Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/21/2024 - Economic Advisory Board - AGENDA - Regular Meeting Economic Advisory Board REGULAR MEETING August 21, 2024, 4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. HYBRID MEETING OPTIONS Physical LocaƟon: 300 Laporte Ave CIC Room. Virtual option via Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84688470753 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. AGENDA REVIEW 4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. NEW BUSINESS a. Land Use Code Phase II 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Water Supply Requirements (WSR), Excess Water Use (EWU) Surcharge, and Allotments for All Commercial Customers Memo Discussion b. Building Performance Standards (BPS) Memo Discussion 8. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS 9. OTHER BUSINESS 10. ADJOURNMENT 06/26/2024 – AGENDA Page 1 06/26/24 Minutes Economic Advisory Board REGULAR MEETING Wednesday, June 26, 2024 – 4:00 PM 215 N Mason, EOC Training Room 1. CALL TO ORDER: 4:00 PM 2. ROLL CALL a. Board Members Present – • Tim Cochran • Denny Coleman • Chris Denton • Thierry Dossou • Erin Gray • Val Kailburn • Braulio Rojas • Richard Waal • Renee Walkup b. Board Members Absent – c. Staff Members Present – • Ashley Kailburn, Sr Specialist, Economic Health Office • Erin Sporer, Business Support, Economic Health Office • Katherine Bailey, Project Manager, Energy Services d. Guest(s) – 3. AGENDA REVIEW 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Val motioned Tim seconds to approve the May Minutes. Motion carried Unanimous. 7-0 6. NEW BUSINESS a. Building Performances Standards (BPS) Update • Presented this to Council on April 9th work session, will go back in July. Implementation would happen in 2025. • Benefits: Most powerful direct policy action to reduce emissions by 2030 • Buildings account for more than 2/3 of our community carbon Page 2 06/26/24 Minutes emissions. • Covered buildings • 5,000 square feet: multi-family and commercial • Buildings 5,000-10,000 square feet have more attainable targets, timelines • Efficiency Targets • Energy Use Intensity (EUI) • Maximum flexibility • Resources and Support • Education, technical, financial • Adjustments • Additional assistance for under-resourced buildings • Looking for alternate pathways or safety nets for buildings that cannot meet EUI targets like caps, renewables, waivers, and adjustments. • (PUT IN TABLE) • $200,000 average cost per building but there is a lot of variability in that. • The cost is about 1% of the last purchase price. • That is also before any rebates, incentives, tax reductions, etc. • Some of this work is going to happen already, we haven’t factored that into our costs. • Resources • Looked at current resources and thought about what they would still need • A whole building assessment with next steps and projected EUI impact • A navigator to help building owners understand what opportunities there are for them to help pay for upgrades • A resource hub • Outlined which buildings need more resources and working with building representatives to isolate barriers to efficiency • Cost Benefit Study • Energy only: benefit of $.85 for every $1 spent • Social cost: benefit of $3.18 for every $1 spent • Program administration cost: $3,188,000 • Cheaper to save energy than to buy more clean energy or build. • Capital Cost: $226,400,000 • Some other benefits include green buildings have higher resale value, reduction in energy bills and operating costs, etc. • Violations • Trying to prevent it from being revenue generator. • In order to keep people from just paying fine instead of doing improvements, the cost has to be higher than the project cost of compliance. • Recommendations • $.70 kBtu of non-compliance • Smaller fines for being closer to target. Larger fines for being farther from target • Citations reoccur until the building owner acts or total amount of penalty is paid. • Building owner action triggers a cure period which allows for the cessation of citations when and if a building owner is Page 3 06/26/24 Minutes acting towards reaching their efficiency target. • Next steps • Adoption maybe summer 2024 • Resource gathering • Implementation Jan 2025 Questions. • How did you develop that cap? • This was developed by our technical committee. We looked at exactly where our budlings are and looked at a breakdown of how many buildings would be able to meet their target, how far off buildings were from their target, potential costs associated as well as the potential savings associated. At the end of the day, we said what is attainable. • Is the City going to be providing an ROI calculator that is specific for their environment? • Yes we will. It is in the implementation guide. We have a building forecasting calculator tool that is going to help budling owner understand here is where I am, here is where I need to be and here are the things that I can do to get there. They can work with our navigator to plug in the different things to chip away at it. • The ROI question is a good one. I mean if we are looking at a project as a business getting $.85 for every dollar you spend isn’t going to pass. What I think you are saying is there are additional benefits that are not