HomeMy WebLinkAboutEconomic Advisory Commission - Minutes - 01/18/20171 | Page
MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ECONOMIC ADVISORY COMMISSION
Date: Wednesday, January 18, 2016
Location: Colorado River Room, 222 Laporte Ave.
Time: 11:00am–1:00pm
For Reference
Wade Troxell, Mayor & Council Liaison
Josh Birks, Staff Liaison 221-6324
Dianne Tjalkens, Minutes 221-6734
Commission Members Present Commission Members Absent
Sam Solt, Chair Connor Barry
Alan Curtis
Denny Otsuga
Ann Hutchison
Linda Stanley
Ted Settle (12:10)
Craig Mueller
Staff Present
Dianne Tjalkens, Admin/Board Support
Josh Birks, Economic Health Director
Guests:
Dale Adamy, citizen
John Parks, citzen
Meeting called to order at 11:15am
Public Comment—Dale Adamy: Went through Downtown Plan draft with triple bottom line lens. Using
his website (focoparity.org) as forum to publically suggest what should be changed. Sent email to City
leaders and Cameron Gloss directing them to his suggestions as well. He is concerned that the download
page for Downtown Plan has unsearchable PDFs that include public comments. How will Council give
this a good TBL analysis? How will they know content of public input? Outreach was great, but hard to
find specifics. “In-reach” is telling the public how decisions are made. Ex: If the City makes a decision on
policy, do citizen comments make it into decision process? How do citizens know how the policy was
changed to address their input? EAC will be looking at City Plan, which will have similar outreach. Will
City Plan come back to the public after input without being transparent about how input was used to make
revisions? Downtown Plan should be called “Downtown Business Plan” and Sustainability Assessment
Tool should be applied to the Plan. Brendle Group provided TBL (triple bottom line) analysis, but social
aspect is outside of scope. However, Outreach Fort Collins is not addressing social needs up to
expectation. Plan needs more deliberation, internal SAT (sustainability assessment tool) done by staff,
outreach should include how decisions are made—including saying that social aspect is outside City
scope. Ex: Could have warming huts for homeless if it was in the code.
John Parks: Candidate to be on the board. There is one open seat. Has been in Fort Collins since 2000.
Has degree in environmental studies and is K-12 educator in Loveland.
2 | Page
Discussion:
• Sam noted that he has similar concerns about Downtown Plan and they will be addressed in
discussion later in agenda.
• Downtown Plan not likely to come back to Council until March. Would like more time to review
draft plan with TBL focus, per Dale’s suggestion.
• Have opportunities to talk about City Plan in more global way.
• Have 30 minute slot in February agenda open.
• Updated draft has not yet been provided to public.
Review and Approval of Minutes:
December minutes approved as presented.
Agenda Review—Moving Downtown Plan to February meeting.
Commission Member/Staff Updates—
• Alan: Innosphere has merged with organization in Boulder. Organization is growing, with 3
locations.
• Denny: Venture capital company has become new operator of Galvanize. Will develop programs
and get people back into the facility. Article in BizWest. Great support from Economic Health
Office (EHO).
• Linda: Regarding mall, talked to manager at Sketchers, and numbers are poor. Facing potential
closure. Disturbing news. Would like update on the mall. Also read article in paper about sales
tax being far below what was expected.
o Josh: Had mall redevelopment committee meeting, sharing current performance.
Frustrated by coverage in paper—not where we want to be but not all doom and gloom.
Some stores performing well, site is still under construction, etc. Need thoughtful, well-
resourced discussion. Would like to share solid analytical overview rather than snapshot
of a moment in time.
• Sam: Progress on City Plan is encouraging and answers some questions on how the feedback
loop works. Have had opportunity to accomplish three things: 1. City Plan will include
community feedback in a formal way (outreach program will be included in request for proposals
[RFP] as deliverable), 2. EAC will participate in building of RFP, 3. EAC will participate in
selection of vendor. “Community Discussion Guide” will be outreach method used.
o First time EAC has been able to participate in RFP process.
ACTION ITEM: Will add Mall to future agenda.
AGENDA ITEM 1— Review Business Assistance Framework, Josh Birks
EHO can use help advancing business assistance framework. Focuses on primary employers, but can be
informative to other future programs. Mission is to promote a healthy, sustainable economy reflecting
community values. Policy intent is to encourage quality primary job retention and creation through
private sector investment. Framework document provides guidance to business assistance packages.
Primary employers are businesses that derive 50%+ of income from sale of goods/services outside of
growth management area (GMA). Theory is that primary employers bring wealth to our community. May
include attraction strategies around Climate Action Goals. Tools available are:
• Manufacturing use tax rebate—large equipment purchases. Retailers cannot get this rebate.
• Personal property tax rebate—on same equipment as above. No more than 50%/10 years. Not
significant in total.
• Expedited review—extra care and guidance/assistance for development review process.
• Private activity bonds—gain access to tax exempt market for borrowing.
• Tax increment financing—geographically limited.
• Section 108 loan fund—had a five year pool, expired.
