Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 09/13/2011 - COMPLETE AGENDA
urban renewal authority Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers Kelly Ohlson, Vice-President City Hall West Ben Manvel 300 LaPorte Avenue Lisa Poppaw Fort Collins, Colorado Aislinn Kottwitz Wade Troxell Gerry Horak Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 on the Comcast cable system Darin Atteberry, Executive Director Steve Roy, City Attorney Wanda Krajicek, Secretary The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY MEETING September 13, 2011 6:00 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Resolution No. 038 Approving a Financial Agreement Between the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority and Capstone Development Corporation for the Commons Project at 1635 South College Avenue. (staff: Christina Vincent, Megan Bolin; 20 minute staff presentation; 1 hour discussion) The first project for consideration by the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board in the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan area with the Prospect South tax increment financing (TIF) district is The Commons by Capstone Development. The project site is located on the southwest corner of College Avenue and Prospect Road behind Chuck E Cheese and Choice Center retail strip, in the mostly vacant 10 acre parcels to the west. The Commons will offer the community a LEED certified, sustainable, mixed use, infill development for students attending Colorado State University (CSU). The project consists of two buildings with 220 units (670 beds) and approximately 8,000 of new retail space on the first floor facing the corner of College Avenue and Stuart Street. Based on the site constraints from floodplain requirements and a site that has been historically undevelopable since the flood of 1997, Capstone is seeking TIF assistance from the URA to make this project financially feasible and address a major community need for student housing. The timing of this project is the impetus to the creation of the Prospect South TIF district. This project has instrumentally used the LEED checklist to ensure its sustainable features not only meet, but exceed the requirements by the URA. Capstone has committed to become LEED certified based on comments heard from the Council Finance Committee. The predicted TIF generation from this project is estimated to be $8 million over the 25 September 13, 2011 year life of the URA plan area. Capstone is seeking $5 million, or 63% of the total TIF generation from the URA Board to cover the funding gap and allow this site to become developable. The financing cost of the $5 million dollar request is estimated at approximately $2 million, or 88% of the total TIF generation. 4. Other Business. 5. Adjournment. Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Council Information Center Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3 Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Gerry Horak, District 6 on the Comcast cable system Darin Atteberry, City Manager Steve Roy, City Attorney Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. WORK SESSION September 13, 2011 after the Urban Renewal Authority Meeting 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Proposed Electric Rate Options. (staff: Brian Janonis, Patty Bigner, Steve Catanach, Bill Switzer; 2 hour discussion) In the last decade, the electric utility industry has evolved in several areas. While the core business of generation, distribution, metering and billing for service has continued to reflect advances in fuels, equipment and system design, policy goals have become increasingly important with an emphasis on engaging customers in achieving community goals through effective pricing signals. As such, the philosophy surrounding when and how much electricity is used by customers has become a focus of discussion. In Fort Collins, this shift is reflected in the City Council adopted Energy Policy and Climate Action Plan. Historically, electric rates, especially for Fort Collins residential customers, have remained stable with changes reflecting cost of service, including purchased power, distribution and customer service costs. Recently, City Council expressed interest in a tiered or inclining block rate for residential customers. September 13, 2011 Staff has prepared several residential rate options for City Council discussion and feedback. Commercial rate options propose a change to the General Service (GS) or commercial rate class that more accurately reflects electric use of this diverse group of customers. Rates for other commercial rate classes will reflect cost of service with a seasonal component that mirrors the 2012 purchase power rate. Suggested implementation strategies have also been developed for discussion. Based on earlier feedback from the May 10, 2011 Council Work Session, the Council Finance Committee and recent feedback from the Electric Board, staff in conjunction with consultants has developed and analyzed the rate options now offered for discussion. Feedback from this work session will be used in drafting rate ordinances for public comment and City Council consideration on October 18, 2011. Rates are expected to be effective January 1, 2012. 3. Review of Colorado Department of Transportation North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement Document. (staff: Kathleen Bracke; 1 hour discussion) The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Region 4 staff has been developing the North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for several years. Work on the EIS began in 2001. The purpose of the North I-25 EIS is to plan for long-range transportation needs to connect Northern Colorado with the Denver metropolitan area. The study area focuses on highway and transit plans for the Interstate 25 corridor, US287 corridor, and the US85 corridor. CDOT published the Final EIS document on August 19 and is seeking agency and public comments through October 3. Staff has reviewed the Final EIS document and provided technical comments to share with City Council and CDOT as part of this public review period. The work session discussion and September 20 regular session action represents the City’s opportunity to share staff, Council, and other potential community concerns with CDOT as part of the formal comment period on the Final EIS document. 4. Other Business. 5. Adjournment. DATE: September 13, 2011 STAFF: Christina Vincent Megan Bolin AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY 3 SUBJECT Resolution No. 038 Approving a Financial Agreement Between the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority and Capstone Development Corporation for the Commons Project at 1635 South College Avenue. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The first project for consideration by the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board in the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan area with the Prospect South tax increment financing (TIF) district is The Commons by Capstone Development. The project site is located on the southwest corner of College Avenue and Prospect Road behind Chuck E Cheese and Choice Center retail strip, in the mostly vacant 10 acre parcels to the west. The Commons will offer the community a LEED certified, sustainable, mixed use, infill development for students attending Colorado State University (CSU). The project consists of two buildings with 220 units (670 beds) and approximately 8,000 of new retail space on the first floor facing the corner of College Avenue and Stuart Street. Based on the site constraints from floodplain requirements and a site that has been historically undevelopable since the flood of 1997, Capstone is seeking TIF assistance from the URA to make this project financially feasible and address a major community need for student housing. The timing of this project is the impetus to the creation of the Prospect South TIF district. This project has instrumentally used the LEED checklist to ensure its sustainable features not only meet, but exceed the requirements by the URA. Capstone has committed to become LEED certified based on comments heard from the Council Finance Committee. The predicted TIF generation from this project is estimated to be $8 million over the 25 year life of the URA plan area. Capstone is seeking $5 million, or 63% of the total TIF generation from the URA Board to cover the funding gap and allow this site to become developable. The financing cost of the $5 million dollar request is estimated at approximately $2 million, or 88% of the total TIF generation. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In 2008, Capstone Development Corporation (Capstone) began conversations with the City of Fort Collins about a potential student housing project it was interested in constructing on the southwest corner of College Avenue and Prospect Road, behind Chuck E. Cheese. Encouraged by the close proximity to Colorado State University (CSU) and the demand for student housing in the community, Capstone began the Development Review process and submitted the project for Project Development Plan (PDP) as well as submitted a CLOMR to FEMA for approval to move forward with its plans. City Council initiated an existing conditions survey for the area known as Prospect South to determine if property TIF was one of the tools that could be considered for this project. The area was determined “blighted’ by the legal definitions by City Council in the fall of 2008, yet no urban renewal plan was ever officially created. The economic downturn caused a detrimental impact on Capstone’s ability to fund the project. Although it continued to keep the parcels under contract with the property owners from 2008 through now, there was no real progress to pursue outside of obtaining long term financing to pursue this project. The downturn also forced URA staff to stop pursing an urban renewal plan area, as mentioned above, until Capstone or another viable project was able to move forward with redevelopment in this area. Capstone contacted City staff in August 2010 with regained strength and promising financial partners to pursue this site again and see if the URA could be a potential partner for the extraordinary floodplain drainage requirements needed. The Midtown Redevelopment Study was almost complete and seemed an easy assessment that this type of development would catalyze the first tax increment financing district - Prospect South - with additional momentum for revitalization. URA staff, along with the County Assessor’s office, calculated this project could generate $8 million in TIF and requested the project proforma for formal evaluation of financial need. Based on the project proforma evaluation, it was determined that the financial gap was $5 million and the internal rate of return was reasonable and not excessive. September 13, 2011 -2- ITEM 3 Capstone submitted its Final Development Plan to the City’s Development Review Center in November 2010 and has been working to complete all the requirements for a September 1, 2011 ground breaking. The project has been coordinating with the Mason Corridor engineering team and providing the required easements to work in conjunction with the bus rapid transit system. Capstone’s project, The Commons, will provide an additional 220 student housing units to Fort Collins for CSU students. Project facts include 220 units, in two buildings, with 670 beds and 8,000 square feet of new retail space. According to the Project’s site plan and URA application, The Commons consists of two buildings, with 670 beds of student-oriented apartment-style housing, and approximately 8,000 square feet of new retail space. The residential unit mix will consist of 4 bedroom - 4 bath units, 3 bedroom - 3 bath units, 2 bedroom - 2 bath units and 1 bedroom - 1 bath units. The Project amenities will include active and quiet study lounges, a student activity/game room, fitness area, as well as three “pocket parks” or exterior courtyards that will include fire pits, barbecue grills and a sand volleyball court. There will be pedestrian pathways within the Project site that also connect to the bike and pedestrian pathways to CSU to the north and other City parks and commercial destinations to the south. Extraordinary infrastructure improvements and upgrades • Stormwater/ drainage: N To address the lack of proper and adequate drainage in this area, an extensive floodplain and stormwater management system will be installed. The City and FEMA floodway maps will be modified positively as a result of this Project. The improvements include: P Stormwater channel 50-85 feet in width, lined with expensive Turf Reinforcement Mat material along the western edge of the site that is designed to collect water that could overtop the railroad embankment during a flood event and disperse it into Spring Creek at an acceptable rate. The system has been designed so as not to cause a “rise” of floodwaters on downstream properties. P A “car catcher” fence around the perimeter of the south parking lot to prevent cars from being swept into Spring Creek that could seal culverts and create further flooding problems on this site and adjacent sites. P Repair and replacement of an existing, off-site 48-inch storm pipe that runs across the Maytag and Dairy Queen properties that is in poor condition. • Street/ vehicular circulation N Improvements to existing streets, turn lanes and accesses to retail businesses on and adjacent to the Site N High-density, walk-able re-development of a currently undevelopable, blighted site along the Mason Corridor BRT will help keep cars OFF the streets, contributing to less congestion and less wear-and- tear of existing public infrastructure. • Access to/ through the site N Extension and connection of bicycle and sidewalk paths to those off-Site N Bike path extension off-Site on City Park property • Utility upgrades N New underground electric service N New underground data line service N High-efficiency street lighting N New water mains N New sanitary sewer mains Capstone has used the LEED checklist for implementation of the URA’s goals of sustainability through green building methods. Some of the proposed methods include, but are not limited to: September 13, 2011 -3- ITEM 3 • HVAC upgrade • Gas heat and/or gas water heating • Argon filled windows with “Low E” and low Solar Heat Gain • Project-wide low flow water plumbing fixtures • Xeriscaping techniques, native plants species, rain leaders to direct stormwater runoff from roofs to garden areas • Project-wide energy star appliances in all units • Energy Star approved white membrane TPO roof to prevent heat island effect • Shared parking arrangement with CSU • Deconstruction methods to divert waste from the landfill (reclaim wood from demolition for onsite, etc) • Use of Low VOC adhesives and paints A more thorough spreadsheet of the LEED green building techniques within the project can be found in the URA application (Attachment 1). The Midtown Urban Renewal Plan states the following objectives that are consistent with the Project: • To facilitate redevelopment and new development by private enterprise through cooperation among developers and public agencies to plan, design, and build needed improvements. • To address and remedy conditions in the area that impair or arrest the sound growth of the City. • To redevelop and rehabilitate the area in a manner which is compatible with and complementary to unique circumstances in the area. • To effectively utilize undeveloped and underdeveloped land. • To improve pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular and transit-related circulation and safety. • To ultimately contribute to increased revenues for all taxing entities. • To watch for market and/or project opportunities to eliminate blight, and when such opportunities exist, to take action within the financial, legal and political limits of the Authority to acquire land, demolish and remove structures, provide relocation benefits, and pursue redevelopment, improvement and rehabilitation projects. City Plan states the following policies that are consistent with the Project: • Policy EH 4.1: Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas • Policy EH 4.2: Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment • Policy LIV 5.1: Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill • Policy LIV 5.2: Target Public Investment along the Community Spine • Policy LIV 7.7: Accommodate the Student Population • Policy LIV 35.4: Transform through Infill and Redevelopment The redevelopment of the Site will eliminate blight by transforming a currently underutilized and undevelopable former mobile home park with remaining deteriorated structures (car wash, storage facilities and a vacant retail building) into a new, attractive and sustainable student residential community with retail on the ground level of College Avenue and Stuart Street. According to Colorado Urban Renewal Law, there are several factors of blight that have been identified on this site. • Deterioration of site: neglected property, parking surface deterioration, unscreened mechanical • Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements: presence of overhead utility lines • Defective Street layout: poor internal circulation • Unsafe conditions: Poor drainage, steep slopes, trash, weeds, graffiti, poorly lit areas • Unusual topography: floodplain Capstone’s interest in providing a high quality project was always part of the discussion with staff. Capstone is using the City’s Integrated Design Assistance Program (IDAP) to ensure a high quality project. IDAP involves owners, architects, engineers, site designers, maintenance personnel, energy consultants and others work together early in the process to create a design that integrates components to achieve optimal building performance. IDAP is available for new commercial buildings and major renovations. These buildings typically: cost less to operate, have reduced environmental impacts, and offer higher levels of occupant satisfaction. Capstone will be seeking LEED certification for this project. September 13, 2011 -4- ITEM 3 FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The Commons will have a significant and beneficial impact on the community and the URA. The predicted TIF generation from this project is estimated to be $8 million over the 25 year life of the URA plan area. Capstone is seeking $5 million, or 63% of the total TIF generation from the URA Board to cover the funding gap and allow this site to become developable. The financing cost of the $5 million dollar request is estimated at approximately $2 million, or 88% of the total TIF generation. Although there will not be significant tax increment available for project area wide improvements (about $1 million total) this project will have financial benefits beyond its own project. This project is a catalyst that will spur other redevelopment projects in Prospect South along the Mason Corridor. Staff is aware of five potential development projects in close proximity to this site counting on the additional 670 students shopping, living, and working near this project. This $44 million project will stimulate construction jobs for two years while under construction. The project will provide a financial benefit to other adjacent property owners through the FEMA remapping process. It will stimulate sales tax revenues from the construction project materials, the completed retail tenants sales not accounted for in the tax increment calculation. The Midtown Urban Renewal Plan area, Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit, and Prospect South TIF District will begin revitalization of the corridor with the economic synergy of this project. Redevelopment Agreement terms: • All funding is available on reimbursement basis only. • The trigger to submit for reimbursement will be the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City of Fort Collins; no funds will be released prior to this. • Project definition includes the entire project area and all construction related to the Final development plan. • Exhibits clearly identify: N Property Description N Development Plan N Eligible Costs N Reimbursement Obligation Procedures N Schedule of performance with Target Dates and Outside Dates N Certificate of Valuation from the Larimer County Assessor N Development Agreement for the Project N The Actual Value determination by the Larimer County Assessor cannot be protested for the duration of the plan area (25 years) • Reimbursement Obligation for TIF is reduced proportionally if the project is completed by the Outside Dates and not the Targeted Dates. The reduction in funds approximately one year’s value of tax increment proportionally calculated to be reduced from $5,000,000 to $4,660,000. • A portion of the reimbursement obligation in the amount of $875,000 shall be held until the retail space of the development is leased with proper documentation. This amount of reimbursement is forfeited in three years if the terms are unfulfilled. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS According to Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code, Spring Creek is a protected natural feature that carries a standard buffer zone of 100 feet. In this project, the developers have provided a minimum of a 100-foot buffer, with portions of the buffer (approximately 1/3 of the property that borders Spring Creek Park) ranging from 100-126 feet in width. The buffer zone at Choice Center consists of a dense planting of native trees, shrubs, and grasses screening the view of the parking lot and buildings while also providing a diverse, vertical structure of vegetation serving the area’s wildlife species. The Spring Creek Corridor provides wildlife habitat and ecosystem services disproportionate to the land area it covers. The Choice Center site represents one of the more constrained areas from a wildlife perspective, with the pedestrian traffic from the Spring Creek Trail and the motorized traffic from College Avenue and the surrounding streets. In the buffer area along Spring Creek, the applicants will provide extensive native landscaping, increasing vertical structure September 13, 2011 -5- ITEM 3 and native plant diversity, which will most certainly have the effect of increasing the value of the area for songbird and other urban-adapted species to thrive along this very important corridor. There are 118 existing trees on this site. These include trees located in the old trailer park and others located in front or to the side of the business along College Avenue. There are 108 trees that will be removed by this project. These include the removal of all trees located in the old trailer park on the west side of the project and 5 trees to be removed in the College Avenue median that will be reconfigured. There are 10 trees to be retained that are located near the businesses or along the east side of College Avenue. The elevated grade on the site is the primary reason for the tree removal. Most of the trees to be removed (81) are Siberian Elms that are not required to be retained by the Land Use Code and are prohibited for planting. Many of the Siberian elms are very mature with large canopies. There are 17 trees to be removed that were determined to be significant based on their size, species and condition. These removed significant trees will be mitigated with 56 upsized trees planted on the project as required by the Land Use Code. The project includes planting a total of 156 new trees for landscape and environmental improvement to the site. The URA project will be required to complete a Construction Waste Management Plan and demonstrate how certain materials were recycled or reused onsite from demolition. The project will also use the LEED checklist for sustainable features and methods that have been included in the URA application and attachments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Council Finance Committee discussed this item on August 15, 2011, and did not formally make a recommendation. PUBLIC OUTREACH Public outreach was conducted relating to the Development Review Process. ATTACHMENTS 1. URA Tax Increment Financing Application 2. Location Maps (Midtown Urban Renewal Plan and Prospect South) 3. Capstone Site Map – Project Site 4. Powerpoint presentation 5. Council Finance Committee minutes, August 15, 2011 ATTACHMENT 1 URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY (URA) TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF) ASSISTANCE APPLICATION CONTENTS: 1. TIF ASSISTANCE APPLICATION 2. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS LIST 3. LARIMER COUNTY TIF CERTIFICATION 4. RENDERING 5. VICINITY MAP 6. MASTER PLAN 7. LANDSCAPE PLAN 8. PROJECT SCHEDULE 9. LEED PROJECT CHECKLIST 10. CAPSTONE COMPANIES RESUME Date modified 09/09 Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance APPLICATION _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PROJECT NAME: THE COMMONS – FORT COLLINS (FORMERLY CHOICE CENTER) DATE: MAY 20, 2011 PROJECT ADDRESS / LOCATION: 1635 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE APPLICANT / DEVELOPER / PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION: APPLICANT DEVELOPER PROPERTY-OWNER Company Name CAPSTONE DEVELOPMENT CORP. CAPSTONE DEVELOPMENT CORP. SINGLE MEMBER LLC TO BE DETERMINED Company Owner/CEO MICHAEL A. MOURON, PRESIDENT MICHAEL A. MOURON, PRESIDENT Contact Person L. JEFF JONES L. JEFF JONES Title EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT Complete Address 431 OFFICE PARK DRIVE BIRMINGHAM, AL 35223 431 OFFICE PARK DRIVE BIRMINGHAM, AL 35223 Phone 205.414.6400 205.414.6400 FAX 205.414.6405 205.414.6405 Email JJONES@CAPSTONEMAIL.COM JJONES@CAPSTONEMAIL.COM TYPE OF LAND USE DEVELOPMENT / REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Residential Mixed-Use (Residential/Non-Residential) Commercial/Retail Mixed-Use (Commercial/Industrial) Industrial/Warehouse Other (please explain) PROJECT ELEMENTS New Construction Site Clearance Infrastructure Improvement Building Rehabilitation Land Acquisition Other (please explain) ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL NEW OR EXISTING BUSINESSES (NON-RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS ONLY) New Business for URA Plan Area? Yes No Existing Business in URA Plan Area? Yes No Years in Business years FINANCIAL / FUNDING SUMMARY INFORMATION Total Project Cost $ 44,773,946 Current Actual Value (Larimer County Assessor) $ 463,000 Projected Actual Value (Larimer County Assessor) $ 34,898,134 Projected Annual Property Tax $ 275,327 Total Property Tax Increment Expected $ 8,060,987 Total TIF Assistance Requested $ 5,000,000 Date modified 09/09 TYPE OF TIF REQUESTED (include general terms & conditions) Grant Loan (incl. methods of payback in description) SUMMARY OF FUNDING SOURCES AND USE OF FUNDS (for the entire project) Amount Source Use $ 5,000,0000 URA Tax Increment Financing (TIF) PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS LISTED $ 8,954,789 EQUITY LAND ACQUISTION, PRE-DEV COSTS, CLOMR CONSTRUCTION $ 35,819,157 CONSTRUCTION LOAN REMAINING DEV AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ $ $ $ 44,773,946 Project Total INFORMATION REQUESTED FOR APPLICATION Please include: 1. A location map 2. Site plans or project drawings (please include photos of site currently) 3. Project Proforma 4. Owner/Business resume 5. Executive Summary with the following questions answered: a. What is the nature of the project? b. Why is TIF assistance needed; how will the funds be used? c. What other sources of financing will the project secure other than TIF? d. How will the project help improve/upgrade public infrastructure (streets, utilities, drainage, etc.)? e. How will the project enhance the property tax base (and sales tax base, if applicable) of the area? f. How will the project help achieve the goals of North College Urban Renewal Plan and City Plan? g. How will the project help eliminate slum and blight conditions? h. How will this project help achieve the URA goals of sustainability through green building techniques? Please be specific how this project uses energy efficiency, renewable resources, natural resource conservation techniques, stormwater low impact design methods, or any other methods not listed. i. Please provide documentation and quantifiable results stating the proven methods or effectiveness of the proposed sustainable features within the project. j. What is the proposed project timetable (what is the estimated time frame for major steps including the City’s planning decision, completion of financial commitments, start of construction, and issuance of Certificate of Occupancy (CO)? Please include any additional information that would be helpful to your application. Date modified 09/09 Executive Summary A. What is the nature of the Project? One of Capstone’s development divisions is focused on a program we call campus- edge, mixed-use, “infill” developments. We believe this development program and approach is the smartest, most sustainable form of development in college communities because it allows for and accommodates a large number of students within walking/ biking distance of the campus. This in turn relieves traffic congestion and takes pressure off of limited campus parking, while also reducing the encroachment of student rental housing into historically single-family neighborhoods around the campus - a win- win for the City, Colorado State University and its students. This type of development is more self-contained and synergistic as the residential component helps support the retail component. Capstone is evaluating markets across the country for sites to develop under this program. We have determined that our proposed development site, comprised of the Johnson and Brown properties along South College Avenue in Fort Collins (“the Site”) is ideal for this our campus-edge program for a number of reasons: Proximity to CSU. The site is located within close walking/ biking distance to CSU. Eliminating Blight. The site is a wonderful candidate for redevelopment given the underutilized and currently undevelopable former mobile home parcel and the car wash and storage units that currently occupy the Site. Supporting CSU Growth. CSU anticipates growing its enrollment by 5,000 students in the next 15 years, only half of which it plans to accommodate in on- campus housing. Synergy with public/ mass transit. The establishment of the City’s Mason Corridor transit line will help make this Project more feasible and viable by providing quick and easy transportation options for our residents to the campus, downtown and beyond. Similarly, this high-density mixed-use project is exactly the kind of transit-oriented development we believe was envisioned by the City when it planned and invested in the Mason Corridor bus rapid transit system. Addresses Market Opportunity. Due to lack of recent student-oriented housing of this type and barriers to entry, the Fort Collins market is ripe for this Project. The Project consists of 2 buildings, 676 beds of student-oriented apartment-style housing, and approximately 8,000 square feet of new retail space. The residential unit mix will consist of 4 bedroom - 4 bath units, 3 bedroom - 3 bath units, 2 bedroom - 2 bath units and 1 bedroom - 1 bath units. The Project amenities will include active and quiet study lounges, a student activity/game room, fitness area, as well as three “pocket parks” or exterior courtyards that will include fire pits, barbecue grills and a sand volleyball court. There will be pedestrian pathways within the Project site that also connect to the bike and pedestrian pathways to CSU to the north and other City parks and commercial destinations to the south. Date modified 09/09 B. Why is TIF assistance needed; how will the funds be used? While we anticipate market acceptance of this student-oriented housing development, there are several factors that make the Project economics challenging. They are as follows: 1. Modest rental rates in the market. There has been a lack of large-scale, student- oriented projects developed in the last decade in Fort Collins. For this reason, rental rates for off-campus apartments in Fort Collins have remained relatively stagnant, increasing only slightly each year compared to other college towns across the country. This is a good news/ bad news matter. For tenants currently in the market, this may be viewed as a positive; for new projects aspiring to a walkable location, higher design and construction quality, and proactive, professional management and maintenance, the modest rental rates in the market make the project economics more challenging. This results in unfortunate pressure to provide lesser quality projects with fewer comfortable and sustainable amenities, which Capstone is endeavoring not to do. 2. High impact, development and utility fees and charges. Capstone and City officials have estimated the development, impact and utility fees applicable to this project to be in the range of $3 Million (+), which effectively nearly doubles the already high land cost. At more than 7% of development costs, these fees are two to four times higher than we typically encounter with similar developments in other college communities nationwide. This is more of a conundrum given that our proposed development should rank high for sustainability and environmental sensitivity -- a walkable site, on the transit line, with low flow fixtures and a highly efficient building envelope, in a mixed residential-retail community. 3. Extraordinary sitework & floodplain management costs. Capstone has worked with its design team, the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Department’ and FEMA to design a creative stormwater management/ development plan for this historically flood-prone area. The additional cost of the arduous design work, significant floodplain and stormwater improvements, multiple contractor mobilizations and schedule implications create a substantial burden, and to make matters worse there is a significant portion of the land that must be dedicated to FEMA via an easement that reduces the buildable footprint of our development, reducing the potential efficiency of the Project. For the reasons outlined above, this project would not be “finance-able” in today’s tenuous real estate and credit environment, and therefore not feasible, without TIF assistance. URA TIF assistance is necessary to help close the economic gap, allowing the Project to proceed and offer new, attractive, environmentally friendly, student- oriented housing at marketable, sustainable lease rates to students attending Colorado State University. The funds will be used to purchase the Public Improvements listed on the attached spreadsheet. C. What other sources of financing will the Project secure other than TIF? Capstone has identified potential equity partners for the Project that will provide the remaining equity needed to secure the acquisition and construction financing from one Date modified 09/09 of the financial institutions with whom we do business. The equity will be used to fund the initial land acquisition and infrastructure improvements related to the “CLOMR” floodplain improvements beginning in September 2011, with the vertical construction portion of the loan anticipated to close in May of 2012 prior to the June commencement of vertical building construction. D. How will the Project help improve/ upgrade public infrastructure (streets, utilities, drainage, etc.)? Included in the development plan for this Project are the items below that represent improvements/ upgrades to the public infrastructure: Stormwater/ drainage: o To address the lack of proper and adequate drainage in this area, an extensive floodplain and stormwater management system will be installed. The City and FEMA floodway maps will be modified positively as a result of this Project. The improvements include: Stormwater channel 50-85’ in width lined with expensive Turf Reinforment Mat material along the western edge of the site that is designed to collect stormwater that could overtop the railroad embankment during a flood event and disperse it into Spring Creek at an acceptable rate. The system has been designed so as not to cause a “rise” of floodwaters on downstream properties. A “car catcher” fence around the perimeter of the south parking lot to prevent cars from being swept into Spring Creek that could seal culverts and create further flooding problems on ours and adjacent sites. Repair and replacement of an existing, off-site 48” storm pipe that runs across the Maytag and Dairy Queen properties that is in poor condition. Street/ vehicular circulation o Improvements to existing streets, turn lanes and accesses to retail businesses on and adjacent to the Site o High-density, walk-able re-development of a currently undevelopable, blighted site along the Mason Corridor BRT will help keep cars OFF the streets, contributing to less congestion and less wear-and-tear of existing public infrastructure. Access to/ though the site o Extension and connection of bicycle and sidewalk paths to those off-Site o Bike path extension off-Site on City Park property Utility upgrades o New underground electric service o High-efficiency street lighting o New water mains o New sanitary sewer mains Revenue to the City o $3M + of development fees, increased property and sales tax base will help fund City and County infrastructure for decades to come. Date modified 09/09 E. How will the Project enhance the property tax base (and sales tax base, if applicable) of the area? As mentioned above, this Project will increase the property tax base from the current amount of approximately $48,500 annually to, according to estimates based upon the current local tax rate, approximately $277,800 in year 1. This is expected to grow to approximately $326,100 in Year 10. Also, the 8,000 square feet of new retail is anticipated to increase the sales tax slightly as no retail currenty exists at this vacant location. This development will create new jobs during construction and throughout its operations During construction, we intend to use local and regional subcontractors to the extent possible. Once the Project opens through operations, both housing and retail management and maintenance will create new jobs. and increase revenue for existing businesses, due to 670 residents on site in 220 units. Further, the redevelopment of this blighted yet high-profile and active intersection of College and Prospect Avenues will likely stimulate further redevelopment in the area along the Mason Corridor and at this primary gateway to the CSU campus. F. How will the Project help achieve the goals of the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan and City Plan? The Midtown Urban Renewal Plan states the following objectives that are consistent with the Project: To facilitate redevelopment and new development by private enterprise through cooperation among developers and public agencies to plan, design, and build needed improvements. To address and remedy conditions in the area that impair or arrest the sound growth of the City. To redevelop and rehabilitate the area in a manner which is compatible with and complementary to unique circumstances in the area. To effectively utilize undeveloped and underdeveloped land. To improve pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular and transit-related circulation and safety. To ultimately contribute to increased revenues for all taxing entities. To watch for market and/or project opportunities to eliminate blight, and when such opportunities exist, to take action within the financial, legal and political limits of the Authority to acquire land, demolish and remove structures, provide relocation benefits, and pursue redevelopment, improvement and rehabilitation projects. City Plan states the following policies that are consistent with the Project: Policy EH 4.1: Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas Policy EH 4.2: Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment Policy LIV 5.1: Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill Policy LIV 5.2: Target Public Investment along the Community Spine Policy LIV 35.4: Transform through Infill and Redevelopment Date modified 09/09 G. How will the Project help eliminate slum and blight conditions? First and foremost, the redevelopment of the Site will eliminate blight by transforming a currently underutilized and undevelopable former mobile home park with remaining deteriorated structures (car wash, storage facilities and a closed retail building) into a new, attractive and sustainable student residential community with retail on the ground level of College Avenue. According to Colorado Urban Renewal Law, there are several factors of blight that have been identified on this site. Deterioration of site: neglected property, parking surface deterioration, unscreened mechanical Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements: presence of overhead utility lines Defective Street layout: poor internal circulation Unsafe conditions: Poor drainge, Steep slopes, trash, weeds, graffiti, poorly lit areas Unusual topography: floodplain H. How will this Project help achieve the URA goals of sustainability through green building techniques? Please be specific how this Project uses energy efficiency, renewable resources, natural resource conservation techniques, stormwater low impact design methods, or any other methods not listed. Capstone is committed to implementing smart growth and sustainable, green development strategies. With 14 key Capstone personnel designated as LEED Accredited Professionals, two projects certified LEED Silver, one Certified LEED Gold and several more pursuing and expecting Gold certification upon completion this summer, our track record for sustainable design and construction is strong. This Project, although not pursuing LEED Certification at the encouragement of City staff, is being designed to include the following sustainable building techniques and measures: HVAC Upgrade: o Our current plans include efficient 15 SEER Heat Pump with auxiliary heat, coupled with other envelope improvements such as increased continuous rigid and 6” batt insulation. o We are also investigating gas heat and/ or gas water heating. These particular items are attractive to Capstone and its prospective residents and we are hopeful that we can make the design and costs work within our budget parameters. Energy efficient, argon filled vinyl windows with “Low E” and low Solar Heat Gain Coefficient glazing to improve solar and thermal insulation properties. Use of low flow water fixtures (shower heads, sink faucets, toilets) to help reduce potable water usage by 20 to 30%. Xeriscaping techniques that utilize as many native plant species as possible to help reduce to need for irrigation. The Project swill also will utilize rain leaders to direct stormwater runoff from the roofs into garden areas for irrigation and to improve the quality of stormwater runoff. Utilization of energy star appliances. Energy Star approved white membrane TPO roof to prevent heat island effect. Date modified 09/09 Shared parking arrangement with CSU to reduce heat island effect and encourage bike, pedestrian and Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit modes of “green” transportation. Deconstruction methods to divert waste from the landfill o Reclamation of hardwoods downed during demolition on site for site furnishings (picnic tables, etc.) and other uses. o Diversion of the majority of waste materials from the local landfills to recycling centers. Use of Low VOC adhesives and paint compounds to improve indoor environmental quality. In addition to these sustainable features: o Redevelopment of a blighted, urban infill site that is located within walking distance of mass transportation hub(s) and other goods and services -- in lieu of suburban, “greenfield” development. o Will use local, regional materials and subcontractors where possible. I. Please provide documentation and quantifiable results stating the proven methods or effectiveness of the proposed sustainable features within the project. The methods and measures listed in Item H above generally follow the checklist of items found in the LEED Checklist established by the United States Green Building Council. As mentioned above, Capstone is NOT pursuing LEED Certification for this Project based on consultation with City staff members that have encouraged utilizing green/sustainable building techniques without the additional expense of pursuing certification. That said, our Project MEP engineer has run our Energy Model based on the recently completed 85% Construction Documents and Specifications. The Model indicates that our building mechanical system and building envelope should produce an approximately 15% improvement over ASHRAE 90.1 2007 baseline statistics, 5% better than the minimum required by the Innovative Design Assistance Program offered by the City of Fort Collins Utilities Department. J. What is the proposed Project timetable (what is the estimated time frame for major steps including the City’s planning decision, completion of financial commitments, start of construction, and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO)? Key Dates: Land Acquistion Start February 2008 Closing August 2011 City PDP process (completed) Start March 2008 Complete October 2008 City FDP process Start November 2010 Complete July 2011 City DCP permit Receive in July 2011 Construction (infrastructure) Start August 2011 Complete October 2011 Construction (buildings) Start June 2012 Complete August 2013 Certificate of Occupancy Receive in early August 2013 Student Move in Mid-August 2013 For a more in depth analysis of the timetable for completion, see attached Master Development Schedule. Page 1 Public Improvements List for URA 7-6-11.xlsx Project 85% CD's Location 07/11/11 1 $44,622.00 2 $248,000.00 3 $27,225.49 4 Sanitary Sewer mains $45,000.00 5 $247,500.00 6 Potable Water mains $158,000.00 7 Repair/ Replacement of existing 48" storm piping $81,326.00 8 Utility service- electric underground service $100,000.00 9 Site Lighting $120,000.00 10 Storm Water Channel- FEMA $344,417.00 11 $215,000.00 12 $30,098.00 13 $760,396.03 14 $195,000.00 15 Land allocation for streets and roads (.83 ac) $328,712.87 16 Efficiency upgrade for HVAC Systems $450,000.00 17 Efficiency upgrade for water heating systems $250,000.00 18 TPO Roofing System $356,350.00 19 Energy Efficient Window Specifications $297,000.00 20 Energy Star Appliance Package $264,000.00 21 Low Flow Toilets $106,650.00 22 Low Flow Lavatory and Shower Valves $76,000.00 23 Enhanced Insulation Systems $81,150.00 24 High-efficiency lighting $211,368.00 25 Low VOC adhesives and paint $35,000.00 25 Landfill diversion/ recycling centers $33,000.00 26 On-site Recycling Collection Centers for Residents $9,500.00 28 Occupant Environmental Awareness / Education $20,000.00 29 $25,000.00 30 $356,675.00 5,516,990.39 66,553.58 35,061.25 49,915.52 5,618,605.21 56,186.05 28,093.03 5,702,884.29 General Contractor's Fee 285,144.21 5,988,028.51 299,401.43 6,287,429.93 The costs associated with each of the line items above represent Elligible Costs as defined in the Redevlopment Agreement between the URA and Capstone. Per Section 2.3 of the Redevelopment Agreement, the Elligible Costs shall not exceed the $5M reimbursement obligation maximum, even though this list includes a total sum greater than the $5M limit. FEMA/ easement earthwork/erosion control Subcontractor P&P Bond Ft. Collins, CO Subtotal Ft. Collins Student Housing Demolition Storm Drainage Builder's Risk Subtotal FEMA easement land allocation (1.92 ac) Item Description INCOME APPROACH Effective Date of Valuation: 1 Jan 2013 2013 Date of Appraisal: 24 June 2011 Typical Parcel #: 97231-07-003 TIF Capstone Student Housing 1635 S.College Taxes payable 2014 COMMERCIAL PORTION 100% Complete BUILDING AREA - SF SIZE (SF) % Retail - Ground Floor 8,000 100.00% TOTAL SF 8,000 100.00% POTENTIAL GROSS INCOME INC/SF SF NET Retail - Ground Floor $20.00 8,000 $160,000 TOTAL $20.00 8,000 $160,000 LESS VACANCY & COLLECTION LOSS 9.00% $14,400 INCOME less V & C $145,600 ADDITIONAL INCOME $0 EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME $145,600 OPERATING EXPENSES Management 6% $8,736 Insurance $0.30 $2,400 Repairs & Maintenance 3% $4,368 Reserves for Replacement 3% $4,368 Total Expenses 14% $19,872 EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME $145,600 less OPERATING EXPENSES $19,872 NET OPERATING INCOME $125,728 VALUE (NET INCOME/OAR) $125,728 divided by 9.00% $1,396,978 VALUE PER SQUARE FOOT-Comm $175 Value x Assessment Rate x Mill Levy = tax liability Value Assessment 2010 Mill Annual Rate Levy* Taxes $1,396,978 x 29% 0.089630 = $36,311.22 2011 Existing Value Land 2014 Increment $27,603.22 Christine Murray - CG01317730 Certified General Appraiser, Larimer County Assessor's Office *Mill levy subject to change, Approx values based on preliminary figures. MULTI-FAMILY VALUE 2012 MULTI-FAMILY STUDENT RENTAL MARKET COMPARABLES Category Subject Comp #1 Comp #2 RENT PER ROOM Furnished Furnished Parcel ID 97231-07-003 97161-50-001 97161-63-001 Business Name Capstone Student Housing University House Rams Pointe Rams Park Location Prospect and College 2250 W Elizabeth 2226 W Elizabeth City Fort Collins Ft. Collins Ft. Collins Zoning MMN - Med Density MMN - Med Density MMN - Med Density Land size/acre or sq ft 379,408 691297 87991 Property type 221 Unit 192 Unit 48 Unit Student Housing Rent Per Room? Yes Yes Yes Num bldgs 2? 15 2 Ttl Bldg Sqft 274047 240010 44736 Sqft per Unit 1240 1250 932 Year Built 2011 1996 2001 Quality ? Average Average Design ? Two Story/GL Fin Two Story/GL Fin Garages? ? No No Story Height ? 