HomeMy WebLinkAboutEconomic Advisory Commission - Minutes - 05/17/20171 | Page
MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ECONOMIC ADVISORY COMMISSION
Date: Wednesday, May 17, 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 Ted Settle
Alan Curtis
Denny Otsuga
Connor Barry
Craig Mueller
John Parks
Ann Hutchison
Linda Stanley
Staff Present
Dianne Tjalkens, Admin/Board Support
Josh Birks, Economic Health Director
SeonAh Kendall, Economic Health Manager
Guests
Dale Adamy, citizen
Meeting called to order at 11:06am
Public Comment—None
Review and Approval of Minutes:
April minutes approved as presented.
Agenda Review—No changes.
Commission Member/Staff Updates—
• Craig: He is a contract project manager working for CenturyLink. Interested in broadband
presentation.
• Sam: Attended morning portion of Council Retreat. Challenging time for City and region. Good
that we have different perspectives on Council of where we are going and how to get there. Ted
Settle has been selected as representative to assist with City Plan process.
ACTION ITEM: Product of Retreat is Council priorities. Josh can provide once they are complete.
AGENDA ITEM 1 Work Plan for Business Assistance Framework Criteria, Josh Birks
Council adopted Business Assistance framework in 2013—codified in financial policies. Last updated in
May. Available online. Working on Primary Employer Business Assistance Package Framework—for
2 | Page
when providing specific and direct assistance to a primary employer. Primary employer is any that derives
a minimum of 50% of income from sales outside GMA (growth management area). Taking more
inclusive definition than other communities to include knowledge-based industries (ex: consultants),
rather than just product-based industries. However, available tools are mostly designed to offset costs for
significant amounts of manufacturing equipment. Don’t have tools that work well for smaller companies.
Seeking help from EAC on developing criteria for providing assistance—would like criteria to be
applicable to future assistance types that may help small businesses. Currently provide ombudsman
support to small businesses to direct them to available resources. Policy should be adopted by Council;
procedure should be flexible and adaptable.
Five categories to create criteria for:
1. Economic impact
2. Contribution to quality of place
3. Alignment with City objectives
4. Natural resource stewardship
5. Community wellbeing
Have outline for EAC to discuss each category over next six months. In December will have list of
criteria to evaluate and present to Council. Will have opportunity to review other projects going before
Council during this time period as well—including EAC Periodic Review with Council Liaison attending
meeting in August. Can refine timing as needed. Members may need to review materials between
meetings.
Discussion/Q & A:
• Use business size as measurement for eligibility?
o No, but tools generally apply more to larger companies. Ex: Rodelle: ~20 new jobs,
Broadcom: ~130 new jobs. Business personal property applies to equipment owned by
business.
• Often don’t have enough time to discuss important subjects.
o Agreed. Working on timing of meetings, distributing topics across meetings.
• Presentations from staff?
o They either ask to present to EAC or we make a request to them. This plan leaves time
for staff presentations.
AGENDA ITEM 2— Broadband Update, SeonAh Kendall
In 2010 Fort Collins competed with other communities to get Google to bring 1gig service to our
community. Did not win, but GigU was formed with 13 other communities to get ultra-high speed
internet service to the communities in the consortium. City strategic objective to develop reliable high
speed internet throughout community, including all residents in the GMA. Want to ensure timely
implementation (5 years or less). Also want competitive market pricing—seeing average of $70-80/mth.
Longmont implemented charter membership discount to increase participation. Have completed study on
average pricing, use, and anticipated future use.
Four options:
1. Do nothing, let market drive change—community did not desire this
2. Attract third party into market
3. Wholesale—City builds infrastructure and third party runs ($90M)—for cost, Council would
prefer more control
4. Retail—City builds infrastructure and is provider ($125–$140M)—completed financial feasibility
study
At Work Session Council directed to look more into 2 and 4. Staff has since visited a number of other
communities to learn about implementation, best practices, and lessons learned. Some communities have
had legislation changes while in progress, which has caused disruption. Staff has met with Comcast and
CenturyLink. CenturyLink responded to RFI last year—talked about building out fiberhoods in greenfield
developments, but did not address entire GMA. Would work as a collaboration with City. RFI outlined
strategic objectives and requested proposals. Will issue another RFP in the future. Out of peer cities, 20 of
25 have state legislation that limits or prohibits how they provide municipal services. Completing retail
business plan, debt capacity review, hired a consultant to do due diligence on third party and retail
models. Other communities have received federal grant to assist with infrastructure. Identified Axia
through RFP as potential provider. With retail model estimated cost is dependent on “take rate”
(subscribership). Need 30% subscribership to pay off debt within 15 years. Completed survey of 400
3 | Page
residents—had 38% take rate, but then Comcast offered new program (Docsis 3.1) for 1 gig for $70/mth
with 3-year contract. Will be offered here in next couple of years. Having community dialogue, but also
need to inform public. Utility would finance retail model through revenue backed bonds. Rate payers will
be responsible for debt if not successful—$1600/household. In 2016 did citizen polling—68% of citizens
supported the City providing retail broadband services. Anticipating business plan ready by June 1. Debt
capacity—need to understand impact. Would not affect bond rate; however, light and power staff are
reassessing their needs, and have near term debts. Without new revenue sources can borrow $75–100M. If
additional revenue could do up to $150M. Don’t want to delay other utility projects to start this.
