Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEconomic Advisory Commission - Minutes - 06/19/2013Minutes City of Fort Collins Economic Advisory Commission June 19, 2013 CIC Room, City Hall 11:00am–1:30pm For Reference Blue Hovatter, Chair 493‐3673 Wade Troxell, Council Liaison 219‐8940 Josh Birks, Staff Liaison 416‐6324 Dianne Tjalkens, Minutes 221‐6734 Commission Members Present Commission Members Absent Glen Colton Channing Arndt Blue Hovatter Ann Hutchison Sam Solt Michael Kulisheck Christophe Febvre Jim Clark Guests Ann Ricker Staff Present SeonAh Kendall, Business Retention Specialist Tom Leeson, Redevelopment Program Manager Josh Birks, Staff Liaison Megan Bolin, Economic Health Analyst Dianne Tjalkens, minutes Agenda Item 1: Meeting called to order 11:00am Agenda Item 2: Logistics Approval of minutes There was a memo sent to Boards and Commissions about the mall project. A special meeting is being called together. Sam’s comments were not included in last month’s minutes. He will add them by connecting with Wendy. Hold off on approval of minutes until Sam’s comments are added. Public comment Mike Pruznick stated that about a year ago the Mayor was attending this meeting for a while, but she sometimes interjected out of place. He noticed that now she is not attending. He would like her to be invited to observe the meetings again and said that Planning and Zoning meetings are televised or recorded. He wonders if we can do that with this board as well. He pointed out that Liaisons and observers are not allowed to participate in the meetings, but are welcome to observe. Discussion  Comment: The Mayor has emphasized that economics is the focus, but that is not working out well. Should we let businesses pollute our air, water and food if it’s profitable? If a project is environmentally sound and supports human rights, we should support it. If you review the Avago and Murphy Center meetings you see tax breaks.  Christophe: Did anyone ask the Mayor to stop coming? Answer: No.  Comment: I believe the Mayor would engage in our meetings if she wasn’t so busy and overworked. The job of our commission is to decide how she can engage in our meetings. I think the only thing inappropriate was when she asked someone else to stop speaking. It was the Chair’s job to do that if it appropriate.  Comment: I disagree that we are leaning on one leg of the three legged stool. Look at things from an economic perspective: to say environmental issues are not economic is not accurate. We need to study all aspects. I think we are doing good job at looking at quality of life and economic viability.  Comment: The triple bottom line part of policy is being embraced. We are doing good job. This is new and we are learning how the process will work in long run. We will get better as time goes by.  Comment: One observation of the Mayor was that she was encouraging members to embrace the mission.  Comment: The Women’s Commission had a breakfast six weeks ago. All boards and commissions were there. We could see overlap in commissions work. I met with other chairs and saw how economics infiltrates the work of all of the boards and commissions.  Glen: I think we should continue making sure we look at other aspects. We can’t exist without the environment: we can easily outgrow or destroy it. Growing as we are is not sustainable. We want to get to the point where the economy is stable, not based on consuming and growing. We don’t have the water or energy to support population growth. We can’t keep adding more people and building more, it’s not sustainable. If there is a project that will add 200 jobs it looks great, but if we add three more projects like that, we will need to dam more water.  This is stifling of true economics to environmental issues. This board adds the practical and real to the discussion. When water is limited, the cost of water should go up. Ignoring cost means everything is skewed. Every commission should have an economic review to be successful. We should study the impacts of deals with Avago and Woodward and apply metrics that quantify the environmental issues. The more we study correctly, the better we’ll see the outcomes. Agenda Item 3: New projects/policy review Midtown Plan Presentation Q & A with Megan Bolin Megan sent out a memo before the meeting that gives the high points. Power Point Presentation: Megan gave a presentation of the Plan Area, Process for Outreach, Vision, Character Areas, and Implementation Strategy for the Midtown Area (see Power Point presentation). She showed the Commission the overall concept for the redevelopment and infill for the Midtown Area, including three different character areas with their own unique themes. The goal of the redevelopment is to integrate the MAX system, walkways, courtyards, and plazas to make the area more pedestrian friendly and vibrant. The plan suggests having storefronts and multiuse buildings face the streets, with parking behind. Multiuse buildings that include shopping, offices, housing, and affordable housing are encouraged. Q and A  Christophe: The mall is accepting a finance package. Is that tied into this puzzle? A: This plan didn’t influence them.  