Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Full - Finance Committee - 01/29/2019 -Finance Administration 215 N. Mason 2nd Floor PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6788 970.221.6782 - fax fcgov.com AGENDA Council Finance & Audit Committee January 28, 2019 10:00 am - noon CIC Room - City Hall Approval of Minutes from the December 17P th P Council Finance Committee meeting. 1.Utility Lab Building Partnership 30 minutes C. Webb L. Smith 2.Police Training – LEED Options 25 minutes B. Hergott 3.FOP Contract 15 minutes K. DiMartino J. Swoboda 4.Non-Profit Facility Lease Rate Framework 25 minutes J. Wimmer A. Macdonald 5. Child Care Incentive / Fee Waivers 25 minutes S. Beck-Ferkiss A. Molzer Other Business: Online Use Tax Form Council Finance Committee Agenda Planning Calendar 2018 - 2019 RVSD 01/24/19 ck Jan 28th Utility Lab Building Partnership 30 min C.W ebb L. Smith Police Training – LEED Options 25 min B.Hergott FOP Contract 15 min K. DiMartino J. Swoboda Non-Profit Facility Lease Rate Framework 25 min J.Wimmer A.Macdonald Child Care Incentive / Fee Waivers 25 min S.Beck-Ferkiss A.Molzer Feb 25th Development Review Fee Update 40 min T.Leeson Mulberry Metro District Application 30 min J.Birks Water – Excess Water Use Fee 30 min C.W ebb Mar 18th Revenue Contingency Plan Framework Review 20 min M.Beckstead Parks/Median/Parks Refresh Design / Maintenance Plan Framework 30 min M.Calhoon K.Friesen Apr 15th 2018 Rebate Results 20 min J.Poznanovic Future Council Finance Committee Topics: Finance Administration 215 N. Mason 2nd Floor PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6788 970.221.6782 - fax fcgov.com Finance Committee Meeting Minutes 12/17/18 10 am - noon CIC Room - City Hall Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Ross Cunniff, Ken Summers Staff: Darin Atteberry, Kelly DiMartino, Jeff Mihelich, Mike Beckstead, Erik Martin, Jerrod Kinsman, Josh Birks, Victoria Shaw, Travis Storin, Brian Hergott, Gerry Paul, Jennifer Poznanovic, Victoria Shaw, Greg Yeager, Chief Swoboda, Wendy Williams, Andres Gavaldon, Michelle Provaznik and two folks from Friends of the Gardens, Tyler Marr, Joe Wimmer, Judy Schmidt, John Duval, Ryan Malarky, Zach Mozer, Jo Cech, Katie Ricketts, Carolyn Koontz Others: Dale Adamy, R1ST.org, Kevin Jones, Chamber of Commerce ____________________________________________________________________________________ Meeting called to order at 10:05 am. Approval of Minutes from the November 19P th P Council Finance Committee Meeting. Ken Summers moved for approval. Mayor Troxell seconded the motion. Minutes were approved unanimously. A. Police Regional Training Facility IGA and Funding Greg Yeager, Deputy Chief Jerrod Kinsman, Lieutenant Brian Hergott, Sr. Facilities Project Manager Erik Martin, Financial Analyst II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Police Regional Training Facility (PRTF) has been under design and the staff from the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland have developed a draft IGA that addresses the construction, operation, and maintenance of the facility. There have been a few changes in design since the March 2017 Joint Council presentation, and staff would like to brief Council on those changes and the progress while seeking direction for next steps. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In 2014, Fort Collins and Loveland held a Joint Council session to discuss the possibility of a police training facility that would be shared between the two agencies and as a regional resource for our neighbors. In 2015, Loveland City Council’s split vote (4-4) put the project temporary on hold. In 2017, the Councils jointly approved for design work to begin on the facility. Staff at the two cities have been working with the design firm SEH to design a facility that meets the scope, budget, and building requirements for both organizations. Based on updated requirements from the Northern Colorado Regional Airport and 2 surveys of the land, adjustments have been made to the design to stay within the project budget and to stay within the scoped needs of both agencies. Summary of Changes from Previous • One rifle range and one pistol ranges of reduced to one tactical range • Three classrooms reduced to two classrooms • Smaller skid pad and less complex driving track In 2018, staff from the two cities have been working to create an IGA to govern the construction, operations, and maintenance of the facility that meets the requirements of both cities. Staff has a draft copy ready for consideration by both councils. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED • Does Council support continued collaboration with Loveland on the PRTF through an IGA? • Does Council wish to fund construction for the facility using debt service? Discussion / Next Steps: 3 Mike Beckstead; $60K per year sinking fund O&M builds over time to handle any significant maintenance at the facility. IGA is 95% complete. Open Items; 1) we prefer to keep money in our bank and give them contributions on a quarterly basis tied to construction progress only open as we haven’t finalized the wording yet 2) Zero Energy - there are some word modifications in the IGA to clarify our intent 3) Loveland added a new item to the IGA last week re: equal usage - we are looking for some clarification as we have twice as many officers as they do. 2P nd P IGA in motion between Loveland and Fort Collins related to the land lease of airport property. $177K being converted to land lease as the airport can’t lease to itself. Our City Attorney’s office advised we should memorialize that intent - still working through the details and we will come forward in January with the financing if that is the direction we get today. Mayor Troxell; we currently make an annual contribution to the airport along with Loveland $177K each. Assuming this will offset that contribution from each city. Mike Beckstead; that contribution direct to the airport will go away - the airport will receive that amount from both entities as land lease payments relative to lease obligations. Darin Atteberry; the cash flow doesn’t change - it is just done in a different way - this is a cleaner and better approach. LEED Gold Certification - both cities have agreed to meeting each other in the middle as far as standards are concerned - Zero energy - main part of the facility - provide a well-functioning LEED certified Ken Summers: How is that going to be achieved? Darin Atteberry: staff has agreement, but Council will consider this tomorrow night Brian Hergott; the office / classroom areas LEED certified - shooting range high performing - mechanical systems 4 - shooting range and site itself Darin Atteberry; this is a 50/50 partnership - partner doesn’t have the same standard and we are developing in their jurisdiction - we are trying to honor our policy - LEED certify office part - shooting range getting Loveland comfortable and buy in for systems and the return on investment over time Brian Hergott; solar PV on the roof to meet LEED requirements - wind energy - get it to net zero - thermal Ross Cunniff; does this Include the shooting range? What are the air quality standards of the shooting range? Mayor Troxell; wind toward project through regs - Energy is created in Loveland - they are part of Platt River - need to clarify this tomorrow Darin Atteberry; Brian, be prepared to discuss what projects specifically have a shorter ROI tomorrow evening. Have you reached agreement on what the LEED like enhancements are on the shooting range? Brian Hergott; includes lighting / envelope testing / there are lots of creds we don’t get because of the site Mayor Troxell; this includes native and xeriscape landscaping too, right? Brian Hergott; we plan to create a boundary up around the office area with native materials Mayor Troxell; the airport commission is discussing having standards for buildings around the airport - currently there are none - architecture standards come into play now within Loveland’s land use guidelines – right now there are no standards in place for the airport. The commission would like to get to the point where there are standards - to make it a regionally attractive area. Brian Hergott; to get to LEED Gold – improve efficiencies 2012 -Energy Code - Loveland 2015 - Energy Code - Fort Collins 5 Mike Beckstead; If the DOLA grant comes in there will be some upgrades made for example; some enhancements will be put back in including the skid pad and 2 additional lanes on the track. Campus Capacity - was 5 days a week / 3 segments - expanded Planning purposes - they decided to put that out to show capacity that can be used Police officers work shifts - have officers train when they work A segment is a 4-hour block of time - basic rental rate is $325 per segment Multiple segments can be leased out at the same time - classrooms are $250 per segment 6 Ross Cunniff; how many police training facilities go into that average? We have very slim choices to pick from in Colorado for comparison (Aurora and Flat Rock) Mike Beckstead; for budgeting purposes, we wrote the IGA starting with rental revenue and budget for the facility which gets us to the net number - that would be the ask for the O&M to support the budget If we underspend that, it stays in the training center fund, then the next year – there won’t be a buildup of underspend on O&M - it goes to fund the need in the next year - we zero it out each year. Capital renewal piece stays with Loveland - we both jointly own and that will be used for future maintenance Mike Beckstead; bond funding - our intent is to combine the Police Training Facility with the I25 Prospect project. 2 assets are being used; 215 N. Mason St. and the Civic Center Parking Structure. Debt financing to a single COP $26M offering. We hope to bring this forward to Council on January 15P th P with the 2P nd P Reading on February 5P th P. Our first payment to CDOT will be due in April 2019. Loveland is using cash and we believe they are looking to appropriate sometime in January. Darin Atteberry; good news is that we paid off 215 N. Mason and the Civic Center Parking Structure in June. Two buildings were built and funded and now we can leverage them as collateral. Discussion of Existing Facility: March of 2017- we didn’t have the asset value assuming it was sold - wanted to reinforce - Transparency Darin Atteberry; given the study results and I think the Chief would agree that we should keep the asset Ross Cunniff; Do we have an understanding of value of existing? 7 Mike Beckstead; As of a couple years ago it was $500K including the shell and the land Darin Atteberry; still a question for us - when we talked initially, we were going to sell that asset. It is not looking like it would be smart play - it is probably best to keep this asset in our portfolio Ross Cunniff; question - IGA page 8 - training revenues - How do you anticipate that process working? Mike Beckstead; when we first received this draft, Loveland assumed we handled fees the same way they do - the difference is that the Loveland Council approves those type of fees. We normally approve them administratively. We tried to write this the way current practice is - Darin does this administratively just like he does recreation fees, etc. Ross Cunniff; how would it work if we disagree on what the fees should be? Mike Beckstead; there is a dispute resolution mechanism in place which involves the two Chiefs meeting to resolve a dispute and if they aren’t able to resolve it, the two City Managers would discuss and if no resolution there it would go to non-binding arbitration. Loveland wanted that in there in case it was ever needed. Darin Atteberry; Animal Control Fees for example, I have the authority to set and increase those - so I communicate that I am planning to do this – ask Council to take a look at it and let me know if they have any concerns. Historically, we have given a heads up that we are looking at a fee increase. This fee must be market based or they will drive to the facility in Adams County. Mike Beckstead; we want to capitalize on the market advantages in NoCo. Mike Beckstead; Based on this conversation, we will bring forward the Bond Ordinance and the Appropriation Ordinances and the two IGAs on January 15P th B. Gardens Michelle Provaznik, Manager of the Gardens on Spring Creek Jim McDonald, Director of Cultural Services Appropriation of Unanticipated Donation Revenues and Gardens Reserves to the Visitor Center Completion Project at the Gardens on Spring Creek. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1) The purpose of this item is to appropriate revenues raised by the Gardens on Spring Creek and Friends of the Gardens and Gardens Reserves for completion of Visitor’s Center. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION In 2015, Fort Collins voters approved the Community Capital Improvement Program which included $2 million to expand the Visitor’s Center at the Gardens on Spring Creek pending successful fundraising for the remainder of funds needed for the project. In the 2017-2018 budget cycle, Council approved $2,185,000 for the Visitor’s Center expansion. 8 The Visitor’s Center expansion is the second phase of completing The Gardens Master Plan and includes construction of a conservatory that will operate as a North American Butterfly House in partnership with the Butterfly Pavilion in Westminster. A new lobby/entrance, meeting room, café concessions, and expanded gift shop will be added. Plans are attached. Since 2017, the Friends of the Gardens on Spring Creek Board of Directors has been actively fundraising to meet the needs of the Visitor’s Center completion project and has secured $572,394 in donations and pledges. This ordinance will appropriate the $315,000 cash in hand which has been donated to the project. The remainder of the funding is in pledges that will be received between 2019-2023. The Gardens has strategically built reserves to contribute to capital projects in case of funding shortfalls or to cover pledged gifts. The Gardens requests $240,000 of reserves be appropriated to complete the Visitor’s Center. The reserve amount will be fully replenished as the pledged gifts are received. Construction of the Visitor’s Center will begin in January/February 2019. This immediately follows the completion of construction of the Gardens expansion of five acres of new gardens including the Great Lawn, Undaunted Garden, Foothills and Prairie Gardens. The total cost of the garden expansion project was $2.9 million, $2.1 million was raised by the Friends of the Gardens and $800,000 was provided by the City of Fort Collins. The Gardens on Spring Creek will host a grand opening celebration for both projects in fall 2019. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS Prior Appropriated Funds Prior Appropriated Community Capital Improvement Funds $2,185,000 2018 Clean-up $27,394 Operations Services – Existing Building Renovation $304,540 Total Prior Appropriation $2,516,934 Funds to be Appropriated with this Action Funds donated for the Visitor’s Center Project $315,000 Gardens Reserves $240,000 Total Funds to be Appropriated per this Action $555,000 Total Current Project Budget $3,069,540 Prior Transfer to Art in Public Places $21,850 BOARD OR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Completion of the Gardens on Spring Creek Master Plan has been supported by the Parks and Recreation Board and Cultural Resources Board. 9 PUBLIC OUTREACH: The Gardens on Spring Creek Master Plan and Visitor’s Center design was originally approved in 2000. As the Visitor’s Center Design is nearly identical to the originally approved plan, a minor amendment process has been undertaken. No further public outreach was required Discussion / Next Steps: Mike Beckstead; clarification - these are private donations that have built up over time and have been put back in a reserve account - $240K – offsetting the $230K we already have - the fundraising shortfall is $10K - only using the reserves to bridge the timing of when the pledges come in. Mayor Troxell; how does that relate to City Give? discretionary or endowed? Mike Beckstead; it relates to City Give as Nina has been working with Michelle and her team on fund raising. We haven’t fully implemented that component of City Give in terms of having a MOU with the Friends of the Gardens but that is coming very quickly. All of the funds come in on a restricted basis specific to the Gardens and use on this project - no endowment with this project. Mayor Troxell; I would like to see it more in a donative framework - the philanthropic side of City Give is a very important part; relationships and developing a giving framework for the City of Fort Collins - we also need to have the back-office framework that supports the front facing operation. Mayor Troxell; You have done a great job - I looked at the facility this weekend and it is outstanding! It is coming into the promise - a lot of hard work has gone into this. I appreciate that Jim McDonald is here as well. It is good to see we are looking at our facilities as they relate to our cultural resources and assets. How do we best capture all of those together in terms of curation and exhibition and not have each one doing their own funding raising. Butterfly Pavilion partnerships and leveraging relationships to lift the game and allowing for things to happen. We have some opportunities there as we think of all our cultural asset resources. At some point in the future we will go after science / cultural resources - that will be the framework for asking - right now I don’t think we have that framework. Jim McDonald; I met with Nina Bodenhamer and we had a really good meeting - I have a background 10 In grant making and fund raising. We see strong alignment in the potential of all our facilities and programs. I have been here for about 7 weeks and I can say with my fresh eyes and ears in this community - this is a tremendous asset and a great platform we are building on. I plan to meet with Michelle and Nina to see what other opportunities exist because it is a great program and facility to support. I also want to point out the volunteer hours for this facility are so important - the volunteers are literally growing the plants we are selling. This is something that is not captured here - how many hours come from the Friends / the volunteers of the Gardens that we would have had to pay for. Appreciating them and acknowledging the tremendous job they do! Ross Cunniff; I am excited about this - it will be a gem and is consistent with the vision for the Gardens. Great facility - appreciate the private fund raisers who had made this a reality. One question - Are we charging admission to our Butterfly Pavilion? Michelle Provaznik; yes, we plan to charge admission - similar to the Museum of Discovery model - Darin Atteberry; I noticed at the Garden of Lights that the donation / admission is handled in a great way - it looked like a bake sale table – guests are compelled to give but it was done in a way that if someone couldn’t afford to pay, they would feel comfortable walking through. Ross Cunniff; we have had that discussion around the Museum of Discovery - how to make it assessible to all Ken Summers; great amenity and good project Mayor Troxell; not to change anything that is already in reserves -build out more of the City Give framework - cashflow from a donative side - to recognize that there is a commitment on a donative side that is an obligation Michelle Provaznik; I think clarity about that would be good. Mayor Troxell; clarity and discipline - it also helps on the fundraising side whether it is volunteers or city staff that are making requests - Rules of engagement on the philanthropic side to adhere to as well. Great asset to our community - great project. Mike Beckstead; we will bring this forward as soon as possible. C. Metro District Policy Updates Josh Birks, Director, Economic Sustainability John Duval, Deputy City Attorney EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to present several changes to the Metro District Policy, adopted by City Council on August 21, 2018, and changes to the accompanying Model Service Plan. These changes included clarification regarding timing and deadlines for submittal and reflect changes to the Model Service Plan requested by Council during their recent consideration of three service plans this past September. Aside from the timing changes to the policy, these changes should be familiar to the Finance Committee (“Committee”) and City Council. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 11 1. Does the Committee support the proposed changes to the Metro District Policy and Model Service Plan? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION On August 21, 2018, City Council adopted Resolution 2018-079 revising the Policy for Reviewing Service Plans of Metropolitan Districts (the “Metro District Policy” or “Policy”) previously adopted by Council through Resolution 2008-069. The new policy made several fundamental changes to the previous policy. Shortly after adopting this new policy, City Council considered and approved the Service Plans for three new Metro Districts. During Council’s consideration of these items several changes were made to the service plans. Staff understood Council’s direction in requesting these changes constituted precedent for the review of future service plans. After Council’s review of the three most recent service plans, Staff met to debrief the process and discussed opportunities for improvement. Both the changes requested by Council and several process improvements are presented in this policy update. UPolicy Changes & Process Improvements: Staff proposes to revise the Metro District Policy in the following ways (listed in the order in which they appear in the Policy): 1. Workforce Housing – This minor change adjusts the target Area Median Income (“AMI”) target range to 81 to 120 percent and adds the category to Exhibit A – Public Benefit Examples of the Policy. 2. Staff Response to Letter of Intent – To enhance clarity for applicants, the policy has been revised to require staff respond to any Letter of Intent within thirty (30) days of receipt and payment of pre- application fees. 3. Formal Application Submission Deadlines – To ensure adequate time for review and consideration, the policy has been revised to include a deadline for formal application submittal that provides a minimum of approximately 120 days for review. There are two deadlines each is linked to a potential election date, either spring or fall. 4. Public Hearing Notice – This minor change shifts the Council Public Hearing section to a separate section in the policy. 5. Council Public Hearing – This new section of the policy addresses the timing for Council to conduct a public hearing requiring that the hearing occurs at least thirty (30) days prior to the final submission date for the District Court to order an election. This should provide the Council a minimum of two (2) regular council meetings to consider a service plan. 6. Order of Proceedings at Public Hearing – This is the largest change to the policy. This new section lays out an order of proceedings for the public hearing that mirrors the development review hearing process. The intent of this revision is to facilitate a more complete review of a proposed service plan allowing Council to hear directly from the applicant. A redline version of the Policy has been included for reference. UModel Service Plan Changes: Staff proposes to revise the Model Service Plan (Exhibit B of the Policy) in the following ways (listed in no order): 1. Further Council Approval Required – No Debt, Debt Mill Levy, or Fees to pay debt may be issued or collected until City Council approves an intergovernmental agreement and/or development agreement securing the Public Benefits (Section IV.B(1-3)). 2. City may Dissolve a District for Inaction – Revisions to Section XVI now empower the City, at its option, to dissolve the District if no intergovernmental agreement or development agreement has been approved by City Council within three years of Service Plan approval. 12 3. Regional Improvements Clean-up – Several minor changes have been made throughout the document to clean-up the commitment by a district to establish the ability to support Regional Improvements through the imposition of a 5.000 mill levy. 4. Financial Plan – Clarifying language has been added to section IX.A indicating that the financial plan attached to a service plan is based on “economic, political and industry conditions as they exist presently and reasonable projections and estimates of future conditions.” Furthermore, the estimates and projections presented are not to “be interpreted as the only method of implementation of the Districts’ goals and objectives…” This allows for the financial plan to adjust over time as long as those adjustments comply with the terms of the Service Plan. 5. Maximum Debt Authorization – Section IX.B(7) has been revised to clarify the applicability of the Maximum Debt Authorization excludes Intergovernmental Capital Pledge Agreements between two or more of the Districts created by a given service plan. 6. Board Meetings – Language clarifying the requirement to have board meetings in three of the four quarters shall not apply until there is at least one end user of property within a district and terminates when most of the directors on a district’s board are end users. 7. Other Minor Changes - All other changes in the Model Service Plan are either refinements in the spirit of the original Model Service Plan, minor in nature, or further changes for clarification. 8. Intergovernmental Agreement – Optional language will be added to allow for an intergovernmental agreement between the City and metro districts as needed for some districts in order to provide another tool for the City to enforce the approved service plan. Discussion / Next Steps: Changes requested during the review / approval of the last 3 service plans. Mayor Troxell; timeline compared to those 3 service plans that were recently approved Josh Birks; we received all of the applications in July - requested submission deadlines In order to be ready for election they are targeting Josh Birks; We were not able to include a red line of the updated Service Plan in your packets today. 13 We are looking to bring these changes forward for Consent right after the first of the year, so they are in place for any new applicants as they come in. Ross Cunniff; I am not happy with tax levels on the ones we approved. Permanently affordable. Do we need to do anything in the example /model service plan to inform applicants of the requirements of list price + the additional tax burden? Josh Birks; I don’t think it would hurt for us to add that - I would rather be overly transparent than leave it to question. Ross Cunniff; if we advertise as affordable housing, we need to be transparent Mike Beckstead; the term which that applies to would be part of that transparency - is it 20 years or 40 years or is it perpetual? Ross Cunniff; says permanently affordable - I like that Ken Summers; timeline - are we saying that if they miss a May 3P rd P application submittal that they have to wait until the next year? Josh Birks; if they submit by the 3P rd P Tuesday in May then we will ensure they get Council review in time for them to make a November election - if they submit later, we can’t provide that assurance. Work load and impacts – there are 3 that will move forward in 2019 and at least 2 more are waiting on deck. In the budget we anticipated and forecasted revenue from 5 districts per year and we have appropriated funds to hire additional staff for processing and to enhance capacity. My expectation is that we will be seeing more of these now that there is a policy in place. Ken Summers; you do consider these clean up issues? Josh Birks; yes, cleaning up some of the language -TABOR, financial plan language basically states that what is being presented is one outcome - not to be considered debt as part of max debt. We will have a red line of the Model Service Plan available when this comes forward to Council. Mayor Troxell; thank you D. Mall Financial Review & Net Taxable Sales Data Josh Birks, Director, Economic Sustainability Jennifer Poznanovic, Sr. Manager, Sales Tax / Revenue Victoria Shaw, Sr. Analyst, Finance SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Mall Financial Review & Net Taxable Sales Data EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 14 The purpose of this item is to present an overview of the financial performance of the Foothills Mall Redevelopment and recently analyzed data on net taxable sales trends in the City of Fort Collins. The financial performance of the mall will include an analysis of anticipated City contributions from sales tax versus newly revised estimates and an update on the sales per square foot performance of the property. The net taxable sales trends will provide additional background for discussions regarding future sales tax revenue trends. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED No specific direction is sought. This item is informational only. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION UFoothills Mall Financial Performance The Foothill Mall Redevelopment project is supported by a public finance package that includes five revenue sources: (a) Metro District Capital Mills; (b) Metro District Specific Ownership Tax (c) Property Tax Increment; (d) Public Improvement Fee; (e) Sales Tax Increment. All revenues were pledged to the Foothills Metropolitan District to support the issuance of bonds. The bonds provided the direct subsidy to the project to fund a portion of on-site and off-site construction costs. The pledge or sales tax revenue is intended to support the bond debt service only if needed and to fill a supplemental reserve account required by the bond terms. Staff has prepared an update to the performance of the public finance package and retail sales performance. The estimated investment contributed from the City of Fort Collins when the Foothills mall project was approved by council was $8.8M. Based on current trends, staff estimates the new commitment level at $5.4M. Savings was driven by the bond closing at a lower rate (5.92% vs. 7%) and the lower pledged increment allowing more Metro District revenues to contribute to bond reserve. Year Metro District Revenue City Sales Tax Revenue Non-Pledged Sales Tax Pledged Increment Bond Payments & Reserve Increment Returned to City City Contribution 2012 4.8 2015 2.1 5.0 5.0 2.5 4.6 - 2.5 2016 2.3 5.3 5.3 3.1 5.4 - 3.1 2017 6.5 5.4 5.4 3.2 9.7 - 3.2 2018 6.5 8.8 5.5 3.3 6.0 3.3 - 2019 6.7 9.0 5.6 3.4 5.7 3.4 - TOTAL 15.4 6.6 8.8 Original Assumptions 15 Ongoing revenue remitted back to the City will occur later and be less than originally forecasted. This is driven by slower lease-up rate and lower sales per sq. ft. performance. Lower sales per sq. ft. performance is driven by tenant mix, including more service-based businesses than anticipated. UNet Taxable Sales Tax Trends The City began facing a changing revenue situation beginning in 2017. A contributing factor to this revenue trend is flat to modest sales tax revenue growth. Financial Services Area (Finance) staff has begun to evaluate relevant data points and trends that might help to explain this shift and support revenue forecasting. Staff presents several preliminary data points as an introduction to this topic. In the chart below, the City and County were following the same trendline until 2010. The County compound annual growth rate (CAGR) outside the City, from 2010 to 2017 was 7.8% while it was 4.4% in Fort Collins. In the chart below, the City’s percentage of County net taxable sales was consistently around 70% until 2010. Although net taxable sales in the City have been increasing since 2010, the City’s percentage of the County’s net taxable sales has been declining. Year Metro District Revenue City Sales Tax Revenue Non-Pledged Sales Tax Pledged Increment Bond Payments & Reserve Increment Returned to City City Contribution 2012 4.8 2015 0.8 3.2 3.2 - 0.8 - - 2016 1.4 3.0 3.0 - 1.4 - - 2017 2.1 3.6 3.2 0.3 2.4 - 0.3 2018 4.9 4.9 3.8 1.1 5.9 - 1.1 2019 5.0 5.7 4.1 1.5 6.6 - 1.5 2020 5.9 6.5 4.5 2.0 8.0 - 2.0 2021 5.9 6.7 4.5 2.1 6.4 1.7 0.5 2022 6.3 6.8 4.6 2.2 5.6 2.2 - TOTAL 9.3 3.9 5.4 2018 Update Net Taxable Sales Growth 16 Hypothesis: • Fort Collins is no longer the retail hub of the County • Leakage – residents shopping outside the City (Costco, Scheels, etc.) • Potential shifting of buying behavior (ex: less disposable income) Potential next steps: • Investigate industry segment trends • Consider rebalancing revenue sources – lodging, admissions • Reevaluate land use decisions going forward • Explore collecting tax on internet purchases (without nexus) Discussion / Next Steps: Ken Summers; $5.4 is less than the $8.8 which was the original estimated Victoria Shaw; The $5.4M is the total of net city contribution Josh Birks; Sales per square foot is down - $350 down to $300 due to the mix of tenants and the performance of the tenants. The good news is that all of this revenue is pledged - our dollars are last in and first out which protects and insulates us from lower performance - our commitment is not going up. Mike Beckstead; more for context - exploring moral obligations - we have 2 neighboring communities who borrowed and are solely responsible for the debt service - the silver lining that Josh is describing and I want to reinforce is that the structure of the program really worked to the City’s advantage given that we don’t have control over performance. While the new revenue coming in is less, the obligation of commitment is lower and hopefully over time the developer can continue to work on improving the mall’s performance. Josh Birks; As we have said risk is less upside and that is the takeaway to us Fort Collins Net Taxable Sales 17 Mayor Troxell; the mall has been a positive addition to our midtown area – we were looking at a degrading and declining area - it has served a role as a Catalyst – the housing around it, senior housing off of Horsetooth, the pedestrian tunnel and the improvements around that site and housing being better utilized. Public improvement - The way the project was structured - Council actually played a role in slowing things down. Even though it is not fully leased out, the Activity Center provides good programming and neighborhood connections - all in all - it has been positive, and the structure is to be complemented. Ross Cunniff; I worry that could lead to others saying we will get the city to come in an be our white knight on future projects. Initially approved in May of 2013 and the developer came back and said they couldn’t meet that timeline. Council had additional questions at that time -more skeptical and unfortunately some of Council’s concerns came to fruition. The mall retail sales are not what we thought - could have more housing. These are lessons for us to internalize as we look at future projects. We have an almost $13M shortfall relative to projections - $12.7M difference It is good that we have the retail there – cautionary tale for us - sales tax pledge can lead to good things for the City of Fort Collins - we missed by over $10M Mike Beckstead; I like the way Josh said it as there is still upside we have now - maybe there are other things we could have evaluated that would have provided upside but we haven’t given any more than we thought we would give but we are getting less. Ross Cunniff; I do appreciate the city is not on the hook for that. Looking to future URA - especially given the current findings – I read an article in the Denver Post about how corporate subsidies are not really paying off when it comes to tax revenues. Sales tax pledge lead to sales tax returns is not my favored approach. Darin Atteberry; the only additional attribute is blight removal - catalytic - new Foothills Activity Center is a very active facility that is getting a lot of use especially by youth and seniors. Ross Cunniff; what the opportunity cost - cautionary tale - the property tax - I would still like to see