HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 09/02/2014 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 114, 2014, APPROPRIAgenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 2, 2014
City Council
STAFF
Lance Smith, Strategic Financial Planning Manager
Ken Mannon, Operations Services Director
Kevin Gertig, Utilities Executive Director
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2014, Appropriating Capital Project Funding in the Light and Power,
Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Drainage Enterprise Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of
Appropriations to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Art in Public Places Program, for the
Construction of a New Utilities Administration Building in Block 32 on LaPorte Avenue and Renovation of 700
Wood Street.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this Appropriation Ordinance is to provide funding for the construction of a new Utility
Administration Building within Block 32 on LaPorte Avenue, as well as renovation of the existing Utility Service
Center at 700 Wood Street. The total combined project costs are $23,411,000 with $4,500,000 already
appropriated from Light and Power reserves, leaving $18,911,000 to be appropriated with this ordinance.
A Utility Building Team comprised of internal staff and external subject matter experts has worked with the
architectural firm RNL and Adolfson and Peterson Construction to assess the best way to address the current
building performance and space issues facing Fort Collins Utilities’ ongoing and future business operations.
Balancing the city-wide goal to have high-performing office buildings with the need to be fiscally prudent has
led the Building Team to recommend the two-pronged funding process proposed in this appropriation
ordinance.
The four Utility Enterprise Funds (Light and Power, Water, Wastewater and Stormwater) will share the costs of
the projects. All appropriations will come from the existing reserves in these four funds.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Staff has discussed with the City Council Finance Committee, as well as at the November 19, 2013 City
Council Work Session, information regarding the Utility Service Center (USC) at 700 Wood Street. The USC
has grown through seven additions to its current 108,000 square foot capacity over the past 45 years. Key
drivers that support the renovation of the USC are:
Growing business operations that support Fort Collins community service delivery expectations
Building significantly lacks in sufficient energy efficiency, especially the HVAC system
Light & Power crews have male only facilities
Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 2
Initially, to address this last immediate need, the Light & Power Enterprise Fund appropriated $4.5M.
However, recognizing ongoing space needs will impact Fort Collins Utilities’ effectiveness to meet current
performance levels for service delivery and customer satisfaction in the near future, it was determined that it is
highly desirable to relocate several external customer-focused departments under one roof downtown. A
comparison of the costs associated with the addition to the USC to the costs of new construction led to the
recommendation of a more limited renovation at 700 Wood Street and building a new Utilities Administration
Building (UAB) downtown as part of the development of Block 32 on LaPorte Avenue.
The vision for both the UAB construction and the USC renovation is one that will demonstrate how facilities
can serve as a model in environmental stewardship to the Fort Collins community. Sustainability for the 21st
Century is a defining focus of Utilities core services; delivering a level of service our customers expect and in
an environmentally and socially responsible way while making the best economic choices for the long-term.
The Building Team recommended the two projects be combined into one design and funding process in order
to align the vision and results of both projects and optimize economies of scale.
These projects present an excellent opportunity for Utilities to “walk the talk” by demonstrating best practices in
high performance new construction and retrofit projects. Based on energy studies at the USC and what is
being accomplished in new construction, it is proposed that these two facilities be designed to be “net zero
energy ready.” This means that the buildings will be designed and constructed to have very low energy use,
such that the addition of on-site renewable energy would result in net zero energy consumption on an annual
basis. It is expected the new UAB will achieve a LEED Gold certification at a minimum.
Utility Administration Building (UAB)
This new building would house the entire Customer Connections Department and some senior management of
Fort Collins Utilities. At 37,500 square feet, this building will meet the long term space requirements of the
Customer Connections department and administrative functions that would be relocated from the Utility
Service Center and space currently leased by Fort Collins Utilities from the City’s General Fund at 117 North
Mason. Space initially unused by Utility staff would be leased in this building to the City’s Sustainability
Services Area until it is needed by Fort Collins Utilities.
Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 3
The construction of the 37,500 square foot Utility Administration Building is expected to cost $14.1M as shown
in the table below:
UAB Budget $14,100,000
Includes…
Capacity for staff through 2028
Water source heat pump system
Open office environment
LEED Gold certification
PV system on roof for Net Zero building
1% for Art in Public Places
Does not include… Added Cost…
Install Alpen 725 Series fiberglass windows $220,000
Ground Source Geo-thermal system for heat pumps $300,000
Add additional site furnishings for exterior plaza area $120,000
The $14.1M provides sufficient funding for the new construction, meeting space requirements through 2028
and providing a rooftop solar photovoltaic system to make the UAB a Net Zero building.
This appropriation request, however, does not provide sufficient funding to also install high efficiency fiberglass
windows, implement a ground source geothermal heat pump, or furnishings for an external plaza area.
Diagonal and parallel parking has been added along Howes Street increasing the number of spaces available
by 25 spaces between LaPorte Avenue and Cherry Street. Most of the employees who will be occupying this
building already work downtown at 117 North Mason. It is anticipated there will be 41 employees relocating
from 700 Wood Street to this building. Parking Services has indicated there is sufficient capacity in the parking
garages during business hours for these 41 employees.
Utility Service Center (USC)
The new building on LaPorte Avenue would relieve some of the space needs at the USC. However, there
remain operational needs which would best be met by also renovating the existing space at the USC. Such a
renovation would modify some existing space to meet the Light & Power crew needs as well as improve the
building’s security and energy efficiency. The current HVAC system is at the end of its life and will require
significant investment over the next few years even without this renovation. Incorporating the HVAC
investment into a more comprehensive renovation of the entire building envelope will substantially improve the
energy efficiency of the building.
Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 4
The renovation of existing space at the USC is expected to cost $9.3M as shown in the table below:
The budget provides sufficient funding to fully address the Light & Power crew space needs, replace the
current HVAC system, renovate the entrance area, improve building security, and provide extensive building
envelope improvements. Building envelope improvements include replacing the current exterior windows,
repairing the existing skylights, and adding roof insulation. Making these improvements will result in a lower
cost HVAC system and long-term energy savings as well as move the building closer to being a net zero
energy building.
This appropriation request, however, does not provide sufficient funding to also implement a geothermal heat
exchange system, remove existing interior walls to create an open office environment, acquire new furnishings
or provide a solar array to achieve net zero energy consumption.
The baseline budgets for both projects include all permit and development fees, deconstruction costs and
sufficient contingency funding for reasonable contingencies. Combining the two projects into the single
appropriation being requested herein of $18.9M includes the associated 1% appropriation for Art in Public
Places:
Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 5
Combined Projects Summary
Staff Recommendation for new UAB: $14,100,000
Staff Recommendation for USC Renovation: $9,311,000
Total Construction Budget $23,411,000
Less Prior Appropriation $4,500,000
Proposed Appropriation $18,911,000
The appropriation request is allocated to the four utilities as follows:
Enterprise Fund
Project
Share
Share of Projects
Cost
Less Existing
Appropriation
Funds Being
Requested Here
Light & Power 50.0% $11,705,500 $4,500,000 $7,205,500
Water 25.0% $5,852,750 $5,852,750
Wastewater 12.5% $2,926,375 $2,926,375
Storm Drainage 12.5% $2,926,375 $2,926,375
100.0% $23,411,000 $4,500,000 $18,911,000
The attached memorandum (Attachment 1) dated January 23, 2014 to the Council Finance Committee
outlined the rationale behind recommending that the appropriation be made from the cash reserves of the four
utility Enterprise Funds rather than through a debt issuance as had been previously discussed with the City
Council. The reasoning being based on the collective healthy balance of the utility Enterprise Fund Reserves,
the relatively low yield of these cash reserves compared to the current borrowing rate, and the complication of
issuing debt across the four utilities.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The financial impact of this appropriation on the short term financial health of the four utility Enterprise Funds
will be to reduce the amount of unappropriated cash reserves held by each utility. These reserves are used for
capital projects associated with aging infrastructure replacement and renewal, growth, and new regulatory
requirements. The reserves grow through development fees and operating revenues in excess of actual
operating expenses. Higher than projected development fee revenues in 2013 allowed three of the four
utilities to increase reserves in 2013. The Water Enterprise Fund reserves decreased from $67.0M at the end
of 2012 to $65.5M through 2013. However, higher than budgeted operating revenues and development fees,
along with additional revenue from the sale of excess treatment capacity, should increase the working capital
for the Water Fund by $5-8M in 2014. No capital projects identified and submitted for consideration in the
2015-16 Budgets are being impacted by this appropriation.
Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 6
The table below summarizes the reserve balances for these Enterprise Funds at the end of 2013 and after this
appropriation.
Enterprise Fund
Cash &
Investments
(12/31/13)
Available
Working Capital
(12/31/13)
Funds Being
Requested
Here
Available Working
Capital After This
Appropriation
Light & Power $55.3 $26.6 $7.2 $19.4
Water $65.5 $8.5 $5.8 $2.7
Wastewater $33.1 $17.8 $2.9 $14.9
Storm Drainage $17.2 $6.9 $2.9 $4.0
$171.1 $59.8 $18.9 $40.9
$ in millions
Use of these reserves will not trigger a rate increase for customers of any of the four utilities. The projected
increases in Light & Power rates in 2015 and 2016 are driven entirely by the increased cost of the purchased
power from Platte River Power Authority. The proposed rate increases of 3% in 2015 and 2016 in the
Wastewater Enterprise Fund have been planned ahead of the decision to recommend this appropriation. The
increased revenues from the proposed increases to the Wastewater utility are consistent with the long term
financial requirements and strategic planning based on the 10 year capital improvement plan for this utility. It
is anticipated that gradual, moderate rate increases may be required for some of the utilities over the next few
years which may be delayed by a year or two without this appropriation but the need for any such rate increase
will persist even without the appropriation, as it is driven by a longer term perspective of revenue requirements
and capital project planning.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Currently, energy use at the USC is responsible for over 1,000 tons/year CO2e in greenhouse gas emissions.
With efficiency upgrades at the USC (envelope and HVAC improvements) and high performance design at the
UAB, energy modeling shows the combined emissions for the two buildings at 850 tons/year CO2e, lower than
current emissions at the USC alone. The addition of solar PV systems will further lower these emissions.
Attention to water efficient design elements at UAB will optimize water use inside and out.
Energy and water systems for the UAB are being designed in context with the future built-out of the Civic
Center complex. As such, the potential exists for developing campus-wide energy and water systems. For
example, heat pumps in the building will be able to tie into a campus GeoExchange wellfield to exchange
energy with the earth and adjacent buildings. PV systems on one building or a parking garage can share
energy with all Civic Center buildings, or possibly a larger energy district.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its August 7, 2014 meeting, the Energy Board unanimously approved a motion supporting this Ordinance
(Attachment 2). At its August 21, 2014 meeting, the Water Board unanimously approved a motion supporting
this Ordinance (Attachment 3).
Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 7
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Memo re: Building Funding - Cash vs. Bonds, January 23, 2014 (PDF)
2. Energy Board minutes, August 7, 2014 (draft) (PDF)
3. Water Board minutes, August 21, 2014 (draft) (PDF)
4. Triple Bottom Line Analysis (PDF)
5. Coucil Work Session Summary, November 19, 2013 (PDF)
6. Powerpoint presentation (PPTX)
215 N Mason Street
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6795
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Date: January 23, 2014
To: Council Finance Committee
Thru: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
From: Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
Brian Janonis, Utilities Executive Director
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Financial Planning Manager
Topic: Utilities Customer Service & Administration Building Funding – Cash vs.
