Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016 - Economic Advisory Commission - Annual ReportEconomic Advisory Commission 2016 Annual Report The Economic Advisory Commission (EAC) consists of nine members who meet on the third Wednesday of every month. The board receives regular updates from staff and advises City Council on matters pertaining to the economic health and sustainability of the city. The board continues to gather community input on economic issues and represent the ideas expressed. Members who served in 2016 include: Chair, Sam Solt, Vice-chair, Ted Settle, Denichiro “Denny” Otsuga, Glen Colton, Ann Hutchison, Linda Stanley, Kristin Owens, Alan Curtis, Craig Mueller (Partial Year). 2016 Year in Review: The EAC was very busy during 2016 developing a work plan to create a Community Discussion Guide on growth, reviewing a number of specific projects and policies, and discussing ways to engage in the update of City Plan, the Transportation Master Plan, and Transit plan in 2017. Summary of Presenters Throughout 2016, the EAC heard a number of staff presentations, below is a list of the departments, entities, and partners that presented to the Board on various topics in 2016:  State Demographer – Future Growth Projections – Northern Colorado  Environmental Services – Introduction & Overview (Lucinda Smith, Director)  Planning, Development, & Transportation – Growth in the City/Overview of City Plan, Downtown Parking, Downtown Plan: Market & Economy Action Plan, Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Update, and Downtown Plan Overview  Economic Health Office – Innovation Economy, Historic Growth Rates & Patterns, Brownfield Assessment Grant Update, Midtown Business Improvement District, and Project 1601 Business Assistance package  Customer Care, Fort Collins Utilities – Utilities Low Income Assistance Program  Social Sustainability – Introduction & Overview (Beth Sowder, Director), and Land Bank Program Updates  Finance Department – 2015 Revenue Review & Forecasting Philosophy, Revenue Diversification Study, and Capital Expansion Fee Study  Sustainability Services Area – Introduction of the Chief Sustainability Officer (Jackie Kozak-Thiel)  Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority – Lyric Cinema Café Tax Increment Assistance  Office of Economic Development and International Trade – Overview of business prospect and assistance process Economic Health Definition The EAC worked both at regular meetings and informal meetings to develop a definition of Economic Health as a working basis for future discussions. This definition was integrated into the final version of the 2015 Economic Health Strategic Plan adopted by City Council (June, 2015). The EAC has defined a healthy economy:  As vibrant, resilient, and integrates multiple interactions across many stakeholder groups (e.g., citizens representing multiple sub-communities, large and small companies, new and established companies, non-profit organizations, and local government), and  Provides diverse opportunities for development which acknowledge resource constraints and retain or improve the present quality of life in the city. Public Comment Summary The EAC heard from a number of citizens over the course of 2016. Specific comments can be found within the minutes of each meeting. A summary of the comments is provided below (months without public comments have been omitted): January  Dale Adamy suggests Annual Report include public comment and agenda items commented on. It is a document for the public as well as the commission and Council. March  Curt Lyons, Affordable Housing Board member and new liaison to this board introduced himself. June  Dale Adamy: Emphasized importance of municipal discussion on carbon tax. August  Dale Adamy: Council Finance has meeting packet with agenda and all supporting documents available online. Would like to see something similar for EAC, or at minimum be able to access prior agendas. Also, suggest moving public comment before agenda review to allow the committee to add discussion on the public comment to the meeting agenda.  Dale Adamy: Mentioned a recent newspaper article on the struggle of funding CAP. Not necessarily an advocate of carbon tax, but have read ways it has resolved some issues—not just how to fund CAP, but also other social issues. October  Dale Adamy: Attended Finance Committee meeting on Monday—saw presentation by Tiana. Said that had presented already to Economic Advisory Commission and received comments. Chamber was also represented. Think EAC should go to Finance when a group is presenting comments that were given by EAC. November  Eric Sutherland: Action may be taken by EAC regarding URA Board decision on Lyric Cinema Café. URA action is in opposition to state law. Grotesquely mismanaged; not following amendments recently adopted. December  Eric Sutherland: Loveland City Council agreed to give away tens of millions in subsidy to build residential and commercial along I-25. Very expensive to fix and improve this congested highway. Unconstitutional under state law. Fort Collins should tell Loveland that they cannot do this.  