captured by this that are available like extra financing etc. • Yes, those are some of the additional resources that help support it and of course there are additional benefits beyond what’s captured there. • It is great to see all these additional benefits. Often these things are discussed as co-benefits, as if they’re secondary to the energy savings. I think something to emphasize with people in the calculator, Council or the public is that these are incredibly important social and economic benefits, and they reflect certain values that you are not going to see in an ROI. Ideally, we want to have the evidence base to support hat should be include in your ROI down the road. The more we can make this information transparent like indoor air quality benefits for people that live in these buildings. I love the ones you’ve pointed out because I think it resonates with people that are purchasing and occupying these buildings. I would love to see those highlighted upfront with the energy savings and the social cost of carbon because they are so important. They tell a complete story. • These statistics are a little bit more readily dismissed as it’s not a dollar and cents; we are not interested in that. I was in a meeting with the Climate Equity Committee two days ago and one of the things they pointed out was we need some way that we can factor in the health benefits associated with it. It is absolutely critical when you talk about indoor air quality in a community that is one of the highest in the country for high ozone days and potential wildfires. • I agree. I work in environmental economics and the way we talk about these things makes it seem like the co-benefits aren’t as important but something to emphasize is the opportunity cost of Page 4 06/26/24 Minutes inaction. If we are not implementing these standards and other measures right now those emissions count now. Especially as we start to see higher heat days and other effects from climate change that will impact building performance. Actually capturing that now and relaying the benefits of doing this action early is important. • Certainly, one of the benefits we see associated with this is reduced impact of increased heat both on the utility ourselves, but also on whoever the right pair is. Increased efficiencies are important in the world we are in right now. • Is this part of monitoring for the violations part of the admin coverage that you have? • Yes. • Do you intend to turn that money back into the program or will it just end up somewhere else in City revenue? • This is looking a little ways down the line but based on other regulatory programs, it tends to benefit us to have it go into a light and power general fund rather than go into a unique fund that can only benefit this one program. The reason why that’s better is because if it goes into a unique fund, that’s the only thing we can do with those dollars and if we need more dollars than we have in that fund, we want to ask for more dollars to support building owners, it is a harder conversation. If they are going to the light and power general fund, it is a lot more flexible of a conversation. That is what has happened in the past, I suspect that is likely to what is going to happen in the future. • Have you made any estimates on the opportunity costs that the businesses are going to experience? I think a lot of these businesses are smaller and the resource that you’re going to impact is the one with the highest expertise or let’s say the owner who is probably doing other things to try and make their business more profitable or expansive. It is worth considering that that’s a distraction to what they are doing and there is a cost to them not performing what their normal job function is. That might be one of the reasons why you might not see people do this on their own. There’re some buildings that are terribly non-performing where the probably have an excellent ROI but they don’t have the expertise, which you are offering to some but all of the rest of the management is going to end up being on them. It is impactful. • As someone who owns a building, this is a hard sell. If you are going to tell me I have to spend $25,000 to upgrade this building, I would sure hope I don’t have to pay my $25,000 tax bill then. It’s a hard ask, especially when business is struggling. You have restaurants, if you do this are they going to survive? Are we going to be Old Town with just banks? You have to figure out how to sell this, not the way you are doing it now. You have to sell it differently. Businesses are frustrated with the state of Colorado. This is going to frustrate them. They are mobile, nothing is stopping me from selling and moving. I think that is the key point we cannot forget. Business now more than ever are mobile. What is keeping them in Fort Collins or the state of Colorado? You have to really think about that. This is a hard time to sell this • I know you said there are a lot of programs that businesses could tap into. So the previous example, if there’s $25,000 to do it realistically how much of that would they have to pay versus getting supplements. Page 5 06/26/24 Minutes • To that point, that is brain calories, I am running a business. I am managing the homeless population