back and forth during the transition period after County approval. As part of th

i d th di i i t l f ti i l di Cit ti /f ti



was in-depth discussion on internal functions—including City operations/function

• Finally, State agencies will typically not engage with the City on County ser

discussion until after County formation has been approved. Because of this, it is d

looking seriously at efficiencies until conversations can occur with State agencies.

Changing Demographics

With the baseline assumptions for revenues and expenditures guided by current County

tax rates, the City-County of Aurora generates a net deficit for Human Services funding.

outcome of a City-County of Aurora is that with potentially easier access to services, th

those services will increase beyond the levels provided to Aurora residents by the cou

addition, if poverty rates continue to increase in the City of Aurora as has been the trend

decade, projected demand over time will steadily increase.

Given that the baseline results are a net deficit, alternative scenarios that increase ser

only deepen the deficits. However, these are scenarios that can be tested with the

developed for this project. Both Social Service Fund tax rates and expenditure levels can b

Retirement Systems

The counties and the City of Aurora all have different retirement systems. The City-County

need mid- and upper-level personnel with County experience to help establish and im

County services. This could be an area where further analysis is needed to determine

retirement plans may affect hiring and negotiations. From a pension system perspect

employees out of a system has financial implications that may need to be addressed durin

Metro and Other Special Districts

The use of Metro Districts to fund project-level infrastructure is in and of itself not an i


received. Because of the proliferation of Metro Districts, each with their own tax rate, th

range of tax rates throughout the City of Aurora currently As stated in the C



range of tax rates throughout the City of Aurora currently. As stated in the C

Comprehensive Plan (2009):

Residents in new Aurora metro districts typically will have total property tax rates (city

district) of as much as 60 to 65 mills compared to 11 mills for those living outside metro

mill of taxes is equivalent to $1 tax on every $1,000 of assessed value. Residential

currently assessed at about eight percent of market value. Thus, for a $300,000 m

home, the annual property tax paid to a metro district charging 60 mills of property

equal $1,440.9

When discussing county taxes and the impact on a “typical” taxpayer, the range of ta

Metro Districts should be addressed.

Economic Development

The fiscal feasibility of City-County formation may rely on the potential for fut

development. Specifically, is the shortfall in funding for operations and capital able to be

sufficient additional revenues that can be achieved through economic development effor

address this, the following items are noted for further research:

• Conduct a market analysis on the potential for higher-value office and retail p

directly affecting property and sales tax revenue generation.• Determine the realistic transit-oriented development potential for higher-value

and retail opportunities.

• Determine the likely impacts of the Gaylord Development and future related

taking into account any City incentives or contributions.

• Determine realistic development opportunities due to annexation. What is t

nonresidential development and other revenue-generating development in pote

annexation?

• Assess the fiscal impacts of incentives. As a City-County, will the City’s current in

shift to tax abatements on property taxes (as opposed to sales taxes) and will t

beneficially in the short- and long-term?


Change in Revenue Structure



As noted earlier, with conversion to a City-County, the City will lose revenues they recfrom the Open Space Sales Tax Fund ($6 million) and the County Road and Bridge Shar

($2.4 million). To make up the lost revenues, the City-County would need to impleme

taxes.

Changes Due to Affordable Care Act

Effect on costs for public employees

For Fiscal Year 2014, the City of Aurora is beginning to implement the Affordable Care

budgeted impacts for City services and employees is conversion of approximately 5

benefitted FTEs across several funds with an overall operating impact of approximately $5

an operating budget (non-enterprise funds) of approximately $320 million, this is a neglig

percent.

Effect on costs to serve Jail population

Under the ACA, Detention staff will be obligated to determine inmate eligibility for Me

available through exchanges. While inmates may be able to be enrolled, their servic

covered while incarcerated due to federal restrictions. A number of issues have been id

National Association of Counties (NACO) related to this provision of service:10

• Establishing county jails as point of contact with newly eligible individuals.

• Expanding current staff capacity at jails to conduct screening and enrollment.

• Overcoming barriers related to jail environment and jail population characteris

turnover/short stays of jail population; changes in release dates (for Medicaid st

proper documentation; reluctance to enroll).

• Providing adequate information technology to perform these functions.

• Tracking and reporting changes to eligibility status: I.e., if found guilty, enrollee is

coverage through Medicaid or a health exchange and jail staff would be r

reporting this.




[Page intentionally left blank]


APPENDIX



The following Appendices are included:

Appendix A. Service and Facility Delivery Plan Assumptions [provided under separa

Appendix B. Revenue Projection Approach

Appendix C. Feasibility Study Parameters

Appendix D: Demographic and Land Use Projection Memo

Appendix E: Acknowledgments






APPENDIX A. SERVICE AND FACILITY DELIVER

ASSUMPTIONS



ASSUMPTIONS

Issued under separate cover.






APPENDIX B. REVENUE PROJECTION APPROACH



County revenues are modeled as part of this analysis. This includes property tax revenue arevenues that are received from a County-provided service (e.g., Clerk and Recorders fee

provides allocation methodologies for each county for the General Fund and Special Fund

General Fund Revenue

Arapahoe County

The following figures show a summary of Arapahoe County’s General Fund a

methodologies for the City-County analysis. Adjustments are made in the Feasibili

eliminate fund balances, transfers, and investment earnings.

Figure B1. Arapahoe County General Fund Revenue

FY 2013 [1] ARAPAHOE COUNTY Gross GF % of Type of Allocation

Dept. No. Department Revenues County Fund Revenue [2] Methodology


Taxes Administrative Services-Property Taxes $95,232,236 60% Countywide Assessed Value

Administrative Services-Specific Ownership Tax $6,450,000 4% Unincorp. Fixed

Licenses & Permits Administrative Services $775,000 0% Unincorp. Fixed

Clerk & Recorder's Office $2,930,700 2% Countywide Population

County Attorney $10,000 0% Unincorp. Fixed

Public Works & Development $947,185 1% Unincorp. Fixed

Sheriff's Office $5,771 0% Unincorp. Fixed

Intergovernmental Administrative Services $2,675,000 2% Unincorp. Fixed

Community Resources $2,400 0% Countywide Population

Public Works & Development $500 0% Unincorp. Fixed

Sheriff's Office $19,987,998 13% Unincorp. Fixed

Treasurer's Office $106,800 0% Countywide Parcels

Fees and Charges Assessor's Office $50,000 0% Countywide Parcels

Cl erk & Recorder's Office $7,312,105 5% Countywi de Custom (Aur. Avg % Clerk&Rec)

Community Resources $15,000 0% Countywide Population

Coroner's Office $8,350 0% Countywide Population

County Attorney $1,800 0% Countywide Fixed


Sheriff's Office $2,603,579 2% Countywide Custom

Treasurer's Office $6,220,140 4% Countywide Parcels

Fines and Penalties Clerk & Recorder's Office $168,000 0% Countywide Custom

Community Resources $428,000 0% Countywide Custom


Sheriff's Office $54,500 0% Countywide Custom

Investment Earnings Community Resources $2,500 0% Countywide Fixed

Treasurer's Office $2,300,500 1% Countywide Custom (Aur. % Prop Taxes)

Internal Charges Administrative Services $1,637,933 1% Overhead Overhead

Community Resources $492,962 0% Countywide Custom (Aur. Avg % CommRes)

Fa ci li ti es a nd Fl eet Ma na gement* $1,473,111 1% Overhea d Overhea d (Cus tom)

Information Technology $441,327 0% Overhead Overhead

Transfers Transfers $0 0% Countywide Fixed

Other Administrative Services $30,000 0% Unincorp. Fixed

Communications Services $4,450 0% Unincorp. Fixed

County Attorney $72,235 0% Unincorp. Fixed

District Attorney $350,000 0% Countywide Population

Finance $20,000 0% Countywide Fixed

Sheriff's Office $3,000 0% Unincorp. Fixed

F nd Balance F d B l $5 203 666 3% C t id C stom (A r % Prop Ta es)


Adams County

h f ll i fi h f d ’ l d d



The following figures show a summary of Adams County’s General Fund and propo

methodologies for the City-County analysis. Adjustments are made in the Feasibili

eliminate fund balances, transfers, and investment earnings.

Figure B2. Adams County General Fund RevenueFY 2013 [1]

ADAMS COUNTY Gross GF % of Type of Allocation

Dept. No. Department Revenues County Fund Revenue [2] Methodology F


Property Taxes Property Taxes $103,659,149 67% Countywide Assessed Value

Licenses & Permits Clerk & Recorder $12,236 0% Countywide Population

County Commissioners-Liquor Licenses $25,000 0% Unincorp. Fixed

Other-Licenses and Permits (Bldg Permits) $700,580 0% Unincorp. Fixed

Intergovernmental Facil ity Planning & Operations $33,550 0% Unincorp. Fixed

Finance & IT (Telecommunications) $307,000 0% Countywide Fixed

Neighborhood Services (A-Lift) $429,140 0% Unincorp. Fixed

Veterans Service Office $2,400 0% Countywide Population

District Attorney $1,581,331 1% Countywide Population

Emergency Management $103,330 0% Unincorp. Fixed

Sheriff-Corrections $105,000 0% Countywide Custom (Jail %)

Sheriff-Field and Admin $125,432 0% Countywide Custom

Community Corrections $5,937,419 4% Countywide Custom (Jail %)

Other-Intergovernmental $925,394 1% Unincorp. Fixed

Charges for Services Assessor's Office $67,500 0% Countywide Parcels

Clerk & Recorder $7,973,945 5% Countywide Custom (% Clerk&Rec)

Finance & IT $446,809 0% Countywide Overhead

Human Resources $359,823 0% Countywide Overhead

Planning & Dev $62,450 0% Unincorp. Fixed

Treasurer $2,523,050 2% Countywide Parcels

CSU Extension $62,866 0% Countywide Population

District Attorney $1,678,621 1% Countywide Population

County Attorney $1,540,320 1% Countywide Overhead

Parks & Comm Resources (Public Safety) $337,500 0% Unincorp. Fixed

Fair and Rodeo $353,700 0% Unincorp. Fixed

Publ ic Works (CIP) $1,294,455 1% Countywide Overhead

Coroner (Broomfield) $214,250 0% Unincorp. Fixed

Sheriff-Corrections $1,012,949 1% Countywide Custom (Jail %)

Sheri ff-Fi eld and Admin $1,410,880 1% Countywide Custom (% Sheriff Civil)

Sheriff-Special Fund $815,352 1% Countywide Custom (Jail %)

Neighborhood Services (Animal Shelter) $689,632 0% Unincorp. Fixed

Publ ic Trustee Fees $804,000 1% Countywide Parcels

Other-Charges for Services $105,763 0% Unincorp. Fixed

Fines and Forfeits Sheriff-Field and Admin $1,552,050 1% Unincorp. Fixed Interest and Investments I nterest a nd I nves tments $1,984,712 1% Countywi de Custom (Aur. % Pro p Taxes)

Miscellaneous County Commissioners $3,500 0% Unincorp. Fixed

Finance & IT $70,000 0% Unincorp. Fixed

Planning & Dev $2,500 0% Unincorp. Fixed

Treasurer $165,000 0% Unincorp. Fixed

Parks & Comm Resources (Culture and Rec) $45,000 0% Unincorp. Fixed

Publ ic Works (Code Enf) $5,500 0% Unincorp. Fixed

Sheriff-Corrections $1,760 0% Unincorp. Fixed

Sheriff-Field and Admin $5,000 0% Unincorp. Fixed

Sheriff-Special Fund $79,150 0% Unincorp. Fixed

Other - Misc $3,109,647 2% Unincorp. Fixed

Transfers Transfers $0 0% Unincorp. Fixed

Other Other Revenues $12,914,441 8% Unincorp. Fixed

Fund Balance Fund Balance Used $0 0 % Fixed

TOTAL GENERAL FUND $155,639,086 100%

[1] County adopted budget

[2] Service = Unincorporated, Countywide, Overhead, Internal Service


Special Revenue Funds



The following Special Revenue Funds are modeled with the allocation methodologies shthe City-County analysis.

Figure B3. Arapahoe and Adams Counties Special Fund Revenues

SOCIAL SERVICES FUND Aurora Revenue Generated in Each County

ArapCo AdamsCo DougCo Aurora Tota

Social Services Tax Rate $1.601 $2.353 $0.316

Property Taxes $3,788,518 $1,375,197 $1,580 $5,165,296

I ntergovernmental * $23,199,586 $6,247,912 $29,447,498

Fees and Charges $22,400 $22,400Others $224,000 $188,275 $412,275

$27,234,504 $7,811,384 $1,580 $35,047,468

* Excludes Food Assis tance and Old Age Pension benefit funding.

DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY FUND Aurora Revenue Generated in Each County


Dev. Disability Tax Rate $1.000 $0.257 $1.000

Property Taxes $2,366,345 $150,202 $5,001 $2,521,548

$2,366,345 $150,202 $5,001 $2,521,548

COMMUNITY RESOURCES (in Special Funds) Aurora Revenue Generated in Each County


Workforce Funds * Workforce: Intergovernmenta l $4,448,807 $890,537 $5,339,344

Workforce: Fees and Charges $25,850 $25,850

Workforce: Internal Charges $25,998 $25,998

Workforce: Others $3,572 $3,572

Grant Fund Grant Funds : Intergovernment $4,354,726 $4,354,726

Grant Funds: Fees and Charge $117,986 $117,986

$8,976,938 $890,537 $0 $9,867,476

* Arapahoe/Douglas Works! in Arapahoe and Douglas counties and Workforce & Business Center Fund in Adams County OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (in Special Funds) Aurora Revenue Generated in Each County


SHERIFF'S COMMISSARY Fees and Charges $595,240 $595,240

$595,240 $0 $0 $595,240






APPENDIX C. FEASIBILITY STUDY PARAMETERS



The following items are general assumptions for the City-County of Aurora Feasibility Studand for which direction was provided by Aurora City Council. This includes only applicable

the discussion.

Statement of General Assumptions

Nature of the Feasibility Study

Put simply, the Feasibility Study as being conducted now provides estimated costs to p

services and related facilities as well as the estimated revenue implications of the f

Consultant Team will not make a judgment as to whether the conversion is feasible or no

many criteria on which feasibility can be measured, reflecting both quantitative a

measures. The expectation is that Council will review the results of the Feasibility Stud

range of criteria, such as:




• Improved service delivery: This is more subjective and should be further defin

to determining feasibility as the study progresses.

• Other feasibility criteria as identified by City Council, which may include le

access to service and facilities, efficiencies in service provision, etc.

Future Growth

The Feasibility Study will use the latest City prepared projections for future population an

growth and State developed employment growth projections for the metro region

assumptions are articulated in this document


City government structure could be included in a constitutional amendment and then rat

charter amendment. It is assumed for this analysis that the City of Aurora would ret

council-manager form of government Service delivery costs are based on this assumption



council manager form of government. Service delivery costs are based on this assumption

Further, as a city-county, the City Council can perform the duties of a county commission

to delegate certain duties to boards and commissions appointed by the city council.

information on this topic, we provide language below from the Constitutional Amendme

City and County of Broomfield.

“ . . . On and after November 15, 2001, the terms of office of the mayor and city council of t

of Broomfield shall terminate with regard to the city of Broomfield and said mayor and city

shall become the mayor and city council of the city and county of Broomfield. The city counc

city and county of Broomfield, in addition to performing the duties prescribed in the city and

charter and ordinances, shall perform the duties of a board of county commissioners

delegate certain duties to various boards and commissions appointed by the city council of

and county of Broomfield.” 11

The fiscal analysis will model the costs and revenues available if the City were to formAurora. It is anticipated that up to twenty years’ worth of growth will be projected with

reflecting the development in the ground today. It is modeled to reflect the ongoing and

(such as capital facilities and assumption of outstanding debt service costs) to serve curr

growth. This analysis, at this phase of the study, does not model outreach costs that will b

to the election or certain transition or start-up costs in the initial years prior to “opening t

county such as training, costs associated with recruitment and hirin

communications/marketing efforts to the community on the change is service provider. Tbe above and beyond the costs modeled herein. Costs for marketing, campaigning, and tra

will depend heavily on the strategy and plan developed by the Aurora City Council in a foll

County formation is pursued. This process is likely to have many options and alternatives.

The analysis also assumes current City operations and facility needs continue to b

adequately serve current City demand as well as future City growth. In other words, new c

and revenue streams are considered independent of City operations and revenue souexception of current revenue sources (from counties to the City) that would be af

formation of the City-County of Aurora).


Key Parameters from Direction Provided by City Council

1 City Boundary/Annexation: The Feasibility Study assumes current City boundaries



1. City Boundary/Annexation: The Feasibility Study assumes current City boundaries


remains in the 18th Judicial District (Arapahoe, Douglas, Elbert, and Lincoln) and n

any portion of the jurisdiction remaining with the 17th Judicial District (Adams and

3. Levels of Service Options

As directed by City Council, the Feasibility Study, and the assumptions herein, usesof service provided by Adams and Arapahoe counties as the basis for the stud





evaluated.

4. New County Positions: Options for Service Delivery

Certain functions are required to be provided in a traditional county, namely

recorder; treasurer; sheriff; coroner; assessor; surveyor; and county commissione

In a city and county, the city council would perform the functions of a county c

described above). The other functions can be performed by elected officials

appointed by the city council or hired by the city manager. This organizational stbe determined by Constitutional amendment. Salaries of appointed positi


Based on direction from City Council, the Feasibility Study will assume the maxi

fiscal impact at this stage. That is, the study and quantitative analysis will assume

positions/operating impacts as the approach. Appendix B is a summary of positio

be provided by counties. Appendix C to this document includes a write-up of hoand County and Broomfield City and County address these positions, and the p

efficiencies.

Existing City departments and positions would be affected by County formation, s






APPENDIX D: DEMOGRAPHIC AND LAND USE PRO

MEMO





MEMORANDUM

TO: Robert Watkins, Director, Planning & Development Services

Karen Hancock, Planning Supervisor

CC: Michelle Wolfe, Deputy City Manager

Michael Lawson, Finance and Budget Program Administrator

City of Aurora, Colorado

FROM: Julie Herlands, AICP, Principal, and Stephanie Ball, Fiscal/Economic Analyst

TischlerBise

DATE: October 11, 2013 (revised from April 26, 2013)

RE: City-County Feasibility Study: DRAFT Technical Memo on Demographic and Assumptions (Tasks 1.3 and 1.4)

This memo provides discussion and detail on existing development and projections on future

City of Aurora for the City-County Feasibility Study. Demographic and land use assumptions

in portions of two tasks in the scope of work, Tasks 1.3 and 1.4. The relevant sections are r

for reference:

Task 1.3: Synthesis of Data and Definition of Parameters

Demographic Analysis. TischlerBise will conduct a thorough evaluation of

socioeconomic, and economic trends. From a residential perspective, this analysis w

indicators as changes in household size, age cohorts, minority population, chang

vehicle ownership, and commuting patterns. From a nonresidential perspective, th

such factors as changes in employment by sector, and trends in employment location

Task 1.4: Define Land Use and Service Delivery Scenarios

Future Demand for City/County Services. Another consideration is the develo

indicators for demand for services after City-County formation. To ensure the optim


CURRENT DEMOGRAPHICS AND LAND USE

Population: Figure 1 displays population by decade since the 1970s for the City of Auror



Aurora-Broomfield Metro Area, and the State of Colorado using data from the U.S. Censugrowth in the City of Aurora has slowed greatly since the 1970s. From 2000 to 2010, the

total of 18 percent as compared to previous decades when the lowest ten-year growt

percent. The ten-year percentage increase in of the last decade in Aurora is similar to t

growth seen in the Metro Area (16 percent) and Colorado (17 percent).

Figure D1: Population by Decade

The City of Aurora engaged Clarion Associates to estimate the 2012 population based o

data and recent information on certificates of occupancy, vacancy, and group quarte

population on April 1, 2012, was estimated to be 335,688 persons.12 The City of Auror

figure for April 1, 2013, to be 340,269. 13

Housing: The City of Aurora also estimated the number of housing units for April 1, 2013,

The breakdown by type of unit is shown in Figure 2.

Figure D2: Estimated Housing Units by Type as of April 1, 2013

The table below displays persons, housing units, and households (i.e., occupied units) obt

2011 A i C it S 1 ti t d th di

Year Aurora%

ChangeMetro Area

%Change Colorado

%Change

1970 74,974 1,238,273 2,207,259

1980 158,588 112% 1,618,461 31% 2,889,964 31%

1990 222,103 40% 1,848,319 14% 3,294,394 14%

2000 276,393 24% 2,400,570 30% 4,301,261 31%

2010 325,078 18% 2,784,228 16% 5,029,196 17%

Source: 2010 Cens us, U.S. Cens us Bureau and Who is Aurora? , City of Aurora Planning

& Develop ment Services Depa rtment, 2012

SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 70,867

MULTIFAMILY/ATTACHED 62,870

TOTAL UNITS 133,737


Figure D3: Person per Housing Unit and Household by Type

Type of Unit PersonsHousing

UnitsHouseholds

Persons Per

Housing Unit

Persons Per

Household



Since 2000, Aurora has increased by an average of 2,542 housing units per year. The ch

indicates the estimated number of housing units added by decade in Aurora.

Figure D4: Housing Units by Decade

Single Famil y1 223,309 77,151 73,575 2.89 3.04

MultiFamily/Other2

99,988 49,648 43,098 2.01 2.32

Mobile Homes 6,675 1,732 1,732 3.85 3.85

Total 329,972 128,531 116,673 2.57 2.83

1. Includes Si ngle Fa mily Detached a nd Single Family Attached.

2. Other include s boa ts, vans , and RVs.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2011 American Community Survey 1-Yr Estimates

2010 Peak Population1

325,078

2010 Housi ng Units1

131,040

Total Housing Units i n 20001 105,625New Housing Units 25,415

1 U S Census

From 2000 to 2010,

Aurora a dded an

average of 2,542housing units per

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

Before 1970 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

Housing Units Added by Decade in Aurora2


Jobs and Nonresidential Development

Figure 5 indicates the City of Aurora’s 2013 job estimate and nonresidential floor area, e

square feet per employee multipliers from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (I

fl “ l ” l j b l d i h Ci d k li i i



reflects “at-place” employment, or jobs located in the City—opposed to workers living iuse averages and prototype developments to estimate existing development in the City.

for commercial development is an average-size shopping center. For office deve

development prototype is an average-sized office, and industrial development

manufacturing. General land use types are based on two-digit industry sectors, with t

distribution of jobs in the City of Aurora by type of development from U.S. Ce

“OnTheMap” web application (based on 2011 data, which is the latest available).

Figure D5: Jobs and Nonresidential Development by Type, 2013

IMPORTANT TRENDS

The following is a summary of trends identified and evaluated through local sources includ

Aurora? , written by the City of Aurora Planning and Development Services Department, th

Regional Council of Governments, and Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation

research from the U.S. Census and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These trends will inform

use and service delivery scenarios for Task 1.4 of the Feasibility Study.

1. Population Growth and In-Migration: From 2000 to 2010, Colorado grew by mor

people and experienced an annual average growth rate of 1.7 percent, compared

annual average growth rate of 1 percent. The population of Colorado is expected t

grow at a rate of 1.6 percent or 80,000 persons a year, for the next few years. This

primarily due to net in-migration, which accounted for 50 percent of Colorado’s p

2010 2011 2013 Sq Ft per

Jobs [1] Jobs [1] Jobs[2] Job (2) Floor Area

Retail 27,408 27,764 25% 28,680 500 14,340,000

Office 48,091 52,947 48% 54,651 300 16,395,300

Industrial 16,073 17,672 16% 18,211 558 10,161,738

Institutional 11,448 12,787 12% 13,215 500 6,607,500

TOTAL 103,020 111,170 100.0% 114,757 47,504,538

[1] OnTheMap web application, U.S. Census Bureau.

[2] TischlerBi se estimate; Census shares by type and County reflected.

[3] Trip Generat ion, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012.


Colorado, revealing that population growth in the city is driven primarily by immig

Hispanic/ Latino population is the fastest growing ethnic population, concentrated

Aurora. The chart below shows that Hispanic/Latino population has grown from 20

29 percent of the total Aurora population between 2000 and 2010. Of the increas



persons in Aurora from 2000 and 2010, 79.1 percent were Hispanic/Latino. 16

Figur

reveals a growing Black and Asian population and a declining share of the White/N

population.

Figure D6: Change in Percent of Aurora Population by Race, 2000 - 2010

Additionally, the share of the population that is foreign born in Aurora has grown f

percent to 22 percent from 2000 to 2010.

Figure D7: Percent of Aurora Population that is Foreign Born

Because in-migration is a major driver of population growth, it is important to con

will impact land use if it slows, remains constant, or rises. The City of Aurora repor

migration is expected to slow somewhat due to the recession but should return in

years.17

Race and Ethnicity 2000 2010 2000 2010

White/ Non Hispanic 163,599 153,715 59.20% 47.30%Black 37,104 51,196 13.40% 15.70%

Asian 12,066 16,086 4.40% 4.90%

Hispanic (any race) 54,764 93,263 19.80% 28.70%

Other 8,860 10,818 3.20% 3.40%

Total 276,393 325,078 100.00% 100.00%

Source: U.S. Census , SF1 2000 and 2010.

