State of Our Cities & Towns Report to Colorado Municipal League . 1:/'.,,',:'?"'-;... _..,!4(J '.J.

Transcription

1 ,,,V'J'.I/ 'l't.. 1:/'.,,',:'?"'-;... _..,!4(J.., --. '.J. State of Our Cities & Towns Report to Colorado Municipal League Prepared by: Corona Insights I Coronalnsights.com

2 CONTENTS Introduction... 1 Key Findings... 5 Section 1: Looking Back and Looking Forward... 8 Section 2: Housing Section 3: General Municipal Revenue Section 4: Economic Development Section 5: Infrastructure & Transportation Appendix A: Survey Instrument... 58

3 STATE OF OUR CITIES AND TOWNS 2019 REPORT FOR COLORADO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE INTRODUCTION Corona Insights is pleased to present The State of Our Cities and Towns 2019 report to the Colorado Municipal League. This report provides key findings from the 2018 survey of Colorado s municipalities. Complete findings for all closed-ended questions follow, including graphs and tables showing results on trends of the last decade, future trends, housing, revenue, economic development, infrastructure, and transportation. METHODOLOGY RESEARCH DESIGN The survey instrument was originally designed by Corona Insights with direction provided by the Colorado Municipal League (CML). The 2018 survey was partly a retrospective study to explore how municipalities have changed over the last decade. It also reexamined topics from previous studies, such as economic development, infrastructure, and transportation. DATA COLLECTION The survey was sent by mail to each municipality, and respondents could either return the paper survey by mail or respond by an online option. One survey was sent to each municipality, and municipalities returned completed surveys directly to Corona Insights offices or via Corona s online survey system with login information provided on the mailed survey. To boost response rates, CML staff made several attempts to contact non-responding municipalities. All data entry and cleaning was performed by Corona s internal staff. The survey was administered from July 2 through August 20, ANALYSIS This report provides tables and graphs of responses for the CML State of Our Cities and Towns Survey. Responses are provided for all municipalities (i.e., ) and are also broken down for municipalities of different sizes (i.e., population less than, between and, and 25,000 or greater). Results are often segmented by two different geographic regions of Colorado, defined by CML (i.e., Eastern Plains and Western Slope/ ). Page 1

4 The municipality size categories are provided below with the response rate for each category. Size ranges used for segments are the same as last year. Municipality Population* Number of municipalities in Colorado Number of Survey Responses: 2018 Response Rate 25,000 or Larger % to % % % * Based on the 2016 American Community Survey, 5-year estimate REPORTING NOTES When reading the following tables and graphs, please keep the following in mind: All percentages refer to the raw percentage of survey respondents giving a particular response. Percentages have not been weighted to reflect the proportion of municipalities of each size. As a result, the results presented are the overall results of the survey respondents, and are not necessarily generalizable to the population of all municipal governments in the state. Weighting was not practical both because of the small sample size of the survey and because there is no way to determine whether those municipalities responding are representative of all municipalities of their size. Graphs represent all responses unless otherwise noted. On all graphs, labels of three percent (3%) or less are sometimes removed for ease of reading. On graphs that should sum to 100 percent, the labels occasionally may not add to 100 percent due to rounding or non-response. Comparing this year s data to previous years data (or future years data) could be misleading depending on which municipalities respond in any given year. Due to the relatively small sample size, and possible large differences between municipalities, even a slight change in the makeup of responding municipalities could cause the numbers to change significantly. Comparisons should be approached on a question-by-question basis. Page 2

5 RESPONDING MUNICIPALITIES One-hundred fifty nine (159) Colorado municipalities responded to the 2018 survey; 61 were classified in the Western Slope/Mountain region and 38 were classified in the Eastern Plains region. Responding municipalities are listed below by size classification and region, if applicable. (CML designated regions while Corona confirmed the appropriate population segment for each municipality.) Municipalities with populations of less than Alma - Western Slope / Ault Black Hawk Blanca - Western Slope / Blue River - Western Slope / Brookside - Western Slope / Calhan - Eastern Plains Campo - Eastern Plains Cheraw - Eastern Plains Coal Creek - Western Slope / Cokedale Collbran - Western Slope / Crestone - Western Slope / Crook - Eastern Plains De Beque - Western Slope / Dillon - Western Slope / Eads - Eastern Plains Eckley - Eastern Plains Elizabeth - Eastern Plains Fairplay - Western Slope / Fleming - Eastern Plains Fowler - Eastern Plains Foxfield Fraser - Western Slope / Gilcrest Granby - Western Slope / Grand Lake - Western Slope / Haxtun - Eastern Plains Hayden - Western Slope / Holly - Eastern Plains Hugo - Eastern Plains Idaho Springs Ignacio - Western Slope / Iliff - Eastern Plains Jamestown Kersey - Eastern Plains Kiowa - Eastern Plains La Jara - Western Slope / Limon - Eastern Plains Log Lane Village - Eastern Plains Mancos - Western Slope / Manzanola - Eastern Plains Minturn - Western Slope / Morrison Mountain View Mt. Crested Butte - Western Slope / Naturita - Western Slope / Nederland Norwood - Western Slope / Nucla - Western Slope / Nunn - Eastern Plains Oak Creek - Western Slope / Olathe - Western Slope / Olney Springs - Eastern Plains Ouray - Western Slope / Pagosa Springs - Western Slope / Paoli - Eastern Plains Paonia - Western Slope / Parachute - Western Slope / Peetz - Eastern Plains Poncha Springs - Western Slope / Pritchett - Eastern Plains Ramah - Eastern Plains Red Cliff - Western Slope / Rico - Western Slope / Saguache - Western Slope / Sedgwick - Eastern Plains Simla - Eastern Plains South Fork - Western Slope / Springfield - Eastern Plains Starkville Stratton - Eastern Plains Vona - Eastern Plains Walden - Western Slope / Wiggins - Eastern Plains Williamsburg - Western Slope / Winter Park - Western Slope / Page 3

6 Municipalities with population between and Akron - Eastern Plains Alamosa - Western Slope / Aspen - Western Slope / Avon - Western Slope / Bayfield - Western Slope / Bennett Berthoud Buena Vista - Western Slope / Burlington - Eastern Plains Canon City - Western Slope / Carbondale - Western Slope / Cedaredge - Western Slope / Center - Western Slope / Cherry Hills Village Cortez - Western Slope / Dacono Delta - Western Slope / Durango - Western Slope / Eagle - Western Slope / Eaton Erie Estes Park Evans Federal Heights Firestone Florence - Western Slope / Fort Lupton Fort Morgan - Eastern Plains Frederick Golden Greenwood Village Gunnison - Western Slope / Gypsum - Western Slope / Hudson Lamar - Eastern Plains Leadville - Western Slope / Lochbuie Lone Tree Louisville Manitou Springs Mead Meeker - Western Slope / Monte Vista - Western Slope / Montrose - Western Slope / Monument New Castle - Western Slope / Palmer Lake Platteville Rifle - Western Slope / Rocky Ford - Eastern Plains Severance Steamboat Springs - Western Slope / Sterling - Eastern Plains Superior Timnath Trinidad Vail - Western Slope / Wellington Windsor Woodland Park Wray - Eastern Plains Yuma - Eastern Plains Municipalities with populations of 25,000 or greater Arvada Aurora Boulder Brighton Castle Rock Denver Englewood Fort Collins Grand Junction - Western Slope / Greeley Lafayette Lakewood Littleton Loveland Parker Pueblo Thornton Westminster Wheat Ridge Page 4

7 KEY FINDINGS LOOKING BACK AND LOOKING FORWARD Most municipalities had better financial health today than just before the recession. Only one in ten municipalities had worse financial health, and they were more likely to be small towns. The most common lasting impacts of the great recession were delayed maintenance of capital improvement projects and lagging economic growth; one quarter of municipalities experienced no lasting impacts from the recession. Most municipalities had a positive financial outlook for the next five years. Again, one in ten municipalities had a negative outlook for the next five years; these municipalities were all small or mid-sized. Housing was rated as negative by almost half of municipalities, the most of any category measured. Conversely, intergovernmental cooperation (with local jurisdictions and/or state/federal governments) was rated as positive by about four out of five municipalities. Public safety, economic development/growth, and revenue and budgets were also rated as positive by a majority of municipalities. Budget constraints and housing affordability were clearly the two most common challenges municipalities will be facing in the next five years. Budget constraints will be a common challenge for municipalities regardless of their size or region, but housing affordability challenges will be more common in larger municipalities and those in the Western Slope /. Intergovernmental cooperation with local jurisdictions has gotten much or somewhat better for most municipalities over the past ten years. In fact, most areas were rated as much or somewhat better by most municipalities. However, housing has gotten worst for many municipalities, and it has gotten better for very few. HOUSING Affordable housing has gotten worse in most municipalities in the past three years. Affordable housing has gotten somewhat better in only one in ten municipalities. The most common impact of affordable housing challenges was workforce recruiting and retention, which was especially challenging in Western Slope / Mountain communities. Slower economic growth was the second most common impact, especially in small and mid-sized municipalities. One in five municipalities were impacted by an increase in homeless population, which was much more common in large municipalities. Homelessness has increased in about one third of municipalities, and in almost all large municipalities. In municipalities where homelessness has increased, this increase affected law enforcement departments in almost every municipality and it affected parks and recreation departments in two thirds of municipalities. Page 5