Dale Adamy: Downtown Plan does not address homelessness—beyond scope of plan. Dale will send Josh (to forward to board) his input/comments that he previously sent to Planning. He has not yet received a response from the City. He has found a lack of response to comments given on plans. Residents like to hear back—should not be a one way street for communication when staff asks for input 2016 Actions Taken Summary: The following are items the EAC were briefed upon, and formal action was taken with a recommendation forwarded to the City Council: 1. Election of EAC Chair and Vice Chair Linda Stanley moved and Ann Hutchison seconded: A motion to elect Sam Solt as Chair of the Economic Advisory Committee for 2016. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-0. Alan arrived after vote. Kristin Owens moved and Ann Hutchison seconded: A motion to elect Ted Settle as Vice Chair of the Economic Advisory Committee for 2016. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-0. Alan arrived after vote. 2. Comcast Announcement of Expansion in Fort Collins: SeonAh Kendall, Economic Health Manager. SeonAh responded to questions about an article from the Coloradoan announcing Comcast’s plans to expand their operations by approximately 500 employees in Fort Collins. Coloradoan pre-released that Comcast is bringing 600 jobs to Fort Collins. City staff was involved early on, but they did not meet City business assistance requirements. Comcast was looking at 5 different sites at the time. Got $8.1M from state. Will be a technical/customer service call center. Get 100-150 inquiries annually. When cannot offer business assistance, can offer other resources. Will locate at building 5 of HP. 1. Can the City say whether they want this business or not? i. City learned more about jobs when were first approached, and declined to give business assistance/incentive. Let them know other benefits of Fort Collins. 2. No say in state decision? No say in TBL for state’s decision? i. State wanted company to locate in Colorado. 3. Are these jobs moving from somewhere else, or brand new? i. They have 60 employees in service center already. ii. New call center. Most will be new jobs. Have good benefits to employees. Will be managerial positions, but mainly call center. 4. $44K salary includes benefits? i. Yes. 5. Some of these people will be from outside Fort Collins and is difficult with our housing market. Would be interesting to track where employees come from. i. Because did not provide incentive, harder for City to track that. Comcast will have to report annually to state. State has not historically shared that info with the City. 6. Violates basic tenants the City is promoting. i. Which is why City did not provide incentives. Neighboring communities were offering them incentives. Space availability was a factor. 7. Recently heard announcement of $14M incentives for affordable housing. Now we bring in more people. Why wouldn’t City government tell state to not provide incentive since have greater understanding of implications? Why does state have to offer any incentives when have large growth? Have companies go to places that need employment. Overrun with growth. i. Will have to talk to leadership about communication with state. City staff was unaware that Comcast was getting incentive from state until recently. 8. Not ideal type of jobs for Fort Collins, but what happened reinforces that just saying no will not work. People who want to come will do so anyway. There is a limit to what the City can do. There are larger forces that identify Fort Collins as a great place. We can promote things we want. i. State gave big incentive package and Fort Collins bear impacts. Ted Settle moved and Linda Stanley seconded: A motion that the Economic Advisory Commission suggest to City Council that this is a mistake and in the future Council needs to engage with the State more aggressively to let our [community’s] wishes be known. Motion withdrawn. 3. Growth Issue Book Development: Ted Settle, Vice Chair. Issue Book—Idea of how the City could move forward on the right kind of economic growth. Discussed many perspectives. Book envisioning is something we would suggest, but not do. Some expertise at CSU. Steps: Josh meets with CSU to explore interest/costs, develop proposal, etc. Book as foundation for conversation that feeds into City plan process. Mayor Troxell was attracted to engagement piece. Research would flesh out choices and consequences. A. Get on same page around pros and cons, what the research shows, etc. Big outreach might not get results we want. B. Determine what we’re trying to do with the document before deciding what the document should look like. Concerned that beyond our scope. C. Determine how to use what we’ve already done. Bite off small amounts that are more likely to be impactful. D. There is no existing depository for the discussion of economic growth and how it evolves within our Growth Management Area. There is need to have traction. E. Should be explored in more details—benefits, fit into City plans, etc. Ted Settle moved and Linda Stanley seconded: A motion to explore an Issue Book related to growth in the community in more detail and come back to the commission with a fleshed out proposal. Motion passed, 5-0-0 (Nays & Abstentions were not requested) 4. Memo to Council on Comcast Expansion: Ted Settle, Vice Chair. Ted drafted memo to Council. Discussion/Q & A:  Members suggested edits. Ted recorded.  