Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEconomic Advisory Commission - Minutes - 08/17/20111 Minutes City of Fort Collins Economic Advisory Commission Regular Meeting 300 LaPorte Ave City Hall August 17, 2011 11:00 a.m. – 1:30 p.m. For Reference: Bill Timpson, Chair 493-3673 Council Liaison Wade Troxell Mike Freeman, Staff Liaison 416-2259 Wendy Bricher, Minutes 221-6506 Commission members present: Commission members absent: Stu MacMillan Michael Kulisheck Christophe Febvre Kevin Shaw Jim Clark Bill Timpson Channing Arndt Blue Hovatter Rick Price Guests: Dale Adamy Glen Colton Lucinda Smith, Sr. Environmental Planner Ann Hutchison, FC Chamber of Commerce Staff Present: Mike Freeman, Chief Financial Officer Christina Vincent, Redevelopment Program Administrator Wendy Bricher, Minutes Ann Turnquist, Policy and Project Manager Steve Dush, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director Agenda Item 1: Meeting called to order Meeting called to order at 11:06 a.m. Agenda Item 2: Approval of Minutes Unanimous approval of minutes dated 07/13/11. Agenda Item 3: Public Comment Glen Colton addressed the Economic Advisory Commission regarding the recent editorial he wrote in the Coloradoan titled “It’s Time to Re-evaluate Tax Giveaways”. He believes that the City of Fort Collins is increasingly giving Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to questionable projects and financial incentive packages (public tax dollars) to multi-billion dollar corporations. He believes that these projects would have moved forward without the incentives provided. He also believes it is unfair to give the biggest Financial Services 300 LaPorte Ave PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6505 970.224.6107 - fax fcgov.com 2 companies these advantages while small companies, individuals, and business owners pay their fair share to keep Fort Collins great; the money could be best spent elsewhere. Christophe Febvre commented that he appreciated the article and the reminder to look at issues from different perspectives, and not just the City’s. He asked Mr. Colton to expand on his knowledge (having worked at Avago and HP), why he believes Avago and HP would have stayed here regardless of the incentives they received. Mr. Colton replied that it is hard to know for sure, as those negotiations are held in private. However, he believes low utilities are an advantage for them to stay here; he believes we need to look at the cost structure of the other sites they could go to, and compare the other sites vs. what the City has to offer. Christophe asked Mr. Colton how he reflected on the “direct investment” that the City would see as a direct benefit back to the community in the long run. Mr. Colton did not believe that primary jobs are the key to everything and that there are other ways to do Economic Development. From the public’s perspective, he does not see the hard questions being asked before incentives are given. Rick Price was interested in hearing Mike Freeman’s perspective regarding this issue. Mike Freeman stated that the issues are extremely complicated and the City of Fort Collins does not publish an Economic Development Incentive Policy as the City treats every single project differently as they all have different requirements. They are highly confidential projects that will not be negotiated in public; in all cases, we are absolutely competing with other sites, there is no question. He believes this is a good topic for future discussion. Jim Clark commented that he believes the Gallagher Amendment makes it very difficult for communities in Colorado to be economically competitive and that HP (in Colorado Springs) recently shut down and laid employees off even though they have cheap Utilities there. Jim is happy with the North College improvements as he is a resident in that area. He also stated the school district and the County are not objecting to these project incentives and that they have weighed in positively (as they do get the long- term tax growth down the road). Lucinda Smith, Sr. Environmental Planner, provided a good news item regarding our Carbon Community Report and that our community carbon reduction is dropping down below baseline levels. Blue Hovatter was first involved, as part of EAC, in first developing the carbon goals and Climate Action Plan. Blue commented that he appreciated the project feedback and that economic goals are being realized. Agenda Item 4: Follow-up Discussion Regarding Previous Meetings Steve Dush provided a brief re-cap and update regarding the proposed Development Review Fees and Building Permit Fees changes and stated that the ordinance will go to Council on September 6 for review. Steve Dush and Ann Turnquist had previously presented, in depth, to the Economic Advisory Commission in June 2011. Stu MacMillan commented that he believes it is a reasonable request and we should move forward. After thorough consideration and discussion, the Economic Advisory Commission will make the following recommendation: Motion by Stu MacMillan, seconded by Jim Clark: The Economic Advisory Commission (EAC) reviewed the proposed Development Review Fees & Building Permit Fees changes and agrees with the philosophy of cost recovery as articulated in the Building Permit and Plan Fee Check Proposal, and the commission does not believe that there will be a significant economic impact from its implementation. Motion passed unanimously. Agenda Item 5: Member Updates/Future Agenda Items Discussion The Economic Advisory Commission decided to postpone the General Improvement District (GID) discussion indefinitely pending future agenda items. The September agenda should include information regarding Homeward 2020 (Bryce Hach), 2011 Work Plan, and an update from TIP Strategies regarding the Economic Action Plan. Christophe Febvre suggested that we bring back the TIF/incentives discussion in October, and Mike Freeman suggested that EAC actively work to influence the strategy through the Economic Action Plan. 3 Jim Clark provided an update regarding tourism in Colorado and stated that Colorado continues to lead to State job growth. Campus Crusade is now called CRU and had one of their biggest years ever. So far, economic news and the stock market have not seemed to affect travel