Fiscal Feasibility Study: Formation of City-County of Aurora

Item #: SS: 1st: 2nd:
3a 2/24/14
City of Aurora
Council Agenda Commentary

Item Title:
City County Feasibility Study

Item Initiator: Staff Source:
Lawson, Michael - Fin/Budget Prog Administrator - Finance Wolfe, Michelle - Deputy City Manager - General Management Skip Noe
City Manager/Deputy City Manager Signature:
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 all appropriate actions)
Approve Item as proposed at Study Session Approve Item and Move Forward to Regular Meeting Approve Item as proposed at Regular Meeting
Approve Item with Waiver of Reconsideration
Information Only
PREVIOUS ACTIONS OR REVIEWS: Policy Committee

Name: Public and Intergovernmental Relations Policy Committee Meeting Date: Minutes Attached Minutes Not Available Actions Taken: Recommends Do Not Recommend Forwarded without Recommendation Recommendation Report Attached
HISTORY
(Dates reviewed by City council, Policy Committees, Boards and Commissions, or Staff. Summarize pertinent comments. ATTACH MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETINGS, POLICY COMMITTEES AND BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.)
Staff has provided regular monthly updates on this report to the Public and Intergovernmental Relations Policy Committee since the October 21, 2013 special study session. ITEM SUMMARY (Brief description of item, discussion, key points, recommendations, etc.) This report is the culmination of an initial phase of study on the potential formation of a City-County of Aurora. The City retained the services of TischlerBise and its sub-consultants to study the feasibility of such a formation with an emphasis on the fiscal impacts. The study is primarily a fiscal impact analysis that estimates costs to provide county services and related facilities as well as estimates the revenue implications of the formation. The fiscal feasibility study identifies a baseline starting point for operating and capital costs using Arapahoe and Adams Counties as the foundation. The study does not at this time identify efficiencies in service provision, efficiencies in facility use, or policy decisions that may result in cost savings. It does reflect maximum potential costs for county services and facilities to serve a City-County of Aurora. Furthermore, the study provides projections for 20 years of future growth, which can be viewed as a relatively short amount of time given that forming a City-County of Aurora has lasting implications for many future generations beyond an initial 20-year period. Finally, the study assumes an equalized county
property tax rate that generates the same amount of county revenue from the City of Aurora as is generated today from the three counties in which the City is located. This rate is then used to project future property tax revenues. Again, this reflects a baseline starting point assumption for the analysis. Further analysis can test different tax rate assumptions. City staff has prepared an addendum that suggests possible next steps for Council to consider following the issuance of the feasibility study conducted by TischlerBise. A related PowerPoint presentation will be provided to Council by staff at the February 24 study session. The presentation will walk Council through each element of the feasibility study drafted by TischlerBise. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL Does Council wish to consider next steps regarding Aurora becoming a city-county at a future study session or workshop? LEGAL COMMENTS The City Manager shall be responsible to the council for the proper administration of all affairs of the City placed in his charge and, upon the request of the City Council, shall have the power and duty to make written or verbal reports at any time concerning the affairs of the City under his supervision. City Charter 7-4(e). Mike Hyman PUBLIC FINANCIAL IMPACT
Yes No
(If Yes, EXPLAIN)
PRIVATE FISCAL IMPACT

Not Applicable
(If Significant or Nominal, EXPLAIN)
Significant
Nominal
The report being presented is a fiscal feasibility study pertaining to Aurora becoming a combined city and county government. If the City does become a combined government, there would be significant impacts on the City's revenues and expenditures. EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1 CiCo Feasibility Study.pdf 2 CiCo Feasibility Study - Appendix A - Service and Facility Plan Assumptions.pdf 3 CiCo Feasibility Study - Next Steps Addendum.pdf
City of Aurora, Colorado
Service and Facility Delivery Plan Assumptions: City-County Formation
FISCAL FEASIBILITY STUDY

FORMATION OF CITY-COUNTY OF AURORA
Prepared for
February 12, 2014
With assistance from
Fiscal Feasibility Study: City-County Formation
This report is provided to the City of Aurora, Colorado, as part of the TischlerBise Teams work 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 ................................................................................................................................ 1 Approaches and Major Assumptions ..........................................................................................................1 Inflation Assumption...................................................................................................................................3 Growth Projections .....................................................................................................................................3 Fiscal Impact Results ...................................................................................................................................3 Property Tax Implications .........................................................................................................................10 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................ 11 APPROACHES AND MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS................................................................................................. 12 Key Parameters from Direction Provided by City Council ........................................................................12 Levels of Service ........................................................................................................................................13 Inflation Rate.............................................................................................................................................14 GROWTH PROJECTIONS ............................................................................................................................ 15 FISCAL IMPACT RESULTS............................................................................................................................ 16 Baseline Revenue Scenario .......................................................................................................................16 Alternative Revenue Scenario...................................................................................................................21 COUNTY COSTS ......................................................................................................................................... 26 Demand Base in the City of Aurora .................................................................................................................27 Summary of Base Year and Cumulative Costs .................................................................................................31 Discussion Items .......................................................................................................................................34 REVENUES ................................................................................................................................................ 38 Summary of Base Year and Cumulative Revenues ..........................................................................................38 Property Taxes .................................................................................................................................................41 Base Year Property Tax Revenue ..............................................................................................................41 Projected Property Tax Revenue ..............................................................................................................44 Other Revenues ........................................................................................................................................46 Capital Revenues.......................................................................................................................................48 Other Funds ..............................................................................................................................................49 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................... 51 OTHER ISSUES ........................................................................................................................................... 54 Judicial District and Court Organization....................................................................................................54 Efficiencies in Service Provision and Facilities ..........................................................................................55 Changing Demographics ...........................................................................................................................57 Retirement Systems ..................................................................................................................................57 Metro and Other Special Districts.............................................................................................................57 Economic Development ............................................................................................................................58 Change in Revenue Structure ...................................................................................................................59 Changes Due to Affordable Care Act ........................................................................................................59
i
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................. 61 Appendix A. Service and Facility Delivery Plan Assumptions ........................................................................ A-1 Appendix B. Revenue Projection Approach .................................................................................................. B-1 General Fund Revenue............................................................................................................................ B-1 Special Revenue Funds ........................................................................................................................... B-3 Appendix C. Feasibility Study Parameters ..................................................................................................... C-1 Statement of General Assumptions ........................................................................................................ C-1 Key Parameters from Direction Provided by City Council ...................................................................... C-3 Appendix D: Demographic and Land Use Projection Memo ......................................................................... D-1 Appendix E: Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................................... E-1
ii
Table of Figures
Figure 1. City of Aurora Summary of Existing Demand and Future Growth ................................................. 3 Figure 2. Annual Fiscal Impacts of City-County Formation: Total Operating Results ................................... 4 Figure 3. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Operating Results ........................... 4 Figure 4. Annual Fiscal Impacts of City-County Formation: Operating Results by Fund .............................. 5 Figure 5. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Capital Results ................................ 6 Figure 6. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Grand Total Results ........................ 6 Figure 7. Annual Fiscal Impacts of City-County Formation: Total Operating Results with Alternative Revenue Scenario.......................................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 8. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Operating Results with Alternative Revenue Scenario.......................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 9. Annual Fiscal Impacts of City-County Formation: Operating Results by Fund with Alternative Revenue Scenario.......................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 10. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Capital Results with Alternative Revenue Scenario.......................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 11. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Grand Total Results under Alternative Revenue Scenario....................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 12. County Property Tax Revenue from City of Aurora and Equalized Tax Rates: All Funds ........... 10 Figure 13. City of Aurora Summary of Existing Demand and Future Growth ............................................. 15 Figure 14. Annual Fiscal Impacts of City-County Formation: Total Operating Results ............................... 17 Figure 15. Annual Fiscal Impacts of City-County Formation: Operating Results by Fund .......................... 18 Figure 16. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts by Fund: Operating Results ......... 19 Figure 17. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Capital Results ............................ 20 Figure 18. Annual Operating and Capital Costs Compared to Revenues.................................................... 20 Figure 19. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Grand Total Results .................... 21 Figure 20. Annual Fiscal Impacts of City-County Formation: Total Operating Results with Alternative Revenue Scenario........................................................................................................................................ 22 Figure 21. Annual Fiscal Impacts of City-County Formation: Operating Results by Fund with Alternative Revenue Scenario........................................................................................................................................ 23 Figure 22. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts by Fund: Operating Results with Alternative Revenue Scenario..................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 23. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Capital Results with Alternative Revenue Scenario........................................................................................................................................ 24 Figure 24. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Grand Total Results with Alternative Revenue Scenario..................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 25. Aurora Share of Each County ..................................................................................................... 28 Figure 26. Base Year Operating Costs and Summary of Projection Methodologies ($000s) ...................... 29 Figure 27. Base Year Staffing Needs and Facility Space .............................................................................. 29 Figure 28. Base Year Operating Expenditures ............................................................................................ 31 Figure 29. Base Year Capital Expenditures.................................................................................................. 32 Figure 30. Cumulative (20-Year Total) Operating Expenditures ................................................................. 33
iii
Figure 31. Cumulative (20-Year Total) Capital Expenditures ...................................................................... 34 Figure 32. County Outstanding Debt Service: Aurora Share of Average Annual Payments ....................... 37 Figure 33. Base Year Operating Revenues .................................................................................................. 38 Figure 34. Base Year Capital Revenues ....................................................................................................... 39 Figure 35. Cumulative (20-Year Total) Operating Revenues....................................................................... 40 Figure 36. Cumulative (20-Year Total) Capital Revenues............................................................................ 40 Figure 37. Aurora Assessed Values (Tax Year 2012): Citywide and by County (Aurora Portion)................ 41 Figure 38. County Tax Revenue from City of Aurora and Equalized Tax Rates: All Funds .......................... 42 Figure 39. County Tax Revenue from City of Aurora and Equalized Tax Rates: Social Service Fund .......... 43 Figure 40. County Tax Revenue from City of Aurora and Equalized Tax Rates: Developmentally Disabled Fund ............................................................................................................................................................ 43 Figure 41. Scenario A: Aurora Average Assessed Values per Person and Job (Tax Year 2012) Citywide and by County (Aurora Portion) ......................................................................................................................... 44 Figure 42. Scenario B: Aurora Average Market and Assessed Values by Type of Property........................ 45 Figure 43. Base Year General Fund Revenues ............................................................................................ 46 Figure 44. Base Year Social Services Fund Revenues .................................................................................. 47 Figure 45. Base Year Community Resources (in Special Funds) Revenues ................................................. 48 Figure 46. Summary of Fiscal Feasibility Results......................................................................................... 51 Figure 47. Summary of Fiscal Feasibility Results: Alternative Revenue Scenario ....................................... 52 Figure 48. Summary of Capital Facilities: Current and Growth-Related Needs.......................................... 53
iv
MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: RE: Mayor and City Council, City of Aurora Carson Bise, AICP, President, and Julie Herlands, AICP, Principal February 12, 2014 Transmittal of the Fiscal Feasibility Study on the Formation of a City-County of Aurora
This report is the culmination of an initial phase of study on the potential formation of a City-County of Aurora. The City retained the services of TischlerBise and its sub-consultants to study the feasibility of such a formation with an emphasis on the fiscal impacts. Throughout the process, the Consultant Team and City staff sought direction from the Council on parameters for the study, which are enumerated in this report and its appendices. Two key parameters for the Study are to: Identify the maximum costs for services and facilities associated with County formation. That is, the study assumes new separate positions/operating impacts and facility needs for each new County service. Assume current levels of service as provided to Aurora by the Counties today, particularly Arapahoe and Adams Counties.
In other words, the Fiscal Feasibility Study as presented herein identifies a baseline starting point for operating and capital costs using Arapahoe and Adams Counties as the foundation. Costs in the analysis therefore reflect estimated costs if the City-County of Aurora were to provide County services and facilities based on the Counties current organizational structures, resource allocation, and demand from the City of Aurora. Any change to this set of assumptions has the potential to modify the results. The Fiscal Feasibility Study does not at this time identify efficiencies in service provision, efficiencies in facility use (e.g., potential co-location of new County offices in current City facilities), or policy decisions that may result in cost savings (e.g., contracting for certain functions that may result in cost-savings for office space). It does reflect maximum potential costs for services and facilities to provide County services in the City of Aurora. Furthermore, the fiscal model developed by TischlerBise for this study will be provided to the City of Aurora to enable further ongoing testing of assumptions. On the revenue side, the Fiscal Feasibility Study assumes an equalized County property tax rate that generates the same amount of county revenue from the City of Aurora as is generated today from the three counties in which the City is located. This rate is then used to project future property tax revenues. Again, this reflects a baseline starting point assumption for the analysis. Further analysis can test different tax rate assumptions.
The Feasibility Study provides projections for 20 years of future growth. When one thinks about CityCounty formation and the potential effects, 20 years can be viewed as a relatively short amount of time. Forming a City-County of Aurora has lasting implications for the long term over many future generations beyond an initial 20-year period. Finally, while the report is entitled a Feasibility Study, it does not provide a judgment as to whether the conversion is feasible or not as there are many criteria on which feasibility can be measured, reflecting both quantitative and qualitative measures. The expectation is that Council will review the results of the Feasibility Study in light of a range of criteria that will include fiscal considerations but may also consider other qualitative criteria such as quality of services, access to services and facilities, level of control, and efficiencies in service provision.
vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TischlerBise is under contract with the City of Aurora, Colorado, to conduct a Feasibility Study of the formation of a City-County. The study is primarily a fiscal impact analysis that estimates costs to provide County services and related facilities as well as estimates the revenue implications of the formation. In general, a fiscal impact analysis determines whether revenues generated by existing and future development are sufficient to cover the resulting costs for service and facility demands required to serve that population base. The analysis is based on cost and revenue assumptions that reflect the existing communitys current levels of service. Calculations are performed using a customized fiscal impact model designed specifically for this assignment. The Fiscal Feasibility Study identifies a baseline starting point for operating and capital costs using Arapahoe and Adams Counties as the foundation. The Fiscal Feasibility Study does not at this time identify efficiencies in service provision, efficiencies in facility use, or policy decisions that may result in cost savings. It does reflect maximum potential costs for County services and facilities to serve a CityCounty of Aurora. Furthermore, the study provides projections for 20 years of future growth, which can be viewed as a relatively short amount of time given that forming a City-County of Aurora has 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 study. 1. City Boundary/Annexation: The Feasibility Study assumes the Citys current boundaries. 2. Judicial District: For the Feasibility Study, it is assumed that the City and County of Aurora remains wholly within the existing 18th Judicial District. 3. Levels of Service Options: The Feasibility Study uses current levels of service provided by Adams and Arapahoe counties as the basis for the study and derives cost factors based on current operations and facilities. Levels of service factors include operating and capital costs, staffing levels, and amount of facility space. Costs are projected for current and future needs due to projected growth in the City of Aurora.
4. New County Positions: Options for Service Delivery: Certain functions are required to be provided in a traditional county, namely, a clerk and recorder; treasurer; sheriff; coroner; assessor; surveyor; and county commissioners. In a city-county, the city council would perform the functions of a county commission. The other functions can be performed by elected officials or individuals appointed by the city council or hired by the city manager. This organizational structure would be determined by Constitutional amendment. The Feasibility Study assumes the maximum potential fiscal impact at this stage, projecting separate positions/operating impacts for new County services. The document, Service and Facility Delivery Plan Assumptions (issued 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 City-County of Aurora, specifically for new County services and facilities. The starting point is to determine current levels of service in each County (emphasizing Adams and Arapahoe as this represents practically all of the current demand from the City of Aurora). This information is augmented with more qualitative information from departments, where relevant and where obtained. This information is then used to allocate costs to reflect county services provided in the City of Aurora, and therefore the starting point for provisions of County services by Aurora. This baseline information is then used to project future needs, which are projected over 20 years based on growth projections for the City of Aurora. Revenue Assumptions County revenues available to the City-County of Aurora are estimated for the base year including property taxes and other revenue sources. A thorough review was conducted of County revenues in Arapahoe and Adams counties (and Douglas County to a lesser extent). The single largest source of revenue for County operations is property taxes. Base year property tax estimates are calculated from the City of Auroras current assessable property base and the counties current tax rates. To project future growth in property tax revenues, TischlerBise took two approaches to provide a baseline estimate and an alternative revenue scenario. The first approach models average assessed values per capita and job in each County based on current valuations and applied that value to new growth. This approach results in an average annual growth in assessed values of approximately 1.8 percent. The second approach, the alternative revenue scenario, is slightly more aggressive in that it projects growth in property values using average market values by type of development for new residential and nonresidential development. This results in an average annual growth in assessed values of approximately 2.6 percent.
Inflation Assumption
The analysis does not assume any inflation throughout the projection period. Cost and revenue projections are in constant 2013 dollars. This assumption is consistent with current budget data and avoids the difficulty of forecasting as well as interpreting results expressed in inflated dollars.
Growth Projections
Given the current City of Aurora boundaries, the City is projected to grow from a population of approximately 340,000 to 470,000 over the next 20 years. The 20-year projected population total is essentially the same as Adams County today. A summary of projected growth in the City of Aurora is provided in Figure 1.
Figure 1. City of Aurora Summary of Existing Demand and Future Growth
2013 Population Housing Units Jobs Nonresidential (Sq. Ft. ) 340,269 133,737 114,757 47,504,538
2033 470,116 178,120 157,634 65,252,870
Net Increase 129,847 44,383 42,877 17,748,332
Source: City of Aurora; CO State Demography Office; TischlerBise
Fiscal Impact Results

Baseline Scenario The fiscal impact analysis of City-County formation separates results into operating and capital impacts. Total operating costs as provided in the Service and Facility Delivery Plan Assumptions document are modeled to reflect base year operating costs as well as future costs due to growth in the City. Operating Results The chart below shows annual net fiscal results over the 20-year projection period for operating impacts only. Projected revenues for operating purposes and operating expenditures are shown. Net fiscal results are revenues minus costs in each year. Data points below the $0 line represent annual net deficits. Deficits (or surpluses) in any one year are not carried forward to the next year. As noted above, the fiscal results reflect a set of assumptions based on current levels of service and the maximum cost to provide services and facilities. The results provide a baseline starting point for continued discussion and refinement if Council proceeds with the effort.
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 years) operating impacts.
Figure 3. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Operating Results Net Fiscal Results ($000s) BY FUND City-County Feasibility Study: Aurora, Colorado City-County of Aurora: Annual Results
Category OPERATING Total Operating Revenues Total Operating Expenditures Total Operating Net Fiscal Results
Base Year: Year 1 ($000s)
Year 5 ($000s)
Year 10 ($000s)
Year 15 ($000s)
Year 20 ($000s)
Cumulative Total (20 Yrs) ($000s)
$105,889 $115,455 $125,583 $135,368 $145,317 $110,825 $121,091 $132,011 $142,404 $152,869 ($4,936) ($5,636) ($6,428) ($7,036) ($7,553)
$2,635,429 $2,768,367 ($132,938)
As shown above, the net operating deficit is approximately $5 million in Year 1 and then increases to approximately $7.6 million annually, reflecting approximately 4 to 5 percent of the projected operating budget for County services. Given the Citys current General Fund budget of $251 million, the average annual net operating deficit of approximately $6.6 million ($133 million / 20 years) reflects 2.6 percent of the current City budget.
For further detail, operating funds are separated into major funds, reflecting the services the City would need to provide as a County. The two major funds are the General Fund and the Social Service Fund. Other minor operating revenues and expenditures are accounted for in Special Funds by Arapahoe and Adams counties and are presented as such (Developmentally Disabled Fund (property tax supported), Workforce Center funding (mostly intergovernmental funding), and the Jail Commissary (fee supported). 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 deficit in the base year is $4.9 million with the majority of the deficit occurring in the Social Services Fund (78 percent of the deficit). This reflects the fact that current revenues generated by the City of Aurora for Human Services are insufficient to cover the costs incurred by City residents. The General Fund net deficit is approximately $552,000 in the first year, reflecting less than 1 percent of the estimated budget. Capital Results The fiscal impact analysis also covers capital expenditures, shown separately below. The capital needs analysis assumes full cost for construction of new facilities to house new County departments and assumes that those costs are debt financed. (At this phase of the analysis, existing (Arapahoe and Adams) County debt is not included in the totals.) Current revenues for capital improvements available to the Counties are a dedicated property tax in Arapahoe County and a dedicated sales tax in Adams County. For purposes of this analysis, TischlerBise
modeled these existing revenue sources and assumed they were available to help offset the costs for capital construction. Capital results are shown below in Figure 5. As shown, dedicated revenues are insufficient to cover the projected capital costs over the 20-year period, however as initial debt is retired, fiscal results improve.
Figure 5. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Capital Results Net Fiscal Results ($000s) CAPITAL City-County Feasibility Study: Aurora, Colorado City-County of Aurora
Category CAPITAL Capital Revenues Capital Expenditures Capital Net Fiscal Results
Year 5 ($000s)
Year 10 ($000s)
Year 15 ($000s)
Year 20 ($000s) $5,056 $4,974 $82
Cumulative Total (20 Yrs) ($000s) $90,735 $325,159 ($234,424)
$3,631 $3,958 $4,310 $4,673 $18,506 $14,544 $15,963 $17,393 ($14,875) ($10,586) ($11,653) ($12,720)
The bottom line results for the baseline scenario is a net deficit of approximately $20 million in the baseline year and $367 million over 20 years.
Figure 6. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Grand Total Results Net Fiscal Results ($000s) GRAND TOTAL City-County Feasibility Study: Aurora, Colorado City-County of Aurora
Category GRAND TOTAL Grand Total Revenues Grand Total Expenditures Grand Total Net Fiscal Results
Year 5 ($000s)
Year 10 ($000s)
Year 15 ($000s)
Year 20 ($000s)
Cumulative Total (20 Yrs) ($000s) $2,726,164 $3,093,526 ($367,362)
$109,520 $119,413 $129,892 $140,041 $150,373 $129,331 $135,635 $147,974 $159,797 $157,844 ($19,812) ($16,222) ($18,081) ($19,756) ($7,470)
Alternative Revenue Scenario As noted above, an alternative revenue scenario was analyzed to test the sensitivity of property tax valuation assumptions. The alternative revenue scenario is slightly more aggressive than the baseline assumption by projecting growth in property values based on average market values for new residential and nonresidential development. The chart below shows annual net fiscal results over the 20-year projection period for operating impacts only. Projected revenues for operating purposes and operating expenditures (unchanged from the baseline scenario) are shown. Net fiscal results are revenues minus costs in each year. Data points above the $0 line represent annual surpluses; points below the $0 line represent annual deficits. 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 Alternative Revenue Scenario
Under this alternative revenue approach, the net operating deficit is decreased and is eliminated by year 18. The average annual net deficit is reduced to approximately 2 percent of the projected operating budget for County services and one percent of the Citys current budget.
The table below shows annual (5-year increments) and cumulative (total over 20 years) operating impacts.
Figure 8. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Operating Results with Alternative Revenue Scenario
Net Fiscal Results ($000s): ALTERNATIVE REVENUE SCENARIO BY FUND City-County Feasibility Study: Aurora, Colorado City-County of Aurora: Annual Results Base Year: Year 1 ($000s) Year 5 ($000s) Year 10 ($000s) Year 15 ($000s) Year 20 ($000s) Cumulative Total (20 Yrs) ($000s)
Category OPERATING Total Operating Revenues Total Operating Expenditures Total Operating Net Fiscal Results
$105,889 $117,214 $129,529 $141,521 $153,764 $110,825 $121,091 $132,011 $142,404 $152,869 ($4,936) ($3,878) ($2,482) ($883) $894
$2,719,302 $2,768,367 ($49,066)
Evaluating each major fund under this alternative revenue approach generates the following results.
Figure 9. Annual Fiscal Impacts of City-County Formation: Operating Results by Fund with Alternative Revenue Scenario
As shown, the higher property values assumed under this scenario are sufficient to cover General Fund costs for a City-County of Aurora. The Social Services Fund and other minor operating funds continue to generate net deficits, with the Social Services Fund at an average annual deficit of approximately $4.5 million. As noted above, base year revenues generated within the City of Aurora for Social Services are insufficient to cover current City Social Services costs. Over the projection period, these deficits deepen. Capital results are negligibly affected by the alternative revenue scenario with net deficits reduced by only $3 million over the 20 years, reflecting the net increase in property taxes assumed for capital purposes. By Year 20, the majority of initial debt assumed in the analysis is paid off and a net surplus is generated.
Figure 10. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Capital Results with Alternative Revenue Scenario
Net Fiscal Results ($000s): ALTERNATIVE REVENUE SCENARIO CAPITAL City-County Feasibility Study: Aurora, Colorado City-County of Aurora Base Year: Year 1 ($000s) Year 5 ($000s) Year 10 ($000s) Year 15 ($000s) Year 20 ($000s) $5,355 $4,974 $381 Cumulative Total (20 Yrs) ($000s) $93,700 $325,159 ($231,459)
$3,631 $4,020 $4,449 $4,890 $18,506 $14,544 $15,963 $17,393 ($14,875) ($10,524) ($11,514) ($12,502)
When all revenues and costs are includedincluding operating and capitalthe bottom line results for the alternative revenue scenario is a net deficit of approximately $20 million in the baseline year (unchanged from the baseline scenario) and a net deficit of $280 million over 20 years, an improvement of almost $90 million over the baseline scenario.
Figure 11. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Grand Total Results under Alternative Revenue Scenario
Net Fiscal Results ($000s): ALTERNATIVE REVENUE SCENARIO GRAND TOTAL City-County Feasibility Study: Aurora, Colorado City-County of Aurora Base Year: Year 1 ($000s) Year 5 ($000s) Year 10 ($000s) Year 15 ($000s) Year 20 ($000s) Cumulative Total (20 Yrs) ($000s) $2,813,001 $3,093,526 ($280,525)
$109,520 $121,234 $133,978 $146,412 $159,119 $129,331 $135,635 $147,974 $159,797 $157,844 ($19,812) ($14,401) ($13,995) ($13,385) $1,275
Property Tax Implications

To model property tax revenues in the City-County of Aurora, the first step in the analysis is to determine the amount generated by the current City of Aurora to each of the counties. Then, the analysis utilizes the equalized tax rate for the General Fund and other applicable countywide funds for long-term projections. That is, we determined what the rate would need to be if the same amount of revenue is generated from all of the City of Aurora. Given that each county has its own tax rates, the weighted equalized rate is different than current County rates. When considering all property tax rates levied in all counties, which includes the General Fund, Social Services Fund (all counties), Developmentally Disabled Fund (all counties), and Capital Expenditure Fund (in Arapahoe County), and equalizing the rates for these funds, the results reveal that tax rates would be higher and thus more revenue would be generated in the Arapahoe and Douglas counties portion of Aurora while the tax rate would be lower and thus less revenue would be generated in Adams 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. GENERAL FUND REVENUES County General Fund Mill Levy City Tax Base in Each County County General Fund Tax Revenue from Aurora Weighted Mill Levy Needed to Generate Same Tax Revenue Revenue Generated Under New Weighted Milll Levy Increase (Decrease) in GF Revenues from Aurora OTHER FUND REVENUES County Other Funds Mill Levy (Countywide)* City Tax Base in Each County County Other Fund Tax Revenue from Aurora Weighted Combined Mill Levy Needed to Generate Same Tax Revenue* Revenue Generated Under New Weighted Mill Levy Increase (Decrease) in Other Fund Revenues from Aurora TOTAL REVENUES County Current Total Mill Levy (Countywide)** Weighted Total Mill Levy (Countywide)^ TOTAL REVENUES GENERATED UNDER CURRENT MILL LEVIES TOTAL REVENUES GENERATED UNDER NEW^ MILL LEVIES TOTAL INCREASE (DECREASE) FROM CURRENT $13.127 $2,366,344,788 $31,063,008 $15.079 $35,682,605 $4,619,597 ADAMS CO. $22.993 $584,444,180 $13,438,125 $15.079 $8,812,955 ($4,625,170) DOUGLAS CO. $13.965 $5,001,200 $69,842 $15.079 $75,414 $5,572 TOTALS
$2,955,790,168 $44,570,975
$44,570,975 $0
$3.226 $2,366,344,788 $7,633,828 $3.101 $7,337,958 ($295,870)
$2.610 $584,444,180 $1,525,399 $3.101 $1,812,342 $286,943
$1.316 $5,001,200 $6,582 $3.101 $15,509 $8,927
$2,955,790,168 $9,165,809
$9,165,809 $0
$16.353 $18.180 $38,696,836 $43,020,564 $4,323,727
$25.603 $18.180 $14,963,524 $10,625,298 ($4,338,227)
$15.281 $18.180 $76,423 $90,923 $14,499 $53,736,784 $53,736,784 $0
* For this analysis, "Other Funds" mill levy includes Social Services, Developmentally Disabled, and Capital Expenditure; Road & Bridge Fund is excluded. ** For this analysis, "Total" mill levy includes General Fund, Social Services, Dev. Disabled, and Cap. Expenditure; Road & Bridge Fund is excluded. ^ Mill levy needed to generate same amount of revenue (General Fund, Social Services Fund, Dev. Disabled, and Capital Exp.)
10
OVERVIEW
TischlerBise is under contract with the City of Aurora, Colorado, to conduct a Feasibility Study of the formation of a City-County. The study is primarily a fiscal impact analysis that estimates costs to provide County services and related facilities as well as estimates the revenue implications of the formation. In general, a fiscal impact analysis determines whether revenues generated by existing and future development are sufficient to cover the resulting costs for service and facility demands required to serve that population base. The analysis is based on cost and revenue assumptions that reflect the existing communitys current levels of service. Calculations are performed using a customized fiscal impact model designed specifically for this assignment. Colorado counties are established in the Colorado Constitution and changes in county structure require an amendment to the Colorado Constitution by the statewide electorate. Aurora must meet this requirement to become a City and County. Creation of a new county is a complex and lengthy process. This endeavor requires rigorous planning, substantial data gathering, assumptions for the initial phase, and, if pursued, an aggressive public information/outreach process with the residents of Aurora, the neighboring counties that would be directly impacted, and a statewide campaign effort to change the Colorado Constitution. The process for determining if it is feasible and viable for the City of Aurora to become a City and County is implemented in multiple phases with some work from each phase being completed concurrently or being revised as information is gathered and as Aurora elected officials and staff consider various options. The results and discussion in this report focus mainly on the fiscal feasibility of county formation. As there are many other criteria on which feasibility can be measured or determined, the question of overall feasibility is likely to reflect a wide range of variables including both quantitative and qualitative measures. The expectation is that the Aurora City Council will review the results of the Feasibility Study in light of a range of other criteria, such as: Positive fiscal impact: Revenues generated exceed costs, regardless of whether the absolute 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 defined as it relates to determining overall feasibility as the study progresses. Other feasibility criteria as identified by City Council, including level of control, access to service and facilities, efficiencies in service provision, relationships with the State and Federal governments, coordinated governance, etc.
11
APPROACHES AND MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS

Guidance was obtained from the Aurora City Council on key parameters for the study. These parameters are briefly summarized below. (See Appendix C. Feasibility Study Parameters for the complete summary.)
Key Parameters from Direction Provided by City Council

1. City Boundary/Annexation: The Feasibility Study assumes the Citys current boundaries. 2. Judicial District: For the Feasibility Study, it is assumed that the City and County of Aurora remains completely in the existing 18th Judicial District (Arapahoe, Douglas, Elbert, and Lincoln) without any portion of the jurisdiction remaining with the 17th Judicial District (Adams and Broomfield). 3. Levels of Service Options: As directed by the City Council, the Feasibility Study uses current levels of service provided by Adams and Arapahoe counties as the basis for the study and derives cost factors based on current operations and facilities. Levels of service factors include operating and capital costs, staffing levels, and amount of facility space per demand unit or employees (expressed as full-time equivalents (FTE)). Demand units include population, dwelling units, employment by type, or vehicle trips and depend on the type of service or facility being evaluated. 4. New County Positions: Options for Service Delivery: Certain functions are required to be provided in a traditional county, namely, a clerk and recorder; treasurer; sheriff; coroner; assessor; surveyor; and county commissioners. In a city and county, the city council would perform the functions of a county commission (as described above). The other functions can be performed by elected officials or individuals appointed by the city council or hired by the city manager. This organizational structure would be determined by Constitutional amendment. Salaries of appointed positions could be determined as would any other salaries of the city and county. Based on direction from City Council, the Feasibility Study assumes the maximum potential fiscal impact at this stage. That is, the study and quantitative analysis assumes new separate positions/operating impacts for new County services. The document, Service and Facility Delivery Plan Assumptions (provided to the City in October 2013 in draft form and subsequently revised as Appendix A to this document), provides detail on service and facility assumptions as well as provides supporting material that outlines the positions required to be provided by counties and a summary of how Denver City-County and Broomfield City-County cover these positions.
12
Existing City departments and positions would be affected by County formation, such as the City Attorneys Office, Human Resources, etc. These service costs and facility needs are included in the analysis and are identified under the heading Overhead/Support. A complete summary of the key parameters is provided in Appendix C. Feasibility Study Parameters.
Levels of Service
Cost projections are based on a snapshot approach in which it is assumed the current levels of service, as funded in each countys FY2013 budget, will continue through the projection period. The snapshot approach does not attempt to speculate about how levels of service, costs, revenues and other factors will change over 20 years. Instead, it evaluates the baseline fiscal impact as the counties currently conduct business and what that would mean for the City-County of Aurora. It should be noted that the fiscal model developed for this project allows for changes to these assumptions as needs change. Where possible, the analysis attempts to quantify the level of demand for services and facilities for the City-County of Aurora, specifically for new County services and facilities. The starting point is to determine current levels of service by each County (emphasizing Adams and Arapahoe as this represents practically all of the current demand from the City of Aurora). Current levels of service are reflected in current county budgets. This information is augmented with more qualitative information from departments, where relevant and where obtained. This information is then used to allocate costs to reflect county services provided in the City of Aurora, and therefore the starting point for provisions of County services by Aurora. This baseline information is then used to project future needs, which are discussed in the body of this report. Future needs are projected over 20 years based on growth of relevant demand factors, such as population, average daily jail population, etc. An average cost approach is taken in most cases. Capital needs (e.g., office space, jail, courtroom space) are projected separately and assumed to be debt 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 base year using a similar approach for estimating base year expenditures. A thorough review was conducted of County revenues in Arapahoe and Adams counties (and Douglas County to a lesser extent). The single largest source of revenue for County operations is property taxes. Calculating base year property tax revenues from the City-County of Aurora is relatively straightforward using the Citys base year assessed valuation as well as each countys tax rate. This calculation was done for all property tax revenue generation in all funds (General, Social Services, Developmentally Disabled, and Capital Expenditure (in Arapahoe County)). Other revenues are projected as well based on Auroras share of the relevant demand factors for each type of revenue.
13
Revenues are projected assuming that the current revenue structure and tax rates as defined by the FY2013 budget will not change during the analysis period. To project growth in property tax revenues, TischlerBise took two approaches at this time. 1 The first approach is the most conservative approach of the two revenue scenario approaches. We model average assessed values per capita and job in each County based on current valuations and applied that value to new growth. This approach results in an average annual growth in assessed values of approximately 1.8 percent. The second approach is slightly more aggressive in that it projects growth in property values from new development of residential and nonresidential properties, which is derived from population and employment projections for the City of Aurora. Average annual market values by type of development are converted to assessed values and then projected over 20 years. This is done for real and personal property. This results in an average annual growth in assessed values of approximately 2.6 percent.
The analysis focuses on County revenues and expenditures only and does not include current City revenues and expenditures. If County formation is pursued, it is likely that the City will ultimately look to current City revenue generation as well as service and facility provision to identify areas where current City operations might be expanded to include new County services as well as where current City 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 cost and revenue projections are in constant 2013 dollars. This assumption is in accord with current budget data and avoids the difficulty of forecasting as well as interpreting results expressed in inflated dollars. In general, including inflation is very complicated and unpredictable. This is particularly the case given that some costs, such as salaries, increase at different rates than other operating and capital costs such as contractual and building construction costs. And these costs, in turn, almost always increase in variation to the appreciation of real estate. Using constant 2013 dollars avoids these problems. However, the model developed for this analysis allows the rate of inflation to be adjusted.
Note, the fiscal model developed for this analysis, which can be used by the City for ongoing evaluations of CityCounty feasibility, allows the user to alter property valuation and land use scenario assumptions. 14
GROWTH PROJECTIONS
Given the current City of Aurora boundaries, the City is projected to grow from a population of approximately 340,000 to 470,000 over the next 20 years. The 20-year projected population total is essentially the same as Adams County today. A summary of projected growth in the City of Aurora is provided in Figure 13.
2013 Population Housing Units Jobs Nonresidential (Sq. Ft. ) 340,269 133,737 114,757 47,504,538
2033 470,116 178,120 157,634 65,252,870
Net Increase 129,847 44,383 42,877 17,748,332
Population projections are from the City of Aurora based on county projections made by the Colorado Demographers Office. Aurora is expected to grow at a rate between 1.7 and 1.8 percent through 2025 and slow to 1.4 percent growth from 2025-2030. It should be noted that the City population projections shown here do not assume annexation. Based on recent development trends, the projections assume that new housing development will be 50 percent in single family units and 50 percent in multifamily units. Furthermore, it is assumed that household size (persons per household) increases over time, reflecting recent trends in Aurora. Employment in the City is assumed to grow at an annual rate of 1.6 percent based on projections for the Denver Metro Area. Again, employment projections do not assume any annexation at this phase of the analysis. A detailed memo is provided as Appendix D: Demographic and Land Use Projection Memo, which summarizes growth assumptions and projections used in this analysis.
15
FISCAL IMPACT RESULTS

Baseline Revenue Scenario
The fiscal impact analysis of City-County formation separates results into operating and capital needs. Operating results are further divided into fund types: General Fund, Social Services Fund, and Other. Total operating costs as provided in the Service and Delivery Plan Assumptions document are modeled 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 growth over the projection period at this time. The approach is to assume an average assessed value by property type for 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 over the 20-year projection period for operating impacts. Projected revenues for operating purposes and operating expenditures are shown. Net fiscal results are revenues minus costs in each year. Data points above the $0 line represent annual surpluses; points below the $0 line represent annual deficits. Surpluses or 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 current levels of service and the maximum cost to provide services and facilities. The results provide a baseline starting point for continued discussion and refinement if Council proceeds with the City-County formation effort.
As part of the Feasibility analysis, TischlerBise tested an alternative revenue scenario that assumes new development is built at higher market values, and therefore property tax revenue is positively affected. This alternative revenue scenario generates positive net fiscal results toward the end of the projection period for the General Fund. A description of this scenario and the results is provided in this chapter. 16
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 relatively minimal reflecting approximately 4 to 5 percent of the projected operating budget for County services. Given the Citys current General Fund budget of $251 million, the average annual net deficit of approximately $6.6 million reflects 2.6 percent of the current City budget. For further refinement, the operating funds are separated into major funds, reflecting the services the City would need to provide as a County. The two major funds are the General Fund and the Social Service Fund. Other minor operating revenues and expenditures are accounted for in Special Funds by Arapahoe and Adams counties and are presented as such. The other minor funds are the Developmentally Disabled Fund (property tax supported), Workforce Center funding (mostly intergovernmental funding), and the Jail Commissary (fee supported). Results are provided below.
17
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 General Fund. Additional information is provided in the table below showing base year results as well as the cumulative 20-year total by fund. As shown, total operating deficit in the base year is $4.9 million with the majority of the deficit occurring in the Social Services Fund (78 percent of the deficit). This reflects the fact that current revenues generated by the City of Aurora for Human Services (i.e., from current County Social Services Fund mill levies and other revenues) are insufficient to cover the costs incurred by City residents. The General Fund net deficit is approximately $552,000 in the first year, reflecting less 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 total operating deficit of $133 million, of which approximately $97 million is in the Social Services Fund.
18
Figure 16. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts by Fund: Operating Results Net Fiscal Results ($000s) BY FUND City-County Feasibility Study: Aurora, Colorado City-County of Aurora: Annual Results
Category OPERATING General Fund Revenues General Fund Expenditures General Fund Net Fiscal Results Social Service Fund Revenues Social Service Fund Expenditures Social Service Fund Net Fiscal Results Other Special Fund Revenues Other Special Fund Expenditures Other Special Fund Net Fiscal Results Total Operating Revenues Total Operating Expenditures Total Operating Net Fiscal Results
Year 5 ($000s)
Year 10 ($000s)
Year 15 ($000s)
Year 20 ($000s)
Cumulative Total (20 Yrs) ($000s)
$57,857 $58,409 ($552) $35,047 $38,886 ($3,839) $12,984 $13,530 ($546)
$62,969 $63,757 ($788) $38,301 $42,535 ($4,234) $14,185 $14,800 ($614)
$68,392 $69,487 ($1,095) $41,736 $46,385 ($4,648) $15,454 $16,139 ($685)
$73,685 $74,949 ($1,264) $45,016 $50,043 ($5,027) $16,667 $17,412 ($745)
$79,098 $80,451 ($1,353) $48,326 $53,725 ($5,399) $17,892 $18,693 ($801)
$1,435,928 $1,457,328 ($21,400) $875,351 $972,624 ($97,273) $324,150 $338,415 ($14,265) $2,635,429 $2,768,367 ($132,938)
$105,889 $115,455 $125,583 $135,368 $145,317 $110,825 $121,091 $132,011 $142,404 $152,869 ($4,936) ($5,636) ($6,428) ($7,036) ($7,553)
The fiscal analysis also includes capital expenditures. The capital needs analysis assumes full costs for construction of new facilities to house new County departments. For construction of facilities, debt financing is assumed over the 20-year projection period, therefore payments are made in each year. At this phase of the analysis, payments on existing County debt are not included in the totals. This information is provided separately at the end of this report. Current revenues for capital improvements available to the Counties are a dedicated property tax in Arapahoe County and a dedicated sales tax in Adams County. For purposes of this analysis, TischlerBise modeled these existing revenue sources and assumed they were available to help offset the costs for capital construction. However, these revenue sources are insufficient to cover the capital needs and related costs where a base year net deficit of $15 million is generated and a 20-year cumulative total of $234 million. See Figure 17 below.
19
Figure 17. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Capital Results Net Fiscal Results ($000s) CAPITAL City-County Feasibility Study: Aurora, Colorado City-County of Aurora
Year 5 ($000s)
Year 10 ($000s)
Year 15 ($000s)
Year 20 ($000s) $5,056 $4,974 $82
Cumulative Total (20 Yrs) ($000s) $90,735 $325,159 ($234,424)
$3,631 $3,958 $4,310 $4,673 $18,506 $14,544 $15,963 $17,393 ($14,875) ($10,586) ($11,653) ($12,720)
The following figure presents the findings graphically comparing operating and capital costs with all available projected revenues. As shown, annual revenues are almost sufficient to cover operating costs. When capital expenditures are layered onto costs, the revenues available are insufficient.
Figure 18. Annual Operating and Capital Costs Compared to Revenues
It should be noted that all capital construction costs are assumed to be debt financed starting in the base year at a term of 20 years. Therefore, there is a drop off in year 20 reflecting the end of debt service payments on those initially built facilities. Additional facilities are built by the model in an incremental fashion to accommodate future population growth over the projection period. Capital costs for these facilities are assumed to be debt financed as well, therefore some debt service payments continue into year 20 and beyond.
20
The total results for the baseline scenario is a net deficit of approximately $20 million in the base year and $367 million over 20 years. By year 20, initial debt is assumed to be retired in part and the net deficits decrease.
Figure 19. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Grand Total Results Net Fiscal Results ($000s) GRAND TOTAL City-County Feasibility Study: Aurora, Colorado City-County of Aurora
Year 5 ($000s)
Year 10 ($000s)
Year 15 ($000s)
Year 20 ($000s)
Cumulative Total (20 Yrs) ($000s) $2,726,164 $3,093,526 ($367,362)
$109,520 $119,413 $129,892 $140,041 $150,373 $129,331 $135,635 $147,974 $159,797 $157,844 ($19,812) ($16,222) ($18,081) ($19,756) ($7,470)
Alternative Revenue Scenario