an estimate of whatever we think the appropriate radius is - property tax increment upside - might moderate my concern - now that we have had a full cycle Mike Beckstead; it will still be an estimate - as you can tell the Metro district revenue didn’t come down by a lot PIF is down but the tax increment is up. Ross Cunniff; not just the mall - whatever we think the appropriate radius is. SALES TAX DISCUSSION: Darin Atteberry; this ought to be a Council priority discussion and I will be stressing that at our April / May Council orientation goal setting discussion. We are 60% of the County (share of net taxable sales) - 40% that is the County but not in Fort Collins must be growing for the county to exceed what we are - that is what we found as we backed in to the 40% that is not the City of Fort Collins 18 ACTION ITEM: Ross Cunniff; I would like to see a new version of the red line chart - prorated based on population - tease out 2 factors; population is growing at different rates in different parts of the County, sales tax trends. Isolate the sales tax part of it. Jennifer Poznanovic shared that she had included the slide below in the backup materials to address Ross’ question. Ken Summers; Per capita would be helpful Mike Beckstead; I believe Windsor and Wellington have much higher growth rates than Fort Collins - Josh Birks; over time higher per capita sales tax within the city and lower outside the city - disparity of shopping opportunity - normalizing where sales occur and other sales trends Mike Beckstead; we are no longer that retail hub - more people going east or south for shopping and fewer people coming into Fort Collins for shopping. It could all be population - I really like the idea of doing the analysis that Ross suggested. Ross Cunniff; internet sales are a significantly greater factor - shopping shifting in lieu of housing costs Ken Summers; maybe it would be more of an internet sales total - nationwide it is 7-9% - a lot of money that has a significant impact - Local businesses are experiencing customers coming in and looking and then buying via Amazon Action Item: Ken Summers; sales tax is my hot button - I would really like to see a quarterly / weekly economic report - financial report that would highlight some of the information you have in a narrative form to include observations over time - last year - last 5 years. Percentage of sales tax from Fort Collins to sales tax total - 19 resulted in __- in less taxable sales - in terms of revenue lost for the city. Costco - Timnath - narrative summary as well as a broader picture of the county / state working down. Some of this probably comes from my statehouse perspective where I was used to receiving this type of data - 10-12 pages - how does that compare to the City of Fort Collins observation about the service vs retail. As a Council member it would be helpful for the public too – make them aware of what is going on - don’t want to do a lot of research – report should be a high- level overview. We do need to make this a Council priority - what are going to do about this? What are the challenges moving forward? What does that mean in terms of collecting tax on internet sales? Read in email from Ray Martinez about small businesses collecting sales tax specific to area of delivery – complicated. Mayor Troxell; CML is on top of the sales tax state issue and this is playing out as we speak. All aspects are complicated - the email that came in - really must reflect that there are a lot of things going on - CML is working this and there will be some discussion with the legislature Mike Beckstead; the example in South Dakota where this issue came out - they have one sales tax rate for the entire state. In Colorado, we have 650 different combinations depending on location. How do we do something like South Dakota to make it less onerous? Ken Summers; I hope they get this sorted out – An Art store in Estes Park ships product o Denver - this is going to kill us - Will be interesting to follow the legislative session and how they deal with it. Don’t react too fast. Jennifer Poznanovic; the CML meeting resulted in an agreement for home rule to do self-collection. It went into effect December 1stt and is voluntary for the short term and the grace period keeps getting extended. Ross Cunniff; not sure how that would be possible for an individual to do this for the city - we do need to make sure they are aware. Mike Beckstead; we will summarize that and talk about improvements Darin Atteberry; back to Ken’s request re: economic report -a great place to do that is the City Manager’s Monthly Report - no one is asking for a multi hour dissertation that takes a long time to prepare and read. Let’s talk about what this report would look like and bring a prototype back to Council Finance to see if it hits the mark. Then we can drop it in the monthly report and have Josh distribute it as he sees fit to the business community. Josh Birks; we need to think about how we tie it into the community dashboard - might be that we are just choosing to turn the flashlight on things. Ken Summers; we are not asking for new data or new research. Look at what information do we have that we can share and that we think would be helpful to share - for community and Council to understand what is going on. Mayor Troxell; as much as we can keep the conversation going and keep Council up to speed on what is going on – this is a rapidly changing landscape - recognize the fact that there might be some impacts to buyers and sellers and understand how it impacts Fort Collins – make sure we make our best case. Ross Cunniff; question regarding reevaluating land use - re zoning? Josh Birks; The overall revenue and expense situation ultimately does tie back to how many residents we have. 20 As we are looking at the City Plan, one of the questions we ask ourselves is; are we painting ourselves into a particular future based on the land use decision / choices we make? Is that something that we want to reevaluate? More about looking forward – if we don’t have the right balance of revenue generating land uses vs expense related land uses. Zoning is the basic building block - do you have enough of these different uses? Mayor Troxell; investigate industry segment trends – part of our strategy should be durable revenue retail / models – for example Scheels opened - Dick’s might offer counter balance. Lodging – we just got recognized as a great place to visit - things are changing - create experiences - services / not taxable / massage / cycle bar - not taxable activity Josh Birks; taxable sales / revenue diversification - is it more about experience (which tends to fall more in the service sector) Mike Beckstead; no single answer up there – will be a combination of factors. Meeting adjourned at noon. 1 COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Staff: Jill Oropeza, Carol Webb, Lance Smith Date: January 23, 2019 SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Design and Construction of City Laboratory Facilities in Partnership with Innosphere EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City proposes to construct a new facility that will house the Utilities Water Quality Laboratory, Pollution Control Laboratory, and the Watershed Program (collectively the Water Quality Services Division). Utilities currently operates two separate laboratories which are in separate buildings and which have not been significantly renovated since the 1980s. Costs associated with construction of the new facility would be split evenly between the Water Fund and the Wastewater Fund. The proposal for a new facility stems from the completion of a laboratory master plan funded in the 2017/2018 Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process. Construction of a new facility is currently included in the Utilities Capital Improvement Plan at a cost of $20 million. Preliminary design of the facility is included in the 2019/2020 City Council adopted budget. The Master Plan considered several potential locations for the new facility, ultimately identifying the Drake Water Reclamation Facility (DWRF) as the preferred location. Separately, the City received a proposal to construct a new facility in partnership with the Rocky Mountain Innosphere (a high-tech incubator) on a parcel adjacent to and west of the Innosphere’s current facility, located at 320 E. Vine. A subsequent cost-benefit evaluation of these two alternatives indicated that the partnership with Innosphere offers the highest cost-benefit to the City, and also benefits the Innosphere. The expected cost a laboratory in partnership with Innosphere based on conceptual design is $13.5M. Prior appropriations reduce the necessary future appropriations to $10.5M, with $4.25M from the Water Fund and $6.25M from the Wastewater Fund. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED Does Council Finance Committee support pursuing a partnership with Innosphere for the construction of a new laboratory facility? 2 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Water Quality Services Division The City currently operates two analytical laboratories; the Water Quality Laboratory (WQL) located at the Water Treatment Facility (WTF), and the Pollution Control Laboratory (PCL) located at the Drake Water Reclamation Facility (DWRF), and a Watershed Program, located in the Water Production Division main office building. These functions operate as the Water Quality Services Division and provide critical laboratory and watershed services for Utilities customers and the community, including: • Compliance testing for safe drinking water in the water distribution system and in customer homes, including bacteriological testing, lead and copper testing, and testing for taste and odor compounds • Accurate and timely water quality data to meet the operational, planning and management needs of the Utilities, other City Departments, and regional water services providers. • Analytical support for compliance and process optimization at the City’s two water reclamation facilities and associated programs. • Surface water quality monitoring of the Poudre River and local streams and waterbodies • Watershed monitoring and protection services Laboratory Master Plan While corrective and preventive maintenance of lab facilities have been performed over the years, the facilities are approaching the end of useful life and require significant refurbishment and/or replacement. Deficiencies in the Water Quality Laboratory assets were documented as early as 2010 and 2015 (in the Water Production Master Plans). Consequently, Utilities staff determined that a master plan focused specifically on the laboratory facilities was necessary to ensure that the associated assets are managed and renewed appropriately in the future and the facilities support a world-class vision going forward. UMaster Plan Vision and Goals The primary goals of the master plan (funded in the 2017/2018 BFO process) included: • Define the City’s world-class vision for future laboratory analytical services and work environment • Conduct a condition assessment of the WQL and PCL • Define future regulatory analytical requirements • Develop feasibility level costs for each alternative of the existing facilities • Make recommendations for a preferred alternative based on a cost – benefit analysis using the City’s triple bottom line (TBL) methodology The project goals align with the City’s guiding “Drinking Water Quality Policy” (Resolution 93- 144) which commits that “…laboratory facilities will be planned, designed, constructed, maintained, staff, and operated to assure safe, reliable, and cost-effective service to the residents of Fort Collins…”. 3 The world-class vision defined in the master plan is as follows: • Meet the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 17025 requirements for competence of testing and calibration laboratories and achieve National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) accreditation • Provide a minimum 30-year facility life • Enhance laboratory workflows • Meet or exceed health and safety requirements for Division employees and enhance the overall work environment • Promote organizational efficiency and improve the level of service for customers The world-class vision articulated above was the guiding principle for meeting the goals of the master plan. UExisting Facility Condition A primary component of a master plan is a condition assessment of facility assets and is a key driver for constructing a new laboratory facility. The findings of the condition assessment are summarized below: • The overall building structured and building envelope are minimally sound and satisfactory to perform current functions but will require major renovation and upgrade to meet minimum requirements and future needs. • Enhanced personnel work environments, work flow, energy code requirements, and repair and replacement needs will drive renovations. • Existing facility sites provides some capability for building expansion but are confined by roadways, utilities and adjacent process structures. • Existing facility sites do not have enough space for a combined laboratory. • Significant improvements to the existing facilities are required to maintain status quo. In addition to the condition assessment, the master plan indicated that the current lab facilities cannot meet future laboratory goals associated with ISO and NELAP certification, asset life, efficiency and workflow requirements, levels of service commitments. UAlternatives Assessment Considering the findings of the condition assessment and the conclusion that the current facilities do not and cannot meet the vision for the City’s laboratories, staff developed five laboratory renovation and replacement alternatives and site locations that have the potential to meet the articulated vision. Alternatives assessed are as follows: 1. No Action Alternative 2. Outsourcing laboratory analytical services 3. Renovating existing or constructing new separate WQL and PCL facilities at their current locations 4 4. Consolidating laboratory services in a new facility at the Water Treatment Facility, the Drake Water Reclamation Facility, or the Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility 5. Leasing and/or renovating existing commercial space that could accommodate a consolidated laboratory facility. 6. Partnering with Innosphere to construct a combined laboratory facility on a parcel adjacent to the current Innosphere building (note that this evaluation was included in an addendum to the master plan). The project team evaluated the alternatives above utilizing non-monetary benefits criteria aligned with Triple Bottom Line Methodology to support a benefit/cost analysis. The criteria included level of outsourcing, future accreditation, facility flexibility, level of service, proximity to customers, potential sources of contamination, working environment, and disruption of service. Each alternative was scored using the non-monetary criteria to produce a total benefits score. The benefit score was then used to develop a benefit-cost score based on a conceptual level cost estimate for each alternative. The benefit scoring showed a preference for a combined laboratory at the Drake Water Reclamation Facility (new Lab at DWRF): Following completion of the master plan, an alternative emerged to collaborate with Innosphere to construct a combined laboratory facility on a parcel west and adjacent to the current Innosphere building located at 320 E. Vine. The Innosphere option includes construction of a three story, ~ 25,500 square feet facility on a site with existing utilities infrastructure. The City would occupy the first two floors (~17,000 square feet), and Innosphere would occupy the top floor (~7,800 square feet) for startup firms with wet lab space needs. The Innosphere alternative was compared to, the New Lab at DWRF. Non-monetary benefits evaluated (in addition to those listed above) included collaboration alternatives and schedule and financial advantages gained with an Innosphere partnership. 5 The overall benefit-cost score for the Innosphere alternative was determined to be more favorable than the New Lab at DWRF. Innosphere Partnership Innosphere is Colorado’s leading technology incubator accelerating the success of high-impact science and technology startup and scaleup companies. Innosphere’s mission is to: Accelerate job creation and entrepreneurship, and create long-term, regional economic impact by offering clients access to a broad network of specialized resources. This is accomplished through efficient, personalized growth strategies that streamline the entrepreneur’s path to success. UBenefits for the City The City’s interest in a lab facility partnership with Innosphere is driven by several factors, including: • Leveraging a building ready site with existing infrastructure which creates cost efficiencies for building design, construction, and maintenance. • Leveraging the experience and knowledge of Innosphere’s construction contractor through Innosphere’s design build construction. • A desirable work location in downtown Fort Collins near public and private facilities that will contribute to the laboratory facility as a platform for innovation and collaboration in the community (e.g. the Museum of Discovery, the CSU Engines Lab, the Whitewater Park, City Hall, etc.). • A facility equidistant between the lab’s primary customers – the Water Treatment Facility and the DWRF. • Efficient monitoring programs that optimize sample collection routes from a central location. 6 • Ability to advance construction of a new facility to avoid significant investments in current laboratory infrastructure (interim replacement costs estimated at ~$1.8 million; significant renovation that meets master planning goals estimated at ~$20 million). • Ability to construct a lab that meets the world-class vision for future laboratory facilities. UBenefits to Innosphere Innosphere’s interest in a lab facility partnership with City of Fort Collins is driven by several factors, including: • Building a water innovation hub that would house City of Fort Collins Utilities operations and provide much needed wet lab space for high-impact science and technology startup companies. • Leveraging the proximity of the City utilities staff to selectively support water analytics and water quality related startup companies with access to City staff insights and experience. • Furthering the City as a Platform concept and providing a means for the Innovate Fort Collins program to have a water-related focus point. • Taking advantage of construction cost synergies to provide a more cost-effective solution for both the City and Innosphere. • Opportunity to further develop and attract economic vitality to Old Town North and specifically the Vine Drive area. Agreement Structure Given the benefits to both parties outlined above, City and Innosphere staff engaged in discussions regarding the structure and terms of an agreement. Discussions with Innosphere have culminated to date in the following tentatively agreed upon substantial terms: Term Description Tentative Agreed Upon Terms Agreement Structure Purchase and sales agreement to jointly develop a combined laboratory building and real property at 308 E. Vine Drive. City’s pro rata share is equal to 2/3 for facilities and 2/3 interest in land. Facility Design and Construction 1. Three floors and approximately 25,000 square feet of wet lab and office space and related improvements. 2. Costs split is 2/3 City and 1/3 Innosphere for land, core, and shell of building; City pays 100% of “exclusive costs” to finish its floors (e.g. higher end tenant finishes on City floors) 3. Conformance to all City design and construction standards, including LEED, energy, access, security, and technology infrastructure requirements. 4. Participation in the City’s IDAP (Integrated Design Assistance Program. 7 5. Utilization of Innosphere’s capital project delivery model, design team, and construction contractor with City representative participation on the project team, including an owner’s representative, laboratory design consultant, and IDAP representative. 6. Project costs include all hard and soft costs and are fixed unless the City has approved a change order. Financing 1. City pays Innosphere $400,000 following the approval of a purchase and sale agreement to assist in funding the initial design costs. This payment will be applied toward the land value and current improvements to infrastructure that are already constructed. If partnership is terminated, payment will be refunded less real costs attributable to the City’s portion of the project. 2. Innosphere funds all other costs of design and construction, including City’s pro rata share and City exclusive costs, and excluding Owner’s rep fees. 3. The City pays the balance of the purchase price (based on 2/3 share of cost to construct) upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and recording of condominium map and declaration. Parking Innosphere to enter into a perpetual agreement with adjacent landowner to the east for development of approximately 45 parking spaces. Cost share proposal is City 1/3 and Innosphere 2/3 cost of parking lot improvements. Title Closing and Documentation Costs Title Commitment and Premium for Title Insurance are proposed to be paid by the City. All other costs including condominium map and declaration, recording, and closing fees to be split 50/50. Condominium Association and Post Closing Management A third party to provide property management services for common elements via the Condo Association. Facilities Management The City to utilize its facilities maintenance staff for its two floors and may elect to utilize front office staff in main Innosphere building for reception and mail and package receiving (dependent on facility design). All utilities to be metered separately. Purchase Option Option to purchase the top floor and remaining 1/3 land interest after 8 years at fair market value based on appraisal Staff believe the proposed terms are favorable to the City and benefit the Utilities, its ratepayers and the community. Financial Considerations Conceptual cost estimates were developed for all evaluated alternatives and were utilized to develop the cost-benefit ratios discussed above. Following identification of the Innosphere Alternative, staff conducted a conceptual total cost analysis for varying financing options for 8 both the DWRF location (the preferred alternative identified in the initial master plan) and the Innosphere location. A summary of the analysis is as follows: Note that costs are in 2018 dollars, are based on a conceptual design, and are intended to support evaluation of project feasibility and funding requirements in support of project planning. The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) indicates that costs may vary up to 40% at the conceptual design stage. The Innosphere Partnership had a better benefit cost ratio above even though the benefits were essentially the same because of the lower expected costs. At the significantly lower cost of $13.5M compared to the $20M in the current CIP, the Innosphere Partnership will allow for consideration of paying off the lab at closing rather than issuing debt for this capital investment ahead of other anticipated debt being issued in the Water Enterprise over the next few years. UDifferences in Costs As indicated above, there are significant cost differences between the two top alternatives. An analysis by staff and our consultant, CH/Jacobs, revealed the following substantive project differences that impact cost: • A one story vs. three story building (based on constraints at each site) • Cost advantages of a building site ready at Ionosphere compared to a greenfield site at DWRF • Open parking at Innosphere vs. partially covered (DWRF) parking with garage /shop • Cost advantages associated with the knowledge/experience of Ionosphere’s design and construction contractor that designed and constructed the current Innosphere building. • Higher level of finishes in DWRF for entrance/lobby, store front panels, mechanical equipment, vs. the Innosphere model • Profit/Overhead budget differences between contractors • Differences in building square footage and site development costs for each alternative, ie, developed lot versus undeveloped site requiring infrastructure. 9 Project Financing The current capital improvement plan (CIP) includes the laboratory replacements at $10M in each Fund. The cost of a combined laboratory will be split evenly between the Water and Wastewater Funds with the Innosphere Partnership requiring $6.75M from each. Current Fund balances, prior appropriations and the lower expected costs allow for consideration of funding the new facility utilizing available reserves. At the end of 2018 the Water Fund has approximately $28M of available reserves and the Wastewater Fund has approximately $24M of available reserves. The 2019-2020 budgets are anticipated to add $8M to the available reserves in the Water Fund and $2M to the Wastewater Fund reserves. In the 2017-2018 budget cycle $2.6M was appropriated for Water Quality Laboratory infrastructure and $210,000 was appropriated to develop a lab master plan for both the Water Quality Laboratory and the Pollution Control Laboratory. Once the master planning efforts indicated that a new combined laboratory was the more favorable approach of asset renewal only a minimal amount of immediate repairs have been done on the existing Water Quality Laboratory leaving approximately $2M of the $2.6M appropriated available for the new space. In the 2019-2020 budget cycle $225,000 was appropriated for repairs to the Pollution Control Laboratory to meet immediate needs and $1.0M was appropriated for the preliminary design of a new combined laboratory space. This reduces the necessary amount of future appropriations in the Water Fund down to $4.25M or $2M less than the $6.25M that would be needed from the Wastewater Fund. Rate Impacts Because the renewal of both laboratories was included in the current CIP the rate impact of these appropriations is already considered in the rate forecasts. The tables below reflect the long term strategic financial forecasts of anticipated rate adjustments and debt issuances based on the 2017 capital improvement plan. Both the CIP and the Strategic Financial Plan will be updated in 2019. The Innosphere Partnership will allow for other capital improvements to be made based on the significantly lower expected cost based from the conceptual design. 10 Water Fund: Wastewater Fund: Next Steps If the Council Finance Committee approves, City staff will progress to the next steps in the City- Innosphere laboratory facility partnership, which have been identified as follows: 1. Provide a cover letter, draft terms sheet, and CFC meeting minutes to Innosphere to demonstrate the City’s willingness to pursue the purchase in good faith. 2. Negotiate Purchase and Sale Agreement (substantial agreement on terms). City staff schedule Council work session to review project, terms, costs, etc. 3. If approved to proceed, Council to consider a resolution for Purchase and Sale Agreement. 4. If approved, City pays $400,000 to RMI to assist with funding design costs. 5. Enter Project Design Period – City and Innosphere comes to agreement on Guaranteed Maximum Price based on a sufficient design level (e.g. 70% design). 6. City staff propose Appropriation from Council for remaining cost balance. 7. Construction 8. CO/Final Purchase/Close While a timeframe for each step is to be determined, construction is anticipated to be completed during 4P th P quarter 2021/1P st P quarter 2022. ATTACHMENT Water Quality and Pollution Control Labs Master Planning Study Lab Alternative Ionosphere Building No. 2 Combined Facility Evaluation Water and Wastewater Fund Capital Improvement Plans 1 Jill Oropeza, Carol Webb, and Lance Smith January 28, 2019 City / Innosphere Laboratory Partnership Project Today’s Agenda •Background •Case for Action •Alternatives Evaluation •Summary of Terms •Costs and Financing •Next Steps 2 Direction Sought Does Council Finance Committee support pursuing a partnership with Innosphere to construct a new laboratory facility? Does Council Finance Committee have specific feedback on the proposed project and the City/Innosphere partnership terms? 3 Strategic Alignment 4 Environmental Health •4.6 high quality water supply •4.7 regulatory compliance •4.9 healthy Poudre River High Performing Government •7.1 world class services •7.8 maintain/renew assets •collaborate with regional partners Drinking Water Quality Policy •Plan, design, construct, maintain, lab assets Water Quality Services •Two laboratory facilities •Watershed Program •19 employees •Critical lab and watershed services 5 Lab Master Planning •Condition of facilities documented in past master plans •Age evident in volume/cost of corrective maintenance •Anticipate significant renovation/replacement in future •Lab Replacement included in current Capital Improvement Plan -$20M in 2017 6 Master Plan Goals •Define the City’s world-class vision for Water Quality Services •Conduct condition assessment •Define future requirements •Develop feasibility level costs •Determine preferred alternative based on a cost –benefit analysis •Align with guiding Drinking Water Quality Policy 7 World -Class Vision •Meet national and international laboratory standards •Provide a minimum 30-year facility life •Enhance laboratory workflows •Meet or exceed health and safety requirements for Division employees and enhance the overall work environment •Promote organizational efficiency and improve the level of service for customers 8 World Class Lab Space 9 Condition Assessment 10 •Structures are minimally sound and satisfactory •Require major renovation to meet minimum requirements and future needs. •Driven by work flow, work environment, energy code and repair and replacement needs •Ability to expand at current sites is limited •Significant improvements required to maintain status quo •Current facilities cannot meet lab master plan goals 11 Water Quality Lab Hallway Water Quality Lab Ceiling Pollution Control Lab Interior Lab Photos Pollution Control Lab Chemical Storage Alternatives Assessment •No Action Alternative •Outsourcing laboratory analytical services •Renovating or constructing new separate WQL and PCL facilities •Consolidating Facility at a single location •Leasing Commercial space •Partnering with Innosphere addendum to master plan 12 Assessment Methodology •Non-monetary benefits criteria aligned with TBL Methodology •Criteria include: •Level of outsourcing •Future accreditation •Facility flexibility, working environment, and disruption of service •Level of service for customers •Evaluation involved multiple stakeholders (staff, leadership, customers) •Non-monetary benefits compared to conceptual cost of each alternative •Combined lab at Drake Facility most favorable benefit-cost score 13 14 •Innosphere Mission •Technology incubation •Job Creation •Long-term regional economic impact •City Mission •World -class municipal services through operational excellence and a culture of innovation •Proposal •Collaborate on laboratory and office space that meets the mission of both parties 15 Innosphere Partnership Proposed Innosphere Site 16 Partnership Benefits Innosphere Water Innovation Hub Wet lab space for science and technology startups. Proximity of City staff Further City as a Platform Provide means for the Innovate Fort Collins program to have a water-related focus point. Cost sharing Furthering develop and attract economic vitality to Old Town North and specifically the Vine Drive area. City Cost efficiencies associated with building ready site and experience contractors Close proximity to public/private facilities to facilitate innovation and collaboration in the community Equidistant between primary customers Efficient sample collection routes Avoid significant investments in current laboratory infrastructure Meet world-class lab vision 17 18 Benefits Comparison 2.91 3.62 $0 $5M $10M $15M $20M $25M 0 1 2 3 4 5 Drake WRF Innosphere Building No.2 To tal Project C ost To tal Ben e fit Score , O v er all Ben e fit /C ost Ra ti o A. Facility Flexibility C. Proximity to Customers E. Site Layout Benefit /Total Project Cost Ratio B. Desired Work Location D. Collaborative Opportunities F. Schedule or Finance Advantage Project Capital Cost Proposed Partnership Terms Agreement Structure Purchase and sales agreement, 2/3 City, 1/3 Innosphere for building and land Facility Design and Construction 1.Three floors, ~ 25,000 square feet 2.Costs split 2/3 City and 1/3 Innosphere except City exclusive costs 3.Conformance to all City design and construction standards 4.Innosphere design team and construction contractor with City reps on team 5.All project costs are fixed unless the City has approved change order. Financing (negotiations ongoing) 1.$400K City prior to design period. If partnership is terminated, payment will be refunded less real costs attributable to the City’s portion of the project. 2.Innosphere funds all other costs of design and construction except Owner’s rep fees 3.City pays Innosphere following approval of purchase and sales agreement, appropriation of funds, and issuance of CO. 19 Proposed Partnership Terms Parking (negotiations ongoing) Agreement with adjacent landowner. Cost share proposal is City 1/3 and Innosphere 2/3 cost of parking lot improvements. Title Closing and Documentation Costs Title Closing and Commitment proposed to be paid by the City. All other costs including condo, recording, and closing fees to be split 50/50. Condo Assoc. and Post Closing Management Third Party Facilities Management Use City maintenance staff, utilities metered separately Possible use of Innosphere front desk staff for reception and receiving. Purchase Option Option to purchase the top floor and remaining 1/3 land interest after 8 years at fair market value based on appraisal 20 Conceptual Cost Analysis •Conceptual estimates for all alternatives. •Utilized to develop cost-benefit ratios •Total Cost Analysis developed for varying financing options 21 Financial Overview •Current Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) include lab renewal / replacement at $10M in each Fund •Lab costs shared evenly between Water & Wastewater Funds •Current Fund balances and prior appropriations allow for funding of the new facility utilizing Available Reserves •Water Fund has approximately $28M of available reserves •Wastewater Fund has approximately $24M of available reserves 22 Rate Impacts •Because the labs are included in the current CIPs the rate impact of these appropriations is already considered in the rate forecasts •Wastewater Fund •Water Fund 23 24 Timeline / Next Steps City, RMI agreement on Terms CFC Presentation, Direction to proceed (Y/N) City provides RMI assurance of commitment Negotiate Purchase & Sale Agreement Council Work Session to review plans and terms of agreement (Y/N) Full Council Approval of Purchase & Sale Agreement (Y/N) Signed Purchase & Sale AgreementPay $400K to RMI Design Process Begins Determine Guaranteed Maximum Price Appropriation by City Council (Y/N)Construction Certificate of Occupancy / Final Purchase / Close Jan 2019 Jan 28, 2019 Early Feb March Apr -MayMayMay Oct-Nov TBD TBD mid-March May -OctOct Direction Sought Does Council Finance Committee support pursuing a partnership with Innosphere to construct a new laboratory facility? Does Council Finance Committee have specific feedback on the proposed project and the City/Innosphere partnership terms? 25 26 27 Appropriations Summary 28 Differences in Cost of Alternatives •A one story vs. three story building (based on constraints at each site) •Cost advantages of a building site ready at Innosphere compared to a greenfield site at DWRF •Open parking at Innosphere vs. partially covered (DWRF) parking with garage /shop •Cost advantages associated with the knowledge/experience of Innosphere’s design and construction contractor that designed and constructed the current Innosphere building. •Higher level of finishes in DWRF for entrance/lobby, store front panels, mechanical equipment, vs. the Innosphere model •Profit/Overhead budget differences between contractors •Differences in building square footage and site development costs for each alternative, ie, developed lot versus undeveloped site requiring infrastructure. 