Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY - 08/10/2010 - JOINT SESSION BETWEEN THE URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY DATE: August 10, 2010 STAFF: Christina Vincent WORK SESSION ITEM Mike Freeman URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Joint Session between the Urban Renewal Authority Board and the North College Citizens Advisory Group. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the third annual joint work session between the Urban Renewal Authority Board(URA)and North College Citizen's Advisory Group (CAG) to discuss important topics relating to the North College Urban Renewal Plan (URP) area. Topics for discussion were created by CAG to seek direction from the URA Board.Topics for discussion relate to percentages granted,annual meetings, reserve funds, and an overall assessment of the work performed by CAG. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED I. Does the URA Board support a separate meeting with CAG more than once a year? 2. Is the URA Board interested in the creation of a dedicated "Reserve Fund"? 3. Would the URA Board like to give guidance to CAG in regards to recommended project percentages? 4. Does the URA Board have concerns with the criteria developed for projects that occur within the boundaries of another project? 5. What feedback does the URA Board have regarding the work of CAG members? 6. Is Council interested in discussing with CAG other options for redevelopment tools outside of tax increment financing (TIF), which can be used citywide? BACKGROUND The URA Board has met with CAG the past two years to discuss matters of the North College URP. This meeting is intended to provide an update on projects currently underway and to further discuss CAG guidelines to be used when projects are recommended to the URA Board. August 10, 2010 Page 2 Role of the CAG: When the North College URP was created, CAG was formed to help tailor implementation of this Plan to unique circumstances in the area. CAG members are nominated from the North Fort Collins Business Association (NFCBA), which consists of business representatives, property owners and residents within the North College Corridor area to render advice to the URA Board. In addition to the nominations from the NFCBA, CAG includes one member from City Council and one member from the Planning and Zoning Board to ensure effective communication. The intent is for URA Board to consult with CAG on all significant actions and decisions of the Authority regarding this Plan. Topics for discussion as identified by CAG members: 1. Frequency of Joint Meetings between CAG and the URA Board. CAG would like to suggest to the URA board to meet jointly more frequently than annually. The first joint session, in 2008, was established to better define the roles, relationships and the expectations of the URA Board, CAG and staff. It was agreed upon then to meet once a year to check in on matters that relate to the North College URP and continue effective communication. CAG is suggesting a joint session held more frequently than once a year and held on a separate night where all members can sit across from one another in discussion. 2. With the predicted excess TIF,what projects do CAG members place priority on and how do we fund the completion of College Ave improvements? Reserve fund: Could CAG set aside another percentage of the request into a."reserve fund"? CAG has specifically discussed, without resolve, where funds would come from to finish North College Avenue from Conifer to Willox Lane. CAG is seeking discussion on this item with the URA Board. With regard to the priorities for the North College area, staff believes this question was discussed with.CAG and the NFCBA for over a year with the North College Infrastructure Funding Plan (NCIFP) process. That plan led to a Council approved spreadsheet,identifying the priorities for North College (Attachment 3). CAG spent many meetings discussing this information and providing input to staff on the highest levels of priorities. Staff believes that level of interaction and discussion is sufficient to determine where funds should be applied first for North College infrastructure. CAG would like to suggest setting aside a percentage of each project to create a dedicated reserve fund. The reserve fund is intended to fill the existing funding gap for the construction of North College Avenue from Conifer to Willox Lane. Staff believes the predicted unencumbered tax increment funds are a reserve fund for future projects. The NCIFP can guide how those funds are applied to prioritized projects. The predicted TIF generation cannot be used without being verified by completed projects. All URA projects, with