Population Population as Percent

Total

Population Europe Asia Africa Oceania

Latin

America

Northern

America

Total

B

2000 275,936 5,628 9,288 2,010 185 26,920 656 44

2010 326,719 4,256 14,075 6,989 302 45,593 938 72Source: U.S. Censu s Bu reau, 2000 and 2010 American Communi ty Survey


2. Generation Y and Baby Boomers: Aurora has a young population compared to

Colorado as a whole. As displayed in Figure 8, Aurora has a lower median age tha

nation. The City has the largest percent of its population in the under 14 and

groups, and the lowest share in the 50 to 64 and 65 and up age groups.



Figure D8: Population by Age Group

The age group identified as Generation Y, which is roughly the 14 to 34 set

certain development trends, including urban and mixed use environments. Curr

fueling a large demand for apartments and transit- and multi-modal-accessible Additionally, the baby boomer generation, which is characterized by those aged

demand similar types of development. As this population ages, low densi

development may isolate them from services and other opportunities, and it is

many will prefer to live in walkable urbanized areas served by transit. Addit

nesters may choose to downsize to smaller homes or apartments. Because

described above, land use scenarios involving dense development and apartm

neighborhoods, and increased transit should be considered.

3. Persons per Household and Housing Unit: The figure below shows how Aurora’s

(i.e., number of persons per household) has increased from 2000 to 2010. This s

average family size has increased. Aurora has one of the highest household sizes

along with Thornton and Highlands Ranch. Denver has the smallest average house

Figure D9: Change in Persons per Household, 2000 to 2010

Aurora Colorado US Aurora Colorado

Under 14 75,292 1,025,217 61,227,213 23% 20%

14 to 34 96,417 1,414,368 84,690,290 30% 28%

35 to 49 69,514 1,071,279 63,779,197 21% 21%

50 to 64 54,792 968,707 58,780,854 17% 19%

65 and up 29,063 549,625 40,267,984 9% 11%

Total 325,078 5,029,196 308,745,538 100% 100%

Median Age 33.2 36.1 37.2

Source: 2010 Census .

2010 Population Population as Perc

2000 2010

Population 276,393 325,078


Additionally, the share of one-person households has been increasing in Aurora

over the past decades. This can be attributed to the aging population and the

population who are putting off having children.19



4. Low Income Population and Poverty: Income levels relative to peer cities

Metropolitan area have been declining since the 1980s, and Aurora currently h

lowest household income in the region. Additionally, the poverty level has been i

the 1990s. Figure D10 shows the median and mean household incomes of Auror

to peer cities and Colorado as a whole, as well as the percent of the populat

poverty level. Aurora has the lowest mean household income, and the second

household income and percent below poverty level. Aurora also has lower

Colorado in general.

Figure D10: Income and Poverty Level of Peer Cities and Colorado, 2011

The fact that Aurora has low income levels relative to other cities in the region co

city staff about the long-term economic prospects and competitiveness of the cit

Who is Aurora? , the census tracts to north and south of Colfax Avenue and the

west of I-225 have the highest percentage of persons living below the povert

income and high poverty levels may lead to increased demands for social particular implications for county formation and the resulting services to be provid

Median

HH Income

Mean HH

Income

% Below

Poverty

Highlands Ranch $100,593 $116,615 4.5%

Centenni al $80,288 $101,114 6.5%Arvada $65,063 $78,667 10.7%

Thornton $62,144 $73,398 11.0%

Wes tmi ns ter $61,503 $73,705 10.2%

Lakewood $53,210 $67,068 11.8%

Aurora $49,593 $62,401 16.0%

Denver $47,371 $71,488 18.4%

CO $55,387 $74,852 13.5%

Source: 2011 ACS 1-Yr Estimates.


5. Loss of Population in NW Aurora: The Aurora Planning and Development Service

found a substantial loss of population in Northwest Aurora after examining 2010

From 2000-2010, Aurora grew by 17.6 percent, but the nine census tracts in

portions of the City declined by 11.26 percent. City staff identified the following r

l



loss:

• Persons per household fell in many of these tracts, in contrast to the city o

• Vacancy rates increased in all nine tracts.

• The population in older cohorts increased or stayed the same, wherea

groups dropped, showing that young adults moved out in large numbers.

• Many of the tracts experienced “White Flight.”

Aurora staff concluded that the Hispanic population growth rate slowed somew

children of new immigrants that came of age in 2000s started to leave the area

economy. Additionally, the area may be in a “pre-gentrification stage,” which m

are buying residential properties in expectation of eventual higher property value

6. Economy and Employment: There is reason to believe Aurora will see increa

growth and employment in the future. As shown in Figure D11, the unemploy

been decreasing over the past few years. Additionally, the area has seen impro

confidence, company expansions, and increased employment.21

Figure D11: Unemployment Rate in Denver-Bloomfield-Aurora Area

Compared to peer cities, Aurora has the highest share of persons working in th

industry, which was one of the industries most negatively affected by the recess

the Denver MSA housing market has shown signs of recovery. Rental vacan

dropped to their lowest levels in more than a decade in some markets. 22 Addit

has potential for both residential and nonresidential development along the E-47

infill development opportunities along the I-255 corridor. The FasTracks passen

system is under construction, and will increase the number of stations by 8. 23

2/1/2011 2/1/2012 2/1/2013

9.0 8.2 7.4

Source: BLS.


7. Transportation and Commuting: The figure below shows the commuting habits

Aurora for 2000 and 2011. This shows a 1.6 percent increase in the share of perso

transportation to commute to work.

Figure D12: Commuting Habits in Aurora



Figure D12: Commuting Habits in Aurora

The U.S. Census “OnTheMap” web application reveals that of the 103,020 job

2010, 25 percent were occupied by Aurora residents and 75 percent were occupie

of other cities (in-commuters). This is a change since 2002 when 31 percent of Auheld by Aurora citizens and 69 percent were held by residents of other cities.

Aurora currently has two rail transit stations, and the I-225 rail line is cu

construction. This 10.5 mile line will travel through Aurora and connect the exis

Station with the future Peoria/Smith station and include 8 stations, providing op

transit-oriented development, infill development, and more options for co

accessing services and recreation in the region.24

The City of Aurora stations completion by 2016.

Persons % of Total Persons % of Total

Drove Alone 109,047 76.7% 119,457 76.4%

Carpooled 19,754 13.9% 17,952 11.5%

Public Transportation 5,900 4.2% 9,138 5.8%

Walked 1,988 1.4% 2,694 1.7%

Other 1,117 0.8% 1,927 1.2%

Worked from Home 4,330 3.0% 5,230 3.3%

Total Workers 142,136 100% 156,398 100%

Source: 2000 and 2011 ACS 1-Yea r Esti mate s, D P03.

2000 2011


POTENTIAL SERVICE DELIVERY/GROWTH SCENARIO

Population: The population estimates shown in Figure D13 were developed by the City o

on county projections made by the Colorado State Demographer’s Office and the

population estimate. City-level population projections are not developed by the Sta



p p y p p p j p yentities. Adams County and Arapahoe projections are also shown and are from the Stat

Office.

Aurora is expected to grow at a rate between 1.7 and 1.8 percent through 2025 and slow

growth from 2025-2030. It should be noted that the City population projections show

assume annexation. Adams County is expected to experience a higher rate of growth of 2

slow to 1.9 percent in 2020. Arapahoe is expected to grow at a slower rate than Adams Co

Figure D13: Aurora Population Growth

2010 2011 2012* 2013** 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030

City of Aurora 325,078 330,765 335,688 340,269 346,224 352,283 386,097 419,637 450,5

Adams County 443,711 451,576 459,598 467,763 475,846 484,186 527,858 576,500 621,2

Arapahoe County 574,819 584,703 595,546 605,670 612,152 620,974 667,037 715,869 762,2

Estimates

* City official population estimate (April 1, 2012), McBride Dale Clarion; Counties from US Census

** City population estimate (April 1, 2013), City of Aurora; Counties estimated based on previous year growth rates

Source: City of Aurora from City of Aurora s taff. Counties by Colora do State D emography Office, 2012.

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000Population Growth

City of Aurora Adams County Arapahoe County


Housing Units: The current distribution of housing unit types is 51 percent single family

percent single family attached, 37 percent multifamily, and 2 percent mobile homes

above). In recent years, the share of multifamily units of new units constructed is closer to

the total built, with an exception in 2011 when the majority (94 percent) was single fam

of occupancy data by year is shown below



of occupancy data by year is shown below.

Figure D14. Aurora Housing Unit Distribution by Type

For the Feasibility Study, future growth projection includes housing type assumption

recent trends in new housing unit construction in the City. Figure D15 shows totals and w

by type of unit from the past 3 years and 4 years. Because of the higher proportion of sing

in 2011, the share using only 3 years’ worth of data is more heavily weighted to single fam

Figure D15. Recent Aurora Housing Unit Distribution by Type to Project Future Growth

Single Family Multifamily Total SF % MF %

4-Year Totals

(2009-2012) 2,280 2,183 4,463 51% 49%

3 Year Totals


Employment: Employment projections for the City of Aurora are shown below, assuming

growth rate of 1.6 percent, based on projections for the Denver MSA made by the C

Demography Office.

Figure D16: Aurora Projected Job Growth



g j J

Other employment projections for Aurora have been developed by other entities such as

Economic Development Corporation and Denver Regional Council of Governments (D

Denver assumes a similar future employment growth rate of 1.7 percent. DRCOG’s project

higher than the State’s projections for the MSA. A brief summary is shown below for ref

projections appear to be aggressive.

Figure D17. DRCOG Job Projections

The assumption for future job growth in Aurora is a growth rate of 1.6 percent annually.

2010 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030

City of Aurora (SDO ra te)1 103,020 104,717 111,789 121,305 131,631 142,83

Denver MSA (SDO)2 1,618,297 1,644,955 1,783,406 1,974,492 2,114,447 2,243,74

1. Aurora 2010 ba sed on OntheMap, U.S. Census Bureau web application. Growth rate of 1.6% based on Denver MSA rate f

Dem ography Office.

2. CO State Demography Office Projections.

2010* 2035

Exponential Growth

Rate

Ci ty of Aurora (DRCOG) 104,421 283,899 4.1%

Denver MSA (DRCOG) 1,354,865 2,575,941 2.6%

*QCEW 2009, 2nd quarter

Source: DRCOG, "Aurora Community Profile," 2011.


Summary: The following displays a summary of projections based on the current

projections discussed in this memo. Several assumptions are noted:

• Housing unit growth is a split of 50 percent single family and 50 percent multifa

units.



• Household size is assumed to increase over time based on trends from 2000 to 20

• Job projections are based on the Colorado Demography Office MSA project

distribution by type (i.e., commercial/retail, office, industrial) based on current pe

Figure D18: Summary of Demographic Projections

As service delivery assumptions continue to be refined for the City-County Feasibility Stu

on analyses, the demographic characteristics discussed above will be used to determine s

and capital infrastructure implications.

Five-Year increments

Base Year 1 2 3 4 5 10 15

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2023 2028 2

Cumulative Base Yr 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 16

Year-Round Population* 335,688 340,269 346,224 352,283 358,800 365,438 372,198 405,885 437,898 4

Jobs 112,949 114,757 116,592 118,457 120,353 122,278 124,235 134,497 145,606 1

Hous ing Uni ts 1 33 ,047 13 3,7 37 1 34 ,96 9 1 37 ,12 5 1 39 ,45 3 1 41,8 20 1 44 ,22 7 1 56,1 06 167 ,16 1 1

SF 70,867 71,483 72,561 73,725 74,908 76,112 82,052 87,579

Attd/MF 62,870 63,486 64,564 65,728 66,911 68,115 74,055 79,582

Nonres Sq Ft in 1,000s (KSF)

Commercial 14,119 14,340 14,569 14,802 15,039 15,280 15,524 16,807 18,195

Office 16,129 1 6,395 16,658 16,924 17,195 17,470 17,750 19,216 20,803 Industrial 10,021 10,162 10,324 10,490 10,657 10,828 11,001 11,910 12,893

Institutional 6,495 6,608 6,713 6,820 6,930 7,041 7,153 7,744 8,384

Total 46,764 4 7,505 4 8,264 49,036 49,821 5 0,619 5 1,428 5 5,677 6 0,275

Avg Sq Ft Per Job 414 414 414 414 414 414 414 414 414

Annual Increases 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 22-23 27-28 3

Population 4,581 5,955 6,059 6,517 6,638 6,761 6,706 6,174 6

Jobs 1,808 1,835 1,865 1,895 1,926 1,956 2,118 2,293 2

Housing Units 690 1,232 2,156 2,328 2,367 2,407 2,349 2,110 2

TOTAL Nonres KSF 741 759 772 785 798 809 878 950 1

* Includes group quarters population


APPENDIX E: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Consultant Team acknowledges and greatly appreciates the following individuals for

assistance with this study. However, it is noted here that the analysis and findings arConsultant Team unless otherwise specified



Consultant Team, unless otherwise specified.

County or City Office/Department Name of Contact Title

Arapahoe County Board of County Commissioners Nancy Doty County Commissioner, Ch

Arapahoe County Board of County Commissioners Nancy N. Sharpe County Commissioner, Di

Arapahoe County Board of County Commissioners Rod Bockenfeld County Commissioner, Dis

Arapahoe County Board of County Commissioners Nancy Jackson County Commissioner, Di

Arapahoe County Board of County Commissioners Bill L. Holen County Commissioner, Pr

Arapahoe County Assessor's Office Corbin Sakdol AssessorArapahoe County Assessor's Office Monica Babbitt Deputy Assessor Administ

Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder's Office Matt Crane Clerk and Recorder

Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder's Office Mary C. Whitley Deputy Clerk and Recorde

Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office J. Grayson Robinson Sheriff

Arapahoe County Treasurer's Office Sue Sandstrom Treasurer

Arapahoe County Board of County Commissioners Administration Dept. Lori Bosanko BOCC Administration Man

Arapahoe County Community Resources Department Don Klemme Director

Arapahoe County Finance Department Janet Kennedy Director

Arapahoe County Finance Department Todd Weaver Budget Manager

Arapahoe County Finance Department Steven R. Oliver Accounting Manager

Arapahoe County Human Services Department Cheryl Ternes DirectorArapahoe County Human Services Department Kevin McNeal Finance Division Manager

Arapahoe County Human Services Department Jessica Gapuzan Performance Managemen

Arapahoe County Open Spaces & Intergovernmental Relations Shannon Carter Director

Adams County Office of the County Manager Todd Leopold County Manager

Adams County Assessor's Office Gil Reyes Assessor

Adams County Clerk and Recorder's Office Karen Long Clerk and Recorder

Adams County Clerk and Recorder's Office Norma Burkhart Elections Administrator

Adams County Clerk and Recorder's Office Linda Bishop Motor Vehicle Manager

Adams County Clerk and Recorder's Office Sadie Lyons Recording Manager

Adams County Sheriff's Office Douglas N. Darr Sheriff

Adams County Treasurer's Office Brigitte Grimm Treasurer

Adams County Finance Department Rich Lemke Director

Adams County Finance Department Ben Dahlman Assistant Director

Adams County Human Services Department Chris Kline Director

Adams County Human Services Department Brian P. KennaDeputy Director, Operatio

and Support Services

Adams County Neighborhood Services Department Raymond H. Gonzales Director

Douglas County County Administration Barbara J. Drake Deputy County Manager

Douglas County County Administration Maureen Waller^ Project Manager

Douglas County Assessor's Office Teri Cox Assessor

Douglas County Clerk and Recorder's Office Sheri Davis Elections ManagerDouglas County Clerk and Recorder's Office Marsha Faulk Motor Vehicle Manager

Douglas County Sheriff's Office Capt. Robert McMahan Support Services Division

Douglas County Treasurer's Office Diane Holbert Treasurer

City of Aurora City Council Steve Hogan Mayor

City of Aurora City Council Sally Mounier Council Member Ward I


City of Aurora City Manager's Office George "Skip" Noe City Manager

Ci ty of Aurora Ci ty Manage r's Of fi ce Mi che ll e Wol fe * De puty City Manage r, Adm

City of Aurora City Manager's Office Roberto Venegas* Assistant City Manager

Ci ty of Aurora Ci ty Manage r's Of fi ce Mi chae l Lawson* Fi nance and Budge t ProgrCity of Aurora Court Administration Zelda M. DeBoyes* Court Administrator



City of Aurora Judicial Department Richard Weinberg Presiding Judge

City of Aurora City Attorney's Office Michael Hyman* Deputy City Attorney

City of Aurora Planning and Development Services Department Robert Watkins Director

City of Aurora Planning and Development Services Department Karen Hancock* Planning Supervisor

City of Aurora Police Department Daniel Oates Chief of Police

City of Aurora Police Department Terry Jones Deputy Chief of Police

City of Aurora Finance Department Jason Batchelor Director

City of Aurora Finance Department Terri Velasquez* Deputy Director

City of Aurora Finance Department Greg Hays Finance and Budget Progr

City of Aurora Finance Department Trevor Vaughn Finance and Budget Progr

City of Aurora Finance Department Jackie Ehmann Finance and Budget Progr

City of Aurora Finance Department Mathew Wasserburger Management Analyst II

City of Aurora Finance Department Alyson Noble Management Analyst II

City of Aurora Finance Department Kerstin Claspell Management Analyst I

City of Aurora Finance Department Mike Kalush Management Analyst I

^ Provided coordination with offices and departments within Douglas County

* Denotes member of City-County Feasibil ity Study P roject Management Team

City of Aurora, Colorado DRAFT Service and Facility Delivery Plan Assumptions: City-



APPENDIX A: SERVICE & FA

DELIVERY PLAN ASSUMPT

FORMATION OF CITY-COUNTY OF A

City of Aurora,

February

With

City of Aurora, Colorado Appendix A. Service & Facility Delivery Plan Assumptions: City

This report is provided to the City of Aurora, Colorado, as part of the TischlerBise T

work scope for a Feasibility Study for Formation of City and County of Aurora.



TischlerBise

4701 Sangamore Road

Suite S240

Bethesda, Maryland 20816

800.424.4318

www.tischlerbise.com


Contents

Statement of General Assumptions ...............................................................................

Key Parameters from Direction Provided by City Council .................................................

Level of Service Assumptions .........................................................................................Existing Demand Base and Growth Projections ..................................................................



Overview .......................................................................................................................

Aurora Share of Counties ....................................................................................................

Assessor ........................................................................................................................

Fiscal Impact Approach ........................................................................................................

Facility Needs .......................................................................................................................

Treasurer .......................................................................................................................Fiscal Impact Approach ........................................................................................................

Facility Needs .......................................................................................................................

Clerk and Recorder.........................................................................................................

Elections ...............................................................................................................................

Recording .............................................................................................................................

Motor Vehicles ....................................................................................................................

Fiscal Impact Approach ........................................................................................................Facility Needs .......................................................................................................................

Coroner .........................................................................................................................


Facility Needs .......................................................................................................................

District Attorney and Courts ...........................................................................................

District Attorney ..................................................................................................................

Facility Needs .......................................................................................................................Courts ...................................................................................................................................

Existing County Court Facilities .......................................................................................

Facility Needs: Courts to Serve City-County of Aurora ........................................................

Probation .............................................................................................................................

Court Security ......................................................................................................................

Court System: Issues to Consider ........................................................................................

Sheriff ...........................................................................................................................Detention/Corrections .........................................................................................................

Civil Processing ....................................................................................................................

Other Duties ........................................................................................................................


Other Sheriff Facility Needs ............................................................................................

Community Corrections .......................................................................................................

Human Services .............................................................................................................

Funding Sources for Human Services ..................................................................................

Current County Operations .................................................................................................

Fiscal Impact Approach




Considerations .................................................................................................................

Facility and Technology Needs ............................................................................................

Community Resources .........................................................................................................

Facility Needs: Community Resources ................................................................................

Developmental Disability Funds ..........................................................................................

Other Services and Costs ................................................................................................

Public Health / Tri-County Health ........................................................................................

Facility Needs .......................................................................................................................

Surveyor ...............................................................................................................................

Public Trustee ......................................................................................................................

Overhead/Supporting Costs ................................................................................................

Facility Needs .......................................................................................................................

Arapahoe County Debt ....................................................................................................

Adams County Debt ........................................................................................................

Existing County Facilities .................................................................................................

APPENDIX A: COUNTY BUDGET EXPENDITURE DETAIL AND METHODOLOGIES .................

APPENDIX B: REQUIRED COUNTY POSITIONS ..................................................................

Introduction .........................................................................................................................

Assessor ...............................................................................................................................

Clerk and Recorder ..............................................................................................................

Coroner ................................................................................................................................

Sheriff ...................................................................................................................................

Surveyor ...............................................................................................................................

Treasurer ..............................................................................................................................

APPENDIX C: COUNTY OFFICIALS IN CONSOLIDATED CITY-COUNTIES ...............................

City and County of Denver ...................................................................................................

City and County of Broomfield ............................................................................................

Appendix D: Approach to Determine Remaining Payments on Adams County Facilities ...



MEMORANDUM

TO: Michelle Wolfe, Deputy City Manager

Michael Lawson, Finance and Budget Program Administrator

City of Aurora, Colorado

FROM: Carson Bise, AICP, President

Julie Herlands, AICP, Principal

TischlerBise

DATE: February 10, 2014 (updated from October 16, 2013)

SUBJECT: City-County Feasibility Study: Plans for Service and Facility Delivery

This report outlines key assumptions and initial costs estimates for the City-County Fea

Estimates are provided for service and facility needs if the City of Aurora were to beco

Included in this report are the parameters discussed and agreed upon at the City Counc

Session on April 29, 2013, which serve to guide aspects of the Feasibility Study. Two key

the study are:

• Identify the maximum costs for services and facilities associated with County fo

is, the study assumes new separate positions/operating impacts and facility need

County service.

• Assume current levels of service as provided to Aurora by the Counties toda

Arapahoe and Adams Counties.

Given the complexity of the endeavor, items below in this first section of the report are

framework to guide the Feasibility Study. The parameters outlined herein do not imp

support of the individual assumptions or overall concepts at this stage, only that they a

F ibilit St d Th li d i i i h t i th ti f S i


ASSUMPTIONS AND PARAMETERS

The following items are general assumptions for the City-County of Aurora Feasibility Stud

and for which direction was provided by Aurora City Council. This includes only applicable

the discussion.



STATEMENT OF GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS

Nature of the Feasibility Study

Put simply, the Feasibility Study as being conducted now provides estimated costs to p

services and related facilities as well as the estimated revenue implications of the f

Consultant Team will not make a judgment as to whether the conversion is feasible or no

many criteria on which feasibility can be measured, reflecting both quantitative a

measures. The expectation is that Council will review the results of the Feasibility Stud

range of criteria, such as:




• Improved service delivery: This is more subjective and should be further definto determining feasibility as the study progresses.

• Other feasibility criteria as identified by City Council, which may include le

access to service and facilities, efficiencies in service provision, etc.

Future Growth

The Feasibility Study will use the latest City prepared projections for future population an

th d St t d l d l t th j ti f th t i


City government structure could be included in a constitutional amendment and then rat

charter amendment. It is assumed for this analysis that the City of Aurora would ret

council-manager form of government. Service delivery costs are based on this assumption

Further, as a city-county, the City Council can perform the duties of a county commission

to delegate certain duties to boards and commissions appointed by the city council.



g pp y y

information on this topic, we provide language below from the Constitutional Amendme

City and County of Broomfield.

“ . . . On and after November 15, 2001, the terms of office of the mayor and city council of t

of Broomfield shall terminate with regard to the city of Broomfield and said mayor and city

shall become the mayor and city council of the city and county of Broomfield. The city counc

city and county of Broomfield, in addition to performing the duties prescribed in the city and

charter and ordinances, shall perform the duties of a board of county commissioners

delegate certain duties to various boards and commissions appointed by the city council of

and county of Broomfield.” 1

The fiscal analysis will model the costs and revenues available if the City were to form

Aurora. It is anticipated that up to twenty years’ worth of growth will be projected withreflecting the development in the ground today. It is modeled to reflect the ongoing and

(such as capital facilities and assumption of outstanding debt service costs) to serve curr

growth. This analysis, at this phase of the study, does not model outreach costs that will b

to the election or certain transition or start-up costs in the initial years prior to “opening t

county such as training, costs associated with recruitment and hirin

communications/marketing efforts to the community on the change is service provider. T

be above and beyond the costs modeled herein. Costs for marketing, campaigning, and trawill depend heavily on the strategy and plan developed by the Aurora City Council in a foll

County formation is pursued. This process is likely to have many options and alternatives.

The analysis also assumes current City operations and facility needs continue to b

adequately serve current City demand as well as future City growth. In other words, new c

and revenue streams are considered independent of City operations and revenue sou

exception of current revenue sources (from counties to the City) that would be afformation of the City-County of Aurora).


KEY PARAMETERS FROM DIRECTION PROVIDED

COUNCIL

1. City Boundary/Annexation: The Feasibility Study assumes current City boundaries




remains in the 18th Judicial District (Arapahoe, Douglas, Elbert, and Lincoln) and n

any portion of the jurisdiction remaining with the 17th Judicial District (Adams and

3. Levels of Service Options

As directed by City Council, the Feasibility Study, and the assumptions herein, uses

of service provided by Adams and Arapahoe counties as the basis for the stud





evaluated.