Good message to be sending to Council that really believe in triple bottom line. Negative impacts of this project outweigh economic benefits.  Well written, and perfect example of what this commission should be doing. For additional impact, can have a commission member read at a Council meeting.  Josh has noted that two of the bullets are referring to work he is already engaged in. o Suggest revising language.  These projects are often kept in confidence by the state. Glen Colton moved and Kristin Owens seconded: A motion to approve the memo as amended. Motion passed, 7-0-0. 5. Midtown Business Improvement District: Patrick Rowe, Redevelopment Coordinator. Group currently petitioning for business improvement district in Midtown. Quasi-governmental entity formed by Council that can fund any public improvements, provide services (events, programming), and do branding/marketing. Only commercial properties are able to be assessed. Self-funded (no City funds) through special assessment or commercial property mil levy. They can also issue bonds. This issue will go before Council. Has some positive benefits and does not use City resources. Three steps: 1. Initiated by petition—must have 50% of proposed district by acreage and 50% by assessed value voting in favor (first reading, July 26) 2. Public hearing—municipal ordinance (August 16) 3. TABOR (tax payers bill of rights) election—to raise the tax (Oct/Nov) Will not have power of eminent domain; can acquire property; can exist in perpetuity, but more likely to be term limited (10 years in operating plan); properties can come in and out of district as status changes. Properties included are along East Foothills Parkway and fronting College between Prospect and Harmony. Paying on frontage assessment of $10/linear foot. Anticipate raising $300K/year. Assessment can only increase up to limit set by CPI. Purpose is to take leadership role, and provide support and advocacy on issues critical to the area. Will take responsibility for place-making, maintenance, branding, events, and work with City on shared goals. Governance group (South Fort Collins Business Association) has recommended nine board members. First business improvement district in Fort Collins. Transitioning away from auto-centric uses of the area—this group is being responsive to changes. If approved will hire executive director then additional staff. Discussion/Q & A:  If housing changes to commercial can be included in district? o If commercial property that turns residential, will be excluded. No residential properties in the district. o Ann has been part of planning team relative to the bid. Anyone who is outside of the boundary can opt in voluntarily after the fact.  Can petition selves in. Legal process. Could also have membership basis for businesses to voluntarily participate, not just property owners. Could be benefits to businesses.  Hope that the SFCBA is open to a diverse board. Does not sound as though the process thus far has been open. o Formation group was interested in seeing people who have been active in the process being selected. Challenge in that taxing themselves, but they also want to be inclusive of all types of businesses in the district. Inclusive within variety of business interests. Got feedback from Council on being more inclusive. o Every SFCBA meeting over last year has had invitation to join. Open door invitation on the table.  Have seen success with DDA (Downtown Development Authority), URA (Urban Renewal Authority), etc. SFCBA recognizes challenges of these types of organizations. Putting in place maintenance for larger area.  Difference between this and DBA (Downtown Business Association)? o Downtown Business Association is a similar association to NFCBA (North Fort Collins Business Association) and SFCBA (South Fort Collins Business Association). No state statute power; in terms of function can do similar things. o DDA manages general improvement district and collects taxes. DBA does not.  Similar to homeowners association.  How does this relate to the midtown URA? o URA is using tax increment financing. o Confusing that there are two entities.  Two tax increment financing districts: Prospect south to Whole Foods and the mall property. For the mall there won’t be any further activity other than collecting the tax increment and servicing the debt. Different functions. URA is meant to remediate blight (state statutes define blight). It’s a tool for development-challenged areas. North College and the mall are great examples of URAs at work.  City has focused TIF financing to pay for infrastructure demands. Ex: tunnel to allow taking Max to the mall. The improvement district is for signage, beautification, festivals, etc.  