8' 8' Construction type ? Wood Frame Wood Frame Total Units 221 192 48 Sale Date Jun-07 Oct-07 Sale Price $23,200,000 $7,000,000 Sales Price per Unit $120,833 $145,833 Adjustment to Sale $350,386 $0 Time Adjusted Selling Price $22,849,614 $7,000,000 T. A.Sales Price per Unit $119,008 $145,833 Age 15% 10% Location 0% 0% Adjustment for Furnishings 0% -5% Unit Size Adj 0% 0% Condition Adj 0% 0% Total Net Adjustments 15% 5% Adj. Value per Unit $145,000 $136,860 $153,125 CORRELATED MKT VALUE $32,045,000 $144,992 This is only a guestimate: PP DEDUCTED FROM SALE PP SEPARATE FROM SALE MARKET VALUE: $32,045,000 $145,000 ALL MULTI-FAMILY IS CLASSIFIED GRM VALUE: $32,800,000 $148,416 AS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND WEIGHTED INCOME: $34,000,000 $153,846 VALUED BY THE MARKET MEDIAN APPROACH ONLY ACCORDING TO $32,948,333 COLORADO STATE STATUTE. MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTED VAL: $33,501,156 $151,589 INCOME APPROACH USED TO ACTUAL INCOME $36,400,000 VERIFY MARKET APPROACH ONLY. TYPICAL INCOME $31,600,000 GRM (GROSS RENT MULTIPLIER) WEIGHTED INCOME $34,000,000 IS DERIVED FROM INCOME/MKT ACTUAL GRM $37,000,000 AND USED TO VERIFY MARKET TYPICAL GRM $28,600,000 APPROACH AS WELL. WEIGHTED GRM $32,800,000 TAX PROJECTION BELOW: 2013 value, Taxes payable 2014 Value x Assessment Rate x Mill Levy = tax liability Value Assessment 2011 Mill Annual (IMPROVED RESIDENTIAL ASSD AT 7.96%) Rate Levy* Taxes $33,501,156 7.96% 0.089630 = $239,015.61 TIF INCREMENT $236,002.61 Dianne Ahart - CG01316840 Certified General Appraiser, Larimer County Assessor's Office colorado state university fort collins, colorado Choice Center Illustrated Master Plan College Avenue Colorado and Southern R.O.W. Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Creekside Park Trail Connection 10.4 Acres Creekside Park REVIEW SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION REVISION CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO 1-800-922-1987 or 8-1-1 CALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. NO. DATE Drawn By JSD Project # Checked By Date Revision APPROVED OF Prepared by or under the direct supervision of: SHEET For and on behalf of Jim Sell Design Landscape Architecture, Engineering, & Planning 153 West Mountain Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 970 484 1921 Fax 970 484 2443 JIM SELL DESIGN CHOICE CENTER LANDSCAPE PLAN OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN Capstone Development Corporation Fort Collins, CO BW JS 03/30/2011 2566 2 11 LANDSCAPING ASSURANCES 1. ALL LANDSCAPING PROPOSED FOR INSTALLATION MUST BE SECURED WITH AN IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT, PERFORMANCE BOND OR ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR 125% OF THE VALUATION OF THE LANDSCAPE MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION FOR THE CURRENT PHASE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. SEED MIXES 1. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AAN SPECIFICATIONS FOR #1 GRADE 2. ALL TREES TO MEET CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE STANDARDS FOR SIZE. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL LANDSCAPING FOR A TWO YEAR PERIOD COMMENCING FROM DATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION. 4. CONTRACTOR TO MINIMIZE ALL DISTURBANCE TO NON-IMPACTED AREAS. ALL DISTURBED AREAS NOT RECEIVING TURF SHALL BE RESEEDED WITH THE NATIVE PRAIRIE SEED MIX SPECIFIED ON THIS SHEET. 5. MINOR CHANGES IN SPECIES AND PLANT LOCATIONS MAY BE MADE DURING CONSTRUCTION AS REQUIRED BY SITE CONDITIONS WITH APPROVAL OF OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. OVERALL QUANTITY AND QUALITY TO BE CONSISTENT WITH APPROVED PLANS. 6. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR LANDSCAPED AREAS SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WATER UTILITIES. IRRIGATION PLANS TO BE REVIEWED AS PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM MUST BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO APPROVED PLANS, OR AN ACCEPTABLE FINANCIAL SECURITY DEPOSITED WITH THE CITY PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. ID Task Name Duration Start Finish 1 Land Acquisition 902 days Fri 2/8/08 Mon 7/25/11 2 Execute Purchase & Sale Agreement 0 days Fri 2/8/08 Fri 2/8/08 3 Due Diligence Period 43 days Mon 5/19/08 Wed 7/16/08 4 Closing 0 days Mon 7/25/11 Mon 7/25/11 5 Subcontracted Professional Services 37 days Mon 1/21/08 Tue 3/11/08 10 Preliminary Development Process 163 days Tue 3/4/08 Thu 10/16/08 30 FLOOD PLAIN (CLOMR) 455 days Fri 5/16/08 Thu 2/11/10 38 Floodplain Use Permits 30 days Mon 5/23/11 Fri 7/1/11 39 Curb and Gutter assoc. With CLOMR 10 days Mon 5/23/11 Fri 6/3/11 40 Parking Lot assoc. with CLOMR 10 days Mon 5/23/11 Fri 6/3/11 41 Flood Control Channel assoc. with CLOMR 10 days Mon 5/23/11 Fri 6/3/11 42 Landscape areas assoc. with CLOMR 10 days Mon 5/23/11 Fri 6/3/11 43 Flood Plain Use Permit/ No Rise Certificate (City Stormwater) 10 days Mon 5/23/11 Fri 6/3/11 44 Receive Comments from the City 0 days Mon 6/6/11 Mon 6/6/11 45 Respond to comments and resubmit 10 days Mon 6/6/11 Fri 6/17/11 46 City review 10 days Mon 6/20/11 Fri 7/1/11 47 Receive Floodplain Use Permits 0 days Fri 7/1/11 Fri 7/1/11 48 Final Plan Review Process 176 days Mon 11/15/10 Tue 7/19/11 49 Kick Off Final Plan Process 0 days Mon 11/15/10 Mon 11/15/10 50 Begin preparation of final submittal documents (assumes NO changes to ANY building footprint) 40 days Mon 11/15/10 Fri 1/7/11 51 Meet with Johnson Inv. To discuss circulation 0 days Fri 11/19/10 Fri 11/19/10 52 Prepare parking lot and circulation changes through commercial 2 days Fri 11/19/10 Mon 11/22/10 53 Submit changes to Johnson and Capstone 0 days Mon 11/22/10 Mon 11/22/10 54 Receive revised plans from architect - add to final submittal documents 2 days Mon 1/10/11 Tue 1/11/11 55 Submit Final Plans to City (FIRST ROUND) 0 days Tue 1/11/11 Tue 1/11/11 56 Final Plan Review - Staff Review 21 days Wed 1/12/11 Wed 2/9/11 57 Attend Final Staff Review 0 days Wed 2/9/11 Wed 2/9/11 58 Written Comments Due to JSD 0 days Fri 2/18/11 Fri 2/18/11 59 Incorporate Staff Comments 15 days Fri 2/18/11 Thu 3/10/11 60 SECOND ROUND SUBMITTAL and Draft Dev. Agreement 0 days Thu 3/10/11 Thu 3/10/11 61 Staff Review 16 days Fri 3/11/11 Fri 4/1/11 62 Written Comments Due to JSD 0 days Wed 3/23/11 Wed 3/23/11 63 Incorporate Staff Comments 5 days Wed 3/23/11 Tue 3/29/11 64 Water Board Approval of easements 0 days Thu 6/23/11 Thu 6/23/11 65 City Council approval of Water Board easements 0 days Tue 7/19/11 Tue 7/19/11 66 Final Plans Approved 0 days Thu 6/23/11 Thu 6/23/11 67 Begin Development Agreement process 25 days Mon 5/23/11 Fri 6/24/11 68 Approved and Signed Development Agreement (BRT utility easements) 0 days Fri 6/24/11 Fri 6/24/11 69 Mylars - Submit to City (Brian Varrella: "will be conditions upon FEMA approval of the LOMR") 0 days Fri 7/1/11 Fri 7/1/11 70 Development Agreement - Fully Executed 0 days Fri 7/1/11 Fri 7/1/11 71 Mylars Recorded 0 days Thu 7/7/11 Thu 7/7/11 99% 7/25 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 6/6 100% 100% 7/1 0% 11/15 0% 11/19 0% 11/22 ID Task Name Duration Start Finish 72 DCP (Development Construction Permit) 10 days Fri 7/8/11 Thu 7/21/11 73 Apply for DCP 10 days Fri 7/8/11 Thu 7/21/11 74 Issuance of DCP 0 days Thu 7/21/11 Thu 7/21/11 75 Flood Plain Construction and LOMR Approval 255 days Mon 8/1/11 Fri 7/20/12 76 Construct CLOMR Improvements 60 days Mon 8/1/11 Fri 10/21/11 77 Construct public improvements Rough Grading, SW Channel, Utilities, Asphalt Base, Curb & Gutter. 60 days Mon 8/1/11 Fri 10/21/11 78 City Inspection of Public Improvements 5 days Mon 10/24/11 Fri 10/28/11 79 Contractor Compliance with City Punch List/ Nolte prepare final LOMR application 10 days Mon 10/31/11 Fri 11/11/11 80 Submit application to City 0 days Fri 11/11/11 Fri 11/11/11 81 City review and comment 15 days Mon 11/14/11 Fri 12/2/11 82 Revise submittal and resubmit to City 5 days Mon 12/5/11 Fri 12/9/11 83 2nd City review and comment 10 days Mon 12/12/11 Fri 12/23/11 84 Nolte revise and resubmit 5 days Mon 12/26/11 Fri 12/30/11 85 3rd City review and sign off 5 days Mon 1/2/12 Fri 1/6/12 86 Site Certification Brian Varrella: ("site certification with spot elevations around the building footprint to show n 5 days Mon 1/9/12 Fri 1/13/12 87 Submit to FEMA 0 days Fri 1/13/12 Fri 1/13/12 88 LOMR - FEMA Review (90 calendar days) 70 days Mon 1/16/12 Fri 4/20/12 89 Nolte revisions 5 days Mon 4/23/12 Fri 4/27/12 90 Re-submit to FEMA 0 days Fri 4/27/12 Fri 4/27/12 91 FEMA review 60 days Mon 4/30/12 Fri 7/20/12 92 FEMA approval 0 days Fri 7/20/12 Fri 7/20/12 93 Architectural Design 80 days Mon 2/7/11 Fri 5/27/11 98 Submit Building Permit Application - Russ Houland (Building Inspection) 20 days Mon 4/2/12 Fri 4/27/12 101 Financing 683 days Mon 1/3/11 Thu 8/15/13 108 Construction Activities 615 days Mon 4/4/11 Fri 8/9/13 109 Construction Pricing 60 days Mon 4/4/11 Fri 6/24/11 113 Shop Drawings 35 days Mon 4/2/12 Fri 5/18/12 116 Building Construction 310 days Mon 6/4/12 Fri 8/9/13 117 Building 2 80 days Mon 6/4/12 Fri 9/21/12 118 Remaining Site/Utility Work - Building 2 15 days Mon 6/4/12 Fri 6/22/12 119 Foundations, Vertical framing, roofing and exterior skin (dry-in) - Buildings 2 65 days Mon 6/25/12 Fri 9/21/12 120 Building 1 110 days Mon 7/23/12 Fri 12/21/12 121 Remaining Site/ Utility Work - Building 1 20 days Mon 7/23/12 Fri 8/17/12 122 Foundations, Vertical framing, roofing and exterior skin (dry-in) - Building 1 90 days Mon 8/20/12 Fri 12/21/12 123 Apply for FEMA Elevation Certificate (confirm FEMA definition of finished) 0 days Fri 12/21/12 Fri 12/21/12 124 Interior fitout and finish - Buildings 1 and 2 135 days Mon 12/24/12 Fri 6/28/13 125 Complete final lift of asphalt, punch lists, landscaping 20 days Mon 7/1/13 Fri 7/26/13 126 Closeout of construction 10 days Mon 7/29/13 Fri 8/9/13 127 Final City Inspections 10 days Mon 7/29/13 Fri 8/9/13 128 Receive Certificate of Occupancy 0 days Fri 8/9/13 Fri 8/9/13 129 Student Move-in 10 days Mon 8/12/13 Fri 8/23/13 0% 0% 7/21 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11/11 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1/13 0% 0% St Ave S ummer Smi t h St Dr Fl i cker ce t Rd Rai nt r ee Ln Hill Pon Mirro rma reCir Gi l ga l ad W ay She e ly Ln Bay Dr Johnson D r Dartmouth Heat her Heat her i dge A ve Ave Rober t son E llis St St Cir Dr Dr Worthington Cl Centre Dr eel Ct LEMAY AVE COLLEGE AVE DRAKE ROAD Suddering Spring Creek ett Rd estward wood Dr iversity St North Dr Meridian Ave South Dr University Ave Isotope Dr Old Main Dr Oval Drive West Dr Burton Ct W Lake St Blevins Ct ABBREVIATION LEGEND ROW RIGHT OF WAY DE DRAINAGE EASEMENT UE UTILITY EASEMENT PVTA PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT AE ACCESS EASEMENT WLE WATER LINE EASEMENT PAA PUBLIC ACCESS AREA PA PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT DA DRAINAGE AREA TCE TEMPORARY CONTRUCTION EASEMENT (FSC) FOX SHOPPING CENTER SUBDIVISION (RSC) REPLAT OF A PORTION OF LOT 1 THE SPRING COURT SUBDIVISION LOD LIMITS OF DEVELOPMENT LOT AREA TABLE ITEM ACRES SQUARE FEET GROSS AREA 10.403 453,165 DEDICATED ROW 0.302 13,171 (STUART ST AND COLLEGE AVE) 439,994 PARCEL Lot 1 6.743 293,745 Lot 2 1.120 48,783 Lot 3 1.139 49,602 Lot 4 1.101 47,944 NET LOT AREA 10.103 440,074 BUILDING TABLE SQUARE FEET LOT 1 BUILDING 1 - FLOOR AREA (4 STORIES) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING 200,120 TOTAL FLOOR AREA 200,120 TOTAL LOT AREA 293,745 ESTIMATED FLOOR AREA RATIO 0.68 LOT 2 BUILDING 2 - FLOOR AREA (5 LEVELS - 4 STORIES AT COLLEGE) RESIDENTIAL (5 LEVELS) 70,314 RETAIL (1 LEVEL)* 9,322 TOTAL FLOOR AREA 79,636 TOTAL LOT AREA 48,783 ESTIMATED FLOOR AREA RATIO 1.63 LOT 3 EXISTING BUILDING - FLOOR AREA (2 STORIES) RETAIL (2 LEVELS)* 24,610 TOTAL FLOOR AREA 24,610 TOTAL LOT AREA 49,602 ESTIMATED FLOOR AREA RATIO 0.50 LOT 4 BUILDING 4 - FLOOR AREA (1 STORY) RETAIL (1 LEVEL)* 12,198 TOTAL FLOOR AREA 12,198 TOTAL LOT AREA 47,944 ESTIMATED FLOOR AREA RATIO 0.25 MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT = 4 STORIES RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT TABLE UNITS BEDS LOT 1 BUILDING 1 - RESIDENTIAL BUILDING HEIGHT = 4 STORIES 1 Bedroom / 1 Bath Units 18 18 2 Bedroom / 2 Bath Units 43 86 3 Bedroom / 3 Bath Units 31 93 LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations Project Name: The Commons- Fort Collins Project Checklist Date: July 05, 2011 19 4 3 Possible Points: 26 Y?N d/C Notes: Y C Prereq 1 1 d Credit 1 1 The site is a previously develop site and complies with this credit 5 d Credit 2 5 The project provides Community Connectivity as defined by LEED. There are over 10 amenties within a 1/2mile walking distance of the site and there is a residential apartment area with an average density of 10 units per acre. 1 d Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment 1 The site is not a Brownfield 6 d Credit 4.1 6 The project provides the LEED credit for Public Transportation Access via access to bus service. There are 2 separate bus lines that have stops within a 1/4mile of the project. The Transfort "Route 1" city bus and the FLEX bus line both stop along S. College Ave. 1 d Credit 4.2 1 The code requirement for bicycle parking for the project is only 23 spaces. Accounting for the City's bicycle friendly community and to encourage the use of alternative methods of transportation the project is providing bicycle racks for 175 bikes. 3 d Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation—Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles 3 A discounted parking rate (20% discount) will be provided for low emmitting and fuel efficient vehicles. Alternatively, preferred parking could be provide for 5% of total parking for low emitting and fuel efficient vehicles. (226x.05 = 12 preferred parking spaces). Either method complies with the LEED credit. 2 d Credit 4.4 2 There is no parking requirement by the City of Fort Collins for this project. The project has attempted to encourage alternate transportation by providing an abundance of bicycle parking spacs, siting itself within walking distance to public transportation and providing a limited number of parking spaces. The project will house 672 residents and provides only 226 paking spaces, 1 parking space per 3 residents. 1 C Credit 5.1 Site Development—Protect or Restore Habitat 1 We are not protecting or restoring habitat 1 d Credit 5.2 Site Development—Maximize Open Space 1 There is no requirement from the City of Fort Collins for open space as it is described by LEED, so we would fall under Case 3, where the USGBC would require 20% of the site to be vegetated open space. Total for the project is approx 160,211 sf of Landscape area which equates to 36.4% of the site. 1 d Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design—Quantity Control 1 The current stormwater management plan might fullfill the requirements for SS 6.1 | Case 1 | Option 2. The current design uniformly distributes developed runoff and/or slows it with permeable surfaces (Porous Landscape Detention, PLD | Grass Buffer, GB | Grass Swale, GS)) and flat grades (i.e., flood control channel w/slope=0.10%) before it drains into Spring Creek (i.e., receiving stream channel). The proposed PLDs receive runoff from a large percentage of the Building 1 roof area and are designed to reduce the volume of runoff from frequently occurring storms (i.e., 2-year and less). Moreover, some reduction in runoff volume occurs when the developed runoff from the larger north and south parking lots drains into the flood control channel (i.e., GS) and Grass Buffer (GB), respectively 1 d Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design—Quality Control 1 The permanent (i.e., post construction) BMPs include: 1) A Contech CDS2025 hydrodynamic separator unit that will treat runoff from the eastern portion of the project site. 2) Three PLDs that are located one to a courtyard (i.e., Building 1). 3) Grass Swale (GS) to infiltrate and slow runoff from the parking lot north of Building 1. 4) Grassed Buffer (GB) to infiltrate and slow runoff from the parking lot south of Building 1. These BMPs are supported by the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD). Furthermore, the PLD, GS and GB BMPs are designed in accordance with standards and specifications from a state or local program that has adopted these performance standards. In addition to the permanent BMPs, Capstone will develop, implement and maintain a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) during the construction phase. The goal of the SWMP is to describe appropriate controls and measures to improve water quality by reducing pollutants in stormwater discharges and ensures compliance with the requirements of the stormwater permit. The SWMP must be completed and implemented Y Reduce by 50% 2 We have reduced the potable water required by at least 50% from a baseline case as described by the LEED guidelines. The landscape has been designed with low water use as a priority. More than half of the landscape area on this project is to receive irrigation for establishment only, for a period of one to two years. This area will be planted with drought tolerant native grasses that will thrive with only the natural rainfall for this area, and tolerate the dry summer heat. The rest of the project has been planted with shrubs and ornamental grasses that have either a low or medium water requirement. Approximately 20% is the medium water requirement and these shrubs have been used in area’s that will receive mainly shade throughout most of the year. We have minimized the amount of high water use turf to only a few active areas. In an additional measure to reduce the amount of water required, we have designed Porous Landscape Detention areas to reuse and infiltrate the water from the roof wherever possible. These PLD’s will filter the runoff and supply water to the plants that are within their boundaries, eliminating the n N No Potable Water Use or Irrigation 4 2 d Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 2 22 d Credit 3 2 to 4 Y Reduce by 30% 2 The project is using low flow 1.28 gal toilets, low flow shower head and faucets and 1 gal urinals. We anticipate this providing a 30%-40% water use reduction. N Reduce by 35% 3 N Reduce by 40% 4 3230 Possible Points: 35 Y?N Notes: Y C Prereq 1 We are doing commissioning Y d Prereq 2 The project is designed for energy performance efficiency, demonstrating a 12% improvement over the baseline buildings energy performance Y d Prereq 3 No CFC refrigerants are used in the project 118 d Credit 1 1 to 19 Improve by 12% for New Buildings or 8% for Existing Building Renovations 1 Improve by 14% for New Buildings or 10% for Existing Building Renovations 2 Improve by 16% for New Buildings or 12% for Existing Building Renovations 3 Improve by 18% for New Buildings or 14% for Existing Building Renovations 4 Improve by 20% for New Buildings or 16% for Existing Building Renovations 5 Improve by 22% for New Buildings or 18% for Existing Building Renovations 6 Improve by 24% for New Buildings or 20% for Existing Building Renovations 7 Improve by 26% for New Buildings or 22% for Existing Building Renovations 8 Improve by 28% for New Buildings or 24% for Existing Building Renovations 9 Improve by 30% for New Buildings or 26% for Existing Building Renovations 10 Improve by 32% for New Buildings or 28% for Existing Building Renovations 11 Improve by 34% for New Buildings or 30% for Existing Building Renovations 12 Improve by 36% for New Buildings or 32% for Existing Building Renovations 13 Improve by 38% for New Buildings or 34% for Existing Building Renovations 14 Improve by 40% for New Buildings or 36% for Existing Building Renovations 15 Improve by 42% for New Buildings or 38% for Existing Building Renovations 16 Improve by 44% for New Buildings or 40% for Existing Building Renovations 17 Improve by 46% for New Buildings or 42% for Existing Building Renovations 18 Improve by 48%+ for New Buildings or 44%+ for Existing Building Renovations 19 7 d Credit 2 1 to 7 N 1% Renewable Energy 1 N 3% Renewable Energy 2 N 5% Renewable Energy 3 N 7% Renewable Energy 4 N 9% Renewable Energy 5 N 11% Renewable Energy 6 N 13% Renewable Energy 7 2 C Credit 3 2 Enhanced commissioning is being reviewed as a potential option. 2 d Credit 4 2 3 C Credit 5 3 110C Credit 5 1 to 2 Y 10% of Materials 1 Regional materials from within 500miles of the site will be used on the project. These materials will consistute a minimum of 10% of the project material costs. The project is targeting the 20% regional materials if possible. ? 20% of Materials 2 1 C Credit 6 Rapidly Renewable Materials 1 1 C Credit 7 1 Capstone is reviewing the monetary implications. 10 1 4 Possible Points: 15 Y?N Notes: Y d Prereq 1 Y d Prereq 2 1 d Credit 1 1 1 d Credit 2 1 1 C Credit 3.1 1 SMACNA requirements will be meet and MERV 8 filters will be used during construction. 1 C Credit 3.2 1 Capstone reviewing the potential for this credit 1 C Credit 4.1 1 Project specifications require low emitting materials in all applicable specification sections. 1 C Credit 4.2 1 Project specifications require low emitting materials in all applicable specification sections. 1 C Credit 4.3 1 Project specifications require low emitting materials in all applicable specification sections. 1 C Credit 4.4 1 Project specifications require low emitting materials in all applicable specification sections. 1 d Credit 5 1 Entry mats are used to capture dirt particles. Proper ventilation and negative pressure methods are employed. MERV 13 filters will be used. 1 d Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems—Lighting 1 Occupancy sensors are provided on at least 50% of the lighting in the corridors. Occupancy sensors are provided to control lighting in all public spaces and common areas as well as offices, toilets , study rooms, etc. Automatic time clock and photo cell controls are provided for all exterior lighting. Exterior lighting will be turned on and off with time clock. The photocells will prevent operation during daylight hours regardless of timeclock setting. ALl residential unit rooms are provided with individual switching. 1 d Credit 6.2 1 Programmable thermostats in commom areas. Individual thermostats in units 1 d Credit 7.1 1 Building designed to ASHRAE 55 standards 1 d Credit 7.2 Thermal Comfort—Verification 1 Residential projects are not eligible for this credit 1 d Credit 8.1 1 The peoject does not meet the mathematical equation to receive this credit but the project does provide windows and daylighting in all occupied spaces. 1 d Credit 8.2 1 The residental provide views to the outside in all rooms, lliving spaces and common areas by providing large windows in each room. The retail spaces, with large exterior window walls, also provide views to the outside in every bay. 303 Possible Points: 6 Y?N Notes: 1 d/C Credit 1.1 1 Vegetation Salvage - save and replant native trees removed during construction. Trees that cannot be saved and used on site will be mulched and used for project landscaping. 1 d/C Credit 1.2 1 Green Building Education Program 1 d/C Credit 1.3 1 1 d/C Credit 1.4 1 1 d/C Credit 1.5 1 1 d/C Credit 2 1 112 Possible Points: 4 Y?N Notes: ss credit 2, ss credit 6.1, we credit 1 - no potable/irr, we credit 3 - 40%, ea credit 1- 48%, ea credit 2 - 13% 1 d/C Credit 1.1 1 ss credit 2 Capstone Development Corp., now in its 21st year of business, is one of the various companies which comprise “The Capstone Companies.” All of these companies are focused exclusively on some aspect of student housing development, management, interior design, finance coordination, and construction. Capstone is the most active partner with colleges and universities to develop on‐ campus housing. To date, we have partnered with 58 colleges or universities to develop 36,500+ beds on‐campus housing ‐‐ more than any firm in this industry. We are also active in the development of off‐campus housing, with project experience of just under 22,000 beds. Our total student housing development experience – both on and off campus – reflects over $3.0 billion in project costs or value, and 60,000+ beds. As a reflection of the confidence we have earned from our collegiate partners, Capstone has been awarded twenty‐two additional phases of on‐campus student housing at fifteen campuses, after completing the initial phase. Our on‐campus management division, Capstone On‐Campus Management, currently partners with 20 colleges / universities to manage 21,000+ beds of on‐campus housing. Because we approach every development opportunity as new and unique, we maintain flexibility and innovation throughout the predevelopment, design, and development phases. Unlike companies that must report quarterly to a stockholder group, we are able to take a long‐term view when working with our university partners. This capability is also beneficial as we work through the numerous development challenges that are inherent in public‐private projects. Corporate Office: Capstone Development Corp 431 Office Park Drive Birmingham, AL 35223 205.414.6400 / Fax: 205.414.6405 Website: www.capstonecompanies.com Contact: Alton C. Irwin, MAI / LEED AP 205‐414‐6417 /airwin@capstonemail.com Regional Office: Capstone Development Corp. – Western Division 162 S Rancho Santa Fe Rd, Suite B‐30 Encinitas, California 92024 Capstone’s Focus and Leadership Position Capstone’s sole focus is student housing, both on and off campus. We are the most active partner with colleges and universities to develop and manage on‐campus student housing communities, as well as active in the off‐campus student housing development and management market niche. In the area of on‐campus experience, we believe Capstone’s leadership position has been earned by the innovative approach we take to all aspects of our work with our university partners. Our innovative approach has led to many “firsts” in the areas of design, financing and management structures. We have attempted to create an environment for such innovation through assembling a group of highly talented housing professionals, from an array of educational backgrounds and experiences, which include, but are not limited to: Real Estate Sales, Leasing and Development Property Management – marketing / leasing / facilities operations Finance and Accounting Marketing Law Architecture Construction Management Sustainability (Green) – Design, construction and operations Master Planning Real Estate Appraisal Higher Education (including housing and auxiliary services) Residential Life Programming Greek Life Graphic Arts Information Technology One reflection of Capstone’s innovative approach is reflected in the national recognition three Capstone‐developed student housing communities have recently received. For three consecutive years (2007 – 2009), a Capstone student housing project has been honored as the “Student Housing Project of the Year,” by Multi‐Family Executive Magazine. These three projects, two of which were on‐campus communities, are distinctly different in design, construction, and student markets. Yet all three resulted in innovative and award winning solutions to student housing needs. We will bring this same innovative approach to a partnership with your institution. Our development experience reflects a wide variety of unit/building designs and construction types. From open breezeway and enclosed corridor communities, to living/learning communities and theme housing "villages." They also include facilities with classroom space, retail spaces, dining facilities (both new and renovated), structured parking, wellness centers, athletic fields, and in one instance, a suite for the president of the university. Construction types have included protected wood frame, steel frame, concrete frame, block and plank, and facilities utilizing the Hambro system. This variety of experience allows us to provide our university partner with many creative options during the design and programming of a new student housing community. Overview of the Various Capstone Companies Capstone Development Corp. was formed in 1990, and is one of the various companies which comprise “The Capstone Companies.” All of these companies are focused exclusively on some aspect of student housing development: from development to management, interior design, finance coordination, and construction. A brief summary of the various divisions of the Capstone Companies is provided on the following pages. Capstone Development Corp. Capstone’s development division focuses on the development of both on and off‐campus student housing. This division has been responsible for the successful development of 60,000+ beds of on and off‐campus housing, totaling over $3.0 billion in project costs or value. These totals include 58 partnerships with colleges and universities to develop 36,500+ beds. Campus Edge Program Capstone’s Campus Edge program is focused on the development of sites within walking/biking distance from the campus and/or convenient to mass transit, predominantly in partnership with colleges and universities. The Campus Edge projects are typically high‐density, vibrant, mixed use projects (residential, retail, office and parking), offering either suites or apartment living arrangements. The targeted market includes undergraduate and graduate students, as well as professionals. As with the Urban and Campus Development Program, these projects typically utilize a not‐for‐profit foundation as the owner, enabling the project to take advantage of tax‐exempt project debt. Cottage Program This Capstone program focuses on the development of “new urbanism” style, residential neighborhoods for both students and faculty residents – both on and off‐campus. These neighborhoods offer a variety of charming and appealing facilities, from free‐standing residences to townhomes and lodge buildings, providing one to five bedroom living arrangements. These cottage neighborhoods offer a unique lifestyle, including features such as scenic lakes, walking trails, open green spaces and community buildings. Capstone’s Cottage Program has developed, or is under development, of eleven cottage communities nationwide. Capstone’s in‐house construction company, Cottage Builders, serves as our builder for these projects. Acquisitions and Renovations This Capstone program focuses on acquiring older, off‐campus student apartment communities, which are physically and/or operationally under‐performing. These properties are renovated and rehabilitated utilizing the construction services of either Capstone’s CollegeTown Construction or Cottage Builders, Inc. Recent examples of this program include Eagles West Apartments in Auburn, Alabama, Towson Place Apartments in Towson, Maryland, and University Apartments, Durham, North Carolina. Capstone Interiors This Capstone division focuses on providing a single source of interior design, procurement, and installation services for student housing communities. The talented designers within Capstone Interiors can create custom interiors, ranging from classic to contemporary, complete with durable furnishings from trusted manufacturers. Whether a new or existing facility, they offer the ability to manage the process from an initial vision to the procurement an installation. Coupled with Capstone’s Central Purchasing Program, Capstone Interiors has the ability to also negotiate significant cost savings for our partners. Capstone On‐Campus Management Currently partners with 20 colleges or universities to manage 21,000+ beds of on‐campus housing – the greatest number of on‐campus partnerships in the industry. Capstone has also had the honor and challenge of transitioning nine communities from previous management companies to our portfolio. This division manages a wide variety of building types from high‐rise double‐loaded interior corridor, to suburban/rural. Its communities range in all shapes and sizes, from wood‐frame to concrete and steel buildings, from double occupancy residence halls to suites to fully furnished and equipped apartments. All of these properties are fully integrated into the campus culture. Capstone has also partnered with six colleges or universities to date to design leasing and management programs for first time housing communities. Capstone Properties, LLC Focuses on the management of student housing apartment communities within close proximity to college and univesity campuses. Curently, Capstone Properties provides diverse management services for 5,500 beds within 12 off‐campus communities, which include condo associations and services for third‐party owners. Prior to the sale of Capstone’s previous off‐campus portfolio (several years ago), Capstone Properties managed a total of 13,000 beds within 19 off‐campus student housing communities. CollegeTown Construction CollegeTown Construction is a Capstone Company focused on the construction of our “Campus Edge” product, which as previously noted, are high‐density, mixed‐use student housing communities within walking/biking distance from the campus and/or convenient to mass transit. CollegeTown has also provided construction services for our acquisition and renovation projects. Finally, CollegeTown provides construction management services for all of our on‐campus projects. Commitment to Sustainability Capstone is committed to incorporating sustainability into all aspects of our partnerships: Beginning with design, and extending to construction as well as the operations of our on‐campus student housing communities. We are a corporate member of the United States Green Building Council, and currently have fourteen key personnel within the Capstone Companies who have achieved the LEED® Accredited Professional designation. We believe sustainable housing communities help our university partners save money through increased building efficiencies and provide a better quality of life for the student residents. We also believe in going beyond design and construction to incorporate sustainable practices into the operations and the education of our residents. Capstone has been responsible for the development of five on‐campus housing communities that were designed and constructed to achieve LEED® certification. Shown from left to right: Left Capstone’s Student Housing Community on the Clarion University Campus / Completed January 2009 / CERTIFIED LEED ®SILVER MARCH 2010. Middle Capstone’s Student Housing Community on the Queens College Campus / Completed August 2009 / Designed and Constructed to Achieve LEED® Silver Certification (Application in Process) Right Capstone’s Student Housing Community (Building 7) on The University of Maryland College Park Campus / Completed January 2010 / CERTIFIED LEED® GOLD JUNE 2010) Shown from left to right: Left Capstone’s Student Housing Community on the Florida Atlantic University Campus, designed & constructed to achieve LEED® Silver. Construction currently underway for August 2011 delivery. Right Capstone’s Student Housing Community on the Towson University Campus (Towson West Village Phase 2), designed & constructed to Achieve LEED® Silver Certification. Construction underway for an August 2011 delivery. Biographical Information for Key Personnel of The Capstone Companies MICHAEL A. MOURON, PRESIDENT/CHAIRMAN | Mike formed Capstone Development Corp. in 1990 to serve Colleges and Universities with student housing needs. As the President/Chairman of Capstone, Mike is responsible for establishing and implementing the company’s strategic planning. Mike’s leadership style is “hands‐ on,” and as a result he is often involved in key meetings and used as a resource for developmental challenges. He has over 25 years of student housing development experience. ROB HOWLAND, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER | Rob began his career with Capstone in 1993. He began with Capstone supervising the accounting department for Capstone Properties Corp. before joining the development division of the company in 1995. He was later promoted to Senior VP for Off‐Campus Development, where he helped coordinate and expand Capstone’s student housing program. In 2000, Rob was promoted to President of Capstone Properties Corp. In that position, Rob was responsible for all operations related to Capstone’s off‐campus student housing Communities. In 2006, Rob was promoted to Chief Operating Officer for the Capstone Companies, where he is responsible for such matters as accounting, insurance, finance, treasury functions, asset disposition, and other significant functions. JEFF JONES, EVP, CAMPUS EDGE / MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT | Jeff joined Capstone in 1991, shortly after its formation. He has been involved in all aspects of Capstone’s college housing development program, including investigation and selection of markets and sites, raising debt and equity, structuring partnerships, and handling regulatory, zoning, legal, and financing work related to Capstone’s student housing developments across the U.S. Jeff was involved in all of the 20 (+) student residential communities developed by Capstone for the company’s own account from 1991 through 1999. As the leader of the Campus Edge division, He is focused on the development of sites within walking/biking distance from the campus and/or convenient to mass transit, predominantly in partnership with colleges and universities. JOHN E. VAWTER, PRESIDENT COTTAGE BUILDERS | John is one of the founding members of Capstone, with over 20 years in student housing development. He began his career at Capstone in residential site acquisitions and transitioned to overall development. In 2000, John focused his efforts on opportunities west of the Rocky Mountains, managing the opening and operations of Capstone’s West Coast regional office in Encinitas California. In 2004, he moved back to Capstone’s headquarters to lead Capstone’s Cottage Development Division. BRUCE MCKEE, EVP URBAN AND CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT | Bruce joined Capstone in 2003. His division focuses specifically on urban development and projects that merge the interests of community revitalization with local colleges/universities. He brings the experience of successfully completing projects in highly urban environments including projects from NYC to Phoenix, and other urban communities across the country. He is an active participant in the development process and brings educational and professional experience in both architecture and construction. He has been actively working with colleges and university clients for nearly 15 years and has served as the project executive for the design and construction of dozens of university projects ranging from housing to academic and recreation facilities. ALTON IRWIN, EVP MARKETING | Alton joined Capstone in 1995, shortly after Capstone formed its On‐Campus Division. He is responsible for Capstone’s marketing programs and new business development. He also participates in Capstone’s innovative “Fresh Eyes Consulting,” which is a consulting service designed to help universities position their on‐campus housing programs to achieve enrollment management objectives. Prior to joining Capstone, Alton performed the majority of the real estate appraisals used by Capstone for securing construction and long‐term financing for new, off‐campus student housing communities. Alton is a member of the Business Marketing Association, holds the MAI designation (the Appraisal Institute), and is a LEED® Accredited Professional. DOUGLAS R. BROWN, PRESIDENT, CAPSTONE ON‐CAMPUS MANAGEMENT| Doug joined Capstone in 2003. He brings over 20 years of experience as a university administrator, in which he was committed to building strong campus communities. From hall director to Associate Vice Chancellor of Business and Student Services, Doug has experienced first‐hand the important role quality student housing plays in the recruitment and retention of students. As President of Capstone Management, he leads a team of highly qualified, professional managers experienced in student development and property management. Doug also leads Capstone’s “Fresh Eyes Consulting,” which is a consulting service designed to help universities position their on‐campus housing programs to achieve enrollment management objectives. WILLIAM DAVENPORT, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT FOR FINANCE | Will joined Capstone in 1996, and works with Capstone’s finance department. He is involved in tax‐exempt on‐campus financings, as well as conventional debt and equity transactions. Twelve years ago, working with principals at Capstone, Will established the underwriting structure of non‐recourse, tax‐exempt bond issuance for student housing that has to date been the industry standard for on‐campus public/private development. Since joining Capstone, Will and his peers in the finance department have been responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars in student housing financings, both tax‐exempt and taxable. Will works with our university partners in much of a financial advisory role, presenting capital options for university review, and once the most advantageous funding structure is determined, managing the process through the close. He also works directly with rating agencies, credit enhancing entities, underwriters, banks and equity sources to develop new methods and offerings of project finance. JOSEPH F. HARRISON, PRESIDENT COLLEGETOWN CONSTRUCTION | Joe joined Capstone in 1998, and has over 30 years of experience in development and general contracting. As the president of CollegeTown, Joe focuses on the construction of Capstone’s “Campus Edge” projects, which are high‐density, mixed‐use student housing communities, within walking distance to campuses and/or convenient to mass transit. CollegeTown also serves as Construction Manager for Capstone in providing oversight and quality control for Capstone’s work with third‐party general contractors for both on and off‐campus projects. Joe holds a Bachelor of Science in Building Construction and a Masters in Business Administration, both obtained from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and is a LEED® Accredited Professional. Joe has also held a General Contractor’s license since 1981. BEN WALKER, PRESIDENT CAPSTONE PROPERTIES | Ben joined Capstone in 1998 after graduating from The University of Alabama. Ben has served in various roles with the company throughout his career and was most recently a Development Manager and Senior Vice President of the Cottage Division. He was responsible for all aspects of development from land acquisition, entitlements, financial modeling through construction and lease up. In July 2010 Ben was promoted to President of Capstone Properties. In this role, Ben is responsible for all aspects of leasing, operations and management of Capstone’s off‐campus student housing communities. RICK HANSEN, SVP ACQUISITIONS AND RENOVATIONS DIVISION | Rick joined Capstone in 2007. As head of the Acquisitions and Renovations Division, Rick leads a team that acquires, renovates and repositions older, structurally sound properties in prime, near‐campus locations, within university markets across the country. Rick has been in the multi‐family development, construction, investment and management business for over 25 years. In that time he developed over 2,000 new units across the southeast and was also the general contractor for approximately 500 of those units. Rick also acquired, renovated and repositioned over 1,000 existing units using a variety of different financing structures. Capstone References Arizona State University (Development and Management) Steve Nielsen Director of ASU Real Estate Services 541 E. Van Buren Street Phoenix, AZ 85004 480.965.7616 stevennielsen@asu.edu Rich Stanley Senior VP and University Planner 541 E. Van Buren Street Phoenix, AZ 85004 480.727.8037 Richard.H.Stanley@asu.edu City University of New York (Development and Management) Donal Farley Special Assistant to Chancellor 585 E 80th St New York, NY 10021 212.794.5401 Marshall University (Development and Management) Dr. Stephen J. Kopp President Old Main 216 / One John Marshall Drive Huntington, WV 25755‐1000 304.696.2300 kopp@marshall.edu Queens College (Development and Management) Dr. James Muyskens President Kiely 1200 65‐30 Kissena Boulevard Flushing, NY 11367 718.997.5550 james.muyskens@qc.cuny.edu University of Maryland College Park (Development and Management) Dr. Patricia L. Mielke Former VP Student Affairs 15136 E. Staghorn Dr. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 480‐219‐1193 pmielke@umd.edu Towson University (Development and Management) Jim Sheehan VP Administration and Finance / CFO Administration Building, Room 401A 8000 York Road Towson, Maryland 21252 410.704.2151 jsheehan@towson.edu Francis Marion University (Development and Management) John J. Kispert Vice President of Business Affairs Box 100547 Florence, SC 29501 843.661.1110 Jkispert@fmarion.edu University of Alabama, Birmingham (Development and Management) Marc Booker Director of Student Housing and Residential Life DNMH 101 1530 3rd Avenue South Birmingham, Alabama 35294‐1230 205.934.2420 mbooker@uab.edu Green River Community College (Development and Management) Deborah Casey, Ph.D. Assistant Dean of Student Services Green River Community College 12401 SE 320th St. Auburn, WA 98092‐3622 253.288.3328 dcasey@greenriver.edu Massachusetts College of Art & Design (Management Only) Ms. Kate Murray Assistant Director Massachusetts State Building Authority 136 Lincoln Street Boston, MA 02111 617.542.1081 kmurray@mscba.org Clayton State University (Management Only) Dr. Brian Haynes Vice President for Student Affairs 2000 Clayton State Blvd. / University Center‐250 Morrow, GA 30260 678.466.5444 BrianHaynes@clayton.edu Midtown Commercial Corridor O Major Streets Midtown Commercial Corridor S SHIELDS ST S COLLEGE AVE S LEMAY AVE E DRAKE RD W DRAKE RD E PROSPECT RD W PROSPECT RD W HARMONY RD E HORSETOOTH RD W HORSETOOTH RD E HARMONY RD S LEMAY AVE April 2011 1 inch = 2,100 feet ATTACHMENT 2 Prospect South Study Area O Major Streets Prospect South Study Area S COLLEGE AVE W PROSPECT RD E PROSPECT RD 1 inch = 350 feet April 2011 Capstone Site Map O Capstone Site Property Line Major Streets S COLLEGE AVE W PROSPECT RD E PROSPECT RD 1 inch = 210 feet July 2011 Project Site ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 4 1 1 Redevelopment Agreement with Capstone Development for ““The The Commons”” Commons Urban Renewal Authority Board Meeting September 13, 2011 2 Project Overview •• LEED Certified •• 220 Student Housing Units (670 beds) •• 8,000 sq.ft. ft . retail (street level) •• $44 million total project cost •• $5 million tax increment financing request •• Projected opening date: Fall 2013 ATTACHMENT 4 2 3 Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Area Prospect South TIF District 4 ATTACHMENT 4 3 5 Existing Blight Factors Deteriorating structures, unusual topography, inadequate public improvements –– overhead utility lines 6 Existing Blight Factors Inadequate lot layout, unsafe conditions (floodway/floodplain) ATTACHMENT 4 4 7 Existing Blight Factors Undevelopable and underutilized site 8 ATTACHMENT 4 5 9 1997 Flood Damage •• 4 of 5 deaths at former trailer park on project site •• Exceeded 100-100 -year and 500-500 - year flows •• $5 million spent on Spring Creek stormwater improvements •• Rainfall records for largest 1-1 -day, 33--hour, and 6-6 -hour precipitation totals •• 14.5 inches* of rain over 31-31 -hour period (*typical annual precipitation amount) 10 Site Opportunities •• Gateway to CSU •• Elimination of underutilized parcel (vacant, vandalized, undevelopable) •• Synergy with Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit •• Bring site up to the highest and best use •• Facilitate additional redevelopment in close proximity to the site •• Proximity for students to access CSU campus ATTACHMENT 4 6 11 Student Housing Need City Plan Policy LIV 7.7 –– Accommodate the Student Population ““Plan Plan for and incorporate new housing for the student population on campuses and in areas near educational campuses and/or that are well served by public transportation. ”” 12 Capstone’’s Capstone s Process •• Feb. 2008 –– Land acquisition initiated •• Oct. 2008 –– Project Development Plan complete •• Aug. 2011 –– Final Development Plan complete •• Sep. 2011 –– Development construction permit •• Sep. 2011 –– Infrastructure and Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) •• Jun. 2012 –– Building construction and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) •• Jun. 2013 –– Complete construction •• Aug. 2013 –– Student move-move -in ATTACHMENT 4 7 13 Project Overview •• LEED Certified •• 220 Student Housing Units (670 beds) •• 8,000 sq.ft. ft . retail (street level) •• CLOMR approved in 2010 •• LEED checklist benchmarked building features •• City Utilities IDAP program •• $44 million total project cost •• Projected opening date: Fall 2013 14 ATTACHMENT 4 8 15 City Plan Principles •• EH 4.1 Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas •• EH 4.2 Reduce Barriers to Infill development and Redevelopment •• LIV 5.1 Encourage targeted Redevelopment and Infill •• LIV 5.2 Target Public Investment along Community Spine •• LIV 7.7 Accommodate the Student Population •• LIV 35.4 Transform through Infill and Redevelopment •• LIV 37.3 Supporting Uses and Housing (Campus Districts) 16 Existing buildings Discount Tire Stuart St. Dairy Queen Mason Corridor BRT and BNSF Railroad ATTACHMENT 4 9 17 Public Improvements –– New Water Service 18 Public Improvements –– Improved Public Access ATTACHMENT 4 10 19 Public Improvements –– Underground Electric/Data Utilities 20 Public Improvements –– Sanitary Sewer ATTACHMENT 4 11 21 Public Improvements –– Flood Control 22 Public Improvements –– Stormsewer Line ATTACHMENT 4 12 23 Public Improvements –– Right of Way 24 Public Improvements –– Bike/ Ped Connection ATTACHMENT 4 13 25 Public Improvements –– Streetscape Enhancement 26 Sustainable Features •• ““low low E”” E windows w/ Solar Heat Gain glazing •• Energy Star approved white membrane TPO roof •• Xeriscaping with native plant species •• Rain leaders for stormwater runoff to the landscaping •• ““low low flow”” flow water fixtures for all indoor plumbing •• Energy Star appliances for all units •• Gas heat and gas water heating upgrades •• Enhanced insulation systems ATTACHMENT 4 14 27 Sustainable Features ( con’’tt)con ) •• High-High -efficiency lighting •• Low VOC adhesives and paint during construction •• On-On -site recycling centers for residents •• Occupant Environmental awareness/education •• Light pollution reduction •• 36% of the site is landscaped area (baseline is 20%) •• Stormwater best management practices to reduce pollutants •• Purchase ““green green power”” power for 35% of the utilities 28 Sustainable Features ( con’’tt)con ) •• 12 parking spaces dedicated to low emitting/fuel efficient vehicles •• Bicycle racks for 200+ bikes (baseline is 23) •• Alternative Transportation access and parking agreement with CSU •• 100’’ 100 buffer zone from Spring Creek Park •• Tree mitigation/enhance –– 118 trees on-on -site, 108 to be removed –– 156 new trees to be planted •• Construction Waste Management Plan for all construction (new and demolition) ATTACHMENT 4 15 29 Financial Facts •• $44 million project •• $9 million Developer equity •• $35 million Construction loan (if URA approves) •• TIF request for funding gap $5 million •• Project percentage = 11% of the total project •• Reimbursement projected to occur in Q3 -2013 30 Project Costs Equity Construction Loan URA Contribution $5 M $30 M $9 M $44 M Total 11% 68% 21% ATTACHMENT 4 16 31 Summary of Extraordinary Costs •• Stormwater/Sewer/Floodplain infrastructure •• Land Acquisition/Easements/Demolition •• Utilities/Transportation Infrastructure •• Energy and Environmental –– LEED certified –– Green Building Code 32 Project Cost Per Acre Comparison •• North College Marketplace $1.54 million/acre •• Union Place $2.7 million/acre •• Rocky Mountain IInnnnoosspphheerree $3.56 million/acre •• The Commons* $4.4 million/acre * The Commons is the most difficult and most expensive site in comparison to other projects. ATTACHMENT 4 17 33 Predicted Total TIF 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% The Commons SHARED BACK W/PROJECT •• FINANCE CHARGES •• AVAILABLE (63%) (25%) (12%) = $8M $5M $2M $1M 34 Old Plan vs. New Plan 2008 •• 220 units Student Housing •• 50,000 ssqqfftt Commercial •• $13.7M in tax increment –– Request = 36% –– With Financing = 51% 2011 •• 220 units Student Housing •• 8,000 ssqqfftt Commercial •• $8.0M in tax increment –– Request = 63% –– With Financing = 88% ATTACHMENT 4 18 35 Property Value Assessment Rate Commercial Assessment vs. Residential Assessment Commercial Rate = 29% Residential Rate = 7.96% Example (Value x Assessment Rate x Mill Levy): Commercial ($100,000 x 29% x 0.08963 = $2,599) Residential ($100,000 x 7.96% x 0.08963 = $713) 36 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Valley Steel NC MktPlace Union Place Kaufman & Robinson RMI- Innosphere Habitat for Humanity JAX NECCO The Commons SHARED BACK W/PROJECT • FINANCE CHARGES • AVAILABLE = $4.3M (86%) = $600K (37%) = $4.3M (66%) = $15.5M (72%) = $510K (26%) (51%) (22%) (20%) (74%) (28%) (4%) Chart of Projects = $130K (99%) = $656K (33%) $110K $20K $380K $8.0M $3.1M $4.4M $2.2M $600K $1.5M $193K $32K $375K $2.8M $900K $600K $107K $22K $1K $172K $47K $412K (52%) (14%) 35%) (32%) (5%) (63%) (82%) (17%) (1%) (26%) (7%) (63%) (65%) (21%) (14%) = $424K (100%) = $8M (88%) $326K $98K (77%) (23%) $5M $2M (63%) (25%) (12%) $1M ATTACHMENT 4 19 37 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Valley Steel NC MktPlace Union Place Kaufman & Robinson RMI- Innosphere SHARED BACK W/PROJECT • FINANCE CHARGES • AVAILABLE = $4.3M (86%) = $600K (37%) = $4.3M (66%) = $15.5M (72%) = $510K (26%) (51%) (22%) (20%) (74%) (28%) (4%) Chart of Projects $110K $20K $380K $8.0M $3.1M $4.4M $2.2M $600K $1.5M $193K $32K $375K $2.8M $900K $600K (52%) (14%) (35%) (32%) (5%) (63%) (65%) (21%) (14%) 38 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Habitat for Humanity JAX NECCO The Commons SHARED BACK W/PROJECT • FINANCE CHARGES • AVAILABLE Chart of Projects = $130K (99%) = $656K (33%) $107K $22K $1K $172K $47K $412K (82%) (17%) (1%) (26%) (7%) (63%) = $424K (100%) = $8M (88%) $326K $98K (77%) (23%) $5M $2M (63%) (25%) (12%) $1M ATTACHMENT 4 20 39 Internal Rate of Return (IRR) •• Analysis indicates a 9.48% Internal Rate of Return (IRR) (unleveraged) without any tax increment. •• With the requested $5 million in tax increment the project IRR is 11.27% unleveraged. •• The analysis indicates the IRR is reasonable and not excessive rate of return for this project. 