29 February 2018 City of Fort Collins Water Quality & Pollution Co trol Labs Master Planning Study Satellite image ©2018 Google Attachment 2 February 2018Page 2 February 2018 Page 3 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study Table of Contents February 2018 ........................................................................1 Project Summary ..............................................................................4 Vision ..............................................................................................5 Goals ..............................................................................................5 Approach ........................................................................................5 City of Fort Collins Facilities Sites ......................................................6 Water Treatment Facility Site (WTF) .......................................6 Drake Water Reclamation acility Site (DWRF) .......................6 Mulberry Water Reclamation acility Site (MWRF) ................6 Water Treatment Facility Site (WTF) ..............................................7 Drake Water Reclamation acility Site (DWRF) ..............................7 Mulberry Water Reclamation acility SIte ......................................7 Water Quality Laboratory .................................................................8 Observation Summa y....................................................................8 Observation ey Findings ...............................................................8 Specific O servations ....................................................................8 WQL Analyti al Testin ...................................................................9 Pollution Control Laboratory ..........................................................10 Observation Summa y..................................................................10 Observation ey Findings ............................................................10 Specific O servations ..................................................................11 PCL Analyti al Testing ..................................................................11 Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility ..............................................12 Other Alternate Scenarios ............................................................12 Outsourcing Laboratory Analyti al Services .................................12 Peer Facilities Review .....................................................................13 City of Longmont, Water Quality Laboratory ...............................13 Colorado Springs Utilities Lab atories ................................13 Peer Review Summary ....................................................................13 Programming ................................................................................14 Form Factors .........................................................................14 ISO/NELAP Compliance Features ..........................................14 Water Quality Laboratory .....................................................15 Pollution Co trol Laboratory ................................................15 Water Quality & Pollution Co trol Laboratory .....................15 Site Analysis & Prototype Concepts Test Fit ....................................16 Site Analysis..................................................................................16 Facilities P ototypes .....................................................................16 Prototype Site Test Fits .................................................................16 Water Treatment Facility Site (WTF) ............................................16 Drake Water Reclamation acility Site (DWRF) ............................16 Mulberry Water Reclamation acility Site ....................................17 Facilities Prototypes .......................................................................17 “Spine” Concept ...........................................................................17 “Bu erfl ” Concept ......................................................................17 “L” Concept ..................................................................................17 Concepts ........................................................................................17 Water Treatment Facility Site (WTF) ...............................................18 Site Alternati e “A”: Modernize and Expand ................................18 Site Alternati e “B”: “PV” Site ......................................................18 Site Alternati e “C”: Greenfield Si e.............................................18 Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility Site (MWRF) .........................19 Site Alternati e “A” .......................................................................19 Site Alternati e “B” ......................................................................19 Site Alternati e “C” ......................................................................19 Drake Water Reclamation Facility Site (DWRF) ...............................20 Site Alternati e “A” .......................................................................20 Site Alternati e “B” ......................................................................20 Site Alternati es Conclusions .......................................................20 Benefit Criteria Alternatives ...........................................................21 Lease Alternati e 3B .....................................................................21 Water Quality & Pollution Control Non‑Monetary Benefit Criteria ..22 Criteria Weightin ........................................................................22 Alternati e Benefit Cri eria Scoring ..............................................23 Benefit Co t Analysis ....................................................................23 Estimate .........................................................................................24 Introductio .................................................................................24 Assumptions ................................................................................25 Preliminary Outcomes and Conclusions ..........................................26 Summary ......................................................................................26 ....................................................................................................26 Facility Concepts ..........................................................................26 Water Treatment Facility Site Recommendation .............................27 Master Planning Concept .............................................................27 ....................................................................................................27 Phase 1: WQL Facility ...................................................................27 ....................................................................................................27 Full Buildout: WQL + PCL Facility ..................................................27 Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility Site Recommendation ...........28 Master Planning Concept .............................................................28 ....................................................................................................28 Phase 1: WQL Facility ...................................................................28 ....................................................................................................28 Full Buildout: WQL + PCL Facility ..................................................28 Drake Water Reclamation Facility Site Recommendation ................29 Master Planning Concept .............................................................29 ....................................................................................................29 Phase 1: WQL Facility ...................................................................29 ....................................................................................................29 Full Buildout: WQL + PCL Facility ..................................................29 Recommendations & Next Steps .....................................................30 Regionalization Considerations .......................................................31 Appendix ........................................................................................33 February 2018Page 4 Project Summary The City currently has two existing compliance laboratories; the Water Quality Laboratory (WQL) located at the Water Treatment Facility (WTF), and the Pollution Control Laboratory (PCL) located at the Drake Water Reclamation Facility (DWRF). The laboratories have not been signifi antly renovated in over 25 years and are showing their age. The incremental expansions performed over the years do not support the City’s vision of future laboratory facilities identifie in this Lab Master Plan. The WQL performs water quality sampling, testing and reporting for most of the Colorado Department of health and Environment (CDPHE) requirements for the WTF and distribution system. The WQL also performs testing for outside entitie as well as some in-kind testing for various watershed groups. The PCL performs the CDPHE required regulatory efflu t compliance testing for the DWRF and Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility (MWRF), and also the biosolids, pretreatment, and process testing.The PCL also performs analyses for the Regulation 85 testing for several outside entitie (including Boulder, Windsor, Greeley, and other testing for South Fort Collins Sanitation Di trict). The WQL and PCL needs require refurbishment or replacement. Neither existing laboratory meets the City’s desired vision of world class facility. The WQL and PCL Lab Master Plan was conducted to define the approach for the City to provide future laboratory services. This work includes a condition assessment of both the PCL and WQL facilitiesto evaluate the current conditionsand needs. The Lab Master Plan recommends the most beneficial approach for the City to meet its water quality and pollution ontrol analyti al needs for the future. World Class Laboratory Facility Siting: Intentional acility location, access and site constraints Sustainability: Regionally responsive site civil and landscape Efficiency: Effici t performance driven sizing and configu ation to best serve mission Space Planning supporting: • All criti al work function • All necessary support function • Human experience and interactions omforts • Productivit • Flexibility for change and growth Architecture: • Performance driven • Good use of public dollars • LEED criteria • Durable materials • Complementary to surrounding facilitie • Relect Fort Collins mission and culture Systems Performance: • Energy code • Laboratory environments • Process piping • Electrical • Mechanical • Plumbing Operations: • Planning responsive to operations and facilitates work fl w • SO and State Accreditatio Health and Safety: • Code compliant • Promote safety culture February 2018 Page 5 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study Vision The world-class vision for the WQL and PCL laboratories were defined initially during the project scoping and refined during project workshops to provide a facility that would: • Be recognized as world-class • Meet the Interna onal Organiza on for Standardiza on (ISO) 17025 general requirements for competence of tes ng and calibra on laboratories • Na onal Environmental Laboratory Accredita on Program (NELAP) accredita on • Provide a 30-year life • Enhance work ows • Improve health and safety • Enhance work environment • Promote organiza on e ciency • Improve level of service Goals The primary goals of the Lab Master Plan evaluation a e to: • De ne the City’s world-class vision for future laboratory analy cal services and work environment • Conduct a condi on assessment of the WQL and PCL • De ne future regulatory analy cal requirements • Develop feasibility level costs for each alterna ve based on work ow and condi on assessment of the exis ng WQL and PCL • Make recommenda ons for a preferred alterna ve based on a cost – bene t analysis using the City’s triple bo om line (TBL) methodology The project goals align with the City’s guiding policy Resolution 93-14 The City will provide water services that meet or exceed customer expectations for quality, quantity, and reliability. The City will protect and maintain high water quality in the development of all codes, policies, plans and specifications related to the acquisition, production, and delivery of water services to its customers. The City’s water supply, treatment, storage, delivery and laboratory facilities will be planned designed, constructed, maintained, staffed and operated to assure safe, reliable and cost-effective service to the residents of Fort Collins and all those served by the City’s water utility. Approach The approach for developing the Master Plan followed the outline below: • Conduct ini al workshop to align the team to project goals • Conduct tour of world class laboratory facility and more modest func onal combined laboratory to help set expecta ons and op ons available • Conduct condi onal assessment of exis ng facili es to inform renova on needs and constraints • Develop Lab renova on and replacement alterna ves and site loca ons, • Develop programma c space alloca on and form factors for replacement and refurbishment alterna ves • Develop bene t score criteria for each alterna ve to support a decision analysis model • Assess each alterna ve against the bene t criteria and determine the total bene t provided for each alterna ve • Develop conceptual cost for each alterna ve using the City’s Alterna ve Product Delivery Systems (APDS) contractor • Determine value based on Bene t Cost scoring • Provide recommenda ons in a master plan report that captures the decision-making process in a clear and transparent manner, and • Inform the City’s Capital Improvement Plan and Budget For Outcome (BFO) priori za on process PEER WATER QUALITY LABS CURRENT WATER QUALITY LAB CONDITIONS IDEALIZED WATER QUALITY LAB CONCEPT SITE ASSESSMENT LOCATIONS February 2018Page 6 City of Fort Collins Facilities Sites Two existing City of Fort Collins facilities sites, the Water Treatment Facility and Drake Water Reclamatio Facility, were natural and obvious candidates for the remediation,renovation,expansion and/or constructionof either or both a new Water Quality Lab, Pollution Control Lab or combined facility. A third site, the Mulberry Water ReclamationFacility,was added to the list for consideration even though it currently has no personnel or labs on site. Its central location and available land made it an att acti e facilities si e. Water Treatment Facility Site (WTF) The WTF site, to the northwest of downtown and adjacent to the Horsetooth Reservoir, houses the current Water Quality Laboratory as well as the staffand lab equipment for the watershed team. Drake Water Reclamation Facility Site (DWRF) The DWRF site, to the southeast of downtown and near to the Cache la Poudre River is the current location or the Pollution Co trol Laboratory. Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility Site (MWRF) The Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility Site is located nearest to downtown Fort Collins (and other municipal services) and is adjacent to the Cache la Poudre River and recreational a eas. (WTF) (DWRF) (MWRF) February 2018 Page 7 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study WQL PCL Water Treatment Facility Site (WTF) The WTF is comprised of over 90 acres with substantial treatment process structures laid out across the site. The site is further comprised of several larger functional land areas and facilities inclusive of several settling ponds, facilities support structures, construction trailers and a large photovoltaic installation. There is also a swath of land along the southern perimeter that is designated for potential flood runoff w e relief from the reservoir spillway is required. The site and its buildings are in good condition,clearly well used and maintained. Though not ideal, the site circulation is good and wayfi ding clear. Suffici t parking is available for site personnel, contractors, and visitors. The site is secured by at least two zones; a perimeter fence with controlled vehicular access entrances as well as card-reader secured building entrances. Drake Water Reclamation Facility Site (DWRF) The DWRF site encompasses 25 acres with additional City owned land to the west of the DWRF, and is occupied by over 20 separate structures. Although currently developed portions of the site are quite “compact” (leaving little room for additions and expansions) larger areas of the site are undeveloped and a large pond occupies a sizable portion of the site. Available areas in the site must consider space allocated for process facility expansion currently being master planned under separate contract. Like the WTF the DWRF site and facilities are well maintained. This site has substantial areas of lawn and mature plantings. Site circulation is adequate to meet the needs, if not as clear and segregated by type as one would hope to achieve today. Site security matches that of the WTF; secured by two zones; a perimeter fence with controlled vehicular access entrances and, secondarily, card-reader secured buildings and other structure’s entrances. Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility SIte The Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility site totals 15 acres of land, with additional City property dedicated (leased) to an operator of a photovoltaic installation. One third of the site is at street level and two-thirds of the site is substantially lower, at river level at the edge of the riparian bu er zone and floodplain. There are at least 10 separate structures on the site, and there is an ornamental (non-functional) pond lo ated at the center of the site. Of the three sites the Mulberry site is the most “att acti e” in terms of homogeneity of the architecture of the facilities(all the same/ complimentary) and the landscape. The grounds of the Mulberry site are lush and well cared for. High public visibility and proximity to the river are likely contributors to these conditions CURRENT WATER QUALITY LAB: INTERIORCURRENT WATER QUALITY LAB: FLOOR PLAN February 2018Page 8 Water Quality Laboratory Observation Summary The City and its team conducted a condition assessment. The report titled Water Quality and Pollution Control Laboratory Assessments (October 2017) was prepared to document the condition and provides the basis for the below conclusions. The findings from the 2017 condition assessments for the WQL are summarized below: • The overall building structural elements (founda on, walls, decking) are sound and can support renova on. • Repair and renova on required even to meet current func on. • The facility will require complete interior renova on and expansion to meet future needs. • Enhanced personnel work environments, work ow, energy code requirements, and repair and replacement needs will drive renova ons. • The exis ng site at the WTF provides some capability for the building expansion but is con ned by roadways, u li es and adjacent process structures. • Exis ng WQL does not have su cient space for combined laboratory, but exis ng space is available on the WTF and DWRF site for a combined facility. • Signi cant improvements to the exis ng facility are required just to maintain status quo. chemicals and supplies from the mechanical and electrical rooms. To improve facility performance, enhance personnel work environments, and to meet current energy code requirements, the building envelope systems such as entrances and glazing areas (windows) need to be replaced. Exterior wall areas should be be er insulated. The roof system needs to be replaced down to the galvanized metal deck and precast double – T panel roof (structural support systems). Exterior brick and concrete cladding need to be pointed and resealed at joints across all facades. To facilitate and improve lab workfl ws, efficien , and position the lab for International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/ International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 17025 accreditation, some substantial building renovation and expansion is needed. At minimum, this would include the addition of a sample shipping/receiving area, a dedicated (10 person) conference room, a dedicated secure records storage room, a secure chemical/gas storage room, and additionalcovered (enclosed) vehicular parking. The site provides some capability for the building to be expanded to the north, and south but adjacent roadways and buried utilitie will limit expansion footprint. It also has the current allocated garage space that could perhaps provide some expansion room if that current use were relocated or added to an expansion. Grading and drainage should be studied to provide improved positi e stormwater drainage away from the structure. It is assumed the minimum amount of time necessary to remodel, expand, or replace this laboratory is at least three to fi e years away. During that time the laboratory must continue to operate and serve the City in its current capacity. This will require immediate interim repairs. Specific Observations Architectural • Roof: Needs to be completely replaced down to deck. There are softspots indica ng previous satura on of and compromise to roof insula on’s thermal value and roof a achment. • Exterior Joints: Caulking in control joints and around doors, louvers, and windows have failed and should be removed and replaced. Expansion joints in oors and roof should be replaced. Exterior so t and so t joints need to be repaired. • Exterior Windows and doors: These elements do not have thermally broken frames or insula ng glass performance levels su cient to meet current energy codes and should be replaced. At a minimum the doors need weather stripping replaced and (in conjunc on with thermally broken door frames) at some loca ons be replaced. Some hollow metal frames at exterior entrances should be replaced with more e cient glazing and aluminum frames. • Exterior Walls: There have been leaks through the exterior wall of room 117 (GC/IC /TOC) due to poor drainage on the exterior. See Civil sec on Observation Key Findings The overall WQL building structure (foundation, slab-on-grade, concrete/steel structure and roof deck) as well as the building envelope systems (concrete, masonry, glazing systems, and roofing membrane) are minimally sound and sati factory to perform current functions.Utilitie to the building are adequate. Some areas of the building, such as the breakroom, are in be er conditionthan others. The building is a City and water treatment facility (WTF) asset that will require a major renovation and upgrade for it to continue to meet ongoing regulatory and personnel needs and requirements to retain that value. A major renovation or replacement is needed for the building to continue to be used as a laboratory that will serve the City for the next 30 years. Based upon this condition assessment this facility needs both a complete interior renovation and an expansion In combinatio with a realignment of some room functio s, at a minimum, all of the laboratory spaces need casework and fi ture replacement. Restrooms need to be updated and remodeled to meet multiple code requirements. In support of operational and regulatory protocols there needs to be dedicated public/visitor building control and reception area, and secured record and sample storage areas. Compressed gases canisters should be removed from the laboratories and placed in a secure storage elsewhere. All interior finishes (partitions ceilings and flooring) need to be repaired and/or replaced, painted and resurfaced. Boiler and selecti e mechanical equipment need immediate replacement augmented with new heatin , ventil tion, and air conditioning (HVAC) controls. The electrical system needs some code updates and replacement of aged equipment. Electrical and Mechanical Rooms are being used for storage purposes. Storage areas need to be expanded to remove February 2018 Page 9 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study • Receptacles: Rus ng was iden ed on the receptacles. Receptacles in the lab spaces do not appear to have ground fault circuit interrupt protec on (GFCI), which is required when working around liquids. As a safety precau on, adding GFCI protec on is recommended. • Ligh ng: The interior ligh ng appeared original to building. Throughout the building, many xtures were out. Furthermore, the push-to-test bu on on the emergency lights did not work. It is recommended that all emergency ligh ng be tested and replaced as needed to provide safe ligh ng for emergency egress. • Backup Power: UPS is nearly 10 years old and the staff m mbers reported a lack of available replacement parts which leads to reduce reliability and increased repair me during failures. The UPS is a cri cal part of the laboratory opera on so that tests are not interrupted during power outages and is recommended for replacement. WQL Analytical Testing The WQL typically performs analyti al testing for the purpose of treatment plant operational control, finished water characterization, distribution system monitoring, support of water shed monitoring programs, and special monitoring upon request. The sample collection frequency, test locations, test parameters, and analyti al methods used for finish water characterization and distribution system monitoring are specified by CDPHE and found in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 141.23 (40 CFR 141.23), Appendix A. The analyti al methods are typically those published by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Safe Drinking Water Act or by American Public Health Association (APHA) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. The lab staffalso uses the same standard test methods to support treatment plant operations, water shed monitoring, and the other testing it provides. The necessary meters, instruments, analyzers, appliances, labware, and safety and personal protecti e equipment needed to perform the analyti al methods were observed. The analyti al technologies and test equipment employed at the WQL is suffici tly automated and modern as to produce highly reliable test results in a safe and effici t manner. However, physical limitations and work environment deficienc es were observed. These limitations/d ficiencies are creating loss of operational efficien , building issues with code compliance, potential safety hazards, and an overall work environment that is well below the norm of the top-tier of municipal laboratories. Left uncorrected, the current limitations and deficiencies will constrain, if not preclude, the lab’s ability to achieve accreditation under ISO/IEC 17025 General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibratio Laboratories. for more detail. Several cracks on both sides of the east corridor into room 125 and 132 appear to be old drywall expansion cracks and can be easily repaired (no oor or structural movement observed). Exterior masonry should be recoated with clear breathable wall sealant. • Flooring: Exis ng laboratory oors are poured epoxy in sound condi on but heavily stained and need to be recoated or covered with alternate material. Throughout lab rubber mats have been placed in wet areas or used for cushioning at loca ons requiring long repe ve ac vi es in one spot. • Door Hardware: Doors do not have levered handles and don’t meet ADA accessibility standards. Some doors have locks and strikes that are taped off o as to avoid accidently locking the room. • Fire Sprinklers: Although the size of the building and quan es of hazardous material would not mandate a re sprinkler system, if they were added they would eliminate the need for smoke detec on closers on lab doors in rooms 117, 113, 112, and doors within the main corridors. • Casework, xtures and work surfaces: Laboratory casework throughout the building is in marginal to poor condi on and needs replacement. Condi ons in rooms 113, 112, 126 and 130 are very poor. Storage cabinet upward sliding doors are hard to operate. See laboratory opera onal assessment for more detail. • Ceiling: Much of the exis ng ceiling should be replaced due to leaks or damage. Emergency showers integrated into the ceiling should be replaced with self-standing units with tempered supply water. Exterior gypsum so t assemblies need to be repaired at speci c loca ons around the building. • U li es: The Gas room is not used and there is piping through the instrument labs that could be removed. An excess of outlets is provided throughout the instrument labs (newer sec on) and can be removed or reduced. Structural • Cracks Exterior: Minor cracking of the slab on grade was present in mul ple loca ons. Cracks varied from 0.01“ to 0.025” and did not exhibit any signs of di eren al se lement. • Interior Cracks: Cracking of the drywall along the corridor from Room 122 to Room 130 indicates some minor movement though staff eport that the cracking has not changed signi cantly over the years. Localized repair is suggested. • Exterior So t: So t will need replacement for long term performance but support system appears in good condi on. • Minor deteriora on with exposed reinforcing at northeast entry. Spalling at SW corner due to localized se lement of exterior sidewalk and lack of bond break and sealant between sidewalk and building wall. • Exposed reinforcing at opening for sec onal overhead door in room 101 Cold Storage should be cleaned of corrosion and coated with an appropriate coa ng system. Mechanical/Plumbing • HVAC equipment: is matched between Packaged Terminal Air Condi oners (PTAC) and Direct Expansion (DX) with Hot Water Air Handling Units (AHU). The PTAC units serve the renovated o ce space. These units do not meet the current energy code, or outdoor air requirements of the occupied spaces per the current Interna onal Mechanical Code. Controls are outdated. • Boilers: Boiler is leaking, and had to be temporarily xed by u lizing a stop leak joint compound to allow for opera on. Boilers will need replacement in the immediate future to allow for low temperature opera on. • Roof drains: Roof drains have not been installed with over ow drains to properly prevent over ow at the main roof drains. • Open O ces: The open o ce area is served by a PTAC unit that is not compliant with the energy code, and would not be able to provide the required outside air for the occupancy count for the bullpen. • Safety Showers: Safety showers that are located in the ceiling have not been tested regularly due to issues with the shutoff alves. • Tepid Water: There is no tepid water provide to the safety equipment in the water quality lab. All emergency xtures are served only by a cold- water pipe. This does not meet ANSI / ISEA Z358.1-2014. Electrical • The service entrance switchboard: This is located on the exterior wall of the building. Many bolts are missing on the exterior panel of the switchboard allowing for the intrusion of dirt, moisture, and insects. Resealing the enclosure and replacing missing hardware is recommended. • Surge Protec on: The surge protec on enclosure is adjacent to the service entrance switchboard and is in fair condi on. It is also missing several bolts and the unit lacks a failure indicator. Without failure indica on, it is unknown whether the unit is protec ng the electrical system or not. • Workspace Issues: Several NEC working space viola ons were observed around the electrical panelboards. Electrical workspaces are used for storage, and some of the electrical rooms were even used for chemical storage, which is not recommended due to leaks. • Combus on air/exhaust: One electrical room is located adjacent to a boiler room and had a no ceable natural gas smell. The electrical equipment within the boiler room is not rated for an explosive atmosphere. To address these issues, verifying the boiler rooms’ ven la on, and separa ng out storage space from mechanical equipment and the electrical equipment is recommended. CURRENT POLLUTION CONTROL LAB: INTERIORCURRENT POLLUTION CONTROL LAB: FLOOR PLAN CURRENT POLLUTION CONTROL LAB: EXTERIOR February 2018Page 10 Pollution Control Laboratory Observation Summary The City and its team conducted a condition assessment. The report titled Water Quality and Pollution Control Laboratory Assessments (October 2017) was prepared to document the condition and provides the basis for the below conclusions. The findingsfrom the 2017 conditionassessments for the PCL are summarized below: • The overall building structural elements (founda on, walls, decking) are sound and can support renova on. • Repair and renova on required even to meet current func on. • The facility will require complete interior renova on and expansion to meet future needs. • Enhanced personnel work environments, work ow, energy code requirements, and repair and replacement needs will drive the renova ons. • The exis ng site at the PCL provides some capability for the building expansion but is con ned by roadways, u li es and adjacent process structures. • Exis ng PCL does not have su cient space for combined laboratory, but exis ng space is available on the WTF and DWRF site for a combined facility. • Signi cant improvements to the exis ng facility are required just to maintain status quo. Roof overfl w drains need to be added at specific locations to prevent roof flooding. Exterior brick and concrete need to be resealed and joints need to be re-caulked. To improve lab workfl w, efficienc and position the lab for ISO/ IEC 17025 accreditation, some building expansion is needed. At a minimum, this would include addition of a sample receiving area, secure records storage, secure chemical storage, among other items. The site provides some capability for the building to be expanded to the north, and south. The facility also has a garage that could provide expansion room if current use were relocated or added to an expansion. Grading and drainage should be studied to provide positi e stormwater drainage away from the structure. It is assumed the minimum amount of time necessary to remodel, expand, or replace this laboratory is at least three to fi e years away. During that time the laboratory must continue to operate and serve the City in its current capacity. This will require the following immediate repairs. • Cut overhanging trees and monitor the roof monthly to assure drains are not clogged and replace roof drain screens. • Patch all reoccurring roof leaks. • Add over ow drainage scupper at roof line. • Seal openings in exis ng ductwork and exible connec ons on roof. Observation Key Findings The basic structure, foundation, concrete, exterior walls, structural steel, roof deck, and exterior finishes are sound. Utilitie to the building are adequate with the exception of the sanitary sewer that will require replacement and increased pipe size for current capacity. Some areas of the building are in good conditio s such as the offices conference room, and breakroom. For the building to continue to be used as a laboratory that will serve the City for the next 30 years a major renovation is needed. The building needs a complete interior renovation and expansion. Each of the laboratory rooms need cabinet and fi ture replacement along with some realignment of room functions Restrooms need to be to remodeled. The facility needs a secured record and sample storage area. Compressed gases should be secure and removed from the laboratories. Laboratory walls need to be painted and floor finishes resurfaced. Some mechanical equipment needs to be replaced. The electrical system needs code updates, and the storage areas