3 | Page
Review of peer cities shows no set of best practices. Other communities also use a case-by-case approach,
with framework to help assessment, and enhance predictability and rigor. Want to start using some
screening criteria to get sense of quality of project, which could influence size of incentives.
Process: connect with business, evaluate alignment criteria, negotiate, seek approval, execute, and follow
up/compliance. Seeking input on criteria.
Categories of Criteria:
• Economic impact—includes revenues and costs of a project including total employment, # jobs,
wages, benefits, capital investment, impact on infrastructure, business investments, etc. Upfront
and ongoing investments and costs.
• How it contributes to quality of place—projects, services, partnerships, meeting community
needs, unique capability/amenity.
• Alignment with City objectives—City Plan, Economic Health Strategic Plan, Climate Action
Plan (CAP), etc.
• Natural resource stewardship—impact on electricity and water consumption, hazardous waste
management, commitment to CAP goals, etc.
• Community wellbeing—diverse jobs, volunteerism, impact to community infrastructure,
proximity to public transportation, benefits provided to employees.
Goal is to review these categories over the next six months, and start creating individual criteria. Create a
framework that is useful for EHO, EAC, and Council to make good decisions.
Discussion/Q & A:
• How does this interface with state and their decision making around business assistance?
o Can use this process to highlight concerns around assistance—help them think through
whether good for the community when they are considering.
• How does this relate to City Plan, economic infrastructure, primary employers, etc.?
o Criteria and categories would be informed by City Plan and other strategic plans. Can also
evaluate each project with City Plan. Create a system to interpret plans—draw in relevant
plans, see if projects advance goals of the plans.
o EAC can formulate the vision. Discussion on Avago was rich.
o Are individual actions supportive or detrimental to the Plans/community vision? This is the
context.
• Key part of process for EAC is to get updated on SAT. That tool is lacking in terms of helping
evaluate business assistance packages.
o That tool is going through major rework this year. Should reflect specific goals such as
greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) reduction, etc.
o Should have specific metrics, rather than anecdotal.
o In the past has been a series of questions to guide a dialogue.
• Should we do assessments on past assistance packages?
o Develop new thinking first, or do it now? When would it be most beneficial?
o Is this a good place to invest time for the rest of the year? If yes, will develop a scope.
• Want to ensure all components fit together—clusters, business assistance, etc.
o When provide direct assistance to a business, need to have direction. Piece of the whole.
• Given available resources, where can we put them to amplify the output? Look for things that may be
further down the road, like job creation. Creates more risk, but may get better results.
o Targeting assistance? Or seeking out opportunities?
o Ecosystems/infrastructure—environment for best outcomes.
o Tools to help businesses grow—look at long term projections of job growth and what is
missing in our system that prevents accomplishing these goals. Remove barriers to success.
EHO mission as a whole addresses these system-wide issues. All part of same vision.
• Request related documents, such as past packages, be put on SharePoint FTP.
o Can share packages that went to Council.
ACTION ITEMS: Add former business assistance packages that went to Council to EHO FTP.
AGENDA ITEM 2— Select Representative/s
City Plan Request for Proposals
4 | Page
Opportunity to participate in 3 aspects of City Plan. Need at least one representative to review RFP and
select vendor. Integrating Martín Carcasson and CSU Center for Deliberation into overall City Plan
outreach process.
Objective for EAC rep is to ensure that Martín’s capability gets well integrated into review and selection
of a vendor. Review multiple 40-50 page RFPs, provide written evaluation, participate on panel that will
review oral presentations, provide scoring, have dialogue to make final selection. 10-20 hours total time
investment between February and March.
Discussion/Q & A:
• Ted, Ann and Sam are willing to participate, but must review schedules before committing.
ACTION ITEMS: When set, Josh will share timeline with volunteers to determine who will participate.
Industry Cluster Competitive Grants
Applications will be reviewed, ranked, committee will discuss funding, then bring in applicants for
dialogue and finalize. Similar level of commitment as City Plan RFP, but will be in February.
Discussion/Q & A:
• Alan willing to participate.
• Denny willing to participate, but concerned about potential conflict of interest.
o Can recuse selves from specific applications.
• Craig also willing to help, and will not have conflict of interest.
• Would like to have presentation on Innosphere.
o Currently collecting data on 2016.
o Metrics plus process. How do you create outcomes?
ACTION ITEMS: Craig will participate with Industry Cluster Competitive Grants. Josh will work with
Alan to schedule a presentation on Innosphere.
AGENDA ITEM 3— Downtown Plan Recommendation
Postponed.
AGENDA ITEM 4— Review Draft Annual Report
Discussion/Q & A:
• Dale made suggestion to include quick summary of public comment, which was nice addition.
• Also included participation with other boards.
Linda moved to approve the Annual Report as drafted. Ann seconded.
Motion passed unanimously, 7-0-0.
ACTION ITEMS: Josh will submit Annual Report to City Clerk’s Office.
Other Business
• Read Viewpoint in today’s Coloradoan by Laurie Kadrich regarding City Plan.
Meeting Adjourned: 12:55 pm
Next Meeting: February 15