8 Few municipalities had a housing affordability plan. Ten percent of municipalities had a housing affordability plan; however, almost one third of municipalities plan to create a housing affordability plan in the next three years. Large municipalities were much more likely to have a housing affordability plan or planned to create one. Few municipalities in the Eastern Plains had a housing affordability plan or were planning to create one. Working regionally to address housing issues was the most common action to address affordable housing. Fewer than 20 percent of respondents were taking any of the additional actions listed; almost half or municipalities were taking none of the actions listed. MUNICIPAL REVENUE Almost half of all municipalities felt their economy was better than it was in FY Small towns were more likely than other municipalities to feel that their economy was about the same as in Eastern Plains towns were more likely to feel that their economy was worse than last year. Feelings of overall local economy generally mirrored feelings of municipality revenue, and feelings about the economy this year, (by segment) were similar to feelings about the economy last year. Municipalities expected revenue to increase or stay the same. More than two thirds expected an increase in sales and use taxes and almost half expected an increase in property taxes. Larger municipalities were generally more likely to expect revenue increases than small municipalities, especially for property taxes and for investment and interest income. Fines and forfeits, other taxes, and state funding were likely to stay the same for more than 70 percent of municipalities, although state funding was likely to decrease for 15 percent of municipalities. Feelings about the local economy and municipal revenue had improved reliably since On average, municipalities thought their local economy was better than the benchmark of the previous year. On average, municipalities thought their municipal revenue was better than the previous year; although average scores declined from 2014 to 2017, the average were still positive (i.e., they still thought each year was better than the previous year). Over time, municipalities experienced variation in expected revenue increases from most sources. From 2008 to 2018, there was significant variation in the percentage of municipalities expecting revenue increases. From 2009 to 2012, relatively few municipalities were expecting revenue increases from sales and use taxes; licenses, permits, and fees; or investment and interest income. However, they were more likely to expect increases in fines and forfeits during those years. Since 2012, most municipalities expected increases in sales and use taxes. Unfunded street maintenance and improvement needs, lack of affordable housing, tight labor markets, unfunded water/wastewater improvement needs, increase health insurance costs, and increased demand for municipal services were the greatest challenges that municipalities faced. Among all respondents, about 50 percent indicated unfunded street maintenance as a major challenge and another 29 percent said it is a moderate challenge. The top five challenges in 2018 were the same top-five challenges in 2017, although the ranking differed slightly. Major challenges have varied over the years. From 2008 to 2011, common major challenges were slow growth in tax revenues, adverse local economic conditions, declining state funding, and decrease in tax revenues. From 2012 to 2015, common major challenges included unfunded street Page 6

9 maintenance and improvement needs, federal and state mandated expenditures, and decline in federal funding. From 2016 to 2018, common major challenges included lack of affordable housing, tight labor market, and increased demand for municipal services. On average, unfunded street maintenance and improvement needs was the most common major challenge across years. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Municipalities approved an average of two economic development projects in the past year. Large municipalities approved more than five times as many economic development projects as small municipalities and about twice as many as mid-sized municipalities. Municipalities anticipated about two more economic development projects, on average, within the next year. Again, large municipalities anticipated about five times as many economic development projects than did small municipalities. Infrastructure improvements and special events were the most common economic development activities. Large municipalities were most likely to engage in most of the activities listed, although mid-sized municipalities were much more likely than other municipalities to create an economic development plan, host special events, and work on broadband. Half of municipalities had budget allocated for economic development projects. Almost all large municipalities had budget allocated for economic development, compared with one third of small municipalities. Almost half of municipalities had staff dedicated to economic development projects and one third had contracted with an external economic development entity. INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSPORTATION About half of all municipalities funded transit programs or projects. Transit projects were most likely to be funded through the general fund, which was especially true in larger municipalities. Most municipalities did not have on street bike lanes, and about half did not have off street bike lanes. Town size was a strong predictor of miles of bike lanes: most small municipalities had no bike lanes, most mid-sized municipalities had 1 to 49 mils of bike lanes, and most large municipalities had 50 or more miles of bike lanes. Streets, public buildings, and storm water plants were the three types of infrastructure projects that were needed but not funded. Additionally, about one third of municipalities had current funds for needed street projects, while only five percent had no street project needs. Most municipalities saw an increase in street maintenance funding, compared to Indeed, four out of five large municipalities saw a street maintenance funding increase, which averaged about 80 percent increase among them. While only half of small municipalities saw a street funding increase, their average increase was 145 percent, with much of that increase occurring in mountain communities. The number and type of economic development projects and activities has changed since Municipalities approved and anticipated fewer economic development projects in 2018 than in Special event activities were less common in 2018, but broadband, redevelopment, and infrastructure improvement projects were more common than in Page 7

10 SECTION 1: LOOKING BACK AND LOOKING FORWARD Exhibit 1: Table and Graph Q1: It has been a decade since the Great Recession. Compared to just before the recession, how would you describe your municipality s overall financial health today? Financial Health Today, Compared to Pre-Recession to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Q1 Much better 30% 27% 33% 33% 16% 30% Somewhat better 33% 26% 38% 44% 24% 31% About the same 19% 19% 20% 17% 26% 21% Somewhat worse 12% 18% 5% 6% 18% 15% Much worse Don't know 7% 10% 5% - 16% 3% 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% 7% 10% 12% 19% 33% 18% 19% 26% 30% 27% 5% 5% 20% 38% 6% 17% 44% 33% 33% to 25,000 or more 16% 18% 26% 24% 16% Eastern Plains 15% 21% 31% 30% Western Slope / Don't know Much worse Somewhat worse About the same Somewhat better Much better Page 8

11 Exhibit 2: Table and Graph Q2: What have been the lasting impacts, if any, of the Great Recession and its aftermath on your municipality? (check all that apply). Lasting Impacts of the Great Recession to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Q2 Decreased municipal revenue 26% 37% 16% 11% 42% 27% Reduction in staff 23% 17% 27% 33% 16% 32% Delayed maintenance/capital improvement 51% 50% 45% 78% 47% 55% Lagging economic growth 42% 42% 50% 11% 55% 50% None of the above 24% 22% 27% 22% 16% 23% Other lasting impact 3% 4% 3% - - 6% Delayed maintenance/capital improvement 51% Lagging economic growth 42% Decreased municipal revenue 26% Reduction in staff 23% Other lasting impact 3% None of the above 24% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Page 9

12 Exhibit 3: Table and Graph Q3: Looking to the next five years, do you believe your municipality s financial outlook is? Financial Outlook for Next Five Years to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Q3 Very positive 16% 13% 21% 11% 5% 19% Somewhat positive 58% 54% 58% 72% 45% 58% Neutral 15% 15% 13% 17% 24% 11% Somewhat negative 9% 13% 8% - 18% 10% Very negative Don't know 3% 5% - - 8% 2% 9% 3% 16% 15% Very positive Somewhat positive Neutral Somewhat negative Very negative Don't know 58% Page 10

13 Exhibit 4: Table and Graph Q4: How would you rate the following areas of your municipality in 2018? Current Metrics to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Intergovernmental cooperation with neighboring/regional jurisdictions Intergovernmental cooperation with state/federal governments Economic development/growth Infrastructure Revenue and budgets Very positive 45% 42% 47% 53% 32% 44% Somewhat positive 36% 40% 29% 42% 42% 39% Neutral 10% 9% 15% - 13% 13% Somewhat negative 8% 6% 10% 5% 8% 5% Very negative Don't know 1% 3% - - 5% - Very positive 30% 37% 24% 21% 32% 32% Somewhat positive 48% 42% 60% 37% 45% 56% Neutral 17% 14% 15% 37% 16% 10% Somewhat negative 3% 3% 2% 5% 3% 2% Very negative Don't know 2% 4% - - 5% - Very positive 18% 12% 15% 58% 8% 15% Somewhat positive 42% 37% 48% 37% 29% 47% Neutral 21% 22% 24% 5% 16% 26% Somewhat negative 16% 22% 13% - 39% 10% Very negative 4% 8% - - 8% 3% Don't know Very positive 9% 6% 13% 5% 11% 5% Somewhat positive 35% 24% 45% 42% 16% 42% Neutral 28% 37% 19% 16% 37% 27% Somewhat negative 19% 19% 13% 37% 24% 15% Very negative 9% 10% 10% - 8% 11% Don't know 1% 1% - - 3% - Very positive 9% 8% 11% 11% 5% 10% Somewhat positive 51% 46% 53% 63% 39% 48% Neutral 24% 24% 26% 16% 34% 26% Page 11