Christophe: Is any of this in the plan, or are these just recommendations so far? A: The underpass at the mall has been envisioned. We were able to negotiate with the developer to get it.  Christophe: Are the street fronts happening? A: We have street plans in place. Midtown takes it to the next level.  Megan explained that there are a lot of the regulations in place for development review. The Midtown Plan does not specific design standards. Most of those are already covered by what we have in place. We will have guidelines vs. standards in Midtown development.  Mike: This seems like an opportunity for collaboration with mall development, to get them invested into the character area themes, so it fits together. It’s an easy ask in their best interest.  Mike: Is the promenade one step, or will the different themed areas be developed in sections. A: It will happen in stages  Sam: The plan is a difficult read. It is very long. Section 6 had marketing proposals or development prototypes? A: From a site perspective this is meant to be out there as a guide to fit in mixed use dense development. We want to have a variety of sizes and types of redevelopment.  Blue: Regarding standards vs. guidelines: Are these what the URA is using to distribute funds? Will they help add on to the project to make it look and feel like we want it to? If someone approaches the URA, what will funds be given for? A: the plan has criteria for participating in projects, but nothing for how a URA will be implemented yet. Discussion  Josh: North College had deficient infrastructure for redevelopment. Midtown is about using land more efficiently. There is some deficient infrastructure for the future state in that area. Those would be the kinds of things to try to help invest in for future projects.  Blue: When the alley‐way projects were beginning, there was site‐walking and bringing in individuals who had investment in the area to get the best bang for dollars. URA TIF dollars were invested in a long term strategy. They mapped where the priorities were. I feel good about the Mason corridor and Mall project. The pedestrian friendly walk to mall at the Swallow MAX exit makes me feel even better. We’re finally bringing the pieces together.  Glen: We went through the Troutman underpass. It opens up to going to Taverna, etc without having to cross Mason. There is updating of facades, getting the plan elements in there. This will make the area nicer to go to.  Ann: I like the multi‐modal idea, but want to see balance between moving traffic and making the area pretty. In reframing frontage roads from moving traffic into pedestrian areas, we need to be cognizant of the need to move traffic. We need to find bridges to the future. Take the south corridor for example: there is a beautiful plan with pictures, but it has a costs to business. There are sidewalks that lead to nowhere and a high cost to business. We need to find midterm situation. We don’t want added costs that end up keeping buildings empty. Agenda Item 4: Ongoing initiatives URA 101—Urban Renewal in Practice, Presenter: Ann Ricker Power Point Presentation Ann Ricker provided information to the EAC including URAs and how they have been used in Colorado to redevelop blighted areas and create revenue for school districts. She spoke about URA Planning Areas, Statewide Impacts, County Impacts, Revenue Sharing Agreements, Urban Renewal Concerns, Points of Flexibility, and the History of Legislation regarding URAs. This presentation follows the Midtown Plan because creating a URA district that includes Midtown is an option that is up for discussion. Discussion  Josh: As part of Mall project, the City is creating a new model that includes both sides, all revenue, and all costs.  Christophe: There is property tax on the entity itself, plus property tax for all property around it. Please address this.  Ann R.: Take the example of redeveloping a building. Once it is redeveloped, the owner pays more taxes because the value has increased. Then the building next door’s value is raised by the redevelopment, so taxes go up there too. Assessors interpret how to share this within the URA district.  Josh: The spillover effect is shared within the district.  Christophe: It’s very hard to assess values that go up outside of the URA.  