the exception of Valley Steel from 2005, are underway but not at completion. To be clear, there is no guarantee of the generation of property tax increment until the project is issued a Certificate of August 10, 2010 Page 3 Occupancy(CO) and the valuation is verified by the County Assessor. Staff suggests that any final decisions on dedicated reserves from the unencumbered portion of TIF be discussed at a later date when North College Marketplace, Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative (RMI2), Union Place and all other smaller projects are completed and revenues are verified. Please refer to the chart in the attachments labeling the available funds that are not dedicated thus far (Attachment 1). Staff has suggested through a Budgeting for Outcomes(BFO) offer for the 2011-2012 budget cycle that a $50,000 Storefront/Facade Improvement Program be created from the unencumbered TIF funds for either loan or grant opportunities for small businesses in the plan area. 3. Understanding that CAG tries to look at each request on its merits and tries not to be constrained by percentages, what suggestion/feedback does the URA Board have regarding a general percent range? At the first joint session in 2008, through the discussion of applying a"cap"to the TIF awarded per project, the URA Board and CAG agreed to leave project percentages on a case by case basis and not establish a "cap". There was a white paper created on this issue (Attachment 4) Each project has been so unique in its funding need that staff would recommend keeping the case by case basis as the guideline. 4. How does the URA Board want us to handle TIF requests for projects that fall within the boundaries of other URA projects? This topic resulted from the TIF application from the Habitat for Humanity project that lies within the already awarded Union Place project. Staff took into consideration steps to measure the impact of the project within a project and decided to make Habitat stand on its own, separate from Union Place. Based on several factors and changes to the site plan, it was awarded. This topic has led to further discussion from CAG on the need for criteria to be developed preventing future projects from assuming this could happen in all cases. CAG would like guidance from the URA Board on this issue. Staff recommends the following criteria for discussion: • Proven increase in tax increment because of changes in the project • Project meets an additional URA goal that wasn't met before • Major modification to the original development plan (i.e. increase in housing units, increase in sqft, etc.) • Proven methods that the project isn't dipping into funds already awarded to another project. 5. Provide feedback or overall assessment of the recommendations made and work completed by CAG? This topic is directly from CAG to the URA Board and staff does not have input. 6. What else should we be doing in Redevelopment Areas beyond the assistance of TIF? This topic is directly from CAG to the URA Board and staff does not have input. August 10, 2010 Page 4 Project Updates: North College Marketplace The anchor tenant, King Soopers, is scheduled to open in May 2011. The west side of the intersection improvements of College and Willox is completed and construction has moved over to the East side. The roundabout is 75% completed construction and the wetlands have been successfully mitigated and are flourishing. Union Place The infrastructure onsite is complete and the lots are ready to for development. The use of Private Activity Bonds has been suggested (using either the Fort Collins Housing Authority or Colorado Housing Finance Authority) to allow funds for vertical construction. Progress continues and the project is currently on track for completion at the end of 2012. Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative The site infrastructure has been installed. The road improvements, stormwater detention improvements and onsite utilities have been completed. The steel frame of the building is up and HVAC and internal mechanical infrastructure are being installed. This project is ahead of schedule and the Grand Opening is scheduled for December 15, 2010. Habitat for Humanity Habitat will be closing on their four single family lots within Union Place soon. They intend to begin construction as soon as possible and have been working with the various City departments to implement pilot programs for the architecture and use of utilities. They still intend to be LEED Gold certified homes. Kaufman and Robinson Groundbreaking held August 5, 2010 for the construction of Kaufman and Robinson's new 10,000 sq. ft. building. This project will be complete early 2011 and allow expansion opportunities for the business. Jax This project got underway almost immediately with the issuance of the building permit. The parking lot has been poured and striped,and the new wood beam fagade has been installed on the additional retail space. This project should see completion in the late Fall 2010. ATTACHMENTS 1. Chart of URA Projects 2. Powerpoint Presentation 3. North College Infrastructure Funding Plan —Table 4. White paper on "Cap TIF for Proposed Development" J Ak • • • • $ 197K $47K $412K ' (30%) (7%) (63 %) • • $ 107K $22K $ 1 K 1 (82 % ) ( 17%) ( 1 % ) $2 . 