need to be expanded and chemicals and supplies in mechanical and electrical rooms need to be removed. Building door hardware and some doors need to be replaced to meet current Americans with Disability Act (ADA) accessibility standards. Some windows and doors need to be replaced and other windows need to be re-glazed for be er energy efficien . Exterior walls should be be er insulated. Due to damage from a recent floodingevent, the roof needs to be replaced down to the metal deck. February 2018 Page 11 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study • Mechanical/Electrical Rooms: The exis ng mechanical/electrical room is full of motor starters with equipment being stored in the middle of the room, viola ng the working space requirements of the NEC. The room’s entry doors also open to the inside of the room, which does not provide the proper egress de ned by the current NEC. It is recommended that these rooms be modi ed to meet the safety requirements of the NEC. • Surge Protec on: There is no surge protec on installed on any of the old panels and does not provide any surge protec on for the lab equipment. Surge protec on was installed on the new ligh ng panels, but during inspec on, was indica ng failure in mul ple phases. To ensure the proper protec on of the lab equipment, replacing the surge protec on on the newer panels and installing surge protec on on exis ng panels is recommended. • Ligh ng: The interior ligh ng appeared to be original to the building. It showed signi cant corrosion on the northeast side, and the push- to-test bu on on the emergency ligh ng did not appear to work. It is recommended that all emergency ligh ng be tested and replaced as needed to provide safe ligh ng for emergency egress. PCL Analytical Testing The PCL typically performs analyti al testin , treatment plant operational control, industrial pretreatment, finished efflu t discharge monitoring, and receiving stream water quality. The lab also performs special monitoring upon request. The sample collection frequency, test locations, test parameters, and analyti al methods used for testing of the finished efflu t discharge is specified by the CDPHE and found in 40 CFR 136.3. The analyti al methods are typically those published by EPA under the Clean Water Act or by APHA Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. The lab staff also uses the same standard test methods to support treatment plant operations, indu trial pretreatment testin , and receiving water testing The necessary meters, instruments, analyzers, appliances, labware, safety and personal protecti e equipment needed to perform the analyti al methods were observed. The analyti al technologies and test equipment employed at the PCL is suffici tly automated and modern as to produce highly reliable test results in a safe and effici t manner. However, lab physical limitations and work environment deficiencieswere observed. These limitationsand deficienciesare creating loss of operational efficienc and an overall work environment that is well below the norm of the top tier of municipal laboratories. Leftuncorrected the current limitations and deficiencies will constrain, if not preclude the lab’s ability to achieve accreditation under ISO/I C 17025. Specific Observations Architectural • Roof: Recent spring rains caused many leaks in the oldest sec on of the building. This was caused by lack of an over ow drain and overhanging trees with leaves clogging the drains. Over ow drains are required by current code and provide drainage if the primary drain becomes clogged. An over ow drain or scupper needs to be added. Exis ng roof must be replaced down to metal deck. Other newer sec ons of the building appear to adequately drain and to be in fair condi on and may not need replacement unless building department requires energy conserva on upgrades. Some roof drain strainers have been removed and should be replaced. • Exterior Joints: Caulking in control joints and around doors, louvers, and windows have failed and should be removed and replaced. Expansion joints in oors and roof should be replaced. • Exterior Windows and Doors: Windows and doors in the newer por ons of the building have insulated glass and thermally broken windows. Oldest sec on of the building has single pane glass and no thermal break in the frame and should be replaced. None of the buildings have an e ec ve shading coe cient to limit heat gain. Seals on some of the insulated glass panel windows have failed and allowed condensa on (room 109 & 110). Aluminum storefront entrance should be replaced since it does not close properly and allow air in ltra on. All doors need new weather-stripping. • Exterior Walls: Exterior masonry should be recoated with clear breathable wall sealant. • Flooring: Exis ng laboratory oors are poured epoxy in sound condi on but heavily stained and need to be recoated or covered with alternate material. Throughout lab rubber mats have been placed in wet areas or used for cushioning at loca ons requiring long repe ve ac vi es in one spot. • Door Hardware: Doors do not have levered handles and don’t meet ADA accessibility standards. Some doors have locks and strikes that are taped off o as to avoid accidently locking the room. Structural • Minor step cracking observed in the concrete masonry unit and minor cracking in the veneer. It does not appear to be ac ve sign of founda on or wall issues. Tuckpoin ng and cleaning joints for caulking should be done at these loca ons. • Minor corrosion on column in Room 114 and some local corrosion on deck and joists. • Repair of cracking at concrete parapet and areas with exposed rebar. • Repair deteriorated caulking at doors and windows. Roof membrane shows evidence of ponding, missing drain covers, and evidence of water staining in Rooms 119, 122, and 112. Mechanical Plumbing • HVAC Equipment: The air-cooled chiller, and the lab hood con gura on for exhaust and make-up air are in rela vely good condi on. • Kitchene e: The exhaust hood has been removed from overtop the stovetop cook sta on in the kitchene e. The Interna onal Mechanical Code requires an exhaust hood with re ex nguishing installed. • Ductwork: The ductwork located on the roof serving the o ce spaces have 1-inch-diameter holes drilled into the outdoor ductwork (presumably for pitot tube air ow tes ng) that is causing large amounts of leakage to the outdoors. This ductwork should be repaired to prevent wasted energy and wasted air ow from the roof top fans. • Lab Exhaust Fan: The lab exhaust fan servicing the sink exhaust in room 111 used for washing bo les and glassware with hydrogen chloride (HCL) is leaking at the roof duct connec on. The ex connec on from ductwork to fan on the roof is deteriorated and is no longer pulling a complete suc on through the interior sink hood. This could be a poten al health hazard for the occupants of the lab. • Garage Heater: Three of four natural gas heaters have disconnects set to the off osi on. This is likely due to the fact that under current use as storage room there is no need to keep the area at room temperature during the winter. • Roof Drains: Some drains have not been installed with over ow drains to properly prevent over ow at the main roof drains. Electrical • Switchgear: The building’s service switchgear and transformers are in poor condi on. The switchgear is old and is experiencing corrosion on the bo om and sides of the enclosure. Furthermore, replacement parts are no longer available, which leads to reliability concerns. As a result, replacing the switchgear is recommended. • Motor Control Center (MCC): The building’s MCC is old and has limited spare parts. Furthermore, it does not have the proper working space required by the NEC. As a result, replacing the MCC is recommended. • Rust and Corrosion: Rust and corrosion was observed throughout the building on raceways and junc on boxes, with corrosion in the northeast side of the building noted as severe. Furthermore, a number of junc on boxes above the drop ceiling were missing covers, and space for future expansion is very limited. For these reasons, replacing the raceway system is recommended. • Exis ng Laboratory Hood: In the North Lab, one of the ven la on hoods (perchloric hood) is no longer used for perchloric analysis, but is equipped with explosion-proof components. The adjacent equipment is not explosion-proof. Furthermore, the chemical used in the vent may have collected in the duct work, posing safety concerns. Because of these issues, addi onal tes ng is recommended to con rm that the installa on is safe. Depending on the result of the addi onal evalua on, this equipment may need to be replaced. February 2018Page 12 Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility The City and its team conducted a condition assessment. Although the Mulberry facility site is not currently the home for either the WQL or the PCL it was evaluated as a part of this assessment because of its central location. Any WQL, PCL or combined WQL/PCL laboratory on this site would necessarily be a “greenfield” facility project. Existing site facilities appear to be in very good condition, appear well maintained and there were no substantial performance deficiencies reported. The site and its facilities are currently not occupied on a continuous and or daily basis Other Alternate Scenarios No Action Alternative A no action alternati e is not feasible, as no action would not meet the City’s project objecti es. The City defined the world-class vision for the laboratories to provide a facility that would: • Meet the ISO and NELAP accredita on • Provide a 30-year life • Enhance work ows • Improve health and safety • Enhance work environment • Promote organiza on e ciency • Improve level of service The budget for outsourcing would need to reflecta total reductionin staff, but maintain suffici t staff to manage the analyti al program, supporting sample collection,transport, data archive, and coordinate with process operations.The analyti al work also includes markups to adjust for the City’s responsiveness and quality control program. The table below shows the estim ted budget for outsourcing. Outsourcing Budget Annual Operational Costs (lapsing)Description WQL PCL Watershed Total Personnel Services salaries & benefit $301,448 $345,956 $183,649 $831,053 Purchased Professional & Technical Services training, fed.gov serv (USGS), outside testin , consulting $30,500 $57,028 $132,700 $220,228 Purchased Property Services Building utilities janitorial, fle t, instrument service contracts… $42,670 $25,883 $2,500 $71,053 Other Purchased Services phones, mileage, dues, conferences $3,054 $1,393 $3,500 $7,946 Supplies office supplies, omputer hardware, soft are, chemicals, food, uniforms, lab supplies… $32,911 $37,050 $10,700 $80,661 Outsourcing Analytical $1,386,397 $714,440 $0 $2,100,837 Subtotal TOTAL $1,796,980 $1,181,750 $333,049 $3,311,778 Capital (non‑lapsing) WQL PCL Watershed Total WQL/PCL Capital budget $10,000 $10,000 $80,000 $100,000 Total $1,806,980 $1,191,750 $413,049 $3,411,778 Outsourcing of the analyti al work is estim ted to cost approximately 15 percent more than the current annual O&M, however this does not include the cost of a new facility to house the WQL, PCL, and watershed management sta . The City’s current operation is considered very competi e with the private sector and level of service is considered inherently higher when provided internally by City Sta . A more detailed study would be required to refine the business case for outsourcing if there is interest in this option. The major benefit of outsourcing is reduction in facility capital cost, but it would prohibit achieving the world class goals established by the team. Outsourcing should not be compared directly to the new world class facilitiesbut would be more in line with comparison to maintaining the status quo level of service. AERIAL VIEW OF MULBERRY SITE Maintaining the status quo will not meet these goals. Furthermore, without near term investments in the WQL and PCL the current level of service cannot be maintained. If the City elects to defer or eliminate the recommendation of the Laboratory Master Plan an interim investment is required to address the condition assessme t findings. Some of the near-term investments would be marginalized as the existing facilities would be abandoned following construction of the recommended alternati e. A portion of the investment may be recouped depending on the repurposing of the abandoned existing QL and PCL Facilities Outsourcing Laboratory Analytical Services The City currently provides full services for the WQL and PCL analyti al needs in addition to providing analyti al services for neighboring entitie and local groups. The City’s current budget summary is shown in the table below for the PCL, WQL and Watershed management groups. The City currently has 15 sta members assigned to the PCL and WQL plus 3 additional staffthat support the watershed monitoring group. City Annual Budget for PCL, WQL and Watershed Management Groups Annual Operational Costs (lapsing)Description WQL PCL Watershed Total Personnel Services salaries & benefit $844,054 $968,676 $183,649 $1,996,379 Purchased Professional & Technical Services training, fed.gov serv (USGS), outside testin , consulting $85,400 $159,679 $132,700 $377,779 Purchased Property Services Building utilities janitorial, fle t, instrument service contracts… $119,477 $72,472 $2,500 $194,449 Other Purchased Services phones, mileage, dues, conferences $8,550 $3,900 $3,500 $15,950 Supplies office supplies, omputer hardware, soft are, chemicals, food, uniforms, lab supplies… $92,150 $103,740 $10,700 $206,590 Subtotal Total $1,149,631 $1,308,467 $333,049 $2,791,147 Capital (non‑lapsing) WQL/PCL Capital budget $50,000 $50,000 $80,000 $180,000 Total Budget $1,199,631 $1,358,467 $413,049 $2,971,147 WATER QUALITY LAB WATER QUALITY LAB February 2018 Page 13 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study City of Longmont, Water Quality Laboratory The City of Longmont’s Laboratory is located at the City’s Wastewater Treatment Facility to centralize operation. The laboratory is a 5,000 sf facility that was constructed in 2008. The construction cost was $1.9 million. The City had to conform to a strict budget so some compromise was required. The City chose to prioriti e wet lab space versus offic and administrati e space. The City still outsources signifi ant work where it is not considered economical to invest in underutili ed equipment. The City routinely evaluates the Cost of outsourcing versus in-house. The Lab is a good example of a modern and effici t layout, but not world class. The lab supports the water and wastewater treatment process and regulatory permitti , as well as support local watershed groups. Colorado Springs Utilities Laboratories The Colorado Spring Laboratory is an example of a world class facility. The 50,000 sf facility was constructed in 2008 and cost approximately $20 million. The facility supports two wastewater treatment facilities and three water treatment facilities in addition to watershed and environmental permittin support. The facility is located at a centralized location adjacent to the Wastewater treatment plant. The facility is considered overbuilt to provide room for expansion. The Facility was initial planned to be a regional facility with other entitie but it only currently serves the City of Colorado Springs. The Facility has state of the art casework, ventil tionand provides an open concept within discrete work areas. Natural lighting and broad hallways provide a good work environment. The Facility is ISO and NELAP accredited and the building is certified o the Leed Silver rating The Colorado Springs laboratory, while more than double the proposed size of the Fort Collins laboratory has many of the elements desired by the City including: • Convenient Public access • Large sample receiving area • Security and access control • Specialized work areas • Modern casework • Open area within func onal analy cal areas • Centralized management for mul ple process facili es and monitoring programs • Room for expansion • Employee break areas and conference space Longmont’s laboratory is considered more utili arian but provides for an effici t centralized Laboratory supporting wastewater, water, and watershed groups. if the existing concept was expanded for improved storage, employee work areas, and administration , it would meet the majority of the elements desired by the City. Peer Facilities Review Two Facility tours were conducted to visit facilitiesthat have consolidated water and wastewater laboratories to a single location.The purpose of the facility tours was to review their facilities and discuss challenges to planning, and implementin , and their organizational structures. The City of Longmont’s Water Quality Laboratory and the Colorado Springs Laboratory Facility were selected to provide a range of examples. Peer Review Summary MATERIALS & PEOPLE FLOWS DIAGRAM 20 ' - 6 " 14' - 6" 20 ' - 6 " 14' - 6" MO V A B L E W A L L CONFERENCE ROOM BREAK ROOM 8' - 0" 8' - 0 " WORK STATIONS 6' - 0 " 8' - 4" Quiet Room 43 ' - 9 " SINK HOOD 6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 3' - 0 " 12' - 0" SINK HOODHOOD HOODHOOD 12' - 0"12' - 0" 10 ' - 0 " HOOD LABORATORY MODULE 20 ' - 6 " 14' - 6" 20 ' - 6 " 14' - 6" MO V A B L E W A L L CONFERENCE ROOM BREAK ROOM 8' - 0" 8' - 0 " WORK STATIONS 6' - 0 " 8' - 4" Quiet Room 43 ' - 9 " SINK HOOD 6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 3' - 0 " 12' - 0" SINK HOODHOOD HOODHOOD 12' - 0"12' - 0" 10 ' - 0 " HOOD LABORATORY MODULE February 2018Page 14 Programming A preliminary programming session was conducted with both laboratory’s stakeholders/users resulting in the following program spaces. This program served as the basis for conceptual facility planning. LABORATORIES • Water Quality Lab • Pollu on Control Lab • Metals Lab • Administra on ADMINISTRATION • Open O ces • Lab Manager’s O ce • Conference/ Mee ng/ Training Room • Break Room • Quiet Room • Archives SUPPORT SPACES • M/W Toilet Rooms • M/W Locker Rooms • Shipping/Receiving Room • Storage Room • Chemical/Gas Storage Room • Garage • Shop • Mechanical Room • Electrical Room • Recycle/Waste Form Factors “Form factors” are the planning building blocks upon which the Conceptual Design for the facility was based. These form factors serve as the means and method to take concepts of spaces, adjacencies and material fl ws from diagrams to actual dimensional built space. The form factors employed as part of this study were determined by and derived from several sources. One source was what are called “industry standards”; faciliti s with similar purposes and needs being built elsewhere to meet the same functions and goals. A second source was recently constructed regional peer faciliti s. The following form factors were the primary form and space drivers: ISO/NELAP Compliance Features The City has set a goal of having a world-class laboratory compliant with the tenets of quality and facility requirements implicitly expressed in the ISO/ IEC 17205. The ISO standard defines the managerial systems for quality, administrati e functions, and technical requirements necessary to achieve a level of quality and competency established by the ISO governing body. The standard is not explicit in describing the physical attribu es of a laboratory facility (i.e., size, content, configu ation, etc.), rather it indirectly speaks to building characteristics necessa y for adherence to the overall standard. Using the ISO standard as a basis of design for renovation of the WQL and PCL or a new Central Laboratory, ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation is facilitated in a laboratory with the work spaces and support functions as shown in the table at right. In a future conceptual design phase many of the work areas and work functions shown can be co-located to minimize rooms and walls to those areas needing tig t environmental controls (i.e. microbiological testin , trace metals preparation etc.). Combining complimentary work functions helps create an open work environment that is safe (i.e. line of sight between workers) and tends to improve work fl w processes. The analyti al technology used in the future will be more automated, faster, more sensiti e and precise, and come at a higher initial cost. This warrants work space that is properly designed, appropriately sized, with protection against cross- contamination loss of utilitie or other infrastructure failures. Increasingly citi ens will want the assurance that the water they drink is of the highest quality and that rivers they use for recreation are safe from pollution. At the WQL and PCL this translates into test results of utmost quality, which will withstand close external scruti y, and lab reports that are fully defensible. Therefore, a quality accreditatio of the caliber of ISO/IEC 17025 is a pedigree the laboratories should pursue. Space category Specific area, room or function Comments Administration and staff space Laboratory manager offi Enclosed offi Quality assurance offic Cubical Health & safety leader Cubical Technical leader Cubical Analysts Cubical Support staCubical Quiet room(s)Enclosed quiet work area(s) Testing work floors General/wet chemical testin Microbiological testin Consider separate work areas for water and wastewater samples Metals testin With separate clean prep area Volatile o ganics by GC Positi e pressure zone Special programs testing a ea Quality assurance/reagent prep area Data entry workstation In each testing a ea and major instruments Safety/PPE station Technical support areas Sample receiving area Drive up delivery recommended Sample storage/achieve Cold storage for perishable samples Sample kit prep/kit cleaning area Consider work area for autosampler and field anal zer maintenance Data entry workstation In each work area Records storage Secure area Reference materials/library Chemical storage Secure area Instrument gas supplies/storage Secure area Equipment/supplies storage PC server/communication oom Secure area Non‑technical support areas Entrance/reception a ea Conference room Staff loc er room Restrooms Office supplies ea Janitorial room Mechanical room HVAC Electrical room Hazardous lab waste Consolidation storage area Recycling/domestic aste area February 2018 Page 15 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study Water Quality Laboratory The proposed Water Quality Lab (WQL) program builds upon the existing laboratory functions and both adds and amends that program for current and future needs. As discussed elsewhere (and captured in the Appendix) a function- y-functionspace and equipment analysis was conducted to ascertain the amount of lab area and bench space would be required. Necessary (safety and regulatory compliance driven) and new functional areas are captured here. Those areas include a dedicated Sample/Receiving Area, a dedicated Chemical/Gas Storage Room and Garage/Shop for department vehicles. As is the case with all of the Concept Designs for the facilities a grossing factor has been added for circulation, all thicknesses, columns, etc. Pollution Control Laboratory Utilizing the same performance criteria and upon analysis it was determined that the amount of area deemed suffici t to support the Pollution Control Lab (PCL) was near identi al to that of the WQL. With a smaller projected staff personnel count the amount of area allocated to work spaces could be somewhat smaller. Despite that slight reduction in personnel there was no readily appreciable space savings for shared spaces (Conference Rooms, Break Room, etc) either in size or quantit . Water Quality & Pollution Control Laboratory Part of the master planning study is to evaluate scenarios in which the WQL and the PCL might be combined into a single shared facility. Two presumed and desirable potential outcomes of this programming e ort were to achieve greater efficienc in the allocation of shared spaces and equipment as well as provide additional fl xibility and adaptability of laboratory space and staff and centralize management. By combining these two laboratories into a single facility there could be a greater likelihood of continuous, uniform and shared operations as well as a likely reductionin overall facility space and, by extension, cost savings in lieu of building two separate new facilities. As reflec ed in the following table it was determined that, at a Concept Design level, a space savings of approximately 15% would not be unreasonable. Category Rooms SF/Unit # of Units Total Lab Laboratory (module)525 8 4200 Lab Total 4200 Admin (7 personnel)Office Space 100 7 700 Admin Conference Rm 300 1 300 Admin Break Rm 300 1 300 Admin Quiet Rm 50 1 50 Admin Total 1350 Support Sample/Recv'g 300 1 300 Support Mech/Elect/Plumb 1000 1 1000 Support Toilet Rms/Locker Rms 1000 1 1000 Support Garage/Shop 1200 1 1200 Support Storage 500 1 500 Support Chem/Gas Storage 200 1 200 Support Total 4200 Grossing Factor Circulation, Walls, etc 0.1 9550 955 Circulation Total 955 Facility Total 10705 PCL Facility Category Rooms SF/Unit # of Units Total Lab Laboratory (Module)525 14 7350 Lab Total 7350 Admin Office Space 100 17 1700 Admin Conference Rm 300 2 600 Admin Break Rm 300 1 300 Admin Quiet Rm 50 2 100 Admin Total 2700 Support Sample/Recv'g 400 1 400 Support Mech/Elect/Plumb 1500 1 1500 Support Toilet Rms/Locker Rms 1500 1 1500 Support Garage/Shop 2100 1 2100 Support Storage 1000 1 1000 Support Chem/Gas Storage 300 1 300 Support Total 6800 Grossing Factor Circulation, Walls, etc 0.1 17175 1718 Circulation Total 1718 Facility Total 18568 WQL + PCL Combo Building Category Rooms SF/Unit # of Units Total Lab Laboratory (module)525 8 4200 Lab Total 4200 Admin (10 personnel)Office Space 100 10 1000 Admin Conference Rm 300 1 300 Admin Break Rm 300 1 300 Admin Quiet Rm 50 1 50 Admin Total 1650 Support Sample/Recv'g 300 1 300 Support Mech/Elect/Plumb 1000 1 1000 Support Toilet Rms/Locker Rms 1000 1 1000 Support Garage/Shop 1200 1 1200 Support Storage 500 1 500 Support Chem/Gas Storage 200 1 200 Support Total 4200 Grossing Factor Circulation, Walls, etc 0.1 9850 985 Grossing Total 985 Facility Total 11035 WQL Facility February 2018Page 16 Water Treatment Facility Site (WTF) A total of three alternate locationswere selected for study at the Water Treatment Facility (WTF) site. Each of these locationshad specificattribu es and advantages that warranted some degree of further consideration. These ere: A. Modernize and/or poten ally expanding upon the exis ng WQL facility B. Construc ng new either the WQL, PCL or a combined facility just south of the site exit roadway and PV site (south of Alternate “A”) C. Construct new either the WQL, PCL or a combined facility on green eld site at the southeast corner of the WTF site Drake Water Reclamation Facility Site (DWRF) Several potential sites were studied at the Drake Water Reclamation Facility (DWRF) site, two of which were eventually determined to be viable alternate locations. The attribu es, strengths and weaknesses of each of these two sites were markedly di erent. The two sites included for study were as follows: A. Renova ng and/or poten ally expanding upon the exis ng PCL facility B. Construc ng new either the PCL, the WQL or a combined facility on a green eld site at the northwest corner of the property; adjacent to an unimproved road soon to be upgraded to a public thoroughfare. Site Analysis & Prototype Concepts Test Fit Site Analysis As described elsewhere in this report several facilities locations were studied for the placement of the WQL, the PCL and the WQL & PCL together. A site analysis was conducted at each of three sites to ascertain their suitability to support either the possible renovation, potential expansion or construction of new facilities on those si es. Facilities Prototypes With the form factors determined and regulatory/safety driven adjacencies and fl ws defined idealized laboratory facilities prototypes were created. These Concept Design level facility prototypes established a form and footprint for the proposed new facilities.Those footprints consequently served as a basis to determine the compatibility of the facility (or facilities ) at one or another of the proposed site areas. Prototype Site Test Fits As mentioned preceding the Concept Design prototypes took on a couple of di erent forms and orientations.Likely site locationswere identifie and ve ed by the project team/stakeholders and the idealized prototype alternates were studied at the selected alternate locations. The site test fits also incorporated site issue responsiveness issues and items such as site security, site parking, facility accessibility for personnel and supplies and compatibility with existing site conditions such as V arrays, flood plains and si e contours. February 2018 Page 17 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study Concepts As illustrated (below) the “Spine” and the “Bu erfl ” concepts seem a relati ely simple a air. In principle they are as, based on precedent and experience, they should be. The more “simple” and “idealized” the concept the more likely the concepts may respond to and absorb the inevitable impacts of individual user’s specific needs, phased implementation or renovations and (ultim tely) o en budgetary constraints. The following illustrations are a placeholder for the further development of concepts part of the next phase of study. Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility Site Because of its “central” location,available land and its high-visibility to the public potential locations were studied at the Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility site. Being a somewhat more compact site with access concerns the alternates facility locations studied here presented a few more challenges. The sites studied included: A. A parcel of land at street eleva on at the northwest corner of the site currently occupied by a leased PV array installa on B. A facility loca on at the center of the site currently occupied by a purely aesthe c pond water feature. C. A greenfield si e along the southern boundary of the site fronting the boulevard Facilities Prototypes As mentioned previously the facility program(s) and form factors were used to help generate some specific facilities prototypes. Two of the resulting facilities prototypes reflect familiar facility layouts and configu ations that have proven responsive and successful in previous laboratory applications A third facility prototype, the “L” Concept, was created specifi ally in response to one of the specific potential site locations at the Mulberry Water Reclamatio Facility. The following prototype concepts were tested and ultim tely a most favorable fitting on as chosen for each site location “Spine” Concept The “spine” concept is rooted in the development of complimentary program elements being lined up across from each other along a single shared primary circulation and utility path, or “spine”. The facility program is arranged along this primary path and the facility is, by nature, longer and more linear. “Butterfly” Concept The “bu erfl ” concept also utili es a singular shared primary circulation and utility path or “spine”. Where this concept departs from the “spine” is in that functions are “grouped” along the “spine” like beads on a necklace; the office along both sides at the beginning of the primary corridor, the labs following and the support spaces at the end. “L” Concept The “L” concept to the right combines attribu es and characteristics of the preceding concepts. It is by nature tailored to specific site conditions and the resulting configu ation is something somewhat less effici t than the “spine” and “bu erfl ” concepts. February 2018Page 18 Water Treatment Facility Site (WTF) Site Alternative “A”: Modernize and Expand The modernizing and expansion scenario, were it to include the full build out of both the WQL & PCL facilities,would be challenging and ineffici t. The existing facility is hemmed in by important site circulation roadways and existing site infrastructure. The current WQL facility is a renovation and expansion of what was formerly a much smaller lab building and garage building that were subsequently tied together with new/additional la s. This site alternati e concept proposes to construct the higher-performance areas (the labs) separate and apart from the existing building with less demanding functions occu ying the former WQL shell enclosure. Site Alternative “B”: “PV” Site The PV array site alternati e could accommodate one of the two prototype facility configu ations though, in either case, the existing PV array would need to be removed and relocated. This site location sets a proposed new WQL/PCL facility within the current secure site boundaries. Sited along the main entry drive into the facility this location provides easy and separate access to and from this facility for its users anticip ted users. A “bu erfl ” variationconcept orients the facility’s main entrance towards this primary site entry drive. Site Alternative “C”: Greenfield Site In site alternate “C” we placed a prototype concept on a greenfield parcel at the southeast corner of the site. This site location can accommodate any configu ation QL & PCL facility as there are few if any siting onstraints. This facility location places the proposed new facility outside of the current secure perimeter fencing/boundary. This location could provide several key benefitsincluding central access to the public, clients and other users/suppliers and visitors. February 2018 Page 19 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility Site (MWRF) Site Alternative “A” This portion of the Mulberry site has been leased and is largely covered by the previously mentioned PV array. Although there is some fl t portion of this area of the site that is not occupied by the PV panels it is insu ciently large enough for the enti ety of a new WQL & PCL facility. The PV array would be impacted with some removal and relocations equired. This portion of the site is outside the current secure site boundaries and is located at street level. It presents good opportunities for access to the facility from the adjoining boulevard. Also, the adjacent railroad creates some work environment concerns. Site Alternative “B” This potential site located at the center of the campus of buildings is currently occupied by an aesthetic pond feature. Because the pond serves no functional purpose it was determined by the City that the pond could be eliminated were this site to prove the most desirable. Although the two most transferrable facility prototype concepts could be located on this parcel it was (later) determined that a specific site-responsive prototype be created; the “L” Concept. This site is within the current secure boundaries and access to the facility is limited to the main site access to the south. Site Alternative “C” Site Alternati e “C” was selected because it is the most highly visible location on this or any other of the potential site locations. As a means to achieve and promote education and “public outreach” it was imagined that this site could best provide the opportunity to illustrate the City of Fort Collins mission and services related to water quality and pollution ontrol. This proposed site area is somewhat constricted by both site roadways, access concern, and site grading, specifi ally as the adjoining boulevard to the south is some 20’-0” above this location. This site would require relocation of the underground heat exchange system used for process control buildings buried in this area. February 2018Page 20 Drake Water Reclamation Facility Site (DWRF) Site Alternative “A” The modernizing and expansion scenario, were it to include the full build out of both the WQL & PCL facilities, would be challenging and costly. The existing facility is hemmed in by treatment facilities to the north and primary vehicular roadways at both the east and west sides. The current PCL facility has been renovated and expanded over time and spaces (similar to the WQL facility) have been re-purposed for uses for which the facility was not originally designed. This site alternati e