HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Full - Finance Committee - 12/04/2025 -Agenda
Council Finance Committee
December 4, 2025 4:00 - 6:00 pm
City Hall - CIC Conf. Room
In person with Remote Participation Available via Teams Join the meeting now
Meeting ID: 247 116 340 034
Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals who have limited English
proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities, to access City services, programs and
activities. Contact 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Please provide advance notice.
Requests for interpretation at a meeting should be made by noon the day before.
A)Call Meeting to Order
B)Roll Call
C)Approval of Minutes from the October 2, 2025, Meeting
D)Foothills Mall Metro District Public Benefits Agreement Options Josh Birks
20 minutes
E)Arts & Culture as Infrastructure: Budgeting for Vibrancy & Belonging
20 minutes Eileen May
Dean Klingner
F)Other Business
G)Adjournment
Next Scheduled Committee Meeting: February 2026
Page 1 of 84
Page 2 of 84
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
nd Floor
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Council Finance Committee Hybrid Meeting
CIC Room / Teams
October 2, 2025
4:00 - 6:00 pm
Council Attendees: Mayor Arndt, Emily Francis, Kelly Ohlson, Susan Gutowsky,
Tricia Canonico
Staff: Kelly DiMartino, Tyler Marr, Caleb Weitz, Ginny Sawyer, Emily Land
Dianne Criswell, Terri Runyan, Taryn Moran, Dean Klingner, LeAnn
Williams, Joe Wimmer, Vanessa Fenley, Jen Poznanovic, Victoria Shaw,
Wendy Bricher, Jo Cech, Carissa Clinton, Alexis Coppello, Christina
Cornelius-Spight, Caryn Champine, Monica Martinez, Seth Lorson, Jeff
Rochford, Gerry Paul, Trevor Nash, Adam Halvorson, Renee Reeves,
Garrison Dam, Lawrence Pollack, Jill Wuertz, Jacob Castillo, Drew
Brooks, Josh Birks, Mallory Gallegos, Peggy Streeter, Annabelle Phillips,
Carolyn Koontz
Others:
Zachary White with WBA Local Government
Forest Hancock from the Montava Development
Meeting called to order at 4:00 pm
Approval of minutes from September 4, 2025, Council Finance Committee meeting.
Motion made to approve by Emily Francis and seconded by Kelly Ohlson.
Approved via roll call.
A) DOLA Passenger Rail Grant and Local Match Funding
Monica Martinez, FP&A Manager, PDT
Caryn Champine, Director, PDT
Monica Martinez – FP&A Manager, PDT
– Director, PDT
Page 3 of 84
The City of Fort Collins has been awarded funding under the Colorado Department of Local Affairs
(“DOLA”) Energy and Mineral Impact Assistance Fund (“EIAF”) program for station location and
preliminary design of the Front Range Passenger Rail project (“FRPR”), a new passenger rail system
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends using 2025 Tax Climate to meet the $125k local match requirement.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The City of Fort Collins is partnering with Loveland on the use of $400k in DOLA grant funding. These
funds are to be used for station location and preliminary design of the FRPR. At this time, staff is
seeking the recommendation of Council Finance Committee on whether to fund the $125k local match,
and, if so, direction on the use of 2050 Tax Climate to fund this need.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Use of $125k of the 2050 Tax Climate for local match.
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS
Kelly Ohlson; it is a stretch for me to use Climate funds. I would like to send a message for the
future that every time we do anything by any stretch of the imagination, related to climate
This is new and is gray to me but has more of a connection than some. We should be helping
people on building things and energy things, retrofitting and then we don’t have any money left
due to death by a thousand cuts on all of these other things. A bigger number would have
really got my attention but $125K for a local match – I am probably ok with it
Kelly DiMartino; this is my summary; this is not the easy button. Be very diligent in using it
for the intended purpose.
Mayor Arndt; what does ‘the study’ entail? I see preliminary design and identification of a
location. I talked with Tracy, and he said there were basically two options for location, so do
we need $400K to find out the location?
Seth Lorson; there are a lot of moving parts to this one. This project is twofold; right now,
they are working on a demonstration project called joint service, which is that initial project.
There are two locations we are looking at for that, and we would like to look at them deep
enough to identify the full cost and buildout for the intended design for joint service, but then
there is a long-term station that really needs to be identified. The initial criterion for joint
services is ‘cheap and fast’.
Mayor Arndt; $400K for cheap and fast? To spend that much on a study when we have two
locations identified. I know there is a big push for front range passenger rail and the joint
service has been described to me as cheap and fast (like a bench and a covering)
Page 4 of 84
If there are only 1-2 locations, I am not questioning you, but really questioning the state on
why don’t they just give us the money and not make us do the match?
Seth Lorson; we only have $250K and Loveland has another $150K.
Mayor Arndt; why wouldn’t it go together? Does Loveland get a station?
Seth Lorson; yes
Emily Francis; I am confused as to what it is covering; is it site analysis for those two sites
and the long term?
Seth Lorson; there will have to be more funding to be able to design and engineer the future
site. Preliminary evaluation of seven sites we are looking at now which are all the way from
Vine and Linden to the south transit station.
Mayor Arndt; so, we only have $250K because Loveland has their share – so, it is not
$400K. So, it is coming from the 2050 tax, I totally agree with you on that. If it was from the
General Fund, it would be a hard no for me.
Kelly Ohlson; can we get specific detail on what we get directly for the $400K?
Seth Lorson; I do have a scope of work outline for the $250K. We plan to issue an RFP as
soon as we can. Service is expected to be in 2029, so we want to be able to get ahead of it
and have the community input as well as design for first joint services as well as this long-
term consideration for a site. So, we are looking at evaluating seven different sites as well
as community engagement, putting site plans together, engineering, working with front range
passenger rail district and BNSF on an operations plan. We are looking at economic
development, future funding - how can we use this as a catalyst project in the TOD (Transit-
Oriented Development) overlay zone, how do we connect in other modes of transportation
into it and for our pedestrian network, how can we make sure it is a walkable space.
Kelly Ohlon; are we doing this or contracting most of it out?
Seth Lorson; all going to a sub-contractor, consultant services who are experts in this area.
Kelly Ohlson; is that who came up with $400K?
Seth Lorson; it is what we could get from DOLA, max for the Tier 2 grant. This is the fourth
grant we have looked at for this effort.
Kelly Ohlson; have we hired that group?
Seth Lorson; no, we are issuing an RFP after we get approval
Page 5 of 84
Kelly Ohlson; I am a yes, but this is a bit of a challenge for me as this is kind of a soft cost in
climate versus something that has direct impact that can be measured – it is really not a
match for building renovation -
Emily Francis; what happens after, and do we know the cost?
Seth Loron; we will identify the cost during this phase – what a station will cost - working
directly with a political and changing entity – this new Joint Services Executive Oversight
Committee represented by the Governor’s office, RTD, CDOT and other entities. They are
pushing it forward a little quickly, wanting service to start in 2029. What we would like to do
is to assert our own autonomy and be able to say, this location works for the city of Fort
Collins. We haven’t done any community engagement so far about a new train station
coming to Fort Collins. We need that input and we need to do a technical analysis.
What is the best station for ridership and community connection?
Emily Francis; what happens in the next phase?
Seth Lorson; we should have enough information to be able to work with joint services.
We think they are going to pay for the pad, the station amenity itself. The confusion is that
we are not sure, they haven’t told us anything certain yet so in that uncertainty we feel like
we need to grab on to it and gain an understanding of what is going on and use our own
process.
Tyler Marr; we are sitting on some buffer in the climate portion of the 2050 tax. Council has
expressed a willingness to help the county with their grant. That is later than we expected
but still underway. I don’t know that there is an immediate trade off of something that won’t
happen as we are sitting on some buffer in the tax.
Mayor Arndt; I won’t say no, but I would say no more money until the tax passes. The Front
Range Passenger Rail. I don’t want Fort Collins to invest our precious dollars or to carry this
– we need to get the district to vote yes. I would caution giving any more money until that
passes and we know that this is a distinct possibility for Fort Collins.
Tricia Canonico; there should be more information coming in the next month or two with
more certainty around the temporary station location
Mayor Arndt; if they know what the location is, what is the grant for?
Tricia Canonicao; this is for the temporary location which could be different from the
permanent location. That would be something to defer to staff, there are more technical
questions on why the temporary platform is up in the air
Kelly DiMartino; there has been an idea put out for a preferred temporary station location
which does have some technical challenges. We need some additional due diligence before
we could even say, yes this is a viable temporary location.
Page 6 of 84
Emily Francis; more information
B) SE Community Center Update
Dean Klingner, Community Services Director
LeAnn Williams, Director, Recreation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending the presented scope, budget and funding stack to be scheduled for a regular
Council meeting to appropriate available funds and approve the scope and budget in
November/December 2025.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Southeast Community Center 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 April of 2015, the Community Capital Improvement Program (CCIP) ¼-cent sales tax passed and
included an item for a ”Southeast Community Center and Outdoor Pool.” The more detailed
language read: ”The Southeast Community Center with Outdoor Pool will build a Community Center
in southeast Fort Collins focused on innovation, technology, art, recreation, and the creative
process. The Center will also have a large outdoor leisure pool with water slides, sprays, jets,
decks, a lazy river and open swimming area.”
• 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’s 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 Poudre River Public Library District (PRPLD or ”the Library‘) and Poudre School District
(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.
Page 7 of 84
Bond against 2050 Tax Bond Proceeds $27 $36 $43
2050 Tax Reserves $10 $10 $12
CCIP Appropriated $18 $18 $18
CCIP Reserves $12 $12 $12
DOLA Grant $2 $2 $2
Recreation Reserves $1 $2 $3
Total City Funding for SECC $70 $80 $90
% of 2050 Parks & Recreation Share 13%17%20%
Bond Years 20 20 20
Potential Funding Scenarios ($ in Millions)
Assumptions
• 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 have been
actively working on this phase of the project since the 1st quarter of 2024.
• Staff presented four facility scope and budget options at Council Finance on February 6, 2025. Also
presented, was a “funding stack” that used multiple funding sources to finance the options
presented. The Council Finance Committee recommended that staff bring forward option 2b to the
full Council at this work session as the recommended project. This was in alignment with staff’s
recommended scope and budget that met the intent of the 2015 CCIP ballot project, fulfilled the
partnership commitment with both Poudre Libraries and PSD, could be funded with the identified
funds, meets the Community Center level of service defined in the ReCreate Master Plan, and is
comparable to the size and amenities in Fort Collins’ two other Community Centers. It also meets
the gap of a community center in SE Fort Collins.
• Staff presented the four facility scope and budget options at a City Council Work Session on
February 25, 2025. Also presented was the funding stack that was presented at Council Finance.
City Council was supportive of staff moving forward with the scope and budget option for facility 2b.
Facility 2b
Proposed funding stack presented at City Council Work Session February 6, 2025 and Council
Finance Committee February 25, 2025.
Page 8 of 84
IGA Update
City and Poudre Libraries staff have been meeting regularly to agree to the terms and framework for an
IGA. The framework negotiated is a fair share of design, construction and operating costs for the facility.
Staff anticipate bringing the IGA for approval by the end of 2025.The IGA will be followed up with a facility
use agreement that will be reviewed annually by staff.
City and Poudre School District (PSD) staff have been meeting regularly to agree to the terms and
framework for an IGA that will govern the shared drive, shared parking, access to utilities on PSD site
and facility use at the SECC and other city and PSD facilities.
Significant work has taken place over the past seven months.