14 Somewhat negative 13% 17% 10% 11% 18% 11% Very negative 3% 5% - - 3% 5% Don't know Housing Very positive 9% 6% 11% 11% 3% 3% Somewhat positive 17% 13% 16% 37% 16% 11% Neutral 25% 28% 24% 11% 32% 19% Somewhat negative 32% 32% 32% 32% 34% 39% Very negative 16% 18% 16% 11% 16% 26% Don't know 1% 3% % Public safety Very positive 25% 15% 37% 26% 21% 23% Somewhat positive 42% 38% 40% 58% 26% 47% Neutral 24% 36% 11% 16% 47% 18% Somewhat negative 8% 9% 10% - 5% 11% Very negative 1% 1% 2% - - 2% Don't know Intergovernmental cooperation with neighboring/regional jurisdictions 45% 36% 10% 8% Intergovernmental cooperation with state/federal governments 30% 48% 17% Public safety 25% 42% 24% 8% Economic development/growth 18% 42% 21% 16% 4% Revenue and budgets 9% 51% 24% 13% Infrastructure 9% 35% 28% 19% 9% Housing 9% 17% 25% 32% 16% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Very positive Somewhat positive Neutral Somewhat negative Very negative Don't know Page 12

15 Exhibit 5: Table and Graph Q5: Looking to the next five years, what are the biggest challenges facing your municipality? (check all) Biggest Challenges in Next Five Years to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Q5 Budget constraints 70% 78% 61% 68% 79% 76% Transportation funding 49% 33% 58% 84% 26% 50% Housing affordability 68% 59% 74% 84% 58% 74% Opioid/substance abuse issues 33% 29% 35% 42% 24% 44% Broadband access 29% 27% 34% 21% 16% 40% Cyber security 20% 15% 21% 37% 13% 26% Climate change 24% 22% 26% 26% 11% 37% Sharing economy 15% 19% 8% 21% 18% 18% None of the above 1% 1% - - 3% - Other challenge(s) 23% 19% 32% 5% 13% 26% Budget constraints Housing affordability 70% 68% Transportation funding 49% Opioid/substance abuse issues Broadband access Climate change Cyber security Sharing economy 33% 29% 24% 20% 15% None of the above 1% Other challenge(s) 23% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Page 13

16 Exhibit 6: Table and Graph Q6: During the last 10 years, would you say each of the following items has become? Change Over Last 10 Years to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Intergovernmental cooperation with neighboring/regional jurisdictions Intergovernmental cooperation with state/federal governments Economic development/growth Infrastructure Revenue and budgets Much better 26% 26% 25% 32% 14% 30% Somewhat better 34% 29% 33% 58% 24% 35% About the same 30% 34% 33% 5% 51% 32% Somewhat worse 3% 1% 3% 5% - - Much worse 1% - 2% Don't know 6% 9% 3% - 11% 3% Much better 14% 16% 15% 5% 11% 18% Somewhat better 34% 32% 37% 37% 27% 40% About the same 39% 34% 40% 53% 46% 32% Somewhat worse 6% 7% 5% 5% 5% 5% Much worse Don't know 7% 12% 3% - 11% 5% Much better 15% 14% 12% 32% 11% 17% Somewhat better 39% 30% 45% 58% 22% 38% About the same 27% 26% 33% 11% 32% 27% Somewhat worse 14% 22% 8% - 32% 13% Much worse 1% 3% % Don't know 2% 4% - - 3% 2% Much better 9% 7% 13% 5% 5% 10% Somewhat better 31% 25% 38% 32% 22% 35% About the same 30% 30% 27% 42% 32% 25% Somewhat worse 21% 26% 13% 21% 30% 18% Much worse 6% 8% 7% - 8% 10% Don't know 3% 4% 2% - 3% 2% Much better 12% 7% 18% 11% 3% 7% Page 14

17 Somewhat better 43% 41% 43% 47% 30% 48% About the same 23% 20% 25% 32% 24% 25% Somewhat worse 17% 24% 12% 11% 38% 13% Much worse 1% 3% % Don't know 3% 5% 2% - 3% 3% Housing Much better 3% 1% 5% 5% 3% - Somewhat better 14% 12% 15% 16% 5% 13% About the same 35% 38% 33% 32% 51% 27% Somewhat worse 26% 26% 22% 37% 24% 25% Much worse 17% 16% 23% 5% 11% 32% Don't know 5% 7% 2% 5% 5% 3% Public safety Much better 15% 14% 17% 16% 19% 15% Somewhat better 37% 28% 43% 58% 22% 37% About the same 33% 42% 27% 16% 41% 35% Somewhat worse 9% 8% 12% 5% 11% 8% Much worse 1% 1% % Don't know 5% 7% 2% 5% 8% 3% Intergovernmental cooperation with neighboring/regional jurisdictions 26% 34% 30% 6% Economic development/growth 15% 39% 27% 14% Public safety 15% 37% 33% 9% 5% Intergovernmental cooperation with state/federal governments 14% 34% 39% 6% 7% Revenue and budgets 12% 43% 23% 17% Infrastructure 9% 31% 30% 21% 6% Housing 14% 35% 26% 17% 5% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Much better Somewhat better About the same Somewhat worse Much worse Don't know Page 15

18 Exhibit 7: Table and Graphs Q7: What are the biggest challenges facing your municipality today in each of the following areas This question was asked open-ended and all responses can be read in the accompanying data file. However, Corona did review responses for major themes and offers a summary below. Please note, Corona did not code responses in order to quantify responses due to the often nuanced explanations given by respondents; the concern was that applying a coding scheme could over-simplify what was said. ECONOMIC GROWTH Municipalities in Colorado face several challenges regarding economic growth. The most prominent challenge mentioned by municipalities surveyed was the need for increased revenue in their communities. While taxes have historically served as a major funding source, economic shifts, such as internet-based retail, are draining tax revenue dollars from local communities. Based on survey responses, additional barriers are often dictated by regional environments, trends, and demographics. This is especially true among municipalities whose economies are seasonal or tourism-based. In these municipalities, there is a desire for diversification of economic opportunities that will result in more stable tax revenue. Reliance on tourism to sustain the local economy is a challenge that requires balancing what is good for residents and what will keep the tourists coming to town. Residents end up resenting the tourists because of the traffic congestion, noise and other impacts if those impacts are not well managed. Land costs and limited building sites make it more difficult to grow existing employers or attract new employers and diversify the local economy. The lack of affordable housing makes it more difficult to attract employees to fill vacant positions. A need to grow primary jobs in areas other than tourist industry. We are a seasonal economy and there are a lot of seasonal jobs. Seasonal jobs do not provide the stability and tax base that a primary jobs does. It is challenging to recruit any new companies that would provide those primary jobs because we don't have all the amenities a larger, less rural municipality has. The Town relies heavily on sales tax revenue from a small amount of businesses, mainly restaurants and a quarry. If there is a downturn in the economy or a business closes it could become a challenge for the Town to balance the budget. Objections to growth and development. Retail apocalypse and the collapse of brick and mortar retailers to invest and generate sales tax. Page 16

19 INFRASTRUCTURE Limited funding options are at the root of many municipalities infrastructure needs. Many respondents pointed out that infrastructure in their towns is aging and they have been unable to secure state or federal funding, or local revenue sources, to maintain aging infrastructure such as roads, sewer, and water systems. Additionally, state and federal regulations may require some towns to prioritize compliance over maintenance, repair, and new development of infrastructure. Growth has meant increased pressure on aging water, sewer and drainage systems, as well as transportation networks. New roadways are not possible without funding from state and federal sources, which are becoming more scarce each year. Lack of funds for ongoing maintenance mean that town facilities, roads, geothermal and wastewater utility lines are old and need replaced. We are trying to address it but now we are having to do complete rebuilds and with few bidders and costly materials, the scope of each project is much larger--and the cost. Not enough funding to handle increasing service needs with growing population and the infrastructure maintenance needs. Page 17