concept proposes to largely “gut” the existing facility and add onto the existing structure as necessary. This alternati e would nearly enti ely reconstruct all of the proposed new functional a eas. Site Alternative “B” Site alternati e “B” is a fl t largely unconstrained greenfield site at the northwest corner of the existing PCL site. This site location can accommodate any prototype facility concept. Although substantially remote from the current existing site facilities it does have vehicular connectivity to the remainder of the site. This location fronts onto a currently undeveloped roadway that the City of Fort Collins has identifie is soon to be improved. Such a roadway improvement would provide good access to the facility for all employees and users. The site is within the current secure site facilitiesboundary though, with a new access road/point, that boundary could be relocated. Site Alternatives Conclusions The WQL & PCL site alternati e locations options were reviewed by the stakeholder group in conjunction with some preliminary estim ting. No alternati e site location, WTF, Mulberry or DWRF sites was eliminated from consideration at this point. For the purposes of this study it was determined that we would select a “preferred” facility locationfrom each of these potential sites. Those recommendations ere as follows: Water Treatment Facility Site The greenfiel site location at the southeast corner of the site, Alternati e “C”, outside of the current site secure boundary was the selected preferred location at the WTF site. A relati ely fl t site with few constraints and easy employee/visitor access were agreed to be its primary advantages. Mulberry Site Although site Alternati e “A” for this location was the most readily “att acti e” option the unknowns related to the future development of this site area for a “gateway” project put that selection in jeopardy. The “central” location (currently the pond feature area) “Alternati e B” was deemed the likely best location t this site. Drake Water Reclamation Facility Site The fl t greenfield site location, Alternati e “B” with potential employee/visitor/service access via a proposed new roadway along its northern boundary was the clear most amenable facility location at this site. The amount of area available for development of new facility is suffici t to accommodate a range of specific siting opportunities, facility configu ations and security sepa ations. February 2018 Page 21 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study The Innovation District may provide an opportunity for the City to partner or collaborate with developers for laboratory space as this use aligns with the goals for the District. A combined WQ-PC Lab in this vicinity could o er the following benefits • Central loca on in reasonable proximity to the City Treatment facili es, Service Center and U li es administra on building, • Opportuni es to collaborate with educa onal ins tu ons and private research • High visibility with a public educa on and outreach func on aligned with the adjacent Museum of Discovery and Poudre River Whitewater Park. The drawback to lease option are having a City Facility outside of Treatment facility location, annual lease costs, and potential limitation for layout. To compare the lease option to the construction cost for the onsite alternati es the following assumptions ere made. • A lease rate of $30/sf per year was assumed based on current compara ves for wet lab and medical space, present-worth value of the space assume based on 20 year term and discount rate of 3%. • Tenant improvements cost of $4M or custom furnishing and facility enhancement above the lease level of nish. • Analy cal Equipment allowance $ 500,000. • Cost of addressing decommissioning of WQL and PCL, and moving. The lease option may signifi antly reduce project cost based on 20-year period. Negoti tions with a developer for space in the Innovation District are warranted to confirm cost and opportunities for long term leasing. The lease may also provide opportunity to economically expand or retract the lab space based on actual needs. Benefit Criteria Alternatives The following alternati es were selected for benefit scoring evaluation. For new facility construction the preferred WTF Site C, DWRF Site B, and MWRF Site B location a e assumed. • No Ac on Alterna ve: No Ac on Alterna ve will be presented based on condi on assessment ndings. [Note: No ac on is considered inconsistent with the project’s stated goals.] • Alterna ve 1: Outsourcing Laboratory Analy cal Services. The City outsources the analy cal services to independent accredited laboratory(s). [Note: a High level market assessment was performed for this Alterna ve.] • Alterna ve 2: Independent WQL and PCL Laboratories located at the WTF and DWRF: –Alterna ve 2A: Renova on of the Exis ng WQL and PCL at the exis ng buildings. –Alterna ve 2B: Construct a new laboratory at each of the WTF/ DWRF sites. • Alterna ve 3: Consolidated laboratory to serve the WQL and PCL func ons at a single loca on: –Alterna ve 3A: Construct new lab on a green eld site to provide both water quality and pollu on control analyses as de ned in the evalua on needs assessment. –Alterna ve 3A.1 WTF Combined lab Loca on –Alterna ve 3A.2 DWRF Combined Lab loca on –Alterna ve 3A.3 MWRF Combined lab loca on • Alterna ve 3B: Renovate an exis ng building or facility owned or purchased by the City: Poten al sites could be exis ng vacant commercial facili es, City owned facili es, or unu lized federal facility assets. Lease Alternative 3B A review of lease and purchase options were conducted to determine if there are existing facilities that may have location or cost benefits for a new combined lab facility. The City’s Economic Health Director assisted in the search (met with Josh Birks, 11-9-17). The search concluded that: • There are no signi cant exis ng wet process spaces available on the market • Available space was generally warehouse/industrial space in loca on outside of the City service area limits, • The cost to convert warehouse space then lease is not considered economically advantageous, • There is a demand for wet process lab space that may drive future investments in wet lab and research facili es, • The City’s Innova on District development may a ract developers who want to partner with the City, Higher Educa on ins tu ons, and Private Research companies for laboratory type space. The City has established disti ct development districts in the Downtown shown below. The Innovation District is adjacent to the Poudre River, shown below. February 2018Page 22 C – Facility Flexibility (TBL category Economic) Configu ation and location to allow for future exterior expansion or interior realignment and/or to meet future analyti al needs. The existinglab renovation options h ve limited fl xibility due to building and site constraints. D – Level of Service (TBL category Social) Location that promotes organizational productivity and effici t use of sta and equipment, eliminates duplication, allows for cross training and fl xible resources, improves internal lab coordination, eliminates silo organization structure, be er supports ISO, and reduces managerial stafftravel. A combined lab facility o ers these inherent organizationalbenefitscompared to distributed laboratory services provided at separate facilities E – Proximity to Customers (TBL Category Environment) Measured as the proximity from primary customers (treatment operations) to maximize process coordination, efficien , minimize travel time, and reduce greenhouse gas); percentage of customer sample analyti al volume at lab site. The Wastewater treatment facility management staff noted that the PCL sta supports routine treatment operations and process optimi ation in a way that is di erent from WTF staff who rely more on online analyti al measurements and their internal process lab. Also the WQL lab requires sampling throughout the distribution system, watershed so the starting location is not considered criti al. F – Sources of Contamination (TBL Category Environment) Measures that ability of the lab space to prevent/deter outside sources of contamination; number of cross-contamination potentials. This is viewed as outside sources of contamination, as the interior layouts will minimize water and wastewater cross contamination as seen during combined facility tours. Locations away from corrosive, particul te or process emissions should be given preference. G – Working Environment (TBL Category Environment) Ability of the lab to provide a good facility working environment at a desired location to perform mission and att act and maintain qualified sta . Consider if the alternati e o ers individual adequate offic space, parking area for lab/ field vehicles, open floor concept, natural lightin , and ergonomic layout. Adjacent to desired amenities ( ecreational activities, other Cit acilities) H – Disruption of service Amount of time existing lab services would be disrupted during construction; number of months of impact to services. Renovation will require signifi ant temporary service interruptions. In the 30 year view this not considered a primary criterion for evaluation Criteria Weighting The nonmonetary benefits were weighted by the City’s team using a force ranking comparison between criterion. The weighted score is determined by the number of head to head selection as a percentage of the total possible comparisons (total of 28), for this matrix. The results of the weighted ranking are shown below. Weighted non‑monetary benefit criteria Criterion A – L e v e l o f O u t s o u r c i n g B – F u t u r e A c c r e d i t a t i o n C – F a c i l i t y F l e x i b i l i t y D – L e v e l o f S e r v i c e E – P r o x i m i t y t o C u s t o m e r s F – S o u r c e s o f C o n t a m i n a t i o n G – W o r k i n g E n v i r o n m e n t H – D i s r u p t i o n o f s e r v i c e Total Weight Rank A – Level of Outsourcing A B C D E F G A 1 4%7 B – Future Accreditation B B B B B B B 7 25% 1 C – Facility Flexibility C D C C G C 4 14% 4 D – Level of Service D D D D D 6 21% 2 E – Proximity to Customers E F G E 2 7%6 F – Sources of Contamination F G F 3 11%5 G – Working Environment G G 5 18% 3 H – Disruption of service H 0 0% 8 Total 28 100% Water Quality & Pollution Control Non‑Monetary Benefit Criteria The project team developed a list of non-monetary benefits criteria to support the benefit cost analysis. The Criteria were developed during the alterati e workshop. Criteria were initi lly developed independently by the WQL and PCL staff then combined in a single list. The benefit criteria categories determined are listed below. A. Level of Outsourcing B. Future Accredita on C. Facility Flexibility D. Level of Service E. Proximity to Customers F. Sources of Contamina on G. Working Environment H. Disrup on of Service The benefitcategories were definedso that they may be measured objecti ely. The measurement criteria for each benefit shown along with its primary Triple Bo om Line (TBL) Sustainability category measurement is shown below. A – Level of Outsourcing – (TBL category Social) Measured by the number of analyses completed by third party lab; the primary concern is an increased quality control risk and lower service from outside labs. Currently there is minimal outsourcing of required analyti al work limited to quarterly bioassay toxicity test parameters, semiannual organics by gas chromatograph testin , and cyanide. B – Future Accreditation – (TBL category Social) Lab’s ability to meet ISO, State accreditation or National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP). The ISO and NELAP accreditation are prerequisite goals for a world class facility. ISO certi ation is driven by managerial systems for quality, administrati e functions, and technical requirements to achieve a level of quality and competency. February 2018 Page 23 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study Alternative Benefit Criteria Scoring The City team scored each alternati e using the nonmonetary criteria to produce a total benefits score. The benefit scores are illustrated below. The benefit scoring shows a preference for the combined laboratory alternati e 3A.1 through 3A.2 which reflects the impact of the level of service category that recognizes the organizational productivity efficienc that combining the labs are antici ated to produce. The DWRF location has a slight advantage over other sites due to the proximity to the customers score. The wastewater treatment staff believe it is more advantageous to be on the same site or in close proximity to the WWTP. The benefits for leasing an existing building is difficul to assess as the initial lease options were not very favorable, but a potential lease option has emerged that may allow the City to invest in a proposed lease option in the City’s Innovation District and partner with a local developer proposing wet lab space for educational institutio and private research firm. Depending on the constraints of the developer the benefits of this options may need to be reassessed. Total benefit scores Benefit Cost Analysis The project team conducted a benefitand cost analysis considering non-monetary (benefits)and total project construction cost for the alternati es. Project costs for the alternati es were developed by the City’s Alternati e Product Delivery System (APDS) contractor Hydro Construction, except for the lease option which used anticip ted Wet lab leasing space with an assumed tenant investment fee. The alternati e with the highest benefit cost score is the alternati e 3B lease option due to the lower cost of leasing commercially available wet lab space. However given the speculati e nature of the benefits and development cost uncertainty of this alternati e, a more detailed evaluation is equired to determine its feasibility. For constructinga lab on City owned property the combined laboratory located adjacent to the DWRF Alternati e 3A.2 had the second highest benefit ost score and is the preferred location pending etting of the lease A ernati e 3B. The benefit ost score is presented below. Benefit cost score February 2018Page 24 Estimate Introduction Hydro Construction,the city’s APDS contractor, provided cost estim tes for the alternati e, with the exceptionof Alternati e 3B. which used local lease rate and tenant improvement cost assumptions or estim ting p esent worth cost to compared capital costs. The capital cost estim tes for the alternati es are summarized below. Alternative Cost Estimate Summary Alt. 2A ‑ Renovate Existing WQL and PCL Alt. 2B ‑‑ Construct a New Lab at each WTF/DWRF Alt. 3A.1 ‑‑ Construct a New Combined Lab ‑ WTF Alt. 3A.2‑‑ Construct a New Combined Lab ‑ DWRF Alt. 3A.3 ‑‑ Construct a New Combined Lab – MWRF Alt 3B Lease Combined Lab Space Construction Co t (per Hydro Construction $14,514,000 $16,654,000 $14,742,000 $14,515,000 $15,703,000 $4,000,000(1) Enhanced Building/Scope Allowance (15%)$2,180,000 $2,500,000 $2,210,000 $2,180,000 $2,360,000 $600,000 Total Construction Co t Budget $16,694,000 $19,154,000 $16,952,000 $16,695,000 $18,063,000 $4,600,000 Engineering and CM/SDC 16%$2,670,000 $3,060,000 $2,710,000 $2,670,000 $2,890,000 $ 740.000 City Project Management Sta$600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 APDS Contractor Design Asst.$25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Lease rate ($600 K, 20 years, i=3%)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,926,485(2) Total Present Worth Cost (3)$19,989,000 $22,839,000 $20,287,000 $19,990,000 $21,578,000 $14,892,000 Total project Cost in Millions $19.99 $22.84 $20.29 $19.99 $21.58 $14.89 Benefit Cost Ratio 2.85 2.90 3.50 3.69 3.35 3.83 Rank (Low, Medium High)Low Low Medium High Medium High (1) $4M tenant improvement cost assumed (2) Lease assumed at $30/Ssqft riple Net, for 20,000 Sf or $600,000 per year in rent over 20 year period (3) Cost in 2018 dollars, must be escalated for future years by ENR index. February 2018 Page 25 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study Assumptions 2A 2B 3A.1 3A.2 3A.3 The project estim tes are considered an ACCE Class 5 estim te for project definitio and concept screening. Unit cost assumptions were used based on the facility programinng space allocationsfor the laboartory, adminstrati e and support areas to establish a total project and then site factor, devlopment fees, engineering fees and contin encies were added to establish a total project cost. The estim te includes allowances and factors for the following elements: • Street oversizing fees es mate • Building permit • U lity fees • Reloca on/moving and commissioning cost • Caisson/piers founda on provisions • Lab equipment allowance of $515K • Temporary lab facili es for Alterna ve 2A • Site work and parking allowance • Asbestos and Hazard abatement and par al demoli on cost for exis ng WQL and PCL • Contin ency Allowance for Undefined ork • 1% For Art in Public Places Construction cost estim ting accuracy is improved as the project is refined through the schematicdesign development and constructiondocument stages of the project. February 2018Page 26 Preliminary Outcomes and Conclusions Summary As stated previously a “preferred” facility site location was made for each of the sites considered. Although ultim tely a singular and specific site is to be recommended to move forward with for further study that action was not to be taken until each of the sites were investi ated in the context of the facility concepts layouts. The preferred sites to which facility concepts were tested were: • W TF site Alterna ve “C” • DWRF site Alterna ve “B” • Mulberry site Alterna ve “B” Facility Concepts A total of three facilities prototypes were generated for the purposes of the site master planning study; two familiar facility planning layout concepts and a third created specifi ally in response to one of the specific potential site locations at the Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility. Based upon the site geometry, site access and site orientation the facility prototypes selected for study at the three sites were as follows: • The “spine” facility planning concept at the WTF site • The “bu er y” facility planning concept at the DWRF site • The “L” facility planning concept at the Mulberry site. “Spine”“Butterfly”“L” Water Treatment Facility Site (WTF)Drake Water Reclamation Facility Site (DWRF)Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility Site February 2018 Page 27 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study Water Treatment Facility Site Recommendation Master Planning Concept The greenfield site location at the southeast corner of the WTF site is bounded to the south by the secure perimeter fencing, the north by an existingdirt road and settling pond, the east by an access road and to the west by a paved site roadway. Although the site falls within the potential (unlikely) flood overfl w water pathway it is an otherwise ideal site, presenting several advantages and few other constraints. Given the generally rectangular site configu ation the best facility site “fi ” was with the “spine” facility concept. Placed longitudinally in an east/west direction the facility siting orients the facility entrance towards the north with the services wing to the west and laboratories wing to the east. There are several possible facility personnel, service and visitor’s site access scenarios possible. For the purposes of this study it is proposed that employee vehicular access be possible from the proposed new east site entry point and from the existing site entrance to the west. Service vehicles are to access the facility services wing from the west only and visitors are to gain access from the new site entry created to the east. Phase 1: WQL Facility Given the conditions of the existing Water Quality Lab (WQL) a Phase 1 scenario would encompass site development in support of a new WQL facility. This Phase 1 scenario presumes that the existing Pollutio Control Lab (PCL) is in suffici tly good conditio and operational conformance that it could carry on as is for some years. The Phase 1 WQL facility will be sited and built out in anticip tionof a potential Phase 2 expansion; the future addition of the PCL spaces and functions. Site preparation (grading, infrastructure, parking layouts, etc) will be master planned for the full Phase 1 and Phase 2 build out. The support spaces area(s) and footprint will be built out to accommodate both Phase 1 and Phase 2 needs and functions. Laboratory, Offices Meeting and other Administration type spaces will be built out only as necessary to support WQL staff and labo atory space requirements. Full Buildout: WQL + PCL Facility With the full build-out the PCL spaces, functions and labs are consolidated at and with the WQL facility and personnel. In this scenario, as either part of the initial site development or as part of future phased expansion the Laboratory spaces and the supporting Office spaces are extended further to the east along the primary Corridor “spine”. As noted in the Phase 1 build-out the Support areas (Shipping/Delivery, Locker Rooms, Mechanical Rooms, Storage, etc) are sized to accommodate both the WQL and the PCL area and personnel needs. If the full build-out is to be executed in two separate phases the proposed “spine” facility layout accommodates expansion with little to no disruption of existing WQL functions and services. All new constructio would be executed to the east of the existing QL facility. Site access roads, service and emergency vehicle access and turn-arounds are unchanged in either a multi- hased or singular phased construction.Personnel parking, like the Labs and the Office functions, can be easily added along the new east/west entry road to the north of the building. February 2018Page 28 Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility Site Recommendation Master Planning Concept This master planning concept places any new facility in the most highly-visible, public-awareness oriented site location The selected facility location at the center of the Mulberry site requires the removal (fillin in) of the existing ornamental pond feature. The site location is bounded at the south and the west by existing service roads, by a service road and loading area to the north and existing site structures to the east. The proposed site facility area is approximately square in shape. With the existing site service road wrapping the facility site location on two sides the “L” facility planning concept is directly responsive to the site. The “L” concept places one leg of the facility, the Office and Administration functions, fronting the main boulevard (public view) to the south with the labs across the primary circulation Corridor to the north. The verti al “leg” of the concept places support spaces to the inside (east facing) and additional Labs to the outside (west facing). The facility configu ation and siting locates services, Shipping/Receiving and the like, at the “inboard” side of the “L” shaped facility, shielding this area from view from the street and public right-of-way (including the nature preserve to the east). Phase 1: WQL Facility In terms of operational and performance priorities it is recommended in a phased implementation plan that a new WQL facility be constructed fi st. As with all site master planning alternati es it is understood that the full build-out of Support spaces will be accounted for in the fi st phase in terms of location, size and orientation. Phase 1 will be oriented such that the Offices Meeting and other personnel spaces as well as some Support spaces will be located on the south, street-facing side. Room for future expansion (Labs, Office and personnel parking) is anticip ted along the secondary north/south Corridor that will serve the Support spaces in Phase 1. Full Buildout: WQL + PCL Facility The full build-out of the facility includes the necessary additional PCL spaces, labs and func ons. In this scenario, part of the initial site development or as part of future phased expansion, the PCL Laboratory spaces and the supporting Office spaces will be included along the outside (western side) of the secondary Corridor; the “verti al” leg of the “L” facility concept. The Support areas (Shipping/Delivery, Locker Rooms, Mechanical Rooms, Storage, etc) are already sized to accommodate both the WQL and the PCL area and personnel needs. If the full build-out is to be executed in two separate phases the proposed “L” facility layout will accommodate expansion with littledisruption to the existing WQL functions and services. Although all new constructio would be executed to the west of the existing WQL facility there could be some limited impact to circulation o the Support spaces along the secondary Corridor. Site access roads, service and emergency vehicle access and turn-arounds are unchanged in either a multi- hased or singular phased construction.Personnel parking, like the Labs and the Office functions, can be easily added along the existing north/south leg of the existing service road that wraps around the west and south sides of the proposed facility. February 2018 Page 29 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study Drake Water Reclamation Facility Site Recommendation Master Planning Concept The largely unconstrained, fl t, greenfield site at the northwest corner of the site, currently fronting on an unimproved dirt access road, is bounded to the west by a road/levee and to the south and east by additional undeveloped property and ponds. It is currently planned that the unimproved access road to the north will be developed in the near future. This new road will connect into a further developed roadway/infrastructure to the west. With a discrete and separate personnel, service and visitor access from the north this site is highly desirable. The available area for development allows any of the several facility concepts to be accommodated here. With the northern entry point being a primary driver, it is recommended that a “bu erfl ” type of concept be utili ed at this location. In this scenario the entry (and Offices will face the new road to the north and the Lab wings will be arranged along both sides of the central Corridor. Support services will be located at the south end of the site. The proposed facility site falls within the current secure site boundary. Although a new secure entry gate could be created coming offthe north access road it is more likely that the secure boundary be relocated to the south suffici t that the “public” side of the facility fall outside of that boundary. Phase 1: WQL Facility As noted in all of the alternati e planning and phasing scenarios, the conditions of the existingWQL demand that any discrete Phase 1 Scope of Work include at a minimum areas suffici t to replace and relocate the WQL here. Although the seemingly adequate existing PCL laboratory facilities can carry on in their nearby existing location there is no net benefit to that proximity in the absence of bringing these laboratory functions together, sharing and leveraging spaces, systems and equipment. The Phase 1 WQL facility will be sited and built out in anticip tionof a potential Phase 2 expansion. As currently envisioned the WQL Office and Labs will be constructed and fi ed up to the north side of the central corridor. The future addition of the PCL spaces and functions, site preparation (grading, infrastructure, parking layouts, etc) will be master planned for the potential full build out. The support spaces area(s) and footprint will be built out to accommodate both Phase 1 and a future Phase 2 expansion. Full Buildout: WQL + PCL Facility With the proposed full build-out of the facility it would include and encompass a new PCL laboratory and supportingspaces. In this scenario, as either part of the initial site development or as part of future phased expansion, the Laboratory spaces and the supportingOffice spaces will be added and expanded upon the Office bar o the north and along the central Corridor on its’ south side. Support areas like Shipping/Delivery, Locker Rooms, Mechanical Rooms, Storage, etc) are already sized to accommodate current and future lab and personnel spaces expansion needs. If the full build-out is to be executed in two separate phases the proposed “bu erfl ” facility layout will accommodate expansion with some disruption to the existing WQL functions and services. All new construction would be executed to the west of the new WQL facility and there could be some limited impact to systems and circulation to the Labs and Support spaces the length of the central Corridor. Site access roads, service and emergency vehicle access and turn-arounds are unchanged in either a multi- hased or singular phased construction.Personnel parking, like the Labs and the Office functions, can be easily added along the new north entry road side of the facility, to the north of the building. February 2018Page 30 Recommendations & Next Steps The recommendations of this Ma ter Plan Report are: • Budget $21 million dollars in the budget for outcome process for the design and construc on of Alterna ve 3A.2, new combined lab located at the DWRF site • Con nue to collaborate with Innosphere the private developer of wet lab space in the City’s Innova on District to re ne the lease cost and compare the costs and bene ts of Alterna ve 3B to 3A.2 • Consider the lease alterna ve or new construc on alterna ve 3A.2 once the bene ts, cost and contrac ng terms are made rm • Address near term PCL and WQL condi on assessment needs The funding for the project should be allocated equally between the Water and Wastewater Utility e terprise funds. The City’s world class visions can be achieved in the near future by planning and budgetingfor outcomes. The City must weigh the benefitsand cost of a leasing opportunity against those of building on City owned property. Additional coordination with the developer regarding lease terms is required to vet the lease alternati e further. The period of analysis is the driving factor for lease versus construction.For a 20- year period, the lease Alternati e is more favorable due to apparent efficienc s in commercial building construction cost refl cted in the lease rate, versus building at a City site. For longer periods of lease (30 years), construction of the City’s facility is more favorable as lease cost are in perpetuity while constructio cost have been paid o . Also the quality of the leased facilities is not known and may not compare well to the quality of the faciliti s constructed on site. The next steps to address the condition of the xisting PCL and QL are: • Develop interim WQL and PCL capital improvements cost to maintain status quo opera on the next 5 to 10 years • Implement interim improvements to the WQL and PCL facili es that will bridge the gap un l a new combined facility is constructed • Develop plan to repurpose the WQL and PCL exis ng facili es on new lab is constructed The PCL and WQL improvement interim plan should prioriti e repairs that will serve the repurposed facilities (ie. Roof replacement, window caulking, drainage improvements) and minimize improvements that are specific for lab use such as casework replacement, and remodeling interior workspace. Hydro Construction is preparing estim tes for near term improvement to the WQL and PCL. WTF Water Quality Lab Interim WTF improvement plan Budget Years 1 & 2 3 & 4 5 & 6 7 & 8 9 & 10 Exterior Caulking $13,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,500 Paver Replacement $0 $12,000 $0 $0 $0 $12,000 Sidewalk R & R $0 $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,000 Site Grading & Landscaping $0 $11,500 $0 $0 $0 $11,500 Roof Patch (yearly)$0 $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 Roof Replace $298,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $298,500 Main Entry Doors Hardware and Weather Stripping $0 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 Other Exterior Doors Paint & Weather Stripping $0 $14,000 $0 $0 $0 $14,000 Interior Door Hardware $14,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,000 Ceiling Repair $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 Ceiling Replacement $0 $58,000 $0 $0 $0 $58,000 Casework (major) $75,000 $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 Gas Piping Removal $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 Cold Storage Improvements (major) $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $80,000 Cold Storage Improvements (minor) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 AHU Replacement $0 $160,000 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 PATC Units $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 Safety Shower Modifi ation $0 $22,000 $0 $0 $0 $22,000 Switch & Outlet Improvements $7,500 $7,500 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 Standby Power $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 UPS Replacement $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 Hazard Materials Abatement $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 Totals per year $603,500 $489,000 $0 $15,000 $15,000 Total $1,122,500 February 2018 Page 31 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study PCL Pollution Control Lab Interim Plan Budget Years Description 1 & 2 3 & 4 5 & 6 7 & 8 9 & 10 Site Grading & Landscaping $ 14,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 14,000 Exterior Caulking $ 12,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 12,000 Roof Patch (yearly) $ 13,000 $ 6,500 $ - $ - $ - $ 19,500 Main Entry Doors Hardware and Weather Stripping $ - $ 28,500 $ - $ - $ - $ 28,500 Vacuum Pump $ - $ 12,500 $ - $ - $ - $ 12,500 Drying Air Unit $ - $ 5,500 $ - $ - $ - $ 5,500 HVAC Ductwork $ - $ 30,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 30,000 Roof Drains $ 8,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 8,500 Backfl w Preventer $ 11,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 11,500 TSS Surge Protectio $ 27,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 27,500 North Sink Drain Lines $ 8,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 8,500 Attic Space ehab $ 45,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 45,000 Fume Hood Fans $ - $ 40,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 40,000 Exhaust Fans $ - $ 25,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 25,000 Tempered Air Fans $ - $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 50,000 Air Exchanges $ - $ 10,500 $ - $ - $ - $ 10,500 HVAC Control System $ - $ - $ 80,000 $ - $ - $ 80,000 Electrical Corrosion $ - $ 14,000 $ 14,000 $ - $ - $ 28,000 Receptacles $ - $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ - $ - $ 15,000 Roof Replace $ - $ - $ 75,000 $ - $ - $ 75,000 Insulation Additi $ - $ - $ - $ 18,500 $ - $ 18,500 Lightning Ground System $ - $ - $ 15,000 $ - $ - $ 15,000 Main Transformer $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 34,000 $ 34,000 Mech/Electrical Room Clearance $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Totals per year $ 140,000 $ 230,000 $ 191,500 $ 18,500 $ 64,000 Total $ 644,000 Regionalization Considerations The existing Water Quality Lab and Pollution Control Lab provides analyti al services for adjacent water and sanitation districts. The level of analyti al service currently provided to outside entitie is included in the proposed Laboratory plan and the baseline footprint. The key assumption is that analyti al services will continue to be o ered to the districts to provide some financial benefit to the City through cost recovery, and support local collaboration related to watershed protection, protection of River and receiving streams, and drinking water quality. The City will share the completed Lab Master plan with the districts and intend to incorporate commitments they may make into the City’s approach going forward, however given the amount of testing and monitoring performed for the districts, it is likely more effici t for the districts to pay a cost for service to the City. No regionalization plan input or financial commitments have been requested of the districts to date. While the districts certainly are appreciati e