Bonds
Financial Services has worked with the Utilities finance team to evaluate the possibility of
utilizing existing fund balance cash to fund the construction of the new CSA building rather than
borrowing through a bond offering.
Combined, the four Utility Enterprise Funds have $169M of cash and investments at the
end of 2013. Deducting minimum fund requirements, yearend encumbrances, and
approved capital projects, $58M is available for future capital needs.
The $58M available increased from $34M at the end of 2012 because of strong revenue in
L&P, Development Fees and the onetime payment to the Water Fund from the FCLWD
agreement and spending below budget in all Funds.
Comparing interest earnings to the cost of borrowing – current cash earned approximately
.9% in 2013; borrowing rates are currently approximately 4.5%. While interest earning
rates are expected to increase, staff believes using available cash when earning rates are
at historically low levels is an appropriate use of existing cash.
Issuing bonds for the CSA building will be a complicated transaction given each enterprise
fund is a unique entity and one can’t support the others. We have confirmed with bond
counsel that we can structure a deal but with many cross agreements between the Utility
Funds. Future capital projects that are fund specific will be more appropriate bonding
candidate’s when/if outside funding is needed.
Large capital projects within Utilities that will require within the next 5-10 years have very
uncertain timing – i.e. Halligan Reservoir, Mulberry annexation. Holding the cash today for
future projects with uncertain timing requirements is overly conservative.
Staff recommends using cash to fund the Utility CSA building.
Excerpt from Unapproved August 7, 2014 Energy Board Minutes
Building Appropriation Ordinance
(Attachments available upon request)
Strategic Financial Planning Manager Lance Smith presented two documents: (1) “First Reading
of Ordinance Appropriating Capital Project Funding in the Light and Power, Water, Wastewater,
and Storm Drainage Funds for the Construction of a New Utilities Administration Building in
Block 32 on Mason Street and a Renovation of 700 Wood Street” and (2) a PowerPoint on
“Financing a New Utility Administrative Building and Remodeling Wood Street.”
He recommended that the board consider providing meeting minutes to City Council ahead of
the August 19 Council first reading of the Appropriation Ordinance on the board’s discussion
and any recommendations.
Highlights from the discussion:
The existing Customer Service Center (CSC) at 117 N. Mason, which is owned by the
City’s General Fund, not the utility Enterprise Funds, has inadequate parking for
customers and is an old building with poor lighting, security and layout.
The Utilities Service Center (USC) on Wood Street is one of the City’s most energy in-
efficient buildings and requires significant upgrades: HVAC, windows, skylights,
external sealing. It also has not met fundamental space needs for many years. The
operations and crew space is limited, in poor condition, and features only single gender
capacity (Utilities hired its first female line-crew employee a few years ago and doesn’t
have adequate facilities). Estimate of additional space needed is 24,000 square feet (s.f.).
Increased security requirements post 9/11 are difficult to meet with public access to the
building, and long-term plans will eventually require the operations center to be more
centrally located rather than on the north end of the city.
The 700 Wood Street building will cost $9.3 million to renovate.
The Appropriation Ordinance will provide funding toward the construction of a new
Utility Administration Building on Mason Street as well as renovation of the antiquated
Utility Service Center on Wood Street. Total combined project costs are $23,411,000
with $4.5 million already appropriated from Light & Power reserves resulting in the
appropriation request being $18,911,000. The four Utility Funds (Light & Power, Water,
Wastewater, and Stormwater) will share the project costs. All appropriations will come
from available reserves in these funds.
The new Utility Administration Building will look similar to 215 N. Mason but will be
larger and more energy efficient, and will feature 37,500 s.f., three stories, and dedicated
parking. The cost will be $14.1 million.
Sustainability Services will lease space from Utilities. Utilities will eventually need that
space.
A photovoltaic (PV) system on the roof will generate enough solar energy to make the
building net-zero.
A board member inquired about the cost per square foot of the new building compared to
the cost of the building at 215 North Mason, and staff said they could research this
ATTACHMENT 2
information after calculating for inflation to compare it to the cost of the 215 N. Mason
building, which is about 14 years old.
A board member inquired about the total city budget; staff estimated it is approximately
$500 million. Utilities revenue is approximately $200 million.
A board member inquired whether funding of this project will increase his electric bill.
Mr. Smith explained it will not drive rate increases directly. It may accelerate rate
increases indirectly by a year or two or three.
Instead of revamping the interior of the Utility Service Center to an open style at a cost of
$2.3 million, the funds being requested will focus on renovating the exterior.
Mr. Phelan noted that Utilities has no choice but to do something because the building is
so antiquated; the HVAC system is at the end of its life. When the boiler went out last
winter, some employees were working in 50-degree offices.
A board member commented that when you consider the years of use, we’re getting our
money’s worth. A small percentage of the annual budget buys us 50 years of effective
operating space by renovating the 700 Wood Street building. He said he’d support the
ordinance on that basis.
A board member commented that increased energy efficiency will result in significant
cost savings.
Mr. Smith commented that operating expenses for Wood Street are $200,000 to $300,000
per year. The building is 115,000 s.f. and staff is looking for another 20 years out of that
building.
A board member inquired whether staff considered a new space that would last 50 years.
Mr. Smith replied that the building committee did. The two separate buildings are needed
because most people who park in the 700 Wood parking lot are not working in the
offices; they’re field crews who need space to park their equipment and vehicles.
A board member inquired whether Utilities employees separated into two buildings
would pose any problems.
