HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Finance Committee - 02/06/2025 -
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
nd Floor
Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Council Finance Committee Hybrid Meeting
CIC Room / Teams
February 6, 2025
4:00 - 6:00 pm
Council Attendees: Mayor Arndt, Emily Francis, Kelly Ohlson
Staff: Kelly DiMartino, Gretchen Stanford, Dianne Criswell, Teresa Roche, Terri
Runyan, Josh Birks, Andy Smith, Dana Hornkohl, Dean Klingner, Leeann William,
Aaron Harris, Jill Wuertz. Victoria Shaw, Wes Collins, Ginny Sawyer, Max
Valadez, Randy Bailey, Trevor Nash, Adam Halvorson, Renee Reeves, Lawrence
Pollack, Jo Cech
Other: Kevin Jones, Chamber of Commerce
Will Little, McWhinney, Corey Hoffmann, Hoffmann, Parker, Wilson & Carberry
PC, Alan Pogue, Foothills Metro District, Joe Rowan
Meeting called to order at 4:00 pm
Approval of minutes from the January 2, 2025, Council Finance Committee meeting.
Motion made to approve by Emily Francis and seconded by Kelly Ohlson. Approved via roll call.
A. Foothills Metro District
Josh Birks, Deputy Director, Sustainability Services, & Acting Executive Director, Fort Collins Urban Renewal
Authority (FCURA);
Andy Smith, Redevelopment Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Council approved the Foothills Metropolitan District (the “District”) on May 7, 2013 (Resolution No. 2013-
044). The District was organized to redevelop the then existing Foothills Mall. Since the District’s formation and
redevelopment, some of the planned activation has been successful. However, several factors have affected the
commercial leasing of all property, which has impacted the revenues dedicated for debt service payment. To
address the underperforming aspects, MXD Fort Collins, LLC (the “Current Developer”) is currently designing a
new redevelopment plan. The First Amendment supports this new approach to redevelopment by:
1) Increasing the maximum amount of debt the District can have outstanding.
2) Extending the length of the debt the District is allowed to incur and clarifying refunding.
3) Make other changes to ensure consistency with the new redevelopment plan.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1) Does the Committee have any additional questions not answered by the materials provided? Or require
any additional information to evaluate the proposed amendment?
2) Does the Committee support sending the proposed First Amendment to the City Council for
consideration?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
History
Prior to redevelopment, the owner of Foothills Mall – Alberta Development Partners, in partnership with Walton
Street Capital (the “Original Developer”) - requested the formation of a Metropolitan Districts as allowed by Title
32 of the Colorado Revised Statues. On May 7, 2013, Council approved, by Resolution 2013-44, an Amended and
Restated Service Plan for Foothills Metropolitan District (the “District”) to operationalize significant components
of the Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement (the “Agreement”) between the City of Fort Collins (the
“City”), Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority, Walton Foothills Holdings VI, LLC and the District.
The Original Developers undertook a comprehensive redevelopment of the Foothills Fashion Mall (the “Original
Project”). The Original Project included mixed use redevelopment with a commercial/retail component, a
commercial parking structure and 402 multi-family dwelling units on 76.3 acres. Construction of the Project was
completed in 2016.
Previous Public Finance Package
The original redevelopment effort was supported by a bond issued by the District which facilitated $53 million of
net bond proceeds to fund public infrastructure improvements, the Foothills Mall Activity Center, and an
underpass beneath College Avenue connecting the Original Project to the MAX Bus Rapid Transit. The bond was
supported by a public finance package that included five revenue sources: (a) Metro District Capital Mills; (b)
Metro District Specific Ownership Tax; (c) Property Tax Increment; (d) a Public Improvement Fee; and (e) Sales Tax
Increment.
All revenues were pledged to the District for the duration of the tax increment collection period (2014 to 2038) to
support repayment of the bond. The pledge of the sales tax revenue was intended to support the bond debt
service only if needed and to fill a supplemental reserve account required by bond terms. Any pledged sales tax
increment revenue more than that commitment was to be remitted back to the City. Currently, the City has not
received any excess sales tax increment revenue.
Current Situation
Since its completion, the Original Project has been able to consistently lease out the retail shops along College
Avenue at approximately 90 percent occupancy. However, the interior portion of the property – the enclosed
retail shops – have struggled to achieve similarly high rates of occupancy with only 49 percent occupancy today.
Further, since 2016, there have been international and national trends that have impacted consumer and other
market behaviors within the bounds of the Current Project, including retail consolidation, the 2020 COVID
pandemic, rising construction costs, increasing housing costs. These international and national trends are major
considerations that factor into renewed investment in the site.
In the near term, activities within Original Project are not generating robust tax and increment revenues.