As noted in the introduction, an alternative revenue scenario was analyzed to test the sensitivity of property tax valuation assumptions. The alternative revenue scenario is slightly more aggressive than the baseline assumption by projecting growth in property values from new development of residential and nonresidential properties. Average market values are assumed by type of new development, which are converted to assessed values and then used to project property tax revenues over 20 years. This approach results in an average annual growth in assessed values of approximately 2.6 percent and positively affects the fiscal impact results. The two charts below show annual net fiscal results over the 20-year projection period for operating impacts only. Projected revenues for operating purposes and operating expenditures are shown. Net fiscal results are revenues minus costs in each year. Data points above the $0 line represent annual surpluses; points below the $0 line represent annual deficits. Surpluses or deficits in any one year are not carried forward to the next year.
21
Figure 20. Annual Fiscal Impacts of City-County Formation: Total Operating Results with Alternative Revenue Scenario
Under this alternative revenue approach, the net operating deficit is decreased and is eliminated by year 18. The average annual net deficit is reduced to approximately 2 percent of the projected operating budget for County services. Evaluating each major fund under this alternative revenue approach generates the following results.
22
Figure 21. Annual Fiscal Impacts of City-County Formation: Operating Results by Fund with Alternative Revenue Scenario
As shown, the higher property values assumed under this scenario are sufficient to cover General Fund services for the City-County of Aurora. The Social Services Fund and other minor operating funds continue to generate net deficits, with the Social Services Fund at an average annual deficit of approximately $4.5 million. As noted above, base year revenues generated within the City of Aurora for Social Services are insufficient to cover current City Social Services costs. Over the projection period, these deficits deepen. Operating fiscal results for the alternative revenue scenario are summarized in the table below with base year results (no change from above) as well as the cumulative 20-year total by fund. Over the 20year period, total operating net deficits are approximately $50 million; however, the General Fund generates a net surplus of $50 million. The Social Services Fund generates a net deficit of $89 million and Other Special Funds generates a net deficit of $10 million.
23
Figure 22. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts by Fund: Operating Results with Alternative Revenue Scenario
Category OPERATING General Fund Revenues General Fund Expenditures General Fund Net Fiscal Results Social Service Fund Revenues Social Service Fund Expenditures Social Service Fund Net Fiscal Results Other Special Fund Revenues Other Special Fund Expenditures Other Special Fund Net Fiscal Results Total Operating Revenues Total Operating Expenditures Total Operating Net Fiscal Results
$57,857 $58,409 ($552) $35,047 $38,886 ($3,839) $12,984 $13,530 ($546)
$64,469 $63,757 $712 $38,475 $42,535 ($4,060) $14,270 $14,800 ($529)
$71,758 $69,487 $2,271 $42,126 $46,385 ($4,258) $15,645 $16,139 ($494)
$78,933 $74,949 $3,984 $45,624 $50,043 ($4,419) $16,964 $17,412 ($448)
$86,303 $80,451 $5,851 $49,161 $53,725 ($4,564) $18,300 $18,693 ($393)
$1,507,464 $1,457,328 $50,135 $883,641 $972,624 ($88,983) $328,197 $338,415 ($10,218) $2,719,302 $2,768,367 ($49,066)
$105,889 $117,214 $129,529 $141,521 $153,764 $110,825 $121,091 $132,011 $142,404 $152,869 ($4,936) ($3,878) ($2,482) ($883) $894
Capital results are negligibly affected by the alternative revenue scenario with net deficits reduced by only $3 million over the 20 years, reflecting the net increase in property taxes assumed for capital purposes. By Year 20, the majority of initial debt assumed in the analysis is paid off and a net surplus is generated.
Figure 23. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Capital Results with Alternative Revenue Scenario
Net Fiscal Results ($000s): ALTERNATIVE REVENUE SCENARIO CAPITAL City-County Feasibility Study: Aurora, Colorado City-County of Aurora Base Year: Year 1 ($000s) Year 5 ($000s) Year 10 ($000s) Year 15 ($000s) Year 20 ($000s) $5,355 $4,974 $381 Cumulative Total (20 Yrs) ($000s) $93,700 $325,159 ($231,459)
$3,631 $4,020 $4,449 $4,890 $18,506 $14,544 $15,963 $17,393 ($14,875) ($10,524) ($11,514) ($12,502)
24
Total results for the alternative revenue scenario is a net deficit of approximately $20 million in the baseline year (unchanged from the baseline scenario) and $280 million over 20 years, an improvement of almost $90 million over the first scenario. Net deficits decrease slightly in each of the five year increments shown with a net surplus generated in Year 20, which assumes initial debt is paid off.
Figure 24. Annual (5-Year Increments) and Cumulative Fiscal Impacts: Grand Total Results with Alternative Revenue Scenario
Net Fiscal Results ($000s): ALTERNATIVE REVENUE SCENARIO GRAND TOTAL City-County Feasibility Study: Aurora, Colorado City-County of Aurora Base Year: Year 1 ($000s) Year 5 ($000s) Year 10 ($000s) Year 15 ($000s) Year 20 ($000s) Cumulative Total (20 Yrs) ($000s) $2,813,001 $3,093,526 ($280,525)
$109,520 $121,234 $133,978 $146,412 $159,119 $129,331 $135,635 $147,974 $159,797 $157,844 ($19,812) ($14,401) ($13,995) ($13,385) $1,275
25
COUNTY COSTS
The Service and Facility Delivery Plan Assumptions document included as Appendix A (issued under separate cover) provides detail on the assumptions used to derive the baseline cost estimates for provision of County services. Future projections for operating costs are derived based on demand factors discussed further below. The following is a general summary of the approach: Countywide functions are identified and extracted from County departmental budgets. The service analysis includes General Fund services as well as services accounted for in Special Funds where those services are provided Countywide (e.g., Social Service Fund) or are components of General Fund services (e.g., Community Resources). Discussions with County service providers occurred over the course of this study. 3 Where available and applicable, State data and other counties were utilized to cross-check findings. To derive cost factors, Arapahoe and Adams counties are used. The factors are then used to determine baseline costs to serve the City-County of Aurora, which accounts for the demand from all counties (that is, expanding the base to include the portion of the City in Douglas County). Overhead/support costs are included both within new County service expenditures (e.g., Sheriff administrative costs are included in Sheriff cost estimates and are derived based on percentage administration/overhead expenses of the direct Sheriff expenditures provided in the City). A separate service and cost estimate is provided for County-service related administration/overhead (ultimately reflecting additional effort by existing City departments (e.g., City Attorneys office)). Costs and staffing estimates are not adjusted at this phase of the analysis. For example, we derive estimated staffing needs for Aurora City-County based on FTE counts by county and applicable share, but do not adjust downward for potential staffing efficiencies, changes in business practices, pay scales or vice versa. We assume that salary levels are comparable among the City of Aurora and Arapahoe and Adams counties for this phase of the feasibility analysis. Any exceptions to this approach are noted in the text and tables.
This includes the feedback received on the Draft Service and Facility Plan Assumptions document from Arapahoe and Adams Counties. 26
The following required County services are included in this analysis and fiscal modeling: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Assessor Treasurer Clerk and Recorder Coroner Surveyor Tri-County Health / Public Health District Attorney Courts Sheriff Human Services (includes additional services under Community Resources) Information Technology 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 of Aurora is to determine demand factors to allocate current County costs for services and facilities provided to the City of Aurora. The demand factors (e.g., population, caseload) vary depending on the type of service being evaluated. Full detail and narratives on County services, demand factors, allocation to Aurora, and cost estimates are provided in Appendix A: Service and Facility Delivery Plan Assumptions. The following figure summarizes the share of Auroras demand in each County. Where appropriate, these factors are used to allocate operating costs and facility needs in the analysis as the baseline figures. In some cases, detailed caseload data is used.
27
Figure 25. Aurora Share of Each County

ARAPAHOE COUNTY Base Year 2013 Property Valuation[1] Population [2] Jobs [3] Pop and Jobs Parcels [4] Voters [5] Vehicles [6] Arapahoe Sources:
[1] Net assessed value (gross less TIF District]. Arapahoe 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 COUNTY %s Aurora 32% 48% 29% 42% 47% 46% 44% Total County Aurora Portion $4,524,126,060 $584,444,180 467,697 47,989 168,722 30,984 636,419 78,973 176,783 13,564 253,527 17,391 292,945 29,273
Total County Aurora Portion $7,327,973,674 $2,366,344,788 602,868 291,946 293,057 83,772 895,925 375,718 223,249 104,738 373,755 170,718 404,329 178,087
DOUGLAS COUNTY %s Aurora Total County Aurora Portion 13% $4,559,179,000 $5,001,200 10% 295,689 334 18% 94,479 0 12% 390,168 334 8% na 118 7% 216,461 216 10% 285,000 295
TOTAL AURORA %s Aurora Aurora Total 0.11% $2,955,790,168 0.11% 340,269 0.00% 114,756 0.09% 455,025 na 118,420 0.10% 188,325 0.10% 207,655
Adams Sources:
[1] Net assessed value (gross less TIF District]. Adams County Assessor [2] City estimate for 2013 from City of Aurora; Counties by Colorado State Demography Office [3] US Census, OnTheMap Web Application [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 [6] County data from US Census; Aurora share in County estimated based on vehicles per capita by TischlerBise.
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 [5] Douglas County Clerk and Recorder [6] Douglas County Clerk and Recorder
A summary of baseline operating costs to serve City-County of Aurora and projection factors is provided below. These costs for services are then used as the baseline to project costs to serve future growth in the City-County of Aurora. See Figure 26.
28
Figure 26. Base Year Operating Costs and Summary of Projection Methodologies ($000s)
Aurora Estimated Baseline Operating Costs ($000s) $2,664 $1,066 $1,375 $2,596 $474 $374 $1,170 $13 $2,363 $812 $6,907 $21,549 $2,685 $38,886 $11,974 $3,620 $3,165 $360 $8,773 $110,825 Projection Methodology City Parcels City Parcels City Voters City Vehicles City Parcels Population Population Population Population Population Population Jail ADP Population Population Population Population Population Varies by System* Varies by Service**
Assessor Treasurer Clerk and Recorder: Elections Clerk and Recorder: Motor Vehicle Clerk and Recorder: Recording Clerk and Recorder: Admin Coroner Surveyor Tri-County Health Aid to Agencies District Attorney Sheriff: Detention Sheriff: Other Human Services Community Resources Developmental Disability IT: Personnel and Operations IT: System Maintenance Overhead/Support Total
* Modeled using applicable demand factor for the system. E.g., Asssesor system maintenance is modeled based on growth in City Parcels. ** Modeled using applicable demand factor. E.g., Human Resources costs modeled on growth in "new" County FTEs.
The following figure provides base year staffing estimates and space needs reflecting maximum impact and cost.
Figure 27. Base Year Staffing Needs and Facility Space
# of FTEs Assessor Treasurer Clerk and Recorder Clerk and Rec-Voting Machines (units) Coroner District Attorney Courts (County and District)* Sheriff-Operating Sheriff-Detention Space (Beds) Sheriff - Admin Space Human Services** Community Resources Developmental Disability Aid to Agencies Tri-County Health Surveyor Public Trustee IT Overhead/Support Total Total space with Detention Space shown in square feet
[1] Reflects base year space needs in square feet, unless otherwise specified * Assumes Court system as part of 18th JD; facilities provided by City-County.
33.0 11.0 61.0 na 9.0 na na 168.5
348.0 83.0 na na na na na 18.0 55.3 786.8
Facility Space (SF) [1] 11,300 4,000 39,500 230 units 7,900 29,400 186,000 see below 780 beds 5,300 98,300 33,350 na na 17,000 na na see below 18,300 450,350 657,350
29
A Note on the Capabilities of the Fiscal Impact Model The fiscal model developed for this analysis models each department and division (where applicable) separately. Within each department or division, personnel and operating costs are enumerated along with an area to model staffing needs. Direction from the City Council was to model maximum costs and staffing requirements at this phase. The model, however, is capable of altering any one of these assumptions. That is, personnel costs can be modified to reflect excess capacity in a staff position so that instead of being driven by an increase in population on a one-for-one basis, for example, the model can be adjusted to assume that newly hired staff have the capability to handle additional workload in excess of current levels of service (see the column, % Estimate of Available Capacity). Therefore new hires would not be needed until that modified threshold was met.
An example from the model is shown below for the Assessors Office with base year data for personnel, operations, and number of FTEs. As shown, there is the ability to add operating cost components and new positions as plans for City-County formation become further defined.
ASSESSOR Expenditure Name Personnel Operations Operating Cost 3 Operating Cost 4 Operating Cost 5 Operating Cost 6 Direct Entry Cost Type 1 Direct Entry Cost Type 2 TOTAL Base Year Budget Amount $2,475,000 $189,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,664,000 Project Using Which Demand Base? CITY PARCELS CITY PARCELS FIXED FIXED FIXED FIXED DIRECT ENTRY DIRECT ENTRY Demand Unit Multiplier 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Projection Methodology CONSTANT CONSTANT CONSTANT CONSTANT CONSTANT CONSTANT CONSTANT CONSTANT Annual LOS Std Change $ per (+/-) Demand Unit 0% $20.90 0% $1.60 0% $0.00 0% $0.00 0% $0.00 0% $0.00 0% $0 0% $0
ASSESSOR STAFFING INPUT Base Year FTE Positions 33.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Project Using Which Demand Base? CITY PARCELS FIXED FIXED FIXED FIXED Current Demand Units Served Per Position 3,588 0 0 0 0 % Estimate of Available Capacity 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Category Assessor Staff Staff Type 2 Staff Type 3 Staff Type 4 Staff Type 5
Remaining Estimated Capacity/ Service Initial Hire Capacity Threshold Per Position 3,588 3,588 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
30
SUMMARY OF BASE YEAR AND CUMULATIVE COSTS

Summaries of projected expenditures are shown below in a series of tables: 1. 2. 3. 4. Base year operating expenditures; Base year capital expenditures; Cumulative (20-year total) operating expenditures; and Cumulative capital (20-year total) expenditures reflecting debt service payments for initial and future growth-related needs.
Base year operating expenditures for the City-County of Aurora are estimated at $110.8 million. Results are shown below by Fund.
Figure 28. Base Year Operating Expenditures Base Year Operating Expenditures ($000s) ALL OPERATING FUNDS City-County Feasibility Study: Aurora, Colorado
City-County of Aurora Category General Fund Assessor Treasurer Clerk And Recorder Coroner Surveyor Public Trustee Tri-County Health [Contract] Aid To Agencies District Attorney (18Th Judicial District) Sheriff-Detention Sheriff-Other Community Resources Information Technology Support Subtotal General Fund Social Services Fund Expenditures* Human Services: Admin/Finance/Legal/Operations Human Services: Child Support Enforcement Human Services: Children Youth & Family Services Human Services: Community Support Services Subtotal Social Services Fund Other Funds Expenditures** Other Funds Expenditures** Subtotal Other Funds TOTAL
* Does not include Food Assistance or Old Age Pension benefits ** Includes Developmental Disability, Workforce, Sheriff Commissary
Base Year Estimated Expenditures ($000s) $2,664 $1,066 $4,819 $1,170 $13 $0 $2,363 $812 $6,907 $21,549 $2,685 $2,064 $3,525 $8,773 $58,409 $5,434 $2,937 $14,492 $16,023 $38,886 $13,530 $13,530 $110,825
% of Fund 4.6% 1.8% 8.3% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 1.4% 11.8% 36.9% 4.6% 3.5% 6.0% 15.0% 100.0% 14.0% 7.6% 37.3% 41.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 2.4% 1.0% 4.3% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 0.7% 6.2% 19.4% 2.4% 1.9% 3.2% 7.9% 52.7% 4.9% 2.7% 13.1% 14.5% 35.1% 12.2% 12.2% 100.0%
31
General Fund expenditures comprise approximately 53 percent of total operating expenditures with the majority of total expenditures for Human Services (at 35 percent) followed by Detention Services (almost 20 percent). The majority of Other Funds Expenditures is for Workforce Services, which are assumed to have offsetting revenues. As noted elsewhere in this study, operating costs reflect estimated costs attributable for new services to serve the City-County of Aurora. To derive estimates for Information Technology and Support Services, a weighted average of Auroras direct costs to current County direct costs is derived and applied to each individual support cost component. That is, a simplified cost allocation approach was used. However, because similar services are provided in the City of Aurora today, this is an area for additional refinement to determine the incremental increase in IT and other overhead services, personnel, and resulting costs needed to support additional County direct services. Capital expenditures are also estimated to capture baseline facility costs. In addition, future needs and costs to serve growth are included. Construction costs for buildings/office space are assumed to be debt financed. Other capital costs for vehicles or IT systems are assumed to be pay-go. Baseline costs are shown below in Figure 29. Initial costs reflect the first year of debt service for the majority of the capital costs along with one-time payments for new computer systems and vehicles.
Figure 29. Base Year Capital Expenditures Base Year Capital Expenditures ($000s) CAPITAL NEEDS City-County Feasibility Study: Aurora, Colorado
City-County of Aurora Base Year Estimated Expenditures ($000s) $2,657 $4,027 $6,135 $2,024 $3,664 $18,506 %
Category General Government DA & Courts Sheriff / Detention Human Services IT Systems TOTAL
14.4% 21.8% 33.2% 10.9% 19.8% 100.0%
32
The next two figures show cumulative costs over the 20-year projection period. Figure 30 provides cumulative operating expenditures for all funds and Figure 31 provides a summary of cumulative capital expenditures over the 20-year period. Capital expenditures reflect debt service and any pay-go expenses. Cumulative operating expenditures total $2.8 billion over 20 years with Human Services and Detention Services comprises the majority of the costs at approximately 55 percent of total operating expenditures.
Figure 30. Cumulative (20-Year Total) Operating Expenditures Cumulative Operating Expenditures ($000s) ALL FUNDS City-County Feasibility Study: Aurora, Colorado City-County of Aurora
Category General Fund Assessor Treasurer Clerk And Recorder Coroner Surveyor Public Trustee Tri-County Health [Contract] Aid To Agencies District Attorney (18Th Judicial District) Sheriff-Detention Sheriff-Other Community Resources Information Technology Support Subtotal General Fund Social Services Fund Expenditures* Human Services: Admin/Finance/Legal/Operations Human Services: Child Support Enforcement Human Services: Children Youth & Family Services Human Services: Community Support Services Subtotal Social Services Fund Other Funds Expenditures** Other Funds Expenditures** Subtotal Other Funds TOTAL
20-Year Cumulative Expenditures ($000s) $66,379 $26,562 $120,255 $29,264 $325 $0 $59,100 $20,310 $172,754 $539,056 $67,161 $51,625 $87,449 $217,089 $1,457,328 $135,916 $73,461 $362,477 $400,770 $972,624 $338,415 $338,415 $2,768,367
% of Fund 4.6% 1.8% 8.3% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.1% 1.4% 11.9% 37.0% 4.6% 3.5% 6.0% 14.9% 100.0% 14.0% 7.6% 37.3% 41.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 2.4% 1.0% 4.3% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 0.7% 6.2% 19.5% 2.4% 1.9% 3.2% 7.8% 52.6% 4.9% 2.7% 13.1% 14.5% 35.1% 12.2% 12.2% 100.0%
33
Cumulative capital expenditures total $325 million, which is approximately 11 percent of total expenditures. As shown in Figure 31, the single highest cost is for Detention Facilities followed by Courts and space for Human Services. The cumulative capital costs include payment of principal and interest for constructed space to serve base year needs as well as future growth.
Figure 31. Cumulative (20-Year Total) Capital Expenditures Cumulative Capital Expenditures ($000s) CAPITAL NEEDS City-County Feasibility Study: Aurora, Colorado City-County of Aurora
Category General Government DA & Courts Sheriff / Detention Human Services IT Systems TOTAL
20-Year Cumulative Expenditures ($000s) $37,754 $96,748 $138,361 $48,632 $3,664 $325,159
11.6% 29.8% 42.6% 15.0% 1.1% 100.0%
Discussion Items
There are several what-if considerations on County expenditures that can be addressed as part of the 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 the City-County of Aurora would hold constant. In other words, as population grows in the City-County, the County Jail population would increase at the same rate. Past trends in Arapahoe and Adams Counties using information provided by the Counties, provides some insights. In both Arapahoe and Adams counties, the number of bookings has generally decreased over time. However, the average length of stay in Jail has generally increased, which has resulted in an increase in demand for bed space.
34
Incarceration rates. From a 2011 study 4 conducted for Adams County, the following average incarceration rates were reported: o Arapahoe County: 21.0 inmates per 10,000 residents o Adams County: 29.2 inmates per 10,000 residents o For comparison purposes: Jefferson County: 21.3 inmates per 10,000 residents; Denver County: 36.1 inmates per 10,000 residents Looking at the current conditions, given the reported Average Daily Populations in Arapahoe and Adams Counties and current general County population, the latest rates are: o Arapahoe County: 19.1 inmates per 10,000 residents (decreased from 2011) o 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 680 for Aurora would result in an incarceration rate of 20 inmates per 10,000 residents. The Feasibility analysis assumes this rate holds constant over time, resulting in a projected average daily population of 940 by the end of the 20-year projection period. (It should be noted that the Detention Facility included in this analysis assumes construction of a facility to house a maximum population of 780 in the base year with a projected 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-County formation process to discuss detention/correction philosophy, service provision, current practices, best practices from elsewhere, and other related topics. For example, should the communitys expectation be that the incarceration rate will hold steady over time? Or are there opportunities to initiate goals to decrease the rate through alternative sentencing or other means?
Human Services Human Services expenditures are captured in the Social Services Fund. The majority of expenditures are covered by funding from the State and Federal government. Benefits that are fully supported by the State or Federal government (i.e., Food Assistance and Old Age Pension) are not included in this analysis. Estimated initial operating costs are approximately $39 million, which assumes the same client population transfers from current Arapahoe and Adams Counties. There are two possible caveats to this assumption: First, if services are viewed as more accessible than current services available, initial demand for Human Services may be higher. Given that there is a deficit in the Social Services Fund, any assumed increase in demand will further deepen the deficits.
National Institute of Corrections, Justice System Assessment, Adams County (CO), October 2011. Appendix C: Jail Analyses, p. 37. Date of data is 2009 and 2010. Per the report, data sources for incarceration rates are Bureau of Justice Statistics; U.S. Census Bureau; and Jurisdictions websites or staff. 35
Second, it is possible that base year operating costs may be overestimated for one component of Human Services, namely Child Support Enforcement (base year estimate of approximately $3 million). It is likely that active cases at the time of County transition would be retained by the originating County. That is, those cases in Arapahoe and Adams Counties today would remain with those counties and the City-County of Aurora would be responsible for new cases at the time of County formation. If this is the case, then base year costs for this division would be lower, however an infrastructure would need to be put in place to cover new cases and any that would be transferred. As City-County formation continues to be pursued, these assumptions and operational decisions will need to be negotiated with the Counties and State. For purposes of this analysis at this phase, the estimate derived is useful as a baseline level of service cost standard to be used for annualized County operations and to project future expenditures.
Another area for discussion and refinement if City-County formation is pursued is on future levels of service and needs due to changing demographics and income levels. For instance, caseloads have grown at a higher rate than the general population in Arapahoe County. While growth in caseloads does not always equate to a growth in local budget requirements, the expectation for future levels of service will be established at the front-end of the process and therefore considering several alternative demand scenarios 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. However, this is not guaranteed unless population is above 500,000. That said, the assumption in the analysis is that intergovernmental 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 obligations on facilities that currently serve Aurora. The City-County would be obligated per State law to take over a proportionate share of existing County general obligation debt. However, none of the three counties has any outstanding general obligation debt. Although there is no applicable general obligation debt, 5 one possibility is that the City-County of Aurora would pay its fair share of annual debt service (or lease payments) (incurred by a certain date) for the proportion of the facility serving the City. Alternatively, the City-County of Aurora could negotiate use of the existing facilities and assume debt/lease payments.
Because the law explicitly states that the requirement is for general obligation debt, this may be an issue to be addressed in the constitutional amendment. 36
The following figure provides a summary of estimated outstanding debt/lease payments allocated to Aurora. As shown, it is estimated that approximately $3.5 million per year reflects Auroras share of 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
Office Assessor Treasurer Clerk and Recorder Coroner District Attorney Courts (County and District) Sheriff - Admin Space Human Services Community Resources Overhead/Support TOTAL County Outstanding Debt? Yes-Adams Co. Yes-Adams Co. Yes-Adams Co. Yes-Arap. Co. Yes-Arap. and Adams Co. Yes-Arap. and Adams Co. Yes-Arap. Co. Yes-Arap. Co. Yes-Arap. and Adams Co. Yes-Arap. and Adams Co. Aurora $ Share Arap Portion # of Yrs Adams Portion # of Yrs Aurora Avg Annual $ $1,005,000 $1,005,000 18 $55,833 $349,000 $349,000 18 $19,389 $2,681,000 $2,681,000 18 $148,944 $850,000 $850,000 9 $94,444 $2,802,000 $1,970,000 6 $832,000 11 $403,970 $4,406,000 $3,336,000 4 $1,070,000 18 $893,444 $850,000 $850,000 9 $94,444 $13,271,000 $13,271,000 9 $1,474,556 $3,604,000 $2,252,000 18 $1,352,000 18 $200,222 $2,468,000 $126,000 18 $2,343,000 18 $137,167 $32,286,000 $22,655,000 $9,632,000 $3,522,414
It should be noted that the above figures reflect the outstanding debt/lease obligations as of Fiscal Year 2013. As planning for City-County formation continues, debt/lease obligations will change, specifically, a portion of the above obligations will have been paid off. In addition, there is the potential likelihood that 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 currently owned and operated by Arapahoe and Adams counties, therefore further research on City equity in those assets may be applicable.
37
REVENUES
Revenues are estimated for the initial year, based on share of current County revenues that are generated in the City of Aurora. These base year revenues are then used in most cases to project future 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 details of which 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 City-County Feasibility Study: Aurora, Colorado City-County of Aurora Base Year Estimated Revenues ($000s) $44,571 $1,408 $1,005 $9,110 $262 $0 $1,333 $168 $0 $57,857 $5,165 $29,447 $22 $412 $35,047 $2,522 $10,463 $12,984 $105,889 % of Fund 77.0% 2.4% 1.7% 15.7% 0.5% 0.0% 2.3% 0.3% 0.0% 100.0% 14.7% 84.0% 0.1% 1.2% 100.0% 19.4% 80.6% 100.0% % of Total 42.1% 1.3% 0.9% 8.6% 0.2% 0.0% 1.3% 0.2% 0.0% 54.6% 4.9% 27.8% 0.0% 0.4% 33.1% 2.4% 9.9% 12.3% 100.0%
Category General Fund Revenue Property Taxes License & Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services/Fees Fines Investments/Interest Internal Charges Miscellaneous/Other Transfers/Fund Balance Subtotal General Fund Social Services Fund Revenue* Property Taxes Intergovernmental* Fees and Charges Others Subtotal Social Services Fund Other Funds Revenue** Property Taxes Intergovernmental and Fees/Charges Subtotal Other Funds TOTAL
38
As shown, property taxes comprise 77 percent of the General Fund revenue sources. For all funds combined, property taxes are approximately 50 percent of the total. The next largest source of revenue in the General Fund is Charges for Services. In the Social Services Fund, intergovernmental revenues make up 84 percent of the fund (which excludes pass-through funds for Food Assistance (federally funded) and Old Age Pension (state funded)). Current revenues for capital purposes available to the Counties are a dedicated property tax in Arapahoe County and a dedicated sales tax in Adams County. For purposes of this analysis, TischlerBise modeled these existing revenue sources and assumed they were available to help offset the costs for capital construction. Results for the base year are shown below.
Figure 34. Base Year Capital Revenues
Base Year Capital Revenues ($000s) CAPITAL FUNDS City-County Feasibility Study: Aurora, Colorado City-County of Aurora Base Year Estimated Revenues ($000s) %
Category Capital Revenues* Property Taxes Sales Taxes Other TOTAL

* Reflects existing dedicated taxes for capital purposes: property tax in Arapahoe; and sales tax in Adams.
$1,479 $2,148 $4 $3,631
40.7% 59.2% 0.1% 100.0%
For longer-term projections, two revenue scenarios are included in this analysis, which vary property value assumptions. The first approach (Scenario A) is the most conservative approach of the two revenue scenario approaches. It models average assessed values per capita and job in each County based on current valuations and applies those values to new growth. This approach results in an average annual growth in assessed values of approximately 1.8 percent. The second approach (Scenario B) is slightly more aggressive in that it projects growth in property values using values of new residential and nonresidential properties. Average market values are assumed by type of development, converted to assessed values, and projected over 20 years. This is done for real and personal property. This results in an average annual growth in assessed values of approximately 2.6 percent.
Revenue projections from both scenarios are provided below first for operating revenues and then for capital revenues. The next section of the report provides further detail.
39
Figure 35. Cumulative (20-Year Total) Operating Revenues 20-Year Cumulative Operating Revenues ($000s) ALL FUNDS City-County Feasibility Study: Aurora, Colorado
Category General Fund Property Taxes License & Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services/Fees Fines Investments/Interest Internal Charges Miscellaneous/Other Transfers/Fund Balance Subtotal General Fund Social Services Fund Revenue* Property Taxes Intergovernmental* Fees and Charges Others Subtotal Social Services Fund Other Funds Revenue** Property Taxes Intergovernmental and Fees/Charges Subtotal Other Funds TOTAL
Scenario A. Baseline CityCounty
% of Fund
SCENARIO Scenario B. % of Alternative Total Revenue Projection
% of Fund
% of Total 43.2% 1.3% 0.9% 8.4% 0.2% 0.0% 1.2% 0.2% 0.0% 55.4% 5.0% 27.1% 0.0% 0.4% 32.5%
$1,103,917 76.9% 41.9% $35,216 2.5% 1.3% $25,139 1.8% 1.0% $227,559 15.8% 8.6% $6,546 0.5% 0.2% $0 0.0% 0.0% $33,349 2.3% 1.3% $4,202 0.3% 0.2% $0 0.0% 0.0% $1,435,928 100.0% 54.5% $127,932 14.6% 4.9% $736,547 84.1% 27.9% $560 0.1% 0.0% $10,312 1.2% 0.4% $875,351 100.0% 33.2% $62,453 19.3% 2.4% $261,697 80.7% 9.9% $324,150 100.0% 12.3% $2,635,429 100.0%
$1,175,452 78.0% $35,216 2.3% $25,139 1.7% $227,559 15.1% $6,546 0.4% $0 0.0% $33,349 2.2% $4,202 0.3% $0 0.0% $1,507,464 100.0% $136,222 15.4% $736,547 83.4% $560 0.1% $10,312 1.2% $883,641 100.0%
$66,500 20.3% 2.4% $261,697 79.7% 9.6% $328,197 100.0% 12.1% $2,719,302 100.0%
Figure 36. Cumulative (20-Year Total) Capital Revenues 20-Year Cumulative Capital Revenues ($000s) CAPITAL FUNDS City-County Feasibility Study: Aurora, Colorado
SCENARIO Scenario A. Baseline CityCounty $38,018 $52,636 $80 $90,735 % Scenario B. Alternative Revenue Projection %
Category General Fund Property Taxes Sales Taxes Other TOTAL
41.9% 58.0% 0.1% 100.0%
$40,983 43.7% $52,636 56.2% $80 0.1% $93,700 100.0%
40
PROPERTY TAXES
The majority of County revenues are generated from property taxes. Within the General Fund, it is estimated that approximately 77 percent of the funding would be from property taxes. When considering all funds together, including the Social Service Fund, the share from property taxes is 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)
Residential Nonresidential (Comm+Ind)^ Vacant Other* Personal Property Total
CITYWIDE $1,412,095,070 $1,033,601,388 $105,638,700 $22,989,220 $381,465,790 $2,955,790,168
ARAPAHOE CO. $1,311,682,470 $709,212,018 $85,615,470 $19,456,400 $240,378,430 $2,366,344,788
ADAMS CO. $97,643,080 $324,389,370 $17,918,320 $3,521,950 $140,971,460 $584,444,180
DOUGLAS CO. $2,769,520 $0 $2,104,910 $10,870 $115,900 $5,001,200
^ 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
Base Year Property Tax Revenue

To model property tax revenues in the City-County of Aurora, the first step is to determine the amount of property tax revenue generated by the current City of Aurora to each of the counties. This reflects the base-year revenue generated from the City of Aurora and is used in the model as base year property tax revenues reflecting new County revenue. Then, for future years in the projection, the model uses the equalized mill levy (property tax rate) for the General Fund and other applicable countywide funds. That is, we determined what the mill levy would need to be if the same amount of revenue is generated from all of the City of Aurora. Given that each county has its own mill levies, the weighted equalized mill levy is different than current County levies (see Figure 38):
41
Figure 38. County Tax Revenue from City of Aurora and Equalized Tax Rates: All Funds
ARAPAHOE CO. GENERAL FUND REVENUES County General Fund Mill Levy City Tax Base in Each County County General Fund Tax Revenue from Aurora Weighted Mill Levy Needed to Generate Same Tax Revenue Revenue Generated Under New Weighted Milll Levy Increase (Decrease) in GF Revenues from Aurora OTHER FUND REVENUES County Other Funds Mill Levy (Countywide)* City Tax Base in Each County County Other Fund Tax Revenue from Aurora Weighted Combined Mill Levy Needed to Generate Same Tax Revenue* Revenue Generated Under New Weighted Mill Levy Increase (Decrease) in Other Fund Revenues from Aurora TOTAL REVENUES County Current Total Mill Levy (Countywide)** Weighted Total Mill Levy (Countywide)^ TOTAL REVENUES GENERATED UNDER CURRENT MILL LEVIES TOTAL REVENUES GENERATED UNDER NEW^ MILL LEVIES TOTAL INCREASE (DECREASE) FROM CURRENT $13.127 $2,366,344,788 $31,063,008 $15.079 $35,682,605 $4,619,597 ADAMS CO. $22.993 $584,444,180 $13,438,125 $15.079 $8,812,955 ($4,625,170) DOUGLAS CO. $13.965 $5,001,200 $69,842 $15.079 $75,414 $5,572 TOTALS
$2,955,790,168 $44,570,975
$44,570,975 $0
$3.226 $2,366,344,788 $7,633,828 $3.101 $7,337,958 ($295,870)
$2.610 $584,444,180 $1,525,399 $3.101 $1,812,342 $286,943
$1.316 $5,001,200 $6,582 $3.101 $15,509 $8,927
$2,955,790,168 $9,165,809
$9,165,809 $0
$16.353 $18.180 $38,696,836 $43,020,564 $4,323,727
$25.603 $18.180 $14,963,524 $10,625,298 ($4,338,227)
$15.281 $18.180 $76,423 $90,923 $14,499 $53,736,784 $53,736,784 $0
* For this analysis, "Other Funds" mill levy includes Social Services, Developmentally Disabled, and Capital Expenditure; Road & Bridge Fund is excluded. ** For this analysis, "Total" mill levy includes General Fund, Social Services, Dev. Disabled, and Cap. Expenditure; Road & Bridge Fund is excluded. ^ Mill levy needed to generate same amount of revenue (General Fund, Social Services Fund, Dev. Disabled, and Capital Exp.)
To generate the same amount of revenue, the General Fund mill levy (property tax rate) would 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 Douglas counties and lower in Adams County. (See Figure 39 below.) Conversely, the Developmentally Disabled mill levy would be lower in Arapahoe and Douglas counties and higher in Adams County. (See Figure 40 below.) When considering all property tax rates levied in all counties, which includes the General Fund, Social Services Fund (all counties), Developmentally Disabled Fund (all counties), and Capital Expenditure Fund (in Arapahoe County), and equalizing the rates for these funds, the results reveal that tax rates would be higher and thus more revenue would be generated in the Arapahoe and Douglas counties portion of Aurora while the tax rate would be lower and thus less revenue would be generated in Adams County.
42
There is a statutory limit of 2.500 mills ($2.500 per $1,000 in assessed valuation) on the Social Services Fund for counties where the per capita assessed valuation is $2,600 or more. The City of Aurora per capita assessed valuation is approximately $8,700 and therefore would be constrained by this limit. The equalized rate based on the FY2013 analysis would be $1.748 per $1,000 in assessed valuation. Further detail is below.
Figure 39. County Tax Revenue from City of Aurora and Equalized Tax Rates: Social Service Fund
ARAPAHOE CO. Social Services Social Service Rate City Tax Base in Each County County Social Service Fund Tax Revenue from Aurora Weighted Tax Rate Needed to Generate Same Tax Revenue Revenue Generated Under New Weighted Tax Rate Increase (Decrease) in GF Revenues from Aurora $1.601 $2,366,344,788 $3,788,518 $1.748 $4,135,229 $346,711 ADAMS CO. $2.353 $584,444,180 $1,375,197 $1.748 $1,021,327 ($353,871) DOUGLAS CO. TOTALS $0.316 $5,001,200 $2,955,790,168 $1,580 $5,165,296 $1.748 $8,740 $7,159
$5,165,296 $0
Colorado statutes permit a levy of up to 1.000 mills on the purchase of services for the developmentally disabled. The City-County of Aurora would be required to hold an election to authorize the County to certify a mill levy for this purpose. Adams, Arapahoe, and Douglas Counties have authorized this mill levy at different levels with Arapahoe and Douglas counties at the maximum level and Adams County at $.257 per $1,000. Using the same approach as described above, the equalized rate within the City of Aurora would be $.853 per $1,000. See below.
Figure 40. County Tax Revenue from City of Aurora and Equalized Tax Rates: Developmentally Disabled Fund
ARAPAHOE CO. Developmentally Disabled Developmentall Disabled Rate City Tax Base in Each County County Dev. Disabled Fund Tax Revenue from Aurora Weighted Tax Rate Needed to Generate Same Tax Revenue Revenue Generated Under New Weighted Tax Rate Increase (Decrease) in GF Revenues from Aurora $1.000 $2,366,344,788 $2,366,345 $0.853 $2,018,700 ($347,645) ADAMS CO. $0.257 $584,444,180 $150,202 $0.853 $498,582 $348,380 DOUGLAS CO. TOTALS
$1.000 $5,001,200 $2,955,790,168 $5,001 $2,521,548 $0.853 $4,266 ($735)
$2,521,548 $0
43
Projected Property Tax Revenue