Mr. Phelan stated that Utilities currently has two buildings and multiple plants. The 117
N. Mason Street building (containing the board room) would shut down and staff would
move to the new building that will be Gold or Platinum LEED-certified.
Mr. Smith said the City Council’s first reading of this ordinance will be on August 19,
and the second reading and adoption would be on September 2.
Chairperson Behm moved that the Energy Board recommend to City Council approval of the
Utility Buildings Appropriation Ordinance scheduled for City Council First Reading on August
19, 2014 appropriating capital project funding from the Light & Power, Water, Wastewater, and
Stormwater Funds, for construction of a new Utilities Administration Building at the corner of
LaPorte and Howes and renovation of 700 Wood Street. Board Member Moore seconded the
motion.
Vote on the motion: it passed unanimously
Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes August 21, 2014
Building Appropriation Ordinance
(Attachments available upon request)
Lance Smith, Strategic Financial Planning Manager, presented information on appropriating
capital project funding for the renovation of Utilities Service Center at 700 Wood Street and
constructing the new Utilities Administration Building in Block 32 on LaPorte Avenue. The
project has been in the works for several years, and staff reviewed the details for City Council in
a Work Session last November.
The 700 Wood Street building is one of the city’s most energy inefficient buildings, has space
issues, and needs facilities to accommodate female members of the Light & Power (L&P) crew.
It is comprised of seven buildings that were constructed separately and later connected over the
past 45 years. Its antiquated HVAC system needs immediate attention. Renovations will cost
$9.3 million and include a water source heat pump to replace the HVAC system, L&P women’s
restroom and lockers, renovated entrance area, security enhancements, extensive envelope
improvements, window replacement, skylight repair and solartubes, additional roof insulation,
using existing walls/offices, and 1% for Art in Public Places as required by law.
Utilities is leasing the 117 N. Mason building currently from the City’s General Fund; it has
inadequate parking for utility customers, and there are future plans to use the building for other
purposes. Employees in that building would move to the new Utilities Admin Building.
Construction costs are estimated at $14.1 million, paid by the following funds: Light & Power
(50%), Water (25%), Wastewater (12.5%), and Storm Drainage (12.5%). Features include a
water source heat pump system, adequate space for growth through at least 2028, a photovoltaic
(PV) system on the roof for a Net Zero building, and 1% for Art in Public Places.
A January 23, 2014 memo to the City Council Finance Committee outlined the reasons for
recommending appropriation of cash reserves from the four utility Enterprise Funds rather than a
debt issuance as previously discussed with City Council: a collective healthy balance of the
reserves, relatively low yield (0.9%) of the cash reserves compared to the current borrowing rate
(approximately 5%), and the complication of issuing debt across the four utilities.
Highlights of the Discussion
A board member inquired about energy cost savings because this would help convince
City Council. Mr. Smith stated that staff did run the numbers, but he didn’t have them to
share at the meeting. The Utility Service Center (700 Wood Street) pays approximately
$100,000 per year in energy costs and would save roughly $50,000 after renovations.
The new Utilities Administration Building’s solar panels would produce enough energy
to offset consumption.
A board member asked several questions to clarify which building was getting renovated
(700 Wood Street, which would maintain the vehicle storage) and where employees at
117 N. Mason would go (to the new Utilities Administration Building one block north,
along with senior Utilities staff).
A board member inquired about the need for improved customer access at 117 N. Mason.
Jon Haukaas, Water Engineering & Field Services Operations Manager, stated that the
City’s General Fund intends to use the building for another purpose, and that Utilities
would have to find another site even if the new administration building were not
constructed. Mr. Haukaas stated the entire block is under consideration for
redevelopment. Carol Webb, Interim Water Resources & Treatment Operations Manager
said multiple factors were involved in the decision to proceed with this capital project.
A board member inquired whether customers visit 700 Wood Street. Ms. Webb stated
yes, for various reasons. After the renovations and new building are completed, 700
Wood Street would house mostly crews.
A board member inquired why the City is not constructing a new building at 700 Wood
Street.
A board member inquired about the studies, assessments, and details that led to the
decision to renovate one building and construct a new administration building. He said he
wants more specificity (why the decision was made) in addition to the general
information staff is presenting to the board (project costs and funding).
Mr. Smith stated an assessment detailed space requirements for 700 Wood Street through
2028 and that energy modeling and forecasts for building efficiency were done as part of
the process.
Mr. Haukaas stated there wasn’t a single study covering the big picture; studies included
the space constraints of 700 Wood Street, which led to discussions of administrative staff
downtown, and another study of customer service. Strategy discussions by staff and the
Executive Lead Team led to the drafting of the Downtown Civic Center Master Plan. Mr.
Haukaas said discussions and the process have been going on since 2005 starting with the
study of deficiencies for L&P at 700 Wood Street. In addition, 117 N. Mason is the
second leased home for the customer service staff, which was previously house in the 300
block of College Avenue; Mr. Haukaas stated the City should own the facilities that it
houses staff, and that would solve the customer service issue; he said he understood the
frustration about the project not being part of the Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO)
process; one reason is that this project has been a much longer process than the two-year
BFO cycle.
A board member inquired why the project wasn’t part of the BFO process so that citizens
could comment on it and expressed concerns about the need for more accountability. Mr.
Haukaas stated the deadline for BFO offers was in April and therefore too early for the
staff to prepare all the information. Another issue is that the project is continually
evolving, and its large scope deserves a separate process.
A board member pointed out that this project hasn’t been written about in the newspaper.
Mr. Haukaas stated that the editorial board and the reporter who covers the City know
about the project. He stated that once funds are approved, Utilities will begin a targeted
outreach to the public to explain it.
