Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Finance Committee - 05/02/2024 - Finance Administration 215 N. Mason 2nd Floor PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6788 970.221.6782 - fax fcgov.com Council Finance Committee Hybrid Meeting CIC Room / Zoom May 2, 2024 4:00- 6:00 pm Council Attendees: Emily Francis, Kelly Ohlson, Tricia Canonico Absent Mayor Arndt Staff: Travis Storin, Ginny Sawyer, Rupa Venkatesh, Marc Virata, Andy Smith, Monica Martinez, Lawence Pollack, Randy Bailey, Victoria Shaw, Dave Lenz, Joe Wimmer, Kevin Wilkins, Ryan Malarky, Drew Brooks, Zack Mozer, Jo Cech, Trevor Nash, Moutaz Badawi, Carolyn Koontz, Others: Kevin Jones, Chamber NOTE: Staff follow-up included on the last page of draft minutes. Meeting called to order at 4:00 pm Approval of minutes from April 4th, 2024, Council Finance Committee Meeting. Kelly Ohlson moved for approval of the minutes as presented. Tricia Canonico seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously via roll call by; Emily Francis, Kelly Ohlson, Tricia Canonico. A. TCEF Reimbursement with a Metro District Marc Virata, Sr. Manager, Civil Engineering Monica Martinez, Sr. Manager, FP&A Andy Smith, Redevelopment Manager SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Waters Edge Second Filing Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Major Reimbursement EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Waters Edge developer has constructed street improvements to Turnberry Road, Brightwater Drive, and Morningstar Way to City standards as part of its development plans and development agreement for Waters Edge Second Filing and permitted for construction under a Waters Edge Third Filing Development Construction Permit. Per Section 24-112 of the City Code, the developer is eligible for reimbursement from Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) funds for the oversized, non-local portion for construction. Staff is recommending appropriations totaling $612,027 from TCEF funds. City Council approved the consolidated service plan for Waters Edge Metropolitan Districts Nos. 1-5 by adopting Resolution 2018-084 on September 18, 2018. Staff has identified on the review of this reimbursement request that, as part of the metro district service plan for Waters Edge, the developer may also be eligible to seek reimbursement from the metro districts for these same street improvements that the developer is requesting from TCEF funds. To make clear that the developer cannot seek reimbursement from the metro districts, the Board of Directors of Districts 1 and 2 adopted a joint resolution affirming that the Districts shall not reimburse the developer, for costs reimbursed by the City, and the Districts’ accountant shall ensure that the Districts do not reimburse the developer for costs reimbursed by the City. Additionally, the accountant issued an affidavit to Districts 1 and 2 affirming that Districts 1-5 have not reimbursed the developer, and that the districts cannot reimburse the developer for street oversizing costs that the City has already reimbursed, nor can the districts acquire such improvements. Districts 3, 4, and 5 are presently declared inactive, and are intended for future development east of Turnberry Road, and not associated with the street improvements that the developer is requesting from TCEF funds. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED • Do Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle appropriation of Transportation Capital Expansion Fee fund reserves to reimburse the Waters Edge developer for its construction of Turnberry Road, Brightwater Drive, and Morningstar Way? • Do Council Finance Committee support TCEF funds being utilized as proposed by Staff, in light of the joint resolution and accountant’s affidavit documentation from the Waters Edge Districts 1 and 2 that the metro districts have not, and will not also reimburse for these same improvements if TCEF funds are used to reimburse the developer? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION TCEF Program The TCEF Program (formerly Street Oversizing), instituted by ordinance in 1979, was established to manage the construction of new arterial and collector streets, and is an “Impact Fee” funded program. The TCEF Program determines and collects impact fees from development and redevelopment projects. The collection of these impact fees contributes funding for growth’s related share towards City Capital Projects, including the City’s Active Modes Plan, and reimburses development for constructing roadway improvements above the local street access standards. Section 24-112 of the City Code allows for reimbursement to developers for the construction of collector and arterial streets. Waters Edge (marketed as Sonders Fort Collins) is a development on the west side of Turnberry Road between Douglas Road and Country Club Road built in between the Hearthfire, Richard’s Lake, and Serramonte neighborhoods. This