HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 09/30/2014 - COMPLETE AGENDACity of Fort Collins Page 1
urban renewal authority
Karen Weitkunat, Chairperson City Council Chambers
Gerry Horak, Vice-Chairperson City Hall West
Bob Overbeck 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw Fort Collins, Colorado
Gino Campana
Wade Troxell
Ross Cunniff Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
on the Comcast cable system
Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Wanda Nelson
Interim City Attorney Executive Director 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 BOARD MEETING
September 30, 2014
(Revised 9/29/14)
6:00 PM
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
AGENDA REVIEW
Executive Director’s Review of Agenda.
• Consent Calendar Review.
This Review provides an opportunity for the Board and citizens to pull items from the
Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this Calendar be “pulled” off the
Consent Calendar and considered separately.
◦ Board-pulled Consent Calendar items will be considered before the Discussion
items.
◦ Citizen-pulled Consent Calendar items will be considered after the Discussion
items.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
City of Fort Collins Page 2
Individuals who wish to make comments regarding items remaining on the Consent Calendar or wish
to address the Board on items not specifically scheduled on the agenda must first be recognized by the
Chairperson or Vice Chair. Before speaking, please sign in at the table in the back of the room.
The timer will buzz once when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. The timer will
buzz again at the end of the speaker’s time. Each speaker is allowed 5 minutes. If there are more
than 6 individuals who wish to speak, the Chairperson may reduce the time allowed for each individual.
State your name and address for the record.
Applause, outbursts or other demonstrations by the audience are not allowed
Keep comments brief; if available, provide a written copy of statement to Secretary
Address your comments to Council, not the audience
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOLLOW-UP
Consent Calendar
This Calendar is intended to allow the Urban Renewal Authority Board to spend its time and energy on
the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. The
Consent Calendar consists of resolutions of no perceived controversy and routine administrative
actions.
1. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the May 6, 2014 Urban Renewal Authority.
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the May 6, 2014 Urban Renewal Authority
meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW-UP
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
CONSIDERATION OF BOARD-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS
Discussion Items
The method of debate for discussion items is as follows:
● Chairperson introduces the item number and subject; asks if formal presentation will be
made by staff
● Staff and/or Applicant presentation (optional)
● Chairperson requests citizen comment on the item (five-minute limit for each citizen)
● Board questions of staff on the item
● Board motion on the item
● Board discussion
● Final Board comments
● Board vote on the item
Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Chairperson, to
ensure all citizens have an opportunity to speak. Please sign in at the table in the back of the
room. The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will
buzz again at the end of the speaker’s time.
City of Fort Collins Page 3
2. Resolution No. 071 Adopting Revised Policies and Procedures Relating to Financial Management
for the Urban Renewal Authority. (staff: Tom Leeson; 10 minute staff presentation; 30 minute
discussion)
The purpose of this item is to adopt revised policies and procedures relating to financial
management for the Urban Renewal Authority.
3. Resolution No. 072 Approving a Redevelopment Agreement Between the Fort Collins Urban
Renewal Authority and Northern Colorado Feeders Supply, Inc. (staff: Megan Bolin; 10 minute staff
presentation; 20 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to consider a Redevelopment Agreement between the URA and Northern
Colorado Feeders Supply for $72,472 of tax increment financing assistance. This tax increment
financing (TIF) assistance is proposed for the redevelopment of Northern Colorado Feeders Supply’s
new location at 300 Hickory Street in the North College Urban Renewal area. TIF would be provided
as a reimbursement and paid over time based on actual increment collected from the project.
CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS
OTHER BUSINESS
A. The Urban Renewal Authority Board will consider a motion to adjourn into executive session.
ADJOURNMENT
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 30, 2014
Urban Renewal Authority Board
STAFF
Wanda Nelson, City Clerk
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the May 6, 2014 Urban Renewal Authority.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the May 6, 2014 Urban Renewal Authority meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
1. May 6, 2014 (PDF)
Packet Pg. 4
May 6, 2014
Urban Renewal Authority
A meeting of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority was held on Tuesday, May 6, 2014, at
10:48 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered
by the following Boardmembers: Campana, Cunniff, Horak, Overbeck, Poppaw, Troxell, and
Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Agenda Review
Executive Director Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda.
Citizen Participation
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed state Urban Renewal Authority statutes. The
State Senate approved a House Bill which included a requirement that cities and counties pledge
sales and property tax at the same percentage.
Consideration and Approval of the April 15, 2014
Urban Renewal Authority Minutes, Adopted
Chair Weitkunat withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.
Boardmember Cunniff made a motion, seconded by Boardmember Poppaw, to approve the
minutes of the April 15, 2014 Urban Renewal Authority meeting. Yeas: Campana, Cunniff,
Horak, Overbeck, Poppaw, and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution No. 070
Approving an Amendment to the Redevelopment And Reimbursement Agreement with the
City ,Walton Foothills Holdings VI, L.L.C., and the Foothills Metropolitan District
Regarding the Redevelopment of Foothills Mall, Adopted
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to amend the Foothills Mall Redevelopment Agreement. The
Developer has asked to amend Section 3.1 - Conditions Precedent to Issuance of District Bonds of
the Agreement, to allow the Metro District Bonds to be issued with 155k square feet of executed
leases vs. the 240k square feet required in the current agreement. The Developer is also asking
for clarification to Section 4.3 - Construction of Residential Component of Project: Affordable
Housing, concerning the period of time the Developer may be required to make payments to the
City if there is a delay in the completion of the residential units.
May 6, 2014
298
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Amendment to Section 3.1(c)
Section 3.1 - Conditions Precedent to Issuance of District Bonds was included in the agreement to
provide the City assurance that prior to the City granting authorization to the District to issue the
bonds that the project financing is in place and all project approvals have been received. Section
3.1 details 7 conditions that must be met by the Developer prior to the issuance of the District
Bonds. The seven conditions are summarized below:
a. District Financing Plan approved by the City Manager.
b. Provide evidence that the Developer has obtained all equity and private financing
necessary to construct the non-residential components of the Project.
c. Obtain 240k square feet of executed leased space with 120k square feet of tenants new
to Fort Collins at an average sales per square foot of $375.
d. Add-On PIF imposed in accordance with Section 4.7.
e. Obtain all Development Approvals for the Project.
f. Satisfactory opinion by District’s bond counsel.
g. No event of default shall have occurred.
The Developer has indicated they are prepared to meet 6 of these conditions and are requesting a
modification to 3.1(c), concerning the square footage of lease space required before issuance.
The Developer currently has approximately 90k square feet of leases executed and anticipates
having approximately 195k square feet leased by May 2014. A combination of factors has
negatively impacted the current volume of executed leases:
1. The delay from an anticipated 2014 opening to a 2015 opening.
2. Timing uncertainty of the 2015 opening until the Redevelopment Agreement was
signed in January of 2014.
3. A leasing strategy that focuses on critical retailers first, who once signed, will attract
other quality retailers.
4. Retailers are currently focused on leases for 2014 openings and will focus on leases to
support 2015 openings later in this year.
The Developer has requested an amendment to the agreement that would allow for the issuance of
District bonds with 155k square feet leased including 90k square feet of tenants new to Fort
Collins. However, only $23M of the $53M of bond proceeds would be released to the project.
The remaining $30M of bond proceeds would be held in escrow by the Bond Trustee and would
only be released in tranches to the project as additional leases are executed by the developer.
Packet Pg. 6
Attachment1.1: May 6, 2014 (2372 : URA Minutes-5/6)
May 6, 2014
299
Table A
Lease Space Sq Ft Funds Released Percent of…
Tranche Total New to
Fort
Collins
Funds
Released
Assigned
to City
Improv
Orig
240k
Mall
(less
Macy's)
Current
240k 120k $
53
$
8
100% 47%
Request
1 155k 90k $
23
$
3
65% 30%
2 205k 120k
33
1
85% 40%
3 255k 130k
43
2
106% 50%
4 310k 150k
53
2
129% 60%
Table A details the additional square feet of executed leases required by the developer to receive
additional funding. As each 50k of additional leases are executed, combined with a corresponding
increase in leases associated with tenants new to Fort Collins, funding will be released by the
Bond Trustee in increments of $10M. In comparison to the original agreement, the Developer
must now obtain 310k square feet of executed leases (60% of the total Mall) before all funds are
made available (vs. 240k square feet (47% of the total Mall) in the original agreement). The
amount of leased space to tenants new to Fort Collins has also increased from 120k to 150k. In
addition, a portion of each tranche released would be assigned to the Underpass and Foothills
Activity Center portion of the project.
Waiting until the developer has obtained the required 240k square feet of leased space prior to the
issuance of the bonds could have multiple adverse effects on the project:
1. The equity partner and the construction financier require all funding be closed
simultaneously. A delay in the issuance of the District Bonds will delay the closing on the
construction financing.
2. A delay in the close of the project financing opens the possibility of rising interest rates
adding significant cost to the project.
3. Construction timing is critical, a delay of several weeks in closing all financing will delay
construction start-up which in turn will delay the opening in 2015.
4. A delay in the 2015 mall opening will void current executed leases which specify a 2015
May 6, 2014
300
approximately $57M and will most likely increase by the time all financing is closed. This is 40%
to 50% higher than their original intentions. In addition, the Equity Partner has agreed to
provide 100% recourse vs. the normal 50% recourse on the $100M plus construction loan. Both
actions demonstrate confidence in the project.
Risks and Implications Associated with the Amendment to Section 3.1(c):
Risks and implications associated with the amendment vary by party associated with the
agreement. Risks revolve around what can be described as “Start-Up Risk”. Start-Up Risk can
be defined as the bonds are issued but something catastrophic occurs that prevents the mall from
being completed and fully leased out.
City Risk/Implications - In the event the bonds are issued and the mall is not completed, there is
no financial obligation on the part of the City beyond the pledge of Sales Tax Increment from sales
at the Mall. Issuing the bonds with 155k vs. 240k square feet of leased space does not increase
financial risk to the City. The structure of financing was intentionally set up to issue the bonds via
the Metro District, avoid creating a debt obligation on the part of the City and allow the City to
avoid the Start-Up Risk.
Interest Rate Risk - Current macro-economic indicators point to a rising interest rate environment
in the near term. A delay in the issuance of the bonds in a rising rate environment could have a
significant impact on the financing cost of the project. A 1% increase in interest rates on the
bonds (all else held constant) would require an additional $17M of Sales Tax Increment from the
URA to meet the bond payments. The Developer would also potentially experience additional
financing costs associated with the construction loan.
Developer Risk/Implications - The Developer will not have a financial gain with the proposed
amendment. The benefit to the Developer is the project would proceed on the current planned
timeline without the adverse impact of the effects of a delay described above.
Metro District Risk/Implications - The risk to the District is related to Start-Up Risk and when
such an event occurred relative to the square footage of executed leases.
If an event occurred after 240k square feet of leases are executed, in the current agreement, all
$72M of bonds would be issued and outstanding. In the amended agreement, only $33M of the
bond proceeds would have been disbursed and the remaining $20M of proceeds would be
available for an extraordinary redemption of outstanding bonds, thereby reducing the future
obligations of the District. If the event occurred prior to the Developer achieving 255k square
feet of executed leases, the amended agreement would be beneficial to the District. If such an
event occurred after 310k square feet of executed leases were obtained, there is no difference
between the two alternatives.
If an event occurred after 155k square feet of leases were executed but before 240k square feet of
leases were executed, in the current agreement, no bonds would have been issued. In the
amended agreement, $23M to $33M of the bond proceeds would have been disbursed and the
remaining $20M to $30M of proceeds would be available for an extraordinary redemption of the
outstanding bonds. There is risk in the amended agreement during the time it takes the Developer
to move from 155k to 240k square feet of leased space. Again, there is no financial risk to the City
in this case. This risk can be evaluated based on two factors - probability and severity. The
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment1.1: May 6, 2014 (2372 : URA Minutes-5/6)
May 6, 2014
301
probability of an event occurring during the 4-6 months it will take the Developer to acquire the
240k square feet of leases vs. the 155k square feet of leases is very low. The severity could be
high. Approximately $41M of bonds would be outstanding plus additional capitalized interest
would be incurred if $30M of proceeds were used for an early redemption. The Start-Up Risk
exists with the current agreement and with the amended agreement, the difference relates to
whether an event would occur during the next 4-6 months that would ultimately cause the Bonds to
not be issued.
Because (1) there is no added risk to the City, (2) the risk to the District is not significantly
different between authorizing bonds with 240k of leased space vs. authorizing bonds with 155k of
lease space and putting funds in escrow that can only be fully released once 310k of space is
leased,( 3) the risk of delay to the construction timeline would most likely adversely impact the
projects lease opportunities and completion dates, and 4) potential higher interest rates with a late
2014 issuance would require additional sales tax increment to cover bond payments, staff
recommends making the requested modifications to the agreement.
Amendment to Section 4.3
Section 4.3 - Construction of Residential Component of Project: Affordable Housing. of the
agreement was intended to provide a partial offset to lost residential property tax increment in the
event the developer does not meet the construction completion dates described in section 4.3. The
50% payments of the lost property tax revenue by the developer was intended to only be in effect
until the residential units are completed and property tax revenue begins to flow to the URA and
then to the Metro District.
The current wording in the agreement has been questioned by the District bond council, who
interpret the current wording to require the developer to continue making the 50% payments after
the residential units are complete if the original construction completion dates in the agreement
are not met.
Staff concurs this was not the intent of this section and agree clarification is needed to indicate the
50% payment is only required if the construction completion dates within the agreement are not
met and only until the residential units are complete and tax revenue is realized by the Metro
District.
The Council Finance Committee will review this item on Friday, April 11. Draft minutes from
that meeting will be provided in the read-before packet on Tuesday, April 15.”
Chair Weitkunat withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.
Boardmember Campana made a motion, seconded by Boardmember Troxell, to adopt Resolution
No. 070.
Boardmember Troxell noted the URA has attempted to have conversations with Larimer County
and stated it is unfortunate the Commissioners chose to go to the State legislature for resolution.
Executive Director Atteberry discussed a countywide conversation regarding purpose and
objectives of tax increment financing and stated additional information will be forthcoming.
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment1.1: May 6, 2014 (2372 : URA Minutes-5/6)
May 6, 2014
302
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Campana, Cunniff, Horak, Overbeck, Poppaw, and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:58 p.m.
_________________________________
Vice-Chair
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Secretary
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment1.1: May 6, 2014 (2372 : URA Minutes-5/6)
Agenda Item 2
Item # 2 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 30, 2014
Urban Renewal Authority Board
STAFF
Tom Leeson, Redevelopment Program Manager
SUBJECT
Resolution No. 071 Adopting Revised Policies and Procedures Relating to Financial Management for the
Urban Renewal Authority.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to adopt revised policies and procedures relating to financial management for the
Urban Renewal Authority.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The URA Financial Management Policy (Exhibit A to the Resolution) addresses a concern consistently
voiced by URA Boardmembers in the past two years. The concern relates to over-commitment of tax
increment financing (TIF) dollars to individual redevelopment projects. This concern stems from recent
experience where initial estimates of the TIF generated by a project exceeded the initial actual TIF generated
by the project.
One measure taken to address this concern has been adopting a method of estimating the TIF anticipated
from a project by using the approach employed by the DDA. This approach has a long-proven track record. In
addition, estimates of TIF over the course of an Urban Renewal Plan Area life have been adjusted to assume
no growth (0% appreciation) as an additional layer of conservatism.
The proposed Financial Policy provides additional insulation to address this concern. The Financial Policy is
intended to provide a set of operating norms for future TIF commitments to be used by URA staff. The
financing parameters presented represent a range of preferred methods. The decision to use one method over
another or to blend methods will be contingent upon a project’s need for gap financing, the size of the
particular project, the type of improvements supported by the TIF and/or the public benefit provided by the
project.
The proposed Financial Policy (Exhibit A to the Resolution) provides parameters related to the two primary
approaches to providing TIF commitments: (a) lump sum payments to the project (historically the prevalent
approach) and (b) payments to the project over time. In addition, the application or use of TIF is primarily for
two of the three previously outlined URA assistance purposes:
(a) Create - When existing conditions on a site make private market rate redevelopment impractical (i.e.,
environmental contamination or insufficient infrastructure) so providing TIF assistance removes
financial barriers and helps to create a project that would not otherwise happen, and
(b) Enhance - When conditions on a site are such that the likely market rate redevelopment outcome is
not consistent with goals for Targeted Redevelopment and Infill Areas. In these cases, providing TIF
Packet Pg. 11
Agenda Item 2
Item # 2 Page 2
assistance changes the scope of the project so that it conforms, or exceeds identified objectives in City
Plan.
Specific details of the proposed financing parameters are provided in the Financial Policy (Exhibit A to the
Resolution)
It should be noted the URA Finance Committee reviewed the financial parameters at its meeting on November
21, 2013, and the URA Board held a work session to discuss the parameters on July 8, 2014. The meeting
summaries are provided in Attachment 1 and 2 respectively.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The North College Citizens Advisory Group reviewed the proposed financial management policy on March 6,
2014. The minute notes are attached as Attachment 3.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Fort Collins Chamber Legislative Affairs Committee - July 11, 2014
Urban Renewal Authority Work session - July 8, 2014
North Fort Collins CAG - March 6, 2014
ATTACHMENTS
1. URA Finance Committee minutes, November 21, 2013 (PDF)
2. Work Session Summary, July 8, 2014 (PDF)
3. North College Citizens Advisory Group minutes, March 6, 2014 (PDF)
4. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
Packet Pg. 12
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
URA Finance Committee Meeting
Minutes
11/21/13
10:00 to 11:30 a.m.
CIC Room
Council Attendees: Mayor Karen Weitkunat, Bob Overbeck, Ross Cunniff
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead, Josh Birks, Karl Gannon,
Bruce Hendee, Mark Jackson, Diane Jones, Tom Leeson, Ken
Mannon, Lawrence Pollack, Kurt Ravenschlag, Jessica Ping-
Small, Peggy Streeter, Steve Roy, John Voss, Katie Wiggett,
Timothy Wilder
Others:
Approval of the Minutes of September 16, 2013
Mayor Karen Weitkunat moved to approve the minutes for the September 16, 2013 meeting. Minutes
were approved unanimously.
URA Financial Parameters
Josh Birks said that the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA) has been engaged in a process of
continuous improvement since the beginning of 2012. Recent improvements include:
Reorganization moving the management of the URA out from under the Finance Department
allowing for an independent review by Finance;
Changes to the method for estimating Tax Increment generated by a project, consistent with the
proven track record of the Downtown Development Authority’s approach;
Increased consultation with outside legal counsel relative to specific URA financing, operations,
and formation issues; and
Documentation of the Redevelopment Agreement negotiation, adoption, and execution
process.
Josh added that, while historically the City has been the URA’s primary source for loans, the URA is
looking at other funding options (i.e. the federal government, banks, etc.). This is one way we are
broadening our horizons.
Josh noted that the presented policy continues the process of improvement by presenting a series of
parameters for developing the TIF commitments made to individual projects by URA staff. These
parameters are defined by the URA’s purpose to create and to enhance.
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment2.1: URA Finance Committee minutes, November 21, 2013 (2327 : URA-Financial Management Policy)
2
The Financial Policy is intended to provide a set of operating norms for future TIF commitments to be
used by URA staff. The financing parameters presented represent a range of preferred methods. The
decision to use one method over another or to blend methods will be contingent upon a project’s need
for gap financing, the size of the particular project, the type of improvements supported by the TIF
and/or the public benefit provided by the project. The proposed Financial Policy provides parameters
related to the two primary approaches to providing TIF commitments: (a) lump sum payments
(historically the prevalent approach) and (b) pay over time.
Ross Cunniff asked how Staff settled on the maximum percentages for TIF. Mike replied that the
numbers were the result of balancing risk with achieving results. Staff determined that at 75%, the URA
could achieve its goals without too much risk. It is a conservative maximum limit.
Ross asked how this maximum percentage compares with the DDA’s. Josh answered that the primary
distinction between the DDA and the URA is that the DDA has a dual purpose, adding to blight renewal
the maintenance of the downtown area whereas the URA’s sole purpose is blight renewal. Because of
this distinction, the DDA retains more TIF to cover the cost of maintenance. The problem the URA faces
is trying to keep the TIF low while also maximizing public improvements. For example, the TIF on the
mall project would be lower if we abandoned such improvements as the YAC and the underpass.
Ross asked how any remaining TIF funds are used. Mike replied that any excess TIF stayed in the URA to
be used to improve the same area for which it was collected. Steve Roy will look into the legal
parameters for using such funds. Mike noted that the DDA uses a line of credit mechanism that satisfies
the debt obligation attached to excess TIF revenue; the URA could use a similar mechanism.
Mike noted that the conservative parameters of this policy may limit the kind of projects the URA can
take on in the future. Josh Birks added that this policy creates a forced dialogue between Staff and
Council if the URA wants to go outside these parameters. Only Council can decide to make an
exception.
Ross expressed concern that the maximum percentages may still be too high, considering future
projects and the possibility of slippage. Mayor Weitkunat said that we should emphasize that those
percentages are maximums not targets and that all but two projects have fallen well below 75%.
Next Steps
The URA TIF Policy will be discussed in more detail at a future work session.
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment2.1: URA Finance Committee minutes, November 21, 2013 (2327 : URA-Financial Management Policy)
DT: July 11, 2014
TO: Chairperson Weitkunat and URA Board members
TH: Darin Atteberry, Executive Director
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
Josh Birks, Economic Health Director
FM: Tom Leeson, Redevelopment Program Manager
RE: July 08, 2014 Work Session Summary – Financial Parameters
Board members present: Chair Weitkunat, Vice-Chair Horak, Lisa Poppaw, Wade Troxell, Ross Cunniff,
Bob Overbeck
Staff present: Tom Leeson, Josh Birks
Discussion/Follow-up points:
• The Board discussed the new URA Financial Parameters and there was some discussion about
perhaps lowering the percentages 50 or 60% in order to reserve some TIF for façade improvements,
and other community improvements. There was support for engaging underlying tax districts in the
process. The need to strengthen the language regarding our preferred financing method = pay over
time, was stressed.
• There were comments about the need to use caution about using the DDA as a role model because
the URA is farther reaching than the DDA and therefore needs a broader set of parameters.
Although important to work with the underlying taxing districts, the URA should not abdicate our
duty/responsibility under the statute (i.e., remediate blight).
• It was stressed that when the URA gets to the higher end of the assistance level, there will need to
see some strong public benefit proposed.
Next Steps:
• Staff will bring the Financial Parameters back to the URA Board in the form of a Resolution for
consideration.
ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment2.2: Work Session Summary, July 8, 2014 (2327 : URA-Financial Management Policy)
NORTH COLLEGE CITIZENS ADVISORY GROUP
REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2014
DATE: Thursday, March 6, 2014
LOCATION: CIC Conference Room
TIME: 7:30–8:30am
Members Present: Bob Brown, Grant Sherwood, Dean Hoag, Jim Eddy, Don Butler, Bob Overbeck
(Council Liaison), Ron Lautzenheiser, Tim Kenney
Members Absent: Emily Heinz, Neil McCaffrey, Mike Bello
Guests: None
P & Z Representative: Not present
Staff Present: Tom Leeson, Dianne Tjalkens
Meeting Call to Order: 7:32am
Public Comment: none
AGENDA ITEM 1: URA Financial Update
Tom presented a PowerPoint. There are three TIF districts. The money cannot be used from one district
to another. North College TIF district is currently paying all administrative costs. A 1.5% administrative
fee is being held back with the Foothills Mall Agreement, which will help with those costs. We won’t see
revenue off Foothills until 2017. With Prospect South, some of the revenue will be used to pay off debt
associated with Summit: 50% of income off Prospect South that is not obligated will go to pay for that
loan for the City. Tom gave an overview of the Prospect South TIF District, including a net positive cash
flow each year. There has been redevelopment and renovation in the area. Prospect Station will assist
with that. There are also key redevelopment sites in that district. The North College TIF District shows
$30 million property tax revenue through 2031. They expect the marketplace to be built out 2017-19.
There are two outstanding loan obligations (RMI2 and bonds). There is also a reimbursement obligation
to Aspen Heights that will be based on actual revenue. Tom explained the loan receivable from RMI2.
There is expected to be a low point in the cash balance in 2023, which will make projects difficult
without borrowing. To avoid this, there needs to be growth. If RMI does not refinance their loan, they
lose their TIF revenue and would need to make a lump sum payment of $5.3 million to the URA.
Discussion/Q & A:
x Ron asked if the administrative costs from North College revenue are considered a loan. North
College contributes $160,000 annually for URA administration.
x Tim said $160,000 a year for 8 years is a lot for one area to contribute. He suggested starting
with an approach of leveling. Look at how much was North College’s expenses, and how much
was borne to others. There could be a relief period to level it, and then every district would pay
in according to budget structures.