• Work Since February 2025
• Schematic Design (30% completion) September 2025
• Major Amendment and site plan ready for Development Review submission
• Community Engagement
The design team of Clark & Enersen and pre-construction team of GH Phipps (project team) presented
the SD scope and budget in early September. The estimated total project for the city exceeded the range
presented in February by $13 Million. City staff worked alongside our project team to clean up the scope
and work through some options to reduce the overall cost of the facility to align with the budget range
from February and stay as close to the scope presented as possible. City staff and the project team
referred to feedback from community engagement, ballot language, the aquatics study, P&R Master plan
and current and future demand of program spaces to inform program space reductions and/or elimination.
Below is a snapshot of the facility at the end of the schematic design phase. The facility shown meets
the scope of the facility that was preferred by Council members in February. The facility projected cost of
$93M exceeded the $68-80M dollar range presented in February. Not shown in the photos is the outdoor
pool.
Page 9 of 84
Over the past two weeks, the project team has revised the facility to bring it back under budget. The
current projected project cost is $78.4M. The updated facility is shown below.
Page 10 of 84
Overall, the scope of the facility is reduced with the only elimination being the childcare wing of the facility.
The childcare wing was not something the community was excited about, nor did they say was it needed
during community outreach. Staff did hear that there was a need to have a child drop-in area so
community members could have a safe place for their non-school aged children to be while they utilized
the facility.
The indoor lap lanes were reduced from ten to 8 lanes and removing the diving boards, and space on
the deck for viewing.
The gymnasium was reduced in size from accommodating two full-sized high school courts to two full-
size middle school courts with courtside seating.
The walking track was reduced in size and removed one lane to bring the total lanes to two.
The upstairs fitness area was reduced in size along with the elimination of a separate staff breakroom.
Funding Stack
Staff will be presenting a funding stack that closely mirrors the one presented to City Council at the work
session in February 2025. This funding stack has the same bond and sales tax growth assumptions
presented in February 2025.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The proposed facility has an estimated capital cost of $78.4M. Funding the project is possible through a
combination of funding sources detailed above. The operations, staffing, maintenance and revenue for
the facility is below.
• Projected Expenses: $2,630,000
Page 11 of 84
• Projected Revenue: $ 2,000,000-$2,300,000
• Projected Cost Recovery:75-88%
• Projected General Fund Subsidy:
$400K-800K per year
• Full-time Staff: 15 FTE
• Annual Cost: $1.2M
• Part-time Staff Cost: $700,000
Staff is projecting the SECC to have a General Fund impact of $400,000 to $800,000 per year with the
first five years being $225K to $575K per year due to the 2015 CCIP operational money allocated to
this project.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Community Engagement
Page 12 of 84
City and Poudre Libraries staff were at multiple events over the past seven months. Below is a snapshot
of the themes we heard for the recreation center (in no order):
• Indoor leisure aquatics
• Outdoor leisure aquatics
• Court sports (basketball, volleyball, pickleball)
• Drop-in childcare (child watch)
• Weight room and fitness that can serve youth, teens, adults
• Senior programs
• Places for teenagers to hang
• Concerns of youth crossing harmony to access facility
• Safe place for pre-teens/teens to hang, play and easy access to it by bus and bike
• Lots of maker type classes
• Track
• Lap lanes
• A safe place for pre-teens / teens to hang, play, & easy access to it by bus & bike
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS;
Under $80M – right now at $74.5M
17% from the 2050 tax – using 20% as the ceiling for capital / facilities
Kelly Ohlson; thank you for scaling it back – I agree with the scaling on this – it can get too expensive and
too big. You make me nervous on the 80/20 – it was a clear council directive. The pool was a stretch for
me from the beginning. The amount of money that pools can end up costing. I want to make sure
everyone understands that over the life of the tax, 20% for pools, etc. and 80% for the other. How are
people going to know that?
Dean Klingner; both things are true; it is not in the ballot language, and it is a clear council directive.
This was brought forward as part of financial policy updates, and it is documented there and approved by
council. Beyond that, I am not sure we know of additional ways to project this council intent going forward.
Page 13 of 84
Kelly Ohlson; I am still not understanding the 17% at the bottom of the slide (see below)
Page 14 of 84
Dean Klingner; this back up slide showing the original 80/20 might be helpful (see below) as this is the way
our math has evolved -
The problem we are trying to solve is; how do we enter into the 2050 and make sure we are balancing in
some way that is well vetted and discussed. Making sure we are taking care of what we have and building
these new facilities as both are mandated in the ballot.
How do those numbers feel at 80/20 – that was a starting point we brought forward.
It was a very simple analysis that said, in current dollars what would the total lifetime tax be;
20% in current dollars would be $60M. A much more sophisticated analysis we have is because we are
bonding and paying this back over time and the tax will collect more money over time – bring both of those
estimates out over the horizon of the life of the tax. All that is to say, it is our analyst that 17% of the total
tax would be spent on this facility.
Caleb Weitz; assuming we would be able to execute on Council’s direction, 80% would go to asset
management, this funding stack would take 17% and we would have 3% left.
Dean Klingner; we have tried to walk through how we meet the intent of the ballot and the needs of the
community and bring this project back into budget and use every funding source available in addition to the
2050 tax.
3% left to go to any capital project. We are using a big chunk for this.
Emily Francis; we also have the Mulberry Pool.
Dean Klingner; we have the Master Plan for the northeast. I don’t think we have ever conveyed that the
2050 tax will meet all the capital needs, but it will chip away at our needs and be a resource. We also have
some money on the proposed CCIP ballot measure for Mulberry
Page 15 of 84
Kelly Ohlson; this is the first or second biggest capital non-utility project we have ever done
Dean Klingner; inflation is tricky, but it is a big one for sure.
Mayor Arndt; in the 2050 tax, we have 20% for capital and 80% for asset management which is a huge
value of this council, to pay something forward and not build shiny new objects that would then fall behind
in arrears for asset management again. This first project is proposed to use 17% of that.
In 3 or 5 years when we are all gone, that money is just sitting there and it is so unsexy to spend on asset
management and already we are spending almost all of the capital. I don’t want to saddle our kids and
grandkids with a whole bunch of asset management because we couldn’t constrain ourselves and here we
are spending almost all of it on the first project out of the gate.
It is 90% of the 20%
Dean Klingner; do you think that the more we can convey that there is not a large list of future capital
projects that we feel like this is committed to. Mulberry is the one where we had said if we can, we will
contribute toward Mulberry. 3% is not a small number. We would communicate that there are no more new
capital recreation facilities planned for the 2050 tax.
Emily Francis; how are we going to pay for Mulberry? There will be no pools on the north side. I am so
uncomfortable with the Southeast Community Center, where it is located and how many dollars it is
supposed to be and now where we are at. Why wasn’t the outdoor leisure pool reduced in size?
Dean Klingner; we missed that point - it was reduced by 15%
Emily Francis; 70% in the initial year is just too much and we are going to have to have a conversation
about the CCIP reserves. This is too expensive.
Kelly Ohlson; I never liked, enjoyed and trusted the staff more than now – we are just doing our job.
We don’t have another capital tax in the next 10 years. Where are we going to pull the money for the
Lincoln Center/ Mulberry pool? We have agreed that we aren’t going to do the 4th iteration of the Mulberry
pool as it doesn’t work, it is not structurally sound. Give me a guess on the cost of a new pool facility
without any bells and whistles. I would guess about $40-50M.
Dean Klingner; there is a lot of conversation about what the scope of that facility is – what is could be/
should be. As this council understands, pools are expensive no matter where they go.
How many swim lanes do we have in the community as whole? How many do we need? We are adding 8
here. What number of lanes need to be replaced? Those are future conversations around the scope.
I think having critical mass funding or good anchors for the funding, we have demonstrated in the past that
we can find ways to do things. I know that is not a very satisfying answer.
Kelly Ohlson; I just want to know where the $40M is coming from
Dean Klingner; the remaining 3% would be in the $10-12M range. So right now, we would have
$22M allocated to that future facility.
Kelly Ohlson; it is in the CCIP
Dean Klingner; those are the two sources we have. So, at this point when we are
Page 16 of 84
deep into a current facility, we still have $22M allocated to a future facility. We do have a problem to solve
in the future. I am not going to sugar coat that.
Kelly Ohlson; for the 2050 tax reserves – I need some clarification on that. Does that mean we will have
that much left over?
Dean Klingner; cash, this is simply not bonding. How much have we collected and put in the fund
reserves.
Mayor Arndt; is this price locked in? I know that is a moving target but, are we signing contracts?
Costs are crazy right ow
Dean Klingner; our team has spent hours and hours talking about and working on that question. What
types of contingencies are we holding with the current price? We are thinking of things like 1.5 - 2 years of
escalation – how are we estimating that? What is known and not known in the design? How far along is
the contracting, and what change orders might be anticipated? We have a lot of confidence in being able to
deliver to this number. For everything that we can take our project experience and predict – we have
covered in contingency. There are things outside of that scope that could affect it, and nobody is going to
guarantee it. We are really relying on a best practice project delivery team. There are no guarantees, but
we could be within 8-9 months from breaking ground, and the risk factors are shrinking in terms of trying to
escalate inflation and trying to lock in prices.
Mayor Arndt; with the reduction in size of the gyms from high school size to junior high court size still ok for
PSD to use for competitive sports?
LeAnn Williams; we program a lot in the sports before middle school. The court size allows us to program
for practices, games, drop in use, pickleball courts. Less overall competitive space
Kelly DiMartino; Mayor, I do think it is important to note that with the reduction of two swim lanes to get this
in scope of cost is a change to the commitment in the IGA with PSD as that called for 10 lanes. We are
going to have some work to do there as that has an impact to them. They will not be able to have two
teams practicing at the same time. There is some concern there and we have had some conversations
about that.
Dean Klingner; we are happy to talk about the thought process for the reduction. There is a lot of focus on
what we want to provide to the community, and the back half of this presentation is around the operating
expense and making sure we understand how revenue is generated. The pool is a piece that is a very
important part of the partnership, and it is a high cost to build and run and doesn’t generate a lot of
revenue. Trying to recommend the least impactful reductions
Mayor Arndt; are you aware that Windsor and Timnath are building new recreation centers, and the county
is redoing their facility? Those are all within how miles from each other? Are we cooperating? Timnath is
within PSD. Have we talked with them as that is a bunch of recreation centers in a small radius.
The county is putting in 3 sheets of ice in one of their buildings.
Dean Klingner; Timnath goes to ballot in November. Our quick analysis is that the population, demand and
growth could support both of those. We expect our operational numbers and the demand to be fully met in
our facility even if that goes through and stands up. We certainly wouldn’t be in competition. We have
sized our facility based on demand of our residents.
Mayor Arndt; make sure we are collaborating regionally
Page 17 of 84
Dean Klingner; if we think about the city of Fort Collins north of Drake, there are 3 facilities that this is
kind of duplicating south of Drake. It is not exactly half of the city population, but this is kind of like a City
Park Pool, a little bit like a Mulberry Pool in the north. There is nothing south of Drake. This is trying to
bring up to that level of service in that area.
Kelly Ohlson; there have been 6 different areas of the city had 6 different population projections. We
should have one we agree on. Are we all using the same sales tax projection?
Caleb Weitz; we have one sales tax projection for anything that comes to this committee.
Emily Francis; is $12M the total CCIP reserve?
Dean Klingner / Joe Wimmer; $14.5M is what we talked to Joe about so there has been a conversation
about $2.5M coming forward
Emily Francis; what happens if Council wants that $10M to go to housing?
Dean Klingner; I would say from the project point of view, we would have very basic trade-offs of taking
$12M out of this project or the only other source we know would be to drive that bonding number up and
exceed that 20%.
What is going out the door - see slide above
Emily Francis; the request is for $10M for housing
Page 18 of 84
Kelly DiMartino; solution is the same. We would need to come up with another $7.5M in scope reductions
on the project. We don’t have any other viable funding sources.
Emily Francis; is this coming to another work session?