URA investment to mall was ~$50M.  District being formed won’t impact cost to consumer? o $1800 on average per property. Cannot speculate on recuperation. Purpose is to create additional business activity in the corridor. Investment is offset by results.  Doesn’t preclude them from, for example, saying need another turning lane and coming to the City with an ask. Could be a legitimate political arm. o Assume they will advocate for items that benefit this corridor. o Theory behind creating bid was to leverage opportunities coming forward. Having hard time applying for grants.  Collective bargaining unit (CBU).  What does the commission feel about the idea of a bid? Fantastic opportunity for businesses to share resources and leverage opportunity without tax increment financing (impact on others). o What is downside?  Those who don’t vote for it, but have to pay for it.  Any time have an appointed board have taxation without representation. A group is deciding who will make decisions. No oversight from elected officials. Appointed persons may act out of special interests. Consolidation of power and/or activities. Form of governance is a problem.  List is of longstanding members and mostly men. What about new blood, who may have innovative ideas and know more about social media? Group is not representational. o How do elections run after the district is formed?  Staggered two and three year terms and will be elections after initial appointment.  Make comment in recommendation that would like to see election of board member to ensure diverse representation is achieved.  SFCBA will continue to operate as a separate entity. Craig Mueller moved and Sam Solt seconded: A motion to approve Ann to draft a memo based on commission input. Commission will provide input via email; Ann will finalize and send to staff. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0-0. 6. Capital Expansion Fees Recommendation: Board Discussion. Commission reviewed draft recommendation. Discussion/Q & A:  Appreciate Tiana providing draft recommendation. Since meeting a month later, makes it much easier to remember what was discussed. Recollect the board not recommending phasing in the fees; suggest adding this to the draft recommendation.  Recommend instituting the higher fees, rather than getting behind.  Several arenas they are auditing every five years. Data gets old, then do a large update. If there are many areas they assess the cost on every five years, suggest they pick two or three areas to update annually, then do a rolling average. Then they are more timely. o A lot of discussion was on how often the City calculates fees. Mike Beckstead was strongly suggesting less frequent updates to avoid an up and down in the fees.  Suggest phasing in over time due to impact on affordable housing with large fee increase overnight. Multifamily will be hit hardest. Already see limited supply. If add more fees, adds to cost of next product. Limits ability to bring more affordable housing into the market. Real concern for workforce in our community. Horak says added cost on new house doesn’t affect price of an existing home, but those in our market would disagree. Need to phase fees in over time. o Need fees that fairly reflect cost of capital infrastructure. Update regularly; do not phase in. If have special needs like affordable housing, can waive fees. If don’t collect enough, have to take out of general funds, or assess a tax, or don’t have adequate infrastructure and can’t allow building. Need adequate impact fees to build infrastructure as needed. Protects tax payers from paying cost of new growth. Council has phased things in when haven’t collected enough over time, and have gotten behind. Favor waivers and fee reductions for true affordable housing.  Would like more specific information for northeast Fort Collins. o Some development is not being allowed out there because intersections don’t have capacity. o Chick-egg issue. Fees are supposed to pay for the road, but can’t build without the road. o Can have capital expansion fees in that area.  Always behind the curve. o Make capital projects a higher priority in the budgeting process. o Why should development A pay for the road for development B? o Continuing to push dirt in areas that have insufficient intersections.  How many roads have been built with strictly general fund dollars (sales tax dollars)? o Roads have special assessment to pay for them? o Yes. One of many strategies.  Lincoln—doing $15M in improvements and only small amount from impact fees. Got general fund overages and other funds. Sales tax improvements paying for Willow. Those are tax increases on general citizens. Can have philosophy that all citizens pay for all roads, or new development pays proportionate share to bring up to City standards. If impact fees go up, that is the cost of doing business.  