40 Redevelopment Agreement •• All Costs are on Reimbursement basis •• Certificate of Occupancy, no up-up -front release of funds •• Target Dates and Outside dates identified •• TIF is reduced by the proportional amount should the project complete construction no later than 2014 •• Reimbursable expenses itemized •• Procedures for reimbursement identified ATTACHMENT 4 21 41 URA Plan Objectives •• Facilitate Redevelopment •• Remedy Conditions that impair •• Redevelop in a compatible manner •• Utilize undeveloped and underdeveloped land •• Improve all modes of transportation circulation/safety •• Increase revenues for all taxing entities •• Pursue redevelopment when market opportunities exist 42 URA Policy Goals Met •• Infill site in a targeted redevelopment area •• Green development which exceeds adopted code minimums •• Student housing •• Proven financial gap through pprrooffoorrmmaa analysis •• Submitted FDP to Development Review ATTACHMENT 4 22 43 44 Recommendation Staff recommends the request for $5 million based on: •• Demonstrated financial need ( proforma analysis) •• Addresses a significant Student Housing need •• Targeted redevelopment area (Midtown/Mason) •• Elimination of blight •• Extraordinary site constraints •• Sustainability features (LEED certification) •• Met new URA Policy criteria prior to revised version •• Catalyst to further revitalization of Midtown •• Instant ridership on Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit ATTACHMENT 4 23 45 Excerpt – Council Finance Meeting Minutes 8/15/11 Approval of minutes Kelly Ohlson moved approval of the July minutes and Ben Manvel seconded. The July minutes are approved unanimously. Darin Atteberry stated that due to the lateness of the information for agenda item 2, it will be added to an upcoming agenda instead of this one. Capstone Project Christina Vincent presented an explanation of some changes to the Commons Capstone project. Based on the architectural renderings, Kelly Ohlson asked about the height of the building. It will be four stories, however it will have a slightly taller ground floor, where there is space for retail. Kelly Ohlson asked about phrase "will consider LEED standards". He stated that ‘consider’ isn’t strong enough wording in his opinion. The project contractor said that LEED standards will definitely be implemented. Mike Freeman clarified that contractor has seen the City’s ‘green’ requirements and has based the designs on it. There are at least 44 points of LEED standards addressed in the designs, another 11 that are likely to be implemented. Based on the information being presented regarding sustainability, Kelly Ohlson asked for more specific details on the on site recycling center, and on animal habitat disturbance. Ben Manvel asked about the new City storm drainage plan that is concurrently going on nearby. There has been a remapping of the spring creek basin. The contractor is familiar with that map and stated that it will actually help this project. Darin Atteberry said the new drainage plan will help the mason corridor project too. Action item. Darin Atteberry asked that a follow-up document for Council members be created based on the previously stated questions from Committee members. Specifically, a list the current items planned for floodplain should be included. Kelly Ohlson mentioned that the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) fee amount for this project appears high, and he asked whether there will be any TIF money left for usual things like alleys, sidewalks, landscaping. Mayor Karen Weitkunat asked if the Committee had any other questions before being able to recommend bringing this to the City Council. Ben Manvel and Kelly Ohlson both stated they like and support the project, but both agree that a TIF amount of 8 mils is very high. The Mayor stated she is interested to learn if or how the TIF money would benefit the public. This item comes to City Council on September 6, 2011. ATTACHMENT 5 RESOLUTION NO. 038 OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY APPROVING A FINANCIAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY AND CAPSTONE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR THE COMMONS PROJECT AT 1635 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE WHEREAS, Capstone Development Corporation, (the “Applicant”) desires to construct two buildings with approximately 220 units for student housing along with approximately 8,000 square feet of commercial space (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project is located within the boundaries of the Urban Renewal Plan Area described in the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan; and WHEREAS, the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the “Authority”) is authorized pursuant to Section 32-25-107(9) C.R.S. to fund projects utilizing property tax increment generated by redevelopment within the Urban Renewal Plan Area; and WHEREAS, the Project will require street, sewer, water, electric, and stormwater infrastructure improvements; and WHEREAS, Authority staff has been working with the Applicant to discuss ways in which the Authority can provide financial assistance that will enhance the likelihood that the Project will be built; and WHEREAS, the Applicant estimates that the total private investment in the Project will be approximately $44,000,000, including approximately $6,200,000 for public improvements that will not only address the impacts of the Project but will also benefit the community at large; and WHEREAS, the Authority calculates that the Project will generate approximately $8 million in property tax increment; and WHEREAS, Authority staff and the Applicant have discussed a financial assistance package that includes reimbursing the Applicant for constructing public improvements that would normally be the sole responsibility of the Applicant; and WHEREAS, Authority staff has prepared for the Board of Commissioners of the Authority (the “Board”) a proposed agreement between the Authority and the Applicant that sets forth the terms and conditions upon which financial assistance will be provided to the Applicant by the Authority (the “Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Board believes that the Agreement is in the best interests of the Authority. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY as follows: Section 1. That the Board hereby finds that it is in the best interests of the Authority to provide financial assistance to the Applicant pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in the Agreement because the Project will, within the Urban Renewal Plan Area, increase employment, improve the property and sales tax base, enhance and build public infrastructure, eliminate blight and otherwise further the purposes, goals, and objectives of the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan. Section 2. That the Agreement is hereby approved, and the Executive Director is authorized to execute the Agreement, subject to such modifications in form or substance as the Executive Director may, in consultation with the Authority Attorney, deem desirable and necessary to protect the Authority’s interests. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the City of Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority this 13th day of September A.D. 2011. Chairperson ATTEST: Secretary REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CAPSTONE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION INFILL DEVELOPMENT This Agreement is made and entered into as of _________________, 2011, by and between the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority, a body corporate and politic of the State of Colorado (the “Authority”), and Capstone Development Corp., an Alabama corporation (the “Developer”), together, “the Parties”. RECITALS WHEREAS, the purpose of this Agreement is to eliminate blight and otherwise implement and further the purposes, policies, goals, and objectives of the Urban Renewal Authority and the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan (the “Plan”); and WHEREAS, the Developer is the owner or has contractual control of the Property as described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Property is within the Urban Renewal Area described in the Plan under the Prospect South Tax Increment Financing District; and WHEREAS, the Parties wish to cooperate in the redevelopment of the Property in furtherance of the Plan by entering into this Agreement. AGREEMENT NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual obligations of the Parties and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows. SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS In this Agreement, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context: Act means the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, Part I of Article 25 of Title 31, C.R.S. Agreement means this Agreement, as it may be amended or supplemented in writing. References to sections or exhibits are to this Agreement unless otherwise qualified. Building or Buildings mean one or more of the buildings identified in Exhibit B. Certificate of Occupancy means the same meaning as set forth in the Fort Collins Land Use Code. 2 Certificate of Valuation means the certification by the Larimer County Assessor’s Office to determine predicted valuation of the Project once complete, and is attached as Exhibit F. City means the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. Commence Construction and Commencement of Construction mean the obtaining of a building, excavation, grading or similar permit for the construction of any portion of the Project and diligent prosecution of physical construction operations on the Property in a manner necessary to Complete Construction of the Project. Complete Construction and Completion of Construction with respect to the Improvements mean acceptance by the City or by the appropriate public body or public utility of the Improvements. With respect to the Buildings, Complete Construction and Completion of Construction mean that construction of the Buildings is complete in accordance with applicable laws, ordinances and regulations and that Certificates of Occupancy have been issued for the Buildings for their intended permitted use without restrictions. With respect to the Project, Complete Construction and Completion of Construction means that construction of the entire Project has been completed and all applicable buildings or spaces are ready to be occupied for their intended permitted use without restrictions. Contractually Controlled means the Developer is in control of the property with authority to carry out its duties required by this Agreement and that will ultimately result in fee title by the deadline set forth in the Schedule of Performance attached as Exhibit E. Control or Controlled by, with respect to any entity, means possession of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of the entity, whether through the ownership of voting securities, by contract, or otherwise. Developer means Capstone Development Corporation and any successors and assigns as may be permitted under section 2.9 of this Agreement or as may be approved by the Authority. Developer Financing means the financing described in Section 2.1. Development Agreement means the agreement required by the Land Use Code between the Developer and the City and attached as Exhibit G. Eligible Costs means the reasonable and necessary expenditures, certified by the Developer, for the Improvements and identified on Exhibit C and which were incurred after the execution of this Agreement. Final Development Plan means the recording of final mylars with the offices of the City Clerk and Larimer County Clerk prior to obtaining a development construction permit. A 3 preliminary and general plan describing conceptually what the Parties expect will be the Final Development Plan is the “Preliminary Development Plan” attached as Exhibit B. Improvements mean the improvements or activities and undertakings, and include certain fixtures in the Buildings, listed in Exhibit C that the Developer will construct in accordance with this Agreement. Land Use Code means the Fort Collins Land Use Code. Party or Parties means a party or the parties to this Agreement. Plan and Urban Renewal Plan mean the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan described in the Recitals. Project means the design, construction and reconstruction of all improvements, infrastructure, parking, streets, rights‐of‐way, buildings, structures, signage, and landscaping to be constructed on the Property pursuant to the Final Development Plan and Development Agreement dated __________, 2011, and includes the Improvements and Buildings. The term Project does not mean, refer to, or include any of the real estate and improvements shown on the Final Development Plan that is not owned by the Developer. Property means the real property owned or Contractually Controlled by the Developer in accordance with this Agreement and described in Exhibit A. Reimbursement Obligation means the obligation of the Authority to reimburse the Developer for the Eligible Costs in accordance with Section 3.1. Related Entity means any entity that is wholly owned and Controlled by the Developer. For purposes of this definition, the term “owned” means the ownership of 100% of the ownership interests in the entity; and the term “Controlled” shall have the meaning hereinabove set forth. Schedule of Performance means Exhibit E, the schedule that governs the times for the performance by the Developer. Urban Renewal Area means all of the area of real property, including public rights of way within the boundaries of the Urban Renewal Project as described and delineated in the Plan. SECTION 2. DEVELOPER OBLIGATIONS 2.1 Developer Financing. The Developer agrees to provide the Developer Financing currently expected to consist of approximately $8,900,000 in owner equity and $35,800,000 in loans. The terms of the Developer Financing must be consistent with the requirements of this Agreement and adequate to Complete Construction of the Project in accordance with this 4 Agreement. Subject to obtaining Developer Financing, the Developer represents and agrees that it has the financial and legal ability and can bear the economic risk of financing and achieving Completion of Construction of the Project, the costs of which are to be paid in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the approved construction documents. 2.2 Demolition, Clearance and Preparation of the Property. The Developer will demolish and clear any existing improvements from the Property and prepare the Property for construction of the Improvements. This work shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of all applicable laws, rules, and regulations, including those of the City. 2.3 Design and Construction of the Project. The Developer is responsible for obtaining and reviewing all information that the Developer believes is necessary or desirable to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement. Subject to obtaining the Developer Financing, the Developer agrees to construct the Project in accordance with this Agreement. See Exhibit E for inside and outside dates for obtaining Developer Financing and Completion of Construction of the Improvements, Buildings, and the Project. The Developer, subject to the approval of the Authority, shall have sole responsibility for the design, development and construction of the Improvements, including without limitation, design, construction, selection, and supervision of any architects, engineers, and consultants. For construction of the Project, the Developer agrees to select contractors that the Developer’s architect deems qualified by experience to construct of Project of this quality and caliber. All Eligible Costs shall not exceed the $5,000,000 Reimbursement Obligation maximum. 2.4 Approval of the Construction Documents and Modifications to the Final Development Plan. The Developer shall prepare and obtain the approval of the Authority and the City, including, but not limited to, the City’s development process, of all construction documents related to construction of the Project and the Final Development Plan. Approval by the Authority shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. 2.5 Construction of the Improvements. Subject to obtaining the Developer Financing, the Developer shall Commence Construction and Complete Construction of the Improvements in the same industry standard manner as the balance of the Project. These activities will occur on or before the dates specified in this Agreement, in Exhibit E. All construction activities shall conform to all applicable laws, codes, ordinances, and policies 2.6 Property Ownership. Developer Agrees to have the Property purchased and titled in its name no later than the date set forth in the Schedule for Performance, and specifically acknowledges that the failure to do so will result in the immediate termination of this Agreement. 2.7 Books and Accounts; Financial Statement. The Developer will keep, or cause to be kept, proper and current books and accounts in which the complete and accurate entries shall be 5 made of amounts paid out, and such other calculations, allocations and payments as are necessary to construct the Project. 2.8 Inspection of Records. All books, records and reports in the possession of the Developer relating to the Project shall at all reasonable times be open to inspection (at Authority expense) by such accountants or other agents as the Authority may from time to time designate. 2.9 Restrictions on Assignment and Transfer. Except as hereinafter permitted, prior to Completion of Construction of the Project the Developer shall not assign or transfer all or any part of or any interest in this Agreement or the Property without the prior written Approval of the Authority, which Approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. For the purposes of this Agreement (a) an assignment or transfer shall include a change in the identity of the parties in Control of the Developer, and (b) unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed shall mean failing to approve within ten business days without identifying legitimate concerns of the Authority related to, but not limited to, the generation of tax increment and preservation and promotion of the Plan. The Developer shall promptly notify the Authority of any and all changes whatsoever in the identity of the parties in Control of the Developer, or the degree thereof. No voluntary or involuntary successor in interest of the Developer shall acquire any rights or powers under this Agreement except as expressly set forth herein. Approval of an assignment or transfer by the Authority shall not relieve the Developer of its obligations hereunder to Complete Construction of the entire Project, unless the Authority agrees in writing. The foregoing Restriction on Assignment and Transfer shall terminate upon Completion of Construction of the Project. Notwithstanding the foregoing, subject to receipt and Approval of all relevant documents confirming such transfer or assignment, the Developer may: (i) assign this Agreement and transfer the Property to a Related Entity of the Developer; (ii) collaterally assign its right to receive reimbursement under this Agreement to any lender that provides all or any portion of the Developer Financing, provided that any document assigning the Developer’s right to receive reimbursement hereunder shall specifically provide that no reimbursement will be made by the Authority unless and until Completion of Construction of the entire Project by the Developer; (iii) enter into a contract to sell all or a portion of the Project upon Completion of Construction of the entire Project, provided that a closing of any such sale may not occur prior to Completion of Construction of the entire Project by the Developer and final payment of the Authority’s Reimbursement Obligation. Any permitted assignment of this Agreement or transfer of the Property shall not relieve the Developer of its obligation to complete Construction of the entire Project pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 2.10 Progress Reports. The Improvements shall be constructed by the Developer in accordance with all applicable laws, ordinances, standards and policies. Until Completion of Construction of the Project the Developer shall make reports in such detail and at such times as the Authority may reasonably request as to Developer’s progress with respect to the 6 Commencement of Construction, the progress of construction and the Completion of Construction as described in Exhibit E. 2.11 Protesting the Actual Value Determined by the Larimer County Assessor. The Developer, including any assignees and successors, agrees and acknowledges that the Reimbursement Obligation is funded by the Larimer County Assessor’s collection of property taxes. Consequently, Developer, and any assignees or successors, agrees for a period of 25 years from the date of this Agreement or to the termination of the Plan, which ever shall come first that if the Actual Value determined by the Larimer County Assessor is at or below the value set forth in the Certificate of Valuation (the “Valuation”) relied on by the Authority, and attached to this Agreement as Exhibit F, it will not protest the Actual Valuation of the Property determined by the Larimer County Assessor in an effort to reduce the property tax for the Property. If Developer, or any assignee or successor, either (i) protests the Actual Value when it is at or below the value set forth in the Valuation, or (ii) protests the Actual Valuation and succeeds in reducing it to an amount less than the Valuation, the full amount of the Reimbursement Obligation will be immediately due and payable to the Authority. The Developer will file a covenant with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder reflecting this representation and agreement (“the Covenant Not to Protest”) no later than 30 days after the execution of this Agreement. In the event this Agreement is terminated for any reason whatsoever, the Covenant Not to Protest shall immediately and automatically terminate, become null and void, and be of no further force or effect. Upon termination of this Agreement, the Authority shall execute, acknowledge and deliver to the Developer such documents or instruments as may be necessary or reasonably required by a title company to delete and remove the Covenant Not to Protest from the chain of title to the Property. SECTION 3. AUTHORITY OBLIGATIONS 3.1 Reimbursement Obligation. The Reimbursement Obligation of the Authority is the obligation to pay to the Developer the Eligible Costs incurred and certified by the Developer. The Reimbursement Obligation will only be paid by the Authority to the Developer no sooner than 45 days after the Completion of Construction of the Project as shown in the Final Development Plan. The Parties agree and acknowledge that the Reimbursement Obligation will not exceed Five million dollars ($5,000,000). The Reimbursement Obligation is limited to those Improvements set forth in Exhibit C. Procedures for documenting and payment of the Eligible Costs are set forth in Exhibit D. It is the intent of the Parties that the Reimbursement Obligation is an incentive to the Developer to develop the Property consistent with this Agreement, the Development Agreement, and the Final Development Plan. Consequently, the Developer may reallocate cost savings within the line items listed on Exhibit C to cover cost overruns on other line items on Exhibit C subject to approval of the Executive Director of the Authority, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. For purposes of this Section, Developer requests to reallocate line item totals that result in a greater than 35% change in the totals shown on Exhibit C, as of the execution date of 7 this Agreement, are deemed by the Parties to be unreasonable. If the cost savings exceed the cost overruns, the remaining savings will be deducted from the Five million ($5,000,000) cap for the Reimbursement Obligation. The Parties expressly agree that in no event shall the Reimbursement Obligation exceed Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000); provided, however, that if Completion of Construction does not occur before the Target Dates set forth on Exhibit E and the Project timeline slips to the Outside Dates, the maximum amount of the Reimbursement Obligation shall not exceed Four Million Six Hundred Sixty Thousand Dollars ($4,660,000). A portion of the Reimbursement Obligation of the Authority in the amount of Eight Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($875,000) (the “Commercial Reimbursement”) shall be conditional and contingent upon the Developer leasing approximately 8,000 gross square feet of commercial space (the “Commercial Space”). The Authority will pay the Commercial Reimbursement to the Developer within 30 days after the Developer provides to the Authority fully executed leases for the Commercial Space that provide for occupation of the Commercial Space with 9 months of their execution (the “Commercial Leases”). If the Commercial Leases are not presented to the Authority within 3 years after Completion of Construction, the Developer shall have waived and released its right to receive the Commercial Reimbursement. The balance of the Reimbursement Obligation, excepting the Commercial Reimbursement, shall be paid to Developer within 45 days after Completion of Construction and as provided in Exhibit D. 3.2 Authority Financing. The Authority shall act in good faith and use all reasonable efforts to issue bonds, enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the City, or take such other action as may be necessary to ensure that the Authority has the financial ability to pay the Eligible Costs and otherwise perform its obligations under this Agreement. 3.3 Limitation. The Authority shall not enter into any agreement or transaction that impairs the rights of Developer under this Agreement, including, without limitation, the right to receive reimbursement for the Eligible Costs allocated to it in accordance with the procedures established in this Agreement; provided, however, nothing herein shall preclude the Authority from entering into other financial obligations with regard to the Project so long as the Authority in its reasonable discretion concludes that its actions do not and will not in the future interfere with its obligations hereunder. SECTION 4. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION 4.1 Insurance. At all times while the Developer is engaged in preliminary work on the Property or adjacent streets and during the period from the Commencement of Construction until Completion of Construction of the Project, the Developer shall carry, or cause its general contractor to carry, and, upon request, will provide the Authority with proof of payment of premiums and certificates of insurance as follows: 8 a. Builder’s risk insurance (with a deductible not to exceed $5,000) in an amount equal to 100% of the replacement value of the Improvements at the date of Completion of Construction; b. Comprehensive general liability insurance (including operations, contingent liability, operations of subcontractors, completed operations, and contractual liability insurance) and umbrella liability insurance with a combined single limit for both bodily injury and property damage of not less than $1,000,000. Such insurance may carry a deductible in an amount not to exceed $10,000 per claim for property damage and $5,000 per claim for employee benefits; and c. Worker’s compensation insurance, with statutory coverage, including the amount of deductible permitted by statute. All such insurance policies shall be issued by responsible companies selected or approved by the Developer, subject to the reasonable Approval of the Authority and the City. The Developer shall deliver to the Authority and the City policies or certificates evidencing or stating that such insurance is in force and effect. Each policy shall contain a provision that the insurer shall not cancel or modify it without giving written notice to the Developer and to the Authority and the City at least 30 days before the date the cancellation or modification becomes effective and shall name the Authority and the City as additional insureds, specifying that the insurance shall be treated as primary insurance. 4.2 Indemnification. The Developer shall defend, indemnify, assume all responsibility for and hold the Authority, the Authority’s commissioners, the City, the City’s council members, and the officers and employees of the City and the Authority harmless (including, without limitation, for attorneys’ fees and costs) from all claims or suits for and damages to property and injuries to persons, including accidental death, that may be caused by any of the Developer’s construction activities under this Agreement or while making tests or surveys on the Property, the Improvements, or the Buildings whether such activities are undertaken by the Developer or anyone directly or indirectly employed by or under contract to the Developer and whether such damage shall accrue or be discovered before or after termination of this Agreement. SECTION 5. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES 5.1 The Developer represents and warrants as follows: a. The Developer is a corporation under no disability, qualified to do business in the State of Colorado, and has the legal capacity and the authority to 9 enter into and perform its obligations under this Agreement. The Developer has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement; b. The execution and delivery of this Agreement and such documents and the performance and observance of their terms, conditions and obligations have been duly and validly authorized by all necessary action to make this Agreement and such documents and such performance and observance are valid and binding upon the Developer; c. The execution and delivery of this Agreement and the documents required hereunder and the consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement will not i. conflict with or contravene any law, order, rule or regulation applicable to the Developer or to its governing documents, ii. result in the breach of any of the terms or provisions or constitute a default under any agreement or other instrument to which the Developer is a party or by which the Developer may be bound or affected, or iii. permit any party to terminate any such agreement or instruments or to accelerate the maturity of any indebtedness or other obligation of the Developer; d. The Developer knows of no litigation, proceeding, initiative, referendum, or investigation or threat or any of the same contesting the powers of the Authority, the City, the Developer with respect to this Agreement that has not been disclosed in writing to the Authority; and e. The Developer has the necessary legal ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement and has the necessary financial ability, through borrowing or otherwise, to construct the Improvements subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. This Agreement constitutes a valid and binding obligation of the Developer, enforceable according to its terms, except to the extent limited by bankruptcy, insolvency and other laws of general application affecting creditors’ rights and by equitable principles, whether considered at law or in equity. 5.2 The Authority represents and warrants as follows: a. The Authority is an urban renewal authority duly organized and existing under applicable law and has the right, power, legal capacity, and the authority to enter into the Agreement and has authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by proper action of its Board of Commissioners; 10 b. The Authority knows of no litigation or threatened litigation, proceeding or investigation contesting the powers of the Authority or its officials with respect to the Project, this Agreement, or the Improvements that has not been disclosed to the Developer; c. The execution and delivery of this Agreement and the documents required hereunder and the consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement will not i. conflict with or contravene any law, order, rule or regulation applicable to the Authority or to its governing documents, ii. result in the breach of any of the terms or provisions or constitute a default under any agreement or other instrument to which the Authority is a party or by which it may be bound or affected, or iii. permit any party to terminate any such agreement or instruments or to accelerate the maturity of any indebtedness or other obligation of the Authority; and d. This Agreement constitutes a valid and binding obligation of the Authority, enforceable according to its terms, except to the extent limited by bankruptcy, insolvency and other laws of general application affecting creditors’ rights and by equitable principles, whether considered at law or in equity. The Authority will defend the validity of this Agreement in the event of any litigation arising hereunder that names the Authority as a party or which challenges the authority of the Authority to enter into or perform its obligations hereunder. SECTION 6. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES 6.1 Default by Developer. Default by Developer under the Agreement shall mean one or more of the following events: a. The Developer fails to obtain the Developer Financing as required and set forth in the Schedule for Performance; b. The Developer, in violation of Section 2.9 of this Agreement, assigns this Agreement or transfers any part of the Property, or any rights in the same; c. There is any change in Control of the Developer or in the identity of the parties in Control of the Developer that violates this Agreement; 11 d. The Developer fails to provide the approved construction documents in accordance with this Agreement; e. The Developer fails to Commence Construction within a reasonable period of time after: (i) approval of the Final Development Plan, final construction drawings and issuance of permits by the City; (ii) funding of the Developer Financing and (iii) approval of revisions to the flood plain maps by FEMA; but in no event shall Developer fail to Commence Construction later than the Outside Deadline required by Exhibit E of this Agreement; f. The Developer fails to purchase the Property by the Outside Deadline required in Exhibit E of this Agreement; g. The Developer fails to materially observe or perform any other covenant, obligation or agreement required of it under this Agreement; or h. Subject to the terms of Section 2.11, the Developer attempts to protest the actual value of the Property with the Larimer County Assessor. If any Default is not cured within the time provided in Section 6.3 then the Authority may exercise any remedy available under this Agreement. 6.2 Default by the Authority under the Agreement shall mean one or more of the following events: a. The Authority fails to pay the Eligible Costs in violation of this Agreement; or b. The Authority fails to materially observe or perform any covenant, obligation or agreement required of it under the Agreement. 6.3 Grace Periods. Upon a Default by either Party, that Party shall, upon written notice from the non‐defaulting Party, proceed immediately to cure or remedy the Default and, in any event, the Default shall be cured within 30 days (90 days if the Default relates to the Outside Deadline for Completion of Construction) after receipt of such notice, or the cure shall be commenced and diligently pursued to completion within a reasonable time if curing cannot be reasonably accomplished within 30 days, or 90 days if the Default relates to the Outside Deadline for Completion of Construction. 6.4 Remedies on Default. Whenever any Default occurs and is not cured under Section 6.3, the non‐defaulting Party may take any one or more of the following actions: 12 a. Suspend performance under this Agreement until it receives assurances from the defaulting Party, deemed adequate by the non‐defaulting Party, that the defaulting Party will cure its default and continue its performance under this Agreement; b. Cancel and rescind the Agreement; provided, however, that if the default is related to Developer failing to meet a Outside Deadline in Exhibit E, Developer will have an additional 30 days (90 days if the Default relates to an Outside Deadline for Completion of Construction) to cure prior to the Authority seeking this remedy; or c. Take whatever legal or administrative action or institute such proceedings as may be necessary or desirable in its opinion to enforce observance or performance of this Agreement, including, without limitation, specific performance or to seek any other right or remedy at law or in equity, including damages. 6.5 Delays; Waivers. Any delay by either Party in instituting or prosecuting any actions or proceedings or otherwise asserting its rights under the Agreement shall not operate as a waiver of such rights or deprive it of or limit such rights in any way; nor shall any waiver in fact made by such Party with respect to any specific default by the other Party under the Agreement be considered or treated as a waiver of the rights with respect to any other defaults by the other Party under the Agreement or with respect to the particular default except to the extent specifically waived in writing. It is the intent of the Parties that this provision will enable each Party to avoid the risk of being limited in the exercise of the remedy provided in the Agreement by waiver, laches or otherwise in the exercise of such remedy at a time when it may still hope to resolve the problems created by the default involved. 6.6 Enforced Delays. Any delays in or failure of performance by any Party of its obligations under this Agreement shall be excused if such delays or failure are a result of acts of God, fires, floods, strikes, labor disputes, accidents, regulations, order of civil or military authorities, shortages of labor or materials, or other causes, similar or dissimilar, that are beyond the control of such Party. 6.7 Rights and Remedies Cumulative. The rights and remedies of the Parties to the Agreement are cumulative, and the exercise by either Party of any one or more of such remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other such remedies for any other default or breach by any other Party. SECTION 7. MISCELLANEOUS 7.1 Conflicts of Interest. None of the following shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in the Agreement: A member of the governing body of the Authority or of the City; an 13 employee of the Authority or of the City who exercises responsibility concerning the Project, or an individual or firm retained by the City or the Authority who has performed consulting services in connection with the Project. None of the above persons or entities shall participate in any decision relating to the Agreement that affects his or her personal interests or the interests of any corporation, partnership or association in which he or she is directly or indirectly interested. 7.2 Antidiscrimination. The Developer, for itself and its successors and assigns, agrees that in the construction of the Improvements provided for in the Agreement and in the use and occupancy of the Property, the Developer will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment otherwise qualified because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability (subject to the availability of a reasonable accommodation of the disability), marital status, ancestry, or national origin. 7.3 Title of Sections. Any titles of the several parts and sections of the Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting any of its provisions. 7.4 No Third‐Party Beneficiaries. Except for specific rights in favor of mortgagees, no third‐ party beneficiary rights are created in favor of any person not a party to the Agreement. 7.5 Venue and Applicable Law. Any action arising out of the Agreement shall be brought in the Larimer County District Court and the laws of the State of Colorado shall govern the interpretation and enforcement of the Agreement. 7.6 Non‐liability of Authority Officials, Agents and Employees. No council member, board member, commissioner, official, employee, consultant, attorney or agent of the Authority or the City shall be personally liable to the Developer under the Agreement or in the event of any default or breach by the City or Authority or for any amount that may become due to the Developer under the Agreement. 7.7 Authority or City Not a Partner. Notwithstanding any language in this Agreement or any other agreement, representation, or warranty to the contrary, neither the Authority nor the City shall be deemed or constituted a partner or joint venturer of the Developer or any contractor or subcontractor performing work on the Property or the Improvements, and neither the Authority nor the City shall be responsible for any debt or liability of the Developer, or its managers or members, or such contractor or subcontractor. 7.8 Integrated Contract. It is intended by the Parties that the Agreement is an integrated contract and that invalidation of any of its provisions by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any of the other provisions, which shall remain in full force and effect unless the Parties otherwise agree to an amendment. 14 7.9 Counterparts. The Agreement is executed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. 7.10 Notices. A notice, demand, or other communication under the Agreement by any party to the other shall be in writing and sufficiently given if delivered in person or if it is delivered by overnight courier service with guaranteed next‐day delivery or by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, and: a. In the case of the Developer, is addressed to or delivered to the Developer as follows: L. Jeff Jones Capstone Development Corp. 431 Office Park Drive Birmingham, AL 35223 b. In the case of the Authority, is addressed to or delivered to the Authority as follows: Executive Director Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 or at such other address with respect to any party as that party may, from time to time, designate in writing and forward to the other as provided in this Section. 7.11 Good Faith of Parties. In performance of the Agreement or in considering any requested extension of time or in the giving of any approval, the Parties agree that each will act in good faith and will not act unreasonably, arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably withhold, condition or delay any approval required by the Agreement. 7.12 Exhibits Merged. All Exhibits attached to the Agreement are expressly integrated herein. 7.13 Days. If the day for any performance or event provided for herein is a Saturday, Sunday or other day on which either national banks or the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado, is not open for the regular transaction of business, that day shall be extended until the next day on which the banks or Clerk and Recorder are open for the transaction of business. 7.14 Further Assurances. Each Party agrees to execute such documents and take such action as shall be reasonably requested by the other Party to confirm, clarify or effectuate the provisions of this Agreement. 15 7.15 Certifications. Each Party agrees to execute such documents as the other Party may reasonably request to verify or confirm the status of this Agreement and of the performance of the obligations hereunder and such other matters as the requesting Party may reasonably request. 7.16 Amendments. This Agreement shall not be amended except by written instrument. Each amendment, which shall be in writing and signed and delivered by the Parties, shall be effective to amend the provisions hereof. 7.17 Survival of Representations, Warranties and Covenants. No representations or warranties whatever are made by any Party except as specifically set forth in this Agreement. The representations, warranties and indemnities made by the Parties and the covenants and agreements to be performed or complied with by the respective Parties shall be deemed to be continuing. Nothing in this section shall affect the obligations and indemnities of the Parties with respect to covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement that are permitted or required to be performed in whole or in part after issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 7.18 Minor Changes. This Agreement has been approved in substantially the form submitted to the governing bodies of the Parties. The officers executing the Agreement have been authorized to make, and may have made, minor changes in the Agreement and the attached exhibits as they have considered necessary. So long as such changes were consistent with the intent and understanding of the Parties at the time of Approval by the governing bodies, the execution of the Agreement shall constitute conclusive evidence of the approval of such changes by the respective Parties. 