making a mess on my property, so this is the least of my concerns. I am a young person and one of the few that can do this. Young people cannot afford commercial. They can’t even afford a residential property, and you have to own residential to be able to afford commercial because that has to be collateral on the budling. Young people are not buying commercial. That’s great they care about the environment but they care more about paying their bills and their student loans that they are drowning in. I’m having a hard time grasping how small business is going to do this and how we’re going to keep the large employers. How are they not going to be like, hey, I’m out especially if family medical leaves. It’s killing them. We are adding layers and layers onto them. This is going to be a hard sell. • I appreciate that feedback and that’s definitely what we hear from a lot of the community. • One thing I want to clarify, I hear business and building being used interchangeably. It is the building owner who is the responsible party for this. That isn’t to say that doesn’t impact the business within the building. We have very few buildings in Fort Collins that are covered where the business owner is the building owner. We do have a few. What we hear from other jurisdictions about protecting the business does come down to that what support are you offering for that building owner. If there’s that $25,000 how much are they spending? How are you giving them technical expertise so they know what they can do that is free and cheap that will improve it? • Those costs will go down to the business like the property taxes are. That is why we have lost how many resturants this year. It will go down to the business. I am unique where it is one in one but I also did have a renter in there. I get it but you can’t tell me it’s not going to impact the business in the building. • Another way to think about it would be to say, there’s a tremendous amount of value of spending this $230 million. We’re just going to start a City of Fort Collins corporation to go and implement this $230 million plan. And of course you’re not going to spend more than $230 million to do all of it because otherwise that would be false to assume that you could get it done. In five years you’re going to need to deploy about $50 million a year in expense and projects and you would have to take on the burden of hiring enough people to deploy $50 million per year and that’s going to turn out to be quite a few people. I think you will find $50 million a year businesses are pretty big. If you think about getting that done as a project of yours, and what kind of business would have to create. The burden is going to end up within this pool of 1,000 deployed businesses that are impacted. All of that effort gets spread out across those people but the benefit that you would have if you were starting your own business is you would have experts and capable people instead of all these people who really know a lot about running a restaurant, or having a marking business, or running a brewery. I happen to work in a place where I actually have teams of people that know about some of this stuff, so we could but that is unusual. Sadly, I think that would get an exemption. Page 6 06/26/24 Minutes • Your concept is solid but the graph that has A, B, and C, I wonder where I would sit. I hope I am C. We had an assessor coming and say we have done a lot of the stuff they would recommend. That doesn’t help me very much because I know we are not C. I don’t think he is the same assessor you are talking about. • I think my feedback is from the same direction. I think business owners have two key responsibilities, social and financial and this is when there is a blurred line or two intentions that sometimes work against each other. This proposal is important and relevant because of the social impact but business owners have a financial responsibility with all of the stakeholders around the business including employees. So that is why it is a little bit difficult for me to sell. I also don’t understand why we have to include fines for existing structures because they are not doing those improvements. We may want to reconsider those because it is important but they might not be able to afford it right now. The last thing I want to highlight is we need to include or expand more information about finance options and to be creative to motivate them to do the investment. Can we explore tax breaks to finance or subsidize some of those improvements? • So why are we fining? We did an analysis of how far we think we can get with the carrot approach and that has worked very well historically just providing incentives and economic based lures. It worked well specifically for a lot of lighting project because that has great ROI , it is something the budling owners can see, its aesthetically appealing, and not super expensive. We are starting to run out of that opportunity in Fort Collins and we are seeing that there’s just not the uptake in those other kind of projects that we see necessary for this. We looked at various potential studies and how far we think we can get even if we still have the same participation in our rebates and incentive programs that we have historically, when