HomeMy WebLinkAboutEconomic Advisory Commission - Minutes - 03/19/2014Minutes
City of Fort Collins
Economic Advisory Commission
March 19, 2014
CIC, City Hall
11:00am–1:30pm
For Reference
Blue Hovatter, Chair 493-3673
Karen Weitkunat, Mayor & Council Liaison 416-2154
SeonAh Kendall, Staff Liaison 416-2164
Dianne Tjalkens, Minutes 221-6734
Commission Members Present Commission Members Absent
Ann Hutchison (arrived 12:05) Glen Colton
Michael Kulisheck (Mike) Linda Stanley
Denny Otsuga
Michael Rechnitz
Jim Clark
Sam Solt
Blue Hovatter
Guests
Dale Adamy
Mike Prusnick
Citizen (did not sign in)
Staff Present Staff Absent
Josh Birks, Economic Health Director, acting liaison SeonAh Kendall, Business Retention Strategist
Dianne Tjalkens, minutes
Amy Lewin, Transportation Planner
Pete Wray, Senior City Planner
Meeting called to order at 11:06am, without quorum.
Logistics
Approval of minutes
Jim moved to approve the January minutes. Denny seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-0. Ann
arrived after minutes were approved.
Public Comment—Mike Prusnick spoke about government transparency. He is concerned about process
issues. He distributed handouts on the Foothills Mall funding sources. He said that the agreement was
originally to have four funding sources and the final agreement has five funding sources. His concern is
that the fifth funding source is not being disclosed properly. He would like the board to send a memo to
Council regarding this discrepancy.
• Denny asked if there was a list of the sources with amounts attached to each. Mike said Mike
Beckstead said it was a minimal amount of money and is the pledged ownership taxes.
• Josh said that every state receives ownership taxes. They are collected at the state level and
handed out based on specific criteria to political entities. A metro district with residents will
receive a portion. Josh said the mall is entitled to that revenue source. It is also pledged toward
the payment of the bonds. It is the purview of the metro district and the City does not have
control over it. He is willing to give more information as requested. He thinks it could have been
made clearer originally and appreciates the feedback.
• Blue said he thinks it is fair to have a memo to Council saying the board heard feedback from a
citizen about an omission and endeavoring to do better. Blue agreed to draft the memo and
send it to the board for approval.
• Mike clarified that this error slipped through every check that the City has.
• Dale Adamy said it would be valuable to suggest in the memo to create a process for when a
citizen has a question. He has had the same issue in bringing up questions to staff in board
meetings, which seem to go nowhere. There should be a process for citizens to follow through
when a question is not answered. It speaks to the effort the City is doing to include outreach
and be transparent.
Commission Member Updates
• Blue reminded the board that Glen Colton (absent) has sent copies of Enough is Enough for
board members to read.
• Jim said the concept in the book is a theory.
• Denny discussed the CSU Ventures 2014 Annual Innovation Symposium on April 25. He brought
posters to share.
• Blue mentioned the Blue Ocean Challenge and Startup Week. He is interested in how it will play
out with the clusters.
• Jim added that there was a news report about Denver leading the country in terms of job
growth and being a good place to start a business.
• Josh added that Denver, Fort Collins, and Boulder are top ten in success of startups per capita.
• Jim said a CSU student is designing a survey regarding the tourism industry and marijuana to
determine public perception, outside of college students.
• Denny said CSU Ventures announced winners of Creative Works Award. The award was created
to engage and encourage non-engineering fields to consider intellectual property.
• Jim said CSU was named a Sustainable University.
Staff Updates—MOR—
• Josh gave the following updates:
o Startup Week is May 20-25, with a variety of events culminating in the Blue Ocean
Challenge.
o City’s second annual Business Appreciation Breakfast is May 21 at the Marriott.