A board member inquired about the length of the lease for 117 N. Mason. Mr. Haukaas
stated he believes it is year-to-year. Mr. Smith stated the Mayor commented in the City
Council Work Session last November that she remembered plans for the civic center
from when she served on the Planning Board
A board member inquired whether staff believes City Council will approve the Building
Appropriation Ordinance. Mr. Smith stated that if it doesn’t, Utilities still must address
the needs at 700 Wood Street.
A board member inquired whether the Board could approve appropriation for one
building and not the other. Mr. Smith stated the two buildings had been planned together.
Mr. Haukaas stated the two projects can’t be disengaged; to do one or the other would
cost different dollar amounts; this is most economical way to gain space and use funds. A
consultant told staff the HVAC at 700 Wood Street building is not salvageable.
A board member inquired about the timeline between approval of the appropriation (City
Council first reading is September 2) and building construction. Mr. Smith stated the
demolition of Block 32 Mason Street would happen in the next two to three months, and
it would be 12 to 18 months before employees of the new Utilities Administration
Building would move in. Occupancy in planned for spring 2016.
A board member read the emailed concerns of another board member who was unable to
attend the meeting. The concerns included whether it was really necessary to appropriate
funds for both buildings at the same time; the fact that the request being addressed
outside of the BFO process; and the lack of time to consider the request.
A board member inquired about reserve levels and whether it varies greatly from year to
year. Mr. Smith stated it doesn’t; staff tends to understate revenue and expect expenses to
be higher than they are; if staff’s conservative assumptions hold up, it’s likely reserves
will be in a better position than the Board is reading in the attachments. Reserves are
gradually increasing. Three of the utility funds increased in 2013; only the Water Fund
decreased.
A board member inquired whether the project can wait two or three years. Mr. Smith
stated the HVAC system at 700 Wood Street requires immediate attention, and the L&P
crew needs space, including the women’s locker room. The board member stated that the
HVAC can limp along, and Utilities could bring trailers in to house employees. Mr.
Haukaas stated this is not possible because trailers would be considered the same as
development, which has requirements for hookups, etc. Ms. Webb stated there would
have to be some analysis of where to put employees. Mr. Haukaas stated that Utilities is
making some teleworking arrangements, but because of the customer service required,
this is just a short-term solution.
A board member reiterated concerns that the appropriation should be discussed in a more
widely publicized process, such as BFO, for more accountability and to understand how
these decisions were made; also, did consultants forfeit the right to be hired for
construction of building, to ensure an impartial assessment? Ms. Webb stated that staff
might be able to provide some of that information.
A board member expressed the desire for a presentation from the building study group
and the space assessment consultant, because staff has done the job of stating how much
it will cost and what funds will pay it, but wants to know what we’re buying and why
we’re buying it. Mr. Smith suggested watching the video of the City Council’s November
2013 Work Session, in which they discussed building needs and the new downtown city
civic center plan.
A board member inquired that if energy efficiency is a main driver, why isn’t energy-
efficient windows included in the new Utilities Administration Building? Mr. Smith
stated that staff told Council the project would cost $20 million, so they’re trying to stay
as close to that amount as possible. The total project is estimated at $23 million.
A board member inquired how Utilities is overseeing the project. Mr. Haukaas stated a
Utilities staff member will be the project manager. Ms. Webb stated there has been a
rigorous process followed including a City Council Work Session, two readings of the
appropriation ordinance are coming up before Council; and that staff should have done a
better job of keeping this Board informed.
A board member inquired what would happen if the Board didn’t move on this agenda
item in this meeting. Ms. Webb said it’s on the public agenda for Council’s September 2
meeting, and can proceed without the Board’s support; the board can support it with
qualifications, and board members can attend the Council meeting and comment on it as
a board member or as a citizen.
Board members discussed concerns about the process and that they would have liked to
have been more informed of the details and reasons for the decisions. The perception is
that City Council will probably approve the Building Appropriation Ordinance and it’s
not fair to employees working in the two buildings on Wood Street and Mason Street to
have to wait longer for improvements. Mr. Haukaas stated staff has put together the best
package, the level of effort and level of scrutiny is high, and the project presented is the
best, most efficient option.
Discussion of the motion:
A board member suggested adding language about the process, transparency, and
accountability, public perception. Board members discussed other possible language for a
friendly amendment to capture their concerns. Board Member Brown agreed to the
amendments.
Discussion of the amended motion:
Board members commented on their discomfort on recommending approval without
more information on the process and reasons for the decisions.
Vote on the motion: 1 yeas, 5 nays, 1 abstention. The motion failed.
Board Member Michael Brown moved that the Water Board support the Utilities Building
Appropriation Ordinance being presented to City Council for first reading on Sept. 2, 2014.
Board Member Phyllis Ortman seconded the motion.
Board Member Michael Brown moved that the WB support the appropriation ordinance No.
114, 2014, regarding the Utility Buildings Appropriation Ordinance being presented to City
Council on Sept. 2, 2014. The Water Board is however concerned about the lack of time and
information provided to the Board and the public to consider the needs, costs, and implications of
this project. In addition the Water Board does not support this not being in the BFO process.
Discussion on the motion: None.
Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously.
Board Member Eccleston stated “In response to Staff’s request for consideration of the
Appropriation Ordinance No. 114, 2014, regarding the Utility Buildings Appropriation
Ordinance, being presented to City Council on September 2, 2014, I move that the Water
Board communicate to City Council that the expenditure proposed does not appear to
compromise Utilities’ financial position.
Based on the lack of information provided to the Board regarding needs, alternatives, and
implications, a lack of time to consider what has been presented, the Board cannot
comment on the wisdom of the course forward despite their trust in staff. Because this
appropriation was not part of the Budgeting for Outcomes process, the Water Board is
concerned about the lack of transparency in the public process.”