Presently, the pledged revenues, all together, are just sufficient for repayment of annual debt service. The Current
Developer’s bond underwriter’s forecast indicates that pledged revenues may not be sufficient for annual debt
service payments sometime in calendar year 2028. To address a potential insufficiency of revenues under the
present financing structure, the Current Developer is proposing changes necessary to refinance the debt. To
accomplish this, the existing principal balance of the original bonds, approximately $62 million, would be
refunded. Then, to align revenues with the debt obligation, the Current Developer is requesting the ability to issue
new bonds based on revised and to pledge new revenue sources to support a second approach at redevelopment.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
The proposed First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Service Plan for the Foothills Metropolitan District
(the “Amendment”) changes several aspects of the Service Plan.
The first set of proposed changes occurs in Section II of the Service Plan (Definitions) and includes:
Add-On PIF Revenues – Amends the definition (“Add-On PIF Revenues”) by adding the following in redlines:
“has the same meaning as in the Redevelopment Agreement, subject to adjustment as to amount as provided
in the PIF Covenant. Throughout the term of the Redevelopment Agreement, the amount of the Add-On PIF
Revenue shall not be reduced below 1.00%.” This change enables the Current Developer to adjust the PIF
amount to raise additional revenue to support the District’s ability take on expanded debt. The Current
Developer plans to increase the total Add-On PIF Revenue to 1.25%.
Named Developer – Changes the named developer from Walton Foothills Holding VI, LLC to MXD Fort Collins,
LLC, and from a Colorado limited liability company to a Delaware limited liability company. This change
updates the Service Plan to reflect the Current Developer/property owner.
Eligible Improvements – Expands the list of improvements eligible to be funded by the District to include
those described in Attachment 1 to this Amendment. With some additional contingency making the total
eligible expenditure $75 million. The original list of eligible improvements remains intact as they were funded
with the Foothills Mall Fund. This change increases the value of the eligible improvements from the original
$53 million to approximately $128 million.
Financial Plan – Updates the definition to reflect the Financial Plan attached to the Amendment as
Attachment 2 rather than the Financial Plan attached to the original District Service Plan. As the Financial
Plan describes how the Eligible Improvements are to be financed and how the debt is expected to be incurred,
it requires updating based on new revenue sources and other changes. This change swaps out the old
Financial Plan for a revised plan based on the new revenue and debt anticipated by the Current Developer.
The rest of the proposed changes to the District’s Service Plan occur in Section VI (Financial Plan) and only the
stated aspects of this section change the rest remain in effect as written. The changes are intended to enable the
Current Developer to ask the District to incur additional debt enabling it to finance the updated list of Eligible
Improvements. The ability to incur additional debt is created by the following changes (summarized in Table 1,
below):
Maximum Debt Authorization – Increases the previous amount of $72.95 million to $166.00 million. This
change enables the District to incur additional debt generating approximately $75 million in net new
proceeds to fund Eligible Improvements. The net new proceeds number exceeds the current estimated cost
of the Eligible Improvements to provide cushion for interest rate fluctuations, reserve fund needs, project
delays, and unforeseen cost overruns.
Total & Annual Net Debt Service – Increases the previous amount from $180.00 million to $350.00 million.
Net Debt Service is the sum of all principal and interest payments on the debt. Thus, an increase in the
Maximum Debt Authorization requires a corresponding change to both the total and annual Net Debt Service
amounts. This change supports the District’s ability to incur additional debt to fund additional Eligible
Improvements as part of the proposed redevelopment.
Maximum Debt Maturity Term – Increases the previous maximum term from twenty-five (25) to forty (40)
years from the date of issuance of the debt. This change extends the length of the debt incurred by the
District. Allowing the Debt Service Mill Levy of fifty (50) mills to be leveraged over a longer period resulting
in additional revenue and debt expense. Couple this change with the proposed increase in the Add-On PIF
and together they create the revenue necessary to support additional debt.
Table 1
Amendments to Section VI – Financial Plan
Item Previous Amended
Maximum Debt Authorization
Total Net Debt Service
Maximum Debt Maturity Term
Impact on Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement
The Amendment does change the commitments of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the “Authority”)
under the Agreement, nor does it necessitate an amendment or modification of the Urban Renewal Plan. Corey
Hoffman, of Hoffmann, Parker, Wilson & Carberry, P.C., outside legal counsel to the Authority has reviewed the
proposed service plan amendment, Agreement, and Urban Renewal Plan. Additionally, he reviewed a letter
submitted by the Current Developer’s legal counsel regarding the legal basis for the proposed amendment under
the existing Agreement and Urban Renewal Plan. It is his conclusion, that neither the Agreement nor the Urban
Renewal Plan need amendment or modification because of the proposed service plan amendment. A letter of his
legal opinion will be included with the materials when the Amendment is presented to City Council for
consideration. Therefore, for the Amendment to be effective the required actions are limited to Council’s
consideration alone.