Methodology okay, but want phase in? o No. Only covers part of cost. Don’t have full picture of government cost of putting something on the ground. Also have utility fees going up, and transportation capital fees. o Finance Committee saw presentation on stacking of costs, relative to other communities.  Like point of having exceptions for affordable housing.  Subsidizing growth if don’t charge what it actually costs to have the infrastructure. Council can decide to only subsidize affordable housing. Get congestions, insufficient roads, and other issues.  Can also comment on price of housing and fee stacking impact on affordable housing.  Primary driver of housing cost in Fort Collins is demand, not that we’re adding $1000 in fees. Have many people willing to pay higher amount to live here. Drives price up for everyone. Fees have not grown as much as housing cost. Should not be messing around with fees to accommodate a market issue. If don’t do fees, won’t have the money to pay for infrastructure.  Is there a problem that Finance is trying to solve? Are we running out of money? o Transition from greenfield to infill. How do you capture funding for infrastructure? Need other strategies. o Revenue from greenfield diminishes as greenfield goes away. o Mall is on public infrastructure. Part of URA is for existing infrastructure. Allowable public expenditure. o Greenfield is less expensive to develop than infill.  Ex: Woodward had to relocate high tension power lines; moving utilities is more expensive than installing.  Building in place of Perkins is very expensive. Less space to work within, drainage, parking, etc.  Growth is incredibly expensive. Multiple ways to pay for it. One methodology is to have new growth pay for need for new infrastructure. Other ways are to do a URA, sales tax, general fund dollars. Should do ones that have clear methodology. Not charging for improvement, just keeping at level of today’s service.  Agree that need phasing and allowing exemptions for affordable housing.  Trust Finance to develop best methodology, but don’t yet know the financial burden on development. If incredibly high, different than it being negligible. Would not recommend immediate implementation without knowing bigger impacts.  Don’t know if it is our charge to get this much in depth on process. Agreed they need to move ahead, but don’t know when or how much. Glen Colton moved and Craig Mueller seconded: The Economic Advisory Commission supports the updated fees recommended by the Capital Expansion Fee and Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Studies. Of the options presented to EAC for fee calculations, the commission was in favor of using the “cost of construction” valuation for capital expansion fees and the Methodology Change Plus Option for the transportation fees. While both of these options result in higher fees, the EAC discussed the importance of a defensible methodology for calculating the fees and that the City should collect the fees recommended at that level so as not overburden other revenue streams to pay for future capital needs. Motion passed, 5-1-1 (Abstain: Settle). 7. Land Bank Recommendation: Board Discussion Discussion/Q & A:  Staff looking for more flexibility in ordinance. o Can only have affordable housing on those parcels. o Have Work Session next week, then will draft changes. Can follow up in a later meeting. Ann Hutchison moved and Kristin Owens seconded: The Economic Advisory Commission supports continued evaluation of the Land Bank ordinance. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-1 (Abstain: Settle). 8. Growth Dialogue Issue Book Recommendation: Sam Solt, Chair; and Ted Settle, Vice Chair. Discussion/Q & A:  Do not believe this is a project for the commission. General growth is not our purview. Will not stand behind the project. Muddies the water when we talk about City Plan—that will be a challenging process already. Picking at a scab—no one in this community wants unbridled growth, so we don’t need to continue to have meetings to discuss it. o Not seeing any conversation on this in the community. o But what will we do about it? Examples of places that have controlled growth?  Can control growth. Ex: Boulder.  And need a million dollars for a house there.  Like the idea of a logical deliverable as soon as possible. Would be great to have each person’s perspective memorialized. Agree that the topic will get really old if keep talking about the theory. Once deliverable is complete, does it lead to action? If not, put it to bed. Test it quickly, and if it’s not working be done with it.  Vehicle to advocate for another organization to run the project and get CSU engaged. Like idea of sampling community opinions in an organized way. Better phrased as sustainable growth. Presentation of proposal could be wordsmithed some.  Working with Cameron Gloss to integrate into City Plan process. Critical to have this conversation as a community in City Plan process. Have not seen us look at full range of options for growth. Not looking at slowing growth, just at managing it.  Issue book comes first, then engagement comes after? Where does Center for Public Deliberation get their information? o Engagement has to happen on front end to get community opinions. CSU might hold some focus groups, talk to Cameron, etc.  