7.19 Joint Draft. The parties agree they drafted this Agreement jointly with each having the advice of legal counsel and an equal opportunity to contribute to its content. 16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and the Developer have caused the Agreement to be duly executed as of the day first above written. DEVELOPER: CAPSTONE DEVELOPMENT CORP. By:_____________________________ L. Jeff Jones, Executive Vice President AUTHORITY: THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY By:_____________________________________________ Darin Atteberry, Executive Director 17 EXHIBIT A - PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PARCEL I LOT 1B, REPLAT OF A PART OF LOT 1 OF THE SPRING COURT SUBDIVISION, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. PARCEL II A PORTION OF LOT 2, SPRING COURT SUBDIVISION, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT: CONSIDERING THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2 AS BEARING SOUTH 89°57'00" WEST AND WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO, IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES WHICH BEGIN AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2, AND RUN THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 2, NORTH 05°48'00" EAST 139.71 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2, NORTH 90°00'00" EAST 294.39 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTH LINE, SOUTH 00°00'00" EAST 138.72 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, SOUTH 89°57'00" WEST 308.51 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. PARCEL III A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, AND BEING A PORTION OF LOT 3 OF THE FOX SHOPPING CENTER SUBDIVISION OF RECORD IN BOOK 1413 AT PAGE 863, AND BEING A PORTION OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED IN BOOK 1387 AT PAGE 658, RECORDS OF THE RECORDER’S OFFICE, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BASIS OF BEARINGS THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, BEING MONUMENTED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 23 BY A FOUND 3 INCH ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED “LS 17497, 1991” IN A RANGE BOX, AND AT THE EAST ONE-QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 23 BY A FOUND 2-1/2 INCH ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED “LS 17497, 1991” IN A RANGE BOX, CALCULATED TO BEAR S00°02’16”E WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO. BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 3 OF THE FOX SHOPPING CENTER SUBDIVISION; THENCE THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE COLORADO & SOUTHERN RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AS ESTABLISHED BY WALLACE MUSCOTT, P.L.S. WITH THE CITY OF FT. COLLINS AND ALSO BEING THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 3 OF THE FOX SHOPPING CENTER SUBDIVISION: 1. N06°12’38”E A DISTANCE OF 267.90 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; 18 2. ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 4,573.35 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06°18’34”, AN ARC LENGTH OF 503.62 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N03°03’21”E A CHORD DISTANCE OF 503.37 FEET; 3. N00°05’56”W A DISTANCE OF 89.61 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND OF RECORD AT RECEPTION NUMBER 20050079268; THENCE LEAVING SAID EAST LINE OF THE COLORADO & SOUTHERN RAILROAD AND THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 3 THE FOLLOWING FOUR (4) COURSES ACROSS SAID LOT 3 OF THE FOX SHOPPING CENTER SUBDIVISION AND ALSO ALONG THE SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY LINES OF SAID PARCEL OF RECORD AT RECEPTION NUMBER 20050079268: 1. N89°40’38”E A DISTANCE OF 55.15 FEET; 2. S45°27’16”E A DISTANCE OF 67.77 FEET; 3. S81°48’40”E A DISTANCE OF 104.13 FEET; 4. N01°11’13”E A DISTANCE OF 35.13 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 2 OF SAID FOX SHOPPING CENTER SUBDIVISION; THENCE S89°38’48”E ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2 OF THE FOX SHOPPING CENTER SUBDIVISION A DISTANCE OF 35.26 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE OF LOT 2 OF THE FOX SHOPPING CENTER SUBDIVISION THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5) COURSES ACROSS SAID LOT 3 OF THE FOX SHOPPING CENTER SUBDIVISION: 1. S00°07’07”E A DISTANCE OF 239.28 FEET; 2. S00°07’07”E A DISTANCE OF 248.21 FEET; 3. N89°49’03”E A DISTANCE OF 104.18 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THAT PARCEL OF RECORD AT RECEPTION NUMBER 90005700; 4. S00°02’18”W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID PARCEL OF RECORD AT RECEPTION NUMBER 90005700 A DISTANCE OF 146.86 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL OF RECORD AT RECEPTION NUMBER 90005700; 5. N89°50’51”E ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL OF RECORD AT RECEPTION NUMBER 90005700 A DISTANCE OF 105.26 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 3 OF THE FOX SHOPPING CENTER SUBDIVISION AND BEING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL OF RECORD AT RECEPTION NUMBER 90005700; THENCE THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5) COURSES ALONG THE EAST LINES OF SAID LOT 3 OF THE FOX SHOPPING CENTER SUBDIVISION: 1. S00°02’16”E A DISTANCE OF 86.39 FEET; 2. N89°57’44”E A DISTANCE OF 3.00 FEET; 3. S00°02’16”E A DISTANCE OF 78.00 FEET; 4. S89°57’44”W A DISTANCE OF 3.00 FEET; 5. S00°02’16”E A DISTANCE OF 36.39 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 3 OF THE FOX SHOPPING CENTER SUBDIVISION; THENCE N89°39’12”W ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 3 OF THE FOX SHOPPING CENTER SUBDIVISION A DISTANCE OF 508.65 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 19 EXHIBIT B – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 20 EXHIBIT C – ELIGIBLE COSTS 1 Stormwater/Sewer/Floodplain Infrastructure Public Improvements $1,631,090 2nd Mobilization - CLOMR sitework FEMA/ easement earthwork/erosion control Storm Drainage Potable Water mains Repair/ Replacement of existing 48" storm piping Storm Water Channel- FEMA Survey for FEMA improvements Sanitary Sewer mains FEMA/ Stormwater Design Fees 2 Land Acquisition/Easements/Demolition $1,337,109 FEMA easement land allocation (1.92 ac) Land allocation for streets and roads (.83ac) Demolition/Site Work 3 Utilities/Infrastructure Public Improvements $435,000 Utility service- electric underground service Site Lighting Curb & Gutter/Sidewalks/Paving in Public/FEMA areas 4 Energy & Environmental Improvements $1,346,801 Efficiency upgrade for HVAC Systems Efficiency upgrade for water heating systems TPO Roofing System Energy Efficient Window Specifications Energy Star Appliance Package Low Flow Restroom fixtures Landscaping Enhanced Insulation Systems High-efficiency lighting Low VOC adhesives and paint Landfill diversion/ recycling centers & education Subtotal $4,750,000 5 Contingency $250,000 Total $5,000,000 21 EXHIBIT D REIMBURSEMENT OBLIGATION PROCEDURE The reimbursement process and procedures for Capstone Development Corp., (the “Developer”) to submit reimbursement invoices and receipts to the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the “Authority”) for the project located at 1635 South College Avenue (the “Project”). The Developer will comply with the following procedures for reimbursement from the Authority: 1. All submitted invoices of work completed on or after the execution date of this Agreement will be detailed and accurate enough to specify which item is seeking reimbursement. 2. Submissions will be sent directly to the Authority: a. Mailing Address: Urban Renewal Authority RE: Capstone Development Corp. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 b. Physical Address: 300 LaPorte Avenue (City Hall) Fort Collins, CO 80522 c. Billing Day: 25th of the month submittal 3. The Authority will acknowledge receipt of a reimbursement request. The Authority may distribute copies of the reimbursement request, including, but not limited to detailed invoices, to the City departments or other entities the Authority believes are necessary to obtain confirmation and certification of inspection of work and the accuracy and appropriateness of the invoices supporting Developer’s reimbursement request prior to payment. 4. The Authority will notify the Developer if there are any discrepancies or disputed reimbursements within ten business days of identifying them. 5. The Authority shall pay any undisputed amount due to the Developer within 45 business days of receiving the reimbursement request. 6. Within 15 business days after the Developer has cured or corrected each any discrepancy or disputed reimbursement, the Authority shall pay the amount withheld based on that objection. EXHIBIT E Schedule of Performance ACTION TARGET DATE OUTSIDE DATE URA BOARD APPROVAL (all work initiated after approval date can be submitted) SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT SEPTEMBER 2011 SEPTEMBER 2012 COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION ON IMPROVEMENTS OCTOBER 2011 OCTOBER 2012 PURCHASE OF LAND - CLOSING OCTOBER 2011 OCTOBER 2012 DELIVER EQUITY COMMITMENT FOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2011 OCTOBER 2012 DELIVER FINANCING COMMITMENT FOR PROJECT MARCH 2012 MAY 2013 LOMR COMPLETED AND FEMA APPROVAL AUGUST 2012 AUGUST 2013 COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION ON BUILDINGS JUNE 2012 JUNE 2013 COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION JULY 31, 2013 JULY 31, 2014 OBTAIN CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY(S) JULY 31, 2013 JULY, 31 2014 INCOME APPROACH Effective Date of Valuation: 1 Jan 2013 2013 Date of Appraisal: 24 June 2011 Typical Parcel #: 97231-07-003 TIF Capstone Student Housing 1635 S.College Taxes payable 2014 COMMERCIAL PORTION 100% Complete BUILDING AREA - SF SIZE (SF) % Retail - Ground Floor 8,000 100.00% TOTAL SF 8,000 100.00% POTENTIAL GROSS INCOME INC/SF SF NET Retail - Ground Floor $20.00 8,000 $160,000 TOTAL $20.00 8,000 $160,000 LESS VACANCY & COLLECTION LOSS 9.00% $14,400 INCOME less V & C $145,600 ADDITIONAL INCOME $0 EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME $145,600 OPERATING EXPENSES Management 6% $8,736 Insurance $0.30 $2,400 Repairs & Maintenance 3% $4,368 Reserves for Replacement 3% $4,368 Total Expenses 14% $19,872 EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME $145,600 less OPERATING EXPENSES $19,872 NET OPERATING INCOME $125,728 VALUE (NET INCOME/OAR) $125,728 divided by 9.00% $1,396,978 VALUE PER SQUARE FOOT-Comm $175 Value x Assessment Rate x Mill Levy = tax liability Value Assessment 2010 Mill Annual Rate Levy* Taxes $1,396,978 x 29% 0.089630 = $36,311.22 2011 Existing Value Land 2014 Increment $27,603.22 Christine Murray - CG01317730 Certified General Appraiser, Larimer County Assessor's Office *Mill levy subject to change, Approx values based on preliminary figures. EXHIBIT F MULTI-FAMILY VALUE 2012 MULTI-FAMILY STUDENT RENTAL MARKET COMPARABLES Category Subject Comp #1 Comp #2 RENT PER ROOM Furnished Furnished Parcel ID 97231-07-003 97161-50-001 97161-63-001 Business Name Capstone Student Housing University House Rams Pointe Rams Park Location Prospect and College 2250 W Elizabeth 2226 W Elizabeth City Fort Collins Ft. Collins Ft. Collins Zoning MMN - Med Density MMN - Med Density MMN - Med Density Land size/acre or sq ft 379,408 691297 87991 Property type 221 Unit 192 Unit 48 Unit Student Housing Rent Per Room? Yes Yes Yes Num bldgs 2? 15 2 Ttl Bldg Sqft 274047 240010 44736 Sqft per Unit 1240 1250 932 Year Built 2011 1996 2001 Quality ? Average Average Design ? Two Story/GL Fin Two Story/GL Fin Garages? ? No No Story Height ? 8' 8' Construction type ? Wood Frame Wood Frame Total Units 221 192 48 Sale Date Jun-07 Oct-07 Sale Price $23,200,000 $7,000,000 Sales Price per Unit $120,833 $145,833 Adjustment to Sale $350,386 $0 Time Adjusted Selling Price $22,849,614 $7,000,000 T. A.Sales Price per Unit $119,008 $145,833 Age 15% 10% Location 0% 0% Adjustment for Furnishings 0% -5% Unit Size Adj 0% 0% Condition Adj 0% 0% Total Net Adjustments 15% 5% Adj. Value per Unit $145,000 $136,860 $153,125 CORRELATED MKT VALUE $32,045,000 $144,992 This is only a guestimate: PP DEDUCTED FROM SALE PP SEPARATE FROM SALE MARKET VALUE: $32,045,000 $145,000 ALL MULTI-FAMILY IS CLASSIFIED GRM VALUE: $32,800,000 $148,416 AS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND WEIGHTED INCOME: $34,000,000 $153,846 VALUED BY THE MARKET MEDIAN APPROACH ONLY ACCORDING TO $32,948,333 COLORADO STATE STATUTE. MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTED VAL: $33,501,156 $151,589 INCOME APPROACH USED TO ACTUAL INCOME $36,400,000 VERIFY MARKET APPROACH ONLY. TYPICAL INCOME $31,600,000 GRM (GROSS RENT MULTIPLIER) WEIGHTED INCOME $34,000,000 IS DERIVED FROM INCOME/MKT ACTUAL GRM $37,000,000 AND USED TO VERIFY MARKET TYPICAL GRM $28,600,000 APPROACH AS WELL. WEIGHTED GRM $32,800,000 TAX PROJECTION BELOW: 2013 value, Taxes payable 2014 Value x Assessment Rate x Mill Levy = tax liability Value Assessment 2011 Mill Annual (IMPROVED RESIDENTIAL ASSD AT 7.96%) Rate Levy* Taxes $33,501,156 7.96% 0.089630 = $239,015.61 TIF INCREMENT $236,002.61 Dianne Ahart - CG01316840 Certified General Appraiser, Larimer County Assessor's Office 24 EXHIBIT G DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Council Information Center Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3 Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Gerry Horak, District 6 on the Comcast cable system Darin Atteberry, City Manager Steve Roy, City Attorney Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. WORK SESSION September 13, 2011 after the Urban Renewal Authority Meeting 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Proposed Electric Rate Options. (staff: Brian Janonis, Patty Bigner, Steve Catanach, Bill Switzer; 2 hour discussion) In the last decade, the electric utility industry has evolved in several areas. While the core business of generation, distribution, metering and billing for service has continued to reflect advances in fuels, equipment and system design, policy goals have become increasingly important with an emphasis on engaging customers in achieving community goals through effective pricing signals. As such, the philosophy surrounding when and how much electricity is used by customers has become a focus of discussion. In Fort Collins, this shift is reflected in the City Council adopted Energy Policy and Climate Action Plan. Historically, electric rates, especially for Fort Collins residential customers, have remained stable with changes reflecting cost of service, including purchased power, distribution and customer service costs. Recently, City Council expressed interest in a tiered or inclining block rate for residential customers. September 13, 2011 Staff has prepared several residential rate options for City Council discussion and feedback. Commercial rate options propose a change to the General Service (GS) or commercial rate class that more accurately reflects electric use of this diverse group of customers. Rates for other commercial rate classes will reflect cost of service with a seasonal component that mirrors the 2012 purchase power rate. Suggested implementation strategies have also been developed for discussion. Based on earlier feedback from the May 10, 2011 Council Work Session, the Council Finance Committee and recent feedback from the Electric Board, staff in conjunction with consultants has developed and analyzed the rate options now offered for discussion. Feedback from this work session will be used in drafting rate ordinances for public comment and City Council consideration on October 18, 2011. Rates are expected to be effective January 1, 2012. 3. Review of Colorado Department of Transportation North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement Document. (staff: Kathleen Bracke; 1 hour discussion) The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Region 4 staff has been developing the North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for several years. Work on the EIS began in 2001. The purpose of the North I-25 EIS is to plan for long-range transportation needs to connect Northern Colorado with the Denver metropolitan area. The study area focuses on highway and transit plans for the Interstate 25 corridor, US287 corridor, and the US85 corridor. CDOT published the Final EIS document on August 19 and is seeking agency and public comments through October 3. Staff has reviewed the Final EIS document and provided technical comments to share with City Council and CDOT as part of this public review period. The work session discussion and September 20 regular session action represents the City’s opportunity to share staff, Council, and other potential community concerns with CDOT as part of the formal comment period on the Final EIS document. 4. Other Business. 5. Adjournment. DATE: September 13, 2011 STAFF: Brian Janonis, Patty Bigner, Steve Catanach, Bill Switzer Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Proposed Electric Rate Options. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In the last decade, the electric utility industry has evolved in several areas. While the core business of generation, distribution, metering and billing for service has continued to reflect advances in fuels, equipment and system design, policy goals have become increasingly important with an emphasis on engaging customers in achieving community goals through effective pricing signals. As such, the philosophy surrounding when and how much electricity is used by customers has become a focus of discussion. In Fort Collins, this shift is reflected in the City Council adopted Energy Policy and Climate Action Plan. Historically, electric rates, especially for Fort Collins residential customers, have remained stable with changes reflecting cost of service, including purchased power, distribution and customer service costs. Recently, City Council expressed interest in a tiered or inclining block rate for residential customers. Staff has prepared several residential rate options for City Council discussion and feedback. Commercial rate options propose a change to the General Service (GS) or commercial rate class that more accurately reflects electric use of this diverse group of customers. Rates for other commercial rate classes will reflect cost of service with a seasonal component that mirrors the 2012 purchase power rate. Suggested implementation strategies have also been developed for discussion. Based on earlier feedback from the May 10, 2011 Council Work Session, the Council Finance Committee and recent feedback from the Electric Board, staff in conjunction with consultants has developed and analyzed the rate options now offered for discussion. Feedback from this work session will be used in drafting rate ordinances for public comment and City Council consideration on October 18, 2011. Rates are expected to be effective January 1, 2012. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED Residential Rate Options 1. Of the four proposed rate options for the residential energy rate, which specific option is preferred? 2. Does City Council support the proposed change to the residential demand rate? September 13, 2011 Page 2 Commercial Rate Options 1. Does City Council support the proposed change that would create an additional rate class from the existing General Service rate class? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Residential Energy Rates Approximately 55,020 residential customers comprise this rate class. These customers include single-family dwellings, individually metered apartments and home occupations. This rate class also includes a small group (220) of multi-family customers with a single meter. Seventeen of these customers occupy four-plex or larger units. Around the country, leaders in the electric industry are implementing rate design strategies that incentivize residential customers to change the way they view and use power, resulting in the reduction of electricity demand and energy. Such a reduction has numerous economic, environmental and community benefits and has been adopted by a growing number of utilities nationally. A comparison of electric rates from selected “progressive” municipal and investor- owned utilities shows tiered rates are used by 10 of the 14 municipal and 12 of the 13 investor- owned utilities. (Attachment 2) The success of this strategy can be measured as limited or slow growth of both energy consumption and the electric system peak load, (the time of highest demand for electricity on the Fort Collins system) compared to historical actual growth. Within the generation and transmission system operated by Platte River Power Authority (PRPA), reduction in demand has resulted in delay of additional peaking generation. Reduction in energy use results in lower carbon emissions. For example, since 2005, a reduction in 129,879 metric tons of CO2 has been reported within the Fort Collins Utilities boundaries as a result of reduced energy use (this represents more than 11% reduction in carbon emissions). The 2010 Energy Policy report highlights energy efficiency savings of 20,500 MWh in 2010, 1.4% of the community’s electric use. To be most effective, this pricing shift is balanced with the need for predictable and adequate revenue, and considers the appropriate allocation of cost to customer classes or groups of users, such as residential, small commercial and industrial customers. The 2009 Energy Policy directs development of rate policies in the following objective: “Adopt pricing policies that reflect the short-term and long-term costs, both direct and indirect, of generating and delivering electricity.” The rate options proposed for City Council consideration largely comply with this direction. The options use the rate design philosophy developed by staff as a platform for strategic alignment with the City and Light and Power Utility policies. The residential energy rate options proposed for Council discussion are as follows: • Status Quo (current rate structure ) • Seasonal (PRPA pass-through) • Three Tier • Five Tier September 13, 2011 Page 3 Rate form changes and rate increases result in various impacts among customers, including confusion and in some instances, difficulty in paying the higher monthly bill. Recent comparisons of state and national electric rates show that Fort Collins electric rates are among the lowest in the state and the nation. However, it is expected that some customers may experience difficulties with the new proposed rate options, including the status quo with COS increase. Fort Collins Utilities offers a variety of programs to assist customers with conservation and energy efficiency. As noted above, in 2010, energy efficiency and conservation programs resulted in 20,500 MWhs of savings. These programs are designed to reduce energy, improve comfort, protect indoor air quality, and help keep electricity and gas bills as low as possible. In addition, new programs that offer energy efficiency financing options and expand low-income customer assistance are in the planning stages for implementation in 2012. Residential Demand Rate About 2,929 residential customers currently are billed on the Residential Demand (RD) rate, a choice offered to all residential customers. These customers are single-family private dwellings, metered apartments and home occupations. The current RD rate is typically more economical for customers whose homes are heated entirely by electricity. Such customers use on average more than 1,400 kWh per month. If Council adopts a tiered rate structure, staff proposes phasing out the RD rate to achieve the pricing signal associated with the tiered rate. In addition, the rate would be brought up to full cost of service with a 15.9% increase making it less attractive for many of the existing electric heat customers. If this change is approved, it would be phased in with two steps. The first phase will allow customers with all electric homes to qualify in order to remain on the rate, with qualification within a specified timeframe. The second phase will be determined by decisions about future rate forms adopted by City Council. Future Time-of-Use Rates With the implementation of the Advanced Meter Fort Collins project underway, the amount of information available from the new meters will improve the ability of the City’s electric customers to understand when and how much electricity is being used in significantly greater detail, opening the door for a more sophisticated pricing signal. Installation of the advanced water and electric meters is expected to be completed by mid-2013. This could include introduction of a tiered rate structure with progression to time-of-day pricing (with or without tiers) once the advanced metering system is completed and supporting time-of-day data has been gathered and analyzed. Staff is planning to develop and recommend a pilot time-of-use rate specifically targeted to electric vehicle owners in 2012. Commercial Rates Approximately 7,555 commercial customers comprise this group. Several rate classes currently make up the commercial customer group including General Service (small), General Service 50 (mid and large-sized) and General Service 750 (industrial). Commercial rate options propose a change to the General Service (GS) or commercial rate class that more accurately reflects electric use of this diverse group of customers. This change would create September 13, 2011 Page 4 a fourth commercial rate class to include the lower end of the mid-sized commercial customers. Examples of customers in the proposed GS customer class include housing services for condos and apartments (lights, laundry, etc.), small retail, professional offices, non-profit agencies, and small churches. The proposed GS 25 customer class includes fast food restaurants, medium-sized churches, restaurants, larger retail, fraternity and sorority houses, convenience stores, copy centers and banks. Rates for other commercial rate classes will reflect cost of service with a seasonal component that mirrors the 2012 purchase power rate. Customer groups within the proposed rate classes include: • GS -6,552 customers • GS 25 – 520 customers • GS 50 – 467customers • GS 750 – 16 customers Conclusion The proposed rate changes are designed to assist in achieving City Council goals, support customer choice in behavior related to their use of energy and reflect the increasingly dynamic utility industry. These changes remain true to the City’s long-held values of fairness, equitability and financial responsibility. Staff anticipates the need for a robust communications to support the implementation of the new residential rate forms, beyond the annual rate increase communication. Final planning will be developed once the rate option is chosen. Staff recommends the following: 1. Three-tier residential rate to align with Energy Policy and the Climate Action Plan 2. Phase out the residential demand rate 3. Mid-2012, introduce a residential time of use rate pilot to support electric vehicles 4. Split the existing current commercial (GS) customer class into two classes: GS and GS 25 ATTACHMENTS 1. Powerpoint presentation 2. Comparison of Utility Residential Rate Structures 3. Letter from the Fort Collins Electric Board 4. Work Session Summary, May 10, 2011 1 Electric Rate Options City Council Work Session September 13, 2011 2 Introduction and Background • Development of Electric Rate Options requested by City Council • Selection of SAIC (R.W. Beck) as consultant on financial strategy May 10, 2011 Work Session to discuss Rate Design Philosophy • September 13th Work Session for review – Four electric rate options for residential customers, change to residential demand rate – One proposed change for commercial customers ATTACHMENT 1 1 3 Questions for City Council • Residential Rate Options – Which specific option is preferred? – Does Council support the change to the residential demand rate? • Commercial Rate Class – Does City Council support the proposed change to create an additional rate class from the existing General Service rate class? 4 Review of Rate Options, Impacts and Alignment with City Policy and Goals Joe Mancinelli, Consultant SAIC (formerly R.W. Beck) 2 © 2011 by R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company. All Rights Reserved. Financial Strategy Electric Rate Options FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION September 13, 2011 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 2 Agenda/Purpose Context Behind Rate Design Pricing Strategy Alignment with Energy Policy Cost of Service Results Definitions/Clarifications Residential Customer Class Residential Demand Customer Class Commercial (GS) Customer Class Staff Recommendations 3 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 3 Why are we discussing rate design? Align Rates with Policy Energy Policy Climate Action Plan Reduce Consumption Reduce System Peak Load Change Customer Behavior When and How Customers Use Electricity PRPA Pass Through Increased Cost of Service R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 4 Utilities Overview Residential Energy 443,941,220 kWh Residential Demand 50,096,749 kWh Commercial (GS) 195,133,283 kWh Commercial (GS 50) 304,853,362 kWh Commercial (GS 750) 353,110,550 kWh Contract 94,996,000 kWh Traffic 610,067 kWh 2010 kWh Sales by Customer Class Total kWh Sales = 1,442,741,000 4 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 5 Utilities Overview 2010 Revenue by Customer Class Total Sales = $93,165,407 Residential Energy 37.26% Residential Demand 3.82% Green Program 0.57% Commercial (GS) 15.32% Commercial (GS 50) 20.07% Commercial (GS 750) 18.76% Contract 4.15% Traffic 0.03% R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 6 Utilities Overview 2010 Number of Customers by Class Total Customers = 65,504 Residential 55,020 Residential Demand 2,929 Commercial (GS) 7,072 Commercial (GS 50) 467 Commercial (GS 750) 14 Contract 1 Traffic 1 5 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 7 Fort Collins Utilities Average Revenue Comparison Data presented is summarized from APPA’s published reports on Selected Financial and Operating Ratios of Public Power Systems with data for 2005-2009. R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 8 Fort Collins Utilities Average Cost Comparison $60 $- $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 LONGMONT GLENWOOD SPRINGS GUNNISON LOVELAND FORT MORGAN ASPEN FORT COLLINS JULESBURG LYONS FLEMING ESTES PARK DELTA OAK CREEK YUMA HOLY CROSS EA YAMPA VALLEY EA XCEL ENERGY COLORADO SPRINGS FOUNTAIN WRAY WHITE RIVER EA TRI-COUNTY HIGHLINE EA POUDRE VALLEY EA Y-W ELECTRIC ASSN INTERMOUNTAIN REA WHEATLAND DELTA-MONTROSE EA LA PLATA HAXTUN RATON UNITED POWER MOUNTAIN PARKS EI HIGH WEST ENERGY EMPIRE EA FREDERICK GUNNISON COUNTY EA MORGAN COUNTY REA GRAND VALLEY RPL BLACK HILLS ENERGY SAN MIGUEL PA LAMAR LAS ANIMAS R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 9 Fort Collins Utilities Average Cost Comparison $166 $- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 $450 $500 GUNNISON FORT MORGAN LONGMONT LOVELAND GLENWOOD SPRINGS COLORADO SPRINGS WRAY FORT COLLINS FLEMING HIGHLINE EA LYONS JULESBURG HOLY CROSS EA XCEL ENERGY FOUNTAIN DELTA ASPEN Y-W ELECTRIC ASSN ESTES PARK YUMA POUDRE VALLEY EA WHITE RIVER EA OAK CREEK YAMPA VALLEY EA HAXTUN MOUNTAIN PARKS EI LA PLATA DELTA-MONTROSE EA HIGH WEST ENERGY MORGAN COUNTY REA EMPIRE EA UNITED POWER GRAND VALLEY RPL FREDERICK GUNNISON COUNTY EA TRI-COUNTY RATON WHEATLAND SAN LUIS VALLEY REA INTERMOUNTAIN REA LAMAR BLACK HILLS ENERGY SAN ISABEL HOLLY LAS ANIMAS R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 11 Fort Collins Utilities Average Cost Comparison $90,827 $0 $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 $125,000 $150,000 $175,000 $200,000 $225,000 FORT COLLINS TRI-COUNTY LONGMONT LOVELAND COLORADO SPRINGS XCEL ENERGY SAN ISABEL EMPIRE EA DELTA-MONTROSE EA LA PLATA GRAND VALLEY RPL FOUNTAIN Y-W ELECTRIC ASSN SAN LUIS VALLEY REA MOUNTAIN PARKS EI GUNNISON COUNTY EA HIGHLINE EA HIGH WEST ENERGY WHITE RIVER EA UNITED POWER INTERMOUNTAIN REA MORGAN COUNTY REA FREDERICK FORT MORGAN BLACK HILLS ENERGY POUDRE VALLEY EA YAMPA VALLEY EA RATON Cost per Month Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities Industrial Rate Survey January 2011 --- Cost for 1,900,000 kWh and 3000 KW per month FORT COLLINS MUNICIPAL REA/CO-OP INVESTOR OWNED R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 12 Industry Trends Customer Sophistication Environmental Awareness Legislation & Regulation Efficiency Utility Customer Technology Renewable Energy R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 13 Utility Response to Trends Providing Customers More Options Renewable Energy Distributed Generation Energy Efficiency and Conservation Programs Demand Response Energy Management Investment in New Technologies Rate Design R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 14 Comparison of Selected Peer Municipal Utility Residential Rate Structures Utility Tiered Rate Structure Inclining Blocks # of Blocks TOU(1) Low Income Rates Electric Vehicle Rates (1) Time of Use Yes No No In Progress No Yes‐TOU Yes Yes‐TOU Yes Rebate Rate No Pilot‐TOU No No No Yes‐TOU Yes Yes‐TOU No No No Yes No Yes‐TOU No No Austin Energy (Proposed) Yes 5 Optional Eugene Water & Electric Board Yes 3 No City Public Service Energy Yes 2 No 2/3/4 Optional Yes 3 Optional Yes 2 Pilot No No Yes 2 Optional Optional Seattle City Light Santee Cooper Colorado Springs Utilities Jacksonville Electric Authority Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Memphis Light, Gas and Water Omaha Public Power District Salt River Project Long Island Power Authority Sacramento Municipal Utility District No R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 15 Comparison of Selected Investor Owned Utility Residential Rate Structures Utility Tiered Rate Structure Inclining Blocks # of Blocks TOU Low Income Rates Electric Vehicle Rates (2) Real Time Pricing No In Progress Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes‐TOU No Yes‐TOU Yes No No Yes‐TOU Yes No Yes Yes‐TOU Yes Yes RTP(2) Yes Yes‐TOU No In Progress Ameren Illinos No RTP(2) No Pacific Gas & Electric Yes 5 Optional Arizona Public Service Yes 4 Optional Sand Diego Gas & Electric Yes 4 Pilot Avista Yes 2 No Pacific Power Yes 2 No IdahoOptional Power Yes 3 Pepco Yes 2/3 Optional Southern California Edison Yes 5 Optional Portland General Electric Yes 2 Optional Puget Sound Electric Yes 2 No Xcel Energy Yes 2 Pilot Toronto Hydro Yes 2 Optional R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 16 Comparison of Selected Utilities: Inclining Block Rate Structures Residential Customer Class Yes 22 Utilities (81%) No 5 Utilities (19%) Tiered Rate Structure Inclining Blocks 2 Blocks 50% 3 Blocks 25% 4 Blocks 10% R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 17 Comparison of Selected Utilities: Inclining Block Rate Structures Residential Customer Class Yes 7 Utilities (26%) Yes‐TOU 11 Utilities In Progress (41%) 3 Utilities (11%) No 6 Utilities (22%) Electric Vehicle Rates Yes 11 Utilities No (41%) 16 Utilities (59%) Low Income Rates Optional 18 Utilities (67%) No 8 Utilities (29%) RTP 1 Utilities (4%) Time of Use Rates R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 18 Commercial Rate Design Send commercial customers cost-based pricing signals to encourage the efficient use of power Demand Charge Usually applies to customers with demands of 10 kW and greater Fort Collins Utilities - demand charge 25 - 50 kW Encourages the customers to install and operate equipment that efficiently uses power Efficiency measured by monthly load factor Time of Use Usually available to larger commercial and industrial customers that can take advantage of time of use pricing Fort Collins Utilities - time of use demand charge (Coincident Peak Pricing) 50 kW and greater 11 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 19 Alignment of Pricing Strategies with Energy Policy R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 20 Pricing Strategy - Key Drivers Primary Drivers Energy Efficiency/Conservation Climate Action Plan & Energy Policy Deferred/Avoided Capital Expenditures for New Power Plants Energy Policy Carbon Reduction Climate Action Plan & Energy Policy 12 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 21 Pricing Strategy - Key Drivers Other Important Drivers Revenue Stability City Charter Fairness and Equitability Fort Collins Utilities Financial Strategy and Rate Design Philosophy R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 22 Cost of Service Results (FY 2011) Fort Collins Electric Utility costs have increased Wholesale power costs (PRPA Pass Through) PRPA wholesale rate is increasing by approximately 4.8% Seasonal: Summer & Non Summer Distribution and customer service costs have increased Overall System Increase of 8.3% 13 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 23 Cost of Service Results (FY 2011) Cost of Service Results by Customer Class Residential Class: 6.0% Residential Demand: 15.9% Commercial (GS) GS: 3.9% GS 25: 15.5% GS 50: 8.7% GS 750: 11.0% R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 24 Rate Design Residential Status Quo Seasonal Rate Three-Tier Five-Tier Residential Demand Seasonal Rate Commercial (GS) GS Seasonal Rate GS 25 Seasonal Rate 14 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 25 Definitions/Clarifications Rate Structure is the design of utility’s means of recovering its costs from its customers. An unbundled rate structure shows itemized charges on the bill reflecting the costs associated with each utility function. Fixed Charge is a monthly charge that recovers the cost of metering, billing, collecting, providing customer service, and all other customer-related costs. Distribution Facilities Charge recovers the cost of distribution substations, poles, wires, conductors, and transformers required to deliver power to customers. Ideally, this charge is applied on a $/kWh basis as a customer’s demand directly impacts these costs. Energy Charge recovers the cost of fuel, purchased power, and all other variable costs associated with the production of electricity. Demand Charge recovers fixed production function costs related to building and financing generation facilities. PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) is 6% tax applied to all rates and bill calculations. R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 26 Definitions/Clarifications Seasonal Rates are a simple type of time-of-use rates in which rates vary depending on the time of year. PRPA (Platte River Power Authority) Fort Collins Utilities wholesale power supply provider PRPA Pass Through are costs Fort Collins Utilities incurs from Platte River Power Authority and passes on to customers Tiered Rates/Block Rates are a rate structure that charges differing amounts for each unit of consumption within each tier on a kWh basis. Inclining tiers/blocks, charge higher prices for each unit of energy consumed as consumption increases. Top Tier/Block is the last tier/block of energy in a tier rate structure Fixed Cost Recovery Factor (FCRF) is a mechanism used to recover a utility’s fixed costs when there is a decrease in usage/consumption (kWh). 15 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 27 Definitions/Clarifications Time-of-Use Rate (TOU) option is designed to better reflect variations in the utility’s power costs (seasonally and at various times of the day) and provide an incentive for customers to reduce energy during peak periods and/or shift energy usage to times when the utility’s production is more efficient and costs are lower. Load Factor measures an average of power usage over time and represents end- user efficiency. Load factor is expressed as a percentage, with higher load factors representing greater efficiency from a system engineering perspective. R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 28 Residential Customer Class Single-family dwellings, individually metered apartments and home occupations. 16 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 29 Current Residential Rate Current Rate Fixed Charge ($/Bill) $3.91 Distribution Facilities Charge ($/kWh) $0.0220 Total Energy Charge ($/kWh) (Energy Charge + Demand Charge) $0.0532 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 30 Residential Rate Structure Alternatives Status Quo (Current Rate Structure) Seasonal Rate (PRPA Pass Through) Three-Tier Rate Five-Tier Rate 17 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 31 Status Quo (Current Rate Structure) Status Quo Rate Fixed Charge ($/Bill) $4.48 Distribution Facilities Charge ($/kWh) $0.0252 Total Energy Charge ($/kWh) (Energy Charge + Demand Charge) $0.0540 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 32 Status Quo (Current Rate Structure) 18 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 33 Status Quo (Current Rate Structure) Bill Impacts Annual Average Current Bill $28.06 $63.93 $243.28 Bill at Proposed Rates $29.93 $67.71 $256.60 Dollar Increase $1.88 $3.78 $13.32 Percent Increase 6.7% 5.9% 5.5% Non Summer Current Bill $28.06 $63.93 $243.28 Bill at Proposed Rates $29.93 $67.71 $256.60 Dollar Increase $1.88 $3.78 $13.32 Percent Increase 6.7% 5.9% 5.5% Low User Mid Level User High User 300 kWh 750 kWh 3,000 kWh Summer Current Bill $28.06 $63.93 $243.28 Bill at Proposed Rates $29.93 $67.71 $256.60 Dollar Increase $1.88 $3.78 $13.32 Percent Increase 6.7% 5.9% 5.5% R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 34 Seasonal Rate (PRPA Pass Through) Seasonal Rate Fixed Charge ($/Bill) $4.48 Distribution Facilities Charge ($/kWh) $0.0252 Total Energy Charge (Energy Charge + Demand Charge) Summer* ($/kWh) $0.0631 Non Summer ($/kWh) $0.0506 *Summer Months: June, July, & August 19 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 35 Seasonal Rate (PRPA Pass Through) R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 36 Seasonal Rate (PRPA Pass Through) Bill Impacts Low User Mid Level User High User 300 kWh 750 kWh 3,000 kWh Summer Current Bill $28.06 $63.93 $243.28 Bill at Proposed Rates $32.83 $74.95 $285.54 Dollar Increase $4.77 $11.02 $42.26 Percent Increase 17.0% 17.2% 17.4% Non Summer Current Bill $28.06 $63.93 $243.28 Bill at Proposed Rates $28.85 $65.01 $245.79 Dollar Increase $0.79 $1.08 $2.51 Percent Increase 2.8% 1.7% 1.0% Annual Average Current Bill $28.06 $63.93 $243.28 Bill at Proposed Rates $29.85 $67.49 $255.73 Dollar Increase $1.79 $3.57 $12.45 Percent Increase 6.4% 5.6% 5.1% 20 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 37 Tiered Rate Structure Rate Design Objectives To send a strong pricing signal to large users of electricity to incentivize conservation To generate sufficient revenue to meet the residential class cost of service To follow the seasonal variation in PRPA wholesale power costs To design tiered rates so that monthly customer bills will be greater than or equal to bills rendered under the existing rate structure R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 38 How does a Tiered Rate work? Tier (A) Rate ($/kWh) (B) kWh (A x B) Calculation Tier 1 [1-500 kWh] $0.0500 500 $25.00 Tier 2 [501-1000 kWh] $0.0600 500 $30.00 Tier 3 [1001 kWh & Higher] $0.0900 200 $18.00 Total or Average $0.0667 1,200 $73.00 1,200 kWh Customer 21 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 39 Three-Tier Rate Three-Tier Rate Fixed Charge ($/Bill) $4.48 Distribution Facilities Charge ($/kWh) $0.0252 Total Energy Charge (Energy Charge + Demand Charge) Summer* ($/kWh) Tier 1 [1-500 kWh] $0.0520 Tier 2 [501-1000 kWh] $0.0667 Tier 3 [1001 kWh & Higher] $0.0961 Non Summer ($/kWh) Tier 1 [1-500 kWh] $0.0481 Tier 2 [501-1000 kWh] $0.0520 Tier 3 [1001 kWh & Higher] $0.0602 *Summer Months: June, July, & August R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 40 Three-Tier Rate 22 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 41 Three-Tier Rate Bill Impacts Non Summer Current Bill $28.06 $63.93 $243.28 Bill at Proposed Rates $28.06 $64.06 $265.56 Dollar Increase $0.00 $0.13 $22.28 Percent Increase 0.0% 0.2% 9.2% Low User Mid Level User High User 300 kWh 750 kWh 3,000 kWh Summer Current Bill $28.06 $63.93 $243.28 Bill at Proposed Rates $29.30 $70.02 $351.53 Dollar Increase $1.24 $6.09 $108.25 Percent Increase 4.4% 9.5% 44.5% Annual Average Current Bill $28.06 $63.93 $243.28 Bill at Proposed Rates $28.37 $65.55 $287.05 Dollar Increase $0.31 $1.62 $43.77 Percent Increase 1.1% 2.5% 18.0% R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 42 Five-Tier Rate Five-Tier Rate Fixed Charge ($/Bill) $4.48 Distribution Facilities Charge ($/kWh) $0.0252 Total Energy Charge (Energy Charge + Demand Charge) Summer* ($/kWh) Tier 1 [1-500 kWh] $0.0498 Tier 2 [501-1000 kWh] $0.0623 Tier 3 [1001kWh – 1500 kWh] $0.0873 Tier 4 [1501-2000 kWh] $0.1248 Tier 5 [2001 kWh & Higher] $0.1699 Non Summer ($/kWh) Tier 1 [1-500 kWh] $0.0481 Tier 2 [501-1000 kWh] $0.0514 Tier 3 [1001kWh 1500 kWh] $0.0576 Tier 4 [1501-2000 kWh] $0.0658 Tier 5 [2001 kWh & Higher] $0.0684 *Summer Months: June, July, & August 23 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 43 Five-Tier Rate R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 44 Five-Tier Rate Bill Impacts Annual Average Current Bill $28.06 $63.93 $243.28 Bill at Proposed Rates $28.19 $64.85 $315.85 Dollar Increase $0.14 $0.92 $72.57 Percent Increase 0.5% 1.4% 29.8% Non Summer Current Bill $28.06 $63.93 $243.28 Bill at Proposed Rates $28.07 $63.91 $275.55 Dollar Increase $0.01 -$0.02 $32.27 Percent Increase 0.0% 0.0% 13.3% Low User Mid Level User High User 300 kWh 750 kWh 3,000 kWh Summer Current Bill $28.06 $63.93 $243.28 Bill at Proposed Rates $28.58 $67.65 $436.77 Dollar Increase $0.53 $3.72 $193.49 Percent Increase 1.9% 5.8% 79.5% 24 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 45 Comparing All Residential Options R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 46 Comparing All Residential Options 25 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 47 Comparing All Residential Options R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 48 Customer Load Profile/ With & Without Air Conditioning Tier 3 Tier 2 Tier 1 26 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 49 Rate Adjustment Factor Fixed Cost Recovery Factor Conservation Decrease in Consumption(kWh) Decrease in Revenue • FCRF is a mechanism used to recover a utility’s fixed costs when there is a decrease in consumption/usage (kWh) • Decoupling • Revenue Stability Mechanism for Utilities R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 50 Summary: Residential Rate Alternatives Status Quo (Current Rate Structure) Seasonal (PRPA Pass Through) Three-Tier Five-Tier 27 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 51 Residential Demand Customer Class Single-family private dwellings, individually metered apartments and home occupations. An economical option for customers whose homes are heated entirely by electricity. R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 52 Current Residential Demand Rate Current Rate Fixed Charge ($/Bill) $6.32 Distribution Facilities Charge ($/kWh) $0.0188 Demand Charge ($/kW) $3.87 Energy Charge ($/kWh) $0.0248 28 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 53 Seasonal Residential Demand Rate Seasonal Rate Fixed Charge ($/Bill) $7.24 Distribution Facilities Charge ($/kWh) $0.0288 Demand Charge ($/kW) $2.43 Energy Charge Summer* ($/kWh) $0.0372 Non Summer ($/kWh) $0.0355 *Summer Months: June, July, & August R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 54 Seasonal Residential Demand Rate* *Assuming 10kW Demand 29 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 55 Seasonal Residential Demand Rate Bill Impacts* Annual Average Current Bill $115.20 $182.67 Bill at Proposed Rates $133.65 $233.82 Dollar Increase $18.46 $51.15 Percent Increase 16.0% 28.0% Non Summer Current Bill $115.20 $182.67 Bill at Proposed Rates $133.00 $232.51 Dollar Increase $17.80 $49.83 Percent Increase 15.5% 27.3% Mid Level User High User Load Factor 20% 40% Energy Consumption 1460 kWh 2920 kWh Summer Current Bill $115.20 $182.67 Bill at Proposed Rates $135.63 $237.77 Dollar Increase $20.43 $55.10 Percent Increase 17.7% 30.2% *Assuming 10kW Demand R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 56 Commercial (General Service or GS) Customer Class This schedule applies to an individual single or three- phase service with an average metered demand of no greater than fifty kilowatts. Commercial (GS) ≤ 25kW Commercial (GS 25) 25-50 kW 30 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 57 Current Commercial (GS) Rate Current Rate Fixed Charge ($/Bill) Single-Phase 200 amp $3.21 Single-Phase > 200 amp $9.46 Three-Phase 200 amp $4.88 Three-Phase > 200 amp $11.56 Distribution Facilities Charge ($/kWh) $0.0158 Demand Charge ($/kWh) [0-2000 kWh] $0.0362 [2001-7000 kWh] $0.0178 [7001 kWh & Higher] $0.0000 Energy Charge ($/kWh) $0.0248 Demand Charge ($/kW) [0-25 kW] $6.57 [26 kW & Higher] $0.00 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 58 Proposed Commercial (GS) Rate Proposed Rate Fixed Charge ($/Bill) Single-Phase 200 amp $3.68 Single-Phase > 200 amp $10.83 Three-Phase 200 amp $5.59 Three-Phase > 200 amp $13.24 Distribution Facilities