20 HOUSING Many municipalities surveyed expressed an extreme need for affordable housing options. In areas where there is a large seasonal worker population or service workers, the lack of availability of affordable housing results in these residents being pushed further and further away from their work sites in search of more affordable options. Several respondents also noted the rise in short-term rentals (such as Airbnb and VRBO) has led to an affordable rental housing shortage, as short-term rentals often drive up rental rates. Affordable housing is a real challenge. We have a low-income population and not a lot of alternatives when it comes to housing. Short term rentals are taking over and removing long term rentals from the market; not a lot of new smaller homes or multi-family being constructed The lack of affordable housing is a serious problem that is changing the makeup of the community. 5% of City employees live in the City, not because they don't want to, but frequently because they can't afford to. Consequently, they must commute longer and longer distances in the "drive to affordability". That in turn causes more traffic congestion and pollution. The lack of affordable housing also is changing the demographics of the community, with fewer and fewer middle and lower income residents, and that changes the culture. When much of the workforce can't afford to live in the community, it may undermine neighborly cohesiveness and can lead to feelings of resentment among those priced out of the community, including former long-time residents. Page 18

21 SECTION 2: HOUSING Exhibit 8: Table and Graph Q8: Do you feel the affordable housing situation in your municipality has been generally getting better or worse during the past three years? Direction of Affordable Housing (past three years) to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Q8 Much better Somewhat better 11% 6% 16% 11% 13% 5% About the same 32% 41% 28% 11% 50% 31% Somewhat worse 34% 29% 34% 47% 24% 34% Much worse 22% 22% 21% 26% 13% 30% Don't know 1% 1% - 5% - - 1% 11% 22% Much better Somewhat better About the same 32% Somewhat worse Much worse Don't know 34% Page 19

22 Exhibit 9: Table and Graph Q9: What impacts, if any, has your municipality experienced as a result of affordable housing challenges? (check all) Impacts of Affordable Housing Challenges to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Q9 An increase in the homeless population 20% 13% 15% 67% 11% 16% Workforce challenges (recruiting, retaining, etc.) Increased traffic and commute times (due to workers commuting) 53% 45% 61% 56% 43% 69% 36% 30% 39% 50% 14% 39% Slower economic growth 40% 43% 44% 17% 54% 53% None of the above 19% 26% 13% 11% 24% 11% Other impact(s) 6% 6% 6% 6% 3% 8% Workforce challenges (recruiting, retaining, etc.) 53% Slower economic growth 40% Increased traffic and commute times (due to workers commuting) 36% An increase in the homeless population 20% None of the above 19% Other impact(s) 6% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Page 20

23 Exhibit 10: Tables and Graphs Q10a: Over the past three years, has homelessness increased in your municipality, whether due to affordable housing challenges or other factors? Homelessness has Increased (past three years) to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope/ Number of Responses Q10a Yes 37% 24% 35% 95% 21% 35% No 63% 76% 65% 5% 79% 65% 100% 95% 75% 50% 37% 35% 35% 25% 24% 21% 0% to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope/ Page 21

24 Q10b: Which departments have been affected? (check all) (Among municipalities that have seen an increase in homelessness in the past three years Affected Departments to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Q10.b Law Enforcement 90% 74% 100% 94% 75% 91% Parks and Recreation 66% 53% 64% 83% 50% 77% Public Works 47% 42% 36% 67% 25% 50% Ambulance Services 34% 37% 27% 39% 25% 32% Library 32% 5% 45% 44% 25% 32% Human Services 20% 21% 18% 22% 13% 27% None of the above 5% 16% % - Other department(s) 8% 5% 9% 11% - 9% 100% 90% 75% 66% 50% 47% 34% 32% 25% 20% 5% 8% 0% Law Enforcement Parks and Recreation Public Works Ambulance Services Library Human Services None of the above Other department(s) Page 22

25 Exhibit 11: Table and Graph Q11: Which of the following best describes your municipality? (check one) State of Housing Affordability Plan to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Q11 Currently has a housing affordability plan Plans to create a housing affordability plan in the next three years Does not have a housing affordability plan and is not planning to create one currently 12% 6% 13% 29% 5% 11% 30% 23% 32% 53% 13% 39% 58% 70% 55% 18% 82% 50% 100% 18% 75% 50% 25% 0% 58% 30% 12% 70% 23% 6% 55% 32% 13% to 53% 29% 25,000 or more 82% 13% 5% Eastern Plains 50% 39% 11% Western Slope / Does not have a housing affordability plan and is not planning to create one currently Plans to create a housing affordability plan in the next three years Currently has a housing affordability plan Page 23

26 Exhibit 12: Table and Graph Q12: Does your municipality work with a local or regional housing authority? (check all) State of Housing Authority to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Q12 Yes, a local housing authority 37% 17% 49% 83% 35% 31% Yes, a regional housing authority 24% 21% 25% 33% 16% 29% No 43% 64% 30% - 54% 42% 100% 75% 64% 30% 33% 54% 42% 25% 50% 25% 21% 49% 83% 16% 29% No Yes, a regional housing authority Yes, a local housing authority 35% 31% 17% 0% to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Page 24

27 Exhibit 13: Table and Graph Q13: Which of the following actions, if any, are you doing to address affordable housing issues? (check all) Actions Taken to Address Affordable Housing to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Q13 Fast-tracking land use applications 18% 13% 23% 24% 11% 25% Waiving permit fees 17% 9% 25% 24% 5% 28% Requiring deed restrictions on certain properties Providing stipends to local workforce for housing Requiring linkage fees for new commercial development Creating (or have created) a municipal plan to address homelessness 13% 4% 20% 29% - 21% 1% 1% 2% - - 3% 4% 1% 5% 12% - 7% 13% 3% 13% 65% 3% 7% Zoning for tiny homes 15% 12% 18% 24% 5% 28% Working regionally to address housing issues Levying a dedicated sales tax as a funding source 31% 21% 38% 59% 3% 48% 3% 1% 3% 12% - 5% None of the above 48% 65% 38% 6% 79% 34% Other action(s) 13% 6% 18% 29% 3% 15% Working regionally to address housing issues Fast-tracking land use applications Waiving permit fees Zoning for tiny homes Creating (or have created) a municipal plan to address Requiring deed restrictions on certain properties Requiring linkage fees for new commercial development Levying a dedicated sales tax as a funding source Providing stipends to local workforce for housing None of the above Other action(s) 3% 1% 4% 18% 17% 15% 13% 13% 13% 31% 48% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Page 25

28 SECTION 3: GENERAL MUNICIPAL REVENUE Exhibit 14: Tables and Graphs Q14: Do you feel the overall economy in your municipality is better or worse in FY 2018 compared to FY 2017? Economy in Municipality in FY 2018 Compared to FY 2017 to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Q14 Much better 4% 3% 7% - 3% 7% Somewhat better 47% 34% 59% 67% 22% 49% About the same 40% 51% 30% 28% 54% 39% Somewhat worse 7% 10% 3% 6% 19% 2% Much worse Don't know 2% 3% 2% - 3% 3% 100% 7% 10% 6% 19% 75% 40% 30% 28% 39% 51% Don't know 50% 54% Much worse Somewhat worse 25% 47% 34% 59% 67% 22% 49% About the same Somewhat better Much better 0% 4% 7% 7% to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Page 26

29 Much worse About the same Much better Economy Compared to Previous Year Much better 1% 2% 3% 17% 17% 9% 2% 4% Somewhat better 35% 42% 51% 45% 40% 39% 48% 47% About the same 35% 35% 33% 24% 28% 40% 37% 40% Somewhat worse 20% 16% 10% 10% 10% 9% 11% 7% Much worse 7% 2% 3% 4% 5% 1% 2% 0% Don't know 0% 1% % - 2% Average* Much or somewhat better 36% 44% 54% 62% 57% 48% 50% 51% Average * Average scores were calculated by assigning the following numeric values to each response category: Much worse = -2, Somewhat worse = -1, About the same = 0, Somewhat better = 1, Much better = 2. Replies of Don t know were excluded from this calculation. Page 27

30 Exhibit 15: Tables and Graphs Q15: Do you feel your municipality s revenue is better or worse in FY 2018 compared to FY 2017? Municipal Revenue in FY 2018 Compared to FY 2017 to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Q15 Much better 3% 1% 7% - - 5% Somewhat better 47% 39% 57% 50% 19% 52% About the same 39% 47% 30% 39% 57% 38% Somewhat worse 9% 10% 7% 11% 19% 5% Much worse 1% 1% - - 3% - Don't know 1% 1% - - 3% - 100% 9% 10% 7% 11% 5% 75% 50% 25% 0% 39% 47% 47% 39% 30% 57% 39% 50% 19% 57% 19% 38% 52% 7% 5% to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Don't know Much worse Somewhat worse About the same Somewhat better Much better Page 28