Recognizing and appreciating businesses. Commission members are encouraged to
attend. Free, but requires RSVP.
o Ongoing projects:
Council denied the funding request for Revive, but staff continues to work on
the project and it will go before Council again for another try. He is making a
point of bringing these kinds of projects to the commission before going to
Council. He clarified that Revive is a residential mixed-use project at Willox and
College. Council was not comfortable with the underlying inputs to the pro-
forma, including the land value. The land value felt high compared to other area
properties; however, there is infrastructure in the ground already. There was
also a projection of negative return. Council questioned putting tax increment
funding into a project that is going to lose money. He thinks the project is
attempting to minimizing loss. Josh’s impression is that there was general
support for the project, but the question is whether it is the right project for tax
increment financing. There is also a policy to not reimburse retroactively, and
there was a request to waive that for the construction on Mason and
geothermal.
Staff is actively working on BFOs, Woodward, the Mall, etc. Josh would like to
bring BFO offers to the board for feedback if time permits. Staff is continuing
the current level of programming, but is also bringing forward some new ideas,
such as a cash fund for small and medium businesses. It could be used to backfill
development fees on behalf of a project, pay for training, or for direct cash
assistance. They are also looking at funding for the Small Business Development
Center, and a few other small enhancements. He will bring details to the April
meeting.
Josh said there will be a feasibility study regarding GigU in 2015/16 and will
bring more information to the board as it develops.
• Six-Month Calendar
o Blue mentioned the Historic District, affordable housing, Transit Oriented Development
Study, BOB2, and BFO as topics he would like addressed in upcoming meetings.
o Josh mentioned the Disposable Bags program. He thinks this version is cognizant of the
impact on low income citizens.
o Josh said his office will be looking at housing affordability from two angles: supply and
demand. His office is working with Social Sustainability on the demand side to target
more middle income jobs so workers can afford housing. The study is looking at supply-
side tools, and developing a needs assessment.
o Blue and Josh discussed dates for scheduling agenda items.
Agenda Item 1: Boards & Commissions Update Debrief
Josh said the Board and Commission workshop was dedicated to determining the direction of boards
and commissions. Council and staff want effective feedback from boards to Council. The workshop
requested looking at integrating the key outcome areas and working most effectively. The highest level
themes were regarding board effectiveness (time, purpose, organization, composition, evaluating the
board’s mission, standardization of the boards); communication (back and forth with Council, feedback
and expectations); and better alignment with Council’s priorities. Some key questions are: How will
technology change the way citizens engage? How are we recruiting and training board members? How
can information be shared across boards? An idea proposed is to use ad hoc boards or task forces for
episodic topics.
Comments/Discussion:
• Michael said that at his table the overarching comment was why do the boards not
communicate with each other? Is the board being used effectively if they are addressing issues
without the EAC’s input? Boards want direct input from Council. Is Council devising a plan to
give boards their agenda items? Josh agreed to reinforce that comment.
• Denny also attended the workshop. He wonders what the commission’s role is. Council has a
mission that is separate from staff. What can citizen boards expect to have as outcomes that
impact the City in a meaningful way? We are used as a shield to hear what people are saying,
which is fine, if that is our role. But is that the best way to make an impact with a group that is
very knowledgeable and experienced? What is the core thing that we can have an impact on?
We need guidance from staff and Council in this area. We should not be duplicating what staff is
doing. Do you need long range strategic discussion from us, or more immediate things that are
on Council’s agenda? We should minimize overlap with staff duties.
• Josh said he is unsure how to use the board too. And it is different across the boards. To get the
best input from the board they need expertise as well as broad community perspective.
• Mike said when he hears discussions of what the boards do, it seems like people want to elevate
the board to a professional level, in order to insert themselves into the policy procedure. We are
not here to become another layer of staff. Who are we working for? Fundamentally, City
Council. But in the real world, we are working for staff, helping staff with the advice they bring
to Council. We help staff create a more actionable product. There is soft value to boards
measured in introducing and engaging more citizens to city government. The workshop was
focused on power. If we elevate the professionalism, you wipe out participation from a huge
segment of the population.