Charge (All kWh) $0.0181 Demand Charge Summer* ($/kWh) $0.0267 Non Summer ($/kWh) $0.0139 Energy Charge Summer* ($/kWh) $0.0372 Non Summer ($/kWh) $0.0355 *Summer Months: June, July, & August 31 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 59 Proposed Commercial (GS) Rate Example Customers House Services Lights, laundry rooms, shared facilities for condos and apartments Small Retail Ice cream/candy stores, bike shops, martial arts, jewelry stores, weight loss clinics, nail salons Professional Offices Law offices, real estate offices, engineering firms, small dental offices, CPAs Nonprofit Offices Small Churches R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 60 Proposed Commercial (GS) Rate* *Assuming 10kW Demand 32 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 61 Proposed Commercial (GS) Rate Bill Impacts* Annual Average Current Bill $179.11 $224.30 Bill at Proposed Rates $170.30 $225.34 Dollar Increase -$8.81 $1.04 Percent Increase -4.9% 0.5% Non Summer Current Bill $179.11 $224.30 Bill at Proposed Rates $161.88 $214.12 Dollar Increase -$17.22 -$10.18 Percent Increase -9.6% -4.5% Load Factor 30% 40% Energy Consumption 2,190 kWh 2,920 kWh Summer Current Bill $179.11 $224.30 Bill at Proposed Rates $195.54 $259.00 Dollar Increase $16.44 $34.70 Percent Increase 9.2% 15.5% *Assuming 10kW Demand R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 62 Proposed Commercial (GS 25) Rate Proposed Rate Fixed Charge ($/Bill) Single Phase 200 amp $3.68 Single Phase > 200 amp $10.83 Three Phase 200 amp $5.59 Three Phase > 200 amp $13.24 Distribution Facilities Charge ($/kWh) $0.0181 Demand Charge Summer* ($/kW) $7.07 Non Summer ($/kW) $4.36 Energy Charge Summer* ($/kWh) $0.0372 Non Summer ($/kWh) $0.0355 *Summer Months: June, July, & August 33 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 63 Proposed Commercial (GS 25) Rate Commercial (GS 25) Customers Fast Food Restaurants Medium Sized Churches Restaurants Larger Retail Auto parts, clothing retailers, electronics, liquor stores Fraternities and Sororities Convenience Stores Medical Marijuana Copy Centers Banks R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 64 Proposed Commercial (GS 25) Rate* *Assuming 35kW Demand 34 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 65 Proposed Commercial (GS 25) Rate Bill Impacts* Annual Average Current Bill $690.48 $800.43 Bill at Proposed Rates $783.48 $929.79 Dollar Increase $93.00 $129.36 Percent Increase 13.5% 16.2% Non Summer Current Bill $690.48 $800.43 Bill at Proposed Rates $753.73 $898.89 Dollar Increase $63.25 $98.46 Percent Increase 9.2% 12.3% Load Factor 40% 50% Energy Consumption 10,220 kWh 12,775 kWh Summer Current Bill $690.48 $800.43 Bill at Proposed Rates $872.72 $1,022.49 Dollar Increase $182.25 $222.06 Percent Increase 26.4% 27.7% *Assuming 35kW Demand R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 66 Staff Recommendation 1. Three-Tier Residential Rate to align with Energy Policy and Climate Action Plan 2. Phase out Residential Demand Rate 3. Mid 2012, introduce a Residential Time Of Use (TOU) Pilot to support Electric Vehicles Limited to Residential Customers with Electric Vehicles 4. Split the current Commercial (GS) customer class into two classes: GS and GS 25 35 R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 67 Questions 1. Residential Rate Options Of the four proposed rate options for the residential energy rate, which specific option is preferred? Does City Council support the proposed change to the Residential Demand rate? 2. Commercial Rate Options Does City Council support the proposed change that would create an additional rate class from the existing Commercial (GS) Rate class? © 2011 by R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company. All Rights Reserved. Thank you! September 13, 2011 FORT COLLINS UTILITIES CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION 36 Electric Rate Options Attachment 2 Utility Tiered Rate Structure Inclining Blocks # of Blocks TOU(1) Low Income Rates Electric Vehicle Rates (1) Time of Use No Yes Austin Energy (Current) Yes 2 No No Optional Yes 3 Optional No Optional Yes Optional Seattle City Light Santee Cooper Colorado Springs Utilities Jacksonville Electric Authority Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Memphis Light, Gas and Water Omaha Public Power District Salt River Project Long Island Power Authority Sacramento Municipal Utility District No Yes 3 No 2/3/4 Optional Yes 3 Optional Yes 2 Pilot No No Yes 2 Optional Austin Energy (Proposed) Yes 5 Optional Eugene Water & Electric Board Yes 3 No City Public Service Energy Yes 2 No Yes‐TOU Yes Yes‐TOU No No No Yes No Yes‐TOU No No Yes No Comparison of Selected Peer Munic ipal Ut ilit y Resident ial Rat e St ruc t ures No In Progress No Yes‐TOU Yes Yes‐TOU Yes Rebate Rate No Pilot‐TOU No No No Electric Rate Options Attachment 2 Utility Tiered Rate Structure Inclining Blocks # of Blocks TOU Low Income Rates Electric Vehicle Rates (2) Real Time Pricing Xcel Energy Yes 2 Pilot Toronto Hydro Yes 2 Optional Pepco Yes 2/3 Optional Southern California Edison Yes 5 Optional Portland General Electric Yes 2 Optional Puget Sound Electric Yes 2 No Sand Diego Gas & Electric Yes 4 Pilot Avista Yes 2 No Pacific Power Yes 2 No IdahoOptional Power Yes 3 Ameren Illinos No RTP(2) Pacific Gas & Electric Yes 5 Optional Arizona Public Service Yes 4 Optional RTP(2) Yes Yes‐TOU No In Progress No Yes No Yes Yes‐TOU Yes Yes No In Progress Comparison of Selected Investor Owned Utility Residential Rate Structures Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes‐TOU No Yes‐TOU Yes No No Yes‐TOU Utilities —Electric Board City of 700 Wood St. Fort CoLLins P0 Fort Box Collins, 580 CO 80522 974i6208 fax MEMORANDUM DATE: August 8, 2011 TO: Mayor Weitkunat and Councilmembers FROM: Steve Wolley, Chairperson on behalf of the Fort Collins Electric Board SUBJECT: Proposed Electric Utility Rate Structures EC: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Brian Janonis, Utilities Executive Director Patty Bigner, Customer and Employee Relations Manager Steve Catanach, Light and Power Operations Manager Electric Board At the August 3 Electric Board meeting, Utilities staff and representatives from their consulting team, SAIC (an R.W. Beck company) met with the Electric Board for more than three hours to review findings related to proposed electric service rate structures for commercial and residential customers. Board members engaged Utilities staff in a deep and broad-ranging discussion, testing whether the analyses and conclusions presented to the Board: 1) Met the original intent of the study; 2) Covered all known risks and impacts; and 3) Would result in a rate structure that favorably drives the City’s Energy Policy and financial requirements. In the end, the Electric Board found the findings to be complete and the Utilities leadership has prepared well for the challenges it will face over the course of the next several years, starting in 2012 and continuing past the rollout of Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI) in mid-to-late 2013. The Electric Board commends the Utilities leadership and SAIC teams on the thoroughness and the quality of the study. The Electric Board makes the following additional observations and recommendations: 1. The data and analyses are complex. Decision-makers should set aside ample time to review the rate structure analysis. Utilities leadership and their consultants have a very thorough understanding of several rate structures and their impacts on both the Utility’s economic viability and impact to the broad spectrum of their customers. Rate structure data was presented in several tables and graphs. Ft0oLLins It may take multiple hours for decision-makers to review and comprehend the analysis. 2. Decision makers should evaluate the impact of rate structure options on related City goals. The Electric Board also viewed information regarding how each rate type will perform against stated City values and goals. The Electric Board recommends that decision-makers use this information when discussing rate structLlres. 3. The new AMI infrastructure will be a valuable tool for shaping second or third- generation rate changes, especially rate structures that employ a Time-of-Use (TOU) model. AMI will provide extensive insight into Fort Collins’ customer usage patterns and demand elasticity, enabling an entire new level of understanding of grid and customer behavior. When the data becomes available, thoughtful analysis of this new data set will provide invaluable insight into the effectiveness of second or third-generation rate structures. The Electric Board believes that future TOU rate strLlctures should be shaped by analysis of this data when it becomes available. 4. Exercise considerable caution when finalizing the planned rollout of the phased rate changes. Utilities staff and SAIC understand the potential unfavorable impact of implementing sequential i-ate changes over a period of years. To manage this risk and impact, Utilities plans call for applying the concept of “gradualism”. The Electric Board fully supports the use of gradualism. It is worth noting that board members are united in their concern that successive and complex i-ate changes may still generate elevated and counterproductive levels of concern in the community. Evidence from the industry provides examples of rate structure changes that have met their goals and others that have been received badly by customers. Fort Collins Light and Power is well positioned to move ahead. Should you have any questions regarding this topic, please feel free to contact us for further clarification. ATTACHMENT 4 DATE: September 13, 2011 STAFF: Kathleen Bracke Pre-taped staff presentation: none WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Review of Colorado Department of Transportation North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement Document. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Region 4 staff has been developing the North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for several years. Work on the EIS began in 2001. The purpose of the North I-25 EIS is to plan for long-range transportation needs to connect Northern Colorado with the Denver metropolitan area. The study area focuses on highway and transit plans for the Interstate 25 corridor, US287 corridor, and the US85 corridor. CDOT published the Final EIS document on August 19 and is seeking agency and public comments through October 3. Staff has reviewed the Final EIS document and provided technical comments to share with City Council and CDOT as part of this public review period. The work session discussion and September 20 regular session action represents the City’s opportunity to share staff, Council, and other potential community concerns with CDOT as part of the formal comment period on the Final EIS document. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED The purpose of this work session is to share staff comments to-date on CDOT’s North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) final document and seek input from City Council regarding additional comments and questions. 1. Does City Council have any questions or concerns with CDOT’s Final EIS document, including the preferred alternative, phasing plan, and environmental considerations? 2. Does City Council have any questions or concerns regarding City staff comments to-date on the Final EIS document? Please note that in addition to this briefing at the September 13th Work Session, City staff and representatives from CDOT will provide a presentation of the Final EIS document to the City Council at the regular City Council meeting on September 20th. Staff will seek formal action from City Council regarding comments on the North I-25 EIS on September 20th. This will be the City’s opportunity to share staff, Council, and other potential community concerns with CDOT as part of the formal comment period on the Final EIS document. September 13, 2011 Page 2 BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The purpose of the North I-25 EIS is to plan for long-range transportation needs to connect Northern Colorado with the Denver metropolitan area. The study area focuses on highway and transit plans for the Interstate 25 corridor, US287 corridor, and the US85 corridor. (Please see Attachment 1 for a copy of the Final EIS Executive Summary, including a copy of the study area map shown on page ES-2). City Councilmember Ben Manvel and staff from Advance Planning/Transportation Planning have been participants on CDOT’s Regional Coordination Committee (RCC) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) throughout the EIS process. The TAC members are comprised of technical staff from the various local municipalities, plus regional, state, and federal agencies. The RCC includes elected officials from communities throughout the North I-25 EIS project area. The RCC and TAC members have provided comments and feedback to CDOT’s EIS project team throughout the multi- year planning process. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) released the Final North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) document for a public review period on August 19 and is seeking agency and public comments through October 3. CDOT has an electronic version of the FEIS document available for public review via its website: (http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/north-i-25-eis) and hard copies are available at the City’s Transportation Planning office located at 281 North College Avenue and at the main Library on Peterson Street. In addition to reviewing the FEIS document via CDOT’s website, the City has an electronic copy available for review/download. The following are directions for staff and City Council to access the electronic FEIS documents (please note that the FEIS document is very large so we do not recommend printing it): Click on your computer’s “start menu” and select the “run” option • Copy the following text: explorer.exe ftp://gw-download:ven53dor@ns2.fcgov.com/North_I_25_EIS/ • Paste this text into the "Run" window's text box • Click the "OK" button • View or copy the files in this folder It is important for the City of Fort Collins staff and City Council to provide formal comments on the FEIS document so that the City’s concerns, questions, and issues are part of the formal record for the Colorado Department of Transportation and Federal Highways Administration to consider when finalizing the document and completing the environmental clearance process for these identified highway and transit improvements. There may be instances where the City’s comments do not directly result in a change to the final EIS document at this time, however this information will be useful input as the local, state, and federal agencies move forward with implementing these important transportation improvements in the September 13, 2011 Page 3 future. Some of our concerns may be more applicable at the more detailed design, engineering, and/or construction phases of these transportation projects. OVERVIEW OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE CDOT has provided the following information regarding the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is a combination of previous highway and transit alternatives developed by CDOT during the earlier draft phases of the EIS process. It is based upon technical data analysis as well as upon input from the various local, state, and federal agencies and the general public. The Preferred Alternative includes: • Multimodal improvements on several regional corridors, including highway and transit improvements along I-25, US287, and SH85. Based on the proposed Preferred Alternative, I-25 would be widened with general purpose lanes and Tolled Express Lanes (TELs). Substandard interchanges would be reconstructed or upgraded to accommodate future travel needs and replace aging infrastructure. • Commuter rail transit service using the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail corridor from Fort Collins to the planned FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station in Longmont. The commuter rail service is planned to continue to Downtown Denver’s Union Station via the North Metro route. A connection to Boulder would also be made with a transfer to the Northwest Rail line at the Sugar Mill Station in Longmont. The commuter rail line would consist of a single track with occasional passing tracks. • Express bus service would operate in the TELs along I-25 to connect northern Colorado communities to downtown Denver and Denver International Airport (DIA). The express bus service would utilize existing, expanded and new park & rides along I-25. • Commuter bus service along US85 would connect Greeley with downtown Denver with stops at the communities along the route. Please see Attachment 1 (Final EIS Executive Summary, page ES-8) for a map illustrating the recommended transportation improvements included in the Preferred Alternative. PHASING To accommodate current funding limitations, the Preferred Alternative has been separated into phases. The first phase is estimated to cost approximately $670 million (in 2009 dollars) and would be constructed with funding projected to be available in the amended 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Total cost for all of the improvements shown in the Preferred Alternative is approximately $2.178 billion. Future phases would be constructed over time as funding is available. September 13, 2011 Page 4 Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative is shown in Attachment 1 (Final EIS Executive Summary, page ES-18) and includes the following elements within the Fort Collins area: • Widening I-25 between SH392/Carpenter Road and SH14/Mulberry Street - would initially be used as continuous acceleration/deceleration lanes but would ultimately become part of the general purpose lanes. The widening of I-25 between SH392 and SH14 would eventually accommodate TELs. Widening would include water quality ponds, and median barrier features necessary to accommodate this improvement. Right-of-way purchase associated with the ultimate Preferred Alternative cross section is also included. • Interchange replacement and upgrades – SH14/Mulberry and Prospect interchanges would be constructed to their ultimate configurations. The interchange improvements at I-25 and SH392 will be completed as part of the separate joint agency project already underway. • Park & ride improvements at I-25 interchanges. • Commuter Rail Right-of-Way (ROW) preservation – All ROW necessary to construct the ultimate commuter rail configuration would be purchased as part of Phase 1. • Initial I-25 Bus – Regional bus service connecting from Fort Collins to downtown Denver and DIA would be initiated. Transit stations would be constructed as part of Phase 1 and buses would be purchased. The culmination of the EIS process is for CDOT to seek a Record of Decision (ROD) from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The ROD will signify federal agency approval for the highway and transit improvements identified in Phase I of the Final EIS (FEIS) document. The ROD will identify funding for Phase 1 consistent with regional transportation plans included in the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s planning documents. The ROD will be prepared only for Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative. For the remaining phases, the rest of the project elements would then be implemented to complete the ultimate Preferred Alternative over time, depending upon safety factors, transportation needs, and available resources/funding. Phase 2 is anticipated to include constructing the commuter rail from Loveland to Longmont, constructing TELs and associated interchange upgrades between SH14/Mulberry and SH56 and between E-470 and 120th Avenue. Phase 3 is anticipated to include the completion of the commuter rail from Loveland to Fort Collins, constructing the general purpose lanes from SH14/Mulberry to SH66, and constructing TELs from SH66 to E-470. Subsequent RODs will be prepared for these future phases, as funding becomes available. September 13, 2011 Page 5 CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMENTS ON THE EIS City Council and staff have previously commented on the EIS process and draft documents over the years, with the most recent being two City Council work sessions in 2009 (February and October) as well as formal comments provided by the City on the Draft EIS document in 2008. Prior Fort Collins City Council and staff comments/concerns expressed to CDOT to-date include phasing and details of proposed commuter rail and highway improvements; impacts to wildlife habitat areas, air quality, water quality, and stormwater contaminants; as well as the need for bigger picture cost/benefit analysis considering long-term sustainability objectives. Attachment 2 is a copy of the City of Fort Collins comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that were submitted to CDOT in 2008 and comments from the 2009 City Council Worksessions. This information includes CDOT responses to prior City comments as well as new/additional City staff comments that have been added based upon review of the Final EIS document. Staff comments on the 2011 FEIS document are consistent with the same themes of concerns shared with CDOT as part of the City’s comments on the prior draft EIS document and proposed alternatives in 2008-2009. Staff is pleased that many of our prior comments, concerns, and suggestions shared with CDOT over the years have been incorporated in to the FEIS document such as the inclusion and importance of the multimodal options to provide express bus and commuter rail service in the core activity centers and corridors of our community as well as the highway and interchange improvements needed to improve safety and capacity for automobile and freight traffic. CDOT has recognized Fort Collins’ land use and transportation planning visions as documented in Plan Fort Collins (City Plan and Transportation Master Plan), and also integrated the multimodal improvements included in the City’s Mason Corridor master plan into its commuter rail corridor planning and station locations. For example, the three future commuter rails stations shown in the FEIS Preferred Alternative are co-located with the City’s MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stations at the South Transit Center, University station, and Downtown Transit Center to integrate regional passenger rail service with our local transit plans. Similarly, CDOT’s regional express bus service shown along Harmony Road will integrate regional and local transit service along this corridor from the City’s South Transit Center to the transfer center currently located at Harmony/I-25. This interface with the Mason/MAX and Harmony corridors will support local transit passengers wishing to connect with regional service to downtown Denver and Boulder. While many of the prior City comments/questions/concerns have been addressed by CDOT in the FEIS, City staff continues to have concerns regarding several areas of the FEIS document. Highlights of these continuing concerns include the following points: • Implementation phasing for the various transportation improvements, specifically the phasing plan shown for the future commuter rail service extending from Loveland to Fort Collins is not shown until Phase 3 (CDOT expected timeframe of 2075+). Staff recommends that CDOT revise the FEIS to only show two phases – Phase 1 as shown now, as the “fiscally constrained plan” based on anticipated funding levels through 2035. Then, the new September 13, 2011 Page 6 “Phase 2” would include all of the remaining elements of the Preferred Alternative and be considered the “unfunded” items and not be tied to an artificial, 50-60+ year time horizon. These transportation improvements – highway and transit – shown in Phase 2 and 3 need to be implemented sooner rather than later to serve the regional travel demand forecast for 2035. Dividing them into two artificial phases does not solve the issue that the future regional transportation needs significantly outpace our current funding sources. The EIS Preferred Alternative should be a catalyst for convening regional discussions and partnerships to work together toward accomplishing these needs within the 2035 timeframe. • The transportation and air quality analysis included in the FEIS results in travel demand projections that may not reflect changing fuel costs, use of alternative fuel vehicles, changing lifestyle choices and long-term sustainability values, as well as other potentially significant factors that would influence the demand for interstate and transit travel in the future. Our cities, our region, and our country are facing a very different paradigm in the future. It seems that traditional analysis tools based on the past 50 year trends may not be accurate for predicting future demand and travel behavior. Staff recommends that CDOT consider using a Triple Bottom Line method of analysis that factors in traditional transportation analysis methods along with consideration of Environmental, Economic, and Human factors. While staff recognizes the need for addressing pressing safety, capacity and ageing infrastructure concerns along I-25, we also hope that roadway investments made in the near future will not become stranded assets as mode shift occurs. Fortunately the transit system in the Preferred Alternative can accommodate increases in transit mode share over time by adding additional transit vehicles. • Every effort to implement non-barrier methods of noise mitigation along I-25 (for example, where it passes Arapaho Bend Natural Area) should be implemented. Staff does not support construction of a barrier to mitigate noise in this area. In addition, potential fencing/barriers/sound walls within other areas of Fort Collins, either along the highway and/or commuter rail corridor, are not desirable from a community planning and environmental perspective. Staff requests that CDOT consider deleting these elements and/or include other options to maintain view sheds and wildlife movement corridors. • Wetlands impacted in the Fort Collins regional area should be mitigated within the same Fort Collins regional area. Local mitigation requirements per City of Fort Collins Land Use Code should be considered for locally (Fort Collins) impacted wetlands. Staff supports the mitigation of both federally jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands throughout the project area. • Regarding floodplains, the mitigation in the FEIS document for each creek, river, or other drainage is vague, not site specific, and makes it impossible to evaluation for direct and indirect impacts to wetlands and floodplains. The same four mitigation measures are identified for separate drainages. Staff requests that revised, site specific mitigation plans for each drainage should be conducted for the public and appropriate stakeholders to comment on either as part of the EIS process and/or as part of the design process that moves forward for implementation. In addition, staff requests that CDOT state that all regulations will be followed including federal, state, and local requirements (not just the FEMA regulations as noted in the FEIS). September 13, 2011 Page 7 • Regarding the Floodplain Report, Cache La Poudre River section, the information should be corrected to reflect that the City of Fort Collins staff highly supports removing the split flow on the west side of I-25 if regulatory issues can be resolved through mitigation. The split flow current heads south and crosses Harmony Road. Eliminating this split flow would be an important life-safety issue since Harmony Road, a major arterial into Fort Collins, is overtopped in less than a 100-year flood. Attachment 2 is a summary of more detailed comments/concerns from City staff on the 2011 FEIS document. The City comments are organized by topic area and include analysis of CDOT’s responsiveness to the City’s prior comments as well as new staff comments/questions/concerns based on the FEIS. Comments that are submitted to CDOT as part of the public review period will be noted for CDOT response and included for review by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as part of its formal review process of the EIS. As part of the Record of Decision (ROD) approval process, FHWA will consider whether or not CDOT has adequately addressed the comments received during the public review period. The EIS Phase 2 and 3 improvements will need to go through a subsequent formal review process by FHWA before they can be implemented. CDOT will be confirming the future process for Phase 2 and 3 improvements for the public and local agencies as part of the upcoming public outreach process. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NEXT STEPS CDOT is hosting a series of public meetings regarding the FEIS document from 4:30 – 7:30 p.m. on the following dates: • September 12– Southwest Weld County Building,4209 Weld County Road 24 ½ (I-25 exit #240) • September 13 - Longmont Public Library, 409 4th Avenue, Longmont • September 15 – The Ranch (Budweiser Events Center), 5290 Arena Circle (I-25 exit #259) The format for each of the public hearings will include an open house from 4:30 pm to 7:00 pm with a brief presentation beginning at 5:30 pm followed with an opportunity to comment. City staff will be attending the public meeting on September 15th to share comments with CDOT’s EIS project team as well as to listen to community comments. Once CDOT and FHWA have an approved ROD for the North I-25 EIS, they are planning to move forward with the design phase of the I-25 highway improvements from SH14 south to SH392. City staff will continue to work with CDOT throughout this design process to carry forward the issues, comments, and suggestions discussed during the EIS process. In addition, CDOT and the Army Corps of Engineers are currently working on the 404 permitting requirements for wetland mitigation and have submitted a separate permit application to the City’s Natural Resources department for review. City staff is reviewing this information concurrently with the EIS review and will be providing consistent comments on both the FEIS and the 404 permit application regarding the desire for wetland mitigation to be done locally if possible. September 13, 2011 Page 8 City staff presented a brief update to the Transportation Board at its August 17, 2011 meeting and Attachment 3 provides a summary of their discussion. Please see the attachment 4 for a copy of the Fact Sheet provided by CDOT that explains the highlights of the North I-25 EIS preferred alternative and provides some Frequently Asked Questions/Answers. For more information regarding the CDOT North I-25 EIS, please visit the project website: http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/north-i-25-eis ATTACHMENTS 1. Final EIS Executive Summary 2. City of Fort Collins Comments on CDOT EIS documents (This includes City Council and Staff comments on Draft EIS in 2008-2009 as well as additional staff comments on FEIS in August/September 2011) 3. Transportation Board meeting summary (August 17, 2011) 4. CDOT North I-25 EIS Fact Sheet (August 2011) Executive Summary ES-1 Final EIS August 2011 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 ES.1 SUMMARY OF THE ACTION 3 The Federal Highway Administration 4 (FHWA), in cooperation with the Colorado 5 Department of Transportation (CDOT), has 6 prepared this Final Environmental Impact 7 Statement (Final EIS) to identify and 8 evaluate multi-modal transportation 9 improvements along the 61-mile 10 I-25 transportation corridor extending from 11 the Fort Collins/Wellington area to Denver. 12 The improvements being considered in this 13 Final EIS would address regional and inter- 14 regional movement of people, goods, and 15 services in the I-25 corridor. The 16 improvements are needed to address 17 mobility, accessibility, safety, and aging infrastructure problems along I-25, as well as to provide 18 for a greater variety of transportation choices. 19 The regional study area (Figure ES-1) that encompasses these proposed improvements includes 20 38 incorporated communities. Major population centers in the regional study area include 21 Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland and communities in the northern portion of the Denver 22 metropolitan area (Denver Metro Area). 23 Three multi-modal build packages (Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative) are 24 being evaluated, as well as the No-Action Alternative in accordance with National Environmental 25 Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. Types of highway improvements being considered as a part of 26 the multi-modal packages include highway widening and interchange reconstruction. Transit 27 improvements being considered in the multi-modal packages include commuter rail, commuter 28 bus, and bus rapid transit (BRT) on three different alignments. 29 ES.2 OTHER ACTIONS IN THE REGIONAL STUDY AREA 30 Two other major actions are being proposed in the regional study area by other governmental 31 agencies. These are: 32 Glade Reservoir and the Relocation of US 287. The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy 33 District is proposing to build a new reservoir in the northwestern corner of the regional study 34 area. This would require relocation of a segment of US 287 north of Fort Collins. 35 FasTracks Corridors. The Regional Transportation District (RTD) is the existing agency 36 providing transit service in the Denver Metro Area. RTD will build commuter rail along two 37 corridors that will provide service to communities in the regional study area. The FasTracks 38 North Metro Corridor is located along the Union Pacific Railroad corridor just to the east of 39 I-25, terminating in Thornton. The FasTracks Northwest Rail Corridor is located along the 40 Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) corridor (which is located adjacent to SH 119 41 between Boulder and Longmont) on the far western edge of the regional study area. What’s In Executive Summary? Executive Summary ES.1 Summary of the Action ES.2 Other Actions in the Regional Study Area ES.3 Summary of Reasonable Alternatives Considered ES.4 Decision Making Process ES.5 Summary of Major Environmental and Other Impacts ES.6 Other Federal Actions Required ES.7 Next Steps in the NEPA Process ES.8 Phased Project Implementation ATTACHMENT 1 Executive Summary ES-2 Final EIS August 2011 1 Figure ES-1 North I-25 EIS Regional Study Area 2 Executive Summary ES-3 Final EIS August 2011 1 ES.3 SUMMARY OF REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES 2 CONSIDERED 3 An extensive process was undertaken to identify a range of alternatives that could be 4 developed to meet the purpose and need of the project. These alternatives were then 5 screened and combined to produce two build packages, Package A and Package B, which 6 were evaluated in the Draft EIS. The evaluation of these two packages, as well as input from 7 the project’s advisory committees and the public, was used to develop the Preferred 8 Alternative (which is evaluated in this Final EIS) from elements of Package A and Package B. 9 Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative, together with the No-Action Alternative, 10 are considered the reasonable alternatives for this proposed action and all of these 11 alternatives have been fully evaluated in this Final EIS. 12 No-Action Alternative 13 The No-Action Alternative (Figure ES-2) would include those transportation projects that have 14 not been built, but for which funding has been committed, including the two FasTrack corridors. 15 The bridge over I-25 at 84th Avenue is currently being reconstructed as part of a separate project 16 expected to be completed in 2012. The SH 392/I-25 interchange will also be reconstructed as 17 part of a separate project starting in the middle of 2011 and expected to be completed in 2012. 18 The No-Action Alternative also would include replacement of pavement on I-25, installation of 19 signals at five interchange ramp termini, and widening of I-25 off-ramps at the Prospect/I-25 20 interchange. 21 Package A 22 Package A (Figure ES-3) would include adding one additional general purpose lane on I-25 in 23 each direction, for a total of six lanes from SH 66 to SH 14 (plus auxiliary lanes between 24 Harmony Road and SH 60) and a total of eight lanes from E-470 to SH 52. Interchange 25 reconstructions would be included. Package A also includes a double-tracked commuter rail 26 line using the existing BNSF railroad track plus one new track from Fort Collins to downtown 27 Longmont. The new second track was eliminated for a 500-foot segment of the corridor in 28 Loveland to avoid the historic Loveland Depot and in a second location – adjacent to a historic 29 residential property at 122 8th Avenue in Longmont. This would result in bi-directional service 30 along the existing single-track BNSF line near the proposed Loveland station and adjacent to 31 the residential property in Longmont. 32 Also included in Package A would be a new double-tracked commuter rail line that would 33 connect Longmont to the FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station in Thornton. Because 34 Package A commuter rail includes a double-tracked system, a parallel maintenance road 35 would not be needed. Maintenance access would be provided by the second track. Package A 36 also would include nine commuter rail stations and a commuter rail maintenance facility; a 37 commuter bus maintenance facility and feeder bus routes along five east-west routes; and 38 commuter bus service along US 85 between Greeley and downtown Denver and along E-470 39 from US 85 to Denver International Airport (DIA). Executive Summary ES-4 Final EIS August 2011 1 Figure ES-2 No-Action Alternative 2 Executive Summary ES-5 Final EIS August 2011 1 Figure ES-3 Package A 2 Executive Summary ES-6 Final EIS August 2011 1 Package B 2 Package B (Figure ES-4) would include adding one buffer-separated tolled express lane (TEL) 3 to I-25 except for the section between SH 60 and Harmony Road, where two barrier-separated 4 lanes would be added. TELs would extend from SH 14 to 84th Avenue in Thornton. TELs 5 would be used by high-occupancy vehicles for free, by single-occupancy vehicles if they pay a 6 toll, and by buses. Interchange reconstructions would be included. Package B would also 7 provide a bus rapid transit system including 12 bus stations providing service along I-25, along 8 US 34 into Greeley, and along Harmony Road into Fort Collins. Along US 34 and Harmony 9 Road, the buses would travel in mixed traffic. Package B also would include a bus 10 maintenance facility and feeder bus routes along five east-west streets. In addition, bus 11 service would be provided along E-470 from I-25 to DIA. 12 Preferred Alternative 13 The Preferred Alternative (Figure ES-5) would combine elements presented in Packages A 14 and B and would include multimodal improvements on multiple corridors. Under the Preferred 15 Alternative, I-25 would be widened with general purpose lanes and TELs and substandard 16 interchanges would be reconstructed or upgraded to accommodate future travel needs. 17 The Preferred Alternative also includes commuter rail transit service from Fort Collins to the 18 anticipated FasTracks North Metro end-of-line. Service to Denver would travel through 19 Longmont and along the FasTracks North Metro Corridor. A connection to Boulder would also 20 be made with a transfer to Northwest Rail at the Sugar Mill Station in Longmont. Nine 21 commuter rail stations and a commuter transit maintenance facility are included in the 22 Preferred Alternative. The commuter rail would consist of a single track with occasional 23 passing tracks at four locations. The BNSF railroad is requiring that commuter rail utilizing 24 BNSF track upgrade BNSF facilities to include a maintenance road where maintenance access 25 is not available. The Preferred Alternative design includes a maintenance road parallel to the 26 BNSF line between Longmont and Fort Collins. Commuter rail track that is not within the BNSF 27 right-of-way does not include a maintenance road. 28 Express bus service would operate in the TEL to connect northern Colorado communities to 29 downtown Denver and DIA and serve 13 stations along Harmony Road, US 34, and I-25. 30 Commuter bus service along US 85 would connect Greeley with downtown Denver with five 31 stops at the communities along the route. A bus maintenance facility would be constructed to 32 accommodate both express buses and commuter buses. 33 Executive Summary ES-7 Final EIS August 2011 1 Figure ES-4 Package B 2 Executive Summary ES-8 Final EIS August 2011 1 Figure ES-5 Preferred Alternative 2 Executive Summary ES-9 Final EIS August 2011 1 ES.4 DECISION MAKING PROCESS 2 A collaborative decision making process was used to develop consensus among the 3 45 communities and agencies (including CDOT and FHWA) on the elements in the Preferred 4 Alternative and the phasing plan. A collaborative decision making process was used because 5 of the need for broad community support and limited financial resources available for 6 transportation improvements in the region. Broad community support sets the stage for local 7 agency participation, partnerships, and commitment to implementation through policies, zoning 8 and, adoption of complementary land use and transportation plans. Broad community support 9 is also more likely to attract funding. The collaborative decision making process is the 10 mechanism for achieving broad community support for a Preferred Alternative which 11 addresses Purpose and Need in a manner that allows FHWA and CDOT to take responsibility 12 for the decision and implementation. Through this process consensus was achieved on the 13 Preferred Alternative and its phasing plan. 14 ES.5 SUMMARY OF MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND 15 TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 16 Chapter 3 Environmental Consequences and Chapter 4 Transportation Impacts of this Final 17 EIS include information describing environmental and other impacts to all resources in the 18 affected area. Section 3.28 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts includes a summary of all 19 impacts and Section 3.29 Mitigation Summary includes a summary of all mitigation. This 20 section provides a summary of only the major impacts that would occur. 21 Environmental Impacts 22 Land Use 23 Implementation of Package A would support regional planning and municipal planning efforts 24 (including transit oriented development). Under Package B, anticipated development along 25 I-25 would continue in accordance with city and county plans. Bus rapid transit would support 26 this development. In the absence of transit or capacity improvements in Fort Collins, Loveland 27 and Longmont, development would most likely continue to spread outward from city centers. 28 The Preferred Alternative is a combination of components presented in Package A and 29 Package B, and includes multimodal improvements on multiple corridors. The Preferred 30 Alternative would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans, 31 with impacts similar to those described for Package A. Conversion of agricultural and open 32 lands into urban uses will continue regardless of whether a build package is implemented or 33 not. Implementing Package A or the Preferred Alternative could minimize the conversion of 34 agricultural land in the outlying areas of communities along the BNSF rail line as development 35 shifts toward higher densities and urban centers in Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont. 36 Right-of-Way 37 Relocation impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative would include 51 residences and 38 23 businesses, compared with 59 residences and 33 businesses associated with Package A 39 and 24 residences and 16 businesses associated with Package B. All acquisition or relocation 40 needed for this project would fully comply with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 41 Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. Executive Summary ES-10 Final EIS August 2011 1 Air Quality 2 Air pollutant emissions associated with all three build packages would be slightly greater than 3 those anticipated under the No-Action Alternative because vehicle miles of travel would be 4 expected to increase. These emissions in 2035 would, however, be lower than existing levels 5 for all pollutants and in all alternatives. 6 Noise and Vibration 7 Traffic noise impacts would occur under all three build packages as well as the No-Action 8 Alternative. The No-Action Alternative would impact a few less sites (816 sites) than the 9 Preferred Alternative (840 sites), Package A (826 sites) or Package B (848 sites). Mitigation of 10 traffic noise is recommended for two areas under Package A and for seven areas under 11 Package B and the Preferred Alternative. 12 Noise impacts also would occur as a result of rail transit operations associated with Package A 13 and the Preferred Alternative, with severe impacts projected to occur at 697 residences, 14 6 schools, and 1 church along both the Package A and the Preferred Alternative commuter rail 15 corridors. Vibration impacts, affecting 40 residences, would be expected as a result of 16 commuter rail operations associated with Package A and the Preferred Alternative. Noise and 17 vibration mitigation would be installed. The identified mitigation actions for Package A and the 18 Preferred Alternative of quiet zones, noise barriers, special trackwork and tire-derived 19 aggregate would remove rail transit noise and vibration impacts such that no receivers would 20 be impacted by rail noise or rail vibration. The implementation of quiet zones for rail transit 21 noise will require the involvement of several local governments. Other mitigation measures 22 (such as noise barriers) have been identified in the event that one or more quiet zones cannot 23 be implemented. 24 Quiet zones are the best and preferred train horn mitigation because quiet zones would 25 eliminate the noise source. The direct involvement and sponsorship of local government 26 agencies is required for quiet zone implementation, and they must apply to the PUC for quiet 27 zone approval. CDOT and FHWA cannot guarantee such local government agency actions; 28 however, CDOT and FHWA anticipate that local government agencies will agree that quiet 29 zones will be beneficial and be willing to sponsor the required Public Utilities 30 Commission (PUC) applications. If for any reason, one or more quiet zones cannot be 31 implemented, the recommended mitigation would change to additional noise walls for those 32 locations along the rail corridor. 33 With the proposed mitigation: 34 Package A would impact 623 Category B and 153 Category C receivers from traffic noise, 35 while no receivers would be impacted by commuter rail. 36 Package B would impact 504 Category B and 163 Category C receivers from traffic noise. 37 Preferred Alternative would impact 498 Category B and 161 Category C receivers from 38 traffic noise, while no receivers would be impacted by commuter rail. 39 Executive Summary ES-11 Final EIS August 2011 1 Wetlands 2 Wetlands and waters of the U.S. would be impacted by all three build alternatives along 3 highway and transit corridors; Package A would impact 21.9 acres, Package B would impact 4 21.3 acres, and the Preferred Alternative would impact 18.2 acres. Mitigation would be 5 provided for all wetland impacts in compliance with provisions of the Clean Water Act and 6 requirements of Executive Order 11990. 7 Floodplains 8 Impacts would occur to 100-year floodplains situated along the corridors. Package A would 9 impact 12.8 acres of floodplains, Package B would impact 13.5 acres of floodplains, and the 10 Preferred Alternative would impact 13.0 acres of floodplains. All floodplain impacts would be 11 mitigated in accordance with Executive Order 11988, 23 Code of Federal Regulations 12 (CFR) 650, and local regulations. 13 Wildlife 14 Wildlife and aquatic species habitat would be negatively affected. Package A would impact 15 2.0 acres of sensitive wildlife habitat and 1.8 acres of sensitive aquatic habitat, Package B 16 would impact 2.4 acres of sensitive wildlife habitat and 2.3 acres of sensitive aquatic habitat, 17 and the Preferred Alternative would impact 1.9 acres of sensitive wildlife habitat and 1.5 acres 18 of sensitive aquatic habitat. All impacts would be mitigated to the extent possible. 19 Threatened, Endangered, State Sensitive and Protected Species 20 There would be impacts to threatened, endangered, state sensitive and protected animal 21 species habitat. Package A would impact 292 acres, Package B would impact 353 acres, and 22 the Preferred Alternative would impact 341 acres. Most of these impacts would occur to bald 23 eagle foraging habitat and black tailed prairie dog colonies. All impacts would be mitigated. 24 Historic Preservation 25 There are many archaeological and historic properties along the transportation corridors. 26 Seventy-two of these are either on the National Register of Historic Places or have been 27 determined eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Package A would 28 cause an adverse effect to seven of these properties, Package B would result in an adverse 29 effect to one of these properties, and the Preferred Alternative would cause an adverse effect 30 to four of these properties. Mitigation for impacted properties would occur in compliance with 31 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800). 