Kelly DiMartino; we don’t have an additional work session scheduled right now, but certainly if that is
needed we will schedule this.
Kelly Ohlson; some of us started with this in the spring of 2021, it would be nice to have some kind of
closure. If we are having another work session, can we do it soon?
Kelly DiMartino; we were planning to bring something forward in December to a regular Council meeting.
Dean Klingner; depending on this conversation, if this funding stack is supported we could be at council in
November for an appropriation and a broader conversation. If there are a lot of questions around this
funding stack, then we may need another work session.
Kelly Ohlson; there will be a minimum of 3 new council members.
Emily Francis; we were doing the CCIP renewal - Council did ask what moving $10M over would look like.
I was expecting to see more information about the tradeoffs and if we don’t have that here tonight then I do
think we should have another Council Work Session.
Kelly Ohlson; maybe two things can be true at the same time
Dean Klingner; real time process here during this conversation
$10M out of the funding stack in terms of what it would take to bond that amount is a very simple
calculation, and it would go over the17% - very easy to show
What would it mean for the project to take $8M back out of it would be a pretty significant design
conversation with our architect team and I would express a concern around a delay, not in a pushback way
but very much in a way of hearing this is what is expected. I don’t think we could turn around a work
session in the next 2-3 weeks that would have a well thought through architectural plan.
Dean Klingner; if we were to present 3 options; scope reduction, additional bonding, or not moving the
money as the 3 options. Those could be presented in a council meeting with a presentation and a vote on
those options, so it is a question of how much detail is needed.
Kelly DiMartino; take the request of what is being asked for is clear, we need to take time to figure out
realistically how quickly we can pull that together. We can figure out the scheduling.
Emily Francis; there should be options - $5M
Dean Klingner; there is work to do around scheduling, but we really appreciate the dialog here. This is a
big project with a lot of trade-offs.
Mayor Arndt; the SE Community Center has been a long time coming and is a big project that needs to
happen as it was promised to the voters. Does this also give you time to talk with PSD regarding the scale?
Page 19 of 84
Mayor Arndt; my concern is that we are building something that will be hard to manage.
Emily Francis; I don’t understand how we are going to pay for it. Where is the $400K coming from $280 per
year? Are any of our recreation centers fully covered? What happens in year 6?
Caleb Weitz; when the budget moves forward, we come up with a ramp up plan for the General Fund
money to have to go in there. That is money that would have to be prioritized in the budget, either through
revenue growth that we experience or against other expenditures. Building this facility is making a
commitment that that portion of the general fund will go to the operation to be able to open this facility. One
thing that LeeAnn and I have talked about a little bit is a strategy between both the $220K in existing capital
tax and looking at some of the reserves that are available in the recreation fund so we have a ramp up plan
so maybe it is realistic to be able program that increase into the budget over a number of years. But, yes
this is an incremental increase to the general fund budget.
Dean Klingner; some of the fee increase is baked in. The way this facility generates $2M - $2.3M is
The fees.
LeAnn Williams; as the market increases and by the time it opens – it might have another fee increase.
We took our current, what we are bringing in for January 2026, because we are raising all of our fees. You
can get one pass that gives you access to all of our facilities. There is a value there, so we are adjusting
our fees accordingly. That will generate more revenue on the recreation side. We are always looking at
how we can make more revenue in a way that doesn’t push people out. Some of the subsidies support our
reduced fee program for lower income residents. $50 per year for families.
Kelly Ohlson; what are the two community centers in Fort Collins that you mention in your materials?
LeAnn Williams; Northside Atzlan and the Senior Center
Page 20 of 84
Kelly Ohlson; You compared those to this - in what way is the Senior Center or Northside comparable to
this? Northside doesn’t have a pool, and the Senior Center has a completely different type of pool.
Dean Klingner; the square feet of area outside of the pool is about the same
LeAnn Williams; the community center definition comes from our recreate master plan.
Kelly Ohlson; the AIS mentions that PSD is going to pay for their share of the parking, but it doesn’t
mention the library district.
Dean Klingner; they are a fully funded partner - all are shared
Mayor Arndt; if we are co-locating with the library, if there is some common space there?
We reduced the recreation part but not this. Why such a large common area?
Slide 14 (see below)
Dean Klingner; we still have some active conversations – the gray part in the diagram below is the
Commons which includes the entry into the building, the meeting space, the waiting space and 3 rooms on
the left are the innovation space which includes 3 rooms that are very flexible - this could be event space
story time – flex space – community spaces are partially funded by the library - there may be some
potential to shrink the lounge area. The innovation space which was in the ballot language to build a
center based on innovation – there is a technology focus which includes digital equity / access to high-
speed internet, computer skills, etc.
Page 21 of 84
C) Affordable Housing CCIP Request
Vanessa Fenley, Sr. Housing Manager
Joe Wimmer, Director, Utilities Finance
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-restricted,
-restricted housing development (Switchgrass Crossing). CCIP funds have been appropriated for
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends moving the Affordable Housing Capital Fund request from VOA forward for full Council
consideration.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Background on CCIP Affordable Housing Capital Fund
The 2015 Community Capital Improvement Program (CCIP) package includes $4 million, over 10
years, for the Affordable Housing Capital Fund (AHCF). The AHCF has been used for “last in” gap
financing for projects, provided as direct subsidy and fee credits. Funding provided as direct subsidy is
structured as a due-on-sale loan; given the developers awarded funding do not intend to sell the
development, the City does not anticipate any funding from the AHCF awarded to-date to be returned.
Four affordable housing projects have accessed funding from the AHCF. While funding has been
appropriated for the general purpose of supporting affordable housing developments, specific requests
have been approved by Council through resolutions or ordinances. A summary of AHCF awards is
included in Table 1.
Table 1. Projects Awarded Funding from the AHCF
2022-2023 $610,000 Oak 140 79 Direct Subsidy
2021 $200,000 VOA Cadence 45 Fee Relief
2020-2021 $876,662 Mason Place PSH 60 Direct Subsidy
2019 $100,000 Mason Place PSH - Fee Relief
2019 $541 Village on Redwood 72 Fee Relief
2019 $806 Redtail Ponds PSH 60 Fee Relief
2018-2019 $92,375 Oakridge Crossing 110 Fee Relief
2018 $119,257 Village on Horsetooth 96 Fee Relief
The AHCF has approximately $2 million available and appropriated to support affordable housing
development. This includes $400,000 set aside to provide fee credits for eligible units through the City’s
administrative process, leaving $1.6 million available for direct subsidies or additional fee credits.
VOA Switchgrass Crossing Request
Page 22 of 84
Volunteers of America has requested $1.4 million in last-in gap financing to support development of
Switchgrass Crossing. Switchgrass Crossing will be located at 3800 S. Mason St and comprise 45
units, including 39 1-bedroom units and six 2-bedroom units. The project will serve adults 55 years of
age and older in the area median income range of 30% - 60% (currently between $26,820 and $53,640
for a one-person household).
Other sources of funding include 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits and a $1.2 million award from
the City’s 2025 affordable housing competitive funding process (federal HOME and CDBG funding). In
addition, Volunteers of America is in process of requesting an additional $1 million in gap financing from
the State Division of Housing. Volunteers of America has reported increases in development costs due
to Build America Buy America (BABA) requirements. The Build America Buy America Act was passed
as part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It requires federally-funded infrastructure
projects to use construction materials produced in the United States.
Additional information regarding Switchgrass Crossing and this funding request are included in the
attached letter from Volunteers of America.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Funding is available within the CCIP Affordable Housing Capital Fund to support VOA’s request of $1.4
million in direct subsidy. No additional requests from the Affordable Housing Capital Fund are pending
at this time.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public outreach was conducted as part of the 2015 CCIP process. The Affordable Housing Board
reviewed and discussed this specific request for funding. Their memo of support is included as an
attachment.
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS:
Kelly Ohlson; I didn’t see the total project cost.
Vanessa Fenley; $24.6M total estimated project cost
Kelly Ohlson; percentage wise this is a pretty good increase – the additional that they are asking for
They don’t have any additional motives as they aren’t for profit, but how do you know this is a legitimate
ask? Did they present something to you?
Vanessa Fenley; they have gone through the competitive process, so we were able to look at some of
the project financing with that request. We are looking at some of the rational they are providing so
they are sighting Build American, Buy American requirements some of the increases for development
costs and extra expenses they are experiencing there.
ACTION ITEM
Kelly Ohlson; this will come to us for a vote. We need more of that information when the time comes
for us to vote.
Emily Francis; how do people usually come to request more of the direct subsidy? Do they know to
come and ask? How does that work?
Page 23 of 84
Vanessa Fenley; if we hear of an affordable housing development happening, usually conversations
around fee credits and the opportunities to request assistance through the city are part of those
conversations. It usually starts very early on. Someone from our team gets a call from a developer who
is interested in learning more. The developer doesn’t work frequently in the community, you will see a
lot of the awards are coming from Housing Catalyst. Volunteers of America now working here more
frequently, they have become more familiar with what that process looks like. It has been like a rolling
basis, and we try to make it a simple process to request the dollars to be able to provide support where
needed.
Emily Francis; it looks like the highest amount we have ever awarded was around $600K. This is quite
a bit higher. The amount compared to what we have given out in the past.
Vanessa Fenley; I don’t know if I can speak to that just not knowing all of the finances from previous
projects and the gaps they were experiencing versus the gaps that this project is experiencing. We are
hearing developers being really concerned about making projects pencil especially the lower income
units, those 30% AMI units are getting harder to provide.
Emily Francis; is this all CCIP funds?
Joe Wimmer; yes, this request for the $1.4M
Emily Francis; so that is over 25% of the 10-year $4M?
Joe Wimmer; yes, so a lot of that was loaded on the back half, so we have $2M built up, that is $500K
appropriated just this year and $500K last year. It hasn’t been sitting there for over ten years to spend.
Emily Francis; what were the plans to spend it if someone didn’t come forward?
Joe Wimmer; it would be available for the next request, we positioned the fund to be a last in finance
support for these, so they go through the competitive process, they apply for fee credits and then this
is the last resort for making the project work.
Emily Francis; no cap
Joe Wimmer; no cap for a request to come through
Emily Francis; this also funds our fee waivers, and we only do up to 30% AMI, right?
Vanessa Fenley; $14K per unit for only those 30% units.
Emily Francis; going forward, are we going to look at how we are administering the CCIP fund?
Only 30% AMI units are being given $14K and then we are giving a $1.4M chunk with this request
Joe Wimmer; on the list to evaluate how the next 10 years of that $10M and one of the options to
evaluate is the $14K for fee credits – that amount becomes more flexible and more useful
Emily Francis; legally, we do fee waivers up to 80%
Vanessa Fenley; I am not sure I want to answer that question right now, I think generally,
moving into, if this passes, I think we really want to be able to have conversations around what
Page 24 of 84
do we want to achieve with these dollars and what are the right strategies. Looking at the fee credits is
one of the options on the table.
Emily Francis; if the CCIP package passes, will that revamping of the CCIP fund be coming back to the
Council Finance Committee?
Joe Wimmer; yes, those dollars and the plans for the next 10 years would need appropriated through
the budget. For the first year, 2026, we will have to appropriate before spending. I picture that a plan
for 2026, the first year of the tax as well as 2027 and 2028 to be in the next budget cycle. 2026 will
need to come forward soon after approval.
Emily Francis; not so much the allocation by the plan, but are we going to increase fee waivers, are we
going to do more than 30% of 30%? Are we going to do larger chunks or put caps on these onetime
requests?
Kelly DiMartino; depending on where we land, Council Finance Committee could be a spot for that, or it
may be a full Council Work Session. There will be engagement in figuring out the strategy for those
dollars.