Furthermore, the purpose of the Urban Renewal Plan – the remediation of blight and the prevention of its further
spread – are supported by the Current Developer’s plans. Additional blight conditions have arisen since the
Original Project, namely the vacancy of the former Macy’s building. Also, the proposed plans revitalize the site by
shifting from an outmoded from of development – enclosed retail space – to a more flexible and viable form of
development. Therefore, both the Amendment and the proposed plans for the site are consistent with the
fundamental mission of the Authority and the Urban Renewal Plan.
IMPACT ON THE CITY’S FINANCES
When City and FCURA originally considered the approval of the Service Plan and associated public finance package.
City staff prepared an estimate of the total amount of incremental sales tax anticipated to be invested in the
project. This estimate relied on several assumptions many of which have not proven to hold true. Despite this
estimate, the agreement entered by both the City and FCURA at the time pledged 100 percent of the sales tax
increment associated with the then 2.25% General Fund tax rate. Please note that, while the City’s General Fund
sales tax rate increased, the original rate of 2.25% that was committed to the project did not increase.
In May 2013, staff estimated that the total incremental sales tax invested in the project would total approximately
$8.8 million, see Table 2 below. To date, the City has contributed $3.5 million significantly below the original
estimate, which may be due to several factors, including:
Lower than expected financing costs – the original bond closed at 5.92%, which was lower than the rate
assumption of 7.00% when estimates were developed.
Higher than expected property values – Actual property values of the Original Project were assessed higher
than original estimates resulting in higher-than-expected property tax revenue collections – both increment
and metro district – from 2015 to 2023.
Lower than expected sales tax increment revenue – Due to the market conditions described below, actual
retail sales performance of the project from 2015 to 2023 came in much lower than originally estimated
resulting in less sales tax increment revenue to remit to the project.
Table 2
Original Sales Tax Estimates, May 2013
To evaluate the impact on the City, the following were evaluated: (1) the impacts of the Amendment on revenues
pledged to repayment of Debt through the Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement (the “Agreement”),
and (2) the estimated sales tax “invested” towards repayment of debt because of the tax increment pledge.
Impact on the City’s Debt Obligation
The Service Plan Amendment does not alter the nature of the obligation of the City to participate in the repayment
of the debt. It does not change the pledged amount nor the term. The property tax increment pledge remains 100
percent until the plan area expires in 2038. Additionally, the sales tax increment remains limited to the 2.25
percent portion of the rate, excluding recent increases to the General Fund rate and all dedicated sales taxes. The
pledge of sales tax also remains 100 percent of the increment until the plan expires. Therefore, the Service Plan
Amendment does not change the City’s or Authority’s obligation to participate in the repayment of the debt;
however, please see the below discussion on revenues.
Impact on Estimated Sales Tax
While the City’s obligation is not changed in the Service Plan Amendment, the estimated City sales tax revenues
that will be applied towards the repayment of the project debt requires additional evaluation.
Please note that the May 2013 estimates of sales tax revenue necessary to meet the City’s pledge were presented
to provide context and perspective for policymakers. Widely accepted economic assumptions that were applied in
2013 did not include the subsequent structural changes in national and international retail markets, such as the
growing share of retail sales by remote sellers and other global shifts in consumer behavior. The May 2013
estimates were conservative and based on general economic assumptions during the term of the debt repayment;
but the estimate was not a limit on the City’s sales tax revenue obligation. The assumed early “retirement” of the
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
sales tax increment, in whole or part, beginning in 2018 were not realized. With or without the Service Plan
Amendment, the City’s pledge of its sales tax increment will extend well into the debt repayment term.
The activities and properties within the District do not currently generate robust sales and property tax revenue
for debt payment under the current financing structure. When actual pledge revenues are less than those
forecasted, it is common to consider restructuring debt, including refunding the initial bonds and then refinancing
the project. Here, refunding the initial bonds would likely increase the City revenues pledged for its sales tax
increment – in part because the overall cost of financing will increase based on rate assumptions. Therefore, the
City’s pledged sales tax revenues from the current agreement will likely exceed the original estimate of $8.8 million
– it’s unclear by how much. Again, the City’s pledge will likely exceed this amount, with or without the Service
Plan Amendment.
We can, however, more clearly estimate the amount of City sales tax revenue necessary to meet its pledge under
the proposed Amendment. Based on the Financial Plan attached to the Amendment, the estimated sales tax
increment “invested” into the project is approximately $30.5 million, see Table 3 below. However, it should be
noted that the same conditions apply to the sales tax pledge that applied in 2013. This estimate assumes that we
can know the economic conditions for the entire term of the pledge – through 2038.