This is a topic that fits Cameron’s group well. Need to move forward with Jackie and others quickly to get into Cameron’s schedule. There is history with this model in northern Colorado. Four steps: develop the book through community involvement, deployment of book (go out to community groups), summarize data, give input to City Plan. Cameron is looking forward to the help around City Plan. Mayor has been skeptical about whether this is economic or population growth.  If EAC decides to support the issue book, Council will decide whether it is a good idea and whether to move forward. If they like the idea, it’s possible they will select another group to lead the project. Get proposal to Council as soon as possible so they can give direction to staff. Jackie likes the TBL approach.  City Plan is always a contentious process. This could give good context for those discussions. Support the book. Kristin gave good comments on wording.  Staff might look at this from a thought-leadership perspective. Elevates us as a peer community. Branding. o That is a byproduct that could come out of a well thought-out process. Should be about work that will help the City decide what it wants to be in the future. Addressing growth systematically may allow us to move beyond that conversation.  The example book we looked at gave a series of options to address the issue. Options book.  Exogenous vs endogenous variables. Things we cannot affect at all vs. things we can, and how big are those influences?  Support the proposal, but encourage the group to empower Ted and Sam to get the concept to Council. Linda Stanley moved and Glen Colton seconded: A motion to that Economic Advisory Commission direct Ted and Sam to incorporate member comments into a proposal and send to Council for consideration. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-1 (Opposed: Hutchison). 9. Project 1601 Business Assistance Package: Josh Birks, Economic Health & Redevelopment Director. Confidential project 1601. Company is willing to have staff talk about them openly once the proposal goes to Council. 1601 is an advanced manufacturer active in broader region. Looking at existing building—will upgrade HVAC, lighting, exterior, etc. Reuse/retrofit reduced overall impact of project on community. Connections to strategic plans, creating public benefit. Diversifying industry—advance manufacturing is desired—provides opportunity to less-educated for well-paying jobs, with benefits and opportunity for upward mobility. Using infrastructure already invested in to highest potential. Advance manufacturing is done with a lot of automation and technology, and product is technologically advanced as well—higher skill level required of operators. Staff has done preliminary analysis, starting public engagement with EAC and Council Finance Committee. Four forms of assistance being evaluated: 1. Rebating use tax (on purchases made outside community). Performance based. Only use undedicated general fund portion. 2. 50% rebate on business personal property tax. Subject to depreciation. 3. Utility rebates for energy conservation. Exploring removing cap for solar rebate to achieve carbon reduction. Same with lighting retrofits. 4. Public improvements. Adjacent intersection needs a light. Traffic use will remain similar, but would work better for property owners to fund upgrades to the intersection. ~$550K value of intersection. Would already be eligible for $75K existing use tax rebate. Extension of company that already operates in northern Colorado. Assistance package requires net new jobs and new business. Only access rebates once they reach net new jobs thresholds. Sustains 300 construction jobs in region. Working on sustainability assessment for the project. Assumption in model for jobs that would go to existing vs. new residents, homes to be purchased, etc. Going to Council December 6. Discussion/Q & A:  Costs of added assistance needed in community like Section 8 included in model? o Josh will find out.  Do costs include providing schools to new people? o Do similar fiscal impact analysis for PSD and county. With assumptions we have now, have net benefit. Use PSDs current budget and assumptions on number of new students created. Analysis focused on operational costs, not capital costs. o Capital costs of building three new schools should be included.  Josh will ask consultant how to include in model.  Will be sections on environmental and social impacts when give final recommendation? o Yes. Will share air quality, social, and other data.  Do they bring anything unique in the way of process? o Don’t currently have this line of business in our community, but elsewhere in the state.  Average earnings per job created? o Jobs on site will all exceed the county average. Will be at Fort Collins average income. Spill over jobs are lower.  Do not support. Want to stop incentivizing. Can’t measure intangible costs. Already have crowding and housing issues.  