at all. Agenda Item 6: Bike Program Rick Price presented information regarding the future of the Bike Program. He is concerned that CMAQ funding will be ending, CDOT funding is in question, and that the City of Fort Collins needs to set priorities and start planning now for 2013 – 2014. Rick provided information including a Summary of Bicycle Program Funding from 2009 – 2012 and his ideas of the Bike Program as an economic driver in Fort Collins. Rick stressed how do we continue to cover the programs (bicycle safety program, congestion problems on trails, education, role in races and events, bike library) with decreased funding. Rick also introduced bike-automated systems as a possible suggestion to the transit system. Blue Hovatter asked about possible implementation costs involved in the automated bike systems and Rick provided an estimate of 400,000 – 500,000. Christophe Febvre stated he believes the funding situation and mission is precarious. Stu MacMillan agreed and suggested something like this should include a business plan as part of the planning. Rick suggested the funding might be better used to fund a long-term bicycle planning and business plan; the Bike Plan revision is scheduled for 2013. Blue Hovatter suggested that biking non- profits, groups, and CSU should also be involved in long-term planning. It was suggested that a future agenda item be scheduled that includes a representative from the Automated Bike Systems as well as Transportation staff to discuss this item further (including vision, funding, economic value, and long-term transportation infrastructure planning). Agenda Item 7: URA Citizen Advisory Group Memo Discussion & Recommendation Christina Vincent provided a brief update regarding the Citizen Advisory Group (CAG) options for the Midtown URA Projects and provided benchmarking data for CAG support to other cities within Colorado. Currently, this item will go to a work session in September and City Staff is considering options 2 & 3 as a recommendation to Council whereas the existing North Fort Collins CAG is recommending option 1 and the SFCBA is recommending option 4. Rick Price commented that he believed City Council could benefit from an advisory group for the Midtown URA Plan Area but not from stakeholders that have a core interest in the area; he believes this would be a conflict of interest. Jim Clark asked how well is the current North Fort Collins CAG is working. Christina Vincent replied that, in her opinion, the URA was in its beginning stages and really needed the support of the NCFBA business members and property owners and, at that time, the CAG made sense; the Council, as a URA board, was not up to speed in the projects that would move forward and felt additional support would be beneficial. Now in our 6th year, things are a little bit different. There is value add in the conversation that happens with the CAG, but may seem a little bit redundant (same conversation with NFCBA). They have been very involved, passionate, and dedicated. The URA is evolving, changing, and growing and we are no longer in the infancy stages anymore. It is staff’s and Council’s responsibility to evaluate if this is the proper technique to continue using or if we should also mature with the program to the extent that we can offer the best support and advice in a non-conflict of interest way. Mike Freeman believes that the City URA areas will increase; he encouraged the EAC to consider this as they recommend a new structure and to consider, as the projects are bigger, who the individuals are who ought to be advising Council on those issues. Christophe Febvre commented that the role of the City is to help create infrastructure and vision, but there is some point where we have to step out and let the market decide. Is the time to step out is before you have an advisory group or is that inappropriate? Stu MacMillan commented that philosophically, if we are going to divert tax dollar, we can’t have self-interest. You have to look at the overall good of the City. Blue Hovatter commented that a Citizens Advisory Group without a barrier to entry (membership fees, etc) will offer a fair chance for all to sit on the Board; it’s fair to the community and you get the diversity you need. After thorough discussion, the EAC will make the following recommendation to Council: 4 Motion by Rick Price, seconded by Stu MacMillan After thoughtful consideration, the Economic Advisory Commission (EAC) recommends Staff Option 3 to establish an official recommending board, or some variation of that, for all URA activities in the community. Motion passed unanimously. Agenda Item 8: Economic Strategic Plan – TIP Strategies Caroline Alexander (TIP Strategies), Ben Wright (Atlas), and Keeley Sullivan (Atlas) provided a status update of the Communications Assessment developed by Atlas Advertising. Atlas representatives have completed the assessment phase and have drafted the overview of findings in a 40 page formal report (will be forwarded to EAC). Results from the Entrepreneur Survey (in incubators right now, budding entrepreneurs) and the Cluster Manager’s (people running clusters not) were discussed. Overall, Atlas was impressed with the variety of audiences the City’s communications staff and programs are able to produce. It is quite rare that cities of Fort Collins size are able to support cluster development and technology transfer communications as well as economic communications. However, we believe future plans should (and will) include clear metrics for engagement and response by specific audience groups. Mike Freeman provided a brief history on the Economic Health Program (since its inception in 2007) and commented that now is a good time to recalibrate and commented that this is great feedback and will sharpen up what we are doing. Blue Hovatter commented that we have a good base to build on and this will help us develop further to get the biggest impact. Atlas stated that the City saw a need, and incubated these kinds of things; some of the things that are incubated should come back with the City, other things may be better suited for other related organizations within the City. Meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled on September 21, 2011 from 11:00 am – 1:30 pm CIC Room, City Hall