As additional context, it is important to note that the City’s sales tax increment pledge was designed to increase
overall revenue to the City, both in the near and long term, from increased retail sales. Currently, it is estimated
that the City will realize $78.4 million in non-pledged and base sales tax; however, if vacancy rates and other
trends in the area continue, the City may not receive the estimated non-pledged sales tax receipts. The purpose
served, in part, in refinancing the debt would be to increase the likelihood of continued, robust activities in this
area.
Table 3
Revised Sales Tax Estimates, 2025
METRO DISTRICT POLICY
Tax Revenue
Year
Est. Taxable
Sales
City Sales Tax
Revenue
(@ 4.35%)
Dedicated &
Non-Pledged
Taxes
(2.10% rate)
Pledged
Sales Tax
(2.25% rate)
LESS:
Collection
Admin Fee
LESS: Base
Collections
(2.25% rate)
Pledged
Increment
(2.25% Rate)
2025 119.7$ 5.2$ 2.5$ 2.7$ 0.0$ 1.8$ 0.8$
2026 75.3$ 3.3$ 1.6$ 1.7$ 0.0$ 1.8$ -$
2027 75.3$ 3.3$ 1.6$ 1.7$ 0.0$ 1.8$ -$
2028 164.3$ 7.1$ 3.5$ 3.7$ 0.1$ 1.8$ 1.8$
2029-2038
(Annually)208.1$ 9.1$ 4.4$ 4.7$ 0.1$ 1.8$ 2.8$
Total 2,515.6$ 109.4$ 52.8$ 56.6$ 0.8$ 25.6$ 30.5$
The City has an adopted policy for reviewing service plans for metropolitan districts that was originally adopted in
2008 and revised in both 2018 and 2021. The 2021 policy revisions focused on emphasizing disclosure and
transparency requirements and add an evaluation points system for the public benefits provided by metropolitan
districts (“Metro Districts”) serving primarily residential development.
Residential Evaluation Point System
The Foothills Metropolitan District was approved by Council in 2012 and later amended in 2013. The District
primarily exists as a financial conduit to create public financing to offset the cost of infrastructure required by the
redevelopment project. As such, its primary purpose is not to serve residential development; however, it clearly
funds significant infrastructure that will support residential development. The original project included 402
multifamily units, and the current proposal will increase that number by approximately 300 units.
The original District was adopted before the 2021 policy revisions. Additionally, the proposed project builds upon
a previous redevelopment not starting from scratch. As such, staff does not recommend strictly enforcing the
residential evaluation point system. However, the project vision does deliver on several aspects of the residential
point evaluation system. Below is an overview of the public benefits delivered by the proposed project:
Environmental Sustainability Outcomes
1. Green House Gas Reduction: shifting to a walkable urban-scaled village potentially reducing reliance on
the car and reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions; adaptive re-use of existing structure over
demolition; focus on recycling and re-use programs.
2. Water and/or Energy Conservation: committed to LEED certification of new construction.
3. Multimodal Transportation: Strengthen pedestrian and bike connections to College Ave underpass to
Max BRT; provide additional dedicated bike lanes and related bike infrastructure; provide six new “bike
gardens” throughout the site; 20-30% reduction in overall surface parking.
4. Enhance Community Resiliency: Repair and improve existing Low-Impact Development and district-wide
stormwater management systems; dramatically increase precent of permeable area.
Smart Growth Management
1. Increase Density: Densify a designated TOD site with approximately 300 new attached housing units
(range of product types: townhomes, stacked condominiums, and affordable rental); leverage existing
parking structure to achieve higher densities.
2. Walkability & Pedestrian Friendliness: Remove sprawling surface parking lots that act as a barrier
between the commercial core and surrounding residential areas; provide new protected pedestrian
connections between commercial core and College Avenue Shops.
3. Public Space: Re-envision east plaza; provide a new flexible “band shell” adjacent to the village green to
enhance opportunities for activation; remove portions of the mall roof to create more outdoor shopping
experience.
Strategic Priorities
1. Affordable Housing: Commitment to set aside approximately 30,000 square foot lot adjacent to the
existing parking structure at no cost for a 50–60-unit affordable housing project; project can leverage the
district owned garage reducing the cost to construct higher density product.
2. Attainable Housing: No deed restricted for-sale homes are proposed; however, the project is anticipated
to provide a range of attached housing types at a range of price points.
3. Infill/Redevelopment: Focus on 15-minute city design; redevelopment of 62 acres in the heart of
midtown; consistent with Midtown Plan (2013); served by existing infrastructure; no threat to open
space, farmland, or other greenfield sites that contribute to sprawl.