32 Parks and Recreation 33 There are 41 existing and proposed parks or recreational properties along the corridors. 34 Package A would affect eight of these properties, Package B would affect six of these 35 properties, and the Preferred Alternative would affect six of these properties. Mitigation for all 36 impacts would be provided in accordance with the requirements of Section 4(f) of the 37 Department of Transportation Act. 38 Executive Summary ES-12 Final EIS August 2011 1 Hazardous Materials 2 All three build alternatives would have hazardous materials impacts associated with sites to be 3 acquired for right-of-way (partial and full). Hazardous materials impacts include sites with 4 either potential or known soil and/or groundwater contamination. Package A would impact 5 96 parcels with potential environmental conditions and 18 parcels with recognized 6 environmental conditions. Package B would impact 40 parcels with potential environmental 7 conditions and 16 parcels with recognized environmental conditions. The Preferred Alternative 8 would impact 67 parcels with potential environmental conditions and 20 parcels with 9 recognized environmental conditions. 10 Compatibility with Area Plans 11 Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative were designed to accommodate future 12 population and employment growth, increased traffic volumes, and expansion plans of 13 municipalities in the regional study area, and to be compatible with both regional and local 14 area transportation plans. Transit improvements were designed to connect and be compatible 15 with RTD’s planned FasTracks rail system. Not all of the improvements included in Package A, 16 Package B, and the Preferred Alternative are included in the fiscally constrained plan for 17 Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). CDOT has submitted amendments 18 requesting DRCOG to include Phase 1 Preferred Alternative improvements in the fiscally- 19 constrained plan. The amendments are expected to be adopted in September 2011. Adoption 20 of these amendments must occur prior to inclusion of these improvements in a Record of 21 Decision (ROD). 22 Transportation Impacts 23 Transportation travel demand forecasts for 2035 were produced through the use of a multi- 24 modal travel demand model, which was developed by combining the existing DRCOG and 25 NFRMPO travel demand models. Additional expertise was utilized for toll and revenue 26 forecasts. Key transportation impact findings are summarized below. 27 All three build alternatives provide improvements in travel time compared to the No-Action 28 Alternative. In the general purpose lanes, travel would be improved by 16 minutes with 29 Package A and Package B, and 26 minutes with the Preferred Alternative. Using the tolled 30 express lanes, travel time would be 51 minutes faster for Package B, and 52 minutes faster for 31 the Preferred Alternative as compared to the No-Action Alternative. Package A commuter rail 32 would be 40 minutes faster than driving in the No-Action Alternative while the Preferred 33 Alternative commuter rail would be 39 minutes faster. Travel on bus rapid transit (Package B) 34 would be 63 minutes faster. 35 Package A would result in a reduction in traffic on regional study area arterial streets of 10,000 36 to 35,000 vehicles (each arterial per day), Package B would reduce volumes from 5,000 to 37 15,000 vehicles per day, and the Preferred Alternative would reduce arterial volumes 5,000 to 38 25,000 vehicles per day compared to the No-Action Alternative. The reduction in volumes has 39 a notable range, reflecting the natural range in daily total volumes on minor and major 40 arterials. The No-Action Alternative would result in very little physical impact to social, 41 economic, and environmental resources. Air pollution related to traffic congestion would 42 continue to increase and noise impacts from increased traffic also would worsen. Over time, 43 the No-Action Alternative could have a dampening effect on the local economy. Executive Summary ES-13 Final EIS August 2011 1 Travel Demand 2 I-25 capacity improvements attract traffic to I-25 over the No-Action Alternative. The increase 3 in traffic varies by segment reflecting differing origin and destination patterns along the 60-mile 4 corridor. Larger traffic increases occur near mid corridor activity centers. Small increases 5 occur at the northern end of the study area reflecting lower trip generation and at the south 6 end reflecting less available capacity on I-25 south of E-470. 7 Package A projected 2035 daily traffic volumes on I-25 segments between SH 1 and E-470 8 would generally be 8 percent to 33 percent higher than the No-Action Alternative, while 9 Package B 2035 daily traffic projections would be about 1 percent to 27 percent higher than 10 the No-Action Alternative. The Preferred Alternative projected 2035 daily traffic volumes would 11 generally be 2 percent to 40 percent higher than the No-Action Alternative, with similar pattern 12 across the range as Package B. In general, the increased traffic on I-25 with the build 13 alternatives would reduce traffic on the roadways parallel to I-25. Package A and the Preferred 14 Alternative would have a greater effect on parallel arterial volumes than Package B in the 15 northern area. In the Denver metropolitan area, only Package B and the Preferred Alternative 16 have some effect on parallel arterials due to the addition of the TELs. 17 The build alternatives would attract more highway users (people) to I-25 than the No-Action 18 Alternative. Package B would generate slightly more total users than Package A. The 19 Preferred Alternative would have the highest level of users at over 990,000 daily (number of 20 vehicles entering this length of I-25 multiplied by vehicle occupancy). The transit components 21 of Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative would not appreciably reduce I-25 22 highway traffic volumes because transit ridership projections are an order of magnitude 23 smaller than vehicular demand projections. 24 Transit ridership (not including the feeder buses) in 2035 would be about 5,850 riders per day 25 for Package A, about 6,800 riders for Package B, and about 6,500 riders per day for the 26 Preferred Alternative. Station activity for commuter rail, BRT, and express bus would increase 27 from north to south while station activity for the commuter bus generally would be the same at 28 stations along the route. 29 System Operation 30 Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative would experience similar peak hour 31 operation at the I-25 interchange ramp termini but the Preferred Alternative would operate with 32 substantially fewer miles of congestion on I-25 than either Package A or Package B.South of 33 E-470, Package B and the Preferred Alternative would experience fewer miles of congestion 34 on I-25 than Package A due to the increased capacity with the additional TELs. 35 Safety 36 Package A, Package B and the Preferred Alternative would modify newer interchange 37 structures, rehabilitate older structures, or replace the existing structures to address geometric 38 and capacity-related safety concerns. To minimize the potential for conflict between the 39 proposed commuter rail line and private automobiles, railroad grade crossings were designed 40 to comply with both Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and RTD safety standards through 41 either grade separation or other treatment and warning methods. Along the BNSF alignment in 42 Package A and the Preferred Alternative, existing grade separations would be maintained but Executive Summary ES-14 Final EIS August 2011 1 no new structures would be added. For the new alignment from Longmont to North Metro 2 Corridor in Package A and the Preferred Alternative, six new grade separations would be 3 incorporated into the design. 4 Package A, Package B and the Preferred Alternative are expected to experience 5 approximately the same number of total crashes in 2035 with slightly fewer injury and fatality 6 crashes anticipated under Package B.Barrier-separated sections of Package B were 7 predicted to have fewer accidents than the same sections of I-25 in Package A or the 8 Preferred Alternative. 9 Freight Traffic on I-25 10 Neither Package A, Package B, nor the Preferred Alternative would affect the current growth 11 rate for freight traffic (estimated to be two percent on the south end and three percent on the 12 north end). In general, freight traffic would benefit from improved traffic operations in the GPLs 13 and reconstruction of the highway to a maximum grade of four percent included in all build 14 packages. In Package B and the Preferred Alternative, freight traffic would be prohibited from 15 using the TEL. 16 Pedestrian and Bicycle Systems 17 The No-Action Alternative generally would not affect bicycle/pedestrian facilities along the I-25 18 corridor.All build package improvements along I-25 generally would facilitate future 19 bicycle/pedestrian travel, because reconstruction plans would include provisions for future 20 bicycle/pedestrian facilities to cross the interstate and new bridges over waterways would 21 accommodate planned trails.Pedestrian and bicycle connections to transit stations in 22 Package A and the Preferred Alternative would be located along the BNSF rail line, US 85, 23 and I-25.Pedestrian and bicycle connections to transit stations in Package B would be 24 focused along I-25. Proposed queue jumps along US 34 (Package A, Package B, and 25 Preferred Alternative) and US 85 (Package A) would require acquisition of some new right-of- 26 way, which could affect some pedestrian crossings and on-street bicycle facilities. All 27 connections and trails would be maintained. 28 Construction Impacts 29 Highway construction methods would be similar for all build packages, although Package B 30 and the Preferred Alternative would require additional signage and striping, as well as 31 installation of the toll collection system. In all packages, new highway segments would open as 32 phases are completed and a design-build method could be sought for any of the package 33 improvements. Transit construction methods in Package A and the Preferred Alternative would 34 temporarily disrupt freight rail traffic for the construction of grade crossing improvements and 35 construction of the vertical elements of the commuter rail stations. Transit construction 36 methods in Package B would require night-time closures of the interstate to install the vertical 37 elements of the BRT stations in the interstate median. Regardless of the build package 38 selected, there would be temporary noise, vibration, and visual impacts, although they would 39 be minimized as much as possible. Furthermore, mitigation measures would be needed to 40 avoid air quality, water quality, and traffic impacts. The Section 404 permit would assign 41 additional detailed mitigation measures. Under all build packages, travel demand management 42 measures could be used to minimize traffic impacts. Executive Summary ES-15 Final EIS August 2011 1 ES.6 OTHER FEDERAL ACTIONS REQUIRED 2 The following is a list of other federal actions required for all build packages: 3 Issuance of a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is 4 required prior to impacting any waters of the U.S. A Section 404 permit application has 5 been submitted to the USACE. 6 Issuance of a Biological Opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will be 7 included with the ROD. 8 Consultation with USFWS regarding Platte River water usage. 9 The Final Section 4(f) Evaluation will be submitted to the Department of the Interior during 10 the Final EIS comment period. For more information, see Chapter 5, Section 4(f) 11 Evaluation. 12 Ongoing compliance with the Section 106 Programmatic Agreement. 13 Air quality conformity findings are needed for the Phase 1 ROD and all subsequent RODs. 14 ES.7 NEXT STEPS IN THE NEPA PROCESS 15 This Final EIS has been prepared in compliance with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 16 regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500), FHWA environmental impact and related 17 procedures for implementing NEPA and CEQ regulations on highway transportation projects 18 (23 CFR 771), FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A, and other applicable laws. This Final EIS 19 is available to interested parties for review and comment for 30 days. During the review period, 20 public hearings will be held and all comments recorded. 21 The next step in the NEPA process following the Final EIS review period is preparation of a 22 ROD, which will document the federal agency decision for the project. 23 ES.8 PHASED PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 24 Because there are not enough funds in the long range plan to build the entire Preferred 25 Alternative, the Preferred Alternative has been separated into three phases. The first phase 26 would cost approximately $670 million (2009 dollars) and would be constructed with funding 27 available in the fiscally-constrained 2035 RTPs, as amended. The second and third phases 28 would together cost approximately $1.5 billion (2009 dollars). These later phases would be 29 constructed over time as additional funds become available. Phasing for Package A and 30 Package B could also be developed in a similar manner. Given that all three build alternatives 31 could be phased, identification of the Preferred Alternative was not based on phasing 32 considerations. 33 Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative is shown in Figure ES-6 and includes the following 34 elements: 35 Widening I-25 between SH 66 and SH 56 – with one tolled express lane in each direction. 36 Widening would include water quality ponds and median barrier features as well as the 37 right-of-way purchase associated with the ultimate Preferred Alternative cross section. 38 Executive Summary ES-16 Final EIS August 2011 1 Widening I-25 between SH 392 and SH 14 – would initially be used as continuous 2 accel/decel lanes, but would ultimately become part of the general purpose lanes. 3 Widening would include water quality ponds and median barrier features necessary to 4 accommodate this improvement. Right-of-way purchase associated with the ultimate 5 Preferred Alternative cross section is also included. 6 Widening I-25 between 120th Avenue and approximately US 36 – one buffer-separated 7 tolled express lane in each direction. Widening would include sound walls, water quality 8 ponds, and median barrier features as well as the right-of-way purchase associated with 9 the ultimate Preferred Alternative cross section. 10 Interchange replacement and upgrades – SH 14, Prospect, SH 56, CR 34, and SH 7 11 would be constructed to their ultimate configurations. US 34/Centerra Parkway 12 intersection would be reconstructed to a single point urban interchange. SH 392 and 13 84th Avenue would be completed as part of a separate project. Minor modifications to 14 84th Avenue, Thornton Parkway, 104th Avenue, and SH 392 will be completed as part of 15 Phase 1 highway widening. 16 Six carpool lots at I-25 interchanges. 17 Commuter Rail right-of-way preservation – all right-of-way necessary to construct the 18 ultimate commuter rail configuration would be purchased as part of Phase 1. 19 Initial I-25 Bus – regional bus service connecting Fort Collins and Greeley to downtown 20 Denver and DIA would be initiated. Four transit stations would be constructed as part of 21 Phase 1 and 27 buses would be purchased. 22 Commuter Bus – commuter bus along US 85 connecting Greeley to downtown Denver 23 would be implemented in Phase 1. This would include construction of five stations and the 24 purchase of five buses. 25 Phase 2 is anticipated to include constructing the commuter rail from Loveland to Longmont, 26 constructing TELs and associated interchange upgrades between SH 14 and SH 56 and 27 between E-470 and 120th Avenue. Phase 3 is anticipated to include the completion of the 28 commuter rail, constructing the general purpose lanes from SH 14 to SH 66, and constructing 29 TELs from SH 66 to E-470. 30 Metropolitan Planning Regulation (23 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 450.322) and the 31 Clean Air Act (CAA) Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR 93.104) work together to require 32 that a project located in a Metropolitan Planning Area and/or in a CAA nonattainment or 33 maintenance area, be contained in a conforming, fiscally-constrained long-range regional 34 transportation plan. Through a ROD, FHWA can approve project improvements that are 35 included in conforming, fiscally-constrained regional transportation plans. 36 After this Final EIS has been made available to the public and the review period concludes, 37 FHWA and CDOT will identify an initial phase for the ROD. Phase 1, as identified in this 38 chapter, is proposed as Phase 1 for the ROD. Consideration of the Final EIS and the first ROD 39 will be part of future implementation of projects. Improvements included in Phase 2 and 40 Phase 3 can be re-evaluated, as necessary, based on future safety needs, funding availability, 41 and transportation needs and identified in subsequent RODs as additional funding becomes 42 available. Phases 2 and 3 do not necessarily need to be selected in their entirety or in order in 43 subsequent RODs. This will be determined at the time of a subsequent ROD, considering 44 available funding, priorities at that time, and the results of any reevaluation that may be 45 needed. Executive Summary ES-17 Final EIS August 2011 1 The identification of a Preferred Alternative for the entire project in this Final EIS is consistent 2 with FHWA’s objective of analyzing and identifying transportation solutions on a broad enough 3 scale to provide meaningful analysis and to avoid segmentation. The identification of an initial 4 phase for implementation is consistent with FHWA requirements to have funding for projects 5 identified before final decisions are made. As funds become available, it is the intent of FHWA 6 and CDOT to work toward implementation of the Preferred Alternative in its entirety through 7 this phased approach. 8 Executive Summary ES-18 Final EIS August 2011 1 Figure ES-6 Preferred Alternative Phase 1 2 ATTACHMENT 2 North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet A= Comment Addressed C= Continued Concern N= New Comment Page 1 of 22 City Council Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status 1 Travel to Denver is emphasized to the exclusion of travel to Longmont and Boulder, which are apparently at least as important destinations from Northern Colorado. The analysis should address a broader spectrum of trips. For example the graphics of travel patterns in Figure 4-6 indicate no riders going to or from Longmont, assuming all passengers are going to Denver. Really? 1. All trip types are covered by the analysis. Trips to Boulder and Longmont are also included in the analysis; however Figure 4-6 only depicts riders on the specific transit system improvements proposed by this project. Riders transferring to/from the RTD FasTracks and bus system are not directly illustrated, but their activity is discerned through the rail access/egress in the pie chart. For example, at the Sugar Mill station in Longmont, it can be seen that about three- eights of the riders getting on or getting off the commuter rail transfer to/from the FasTracks Northwest Rail line. Comment addressed - Commuter Rail and Express Bus routes in the FEIS Preferred Alternative will provide service to both Downtown Denver and Boulder to serve the different destinations for Fort Collins travelers. A 2 Connections to other transit options, in particular the North and Northwest routes proposed for FasTracks, are vital. How does each alternative interact with them? 2. All of the alternatives are connected to the future FasTracks system. Package A extends the end of the FasTracks North Metro rail line to terminate at the Downtown Transit Center in Fort Collins. Package A also extends the end of the FasTracks Northwest rail line to a new station in southern Longmont, labeled the Sugar Mill station. This would be a shared station with the North Metro line to Fort Collins, thus allowing rail-to-rail transfers. Package B interacts with the FasTracks system in downtown Denver, allowing BRT passengers to access all the FasTracks rail lines as well as the RTD bus routes serving downtown Denver. In addition, the BRT routes in Package B stop at Wagon Road, a major park- n-Ride in the northern metro area at I-25 and 120th Avenue that is served by numerous bus routes. The Preferred Alternative includes the commuter rail FasTracks connectivity points as described for Package A, and it includes express bus to downtown Denver, allowing connectivity to all the FasTracks corridors. Comment addressed - The Preferred Alternative, including the Commuter Rail and Express Bus routes, are now integrated with the future FasTracks system routes. A 3 Does the analysis look to the future, anticipating high fuel prices, demand pricing of car travel, and possible alternatives to commuting? 3. The EIS forecasts are conservative as no change in the relative cost of gasoline is assumed, because predicting the price of fuel would be impracticable. Similarly, the forecasts assume the portion of work-at-home and other alternative commute activities remain at similar percentages to that experienced today. If the price of gas or commute characteristics dramatically change, these could indeed influence travel behavior patterns. (Information about this is in the FEIS in Section 4.2.9). The EIS has openly acknowledged that the future price of gas is an unknown and therefore introduces an uncertainty into the forecasts, as described in section 4.2.6.6. Staff continues to be concerned regarding the travel demand forecast methodology used in the FEIS, particularly that it is substantially underestimating future transit ridership projections. We appreciate that CDOT openly acknowledges these challenges. For example, the FEIS states that if fuel prices were to be factored into the forecasts, the transit projections could be up to 90% higher and could be up to 40% higher than projected based on recent data from ATTACHMENT 2 North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet A= Comment Addressed C= Continued Concern N= New Comment Page 2 of 22 City Council Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status “Transportation Master Plan” as part of the 2010-11 “Plan Fort Collins” process. These plans emphasize higher density, transit oriented development” in the core areas of our community and support infill/redevelopment along “Enhanced Travel Corridors” such as the Mason Corridor and Harmony Road corridor. Also, the North Front Range MPO has recently updated their travel demand model and staff recommends that this new information be used for future transportation projections for transit and highway improvements to factor in updated land use and transportation data sources. 5 In Figures 4-6 and 4-7, the E-W ridership numbers are totally different. Why? 5. The amount of riders on the east-west feeder buses differ between the alternatives because these buses serve different regional transit systems, with different route alignments and station locations. In Package A, east-west ridership is high, as the bus feeder services to commuter rail also serve local inter-community trips. In Package B, feeder bus riders to BRT along I-25 do not serve as many inter-city trips. In the Preferred Alternative, the feeder routes are designed similar to Package B, and do not have as high a ridership as Package A. Comment addressed A 6 The financial analysis in Chapter 6 is very skimpy. Is such a superficial analysis all that is possible? 6. Cost and financial information is provided in Chapters 2 and 6 of the Final EIS. The Cost Estimate Review report, which provides detailed information on the Preferred Alternative and Phase 1 cost estimates, is included in Cost Estimate Review Final Report, July 2010, FHWA. For more information see the Cost Estimate Review Report, which is a supporting technical report to this Final EIS and is available for review at CDOT Region 4. Comment addressed, EIS financial analysis seems to be more thorough than in DEIS. Larger policy concern continues regarding the future of multimodal transportation financing for our region. The City of Fort Collins would like to continue to be part of regional discussions regarding potential funding strategies and partnerships needed to implement the Preferred Alternative shown in the FEIS as well as other local and regional transportation needs. There are many good partnership models from current projects such as the SH392 & I-25 project, North College corridor improvements, Jefferson/SH14 project, Flex transit route, and other joint projects. We look forward to continuing to work with CDOT and other regional partners to further completion of these important regional connections. C 7 Is sufficient attention paid to freight transportation? The focus seems to be totally on moving people. 7. Freight rail service will continue to be maintained in the corridor. The agreement with BNSF will specify the infrastructure and operating plan requirements to allow both passenger service and freight service. The volume of truck ATTACHMENT 2 North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet A= Comment Addressed C= Continued Concern N= New Comment Page 3 of 22 City Council Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status alternatives. A summary of environmental impacts is included in the Executive Summary and Chapter 7, and detailed information is provided in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 9 Given the enthusiasm which citizens are showing for rail, is the estimate of transit ridership of the two alternatives accurate? 9. The transit ridership model was calibrated and validated to observed travel patterns in the Denver area. Projections are based on empirical behavior of travelers, as well as future geographical projections of population and employment and estimated trip origins and destinations. Recent travel survey data collected by RTD and DRCOG indicates that, as you suggest, current actual ridership is higher than had been simulated in the model. Section 4.2.6.3 describes the potential effect these behavior changes might have on ridership. For example, commute rail ridership might be higher by about 40% than the earlier model estimates. See comment to #3 above. C 10 It is important for the North I-25 EIS and recommended improvements to address the link between transportation and environmental sustainability as well as to reflect the visions and values of the communities. 10. The North I-25 EIS provides information to decision-makers about alternatives for transportation improvements and their adverse impacts and benefits. Information is included in the Draft and the Final EIS about transportation impacts and benefits as well as those related to sustainability (land use, compatibility with community visions, air q See staff comments in both the transportation and environmental topic areas. C 11 It is important for transportation improvements to provide linkages between the core areas of our communities. This “core to core” link is a very important part of Fort Collins’ community values. 11. Comment noted. Staff continues to support this position and this is reflected in the City’s adopted Transportation Master Plan and City Plan. This comment is also linked to the staff comments regarding phasing of the Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail service. C 12 It seems that Package A addresses those core community values. This is not a statement of a preferred package, but more general thoughts and feelings for this alternative. 12. No Response Needed The Preferred Alternative, including the proposed highway, interchange, and transit system improvements, is consistent with City Plan and the Transportation Master Plan (updated in 2010-11). A City Council Comments (February 2009 Memo) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status 13 Good information to discuss and North I-25 EIS process should address social, environmental, economic needs in addition to transportation needs. These needs are all discussed in the document Comment addressed A 14 Transportation needs to include moving people and commerce – goods & services. These needs are both discussed in the document ATTACHMENT 2 North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet A= Comment Addressed C= Continued Concern N= New Comment Page 4 of 22 City Council Comments (February 2009 Memo) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status 19 McKee Farm land may be restricted from Impacts due to GoCo agreement and/or other agreements with funding partners. The Commuter Rail alignment is located within existing rail right-of-way. Comment addressed A 20 Concerns regarding water quality and storm water contaminants Stormwater Best Management Practices have been incorporated which will reduce the predicted increases in stormwater constituent loading See comment in Storm Water section C 21 Concerns regarding CDOT’s willingness to address City comments. Tom Anzia, representing Felsburg Holt & Ullevig and serving as the consultant project manager for CDOT’s North I-25 EIS project team, stated that they are responding to all comments received on the draft document and take these comments very seriously. They will be doing more detailed analysis as part of the current work effort as well as during the preparation for the Final EIS document. All comments made on the DEIS will be addressed in the FEIS Many comments addressed in FEIS; several still remaining as noted in these comments C 22 Interest in recent CDOT workshops. Input from Council members is important to share with CDOT and representatives from other communities. We have been doing this Can CDOT staff provide summaries from FEIS public meetings to local agencies? C 23 CDOT is hearing a lot of enthusiasm for Package A Commuter Rail service from many communities because it serves the existing, largest population centers and people like the idea of using rail service. The FEIS Preferred Alternative reflects this community interest; it includes Commuter Rail from Package A, as well as highway elements from Package B Comment addressed A 24 Starting to hear conflicts arise between communities east of I-25 due to concerns about current land use patterns and population centers compared with future growth areas. Observation noted; the FEIS compares and contrasts the potential land use effects of Package A, B, and the Preferred Alternative Comment addressed A 25 The average trip length on I-25 is less than three miles, so the highway is being used for local trips, rather than the regional and inter-regional trips that it is intended for. Cities need to address future improvements to other local north/south arterials to service the shorter distance trips to provide alternative routes to I-25. Hopefully communities will begin to address these local improvements Impact/benefit of I-25 improvements will need to be analyzed in the future when the NFRMPO model is updated C 26 More insight on rail alternatives needs to be examined and EIS needs to coordinate with other rail studies. Extensive analysis of rail alternatives was conducted during the development of the DEIS and the Preferred Alternative. ATTACHMENT 2 North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet A= Comment Addressed C= Continued Concern N= New Comment Page 5 of 22 City Council Comments (February 2009 Memo) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status 32 Concern was expressed by Council regarding the number of commuters that leave Fort Collins daily to commute to Denver and/or other communities. Commuter rail could potentially change nature of Fort Collins to become bedroom community to Denver. Project should compare Fort Collins’ numbers to the numbers leaving our neighboring communities. Fort Collins’ numbers are much lower. Agreed, the number of commuters leaving Fort Collins is lower than some other communities. In fact, data from the MPO and other sources has also indicated that the share of all northern area commuters who travel to the Denver metro area is relatively low. The improvements proposed in the EIS do not noticeably change this pattern. Comment addressed A City Council Comments (October 2009 Memo) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status 33 Prioritizing transit/commuter rail sooner versus highway widening improvements. Implementing transit/commuter rail services earlier could defer or eliminate the need for future highway widening. The phasing plan developed with the TAC introduces both transit and highway improvements in Phase 1. The highway has aging infrastructure issues that need to be addressed in early phases. Express bus on I-25 and commuter bus along US-85 are initiated in Phase 1. See comments on phasing C 34 Need to focus on best ways to move people, not vehicles, to meet the long-term needs of our region; The FEIS Preferred Alternative includes Commuter Rail, a sustainable regional transportation connection between the core of communities. The I-25 highway facility needs rebuilding to address aging infrastructure needs. The FEIS Preferred Alternative includes a Tolled Express Lane (TEL) on I-25, allowing HOV vehicles free travel in a restricted lane hence supporting the alternative modes of carpooling and vanpooling. Express Bus service, with connecting bus service to the communities, also will serve the I-25 corridor in the TEL lanes. Comment addressed, however continued concerns such as transit ridership projections C 35 Consider emerging larger-scale trends (fuel prices, new energy sources, demographics, etc.) that will determine transportation needs/options in the future ; We are aware of these trends that effect future travel. These issues will be qualitatively addressed in the FEIS. See comments on modeling C 36 Concern over how to serve commerce related transportation (freight, goods & services); Freight rail service will continue to be maintained in the corridor. The volume of future freight truck traffic is accounted for in all the traffic analyses conducted in the DEIS and FEIS. The design of I-25 and its interchanges will meet the requirements of freight trucks. Comment addressed A 37 Concern over a consensus approach applied by CDOT to identify and prioritize improvements; Please elaborate on this concern? 38 Support to preserve right-of-way for commuter rail as part of phase one improvements; We have heard this support; Commuter Rail ROW preservation is in Phase 1 Comment addressed A 39 Need for more detailed analysis and data driven approach. ATTACHMENT 2 North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet A= Comment Addressed C= Continued Concern N= New Comment Page 6 of 22 Transportation Planning Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status 44 General comment: Transportation Planning staff agrees with the purpose and need of the North I-25 DEIS. CDOT, FHWA, FTA, and their consultant team, have been helpful to work with City staff over the years during the development of the EIS alternatives analysis process and development of the DEIS document. The DEIS packages “A” and “B” reflect input from City staff regarding compatibility with the City’s Transportation Master Plan, Master Street Plan, Transfort Strategic Plan (currently being updated) and the Mason Corridor Master Plan, Environmental Assessment, and Preliminary Engineering documents. Either of the DEIS proposed packages can serve Fort Collins’ transportation needs in the future to address both highway and transit improvements. It is important to note that further discussions are necessary with the Fort Collins Boards, Commissions, and City Council in 2009 to reach a formal recommendation to CDOT, and their partnering agencies, regarding a preferred package of improvements. The following summary includes a preview of staff comments for both packages and notes concerns that will need to be addressed by CDOT during the development of the preferred alternative and the Final EIS document in 2009. 1. FHWA and CDOT would like to thank you for your involvement. Your input is critical to the success of this project. Transportation Planning staff would like to offer the same appreciation to CDOT staff and their consultant team for their work with City staff and City Council over the years and supports the recommended Preferred Alternative however we offer these formal comments on the FEIS for CDOT’s consideration at this time as well as for input for the future implementation phases of the highway and transit improvements. A Travel Model: 45 In terms of more specific comments and concerns, Transportation Planning staff recommends that future travel demand forecast modeling be updated by CDOT and their consulting team as part of the selection process for the preferred alternative and Final EIS analysis process to ensure that the most recent transportation and land-use data is used for determining long-term transportation improvements. Also, separate land use data assumptions should be developed for each of the two packages of alternatives based on the expected land use changes that would be driven by the proposed transportation corridor improvements to more accurate reflect the inter- relationship between land use and transportation planning. 2. The FEIS includes updated long-term forecasts to reflect 2035 RTP socioeconomic and network conditions. Agreed, separate land use forecasts would more accurately reflect the inter-relationship between land use and transportation infrastructure. Since the highway improvements are generally similar between packages, an expert panel concluded that future growth along I-25 would not substantially differ between the packages. The commuter rail of Package A and the Preferred Alternative would tend to attract growth near station areas in city centers, in contrast to the I-25 BRT and express bus of Package B and the Preferred Alternative, but the magnitude of the differences would be relatively small. For these reasons, the results of the comparison and evaluation of alternatives with different land use sets would not have differed appreciably from the results with a single land use data set. Separate forecasts were not prepared due to the constant need for prudent use of study resources. CDOT did update the long-term forecasts to 2035 which should more accurately reflect the future travel demand. However see prior staff comments items regarding continuing modeling ATTACHMENT 2 North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet A= Comment Addressed C= Continued Concern N= New Comment Page 7 of 22 Transportation Planning Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status 48 Package A The proposed improvements shown in Package A, the regional commuter rail service and addition of general purpose lanes on I-25, are very effective to address high-quality transit system improvements as well as general highway travel, safety, and freight improvements to serve the Fort Collins community and North Front Range region. Package A includes the commuter rail transit alternative using the existing BNSF railroad tracks through Fort Collins and staff agrees with the three passenger rail stations shown at the City’s Downtown Transit Center, Colorado State University’s Main Campus, and at the City’s South Transit Center. Staff appreciates CDOT co- locating the commuter rail stations at the same stations as the City’s Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit stations to allow for easy passenger transfers. This convenience and potential travel time savings could affect the transit ridership projections and that is one of the reasons for staff’s request that future travel modeling (roadway & transit) be completed by the North I-25 EIS team. 5. The modeling for the FEIS has been updated to include the Mason Street BRT since it is a committed project; the effect of co-locating the three stations in Fort Collins is reflected in the ridership projections for Package A and the Preferred Alternative. Similarly, the FEIS modeling for Package B includes the Mason BRT and the effect of a common BRT station at the South Transit Center. The updated modeling reflects the City's comments regarding adding Mason BRT. A 49 City Transportation Planning staff does not agree with the need for double-tracking of the BNSF railroad tracks from Prospect Road north through Downtown and believes that the existing single track is sufficient to operate service through Colorado State University (CSU) main campus and through Downtown Fort Collins, as the DEIS states is shown for the downtown Loveland area. Staff has previously shared this comment with CDOT staff and their consultant team. From Transportation Planning’s perspective, the regional commuter rail transit alternative, while initially more costly than bus service, is an effective transit configuration for Fort Collins’ and Northern Colorado’s long-term future because it centers high-quality regional transit service in the heart of the communities along the US287/BNSF railroad corridor to serve the largest population centers. Particularly for the Fort Collins community, the regional commuter rail corridor and three passenger stations are located along our highest density population centers such as Downtown, CSU, and the US287/College Avenue corridor. Locating the regional transit service along this high population corridor allows for easy access from local activity centers and neighborhoods and minimizes the need for people to drive or take local transit routes to access regional transit service. 6. Note that Package A has single track between University and the downtown transit center. During development of the Preferred Alternative, single track for the corridor between South Transit Center and downtown Fort Collins was evaluated in further detail, as you suggest. As a result, it was concluded that single track would have fewer environmental impacts while accommodating the Mason Corridor BRT. However, it was necessary to revise the service pattern on this segment of the corridor. The service plan for the Preferred Alternative consists of hourly service to/from downtown Fort Collins, with 30 minute service maintained to the South Transit Center during the peak periods. Package A and the Preferred Alternative serve the population centers of Fort Collins as you describe. Package B only directly serves the College Avenue Corridor at the South Transit Center. The Preferred Alternative supports the single track as suggested by the City. A ATTACHMENT 2 North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet A= Comment Addressed C= Continued Concern N= New Comment Page 8 of 22 Transportation Planning Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status 51 Also, the long-term return on investment that is likely to occur within Fort Collins due to the location of the three proposed regional commuter rail stations would be a strong economic catalyst for additional higher density, mixed-use, transit-oriented development (TOD) over and above what is currently envisioned as part of the Mason Corridor. The potential synergy of high quality local and regional transit service along this central corridor of the Fort Collins community will greatly serve our long-range economic vitality and environmental stewardship values, as well as address our established transportation and land-use goals. The regional commuter rail service along the existing BNSF railroad tracks/corridor will also link Fort Collins into Denver’s Regional Transportation District (RTD) FasTrack “Northwest Rail Corridor” commuter rail line that begins in Longmont. This provides a cost-effective opportunity to link the North Front Range regional commuter rail improvements proposed in the North I-25 EIS to the already approved and funded FasTrack’s Northwest Rail Corridor. This is a synergistic way to link regional commuter rail passengers from Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud to both Denver Union Station as well as to the Boulder area. In regards to adding the general purpose lanes shown along I-25, these additional travel lanes will address safety concerns along I-25 and at the interchanges shown within Fort Collins area, as well as serve as an effective means to address current and future vehicle traffic capacity needs (automobile & freight traffic). These general purpose lanes will not limit the use of the new travel lanes to high- occupancy vehicles or require tolling. It is important for the EIS to address both passenger and freight transportation needs. 8. Yes, Package A and the Preferred Alternative connect to the RTD FasTracks system via commuter rail at both Longmont and the North Metro end-of-line, and in downtown Denver. In contrast, the BRT of Package B connects only in downtown Denver. We agree with your assessment that commuter rail stations will be a strong economic catalyst for higher density, mixed use TOD. Values of TOD adjacent properties in the US have increased from 6.4 percent to more than 40 percent in the past few years. Office buildings have fewer vacancies if located within walking distance of a transit station. As you state, the general purpose lanes of Package A provide additional capacity and are not restricted by vehicle type. The Preferred Alternative includes adding both general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes to I-25 which will similarly address both passenger and freight traffic needs. The Preferred Alternative, particularly commuter rail, is in line with the City of Fort Collins goals to support TOD development, and providing regional connections. A 52 Package B: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed CDOT’s DEIS Package “B” that includes regional Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service originating from the City’s South Transit Center and making stops at the intersection of Harmony & Timberline roads as well as at the Harmony & I-25 Transportation Transfer Center and then traveling to the Denver area along the center of I-25 in the High Occupancy/Toll (HOT) lanes, also referred to in the DEIS as the Tolled Express Lanes (TEL). The South Transit Center would be a primary connection point for passengers transferring to/from the regional BRT service to the City’s Mason Corridor BRT service as well as other local Transfort routes. In addition, the regional BRT service would link into the City’s future plans for the Harmony Road “Enhanced Travel Corridor” shown on the City’s adopted Structure Plan, Transportation Master Plan, and Transfort Strategic Plan. The down side of the regional BRT alternative is that it does not directly serve the core population and activity centers within Fort Collins ATTACHMENT 2 North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet A= Comment Addressed C= Continued Concern N= New Comment Page 9 of 22 Transportation Planning Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status toll for speed/convenience purposes. Staff’s concern is that the major improvement would not address general travel needs for people who cannot afford the tolls nor do these specially designated lanes address the needs of additional highway capacity for freight vehicles. 53 General: Overall, Package “A” and “B” are both sound alternatives and propose important transportation safety and capacity improvements for highway users and transit passengers to address the purpose and needs identified for the EIS process. However, it is important for the North I-25 EIS and community stakeholders to develop effective long-term solutions for our inter- and intra-regional transportation needs based on the anticipated future needs for travel, land-use, energy consumption, sustainability, and environmental concerns – not based on past needs and trends. The next 20, 30, and 50 years will bring significant changes to our communities, region, state, nation, and world and we need to be planning for the future – not based on the past. All of the proposed improvements (highway and transit) come at a steep price tag and CDOT, FHWA, and FTA will need to work collaboratively with all of the North Front Range communities, counties, and metropolitan planning organizations to strategize workable financing options for any of these proposed future regional transportation infrastructure improvements. Transportation Planning staff will continue to be actively involved with CDOT, FHWA, and FTA throughout the development of the final EIS document and will make every effort to convey the input and concerns from the Fort Collins’ City organization, City Council, and community members to influence the final recommendations for these significant regional improvements. 