HomeMy WebLinkAboutEconomic Advisory Commission - Minutes - 12/21/2016MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ECONOMIC ADVISORY COMMISSION
Date: Wednesday, December 21, 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 Alan Curtis
Ann Hutchison
Denny Otsuga (11:35)
Kristin Owens
Linda Stanley
Glen Colton
Ted Settle
Craig Mueller
Staff Present
Dianne Tjalkens, Admin/Board Support
Josh Birks, Economic Health Director
Meaghan Overton, City Planner
Bob Overbeck, Councilmember
Guests:
Eric Sutherland, citizen
Meeting called to order at 11:04am
Public Comment—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. Anytime develop along that corridor increase congestions. Providing subsidies to deprive our
community of revenue, to have a tiny bit of revenue for their community. Most of the revenue is given
back to the developer. Unconstitutional under state law. Fort Collins should tell Loveland that they cannot
do this. If levy a tax, have to collect and appropriate annually, or in violation of several statutes. Pleading
for someone within municipality to discuss with Loveland. Imprudent thing to do for Loveland and Fort
Collins citizens. Need uniformity in provision of incentives. Sales tax wars among neighboring
communities does not do good to anyone. Economic Health Office should be proactive in these matters.
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.
Discussion:
• Coloradoan reported that Loveland would not get financial benefit until 2046.
1 | Page
• Eric has raised interesting issue. Loveland has pushed the law to its favor. Ex: Centerra. Timnath
has done the same thing. We can ask Council to look into the legalities. A game that is robbing
tax payers and giving profits to developers. Causing sprawl, overloading interstate, bad land use
planning, etc. City of Fort Collins can let it be known that this is not good for the region. Should
be working together (regional collaboration).
• Don’t know why Loveland would give up that revenue for so long. What is the thinking?
o Reluctant to speculate on Loveland Council approval.
o Want to be seen as bigger entity. Want more retail than Fort Collins. No other benefit to
them.
• A lot of this kind of development should be addressed in the growth document the EAC has
proposed. Need to consider bandwidth of I-25 to avoid creating a more dangerous conduit
between Denver and Fort Collins.
• Our Council can discuss regional interests with other Councils in the region.
o Two regional dialogues: City Manager (staff) level, and elected official level. May come
up at both.
o Regional elected official meetings are a data-dump—very little conversation.
o City Manager meetings may better address.
• No regional coordination on potential impact of this project? Can do things in isolation?
o Correct. Communities agreed to GMAs and have isolated collaboration, such as
interchanges. IGAs for growth, but within GMA there is very little conversation on
impact of one project on another.
o Many citizens have tried. Ex: I-25 corridor planning. But Fort Collins is the only one that
has stuck to that plan.
Review and Approval of Minutes:
November minutes approved as presented.
Update: For future minutes, when call for public comment chair will ask speakers to identify as citizen or
member of other stakeholder group.
Agenda Review—No changes.
Commission Member/Staff Updates—None.
AGENDA ITEM 1— Downtown Plan Review, Meaghan Overton
Meaghan is a planner on this project—she has been working on community engagement and as staff
liaison for the Market and Economy working group. Draft plan has been released, and is in public
comment period. Document is organized by vision, principles, policy direction, and action items with
time frames. The vision is for downtown to be designed to be unique, innovative and inclusive. There are
six working groups including transportation and parking, urban design, downtown management, etc.
There are nine character districts. Input is being requested through Friday; residents who have provided
input should be hearing back from staff within the next few weeks. Staff is currently revising plan based
on input received and outlining the implementation strategy. Revised draft will be available early January.
Can provide a memo to the commission addressing changes.
Urban Design Policies:
• Character subdistricts
• Building stepbacks and transitions (will be reflected in land use code)
• Compatibility—larger projects fitting into downtown context (higher density, taller, etc.) Must
also support existing historic character. Quality design.
Transportation & Parking Policies:
• Parking utilization data and communication of parking availability.
• On-street paid parking—need to determine thresholds before considering implementation
• Adjusting enforcement—evenings and weekends. Getting people to park in right place for type of
visit. Ex: Working, use parking garage; quick trip, use on-street.
2 | Page
• Public-Private partnerships
• Fee In lieu—pay a fee rather than creating on-site parking for a new development.