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS:
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1) Does the Committee have any additional questions not answered by the materials provided? Or require any
additional information to evaluate the proposed amendment?
2) Does the Committee support sending the proposed First Amendment to the City Council for consideration?
Goal of more outdoor feeling shopping center instead of current older model?
30% less indoor space in future proposed models
Providing covered areas to accommodate for weather
Shared renderings of interior conversion to exterior style
Community feedback revealed want for more food/drink options
Mixed use space sometimes multi-storied
Kelly Ohlson: question regarding the $9M dollar sales tax estimate in 2013, the staff assumption at time did
not come to fruition.
Josh Birks; we thought $9M was going to be the likely exposure of the city based on the sales tax pledge at
the time. When there’s more revenue at the site, more sales tax is collected.
Kelly Ohlson: I would like to see tables or similar in future presentations at Work Sessions and Council.
I use the King Soopers on N. College as an example, discussed interest costs that get taken out of tax
increment that would have come to the public if it was a real cost. Language was evasive on the increase in
the PIF – that does cost residents more money. Need clarity on the cap of 1.25% in the PIF language.
Josh Birks; part of rationale from request of developer is to have flexibility.
Kelly Ohlson; disagreed on description of blight at Macy’s vacant site, would prefer not to bring into
discussion if possible. Disappointed we are not using the point system for this metro district.
Is the developer providing 50-60 units of affordable housing or is it 30k sq ft for someone else to build
affordable housing on it? Who is paying for the affordable housing?
Decision of how land will be given/bought will depend largely on partnership for group who may be
interested in adding new housing units.
Emily Francis; area of gap is after maxing out our LIHTC (Low-Income Housing Tax Credits), not adding any net
new housing, need to find funding for this.
Mayor Arndt; we need more details on other funding options, more assurances from group that they will
build affordable housing. Overall, more details on how this will be accomplished without displacing other
funding for city development projects.
Kelly Ohlson; need real specifics before we vote on this, who is paying for it? Built by when? What AMI? This
has to be more specific; this is what we are getting in this time period, and this is who is paying what. Details
needs to be nailed down, so we know what we are voting on.
Final ask: would like to know how much more potential public money via property taxes or the PIF is going
into this pot for this period of time, already been extended, expects number to be large (additional public
monies by five potential revenue sources?). This might be worthy of a Work Session.
Mayor Arndt; I acknowledge this is tough spot. I am happy there is interest in doing this, had same questions
about details on affordability as Kelly Ohlson. What is the doomsday scenario if not passed amendment?
We’ve seen costs increase unabated, retail has done really well post pandemic, right sized retail, construction
costs have far outpaced retail success, for new retail to be built, will need to pay 65-70% more than past for
construction. Didn’t anticipate how much construction would occur in 22-23 across country, dealing with cost
increase trends. Redevelopment of mall would not be possible, if not passed.
B. College & Trilby
Brad Buckman, City Engineer
Dana Hornkohl, Director of Civil Engineering
Monica Martinez, Planning Development & Transportation Finance Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Final construction of the College Avenue-Trilby Road Intersection Improvements project (Project) will require
additional appropriations to complete work. There is sufficient transportation and stormwater funding available
to complete the Project if appropriated. It is necessary to either 1) appropriate additional funds to complete the
Project, 2) further reduce scope, or 3) delay final delivery. Reduction of scope will result in the Project not fully
meeting the established Project goals or adopted City standards and plans. Delaying final delivery until other
funding becomes available will negatively impact other transportation capital projects in the delivery pipeline.
Staff is recommending supplemental appropriations totaling $3,756,165 which would allow for completion of
the intersection improvements and significant utility infrastructure installation as intended when work began.
This request is coming before Council Finance Committee now to avoid additional cost impacts due to
potentially pausing and restarting active construction and design projects.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle appropriation from the following funding sources: 1)
Stormwater Reserves, 2) Fort Collins Loveland Water District (FCLWD), 3) South Fort Collins Sanitation District
(SFCSD), 4) unanticipated revenue from the rent and sale of 945 East Prospect Road, 5) Community Capital
Improvement Program (CCIP) Arterial Intersection Improvements, 6) remaining funds in the Suniga
Improvements Project, and 7) Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEF) to complete the College Avenue –
Trilby Road Intersection Improvements project?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Staff came before the Council Finance Committee and City Council in August/September 2024 seeking and
additional appropriation for the Project. The supplemental funding was requested to cover right-of-way and
easement acquisition costs over and above the estimated cost for this phase of the Project. Since the request
was granted, right-of-way acquisition has been completed.