4. New County Positions: Options for Service Delivery

Certain functions are required to be provided in a traditional county, namely

recorder; treasurer; sheriff; coroner; assessor; surveyor; and county commissione

In a city and county, the city council would perform the functions of a county cdescribed above). The other functions can be performed by elected officials

appointed by the city council or hired by the city manager. This organizational st

be determined by Constitutional amendment. Salaries of appointed positi


Based on direction from City Council, the Feasibility Study will assume the maxi

fiscal impact at this stage. That is, the study and quantitative analysis will assumepositions/operating impacts as the approach. Appendix B is a summary of positio

be provided by counties. Appendix C to this document includes a write-up of ho

and County and Broomfield City and County address these positions and the p


LEVEL OF SERVICE ASSUMPTIONS

Where possible, the analysis attempts to quantify the level of demand for services and

starting point is to determine current levels of service by each County (emphasizinArapahoe as this represents practically all of the current demand from the City of Aurora)

f i fl d i b d Thi i f i i d i h



of service are reflected in current county budgets. This information is augmented with m

information from departments, where relevant and where obtained. This information i

allocate costs to reflect county services provided in the City of Aurora, and therefore the

for provisions of County services by Aurora. This baseline information will then be used to

needs, which are anticipated to be included in the Feasibility Study report.

Existing Demand Base and Growth Projections

Given current City of Aurora boundaries, the City is projected to grow from a

approximately 340,000 to 470,000 over the next 20 years. The 20-year projected pop

essentially the same as Adams County today. A summary is provided in Figure 1.


2013 2033

Population 340,269 470,116

Housing Units 133,737 178,120

Jobs 114,757 157,634Nonresidential (1,000 Sq. Ft. ) 47,505 65,253



COUNTY SERVICE AND FACILITY NEED

ANALYSIS



OVERVIEW

Service and facility delivery assumptions for the City-County Feasibility Study are ou

document. This document is not meant to be a staffing plan or a detailed space needs stuintent is to identify the initial estimated costs—which in some cases includes a range of co

maximum potential costs, as directed by the Aurora City Council. The following app

wherever possible:

• Countywide functions are identified and extracted from County departmental bud

• The service analysis includes General Fund services as well as services accounted

Funds where those services are provided Countywide (e.g., Social Service

components of General Fund services.

• Discussions with County service providers occurred over the course of this s

consulted with State offices and other counties where appropriate to cross-check

• To derive cost factors, Arapahoe and Adams counties are used. The factors are

determine baseline costs to serve a City-County of Aurora, which accounts for the

all counties (that is, expanding the base to include the portion of the City in Dougla

• Overhead/support costs are included both within new County service expenditureadministrative costs are included in Sheriff cost estimates and are derived based

administration/overhead expenses of the direct Sheriff expenditures provided

separate service and cost estimate is provided for County-ser

administration/overhead (ultimately reflecting additional effort by existing City

(e.g., City Attorney’s office).

• Costs and staffing estimates are not adjusted at this phase of the analysis. Fo

derive estimated staffing needs for Aurora City-County based on FTE counts applicable share, but do not adjust downward for potential staffing efficienci

business practices, pay scales or vice versa. We assume that salary levels are com

the City of Aurora and Arapahoe and Adams counties for this phase of the feasi


The following required County services are discussed in this document:

1. Assessor

2. Treasurer

3. Clerk and Recorder

4. Coroner



5. District Attorney

6. Courts

7. Sheriff

8. Human Services (includes additional services labeled “Community Resources”)

9. Tri-County Health / Public Health

10. Surveyor

11. Overhead/Support (not captured within direct services)

Aurora Share of Counties

As noted elsewhere, the approach to analyze the fiscal impact of the formation of the

Aurora is to use demand factors to allocate current County costs for services and facilitie

factors (e.g., population, caseload) vary depending on the type of service being e

narratives on County services in this chapter identify the relevant specific demand fact

service and the allocation to Aurora, which is then used to estimate current costs and spac

The following figure summarizes the share of each County in Aurora. Where appropriate

are used to allocate operating costs and facility needs in the analysis as the baseline fig

cases, detailed caseload data is used and is discussed where applicable.


Figure 2. Aurora Share of Each County

ARAPAHOE COUNTY ADAMS COUNTY DOUGLAS COUNTY

Base Year 2013 %s %s

To tal Co un ty A uro ra P ortion A urora Tota l Co unty A uro ra Po rtio n A uro ra To tal Co un ty A uro ra Po rtio n A

Property Valuation[1] $7,327,973,674 $2,366,344,788 32% $4,524,126,060 $584,444,180 13% $4,559,179,000 $5,001,200

Population [2] 602,868 291,946 48% 467,697 47,989 10% 295,689 334 0

Jobs [3] 293,057 83,773 29% 168,722 30,984 18% 94,479 0 0

Pop and Jobs 895,925 375,719 42% 636,419 78,973 12% 390,168 334 0

Parcels [4] 223,249 104,738 47% 176,783 13,564 8% na 118

Voters [5] 373,755 170,718 46% 253,527 17,391 7% 216,461 216 0



The remaining sections of this chapter discuss the new County services and functions tha

of Aurora would perform. In addition, the effect on existing City departments and facilitie

in this report under the heading “Overhead/Support.” We discuss both operating co

estimated space needs. A summary of annual operating costs and estimated one-time

expenditures by service area is provided below. It should be noted that the one-time

costs will be annualized in the fiscal feasibility analysis.

[ ]

Vehicles [6] 404,329 178,087 44% 292,945 29,273 10% 285,000 295 0

Arapahoe Sources:

[1] Net assessed value (gross less TIF District]. Arapahoe County FY2013 Budget; Aurora Certified Value Final 2012



[4] Real and personal property. Arapahoe County Assessor, 2013 (not certified)

[5] Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder


Adams Sources:

[1] Net assessed value (gross less TIF District]. Adams County Assessor



[4] All real and personal property; oil and gas, minerals, and state assessed. Adams County Assessor, 2013 (not certified)

[5] Adams County Clerk and Recorder


Douglas Sources:

[1] Net assessed value estimate; Douglas County Assessor report

[2] City estimate for 2013 from City of Aurora; Douglas County from Douglas County FY2013 Adopted Budget

[3] US Census, OnTheMap Web Application[4] TischlerBise estimate




Figure 3. Summary of City-County of Aurora Service and Facility Needs

Aurora Estd.

Annual Oper. # of Estd Personnel Facility Facility County

Costs ($) FTEs Costs ($) Space (SF) [1] Cost ($) Outstanding Deb

Assessor $2,664,000 33.0 $2,475,000 11,300 $2,260,000 Yes-Adams Co.

Treasurer $1,066,000 11.0 $825,000 4,000 $800,000 Yes-Adams Co.

Clerk and Recorder $4,819,000 61.0 $3,660,000 39,500 $7,900,000 Yes-Adams Co. Clerk and Rec-Voting Machines (units) ====================== n a 230 units $1,150,000 No

Coroner $1,170,000 9.0 $882,000 7,900 $1,580,000 Yes-Arap. Co.

District Attorney $6,906,780 na na 29,400 $5,880,000 Yes-Arap. and Adam

Courts (County and District)* na na na 186,000 $46,500,000 Yes-Arap. and Adam



( y ) , , , p

Sheriff-Operating $24,234,000 168.5 $13,778,000 see below

Sheriff-Detention Space (Beds) ========================================> 780 beds $70,200,000 No

Sheri ff - Admi n Spa ce ========================================> 5,300 $1,060,000 Yes -Ara p. Co.

Human Services** $38,886,000 348.0 $22,968,000 98,300 $19,660,000 Yes-Arap. Co.

Communi ty Res ources $11,974,000 83.0 $5,312,000 33,350 $ 6,670,000 Yes -Ara p. and Adam

Developmental Disabil ity $3,620,000 na na na na na

Aid to Agencies $812,000 na na na na na

Tri-County Health $2,362,828 na na 17,000 $3,400,000 No

Surveyor $13,000 na na na na na

Public Trustee na na na na na na IT $3,524,510 18.0 $1,350,000 see below $3,663,500 na

Overhead/Support $8,773,000 55.3 $4,147,500 18,300 $3,660,000 Yes-Arap. and Adam

Total $110,825,118 786.8 $55,397,500 450,350 $174,383,500

Total space with Detention Space shown in square feet 657,350

[1] Reflects base year space needs in square feet, unless otherwise specified

[2] Aurora estimated s hare of total outstanding non-General Obligation debt of Arapahoe and Adams counties

* Assumes Court system as part of 18th Judicial District with operating costs state funded and facilities provided by City-County.

** Excludes Food Assistance and Old Age Pension benefits (operating)

Source: County Budgets; County Interviews; Tis chlerBise analysis


ASSESSOR

Aurora City-County will need to provide property assessment services. Obligations and reqset forth in State statute. Deadlines and specific requirements are state mandated. A

required services is provided in Appendix B.



q p pp

The County Assessor is currently elected in Arapahoe, Adams, and Douglas counties. Cur

budgets and space for the Assessor’s Office in Arapahoe and Adams Counties is shown bel

Figure 4. Assessor’s Office: County Current Levels of Service

Other cost and service considerations include:

• County assessment will need a software system that integrates with the Trea

Arapahoe County is currently transitioning their system at a cost of $3.5 million.

• The system will need to allow for online access to assessment records (i.e., a pr

function)

• County appraisers are trained specifically for mass appraisal (as opposed t

appraisers who work in the private real estate market.) They require certifications

• Technical support is handled through shared IT pool in Arapahoe County with in

are familiar with department-specific software.

• In Adams County, technical support is handled through departmental staff. The As

also has dedicated GIS staff (4 FTE plus interns) that are departmental staff.• Administrative personnel are necessary to provide customer service to citizens of

• Current staff specifically assigned to Aurora include:

o Arapahoe County: 8 residential appraisers (including supervisor); 1 to 2 la

ARAPAHOE COUNTY ADAMS COUNT

$ FTEs

Demand

Unit #

LOS

$/Unit $ FTEs

Demand

Unit

Assessor: Operations $4,987,243 63.0 P arcel s 223,249 $22.34 $3,963,964 44.0 P arcel s

Personal Costs Subtotal $4,628,121 $3,403,042

Personal Costs per FTE $73,462 $77,342

Assessor: Office/Facilities (Sq. Ft.) 18,300 21,000

Facility Sq. Ft. per FTE 290 477


• The Adams County Administration Center is recently built and was “oversized” in

growth, therefore the square feet per FTE figure reflects a higher level of service

be provided in the future.

• Baseline cost estimates do not include transition costs such as hiring and trainin

“opening” as City-County of Aurora.




The required level of effort stems from the number of parcels appraised including real a

well as state mandates. Based on the current number of parcels contained in the City

following is a working estimate of baseline annual operating costs to serve the City-County

Figure 5. Assessor Annual Operating Costs: Baseline Aurora Share by County

Based on the above estimated allocation to the City of Aurora, a baseline estimate for an

is derived. Because the baseline cost reflects Arapahoe and Adams counties, the co

adjusted to reflect all of Aurora, including the Douglas County portion. The baselin

estimate is approximately $2.7 million. Of the total amount, $2.5 million is assumed for pe

Figure 6. Assessor Service Annual Operating Costs: Aurora Current Estimate

Arapahoe County Department

FY 2013 Gross GF

Expenditures [1]

% of

General

Fund # of FTEs

Type of Service

[2]

Allocation

Methodology

Aurora

Factor [3]

A

Sh

ASSESSOR'S OFFICE $4,987,243 3% 63.00 Countywide Parcels 47% $2,3


[2] Service = U nincorporated, Countywide, Overhead, Internal Service[3] Es timated Aurora share of expenditures based on demand factors shown in supporting tables

Adams County Department

FY 2013 Gross GF

Expenditures [1]

% of

General

Fund # of FTEs

Type of Service

[2]

Allocation

Methodology

Aurora Factor

[3] Aurora

ASSESSOR'S OFFICE $3,963,964 2% 44.00 Countywide Parcels 8.0% $



[3] Estim ated Aurora share of expenditures based on demand factors shown in supporting tables

in ARAPAHOE COUNTY in ADAMS COUNTY AURORA CITY-COUNTY

Aur or a Shar e in Each C ount y Aur or a Shar e: Exist ing L eve ls of Se rvice and C ost s

Est Aurora $ Allocation Demand LOS ($

Total

DemandTo


Facility Needs

Facility space is estimated as a range based on the share of demand for services as we

personnel. The estimated costs shown below reflect estimated space needs to serve dem

analysis will include space needs due to future growth (20 years) and associated cos

j t d b d th i l i th Cit ll FTE d d



projected based on growth in parcels in the City as well as FTEs needed.

Figure 7. Assessor Facility Needs: Aurora Current Estimate

The Adams County Administration Building currently has outstanding (non-General Oblig

it. The estimated outstanding debt allocated to Aurora prorated for the Assess

approximately $1 million.

In addition to the office space needs, an Assessor’s office will need appropriate technology

ASSESSOR County Totals % Aurora Auror

Arapahoe County LOSAdministration Building^ Sq. Ft. 13,600 30% 4

Altura Plaza Sq. Ft. 4,700 100% 4

Total Sq. Ft. 18,300 8

FTEs 63

Sq. Ft. per FTE 290

Adams County LOS

Administration Bui lding 21,000 8% 1

FTEs 44

Sq. Ft. per FTE 477

Aurora City-County Estimates Sq. Ft $ per Sq. Ft.^^ Est. Co

Estimate based on % Share of Space 10,500 $200 $2,100

Estimate based on Sq. Ft. per FTE* 33 FTEs 12,100 $200 $2,420

Estimate Average 11,300 $200 $2,260

^ Reflects Aurora share of non-appraiser space in Admin Bldg. Aurora appraisers housed in Altura Plaza

* Weighted average of two counties

^^ Average rounded construction cost estimates from Reed Construction Data and recent regional projects


TREASURER

The Treasurer is a constitutional officer responsible for billing and collecting propedistributing revenues to taxing authorities. Taxing authorities include all entities with ta

such as school districts, water districts, metro districts, etc. Arapahoe and Adams Co



approximately 350 different taxing authorities currently. Each taxing district has to certify

the Board of County Commissioners and report it to the County Treasurer. The County

oversees the County investment practices. The current Treasurers in Arapahoe, Adams

counties are elected. The current Aurora Finance office is assumed to provide the invest

for the City-County of Aurora. The remaining functions will be new services to be providCounty of Aurora.

Current budgets and personnel complements for Arapahoe and Adams counties are as fol

Figure 8. Treasurer’s Office: County Current Levels of Service

Of the 22 full time equivalents in the Arapahoe County Treasurer’s office, approximatelyaccounting, 5 FTEs handle property taxes, 2 FTEs handle tax liens and bankruptcies, 1 FT

posting notices, and the remainder in administration/management. The County Treasurer

approximately half the current County staffing would be needed to serve Aurora with a

to 7 handling accounting and property taxes, 2 for tax liens (as more than 50 percent of th

liens and bankruptcies are in Aurora), and .5 FTEs for field work. This estimate of approxi

is used as a check on the methodology below.


ARAPAHOE COUNTY ADAMS COU

$ FTEs Demand Unit #

LOS

$/Unit $ FTEs

Deman

Unit

Treasurer $2,041,784 22.0 Parcels 223,249 $9.15 $1,305,159 10.0 Parcel

Personal Costs Subtotal $1,542,046 $843,756


Treasurer: Office/Facilities (Sq. Ft.) 5,957 7,311

Facility Sq. Ft. per FTE 271 731


Figure 9. Treasurer Annual Operating Costs: Baseline Aurora Share by County


FY 2013 Gross GF

Expenditures [1]

% of

General

Fund # of FTEs

Type of Service

[2]

Allocation

Methodology

Aurora

Factor [3]

Aurora

$

TREASURER'S OFFICE $2,041,784 1% 22.00 Countywide Parcels 47% $95



[3] Estimated Aurora share of expenditures based on demand factors shown in supporting tables



Based on the above estimated allocation to the City of Aurora, a baseline estimate for op

derived. Because the baseline cost reflects only Arapahoe and Adams counties, the co

adjusted to reflect all of Aurora, including the Douglas County portion. The baselin

estimate is approximately $1.1 million. (Of the total amount, $825,000 is assumed for pers

Figure 10. Treasurer Service Annual Operating Costs: Aurora Current Estimate and Future Project

Facility Needs

Facility space is estimated as a range based on share of demand for services as wel

personnel. The estimated costs shown below reflect estimated space needs to serve dem

analysis will include space needs due to future growth (20 years) and associated cos


FY 2013 Gross GF

Expenditures [1]

% of

General

Fund # of FTEs

Type of Service

[2]

Allocation

Methodology

Aurora

Factor [3]

Au

Sha

Treasurer $1,305,159 1% 10.00 Countywide Parcels 8% $1


[2] Service = Unincorporated, Countywide, Overhead, Internal Service[3] Estimated Aurora share of expenditures based on demand factors shown in supporting tables


Aurora Share in Each County Aurora Share: Exist ing Levels of Service and Costs

Arap $Arap

FTEAdams $

Adams

FTE

Est. Aurora $

[1]

Allocation

Methodology

Demand

Units [1]

LOS ($ per

Dem. Unit) [2]

Total

Demand

Base in

Aurora [3]

To

A

(rou

Treasurer $ 95 9,6 38 1 0.3 $ 10 4,4 13 0 .8 $ 1,0 64 ,0 51 CI TY PARCELS 1 18 ,3 02 $ 9.0 0 1 18 ,4 20 $1

[1] Ref lects estim ated Aurora share in Arapahoe and Adams counties to derive level of service

[2] LOS= Level of Service (cost per demand unit)

[3] Expands the base to be served in Aurora to include Douglas County (added to Arapahoe and Adams counties)

[4] LOS cost x Total Demand Base i n Aurora (rounded)


Figure 11. Treasurer Facility Needs: Aurora Current Estimate

TREASURER County Totals % Aurora Auror

Arapahoe County LOS

Administration Building Sq. Ft. 6,000 47% 2


FTEs 22

Sq Ft per FTE 273



The Adams County Administration Building currently has outstanding (non-General Oblig

it. The outstanding debt allocated to Aurora prorated for the Treasurer’s Office is

$349,000.

Other cost and service considerations include:

• A County Treasurer’s Office will need software system that integrates with the As

Arapahoe County is currently transitioning their system at a cost of $3.5 millio

“Other/Overhead” facility/one-time costs).

• Annual licensing fees and operational impacts are captured in the “Other/ Over

section, which includes current County information technology costs.

• The system will need to allow for online access to tax records (i.e., a tax record loo

• Administrative personnel are necessary to provide customer service to citizens of

Sq. Ft. per FTE 273

Adams County LOS

Administration Building 7,300 8%

FTEs 10

Sq. Ft. per FTE 730

Aurora City-County Estimates Sq. Ft $ per Sq. Ft.^ Est. Co

Estimate based on % Share of Space 3,400 $200 $680

Estimate based on Sq. Ft. per FTE* 11 FTEs 4,600 $200 $920

Estimate Average 4,000 $200 $800


^ Average rounded construction cost estimates from Reed Construction Data and recent regional projects


CLERK AND RECORDER

The Office of the Clerk and Recorder performs the following duties:

• Records deeds and documents

• Files maps



Files maps

• Issues marriage licenses and passports

• Registers voters

• Administers elections

• Registers motor vehicles

• Issues motor vehicle titles and license plates

• Renews driver licenses

• Maintains records for the Board of County Commissioners

With the exception of the last bullet, all functions of this office would need to be imple

City-County of Aurora. The current Aurora City Clerk’s office is assumed to continue t

records function for the City-County of Aurora. The remaining functions will be new

provided by the City-County of Aurora.

The County Clerk and Recorder is currently elected in Arapahoe, Adams, and Dougl

summary of current budgets and staffing complements from Arapahoe and Adams

follows:

Figure 12. Clerk and Recorder’s Office: County Current Levels of Service

ARAPAHOE COUNTY ADAMS COUNTY

$ FTEs

Demand

Unit #

LOS

$/Unit $ FTEs

Demand

Unit

Clerk and Recorder

Admi ni strati on $703,438 8.5 Popul ati on* 602,868 $1.17 included in below

Cl erk & Rec - El ecti ons ^ $1,830,179 15.0 Voters 373,755 $4.90 $1,856,978 Voters

Clerk & Rec - Motor Vehicle $5,077,816 82.0 Vehic les 404,329 $12.56 $3,528,258 Vehic les

Cl erk & Rec - Recordi ng $880,382 13.0 Parcel s 223,249 $3.94 $804,691 Parcels

Total $8,491,815 118.5 $6,189,927 85.0



Clerk & Recorder: Office/Facilities

Est. Office Space (Sq. Ft.)** 33,280 56,000


To estimate potential costs for the City-County of Aurora, the department is divided into

of Elections, Recording, and Motor Vehicle Operations.

ElectionsCurrent demands for services in each County are:



• Arapahoe County

o Voters: 373,800; Aurora portion: 170,700

o Precincts: 381, with 167 in Aurora

• Adams County

o Voters: 253,500; Aurora portion: 17,400

o Precincts: 251, with 13 in Aurora

Costs vary by election year. Even years are generally more expensive than odd years. T

Adams County in 2012 (Presidential election) cost approximately $1 million more to the C

amount, approximately $150,000 was reimbursed by the State. The rest was paid by th

participating jurisdictions (including City of Aurora, which paid approximately $45,500 bCounty for its share of election costs).

The City-County of Aurora would be responsible for holding elections for all jurisdict

boundaries for all types of elections including TABOR elections. The entities include sc

metro districts, utility districts, etc. The City-County of Aurora would develop a reimburse

for these entities for the costs of the elections. For example, Adams County allocat

election costs on percent of active registered voters. TABOR costs are allocated based formula for printing costs (percentage of TABOR pages of texts per jurisdiction) and postag

on percentage of households in each jurisdiction).

Election requirements frequently change by state legislative changes. For the upcoming e

counties are required to mail all ballots and establish early voter locations, which will sta

hours. Costs are anticipated to be incurred for training, staffing, and potentially rental of

to increased mandates, the charge-back rate to municipalities is expected to increase thiArapahoe County the cost per voter is expected to increase from approximately $1.45 to

County estimates a cost per voter of $2 in 2013 as well.)


Recording

The county clerk is the recorder of real estate deeds and is required to safely keep an

documents received for recording or filing. The division is responsible for indexing reco

customer service, imaging records, issuing and recording marriage licenses and passpo

technology to provide access to recorded documents.



The majority of the division’s work is dedicated to real estate recordings and the metho

estimate Aurora’s costs is parcels. Detail is provided below.

One item for further research and discussion is the approach toward previously recorde

Broomfield became a county, the previously recorded deeds stayed with the original recor

Motor Vehicles

Counties act as agents of the State by establishing and operating Motor Vehicle Service C

motor vehicle offices issue titles and motor vehicle registrations as well as renew driveoffices also collect revenues on behalf of the State and disburse to governmental entities

City of Aurora.

Current County operations are as follow:

• Arapahoe County current operates 4 sites countywide with 2 in Aurora, with one o

services.

• Adams County currently operates 6 sites countywide with one in Aurora.


The required level of effort stems from demand indicators specific to the particular funct

by the Department. Based on the current demand from the City of Aurora as shown below

is a working estimate of baseline fiscal requirements to serve the City-County of Aurora:


Figure 13. Clerk and Recorder Annual Operating Costs: Baseline Aurora Share by County

Arapahoe Count y Department

FY 2013 Gross GF

Expenditures [1]

% of

General

Fund # of FTEs

Type of Service

[2]

Allocation

Methodology

Aurora

Factor [3]

A

Sh

CLERK & RECORDER'S OFFICE $8,491,815 see below 118.50

Cl erk & Rec - Admi ni strati on $703,438 0% 8.50 Countywi de Aurora % of Di rect 45.0% $ 3

Elections^ $1,830,179 1% 15.00 Countywide Voters 46.0% $8Motor Vehicle $5,077,816 3% 82.00 Countywide Vehicles 44.0% $2,2

Recording $880,382 1% 13.00 Countywide Parcels 47.0% $4

^ FY 2013 shown; Average of 2010 - 2013 used for Aurora share.

[1] C t d t d b d t



Based on the above estimated allocation to the City of Aurora, a baseline estimate for ope

derived. Because the baseline cost reflects Arapahoe and Adams counties, the cost estima

to reflect all of Aurora, including the Douglas County portion. The baseline annual cost est

million. The cost estimate does not include transition costs such as hiring and training of st

“opening” as City-County of Aurora. For example, County Clerk and Recorder staff estimat

minimum of 6 months training is required for Motor Vehicle staff. 2

Figure 14. Clerk and Recorder Annual Operating Costs: Aurora Current Estimate





FY 2013 Gross GF

Expenditures [1]

% of

General

Fund # of FTEs

Type of Service

[2]

Allocation

Methodology

Aurora

Factor [3]

Aur

Sha

CLERK & RECORDER $6,189,927 4% 85.00 see below

Elections* $1,856,978 26 Countywide Voters 7.0% $12

Motor Vehicle* $3,528,258 48 Countywi de Vehi cl es 10.0% $35

Recording* $804,691 11 Countywide Parcels 8.0% $6

* Estimated on percentage of total from past 3 years.