As noted above, to project Property Tax revenues over the next 20 years, two scenarios were developed. The first approach (Scenario A) is the most conservative approach of the two revenue scenario approaches. We model average assessed values per capita and job in each County based on current valuations and applied that value to new growth. This approach results in an average annual growth in assessed values of approximately 1.8 percent. Factors used to project revenue growth are shown below: The second approach (Scenario B) is slightly more aggressive in that it projects growth in property values using values of new development of residential and nonresidential properties. Average annual market values are assumed by type of development, converted to assessed values, and projected over 20 years. This is done for real and personal property. This results in 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 each county for Scenario A. This is done by dividing the sum of residential, nonresidential, and personal property values by the current number of persons and jobs in the respective county. This factor is then used to project new property value based on projected population and employment in the City. Using an average of existing development is a relative conservative approach as new development typically has higher 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) Citywide and by County (Aurora Portion)
Real & Personal Assessed Value* Population and Jobs $ AV per Capita and Job
* Includes Residential and Nonresidential
CITYWIDE $2,827,162,248 455,026 $6,213
ARAPAHOE CO. $2,261,272,918 375,718 $6,019
ADAMS CO. $563,003,910 78,973 $7,129
DOUGLAS CO. $2,885,420 334 $8,639
This approach generates over $1.3 billion in property tax revenues in all funds over 20 years, or an average of almost $67 million annually.
44
For Scenario B, a slightly different approach is taken, which assumes an average market value by type of development and applies that value to projected future growth. The following summarizes the market and assessed value assumptions by type of land use.
Figure 42. Scenario B: Aurora Average Market and Assessed Values by Type of Property
Single Family Unit Multifamily Unit Retail Office Industrial
Market Value (Per Unit / Per SF) $380,000 $130,000 $130 $110 $70
Assessment Rate 7.96% 7.96% 29.00% 29.00% 29.00%
Assessed Value $30,248 $10,348 $37.70 $31.90 $20.30
Sources: TischlerBise data and analysis of online property listings (Zillow; Loopnet)
In total, this approach generates approximately $1.4 billion in property tax revenues in all funds over 20 years, or an average of $71 million annually, reflecting an increase of approximately 6.5 percent over Scenario A.
Property Tax Limitations Two property tax limitations exist in the State of Colorado, the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) and a statutory 5.5 Percent Limit. 5.5 Percent Limit: Local governments may not collect property tax revenue greater than 5.5 percent over the previous year. This limitation does not apply to home rule counties (unless the charter includes this limit) and therefore is assumed to be not applicable as it is assumed that 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 the amount of 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 also effectively exempts the Citys General Fund from TABOR spending limits. While property taxes in the City-County of Aurora may eventually be affected by TABOR, the City notes that their revenue projections (2014-2017), which are higher than those modeled in this Feasibility Study, are expected to remain well within TABOR limitations. 6 Because the fiscal model for the Feasibility Study does not include inflation and essentially projects new property tax revenues from new local growth (which is added to modeled base year revenue in constant dollars), TABOR restrictions do not affect the fiscal modeling at this stage of the analysis.
6
City of Aurora, FY2013 Adopted Budget, p. D-16. 45
Other Revenues
Other new revenues would be available to the City-County of Aurora. For the analysis, base year estimates are derived using each countys current revenue structure and determining how much revenue is generated in the City of Aurora currently using applicable demand factors based on the type of service. A summary is provided below.
Figure 43. Base Year General Fund Revenues
GENERAL FUND Aurora Revenue Generated in Each County ArapCo AdamsCo DougCo Aurora Total Aurora Proj. Meth Share Base Year $31,063,008 $13,438,125 $69,842 $44,570,975 $44,570,975 Assessed Value $1,406,736 $1,224 $0 $1,407,960 $1,407,960 Population $1,152 $1,152 $1,152 Population $50,196 $50,196 $50,196 Parcels $795,549 $795,549 $795,549 Population $158,373 $158,373 $158,373 Population $23,500 $5,400 $28,900 $28,900 Parcels $2,923,466 $201,844 $3,125,310 $3,125,310 Parcels $3,363,568 $717,655 $4,081,223 $4,081,223 Population $1,041,432 $401,289 $1,442,721 $1,442,721 Population $11,208 $238,469 $249,677 $249,677 Population $182,070 $182,070 $182,070 Population $77,280 $77,280 $77,280 Population $162,640 $162,640 $162,640 Population $21,800 $0 $21,800 $21,800 Population $759,165 $258,013 $1,017,178 $0 Assessed Value $376,725 $376,725 $376,725 Population $177,466 $177,466 $177,466 Population $677,631 $677,631 $677,631 Facility SF $101,505 $101,505 $101,505 Population $168,000 $0 $168,000 $168,000 Population $1,717,210 $0 $1,717,210 $0 Fixed $44,123,688 $16,398,011 $69,842 $60,591,540 $57,857,153 $31,063,008 $13,438,125 $69,842 $44,570,975 $44,570,975 $13,060,680 $2,959,886 $0 $16,020,565 $13,286,178 $44,123,688 $16,398,011 $69,842 $60,591,540 $57,857,153 77% 23% 100%
Taxes License & Permits Intergovernmental
Charges for Services/Fees
Fines
Investments/Interest Internal Charges
Miscellaneous/Other Transfers/Fund Balance TOTAL Subtotal Taxes Subtotal Other Revenues GRAND TOTAL
Property Taxes License & Permits Community Resources (Arap) Treasurers Office (Arap) Corrections (Adams) Other Assessor Treasurer Clerk & Recorder Sheriff Other Overhead (Adams) Clerk & Recorder (Arap) Community Resources (Arap) Sheriff Investments/Interest Administrative Services Community Resources Facilities and Fleet Management Information Technology Miscellaneous/Other Transfers/Fund Balance
Sources: County FY2013 Budgets; TischlerBise analysis
Non-property tax revenues generate about 23 percent of General Fund revenues for the City-County of Aurora in the base year. As shown above, the amount assumed as base year revenues for the City-County of Aurora does not include fund balance or interest/investments, despite the fact that the City of Aurora has contributed to the counties current fund balance and investment pool (which is shown in the Aurora Total Share column).
46
Social Services Fund The Social Services Fund is supported by property taxes in addition to intergovernmental revenue. A summary is provided below. As shown, 84 percent is estimated from intergovernmental funding, with 15 percent of the fund from property taxes, and one percent from other sources.
Figure 44. Base Year Social Services Fund Revenues
SOCIAL SERVICES FUND Aurora Revenue Generated in Each County ArapCo AdamsCo DougCo Aurora Total Aurora Proj. Meth Social Services Tax Rate $1.601 $2.353 $0.316 Share Base Year $3,788,518 $1,375,197 $1,580 $5,165,296 $5,165,296 Assessed Value $23,199,586 $6,247,912 $29,447,498 $29,447,498 Population $22,400 $22,400 $22,400 Population $224,000 $188,275 $412,275 $412,275 Population $27,234,504 $7,811,384 $1,580 $35,047,468 $35,047,468 $3,788,518 $23,199,586 $246,400 $27,234,504 $1,375,197 $6,247,912 $188,275 $7,811,384 $1,580 $5,165,296 $5,165,296 $0 $29,447,498 $29,447,498 $0 $434,675 $434,675 $1,580 $35,047,468 $35,047,468 15% 84% 1% 100%
Property Taxes Intergovernmental* Fees and Charges Others
Subtotal Taxes Subtotal Intergovernmental Revenue Subtotal Other Revenue GRAND TOTAL
* Excludes Food Assistance and Old Age Pension benefit funding. Sources: County FY2013 Budgets; TischlerBise analysis
Community Resources Fund Community Resources is another service area that is partially accounted for in Special Revenue funds, particularly in Arapahoe County. To capture applicable revenue sources, TischlerBise conducted an analysis of other revenues available to offset costs grouped into Community Resources. These services include: CSU Extension Senior Resources Veteran Services Community Development Services Workforce Centers and Services Judicial Services (includes alternative sentencing programs for District and County Courts) Related administrative functions
Workforce centers are fully federally funded and Judicial Services/Community Corrections receive state funding. Community Development activity is provided through federal block grants and other grant funds are received for a variety of purposes. The analysis includes those programs that would be required to be provided by City-County of Aurora. (Community Development activities are not included in the analysis as they are already provided by the City of Aurora.)
47
The majority of funding for workforce services is from intergovernmental sources. It should be noted that the analysis models workforce service costs and revenues based on current services and funding provided by Arapahoe and Adams counties. As noted elsewhere, Aurora is modeled essentially as a separate Workforce regionwith local costs and offsetting intergovernmental revenue. However, establishment as a new Workforce region is not guaranteed unless population is above 500,000. The assumption throughout the analysis is that intergovernmental revenues offset expenditures (at 98 percent), so there is a neutral fiscal impact.
Figure 45. Base Year Community Resources (in Special Funds) Revenues
COMMUNITY RESOURCES (in Special Funds) Aurora Revenue Generated in Each County ArapCo AdamsCo DougCo Aurora Total Share $4,448,807 $890,537 $5,339,344 $25,850 $25,850 $25,998 $25,998 $3,572 $3,572 $4,354,726 $4,354,726 $117,986 $117,986 $8,976,938 $890,537 $0 $9,867,476 $8,803,533 $173,405 $8,976,938 $890,537 $0 $890,537 $0 $0 $0 $9,694,070 $173,405 $9,867,476 Aurora Base Year $5,339,344 $25,850 $25,998 $3,572 $4,354,726 $117,986 $9,867,476 $9,694,070 $173,405 $9,867,476 Proj. Meth Population Population Population Population Population Population
Workforce Funds * Intergovernmental Fees and Charges Internal Charges Others Grant Fund Intergovernmental-Comm Resources Fees and Charges/Other-Comm Resources
Subtotal Intergovernmental Revenue Subtotal Other Revenue GRAND TOTAL
98% 2% 100%
* Arapahoe/Douglas Works! in Arapahoe and Douglas counties and Workforce & Business Center Fund in Adams County Sources: County FY2013 Budgets; TischlerBise analysis
The analysis also includes additional revenue accounted for in a Jail Commissary Fund in Arapahoe 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 improvements. Arapahoe County has a dedicated property tax millage and Adams County has a dedicated sales tax rate for certain capital improvements. (This is separate from each countys Open Space Sales Tax Funds.) Arapahoe County: Property Tax In Arapahoe County, there is a dedicated property tax mill levy of $.625 per $1,000 in assessed value. In FY2013, Aurora generated approximately $1.5 million under this revenue source.
48
Adams County: Sales Tax In Adams County, there is a voter-approved sales tax of of 1 percent (Jan. 1, 2009 through Dec. 31, 2028). The sales tax is reserved as follows: .3% sales tax is used for capital facilities including Justice Center expansion, Government Center, and Pre-Trial Holding Facility. .2% sales tax is used to finance transportation projects, and is shared with cities and towns in the County. Fund balance and interest earned on the .3% sales tax can be used to help offset the incremental future operating and capital costs associated with the Justice Center, Government Center, and Pre-Trial Holding Facility. 7
Based on the share of Adams County sales taxes generated in the City of Aurora, it is estimated that the City of Aurora contributes approximately $2.15 million annually to the Capital Facilities Fund. 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 countywide with 50 percent distributed back to municipalities in the County based on property assessed values. o For the base year examined, Aurora contributes approximately $1.9 million in property taxes to the Arapahoe County Road and Bridge Fund. Adams County levies a property tax of $1.300 per $1,000, which is collected countywide with 50 percent distributed back to municipalities based on property value. In addition, Adams County has a dedicated sales tax funding the Road and Bridge Fund. o For the base year examined, Aurora contributes approximately $760,000 in property taxes to the Adams County Road and Bridge Fund. o For the base year examined, it is estimated that Aurora contributes approximately $1.4 million in sales taxes to the Adams County Road and Bridge Fund.
Combined, it is estimated that Aurora contributes a total of $4 million in Road and Bridge Funds to both counties and per the Citys budget, receives $2.4 million back from the counties.
7
Adams County FY2013 Budget, p. 307. 49
The City and County of Broomfield has a Street Fund mill levy as part of its City budget but does not have a separate Road and Bridge Fund as part of its County budget. The City of Aurora does not currently have a mill levy in a separate Street Fund or Road and Bridge Fund. To make up the funding lost 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. The formulas and usage limitations vary by county, but the City receives funding from each county from this sales tax. Arapahoe County: The voter-approved Open Space sales tax rate is .25%. Jurisdictions within the County receive 50 percent of the funds collected in the County based on share of population with a portion of the remaining funds available for grants in special districts and incorporated municipalities. The City of Aurora has received approximately 56 percent of the revenues distributed to municipalities over a nine-year period from 2004 to 2012 ($42 million out of a total $75 million). 8 Adams County: The voter-approved Open Space sales tax rate is .25%. It is authorized through 2026. Jurisdictions receive 30 percent of the funds generated and is distributed based on the location where the tax was generated. The remaining funds are distributed through a competitive grant program (68% of the funds) and 2 percent is for administration costs.
Based on estimated share of sales tax generated in Aurora in each County, it is estimated that the City contributes approximately $9 to $10 million annually to both Open Space Sales Tax Funds combined. At the same time, the City of Aurora receives approximately $6 million in revenues annually from both counties combined, although this figure may vary depending on the awarding of grants from this fund. This revenue source is anticipated to grow in the short-term at an annual rate of 2.5 percent. Revenues can generally be used for park land acquisitions and improvements, construction, maintenance (with some limitations), and patrol costs for parks and open space. Because these taxes are County taxes that were approved by voters in each respective county, further legal analysis would need to be conducted to determine the process to continue this tax under a CityCounty of Aurora.
Arapahoe County, Annual Shareback Fund Distribution, September 2012. 50
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Based on the assumptions identified in this document and supporting materials, in particular the Service Delivery Plan (Appendix A) and the parameters for the Study, namely to identify the maximum potential costs, the overall findings are that the revenues generated by current and future growth are insufficient to cover expenses related to new City-County services. However, the net deficit for operating purposes is approximately 5 percent of the operating budget for County services and less than 3 percent of the Citys current budget. Capital requirements significantly worsen the fiscal impact given the study assumption that needed facilities are built new by the City-County of Aurora. A summary of the results is shown below.
Figure 46. Summary of Fiscal Feasibility Results Net Fiscal Results ($000s) BY FUND City-County Feasibility Study: Aurora, Colorado
City-County of Aurora: Annual Results Base Year: Year 1 ($000s) Year 5 ($000s) Year 10 ($000s) Year 15 ($000s) Year 20 ($000s) Cumulative Total (20 Yrs) ($000s)
Category OPERATING Total Operating Revenues Total Operating Expenditures Total Operating Net Fiscal Results CAPITAL Capital Revenues Capital Expenditures Capital Net Fiscal Results GRAND TOTAL Grand Total Revenues Grand Total Expenditures Grand Total Net Fiscal Results
$105,889 $115,455 $125,583 $135,368 $145,317 $110,825 $121,091 $132,011 $142,404 $152,869 ($4,936) ($5,636) ($6,428) ($7,036) ($7,553)
$2,635,429 $2,768,367 ($132,938)
$3,631 $3,958 $4,310 $4,673 $18,506 $14,544 $15,963 $17,393 ($14,875) ($10,586) ($11,653) ($12,720)
$5,056 $4,974 $82
$90,735 $325,159 ($234,424)
$109,520 $119,413 $129,892 $140,041 $150,373 $129,331 $135,635 $147,974 $159,797 $157,844 ($19,812) ($16,222) ($18,081) ($19,756) ($7,470)
$2,726,164 $3,093,526 ($367,362)
51
When an alternative revenue assumption is taken, reflecting a nominal increase in revenue generation from property taxesincreasing annual property value growth from 1.8 percent to 2.6 percent, sufficient revenues are available for General Fund purposes and the net operating deficit is reduced to 2 percent of the projected operating budget for County services and one percent of the Citys current budget. However, revenues are still insufficient to cover all needs over the entire 20-year period, particularly capital requirements. Net fiscal results improve toward the end of the projection period due to debt being retired.
Figure 47. Summary of Fiscal Feasibility Results: Alternative Revenue Scenario
Category OPERATING Total Operating Revenues Total Operating Expenditures Total Operating Net Fiscal Results CAPITAL Capital Revenues Capital Expenditures Capital Net Fiscal Results GRAND TOTAL Grand Total Revenues Grand Total Expenditures Grand Total Net Fiscal Results
$105,889 $117,214 $129,529 $141,521 $153,764 $110,825 $121,091 $132,011 $142,404 $152,869 ($4,936) ($3,878) ($2,482) ($883) $894
$2,719,302 $2,768,367 ($49,066)
$3,631 $4,020 $4,449 $4,890 $18,506 $14,544 $15,963 $17,393 ($14,875) ($10,524) ($11,514) ($12,502)
$5,355 $4,974 $381
$93,700 $325,159 ($231,459)
$109,520 $121,234 $133,978 $146,412 $159,119 $129,331 $135,635 $147,974 $159,797 $157,844 ($19,812) ($14,401) ($13,995) ($13,385) $1,275
$2,813,001 $3,093,526 ($280,525)
52
A challenge to provision of City-County services is accommodating capital facility costs under the current revenue structure. As noted, the assumption in this analysis is construction of new facilities. Total capital costsincluding principal and interestprojected over 20 years is $325 million, of which over 40 percent is for Detention / Sheriff related facilities. These needs include not only the facilities to serve the base year population but to serve projected growth as well. A summary of all capital needs is provided below in Figure 48. Construction costs reflected in the figure below are principal costs only and do not include interest (financing) costs. Average annual debt service of $16.6 million reflects average principal and interest payments (at a conservative interest rate of 4.5 percent) over the 20 years.
Figure 48. Summary of Capital Facilities: Current and Growth-Related Needs
Infrastructure Units Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Machine Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Beds Sq. Ft. Vehicles Unit Unit Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. na Base Year Infra Needed 11,300 4,000 39,500 230 7,900 17,000 18,300 29,400 186,000 780 5,300 6.00 1.00 1.00 98,300 33,350 450,350 Total At Total Construction Average Ann Debt Buildout Cost ($1,000s)* Service ($1,000s) 15,392 $3,078 $217 5,448 $1,090 $77 53,882 $10,776 $760 314 $1,569 na 10,776 $2,155 $144 23,190 $4,993 $352 24,963 $4,638 $327 40,105 $8,021 $566 253,723 $63,431 $4,473 1,078 $97,010 $6,848 7,324 $1,465 $103 8.00 $300 na 1.00 $452 na 1.00 $3,400 $209 134,091 $26,818 $1,891 45,493 $9,098 $642 $3,664 na 614,387 $241,957 $16,609
CAPITAL FACILITIES Assessor Treasurer Clerk and Recorder Clerk and Recorder Coroner Tri-County Health Overhead/Support District Attorney Courts (County and District) Sheriff Detention Sheriff Office Sheriff Detention Vehicles Sheriff IT System Sheriff Bomb Squad Human Services Community Resources IT Systems Totals (Sq. Ft. only/Total $s)
* Reflects construction cost without financing costs; includes base year, growth, and replacement needs, where applicable, over 20 years.
Finally, as a benchmark, purely from a service population standpoint, the projected population of the City-County of Aurora in 20 years is assumed to be approximately 470,000or comparable to the population of Adams County today. Adams County currently has 955 employees (FTEs) in departments providing countywide services (excluding support/overhead and IT staff). The fiscal analysis projects a need for 879 employees (FTEs) by Year 20, without support/overhead or IT staff, a difference of 76 (or 8%). However, it should be noted that Adams County departmental staffing data, particularly in the Sheriffs Office, may include FTEs that serve only the unincorporated area and therefore the total figure noted for Adams County countywide services (955 FTEs) may be slightly inflated.
53
OTHER ISSUES
Several considerations of what may be considered off-model issues have emerged during the work 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 facility needs are modeled based on the City-County of Aurora remaining with the 18th Judicial District (as noted elsewhere). However, if the City is interested in pursuing the formation of a new Judicial District (which would allow for a combined Municipal-County Court), a separate analysis is suggested. The study should explore, but may not be limited to: the process for formation; cost effectiveness of a shared system; trade-offs regarding funding sources and revenue streams (state versus local); structure, reporting relationships, and operating cost impacts for the District Attorneys Office, Public Defenders Office, Probation services, and Clerks 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 the Colorado Legislature is required. This decision might be separate and could follow after a positive decision 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 Judicial District in the Constitutional Amendment. More research is necessary to ascertain if the creation of a Judicial District could be accomplished in the Constitutional Amendment. However, creation of Judicial District and the City and County might be considered two subjects and would therefore be denied on the basis of the single subject requirement for ballot initiatives in Colorado. Other considerations of joining an existing District or pursuing creation of a new District include population served; location within Aurora of highest crime rates by type; ideology of each District; prevention programs and innovative community programs; utilization of specialized courts such as drug courts and family court; and domestic violence issues. Other considerations may include how probation is managed within each District; community involvement; specialized caseloads; use of community services; vision and utilization of community corrections; and loss of specific individuals on the bench due to residency requirement. As part of the 18th Judicial District, the City-County will not have control over the number of County Judges, the number of District Judges, or provision of Probation Services as they will all fall under State control. The Governor would appoint all District and County judges. However, as a County, Aurora may have more of an opportunity to work with the Governors Office to
54
provide input on selection criteria as well as allow for Aurora residents to serve on the nominating commission and supply community feedback in the process, but the ultimate selection is by the Governor. Broomfield City-County is part of the 17th Judicial District and its District and County Courts are funded and controlled by the State. The City-County has a separate Municipal Court with judges appointed by the Council. Unlike other counties in the state, the Clerks Office combines Municipal, County, and District Court Clerks functions with the state reimbursing the CityCounty for a portion of the staffing. Denver is a single Judicial District and operates the court system in total. Denver pays all of the court operation costs and does not receive reimbursement from the Colorado Judicial Department. With this relationship, there have been recent issues with data systems and efficient sharing of information with the State. In counties that are part of the State Court system, the state reimburses 80 percent of minimum state-mandated salaries for district attorneys with the localities in the Judicial District covering the remaining 20 percent. However, in many instances, salaries are negotiated higher than the state minimum, and the locality is therefore obligated to cover 100 percent of the increase. Both Counties have Alternative Sentencing/Diversion programs in place. The City-County of Aurora would need to do the same and could have the opportunity to shape programs from the ground up.
Efficiencies in Service Provision and Facilities

During the Feasibility Study process, there has been some discussion on identifying efficiencies of service between City and County operations and facilities. While direction from the City Council was to identify maximum costs for new County services and costs, some discussion on efficiencies is provided. There are two main aspects when talking about efficiencies: decreasing costs and/or increasing revenues. Within this general framework, the following is offered for further discussions in a next phase: Decreasing costs: Identifying crossover with current City services; what can be done in conjunction with current services? What is already provided? o Detention is one such area. However, the current City Jail is a different type of detention facility, which holds prisoners for a short amount of time (no longer than 72 hours) and has current operational capacity for 60 inmates. The facility itself has space for 220 inmates but does not operate at that level currently. Current operations involve dealing
55
with a volatile and transient population, requiring a higher staffing ratio than is provided at County Detention facilities currently. The City facility and service would continue to be used; however, transport costs and the potential ability to release prisoners sooner with a coordinated process could achieve some efficiencies. o Another area of cost savings may be with Courtroom space. For purposes of the Feasibility Analysis, we assume full costs to build out new courtroom space with the understanding that some future needs may be accommodated in the Citys existing space with upgrades and finishing. A third area is with support functions. The analysis assumes some portion of additional overhead/support services such as Human Resources, Finance, Administration, etc. Given the duplication with existing City services, a refinement to this analysis can be a determination of what capacities exist within the current City staff. However, City staff levels have been reduced in recent yearsat the same time population in the City has increased, therefore available capacity may be limited. Furthermore, the cost savings for these services is likely to be relatively minimal given the overall operating impact.
Decreasing costs: Investigating a more efficient way to provide County services. The initial question for City stakeholders is to define what this means. Does it mean cheaper than currently provided by the Counties? Does it mean faster or more accessible than provided currently by the Counties? Does it mean at a higher quality than currently provided by the Counties? How would this be defined? And finally, how would these elements be weighted in relation to each otheri.e., how to weight cheaper, faster, and better? Increasing revenues: Focusing on economic development opportunities within current City limits (e.g., transit-oriented development opportunities) as well as part of the ongoing discussion on annexation (i.e., what will the annexed property provide from a net revenue standpoint?). What are realistic market opportunities? What is best fiscal return to the City? And finally, are incentives efficient from a fiscal perspective? Achieving efficiencies can also be discussed within the context of achieving efficiencies with current City services. A 2006 study conducted for the City of Aurora, City of Aurora Study of Revenues, addresses the need and potential for improving efficiencies with current City services indicating this is an issue that can be folded into the discussion on efficiencies for new County services. From Broomfields experience, serious discussions on efficiencies occurred after the vote to become a County. Many suggestions for improved and more efficient service provision came from the grassrootsnamely, the Broomfield Citizens Advisory Group. There was significant
56
back and forth during the transition period after County approval. As part of the effort, there was in-depth discussion on internal functionsincluding City operations/functions. Finally, State agencies will typically not engage with the City on County service provision discussion until after County formation has been approved. Because of this, it is difficult to start 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 practices and tax rates, the City-County of Aurora generates a net deficit for Human Services funding. One potential outcome of a City-County of Aurora is that with potentially easier access to services, the demand for those services will increase beyond the levels provided to Aurora residents by the counties today. In addition, if poverty rates continue to increase in the City of Aurora as has been the trend over the last decade, projected demand over time will steadily increase. Given that the baseline results are a net deficit, alternative scenarios that increase service levels will only deepen the deficits. However, these are scenarios that can be tested with the fiscal model developed for this project. Both Social Service Fund tax rates and expenditure levels can be tested.
Retirement Systems
The counties and the City of Aurora all have different retirement systems. The City-County of Aurora will need mid- and upper-level personnel with County experience to help establish and implement new County services. This could be an area where further analysis is needed to determine how current retirement plans may affect hiring and negotiations. From a pension system perspective, a shift of employees out of a system has financial implications that may need to be addressed during this effort.
Metro and Other Special Districts

The use of Metro Districts to fund project-level infrastructure is in and of itself not an issue. Potential issues arise if there is management and financial instability of districts over time. During the most recent recession, many developers experienced financial problems with insufficient revenue to keep up with debt service payments. The other possible issue relates more to public relations and outreach. As discussions continue on County formation, much discussion will center around the impact to citizens on taxes and services
57
received. Because of the proliferation of Metro Districts, each with their own tax rate, there are a wide range of tax rates throughout the City of Aurora currently. As stated in the City of Aurora Comprehensive Plan (2009): Residents in new Aurora metro districts typically will have total property tax rates (city and metro district) of as much as 60 to 65 mills compared to 11 mills for those living outside metro districts. A mill of taxes is equivalent to $1 tax on every $1,000 of assessed value. Residential property is currently assessed at about eight percent of market value. Thus, for a $300,000 market value home, the annual property tax paid to a metro district charging 60 mills of property tax would equal $1,440. 9 When discussing county taxes and the impact on a typical taxpayer, the range of tax rates due to Metro Districts should be addressed.
Economic Development
The fiscal feasibility of City-County formation may rely on the potential for future economic development. Specifically, is the shortfall in funding for operations and capital able to be mitigated with sufficient additional revenues that can be achieved through economic development efforts? To begin to address this, the following items are noted for further research: Conduct a market analysis on the potential for higher-value office and retail properties, thus directly affecting property and sales tax revenue generation. Determine the realistic transit-oriented development potential for higher-value development and retail opportunities. Determine the likely impacts of the Gaylord Development and future related development taking into account any City incentives or contributions. Determine realistic development opportunities due to annexation. What is the market for nonresidential development and other revenue-generating development in potential areas for annexation? Assess the fiscal impacts of incentives. As a City-County, will the Citys current incentive policy shift to tax abatements on property taxes (as opposed to sales taxes) and will that be fiscally beneficially in the short- and long-term? Evaluate whether there is a benefit to the City as a City-County to better negotiate economic development deals, procure assistance from the State in those deals, implement redevelopment and revitalization efforts (through more streamlined TIF District approvals), and improve competitive position in relation to neighboring communities.
City of Aurora, Comprehensive Plan 2009, Chapter IV.E. Financial Concerns, p. 4. 58
Change in Revenue Structure

As noted earlier, with conversion to a City-County, the City will lose revenues they receive currently from the Open Space Sales Tax Fund ($6 million) and the County Road and Bridge Shareback funding ($2.4 million). To make up the lost revenues, the City-County would need to implement comparable 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 Act (ACA). The budgeted impacts for City services and employees is conversion of approximately 50 positions to benefitted FTEs across several funds with an overall operating impact of approximately $550,000. Out of an operating budget (non-enterprise funds) of approximately $320 million, this is a negligible effect at .1 percent. Effect on costs to serve Jail population Under the ACA, Detention staff will be obligated to determine inmate eligibility for Medicaid or plans available through exchanges. While inmates may be able to be enrolled, their services will not be covered while incarcerated due to federal restrictions. A number of issues have been identified by the 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 characteristics (e.g., high turnover/short stays of jail population; changes in release dates (for Medicaid start-up); lack of 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 not eligible for coverage through Medicaid or a health exchange and jail staff would be responsible for reporting this.
Given the above, the current levels of service as provided in county jails serving Aurora on which this analysis is based may need to be revisited in light of these new requirements and expectations.
National Association of Counties (NACO), County Jails and the Affordable Care Act: Enrolling Eligible Individuals in Health Coverage, March 2012. 59
10
[Page intentionally left blank]
60
APPENDIX
The following Appendices are included: Appendix A. Service and Facility Delivery Plan Assumptions [provided under separate cover] Appendix B. Revenue Projection Approach Appendix C. Feasibility Study Parameters Appendix D: Demographic and Land Use Projection Memo Appendix E: Acknowledgments
61
62
APPENDIX A. ASSUMPTIONS
SERVICE
AND
FACILITY
DELIVERY
PLAN
Issued under separate cover.
A-1
A-2
APPENDIX B. REVENUE PROJECTION APPROACH

County revenues are modeled as part of this analysis. This includes property tax revenue as well as other revenues that are received from a County-provided service (e.g., Clerk and Recorders fees). The section provides allocation methodologies for each county for the General Fund and Special Funds.
General Fund Revenue

Arapahoe County The following figures show a summary of Arapahoe Countys General Fund and allocation methodologies for the City-County analysis. Adjustments are made in the Feasibility Analysis to eliminate fund balances, transfers, and investment earnings.
Figure B1. Arapahoe County General Fund Revenue
ARAPAHOE COUNTY Dept. No. GENERAL FUND REVENUES Taxes Licenses & Permits Department FY 2013 [1] Gross GF Revenues % of County Fund 60% 4% 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 13% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 100% Type of Revenue [2] Countywide Unincorp. Unincorp. Countywide Unincorp. Unincorp. Unincorp. Unincorp. Countywide Unincorp. Unincorp. Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Unincorp. Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Unincorp. Countywide Countywide Countywide Overhead Countywide Overhead Overhead Countywide Unincorp. Unincorp. Unincorp. Countywide Countywide Unincorp. Countywide Allocation Methodology Assessed Value Fixed Fixed Population Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Population Fixed Fixed Parcels Parcels Custom (Aur. Avg % Clerk&Rec) Population Population Fixed Fixed Custom Parcels Custom Custom Fixed Custom Fixed Custom (Aur. % Prop Taxes) Overhead Custom (Aur. Avg % CommRes) Overhead (Custom) Overhead Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Population Fixed Fixed Custom (Aur. % Prop Taxes) Factor $13.127 0% 0% 48% 0% 0% 0% 0% 48% 0% 0% 47% 47% 46% 48% 48% 0% 0% 40% 47% 46% 38% 0% 40% 0% 33% 23% 36% 46% 23% 0% 0% 0% 0% 48% 0% 0% 33% Aurora Share $31,063,008 $0 $0 $1,406,736 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,152 $0 $0 $50,196 $23,500 $3,363,568 $7,200 $4,008 $0 $0 $1,041,432 $2,923,466 $77,280 $162,640 $0 $21,800 $0 $759,165 $376,725 $177,466 $677,631 $101,505 $0 $0 $0 $0 $168,000 $0 $0 $1,717,210 $44,123,688
Intergovernmental
Fees and Charges
Fines and Penalties
Investment Earnings Internal Charges
Transfers Other
Fund Balance
Administrative Services-Property Taxes $95,232,236 $6,450,000 Administrative Services-Specific Ownership Tax Administrative Services $775,000 Clerk & Recorder's Office $2,930,700 County Attorney $10,000 Public Works & Development $947,185 Sheriff's Office $5,771 Administrative Services $2,675,000 Community Resources $2,400 Public Works & Development $500 Sheriff's Office $19,987,998 Treasurer's Office $106,800 Assessor's Office $50,000 Clerk & Recorder's Office $7,312,105 Community Resources $15,000 Coroner's Office $8,350 County Attorney $1,800 Public Works & Development $570,225 Sheriff's Office $2,603,579 Treasurer's Office $6,220,140 Clerk & Recorder's Office $168,000 Community Resources $428,000 Public Works & Development $1,500 Sheriff's Office $54,500 Community Resources $2,500 Treasurer's Office $2,300,500 Administrative Services $1,637,933 Community Resources $492,962 Facilities and Fleet Management* $1,473,111 Information Technology $441,327 Transfers $0 Administrative Services $30,000 Communications Services $4,450 County Attorney $72,235 District Attorney $350,000 Finance $20,000 Sheriff's Office $3,000 Fund Balance $5,203,666 TOTAL GENERAL FUND $158,588,473
* Aurora share reflects estimated share of facility space allocated to Aurora services [1] County adopted budget [2] Revenue = Unincorporated, Countywide, Overhead
B-1
Adams County The following figures show a summary of Adams Countys General Fund and proposed allocation methodologies for the City-County analysis. Adjustments are made in the Feasibility Analysis to eliminate fund balances, transfers, and investment earnings.
Figure B2. Adams County General Fund Revenue
ADAMS COUNTY Dept. No. GENERAL FUND REVENUES Property Taxes Licenses & Permits Department FY 2013 [1] Gross GF Revenues % of Type of County Fund Revenue [2] 67% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 4% 1% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 8% 0% 100% Allocation Methodology Factor $22.993 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 10.0% 0.0% 13.0% 8.0% 13.0% 0.0% 8.0% 9.0% 5.0% 5.0% 0.0% 8.0% 10.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 13.0% 11.6% 13.0% 0.0% 8.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Aurora Share $13,438,125 $1,224 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $240 $158,133 $0 $13,650 $10,035 $771,864 $0 $5,400 $717,655 $22,340 $17,991 $0 $201,844 $6,287 $167,862 $77,016 $0 $0 $64,723 $0 $131,683 $163,610 $105,996 $0 $64,320 $0 $0 $258,013 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,398,011
Intergovernmental
Charges for Services
Fines and Forfeits Interest and Investments Miscellaneous
Transfers Other Fund Balance
Property Taxes $103,659,149 Clerk & Recorder $12,236 County Commissioners-Liquor Licenses $25,000 Other-Licenses and Permits (Bldg Permits) $700,580 Facility Planning & Operations $33,550 Finance & IT (Telecommunications) $307,000 Neighborhood Services (A-Lift) $429,140 Veterans Service Office $2,400 District Attorney $1,581,331 Emergency Management $103,330 Sheriff-Corrections $105,000 Sheriff-Field and Admin $125,432 Community Corrections $5,937,419 Other-Intergovernmental $925,394 Assessor's Office $67,500 Clerk & Recorder $7,973,945 Finance & IT $446,809 Human Resources $359,823 Planning & Dev $62,450 Treasurer $2,523,050 CSU Extension $62,866 District Attorney $1,678,621 County Attorney $1,540,320 Parks & Comm Resources (Public Safety) $337,500 Fair and Rodeo $353,700 Public Works (CIP) $1,294,455 Coroner (Broomfield) $214,250 Sheriff-Corrections $1,012,949 Sheriff-Field and Admin $1,410,880 Sheriff-Special Fund $815,352 Neighborhood Services (Animal Shelter) $689,632 Public Trustee Fees $804,000 Other-Charges for Services $105,763 Sheriff-Field and Admin $1,552,050 Interest and Investments $1,984,712 County Commissioners $3,500 Finance & IT $70,000 Planning & Dev $2,500 Treasurer $165,000 Parks & Comm Resources (Culture and Rec) $45,000 Public Works (Code Enf) $5,500 Sheriff-Corrections $1,760 Sheriff-Field and Admin $5,000 Sheriff-Special Fund $79,150 Other - Misc $3,109,647 Transfers $0 Other Revenues $12,914,441 Fund Balance Used $0 TOTAL GENERAL FUND $155,639,086
Countywide Assessed Value Countywide Population Unincorp. Fixed Unincorp. Fixed Unincorp. Fixed Countywide Fixed Unincorp. Fixed Countywide Population Countywide Population Unincorp. Fixed Countywide Custom (Jail %) Countywide Custom Countywide Custom (Jail %) Unincorp. Fixed Countywide Parcels Countywide Custom (% Clerk&Rec) Countywide Overhead Countywide Overhead Unincorp. Fixed Countywide Parcels Countywide Population Countywide Population Countywide Overhead Unincorp. Fixed Unincorp. Fixed Countywide Overhead Unincorp. Fixed Countywide Custom (Jail %) Countywide Custom (% Sheriff Civil) Countywide Custom (Jail %) Unincorp. Fixed Countywide Parcels Unincorp. Fixed Unincorp. Fixed Countywide Custom (Aur. % Prop Taxes) Unincorp. Fixed Unincorp. Fixed Unincorp. Fixed Unincorp. Fixed Unincorp. Fixed Unincorp. Fixed Unincorp. Fixed Unincorp. Fixed Unincorp. Fixed Unincorp. Fixed Unincorp. Fixed Unincorp. Fixed Fixed
[1] County adopted budget [2] Service = Unincorporated, Countywide, Overhead, Internal Service
Douglas County The portion of Douglas County revenues that would be shifted to the City-County of Aurora, namely property taxes, is allocated to Aurora for the analysis. The base year total equals approximately $70,000.
B-2
Special Revenue Funds

The following Special Revenue Funds are modeled with the allocation methodologies shown below for the City-County analysis.
Figure B3. Arapahoe and Adams Counties Special Fund Revenues
SOCIAL SERVICES FUND
Social Services Tax Rate
Aurora Revenue Generated in Each County ArapCo

$1.601
AdamsCo
$2.353
DougCo
$0.316
Aurora Total
Proj. Meth Assessed Value Population Population Population
Property Taxes Intergovernmental* Fees and Charges Others
$3,788,518 $23,199,586 $22,400 $224,000 $27,234,504
$1,375,197 $6,247,912 $188,275 $7,811,384
$5,165,296 $29,447,498 $22,400 $412,275 $1,580 $35,047,468
$1,580
* Excludes Food Assistance and Old Age Pension benefit funding.
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY FUND

Dev. Disability Tax Rate
Aurora Revenue Generated in Each County ArapCo AdamsCo DougCo

$1.000 $0.257 $1.000
Aurora Total
Proj. Meth
Property Taxes
$2,366,345 $2,366,345
$150,202 $150,202
$5,001 $5,001
$2,521,548 Assessed Value $2,521,548
COMMUNITY RESOURCES (in Special Funds)
Aurora Revenue Generated in Each County ArapCo AdamsCo DougCo Aurora Total $4,448,807 $890,537 $5,339,344 Workforce Funds * Workforce: Intergovernmental Workforce: Fees and Charges $25,850 $25,850 Workforce: Internal Charges $25,998 $25,998 Workforce: Others $3,572 $3,572 $4,354,726 $4,354,726 Grant Fund Grant Funds: Intergovernmenta Grant Funds: Fees and Charges $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 ArapCo AdamsCo DougCo Aurora Total SHERIFF'S COMMISSARY Fees and Charges $595,240 $595,240 $595,240 $0 $0 $595,240
Proj. Meth Population Population Population Population Population Population
Proj. Meth Jail ADP
B-3
B-4
APPENDIX C. FEASIBILITY STUDY PARAMETERS

The following items are general assumptions for the City-County of Aurora Feasibility Study as discussed and for which direction was provided by Aurora City Council. This includes only applicable excerpts from the discussion.
Statement of General Assumptions

Nature of the Feasibility Study Put simply, the Feasibility Study as being conducted now provides estimated costs to provide County services and related facilities as well as the estimated revenue implications of the formation. The Consultant Team will not make a judgment as to whether the conversion is feasible or not as there are many criteria on which feasibility can be measured, reflecting both quantitative and qualitative measures. The expectation is that Council will review the results of the Feasibility Study in light of a range of criteria, such as: Positive fiscal impact: Revenues generated exceed costs, regardless of whether the absolute costs are higher or lower. Cost savings: Implies lower absolute costs for services and facilities. Improved service delivery: This is more subjective and should be further defined as it relates to determining feasibility as the study progresses. Other feasibility criteria as identified by City Council, which may include level of control, 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 and housing unit growth and State developed employment growth projections for the metro region. Our growth assumptions are articulated in this document.
City-County Governance Formation of a city-county would not necessitate a change to the Citys current form of government. A change in the form of City government would require a local charter amendment action. A change in
C-1
City government structure could be included in a constitutional amendment and then ratified by a local charter amendment. It is assumed for this analysis that the City of Aurora would retain its existing 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 or may choose to delegate certain duties to boards and commissions appointed by the city council. For additional information on this topic, we provide language below from the Constitutional Amendment creating the City and County of Broomfield.
. . . On and after November 15, 2001, the terms of office of the mayor and city council of the city of Broomfield shall terminate with regard to the city of Broomfield and said mayor and city council shall become the mayor and city council of the city and county of Broomfield. The city council of the city and county of Broomfield, in addition to performing the duties prescribed in the city and county charter and ordinances, shall perform the duties of a board of county commissioners or may delegate certain duties to various boards and commissions appointed by the city council of the city and county of Broomfield.
11
The fiscal analysis will model the costs and revenues available if the City were to form the County of Aurora. It is anticipated that up to twenty years worth of growth will be projected with the base year reflecting the development in the ground today. It is modeled to reflect the ongoing and one-time costs (such as capital facilities and assumption of outstanding debt service costs) to serve current and future growth. This analysis, at this phase of the study, does not model outreach costs that will be needed prior to the election or certain transition or start-up costs in the initial years prior to opening the doors as a county such as training, costs associated with recruitment and hiring staff, or communications/marketing efforts to the community on the change is service provider. These costs will be above and beyond the costs modeled herein. Costs for marketing, campaigning, and transition efforts will depend heavily on the strategy and plan developed by the Aurora City Council in a follow-on phase if 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 be provided to adequately serve current City demand as well as future City growth. In other words, new county services and revenue streams are considered independent of City operations and revenue sources (with the exception of current revenue sources (from counties to the City) that would be affected by the formation of the City-County of Aurora).
11
Colorado Constitution, Article XX (Home Rule Cities and Towns), Section 12 (Transfer of Government). C-2
Key Parameters from Direction Provided by City Council

1. City Boundary/Annexation: The Feasibility Study assumes current City boundaries. 2. Judicial District: For the Feasibility Study, it is assumed that the City and County of Aurora remains in the 18th Judicial District (Arapahoe, Douglas, Elbert, and Lincoln) and no longer have any portion of the jurisdiction remaining with the 17th Judicial District (Adams and Broomfield). 3. Levels of Service Options As directed by City Council, the Feasibility Study, and the assumptions herein, uses current levels of service provided by Adams and Arapahoe counties as the basis for the study and derives factors based on current operations and facilities. Levels of service factors include operating and capital costs, staffing levels, and amount of facility space per demand unit or employees (expressed as full-time equivalents (FTE)). Demand units include population, dwelling units, employment by type, or vehicle trips and depend on the type of service or facility being evaluated. 4. New County Positions: Options for Service Delivery Certain functions are required to be provided in a traditional county, namely, a clerk and recorder; treasurer; sheriff; coroner; assessor; surveyor; and county commissioners. In a city and county, the city council would perform the functions of a county commission (as described above). The other functions can be performed by elected officials or individuals appointed by the city council or hired by the city manager. This organizational structure would be determined by Constitutional amendment. Salaries of appointed positions could be determined as would any other salaries of the city and county. Based on direction from City Council, the Feasibility Study will assume the maximum potential fiscal impact at this stage. That is, the study and quantitative analysis will assume new separate positions/operating impacts as the approach. Appendix B is a summary of positions required to be provided by counties. Appendix C to this document includes a write-up of how Denver City and County and Broomfield City and County address these positions, and the possibilities for efficiencies. Existing City departments and positions would be affected by County formation, such as the City Attorneys Office, Human Resources, etc. These service costs and facility needs are identified in this report under the heading Overhead/Support.
C-3
C-4
APPENDIX D: DEMOGRAPHIC AND LAND USE PROJECTION MEMO
D-1
MEMORANDUM TO: CC: Robert Watkins, Director, Planning & Development Services Karen Hancock, Planning Supervisor Michelle Wolfe, Deputy City Manager Michael Lawson, Finance and Budget Program Administrator City of Aurora, Colorado Julie Herlands, AICP, Principal, and Stephanie Ball, Fiscal/Economic Analyst TischlerBise October 11, 2013 (revised from April 26, 2013) City-County Feasibility Study: DRAFT Technical Memo on Demographic and Land Use Assumptions (Tasks 1.3 and 1.4)
FROM:
DATE: RE:
This memo provides discussion and detail on existing development and projections on future growth in the City of Aurora for the City-County Feasibility Study. Demographic and land use assumptions are addressed in portions of two tasks in the scope of work, Tasks 1.3 and 1.4. The relevant sections are repeated below for reference: Task 1.3: Synthesis of Data and Definition of Parameters Demographic Analysis. TischlerBise will conduct a thorough evaluation of demographic, socioeconomic, and economic trends. From a residential perspective, this analysis will include such indicators as changes in household size, age cohorts, minority population, changes in income, vehicle ownership, and commuting patterns. From a nonresidential perspective, this may include 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 development of the indicators for demand for services after City-County formation. To ensure the optimum inputs for the fiscal impact analysis, TischlerBise will develop specific assumptions for each land use type projected going forward (derived from projections of population and employment). For residential land uses (e.g., single-family detached versus multifamily), these factors include person per household, lot size, assessed value, street frontage, vehicle trips and trip adjustment factors, average trip length, income, and discretionary spending. From a nonresidential perspective, this will include employment densities, vehicle trip generation rates and adjustment factors, trip lengths, sales per square foot for retail uses, street frontage, etc.
CURRENT DEMOGRAPHICS AND LAND USE