Delays associated with right-of-way acquisition led the Project team to divide construction into three packages
based on the estimated acquisition dates for specific parcel locations. This allowed construction to begin in
areas where acquisition was complete. Construction Package One (CP1) began in Spring 2024 and was
completed in the Fall of 2024. CP1included Project earthwork and walls. The remaining construction included
new stormwater infrastructure and utility relocation (Package 2) as well as new paving, sidewalks, signals,
signing, striping, landscaping, irrigation, and urban design elements (Package 3). Staff began negotiating
construction pricing for these packages with the City’s Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC).
It became evident that there were significant additional costs for 1) splitting the construction packages to take
advantage of available acquisitions and 2) longer construction schedules. With construction season coming to
close, and acquisition complete, the Project team decided to recombine all remaining work into Construction
Package Two (CP2) to minimize these additional costs. The estimated cost for CP2 was still significantly higher
than the City’s remaining Project budget. While construction cost inflation is not as severe as in 2022 and 2023,
it remains challenging, especially for projects that take significant time for planning, design, and acquisition. The
quarterly trendline for annual inflation percentage is 8.51% as measured by the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) Construction Cost Index (see Attachment 1).
The Project team has since undergone a significant value engineering effort to help bring the remaining
construction cost within the City’s budget. This effort in conjunction with reduced mobilization, duration of
project, and traffic and erosion control setups has brought the estimated construction cost of CP2 to within
~$1.3 million of the City’s available funding. Staff has identified traditional transportation capital project funding
sources that can be utilized to cover the shortfall (see Figure 2).
The Project includes significant water line replacement work for the FCLWD and limited sewer work for the
SFCSD. Including this work in the Project will minimize disruption to the traveling public. The City has entered
into intergovernmental agreements with the districts (see Attachments 2 and 3) and will be reimbursed for this
work as it is constructed and accepted by district staff. This is a routine partnership practice on transportation
capital projects. However, the total scope and estimated cost ($1,168,662) of the districts’ work in the Project is
relatively high compared to other recent capital projects. Now that agreements are executed and pricing is fixed,
a supplemental appropriation is needed to cover the cost of the districts’ work.
The Project also includes significant new stormwater infrastructure. This includes normal surface water
collection inlets and pipes associated with intersection improvement projects. It also includes significant
stormwater outfall infrastructure that is not typically included in this type of transportation work. The Fossil
Creek Stormwater Master plan was originally completed in 2001. Since this area was within Larimer County but
not within City limits, it was not studied for proposed future major stormwater improvements. The area that
includes the Project was annexed into the City in October 2006 as part of the Southwest Enclave Annexation.
The existing site and stormwater conveyance conditions have not changed significantly since the annexation,
including stormwater routinely overtopping the intersection and College Avenue north of the intersection. At
the onset of the Project, it was not envisioned that Stormwater Reserves funding would be needed to assist with
covering construction costs. This request was not planned for in the adopted City budget for 2025-2026.
The cost of establishing adequate stormwater outfalls was seen as above and beyond the typical costs
associated with transportation capital improvement projects (see Attachment 4). Fort Collins Utilities has agreed
and is prepared to contribute Stormwater Reserves funding ($1,294,934) to the Project to cover the
construction costs associated with establishing these outfalls. This work will allow for future development and
redevelopment in and around the intersection of South College Avenue and Trilby Road.
In addition to this request from Stormwater Reserves, Water Utilities leadership anticipates bringing forward a
request at the March 2025 Council Finance Committee for a supplemental appropriation of $1,500,000 for the
Oak Street Stormwater Improvement Project (OSSP). This supplemental appropriation will add to the overall
OSSP budget to cover anticipated project expenses with a minor contingency. Water Utilities leadership
reviewed both requests for funding and are confident the Stormwater Utility reserve balance can accommodate
both requests.
Figure 1 depicts the funds that have been appropriated to the Project.
Figure 1 - Prior Appropriated Funds
Figure 2 depicts the proposed supplemental appropriations to the Project.
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Grant Funds 2,250,000$
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement
Program Grant Funds 748,732$
Funding Advancements for Surface Transportation and Economic
Recovery (FASTER) Act Grant Funds 3,500,000$
Highway Improvement Program (HIP) Grant Funds 1,870,000$
Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Program Funds 5,272,260$
SUBTOTAL 13,640,992$
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) Funds 1,511,420$
Transportation Services Fund 20,750$
Transportation Improvement Fund 11,900$
Development Contributions to Construction 52,963$
Community Capital Improvement Program (CCIP) Arterial
Intersection Improvements 2,800,000$
SUBTOTAL 4,397,033$
TOTAL PRIOR APPROPRIATION 18,038,025$
Prior Appropriated Funds
Grant Funding (Federal and State)
Local Funding
Figure 2 - Funds Proposed to be Appropriated per Future Action (Local Funding)
Staff has identified three alternatives to reach final completion on the Project.