Aur or a Shar e in Each Count y Aur or a Shar e: Exist ing L eve ls of Se rvice and Cost s

Arap $ Arap FTE Adams $ Adams FTEEst. Aurora $

[1]

Allocation

Methodology

Demand

Units [1]

LOS ($ per

Dem. Unit) [2]

Tota

Demand

Base in

Aurora 3

To

A

(rou

Clerk and Recorder

El ec ti ons ^ $ 1,2 39,6 55 6.9 $12 9,9 88 1.8 $1 ,36 9,64 3 C ITY VOTERS 18 8,1 09 $ 7.30 1 88,3 25 $1

Mo tor Veh ic le $ 2,2 34 ,2 39 3 6.1 $ 35 2,8 26 4 .8 $ 2,5 87 ,0 65 C I TY VEHI CLES 2 07 ,3 60 $ 12 .5 0 2 07 ,6 55 $2

Recordi ng $413,780 6.1 $64,375 0.9 $478,155 CITY PARCELS 118,302 $4.00 118,420

Admin $316,547 3.8 $316,547 POPULATION 291,946 $1.10 340,269

$4


Facility Needs

Estimated facility space to serve the City-County of Aurora is presented as a range based

share of demand for services as well as space to house estimated personnel. The estimate

below reflect space needs to serve demand today . The feasibility study will also include p

needs due to future growth (20 years) and associated costs.



However, it should be noted that it is likely that given Adams County recently built fac

excess capacity particularly in the Administration Building. That is, the facility likely

expansion and the figures for square feet per employee are relatively high and therefore

will decrease in the future as more staff is added into the existing footprint.

Figure 15. Clerk and Recorder Facility Needs: Aurora Current Estimate

CLERK AND RECORDER County Totals % Aurora Auro

Arapahoe County LOS

Admininstration Bui lding Sq. Ft. 33,280 45% 14

Motor Vehicle Space^ Sq. Ft. 34,120 1


FTEs 118.5

Sq. Ft. per FTE 569

Adams County LOS

Administration Building 56,000 8% 4

Motor Vehicle Space^ Sq. Ft. 23,090 4


FTEs 85 Sq. Ft. per FTE 659

Aurora City-County Estimates Sq. Ft $ per Sq. Ft.^^ Est. Co




^ Aurora share reflects space located in/serving City of Aurora




CORONER

A County Coroner is responsible for investigating deaths under the jurisdiction of the off

of the coroner are:

• Perform inquiry, report, and autopsy: The coroner notifies the district attorney, vi

and makes inquiry regarding the cause and manner of death of any person in his j



dying under certain circumstances, including:

o External violence, unexplained cause, or under suspicious circumstances;

o Where no physician is in attendance or where, though in attendance, the

unable to certify the cause of death;o From a disease which may be hazardous or contagious or which may cons

to the health of the general public;

o While in the custody of law enforcement officials or while incarcerated in

institution;

o When the death was sudden and happened to a person who was in good

o From an industrial accident.

• Serve as sheriff under certain circumstances.• Issue certificate of death where the coroner has investigated the death.

• Order arrest.

• Arrange burial of deceased persons.

Coroners in Arapahoe, Adams, and Douglas counties are elected positions. The Adams Co

Office currently provides contractual services to Broomfield County.

A summary of the budgets and staffing complement is shown below. For the Adams Count

Broomfield County contracted services are netted out to reflect services to Adams County

Figure 16. Coroner’s Office: County Current Levels of Service


$ FTEs

Demand

Unit #

LOS

$/Unit $* FTEs*

Demand

Unit

Coroner $1,528,632 12.0 Population 602,868 $2.54 $1,491,928 11.0 Population



/



Current levels of service are determined based on population. The following is a workin

current baseline fiscal requirements for a coroner’s office to serve the City-County of Auro

Figure 17. Coroner Annual Operating Costs: Baseline Aurora Share by County

FY 2013 Gross GF

% of

General Type of Service Allocation Aurora A



Based on the above estimated allocation to the City of Aurora, a baseline estimate for op

derived. Because the baseline cost reflects Arapahoe and Adams counties, the cost estim

to reflect all of Aurora, including the Douglas County portion. In addition, because th

operation, it is likely that the estimated staffing levels based on population share wou

adjusted upward to reflect adequate coverage. TischlerBise looked at staffing levels fro

similar size (all approximately 300,000): Larimer County has a staff of 10 FTEs; Boulder Cou

of 8.5 FTEs, and Douglas County has a staff of 8 FTEs. Given the size of the City-County

baseline estimate is adjusted to 9 FTEs with commensurate annual operating costs of $885

Figure 18. Coroner Annual Operating Costs: Aurora Current Estimate


FY 2013 Gross GF

Expenditures [1]

General

Fund # of FTEs

Type of Service

[2]

Allocation

Methodology

Aurora

Factor [3]

A

Sh

CORONER'S OFFICE $1,528,632 1% 12.00 Countywide Population 48.0% $7





FY 2013 Gross GF

Expenditures [1]

% of

General

Fund # of FTEs

Type of Service

[2]

Allocation

Methodology

Aurora

Factor [3]

Aur

Sha

Coroner** $1,491,928 1% 11.0 Countywide Population 10.0% $14

** Reflects cost to serve Adams County only; Broomfield expenses and allocated FTEs netted out.






Arap $ Arap FTE Adams $Adams

FTE

Est. Aurora $

[1]

Allocation

Methodology

Demand

Units [1]

LOS ($ per

Dem. Unit) [2]

Total

Demand

Base in

Aurora [3]

To A

(rou

Coroner $733,743 5.8 $149,193 1.1 $882,936 POPULATI ON 3 39,935 $2.60 340,269

Adjusted Amount $1


Facility Needs

Facility space for the Coroner’s Office is estimated as a range based on share of demand

well as estimated personnel as adjusted and described above. The estimated costs shown

estimated space needs to serve demand today . The analysis will include space needs

growth (20 years) and associated costs.

Figure 19 Coroner Facility Needs: Aurora Current Estimate



Figure 19. Coroner Facility Needs: Aurora Current Estimate

The Arapahoe County Sheriff/Coroner Building currently has outstanding (non-General O

on it. The estimated outstanding debt allocated to Aurora prorated for the Coron

approximately $850,000.

CORONER County Totals % Aurora

Arapahoe County LOS

Sheriff Admin/Coroner's Building Sq. Ft. 10,800 48%

Total Sq. Ft. 10,800

FTEs 12.0

Sq. Ft. per FTE 900

Adams County LOS

Sheriff/ Coroner HQ Sq. Ft. 14,180 10%

Total Sq. Ft. 14,180

FTEs^ 12.5 Sq. Ft. per FTE 1,134

Aurora City-County Estimates Sq. Ft $ per Sq. Ft.^^

Estimate based on % Share of Space 6,600 $200

Estimate based on Sq. Ft. per FTE* 9 FTEs 9,200 $200

Estimate Average 7,900 $200

^ Total FTEs including those serving Broomfield County to derive space per FTE

* Custom estimate based on share of counties and adjusted for comparable communities.



DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND COURTS

The City of Aurora currently operates a Municipal Court with 6 full-time active court roo

time traffic courts. Municipal Court services are managed by the Court Administration De

the Judicial Department.

• The City Court Administrator is appointed by the City Council and oversees



• The City Court Administrator is appointed by the City Council and oversees

divisions: Office of the Court Administrator, Case Management, Detention,

Probation.

o The department has a total of 101 FTEs and a budget of $7.3 million.

• The City Judicial Department is comprised of Judges, Bailiffs, Court Reporters, and

The Court handles approximately 60,000 to 65,000 cases per year with tr

accounting for approximately 55 to 60 percent of the caseload. There are 21.

budget of approximately $2.3 million.

As a County, Aurora would be required to provide operating support for the District At

and space for District and County Courts. The space needs include not only courtrooms and supporting areas (jury rooms, security, offices, waiting areas) as well as space for Prob

District Attorney

Based on direction from the City Council, this analysis assumes that the City-County of Au

included in the 18th Judicial District (serving the Arapahoe County portion of Aurora) with

17th Judicial District (serving the Adams County portion of Aurora). The District Attorney

position and appears in County, District, and Appellate courts on behalf of citizens. Co

operational funding for the District Attorney’s Office in the District in which each is ba

County provides funding for the District Attorney in the 18th District on a population-b

Adams County provides funding for the District Attorney in the 17 th Judicial District.

current level of service is shown below.

Figure 20. District Attorney’s Office: County Current Levels of Service



To estimate costs for the City-County of Aurora, assumed to be in the 18th Judicial Distric

current cost factor of $20.298 per person is used. Estimated operating costs for the

Aurora are based on this factor and population served. The baseline cost to the City-Co

would be $6.9 million.

Figure 21. District Attorney Local Cost Allocation (18th Judicial District)

Local Share ($ per person)* $20.298



Current Counties^ With City-County of Aurora**

Population % Population % $

Arapahoe County 600,361 64.06% 310,922 32% $6,311,095

Douglas County^^ 305,835 32.63% 295,355 30% $5,995,116

Elbert County 25,407 2.71% 24,069 2% $488,553

Lincoln County 5,638 0.60% 5,405 1% $109,711

Aurora City-County 340,269 35% $6,906,780

Total 937,241 100.00% 976,020 100% $19,811,254

*FY 2013

^ Per Arapahoe County FY2013 budget, p. 333.

** Aurora includes Arapahoe, Adams, and Douglas portion of the City;county totals without Aurora City population

^^ Douglas Co. population estimates differ between DA population share and County estimates.

Per Douglas County budget, State Demographer's estimates have subsequently been revised.


Facility Needs

The City-County of Aurora will be obligated to provide office space for the District Att

Facility space is estimated as a range based on percentage share of demand for services.

costs shown below reflect estimated space needs to serve demand today . The analysis wil

needs due to future growth (20 years) and associated costs and will be projected based on

City as well as FTEs needed.



Figure 22. District Attorney Facility Needs: Aurora Current Estimate

Both Arapahoe and Adams counties have existing debt (non-general obligation) on th

District Attorney buildings. The Arapahoe County share of remaining debt service allocat

estimated at approximately $1.97 million and the Adams County share of remaining

allocated to Aurora is estimated at approximately $832,000 (for a total estimated ammillion).

DISTRICT ATTORNEY County Totals % Aurora Auror

Arapahoe County LOS

DA Building Sq. Ft. 43,717 48% 20

Total Sq. Ft. 43,717 20

Adams County LOS

DA Building Sq. Ft. 65,000 13% 8






Courts

The City of Aurora currently operates a Municipal Court. The city funds the operation w

active courtrooms and 2 half-time traffic courts. The Municipal Court facility has the capa

with another two courtrooms that are already built out and another that would need to

purposes of this analysis, we assume full costs to build out new space with the understand

future needs may be accommodated in the existing space with upgrades and finishing.



As noted above, per direction from the Aurora City Council, the City-County Feasibility

that all of Aurora would remain in the 18 th Judicial District and that District and County

remain part of the State Judicial System. Therefore, the Court analysis focuses on es

needs.

District Court and County Court judges are appointed by the Governor and court expend

by the state. Counties are required to provide space for County and District Courts. The nu

informs the amount of space needed.

The 17th Judicial District includes Adams and Broomfield Counties. Court locations are:

• Adams County Justice Center (Brighton)

• Broomfield Combined Courts

The 18th Judicial District includes Arapahoe, Douglas, Elbert, and Lincoln Counties. Court lo

• Arapahoe County Justice Center-Centennial

• Arapahoe County Courthouse-Littleton

• Douglas County Courthouse

• Elbert County Courthouse

• Lincoln County Courthouse

District Court judges are:

• 17th Judicial District: 15 judges of which 13 are located in Adams County; 5 full-tim

with 4 assigned to Adams County (for purposes of this analysis, the Adams County


• 18th Judicial District: Arapahoe County has 8 judges; Douglas has 3 judges; the rem

counties have 2 judges. Total number of magistrates is 4 with 3 assigned to Arapah

A summary of filings and terminations from FY2012 is shown below for both District and

in the 17th and 18th Judicial Districts. Also provided is a comparison of number of filings

magistrate in each county and a weighted average.

Figure 23. District and County Court Statistics: Filings, Terminations, and Number of Judges & Mag



Figure 23. District and County Court Statistics: Filings, Terminations, and Number of Judges & Mag

FY 2012 # of Judges & # Filings per

Filings Magistrates Judge

District Court

17th Adams 26,095 16 1,631

Broomfield 1,885 3 628

Total 27,980 19 1,473

18th Arapahoe 32,940 20 1,647

Douglas 10,296 8 1,287

Elbert 1,478

Lincoln 352Total 45,066 29 1,554

Adams & Arapahoe District Ct. Total 59,035 36 1,640

County Court

17th Adams 63,083 10 6,308

Broomfield 4,373 1 4,373

Total 67,456 11 6,132

18th Arapahoe-Centennial* 32,055 8

Arapahoe-Littleton* 30,697 3

Arapahoe-Total 62,752 11 5,705

Douglas 22,402 4 5,601

Elbert 1,661

Lincoln 1,178Total 87,993 16 5,500

1 2,839

1 1,830


This data can be used to not only estimate the demand for required Court space for the

Aurora but to derive an estimate of jail space needs. Jail needs are discussed in the Sheriff

To estimate demand for Courts space in a City-County of Aurora, a low and high range i

on share of filings in each court in each County. Space needs are driven by number magistrates, which are first derived based on filings and average filings per judge and ma

is provided below:

Figure 24 District and County Courts Estimated Filings and Judges & Magistrates: Aurora Share



Figure 24. District and County Courts Estimated Filings and Judges & Magistrates: Aurora Share

Aurora Share Estimate

Low Range

FY 2 01 2 # o f Jud ges & # Filing s per Sha re Filin gs Estd . # Ju dges Sh are

Filings Magistrates Judge % # & Magis.** %District Court District Court

17th Adams 26,095 16 1,631 10% 2,610 15%

Broomfield 1,885 3 628

Total 27,980 19 1,473

18th Arapahoe 32,940 20 1,647 40% 13,176 60%

Douglas 10,296 8 1,287

Elbert 1,478

Lincoln 352

Total 45,066 29 1,554

Adams & Arapahoe District Ct. Total 59,035 36 1,640 15,786 9.6

County Court County Court

17th Adams 63,083 10 6,308 10% 6,308 15%

Broomfield 4,373 1 4,373

Total 67,456 11 6,132

18th Arapahoe-Centennial* 32,055 8

Arapahoe-Littleton* 30,697 3

Arapahoe-Total 62,752 11 5,705 40% 25,101 60%

Douglas 22,402 4 5,601

Elbert 1,661

Lincoln 1,178

Total 87,993 16 5,500

Adams & Arapahoe County Ct. Total 125,835 21 5,992 31,409 5.2

Adams and Arapahoe Grand Total 184,870 57 3,243 47,195 14.9

* Location depends on type of case, rather than geograph y, so both serve Aurora

** Estimated number of j udges & magistrates = filings / average number of fili ngs per judge & mag istrate

Sources: Colorado Judicial Branch, "Colorado Courts Annual Statistical Report, FY2012."

Number and locat ion of Judges from http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/County/Choose.cfm.

1 2,839

1 1,830


Existing County Court Facilities

Arapahoe County has undergone recent expansions to its Justice Center with the addit

courtrooms, one expanded courtroom, a new jury room, and other improvements. Th

completed in 2009 at a cost of $13.8 million. Additional improvements are underway tocourthouses, enhance security, and improve the parking lots at a cost of $5.4 million. In a

expansion plans are identified in the County’s current CIP for an additional build out of 6

an estimated cost of $3.8 million in year 2016.



Adams County expanded its Justice Center in 2009 with construction of approximately 1

feet, which results in total square footage of approximately 305,000 square feet in the C

Center. The County financed this expansion with a sale-leaseback of other county faccurrent lease (debt) obligations on this facility. The current appraised value of the Jus

approximately $85 million, or $280 per square foot.

Facility Needs: Courts to Serve City-County of Aurora

To estimate space needs to serve Aurora, levels of service are derived for services prov

and Arapahoe counties. Shown below is the total number of both County and District j

counties along with the estimated square footage provided for courts. Both counties ha

expansions in recent years to accommodate growing populations and needs. We la

“square feet per judge” to estimate demand for space based on current levels of service

square footage reflects all ancillary uses in the court facilities (such as jury rooms, com

offices, etc.).

Figure 25. Current County Courts Space and Square Feet per Judge and Magistrate

Total Estimated

Judges and Justice Center Sq. Ft. per

Magistrates* Sq. Ft. Judge^

Adams County (in the 17th JD) 26 305,000 11,731

Arapahoe County (in the 18th JD) 31 265,000 8,548

Total/Weighted Average 57 570,000 10,000

* In each County in either District or County Courts, as of FY2012

^ Includes all ancillary space in court facilities


Figure 26. Courts Facility Needs: Aurora Estimates

Estimated construction cost ranges for the above average-sized facility is $33.5 million ($

foot) to $52 million ($280 per square foot). For the fiscal impact analysis of City-County

Low High Average

Number of Judges & Magistrates 14.9 22.3 18.6

Square Feet per Judge 10,000 10,000 10,000

Total Square Feet (rounded) 149,000 223,000 186,000



) $ ($ p q ) p y y y

will assume $250 per square foot ($46.5 million) and will be debt financed over 20 yea

reflected in the fiscal feasibility study).

As noted earlier, this reflects total square footage needed. To the extent that the exis

Court can be utilized as well as built out, there may be capital cost savings achieved.

As noted above, both counties have outstanding debt on their respective Justice Centers.

County portion allocated to Aurora is approximately $3.33 million. The Adams County port

to Aurora is approximately $1.07 million. Combined, the total estimated amount is approx

million.

Probation

The City currently provides probation services as part of its Municipal Court functions w

FTEs, of which six are full-time probation officers.

The Colorado Judicial Department administers adult and juvenile probation within Colora

districts. With a County and District Court under an existing Judicial District, adult and juve

would be part of the state judicial system administered by the State Court Administrato

managed through local offices by Judicial District.

Currently, the City of Aurora is served by both Judicial Districts:

• Arapahoe County is served by a main office in Centennial and satellite offices in

Aurora (at Altura Plaza). The County has plans to move the main Centen


The City-County of Aurora would be responsible for providing space for a local probati

court space estimates discussed above capture current Probation needs (reflected in c

levels of service). In addition, facility estimates capture space for Public Defenders as well.

Court Security

The City-County of Aurora would be required to provide Court Security. This service is curr

b th Cit f th M i i l C t C t h iff ’ ffi id thi i ith



by the City for the Municipal Court. County sheriffs’ offices can provide this service either

county deputies or contract services. The costs for these services are captured in the Sh

and section below.

Court System: Issues to Consider

The following items are noted:

• Assuming that the City-County of Aurora stays within the 18th Judicial District, th

have control over the number of County Judges, the number of District Judges, o

Probation Services as they will all fall under the State. The Governor would appo

and County judges. However, as a County, Aurora may have more of an oppor

with the Governor’s Office to provide input on selection criteria as well as all

residents to serve on the nominating commission and supply community fe

process, but the ultimate selection is by the Governor.

• Broomfield City-County is part of the 17th Judicial District and its District and Cou

funded and controlled by the State. The City-County has a separate Municipal Co

appointed by the Council. Unlike other counties in the state, the Clerk’s O

Municipal, County, and District Court Clerks’ functions with the state reimbu

County for a portion of the staffing.

• The Arapahoe County Justice Coordinating Committee works on addressing iss

justice system. Currently, the committee does not have municipal representation

of Aurora.3

• In counties that are part of the State Court system, the state reimburses 80 perce

state-mandated salaries for district attorneys with the localities in the Judicial Di

the remaining 20 percent However in many instances salaries are negotiated h


• Based on City Council direction at this phase of the analysis, court services and fa

modeled based on the City-County of Aurora remaining with the 18th Judicial Dis

elsewhere). However, if the City is interested in pursuing the formation of a new J

(which would allow for a combined Municipal-County Court), a separate st

necessary. The study should explore, but may not be limited to, the following itemformation; cost effectiveness of a shared system; trade-offs regarding fundin

revenue streams (state versus local); structure, reporting relationships, and

impacts for the District Attorney’s Office, Public Defenders Office, Probation

Clerk’s Office; and technology implications.



; gy p


SHERIFF

The County Sheriff is a constitutional officer and is currently an elected position in Ada

and Douglas Counties. The Sheriff is statutorily responsible for the following services and d

• Serve as custodian of jails

• Serve as fire warden

• Transport prisoners



• Transport prisoners

• Execute writs

• Preserve peace

There is some crossover with services provided by the City of Aurora today—by t

Department, the office of City Court Administrator (which includes Detention), and

Department. Figure 27 summarizes County Sheriff required services and assumptions

services by the City-County of Aurora.

Figure 27. Sheriff Duties and City-County of Aurora Service Assumptions

County Sheriff Duty/Function City-County Plan for Servic

• Serve as Custodian of Jails Expansion of and change to

services (City Courts and De

• Serve as Fire Warden; responsible for

Community Wildfire Plan and fire suppression

Provided by City currently (

• Transport prisoners (produce and escort

defendants)

Expansion of services provi

currently (City Courts and D

• Execute writs New service with annual op• Preserve the peace Provided by City currently

• Provide emergency response including HazMat Provided by City currently

• Issue state-mandated concealed handgun

permits

New service with annual op

(currently provided by coun

• Operate training center Provided by City currently

• Perform DNA Analysis Continue relationship with

Bureau of Investigation (CB

• Participate/oversee task forces Provided by City currently

• Operate bomb unit (countywide service ) New service with annual op

one time capital impacts (c


The major impacts from the formation of the City-County of Aurora would be the requir

City to expand its Detention services and facilities, provide civil processing services, staff

bomb squad, and issue concealed handgun permits.

A general summary of the budgets and staffing complement for Arapahoe and Adams coubelow. Detail by division/function is provided below because the two counties

departments differently.

Figure 28. Sheriff’s Office: County Current Levels of Service



Arapahoe County:

• Total sheriff office includes 690.5 FTEs (including Public Safety (which includes thenforcement contract with the City of Centennial));

• The Sheriff’s Office budget in the General Fund is $63.3 million; adding in all other

Arapahoe Law Enforcement Authority Fund) the total budget is $73.5 million.

Adams County:

• Total sheriff office 522.5 FTEs (including law enforcement and personnel under sp

• The Sheriff’s Office budget in the General Fund is $57.6 million; adding in other sp

the total budget is $58.8 million

Aurora City-County would need to provide Detention and Civil Processing functions. Each

turn along with other supporting expenditures.

Detention/Corrections


$ FTEs

Demand

Unit #

LOS

$/Unit $ FTEs

Demand

Unit

Sheriff (General Fund)* $63,253,829 628.8 see supporting figures $57,582,488 515.5 see supportSheriff (Special Funds)* $10,200,021 61.8 see supporting figures $ 1,24 3,382 7 .0 see support

Sheriff Total $73,453,850 690.5 $58,825,870 522.5

* Includes Law Enforcement


• The Arapahoe County Detention Facility houses municipal inmates and those sent

the 18th Judicial District courts. The facility provides a full medical unit onsite.

facility is accredited through the American Correctional Association and the medi

separate accreditation (through the National Commission on Correctional He

facility has a current capacity of 1,464 with a recent expansion in capacity that adby triple bunking. The County has recently purchased a tract of adjacent land (1

future expansion of the jail. The facility provides mental and behavioral health ser

services, job training programs, support groups, and education services.



• The Adams County Detention Facility houses municipal inmates (at a capped amo

sentenced through the 17th Judicial District Courts. The facility provides full medic

current maximum capacity of 1,479. The facility itself has physical space for a cabeds. The County’s work-release program is run out of the jail. The facility provid

programs such as classes, support groups, recreation activities, and religious servi

The City of Aurora currently operates a 72-hour holding facility that has current operation

60 inmates. The facility itself has physical capacity for 220 inmates. If this facility were to

County Jail facility, some improvements would need to be made and operations wou

funded to adequately staff the 220 beds. This facility could be an interim step or a compon

facility, as baseline Detention needs for a City-County of Aurora would exceed 220 beds.

An overview of current levels of service for each county jail is shown below in Figure 29. F

purposes, we provide average costs per inmate and number of inmates per FTE fo

(including Douglas). Also shown are the weighted averages for the three counties combine

Figure 29. Average Cost per Inmate and Inmates per FTE

Arapahoe County Adams County Douglas County

Detention Budget (rounded)* $36,573,000 $31,997,920 $13,378,000

Current Jail Avg Daily Population 1,150 1,200 325

Cost per Inmate $31,803 $26,665 $41,163

Cost per Inmate (rounded) $31,800 $26,700 $41,200

FTEs** 242 174 142.5

Inmates per FTE 4.8 6.9 2.3


Additionally, the following national and regional averages from the Census of Jail Facilities

• National average is 3.3 confined jail inmates per employee.

for reference:

• West (United States) regional average was 3.7.

• Colorado average was 3.4.

Civil Processing



Civil Processing

The Sheriff’s Office is responsible for serving court orders, handling evictions, serving w

legal documents.

Current operations in each County for Civil Processing are as follows:

• Arapahoe County has 6 FTEs (1 Sergeant and 5 sworn officers) serving the Count

of Aurora specifically, the County has 2.5 FTEs assigned.