of the valuable service provided by the City, the commitment to a “world class” vision may exceed their expectations and any facility investment and analyti al service cost will likely be compared to those o ered by commercial labs. The proposed combined WQL and PCL lab concept is considered fl xible enough to adapt to future regionalization oncepts by: • Providing addi onal analy cal equipment, • Increasing the number of staff o run a greater frequency of analysis, and/or • Expanding the laboratory footprint to allow for increase in sample volume and frequency of analysis. Once the City’s Lab conceptual design is finali ed there will be the opportunity to engage potential district stakeholders regarding level of facility investment and to assess cost of analyti al services, and refine the laboratory layout during the preliminary design phase to accommodate regionalization needs February 2018Page 32 DWRF Site: Facility Concept Design February 2018 Page 33 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study Appendix February 2018Page 34 February 2018 Page 35 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study February 2018Page 36 February 2018 Page 37 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study February 2018Page 38 February 2018 Page 39 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study February 2018Page 40 February 2018 Page 41 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study February 2018Page 42 February 2018 Page 43 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study February 2018Page 44 February 2018 Page 45 Water Quality and Pollution Control Labs Master Planning Study February 2018Page 46 February 2018 Page 47 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study February 2018Page 48 February 2018 Page 49 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study February 2018Page 50 February 2018 Page 51 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study February 2018Page 52 February 2018 Page 53 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study February 2018Page 54 February 2018 Page 55 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study February 2018Page 56 February 2018 Page 57 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study February 2018Page 58 February 2018 Page 59 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study February 2018Page 60 February 2018 Page 61 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study February 2018Page 62 February 2018 Page 63 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study February 2018Page 64 February 2018 Page 65 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study February 2018Page 66 February 2018 Page 67 Water Quality and PolluƟon Control Labs Master Planning Study February 2018Page 68 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, INC 1 Fort Collins Lab Facility - Innosphere Alternative Evaluation PREPARED FOR: City of Fort Collins Utilities COPY TO: File PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc. DATE: June 18, 2018 PROJECT NUMBER: 486393 REVISION NO.: 01 Introduction and Objective The City is evaluating a lease to purchase alternative at the Innosphere site for the proposed combined Water Quality and Pollution Control Laboratory (WQL/PCL) versus constructing a new laboratory at the Drake Water Reclamation Facility (DWRF). Construction of a new laboratory at the DWRF has been previously described in the 2018 Water Quality & Pollution Control Labs Master Planning Study (Master Plan). The project objective is to evaluate the Innosphere alternative against the Lab Master Plan recommendation to construct the new combined laboratory facility at the site adjacent to the DWRF and determine the preferred alternative. Key issues addressed in the study include: •Feasibility of the Innosphere Building No. 2 Site, •Feasibility of the Innosphere Building No. 2 architectural concept layout, •Benefit Criteria Weighting and Scoring for decision analysis, and •Cost refinement for a lease to purchase alternative. Innosphere Background The proposed Innosphere Building No. 2 site located at 308 East Vine Drive, Fort Collins Colorado. The site location is adjacent to and west of the existing Innosphere Building No. 1, refer to Exhibit 1. Exhibit 1 – Existing Innosphere Building No 1. Building No. 2 to be located to the left of the current building. FORT COLLINS LAB FACILITY - INNOSPHERE ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION 2 CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, INC. Innosphere is Colorado’s leading technology incubator accelerating the success of high-impact science and technology startup and scaleup companies. Innosphere’s programs focus on ensuring companies are investor-ready, connecting entrepreneurs with experienced advisors and early hires, making introductions to corporate and strategic partners to drive customer traction, exit planning, and accelerating top line revenue growth. Innosphere’s mission is to: Accelerate job creation and entrepreneurship, and create long-term, regional economic impact by offering clients access to a broad network of specialized resources. This is accomplished through efficient, personalized growth strategies that streamline the entrepreneur’s path to success. Innosphere offers: • A history of 20 years of successful operation in Fort Collins. • An existing Building: LEED Platinum, 30,000 square feet, 3-story building, private laboratory space. • Focus on high-growth companies in three major industry categories: 1. Health Innovations (Digital Health, Medical Device, Diagnostics). 2. Software & Hardware (Internet of Things, Sensors, Enterprise Software). 3. Energy & Advanced Materials (Cleantech, Water, Transportation). • Strategic Partnerships with Colorado State, University of Colorado, & Colorado School of Mines. • City of Fort Collins’ support through economic development and Board of Director Stewardship. Innosphere’s current plans are to expand its Fort Collins’s headquarters and add 8,000 sq-ft of wet lab space to grow the biosciences sector. Innosphere also plans to build a 50,000 sq-ft facility in Denver to support the city’s growth as a technology hub and grow the science and technology sectors. Innosphere is open to partnering with the City on a lease-to-own combined laboratory alternative. Innosphere’s additional wet laboratory space needs are near term, as they are planning to design and construct an expanded lab at the site currently to meet the demand. Laboratory Needs Identified in Masterplan Study The City requires a combined lab development of approximately 18,500 sq-ft to serve the City’s Water Quality Lab, Pollution Control Lab, and Watershed Protection group. Approximately 23 staff consisting of manager, supervisors, chemist, and technicians will be located at the Lab. The space programing allocation and conceptual layout from the City’s 2018 Master Plan Study is shown in Exhibit 2. Approximately 7,400 sq-ft will be wet lab space with the remaining 12,100 square feet to provide administrative space, storage, mechanical support and meet building circulation requirements. The DWRF combined lab alternative will serve as the benchmark for the lease purchase alternative comparison. FORT COLLINS LAB FACILITY - INNOSPHERE ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, INC. 3 Exhibit - 2 – PCL/WQL Programmed Space Allocation and Conceptual Plan at the DWRF Site Innosphere Alternative The proposed site is the Innosphere property located on Innosphere site located at 308 East Vine Drive. Exhibit 3 shows the site layout for the existing Building No. 1 and proposed Building No. 2 location based on the 2010 Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative Planning Study. Building No. 2 is planned for a footprint of 7,800 sq-ft, and up to up to 3 stories high, with a gross area of approximately 23,400 sq-ft. Innosphere has indicated that there is the potential to enlarge the Building No. 2 footprint towards Building No. 1, however, for this evaluation the planning submittal criteria and footprint are assumed to be fixed to the submitted criteria. FORT COLLINS LAB FACILITY - INNOSPHERE ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION 4 CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, INC. Exhibit 3 - Site Plan for the Innosphere site Exhibit 4 provides a conceptual building elevation looking in the Southwest direction. Exhibit 4 – Building No. 2 Conceptual Elevation from Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative Planning Study CH2M developed an updated Innosphere floor plan alternative to assess the site and building layout and ability to accommodate the program space needs from the 2018 Master Plan Study. A conceptual layout and floor plans for Building No. 2 are presented to identify how the Fort Collins WQL and PCL could be incorporated in the building while providing adequate space for Innosphere’s wet lab space requirement. The proposed site plan is presented in Exhibit 5. To accommodate the City security requirements a separate entrance is dedicated to the City along with dedicated parking for shipping and receiving and City vehicles. The site layout dictates that employee parking will be east of Building No. 1. An expanded parking lot east of Building No. 1 will be provided by Innosphere as parking is already limited for Building No. 1 occupants. There are approximately 24 covered parking stalls south of Building No. 1 that use Solar panels as a canopy shade structure. There is the potential to have some covered stalls dedicated to the City. FORT COLLINS LAB FACILITY - INNOSPHERE ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, INC. 5 Exhibit 5 – Conceptual Site layout for Innosphere Building No. 2 Alternative The floor plan layout for the building assumes a 3-story layout with a roof top penthouse mechanical area. Exhibits 6 and 7 present the proposed floor plans for the alternative that has shipping and handling on the first level, with lab space and office space on the second and third levels. Circulation corridors are shown on all levels to facilitate egress and access. The Building No. 2 floor plans provide sufficient program space, similar to the DWRF alternative, except for a garage shop facility which are omitted from the Innosphere option due to site constraints. In addition to the space provided in Building No. 2 the City also will have access to the Building No. 1 common amenities such as conference and training rooms. There is a pavilion area between Building No. 1 and 2 that provides bike storage and patio environment, but this may be adjusted depending on final building site layout. The gross area for the space dedicated to the City is approximately 19,000 sq-ft with a net area of 16,000 sq-ft. The conceptual Building No. 2 layout provides about 5,000 sq-ft of space for Innosphere’s wet lab needs which is short of the 8,000 sq-ft desired, but building footprint adjustment may result in additional space in the building if it expands towards Building No. 1. FORT COLLINS LAB FACILITY - INNOSPHERE ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION 6 CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, INC. Exhibit 6 – Innosphere Alternative Level 1 and Level 2 Floor Plans FORT COLLINS LAB FACILITY - INNOSPHERE ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, INC. 7 Exhibit 7 – Innosphere Alternative Level 3 and Roof Top Floor Plans FORT COLLINS LAB FACILITY - INNOSPHERE ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION 8 CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, INC. The programmed space block diagram is shown in Exhibit 8 to provide a graphical representation of the building space allocation for the City and Innosphere. Exhibit 8 – Programmed Space Block Diagram Programmed Space Comparison The programed space comparison between the combined PCL/WQL DWRF Alternative site and the Innosphere Building No. 2 site is presented in Exhibit 9. The available space in the Building No. 2 alternative compares well to the requirements of the Master Plan with a few exceptions including: • Elimination of the 2,100 sq-ft garage /shop at the Innosphere site due to access constraints. • Additional support facility area for mechanical, electrical and plumbing due to multi story configuration • Additional circulation factor is required due to multistory configuration • Addition of elevator and stairwells to accommodate multi story configuration Lab and administrative space remains unchanged from the DWRF alternative however the multistory Building No 2 limits the layout flexibility compared to the DWRF site. Both site alternative design concepts will allow for accreditation through the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation FORT COLLINS LAB FACILITY - INNOSPHERE ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, INC. 9 Program (NELAP) and ISO/IEC 17025 General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories. Exhibit 9 - Programmed Space Comparison between Alternatives The conclusions from the programmed space comparison and site layouts are: • The Innosphere Building No. 2 site and building can be arranged to provide the necessary space for a combined lab which meets the City’s world class vision. • Vehicle storage and parking are not ideal at the Innosphere Building no. 2 site compared to DWRF alternative which has no significant site constraints. • The Innosphere Building No. 2 multistory building limits some of the flexibility of the design when considering access to floors, elevators and circulation requirements. • Employee parking at the Innosphere site is not ideal but similar to other City facilities such as the Utilities Service Center. Non-Monetary Benefit Criteria The non-monetary benefit criteria used in the 2018 Master Plan are modified for the lease alternative evaluation to allow for more distinction between the DWRF and Innosphere’s site alternatives. Following the workshop on April 17, 2018 the following benefit categories were selected by the project team. Benefit Criteria Categories: A. Facility Flexibility B. Desired Work Location C. Proximity to Customers D. Collaborative Opportunities E. Site Layout F. Schedule or Finance Advantage FORT COLLINS LAB FACILITY - INNOSPHERE ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION 10 CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, INC. The benefit categories were defined so that they may be measured objectively. The measurement criteria for each benefit shown along with its primary triple bottom line (TBL) sustainability category is shown below. Non-Monetary Benefit Definition and Measurement A. Facility Flexibility (TBL - Economic) - Configuration of building for interior realignment and/or to meet future analytical needs. Measurement: Low, Medium, High on scale of 1-5. Flexibility Considerations: • Is a 3-story building interior as adaptable as a single story? • Do stairwell, elevator, and mechanical needs limit ideal layout? • Does potential expansion into space to be occupied by Innosphere mitigate concerns? • Does shared space limit flexibility? • Does design through Innosphere's Design Build Contractor delivery limit City input versus the alternate product delivery system (APDS) method? • Is a more commercial building acceptable compared to typical City facility features? B. Desired Work Location (TBL - Social) - Desirable work location, to help attract staff, retain staff, enhance perception of workplace environment. Measurement: Good, Better, Best on scale of 1- 5. Desired Work Location Considerations: • Ease of access to City amenities (Downtown, City Health Center)? • Commute, or traffic concerns? • Access to natural areas, etc.? C. Proximity to Customers (TBL - Environment) Proximity to primary customers including treatment operations and distribution and watershed sampling sites to maximize process coordination, efficiency, minimize travel time, and reduce greenhouse gases. Measurement: Good, Better, Best on scale of 1-5. Proximity Considerations: • Advantage to lab location at a City Treatment Facility and primary customer? • More efficient sampling program start and end location? • Access by external customers (Districts, Watershed Stakeholder, Public)? D. Collaborative Opportunities (TBL - Economic) Ability to provide a synergistic approach with educational institutions and research startups. Influence from Innosphere’s entrepreneurial culture associated with economic growth and development atmosphere. Measurement: Good, Better, Best on scale of 1-5. Collaborative Considerations: • Are collaboration opportunities and culture driven by site location? • Does Innosphere provide tangible collaborative opportunities of interest and benefit to City and Staff? FORT COLLINS LAB FACILITY - INNOSPHERE ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, INC. 11 E. Site Layout (TBL - Environment) Ability of the lab to provide a functional working site layout with parking, storage, sample prep and receiving area. Site Layout Considerations: • Does site layout promote efficiency and quality? • Can Innosphere parking concerns be adequately mitigated by design? F. Schedule or Finance Advantage (TBL - Economic) Time for the laboratory to become operational based upon financing, land acquisition and construction. Schedule and Finance Considerations: • Innosphere delivery is estimated at 2 to 4 years faster than City’s budget for outcome (BFO) process; is 2 to 4 years of operation at the WQL and PCL possible without major investments? • Financing through lease-to-own reduces initial capital outlay, similar to bond. Benefit Weighting Representatives from Utility management, Treatment Plant managers, Lab Supervisors, Chemist and Analyst and Watershed Staff were asked to weigh the benefit criteria based on relative importance and then score each criterion. The average score of the 18 participants are presented in Table 1 below. Table 1- Summary of Criteria weighting Benefit Category Average Weight Rank Median Min Max A. Facility Flexibility 18.06 3 20.00 0.00 30.00 B. Desired Work Location 16.67 4 15.00 5.00 40.00 C. Proximity to Customers 23.33 1 20.00 10.00 70.00 D. Collaborative Opportunities 9.44 6 10.00 0.00 20.00 E. Site Layout 19.72 2 20.00 5.00 35.00 F. Schedule or Finance Advantage 12.78 5 10.00 0.00 30.00 Total 100 The average weighting score indicates that proximity to customers was the most valued criterion followed by site layout and facility flexibility. Collaborative opportunities and schedule/financial advantage were weighted lowest. The average and median scores align well but there are a few examples of highly valued and minimally valued criteria based on the minimum and maximum scoring. A complete list of the City staff weighting and scoring is provided as Attachment 1. Benefit Scoring Following the weighting of the benefit criteria, staff were asked to score each alternative according to the measurement criteria. The results of the scoring are presented in Table 2. The benefit scores are adjusted for a 1-5 scale as presented in Exhibit 10. Exhibit 10 illustrates the benefit scoring of the DWRF (3.31) and Innosphere (3.15) alternatives. The alternatives have relatively close benefit scores but the weighted scores show a slight preference for the DWRF site based on total benefits. The weighting FORT COLLINS LAB FACILITY - INNOSPHERE ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION 12 CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, INC. played an important part of the ranking. The majority (10 out of 18) of the reviewers preferred the Innosphere Alternative over the DWRF Alternative. Table 2 – Benefit Score Summary Benefit Score Summary A. F a c i l i t y F l e x i b i l i t y B. D e s i r e d W o r k L o c a t i o n C. P r o x i m i t y t o C u s t o m e r s D. C o l l a b o r a t i v e Op p o r t u n i t i e s E. S i t e L a y o u t F. S c h e d u l e o r F i n a n c e Ad v a n t a g e Quantitative Scoring Criteria Low Ability = 1 Medium = 3 High = 5 Good = 1 Better = 3 Best = 5 Good = 1 Better = 3 Best = 5 Low = 1 Medium = 3 High = 5 Low = 1 Medium = 3 High = 5 Long = 1 Medium = 3 Short = 5 Benefit Scores 1 Drake WRF 4.4 2.7 3.4 2.3 4.2 1.8 2 Innosphere Building No. 2 2.6 3.6 2.5 4.0 2.7 4.6 Exhibit 10 – Benefit Score Summary Chart 0.79 0.47 0.46 0.60 0.79 0.58 0.21 0.36 0.83 0.54 0.23 0.60 0 1 2 3 4 5 Drake WRF Innosphere Building 2 To t a l B e n e f i t S c o r e Total Benefit Score Higher Score = More Benefit A. Facility Flexibility B. Desired Work Location C. Proximity to Customers D. Collaborative Opportunities E. Site Layout F. Schedule or Finance Advantage FORT COLLINS LAB FACILITY - INNOSPHERE ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, INC. 13 Benefit/Cost Analysis A benefit cost analysis is provided that uses the DWRF cost from the 2018 Master Plan prepared by Hydro Construction and estimated capital and construction cost assumptions provided by Innosphere. An updated cost for the Innosphere design and construction is required based on the 3-story concept to allow for improved cost comparison. Contingencies for the DWRF are factored into Hydro’s line item costs. Contingencies for the Innosphere Building No. 2 were factored in by escalating the 467 $ /sq-ft estimate (provided by Innosphere) to 500 $/sq-ft to account for the 3-story vs one story, then a 25 percent enhanced facility finish allowance was added to upgrade the commercial cost basis to City facility level of service expectations. Table 3 provides a summary of the total project costs. Table 3 – Total project Cost Summary Cost Category DWRF Alternative Innosphere Building No. 2 Alterative Construction Cost from Hydro Construction and Innosphere (Respectively) $14,515,000 $11,309,500 Enhance Scope/ Finish Allowance $2,180,000 $2,437,500 Total Construction Cost Budget $16,695,000 $13,747,000 Engineering and Engineering Services During Design $2,670,000 $975,000 City Project Management Staff $600,000 $600,000 APDS Contractor Consulting During Design $25,000 $0 Project Capital Cost Total $19,990,000 $15,322,000 Both alternatives include cost allowances for demolition and abatement of existing Facilities, moving, and new equipment. The cost advantage of the Innosphere site are due to: • Limited site work as Building no 1 provides the core infrastructure for a developed site, • A fixed building footprint, • A defined architectural concept for building exterior and structural elements (set by building no 1), and • Commercial design-build model that provides reduced construction engineering and services during construction requirements compared to APDS. The commercial design build delivery model may limit input on design by the City compared to the collaborative APDS model that stresses overall project value and quality, compared to cost. Cost must be confirmed by Innosphere as the project progresses as their cost estimates are gross square foot estimates and not as detailed as those developed by Hydro Construction. However, Innosphere costs are they are based on historical cost numbers for Building No. 1 which is an attractive facility. The benefit cost summary is illustrated in Exhibit 11. FORT COLLINS LAB FACILITY - INNOSPHERE ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION 14 CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, INC. Exhibit 11 – Benefit/Cost Analysis Summary The benefit and cost conclusions are: • The benefit cost ratio is highest for the Innosphere Building No. 2 Alternative which makes this alternative the potential best value, but still has some uncertainty (cost, schedule, finance). • Conceptual cost estimate is significantly lower for the Innosphere Building No. 2Alternative. This estimate must be formally vetted with Innosphere design-build contractor. • City financing alternatives may change the overall value of bond vs lease-to-own terms based on rates and financing periods. • The collaborative benefits of Innosphere Building No. 2 Alternative are speculative and not highly prioritized by staff based on benefit ranking. • DWRF scored highest in the top 3 benefit criteria categories, should the City compromise on these benefit criteria categories for a long-term World Class lab? The City should engage Innosphere to determine if there is opportunity for project refinements as Innosphere plans to move forward with the 8,000 sq-ft building phase in the near future. Project timing may be a fatal flaw if Innosphere’s schedule prohibits engagement, but recent conversation indicate that Innosphere still has interest in the joint project. Recommendation and Next Steps We recommend that the City advance the Innosphere Alternative to confirm cost and schedule assumptions given the relatively close benefits score and benefit cost ratio of each alternative considered. There will be a need to re-evaluate cost benefits once cost, schedule and finance terms are 2.91 3.62 $0 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Drake WRF Innosphere Building No. 2 To t a l P r o j e c t C o s t To t a l B e n e f i t S c o r e , O v e r a l l B e n e f i t / C o s t R a t i o Overall Benefit-Cost Summary Higher Total Benefit-Cost Score = Better Benefit:Cost Ratio A. Facility Flexibility B. Desired Work Location C. Proximity to Customers D. Collaborative Opportunities E. Site Layout F. Schedule or Finance Advantage Benefit /Total Project Cost Ratio Project Capital Cost FORT COLLINS LAB FACILITY - INNOSPHERE ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, INC. 15 better defined. Both alternatives provide similar total benefits, but there are trade-offs between the sites and differences in delivery model that need to be better understood. Both sites will require coordination with the City building department and code compliance review of the design as part of the planning and approval process. The following next steps are necessary should the City wish to proceed with further evaluation. 1) If the City prefers to be at the Innosphere site, the following are required: a) Negotiate lease-to-purchase contract terms b) Confirm delivery model (Design Build with Innosphere’s Contractor/Architect team with City input during design and construction) c) Firm up City finance options d) Advance the conceptual layout to address the City’s main concerns: i) Building vehicle access, staff parking, and bulk gas storage, ii) Building code issues related to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access, elevator use for sample and reagent transport, and HVAC for multistory building, e) Confirm construction cost, lease to purchase rates, and applicable fees f) Confirm critical decision time frame that meets Innosphere and City planning needs. 2) If the City prefers the DWRF site the following is required: a) Perform 30 percent design and update budget through Alternate Product Delivery System (APDS) b) Advance project through budget-for-outcome (BFO) process c) Confirm schedule and invest in existing WQL and PCL as necessary to bridge facility needs. FORT COLLINS LAB FACILITY - INNOSPHERE ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, INC. Attachment – 1 Innosphere Conceptual Site and Floor Plans BUILDING # 1 BUILDING # 2 BIKE PARKING PAVILION N EXISTING SITE PLAN 308 EAST VINE DR, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO CITY OF FORT COLLINS : LABORATORY LEASE ALTERNATIVE MAY 11, 2018 BUILDING # 1 BUILDING # 2 BIKE PARKING PAVILION CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAB ENTRY INNOSHPERE ENTRY DESIGNATED SAMPLE DELIVERY PARKING N NEW SITE PLAN CITY OF FORT COLLINS : LABORATORY LEASE ALTERNATIVE MAY 11, 2018 GRAPHIC LEGEND CIRCULATION SUPPORT 60 ' - 0 " 130' - 0" INNOSPHERE INNOSPHERE 5060 SF STAIR 200 SF ELEVATOR 100 SF DATA/TELE COM 100 SF ELECTRICAL CLOSET 40 SF RESTROOM 407 SF STORAGE 207 SF SAMPLING AND RECEIVING 400 SF CHEMICAL GAS STORAGE 300 SF STAIR 200 SF CIRCULATION 233 SF LOBBY 253 SF G F E D C B A 1 2 3 20' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"20' - 0" 29 ' - 0 " 29 ' - 0 " GRAPHIC LEGEND CIRCULATION SUPPORT 130' - 0" 60 ' - 0 " OFFICES LABS LABS 3534 SF STAIR 200 SF ELEVATOR 100 SF DATA/TELE COM 100 SF ELECTRICAL CLOSET 40 SF RESTROOM 407 SF OFFICES 1300 SF STORAGE 308 SF STAIR 200 SF CIRCULATION 940 SF LOCKER ROOM 188 SF SHAFT 100 SF LOCKER ROOM 188 SF G F E D C B A 1 2 3 20' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"20' - 0" 29 ' - 0 " 29 ' - 0 " CITY OF FORT COLLINS : LABORATORY LEASE ALTERNATIVE MAY 11, 2018 1" = 30'-0"1 LEVEL_1 1" = 30'-0"2 LEVEL_2 GRAPHIC LEGEND CIRCULATION SUPPORT OFFICES 130' - 0" 60 ' - 0 " LABS LABS 3534 SF OFFICES 1400 SF STAIR 200 SF SHAFT 100 SF DATA/TELE COM 100 SF ELEVATOR 100 SF ELECTRICAL CLOSET 40 SF RESTROOM 407 SF STAIR 200 SF STORAGE 308 SF CIRCULATION 940 SF LABS 282 SF G F E D C B A 1 2 3 20' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"20' - 0" 29 ' - 0 " 29 ' - 0 " GRAPHIC LEGEND MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE STAIR 200 SF ELEVATOR 100 SF SHAFT 100 SF MECHANICAL ROOM 1120 SF STORAGE 344 SF ROOF G F 1 2 3 20' - 0" 29 ' - 0 " 29 ' - 0 " CITY OF FORT COLLINS : LABORATORY LEASE ALTERNATIVE MAY 11, 2018 1" = 30'-0"1 LEVEL_3 1" = 30'-0"2 ROOF_PLAN LABS OFFICES SUPPORT INNOSHPERE GROSS AREA OF LABORATORY LEASE ALTERNATIVE + + + =19037 SF CITY OF FORT COLLINS : LABORATORY LEASE ALTERNATIVE MAY 11, 2018 LABS LABS LABS OFFICES OFFICES SAMPLING & CHEM GAS STORAGE MECH/ELEC/TELE/SHAFT TOILET ROOMS STORAGE STAIRS & ELEVATORS 7350 SF 2700 SF 5990 SF LABS OFFICES SUPPORT TOTAL AREA 16040 SF CITY OF FORT COLLINS : LABORATORY LEASE ALTERNATIVE MAY 11, 2018 FORT COLLINS LAB FACILITY - INNOSPHERE ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, INC. Attachment – 2 Detailed Non-Monetary Benefit Weighting & Scoring Summary Category/Reviewer A. Facility Flexibility 15 20 20 0 25 10 30 30 15 5 10 30 30 25 15 20 20 5 18.06 20.00 0.00 30.00 B. Desired Work Location 15 15 20 10 5 25 20 20 10 30 40 5 10 5 5 10 25 30 16.67 15.00 5.00 40.00 C. Proximity to Customers 15 15 10 70 30 20 20 20 25 20 20 20 15 10 50 30 10 20 23.33 20.00 10.00 70.00 D. Collaborative Opportunities 10 20 10 0 5 15 5 10 20 10 5 5 5 15 5 10 0 20 9.44 10.00 0.00 20.00 E. Site Layout 20 10 20 20 25 10 20 10 20 5 20 35 30 25 20 20 35 10 19.72 20.00 5.00 35.00 F. Schedule or Finance Advantage 25 20 20 0 10 20 5 10 10 30 5 5 10 20 5 10 10 15 12.78 10.00 0.00 30.00 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100.00 Category/Reviewer A. Facility Flexibility 5 3 5 3 5 3 4 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 5 4.39 5.00 3.00 5.00 79.2 B. Desired Work Location 3 1 1 3 5 3 2 3 5 1 1 1 5 3 5 5 1 1 2.72 3.00 1.00 5.00 45.4 C. Proximity to Customers 3 1 3 5 5 3 3 3 5 1 3 1 5 5 5 5 3 3 3.44 3.00 1.00 5.00 80.4 D. Collaborative Opportunities 1 1 3 3 3 1 2 1 3 1 5 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 2.28 3.00 1.00 5.00 21.5 E. Site Layout 5 3 5 4 5 3 5 3 5 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 3 5 4.17 5.00 3.00 5.00 82.2 F. Schedule or Finance Advantage 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 2 1 3 1.78 1.00 1.00 3.00 22.7 Total 18 10 18 21 26 14 18 18 24 12 18 12 24 20 26 25 14 20 18.78 331 Category/Reviewer A. Facility Flexibility 3 1 3 3 1 5 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 4 2 3 2.61 3.00 1.00 5.00 47.15 B. Desired Work Location 5 3 5 3 1 5 5 3 3 5 5 1 1 5 1 3 5 5 3.56 4.00 1.00 5.00 59.26 C. Proximity to Customers 3 1 5 1 1 5 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 5 2.50 3.00 1.00 5.00 58.33 D. Collaborative Opportunities 5 5 5 3 5 5 4 1 5 5 1 3 5 5 3 4 3 5 4.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 37.78 E. Site Layout 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 5 3 3 2.72 3.00 1.00 5.00 53.69 F. Schedule or Finance Advantage 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 3 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 4 5 5 4.61 5.00 3.00 5.00 58.92 Total 24 18 26 17 16 28 20 14 18 24 20 14 18 24 12 21 20 26 20.00 315 Indv. Weighted Total Alt1- Drake 300 160 300 460 470 230 340 340 420 130 240 240 460 350 480 450 230 270 Indv. Weighted Total Alt2 - Innosphere 400 310 420 160 210 480 300 260 290 440 380 250 280 380 130 320 340 470 Indvidual Preference by Weighted score Innosphere Innosphere Innosphere Drake Drake Innosphere Drake Drake Drake Innosphere Innosphere Innosphere Drake Innosphere Drake Drake Innosphere Innosphere MaxManagement Treatment Managers Lab Analyst/Chemist/Supervisors Watershed Min Lab Analyst/Chemist/Supervisors Watershed Score Alt 2 Innosphere Average Median Median Min Max Score Alt 1 DWRF Average Median Min MaxManagement Treatment Managers Management Treatment Managers Lab Analyst/Chemist/Supervisors Watershed Weight Average FORT COLLINS LAB FACILITY - INNOSPHERE ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, INC. Attachment – 3 Innosphere Response to Information Request 320 East Vine Drive Suite 101, Fort Collins, CO 80524 To: Al Paquet, PE CH2M From: Mike Freeman, Innosphere, CEO Date: March 28, 2018 Re: City of Fort Collins Utilities and Innosphere Lab Space: Partnership Proposal This memo is a follow-up from initial meetings between the City of Fort Collins Utilities staff and Innosphere, Colorado’s leading high-tech incubator, regarding a potential collaboration to build a joint facility which would include wet lab space for Innosphere and wet lab space with office to accommodate the City of Fort Collins Utilities need for a new water analytics lab. The vision for this collaboration is in part due to a project in Denver that has been announced between Denver Water and Colorado State University (CSU) to build a water analytics center on the National Western Complex grounds. While this project is several years away from reality, the concept sparked the idea of a collaboration with Fort Collins Utilities to accomplish many of the same objectives. Innosphere is a long-standing partner of the City of Fort Collins and CSU. Innosphere’s incubation program supports science and technology startup and scaleup companies from across the Front Range. Vision for the collaboration includes the following high-level goals: 1.Build a water innovation hub that would house City of Fort Collins Utilities operations 2.Leverage the proximity of the City utilities staff to selectively support water analytics and water quality related startup companies with access to their staff’s insight 3.Further the City as a Platform concept and provide a means for the Innovate Fort Collins program to have a water-related focus point 4.Take advantage of construction cost synergies to provide a more cost-effective solution for both the City and Innosphere Questions posed of Innosphere: Innosphere’s goal is to facilitate a joint project with the City of Fort Collins. We are not a real estate organization, and believe our long-term interests around a collaboration with the City is the single most important motivation to try and find a partnership solution. INNOSPHERE MEMO 2 Accelerating the success of Colorado’s high-tech startups and scaleups Group One Questions: Innosphere’s recommendation is to pursue a lease-to-own option. Given we are not a real estate organization and not looking for a real estate return on investment, the objective is to find a balanced financing option that accommodates both parties’ interests. A lease-to-own option makes sense as Innosphere is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, and both Innosphere and the City have long-term goals of sustaining business operations over an extended period. For this reason, we don’t see a long-term lease option as being optimal for the City. We do see a lease- to-own option being advantageous for the City as it avoids up front potential bonding or other financing hurdles for the capital improvements. Innosphere’s current gross lease rate for our lab space is $30 sq/ft per year (this includes all costs except for internet/phone lines and individual office cleaning). Innosphere proposes we use our current lease rate as the starting point for discussion and any cost adjustments can be based on future detailed cost estimates. This rate is inclusive of all maintenance and operation costs including utilities, HVAC, security systems, and other major building systems. Tenant improvement allowances have not been considered at this point. Innosphere is open to discussion about tenant improvements and expectations of the City. Current rates include the cleaning of common areas but not individual offices. It is expected that the City would utilize Innosphere’s existing custodial service provider for the cleaning of common areas, or if desired, contract with another cleaning company (in this case, gross lease rate would be reduced to reflect the City’s direct procurement of cleaning services). Group Two Questions: Innosphere envisions an expansion facility similar to the existing facility. The building features envisioned in the expansion are labs and office space for City staff, in addition to lab space for Innosphere client companies. At this point, we do not see any extraordinary features being planned into the facility. The site is approved for a three story 23,400 gross sq/ft facility. There appears to be some ability to expand the floor plate to better maximize the building site. Discussions around this idea can be broached in future meetings. Innosphere had a professional estimator develop a budget for one floor of wet lab space with the labs outfitted with cabinets, hoods, etc. That budget is $3.6M or $461sq/ft. This includes contingency for the builder and Innosphere and all other direct costs. Additional cost estimates need to be made to calculate second floor lab and third floor office. Building security and access is envisioned to be that the facility would not have general public access (employee only). General public inquiries and walk-in traffic would be routed to the existing facility front desk which is staffed throughout the work day. When appropriate, visitors to the building would be escorted to the expansion facility by a current tenant or City staff. The existing Innosphere facility has a combination of keyed doors and card access. Labs are accessed through key readers. External access doors are card access. In the new facility, it’s envisioned that the second and third floors would be accessible only to City employees. 