Population: Figure 1 displays population by decade since the 1970s for the City of Aurora, the DenverAurora-Broomfield Metro Area, and the State of Colorado using data from the U.S. Census. The rate of growth in the City of Aurora has slowed greatly since the 1970s. From 2000 to 2010, the City grew by a total of 18 percent as compared to previous decades when the lowest ten-year growth rate was 24 percent. The ten-year percentage increase in of the last decade in Aurora is similar to the amount of growth seen in the Metro Area (16 percent) and Colorado (17 percent).
Figure D1: Population by Decade
Year 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Aurora 74,974 158,588 222,103 276,393 325,078
% Change 112% 40% 24% 18%
Metro Area 1,238,273 1,618,461 1,848,319 2,400,570 2,784,228
% Change 31% 14% 30% 16%
Colorado 2,207,259 2,889,964 3,294,394 4,301,261 5,029,196
% Change 31% 14% 31% 17%
Source: 2010 Cens us , U.S. Cens us Burea u a nd Who is Aurora? , Ci ty of Aurora Pl a nni ng & Devel opment Servi ces Depa rtment, 2012
The City of Aurora engaged Clarion Associates to estimate the 2012 population based on Census 2010 data and recent information on certificates of occupancy, vacancy, and group quarters. The Aurora population on April 1, 2012, was estimated to be 335,688 persons. 12 The City of Aurora updated this 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, at 133,737. 14 The breakdown by type of unit is shown in Figure 2.
Figure D2: Estimated Housing Units by Type as of April 1, 2013
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED MULTIFAMILY/ATTACHED TOTAL UNITS
70,867 62,870 133,737
The table below displays persons, housing units, and households (i.e., occupied units) obtained from the 2011 American Community Survey 1-year estimates, and the corresponding persons per housing unit and persons per household. Multifamily homes have the smallest number of persons per housing unit and per household while mobile homes have the highest.
12 13
Clarion Associates. (2012). City of Aurora Population Estimate as of April 1, 2012. City Memo, Population Estimate as of April 1, 2013, dated April 29, 2013. 14 Ibid. D-3
Figure D3: Person per Housing Unit and Household by Type
Type of Unit Single Family1 MultiFamily/Other Mobile Homes Total

2
Persons 223,309 99,988 6,675 329,972
Housing Units 77,151 49,648 1,732 128,531
Households 73,575 43,098 1,732 116,673
Persons Per Persons Per Housing Unit Household 2.89 2.01 3.85 2.57 3.04 2.32 3.85 2.83
1. Incl udes Si ngl e Fa mi l y Deta ched a nd Si ngl e Fa mi l y Atta ched. 2. Other i ncl udes boa ts , va ns , a nd RVs . Source: U.S. Cens us Burea u 2011 Ameri ca n Communi ty Survey 1-Yr Es ti ma tes
Since 2000, Aurora has increased by an average of 2,542 housing units per year. The chart in Figure 4 indicates the estimated number of housing units added by decade in Aurora.
Figure D4: Housing Units by Decade
2010 Peak Population1 2010 Housing Units

1
325,078 131,040 105,625 25,415
Total Housing Units in 2000 1 New Housing Units
From 2000 to 2010, Aurora added an average of 2,542 housing units per
Housing Units Added by Decade in Aurora2

40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Before 1970 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s
1. U.S. Cens us 2. Source for 1990s a nd ea rl i er i s Ta bl e B25034, Ameri ca n Communi ty Survey (2007-2011).
D-4
Jobs and Nonresidential Development Figure 5 indicates the City of Auroras 2013 job estimate and nonresidential floor area, estimated using square feet per employee multipliers from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 2012). This reflects at-place employment, or jobs located in the Cityopposed to workers living in the City. We use averages and prototype developments to estimate existing development in the City. The prototype for commercial development is an average-size shopping center. For office development, the development prototype is an average-sized office, and industrial development is based on manufacturing. General land use types are based on two-digit industry sectors, with the percentage distribution of jobs in the City of Aurora by type of development from U.S. Census Bureaus OnTheMap web application (based on 2011 data, which is the latest available).
Figure D5: Jobs and Nonresidential Development by Type, 2013
Retail Office Industrial Institutional TOTAL
2010 Jobs [1] 27,408 48,091 16,073 11,448 103,020
2011 2013 Sq Ft per Jobs [1] Jobs[2] Job (2) 27,764 25% 28,680 500 52,947 48% 54,651 300 17,672 16% 18,211 558 12,787 12% 13,215 500 111,170 100.0% 114,757
Floor Area 14,340,000 16,395,300 10,161,738 6,607,500 47,504,538
[1] OnTheMap web application, U.S. Census Bureau. [2] TischlerBise estimate; Census shares by type and County reflected. [3] Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012.
IMPORTANT TRENDS
The following is a summary of trends identified and evaluated through local sources including Who is Aurora?, written by the City of Aurora Planning and Development Services Department, the Denver Regional Council of Governments, and Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation, as well as research from the U.S. Census and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These trends will inform potential land 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 more than 700,000 people and experienced an annual average growth rate of 1.7 percent, compared to the national annual average growth rate of 1 percent. The population of Colorado is expected to continue to grow at a rate of 1.6 percent or 80,000 persons a year, for the next few years. This growth is primarily due to net in-migration, which accounted for 50 percent of Colorados population growth since 2000 and peaked in 2001 when it accounted for 70 percent of the states population growth. 15 This trend can also be seen in Aurora. Auroras population grew by 1.76 percent a year during the 2000s, while the natural rate of population growth has steadily declined in Aurora and
15
Clarion Associates. (2012). City of Aurora Population Estimate as of April 1, 2012. D-5
Colorado, revealing that population growth in the city is driven primarily by immigration. The Hispanic/ Latino population is the fastest growing ethnic population, concentrated in North Aurora. The chart below shows that Hispanic/Latino population has grown from 20 percent to 29 percent of the total Aurora population between 2000 and 2010. Of the increase of 48,685 persons in Aurora from 2000 and 2010, 79.1 percent were Hispanic/Latino. 16 Figure 6 also reveals a growing Black and Asian population and a declining share of the White/Non-Hispanic population.
Figure D6: Change in Percent of Aurora Population by Race, 2000 - 2010
Population Population as Percent 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.
Additionally, the share of the population that is foreign born in Aurora has grown from 16 percent to 22 percent from 2000 to 2010.
Figure D7: Percent of Aurora Population that is Foreign Born
Total Population 275,936 326,719 Europe 5,628 4,256 Asia 9,288 14,075 Africa 2,010 6,989 Oceania 185 302 Latin America 26,920 45,593 Northern America 656 938 Total Foreign Born 44,692 72,153 % Foreign Born 16% 22%
2000 2010
Source: U.S. Cens us Burea u, 2000 a nd 2010 Ameri ca n Communi ty Survey
Because in-migration is a major driver of population growth, it is important to consider how this will impact land use if it slows, remains constant, or rises. The City of Aurora reports that net inmigration is expected to slow somewhat due to the recession but should return in the next few years. 17
16 17
City of Aurora Planning & Development Services Department. (2012). Who is Aurora? City of Aurora Planning & Development Services Department. (2012). Who is Aurora? D-6
2. Generation Y and Baby Boomers: Aurora has a young population compared to the U.S. and Colorado as a whole. As displayed in Figure 8, Aurora has a lower median age than the state and nation. The City has the largest percent of its population in the under 14 and 14 to 34 age groups, and the lowest share in the 50 to 64 and 65 and up age groups.
Figure D8: Population by Age Group
Under 14 14 to 34 35 to 49 50 to 64 65 and up Total Median Age Source: 2010 Census.
2010 Population Aurora Colorado US 75,292 1,025,217 61,227,213 96,417 1,414,368 84,690,290 69,514 1,071,279 63,779,197 54,792 968,707 58,780,854 29,063 549,625 40,267,984 325,078 5,029,196 308,745,538 33.2 36.1 37.2
Population as Percent Aurora Colorado US 23% 20% 20% 30% 28% 27% 21% 21% 21% 17% 19% 19% 9% 11% 13% 100% 100% 100%
The age group identified as Generation Y, which is roughly the 14 to 34 set above, desires certain development trends, including urban and mixed use environments. Currently, they are fueling a large demand for apartments and transit- and multi-modal-accessible development. Additionally, the baby boomer generation, which is characterized by those aged 48 to 66, may demand similar types of development. As this population ages, low density, single use development may isolate them from services and other opportunities, and it is predicted that many will prefer to live in walkable urbanized areas served by transit. Additionally, empty nesters may choose to downsize to smaller homes or apartments. Because of the trends described above, land use scenarios involving dense development and apartments, walkable neighborhoods, and increased transit should be considered.
3. Persons per Household and Housing Unit: The figure below shows how Auroras household size (i.e., number of persons per household) has increased from 2000 to 2010. This shows that the average family size has increased. Aurora has one of the highest household sizes in the region, along with Thornton and Highlands Ranch. Denver has the smallest average household size. 18
Figure D9: Change in Persons per Household, 2000 to 2010
Population Households Persons per Household
2000 276,393 105,625 2.62
2010
325,078 121,901
2.67
Source: U.S. Cens us SF1, 2000 a nd 2010.
18
City of Aurora Planning & Development Services Department. (2012). Who is Aurora?
D-7
Additionally, the share of one-person households has been increasing in Aurora and nationally over the past decades. This can be attributed to the aging population and the young, single population who are putting off having children. 19
4. Low Income Population and Poverty: Income levels relative to peer cities in the Denver Metropolitan area have been declining since the 1980s, and Aurora currently has among the lowest household income in the region. Additionally, the poverty level has been increasing since the 1990s. Figure D10 shows the median and mean household incomes of Aurora as compared to peer cities and Colorado as a whole, as well as the percent of the population below the poverty level. Aurora has the lowest mean household income, and the second lowest median household income and percent below poverty level. Aurora also has lower incomes than Colorado in general.
Figure D10: Income and Poverty Level of Peer Cities and Colorado, 2011
Median Mean HH HH Income Income Highlands Ranch $100,593 $116,615 Centennial $80,288 $101,114 Arvada $65,063 $78,667 Thornton $62,144 $73,398 Westminster $61,503 $73,705 Lakewood $53,210 $67,068 Aurora $49,593 $62,401 Denver $47,371 $71,488 CO $55,387 $74,852 Source: 2011 ACS 1-Yr Estimates.
% Below Poverty 4.5% 6.5% 10.7% 11.0% 10.2% 11.8% 16.0% 18.4% 13.5%
The fact that Aurora has low income levels relative to other cities in the region concerns Aurora city staff about the long-term economic prospects and competitiveness of the city. According to Who is Aurora?, the census tracts to north and south of Colfax Avenue and the census tracts west of I-225 have the highest percentage of persons living below the poverty level. 20 Low income and high poverty levels may lead to increased demands for social services, with particular implications for county formation and the resulting services to be provided.
19 20
City of Aurora Planning & Development Services Department. (2012). Who is Aurora? City of Aurora Planning & Development Services Department. (2012). Who is Aurora? D-8
5. Loss of Population in NW Aurora: The Aurora Planning and Development Services Department found a substantial loss of population in Northwest Aurora after examining 2010 Census results. From 2000-2010, Aurora grew by 17.6 percent, but the nine census tracts in the northwest portions of the City declined by 11.26 percent. City staff identified the following reasons for this loss: Persons per household fell in many of these tracts, in contrast to the city on average. Vacancy rates increased in all nine tracts. The population in older cohorts increased or stayed the same, whereas younger age 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 somewhat, and that children of new immigrants that came of age in 2000s started to leave the area because of the economy. Additionally, the area may be in a pre-gentrification stage, which means investors are buying residential properties in expectation of eventual higher property values.
6. Economy and Employment: There is reason to believe Aurora will see increased economic growth and employment in the future. As shown in Figure D11, the unemployment rate has been decreasing over the past few years. Additionally, the area has seen improved consumer confidence, company expansions, and increased employment. 21
Figure D11: Unemployment Rate in Denver-Bloomfield-Aurora Area
2/1/2011 2/1/2012 2/1/2013 9.0 8.2 7.4

Source: BLS.
Compared to peer cities, Aurora has the highest share of persons working in the construction industry, which was one of the industries most negatively affected by the recession. However, the Denver MSA housing market has shown signs of recovery. Rental vacancy rates have dropped to their lowest levels in more than a decade in some markets. 22 Additionally, Aurora has potential for both residential and nonresidential development along the E-470 corridor and infill development opportunities along the I-255 corridor. The FasTracks passenger rail transit system is under construction, and will increase the number of stations by 8. 23
21 22
23
Clarion Associates. (2012). City of Aurora Population Estimate as of April 1, 2012. Clarion Associates. (2012). City of Aurora Population Estimate as of April 1, 2012.
City of Aurora Planning & Development Services Department. (2012). 2012 City of Aurora Population Projection.
D-9
7. Transportation and Commuting: The figure below shows the commuting habits of workers in Aurora for 2000 and 2011. This shows a 1.6 percent increase in the share of persons using public transportation to commute to work.
Figure D12: Commuting Habits in Aurora
Drove Alone Carpooled Public Transportation Walked Other Worked from Home Total Workers
2000 2011 Persons % of Total Persons % of Total 109,047 76.7% 119,457 76.4% 19,754 13.9% 17,952 11.5% 5,900 4.2% 9,138 5.8% 1,988 1.4% 2,694 1.7% 1,117 0.8% 1,927 1.2% 4,330 3.0% 5,230 3.3% 142,136 100% 156,398 100%
Source: 2000 a nd 2011 ACS 1-Yea r Es ti ma tes , DP03.
The U.S. Census OnTheMap web application reveals that of the 103,020 jobs in Aurora in 2010, 25 percent were occupied by Aurora residents and 75 percent were occupied by residents of other cities (in-commuters). This is a change since 2002 when 31 percent of Aurora jobs were held 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 currently under construction. This 10.5 mile line will travel through Aurora and connect the existing Nine Mile Station with the future Peoria/Smith station and include 8 stations, providing opportunities for transit-oriented development, infill development, and more options for commuting and accessing services and recreation in the region. 24 The City of Aurora stations are slated for completion by 2016.
24
RTD FasTracks. (2013). About the Project. Retrieved from: http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/i225_3 D-10
POTENTIAL SERVICE DELIVERY/GROWTH SCENARIO

Population: The population estimates shown in Figure D13 were developed by the City of Aurora based on county projections made by the Colorado State Demographers Office and the citys annual population estimate. City-level population projections are not developed by the State or regional entities. Adams County and Arapahoe projections are also shown and are from the State Demography Office. Aurora is expected to grow at a rate between 1.7 and 1.8 percent through 2025 and slow to 1.4 percent growth from 2025-2030. It should be noted that the City population projections shown here do not assume annexation. Adams County is expected to experience a higher rate of growth of 2.1 percent and slow to 1.9 percent in 2020. Arapahoe is expected to grow at a slower rate than Adams County.
Figure D13: Aurora Population Growth
2010 City of Aurora Adams County Arapahoe County 325,078 443,711 574,819 2011 330,765 451,576 584,703 2012* 335,688 459,598 595,546 2013** 340,269 467,763 605,670 2014 346,224 475,846 612,152 2015 352,283 484,186 620,974 2020 2025 2030 450,512 621,271 762,228 386,097 419,637 527,858 576,500 667,037 715,869
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: Ci ty of Aurora from Ci ty of Aurora s ta ff. Counti es by Col ora do Sta te Demogra phy Offi ce, 2012.
900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 2010 2011
Population Growth
City of Aurora
Adams County
Arapahoe County
2012*
2013**
2014
2015
2020
2025
2030
D-11
Housing Units: The current distribution of housing unit types is 51 percent single family detached, 10 percent single family attached, 37 percent multifamily, and 2 percent mobile homes (as discussed above). In recent years, the share of multifamily units of new units constructed is closer to 50 percent of the total built, with an exception in 2011 when the majority (94 percent) was single family. Certificates 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 assumptions. We provide recent trends in new housing unit construction in the City. Figure D15 shows totals and weighted shares by type of unit from the past 3 years and 4 years. Because of the higher proportion of single family units in 2011, the share using only 3 years worth of data is more heavily weighted to single family units.
Figure D15. Recent Aurora Housing Unit Distribution by Type to Project Future Growth Single Family Multifamily Total SF % MF % 4-Year Totals 2,280 2,183 4,463 51% 49% (2009-2012)
3-Year Totals (2010-2012) 1,703 1,200 2,903 59% 41%
Source: Clarion Associates (from Aurora Building Division), 2012; 2012 data provided by City of Aurora to TischlerBise
The assumption for future growth is a split of 50 percent single family and 50 percent multifamily/attached units.
D-12
Employment: Employment projections for the City of Aurora are shown below, assuming an exponential growth rate of 1.6 percent, based on projections for the Denver MSA made by the Colorado State Demography Office.
Figure D16: Aurora Projected Job Growth
2010 103,020 2011 104,717 2015 111,789 2020 121,305 2025 131,631 2,114,447 2030 142,836 2,243,743 Exponential Growth Rate 1.6% 1.6%
City of Aurora (SDO rate)1 Denver MSA (SDO)

2
1,618,297 1,644,955 1,783,406 1,974,492
1. Aurora 2010 ba sed on OntheMap, U.S. Census Bureau web application. Growth ra te of 1.6% based on Denver MSA ra te from CO Sta te Demography Offi ce. 2. CO Sta te Demography Office Projections.
Other employment projections for Aurora have been developed by other entities such as Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation and Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). Metro Denver assumes a similar future employment growth rate of 1.7 percent. DRCOGs projections are much higher than the States projections for the MSA. A brief summary is shown below for reference. These projections appear to be aggressive.
Figure D17. DRCOG Job Projections
City of Aurora (DRCOG) Denver MSA (DRCOG)
2010* 104,421 1,354,865
2035 283,899 2,575,941
Exponential Growth Rate 4.1% 2.6%
*QCEW 2009, 2nd quarter Source: DRCOG, "Aurora Community Profile," 2011.
The assumption for future job growth in Aurora is a growth rate of 1.6 percent annually.
D-13
Summary: The following displays a summary of projections based on the current estimates and projections discussed in this memo. Several assumptions are noted: Housing unit growth is a split of 50 percent single family and 50 percent multifamily/attached units. Household size is assumed to increase over time based on trends from 2000 to 2010. Job projections are based on the Colorado Demography Office MSA projections with the distribution by type (i.e., commercial/retail, office, industrial) based on current percentages.
Figure D18: Summary of Demographic Projections

Base Year 2012 Cumulative Year-Round Population* Jobs Housing Units SF Attd/MF Nonres Sq Ft in 1,000s (KSF) Commercial Office Industrial Institutional Total Avg Sq Ft Per Job Annual Increases Population Jobs Housing Units TOTAL Nonres KSF * Includes group quarters population Base Yr 335,688 112,949 133,047 2013 1 340,269 114,757 133,737 70,867 62,870 14,340 16,395 10,162 6,608 47,505 414 12-13 4,581 1,808 690 741 1 2014 2 346,224 116,592 134,969 71,483 63,486 14,569 16,658 10,324 6,713 48,264 414 13-14 5,955 1,835 1,232 759 2 2015 3 352,283 118,457 137,125 72,561 64,564 14,802 16,924 10,490 6,820 49,036 414 14-15 6,059 1,865 2,156 772 3 2016 4 358,800 120,353 139,453 73,725 65,728 15,039 17,195 10,657 6,930 49,821 414 15-16 6,517 1,895 2,328 785 4 2017 5 365,438 122,278 141,820 74,908 66,911 15,280 17,470 10,828 7,041 50,619 414 16-17 6,638 1,926 2,367 798 Five-Year increments 5 10 2018 6 372,198 124,235 144,227 76,112 68,115 15,524 17,750 11,001 7,153 51,428 414 17-18 6,761 1,956 2,407 809 2023 11 405,885 134,497 156,106 82,052 74,055 16,807 19,216 11,910 7,744 55,677 414 22-23 6,706 2,118 2,349 878 15 2028 16 437,898 145,606 167,161 87,579 79,582 18,195 20,803 12,893 8,384 60,275 414 27-28 6,174 2,293 2,110 950 20 2033 21 470,116 157,634 178,120 93,059 85,062 19,698 22,521 13,958 9,076 65,253 414 32-33 6,628 2,482 2,248 1,027 Net Increase 2013-2033 129,847 42,877 44,383 22,192 22,192 5,358 6,126 3,796 2,468 17,748
14,119 16,129 10,021 6,495 46,764 414
As service delivery assumptions continue to be refined for the City-County Feasibility Study and followon analyses, the demographic characteristics discussed above will be used to determine service delivery and capital infrastructure implications.
D-14
APPENDIX E: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Consultant Team acknowledges and greatly appreciates the following individuals for their time and assistance with this study. However, it is noted here that the analysis and findings are those of the Consultant Team, unless otherwise specified.
County or City Arapahoe County Arapahoe County Arapahoe County Arapahoe County Arapahoe County Arapahoe County Arapahoe County Arapahoe County Arapahoe County Arapahoe County Arapahoe County Arapahoe County Arapahoe County Arapahoe County Arapahoe County Arapahoe County Arapahoe County Arapahoe County Arapahoe County Arapahoe County Adams County Adams County Adams County Adams County Adams County Adams County Adams County Adams County Adams County Adams County Adams County Adams County Adams County Douglas County Douglas County Douglas County Douglas County Douglas County Douglas County Douglas County City of Aurora City of Aurora City of Aurora City of Aurora City of Aurora City of Aurora City of Aurora City of Aurora City of Aurora City of Aurora City of Aurora Office/Department Board of County Commissioners Board of County Commissioners Board of County Commissioners Board of County Commissioners Board of County Commissioners Assessor's Office Assessor's Office Clerk and Recorder's Office Clerk and Recorder's Office Sheriff's Office Treasurer's Office Board of County Commissioners Administration Dept. Community Resources Department Finance Department Finance Department Finance Department Human Services Department Human Services Department Human Services Department Open Spaces & Intergovernmental Relations Office of the County Manager Assessor's Office Clerk and Recorder's Office Clerk and Recorder's Office Clerk and Recorder's Office Clerk and Recorder's Office Sheriff's Office Treasurer's Office Finance Department Finance Department Human Services Department Human Services Department Neighborhood Services Department County Administration County Administration Assessor's Office Clerk and Recorder's Office Clerk and Recorder's Office Sheriff's Office Treasurer's Office City Council City Council City Council City Council City Council City Council City Council City Council City Council City Council City Council Title County Commissioner, Chair, District 1 County Commissioner, District 2 County Commissioner, District 3 County Commissioner, District 4 County Commissioner, Pro Tem, District 5 Assessor Deputy Assessor Administration Clerk and Recorder Deputy Clerk and Recorder Sheriff Treasurer BOCC Administration Manager Director Director Budget Manager Accounting Manager Director Finance Division Manager Performance Management Analyst Director County Manager Assessor Clerk and Recorder Elections Administrator Motor Vehicle Manager Recording Manager Sheriff Treasurer Director Assistant Director Director Deputy Director, Operations; Div. Dir., Finance Brian P. Kenna and Support Services Raymond H. Gonzales Director Barbara J. Drake Deputy County Manager Maureen Waller^ Project Manager Teri Cox Assessor Sheri Davis Elections Manager Marsha Faulk Motor Vehicle Manager Capt. Robert McMahan Support Services Division Commander Diane Holbert Treasurer Steve Hogan Mayor Sally Mounier Council Member, Ward I Renie Peterson Council Member, Ward II Marsha Berzins Council Member, Ward III Molly Markert Council Member, Ward IV Bob Roth Council Member, Pro Tem, Ward V Bob Broom Council Member, Ward VI Barbara Cleland Council Member, At Large Brad Pierce Council Member, At Large Debi Hunter Holen Council Member, At Large Bob LeGare Council Member, At Large Name of Contact Nancy Doty Nancy N. Sharpe Rod Bockenfeld Nancy Jackson Bill L. Holen Corbin Sakdol Monica Babbitt Matt Crane Mary C. Whitley J. Grayson Robinson Sue Sandstrom Lori Bosanko Don Klemme Janet Kennedy Todd Weaver Steven R. Oliver Cheryl Ternes Kevin McNeal Jessica Gapuzan Shannon Carter Todd Leopold Gil Reyes Karen Long Norma Burkhart Linda Bishop Sadie Lyons Douglas N. Darr Brigitte Grimm Rich Lemke Ben Dahlman Chris Kline
E-1
City of Aurora City of Aurora City of Aurora City of Aurora City of Aurora City of Aurora City of Aurora City of Aurora City of Aurora City of Aurora City of Aurora City of Aurora City of Aurora City of Aurora City of Aurora City of Aurora City of Aurora City of Aurora City of Aurora City of Aurora
City Manager's Office City Manager's Office City Manager's Office City Manager's Office Court Administration Judicial Department City Attorney's Office Planning and Development Services Department Planning and Development Services Department Police Department Police Department Finance Department Finance Department Finance Department Finance Department Finance Department Finance Department Finance Department Finance Department Finance Department
George "Skip" Noe Michelle Wolfe* Roberto Venegas* Michael Lawson* Zelda M. DeBoyes* Richard Weinberg Michael Hyman* Robert Watkins Karen Hancock* Daniel Oates Terry Jones Jason Batchelor Terri Velasquez* Greg Hays Trevor Vaughn Jackie Ehmann Mathew Wasserburger Alyson Noble Kerstin Claspell Mike Kalush
City Manager Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services Assistant City Manager Finance and Budget Program Administrator Court Administrator Presiding Judge Deputy City Attorney Director Planning Supervisor Chief of Police Deputy Chief of Police Director Deputy Director Finance and Budget Program Manager Finance and Budget Program Manager Finance and Budget Program Administrator Management Analyst II Management Analyst II Management Analyst I Management Analyst I
^ Provided coordination with offices and departments within Douglas County * Denotes member of City-County Feasibility Study Project Management Team
E-2
DRAFT Service and Facility Delivery Plan Assumptions: City-County Formation
APPENDIX A: SERVICE & FACILITY DELIVERY PLAN ASSUMPTIONS

FORMATION OF CITY-COUNTY OF AURORA
Prepared for
February 12, 2014
With assistance from
Appendix A. Service & Facility Delivery Plan Assumptions: City-County Formation
This report is provided to the City of Aurora, Colorado, as part of the TischlerBise Teams 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 ....................................................................................................2 Key Parameters from Direction Provided by City Council .....................................................................4 Level of Service Assumptions .............................................................................................................5 Existing Demand Base and Growth Projections ....................................................................................... 5 Overview ...........................................................................................................................................6 Aurora Share of Counties ......................................................................................................................... 7 Assessor ..........................................................................................................................................10 Fiscal Impact Approach........................................................................................................................... 11 Facility Needs .......................................................................................................................................... 12 Treasurer .........................................................................................................................................13 Fiscal Impact Approach........................................................................................................................... 13 Facility Needs .......................................................................................................................................... 14 Clerk and Recorder...........................................................................................................................16 Elections.................................................................................................................................................. 17 Recording ................................................................................................................................................ 18 Motor Vehicles ....................................................................................................................................... 18 Fiscal Impact Approach........................................................................................................................... 18 Facility Needs .......................................................................................................................................... 20 Coroner ...........................................................................................................................................21 Fiscal Impact Approach........................................................................................................................... 22 Facility Needs .......................................................................................................................................... 23 District Attorney and Courts .............................................................................................................24 District Attorney ..................................................................................................................................... 24 Facility Needs .......................................................................................................................................... 26 Courts ..................................................................................................................................................... 27 Existing County Court Facilities .......................................................................................................... 30 Facility Needs: Courts to Serve City-County of Aurora ........................................................................... 30 Probation ................................................................................................................................................ 31 Court Security ......................................................................................................................................... 32 Court System: Issues to Consider ........................................................................................................... 32 Sheriff .............................................................................................................................................34 Detention/Corrections............................................................................................................................ 35 Civil Processing ....................................................................................................................................... 37 Other Duties ........................................................................................................................................... 37 Fiscal Impact Approach........................................................................................................................... 38 Alternative Detention Population Estimate for Aurora ..................................................................... 41 Modeled Sheriff Operating Cost ........................................................................................................ 42 Court Security ......................................................................................................................................... 44 Facility Needs .......................................................................................................................................... 44 Other Issues and Considerations........................................................................................................ 45
ii
Other Sheriff Facility Needs ............................................................................................................... 45 Community Corrections.......................................................................................................................... 46 Human Services ...............................................................................................................................48 Funding Sources for Human Services ..................................................................................................... 48 Current County Operations .................................................................................................................... 49 Fiscal Impact Approach........................................................................................................................... 52 Considerations.................................................................................................................................... 55 Facility and Technology Needs ............................................................................................................... 56 Community Resources ............................................................................................................................ 58 Facility Needs: Community Resources ................................................................................................... 61 Developmental Disability Funds ............................................................................................................. 63 Other Services and Costs ..................................................................................................................64 Public Health / Tri-County Health ........................................................................................................... 64 Facility Needs .......................................................................................................................................... 65 Surveyor .................................................................................................................................................. 65 Public Trustee ......................................................................................................................................... 65 Overhead/Supporting Costs ................................................................................................................... 65 Facility Needs .......................................................................................................................................... 67 Arapahoe County Debt ....................................................................................................................... 69 Adams County Debt ........................................................................................................................... 70 Existing County Facilities .................................................................................................................... 71 APPENDIX A: COUNTY BUDGET EXPENDITURE DETAIL AND METHODOLOGIES ...................................72 APPENDIX B: REQUIRED COUNTY POSITIONS ....................................................................................78 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 78 Assessor .................................................................................................................................................. 79 Clerk and Recorder ................................................................................................................................. 80 Coroner ................................................................................................................................................... 81 Sheriff ..................................................................................................................................................... 84 Surveyor .................................................................................................................................................. 87 Treasurer ................................................................................................................................................ 88 APPENDIX C: COUNTY OFFICIALS IN CONSOLIDATED CITY-COUNTIES .................................................90 City and County of Denver...................................................................................................................... 91 City and County of Broomfield ............................................................................................................... 94 Appendix D: Approach to Determine Remaining Payments on Adams County Facilities ..................... 96
iii
MEMORANDUM TO: Michelle Wolfe, Deputy City Manager Michael Lawson, Finance and Budget Program Administrator City of Aurora, Colorado Carson Bise, AICP, President Julie Herlands, AICP, Principal TischlerBise February 10, 2014 (updated from October 16, 2013) City-County Feasibility Study: Plans for Service and Facility Delivery
FROM:
DATE: SUBJECT:
This report outlines key assumptions and initial costs estimates for the City-County Feasibility Study. Estimates are provided for service and facility needs if the City of Aurora were to become a County. Included in this report are the parameters discussed and agreed upon at the City Council Special Study Session on April 29, 2013, which serve to guide aspects of the Feasibility Study. Two key parameters for the study are: Identify the maximum costs for services and facilities associated with County formation. That is, the study assumes new separate positions/operating impacts and facility needs for each new County service. Assume current levels of service as provided to Aurora by the Counties today, particularly Arapahoe and Adams Counties.
Given the complexity of the endeavor, items below in this first section of the report are identified as a framework to guide the Feasibility Study. The parameters outlined herein do not imply City Council support of the individual assumptions or overall concepts at this stage, only that they are used in the Feasibility Study. There are many policy decisions inherent in the assumptions for Service and Facility needs that if modified could change the fiscal impact of City-County formation. A draft version of this was document was provided to the counties; feedback was received from Adams and Arapahoe counties and adjustments were made to the initial assumptions accordingly. Many of the inputs are budget estimates from the respective counties and are shown to the dollar. As estimates are derived to serve the City-County of Aurora, the figures are rounded.
ASSUMPTIONS AND PARAMETERS

The following items are general assumptions for the City-County of Aurora Feasibility Study as discussed and for which direction was provided by Aurora City Council. This includes only applicable excerpts from the discussion.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS

Nature of the Feasibility Study Put simply, the Feasibility Study as being conducted now provides estimated costs to provide County services and related facilities as well as the estimated revenue implications of the formation. The Consultant Team will not make a judgment as to whether the conversion is feasible or not as there are many criteria on which feasibility can be measured, reflecting both quantitative and qualitative measures. The expectation is that Council will review the results of the Feasibility Study in light of a range of criteria, such as: Positive fiscal impact: Revenues generated exceed costs, regardless of whether the absolute costs are higher or lower. Cost savings: Implies lower absolute costs for services and facilities. Improved service delivery: This is more subjective and should be further defined as it relates to determining feasibility as the study progresses. Other feasibility criteria as identified by City Council, which may include level of control, 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 and housing unit growth and State developed employment growth projections for the metro region. Our growth assumptions are articulated in this document.
City-County Governance Formation of a city-county would not necessitate a change to the Citys current form of government. A change in the form of City government would require a local charter amendment action. A change in
2
City government structure could be included in a constitutional amendment and then ratified by a local charter amendment. It is assumed for this analysis that the City of Aurora would retain its existing 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 or may choose to delegate certain duties to boards and commissions appointed by the city council. For additional information on this topic, we provide language below from the Constitutional Amendment creating the City and County of Broomfield.
. . . On and after November 15, 2001, the terms of office of the mayor and city council of the city of Broomfield shall terminate with regard to the city of Broomfield and said mayor and city council shall become the mayor and city council of the city and county of Broomfield. The city council of the city and county of Broomfield, in addition to performing the duties prescribed in the city and county charter and ordinances, shall perform the duties of a board of county commissioners or may delegate certain duties to various boards and commissions appointed by the city council of the city and county of Broomfield.
1
The fiscal analysis will model the costs and revenues available if the City were to form the County of Aurora. It is anticipated that up to twenty years worth of growth will be projected with the base year reflecting the development in the ground today. It is modeled to reflect the ongoing and one-time costs (such as capital facilities and assumption of outstanding debt service costs) to serve current and future growth. This analysis, at this phase of the study, does not model outreach costs that will be needed prior to the election or certain transition or start-up costs in the initial years prior to opening the doors as a county such as training, costs associated with recruitment and hiring staff, or communications/marketing efforts to the community on the change is service provider. These costs will be above and beyond the costs modeled herein. Costs for marketing, campaigning, and transition efforts will depend heavily on the strategy and plan developed by the Aurora City Council in a follow-on phase if 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 be provided to adequately serve current City demand as well as future City growth. In other words, new county services and revenue streams are considered independent of City operations and revenue sources (with the exception of current revenue sources (from counties to the City) that would be affected by the formation of the City-County of Aurora).
Colorado Constitution, Article XX (Home Rule Cities and Towns), Section 12 (Transfer of Government). 3
KEY PARAMETERS FROM DIRECTION PROVIDED BY CITY COUNCIL

1. City Boundary/Annexation: The Feasibility Study assumes current City boundaries. 2. Judicial District: For the Feasibility Study, it is assumed that the City and County of Aurora remains in the 18th Judicial District (Arapahoe, Douglas, Elbert, and Lincoln) and no longer have any portion of the jurisdiction remaining with the 17th Judicial District (Adams and Broomfield). 3. Levels of Service Options As directed by City Council, the Feasibility Study, and the assumptions herein, uses current levels of service provided by Adams and Arapahoe counties as the basis for the study and derives factors based on current operations and facilities. Levels of service factors include operating and capital costs, staffing levels, and amount of facility space per demand unit or employees (expressed as full-time equivalents (FTE)). Demand units include population, dwelling units, employment by type, or vehicle trips and depend on the type of service or facility being evaluated. 4. New County Positions: Options for Service Delivery Certain functions are required to be provided in a traditional county, namely, a clerk and recorder; treasurer; sheriff; coroner; assessor; surveyor; and county commissioners. In a city and county, the city council would perform the functions of a county commission (as described above). The other functions can be performed by elected officials or individuals appointed by the city council or hired by the city manager. This organizational structure would be determined by Constitutional amendment. Salaries of appointed positions could be determined as would any other salaries of the city and county. Based on direction from City Council, the Feasibility Study will assume the maximum potential fiscal impact at this stage. That is, the study and quantitative analysis will assume new separate positions/operating impacts as the approach. Appendix B is a summary of positions required to be provided by counties. Appendix C to this document includes a write-up of how Denver City and County and Broomfield City and County address these positions, and the possibilities for efficiencies. Existing City departments and positions would be affected by County formation, such as the City Attorneys Office, Human Resources, etc. These service costs and facility needs are identified in this report under the heading Overhead/Support.
LEVEL OF SERVICE ASSUMPTIONS

Where possible, the analysis attempts to quantify the level of demand for services and facilities. The starting point is to determine current levels of service by each County (emphasizing Adams and Arapahoe as this represents practically all of the current demand from the City of Aurora). Current levels of service are reflected in current county budgets. This information is augmented with more qualitative information from departments, where relevant and where obtained. This information is then used to allocate costs to reflect county services provided in the City of Aurora, and therefore the starting point for provisions of County services by Aurora. This baseline information will then be used to project future 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 population of approximately 340,000 to 470,000 over the next 20 years. The 20-year projected population total is essentially the same as Adams County today. A summary is provided in Figure 1.
2013 Population Housing Units Jobs Nonresidential (1,000 Sq. Ft. ) 340,269 133,737 114,757 47,505
2033 470,116 178,120 157,634 65,253
COUNTY SERVICE AND FACILITY NEEDS ANALYSIS

OVERVIEW
Service and facility delivery assumptions for the City-County Feasibility Study are outlined in this document. This document is not meant to be a staffing plan or a detailed space needs study. Instead, its intent is to identify the initial estimated costswhich in some cases includes a range of costs to identify maximum potential costs, as directed by the Aurora City Council. The following approach is taken wherever possible: Countywide functions are identified and extracted from County departmental budgets. The service analysis includes General Fund services as well as services accounted for in Special Funds where those services are provided Countywide (e.g., Social Service Funds) or are components of General Fund services. Discussions with County service providers occurred over the course of this study. We also consulted with State offices and other counties where appropriate to cross-check our findings. To derive cost factors, Arapahoe and Adams counties are used. The factors are then used to determine baseline costs to serve a City-County of Aurora, which accounts for the demand from all counties (that is, expanding the base to include the portion of the City in Douglas County). Overhead/support costs are included both within new County service expenditures (e.g., Sheriff administrative costs are included in Sheriff cost estimates and are derived based on percentage administration/overhead expenses of the direct Sheriff expenditures provided in the City). A separate service and cost estimate is provided for County-service related administration/overhead (ultimately reflecting additional effort by existing City departments (e.g., City Attorneys office). Costs and staffing estimates are not adjusted at this phase of the analysis. For example, we derive estimated staffing needs for Aurora City-County based on FTE counts by county and applicable share, but do not adjust downward for potential staffing efficiencies, changes in business practices, pay scales or vice versa. We assume that salary levels are comparable among the City of Aurora and Arapahoe and Adams counties for this phase of the feasibility analysis. Any exceptions to this approach are noted in the text and tables. Revenues will be modeled based on current revenue structures of each county and will be provided in a separate report. This document includes information on funding sources for Human Services, given the extent of intergovernmental funding.
The following required County services are discussed in this document: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Assessor Treasurer Clerk and Recorder Coroner District Attorney Courts Sheriff Human Services (includes additional services labeled Community Resources) Tri-County Health / Public Health Surveyor 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 City-County of Aurora is to use demand factors to allocate current County costs for services and facilities. The demand factors (e.g., population, caseload) vary depending on the type of service being evaluated. The narratives on County services in this chapter identify the relevant specific demand factors by type of service and the allocation to Aurora, which is then used to estimate current costs and space needs. The following figure summarizes the share of each County in Aurora. Where appropriate these factors are used to allocate operating costs and facility needs in the analysis as the baseline figures. In some cases, detailed caseload data is used and is discussed where applicable.
Figure 2. Aurora Share of Each County

ARAPAHOE COUNTY Base Year 2013 Property Valuation[1] Population [2] Jobs [3] Pop and Jobs Parcels [4] Voters [5] Vehicles [6] Arapahoe Sources:
[1] Net assessed value (gross less TIF District]. Arapahoe 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 COUNTY %s Aurora 32% 48% 29% 42% 47% 46% 44% Total County Aurora Portion $4,524,126,060 $584,444,180 467,697 47,989 168,722 30,984 636,419 78,973 176,783 13,564 253,527 17,391 292,945 29,273
Total County Aurora Portion $7,327,973,674 $2,366,344,788 602,868 291,946 293,057 83,773 895,925 375,719 223,249 104,738 373,755 170,718 404,329 178,087
DOUGLAS COUNTY %s Aurora Total County Aurora Portion 13% $4,559,179,000 $5,001,200 10% 295,689 334 18% 94,479 0 12% 390,168 334 8% na 118 7% 216,461 216 10% 285,000 295
TOTAL AURORA %s Aurora Aurora Total 0.11% $2,955,790,168 0.11% 340,269 0.00% 114,757 0.09% 455,026 na 118,420 0.10% 188,325 0.10% 207,655
Adams Sources:
[1] Net assessed value (gross less TIF District]. Adams County Assessor [2] City estimate for 2013 from City of Aurora; Counties by Colorado State Demography Office [3] US Census, OnTheMap Web Application [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 [6] County data from US Census; Aurora share in County estimated based on vehicles per capita by TischlerBise.
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 [5] Douglas County Clerk and Recorder [6] Douglas County Clerk and Recorder
The remaining sections of this chapter discuss the new County services and functions that a City-County of Aurora would perform. In addition, the effect on existing City departments and facilities are captured in this report under the heading Overhead/Support. We discuss both operating costs as well as estimated space needs. A summary of annual operating costs and estimated one-time capital/facility expenditures by service area is provided below. It should be noted that the one-time capital/facility costs will be annualized in the fiscal feasibility analysis.
Figure 3. Summary of City-County of Aurora Service and Facility Needs