Market & Economy
• Employment—spread throughout downtown
• Retail Mix—sustain existing local businesses, attract/retain regional/national chains. Market
assessment showed need to increase amount of housing, larger office spaces, and general
merchandise. Will continue to monitor.
• Housing—increase supply in downtown. Affordability. Encourage different housing types and
choices.
• Funding—DDA TIF expiring. $2.5M/year. Determine how to continue to invest in downtown.
Discussion/Q & A:
• Suggest having signage in character districts to help people identify.
o Planning design differences.
o Ex: River district feels different than historic downtown core—heading that direction. Will
have more visual signifiers at gateways.
o San Diego has done this with neighborhoods. It helps you know where you are.
Can have a Disney quality, though. Must be done carefully.
• Term “appropriate” is very subjective and overused. May consider replacing with more objective
terms.
• Will we be declaring which buildings we want to keep? Just because something is old doesn’t mean
it’s historic.
o Historic Preservation could answer better. Have eligibility requirements for landmark status
when have historic review. Not suggesting changing that process.
o That process is broken. Should mark which buildings we want to keep so buyers understand
expectation. Limit conflict of reviews, appeals, etc.
o Anticipate next draft will address this issue.
• This commission is in favor of on-street paid parking.
o Have clearly heard opposing views on on-street paid parking. Need more data to make best
decision.
o Since it is a scarce resource, it should have a cost. Have to pay for a parking garage, but not
on-street.
Upside down.
• Many people using Max to get downtown. Learning anything from that behavior in relation to
parking?
o Haven’t determined number of spaces available as a result of Max use. Positive trend. In
theory would create more parking downtown.
• Use of technologies to overcome barriers to partnerships, fee structures, etc. Fee structure should
anticipate future needs (upgrades).
o Long term parking needs revenue stream.
o Several technologies available to track available spaces, connect to an app so can pay via
phone. Differentiated fee structure that can be changed for events, time of day, length of use,
etc.
o Sensors have been discussed by working group. Plan is more general as technology will
change over 15-20 years.
o Firehouse Alley parking structure will be ungated and have pay kiosks and maybe sensors.
Comes with management system. Moving down that path.
o Envisioning partnering with third party parking management vendor?
To be determined.
• What does TIF funding go to?
o Planters and sidewalks paid for through general improvement district—that money is not
going away. DDA TIF pays for alley improvements, facades, partnerships on larger projects
like Old Town Square renovation, etc.
o Expiring and will not be renewed?
Has already been extended. Tax increment district can only be extended once. Once
expired, sales tax will go to general fund.
3 | Page
DDA loses primary funding source; will continue to exist, but will not have funding
for capital improvements.
• How is this plan different from previous plan?
o 1989 plan experimented with housing in downtown. Big shift to today. Was also focused on
revitalization; set stage for downtown we have today.
• Will adding housing, jobs, etc. have a negative impact draw of downtown we have today?
o Haven’t modelled that. City Plan will look at activity center, where people go for shopping
and entertainment, how we can spread this around town. Desire to have downtown continue
to be a vibrant destination for all residents, while being an economic driver.
o A lot of the employment is going into other character districts.
Canyon avenue, innovation district, civic district may see more of that kind of
development. Not changing historic core/entertainment district very much.
• Transients and homelessness?
o Addressed in management and maintenance section.
ACTION ITEMS: Commission will consider recommendation at next meeting.
AGENDA ITEM 2— EAC Annual Work Plan
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.
4 | Page
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 moved to approve the 2017 Work Plan as amended. Linda seconded.
Motion passed unanimously, 8-0-0.
ACTION ITEMS: Josh will submit to City Clerk.
AGENDA ITEM 3— URA Lyric Theater Recommendation
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 moved to accept the recommendation. Craig seconded. Motion passed, 7-0-1. Glen abstained.
• 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 Expires 2025. Not many years left on URA.
Other Business
• Issue Book Update: Had meeting with Laurie Kadrich, Director of PDT. Action item of that
meeting was to convene with Tom Leeson, Cameron Gloss and Martín Carcasson to explore how
guide book would address needs of City Plan update. Hope to have clear path forward after this
meeting. Martín Carcasson will be on sabbatical next year.
• Project 1601: Project is continuing but is not focused on pursuing incentives from Fort Collins.
Pursuing funding from State of Colorado.
Meeting Adjourned: 1:02pm
5 | Page
Next Meeting: January 18
6 | Page