reimbursement is for the Waters Edge developer’s construction above the local street access standards of Turnberry Road (2-lane arterial), Brightwater Drive (collector), and Morningstar Way (collector) as part of the Waters Edge Second Filing and permitted for construction under the Waters Edge Third Filing Development Construction Permit. Portions of pavement, landscaping, and sidewalk for all three streets are eligible for reimbursement and are depicted in the “Waters Edge Second Filing Street Oversizing/Repay Exhibit A” and itemized between City (TCEF) and local (developer/adjacent parcel owner) responsibility in Exhibits B “Street Reimbursement Agreement” and B-1 “Street Reimbursement Agreement City-Developer Cost Breakdown”. Brightwater Drive abuts a City-owned property as a park site and separately, the developer and City Park Planning and Development are working on identifying local costs attributable to the City as reimbursement to the developer as City park street frontage requirements. Staff has reviewed the documentation provided by the Waters Edge developer and agrees that the requested reimbursement meets the requirements under City Code Section 24-112 for appropriation from TCEF funds. There are presently adequate funds in TCEF to reimburse the developer and Staff recommends reimbursement in the amount of $612,027. While this reimbursement is considered routine as part of the Code obligations under the TCEF Program, this request is coming before Council Finance Committee because of the large dollar amount outside of the typical 2- year budgeting process. TCEF reimbursements to development were formerly anticipated and appropriated through the 2-year budgeting process. As part of the process improvements identified first in the 2021 budget, the TCEF Program is now categorizing developer reimbursements as “Major” and “Minor” reimbursements, with “Major” developer reimbursements brought to Council individually rather than predicting what reimbursements are needed on a 2-year basis. This proposed reimbursement is the third request under this process with Council Finance Committee having reviewed Northfield in 2022 and Waterfield in 2023. As part of Council Finance Committee’s input for Northfield, Council Finance Committee supported TCEF reimbursing Northfield instead of Northfield’s metro districts. Part of that reimbursement request included Northfield and its metro districts committing that the metro districts would not reimburse Northfield, meaning that Northfield would not “double dip” and be reimbursed twice for its costs. (Waterfield does not have a metro district.) Similarly to Northfield, Waters Edge has metro districts that were established with City Council approving the consolidated service plan for Waters Edge Metropolitan Districts Nos. 1-5 by adoption of Resolution 2018-084 on September 18, 2018. Staff has identified on the review of this reimbursement request that, as part of the metro district service plan for Waters Edge, the developer may be eligible to seek reimbursement from the metro districts for these same street improvements that the developer is requesting from TCEF funds. The Board of Directors of Districts 1 and 2 adopted a joint resolution affirming that the Districts shall not reimburse the developer, and the Districts’ accountant shall ensure that the Districts do not reimburse the developer. Additionally, the accountant issued an affidavit to Districts 1 and 2 affirming that Districts 1-5 have not reimbursed the developer, and that the districts cannot reimburse the developer for street oversizing costs that the City has already reimbursed, nor can the districts acquire such improvements. Resolutions declaring Districts 3, 4, and 5 as inactive were adopted on December 2019, and are intended for future development (separate from Sonders Fort Collins) east of Turnberry Road. These districts are not associated with the Waters Edge Filings and the associated street improvements that the developer is requesting from TCEF funds. Special district notices declaring the continued inactive status of Districts 3, 4, and 5 were provided to the City in December 2023. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED • Do Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle appropriation of Transportation Capital Expansion Fee fund reserves to reimburse the Waters Edge developer for its construction of Turnberry Road, Brightwater Drive, and Morningstar Way? • Do Council Finance Committee support TCEF funds being utilized as proposed by Staff, in light of the joint resolution and accountant’s affidavit documentation from the Waters Edge Districts 1 and 2 that the metro districts have not, and will not also reimburse for these same improvements if TCEF funds are used to reimburse the developer? DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS; Kelly Ohlson; do we charge developers for collector streets? Marc Virata; we reimburse them for building collector streets through the