DRAFT
1
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment2.3: North College Citizens Advisory Group minutes, March 6, 2014 (2327 : URA-Financial Management Policy)
x Tim asked how the closing of Albertsons affects these numbers. Tom said staff are meeting with
the owner of the property tomorrow and hope to help him reposition it. Don added that there
are 15 years left on the lease, and the owner wants too much rent.
x Dean said he was in a meeting with Darin and Josh Birks, and learned that we have a window
left in our URA of about five years to get some growth going. Tom agreed. By the time a project
gets through planning and building, and starts generating revenue, many years have passed. Ron
added that it might be good to try to fast track projects to get them in the ground and going.
x Tim asked if RMI needs to decide to refinance in 2017. If they decide not to, they must pay back
by 2029? Tom said yes. However, RMI wants their TIF money, so he does not foresee this being
a problem.
AGENDA ITEM 2: Review of URA Financial Parameters
Tom discussed the financial parameters. There has been a restructuring, whereby Finance becomes an
independent review. There are changes that make consistency in estimating Tax Increment generated
by a project, based on the County’s formula. The County established the value and tax. Tom said Summit
value was based on construction, which was an inflated value. Therefore the tax increment for that
project was incorrect. Staff has increased legal consultation with outside legal consultants as well as EPS.
There will be a financial analysis for every project. Staff is establishing a consistent set of processes for
every project. There are two types of project: “Create” and “Enhance.” The parameters of assistance are
different for the two categories. He described the lump sum payment versus pay-over-time model. The
TIF payment calculations are going to be fixed dollar amounts. The pay-over-time will be a percentage of
actual tax increment collected. There was a blend of these two for Prospect Station. There are costs of
capital to the URA, and there will be borrowing costs whether bank or interagency. There is also a
percent TIF parameter relative to the total project cost.
Discussion/Q & A:
x Jim asked if there was a threshold on project size for the financial analysis. Tom said staff has
discretion to decide which analyses to do themselves depending on size, but the board wants to
see independent analysis.
x Grant asked to understand the variables used to determine if a project would not be created
without assistance. Tom said staff looks at project costs, eligible costs, pro-formas, etc. Prospect
Station had significant environmental cleanup costs and infrastructure needs that could make or
break the project. Without assistance, it would not have occurred. The Revive project was asking
for a fair amount of assistance in landscaping and geothermal which are not required
infrastructures. Prospect Station had some eligible costs that were more enhancements such as
architectural features for all four sides. Create projects will generally have some Enhancement
aspects.
x Ron said additional add-ons are enhancements, but mainly the projects need to meet building
requirements. JAX wanted gardens and additional add-ons, but the City didn’t fund those.. They
did some enhancements, but not many and it is an eyesore.
x Don asked how the City allowed the Summit to be built without parking. Tom said the City had
established a transit overlay district that didn’t require parking. We are trying to incentivize
density along the Max corridor. But the transit wasn’t completed yet. We felt that if the develop
thought they needed parking that they would build it. It will not be a City expense to develop
the parking garage.
x Grant asked about another Capstone project of student housing outside of the URA. There is
overbuilding of student housing in this community. When the City considers what Capstone
2
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment2.3: North College Citizens Advisory Group minutes, March 6, 2014 (2327 : URA-Financial Management Policy)
owes relative to the URA project in the south, is there a relationship of that to the approval of a
new project. Tom said there is no relationship.
x Ron said Capstone will petition Council or the board to start a new district.
x Jim said that is a green field development and the impacts will spill over to the URA district,
North College, and the Vine and Lemay intersection.
x Tim asked if these numbers leave room for negotiation for projects of varying sizes. Tom said
they wanted to establish a ceiling with some room.
x Jim asked if Prospect South was limited to 75% on all projects or just the one project. Tom said it
is pay over time. The reason was a commitment to pay back the City loan. They needed to
establish revenue to pay back that loan.
x Ron said the economy is strong in Fort Collins, so how can we be proactive in soliciting
companies, such as for the Albertsons building, to get the development you want? We have a
plan for North College and want housing and restaurants, not pot shops. Part of reason for the
URA is to direct the market. Tom said there is a proposal in development to change the way the
City does URA plan areas. North College and Midtown are very large plan areas. There have
been successful projects, but overall they haven’t been focused or strategic. Staff is working on
an Urban Renewal Plan that identifies land uses and public and private improvements, with
specific implementation strategies. TIF would be one financing tool in the implementation. They
will include CIP, business improvement districts, etc. The wait and see approach hasn’t worked.
Staff is proposing to amend the Midtown Plan and eliminate all of it except the two districts that
exist, and then go through a public process that includes all stakeholders to develop the next
plan area along that corridor.
x Ron said the weakness with the graph is that if you are too rigid, when you want a specific
project, and need to be more generous than the parameters allow, you run into problems. Tom
said there have been discussions around creating policy and the challenges that could create
when a particular project needs a policy waiver. There must be flexibility, but this is a starting
point.
x Ron added that one problem with Council is that you lose the corporate memory. Council, city
managers, etc., come and go. We treat this as our own backyard.
x Tim said this is the first time we have something firm to look at. He would like a grid financial
report two to three times a year on each district.
x Jim added that a plan area like North College was laid out due to infrastructure needed. You
have to understand the larger issues before you can drill down to the smaller ones. When you
look at shrinking your districts, make sure to keep an eye on the larger issues. Tom said
Midtown does not have the infrastructure deficiencies that North College does. Mulberry also
has infrastructure issues.
x Ron added that this group, as citizens, wants to work with the City.
AGENDA ITEM 3: Other Business
Revive went to URA board Tuesday night and was denied for two principle reasons: Gino felt the project
should have gone back and reconfigured the whole site for higher density to lower the cost per unit and
achieve the higher objective of increasing density. The other concern was that the financial analysis
showed the subdivision, with assistance, having a zero percent return. There was concern about
supporting a project with no return. Staff tried to bring up the point that the entire infrastructure is in
and a zero return is better than a 20% loss.
Discussion/Q & A:
3
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment2.3: North College Citizens Advisory Group minutes, March 6, 2014 (2327 : URA-Financial Management Policy)
x Ron asked if there is room for negotiation. Tom said Bruce and Gino are in discussion. Karen and
Gerry, Gino and Ross, all voted no. Bob, Lisa and Wade voted yes. Ross will not support any
project with over 50% support.
x Ron said what we don’t want is an eyesore, just like we don’t need a closed Albertsons. If you
want to bring us to the street and to Council, let the property just sit there. We need affordable
housing. Geothermal was a nice add-on, but when you put low income people in there, it lowers
their utility costs, which is very important. We should be going into CDBG and other funds to
help this project. He met with these developers when they brought their density down. He was
concerned they would raise the price per unit.
x Tim asked if the no return was a show stopper. Tom said the density needs to be balanced with
infrastructure. If you significantly increase the density, you need to reengineer the
infrastructure.
x Don asked if the developer would go in with 50%.
x Ron said the solution is to keep the URA low and go get contributions from City departments to
subsidize. Tom said Utilities was in on the project.
x Ron said we could have a world class green project, and it can’t be just the URA that takes that
on. The City isn’t broke any more. Other departments can chip in. We can bring the political
pressure as citizens. We should ask Council to come to a special meeting to explain their votes.
x Tom said they are hopeful to continue discussions. Now that URA meetings will be first, one or
two people from this group can come and give public comment. Tom was disappointed that not
NCAG members came to the last meeting. Don and Ron said they didn’t know anything about
the meeting. Tom said the information was provided with the date of the meeting. He can
provide separate emails in the future.
x Bob Overbeck said he is sorry the group was not aware of the meeting and reminded them that
agendas are posted online. He wonders if this group has looked at new market tax credits for
affordable housing. It’s a very lucrative financial tool, while the census track is favorable. Tom
said the developer was not interested in building affordable housing.
x Grant asked where the developer is with this; if they are just walking away. Tom said he has not
spoken with Harvey since Tuesday. It is not final, so he will follow up with Bruce and Gino.
x Dean said he felt the developer did not prepare very well, did not provide financials, and was
just trying to shoot it through. It was not professionally done.
x Ron said he met with Harvey and told him with the amount of money, it was going to be
difficult. Ron is supportive of the project, but he didn’t see the numbers lining up the way the
developer did.
x Tom added that there could be return on the vertical, but staff hasn’t seen those numbers.
CLOSING REMARKS: None.
Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 8:33am.
4
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment2.3: North College Citizens Advisory Group minutes, March 6, 2014 (2327 : URA-Financial Management Policy)
1
URA Financial Management Policy
Tax Increment Financing Parameters
URA Board Meeting
September 30, 2014
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment2.4: Powerpoint presentation (2327 : URA-Financial Management Policy)
2
Tonight’s Action
• Resolution to adopt revised policies and
procedures relating to financial management for
the Urban Renewal Authority.
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment2.4: Powerpoint presentation (2327 : URA-Financial Management Policy)
3
Types of URA Assistance
Lump Sum Payment
One payment in beginning
of project. Requires loan
from City
Pay Over Time
Payments provided over life
of project as TIF is
collected
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment2.4: Powerpoint presentation (2327 : URA-Financial Management Policy)
4
Recent Process Improvements
• Reorganization allowing for an independent
review by Finance
• Changes to the method for estimating Tax
Increment generated by a project
• Increased consultation with outside legal counsel
• Documentation of the Redevelopment Agreement
negotiation, adoption, and execution process
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment2.4: Powerpoint presentation (2327 : URA-Financial Management Policy)
5
Financial Parameters
Element CREATE ENHANCE
75% 75%
90% (Payment Over Time)
Fixed $ Commitment (Lump Sum) Same
% of Annual TIF Collected
(Payment Over Time) Same
% of TIF Relative to
Project Cost
25% 15%
Max. TIF Commitment
Structure of TIF
Commitment
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment2.4: Powerpoint presentation (2327 : URA-Financial Management Policy)
- 1 -
RESOLUTION NO. 071
OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE
FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY ADOPTING REVISED POLICIES
RELATING TO FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT FOR THE
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, on October 23, 2012, the Board of Commissioners of the Fort Collins Urban
Renewal Authority (the “Board”) adopted Resolution No. 45, approving and adopting new and
extensive policies and procedures in order to better describe the priorities and expectations for
the processing of applications for financial assistance from the Fort Collins Urban Renewal
Authority (the “Authority”); and
WHEREAS, in response to Board input, Authority staff initiated review of Authority
policies to provide a set of operating norms for future tax increment financing commitments to
be used by Authority staff, and to guard against the risk associated with rising interest rates, a
diminution of assessed value, and other market risks; and
WHEREAS, in reviewing the Authority’s policies and procedures, Authority staff has
recommended certain amendments that place parameters on the amount of tax increment
financing that can be provided based on, but not limited to, a project’s need for gap financing,
the size of a particular deal, the type of improvements supported by public financing and/or the
public benefit provided; and
WHEREAS, in response to the Urban Renewal Authority Finance Committee input
during the November 21, 2013, meeting, as well as the July 11, 2014, Board worksession,
Authority staff has recommended certain policy changes that provide a set of financial
parameters to be utilized by the Authority.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF
THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY that the Board hereby approves and
adopts the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority Policies attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and
incorporated herein by this reference.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of the Commissioners of the City of
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority this 30th day of September A.D. 2014.
______________________________
Chairperson
ATTEST:
______________________________
Secretary
Packet Pg. 25
URA Financial Management Policy 20
Tax Increment Financing
Issue Date: TBD
Version: 1
Issued by: Director
Economic Health
Financial Policy 20 – Tax Increment Financing
1
20.1 Guiding Principles
A. Retaining a percentage of the total tax increment collected guards against the risk
associated with rising interest rates, a diminution of assessed value, and other market
risks.
B. During volatile and/or rising rate environments, consideration will be given to reducing
the amount of TIF committed by the URA as a hedge against dramatic rate increases that
increase the cost of financing to the URA
Objective:
The following parameters are intended to provide a set of operating norms for financing URA
projects. The financing parameters represent a range of preferred methods. The decision to
utilize a particular financing method is contingent upon a project’s need for gap financing, the size
of a particular deal, the type of improvements supported by public financing and/or the public
benefit provided.
Applicability:
This policy applies to Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority.
Authorized by: Urban Renewal Authority Board
EXHIBIT A
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment1: Exhibit A (2370 : URA-Financial Management Policy RESO)
Tax Increment Financing Parameters
Financial Policy 20 – Tax Increment Financing
2
20.2 TIF Parameters
URA Assistance Purpose: Create URA Assistance Purpose: Enhance
Element
Lump Sum
Payment
Pay Over Time
Lump Sum
Payment
Pay Over Time
Max % TIF
Commitment
Available to
Support Project
75%* 90%** 75%* 75%
TIF Payment
Calculation
Fixed $
Commitment
(a) % of Actual
Annual Tax
Increment
collected
(b) Fixed Annual
$ Commitment
Fixed $
Commitment
(a) % of Actual
Annual Tax
Increment
collected
(b) Fix Annual
$ Commitment
URA Cost of
Capital
Borrowing Costs:
-City Interagency
Loan Policy
-Bank Loan
Underwriting Req.
-Other: Section 108
standards
N/A
Borrowing Costs:
-City Interagency
Loan Policy
-Bank Loan
Underwriting Req.
-Other: Section 108
standards
N/A
Developer Cost
Capital
N/A
-Negotiated
-Limited by the Max
% TIF Commitment
Available
Tax Increment Financing Parameters
Financial Policy 20 – Tax Increment Financing
3
TIF reimbursed will be prorated based on the actual TIF received.
b. In the first year, if actual TIF comes in higher than the Estimate of Value, the TIF
reimbursed will be based on the original Estimate of Value calculation.
c. The actual TIF paid does not grow with inflation. Once established in (b) above, it
stays constant. Once established by (a), it can grow to equal (b) but not exceed
(b).
20.4 Definitions
A. Create: When existing conditions on a site make private market rate redevelopment
impractical (i.e., environmental contamination or insufficient infrastructure) so providing
TIF assistance removes financial barriers and helps to create a project that would not
otherwise happen.
B. Enhance: When conditions on a site are such that the likely market rate redevelopment
outcome is not consistent with goals for Targeted Redevelopment and Infill Areas. In
these cases, providing TIF assistance changes the scope of a project so that it conforms, or
exceeds identified objectives in City Plan.
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment1: Exhibit A (2370 : URA-Financial Management Policy RESO)
Agenda Item 3
Item # 3 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 30, 2014
Urban Renewal Authority Board
STAFF
Megan Bolin, Economic Health Analyst
SUBJECT
Resolution No. 072 Approving a Redevelopment Agreement Between the Fort Collins Urban Renewal
Authority and Northern Colorado Feeders Supply, Inc.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to consider a Redevelopment Agreement between the URA and Northern Colorado
Feeders Supply for $72,472 of tax increment financing assistance. This tax increment financing (TIF)
assistance is proposed for the redevelopment of Northern Colorado Feeders Supply’s new location at 300
Hickory Street in the North College Urban Renewal area. TIF would be provided as a reimbursement and paid
over time based on actual increment collected from the project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Since 1972, Northern Colorado Feeders Supply, Inc. (property owner) has operated a high quality feed and
animal supply manufacturing and retail business in Fort Collins. In early 2014, the property owner sold the
original business’ property at 359 Linden Street in the River District to be redeveloped. After evaluating several
sites, the property owner purchased 300 Hickory Street within the North College Urban Renewal Plan area to
relocate the business. The new site had been vacant for almost a year prior to the property owner’s purchase
and had homeless persons living in the buildings (existing site images attached). The property owner cleaned
up the site and has been operating there since June, although additional improvements are planned. Most
notably, a new 2,100 sq. ft. retail/office building will replace an existing, severely deteriorated office building, in
addition to the installation of a new fence and improved public sidewalk and landscaping (site plan and
renderings attached).
Financial Information
URA staff has worked with the property owner to understand costs associated with the project and the
potential for tax increment financing (TIF). The table below provides pertinent financial information that serves
as the basis for the proposed assistance.
Estimated Annual Property Tax Increment* $10,556.80
Total Increment Generated over Remaining Life of the N. College Plan Area $158,352.00
Total Project Cost $1,119,318.00
Developer Equity $1,040,017.59
Project Cost Gap $79,300.41
* Estimate of valuation from Larimer County attached
Packet Pg. 29
Agenda Item 3
Item # 3 Page 2
Public Benefit
URA projects are also evaluated according to the public benefits they achieve. This project compliments
several community policy goals in addition to achieving statutory obligations for blight remediation.
City Plan, Principle EH 3 - The City will support local, unique, and creative businesses.
North College Urban Renewal Plan - this project will address the following blight factors:
o Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures;
o Unsanitary or unsafe conditions;
o Deterioration of site or other improvements;
o Environmental contamination of buildings or property; and
o Substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings, or other improvements.
North College Corridor Plan, Goal LU 1.1 - Zoning, City actions, URA, and business association efforts will
assist with “high multiplier” uses that bring people and economic activity, and add synergy with surrounding
properties. Examples include (1) dwellings, (2) stable living-wage jobs, (3) retail sales, and (4) attractions.
Economic Health Strategic Plan, Goal 1 - Business Support: Facilitate a stronger support network for
existing employers, new businesses, and small businesses.
In addition to achieving targeted redevelopment goals, this project is also a classic business retention effort.
Feeders Supply has operated in Fort Collins for 42 years and currently has six full-time and 2 part-time
employees. After this project is complete, they anticipate hiring one-two additional employees.
Proposed Terms
After reviewing project costs submitted by the property owner, URA staff determined several improvements
that will assist with the remediation of blighted conditions on the property and are eligible for TIF according to
Colorado Urban Renewal Law, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-25-101 et seq. The table below lists such costs and is
followed by a summary of the proposed reimbursement structure.
Eligible Cost Amount % of Total
Increment
Site work/miscellaneous clean-up $3,600 2.3%
Abatement/demolition of existing building $8,750 5.5%
Site preparation (excavation/trenching) for new office building $10,350 6.5%
Landscape improvements $19,950 12.6%
Sidewalk improvements $18,900 11.9%
Iron Fence along Hickory Street $10,922 6.9%
Total $72,472 45.8%
In accordance with recent URA financial parameters, the following TIF assistance structure is proposed:
Assistance will be provided as a reimbursement upon project completion for up to $72,472 of eligible costs
listed above. The property owner must submit appropriate documentation to verify such costs were
incurred.
The reimbursement will be paid over time based on actual tax increment collected from the project.
The URA will pay 46% of the annual increment collected to the property owner each year, until the $72,472
reimbursement obligation is paid in full or 2031, whichever occurs first (proposed reimbursement schedule
attached). If the increment collected is lower or higher than the estimate provided by the County, the
property owner will only receive 46% of whatever amount is actually collected.
The property owner is required to design the new retail/office building to be eligible for Designed to Earn
the Energy Star (DEES) certification.
Packet Pg. 30
Agenda Item 3
Item # 3 Page 3
If the completed, operating building earns an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rating of 75 or
higher, the property owner will receive 1% of the total increment generated ($1,583.52) as a reward. This
amount would be paid to the property owner in a lump sum, provided the URA receives appropriate
verification within two years after the project is complete.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Adopting the Resolution would obligate the URA to reimburse Northern Colorado Feeders Supply up to
$72,472 for eligible costs identified in the Redevelopment Agreement. That amount would be paid from
property tax increment generated by Feeders Supply's property at 300 Hickory Street on an annual basis.
Feeders Supply would receive 46% of the amount of increment collected as an annual payment from the URA
until the maximum obligation of $72,472 is paid in full or 2031, whichever occurs first.
The property at 300 Hickory Street is estimated to generate $10,556.80 of property tax increment once the
redevelopment of the site and buildings is complete, which totals $158,352 over the remaining life of the North
College Urban Renewal Plan area. The Redevelopment Agreement obligates the URA to reimburse Feeders
Supply 45.8% of the total increment, leaving the remaining amount ($85,902) for plan area-wide blight
remediation.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The redevelopment at 300 Hickory Street will remove buildings containing asbestos. Additionally, the new
retail/office building will be Designed to Earn the Energy Star (DEES) certification.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its meeting on September 11, 2014, the North College Citizens Advisory Group unanimously supported the
tax increment proposal for Feeders Supply (minutes attached).
On September 15, 2014, the URA Finance Committee supported the assistance proposal and recommended it
be brought to the full URA Board for formal consideration (minutes attached).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Feeders Supply URA Application (PDF)
2. Site Plan and Rendering (PDF)
3. Existing Conditions at 300 Hickory Street (PDF)
4. Larimer County Estimation of Value (PDF)
5. North College Citizens Advisory Group Minutes, September 11, 2014 (PDF)
6. URA Finance Committee minutes, September 15, 2014 (PDF)
7. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
Packet Pg. 31
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment3.1: Feeders Supply URA Application (2351 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement)
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment3.1: Feeders Supply URA Application (2351 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement)
Executive Summary:
1) Please see attachment (Location Map)
2) Please see attachment (Site Plans/Drawings BEFORE and AFTER)
3) We propose continued use of 300 Hickory property as a light manufacturing/retail space that we
believe is relatively consistent with the previous tenant, Barton Supply. We plan to expand and
improve the existing facilities; including building on to the retail office, as well as resurfacing and
possibly adding on to the warehouse. We plan on adding trees, light landscaping putting up an
improved fence around the property and generally enhancing the curb appeal and overall
property appearance. Since the entire property is paved, we plan on simply repairing the cracks
and making the property as presentable as possible. We will do our best (and plan on) having all
storage inside and not viewable to the general public.
Most functions and activities currently conducted at Northern Colorado Feeders Supply, Inc. at
359 Linden St., Fort Collins, CO 80524 will be carried out at 300 Hickory. We plan on being good
neighbors and a positive feature to Fort Collins and the area.
4) See attachment
5) See Below
a. The nature of this project is summarized by the proposal above, but we are a long
standing business in the Fort Collins area and would like to continue. We plan on
improving the area significantly as it was abandoned and mistreated for a while.
b. TIF assistance is needed because much of the expense that is coming to us is in
order to get the property functional, including the abatement of the interior of the
current retail building, getting power to the entire property (getting rid of the old
Delta 3 transformers and putting in the city desired transformers) and possibly
improving storm water retention if needed. As well as the sidewalk improvements if
necessary.
c. We have some funds available from the 1031 Exchange we used from the sale of our
other building, however we would like to use as much of those funds as possible for
the improvements of the other buildings.
d. The project will help improve public infrastructure by the improvements to the
electric, and any storm water improvements that need to be made.
e. Since our customer base is quite large, we will be bringing multiple new people to
the area therefore increasing the sales tax in this area.
f. We
g. When we came to look at the property, it had been abandoned for almost a year
and was an absolute mess. The homeless had been living in the warehouse for the
duration of that time and it had become so disgusting we had to have it
professionally cleaned by SERVPRO. With the warehouse cleaned we are also
resurfacing the exterior in order for it to match the new retail office. We are also
planning on demolishing the current retail office (with asbestos) and re-erecting a
brand new building. The fences will also all be repaired and will no longer be in
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment3.1: Feeders Supply URA Application (2351 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement)
pieces. We are planning on significantly cleaning up this property specifically, and
get our area as clean and perfected as Valley Steel and Wire.
h. The time table depends on what we need to do with the storm water and sidewalks,
as well as the power, however we are replacing the transformers in order to best
cooperate with the city preferences. The building and all other plans are scheduled
to be finished by Fall (hopefully mid to late July) 2014.
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment3.1: Feeders Supply URA Application (2351 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement)
water vent
4" water vent
"fort collins water"
"fort collins water"
"gas riser"
"RR x-ing"
"RR x-ing"
open air structure on 4' stem wall
wood frame building on concrete
concrete
canopy over concrete
canopy over asphalt
center line union pacific railroad
53.51' Utility easement
per Exception Item No. 11
50.0' Waterline Easement
per Exception No. 20
20.0' Waterline Easement
per Exception No. 17
30.0' Approx.Track Easement
per Exception No. 14
concrete
asphalt
asphalt
asphalt
asphalt
asphalt
edge of asphalt
edge of gravel
edge of asphalt
REVISIONS
SHEET
CONTENTS
DRAWN
CHECKED
DATE
SHEET NO.
REUSE OF DOCUMENTS: THE IDEAS AND DESIGN INCORPORATED HEREON, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF ARCHITECTURE
PLUS AND IS NOT TO BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF ARCHITECTURE PLUS
318 East Oak Street + Fort Collins 80524
1531 West 29th Street + Loveland 80538
970.493.1220 + 888.698.7897 + www.aplusarch.com
NORTHERN COLORADO
FEEDERS SUPPLY
08/26/14
KRB
BJC
ISSUE FOR PERMIT
300 HICKORY STREET
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524
NO. BY DESCRIPTION DATE
1
SITE PLAN
ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment3.2: Site Plan and Rendering (2351 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement)
Attachment3.2: Site Plan and Rendering (2351 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement)
Attachment3.2: Site Plan and Rendering (2351 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement)
Attachment3.2: Site Plan and Rendering (2351 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement)
Attachment3.2: Site Plan and Rendering (2351 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement)
Northern Colorado Feeders Supply, Inc.