3 Accelerating the success of Colorado’s high-tech startups and scaleups Specialized security needs are easily planned during design and construction phases. Currently, there are no security cameras in use. It is envisioned that City staff would utilize the large meeting/conference rooms in the main building. These rooms are shared spaces and scheduled by tenants. These meeting rooms can hold up to 130 people and are ideal for staff and community meetings. Group Three Questions: One challenge of the site will be parking. There are two thoughts on accommodating parking: 1.Innosphere improves the area located east of the building for additional parking. Innosphere has a cross access parking agreement with the property owner. 2.City evaluates increasing the parking lot size of the funded kayak park located south of the Innosphere site. More discussion is needed about parking options. Group Four Questions: Adjacent property to Innosphere is zoned commercial and would not allow for uses that would contaminate the City labs or spaces. Shared facilities such as the large conference rooms are scheduled on a first come basis. Group Five Questions: Innosphere believes there are significant benefits in this partnership. Facility related benefits: 1.Providing the City with a lease-to-own option to reduce upfront capex expenses can be a significant alternative to typical capital financing. 2.The Innosphere site is fully entitled which will speed up the overall development, with the exception of detailed building design needing approval. 3.Common spaces would be available to the City to facilitate community meetings and stakeholder meetings in a highly desirable facility that is easily accessible. 4.The close proximity to the Poudre River and pending river improvements can be a benefit to City Utilities. 5.Partnering to promote a “Water Innovation Center” would build the City’s innovation brand and provide practical access to innovative Innosphere Client Companies in the high-tech water industry. Water Fund Prioritization & Funding Schedule Priority Alternative Name Relative Weight Division 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Future 1 Water Treatment Facility Replacement Program 4.58 Water Production 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 2 Water Quality Lab Remodel 3.85 Environmental Services 1,300,000$ 1,300,000$ 10,000,000$ 3 Azalea Waterline Repairs 3.64 Water Distribution 450,000$ 4 Water System Replacement Master Plan Priority 1 3.42 Water Distribution 1,900,000$ 5 Water System Replacement Master Plan Priority 2 3.28 Water Distribution 1,350,000$ 6 Water Distribution System Replacement 3.26 Water Distribution 1,000,000$ 1,110,000$ 1,825,000$ 2,173,000$ 3,300,000$ 3,515,000$ 5,211,000$ 4,651,000$ 2,351,000$ 4,751,000$ 6,451,000$ 7 Water Meter Replacement Program Water Distribution 800,000$ 800,000$ 800,000$ 800,000$ 800,000$ 800,000$ 800,000$ 800,000$ 800,000$ 800,000$ 800,000$ 8 Water System Replacement Master Plan Priority 3 3.18 Water Distribution 1,600,000$ 9 Water Quality Lab Instrumentation Replacement Program 3.16 Environmental Services 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 10 Water System Replacement Master Plan Priority 4 3.03 Water Distribution 3,000,000$ 11 24" Poudre Pipeline Replacement Evaluation & Installation 2.93 Water Production 800,000$ 10,921,000$ 12 Water System Replacement Master Plan Priority 5 2.93 Water Distribution 2,300,000$ 13 Water System Replacement Master Plan Priority 6 2.91 Water Distribution 2,000,000$ 14 Water System Replacement Master Plan Priority 7 2.8 Water Distribution 1,300,000$ 15 Water System Replacement Master Plan Priority 8 2.79 Water Distribution 1,800,000$ 16 Sodium Hypochlorite On-site Generation 2.71 Water Production 10,982,000$ 17 Cathodic Protection - Northeast Water Transmission Main 2.69 Water Distribution 2,280,000$ 18 Finished Water Treated Storage 2.66 Water Production 13,888,000$ 19 PAC Contact Time Improvements 2.61 Water Production 688,000$ 20 Cathodic Protection - Trans & Dist Mains 2.53 Water Distribution 312,000$ 510,000$ 357,000$ 21 Poudre Pipeline blowoff installation, valve replacement and slope stabilization.2.52 Water Production 569,000$ 22 Water System Replacement Master Plan Priority 9 2.41 Water Distribution 4,100,000$ 23 Finished Water Metering 2.41 Water Production 357,000$ 24 Water System Replacement Master Plan Priority 10 2.32 Water Distribution 1,700,000$ 25 Sludge (Solids) Drying Pad 2.32 Water Production 1,346,000$ 26 East Backwash Waste Pond Liner 1.95 Water Production 1,535,000$ 27 Horsetooth Reservoir Second Outlet 1.91 Water Production 4,680,000$ 28 HT Reservoir PVP Connection 1.84 Water Production 560,000$ 29 Solar Power Project 1.46 Water Production 1,883,000$ 30 Finished Water Reservoir Bypass 1.46 Water Production 530,000$ 31 Solids Drying Lagoons Liner 1.38 Water Production 2,395,000$ 32 Rapid Drain Recycle Pond Liner 1.26 Water Production 2,049,000$ 33 Granular Activated Carbon Filters 0 Water Production 72,700,000$ 34 Ozone\BAC 0 Water Production 26,900,000$ 35 UV Disinfection 0 Water Production 17,200,000$ 36 Water Quality/Pollution Control Master Plan Environmental Services 110,000$ WR 1 Water Supply Development MINOR CAPITAL Water Resources 500,000$ 500,000$ 135,000$ 140,000$ 145,000$ 151,000$ 157,000$ 163,000$ 169,000$ 176,000$ 183,000$ WR 2 Halligan Reservoir Enlargement Project (Prior Appropriations)Water Resources 428,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,900,000$ 3,800,000$ 2,900,000$ 5,800,000$ 20,500,000$ 19,000,000$ -$ -$ WR 3 ELC Diversion Structure Water Resources 1,250,000$ Unranked Filter to Waste Water Production 2,000,000$ Unranked Solids Handling - Centrifuge Water Production 8,000,000$ Unranked Water Supply Vulnerability Assessment Water Resources 250,000$ 100,000$ Unranked Asset Register and Work Order Management System Water Fund 275,000$ 160,000$ Unranked Customer Information Billing System Water Fund 637,000$ Unranked Underground Electrical Power Supply Water Production 650,000$ 650,000$ Unranked Watershed Protection Water Resources 80,000$ 80,000$ Division 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Future Environmental Services 1,460,000$ 1,350,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 10,050,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ -$ Water Distribution 4,150,000$ 5,540,000$ 4,537,000$ 6,483,000$ 6,757,000$ 6,315,000$ 7,311,000$ 7,251,000$ 7,251,000$ 7,251,000$ 7,251,000$ Water Fund Service Area - wide 275,000$ 797,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Water Production 2,450,000$ 1,650,000$ 3,174,000$ 2,535,000$ 1,000,000$ 16,771,000$ 3,395,000$ 14,031,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ ####### Water Resources 1,258,000$ 2,680,000$ 3,035,000$ 3,940,000$ 4,295,000$ 5,951,000$ 20,657,000$ 19,163,000$ 169,000$ 176,000$ 183,000$ indicates changes made Total 9,593,000$ 12,017,000$ 10,796,000$ 13,008,000$ 22,102,000$ 29,087,000$ 31,413,000$ 40,495,000$ 8,470,000$ 8,477,000$ 152,711,000$ Wastewater Fund Prioritization & Funding Schedule Number Project Name Division Relative Weight 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Future 1 DWRF Digester Lid Replacements (612)Water Reclamation 3.37 2,100,000$ 2 Pollution Control Lab Instrumentation Replacement Program Environmental Services 3.25 50,000$ 30,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 3 WRF Master Plan Update Water Reclamation 3.19 500,000$ 4 DWRF Sidestream Treatment Water Reclamation 3.18 4,300,000$ 5 Pollution Control Lab "Clean Room" Improvements MINOR CAPITAL Environmental Services 2.93 70,000$ 6 DWRF Carbon Addition Improvements Water Reclamation 2.77 370,000 7 DWRF Dewatering Improvements Water Reclamation 2.64 2,135,000$ 2,135,000$ 8 Collection System Replacement Wastewater Collection 2.56 1,156,000$ 1,093,000$ 1,452,000$ 1,598,000$ 1,757,000$ 1,933,000$ 2,126,000$ 2,339,000$ 2,573,000$ 2,830,000$ 3,113,000$ 9 Collection System CIPP Wastewater Collection 2.56 450,000$ 450,000$ 600,000$ 600,000$ 600,000$ 600,000$ 600,000$ 600,000$ 600,000$ 600,000$ 600,000$ 10 Collection System - Old Town Sewer Main Replacement - Zone 19 Wastewater Collection 2.55 11 Collection System I&I Study Wastewater Collection 2.43 200,000$ 12 WRF Replacement Program 2017 Water Reclamation 2.42 1,000,000$ 13 Collection System - Old Town Sewer Main Replacement - Zone 21 Wastewater Collection 2.41 1,100,000$ 14 DWRF Bar Screen/Wash Press replacement Water Reclamation 2.33 2,350,000$ 15 Collection System - Old Town Sewer Main Replacement - Zone 8 Wastewater Collection 2.32 800,000$ 16 Collection System - Old Town Sewer Main Replacement - Zone 48 Wastewater Collection 2.31 500,000$ 17 MWRF Carbon Addition Improvements Water Reclamation 2.29 333,000$ 18 WRF Replacement Program 2018 Water Reclamation 2.28 1,000,000$ 19 Collection System - Old Town Sewer Main Replacement - Zone 24 Wastewater Collection 2.26 800,000 20 Collection System - Sewer Hydraulic Model Support MINOR CAPITAL Wastewater Collection 2.25 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 21 Collection System - Old Town Sewer Main Replacement - Zone 2 Wastewater Collection 2.18 500,000$ 22 DWRF Sludge Strain Press Redundancy Water Reclamation 2.14 720,000$ 800,000$ 23 Collection System - Old Town Sewer Main Replacement - Zone 45 Wastewater Collection 2.1 900,000$ 24 WRF Replacement Program 2019 Water Reclamation 2.06 1,000,000$ 25 MWRF Future Phosphorus Regulatory Improvements (Filters & Pumps)Water Reclamation 2.04 8,240,000$ 26 Collection System - Old Town Sewer Main Replacement - Zone 0 Wastewater Collection 2.03 500,000$ 27 DWRF Future North Process Train Nitrogen Regulatory Improvements Water Reclamation 2 31,950,000 28 MWRF - Future Nitrogen Regulatory Improvements (ASB Expansion)Water Reclamation 1.96 4,635,000$ 29 Collection System - Septic System Elimination Master Plan Wastewater Collection 1.95 30 DWRF Future Phosphorus Regulatory Improvements Water Reclamation 1.94 32,220,000 31 WRF Replacement Program 2020 Water Reclamation 1.9 1,000,000$ 32 Collection System - Old Town Sewer Main Replacement - Zone 18 Wastewater Collection 1.85 400,000$ 33 MSR Stock Well, Fence, Road, Culvert Replacements MINOR CAPITAL Water Reclamation 1.8 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 34 WRF Replacement Program 2021 Water Reclamation 1.74 1,000,000$ 35 Collection System - Old Town Sewer Main Replacement - ZOne 3 Wastewater Collection 1.73 500,000$ 36 DWRF Future South Process Train Nitrogen Regulatory Improvements Water Reclamation 1.72 8,450,000 37 WRF Replacement Program 2022 Water Reclamation 1.7 1,000,000$ 38 MSR - Apron for Drying Pad Pond Water Reclamation 1.67 209,500$ 39 MSR - Equipment Storage Facility Water Reclamation 1.56 838,000$ 40 MSR - Jordon Residence Demo Water Reclamation 1.51 111,000$ 41 DWRF Replace South Process Train Final Clarifier Mechanisms Water Reclamation 1.5 1,070,000$ 42 DWRF - Food Waste Receiving Mods Water Reclamation 1.31 120,000$ 43 DWRF Replace Primary Pump Station Boilers and Controls Water Reclamation 1.06 1,200,000$ 44 MWRF House Deconstruction Water Reclamation 1.04 93,000$ 45 Water Quality/Pollution Control Master Plan Environmental Services 100,000$ 10,000,000$ 46 Reserve Funding for Anticipated Regulatory Projects*Water Reclamation 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ Unranked Asset Register and Work Order Management System Wastewater Fund 1.04 275,000$ 160,000$ Unranked Biogas to Co-Gen Project Supplemental Funding Water Reclamation 440,000$ Unranked Customer Information Billing System Wastewater Fund 507,000$ Environmental Services 220,000$ 30,000$ 50,000$ 10,050,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ Wastewater Collection 1,856,000$ 1,593,000$ 3,202,000$ 3,048,000$ 2,907,000$ 3,383,000$ 3,276,000$ 3,889,000$ 4,123,000$ 3,980,000$ 3,763,000$ Wastewater Fund 275,000$ 667,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Water Reclamation 6,845,000$ 12,385,000$ 5,733,000$ 3,540,000$ 3,050,000$ 3,050,000$ 2,050,000$ 2,050,000$ 2,259,500$ 5,362,000$ 87,545,000$ Total 9,196,000$ 14,675,000$ 8,985,000$ 16,638,000$ 6,007,000$ 6,483,000$ 5,376,000$ 5,989,000$ 6,432,500$ 9,392,000$ 91,358,000$ COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Staff: Ken Mannon, Operation Services Director Stu Reeve, Energy Manager Greg Yeager, Deputy Chief Jerrod Kinsman, Lieutenant Brian Hergott, Project Manager Date: January 28, 2019 SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: Police Regional Training Facility - LEED Certification EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to request City Council Finance approve a partial waiver of LEED certification requirements for the new Police Regional Training Campus (Training Campus). In 2006, City Council adopted resolution 2006-096 which establishes a goal for all new construction projects of 5,000 square feet or more to achieve LEED Gold certification, except under limited circumstances. The City of Loveland, which is an equal partner in the Training Campus, does not have any specific LEED requirements for construction projects. City staff is requesting a partial LEED waiver in an effort to partner with Loveland. Per Section 3 of Resolution 2006-096, City staff is requesting approval to prioritize budget dollars for energy efficiency items and look to design, construct and certify the Admin/Classroom building only to the highest LEED certification practical. The remainder of the project, an indoor firing range, a driving track, and a skid/skills pad, would follow LEED principles, and prioritize energy efficiencies but not be included in the LEED certification boundary. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The design of the Training Campus has been underway for over a year and Fort Collins and Loveland have been discussing LEED certification for several months. The Training Campus is expected to include an administration/classroom building, an indoor firing range, a driving track, and a skid/skills pad. In 2006, City Council adopted resolution 2006- 096 which establishes a goal for all new construction projects of 5,000 square feet or more to achieve LEED Gold certification except in limited circumstances, which include if it is not technically or economically feasible to meet the LEED Gold standard. The City of Loveland is an equal partner in the design, construction and operation of the Training Campus, and both cities will share the costs equally. Loveland does not have any LEED requirements for its new construction projects, but they do support building efficiencies where there is a return on investment (ROI) of 10 years or less. City staff is requesting approval to prioritize budget dollars for energy efficiency items for the entire project, but only design, construct and certify the Admin/Classroom building to the highest LEED certification practical. The remainder of the project would follow LEED principles, and prioritize energy efficiencies but not be included in the certification boundary or process. The site location of this project will minimize the LEED credits available and if we include the indoor firing range in the LEED certification boundary it would make it impossible to achieve LEED Gold and very difficult to achieve LEED Silver. Indoor firing ranges add many challenges with the requirement of constant air exchanges for personnel safety, the desire to eliminate natural lighting which causes glare or shadows on targets, eliminate windows for views to the outdoors, and the need to use very specific materials is problematic to achieve recyclable or low VOC requirements. These required items for LEED certification would certainly bring down the certification level for the Admin/Classroom building and firing range and will add significant cost impacts to an already tight budget. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED • Does Council Finance support continued collaboration with Loveland to only LEED Certify the Admin/Classroom and achieve the highest certification practical? • Does Council Finance support the continued collaboration with Loveland to waive the LEED Certification for the Firing range, but incorporate many Green Building Principals:  Tight Envelope  High Efficient Mechanical Systems  High Efficient Electrical Systems  Incorporate Solar PV design and include the infrastructure for future PV System help offset building energy cost • Does Council Finance support the continued collaboration with Loveland to waive the LEED Certification for the majority of the project site? ATTACHMENTS • Presentation Slides 1 Police Reginal Training Center (PRTC) January 28, 2019 Council Finance Meeting 2 PRTC Site Location -West side of Ft Collins-Loveland Airport -Access is off Boyd Lake Road -44 Acre Site -Utility connections are at the development across Boyd Lake Rd. 3 PRTC Site Plan -Phase I Site Challenges affecting Budget -Water and Sewer connections across Boyd Lake Road -Four borings required, two under railroad, two under Boyd Lake Rd -Soil requires 10’ over-ex at buildings -Soil requires 4’ over-ex at track & skills pad -Soil requires Fly ash 12” depth at all paving areas Phase I minimum to meet Scope & Budget -21 Lane -50 YD Firing Range with tactical vehicle access -Range support (Armor, storage, Etc.) -2 –900 SF Classrooms, expandable to one large room -Admin area for receptionist & site manager -1.4 Mile Driving Track -400 x 400 Skills Pad -Parking Lot -Restrooms 4 PRTC Phase I Site Plan & Cost Estimated Cost -Site Development (Grading, Soil, Utilities, etc) $2.1M -Building Construction (23,000 SF)$5.9M ($262/SF) -Parking, Fencing, Gates $0.8M -Track Construction (1.4 miles)$1.6M ($8/SF) -Skills Pad Construction (160,000 SF)$1.4M ($8/SF) -GC Gen Conditions, Bonds, Insurance, Etc.$1.4M -Soft Cost (Design, Utility Tap Fees, Easements, $3.2M Permits, APP, FF&E, Mat’l Testing, Etc.) -LEED (Design, Cx, Modeling, Mat’ls, Equip. PV) $0.6M Admin/Classrooms -Energy Efficiencies above code $0.4M Firing Range -Contingency & Escalation $1.1M Total $18.5M Bid Alternates -Project Team removed portions of driving track and skills pad to fund current phase I scope. Loveland is applying for a $1M DOLA grant which could fund the two alternates. Application is being submitted in April. 5 Challenges with Certifying Firing Ranges Firing ranges are not typically LEED Compatible for these reasons 1. Stand alone firing ranges typically do not meet the LEED FTE Requirement 2. Firing Ranges Require 15 times the air exchanges of a typical office building Require higher energy use with Merv filtering to capture particles Require higher percentage of fresh outside make up air Allow temperatures ranges from 50 –80 degrees, but this does not meet thermal comfort LEED credit. Are not conducive to Demand Response energy use reduction Require specific materials which may not have necessary recyclable content Require specific materials which may not meet the low VOC requirement Exclude Daylight due to bullet resistant enclosure requirement and need for light control Windows for views come a very high cost and counter range requirements 3. Likely to lose 13+ LEED Credits if we include the Firing Range in our LEED boundary. 6 LEEDv4 Credit Comparison Admin/Classroom Only 1 of 16 Location & Transportation 2 of 10 Sustainable Sites 5 of 11 Water Efficiency 25 of 33 Energy & Atmosphere 4 of 13 Materials & Resources 11 of 16 Indoor Environment Quality 4 of 6 Innovation Credits 2 of 4 Regional Credits 55 of 110 * 60 credits needed for LEED Gold LEED Gold Challenged -Very few site credits with location -Will need to pursue most other credits to achieve LEED Gold -Will need innovation credits for this project Admin/Classrooms & Firing Range 1 of 16 Location & Transportation 2 of 10 Sustainable Sites 4 of 11 Water Efficiency 21 of 33 Energy & Atmosphere 3 of 13 Materials & Resources 4 of 16 Indoor Environment Quality 4 of 6 Innovation Credits 1 of 4 Regional Credits 42 of 110 * 50 Credits needed for LEED Silver * 40 Credits needed for Certified LEED Silver Challenged -Lose Energy Credits -Lose Material Credits -Lose Thermal Comfort Credit -Lose Daylighting Credits -Lose Views Credit 7 Energy Board Support Chairperson Michell moved to recommend City Council approve a partial waiver of the requirements of resolution 2006-096 for the PRTC such that only the administration/classroom building shall be designed, constructed, and certified to the highest LEED standard practical, striving for Gold, and to achieve exceptional energy performance with a defined energy performance target.The remainder of the project should follow LEED principles and also achieve high energy performance with a defined energy performance target. Board member Braslau seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: It passed, 7-1. Board member Baumgarter voted no, and he said he would prefer to have a little more clarity and context on the project and in the motion presented. 8 Efficiency Items Planned for Firing Range 1.Tight Building Envelope -R-values for Walls and Roofs to meet IBC 2015 Code -Incorporate envelope commissioning to ensure it meets IBC 2015 Code 2. Efficient Mechanical System (Meeting Shooting Range Requirements) -Firing Ranges require: Complete air exchange every 2-3 minutes 100% laminar air flow downrange from shooter to target Air flow between 50 –100 Feet per Minute. Extensive filtering to ensure all particles are captured for safe training. 3.Efficient Electrical System (Note: Solar Tubes not allowed per FTA Safety Standards) -LED Lighting to minimize energy use -Lighting Controls to minimize energy use 4. Incorporate Solar PV system on roof (Size to be determined from Energy Model) 9 LEED Waiver Support 1.With the site location and other constraints, does Council Finance support excluding the firing range and the majority of the site from the LEED Boundary. 2.Does Council Finance support staff prioritizing project dollars on energy and building efficiencies with achieving the highest LEED Certification practical on the Admin/Classroom Building? 3.Does Council Finance support staff following LEED principals on the remainder of the project and prioritizing project dollars on energy and building efficiencies? 10 Back up Information 11 LEED Scorecard Admin/Classroom 12 LEED Scorecard All Buildings 13 Admin/Classroom LEED Construction Upgrades Admin/Classroom LEED Construction Items with Estimated Cost 1.$15,000 Additional Roof insulation to improve efficiency 2.$30,000 Additional wall insulation to improve efficiency 3.$35,000 Upgrade exterior window frames to fiberglass in lieu of aluminum 4.$15,000 Upgrade exterior glazing to double pane with extra film 5.$60,000 Upgrade Mechanical Units to higher efficiency 6.$65,000 Add Energy Recovery Unit (ERV) to mechanical system 7.$25,000 Add exterior light shades to Admin windows 8.$25,000 Add interior light louvers to Admin windows 9.$45,000 Building Automation Controls 10.$15,000 Lighting controls 11.$30,000 Add eGauge meters for monitoring Power, Water, PV 12.150,000 52 kW Solar PV System $510,000 Total 14 Firing Range Energy Efficiency Upgrades Firing Range Construction Items to improve efficiency with Estimated Cost 1.$40,000 Additional Roof insulation to improve efficiency 2.$35,000 Additional wall insulation to improve efficiency 3.$15,000 Building Envelope Verification 4.$250,000 Upgrade Mechanical Units to higher efficiencies 5.$120,000 Add Energy Recovery Units (ERV) to mechanical system 6.$25,000 Building Automation System (Add on to Admin System) 7.$10,000 Lighting controls 8.$10,000 Add eGauge meters for monitoring systems 9.$475,000 Total 15 Only Known LEED Gold Firing Range San Mateo California –Completed in 2009 under LEEDv2 -112 Stall Parking Garage -Indoor Firing Range -Detention holding facility -24-Hour 911 Dispatch Center -Ballistic Windows to protect viewers -$58.5 M Price Tag (60,000 SF) 16 Comparison of Both Site Conditions San Mateo California Ft Collins-Loveland Airport Colorado 17 Admin/Classroom LEED Design Cost 18 Schematic Building Cross Section Admin/Classroom Building -Roof Designed for future 2nd Floor -Mechanical Penthouse for HVAC and Electrical -Energy modeling to inform design -Mechanical to have Energy Recovery -Building Commissioning, Envelope Commissioning and Enhanced Commissioning Firing Range –21 Lanes -Accommodates police department identified rifle and pistol rounds -Anticipates weapons qualification and tactical training courses of fire -Roof height to allow Bearcat Tactical Vehicle movement and use as a prop inside the firing range -Overhead safety baffle system -Roof designed for Solar PV System -Energy modeling to inform design -Building commissioning and envelope commissioning 19 PRTC Site Master Plan Items in Master Plan -100 Yd Firing Range -50 Yd Firing Range -25 Yd Firing Range -4 Classrooms to support 3 ranges -Administration area -1.4 Mile Driving Track -Divided Highway area -400 x 600 Skills Pad -City Grid Practice Area -Site Classroom Building -Site Maintenance Shop -4 x 4 Rough Terrain Practice area -Track Observation Deck -Shoot/Sim House 20 Schematic Floor Plan & Notes -Admin/Classroom 6,000 SF -Admin Mechanical 2,400 SF -2 -900 SF Classrooms-30 Students ea. -Operable Wall between classrooms -Reception & Site manager Office -Restrooms and Range Support Rooms -Windows to provide daylight & views -Firing Range 17,000 SF -Separate Mechanical Systems -21 Firing Lanes (50 Yds) -Thickened Slab to allow heavy vehicles inside for tactical training -Bullet Resistant Enclosure, including Vehicle Access Doors -Precast wall panels -insulation between COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY STAFF: Jeff Swoboda, Chief of Police Kelly DiMartino, Assistant City Manager DATE: January 28, 2019 SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION : Collective Bargaining Unit Salaries and Supplemental Budget Appropriation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Per the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) agreed to by the City of Fort Collins and the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) in 2018, the positions within the Collective Bargaining Unit (CBU) shall be compensated at the 4PthP rank of 12 Front Range comparison agencies. Significant changes in jurisdictions’ salaries which were previously much lower than the City have resulted in large increases for the majority of bargaining unit positions, which creates a shortage from what was budgeted and will require a supplemental appropriation. The projected total cost of these increased salaries, including associated increases in overtime and percentage based contributions such as retirement and retiree health is approximately $585,000. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The City and FOP agreed to a three year CBA in the fall of 2018. One component of the comprehensive contract was the setting of pay and salaries for nine positions within the CBU. Within the 2019 budget, Police Services staff was budgeted for a 3.5% salary increase. The CBA states that actual salary data will be collected in late December and early January. With data now finalized, it is clear that some jurisdictions have made significant increases in their police salaries and the 3.5% that was budgeted will need supplemental appropriation in order to meet the contractual obligation of paying the equivalent of the 4PthP rank among the Front Range comparison agencies listed in the contract. The following chart highlights what was initially budgeted for salary, overtime, and benefits, what the contractual increase is, and what the gap is between the budgeted amounts for each category UProjected UBudget UShortfall Salary 23,237,596 22,842,724 (394,872) Overtime 60,000 0 (60,000) Benefits 7,794,591 7,666,841 (127,750) Total Compensation 31,092,187 30,509,565 (582,622) The positional breakdown in terms of what salary increases will be are listed below: Job Title Contract Increase Community Service Officer 6.03% Sr Supervisor, CSO 6.03% Police Officer 6.03% Police Corporal 6.03% Police Sergeant 6.08% Police Lieutenant 3.00% Emergency Commun Dispatcher 3.29% Sr Supervisor, Emergency Comms 3.65% Sr Manager, Emergency Comms 3.00% Staff plans to bring forward an appropriation ordinance on February 5PthP to the full Council for consideration to help cover the gap in the Police Services budget. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does Council Finance Committee support bringing forward of the supplemental appropriation to cover the contractual cost? ATTACHMENTS 1. Powerpoint Presentation 2. Salary Article from 2019-2021 Collective Bargaining Agreement January 28, 2019 Supplemental Appropriation for Police Salaries Jeff Swoboda, Kelly DiMartino Direction Sought Does Council Finance Committee Support bringing forward a supplemental appropriation to cover budget shortage in Police Services? 2 CBA Summary Per the 2019-2021 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA): Bargaining Unit salaries will match the 4th highest paid agency Salary data is finalized in early January If increase is less than what is budgeted for other employees, City will match budget 3 2019 Budget Need Projected Budget Shortfall Salary 23,237,596 22,842,724 (394,872) Overtime 60,000 0 (60,000) Benefits 7,794,591 7,666,841 (127,750) Total Compensation 31,092,187 30,509,565 (582,622) 4 Summary •Total appropriation requested: $585,000 •Amount of increase mainly driven by large salary increases in jurisdictions previously low in the rankings 5 Direction Sought Does Council Finance Committee Support bringing forward a supplemental appropriation to cover budget shortage in Police Services? 6 COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Staff: Ashley Macdonald – Real Estate Services Coordinator Joe Wimmer – Graduate Management Assistant Date: January 28, 2019 SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Real Estate Services’ new approach for determining less than fair market value rental rates for nonprofit organizations renting City facilities. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Real Estate Services developed a new administrative policy for determining rental rates for nonprofit organizations. Historically, reduced rental rates for nonprofits were individually considered. As requests for reduced rates arise more frequently, Real Estate Services needs a consistent framework for determining appropriate rates. The City’s current seventeen leases with nonprofits are highly variable in regard to rent amount and rent discount based on fair market value. The intent of the new administrative policy is to make rates more predictable and equitable and allow for consistent negotiations. This new administrative policy may alter rental rates for current tenants after their present lease expires and is up for renewal beyond the extension period. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED Real Estate Services is seeking feedback on the proposed administrative policy for determining reduced rental rates for nonprofit organizations. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The City currently has seventeen leases with nonprofit organizations. Annual rent ranges from less than 1% of fair market value to 95% of fair market value. Nine nonprofits are paying less than 1% of the fair market value with a $25-$600/year lease. In 2014, Ordinance No. 085 was approved to amend City Code, Sec 23-114 Disposition of property interests for less than fair market value, to provide guidelines for leasing or selling City owned property for less than market value and/or for a term exceeding 5 years in length. Recently, a few tenants currently leasing City owned buildings have requested additional reductions to their existing lease rate (e.g. Global Village Museum and The Center for Fine Art Photography). Historically, rental rates for nonprofit organizations were determined on a case-by-case basis after nonprofits contacted the City seeking an available facility. The limited structure for determining an appropriate rental amount resulted in inequitable rates among the organizations and a lack of transparency regarding the evaluation criteria. The new framework will determine rental amounts based on the nonprofit’s services to the community. Prospective nonprofit organizations will be evaluated using consistent criteria and procedure. The evaluation process and rubric are attached. Real Estate Services determines fair market value through comparative market analysis, a method used by real estate appraisers and other real estate professionals. These values are analyzed quarterly or as needed to ensure the City is abreast of real estate market changes and fluctuations. It is important to note that each lease negotiation is unique based on the level of services available and amenities provided or needed in the space. Due to the disparate characteristics of City owned properties, the policy for determining rates will not be applicable to all leases with nonprofit organization. Properties/organizations that may be exempt from the process include historical properties, CSURF, and organizations with lease- purchase agreements. The new framework is estimated to impact four current tenants if they were to renew their leases. Reduced nonprofit lease agreements and/or long-term lease agreements would still need approval by the City Manager or Council per the guidelines outlined in the City code. ATTACHMENTS 1) Spreadsheet of existing City leases with nonprofit organizations 2) Guiding Principles for Leases with Nonprofit Organizations (includes Rental Rate Reduction Rubric and Process) January 28, 2019 Real Estate Leases with Nonprofits Ashley Macdonald, Joe Wimmer Purpose •Provide Council Finance Committee with an overview of the City’s current leases with nonprofit organizations. •Seek feedback on the new proposed administrative policy for determining lease rental rates for nonprofit organizations. 