• Josh added that of the 26 boards, some see themselves as another layer of staff and play that
role. To him, he would like consistency across the whole organization. When he started it was
just as unclear to him the role of the board as it was to the board members.
• Jim added that there was diversity at his table between the engagement levels. In his
profession, working with his board is very difficult. As staff we look to the board as a sounding
board and for help with outreach. The board is a mirror to reflect community value and provide
feedback to staff and City Council. Some boards want broad responsibility, but to him the board
is to act as a consultant. There is confusion about the broad policy issues.
• Blue added that his table had a mix with people who have some power and know their boards’
jobs. He said the process to become a board member is a 2 minute interview with a City Council
member and then very quickly sitting on the board with little knowledge of your role. Citizens
come in wanting to make change, but their expectations and reality are not aligned. There
needs to be better clarity when applying which boards are quasi-judicial and which are
consultative. How can we be more efficient when there is overlap with other boards? What
feedback has staff had from other boards they have already visited? The group has felt best
when Council and staff come to the board and ask for feedback on specific items.
• Jim said that when you don’t give a board a clear line of responsibility and action, they will make
it up themselves. One of the problems we face from Council is that we’ve asked the question in
the past, and they have said it is up the board. He would like a general direction. He liked Blue’s
description of the roles of different boards. Some make funding recommendations and so do
have decision making powers.
• Mike said you cannot have complete standardization among these boards. For example, CDBG
has clear marching orders and when there is nothing going on, there is not a meeting. This
board’s role is more of that of a “smell test.” For the mall, we made sure what they were selling
passed the “smell test.”
• Jim said with the mall, the EAC was one of the first boards to see the presentation. Maybe some
boards meet when they are needed, not when you hit a date on the calendar.
• Josh said the role of this board is truly advisory. Others are statutory, or quasi-judicial. Role
needs to be clear, and so does direction. Are we flying at 60,000 feet, or is our focus on specific
policy and projects that are before Council? You might be able to do both, but that is another
question that needs to be asked.
• Blue asked what Council’s focus for the commission is. If Council tells us, it is clear what we
should do. He hasn’t seen the job description for eight years. Is there clarity to the job
description? That would set the expectations of the members coming in. At one point each
presentation before the commission started with the economic questions the staff members
wanted answered by the board.
• Mike said he sees Council wants to fit the boards into the seven key outcome areas, and this
may be a square peg in a round hole. At the same time, they may want to determine how to
reduce staff time going around to boards giving the same presentation over and over. He sees
this as working to professionalize the boards to provide input on the seven key outcome areas.
• Blue said the response he heard at the workshop was not moving in that direction.
• Josh said he hears a concern for civic engagement and providing good avenues for that. If it is
simply a civic engagement mechanism, is there a better way to have engagement with the
technology available? Mike added that this also removes a swath of the community from
engaging.
• Sam said his question is what the next step is. Josh answered that staff is still compiling the
feedback and their next step is to check in with Futures Committee. There may be another
board and commission workshop coming up, most likely in April, at which some alternatives may
be presented.
• Josh said that because economics is pervasive, it is hard to have a clear focus. You can have
more of an impact with more focus, with clarity from Council.
Agenda Item 2: Lincoln Corridor – Amy Lewin and Pete Wray
Amy presented a PowerPoint on the highlights of the Lincoln Corridor Plan. She will make the full plan
available to the board. She explained the infrastructure deficiencies of the Lincoln Corridor, and that City
Plan in 2010/11 identified this area as a priority. The plan was funded and it is timely to address
changes. She showed a map of the study area, influence area, and three focal areas. The first phase of
planning was to develop the vision, the second looks at alternatives, and the third is implementing a
preferred plan. There has been extensive community engagement. Pete explained the stages of
outreach including stakeholder groups, public workshops, online surveys, Council work sessions, and
board and commission meetings. Amy said the vision is to create an enhanced gateway, a “Great Street”
that is both a thoroughfare and a destination. The three design alternatives include a “broad boulevard,”
“modest median,” and “skinny street.” She showed a design sample for the broad boulevard with on-
street bike lanes and a wide median. After testing out the alternatives, the best elements were chosen
to become part of the preferred alternative. There are multiple driveways and business access needs
along the corridor as well as a lot of truck activity. Some basic neighborhood infrastructure
improvements need to be made, and the street needs to accommodate multi-modal transportation.