10. The Preferred Alternative has been developed through a collaborative decision making process with communities and stakeholders from the study area. The future horizon year of 2035 has been used in the analyses presented in the Final EIS. The 2035 socio-economic projections use the adopted land use data sets of the NFRMPO and DRCOG. Each of the alternatives provides multi-modal solutions that provide transportation choices for future travelers. Note the evaluation for 2035 does not rely on a historical trend analysis but utilizes a travel model based on reasonable assumptions of future transportation conditions. At this point in the planning process, the only funds identified in the FEIS are those likely to come in through traditional funding sources over the next 25 years. These funds, and the projects associated with these funds are identified in the fiscally constrained regional transportation plans (NFRMPO and DRCOG). While the toll lanes have the ability to generate revenue and provide opportunities for bonding, the FEIS does not make any recommendations for or against implementation through this means of funding. Additional funding identified by state, federal and local agencies will enable projects in Phases 2 and 3 to be implemented sooner. Fort Collins will continue to participate in determining how and which projects are funded in the North Front Range through their role on the NFRMPO Technical Advisory Committee and the NFRMPO Planning Council. The TAC advises the Council and the council is the decision-making body. Fort Collins has a seat on each. Thank you for your continued involvement in the process. Fort Collins appreciates CDOT's efforts to include collaborative input from a wide spectrum of communities and stakeholders. The Preferred Alternative is consistent with the City transportation and land use plans. One of the most significant concerns the City continues to have regarding the FEIS document is the proposed phasing. Implementation phasing for the various transportation improvements, specifically the ATTACHMENT 2 North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet A= Comment Addressed C= Continued Concern N= New Comment Page 10 of 22 Transportation Planning Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status development of the FEIS. As we have stated, the implementation phasing for the various transportation improvements is a continued concern, specifically the phasing plan shown for the future commuter rail service extending from Loveland to Fort Collins is not shown until Phase 3 (CDOT expected timeframe of 2075+). Staff recommends that CDOT revise the FEIS to only show two phases – Phase 1 as shown now, as the “fiscally constrained plan” based on anticipated funding levels through 2035. Then, the new “Phase 2” would include all of the remaining elements of the Preferred Alternative and be considered the “unfunded” items and not be tied to an artificial, 50-60+ year time horizon. These transportation improvements – highway and transit – shown in Phase 2 for 2055+ and Phase 3 for 2075+ need to be implemented sooner rather than later to serve the regional travel demand forecast for 2035. Dividing them into two artificial phases with these extreme timeframes does not solve the issue that the future regional transportation needs significantly outpace our current funding sources. The EIS Preferred Alternative should be a catalyst for convening regional discussions and partnerships to work together toward accomplishing these needs within the 2035 timeframe. 55 Correct reference is the “Mason Corridor”, not “Mason Street Corridor” nor the “Mason Street Transportation Corridor”. The correct location for the “South Transit Center” is located along the Mason Corridor near west Fairway Lane (not at Harmony Road). The correct location for the CSU station is along the Mason Corridor between University Avenue and Pitkin Street. Please correct various text references as well as map “call out boxes” for accuracy and consistency throughout the FEIS document and all maps. Also, the opening day for Mason Corridor “MAX” BRT service is not 2014 based on the latest schedule information from the City’s Engineering department. For more details regarding the MAX BRT project, please contact: Helen Migchelbrink, City Engineer, at (970) 218-1409 or via e-mail: hmigchelbrink@fcgov.com. N ATTACHMENT 2 North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet A= Comment Addressed C= Continued Concern N= New Comment Page 11 of 22 Transportation Planning Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status 56 Page 2-64, will the new Park & Ride location being built as part of the current SH292 & I-25 interchange project accommodate the future parking demand (95 additional spaces) shown in the FEIS? N 57 The proposed Quiet Zone noise mitigation strategies in the FEIS along the BNSF corridor are consistent with the City’s plans to evaluate potential Quiet Zone improvements along this corridor to address noise impacts associated with the existing freight rail operations as well as future passenger rail service. N 58 I-25 highway improvements north of Harmony Road need to accommodate the future extension of the regional Poudre River Trail that will connect Fort Collins and Timnath and ultimately connect through to Greeley. N 59 Regional “Foxtrot” route is now referred to as “Flex” and connects from Fort Collins through Loveland to Longmont where is connects into RTD’s transit system. N 60 The list of Access Control Plans listed in the FEIS (Chapter 2, section 2.1.3 should also include the two access plans for US287 – North College and South College Access Control Plans. N 61 Chapter 2, regarding coordination with other regional rail studies, are the future design plans for I-25 interchanges shown in the FEIS taking into consideration the long-term potential for high speed rail? For example, are bridges over I- 25 being designed with a “clear span” to allow for future opportunities for rail transportation in the center of I-25? N 62 Page 2-15 seems to be missing a graphic diagram of the future plans for improving the I-25 & Prospect interchange – this interchange location is mentioned in the text, but not included in the page of images. N ATTACHMENT 2 North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet A= Comment Addressed C= Continued Concern N= New Comment Page 12 of 22 Transportation Planning Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status Avenue). 64 Pages 2-24 and 2-74, please note that the City of Fort Collins’ Master Street Plan shows grade separated roadway crossings of the BNSF railroad at Drake Road and Trilby Road. This information is important for the Commuter Rail route shown in the Preferred Alternative and will help address safety, traffic operations, and noise concerns. N 65 Sections 2.2.2.11 and 2.2.4.9, City does not what physical barriers to view sheds and wildlife movement corridors in Fort Collins. N 66 Page 3.1-4, please include the City of Fort Collins in the list of I-25 corridor municipal plans (not just on the US287 list of communities). Also, please revise the title of the City’s plan to be “Plan Fort Collins” which includes both City Plan and the Transportation Master Plan – these plans were updated in 2010- 11. N 67 Page 3.1-7, regarding zoning, please note that the City of Fort Collins has a designated “Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone” in our Land Use Code that covers the entire length of the Mason Corridor BRT system. N 68 Page 3.1-11, regarding land use, please correct the statement regarding Fort Collins. The City’s adopted comprehensive plan “City Plan” calls for higher density, mixed use, infill and redevelopment along the US287 and Mason Corridor. This is the area covered by the TOD Overlay Zone. Our city plans do not envision this corridor as built out or remaining the same as today – it is a focus area for targeted infill and redevelopment supported by high-quality transit service and multimodal transportation choices. N 69 Page 4-2, the more recent update to the City’s comprehensive plan is “Plan Fort Collins in 2010-11 which includes both City Plan and the Transportation Master Plan. The 2004 updates are no longer the most current documents. ATTACHMENT 2 North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet A= Comment Addressed C= Continued Concern N= New Comment Page 13 of 22 Transportation Planning Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status to the local arterial streets from the planned highway and transit improvements shown in the FEIS. 71 Section 4.2.6, additional question regarding transit projections, it seems odd that the Commuter Rail ridership projections are shown to be lower than the projections for the I-25 express bus when the Commuter Rail route and stations are located in higher density population centers such as Downtown Fort Collins. When future model projections are run for the implementation phases of the proposed regional transit system improvements, staff suggests that CDOT, NFR MPO, and local communities work together to update these projections. N ATTACHMENT 2 North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet A= Comment Addressed C= Continued Concern N= New Comment Page 14 of 22 Natural Resources Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status Part I: Natural Areas 72 General comment: The most troubling issue noted is the possibility of a chain link fence installation along the commuter rail through Natural Areas in the southwest portion of Fort Collins. The fence would be highly disruptive to wildlife movement. 11. The intent of the Preferred Alternative is to include fencing along the rail corridor to limit access and improve safety and to adhere to current RTD fencing standards and requirements. However, it is also recognized that the type of fencing may vary depending upon adjacent land uses, wildlife use, or specific safety concerns. The FEIS will list a range of fencing options to consider during the design process. This includes wildlife friendly fencing and could potentially include wildlife underpasses. The actual fencing selected during the design process will be based on consideration of need and function. A 73 General comment: Maps for the EIS are not current and many City of Fort Collins’ Natural Areas and Parks are not shown. 12. All maps have been updated with new information that has been collected from the municipalities. The City of Ft. Collins has been directly contacted and they have provided updated GIS files showing all parks and natural areas as well as many other land use and transportation information. We believe we now have all City of Ft. Collins natural areas and parks correctly identified and this information has been used in the FEIS. A 74 3.1: Land use. These figures only show land uses as of 2000 and should be updated. Figure 3.1.2 doesn’t show any open space/parks in Fort Collins. Figures 3.1-3 through 3.1-6 do not show all of the Fort Collins area open space/parks. For example, Fossil Creek Regional Open Space is shown as an employment area, even in the 2030 projection. 13. All maps have been updated with new information that has been collected from the municipalities. The City of Ft. Collins has been directly contacted and they have provided updated GIS files showing the most recent land use data for the city. The mistakes in the referenced maps have been recognized and corrected in the FEIS. Additionally this updated information has been used in the Final EIS. The map line weights in this section are so thick the underlying land use is difficult to determine. More detailed map sections reflecting individual communities would be helpful. Longview Open Space is shown as agriculture. It should be shown as open space and was designated open space at the time of mapping. C 75 3.10.5: Vegetation. Statement regarding “develop an acceptable revegetation plan” should note that the plan must be acceptable to the City of Fort Collins within its jurisdictional areas, not just acceptable to Larimer County. 14. The text has been changed to state that the revegetation plan must be acceptable to the City of Fort Collins within its jurisdictional areas. A 76 3.10-5. Vegetation. Removal of large cottonwood trees at the Cache La Poudre and Big Thompson rivers will seriously impair the quality and functionality of the riparian habitat. Bald eagles and other raptors frequently use these areas to perch and hunt from. Similarly the continuous “thread” of riparian habitat is critical to wildlife movement up and down the river corridors. Also, it is not possible to mitigate the loss of a large-diameter native cottonwood tree. ATTACHMENT 2 North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet A= Comment Addressed C= Continued Concern N= New Comment Page 15 of 22 Natural Resources Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status collisions/etc. The 3,000 acre native prairie habitat between Fort Collins and Loveland should be designated a sensitive habitat and consider/mitigate impacts as such. Please include this in your mitigation plan for the project. FEIS fails to recognize Fossil Creek Reservoir as an Audubon Society designated Important Bird Area. The reservoir has extremely high value for migratory waterfowl and other waterbirds other than the Bald Eagle. 79 Figure 3-18-1. Parks and Recreation. There are quite a few missing natural areas and open spaces on the map, including Fossil Creek Reservoir Regional Open Space, Coyote Ridge Natural Area, Long View Farm Open Space. 18. These natural areas and open space properties were identified for the FEIS process. Please see updated Figure 3.18-1. None of these open space and natural areas were identified as being impacted by the alternatives under consideration. A 80 Table 3-18-2. Parks and Recreation. This figure is not up to date. There is misinformation about Fossil Creek Reservoir Natural Area (confused with the Regional Open Space; location is east of Timberline, not Timber Lake; etc.). 19. The figure and table have been updated to include the missing open space and natural area properties. Fossil Creek Reservoir properties have been correctly identified including their location. This property is not impacted by the alternatives under consideration. A 81 3-18-3. Parks and Recreation. There will be direct impacts to Long View Farm Open Space, and Colina Mariposa, Hazaleus, and Red-tailed Grove natural areas, as well as indirect impacts (due to proximity) to other natural areas. The EIS states that no parks or recreational resources will be impacted by the commuter rail alternative; however that cannot possibly be true because it goes through and next to a number of natural areas. 20. A Preferred Alternative that includes commuter rail has been identified and, along with Package A and B, has been analyzed in the FEIS. Impacts to these natural areas have been fully assessed in that document. The referenced natural areas (as well as a complete update to all land use information) have been identified and the design team is recognizing the potential for impacts to these resources and will make every effort to avoid or minimize impacts under all 3 build alternatives. The Preferred Alternative identifies single-tracking in this area that will remain within the existing right of way of the rail corridor which will generally negate any direct impacts to the natural areas. Fencing will be included in all areas where pedestrian safety is a concern. Indirect impacts such as noise, and visual impacts will be fully evaluated and the Ft. Collins Natural Resources Staff comments will be taken into account. A 82 3.6. Noise. Noise studies should be conducted at Arapaho Bend Natural Area in Fort Collins. Any expanded use as part of the alternatives analysis needs to consider this site. This open space managed by the City of Fort Collins fall into “Land Use Category A”. City staff has noticed that noise levels likely exceed the maximum dB levels outlined by CDOT. This area on the northwest corner of I25 and Harmony Road in Fort Collins should be evaluated. 21. A TNM model receiver at Arapaho Bend was included in the FEIS analysis, even though developed facilities are not present at the site. Also, local traffic noise conditions were represented by Receiver B012 at the nearby Strauss Cabin. Please note that the project team feels Arapaho Bend is a Category B site rather than Category A (e.g., amphitheater). The ATTACHMENT 2 North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet A= Comment Addressed C= Continued Concern N= New Comment Page 16 of 22 Natural Resources Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status contaminants) within the Cache La Poudre watershed above the current situation or under the no-action alternative. anticipated, for example, to remove 50 percent to 70 percent of total suspended solids, which accounts for the predicted increase in loading. 85 3.8-12 (line 39). Wetlands. The EIS identifies the “former rest area site north of the Cache La Poudre River” as a potential mitigation site. In fact that land was transferred to the City of Fort Collins and is not available as a mitigation site. 24. Comment noted. The relevant statement has been revised and will not include discussion of this site as a potential mitigation site to offset impacts to wetlands and other waters of the US. A 86 3.9-12. Floodplains. Impacts to natural vegetation and wetlands along Spring Creek and Fossil Creek need to be avoided or mitigated. Wetlands in these areas are highly valued by wildlife including sensitive aquatic species. More detailed analysis is necessary. 25. Any actions that result in a permanent dredging or filling of wetlands are required to be permitted by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). As part of this permitting process, mitigation will be required. The first step in this process is avoidance or minimization of wetland impacts. At Spring Creek, avoidance measures have been implemented so no wetland impacts occur. At Fossil Creek, Package A has 0.05 acre of wetland impacts. The Preferred Alternative has 0.01 acre of wetland impact. This small amount of wetland impact has been included in the mitigation package being reviewed by the Corps of Engineers for the Section 404 permit. Wetlands impacted in the Fort Collins regional area should be mitigated within (the same) Fort Collins regional area. Local mitigation requirements per City of Fort Collins Land Use Code should be considered for locally (Fort Collins) impacted wetlands. We support the mitigation of both federally jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands throughout the project area. C 87 3.9-20 (line 6). Floodplains. The proponents of this project need to identify where wetland mitigation would take place. CDOT or private lands would need to be identified for the mitigation. 26. CDOT is currently discussing possible wetland mitigation sites with Fort Collins staff and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The details are in the Section 404 Permit application, which has been provided to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A 88 3.9 (General Comment) Floodplains. The mitigation measures for each creek, river, or other drainage is vague, not site specific, and makes it impossible to evaluate for direct and indirect impacts to wetlands and floodplains. The same four mitigation measures are identified for separate drainages. Revised, site specific mitigation plans for each drainage should be conducted for the public and appropriate stakeholders to comment on. 27.Mitigation measures that will be employed consistent with each alternative include: The 100-year FEMA design flows will be used for freeboard determinations, scour design, and to ensure that flow velocities are acceptable. The 500-year design flows will be used to further assess the scour design and set the depths of piles or caissons. The design will consider the maximum allowable backwater as allowed by FEMA. Degradation, aggregation, and scour are to be determined. Adequate counter measures will be selected using criteria established by the National Cooperative Highway ATTACHMENT 2 North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet A= Comment Addressed C= Continued Concern N= New Comment Page 17 of 22 Natural Resources Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status alternatives. stations that can serve as a stimulus to TOD Changed conditions 92 The recent volatility in gasoline prices suggest that the basis of long-range land use and transportation planning may now be in question. For example, what if the land use projections of I-25 corridor communities prove incorrect under a scenario of $3.00/gallon gasoline, or $4.00, or $6.00? What if the trip-production rates used in transportation forecasting are incorrect for the same reason? The EIS should address the risk of making a poor choice from among the alternative due to the uncertainty of future gasoline prices. 31. The EIS forecasts are conservative as no change in the relative cost of gasoline is assumed, because predicting the price of fuel would be impracticable. The forecasts are based on the adopted future population and employment forecasts of the NFRMPO and DRCOG. If the price of gas dramatically changes, it could indeed influence land use development activity as well as travel behavior patterns. The FEIS acknowledges that the future price of gas is an unknown and therefore introduces an uncertainty into the forecasts, as described in section 4.2.6.6. We are disappointed the FEIS cannot address possible changes in fuel price as this is likely to have a large impact on future transportation choices. We hope that roadway investments made in the near future will not become stranded assets as mode shift occurs. We are glad to see the statement that the transit system in the Preferred Alternative can accommodate up to a 90% increase in transit mode share. C Greenhouse gases 93 Several communities in the I25 corridor have adopted policies and/or plans to address their contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. The reduction of transportation carbon emissions, which is directly proportional to vehicle miles traveled, is critical to the success of these community efforts and the EIS should address the contribution of the I25 decision toward their success or failure. 32. The DEIS and the FEIS both address the effect of the project alternatives on carbon dioxide, which is used as the surrogate for greenhouse gas emissions. Package A produces 0.8 percent more carbon dioxide than the No Action Alternative, Package B produces 0.4 percent more, and the Preferred Alternative produces 0.9 percent more. The City of Fort Collins has developed a Climate Action Plan to help reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. The intent is to reduce GHG emissions by the end of 2012 to a level not to exceed 2,466,000 tons of CO2. This will be achieved by the City implementing measures to reduce VMT, which in turn would reduce GHG emissions. It is estimated that 5 to 10 percent of automobile trips can be moved to non-motorized transport which would reduce the total VMT by 1 percent by 2012. There are several transit projects proposed within the Denver Metro area. The Mason Corridor transit system will serve as the backbone for the enhanced transit system in Fort Collins. Over time (after 2035), it would be expected that the rail components of Package A and the Preferred Alternative would provide more options for lower energy consumption because more trains could easily be added as demand increases. The FEIS briefly discuses carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in Section 3.21 (Energy). Estimates show that the preferred alternative would increase CO2e emissions by 0.9% above the No Action alternative. This is slightly more than any other alternative and is attributed to the impact of attracting more VMT from other areas. If no other circumstances changes, it would be a serious problem for this huge ATTACHMENT 2 North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet A= Comment Addressed C= Continued Concern N= New Comment Page 18 of 22 Natural Resources Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status power plants, residential wood burning, forest fires, agricultural burning, and some industrial processes. Because these smaller particles penetrate deeper into the respiratory system, they have a strong association with circulatory (heart disease and strokes) disease and mortality. policy to achieve continual improvement in air quality. However, all alternatives including the Preferred Alternative show lower CO hotspot concentrations at Harmony and I-25 than the No Action Alternative (Table 3.5-10). The Preferred Alternative also provides reduced arterial VMT, and reduced crashed/VMT. In order to help mitigate the increased emissions, the best available transportation technology should be implemented in all cases. as well as transportation demand management strategies.” PM2.5 95 The Air Quality analysis does not address PM2.5, presumably because there are no non-attainment areas with the project study area. However, discussion of particulate matter levels in the Affected Environment chapter (page 3.5-7) acknowledges that PM2.5 24-hour maximum concentrations show a steady trend of increasing in many areas. In light of this, PM2.5 impacts of alternatives should be addressed. 34. A project level PM2.5 analysis was not conducted since the Denver Metro area and the North Front Range are in attainment for PM 2.5. However, precursors of PM2.5 include NOx and VOC. Emissions for this were projected for this project. Table 3.5-4 summarizes the regionwide total mobile source emission estimates for existing, No Action and the three build packages. For NOx, emissions estimates show very substantial reductions of approximately 164,000 tons per day for all build alternatives, compared to existing levels. For VOC, the anticipated reduction is 58 tons per day. These reductions illustrate the likely conclusion that vehicle emissions of PM 2.5 impacts are not anticipated in the future, with or without the project improvements. The address for the PM2.5 monitor station in Fort Collins in Table 3.5-2 should be changed to 708 South Mason Street. C More Specific Comments: 96 3.5 Introduction The DEIS text in the introductory section of the air quality chapter should be updated to reflect that areas within the project have been designated non-attainment for the federal 8-hour ozone standard in November 2007, per discussion in section 3.5.2, line 3.5.2- Affected Environment Figure 3.5-1 should be updated to reflect the non-attainment designation area for the 8-hour ozone standard. This non-attainment designation should be discussed clearly in this section, as well as the updated, more stringent 8-hour ozone standard that was promulgated in March 2008. The EIS states, on lines 13 and 14, that: “Other criteria pollutants are no longer pollutants of concern in the Front Range area.” In fact, particulate matter levels even below the federal health standards impact the health of individuals with respiratory sensitivity. The City of Fort Collins has a policy to “continually improve air quality as the city grows”. Table 3.5-2 should be updated to reflect the second ozone monitoring site that was established in west Fort Collins in 2006 and should be updated to reflect data reported through 2007, not 2005. Discussion of criteria pollutants should acknowledge that the Fort Collins West ATTACHMENT 2 North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet A= Comment Addressed C= Continued Concern N= New Comment Page 19 of 22 Natural Resources Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status also has a Climate Action Plan. Regional transportation planning and projects are one of the major avenues for reducing greenhouse gas emission from the transportation sector. In April 2007, the U..S. Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide fit within the definition of "air pollutant" under the Clean Air Act ("Act") and the EPA is now in the process of determining whether, in its judgment, greenhouse gases cause or contribute to air pollution "which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." It is conceivable that greenhouse gas emissions will need to be addressed more rigorously in future NEPA processes. 3.5.3.4 - PM analysis 97 The Air Quality analysis does not address PM2.5, presumably because there are no non-attainment areas with the project study area. However, discussion of particulate matter levels in the Affected Environment chapter (page 3.5-7) acknowledges that PM2.5 24-hour maximum concentrations show a steady trend of increasing in many areas. In light of this, PM2.5 impacts of alternatives should be addressed. 36. See response to the “PM2.5” Staff Comment #34. C Parks & Recreation Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status 98 Comments on the DEIS from the view point of affected City of Fort Collins parks and trails: No-Action Alternative: No impact on Fort Collins parks and trails. Section 3.18 Parks and Recreation, Review: Archery Range, Creekside Park, Lee Martinez Park, Old Fort Collins Heritage Park and Washington Park listed as being in the area of the project. Only affected park is the Archery Range. Package A: Archery Range impact of 0.09 acre. Construction would be coordinated to minimize impacts with the use of BMPs to limit erosion, public safety and City vegetation requirements used to repair disturbed areas. Coordination and mitigation measures would be refined in more detail as the specifics of the proposed alternative are developed. Package B: Archery Range impact of 0.14 acre. Construction would be coordinated to minimize impacts with the use of BMPs to control erosion, public safety and City vegetation requirements used to repair disturbed areas. Coordination and mitigation measures would be refined in more detail as the specifics of the proposed alternative are developed. 37. Your review of the impacts is appreciated. The Preferred Alternative and Package A and B have been evaluated with respect to parks and recreation resources, and is presented in the FEIS. I-25 improvements need to be designed to accommodate the Poudre River Trail extension. Commuter Rail improvements along BNSF need to be designed to accommodate the Fossil Creek Trail. N Advance Planning - Historic Preservation Office Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status 99 The City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Office has reviewed those sections of the North I-25 Draft EIS document pertaining to historic properties within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. Staff concurs with the findings that there will be ATTACHMENT 2 North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet A= Comment Addressed C= Continued Concern N= New Comment Page 20 of 22 Regulatory and Government Affairs Division Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis Status Section 3.7 Water Resources 100 3.7.1 Water Resources Regulations General Comment: While the CDOT MS4 requirements described are generally only applicable in MS4 areas, please note that all local MS4 construction and development requirements must also be met within the local MS4 jurisdictional boundaries. 39. While there currently exists a statement that the project must also comply with local MS4 requirements (Page 3.7-2, lines 19-20), an additional statement regarding construction and development/new development compliance has been added. A 101 Table 3.7-5 Both packages A and B are projected to increase stormwater contaminant loading by approximately 50% for all modeled contaminants within the Cache La Poudre watershed above the current situation or under the no-action alternative. Runoff intensity and volume and higher pollutant loading are some issues commonly associated with increased imperviousness. The modeled pollutant loadings are before the application of best management practices. Does this include both those used during construction and permanent water quality structures? With packages A & B, a much larger percentage runoff from the roads and other impervious surfaces will be treated via water quality ponds or other BMPs than the current situation or the no-action alternative. This area is figured based on current and projected future MS4 areas and the area available for BMPs within the right-of-way. The pollutant removal rates for structural BMPs are given as follows: TSS - 50-70% Total P - 10-20% Zn - 30-60% Cu - 1.4-30% Chloride - not given While this may appear that the increased pollutant loadings will not be adequately treated for all parameters, increased impervious area will be treated with packages A&B. 40. The predicted constituent loadings from the Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative presented in the EIS do not include the application of permanent BMPs. All of the alternatives would show an increase in contaminant runoff in the Cache la Poudre watershed of approximately 50 percent, without the application of permanent BMPs. As discussed in the mitigation section, the permanent water quality BMPs are expected to remove approximately 30 to 70 percent of various contaminants. Currently, there are no quantifiable removal rates for temporary construction BMPs in Colorado. The removal percentages cited by the commenter are for permanent water quality structures and represent the current level of understanding in Colorado, and the BMPs associated with all action alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative are anticipated to reduce the pollutant load by the percentages identified in the comment. A City of Fort Collins Water & Wastewater Utilities Department Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Water Quality and Floodplains Technical Report Status 102 No comments submitted N/A 1) Pg 65, 5th bullet from top. Add to ATTACHMENT 2 North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet A= Comment Addressed C= Continued Concern N= New Comment Page 21 of 22 incorrectly stated. The City of Fort Collins highly supports removing the split flow if regulatory issues can be resolved through mitigation with CDOT and staff working together during design phase. State, Federal and local regulations will all be adhered to during the design phase. 104 3) Pg 71, table 6-1. Would be helpful to add column indicating what floodplain and what jurisdiction each tributary is in. For example, Boxelder Creek side drainage – FEMA Regulatory Floodplain, City of Fort Collins jurisdiction. N 105 4) Section 6.4.1, 6.4.2, 6.4.3, For each structure improvement or modification listed, include what floodplain, and what jurisdiction it is in. N 106 5) Pg 83, unclear what GPL and GP represent. Would suggest defining these more clearly. N 107 6) Pg 85 first bullet, Unsure where this is. Would be helpful to more clearly show location on map of each improvement detailed in bulleted text for the No Action alternative, Package A and Package B. N 108 7) Pg 87, Reference to Spring Creek and BNSF mid page. There are two projects currently in process at this location, Choice Center and the Mason BRT project. Both projects have approved Conditional Letter of Map Revisions (CLOMRs). Please contact Brian Varrella, bvarrella@fcgov.com , 970-416- 2217 for more information on this location and correct statements for this section. N 109 8) It is very probable a FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Amendment (CLOMR) and Letter of Map Amendment (LOMR) will be required for work performed in a FEMA regulatory floodway. Close coordination with the administering local Floodplain Administer will be required for all work in the floodplains, flood fringes and floodways to ensure all projects within the FEMA regulatory floodplains meet federal and local ATTACHMENT 2 North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet A= Comment Addressed C= Continued Concern N= New Comment Page 22 of 22 110 9) PG 93 last paragraph, add the following or similar statement: All Federal and Local floodplain regulations will be followed by CDOT for each project. Floodplain modeling will be required on many improvements per Federal and Local requirements. CDOT will coordinate with local jurisdiction floodplain administration in the initial stages of each project. N FACT SHEET North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement August 2011 Project Overview The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in coop- eration with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), is completing an Environmental Impact State- ment (EIS) to identify and evaluate multi-modal trans- portation improvements along approximately 60 miles of the I-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver. The EIS addresses regional and inter-regional movement of people, goods and services along I-25. Preferred Alternative Over the past year, CDOT has been working closely with FHWA and local agencies to identify a preferred alterna- tive. With guidance from public comments submitted on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and an extensive collaborative effort, a preferred alternative has been identified which will include the following elements: • General Purpose Lanes – one new general purpose lane in each direction of I-25 between SH 66 and SH 14. • Tolled Express Lanes (TEL) – one buffer-separated TEL in each direction of I-25 from the existing HOV/ Express Toll lanes at approximately 84th Avenue north to SH 14. Wellington to Denver • Interchanges - 13 I-25 interchanges will be upgraded. • Express Bus – Express bus with 13 stations along I-25, US 34 and Harmony Road with service from Fort Col- lins and Greeley to downtown Denver and DIA. • Commuter Rail – Commuter rail service with nine sta- tions connecting Fort Collins to Longmont using the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way, generally paralleling SH 119 then County Road 7 and tying into FasTracks North Metro line in Thornton, providing service to downtown Denver. Passengers may also connect to the FasTracks Northwest line in Longmont, which will travel to Boulder. • Commuter Bus – Commuter bus service with eight stations along US 85 connecting Greeley to downtown Denver. • Congestion Management- Improvements include accommodations for ridesharing, carpools and van- pools, along with additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities. In addition, signal timing, ramp metering on I-25 and signage will also be improved. Frequently Asked Questions Q. When will we have an opportunity to review the Final EIS? A. The North I-25 Final EIS will be available for public re- view and comment for a 30-day period from mid-August to mid-September. During this time, the public hearings listed above will be held to gather feedback. UPCOMING PUBLIC HEARINGS The Colorado Department of Transportation will host three public hearings in September to gather feedback on the Final Environmental Impact Statement. All meetings will take place from 4:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. with a brief presentation at 5:30 p.m. and an opportunity to comment publicly. September 12, 2011- Southwest Weld County Building: 4209 Weld County Road 24 1/2 (I-25 exit #240) September 13, 2011- Longmont Public Library: 409 4th Avenue in Longmont FACT SHEET North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement Wellington to Denver August 2011 Q. What does the Final EIS include? A. The Final EIS includes a detailed evaluation of the three build alternatives including Package A, Package B and the Preferred Alternative. A phased approach for implementation of the Preferred Alternative will also be included. The Preferred Alternative and Phase 1 are shown on the project website at http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/north-i-25-eis Q. What is a Record of Decision (ROD)? A. The Record of Decision for North I-25 is a document that will describe the transportation improvements that have been selected by CDOT and FHWA for the first phase of implementation. Q. What is the North I-25 ROD expected to include? A. A final decision on what to include in the North I-25 ROD will be made after the Final EIS public comment period. It is currently anticipated that Phase 1, as identi- fied in the Final EIS, will be selected for implementation in the ROD. Q. When will the North I-25 ROD be completed? A. The ROD is expected to be signed by CDOT and FHWA in Fall 2011. Q. When will construction begin? A. To accommodate current funding limitations, CDOT and FHWA anticipate constructing the improvements in phases over time. CDOT is already moving forward with preliminary design of two northern sections of I-25 improvements. At this time, construction funding has not been identified. Staying Informed For the latest information about the project, visit http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/north-i-25-eis September 15, 2011- The Ranch (Budweiser Events Center): 5290 Arena Circle (I-25 exit #259) Continued on page 2 ATTACHMENT 4 floodplain requirements. N sentence….“Denver, Adams, Weld and Larimer Counties, along with most cities and towns within the project area, are responsible for regulating development in FEMA designated floodplains and adhere to FEMA policy and local Floodplain regulations”. N 103 2) Pg 68-69, Cache La Poudre River section, the bottom paragraphs of page 68 are N no adverse affects on any historically designated or eligible properties arising from the implementation of the North I-25 project. 38. No Response Needed. A monitoring site had the highest 8-hour ozone reading of the entire Front Range in 2007 and has recorded several 8-hour values that exceed the standard. Greenhouse gas emissions should be discussed in the Affected Environment section, not only briefly addressed in the Cumulative Impacts section. Within the DIES study area, the communities of Fort Collins, Boulder and Denver has active commitments and plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The State of Colorado 35. Figure 3.5-1 has been updated with the correct ozone non-attainment boundary for the Denver Metro area. The following text has been added to section 3.5.2: “However, particulate matter levels even below the NAAQS can impact the health of individuals with respiratory sensitivity. Therefore, the City of Fort Collins has implemented a policy to “continually improve air quality as the city grows.” Table 3.5-2 has been updated with the new monitoring station in Fort Collins (3416 W LaPorte Ave) and “2005” has been removed from the table title. Text has been revised on page 3.5-6, section 3.5.2.2, criteria pollutants and critical pollutant data trends as follows:35. (cont.) “Ozone concentrations have shown no consistent trend. Concentrations spiked in 1998, 2003, and 2005, with 2003 and 2005 concentrations exceeding the 8-hour standard in much of the regional study area. Concentrations at monitoring stations throughout the regional study area returned to levels below the 8-hour standard concentrations after the 2003 peak. However, concentrations remained above the 8-hour standard after the 2005 peak. In 2006, Fort Collins added a new monitoring station to monitor ozone concentrations. This monitoring station had the highest concentrations of ozone from 2006 to 2008 within the North Front Range area. Attainment designation for the ozone standard is based on a three year average. Therefore, since monitoring stations exceeded the 8-hour ozone standard for three consecutive years (2005 to 2007), the EPA designated the Denver metro area and the north Front Range as a non-attainment area for the 8-hour ozone (O3) in November 2007. The 1-hour ozone standard was revoked after this designation. In March 2008, EPA strengthened the NAAQS for the 8- hour ozone standard from 0.080 ppm to 0.075 ppm.” A discussion of GHG is in the Energy section, Section 3.21. Please note the City’s over-arching air quality policy has been updated to simply say “continually improve air quality.” C investment in transportation infrastructure to result in increased CO2e emissions. However, the modeling does not presume any use of electric vehicles, and does not assume any increases in the price of fossil transportation fuel. Growth in these areas is likely to result in reduced carbon emissions for any of the alternatives. The FEIS states that mitigation is available for all impacts. For increased CO2e emissions, it suggests a focus on VMT reduction. Reduction of carbon intensity of fuels and improvements in vehicle fuel economy should be added as important mitigation measures as well. C Ozone Non-Attainment 94 The DEIS refers to ozone designation inconsistently throughout the Air Quality chapter. All text should reflect the November 2007 non-attainment designation area for the 8-hour ozone standard. In addition the new, more stringent 8-hour promulgated in March 2008 should be discussed. 33. The FEIS includes the following text on page 3.5-4: Ground-level ozone is a gas that is not emitted directly from a source, as are other pollutants, but forms as a secondary pollutant. Its precursors are certain reactive hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, which react chemically in sunlight to form ozone. The main sources for these reactive hydrocarbons are automobile exhaust, gasoline, oil storage and transfer facilities, industrial paint and ink solvents, degreasing agents, and cleaning fluids. Exposure to ozone has been linked to a number of health effects, including significant decreases in lung function, inflammation of the airways, and increased respiratory symptoms, such as cough and pain when taking a deep breath. Particle pollution (particulate matter) is a mixture of suspended microscopic solids and liquid droplets made up of various components, including acids, organic chemicals, metals, dust particles, and pollen or mold spores. The size of a particle is directly linked to its potential for causing health problems. Small particles, that is, those less than 10 micrometers (PM10) in diameter, pose the greatest problems because of their ability to penetrate deeply into the lungs and bloodstream. Exposure to such particles can affect both the lungs and heart. Particles larger than 10 micrometers (PM10) act as an irritant to the eyes and throat. Fine particulate matter with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers is called PM2.5. Sources of fine particles include all types of combustion, including motor vehicles, particularly diesel exhaust, We appreciate the inclusion of updated ozone information in the FEIS. As with greenhouse gas emissions, it is distressing that the 2035 No Action Alternative shows lower total emissions in tons/day than the 2035 Preferred Alternative. Specifically, Table 3.5-5 shows that the 2035 Phase I total emissions for Fort Collins are 2.2% higher than the 2035 No Action Alternative. In fact, all alternatives analyzed show slightly higher 2035 emissions than the No Action Alternative. This does not comply with Fort Collins air quality A Research Program Report 568 (TRB, 2006) The design will be such that minimal disruption to the ecosystem will occur. The design will consider costs for construction and maintenance. A bridge deck drainage system that controls seepage at joints will be considered. I possible, bridge deck drains will be piped to a water quality feature before being discharged into a floodplain. The designs will comply with federal and state agencies. The designs will make every consideration towards local agency requirements and will be consistent with existing watershed and floodplain management programs. Please note that wetland mitigation is discussed in Chapter 3.8 of the EIS. Reiterate that wetlands disturbed within the Fort Collins area should be mitigation within the same region. The mitigation for each creek, river, or other drainage is vague, not site specific, and makes it impossible to evaluation for direct and indirect impacts to wetlands and floodplains. The same four mitigation measures are identified for separate drainages. Revised, site specific mitigation plans for each drainage should be conducted for the public and appropriate stakeholders to comment on. C 89 3.13-9 Threatened Species – Environmental Consequences. The approach of conducting an effects analysis on a broad scale is not adequate and the “one size fits all approach” to mitigation is not adequate. Site by site and drainage by drainage analyses need to be conducted to ensure impacts are avoided at best, mitigated at worst. 28. Effects are presented by component and by species. For key species, such as Preble’s and bald eagle, effects are also broken out by site. Aquatic species are addressed by drainage. For black-tailed prairie dogs, site by site analysis would not be productive due to the large number of small prairie dog colonies involved, and the likelihood that most of these colonies will have expanded, contracted, or disappeared by the time of construction. Other species are addressed at a broad scale and impacts are estimated based on suitable habitat due to a lack of actual presence/ absence data. The FEIS includes site-specific mitigation measures where appropriate (for example for Preble’s and bald eagle). Full-cutoff light fixtures or similar standards should be used in sensitive wildlife habitat areas (including the Fossil Creek Reservoir area C 90 3.13-12. Threatened Species. Additional lighting adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir will further impair the quality of the bald eagle roost site at the Reservoir. This could be mitigated by controlling light leakage or by eliminating lighting from the design of that interchange. 