there was more of the low hanging fruit available. We did see less than half of the action that we would need to take in our existing buildings to start approaching where we have committed to go with our climate future goals. I don’t know if you are familiar with the 2050 tax that was recently passed that provides some funding for sustainability and we got some feedback from Council that this is a wonderful use of some of those dollars so more to come on that. I want to call out that balance between and financial responsibility. The time to do this sort of thing would have been 20 years ago but it wasn’t. We waited until it was an emergency and now the cost of inaction is a real cost. It becomes a bigger and more complicated conversation. • It is interesting for me to hear the business owner/building owner perspective because this is the exact type of conflict we’re going to face with so many of these questions around climate change and meeting different emissions goals. I tend to get emotional about the cost of inaction. We are where we are and the opportunity cost of inaction is quite large and misunderstood. Not that we should put all of that on business and building owners. So the question is how do we get that right. What is out there and could be presented differently? One thing I heard is the transaction cost for managing this and it sounds like you are talking about hiring new staff and having resources available. I am curious from those who have businesses, how far does that get you? What else is needed? I Page 7 06/26/24 Minutes see the cost stacking up for businesses based on our previous presentations. If we can help ameliorate the transaction cost and we can do better understanding and education around short and long term risks and opportunities around these kinds of policies. Maybe that only gets you so far. Even if there are these resources to help support it, I think some businesses are going to find this pretty cheap. Some are going to find it more expensive. We also know cap and trade programs also have a high transaction cost. The idea of budlings and businesses being able to transfer some of that cost between each other is controversial. • In my opinion you have to take all of the brain calories out for the building owner. You have to take it all out and dumb it down and say this is what you are going to do. This is how you are going to get there. This is great for us as a committee who’s providing recommendations, but you have to figure out the cost fees and say its only going to cost you this much. I am not going to take out a loan against my building. I don’t care if its available. I am not going to do it. It is going to make it harder to sell. It is already hard to sell commercial right now. I have no extra time to do this so if you had a rep say this is what you have to do by X and I am going to guide you through this, here is the cost and all the tax things, that is what you are going to have to do. We don’t have a team or expertise to do this. Other board members agreed with having a guide, cost estimations, other ways to help cover costs, and ways to get payback. Someone to help guide the project all the way through. That support piece would be better received. • Another hurdle mentioned was not being to operate while construction is happening. Everyone loves the idea of budling’s being more efficient but once this gets implemented they are not going to complain it away, they are just going to move. Restaurants have low margins, they might stay because it’s Fort Collins, but might not. • Is the aesthetic of the building, design, and landscaping under your department as well? • Aesthetics and landscaping is not going to be under energy services. When it comes to energy efficiency improvements in the building, some of them do add aesthetic value, like lighting. Unfortunately a lot of those next step improvements are things that don’t have any sort of that bling factor. Building occupants will feel them and they will see that reduction on their energy bill but not necessarily going to be the aesthetics. • Who does review that for the City, not just in the historic district? • That is part of development review and zoning. • Are the City’s buildings in the population of the buildings that you are showing here? If so, it would be interesting to see how the City’s buildings perform compared to how the businesses are managing their buildings. • Adopted in City code, there are building performance standard requirements for city municipal buildings. The City wants to lead by example and that’s going to mean the City wants to be achieving the same targets that the community is achieving, not something different. That is something we brought up to Council June 11th of how would you feel about City buildings code being updated so that they are matching the same requirements as the rest of the Page 8 06/26/24 Minutes community. City Council did show a lot of support for that. We are re-pulling our numbers to see what investments we need to make. • How does this sit within the Our Climate Future emissions reduction target and how far these actions actually get you towards that target? • When we look at our projected pathway to our 80% Ghg emissions target, you can see we’re only able to project down so far to 70%, meaning there is still work that we are doing that we are hoping to partner with the community and all of the steps we have isolated to get us this far are sort of that much more critical. The biggest section here is electricity. That’s what you’re thinking of as the greening of the gird that’s happening at the level of Platte River Power Authority. Performance of existing buildings is about 16%. We are just not building new buildings that fast. • Do you need anything from our board? • We just had two City Council work sessions. We are waiting ot hear if we would have another one. Feedback to us or Council always helpful. We are not asking for memeos yet. Waiting to hear back from Council on next steps. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Water Supply Requirements (WSR) • Heather Young presented at a previous EAB meeting. They are going back to Council in October. • The board discussed WSR information from the last meeting and possibly providing a memo. They discussed how looking from the outside makes sense, but some details need to be mapped out better. The business owner will feel like they are being hit by two different things with WSR and BPS, however it could be hard to align them due to the different districts. They also discussed the difference between an allotment and a max flow rate as well as usage rates and penalties. • Is there a particular board that is appointed by Council or the Mayor to review disputes? For example, if a company and a regulator can’t come to terms or agreement and it’s not clear cut in the regs, is there a board the business can petition to hear their case? • Currently, I think it would be a SAR request and it gets assigned to City personnel. It is usually City Manager and staff • Some areas have a citizen review board and some of them are final decision makers on issues. The board suggested sending a letter to Council or the City Manager regarding this and if it could be created. Ashely can also find out more information on this. • The board decided to get together at the next meeting to discuss more on the memo for WSR and BPS. 8. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS 9. STAFF REPORTS 10. OTHER BUSINESS a. The board asked for an IEDC accreditation update • Application has gone in, and one reviewer has finished. We should hear hopefully by the end of next week if we will get a site visit. • How much did that cost? Page 9 06/26/24 Minutes • Not sure, we can find out from Kat. It lasts for multiple years though. 11. ADJOURNMENT a. (6:00PM) Minutes approved by a vote of the Board/Commission on XX/XX/XX Page 1 07/17/24 Minutes Economic Advisory Board REGULAR MEETING Wednesday, July 17, 2024 – 4:00 PM 300 Laporte Ave, CIC Room 1. CALL TO ORDER: 4:00 PM 2. ROLL CALL a. Board Members Present – • Denny Coleman • Chris Denton • Val Kailburn • Braulio Rojas • Richard Waal • Renee Walkup b. Board Members Absent – • Tim Cochran • Thierry Dossou • Erin Gray c. Staff Members Present – • Ashley Kailburn, Sr Specialist, Economic Health Office • Erin Sporer, Business Support, Economic Health Office d. Guest(s) – 3. AGENDA REVIEW 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. No minutes to approve this meeting. They will approve June and July at their August meeting. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Water Supply Requirements (WSR), Excess Water Use (EWU) Surcharge, Allotments for All Commercial Customers, and Building Performance Standards (BPS) • WSR and EWU are going back to Council in October. Have time to decide how they want to support moving forward. • Erin was going to write a draft memo for WSR and EWU. • Suggestion on how to combine the communication for businesses for WSR and BPS and being mindful on how they work together as it seems Page 2 07/17/24 Minutes like a double hit for businesses. • BPS was supposed to go to Council in June, but it has been pushed back. Not a date set at this time. • The water side of things seems like it is something the City has to do so they are not sure what else they can do as a Board so they are thinking about putting more time into BPS and if it is going to go through how can they make the experience better. • Has the City done an ROI for BPS that is part of their calculation for presentation to Council and businesses in the area? Asking a business to invest, whatever the number is without allowing them to either regain that investment or find value out of it, will lose traction immediately. It seems like assumptions were made but there was not solid data behind it, and it would be good for the City to do that exercise before presenting this. • The board agrees, sounds like a good idea but financially it could be negative or hard for many businesses to deal with and we need to be mindful of that. • The board was not sure if there was a phasing in period or just a deadline for BPS. They also discussed it being mandatory vs just a suggestion and continuing to find financial sources to help businesses make improvements. They agree that they need to promote having better budling standards but due to the nature of business, buildings, and current economic environment it might not be a good idea to make it mandatory. • Is the