Existing Conditions at 300 Hickory Street
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment3.3: Existing Conditions at 300 Hickory Street (2351 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement)
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment3.4: Larimer County Estimation of Value (2351 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement)
1
NORTH COLLEGE CITIZENS ADVISORY GROUP
REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2014
DATE: Thursday, September 11, 2014
LOCATION: CIC Conference Room
TIME: 7:30–8:30am
Members Present: Dean Hoag, Ron Lautzenheiser, Don Butler, Jim Eddy, Tim Kenney, Grant Sherwood,
Neil McCaffrey, Mike Bello, Bob Brown
Members Absent: Bob Overbeck (Council Liaison)
Guests: Danielle Nater, owner
P & Z Representative: Not present
Staff Present: Tom Leeson, Dianne Tjalkens
Meeting Call to Order: 7:30am
Public Comment: none
AGENDA ITEM 1: Northern Colorado Feeders Supply Assistance Package
Feeders supply has moved to 300 Hickory, east of the railroad tracks. The site and buildings are
deteriorated. There is asbestos present and it is not up to code. There is environmental contamination
of the existing office and it will be torn down. Feeders Supply is going to replace the existing office with
a warehouse/office combination that includes architectural elements. The building will be 2100 ft2. They
will be adding a sidewalk, fencing, parking area, façade improvements, and landscaping as well. The bulk
of the work is in the front. The other warehouse buildings will be repaired and used for storage. From
the URA perspective this project is clearly blight remediation. The property has been vacant and
misused. From a business retention standpoint, this is a public benefit. There are four full time
employees, two part time, plus owners. They may add employees as the project is completed. The plans
are consistent with City Plan and have been submitted to the County. The annual property tax
increment is estimated at around $10,500. The total project cost including land acquisition and
improvements, less revenue from sale of previous site, leaves a gap of about $80,000. The eligible costs
are around $60,000. Danielle has also requested assistance with the fencing, to match the neighbor’s
property, which will cost an additional $8,000–$10,000. The City right of way requires moving the fence
line. The back fence is complete and the sides will not be replaced. The planned new fencing will work
together with the landscaping. The TIF reimbursement structure covers eligible costs of $61,000, which
is a pay overtime structure with 39% of the increment collected paid annually. The URA board approved
a new policy requiring Energy Star for projects that receive TIF financing, so they will be required to
design the building to meet Energy Star and monitor energy use for 12 months. The total TIF collected is
projected at $158,000. The total pledge will be about $63,000. For reimbursement, they must first
complete the project. The URA may pre-pay the reimbursement at any time. The estimated annual
payment is approximately $4,100.
Discussion/Q & A:
ATTACHMENT DRAFT 5
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment3.5: North College Citizens Advisory Group Minutes, September 11, 2014 (2351 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement)
2
What is the relationship to Valley Steel?
It is right next door.
The City is requiring them to move the fence because it is in the right of way.
Did the City acquire the right of way? Did they pay for it?
The City already owned the right of way.
The gap is $61,000 and the fence is about $8,000. If $79,000 were approved, that would get you
home?
Yes. We are not a large profit business. We will need a loan to complete this project no matter
what.
How much can they save on a 2000 ft.2 building with Energy Star improvements? That is an
example of policy gone astray. On a huge project that is reasonable. The City should pay to do
the monitoring.
What is the additional cost to the building for this?
This is bizarre. This is not a LEAD project. The improvements will be a combination of windows
and insulation.
Energy Star will compare the efficiencies with like buildings across the U.S.
We are meeting more current codes. The way the building is built, we are putting in 8” of
insulation.
There is a $60,000 difference. The interest you pay on that would be around $4000. You don’t
get ahead much on that with the annual TIF payments.
Another gap is created because we are only recommending $61,000 when they need $79,000.
What is the potential for growth? Are you doing a proforma for the bank if you get a loan and
what are your annual sales?
I think it’s $1.5. Getting the funding up front would be better. With urban growth in backyard
chickens and other animals we have found our nitch. Our business in that area had almost
tripled before we moved. We plan to expand the products we sell to meet those needs.
This request makes a lot of sense. The rationale to get the additional financing for the fencing
since it is out front and part of the landscaping is reasonable. There are other programs
available as well. Do we give this to them annually, or up front? This is a safe project.
There is a preexisting chain link fence that is falling apart. Valley Steel has put in a 6 ft. black
steel fence that is beautiful. If we put in chain link, that will kill the view.
We appreciate you looking at this from that perspective.
What are you thinking of doing with your expansion?
We have the warehouse on the north side. It has to wait until we get established, but we’d like
to use it to bring in new products and get new customers in the door.
It is a great business idea and they have been around a long time.
I don’t want to just add a number. We want to include the cost of the fence, whatever that cost
actually is.
What is the potential for hiring new people in the future?
In the old store we staffed 4 people. We now have 5 full time and a part time employee. I need
to hire more people when this opens.
Do you have an idea of future revenue?
Not at this time.
Even if we add the funds for the fence, the TIF assistance is still below 50%.
Should we consider requesting they receive one single payment?
That would mean the City has to take a loan, which will incur interest payments.
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment3.5: North College Citizens Advisory Group Minutes, September 11, 2014 (2351 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement)
3
Mike moved to accept the proposal, plus the cost of the front fence to match Valley Steel, with a
maximum of 50%. Ron seconded.
Motion passed unanimously, 9-0-0.
AGENDA ITEM 2: Projects Update
The next meeting will be in October and the Larimer County Assessor office we will have a presentation.
The County has been calculating the TIF in Larimer County incorrectly and is changing its calculations as
a result. It will not be a significant change and may benefit the North College URA. It will not likely be
retroactive.
Discussion/Q & A:
Chris is the person you will want to invite to present. She said most of us will get one more pass
where our taxes will not increase, but once the streets are finished we should expect increases.
It will be a big improvement to North College and make businesses more valuable.
We are delighted with the new housing at Aspen Heights.
They are running a bus back and forth.
The project is about 25% completed.
Compared to the Summit it is beautiful.
They have been very efficient.
Any updates on the Albertsons?
24 Hour Fitness wants to get in the property. Once they finalize another deal in Longmont, they
will begin. We expect the beginning of the year. Some of the building will be used as a training
area for the employees and the remainder for the fitness center.
The old Merten project has model homes being built.
Adams gave them money to build two. They will then do a duplex and move on to about 8 units.
They are using the existing geothermal.
The lesson here is that developers can get things done without our money.
However, the project never would have started if the money had not been pledged to Donna.
This is a critical tool.
The question is whether they can sell them.
They are determining costs right now, with Net Zero. They look very nice. The price range will
probably be under$ 400,000 for single family homes with attached apartments that are
sprinklered. 2500 ft.2 includes the apartment. They are basically custom built.
They are putting big houses on little lots.
How many will be completed per year?
They don’t know. They are determining costing and construction issues as they build the
models. I think they will sell quickly.
Old Town north is blowing through homes and that is a project that didn’t get any funding.
The market is catching up. The banks are providing financing.
What about the storefront project you had going?
That will depend on the URA’s cash flow. If we see a bump in values up there, we may
discontinue. If we spend $50,000 annually on those improvements, we get below a comfortable
threshold for revenue. Right now it is on hold.
I think you need to wait until the improvements happen.
I think we will see a bump in values, but we are going to be conservative right now.
Aspen looks like they are going for the whole area. I thought it would be phased.
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment3.5: North College Citizens Advisory Group Minutes, September 11, 2014 (2351 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement)
4
It will be phased. At a certain point they will need to build the roads.
Many new beds came online and prices are going up, but CSU opened at 98% occupancy and the
new units are all getting occupied.
How many new students came in?
That report will not come in for a couple more weeks.
Stormwater issue up north, is there anything new there? Is Utilities making headway?
They are not making much headway, but are not holding still. They know what they need to do
to resolve the issue, but it will take a significant amount of money. They are trying to negotiate
with the railroad and are not making much progress. It is not the top highest priority right now.
Perhaps top three. Unless the private sector adds funding, it will take time.
Any updates on the tech park concept?
We are putting an RFP together for a concept plan for landscape architects. We have reached
out to property owners and there is interest.
Are there developers interested in tackling the project?
Yes. We are thinking of a tech park in and around RMI, taking advantage of the momentum in
that area. Bruce likes the idea, but centered around an of Aspen Institute-type organization.
The idea is to draw national and international projects.
How is the affordable housing project going?
I don’t know the status of that. I will follow up.
Fort Collins Housing Authority is completing the one on South College and then will start the
north project.
How is the bridge over the Poudre for Aspen going?
That is part of the river restoration project that is proceeding. Everyone loves the river
restoration plan and it will most likely be adopted by Council, but then needs funding. It is in the
budget process. It is a big project.
The Vine and Lemay intersection?
That will be part of BOB2.
It may be another independent sales tax. There are three on the ballot. One is for the jail.
From a merchant standpoint we are at a threshold for sales tax.
We need the money for the jail. It is a continuation, not a new tax.
What is going on with King Soopers? Will we have a new Starbucks?
It is going to be a drive through, and is going to do well.
AGENDA ITEM 3: Other Business/General Discussion
Discussion/Q & A:
Megan Bolin is leaving the City and moving to Utah for a new position with the State as a policy
analyst. Her last day is October 1.
CLOSING REMARKS: None.
Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 8:20am.
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment3.5: North College Citizens Advisory Group Minutes, September 11, 2014 (2351 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement)
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
URA Finance Committee Meeting
Draft Minutes
9/15/14
11:00 to Noon
CIC Room
Council Attendees: Karen Weitkunat, Bob Overbeck, Ross Cunniff
Staff: Mike Beckstead, Megan Bolin, Karen Cumbo, Mike DeKock,
Kelly DiMartino, Chris Donegon, Andres Gavaldon, Amy
Sharkey, Larry Schneider, John Voss, Katie Wiggett
Others: Danielle Nater, Feeders Supply; Kevin Jones, Chamber
Approval of the Minutes of April 21, 2014
Bob Overbeck moved to approve the minutes for the April 21, 2014 meeting. Ross Cunniff seconded the
motion. Minutes approved unanimously.
TIF Assistance Proposal
Megan Bolin presented a TIF Assistance Proposal for the Northern Colorado Feeders Supply, a local
business. Megan explained that Feeders Supply’s new site is located at 300 Hickory Street. Before
Feeders Supply bought the property, 300 Hickory Street had sat vacant for about a year. Now the site
and buildings are deteriorated; there are asbestos problems; and the lot does not meet City code
requirements.
Feeders Supply’s projected project includes the following:
Business relocation from 359 Linden Street
New 2,100 sq. ft. office/retail building
Public Sidewalk and landscaping improvements
New fencing and striping of the parking area
Façade improvements to the two existing warehouses (already completed)
With the sidewalk and landscaping improvements, Feeders Supply will be bringing the property up to
code. They plan to upgrade the fence from a chain link fence to a metal one matching the neighboring
business. Replacing the fence is required per City code and the North College Citizen Advisory Group
Board (CAG) has recommended that the cost of the new fence be funded through TIF.
Megan walked through the public benefits of the project:
Blight Remediation
o Removal of unsafe site and building conditions
o Occupation of vacant site
o Improved public sidewalk and landscaping
ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment3.6: URA Finance Committee minutes, September 15, 2014 (2351 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement)
2
Business Retention
o Local company since 1972
o 4 full time staff, 2 part time staff, 2 owners
o Additional 1-2 employees once project is complete
Megan explained that the total increment for the project was projected at $158,352 and the project cost
gap was projected at $79,300. This is with an assumption of 15 years of increment with zero growth.
The total eligible costs for the project come to $61,550. If Council approves the cost of the fence along
Hickory Street, the total eligible costs will come to $72,450.
City Staff is recommending the following TIF Reimbursement Structure:
Reimbursed for $72,450 of eligible costs
Developer receives 46% of annual increment collected until paid in full or 2030
If Energy Star rating of 75 or higher is verified within two years after project completion,
Developer receives additional $1,583.52 (1% total increment)
Maximum URA Obligation = $74,033.52
The Maximum URA Obligation is 35.8% of the total increment, making it well within the URA TIF
parameters.
Ross Cunniff said that he liked this project because Feeders Supply is a local business that serves local
people and the percent of TIF obligation is very good. The Mayor asked what the purpose of the fence
was. Danielle Nater of Feeders Supply answered that it is primarily for security. The Mayor commended
Feeders Supply for choosing to upgrade the fence.
The URA Finance Committee supports including the fence in the eligible costs for the project and
believes this project is ready to go before the URA Board.
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment3.6: URA Finance Committee minutes, September 15, 2014 (2351 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement)
1
Northern Colorado Feeders Supply
Redevelopment Agreement
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority Board
September 30, 2014
ATTACHMENT 7
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment3.7: Powerpoint presentation (2351 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement)
2
Background
• Feeders Supply, manufacturer and retailer of feed and
animal supplies since 1972
• Sold property at 359 Linden Street for redevelopment
• Purchased 300 Hickory Street to relocate business
– Site had been vacant and needs improvements
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment3.7: Powerpoint presentation (2351 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement)
3
Site Context
• 300 Hickory Street
• North of Hickory
• East of railroad tracks
N. College
Hickory
Conifer
Willox
Hickory
N. College
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment3.7: Powerpoint presentation (2351 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement)
4
Existing Conditions
• Deteriorated site and buildings
• Asbestos
• Site not to Code
Warehouses Existing Office
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment3.7: Powerpoint presentation (2351 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement)
5
Project Description
• Façade improvements to two existing warehouses (completed)
• New 2,100 sq. ft. office/retail building
• Public sidewalk and landscaping improvements
• New fencing and striping of the parking area
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment3.7: Powerpoint presentation (2351 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement)
6
Public Benefits
• Blight Remediation
– Removal of unsafe site and building conditions
– Improved public sidewalk and landscaping
– Occupation of vacant site
• Business Retention
– Local company since 1972
– 4 full time, 2 part time staff, plus 2 owners
– Additional 1-2 employees once project is complete
ü City Plan
ü North College
Urban Renewal
Plan
ü Economic Health
Strategic Plan
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment3.7: Powerpoint presentation (2351 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement)
7
Financial Information
Annual Property Tax Increment $10,556.80
Total Increment $158,352.00
Total Project Cost $1,119,318.00
Feeders Supply Equity $1,040,017.59
Project Cost Gap $79,300.41
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment3.7: Powerpoint presentation (2351 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement)
8
Eligible Costs
Site Work/Miscellaneous Clean-up $3,600
Abatement/Demolition of Existing Building $8,750
Site Preparation (Excavation/Trenching) for
New Office Building $10,350
Landscaping Improvements $19,950
Fence along Hickory Street $10,922
Sidewalk Improvements $18,900
Total Eligible Costs $72,472
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment3.7: Powerpoint presentation (2351 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement)
9
Site Plan and
Eligible Costs
Sidewalk/Landscaping/
Fencing
Site
Preparation/Demolition
and New Building
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment3.7: Powerpoint presentation (2351 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement)
10
TIF Reimbursement Structure
TIF Growth Rate 0%
Total TIF Collected (Est.) $158,352.00
Reimbursement Over Time $72,472
Percent of Total TIF Pledged 45.8%
Energy Star “Bonus” $1,583.52
Maximum URA Obligation $74,055.52
• Property owner receives 46% of annual property tax increment
collected until paid $72,472 or 2031.
• If Energy Star rating of 75 or higher is verified within two years
after project completion, property owner receives additional
$1,583.52 (1% total increment).
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment3.7: Powerpoint presentation (2351 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement)
11
Key Reimbursement Points
• Tax increment projection is based on Larimer County
estimate of value
• Property owner must complete project before
receiving first reimbursement payment
• Increment calculated by subtracting pre-project base
from property tax collected each year
– Property owner receives 46% of the difference
• URA may pre-pay the reimbursement at any time
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment3.7: Powerpoint presentation (2351 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement)
12
Thank you
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment3.7: Powerpoint presentation (2351 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement)
- 1 -
RESOLUTION NO. 072
OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE
FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
APPROVING A REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY AND
NORTHERN COLORADO FEEDERS SUPPLY, LLC
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins, Colorado (the “City”) is a home rule municipality
and political subdivision of the State of Colorado (the “State”) organized and existing under a
home rule charter (the “Charter”) pursuant to Article XX of the Constitution of the State; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 1978, the City Council adopted Resolution 1978-049, adopting
findings and establishing the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the “Authority”) as an
urban renewal authority pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes, Part 1 of Title 31, Article 25, as
amended (the “Act”); and
WHEREAS, by Resolution 2004-151, adopted and approved on December 21, 2004, the
City Council found and declared that the North College Urban Renewal Area described in such
Resolution (the “North College Area”) is a blighted area as described in the Act and appropriate
for urban renewal projects; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution 2004-152, adopted and approved on December 21, 2004, the
City Council adopted the North College Urban Renewal Plan (the “Plan”) for the North College
Area; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Plan is to eliminate blight and otherwise implement and
further the above-referenced Resolutions, and the purposes, policies, goals, and objectives of the
Authority, the Plan and the Act; and
WHEREAS, Northern Colorado Feeders Supply, LLC (the “Property Owner”) desires to
construct a new commercial building and other improvements on the real property it owns at 300
Hickory Street, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, in order to proceed with the Project, certain public infrastructure and
amenities must be constructed and environmental hazards must be mitigated; and
WHEREAS, Authority staff has worked with the Property Owner to identify appropriate
financial assistance from the Authority that would enhance the likelihood that the Project will be
built; and
WHEREAS, Authority staff and the Applicant have discussed a financial assistance
package that includes reimbursing the Property Owner for site demolition and cleanup and for
constructing certain improvements that would normally be the sole responsibility of the Property
Owner; and
Packet Pg. 62
- 2 -
WHEREAS, Authority staff has prepared for the Board of Commissioners of the
Authority (the “Board”) a proposed Redevelopment Agreement between the Authority and the
Property Owner that sets forth the terms and conditions upon which financial assistance will be
provided to the Property Owner by the Authority (the “Redevelopment Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and
incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the total cost of the Project is expected to be approximately $1.1 million and
the Redevelopment Agreement provides that the cost of the activities and improvements to be
funded by the Authority is capped at $ 72,450 to be reimbursed to the Property Owner through
the Authority’s annual payment of 46% of the property tax increment to be generated from the
Project beginning in 2017 and terminating in 2013; and
WHEREAS, the Authority calculates that the Project will generate approximately
$10,557 annually in property tax increment; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner will also be eligible to receive from the Authority a
one-time payment of $1,583.52 in the event the Property Owner provides a certification to the
Authority that the new building constructed in the Project has achieved an EPA energy star
rating of 75 or higher for twelve continuous months within two years after receiving its
certificate of occupancy for the building.
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 Property Owner pursuant to the terms and conditions
contained in the Redevelopment Agreement because the Project will improve within the North
College Area the property and sales tax base, enhance and build public infrastructure, eliminate
and prevent blight and otherwise further the purposes, goals, and objectives of the Plan.
Section 2. That the Redevelopment Agreement is hereby approved, and the
Executive Director is authorized to execute the Redevelopment 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, or to
further the purposes of the Plan and this Resolution.
Packet Pg. 63
- 3 -
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the City of
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority this 30th day of September A.D. 2014.
Chairperson
ATTEST:
Secretary
Packet Pg. 64
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment1: Redevelopment Agreement (2418 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement RESO)
EXHIBIT A
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment1: Redevelopment Agreement (2418 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement RESO)
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment1: Redevelopment Agreement (2418 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement RESO)
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment1: Redevelopment Agreement (2418 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement RESO)
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment1: Redevelopment Agreement (2418 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement RESO)
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment1: Redevelopment Agreement (2418 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement RESO)
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment1: Redevelopment Agreement (2418 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement RESO)
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment1: Redevelopment Agreement (2418 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement RESO)
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment1: Redevelopment Agreement (2418 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement RESO)
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment1: Redevelopment Agreement (2418 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement RESO)
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment1: Redevelopment Agreement (2418 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement RESO)
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment1: Redevelopment Agreement (2418 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement RESO)
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment1: Redevelopment Agreement (2418 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement RESO)
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment1: Redevelopment Agreement (2418 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement RESO)
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment1: Redevelopment Agreement (2418 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement RESO)
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment1: Redevelopment Agreement (2418 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement RESO)
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment1: Redevelopment Agreement (2418 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement RESO)
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment1: Redevelopment Agreement (2418 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement RESO)
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment1: Redevelopment Agreement (2418 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement RESO)
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment1: Redevelopment Agreement (2418 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement RESO)
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment1: Redevelopment Agreement (2418 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement RESO)
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment1: Redevelopment Agreement (2418 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement RESO)
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment1: Redevelopment Agreement (2418 : URA-Feeders Supply Redevelopment Agreement RESO)
City of Fort Collins Page 1
Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Council Information Center (CIC)
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Gino Campana, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Ross Cunniff, District 5 on the Comcast cable system
Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Wanda Nelson
Interim City Attorney City Manager 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.
City Council Work Session
September 30, 2014
(Revised 9/26/14-new item added)
After the Urban Renewal Authority Board Meeting, beginning at 6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER.
1. Renewal of the ¼-Cent Community Capital Improvement Program and the ¼ Cent Street
Maintenance Tax. (staff: Ginny Sawyer, Mark Jackson; 10 minute presentation 10 minute
presentation; 30 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to update Council on public outreach efforts and to seek direction on key
elements of both the Building on Basics (BOB) 2.0 renewal and the Street Maintenance Program
renewal.
2. Commercial Water Allotments. (staff: Donnie Dustin, Lance Smith, Carol Smith; 15 minute
presentation; 45 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to seek direction from City Council for potential changes to commercial
water allotments. A water allotment is a maximum amount of water that can be used annually without
a surcharge rate being applied. Revenues from the surcharge are used to acquire or develop
additional water supplies, but the surcharge can be avoided by providing additional water rights or
cash. All commercial customers who have filed a water service permit since 1984 have an annual
water allotment, but this only applies to one-third of the approximately 2,600 current commercial
customers. Therefore, there is an unintended economic inequity between customers with and without
commercial water allotments since those with an allotment pay more for water use over the City’s
standard allotment. Staff is recommending this inequity be addressed by establishing an annual
allotment for all commercial customers for the 2015 calendar year.
City of Fort Collins Page 2
3. Construction of a New Utilities Administration Building in Block 32 on LaPorte Avenue and Renovation
of 700 Wood Street. (staff: Mike Beckstead, Kevin Gertig)
The purpose of this item is to provide funding for the construction of a new Utility Administration
Building within Block 32 on LaPorte Avenue, as well as renovation of the existing Utility Service
Center at 700 Wood Street. The total combined project costs are $23,411,000 with $4,500,000
already appropriated from Light and Power reserves, leaving $18,911,000 to be appropriated with this
ordinance.
A Utility Building Team comprised of internal staff and external subject matter experts has worked
with the architectural firm RNL and Adolfson and Peterson Construction to assess the best way to
address the current building performance and space issues facing Fort Collins Utilities’ ongoing and
future business operations. Balancing the city-wide goal to have high-performing office buildings with
the need to be fiscally prudent has led the Building Team to recommend the appropriation request
being made in this ordinance to address the current space and infrastructure needs of Fort Collins
Utilities.
The four Utility Enterprise Funds (Light and Power, Water, Wastewater and Stormwater) will share
the costs of the projects. All appropriations will come from the existing reserves in these four funds.
OTHER BUSINESS.
ADJOURNMENT.
DATE:
STAFF:
September 30, 2014
Ginny Sawyer, Policy and Project Manager
Mark Jackson, PDT Deputy Director
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Renewal of the ¼-Cent Community Capital Improvement Program and the ¼ Cent Street Maintenance Tax.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to update Council on public outreach efforts and to seek direction on key elements of
both the Building on Basics (BOB) 2.0 renewal and the Street Maintenance Program renewal.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council support seeking a 10-year renewal of the Street Maintenance Program?
2. Should the Vine and Lemay Avenue project remain on the potential BOB 2.0 project list? Or should the
project be removed and considered under a separate tax measure?
3. If a separate tax initiative is considered for Vine and Lemay, should other projects also be included? What
would be the desired timeframe?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The current capital expansion tax, Building on Basics (BOB) and the Street Maintenance Program tax (SMP) will
expire on December 31, 2015.
The Fort Collins community has supported street maintenance through a ¼-cent tax since 1989. This quarter-
cent tax covers roughly half of the Street Maintenance Program’s costs. Other program funding includes Keep
Fort Collins Great money and the General Fund. The Street Maintenance Program maximizes the community’s
investment in the street network by performing ongoing maintenance before much more costly repairs or
replacement are necessary, extending the usable life of a street. The Street Maintenance Program repairs over
130 lane miles of roads each year.