• Adams County has 6 officers, 3 administrative assistants, 1 supervisor, and 1 cle

currently has 2 officers (Sheriff deputies) assigned to the Aurora portion of Adams

Other Duties

Other duties, services, and related costs provided by County Sheriff departments to be pr

County of Aurora are:

• Each County Sheriff’s Office currently provides bomb squad services to the City o

would be a new service to be assumed by the City-County of Aurora. Preliminary

to implement a City-County of Aurora Bomb Squad have been provided by the

Police Department and are included in this analysis.

o Grand total costs are estimated at $2.6 million, reflecting ongoing and one

o Of that cost, approximately $460,000 is assumed as personnel costs, whto be covered by existing staffing and therefore not a net new cost.

o Annual ongoing operating costs are estimated at $300,000 with the rem


• The City of Aurora currently contracts with the state (Colorado Bureau of Investig

DNA lab analysis. The assumption for this analysis is that this arrangement w

under a City-County of Aurora. However, per the City Police Chief, this service m

where the City would need to eventually provide its own service, or at a minim

direct local funding support for an analyst at CBI dedicated to Aurora cases.

• Court security, captured in operating impact.




Current levels of service are determined based on several data sources, including inform

from the Sheriff’s Offices, budgets, and demographic factors. The following is a working e

share of expenses provided by each County Sheriff’s Office to serve the City of Aurora

starting point to derive current baseline fiscal requirements for Sheriff services. Additio

provided in this section reflecting those services provided by the City currently, nam

services, and an alternative approach to estimate operating costs for the City-County of Au

The first series of figures are Arapahoe County Sheriff services and costs.

Figure 30. Sheriff Annual Operating Costs: Baseline Aurora Share - Arapahoe County General Fund

Figure 31. Sheriff Annual Operating Costs: Baseline Aurora Share - Arapahoe County Special Fund


FY 2013 Gross GF

Expenditures [1]

% of

General

Fund # o f FTEs

Type of Service

[2] Allocation Methodology

Aurora

Factor [3]

Aur

SHERIFF'S OFFICE $63,253,829 see below

Sheriff-Administration $1,808,613 1% 15.00 Overhead Aurora % of Sheriff Direct 25%

Sheriff-Detention Services^^ $38,073,198 see below 397.50

Sheri ff-Detenti on/Cour t Support $3 1,97 3,19 8 2 0% 242.00 Countywide Custom (Jail %) 40% $12 Sheri ff-Detenti on Medi cal $4,600,000 3% Countywi de Cus tom (Ja il %) 40% $1

Sheriff-Civil Processing $1,500,000 1% 6.00 Countywide Custom (Direct Input)

Sheri ff-Pr ofes si ona l Sta nda rds Burea u $3 ,12 5,98 1 2% 25 .50 Overhea d Aur ora % of Sher iff Di rec t 25 %

Sheriff-Public Safety Bureau $20,246,037 13% 190.75 Unincorp. Fixed 0%

^^ Includes Detention, Court Support, and Civil Functions




Arapahoe Count y Fund and Department

FY 2013 Gross

Special Fund

Expenditures [1]

% of Total

Special

F unds # of F TEs

Type of Service


Aurora

Factor [3]

Aur

SHERI FF'S COMMISSARY FUND-Sheri ff's Offi ce $1,830,385 1% 7.00 Countywi de Cus tom (Ja il %) 40%


Further detail on Arapahoe County cost assumptions:

• “Aurora % of Sheriff Direct”: This percentage reflects the share of direct Sher

administrative) allocated to Aurora out of the total Arapahoe County Sheriff budge

• “Custom (Jail %)” allocation for Detention (and Commissary Fund) reflects d

Arapahoe County Sheriff. Supporting detail is provided in Figure 32. The

countywide bookings converted into booking days, based on average length of sta

county as a whole and for Aurora specifically. The 3-year weighted average shar

estimated at 36 percent, but to be conservative, the figure is rounded up to 40 pe

• “Custom (Direct Input)” allocation for Civil Processing reflects estimated costs



• Custom (Direct Input) allocation for Civil Processing reflects estimated costs

FTEs as is provided currently in the Aurora portion of Arapahoe County.

Figure 32. Arapahoe County Booking Data

The second series of figures are Adams County Sheriff services and costs.

Figure 33. Sheriff Annual Operating Costs: Baseline Aurora Share - Adams County

Further detail on Adams County cost assumptions:

• “Aurora % of Sheriff Direct”: This percentage reflects the share of direct Sher

Year

Total

Countywide

bookings

County avg

length of stay

(days)

Total Co.

Booking

Days

Aurora

bookings

Aurora

length of

stay

Total Aurora

Booking

Days

%

2010 17,518 26 455,468 3,383 47 159,001

2011 16,817 26 437,242 3,478 47 163,466

2012 17,171 26 446,446 3,292 47 154,724

1,339,156 477,191

Source: Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office


FY 2013 Gross GF

Expenditures [1]

% of

General

Fund # of FTEs

Type of Service

[2] Allocation M ethodology

Aurora

Factor [3]

SHERIFF $58,825,870 37% see below

Sheriff - Correctional/Justice Ctr $26,397,920 2 79.75 Countywi de Cus tom (Ja il %) 13% $

Sheriff - Correctional (Medical) $5,600,000 Countywi de Custom (Jai l %) 13%

Sheriff - Grants $0 Unincorp. Fixed 0%

Sheriff - Field/ Admin^ $25,584,568 235.75 see below

Sheriff-Civil^^ $1,090,000 Countywi de Cus tom (Di rec t I nput)

Sheriff-Admin Countywide Aurora % of Sheriff Direct 8%

Sheriff - Special Funds^^^ $1,243,382 7.00 Countywide Custom 13%


• “Custom (Direct Input)” allocation for Civil services reflects estimated costs to pr

is provided currently in the Aurora portion of Adams County.

Figure 34. Adams County Booking Data

2011* Avg Stay Beds % by

Locality Bookings Days (days) Consumed Residence

Aurora 125 4,799 38 155 13

Adams County 558 13,290 24 429 36

Denver 215 7,892 37 255 2

Metro Denver 264 6,692 25 216 18



Based on the above data and assumptions, a baseline cost estimate is derived. The Detent

costs identified below reflect the demand for Jail space based on the percentages discusseis, 40 percent of Arapahoe County Detention average daily population (ADP) and 13 percen

County Detention ADP, or 616 ADP from Aurora.

Figure 35. Sheriff Annual Operating Costs: Aurora Current Estimate Based on Current County Serv

The operating impact to Aurora shown above in Figure 35 reflects the City’s estimated sh

,

Colorado 79 2,029 26 65 5

Outside CO 13 354 27 11

NA 57 2,001 35 65 5

Total 1,311 37,057 28 1,196 100

* Reflects sample data from July in respective year

Source: National Institute of Corrections, Justice System Assessment, Adams County (CO), October 201


A ur or a Shar e in Each Count y Aur or a Shar e: Exist ing L eve ls of Se rvice and Cost s

Arap $ Arap FTE Adams $ Adams FTEEst. Aurora $

[1]

Allocation

Methodology

Demand

Units [1]

LOS ($ per

Dem. Unit) [2]

Total Demand

Base in

Aurora [3]

Sheriff: Admin $452,153 3.8 $141,182 1.3 $593,335 POPULATION 340,269 $1.74 340,269

Sheriff: Detention/Court Support $13,521,433 99.6 $3,431,730 36.4 $16,953,163 JAI L ADP 616 $27,521.00 616

Sheriff: Detent ion Medical $1,840,000 $728,000 $2,568,000 JAIL ADP 616 $4,169.00 616

Sheriff: Civil Processing $625,000 2.5 $126,400 0.5 $751,400 POPULATION 340,269 $2.21 340,269

Sheriff: Bomb Squad* DIRECT ENTERED

Sheriff: Other $781,495 6.4 $161,640 0.9 $943,135 JAIL ADP 616 $1,531.00 616

$17,220,082 112.2 $4,588,951 39.1 $21,809,033

[1] Reflects estimated Aurora sha re in all counties o derive level of service


[3] No additional demand from Douglas County portion of Aurora

[4] LOS cost x Total Demand Base in Aurora (rounded)

* Source City of Aurora Police Dept.; reflects annual op erating costs; no personnel costs included as assumption is City Police staff would be reassigned; one-time costs incl


Alternative Detention Population Estimate for Aurora

First, an alternative jail population from Aurora is estimated based on Court filings a

booking data. Using data from Court filings and jail population in each county jail, a relat

derived that indicates that approximately 18 percent of court filings in each county resubookings.

Figure 36. Jail Bookings as Percent of Court Filings

Arapahoe Adams Total/

C t C t Wtd A



A relationship can also be derived between jail bookings and average daily population. As

the weighted average ratio of jail bookings to average daily population in the county deteis 14.5.

Figure 37. Ratio of Jail Bookings to Jail Average Daily Population

Lastly, the above information is used to check and modify the estimate for demand for ja

range of court filings from Aurora (see detail in Courts section and in Figure 24), the

bookings out of court filings, the ratio of bookings to average daily jail population, an

Aurora can be derived. As shown, the low end assumption is slightly less than the 616 esti

Aurora’s share of current county demand For analysis purposes the average is presented

County County Wtd Average

County Es ti ma ted Booki ngs (2012)* 17,171 16,840 34,011

Court Fil ings** 95,692 89,178 184,870

Percent Ja il Booki ngs of Court Fi li ngs 17.9% 18.9% 18.4%

* Sources: Arapahoe County Sheriff; Adams County FY2013 Budget

** Combined total in each county in District and County Courts

Arapahoe Adams Total/

County County Wtd Average

County Esti mated Booki ngs (2012)* 17,171 16,840 34,011

County Jail Average Daily Population 1,150 1,200 2,350Ratio of Bookings to ADP 14.9 14.0 14.5

* Sources: Arapahoe County Sheriff; Adams County FY2013 Budget


Figure 38. Aurora Alternative Estimated Jail ADP Based on Court Filings

Based on this approach an average demand for jail space and operations is 753 beds

Low High Average

Aurora Estimated Fil ings* 47,195 70,792 58,993

Percent Ja il Booki ngs of Court Fi li ngs 18.5% 18.5% 18.5%

Aurora Estimated Bookings 8,731 13,097 10,914

Ratio Bookings to ADP 14.5 14.5 14.5

Aurora Estimated ADP 602 903 753

* See Figure 24



Based on this approach, an average demand for jail space and operations is 753 beds.

Given the above, a potential range of cost estimates is provided reflecting a range of

Aurora.

Figure 39. Detention Annual Operating Costs: Alternative Aurora Estimates

Modeled Sheriff Operating Cost

For the Feasibility Study, a rounded average ADP is used of 680 (a rounded average o

ADP). This results in a cost for City-County of Aurora as follows:

Aurora City-County

Low Demand [1] High Demand [1]

Assumed Avg Daily Population 615 750$ per inmate

Detention Cost Estimates [2] $27,521 $16,925,000 $20,641,000

Detention-Medical Cost Estimates [2] $4,169 $2,564,000 $3,127,000

Total $19,489,000 $23,768,000

[1] Rounded down

[2] Based on Arapahoe and Adams counties current levels of service


Figure 40. Detention Annual Operating Costs: Modeled Aurora Estimates

AURORA CITY-COUNTY

Aurora Existing Level of Service and Costs

Allocation

Methodology

LOS ($ per

Dem. Unit) [2]

Total

Demand

Base inAurora [3]

Total Est.

Aurora $

(rounded) [4]

Total Est.

Aurora FTE

Sheriff: Admin POPULATI ON $1.74 340,269 $592,000 5.0

Sheriff: Detention/Court Support JAIL ADP $27,521.00 680 $18,714,000 150.0

Sheriff: Detention Medical JAIL ADP $4,169.00 680 $2,835,000 0.0

Sheriff: Civil Processing POPULATI ON $2.21 340,269 $752,000 3.0

Sheriff: Bomb Squad* DIRECT ENTERED $300,000 2.5

Sheriff: Other JAIL ADP $ 1,531.00 680 $1,041,000 8.0



Sheriff: Other JAIL ADP $ 1,531.00 680 $1,041,000 8.0

$24,234,000 168.5

[1] Reflects estimated Aurora share in all counties to derive level of service[2] LOS= Level of Service (cost per demand unit)

[3] No additional demand from Douglas County portion of Aurora


* Source City of Aurora Police Dept.; reflects annual operating costs; no personnel costs included as assumption is

City Police staff would be reassigned; one-time costs included in capital


Court Security

As noted in the Courts chapter, the City-County of Aurora would be required to provide

This service is currently provided by the City for the Municipal Court. County sheriffs’ offic

this service either through sworn county deputies or contract services. In Adams Couofficers, 2 Administrative Clerks, and 2 Supervisors—all County employees—provide t

addition, Adams County contracts with a private security firm to provide door security/s

costs for these services are included in the Sheriffs’ budgets used to derive levels of se

estimates.



Facility Needs

Capital facilities and other one-time impacts include the following components:

• Bomb squad vehicles and equipment at $1.7 million.

• Construction of a detention facility.

• Provision of office space for support personnel.

• Detention vehicles. The City’s fleet would need to be expanded to accommod

prisoner transports and the addition of the civil processing function.

Below is a summary of current levels of service for County Detention facilities along with t

Jail. To be consistent, County factors are derived using average daily inmate population t

analysis, as opposed to maximum capacity. However, average daily population is

determine maximum space needs given that a baseline facility would need to be built

additional security needs, separation of female and male prisoners, and fluctuations in dai

Figure 41. Detention Facilities: County Current Levels of Service

Facility Current Co. SF Beds (max) Avg Daily SF/Inmate

Pop

Arapahoe Detention 293,108 1,464 1,150 255

Adams Detention 331,844 1,479 1,200 277

Subtotal County Jails 624,952 2,943 2,350 266Aurora Jail 50,251 220 220 228


Data estimating the average cost at $280 per square foot. For this phase of the analysis,

per square foot is used, or a rounded cost per bed of $90,000. The feasibility analysis

financing for this cost. The analysis uses the average need of 680 ADP with a 15 percent fa

reflect maximum space needed of 780 beds.

Figure 42. Detention Facility Needs: Aurora Estimates

Detention Facility City-County of Aurora Needs

Low Demand High Demand Average

Average Daily Population 615 750 680

Maximum Beds Needed (+15% rounded) 710 860 780

S Ft P I t 266 266 2



Other Issues and Considerations

Additional issues and considerations for Detention facilities are provided below:

1. Sources of Funding to construct Detention facilities (as well as Courts): Adams Co

additional dedicated sales tax. Douglas County also has a dedicated sales and use

2. An efficient location for a Jail facility is adjacent/near the Courts building. Ho

dependent on land availability and desirability.

3. Timing to build a facility is likely to be 3-5 years for site selection, pre-developm

construction.

4. A county jail facility must provide statutorily required services such as medical c

laundry.

5. Juvenile offenders are housed in State Juvenile Detention facilities if charged

However, if charged as an adult, the County is responsible. Juveniles must be “si

separated” from adult inmates, which requires a facility to either have separate en

pod space or would require the facility to go into lockdown to move juveniles

facility. Juvenile population in County Jails fluctuates. For example, as of July 201

zero juveniles in the Adams County Jail but they have had up to eight.

Other Sheriff Facility Needs

Sq. Ft. Per Inmate 266 266 2

Tota l Es ti ma ted Squa re Feet (rounded) 189,000 229,000 207,0

Average Construction Cost per SF $350 $350 $3Cost per Bed (rounded) $90,000 $90,000 $90,00

Estimated Cost $63,900,000 $77,400,000 $70,200,0


Figure 43.Sheriff (Non-Detention) Facility Needs: Current Aurora Estimate

Community Corrections

R l d b h C C d Sh iff i C i C i i S

SHERIFF (NON-DETENTION)



* Assumes 350 sq. ft. per FTE (avg City of Aurora Police & Arap. Co. Sheriff (non-detention))




Related to both County Court and Sheriff services, Community Corrections is a State man

that started in the mid-1970s as an alternative to incarceration. The rationale for the p

community corrections is less expensive than incarceration; clients are typically empl

defray the costs of housing and treatment (i.e., there is a revenue stream to offset costs)

by earning money, clients are often able to pay child support and/or restitution to the

program is regulated and funded by the State of Colorado with local implementation

support) through local community correction boards. The program serves several types

Diversion (halfway in prison), transition (halfway out of prison), condition of parole, an

probation.5

According to the Colorado Office of Community Corrections, 6

the following programs an

provided in Adams and Arapahoe counties:

17th Judicial District

The District’s 13-member board was formed in 1979. There are three residential commun

programs in the 17th District:

• Community Education Centers operates one facility in the county, Phoenix Center

1988).

• Correctional Psychology Associates has two facilities, Time To Change, Adams (200

to Change, Commerce City (2008).


18th Judicial District

Arapahoe County Commissioners formed a 15-member board in 1980. The three program

operation are:

• Arapahoe Community Treatment Center

• Arapahoe County Residential Center

• Centennial Community Transition Center

In Arapahoe County, Community Corrections is managed by the Community Resource

(J dicial Ser ices Di ision) ith f nding from the State at $5 1 million co ering 3 25 FT



(Judicial Services Division) with funding from the State at $5.1 million covering 3.25 FT

additional $1.5 million from the County General Fund in the Judicial Services Division that

Detail is provided in the “Community Resources” section (see Figure 57).

In Adams County, the service is housed under the County Administrator’s Office. It is fully

State at $5.9 million and 3 FTEs.

Costs for the City-County of Aurora for Community Corrections are captured unde

Resources.”


HUMAN SERVICES

Human Services is a major County function with the majority of funding coming from Sta

sources, but operations and staffing are managed locally. The city of Aurora is served by

currently and each County handles its organization differently. This section will look differ

sections of the report given the organization of County departments and budgets.

Funding Sources for Human Services



Funding Sources for Human Services

A summary of sources of funding by specific programs is provided below with the perce

from the county indicated. This table (unlike figures later in the chapter) includes those

benefits that are funded 100 percent by the federal and/or state governments (e.g., Food

total, approximately 10 percent of Arapahoe County’s programs are locally funded, how

funding vary by program as shown.

Figure 44. Sources of Funding for Human Services Programs: Arapahoe County

Arapahoe County Funding Sources (State FY 2012 (July 1, 2011 - June 30, 2012)

(in $ mill ions)

County State Federal Total % Cou

CO Works (TANF) $1.91 $0.00 $11.57 $13.48

Child Care $0.96 $1.40 $3.51 $5.87

Child Welfare-Block $5.77 $15.70 $9.67 $31.14

Child Welfare-Core Services $0.53 $2.47 $1.01 $4.01

County Admin (FAMS) $1.64 $2.77 $3.81 $8.22LEAP $0.00 $0.00 $3.30 $3.30

Old Age Pension $0.02 $11.41 $0.00 $11.43

Food Assistance $0.00 $0.00 $83.77 $83.77

Child Support Enforcement $1.75 $0.00 $3.77 $5.52

Other Small Programs $0.87 $2.12 $1.33 $4.32

Indirect Costs-Cost Alloc Plan $3.99 $0.00 $1.96 $5.95

Total $17.44 $35.87 $123.70 $177.01

Source: Arapahoe County Human Services


Figure 45. Sources of Funding for Human Services Programs: Adams County

Adams County Funding Sources (State FY 2014)

(in $ mill ions)

County State & Federal Total % County

CO Works (TANF) $2.11 $11.73 $14.39 15%

Child Care $1.02 $7.21 $8.23 12%

Child Welfare-Block $6.06 $26.94 $33.01 18%

Child Welfare-Core Services $0.52 $4.42 $4.94 11%

County Admin (FAMS) $1.50 $6.36 $7.85 19%

LEAP $0.00 $0.36 $0.36 0%

Old Age Pension $0.00 $10.47 $10.47 0%

Food Assistance $0.00 $98.69 $98.69 0%



Weatherization / Low-Income Energy Assistance Program (LEAP) is a federal/state funde

for purposes of this study, the Aurora share is included in both revenue and expenditure s

State law requires that County funding for Human Services comprise no more than 20 perc

Current County Operations

The counties have different approaches to budgeting for Human Services, namely th

exclusion of federally funded programs/services such as Food Assistance. Adams County

Assistance7 in its budget while Arapahoe County does not. Budgeting for human servic

given that there is a mix of funding sources, a prescribed allocation process (with local m

effort (MOE) for some programs and not others), three different fiscal years for the Cou

Federal governments, and a statewide close-out process where surplus funds are alloc

deficits. To be consistent with the other services in this analysis, we use the County’s adop

FY2013. The data received from each county—on funding and caseloads—in some cases

up neatly with the budget categories. In addition, because of the level of non-local fun

Food Assistance $0.00 $98.69 $98.69 0%

Child Support Enforcement $1.65 $3.21 $4.86 34%

Other Small Programs $0.45 $1.81 $2.26 20%

Total $13.3 $171.2 $185.1 7%

Source: Adams County Human Services


Figure 46. Arapahoe County Human Services Expenditures: FY2013 Adopted Budget

ARAPAHOE COUNTY

$ % of Fund FTEs

Human Services Costs [1]

Adminstrative Services $1,738,318 4% 3.00

Child Support Enforcement $4,214,169 9% 56.50Chi ldren Youth & Fa mi ly Servi ces $18,626,590 38% 193.50

Community Support Services $19,545,889 39% 166.00

Finance $1,225,877 2% 12.00

Human Services - Legal $2,277,463 5% 25.00

Operations Division $1,897,879 4% 27.00

Total $49,526,185 100% 483.00



Note: Workforce center funding (Arapahoe/Douglas Works!) is included in the Commu

department in Arapahoe County.

Arapahoe County revenues for Human Services (accounted for in the Adopted FY2013

follows.

Figure 47. Arapahoe County Human Services Revenues: FY2013 Adopted Budget

The Adams County Human Services budget is shown below. A gross number of FTEs

personnel complement is broken down in more detail later.

[1] Social Services Fund, FY2013

ARAPAHOE COUNTY

$ % of Fund

Human Services Revenues [1]

Taxes $12,384,765 25%

Intergovernmental $36,249,353 74%

Fees and Charges $35,000 0%

Others $350,000 1%

Total $49,019,118 100%



Figure 48. Adams County Human Services Expenditures: FY2013 Adopted Budget

ADAMS COUNTY

$ % of Fund % of Fund

Human Services [1] without Food As

Adult Services $2,085,064 1% 2

Ai d to the Needy Di sa bl ed/Supp Sec. I nc. (AND/SSI ) $1,228,373 1% 1Child Care Direct $8,070,971 4% 9

Child Support Enforcement $4,849,675 3% 5

Child Welfare $32,954,412 18% 37

Colorado Works (TANF) $12,913,920 7% 15

CORE Services $3,386,174 2% 4

County Administrator $1,236 0% 0



Adams County revenues for Human Services (accounted for in the Adopted FY2013 B

follows.

Employment First $450,860 0% 1

Food Assistance $98,688,307 53%General Administration $5,803,745 3% 7

General Assistance $50,000 0% 0

Independent Living $58,775 0% 0

Low Income Energy Assi stance Program (LEAP) $5,189,800 3% 6

Medicaid $1,042,939 1% 1

Old Age Pension $10,471,350 6% 12

Promoting Safe Stable Families $118,183 0% 0

Social Services ($642,566) 0% -1

Transfers $0 0% 0

Other $557,388 0% 1

Total with Food Assistance $187,278,606 100% 100

Total wi thout Food Assi stance $88,590,299

Total FTEs [2] 484

[1] Social Services Fund, FY2013[2] Per Dept. of Human Services (does not include 10 FTEs pending BOCC approval as of Sept. 2013)


Figure 49. Adams County Human Services Revenues: FY2013 Adopted Budget

ADAMS COUNTY

$ % of Fund % of Fund

Human Services Revenues [1] without Food As

Property Taxes $10,608,010 6% 12

Intergovernmenta l-Food As si stance $98,688,307 53%Intergovernmental-LEAP $5,189,800 3% 6

Intergovernmental-All Other $70,125,766 38% 80

Miscellaneous $375,775 0% 0

Other Financing Sources $1,613,535 1% 2

Total with Food Assistance $186,601,193 100% 100




We analyzed budgets from Arapahoe and Adams County and received caseload info

Arapahoe and Adams counties to derive an estimated base year amount required to ser

be consistent, we extracted Food Assistance revenues and expenditures from the Adams C

We received caseload data from both Arapahoe and Adams counties.8

In Arapahoe Co

reveal that overall approximately 64 percent of the County’s human service expen

attributed to the City of Aurora. However, each program has different allocations

caseloads from Aurora. Estimated staffing as a share of Arapahoe staff is shown as well.

Caseload data provided by Arapahoe County was by ZIP code. However, some of the ZIP

areas outside of the City of Aurora that is located in Arapahoe County. Further analysis w

by TischlerBise and the City of Aurora Planning Department to determine the share of

population in Arapahoe County within each Aurora ZIP Code, which varied from a low of

100 percent. These percentages were applied to the caseload data provided.