Mayor Arndt; it feels like URA is coming to an end and people in the know see that money is sitting
there
and are making requests. It feels like we are waiting for requests,
If will be much better in the future if we have a plan. People who are regularly engaged can see that
this is coming to an end and there is this money. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t spend it, we should. But
in terms of fair distribution of scarce resources.
Emily Francis; I am for it, but it just seems like 25% of the entire CCIP is a little hard -
Kelly 0hlson; I think we are requesting a little more information before this comes for a vote.
I am for being more generous with the fees for certified, affordable housing projects.
In the future, it makes sense to me, especially since we have money sitting there, I am for throwing in a
few more trees. People in affordable housing should have the same tree standards as the city –
subsidize trees for affordable housing projects.
D) Proposed Amendment to the Montava Metro District
Josh Birks, Deputy Director, Sustainability Services
Proposed 1st
The developers of the proposed Montava project are requesting an amendment to the existing Metro
District service plan. The amendment would alter the maximum debt authorization and authorize the district
to create Special Improvement Districts (SIDs). Neither proposed change impacts the underlying Public
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Page 25 of 84
Presented with a recommendation to refer to Council for consideration, after conducting the required
hearing, of the proposed First Amendment to the Consolidated Service Plan for Montava Metropolitan
District Nos. 1 through 7.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Legal and Procedural Requirements
Part 2, Article 1 of Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (“C.R.S.”) authorizes the formation of a
metropolitan district within the City by approval of Council of the district’s proposed service plan, after a
hearing on the proposed service plan which sets forth the public improvements and services which the
district will provide, by adoption of a resolution and subsequent voter approval in favor of the organization
of the district, per Part 3, Article 1 of Title 32, C.R.S.
Amendments to service plans which constitute a “material modification” of the originally approved service
plan require additional approval and process that is similar to those upon formation of a district, including
a public hearing on the proposed service plan amendments. C.R.S. § 32-1-207.
The City’s Financial Management Policy 10 – Metro Districts (the “Policy”), as authorized by City Council
Resolutions 2021-045, 2019-016, 2018-079, and 2008-069, further establishes the criteria, guidelines,
and processes for the City in considering applications for service plans for proposed metropolitan districts
and amendments to those plans. The Policy was originally adopted in 2008 and revised in both 2018 and
2021.
Page 26 of 84
History of the Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1 through 7
On September 25, 2018, Council approved, by adoption of Resolution 2018-083, the Consolidated
Service Plan (“Service Plan”) for Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1 through 7 (“Metro District”). The
adopted Service Plan encompassed approximately 988.5 Acres located in the northeast portion of the
community near the existing AB/InBev Brewery. The development was anticipated to include 2,000 single
family homes, 2,400 multi-family units, 200,000 to 400,000 square feet of office, and 88,900 square feet
of retail. The project has committed to providing 10 percent of housing units in a mix of for rent and for-
sale affordable housing.
Adopted Service Plan Overview
The current Service Plan calls for the creation of seven, overlapping Metro Districts working
collaboratively to deliver the proposed Montava development. The phased development is anticipated to
occur over the next 25 plus years and supports an estimated population of 11,073. A few highlights about
the proposed Service Plan include:
Assessed Value – Estimated to be approximately $76 million in 2029, which would be ten years
into the phased development and not include full build-out
Aggregate Mill Levy – 60 mills, subject to Gallagher Adjustments
Debt Mill Levy – 40 mills may not be levied until a City Council approved development plan
and/or intergovernmental agreement has been executed that delivers the pledged public benefits
Operating Mill Levy – 20 Mills to fund several on-going operations, such as but not limited to:
(a) a non-potable irrigation system, and (b) a community-wide “in home” water conservation
program
Maximum Debt Authorization – Anticipated to be $163 million to cover a portion of the estimated
$325 million in public improvement costs
Regional Mill Levy – 5 Mills, anticipated to be used to fund specific transportation and/or
stormwater improvements
Proposed Amendments to Current Service Plan
On August 21, 2025, staff received a Letter of Interest from the Metro District, requesting review of its
proposed First Amendment to the Service Plan for the Metro District (the “Amendment”). (See AIS
Attachment 1, “Letter of Interest, First Amendment to Service Plan for Montava Metro Districts Nos. 1-
7, August 20, 2025.”) The Amendment requested two changes to the existing Service Plan:
1. To increase the Maximum Debt Authorization. The request would increase the current
Maximum Debt Authorization from $163 million to $297 million (Proposed Maximum Debt
Authorization). This increase of $134 million in Maximum Debt Authorization would all the Debt
Mill of the Metro District to cover approximately 75 percent of the anticipated $396 million in
estimated public infrastructure costs.
2. Grant Authority to Establish Special Improvement Districts. Title 32 of the Colorado Revised
Statutes authorizes metropolitan districts to establish Special Improvement Districts (SIDs) if they
are authorized in the service plan or approved in writing by the municipality that approved the
service plan.
Staff Review of the Amendment
Staff have reviewed both the Letter of Interest (AIS Attachment 1) and the Amendment (AIS Attachment
2, “Proposed First Amendment to Service Plan for Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1-7”) for
consistency with the City’s Policy.
1. Review of Public Benefits. The adopted Service Plan has committed to providing a variety direct
and indirect public benefits (the Public Benefits). The Public Benefits are described in detail in the
Page 27 of 84
current Service Plan, and delivery was secured by the Development Agreement to Secure Public
Benefits for Planned Unit Development Master Plan dated December 11, 2020 (“Public Benefits
Agreement” or “PBA”).
Please note that the proposed Amendment does not include modifications to the Service Plan that
would impact the ability of the project to deliver the benefits described in the PBA.
2. General Purposes of the proposed Amendment. The Metro District continues to be an integral
part of the financing, operation, and maintenance structure for the Montava Development. The
primary rationale for the Amendment ties to the ability of the Metro District to provide public
infrastructure in a timely and efficient manner. Each of the two requests embedded within the
Amendment are reviewed in detail below.
The current Service Plan established the Metro District, in part, as an important financing tool in
order to deliver on the public improvements. The Amendment also serves this purpose.
3. First of Two Proposed Changes: Increase the Maximum Debt Authorization. The
Amendment proposes an increase to the Maximum Debt Authorization of $134 million to a total
of $297 million, or approximately 75 percent of the anticipated public infrastructure costs of $396
million.
Policy Analysis: The City’s Policy establishes that the total debt authorized in a service plan must
not exceed 100 percent of the projected maximum debt capacity shown in the Metro District’s
financial plan. The revised financial plan, attached to the Amendment, supports the Metro Districts
issuance of $297 million in debt based on the parameters of the Policy and the authorizations
(e.g., Debt Mill Levy, Term, etc.) under the exiting Service Plan.
Furthermore, the Public Improvements listed in the Amendment are consistent with the categories
in the previously approved Service Plan. Based on Table 1, revised cost estimates represent a
22 percent increase since 2018 (approximately 7 years) or a roughly 3.1 percent annual increase
in costs. While some of the line items have grown much more significantly, the total increase
appears to be reasonable given staff’s own understanding of construction cost increases
throughout the same period.
Table 1: Comparison of Public Improvement Cost Estimates
($ in millions)
Item 2018
Estimate
Revised
Estimate
Difference
Admin., Misc., & Engineering $47.00 $58.77 $11.77
Earthwork $21.50 $23.99 $2.49
Streets $105.30 $91.10 ($14.20)
Sanitary Sewer $15.70 $16.85 $1.15
Water $11.10 $17.79 $6.69
Nonpotable Water $13.80 $28.04 $14.42
Storm Sewer $10.20 $43.01 $32.81
Recreation $8.00 $8.50 $0.50
Landscaping, Trails, Open Space, & Farm Facilities $44.20 $49.46 $5.26
Contingency $48.00 $58.70 $10.7
Page 28 of 84
Total $325.00 $396.22 $71.22
Staff Assessment: The requested amount complies with the Policy limitation and the proposed
use, on Public Improvements, has not materially changed since approval in 2018.
4. Second of Two Proposed Changes: Authorize Establishment of Special Improvement
Districts. Special Improvement Districts (SIDs) are a kind of legal sub-area where property
owners (or property within the district) are assessed for public improvements that specifically
benefit those properties. The idea is that if a subset of properties will get a particular public
improvement (streets, sidewalks, sewers, etc.) then those properties help pay for it via
assessments.
Colorado law provides for two different statutory contexts for the establishment of SIDs:
a. Within a special district. Pursuant to Title 32 (Special Districts) of the Colorado Revised
Statutes (“C.R.S.”), special districts (which is a political subdivision providing certain
services) may create an SID within their boundaries.
b. Within a municipality. Per Part 5, Article 25 of Title 31, C.R.S., municipalities may use
SIDs to finance local improvements, with statutorily defined powers, procedures,
assessment methods, and hearings.
The proposed Amendment would authorize the Metro District to establish SIDs for the purpose of
levying special assessments and issuing assessment lien bonds as part of the public improvement
funding mechanism. The intent, which is clearly spelled out in the Amendment, is for 100 percent
of the assessment and the lien encumbering a finished lot will be repaid prior to a resident taking
possession of a home.
The proposed Amendment proposes to expand the typical approach to financing public
improvement costs, which is to issue district-wide debt borne by all properties within the
boundaries. This approach may not always be the most equitable or efficient mechanism to
allocate costs based on benefit. Therefore, this proposed Amendment includes the authority to
establish SIDs for the purpose of offering a complementary financing method that provides
flexibility, fairness, and fiscal responsibility.
From a statutory perspective, there are several restrictions that make authorizing SIDs for the
Metro District consistent with the current financial authority of the existing Service Plan:
Assessments are limited to properties that specifically benefit from the funded public
improvement. This reinforces a nexus requirement and also provides additional
transparency around direct benefit.
Approval of an SID either requires written consent of 100 percent of the owner of the
property or approval by a majority of the eligible elector within the SID. Therefore, this tool
is subject to similar requirements of approval to the Metro District. Forming SIDs early on
will likely be easy for the developer but will become very difficult later in the development
of the project.
Assessments and financing based on that revenue are limited by statute to the
improvements that the “parent” special district is authorized to finance. In this case, those
are the public improvements identified directly in the Service Plan and no others.
The assessments and creation of SIDs must follow the powers given in the Service Plan,
require property approval or voters, and requirements of notice, hearings, etc. like the
Metro District.
Finally, the Amendment makes a specific stipulation around the use of SIDs that alleviates a staff
concern around further burdening homeowners. It states “any lien on a property resulting from the
imposition of a special assessment shall be satisfied and cleared prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for any unit, structure or other appurtenance…” This self-imposed
Page 29 of 84
limitation on the repayment of the special assessments ensures that no “End User” will be
responsible for the payment of the assessment.
Staff Assessment: The proposal to authorize the Metro District to create SIDs allows for the
diversification of both the method and timing of debt issuance to further the delivery of the public
improvements identified in the Service Plan. Furthermore, the statutory restrictions and the self-
imposed limitation address concerns of over-reach or using the SIDs to finance aspects of the
project that are not already identified in the Service Plan or do not accrue direct benefit to the
properties paying the assessment.
Given that the SIDs must remain within the boundaries of the Metro District, cannot be used to
fund anything other than the previously approved public improvements, and must be repaid before
a homeowner takes possession (a specific stipulation within the Amendment), this aspect of the
proposed Amendment may serve the general goals of the City Policy and the specific public
infrastructure and improvements of this project.
Council Review: City Policy and Procedure
The City Policy defines the process for reviewing newly proposed metro district service plans and plan
amendments. However, many of the steps of the Policy apply to newly proposed districts or to certain
types of service plan amendments. Therefore, staff have evaluated and now recommend (below) the
steps of the process required to consider a newly proposed service plan to determine which steps make
the most step to include in this review. Staff have been mindful of establishing clear rationale and a
potential precedent for future amendment reviews and/or adjustment to the Policy.
