Dear Mayor Francis and Councilmembers Conway, Pignataro, Fudge, Potyondy, Hoeven, and Nelsen –

The Fort Collins Sustainability Group (FCSG) has reviewed the 2027-2028 City Manager’s Recommended Budget, with a particular focus on items that might potentially reduce climate pollution and items funded by the 2050 sales tax.  We observed that:

1. The Environmental Services Department is slated to receive approximately $5.01 million in 2027 and $5.59 million in 2028 from the 2050 tax (page 42).  This is roughly the total amount we would expect to be collected for the climate portion of the 2050 tax in those years.
2. It is stated that Environmental Services Department spending will increase in in 2027 and 2028 “through use of dedicated 2050 Tax” funds for “additional one-time or shorter-term projects recommended through the 2026 Our Climate Future Strategic Funding Plan” (page 42).
3. Those “one-time or shorter-term projects” do not appear in the 2027-2028 City Manager’s Recommended Budget.
4. Total Environmental Services Department funding is shown as approximately $7.46 million in 2027 and $8.10 million in 2028 (page 42).
5. Total Environmental Services Department program spending is shown as $3.67 million in 2027 and $4.21 million in 2028 (page 43).  There is a difference between funding and expenditures of $3.79 million in 2027 and $3.89 million in 2028.
6. Other departments receiving funding from the 2050 tax are Parks (approximately $10.98 million in 2027 and $10.88 million in 2028, page 68) and Transfort (approximately $3.56 million in 2027 and $3.61 million in 2028, page 172).
7. Light and Power is not slated to receive any money from the 2050 tax in 2027 or 2028 (page 204).
8. It is stated that there will be a “reduction in incentive costs [compared to previous years] to align with decreased demand for Renewable Customer Programs and Conservation Incentive Programs” in the Light and Power budget (page 204).
9. No programs are scored on the metric of “$/ton of climate pollution reduced.” Several councilmembers asked that this metric be provided for programs impacting climate pollution at the City work session held on April 28^th, 2026.

We have the following questions:

1. What accounts for the discrepancy between Environmental Services Department funding and Environmental Services Department program spending noted above?
2. Where are the “one-time or shorter-term projects” funded through the climate portion of the 2050 tax shown? How much will be spent on each in 2027 and 2028?
3. Are programs or projects scored using the metric “$/ton of climate pollution reduced” anywhere? If so, where? If not, why not?

We look forward to staff’s response to these three questions.

Sincerely,

Kevin Cross, FCSG Convener