Board Member Huber-Stearns seconded the motion.
Form Completed Oct 28, 2013
Triple Bottom Line Analysis Map (TBLAM)
Project or Decision: Blocks 32 & 42 – Master Plan Evaluated by:
Utilities Building
Team & City Staff
Social
Environmental Economic
Workforce/FLEX Community
STRENGTHS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
More secure during the day.
Provides for future growth of City departments for
the next 50 years with additional space for future
buildings.
Both designs:
Provides all buildings in one central location. Easy
access for employees.
Provides good interaction between City
departments for collaboration.
Good access between new building Downtown
and 700 Wood St.
Provides improved wellness programs with open
space.
STRENGTHS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
Ties in well with the current urban development so it
walks the talk of the City for development.
Howes remains as a through street for the public
use.
Jewel of the community as genuine civic park of
sufficient scale to meet Community needs in
downtown Fort Collins.
Giving back to the citizens a public square/civic
space. Place for community.
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
Provides a secure place for the public when using
the Civic Center area with the buildings surrounding
the area.
Provides a tie between the CSU oval and the
relationship the City has with the University.
Provides a buffer to the residential neighborhood
from the Civic space.
Both designs:
Have a large dedicated open space for Civic events.
Provides all City Customer Services in a central
location for one stop shopping.
Extends from the existing diagonal walkway through
the existing civic park.
STRENGTHS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
Higher density minimizes the impact with smaller
development footprint and maximizes the open space.
Buildings are on smaller footprint which results in less
building surface area.
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
This design allows for the best sustainable practices to be
implemented.
Both designs:
Potential site for geo-thermal systems which can serve the
Form Completed Oct 28, 2013
LIMITATIONS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
Lack of expandable space and departmental
growth with current design.
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
Building users and customers will have Howes
street to cross when going between the various
buildings.
Both designs:
Lack of parking for City employees, until parking
garage is constructed.
LIMITATIONS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
Connection with residential neighborhood with the
large civic space and noise.
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
Splitting of Howes street will create some concerns
for the public with having to cross the street for
access to the various buildings.
Both designs:
Unsure of how much use the Civic space will see
from the public.
LIMITATIONS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
Geo-thermal systems would need to be placed under new
structures unless there is commitment to maintain Civic
space for this use.
More challenging to design the east/west building
orientations.
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
Having Howes street go through the development creates
car centric environment.
Installation of the eco water system for the entire
development with the street running through the
development.
Both designs:
Must deal with the existing detention pond in NE corner of
development.
LIMITATIONS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
Challenge to get building efficiency if east/west orientation is
not maintained.
Ability to secure and maintain boundaries on all four sides of
the Civic space for events.
Future growth of City departments for the next 50 years does
not provide for future buildings.
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
Losing potential lease for FoCo on Block 32 (Depends on
timeline for phase 2).
Both designs:
Lose Eco-thrift as block is developed.
OPPORTUNITIES:
Works for both designs:
Create relationships across the various building
departments.
Potential to provide City employee functions
(picnic) locally so employees would be able to
come and go as available.
OPPORTUNITIES:
TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE ANALYSIS
Derived from a TBLAM Brainstorm on
DOWNTOWN CUSTOMER SERVICE BUILDING AND
RENOVATED UTILITY SERVICE CENTER
In Collaboration with the BUILDING TEAM
Purpose: To extract key triple bottom line information from a TBLAM, and use that information to
offer recommendations on key indicators and suggested action items for the proposed new
City Building to be located near Mason + LaPorte
I. General Observations from TBL Analysis Map (TBLAM):
A. The TBLAM effort so far (performed late in the project team’s discussions of this project) was generally
well balanced, with a good variety of strengths and limitations identified.
B. The TBLAM exercise placed future opportunities in with strengths and future threats into limitations.
C. Many considerations crossed into many columns, and rows.
1. Crossing columns indicates excellent depth of discussion and debate.
2. Crossing of rows indicates potential for conflicting values.
D. More discussion after this or additional TBLAM exercise(s) will provide more granular detailed data for
Economic strengths and limitations. However,
1. New building offers much needed space as well as centralization of City Utility Customer services.
2. Made very clear during the TBLAM effort is the inefficiency and limited space offered by the current
USC buildings; urgency expressed not to lose track of the need to renovate this facility.
E. The Social component of the TBLAM was exceptionally vigorous during this analysis, for both City staff
and for the public user, and outweighed either the Environmental or Economic components of TBL.
F. One limitation included ensuring sufficient parking for this new downtown structure that would also
allow for good public access.
G. Opportunities and Threats should be further explored – will the structure built be the one that is
appropriate well into the future/its’ expected use? How will it mesh into our community/downtown
development and traffic growth? Does an opportunity exist to better use (increase the use of the Transit
Center) or take pressure off of other City offices (currently spread amongst several buildings in several
locations).
H. No fatal flaws discovered at the time of the TBLAM – (Note: economic factors will be further evaluated
post TBL with a thorough B/C or other appropriate economic analysis, unless this been done already by
the Team).
II. Conclusions Offered:
A. Additional effort for a thorough TBLAM is recommended, with basic economic factors considered
including design, space per employee and expected public, renovation costs of USC, etc. added as general
inputs since these were not expressed explicitly but may have been accounted for in the new Building
discussion history (see notes section of TBLAM).
B. Clarity should be offered in the AIS as to where TBL discussions occurred.
1. Make sure that the history of the team’s decision to go with a new structure and the importance of
such as well as renovating USC is explained here (see notes section of TBLAM).
III. Potential Key Indicators Suggested:
A. The main limitation expressed by the Building Team was that the City should not lose sight that the
current USC structure needs to be renovated with or without a new City building downtown.