Total without Food Assi stance $87,912,886



Figure 50. Arapahoe County Human Services: Aurora Share

Human Services - DIVISION Arap. Co Budget % Aurora $ Aurora Arap. FTE Aurora FTE Sources

Admi nstrative Servi ces $1,738,318 64% $1,112,524 3.0 1.9 [Overhead/support cal c]

Chi ld Suppor t Enforc ement $4,214,169 60% $2,528,501 56.5 33.9 [Ar ap Co. Dept. of Huma n Ser

Chi ldren Youth & Family Services $18,626,590 60% $11,175,954 193.5 116.1 [Arap Co. Dept. of Human Ser

Community Support Services* $19,545,889 66% $12,900,287 166.0 109.6 [Weighted average of data p

Finance $1,225,877 64% $784,561 12.0 7.7 [Overhead/support calc]

Human Ser vi ces - Lega l ** $ 2,2 77 ,4 63 7 8% $ 1,7 76 ,4 21 2 5.0 1 9.5 [W ei ghted aver age of data pOperati ons Di vi si on $1,897,879 64% $1,214,643 27.0 17.3 [Overhead/support calc]

Total $49,526,185 64% $31,492,891 483.0 306.0

Overhead/Support Calculation $44,664,111 $28,381,163 64%

*Community Support Services Aurora (Cases by Zip County Total % Aurora

Adult Financial 2,059 3,359 61%

Adult Medical 6,004 9,652 62%

CO Works 1,056 1,465 72%



We also received detailed caseload data from Adams County, which is organized differe

reveal that overall approximately 10 percent of the County’s overall human service expe

attributed to the City of Aurora with levels of demand varying by program. Detail by progr

below.

, ,

Family Medical 13,622 19,785 69%

Food Assistance 14,792 21,309 69%

Long Term Care 2,790 4,797 58%

Medicare Savings 1,688 2,927 58%

Adult Protective Services 68 170 40%

Total 42,079 63,464 66%

**Human Services Legal Division Aurora County Total

Juvenile Deliquency 127 201 63%

Benefit Overpayment Collections 3,634 4,395 83%

Dependency and Neglect 283 470 60%

Adult Protection Probate 91 142 64%

Adult Protection Mental Health 168 295 57%

Total 4,303 5,503 78%

Source: Arapahoe County Human Services


Figure 51. Adams County Human Services: Aurora Share and Caseload Data

Adams Co. FY2013

Social Service Fund Budget $ Included % Aurora $ Aurora Sources

Adul t Ser vi ces $2,085,064 $2,085,064 11.2% $233,527 [Wei ghted a ver age of da ta pr

Aid to the Needy Disabled/Supp Sec. Inc. (AND/SSI) $1,228,373 $1,228,373 9.4% $115,467 [Weighted average of data p

Chi ld Ca re Di rect $8,070,971 $8,070,971 8.2% $664,493 [Chi ldca re a vera ge provi ded

Chi ld Suppor t Enfor cement $4 ,84 9,6 75 $4 ,84 9,6 75 8.4 % $4 07,3 73 [Ada ms Co. Huma n Ser vi ces D

Chi ld Wel fa re $32,954,412 $32,954,412 7.3% $2,405,672 [Adams Co. Huma n Servi ces D

Col or ado W or ks (TANF) $ 12,91 3,9 20 $ 12 ,91 3,9 20 1 5.6 % $ 2,0 14 ,5 72 [Ada ms Co. Huma n Ser vi ces D

CORE Services $3,386,174 $3,386,174 7.3% $247,191 [Adams Co. Human Services D

County Administrator $1,236 $1,236 9.5% $117 [Overhead/support calc]

Employment First $450,860 $450,860 10.2% $45,988 [Adams Co. Human Servi ces D

Food Assistance $98,688,307 $0 0.0% $0 na

General Admi ni strati on $5,803,745 $5,803,745 9.5% $551,356 [Overhea d/s upport ca lc]

General As si stance $50,000 $50,000 9.4% $4,700 [Wei ghted a verge of da ta pro

Independent Li vi ng $58,775 $58,775 9.4% $5,525 [Wei ghted a verge of da ta pro

Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LEAP) $5,189,800 $5,189,800 11.6% $602,017 [Adams Co. Human Services D

Medicaid $1,042,939 $1,042,939 8.7% $ 90,736 [Adams Co. Human Services D

Old Age Pension $10,471,350 $0 10.2% $0 na



Pro mo ting Safe S table Fami l ies $118,183 $118,183 9 .2% $10 ,873 [Weigh ted averge o f data p ro

Social Services ($642,566) ($642,566) 9.2% ($59,116) [Wei ghted averge of data pro

Transfers $0 0.0% $0 na

Other $557,388 $557,388 9.5% $52,952 [Overhead/support calc]

Total $187,278,606 $78,118,949 9.5% $7,393,441

Overhead/Support Calculation $180,916,237 $71,756,580 $6,789,016 9.5%

Adams County Caseload Data

Public Assistance

Total County

Cases or Clients

Aurora in

Adams % Aurora

Adult financial assistance 2,691 274 10.2%

Adult medical assistance 8,248 954 11.6%

Long-term care 3,559 204 5.7%

Medicare savings program 3,375 176 5.2%

Family Medical assistance 23,044 2,009 8.7%Colorado Works (TANF) 954 149 15.6%

Food Assistance 22,639 2,309 10.2%

Expedited Food Assistance 868 82 9.4%

Employment First 22,384 2,283 10.2%

Chi ld Ca re As si sta nce* 1,081 89 8.2%

LEAP 9,175 1,064 11.6%

TOTAL 98,018 9,593 9.8%

Child Welfare

Child welfare cases 1,025 75 7.3%

Subsidized adoption 1,280 94 7.3%

TOTAL 2,305 169 7.3%

Child Support Services

Chi ld s uppor t s er vi ces 13 ,79 5 1 ,15 2 8 .4 %

Workforce and Business Center (Separate Fund)

Workforce Ctr 2,456 278 11.3%

Head Start

Head Start 524 0 0.0%

SUMMARY Aurora Cases

Weighted total/average for Admin and General Costs

Total County

Cases or Clients

Aurora in

Adams % Aurora

Public Assistance [w/o Food, LEAP] 65,336 6,138 9.4%

Child Welfare 2,305 169 7.3%

Child Support Services 13,795 1,152 8.4%

Total 81,436 7,459 9.2%

* Includes Low Income, Open TANF, Former TANF, Special Circumstance


A summary of current and allocated Adams County Human Services staffing is shown belo

Figure 52. Adams County Human Services Personnel Analysis



To project current expenditures to provide Human Services to the City-County of Auror

above information reflecting current levels of service as provided by each county to th

manner provided in the respective budgets. This is the baseline expenditure and staffing.

context is estimated intergovernmental funding—based on current County practices

average caseloads in each county.

Figure 53. Human Services Annual Operating Costs: Aurora Current Estimate

Considerations

• The operating estimate provided assumes the City County of Aurora takes ove


Aur or a Shar e in Each C ount y Aur or a Shar e: Ex ist ing L eve ls of Se rvice and C ost s

Arap $ Arap FTE Adams $ Adams FTE Est. Aurora $[1] AllocationMethodology DemandUnits [1] LOS ($ perDem. Unit) [2]

Total

Demand Base

in Aurora [3]

Human Services Costs $31,492,891 306.0 $7,393,441 42.2 $38,886,331 POPULATION 340,269 $114.28 340,269

Human Services Estd Intergovtl Revenues $23,199,586 $6,636,939 $29,836,525 POPULATION 340,269 $87.69 340,269

[1] Reflects estimated Aurora share in Arapahoe and Adams counties to derive level of service





Facility and Technology Needs

• Arapahoe County Human Services

o Offices are located at Centrepoint Plaza in Aurora (a total of 136,000 squa

as Arapahoe Plaza in Littleton.

o Information technology is provided as a centralized service with technicia

Human Services. The costs for this function are covered in Overhead/Su

below.

• Adams County Human Services

o Offices are provided throughout the County. The main office is in Comm



approximately 66,000 square feet, housing the Administration offices an

the public assistance programs (Community Support Services Divisio

Veterans Services.

o Children and Family Services Division is housed in Denver with approxi

square feet on four floors.

o The County leases a facility known as the Aurora Workforce Center that is

10,000 square feet (3155 Chambers Road, Unit C in Aurora). This f

Workforce and Business Center staff as well as serving as a drop-off offic

assistance program applications and documentation. Further, eligibility

interviews for TANF are conducted at this location.

o There are seven other centers throughout the western portion of the

Brighton.

o The County leases a small annex for the Children and Family Servic

approximately 2,500 square feet in Thornton.

o There is no Head Start program in the City of Aurora.

The following figure provides an estimate for Human Services facility space to serve the

Aurora.


Figure 54. Human Services Facility Needs: Aurora Current Estimate

HUMAN SERVICES County Totals % Aurora Auror

Arapahoe County LOS

CentrePoint Plaza Sq. Ft. 136,000 64% 87

Total Sq. Ft. 136,000 87

FTEs 483.0 3

Sq. Ft. per FTE 282

Adams County LOS

Human Services Building (main office) Sq. Ft. 66,000 9.5% 6

Children and Family Center Sq. Ft. 48,000 9.5% 4

Aurora Services Center (Chambers Rd)^ Sq. Ft. 10,000 9.5%

Adams County Services Center Sq. Ft. 11,710 0.0%



The Arapahoe County Human Services Building currently has outstanding (non-General O

on it. The estimated outstanding debt allocated to Aurora prorated for Human Services is

$13.3 million.

Adams County Services Center Sq. Ft. 11,710 0.0%

Total Sq. Ft. 135,710 11

FTEs^^ 484.0

Sq. Ft. per FTE 280

Aurora City-County Estimates Sq. Ft $ per Sq. Ft.** Est. Co




^ Workforce and Business Center space; portion allocated for Human Services functions.

^^ Excludes Headstart and Workforce Center


** Average rounded construction cost estimates from Reed Construction Data and recent regional projects


Community Resources

Arapahoe County has certain programs included in its Community Resources department.

are:

• CSU Extension

• Senior Resources

• Veteran Services

• Community Development Services

• Arapahoe/Douglas Works!

• Judicial Services (includes alternative sentencing programs for District and County



further discussed under Sheriff chapter; costs shown here)

• Related administrative functions

Adams County has similar services housed in different departments in the County. Thes

included in this section. For purposes of this analysis, these services are grouped

“Community Resources.”

Workforce centers are fully federally funded and Judicial Services/Community Correctionfunding. Community Development activity is provided through federal block grants an

funds are received for a variety of purposes. The analysis includes those programs t

required to be provided by City-County of Aurora. Community Development activities ar

as they are already provided by the City of Aurora.

Figure 55. Community Resources Department: County Current Levels of Service

ARAPAHOE COUNTY ADAMS COU


LOS

$/Unit $ FTEs

Deman

Unit

Community Resources General Fund [1]

Comm Res -Admi ni str ati ve Ser vi ces $889,682 10.0 see supporting figures na na see supp

Comm Res-CSU Extension $452,400 5.0 $731,578 6.0

Comm Res-Senior Resources $309,816 4.3 na na

Comm Res-Veteran Services $160,100 2.0 $66,164 1.0

Comm Res-Judicial Services $1,475,914 21.0 $5,929,803 3.0

Comm Res-Community Dev Services $30,000 0.0 na na

Total $3,317,912 42.3 $6,727,545 10.0

Community Resources Special Funds [2]

ARAPAHOE/ DOUGLAS WORKS! FUND [3] $9,668,762 83.0 $7,880,862 64.2

GRANT FUND [4] $10,172,754 46.3 na na

Total $19,841,516 129.3 $7,880,862 64.2

Personal Costs Total (All Funds) $11,338,171 $4,564,378


Current baseline costs to serve Aurora, based on information provided by the County are s

Figure 56. Arapahoe County Community Resources Annual Operating Costs: Baseline Aurora Share


FY 2013 Gross GF

Expenditures [1]

% of

General

Fu nd # o f FTEs

Type of Service


Aurora

Factor [3]

Aur

COMMUNITY RESOURCES Comm Res -Ad mi ni str ati ve Ser vi ces $ 88 9,6 82 1 % 1 0.0 0 Coun tywi de O ver hea d (Aur or a % of CR Di rec t) 3 6%

Comm Res-CSU Extension $452,400 0% 5.00 Countywide Custom (Caseload) 26%

Comm Res-Senior Resources $309,816 0% 4.25 Countywide Custom (Caseload) 44%

Comm Res-Veteran Services $160,100 0% 2.00 Countywide Population 48%

Comm Res-Judicial Services $1,475,914 1% 21.00 Countywide Custom (Caseload) 38%

Comm Res-Community Dev Services $30,000 0% 0.00 Countywide Fixed 0%

Arapahoe County Fund and Department

FY 2013 Gross

Special Fund

Expenditures [1]

% of Total

Special

F unds # of FTEs

Type of Service


Aurora

Factor [3]

Au

ARAPAHOE CO FAIR FUND-Community Resources $25 600 0% Unincorp Fixed 0 0%



Figure 57. Arapahoe County Community Resources Supporting Data

The following figure shows Adams County current expenditures for a subset of these funct

ARAPAHOE CO FAIR FUND-Community Resources $25,600 0% Unincorp. Fixed 0.0%

ARAP AHOE/ DO UGLAS W ORK S! F UND-Co mmu ni ty Res ou $9,668 ,762 6% 83.00 Co un ty wi de Cus to m (Ca sel oa d) 47% $

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND-Community Resourc $4,989,823 3% 2.50 Unincorp. Fi xed 0.0%

GRANT FUND-Communi ty Res ourc es $10,172,754 6% 46.25 Countywi de Cus tom (Ca sel oa d) 44% $


[2] Service = Unincorporated, Countywide, O verhead, Internal Service

[3] Es timated Aurora share of expenditures based on demand factors shown in supporting tables

CSU Extension Arap County Clients Aurora Clients % Aurora

Family Consumer Science 6,700 2,500 37%4-H 8,800 1,370 16%

Hort/Master Gardener 9,700 2,640 27%

25,200 6,510 26%

Senior Resources

Homemaker 370 105 28%

Chore Services 300 125 42%

Transp 400 239 60%

1,070 469 44%

Judicial Services

Pretrial Supervision 744 244 33%

Community Service Supervision 1,440 584 41%

2,184 828 38%

Grant Fund Arap. County Budget ($) Aurora % Aurora $

Judicial $4,914,010 38% $1,867,324

Senior $841,610 44% $370,308

Weatherization (LEAP) $4,365,216 50% $2,182,608

Total $10,120,836 44% $4,420,240

Source: Arapahoe County Community R esources


Figure 58. Adams County Community Resources Annual Operating Costs: Baseline Aurora Share

Based on the above allocation of services to the City of Aurora, the following figure illustr

estimate to serve the City-County of Aurora. It should be noted that several of these

funded either wholly or partially through intergovernmental revenues The analys


FY 2013 Gross GF

Expenditures [1]

% of

General

Fund # of FTEs

Type of Service

[2]

Allocation

Methodology

Aurora

Factor [3]

A

S

CSU Extension $731,578 0% 6.00 Countywide Population 10%

Veterans Service Office $66,164 0% 1.00 Countywide Population 10%

Community Corrections $5,929,803 4% 3.00 Countywide Custom 13% $






funded either wholly or partially through intergovernmental revenues. The analys

offsetting revenues as well, so the net result will reflect a required local share.

Figure 59. Community Resources Annual Operating Costs: Aurora Current Estimate

As noted elsewhere, workforce development activities (Arapahoe/Douglas Works! in

Douglas counties and Workforce Business Center in Adams County) are government

programs.

• In Arapahoe County, approximately 47 percent of the demand is estimated froAurora (per Arapahoe County Department of Community Resources). Howeve

County workforce centers (located in Centennial Altura Plaza (Aurora) and Castle


A ur or a Shar e in Each Co unt y Au ror a Shar e: Exist in g L eve ls of Se rvice and Cost s

Ar ap $ Ar ap FTE Adams $ Adam s FTEEst. Aurora $

[1]

Allocation

Methodology

Demand

Units [1]

LOS ($ per

Dem. Unit) [2]

Total

Demand

Base in

Aurora [3]

Community Res-Admin $320,286 3.6 $320,286 POPULATION 291,946 $1.10 291,946

Community Res-CSU Extension $1 17,62 4 1.3 $7 3,158 0.6 $1 90,78 2 POPULATI ON 3 40 ,269 $0.5 6 340,26 9

Comm Res-Senior Resources $136,319 1.9 $136,319 POPULATION 291,946 $0.47 291,946

Comm Res-Veteran Services $76,848 1.0 $ 6,616 0.1 $83,464 POPULATION 340,269 $0.25 340,269

Comm Res-Judicial Services* $5 60,84 7 8.0 $77 0,874 0.4 $1 ,3 31,72 2 POPULATI ON 340 ,269 $3.9 1 340,26 9

Comm Res-Community Dev Services $0 0.0 $0 POPULATION 291,946 $0.00 291,946

ARAPAHOE/ DOUGLAS WORKS! FUND** $ 4,5 44 ,3 18 3 9.0 $ 89 0,5 37 7 .3 $5 ,4 34 ,8 56 P OPULATI ON 3 40 ,2 69 $ 15 .9 7 3 40 ,2 69

GRANT FUND** $4,476,012 20.4 $4,476,012 POPULATION 291,946 $15.33 291,946

$



[3] Expands the base to be served in Aurora to i nclude Douglas County (added to Arapahoe and Adams counties)


* Partially offset with intergovernmental revenues.** Offsetting revenues at 100%


Workforce development programs are 100 percent federally funded therefore Aurora de

space needs only and not operational support.

The Arapahoe County Department of Community Resources also provides Housing an

Development services. However, since the City of Aurora is an entitlement community,

are already provided directly by the City of Aurora and therefore not included or sho

County services.

Facility Needs: Community Resources



Arapahoe County Community Resource functions are housed apart from Human Servidepartments. Below is a summary of estimated Aurora’s share of this space for services p

Community Resources.


Figure 60. Community Resources Facility Needs: Aurora Current Estimate

COMMUNITY RESOURCES County Totals % Aurora

Arapahoe County LOS

Admin-Arapahoe Plaza Sq. Ft. 3,000 36%

Arapahoe/Douglas Works!

Lima Plaza Sq. Ft. 32,000 47%Altura Plaza Sq. Ft. 4,600 47%

CentrePoint Plaza Sq. Ft. 1,100 47%

Arapahoe Plaza Sq. Ft. 200 0%

Phil l ip S. Miller Library (Castle Rock) Sq. Ft. 600 0%

CSU Extension-Datura Sq. Ft. 7850 0%

Judical Services

Altura Plaza Sq. Ft. 2,330 38%

Arapahoe Plaza Sq Ft 130 38%



Two current County facilities that house the above discussed Community Resources

outstanding (non-General Obligation) debt. The facilities are Lima Plaza (Arapahoe Co

Arapahoe Plaza Sq. Ft. 130 38%

Lima Plaza Sq. Ft. 7,500 38%

Senior Resources-Arapahoe Plaza Sq. Ft. 800 44%

Total 60,110

FTEs 129.3

Sq. Ft. per FTE 465

Adams County LOS

Adams Workforce Center-Brighton Sq. Ft. 20,000 11.3%

Adams Workforce Center-Aurora ̂ Sq. Ft. 10,000 11.3%Community Corrections-Adams Service Ctr Sq. Ft. 370 13.0%

Total 30,370

FTEs 64.2

Sq. Ft. per FTE 473

Aurora City-County Estimates Sq. Ft $ per Sq. Ft.^^

Estimate based on % Share of Space 26,400 $200

Estimate based on Sq. Ft. per FTE* 83 FTEs 40,300 $200

Estimate Average 33,350 $200

^ Opened summer 2013, therefore client data reflects Brighton branch




Developmental Disability Funds

Arapahoe and Adams counties have a tax-supported fund for Developmental Disability

has a separate mill levy to fund these services and both counties contract out these servic

of the levels of service is shown below.

Figure 61. Developmental Disability Fund: Aurora Share

Arapahoe County Fund and Department

FY 2013 Gross

Special Fund

Expenditures [1]

% of Total

Special

F unds # of FTEs

Type of Service

[2]

Allocation

Methodology

Aurora

Factor [3]

Auror

DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILI TY FUND-Admi n Servc s $7,307,011 4% Countywi de Popul ati on 4 8.0 % $ 3,5



Based on the above, the cost estimated for the City-County of Aurora is as follows:

Figure 62. Developmental Disability Fund Annual Operating Costs: Aurora Current Estimate

Also included is an estimated amount for contributions to non-profit agencies for mental

and drug/alcohol services. Based on current levels of service in Arapahoe County, an e

impact for Aurora is $812,000.

Figure 63. Aid to Agencies Annual Operating Costs: Aurora Current Estimate

% of Total # of Type of Allocation A

FY 2013 Gross Special Special FTEs Service [2] Methodology Factor

Adams County Fund and Depart ment Fund Expenditures Funds FY2013

Developmental ly Disabled Fund $1,146,064 0% Countywide Population 10.0% $


Au ror a Shar e in Each Cou nt y Aur or a Sh ar e: Exist in g L eve ls of Se rvice an d Cost s

Arap $ Ar ap FTE Adams $ Adams FTEEst. Aurora $

[1]

Allocation

Methodology

Demand

Units [1]

LOS ($ per

Dem. Unit) [2]

Total

Demand

Base in

Aurora [3]

(ro

Developmental Disability Fund $ 3,5 07 ,36 5 na $ 114 ,60 6 na $3,621 ,9 72 POPULATI ON 340 ,26 9 $1 0.64 340 ,26 9 $

[1] Ref lects estim ated Aurora share in Arapahoe and Adams counties to derive level of service





OTHER SERVICES AND COSTS

Public Health / Tri-County Health

Public health services in Arapahoe, Adams, and Douglas counties are provided by a mult

health entity known as Tri-County Health. Each county contributes the same negotiat

amount to the organization to provide public health services. The agency is led by a 9-me

Health appointed by the Board of County Commissioners in each county. Those ser

emergency preparedness, environmental health, public health nurse services (e.g., im



g y p p p g

nutrition services, epidemiology, planning and communication services, vital statistics, and

of the agency. A summary of Arapahoe and Adams counties’ contributions to Tri-County H

below. In addition, each county has an additional expense for county-based services.

Figure 64. Tri-County Health Annual Operating Costs: Aurora Current Estimate Based on Current C

The assumption for this analysis is that a City-County of Aurora would become part of Tri-C

(e.g., “Quad-County Health”) and the costs associated with that service would reflect curre

today. The additional programs provided today by the two main counties are also modeled

Figure 65. Public Health Annual Operating Costs: Aurora Current Estimate

ARAPAHOE COUNTY ADAMS COUNT


LOS

$/Unit $ FTEs

Demand

Unit

Tri-County Health-Contribution* $ 3,7 78 ,4 93 na P opul ati on 6 02 ,8 68 $ 6.2 94 $2 ,9 63 ,00 1 na P opul a ti on

Public Health County Programs** $388,308 na Popul ati on 602,868 $ 0.64 $304,875 na Popul ati on

* Cost factor for Tri-County Health contribution

**County programs such as We st Nile Mitigation

AURORA CITY-COUNTY

Aurora Share: Existing Levels of Service and Costs

LOS ($ per

Dem. Unit)

Allocation

Methodology

Demand

Units

Total Est.

Aurora $(rounded)

Tri-County Health-Contribution* $6.294 POPULATION 340,269 $2,141,653

Public Health County Programs** $0 65 POPULATION 340 269 $221 175


Facility Needs

Tri-County Health has 11 locations throughout the three counties. The main office serv

Aurora is Altura Plaza (17,000 square feet), which is a full-service office along with limite

of Iliff and Chambers Office and Alton-Colfax Office. It is assumed that a City-County of Au

obligated to house Tri-County Health and the Altura Plaza location is used as a proxy (17

million).

Surveyor



The City-County of Aurora will need to have a Surveyor. Adams County currently budgetsat $17,810. An estimated amount for the City-County of Aurora is based on this amount a

be $13,000.

Public Trustee

The County Public Trustee processes documents pertaining to foreclosures and release

trust (when mortgages are paid off). In foreclosure proceedings, the Public Trustee is expe

that the foreclosures are processed according to the law. The position is appointed by th

Colorado. The Public Trustee’s office is fully funded by fees for service and is not in

analysis.

Overhead/Supporting Costs

To reflect overhead and other non-line service costs that are not captured in the direc

above, we provide an estimate of allocated costs to the City of Aurora. To allocate Auro

derive a weighted average of Aurora’s direct costs to current County direct costs in each C

that percentage for each overhead/supporting cost component. Detail is provided below.

for potential additional research and analysis if the City moves forward with County formamore in-depth analysis of each county’s cost allocation plan as well as an examinati

provided by the City today and the incremental increase in services personnel and co


Figure 66. Arapahoe County Overhead/Support Cost Analysis: Aurora Share


FY 2013 Gross GF

Expenditures [1]

% of

General

Fund # of FTEs

Type of Service

[2]

Allocation

Methodology

Aurora

Factor [3]

Aurora

$

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES† $18,190,261 11% na Overhead Overhead 23% $93

BOCC ADMINISTRATION $589,732 0% 4.00 Overhead Overhead 23% $13

COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES $1,290,386 1% 10.00 Overhead Overhead 23% $29

COUNTY ATTORNEY $2,568,736 2% 22.00 Overhead Overhead 23% $59FACILI TIES & FLEET MANAGEMENT†† $9,158,955 6% 61.50 Overhead Overhead 46% $4,21

FINANCE $2,986,557 2% 29.50 Overhead Overhead 23% $68

HUMAN RESOURCES $1,726,913 1% 14.00 Overhead Overhead 23% $39

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY $12,761,002 8% 69.00 Overhead Overhead 23% $2,93

OFFICE OF PERFORMANCE MGMT $256,429 0% 2.00 Overhead Overhead 23% $5

† Gen. Fund amount shown, which includes transfers and pass-through funds. Aurora share is first reduced to reflect Admin. costs of $4,068,013 (then multip

†† Aurora share reflects estimated share of facility space allocated to Aurora services



[3] Estim ated Aurora share of expenditures based on dem and factors shown in supporting tables



Figure 67. Adams County Overhead/Support Cost Analysis: Aurora Share

Given the above allocation to Aurora, the following estimate is derived for support service

to note:

• The expenditures here are recorded in the General Fund and not part of an i

fund, as the costs would already be reflected in departmental direct expenditures

• Because these types of services are already provided in the City of Aurora, the es

may need to be adjusted as the study and process progresses because the City’s

may be different than the County.