2 Nonprofit Leases Overview •17 current leases •Inequity concerns among rates •Rent range •<1% to 95% fair market value •Up to 99.99% rent discount •Rates determined from case-by-case negotiations 3 Tenant % of Fair Market Foothills Gateway 0.02% Teaching Tree 0.07% FTC Baseball Club 0.19% FoCo Café 15.63% Global Village Museum 38.10% Center for Fine Art Photography 76.19% Center for Family Outreach 95.24% Current Leases Tenant Recommended Fair Market (per sq. ft.) Recommended Fair Market Value (annual) Current Rent (annual)Rent Discount ($)Rent Discount (%) Foothills Gateway $10.50 $102,900 $25.00 $102,875.00 99.98% Teaching Tree $10.50 $896,028 $600.00 $895,428.00 99.93% FTC Baseball Club $10.50 $12,957 $25.00 $12,932.00 99.81% FoCo Café $16.50 $136,851 $21,386.88 $115,464.12 84.37% Global Village Museum $10.50 $68,565 $26,120.04 $42,444.96 61.90% Center for Fine Art Photography $10.50 $9,461 $7,208.04 $2,252.46 23.81% Center for Family Outreach $10.50 $38,966 $37,110.00 $1,855.50 4.76% 4 New Approach Nonprofit Rental Rate Reduction Process •Formal application •Standard evaluation criteria: 1) Support City Objectives 2) Community Need 3) Service Impact 4) Earning Potential 5) Investment from the City •5-7 person staff evaluation committee •Process determines eligible discount range 5 Policy Impact 6 Tenant Current Rent Discount (%) Proposed Discount (%) if Policy Implemented Yearly Rent Impact Foothills Gateway 99.98%81 -100%$19,551 -$0 Teaching Tree 99.93%81 -100%$170,245 -$(575) FTC Baseball Club 99.81%61 -80%$5,028 -$2,566 FoCo Café 84.37%41 -60%$4,615 -$33,353 Global Village Museum 61.90%21 -40% $28,046 -$15,019 Center for Fine Art Photography 23.81%21 -40%$266 -$(1,532) Center for Family Outreach 4.76%81 -100%$(29,707) -$(37,075) •4 tenants potentially impacted •3 higher rent •1 lower rent •New policy would take effect with expiration of current leases Questions/Feedback Does Council Finance Committee support the new approach for determining rental rates for nonprofit organizations? If yes, what feedback does Council Finance Committee have on the proposed administrative policy? 7 Address Tenant Date of Term Origination Date Recommended Fair Market Value (per sq. ft.) Recommended Fair Market Value (annual) Current Rent (per sq. ft) Current Rent (annual) 5 Year City Maintaince Cost Rent Discount ($) Rent Discount (%) Proposed Discount (%) if Policy Implemented Yearly Rent if Implemented ($) Yearly Rent Difference if Implemented Nonprofit Lease 400 Wood St Foothills Gateway 10/01/14-09/30/2024 11/2/2004 $10.50 $102,900 $0.0514 $25.00 $71 $102,875.00 99.98%81 - 100%$19,551 - $25 $19,551 - $0 424 Pine Teaching Tree 7/1/2008-6/30/2028 TBD $10.50 $896,028 $0.1024 $600.00 $0 $895,428.00 99.93%81 - 100%$170,245 - $25 $170,245 - $(575) 211 Bryan St FTC Baseball Club 3/1/2018-4/30/2028 1983 $10.50 $12,957 $0.0162 $25.00 $575 $12,932.00 99.81%61 - 80%$5,053 - $2,591 $5,028 - $2,566 225 Maple St FoCo Café 8/11/2018-8/10/2023 8/8/2014 $16.50 $136,851 $7.7855 $21,386.88 $8,920 $115,464.12 84.37%41 - 60%$26,002 - $54,740 $4,615 - $33,353 200 Mountain Ste C Global Village Museum 11/01/2016-4/30/2019 2/16/2011 $10.50 $68,565 $4.00 $26,120.04 $10,130 $42,444.96 61.90%21 - 40% $54,166 - $41,139 $28,046 - $15,019 321 Maple Center for Fine Art Photography 1/15/2018-1/14/2019 1/12/2018 $10.50 $9,461 $8.00 $7,208.04 $36,479 $2,252.46 23.81%21 - 40%$7,474 - $5,676 $266 - $(1,532) 212 W Mountain Center for Family Outreach 1/15/2018-1/14/2021 1/1/2018 $10.50 $38,966 $10.00 $37,110.00 $135,972 $1,855.50 4.76%81 - 100%$7,403 - $25 $(29,707) - $(37,075) Nonprofit Ground Lease 1715 W Mountain Housing Authority 08/1/2012-7/31/2052 1/4/1977 $10.50 $176,043 $0.0038 $25.00 $0 $176,018.00 99.99%81 - 100%$33,448 - $25 $33,448 - $0 1801 Mountain Trolley Car Association TBD 4/24/1990 $3.25 $3,640 $0.5357 $600.00 $8,080 3040 83.52%61 - 80%$1,420 - $728 $820 - $128 Nonprofit Lease - Historic, Exempt 450 N College CSU/CSURF 2/29/2012-2/28/2052 2/15/1994 $23.00 $942,172 $0.0003 $25.00 $3,629 $942,147.00 100.00%N/A 200 Mathews St FC Media 01/15/2018-01/14/2019 7/1/2012 $16.50 $18,249 $2.7125 $3,000.00 $0 $15,249.00 83.56%N/A 425 10th St Museo de La Tres Colinas 8/1/2012-7/31/2027 7/18/2002 N/A N/A $0.0040 $5.00 $42,221 N/A N/A N/A 2005 N Overland Trail Poudre Landmark Foundation (Waterworks)6/1/2011-6/1/2026 6/5/1996 N/A N/A sq ft not available $5.00 $96,241 N/A N/A N/A 328 W. Mountain 108 N. Meldrum Poudre Landmark Foundation (Avery House, Carriage House)10/1/2013-9/30/2028 1988 N/A N/A $0.0106 $25.00 $74,605 N/A N/A N/A 317-321 Sherwood Faith Family Hospitality Lease Purchase 10/1/2018 $10.50 $99,099 $0.0305 $300.00 $34,451 $98,799.00 99.70%N/A 408 Mason Ct Discovery Center N/A ---$0.00 $559,200 ---- 200 Matthews Carneige Building N/A ---$0.00 $403,610 ---- Vacant 906 E Stuart Vacant TBD Vacant $10.50 $21,746 TBD TBD $2,146 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 200 Mountain Stes A Vacant TBD Vacant $16.50 $37,868 TBD TBD $38,983 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 200 Mountain Stes B Vacant TBD Vacant $16.50 $37,868 TBD TBD $5,150 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 6916 S College Vacant Land TBD Vacant TBD TBD $0 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Guiding Principles for Leases with Nonprofit Organizations Background This framework of guiding principles was developed to make the lease negotiation process with nonprofit organizations more consistent, and lease rates more equitable among nonprofit organizations leasing real estate from the City. Principles 1. The City of Fort Collins Real Estate division intends to lease all city-owned real estate at equal to the fair market value. A reduced lease rate is possible if the lease meets the standards of City Code Sec. 23-114. Per City Code Sec. 23-114, any sale, lease or other conveyance of property interests must be for an amount equal to or greater than the fair market value of such interest unless the City Council or City Manager determines that such sale or lease serves a bona fide public purpose because: (1) The use to which the property will be put promotes health, safety or general welfare and benefits a significant segment of the citizens of Fort Collins; (2) The use to which the property will be put supports one (1) or more of the City Council's goals, adopted policies, projects or plans; (3) The financial support provided by the City through the below-market disposition of the property will be leveraged with other funding or assistance; (4) The sale or lease will not result in any direct financial benefit to any private person or entity, except to the extent such benefit is only an incidental consequence and is not substantial relative to the public purpose being served; and (5) Selling or leasing the property for less than fair market rent will not interfere with current City projects or work programs, hinder workload schedules or divert resources needed for primary City functions or responsibilities. 2. The leased facility must be managed collaboratively. URoles and Responsibilities of Collaborative Management The City and the nonprofit have the joint responsibility of operating, maintaining and rehabilitating the facility through collaborative stewardship and place management, as well as the responsibility of managing specific public and private assets. For long-term leases to work well, the roles and responsibilities of the city and nonprofit must be clearly defined and agreed upon. • The City of Fort Collins has multiple roles, including o Ownership of the facility and serving in this role as the landlord. o Manager of the public infrastructure, assets and some lands outside of the leasehold. o The City will typically be responsible for the following maintenance items:  Roof, Structure, Plumbing (outside), Rooter services, Electrical (inside the building), Electrical (outside building), Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC), Parking Lot Maintenance • The nonprofit tenant has multiple roles, including o Operating, maintaining, managing and programming certain public assets in a manner consistent with the its mission and these guiding principles. o The tenant will typically be responsible for the following maintenance items:  Mowing and weed control, Snow removal, Plumbing (inside), Plate glass/glass, Fixtures, Appliances, Security Services, Locks, Janitorial Services, Internet Services, Utilities (Gas, Electric, Water, Sewer), Personal Property Taxes, Parking Lot Maintenance, Furniture o The tenant will be responsible for any facility maintenance that is needed due to neglect of the facility or an issue that was not reported and resulted in damage to the facility. o The tenant is not responsible for items that are deemed normal wear and tear. 3. The amount of rental rate reduction will be determined by the Rental Rate Reduction Process. An evaluation committee of City staff will assess the nonprofit’s application to determine the lease rental rate appropriate for the nonprofit organization. The evaluation committee will be comprised of 5-7 City staff from multiple stakeholder departments such as Real Estate Services, Economic Health, and the department sponsoring the nonprofit organization’s proposal, e.g., Social Sustainability, Cultural Services. The lease rate amount resulting from the Rental Rate Reduction Process will be used as a baseline rate for negotiations and is not fixed or unalterable. Leases negotiated before the implementation of this rate reduction process will not be altered with new rates, but will be renegotiated with the new rate reduction upon expiration and renewal of the lease. Due to the disparate characteristics of City owned properties, the Rental Rate Reduction Process is not applicable to all leases with nonprofit organizations. Properties/organizations that may be exempt from the Rental Rate Reduction Process include: • Historical properties with restricted uses and not market competitive. • Organizations with lease-purchase agreements with the City. • CSU/CSURF Rental Rate Reduction Process 1. Prospective nonprofit organizations will submit a Reduced Rent Application to Real Estate Services. This application provides an explanation of how their services meet the City’s strategic objectives or needs in the community, etc. 2. The nonprofit’s application will be evaluated by an evaluation committee comprised of 5-7 City staff from the nonprofit’s supporting department, Real Estate Services, and Economic Health Department. Committee members will individually evaluate the nonprofit using the Rental Rate Reduction Rubric and return the rubric to Real Estate Services. City strategic planning documents such as the biannual Strategic Plan and Social Sustainability Strategic Plan will guide evaluators during their evaluation. 3. The scores of each individual rubric will be averaged by Real Estate Services to determine the appropriate rental rate reduction amount. 4. The rate reduction amount will be used during negotiations with the nonprofit organization. Nonprofit Lease Agreement Process Map Public inquiry or direction from CMO/Council regarding property rental Determine fair market value of property Determine needs of identified leasee Verify references and application Determine appropriate rate amount though Rental Rate Reduction Process Facility-owning department approval to proceed Present final terms. Final negotiation Present final terms. Final negotiation Draft lease City Manager approval Council approval Execute and distribute lease Short term leases (Under 5 years) (Fair market or reduced rate) Long term leases (Over 5, under 20 years) (Fair market) Long Term Leases (Over 5 years) (Reduced rate) Long term leases (Over 20 years) (Fair market or reduced rate) Rental Rate Reduction Rubric Applicant Organization: Property/Facility: Market Rate (year): Date: Evaluator Name: Evaluation Criteria – please read explanation on next page Criteria Weighting Factor Rating Score The applicant's services promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the community by supporting one or more: 1) City Strategic Objectives 2) Supporting Department Strategic Plan Goals 10 = strongly supports 0 = does not support 1 0 Service offered by the applicant responds to a community priority/need 10 = significant 0 = none 1 0 Impact of this service relative to community need 10 = significant 0 = none 1 0 Earning potential of nonprofit/self-sufficiency 10 = none 0 = high 1 0 Investment into property by applicant 10 = significant 0 = none 1 0 Total 0 Score Rental Reduction Range (% of Fair Market Value) 0-10 0 – 20% 11-20 21 – 40% 21-30 41 – 60% 31-40 61 – 80% 41-50 81 – 99% Recommended rental rate reduction amount (range)______________ Comments for the evaluation group How to Score 1. Carefully read the applicants proposal and the Selection Criteria. The selection criteria are listed below with specific descriptive standards for each. 2. Use the abridged strategic plan documents attached as guides to help score the first criterion. Respective strategic plan documents not attached will be provided by Real Estate Services. 3. Assess and score each criterion using your individual judgement. The evaluation is not a discussion and consensus process. If more information is needed from a specific department (e.g. Real Estate to assess the investment into the property), write your questions in the comments/question box on the rubric. 4. Send your completed rubric to Real Estate Services. Keep results confidential. Criteria Explanation Criteria Standard The applicant's services supports one or more: 1) City Strategic Objectives 2) Department Strategic Plan Goals 10 = strongly supports 0 = does not support Do the services support specific objectives or goals in these documents? Are they closely or tangentially related to the objectives? Do they support multiple objectives or only one? Service offered by the applicant responds to a community priority/need 10 = significant 0 = none How urgent and vital are the nonprofit’s services to the community? Are there other organizations offering the same services or is there a void in the community for this service? Impact of this service relative to community need 10 = significant 0 = none How much of the community population will benefit from the services provided? Will the services have a significant impact in the community? To what extent will the services help achieve the objectives and goals of the community? Earning potential of nonprofit/self-sufficiency Note: 10 = none 0 = high Does the organization earn enough revenue to financially support itself and make lease payments? Or does the organization not have an earning capability and requires assistance from the City to operate and make lease payments? Please note scoring scale Investment into property by applicant 10 = significant 0 = none Is the organization investing money into the facility? For example: tenant finish, improvements and upgrades paid by the tenant. Please consider investments from the City to subsidize the nonprofit’s operations as a counter to this score. Please contact Real Estate Services with questions. CITY OF FORT COLLINS STRATEGIC PLAN (2018) (Abridged) NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY & SOCIAL HEALTH 1.1 Improve access to quality housing that is affordable to a broad range of income levels 1.2 Collaborate with other agencies to address poverty issues and other identified high-priority human service needs, and to make homelessness rare, shortlived and non-recurring 1.3 Improve accessibility to City and community programs and services to low- and moderate-income populations 1.4 Co-create a more inclusive and equitable community that promotes unity and honors diversity 1.5 Foster positive and respectful neighbor relationships and open communication 1.6 Protect and preserve the quality of life in neighborhoods 1.7 Guide development through community planning, historic preservation, and efficient and effective development review CULTURE & RECREATION 2.1 Develop recreational and cultural programs with pricing and marketing strategies that drive value, attendance and cost recovery 2.2 Plan, design, implement and maintain the City’s parks and trails systems 2.3 Provide enhanced opportunities for arts and culture throughout the City 2.4 Protect the health and longevity of the tree canopy ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 4.1 Achieve Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2020 goals and continue progress toward the 2030 goals 4.2 Improve indoor and outdoor air quality 4.3 Achieve 2020 Energy Policy goals and work towards Climate Action goals for carbon neutrality 4.4 Achieve the 2020 Road to Zero Waste goals and work toward the 2030 zero waste goals 4.5 Develop strategies to improve the community’s climate resiliency 4.8 Protect and enhance natural resources on City-owned properties and throughout the community 4.9 Sustain and improve the health of the Cache la Poudre River and its watershed 4.10 Expand the Natural Areas land portfolio while simultaneously maintaining existing lands and access to nature SAFE COMMUNITY 5.1 Improve community involvement, education and regional partnerships to increase the level of public trust and keep the community safe 5.6 Optimize the use of data and technology to improve service, protect mission-critical infrastructure and enhance cybersecurity effectiveness 5.7 Reduce incidents of, and impacts from, disruptive behavior of the transient population TRANSPORTATION 6.1 Improve safety for all modes of travel 6.2 Manage traffic congestion and improve high-priority intersections 6.3 Improve transit availability and grow ridership 6.4 Support, enhance and accelerate I-25 improvements according to the multi-modal environmental impact statement 6.6 Maintain Level of Service ‘B’ for City streets and the current level of service for medians and associated infrastructure 6.7 Address parking needs Downtown, along the MAX corridor and in residential neighborhoods SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGIC PLAN (2018) (Abridged) COMMUNITY WELLNESS A.1 Increase overall levels of physical health 1. Increase availability, access, and desire to indoor and outdoor physical activity 2. Encourage networks for the full spectrum of healthcare A.2 Increase access to healthy food 1. Strengthen local food systems A.3 Support initiatives and programs promoting good mental and behavioral health and assisting persons with mental and behavioral illness 1. Foster increased availability and access to mental and behavioral healthcare 2. Encourage networks for emotional, spiritual, and intellectual well-being EQUITY & INCLUSION B.1 Promote and maintain a welcoming, inclusive community where people feel connected 1. Increase opportunities for awareness and acceptance of all community members 2. Promote and develop culturally and income diverse neighborhoods B.2 Encourage transportation options that are inclusive to all populations 1. Support increased transit service as well as bike trails and sidewalks by supporting Transfort’s strategic plan B.3 Expand the City’s diversity, inclusion and equity goals, with an emphasis on internal and external communications, education and outreach. 1. Help create internal policies and goals that promote, enhance, and maintain diversity 2. Develop education and outreach strategies on a broad range of diversity issues B.4 Support programs that enable all residents to have equal access and opportunities to meet their basic needs 1. Support programs that ensure access and opportunity for all residents to employment, food, housing, clothing, education, recreational opportunities, a safe and healthy environment, and social services COMMUNITY PROSPERITY C.1 Close skills gap and increase career pathways in the community 1. Create alignment between employers, workforce assistance and development entities, and educational institutions regarding workforce needs. C.2 Support early and secondary educations to improve opportunities for life success 1. Continuing support of childcare and early childhood education. 2. Support supplemental educational programs for children and youth. C.3 Support programs and initiatives providing residents with affordable, quality caregiving services. 1. Support programs providing caregiving services (people with disabilities, eldercare, dependents, etc., who need specialized care) C.4 Support area financial literacy initiatives 1. Support efforts in various sectors to provide financial literacy tools in order to increase personal and household financial stability and self-sufficiency HOUSING D.1 Increase housing opportunity 1. Increase the supply of affordable rental housing 2. Increase opportunities to obtain affordable homeownership 3. Advocate for affordable housing options for special populations D.2 Support housing stability 1. Provide support to prevent housing displacement 2. Provide support to maintain or improve the health of the housing system Nonprofit Reduced Rate Application Date of Application: Name of Organization: Requested Term (Min 5 years – Max 20 years): Email: Phone Number: Current Address: Requested use of City Facility: On a separate sheet of paper please answer the below questions. Attach a copy of this application to front of your responses. Be sure to include the number to each question you are responding to. It is encouraged to attach any additional information about your organization that you think would be of importance for your application. 1. Please describe how your organization supports the City of Fort Collins Strategic Objectives and/or how your organization supports the supporting departments Strategic Plan Goals. 2. Please describe how the services of your organization responds to the needs and priorities of the community. (Are these services vital or urgent to the community? Is there a void in the community for this service?) 3. How much of the community is impacted by the services provided by your organization and do your services impact a certain demographic of our community? Please describe the magnitude of impact. 4. What kind of fund raising, or revenue opportunities are available to your organization to support the financial need of the organization? (*Attach a board approved financial statement or FASB117) 5. What kind of tenant finishes, utility services, improvements or upgrades will your organization need in order to operate in this facility? Is your organization willing or able to invest in into the facility? In addition to this application, the following supporting documents will also need to be provided. o Board approved financial statement or FASB117 o Letter of support from the City Department in which you support the Strategic Plan Goals for o Certificate of Good Standing from the Secretary of State o Letter of Authorization from your Board or Registered Agent that allows you to be a signor and apply for the reduced rate application UTo be completed by RES Services Date Received: Received By: Anticipated Date to Submit to Council: Confirm required documentation: o Completed Application o Responses to Application o Board approved financial statement or FASB117 o Letter of support from the City Department in which you support the Strategic Plan Goals for o Certificate of Good Standing from the Secretary of State o Letter of Authorization from your Board or Registered Agent that allows you to be a signor and apply for the reduced rate application Rubric Reviewers: 1. Economic Development: 2. Supporting Department: 3. Supporting Department: 4. RES Services: 5. Op Services: 6. (Optional): 7. (Optional): Fair Market Value Per Sq Ft: $_______ sq. ft. Total Rubric Average: ________ is the average score of the rubric review. This applicant qualifies for a ___________% reduction of the fair market value. Suggested Reduction: $ ________per square foot for a term of ___________ years with ___- ___ year extensions. Additional Application Notes: I have reviewed the attached the above application and support / do not support the recommended rate reduction for the applicant. ________________________________________ __________________ City Manager Date COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Staff: Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Adam Molzer Date: January 28, 2019 SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Development Incentives for Childcare Providers EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Fort Collins community has more demand for childcare than available slots in childcare centers and in-home centers. While the City already provides scholarships to low-income parents, provides City facilities when possible to be used as childcare centers, partners with the school district to fund enrichment programs, and partners with providers and the Early Childcare Council to advocate and problem solve, there is still a significant need for more accessible and affordable childcare in Fort Collins. This item is seeking guidance regarding whether the City should add development incentives to the list of support provided by the City. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Is there interest in providing development incentives for Childcare providers? 2. If so, should these be targeted specifically to the number of affordable tuition slots made available to income-qualified families? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Recent data collected by the Early Childhood Council of Larimer County shows an unmet demand for childcare in our community. • Childcare slots for infants and toddlers provide only 25% of the need for this age children. • Only 65% of the need is met for preschool age children. The lack of available childcare is a concern for local work force needs. It means some parents will suffer distractions at work because their childcare situation is unstable or choose to take time out of the workforce because childcare needs are unmet. Plus, the cost of childcare is a burden for many working families, especially lower wage earners. This shortage in availability is caused by a scarcity in both facilities and staff to run them. The focus of this project is on the facility part of the equation because the City’s Economic Health Office and community partners such as The Chamber of Commerce, Larimer County and the Early Childhood Council to name a few, through Talent 2.0 and in other ways are already working on the talent side of the equation. The demand for childcare has outpaced the supply for some time in the City and this is not the first time the City has looked at this issue. See attachment 1 – Work Session Summary from October 25, 2011. This remains an issue both locally and nationally. The State of Colorado has the most influence over regulations and policy for childcare providers. They work closely with Larimer County who inspects facilities and monitors compliance with state-wide programs. The City’s sphere of influence is limited in this arena. Still there are things the City currently does to support this need and there are additional actions the City could consider doing to incentivize the development of more childcare centers – both commercial centers and in-home centers. The City is already investing to support childcare in our city: • City facilities house childcare programs and are offered are very low nonprofit rents (i.e.- Teaching Tree at 424 Pine Street and previously Waldorf school at 906 Stuart Street). • Competitive Process funding for scholarships and after school enrichment programs. • Funding for the Early Childhood Council to address childcare workforce shortage issue. • Partnering with the Chamber of Commerce and others on the Talent 2.0 Childcare Task Force. • Providing limited pre-construction funding and classroom expansion funds from the 2017-2018 BFO funds. This offer was only for the prior budget cycle and the current budget cycle does not provide responsive funds for childcare activities. Options to Explore: The development arena provides another avenue to support this community need. There are substantial City fees required to build new childcare centers. For example, two recently constructed centers paid $168,000 and $245,000 respectively in City development fees. A waiver program similar to the affordable housing fee waiver incentive could be established to waive some or all of these fees. Waivers could be for the entire center because that would address the scarcity issue or the program could be tailored to the affordable childcare slots provided to address the affordability issue. Either way, the City would decide which fees to waive similar to the Affordable Housing Fee Waiver program. Affordable housing incentives are currently provided through the Land Use Code such as priority processing and landscape reductions. These could be offered to childcare centers too. Currently, staff is analyzing ways to bring development standard flexibility to affordable housing development. That project could be expanded to include other social needs, including childcare. The idea would be to flex standards not related to health and safety. These could be things like off site infrastructure improvements or low impact design standards. The group that is working on this for affordable housing could expand the project to include childcare development too. In-home centers do not have the same development obligations. It is considered a home occupation and is permitted in most of the City. While grants funds are available for the person offering in-home care to help get them licensed and trained, funding is not available for limited home modifications that might be needed to offer in-home childcare. The City has offered cluster funding in the past to support needed commercial activity in the City. When this program is rebooted, it could include an in-home childcare industry cluster to provide grants for egress windows, fencing, seconds sinks for example. This gap was identified by the Early Childhood Center. Next Steps: Staff is looking for direction from the Council Finance Committee on whether to continue to explore ways to incentivize childcare in the City. ATTACHMENTS 1. Council Work Session Summary October 25, 2011 This slide allows you to customize your image, rather than using the default. See the Notes below. 1 Development Incentives for Childcare Providers Sue Beck-Ferkiss and Adam Molzer 1-28-19 Questions for Consideration 2 1.Is there interest in providing development incentives for Childcare providers? 2.If so, should these be targeted specifically to the number of affordable tuition slots made available to income-qualified families? 2 Community Needs More Child care overall •25% of infant and toddler needs •65% of preschool age children needs More affordable childcare •More demand than resources for affordable slots •Long waiting lists for subsidies More in-home childcare •These centers closing at faster rate than new ones opening 3 Levels of Regulations State •Primary Regulator for Childcare Centers •Set Staff Qualifications and Funds CCAP County •Inspections •Coordinates CCAP with State City •Regulate Development of Facilities •Funding Partner 4 What the City is already doing City acts to lower barriers to increase childcare availability: •2018 Funding: •$200,000 Competitive Process •$100,000 2017-2018 BFO (not continued) •$75,000 to PSD from Parks and Recreation •What was funded? •Income-based scholarships and after-school programming •Predevelopment and classroom expansion needs •Talent 2.0 and workforce support •Partner with PSD for enrichment programs 5 Possible additional City supports 6 Development Incentives •Fee Waivers •Flexible Development standards Micro-grants •Facility support for In-home Centers Questions for Consideration 7 1.Is there interest in providing development incentives for Childcare providers? 2.If so, should these be targeted specifically to the number of affordable tuition slots made available to income-qualified families? 7 Advance Planning 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6376 970.224.6111 - fax fcgov.com/advanceplanning October 28, 2011 TO: Mayor Weitkunat and City Councilmembers THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager – Planning, Policy and Transportation Services Karen Cumbo, Director of Planning, Development and Transportation FROM: Joe Frank, Director of Advance Planning RE: Work Session Summary October 25, 2011, Item No. 4: Early Childhood Care and Education The Mayor and all City Councilmembers, except Wade Troxell, were present. Advance Planning Director Joe Frank provided a brief presentation. Staff answering questions included Joe Frank, Tess Heffernan, and Ken Waido. Questions for City Council included: 1. Does Council have any comments or questions about what the City is currently doing in the area of facilitating early childhood care and education in the community? 2. Compared to what the City is currently doing, does the Council want to consider maintaining, refocusing and/or expanding the City’s efforts in facilitating early childhood care and education services in the community? 3. If Council wishes to modify the City’s current efforts, what additional strategies should be added to the current program? The following is a summary of Council comments: 1. Council was supportive of maintaining the City’s current roles; and refocusing/modifying those roles as described in the Snapshot Report. Council was interested in the City facilitating early childhood care and education; Council was not interested in the City getting directly into the business of providing child care. 2. Council was interested in first pursuing actions utilizing existing or small additional resources (generally, actions identified in the Snapshot Report requiring “$” and “$$” level of resources). There were no objections raised in regards to exploring any of the actions. Some Councilmember’s expressed particular interest in exploring child care requirements for larger business development; new sources of City funding (dedicated sales tax) for “bricks and mortar”; tying City economic incentives, for example tax increment, to the provision of child care services; removing barriers in the City’s land use code; linking child care to the City’s economic development programs; incubating new child care providers; partnering with other agencies; and, siting new child care facilities (and affordable housing) in the vicinity of well-established transit routes. Council was also interested in measuring the impacts of actions in terms of what difference(s) will result. 3. Council recommended City staff “reach out” to child care providers/agencies to tap their expertise, suggesting that staff invite “10 providers/agencies” to meet to review the list of “potential options for future City role, actions and strategies” and asking them for priorities and/or other ideas. Also, ask them about the “root problem(s)” that prevent current providers from meeting demand (in particular for low income families). 4. Council was supportive of emphasizing the value of “education” as a key component of City policy and programs; not just “warehousing” children. Council was interested in understanding how recent discussions with Poudre School District and Larimer County regarding “community life centers” fit in this discussion. Council was interested in knowing more about City programs/facilities that may be used as a surrogate for child care; and, if so, how is/can “early childhood education” be built into these programs/facilities. 5. Council was interested in knowing more about the City employee benefit related to “100 hours per year of child care”. In particular, Council wanted to know more about the situations in which this benefit is being used; and, what is the mean salary of employees overall. Some councilmembers would like consideration be given to limiting this benefit to low income employees. 6. Council would like an explanation of the apparent drop in total number of children served in 2011 compared to 2010 described in the attachment to the Snapshot Report. 7. Council was interested in knowing more about the demand for families who need special hours of child care, beyond the traditional 8-5 working day. Are these needs being met? Council was also interested in knowing more about the requirements for families to receive sliding scale fees and Colorado Child Care Assistance subsidy. 8. Council was very complimentary and appreciative of staff efforts, information provided, and the Council discussion. Council was very appreciative of the efforts of child care providers and associated organizations.