Staff recommend, more generally, that the Policy should be evaluated for necessary updates for
administration and clarity and to incorporate new best practices and any statutory changes since 2021.
Each step of the evaluation process has been evaluated for applicability to this review with a rationale
provide regarding inclusion or exclusion.
1. Letter of Interest (Include) – Requires the applicant submit a Letter of Interest to initiate the
review process and pay an associated fee (intended to offset staff review cost). This step has
been included in this review as it provides a likely and clear starting point to any review, whether
for a new district or an amendment.
2. Staff Response to LOI (Modify) – Staff elected to contact the applicant directly and conduct a
preliminary meeting rather than prepare a formal written response. This approach was chosen
given the overall scope of the amendment – being limited to financial aspects of the district and
not affecting the PBA.
3. Preliminary Staff Meeting with Applicant (Include) – As stated above, staff used this meeting
in lieu of a formal written response.
4. City Council Conceptual Review (Exclude) – The policy intends for this conceptual review to
provide Council an opportunity to understand the project and the extraordinary public benefits it
will generate prior to a full application proceeding. Thus, it seems that applying such an activity to
an existing Service Plan where the amendment does not alter the underlying project or public
benefits does not need to undergo this step of the process.
5. Formal Application & Submittal (Modify) – This is clearly a required step but rather than
requiring a complete Service Plan, staff requested a clear amendment draft be provided with
ample time to respond. Staff have received the Amendment and a draft of it is included with this
document.
6. Formal Staff Review (Modify) – A full interdisciplinary staff team was not convened as the nature
of the Amendment was limited to the financing plan and public finance considerations. Staff and
the City Attorney’s Office conducted a thorough review of the Amendment and discussed it with
Finance staff.
7. Council Finance Committee Meeting (Include) – The intent of this step is for a sub-section of
the Council to review the formal application and to do so with a focus on the Policy providing
Page 30 of 84
feedback and recommendations. It is logical to include this step for two reasons (1) allowing a
sub-section of the Council a preliminary review will provide staff much needed feedback, and (2)
the nature of the Amendment is primarily financial making it a good fit for the committee’s review.
8. Public Hearing Notice (Include) – A requirement of statute and the Policy both.
9. Council Public Hearing (Include) – Required for Council to consider any service plan approval
including amendments.
Role of the Residential Scoring System
The existing Service Plan was not evaluated under the Residential Metro Districts Evaluation Points
System referenced in the Policy. The approval of the Metro District predates the addition of the system
to the Policy. However, in recognition of the lack of clarity regarding the public benefits to be delivered by
the project Council postponed final consideration on the original Service Plan approval twice.
Furthermore, Council adopted the Service Plan with an explicit limitation on the Metro District’s ability to
issue debt, collect the debt mill levy, or charge fees to pay debt until Council approved an
intergovernmental agreement and/or development agreement securing the Public Benefits described in
the Service Plan.
Council reviewed and adopted an agreement meeting the requirements stated above at a special meeting
held on January 14, 2020 (Resolution 2020-007), which was finalized and executed on December 11,
2020. The nature of those commitments on public benefits remains unaffected by the Amendment.
Therefore, applying the residential scoring system to a set of public benefits previously approved by
Council and unaltered did not seem necessary to staff. Therefore, no such assessment has been
conducted nor is it provided with this document.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
No financial impact to the City.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
None to date; public notice of the First Amendment to property owners of any scheduled hearing on the
petition will be required, consistent with statutory requirements of Title 32, C.R.S. and City Policy.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Presented with a recommendation to refer to Council for consideration, after conducting the required
hearing, of the proposed First Amendment to the Consolidated Service Plan for Montava Metropolitan
District Nos. 1 through 7.
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS
November – unless CFC says no
Residential scoring system – Council has a chance to deliberate that in a public setting
Kelly Ohlson; affordable housing slide (see below)
It wasn’t clear to me the way it was broken out
Page 31 of 84
Josh Birks; 15% of the 4400 units will be affordable housing between 30-50% AMI
300 units between 30-80%
Kelly Ohlson; storm sewer went up 4x
Emily Francis; why did it go up so much?
Tyler Marr; in broad strokes, the original plan for dealing with storm changed
Negotiations with the ditch company that needed infrastructure in order to meet the agreement.
It is essentially a different plan than what they started with.
Page 32 of 84
Kelly Ohlson; (maximum Debt Authorization slide (see below)
22% In the future seems reasonable
I don’t’ like the wording “Staff sees no reason to ….
I am not really wild about that kind of phrase, and you can get there without it.
On the SIDs, is that a way, in this case, to pass more infrastructure on to the builder and away
from the developer?
Josh Birks; I want to think about this one a little more. It cannot fund any more of the cost that is
allowed in the service plan already.
Kelly Ohlson; between the additional property taxes on the people who live there and now the
SIDs, I am just trying to figure out what skin is in the game.
Emily Francis; it just gets passed on to the home buyer.
Mayor Arndt; a revenue generator for the development / project.
Josh Birks; so, the question is, are the home buyers (consumers) paying for it over time with a
mill levy or up front in the home cost?
Emily Francis; so, they pay the Metro district fee and the SID fee?
Josh Birks: yes;
Page 33 of 84
1) The SID would be in place at the time a lot is purchased, and it would have to be paid off
before the home is sold. It would show up in the price of the house.
2) There would be a mil levy that would be collected to pay off debt. The debt cannot exceed
the maximum, nor can they spend either source of money in excess of what has been
approved in the service plan. The SID shows up in the sale price of the house -will reduce the
cost of the mill levy over tie.
Kelly Ohlson; It could be a double dip and that was a concern of mine
Josh Birks; that was a concern of mine as well when we saw the request for the SIDs.
As I walked through it and understood how SIDs work, you cannot fund the same infrastructure
twice. It is either a cost that the home builder is bearing before they sell it to the customer which
the customer will ultimately bear OR the customer is also paying for it over time. If they didn’t
have the SIDs, all $297M would be amortized across 40 years and funded just with the mill levy.
Instead, they are going to finance a portion of the $297M at the beginning of the process at the
time the house is being constructed as opposed to over time. They get paid back when the
house is sold. The reality is that all of the $297M is being paid for by future resident either in the
form of property taxes or higher home cost depending on which mechanism they use.
Kelly Ohlson; we need to be assured that this is not in any way shape or form adding additional
costs to the home buyers.
Josh Birks; it is changing the way they are paying for it.
Mayor Arndt; they need more money up front.
Emily Francis; I have the same question as Kelly - regarding enforcement and how we are
double checking metro districts. I am assuming the metro district fee would go down – is that
correct?
Josh Birks; the amount of bond that would be issued by the metro district would be less based
on the mill levy. We will confirm that is the case.
Mayor Arndt: the mill levy is subject to the Gallagher Amendment B
Josh Birks; all metro districts, our model service plan allows for some change in mills based on
how the assessment rate changes over time. That has changed, but there is still some change /
impact. The only allowable increase above 60 mills is if you are forced to do it because of the
way the assessment rates impact each other and that is less likely to happen due to how
Gallagher has been changed.
Mayor Arndt; this is fine with me- I can see the spot they are in. I am concerned with our
discussions – hold on as this is going to be a challenging time - I think this is kind of creative and
the guardrails are there. I think it is reasonable.
Page 34 of 84
Kelly Ohlson; we want to make sure the guardrails are there.
Page 35 of 84
Page 36 of 84
Council Committee Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 6
December 4, 2025
STAFF
Josh Birks, Deputy Director, Sustainability Services
The purpose of this item is to present two options for a Development Agreement to Secure Public Benefits
relating to a proposed First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Service Plan (the “First
for Foothills Metropolitan District (the “District”).
intends to secure for the City and its residents the extraordinary public benefits that McWhinney
as a condition of approval by Council of the First Amendment.
PBA options being presented for consideration relate to securing land for future affordable housing
Option 1. Requires the developer transfer a 30,000 square foot parcel to a 3rd party at no cost.
Option 2. Requires the developer transfer a 30,000 square foot parcel to the City for purposes of
land banking at no cost.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend the committee forward the Public Benefits Agreement, and accompanying resolution, for
consideration of Council on January 6, 2025.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Council Finance Committee first heard from McWhinney (the “Developer”), current owner of the
Foothills Mall property, about their plans for redevelopment and request for an amendment to the existing
Amended and Restated Service Plan for Foothills Metropolitan District (the “Service Plan”) in February
2025. At that time, the Council Finance Committee requested greater detail on the proposed affordable
housing pledge anticipated to accompany the requested amendment. The Developer presented their
request for a First Amendment along with a Public Benefits agreement (“PBA”) to accompany and secure
the affordable housing pledge to City Council at their regular meeting on May 20, 2025. After the Public
Page 37 of 84
Council Committee Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 6
Hearing and discussion, City Council chose to postpone the request to July 1, 2025. After postponing again
to August 19, 2025, the Developer choose to withdraw their request citing the stringency of the PBA as the
reason.
CONTEXT
History of the Foothills Mall Redevelopment
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, and increasing housing costs. These
international and national trends are major considerations that factor in 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
Page 38 of 84
Council Committee Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 6
requesting the ability to issue new bonds based on revised and to pledge new revenue sources to support
a second approach to redevelopment.
CURRENT PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project builds upon a previous redevelopment seeking to address inefficiencies of the current
site as well as additional redevelopment not possible under the previous attempt due to outstanding leases
and property ownership, namely the redevelopment of the Macy’s building (see Attachment 1). As a result,
the proposed project will include the following major components:
A 32 percent reduction in existing retail square footage with a significant reimagining of the
current enclosed mall portion of the property. The goal is to “right size” the amount of retail to
position the site for long-term success.
Approximately 70,000 square feet of new workplace opportunities, creating a broader range of
uses on the site.
Approximately 300 new housing units across a range of types including townhomes, stacked
condominiums and affordable rental.
Around 11 acres of new public space and trails.
PUBLIC BENEFITS AGREEMENT
Since August, staff continued to discuss the project with the Developer. After a meeting in mid-October,
staff, at the direction of the City Manager, scheduled a public hearing on the requested First Amendment
(See AIS Attachment #1) for Council consideration on January 6, 2026. Additionally, staff coordinated
with the City’s Financial Services Department to present an update on the PBA to Council’s Finance
Committee on December 4, 2025.
Developer Provided Version
The Developer provided redline revisions to the PBA (See AIS Attachment #2), as presented by Staff in
August, on November 13, 2025. The revised version presented by the Developer for the Committee’s
feedback and input pledges the following:
At the time of Final Development Plan (“FDP”) submittal, the Developer will designate a parcel of
approximately 30,000 square feet (the “Parcel”, See Attachment #3) for development of at least
forty-five (45) units as part of an affordable housing development as defined in the Land Use Code.
At the time the Parcel is transferred to a “housing authority, non-profit or for-profit builder” it will be
restricted by a binding legal instrument the City accepts (the “Affordability Covenant” or
“Covenant”). The Covenant will provide the City with “rights of enforcement.”
The Developer will execute a contract for donation, contribution, or transfer of the Parcel, concurrent
with the City’s approval of an FDP. The contract will grant the City legally enforceable rights. The
contract will stipulate that development of affordable housing must commence within four (4) years
after transfer (the “Outside Development Deadline”).
o The Developer will not be in default of the PBA if they cannot execute a contract concurrent
to the FDP, provided they have used “good faith efforts.”
o If no contract exists at FDP, the Developer pledges to continue to “reasonably cooperate”
with the City until a contract can be executed.
If the Developer has transferred the Parcel, but construction has not commenced by the Outside
Development Deadline, the City has sole responsibility for enforcement of the deadline.