FY 2013 Gross GF

Expenditures [1]

% of

General

Fund # of FTEs

Type of Service

[2]

Allocation

Methodology

Aurora

Factor [3]

A

S

Admin/ Organization Support† $20,339,629 13% Overhead Overhead 5%

County Administrator $1,300,167 1% 5.00 Overhead Overhead 5%

County Attorney $3,375,260 2% 26.00 Overhead Overhead 5% $

County Commissioners $637,869 0% 5.00 Overhead Overhead 5%

Faci li ty Pl anni ng & Opera ti ons-Gen Govt†† $9,065,568 6% 50.00 O verhead Overhead 7% $

Finance $3,557,347 2% 31.75 Overhead Overhead 5% $

Human Resources $1,890,526 1% 13.00 Overhead Overhead 5%

Information Technology $4,680,157 3% 42.00 Overhead Overhead 5% $

Telecommunications $1,795,053 1% 8.00 Overhead Overhead 5%

Facil ity Pl anning & Operati ons-Publi c Safety†† $2,242,005 1% Overhead Overhead 7% $

Public Works CIP $130,000 0% Overhead Overhead 5%

† Gen. Fund amount shown, which i ncludes debt service and charges for services . Aurora share is first reduced to reflect operating costs of $1.7m (then multipl ied by

†† Aurora share reflects estimated share of facility space allocated to Aurora services





Figure 68. Overhead/Support Services Annual Operating Costs: Aurora Current Estimate Ba

County Services



Arap $ Arap FTE Adams $Adams

FTE

Est. Aurora $

[1]

Allocation

Methodology

Demand

Units [1]

LOS ($ per

Dem. Unit) [2]

Total

Demand Base

in Aurora [3] (r

Overhead/Support

Admi ni stra ti ve Suppor t $935,643 NA $150,503 0.3 $1,086,146 POPULATI ON 339,935 $3.20 340,269

Legi sl ati ve (BOCC) $135,638 0.9 $31,893 0.3 $167,532 POPULATION 3 39,935 $0.50 340,269

Communications $296,789 2.3 $89,753 0.4 $ 386,541 POPULATION 339,935 $1.10 340,269

County Attorney $590,809 5.1 $168,763 1.3 $759,572 POPULATION 339,935 $2.20 340,269

Fa ci li ti es a nd Fl eet† $4,213,119 28.3 $791,530 3.6 $5,004,649 FACI LI TY SF 657,350 $7.60 657,350

Finance $686,908 6.8 $177,867 1.6 $864,775 POPULATION 339,935 $2.50 340,269

Human Resources $397,190 3.2 $94,526 0.7 $491,716 POPULATION 3 39,935 $1.40 340,269

I nforma ti on Tech $2,935,030 15.9 $ 234,008 2.1 $3,169,038 POPULATI ON 339,935 $9.30 340,269

Other $58,979 0.5 $6,500 NA $65,479 POPULATION 339,935 $0.20 340,269

$10,250,106 62.9 $1,745,344 9.9 $





In addition, IT system annual maintenance costs are modeled given the new system

County services such as Assessor/Treasurer, County Clerk, Coroner, Detention, and Asse

input from the Counties, an additional annual operating impact is estimated at approximat

Facility Needs

Finally, office space is estimated for these services. We assume a conservative 250 sq

employee resulting in a need for an additional 18,300 square feet of space.

Figure 69. Facility Space Estimate for Support Services

Both Arapahoe and Adams counties have existing debt on facilities that house the su

described above. The facilities are Lima Plaza (Arapahoe County) and the Adams County Building and the estimated outstanding debt allocated to Aurora prorated for these

i l $2 5 illi



† Reflects current County levels of service appl ied to preliminary es timate of additional facility space (in SF) for City-County of Aurora.

Aurora City-County Estimates Sq. Ft $ per Sq. Ft.^ Est. CoEstimate based on Sq. Ft. per FTE* 73 FTEs 18,300 $200 $3,660

* Assumes 250 sq. ft. per employee





opposed to a lump sum pay-off at end of transition). Alternatively, the City-County of

negotiate use of the existing facilities and assume debt/lease payments.

The following section provides additional information on the approach to estimate Au

existing debt.

Arapahoe County Debt

Arapahoe County does not have any general obligation debt (for non-utility Public

Districts) as of FY2013.

Other debt and lease payments are recorded in the Arapahoe County Building Financ

d b l d f f d l l f h d d



Fund. Debt includes Certificates of Participation and capital leases. Of the outstanding d

lease payments of the County, the following is applicable to this analysis:

Figure 71. Arapahoe County Outstanding Debt: Aurora Share by Facility

Arapahoe County Est. Total Estd. Aurora Aurora

Total County Remaining Remaining Yrs Share Share

(SF) Debt of Debt Service of Space of Debt (%)

Lima Plaza 106,600 $13,416,002 18Arapahoe/Douglas Works! 32,000 15,040 14.1

Judical Services 7,500 2,850 2.7

Motor Vehicle 16,580 0 0.0

Support functions* 1,000 0.9

Subtotal 56,080 18,890 17.7

Centre Point 136,000 $20,736,232 9

Human Services 136,000 87,040 64.0

Sheriff/Coroner Bldg 122,000 $20,736,232 9

Sheriff (Non-Detention) and Coroner 122,000 10,000 8.2

Justice Center 247,000 $6,671,438 4

Justice Center 247,000 123,500 50.0

DA Building 43,700 $3,940,760 6

DA Building 43,700 21,850 50.0

Total Estimated Aurora Share


Adams County Debt

Adams County does not have any general obligation debt as of FY2013.

The County does have outstanding debt obligations through certificates of participation. T

participated in four separate sale-leaseback transactions for the sale and repurchase of e

buildings and one lease-leaseback. Per the State law, these obligations are not considered

they are lease payments, which are subject to annual appropriations.

Below is an estimate of the outstanding lease obligations by facility in the County as wel

Aurora’s share of these payments.

Figure 72 Adams County Outstanding Debt: Aurora Share by Facility



Figure 72. Adams County Outstanding Debt: Aurora Share by Facility

Adams County Est. Total Estd. Aurora Aurora

Total County Remaining Remaining Yrs Share Share

(SF) Debt of Debt Service of Space of Debt (%)

Administration building 324,000 $193,871,150 18*

Assessor 21,000 1,680 0.5

Clerk 33,280 4,480 1.4

Treasurer 7,300 584 0.2

Workforce & Business Service 20,000 2,260 0.7Support Functions 72,300 3,915 1.2

Subtotal 153,880 12,919

Justice Center 304,768 $8,230,695 18*

Justice Center (Phases 1 and 2) 304,768 39,620 13.0

Western Service Center 55,000 $5,450,275 11

Western Service Center 55,000 0 0.0

DA Building 65,000 $6,398,148 11

DA Building 65,000 8,450 13.0

Total Estimated Aurora Share

* Multiple phases

Sources: Adams County FY2012 CAFR; Adams County FY2013 Budget; departmental interviews; TischlerBise analysi


Existing County Facilities

Current facilities serving Aurora are potential candidates for continuation by the City-Cou

In particular are:

• Altura Plaza: Currently houses Assessor’s Office staff, Arapahoe/Douglas WorkResources, Tri-County Health, satellite Probation Office, and a Motor Vehicle offi

service. The current appraised value of the building and land is $5.5 million, wh

approximately $95 per square foot. Arapahoe County has plans in its current F

upgrades to the building, namely remodeling (2-year planned cost of $3.3 milli

replacement in 2015 ($500,000).

• Centrepoint Plaza: Currently houses Arapahoe County’s Human Services depar

City of Aurora comprises approximately 65 percent of the department’s activities



City of Aurora comprises approximately 65 percent of the department s activities location, the building would be a candidate for City-County of Aurora use.




Figure 74. Arapahoe County General Fund Base Year Budget Detail and Allocation Methodologies


FY 2013 Gross GF

Expenditures [1]

% of

General

Fu nd # o f FTEs

Type of Service


Aurora

Factor [3]

Aur

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES† $18,190,261 11% na Overhead Overhead 23%

AID TO AGENCIES $1,689,000 1% na Countywide Population 48%

ASSESSOR'S OFFICE $4,987,243 3% 63.00 Countywide Parcels 47% $

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS $956,717 1% 5.00 Countywide Fixed 0%

BOCC ADMINISTRATION $589,732 0% 4.00 Overhead Overhead 23%

CLERK & RECORDER'S OFFICE $8,491,815 see below 118.50

Cl er k & Rec - Admi ni str ati on $703 ,438 0% 8.50 Countywi de Cus tom (Aur. Avg % Cl erk&Rec ) 45%

Clerk & Rec - Elections^ $1,830,179 1% 15.00 Countywide Voters 46%

Clerk & Rec - Motor Vehicle $5,077,816 3% 82.00 Countywide Vehicles 44% $

Clerk & Rec - Recording $880,382 1% 13.00 Countywide Parcels 47%

COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES $1,290,386 1% 10.00 Overhead Overhead 23%

COMMUNITY RESOURCES

Comm Res -Ad mi ni str ati ve Ser vi ces $ 88 9,6 82 1 % 1 0.0 0 Coun tywi de O ver hea d (Aur or a % of CR Di rec t) 3 6%

Comm Res-CSU Extension $452,400 0% 5.00 Countywide Custom (Caseload) 26%

Comm Res-Senior Resources $309,816 0% 4.25 Countywide Custom (Caseload) 44%

Comm Res-Veteran Services $160,100 0% 2.00 Countywide Population 48%

Comm Res-Judicial Services $1,475,914 1% 21.00 Countywide Custom (Caseload) 38%

Comm Res-Community Dev Services $30,000 0% 0.00 Countywide Fixed 0%

CORONER'S OFFICE $1,528,632 1% 12.00 Countywide Population 48%



COUNTY ATTORNEY $2,568,736 2% 22.00 Overhead Overhead 23%

DI STRI CT ATTORNEY (18th JD) $12,186 ,135 8% 192.0 0 Countywi de Cus tom (Formul a) n/a $

FACILITIES & FLEET MANAGEMENT†† $9,158,955 6% 61.50 Overhead Overhead 46% $

FINANCE $2,986,557 2% 29.50 Overhead Overhead 23%

HUMAN RESOURCES $1,726,913 1% 14.00 Overhead Overhead 23%

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY $12,761,002 8% 69.00 Overhead Overhead 23% $

OFFICE OF PERFORMANCE MGMT $256,429 0% 2.00 Overhead Overhead 23%

OPEN SPACES & INTERGOVTL RELATIONS $63,919 0% 1.00 Unincorp. Fixed 0%

PUBLIC WORKS & DEVELOPMENT $6,544,445 4% 67.00 Unincorp. Fixed 0%

SHERIFF'S OFFICE $63,253,829 see below

Sheriff-Administration $1,808,613 1% 15.00 Overhead Aurora % of Sheriff Direct 25%

Sheriff-Detention Services^^ $38,073,198 see below 397.50

Sher iff-Detenti on/Cour t Suppor t $31,973 ,1 98 20% 242.00 Countywi de Custom (Jail %) 40% $1

Sheri ff-Detenti on Medi cal $4,600,000 3% Countywi de Cus tom (Jai l %) 40% $

Sheriff-Civil Processing $1,500,000 1% 6.00 Countywide Custom (Direct Input)

Sher iff-Pr ofes si ona l Sta nda rds Bur ea u $3,125,9 81 2% 25.50 Over hea d Aurora % of Sher iff Di rec t 2 5%

Sheriff-Publ ic Safety Bureau $20,246,037 13% 190.75 Unincorp. Fixed 0%

TREASURER'S OFFICE $2,041,784 1% 22.00 Countywide Parcels 47%

TRI-COUNTY HEALTH $4,166,801 3% na Countywide Population (Formula) 48% $

TRANSFER TO OTHER FUNDS $0 0% na Fixed Fixed 0%

TOTAL GENERAL FUND* $158,757,203 100% 1369.50 $4

^ FY 2013 shown; Average of 2010 - 2013 used for Aurora share.

* Will not equal FY2013 County adopted budget due to m odifications in Comm Resources from departmental information provided

^^ Includes Detention, Court Support, and Civil Functions

† Gen. F und amount shown, which includes transfers and pass-through funds. Aurora share is first reduced to reflect Admin. cost of $4m ( then multiplied by Aurora factor)

†† Aurora share reflects estimated share of f acility space allocated to Aurora services



[3] Es timated Aurora share of expenditures based on demand factors shown in supporting tables


Figure 75. Arapahoe County Special Funds Base Year Budget Detail and Allocation Methodologies

Arapahoe County Fund and Depart ment

FY 2013 Gross

Special Fund

Expenditures [1]

% of Total

Special

F unds # of F TEs

Type of Service


Aurora

Factor [3]

Aur

ARAPAHOE CO FAIR FUND-Community Resources $25,600 0% Unincorp. Fixed 0.0%

Open Spaces & Intergovernmental Relations $277,425 0% Unincorp. Fixed 0.0%

Public Works & Development $0 0% Unincorp. Fixed 0.0%

Open Spaces & Intergovernmental Relations $1,142,679 1% 4.00 Unincorp. Fixed 0.0%

Public Works & Development $1,475 0% Unincorp. Fixed 0.0%

Administrative Services $8,925,580 5% Unincorp. Fixed 0.0%

ARAPAHO E/ D OUGLAS W OR KS ! F UND-Co mmu ni ty R es $ 9,6 68 ,7 62 6 % 8 3.0 0 Cou nty wi de Cus to m (Ca s el oa d) 4 7% $

Sheriff's Office $6,399,315 4% 53.00 Unincorp. Fixed 0.0%

Administrative Services $6,261,375 4% Countywide Capital# 0.0%

BUILDING MAINTENANCE FUND-Faci lities and Fleet M $1,793,019 1% Int. Srvc. Fixed 0.0%

Administrative Services $4,068,013 2% Countywide Capital# 0.0%

Communication Services $0 0% Countywide Fixed 0.0%

Facili ties and Fleet Management $4,703,000 3% Countywide Capital# 0.0%

Finance $0 0% Countywide Fixed 0.0%

Information Technology $375,000 0% Countywide Capital# 0.0%

Public Works & Development $0 0% Unincorp. Fixed 0.0%

Sheriff's Office $390,096 0% Countywide Capital# 0.0%

Open Spaces & Intergovernmental Relations $0 0% Unincorp. Fixed 0.0%

Administrative Services $1,360,000 1% Int. Srvc. Fixed 0.0%



Assessor's Office $13,300 0% Int. Srvc. Fixed 0.0%

Clerk and Recorder's Office $0 0% Int. Srvc. Fixed 0.0%

Communication Services $0 0% Int. Srvc. Fixed 0.0%

County Attorney $0 0% Int. Srvc. Fixed 0.0%

Faci lities and Fleet Management $188,400 0% Int. Srvc. Fixed 0.0%

Finance $0 0% Int. Srvc. Fixed 0.0%

Human Services $0 0% Int. Srvc. Fixed 0.0%

Information Technology $854,715 1% Int. Srvc. Fixed 0.0%

Open Spaces & Intergovernmental Relations $76,577 0% Int. Srvc. Fixed 0.0%

Public Works & Development $1,630,686 1% Int. Srvc. Fixed 0.0%

Sheriff's Office $1,478,016 1% Int. Srvc. Fixed 0.0%

Treasurer's Office $23,330 0% Int. Srvc. Fixed 0.0%

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND-Community Resou $4,989,823 3% 2.50 Unincorp. Fixed 0.0%

Administrative Services $242,100 0% Countywide Fixed 0.0%

Administrative Services $0 0% Unincorp. Fixed 0.0%

Administrative Services $381,366 0% Unincorp. Fixed 0.0%

DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY FUND-Admi n Servcs $7,307,011 4% Countywi de Popul ati on 48.0% $

Clerk and Recorder's Office $132,099 0% Countywide Fixed 0.0%

Human Resources $1,020,000 1% Int. Srvc. Fixed 0.0%

Sheriff's Office $0 0% Int. Srvc. Fixed 0.0%

GRANT FUND-Communi ty Res ources $10,172,754 6% 46.25 C ountywi de Cus tom (Cas el oad) 44% $

Facil ities and Fleet Management $940 0% Unincorp. Fixed 0.0%

Sheriff's Office $102,209 0% 1.00 Unincorp. Fixed 0.0%

Sheriff's Office $0 0% 0.75 Unincorp. Fixed 0.0%

Public Works & Development $4,000,000 2% Unincorp. Fixed 0.0%

Administrative Services $0 0% Unincorp. Fixed 0.0%

Administrative Services $2,011,877 1% Countywide Capital#

OPEN SPACE SALES TAX FUND-Communication Service $94,963 0% 1.00 Unincorp. Fixed 0.0%

OPEN SPACE SALES TAX FUND-Finance $41,701 0% 0.50 Unincorp. Fixed 0.0%

OPEN SPACE SALES TAX FUND-Open Spa ce & I nter gove $17,631 ,4 34 10% 7 .00 Countywi de Cus tom 5 6.0% $

OPEN SPACE SALES TAX FUND-Publ ic Works and Devel $0 0% Unincorp. Fixed 0.0%

ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND-Publ ic Works and Devel op $14,907,371 9% 57.00 C ountywi de Cus tom

Human Resources $1,850,300 1% Int. Srvc. Fixed 0.0%

County Attorney $1,011,100 1% Int. Srvc. Fixed 0.0%

SHERI FF'S COMMI SSARY FUND-Sher iff's Offi ce $1,830 ,385 1% 7.00 Countywi de Cus tom (Ja il %) 40%

SO CI AL SERVI CES FUND-Ad mi ns tr ati ve Ser vi ces $ 1,7 38 ,3 18 1 % 3 .0 0 Countywi de Cu stom (Ca sel oa d) 6 4% $

SO CI AL SERVI CES FUND-Ch il d Suppo rt Enf or cement $ 4,2 14 ,1 69 3 % 5 6.5 0 Countywi de Cu stom (Ca sel oa d) 6 0% $

S OCIAL S ER VI CES F UND-Ch il dren Yo uth & F ami l y S ervi $ 18 ,6 26 ,5 90 1 1% 1 93 .5 0 Cou nt ywi de Cus to m (Ca s el oa d) 6 0% $ 1

S OCIAL S ER VI CES F UND-Co mmu ni ty S up po rt Servi ces $ 19 ,5 45 ,8 89 1 2% 1 66 .0 0 Cou nt ywi de Cus to m (Ca s el oa d) 6 6% $ 1

SOCIAL SERVICES FUND-Finance $1,225,877 1% 12.00 Countywi de Custom (Caseload) 64%

SO CI AL SERVI CES FUND-Huma n Ser vi ces - Lega l $ 2,2 77 ,4 63 1 % 2 5.0 0 Countywi de Cu stom (Ca sel oa d) 7 8% $

SOCI AL SERVI CES FUND-Oper ati ons Di vi si on $1,897,8 79 1% 27.00 Countywi de Cus tom (Ca sel oa d) 6 4% $

County Attorney $1,495,000 1% Int. Srvc. Fixed 0.0%

TOTAL SPECIAL FUNDS $168,404,981 100% 746.00 $5


Figure 76. Aurora Share of Arapahoe County

% Aurora

(Adams Co.)

Population 10%

Jobs 18%

Pop and Jobs 12%

Parcels 8%

Overhead 5%

Fixed 0%

Voters 7%

Vehicles 10%








APPENDIX B: REQUIRED COUNTY POSITIONS

Introduction

The purpose of this section is to detail the requirements and duties that required couColorado must perform.

The Colorado Constitution requires that County have the following officers:

• Assessor

• Clerk

• Coroner

• Sheriff



• Surveyor

• Treasurer

A county attorney may be elected or appointed, as must be provided by law. 10

The Colorado Constitution requires the above positions to be elected to four year terms

amendment to the Constitution creating the City-County of Aurora would allow for tordinances of the City-County of Aurora to govern the selection and compensation of req

By way of example, below is the relevant section of the City-County of Broomfield’s

amendment regarding required officers:

Section 11. Officers - city and county of Broomfield

The officers of the city and county of Broomfield shall be as provided for by

ordinances. The jurisdiction, term of office, and duties of such officers shall

November 15, 2001. The qualifications and duties of all such officers shall be as p

the city and county charter and ordinances, but the ordinances shall designate th

shall perform the acts and duties required of county officers pursuant to this cons

general laws of the state of Colorado, as far as applicable. All compensation for e

shall be determined by ordinance and not by state statute. If any elected officer

county of Broomfield shall receive any compensation, such officer shall receive

stated salary, the amount of which shall be fixed by ordinance within limits fixed

county charter or by resolution approving the city and county budget and paid in

payments. No elected officer shall receive any increase or decrease in compensa


The text herein reflects the requirements as currently set forth in the Colorado Constit

that the required County officers are to be elected. Again, as part of the County formati

amendment to the Constitution can alter this requirement.

Assessor

Election

A county assessor shall be elected at a general election for a four year term. He or she sha

the people of Colorado with two or more sufficient sureties in a sum of $6,000 or

performance of the assessor’s duties according to law and to the satisfaction of the board

bond required, a county may purchase crime insurance coverage in an amount not less th

behalf of the assessor to protect the county from any malfeasance on the part of the asoffice.11



office.

When the board of county commissioners (board) of any county is of the opinion that t

unable to perform the duties of office within the time prescribed by law, the board sh

county into assessment districts and shall require the assessor to appoint a deputy in eac

shall be a qualified elector of the district and who shall be sworn and, give bond to the pri

Duties

Appraise all Property. The assessor must appraise all real and personal property in th

determine the actual value for property taxes. Prior to determining the value, the a

consider and document all approaches that are applicable.13 A county assessor must c

authority within the county the total valuation for the assessment of all taxable property

the county. 14

Produce Mill Levy. He or she must also produce the mill levy that when applied to suc

assessment will raise the same property tax revenue as was raised the previous year.15

Deliver Tax Warrant. The assessor shall deliver the tax warrant as soon as practicable afte

the year have been levied. The assessor shall retain one or more copies that are readily a

public. The tax warrant sets forth the assessment roll, which includes the amount of t

against each separate valuation. At the end of the warrant, the aggregate of all taxes

totaled, balanced, and prorated to the several funds of each levying authority, and the tre


Clerk and Recorder

Election

A county clerk must be elected in each county for a four year term, and before beginnin

she shall execute to the people of Colorado, and file with the current county clerk, a bo

more sufficient sureties totaling $5,000. In lieu of the bond required above, a county

crime insurance coverage of $10,000 or more on behalf of the county clerk to protect the

county from any malfeasance on the part of the clerk while in office.17

Every county clerk must appoint a deputy, who will perform all duties in the absence

clerk.18

Duties



Conduct Elections. The County Clerk and Recorder is a county’s chief election official r

conducting elections to include national, state, city, county, special districts, and s

Responsibilities are enumerated throughout C.R.S. Title 1, Elections.

Record Deeds and Maintain Documents. The county clerk is the recorder of deeds and sh

and preserve all documents received for recording or filing in his or her office. The clerk

must record or cause to be recorded all documents authorized by law to be recorded. U

any document to which a documentary fee applies, the clerk and recorder shall fo

complete, and accurate copy of such document to the office of the county assessor.19

Other items that the county clerk and recorder shall maintain include:

• Grantor index and grantee index.20

• Reception book. When any document has been accepted by the clerk and recorde

and the proper fee has been paid, such document shall be deemed to be re

purposes. After a document has been received, the clerk and recorder shall endo

document information.

21

• File of all subdivision plats and common interest community plats or maps

recording in accordance with law.