Ann R.: If you have a condo near the mall and the mall redevelops, your housing is worth more, but single family homes are not as affected. The natural increase in property values within the URA is calculated. Outside the URA property values go up too, but the property tax revenue doesn’t go to the URA. When looking at spending, we need to consider the costs of police, lowering home values, etc. if we choose not to redevelop a blighted area.  Ann R.: Regarding the impact on schools, there is a state tax law about “backfill.” For example, a kid in school in Rifle should be the recipient of the same amount of dollars as a kid in school in Cherry Creek. If things get disproportionate, the state levels it off. This is called backfill. But what happens if the state can’t meet that funding need? There needs to be a foundation of reform in urban renewal statutes.  Glen: On the other hand, Centerra and Timnath took rural lands and made URA districts of them.  Ann R.: This is where I believe in revenue sharing. Schools could make this work better for them than backfill. House bill 1107 was designed to eliminate the use of urban renewal on green field and fairway, with the exception of two conditions: 1) If a property was assessed green field or fairway in the last five years, it can’t be included in the URA, except when it’s surrounded by a certain percentage of city. Or, 2) Unless you can get agreement of 100% of all taxable enclaves. You don’t want a URA used on open land, but if doesn’t hurt anyone and brings revenue, why are you upset? And I don’t know the answer.  Glen: It’s subsidizing sprawl.  Ann R.: Infill is best thing community can do. It avoids sprawl and provides a public benefit.  Christophe: Look at Centerra and compare it to the Mall and school districts. Are there distinctions between these projects and are they worth noting? Sprawl vs. infill? Lining pockets of developers vs. generating revenue for community?  Ann R.: These are separate issues. We need to follow the law. Developers had better prove that the return in investment is reasonable; that they couldn’t get the land any other way, etc. We want to get everything we reasonably can to benefit the community.  Mike: If we give up TIF, can we get it back? A: Yes, but only within the time frame, which is 25 years.  Josh: The Mall project is comingling 4 types of finance. With the sales tax increment, as soon as it’s not needed, it goes back to the City. They are trying to set up a fund that is a perpetual revenue stream to set aside to continue to reinvest in the site.  Mike: If the value goes up, then goes back down over time, then we can’t re‐up the TIF.  Ann R.: Retail storefronts are becoming smaller. They won’t have the same footprint as large box stores. This is better for a downtown model.  Mike: I don’t want to see us create a tax increment and then squander it on a project that needs to be redone.  Josh: The fund stays with the metro district; it is the focal point for financing.  Ann R.: If ownership of the mall property changes, the city is protected.  Josh : The service area plan is approved by Council. There are boundaries on how the money can be spent. The money doesn’t go back to the developer. If the redevelopment does well, then the refresh fund explodes. Then you have reserves to keep the facility up to date. Private sector attorneys debated this, but in the end they mutually agreed. The money behind the project is long term hold, which is the highest value. We are forcing ourselves to make sure this asset is always a top value asset.  Ann R.: I understand how URAs have been misused. The Fischer bills want to stop urban renewal at certain place. I want to keep the door open for great projects.  Glen: Misuse ends up “stealing” money. Timnath is getting money to build roads for million dollar homes, etc. There is backlash to misuse.  Ann R.: Can we all do the right thing along the way and make the tool work for us until policies are changed? Is there another tool to manage growth on the fringe and avoid sprawl?  Glen: This county has to support a broad range of people. Property tax generator’s money is going to TIF, but property tax from residential areas isn’t enough to support the infrastructure they need.  Comment: The county shares services with outlying areas. URAs can grow, but the county can’t step in and negotiate.  Ann R.: If the city puts too much land in a URA, they can’t operate on taxes. The URA decides how tax money from the URA gets spent.  It was mutually agreed that Glen and Ann’s conversation about sales taxes and TIF would be continued offline. Meeting adjourned at 1:31pm. Next Meeting: July 17, 2013 11:00am–1:30pm, City Hall, CIC Room