Fort Collins also has a long history of supporting a capital tax program. BOB is a ¼ -cent tax which equates to 25
cents on a $100 purchase. Over the 10-year period (2005 to 2015), BOB will provide almost $58 million dollars
for investment in community projects. These dollars have supported the Lincoln Center renovations, the Museum
of Discovery, new bike facilities, improvements to North College and Timberline, sidewalk upgrades, and the
Senior Center expansion.
Both of these tax renewals will be presented to the voters in April 2015.
Work to Date-SMP
In preparation for seeking the SMP tax renewal request, staff developed a web page and presentation materials
with information about the program, its funding sources, the science behind the Street Maintenance Program, and
the importance that effective road maintenance has on the community and local economy.
As well, staff has engaged in public outreach efforts to tell the story of street maintenance and to gauge citizen
feedback on the preferred term of the tax, which has traditionally been 10 years. Street maintenance is an
ongoing need now and into the future. Those who participated in outreach efforts did show support for a longer
Packet Pg. 3
September 30, 2014 Page 2
term, but there were also those who felt that 10 years was an appropriate length of time and suggested that this
term also allows for an increase in the future should it be needed.
Work to Date-BOB 2.0
In summer/fall of 2013, staff began compiling a list of unfunded needs that have been identified in master plans,
the Strategic Plan, or the budgeting process. Since that time the list has been refined and evaluated through
multiple lenses, including utilization of the Budgeting for Outcome (BFO) Teams.
The original list of projects totaled more than $400 million dollars. Through the process of Council work sessions,
Leadership and project team meetings, projects have been eliminated and project costs have been adjusted,
resulting in the most current list totaling approximately $290 million dollars. The projected revenue from a ¼ -cent
tax is approximately $80 million dollars.
Staff has been conducting extensive public outreach with this list of potential projects. (Attachment 1) Outreach
has included an interactive website, board and commission “super” meeting, CityWork Alumni Forum, a presence
at the Sustainable Living Fair, and a Community Issue Forum with the Center for Public Deliberation. The results
and comments from these efforts are included in Attachments 2-5.
As well as asking citizens what projects they felt most strongly about (positive or negative), staff also asked the
following question:
How should the City fund the improvement of the Vine and Lemay intersection?
Keep this project in BOB 2.0?
Consider a separate tax initiative on the ballot for this project alone?
Consider a separate tax initiative on the ballot for this project and 1-2 additional transportation projects?
This question is also posted on IdeaLab.
Next Steps
October Off-Site BOB 2.0 Session
Saturday, October 11
Goal: Narrow project list to $80-100 million range.
Council will receive materials for this work session in the Thursday, October 9 packet. Materials will include the
full project list, a recommended narrowed project list, and project descriptions.
December Work Session
Tuesday, December 9
Goal: Finalize BOB 2.0 package.
January Regular Meeting
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
Goal: Adopt a resolution referring ballot language to April 2015 ballot.
Staff will continue to engage the public through the January meeting.
Packet Pg. 4
September 30, 2014 Page 3
ATTACHMENTS
1. Potential Capital Improvement Projects by Outcome Area (PDF)
2. Public Outreach Summary (PDF)
3. Website Project Rankings and Comments (PDF)
4. Online Public Feedback on BOB 2.0 Projects (PDF)
5. Community Issue Forum Comments (PDF)
6. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
Packet Pg. 5
Num Project
Annual
O& M
Culture and Recreation
!5:9.+'89533:4/9>7+'9/;++49+7
%'9+7!:89'/4'(/2/9>3675;+3+498,57 '718'4*52,
+45;'9/545,9.+/8957/)'74+-/+:/2*/4-
5362+9/545,9.+'7*+4854!67/4-7++1
+)7+'9/54'2"7'/24.'4)+3+498
Num Project
Annual
Capital Cost O& M
1
Public Outreach Summary
Between August 25 and September 21, staff hosted multiple meetings and open house settings
that featured large boards with potential projects and green and red dots. Participants were
encouraged to give projects they felt strongly about including in a BOB 2.0 package a green dot
and projects they felt should not be included a red dot. The totals and the individual setting
results are included.
The interactive BOB 2.0 website has been up and promoted since mid-August. The page provides
project information and allows participants to select any number of projects they feel is a high
priority. They are also able to leave comments. Comments and the overall project rankings are
included in this summary. The third week in October this site will become a “budgeting” tool,
whereby participants will only be able to select up to $80 million worth of projects.
During the Community Issue Forum we were able to collect small group discussion notes and
varying demographic data. That information and the final selection of high priority projects is
included in these materials.
While conducting outreach, staff asked participants the following questions:
1. Since 1989, voters have supported street maintenance through a 1/4 –cent tax. The
current tax will expire Dec. 31, 2015. Voters will have the opportunity to renew this tax
in April 2015. Should the term of the tax be: 10 years? 15 years? 20 years?
Term of SMP?
Boards and Commissions 10yrs: 14 15yrs: 3 20yrs: 0
CityWork Alums 10yrs: 1 15yrs: 0 20yrs: 0
Com Forum Open House 10yrs: 6 15yrs: 8 20yrs: 1
Sustainable Living Fair 10yrs: 8 15yrs: 14 20yrs: 18
Total 10yrs: 39 15yrs: 37 20yrs: 39
2. Existing Vine Drive and Lemay Avenue is congested and constrained by the Burlington
Northern and Santa Fe Railroad. Trains block the intersection and create extended
gridlock in the area. This location is a top location for congestion and safety
complaints. Existing neighborhoods in this area are becoming increasingly impacted by
the congestion on Lemay.
a. Keep this project in BOB 2.0.
CityWorks: 4 Com. Open House: 3 Sustainable Living Fair: 17 Total: 24
b. Consider a separate tax initiative for this project alone.
CityWorks: 1 Com. Open House: 7 Sustainable Living Fair: 13 Total: 21
c. Consider a separate tax initiative for this project and 2-3 additional traffic projects.
CityWorks: 1 Com. Open House: 8 Sustainable Living Fair: 6 Total: 13
Boards and Commissions were asked whether they supported a separate tax measure.
Nine said yes while 3 said no.
The Vine and Lemay question is currently posted on IdeaLab.
ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment1.2: Public Outreach Summary (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
2
Total and individual results of “dot exercise” from Board and Commission meeting, CityWork
Alumni Forum, Community Issue Forum Open House, and the Sustainable Living Fair.
Total: Highest Priority Projects
1. Safe Routes to Everywhere (Sidewalks, Transit, Bikes) (Continued from BOB)
2. Downtown Restroom
3. Community Marketplace
4. Housing for Chronically Homeless(Homeward 2020)
5. Community Organics Composting and Recycling Facility
6. Bike/Ped Grade Separated Crossings Fund
7. Climate Action Projects
8. Recreational Trail Enhancements
9. Sustainable Child Care Center
10. Implementing Nature in the City
11. Downtown Poudre River Enhancements
12. Bridge Maintenance and Replacement
13. Completion of the Gardens at the Gardens on Spring Creek
14. Water Sustainability Improvements for Parks and Golf
15. Parking Garage & Retail Space
16. Quiet Zone Implementation I-(Downtown /CSU - 16 crossings + 2 ped crossings)
17. College Midtown Transportation Plan Implementation Fund
18. Vine & Lemay Grade Separated Crossing Design, ROW and Construct
19. Neighborhood Revitalization Investments
20. East Mulberry Corridor planning, prelim design, and ROW purchase
Total-Lowest Priority:
1. Parking Garage & Retail Space
2. Quiet Zone Implementation I-(Downtown /CSU - 16 crossings + 2 ped crossings)
3. College Median and Streetscape Enhancement & Renovations
4. Community Marketplace
5. Land for Police Maintenance Facility
6. Quiet Zone Implementation II- (Drake to Trilby - 5 crossings)
7. Regional Training Facility
8. Campus West Policing Substation
9. Housing for Chronically Homeless(Homeward 2020)
10. Mason Street Enhancement
11. Southeast Community Creative Center
12. Velo and Fitness Park
13. Southwest Annexation Road Improvements Fund
14. Climate Action Projects
15. Implementing Nature in the City
16. Preserving our Heritage: City Park Train; Club Tico Renovation; Fire Museum
17. South Timberline Road Improvements
18. Downtown Restroom
19. Sustainable Child Care Center
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment1.2: Public Outreach Summary (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
3
20. Downtown Poudre River Enhancements
Boards and Commissions-Top 20 Highest Priority Projects:
1. Recreational Trail Enhancements
2. Water Sustainability Improvements for Parks and Golf
3. Sustainable Child Care Center
4. Downtown Poudre River Enhancements
5. Bike/Ped Grade Separated Crossings Fund
6. Bridge Maintenance and Replacement
7. Completion of the Gardens at the Gardens on Spring Creek
8. EPIC Pool Improvements
9. Downtown Restroom
10. Southeast Community Creative Center
11. Community Organics Composting and Recycling Facility
12. Vine & Lemay Grade Separated Crossing Design, ROW and Construct
13. Renovation of the Historic Carnegie Building
14. Housing for Chronically Homeless(Homeward 2020)
15. Linden Street Renovations Design & Construction
16. Neighborhood Revitalization Investments
17. East Mulberry Corridor planning, prelim design, and ROW purchase
18. Downtown Maintenance Shop
19. Climate Action Projects
20. Realigned Vine Drive I - College to Lemay
Boards and Commissions- Lowest Priority Projects:
1. Quiet Zone Implementation I-(Downtown /CSU - 16 crossings + 2 ped crossings)
2. College Median and Streetscape Enhancement & Renovations
3. Parking Garage & Retail Space
4. Community Marketplace
5. Quiet Zone Implementation II- (Drake to Trilby - 5 crossings)
6. Velo and Fitness Park
7. Community Organics Composting and Recycling Facility
8. Housing for Chronically Homeless(Homeward 2020)
9. Preserving our Heritage: City Park Train; Club Tico Renovation; Fire Museum
10. Start up for Bike Share
11. Implementing Nature in the City
12. Sustainable Child Care Center
13. Downtown Poudre River Enhancements
14. Bike/Ped Grade Separated Crossings Fund
15. EPIC Pool Improvements
16. Downtown Restroom
17. Southeast Community Creative Center
18. Vine & Lemay Grade Separated Crossing Design, ROW and Construct
19. Renovation of the Historic Carnegie Building
20. Climate Action Projects
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment1.2: Public Outreach Summary (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
4
CityWork Alumi Forum-Top 20 Highest Priority Projects
1. Parking Garage & Retail Space
2. Preserving our Heritage: City Park Train; Club Tico Renovation; Fire Museum
3. Downtown Poudre River Enhancements
4. Vine & Lemay Grade Separated Crossing Design, ROW and Construct
5. Linden Street Renovations Design & Construction
6. Realigned Vine Drive I - College to Lemay
7. Lincoln Neighborhood Projects
8. Housing for Chronically Homeless(Homeward 2020)
9. Downtown Restroom
10. Renovation of the Historic Carnegie Building
11. Transfort Bus Fleet Replacement (Continued from BOB)
12. Mason Street Enhancement
13. East Mulberry Corridor planning, prelim design, and ROW purchase
14. Lincoln Avenue Improvements Design & Construction
15. Jefferson Street Improvements - College Avenue to Lincoln Avenue/Mountain Aveneue
16. Campus West Policing Substation
17. Quiet Zone Implementation I-(Downtown /CSU - 16 crossings + 2 ped crossings)
18. Community Marketplace
19. Community Organics Composting and Recycling Facility
20. Start up for Bike Share
CityWork Alumni Forum-Lowest Priority:
1. Community Marketplace
2. Community Organics Composting and Recycling Facility
3. Preserving our Heritage: City Park Train; Club Tico Renovation; Fire Museum
4. Downtown Restroom
5. Regional Training Facility
6. Land for Police Maintenance Facility
7. College Median and Streetscape Enhancement & Renovations
8. Quiet Zone Implementation II- (Drake to Trilby - 5 crossings)
9. Velo and Fitness Park
10. Climate Action Projects
11. Southwest Annexation Road Improvements Fund
12. South Timberline Road Improvements
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment1.2: Public Outreach Summary (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
5
Community Issue Forum Open House-Top 20 Highest Priority Projects:
1. Housing for Chronically Homeless(Homeward 2020)
2. Safe Routes to Everywhere (Sidewalks, Transit, Bikes) (Continued from BOB)
3. Community Organics Composting and Recycling Facility
4. Parking Garage & Retail Space
5. Campus West Policing Substation
6. Downtown Restroom
7. Climate Action Projects
8. Bridge Maintenance and Replacement
9. Vine & Lemay Grade Separated Crossing Design, ROW and Construct
10. Recreational Trail Enhancements
11. Bike/Ped Grade Separated Crossings Fund
12. Implementing Nature in the City
13. Community Marketplace
14. Downtown Poudre River Enhancements
15. Realigned Vine Drive I - College to Lemay
16. Quiet Zone Implementation I-(Downtown /CSU - 16 crossings + 2 ped crossings)
17. EPIC Pool Improvements
18. Completion of the Gardens at the Gardens on Spring Creek
19. West LaPorte Avenue Improvements - Impala Drive to Taft Hill Road
20. Renovation of the Historic Carnegie Building
21. Sustainable Child Care Center
Community Issue Forum Open House-Lowest Priority:
1. Land for Police Maintenance Facility
2. Community Marketplace
3. Regional Training Facility
4. Parking Garage & Retail Space
5. Climate Action Projects
6. Housing for Chronically Homeless(Homeward 2020)
7. Campus West Policing Substation
8. Implementing Nature in the City
9. Downtown Poudre River Enhancements
10. Quiet Zone Implementation I-(Downtown /CSU - 16 crossings + 2 ped crossings)
11. Southeast Community Creative Center
12. Velo and Fitness Park
13. Computer Aided Dispatch/Record Management System Upgrades
14. Quiet Zone Implementation II- (Drake to Trilby - 5 crossings)
15. Mason Street Enhancement
16. Safe Routes to Everywhere (Sidewalks, Transit, Bikes) (Continued from BOB)
17. Renovation of the Historic Carnegie Building
18. Sustainable Child Care Center
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment1.2: Public Outreach Summary (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
6
19. Southwest Annexation Road Improvements Fund
20. Linden Street Renovations Design & Construction
Sustainable Living Fair-Top 20 Highest Priority Projects:
1. Community Marketplace
2. Safe Routes to Everywhere (Sidewalks, Transit, Bikes) (Continued from BOB)
3. Downtown Restroom
4. Climate Action Projects
5. Community Organics Composting and Recycling Facility
6. Housing for Chronically Homeless(Homeward 2020)
7. Bike/Ped Grade Separated Crossings Fund
8. Implementing Nature in the City
9. Recreational Trail Enhancements
10. Sustainable Child Care Center
11. Downtown Poudre River Enhancements
12. Quiet Zone Implementation I-(Downtown /CSU - 16 crossings + 2 ped crossings)
13. College Midtown Transportation Plan Implementation Fund
14. Neighborhood Revitalization Investments
15. Parking Garage & Retail Space
16. Completion of the Gardens at the Gardens on Spring Creek
17. Start up for Bike Share
18. East Mulberry Corridor planning, prelim design, and ROW purchase
19. Water Sustainability Improvements for Parks and Golf
20. Velo and Fitness Park
Sustainable Living Fair-Lowest Priority:
1. Parking Garage & Retail Space
2. College Median and Streetscape Enhancement & Renovations
3. Land for Police Maintenance Facility
4. Quiet Zone Implementation I-(Downtown /CSU - 16 crossings + 2 ped crossings)
5. Campus West Policing Substation
6. Regional Training Facility
7. Quiet Zone Implementation II- (Drake to Trilby - 5 crossings)
8. Mason Street Enhancement
9. Housing for Chronically Homeless(Homeward 2020)
10. Southeast Community Creative Center
11. South Timberline Road Improvements
12. College Midtown Transportation Plan Implementation Fund
13. Lincoln Neighborhood Projects
14. Realigned Vine Drive I - College to Lemay
15. West LaPorte Avenue Improvements - Impala Drive to Taft Hill Road
16. Southwest Annexation Road Improvements Fund
17. Downtown Restroom
18. Sustainable Child Care Center
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment1.2: Public Outreach Summary (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
7
19. Completion of the Gardens at the Gardens on Spring Creek
20. Start up for Bike Share
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment1.2: Public Outreach Summary (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
1
Website Project Rankings and Comments
As of September 22, 2014
Citizen Comments from BOB 2.0 Website
Fort Collins loves beer, but is safe enough. Cut the safety, stick with the agricultural improvements.
Submitted at Sep-22-2014 02:17 PM
Most of the projects listed are worthwhile. However, I have picked those that I feel will make the
most positive impact on Fort Collins.
The community marketplace is long overdue and would be great for residents and local small food
businesses.
I was appalled the one time I used the current bathroom in Old Town--there was no way to wash
hands. Disgusting! We need a modern restroom which includes running water and soap!! With so
many festivals/carnivals with food trucks, this is a public health issue. My only concern is that it may
be used for habitation by the homeless--perhaps it should be locked at night?
Basically, I am always in favor of more emphasis on parks or nature areas. That's what sets Fort
Collins apart. And, the Gardens on Spring Creek is a wonderful facility which should be utilized to
the fullest.
I don't have children myself, but many of my co-workers struggle with child-care issues. Affordable
child-care is essential so parents can work/go to school. Honestly, there is a need for affordable
child care throughout the city.
Submitted at Sep-22-2014 01:45 PM
There was discussion on a SE rec center (with sufficient lap lanes for swim team use), but I don't
see that on the list. That is the #1 pick for me. Thanks.
Submitted at Sep-22-2014 11:22 AM
I think the city needs to be sure to support Transfort as much as possible. There have been so
many great improvements, but without adding (or continuing to add/upgrade) buses and staff all
of the new changes are difficult to implement.
Submitted at Sep-22-2014 08:34 AM
I believe the time has come in Fort Collins when something like the proposed "Community
Marketplace" could succeed very well, if done correctly.
Submitted at Sep-21-2014 11:31 AM
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment1.3: Website Project Rankings and Comments (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
2
Homeless project seems to be a major humanitarian concern. I hope that it can make it to at
least near the top of the priority list. Maybe include rehab program for those who can eventually
manage on their own by providing some sort of re-entry into mainstream assistance.
I personally would like to see the share bike program become a part of www.bcycle.com
program. Reasoning being is that it is an international program already in place and a
membership card holder can utilize their card anywhere. If a card holder established their card
in Denver and moves to Fort Collins then the card would be transferred to new location or if I
live in Fort Collins and visit Boulder or Denver then I can utilize their system as well, using the
same membership card as long as the bikes remain within the same community. That way I
don't have to redo a membership for every community I go to. I ride the bus to Denver and
Boulder and will be nice to have a universal card to have for here as well as when I visit areas
that have the same program.
Vine/Lemay grade separated crossing. I hope that means an under or overpass of the railroad. I
think that there is a lack of planning involving the railroad or simply being to cheap when
developing on or around railroads. Bridges are done for waterways, but that is out of necessity,
but it should also be considered for railway, at least with most major arteries. So, put a bridge or
underpass for pete sake.
Also, consider detox and rehab for drug and alcohol or least provide grant funding to nonprofits.
In this case, utilize special taxation for funding like taxes from marijuana sells.
Submitted at Sep-20-2014 10:19 PM
Great list of projects - thanks to the City for being visionary!
Submitted at Sep-20-2014 11:52 AM
We need more protected bicycle lanes in this amazing town! Especially on West Elizabeth
Street! Please!
Submitted at Sep-20-2014 10:18 AM
Yes, please, on the Community Marketplace.
Submitted at Sep-20-2014 09:05 AM
I have indicated several projects for funding. These are the ones I see as highest priority and I
list them below with a priority score 1-5, with 1 being most important.
1 - Safe routes to everywhere, Tranfort Bus Fleet replacement - these initiatives help to make
good ways for people to get around FoCo without a car. If funded, they actually can impact quite
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment1.3: Website Project Rankings and Comments (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
3
a few other issues by removing cars from the streets.
2 - Community Marketplace - This idea is wonderful for downtown. Our summer time
marketplaces are bustling with people. This continues the market and builds community (and it
is a relatively small investment for a potentially big payback).
3 - Bridge maintenance and replacement - No brainer here. If you don't take care of these, then
we end up with catastrophic failure. Bottom line: take care of important infrastructure.
4 - Housing for chronically homeless - as FoCo downtown pushes north, one big problem is the
number of homeless people at the park at Jefferson and Linden across from the Mission. With
added housing, this can help offset the number of chronically homeless and help with the
downtown area.
5 - EPIC pool improvements - EPIC is the only real exercise focused pool facility in FoCo. Many,
many people benefit from it and it has brought people to FoCo for events. The cost is modest
with no ongoing commitment. This is a good cost-to-benefit ratio.
Submitted at Sep-20-2014 08:09 AM
Fort Collins local vendors needs to have a building like this. It has potential to create a thriving
culture created by the people that live here. Something like this, would be good for already
established vendors and inspiring for those who wish to begin. This brings consumer and
provider together in a unique setting that cannot happen at the grocery store. It puts a face on
these items we buy, human interaction in this way is dire to hold onto a technologically
advancing world.
Submitted at Sep-20-2014 07:04 AM
Gardens on Spring Creek 5 acres with no plan for food growing or training? Fort Collins has
young farmers who can't find or afford land. The city needs to lead in stressing the importance
of food (not commodities) agriculture from the soil up!
Submitted at Sep-20-2014 06:47 AM
Spring Creek Gardens -- local food production, accessible to residents is a good thing! Finish
the project and bring it to full functionality!
Community Market -- I'm a member of the Fort Collins Food Cooperative and strongly
committed to building our local economy and fostering a "a unique downtown destination
bursting with a high quality selection of locally produced, artisan and ethnic products, freshly-
made prepared foods, independent merchants, music and community events--- open year
round." I love the year round part!
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment1.3: Website Project Rankings and Comments (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
4
Submitted at Sep-19-2014 08:00 PM
The outdoor restroom could be accomplished for free by allowing the installer use if for
advertising. San Jose used this model a while back.
Submitted at Sep-19-2014 04:43 PM
A central year-round location for local producers and a farmer's market would be a great boon
to the downtown area, attracting people from all over Fort Collins to come shop there.
Submitted at Sep-19-2014 03:47 PM
The hard part here is not checking everything. The highest priorities in my mind are those that
improve transportation in the city, esp for safe bicycling, pedestrians and continued
improvement in mass transit.
Equally high on my list would be improved services and support for our homeless and low
income populations. I love the idea of improvements in deteriorating neighborhoods, but do
have concerns that that will then lead to increased gentrification and the eventual ousting of the
very people this would be intended to help, (a conundrum indeed).
Love, love love the Community Market concept. I have visited a few in my travels, and in fact
look for such things when I do. I have also heard others talk about enjoying this type of thing in
their own travels. It could be just as much a support for local good as a tourist draw.
And of course none of this is possible without a good infrastructure. Well landscaped and
planned streets scapes are so important to the health of our city, mentally emotionally and
physically. I think it is part of what makes our lovely home so appealing. I just wish people would
take the idea home and make their own home towns as lovely, then we can all happily vist each
other without overgrowing any one environment.
Submitted at Sep-19-2014 01:59 PM
Of all the choices I made above, I think the Community Marketplace would have an amazing
impact on the economy of Old Town and the overall feel of Old Town Fort Collins. We need
more projects like the Community Marketplace and less expansion of places like breweries and
distilleries. We have enough places in town to get drunk. Old Town is slowly becoming less
about families and kids, and more about night life and adults.
Is it possible that the city might start looking at buying up some of the older buildings to offer
subsidized rents for the small mom and pop shops that seem to be going under? Too many of
these cool little businesses die every year because of super high rents.
David
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment1.3: Website Project Rankings and Comments (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
5
Submitted at Sep-19-2014 12:41 PM
A downtown community marketplace can serve as a site of food-based economic development
not only for Fort Collins, but Northern Colorado. By having an urban center that buys from
surrounding rural places, such a market can build stronger ties between the various segments
of this part of Colorado. At the same time, a community marketplace will contribute to a green
jobs economy, in turn encouraging triple bottom line practices in Fort Collins.
Submitted at Sep-19-2014 11:50 AM
I am in support of the Community Marketplace project to construct an indoor market hall
allowing for year - round operation of a farmer’s market.
I am in full support of local food production, local economy, and increasing the availability and
opportunity to purchase such Fort Collins products for local citizens!
Thank you,
Jeff Trow
2606 Gilpin Ave.
Loveland, Colorado 80538
Submitted at Sep-19-2014 10:52 AM
It's a long time coming!!
Submitted at Sep-19-2014 09:51 AM
I would love to see a community marketplace in Fort Collins!
Submitted at Sep-19-2014 09:36 AM
This is a desperately needed hub of community vibrancy. The activities that will go on here are
the true foundation of the health of fort collins, the underpinnings of economic, food, and
healthcare security start with supporting our local food system.