31 Much worse About the same Much better Municipal Revenue Compared to Previous Year Much better 1% 0% 2% 2% 3% 2% 15% 16% 9% 1% 3% Somewhat better 17% 7% 28% 33% 47% 51% 51% 38% 41% 48% 47% About the same 30% 24% 38% 34% 31% 33% 26% 35% 35% 35% 39% Somewhat worse 39% 45% 20% 24% 14% 12% 5% 6% 13% 13% 9% Much worse 7% 20% 6% 6% 5% 2% 3% 4% 1% 3% 1% Don't know 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% % - 1% Average* Much or somewhat better 18% 7% 30% 35% 50% 53% 66% 54% 50% 49% 50% Average * Average scores were calculated by assigning the following numeric values to each response category: Much worse = -2, Somewhat worse = -1, About the same = 0, Somewhat better = 1, Much better = 2. Replies of Don t know were excluded from this calculation. Page 29

32 Exhibit 16: Tables and Graph Q16: For each of the following revenue categories, please first indicate whether you expect an increase, decrease, or no change for that source of revenue in 2018, and then indicate the estimated percent change from Sales and Use Taxes to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Increase 63% 45% 77% 89% 31% 66% Decrease 8% 7% 8% 11% 14% 7% No Change 29% 49% 15% - 54% 28% Property Taxes to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Increase 49% 32% 62% 78% 36% 37% Decrease 11% 15% 10% - 11% 17% No Change 40% 53% 28% 22% 53% 47% State Funding to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Increase 15% 15% 17% 12% 19% 10% Decrease 15% 12% 19% 12% 11% 20% No Change 70% 73% 64% 76% 69% 70% Page 30

33 Exhibit 16: Tables and Graphs (Continued) Other Taxes to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Increase 21% 14% 23% 50% 6% 19% Decrease 6% 8% 5% - 3% 10% No Change 73% 78% 72% 50% 91% 71% Charges for Services to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Increase 37% 32% 42% 41% 36% 36% Decrease 5% 4% 5% 6% 3% 3% No Change 59% 64% 53% 53% 61% 61% Licenses, Permits, and Fees to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Increase 34% 24% 43% 44% 14% 38% Decrease 7% 1% 10% 22% 3% 3% No Change 59% 75% 47% 33% 83% 59% Page 31

34 Exhibit 16: Tables and Graphs (Continued) Fines and Forfeits to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Increase 12% 11% 11% 17% 8% 10% Decrease 13% 14% 13% 11% 19% 7% No Change 75% 75% 75% 72% 72% 83% Investment and Interest Income to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Increase 38% 23% 49% 65% 20% 38% Decrease 3% 3% 3% 6% 9% - No Change 58% 75% 48% 29% 71% 62% Other Revenue to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Increase 10% 3% 11% 50% - 6% Decrease 5% 3% 7% - 6% 6% No Change 85% 93% 81% 50% 94% 88% Page 32

35 Exhibit 16: Tables and Graphs (Continued) Sales and use taxes 63% 29% 8% Property taxes 49% 40% 11% Investment and interest income 38% 58% Charges for services 37% 59% 5% Licenses, permits, and fees 34% 59% 7% Other taxes 21% 73% 6% State funding 15% 70% 15% Fines and forfeits 12% 75% 13% Other revenue 10% 85% 5% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Increase No Change Decrease Average Percentage Increases in Revenue Number of Replies (Avg. %) (Avg. %) to (Avg. %) 25,000 or more (Avg. %) Eastern Plains (Avg. %) Western Slope / (Avg. %) Sales and use taxes 87 +9% +11% +8% +4% +12% +8% Property taxes % +11% +11% +10% +12% +5% State funding % +35% +5% +-% +9% +34% Other taxes 21 +6% +6% +7% +3% +6% +4% Charges for services % +16% +5% +6% +10% +10% Licenses, permits, and fees % +23% +16% +8% +17% +17% Fines and forfeits % +23% +19% +2% +38% +18% Investment and interest income % +73% +46% +75% +37% +24% Other revenue 4 +13% +5% +20% +6% - +5% Page 33

36 Average Percentage Decreases in Revenue Number of Replies (Avg. %) (Avg. %) to (Avg. %) 25,000 or more (Avg. %) Eastern Plains (Avg. %) Western Slope / (Avg. %) Sales and use taxes 11-12% -19% -6% -3% -14% -10% Property taxes 17-10% -13% -3% - -10% -11% State funding 19-16% -11% -22% -3% -5% -14% Other taxes 8-21% -26% -14% - -10% -29% Charges for services 7-19% -6% -39% -2% -10% -4% Licenses, permits, and fees 10-20% -15% -19% -22% -15% -8% Fines and forfeits 19-18% -29% -9% -6% -19% -26% Investment and interest income 5-16% -36% -3% -2% -13% - Other revenue 3-41% -5% -59% - -18% -5% Percentage of Municipalities that Experienced an Increase in Revenue Average for all years Sales and use taxes 42% 12% 32% 50% 52% 61% 71% 65% 55% 54% 63% 51% Property taxes 53% 41% 35% 23% 17% 37% 29% 46% 53% 39% 49% 38% Charges for services 40% 23% 26% 34% 30% 33% 33% 31% 29% 39% 37% 32% Licenses, permits, and fees 29% 9% 24% 20% 22% 37% 44% 44% 40% 38% 34% 31% Fines and forfeits 34% 22% 25% 26% 26% 23% 18% 19% 21% 18% 12% 22% Other taxes 21% 6% 18% 14% 17% 20% 30% 20% 20% 22% 21% 19% Investment and interest income 6% 4% 8% 10% 7% 12% 11% 13% 21% 26% 38% 14% State funding 18% 14% 17% 10% 8% 12% 15% 16% 10% 9% 15% 13% Note: Among all values, highest values are shaded red, lowest values are shaded green. Items are sorted by average for all years (right column). Page 34

37 Percentage of Municipalities that Experienced an Increase in Revenue Average for all years Sales and use taxes 42% 12% 32% 50% 52% 61% 71% 65% 55% 54% 63% 51% Property taxes 53% 41% 35% 23% 17% 37% 29% 46% 53% 39% 49% 38% Charges for services Licenses, permits, and fees Fines and forfeits 40% 23% 26% 34% 30% 33% 33% 31% 29% 39% 37% 32% 29% 9% 24% 20% 22% 37% 44% 44% 40% 38% 34% 31% 34% 22% 25% 26% 26% 23% 18% 19% 21% 18% 12% 22% Other taxes 21% 6% 18% 14% 17% 20% 30% 20% 20% 22% 21% 19% Investment and interest income 6% 4% 8% 10% 7% 12% 11% 13% 21% 26% 38% 14% State funding 18% 14% 17% 10% 8% 12% 15% 16% 10% 9% 15% 13% Note: For each row, red cells show years that were higher than typical for that issue (i.e., greater than one standard deviation above the average). Items are sorted by average for all years (right column). Page 35

38 Exhibit 17: Graphs and Tables Q17: Taking into account both the magnitude of the following issues and the ease or difficulty of addressing them, please rate the following potential fiscal challenges that your municipality may face in Unfunded street/road maintenance and improvements 3.2 Lack of affordable housing Tight labor market Unfunded water/wastewater improvement needs Increased health insurance costs Increased demand for municipal services Federal mandated expenditures Slow growth in tax revenues State mandated expenditures Public safety Increased workers' compensation insurance costs Increased liability insurance costs TABOR Adverse local economic conditions Decline in state funding Inflation Decline in federal funding Decrease in tax revenues Pension contribution Not a Challenge Major Challenge * Average scores were calculated by assigning numeric values to each response category: Not A Challenge = 1, Minor Challenge = 2, Moderate Challenge = 3, and Major Challenge = 4. Page 36

39 Unfunded street/road maintenance and improvement needs 49% 29% 15% 5% Lack of affordable housing 37% 30% 19% 9% 5% Unfunded water/wastewater improvement needs 36% 27% 16% 14% 7% Tight labor market 34% 32% 21% 9% 4% Increased health insurance costs 25% 38% 18% 9% 10% Increased demand for municipal services 23% 43% 23% 8% Federal mandated expenditures (environmental requirements, ADA compliance, etc.) 23% 31% 29% 15% Slow growth in tax revenues 19% 31% 25% 23% State mandated expenditures 19% 25% 31% 19% 5% TABOR 17% 19% 28% 25% 11% Adverse local economic conditions 13% 25% 37% 22% Decline in state funding 12% 27% 29% 24% 8% Public safety 11% 32% 32% 21% 4% Increased workers' compensation insurance costs 11% 30% 35% 20% Increased liability insurance costs 10% 29% 41% 17% Decrease in tax revenues 9% 20% 21% 41% 9% Decline in federal funding 8% 23% 29% 29% 11% Inflation 5% 31% 45% 17% Pension contribution 4% 12% 30% 33% 21% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Major Challenge Moderate Challenge Minor Challenge Not a Challenge N/A Page 37