If the Developer has not transferred the Parcel within five (5) years of FDP approval, they “may”
provide notice of its intent to transfer the Parcel to the City.
o Such a transfer must occur within 30 days of notice by the Developer.
Page 39 of 84
Council Committee Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 6
o After notice, the Developer shall convey, and the City shall accept” the Parcel at no cost
(except legal costs and closing costs).
Potential Alternative Version
Staff discussed but have not yet drafted an alternative version of the PBA requiring the Developer to convey
the Parcel directly to the City. Transfer would occur concurrently with the City’s approval of the FDP. The
parcel would be transferred with the intent of designating it for affordable housing development and may,
or may not, become a part of the City’s Affordable Housing Land Bank Program (the “Land Bank Program”).
If the Committee prefers this alternative option, Staff will negotiate terms for the PBA addressing known
development issues, as previously identified by Housing Catalyst in their evaluation of the site. The terms
would at a minimum need to address the following identified by Housing Catalyst in their Letter of Intent:
A pledge by the Developer to cooperate in good faith to obtain approval for the intended use of the
site (the “Parcel Entitlements”) from the City of Fort Collins and obtain the Parcel Entitlements
simultaneously with their own project approvals.
Agreement to deliver the Parcel with several infrastructure items completed:
i. Reroute an existing stormwater easement that crosses the Parcel without impairing the
Parcels access to stormwater drainage.
ii. Ensure that the following are located within the right-of-way adjacent to the Parcel, if not
already, water, sanitary sewer, electric and communicational lines – all stubbed to the Parcel
boundary.
iii. Install stormwater piping to divert stormwater from the Parcel.
Document that the stormwater from the Parcel and from upstream properties will be detained off-
site. Making it clear there will be no obligation to detain or retain any stormwater on the Parcel.
That the future development of the Parcel shall have no obligation or liability pay or repay the
Developer, the City, or any other person or entity for the cost of the construction and installation of
the above items, nor any offsite improvements required for the intended use of the Parcel.
An agreement for off-site parking with the Foothills Metropolitan District that can support financing
of the future development of the Parcel’s intended use.
A revised version of the PBA would be presented to Council for consideration at the Regular Meeting on
January 6, 2026.
Page 40 of 84
Council Committee Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 5 of 6
Analysis
Comparing the two potential options: Developer’s proposal or direct transfer to the City. Staff observe the
following:
Developer Proposal Transfer Directly
Assessment:
through the Covenant until Parcel transfer
reducing certainty of outcome.
parcel to the City if no transfer has occurred
after five (5) years. Could result in no land
dedication for affordable housing.
Proposal effectively creates a private land-
bank approach for the first four to five (4-5)
years.
The Developer’s only performance obligation
under the PBA is transferring the Parcel. The
the Outside Development Deadline
ultimately the affordable housing itself.
T
housing
Developer, would lead the process of
identifying a suitable development partner.
The delivery of affordable housing becomes
the sole responsibility of the City.
concessions to support the development of the
site at the time of FDP. The City will likely not
have completed any site planning; therefore, it
challenges at time of acceptance.
Conclusion:
Enables the Developer to work with the market
to evaluate feasibility and identify challenges.
The City is enforcer of development
performance through
Development Deadline.
Four to five (4-
receptivity.
City risks not getting all the up-front
concessions necessary to ensure feasibility.
City is landowner and enforcer of development
performance by virtue of ownership.
PRELIMINARY SITE ANALYSIS
Staff understand that some Councilmembers may have concerns about the development feasibility of the
Parcel (See AIS Attachment #3). Staff discussed the site with Housing Catalyst, who has executed a
Letter of Intent with the Developer. Staff has prepared a preliminary analysis in part based on these
discussions; however, it should be noted that this should not be construed as representing Housing
Catalyst final position on feasibility of development.
Positives:
The preliminary analysis found:
Affordable housing is feasible, although it poses unique challenges and will likely be more costly
than developing a similar number, minimum of forty-five (45) units, elsewhere in the community.
The Parcel is in an area of the community, midtown along College Avenue, not likely to see a
significant amount of affordable housing without City intervention and/or significant subsidies.
Affordable housing developed at the Parcel will have access to a wide range of amenities and may
function as workforce housing for some of the adjacent retail/entertainment development.
Page 41 of 84
Council Committee Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 6 of 6
Concerns:
The analysis also found:
The location is not currently within a Qualified Census Tract or State designated Transit-oriented
Community; therefore, it will not be eligible to receive the greatest amount of low-income tax credits.
An existing utility easement bifurcates the Parcel making development infeasible without relocation.
The Developer has indicated willingness to discuss relocating the easement prior to transferring
the Parcel.
The unique shape and location of the Parcel force a singular design approach. The building would
need to be designed as in an L-shape and would include a significant portion of “single-loaded
corridor” units. This reduces construction efficiency, requiring greater costs per unit.
Finally, the Parcel does not provide sufficient space to meet parking demands on-site; therefore,
development feasibility will require an off-site parking solution. At this time, such an off-site solution
has not been negotiated with the Developer of District.
Conclusions:
Based on the above observations, staff conclude:
While the Parcel may not be the “best” or “easiest” location to develop affordable housing it is
feasible.
Whoever attempts development of affordable housing units on the Parcel will likely require more
subsidy than a project of a similar size in a different location.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
None directly; there is a separate analysis of the financial impacts of the proposed Amendment.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Information related to the proposed First Amendment, was presented to the Council Finance Committee
on February 6, 2025, with a recommendation to refer to Council for consideration with additional information
on district revenues, firm details on affordable housing commitment, and clarity on the Public Improvement
Fee amount. The petition First Amendment was heard before Council on May 20, 2025, and postponed
after completion of the public hearing.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Service Plan for the Foothills Metropolitan District
2. Development Agreement to Secure Public Benefits for Foothills Mall Redevelopment, as redlined by
the Developer’s attorney and submitted on November 13, 2025.
3. Exhibit C – Affordable Housing Parcel – Foothills Mall; from the PBA.
Page 42 of 84
November 18, 2025
City of Fort Collins
Sustainability Services
Attn: Josh Burks, Deputy Director
City Hall West
300 LaPorte Ave.
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Via E-mail: JBirks@fcgov.com
Dianne Criswell, Senior Assistant City Attorney
City of Fort Collins
City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Ave
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Via E-mail: DCriswell@fcgov.com
Re: Foothills Metropolitan District – Formal Application for the First Amendment
to Amended and Restated Service Plan
Dear Josh and Dianne:
As you know, this firm serves as general counsel to the Foothills Metropolitan District (the
“District”). On December 18, 2024, on behalf of the Board of Directors of the District (the
“Board”), we submitted a formal application for the First Amendment to the Amended and
Restated Service Plan (the “First Amendment”) to the City of Fort Collins (the “City”) for review
and consideration. The application was withdrawn after an initial service plan hearing before City
Council, while discussions related to affordable housing were on going. Please consider this
correspondence as the District’s formal resubmittal of its application for the City’s review of the
First Amendment.
By way of background, the City approved the District’s Amended and Restated Service
Plan (the “Service Plan”) on May 7, 2013, by Resolution No. 2013-044. The District was
established for the redevelopment of the Foothills Mall. In connection therewith, the District is a
party to the Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement by and between the City, the Fort
Collins Urban Renewal Authority, and the owner of the Foothills Mall (the “Redevelopment
Agreement”), which was approved by the City Council on May 7, 2013, by Resolution No. 2013-
042.
Page 43 of 84
Re: Foothills Metropolitan District
November 18, 2025
Page 2
Redevelopment plans have not gone as anticipated at the time of the approval of the Service
Plan and Redevelopment Agreement. As such, MXD Fort Collins, LLC (the “Developer”) is
currently working on a new redevelopment plan and provisions within the Service Plan of the
District do not allow for sufficient flexibility necessary to accommodate such redevelopment
efforts. More specifically, the Board of the District is requesting to: 1) increase the Maximum Debt
Authorization, the total Net Debt Service, and the annual Net Debt Service; 2) extend the
Maximum Debt Maturity Term and clarify refunding of Debt; and 3) to make corresponding
changes to ensure consistency with the revised redevelopment plans, the Service Plan and the
Redevelopment Agreement.
Thank you in advance for your consideration and assistance.
Sincerely,
ICENOGLE SEAVER POGUE
A Professional Corporation
/s/ Alan D. Pogue
Alan Pogue
Page 44 of 84
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO
SECURE PUBLIC BENEFITS FOR
FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO SECURE PUBLIC BENEFITS FOR
FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into this
_______ day of ______, 2025, by and between the CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a
home rule municipality of the State of Colorado (“City”) and MXD FORT COLLINS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company (“Developer”).” The City and the Developer shall be
collectively referred to herein as the “Parties.”
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS,the Developer is the owner of the real property described on Exhibit A
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Property”), which is the retail
development formerly referred to as the Foothills Mall; and
WHEREAS,the Developer desires to finance the necessary public improvements to
redevelop the Property (the “Redevelopment”) and has caused to be submitted to the City all
documents required for the approval of an amendment to the Service Plan (“Service Plan
Amendment”) for the Foothills Metropolitan District (the “District”); and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of Article 1 of Title 32 of the Colorado Revised
Statutes, the Council, by Resolution No. 2013-044, approved the Amended and Restated Service
Plan for the District on May 7, 2013[___________], and by Resolution 2025-059[___________],
approved the First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Service Plan (the “Service Plan
Amendment”) for the District on August 19, 2025[___________];
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2025[___________], the Council approved this Agreement
by Resolution 2025-060[___________], to establish the manner by which public benefits are to
be secured in conjunction with approval of the Service Plan Amendment and the
Redevelopment; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and
agreements of the Parties contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:
I.PUBLIC BENEFITS
A.Affordable Housing.
1.The Developer intends to submit to the City all plans, reports and other
documents required for approval of a Final Development Plan (the “FDP”) for the
Redevelopment, and the FDP is projected to include approximately three hundred (300) attached
and multi-family dwelling units within the Property. A preliminary site plan of the
1
Page 45 of 84
Redevelopment is included as Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference.
2. At the time Developer submits the FDP to the City, it will designate an
approximately 30,000 square foot parcel (the “Affordable Housing Parcel”) for the exclusive use
of an Affordable Housing Development (defined below) of at least forty-five (45) units (the
“Units”) generally located in the area depicted on Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference. As used herein, “Affordable Housing Development” means an
affordable housing development as defined in Article 7 of the Land Use Code that meets the
requirements of Article 5.2.1(C) through (G) of the Land Use Code.
3.The Affordable Housing Parcel must be restricted by a binding legal
instrument acceptable to the City (the “Affordability Covenant”), providing rights of
enforcement to the City, and duly recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder,
requiring all Units on the Affordable Housing Parcel to be occupied by and affordable to
low-income households for at least sixty (60) years, in accordance with Article 5.2.1(D)(3) of the
Land Use Code. The Affordability Covenant will be recorded at the time the Affordable Housing
Parcel is transferred to a housing authority, non-profit or for-profit builder in accordable with
Section I.A.4, below.
4.Concurrent with approval of the FDP by the City, Developer will initiate
transfer or reserveof the Affordable Housing Parcel using the following methodsmethod or any
other mechanism mutually agreed upon by the Developer and the City: by execution ofexecute a
contract for the donation, contribution, or transfer of the Affordable Housing Parcel by the
Developer to a housing authority, non-profit or for-profit builder and the subsequent
development of that land by a builder as the Affordable Housing Development with legally
enforceable contract obligationsrights to the City in a form reasonably acceptable to the City to
that includes, at a minimum, the obligation to developcommence construction of the Affordable
Housing ParcelDevelopment within four (4) years after the Affordable Housing Parcel is
transferred for an(the “Outside Development Deadline”) and the requirement that such
Affordable Housing Development and to comply with the Land Use Code, including compliance
with the requirements of Article 5.2.1(C) through (G) of the Land Use Code.(a “Contract”).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer shall not be in default of this Agreement if it is unable
to execute a Contract concurrent with approval of the FDP provided that Developer has used
good faith efforts to do the same. In such circumstance, Developer shall continue to reasonably
cooperate with the City and related parties until a Contract is executed.
a.If Developer has transferred the Affordable Housing Parcel as
required by Section I.A.4, but construction has not commenced by the Outside
Development Deadline, the City shall have the sole responsibility, in its
discretion, to enforce such deadline or any other remedies under the Contract
including, but not limited to, termination of the Contract and identification of a
new housing authority, non-profit or for-profit builder to develop the Affordable
Housing Development. Developer is not responsible for the design, financing or
delivery of the Units.