Submitted at Sep-19-2014 09:32 AM
Yes, yes, yes to a community market - one of my favorite things to do when I visit other cities!
Submitted at Sep-19-2014 08:15 AM
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment1.3: Website Project Rankings and Comments (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
6
thanks for the opportunity to provide feedback!
Submitted at Sep-19-2014 08:09 AM
I think a Community Marketplace is an amazing idea. It would be so good for our local economy!
Submitted at Sep-19-2014 04:28 AM
Housing is a CRITICAL issue in Fort Collins, & the best way to address homelessness is to offer
affordable housing & support services to help them become self-sufficient. Similarly, child care
is often not affordable for young families. We need to offer more quality, affordable child care
centers.
Submitted at Sep-18-2014 10:27 AM
Downtown needs a public restroom, and East Mulberry needs to look better--it's a main entry
into the city of Fort Collins. I unequivocally support local food production, so the Community
Marketplace is very important to me also. Locally produced food is the freshest and very best
offered, and having a year round location to shop for it will make it easier for all of us to access
it. Support for local food has grown every year for the past 10 years. I hope we can provide this
resource to our community!
Submitted at Sep-16-2014 03:21 PM
Please bring a year-round Farmer's Market.... I believe many people would support the year
round market if people knew EVERY weekend they could go get fresh food. Fort Collins people
love to support their farmer!
Submitted at Sep-16-2014 08:57 AM
These are all fantastic projects that I would love to see accomplished, but I think we need to
focus on projects that decrease our environmental impact, make it easier for bikes and
pedestrians to get around, and create housing for our residents who are unable to afford to live
here.
Submitted at Sep-15-2014 03:43 PM
Please consider making Bike/Ped grade separated crossings fund a top priority. This will make
it much safer for those of us who travel exclusively by bike/foot.
Submitted at Sep-15-2014 02:55 PM
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment1.3: Website Project Rankings and Comments (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
7
I would hope that the Southeast Community Center would include a lap pool.
So many important projects are named here. It's hard to choose which should go forward or not.
I hope many of them can be funded.
Submitted at Sep-14-2014 06:59 PM
I think this is a great idea. This would provide an entertainment destination as well as shopping
facilities for those things not always readily available.
Submitted at Sep-13-2014 11:01 AM
I love the idea of a Fort Collins market place. I also feel strongly about moving towards a
sustainable future by effectively managing our water usage, pursuing sustainable energies,
improving pedestrian and bike transit throughout town, and implementing more composting
(which could potentially be used to support organic growing in Fort Collins).
Submitted at Sep-12-2014 11:16 PM
I have hand crafted items for sale and would appreciate the venue.
Submitted at Sep-12-2014 08:49 PM
I am a strong supporter of this project, particularly as it relates to the creation of a marketplace
for locally grown food. I hope that the city will support this vital project that will continue to grow
Fort Collins into a unique and desirable place to live work and play.
Regards,
Ben Nelson
Submitted at Sep-12-2014 05:46 PM
I think a year round community market featuring local food and art is exactly what Fort Collins
needs. It is the sort of thing that makes this city so great and I think it is very much wanted by
this community. Thanks
Submitted at Sep-12-2014 02:21 PM
As a long-time supporter of Fort Collins local business, i think a year-round community market
would be a great downtown attraction and would give a great boost to the local economy.
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment1.3: Website Project Rankings and Comments (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
8
Submitted at Sep-12-2014 10:41 AM
I strongly support the Community Marketplace project, and urge the City to include it in the
capital budget. The Community Marketplace will have strong positive impacts on the community
in lots of ways: It will support economic development by providing a venue for local food
businesses; it will support local farmers and food producers; it will promote community health
through access to healthy feed; it will promote community engagement because that's what
public markets do. This is a project with immense upside and few downsides, and there are
many people in the community who will actively support it. It also has the potential, depending
on siting, to be a bridge across the north-south split in Fort Collins, which would be a hugely
good thing.
Fort Collins has done a great job of creating a world-class city and place to lvie and work. A
Public Market would be a huge positive addition to the community!
Submitted at Sep-12-2014 10:34 AM
Investing in a community marketplace shows that FTC stands behind its commitment to
community and local food, and will bring people downtown, year round, for healthy food and
community. Invest!
Submitted at Sep-11-2014 09:49 PM
This is vital to the health of Fort Collins
Submitted at Sep-11-2014 03:27 PM
This is vital to the health of Fort Collins and to support our local food economy.
Submitted at Sep-11-2014 03:24 PM
City Leaders,
As owner of Spring Kite Farm, a local organic produce farm and CSA operation located within
city limits, I strongly support the city's goal of funding a permanent Community Marketplace.
This is a very forward thinking step and will be integral as the community continues to build a
healthy, resilient food system.
I do, however, have a few concerns:
1) $9M is a bit much. I believe that the newly formed NoCo Food Cluster could leverage $3M
from the BOB offer for additional foundation support and private investment.
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment1.3: Website Project Rankings and Comments (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
9
2) There needs to be land acquisition (by the public and/or private sectors, time for
collaboration?) attached to this offer. Land values continue to increase in Northern Colorado,
and it is time for municipalities take a serious role in securing prime agricultural lands with
adequate water right and getting local food producers on those lands with tenure (unique
financing options for ownership, long term land leases - 50-100 yrs, etc).
It's time to take a long-term approach to food system innovation and investment.
Thanks very much for your support!
Michael Baute
Spring Kite Farm
Submitted at Sep-11-2014 01:51 PM
I have spent considerable time in Seattle and Vancouver and love the energy Pike's Market and
Granville Island brings to their community. Fort Collins has long talked about one, now is the
time to create something. I will enhance the downtown area, support our local businesses and
artisans and truly make Fort Collins a destination city.
Submitted at Sep-11-2014 01:39 PM
I am in support of a Fort Collins Community Marketplace. If created it will further enhance the
reputation of FTC as a first class place to live, work and play. A new marketplace will create
jobs as it supports the local community. Please support this project wholeheartedly.
Submitted at Sep-11-2014 11:55 AM
Thanks for the opportunity to provide input to city planning.
Submitted at Sep-10-2014 03:22 PM
The train and Club Tico help Fort Collins stand out.
A downtown market is also important and helps Fort Collins stand out.
I'm all for bike safety and travel. The Homeless population needs housing. Studies suggest that
housing reduces all of the peripheral issues that surround homelessness.
Submitted at Sep-10-2014 11:13 AM
I do support the community marketplace - people have been doing a lot of good work around
our food system. Food will be a very important future need, increasing because farmland is
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment1.3: Website Project Rankings and Comments (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
10
being used east of here for oil and gas development. Distribution, from what I have learned, is a
major issue for small farmers. Fort Collins needs this.
Although I can find it on this agenda, please fund the SBDC - it has grown into a wonderfully
dynamic program. Hope it's not to late for the city to help the program. We need continued
support small business in Fort Collins.
Submitted at Sep-10-2014 09:40 AM
All of these ideas are good ones - I would vote for them all if I thought we could afford them! I
have tried to choose projects that: increase quality of life of our city and provide increased
support for the qualities that make our city unique (cycling, use and preservation of nature,
abundant outdoor/recreational space).
Please let me know if you have questions.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input.
Joyce
Submitted at Sep-10-2014 08:05 AM
The community market, housing for the homeless, and the trails are te top priorities. In that
order. The market is the most likely to maintain summer employment and generate more
income for the city. It's a wise investment.
Submitted at Sep-10-2014 12:10 AM
I have so many friends with great business ideas that they want to or have already started here
in Fort Collins. They all express concerns with a venue for sales- we have the producers- we
have the buyers but our downtown farmers market isn't cutting it! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
build us a community market place! I can't wait to go all there all the time and take pride in
showing off our ability to facilitate local economic growth as a community!
Submitted at Sep-09-2014 10:39 PM
I am writing in support of the Community Marketplace in Fort Collins. As a doctoral candidate in
Food Systems, I am supportive of the triple bottom line benefits a Community Marketplace
would provide.
Economically, a year round marketplace would add vitality to the local and regional economy
and enhances Fort Collins’s already widely recognized character as one of the best places to
live in America! It would also create an attractive, dynamic and diverse experience for shoppers
and community members who choose to purchase and consume in ways that support their
social and environmental values, while bringing greater economic well-being and sustainability
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment1.3: Website Project Rankings and Comments (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
11
to our local community. Similar to great Public Markets in other cities, a market that draws
residents back for repeated shopping, social, cultural and educational experiences, will also
become a destination for visitors and tourists. Furthermore, the scope of the Community
Marketplace should support other sectors in the local economy like local entrepreneurs that
share the commitment to local sustainability and global fairness, especially in areas supported
by the City’s other economic development activities.
Fort Collins is a unique place with local pride. A Community Marketplace will facilitate building
direct relationships between producers, vendors and consumers and ensure that this pride is
shared and communicated as more out-of-towners move to our great city. That relationship is
based in part on a local culture that gives people the opportunity to know better those with
whom they engage in economic and other activities. But that relationship also is based on a
vision of sustainability that is not necessarily geographically determined. Being Local is
ultimately less about distinct geographical boundaries than about a commitment to alternative
relationships promoting social and environmental values.
I am in full support of the Community Marketplace and envision it being a place of learning,
communing, shopping, eating, conversing and growing as a community.
Thanks!
Submitted at Sep-09-2014 06:25 PM
A community marketplace has been the topic of conversation for many years. It would be a
great to have a place like Chelsea Market or Pike Market where local businesses could have a
year round place to sell their products. It could also be used to hold events that require a large
venue with flooring that can be cleaned (i.e. no hardwood or carpeting). We need a larger place
to hold the Winter Market, which is very popular with our community, and this would be a perfect
place.
Submitted at Sep-09-2014 03:25 PM
I would very much like the BOB to support a Community Marketplace. Buying local helps
everyone in the community by keeping our spending dollars and tax money in our own town.
Local produce is also better for our health. The market will also provide an outlet for new
business exploration and growth. It will add to vitality of the Old Town area.
Submitted at Sep-09-2014 02:51 PM
A community marketplace would be great to support local businesses and help create
infrastructure for more local food availability for the public and institutions.
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment1.3: Website Project Rankings and Comments (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
12
Submitted at Sep-09-2014 02:32 PM
This form is very helpful to understand what is possible and I liked that it included O&M impact.
Next time I would recommend a running tally at the bottom (like a shopping cart) that would
allow citizens/voters to see how much what they want will cost them/us, and have it turn from
green to red when more items are selected than the predicted funding from the tax. This form
was challenging to figure out the real cost on a yearly basis of what I believe would help Fort
Collins. We can't have it all, and understanding the impact of choices at an individual level
would help us and City Council make effective decisions on where to focus our efforts as a
community.
Thanks for reaching out for input!
Chris
Submitted at Sep-09-2014 02:27 PM
This would be a game charger for fort collins and make encourage more produces to be
available.
Submitted at Sep-09-2014 02:19 PM
Thank you for offering a place for public voice.
Submitted at Sep-09-2014 02:15 PM
Great public input option
Submitted at Sep-09-2014 10:15 AM
These are all good projects. However, I would rank CR1 highest because presently there are no
City recreation centers in southeast Fort Collins.
Yet the southeast is still a major growth path for both residential and commercial development.
Keep up the great work! Your vision and commitment are encouraging.
Submitted at Sep-08-2014 10:14 AM
The geographic limits on the Quiet Zone Implementation item lists "from Drake to Trilby". Please
consider extending this geographic zone to the southern limit of the city which is Carpenter
Road. Since the recent development of oil and gas in our region, the rail line that used to carry
one or two very small trains a day now services hundred car oil tanker trains a number of times
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment1.3: Website Project Rankings and Comments (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
13
during the day and night. Please consider in you planning process that train noise and safety
issues extend to other regions of the city than just CSU and Downtown.
Submitted at Sep-08-2014 08:37 AM
So many great project ideas, really hard to pick just a few. Seeing as a majority of our
community utilizes the College Ave/Midtown corridor and there is so much redevelopment
happening there I'd love to see investment in midtown sooner rather than later. We've made the
plans for Midtown, now let's build!
Submitted at Sep-03-2014 11:52 PM
I'm getting sick of waiting for a kayak park. the people have shown interest and followed the
appropriate processes and I feel as though we are being met with resistance.
Submitted at Sep-03-2014 10:26 AM
I'm submitting this to support the Poudre River kayak play park. This is a tremendous
opportunity to implement a community oriented project that will help people recognize and
appreciate the Poudre. Play parks offer economic upsides for communities through
events/competitions. Play parks also offer a safe environment for people to develop kayaking
skills, a benefit that will lead to increasing safety and interest in the sport.
Submitted at Sep-03-2014 10:12 AM
The Poudre Downtown project Reach 3 of the Master plan missed funds from the General fund
for 2015-2016 because of one staff persons decision This is very unfortunate considering the
communities interest and financial contribution to the project. This should be at the top of the
BOB list of projects. There is currently $158,000 in liquid private funds ready to fund a
whitewater park in Downtown Fort Collins. There's no reason to let those funds go to waste.
Thank you City leadership.
Submitted at Sep-02-2014 02:13 PM
Many of these projects fall in the "Would Be Nice!" category. I feel as a Country, as a State and
as a City we can no longer afford "Bigger, Better, Shiner" projects; we need to focus on "Basic
Infrastructure Construction and Maintenance." We have already built more than we can afford to
maintain or certainly replace.
We certainly cannot afford to build the BNSF railroad overpass, we must work the BNSF and
the PUC to make an at grade crossing work; as it will be too expensive, too massive, too ugly,
and we will never be able to afford the maintenance and ultimate replacement.
Submitted at Sep-02-2014 12:15 PM
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment1.3: Website Project Rankings and Comments (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
14
It makes no sense why city council would solicit community feedback for a SE Recreation & Arts
Center, which clearly indicated what we want, and then do a complete 180 and turn it into a
creative center. SE Fort Collins is full of families! We need pools, both competitive & leisure,
and a place to recreate. We want a regular rec center, one where we can swim, exercise, take
various classes, and put the kids in child care for a couple of hours. None of this creative center
stuff! If there's money left over, fine, use It to turn the Carnegie building into a creative center.
But SE FoCo NEEDS a rec center, something we'll use everyday!!! It's misleading to ask us to
prioritize the BOB projects with the $10M creative center and not give us the option to vote for
the $35M rec center that we really want! All of FoCo's tax dollars have gone to the north and the
central areas for far too long. The amount of residents and growth happening here warrants a
rec center! Don't waste $10M of our money on something we will hardly use. $35M on a full
service rec facility will be money well spent!!!
Submitted at Aug-29-2014 03:12 AM
Obviously I would love to support every one of these projects! They all sound beneficial in some
way. I mainly focused on projects that I would support being completed in the very near future. If
I was looking at long-term development, some of these priorities may shift, especially the
transportation projects.
Submitted at Aug-22-2014 07:42 AM
Thank you for allowing us to provide input. I have lived in other cities where they have raised a
local-option sales tax but were not transparent as to how the funds will be spent.
I have lived in a few smaller cities throughout the US. Fort Collins' trail system and the ability to
travel across the city without a car continues to set us apart from these other cities.
Thanks so much.
Tom Hromatka
Submitted at Aug-21-2014 10:02 AM
I think this whole idea is great and I support whatever projects are chosen.
Submitted at Aug-20-2014 12:15 PM
I don't get this at all; there have been multiple surveys and public input sessions and even
proposals for a recreation center and all of a sudden we get this weird thing out of nowhere. It is
long long since time for a pool on the south side of town, and we have been being promised a
rec center for nearly as long as I have lived in Fort Collins. You need to rethink some things and
start to invest in the south side of town, we pay lots of taxes and end up going to Loveland half
of the time because their facilities are better and closer ...
Submitted at Aug-18-2014 07:03 PM
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment1.3: Website Project Rankings and Comments (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
15
South-side rec center (say northside with a swim team pool), yes. Creative center, NO, NO, NO!
Maybe climate action plan. Will need to wait and see what it says. If it is as stupid as the bag fee
NO, example don't tell me to reduce my in-town driving then vote to widen roads and freeways
for more cars. If it things like residential roof-top solar, mirco-grid, grey-water, pod-cars, etc,
probably a YES.
Submitted at Aug-18-2014 04:39 PM
Less emphasis on bikes and more on automobile flow and efficiency. Cars hugely outnumber
bikes so less stopping and traffic delays would do more for the environment that socially
engineering us to use bikes. They're not practical for busy working/tax-paying citizens.
Submitted at Aug-18-2014 12:16 PM
Southeast rec center should be a rec center, not a "creative center". If you don't include a pool,
you have doomed it to obscurity. The southeast part of town needs safe recreation, bike trails,
and crossings on Harmony for the people that don't drive. There are no safe ways to get to
Preston, Fossil, or Zach for pedestrians or bicyclists.
EPIC and Mulberry pills are overcrowded and have both been recently updated... It is time for a
pool and rec center on the south end of town!
Submitted at Aug-18-2014 10:28 AM
Many worthwhile projects,with limited funding. It's very difficult to choose some over others,
especially with regard to infrastructure/road projects.
Submitted at Aug-18-2014 09:36 AM
Let's hope the improvements keep coming--they make it easy to be proud to live in Fort Collins.
Submitted at Aug-18-2014 09:32 AM
I believe the grade separated crossing at Vine and Lemay is needed in order to allow
development in the northern part of the City.
Submitted at Aug-18-2014 09:19 AM
I am terribly disappointed to not see an new swimming facility included in this list. Fort Collins is
in desperate, DESPERATE need of more year-round pool time/space. Fort Collins/Loveland
was just names one of the top "swimming communities" in the entire nation (thanks much in part
to Loveland), but there is never enough space for the local swimming teams, as well as the
general public. As much pride as the city takes in being a "recreator's mecca", city leadership
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment1.3: Website Project Rankings and Comments (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
16
should be ashamed at how far behind it lacks in pool facilities for it's residents, particularly
compared to it's neighbor to the south, and the rest of Colorado.
Submitted at Aug-18-2014 08:36 AM
It looks like a great list to pick from.
Submitted at Aug-18-2014 08:08 AM
What happened to SE Pool/Rec Center project? That seems MUCH more useful than some
generic "cultural center". Also, for a city this large, it's sad that our only public outdoor pool
offers no lap swimming or diving boards. Recently spent a great day at Sunset Pool in
Longmont and was reminded how lacking the pool situation in Fort Collins is.
-Eric
Submitted at Aug-18-2014 06:02 AM
Choosing projects with zero budget constraints is pointless... Redesign this survey with a "salary
cap" feature so hard choices must be made, if you want realistic results... or keep the if we won
the lottery & had all the money in the world mentality ... lol government spending
Submitted at Aug-18-2014 02:29 AM
The southeast rec center idea has turned from a rec center to a creative center. Why? That's
not what we voted on at the visioning session. We want a pool! A big one! We want this to be for
families. This part of town is full of families. That's what we need.
Submitted at Aug-17-2014 09:47 PM
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment1.3: Website Project Rankings and Comments (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
1
Community Issue Forum
Keypads and Discussion
Keypad results
What part of the City do you live in? (by quadrant)
Responses
Percent Count
East of College Ave and North of Drake 18.75% 3
East of College Ave and South of Drake 37.50% 6
West of College Ave and North of Drake 25.00% 4
West of College Ave and South of Drake 18.75% 3
16
What decade were you born?
Responses
Percent Count
After 1990 38.89% 7
1980s 11.11% 2
1970s 11.11% 2
1960s 5.56% 1
1950s 11.11% 2
1940s 11.11% 2
1930s 5.56% 1
1920s 0.00% 0
1910s 0.00% 0
1900s 0.00% 0
18
Which three projects do you support the most?
Responses
Percent Count
ENV 1 – Climate action projects 22.45% 11
CNL1 – Housing for chronically homeless 20.41% 10
CNL2 – Safe routes to everywhere 14.29% 7
T13 - Bridge maintenance and replacement 12.24% 6
CR 5 – Trail enhancements 8.16% 4
ENV 2 – Composting and recycling facility 6.12% 3
HPG 1- Parking garage and retail space 6.12% 3
ECH 1 – Downtown restroom 4.08% 2
SC5 – Campus west policing station 4.08% 2
T1 – Vine and Lemay 2.04% 1
49
Existing Vine Drive and Lemay Avenue is congested and constrained by the Burlington Northern and
Santa Fe Railroad. Trains block the intersection and create extended gridlock in the area. This
location is a top location for congestion and safety complaints. Existing neighborhoods in this area
are becoming increasingly impacted by the congestion on Lemay. Responses
Percent Count
This project should stay in BOB 2.0 11.76% 2
Consider a separate tax initiative for this project alone 35.29% 6
Consider a separate tax initiative for this project and 2-3 52.94% 9
ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment1.5: Community Issue Forum Comments (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
2
additional traffic projects. 17
Since 1989, voters have supported street maintenance through a 1/4 –cent tax. The current tax will
expire Dec. 31, 2015. Voters will have the opportunity to renew this tax in April 2015. Should the
term of the tax be: Responses
Percent Count
10 years 47.06% 8
15 years 35.29% 6
20 years 17.65% 3
17
Community Issue Forum-Small Table Discussion
Table Notes from all Tables
Tables chose which proposals they discussed, so some proposals were not discussed and some were
discussed by multiple tables.
CR1 Southeast Community Creative Center
Encourages youth in FoCo. They are our future, and we need to show them the importance of art,
physical health, etc.
CR2 Water Sustainability Improvements for Parks and Golf
Doesn’t cost too much, makes a big impact and is easy to add.
CR 5 Recreational Trail Enhancements
The trails should be a mixture of concrete and runner safe material to provide a safe environment
for runners and bikers
Potential project benefits:
- May encourage transportation alternatives to cars
- Encourages a healthy community
- New trails should be biker and runner friendly
- The wider trails will be safer for bikers and runners
Potential project drawbacks:
- May be bigger projects that should be focused on
Widening of bike path would be beneficial, some accidents/collisions have nearly occurred.
CR 6 EPIC Pool Improvements
Current EPIC Pool is rundown, the showers need repairs, and there is currently insufficient funds to
take care of it
The pool is run down and dirty
Potential project benefits:
- Improves quality and experiences for children
- Is one of the few pools in Fort Collins with lap lanes, needs to be in good shape
- Encourages a healthy community
Potential project drawbacks:
- We have the Keep Fort Collins Great tax to fix problems like this; the money from BOB should
be used for bigger projects
(Lifeguard, works at EPIC). Many different people go to EPIC, but there are lots of problems with
the pool itself. The pumps aren’t working well—had to close the pool for a couple of days
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment1.5: Community Issue Forum Comments (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
3
because of this. It’s a loss of revenue for the city when the pool isn’t open. Gets very busy when
there are swim meets.
(Takes grandkids there) There are some HVAC problems that need to be addressed; people
could get sick.
This isn’t a new project.
ECH 1 Downtown Restroom
Support:
- Just think it's necessary. Downtown is one of the greatest parts of Fort Collins, but are lacking
some these basic, fundamental and functional things (also parking situation).
- Low cost, so could be a good filler project...however, yes it does fall more under the category of
DDA responsibilities.
Concern:
- This could be a DDA project- they are already talking about it so why should it be funded by us.
Rest of downtown is nice; family area, lots of pedestrians, nice impression, high-traffic area;
restroom would be good for entire downtown image
Not many accessible restrooms: inconveniences families with small children, creates strife between
shop/restaurant owners and citizens
No new restroom/current restroom is public health issue
Who would be in charge of upkeep?
-Whoever is has failed in upkeep up current restroom
How is O&M $0? Is it pulled from general fund and not BOB?
Proposed area is "slum" of downtown; Montezuma Fuller alley is nice but leads to "slum"
Oak Street (location of current restroom) is high-traffic: live music, families
Puts pressure on restaurants/stores
Facilitator: Reasons not to fund?
- Priorities - people should be higher up
- Experience of people matters, not pretty city
- CNL1 more important
- Why not paid for by general fund? Why from BOB?
- Only 350k
- Could use BOB funding elsewhere
- Consensus: great question
ECH 5 East Mulberry Corridor planning, prelim design, and ROW purchase
Three people noted: this is an important issue that the city definitely needs to look at
Potential project benefits:
-May draw traffic away from busier streets (Harmony and College)
-May develop the North side of town
-Because it is in city limits, the construction would have to meet our requirements/standards
Potential project drawbacks:
-Is $300,000 enough money to actually improve anything?
-It is at the edge of the city growth area
-There should be a separate budget for this
ECH 7 Willow Street Improvements – College Avenue to Linden Street Design and Construction
Willow is nice around United Way, but suddenly becomes "depressing"
Not accessible area, limited space, "black hole"
Connect to Poudre River corridor?
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment1.5: Community Issue Forum Comments (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
4
Ranch Feeds (?) is oldest business in FC - would be nice to integrate
North FC needs renovation; "slum"
Current lighting, sandstones signs are nice; came from BOB?
What do these "improvements" entail exactly?