B. Additional TBLAM effort would be useful – and can include ideas emanating from the Building Team
charrette in October if those ideas are not simply green-washing the existing plan.
1. Any new City structure will require a communication plan & public engagement plan.
2. Must determine how to sell the vision, but details of how the public will be better served will be
important.
C. Question for the Building Team – please return any feedback to the TBL Team.
1. Was this useful? Did this help?
2. What came from the discussion? How will you use this?
3. How could the TBL brainstorm be improved?
4. Would you like the TBL Team involved in any future TBLAMs for this project?
M E M O R A N D U M
Date: November 22, 2013
To: Mayor Weitkunat and City Councilmembers
Thru: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
From: Ken Mannon, Director of Operation Services
Re: Work Session Summary – November 19, 2013
Two concept Master Plan diagrams #3 and #9 were presented to the Council showing how the
City could develop Blocks 32 and 42. The Council was supportive of conceptual diagram #9
with the Civic Space at a central location using both Blocks 32 and 42 with the future City
buildings around the perimeter. The new Utilities Customer Service Building was shown to be
located in the Southwest corner of Block 32 at the intersection of LaPorte and Howes Streets.
The City will need to vacate the buildings currently being used where the new Utility Customer
Service Building will be located and will move to the structure currently being used by the Bike
Library.
The timeline for the development is to begin design of the new Utility Customer Service
Building in January 2014, then start vacating the necessary buildings in first quarter of 2014. De-
construction of the buildings will then take place in second quarter of 2014. Construction of the
New Customer Service Building is to begin in the third quarter of 2014. The design process will
provide the opportunity for community input with neighborhood meetings at various stages.
Future buildings included in this plan are long-term because there is currently no funding in
place for any projects beyond the Utility Customer Service Building.
Utilities presented their expansion plan to build the new Customer Service Building on Block 32
consisting of 35,000 SF and renovate their existing 75,000 SF Utility Service Center at 700
Wood Street. Utilities is planning to fund this expansion by using $4.5 million previously
appropriated and then issuing bonds in the amount of $15.5 million for a total of $20 million.
$12 million is to be used for the new building and $8 million for the renovation work.
ATTACHMENT 4
1
Financing a New Utility
Administrative Building and
Remodeling Wood Street
Presented to City Council
September 2, 2014
2
117 N Mason – Customer Service Center (CSC)
• Parking – Challenging for customers to find adequate parking on Mason
• Space Design – old building with poor lighting, security and layout
• Opportunity for Development – interest in West Mountain Ave
Wood Street
• Energy Efficiency:
• One of the City’s most energy inefficient buildings
• HVAC, windows, skylights, external sealing - requires significant upgrades
• Has not meet fundamental space needs for many years:
• Operations & Crew space limited, poor condition, single gender capacity
• Utilities requires additional space – estimate current need of 24K sq ft
• Security:
• Increasing security requirements post 9/11 difficult to meet with public
access to Wood St building
• Long Term – ideal to have operations center more centrally located vs. on
the north end
Challenges with Existing Utilities Building
3
Aging Mechanical Equipment at USC
4
Proposed Solution
Ø Renovate the Utility Service Center at 700 Wood
Street
Ø Build a new Utilities Administration Building on
Block 32 at the corner of LaPorte Avenue and
Howes Street
5
6
New Downtown Civic Center Master Plan
7
Utilities Administration Building
UAB Budget $14,100,000
Includes…
Capacity for staff through 2028
Water source heat pump system
Open office environment
LEED Gold certification
PV system on roof for Net Zero building
1% for Art in Public Places
Does not include… Added Cost…
Install Alpen 725 Series fiberglass windows $220,000
Ground Source Geo-thermal system for heat pumps $300,000
Add additional site furnishings for exterior plaza area $120,000
8
Schematic Design Rendering June 2014 (37,500 SF)
9
Utilities Service Center
USC Budget $9,311,000
Includes…
L&P Crew Space (women's restroom& lockers)
HVAC Replacement of water source heat pump
Renovated entrance area
Security Enhancements
Window replacement
Skylight repair & solatubes
Additional roof insulation
1% for Art in Public Places
Does not include… Added Cost…
Lake GeoExchange system * $150,000
Open office environment, new finishes $2,300,000
PV system for Net Zero $1,540,000
* Does not include lease agreement for access to the pond
10
Project – Sources and Uses
Combined Projects Summary
Staff Recommendation for new UAB: $14,100,000
Staff Recommendation for USCRenovation: $9,311,000
Total Construction Budget $23,411,000
Less Prior Appropriation $4,500,000
Proposed Appropriation $18,911,000
11
Project – Sources and Uses
Enterprise Fund
Project
Share
Share of Projects
Cost
Less Existing
Appropriation
Funds Being
Requested Here
Light & Power 50.0% $11,705,500 $4,500,000 $7,205,500
Water 25.0% $5,852,750 $5,852,750
Wastewater 12.5% $2,926,375 $2,926,375
Storm Drainage 12.5% $2,926,375 $2,926,375
100.0% $23,411,000 $4,500,000 $18,911,000
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 114, 2014
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES PROJECT FUNDING IN THE LIGHT AND
POWER, WATER, WASTEWATER, AND STORM DRAINAGE FUNDS, AND
AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS TO THE CULTURAL
SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUND FOR THE ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM,
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION BUILDING IN
BLOCK 32 ON LAPORTE AVENUE AND A RENOVATION OF THE UTILITIES SERVICE
CENTER AT 700 WOOD STREET
WHEREAS, the Utility Service Center (USC) at 700 Wood Street has grown over its
lifetime through seven major additions to its current 108,000 square foot capacity, resulting in an
energy inefficient building that lacks sufficient security; and
WHEREAS, a new 37,500 square foot Utilities Administration Building (UAB), to be
located in Block 32 on LaPorte Avenue downtown, has been proposed to house the entire
Customer Connections Department and some senior management of Fort Collins Utilities,
satisfying the long term space requirements of the Customer Connections Department and
administrative functions to be relocated from the Utility Service Center and space currently
leased by Fort Collins Utilities from the City’s General Fund at 117 North Mason; and