date by 2030? • Yes • That is soon and very aggressive. That is not going to happen. There is not enough financial run for this. It can’t stand on its own legs as it is now. There isn’t even an ROI in here and you think that would be the number one thing that would be in here. This isn’t strong enough as it is right now. • Other board members agree but think the City can do something towards it without making it mandatory. If you want to support these buildings and educate them to get them to buy in, then that is great. • The board discussed how there was an ROI tied to CO2 levels but they don’t remember the savings. Another recommendation to the City could be to think this through and if it is a viable plan the way it has been presented. What we want as a board is the City to thrive economically and if we feel businesses are at risk of shutting down or movin because too strong financial demands, maybe phasing in. It is a big hit. We are still recovering from the pandemic. Businesses are not all thriving. • The board discussed that the memo should recommend that City Council does not adopt BPS or not make it mandatory. They are not against building performance standards just the timing. Do something as a reward vs a punishment. A punishment start to a policy against economics in our city is the worst approach. Think about how we can support businesses. If you want to do this, this is how we can help you and this is what you are going to get. • I think we all have a problem with the fines. Are there grants/federal grants the City can help business owners apply for. Maybe this is another way of looking at this, lets help you get the funds to help everyone instead of you will be fined if you don’t comply. • We have an opportunity to shape the conversation for City Council. Are Page 3 07/17/24 Minutes there funds, can we get a solid ROI? In the presentation it says you can get up to 18% but is that realistic and what type of buildings get that. If we can write a memo that focuses on where we see gaps in this plan, we can help them direct the questions back to the group that is presenting this and building the plan. We do need to do something as a community to make everything more efficient, but we don’t want to drive businesses out. Make it a carrot. The burden proposed here is not in the wheelhouse of those you are putting it on, and it needs to be solved. It seems like the City has a lot of ability to understand this problem, but most businesses do not. So, we are proposing incentives in support vs fines and hand slapping. Often that doesn’t work. • Braulio moved and Chris seconded to create a memo communicating concern and recommending alternative actions to City Council. Motion approved 6-0 • Val will write the first draft of the BPS memo. The board wants Council and City staff to see the memo. They also mentioned they can show up to Council Meetings for comments. They also stressed the title is important. • Regarding the memo for WSR, Erin was going to write the first draft in support with some reservations. • The allocation portion seemed reasonable to the board. Part of it was that there were penalties for water usage above the allocation so the question was regarding allocation and if some of the allocation would be below their current use. Are we penalizing this group of people in the same percentile as the rest of the population? I could see this going a couple of ways. If I had no limit, I might be managing my business as such that it is out of control and if that whole population is really doing that, then you are going to have really steep fines for a small percentage of people and we will need to find a more productive way to ease into that, ultimately getting them to where they want to land but there wasn’t enough data in there. • They also discussed peak flow vs allotment. There were some questions on how the recommended fees were calculated and how the allotments were going to be determined. Ashley can follow up with staff. • There was a concern about affordable housing, it sounds reasonable but the board wants the City to be mindful about affordable housing. • Fee increases are due to the cost of water. • The allotment will never be reduced, it is tied to the property. The extra purchase would come if they needed more water than their allotment. The board also discussed allocating water and water rights. • Erin is planning on drafting a memo with considerations for things like affordable housing. Braulio will discuss with her. 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS a. Denny – I read an article in the paper about a grant being awarded regarding quantum physics as well as a CO-WY grant. It sounded like Fort Collins was involved in them. I would have liked to have known about it and have information like that brought to the board. Ashley will find out more about the article and get information b. Braulio- Has Jillian’s old position been filled? • We are conducting interviews this week and hope to have a decision Page 4 07/17/24 Minutes soon. That person will be the next liaison for the board. The position is Sr. Economic Manager. 