Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Finance Committee - 06/06/2024 - 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 June 6, 2024 4:00- 6:00 pm Council Attendees: Mayor Arndt, Emily Francis, Kelly Ohlson Staff: Kelly DiMartino, Tyler Marr, Denzel Maxwell, Carrie Daggett, Ryan Malarky, Travis Storin, Teresa Roche, Tracy Ochsner, Judge Hueser, Patty Netherton, Stu Reeves, Kevin Wilkins, Dawn Downs, Blake Visser, Adam Halvorson, Jo Cech, Joe Wimmer, Lawrence Pollack, Randy Bailey, Trevor Nash, Dave Lenz, Carolyn Koontz Others: Kevin Jones, Chamber Meeting called to order at 4:07 pm Approval of minutes from May 2, 2024, Council Finance Committee Meeting. Kelly Ohlson moved for approval of the minutes as presented. Emily Francis seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously via roll call by; Mayor Arndt, Emily Francis, Kelly Ohlson. A. Municipal Court Update and Expansion Options Denzel Maxwell, Assistant City Manager Tracy Ochsner, Operation Services Director Jill Hueser, Chief Judge, Municipal Court EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2007, the City of Fort Collins Municipal Court, moved from the Larimer County Justice Center and has occupied about half of the 1st floor of the facility. Since that time, minimal renovations have been done to address security and additional staffing in the current space. In 2022, Council approved funding $700K to address their urgent needs for next 3-4 years. In 2023, $1.5 million was appropriated to fund space planning, programming, and design to accommodate the Court and Prosecution needs for the next 15 years. The study indicates that the space available for the 15-year Court build out is not adequate. Further, the initial construction estimates have a higher cost than originally anticipated. Staff desires to update the Council Finance Committee and present three options to provide Municipal Court and Prosecution operational space needs for the future. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED Does Council Finance Committee prefer to continue designing the entire 1st floor of the 215 N Mason facility along with including some 2nd floor space to meet the updated 15-year space programing needs for Municipal Court? OR Does Council Finance Committee support a smaller renovation project to address Municipal Court needs for the next 5 years to allow time to explore the potential of a Larimer County Justice Center expansion? OR Does Council Finance Committee prefer to design a new Municipal Court building just north of their current space at 245 N Mason St. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND The purpose of this discussion item is to consider at least three options at this stage of the project. The three options are: Option A - Continue the 15-year plan to utilize the entire 1st floor at 215 Mason and a part of the 2nd floor for City Attorney (Prosecution) Option B – Look at an Urgent Needs Phase II which would be a larger renovation to get them by for the next 5- years to explore the possibility to partner with Larimer County to include a municipal court as part of a Justice Center expansion. Option C – Construct a new facility purposely designed and constructed for current and long-term municipal court operations (A short term renovation would still be necessary) As part of the original 15-year design discussion, the HVAC system in this building has reached the end of its useful life. Staff is currently in the process of using the City’s Integrated Design Assistance Program (IDAP) to identify options for replacement. At least three systems are being considered and modeled for energy efficiency and staff would like to update the Council Finance Committee on this item and inform what the next steps would be for a future funding and timing discussion. DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS: Judge Hueser; we just spent 3 years getting to this point – we need to move forward on something to address our space issues, taking over the 1st floor and part of the 2nd floor. I am concerned if we wait 3 years for the County – they have gone to bond / ballot twice and it has failed. We are at their mercy to a certain extent as we don’t get to decide – that negotiation will take even more time - the level of uncertainty in that approach is uncomfortable for me – we have been down this road before – the county needs more space – w/ the costs being what they are – maybe the new building – my concern would be that we make a decision and get moving forward on it – I don’t want to lose momentum on this project – we have worked for 3 years to get where we are. I understand the issues that comes with 125 Mason St. Kelly Ohlson; before this goes to the full Council, I would like to see a chart with the numbers plugged in. It is not clear to me if the HVAC was included in the $18M -20M option? Tyler Marr; it is not included Kelly Ohlson; if we do go ahead and build the new $30M building, I would like to see the figure for the land acquisition for the parking structure as that comes into play Tracy Ochsner; yes, that is where the parking structure was planned Kelly DiMartino; because we already have land for the parking structure, do we have existing other city land for the parking structure, or would we have to purchase that? Tracy Ochsner; we do have some ideas for existing city land for the parking structure. Kelly Ohlson; I am glad you are bringing this back – 15-year plan doesn’t make a lot of sense to me We kind of have to do the 5-eyar