8M $900K $ 600K ' (21 %) ( 14%) $269K $40K $291 K 1 1 41 %) - - $2 . 3M $420 $ 1 . 9M a (9 %) IW7 WOM $2 . 6M $4 . 9M (52%) ( 16%) (32%) $ 110K $20K $ 380K 1 (22%) (4%) (74%) - rr FORT COLLINS Li U RA/CAG joiniwaossion August 10 , 2010 fort Collins . 1 i COLLEGE/WILLOX N . COLLEGE IMPROVEMENTS ti MARKETPLACE �- - WILLOX LN . UNION PLACE & HABITAT c�> c N o rn 00 to %�j rri Q n-m C a � C rn rn c VALLEY STEEL KAUFMAN & ROBINSON HICKORY Sl NEW LOCATION CONIFER Sl JAX N . COLLEGE �► m IMPROVEMENTS C m VINE DR . * FUTURE LOCATION OF RM12 UR onecton. 1 ' ve Year � ecQLm Plan. arjqWr • 2006 - Vffley Steel - 1st pr • 2 09}��VCo14uge Marl place 2009 — UniN Place • 2009 — RM12 —� • 2009 - Kaufman anopbinson • 2010 - Habitat Humanity • 201 Jax `�°cwws bb c Benefits mF� pe �� rr !1r ' rJJr ] Stormwd.' r Dim An J• J ; , 0 - . � � . J �lpir ] � El MEJ !J �D �� � rrJrJ � 4 Iwo 91 Economic 6 S • New Constru �' brs_ • 2397000 Wi ( commercial ) • 8@Lu. nits ( housing ) — • Retention , Expansion and Incubation • Water Conservation ( Kaufman & RoblO.SOP. ) • Creat& Jobs : primary and indirect clTyor For t�s — s I I J ' I • r • • 1 1 1 l l l l r f l r Ir ' � � 1 � • 1 1 1 J J I ■ ■ • 1 1 F • URA Projects SHARED BACK W/PROJECT • � � � " � ' � � " � � � �' • AVAILABLE JAx _ $ 656K Habitat 10 v q Op $ 130 K RM12 • � � . � � — $ 4 . 3M gqr Kaufman ,, _ $ 600K Union Place _ $ 4 . 6M NC MktPlace ' ' _ $ 15 . 5M Valley Steel _ _ $ 51 OK 0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 % Fort Collins 7 • QUARSt " nsfor Board J A : JJ AtFJ J J 2 I l of. I " Reserve Fund ' 3 . Recommended project perce 40 Criteria for Promect with Q - a proi ect ? 111ii • rll • • o ,i,= ;;tiq -er Redevelop i& t to i Table 1 - Project Summary Table North College Infrastructure Funding Plan Very High Priority ATTACHMENT 3 I MI2010 (a) Priority is based on need for public funding and City objectives. Advance Planning Department, 221-6376 (b) Benefits and Responsibil0es are in order from direct to indirect. ESTIMATED PROJECTS PRIORITY a COST, 2009 OBJECTIVES MET BENEFITS & RESPONSIBILITIES b POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES F.OVEMENTS TO EXISTING STREETS No. 1 N College Av - 750' from Hemlock to Conifer, street edges VH $2,700,000 ON, Si PED, LOS Area, City, State, Developers TIF, 2015 Citywide CIP (remainder post-BOB project) 2 N College Av - 1/2 mile from Vine to Conifer, Medians, East Side Circulators and Oveday M $1 ,600,000 IDN, SFT Area, City, State, Developers Developers, CDOT Programs, TIF, Federal Grants, Mil Levy (remainder post-BOB project) 3 N College Av - 300' Conifer to Hickory (remainder post-HES Project) VH $1,550,000 LOS, APF, ECN, ON, PED State, City, Developers, Area TIF, 2015 Citywide CIP 4 N College Av - Conifer/Hickory intersection realignment of Conifer to meet Hickory L $6,700,000 FIX, APF City, State, Area Future City CIP 5 N College Av - 1/2 mile from Hickory to Willox, interim asphalt path H $840,000 SFT, LOS, FIN, PED Area, City, State 2015 Citywide CIP, Federal Grants, CDOT Programs, Mil Levy, TIF lip 6 N College Av - 1/2 mile Hickory to Willox, permanent sidewalk only VH $2,100,000 Si LOS, PED Area, City, State 2015 City CIP, TIF, Federal Grants, COOT Programs, Mil Levy lip 7 N College Av - 1/2 mile Hickory to Willox, street edges minus sidewalk VH $10,850,000 ON, Si LOS Area, City, State, Developers 2015 City CIP, TIF, Federal Grants, Mil Levy 8 N College Av - 1/2 mile from Hickory to Willox, medians and oveday M $1 ,360,000 IDN, SFT, LOS Area, City, State, Developers Future City CIP 9 N College Av - 114 mile from Eaton Ditch to Hwy 1 L $3,700,000 IDN, SFT, PED, LOS Area, State, City CDOT Programs, State & Federal Grants, Developers 10 Vine Dr - 1/2 mile from College to Linden M $2,800,000 LOS, IDN Area, City, Developers Developers & Street Oversizing, TIF (URA & DDA) 11 Willox Ln - 1/2 mile from Union Pacific Railroad to College L $2,760,000 LOS Area, City, Developers Developers & Street Oversizing (remainder post-Union Place development) 12 Alley upgrade - parallel east 1/4 mile from Conifer to Bristlecone L $308,000 LOS, FIN Developers, Area, City, State Developers, TIF, Street