HomeMy WebLinkAboutEconomic Advisory Commission - Minutes - 02/15/20171 | Page
MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ECONOMIC ADVISORY COMMISSION
Date: Wednesday, February 15, 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 (via phone) Ted Settle
Connor Barry
Denny Otsuga
John Parks
Alan Curtis
Ann Hutchison
Linda Stanley
Craig Mueller
Staff Present
Dianne Tjalkens, Admin/Board Support
Josh Birks, Economic Health Director
Donnie Dustin, Water Resources Manager
Lucinda Smith, Environmental Services Director
Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Sustainability Specialist
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director
Guests:
Dale Adamy, citizen
Curt Lyons, Affordable Housing Board
Meeting called to order at 11:04am
Public Comment—Dale Adamy: Concerned how TBL (triple bottom line) is not being applied in
everyday life. Ex: On trip to Berkeley, CA saw a lot of homeless people on the street. See Fort Collins
heading that same direction. Lack of social planning. Downtown Plan is not addressing issue of poverty.
Plan is missing heart. City continues to ignore ramifications of planning. Plan says homelessness is
beyond its scope. Plan is an engineer’s document—code, development, streets—very cool plan, but
missing policies/principles/actions in social area. Suggest directing policy to avoid what he saw in
Berkeley. Disappointed that Jefferson Park went off the radar in Fort Collins—change of use should have
gone to public for input on social implications of changes. The City stepped back and now the park will
become a business enterprise. Could have had a different outcome—could have been a training center,
food garden, a way to elevate people who use Rescue Mission that are experiencing homelessness. Page
26 of plan shows percentages of businesses by sector. Percentages don’t add up. So, what is social
element of Downtown? Recommend that EAC ask Council to delay adoption of Downtown Plan to allow
someone from Social Sustainability to look at the plan.
Discussion:
• Plan goes to Council in March. Old Town Plan will go in February.
• EAC has seen presentations from Downtown Plan but has not yet made a recommendation.
2 | Page
• Josh will be attending Team Lead meeting today and will discuss Dale’s comments.
Representatives from Social Sustainability and Environmental Services are attending the EAC
meeting to hear Dale’s comments.
• Board members are to review Downtown Plan before March meeting and be prepared to make a
recommendation at that time.
ACTION ITEM: Dianne will send link to Downtown Plan draft. Downtown Plan recommendation will be
added to March agenda.
Review and Approval of Minutes:
January minutes approved as amended.
Request to spell out acronyms in these and future minutes.
Agenda Review—No changes.
Commission Member/Staff Updates—
• Denny: Mesh (formerly Galvanize) had grand opening last Friday. Will be many events during
upcoming Fort Collins Startup Week.
• Craig: He and John Parks attended superboard meeting on broadband, shared spaces, and
Climate Action Plan (CAP).
o Would like superboard meetings to be videoed and available online.
o Big implementation year for CAP—marketing, projects, etc. Proposing “Fortify Fort
Collins” as implementation branding.
o Helpful for entire board to attend Council meeting when want to make impactful
statement.
• Ann: Released Talent 2.0 report yesterday. Collaborative effort—took City’s jobs analysis,
updated it, and worked with TIP Strategies to create a workforce plan for Larimer County.
Download at fortcollinschamber.com. Will share trend updates with EAC at a future meeting.
ACTION ITEMS: Dianne will send links to Council Work Session and link to Agenda Item from Utilities
Raw Water Requirements (at Council last night).
AGENDA ITEM 1— Water Utility Cash-in-lieu & Raw Water Requirement Changes, Donnie
Dustin
Raw water covers the source (water rights), storage and transmission. Fort Collins has five water districts.
The Utilities water service area covers central Fort Collins. Raw Water Requirements (RWR) include fees
paid by new development—amount is based on use and type of development. Can be satisfied with water
rights, cash-in-lieu, City certificates, or a combination. Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) Project Unit Price
is gold standard for pricing water. Price is going up.