They will address potential congestion on Lincoln and Lemay and the Vine/Lemay intersection. The key
elements of the preferred plan are for a standard arterial street to include two travel lanes, buffered on-
street bike lanes, wide sidewalks, transit stops/shelters, on-street parking, and reduced speed limit. The
framework is being used to create a preliminary design with landscaping, sidewalk treatments, medians
and turn lanes, transit facilities, etc. Pete showed a general cross section, and the Jefferson intersection.
Staff anticipates a new bridge will be needed in 8 to 10 years. They have created a new conceptual
design that will be wider and bring in new materials. Amy added they are proposing a new connection to
the trail as well. Pete said streetscaping amenities could include way-finding and historical information
and pedestrian gathering areas. There are opportunities for stormwater improvements that utilize low-
impact design planting treatments. Amy talked about transit in the area. Phase 1 is modifying existing
service. Phase 2 is to increase service as necessary. Phase 3 is to add a Lincoln Shuttle that could be a
standard or custom vehicle. Phase 4 is to add a Downtown Circulator. She showed a map of bus Routes
5 and 14 that both connect to the Downtown Transit Center and Max. With a little schedule changing,
they can have a 30 minute cycle for the current buses. Phase 2 would increase frequency to 15 minutes.
The Phase 3 shuttle would take riders to downtown, and to Home Depot and Walmart. She explained
neighborhood projects that could be implemented such as new sidewalk connections, new pedestrian
crossings, transit stop improvements, etc. The neighborhood projects include Buckingham,
Andersonville area , Alta Vista, etc. They are also looking at enhancing the parks. She showed the cost
estimate for the Lincoln Avenue Project, with a total of $19.3 million. Pete showed one scenario for
potential funding sources. Council will be assessing the options. Amy explained that the numbers are a
best-case estimate and include projected funds from BOB2.
Comments/Discussion:
• Josh asked about food trucks. Pete said there will be parallel parking strategically located.
• Blue asked about the zoning. He sees this as a mixed-use corridor, but what about the gas
station and diesel trucks? Pete said they have looked at existing zoning and staff has determined
there is no need to change zoning now. There is a predominance of light industrial zoning and
community commercial, and there are natural resources along the river. There have been
discussions on property values rising and there is no intent to change the zoning for the
neighborhoods, and the plan’s intention is to support existing neighborhoods. In the industrial
there is opportunity for changing the zoning to more mixed-use. Community commercial has an
opportunity for mixed-use as well. There is opportunity for infill and redevelopment.
• Blue added that the neighborhoods are going to have greater value in that area and there could
be more of a main street feel as more businesses come to the area.
• Pete said across Lemay there is more potential for residential.
• Blue suggested the circulator provide service to the neighborhoods. Pete said they looked at a
larger loop, and as more money becomes available, increasing the loop will make sense.
• Mike asked if the Woodward deal kicked in funds for improving Lincoln.
• Michael said the companies that sit along the Lincoln Corridor are the heavy hitters. Woodward
will be one of the largest companies, and has given presentations about giving back to the
community in developing roadways and parks. Are we speaking with them? What is their intent
for contribution? They should be a major contributor, since the employees will be accessing the
improvements. These are financially strong companies and what this project does services those
companies. Amy said Woodward, Fort Collins Brewery, and O’Dell are in the stakeholder group
and she is working directly with them. Woodward dedicated right of way along Lincoln for this.