Bob Blue theatre - would be awesome to make it accessible to downtown
Would help culture, recreation
ECH 11 Community Marketplace
Place for farmers market, would be nice to have indoor market when weather is bad, good
community building, help preserve identity of Fort Collins
Concerns:
- Have heard from people that live close to current marketplace have gotten negative feedback
from other shop owners
- Would rather see the DDA pick up this project when their funding increases- get funding form
tax payers in their area.
- Agree, this project would be better funded by DDA
(Goes to farmer’s market a lot). It’s growing, popular and it would be nice to have a place to go
all year round.
Would be nice, but it should be funded by commercial activity: vendors, developers, etc., not the
city.
Not all farmers’ markets are self-sustaining, all need some public/city support. Creating a space
for them would give money back to the farmers.
If farmers’ markets can’t support themselves, then maybe they shouldn’t exist.
They can’t support themselves and family farms are on the decline because people aren’t willing
to pay for the real cost of food.
ENV 1 Climate Action Projects
Support:
- Make Fort Collins stand out in environmental reputation
- Has potential to more than pay for itself
- Would greatly help the local economy to have Fort Collins be recognized as an innovative,
progressive place
- Would keep Fort Collins up to national standards, good reputation and good example to set
- Can't put this off any longer
- Energy efficiency is important for our economy and our status as an "up and coming" city
- Need to focus on this as a community value that represents our citizens
- Keeps us competitive with surrounding communities (Boulder)
Concern:
-This is a farce- without the breweries, Fort Collins would be unpopulated (Knows people who had
recycling businesses that went out of business)
Climate is clearly changing, must react now or we are "dead in water" in 5-10 years when
playing catch-up
But FC can't do it alone
But what FC is doing now isn't enough
Description shortcoming: what does this entail exactly? Meaning is ambiguous
Can't count on alternative energy yet, too much variation (calm days, cloudy days, windy days)
Would standing structures be integrated, or would incentives be offered?
How is this only $4M?
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment1.5: Community Issue Forum Comments (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
5
We are already doing things like recycling, less water consumption
This is working, but it's not enough
Solar isn't viable option for everyone (costly)
Carbon comes from driving
Develop better bus systems to kill 2 birds with 1 stone?
Move toward electric cars? But doesn't work for heavy hauling
City has to set an example
Sustainability is "niche" area in FC
Make options accessible to all
Solar too expensive for all, transport needs fixing
Has to be gradual change
For it, but would like investment to be sustainable, impactful, not just token gesture
Needs to be based in education, behavior changes, creating long-term impact
Are there solar farms in FC?-Yes, on Laporte towards foothills
What amount of energy generated?-Not sure, not very much; not enough. Is pilot program to see
feasibility
We live in windy area, consistent, but not enough
In future, FC may offer incentives for choosing alternative energy
Concern with climate adaptations. They’ve done an excellent job in the community reducing
greenhouse gases in the city, in non-profits and in local businesses. This is a helpful project for
government to take on.
The technology isn’t there yet. (Has solar system on factory building) and it only produces so much
money. The payback on it is 62 years and the panels only last 25 years. It’s going to be 10-15
years before solar panels catch up with what’s needed. It’s not cost effective today. We need to
get away from coal fired plants and move toward natural gas. We need more hydroelectric
power. Would support this project if it were focused on hydroelectric power.
(n response to above) Water challenges; water isn’t a dominate feature of the landscape in
FoCo.
ENV 2 Community Organics Composting and Recycling Facility
It’s wise to mine the wasted. Lots of resources would be brought into play. We’re wasting vital
materials now, and we need to revisit how to do smart composting.
Should be recycling.
HPG 1 Parking Garage & Retail Space
Support:
-If it's downtown, then it's a great idea and much needed
-Many agree that downtown parking structure is needed- would benefit business owners in the
area and bring more traffic into their shops/restaurants if people had somewhere to park
Concerns:
-This should be funded by DDA- not by our taxes.
-Problem isn't funding, it's getting permission and votes from surrounding businesses.
-Already parking garages being built? (Otterbox?)
FoCo is a beautiful city, and this project isn’t a priority, but it would attract more people to the
city and parking downtown is horrible.
Rather than building parking garages, get people to ride bikes.
This is needed, but it’s a commercial project, not a city one. Get someone to build it and then
have people pay for it.
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment1.5: Community Issue Forum Comments (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
6
People are cheap and will find the free spots.
Businesses would like additional parking.
SC 2 Computer Aided Dispatch/Record Management System Upgrades
Support:
-Would improve efficiency in the system- key concern with safety is timing of arrival and response
-This would make the whole city safer- benefit a wide breadth of people
-Out of all SC projects, this one makes the most sense and impact.
Concern:
-Just got a new system only 4-5 years ago- not outdated yet. Would rather see the money go to
SC3.
-Is there a tie in with the data terminals? (participant question)
-Present system is fine as is.
SC 3 Land for Police Maintenance Facility
Support:
- With this project there would be a training area built- this would eliminate the commute and
make our police training more local and safer. Officers wouldn't have to go to West Minster to
train. Having a training facility close by would reduce costs and this way, if we needed them, they
would be close by.
- Also support having a center closer to town; keep in mind Loveland would pitch in for this project
by buying time shares in the project
- Can benefit multiple communities
Concern:
- This isn't a huge priority; lots of people commute...it's not a big deal to commute.
- Expensive and the positives don't make the cost worth it. The current situation is fine.
- Keep Fort Collins Great already donated a lot to police forces
SC 5 Campus West Policing Substation
Support:
- Lives in this area- doesn't feel safe, lots of crime happening around here. Concerned about
elderly neighbors and more vulnerable residents of this area (women and elderly population).
- Police department needs these tools, it is a small price to pay for safety of citizens
- Would also benefit campus and students
Concern:
- Initial cost is low, yes, but the annual maintenance and extra costs to keep this going is very high
- Already 4 designated officers in this area
- This area already has police and security patrolling individual apartment complexes- not
necessary to add more.
Transportation
T1 Vine & Lemay Grade Separated Crossing Design, ROW and Construct
For it, because if buses aren't replaced with age then there will be no buses; we've invested in
MAX but need to maintain what we have; buses don't run on diesel, which is good
Why would we not want this?
Is there alternate transport that's more energy-efficient?
Bus system is underutilized because it doesn't go everywhere, doesn't have useful hours
If we invest in public transportation, we have to talk about how to expand ridership
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment1.5: Community Issue Forum Comments (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
7
High school perspective: has used bus before, took 1.5 hours (driving takes 10 min); wants to
drive instead of spending entire time on bus
Could be made more user-friendly?
Bus doesn't run past 6pm in Ridgeview area
Not efficient for most
T3 South Timberline Road Improvements
(Has to travel Timberline a lot) The stretch from the south end of town to Carpenter Rd. is two
lanes and there’s no room for bikes and no sidewalks. There are a lot of schools in that area and
in the morning traffic is heavily congested.
(Doesn’t travel Timberline). Doesn’t know enough about this project to support it.
T11 Transfort Bus Fleet Replacement (Continued from BOB)
Group agreed that busses should work on running schedules for holidays, Sundays, and late nights
Potential project benefits:
-natural gas driven
-less pollution
Potential project drawbacks:
-Do not like the idea of adding more busses and shuttles like the new Max busses
T12 Arterial Intersection Improvements Fund (Continued from BOB)
There’re a lot of dangerous intersections in FoCo. Some places would flow easier if there were
just right hand turn lanes. This isn’t super expensive, and it would be fast improvements. If there
were a right hand turn lane Riverside and Lemay you wouldn’t have to wait for someone to turn.
Cars also pollute when they are idling while waiting.
Outside Mulberry Pool is very bad, people have gotten hit.
Q: what has been done about this in the last 10 years? (wants clarification on this)
T13 Bridge Maintenance and Replacement
Support:
- Infrastructure/good transportation is fundamental
- Would create new jobs
- Our bridges are not up to par nationally
- Could encourage other communities to follow our lead
Concern:
- Price tag very high- 25% of total budget
- This should be part of the transportation fund
- These projects are not lasting as long as they should be- don't want to spend this much every 10
years
Big consensus on liking this option
Don't want bridges to collapse, concrete is missing, rebar is showing, need to keep roads safe
Includes pedestrian/bike access
Group likes this
Mulberry/Lemay bridge has dedicated pedestrian/bike sections
Dangerous without these sections
We haven’t kept up with this. There are over 200 bridges in FoCo, and it will be bad if they’re
not properly maintained in an appropriate timeline. Therefore this should be the city’s number one
priority.
Have heard about this all across city.
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment1.5: Community Issue Forum Comments (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
8
Everyone uses bridges.
CNL1 Housing for Chronically Homeless(Homeward 2020)
Support:
- One of the few projects that would pay for itself (medical costs, jail costs, etc.), the investment is
made back up. -Others agree that this is a priority
- Some people intentionally commit crimes just to go to jail and have a place to stay for the night-
would reduce the need for this
- Good idea as long as there are counseling services to that they can get jobs and get back on
their feet and give back to the community
Concerns:
- Building this housing will only encourage homeless people to come here from Denver- "keep
them in Denver"
*Most popular in group*
There's lots of people in need in FC, if we want to be world-class then we need to address all
socioeconomic classes; "talk the talk and walk the walk"
This option addresses concerns in relatively inexpensive, sustainable way
Economically, plan may pay for itself over long term
Denver did similar idea, pays $13K (per person?), saves $15K (per person?) per year in medical
costs, criminal justice costs, shelter costs.
No longer paying for issues if they have home; breaks cycle
Gives tools, resources for jobs, treatment for mental health issues, support and infrastructure
Program in Salt Lake City that's been proven to work
Perspective of citizens with HW2020: can pull many donations to offest costs, SLC program has
done great job, and FC is not doing justice to community with homeless
SLC program is inexpensive (?)
CNL1 has example in SLC program
Is investment that works
Can't save planet with climate projects, but CAN help homeless here
Where would housing be? What kind of housing?
Women's shelter has been constructed near Trillby (?)
Not desirable for families to be near
Dangerous to have housing near residential area?
Perspective of citizen raised in housing projects: understands stigmatization; incorporating housing
into neighborhoods is good, homeless aren't so obvious then. "Not my backyard" is everywhere,
belief that property values go down, undesirable feeling is common. Dangers exist, but dangers
exist everywhere in life.
We have example of this working: Red Tail Ponds
Would need to be near public transportation
RTP has lots of criteria: proximity to transportation, population they're serving, cost
There is perception that dangers exist
Many homeless have criminal background for menial things ("liability crimes"): sleeping outside,
public urination, etc
Can be proactive/preventative with dedicated housing staff
Ability to stabilize, help homeless to be healthy
Housing has stabilizing effect
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment1.5: Community Issue Forum Comments (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
9
Personal story: citizens knows someone who was sick, homeless veteran; now in housing with
voucher, in school. This man is not exception to rule, but IS rule
Tension: is there enough subsidized housing in Fort Collins already?
If this happens, it needs to be all inclusive
Potential project benefits:
- Allows homeless people to get on their feet again (repeated 3 times)
- Helps veterans
Potential project drawbacks:
- Where would we put the houses? Neighbors may not be happy about having them in their
neighborhood
- Is there any place left in the city to build extra housing?
(Story told about offering a homeless man a job with great starting pay and he turned it down;
therefore it is believed that extra housing isn't deserved)
Growing need in Fort Collins; solution that works; many invested in it
More projects on the list should be done by non-government entities. Government should do other
things such as streets. In the past, if a person had a problem, then family/neighbors/church/non-
profits would help; now people have gotten used to going straight to the government for help
and it’s too easy to bypass other social steps for aid. This money should go to infrastructure
improvements.
This money will leverage other money funders want to see local support and bring money into our
community.
Concern for people on the streets, research shows what works. We’ve backed away from the
sense that government also helps with the public good; some things need a little help/leverage.
The soup kitchen has an impact. Some of these things are out of people’s control and $5 million
doesn’t seem like a whole lot to put towards this issue.
CNL2 Safe Routes to Everywhere (Sidewalks, Transit, Bikes) (Continued from BOB)
Need to have safe transit
Should make Transfort better
Chicago transport is great, runs every 15-20min
Like MAX?
City needs more buses, we don't have enough
Need safe sidewalks, well-lit, wide, safe crossings; if people just follow rules/have common
courtesy, system works
With redesign, create safe ways to cross major streets without risking life
Multiple group members choose to drive to avoid walking on College, no safe way to cross
Believe that this should be in the city budget instead of BOB tax
In order to make them safe, group believed the routes need to be monitored
Potential project benefits:
- May increase bus availability
- Provides safe routes for children to get to school
- Underpass trails provide safety from traffic
- Improves friendliness of Fort Collins
- Encourages healthy lifestyles
- Provides alternatives to cars
- Reduces pollution/global warming
- Allows us to get places easier (especially in bad weather)
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment1.5: Community Issue Forum Comments (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
10
Potential project drawbacks:
- Would all ADA curbs be beneficial?
- Would they routes be wheel chair accessible?
CNL5 Sustainable Child Care Center
Group believed the safe routes to everywhere (CNL2) will also benefit this project
Potential project benefits:
- Keeps more people in the city with more child care options
- Two people said flexible hours will aid families who work irregular hours
- May add in bus routes
Potential project drawbacks:
- Workers in these centers do not make enough money as it is
Why would the city being paying for daycare? This is a private activity, not for government
involvement.
Notes on this question “Overall, would you tend to support a few number of high cost projects, or a
higher number of lower cost projects?”
• Shouldn't necessarily be one or the other- having a good mix is most important. More important to
focus on the criteria (from question number 3) than on the number of projects.
• Encouraging that we are only at 68% with 10 projects, and some of them are even very costly
yet we still have room for more.
• Table consensus that having a mix is most important
Notes on criteria question: “When city council has to make tough decisions between projects, what
do you think the most important criteria should be?”
• The amount of population that benefits from it
• Equal access to all citizens
• Helping the underprivileged/those who need extra help
• "Most bang for buck"
• Multiplier effect- things that make back up the money we spend on them or will continue to grow
and benefit community
• Citizen (particularly elderly) safety
• Urgency (how badly do we need it?)
• Whether or not there is someone else who should be funding it (DDA for example)
• How far we can make money stretch, which has largest impact, which will raise city profile; reach
is HUGE for all projects
• Safe Route - will help a lot of people
• Projects need to be TANGIBLE
• Discovery Museum was great because citizens can see taxes at work
• Budgets are often obscured, can be hard to interpret, can create suspicion; need tangibility in
projects
• Greatest impact matters most
• Climate action is important because it affects people in the future
• Affects large amount of people in less personal way; CNL1 helps fewer people but in more direct
way
• Deeper vs. broader; need to balance
• How is funding leveraged?
• What is government contributing? Investments are better with outside funding, not just tax money
• Important to have multiple funding venues
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment1.5: Community Issue Forum Comments (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
11
• Senior Center came from BOB tax AND other fundraising
• Bricks, chairs, events
• Foundation grants
• Group wants to see match from outside funding
• Group can tell that FC is strategic about funding
• Costs should not be a priority; the needs of the city should be
• Projects have to be sellable in order to get people to agree with them and vote for them-(three
agreements) Everyone in the city should be included or have a way to benefit from what is being
constructed; all-encompassing
• the projects have to have a personality in order to sell to the public
projects need to be relevant to current city needs
• Cost
• Number of people impacted
• Value for money
• More lower ticket items than one large expensive project
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment1.5: Community Issue Forum Comments (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
1
Renewal of ¼-Cent Community
Capital Improvement Program
and ¼ Cent Street Maintenance Tax
City Council Work Session
September 30, 2014
ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment1.6: Powerpoint presentation (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
2
Direction Sought
§ Does Council support seeking a 10-year renewal of
the Street Maintenance Program?
§ Should the Vine and Lemay Avenue project remain on
the potential BOB 2.0 project list? Or, should the
project be removed and considered under a separate
tax measure?
§ If a separate tax initiative for Vine and Lemay is
considered, should other projects be included? What
would be the desired timeframe?
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment1.6: Powerpoint presentation (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
3
Background
§ The Street Maintenance program (SMP) and the
Building on Basics (BOB) capital expansion taxes
expire December 31, 2015.
§ Both are a ¼ cent sales tax, and both have been
in existence for many years.
§ These renewals will be considered in April 2015.
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment1.6: Powerpoint presentation (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
4
Work to Date-SMP
§ Education and Presentation materials
§ Feedback on term of the tax
• 10 years?
• 15 years?
• 20 years?
§ Majority of outreach shows support for 10 or 20
years
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment1.6: Powerpoint presentation (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
5
Work to Date - BOB 2.0
§ Developed project list from approved Master
Plans and Strategic Objectives.
§ Utilized Budget Teams to rate projects against
Strategic Outcomes.
§ Narrowed original list ($400M) to current list
($290M)
§ Public Outreach…What are the priorities?
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment1.6: Powerpoint presentation (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
6
Public Engagement
§ Interactive Website
§ Board and Commission “Super” Meeting
§ CityWork Alumni Forum
§ Community Issue Forum-Open House
§ Community Issue Forum-Small Group Process
§ Sustainable Living Fair-Open House
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment1.6: Powerpoint presentation (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
7
Pubic Engagement – High Priorities
• Safe Routes to Everywhere (Sidewalks, Transit, Bikes)
• Downtown Restroom
• Community Marketplace
• Housing for Chronically Homeless(Homeward 2020)
• Community Organics Composting and Recycling Facility
• Bike/Ped Grade Separated Crossings Fund
• Climate Action Projects
• Recreational Trail Enhancements
• Sustainable Child Care Center
• Implementing Nature in the City
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment1.6: Powerpoint presentation (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
8
Public Engagement
Existing Vine Drive and Lemay Avenue is congested and constrained by the
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad. Trains block the intersection and
create extended gridlock in the area. This location is a top location for
congestion and safety complaints. Existing neighborhoods in this area are
becoming increasingly impacted by the congestion on Lemay.
Keep this project in BOB 2.0. Total: 24
Consider a separate tax initiative for this project alone. Total: 21
Consider a separate tax initiative for this project and 2-3 additional traffic
projects. Total: 13
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment1.6: Powerpoint presentation (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
9
Timeline
2014
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan
Feb Mar Apr
Election
4/7/2015
Ballots Mailed
3/20/2015
Legal Deadline
to Adopt Ballot
Language
2/3/2015
Council
Meeting: Refer
Ballot
Language
1/6/2015
Council Work
Session
12/9/2014
Council
Off-Site
Session
10/11/2014
Council Work
Session
7/22/2014
Council Work
Session
9/30/2014
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment1.6: Powerpoint presentation (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
10
BOB 2.0-Milestones
§ July 22: Narrow Project List ($400M to ~$250M)a
§ July-September: Public Engagement a
§ September Work Session: Update a
§ October Off-Site Session: Narrow to $80-$100M
§ December Work Session: Finalize Package
§ January Regular Meeting: Refer Ballot
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment1.6: Powerpoint presentation (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
11
Direction Sought
§ Does Council support seeking a 10-year renewal of
the Street Maintenance Program?
§ Should the Vine and Lemay Avenue project remain on
the potential BOB 2.0 project list? Or, should the
project be removed and considered under a separate
tax measure?
§ If a separate tax initiative is considered, should other
projects be included? What would be the desired
timeframe?
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment1.6: Powerpoint presentation (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
DATE:
STAFF:
September 30, 2014
Donnie Dustin, Water Resources Manager
Lance Smith, Strategic Financial Planning Manager
Carol Webb, Regulation & Govt Affairs Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Commercial Water Allotments.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to seek direction from City Council for potential changes to commercial water
allotments. A water allotment is a maximum amount of water that can be used annually without a surcharge rate
being applied. Revenues from the surcharge are used to acquire or develop additional water supplies, but the
surcharge can be avoided by providing additional water rights or cash. All commercial customers who have filed a
water service permit since 1984 have an annual water allotment, but this only applies to one-third of the
approximately 2,600 current commercial customers. Therefore, there is an unintended economic inequity between
customers with and without commercial water allotments since those with an allotment pay more for water use
over the City’s standard allotment. Staff is recommending this inequity be addressed by establishing an annual
allotment for all commercial customers for the 2015 calendar year.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Would City Council like to address the inequity between commercial customers with and without annual water
allotments?
2. Is this item ready for formal consideration?
3. If so, which of the options presented would City Council prefer?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 1984, City Code changes were made to establish annual water allotments for new commercial customers. The
allotments were established, in part, to assist in planning for adequate water supplies. If customers were using
over their allotment, then additional water supplies needed to be acquired. Section 26-149(d) of the Fort Collins
Municipal Code and Charter reads:
Upon application for a water service permit after March 1, 1984, each applicant who is a nonresidential
user shall be assigned an annual allotment of water equal to the greater of the RWR as determined
pursuant to this Section and any RWR that was satisfied at the time of application for nonresidential water
service. Further, in the event that, pursuant to Subsection (f) below, a nonresidential user submits more
raw water than required under the provisions of this Subsection, then the annual allotment shall be
determined pursuant to said Subsection (f). When a user uses more water than the annual allotment, as
determined by monthly billing records in a given calendar year, a raw water surcharge in the amount
prescribed in § 26-129 will be assessed on the volume of water used in excess of the annual allotment.
The following table (City Code section 26-129(c)(3)) shows the annual water allotments based on meter size:
Packet Pg. 54
September 30, 2014 Page 2
Table 1: Standard Commercial Water Allotments
Meter Size (inches) Annual Allotment (gallons/year)
¾ 293,270
1 977,550
1½ 1,955,110
2 3,128,170
3 4,692,250
Above 3 325,851 gallons per acre foot RWR
For commercial customers who have and exceed their annual water allotment, a substantial surcharge - currently
$3.06 per thousand gallons (City Code section 26-129(c)(2)) - is applied to all water consumption for the
remainder of the calendar year. In order to avoid this surcharge, the annual allotment can be increased by
providing the City with additional water rights or cash-in-lieu of water rights before the end of the calendar year.
The distinction between those commercial customers who are subject to the annual allotment and those who are
not is based on when the last water service permit with the City was applied for at the commercial premise. If the
application was received after March 1, 1984, then the premise is subject to an annual water allotment. The City
Code does not distinguish between businesses being in operation at the same premise prior to March 1, 1984
and new businesses that occupy commercial premises which were built before March 1, 1984 even if the
business was established or relocated to the premise after that date. A commercial space can be completely
remodeled without requiring a water service permit if there is no need to increase the size of the water tap
servicing the premise. The result is that an economic inequity exists for newer commercial premises (those built
or significantly remodeled after March 1, 1984) over other businesses that occupy premises that have not applied
for a water service permit after March 1, 1984. Currently, only one-third of the approximately 2,600 commercial
customers have an annual water allotment since they have filed a water service permit since 1984. That is not to
say that two-thirds of our customers have been in business since before 1984, but rather only that two-thirds of
the commercial customers have not significantly modified their water system so as to need to file for a water
service permit.
An analysis of water use by commercial customers over the last 5 years (2009-2013) was performed to provide
some context to the issue of water use over the standard commercial allotments. The following tables provide a
summary of the analysis:
Table 2: Number and Percent of Commercial Customers Using Over the Standard Allotments
Total
Commercial with an without an with an without an
Year Customers Allotment Allotment Total Allotment Allotment Total
2009 2,559 193 154 347 8% 6% 14%
2010 2,577 235 193 428 9% 7% 17%
2011 2,597 239 218 457 9% 8% 18%
2012 2,612 285 253 538 11% 10% 21%
2013 2,634 195 184 379 7% 7% 14%
AVG 2,596 229 200 430 9% 8% 17%
# of Customers using over
the Standard Allotments
% of Customers using over
the Standard Allotments
Packet Pg. 55
September 30, 2014 Page 3
Table 3: Commercial Customers Use Over the Standard Allotments
% of Use over
the Standard
Total City Commercial with an without an with an without an Allotment to
Year Water Use Total Use Allotment Allotment Total Allotment Allotment Total Total City Use
2009 7,391 1,860 90 100 190 5% 5% 10% 3%
2010 7,830 2,020 130 130 260 6% 6% 13% 3%
2011 7,621 2,050 120 130 250 6% 6% 12% 3%
2012 8,757 2,310 170 180 350 7% 8% 15% 4%
2013 7,560 1,860 80 90 170 4% 5% 9% 2%
AVG 7,832 2,020 118 126 244 6% 6% 12% 3%
All values in million gallons. Commercial use values exclude large contractual use.
the Standard Allotment
Customersover Use over % of Customers Use
the Standard Allotment
Table 4: Commercial Customer Surcharge Revenues and Average Costs
with an without an with an without an
Year Allotment Allotment Total Allotment Allotment Total
2009 $ 275,000 $ 306,000 $ 581,000 $ 1,425 $ 1,987 $ 1,674
2010 $ 398,000 $ 398,000 $ 796,000 $ 1,694 $ 2,062 $ 1,860
2011 $ 367,000 $ 398,000 $ 765,000 $ 1,536 $ 1,826 $ 1,674
2012 $ 520,000 $ 551,000 $ 1,071,000 $ 1,825 $ 2,178 $ 1,991
2013 $ 245,000 $ 276,000 $ 520,000 $ 1,256 $ 1,500 $ 1,372
AVG $ 361,000 $ 385,800 $ 746,600 $ 1,547 $ 1,911 $ 1,714
Actual and Potential Average Cost to Customers
Surcharge Revenues for Surcharges
Revenues generated from the surcharge for water used in excess of the applicable annual allotment are added to
the Utilities Water Rights Reserve so that a sufficient water supply can be established for all customers (more
specifically, those using over their allotment). Over the past 30 years the commercial customer base has
changed significantly. The need to assess the total demand for water throughout the community has increased
as our community has grown. And, the environmental concerns around water consumption have become a much
bigger issue for all communities. While the original intent of the grandfathering clause was to not impose
additional charges on existing commercial customers at the time of its adoption in 1984, it is necessary to
establish an annual allotment for all commercial customers to better facilitate resource planning, to encourage
conservation by all commercial customers and, most importantly, to establish economic equity for businesses
located throughout the community.