plan anyway. Emily Francis; what is the 5-year plan? Denzel Maxwell; 5-year plan is to mitigate current issues which include several things such as; building a jury box, utilizing some of the parking services area on the first floor as we have new space for them to take over. The approximate cost for the 5-year plan is $2M or less. Travis Storin; the 5-year plan is a bridge to something else whether that is a partnership with the County or a new building. Kelly Ohlson; we could decide sooner if the County option drags on to just go ahead with a new structure. Option 2 will become Option 3. How much of that is used by the next stuff? Not all wasted money Tracy Ochsner; for the 5-year plan – it is kind of difficult to say before we design – I could see some opportunity- especially if we have some kind of front desk capability which could be used for 281 as well Kelly Ohlson; 1 ½ year and in a new facility in 3 years but giving the Judge what she needs - Kelly DiMartino; 15-year plan – at some point it is irresponsible to not confirm this is still the best path given some of the new things we have discovered. The need is very real right now for the Court - we have to move forward with something up to a 5-year plan. Would give us some breathing room to explore. Kelly Ohlson; I think you are right to have brought this to us – I don’t think the 15-year is fiscally responsible – I think we go with the 5-year plan - which could turn into 2 or 3 and remain open to do our own structure and keep the dialog open with the County. I really like that you don’t lead us to a certain outcome. –you kind of said we have to do the 5-year plan anyway and then we figure out the long-term plan in the next 2- 3 years. Travis Storin; what are the flaws in the 15-year plan? Emily Francis; for $1-6 M more you could have a facility that fits for the next 50 years not just 15 years Kelly Ohlson; and designed specifically for the court, which is a real issue. Kelly DiMartino; HVAC has to be done either way. Jeni Arndt; we would just be back at the table in 15 years – I would be in favor of the new building. Would we be selling something if we do our own building? Tracy Ochsner; selling 281 N. College has always been part of the Civic Center Master Plan. Jeni Arndt; I would give our County partners a deadline. I would go forward with the 5-year plan and say, we are moving, if it makes sense to join together, but if we don’t hear in 2 years we are doing it just to give some certainty. It is an expensive time to build, but I am not sure it will get any less expensive. I would go with the 5-year plan. I would think we would want to control our own destiny, unless we get a firm commitment from the County sooner rather than later. Emily Francis and Kelly Ohlson; agree with Mayor Arndt. Kelly Ohlson; why does it cost $2M to move offices from one location to another? Tracy Ochsner; the parking services example is almost offices for offices. We wouldn’t have a lot of renovation except for a front counter area. We haven’t gone down this path very far yet, because we wanted to talk with you first. What will we move into the current Parking Services area? The big question there is; secure or not secure, which impacts costs significantly. We haven’t had a chance to make sure we program the existing parking services area into what we need. Kelly Ohlson; things won’t get any cheaper, but they may level off. Tracy Ochsner; we have not designed that because we wanted to get your feedback first. Travis Storin; no statement of preference Kelly Ohlson; what do you think of what we are saying? The three of us seem to be thinking of the 5-year plan and then be prepared to move a little quicker on our own building. How comfortable are you and was that the direction you were hoping for? We still want to work with the County to see if we can get an answer from them. It would be great to be all in one building and leverage one set of security infrastructure. This would give ourselves a year or 2 to explore what the county can do. If not, we will move forward with a new building. Judge Heuser; it does make sense to be in one building – in Loveland, the municipal and county courts are in the same facility. I don’t’ want to have to go forward and then have to revisit this again. My hesitation comes from the idea that the County is dependent on the voters approving the bond. I don’t’ know if there is an appetite for that right now – and there is a lot that has to go into that negotiation such as we are looking at over 20,000 square feet in our current space. Not having the experience of negotiating with the County in the past – not sure how that will play out – probably would be a lot to go into making sure we don’t get asked to leave again. Kelly DiMartino; there is a lot of work that we have to figure out. One thing we have talked about was if that was some sort of partnership around the land would be dependent on permanent occupancy of the municipal court in that space. We have some levers to talk about if we went down that path. I have heard clearly from this committee that we should move forward with the 5-year plan which means a 2–3-year runway to figure something out so we know what the long-term plan looks like. Kelly Ohlson; so glad you don’t make decisions ahead of bringing issues here. I like how we operate, but I do value your opinions. Are the five of you in the like mind on how you think we should progress? Are you comfortable with the feedback from the committee? Denzel Maxwell; I am comfortable