• Option 1: Secure off-cycle appropriations for the Project to complete construction and avoid additional
costs without delaying the work. There is currently sufficient transportation and stormwater related
funding to cover the proposed appropriation.
• Option 2: Further reduce the scope of work for the Project. The Project has been value engineered to
minimize costs. Additional reduction of scope would potentially compromise project goals or limit the
ability to meet City standards.
• Option 3: Delay final delivery until additional funding can be secured. This option may jeopardize grant
funding awarded to the Project and would result in the Project not meeting the identified goals within
the promised timeframe, expose the remaining work to further inflation, and would impact the schedule
and budget for other transportation capital projects in the design, acquisition, and construction pipeline.
Project Details and Background
In 2020, the City’s Arterial Intersection Prioritization Study identified the intersection of Trilby Road and South
College Avenue (also known as State Highway 287) as a high priority due to traffic safety and congestion issues,
as well as a lack of active modes infrastructure. CDOT has also identified this intersection as a high priority to
address serious injury crashes.
Engineering, Traffic Operations and FC Moves staff identified the following safety and operational concerns with
the current intersection: 1) high frequencies of approach turn crashes and rear-end crashes; 2) a lack of bicycle
and pedestrian accessibility and infrastructure; 3) high volumes of motorists on the north-south legs of South
College Avenue; and 4) increasing volumes on the east-west approach legs of Trilby Road. The Project design
effort began in 2020.
The reconstructed intersection (see Attachments 5 and 6) will improve safety for current and future traffic levels
as growth continues in the region and will create a safer intersection for all users. The new intersection will
feature dual left turn lanes from South College Avenue to Trilby Road, right turn lanes for each direction of
Stormwater Reserves Fund 1,294,934$
Fort Collins Loveland Water District (FCLWD)1,139,824$
South Fort Collins Sanitation District (SFCSD)28,838$
Proceeds from Rent and Sale of 945 East Prospect Road 380,673$
Community Capital Improvement Program (CCIP) Arterial
Intersection Improvements*400,000$
Reappropriation of Suniga Improvements Project to College
Avenue-Trilby Road Intersection Improvements Project 246,503$
T ransportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) Funds 265,393$
Total Proposed Funds to be Appropriated per Future Action 3,756,165$
Proposed Transfer to Art in Public Places 30,789$
Total Proposed Project Funds 21,794,190$
*Note: CCIP funds previously appropriated through 2025-2026 budget adoption.
Funds Proposed to be Appropriated per Future Action (Local Funding)
travel, and a widened Trilby Road approach to South College Avenue. Pedestrians and bicycles will benefit from
shared use paths on South College Avenue (8-foot wide detached) and Trilby Road (8-foot wide attached).
Transit users will benefit from new bus stops on the south side of the intersection on South College Avenue
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance Committee support an off-cycle appropriation from the following funding sources:
1) Stormwater Reserves, 2) Fort Collins Loveland Water District (FCLWD), 3) South Fort Collins Sanitation District
(SFCSD), 4) unanticipated revenue from the rent and sale of 945 East Prospect Road, 5) Community Capital
Improvement Program (CCIP) Arterial Intersection Improvements, 6) remaining funds in the Suniga
Improvements Project, and 7) Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEF) to complete the College Avenue –
Trilby Road Intersection Improvements project?
Mayor Arndt: is this one of our most dangerous intersections? Did we address slip lane questions?
Dana Hornkohl; Yes, some improvements to light signals should help further improve safety.
We have reached out to community on that, and we don’t have receiving lanes – if you are making a right
turn you have a lane to turn into but there is no receiving lane there. (see below).
Kelly Ohlson; clarification needed on the money, $18M total appropriations, what was original estimate
before first reappropriation? Original believed to be $ 14.5M (2022) (see below)
In the future revisit developer involvement with future repayment for portions of this project to use space?
Are we working on things to not have these unanticipated costs go up and down?
Dana Hornkohl; hard to account for fluctuation in certain core necessary materials, getting better and more
regular updates to estimates.
C. SE Community Center
Dean Klingner, Community Services Director
LeAnn Williams, Director, Recreation
Victoria Shaw, Finance Senior Manager, Community Services
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Southeast Community Center, a City of Fort Collins and Poudre River Public Library District (PRPLD)
partnership, is in the early stages of design. The project has a scope and funding history that dates back to the
2015 voter approval of the Community Capital Improvement Tax which included a Community Center with an
Outdoor Pool.
In the intervening years, additional developments have made expanded opportunities possible. These include
completion of multiple studies and plans, a partnership with PRPLD, and a potential funding partnership with
Poudre School District.