TCEF fund. Kelly Ohlson; I would like to know at some point if other communities in the state charge developers for collector streets – evening a 50/50 split. Marc Virata; when we went through work session, there was some discussion through the fee updates. Collector streets are paid for by the developers in Loveland. Kelly Ohlson; near the end of 3rd page of the AIS (see below) Staff has identified on the review of this reimbursement request that, as part of the metro district service plan for Waters Edge, the developer may be eligible to seek reimbursement from the metro districts for these same street improvements that the developer is requesting from TCEF funds. The Board of Directors of Districts 1 and 2 adopted a joint resolution affirming that the Districts shall not reimburse the developer, and the Districts’ accountant shall ensure that the Districts do not reimburse the developer. Additionally, the accountant issued an affidavit to Districts 1 and 2 affirming that Districts 1-5 have not reimbursed the developer, and that the districts cannot reimburse the developer for street oversizing costs that the City has already reimbursed, nor can the districts acquire such improvements. Resolutions declaring Districts 3, 4, and 5 as inactive were adopted on December 2019, and are intended for future development (separate from Sonders Fort Collins) east of Turnberry Road. These districts are not associated with the Waters Edge Filings and the associated street improvements that the developer is requesting from TCEF funds. Special district notices declaring the continued inactive status of Districts 3, 4, and 5 were provided to the City in December 2023. Why are they eligible? Why aren’t we taking that out? Double dipping - there is no way in 4 years the city has gone back and checked. I am still wounded over Provincetown, which was an affordable housing, but we had for profits buying them and selling them because the city didn’t have a system to check. Also, no punishment for doing so. I am using this as an analogy – not the same thing as it is an affordable housing project. With the How are we ever going to really know that they haven’t gone back six years from now and charged people for things that they have already been reimbursed for? Also, if we did discover they had double dipped, what is the penalty? Andy Smith; I am responsible for going back every September when the deadline comes for every metro district to submit their financials for review. I haven’t gone through that exercise yet, but plan to over the next couple months. A double audit in advance of September’s deadline for last year. Your point is valid and well taken about having a system in place that continues in the future - past my time. We will provide you with a written response that addresses your concerns. Kelly Ohlson; why do we have to go through this every time? Marc Virata; the way these metro districts are set up, developers are utilizing these as a funding tool. They can reimburse for these improvements, just as much as TCEF - some protection for them in case there is not the ability for TCEF to reimburse. TCEF is subject to appropriation. Why don’t’ we just take it out, so it doesn’t say that. We are not going to go back on our word to give them money. I understand that they want protections to be able to go back and charge people who live in the metro district. Travis Storin; monitoring that was mentioned earlier by Andy, is our most effective technique. Affidavits and resolutions are helpful to the extent that the people running these special districts know there is an established and documented expectation, but the monitoring is always going to be our very best way of making sure there is no funny business. Some of our most recent, (going to blur between Metro Districts and Urban Renewal) we have instances in North College, Foothills Mall, Prospect South as well as the Woodward assistance agreement, where even after multiple generations of staff turnover, we still have annual monitoring in place that has survived multiple people and remained attached to a desk. The Prospect and I25 metro district reflects that as well. Ryan Malarky; Northfield did get a TCEF reimbursement for public improvements. In those district service plans, we put language that says to the extent that the city reimburses the developer for public improvements that the district would not reimburse the developer for those same improvements. The metro district being presented today predates when we identified this as an issue. I believe we are adding language to address this issue going forward. In terms of what our recourse might be, I believe there is a legitimate legal argument that for a district to reimburse a developer for something they have already been reimbursed for by the city would be in violation of special district law so, there are some legal restrictions there. In terms of us taking some action, we could make a claim for unjust enrichment but