9. STAFF REPORTS 10. OTHER BUSINESS 11. ADJOURNMENT a. (5:24PM) Minutes approved by a vote of the Board/Commission on XX/XX/XX Land Use Code Update: Commercial Corridors and Centers August 21, 2024 Phase 2 of the Land Use Code Update Clay Frickey Team Structure Co-PM Co-PM Technical Lead Megan Keith Operational focus, day-to-day management Sylvia Tatman-Burruss Relationship and strategic focus Noah Beals Oversees Work Streams, provides technical expertise Work Stream Work Stream Work Stream Planning Mgr. Clay Frickey Internal Partnerships: •Planning and Zoning •FCMoves and Transfort •Economic Health Office •Forestry •Utilities 3 POLICIES CODE AUDIT/DIAGNOSTIC PRIORITIES DRAFT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 4 PURPOSE: Implementing Our Plans Council Priorities Council Priority No. 1: Operationalize City resources to build and preserve affordable housing Council Priority No. 3: Advance a 15-minute city by igniting neighborhood centers Council Priority No. 4: Pursue an integrated, intentional approach to economic health Council Priority No. 8: Advance a 15-minute city by accelerating our shift to active modes 5 6Strategic Plan Alignment Document Policy Text City Plan LIV 2: Promote Infill and Redevelopment City Plan LIV 3: Maintain and enhance our unique character and sense of place as the community grows Transit Master Plan MAP:Future Transit Network (pg 59) Our Climate Future LWPN 2 : Evaluate opportunities within the LUC to better encourage the development of “complete neighborhoods” Housing Strategic Plan Create additional development incentives for affordable housing Economic Health Strategic Plan Outcome 2.1: Small businesses have access to tools and resources needed to succeed 15-Minute City Analysis GOAL:Shift to Active Modes Trips 7Exploratory Questions Questions to explore through Phase II: •Are there opportunities to add clarity to the development review process? •How can the Land Use Code be more aligned with our policy plans? •How can we advance our 15-minute city goals through the Land Use Code? •How do we balance multiple desired outcomes through our development standards? 8Potential Work Streams Potential Topics Explored in this Workstream: •Amendment Process (Micro/Minor/Major) •Basic Development Review Process •Other Development Review Processes (Type 1 and Type 2 Reviews) •Customer Tools & Resources Workstream Name: Processes and Procedures Exploratory Questions: Are there opportunities to add clarity to the development review process? Potential Topics Explored in this Workstream: •Landscaping & Trees •Site Planning & Design •Natural Resource Standards •Bike, Pedestrian & Trail Connectivity Workstream Name: Development Standards Exploratory Questions: How can we balance multiple desired outcomes through our development standards? How can the Land Use Code be more aligned with our policy plans? Potential Topics Explored in this Workstream: •Creating Commercial and Industrial Building Types •Recalibrating Employment & Industrial Zoning •Standards for Specific Uses •Small Business Considerations •15-Minute Cities o Neighborhood Centers o Transit-Supportive Development Workstream Name: Commercial and Mixed-Use Corridors Exploratory Questions: How can we advance our 15-minute city goals through the Land Use Code? How can the Land Use Code be more aligned with our policy plans? State Legislation: •HB-1313 Housing in Transit Oriented Communities •HB-1152 Accessory Dwelling Units •HB-1304 Minimum Parking RequirementsSt a t e Le g i s l a t i o n 9Community and Council Engagement Strategy June 11th Work Session RFP Community Kick-Off Event Council Work Session Consultant Production Staff ReviewCouncil Work Session Council Work Session Ongoing Communication Consultant Production Staff Review Community & Focus Group Engagement Community Info Session Ongoing Communication Council Adoption Refinement Iteration Community & Focus Group Engagement 10Potential Community Engagement Methods Ongoing Communication Methods •Email Newsletters •Frequent Website updates with comment form available Code Creation and Iteration Review Methods may include a combination of: •In-Person & Virtual Events •Focus Groups •Website Videos •Charette-style events •Boards & Commissions work sessions Draft Code Review and Refinement Phase: •Website videos •Staff Office hours •In-Person & Virtual Events •Draft code sections available for review and comment 12State Legislation HB-1313 Housing in Transit-Oriented Communities: This bill will require the establishment of a Housing Opportunity Goal, potential rezonings, establishment of anti-displacement strategies, and reporting on an on-going basis. HB-1152 Accessory Dwelling Units: This bill will require updating our Land Use Code to permit Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) wherever we allow single-family detached homes. Code language from previous iterations of the Land Use Code has already been drafted. Will need to confirm that previously written code language would comply with this bill. HB-1304 Minimum Parking Requirements: This bill will require updates to the Land Use Code to remove minimum parking requirements for multi-family and certain mixed-use projects close to transit. 