Over the next few months, the design team will be developing funding and scoping options to inform City
Council, the PSD School Board, and the Library District Board decisions. As the project team has been generating
estimated costs for the facility, a funding gap has been identified. Staff will bring the potential options for a
facility with capital and operations projected costs. Staff will present some options for funding each scope of
facility while identifying potential tradeoffs in future capital funding of recreation and pool facilities.
This conversation is intended to give a preview and receive feedback of the presentation and funding options to
City Council at the work session on February 25, 2025.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
What questions do Committee members have about the background, status and upcoming steps for this
project?
What feedback do Committee members have about the capital, operations, maintenance, and asset
replacement options presented?
What feedback do Committee members have on the SECC options and potential funding stacks that will be at
the Council work session Feb 25, 2025?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
This project includes over 11 years of project development from the completion of a 2013 Feasibility study
through today. Due to the volume of background information, this Agenda Item Summary presents the
background in summary, not complete detail.
• In October of 2013 the City completed the “Fort Collins Southeast Community Recreation & Arts Center –
Summary of Needs and Development Plan.” This study provides valuable information about the origination
of the idea of a facility in SE Fort Collins, but is now old enough that it does not reflect current community
needs.
• In January of 2021 City Council adopted “ReCreate, Parks and Recreation Master Plan.” This document is the
“north star” for guiding parks and recreation policy and investment and highlights the need and plan for a
Southeast Community Center at a high level.
• In 2022, at Council request, the City completed a more detailed aquatics study to understand the demand,
options and opportunities for public aquatics facilities in Fort Collins.
• In 2022, City Council held two Work Sessions and a Council Finance Committee discussing this project. No
decisions were made, and as a result of these meetings, City staff continued to work with the Library and
PSD as potential partners and began to consider a larger facility than required in the ballot language that
could be phased or funded through a future funding source.
• In November of 2023, the 2050 1/2-cent sales tax passed with the following ballot language: “50% for the
replacement, upgrade, maintenance and accessibility of parks facilities and for the replacement and
construction of indoor and outdoor recreation and pool facilities.”
• The 2023-24 City Budget included funds for project development and design. City staff has been actively
working on this phase of the project since the 1st quarter of 2024. Progress to date has included hiring of an
Owners Representative, a Design Firm / Architect, and a General Contractor.
• Staff will be at two work sessions in February and April, with the intention of finalizing scope, budget and
combination of potential funding sources (funding stack) for the project.
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
What questions do Committee members have about the background, status and upcoming steps for this
project?
What feedback do Committee members have about the capital, operations, maintenance, and asset
replacement options presented?
What feedback do Committee members have on the SECC options and potential funding stacks that will be at
the Council work session Feb 25, 2025?
Kelly Ohlson; would be good to have a legend for the slide above for the upcoming Work Session.
Kelly Ohlson; I am probably sitting in the Option 2B camp (or at least supports)
Are you going to meet the City’s LEED gold certification? Option 3 is a stretch for me - 2- 3 pools
Dean Klingner; Estimates are based on reaching community LEED standard which is gold.
Kelly Ohlson; I would like to include in the materials where we started with – the ballot
Dean Klingner; $14M was on the ballot (in 2015 dollars)
Kelly Ohlson; why are we in the childcare business with this project?
LeAnn Williams; all day childcare (7:30 am – 5:30 pm), pre-school/summer camp, childcare/youth
development is important to creating a great community, economic driver that allows parents to work, limits
their income and ability for job growth. This is our way of contributing to overall health of community.
Kelly Ohlson; will these be city employees?
LeAnn Williams; yes, they are now
Kelly Ohlson; do we have some type of sliding scale for payments? (those that are able to pay are paying)
LeAnn Williams; same as we currently use for our summer camps (38-40% of participants are on a reduced
fee program). For Universal Pre-K (UPK) 15 hours of Pre-K is a state-run program and they reimburse us.
Emily Francis: before UPK we did these programs and just called them something else?
LeAnn Williams; correct
Emily Francis; for all of the options in the shared spaces, that is kind of the same throughout?
LeAnn Williams; yes
Emily Francis; through community outreach, I assume we are hearing more than the recreation side but also
hearing what folks want on the shared spaces side?
Dean Klingner; we are actually just starting up the launch of our outreach. We want to be clear on what we
are asking folks about. The shared spaces are a key part of this.
Emily Francis; we need more focus on the shared spaces aspect of this and clarity on if we are going with
intent of ballot in terms of pool or above and beyond?
Mayor Arndt; please look into shared spaces/ care centers – they are quite remarkable. With the library, we
have an opportunity to have something really special.
Kelly DiMartino; we can say in the Work Session materials that the Council Finance Committee preferred that
the team focus more on Option 2B – maybe spend more time on that option that 1 or 3. We would still show
the full Council the range of things that were considered.
Meeting Adjourned