with the feedback from the committee. We brought three good options to you, and we can make any direction work. Kelly DiMartino; I met with Carrie Daggett and Judge Heuser – I don’t want to speak on their behalf, but they are less comfortable with the partnership option due to the concern around the timing and feasibility. As long as there is a 5-year window, was alignment around that as a good approach. I think they would both be comfortable with the 15-year plan as well. Emily Francis; when is this coming to Council? Travis Storin; there are two appropriations that previous councils have made – most of which is still remaining – We might need to return for another appropriation if we go ahead with the 5-year plan. I will defer to Tracy on that. I don’t think there is an eminent council action at this time. If we would decide to build, there would most likely be a debt issuance at that time. Emily Francis; what is happening with the funds we haven’t used? Tracy Ochsner; some of it will go for the design – I will have to see what we think the revised scope looks like – we will still be using some of that for designing the HVAC – using part of the appropriation for design of the HVAC. I am not sure how much of that was for HVAC design. Judge Hueser; I think the original thought was, when it was going to be 215 and the HVAC had to be done anyway, it made sense to address them together. We are now in a position where the projects are diverging a bit. Jeni Arndt; if we are going to be putting in some very climate wise HVAC, would there be some funding from the state to help? Kelly Ohlson; even if we decide we want to do a new building, we still have to do the 5-year plan? Come back to us, if in 18 months, if the County option is not progressing – we think we need to go ahead with our own building. Travis Storin; that is in consistent with the runway concept we heard from Kelly DiMartino. If we move in the full build direction, we would be back in front of you; 1 year of design and 18 months - 2 years for construction. Judge Hueser; I really appreciate that clarification Councilmember, my biggest concern is that we have been working on this and we don’t want it to fall by the wayside. The court space we have now is not meeting our needs. Jeni Arndt; the public deserves to feel like they are in a court when they are in a court – I think it is responsive to the residents in terms of what good governance is - full favor of a court that feels like a court – 215 Mason HVAC Replacement Update Tracy Ochsner; this is a complementary project to whatever we decide to do We have two rooftop HVAC units and if one of the two units fails then one half of the building goes down. Looking at options for dual fuel or fully electrified systems Costs $4.5 - 9M - All options align with our climate future Compare these systems. If this committee wants, we can come back to share a recommendation. I don’t have costs for each of the options, but that will be vetted out and we will develop a recommendation. Mayor Arndt; are we pursuing state grants – seems like there might be something out there – state and federal dollars Tracy Ochsner; we will uncover every rock we can to fund some of these systems. IRA Inflation Reduction Act – looks very promising for funding part of this. We will go after it. Police Services building will be coming forward in BFO. Travis Storin; we get pretty aggressive with grants development for finding funding for these projects - every dollar we get is a dollar of tax that we do not need to spend. There is an intersection in the grants question with the design phase here - each of the 3 options that Tracy outlined carry very different design implications because of the internal duct work and the work that needs to be done inside the building, so that is one of our complexities in trying to ferret out which of the options because they look so different. Stu Reeves; not as simple as replacing the roof top units as there is a lot of internal infrastructure we have to deal with. This duct work gets pretty invasive. Each unit supports ½ of the building but are separate systems which was not good design. We are embracing the opportunity to combine the systems together, so we have redundancies in the building. Stay with link our climate future goals. Kelly Ohlson; how long each system works? How long a life is expected? Climate, operations and maintenance. Considering how it fits with being a model of some of the retrofitting and climate things we are doing in the city, cost, life cycle, O&M Stu Reeves; life cycle cost analysis of all of these systems – we are not replacing anything that does not have at least have 25–30-year lifecycle. We would like to lead by example. Mayor Arndt; thinking the geothermal bore will be more expensive – but it does feel like the costs have come down. That might be the forward thinking that might really pay off in the future. Stu Reeves; ties together – looking at those funding opportunities Geothermal is a key word when looking at a tax credit – city is looking at an RFP for a 3rd party tax consultant Having that 3rd party, they start walking alongside you and can also influence based on funding that might be attached to these types of systems. Mayor Arndt; our Governor is very pro geothermal. Travis Storin; the clarity you provided on the court will also provide clarity on the HVAC conversation. What is the risk of the equipment on the roof right now? That is the risk we are working with right now. Meeting adjourned at 5:02 pm.