Utilities staff has considered several options for addressing the commercial water allotment inequity issue. These
options have been discussed internally, as well as with the Water Board. The following is the narrowed list of
three options:
Option 1: Apply standard allotments
All commercial customers without an allotment would be given the standard allotments listed in Table 1 above
based on their meter size. For those customers that currently do not have an allotment, but use over the standard
allotment for their meter size, this option would increase their total annual water costs. Based on the 2009-2013
data, this option would increase those customer’s average annual water bills by about $1,900 per year and
generate an annual average of $385,000 in revenues to the Water Rights Reserve if those customers continue
the same amount of average water use. Although this option would likely be the easiest to implement and
administer, it would increase water bills for some without an increase to their water use. Significant outreach
would be required for this option, particularly to customers that use over the standard allotments. In discussions
with the Water Board, this option was favored and it was suggested that the surcharge rate be phased in over
three years to ease the transition for businesses.
Packet Pg. 56
September 30, 2014 Page 4
Option 2: Apply customer specific allotments
All commercial customers without an allotment would be given an allotment that is 110 percent of their highest
annual use from 2009-2013, with no less than the standard allotments listed in Table 1 above. This option would
likely not increase costs for commercial customers in the first year of having an allotment for those customers that
do not currently have an allotment or generate additional revenues to the Water Rights Reserve. The additional
10 percent over the customer’s highest annual use is intended to allow some modest growth without increased
costs. A variation for this option would be to adjust the percentage over the highest annual use (from 110 to
something else). Staff has also considered only applying 100 percent of the highest annual use. This option would
provide allotments to all commercial customers, but since it sets some larger allotments than the standard
allotments it does not fully address the economic inequity. Although this option would likely be preferable to
existing customers without allotments, it would be more difficult to implement and administer than the other
options. Outreach to customers would be more customer specific than Option 1.
Option 3: Apply standard allotments when customers change
All commercial customers without an allotment would be given the standard allotments listed in Table 1 above
based on their meter size, but only when the customer at that location changes. This option would require no
outreach, since existing customers would see no change from current operations and costs. However, the
economic inequity among customers would remain for many years (or possibly always). This option would likely
be the hardest to implement, since changes would be implemented over a long period.
The following table summarizes the impacts, pros and cons and other considerations for the three options:
Table 5: Commercial Water Allotments - Change Options and Considerations
Option
Brief
Description
Average
Annual Cost
Increase
Pros Cons Customer Outreach
1
Apply Standard
Allotments
~$1,900
Provides allotment to all
commercial customers now;
easiest to administer
Will increase water bills for
some significantly without
increased demand
General outreach to all
customers with specific
outreach to those customers
expected to exceed the
standard allotments
2
Apply Customer
Specific
Allotments (110%
of 5-year peak
annual use)
$0
Provides allotment to all
commercial customers now;
establishes an allotment without
increasing costs immediately to
businesses
Sets varying allotments, which
does not fully address economic
inequity; more difficult to
administer
General outreach to all
September 30, 2014 Page 5
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
In order to avoid an immediate cost increase to commercial customers who have not been subjected to the
annual water allotment, staff is recommending Option 2 - applying customer specific allotments. Staff requests
that commercial water allotment changes be made before the end of 2014 so they can be applied starting January
1, 2015.
WATER BOARD INPUT
Utilities staff met with the Water Board on June 19, 2014 to discuss commercial water allotments and potential
options for making changes (Attachment 1). The Water Board discussed the issue at length and provided some
suggestions that staff considered in the options presented in this work session. Although no action was taken by
Water Board on this agenda item, the general consensus was that Option 1 (apply standard allotments) would be
most fair for addressing economic inequity among commercial customers and that this option could be phased in
over time by increasing the surcharge rate by 33 percent each year for 3 years. A motion from Water Board will
be requested prior to City Council consideration of an Ordinance on this issue.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Water Board minutes, June 19, 2014 (PDF)
2. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
Packet Pg. 58
Excerpt from Approved Water Board Minutes June 19, 2014 Meeting
Commercial Water Allotments
(Attachments available upon request.)
Strategic Financial Planning Manager Lance Smith distributed the Agenda Item Summary, which
explains the Excess Water Use Surcharge (known as the “conservation rate” by some people)
and several proposed options to address the customer inequity beginning in the 2015 calendar
year. One-third of all commercial water customers are subjected to an annual allotment of water
and two-thirds are not. The intent is to make the City Council aware of the current situation and
propose some options forward if City Council decides to address the inequity.
Commercial customers with an allotment who exceed their annual allotment, pay a surcharge of
$3.06 per thousand gallons, which is applied to all water consumption for the remainder of the
calendar year. It effectively more than doubles their charges for water, as an incentive to
conserve water or provide additional raw water to meet their demand. The surcharge was added
to the City Code in 1984, and those who didn’t require a water service permit after March 1,
1984 were grandfathered in.
In 2012, during the fires and drought, the inequity came to Mr. Smith’s attention and he
reviewed three years’ worth of data. Commercial customer totaled 2,641 in 2013. Of those, 35%
have an allotment and 65% of customers do not. In 2013 total commercial demand was 1.8
billion gallons of water of which 80 MG was subject to the Excess Water Use Surcharge. If the
standard allotment were applied to customers who don’t currently have it, an additional 90
million gallons would have been subjected to the surcharge.
The 80 million gallons in excess (for customers with allotment) generated $245,000 in surcharge
fees, which went into water reserve fund. Another 90 million gallons were in excess for
customers without the allotment. This means the City collected half the money it could have, but
the issue is inequity rather than revenue. In 2013 commercial customers who paid the surcharge
paid about $1,300 in surcharges.
Options to present to Council:
(1) Apply Standard Allotment to All Customers, which is the easiest administrative solution, but
the least palatable, and would require significant outreach to customers.
(2) 110% of Customer’s 3-Year Peak Demand (2011-13), which is more difficult to administer.
It applies a customer-specific allotment based on the last three years: choose the highest year,
add 10% for growth, by doing that, there would be no cost to the customer in 2015, unless their
growth is more than 10%.
(3) The Greater of Option 1 and 2: take the greater of the standard allotment, which would not
reduce allotment, and ensures all commercial customers have an allotment as least as large as the
standard allotment.
(4) Phase In Standard Allotment: As new businesses come in, they would be given the standard
allotment, but this does not eliminate the inequity.
(5) Remove Annual Allotment for All Commercial Customers: elimination of the allotment
would also eliminates the opportunity for conservation, which was the original intent.
(6) Maintain Status Quo, which doesn’t address the inequity.
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment2.1: Water Board minutes, June 19, 2014 (2377 : Commercial Water Allotments)
Mr. Smith stated that he believes three of the options are viable, and staff recommendation is for
Option 3, because it won’t cost commercial customers money in 2015 and allows the City to
establish an allotment for all commercial customers.
He stated he is taking this item to Council in the August 26 Work Session, then the Council
would take action later in the year. Any allotment changes must be implemented on Jan. 1, 2015
because the allotment is given annually. No action is required of the board now, but Mr. Smith
can include any board comments on the AIS.
A board member inquired about the number of customers without an allotment who
would have exceeded it if it were applied. Mr. Smith clarified that 195 commercial
customers with allotments in 2013 paid the excess surcharge, and 168 plus 16
commercial customers without an allotment were in excess. Mr. Smith stated that
typically if they exceed, they exceed it by a lot. It’s an annual allotment. If at any time
before December 31 a customer has additional water rights, their allotment is increased
for the year. Customers on the cusp, such as breweries with 10% to 30% growth per year,
may choose to wait until October to see if they need additional water rights.
A board member inquired whether it’s possible to simply eliminate the allotment and
modify the tiered rates as necessary, which would achieve an equitable result.
A board member inquired about residential lawn water requirements, and also how do
you compare the water use of a brewery with that of a car wash? Mr. Smith stated a tiered
rate would make more sense than a flat rate.
A board member inquired what happens to new customers under Option 3. Mr. Smith
stated they are given a standard allotment, and can choose to provide additional water
rights.
A board member inquired about whether data exists that backs up the excess surcharge
was first promoted to encourage conservation. In 2013, those with an allotment exceeded
their allotments, therefore the excess surcharge alone is not driving conservation. Mr.
Smith stated there were other reasons for implementing the excess surcharge other than
conservation, including determining the capacity of the water treatment plant.
A board member commented that Option 3 continues the inequity and Option 1 would
eliminate it.
A board member recommended Option 1, and asked about the possibility of phasing in
the surcharge in 2016 or 2017, which would create equality and still bring in revenue.
The idea is to start with a smaller surcharge and phase it in over three years.
A board member stated it would be easy to explain a new structure to customers if it’s
fair, such as Option 1.
A board member discussed the cost of service to make it equitable, versus having
customers pay for a chunk of the water treatment plant they’re not using, and also
questioned the consequences of commercial customers exceeding their allotment.
Mr. Dustin stated the issue is about business equity, trying to fix the inequity, not about
trying to increase revenue.
Mr. Smith indicated his concern about Halligan Reservoir and paying for storage, paying
for more raw water and not having any storage, or developing storage and exercising all
the raw water rights we have today. He stated the plan was always to have cash-in-lieu-of
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment2.1: Water Board minutes, June 19, 2014 (2377 : Commercial Water Allotments)
water rights. These customers are using more water rights than they’ve paid for, and this
is a way to receive payment for it.
A board member summarized businesses as belonging to one of two categories: those that
don’t experience growth (such as restaurants that have dishes to wash), and those that do
(such as breweries), and the City must adjust for that due to concerns about the water
supply. Do you reevaluate allotments every year?
Mr. Smith stated he will add an Option 7 about phasing in a surcharge over three years,
resulting in equity.
A board member inquired if everything was included in the cost of service study, such as
future development of growth industries, and to say why we’re doing it; it’s an
opportunity to start from scratch. Mr. Smith stated it does include raw water costs.
A board member stated that doubling the average get close to equity, and likes the idea of
starting from scratch, because there are some customers who have been getting a free
ride.
A board member suggested deleting Option 2 because it’s not fair to customers.
A board member expressed support for developing allotments from scratch, or
discontinuing the whole program, if equity is the goal.
A board member suggested adjusting the excess surcharge so that customers don’t
receive a 20% increase; new customer would receive a 5% surcharge, for example.
Mr. Smith stated he will present the options to Council at the Aug. 26 Work Session, and
return to a future board meeting. An ordinance or resolution would be required for an
eventual code change.
No motion was made on this agenda item.
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment2.1: Water Board minutes, June 19, 2014 (2377 : Commercial Water Allotments)
1
Commercial Water
Allotments
City Council Work Session
September 30, 2014
ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment2.2: Powerpoint presentation (2377 : Commercial Water Allotments)
2
Purpose
Seek direction for potential
changes to commercial water
allotments
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment2.2: Powerpoint presentation (2377 : Commercial Water Allotments)
3
What is a water allotment?
• Maximum annual use without
increased rate
– Surcharge rate applied for
use over allotment
• $3.06 per 1,000 gallons
• Added to normal rates
– Revenues used to acquire
additional supplies
Annual Water Use
Annual
Allotment
Normal
(non-surcharge)
Rates
Surcharge Rates
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment2.2: Powerpoint presentation (2377 : Commercial Water Allotments)
4
How is a commercial
allotment determined?
• New commercial development provides water
– Raw Water Requirements (RWR)
• Set amount of water required for tap size
– Based on average use for that tap size
– Provides water through 1-in-50 year drought
• Developer provides water rights or cash-in-lieu
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment2.2: Powerpoint presentation (2377 : Commercial Water Allotments)
5
What are the City’s allotments?
Meter Size
(inches)
Minimum RWR
(acre-feet)
Minimum Annual
Allotment
(gallons/year)
0.75 0.9 293,270
1.0 3.0 977,550
1.5 6.0 1,955,110
2.0 9.6 3,128,170
3.0 14.4 4,692,250
4 and above Based on use Based on use
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment2.2: Powerpoint presentation (2377 : Commercial Water Allotments)
6
Do all commercial customers
have allotments?
35%
65%
Yes
No
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment2.2: Powerpoint presentation (2377 : Commercial Water Allotments)
7
Why do most commercial customers
not have allotments?
• 1984 – City Code change
– Excess Water Use Surcharge established
• Proper water supply planning
– Applied to service permits after March 1, 1984
• Existing customers were “grandfathered”
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment2.2: Powerpoint presentation (2377 : Commercial Water Allotments)
8
Can the Surcharge
Rate be Avoided?
• YES: Customer can increase
their water allotment
– Provide additional water
rights/cash (RWR)
• Still provides proper water
supply planning
Annual Water Use
Increase
Allotment
(RWR)
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment2.2: Powerpoint presentation (2377 : Commercial Water Allotments)
9
Why is this an issue?
• MAIN: Business inequity
– Advantage without allotment
• Additional water supplies
– Surcharge revenues only
used for developing supplies
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment2.2: Powerpoint presentation (2377 : Commercial Water Allotments)
10
Business Inequity Example
Business1
(no allotment)
Annual cost
$12,771
Conditions: Water use 20% over 2-inch allotment
(3.75 million gallon per year)
No use
difference, but
cost difference
of $2,853
(22% higher)
Business2
(has allotment)
Annual cost
$15,624
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment2.2: Powerpoint presentation (2377 : Commercial Water Allotments)
11
How many commercial customers
go over the allotment?
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Percent of Customers
Year
Percent of Commercial Customers Using Over
the Standard Allotments (~2,600 customers)
With Allotment
No Allotment
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment2.2: Powerpoint presentation (2377 : Commercial Water Allotments)
12
How much water is used
over the allotments?
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Use (millions of gallons)
Year
Amount of Water Use
Over the Standard Allotments
With Allotment
No Allotment
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment2.2: Powerpoint presentation (2377 : Commercial Water Allotments)
13
What is the average cost
to customers?
$-
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Revenue
Year
Average Customer Cost for Water Use
Over the Standard Allotments
With Allotment
No Allotment
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment2.2: Powerpoint presentation (2377 : Commercial Water Allotments)
14
How much revenue is generated?
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Revenue
Year
Revenue for Water Use
Over the Standard Allotments
With Allotment
No Allotment
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment2.2: Powerpoint presentation (2377 : Commercial Water Allotments)
15
Do others have commercial
allotments?
• YES: Tri-Districts (ELCO, FCLWD, NWCWD)
– Serve many within City limits
• YES: City of Loveland
• NO: City of Greeley
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment2.2: Powerpoint presentation (2377 : Commercial Water Allotments)
16 16
Fort Collins Area
Water Districts Map
Population and Area Served
Current (existing City limits):
Utilities: 80% pop. – 55% area
Others: 20% pop. – 45% area
Future (GMA):
Utilities: 65% pop. – 45% area
Others: 35% pop. – 55% area
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment2.2: Powerpoint presentation (2377 : Commercial Water Allotments)
17
How can this issue be addressed?
• Apply allotments to all commercial customers
• Variations on how to do this
– Looked at several, consolidated to few options
• May increase costs for those with new allotments
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment2.2: Powerpoint presentation (2377 : Commercial Water Allotments)
18
Option 1:
Apply Standard Allotments
• Allotment based on meter size
• Average 2015 cost increase = ~$1,900 (if same use)
• Favored by Water Board (June 2014)
• Suggested phase in over 3 years
PROS CONS
Addresses inequity now Increases bills without
Easy to administer increased water use
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment2.2: Powerpoint presentation (2377 : Commercial Water Allotments)
19
Option 2:
Apply Customer Specific Allotments
• Allotment = 110% of highest annual use (2009-2013)
• No less than standard allotment
• Average 2015 cost increase = $0 (if same use)
• Percent over highest use could be varied (e.g., 100%)
PROS CONS
Addresses inequity now Does not fully address
inequity
More difficult to
administer
Establishes allotments
without immediate cost
increases
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment2.2: Powerpoint presentation (2377 : Commercial Water Allotments)
20
Option 3:
Apply Standard Allotments
When Customers Change
• Allotment based on meter size when customer changes
• Average 2015 cost increase = $0
PROS CONS
Least impactful to
commercial customers
Economic inequity could
remain for many years
Easy to administer (possibly always)
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment2.2: Powerpoint presentation (2377 : Commercial Water Allotments)
21
Staff Recommendation:
• Option 2: Apply customer specific allotment
• Sets allotments for all with the least impact to
businesses
• Changes be effective January 1, 2015
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment2.2: Powerpoint presentation (2377 : Commercial Water Allotments)
22
Outreach
• Potential impacts to customers in
most options
• Impacts (surcharges) not until
mid- to late-year
• Communicate changes to
commercial customers
– Especially affected customers
– Suggestions for avoiding
surcharges
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment2.2: Powerpoint presentation (2377 : Commercial Water Allotments)
23
Direction Sought
• Would Council like to address this inequity?
• Is this item ready for formal consideration?
• If so, which option would Council prefer?
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment2.2: Powerpoint presentation (2377 : Commercial Water Allotments)
24
Thank You
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment2.2: Powerpoint presentation (2377 : Commercial Water Allotments)
DATE:
STAFF:
September 30, 2014
Kevin Gertig, Utilities Executive Director
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Construction of a New Utilities Administration Building in Block 32 on LaPorte Avenue and a Renovation of 700
Wood Street.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to provide funding for the construction of a new Utility Administration Building within
Block 32 on LaPorte Avenue, as well as renovation of the existing Utility Service Center at 700 Wood Street. The
total combined project costs are $23,411,000 with $4,500,000 already appropriated from Light and Power
reserves, leaving $18,911,000 to be appropriated with this ordinance.
A Utility Building Team comprised of internal staff and external subject matter experts has worked with the
architectural firm RNL and Adolfson and Peterson Construction to assess the best way to address the current
building performance and space issues facing Fort Collins Utilities’ ongoing and future business operations.
Balancing the city-wide goal to have high-performing office buildings with the need to be fiscally prudent has led
the Building Team to recommend the appropriation request being made in this ordinance to address the current
space and infrastructure needs of Fort Collins Utilities.
The four Utility Enterprise Funds (Light and Power, Water, Wastewater and Stormwater) will share the costs of
the projects. All appropriations will come from the existing reserves in these four funds.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Is Council supportive with moving forward with the revitalization of Wood Street and the construction of a new
downtown Utilities Administration building?
2. Is Council supportive of funding these projects using cash reserves?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Staff discussed the need for facility upgrades with the City Council at the November 19, 2013 City Council Work
Session, providing information regarding the Utility Service Center (USC) at 700 Wood Street and the proposed
construction of a new building in Block 32. The USC has grown through multiple additions to its current 108,000
square foot capacity over the past 45 years. Key drivers that support the renovation of the USC and addition of a
new building to house Customer Service are:
Space needs – Space is in poor condition and inadequate for growing business operations necessary to
support current Fort Collins community service delivery expectations;
Energy Efficiency – The USC building is one of the least energy efficient buildings owned by the City; HVAC
system replacement and building envelop improvements are necessary;
Customer Service - Customer Service has been located in leased space for over 20 years; customer parking
is inadequate at current location.
Initially, to address the immediate need for additional crew space, the Light and Power Enterprise Fund
appropriated $4.5M. However, recognizing ongoing space needs will impact Fort Collins Utilities’ effectiveness to
maintain current levels for customer service and customer satisfaction in the near future, it was determined that it
is highly desirable to relocate several external customer-focused departments at a single location downtown. A
September 30, 2014 Page 2
comparison of the costs associated with the USC addition to the costs of new construction led to the
recommendation of a more limited renovation at 700 Wood Street and building a new Utilities Administration
Building (UAB) downtown as part of the development of Block 32 on LaPorte Avenue as discussed at the
November 19, 2013 Work Session.
Capital projects are prioritized within each utility. Ten year capital improvement plans have been updated in 2014
for three of the four utilities with Light & Power scheduled for 2015. This project has the distinction among capital
projects of spanning all four utilities. While it is possible to build part of the buildings now to meet the immediate
needs of Light and Power and then part of it in a few years to meet the Water utility’s anticipated space needs,
and then later for Wastewater and Stormwater, such a piece mill approach is not optimal. This infrastructure
project will not require redeployment of utility staff from other capital projects to complete. Based on historical and
anticipated capital spending, staff anticipates that all other capital projects will proceed as planned.
The ratepayers of the four utilities will benefit from this appropriation as this project provides:
Office space owned by the utilities to house the entire Customer Service department in a single location
thereby allowing for efficient and effective customer service
Adequate, more modern facilities for utility personnel to perform front office and back office duties
necessary to maintain and operate utility infrastructure to meet customer service level expectations
An opportunity for the utilities to demonstrate to the community how the City is meeting Green Building
initiatives
The vision for both the UAB construction and the USC renovation is one that will demonstrate how facilities can
serve as a model in environmental stewardship to the Fort Collins community. Sustainability for the 21st Century
is a defining focus of Utilities core services; delivering a level of service our customers expect and in an
environmentally and socially responsible way while making the best economic choices for the long-term. The
Building Team recommended the two projects be combined into one design and funding process in order to align
the vision and results of both projects and optimize economies of scale.
These projects present an excellent opportunity for Utilities to “walk the talk” by demonstrating best practices in
high performance new construction and retrofit projects. Based on energy studies at the USC and what is being
accomplished in new construction, it is proposed that these two facilities be designed to be “net zero energy
ready.” This means that the buildings will be designed and constructed to have very low energy use, such that
the addition of on-site renewable energy would result in net zero energy consumption on an annual basis. It is
expected the new UAB will achieve a LEED Gold certification at a minimum.
Utility Administration Building (UAB)
This new building would house the entire Customer Connections Department and some senior management of
Fort Collins Utilities. At 37,500 square feet, this building will meet the long term space requirements of the
Customer Connections department and administrative functions that would be relocated from the Utility Service
Center and space currently leased by Fort Collins Utilities from the City’s General Fund at 117 North Mason.
Space initially unused by Utility staff would be leased in this building to the City’s Sustainability Services Area until
it is needed by Fort Collins Utilities.
The construction of the 37,500 square foot Utility Administration Building is expected to cost $14.1M as shown in
the table below:
September 30, 2014 Page 3
UAB Budget $14,100,000
Includes…
Capacity for staff through 2028
Water source heat pump system
Open office environment
LEED Gold certification
PV system on roof for Net Zero building
1% for Art in Public Places
The $14.1M provides sufficient funding for the new construction and providing a rooftop solar photovoltaic system
to make the UAB at or near a Net Zero building.
This appropriation request, however, does not provide sufficient funding to also install high efficiency fiberglass
windows, implement a ground source geothermal heat pump, or furnishings for an external plaza area. The costs
associated with these additional energy efficiency improvements are:
Additional Energy Efficiency Improvements Added Cost…
Install Alpen 725 Series fiberglass windows $220,000
Ground Source Geo-thermal system for heat pumps $300,000
Add additional site furnishings for exterior plaza area $120,000
$640,000
Diagonal and parallel parking has been added along Howes Street increasing the number of spaces available by
25 spaces between LaPorte Avenue and Cherry Street. Most of the employees who will be occupying this
building already work downtown at 117 North Mason. It is anticipated there will be 41 employees relocating from
700 Wood Street to this building. Parking Services has indicated there is sufficient capacity in the parking
garages during business hours for these 41 employees.
Utility Service Center (USC)
The new building on LaPorte Avenue would relieve some of the space needs at the USC. However, there remain
operational needs which would best be met by also renovating the existing space at the USC. Such a renovation
would modify some existing space to meet the Light & Power crew needs as well as improve the building’s
security and energy efficiency. The current HVAC system is at the end of its life and will require significant
investment over the next few years even without this renovation. Incorporating the HVAC investment into a more
comprehensive renovation of the entire building envelope will substantially improve the energy efficiency of the
building.