2
Page 46 of 84
b.If Developer has not transferred the Affordable Housing Parcel as
required by Section I.A.4 within five (5) years after the approval of the FDP,
despite Developer’s good faith efforts to do the same, Developer may provide
written notice to the City of its intent to transfer the Affordable Housing Parcel to
the City. Within thirty (30) days of such written notice, Developer shall convey,
and the City shall accept, the Affordable Housing Parcel via a special warranty
deed in a form reasonably acceptable to both parties. Such conveyance shall be at
no cost to the City, except each party will pay for its own expenses, including
legal fees, if any, and customary closing costs.
B.City & Developer Acknowledgement. The City and Developer specifically
acknowledge and agree that the public benefits as described and secured in Section I.A. above
shall only be deemed to have occurred if and when the contingency in Section II.R. below is
satisfied.
II.MISCELLANEOUS
A.City Findings. The City hereby finds and determines that the approval of this
Agreement is in the best interests of the public health, safety and general welfare of the City.
B.City Approvals. Where this Agreement requires the City's future approval or
consent, such approval or consent may be given by the City Manager of the City within his or her
sole discretion. Where this Agreement requires Council approval or consent, such approval or
consent shall be within the Council's sole discretion.
C.Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and
the same agreement.
D.Covenants/Binding Effect. This Agreement shall run with the Property, including
any subsequent platting of all, or a portion of the Property. This Agreement shall also be binding
upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties, their respective personal representatives, heirs,
successors, grantees and assigns. The Parties agree that all improvements required pursuant to
this Agreement touch and concern the Property regardless of whether such improvements are
located on the Property. Assignment of interest within the meaning of this section shall
specifically include, but not be limited to, a conveyance or assignment of any portion of the
Developer's legal or equitable interest in the Property, as well as any assignment of the
Developer's rights to develop the Property under the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
E.Default.
1.Notice; Cure. If any party defaults under this Agreement, a non-
defaultingnon-defaulting party may deliver written notice to the defaulting party of such
default in accordance with Section II.L, and the defaulting party shall have thirty (30)
days from and after receipt of such notice to cure such default. If such default is not of a
type which can be cured within such thirty (30) day period and the defaulting party gives
written notice to the non-defaulting party within such thirty (30) day period that it is
actively and diligently pursuing such cure, the defaulting party shall have a reasonable
3
Page 47 of 84
period of time given the nature of the default following the end of such thirty (30) day
period to cure such default, provided that such defaulting party is at all times within such
additional time period actively and diligently pursuing such cure and provided further
that in no event shall such cure period exceed a total of six (6) months. Notwithstanding
the cure period set forth in this Section II.E.1, Developer, its successors and assigns, shall
have the right to include a claim for breach of this Agreement in any action brought under
C.R.C.P. Rule 106 if Developer, its successors and assigns, believes that the failure to
include such claim may jeopardize its ability to exercise its remedies with respect to this
Agreement at a later date. Any claim for breach of this Agreement brought before the
expiration of the applicable cure period set forth in this Section II.F. shall not be
prosecuted by any Party, its successors and assigns, until the expiration of such cure
period except as set forth in this Agreement, and shall be dismissed by such Party, its
successors and assigns, if the default is cured in accordance with this Section II.E.
2.Remedies. If any default under this Agreement is not cured as described
above, any non-defaulting party shall have the right to enforce the defaulting party's
obligation hereunder by an action at law or in equity, including, without limitation,
injunction and/or specific performance, and shall be entitled to an award of any damages
available at law or in equity.
4
Page 48 of 84
F.Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed under and governed by the
laws of the State of Colorado.
G.Integration: Amendment. This Agreement represents the entire agreement
between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and there are no oral or collateral
agreements or understandings. The Parties agree that this Agreement may be amended only by
an instrument in writing signed by the City and the Developer, and successors and permitted
assigns of the Developer to whom the Developer has granted in writing the right to consent to
any such amendments.
H.Jurisdiction and Venue. The Parties, on behalf of themselves and their successors
and assigns, stipulate and agree that in the event of any dispute arising out of this Agreement, the
courts of the State of Colorado shall have exclusive jurisdiction over such dispute and venue
shall only be proper in Larimer County, Colorado. The Parties hereby submit themselves to
jurisdiction of the State District Court, 8th Judicial District, County of Larimer, State of
Colorado.
I.Multiple-Fiscal Year Obligations. To the extent that any of the obligations of the
City contained in this Agreement are or should be considered multiple-fiscal year obligations
under TABOR or the City's Charter or Code, such obligations shall be subject to annual
appropriation by the Council, in its sole discretion.
J.No Joint Venture or Partnership. No form of joint venture or partnership exists
between the Developer and the City, and nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed
as making the Developer and the City joint venturers or partners.
K. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement,
enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and all rights of action relating to
such enforcement, shall be strictly reserved to the City,the Developer and its successors and
assigns, and nothing contained in this Agreement shall give or allow any such claim or right of
action by any third party. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, it is the express
intention of the City,the Developer and its successors and assigns that any other person
receiving services or benefits under this Agreement shall be deemed to be an incidental
beneficiary only.
5
Page 49 of 84
L.Notices. Any notice or communication required under this Agreement between
the City and Developer must be in writing and may be given either personally, by registered or
certified mail, return receipt requested, by Federal Express or other reliable courier service that
guarantees next day delivery or by facsimile transmission (followed by an identical hard copy via
registered or certified mail). If personally delivered, a notice shall be deemed to have been given
when delivered to the party to whom it is addressed. If given by any other method, a notice shall
be deemed to have been given and received on the first to occur of: (a) actual receipt by any of
the addressees designated below as the party to whom notices are to be sent; or (b) as applicable:
(i) three (3) days after a registered or certified letter, return receipt requested, containing such
notice, properly addressed, with postage prepaid, is deposited in the United States mail; (ii) the
following business day after being sent via Federal Express or other reliable courier service that
guarantees next day delivery; or (iii) the following business day after being sent by facsimile
transmission (provided that such facsimile transmission is promptly followed by an identical
hard copy sent via registered or certified mail, return receipt requested). Any party hereto may at
any time, by giving written notice to the other party hereto as provided in this Section II.L,
designate additional persons to whom notices or communications shall be given and designate
any other address in substitution of the address to which such notice or communication shall be
given. Such notices or communications shall be given to the Parties at their addresses set forth
below:
If to City:City of Fort Collins
ATTN: City Manager
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Email: ________________
With a copy to:City of Fort Collins
ATTN: City Attorney
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Email: ________________
If to Developer:MXD Fort Collins, LLC
c/o McWhinney Real Estate Services, LLC
ATTN: Will Little
1800 Wazee Street, Suite 200
Denver, CO 80202
Email: will.little@mcwhinney.com
With copies to:McWhinney Real Estate Services, LLC
ATTN: Legal Department
1800 Wazee Street, Suite 200
Denver, CO 80202
Email: legalnotices@mcwhinney.com
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
ATTN: Carolynne White & Abby Kirkbride
6
Page 50 of 84
675 15th Street, Suite 2900
Denver, CO 80202
Email: Cwhite@bhfs.com; Akirkbride@bhfs.com
M.Recording. The City shall record this Agreement with the Larimer County Clerk
and Recorder, and the Developer shall pay the cost of the same.
N.Section Captions. The captions of the sections are set forth only for the
convenience and reference of the Parties and are not intended in any way to define, limit or
describe the scope or intent of this Agreement.
O.Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement is
held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining
provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force.
P.Survival. The covenants, representations and warranties and agreements to be
performed or complied with under this Agreement by the respective Parties shall be continuing
obligations of the respective Parties until fully complied with or performed, respectively.
Q.Waiver. No waiver of one or more of the terms of this Agreement shall constitute
a waiver of other terms. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement in any instance shall
constitute a waiver of such provision in other instances.
R.Effective Date and Termination. This Agreement shall become effective on the
date that City Council Resolution 2025-059, approving the Service Plan Amendment, takes
effect.
7
Page 51 of 84
8
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement the day and year
first written above.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Assistant City Attorney
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of _______,
2025, by _______as Mayor of the City of Fort Collins.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My Commission expires:
CITY:CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO,
a Municipal Corporation
By:
Mayor
Date: , 2025
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Page 52 of 84
DEVELOPER:MXD FORT COLLINS, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By:MXD Fort Collins Partners, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,
its Manager
By:McWhinney Real Estate Services, Inc.,
a Colorado limited liability company,
its Manager
By:
STATE OF COLORADO )
)
COUNTY OF __________)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of _______, 2025, by
_______as _______of McWhinney Real Estate Services, Inc., a Colorado limited liability
company, as Manager of MXD Fort Collins Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, as Manager of MXD Fort Collins, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: _________________
_________________________________
Notary Public
9
Page 53 of 84
Exhibit A
Description of the Property
Page 54 of 84
Exhibit B
Preliminary Redevelopment Site Plan – Foothills Mall
Page 55 of 84
Exhibit C
Affordable Housing Parcel – Foothills Mall
Page 56 of 84
0
Table Insert
Changes:
0
Table Delete 0
Add
Intelligent Table Comparison: Active
Table moves to
22
0
Summary report:
Litera Compare for Word 11.2.0.54 Document comparison done on
11/13/2025 9:25:57 PM
Table moves from 0
Delete
Embedded Graphics (Visio, ChemDraw, Images etc.)
33
0
Original filename: 2025-08-07 - Exhibit A to Resolution 2025-060 - Public
Total Changes:
Modified filename: Foothills Public Benefits Agreement [McW
55
Style name: Brownstein
Page 57 of 84
Exhibit C
Affordable Housing Parcel – Foothills Mall
Page 58 of 84
Headline Copy Goes Here
Deputy Director, Sustainability Services
Josh Birks
Public Benefits
Agreement:
Foothills Mall
Redevelopment
12.04.2025
Page 59 of 84
Headline Copy Goes HereProposed Public Benefits Agreement
2
Two Options:
•Option 1. Developer transfers parcel to a
3rd party at no cost.
•Option 2. Developer transfers parcel to
City for land banking at no cost.