Aurora Estd. Annual Oper. # of Costs ($) FTEs Assessor $2,664,000 33.0 Treasurer $1,066,000 11.0 Clerk and Recorder $4,819,000 61.0 na Clerk and Rec-Voting Machines (units) ====================== Coroner $1,170,000 9.0 District Attorney $6,906,780 na Courts (County and District)* na na Sheriff-Operating $24,234,000 168.5 Sheriff-Detention Space (Beds) ========================================> Sheriff - Admin Space ========================================> Human Services** $38,886,000 348.0 Community Resources $11,974,000 83.0 Developmental Disability $3,620,000 na Aid to Agencies $812,000 na Tri-County Health $2,362,828 na Surveyor $13,000 na Public Trustee na na IT $3,524,510 18.0 Overhead/Support $8,773,000 55.3 Total $110,825,118 786.8 Total space with Detention Space shown in square feet Estd Personnel Costs ($) $2,475,000 $825,000 $3,660,000 $882,000 na na $13,778,000 Facility Facility Space (SF) [1] Cost ($) 11,300 $2,260,000 4,000 $800,000 39,500 $7,900,000 230 units $1,150,000 7,900 $1,580,000 29,400 $5,880,000 186,000 $46,500,000 see below 780 beds $70,200,000 5,300 $1,060,000 98,300 $19,660,000 33,350 $6,670,000 na na na na 17,000 $3,400,000 na na na na see below $3,663,500 18,300 $3,660,000 450,350 $174,383,500 657,350 Aurora Share of County Co. Outstanding Outstanding Debt? Debt $ (rounded) [2] Yes-Adams Co. $1,005,000 Yes-Adams Co. $349,000 Yes-Adams Co. $2,681,000 No $0 Yes-Arap. Co. $850,000 Yes-Arap. and Adams Co. $2,802,000 Yes-Arap. and Adams Co. $4,406,000 No Yes-Arap. Co. Yes-Arap. Co. Yes-Arap. and Adams Co. na na No na na na Yes-Arap. and Adams Co. $0 $850,000 $13,271,000 $3,604,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,468,000 $32,286,000
$22,968,000 $5,312,000 na na na na na $1,350,000 $4,147,500 $55,397,500
[1] Reflects base year space needs in square feet, unless otherwise specified [2] Aurora estimated share 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; TischlerBise analysis
ASSESSOR
Aurora City-County will need to provide property assessment services. Obligations and requirements are set forth in State statute. Deadlines and specific requirements are state mandated. A description of required services is provided in Appendix B. The County Assessor is currently elected in Arapahoe, Adams, and Douglas counties. Current operating budgets and space for the Assessors Office in Arapahoe and Adams Counties is shown below.
Figure 4. Assessors Office: County Current Levels of Service
ARAPAHOE COUNTY Demand FTEs # Unit 63.0 Parcels 223,249 LOS $/Unit $22.34 ADAMS COUNTY Demand LOS FTEs # Unit $/Parcel 44.0 Parcels 176,783 $22.42
Assessor: Operations Personal Costs Subtotal Personal Costs per FTE Assessor: Office/Facilities (Sq. Ft.) Facility Sq. Ft. per FTE
$ $4,987,243 $4,628,121 $73,462 18,300 290
$ $3,963,964 $3,403,042 $77,342 21,000 477
Other cost and service considerations include: County assessment will need a software system that integrates with the Treasurers Office. 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 property look-up function) County appraisers are trained specifically for mass appraisal (as opposed to fee-based appraisers who work in the private real estate market.) They require certifications. Technical support is handled through shared IT pool in Arapahoe County with individuals who are familiar with department-specific software. In Adams County, technical support is handled through departmental staff. The Assessors Office also has dedicated GIS staff (4 FTE plus interns) that are departmental staff. Administrative personnel are necessary to provide customer service to citizens of the County. Current staff specifically assigned to Aurora include: o Arapahoe County: 8 residential appraisers (including supervisor); 1 to 2 land appraisers. Commercial appraisers work countywide. o Adams County: Two residential and 2 commercial; 1 personal property o Douglas County: handled as part of overall operations due to minimal impact. The above Aurora-specific staffing described does not account for administration, support, or management that is included in other divisions of the department.
10
The Adams County Administration Center is recently built and was oversized in anticipation of growth, therefore the square feet per FTE figure reflects a higher level of service than likely will be provided in the future. Baseline cost estimates do not include transition costs such as hiring and training staff prior to opening as City-County of Aurora.
Fiscal Impact Approach

The required level of effort stems from the number of parcels appraised including real and personal as well as state mandates. Based on the current number of parcels contained in the City of Aurora, the following is a working estimate of baseline annual operating costs to serve the City-County of Aurora:
Figure 5. Assessor Annual Operating Costs: Baseline Aurora Share by County
FY 2013 Gross GF Expenditures [1] $4,987,243 % of General Fund 3% Type of Service [2] Countywide Allocation Methodology Parcels Aurora Factor [3] Aurora Share $ Aurora Share FTE 30
Arapahoe County Department ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
# of FTEs 63.00
47% $2,344,004
[1] County adopted budget [2] Service = Unincorporated, Countywide, Overhead, Internal Service [3] Estimated Aurora share of expenditures based on demand factors shown in supporting tables
Adams County Department ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
FY 2013 Gross GF Expenditures [1] $3,963,964
% of General Fund 2%
# of FTEs 44.00
Type of Service [2] Countywide
Allocation Methodology Parcels
Aurora Factor [3] 8.0%
Aurora Share $ $317,117
Aurora Share FTE 3.5
Based on the above estimated allocation to the City of Aurora, a baseline estimate for an operating cost is derived. Because the baseline cost reflects Arapahoe and Adams counties, the cost estimate is adjusted to reflect all of Aurora, including the Douglas County portion. The baseline annual cost estimate is approximately $2.7 million. Of the total amount, $2.5 million is assumed for personnel costs.
Figure 6. Assessor Service Annual Operating Costs: Aurora Current Estimate
in ARAPAHOE COUNTY in ADAMS COUNTY AURORA CITY-COUNTY Aurora Share: Existing Levels of Service and Costs Adams FTE 3.5 Est. Aurora $ [1] $2,661,121 Allocation Methodology CITY PARCELS Demand LOS ($ per Units [1] Dem. Unit) [2] 118,302 $22.50 Total Demand Base in Aurora [3] 118,420 Total Est. Aurora $ (rounded) [4] $2,664,000 Aurora Share in Each County Arap $ Assessor $2,344,004 Arap FTE 29.6 Adams $ $317,117
Total Est. Aurora FTE 33
[1] Reflects estimated 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 in Aurora (rounded)
11
Facility Needs
Facility space is estimated as a range based on the share of demand for services as well as estimated personnel. The estimated costs shown below reflect estimated space needs to serve demand today. The analysis will include space needs due to future growth (20 years) and associated costs and will be projected based on growth in parcels in the City as well as FTEs needed.
Figure 7. Assessor Facility Needs: Aurora Current Estimate
ASSESSOR Arapahoe County LOS Administration Building^ Altura Plaza Total FTEs Sq. Ft. per FTE Adams County LOS Administration Building FTEs Sq. Ft. per FTE Aurora City-County Estimates Estimate based on % Share of Space Estimate based on Sq. Ft. per FTE* Estimate Average
County Totals Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. 13,600 4,700 18,300 63 290 21,000 44 477
% Aurora 30% 100%
Aurora 4,080 4,700 8,780 29.6
8%
1,680 3.5
33 FTEs
Sq. Ft $ per Sq. Ft.^^ 10,500 $200 12,100 $200 11,300 $200
Est. Cost $2,100,000 $2,420,000 $2,260,000
^ 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
The Adams County Administration Building currently has outstanding (non-General Obligation) debt on it. The estimated outstanding debt allocated to Aurora prorated for the Assessors Office is approximately $1 million. In addition to the office space needs, an Assessors office will need appropriate technology and equipment for an assessment and taxation system. Arapahoe County is currently replacing its system at a cost of $3.5 million. This estimate is used in the fiscal analysis as a one-time cost and is summarized in Overhead/Support facility/one-time costs. Annual software operating and maintenance costs are captured in the Other/ Overhead Services section.
12
TREASURER
The Treasurer is a constitutional officer responsible for billing and collecting property taxes and distributing revenues to taxing authorities. Taxing authorities include all entities with taxing authority such as school districts, water districts, metro districts, etc. Arapahoe and Adams County each has approximately 350 different taxing authorities currently. Each taxing district has to certify its mill levy to the Board of County Commissioners and report it to the County Treasurer. The County Treasurer also oversees the County investment practices. The current Treasurers in Arapahoe, Adams, and Douglas counties are elected. The current Aurora Finance office is assumed to provide the investment function for the City-County of Aurora. The remaining functions will be new services to be provided by the CityCounty of Aurora. Current budgets and personnel complements for Arapahoe and Adams counties are as follows:
Figure 8. Treasurers Office: County Current Levels of Service
ARAPAHOE COUNTY $ $2,041,784 $1,542,046 $70,093 5,957 271 FTEs 22.0 Demand Unit Parcels # 223,249 LOS $/Unit $9.15 ADAMS COUNTY Demand FTEs # Unit 10.0 Parcels 176,783 LOS $/Unit $7.38
Treasurer Personal Costs Subtotal Personal Costs per FTE Treasurer: Office/Facilities (Sq. Ft.) Facility Sq. Ft. per FTE
$ $1,305,159 $843,756 $84,376 7,311 731
Of the 22 full time equivalents in the Arapahoe County Treasurers office, approximately 6 FTEs are in accounting, 5 FTEs handle property taxes, 2 FTEs handle tax liens and bankruptcies, 1 FTE is in the field posting notices, and the remainder in administration/management. The County Treasurer estimates that approximately half the current County staffing would be needed to serve Aurora with approximately 6 to 7 handling accounting and property taxes, 2 for tax liens (as more than 50 percent of the Countys tax liens and bankruptcies are in Aurora), and .5 FTEs for field work. This estimate of approximately 10 FTEs is used as a check on the methodology below.

The required level of effort for the City-County of Aurora stems from the number of tax bills prepared and managed as well as the interaction with taxing districts. The City already performs the investment function of the office. The office works closely with the Assessors office. Because the number of tax bills tracks with the number of parcels in the County, parcels are used as the demand indicator. Based on this current number of parcels in the City of Aurora, the following is a working estimate of baseline annual operating costs to serve the City-County of Aurora:
13
Figure 9. Treasurer Annual Operating Costs: Baseline Aurora Share by County

FY 2013 Gross GF Expenditures [1] $2,041,784 % of General Fund 1% Type of Service [2] Countywide Allocation Methodology Parcels Aurora Factor [3] 47% Aurora Share Aurora Share $ FTE $959,638 10.3
Arapahoe County Department TREASURER'S OFFICE
# of FTEs 22.00
Adams County Department Treasurer
# of FTEs 10.00
Type of Service [2] Countywide
Allocation Methodology Parcels
Aurora Factor [3] 8%
Based on the above estimated allocation to the City of Aurora, a baseline estimate for operating cost is derived. Because the baseline cost reflects only Arapahoe and Adams counties, the cost estimate is adjusted to reflect all of Aurora, including the Douglas County portion. The baseline annual cost estimate is approximately $1.1 million. (Of the total amount, $825,000 is assumed for personnel costs.)
Figure 10. Treasurer Service Annual Operating Costs: Aurora Current Estimate and Future Projections
in ARAPAHOE COUNTY in ADAMS COUNTY Aurora Share in Each County Arap $ Treasurer $959,638 Arap FTE Adams $ AURORA CITY-COUNTY Aurora Share: Existing Levels of Service and Costs Adams Est. Aurora $ FTE [1] 0.8 $1,064,051 Allocation Demand LOS ($ per Methodology Units [1] Dem. Unit) [2] CITY PARCELS 118,302 $9.00 Total Total Est. Demand Aurora $ Base in (rounded) [4] Aurora [3] 118,420 $1,066,000 Total Est. Aurora FTE 11
10.3 $104,413
Facility Needs
Facility space is estimated as a range based on share of demand for services as well as estimated personnel. The estimated costs shown below reflect estimated space needs to serve demand today. The analysis will include space needs due to future growth (20 years) and associated costs and will be projected based on growth in parcels in the City as well as FTEs needed.
14
Figure 11. Treasurer Facility Needs: Aurora Current Estimate
TREASURER Arapahoe County LOS Administration Building Total FTEs Sq. Ft. per FTE Adams County LOS Administration Building FTEs Sq. Ft. per FTE Aurora City-County Estimates Estimate based on % Share of Space Estimate based on Sq. Ft. per FTE* Estimate Average
County Totals Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. 6,000 6,000 22 273 7,300 10 730
% Aurora 47%
Aurora 2,820 2,820 10.3
8%
584 0.8
11 FTEs
Sq. Ft $ per Sq. Ft.^ 3,400 $200 4,600 $200 4,000 $200
Est. Cost $680,000 $920,000 $800,000
* Weighted average of two counties ^ Average rounded construction cost estimates from Reed Construction Data and recent regional projects
The Adams County Administration Building currently has outstanding (non-General Obligation) debt on it. The outstanding debt allocated to Aurora prorated for the Treasurers Office is estimated at $349,000. Other cost and service considerations include: A County Treasurers Office will need software system that integrates with the Assessors Office. Arapahoe County is currently transitioning their system at a cost of $3.5 million (captured in Other/Overhead facility/one-time costs). Annual licensing fees and operational impacts are captured in the Other/ Overhead Services 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 look-up function) Administrative personnel are necessary to provide customer service to citizens of the County.
15
CLERK AND RECORDER

The Office of the Clerk and Recorder performs the following duties: Records deeds and documents 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 implemented in the City-County of Aurora. The current Aurora City Clerks office is assumed to continue to provide the records function for the City-County of Aurora. The remaining functions will be new services to be provided by the City-County of Aurora. The County Clerk and Recorder is currently elected in Arapahoe, Adams, and Douglas counties. A summary of current budgets and staffing complements from Arapahoe and Adams counties is as follows:
Figure 12. Clerk and Recorders Office: County Current Levels of Service
ARAPAHOE COUNTY Demand FTEs Unit # 8.5 Population* 602,868 15.0 Voters 373,755 82.0 Vehicles 404,329 13.0 Parcels 223,249 118.5 LOS $/Unit $1.17 $4.90 $12.56 $3.94 ADAMS COUNTY Demand FTEs Unit LOS $/Unit
$ Clerk and Recorder Administration Clerk & Rec - Elections^ Clerk & Rec - Motor Vehicle Clerk & Rec - Recording Total Personal Costs Subtotal Personal Costs per FTE $703,438 $1,830,179 $5,077,816 $880,382 $8,491,815 $6,870,587 $57,980
included in below $1,856,978 Voters $3,528,258 Vehicles $804,691 Parcels $6,189,927 85.0 $5,332,620 $62,737
253,527 292,945 176,783
$7.32 $12.04 $4.55
Clerk & Recorder: Office/Facilities Est. Office Space (Sq. Ft.)** Facility Sq. Ft. per FTE Motor Vehicle Branches (#) Motor Vehicle Branches (Sq. Warehouse Space (Sq. Ft.)
33,280 281 4 34,120 44,000
56,000 659 6 23,090 1,820
* Level of service is based on share of services provided; population used as proxy for comparison purposes only in this figure. ^ FY 2013 shown; Average of 2010 - 2013 used for Feasibility Study ** Does not include motor vehicle locations ^^ Motor Vehicle Offices countywide
16
To estimate potential costs for the City-County of Aurora, the department is divided into core functions of Elections, Recording, and Motor Vehicle Operations.
Elections
Current 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. The election in Adams County in 2012 (Presidential election) cost approximately $1 million more to the County. Of that amount, approximately $150,000 was reimbursed by the State. The rest was paid by the County and participating jurisdictions (including City of Aurora, which paid approximately $45,500 back to Adams County for its share of election costs). The City-County of Aurora would be responsible for holding elections for all jurisdictions within its boundaries for all types of elections including TABOR elections. The entities include school districts, metro districts, utility districts, etc. The City-County of Aurora would develop a reimbursement formula for these entities for the costs of the elections. For example, Adams County allocates non-TABOR election costs on percent of active registered voters. TABOR costs are allocated based on a different formula for printing costs (percentage of TABOR pages of texts per jurisdiction) and postage costs (based on percentage of households in each jurisdiction). Election requirements frequently change by state legislative changes. For the upcoming election (2013), counties are required to mail all ballots and establish early voter locations, which will stay open longer hours. Costs are anticipated to be incurred for training, staffing, and potentially rental of facilities. Due to increased mandates, the charge-back rate to municipalities is expected to increase this cycle (e.g., in Arapahoe County the cost per voter is expected to increase from approximately $1.45 to $2-$3. Adams County estimates a cost per voter of $2 in 2013 as well.) During the 2013 election (non-presidential) in Arapahoe County, election turnout was 37.1 percent of registered voters with mail-in ballots comprising 99.6 percent of the ballots cast. In Adams County, election turnout was 38.3 percent of registered voters.
17
Recording
The county clerk is the recorder of real estate deeds and is required to safely keep and preserve all documents received for recording or filing. The division is responsible for indexing records, providing customer service, imaging records, issuing and recording marriage licenses and passports, and using technology to provide access to recorded documents. The majority of the divisions work is dedicated to real estate recordings and the methodology used to estimate Auroras costs is parcels. Detail is provided below. One item for further research and discussion is the approach toward previously recorded titles. When Broomfield became a county, the previously recorded deeds stayed with the original recording County.
Motor Vehicles
Counties act as agents of the State by establishing and operating Motor Vehicle Service Centers. County motor vehicle offices issue titles and motor vehicle registrations as well as renew driver licenses. The offices also collect revenues on behalf of the State and disburse to governmental entities, including the City of Aurora. Current County operations are as follow: Arapahoe County current operates 4 sites countywide with 2 in Aurora, with one offering limited 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 function performed by the Department. Based on the current demand from the City of Aurora as shown below, the following is a working estimate of baseline fiscal requirements to serve the City-County of Aurora:
18
Figure 13. Clerk and Recorder Annual Operating Costs: Baseline Aurora Share by County
FY 2013 Gross GF Expenditures [1] % of General Fund Type of Service [2] Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Allocation Methodology Aurora % of Direct Voters Vehicles Parcels Aurora Factor [3] Aurora Share $ Aurora Share FTE 3.8 6.9 36.1 6.1
Arapahoe County Department CLERK & RECORDER'S OFFICE Clerk & Rec - Administration Elections^ Motor Vehicle Recording
# of FTEs 118.50 8.50 15.00 82.00 13.00
$8,491,815 see below $703,438 0% $1,830,179 1% $5,077,816 3% $880,382 1%
45.0% $316,547 46.0% $841,882 44.0% $2,234,239 47.0% $413,780
^ FY 2013 shown; Average of 2010 - 2013 used for Aurora share.

Adams County Department CLERK & RECORDER Elections* Motor Vehicle* Recording*
FY 2013 Gross GF Expenditures [1] $6,189,927 $1,856,978 $3,528,258 $804,691
# of FTEs 85.00 26 48 11
Allocation Type of Service Methodology [2] see below Countywide Countywide Countywide Voters Vehicles Parcels
Aurora Factor [3] 7.0% 10.0% 8.0%
Aurora Share $ $129,988 $352,826 $64,375
Aurora Share FTE 1.8 4.8 0.9
* Estimated on percentage of total from past 3 years. [1] County adopted budget [2] Service = Unincorporated, Countywide, Overhead, Internal Service [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 operating cost is derived. Because the baseline cost reflects Arapahoe and Adams counties, the cost estimate is adjusted to reflect all of Aurora, including the Douglas County portion. The baseline annual cost estimate is $4.8 million. The cost estimate does not include transition costs such as hiring and training of staff prior to opening as City-County of Aurora. For example, County Clerk and Recorder staff estimates that a minimum of 6 months training is required for Motor Vehicle staff. 2
Figure 14. Clerk and Recorder Annual Operating Costs: Aurora Current Estimate
in ARAPAHOE COUNTY in ADAMS COUNTY AURORA CITY-COUNTY Aurora Share: Existing Levels of Service and Costs Adams FTE Est. Aurora $ [1] $1,369,643 $2,587,065 $478,155 $316,547 Allocation Methodology CITY VOTERS CITY VEHICLES CITY PARCELS POPULATION Demand LOS ($ per Units [1] Dem. Unit) [2] 188,109 207,360 118,302 291,946 $7.30 $12.50 $4.00 $1.10 Total Demand Base in Aurora [3] 188,325 207,655 118,420 340,269 Total Est. Aurora $ (rounded) [4] $1,375,000 $2,596,000 $474,000 $374,000 $4,819,000 Aurora Share in Each County Arap $ Clerk and Recorder Elections^ $1,239,655 Motor Vehicle $2,234,239 Recording $413,780 Admin $316,547 Arap FTE Adams $
Total Est. Aurora FTE 9 41 7 4 61
6.9 36.1 6.1 3.8
$129,988 $352,826 $64,375
1.8 4.8 0.9
[1] Reflects estimated 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 in Aurora (rounded) ^Reflects a multi-year average to capture even-/odd-year expenditures
Interview with Adams County Clerk and Recorder. 19
Facility Needs
Estimated facility space to serve the City-County of Aurora is presented as a range based on percentage share of demand for services as well as space to house estimated personnel. The estimated costs shown below reflect space needs to serve demand today. The feasibility study will also include projected space 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 facilities, there is excess capacity particularly in the Administration Building. That is, the facility likely has room for expansion and the figures for square feet per employee are relatively high and therefore those factors 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 Arapahoe County LOS Admininstration Building Motor Vehicle Space^ Total FTEs Sq. Ft. per FTE Adams County LOS Administration Building Motor Vehicle Space^ Total FTEs Sq. Ft. per FTE Aurora City-County Estimates Estimate based on % Share of Space Estimate based on Sq. Ft. per FTE* Estimate Average
County Totals Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. 33,280 34,120 67,400 118.5 569 56,000 23,090 79,090 85 659
% Aurora 45%
Aurora 14,976 11,126 26,102 53.0
8%
Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft.
4,480 4,500 8,980 7.5
61 FTEs
Sq. Ft $ per Sq. Ft.^^ 35,100 $200 43,900 $200 39,500 $200
Est. Cost $7,020,000 $8,780,000 $7,900,000
^ Aurora share reflects space located in/serving City of Aurora * Weighted average of two counties ^^ Average rounded construction cost estimates from Reed Construction Data and recent regional projects
The Adams County Administration Building currently has outstanding (non-General Obligation) debt on it. The estimated outstanding debt allocated to Aurora prorated for the Clerks Office is approximately $2.7 million. Also included are voting machines necessary to serve the City of Aurora. It is estimated that 230 machines would be needed as a baseline estimate at a cost of $1.15 million.
20
CORONER
A County Coroner is responsible for investigating deaths under the jurisdiction of the office. The duties of the coroner are: Perform inquiry, report, and autopsy: The coroner notifies the district attorney, views the body, and makes inquiry regarding the cause and manner of death of any person in his jurisdiction 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 physician is unable to certify the cause of death; o From a disease which may be hazardous or contagious or which may constitute a threat to the health of the general public; o While in the custody of law enforcement officials or while incarcerated in a public institution; o When the death was sudden and happened to a person who was in good health; 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 County Coroners Office currently provides contractual services to Broomfield County. A summary of the budgets and staffing complement is shown below. For the Adams County figures, the Broomfield County contracted services are netted out to reflect services to Adams County only.
Figure 16. Coroners Office: County Current Levels of Service
ARAPAHOE COUNTY Demand FTEs Unit # 12.0 Population 602,868 LOS $/Unit $2.54 ADAMS COUNTY Demand FTEs* # Unit 11.0 Population 467,697 LOS $/Unit $3.19
Coroner Personal Costs Subtotal Personal Costs per FTE
$ $1,528,632 $1,235,172 $102,931
$* $1,491,928 $1,010,050 $91,823
Coroner: Office/Facilities (Sq. Ft.) Est. Office Space (Sq. Ft.) Facility Sq. Ft. per FTE
10,800 900
12,300 1,118
* Adams County expenditures reflect estimated cost to serve Adams County only; estimated contracted services to Broomfield Co. are netted out
21

Current levels of service are determined based on population. The following is a working estimate of current baseline fiscal requirements for a coroners office to serve the City-County of Aurora:
Figure 17. Coroner Annual Operating Costs: Baseline Aurora Share by County
FY 2013 Gross GF Expenditures [1] $1,528,632 % of General Fund 1% Type of Service [2] Countywide Allocation Methodology Population Aurora Factor [3] 48.0% Aurora Share $ $733,743 Aurora Share FTE 5.8
Arapahoe County Department CORONER'S OFFICE
# of FTEs 12.00
Adams County Department Coroner**
# of FTEs 11.0
Type of Service Allocation [2] Methodology Countywide Population
Aurora Factor [3] 10.0%
** Reflects cost to serve Adams County only; Broomfield expenses and allocated FTEs netted out. [1] County adopted budget [2] Service = Unincorporated, Countywide, Overhead, Internal Service [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 operating cost is derived. Because the baseline cost reflects Arapahoe and Adams counties, the cost estimate is adjusted to reflect all of Aurora, including the Douglas County portion. In addition, because this is a 24-hour operation, it is likely that the estimated staffing levels based on population share would need to be adjusted upward to reflect adequate coverage. TischlerBise looked at staffing levels from counties of similar size (all approximately 300,000): Larimer County has a staff of 10 FTEs; Boulder County has a staff of 8.5 FTEs, and Douglas County has a staff of 8 FTEs. Given the size of the City-County of Aurora, the baseline estimate is adjusted to 9 FTEs with commensurate annual operating costs of $885,000.
Figure 18. Coroner Annual Operating Costs: Aurora Current Estimate
in ARAPAHOE COUNTY in ADAMS COUNTY AURORA CITY-COUNTY Aurora Share: Existing Levels of Service and Costs Adams FTE 1.1 Est. Aurora $ [1] $882,936 Allocation Methodology POPULATION Demand LOS ($ per Units [1] Dem. Unit) [2] 339,935 Total Demand Base in Aurora [3] $2.60 340,269 Adjusted Amount Total Est. Aurora $ (rounded) [4] $885,000 $1,170,000 Total Est. Aurora FTE 7 9 Aurora Share in Each County Arap $ Coroner $733,743 Arap FTE 5.8 Adams $ $149,193
22
Facility Needs
Facility space for the Coroners Office is estimated as a range based on share of demand for services as well as estimated personnel as adjusted and described above. The estimated costs shown below reflect estimated space needs to serve demand today. The analysis will include space needs due to future growth (20 years) and associated costs.
Figure 19. Coroner Facility Needs: Aurora Current Estimate
CORONER Arapahoe County LOS Sheriff Admin/Coroner's Building Total FTEs Sq. Ft. per FTE Adams County LOS Sheriff/ Coroner HQ Total FTEs^ Sq. Ft. per FTE Aurora City-County Estimates Estimate based on % Share of Space Estimate based on Sq. Ft. per FTE* Estimate Average
County Totals Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. 10,800 10,800 12.0 900 Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. 14,180 14,180 12.5 1,134 Sq. Ft 9 FTEs 6,600 9,200 7,900
% Aurora 48%
Aurora 5,184 5,184 5.8
10%
1,418 1,418 1.1
$ per Sq. Ft.^^ $200 $200 $200
Est. Cost $1,320,000 $1,840,000 $1,580,000
^ Total FTEs including those serving Broomfield County to derive space per FTE * Custom estimate based on share of counties and adjusted for comparable communities. ^^ Average rounded construction cost estimates from Reed Construction Data and recent regional projects
The Arapahoe County Sheriff/Coroner Building currently has outstanding (non-General Obligation) debt on it. The estimated outstanding debt allocated to Aurora prorated for the Coroners Office is approximately $850,000.
23
DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND COURTS

The City of Aurora currently operates a Municipal Court with 6 full-time active court rooms and 2 halftime traffic courts. Municipal Court services are managed by the Court Administration Department and the Judicial Department. The City Court Administrator is appointed by the City Council and oversees the following divisions: Office of the Court Administrator, Case Management, Detention, Marshal, and 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 a Teen Court. The Court handles approximately 60,000 to 65,000 cases per year with traffic violations accounting for approximately 55 to 60 percent of the caseload. There are 21.5 FTEs with a budget of approximately $2.3 million.
As a County, Aurora would be required to provide operating support for the District Attorneys office and space for District and County Courts. The space needs include not only courtrooms but all related and supporting areas (jury rooms, security, offices, waiting areas) as well as space for Probation services.
District Attorney
Based on direction from the City Council, this analysis assumes that the City-County of Aurora would be included in the 18th Judicial District (serving the Arapahoe County portion of Aurora) with no part in the 17th Judicial District (serving the Adams County portion of Aurora). The District Attorney is an elected position and appears in County, District, and Appellate courts on behalf of citizens. Counties provide operational funding for the District Attorneys Office in the District in which each is based. Arapahoe County provides funding for the District Attorney in the 18th District on a population-based formula. Adams County provides funding for the District Attorney in the 17th Judicial District. Each countys current level of service is shown below.
Figure 20. District Attorneys Office: County Current Levels of Service
ARAPAHOE COUNTY Demand LOS FTEs Unit # $/Unit* 192.0 Population 602,868 $20.298 ADAMS COUNTY Demand FTEs # Unit 155.8 Population 467,697 LOS $/Unit $29.53
District Attorney
$ $12,186,135
$**' $13,808,787
* Cost factor per FY2013 Arapahoe County Adopted Budget ** Reflects cost to Adams County only with Broomfield portion netted out.
24
To estimate costs for the City-County of Aurora, assumed to be in the 18th Judicial District, the Districts current cost factor of $20.298 per person is used. Estimated operating costs for the City-County of Aurora are based on this factor and population served. The baseline cost to the City-County of Aurora would be $6.9 million.
Figure 21. District Attorney Local Cost Allocation (18th Judicial District)
Local Share ($ per person)* Current Counties^ Population % 600,361 64.06% 305,835 32.63% 25,407 2.71% 5,638 0.60%
$20.298
Arapahoe County Douglas County^^ Elbert County Lincoln County Aurora City-County Total
With City-County of Aurora** Population % $ 310,922 32% $6,311,095 295,355 30% $5,995,116 24,069 2% $488,553 5,405 1% $109,711 340,269 976,020 35% $6,906,780 100% $19,811,254
937,241
100.00%
*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.
25
Facility Needs
The City-County of Aurora will be obligated to provide office space for the District Attorneys Office. Facility space is estimated as a range based on percentage share of demand for services. The estimated costs shown below reflect estimated space needs to serve demand today. The analysis will include space needs due to future growth (20 years) and associated costs and will be projected based on growth in the City as well as FTEs needed.
Figure 22. District Attorney Facility Needs: Aurora Current Estimate
DISTRICT ATTORNEY Arapahoe County LOS DA Building Total Adams County LOS DA Building Total Aurora City-County Estimates Estimate based on % Share of Space
County Totals Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. 43,717 43,717 65,000 65,000
% Aurora 48%
Aurora 20,984 20,984 8,450 8,450 Est. Cost $5,880,000
13%
Sq. Ft $ per Sq. Ft.^ 29,400 $200
^ Average rounded construction cost estimates from Reed Construction Data and recent regional projects
Both Arapahoe and Adams counties have existing debt (non-general obligation) on their respective District Attorney buildings. The Arapahoe County share of remaining debt service allocated to Aurora is estimated at approximately $1.97 million and the Adams County share of remaining debt service allocated to Aurora is estimated at approximately $832,000 (for a total estimated amount of $2.8 million).
26
Courts
The City of Aurora currently operates a Municipal Court. The city funds the operation with 6 full-time active courtrooms and 2 half-time traffic courts. The Municipal Court facility has the capacity to expand with another two courtrooms that are already built out and another that would need to finished. For purposes of this analysis, we assume full costs to build out new space with the understanding that some 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 Study assumes that all of Aurora would remain in the 18th Judicial District and that District and County Courts would remain part of the State Judicial System. Therefore, the Court analysis focuses on estimated space needs. District Court and County Court judges are appointed by the Governor and court expenditures are paid by the state. Counties are required to provide space for County and District Courts. The number of judges 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 locations are: 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-time magistrates with 4 assigned to Adams County (for purposes of this analysis, the Adams County magistrates are allocated to District and County Courts based on share of judges). 18th Judicial District: 21 judges of which 15 are located in Arapahoe County (Centennial); 7 magistrates with 5 in Arapahoe County.
County Court judges are: 17th Judicial District: Adams County has 8 judges; Broomfield has 1.
27
18th Judicial District: Arapahoe County has 8 judges; Douglas has 3 judges; the remaining counties have 2 judges. Total number of magistrates is 4 with 3 assigned to Arapahoe County.
A summary of filings and terminations from FY2012 is shown below for both District and County Courts in the 17th and 18th Judicial Districts. Also provided is a comparison of number of filings per judge and magistrate in each county and a weighted average.
Figure 23. District and County Court Statistics: Filings, Terminations, and Number of Judges & Magistrates
FY 2012 # of Judges & # Filings per Filings Magistrates Judge District Court 17th Adams Broomfield Total 26,095 1,885 27,980 16 3 19 1,631 628 1,473
18th
Arapahoe Douglas Elbert Lincoln Total Adams & Arapahoe District Ct. Total
32,940 10,296 1,478 352 45,066 59,035
20 8 1 29 36
1,647 1,287 1,830 1,554 1,640
County Court 17th Adams Broomfield Total
63,083 4,373 67,456
10 1 11
6,308 4,373 6,132
18th
Arapahoe-Centennial* Arapahoe-Littleton* Arapahoe-Total Douglas Elbert Lincoln Total
32,055 30,697 62,752 22,402 1,661 1,178 87,993
8 3 11 4 1 16
5,705 5,601 2,839 5,500
Adams & Arapahoe County Ct. Total Adams and Arapahoe Grand Total
125,835 184,870
21 57
5,992 3,243
* Location depends on type of case, rather than geography, so both serve Aurora ** Estimated number of judges & magistrates = filings / average number of filings per judge & magistra Sources: Colorado Judicial Branch, "Colorado Courts Annual Statistical Report, FY2012." Number and location of Judges from http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/County/Choose.cfm.
28
This data can be used to not only estimate the demand for required Court space for the City-County of Aurora but to derive an estimate of jail space needs. Jail needs are discussed in the Sheriff chapter. To estimate demand for Courts space in a City-County of Aurora, a low and high range is shown based on share of filings in each court in each County. Space needs are driven by number of judges and magistrates, which are first derived based on filings and average filings per judge and magistrate. Detail is provided below:
Figure 24. District and County Courts Estimated Filings and Judges & Magistrates: Aurora Share
Aurora Share Estimates Low Range High Range Share Filings Estd. # Judges Share Filings Estd. # Judges % # & Magis.** % # & Magis.** District Court 10% 2,610 15% 3,914
FY 2012 # of Judges & # Filings per Filings Magistrates Judge District Court 17th Adams Broomfield Total 26,095 1,885 27,980 16 3 19 1,631 628 1,473
18th
Arapahoe Douglas Elbert Lincoln Total Adams & Arapahoe District Ct. Total
32,940 10,296 1,478 352 45,066 59,035
20 8 1 29 36
1,647 1,287 1,830 1,554 1,640
40% 13,176
60% 19,764
15,786 County Court 10% 6,308
9.6
23,678
14.4
County Court 17th Adams Broomfield Total
63,083 4,373 67,456
10 1 11
6,308 4,373 6,132
15%
9,462
18th
Arapahoe-Centennial* Arapahoe-Littleton* Arapahoe-Total Douglas Elbert Lincoln Total
32,055 30,697 62,752 22,402 1,661 1,178 87,993
8 3 11 4 1 16
5,705 5,601 2,839 5,500
40% 25,101
60% 37,651
Adams & Arapahoe County Ct. Total Adams and Arapahoe Grand Total
125,835 184,870
21 57
5,992 3,243
31,409 47,195
5.2 14.9
47,114 70,792
7.9 22.3
* Location depends on type of case, rather than geography, so both serve Aurora ** Estimated number of judges & magistrates = filings / average number of filings per judge & magistrate Sources: Colorado Judicial Branch, "Colorado Courts Annual Statistical Report, FY2012." Number and location of Judges from http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/County/Choose.cfm.
As shown above, a baseline estimate for the number of judges and magistrates needed to serve the CityCounty of Aurora is approximately 15 to 22.
29
Existing County Court Facilities