Josh added that every development pays for its local street obligation and a street oversizing
fund. Woodward paid over $1.7 million for its local street obligation. That is the standard. After
that, when we look at doing an enhancement, that is where oversizing and other funding comes
in. Those businesses benefit, but so does the greater community. Pete added that if you
compare Lincoln to a green field street development, we would normally get a 100% street
oversizing, but Lincoln has existing development that didn’t contribute. We have contributions
from recent projects, but not a lot. Josh said the system is designed to capture contributions.
The question is where to fund the enhancement from. It has not been the procedure to ask the
existing development for more.
• Blue said he recalled Woodward promising to kick in something additional. Josh said there will
be surplus TIF that is earmarked for the Lincoln Corridor, if Woodward builds on schedule.
• Josh said you will see something similar around north College. It is necessary if you want to grow
up, not out. Josh said he wants to see the improvements happen sooner rather than later, but
the way they have been funded is slowing them down.
• Sam asked who drives the visions. Pete answered that City Plan initially drive this plan. The
streetscape standards that were updated last year described Lincoln as a gateway.
• Ann said she heard Council asked for a financial constraint option. Pete said based on the last
work session, staff is providing more information to Council, comparing to standard minor
arterial streets and North College, Linden, East Harmony, etc. Council will decide if the
preliminary cost is right, or if they want to choose some enhancement components to remove
before final design. Amy said there is room to change the design before it is final. Pete added
that the costing and phasing details will be fleshed out with the final design.
• Jim asked if we are having a budget issue. He asked where the additional $8 million necessary to
fund the project will come from.
• Blue said this does not make economic sense right now. You must also talk about ongoing
maintenance costs. We all want to see this corridor look like this, but it’s hard to give a positive
recommendation with these financials.
• Jim said this is like when the commission looked at the GHG goals and staff could not say how
much it would cost. He would like to see this happen, but how?
• Ann said the commission should highlight the effort made by the consultants to maintain access
to businesses. That is a key component of economic success. She is also pleased at the effort to
continue to move goods and services along this corridor. We want those to stay in the plan
however it changes. These are the two key economic issues.
• Jim added that there is strong political opposition to this.
• Sam added that he would like to see a layering of the enhancements and funding.
• Josh said he thinks we are going to have a community-wide dialogue about streetscaping and
living within our means. Or do we change our means? Funding is the main constraint.
• Jim said we raised the sales tax in 2010 and are asking to renew one. Asking for more will be met
with resistance. Josh said even if you do increase sales tax, eventually the consumer will say
enough is enough.
• Sam said the City needs to look at being cost competitive, which affects businesses’ desire to
locate here.
• Michael said it is a great looking project. Could you pull all of the presentations Woodward has
given on livability? Have we asked them to contribute above the base level? If they want to
contribute to livability, they should help us, above and beyond, and they have expressed to us
that is their intent. This is a place they can help without taxing the community. His
recommendation is to further engage with successful businesses as primary users and ones who
benefit.
• Sam said they must compete globally. When you ask them to contribute more money it may be
a burden.
• Josh said you cannot overlook that Woodward has donated 30 acres back to the community in
natural area. He is unsure there is an opportunity to gain more from Woodward.
• Jim said he would rather they add jobs. With O’Dell they were talking about their solar array. It
will never make money, but they are making contributions. On the other side of the coin, the
visitors that bike from Downtown to the breweries have a safety issue that exists and there is
economic benefit to enhance that area. If you ask the breweries if they need help getting people
to the breweries, they will say no. He would like to see the project happen, but the money
doesn’t work out.
• Pete said he would like to forward the minutes from this discussion to Council.
Agenda Item 3: Determine Next Meeting Agenda
Comments/Discussion:
• Ann discussed that there is a conflict of a presentation by Jim Collins at the same time as the
next EAC meeting. SeonAh and Dianne will work with Josh to determine some alternatives and
circulate them to the board.
Meeting Adjourned: 1:46pm
Next Meeting: April 16, 2014 11:00am–1:30pm, City Hall, CIC Room
Approved by the Board on April 17, 2014
Signed
______________________________________ ___________________
Dianne Tjalkens, Administrative Clerk II Date
4/29/14