13HB1313 –Transit Oriented Development HB1313 Overview Communities must create a housing opportunity goal which generally corresponds to an average zoned density of 40 dwelling units per acre within a quarter-mile of higher frequency transit (‘transit area’). Ensure the community has zoned capacity that meets or exceeds their housing opportunity goal within transit areas. Create an administrative approval process for multifamily development within transit areas. Create strategies for affordable housing / displacement mitigation within transit areas. Major Milestones June 30, 2025 –Submit preliminary assessment report December 31, 2026 –Submit housing opportunity goal December 31, 2027-Code/zoning complies with housing opportunity goal and other HB1313 requirements 14HB1313 –Preliminary Assessment Fort Collins Transit Areas: Eligible transit areas in Fort Collins are likely to fall along the MAX BRT corridor and bus routes serving Campus West/Foothills Campus (Elizabeth Street Corridor). Future transit areas could include North College (MAX expansion), new high-frequency bus routes, or transit stations served by future passenger rail (Front Range Passenger Rail). Fort Collins –Preliminary Analysis Most areas along the MAX Corridor or immediately west of CSU already zoned and capable of supporting 40 dwelling units per acre. Areas near the CSU Foothills Campus do not meet criteria. Options include rezoning or ensuring higher zoning elsewhere to establish an overall 40 du/acre average. Additional analysis required. Fort Collins lacks an administrative approval process for multifamily development within transit areas. Existing affordable housing & displacement strategies may meet state requirements or could be expanded –awaiting additional guidance. 15Items Removed During LUC Phase I Revisions by Zone District Revisions for RL and UE: 1 Remove Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) as a permitted housing type Revisions for NCL/OT-A: 2 Remove duplex as a permitted housing type 3 Maintain current lot size for residential units 4 Remove affordable housing incentive of additional housing types (apartment, rowhouse, cottage court) Revisions for NCM/OT-B: 5 Maintain current 4 unit maximum for multi-unit building 6 Maintain current lot size for residential units 7 Remove affordable housing incentive of additional density (+1 unit) Revisions for HOAs: 8 Remove language prohibiting HOAs from regulating the number and/or type of dwelling units permitted on a lot 9 Remove language prohibiting HOAs from regulating the ability to subdivide property Economic Health Office 300 LaPorte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6505 970.224.6107 – fax fcgov.com MEMORANDUM DATE: Aug 12, 2024 TO: Mayor and Councilmembers CC: Kelly DiMartino, City Manager; Tyler Marr, Deputy City Manager; Jacob Castillo, Chief Sustainability Officer; SeonAh Kendall, Economic Health Director; Brian Tholl, Sr Manager; Katherine Bailey, Project Manager FROM: Braulio Rojas, Chair – Economic Advisory Board; Erin Gray, Vice-Chair – Economic Advisory Board; and Members, Economic Advisory Board for 2024 RE: BUILDING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Recommendation from the City of Fort Collins Economic Advisory Board (EAB): The EAB agrees with the goals of the Building Performance Standards however, recommends NOT to adopt this initiative as mandatory at this time, due to the economic impact it will bring specifically regarding the following concerns: Key Considerations: ● Cost Burden on Businesses: Building owners will pass these costs onto businesses, which are already grappling with inflation, higher wages, increased costs of goods, and substantial property tax hikes. ● Business Mobility: In today’s mobile business environment, we must ask—what incentives are keeping businesses in Fort Collins? This section can have more impact by suggesting that The city encourage incentives to business owners for retention, rather than imposing fines for non-compliance, like in the initial proposal, but I recommend that this go third on the list. ● Fort Collins Revenue Reliance: To maintain a well-funded city, it's essential to bolster our business community as 56% of the city's budget is derived from sales tax. If costs persist in escalating, we could potentially face the risk of businesses relocating from Fort Collins, jeopardizing the city's financial stability. Economic Health Office 300 LaPorte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6505 970.224.6107 – fax fcgov.com Please also consider the ongoing lawsuits regarding Energize Denver's Building Performance Standards, which have led to a halt in all building development in Denver. Reference: Colorado Chapter Files Lawsuit Challenging Building Performance Standards. The EAB recommends taking the time to engage with relevant stakeholders to craft a plan that aligns with both the city's climate goals and the economic vitality of our business community when businesses have fully recovered from the last economic recession. The environmental impacts of less efficient buildings is important, however. Let’s not rush into a decision that could have lasting negative economic impacts. We recommend working with buildings and business owners to identify energy efficiency opportunities and delaying the City’s proposal until we are more confident that our local businesses are generating more revenue and are fiscally stronger.