Arapahoe County has undergone recent expansions to its Justice Center with the addition of 10 new courtrooms, one expanded courtroom, a new jury room, and other improvements. The project was completed in 2009 at a cost of $13.8 million. Additional improvements are underway to connect two courthouses, enhance security, and improve the parking lots at a cost of $5.4 million. In addition, future expansion plans are identified in the Countys current CIP for an additional build out of 6 courtrooms at an estimated cost of $3.8 million in year 2016. Adams County expanded its Justice Center in 2009 with construction of approximately 103,000 square feet, which results in total square footage of approximately 305,000 square feet in the Countys Justice Center. The County financed this expansion with a sale-leaseback of other county facilities and has current lease (debt) obligations on this facility. The current appraised value of the Justice Center is 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 provided in Adams and Arapahoe counties. Shown below is the total number of both County and District judges in both counties along with the estimated square footage provided for courts. Both counties have undergone expansions in recent years to accommodate growing populations and needs. We label the factor square feet per judge to estimate demand for space based on current levels of service; however, the square footage reflects all ancillary uses in the court facilities (such as jury rooms, common space, all offices, etc.).
Figure 25. Current County Courts Space and Square Feet per Judge and Magistrate
Adams County (in the 17th JD) Arapahoe County (in the 18th JD) Total/Weighted Average
Total Estimated Judges and Justice Center Magistrates* Sq. Ft. 26 305,000 31 265,000 57 570,000
Sq. Ft. per Judge^ 11,731 8,548 10,000
* In each County in either District or County Courts, as of FY2012 ^ Includes all ancillary space in court facilities
Given this level of service of an average of 10,000 square feet of Justice Center space per judge and magistrate (for all related court facility needs), an estimate for Aurora is derived. As shown below, court facility space estimates range from approximately 150,000 to 223,000 square feet for an average of 186,000 square feet.
30
Figure 26. Courts Facility Needs: Aurora Estimates
Low Number of Judges & Magistrates Square Feet per Judge Total Square Feet (rounded) 14.9 10,000 149,000
High 22.3 10,000 223,000
Average 18.6 10,000 186,000
Estimated construction cost ranges for the above average-sized facility is $33.5 million ($180 per square foot) to $52 million ($280 per square foot). For the fiscal impact analysis of City-County of Aurora, we will assume $250 per square foot ($46.5 million) and will be debt financed over 20 years (and will be reflected in the fiscal feasibility study). As noted earlier, this reflects total square footage needed. To the extent that the existing Municipal 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. The Arapahoe County portion allocated to Aurora is approximately $3.33 million. The Adams County portion allocated to Aurora is approximately $1.07 million. Combined, the total estimated amount is approximately $4.4 million.
Probation
The City currently provides probation services as part of its Municipal Court functions with a staff of 9 FTEs, of which six are full-time probation officers. The Colorado Judicial Department administers adult and juvenile probation within Colorados 22 judicial districts. With a County and District Court under an existing Judicial District, adult and juvenile probation would be part of the state judicial system administered by the State Court Administrators Office and 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 Littleton and Aurora (at Altura Plaza). The County has plans to move the main Centennial Probation operations to Lima Plaza (at an estimated cost of $7.2 million over the years 2014-2016). The 18th Judicial District has a total staff of 152 FTEs in all locations. The 17th Judicial District has three locationsBrighton, Commerce City, and Westminster. The Brighton location is the main location providing all functions of the department. Geographically, Aurora is served by the Commerce City location.
31
The City-County of Aurora would be responsible for providing space for a local probation office. The court space estimates discussed above capture current Probation needs (reflected in current County 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 currently provided by the City for the Municipal Court. County sheriffs offices can provide this service either through sworn county deputies or contract services. The costs for these services are captured in the Sheriffs budgets 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, the City will not have control over the number of County Judges, the number of District Judges, or provision of Probation Services as they will all fall under the State. The Governor would appoint all District and County judges. However, as a County, Aurora may have more of an opportunity to work with the Governors Office to provide input on selection criteria as well as allow for Aurora residents to serve on the nominating commission and supply community feedback in the process, but the ultimate selection is by the Governor. Broomfield City-County is part of the 17th Judicial District and its District and County Courts are funded and controlled by the State. The City-County has a separate Municipal Court with judges appointed by the Council. Unlike other counties in the state, the Clerks Office combines Municipal, County, and District Court Clerks functions with the state reimbursing the CityCounty for a portion of the staffing. The Arapahoe County Justice Coordinating Committee works on addressing issues within the justice system. Currently, the committee does not have municipal representation from the City of Aurora. 3 In counties that are part of the State Court system, the state reimburses 80 percent of minimum state-mandated salaries for district attorneys with the localities in the Judicial District covering the remaining 20 percent. However, in many instances, salaries are negotiated higher than the state minimum, and the locality is therefore obligated to make up 100 percent of the increase. Both Counties have Alternative Sentencing/Diversion programs in place. The City-County of Aurora would need to do the same and could have the opportunity to shape programs from the ground up.
Members listed on www.arapahoegov.com/index.aspx?NID=342 (as of September 2013). 32
Based on City Council direction at this phase of the analysis, court services and facility needs are modeled based on the City-County of Aurora remaining with the 18th Judicial District (as noted elsewhere). However, if the City is interested in pursuing the formation of a new Judicial District (which would allow for a combined Municipal-County Court), a separate study would be necessary. The study should explore, but may not be limited to, the following items: process for formation; cost effectiveness of a shared system; trade-offs regarding funding sources and revenue streams (state versus local); structure, reporting relationships, and operating cost impacts for the District Attorneys Office, Public Defenders Office, Probation services, and Clerks Office; and technology implications.
33
SHERIFF
The County Sheriff is a constitutional officer and is currently an elected position in Adams, Arapahoe, and Douglas Counties. The Sheriff is statutorily responsible for the following services and duties: Serve as custodian of jails Serve as fire warden Transport prisoners Execute writs Preserve peace
There is some crossover with services provided by the City of Aurora todayby the City Police Department, the office of City Court Administrator (which includes Detention), and the City Fire Department. Figure 27 summarizes County Sheriff required services and assumptions for providing services by the City-County of Aurora.
Figure 27. Sheriff Duties and City-County of Aurora Service Assumptions
County Sheriff Duty/Function Serve as Custodian of Jails Serve as Fire Warden; responsible for Community Wildfire Plan and fire suppression Transport prisoners (produce and escort defendants) Execute writs Preserve the peace Provide emergency response including HazMat Issue state-mandated concealed handgun permits Operate training center Perform DNA Analysis Participate/oversee task forces Operate bomb unit (countywide service )
City-County Plan for Service Expansion of and change to current City services (City Courts and Detention) Provided by City currently (Fire Dept.) Expansion of services provided by City currently (City Courts and Detention) New service with annual operating impacts Provided by City currently (Police Dept.) Provided by City currently (Fire Dept.) New service with annual operating impacts (currently provided by counties) Provided by City currently Continue relationship with Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Provided by City currently New service with annual operating and one-time capital impacts (currently provided by counties) Provided by City currently Provided by City currently but expanded for County and District Courts.
Operate K-9 team Provide Court Security
34
The major impacts from the formation of the City-County of Aurora would be the requirement for the City to expand its Detention services and facilities, provide civil processing services, staff and operate a bomb squad, and issue concealed handgun permits. A general summary of the budgets and staffing complement for Arapahoe and Adams counties is shown below. Detail by division/function is provided below because the two counties organize their departments differently.
Figure 28. Sheriffs Office: County Current Levels of Service
ARAPAHOE COUNTY Demand FTEs Unit # 628.8 see supporting figures 61.8 see supporting figures 690.5 LOS $/Unit ADAMS COUNTY Demand LOS FTEs # Unit $/Unit 515.5 see supporting figures 7.0 see supporting figures 522.5
Sheriff (General Fund)* Sheriff (Special Funds)* Sheriff Total * Includes Law Enforcement
$ $63,253,829 $10,200,021 $73,453,850
$ $57,582,488 $1,243,382 $58,825,870
Arapahoe County: Total sheriff office includes 690.5 FTEs (including Public Safety (which includes the Countys law enforcement contract with the City of Centennial)); The Sheriffs Office budget in the General Fund is $63.3 million; adding in all other funds (such as 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 special funds) The Sheriffs Office budget in the General Fund is $57.6 million; adding in other special funds, the total budget is $58.8 million
Aurora City-County would need to provide Detention and Civil Processing functions. Each is discussed in turn along with other supporting expenditures.
Detention/Corrections
Aurora City-County would need to provide a Jail and/or contract for space in other Jails to meet the needs of its citizenry. Today, Aurora offenders are housed in Arapahoe and Adams county jails in addition to contract beds at Denver City-County Jail. County jails provide physical space for incarceration as well as space and operational support for programmatic needs. Below is a brief summary of the facility and services and programs provided in each county:
35
The Arapahoe County Detention Facility houses municipal inmates and those sentenced through the 18th Judicial District courts. The facility provides a full medical unit onsite. The Detention facility is accredited through the American Correctional Association and the medical unit holds a separate accreditation (through the National Commission on Correctional Healthcare). The facility has a current capacity of 1,464 with a recent expansion in capacity that added 272 beds by triple bunking. The County has recently purchased a tract of adjacent land (11.7 acres) for future expansion of the jail. The facility provides mental and behavioral health services, religious services, job training programs, support groups, and education services. The Adams County Detention Facility houses municipal inmates (at a capped amount) and those sentenced through the 17th Judicial District Courts. The facility provides full medical care. It has a current maximum capacity of 1,479. The facility itself has physical space for a capacity of 1,735 beds. The Countys work-release program is run out of the jail. The facility provides services and programs such as classes, support groups, recreation activities, and religious services.
The City of Aurora currently operates a 72-hour holding facility that has current operational capacity for 60 inmates. The facility itself has physical capacity for 220 inmates. If this facility were to be used for a County Jail facility, some improvements would need to be made and operations would need to be funded to adequately staff the 220 beds. This facility could be an interim step or a component of a larger 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. For comparison purposes, we provide average costs per inmate and number of inmates per FTE for each county (including Douglas). Also shown are the weighted averages for the three counties combined.
Figure 29. Average Cost per Inmate and Inmates per FTE
Detention Budget (rounded)* Current Jail Avg Daily Population Cost per Inmate Cost per Inmate (rounded) FTEs** Inmates per FTE
County Arapahoe County Adams County Douglas County Wtd Ttl & Avg $36,573,000 $31,997,920 $13,378,000 $81,948,920 1,150 1,200 325 2,675 $31,803 $26,665 $41,163 $30,635 $31,800 $26,700 $41,200 $30,600 242 4.8 174 6.9 142.5 2.3 558.5 4.8
* County budgets reflect "Detention/Court support" ** Source: Respective jurisdiction (interviews and/or budget documents)
36
Additionally, the following national and regional averages from the Census of Jail Facilities 4 are provided for reference: National average is 3.3 confined jail inmates per employee. West (United States) regional average was 3.7. Colorado average was 3.4.
Civil Processing
The Sheriffs Office is responsible for serving court orders, handling evictions, serving writs and other 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 County. For the City of Aurora specifically, the County has 2.5 FTEs assigned. Adams County has 6 officers, 3 administrative assistants, 1 supervisor, and 1 clerk. The County currently has 2 officers (Sheriff deputies) assigned to the Aurora portion of Adams County.
Other Duties
Other duties, services, and related costs provided by County Sheriff departments to be provided by CityCounty of Aurora are: Each County Sheriffs Office currently provides bomb squad services to the City of Aurora. This would be a new service to be assumed by the City-County of Aurora. Preliminary cost estimates to implement a City-County of Aurora Bomb Squad have been provided by the City of Aurora Police Department and are included in this analysis. o Grand total costs are estimated at $2.6 million, reflecting ongoing and one-time costs. o Of that cost, approximately $460,000 is assumed as personnel costs, which is assumed to be covered by existing staffing and therefore not a net new cost. o Annual ongoing operating costs are estimated at $300,000 with the remaining amount of $1.85 million reflecting costs for one-time training, vehicles, and equipment. County Sheriffs Offices issue concealed hand-gun permits. Arapahoe County currently has 8 FTEs providing this service (a mix of sworn officers (5) and civilians (3)). Costs are captured in the County operating costs.
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Jail Facilities, 2006), December 2011. 37
The City of Aurora currently contracts with the state (Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI)) for DNA lab analysis. The assumption for this analysis is that this arrangement would continue under a City-County of Aurora. However, per the City Police Chief, this service may be an area where the City would need to eventually provide its own service, or at a minimum providing 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 information obtained from the Sheriffs Offices, budgets, and demographic factors. The following is a working estimate of the share of expenses provided by each County Sheriffs Office to serve the City of Aurora, which is the starting point to derive current baseline fiscal requirements for Sheriff services. Additional analysis is provided in this section reflecting those services provided by the City currently, namely Detention services, and an alternative approach to estimate operating costs for the City-County of Aurora. 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
FY 2013 Gross GF Expenditures [1] % of General Fund Type of Service [2] Overhead Countywide Countywide Countywide Overhead Unincorp. Aurora Aurora Share Factor [3] $ 25% $452,153 Aurora Share FTE 3.8 96.8 NA 2.5 6.4 0.0
Arapahoe County Department SHERIFF'S OFFICE Sheriff-Administration Sheriff-Detention Services^^ Sheriff-Detention/Court Support Sheriff-Detention Medical Sheriff-Civil Processing Sheriff-Professional Standards Bureau Sheriff-Public Safety Bureau
# of FTEs
Allocation Methodology Aurora % of Sheriff Direct Custom (Jail %) Custom (Jail %) Custom (Direct Input) Aurora % of Sheriff Direct Fixed
$63,253,829 see below $1,808,613 1% 15.00 $38,073,198 see below 397.50 $31,973,198 20% 242.00 $4,600,000 3% $1,500,000 1% 6.00 $3,125,981 2% 25.50 $20,246,037 13% 190.75
40% $12,789,279 40% $1,840,000 $625,000 25% $781,495 0% $0
^^ Includes Detention, Court Support, and Civil Functions [1] County adopted budget [2] Service = Unincorporated, Countywide, Overhead, Internal Service [3] Estimated Aurora share of expenditures based on demand factors shown in supporting tables
Figure 31. Sheriff Annual Operating Costs: Baseline Aurora Share - Arapahoe County Special Fund
FY 2013 Gross Special Fund Expenditures [1]
$1,830,385
Arapahoe County Fund and Department

SHERIFF'S COMMISSARY FUND-Sheriff's Office
% of Total Type of Service Special [2] Funds # of FTEs

1% 7.00 Countywide
Allocation Methodology
Custom (Jail %)
Aurora Aurora Share $ Factor [3]

40% $732,154
Aurora Share FTE

2.8
[1] County adopted budget [2] Service = Unincorporated, Countywide, Overhead, Internal Service
[3] Estimated Aurora share of expenditures based on demand factors shown in supporting tables
38
Further detail on Arapahoe County cost assumptions: Aurora % of Sheriff Direct: This percentage reflects the share of direct Sheriff costs (nonadministrative) allocated to Aurora out of the total Arapahoe County Sheriff budget. Custom (Jail %) allocation for Detention (and Commissary Fund) reflects data from the Arapahoe County Sheriff. Supporting detail is provided in Figure 32. The figure shows countywide bookings converted into booking days, based on average length of stay, for both the county as a whole and for Aurora specifically. The 3-year weighted average share for Aurora is estimated at 36 percent, but to be conservative, the figure is rounded up to 40 percent. Custom (Direct Input) allocation for Civil Processing reflects estimated costs to provide 2.5 FTEs as is provided currently in the Aurora portion of Arapahoe County.
Figure 32. Arapahoe County Booking Data
Year 2010 2011 2012
Total County avg Total Co. Countywide length of stay Booking bookings (days) Days 17,518 26 455,468 16,817 26 437,242 17,171 26 446,446 1,339,156
Aurora bookings 3,383 3,478 3,292
Aurora length of stay
Total Aurora Booking % Aurora Days 47 159,001 35% 47 163,466 37% 47 154,724 35% 477,191 36%
Source: Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office
The second series of figures are Adams County Sheriff services and costs.
Figure 33. Sheriff Annual Operating Costs: Baseline Aurora Share - Adams County
FY 2013 Gross GF Expenditures [1] $58,825,870 $26,397,920 $5,600,000 $0 $25,584,568 $1,090,000 $1,243,382 % of General Fund Type of Service [2] Countywide Countywide Unincorp. see below Countywide Countywide Countywide Aurora Factor [3] Aurora Share $ Aurora Share FTE 36.4 NA NA 0.5 NA 0.91
Adams County Department SHERIFF Sheriff - Correctional/Justice Ctr Sheriff - Correctional (Medical) Sheriff - Grants Sheriff - Field/ Admin^ Sheriff-Civil^^ Sheriff-Admin Sheriff - Special Funds^^^
# of FTEs
Allocation Methodology Custom (Jail %) Custom (Jail %) Fixed Custom (Direct Input) Aurora % of Sheriff Direct Custom
37% see below 279.75
13% $3,431,730 13% $728,000 0% $0 $126,400 $141,182 $161,640
235.75
7.00
8% 13%
Further detail on Adams County cost assumptions: Aurora % of Sheriff Direct: This percentage reflects the share of direct Sheriff costs (nonadministrative) allocated to Aurora out of the total Adams County Sheriff budget. Custom (Jail %) allocation for Detention reflects data from the Adams County Sheriff. Supporting detail is provided below in Figure 34. The figure shows countywide bookings, days incarcerated, average length of stay, and number of beds consumed by jurisdiction. The percentage by residence is the share of beds utilized by jurisdiction. The estimated share for Aurora based on the data is 13 percent, which is used to estimate a current demand for Detention services and space from Adams County.
39
Custom (Direct Input) allocation for Civil services reflects estimated costs to provide .5 FTE as is provided currently in the Aurora portion of Adams County.
Figure 34. Adams County Booking Data
Locality Aurora Adams County Denver Metro Denver Colorado Outside CO NA Total 2011* Bookings 125 558 215 264 79 13 57 1,311 Days 4,799 13,290 7,892 6,692 2,029 354 2,001 37,057 Avg Stay (days) 38 24 37 25 26 27 35 28 Beds Consumed 155 429 255 216 65 11 65 1,196 % by Residence 13% 36% 21% 18% 5% 1% 5% 100%
* Reflects sample data from July in respective year Source: National Institute of Corrections, Justice System Assessment, Adams County (CO), October 2011
Based on the above data and assumptions, a baseline cost estimate is derived. The Detention/Court costs identified below reflect the demand for Jail space based on the percentages discussed above. That is, 40 percent of Arapahoe County Detention average daily population (ADP) and 13 percent of Adams County Detention ADP, or 616 ADP from Aurora.
Figure 35. Sheriff Annual Operating Costs: Aurora Current Estimate Based on Current County Services
in ARAPAHOE COUNTY Aurora Share in Each County Arap $ Sheriff: Admin Sheriff: Detention/Court Support Sheriff: Detention Medical Sheriff: Civil Processing Sheriff: Bomb Squad* Sheriff: Other $452,153 $13,521,433 $1,840,000 $625,000 $781,495 $17,220,082 Arap FTE Adams $ Adams FTE 1.3 36.4 0.5 0.9 39.1 in ADAMS COUNTY Est. Aurora $ [1] $593,335 $16,953,163 $2,568,000 $751,400 $943,135 $21,809,033 Allocation Methodology POPULATION JAIL ADP JAIL ADP POPULATION DIRECT ENTERED JAIL ADP AURORA CITY-COUNTY Aurora Share: Existing Levels of Service and Costs Demand LOS ($ per Units [1] Dem. Unit) [2] 340,269 $1.74 616 $27,521.00 616 $4,169.00 340,269 $2.21 616 $1,531.00 Total Demand Base in Aurora [3] 340,269 616 616 340,269 616 Total Est. Aurora $
(rounded) [4]
Total Est. Aurora FTE 5.0 136.0 0.0 3.0 2.5 7.0 153.5
3.8 $141,182 99.6 $3,431,730 $728,000 2.5 $126,400 6.4 $161,640 112.2 $4,588,951
$592,000 $16,953,000 $2,568,000 $752,000 $300,000 $943,000 $22,108,000
[1] Reflects estimated Aurora share in all counties o derive level of service [2] LOS= Level of Service (cost per demand unit) [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 operating costs; no personnel costs included as assumption is City Police staff would be reassigned; one-time costs included in capital
The operating impact to Aurora shown above in Figure 35 reflects the Citys estimated share of current County services, with the exception of new Bomb Squad costs, which results in a total estimate of approximately $22 million. However, this approach and cost estimate can be modified to reflect an adjusted average daily jail population using Courts data. Detail is provided below.
40
Alternative Detention Population Estimate for Aurora

First, an alternative jail population from Aurora is estimated based on Court filings and County jail booking data. Using data from Court filings and jail population in each county jail, a relationship can be derived that indicates that approximately 18 percent of court filings in each county result in county jail bookings.
Figure 36. Jail Bookings as Percent of Court Filings
Arapahoe County County Estimated Bookings (2012)* 17,171 Court Filings** 95,692 Percent Jail Bookings of Court Filings 17.9%
Adams Total/ County Wtd Average 16,840 34,011 89,178 184,870 18.9% 18.4%
* Sources: Arapahoe County Sheriff; Adams County FY2013 Budget ** Combined total in each county in District and County Courts
A relationship can also be derived between jail bookings and average daily population. As shown below, the weighted average ratio of jail bookings to average daily population in the county detention facilities is 14.5.
Figure 37. Ratio of Jail Bookings to Jail Average Daily Population
County Estimated Bookings (2012)* County Jail Average Daily Population Ratio of Bookings to ADP
Arapahoe County 17,171 1,150 14.9
Adams Total/ County Wtd Average 16,840 34,011 1,200 2,350 14.0 14.5
* Sources: Arapahoe County Sheriff; Adams County FY2013 Budget
Lastly, the above information is used to check and modify the estimate for demand for jail beds. Given a range of court filings from Aurora (see detail in Courts section and in Figure 24), the percent of jail bookings out of court filings, the ratio of bookings to average daily jail population, an estimate for Aurora can be derived. As shown, the low end assumption is slightly less than the 616 estimate based on Auroras share of current county demand. For analysis purposes, the average is presented as an optional higher range estimate.
41
Figure 38. Aurora Alternative Estimated Jail ADP Based on Court Filings
Aurora Estimated Filings* Percent Jail Bookings of Court Filings Aurora Estimated Bookings Ratio Bookings to ADP Aurora Estimated ADP
* See Figure 24
Low 47,195 18.5% 8,731 14.5 602
High 70,792 18.5% 13,097 14.5 903
Average 58,993 18.5% 10,914 14.5 753
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 demand from Aurora.
Figure 39. Detention Annual Operating Costs: Alternative Aurora Estimates
Aurora City-County Low Demand [1] High Demand [1] Assumed Avg Daily Population 615 750
$ per inmate
Detention Cost Estimates [2] Detention-Medical Cost Estimates [2] Total

[1] Rounded down
$27,521 $4,169
$16,925,000 $2,564,000 $19,489,000
$20,641,000 $3,127,000 $23,768,000
[2] Based on Arapahoe and Adams counties current levels of service
Modeled Sheriff Operating Cost

For the Feasibility Study, a rounded average ADP is used of 680 (a rounded average of 615 and 750 ADP). This results in a cost for City-County of Aurora as follows:
42
Figure 40. Detention Annual Operating Costs: Modeled Aurora Estimates

AURORA CITY-COUNTY Aurora Existing Level of Service and Costs Total Allocation LOS ($ per Demand Methodology Dem. Unit) [2] Base in Aurora [3] POPULATION $1.74 340,269 JAIL ADP $27,521.00 680 JAIL ADP $4,169.00 680 POPULATION $2.21 340,269 DIRECT ENTERED JAIL ADP $1,531.00 680 Total Est. Aurora $ (rounded) [4] $592,000 $18,714,000 $2,835,000 $752,000 $300,000 $1,041,000 $24,234,000
Total Est. Aurora FTE 5.0 150.0 0.0 3.0 2.5 8.0 168.5
Sheriff: Admin Sheriff: Detention/Court Support Sheriff: Detention Medical Sheriff: Civil Processing Sheriff: Bomb Squad* Sheriff: Other
[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 [4] LOS cost x Total Demand Base in Aurora (rounded) * 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
43
Court Security
As noted in the Courts chapter, the City-County of Aurora would be required to provide Court Security. This service is currently provided by the City for the Municipal Court. County sheriffs offices can provide this service either through sworn county deputies or contract services. In Adams County, 20 sworn officers, 2 Administrative Clerks, and 2 Supervisorsall County employeesprovide this service. In addition, Adams County contracts with a private security firm to provide door security/screenings. The costs for these services are included in the Sheriffs budgets used to derive levels of service and cost 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 Citys fleet would need to be expanded to accommodate additional 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 the Aurora City Jail. To be consistent, County factors are derived using average daily inmate population throughout the analysis, as opposed to maximum capacity. However, average daily population is then used to determine maximum space needs given that a baseline facility would need to be built to account for additional security needs, separation of female and male prisoners, and fluctuations in daily population.
Figure 41. Detention Facilities: County Current Levels of Service
Facility Arapahoe Detention Adams Detention Subtotal County Jails Aurora Jail
Current Co. SF 293,108 331,844 624,952 50,251
Beds (max) Avg Daily SF/Inmate Pop 1,464 1,150 255 1,479 1,200 277 2,943 2,350 266 220 220 228
Note: Aurora Jail population is 60 with underutilized space. To derive square footage factors, total capacity of 220 is used.
Assuming the weighted average space per inmate of 266 square feet, a size range for an Aurora facility can be estimated given the above discussed assumptions as well as estimated costs. A range of estimates is provided reflecting low and higher demand for space and low and higher cost estimates. Recent jail construction in Colorado and in the region has ranged from $255 per square foot (El Paso County) to $365 per square foot (Denver Downtown Detention Facility) and with Reed Construction
44
Data estimating the average cost at $280 per square foot. For this phase of the analysis, a cost of $350 per square foot is used, or a rounded cost per bed of $90,000. The feasibility analysis assumes debt financing for this cost. The analysis uses the average need of 680 ADP with a 15 percent factor applied to reflect maximum space needed of 780 beds.
Figure 42. Detention Facility Needs: Aurora Estimates
Detention Facility Average Daily Population Maximum Beds Needed (+15% rounded) Sq. Ft. Per Inmate Total Estimated Square Feet (rounded) Average Construction Cost per SF Cost per Bed (rounded) Estimated Cost
City-County of Aurora Needs Low Demand High Demand Average 615 750 680 710 860 780 266 266 266 189,000 229,000 207,000 $350 $350 $350 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $63,900,000 $77,400,000 $70,200,000
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 County levied an additional dedicated sales tax. Douglas County also has a dedicated sales and use tax. 2. An efficient location for a Jail facility is adjacent/near the Courts building. However, this is dependent on land availability and desirability. 3. Timing to build a facility is likely to be 3-5 years for site selection, pre-development work, and construction. 4. A county jail facility must provide statutorily required services such as medical care, food, and laundry. 5. Juvenile offenders are housed in State Juvenile Detention facilities if charged as a juvenile. However, if charged as an adult, the County is responsible. Juveniles must be sight and sound separated from adult inmates, which requires a facility to either have separate entrance and/or pod space or would require the facility to go into lockdown to move juveniles housed in the facility. Juvenile population in County Jails fluctuates. For example, as of July 2013, there were zero juveniles in the Adams County Jail but they have had up to eight.
Other Sheriff Facility Needs

Additional facility space will be needed to accommodate personnel conducting civil functions, additional administration, and other uses such as concealed handgun permitting. An estimate is provided below.
45
Figure 43.Sheriff (Non-Detention) Facility Needs: Current Aurora Estimate
SHERIFF (NON-DETENTION) Aurora City-County Estimates Estimate based on Sq. Ft. per FTE*
15 FTEs
Sq. Ft $ per Sq. Ft.^ 5,300 $200
Est. Cost $1,060,000
* Assumes 350 sq. ft. per FTE (avg City of Aurora Police & Arap. Co. Sheriff (non-detention)) ^ Average rounded construction cost estimates from Reed Construction Data and recent regional projects
Community Corrections
Related to both County Court and Sheriff services, Community Corrections is a State mandated program that started in the mid-1970s as an alternative to incarceration. The rationale for the program is that community corrections is less expensive than incarceration; clients are typically employed and help defray the costs of housing and treatment (i.e., there is a revenue stream to offset costs); and similarly, by earning money, clients are often able to pay child support and/or restitution to their victims. The program is regulated and funded by the State of Colorado with local implementation (and funding support) through local community correction boards. The program serves several types of offenders: Diversion (halfway in prison), transition (halfway out of prison), condition of parole, and condition of probation. 5 According to the Colorado Office of Community Corrections, 6 the following programs and facilities are provided in Adams and Arapahoe counties: 17th Judicial District The Districts 13-member board was formed in 1979. There are three residential community corrections programs in the 17th District:

Community Education Centers operates one facility in the county, Phoenix Center (opened in 1988). Correctional Psychology Associates has two facilities, Time To Change, Adams (2003) and Time to Change, Commerce City (2008).
http://www.colorado.gov/ccjjdir/Resources/Resources/Handout/2013/2013-05-10_CommunityCorrectionsOverview.pdf
6
From Community Corrections: The Growth and Evolution of a System, Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, May 10, 2013. Accessed from http://dcj.state.co.us/occ/about.htm
46
18th Judicial District Arapahoe County Commissioners formed a 15-member board in 1980. The three programs currently in operation are:

Arapahoe Community Treatment Center Arapahoe County Residential Center Centennial Community Transition Center
In Arapahoe County, Community Corrections is managed by the Community Resources Department (Judicial Services Division) with funding from the State at $5.1 million covering 3.25 FTEs. Theres an additional $1.5 million from the County General Fund in the Judicial Services Division that funds 21 FTEs. Detail is provided in the Community Resources section (see Figure 57). In Adams County, the service is housed under the County Administrators Office. It is fully funded by the State at $5.9 million and 3 FTEs. Costs for the City-County of Aurora for Community Corrections are captured under Community Resources.
47
HUMAN SERVICES
Human Services is a major County function with the majority of funding coming from State and Federal sources, but operations and staffing are managed locally. The city of Aurora is served by both counties currently and each County handles its organization differently. This section will look different than other sections of the report given the organization of County departments and budgets.
Funding Sources for Human Services

A summary of sources of funding by specific programs is provided below with the percentage funding from the county indicated. This table (unlike figures later in the chapter) includes those programs with benefits that are funded 100 percent by the federal and/or state governments (e.g., Food Assistance). In total, approximately 10 percent of Arapahoe Countys programs are locally funded, however levels of 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 $ millions) State Federal Total County CO Works (TANF) Child Care Child Welfare-Block Child Welfare-Core Services County Admin (FAMS) LEAP Old Age Pension Food Assistance Child Support Enforcement Other Small Programs Indirect Costs-Cost Alloc Plan Total $1.91 $0.96 $5.77 $0.53 $1.64 $0.00 $0.02 $0.00 $1.75 $0.87 $3.99 $17.44 $0.00 $1.40 $15.70 $2.47 $2.77 $0.00 $11.41 $0.00 $0.00 $2.12 $0.00 $35.87 $11.57 $3.51 $9.67 $1.01 $3.81 $3.30 $0.00 $83.77 $3.77 $1.33 $1.96 $123.70 $13.48 $5.87 $31.14 $4.01 $8.22 $3.30 $11.43 $83.77 $5.52 $4.32 $5.95 $177.01
% County 14% 16% 19% 13% 20% 0% 0% 0% 32% 20% 67% 10%
Source: Arapahoe County Human Services
In Adams County, the local share of total human services expenditures is approximately 7 percent. See below.
48
Figure 45. Sources of Funding for Human Services Programs: Adams County
Adams County Funding Sources (State FY 2014) (in $ millions) State & Federal County CO Works (TANF) Child Care Child Welfare-Block Child Welfare-Core Services County Admin (FAMS) LEAP Old Age Pension Food Assistance Child Support Enforcement Other Small Programs Total $2.11 $1.02 $6.06 $0.52 $1.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1.65 $0.45 $13.3 $11.73 $7.21 $26.94 $4.42 $6.36 $0.36 $10.47 $98.69 $3.21 $1.81 $171.2
Total $14.39 $8.23 $33.01 $4.94 $7.85 $0.36 $10.47 $98.69 $4.86 $2.26 $185.1
% County 15% 12% 18% 11% 19% 0% 0% 0% 34% 20% 7%
Source: Adams County Human Services
Weatherization / Low-Income Energy Assistance Program (LEAP) is a federal/state funded program but for purposes of this study, the Aurora share is included in both revenue and expenditure side. State law requires that County funding for Human Services comprise no more than 20 percent.
Current County Operations

The counties have different approaches to budgeting for Human Services, namely the inclusion or exclusion of federally funded programs/services such as Food Assistance. Adams County includes Food Assistance 7 in its budget while Arapahoe County does not. Budgeting for human services is complex given that there is a mix of funding sources, a prescribed allocation process (with local maintenance of effort (MOE) for some programs and not others), three different fiscal years for the County, State, and Federal governments, and a statewide close-out process where surplus funds are allocated to cover deficits. To be consistent with the other services in this analysis, we use the Countys adopted budget for FY2013. The data received from each countyon funding and caseloadsin some cases do not match up neatly with the budget categories. In addition, because of the level of non-local funding for these services, we describe revenue sources as well. The Arapahoe County Human Services budget and personnel complements as reported in the adopted FY2013 budget are shown below. Food assistance (approximately $84 million and federally funded) is not included in the County budget and therefore not shown.
Food assistance benefits are 100 percent federally funded but eligibility is determined by County staff. 49
Figure 46. Arapahoe County Human Services Expenditures: FY2013 Adopted Budget
$ Human Services Costs [1] Adminstrative Services Child Support Enforcement Children Youth & Family Services Community Support Services Finance Human Services - Legal Operations Division Total
[1] Social Services Fund, FY2013
ARAPAHOE COUNTY % of Fund 4% 9% 38% 39% 2% 5% 4% 100%
FTEs 3.00 56.50 193.50 166.00 12.00 25.00 27.00 483.00
$1,738,318 $4,214,169 $18,626,590 $19,545,889 $1,225,877 $2,277,463 $1,897,879 $49,526,185
Note: Workforce center funding (Arapahoe/Douglas Works!) is included in the Community Resources department in Arapahoe County. Arapahoe County revenues for Human Services (accounted for in the Adopted FY2013 Budget) are as follows.
Figure 47. Arapahoe County Human Services Revenues: FY2013 Adopted Budget
ARAPAHOE COUNTY $ % of Fund Human Services Revenues [1]

Ta xes Intergovernmenta l Fees a nd Cha rges Others
Total
$12,384,765 $36,249,353 $35,000 $350,000 $49,019,118
25% 74% 0% 1% 100%
The Adams County Human Services budget is shown below. A gross number of FTEs is shown. The personnel complement is broken down in more detail later.
50
Figure 48. Adams County Human Services Expenditures: FY2013 Adopted Budget
$ Human Services [1] Adult Services $2,085,064 Aid to the Needy Disabled/Supp Sec. Inc. (AND/SSI) $1,228,373 Child Care Direct $8,070,971 Child Support Enforcement $4,849,675 Child Welfare $32,954,412 Colorado Works (TANF) $12,913,920 CORE Services $3,386,174 County Administrator $1,236 Employment First $450,860 Food Assistance $98,688,307 General Administration $5,803,745 General Assistance $50,000 Independent Living $58,775 Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LEAP) $5,189,800 Medicaid $1,042,939 Old Age Pension $10,471,350 Promoting Safe Stable Families $118,183 Social Services ($642,566) Transfers $0 Other $557,388 Total with Food Assistance $187,278,606 Total without Food Assistance Total FTEs [2] $88,590,299 484
ADAMS COUNTY % of Fund % of Fund without Food Asst. 1% 2% 1% 1% 4% 9% 3% 5% 18% 37% 7% 15% 2% 4% 0% 0% 0% 1% 53% 3% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 6% 1% 1% 6% 12% 0% 0% 0% -1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 100% 100%
[1] Social Services Fund, FY2013 [2] Per Dept. of Human Services (does not include 10 FTEs pending BOCC approval as of Sept. 2013)
Adams County revenues for Human Services (accounted for in the Adopted FY2013 Budget) are as follows.
51
Figure 49. Adams County Human Services Revenues: FY2013 Adopted Budget
$ Human Services Revenues [1] Property Taxes Intergovernmental-Food Assistance Intergovernmental-LEAP Intergovernmental-All Other Miscellaneous Other Financing Sources Total with Food Assistance Total without Food Assistance
$10,608,010 $98,688,307 $5,189,800 $70,125,766 $375,775 $1,613,535 $186,601,193 $87,912,886
ADAMS COUNTY % of Fund % of Fund without Food Asst. 6% 12% 53% 3% 6% 38% 80% 0% 0% 1% 2% 100% 100%

We analyzed budgets from Arapahoe and Adams County and received caseload information from Arapahoe and Adams counties to derive an estimated base year amount required to serve Aurora. To be consistent, we extracted Food Assistance revenues and expenditures from the Adams County budget. We received caseload data from both Arapahoe and Adams counties.8 In Arapahoe County, the data reveal that overall approximately 64 percent of the Countys human service expenditure can be attributed to the City of Aurora. However, each program has different allocations depending on 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 codes include areas outside of the City of Aurora that is located in Arapahoe County. Further analysis was conducted by TischlerBise and the City of Aurora Planning Department to determine the share of City of Aurora population in Arapahoe County within each Aurora ZIP Code, which varied from a low of 34 percent to 100 percent. These percentages were applied to the caseload data provided.
It should be noted that we received information on Aurora caseloads from the Colorado Department of Human Services on certain programs that generally corroborated the information received from the counties, albeit we did not receive information on all programs. 52
Figure 50. Arapahoe County Human Services: Aurora Share

Human Services - DIVISION Adminstrative Services Child Support Enforcement Children Youth & Family Services Community Support Services* Finance Human Services - Legal** Operations Division Total Overhead/Support Calculation Arap. Co Budget $1,738,318 $4,214,169 $18,626,590 $19,545,889 $1,225,877 $2,277,463 $1,897,879 $49,526,185 $44,664,111 % Aurora 64% 60% 60% 66% 64% 78% 64% 64% $ Aurora $1,112,524 $2,528,501 $11,175,954 $12,900,287 $784,561 $1,776,421 $1,214,643 $31,492,891 Arap. FTE Aurora FTE Sources 3.0 1.9 [Overhead/support calc] 56.5 33.9 [Arap Co. Dept. of Human Services] 193.5 116.1 [Arap Co. Dept. of Human Services] 166.0 109.6 [Weighted average of data provided by Arap Co. HS] 12.0 7.7 [Overhead/support calc] 25.0 19.5 [Weighted average of data provided by Arap Co. HS] 27.0 17.3 [Overhead/support calc] 483.0 306.0
$28,381,163 64%
*Community Support Services Adult Financial Adult Medical CO Works Family Medical Food Assistance Long Term Care Medicare Savings Adult Protective Services Total
Aurora (Cases by Zip) County Total 2,059 3,359 6,004 9,652 1,056 1,465 13,622 19,785 14,792 21,309 2,790 4,797 1,688 2,927 68 170 42,079 63,464
% Aurora 61% 62% 72% 69% 69% 58% 58% 40% 66%
**Human Services Legal Division Juvenile Deliquency Benefit Overpayment Collections Dependency and Neglect Adult Protection Probate Adult Protection Mental Health Total Source: Arapahoe County Human Services
Aurora 127 3,634 283 91 168 4,303
County Total 201 4,395 470 142 295 5,503
63% 83% 60% 64% 57% 78%
We also received detailed caseload data from Adams County, which is organized differently. The data reveal that overall approximately 10 percent of the Countys overall human service expenditure can be attributed to the City of Aurora with levels of demand varying by program. Detail by program is provided below.
53
Figure 51. Adams County Human Services: Aurora Share and Caseload Data
Social Service Fund Adult Services Aid to the Needy Disabled/Supp Sec. Inc. (AND/SSI) Child Care Direct Child Support Enforcement Child Welfare Colorado Works (TANF) CORE Services County Administrator Employment First Food Assistance General Administration General Assistance Independent Living Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LEAP) Medicaid Old Age Pension Promoting Safe Stable Families Social Services Transfers Other Total Overhead/Support Calculation Adams County Caseload Data Public Assistance Adult financial assistance Adult medical assistance Long-term care Medicare savings program Family Medical assistance Colorado Works (TANF) Food Assistance Expedited Food Assistance Employment First Child Care Assistance* LEAP TOTAL Child Welfare Child welfare cases Subsidized adoption TOTAL Child Support Services Child support services Workforce and Business Center (Separate Fund) Workforce Ctr Head Start Head Start Adams Co. FY2013 Budget $2,085,064 $1,228,373 $8,070,971 $4,849,675 $32,954,412 $12,913,920 $3,386,174 $1,236 $450,860 $98,688,307 $5,803,745 $50,000 $58,775 $5,189,800 $1,042,939 $10,471,350 $118,183 ($642,566) $557,388 $187,278,606 $180,916,237 $ Included $2,085,064 $1,228,373 $8,070,971 $4,849,675 $32,954,412 $12,913,920 $3,386,174 $1,236 $450,860 $0 $5,803,745 $50,000 $58,775 $5,189,800 $1,042,939 $0 $118,183 ($642,566) $0 $557,388 $78,118,949 $71,756,580 % Aurora $ Aurora Sources 11.2% $233,527 [Weighted average of data provided by Adams Co. HS.] 9.4% $115,467 [Weighted average of data provided by Adams Co. HS.] 8.2% $664,493 [Childcare average provided by Adams Co. HS.] 8.4% $407,373 [Adams Co. Human Services Dept.] 7.3% $2,405,672 [Adams Co. Human Services Dept.] 15.6% $2,014,572 [Adams Co. Human Services Dept.] 7.3% $247,191 [Adams Co. Human Services Dept.] 9.5% $117 [Overhead/support calc] 10.2% $45,988 [Adams Co. Human Services Dept.] 0.0% $0 na 9.5% $551,356 [Overhead/support calc] 9.4% $4,700 [Weighted averge of data provided by Adams Co. HS.] 9.4% $5,525 [Weighted averge of data provided by Adams Co. HS.] 11.6% $602,017 [Adams Co. Human Services Dept.] 8.7% $90,736 [Adams Co. Human Services Dept.] 10.2% $0 na 9.2% $10,873 [Weighted averge of data provided by Adams Co. HS.] 9.2% ($59,116) [Weighted averge of data provided by Adams Co. HS.] 0.0% $0 na 9.5% $52,952 [Overhead/support calc] 9.5% $7,393,441 $6,789,016 9.5%
Total County Cases or Clients 2,691 8,248 3,559 3,375 23,044 954 22,639 868 22,384 1,081 9,175 98,018 1,025 1,280 2,305 13,795
Aurora in Adams 274 954 204 176 2,009 149 2,309 82 2,283 89 1,064 9,593 75 94 169 1,152
% Aurora 10.2% 11.6% 5.7% 5.2% 8.7% 15.6% 10.2% 9.4% 10.2% 8.2% 11.6% 9.8% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 8.4%
2,456 524
278 0
11.3% 0.0%
SUMMARY Aurora Cases Weighted total/average for Admin and General Costs Public Assistance [w/o Food, LEAP] Child Welfare Child Support Services Total
Total County Cases or Clients 65,336 2,305 13,795 81,436
Aurora in Adams 6,138 169 1,152 7,459
% Aurora 9.4% 7.3% 8.4% 9.2%
* Includes Low Income, Open TANF, Former TANF, Special Circumstance Source: Adams County Human Services Department
54
A summary of current and allocated Adams County Human Services staffing is shown below.
Figure 52. Adams County Human Services Personnel Analysis
To project current expenditures to provide Human Services to the City-County of Aurora, we use the above information reflecting current levels of service as provided by each county to the Cityin the manner provided in the respective budgets. This is the baseline expenditure and staffing. Also shown for context is estimated intergovernmental fundingbased on current County practices and estimated average caseloads in each county.
Figure 53. Human Services Annual Operating Costs: Aurora Current Estimate
in ARAPAHOE COUNTY in ADAMS COUNTY Est. Aurora $ [1] $38,886,331 $29,836,525 Allocation Methodology POPULATION POPULATION AURORA CITY-COUNTY Aurora Share: Existing Levels of Service and Costs Adams FTE 42.2 Total Demand LOS ($ per Demand Base Units [1] Dem. Unit) [2] in Aurora [3] 340,269 $114.28 340,269 340,269 $87.69 340,269 Total Est. Total Est. Aurora $ Aurora FTE (rounded) [4] $38,886,000 348.0 $29,838,000 Aurora Share in Each County Arap $ Human Services Costs Human Services Estd Intergovtl Revenues $31,492,891 $23,199,586 Arap FTE Adams $
306.0 $7,393,441 $6,636,939
Considerations
The operating estimate provided assumes the City-County of Aurora takes over the Countys current services. In other words, no increase in the rolls is assumed. It is possible that with more accessible services, demand will increase. The effect of federal funding sequestration is an unknown for human services.
55
Facility and Technology Needs