40 Unfunded street/road maintenance and improvement needs Unfunded water/ wastewater improvement needs Increased health insurance costs Lack of affordable housing Federal-mandated expenditures (environmental requirements, ADA compliance, etc.) Slow growth in tax revenues Tight labor market Adverse local economic conditions Increased demand for municipal services State-mandated expenditures Decline in state funding Percentage Answered Major Challenge Average for all years 44% 56% 49% 51% 52% 44% 54% 55% 48% 45% 49% 50% 38% 26% 24% 21% 32% 27% 34% 36% 38% 38% 36% 32% 31% 27% 22% 28% 32% 30% 32% 31% 26% 35% 25% 29% Not asked 14% 11% 13% 8% 21% 23% 38% 43% 46% 37% 25% 20% 16% 13% 19% 22% 30% 22% 32% 17% 19% 23% 21% 35% 47% 43% 38% 24% 20% 15% 23% 18% 22% 19% 28% Not asked 10% 7% 12% 8% 16% 18% 24% 23% 34% 34% 19% 43% 39% 34% 28% 25% 19% 20% 20% 13% 11% 13% 24% Not asked Not asked Not asked Not asked 7% 15% 22% 13% 25% 24% 23% 18% 17% 12% 12% 19% 17% 24% 15% 20% 16% 15% 19% 17% Not asked 30% 33% 26% 27% 19% 7% 13% 18% 17% 12% 20% Decrease in tax revenues 37% 61% 43% 35% 19% 14% 9% 10% 13% 19% 9% 24% Increased workers compensation insurance costs Increased liability insurance costs Decline in federal funding 12% 11% 4% 10% 13% 14% 11% 10% 13% 16% 11% 11% Not asked Not asked 9% 2% 10% 10% 17% 11% 10% 13% 14% 10% 11% 14% 11% 12% 15% 15% 6% 10% 10% 13% 8% 11% TABOR 13% 17% 8% 8% 9% 7% 11% 12% 13% 11% 17% 11% Public safety 8% 7% 10% 6% 5% 7% 8% 8% 16% 12% 11% 9% Inflation 20% 14% 7% 10% 9% 12% 7% 6% 7% 4% 5% 9% Pension contributions Not asked Not asked 5% 4% 3% 1% 2% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% Note: Among all values, highest values are shaded red, lowest values are shaded green. Items are sorted by average for all years (right column). Page 38

41 Unfunded street/road maintenance and improvement needs Unfunded water/ wastewater improvement needs Increased health insurance costs Lack of affordable housing Federal-mandated expenditures (environmental requirements, ADA compliance, etc.) Slow growth in tax revenues Tight labor market Adverse local economic conditions Increased demand for municipal services State-mandated expenditures Decline in state funding Decrease in tax revenues Increased workers compensation insurance costs Increased liability insurance costs Decline in federal funding Percentage Answered Major Challenge Average for all years 44% 56% 49% 51% 52% 44% 54% 55% 48% 45% 49% 50% 38% 26% 24% 21% 32% 27% 34% 36% 38% 38% 36% 32% 31% 27% 22% 28% 32% 30% 32% 31% 26% 35% 25% 29% Not asked 14% 11% 13% 8% 21% 23% 38% 43% 46% 37% 25% 20% 16% 13% 19% 22% 30% 22% 32% 17% 19% 23% 21% 35% 47% 43% 38% 24% 20% 15% 23% 18% 22% 19% 28% Not asked 10% 7% 12% 8% 16% 18% 24% 23% 34% 34% 19% 43% 39% 34% 28% 25% 19% 20% 20% 13% 11% 13% 24% Not asked Not asked Not asked Not asked 7% 15% 22% 13% 25% 24% 23% 18% 17% 12% 12% 19% 17% 24% 15% 20% 16% 15% 19% 17% Not asked 30% 33% 26% 27% 19% 7% 13% 18% 17% 12% 20% 37% 61% 43% 35% 19% 14% 9% 10% 13% 19% 9% 24% 12% 11% 4% 10% 13% 14% 11% 10% 13% 16% 11% 11% Not asked Not asked 9% 2% 10% 10% 17% 11% 10% 13% 14% 10% 11% 14% 11% 12% 15% 15% 6% 10% 10% 13% 8% 11% TABOR 13% 17% 8% 8% 9% 7% 11% 12% 13% 11% 17% 11% Public safety 8% 7% 10% 6% 5% 7% 8% 8% 16% 12% 11% 9% Inflation 20% 14% 7% 10% 9% 12% 7% 6% 7% 4% 5% 9% Pension contributions Not asked 5% 4% 3% 1% 2% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% Note: For each row, red cells show years that were higher than typical for that issue (i.e., greater than one standard deviation above the average). Items are sorted by average for all years (right column). Page 39

42 SECTION 4: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Exhibit 18: Table and Graph Q18: How many economic development projects that create new jobs were approved by your municipality during the past 12 months (since July 2017)? Approved Economic Development Projects to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Q18 No approved projects 58% 71% 50% 14% 75% 57% 1 to 2 projects 21% 18% 25% 21% 19% 27% 3 to 5 projects 12% 9% 11% 29% 6% 10% 6 or more projects 10% 1% 14% 36% - 7% Average number of approved projects Page 40

43 Exhibit 19: Tables and Graph Q19: How many economic development projects are anticipated by your municipality for the coming 12 months? Anticipated Economic Development Projects to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Q19 No anticipated projects 47% 59% 39% 14% 66% 52% 1 to 2 projects 32% 36% 30% 21% 26% 33% 3 to 5 projects 11% 3% 18% 29% 9% 8% 6 or more projects 10% 3% 13% 36% - 7% Average number of anticipated projects Page 41

44 Economic Development Projects or more Average 1 or more Average Approved economic development projects 55% % 1.7 Anticipated economic development projects 66% % 1.8 Page 42

45 Exhibit 20: Table and Graphs Q20: Which of the following activities has your local municipality engaged in, or will engage in, during FY 2019 for the purposes of economic development? (Check all) Economic Development Activities Q20 to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Promoting entrepreneurship 39% 28% 43% 69% 19% 55% Services to small businesses 39% 27% 47% 69% 25% 40% Tax incentives to businesses 39% 22% 50% 75% 19% 32% Grants for businesses 27% 18% 29% 63% 3% 33% Creation of more affordable housing 29% 24% 33% 38% 3% 45% Workforce training 17% 8% 17% 56% 3% 22% Access to lending 13% 7% 17% 25% 3% 18% Infrastructure improvements 61% 45% 79% 75% 39% 68% Broadband 34% 26% 45% 31% 19% 47% Tourism promotion 42% 34% 48% 56% 22% 65% Investment in Buy-Local marketing programs 24% 18% 33% 25% 8% 37% Reduced/waived building permit fees 27% 14% 36% 56% 11% 32% Creation of special development authorities/districts Creation of an economic development plan 20% 9% 28% 44% 11% 18% 27% 26% 33% 13% 19% 33% Redevelopment projects 35% 16% 45% 88% 11% 32% Special events 53% 41% 69% 50% 31% 68% None of the above 14% 26% 3% - 33% 10% Other activity 3% 3% 5% - - 8% Page 43

46 Infrastructure improvements Special events 53% 61% Tourism promotion Tax incentives to businesses Services to small businesses Promoting entrepreneurship Redevelopment projects Broadband Creation of more affordable housing Creation of an economic development plan Reduced/waived building permit fees Grants for businesses Investment in Buy-Local marketing programs Creation of special development Workforce training Access to lending None of the above 42% 39% 39% 39% 35% 34% 29% 27% 27% 27% 24% 20% 17% 13% 14% Other activitiy 3% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Page 44

47 Broadband/IT infrastructure 19% 34% Special events 53% 67% Other 3% 13% Redevelopment projects 35% 26% Infrastructure improvements 61% 52% Creation of more affordable housing 29% 20% Creation of special development authorities/districts 20% 27% Investment in Buy-Local marketing programs 24% 19% Access to lending Promoting entrepreneurship 13% 18% 39% 34% Tax incentives to businesses 39% 35% Services to small businesses 39% 35% Tourism promotion 42% 45% Reduced/waived building permit fees 27% 30% None of the above 14% 12% Creation of an economic development plan 27% 25% Grants for businesses 27% 25% Workforce training/education 17% 16% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Note: Activities are sorted by greatest absolute difference between years. Page 45

48 Exhibit 21: Table and Graph Q21: What resources does your municipality currently (FY 2018) dedicate for the sole purpose of economic development? (check all) Resources Dedicated Exclusively for Economic Development to 25,000 Eastern Western Slope / or more Plains Number of Responses Q21 Staff dedicated to economic development projects Budget allocation(s) for the purposes of economic development projects Contract with external economic development entity 43% 20% 59% 88% 25% 33% 52% 34% 64% 88% 31% 53% 35% 19% 48% 59% 33% 30% None of the above 27% 46% 10% - 47% 27% Other resource(s) 5% 7% 5% - - 8% Budget allocation(s) for the purposes of economic development projects 52% Staff dedicated to economic development projects 43% Contract with external economic development entity 35% None of the above 27% Other resource(s) 5% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Page 46