Avago brought something more than just cost. One of six in the world that can do what they are doing. o Anchors them in Colorado. Glen Colton moved and Linda Stanley seconded: A motion that the Economic Advisory Commission not support City Council authorizing this incentive. Motion failed, 2-4-0 (Curtis left before the vote). 10. Annual Work Plan: Board Discussion. New schedule for annual work plan—summer to summer—to coincide with Council retreat where priorities are set. Josh updated last year’s plan for this year. Added issue book, participation in City Plan update and Transportation Development Master Plan, and integration with other B&Cs. Can add current/planned activities based on Council 6-month planning calendar. Also adding piece on evaluating the criteria for business assistance packages. Discussion/Q & A:  Members gave input and Josh updated the draft accordingly.  Like idea of cost of growth and would like to discuss more. o TBL ought to include cost of growth. o Balancing benefits and costs.  Talent 2.0 coming out at end of year. EHO will be involved. o Interjurisdictional project to address talent development in Larimer County. Chamber has been lead entity.  Metrics for TBL? o Internal operational metrics and adjusting community dashboard to better reflect TBL. This group could be consulted.  Have attended every superboard meeting and they are a waste of time. How do you better integrate with other boards? Very taxing and time consuming. o Can ask people to be liaisons to other boards, or review their minutes, and report back to EAC when there are items of interest. Or, can choose not to if too much time or not worth the effort. o Superboard meetings are information push—hoping that information gets back to boards for conversation. Not having cross-dialogue. o Every board has talked about integration with other boards, but it has never worked well. Not sure should try to pursue that path. o Remove this item from Work Plan.  How are we addressing responses to public comment? o Charter says must take public comment, but silent on what to do with it. Dale Adamy suggested a public comment follow-up be added to the agenda. Board can decide whether to take action or not. o Will add to agenda.  Duties and functions include advising Council on possible threats to our economy and regional trends that may affect Fort Collins. What Eric Sutherland brought up will have an impact on our sales tax revenue. Would like to advise Council of this. o Need background information. o Would like to see funding sources. o Extend invitation to Loveland’s economic advisory or staff person to explain rationale to EAC.  Knowing what happened in Loveland, is there a plan for EHO to revise its analysis of the mall plans? o Updated on an annual basis. Agreement made is that when sales tax is created, the developer gets a piece of it. Hard to assess how big or little the Loveland assistance package is. Should talk more in depth about evaluating the impact of something that is done vs. what is to come. o If show what will be done to traffic, can ask for more investment in I-25. Ann Hutchison moved and Linda Stanley seconded: A motion to approve the 2017 Work Plan as amended. Motion passed unanimously, 8-0-0. 11. Lyric Cinema & Café Recommendation: Board Discussion. Discussion/Q & A:  Package still invests in infrastructure? o Stormwater detention and retention pond that will improve quality of runoff and also function as amphitheater, landscaping of that space, and offsetting repayment of improvements to North College.  Helps with regional stormwater issue? o Localized flooding issue on west side. Doesn’t cover broader regional issue, but helps adjacent sites.  Potentially part of North College URA to address regional stormwater? o Yes. Developing project that could potentially address regional stormwater for west side of College.  Happy that addressing infrastructure that anyone using the site would need to do, rather than façade. Adding something fun to North College. Small amount of funds. Suggest recommend funding this. o Agreed. Though concerned with market. Ted Settle moved and Craig Mueller seconded: A motion to accept the recommendation as drafted by staff and forward to the URA Board. Motion passed, 7-0-1 (Abstain: Colton).  Glen has concerns. Not sure percentage of total costs.  It’s an infill issue. Cannot be developed without improvements. Unclear whether this is good long term stormwater solution, but gets things going on North College.  Even if he fails, the land is prepped for the next business to come in. Hope that it will be successful and will pay off increment. Something on that land is better than nothing.  The cost the City is helping with is specific to this site. Part of the City infrastructure. This pricing is validated.  The City has invested a lot in North College, and this adds value to that project. o This site has already benefitted from North College improvements. Would prefer to address larger scale issues. Would like money to fund broader solution.  Remaining plan years? o o Expires 2025. Not many years left on URA.