Arapahoe County Human Services o Offices are located at Centrepoint Plaza in Aurora (a total of 136,000 square feet) as well as Arapahoe Plaza in Littleton. o Information technology is provided as a centralized service with technicians assigned to Human Services. The costs for this function are covered in Overhead/Supporting Costs below. Adams County Human Services o Offices are provided throughout the County. The main office is in Commerce City with approximately 66,000 square feet, housing the Administration offices and a majority of the public assistance programs (Community Support Services Division) as well as Veterans Services. o Children and Family Services Division is housed in Denver with approximately 42,000 square feet on four floors. o The County leases a facility known as the Aurora Workforce Center that is approximately 10,000 square feet (3155 Chambers Road, Unit C in Aurora). This facility includes Workforce and Business Center staff as well as serving as a drop-off office for all public assistance program applications and documentation. Further, eligibility determination interviews for TANF are conducted at this location. o There are seven other centers throughout the western portion of the County and in Brighton. o The County leases a small annex for the Children and Family Services Division of 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 City-County of Aurora.
56
Figure 54. Human Services Facility Needs: Aurora Current Estimate
HUMAN SERVICES Arapahoe County LOS CentrePoint Plaza Total FTEs Sq. Ft. per FTE Adams County LOS Human Services Building (main office) Children and Family Center Aurora Services Center (Chambers Rd)^ Adams County Services Center Total FTEs^^ Sq. Ft. per FTE Aurora City-County Estimates Estimate based on % Share of Space Estimate based on Sq. Ft. per FTE* Estimate Average
County Totals Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. 136,000 136,000 483.0 282 Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. 66,000 48,000 10,000 11,710 135,710 484.0 280
% Aurora 64%
Aurora 87,040 87,040 306.0
9.5% 9.5% 9.5% 0.0%
6,270 4,560 950 0 11,780 42.2
348 FTEs
Sq. Ft $ per Sq. Ft.** Est. Cost 98,800 $200 $19,760,000 97,800 $200 $19,560,000 98,300 $200 $19,660,000
^ Workforce and Business Center space; portion allocated for Human Services functions. ^^ Excludes Headstart and Workforce Center * Weighted average of two counties ** Average rounded construction cost estimates from Reed Construction Data and recent regional projects
The Arapahoe County Human Services Building currently has outstanding (non-General Obligation) debt on it. The estimated outstanding debt allocated to Aurora prorated for Human Services is approximately $13.3 million.
57
Community Resources
Arapahoe County has certain programs included in its Community Resources department. Those services are: CSU Extension Senior Resources Veteran Services Community Development Services Arapahoe/Douglas Works! Judicial Services (includes alternative sentencing programs for District and County Courts; further discussed under Sheriff chapter; costs shown here) Related administrative functions
Adams County has similar services housed in different departments in the County. These services are included in this section. For purposes of this analysis, these services are grouped together as Community Resources. Workforce centers are fully federally funded and Judicial Services/Community Corrections receive state funding. Community Development activity is provided through federal block grants and other grant funds are received for a variety of purposes. The analysis includes those programs that would be required to be provided by City-County of Aurora. Community Development activities are not included as they are already provided by the City of Aurora.
Figure 55. Community Resources Department: County Current Levels of Service
ARAPAHOE COUNTY $ Community Resources General Fund [1] Comm Res-Administrative Services Comm Res-CSU Extension Comm Res-Senior Resources Comm Res-Veteran Services Comm Res-Judicial Services Comm Res-Community Dev Services Total Community Resources Special Funds [2] ARAPAHOE/ DOUGLAS WORKS! FUND [3] GRANT FUND [4] Total Personal Costs Total (All Funds) Personal Costs per FTE $889,682 $452,400 $309,816 $160,100 $1,475,914 $30,000 $3,317,912 $9,668,762 $10,172,754 $19,841,516 $11,338,171 $65,162 FTEs Demand Unit # LOS $/Unit ADAMS COUNTY Demand FTEs Unit LOS $/Unit
$ na $731,578 na $66,164 $5,929,803 na $6,727,545 $7,880,862 na $7,880,862 $4,564,378 $61,539
10.0 see supporting figures 5.0 4.3 2.0 21.0 0.0 42.3 83.0 46.3 129.3
na see supporting figures 6.0 na 1.0 3.0 na 10.0 64.2 na 64.2
[1] Genera l Fund di vi s i ons a nd expendi tures ; Communi ty Res ources Dept. [2] Refl ects a s ubs et of Communi ty Res ources s peci a l funds , onl y for s ervi ces provi ded countywi de [3] Offs etti ng revenues a t 100% ($9.6 mi l l i on) [4] Incl udes : CSU Extens i on, Seni or Res ources , Vetera ns Servi ces , Judi ci a l Servi ces , Wea theri za ti on, Admi n. Offs etti ng revenues a t 100% ($10.2 m).
58
Current baseline costs to serve Aurora, based on information provided by the County are shown below:
Figure 56. Arapahoe County Community Resources Annual Operating Costs: Baseline Aurora Share
FY 2013 Gross GF Expenditures [1] $889,682 $452,400 $309,816 $160,100 $1,475,914 $30,000 % of General Fund 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% Type of Service [2] Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Aurora Aurora Share Factor [3] $ 36% 26% 44% 48% 38% 0% $320,286 $117,624 $136,319 $76,848 $560,847 $0 Aurora Share FTE NA 3.6 1.3 1.9 1.0 8.0 0.0
Arapahoe County Department COMMUNITY RESOURCES Comm Res-Administrative Services Comm Res-CSU Extension Comm Res-Senior Resources Comm Res-Veteran Services Comm Res-Judicial Services Comm Res-Community Dev Services
# of FTEs 10.00 5.00 4.25 2.00 21.00 0.00
Allocation Methodology Overhead (Aurora % of CR Direct) Custom (Caseload) Custom (Caseload) Population Custom (Caseload) Fixed
Arapahoe County Fund and Department ARAPAHOE CO FAIR FUND-Community Resources ARAPAHOE/ DOUGLAS WORKS! FUND-Community Resou COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND-Community Resource GRANT FUND-Community Resources
FY 2013 Gross Special Fund Expenditures [1] $25,600 $9,668,762 $4,989,823 $10,172,754
% of Total Type of Service Special [2] Funds # of FTEs 0% 6% 3% 6% 83.00 2.50 46.25 Unincorp. Countywide Unincorp. Countywide
Allocation Methodology Fixed Custom (Caseload) Fixed Custom (Caseload)
Aurora Aurora Share Factor [3] $ 0.0% 47% 0.0% 44% $0 $4,544,318 $0 $4,476,012
Aurora Share FTE NA 39.0 0 20.35
Figure 57. Arapahoe County Community Resources Supporting Data

CSU Extension Family Consumer Science 4-H Hort/Master Gardener Arap County Clients Aurora Clients 6,700 2,500 8,800 1,370 9,700 2,640 25,200 6,510 % Aurora 37% 16% 27% 26%
Senior Resources Homemaker Chore Services Transp Judicial Services Pretrial Supervision Community Service Supervision
370 300 400 1,070 744 1,440 2,184 Arap. County Budget ($) $4,914,010 $841,610 $4,365,216 $10,120,836
105 125 239 469 244 584 828
28% 42% 60% 44% 33% 41% 38%
Grant Fund Judicial Senior Weatherization (LEAP) Total
Aurora % Aurora $ 38% $1,867,324 44% $370,308 50% $2,182,608 44% $4,420,240
Source: Arapahoe County Community Resources
The following figure shows Adams County current expenditures for a subset of these functions as well as Auroras estimated share.
59
Figure 58. Adams County Community Resources Annual Operating Costs: Baseline Aurora Share
FY 2013 Gross GF Expenditures [1] $731,578 $66,164 $5,929,803 % of General Fund 0% 0% 4% Type of Service [2] Countywide Countywide Countywide Allocation Methodology Population Population Custom Aurora Factor [3] 10% 10% 13% Aurora Share $ $73,158 $6,616 $770,874 Aurora Share FTE 0.6 0.1 0.39
Adams County Department CSU Extension Veterans Service Office Community Corrections
# of FTEs 6.00 1.00 3.00
Based on the above allocation of services to the City of Aurora, the following figure illustrates a baseline estimate to serve the City-County of Aurora. It should be noted that several of these programs are funded either wholly or partially through intergovernmental revenues. The analysis will project offsetting revenues as well, so the net result will reflect a required local share.
Figure 59. Community Resources Annual Operating Costs: Aurora Current Estimate
in ARAPAHOE COUNTY in ADAMS COUNTY AURORA CITY-COUNTY Aurora Share: Existing Levels of Service and Costs Adams FTE Est. Aurora $ [1] $320,286 $190,782 $136,319 $83,464 $1,331,722 $0 $5,434,856 $4,476,012 Allocation Methodology POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION Demand LOS ($ per Units [1] Dem. Unit) [2] 291,946 340,269 291,946 340,269 340,269 291,946 340,269 291,946 $1.10 $0.56 $0.47 $0.25 $3.91 $0.00 $15.97 $15.33 Total Demand Base in Aurora [3] 291,946 340,269 291,946 340,269 340,269 291,946 340,269 291,946 Total Est. Aurora $ (rounded) [4] $321,000 $191,000 $137,000 $85,000 $1,330,000 $0 $5,434,000 $4,476,000 $11,974,000 Total Est. Aurora FTE 4.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 8.0 0.0 46.0 20.0 83 Aurora Share in Each County Arap $ Community Res-Admin Community Res-CSU Extension Comm Res-Senior Resources Comm Res-Veteran Services Comm Res-Judicial Services* Comm Res-Community Dev Services ARAPAHOE/ DOUGLAS WORKS! FUND** GRANT FUND** $320,286 $117,624 $136,319 $76,848 $560,847 $0 $4,544,318 $4,476,012 Arap FTE Adams $
3.6 1.3 $73,158 1.9 1.0 $6,616 8.0 $770,874 0.0 39.0 $890,537 20.4
0.6 0.1 0.4 7.3
* Partially offset with intergovernmental revenues. ** Offsetting revenues at 100%
As noted elsewhere, workforce development activities (Arapahoe/Douglas Works! in Arapahoe and Douglas counties and Workforce Business Center in Adams County) are government grant-funded programs. In Arapahoe County, approximately 47 percent of the demand is estimated from the City of Aurora (per Arapahoe County Department of Community Resources). However, because the County workforce centers (located in Centennial, Altura Plaza (Aurora), and Castle Rock (Douglas County) are open to residents of any jurisdiction, the demand for services from Aurora residents is estimated (by Arapahoe County Community Resources). In Adams County, approximately 11.3 percent of the demand is estimated from the City of Aurora (per Adams County Department of Human Services). The primary facility is located in the Countys Government Center in Brighton with another leased facility in Aurora known as the Aurora Workforce Center that recently opened in summer 2013.
60
Workforce development programs are 100 percent federally funded therefore Aurora demand impacts space needs only and not operational support. The Arapahoe County Department of Community Resources also provides Housing and Community Development services. However, since the City of Aurora is an entitlement community, these services are already provided directly by the City of Aurora and therefore not included or shown as part of County services.
Facility Needs: Community Resources

Arapahoe County Community Resource functions are housed apart from Human Services and other departments. Below is a summary of estimated Auroras share of this space for services provided under Community Resources.
61
Figure 60. Community Resources Facility Needs: Aurora Current Estimate
COMMUNITY RESOURCES Arapahoe County LOS Admin-Arapahoe Plaza Arapahoe/Douglas Works! Lima Plaza Altura Plaza CentrePoint Plaza Arapahoe Plaza Phillip S. Miller Library (Castle Rock) CSU Extension-Datura Judical Services Altura Plaza Arapahoe Plaza Lima Plaza Senior Resources-Arapahoe Plaza Total FTEs Sq. Ft. per FTE Adams County LOS Adams Workforce Center-Brighton Adams Workforce Center-Aurora ^ Community Corrections-Adams Service Ctr Total FTEs Sq. Ft. per FTE Aurora City-County Estimates Estimate based on % Share of Space Estimate based on Sq. Ft. per FTE* Estimate Average
County Totals Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. 3,000 32,000 4,600 1,100 200 600 7850 2,330 130 7,500 800 60,110 129.3 465 Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. 20,000 10,000 370 30,370 64.2 473 Sq. Ft 26,400 40,300 33,350
% Aurora 36% 47% 47% 47% 0% 0% 0% 38% 38% 38% 44%
Aurora 1,080 15,040 2,162 517 0 0 0 885 49 2,850 352 22,936 75.1
11.3% 11.3% 13.0%
2,260 1,130 48 3,438 8.3
83 FTEs
$ per Sq. Ft.^^ $200 $200 $200
Est. Cost $5,280,000 $8,060,000 $6,670,000
^ Opened summer 2013, therefore client data reflects Brighton branch * Weighted average of two counties ^^ Average rounded construction cost estimates from Reed Construction Data and recent regional projects
Two current County facilities that house the above discussed Community Resources services have outstanding (non-General Obligation) debt. The facilities are Lima Plaza (Arapahoe County) and the Adams County Administration Building. The estimated outstanding debt allocated to Aurora prorated for Community Resources is approximately $3.6 million.
62
Developmental Disability Funds

Arapahoe and Adams counties have a tax-supported fund for Developmental Disability services. Each has a separate mill levy to fund these services and both counties contract out these services. A summary of the levels of service is shown below.
Figure 61. Developmental Disability Fund: Aurora Share

FY 2013 Gross Special Fund Expenditures [1]
$7,307,011
Arapahoe County Fund and Department

DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY FUND-Admin Servcs
% of Total Type of Service Special # of FTEs [2] Funds

4% Countywide
Population
Aurora Factor [3]

48.0%
Aurora Share $
$3,507,365
Aurora Share FTE

NA
Adams County Fund and Department

Developmentally Disabled Fund
FY 2013 Gross Special Fund Expenditures

$1,146,064
% of Total Special Funds

0%
# of FTEs FY2013
Type of Service [2]

Countywide
Population
Factor
10.0%
Aurora Share
$114,606
Aurora Share FTE

NA
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
in ARAPAHOE COUNTY in ADAMS COUNTY AURORA CITY-COUNTY Aurora Share: Existing Levels of Service and Costs Adams FTE na Est. Aurora $ [1] $3,621,972 Allocation Methodology POPULATION Demand LOS ($ per Units [1] Dem. Unit) [2] 340,269 $10.64 Total Demand Base in Aurora [3] 340,269 Total Est. Aurora $ (rounded) [4] $3,620,000 Total Est. Aurora FTE na Aurora Share in Each County Arap $ Developmental Disability Fund $3,507,365 Arap FTE na Adams $ $114,606
Also included is an estimated amount for contributions to non-profit agencies for mental health, senior, and drug/alcohol services. Based on current levels of service in Arapahoe County, an estimated cost impact for Aurora is $812,000.
Figure 63. Aid to Agencies Annual Operating Costs: Aurora Current Estimate
in ARAPAHOE COUNTY in ADAMS COUNTY AURORA CITY-COUNTY Aurora Share: Existing Levels of Service and Costs Adams FTE Est. Aurora $ [1] $810,720 Allocation Methodology POPULATION Total Demand LOS ($ per Demand Base Units [1] Dem. Unit) [2] in Aurora [3] 291,946 $2.78 291,946 Total Est. Aurora $ (rounded) [4] $812,000 Total Est. Aurora FTE na Aurora Share in Each County Arap $ Aid to Agencies^ $810,720 Arap FTE na Adams $
^ Reflects grants to non-profit agencies providing mental health, senior, and drug/alcohol services.
63
OTHER SERVICES AND COSTS

Public Health / Tri-County Health
Public health services in Arapahoe, Adams, and Douglas counties are provided by a multi-county public health entity known as Tri-County Health. Each county contributes the same negotiated per capita amount to the organization to provide public health services. The agency is led by a 9-member Board of Health appointed by the Board of County Commissioners in each county. Those services include: emergency preparedness, environmental health, public health nurse services (e.g., immunizations), nutrition services, epidemiology, planning and communication services, vital statistics, and management of the agency. A summary of Arapahoe and Adams counties contributions to Tri-County Health is shown 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 County Services
ARAPAHOE COUNTY $ $3,778,493 $388,308 FTEs na na Demand Unit Population Population LOS # $/Unit 602,868 $6.294 602,868 $0.64 ADAMS COUNTY Demand FTEs # Unit na Population 467,697 na Population 467,697 LOS $/Unit $6.294 $0.65
Tri-County Health-Contribution* Public Health County Programs**
$ $2,963,001 $304,875
* Cost factor for Tri-County Health contribution **County programs such as West Nile Mitigation
The assumption for this analysis is that a City-County of Aurora would become part of Tri-County Health (e.g., Quad-County Health) and the costs associated with that service would reflect current operations today. The additional programs provided today by the two main counties are also modeled.
Figure 65. Public Health Annual Operating Costs: Aurora Current Estimate
AURORA CITY-COUNTY Aurora Share: Existing Levels of Service and Costs Total Est. Allocation Demand LOS ($ per Aurora $ Dem. Unit) Methodology Units
(rounded)
Tri-County Health-Contribution* Public Health County Programs** Total
$6.294 $0.65
POPULATION POPULATION
340,269 340,269
$2,141,653 $221,175 $2,362,828
* Cost factor for Tri-County Health contribution **County programs such as West Nile Mitigation
64
Facility Needs
Tri-County Health has 11 locations throughout the three counties. The main office serving the City of Aurora is Altura Plaza (17,000 square feet), which is a full-service office along with limited service sites of Iliff and Chambers Office and Alton-Colfax Office. It is assumed that a City-County of Aurora would be obligated to house Tri-County Health and the Altura Plaza location is used as a proxy (17,000 sf at $3.4 million).
Surveyor
The City-County of Aurora will need to have a Surveyor. Adams County currently budgets for a surveyor at $17,810. An estimated amount for the City-County of Aurora is based on this amount and assumed to be $13,000.
Public Trustee
The County Public Trustee processes documents pertaining to foreclosures and releases of deeds of trust (when mortgages are paid off). In foreclosure proceedings, the Public Trustee is expected to ensure that the foreclosures are processed according to the law. The position is appointed by the Governor of Colorado. The Public Trustees office is fully funded by fees for service and is not included in this analysis.
Overhead/Supporting Costs
To reflect overhead and other non-line service costs that are not captured in the direct cost analysis above, we provide an estimate of allocated costs to the City of Aurora. To allocate Auroras share, we derive a weighted average of Auroras direct costs to current County direct costs in each County and use that percentage for each overhead/supporting cost component. Detail is provided below. This is an area for potential additional research and analysis if the City moves forward with County formation, namely a more in-depth analysis of each countys cost allocation plan as well as an examination of services provided by the City today and the incremental increase in services, personnel, and costs to support additional County services.
65
Figure 66. Arapahoe County Overhead/Support Cost Analysis: Aurora Share

FY 2013 Gross GF Expenditures [1] $18,190,261 $589,732 $1,290,386 $2,568,736 $9,158,955 $2,986,557 $1,726,913 $12,761,002 $256,429 % of General Fund 11% 0% 1% 2% 6% 2% 1% 8% 0% Type of Service [2] Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Allocation Methodology Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Aurora Factor [3] 23% 23% 23% 23% 46% 23% 23% 23% 23% Aurora Share $ $935,643 $135,638 $296,789 $590,809 $4,213,119 $686,908 $397,190 $2,935,030 $58,979 Aurora Share FTE NA 0.9 2.3 5.1 28.3 6.8 3.2 15.9 0.5
Arapahoe County Department ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES BOCC ADMINISTRATION COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES COUNTY ATTORNEY FACILITIES & FLEET MANAGEMENT FINANCE HUMAN RESOURCES INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY OFFICE OF PERFORMANCE MGMT
# of FTEs na 4.00 10.00 22.00 61.50 29.50 14.00 69.00 2.00
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 multi plied by Aurora factor) Aurora share reflects esti mated share of facility space allocated to Aurora services [1] County adopted budget [2] Service = Unincorporated, Countywide, Overhead, Internal Service [3] Estimated Aurora share of expenditures based on demand factors shown in supporting tables
Figure 67. Adams County Overhead/Support Cost Analysis: Aurora Share

FY 2013 Gross GF Expenditures [1] $20,339,629 $1,300,167 $3,375,260 $637,869 $9,065,568 $3,557,347 $1,890,526 $4,680,157 $1,795,053 $2,242,005 $130,000 % of General Fund 13% 1% 2% 0% 6% 2% 1% 3% 1% 1% 0% Type of Service [2] Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Allocation Methodology Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Aurora Factor [3] 5% 5% 5% 5% 7% 5% 5% 5% 5% 7% 5% Aurora Share $ $85,495 $65,008 $168,763 $31,893 $634,590 $177,867 $94,526 $234,008 $89,753 $156,940 $6,500 Aurora Share FTE NA 0.3 1.3 0.3 3.5 1.6 0.7 2.1 0.4 NA NA
Adams County Department Admin/ Organization Support County Administrator County Attorney County Commissioners Facility Planning & Operations-Gen Govt Finance Human Resources Information Technology Telecommunications Facility Planning & Operations-Public Safety Public Works CIP
# of FTEs 5.00 26.00 5.00 50.00 31.75 13.00 42.00 8.00
Gen. Fund amount shown, which includes debt service and charges for services. Aurora share is first reduced to reflect operati ng costs of $1.7m (then multi plied by Aurora factor) Aurora share reflects esti mated share of facility space allocated to Aurora services [1] County adopted budget [2] Service = Unincorporated, Countywide, Overhead, Internal Service [3] Estimated Aurora share of expenditures based on demand factors shown in supporting tables
Given the above allocation to Aurora, the following estimate is derived for support services. A few items to note: The expenditures here are recorded in the General Fund and not part of an internal service 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 estimates herein may need to be adjusted as the study and process progresses because the Citys level of service may be different than the County. o For example, Facilities and fleet management expenditures in the County are at a higher cost per square foot than in the City of Aurora. This can be adjusted as the study progresses. IT services funded by the General Fund are captured here. These costs reflect service to Human Services, Assessor, Treasurer, and other County services. The approach and outcome for Auroras share is in line with discussions with the Counties. However, this is another area that can be adjusted as the process continues.
66
Figure 68. Overhead/Support Services Annual Operating Costs: Aurora Current Estimate Based on Current County Services
in ARAPAHOE COUNTY in ADAMS COUNTY AURORA CITY-COUNTY Aurora Share: Existing Levels of Service and Costs Adams FTE Est. Aurora $ [1] Allocation Methodology Total Demand LOS ($ per Demand Base Units [1] Dem. Unit) [2] in Aurora [3] 339,935 339,935 339,935 339,935 657,350 339,935 339,935 339,935 339,935 $3.20 $0.50 $1.10 $2.20 $7.60 $2.50 $1.40 $9.30 $0.20 340,269 340,269 340,269 340,269 657,350 340,269 340,269 340,269 340,269 Total Est. Aurora $ (rounded) [4] $1,089,000 $170,000 $374,000 $749,000 $4,996,000 $851,000 $476,000 $3,165,000 $68,000 $11,938,000 Total Est. Aurora FTE Aurora Share in Each County Arap $ Overhead/Support Administrative Support Legislative (BOCC) Communications County Attorney Facilities and Fleet Finance Human Resources Information Tech Other Arap FTE Adams $
$935,643 $135,638 $296,789 $590,809 $4,213,119 $686,908 $397,190 $2,935,030 $58,979 $10,250,106
NA $150,503 0.9 $31,893 2.3 $89,753 5.1 $168,763 28.3 $791,530 6.8 $177,867 3.2 $94,526 15.9 $234,008 0.5 $6,500 62.9 $1,745,344
0.3 0.3 0.4 1.3 3.6 1.6 0.7 2.1 NA 9.9
$1,086,146 $167,532 $386,541 $759,572 $5,004,649 $864,775 $491,716 $3,169,038 $65,479
POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION FACILITY SF POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION
0.3 1.2 2.7 6.4 31.9 8.4 3.9 18.0 0.5 73.3
[1] Reflects estimated 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 in Aurora (rounded) Reflects current County l evel s of s ervi ce a ppl i ed to prel i mi na ry es ti ma te of a ddi ti ona l fa ci l i ty s pa ce (i n SF) for Ci ty-County of Aurora .
In addition, IT system annual maintenance costs are modeled given the new systems required for County services such as Assessor/Treasurer, County Clerk, Coroner, Detention, and Assessor. Based on input from the Counties, an additional annual operating impact is estimated at approximately $360,000.
Facility Needs
Finally, office space is estimated for these services. We assume a conservative 250 square feet per employee resulting in a need for an additional 18,300 square feet of space.
Figure 69. Facility Space Estimate for Support Services
Aurora City-County Estimates Estimate based on Sq. Ft. per FTE*
73 FTEs
Sq. Ft $ per Sq. Ft.^ 18,300 $200
Est. Cost $3,660,000
* Assumes 250 sq. ft. per employee ^ Average rounded construction cost estimates from Reed Construction Data and recent regional projects
Both Arapahoe and Adams counties have existing debt on facilities that house the support services described above. The facilities are Lima Plaza (Arapahoe County) and the Adams County Administration Building and the estimated outstanding debt allocated to Aurora prorated for these functions are approximately $2.5 million. Under this category of services, other capital costs are assumed for IT systems for new County functions such as the Assessor-Treasurer and Coroners Office. The base year estimated cost is approximately $3.7 million.
67
FACILITY NEEDS SUMMARY

As noted, the City-County of Aurora will need to provide facility space to house County services. Assumptions regarding the estimated amount of space needed have been integrated into the previous chapters. A summary is provided below:
Figure 70. Facility Needs and Cost Summary
Facility Facility Space (SF) [1] Cost ($) Assessor 11,300 $2,260,000 Treasurer 4,000 $800,000 Clerk and Recorder 39,500 $7,900,000 Clerk and Rec-Voting Machines (units) 230 units $1,150,000 Coroner 7,900 $1,580,000 District Attorney 29,400 $5,880,000 Courts (County and District)* 186,000 $46,500,000 Sheriff-Operating see below Sheriff-Detention Space (Beds) 780 beds $70,200,000 Sheriff - Admin Space 5,300 $1,060,000 Human Services 98,300 $19,660,000 Community Resources 33,350 $6,670,000 Developmental Disability na na Aid to Agencies na na Tri-County Health 17,000 $3,400,000 Surveyor na na Public Trustee na na IT see below $3,663,500 Overhead/Support 18,300 $3,660,000 Total 450,350 $174,383,500
Aurora Share of County Co. Outstanding Outstanding Debt? Debt $ (rounded) [2] Yes-Adams Co. $1,005,000 Yes-Adams Co. $349,000 Yes-Adams Co. $2,681,000 No $0 Yes-Arap. Co. $850,000 Yes-Arap. and Adams Co. $2,802,000 Yes-Arap. and Adams Co. $4,406,000 No Yes-Arap. Co. Yes-Arap. Co. Yes-Arap. and Adams Co. na na No na na na Yes-Arap. and Adams Co. $0 $850,000 $13,271,000 $3,604,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,468,000 $32,286,000
[1] Reflects base year space needs in square feet, unless otherwise specified [2] Aurora estimated share of total outstanding debt of Arapahoe and Adams counties * Assumes Court system as part of 18th JD; facilities provided by City-County.
Also shown on the above figure is a summary of outstanding County debt (Arapahoe and Adams counties) on facilities serving the City of Aurora. The City-County would also be obligated per State law to take over a proportionate share of existing County general obligation debt. None of the three counties has any outstanding general obligation debt. Although there is no applicable general obligation debt, 9 the assumption is that the City-County of Aurora would pay its fair share of annual debt service (or lease payments) (incurred by a certain date) for the proportion of the facility serving the City (as
Because the law explicitly states that the requirement is for general obligation debt, this may be an issue to be addressed in the constitutional amendment. 68
opposed to a lump sum pay-off at end of transition). Alternatively, the City-County of Aurora would negotiate use of the existing facilities and assume debt/lease payments. The following section provides additional information on the approach to estimate Auroras share of existing debt.
Arapahoe County Debt

Arapahoe County does not have any general obligation debt (for non-utility Public Improvement Districts) as of FY2013. Other debt and lease payments are recorded in the Arapahoe County Building Finance Corporation Fund. Debt includes Certificates of Participation and capital leases. Of the outstanding debt and future 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. Total County Remaining Remaining Yrs (SF) Debt of Debt Service 106,600 $13,416,002 18 32,000 7,500 16,580 56,080 136,000 $20,736,232 136,000 122,000 $20,736,232 122,000 247,000 247,000 43,700 43,700 $6,671,438 9 87,040 9 10,000 4 123,500 $3,940,760 6 21,850 50.0% $1,970,380 $22,654,354 50.0% $3,335,719 8.2% $1,699,691 64.0% $13,271,188 Aurora Share of Space 15,040 2,850 0 1,000 18,890 Aurora Share of Debt (%) 14.1% 2.7% 0.0% 0.9% 17.7% Aurora Share of Debt($) $1,892,839 $358,683 $0 $125,854 $2,377,376
Lima Plaza Arapahoe/Douglas Works! Judical Services Motor Vehicle Support functions* Subtotal Centre Point Human Services Sheriff/Coroner Bldg Sheriff (Non-Detention) and Coroner Justice Center Justice Center DA Building DA Building Total Estimated Aurora Share
* Assume some portion of overhead services serving Aurora Sources: Arapahoe County FY2012 CAFR; Arapahoe County FY2013 Budget; departmental interviews; TischlerBise analysis
69
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. The County has participated in four separate sale-leaseback transactions for the sale and repurchase of existing county buildings and one lease-leaseback. Per the State law, these obligations are not considered debt because 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 well as the City of Auroras share of these payments.
Figure 72. Adams County Outstanding Debt: Aurora Share by Facility
Adams County
Est. Total Estd. Total County Remaining Remaining Yrs of Debt Service (SF) Debt Administration building 324,000 $193,871,150 18* Assessor 21,000 Clerk 33,280 Treasurer 7,300 Workforce & Business Services 20,000 Support Functions 72,300 Subtotal 153,880 Justice Center Justice Center (Phases 1 and 2) Western Service Center Western Service Center DA Building DA Building Total Estimated Aurora Share 304,768 304,768 55,000 55,000 65,000 65,000 $8,230,695 18*
Aurora Share of Space 1,680 4,480 584 2,260 3,915 12,919
Aurora Share of Debt (%) 0.5% 1.4% 0.2% 0.7% 1.2%
Aurora Share of Debt($) $1,005,258 $2,680,687 $349,447 $1,352,311 $2,342,610 $7,730,313
39,620 $5,450,275 11 0 $6,398,148 11 8,450
13.0%
$1,069,990
0.0%
$0
13.0%
$831,759 $9,632,063
* Multiple phases Sources: Adams County FY2012 CAFR; Adams County FY2013 Budget; departmental interviews; TischlerBise analysis
70
Existing County Facilities

Current facilities serving Aurora are potential candidates for continuation by the City-County of Aurora. In particular are: Altura Plaza: Currently houses Assessors Office staff, Arapahoe/Douglas Works!, Community Resources, Tri-County Health, satellite Probation Office, and a Motor Vehicle office with limited service. The current appraised value of the building and land is $5.5 million, which equates to approximately $95 per square foot. Arapahoe County has plans in its current FY2013 CIP for upgrades to the building, namely remodeling (2-year planned cost of $3.3 million) and a roof replacement in 2015 ($500,000). Centrepoint Plaza: Currently houses Arapahoe Countys Human Services department. As the City of Aurora comprises approximately 65 percent of the departments activities and its central location, the building would be a candidate for City-County of Aurora use.
71
APPENDIX A: COUNTY BUDGET EXPENDITURE DETAIL AND METHODOLOGIES

Figure 73. Aurora Share of Arapahoe County
% Aurora (Arapahoe Co.) 48% 29% 42% 47% 23% 0% 46% 44%
Population Jobs Pop and Jobs Parcels Overhead Fixed Voters Vehicles
72
Figure 74. Arapahoe County General Fund Base Year Budget Detail and Allocation Methodologies
FY 2013 Gross GF Expenditures [1] % of General Fund Type of Service [2] Overhead Countywide Countywide Countywide Overhead Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Overhead Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Overhead Countywide Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Unincorp. Unincorp. Overhead Countywide Countywide Countywide Overhead Unincorp. Countywide Countywide Fixed Aurora Aurora Share $ Factor [3] 23% 48% 47% 0% 23% 45% 46% 44% 47% 23% 36% 26% 44% 48% 38% 0% 48% 23% n/a 46% 23% 23% 23% 23% 0% 0% 25% $935,643 $810,720 $2,344,004 $0 $135,638 $316,547 $841,882 $2,234,239 $413,780 $296,789 $320,286 $117,624 $136,319 $76,848 $560,847 $0 $733,743 $590,809 $5,925,920 $4,213,119 $686,908 $397,190 $2,935,030 $58,979 $0 $0 $452,153 Aurora Share FTE NA NA 30 0.0 0.9 3.8 6.9 36.1 6.1 2.3 NA 3.6 1.3 1.9 1.0 8.0 0.0 5.8 5.1 28.3 6.8 3.2 15.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 3.8 96.8 NA 2.5 6.4 0.0 10.3 NA NA 286.67
Arapahoe County Department ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AID TO AGENCIES ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOCC ADMINISTRATION CLERK & RECORDER'S OFFICE Clerk & Rec - Administration Clerk & Rec - Elections^ Clerk & Rec - Motor Vehicle Clerk & Rec - Recording COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES COMMUNITY RESOURCES Comm Res-Administrative Services Comm Res-CSU Extension Comm Res-Senior Resources Comm Res-Veteran Services Comm Res-Judicial Services Comm Res-Community Dev Services CORONER'S OFFICE COUNTY ATTORNEY DISTRICT ATTORNEY (18th JD) FACILITIES & FLEET MANAGEMENT FINANCE HUMAN RESOURCES INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY OFFICE OF PERFORMANCE MGMT OPEN SPACES & INTERGOVTL RELATIONS PUBLIC WORKS & DEVELOPMENT SHERIFF'S OFFICE Sheriff-Administration Sheriff-Detention Services^^ Sheriff-Detention/Court Support Sheriff-Detention Medical Sheriff-Civil Processing Sheriff-Professional Standards Bureau Sheriff-Public Safety Bureau TREASURER'S OFFICE TRI-COUNTY HEALTH TRANSFER TO OTHER FUNDS TOTAL GENERAL FUND*
# of FTEs
Allocation Methodology Overhead Population Parcels Fixed Overhead Custom (Aur. Avg % Clerk&Rec) Voters Vehicles Parcels Overhead Overhead (Aurora % of CR Direct) Custom (Caseload) Custom (Caseload) Population Custom (Caseload) Fixed Population Overhead Custom (Formula) Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Fixed Fixed Aurora % of Sheriff Direct Custom (Jail %) Custom (Jail %) Custom (Direct Input) Aurora % of Sheriff Direct Fixed Parcels Population (Formula) Fixed
$18,190,261 11% na $1,689,000 1% na $4,987,243 3% 63.00 $956,717 1% 5.00 $589,732 0% 4.00 $8,491,815 see below 118.50 $703,438 0% 8.50 $1,830,179 1% 15.00 $5,077,816 3% 82.00 $880,382 1% 13.00 $1,290,386 1% 10.00 $889,682 1% $452,400 0% $309,816 0% $160,100 0% $1,475,914 1% $30,000 0% $1,528,632 1% $2,568,736 2% $12,186,135 8% $9,158,955 6% $2,986,557 2% $1,726,913 1% $12,761,002 8% $256,429 0% $63,919 0% $6,544,445 4% $63,253,829 see below $1,808,613 1% $38,073,198 see below $31,973,198 20% $4,600,000 3% $1,500,000 1% $3,125,981 2% $20,246,037 13% $2,041,784 1% $4,166,801 3% $0 0% $158,757,203 10.00 5.00 4.25 2.00 21.00 0.00 12.00 22.00 192.00 61.50 29.50 14.00 69.00 2.00 1.00 67.00 15.00 397.50 242.00 6.00 25.50 190.75 22.00 na na
40% $12,789,279 40% $1,840,000 $625,000 25% $781,495 0% $0 47% $959,638 48% $1,837,508 0% $0 $44,367,940
100% 1369.50
^ FY 2013 shown; Average of 2010 - 2013 used for Aurora share. * Will not equal FY2013 County adopted budget due to modifications in Comm Resources from departmental information provided ^^ Includes Detention, Court Support, and Civil Functions Gen. Fund amount shown, which includes transfers and pass-through funds. Aurora share is first reduced to reflect Admin. cost of $4m (then multi plied by Aurora factor) Aurora share reflects esti mated share of facility space allocated to Aurora services [1] County adopted budget [2] Service = Unincorporated, Countywide, Overhead, Internal Service [3] Estimated Aurora share of expenditures based on demand factors shown in supporting tables
73
Figure 75. Arapahoe County Special Funds Base Year Budget Detail and Allocation Methodologies
FY 2013 Gross Special Fund Expenditures [1] $25,600 $277,425 $0 $1,142,679 $1,475 $8,925,580 $9,668,762 $6,399,315 $6,261,375 $1,793,019 $4,068,013 $0 $4,703,000 $0 $375,000 $0 $390,096 $0 $1,360,000 $13,300 $0 $0 $0 $188,400 $0 $0 $854,715 $76,577 $1,630,686 $1,478,016 $23,330 $4,989,823 $242,100 $0 $381,366 $7,307,011 $132,099 $1,020,000 $0 $10,172,754 $940 $102,209 $0 $4,000,000 $0 $2,011,877 $94,963 $41,701 $17,631,434 $0 $14,907,371 $1,850,300 $1,011,100 $1,830,385 $1,738,318 $4,214,169 $18,626,590 $19,545,889 $1,225,877 $2,277,463 $1,897,879 $1,495,000 $168,404,981 % of Total Type of Service Special [2] Funds # of FTEs 0% 0% 0% 1% 4.00 0% 5% 6% 83.00 4% 53.00 4% 1% 2% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 3% 2.50 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 1% 0% 6% 46.25 0% 0% 1.00 0% 0.75 2% 0% 1% 0% 1.00 0% 0.50 10% 7.00 0% 9% 57.00 1% 1% 1% 7.00 1% 3.00 3% 56.50 11% 193.50 12% 166.00 1% 12.00 1% 25.00 1% 27.00 1% 100% 746.00 Unincorp. Unincorp. Unincorp. Unincorp. Unincorp. Unincorp. Countywide Unincorp. Countywide Int. Srvc. Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Unincorp. Countywide Unincorp. Int. Srvc. Int. Srvc. Int. Srvc. Int. Srvc. Int. Srvc. Int. Srvc. Int. Srvc. Int. Srvc. Int. Srvc. Int. Srvc. Int. Srvc. Int. Srvc. Int. Srvc. Unincorp. Countywide Unincorp. Unincorp. Countywide Countywide Int. Srvc. Int. Srvc. Countywide Unincorp. Unincorp. Unincorp. Unincorp. Unincorp. Countywide Unincorp. Unincorp. Countywide Unincorp. Countywide Int. Srvc. Int. Srvc. Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Int. Srvc. Aurora Aurora Share Factor [3] $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 47% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 48.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 44% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 56.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40% 64% 60% 60% 66% 64% 78% 64% 0.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,544,318 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,507,365 $0 $0 $0 $4,476,012 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,873,603 $0 $942,988 $0 $0 $732,154 $1,112,524 $2,528,501 $11,175,954 $12,900,287 $784,561 $1,776,421 $1,214,643 $0 $55,569,331 33% Aurora Share FTE NA NA NA 0 NA NA 39.0 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 20.35 NA 0 0 NA NA NA 0 0 3.9 NA 0.0 NA NA 2.8 1.9 33.9 116.1 109.6 7.7 19.5 17.3 NA 372.08
Arapahoe County Fund and Department ARAPAHOE CO FAIR FUND-Community Resources Open Spaces & Intergovernmental Relations Public Works & Development Open Spaces & Intergovernmental Relations Public Works & Development Administrative Services ARAPAHOE/ DOUGLAS WORKS! FUND-Community Reso Sheriff's Office Administrative Services BUILDING MAINTENANCE FUND-Facilities and Fleet M Administrative Services Communication Services Facilities and Fleet Management Finance Information Technology Public Works & Development Sheriff's Office Open Spaces & Intergovernmental Relations Administrative Services Assessor's Office Clerk and Recorder's Office Communication Services County Attorney Facilities and Fleet Management Finance Human Services Information Technology Open Spaces & Intergovernmental Relations Public Works & Development Sheriff's Office Treasurer's Office COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND-Community Resour Administrative Services Administrative Services Administrative Services DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY FUND-Admin Servcs Clerk and Recorder's Office Human Resources Sheriff's Office GRANT FUND-Community Resources Facilities and Fleet Management Sheriff's Office Sheriff's Office Public Works & Development Administrative Services Administrative Services OPEN SPACE SALES TAX FUND-Communication Service OPEN SPACE SALES TAX FUND-Finance OPEN SPACE SALES TAX FUND-Open Space & Intergove OPEN SPACE SALES TAX FUND-Public Works and Devel ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND-Public Works and Developm Human Resources County Attorney SHERIFF'S COMMISSARY FUND-Sheriff's Office SOCIAL SERVICES FUND-Adminstrative Services SOCIAL SERVICES FUND-Child Support Enforcement SOCIAL SERVICES FUND-Children Youth & Family Servi SOCIAL SERVICES FUND-Community Support Services SOCIAL SERVICES FUND-Finance SOCIAL SERVICES FUND-Human Services - Legal SOCIAL SERVICES FUND-Operations Division County Attorney TOTAL SPECIAL FUNDS
Allocation Methodology Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Custom (Caseload) Fixed Capital# Fixed Capital# Fixed Capital# Fixed Capital# Fixed Capital# Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Population Fixed Fixed Fixed Custom (Caseload) Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Capital# Fixed Fixed Custom Fixed Custom Fixed Fixed Custom (Jail %) Custom (Caseload) Custom (Caseload) Custom (Caseload) Custom (Caseload) Custom (Caseload) Custom (Caseload) Custom (Caseload) Fixed
# Addressed separately [1] County adopted budget [2] Service = Unincorporated, Countywide, Overhead, Internal Service
[3] Estimated Aurora share of expenditures based on demand factors shown in supporting tables
74
Figure 76. Aurora Share of Arapahoe County
Population Jobs Pop and Jobs Parcels Overhead Fixed Voters Vehicles
% Aurora (Adams Co.) 10% 18% 12% 8% 5% 0% 7% 10%
75
Figure 77. Adams County General Fund Base Year Budget Detail and Allocation Methodologies
FY 2013 Gross GF Expenditures [1] $731,578 $492,107 $3,267,239 $183,428 $111,201 $20,339,629 $3,963,964 $6,189,927 $1,856,978 $3,528,258 $804,691 $513,140 $1,300,167 $3,375,260 $637,869 $15,390,118 $554,608 $260,000 $9,065,568 $3,557,347 $1,890,526 $4,680,157 $1,323,209 $540,803 $17,810 $1,795,053 $1,305,159 $66,164 $3,267,876 $170,200 $1,972,126 $5,929,803 $2,242,005 $274,448 $1,491,928 $316,487 $58,825,870 $26,397,920 $5,600,000 $0 $25,584,568 $1,090,000 $1,243,382 $1,038,588 $1,348,787 $130,000 $1,613,535 % of General Fund 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 13% 2% 4% Type of Service [2] Countywide Unincorp. Unincorp. Unincorp. Countywide Overhead Countywide see below Countywide Countywide Countywide Unincorp. Overhead Overhead Overhead Countywide Unincorp. Unincorp. Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Unincorp. Countywide Countywide Overhead Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Unincorp. Countywide Overhead Unincorp. Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Unincorp. see below Countywide Countywide Countywide Unincorp. Unincorp. Overhead Countywide Aurora Factor [3] 10% 0% 0% 0% 10% 5% 8% 7% 10% 8% 0% 5% 5% 5% 10% 0% 0% 7% 5% 5% 5% 0% 8% 8% 5% 8% 10% 10% 10% 0% 13% 7% 0% 10% 10% 13% 13% 0% Aurora Share Aurora Share $ FTE $73,158 $0 $0 $0 $11,120 $85,495 $317,117 $129,988 $352,826 $64,375 $0 $65,008 $168,763 $31,893 $1,539,012 $0 $0 $634,590 $177,867 $94,526 $234,008 $0 $43,264 $1,425 $89,753 $104,413 $6,616 $302,043 $17,020 $0 $770,874 $156,940 $0 $149,193 $31,649 $3,431,730 $728,000 $0 $126,400 $141,182 $161,640 $0 $0 $6,500 $0 0.6 0 0 NA NA NA 3.5 1.8 4.8 0.9 NA 0.3 1.3 0.3 15.575 NA NA 3.6 1.6 0.7 2.1 0 NA 0.08 0.4 0.8 0.1 NA NA 0 0.39 NA NA 1.1 0.3 36.4 NA NA 0.5 NA 0.91 0 NA NA NA
Adams County Department CSU Extension County Fair Parks and Community Resources Community and Economic Opportunity 17th Judicial District Admin/ Organization Support ASSESSOR'S OFFICE CLERK & RECORDER Clerk & Rec - Elections* Clerk & Rec - Motor Vehicle* Clerk & Rec - Recording* Community Transit County Administrator County Attorney County Commissioners District Attorney Economic Development Center Economic Incentives Facility Planning & Operations-Gen Govt Finance Human Resources Information Technology Planning and Development Public Trustee Surveyor Telecommunications Treasurer Veterans Service Office Tri-County Health Department Human Service Agency Grants Animal Shelter/ Adoption Center Community Corrections Facility Planning & Operations-Public Safety Parks and Community Resources Coroner** Emergency Management SHERIFF Sheriff - Correctional/Justice Ctr Sheriff - Correctional (Medical) Sheriff - Grants Sheriff - Field/ Admin^ Sheriff-Civil^^ Sheriff-Admin Sheriff - Special Funds^^^ Public Works - Code Enforcement Public Works Engineering Public Works CIP Transfers out
# of FTEs 6.00 1.00 24.50
Allocation Methodology Population Fixed Fixed Fixed Population Overhead Parcels Voters Vehicles Parcels Fixed Overhead Overhead Overhead Population Fixed Fixed Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead Fixed Parcels Parcels Overhead Parcels Population Population Population Fixed Custom (Jail %) Overhead Fixed Population Population Custom (Jail %) Custom (Jail %) Fixed Custom (Direct Input) Aurora % of Sheriff Direct Custom Fixed Fixed Overhead Fixed
44.00 85.00 26 48 11
0% 1% 5.00 2% 26.00 0% 5.00 10% 155.75 0% 0% 6% 51.00 2% 31.75 1% 13.00 3% 42.00 1% 15.40 0% 0% 1.00 1% 8.00 1% 10.00 0% 1.00 2% 0% 1% 27.50 4% 3.00 1% 0% 1% 11.0 0% 3.00 37% see below 279.75
235.75
1% 1% 0% 1%
7.00 23.00
8% 13% 0% 0% 5% 0%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
$160,173,684
100%
1,200.40
$10,248,388
77.85
* Estimated on percentage of total from past 3 years. ^ Patrol, Traffic, Records/Warrants, Training, Civil, Admin ^^ Countywide figure estimated; Aurora cost estimate provided by Adams County Sheriff's Office ^^^ Includes Jail Commissary Fund. ** Reflects cost to serve Adams County only; Broomfield expenses and allocated FTEs netted out. Gen. Fund amount shown, which includes debt service and charges for services. Aurora share is reduced to reflect operati ng costs of $1.7m (then multi plied by Aurora factor) Aurora share reflects esti mated share of facility space allocated to Aurora services [1] County adopted budget [2] Service = Unincorporated, Countywide, Overhead, Internal Service [3] Estimated Aurora share of expenditures based on demand factors shown in supporting tables
76
Figure 78. Adams County Special Funds Base Year Budget Detail and Allocation Methodologies
FY 2013 Gross Special Fund Expenditures [1] $12,574,441 $414,884 $4,783,636 $670,587 $1,146,064 $45,000 $7,332,076 $4,776,630 $4,596,226 $17,975,437 $3,316,000 $14,272,141 $38,597,485 $187,822,372 $2,085,064 $1,228,373 $8,070,971 $4,849,675 $32,954,412 $12,913,920 $3,386,174 $1,236 $450,860 $98,688,307 $5,803,745 $50,000 $58,775 $5,189,800 $1,042,939 $10,471,350 $118,183 ($642,566) $557,388 $5,130,700 $40,212 $7,880,862 $310,830,987 $201,671,330 % of Total Special Funds 4% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 1% 6% 1% 5% 12% 60% # of FTEs FY2013 2.20 6.80 5.00 Type of Service [2] Countywide Unincorp Unincorp Unincorp Countywide Unincorp Int. Srvc. Unincorp Unincorp Int. Srvc. Unincorp Countywide Countywide see below Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Unincorp Unincorp Countywide Allocation Methodology Capital# Fixed Fixed Fixed Population Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Custom (Direct Input) Custom (Direct Input) Custom (Caseload) Custom (Caseload) Custom (Caseload) Custom (Caseload) Custom (Caseload) Custom (Caseload) Custom (Caseload) Custom (Caseload) Custom (Caseload) Fixed Custom (Caseload) Custom (Caseload) Custom (Caseload) Custom (Caseload) Custom (Caseload) Fixed Custom (Caseload) Custom (Caseload) Custom (Caseload) Custom (Caseload) Fixed Fixed Custom (Caseload) Aurora Factor [3] 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Aurora Share $0 $0 $0 $0 $114,606 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,264,308 $1,710,747 $0 $233,527 $115,467 $664,493 $407,373 $2,405,672 $2,014,572 $247,191 $117 $45,988 $0 $551,356 $4,700 $5,525 $602,017 $90,736 $0 $10,873 ($59,116) $0 $52,952 $0 $0 $890,537 $11,373,639 $11,373,639 Aurora Share FTE 0 0 0 NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA NA 0 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 0 7.25121
Adams County Fund and Department Capital Facilities Fund Community Services Block Grant Fund Community Development Block Grant Fund Conservation Trust Developmentally Disabled Fund DIA Noise Mitigation Fund Fleet Management Fund (Internal Service) Golf Course Fund (Enterprise) Headstart Fund Insurance Fund (Internal Service) Open Space Projects Fund Open Space Sales Tax Fund Road and Bridge Fund Social Services Fund Adult Services Aid to the Needy Disbld/Supp. Sec. Inc.(AND/SSI) Child Care Direct Child Support Enforcement Child Welfare Colorado Works (TANF) CORE Services County Administrator Employment First Food Assistance General Administration General Assistance Independent Living Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LEAP) Medicaid Old Age Pension Promoting Safe Stable Families Social Services Transfers Other Storm Water Utility Fund Waste Management Fund Workforce & Business Center Fund TOTAL SPECIAL FUNDS TOTAL SPECIAL FUNDS without Food Assistance
17.00 76.70 3.75 1.50 78.00 455.50
2% 0% 3% 100%
4.00 0.60 64.17 715.22
11.2% 9.4% 8.2% 8.4% 7.3% 15.6% 7.3% 9.5% 10.2% 0.0% 9.5% 9.4% 9.4% 11.6% 8.7% 0.0% 9.2% 9.2% 0.0% 9.5% 0.0% 0.0% 11.3%
# Addressed separately [1] County adopted budget [2] Service = Unincorporated, Countywide, Overhead, Internal Service [3] Estimated Aurora share of expenditures based on demand factors shown in supporting tables
77
APPENDIX B: REQUIRED COUNTY POSITIONS