that is something I need to give more thought to. Kelly Ohlson; I am kind of done approving anything to do with metro districts. I don’t trust them, and I don’t think they will end up well. Travis Storin; we have seen some past councils that had a delineation in that perspective depending on whether it was a residential or commercial metro district. It would be helpful for staff to know if your comments apply to the tool in all its forms or if your concerns are limited to one or the other. Kelly Ohlson; residential is my concern. Approved to proceed to go to the full Council. B. Appropriation for Compliance with HB21-1110 Rupa Venkatesh, Assistant City Manager Jan Reece, Lead Equal Opportunity Compliance Specialist Appropriation Request to Develop a Digital Accessibility Roadmap EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to request an appropriation of $150,000 in General Funds in order to work with a consultant to develop a comprehensive and actionable Digital Accessibility Roadmap. The purpose of this roadmap is to provide a strategy for compliance with both Colorado and federal laws and regulations pertaining to digital accessibility requirements, including both the Americans with Disabilities Act and Colorado House Bill 21-1110. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED What questions do Committee members have about this request? Does the Committee support staff bringing an appropriation ordinance for consideration at the May 21, 2024, Council meeting? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION (details of item – History, current policy, previous Council actions, alternatives or options, costs or benefits, considerations leading to staff conclusions, data and statistics, next steps, etc.) House Bill 21-1110, Colorado Laws for Persons with Disabilities, as amended by State Bill 23-244, relates to all technology, hardware, and software, that is both public-facing and internal-facing. This includes any technology provided by or procured by a government entity that is used by the public or used by a government entity employee. This technology includes but is not limited to websites, applications, kiosks, digital signage, documents, video, audio, and third-party tools. By July 1, 2024, all local governments need to be compliant. Part of this work includes conducting an inventory survey, classifying, prioritizing, and accessing all applicable Information and Communication Technology (ICT) as defined by the state and goes beyond just web content. A citywide survey has been completed, which revealed that staff needs additional expertise to assist in determining the accessibility of the City’s current ICT portfolio. Therefore, a Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued to hire a consultant to provide the City with an assessment and roadmap. A consultant selected from the RFP process will assist in the following: • Conduct a comprehensive review and analysis of the City’s digital technology, on-line services, websites, and third-party software applications to develop a prioritized Digital Accessibility Roadmap • Analyze the current usage level for City webpages, software applications, and online services as part of development of prioritized mitigation strategies and Digital Accessibility Roadmap • Provide an evaluation of the time and cost needed to remediate non-compliant content on both the City’s website and third-party service delivery platforms • Develop a strategy and action plan to drive compliance with Colorado’s digital accessibility laws and regulations Future phases of this work may include ongoing services to ensure future digital content is compliant with accessibility standards, including but not limited to, processes to validate that newly created content is in compliance with accessibility regulations; provide training for City staff to ensure that they have knowledge and skills to maintain compliance; and recommendations for modifying existing City procurement processes and documents to ensure that new or renewing third party software and digital services comply with applicable accessibility regulations. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED What questions do Committee members have about this request? Does the Committee support staff bringing an appropriation ordinance for consideration at the May 21, 2024 Council meeting? DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS; $150K to secure a vendor to drive compliance with this new law. Skillset needed to evaluate our ICT inventory to see if it is compliant with the new state law. This would include 160 hours of analysis of asset usage, what it would take to remediate and an action plan to help drive compliance. Not included in the $150K would be any ongoing work including training for city staff. Emily Francis; will there be a budget offer for on-going? Rupa Venkatesh; we don’t really know what the next phase costs will look like. That is part of the strategy development we