Evaluating changes to RWR—
1. Recommending change to RWR schedule—firm yield is amount of water can provide in a
drought. Look at growth in service area, talk to planning department, and predict need to have
12K acre feet (AF). However, seeing trend of using less water in residential. Suggesting
adjustment to raw water calculation to reflect use, reducing RWR by ~7700 AF. Also using
number of bedrooms, rather than unit, to calculate use.
2. Recommending hybrid buy-in approach to set cash-in-lieu rate—costs for infrastructure and
water rights. Future supplies will not provide firm yield needed. Proposing cash-in-lieu rate at
~$16,700/AF. CBT is $50K/AF firm yield. Funds will be used to offset impacts of new
development on existing water supply system. Will continue to be one of lowest costs. Highest
costs in region are adjacent to Fort Collins Utilities area and serve parts of Fort Collins. Newer
districts must buy rights at higher prices—Utilities has good existing portfolio.
3. Recommending accepting cash only—Gives flexibility to buy projects, water rights, etc. Can
focus on best water rights.
Recognize that these increases affect housing affordability in Fort Collins. Talked to Social Sustainability
department (SSD); majority of affordable housing projects will be multifamily, where impact will be less
3 | Page
than single family. SSD is creating internal task force around mitigating increased cost of development in
Fort Collins. Will continue discussions with adjacent water districts.
Discussion/Q & A:
• What happens when don’t use firm yield annually?
o In years that rights yield more than needed, would like to put into storage.
• What is a use that would have a 1” tap?
o Small business, restaurant, etc. New hotel: 2-3” tap. Changes will apply to all size taps.
o Shocked at $100K price tag for Loveland 1” commercial tap. If that is typical for a restaurant,
can’t make that pencil out to open the business.
• One time or annual fee?
o One time impact fee. Rates pay for treatment, service, etc.
• Can you currently turn down water rights?
o Have list of acceptable rights—could change that list—under purview of the Water Board.
Some have more junior water rights which means only available during high flow times.
• Allowed to use cash for improvement projects to decrease use or increase efficiency, or to offer
credits?
o Those funds come through rates. Tap fees go toward doing water projects and infrastructure.
o If have cash position, should be able to plan throughput of how it’s used, and output of how it
is processed, etc.
o Have financial mechanisms to promote efficiencies including tiered rate structure. Working.
o Limited on how funds can be used and how calculations can be done.
o When set fee need to look at future costs of rights, infrastructure, storage. Fee is being
collected on supply of water.
• Outreach is missing activity from Economic Health Office (EHO) on what increased prices of water
will do to attracting certain types of businesses to Fort Collins. Has been limited triple bottom line
(TBL) conversation on total portfolio of fee increases.
o Opportunity to do an SAT (Sustainability Assessment Tool) while outreach continues.
o Have had fee conversations with businesses in the past. This is part of “first cost”—we are
less competitive on first costs, but more competitive with ongoing operating costs.
o Value to community in infrastructure. Costs have been much too low for what water is really
worth in this area. Cash-in-lieu rate is 15 years old. Appreciate methodology used in creating
these recommendations, including analysis of what influences water use (ex: bedrooms vs.
units). Infrastructure costs have not generally been included with rates.
• Does Glade reservoir impact this?
o Part of NISP (Northern Integrated Supply Project). We are not a part of that project. Being
done for 15 regions in the area—smaller municipalities along I-25 corridor.
• Water use has decreased by household, but how has total water use changed over time?
o 25% reduction per capita. Don’t have numbers on hand for total use.
• Adjacent water districts have more expensive prices. Would like to see graph of how and when other
districts have changed their prices.
o They track the CBT price as well. If buy local ditch company shares, have to go through
water court to change from agricultural to municipal use—uncertainties and expenses. CBT
units can be immediately transferred to municipal use. Not many rights available to buy.
Other districts are looking at other rights as well. Also considering how changing to cash only
will impact other water districts.