29. These suggestions have been incorporated in the FEIS for all alternatives. A Part II: Air Quality General comments on air quality section: Induced land use 91 Air quality in the Fort Collins community is dominated by vehicle emissions. A key issue for local air quality improvement is to reduce the growth of vehicle miles traveled, which depends, in turn, upon land use changes that support use of transit, cycling, and walking. For that reason, we believe that land use densification and transit-oriented development should be a key criteria in deciding among the 30. The purpose and need for the project and stakeholder input provided the criteria framework for alternatives development. The purpose of the project is to meet long-term travel needs between the Denver Metro area and the rapidly growing population centers along the I-25 corridor north to the Fort Collins-Wellington area. For this reason, both highway and transit options were considered for the project. While the transportation system can influence land use patterns, development is regulated at the level of local government. Regarding our original comment that land use densification and transit-oriented development should be key criterion for deciding among alternatives, we are glad to see the Preferred Alternative provides commuter rail and transit C comment is correct that traffic noise levels in the east of Arapaho Bend do exceed the CDOT Category B NAC for some of the open space. Noise mitigation for Arapaho Bend was evaluated and found not to be feasible and reasonable under CDOT’s 2002 noise guidelines because there are no developed sites or recreational facilities with frequent human use present along I-25 that would benefit from a barrier and a barrier did not meet the necessary Cost Benefit Index. Therefore, noise mitigation is not recommended for Arapaho Bend. The list of traffic-noise-impacted sites in the Final EIS documents was updated to include Arapaho Bend and a mitigation analysis summary was included in the Final EIS.21. (cont.) FHWA and CDOT have recently adopted new noise regulations, taking effect in July 2011. Regarding the 2011 regulations, the result is expected to be the same. The site would be Category C rather than B, but would still be represented by a single receiver based on the new guidance: "For activity areas that are spread across a property or for properties that lack defined facilities or formalized activity areas, a single generalized receptor should be placed within the property that best represents the worst expected traffic noise condition, based on professional judgment of the noise specialist." A large barrier would be needed to abate noise for a single receiver, which would be too expensive relative to the benefit; therefore, the reasonableness criteria Every effort to implement non-barrier methods of noise mitigation along I-25 (where it passes Arapaho Bend Natural Area) should be implemented. To be clear, we would not support construction of a barrier to mitigate noise in this area. C 83 3.6.4.1. Noise. Any efforts to mitigate road noise (barriers) should consider wildlife movement (deer, antelope) and create wildlife crossings across I25 especially north of Fort Collins and including the Wellington area. Any barriers within the more “metro” area should provide occasional openings to permit the movement of wildlife across the interstate. 22. Two barriers have been recommended for the project area north of State Highway 7: Wellington East and Mountain Range Shadows. Both of these are in fairly developed areas and are not in obvious wildlife corridors. No final determinations on the specifics of these barriers have been made at this stage of the project, but the final choices will be sensitive to the larger environmental context of the areas including wildlife movement. Also, see Staff Comment Response #11. A 84 Table 3.7-5. Water Quality. It is troubling that both action alternatives (Package A and B) will increase stormwater contaminant loading by 50% (for all modeled 23. It is important to note that there are anticipated pollutant loadings associated with existing and No Action Alternatives. These alternatives do not have BMPs associated with them. The BMPs for the action alternatives are A 15. Impacts to riparian habitat will be mitigated by implementing CDOT’s best management practices as described in Section 3.10.3, including avoiding existing trees, shrubs, and vegetation to the maximum extent possible, especially wetlands and riparian plant communities. The project team will coordinate with the CDOT landscape architect before construction to determine the types of vegetation that will be protected during construction. A revegetation plan will be developed with the CDOT landscape architect and with county personnel in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Larimer, and Weld counties. CDOT will also have to go through the process of working with the CDOW when submitting documentation to satisfy Senate Bill 40 for wildlife certification. Re-vegetation plans for disturbed areas should include species that are appropriate to the community disturbed including woody species. The FEIS does not address the removal of large cottonwood trees at the Cache La Poudre as it will seriously impair the quality and functionality of the riparian habitat. How can a generic 150 yr old 36” diameter tree be mitigated? C 77 Table 3.12.2: Wildlife. Audubon Society has designated Fossil Creek Reservoir as an “Important Bird Area” and the high value for migratory waterfowl and other waterbirds is well-documented. This should be represented in the EIS. 16. A reference to the high value of Fossil Creek Reservoir for migratory waterfowl and other waterbirds has been added to the table. A 78 Wildlife: Commuter rail appears to be aligned on the McKee Farm which is Larimer County Open Lands property with conservation easements underlying the property that would prohibit new construction. Additional train traffic through the area would be a significant impact to recreation users (noise) and displace wildlife use within a 3,000-acre matrix of protected Fort Collins natural areas. 17. The commuter rail alignment will be located within existing rail right-of-way. Construction of commuter rail would result in some impacts to wildlife including habitat fragmentation, disruption of movement corridors, and displacement as described in Section 3.12.3.2. Noise impacts to parks and open spaces have been considered in the FEIS, using appropriate guidelines. McKee Farm near the rail corridor is being actively farmed and has no visible public access or visitor facilities. The preferred alternative fails to recognize the significant impacts to wildlife movement along the proposed commuter rail line between Fort Collins and Loveland. The addition of a maintenance road, concrete barriers with additional chain link fence will significantly impact wildlife movement within and across this 3,000 acre prairie habitat. Affected areas include Hazaleus Natural Area, Colina Mariposa Natural Area, Redtail Grove Natural Area, and Longview Open Space. The addition of commuter rail service to current and future freight train travel will worsen wildlife C N 70 Once the FEIS is completed and the ROD approved, will the North Front Range MPO model network be revised to include the highway and transit improvements show in the Preferred Alternative (Phase I)? This information will also help better define the potential benefits/impacts N 63 Page 2-20, the description of the Package A Commuter Rail service seems to be inaccurate in terms of where the northern end of service would begin. It should read: “Downtown Fort Collins at Mason and Maple streets” (not at University N phasing plan shown for the future commuter rail service extending from Loveland to Fort Collins is not shown until Phase 3 (CDOT expected timeframe of 2075+). Staff recommends that CDOT revise the FEIS to only show two phases – Phase 1 as shown now, as the “fiscally constrained plan” based on anticipated funding levels through 2035. Then, the new “Phase 2” would include all of the remaining elements of the Preferred Alternative and be considered the “unfunded” items and not be tied to an artificial, 50-60+ year time horizon. These transportation improvements – highway and transit – shown in Phase 2 and 3 need to be implemented sooner rather than later to serve the regional travel demand forecast for 2035. Dividing them into two artificial phases does not solve the issue that the future regional transportation needs significantly outpace our current funding sources. The EIS Preferred Alternative should be a catalyst for convening regional discussions and partnerships to work together toward accomplishing these needs within the 2035 timeframe. C 54 Additional/New comments, questions, and suggestions on the FEIS for the Transportation Planning section: 1. Largest overall concern with FEIS is the proposed phasing plan. This is new information developed by CDOT and other agencies since the DEIS was presented for public comment in 2008. Staff TAC and RCC representatives have voiced our concerns about this phasing plan during the N such as Downtown, CSU, the central business, employment, and residential areas along US287/College Avenue. The regional BRT service along Harmony Road to I- 25 will require people to drive to park & rides on the south end of the City or take local transit routes to transfer to the regional BRT service. The proposed I-25 Tolled Express Lanes would help give advantage to travelers in high-occupancy vehicles such as the regional BRT or carpoolers/vanpoolers as well as support congestion pricing strategies to allow travelers who can afford to pay the 9. That is correct, access to the regional BRT service would be by either walking, driving, or taking a local bus to a station or stop on the Harmony Road corridor. Note that the access to commuter rail in Package A or the Preferred Alternative is via the same choice of access modes but to the US-287 corridor through the core population area of Fort Collins. With the inclusion of express bus, the Preferred Alternative provides regional transit service on both the US 287 and Harmony corridors. The evaluation indeed identified that freight traffic would not be directly served by the addition of TEL in Package B. However, note that mobility in the adjacent general purpose lanes is improved for freight and non- toll paying vehicles, but not as much as Package A. The Preferred Alternative includes additional general purpose lanes as well as TEL north of SH 66. This cross section would improve mobility for freight traffic as well as non-toll paying vehicle The Preferred Alternative provides general purpose lanes as well as toll lanes to serve highway travel needs and includes the regional express bus service along Harmony Road from the City's new south transit center to I-25 connecting to Denver. A 50 In addition, locating this major regional commuter rail line in the heart of the Fort Collins community will lessen the likelihood of future land development shifts occurring away from the existing central population & activity centers within our community. Fort Collins’ adopted Transportation Master Plan and City Plan are based on compact urban development occurring within the core areas of our community. The proposed regional commuter rail alignment along the BNSF corridor supports these transportation and land use master plans. 7. Comment noted. Your observations of commuter rail’s influence on land development patterns are generally consistent with the findings of an expert panel convened to evaluate the alternatives regarding induced growth. The effect of Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative on growth patterns is described in Section 4.2.7: Since the highway improvements are generally similar between the packages, a similar amount of growth near I-25 is anticipated for any of the packages. However the commuter rail in Package A and the Preferred Alternative would intensify the density of developments near stations in the city centers. The Preferred Alternative with regional commuter rail alignment along the BNSF corridor supports the City of Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan and City Plan. A concerns. C 46 Also, the current results of the travel model show that many trips are moving within the North Front Range and to/from the Fort Collins and Longmont, Boulder areas along the US287 corridor. These inter- and intra-regional travel patterns, in addition to the Fort Collins to downtown Denver trips, need to be analyzed in more detail for each package of alternatives and as part of the process to determine the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative should address all of these trip purposes, not just the Fort Collins to downtown Denver trips along I-25. 3. The DEIS technical analysis accounts for all trip purposes and trip origins and destinations within the northern and Denver front range area. For purposes of presentation, some illustrations highlight travel along I-25. The inter- and intra-regional travel patterns appear to have been included in the analysis. However it would have been useful for those patterns to be better illustrated. C Interchanges 47 Staff supports the analysis completed during the early stages of the North I-25 EIS process for each of the interchange areas (existing & potential) serving the Fort Collins area: Carpenter Road/SH392, Harmony Road, Prospect Road, Mulberry Street/SH14, and Mountain Vista Drive. Staff concurs with the conclusions and recommended conceptual designs developed by CDOT and their consultant team. Staff appreciates CDOT’s efforts to include the City of Fort Collins staff and local property/business owners throughout the interchange analysis process and the design modifications that CDOT was willing to make to address our local concerns for adjacent land impacts. 4. FHWA and CDOT would like to thank you for your participation and look forward to your continued involvement. Comments addressed A Detailed analyses based on data have been conducted and documented in the DEIS; the same will be true for the Preferred Alternative in the FEIS See comments on modeling C 40 Cost estimates must be realistic and include costs for construction as well as on-going operations & maintenance; Detailed cost estimates are being updated for the Preferred Alternative and will be documented in the FEIS; including capital construction costs and on-going operations and maintenance costs. Comment addressed A 41 Need to consider more environmental factors such as air quality, land impacts, etc. in the detailed analysis of the proposed improvements. These factors are all discussed in the document See comments in each topic section C 42 Need to consider the costs vs. benefits for expenditure of public resources to support core transportation services and which provide the greatest degree of return on investment. Costs are considered throughout the project development process, among other factors. Benefits are difficult to calculate in terms of dollars, because monetary relationships are less definitive. For example, travel time savings would need to be converted to dollars, and assumptions for value-of-time necessarily introduce subjectivity. For this reason, benefit-cost ratios are not typically calculated. Continue to be concerned regarding the issue for more systematic triple bottom line analysis C 43 Consider the costs associated with deferring the improvements beyond 20 year horizon shown in the phasing plans. The phasing plan 65 year timeframe is unrealistic and doesn’t make sense, need to find more ways to fund necessary improvements in the nearer term. As you know, funding sources are extremely limited. Unfortunately, the 65 year timeframe is the construction schedule given current projections of revenue. It is possible the schedule for implementation of this project, and similar schedules for other proposed projects, will be a call to action for stakeholders to initiate new revenue possibilities so that the phasing plan can be accelerated See phasing comments C Coordination with other rail studies has included FasTracks Northwest Rail, FasTracks North Metro, RMRA High speed rail, etc. Comment addressed - more work needs to continue such as coordination with high speed rail studies C 27 Why does the North I-25 not show Commuter Rail service between Greeley and Denver? Frequency of freight train traffic is very high; potential ridership projections didn’t warrant rail service and the proposed Express and Commuter Bus services are able to handle future ridership projections for less cost. Comment addressed A 28 Core to Core connection is very important to serve population centers. The FEIS Preferred Alternative reflects the community to community connection with Commuter Rail connecting the downtown cores of communities including Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont Comment addressed A 29 Move away from status quo highway planning. We need to plan for sustainable, long-term solutions to connect our communities in the future. Not like the T-Rex example that only provided 46 seconds of travel time savings after millions of dollars in investment. The FEIS Preferred Alternative includes Commuter Rail, a sustainable transportation connection between the core of communities. The I-25 highway facility needs rebuilding to address aging infrastructure needs. The FEIS Preferred Alternative also includes a Tolled Express Lane (TEL) on I-25, allowing HOV vehicles free travel in a restricted lane hence supporting the alternative modes of carpooling and vanpooling. Express Bus service, with connecting bus service to the communities, also will serve the I-25 corridor in the TEL lanes. Comment addressed A 30 Consider environmental impacts, social mobility for all people, and growth impacts. These impacts are all discussed in the document Comment addressed A 31 How does Commuter Rail alternative handle the existing freight rail traffic? The rail corridor will serve both freight rail and the passenger rail service. This will be possible due to coordination of operating schedules, and use of sidings. Some initial coordination with the BNSF has occurred; a collaborative effort with the BNSF will establish a joint use agreement regarding infrastructure and operating plan requirements. Comment addressed A Comment addressed A 15 Need to consider how the findings in the North I-25 EIS tie to the High Speed Rail Study This is one of the studies we coordinated with during the DEIS development. The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority Study was ongoing at the time of DEIS publication; coordination efforts show that the EIS’s Commuter Rail serves a travel market of community to community travel needs, which is different than the intra-state and possibly inter-state travel market that would use high speed rail. See comment on future interchange design and clear space C 16 Natural Resources staff comments are very important and need to be addressed in Final EIS document, in particular: Commuter Rail fence disruptive to wildlife movement. Fencing is to limit access and improve safety. We are following the RTD guidelines. The type of fencing may vary depending on adjacent land uses and wildlife use. The FEIS will list a range of fencing options to be considered during the design process, including wildlife friendly fences, and could potentially include wildlife underpasses. See comment on barriers C 17 Mapping needs to be improved to be more accurate for locations of natural areas, water features, drainage ways, and floodplain areas. All maps have been updated with new info collected from the municipalities. The City of Ft Collins has been directly contacted and staff has provided us updated GIS files. See comment in Natural Resources section C 18 Concern regarding impacts to wildlife habitat areas, large cottonwood trees, and Threatened & Endangered species. Impacts to riparian habitat will be mitigated by CDOT's revegetation Best Management Practices, including avoiding existing trees to the maximum extent possible. The high value of Fossil Creek Reservoir for migratory waterfowl will be documented in the FEIS. The FEIS will include site-specific mitigation measures for Threatened and Endangered species where appropriate (for example for Preble’s and bald eagle). City of Fort Collins staff suggestions for controlling lighting near Fossil Creek Reservoir to reduce the effect on bald eagle roost sites will be incorporated in the FEIS See comment in Natural Resources section C traffic impacts the capacity and operation of I-25 and I-25 interchanges. Because of this, freight truck traffic and anticipated growth in truck traffic along I-25 is accounted for in all the traffic analyses conducted in the DEIS and FEIS. Freight traffic on I-25 is estimated to grow 2% annual on the south end and slightly more than 3% on the north end of the corridor and constitutes 8 to 14% of the total traffic. It is estimated that under the No Action alternative delay to truck traffic would be 67 minutes between SH 1 and 20th Street for a total travel time of 133 minutes. Three cross sections were evaluated for inclusion in the Preferred Alternative. The preferred cross section identified added both a general purpose lane and a tolled express lane north of SH 66. This was, in part, to better accommodate anticipated growth in freight traffic along I-25. 8The Preferred Alternative is expected to provide the most travel time improvement for freight traffic with a total travel time of 107 minutes between SH 1 and 20th Street. Comment addressed. A 8 Is there an overall picture of environmental damage, including impacts of transportation, infrastructure, dislocations, and induced development? I don't think so. 8. The DEIS addresses the environmental impacts within each respective resource section. Transportation impacts are addressed in Chapter 4, dislocations are addressed in Chapters 3.2 and 3.4, and induced development is addressed in Chapter 3.1 and Appendix C—Land Use. Chapter 7 of the DEIS contains the overall “picture” of the trade-offs among See staff comments under each topic area for details. C DRCOG’s modeling and Denver’s experience with rail transit. Also, the FEIS states that for communities such as Fort Collins that have “Transit Oriented Development” land-use policies, there could be up to 35% increase in ridership projections. These potential differences in transit ridership projections are substantial. What would the impact be if these higher ridership projections are more realistic? Both from a transit system capacity standpoint as well as from a highway planning perspective? To help address these concerns, staff suggests that travel demand forecasts for automobile trips as well as transit trips be updated in the future to reflect new trends and methodologies prior to the implementation of any of the highway and/or transit improvements included in the Preferred Alternative. C 4 Do the transportation models incorporate the impacts of transportation alternatives on growth patterns and transportation oriented development? If growth shifts toward I25, away from city centers, what will happen with VMT? 4. The forecasts use the adopted socioeconomic datasets of the NFRMPO and DRCOG. The effect of Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative on growth patterns is described in Section 4.2.7: Since the highway improvements are generally similar between the packages, a similar amount of growth near I-25 is anticipated for any of the packages. However the commuter rail in Package A and the Preferred Alternative would intensify the density of developments near stations in the city centers. If growth shifts towards I-25, the amount of VMT would increase by a small amount. Staff continues to be concerned regarding this issue and recommends that future travel demand forecasts be updated to reflect more recent local land use and transportation plans to assess the potential impacts of changing growth patterns. For example, Fort Collins’ recently updated our comprehensive plan “City Plan” and our C 5 Blocks 15% # of Blocks 10 Yes 3 No No Yes Austin Energy (Current) Yes 2 No No Optional Yes 3 Optional No Optional Yes 9 Distributed Generation Better Information 8 LA JUNTA SAN MIGUEL PA TRINIDAD SE COLORADO PA SPRINGFIELD Cost per Month Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities Small Commercial Rate Survey January 2011 --- Cost for 2,000 kWh and 10 kW per Month FORT COLLINS REA/CO-OP INVESTOR OWNED MUNICIPAL R. W. Beck, An SAIC Company | 10 Fort Collins Utilities Average Cost Comparison $3,048 $- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 GUNNISON LONGMONT FORT COLLINS LOVELAND ESTES PARK COLORADO SPRINGS FLEMING HOLY CROSS EA JULESBURG ASPEN GLENWOOD SPRINGS HAXTUN FOUNTAIN HIGHLINE EA DELTA XCEL ENERGY TRI-COUNTY DELTA-MONTROSE EA FORT MORGAN Y-W ELECTRIC ASSN OAK CREEK GUNNISON COUNTY EA MOUNTAIN PARKS EI YAMPA VALLEY EA WHEATLAND HIGH WEST ENERGY MORGAN COUNTY REA LA PLATA UNITED POWER FREDERICK INTERMOUNTAIN REA BLACK HILLS ENERGY GRAND VALLEY RPL SAN LUIS VALLEY REA EMPIRE EA SE COLORADO PA POUDRE VALLEY EA RATON SAN MIGUEL PA WHITE RIVER EA SAN ISABEL LAMAR SPRINGFIELD LA JUNTA LAS ANIMAS TRINIDAD Cost per Month Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities Large Commercial Rate Survey January 2011 --- Cost for 45,000 kWh and 130 KW per month FORT COLLINS REA/CO-OP INVESTOR OWNED MUNICIPAL 7 SAN ISABEL SE COLORADO PA SAN LUIS VALLEY REA SPRINGFIELD LA JUNTA HOLLY TRINIDAD Cost per Month Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities Residential Rate Survey January 2011 --- Cost for 700 kWh/Month FORT COLLINS REA/CO-OP INVESTOR OWNED MUNICIPAL 6 1 d/C Credit 1.2 1 ss credit 6.1 1 d/C Credit 1.3 1 1 d/C Credit 1.4 1 44 11 53 Possible Points: 110 Certified 40 to 49 points Silver 50 to 59 points Gold 60 to 79 points Platinum 80 to 110 Innovation and Design Process Total Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control Controllability of Systems—Thermal Comfort Thermal Comfort—Design Daylight and Views—Daylight Daylight and Views—Views Regional Priority Credits Innovation in Design: Specific Title Innovation in Design: Specific Title LEED Accredited Professional Regional Priority: Specific Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit Low-Emitting Materials—Adhesives and Sealants Low-Emitting Materials—Paints and Coatings Low-Emitting Materials—Flooring Systems Low-Emitting Materials—Composite Wood and Agrifiber Products Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring Increased Ventilation Construction IAQ Management Plan—During Construction Construction IAQ Management Plan—Before Occupancy Regional Materials Certified Wood Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Innovation in Design: Specific Title Innovation in Design: Specific Title Innovation in Design: Specific Title Indoor Environmental Quality LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations Project Checklist 3 of 3 2 C Credit 6 2 Capstone will buy green power for 35% of utlilities for 2years. This will be an upcost of 1.9cents per kwh 437 Possible Points: 14 Y?N Notes: Y d Prereq 1 3 C Credit 1.1 1 to 3 NA N Reuse 55% 1 N Reuse 75% 2 N Reuse 95% 3 1 C Credit 1.2 Building Reuse—Maintain 50% of Interior Non-Structural Elements 1 NA 2 C Credit 2 1 to 2 Y 50% Recycled or Salvaged 1 Y 75% Recycled or Salvaged 2 2 C Credit 3 1 to 2 NA N Reuse 5% 1 N Reuse 10% 2 110C Credit 4 1 to 2 Y 10% of Content 1 Materials with recycled content will be used on the project. These materials will consistute a minimum of 10% of the project material costs. The project is targeting the 20% content if possible. ? 20% of Content 2 Enhanced Refrigerant Management Measurement and Verification Green Power Energy and Atmosphere Enhanced Commissioning Minimum Energy Performance Optimize Energy Performance On-Site Renewable Energy Storage and Collection of Recyclables Building Reuse—Maintain Existing Walls, Floors, and Roof Construction Waste Management Materials Reuse Recycled Content Materials and Resources Fundamental Refrigerant Management Water Use Reduction Fundamental Commissioning of Building Energy Systems LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations Project Checklist 2 of 3 1 C Credit 7.1 Heat Island Effect—Non-roof 1 Trees are being used for shading as much as possible and high SRI materials are used for hardscaping other than parking. 1 d Credit 7.2 1 Specifications call for a TPO with SRI 78 or better which meets the LEED requirements for this credit 1 d Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction 1 Exterior parking lot lighting will consist of pole mounted fixtures with cut-off optics. House side shields will be used on fixtures adjacent to unlighted properties to eliminate light trespass. 404 Possible Points: 10 Y?N Notes: Y d Prereq 1 2 d Credit 1 Water Efficient Landscaping 2 to 4 Alternative Transportation—Public Transportation Access Alternative Transportation—Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Site Selection Development Density and Community Connectivity Sustainable Sites Water Efficiency Alternative Transportation—Parking Capacity Heat Island Effect—Roof Water Use Reduction—20% Reduction LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations Project Checklist 1 of 3 4 Bedroom / 4 Bath Units 71 284 4 Bedroom / 3 Bath Units 3 12 SUB-TOTAL 166 493 DENSITY CALCULATIONS NET 24.62 LOT 2 BUILDING 2 - RESIDENTIAL BUILDING HEIGHT = 5 STORIES 2 Bedroom/ 2 Bath Units 9 18 3 Bedroom / 3 Bath Units 15 45 3 Bedroom / 2 Bath Units 4 12 4 Bedroom / 4 Bath Units 27 108 SUB-TOTAL 55 183 DENSITY CALCULATIONS NET 49.11 PARKING CALCULATIONS QTY LOT 1 SOUTH PARKING LOT 103 NORTH PARKING LOT 68 HANDICAP SPACES 14 SUB-TOTAL 185 LOT 1 - BIKE PARKING REQUIRED 19 (MIN REQ'D - 10% OF TOTAL AUTO SPACES) PROVIDED 150 LOT 2 ON-STREET 9 SOUTH PARKING LOT 30 HANDICAP SPACES 2 SUB-TOTAL 41 LOT 2 - BIKE PARKING 4 (MIN REQ'D - 10% OF TOTAL AUTO SPACES) PROVIDED 25 LOT 3 WEST PARKING LOT 14 EAST PARKING LOT 38 HANDICAP SPACES 3 SUB-TOTAL 55 LOT 3 - BIKE PARKING 6 (MIN REQ'D - 10% OF TOTAL AUTO SPACES) PROVIDED 10 LOT 4 WEST PARKING LOT 16 EAST PARKING LOT 37 HANDICAP SPACES 2 SUB-TOTAL 55 LOT 4 - BIKE PARKING 6 (MIN REQ'D - 10% OF TOTAL AUTO SPACES) PROVIDED 5 TOTAL VEHICLE SPACES 336 TOTAL BIKE SPACES PROVIDED 190 LOT COVERAGE ACREAGE SQUARE FEET PERCENT LOT 1 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING 1 1.14 49,788 17% DRIVEWAYS AND PARKING 1.71 74,571 25% OPEN SPACE/LANDSCAPED AREA/WALKS 3.89 169,386 58% SUB-TOTAL 6.74 293,745 100% LOT 2 RESIDENTIAL/RETAIL BUILDING 2 0.44 19,128 39% DRIVEWAYS AND PARKING 0.35 15,378 32% OPEN SPACE/LANDSCAPED AREA/WALKS 0.33 14,277 29% SUB-TOTAL 1.12 48,783 100% LOT 3 EXISTING RETAIL BUILDING 0.28 12,305 25% DRIVEWAYS AND PARKING 0.50 21,830 44% OPEN SPACE/LANDSCAPED AREA/WALKS 0.36 15,467 31% SUB-TOTAL 1.14 49,602 100% LOT 4 EXISTING RETAIL BUILDING 0.28 12,198 25% DRIVEWAYS AND PARKING 0.55 23,801 50% OPEN SPACE/LANDSCAPED AREA 0.27 11,945 25% SUB-TOTAL 1.10 47,944 100% TOTAL BUILDINGS 2.14 93,419 21% TOTAL DRIVEWAYS AND PARKING 3.11 135,580 31% TOTAL OPEN SPACE/LANDSCAPED AREA 4.85 211,075 48% TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 10.10 440,074 100% *RETAIL BUILDINGS SHALL INCLUDE USES INDICATED AS PERMITTED IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT PORTION OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE. REVIEW SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION REVISION CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO 1-800-922-1987 or 8-1-1 CALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. NO. DATE Drawn By JSD Project # Checked By Date Revision APPROVED OF Prepared by or under the direct supervision of: E:\PROJECT FILES\LAND\2566 CAPSTONE DEVELOPMENT\04 DRAWINGS\SITE PLAN SHEETS\2566 SP-01.DWG , 3/30/2011 1:51 PM SHEET For and on behalf of Jim Sell Design Landscape Architecture, Engineering, & Planning 153 West Mountain Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 970 484 1921 Fax 970 484 2443 JIM SELL DESIGN CHOICE CENTER SITE PLAN Capstone Development Corporation Fort Collins, CO 03/30/2011 2566 SP2 2 2 NOTES: 1. ALL PROPOSED CONDITIONS DETERMINED BY CLOMR CASE #09-08-0735R, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 19, 2010. 2. PROPOSED USES WILL BE SUBJECT TO CHAPTER 10 REQUIREMENTS CONSISTENT WITH APPROVED CLOMR CONDITIONS. 3. BIKE RACKS TO BE PLACED ON BIKE RACKS TO BE PLACED ON POROURS PAVERS WITH A 6" CONCRETE BAND. NOTE: 4 BEDROOM / 4 BATH UNITS AND 4 BEDROOM / 3 BATH UNITS TO BE OCCUPIED BY FOUR (4) UNRELATED PEOPLE. James Ct St Braiden W Pitkin St East Dr Edison Dr "A" St Center Ave Prospect Balsam Ln Juniper Ln Prospect Ct Birky Pl Sheely Dr W a l l e n b ur g Dr Hobbit St Tamasag Dr Waters Edge Winterberry Way d Rd Trail Wind Weathertop Ln Spring Ct Arthur Dr Meadowlark Princeton Rd Dr Davidson Winchester Dr Powderhorn Dr agecoach Dr Ave W Stuart St Cir As S Ellis Dr Chetwood Dr Strachen Aberdeen Ct Endiburgh St Stover St Stanford Rd Leisure Dr Mathews St vard St Allen Thunderbird Dr Amherst St Marquette St Hartford Cir Queens Ct Vanderbi lt Ct Camb r idge Ct Baylor ST Princeton Rd Brown Ave Tulane Dr Columbia Rd Cornell Ave Stanford Rd Duke Ln Sq Chippewa St Kiowa Ct Apache Ct Shawnee Ct Ouray Ct Iraquois Dr Hiawatha Ct Harvard St Yale St Mathews St Yale Way Rutgers Ave Vasser Ave Loyola Ave Purdue Rd Dar t mou th Ln Villanova Ct Cir Remington St Spring Park Dr Busch Ct Cheyenne Dr Osage St Mohawk St Sequoia St Navajo Dr Seminole Dr Chey e n e n Dr h er o ke e Dr C Pawnee Dr C om manche Dr Choctaw Way Mathews St Smith Pl Deines Ct Person Ct Peterson Pl Peterson St Alpert Ct Parker St Whedbee St Morningside Ct Alpert Ct Bristol Ct Stuart St B. Ct B. C i r W Brookhaven Cir E Springmeadows Ct Peterson St E Lake St Buckeye St Circle Dr Newsom St Lake St Buckeye St Morgan St Green St Robertson St Lory St Lake Pl Garfield St E l l is St Edwards St Williams St Locust St E Elizabeth St Garfield St Edwards St Mathews St Remington St Whedbee St Kenroy Ct Locust Ct Pennock Pl E Pitkin St Doctor's Indian Summer Parkwoo Dr Columbine S Bluebell S Heatherw Rosewood Ln Ave Delmar St SHIELDS STREET PROJECT SITE PROSPECT ROAD CALL BEFORE YOU DIG CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO 1-800-922-1987 or 8-1-1 CALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. E:\PROJECT FILES\LAND\2566 CAPSTONE DEVELOPMENT\04 DRAWINGS\SITE PLAN SHEETS\2566 SP-01.DWG , 3/30/2011 1:51 PM March 30, 2011 Vicinity Map CAPSTONE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Choice Center - Site Plan FORT COLLINS, CO Applicant and Future Owner/ Developer Capstone Development Corporation 431 Office Park Drive Birmingham, AL 35223 PH: (205) 414-6400 FAX: (205) 414-6405 Surveyor Nolte Associates, Inc. 8000 S. Chester Street, Suite 200 Centennial, CO 80112 PH: (303) 220-6400 FAX: (303) 220-9001 SCALE 1"=1500' Landscape Architect Jim Sell Design, Inc. 153 W. Mountain Ave. Ft. Collins, CO 80524 PH: (970) 484-1921 FAX: (970) 484-2443 LOT 1B, REPLAT OF A PART OF LOT 1 OF THE SPRING COURT SUBDIVISION, A PORTION OF LOT 2 OF THE SPRING COURT SUBDIVISION, AND LOT 3 OF THE FOX SHOPPING CENTER SUBDIVISION City Of Fort Collins, County Of Larimer, State Of Colorado BASIS OF BEARINGS: ASSUMED SOUTH 00°02'16" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST, SAID LINE BEING MONUMENTS BY A 3 1/4" ALUMINUM CAP, L.S. 17497, 1991 AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER AND BY A 2 1/2" ALUMINUM CAP, L.S. 17497, 1996 IN A MONUMENT BOX AT THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 23. BENCHMARK:C-322, MARKED "C-22 RESET 1959" LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST WINGWALL OF THE BRIDGE FOR COLLEGE AVENUE OVER SPRING CREEK; ELEVATION:4986.22 FEET, CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM (NAGVD 1929 - UNADJUSTED). PROJECT ADDRESS: 1653 S. College Avenue through 1807 S. College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Civil Engineer JVA, Incorporated 1319 Spruce Street Boulder, CO 80302 PH: (970) 225-9099 FAX: (303) 444-1957 Landscape Architecture, Engineering, & Planning 153 West Mountain Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 970 484 1921 fax: 970 484 2443 JIM SELL DESIGN PROJECT NAME: CHOICE CENTER JSD PROJECT NUMBER: 2566 DATE: 03/30/2011 SHEET: 1 OF 2 Index to Drawings SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME 1 SITE PLAN COVER SHEET 2 SITE PLAN Traffic Engineer ELB Engineering, LLC 5401 Taylor Lane Fort Collins, CO 80528 PH: (970) 988-7551 FAX: (970) 225-8942 Approved this day of , by the Current Planning Director of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. Current Planning Director 2011 OWNER - LOT 3 FOX SHOPPING CENTER: Johnson Investments, Inc. , being the lawful recorded owners of Lot 3 of the Fox Shopping Center shown on this Project Development Plan, except any existing public streets, roads, or highways, do hereby certify that I/we accept the conditions and restrictions set forth on said plan and in the conditions of approval by the City of Fort Collins, dated , and that I/we consent to the recordation of any information pertaining thereto. BY: DATE: . STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2009. by as of . Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: . . Notary Public OWNER: Capstone Development Corporation , being all the lawful recorded owners of the Spring Court Subdivision on this Project Development Plan, except any existing public streets, roads, or highways, do hereby certify that I/we accept the conditions and restrictions set forth on said plan and in the conditions of approval by the City of Fort Collins, dated , and that I/we consent to the recordation of any information pertaining thereto. BY: DATE: . STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2009. by as of . Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: . . Notary Public Signatures and Approvals KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING OWNER OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER STATE OF COLORADO BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT 1B, REPLAT OF A PART OF LOT 1 OF THE SPRING COURT SUBDIVISION, AND A PORTION OF LOT 2, SPRING COURT SUBDIVISION, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT; CONSIDERING THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2 AS BEARING SOUTH 89°57'00" WEST AND WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERTO, IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES WHICH BEGIN AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2, AND RUN THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 2, NORTH 05°48'00" EAST 139.71 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2, NORTH 90°00'00" EAST 294.39 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTH LINE, SOUTH 00°00'00" EAST 138.72 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, SOUTH 89°57'00" WEST 308.51 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, AND LOT 3, FOX SHOPPING CENTER SUBDIVISION, EXCEPT THAT PORTION COVEYED BY DEED RECORDED APRIL 29, 1987 AT RECEPTION NO. 87024425 AND DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 AT RECEPTION NO. 20050079268 AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED BY DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 7, 1990 AT RECEPTION NO. 90005700 AND RE-RECORDED JUNE 28, 1990 AT RECEPTION NO. 90027872, AND THE PERIMETER OF WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 3, FOX SHOPPING CENTER SUBDIVISION, THENCE NORTH 89°38'48” WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 3, A DISTANCE OF 5.52 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED IN RULE AND ORDER RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO. 96079001, SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE THE FOLLOWING SIX COURSES ALONG THE WESTERLY AND SOUTHERLY PERIMETER OF SAID PARCEL: 1. THENCE SOUTH 00°01'23” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 69.06 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT; 2. THENCE 17.21 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 602.50 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01°38'12”, AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS SOUTH 00°47'43” WEST, 17.21 FEET; 3. THENCE SOUTH 01°36'49” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 47.51 FEET; 4. THENCE SOUTH 46°31'40” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 8.57 FEET; 5. THENCE SOUTH 00°00'10” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 8.43 FEET; 6. THENCE SOUTH 88°34'02” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 9.60 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY OF COLLEGE AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH 01°25'44” WEST ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY, A DISTANCE OF 24.88 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°02'16” EAST ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY, A DISTANCE OF 312.34 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO. 90005700 AND RE-RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO. 90027872; THENCE THE FOLLOWING THREE COURSES ALONG THE PERIMETER OF SAID PARCEL; 1. THENCE SOUTH 89°49'03” WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL, A DISTANCE OF 105.07 FEET; 2. THENCE SOUTH 00°02'18” WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID PARCEL, A DISTANCE OF 146.86 FEET; 3. THENCE NORTH 89°50'51” EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL, A DISTANCE OF 105.26 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY OF COLLEGE AVENUE; THENCE THE FOLLOWING FIVE COURSES ALONG THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY OF COLLEGE AVENUE: 1. THENCE SOUTH 00°02'16” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 86.39 FEET; 2. THENCE NORTH 89°57'44” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 3.00 FEET; 3. THENCE SOUTH 00°02'16” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 78.00 FEET; 4. THENCE SOUTH 89°57'44” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 3.00 FEET; 5. THENCE SOUTH 00°02'16” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 36.39 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°39'12” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 227.96 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO. ____________; THENCE SOUTH 00°23'51” WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO. ______________, AND ALONG THE EAST LINE OF LOT 1-B, REPLAT OF A PORTION OF SPRING COURT SUBDIVISION, AND ALONG SAID EAST LINE EXTENDED SOUTHERLY, A DISTANCE OF 263.59 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 2, SPRING COURT SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 89°36'51” WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2, A DISTANCE OF 307.51 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF THE COLORADO AND SOUTHERN RAILROAD; THENCE THE FOLLOWING THREE COURSES ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY; 1. THENCE NORTH 06°12'38” EAST, ALONG A DISTANCE OF 532.67 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT; 2. THENCE 503.62 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 4573.35 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06°18'34”, AND BEING SUB-TENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS NORTH 03°03'21” EAST, 503.37 FEET; 3. THENCE NORTH 00°05'56” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 89.61 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DEEDS RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO. 20050079268 AND REC. NO. 87024425; THENCE THE FOLLOWING FOUR COURSES ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL; 1. THENCE NORTH 89°40'38” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 55.15 FEET; 2. THENCE SOUTH 45°27'16” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 67.77 FEET; 3. THENCE SOUTH 81°48'40” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 104.13 FEET; 4. THENCE NORTH 01°11'13” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 35.13 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 2, FOX SHOPPING CENTER SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 89°38'48” EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 3, FOX SHOPPING CENTER SUBDIVISION, A DISTANCE OF 244.11 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE ABOVE TRACT CONTAINS 10.403 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Current Owners Johnson Investments, Inc. 126 West Harvard Street, Suite 2 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Kelly C. Brown 801 E. Pitkin Fort Collins, CO 80524 Property Description Project Benchmark Project Contacts 4/27 0% 7/20 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12/21 0% 0% 0 o e Jan e MarApr a Jun Jul u e Oct o e Jan e MarApr a Jun Jul u e Oct o e Jan e MarApr a Jun Jul u Quarte 1st Quarte 2nd Quart 3rd Quarte 4th Quarte 1st Quarte 2nd Quart 3rd Quarte 4th Quarte 1st Quarte 2nd Quart 3rd Qu Fort Collins Campus-Edge Development by Capstone Development Corp. Fri 5/20/11 Page 2 0% 1/11 0% 2/9 2/18 0% 3/10 0% 3/23 0% 6/23 7/19 6/23 0% 6/24 7/1 7/1 7/7 o e Jan e MarApr a Jun Jul u e Oct o e Jan e MarApr a Jun Jul u e Oct o e Jan e MarApr a Jun Jul u Quarte 1st Quarte 2nd Quart 3rd Quarte 4th Quarte 1st Quarte 2nd Quart 3rd Quarte 4th Quarte 1st Quarte 2nd Quart 3rd Qu Fort Collins Campus-Edge Development by Capstone Development Corp. Fri 5/20/11 Page 1 7. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATED, POP-UP IRRIGATION SYSTEM. ALL SHRUB BEDS TO BE IRRIGATED WITH A DRIP SYSTEM. ALL PERENNIAL BEDS TO BE IRRIGATED WITH XERI-POP SPRAY HEADS. 8. STREET TREE LOCATIONS SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO ALLOW FOR A MINIMUM OF A 40' CLEARANCE TO STREET LIGHTS (15' MINIMUM IF THE TREE IS ORNAMENTAL) 9. TREE LOCATIONS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM SEPARATION OF 6' TO WATER OR SEWER SERVICE LINES AND 10' FROM WATER OR SEWER MAIN LINES. 10. STREET TREE LOCATIONS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM SEPARATION OF 4' BETWEEN GAS LINES. 11. LOCATE ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO ANY DIGGING OR LANDSCAPE PLANTING. 12. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE, TOPSOIL THAT IS REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE CONSERVED FOR LATER USE ON AREAS REQUIRING REVEGETATION AND LANDSCAPING. 13. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SETUP OF BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNAGE, OR OTHER PROTECTIVE DEVICES IF ANY EXCAVATIONS ARE LEFT EXPOSED AFTER ON-SITE WORK HOURS. 14. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ACQUIRE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY. 15. PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF PLANT MATERIALS, THE SOIL IN ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS, INCLUDING PARKWAYS AND MEDIANS, SHALL BE THOROUGHLY LOOSENED TO A DEPTH OF NOT LESS THAN EIGHT (8) INCHES AND SOIL AMENDMENT SHALL BE THOROUGHLY INCORPORATED INTO THE SOIL OF ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS TO A DEPTH OF SIX (6) INCHES BY TILLING, DISCING OR OTHER SUITABLE METHOD, AT A RATE OF AT LEAST FOUR (4) CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL AMENDMENT PER ONE THOUSAND (1,000) SQUARE FEET OF LANDSCAPED AREA. 16. A FREE TREE PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT MAY RESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 17. THE DEVELOPER SHALL CONTACT THE CITY FORESTER TO INSPECT ALL STREET TREE PLANTINGS AT THE COMPLETION OF EACH PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT. ALL TREES NEED TO HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. APPROVAL OF STREET TREE PLANTING IS REQUIRED BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL OF EACH PHASE. FAILURE TO OBTAIN APPROVAL BY THE CITY FORESTER FOR STREET TREES IN A PHASE SHALL RESULT IN A HOLD CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR FUTURE PHASES OF THE DEVELOPMENT. 18. EXISTING TREES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. SEE THE TREE MITIGATION PLAN FOR SPECIFIC PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS. 19. PROTECT ALL ROOTS THAT ARE ENCOUNTERED DURING SIDEWALK DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION. 20. DO NOT REMOVE MORE THAN 3" OF SOIL WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE IN ORDER TO LAY NEW SOD. 21. BIKE RACKS TO BE PLACED ON POROURS PAVERS WITH A 6" CONCRETE BAND. PLANT NOTES WATER USE AND MAINTENANCE TABLE Type Maintenance Water Use Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Turf Moderate High 9,866 680 1,998 2,327 Shrubs Low Low 105,258 5,901 3,767 4,897 Shrubs Low Med 26,315 1,475 942 1,224 Native Mix Low Low 89,214 - - - 1. TURF: DROUGHT TOLERANT BLUE GRASS SOD BLEND OF 3 VARIETIES. 2. MULCHES (SUBMIT SAMPLES FOR APPROVAL): x 4" ORGANIC NATURAL BARK MULCH SHALL BE USED IN ALL SHRUB AND BEDS. x 4" TO 8" COBBLE MULCH SHALL BE USED ADJACENT TO BUILDING FOUNDATIONS AND IN PARKING ISLANDS. BACKFILL VOID SPACES WITH 3/4" TO 1-1/2" WASHED COBBLE. PLACE OVER FILTER FABRIC. x POUROUS LANDSCAPE DETENTION AREAS TO RECEIVE 18" OF AN 85% SAND AND 15% COMPOST MIX (SEE DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN). PLACE BIODEGRADABLE JUTE MAT OVER ENTIRE SURFACE OF POUROUS LANDSCAPE AREA AND ADJACENT SIDE SLOPES - NO MULCH. x CRUSHER FINES TO BE 4" THICK DECOMPOSED GRANITE OVER FILTER FABRIC. 3. EDGING: x ROLLED TOP STEEL EDGING TO BE PLACED IN ALL AREAS BETWEEN DISPARATE MULCH MATERIALS. EDGING BETWEEN TURF AND MULCH AREAS TO RECEIVE 6" CONCRETE CURBING. 4. LANDSCAPE BOULDERS: x BOULDERS TO BE QUARRY SLAB BOULDERS ACQUIRED FROM LOCAL SOURCES. SIZES VARY, BUT SHOULD AVERAGE ABOUT 1 TON EACH. PLACE BOULDERS ON 6" GRAVEL SETTING BED. HEIGHTS ABOVE ADJACENT GRADE TO VARY. LOCATE AND PLACE BOULDERS WITH APPROVAL FROM OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. MATERIALS POUROUS LANDSCAPE DETENTION MIX COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME PLS per Acre Ounces per Acre Sand bluestem Andropogon hallii 3.5 Sideoats Grama Bouteloua curtipendula 3 Indian Rice grass Oryzopisi hymenoides 3 Switchgrass Pancium virgatum 4 Little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium 3 Pasture sage Artemisia frigida 2 Blanket flower Gaillardia artistata 8 Prairie Coneflower Ratinida columnifera 4 Curb & Gutter/ sidewalks/ paving in Public/FEMA areas Energy & Environmental Improvements GC general conditions for public improvements Landscaping Allocation 2nd Mobilization - CLOMR sitework FEMA/ Stormwater Design Fees Survey for FEMA improvements Total Sales Tax Payroll Taxes & Ins. Total Subtotal General Liability Subtotal Contingency