The renovation of existing space at the USC is expected to cost $9.3M as shown in the table below:
September 30, 2014 Page 4
USC Budget $9,311,000
Includes…
L&P Crew Space
HVAC Replacement to water source heat pump
Renovated entrance area
Security Enhancements
Window replacement
Skylight repair & solatubes
Additional roof insulation
1% for Art in Public Places
The budget provides sufficient funding to fully address the Light & Power crew space needs, replace the current
HVAC system, renovate the entrance area, improve building security, and provide extensive building envelope
improvements. Building envelope improvements include replacing the current exterior windows, repairing the
existing skylights, and adding roof insulation. Making these improvements will result in a lower cost HVAC
system and long-term energy savings as well as move the building closer to being a net zero energy building.
This appropriation request, however, does not provide sufficient funding to also implement a geothermal heat
exchange system, remove existing interior walls to create an open office environment, acquire new furnishings or
provide a solar array to achieve net zero energy consumption. The costs associated with these additional energy
efficiency improvements are:
Additional Energy Efficiency Improvements Added Cost…
Lake GeoExchange system * $150,000
Open office environment, new finishes $2,300,000
PV system for Net Zero $2,000,000
$4,450,000
* Does not include lease agreement for access to the pond
The baseline budgets for both projects include all permit and development fees, deconstruction costs and
sufficient contingency funding for reasonable contingencies. Combining the two projects into the single
appropriation being requested herein of $18.9M includes the associated 1% appropriation for Art in Public Places.
Combined Projects Summary
Staff Recommendation for new UAB: $14,100,000
Staff Recommendation for USC Renovation: $9,311,000
Total Construction Budget $23,411,000
Less Prior Appropriation $4,500,000
Proposed Appropriation $18,911,000
September 30, 2014 Page 5
The appropriation request is allocated to the four utilities as follows:
Enterprise Fund
Project
Share
Share of Projects
Cost
Less Existing
Appropriation
Funds Being
Requested Here
Light & Power 50.0% $11,705,500 $4,500,000 $7,205,500
Water 25.0% $5,852,750 $5,852,750
Wastewater 12.5% $2,926,375 $2,926,375
Storm Drainage 12.5% $2,926,375 $2,926,375
100.0% $23,411,000 $4,500,000 $18,911,000
A memorandum dated January 23, 2014 to the Council Finance Committee outlined the rationale behind
recommending that the appropriation be made from the cash reserves of the four utility Enterprise Funds rather
than through a debt issuance as had been previously discussed with the City Council. Funding with available
cash is preferred based on the collective healthy balance of the utility Enterprise Fund Reserves, consistency with
historical facility improvement funding, consistency with the City’s “pay as you go” philosophy, the relatively low
yield of these cash reserves compared to the current borrowing rate, and the complication of issuing debt across
the four utilities. Council Finance Committee was supportive of using cash at the January 27th 2014 committee
meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The financial impact of this appropriation on the short term financial health of the four utility Enterprise Funds will
be to reduce the amount of unappropriated cash reserves held by each utility. These reserves are used for
capital projects associated with aging infrastructure replacement and renewal, growth, and new regulatory
requirements. The reserves grow through a combination of revenue from rates and development fees less
operating/capital expenditures. Higher than projected revenues in 2013 combined with lower than anticipated
expenditures allowed three of the four utilities to increase reserves in 2013. The Water Enterprise Fund reserves
decreased from $67.0M at the end of 2012 to $65.5M through 2013. However, higher than budgeted
development fees, along with additional revenue from the sale of excess treatment capacity, should increase the
working capital for the Water Fund by $5-8M in 2014. No capital projects identified and submitted for
consideration in the 2015-16 Budgets are being impacted by this appropriation.
Plant Investment Fee Revenue
Chapter 26 of the City Code contains three sections that define the purpose for which PIF revenue can be used.
In summary, the Water, Wastewater and Stormwater PIFs are essentially “used for growth-related capital
expansion costs” related to operational facilities and infrastructure and not office facilities. Light and Power fees
cover the cost of extending infrastructure to the specific development that paid the fees.
Because office facility and building needs are not specifically included in any of the PIF calculations, based on the
stated purposes within the City Code, PIF revenues are not to be used to finance the construction of a new UAB.
Accounting Treatment & Tracking of PIF:
Within the accounting system, the inflow of revenues from Utility PIFs are tracked each year by enterprise
however, the outflow associated with specific usage of this revenue at a capital project level is not tracked. As an
example, with City Capital Expansion Fees, both the inflow of revenue and the specific projects funded by that
revenue are each tracked. Utilities have not historically tracked what projects are funded by PIF revenue.
September 30, 2014 Page 6
Total capital spending across all four Utilities has averaged $33M over the past 14 years and averaged $37M
over the past 5 years. PIF revenues have averaged $9M over the past 14 years and averaged $7M over the past
5 years. An examination of capital spending since 2006 indicates between 96% and 99% (varies by utility
enterprise) of the total capital spending meets the definition of eligible PIF expenditures within the code excluding
the RDSI & Smart Grid grant funded projects.
Funding for Capital Spending:
Capital spending is funded by a combination of
PIF revenue,
Grant & Bond revenue for specific projects (the inflow and outflow for Grant & Bond revenue is tracked
separately),
Capital revenue built into each utilities rate structure (not tracked separately and estimated at approximately
$20m annually), and
Additional revenue and expenditure underspend to budget each year.
Because the use of PIF revenue is not tracked to specific projects, quantifying exactly how much of the current
fund balance is related to unspent PIF revenue is difficult. An analysis of Light & Power indicates the PIF revenue
and expenditure are essentially simultaneous. For the other three Utilities, because 1) 96% - 99% % of the past
eight years of capital spending is on projects that meet the definition of PIF-eligible expenditures under the Code
2) capital spending exceeds PIF revenue by a factor of 5 over the past five years, 3) capital spending exceeds
PIF revenue in all Utilities over the past 14 years, and 4) assuming PIF revenue is used first and before revenue
generated by rates, staff estimates a very small portion of the year end 2013 Cash & Investment balance of
$170M was generated from PIFs. Presuming PIF revenue in one year is spent in the next year, the maximum PIF
revenue in the 2013 yearend balance is estimated at $7.6M.
As such, staff is confident PIF revenue would not be used to fund the new UAB if $18.9M of year end cash was
appropriated to support the construction of the building.
The table below summarizes the reserve balances for these Enterprise Funds at the end of 2013 and after this
appropriation.
Enterprise Fund
Cash &
Investments
(12/31/13)
Available
Working Capital
(12/31/13)
Funds Being
Requested
Here
Available Working
Capital After This
Appropriation
Light & Power $55.3 $26.6 $7.2 $19.4
Water $65.5 $8.5 $5.8 $2.7
Wastewater $33.1 $17.8 $2.9 $14.9
Storm Drainage $17.2 $6.9 $2.9 $4.0
$171.1 $59.8 $18.9 $40.9
$ in millions
Utilities has historically used cash reserves to fund facility improvements. The USC was initially acquired and
built using cash reserves and multiple remodels and additions have occurred over the past 45 years at a total cost
of $18.2M with funding from cash reserves. Several of these expansions were funded across multiple utilities
when expansion needs occurred simultaneously.
September 30, 2014 Page 7
Use of these reserves will not trigger a rate increase for customers of any of the four utilities. The projected
increases in Light and Power rates in 2015 and 2016 are driven entirely by the increased costs associated with
generating the power from Platte River Power Authority. The proposed rate increases of 3% in 2015 and 2016 in
the Wastewater Enterprise Fund have been planned ahead of the decision to recommend this appropriation. The
increased revenues from the proposed increases to the Wastewater utility are consistent with the long term
financial requirements and strategic planning based on the 10 year capital improvement plan for this utility. It is
anticipated that gradual, moderate rate increases may be required for some of the utilities over the next few years
which may be delayed by a year or two without this appropriation but the need for any such rate increase will
persist even without the appropriation, as it is driven by a longer term perspective of revenue requirements and
capital project planning.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Currently, energy use at the USC is responsible for over 1,000 tons/year CO2e in greenhouse gas emissions.
With efficiency upgrades at the USC (envelope and HVAC improvements) and high performance design at the
UAB, energy modeling shows the combined emissions for the two buildings at 850 tons/year CO2e, lower than
current emissions at the USC alone. The addition of solar PV systems will further lower these emissions.
Attention to water efficient design elements at UAB will optimize water use inside and out.
Energy and water systems for the UAB are being designed in context with the future build-out of the Civic Center
complex. As such, the potential exists for developing campus-wide energy and water systems. For example,
heat pumps in the building will be able to tie into a campus wide GeoExchange well field to exchange energy with
the earth and adjacent buildings. PV systems on one building or a parking garage can share energy with all Civic
Center buildings, or possibly a larger energy district.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff memo, September 29, 2014 (PDF)
2. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
Page 1 of 3
Utilities
electric · stormwater · wastewater · water
700 Wood Street
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6700
970.221.6619 – fax
970.224.6003 – TDD
utilities@fcgov.com
fcgov.com/utilities
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: September 29, 2014
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Kevin R. Gertig, Utilities Executive Director
Ken Mannon, Operations Services Director
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
RE: Appropriation of Funding for the Construction of a New Utilities Administration
Building and Renovation of 700 Wood Street
On September 2, 2014, City Council considered an appropriation to fund renovating the Utility
Services Center (USC) at 700 Wood St. and constructing a new Utilities’ Administration
Building (UAB) on LaPorte Ave. Several questions were raised by Councilmembers, which this
memo will address.
Why are the proposed projects a priority for the Utilities?
700 Wood St. - Renovating the facility has been a part of the Utilities’ capital plan since 2008.
Energy efficiency – building requires significant upgrades to HVAC, windows, sealing,
etc. to meet goals
Space needs – space is inadequate and in poor condition. Crew space is particularly
limited and inadequate. Additional space is needed.
Security – post 9/11 security requirements
117 N Mason – Customer Service Center (CSC)
Was intended as an interim location
Poor customer experience - inadequate parking
Space design – poses security challenges, with poor lighting & layout
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 2 of 3
The original plan was to significantly renovate the 700 Wood St. facility, and add an additional
24,000 square feet of space for a cost of $15.5 million. Customer Service would remain on
Mason. The cost of this project, combined with a desire to provide customers with a single
location, near City Hall, for all Utility customer service contacts, led to a re-assessment of the
original plan.
Current Project Scope and Cost
The 700 Wood St. renovation will focus on energy efficiency upgrades & mechanical equipment
replacement, renovating space for the Light & Power crews, and security improvements to the
building entrance, at a cost of $9.3 million. The Utilities’ Administration Building will contain
37,500 sq. feet of space, 6,000 sq. ft. of which will initially be occupied by Sustainability
Services. It will house the Customer Service Center as well as the customer facing departments.
It will be LEED Gold certified and cost $14.1 M. The combined cost is $23.4 M.
Current Status of Project
Approximately $850,000 has been spent on the design phase of the projects and work on the
building Utilities staff have relocated to during the construction phase. An additional $1.4 M has
been encumbered. Contracts for deconstruction of the existing buildings on Block 32 have been
awarded, with work scheduled to begin soon.
Community Benefits from the Project
New downtown building provides Utility customers easier and one-stop access to both
Utility and other City services.
Creates an attractive municipal campus over time.
Significant energy efficiency upgrades at Wood St. to support climate action goals
Improves security and safety concerns at Wood St.
Why cash fund?
Consistent with the historical funding source for Utility building additions and remodel.
Consistent with City Debt Philosophy – “pay as you go”
Debt financing would be complicated, future large utility projects are more attractive debt
candidates
Use of existing reserve funds in each of the 4 Utilities will not negatively impact planned
capital expenditures
On January 27, 2014, the Council Finance Committee reviewed and supported the use of cash
reserves to fund both projects. They based their support on:
Current cash earning 1.0% and borrowing costs estimated at 4.0% - 4.5%.
Page 3 of 3
Near term capital needs can be satisfied by annual revenue generated within current rates
and anticipated debt retirements anticipated over the next five years.
Borrowing for the combined projects would be a complicated transaction with multiple
cross agreements between utilities.
Larger capital needs that may require borrowing in the future (e.g. Halligan Reservoir or
Mulberry annexation) have uncertain timing but are more appropriate projects for
bonding.
Based on historical and anticipated capital spending and current revenue generation, staff
anticipates that all other Utilities’ capital projects will proceed as planned. All financial policy
requirements are maintained and exceeded.
Recommendation:
Council will again be considering appropriating funding for these Utility projects on October 7
th
.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed appropriation.
1
Utilities Facility Upgrade
September 30, 2014
ATTACHMENT 2
2
3
700 Wood Street
• Energy Efficiency:
• One of the City’s least energy efficient buildings
• HVAC, windows, skylights, external sealing - requires significant upgrades
• Has not met space needs for many years:
• Operations & Crew space limited, poor condition, inadequate
• 24k square feet of additional office space needed
• Security:
• Increasing security requirements post 9/11 difficult to meet with public access
to Wood St building
117 N Mason – Customer Service Center (CSC)
• Intended as an Interim Location
• Poor Customer Experience - inadequate parking
• Space Design – old building with poor lighting, security and layout
Why is This a Priority
Facilities Do Not Meet the Current Needs of the Utility Group
4
Aging Mechanical Equipment at USC
5
• Significant renovation to Wood St.
• Upgrade mechanicals, energy efficiency, and crew facilities
• Build an additional 24k square feet of space at Wood St.
• Customer Service continues interim Mason St. location
• Initial Cost Estimate – Total $15.5M:
• Wood St. Renovation - $7.5M
• New Space at Wood St. - 8.0M
2013 Original Proposal
Spending $15.5M at Wood Street is Not the Optimal Solution….
Question led to an Assessment of a New Building Downtown
6
Current Project Scope & Cost
• Renovation of Wood St - $9.3M cost
• Energy efficiency upgrades – mechanical, skylights, windows, building envelope
• Renovate interior to house Light and Power crew and improve work processes
• Security improvements to building entrance
• New Building - $14.1M cost
• 37,500 square feet of space in 3 stories – supports future growth
• Open office design
• Consolidates customer facing activities in a single location
• LEED Gold certification – PV system on Roof for near Net Zero building
• 6,000 square feet of space initially used by Sustainability Services
• Total Project Cost - $23.4M
Better Value for the Rate Payers and Community
7
Schematic Design Updated June 2014 (37,500 SF)
View Looking from Corner of LaPorte and Mason
8
Community Benefits of the Project
• New downtown Utility building:
• Customer Service – easier public access, better security
• Customer Connection – public access to various programs
• Proximity to other City services
• Public one-stop shopping of City services
• Single location for all Utility customer service contacts
• Clerks office, municipal court, utilities, parking, PDT all within 2 blocks
• Create an attractive municipal campus over time – long term plan
• High performance, energy efficient building
• Significant improvements at Wood St.
• Energy efficiency & crew space requirements
• Improves security and safety concerns at the Woods St. operations
center
Better Long-Term Value for the Community….
Best Long-Term Solution for Utility Enterprise
9
New Downtown Civic Center Master Plan
10
1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015
Wood St. Remodel & Expansion History
Srvc Ctr
Built $.4
Wood St. Renovation
New UAB - $18.9
Addts &
Remdl $1.1
Addts &
Remdl $1.1
Addts &
Remdl $8.9
Vehicle Storage
& Meter Shop $7.5
Addts &
Remdl $.3
L & P Remodel
Approp - $4.5
Previous
Projects
Current
Project
Light & Power $ 9.8 $ 11.8
Water 4.4 5.8
Waste Water 2.0 2.9
Storm Water 2.0 2.9
Total $ 18.2 $ 23.4
11
Other Considerations
• Building Capital Project vs. Other Infrastructure Projects
• Current facilities do not meet basic needs or energy goals
• Facility improvements have been a part of capital planning over time
• All Utility capital projects will occur as planned
• The Question – which projects are funded by cash and which are funded by debt
• Plant Investment Fee Revenue (PIF) Cannot be Used to Fund Building
• Very little of current cash & investments is from PIF revenue (less than $8M)
• Historically, cash reserves have been used to support facility expansion
• Current cash & investments are available to support construction
• Rate & Future Capital Implications:
• Future rate increase will occur with or without this project
• Capital Improvements will occur as planned using revenue, cash or future borrowing
• Future large capital projects better suited to support debt offering if needed
Facility Improvements are a Part of Utilities Capital Needs…..
Question - Funding with Cash or Debt
12
Financials
• Project Funding ($ millions):
• Existing budget within L&P $ 4.5
• Additional Appropriation Needed 18.9
• Total Funding Requirement $23.4
• Funding Alternatives
• Debt Service - $18.9M Bond with approximately $1.4M payments for 20 years
• $28.4M debt service payments over 20 years + transaction costs
• Payments shared across 4 utilities
• Doable but complicated transaction with cross guarantees & 4 entities
• Less attractive bond to investors than typical utility revenue bonds
• Cash Reserves – use available cash within each Utility
• Consistent with historical funding source
• Consistent with City Debt Philosophy – “pay as you go”
• Future large utility projects are more attractive debt candidates
• All financial policy requirements are maintained or exceeded
Staff Recommends Moving Forward with the Project
Funded using Available Cash
13
Questions:
• Is Council supportive with moving forward with the
revitalization of Wood St. and new downtown Utilities
Administration building?
• Is Council supportive of funding the project using cash
reserves?
14
Back-Up
15
Utilities Capital Spending & Available Cash
• PIF revenue cannot be used to support administrative buildings
• Capital spending associated with PIF revenue is not isolated like Capital
Expansion Fees or Street Oversizing
• Capital spending exceeds PIF revenue on average by a factor of 5
• Assuming PIF is the first dollar of capital spending, very little of available
cash is related to PIF revenue
($millions) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Capital Spending $ 41 $ 35 $ 34 $ 44 $ 33
Plant Investment Revenue 3 4 6 8 13
Cash & Investments $ 162 $ 173 $ 163 $ 163 $ 170
Available Cash 36 59
Utilities
16
Other Considerations – Additional Cost Options
Utilities Administration Building
• Alpen 725 Series Windows $ 220k
• Ground Source Geo-thermal heat pumps 300k
• Additional site furnishing for exterior plaza 120k
700 Wood Street
• Lake GeoExchange system (exclude lake lease) $ 150k
• Open office configuration & finishes 2,300k
• Photo Voltaic system for Net Zero energy 2,000k
17
Project – Sources and Uses
Enterprise Fund
Cash &
Investments
(12/31/13)
Available
Working Capital
(12/31/13)
Project Share
Less Existing
Appropriation
Funds Being
Requested
Here
Available
Working Capital
After This
Appropriation
Light & Power $55.3 $26.6 $11.7 $4.5 $7.2 $19.4
Water $65.5 $8.5 $5.8 $5.8 $2.7
Wastewater $33.1 $17.8 $2.9 $2.9 $14.9
Storm Drainage $17.2 $6.3 $2.9 $2.9 $3.4
$171.1 $59.2 $23.4 $4.5 $18.9 $40.4
in millions
18
customers explaining new
allotments and impacts,
including growth beyond 10%
requiring additional water rights
to avoid the surcharge
3
Apply Standard
Allotments when
Customers
Change
$0
Would be least impactful to
commercial customers; easy to
administer
Economic inequity among
customers would remain for
many years (or possibly always)
Only necessary for new
customers
Because the annual water allotments are based on the calendar year, any changes to the allotment need to be
implemented on January 1st. Although allotment changes would be applied at the beginning of the year, the
impacts would not be seen by commercial customers until mid- to late-year once their cumulative use gets close
to the determined allotment. This would allow several months for Utilities to provide outreach to the affected
customers, which would include suggestions for how these customers could plan for the changes and possibly
avoid the surcharges.
Packet Pg. 57
!"
#
$ ! "%#
&'
&(%
$(
'
!"
)*$"
)%)
(
*
*
*
+ *,
"
$"-
"-
# *
.
-
#
*
#
$#"
/
#
+ $
-$
#
"
0
!++
,*" "
1
+
*
*-
*2
#
#"
'
$
%
$(
3
#
*2
!
*&
*&
/
"
45+
+6% .#7689
*:
*(
;23
-
#
* *& /
*
#
!"
2
3
0 + *2
*
; +6*3
#!"
;
0
".
*#7 *
/ #+ 6*0 3
# *
*
'
+
*)
*<
'
= '
=
3
,*" "
/3
0 + 6+
'
$)
/
*#
>$$#+ 6*0 3
0 .
0
0
+
+
%
$(
$")
*
*
45+
++6%
' 6?
*(
*
'
*
3
$
#"'
+
#"
#" 0@
+
A9B8
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment1.4: Online Public Feedback on BOB 2.0 Projects (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
+'2/-4+*$/4+7/;+522+-+95+3'>
!5:9."/3(+72/4+ 5'*3675;+3+498
%+89' 579+;+4:+3675;+3+498
/4)524;+4:+3675;+3+498
+,,+7854!97++93675;+3+498
522+-+/*95<4"7'486579'9/54 2'4362+3+49'9/54
/1+ +*7'*+!+6'7'9+*7588/4-8
!9'79:6,57/1+!.'7+
:82++9 +62')+3+49
79+7/'249+78+)9/543675;+3+498
7/*-+'/49+4'4)+'4* +62')+3+49
!5:9.<+8944+='9/54 5'*3675;+3+498:4*
/ *. ', )-+*,. .&*)
Community and Neighborhood Livability
5:8/4-,57.754/)'22>53+2+8853+<'7*
!',+75:9+895;+7><.+7+!/*+<'218"7'48/9/1+8
/4)524 +/-.(57.55* 750+)98
!:89'/4'(2+./2*'7++49+7
362+3+49/4- '9:7+/49.+/9>
+/-.(57.55* +;/9'2/?'9/544;+893+498
/ *. '*((/)&.1 )!"&$% *,%**!&0 &'&.1
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment1.1: Potential Capital Improvement Projects by Outcome Area (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
5523675;+3+498
7+8+7;/4-5:7+7/9'-+/9> '71"7'/42:("/)5 +45;'9/54/7+:8+:3
$+25'4*/94+88 '71
/ *. '/'./," )!" ," .&*)
Economic Health
5<495<4 +897553
:/+9&54+362+3+49'9/545<495<4!#
)7588/4-8 6+*)7588/4-8
:/+9&54+362+3+49'9/547'1+95"7/2(>
)7588/4-8
'854!97++94.'4)+3+49
'89:2(+77>577/*5762'44/4-67+2/3*+8/-4'4* %6:7).'8+
/4*+4!97++9 +45;'9/548
%/225<!97++93675;+3+498
5<495<4'/49+4'4)+!.56
+*/'4'4*!97++98)'6+4.'4)+3+49 +45;'9/548
533:4/9>'71+962')+
/ *. ' *)*(& " '.%
Environmental Health
2/3'9+)9/54 750+)98
533:4/9> 7-'4/)8536589/4-'4* +)>)2/4-')/2/9>
5<495<4 5:*7+ /;+74.'4)+3+498
/ *. ')0&,*)("). '" '.%
High Performing Government
'71/4-'7'-+ +9'/2!6')+
Safe Community
+-/54'2"7'/4/4-')/2/9>
536:9+7/*+*/86'9). +)57*'4'-+3+49!>89+3#6-7'*+8
'4*,57 52/)+'/49+4'4)+')/2/9>
'36:8%+89 52/)/4-!:(89'9/54
/ *. ' #"*((/)&.1
Transportation
$/4++3'>7'*+!+6'7'9+*7588/4-+8/-4 %'4*54897:)9
Capital Cost
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 6
Attachment1.1: Potential Capital Improvement Projects by Outcome Area (2395 : BOB 2.0 and SMP)
N/A
-Negotiated
-Limited by the Max
% TIF Commitment
Available
% TIF
Contribution
relative to Total
Project Cost
25% 15%
*Includes borrowing costs
**Max % TIF Commitment on Future Prospect South projects limited to 75%
20.3 General Procedures:
A. The Larimer County Estimate of Value provided to the developer/property owner shall
be utilized for estimating future tax increment collections associated with a project. There
shall be no annual appreciation applied to the estimate.
B. Growth Estimate in cash flow analysis will be held at 0%
C. Cash flows shall be based on absolute dollars and NPV. The discount rate used shall equal
the URA cost of capital.
D. The term of a City loan to the URA shall be based on the estimated TIF stream. The term
shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible given the estimated cash flow.
E. The minimum time to process the request for payment from the development will be 90
calendar days.
F. In the pay over-time as a Fixed Annual $ Commitment as described in (b) above:
a. In the first year if actual TIF comes in lower than the Estimate of Value, the actual
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment1: Exhibit A (2370 : URA-Financial Management Policy RESO)
opening.
5. A delay in the 2015 mall opening will put at risk other interested retailers given the
projects timing uncertainty. Some of these retailers may elect to locate elsewhere within
the northern Colorado region and be lost to the Mall project indefinitely.
The Developer’s Equity Partner, has agreed to provide additional security and financing to
support the project and maintain the current timeline. Current equity investment in the project is
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment1.1: May 6, 2014 (2372 : URA Minutes-5/6)