WHEREAS, space initially unused by Utility staff in the UAB would also be leased to
the City’s Sustainability Services Area until it is needed by Fort Collins Utilities; and
WHEREAS, there remain operational needs for Utilities that would best be met by also
renovating the existing space at the USC, including modification of existing space to meet the
Light & Power crew needs, improving the building’s security and energy efficiency, and
replacing the current HVAC system, which is at the end of its life and its replacement will
substantially improve the energy efficiency of the building; and
WHEREAS, the total cost of the construction of the new UAB is $14,100,000; and
WHEREAS, the total cost of the renovation of the USC is $9,311,000, which includes
$4,500,000 previously appropriated in the 2011-2012 budget from Light & Power reserves to
address growth and space needs of the Electric Utility and $45,000 that was transferred to the
Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Art in Public Place (APP) projects; and
WHEREAS, of the total remaining $18,911,000 appropriation, $189,111 represents the
additional appropriation for the two projects that must be transferred into the Cultural Services
and Facilities Fund for the APP projects from the four utility funds; $41,604 (22%) of which will
be transferred to the Cultural Services Fund for reserve for the maintenance of the artwork and
operations of the APP program; and
- 2 -
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to
appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be
available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not
previously appropriated; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to
transfer by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered appropriated amount or portion thereof
from one fund (project) to another fund (project), provided that the purpose for which the
transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged.
WHEREAS, City staff recommends appropriating from prior year reserves in the Light &
Power Fund $7,205,500, the Water Fund $5,852,750, the Wastewater Fund $2,926,375, and the
Storm Drainage Fund $2,926,375 for a total amount of $18,911,000 to be used for the
construction of a new Utilities Administration Building in Block 32 on LaPorte Avenue, a
renovation of the Utilities Service Center at 700 Wood Street, and the required funding for Art in
Public Places.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in
the Light & Power Fund the sum of $7,205,500 as follows:
New Utilities Administration Building and renovation of 700 Wood
Street Project
$7,133,445
Art in Public Places Project 72,055
TOTAL $7,205,500
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in
the Water Fund the sum of $5,852,750 as follows:
New Utilities Administration Building and renovation of 700 Wood
Street Project
$5,794,222
Art in Public Places Project 58,528
TOTAL $5,852,750
Section 3. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in
the Wastewater Fund the sum of $2,926,375 as follows:
New Utilities Administration Building and renovation of 700 Wood
Street Project
$2,897,111
Art in Public Places Project 29,264
TOTAL $2,926,375
Section 4. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in
the Storm Drainage Fund the sum of $2,926,375 as follows:
- 3 -
New Utilities Administration Building and renovation of 700 Wood
Street Project
$2,897,111
Art in Public Places Project 29,264
TOTAL $2,926,375
Section 5. That the unexpended appropriated amount of FORTY-ONE THOUSAND,
SIX HUNDRED AND FOUR DOLLARS ($41,604) is authorized for transfer in the Art in
Public Places Projects from the Light & Power, Water, Wastewater and Storm Drainage Funds to
the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund and appropriated therein for the Art in Public Places
Program Maintenance and Operations and transferred as follows:
Light & Power $15,852
Water 12,876
Wastewater 6,438
Storm Drainage 6,438
TOTAL $41,604
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 2nd day of
September, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of September, A.D.
2014.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of September, A.D. 2014.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
Potential to bring in some new larger events with
having approximately 6 acres available.
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
New street layout could provide three separate
areas for multiple venues to use Civic space.
Works for both designs:
Opportunity for the public and City to engage on
more frequent basis.
OPPORTUNITIES:
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
Could upsize the relocated stormwater pipe and use it as a
water retention system.
Works for both designs:
Great potential for education of the sustainable systems
incorporated into the design.
Lead by example and show the public what is possible.
Potential to create an eco-grid for a particular district.
Reduce the use of personal transportation with many City
services located next to public transportation.
OPPORTUNITIES:
Works for both designs:
Retail space at parking garage.
Allows for employees and customers to use City transit
system for access to many services.
THREATS:
Works for both designs:
Many employees will need to adjust to cubical
spaces.
THREATS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
The potential for City of Fort Collins to sell off the
open civic space for private development.
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
Loss of current Washington Park and trees.
Potential security issues with Civic space not visible
from LaPorte or Maple streets.
Works for both designs:
A negative perception by the Public of the open civic
space.
Potential security concerns between buildings.
THREATS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
More challenging to achieve Net Zero with development of
one block.
Works for both designs:
Portion of this development is in the 100 year flood plain.
Doing away with the buildings having historic significance.
THREATS:
Works for both designs:
Not getting the funding to complete the development of
Block 32 and 42 as designed.
NOTES:
entire block.
Design works well using sustainable practices.
STRENGTHS:
Design #3 – City Buildings on one Block:
Six acres will bring in additional events which is revenue
generation for the City of Fort Collins.
Potential sell of Block 42 with all City functions on Block 32.
Design #9 – City Buildings across both blocks:
Repurposing Ops Services and City Hall to be used for
another 25+ years.
Design provides locations for private buildings lots to be
developed.
Both designs:
Add retail to the outer edge of development is revenue for
the City of Fort Collins.
Great use of City owned property.
Potential revenue generation for eco- grid system.
Catalyst for re-development of the surrounding area.
ATTACHMENT 3