Axia was interested in ROI on infrastructure. Trying to do five communities per year—presented to
Bloomington and Boulder. However, Partners Group (owner of Axia) backed out of Bloomington.
Reason they are not pursuing this type of business was “strength of cablecos and telecos in the US
market.” Also, new developments in proposed state legislation could create additional barriers.
Which model would EAC support and why? Is this a good thing for the City? How is communication
within community on this issue? What additional information is needed? What concerns do you have?
Discussion/Q & A:
• What is current?
o 25 megabits per second—1 gig is ~800 times faster. Can buy in at lower level. Upload
and download speeds would be symmetrical. Currently, upload speeds are slower than
downloads.
• Who pays for the line into each house?
o Included in financial model. “Drop cost” of $600/house—Have not included low income
into model. Model includes “drop cost” for ½ of homes in Fort Collins. No install fee to
customer. Considering low income rate, but has not been worked into the model yet.
Need to do more work in this area.
• What happens if Fort Collins does this and Comcast drops their rates to keep customers?
o When municipality or third party enters market, incumbent drops cost about 30%.
o Sensitivity analysis looks at variety of take rates.
• What does construction look like?
o Would be going up and down every sidewalk
o Both CenturyLink and Comcast are putting in infrastructure all over town. Tends to close
down one lane. Use boring method.
• Pleased that using statistically valid methods for surveys.
o Also using polling methods. Survey was done by phone and very specific questions. Can
share.
• Longmont’s projected take rate vs. actual?
o Had not anticipated charter membership—underestimated take rate.
o What kind of digital divide did communities have, and how does that compare to take
rates?
And how are communities addressing that divide?
• Compliance and regulatory risk included in plan? Pace of change in this utility is much faster than
in others. Cost structure should also look into time factor. With advancement of technology,
prices will have to go down. City government speed is not capable of keeping up with this
industry.
o In November ballot asking to add telecommunication to light and power charter, and
language around governance, and dollar amount of bond requesting. Longmont asked for
$45M in bonds and have returned twice for $7M. First round only got $25M. Can’t ask
for bonds for operations.
• When does ballot language need to be completed?
o Work Session July 11—business plan and additional resources. Building RFP, but need
more clarity. November ballot would include dollar amount for bonds.
• Municipal lobbyist in Denver, so that if legislation came up they could lobby against it?
o Have a consultant who is a lobbyist.
o City has own lobbyist and Colorado municipal league is tracking as well.
o County too. Work regionally. Meet with Longmont, Larimer County, Windsor, Greeley,
Loveland, etc. All at different stages in their projects so hard to partner.
• Have you seen communities that formed political committees that spent a lot of money on this
issue?
4 | Page
o Yes. Have seen this.
o Will require a lot of work to get this passed since so much funding coming from
incumbents.
o Collaborating with Longmont on how their model works.
• When ballot language comes out will have identified one of the models?
o Hoping Council will have selected by July 11. Starting meetings with City attorneys to
decide how it would be written.
o Axia service agreement included first right of refusal—so needed capability to buy if
necessary. Ballot language is complicated issue.
• Other third party providers at table since lost Axia?
o Others could have conversations with. A couple of companies that are completing build
out in other communities. Council has requested staff continue to look for a third party
provider. Want to be able to attract resources that have done this before. Need people
with experience, business capability, etc. to implement.
• If do partnership model, who pays for infrastructure?
o With Axia model, they were going to pay for infrastructure. Ting also does full build out.
Google does community build with fee for each house. Every community has done it
differently.
o If City takes risk, should also take benefit. Trust City of Fort Collins Utility—efficient,
good rates, etc.
That is why wholesale model didn’t seem to work with community. Wanted third
party to enter market.
Suggested to offer incentives. Could perhaps defray some tax costs, but would
not do business assistance for infrastructure. Terms of a partnership would be
dependent on partner.
Axia had asked City to fund low income rate. Even though not moving forward
with Axia, need to be able to understand how to get access to everyone.
• One of main reasons to do broadband utility is getting access to
everyone. On reservations, economies held back from developing by lack
of internet infrastructure.
• Chattanooga said not many signed up for low income rate, even though
qualified.
o Have smart phones.
o Use different methods to get to internet than broadband.
o Denver library is now checking out wifi routers. Talking to
library districts about this option.
• Longmont is getting influx of remote workers due to high speed internet. Getting benefit of surge
of tech startup scene. Coding from home.
o Anecdotal. Ex: Pixar is located in Lafayette, Louisiana (poorer community) because have
1gig connection.
ACTION ITEMS: SeonAh will send market demand study and Longmont information.
AGENDA ITEM 3— Review Board Response to Periodic Review, Board Discussion
Primary connection to City’s seven strategic outcome areas is in Economic Health. Secondary focus?
Tertiary focus?
Discussion/Q & A:
• Members voted on secondary and tertiary outcome area focuses. Agreed that Community and
Neighborhood Livability is secondary focus are and Environmental Health and Transportation are
tied for tertiary focus area.
o Answer
ACTION ITEMS: Members are requested to complete Periodic Review forms and return to Dianne and
Josh.
5 | Page
Meeting Adjourned: 1:00pm
Next Meeting: June 21