Oversizing NEW STREETS 13 Realigned Vine Or - 1/8 mile from College to Jerome, M $244,000 ECN, LOS, ON Developers, Area, City Developers, TIF, Street Oversizing interim street connection for abutting development 14 Realigned Vine Or - 1/8 mile from College to Jerome, full Arterial M $3,850,000 ECN, LOS, ON Developers, Area, City Developers, TIF, Street Oversizing 15 Realigned Vine Or - new concrete intersection at North College Av L $3,816,000 City, State Future City CIP 16 Realigned Vine Or - 3/8 mile from Jerome to Redwood L $7,600,000 APF, ECN Developers, Area, City Developers & Street Oversizing 17 Redwood St - missing southern segment 600' Cajetan to "Realigned Vine" H $471 ,000 APF, LOS, FIN, ECN Developers, Area, City Developers & Street Oversizing, TIF 18 Redwood St - missing northern segment 400"'Realigned Vine" to current terminus H $314,000 LOS, APF, FIN, ECN Developers, Area, City Developers & Street Oversizing, TIF 19 Mason St - parallel west circulator 3/8 mile from Alpine to Hickory L $1 ,380,000 LOS Area, City, State Future City CIP, Developers 20 Mason St - parallel West 1/2 mile from Hickory to Willox M $2,100,000 ECN, IDN, LEV, LOS Developers, Area, City Developers, TIF, SID STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES 21 NECCO - primary "backbone" section from Pond E to Vine Drive VH $6,000,000 APF, ECN Developers SID, Utilities CIP 22 NECCO - redevelopment system (upstream of Pond E) L $4,000,000 APF, ECN Developers SID, Utilities CIP 23 NCDID - west side drainage system L $6,000,000 APF, ECN Developers, Owners SID, Utilities CIP SEWER LINE 24 Sewer westside - City sewer from Alpine to Poudrs Valley Plaza H $1 ,200,000 FIX, APF, LEV Owners Utilities Maintenance Program TOTAL COST, 2009 DOLLARS Key to Acronyms LEV - Leverage, Cost Sharing, or Public/Private Partnership opportunities APF - Adequate Public Facilities — Solve Obstacles to Development by Meeting Standards LOS - Level Of Service for All Transportation Modes CIP - Capital Improvements Program, e.g., the current "Building on Basics" (BOB) voter-approved sales tax referendum and City Utilities programs NCDID - Drainage Improvements Design DDA - Downtown Development Authority NECCO - Northeast College Corridor Outfall ECN - Support Economic Development PED - Pedestrian & Bike Activity FIN - Financing Feasibility, Political & Ownership Realities SFT - Safety/Hazard Elimination for All Transportation Modes FIX - Fixes A Problem in Existing Public Infrastructure SID - Special Improvement District -- Builds infrastructure funded by special assessments on property based on special benefit to the property IDN - Distinct Identity or Sense of Place, Change Public Perception TIF - Tax Increment Financing URA - Urban Renewal Authority #2 . Cap TIF for proposed development Issue Should there be a policy that would cap the TIF amount allowed for a proposed development? Background The state of Colorado ' s Urban Renewal law does not dictate the amount of tax increment financing that can be used per project requesting URA assistance . Additionally, there are no current policies within the City of Fort Collins URA that determine a set amount either. There are problems with having a cap on the amount that can be used because each situation and project that is proposed is different. One project may be small in nature and need 15 % of the tax increment generated dedicated to the project, while another larger project is seeking close to 50% . While 50% may seem like a stretch of the imagination, it is clear that many developments may be seeking that amount of assistance because the feasibility of their project depends on it. The Authority may not want to set the precedent that high with a development because every development thereafter will be seeking the same assistance and will be bankrupt before any project breaks ground. The Authority should seek the flexibility to access each development separately and not be limited by an additional policy of funding percentage cap . Adversely, there may be a need to set a standard amount or percentage for consistency within the determinations . It would create more accuracy in the proformas that are submitted from the developers with regard to the contribution levels the URA is prepared to approve. It is difficult to find a URA that has a written policy with a cap on increment contributions however, many have verbal understandings among their staff they will not contribute more than "x" amount on any given project. Recommendation The recommendation would be to continue without a set maximum contribution level of tax increment to allow for flexibility and trapping itself into a commitment that is either too high or too low of a precedent. 3