Introduction
The purpose of this section is to detail the requirements and duties that required county officers in Colorado 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. However, the amendment to the Constitution creating the City-County of Aurora would allow for the charter or ordinances of the City-County of Aurora to govern the selection and compensation of required officials. By way of example, below is the relevant section of the City-County of Broomfields Constitutional 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 its charter or ordinances. The jurisdiction, term of office, and duties of such officers shall commence on November 15, 2001. The qualifications and duties of all such officers shall be as provided for by the city and county charter and ordinances, but the ordinances shall designate the officers who shall perform the acts and duties required of county officers pursuant to this constitution or the general laws of the state of Colorado, as far as applicable. All compensation for elected officials shall be determined by ordinance and not by state statute. If any elected officer of the city and county of Broomfield shall receive any compensation, such officer shall receive the same as a stated salary, the amount of which shall be fixed by ordinance within limits fixed by the city and county charter or by resolution approving the city and county budget and paid in equal monthly payments. No elected officer shall receive any increase or decrease in compensation under any ordinance or resolution passed during the term for which such officer was elected. Colorado Constitution, Article XX, Section 11
10
Colo. Const. Art. XIV, Section 8
78
The text herein reflects the requirements as currently set forth in the Colorado Constitution, namely that the required County officers are to be elected. Again, as part of the County formation process, an 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 shall give bond to the people of Colorado with two or more sufficient sureties in a sum of $6,000 or more for the performance of the assessors duties according to law and to the satisfaction of the board. In lieu of the bond required, a county may purchase crime insurance coverage in an amount not less than $10,000 on behalf of the assessor to protect the county from any malfeasance on the part of the assessor while in office. 11 When the board of county commissioners (board) of any county is of the opinion that the assessor is unable to perform the duties of office within the time prescribed by law, the board shall divide such county into assessment districts and shall require the assessor to appoint a deputy in each district, who shall be a qualified elector of the district and who shall be sworn and, give bond to the principal. 12
Duties
Appraise all Property. The assessor must appraise all real and personal property in the county and determine the actual value for property taxes. Prior to determining the value, the assessor should consider and document all approaches that are applicable. 13 A county assessor must certify to each authority within the county the total valuation for the assessment of all taxable property located within the county. 14 Produce Mill Levy. He or she must also produce the mill levy that when applied to such valuation for 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 after the taxes for the year have been levied. The assessor shall retain one or more copies that are readily available to the public. The tax warrant sets forth the assessment roll, which includes the amount of taxes extended against each separate valuation. At the end of the warrant, the aggregate of all taxes levied shall be totaled, balanced, and prorated to the several funds of each levying authority, and the treasurer shall be commanded to collect all such taxes. 16
11 12
C.R.S. 30-10-801. C.R.S. 30-10-802. 13 C.R.S. 39-1-103. 14 C.R.S. 30-11-406.5. 15 C.R.S. 30-11-406.5. 16 C.R.S. 39-5-129.
79
Clerk and Recorder

Election
A county clerk must be elected in each county for a four year term, and before beginning duties, he or she shall execute to the people of Colorado, and file with the current county clerk, a bond with two or more sufficient sureties totaling $5,000. In lieu of the bond required above, a county may purchase crime insurance coverage of $10,000 or more on behalf of the county clerk to protect the people of 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 of the county clerk. 18
Duties
Conduct Elections. The County Clerk and Recorder is a countys chief election official responsible for conducting elections to include national, state, city, county, special districts, and school boards. Responsibilities are enumerated throughout C.R.S. Title 1, Elections. Record Deeds and Maintain Documents. The county clerk is the recorder of deeds and shall safety keep and preserve all documents received for recording or filing in his or her office. The clerk and recorder must record or cause to be recorded all documents authorized by law to be recorded. Upon recording any document to which a documentary fee applies, the clerk and recorder shall forward a clear, 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 recorder for recording and the proper fee has been paid, such document shall be deemed to be recorded for all purposes. After a document has been received, the clerk and recorder shall endorse upon such document information. 21 File of all subdivision plats and common interest community plats or maps presented for 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 are authorized to administer all oaths of office, and other oaths, and to take affidavits and depositions.24 For
17 18
C.R.S. 30-10-401 C.R.S. 30-10-403. 19 C.R.S. 30-10-406. 20 C.R.S. 30-10-408. 21 C.R.S. 30-10-409. 22 C.R.S. 30-10-410. 23 C.R.S. 30-10-420. 24 C.R.S. 30-10-416.
80
administering oaths and taking affidavits or depositions, county clerk and recorders shall receive the fee prescribed by section 30-1-103 (2) (a). 25 Collect Fee for Technology Fund. Through June 30, 2017, the county clerk and recorder must collect a surcharge of $1 for each document received for recording or filing, in addition to any other fees. Fifty cents of each dollar shall be transmitted to the secretary of state, who will place the money in the clerk and recorder technology fund. The remaining fifty cents can be retained by the clerk and recorder in a separate account, or be transmitted to the technology fund. If retained, the money should be used for an electronic filing system or a core filing system. 26 The clerk and recorder technology fund is administered by the secretary of state. 27 Record and Process Designated Beneficiary Agreements. A signed and acknowledged designated beneficiary agreement shall be recorded with the county clerk and recorder in the county in which one of the parties resides. The county clerk and recorder shall assess a recording fee for recording the designated beneficiary agreement in that county, a fee for issuing two certified copies of the designated beneficiary agreement that indicate the date and time of recording with the county, and a fee for taking acknowledgments. All fees collected by the county clerk and recorder shall be deposited in the county 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 designated beneficiary 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 that indicate the date and time of the recording; To issue replacement certified copies of a designated beneficiary agreement or a revocation of a designated beneficiary agreement upon payment of a replacement fee. Designated beneficiary agreements and revocations of designated beneficiary agreements shall be 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 office, he or she shall give bond to the people of Colorado for $25,000 or more with sufficient sureties to be approved by the board. In lieu of the bond required, a county may purchase crime insurance coverage of $25,000 or more on behalf of the coroner to protect the people of the county from any malfeasance on the part of the coroner while in office. 28
25 26
C.R.S. 30-10-418. C.R.S. 30-10-421. 27 C.R.S. 30-10-422. 28 C.R.S. 30-10-601.
81
Requirements to Assume Position

A person is eligible to hold the office of coroner if she or she is a citizen of the United States, a resident of Colorado, and of the county in which the person will hold the office of coroner. He or she must have earned a high school diploma, its equivalent, or a college degree, and have given a set of fingerprints. A background check must be done, and if a person who has been convicted or pleaded guilty to any federal 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 curriculum developed by the C.C.S.T. board. Obtain certification in basic medical-legal death investigation from the Colorado coroners 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 Colorado coroners association or by another training provider approved by the C.C.S.T. board during each year of the coroner's term. The C.C.S.T. board shall have discretion to waive or alter any of the above requirements. 30 The coroner is authorized to appoint a deputy, which must be in writing and filed in the office of the coroner. The coroner may delegate any of the coroners powers to one or more deputies. Each deputy coroner, before entering the duties of office, shall file with the county clerk and recorder of the county the bond and oath of office required by law to be filed by the coroner. In lieu of the bond required, a county may purchase crime insurance coverage on behalf of the deputy coroner to protect the people of the county 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, it is the duty of the coroner to exercise all the powers and duties of the sheriff of his county until a sheriff is appointed or elected and qualified; and when the sheriff for any cause is committed to the jail of his county, the 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 district attorney, proceed to view the body, and make all proper inquiry respecting the cause and manner of death of any person in his jurisdiction who has died under the following circumstances: From external violence, unexplained cause, or under suspicious circumstances; Where no physician is in attendance or where, though in attendance, the physician is unable to certify the cause of death; From thermal, chemical, or radiation injury;
29 30
C.R.S. 30-10-601.5. C.R.S. 30-10-601.8. 31 C.R.S. 30-10-602. 32 C.R.S. 30-10-604.
82
From criminal abortion, including any situation where such abortion may have been selfinduced; From a disease which may be hazardous or contagious or which may constitute a threat to the health of the general public; While in the custody of law enforcement officials or while incarcerated in a public institution; When the death was sudden and happened to a person who was in good health; or From an industrial accident.
After consultation with the district attorney, the coroner may request that jurisdiction of any such death be transferred to the coroner of the county in which the event which resulted in the death of the person 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 cause of death is unknown, the person who discovers the death shall report it immediately to law enforcement officials or the coroner, and the coroner shall take legal custody of the body. The body of any such person shall not be removed from the place of death except upon the authority of the coroner in consultation with the district attorney or local law enforcement agency, nor shall any article on or immediately surrounding such body be disturbed until authorized by the coroner in consultation with the district attorney or local law enforcement agency. The coroner shall perform a forensic autopsy or have a forensic autopsy performed as required by section 30-10-606.5 or upon the request of the district attorney. When the coroner has knowledge that any person has died under any of the circumstances specified above, he may summon forthwith six citizens of the county to appear at a place named to hold an 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 or inquest, the certificate of death shall be issued by the coroner or the coroner's deputy. Any certificate of death issued by a coroner or a coroner's deputy shall be filed with the registrar and shall state their findings concerning the nature of the disease or the manner of death, and, if from external causes, the certificate shall state whether in their opinion death was accidental, suicidal, or felonious. In addition, the certificate shall include the information described in section 25-2-103 (3) (b), C.R.S., whenever the subject of the investigation or inquest is under one year of age. A copy of the certificate of death or affidavit of presumed death, including any related documents and statements of fact, shall be retained in the applicable county in a secure location in an appropriate county facility accessible only to the county coroner or the coroner's designee and in a manner that is consistent with the county's record retention policy and federal law. The coroner holding an inquest or investigation pursuant to this section has the authority to request and receive a copy of: Any autopsy report or medical information from any pathologist, physician, dentist, hospital, or health care provider or institution if such report or information is relevant to the inquest or investigation; and
83
Any information, record, or report related to treatment, consultation, counseling, or therapy services from any licensed psychologist, professional counselor, marriage and family therapist, social worker, or addiction counselor, certified addiction counselor, or registered psychotherapist if the report, record, or information is relevant to the inquest or investigation. 33
Order Arrest. The coroner may order his arrest by an officer or any person and shall then make a warrant requiring the officer or other person to take him before the county court if the person charged is present. If the person charged is not present and the coroner believes he can be taken, the coroner may issue a warrant to the sheriff of the county, requiring him to arrest the person and take him before the county court.34 Arrange Burial of Deceased Persons. The coroner shall arrange for the body of a deceased person which he is called to view to be delivered to his friends if there are any. If not he shall cause him to be decently buried, the expenses to be paid from any property found with the body, or, if there is none, from the county treasury. 35
Sheriff
Election
Sheriffs shall be elected in each county for a term of four years, and before entering upon the duties, must execute a bond to the people of Colorado with at least three sufficient sureties in the sum of $5000 to $20,000, which the board shall specify. The bond shall be filed in the office of the county clerk and recorder. In lieu of the bond required, a county may purchase crime insurance coverage of $10,000 or more on behalf of the sheriff to protect the people of the county from any malfeasance on the part of 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 States, a resident of Colorado, and of the county in which the person will hold the office of sheriff. He or she must have earned a high school diploma, its equivalent, or a college degree, and have given a set of fingerprints. A background check must be done, and if a person who has been convicted or pleaded guilty to any 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 developed and facilitated either by the county sheriffs of Colorado or other approved agency. Obtain basic peace officer certification within one year of taking office.
33 34
C.R.S. 30-10-606. C.R.S. 30-10-614. 35 C.R.S. 30-10-618. 36 C.R.S. 30-10-501. 37 C.R.S. 30-10-501.5.
84
Undergo at least twenty clock hours of in-service training provided by the county sheriffs of Colorado, incorporated, every year during such sheriff's term.
The Colorado peace officers standards and training board shall have discretion to waive or alter any of the above requirements. 38 When the term of office of any sheriff expires and the sheriff-elect qualifies according to law, the county clerk and recorder shall issue a notice setting forth that said sheriff-elect has qualified according to law. The notice shall be served by the new sheriff on the former sheriff, whereupon such former sheriff shall immediately transfer and deliver to the new sheriff all the writs, processes, books, and papers belonging to the office, and also the possession of the courthouse and jail of the county, and shall take from the new sheriff a receipt. 39 The sheriff of each county shall appoint some proper person undersheriff who shall also be a general deputy, to serve during the pleasure of the sheriff. 40 When a vacancy occurs in the office of sheriff of any county, the undersheriff of such county shall in all things execute the office of sheriff until a sheriff is appointed or elected and qualified. 41 Each sheriff may appoint as many deputies as the sheriff may think proper and may revoke such appointments at will; except that a sheriff shall adopt personnel policies, including policies for the review of revocation of appointments. 42
Duties
Serve as Custodian of Jails. The sheriff shall have charge and custody of the jails of the county, and of the prisoners in the jails, and shall supervise them himself or herself or through a deputy or jailer. 43 Serve as Fire Warden. Subject to the provisions of the community wildfire protection plan prepared by the county, the sheriff of every county, in addition to other duties, shall act as fire warden of his or her respective county. The sheriff is responsible for the coordination of fire suppression efforts in case of prairie, forest, or wildland fires or wildfires occurring in the unincorporated area of the county outside the boundaries of a fire protection district or that exceed the capabilities of the fire protection district to control or extinguish. 44 Duties in these special circumstances include the following: If the fire does not exceed the capabilities of the fire protection district, the sheriff may still assist the chief of the fire protection district in controlling or extinguishing a fire and may solicit additional assistance. The sheriff may assume command of such incidents with the concurrence of the fire chief.
38 39
C.R.S. 30-10-501.6. C.R.S. 30-10-503. 40 C.R.S. 30-10-504. 41 C.R.S. 30-10-505. 42 C.R.S. 30-10-506. 43 C.R.S. 30-10-511. 44 C.R.S. 30-10-512.
85
If the fire requires mutual aid and outside resources, the sheriff shall appoint a local incident management team to provide the command and control infrastructure required to manage the fire. The sheriff shall assume financial responsibility for fire fighting efforts on behalf of the county and the authority for the ordering and monitoring of resources. When a wildfire exceeds the capability of the county to control or extinguish, the sheriff shall be responsible for seeking the assistance of the state by requesting assistance from the forest service. The sheriff and the state forester shall enter into an agreement concerning the transfer of authority and responsibility for fire suppression and the retention of responsibilities under a unified command structure. The state forester may assume any duty or responsibility given to the sheriff under this section with the concurrence of the sheriff. The board of county commissioners of any county may allow the sheriff, undersheriffs, deputies, municipal or county fire departments, fire protection districts, fire authorities, and such other persons as may be called upon to assist in controlling or extinguishing a prairie, forest, or wildland fire such compensation and reimbursement for other expenses necessarily incurred as the board deems just. 45
The sheriff of any county may request assistance from a fire protection district or municipality in controlling or extinguishing a fire occurring on private property if, in the judgment of such sheriff, the fire constitutes a danger to the health and safety of the public or a risk of serious damage to property. 46 Transport Prisoners. It is the duty of any sheriff transporting prisoners to a correctional facility or other place of confinement at one time all prisoners who may have been convicted and sentenced and who are ready for such transportation. 47 Execute Writs. The sheriff, in person or by his undersheriff or deputy, shall serve and execute, according to law, all processes, writs, precepts, and orders issued or made by lawful authority and to him directed, and shall serve the several courts of record held in his county.48 Preserve Peace. It is the duty of the sheriffs, undersheriffs, and deputies to keep and preserve the peace in their respective counties, and to quiet and suppress all affrays, riots, and unlawful assemblies and insurrections. For that purpose, and for the service of process in civil or criminal cases, and in apprehending or securing any person for felony or breach of the peace, they, and every coroner, may call to their aid such person of their county as they may deem necessary. 49
45 46
C.R.S. 30-10-513. C.R.S. 30-10-513.5. 47 C.R.S. 30-10-514. 48 C.R.S. 30-10-515. 49 C.R.S. 30-10-516.
86
Surveyor
Election
A county surveyor shall be elected for a term of four years. He or she shall file an official bond in the office of the county clerk and recorder in the sum of $1,000, conditioned for the faithful discharge of duties. In lieu of the bond, a county may purchase crime insurance coverage in an amount not less than ten thousand dollars on behalf of the surveyor to protect the people of the county from any 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 25 of title 12, C.R.S. 51 The county surveyor may appoint as many deputies as he thinks proper, for whose official acts he shall be responsible. The certificate of the county surveyor or any of his deputies shall be admitted as legal evidence in any court of the state, but the certificate may be explained or rebutted by other evidence. 52
Duties
Represent the County in Boundary Dispute. When the boundary lines of any county in this state are so indefinite that a portion of territory is claimed by two counties, it is the duty of the state engineer, in connection with the county surveyor of each of such counties, to establish such lines, fix and define such boundary line, and to furnish the board of county commissioners of each of said counties with a description of such line. 53 Additionally, whenever the proper location of any section corner or quarter section corner is in dispute, a corner monument shall be established by the county surveyor.54 The surveyor must also notify the county attorney of any unsettled boundary disputes or boundary 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 the office of the county clerk and recorder if there is no office for the county surveyor in the county, all surveys, field notes, calculations, maps, and any other records pertaining to work authorized and financed by the board of county commissioners. Perform Duties as Required by the Board. The county surveyor may, when authorized by the board of county commissioners: Conduct surveys to establish the boundaries of county property, including road rights-of-way, or any other surveys necessary to the county;
50 51
C.R.S. 30-10-901. C.R.S. 30-10-901. 52 C.R.S. 30-10-902. 53 C.R.S. 30-6-110. 54 C.R.S. 30-10-906. 55 C.R.S. 30-10-903.
87
Accept for filing maps of surveys that establish monuments and keep a current record of all survey monuments within the county; Examine all survey maps and plats before they are recorded by the county clerk and recorder to insure proper content and form; Conduct geodetic control surveys, vertical control surveys, or any surveys for the purpose of geographic information systems; Conduct or supervise construction surveys necessary to the county; and Provide reference monuments for or the remonumentation or monument upgrades of public land survey system monuments that are destroyed by county construction or other functions. 56
Treasurer
Election
County treasurers must be elected in each county for a four year term. Before beginning his or her duties, the treasurer must execute to the people of the state of Colorado a surety bond to be approved by the board of county commissioners (board) and to be filed in the office of the county clerk and recorder. 57
Duties
Receive and Pay Moneys. It is the duty of the county treasurer to receive all money belonging to the county from all sources. All money received by him or she shall be paid out only on the orders of the board of county commissioners, according to law. 58 Deposit Funds. The treasurer must deposit all funds and moneys that come into his or her position by virtue of the office into one or more state or national banks, or previously approved savings and loan associations. The board may authorize the county treasurer to invest all or any part of the funds and moneys in securities meeting the investment requirements established in part 6 of article 75 of title 24, C.R.S. All securities so purchased shall be duly registered in the name of the county treasurer
and shall be deposited and safely kept in the custody of some state bank or any national bank. 59
Keep Accounts. The treasurer shall keep a true account of the receipt and expenditure of all moneys that come into his or her hands in books to be kept for this purpose. The records should be available at all time for inspection by the board and all county and state officers. At the meetings in July and January of the board of county commissioners, or at such other time as the board may direct, the treasurer shall settle with the board his or her account as treasurer. If a recommendation or finding is contained in the final report of any audit conducted, the treasurer shall promptly address the recommendation or finding
56
57
C.R.S. 30-10-903. C.R.S. 30-10-701. 58 C.R.S. 30-10-707. 59 C.R.S. 30-10-708.
88
and shall report to the board of county commissioners regarding the disposition of the recommendation 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 in the several funds for which they were levied. The amount of interest gained through the investment of
county funds, regardless of the origin of such funds, may be credited to the general fund of the county by the county treasurer, unless such investment is made from specific funds 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 fund, $500 or more, against which fund there are any outstanding and unpaid lawful warrants or orders, the county treasurer shall immediately give public notice of the fact by a written notice posted for thirty days at the outer door of the office of the treasurer. The treasurer, at the same time, shall call in for payment all outstanding and unpaid lawful warrants and orders drawn on said fund which the moneys in the treasury will pay and which are entitled to payment from said funds. 62 Collect Taxes. The county treasurer serves as the collector of taxes. 63 Upon payment, the treasurer should issue a receipt to the person paying it. In the case of taxes, the receipt must state the valuation of property taxed, the rate of taxation, and the total amount of such taxes to agree with his cash book. 64 Assess Property. Assess, at a fair value, the property of any person liable to pay taxes which the county assessor has failed to assess, to place the same on the tax roll, and to collect taxes. 65
60 61
C.R.S. 30-10-709. C.R.S. 30-10-710. 62 C.R.S. 30-10-711. 63 C.R.S. 30-10-714. 64 C.R.S. 30-10-715. 65 C.R.S. 30-10-716.
89
APPENDIX C: COUNTY OFFICIALS IN CONSOLIDATED CITY-COUNTIES

This section provides further information on how the current consolidated city-counties in Colorado Denver and Broomfieldhandle required County functions. This section includes all services except courts. Summary: For both Denver and Broomfield, all the positions are appointed or hired, except for Denvers Clerk and Recorder. In Denver, all the positions are filled by a traditional officer as specified in the Colorado State Code, with the exception of the Sheriff. The Manager of Safety oversees the Sheriffs Department as well as the Police and Fire Departments, and the Undersheriff/ Director of Corrections supervises the Sheriffs Department. In Broomfield, the Coroner is contracted from Adams County. The Police Chief performs the duties of the Sheriff. Functions of the Surveyor are performed by the Community Development Department, and an official surveyor is not detailed in the municipal code. Lastly the duties of the Treasurer are performed by high level staff in the Finance Office, including the Finance Director and Revenue Manager.
Figure 79. Title of Person or Office Performing County Duties
Function Assessor Clerk and Recorder Coroner Sheriff Surveyor Treasurer Assessor
Denver Title
Broomfield Title Assessor City and County Clerk Coroner (Adams County) Police Chief Surveyor, Community Development Department Finance Director and Revenue Manager
Clerk and Recorder Coroner Manager of Safety Surveyor Treasurer
90
Figure 80. How Officials are Chosen
Denver Official Assessor Clerk and Recorder Coroner Sheriff Surveyor Treasurer Appointed or Elected Appointed Elected Appointed Appointed Appointed/ Hired Appointed Appointed By Manager of Finance Appointed or Elected Appointed Appointed Manager of the Dept of Other Environmental Health Appointed/ Mayor of Denver Hired Appointed/ Hired Appointed/ Manager of Finance Hired
Broomfield Appointed By City Manager City Manager Contracted through Adams County
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 prescribed by the 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 & improvements); Verifies properties eligible for exemption; and Analyzes trends in property sales, prices, construction and renovation costs and 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 original rolls of ordinances, original contracts, title deeds to public property, all official indemnity or security bonds, and other records not required to be held by another officer. 70 o Attests all public instruments and official acts of the Mayor by signature and the seal of the City and County; 71
66 67
Denver, Colorado Code of Ordinances. Title I 2.5.3. Denver, Colorado Code of Ordinances. Title I 2.5.5 . 68 City and County of Denver. (2012). Duties of the Assessor. http://www.denvergov.org/assessor/DutiesoftheAssessorAboutUs/tabid/378147/Default.aspx. 69 Denver, Colorado Code of Ordinances. Title I 8.2.5. 70 Denver, Colorado Code of Ordinances. Title I 8.1.2.
Found
at:
91
o o
Appoint deputies, assistances, and a Director of Elections. 72 The conduct, management, and control of the registration of voters, and of the holding of elections, canvassing the returns thereof and issuing certificates of election, and of all other matters pertaining to elections in the City and County of Denver shall be vested exclusively in and exercised by the Clerk and Recorder. 73 The Clerk and Recorder shall perform all duties required by the City Clerk and County Clerk and Recorder as provided by the State, except powers and duties in relation to the registration of motor vehicles, which shall be performed by Manager of Revenue. 74
History o The Clerk and Recorder is an elected office created by a Denver Charter amendment in 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 Environmental Health. 76 Duties o Performs the duties required by law of a county coroner. 77 Sheriff Leadership o The manager of safety exercises the powers and performs the duties of sheriff . 78 Appointed by the Mayor of Denver o Sheriffs Department is supervised by the Director of Corrections and Undersheriff. Appointed by the Mayor of Denver Duties Manager of Safety o Serves as officer in full charge of the Department of Safety. The Department of Safety has full control of the departments of fire and police and additionally performs duties required by the State to be exercised and performed by the sheriff. 79 o Establishes, maintains, and can manage a community corrections programs and activities for the incarceration, oversight, and rehabilitation of offenders. 80 o Appoint special police officers and patrol officers, with or without pay from the City, as necessary, all of whom shall be subject to the orders of the Chief of Police and shall be authorized and empowered to do and perform such of the duties of the members of the 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 72
Denver, Colorado Code of Ordinances. Title I 8.1.2. Denver, Colorado Code of Ordinances. Title I 8.1.2. 73 Denver, Colorado Code of Ordinances. Title I 8.1.2. 74 Denver, Colorado Code of Ordinances. Title I 8.1.2. 75 Denver, Colorado Code of Ordinances. Title I 8.1.4. 76 Denver, Colorado Code of Ordinances. Title I 2.12.2. 77 Denver, Colorado Code of Ordinances. Title I 2.12.2. 78 Denver, Colorado Code of Ordinances. Title II Sec. 14-122. 79 Denver, Colorado Code of Ordinances. Title I 2.6.1. 80 Denver, Colorado Code of Ordinances. Title I Sec. 14-124 (a). 81 Denver, Colorado Code of Ordinances. Title I 2.6.3. 82 Denver, Colorado Code of Ordinances. Title I 2.6.4 92
History o The Denver Sheriffs Department was established in 1969, which consolidated all of the sheriffs functions under one management structure. Surveyor 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 Manager of Finance. o All revenues arising from taxes, licenses, fees, fines, penalties and forfeitures, and from any other source whatsoever shall be reported to and recorded by the treasurer in accordance with procedures established by the Manager of the Department of Finance. 86
The Denver Sheriff Department is responsible for the care, custody and transport of prisoners for the City and County of Denver. Director of Corrections/ Undersheriff oversees: County Jail Division: long term care and custody of prisoners Downtown Division: prisoner intake center where prisoners are processed into the system and housed until such a time that they are able to make bond, or have been given an advisement by the court. The Civil Division, Court Services Unit and the Correctional Care Medical Facility (located at Denver Health) also reside under the Downtown Division. Technology, Support and Special Projects Division: This Division is responsible for the Department's overall administration and special projects, the Training Academy and the Vehicle Impound Facility. 83
83
City and County of Denver. (2012). Denver Sheriff Department. Found at: http://www.denvergov.org/Default.aspx?alias=www.denvergov.org/sheriff 84 Denver, Colorado Code of Ordinances. Title I 2.3.3 85 Denver, Colorado Code of Ordinances. Title I 2.5.3 86 Denver, Colorado Code of Ordinances. Title I 2.5.4 93
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 State. o The assessor is authorized to settle by written mutual agreement any petition for abatement or refund any property taxes in the maximum amount allowed by state statute. 88 Clerk and Recorder Leadership o Appointed by City and County Manager. Duties o Serves as the county clerk and recorder and the city clerk to the city council. o Perform the duties required by county clerks pursuant to state laws, including the functions of recording, elections, motor vehicles and central records. o Perform all duties of the city clerk set forth in the Home Rule Charter and the 89 Broomfield Municipal Code. Coroner Leadership o Contracted through Adams County. 90 Duties o The coroner shall possess all the powers given to county coroners in other counties and shall perform the acts and duties required of coroners pursuant to the state constitution 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 laws. o Police Chief supervises the police department, which includes all municipal police functions and all county sheriff functions, including but not limited to court security, jail management, emergency management, and civil process. 92
87 88
B.M.C. 2-60-105. B.M.C. 2-04-080. 89 B.M.C. 2-04-060. 90 Adams County Government Center. (2013). Office of the Coroner, Adams and Broomfield Counties. Found at: http://co-adamscounty.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=238. 91 B.M.C. 2-04-070. 92 B.M.C. 2-60-060. 94
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 pursuant to state law. o All other functions of the treasurer, including accounting, investment, and cash management, shall be performed by the finance department, which can perform duties required of treasurers pursuant to state law. 94 Legislative The City Council has statutory functions of County Commissioners.
93 94
B.M.C. 2-04-100. B.M.C. 2-04-090. 95
APPENDIX D: APPROACH TO DETERMINE REMAINING PAYMENTS ON ADAMS COUNTY FACILITIES

The County has participated in four separate sale-leaseback transactions for the sale and repurchase of existing county buildings and one lease-leaseback. This explains how the remaining portions of payments were estimated on each facility because the specific payments were not readily available. First, the portions of remaining payments were estimated on properties financed with Certificates of Participation. Table 1 displays information on properties that had either a sales-leaseback or a leaseleaseback to finance other properties. The portions were only used to determine the estimated remaining payments on the Justice Center Expansion and the Government Center (Administration Building) Phase 1. This is because there are minimum payment schedules available for the Western Service Center, the Office of the DA, and Government Center Phase 2.
Table 1: Certificates of Participation

Certificates of Participation
Year 1 2003 Property with Leaseback 1 Adams County Service Center Amount 1 $15,890,000 $35,000,000 $105,000,000 $5,645,000 $15,500,000 $177,035,000 Financed Property1 Share 2 Matures1 Years 2023 2018 2029 2014 2030 20 10 20 5 20 Average per Year $794,500 $3,500,000 $5,250,000 $1,129,000 $775,000 Remaining3 $9,534,000 $24,500,000 $94,500,000 $3,387,000 $14,725,000 $146,646,000 % of Total 7% 17% 64% 2% 10% Western Service Center 46% Office of DA 54% Justice Center Expansion 24% Gov Center Phase 1 76% Gov Center Phase 2 100% Refunded Sale-Leaseback from 1999 100% Gov Center Phase 1 100%
Office of DA, Sherrif and Coroner's HQ 2008 Western Service Center, Development Building 2009 Detention Facility 2009 B Children and Family Services Center 2010 Justice Center - new wing
1. Ada ms County Comprehens i ve Annua l Fi na nci a l Report, 2012 2. Fi na nced Property's s ha re of the tota l s qua re foota ge. 3. Rema i ni ng i s es ti ma te of how ma ny pa yments ha ve been ma de (ba s ed on the a vera ge per yea r) s ubtra cted from the tota l .
The year, properties, costs, and properties financed of the certificates of participation were found in the Adams County 2012 CAFR under Section D. Leases & Certificates of Participation, 2. Certificates of Participation. The shares of the properties financed were determined using the square footage of each buildings portion of the total square footage. o For instance, the Western Service Center is 55,000 square feet and Office of the DA is 65,000 square feet, totaling 120,000 square feet. Western Service Center is 46% of this total and the Office of the DA is 54%. Years is the maturity year subtracted by the year of the transaction. Average per year is the total amount divided by the year. Remaining is estimate of how many payments have been made (based on the average per year) subtracted from the total. The percent of total represents the remaining annual payments divided by the total.
Next, a table of total future minimum obligations is showed. There is $201,732,731 in principal and interest remaining.
96
Table 2: Future Minimum Obligations Future Minimum Obligations

Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-2022 2023-2027 2028-2030 Remaining Principal $7,571,819 $6,804,231 $7,067,370 $7,341,470 $41,606,765 $47,010,000 $22,815,000 $140,216,655 Interest $6,387,617 $6,109,219 $5,846,441 $5,567,970 $22,975,743 $12,821,350 $1,807,736 $61,516,076 Total $13,959,436 $12,913,450 $12,913,811 $12,909,440 $64,582,508 $59,831,350 $24,622,736 $201,732,731
Table 3 displays the annual payments schedule for the Western Services Facility and Office of the DA Building, as well as what is remaining, which is the total payments from 2014 to 2023. The proportions are using the square footage of the buildings, as shown above in Table 1. Table 3: Debt on Western Services Facility and Office of the DA Building
Year Principal Interest Total 2003 $0 $432,562 $432,562 2004 $590,000 $648,844 $1,238,844 2005 $595,000 $613,444 $1,208,444 2006 $605,000 $583,694 $1,188,694 2007 $615,000 $565,544 $1,180,544 2008 $630,000 $547,094 $1,177,094 2009 $650,000 $528,194 $1,178,194 2010 $670,000 $508,693 $1,178,693 2011 $690,000 $486,919 $1,176,919 2012 $715,000 $462,769 $1,177,769 2013 $745,000 $436,850 $1,181,850 2014 $770,000 $408,912 $1,178,912 2015 $805,000 $379,075 $1,184,075 2016 $835,000 $346,875 $1,181,875 2017 $870,000 $312,431 $1,182,431 2018 $910,000 $275,456 $1,185,456 2019 $950,000 $236,781 $1,186,781 2020 $990,000 $195,219 $1,185,219 2021 $1,035,000 $150,668 $1,185,668 2022 $1,085,000 $104,094 $1,189,094 2023 $1,135,000 $53,912 $1,188,912 Total $15,890,000 $8,278,030 $24,168,030 Remaining $9,385,000 $2,463,423 $11,848,423 Western Service Center DA Office 46% 54% $198,979 $233,583 $569,868 $668,976 $555,884 $652,560 $546,799 $641,895 $543,050 $637,494 $541,463 $635,631 $541,969 $636,225 $542,199 $636,494 $541,383 $635,536 $541,774 $635,995 $543,651 $638,199 $542,300 $636,612 $544,675 $639,401 $543,663 $638,213 $543,918 $638,513 $545,310 $640,146 $545,919 $640,862 $545,201 $640,018 $545,407 $640,261 $546,983 $642,111 $546,900 $642,012 $11,117,294 $13,050,736 $5,450,275 $6,398,148
As shown in Table 4, $147,634,008 remains on Government Center Phase 2.
97
Table 4: Remaining Payments on Government Center Phase 2

Principal $2,160,000 $1,470,000 $1,515,000 $1,560,000 $1,610,000 $1,660,000 $1,710,000 $1,770,000 $1,830,000 $1,900,000 $6,250,000 $6,560,000 $6,890,000 $7,185,000 $7,505,000 $7,855,000 $8,240,000 $8,650,000 $9,080,000 $9,550,000 $10,050,000 $105,000,000 Remaining $96,685,000 Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Interest Total $4,113,786.06 $6,273,786 $4,806,789.76 $6,276,790 $4,762,688.76 $6,277,689 $4,717,238.76 $6,277,239 $4,670,438.78 $6,280,439 $4,622,138.76 $6,282,139 $4,572,338.76 $6,282,339 $4,516,763.76 $6,286,764 $4,454,813.76 $6,284,814 $4,386,188.76 $6,286,189 $4,314,938.76 $10,564,939 $4,002,438.76 $10,562,439 $3,674,438.76 $10,564,439 $3,381,613.76 $10,566,614 $3,058,288.76 $10,563,289 $2,711,182.50 $10,566,183 $2,326,287.50 $10,566,288 $1,914,287.50 $10,564,288 $1,481,787.50 $10,561,788 $1,016,437.50 $10,566,438 $515,062.50 $10,565,063 $74,019,950 $179,019,950 $50,949,008 $147,634,008
The tables above are used to enter in the data below for the approximate remaining debt on facilities in Adams County. First, the Administration Building is composed of two phases, and phase 1 includes 2 leasebacks. Total is $193,504,866 o Phase 1: 76% of 2008 Certificate of Participation (17% of total of Future Minimum Obligations) = $25,614,496 o Phase 1: 100% of 2010 Certificate of Participation (10% of total of Future Minimum 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 total of Future Minimum Obligations) = $8,088,788. The remaining payments for the Western Services Center and the DA Building were determined from Table 3.
98
Table 5: Facilities With Debt in Adams County
Adams County Facilities with Debt

Facilities Administration Building (Gov Center) Justice Center (103,000 expansion) Western Services Center DA Building Total Total Sq Ft 324,000 304,768 55,000 65,000 Approximate Remaining Payments (P + I)) $193,504,866 $8,088,788 $5,450,275 $6,398,148 $213,442,077
99

Fiscal Feasibility Study: Formation of City-County of Aurora

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Fiscal Feasibility Study: Formation of City-County of Aurora

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Item #: SS: 1st: 2nd:

Council Agenda Commentary

City County Feasibility Study

City Manager/Deputy City Manager Signature:

(Check all appropriate actions)

Approve Item with Waiver of Reconsideration

PREVIOUS ACTIONS OR REVIEWS: Policy Committee

PRIVATE FISCAL IMPACT

(If Significant or Nominal, EXPLAIN)

City of Aurora, Colorado

Service and Facility Delivery Plan Assumptions: City-County Formation