22

• Trade name registration records provided by the department of revenue. 23

Administer Oaths and Take Affidavits and Depositions. The county clerks and recorders

to administer all oaths of office, and other oaths, and to take affidavits and dep


administering oaths and taking affidavits or depositions, county clerk and recorders shall

prescribed by section 30-1-103 (2) (a).25

Collect Fee for Technology Fund. Through June 30, 2017, the county clerk and recorder

surcharge of $1 for each document received for recording or filing, in addition to any ot

cents of each dollar shall be transmitted to the secretary of state, who will place the monand recorder technology fund. The remaining fifty cents can be retained by the clerk and

separate account, or be transmitted to the technology fund. If retained, the money shou

an electronic filing system or a core filing system. 26 The clerk and recorder techn

administered by the secretary of state.27

Record and Process Designated Beneficiary Agreements. A signed and acknowledg

beneficiary agreement shall be recorded with the county clerk and recorder in the countof the parties resides. The county clerk and recorder shall assess a recording fee for

http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=941fb6cfe0964c91c989feae89a4cbdf&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5bC.R.S.%2030-10-418%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=3&_butInline=1&_butinfo=COCODE%2030-1-103&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzk-zSkAW&_md5=f9b0d175527370e3d9ad45d2dd7d7f45





of the parties resides. The county clerk and recorder shall assess a recording fee for

designated beneficiary agreement in that county, a fee for issuing two certified copies of t

beneficiary agreement that indicate the date and time of recording with the county, and a

acknowledgments. All fees collected by the county clerk and recorder shall be deposited

clerk's fee fund maintained as required in section 30-1-119, C.R.S.

The clerk and recorder of the county shall have the following duties:• To indicate on the designated beneficiary agreement or a revocation of a designa

agreement the date and time that it is recorded with the clerk and recorder;

• To issue two certified copies of the recorded designated beneficiary agreement th

date and time of the recording;

• To issue replacement certified copies of a designated beneficiary agreement or a

designated beneficiary agreement upon payment of a replacement fee.

• Designated beneficiary agreements and revocations of designated beneficiary agbe considered open records for purposes of part 2 of article 72 of title 24, C.R.S.

Coroner

Election

A coroner shall be elected in each county for the term of four years. Before entering the o

shall give bond to the people of Colorado for $25 000 or more with sufficient sureties to b


Requirements to Assume Position

A person is eligible to hold the office of coroner if she or she is a citizen of the United Sta

of Colorado, and of the county in which the person will hold the office of coroner. He or

earned a high school diploma, its equivalent, or a college degree, and have given a set of

background check must be done, and if a person who has been convicted or pleadedfederal charge under federal or state law is unqualified for the office unless pardoned.29

A person who is elected or appointed to the office of coroner for the first time shall:

• Attend a training course for new coroners of at least forty hours using the curricu

by the C.C.S.T. board.

• Obtain certification in basic medical-legal death investigation from the Colo

association or another training provider approved by the C.C.S.T. board.

• Complete a minimum of sixteen hours of in service training provided by the Colo



• Complete a minimum of sixteen hours of in-service training provided by the Colo

association or by another training provider approved by the C.C.S.T. board durin

the coroner's term.

The C.C.S.T. board shall have discretion to waive or alter any of the above requirements.30

authorized to appoint a deputy, which must be in writing and filed in the office of the

coroner may delegate any of the coroner’s powers to one or more deputies. Each debefore entering the duties of office, shall file with the county clerk and recorder of the co

and oath of office required by law to be filed by the coroner. In lieu of the bond required

purchase crime insurance coverage on behalf of the deputy coroner to protect the people

from any malfeasance on the part of the deputy coroner while in office.31

Duties

Serve as Sheriff Under Certain Circumstances. When there is no sheriff in any county, itthe coroner to exercise all the powers and duties of the sheriff of his county until a sherif

or elected and qualified; and when the sheriff for any cause is committed to the jail of h

coroner shall be keeper of such jail during the time the sheriff remains a prisoner. 32

Perform Inquiry, Report, and Autopsy. The coroner shall immediately notify the dis

proceed to view the body, and make all proper inquiry respecting the cause and manner o

person in his jurisdiction who has died under the following circumstances:• From external violence, unexplained cause, or under suspicious circumstances;


• From criminal abortion, including any situation where such abortion may ha

induced;

• From a disease which may be hazardous or contagious or which may constitute a

health of the general public;

• While in the custody of law enforcement officials or while incarcerated in a public

• When the death was sudden and happened to a person who was in good health; o• From an industrial accident.

After consultation with the district attorney, the coroner may request that jurisdiction of

be transferred to the coroner of the county in which the event which resulted in the death

occurred, with the jurisdiction effective upon the acceptance by the receiving coroner.

When a person dies as a result of circumstances specified or is found dead and the cauunknown, the person who discovers the death shall report it immediately to law enforcem



the coroner, and the coroner shall take legal custody of the body. The body of any such p

be removed from the place of death except upon the authority of the coroner in consult

district attorney or local law enforcement agency, nor shall any article on or immediate

such body be disturbed until authorized by the coroner in consultation with the district at

law enforcement agency. The coroner shall perform a forensic autopsy or have a fo

performed as required by section 30-10-606.5 or upon the request of the dist

When the coroner has knowledge that any person has died under any of the circumsta

above, he may summon forthwith six citizens of the county to appear at a place nam

inquest to hear testimony and to make such inquiries as he deems appropriate.

Issue Certificate of Death. In all cases where the coroner has held an investigation o

certificate of death shall be issued by the coroner or the coroner's deputy. Any certifissued by a coroner or a coroner's deputy shall be filed with the registrar and shall state

concerning the nature of the disease or the manner of death, and, if from external causes,

shall state whether in their opinion death was accidental, suicidal, or felonious. In

certificate shall include the information described in section 25-2-103 (3) (b), C.R.S.,

subject of the investigation or inquest is under one year of age. A copy of the certifica

affidavit of presumed death, including any related documents and statements of fact, sh

in the applicable county in a secure location in an appropriate county facility accessibcounty coroner or the coroner's designee and in a manner that is consistent with the c

l d f d l l


• Any information, record, or report related to treatment, consultation, counseli

services from any licensed psychologist, professional counselor, marriage and fa

social worker, or addiction counselor, certified addiction counselor,

psychotherapist if the report, record, or information is relevant to the inquest or i

Order Arrest. The coroner may order his arrest by an officer or any person and shal

warrant requiring the officer or other person to take him before the county court if the p

is present. If the person charged is not present and the coroner believes he can be take

may issue a warrant to the sheriff of the county, requiring him to arrest the person and ta

the county court.34

Arrange Burial of Deceased Persons. The coroner shall arrange for the body of a deceased

he is called to view to be delivered to his friends if there are any. If not he shall cause him

buried, the expenses to be paid from any property found with the body, or, if there is n35



county treasury.35

Sheriff

Election

Sheriffs shall be elected in each county for a term of four years, and before entering up

must execute a bond to the people of Colorado with at least three sufficient sureties

$5000 to $20,000, which the board shall specify. The bond shall be filed in the office of th

and recorder. In lieu of the bond required, a county may purchase crime insurance covera

or more on behalf of the sheriff to protect the people of the county from any malfeasance

the sheriff while in office.36


A person is eligible to hold the office of sheriff if she or she is a citizen of the United State

Colorado, and of the county in which the person will hold the office of sheriff. He or s

earned a high school diploma, its equivalent, or a college degree, and have given a set of

background check must be done, and if a person who has been convicted or pleaded

federal charge under federal or state law is unqualified for the office unless pardoned. 37

Every person elected or appointed to the office of sheriff for the first time shall:

• Attend a minimum of eighty clock hours at a new sheriff training course d


• Undergo at least twenty clock hours of in-service training provided by the cou

Colorado, incorporated, every year during such sheriff's term.

The Colorado peace officers standards and training board shall have discretion to waive

the above requirements.38

When the term of office of any sheriff expires and the sheriff-elect qualifies according to la

clerk and recorder shall issue a notice setting forth that said sheriff-elect has qualified ac

The notice shall be served by the new sheriff on the former sheriff, whereupon such form

immediately transfer and deliver to the new sheriff all the writs, processes, books, and pa

to the office, and also the possession of the courthouse and jail of the county, and shall

new sheriff a receipt.39

The sheriff of each county shall appoint some proper person undersheriff who shall als

d t t d i th l f th h iff 40 Wh i th ffi



deputy, to serve during the pleasure of the sheriff.40 When a vacancy occurs in the offi

any county, the undersheriff of such county shall in all things execute the office of sheriff u

appointed or elected and qualified.41

Each sheriff may appoint as many deputies as the sheriff may think proper and ma

appointments at will; except that a sheriff shall adopt personnel policies, including p

review of revocation of appointments.42

Duties

Serve as Custodian of Jails. The sheriff shall have charge and custody of the jails of the

the prisoners in the jails, and shall supervise them himself or herself or through a deputy o

Serve as Fire Warden. Subject to the provisions of the community wildfire protection pla

the county, the sheriff of every county, in addition to other duties, shall act as fire warde

respective county. The sheriff is responsible for the coordination of fire suppression eff

prairie, forest, or wildland fires or wildfires occurring in the unincorporated area of the c

the boundaries of a fire protection district or that exceed the capabilities of the fire prote

control or extinguish.44

• If the fire does not exceed the capabilities of the fire protection district, the sh

assist the chief of the fire protection district in controlling or extinguishing a fire

additional assistance. The sheriff may assume command of such incidents with th

of the fire chief

Duties in these special circumstances include the following:




Surveyor

Election

A county surveyor shall be elected for a term of four years. He or she shall file an offici

office of the county clerk and recorder in the sum of $1,000, conditioned for the faithfu

duties. In lieu of the bond, a county may purchase crime insurance coverage in an amoun

ten thousand dollars on behalf of the surveyor to protect the people of the cou

malfeasance on the part of the surveyor while in office.50


A county surveyor must be a professional land surveyor as provided in part 2 of article

C.R.S.51

The county surveyor may appoint as many deputies as he thinks proper, for whose offici



The county surveyor may appoint as many deputies as he thinks proper, for whose offici

be responsible. The certificate of the county surveyor or any of his deputies shall be adm

evidence in any court of the state, but the certificate may be explained or rebutted by oth

Duties

Represent the County in Boundary Dispute. When the boundary lines of any county in th

indefinite that a portion of territory is claimed by two counties, it is the duty of the stat

connection with the county surveyor of each of such counties, to establish such lines, fix a

boundary line, and to furnish the board of county commissioners of each of said co

description of such line.53 Additionally, whenever the proper location of any section cor

section corner is in dispute, a corner monument shall be established by the county s

surveyor must also notify the county attorney of any unsettled boundary disputes

discrepancies within the county which may come to his attention.55

File Records. The county surveyor must file in the office of the county surveyor, or in th

county clerk and recorder if there is no office for the county surveyor in the county, al

notes, calculations, maps, and any other records pertaining to work authorized and fi

board of county commissioners.

Perform Duties as Required by the Board. The county surveyor may, when authorized b

county commissioners:


• Accept for filing maps of surveys that establish monuments and keep a curren

survey monuments within the county;

• Examine all survey maps and plats before they are recorded by the county clerk a

insure proper content and form;

• Conduct geodetic control surveys, vertical control surveys, or any surveys for t

geographic information systems;• Conduct or supervise construction surveys necessary to the county; and

• Provide reference monuments for or the remonumentation or monument upgr

land survey system monuments that are destroyed by county construction or othe

Treasurer

Election



County treasurers must be elected in each county for a four year term. Before beginn

duties, the treasurer must execute to the people of the state of Colorado a surety bond t

by the board of county commissioners (board) and to be filed in the office of the cou

recorder.57

Duties

Receive and Pay Moneys. It is the duty of the county treasurer to receive all money be

county from all sources. All money received by him or she shall be paid out only on the

board of county commissioners, according to law.58

Deposit Funds. The treasurer must deposit all funds and moneys that come into his or h

virtue of the office into one or more state or national banks, or previously approved sa

associations. The board may authorize the county treasurer to invest all or any part of

moneys in securities meeting the investment requirements established in part 6 of article

C.R.S. All securities so purchased shall be duly registered in the name of the cou

and shall be deposited and safely kept in the custody of some state bank or

bank.59

Keep Accounts. The treasurer shall keep a true account of the receipt and expenditurethat come into his or her hands in books to be kept for this purpose. The records should


and shall report to the board of county commissioners regarding the disposition of the rec

or finding no later than ninety days after the issuance of the final audit report.60

Apportion and Separate Funds. The treasurer must apportion and keep all taxes collected

funds for which they were levied. The amount of interest gained through the in

county funds, regardless of the origin of such funds, may be credited to the gethe county by the county treasurer, unless such investment is made from s

allocated for a definite purpose and so maintained.61

Give Notice for Payment of Warrants. When there is in the treasury, to the credit of any

more, against which fund there are any outstanding and unpaid lawful warrants or orde

treasurer shall immediately give public notice of the fact by a written notice posted for thi

outer door of the office of the treasurer. The treasurer, at the same time, shall call in f

outstanding and unpaid lawful warrants and orders drawn on said fund which the m

treasury will pay and which are entitled to payment from said funds. 62



treasury will pay and which are entitled to payment from said funds.

Collect Taxes. The county treasurer serves as the collector of taxes.63 Upon payment,

should issue a receipt to the person paying it. In the case of taxes, the receipt must state

of property taxed, the rate of taxation, and the total amount of such taxes to agree with h

Assess Property. Assess, at a fair value, the property of any person liable to pay taxes wh

assessor has failed to assess, to place the same on the tax roll, and to collect taxes.65


APPENDIX C: COUNTY OFFICIALS IN CONSOL

CITY-COUNTIES

This section provides further information on how the current consolidated city-counties

Denver and Broomfield—handle required County functions. This section includes all s

courts.

Summary: For both Denver and Broomfield, all the positions are appointed or hired, exce

Clerk and Recorder. In Denver, all the positions are filled by a traditional officer as s

Colorado State Code, with the exception of the Sheriff. The Manager of Safety overseeDepartment as well as the Police and Fire Departments, and the Undersheriff/ Director

supervises the Sheriff’s Department



supervises the Sheriff s Department.

In Broomfield, the Coroner is contracted from Adams County. The Police Chief perform

the Sheriff. Functions of the Surveyor are performed by the Community Development De

an official “surveyor” is not detailed in the municipal code. Lastly the duties of the

performed by high level staff in the Finance Office, including the Finance Director Manager.

Figure 79. Title of Person or Office Performing County Duties

Denver Broomfield

Function Title Title

Assessor Assessor Assessor

Clerk and Recorder Clerk and Recorder City and County Clerk

Coroner Coroner Coroner (Adams County)

Sheriff Manager of Safety Police Chief

Surveyor SurveyorSurveyor, Community

Development Department

Treasurer Treasurer Finance Director andRevenue Manager


Figure 80. How Officials are Chosen

Official Appointed or

Elected Appointed By

Appointed or

Elected Appointed By

Assessor Appointed Manager of Finance Appointed City Manager

Clerk andRecorder

Elected Appointed City Manager

Coroner Appointed Mana ger of the Dept of

Environmental Health Other

Contracted through

Adams County

Sheriff Appointed Mayor of Denver Appointed/

Hired

Surveyor Appointed/

Hired

Appointed/

Hired

Treasurer Appointed Manager of Finance Appointed/

Hired

Denver Broomfield



City and County of Denver

Assessor

• Leadership

o Appointed by the Manager of Finance.66

• Duties

o Assess all taxable property within the City and County in the manner pre

State and City Charter. 67

o Directs a local team that:

Keeps and updates property ownership data;

Maintains maps of tax parcel boundaries;

Collects and revises property characteristics (land & improvement

Verifies properties eligible for exemption; and Analyzes trends in property sales, prices, construction and renova

rents for commercial and industrial properties. 68

Clerk and Recorder

• Leadership

o Elected to a four year term.69

• Duties

o Keeps a record of the proceedings of City Council and shall have the o

ordinances, original contracts, title deeds to public property, all officiasecurity bonds, and other records not required to be held by another offic


o Appoint deputies, assistances, and a Director of Elections.72

o The conduct, management, and control of the registration of voters, and

of elections, canvassing the returns thereof and issuing certificates of elec

other matters pertaining to elections in the City and County of Denver s

exclusively in and exercised by the Clerk and Recorder.

73

o The Clerk and Recorder shall perform all duties required by the City Cle

Clerk and Recorder as provided by the State, except powers and duties in registration of motor vehicles, which shall be performed by Manager of Re

• History

o The Clerk and Recorder is an elected office created by a Denver Charter

2007. Prior to this the Clerk and Recorder was an appointed position.75

Coroner

• Leadership

o The Coroner is appointed by the Manager of the Department of Environm• Duties

o Performs the duties required by law of a county coroner. 77



o Performs the duties required by law of a county coroner.

Sheriff

• Leadership

o The “manager of safety” exercises the powers and performs the duties of

Appointed by the Mayor of Denver

o Sheriff’s Department is supervised by the Director of Corrections and Und Appointed by the Mayor of Denver

• Duties – Manager of Safety

o Serves as officer in full charge of the Department of Safety. The Depart

has full control of the departments of fire and police and additionally pe

required by the State to be exercised and performed by the sheriff. 79

o Establishes, maintains, and can manage a community corrections

activities for the incarceration, oversight, and rehabilitation of offenders.

8

o Appoint special police officers and patrol officers, with or without pay fronecessary, all of whom shall be subject to the orders of the Chief of Polic

authorized and empowered to do and perform such of the duties of the m

police force.81

o Delegates duties to the Sheriff Department.

82

• Duties - Director of Corrections/ Undersheriff

o Not listed in Charter or Revised Municipal Code. Website reports that:

71 Denver, Colorado Code of Ordinances. Title I § 8.1.2.72

Denver, Colorado Code of Ordinances. Title I § 8.1.2.


The Denver Sheriff Department is responsible for the care,

transport of prisoners for the City and County of Denver.

Director of Corrections/ Undersheriff oversees:

• County Jail Division: long term care and custody of prisone

• Downtown Division: prisoner intake center where

processed into the system and housed until such a time

able to make bond, or have been given an advisementThe Civil Division, Court Services Unit and the Correctiona

Facility (located at Denver Health) also reside under t

Division.

• Technology, Support and Special Projects Division: T

responsible for the Department's overall administratio

projects, the Training Academy and the Vehicle Impound

• History

o The Denver Sheriff’s Department was established in 1969, which consolidsheriff’s functions under one management structure.

Surveyor

http://www.denvergov.org/Sheriff/TechnologySupportandProjects/tabid/393654/Default.aspx

http://www.denvergov.org/MainPage/TechnologySupportandSpecialProjectsDivision/VehicleImpoundFacility/tabid/393655/Default.aspx

http://www.denvergov.org/MainPage/TechnologySupportandSpecialProjectsDivision/VehicleImpoundFacility/tabid/393655/Default.aspx

http://www.denvergov.org/Sheriff/TechnologySupportandProjects/tabid/393654/Default.aspx



y

• Leadership

o Appointed.

• Duties

o Manage and control all surveying functions assigned by general law.84

Treasurer

• Leadership

o A treasurer is appointed by the Manager of Finance. 85

• Duties

o Perform powers and duties assigned by the City and State to treasurers.

o Receives, receipts for and keep the money of the City and County.

o Pay out the same only in accordance with rules promulgated by the Mana

o All revenues arising from taxes, licenses, fees, fines, penalties and forfeit

any other source whatsoever shall be reported to and recorded by thaccordance with procedures established by the Manager of the D

Finance.86


City and County of Broomfield

Assessor

• Leadership

• Appointed by City and County Manager. 87

o • Duties

o Performs the functions of the county assessor pursuant to the laws of the

o The assessor is authorized to settle by written mutual agreement an

abatement or refund any property taxes in the maximum amount allo

statute. 88

Clerk and Recorder

• Leadershipo Appointed by City and County Manager.

• Duties



Duties

o Serves as the county clerk and recorder and the city clerk to the city counc

o Perform the duties required by county clerks pursuant to state laws,

functions of recording, elections, motor vehicles and central records.

o Perform all duties of the city clerk set forth in the Home Rule Ch

Broomfield Municipal Code.89

Coroner

• Leadership

o Contracted through Adams County.90

• Duties

o The coroner shall possess all the powers given to county coroners in othe

shall perform the acts and duties required of coroners pursuant to the sta

and the general laws of the state.91

Sheriff

• Leadership

o The Chief of Police is ex-officio sheriff.

o Appointed/hired by City and County Manager.

• Duties

o Perform the acts and duties required of county sheriffs pursuant to state l

o Police Chief supervises the police department, which includes all mfunctions and all county sheriff functions, including but not limited to cou


Surveyor

• Leadership

o Performed by the Community Development Department.

• Duties

o

Performs all duties required of surveyors pursuant to state law.

93

Treasurer

• Leadership

o Performed by Revenue Manager within the Finance Department.

Currently split between Revenue Manager and Finance Director.

o Appointed by City and County Manager.

• Duties

o Performs all property tax billing and collection functions of treasurer pu

law.



o All other functions of the treasurer, including accounting, investm

management, shall be performed by the finance department, which can

required of treasurers pursuant to state law.94

Legislative

• The City Council has statutory functions of County Commissioners.




Table 2: Future Minimum Obligations

Table 3 displays the annual payments schedule for the Western Services Facility and Of

Building, as well as what is remaining, which is the total payments from 2014 to 2023. Tare using the square footage of the buildings, as shown above in Table 1.

Year Principal Interest Tota

2014 $7,571,819 $6,387,617 $13,959

2015 $6,804,231 $6,109,219 $12,913

2016 $7,067,370 $5,846,441 $12,9132017 $7,341,470 $5,567,970 $12,909

2018-2022 $41,606,765 $22,975,743 $64,582

2023-2027 $47,010,000 $12,821,350 $59,831

2028-2030 $22,815,000 $1,807,736 $24,622

Remaining $140,216,655 $61,516,076 $201,732

Future Minimum Obligations



Table 3: Debt on Western Services Facility and Office of the DA Building

Western Service Center

Year Principal Interest Total 46%

2003 $0 $432,562 $432,562 $198,979

2004 $590,000 $648,844 $1,238,844 $569,868

2005 $595,000 $613,444 $1,208,444 $555,884

2006 $605,000 $583,694 $1,188,694 $546,799

2007 $615,000 $565,544 $1,180,544 $543,050

2008 $630,000 $547,094 $1,177,094 $541,463

2009 $650,000 $528,194 $1,178,194 $541,969

2010 $670,000 $508,693 $1,178,693 $542,199

2011 $690,000 $486,919 $1,176,919 $541,383

2012 $715,000 $462,769 $1,177,769 $541,774

2013 $745,000 $436,850 $1,181,850 $543,651 2014 $770,000 $408,912 $1,178,912 $542,300

2015 $805,000 $379,075 $1,184,075 $544,675

2016 $835,000 $346,875 $1,181,875 $543,663

2017 $870,000 $312,431 $1,182,431 $543,918

2018 $910,000 $275,456 $1,185,456 $545,310

2019 $950,000 $236,781 $1,186,781 $545,919

2020 $990,000 $195,219 $1,185,219 $545,201

2021 $1,035,000 $150,668 $1,185,668 $545,407

2022 $1,085,000 $104,094 $1,189,094 $546,983

2023 $1 135 000 $53 912 $1 188 912 $546 900


Table 4: Remaining Payments on Government Center Phase 2

Year Principal Interest Total

2009 $2,160,000 $4,113,786.06 $6,273,786

2010 $1,470,000 $4,806,789.76 $6,276,790

2011 $1,515,000 $4,762,688.76 $6,277,689

2012 $1,560,000 $4,717,238.76 $6,277,239

2013 $1,610,000 $4,670,438.78 $6,280,4392014 $1,660,000 $4,622,138.76 $6,282,139

2015 $1,710,000 $4,572,338.76 $6,282,339

2016 $1,770,000 $4,516,763.76 $6,286,764

2017 $1,830,000 $4,454,813.76 $6,284,814

2018 $1,900,000 $4,386,188.76 $6,286,189

2019 $6,250,000 $4,314,938.76 $10,564,939

2020 $6,560,000 $4,002,438.76 $10,562,439

2021 $6,890,000 $3,674,438.76 $10,564,439

2022 $7,185,000 $3,381,613.76 $10,566,614

2023 $7,505,000 $3,058,288.76 $10,563,289

2024 $7,855,000 $2,711,182.50 $10,566,183

$ $ $



The tables above are used to enter in the data below for the approximate remaining debt

Adams County.

First, the Administration Building is composed of two phases, and phase 1 includes 2 lease

• Total is $193,504,866

o Phase 1: 76% of 2008 Certificate of Participation (17% of total of Future M

Obligations) = $25,614,496o Phase 1: 100% of 2010 Certificate of Participation (10% of total of Future M

Obligations) = $20,256,362

o Phase 2: Remaining payments = $147,643,008

The Justice Center expansion represents 24% of 2008 Certificate of Participation (17% of

Minimum Obligations) = $8,088,788.

The remaining payments for the Western Services Center and the DA Building were de

Table 3.

2025 $8,240,000 $2,326,287.50 $10,566,288

2026 $8,650,000 $1,914,287.50 $10,564,288

2027 $9,080,000 $1,481,787.50 $10,561,788

2028 $9,550,000 $1,016,437.50 $10,566,438

2029 $10,050,000 $515,062.50 $10,565,063

$105,000,000 $74,019,950 $179,019,950Remaining $96,685,000 $50,949,008 $147,634,008


Table 5: Facilities With Debt in Adams County

Facilities Total Sq Ft

Approximate

Remaining

Payments (P + I))

Administration Building (Gov Center) 324,000 $193,504,866Justice Center (103,000 expansion) 304,768 $8,088,788

Western Services Center 55,000 $5,450,275

DA Building 65,000 $6,398,148

$213,442,077

Adams County Facilities with Debt

Total







Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	bosbydpo
View:	230 times
Download:	0 times