• Revisiting regularly—methodology for changing price?
o Ex: If purchase into Halligan, and get firm price, would adjust price accordingly.
o Right now fees buys a development into the existing infrastructure and incremental for future
infrastructure. Once have Halligan, will be more buying into existing, rather than
incremental.
o Storage hasn’t always been factored in.
• New technologies for conserving and storing water—anticipating growth and ability to scale up?
o Halligan should meet majority of future need. Also looking at new technologies such as
ground water storage in aquifers. Halligan process looks at purpose and need, alternatives,
and impacts of all alternatives. Army Corps of Engineers has to select least environmentally
impactful, viable alternative. Has been in process for 11 years. Multi-decadal permitting
processes.
4 | Page
ACTION ITEMS: Discuss recommendation at future meeting. Josh will make sure action will take place
before RWR goes to Council. Members can send questions to Dianne to collect and forward to Donnie.
AGENDA ITEM 2— Programs & Success, Alan Curtis
Innosphere is an 18 year- old 501c3 that supports startups. They incubate startups in digital health,
bioscience, clean tech and software. Three office locations along Front Range and 3 university partners.
Have been tracking metrics over last 10 years. Nearly $250M in funds raised, $70M generated revenue. In
2016 worked with 46 companies—supported more companies than ever. Not a lot of venture capital to be
had currently so funds raised tend to fluctuate. Core strategy is to attract 2 cohorts of 10 companies each
annually, incubate them for 2 years, fundraise, and graduate 15+ companies per year. Work with federal
labs, cities, universities and funding partners. Labs and universities send companies to incubate.
Get 150 applications per year from across state. Process: Company applies, screening process, technology
validation, invitation to be client company, entrepreneurial education courses, get idea of what needs to be
successful, pair with an advisor network, pilot/test and demonstration (often disruptive tech),
fundraising/grants/debt, establish/manage corporate relationships, and manage the exit (help sell the
business if desired).
75% of client companies hit one of four graduation triggers within two years or less: revenue target,
established corporate relationship, funding is round, or business has been sold.
Types of companies:
1. Headquarter Businesses: goal to build, operate and grow a business
2. Venture Backed: goal to build high growth company
3. Early Exit: goal is to build and sell
Send other businesses to Larimer County Small Business Development Center.
Innosphere won a grant to launch SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research) and STTR (Small Business
Technology Transfer) grant support. Work with Estes Park EDC (Economic Development Corp). Talking
about Innosphere satellite office. Working with CSU Ventures on Research Innovation Center
commercialization of academic facility. Worked with Economic Health Office (EHO) on Innovate Fort
Collins—the EV(electric vehicle) charging challenge that executes on the City goal of City as a Platform.
Getting pilot up and running. Using a non-traditional RFP (request for proposal) process—requesting
solutions. Also running a program for Canadian cleantech companies—Canada picked US cities to learn
from. Looking at Denver cleantech; working with NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory).
Doing similar with Horizon GreenTech Ventures. Recently merged with Innovation Center of the
Rockies, a Boulder based organization that did similar work for universities, mostly in Boulder. Launched
first seed venture capital for client companies—separate LLC (limited liability corporation).
Discussion/Q & A:
• Graduation rate high due to vetting process?
o Yes. And improving process once they are onboard.
• Fort Collins wants businesses we attract to fit a community goal. Attracting cleantech is a goal for the
Front Range.
• City gets asked if worried about Innosphere branching outside of Fort Collins, but each partnership
outside City has been value-add for businesses operating in Fort Collins.
• Example companies that have graduated and been successful?
o St. Renatus, which produces a nasal dental anesthesia spray, and an opioid abuse tracking
company.
• Building operations? Financial side?
o Josh is City rep on Innosphere board. He recently wrote a good news memo on refinancing of
Innosphere to Council. At 90% occupancy. Building is in good shape.
ACTION ITEMS: Josh will share Innosphere memo and will work with Innosphere finance to get
additional information. Dianne will distribute presentation. Members are requested to let Dianne know
whether or not they will attend the March meeting.
Meeting Adjourned: 1:03pm
Next Meeting: March 15