49 Other resources 5% 16% Budget allocation(s) for the purposes of economic development projects 52% 58% None/not applicable 27% 24% Contract with external economic development entity 35% 33% Staff dedicated to economic development projects 43% 43% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Note: Activities are sorted by greatest absolute difference between years. Page 47

50 SECTION 5: INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION Exhibit 22: Table and Graphs Q22: Does your municipality operate or fund any of the following transit programs? (check all) Funded Transit Programs to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Q22 Scheduled bus service 22% 12% 29% 41% 6% 25% Paratransit 12% 3% 16% 41% - 12% Rideshare vans 8% 3% 9% 29% - 8% We are in a regional transit district/authority 22% 15% 23% 47% 8% 25% No transit programs 27% 32% 29% 6% 42% 25% None of the above 31% 42% 23% 6% 47% 27% Other program(s) 7% 5% 7% 12% 3% 5% 100% 75% 50% 25% 27% 22% 22% 12% 8% 31% 7% 0% No transit programs Scheduled bus service In a regional transit district/ authority Paratransit Rideshare vans None of the above Other program(s) Page 48

51 Scheduled bus service 16% 22% Rideshare vans 3% 8% No transit programs Other program(s) 7% 10% 58% 55% In a regional transit district/ authority 22% 23% Paratransit 12% 12% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Note: Programs are sorted by greatest absolute difference between years. Page 49

52 Exhibit 23: Table and Graph Q23: How do you fund transit projects? (check all) How Transit Projects are Funded to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Q23 Federal grants 16% 8% 19% 41% 6% 15% Fares/per trip fees 8% 7% 5% 24% 6% 8% General fund 28% 15% 31% 71% 14% 26% Dedicated sales tax 9% 7% 9% 18% - 11% Dedicated property tax 1% 1% % State funds 10% 3% 10% 41% 6% 10% Not applicable no transit programs 58% 73% 52% 12% 81% 51% Other 7% 4% 9% 12% - 10% 100% 75% 58% 50% 28% 25% 16% 0% General fund Federal grants 10% 9% 8% State funds Dedicated sales tax Fares/per trip fees 1% Dedicated property tax Not applicable 7% Other Page 50

53 Federal grants 16% 21% Not applicable 58% 61% Other 7% 10% General fund State funds 10% 9% 28% 26% Dedicated property tax 1% 2% Fares/per trip fees Dedicated sales tax 8% 9% 9% 9% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Note: Funding sources are sorted by greatest absolute difference between years. Page 51

54 Percentage of Respondents Average number of miles Exhibit 24: Tables and Graph Q24: How many dedicated bike lane miles do you have, both on street (i.e., dedicated, striped bike lanes, not shared lanes) and off street (i.e., dedicated bike paths separate from street traffic). Miles of On Street Bike Lanes Ove ra ll Le ss tha n 2, ,0 0 0 to 2 4, ,0 0 0 or more Ea ste rn P la ins We ste rn S lope / Mounta ins Number of Responses Q2 4 a 0 mile s 64% 90% 40% 8% 94% 61% 1 to 9 miles 18 % 10% 33% 15% 6% 27% 10 to 49 miles 11% - 28% 15% - 10% 50 or more miles 6% % - 2% Average number of miles Miles of Off Street Bike Lanes Ove ra ll Le ss tha n 2, ,0 0 0 to 2 4, ,0 0 0 or more Ea ste rn P la ins We ste rn S lope / Mounta ins Number of Responses Q2 4 b 0 miles 52% 77% 28% 8% 82% 53% 1 to 9 miles 23% 23% 28% 8% 18% 25% 10 to 49 miles 17 % - 38% 31% - 14% 5 0 or more mile s 8% - 6% 54% - 8% Average number of miles % 75% 50% 6% 8% 11% 17% 18% 23% or more 10 to 49 1 to 9 25% 64% 52% 5 0 miles Average miles (right axis) 0% On Street Off Street 0 Page 52

55 Exhibit 25: Tables and Graph Q25: For each type of infrastructure listed below, please indicate whether your municipality has any funded projects in 2018, if your municipality has any unfunded needs, or if there is no current need. Needed and Funded Infrastructure Projects to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Drinking water treatment facilities Current Needs & Funded 26% 19% 31% 44% 31% 18% Current Needs But NOT Funded 25% 30% 19% 25% 31% 23% Wastewater treatment facilities No Current Need 49% 51% 50% 31% 39% 59% Current Needs & Funded 26% 16% 30% 53% 28% 20% Current Needs But NOT Funded 27% 30% 23% 29% 33% 24% Storm water projects No Current Need 47% 53% 46% 18% 39% 56% Current Needs & Funded 18% 8% 25% 35% - 17% Current Needs But NOT Funded 53% 45% 61% 65% 49% 53% Water supply and storage Streets Bridges No Current Need 29% 47% 14% - 51% 30% Current Needs & Funded 24% 15% 32% 38% 17% 25% Current Needs But NOT Funded 30% 30% 30% 31% 36% 26% No Current Need 46% 55% 39% 31% 47% 49% Current Needs & Funded 36% 24% 51% 35% 25% 40% Current Needs But NOT Funded 59% 65% 49% 65% 61% 57% No Current Need 5% 11% % 3% Current Needs & Funded 11% 7% 14% 18% 6% 14% Current Needs But NOT Funded 35% 21% 44% 65% 9% 34% Public safety facility No Current Need 54% 72% 42% 18% 86% 53% Current Needs & Funded 10% 4% 14% 25% 3% 10% Current Needs But NOT Funded 37% 26% 43% 63% 22% 29% No Current Need 53% 70% 43% 13% 75% 60% Page 53

56 Needed and Funded Infrastructure Projects (continued) to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Public buildings Current Needs & Funded 13% 4% 23% 19% 3% 10% Current Needs But NOT Funded 56% 53% 56% 75% 33% 60% No Current Need 31% 43% 21% 6% 64% 30% Streets 36% 59% 5% Wastewater treatment facilities 26% 27% 47% Drinking water treatment facilities 26% 25% 49% Water supply and storage 24% 30% 46% Storm water projects 18% 53% 29% Public buildings 13% 56% 31% Bridges 11% 35% 54% Public safety facility 10% 37% 53% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Current Needs & Funded Current Needs But NOT Funded No Current Need Page 54

57 Needed But Unfunded Infrastructure Projects Average for all years Streets 41% 50% 56% 50% 59% 57% 59% 53% Public buildings 37% 35% 39% 33% 35% Storm water projects 26% 32% 35% 33% 38% Water supply and storage 21% 27% 30% 23% 30% Not asked Not asked Not asked 56% 39% 53% 36% 30% 27% Bridges 14% 22% 24% 24% 24% 30% 35% 25% Wastewater treatment facilities 15% 23% 21% 24% 15% Public safety facility Not asked 21% 16% 14% 13% Drinking water treatment facilities 11% 15% 20% 16% 18% Not asked Not asked Not asked 27% 21% 37% 20% 25% 18% Note: Among all values, highest values are shaded red, lowest values are shaded green. Items are sorted by average for all years (right column). Page 55

58 Exhibit 26: Tables and Graphs Q26: Did your 2018 street maintenance funding increase or decrease compared to 2013? If it did change, indicate the percent change. Street Maintenance Change Since 2013 to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Q26 Increase 60% 48% 70% 82% 38% 58% Decrease 12% 15% 11% 6% 15% 17% No Change 27% 37% 20% 12% 47% 25% 100% 75% 27% 37% 20% 11% 12% 6% 47% 25% 12% 17% 50% 25% 60% 15% 48% 70% 82% 15% 38% 58% No Change Decrease Increase 0% to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Page 56

59 Average Percentage Increase in Street Maintenance Funding (since 2013) to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Average Increase 102% 145% 69% 81% 44% 150% Average Percentage Decrease in Street Maintenance Funding (since 2013) to 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope / Number of Responses Average Decrease 24% 29% 15% 26% 16% 25% Street Maintenance Funding Pct Avg. pct. Change Pct. Avg. pct. Change Increase 47% 41% 60% 102% Decrease 26% 127% 12% 24% No change 26% N/A 27% N/A Page 57

60 APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT The 2018 State of Our Cities and Towns survey follows. A cover letter from CML was also included. Page 58

61 2018 CML STATE OF OUR CITIES AND TOWNS SURVEY Please provide the following information. MUNICIPAL INFORMATION Municipality: Respondent s Name: Title: Address: Telephone: If you have any questions about survey content, please call Melissa Mata at CML (303) or mmata@cml.org. For technical assistance online, please contact Corona Insights at (303) or David@CoronaInsights.com. DEADLINE: August 3, 2018 Please send your completed questionnaire to the following address. You may also fill out the survey online. Mail: Online: 1580 Lincoln St., #510 Denver, CO Login: yyyyy (case sensitive) (Envelope enclosed) Password: xxxx