Developer has executed LOI
with Housing Catalyst
Page 60 of 84
Headline Copy Goes HereOPTION 1: Developer Proposal
3
Details
•Designate the parcel at Final Development Plan
•Secure the Parcel for affordable housing with a
covenant at transfer
•Developer executes a contract at FDP approval
•Requires construction commence within 4 years
•No default if contract not executed
•If Developer transfers but construction does not
begin then City must enforce deadline
•If not transfer within 5 years of FDP approval:
•Developer may provide notice of transfer to City
•If notice, Developer shall convey and City shall
accept
Page 61 of 84
Headline Copy Goes HereOPTION 2: Direct Transfer
4
Details
•Designate the parcel at Final Development
Plan (FDP)
•Transfer the Parcel to the City at FDP
approval
•Transfer contingent upon To Be Determined
conditions, such as:
•Removal of an existing Utility Easement
Page 62 of 84
Headline Copy Goes Here
5
Affordable Housing Parcel – Anticipated Location
Affordable Parcel
Page 63 of 84
Headline Copy Goes HerePreliminary Site Assessment
6
Positives Concerns
•Development is
feasible
•Parcel in an area not
likely to see more
Affordable
Development
•Parcel has access to
a wide range of
amenities
•Potential workforce
housing
•Not in a Qualified
Census Tract
•Existing Utility
Easement bifurcates
the Parcel
•Shape and location
minimizes design and
decreases cost
efficiency
•No on-site parking
Not the “best” or “easiest” but feasible;
Will likely require higher subsidy, comparativelyPage 64 of 84
Headline Copy Goes HereOptions Analysis
7
Developer Proposal Transfer Directly
•Covenant delay
reduces certainty
•Developer controls
option to transfer at 5
years; City must
accept
•Effectively a private
land-bank
•Only requirement is
setting
aside/transferring the
parcel (requires
acquisition from
Metro District at cost)
•City will require a
partner
•City leads the
process
•Need to negotiate
any “concessions”
early before site
planning
Page 65 of 84
Headline Copy Goes HereConclusions
8
Developer Proposal Transfer Directly
•Allows Developer to
work with the market
•Time could pass
without progress and
no City role to
accelerate
•City enforces through
Outside Development
Deadline & contract
remedies
•City risk not getting
all upfront
“concessions”
compromising
feasibility
•City controls the
timeline
•City enforces by
virtual of ownership
Both have merits and risks
Page 66 of 84
Headline Copy Goes Here
Page 67 of 84
Page 68 of 84
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 2
December 4, 2025
AGENDA
SUMMARY
City Council
STAFF
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Arts & Culture as Infrastructure: Budgeting for Vibrancy and Belonging
Staff will provide a comprehensive update on the financial status of the Arts & Culture Department,
including current performance, fiscal pressures, and long-
ities, the challenges shaping our financial outlook,
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Staff seeks Council Finance Committee guidance on:
• Balancing financial sustainability with accessibility and community benefit.
• Approaches to funding ongoing facility maintenance and future capital needs.
• Openness to new or diversified revenue sources.
• Expectations for cost recovery across programs and venues.
• Priorities for partnerships, grantmaking, and other external funding strategies.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Arts & Culture Department manages a diverse portfolio of venues, programs, and community
experiences that advance Fort Collins’ cultural vibrancy and quality of life. Core operations—including The
Lincoln Center, The Gardens on Spring Creek, FoCo POP, public art, community events, and facility
rentals—serve hundreds of thousands of residents and visitors annually, generating significant
participation and a substantial portion of the department’s earned revenue.
In 2019, City Council adopted the FoCo Creates Master Plan, establishing a community-driven vision for
a thriving, inclusive, and sustainable cultural ecosystem. Realizing this vision requires continued
investment—both operational and capital—to expand access, strengthen creative-sector partnerships,
Page 69 of 84
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 2
support local artists and organizations, and ensure facilities remain safe, modern, and welcoming. While
meaningful progress has been made, additional resourcing will be important to continue advancing the
plan’s long-term goals.
At the same time, the department is navigating a financial environment shaped by rising costs, shifting
audience behaviors, and increasing demands on aging facilities. Inflation, wage growth, expanding
program delivery needs, and deferred maintenance are contributing to growing operational pressures.
Despite these challenges, the department remains central to Council priorities around cultural vibrancy,
community well-being, placemaking, tourism, and economic impact.
These dynamics prompt important conversations about sustainability, access, and strategic trade-offs.
Staff have identified a range of potential levers—including revenue diversification, expanded partnerships,
operational efficiencies, and adjusted cost recovery expectations—that could help stabilize the
department’s long-term financial picture. Each of these approaches, however, must be considered carefully
to avoid compromising access, community benefit, or creative-sector support.
The department also plays a key role in nurturing Fort Collins’ broader creative ecosystem. Investments in
facilities, programming, and staff bolster not only Arts & Culture operations but also the many artists,
cultural organizations, and creative businesses that contribute to the city’s economic and social vitality.
This discussion aims to provide the Council Finance Committee with a comprehensive view of current
conditions, pressures, and strategic pathways. Staff are seeking guidance to help align future budget
development—including facilities planning, access initiatives, and FoCo Creates implementation—with
Council priorities and community expectations.
NEXT STEPS
No formal action is required at this time. Staff will incorporate Council Finance Committee input into
upcoming budget development and long-term planning.
ATTACHMENTS
None.
Page 70 of 84
Arts and Culture as
Infrastructure
12-04-2025
Budgeting for Vibrancy and
Belonging
Eileen May
Director, Arts and Culture
Dean Klingner
Director, Community Services
Page 71 of 84
Today’s Purpose: Understanding Our Arts and Culture Impact
•Snapshot of Arts and Culture
•Financial Picture and Pressures
•Levers and Trade-Offs
2
Page 72 of 84
Cultural Vibrancy and Creative Economy
•Strengthen artists, venues, nonprofits, and creative
businesses
•Build a resilient creative ecosystem
•Enhance neighborhoods with public art and events
•Position Fort Collins as a cultural destination
Well-Being and Belonging
•Provide inclusive programs for connection and wellness
•Advance cultural equity and broad participation
•Offer accessible, multilingual, low-cost opportunities
Snapshot of Arts and Culture: Strategic Role and Council Priorities 3
Page 73 of 84
Snapshot of Arts and Culture: Strategic Role and Council Priorities
Support Vulnerable Populations
•Expand arts access for youth, seniors, and underserved
communities
•Partner with human services organizations
•Reduce barriers with scholarships, transport, and outreach
•Foster healing, resilience, and social connection through arts
Tourism and Sales Tax Generation
•Draw visitors with events, festivals, and cultural destinations
•Elevate Fort Collins’ regional profile through cultural tourism
•Boost local spending at hotels, restaurants, and shops
•Generate sales tax to support city services and economic
growth
4
Page 74 of 84
FoCo Creates Plan: Financial Lens
Diversify Revenue
•Expand funding beyond grants
•Build sustainable program income
•Encourage community-driven
support
Strengthen Partnerships
•Collaborate with local organizations
•Share resources and expertise
•Develop long-term relationships
5
Page 75 of 84
FoCo Creates Plan: Financial Lens
Equitable Access
•Make programs affordable and
inclusive
•Fund underrepresented artists and
communities
•Remove participation barriers
Facility Investment
•Maintain and upgrade cultural
venues
•Invest in tech and infrastructure
•Optimize spaces for revenue and
community use
6
Page 76 of 84
7Arts and Culture – Program Inventory
•Cultural Programming: Concerts, theater, dance, exhibitions, festivals, and artist showcases
•Community Engagement and Access: Free/low-cost events, neighborhood initiatives, and
DEI-focused programming
•Venue Management: Facilities support, production services, and rentals at City cultural
venues
•Arts, Culture, History and Horticulture Education: Workshops, classes, and lifelong
learning for all ages
•Historical Archive for City
•Public Art and Placemaking: Art in Public Places program, creative design in parks and City
spaces
•Support for Local Organizations and Individual Artists: FoCo Creates grants for
nonprofits, festivals, and community arts projects
•Strategic Leadership and Partnerships: Collaborations to strengthen Fort Collins’ creative
economy and cultural identity
Page 77 of 84
Arts and Culture – Budget Outlook
Drivers of cost changes:
•Increased Artist Fees at Lincoln Center (Recovered through Ticket Revenues)
•2% annual increases in Purchased Professional and Technical Services
•All other expenses projected flat
8
2026 2027 2028
Debt and Other $0.6 M $0.6 M $0.6 M
Capital $0.1 M $0.1 M $0.1 M
Supplies $0.8 M $0.8 M $0.8 M
Purchased Services $2.7 M $3.5 M $3.6 M
Personnel $6.1 M $6.1 M $6.1 M
Total Operating Expenses $10.4 M $11.2 M $11.2 M
General Fund Contribution $4.0 M $4.0 M $4.0 M
$10.4 M
$11.2 M $11.2 M
$0.0 M
$2.0 M
$4.0 M
$6.0 M
$8.0 M
$10.0 M
$12.0 M
Arts and Culture Expense Projections
General Fund
36%
Lodging Taxes
(Restricted
GF)
5%
Revenues &
Reserves
59%
Funding Split
Page 78 of 84
9Arts and Culture – Budget Outlook
Drivers of Cost Changes and Community Impact
Current Drivers of Cost Changes:
•Increased Artist Fees and Production Costs – Talent and production expenses rising
•Contractual Labor and Operational Costs – Labor cost growth and known contractual
increases; Issues with hourly labor force for production, leaning on union
•Inflation and Economic Pressures – Higher costs for materials, services, and operations
•Public Funding and Policy Changes – Reductions or uncertainty in federal/state arts funding
affecting local budgets for local organizations and partners
Supporting the Local Arts Ecosystem:
•FoCo Creates Grant Program – Invest in local nonprofits, cultural organizations, and
individual artists
•Strengthens the creative economy and community access
•Ensures a vibrant, sustainable arts ecosystem that benefits all residents
Page 79 of 84
10Arts and Culture – Levers and Trade-Offs
Levers and Trade-Offs to Manage Budget Increases
1. Venue Utilization Assessment (Business Development)
•Lever: Increase revenue by optimizing venue use (rentals, sponsorships, special events)
•Trade-Off: Requires additional staff time and resources to support new bookings
2. Building Capability for Marketing Team
•Lever: Strengthen marketing capacity to drive ticket sales, memberships, and engagement
•Trade-Off: Short-term investment in staff training and tools; long-term revenue potential
3. Programming Mix and Ticket Pricing
•Lever: Adjust balance of high-cost national acts vs. lower-cost local/regional programming;
optimize ticket pricing tiers
•Trade-Off: May affect audience perception and accessibility; requires careful
communication
4. Operational Efficiencies and Shared Services
•Lever: Streamline production, staffing, and administrative processes across venues
•Trade-Off: Coordination and upfront planning needed; possible temporary strain on staffPage 80 of 84
Support for the Creative Community
Strengthen Local Organizations and Artists
•Venues and programs provide resources, exposure, and
opportunities
•Supports sustainability and growth of local arts
organizations
Boost Economy and Community Identity
•Creative sector drives jobs, tourism, and economic
activity
•Arts contribute to Fort Collins’ unique cultural identity
and sense of place
Expand Community Access
•Programs increase participation across ages, abilities,
and backgrounds
•Reduces barriers to engagement through scholarships,
outreach, and inclusive programming
11
Page 81 of 84
Looking Ahead
Sustainability Strategy
•Ensure long-term financial and operational health of arts
programs
•Diversify funding streams and strengthen partnerships
Facility Planning
•Upgrade and maintain venues to meet community and artist
needs
•Plan for multi-use, accessible, and flexible creative spaces
Accessibility and Engagement
•Expand programs for all ages, abilities, and backgrounds
•Reduce barriers to participation through outreach,
scholarships, and inclusive design
Creative Economy Branding
•Promote Fort Collins as a vibrant cultural and creative
destination
•Align local efforts with national standards and opportunities
through the American for the Arts (AFTA) Creative Economy
framework
12
Page 82 of 84
Summary
Arts Drive Vitality and Economic Return
•Strengthen community livability, creative identity, and tourism
•Generate jobs, revenue, and local economic activity
Financial Pressures Require Strategic Choices
•Prioritize funding and resources to maximize impact
•Align programs with city goals and community needs
Investment Supports Access and Sustainability
•Funding expands participation for all residents
•Ensures long-term health of creative infrastructure and
programs
Council Guidance Shapes Approach
•Emphasize cost recovery and revenue diversification
•Support capital funding for facilities and infrastructure
•Foster partnerships with organizations, businesses, and the
community
13
Page 83 of 84
Questions?
Page 84 of 84