want this vendor to look at. What would it look like for training? What would it look like in terms of building a long-term strategy map? Emily Francis; do we need to be in compliance by July 1st or just making progress? Travis Storin; we have seen administrative rules published that augment the bill and indicate that the Legislation be extended to 2025 – trajectory based. Rupa Venkatesh; there is legislation to extend it to 2025, but regardless of anything passing, we need to be in good faith. Emily Francis; if this was passed in 2021, why are we doing this now? Why haven’t we started? We have had three years. Rupa Venkatesh; there are other things in the law not related to the ICT that we have been working on. Updating our website, having an accessibility statement, accessible forms. Most cities across Colorado will not be in compliance by July 1st which is by there is the pending legislation to extend the deadline. Travis Storin; a good example is the PowerPoint presentation you are looking at now which was created using the new standard. ADA (in the physical space) would be the most direct comparison. It is a constant and a multi decade prioritization investment and effort. The rule that I just referenced that allowed it to be based on a good faith effort versus being 100% compliant by July 1st. That rule was just released a month ago. Rupa Venkatesh; part of the struggle of it being released in 2021 - there wasn’t much guidance as to what this ICT involved and that wasn’t released until this year. Tricia Canonico; contractors in Colorado Travis Storin; we have just received news today that the Feds are looking at standards that very much overlap with this. Regarding what you are referring to Councilmember Canonico, there are software publishers and for the last year we have asked ‘will you be compliant with this bill?’ They say we have 49 other states that don’t require us to do this so… Emily Francis; It would be helpful to understand what are we trying to comply with and where we are in compliance? I support this, but it feels a little late in the game. So, maybe just an overview of where we are. Rupa Venkatesh; there is a lot of opportunity for cities to comment on rulemaking, so that is part of the piece that we and several other cities mentioned to the state in terms of we have been trying to get these vendors – what do we do if they say no? That was part of the rules that came out a couple months ago. There is an ability for us to say, this is the only piece of software that we can use for city meetings, so we are asking for an exception. There are exceptions that the state put into rulemaking based on the comments they were getting from cities. Kelly Ohlson; I support Emily and reinforce her comments. We are almost halfway through 2024 and this was 2021 - all of sudden it is hurry up. Rupa Venkatesh; would it be helpful for the May 21st Council meeting to do a status update? Travis Storin; of course, it will be up to LPT if this goes via consent or not – generally something of this amount would be consent but we will hold for their decision. Meeting adjourned at 4:41 pm. Staff Follow ups from previous meetings; May 2nd Council Finance Committee Meeting TCEF Reimbursement with a Metro District Follow up from the discussion that took place on the May 2nd CFC pertaining to the Waters Edge TCEF reimbursement. Councilmember Ohlson raised several questions and I’m understanding that procedurally at CFC, discussion specific to an agenda item discussed at CFC are addressed in an AIS when the item goes to Council. Discussion more generic not specific to the agenda item are included in the CFC minutes. I had a meeting/debrief with Andy, Ryan, and Monica, and we have these overall takeaways from the discussion with Councilmember Ohlson: - We don’t believe any of the questions or discussion were specific to Waters Edge itself, and as a result did not need to be addressed in the AIS for the Council item on first reading this evening. - Councilmember Ohlson did ask whether developers pay for collector streets as part of our Transportation Capital Expansion Fee and asked how this compares to other communities. I provided feedback how our capital expansion fee inherently does collect for reimbursement of collector streets and contrasted this with City of Loveland where developers fully pay for the cost of collector streets. Kelly indicated that he would want more information to understand other communities but wasn’t in a hurry. I will investigate this further. - Most of the discussion with Kelly centered around metro districts. Inquiries were made as to why we ask the question on CFC supporting TCEF reimbursing instead of the metro district with the documentation from the metro district, how do we ensure a double-dip does not occur in the future, and what are the implications on if a double-dip were to occur. We believe the responses from Andy and Ryan addressed Kelly’s concern and did not need additional follow up.