62 SECTION 1: LOOKING BACK AND LOOKING FORWARD 1. It has been a decade since the Great Recession. Compared to just before the recession, how would you describe your municipality s overall financial health today? Much better Somewhat better About the same Somewhat worse Much Worse Don t Know 2. What have been the lasting impacts, if any, of the Great Recession and its aftermath on your municipality? Please check all that apply. Decreased municipal revenue None of the above Reduction in staff Other Please list: Delayed maintenance/capital improvement Lagging economic growth 3. Looking to the next five years, do you believe your municipality s financial outlook is? Very positive Somewhat positive Neutral Somewhat negative Very negative Don t Know 4. How would you rate the following areas of your municipality in 2018? Intergovernmental cooperation with neighboring/regional jurisdictions Intergovernmental cooperation with state/federal governments Economic development/growth Very positive Somewhat Positive Neutral Somewhat Negative Very Negative Don t Know Infrastructure Revenue and budgets Housing Public safety 5. Looking to the next five years, what are the biggest challenges facing your municipality? Please check all that apply. Budget constraints Climate change Transportation funding Sharing economy Housing affordability None of the above Opioid/substance abuse issues Other Please list: Broadband access Cyber security

63 6. During the last 10 years, would you say each of the following items has become? Intergovernmental cooperation with neighboring/regional jurisdictions Intergovernmental cooperation with state/federal governments Economic development/growth Much Better Somewhat Better About the Same Somewhat Worse Much Worse Don t Know Infrastructure Revenue and budgets Housing Public safety 7. What are the biggest challenges facing your municipality today in each of the following areas? Biggest Challenge(s) Economic Growth: Infrastructure: Housing: SECTION 2: HOUSING Next, we want to hear about the challenges, if any, your community is facing regarding housing. 8. Do you feel the affordable housing situation in your municipality has been generally getting better or worse during the past three years? Much better Somewhat better About the same Somewhat worse Much Worse Don t Know

64 9. What impacts, if any, has your municipality experienced as a result of affordable housing challenges? Please check all that apply. An increase in the homeless population Other Please list: Workforce challenges (recruiting, retaining, etc.) Increased traffic and commute times (due to workers commuting) Slower economic growth None of the above 10. Over the past three years, has homelessness increased in your municipality, whether due to affordable housing challenges or other factors? Yes No If YES: Which departments have been affected? Please check all that apply. Law Enforcement None of the above Ambulance Services, if available Other Please list: Parks and Recreation Human Services, if available Public Works Library 11. Which of the following best describes your municipality? Our municipality Check one. Currently has a housing affordability plan Plans to create a housing affordability plan in the next three years Does not have a housing affordability plan and is not planning to create one currently 12. Does your municipality work with a local or regional housing authority? Please check all that apply. Yes, a local housing authority Yes, a regional housing authority No 13. Which of the following actions, if any, are you doing to address affordable housing issues? Please check all that apply. Fast-tracking land use applications Working regionally to address housing Waiving permit fees issues Requiring deed restrictions on certain Levying a dedicated sales tax as a properties funding source Providing stipends to local workforce for None of the above housing Other Please list: Requiring linkage fees for new commercial development Creating (or have created) a municipal plan to address homelessness Zoning for tiny homes

65 SECTION 3: GENERAL MUNICIPALITY REVENUE Next, we want to know how your municipality is doing, economically and financially, in the current fiscal year. 14. Do you feel the overall economy in your municipality is better or worse in FY 2018 compared to FY 2017? Much Better Somewhat Better About the Same Somewhat Worse Much Worse Don t Know 15. Do you feel your municipality s revenue is better or worse in FY 2018 compared to FY 2017? Much Better Somewhat Better About the Same Somewhat Worse Much Worse Don t Know 16. For each of the following revenue categories, please first indicate whether you expect an increase, decrease, or no change for that source of revenue in 2018, and then indicate the estimated percent change from Do not enter negative percentages. If there was a decrease, please check the decrease box and then enter the amount. To calculate percent change, use the formula: (2018 revenue 2017 revenue)/2017 revenue x 100. For example, if your revenue was $20,000 in 2017 and $30,000 in 2018, the increase would be 50%. Revenue from Increase Decrease Sales and use taxes Include all municipal sales/use tax revenues and all shared revenues. Property taxes Include general, capital expenditure, bond redemption, and special fund property tax revenues. No Change Percent Change in Revenue % % State funding % Other taxes % Charges for services % Licenses, permits, and fees % Fines and forfeits % Investment and interest income % Other revenue Please describe: %

66 17. Taking into account both the magnitude of the following issues and the ease or difficulty of addressing them, please rate the following potential fiscal challenges that your municipality may face in Major Challenge Moderate Challenge Minor Challenge Not A Challenge Not Applicable TABOR Slow growth in tax revenues Decrease in tax revenues Decline in federal funding Decline in state funding Increased liability insurance costs Increased health insurance costs Increased workers compensation insurance costs Federal-mandated expenditures (environmental requirements, ADA compliance, etc.) State-mandated expenditures Increased demand for municipal services Adverse local economic conditions Inflation Unfunded street/road maintenance and improvement needs Lack of affordable housing Tight labor market Public safety Unfunded water/ wastewater improvement needs Pension contributions

67 SECTION 4: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Next, we would like to hear about specific economic development efforts (i.e., projects that generate jobs and revenue for your municipality), as well as tools and resources used. 18. How many economic development projects that create new jobs were approved by your municipality during the past 12 months (since July 2017)? Please enter 0 if none. Number of approved projects: 19. How many economic development projects are anticipated by your municipality for the coming 12 months? Please enter 0 if none. Number of anticipated projects: 20. Which of the following activities has your local municipality engaged in, or will engage in, during FY 2019 for the purposes of economic development? Please check all that apply. Promoting entrepreneurship Creation of special development Services to small businesses authorities/districts Tax incentives to businesses Creation of an economic development Grants for businesses plan Creation of more affordable housing Redevelopment projects Workforce training Special events Access to lending None of the above Infrastructure improvements Other Please list: Broadband Tourism promotion Investment in Buy-Local marketing programs Reduced/waived building permit fees 21. What resources does your municipality currently (FY 2018) dedicate for the sole purpose of economic development? Please check all that apply. Staff dedicated to economic None of the above development projects Other Please list: Budget allocation(s) for the purposes of economic development projects Contract with external economic development entity SECTION 5: INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION Next, we would like to learn about your infrastructure and transportation needs. 22. Does your municipality operate or fund any of the following transit programs? Check all that apply. Scheduled bus service None of the above Paratransit Other Please list: Rideshare vans We are in a regional transit district/authority No transit programs

68 23. How do you fund transit projects? Check all that apply. Federal grants Other Please list: Fares/per trip fees General fund Dedicated sales tax Dedicated property tax State funds Not applicable no transit programs 24. Please indicate how many dedicated bike lane miles you have, both on street (i.e., dedicated, striped bike lanes, not shared lanes) and off street (i.e., dedicated bike paths separate from street traffic). On street bike lane: Off street bike path: miles miles 25. For each type of infrastructure listed below, please indicate whether your municipality has any funded projects in 2018, if your municipality has any unfunded needs, or if there is no current need. Please do not include projects by other local governments. Current Needs & Funded Current Needs But NOT Funded No Current Need Drinking water treatment facilities Wastewater treatment facilities Storm water projects Water supply and storage Streets Bridges Public safety facility Public buildings 26. Did your 2018 street maintenance funding increase or decrease compared to 2013? Please first indicate whether there was an increase, decrease, or no change for each year, and then indicate the percent change. Do not enter a negative percent. If there was a decrease, please check the decrease box and then enter the amount. To calculate percent change, use the formula: (2018 funding 2013 funding)/2013 funding x 100. For example, if your funding was $100,000 in 2013 and $114,000 in 2018, the increase would be 14%. Year Increase Decrease No Change Percent Change in Funding Change from 2013 %

69 WRAPPING UP Optional. Do you have any specific projects/successes related to overcoming challenges in any of the areas covered in this survey (infrastructure, revenue, economic development, etc.)? This information will help CML identify potential stories to include as part of the video summary produced as part of The State of Our Cities and Towns. You may be contacted for additional follow-up or interviews as part of this video reporting. Name of Project Brief Description of Project Brief Description of Outcomes/Benefits If you have any additional comments for CML regarding this survey or the state of your municipality, please provide them below. You re finished! Thank you for your participation! DEADLINE: August 3, 2018 Please send your completed questionnaire in the enclosed envelope to: Corona Insights 1580 Lincoln St., #510 Denver, CO 80203